Why should conservation professionals be concerned about social issues? Why should they know about them and attempt to deal with them in a positive manner? The experiences of the past provide us with some possible answers.
Why incorporate social concerns in conservation?
Social acceptance is crucial for conservation to be sustainable. People play many direct and indirect roles in resource management. These roles need to be recognized and worked with in an effective manner. State policing and control against people’s values and practices can work only to a point, especially under the mounting problems of poverty and population dynamics, and within a process of economic globalization. If people value and appreciate biodiversity, if organized groups derive concrete benefits from it, they have the best chances to succeed in conserving it in the long run. If they do not, they are likely to become their own worst enemies when state control is — for any reason — lessened. Conversely, experience shows a positive correlation between effective conservation and the provision of a wide range of social benefits and positive responses to social concerns.
The costs of top-down approaches are staggering. Has anyone ever added up the costs of imposed development and conservation initiatives in recent decades? All over the world, examples abound of top-down plans — concocted in faraway offices and totally impervious to local capacities and concerns — which absorbed huge resources for their design and implementation and evolved into enormous failures. Few governments can today afford the economic costs of imposed conservation (e.g., for fences and guards) or its political costs (civil disorders, negative public relations).
The benefits of collaborative approaches are there to be realized. Very few conservation agencies, however capable and well equipped, possess the capacities and comparative advantages necessary for the long-term sustainable management of natural resources. A variety of social groups, both local and non-local, can help, providing knowledge, skills and resources and carrying out tasks for which they are uniquely suited. For instance, state agencies can rarely do better than local communities in surveying the access to a protected area or detecting early warnings of fire. Experienced entrepreneurs with foreign connections are generally most effective in initiating a tourism business. Resource users possess detailed knowledge of local biodiversity and can be effective in monitoring it and suggesting how to preserve it locally. Importantly, they are often the most determined defenders of local resources against exploitation by external interests. Complementary capacities do exist; the challenge is to create the conditions for collaboration rather than competition and hostility.
Philosophies and practices have changed, with less money, new partners, new ideas. About 20 years ago governments and the donor community were generally ready to finance major development and conservation initiatives run by line ministries and national agencies. Today, the huge projects of the past are much less in favour, and the work of line ministries is increasingly being integrated with that of NGOs and communities. Even in protected area management, alternative approaches involving the contribution of NGOs and local groups are becoming commonplace (Poff, 1996). All this goes hand-in-hand with financial constraints caused by adjustment measures and decreasing donor budgets. In all, the number of large, top-down conservation projects to be implemented in the future is fast decreasing.
Effective processes and tools for socially sustainable conservation initiatives do exist and do work. In a variety of contexts, there have been positive results from approaches that respond to the capacities and interests of local stakeholders and involve them in planning and implementing activities (see, for instance: Poffenberger 1990a and 1990b; West and Brechin, 1991; Geoghegan and Barzetti, 1992; Makombe, 1993; White et al., 1994; Western and Wright 1995; Weber 1995; Poffenberger, 1996). Moving from top-down approaches to participatory ones has promoted obvious and at times dramatic improvements in local environmental management and biodiversity conservation. In some cases the solution of local conflicts has been the basis for change. In others, a shift in the distribution of costs and benefits of conservation has made the difference. Change also comes as a result of developing specific agreements and appointing appropriate institutions for resource management.
Every initiative that affects people in a significant way involves a clear political and moral responsibility. Conservation is about managing natural resources — a topic with profound political implications, affecting people in important and multiple ways. As with any other endeavour that affects people, conservation cannot escape the responsibility of determining its consequences, as well as who will benefit from it and who will pay the costs. It is politically and morally unacceptable that in too many instances such responsibility is forgotten or shrugged off. In the long run this will only lead to bad social relationships and unsustainable initiatives.
Past Approaches
Most colonial and post-colonial approaches to conservation operated on the premise that local peoples’ stakes and rights in natural resources were subsidiary to those of the state. State control over resource management was placed in the hands of technical elites and issues pertaining to social sustainability were of marginal concern at best. In particular it was often assumed that indigenous peoples were inimical to the conservation of wildlife and natural resources.
While one must be careful not to romanticize complex and evolving social realities, it cannot be denied that most traditional societies historically coexisted with biodiversity, and that cultures and people’s production systems were often grounded in utilizing wild resources on a sustainable basis (see, for instance Turnbull, 1961 and 1972; Reader, 1988). Yet, throughout the past two centuries, traditional cultures and people were perceived by conservation planners mainly as threats. They were not involved in deciding how to manage resources; on the contrary, they were commonly ordered out of their territories and deprived of access to the natural basis of their livelihood without discussion or compensation. These potential stewards of biodiversity were alienated from conservation, often to the point of becoming its active opponents.
