A comment from Prof. Jeff Sayer arising from the Hutton, Adams, Murombedzi article in Forum for Development Studies No.2-2005

The intergovernmental environmental conventions and the international conservation, non-governmental organizations are constantly struggling to come up with the ultimate formula, action plan, or strategy that will enable them to solve, for all time, the problem of conserving the world's biodiversity.

I recently completed a review of the extent to which the ecosystem principles of the Convention on Biological Diversity had been implemented on the ground (Sayer and Maginnis, 2005). The surprising conclusion was that a few of the people involved in active conservation activities on the ground had any real awareness of the CBD principles. However, in many situations, the underlying ideas that are contained in those principles were being applied by practical conservation managers in the field. The conclusion of our study was that where democratic processes operate adequately, where economies are growing and people's condition of life is above a minimal threshold and where civil society conservation organizations are effective then the Principles of the Biodiversity Convention were tending to emerge spontaneously in field conservation initiatives. Attempts to apply the 12 principles of the CBD in an externally designed “project” context never seemed to meet with much success.

In this excellent paper Hutton, Adams and Murombedzi, have provided a thought-provoking commentary on the current debate about whether conservation aims can be met best by reinforcing protection of parks and reserves or whether the alternative paradigms of working through local community-based initiatives has more promise. They conclude correctly that the protagonists in this polarized debate are attempting to shoehorn all conservation activities into simplistic categories. The paper concludes that better management of protected areas, and more skilful engagement with local communities, are both essential elements for success.

I believe that the environmental conventions have done a disservice to conservation in creating the myth that internationally negotiated formulae can solve real problems on the ground. The big international conservation organizations, in their valiant attempts to communicate the conservation message through the media, have also been guilty of dumbing-down the conservation debate. The reality is that conservation, like politics, has to be the “art of the possible”. We are always dealing with messy situations on the ground, where there are conflicting interests, institutional weaknesses and an inability to predict the impact of external shocks to the system. Cookie-cutter approaches are doomed to fail.

I spend a lot of time traveling in the tropics and visiting conservation programmes. I've come to the conclusion that where people stick with an area for a long time and use intelligence and ingenuity in trying to solve the problems we often see a degree of success. In situations where externally imposed projects come in with their log frames and rigid constructs for a short period of time, successes are much less frequent. Good conservationists, in my opinion, usually succeed by muddling through (Lindblom, 1959) in very difficult situations. The people who succeed, whether in supporting protected areas or in mobilizing communities are usually the ones who build local alliances, understand the context, and work intelligently to adapt to the local situation.

I sometimes think that the present-day international conservation narrative is reminiscent of the central planning of the Soviet Union in its closing years. The conservation movement has a touching faith in conservation by slogan, conservation by presidential decree, and especially in conservation by plan. In reality, conservation is achieved by changing peoples’ behavior. This usually requires a mixture of coercion, incentives and persuasion. Hutton and his co-authors are correct in concluding that we should not be making a stark choice between protectionism and community engagement. We need to learn the lessons that are emerging from experience with both approaches. Protected areas will always have to be embedded within areas where local communities have rights and interests. Communities will always have to be involved in any protected areas that have implications for their livelihoods. The issue is to have the flexibility and capacity to work out the most appropriate mix of solutions in any given situation. All good conservationists are muddling through, the paper by Hutton, and his co-authors, will provide them with valuable food for thought.

June 2006. Prof.Jeff Sayer is Senior Associate, WWF International, Geneva: jsayer@wwfint.org

Refs:

Lindblom, Charles E. 1959. "The Science of 'Muddling Through'" Public Administration Review (19(2): 79-88.

Sustainable, June 2006, contents page