Section 2. Addressing local needs in conservation

"Why a reserve here and not elsewhere? What will happen to us? What land shall we cultivate to survive?"

Peasant interviewed on the establishment of the Dimonika Biosphere Reserve, Congo, 1991

2.1 Addressing local needs in conservation

Many years of experience in development and conservation initiatives have shown that conservation and the needs of local people cannot be addressed independently of one another. Development work that neglects the sound management of natural resources is building on shifting sands. Conservation work that attempts to take precedence over the individual and communal concerns of local people is likely to be as successful as the proverbial refrigerator sale in the Arctic.

Combining the two - by pursuing conservation and providing for local needs through the same initiatives and activities - calls for great ingenuity, sociocultural sensitivity, sound economic judgment and sufficient time to develop the optimum solutions that work in unique contexts. Importantly, it also calls for the active participation of the relevant stakeholders. Only local people, in fact, can effectively identify both their needs and the specific compromises that would satisfy them while safeguarding conservation. Only local people can bring to an initiative the wealth of local knowledge and skills they possess.

As a start, the management team could consider local livelihoods in relation to the area's environmental resources. Several of the questions, indicators and options for action in this section will explore this topic and set it within a specific socio-political and cultural context. By fitting into existing livelihood systems, the initiative will stand a much better chance of being owned by local people. At best, however, socially sustainable initiatives go beyond this, and provide new opportunities to generate benefits and economic returns. These, in turn, can help to address local needs and provide incentives to conservation. Non-economic benefits should not be underestimated. They may relate to social status, security of tenure, political autonomy, cultural and religious values, and overall quality of life. In some instances, safeguarding indigenous territories from exploitation by newcomers may be a sufficient incentive for local support.

Two basic approaches have been used by conservation initiatives to respond to the needs and interests of local people:

1. 'De-coupling' the interests of the local residents from the natural resources to be conserved. Thus, projects in buffer zones promote alternative income-generating activities, such as a plantation of fast-growing trees that relieve the pressure on forest timber, cash-crop initiatives, poultry farming, etc. This is meant to shift the economic interests of local people away from the exploitation of resources in a protected area. Similarly, the construction of a road, school or clinic may be offered to the locals as compensation for loss of access to natural resources. Also, better farming practices may be promoted in the lands surrounding a conservation initiative, so that local people are less dependent on its resources for their livelihood. This approach, which often calls for substantial investments from outside, has been the one most commonly adopted.

2. 'Coupling' the interests of the local residents with the conservation objectives. Ecotourism, for instance, brings revenues as long as the local environment is well preserved and worth being visited. Selling game trophies to hunters is viable and lucrative as long as the local habitat is capable of sustaining an abundant wildlife population. Medicinal plants can be collected in the wild and sold as long as they are not over-exploited. And so on. With this second approach we can also include initiatives such as game-ranching or wildlife-raising projects (such as crocodile, iguana or butterfly farms). Raising a population of a wild and possibly endangered species in captivity may be a positive contribution to maintaining that species in the wild.

Whether a 'coupling' solution is to be preferred to a 'de-coupling' one, or whether a combination of the two is best, can be established only within a specific ecological and socio-economic context. Yet, in all cases we can be sure of one fact: it is not easy to identify ways in which conservation initiatives can produce benefits and economic returns (the 'coupling' approach).

For millennia, rural communities have evolved careful ways of producing from the land while caring for its integrity and thus sustaining production. Today, changes in technology, population dynamics and the widespread shift from subsistence to market-oriented production have strained many of those relationships. For protected areas, in particular, generating economic benefits to be shared among local stakeholders is the exception rather than the rule. Yet, in most situations these benefits must be apparent - locally and non-locally - to obtain support for the conservation initiative. This is the most daunting challenge facing social sustainability in conservation. Some responses to the challenge will be explored in this section of the resource set.

Such responses can only flourish within a favourable political and economic environment. People have to feel secure in terms of access to resources (security of tenure), and confident of being able to benefit tomorrow from investments made today (political stability). People need to have access to financial means (e.g., credit) and, ideally, to be allowed to use as collateral the natural resources they safeguard with their work. There have to be fair and intelligently-regulated markets, which use incentives and disincentives to assign values to natural resources for their long-term and functional returns, as well as to the health, welfare and culture of people. This section will consider these issues.

