Sustainable Livelihoods and Biodiversity in Developing Countries
Discourse versus reality:
conservation and
livelihoods in biodiversity
hotspots around the world
July 2011
Milestone report 6.2
Dr. Dave Huitema & Dr. Jetske Bouma
Institute for Environmental Studies, VU University Amsterdam
Seventh Framework
Programme (FP7/20072013) under grant
agreement No. 211392
For more information visit our website:
http://www.livediverse.eu
0
A globalizing world
We live in an increasingly globalized world. This means that connections between
the inhabitants of this planet, their economic behaviour, and their governments are
increasingly dense. This offers risks and opportunities. On the one hand problems
travel faster: a food production problem in a certain country can greatly affect
multiple other countries as their production systems are increasingly interlocked in
long and not always transparent chains. On the other hand, the solution capacity
when we manage to collaborate becomes much faster too. The news that there is a
problem in a certain country can reach inhabitants of another country within
minutes and the news can mobilize their efforts to help and address the issue.
This situation forms an important backdrop to discussions about biodiversity.
Biodiversity is a typical global good: the whole world benefits from biodiversity
protection but the costs of protection are borne by few. Was biodiversity
conservation historically a national issue, international agreements and increasing
depletion rates have made biodiversity protection a matter of global concern.
Biodiversity is best conserved in protected areas. Historically, extraction of resources
from inside these protected areas was prohibited. This so called ‘fortress
conservation’ approach assumed that protection and livelihoods could not go
together and that conservation required a strict ban on resource use. Later, more
inclusive discourses on conservation emerged that suggest a more active role of
communities in biodiversity protection and a more synergetic relation between
livelihoods and biodiversity conservation.
1
Meta trends in biodiversity conservation
A discourse is a way of thinking about biodiversity conservation that holds currency
in certain circles at a given moment, and that informs policy making. Given the
increasing influence of the international level, discourses are increasingly global,
carried by a ‘policy community’ consisting of actors such as UN Secretariat of the
Convention on Biodiversity, the IUCN, leading academics, etc. Some discourses are
so influential that they cause certain ‘meta trends’. Several discourses can exist at
the same moment, but they are often replaced with the next one after a certain
period of time, having affected policies and created a temporary trend. In our work
for LiveDiverse we observed several influential discourses at work, such as:
•
Positive synergies: biodiversity can be protected while improving local
livelihoods. Poor people actually benefit from biodiversity protection since
they depend most on the ecosystem services that biodiversity provides.
•
Community co-management, where local stakeholders or communities
become involved in state or donor led conservation efforts, or manage
natural resources themselves. In this way of thinking, local knowledge is
highly valued and communities cooperate voluntarily in attaining
conservation goals.
•
Network thinking. Here the analysis is that biodiversity hotspots in itself are
valuable, but that a certain minimal scale is required to sustain such hotspots
(a core area) and that connecting corridors to other hotspots are required for
the exchange of genetic material.
These discourses all interact in one way or another with fortress thinking, which
is also still around, as evidence by our Indian case study.
2
Discourse versus reality
Each discourse contains assumptions about the world and highlights the importance
of certain effects in reality. Our approach has been to seek evidence that speaks to
the veracity of some of these assumptions, with the hope of influencing the policy
debate on biodiversity conservation. For example, the synergy discourse holds that
conservation and livelihood improvement go hand in hand, thus suggesting that
biodiversity conservation is a viable strategy for improving livelihoods. In our work
we sought to empirically assess the relationship between biodiversity conservation
and local livelihoods, with specific emphasis on the poor, where livelihood
improvement is of greater concern. In the same vein, the discourse on comanagement assumes that community members voluntarily cooperate and share in
natural resource management. We have analyzed the potential for community comanagement, by analyzing the willingness to cooperate in conservation and assess
the incentives for community self-enforcement of restricted resource use. Comanagement also assumes that communities are able to engage in the multilevel
governance processes that drive biodiversity decision making. Our empirical work
has subsequently analyzed how communities interact with higher jurisdictional levels.
And finally we studied the effects of corridor thinking. What happens if natural
corridors are implemented on the ground? Does it result in a more holistic approach
to biodiversity conservation? But here too, we asked questions about the way in
which local communities are involved.
