Section 2. Addressing local needs
in conservation
"Why a reserve here and not elsewhere? What will happen to us? What
land shall we cultivate to survive?"
Peasant interviewed on the establishment of the Dimonika Biosphere
Reserve, Congo, 1991
2.1 Addressing
local needs in conservation
Many years of experience in development and conservation initiatives
have shown that conservation and the needs of local people cannot be addressed
independently of one another. Development work that neglects the sound
management of natural resources is building on shifting sands. Conservation
work that attempts to take precedence over the individual and communal
concerns of local people is likely to be as successful as the proverbial
refrigerator sale in the Arctic.
Combining the two - by pursuing conservation and providing for local
needs through the same initiatives and activities - calls for great ingenuity,
sociocultural sensitivity, sound economic judgment and sufficient time
to develop the optimum solutions that work in unique contexts. Importantly,
it also calls for the active participation of the relevant stakeholders.
Only local people, in fact, can effectively identify both their needs
and the specific compromises that would satisfy them while safeguarding
conservation. Only local people can bring to an initiative the wealth
of local knowledge and skills they possess.
As a start, the management team could consider local livelihoods in
relation to the area's environmental resources. Several of the questions,
indicators and options for action in this section will explore this topic
and set it within a specific socio-political and cultural context. By
fitting into existing livelihood systems, the initiative will stand a
much better chance of being owned by local people. At best, however, socially
sustainable initiatives go beyond this, and provide new opportunities
to generate benefits and economic returns. These, in turn, can help to
address local needs and provide incentives to conservation. Non-economic
benefits should not be underestimated. They may relate to social status,
security of tenure, political autonomy, cultural and religious values,
and overall quality of life. In some instances, safeguarding indigenous
territories from exploitation by newcomers may be a sufficient incentive
for local support.
Two basic approaches have been used by conservation initiatives to respond
to the needs and interests of local people:
- 'De-coupling' the interests of the local residents from the natural
resources to be conserved. Thus, projects in buffer zones promote alternative
income-generating activities, such as a plantation of fast-growing trees
that relieve the pressure on forest timber, cash-crop initiatives, poultry
farming, etc. This is meant to shift the economic interests of local
people away from the exploitation of resources in a protected area.
Similarly, the construction of a road, school or clinic may be offered
to the locals as compensation for loss of access to natural resources.
Also, better farming practices may be promoted in the lands surrounding
a conservation initiative, so that local people are less dependent on
its resources for their livelihood. This approach, which often calls
for substantial investments from outside, has been the one most commonly
adopted.
- 'Coupling' the interests of the local residents with the conservation
objectives. Ecotourism, for instance, brings revenues as long as the
local environment is well preserved and worth being visited. Selling
game trophies to hunters is viable and lucrative as long as the local
habitat is capable of sustaining an abundant wildlife population. Medicinal
plants can be collected in the wild and sold as long as they are not
over-exploited. And so on. With this second approach we can also include
initiatives such as game-ranching or wildlife-raising projects (such
as crocodile, iguana or butterfly farms). Raising a population of a
wild and possibly endangered species in captivity may be a positive
contribution to maintaining that species in the wild.
Whether a 'coupling' solution is to be preferred to a 'de-coupling'
one, or whether a combination of the two is best, can be established only
within a specific ecological and socio-economic context. Yet, in all cases
we can be sure of one fact: it is not easy to identify ways in which conservation
initiatives can produce benefits and economic returns (the 'coupling'
approach).
For millennia, rural communities have evolved careful ways of producing
from the land while caring for its integrity and thus sustaining production.
Today, changes in technology, population dynamics and the widespread shift
from subsistence to market-oriented production have strained many of those
relationships. For protected areas, in particular, generating economic
benefits to be shared among local stakeholders is the exception rather
than the rule. Yet, in most situations these benefits must be apparent
- locally and non-locally - to obtain support for the conservation initiative.
This is the most daunting challenge facing social sustainability in conservation.
Some responses to the challenge will be explored in this section of the
resource set.
Such responses can only flourish within a favourable political and economic
environment. People have to feel secure in terms of access to resources
(security of tenure), and confident of being able to benefit tomorrow
from investments made today (political stability). People need to have
access to financial means (e.g., credit) and, ideally, to be allowed to
use as collateral the natural resources they safeguard with their work.
