Community conservation

From the 1970’s, bottom-up approaches of development have gained momentum in the developing world (Parnwell, 2002) as top-down approaches stemming from colonial development and perpetuated in conventional capitalist development strategies have been challenged for contradictory results for development in terms of exclusion and the disempowerment of communities (Parnwell, 2002).

The role of community participation has been recognised as a requisite to achieving sustainable development since the WCS. It has been predominant in Agenda 21 and reinforced in ‘Caring for the Earth’ (Adams, 2008). With increasing emphasis on democracy and the capacity of social actors to contribute to the development process, attention has focussed on communities and their important role in organising and managing development and conservation projects (Borrini-Feyerabend,1999; Adams, 2008).

Basic assumptions regarding community, conservation and the links between them have enormous significance in shaping community conservation projects. Inaccurate attempts to delineate communities in the past have contributed to the failure to articulate their effects on nature and have skewed the implementation strategies of community conservation projects (Leach & Scoones, 1997; Agrawal & Gibson, 1999; Brown, 2002;

Berkes, 2004;). Therefore a theoretical review of its components is essential for this research.

The debate around what constitutes a community has been contested by the representations of spatial units, social structure and shared norms responsible for the promotion of desirable conservation policy (Agrawal & Gibson, 1999). These authors’

critiques of the territorial conception of community argue that this feature alone could mislead the study of community conservation, given that the land acreage linked to communities can vary considerably (Agrawal & Gibson, 1999). “Communities are complex entities, whereby differences of ethnicity origin, class, caste, age, gender, religion, profession, and economic and social status can create profound differences in interests, capacities and willingness to invest in the management of natural resources”

(Borrini-Feyerabend 1996: 32).

The assumption that communities share similar characteristics of ethnicity, religion and language is also challenged as such uniformity does not always exist, and, where it does, cannot as a rule be equated with full homogeneity of culture (Leach & Scoones, 1997; Agrawal & Gibson, 1999; Borrini-Feyerabend, 1996). Given the multiple interests that characterised communities, traditional shared norms do not always focus on the sustainable use of biodiversity, which can pose challenges to environmental protection (Borrini-Feyerabend, 1996; Leach & Scoones, 1997).

Most importantly, the community is not a static entity but constantly changing and responding in different ways to the challenges it faces (Berkes, 2004). This new theoretical approach to the study of communities has allowed a growing number of researchers to make important contributions showing that communities are capable of contributing to conservation projects (McNeely & Miller, 1984; Saberwal &

Rangarajan; 2003).

Social capital as a concept emerged in the 1990’s in the community development agenda (McAslan, 2002). Social capital is understood as ‘features of social organisations, such as networks, norms, and trust that facilitate actions and co-operation for mutual benefit’ (Putnam 1993:35 in McAslan; 2002). The extent of social cohesion, skills, knowledge and interest are assets found in communities that empower the capacity of a community to participate in the decision making process (Gilchrist, 2000).

Participatory approaches for community development have received important attention since the 1980’s (Adams, 2008). Participation is defined as ‘sharing by people in the benefits of development, active contribution by people to development and involvement of people in decision making at all levels of society’ (UN 1979:225 in Desai, 2002:117).

Participation will be addressed in detail in a following section addressing the components of integrated conservation.

Community development principles focus on working with communities rather than working for communities (Gilchrist, 2000). Community development aims to support and shape social networking in order to facilitate the emergence of flexible, effective and empowering forms of collective action (Gilchrist, 2000:273).

Concepts of community, social capital, poverty and participation provide important context when examining community conservation. Redclift (2000) points out the importance of understanding that the perception of biodiversity for the poor is often intricately connected with their livelihoods; for whom conservation implies a more significant impact in their lives compared with perceptions of conservation by non-poor peoples, for whom biodiversity might be associated with recreational or aesthetic considerations. This illustrates the context where conservation policies such as protected areas restrict poor people’s local livelihoods, while for rich people, principles such as

frugality, and personal choices for measured consumption are only political declaration rather than enforced policies and therefore do not directly affect their lives. Not surprisingly, connotations of ‘Conservation of biodiversity’ vary across a spectrum of human contexts, having a different significance to different people (Anderson & Grove, 1987a). Official academic definitions of conservation supported by international organisations have, in the past, failed to recognise this varied meaning of conservation across communities (Adams, 2008).

The study of social relations with the environment is the focus of current research in political ecology (Peet & Watts, 2004); contributions from this field cover aspects of social access to natural resources, and the implications for both the environment and livelihood in relation to access to nature (Hecht & Cockburn 1989 in Watts & Peet, 2004).