This section will also touch on the matter of equity in conservation. Many conservation initiatives involve a range of costs and benefits that are too often unevenly - and inequitably - distributed. Frequently, for instance, local communities with customary rights are forbidden access to resources, and later see such access signed over to commercial companies. Too often, restricted use for pastoralists brings them hardship while agriculturalists gain from an improved water supply from the protected area. Situations such as these are at the root of many failures in conservation.

An effective legislative and regulatory framework would help to prevent inequities by assigning the costs and benefits of conservation in more equitable ways. This could be done by recognizing existing and customary rights; decreasing rather than increasing socio-economic differentiation; and distributing benefits in proportion to both costs sustained and effective inputs of labour, land, capital, etc. A sustainable initiative would carefully regulate this equitable distribution of costs and benefits. Fairness to individuals, not only to user groups or communities, is important to stimulate people to engage in a conservation initiative and to promote long-term investments.

2.2 Key Questions

Key question 2.2.1 How do the natural resources of the conservation initiative contribute to the livelihood of local people?

• How dependent are local people on such natural resources in terms of: food (e.g., by hunting, fishing or using land for agriculture)? Water? Shelter? Fuel? Medicines? Income? Employment? Basic resources in times of emergency? Credit? Other survival needs (as defined by local people)?
• Who actually harvests and uses the natural resources? Are some specific groups more dependent than others on the use of local resources? Which groups (e.g., consider groups of different gender, ethnicity, wealth, education, age, employment status, residence with respect to the boundaries of the conservation initiative)? Are they all dependent on the same resource(s) or on different ones?
• Do the professional team members consider these stakeholders as being different or the same (e.g., women in a community versus men in a community, fishermen versus agriculturists, and so on)? How so? Why?
• Is local livelihood put in jeopardy by the conservation initiative? Are some groups particularly at risk? Are resettlements involved? If so, how does the initiative protect or compensate people? Does the compensation provide for a sustainable livelihood strategy or only for a temporary satisfaction of needs? Does it create a dependence on external resources?

Concept Files, Volume 2

Biodiversity and rural livelihood
Local knowledge in conservation
Social actors and stakeholders
Gender concerns in conservation
Population dynamics and conservation
Indigenous peoples and protected areas
Primary environmental care
Social concerns in resettlement programmes

Key question 2.2.2 How do the natural resources of the conservation initiative help meet people's cultural, religious and identity needs?

• How dependent are local people on the natural resources in terms of social customs? Cultural practices? Religious and ceremonial practices? Wealth and status? Security? Privacy? Recreation? Other identity needs (as defined by local people)?

• Are some specific groups more dependent than others? Which groups (e.g., consider groups of different gender, caste, wealth, education, age, employment status)? Are they all dependent on the same resource(s) or on different ones?
• Do the professional team members consider these stakeholders as being different or the same (e.g., people of different religious background)? How so? Why?

• Do sites or species have particular cultural/spiritual significance? Are these protected in the indigenous or customary system of resource management (e.g., sacred groves, ancestral domains)? Do some groups consider themselves owners or custodians of given habitats or resources? Are there specific myths, rites and cultural habits related to the natural resources?

• Is the local culture or social structure significantly affected by the conservation initiative (e.g., by altering resource sharing patterns)? If so, is the management team discussing with people a way of re-planning the initiative or compensating them?

Concept Files, Volume 2

Social actors and stakeholders
Local knowledge in conservation
Applied ethics in conservation
Indigenous resource management systems
Indigenous peoples and protected areas
Local knowledge for conservation
Population dynamics and conservation

Key question 2.2.3 Do local people perceive any need to conserve natural resources, specific species, habitats, etc.?

• What are the key problems currently concerning the local people? Is the conservation initiative contributing towards solving these problems? Is it making or will it make any problem worse?

• If so, what do local people see as the causes of these problems? Do they see them as being of local or non-local origin? Do they see them as sudden (e.g., a natural disaster) or as structural and ongoing? Do they see them as related to poverty, or related to wealth and power? Do they see them as being at all associated with population dynamics (natural increase or decrease, migration to and from the local area)?