There have to be fair and intelligently-regulated markets, which use incentives
and disincentives to assign values to natural resources for their long-term
and functional returns, as well as to the health, welfare and culture
of people. This section will consider these issues.
This section will also touch on the matter of equity in conservation.
Many conservation initiatives involve a range of costs and benefits that
are too often unevenly - and inequitably - distributed. Frequently, for
instance, local communities with customary rights are forbidden access
to resources, and later see such access signed over to commercial companies.
Too often, restricted use for pastoralists brings them hardship while
agriculturalists gain from an improved water supply from the protected
area. Situations such as these are at the root of many failures in conservation.
An effective legislative and regulatory framework would help to prevent
inequities by assigning the costs and benefits of conservation in more
equitable ways. This could be done by recognizing existing and customary
rights; decreasing rather than increasing socio-economic differentiation;
and distributing benefits in proportion to both costs sustained and effective
inputs of labour, land, capital, etc. A sustainable initiative would carefully
regulate this equitable distribution of costs and benefits. Fairness to
individuals, not only to user groups or communities, is important to stimulate
people to engage in a conservation initiative and to promote long-term
investments.
By fitting into existing livelihood systems, the initiative
will stand a much better chance of being owned by local people.
At best, however, socially sustainable initiatives go beyond this,
and provide new opportunities to generate benefits and economic
returns.
2.2 Key Questions
Key question 2.2.1 How do the natural resources of the conservation
initiative contribute to the livelihood of local people?
- How dependent are local people on such natural resources in terms
of: food (e.g., by hunting, fishing or using land for agriculture)?
Water? Shelter? Fuel? Medicines? Income? Employment? Basic resources
in times of emergency? Credit? Other survival needs (as defined by local
people)?
- Who actually harvests and uses the natural resources? Are some specific
groups more dependent than others on the use of local resources? Which
groups (e.g., consider groups of different gender, ethnicity, wealth,
education, age, employment status, residence with respect to the boundaries
of the conservation initiative)? Are they all dependent on the same
resource(s) or on different ones?
- Do the professional team members consider these stakeholders as being
different or the same (e.g., women in a community versus men in a community,
fishermen versus agriculturists, and so on)? How so? Why?
- Is local livelihood put in jeopardy by the conservation initiative?
Are some groups particularly at risk? Are resettlements involved? If
so, how does the initiative protect or compensate people? Does the compensation
provide for a sustainable livelihood strategy or only for a temporary
satisfaction of needs? Does it create a dependence on external resources?
Concept Files, Volume 2
Biodiversity and rural
livelihood
Local knowledge in conservation
Social actors and stakeholders
Gender concerns in conservation
Population dynamics and
conservation
Indigenous peoples and
protected areas
Primary environmental
care
Social concerns in resettlement
programmes
Key question 2.2.2 How do the natural resources of the conservation
initiative help meet people's cultural, religious and identity needs?
- How dependent are local people on the natural resources in terms of
social customs? Cultural practices? Religious and ceremonial practices?
Wealth and status? Security? Privacy? Recreation? Other identity needs
(as defined by local people)?
- Are some specific groups more dependent than others? Which groups
(e.g., consider groups of different gender, caste, wealth, education,
age, employment status)? Are they all dependent on the same resource(s)
or on different ones?
- Do the professional team members consider these stakeholders as being
different or the same (e.g., people of different religious background)?
How so? Why?
- Do sites or species have particular cultural/spiritual significance?
Are these protected in the indigenous or customary system of resource
management (e.g., sacred groves, ancestral domains)? Do some groups
consider themselves owners or custodians of given habitats or resources?
Are there specific myths, rites and cultural habits related to the natural
resources?
- Is the local culture or social structure significantly affected by
the conservation initiative (e.g., by altering resource sharing patterns)?
If so, is the management team discussing with people a way of re-planning
the initiative or compensating them?
Concept Files, Volume 2
Social actors and
stakeholders
Local knowledge in conservation
Applied ethics in conservation
Indigenous resource management
systems
Indigenous peoples and
protected areas
Local knowledge for conservation
Population dynamics and
conservation
Key question 2.2.3 Do local people perceive any need to conserve natural
resources, specific species, habitats, etc.?
- What are the key problems currently concerning the local people? Is
the conservation initiative contributing towards solving these problems?
Is it making or will it make any problem worse?