3
Empirical basis: the household survey and field experiments
To collect information about biodiversity-livelihood linkages in the study sites we
developed a household survey. The main goal of the survey was to collect data about
household livelihood strategies and ecosystem dependence, and to gain insight into
the distribution of poverty at village scale. For the survey a selection of study villages
was made within the study sites. The criterion for village selection was location near
or inside a protected area (max 15 km from a protected area). Per site we selected 410 villages. Within each a random selection of 10-20% of the households was made.
Terraba basin, Mutale basin, Warna basin, Ba Be and Na
Costa Rica
South Africa
India
Hang, Vietnam
Protected
areas
Boruca indigenous
territory, TerrabaSierpe wetland,
Makuya park,
Lake Fundudzi
Chandoli
national park
Ba Be national
park, Na Hang
nature reserve
Household
survey
4 villages, 123
households
4 villages, 96
surveys
4 villages, 159
surveys
10 villages, 292
surveys
In addition, we collected qualitative data on biodiversity-livelihood linkages and
conservational impacts on local livelihoods through focus group meetings and
interviews (see Trepp 2010, Nirain 2010, Van Marrewijk 2011). Finally, we conducted
a field experiment in Costa Rica to analyze the role of institutional context,
specifically the current organization of protected area management, on people’s
willingness to voluntarily contribute to sustainable resource use.
For more
information about the experiment, please see Bouma and Ansink (2011). For more
information about the household survey see Bouma (2011) and Bouma et al. (2011).
4
Empirical basis: case studies on decision making
In the LiveDiverse project, we analyzed several instances of decision making on
protected areas. The areas were a given for the work reported here, and in each
area we selected one recent decision process that had the potential to reveal
interesting findings on the way biodiversity trends are implemented in local settings.
Costa-Rica
Discourse &
trends
Decision
process
analyzed
More
information
South Africa
India
Vietnam
Synergy, comanagement,
natural networks
Synergy, comanagement
Fortress
conservation,
Natural networks
Co-management,
natural networks
Terraba Sierpe
Management
Plan
Decisions on
benefits from the
Makuya Park
Chandoli WS
Resettlement,
Chandoli and
Sahyadri statuses
Ba Be and Na
Hang Integration;
Ba Be status
Uribe (2010)
Medvey (2010)
Kouwenhoven
(2010)
Mukhtarov (2010)
Each case study was based on extensive sets of structured interviews with
participants in the decision process, archive analysis, secondary literature review,
and some of the focus groups that have taken place. Methodologically the diversity
of the trends and the wildly varying circumstances under which they are
implemented compromises the external validity of our conclusions. Our findings can
thus best be understood of examples of what can happen if meta trends are
implemented, but do not indicate that this is always the case under any
circumstances. The examples we present are however part of a growing body of
knowledge on biodiversity conservation trends and their effects in diverging contexts
and can still provide opportunities for lesson drawing for other localities.
5
Key finding 1: The carriers of meta trends are NGOs and governments
The way in which the discourses and related meta trends were made to bear upon
concrete decision processes was very different. In both the Costa Rican and
Vietnamese case studies, the ‘long arm’ of environmental NGOs was observable,
whilst in both the South African and Indian cases it was not visible so directly. In
Costa Rica and Vietnam, environmental NGOs played a role from a position of
strength. The organizations involved have considerable resources and work
according to a set repertoire of solutions and they look for windows of opportunity
to apply that solution (integral planning, network thinking). The connection to the
local agendas was in both cases somewhat ambiguous as the plan that was
developed and approved in Costa Rica was largely similar to an older existing plan
and despite gaining backing from local partners has relatively little chance of being
fully implemented, whereas the connection between the two natural areas in
Vietnam comes across as somewhat farfetched. In India and South Africa the trends
we observed in the case study areas were not influenced directly by international
NGOs who produced ideas, but they have been set at higher government levels in
national and regional legislation, and the agents carrying the trends are
bureaucracies which are tasked with the duty of implementing such policies. In all
cases, such bureaucracies and their political leaders need to sanction the intended
changes in policy. Those seeking the implementation of meta trends have various
different strategies at their proposal for carrying their proposal beyond the idea
stage (see Huitema and Meijerink 2009), such as the selling of their ideas through
framing, the building of coalitions, the creation and manipulation of venues, and
networking.
6
The table below provides an overview of how these strategies were used in the
decision processes we analyzed by providing poignant examples
Strategy
Observed very poignantly in which case?
Selling ideas through
Chandoli, India. Proponents of the Tiger Park status played
framing and use of
into the agenda of a new incoming government which had the
windows of opportunity
tiger as a symbol.