• Do the local people accept that they can/should do something about the problems or do they only see it as a government responsibility?

• Do local people implement/promote/propose/prefer some specific solutions to the resource/environmental problems they perceive?

• Do local people perceive any barriers to solutions? What specifically?

• Is there any local debate on trade-offs between conservation and human needs? Are there any major interest groups? If yes, which ones? Are some in agreement or in open conflict with the conservation initiative?

• Is the local environmental situation perceived differently by different social groups/stakeholders?

Concept Files, Volume 2
Biodiversity and rural livelihood
Indigenous resource management systems
Population dynamics and conservation
Poverty, wealth, and environmental degradation
Equity in conservation
Economic valuation in conservation
Local knowledge in conservation
Primary environmental care

Key question 2.2.4 Are or were there indigenous or customary resource management systems in the area and are they being affected by the conservation initiative?

• If yes, what do (did) they regulate? Access to resources? Decisions over access? Resource-use patterns and limits? Seasonal use? Fallow systems? Types of use? Distribution of products? Negotiation of rules and management of conflicts? Other?

• Who is (was) in charge of making important decisions (e.g., resource allocation, labour sharing, conflict management practices)? Are (were) there traditional chiefs, councils of elders, elected councils? Are (were) social sanctions part of traditional management systems? Are (were) there social incentives for sound management and use of resources?

• Are (were) these systems effective? Do (did) they include some specialized knowledge of biodiversity (e.g., relationships between soil types and crop varieties, uses of medicinal plants, inter-cropping patterns)? Do (did) they include zoning to distinguish acceptable land uses? Do (did) they include ecologically-damaging practices?

• Are there evident trends affecting the indigenous or customary resource management systems? What are they? Are they favourable or detrimental for conservation?

• Does the conservation initiative incorporate/support the indigenous and customary systems of resource management (in part or entirely)?

• Are there major differences in resource management knowledge and skills among different stakeholders? How could these affect the conservation initiative?

• Is there a local conservation ethic? Is there a sense of moral obligation to protect the land and other resources for future generations?

• In general, is the conservation initiative consistent with or in contrast to the aspirations of stakeholders and local communities?

Concept Files, Volume 2

Local institutions for resource management
Indigenous resource management systems
Applied ethics in conservation
Indigenous people and protected areas
Biodiversity and rural livelihood
Poverty, wealth and environmental degradation
Local knowledge in conservation
Sustainable use of wildlife

Key question 2.2.5 Does the conservation initiative affect access to land or resources and the control over them for one or more stakeholders?

• What is the ownership status of the body of resources at stake in the conservation initiative? Is it state property? Is it under the jurisdiction of a central or local administrative body? Is it subject to more than one form of legal status (e.g., national park and indigenous people's reserve)? Is any part of it private or communal property? If yes, is expropriation foreseen? With what compensation?

• Are there differences of view about who owns the land and resources? Are there any unresolved boundary conflicts or conflicts over rules of access?

• Are there traditional patterns of resource use by local groups that will be restricted or stopped by the conservation initiative? With what compensation? Are alternatives provided?

• Whatever the ownership status, is it respected? Are there problems of encroachment and illegal use of resources? Is tenure secured? Are inheritance patterns clear or controversial?

• Does the country have a system of recognized rights and regulations regarding access to and tenure of resources? Is 'communal property' a recognized ownership regime, or are only state and private property recognized? Are 'indigenous territories' recognized?

• Are there land registries or other records of access rights to resources? Are there specific courts and tribunals where disputes over access and tenure can be discussed and resolved? If conflict over access to resources predated the conservation initiative, how will that be affected?

Concept Files, Volume 2

Equity in conservation
Common property, communal property and open access regimes
Indigenous resource management systems
Indigenous peoples and protected areas
Governance and rule of law
Primary environmental care
Biodiversity and rural livelihood

Key question 2.2.6 Are there major economic activities (e.g., mining, timber extraction) in the area which do or could affect the conservation initiative?