- If so, what do local people see as the causes of these problems? Do
they see them as being of local or non-local origin? Do they see them
as sudden (e.g., a natural disaster) or as structural and ongoing? Do
they see them as related to poverty, or related to wealth and power?
Do they see them as being at all associated with population dynamics
(natural increase or decrease, migration to and from the local area)?
- Do the local people accept that they can/should do something about
the problems or do they only see it as a government responsibility?
- Do local people implement/promote/propose/prefer some specific solutions
to the resource/environmental problems they perceive?
- Do local people perceive any barriers to solutions? What specifically?
- Is there any local debate on trade-offs between conservation and human
needs? Are there any major interest groups? If yes, which ones? Are
some in agreement or in open conflict with the conservation initiative?
- Is the local environmental situation perceived differently by different
social groups/stakeholders?
Concept Files, Volume 2
Biodiversity and rural
livelihood
Indigenous resource management
systems
Population dynamics and
conservation
Poverty, wealth, and environmental
degradation
Equity in conservation
Economic valuation in
conservation
Local knowledge in conservation
Primary environmental
care
Key question 2.2.4 Are or were there indigenous or customary resource
management systems in the area and are they being affected by the conservation
initiative?
- If yes, what do (did) they regulate? Access to resources? Decisions
over access? Resource-use patterns and limits? Seasonal use? Fallow
systems? Types of use? Distribution of products? Negotiation of rules
and management of conflicts? Other?
- Who is (was) in charge of making important decisions (e.g., resource
allocation, labour sharing, conflict management practices)? Are (were)
there traditional chiefs, councils of elders, elected councils? Are
(were) social sanctions part of traditional management systems? Are
(were) there social incentives for sound management and use of resources?
- Are (were) these systems effective? Do (did) they include some specialized
knowledge of biodiversity (e.g., relationships between soil types and
crop varieties, uses of medicinal plants, inter-cropping patterns)?
Do (did) they include zoning to distinguish acceptable land uses? Do
(did) they include ecologically-damaging practices?
- Are there evident trends affecting the indigenous or customary resource
management systems? What are they? Are they favourable or detrimental
for conservation?
- Does the conservation initiative incorporate/support the indigenous
and customary systems of resource management (in part or entirely)?
- Are there major differences in resource management knowledge and skills
among different stakeholders? How could these affect the conservation
initiative?
- Is there a local conservation ethic? Is there a sense of moral obligation
to protect the land and other resources for future generations?
- In general, is the conservation initiative consistent with or in contrast
to the aspirations of stakeholders and local communities?
Concept Files, Volume 2
Local institutions
for resource management
Indigenous resource management
systems
Applied ethics in conservation
Indigenous people and
protected areas
Biodiversity and rural
livelihood
Poverty, wealth and environmental
degradation
Local knowledge in conservation
Sustainable use of wildlife
Key question 2.2.5 Does the conservation initiative affect access to
land or resources and the control over them for one or more stakeholders?
- What is the ownership status of the body of resources at stake in
the conservation initiative? Is it state property? Is it under the jurisdiction
of a central or local administrative body? Is it subject to more than
one form of legal status (e.g., national park and indigenous people's
reserve)? Is any part of it private or communal property? If yes, is
expropriation foreseen? With what compensation?
- Are there differences of view about who owns the land and resources?
Are there any unresolved boundary conflicts or conflicts over rules
of access?
- Are there traditional patterns of resource use by local groups that
will be restricted or stopped by the conservation initiative? With what
compensation? Are alternatives provided?
- Whatever the ownership status, is it respected? Are there problems
of encroachment and illegal use of resources? Is tenure secured? Are
inheritance patterns clear or controversial?
- Does the country have a system of recognized rights and regulations
regarding access to and tenure of resources? Is 'communal property'
a recognized ownership regime, or are only state and private property
recognized? Are 'indigenous territories' recognized?
- Are there land registries or other records of access rights to resources?
Are there specific courts and tribunals where disputes over access and
tenure can be discussed and resolved? If conflict over access to resources
predated the conservation initiative, how will that be affected?
Concept Files, Volume 2
Equity in conservation
Common property, communal
property and open access regimes
Indigenous resource management
systems
Indigenous peoples and
protected areas
Governance and rule of
law
Primary environmental
care
Biodiversity and rural
livelihood
Key question 2.2.6 Are there major economic activities (e.g., mining,
timber extraction) in the area which do or could affect the conservation
initiative?
