| main |
Synthesis:
"Management systems: parks, protected areas, community-based development"
(Session III (April 12-21) of the "People, Parks, and Mountain Tourism" e-consultation series co-organised by The Bridges-PRTD, Namche Conference and Asia Pacific Mountain Network)
Moderation and Synthesis by: Dr. Khadka Basnet
Contributors: Giuliano Tallone, John Shores, Nakul Chettri, Suman Rai, Empar Alos Alabajos, N.S. Jodha, Seth Sicroff, Bhaskar Singh Karky, Kishor Pradhan, Stephan Fuller, Paromita Ghosh, Krishna Poudel, Ajay Sharma, Jane Pratt, Krishna Hari Gautam, Wolfgang Bayer, Shashanka Saadi, Sushil Kumar Sharma, Elli Broxham, Kavita Rai, Sylviane Jackson
Technical support provided by: MF-Asia Moderator,Asia Pacific Mountain Network
Major issues raised by the lead paper
There are many `biodiversity’ projects, which are working on only community development (e.g., drinking water, health and sanitation) and have nothing to do with biodiversity or wildlife or plants (Kothari et al.1998). It seems that the pendulum have swung too far toward community development if we consider the conservation approach of `isolated protected areas’ during 1970s and 1980s. The questions are: How the community development and biodiversity conservation can be balanced? How far or to what extent the conservation biology can integrate with socio-economy (community development) and vice versa while maintaining their identity ? Twenty one people participated and they provided 24 postings.
Discussions
Participants concentrated their discussions mainly on: Origin and evolution of protected areas (e.g., National Parks) and their management approach, community management (community-based conservation, community development, balance between traditional top-down and bottom-up approach of management, challenges and options of community-based management.
Introduction
I would like to start with Giuliano Tallone’s overall view of management system of protected areas, the most effective approach of biodiversity conservation. Effectiveness of biodiversity conservation depends on-larger-scale approach, good information, and research,
-good management policies, programs, strategies and schedule implementation, and
-participation of local people and their involvement throughout the process.This view was maintained throughout the discussion by highlighting challenges, options, and future direction.
Origin and evolution of protected areas and park management
Protected areas, started either as hunting reserves for elite groups or virtual exclusion areas between two territories have a long history of several centuries (John Shores). Now, they have evolved to the highest form by expanding equity, opportunity, and participation of all stakeholders (including local community) such as in landscape-level planning of conservation.
Nakul Chettri emphasized on community involvement, development and communication among stakeholders in PAs management. He suggested to:
a) involve local people from the conceptual phase of the establishment of PAs to avoid park-people conflict,
b) make people aware of rules and regulations and notifications,
c) increase cooperation among stakeholders, and so on.
Suman Rai argues that participation is highly dependent on how one practices it. Very often, communities are made to participate in introduced ideas that come with new rules and regulations, which are not familiar to local people (Nakul Chettri). One of the challenges is to educate communities about their rights, responsibilities, and initiatives in their part.
Stephan Fuller argues that:
i) there is no alternative to community co-management for successful PA in any developing country,
ii) almost every PA (north and south) needs an alternative livelihood program for local communities for their acceptance and support, and
iii) international support for PAs should be continued if there are global benefits (e.g. for protection and recovery of endangered species).
However Krishna Poudel points out that community management is not a new phenomenon. To maintain this bottom-up approach, local people themselves should identify the community needs not the outsiders. The issue of balancing the biodiversity conservation and community development should be judged through the opportunities of local people's livelihood.
(John Shores). While community-based conservation has been well accepted around the globe, biodiversity advocates are losing confidence in the community co-management experiments because the results have been disappointing. Biodiversity conservation through community development is an experimental process. Success or failure depends on many factors including place, time, community, socio-economy, etc.
Kavita Rai says community managed projects fail when complex interrelationship and power balance within the community is not understood. Major challenge in biodiversity conservation is, as John Shores puts it, `Every success in biodiversity conservation is temporary and every failure is final’. Therefore questions like Who is a "local" and who represents them? What do we mean by "community"? What happens when the community grows? What happens when technology changes? … are always important.