As an example, African traditional hunters were branded as ‘poachers’ and pastoral peoples — such as the Maasai — were perceived as one of the major threats to wildlife. The fact that the big game dear to conservationists coexisted for centuries with these pastoral populations did not seem to correct that perception. As aptly described by Adams and McShane (1992):
"The method for establishing parks has hardly changed in over a century. The process has always involved the expensive operation of removing those people living on the newly protected land. In almost all cases, the result is a park surrounded by people who were excluded from the planning of the area, do not understand its purpose, derive little or no benefit from the money poured into its creation, and hence do not support its existence. As a result, local communities develop a lasting distrust of park authorities, in part because of the glaring lack of attention those authorities, supported by conservationists, have traditionally paid to the link between park ecology, the survival of wildlife, and the livelihood of displaced people.”
New approaches
Fortunately, conservation is evolving. On the one hand, it is improving its scientific understanding of human beings as components of ecosystems and moving away from an exclusive focus on the scientific aspect of biodiversity towards a better understanding and appreciation of its economic and cultural values. On the other, conservation is expanding its practice to include — besides traditional protected area management skills — a variety of participatory approaches, new institutions and multiple/sustainable use schemes.
The first aspect of this change, which could be termed "socio-biological”, greatly profited from scientific advances in ecosystem and species management. As an example, "gap analysis” now determines where gaps in biodiversity exist and need to be filled for the benefit of larger ecosystems (Primack, 1995). An application of this understanding recently promoted the survival of endangered bird species in Hawaii. In general, management plans are now much more concerned with ecosystem resilience, as is the case with the plans of the Pantanal in Brazil, Bolivia and Paraguay. Landscape conservation, the potential human utilization of biodiversity and the existing policy and institutional environment are also acquiring greater importance in ecosystem management, as exemplified by some recent assessments of terrestrial ecoregions in Latin America and the Caribbean (BSP et al., 1995; Dinerstein et al., 1995). In all, the role humans play in shaping ecosystems is becoming better known. In coming years, it is likely that such a role will be integrated in more sophisticated ways in the management of ecosystems, to accommodate acceptable levels of resource use on a case-by-case manner.
In terms of protected areas, ‘paper parks’ disjointed from local societies and decided solely on the basis of donor funding are — it is hoped — a feature of the past (Barzetti, 1993). Site selection for protected areas is increasingly based on considerations of both biological value and social feasibility (Amend and Amend, 1995). Increasingly, conservation and development priorities are being integrated in strategies and plans (Brown and Wyckoff-Baird, 1994; Wells and Brandon, 1994; Vane-Wright, 1996). Studies are carried out to estimate the economic value of biodiversity in specific territories (WWF, 1995) and to understand the conditions in which community-based conservation develops and flourishes (Pye-Smith et al., 1994; Western and Wright, 1995). And in-depth understanding is sought as to how the commercial utilization of wild species promotes or detracts from conservation (Freese et al., 1994).
The second aspect of the evolution of conservation could be called "methodological-institutional”. The key questions are: what means, processes and institutions render conservation feasible, effective and sustainable? No general answers can be provided to these questions, but resources such as Beyond Fences can facilitate the extensive context-specific inquiry necessary to provide local answers. If something general can be said it is that conservation is a complex matter, involving a variety of perceptions and interests. At best, all such perceptions and interests meet in designing and implementing plans and activities. Polarized views — such as that "conservation is only a by-product of a development agenda" or that "conservation is only a matter of sound biological science" — contribute very little to real initiatives on the ground. What is important, however, is to recognize that all conservation initiatives need to be accountable to somebody, and that local communities are among the first to whom they should be accountable.
Increasingly, a variety of social groups are called on to contribute to conservation efforts and receive benefits in return (McNeely, 1995; Ghimire and Pimbert, 1996; Borrini-Feyerabend, 1996). Such benefits may be economic, such as access to resources, or the sharing of revenues in various private and public ventures (e.g., park fees, hunting trophies, tourist enterprises, etc.). Or they may be cultural, such as the respect of local sacred sites, or the simple recognition of local communities as the rightful stewards of local resources. The theory is very simple: conservation is sustainable when, for all the relevant parties, its benefits are greater than its costs. In practice, attaining this condition is invariably difficult. At times, even striking a balance between conservation and local needs does not appear possible. In those cases a conservation initiative should make the trade-offs very clear, make sure that the appropriate authorities and stakeholders are aware and involved, and support equitable solutions.
Social Sustainability
It is not our intention to provide a seamless definition of social sustainability in conservation. On the contrary, we would like to explore the concept in a broad way, starting from a variety of meanings usually associated with it. Among these are the following:
The above involve several considerations, whose relative weight can only be judged within a specific context. Among others, these considerations include:
The challenges ahead
It is crucial to achieve a balance between the biological concerns of conservation and the socio-economic and equity concerns of the people involved. Innovative approaches are being carried out, but critical gaps and unanswered questions still exist. These resource books have been developed to help achieve such a balance in specific conservation initiatives. The people and institutions which contributed to develop them are aware that no general answers or step-by-step guidelines can be provided to the professionals involved in conservation. Yet, there are meaningful questions, ideas, options, lessons from the past, concepts, tools and processes that can help. Some of these have been gathered in these two volumes.
