Four areas of focus have been identified and interim scoping papers developed; participants will be asked to respond to these focus areas.

Transcription

1 Leadership Summit Introduction Karen Ziffer distributed a copy of the leadership statement, acknowledging that additional work on the statement was needed before it could be distributed to external audiences. A draft of CI s Strategic Plan is scheduled to be developed over the summer, and the participants were asked to provide strategic insight into that process. Four areas of focus have been identified and interim scoping papers developed; participants will be asked to respond to these focus areas. Overview & Invitation Peter Seligmann opened the session by acknowledging the depth of enthusiasm, interest, and excitement in the strategic planning process that had been communicated by a number of people throughout CI. He encouraged all present to take full advantage of the current opportunity to provide input into the strategic planning process. He remarked that had observed a real willingness to leave the trenches and think in new ways about how CI could improve, better leverage resources, and have a larger impact. Everyone in the organization seemed to be genuinely interest in effecting institutions and governments in ways that would change the history of conservation and development. In addition, everyone at CI seemed to be cognizant of the current, palpable, and massive shift in the global understand of these issues. These issues are now under consideration in every country on Earth; this moment represents an huge opportunity for CI and there is a need to think seriously about how to take advantage of it. And, there is a need to be truthful about what CI knows, and does not yet know, about how its work addresses threats and opportunities. Those who work with country leadership understand that these partners are concerned about the well-being of their people, either directly or out of their own interest in remaining in power. Nearly a decade ago, regional field program leadership identified threats to community well-being as the most salient motivation for political leadership. While CI has long understood this linkage of human well-being and conservation, the organization has not yet developed the ability to effectively prove the positive impact of conservation on human well-being. The decision to speak of CI s focus on human wellbeing as a significant shift in how the organization operates. The shift will not move CI away from the geographies in which it currently works, but might enable the organization to focus on new areas. Because CI has limited resources, it must be strategic and focused in its work. CI can serve as a leader (a beacon on the hill ) that shows the world a pathway to promoting human well-being through preserving biodiversity. But, in order to assume that Leadership Summit 1

2 leadership role, CI must focus on defining the real connections between human wellbeing, ecosystem diversity, and ecosystem health. CI must develop the capacity to measure the impact of human activity, and connect those impacts to biodiversity outcomes. This capacity could lead to elevation of ecosystem restoration Talks have been held over the past few weeks between CI and Oxfam, Save the Children, CARE and other mainstream development organizations. These groups have shown great openness and enthusiasm for CI s demonstration of the overlaps between areas of highest poverty and where biodiversity is under greatest threat. People living in poverty do not have the resources to relocate and they must rely on the services of their ecosystems; these communities will be devastated if the ecosystems collapse. No other institution or group of individuals had a more advanced understanding of these connections than CI. In order to be most effective, however, CI must be diligent and strategic in placing its resources. A new layer might be added to decision-making about resource utilization. In addition to other considerations, CI must consider: how could each investment be leveraged to catalyze change among partners and the lessons that can be learned through undertaking this science which can be leveraged to advance this agenda. If CI does not move in these strategic directions, it would succeed only in establishing protected pockets which would eventually be degraded and destroyed, because the conservation movement has not, to date, succeeded in changing the world s understanding of the threats and opportunities. CI needs to bring its understanding of biodiversity and human well-being and match it to the current global thirst for knowledge. CI can lead this moment, with the right use of its brainpower, investments, and strategies. Discussion The first speaker raised concern that the current leadership statement rang somewhat hollow. He remarked that he was uncertain of the extent to which CI s mindset had actually changed, commenting that the focus remained upon continuing the organization s historical work, and, by the way noting its benefit to people. The speaker remarked that, for example, in Africa, CI can demonstrate efforts to mitigate the impact of more elephants on human communities, and supporting small business development. Roger McManus shared a number of concerns about CI s direction: o The relationship between marine biodiversity and human well-being should be made explicitly o CI must be honest about the differences between the preservation of ecosystem services and the preservation of biodiversity o The leadership statement should be explicit about the need to act on a global scale, since many of the current threats are also global Leadership Summit 2