Coalition building
Terraba Sierpe, Costa Rica. Both opponents and proponents of
the management plan tried to sway groups to become part of
their coalition. Fishermen were first part of the prodevelopment coalition, then joined the conservation coalition.
Venue creation and
manipulation
Ba be and Na hang, Vietnam. Proponents of a corridor
between the two areas attempted to use international fora
for decision making to increase the status of their ideas.
Networking
Makuya, South Africa. Forum members closely aligned with
tribal chiefs, tribal chiefs well connected to provincial officials.
The examples of strategies provided here are by no means exhaustive. A complete
analysis of strategies used by various actors can be found in the underlying reports
(Kouwenhoven 2010, Medvey 2010, Mukhtarov 2010, Uribe 2010).
7
Key finding 2: Protecting biodiversity does affect local livelihoods
Influential reports like the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment suggest that
protecting biodiversity improves local livelihoods, but we found a more mixed result.
Across the sites, the survey indicates that biodiversity protection is perceived as
benefiting local livelihoods only when it contributes to creating tourism gains. When
tourism development is limited, or when it does not trickle down to the community
level, gains are perceived to be small. The local costs of protected area
establishment on the other hand can be substantial: the use and extraction of
natural resources from protected areas is often curtailed and sometimes prohibited,
so that community members have to travel farther and/or risk fines from officials
monitoring the park. In Chandoli national park, India, entire villages were relocated
for park establishment, and we have indications that the socio-economic
vulnerability of local communities increased, while their relocation from the forest
might have even reduced biodiversity protection since park rules are hardly enforced
(Trepp 2010). In Vietnam, communities living inside Ba Be national park and Na Hang
nature reserve were not displaced, but since traditional practices of slash and burn
agriculture were prohibited without accompanying investments in agricultural
intensification, food insecurity is high and there are indications that socio-economic
vulnerability has increased. In Costa Rica community members active in the
recreational sector report benefits from protected area establishment but the future
of local fishermen remains unclear (Nirain 2010). In the Boruca indigenous territory
the main threat to local livelihoods comes from the envisioned construction of a
large hydropower dam upstream, the establishment of the protected area as such
seems to have had few livelihood impacts.
8
In South Africa, Makuya park was established as part of the Kruger park during
Apartheid, which fundamentally altered livelihoods and access to resources in many
ways. Currently, communities hardly benefit from the tourism attracted by the
Kruger park area, and the socio-economic vulnerability of local communities is high
(Van Marrewijk 2011).
Overall, self-reported income poverty is high in the LiveDiverse study sites and
especially in Vietnam and South Africa a large share of households does not have
sufficient to eat around the year. Since we also found that especially the food
insecure perceive the collection of products from nature as being very important for
their livelihoods, ensuring access to protected areas for the collection of non-timber
products seems important to avoid adverse livelihood effects. Finally, our analysis
suggests that promoting alternative energy sources might help protect biodiversity,
as firewood is the main source of fuel. For more information, see Bouma et al. (2011)
Costa Rica
South Africa
India
Vietnam
% below the regional poverty line
25%
49%
50%
62%
% food insecure households
10%
70%
15%
40%
4%
10%
9%
36%
1%
3%
0%
10%
64%
62%
25%
8%
Vegetables, mushrooms
24%
34%
6%
31%
Medicinal plants, dyes
22%
26%
2%
3%
Timber, construction material
7%
43%
33%
41%
Firewood
2%
88%
82%
91%
Flowers
3%
1%
13%
1%
% that finds collection important
41%
95%
85%
76%
% collected in protected area
(incl. Illegal collection)
17%
17%
47%
74%
Households collecting:
Meat
Fish
Fruits
9
Key finding 3: Communities play little role in decision making
The analysis of decision processes (see Mukhtarov and Huitema, 2011) shows quite a
wide variety in capabilities between actors to play a role in a multileveled decision
process. One constant factor though was the absence of ‘the community’ in these
processes, at least in the terms one would normally conceive of it, that is, as a group
of citizens living and working together. The reason why this is the case differs per
situation.
