Biodiversity is under threat from anthropogenic pressures, in particular in biodiversity-rich developing countries. Development cooperation actors, who traditionally focus on the improvement of socio-economic conditions in the South, are increasingly acknowledging the linkages between poverty and biodiversity, e.g. by referring to the ecosystem services framework. However, there are many different framings which stress the need for biodiversity integration and which influence how biodiversity and development are and/or should be linked. Moreover, there is a gap between the lip service paid to biodiversity integration and the reality of development cooperation interventions. This study analyses how biodiversity framings are reflected in environmental impact assessment (EIA) practice, and how these framings influence EIA and decision-making. The findings, based on an in-depth qualitative analysis of World Bank EIAs undertaken in West Africa, indicate the incoherent quality but also the dominance of the ‘utilitarian’ and ‘corrective’ framings, which respectively stress human use of nature and mitigation of negative unintended development impacts. Identifying and highlighting these discursive trends leads to increased awareness of the importance of biodiversity among all development actors in North and South. However, some framings may lead to an overly narrow human-centred approach which downplays the intrinsic value of biodiversity. This study proposes recommendations for an improved integration of biodiversity in development cooperation, including the need for more systematic baseline studies in EIAs.SCOPUS: ar.jinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishe

To gain a better understanding of social–ecological resilience in Burundi, a country facing increasing demographic and climate-induced pressures, this study aimed to identify local perceptions of resilience and list disturbances experienced by rural communities that undermine social–ecological resilience. Focus group discussions explored possible challenges for the nexus of (1) rights–governance–knowledge and (2) access to ecosystem services–restoration–conservation. Theme clusters emerging from the focus groups were structured from political, economic, social, technological, environmental and legal perspectives to identify major stakeholder concerns. Then, this study applied an indicator-based assessment tool designed for development projects in production landscapes. Questionnaire results revealed the absence of income diversity, limited adaptation strategies, and a large prevalence of climatic and agricultural disturbances among rural households. The study findings underscored substantial variations between the different study regions. To enhance the adaptive capacity of local communities, policy-making should focus on diversification within and beyond agriculture, supported by adequate extension services. Adequate ecosystem governance is necessary to maintain or restore the remaining ecosystems, given their pivotal role in social–ecological resilience.