3 o CI might begin to consider and advance itself as a leader in managing for change. Patrick Mehlman cautioned that the opening of the leadership statement focused immediately upon sustainable development, which could be interpreted to echo divides between the Northern and Southern hemisphere. He suggested that the statement address planetary ecosystem services, in order to engage citizens of the entire planet and show how conservation improves human well-being globally. Peter Seligmann remarked the analyses have shown that CI s work is concentrated in areas important for ecosystem services, which are the same places with the highest ecosystem values for the largest numbers of people. Lina Barrera suggested that CI engage the language of development very carefully, as there is some controversy about exactly what is meant by development, or how it might best be measured. Carlos Manuel Rodriguez shared his experience with similar bridging in Costa Rica. He spoke of visiting an indigenous community to deliver the payment for ecosystem services, and being shown new homes, a new school, and an improved road which were made possible through this payment. This was the moment when the link between conservation and human well-being was made real to him. He cautioned, however, that resistance in making this linkage could be expected from three areas. Within a conservation organization, there would be people who clung to training that saw people in only the negative terms of human impact on biodiversity. Within the larger environmental movement, some would resist the invitation to see conservation as part of social movements; and, in the larger society, there would be skepticism about environmental as a pragmatic rather than simply moral social benefit. In light of this predictable resistance, Carlos Manuel Rodriguez stated the need for CI to be very coherent and consistent in discussing the links between human well-being and conservation within the organization, among the conservation community, and to the larger society. Sarah Frazee suggested that current efforts to link conservation to human wellbeing could be described as retrofitting the conversations, and promoting aspects of conservation that have been happening all along. She also suggested that the conversation about human well-being could go deeper and become more specific, for example: providing green collar job to persons re-entering community from criminal justice systems. Olivier Langrand said that CI needed to move in this direction as quickly as possible. He commented that, while many are enthusiastic about making the links between human well-being and conservation, everyone in the organization and the Board must be prepared for the shift. CI must also gear up for the growth it seeks to achieve. He suggested that CI engage major development organizations and explain its vision to them because it is important that development organizations Leadership Summit 3

4 understand the role CI seeks to play, and CI s need for their support, as it makes this shift. Mohamed Bakarr cautioned that CI must develop principles of work that embody the values and visions promoted in this shift toward human well-being. He noted that partner organizations carefully watch how CI works in the field, and that CI needed to communicate through its work that the current paradigm shift is central to its work. David Hess suggested that CI make its intellectual capital available to agricultural organizations, as well as organizations such as the Ford Foundation and Brookings Institute. He further suggested that CI consider the model of the CELB, developed when the organization sought to aggressively reach out in the private sector. A similar unit might be developed to coordinate work on human wellbeing as it occurs through CI, and to serve as the point of outreach for messaging about human well-being. Jose Maria da Silva cautioned participants to carefully and clearly define human well-being. In a common definition, environment is only one of five dimensions of human well-being; he asserted that CI s work in conservation might be linked to further dimensions (economic well-being, biological well-being; future wellbeing; social well-being). Eduardo Forno stated that the leadership statement was essentially sound, but remarked that its opening was too general and did not express the character and specific strengths of CI. He asserted that the shift required of CI was less a shift in the type of work done than in scale. Glenn Prickett remarked that other organizations were also making the link between conservation and human well-being. He said that CI needed to define its niche in the world of human well-being in the same way, and with the same strength that it had defined its niche in biodiversity. A participant cautioned that the global impact of biodiversity would be more difficult to convey, than, for example, the global impact of climate change. This argument will need to be further developed and clarified. A comment was made that staff should not avoid using the language of the past in adopting terms from the world of development. Rather, he asserted that CI sought to change the existing understanding of development, human well-being, and conservation. In addition, it might be necessary to differentiate between aspirational vs. short-terms goals. Fred Boltz advanced John s remarks, stating that CI sought to recognize that the current development paradigm was wrong, and wanted to change it. He suggested Leadership Summit 4

5 CI was gearing up to transform the global communication about development and biodiversity. Frank Hawkins promoted the need to develop systems that would rigorously track outcomes in human well-being. He said that CI already has access to a great deal of knowledge, and could survey partners and staff working in the field about the human well-being impacts they witness as a result of CI s efforts to conserve biodiversity. He suggested this work might also provide a foundation for defining CI s vision of human well-being. A speaker from Madagascar stated that CI already had a history of promoting human well-being, and reflected that the success of the Madagascar program rested on a foundation of convincing the government of its positive impact on the affected communities. He said that CI should not downplay its ability to advance the science of biodiversity as human well-being is advanced or emphasized. Conclusion Russ Mittermeier wrapped up the discussion by suggesting that a large challenge facing CI would be managing the organization s own ambition. Careful consideration and precise decisions are required in order to define CI s niche in the combined world of conservation and human well-being, determine which pieces of the larger puzzle CI would take on, and which efforts were most likely to result in paradigm shifts. Issues of terminology and metrics must be addressed; terms such as development, well-being, and sustainability must be better understood and communicated. The largest question was what critical element without which all efforts will fail can CI best address? Niels Crone explained the next steps in the day s efforts and summarized the four strategic questions that were identified: 1. How can nature s technology help us mitigate threats to humanity? 2. What can be done about the pressures of growth (developing and developed world)? 3. How do we scale up? How do we think about an endgame in a country? Are there models we can take elsewhere? 4. How do we manage natural resources to assure the appropriate valuation of ecosystems and human impacts? Scoping papers have been developed for each question. During the afternoon, participants were asked to break into teams, each of which will address one of these questions, to see what work can be done to chart the course in these areas. Participants were also encouraged to identify concerns that may have been overlooked. Leadership Summit 5