L23: Partnership Conservation and Protected Areas Flashcards
What is a protected area?
A protected area is a clearly defined geographical space, recognised, dedicated and managed, through legal or other effective means, to achieve the long-term conservation of nature with associated ecosystem services and cultural values ( IUCN Definition 2008).
“Fortress Conservation” – developed in the US in the late 19th century
A National Park must remain a primordial wilderness to be effective. No men, not even native ones, should live inside its borders (quoting arguments for setting up the Serengeti NP).
2003 World Parks Congress, Durban
….protected area authorities are encouraged to promote the conditions and ensure the means for the effective engagement of Indigenous Peoples, local communities and other local stakeholders in conservation. The focus of attention should be on building the capacity of communities to engage effectively….
What are the roadblocks?
• Over-ambitious plans
• Actions isolated geographically when problems are more
widespread
• Local institutions not strong enough to participate, thus power remains outside the conservation area (regional, national level)
Key erroneous assumptions
That biodiversity conservation and local development are mutually compatible
That benefits are fairly distributed and encourage conservation
That LOCAL people’s actions are always the cause of problems
Case study: Madagascar
Réserve Spéciale d’Ambohitantely (RSA)
Societal concerns
The local villages
But there are also external influences
Local development projects
SOFRECO consultants
Ecological concerns
Conservation NGOs Ecologists
Reserve management strategy
ANGAP (Government Park Service)
Conservation paradigms in Madagascar
Top down (paternalistic) – practically, this one
Bottom up (inclusive, partnership, populist) Madagascar—GELOSE – theoretically,
this one, in many cases
Key actors: ANGAP and SOFRECO
Local villages in several traditional jurisdictions
ANGAP are the national park managers (central government)
SOFRECO are a consultancy from Switzerland.
ANGAP and SOFRECO’s assumptions about the local communities:
• local people use the forest
• local people burn the grassland, maybe the forest
• the local society is traditional, poor, suspicious of innovation, and disorganized
• the local society is homogeneous: ‘the rural community’
Therefore…..
ANGAP and SOFRECO’s assumptions about the local communities:
Therefore…
- there is a general problem of poverty, and, if alleviated (new land-use techniques, new sources of income) people have less need to burn and use forest
-development projects in villages can help provide such alternative resources—plant coffee, establish nurseries for trees to make charcoal to stop use of forest
-Several development projects took place during the 1990’s, the most recent afterANGAP took over the reserve. In general, these have failed……..WHY?
Analysis by Klein et al 2007: local perception of environment, social structures, class strucure, land-use hierarchies, use if fire; methods: PRA*, interviews, documentary research. - Participatory Rurual Appraisal
Maharidaza: major points revealed by research
- People are migrants (aspire to grow rice and raise zebus)
- Land tenure is insecure (unwritten): land is appropriated and developed by demonstrating use
- Society is hierarchical (caste system, governance through tarika chiefs)
- Hova (richest, zebu breeders) are in conflict with Mainty (political power)
- People are in general suspicious of central government and outsiders
- Light use of the forest can be accommodated (too far, too scary for most people)
- Distant grass fires are set by big zebu owners (and zebu thieves) – many practical uses
- Since the government edict against burning, people are reluctant to put out fires – so more fires do damage, but no evidence of arson
- Rice fields developed by cutting riverine forest fragments – these now very rare
- Fragments outside the reserve are exploited for fuel and timber by people from the town of Ankazobe.
Forest is too far from the villages – except a walk to collect medicinal plants and honey (Ambohitantely means the Hill with Honey) – so there is only a loose connection of the local people with the forest
The main threat to the forest comes from the other side, from the main road. People bring in trucks at night and cut wood for charcoal to sell in town
Conclusion: development projects and local communities
Development actions not in tune with local realities
Do not provide for the real needs of the population
The traditional organization of the villages (tarikas) was not taken into account
o In many cases no formal land tenure (migrants, lack of documentation)o Planting trees on tanety (infields) fails because planting is perceived as
appropriation of common land by the planters
o A nursery established on an individual’s plot is not perceived as something for the
community
o Forestry activities proposed to
rice growers are i) not of great interest
to them; ii) not useful in terms of stopping burning, as these people are not responsible for the fires
Conclusions – a conservation perspective
Not huge pressure on the forest in the reserve from villagers. Little conflict. Morepressure from rich people’s zebu).
Thus firebreaks and vigilance may preserve the status quo, and some small restoration work may be possible in the reserve area, with ANGAP.
The ANGAP team in the field has little support or expertise to do development work, whereas they are good at managing the reserve
Their interests mainly overlap (clash) with the Hova zebu herders, as these are the people who use fire in the uplands near the forest. Carbon credits?
Local people desperately need development support, but tying it to forest conservation will not be fruitful.
The main threat to the reserve is from OUTSIDE the local area.
Overview of Philippines
Indigenous people [ca 12M or 18%] are socially and economically disadvantaged
A recent movement to claim ancestral lands (which overlap with high biodiversity areas)
Originally, the government indigenous peoples’ commission viewed people as passiverecipients of development aid
BUT NGOs view the goal to be the recognition and attainment of their rights. They brought them in as stakeholders to conservation initiatives
Governmental act established National Integrated Protected Areas System—multi- stakeholder, partnership-oriented approach to forest management—Community-based Forest Management (CBFM)
CASE STUDY II – PHILIPPINES – REVISED APPROACHES
Broader integration of key stakeholders (beyond the local)
Replace off-the-shelf plans with customized approaches
Focus on implementation
Adopt ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT – monitor, assess, and learn
Respond to the pace of the local communities, not external deadlines
Key local community on Sibuyan is the group Mangyan Tagabukid—traditional land
use and long-held ancestral lands until recently disputed
Further key principles
Abandon the win-win “myth” of conservation and development –honestly address winners and losers and look for compromise
Consider the large spatial and temporal scales processes affecting biodiversity—ecological processes, evolution. This provides a better context for setting up project and identifying stakeholders. Manage broader landscapes.
Help and support community-based organizations
Support environmental education