An examination of people living under the complex and diverse dynamics of poverty (Chambers, 1995) emphasises the critical role of biodiversity in their well-being (UNDP, 2002) in terms of:

1. Livelihoods – People faced with poverty depend directly on natural resources and environmental services for their livelihoods. Therefore, they are severely affected when the environment is degraded or access is denied.

2. Health – People in poverty suffer from pollution, unsafe or inadequate water supplies, and exposure to toxic chemicals without being able to protect themselves or claim compensation for these adverse effects of industrialisation.

3. Vulnerability – People living under conditions of poverty are particularly vulnerable to environmental hazards and contingences. In fact, vulnerability is the most critical dimension of poverty in relation to the environment.

Therefore conservation of biodiversity must address its relationship with the practical aspects of poverty and local development (Potter, 2002) including, the contribution of biodiversity to areas of food security; health care; income generation; the reduction of vulnerability to meteorological events; and ecosystem services that facilitate access to acceptable water, soil and air quality (Koziell & McNeill, 2002).

A principle behind community participation in development is that people have the right to participate in decisions that affects their lives (Desai, 2002). As conservation programmes have direct effects on local livelihoods, Western, (2001) questions who designs conservation policies and programmes? In this respect Adam and Hulme (2001) argue that conservation needs to be designed with local consultation.

The correlation between poverty and environmental degradation often rests on the conventional assumption that the poor overexploit natural resources in order to meet their short-term needs without regard for the long-term impact on the ecosystems that sustain them (Brocklesby & Hinshelwood, 2001). Environmental degradation contributes to further impoverishment by adversely affecting health, nutrition and other dimensions of well-being (Leach & Mearns, 1992). Nevertheless, a number of recent studies have pointed out that the major source of degradation is actually the destructive effect of wealth in the form of material investment for development and consumption (Forsyth, 2004, Watts & Peet, 2004).

In absence of local capacity to influence the decision making process, poor people are often marginalised. Marginalisation as a consequence of the dominant economic development models imposed (Clark, 2002) force less empowered groups from the most fertile land, which is appropriated by powerful actors such as large agricultural, mining and forestry operations (Watts & Peet, 2004; Redclift, 2000; Saberwal & Rangarajan, 2003; Pisupati & Warner, 2003). As a result, the land on which poor people are forced to live is usually more vulnerable to degradation (Koziell & McNeill, 2002). Figure 2.1 illustrates data from Pisupati & Warner (2003) showing percentages of poor people across Asia, Sub-Saharan Africa and Latin America who occupy marginalised land.

Figure 2.1 Percentage of the poorest living on marginalised land (2003). Source: World Bank 2002 in Pisupati and Warner, 2003.

In this vein, social research argues that commercial activity – rather than poverty – represents the stronger cause for the rapid depletion of ecosystems (Agrawal & Gibson, 1999).

Development agendas do not constitute the only dynamic that forces people from resource-rich land. Conservation projects – the establishment of protected areas in particular – also affect access to the natural bases that poor people use to sustain their livelihoods (Saberwal & Rangarajan; 2003). Therefore, poverty–environment dynamics do not necessarily comply with the simple formula that increased poverty results in increased environmental degradation (Brocklesby & Hinshelwood, 2001). Indeed, the present study questions whether conservation can also threaten local development.

Studies of poor farmers in Amazonia show that natural forests are perceived to be an impediment to agricultural livelihoods (Hunter, 1996 in Schwartzman, Moreira &

Nepstad, 2000). Therefore, conservation projects implemented in local communities facing poverty have often ended in trade-offs between securing basic needs and ensuring the sustainability of biodiversity (Redclift, 2000). This implies that conservation per se might not be a priority for local communities.

This research argues that the definition of sustainable communities not only outdates ideas of conventional development but also brings into the international debate principles of development that were present in alternative visions of development identified in traditional indigenous communities. Adams highlights the radical definition that WCS gives about ‘sustainable community’; as a community that ‘cares for its own environment and does not damage those of others. It uses resources frugally

60

and sustainably, recycles materials, minimises wastes and disposes of them safely. It conserves life support systems and the diversity of local ecosystems. It meets its own needs so far as it can, but recognises the need to work in partnership with other communities.

For that reason, this research places an important value on insights from community conservation experiences. The examination of these experiences in natural protected areas is the focus of this research therefore a theoretical review of the concepts of integrated conservation in protected areas will be addressed in following sections.