• What are these activities? What is their time horizon (short-term exploitation or sustainable exploitation, processing, etc.)? What is the attitude of the people or companies in control of the activities towards the conservation initiative?

• What costs are involved in protecting the conservation area against the negative impact of the economic activities?

• Are the economic activities clearly beneficial to local people and groups? In what ways? How many jobs do they provide (directly and indirectly)? Are there any negative impacts on human health and/or the social environment (e.g., frequent instances of violent behaviour, boom and bust in the local economy)?

• If the activities benefit some stakeholders and affect others (and conservation) in a negative way, are the relevant issues and conflicts well-known and understood? Are they dealt with in an open manner? Who decides on the key matters?

Concept Files, Volume 2

Poverty, wealth and environmental degradation
Economic valuation in conservation
Incentives and disincentives to conservation
Conflicts in conservation
Jobs in conservation
Social actors and stakeholders

Key question 2.2.7 Are there incentives or disincentives to conservation in the local context?

• What types of incentives exist to encourage local stakeholders to support and contribute to the conservation initiative? Are there financial incentives (e.g., taxation, matching grants, subsidies, credit schemes, compensation programmes), social incentives (prestige, use of facilities, access to services), or others? Are these incentives known and available to all without discrimination? Can they be enhanced, made more widespread, made better known?

• What types of disincentives prevent local stakeholders from supporting and contributing to the conservation initiative (e.g., are there commercial pressures that prompt people to see conservation as economically damaging; is there any law assigning rights to people who 'opened up' land by cutting down trees and shrubs)? Can the disincentives be minimized or eliminated?

• Can people afford to contribute to conservation? Do they have access to credit, in particular credit that values the management of natural resources in a sustainable way? Do they have access to technical assistance, training or technology inputs when they need them?

• Are political incentives (gaining a share in decision-making power) likely to encourage stakeholders to contribute to the conservation initiative?

Concept Files, Volume 2

Incentives and disincentives to conservation
Compensation and substitution programmes
Jobs in conservation
Primary environmental care

Key question 2.2.8 What are the actual costs and benefits of the conservation initiative and how are they distributed among the stakeholders?

• What is the economic value of the resources and products lost to users because of the conservation initiative (loss of access, loss of trade, damage by wildlife, etc.)? What are the other costs suffered by them (e.g., loss of employment opportunities, loss of land, constraints on local business and family income)? Are these felt by all or by some groups in particular?
• What are the economic (and non-economic) benefits accruing to stakeholders because of the conservation initiative (job opportunities, social services, soil protection, clean water, abundance of wildlife, etc.)? Are these distributed to all or to some groups in particular? Do the local people see these benefits as real and/or easily achievable?
• Do local people see these benefits as related to conservation efforts? Do they see them as linked to investments and costs related to the initiative?
• As a whole, who benefits and who loses? Are trade-offs known and clear to all? Have the trade-offs been negotiated and agreed upon in any way? Are alternative opportunities provided to affected stakeholders? Are new social conflicts present/expected as a result of the initiative?
• Is the initiative worsening social inequalities (e.g., making poor people poorer, marginal people more marginalized, women less powerful)? Or is it, on the contrary, attempting to compensate for such inequalities?

Concept Files, Volume 2

Equity in conservation
Gender concerns in conservation
Incentives and disincentives to conservation
Economic valuation in conservation
Social concerns in resettlement programmes
Jobs in conservation
Biodiversity and rural livelihood
Social actors and stakeholders

Key question 2.2.9 What contributions can the stakeholders make to the conservation initiative?

• Can the stakeholders offer unique local knowledge and skills for the management of the resources included in the conservation initiative? For instance, do they have their own ways of classifying and qualifying natural resources and habitats? Do local people possess their own ways of monitoring resources?

• Can the stakeholders offer skilled and/or unskilled labour? Can they contribute as a community or as a group, (e.g., by monitoring local biodiversity, surveying for unauthorized access, fire and other hazards)? Can they provide resources and facilities (e.g., for storage, transportation, etc.)?

• Would stakeholders be willing and able to take on the responsibility of providing the conservation initiative with some knowledge, skills, labour or resources, and formalize that responsibility in an agreement with other stakeholders?