- What are these activities? What is their time horizon (short-term
exploitation or sustainable exploitation, processing, etc.)? What is
the attitude of the people or companies in control of the activities
towards the conservation initiative?
- What costs are involved in protecting the conservation area against
the negative impact of the economic activities?
- Are the economic activities clearly beneficial to local people and
groups? In what ways? How many jobs do they provide (directly and indirectly)?
Are there any negative impacts on human health and/or the social environment
(e.g., frequent instances of violent behaviour, boom and bust in the
local economy)?
- If the activities benefit some stakeholders and affect others (and
conservation) in a negative way, are the relevant issues and conflicts
well-known and understood? Are they dealt with in an open manner? Who
decides on the key matters?
Concept Files, Volume 2
Poverty, wealth and
environmental degradation
Economic valuation in
conservation
Incentives and disincentives
to conservation
Conflicts in conservation
Jobs in conservation
Social actors and stakeholders
Key question 2.2.7 Are there incentives or disincentives to conservation
in the local context?
- What types of incentives exist to encourage local stakeholders to
support and contribute to the conservation initiative? Are there financial
incentives (e.g., taxation, matching grants, subsidies, credit schemes,
compensation programmes), social incentives (prestige, use of facilities,
access to services), or others? Are these incentives known and available
to all without discrimination? Can they be enhanced, made more widespread,
made better known?
- What types of disincentives prevent local stakeholders from supporting
and contributing to the conservation initiative (e.g., are there commercial
pressures that prompt people to see conservation as economically damaging;
is there any law assigning rights to people who 'opened up' land by
cutting down trees and shrubs)? Can the disincentives be minimized or
eliminated?
- Can people afford to contribute to conservation? Do they have access
to credit, in particular credit that values the management of natural
resources in a sustainable way? Do they have access to technical assistance,
training or technology inputs when they need them?
- Are political incentives (gaining a share in decision-making power)
likely to encourage stakeholders to contribute to the conservation initiative?
Concept Files, Volume 2
Incentives and disincentives
to conservation
Compensation and substitution
programmes
Jobs in conservation
Primary environmental
care
Key question 2.2.8 What are the actual costs and benefits of the conservation
initiative and how are they distributed among the stakeholders?
- What is the economic value of the resources and products lost to users
because of the conservation initiative (loss of access, loss of trade,
damage by wildlife, etc.)? What are the other costs suffered by them
(e.g., loss of employment opportunities, loss of land, constraints on
local business and family income)? Are these felt by all or by some
groups in particular?
- What are the economic (and non-economic) benefits accruing to stakeholders
because of the conservation initiative (job opportunities, social services,
soil protection, clean water, abundance of wildlife, etc.)? Are these
distributed to all or to some groups in particular? Do the local people
see these benefits as real and/or easily achievable?
- Do local people see these benefits as related to conservation efforts?
Do they see them as linked to investments and costs related to the initiative?
- As a whole, who benefits and who loses? Are trade-offs known and clear
to all? Have the trade-offs been negotiated and agreed upon in any way?
Are alternative opportunities provided to affected stakeholders? Are
new social conflicts present/expected as a result of the initiative?
- Is the initiative worsening social inequalities (e.g., making poor
people poorer, marginal people more marginalized, women less powerful)?
Or is it, on the contrary, attempting to compensate for such inequalities?
Concept Files, Volume 2
Equity in conservation
Gender concerns in conservation
Incentives and disincentives
to conservation
Economic valuation in
conservation
Social concerns in resettlement
programmes
Jobs in conservation
Biodiversity and rural
livelihood
Social actors and stakeholders
Key question 2.2.9 What contributions can the stakeholders make to the
conservation initiative?
- Can the stakeholders offer unique local knowledge and skills for the
management of the resources included in the conservation initiative?
For instance, do they have their own ways of classifying and qualifying
natural resources and habitats? Do local people possess their own ways
of monitoring resources?
- Can the stakeholders offer skilled and/or unskilled labour? Can they
contribute as a community or as a group, (e.g., by monitoring local
biodiversity, surveying for unauthorized access, fire and other hazards)?
Can they provide resources and facilities (e.g., for storage, transportation,
etc.)?
- Would stakeholders be willing and able to take on the responsibility
of providing the conservation initiative with some knowledge, skills,
labour or resources, and formalize that responsibility in an agreement
with other stakeholders?