In Costa Rica the case study area is relatively sparsely populated, which can be
understood against the background of the illegality of human habitation in large
parts of the area. This also functions as a hurdle against organization, as this would
raise alarm bells over inhabitation of the area. Thus the nearest thing to a
community as just defined can be found in the villages on the edges of the natural
area, and some professional associations, such as that of the mussel fishermen. The
local mayor and the association of fishermen played prominent roles in the
development of the protected area management plan, both sharing an interest in
the economic opportunities that the area offers or will offer. In India, several
villages were to be affected by the upgrade of the area to Tiger Reserve status, but
their possibilities and will to organize against this were very limited. The economic
prospects in the area are relatively marginal, and communities did not have the
connections to realize how other communities have fared under relocation, which is
not that well at all. It took the efforts of an NGO to organize and unite the relocated
villages and to start demanding compensation for their loss of livelihood. Part of the
reason for this was the fragmentation of the various villages over different casts, and
their diverging levels of compensation, which took away the incentive of village
leaders to organize the community.
10
In South Africa, one key assumption undergirding the arrangements made for
dividing the proceedings from hunting is that tribal leaders and the Makuya forum
represent their communities well. Our observations indicate however that
representation of the various communities does not function satisfactorily in the
eyes of all tribes, and that the selection process of forum members leaves much to
be desired and awareness of its existence is not widely spread. In Vietnam the main
avenue for organizing communities are along party lines. Party channels are
supposed to allow for representation of the various involved interests, but there is
very little transparency as to how the balancing of interests is achieved. In the case
that was studied this does not figure prominently as the idea to create a corridor
between Ba Be and Na Hang is faltering in the international arena and the national
bureaucracy as well.
The absence of communities in the decision processes has consequences for the
outcomes as it makes them politically vulnerable. Chandoli, India is the clearest
example of decisions that ride roughshod over the interests of the villages of the
areas. Although they are formally to be compensated, a simple look at the budgets
available shows that this is an empty promise. The consequence is that communities
are destroyed, the livelihood of the inhabitants severely affected, and that nature
protection gets a bad reputation. In South Africa, where the official philosophy is comanagement, the choice of channelling this through tribal authorities places too
great demands on the tribal mechanisms of decision making. For instance, the
division of hunting proceedings is not transparent and these proceedings might or
might not benefit the community as a whole.
11
Key finding 4: Protecting biodiversity, affecting communities?
The analysis of the various decision processes in the case study areas leads to
different conclusions about the degree to which conservation of biodiversity has
been or will be achieved, and conclusions about the degree to which communities
have been affected by these decisions. The table below presents an overview.
Case
Policy change achieved?
Conservation of biodiversity
achieved and communities
affected?
Terraba Sierpe
Yes, plan accepted.
Implementation of the plan in
Management Plan
question, effect on community
unclear.
Decisions on
Yes, benefits to be shared
Not necessarily, money not divided
benefits from the
with community,
in a transparent way, leading to
Makuya Park
decisions taken by forum
contention between communities
Chandoli WS
Resettlement,
Chandoli and
Sahyadri statuses
Yes, status of protected
Biodiversity better protected, but
area upgraded
both relocated villagers and the
ones staying behind severely
affected.
Ba Be and Na Hang
No, plans to get Ba Be and No corridor created, but perhaps
Integration; Ba Be
Na Hang recognized
not a serious problem for
status
internationally together
biodiversity. Communities not
faltered.
affected, although recognition
might improve tourism income in
Na Hang.
12
The resulting picture is a mixed bag of effects and outcomes. Policy change with the
intent to enhance biodiversity is actually achieved in three out of four cases, and
only rejected in the Vietnamese case. In this sense the case studies show how meta
trends are getting incorporated in national and regional policies; they are having
policy effects (see for more information Mukhtarov and Huitema, 2011). In terms of
the effects on communities, the picture is diverse. The adopted plan might remain a
paper reality in Costa Rica even if it contains interesting ideas about the zoning of
various use functions and holds promise of creating synergy between the various
users of the area. In South Africa, ideas about co-management and payment for
ecosystem services are perverted by a combination of tribal politics and a hands-off
approach of the provincial government. The Indian case shows that the
implementation of fortress conservation is also complicated as several villages refuse
to relocate from the Tiger Park, and that villages that have been relocated suffer
serious effects.
13
Key finding 5: Community co-management may (eventually) work
Effective co-management requires that people have a (livelihood) incentive to
protect nature, a willingness to collaborate with park management and the capacity
to self-enforce sustainable resource use. In addition, effective co-management
requires that communities can influence biodiversity threats. When threats are
regional or even international, community management alone will not be sufficient
to protect biodiversity and representation is needed at higher governance scales.
