As signatories to the Convention on Biological Diversity, most of the world's governments have recognised the needs to conserve natural resources for the benefit of present and future generations. They have recognised the importance of planning and managing these resources at the landscape level, adopting an ecosystem approach that includes making optimal use of land and water used for production, while enhancing the management of those needed primarily to conserve biodiversity. In this context, protected areas are a tool for promoting effective planning of land and water use so that they can better contribute to broader socio-economic development plans and programmes in the territory where they are located. This broader landscape approach enables Protected Areas to be linked to poverty alleviation strategies and action plans.
Some of the key discussions at the Vth IUCN World Parks Congress revolved around the concept of ‘pro-poor conservation’. Roe and Elliott (2003) defined this as “harnessing conservation in order to deliver on poverty reduction and social justice objectives”, while Fisher (2003) described it as “optimising conservation and livelihood benefits with an explicit emphasis on contributing to poverty reduction”. Scherl (2003) stressed that establishment and management of protected areas should at least not make the living conditions of poor rural and indigenous communities within and adjacent to these areas worse off than they are already (i.e., at least do no harm). IUCN states that pro-poor conservation is not just an ethical response but “an opportunity to contribute to the growth of the environmental sphere of sustainable development by proving its fundamental importance to economic and social outcomes in some of the world's poorest but most biologically diverse regions” (IUCN 2003).
In the past, the material and ethical consequences to local communities of protected area establishment and management have rarely been considered: many protected areas were established and are still managed at the expense of the poor, who have forfeited traditional rights over resources, lost empowerment to participate in management decisions, and are denied fair compensation for their stewardship of resources and opportunity costs (Nelson and Hossack 2003; Geisler 2003; Shepherd 2004). Mindful of this, the Vth IUCN World Parks Congress adopted as a principle the following statement:
“protected area establishment and management should contribute to poverty reduction at the local level, and at the very minimum must not contribute to or exacerbate poverty” (Recommendation 5.29, see Annex 1).
How can protected areas be expected to play a meaningful role in sustainable development by actively delivering on poverty reduction for local communities? Most protected area managers in developing countries are already struggling to make ends meet in the face of limited financial and human resources. Even the issue of fair compensation for loss of traditional access to natural resources through protected area establishment is an ethical and judicial minefield (Wilkie, Redford and McShane, in prep.). The minimum principle of ‘at least do no harm’ embraced at the Vth IUCN World Parks Congress may be difficult enough to achieve, especially in terms of on-going compensation to local communities for opportunity costs.
The examples presented above describe some of the ways protected areas are contributing to local livelihoods. But more can be done if new partnerships, governance structures, financing mechanisms and legal frameworks are developed. Discussions at the Vth IUCN World Parks Congress made it clear that actions are needed at three levels to enable protected areas to play a greater role in sustainable development:
Many remote areas important for biodiversity are reachable only by foot, and protected area infrastructure such as roads can lead to new economic opportunities for the rural poor. They may find that the new access to markets opens up many new opportunities for economic advancement.
Photo: ©J. A. McNeely
In remote parts of a country, protected areas may provide the only lines of communication to the rest of the country. Where such communications systems have been installed, they should be made available to the local people, at least on an emergency basis.
Photo: ©J. A. McNeely
At site level, protected area authorities and managers could:
Undertake social impact assessments (including poverty impact assessments) during establishment, and during routine management effectiveness evaluations, of protected areas;
Support integrated conservation and development programmes, using innovative approaches;
Increase investment in capacity-building among local communities for protected area management;
Encourage active participation by local communities in management.
At national level, governments could:
Put in place legal frameworks for the recognition of the right to tenure of land and other property (e.g., natural resources) by indigenous and local communities (Box 10);
Develop mechanisms to evaluate ecosystem services provided by protected areas and factor these into national accounting systems, leading to incentives and rewards for stewardship of national public goods such as watershed protection. This will only contribute to poverty reduction where the poor have title to land and other property;
Encourage inclusive protected area governance systems that recognise customary and traditional rights and give a voice and empowerment to disadvantaged groups. This was reflected in Recommendation 5.16 (on good governance) of the Vth IUCN WPC;
Strengthen and expand protected areas that are co-managed by, for example, government agencies, indigenous and local communities, NGOs or the private sector, or even among state governments as in the case of trans-boundary protected areas. This was reflected in Recommendation 5.25 (co-management) of the Vth IUCN WPC;
Give greater recognition and develop legal frameworks to support community conservation areas;
Encourage the establishment of Category IV, V and VI protected areas, biosphere reserves, extractive reserves, etc., that allow for sustainable resource use;
Compensate for reduced investment in public infrastructure and services in protected areas. Brazil, for example, has established a fiscal mechanism, the ICMS Ecologico, to compensate rural municipalities for loss of employment, value added and tax receipts associated with the creation of protected areas;
Integrate protected areas into larger scale land-use planning. Land uses that complement and support each other can contribute to the long-term environmental, economic and social sustainability of a region (Redford et al. 2003). In fact, managed landscape mosaics, typical of protected areas in some European countries, may be a viable model for at least some tropical countries (Sayer 2000). Such landscape (or ecosystem) scale approaches offer the possibility of linking local initiatives such as community-conserved areas and extractive reserves with regional and national land-use planning. Appropriate institutions to manage protected areas and surrounding lands within complex landscapes need to be put in place, providing fora for the key stakeholders to come together, express their views and cooperate in new partnerships to develop and implement mutually-acceptable management strategies (IUCN, 2001; Wells and McShane, in prep.);
Give greater recognition of the role of protected areas in Poverty Reduction Strategies and the Millennium Development Goals.
Sibuyan Island is one of the few remaining centres of biodiversity and endemism in the Philippines. Under the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act of 1996, indigenous people's groups have been granted ‘Ancestral Domain’ rights of access and security over natural resources. Sixty percent of these Ancestral Domains overlap with the Mt. Guiting-Guiting Natural Park. These communities are also being assisted with capital, credit, and training in natural resource management.
Source: Tongson and Dino (2004)
Local people in many parts of Indonesia continue to harvest fruits, nuts, and other products from the forest.
Photo: ©J. A. McNeely
An important part of any protected area management enterprise is providing education to the younger generation, thereby building support and appreciation for the role played by protected areas in national development.
Photo: ©J. A. McNeely
At international level, governments, international aid agencies, NGOs and the private sector could:
Better define the linkages between protected areas and poverty;
Develop new financial mechanisms to support stewardship of international public goods provided by protected areas such as watershed protection, biodiversity conservation, and carbon sequestration. The Global Environment Facility acknowledges that protection of wild resources is an international public good that places burdens on the poor, but it has so far failed to put in place compensatory mechanisms (LWAG 2002). New international financial mechanisms could take the form of payment for ecosystem services, biodiversity subsidies, debt-for-nature swaps, or conservation concessions or easements financed by international bodies (Box 11).
Conservation International, a US-based NGO, has pioneered a concept of conservation concessions whereby payments are made directly to a developing country or its citizens to compensate for revenue or employment lost by not exploiting a given resource. In Guatemala, for example, local communities are being given incentives, including payments, scholarships and employment, to conserve dwindling forests in the Maya Biosphere Reserve.
Source: LWAG (2002). See also Ellison (2004).