Community Conservation

Peter WeaferTess WeaferCaylin McKeeCommunity ConservationWhat is community conservation?Programs and partnerships that focus on community-based conservation with strong local involvement.Empower local communities with minimal outside interference.

How did it start?Authoritarian practices didnt allow for involvement of the community or incentives for conservation.Realized educated community could manage themselves for their benefit and the land and animals.

BenefitsInvolvement of local people:Jobs (i.e. park rangers, tour guides)Percentage of entrance fees Protected Areas OutreachThe form of community conservation with the least amount of community authority and most amount of park/government authorityAn alternative to fines and fences approachHas become more mainstreamThe influence of protected area outreach on conservation attitudes and resource use patterns: a case study from western TanzaniaChristopher M. Holmes http://journals.cambridge.org

AbstractInvestigates the attitudes & behaviors of two Tanzanian ethnic groups towards the conservation of Katavi National Park (KNP)How did attitudes & behaviors change after the implementation of protected areas outreach?Degazetting stopping the legal protection of an areaKatavi National Park (KNP) Gazetted in 1974Located in western Tanzania in the northern Rukwa ValleyNo settlement or resource extraction permitted within the 4,500 km2Third largest in TanzaniaMethodsWood is the primary source of fuel for native people5.7% growth rate over past 30 years has lead to encroachment on KNP resources, over extraction outside of KNP and negative feelings towards KNP boundariesInterviews were conducted with open-ended questions about natives perceptions about KNP, perceived levels of park outreach & wildlife conflicts

ResultsKNP outreach had a strong positive association with attitudes towards the parkPeoples that received KNP services/visits were against degazetting KNPThe degree varied throughout ethnicitiesSimilar findings as other protected area outreach studiesProtected area outreach is pivotal in shaping positive conservation attitudes but recognition of outreach can vary greatly within communities

Is protected areas outreach a meaningful part of sustainable tourism?YESNOData supporting the development of increased conservation behaviorsPositive attitudes towards protected areaTangible benefits are appreciated & recognized

Behavior might not be consciously conservationalNegative attitudes towards protected area staffIntangible benefits (conservation) are less appreciated & recognizedProtected areas outreach programs differ across the board but the fact that a protected area has an outreach program in place shows that they are conscious of their impact on the surrounding community and are at least making an effort to mitigate it. We believe that PAO is a meaningful part of sustainable tourism.Co-management community conservationA process in which the people are given the opportunity and responsibility to manage their own resources and define their own goals that affect their well-being

Community-Based Coastal Resource Management (CBCRM) on San Salvador Island, Philippines.- community has a stake in the resources

- partnership with the local community and government is essentialCo-management San Salvador Island, Philippines

380 hectare island

Population in 1996: 1,620 people

64% of the population is dependent on fishing

Known for abundance of tropical fish and warm water making it a tourist destination

Fishing in the 1970s shifted to destructive methods such as blast fishing

Other illegal fishing was also present because of the lack of law enforcement

Co-managementA Peace Corps. Volunteer assessed the needs of the village and surveyed reefsEstablished the stakeholdersOutcome: Proposed Marine SanctuaryHaribon Foundation selected as lead implementation organization:First nongovernmental group to realize the need for co-managementEstablished the Marine Conservation Project for San Salvador (MCPSS)Co-managementMarine Conservation Project:Help train 7 locals from different villages in marine sanctuary and reserve management.

Went to Apo Island for 10 days to learn.

Helped locals gain confidence and motivation to do this in San Salvador.

Co-managementThe members who were trained spearheaded campaign for 126 hectare marine sanctuary and reserve in 1989.Drafted ordinances banning fishing within sanctuary and non destructive fishing in the reserveGovernment Involvement: Masinloc Municipal Council passed the ordinance to help legitimize at a local levelMembers began monitoring for illegal fishing

Co-managementMansinloc Municipal Government:Enabled ordinance to be passed providing legal basis for sanctuary and reserve violators to be apprehended

Mediation of conflicts between village based resource users as well as outside users

Provide boats, radios, and fuel at the request of the San Salvador citizens

Formal creation of patrol team to enforce fisheries laws

Provision of political environment that allowed for the pursuit of community based initiatives

Co-managementOutcomes:National government support in 1993Coral health grew by 23% within first yearWithin the first 8 months 39 violators were caught35 out of the 39 were nonresidentsFish species richness improvedGovernmental relationship strengthenedMain industry now is toursimDevolutionInvolves the transfer of authority over natural resource decision-making and benefits from the central state to locals.The state maintains a role in:Protecting wider public goodsEstablishing the policy, legal and social frameworksFacilitating and regulating private activityMediating conflictProviding legal resourceAnd more

Types of Devolution FoundationsDistrict organizations: local government organizations such as Rural District CouncilsVillage Committees: facilitated by government departments (i.e. Village Natural resource Management Committees in Malawi or Forest Protection Committees in India)Corporate, Legal Organizations: rights holders and/or residents (i.e. Trusts, Conservancies, villagesHousehold-based/ individual management)Self-initiated Organizations: Traditional leaders through residents

ODI (Overseas Development Institute) Natural Resource PerspectivesThe Study = Devolution and Community-based Natural Resource Management: Creating space for local people to participate and benefit?

ODI apart of Natural Resource Perspectives

Evidence fromA number of studies on the impacts of natural resource devolution policies in several Asian and southern African countries from the perspective of local people

Devolution outcomes are assessed in terms of who has greater benefits and decision-making authority.

Shift in Conservation and Natural Resource Management (NRM)Countries moved away from costly state-centered control towards approaches in which local people play a much more active role. Transfer of management authority to local level organizations.

Examines the extent to which devolution has transferred control over NRM decision-making to local people, created the space to accommodate local interests and livelihood needs.

Have devolution policies been favorable for local people?

This study looks at three Asian Countries and eight southern African countriesFocuses of devolutionASIAIndia, China, PhilippinesFocus on forest management under both state and communal tenureConsider both production and protectionDevolution policies in place for 10-20 yearsSouthern AfricaBotswana, Namibia, South Africa, Zimbabwe, Tanzania, Malawi, Zambia, LesothoCover a range of sectors on both community and state land: wildlife, forests and woodlands, and rangelandsDevolution policies in place for 3-10 yearsHas Devolution worked for local people?Are there improved benefits for local communities?

Across most sites in Asia and southern Africa, local peoples views were that devolution policies had yielded only limited benefits for them.

In most instances the state provided benefits as an incentive to encourage people to support activities that met government revenue or conservation interests rather than local livelihood

DIRECT AND INDIRECT BENEFITSDirectAccess to some subsistence and commercial productsShare of revenues from hunting, tourism, sales of timber, etc.EmploymentShare of income from permit and license feesInfrastructural developmentMore productive resource baseIndirectOrganizational development + strengtheningNew alliances (NGOs)Pride and identityGreater VisibilityPolitical empowermentDiversification of livelihoodTechnical and managerial capacity buildingNew communication channelsWho controls and makes decisions?At all sites effort was made to transfer some decision making responsibility over NR from central to local level.

Overall, according to the case studies, and despite rhetoric to the contrary, central authorities continued to drive the NRM agenda.

Government departments, except where NGOs played roles, determined the nature of the shifts in control and the types of power that were transferred.

In most cases, tight-restraint was still put on local decision-making.http://dlc.dlib.indiana.edu/dlc/bitstream/handle/10535/3646/76-devolution-community-based-natural-resource-management.pdf?sequence=1