Campbell, B., Yaap, B. and Sunderland, T.

Agreement on:Livelihood concerns and future development goals need to be at the centre of any viable conservation strategy

Disagreement on: Legitimacy of local peoples

involvement in conservation efforts and protected areas

The impacts of PAs on local communities

Whether projects should have conservation and development goals

Conservation without development is untenable◦ Poverty widespread and pervasive

Community-based approaches do not provide enough attention to conservation

ICDPs don’t give enough attention to livelihoods

Top-down and no inputs from people

The “landscape approach”Do we use “best practice” in C&D initiatives? (Bruce Campbell)

What has happened on the ground? (Terry Sunderland)

Can payment systems work? (Thuy & Lisa Petheram)

MacArthur Foundation

1. Acknowledging trade-offs

2. Acknowledgement that threats limiting success invariably come from external forces

Figure 1. Mean variable scores

1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5

Acknowledging trade-offs (V4)

Economic & health benefit (V5)

Community involvement (V11)

Adaptive management (V18)

Local threat & solution (V8)

Market access (V16)

Working at multiple levels (V7)

Landscape scale (V3)

Community heterogeneity (V13)

Understanding livelihoods (V14)

Immigration (V17)

Clear, measurable goals (V1)

M&E (V20)

Trandisciplinary planning (V9)

Project length (V19)

Local capacity building (V12)

External threats (V6)

Policy (V10)

Permitted NR use (V15)

Ultimate goal (V2)

Acknowledging trade-offs

Acknowledging external threats

We need to acknowledge that conservation and development goals have some very clear tradeoffs

We do need to reinvent C&D initiatives◦ Landscape approaches◦ No lip service to livelihoods◦ Command and Control◦ PES

Voluntary Conditional