Nakul Chettri cites an example of Bhutan – which is effectively managing its 40% of the total land under PAs with strong/effective policy and not necessarily with
community participation. Community participation alone is not the only means for effective PA management.
More important are commitment, dedication and sense of ownership that are possible only through real involvement of community (John Shores, Elli Broxham, Nakul Chettri). Wolfgang Bayer also stresses that conservation process should involve various stakeholders not only specialists. He thinks "conservation through use" is probably the most promising approach (e.g., trophy hunting, grazing etc) in managing biodiversity.
Competition in tourism business
Empar Alos Alabajos raised the question of competition among tourism service providers in Annapurna Conservation Area and suggested limiting a destructive competition. However, John Shores says that tourism enterprises always face a higher risk because the tourist spending is purely discretionary. Risk from competition could be managed by creating exclusive contracts but other set of problems appears. N.S.Jodha calls this competition as non-price competition, which is essential but it can be eliminated by regulatory enforcement:
a) by meeting park’s policy of size and sophistication in constructing buildings in/around the park,
b) by not allowing outside agency (that will out-compete the low-resource locals) to own tourism facilities,
c) mutual understanding and agreement in local level and by mutual cooperation and adjustment between two or more countries in case of transboundary ecotourism.
Challenges and options of community-based management/development
Community-based conservation has numerous challenges including:
1) Buffer zone (community) development is the focus of present conservation agenda. Promoting economic development creates an attraction to migrants. If the development is too far from the protected area, the communities nearest to the park will not share the benefits. If it is too close to the park, then the population growth in the buffer zone will be very fast (John Shores).
2) One of the challenges is how to sensitise or educate local community (e.g., community forest user groups) about their rights, responsibilities, and initiatives (Suman Rai). Bhaskar Singh Karky informs that university students and researchers conduct a large number of studies freely in protected areas. Are results used in planning and preparing conservation programs?
3) Lack of fair monitoring or evaluation of any program is a major problem. Seth Sicroff raises the issue of self-censorship and dependence on bureaucratic consent even in research and development. Sylviane Jackson and Kavita Rai add that self-interest and greed (self-censorship and cover-ups) prevail among poor and bureaucrat alike. Layers of contradiction are common in community forest of Nepal (in an article in The Kathmandu Post).
4) Suman Rai and Krishna Poudel explain that community participation actually has been driven by external agenda and in most of the cases, communities are convinced to participate in`introduced ideas and projects’ that come with new rules and regulations, which are not familiar to local people (Nakul Chettri).
5) Funding is a major issue in protected area management system. Stephan Fuller says that sustainability of global biodiversity is a global responsibility and it needs to be funded globally (by funding agencies) for a long-term solution. Ajay Sharma points out that PAs are protected according to the wishes of funding agencies, which often do not want to integrate even the issues that have strong linkages (such as forests, PAs, population control, education and livestock). In such case, local community will have no `say’ in prioritizing programs.
There are numerous options including:
6) Jane Pratt points out that the funds required for sustainability should come from community-based tourism and alternative livelihoods. But Shashanka Saadi asks if it is funds or the ownership and management of community that would save the forests.
7) Sushil Kumar Sharma emphasizes that the conservation authorities should include traditional system in preparing management strategies for PAs.
8) Kishore Pradhan provided a means of educating people or raising their awareness about biodiversity conservation. Radio is one of the effective media to spread messages in mountainous countries like Nepal. However, the program needs monitoring and evaluation - how successful the program has been? What changes has the program brought among the target groups?
9) Paromita Ghosh’s suggestion was that since most of the world's biodiversity hotspots are located in poor developing countries where population is increasing at a much faster pace than the developments, a drastic population check in these countries can be one of the most effective steps towards biodiversity conservation.
Conclusion
PA management system is a dynamic process. There can be no universal model. Today, community-based conservation (conservation through community development) has been considered as the best option of PAs management. Success or failure of any model depends on many factors primarily space and time. For example, ACAP has become a good model of community-based conservation whereas Bhutan’s protected area system has become an example of effective conservation without much community participation.
| main |