- Where outside destructive forces exist, would local stakeholders be
willing and able to provide a counter to them (for example by mass mobilization
in support of the conservation initiative)?
- To date, has the management team adequately considered/acted on any
inputs provided by local stakeholders?
- Can/would stakeholders be able to manage the conservation initiative
independently?
Concept Files, Volume 2
Local knowledge for
conservation
Indigenous resource management
systems
Collaborative management
regimes
Primary environmental
care
Applied ethics in conservation
Local institutions for
resource management
Key question 2.2.10 Are there solid social and economic opportunities
to link conservation objectives with providing for local needs?
- Is the conservation initiative compatible with the sustainable use
of natural resources (e.g., timber and non-timber forest products, fisheries,
fodder, agricultural land, wildlife, etc.)? Has the initiative identified/incorporated
such sustainable use options? With what results?
- Where conservation objectives and existing resource uses are not compatible,
are there viable alternatives to the latter? Are they acceptable to
the stakeholders? Can these alternatives help to retain/encourage a
stake in conservation?
- Is the conservation initiative compatible with the creation of local
job opportunities and income generation activities (e.g., jobs in park
management, ecotourism ventures, local business, primary environmental
care projects)?
- Will compensation (e.g., economic or via complementary programmes
in health, education, adult training, credit schemes) and incentives
be likely and sufficient to make the conservation initiative appealing
for local stakeholders? Are the links between the incentives and the
initiative clear and well-established? Are the economic options provided
by the conservation initiative financially attractive compared with
the immediate profits from resource exploitation and/or other non- conservation
options?
- Are there factors that prevent stakeholders from deriving an income
from the sustainable use of resources (e.g., trade restrictions, animal
rights legislation, etc.)?
- Are there economic conditions (e.g., international market prices of
a locally-produced commodity) affecting local choices that have an environmental
impact? Can anything be done to buffer or minimize such external conditions?
Concept Files, Volume 2
Biodiversity and rural
livelihood
Primary environmental
care
Sustainable use of wildlife
Sustainable farming, forestry
and fishing practices
Compensation and substitution
programmes
Ecotourism
Jobs in conservation
2.3 Indicators of local needs
being addressed
| Indicators |
Warning flags |
|
Percentage of local people (or porportion of stakeholders) who see the
conservation initiative as acceptable and/or convenient
All indicators of socio-economic and health status, including income
per household, literacy, employment rates, morbidity and mortality, etc.
All of the above in gender-specific, age-specific, ethnic-specific, or
class-specific terms (e.g., socio-economic and health status of men versus
women, ethnic majority vs ethnic minority, etc.)
Extent of socio-economic differentiation among local groups
Local prices of basic foodstuffs and products
Local prices of natural resources which can be extracted in the conservation
area
Trends of all the above indicators with respect to the conservation initiative.
Are matters improving or getting worse since the establishment of the
initiative?
Changes in local land availability and resource use to accommodate the
conservation initiative
Indicators of local population dynamics (migration, fertility, mortality).
Trends of such indicators versus availability of land and natural resources
and with respect to the initiative
Extent of local knowledge, skills and other contributions incorporated
in the conservation initiative
Adjustments of the initiative in response to needs/expectations expressed
by locals (e.g., regarding rules of access to resources)
Economic (and non-economic) value of benefits from the conservation initiative
directly accruing to local stakeholders
|
People willing to face sanctions and fines to oppose the conservation
initiative (e.g., encroachment on protected areas)
The majority of local people do not see any need for the initiative
Strong antagonism or distrust among stakeholders (e.g., local people
and project or government agents) based on past experience
Severe poverty and poor health in some sectors of society while economically
valuable resources are protected by the conservation initiative
Some local people and groups are benefiting from the conservation initiative,
while others are missing out entirely
Endangered wildlife from the conservation initiative can fetch a very
high price in local markets
Access to the resources comprised in the conservation initiative is denied
to locals but permitted to exploiters with strong economic/political connections
(e.g., the government signed a contract with a commercial company)
Forced resettlement of people is envisaged/planned/carried out
People migrate out of the area due to reduced access to resources
Increasing population (because of migration and/or natural growth) in
the face of stable or decreasing economic options for an acceptable quality
of life
Strong contrast between some management practices recommended by the initiative
and customary/traditional ones
Land uses in conflict with the conservation initiative are continued
and/or intensified
|