Peter Weafer Tess Weafer Caylin McKee Community
Conservation
Slide 2
What is community conservation? Programs and partnerships that
focus on community-based conservation with strong local
involvement. Empower local communities with minimal outside
interference.
Slide 3
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.
Slide 4
Benefits Involvement of local people: Jobs (i.e. park rangers,
tour guides) Percentage of entrance fees
Slide 5
Protected Areas Outreach The form of community conservation
with the least amount of community authority and most amount of
park/government authority An alternative to fines and fences
approach Has become more mainstream
Slide 6
The influence of protected area outreach on conservation
attitudes and resource use patterns: a case study from western
Tanzania Christopher M. Holmes http://journals.cambridge.org
Slide 7
Abstract Investigates 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 area
Slide 8
Katavi National Park (KNP) Gazetted in 1974 Located in western
Tanzania in the northern Rukwa Valley No settlement or resource
extraction permitted within the 4,500 km 2 Third largest in
Tanzania
Slide 9
Methods Wood is the primary source of fuel for native people
5.7% growth rate over past 30 years has lead to encroachment on KNP
resources, over extraction outside of KNP and negative feelings
towards KNP boundaries Interviews were conducted with open-ended
questions about natives perceptions about KNP, perceived levels of
park outreach & wildlife conflicts
Slide 10
Results KNP outreach had a strong positive association with
attitudes towards the park Peoples that received KNP
services/visits were against degazetting KNP The degree varied
throughout ethnicities Similar findings as other protected area
outreach studies Protected area outreach is pivotal in shaping
positive conservation attitudes but recognition of outreach can
vary greatly within communities
Slide 11
Is protected areas outreach a meaningful part of sustainable
tourism? YESNO 1. Data supporting the development of increased
conservation behaviors 2. Positive attitudes towards protected area
3. Tangible benefits are appreciated & recognized 1. Behavior
might not be consciously conservational 2. Negative attitudes
towards protected area staff 3. Intangible benefits (conservation)
are less appreciated & recognized Protected 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.
Slide 12
Co-management community conservation A 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
essential
Slide 13
Co-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
Slide 14
Slide 15
Co-management A Peace Corps. Volunteer assessed the needs of
the village and surveyed reefs Established the stakeholders
Outcome: Proposed Marine Sanctuary Haribon Foundation selected as
lead implementation organization: First nongovernmental group to
realize the need for co- management Established the Marine
Conservation Project for San Salvador (MCPSS)
Slide 16
Co-management Marine 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.
Slide 17
Co-management The 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 reserve Government Involvement: Masinloc Municipal
Council passed the ordinance to help legitimize at a local level
Members began monitoring for illegal fishing
Slide 18
Co-management Mansinloc 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
Slide 19
Co-management Outcomes: National government support in 1993
Coral health grew by 23% within first year Within the first 8
months 39 violators were caught 35 out of the 39 were nonresidents
Fish species richness improved Governmental relationship
strengthened Main industry now is toursim
Slide 20
Devolution Involves 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
goods Establishing the policy, legal and social frameworks
Facilitating and regulating private activity Mediating conflict
Providing legal resource And more
Slide 21
Types of Devolution Foundations District organizations: local
government organizations such as Rural District Councils Village
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,
villages Household-based/ individual management) Self-initiated
Organizations: Traditional leaders through residents
Slide 22
ODI (Overseas Development Institute) Natural Resource
Perspectives The Study = Devolution and Community-based Natural
Resource Management: Creating space for local people to participate
and benefit? ODI apart of Natural Resource Perspectives Evidence
from A 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.
Slide 23
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 countries
Slide 24
Focuses of devolution ASIA India, China, Philippines Focus on
forest management under both state and communal tenure Consider
both production and protection Devolution policies in place for
10-20 years Southern Africa Botswana, Namibia, South Africa,
Zimbabwe, Tanzania, Malawi, Zambia, Lesotho Cover a range of
sectors on both community and state land: wildlife, forests and
woodlands, and rangelands Devolution policies in place for 3-10
years
Slide 25
Has 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
Slide 26
DIRECT AND INDIRECT BENEFITS Direct Access to some subsistence
and commercial products Share of revenues from hunting, tourism,
sales of timber, etc. Employment Share of income from permit and
license fees Infrastructural development More productive resource
base Indirect Organizational development + strengthening New
alliances (NGOs) Pride and identity Greater Visibility Political
empowerment Diversification of livelihood Technical and managerial
capacity building New communication channels
Slide 27
Who 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.