Given these conditions, our findings suggest that community co-management of
biodiversity protection could eventually work in some of the study sites. In the South
African site, the incentive to cooperate in conservation seems limited since people’s
livelihoods are not connected to the protected area and most households survive on
government grants. In India local user rights are not acknowledged and given the
forced displacements that accompanied protected area establishment, the
willingness to collaborate with the park authorities is low. In Vietnam, protected
area management is rather top-down and non-participatory and the room for
community self-management seems small.
We do see a potential for community co-management in Costa Rica, as the
communities located on the edges of the protected areas have strong livelihood
linkages, are willing to collaborate with park management and seem able to selfenforce sustainable resource use. There are more positive signs. When asked
whether they would like to be involved in protected area management, the majority
of respondents in all areas say they would. Hence, even when full community comanagement might not be feasible, involving local communities in protected area
management should always be tried.
14
Overall relevance for the policy conversation
The main conclusion from our analysis is that the design of biodiversity conservation
policies should not follow simple templates – which all trends provide to a degree –
but should be much more reflective of the local context. Below we provide some
attention points for such reflective design:
•
Biodiversity protection and livelihood improvement do not necessarily go
together, and when conserving nature special care needs to be taken to avoid
negative livelihood effects, especially for the poor. There is evidence that
poor people do not benefit from improved resource management, but
instead bear most of the costs.
•
Community co-management may improve biodiversity protection and help
avoid negative livelihood trade-offs, but only if people have a clear incentive
to contribute to conservation, if their user rights are formally acknowledged,
if they are willing to collaborate with park management, if community
interests are well represented at higher governance levels and if the interests
of poor and powerless are safeguarded at community scale.
•
Stakeholder and community involvement should not serve to sell certain
preconceived ideas about biodiversity conservation, but should be used to
actually discuss them and tailor them to local circumstances.
•
Fixed assumptions about communities should be avoided. Villages are not
necessarily communities, and when a community exists one cannot assume
that they are unitary actors, but one needs to look for vault lines in
communities and take them into account.
15
References
Bouma, J.A., Joy, K.J., Vu Cong Lan, Lopez Ramirez, A. and Steyn, M. (forthcoming). Poverty, livelihoods
and the conservation of nature in biodiversity hotspots around the world. In: Nature’s Wealth –The
Economics of Ecosystem Services. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bouma, J.A. 2011. The use of household survey methods for assessing biodiversity-livelihood linkages.
LiveDiverse Policy brief series No. 1, www.livediverse.eu
Bouma, J.A. and Ansink, E. 2011. Biodiversity protection and community co-management. Background
document 1 to Milestone report 6.2. IVM- VU Amsterdam. www.livediverse.eu
Bouma, J., and Huitema, D. 2010. Socio-Economic Vulnerability: Conservation-Development Trade-Offs
and Agency in Multilevel Governance Processes. LiveDiverse Conceptual Note Work Package 6. . IVM
VU Amsterdam. www.livediverse.eu
Kouwenhoven, R. 2010. Tigers, People and Politics: A Multi-level Governance Analysis of Chandoli
National Park. MSc.-thesis IVM-VU Amsterdam, www.livediverse.eu
Mukhtarov, F., Huitema, D., Medvery, J., Uribe, M., Kouwenhoven, R. and Funke, N. 2011. Agency in
biodiversity conservation. International meta-trends and park decisions in developing countries.
Background document 2 to Milestone report 6.2. IVM- VU Amsterdam. www.livediverse.eu
Nirain, A. 2010. Direct payments for biodiversity protection and improving livelihoods in the Térraba
River Basin, Costa Rica. MSc.-thesis IVM-VU Amsterdam, www.livediverse.eu
Medvey, J. 2010. Benefits or burden? Community participation in natural resource management in
the Greater Kruger Park area. MSc.-thesis IVM-VU Amsterdam, www.livediverse.eu
Mukhtarov, F. 2011. Local communities and the proposal of integration between the Na Hang and Ba
Be Protected Areas in Vietnam. IVM-VU Amsterdam www.livediverse.eu
Trepp, E. 2010. Chandoli National Park and Resettlement: Impacts on Local Communities in
Maharashtra, India. MSc.- thesis IVM-VU Amsterdam, www.livediverse.eu
Uribe, M 2010. Terraba Sierpe Wetland’s Management plan: struggling for policy change and its
implementation. MSc.-thesis IVM-VU Amsterdam, www.livediverse.eu
Van Marrewijk, L. 2011. Climate Smart Agriculture in the Mutale Basin, South Africa. MSc.-thesis IVMVU Amsterdam, www.livediverse.eu
16