Some questions, in particular, appear crucial to conservation and spell out the challenges for the future in every specific site and territory. Among these are the following:
In many ways, seeking social sustainability means seeking practical answers to these questions.
References
Adams, J. S. and T. O. McShane, The Myth of Wild Africa: Conservation Without Illusion, W. W. Norton and Co., New York, 1992.
Amend, S. and T. Amend, National Parks Without People? The South American Experience, IUCN, Gland (Switzerland), 1995 (also available in Spanish: ?Espacios sin Habitantes? Parques Nacionales de América del Sur, IUCN Gland (Switzerland) and Nueva Sociedad, Caracas, 1992).
Barzetti, V. (ed.), Parks and Progress, IUCN, Gland (Switzerland), 1993.
BSP (Biodiversity Support Program), Conservation International, The Nature Conservancy, Wildlife Conservation Society, World Resources Institute and World Wildlife Fund, Regional Analysis of Geographic Priorities for Biodiversity Conservation in Latin America and the Caribbean, Biodiversity Support Program, Washington D.C., 1995.
Borrini-Feyerabend, G., Collaborative Management of Protected Areas: Tailoring the Approach to the Context, Issues in Social Policy, IUCN Gland (Switzerland), 1996.
Brown, M. and B. Wyckoff-Baird, Designing Integrated Conservation and Development Projects, Biodiversity Support Program with PVO-NGO/NRMS and World Wildlife Fund, Washington D.C., 1994.
Dinerstein, E. et al., A Conservation Assessment of the Terrestrial Ecoregions of Latin America and the Carribean, World Bank, Washington D.C., 1995.
Freese, C. et al., The Commercial, Consumptive Use of Wild Species: Implications for Biodiversity Conservation, World Wide Fund For Nature, Gland (Switzerland), 1994.
Geoghegan, T. and V. Barzetti (eds.), Protected Areas and Community Management, ‘Community and The Environment — Lessons from the Caribbean’, Series Paper 1, Panos Institute and CANARI (Caribbean Natural Resources Institute), Washington D.C., 1992.
Ghimire, K. and M. Pimbert., Social Change and Conservation, UNRISD, Geneva, 1996 (in press).
Makombe, K., Sharing the Land, IUCN/ROSA Environmental Issues Series, 1, Harare, 1993.
McNeely, J. A. (ed.), Expanding Partnerships in Conservation, Island Press, Washington D.C., 1995.
Poff, C., Survey of Management Approaches in Protected Areas, IUCN, Gland (Switzerland), 1996 (unpublished).
Poffenberger, M., "Conclusions: Steps towards establishing collaborative management", in Poffenberger, M. (ed.), Keepers of the Forest, Kumarian Press, West Hartford, 1990a.
Poffenberger, M., Joint Management of Forest Land: Experiences from South Asia, Ford Foundation, New Delhi, 1990b.
Poffenberger, M. and B. McGean (eds.), Village Voices, Forest Choices, Oxford University Press, New Delhi, 1996.
Primack, R., A Primer of Conservation Biology, Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, Massachusetts, 1995.
Pye-Smith, C. and G. Borrini-Feyerabend with R. Sandbrook, The Wealth of Communities, Earthscan, London, 1994.
Reader, J., Man on Earth, Penguin, London, 1990.
Turnbull, C., The Forest People, Simon and Schuster, New York, 1961.
Turnbull, C., The Mountain People, Simon and Schuster, New York, 1961.
Vane-Wright, R. I., "Identifying priorities for the conservation of biodiversity: systematic biological criteria within a socio-political framework" in Gaston, K. (ed.), Biodiversity: A Biology of Numbers and Differences, Blackwell, London, 1996.
Weber, J., "L’occupation humaine des aires protegées à Madagascar: diagnostic et éléments pour une gestion viable", Natures, Sciences, Sociétés, 3, 2: 157-164, 1995.
Wells, M. and K. Brandon, People and Parks: Linking Protected Area Management with Local Communities, World Bank, Washington D.C., 1994.
West, P. and S. R. Brechin (eds.), Resident Peoples and National Parks, University of Arizona Press, Tucson, Arizona, 1991.
Western, D. and R. M. Wright (eds.), Natural Connections: Perspectives in Community-based Conservation, Island Press, Washington D.C., 1995.
White, A. T., Hale-Zeitlin, L., Renard, Y. and L. Cortesi, Collaborative and Community-based Management of Coral Reefs: Lessons from Experience, Kumarian Press, West Hartford (Connecticut), 1994.
WWF (World Wide Fund for Nature), Real Value for Nature: An Overview of Global Efforts to Achieve True Measures of Economic Progress, WWF, Gland (Switzerland), 1995.
| <<< BACK | CONTENTS | NEXT >>> |