• Where outside destructive forces exist, would local stakeholders be willing and able to provide a counter to them (for example by mass mobilization in support of the conservation initiative)?

• To date, has the management team adequately considered/acted on any inputs provided by local stakeholders?

• Can/would stakeholders be able to manage the conservation initiative independently?

Concept Files, Volume 2

Local knowledge for conservation
Indigenous resource management systems
Collaborative management regimes
Primary environmental care
Applied ethics in conservation
Local institutions for resource management

Key question 2.2.10 Are there solid social and economic opportunities to link conservation objectives with providing for local needs?

• Is the conservation initiative compatible with the sustainable use of natural resources (e.g., timber and non-timber forest products, fisheries, fodder, agricultural land, wildlife, etc.)? Has the initiative identified/incorporated such sustainable use options? With what results?

• Where conservation objectives and existing resource uses are not compatible, are there viable alternatives to the latter? Are they acceptable to the stakeholders? Can these alternatives help to retain/encourage a stake in conservation?

• Is the conservation initiative compatible with the creation of local job opportunities and income generation activities (e.g., jobs in park management, ecotourism ventures, local business, primary environmental care projects)?

• Will compensation (e.g., economic or via complementary programmes in health, education, adult training, credit schemes) and incentives be likely and sufficient to make the conservation initiative appealing for local stakeholders? Are the links between the incentives and the initiative clear and well-established? Are the economic options provided by the conservation initiative financially attractive compared with the immediate profits from resource exploitation and/or other non- conservation options?

• Are there factors that prevent stakeholders from deriving an income from the sustainable use of resources (e.g., trade restrictions, animal rights legislation, etc.)?

• Are there economic conditions (e.g., international market prices of a locally-produced commodity) affecting local choices that have an environmental impact? Can anything be done to buffer or minimize such external conditions?

Concept Files, Volume 2
Biodiversity and rural livelihood
Primary environmental care
Sustainable use of wildlife
Sustainable farming, forestry and fishing practices
Compensation and substitution programmes
Ecotourism
Jobs in conservation

2.3 Indicators of local needs being addressed

Indicators	Warning flags
Percentage of local people (or porportion of stakeholders) who see the conservation initiative as acceptable and/or convenient	People willing to face sanctions and fines to oppose the conservation initiative (e.g., encroachment on protected areas) The majority of local people do not see any need for the initiative Strong antagonism or distrust among stakeholders (e.g., local people and project or government agents) based on past experience
All indicators of socio-economic and health status, including income per household, literacy, employment rates, morbidity and mortality, etc.	Severe poverty and poor health in some sectors of society while economically valuable resources are protected by the conservation initiative
All of the above in gender-specific, age-specific, ethnic-specific, or class-specific terms (e.g., socio-economic and health status of men versus women, ethnic majority vs ethnic minority, etc.)
Extent of socio-economic differentiation among local groups	Some local people and groups are benefiting from the conservation initiative, while others are missing out entirely
Local prices of basic foodstuffs and products
Local prices of natural resources which can be extracted in the conservation area	Endangered wildlife from the conservation initiative can fetch a very high price in local markets
Trends of all the above indicators with respect to the conservation initiative. Are matters improving or getting worse since the establishment of the initiative?	Access to the resources comprised in the conservation initiative is denied to locals but permitted to exploiters with strong economic/political connections (e.g., the government signed a contract with a commercial company)
Changes in local land availability and resource use to accommodate the conservation initiative	Forced resettlement of people is envisaged/planned/carried out People migrate out of the area due to reduced access to resources
Indicators of local population dynamics (migration, fertility, mortality). Trends of such indicators versus availability of land and natural resources and with respect to the initiative	Increasing population (because of migration and/or natural growth) in the face of stable or decreasing economic options for an acceptable quality of life
Extent of local knowledge, skills and other contributions incorporated in the conservation initiative	Strong contrast between some management practices recommended by the initiative and customary/traditional ones
Adjustments of the initiative in response to needs/expectations expressed by locals (e.g., regarding rules of access to resources)	Land uses in conflict with the conservation initiative are continued and/or intensified
Economic (and non-economic) value of benefits from the conservation initiative directly accruing to local stakeholders