Building Appropriate Conservation Institutions

In order to prevent negative impacts of livestock-producers on wildlife, both direct through poaching and indirect through competition of livestock and wildlife for grazing, appropriate conservation institutions are needed (click here for discussion of inappropriate institutions). In the last 15 years or so there has been a significant growth in what have become known as community based conservation or wildlife management programmes. Very often these are explicitly concerned with linking the conservation of wildlife to development and human welfare. These have largely been ineffective, however, since:

- they fail to recognise local rights over natural resources;
- they are excessively reliant on market forces to provide incentives for local conservation;
- they are plagued with administrative and bureaucratic problems;
- and they lack popular participation.

Joint management institutions involving the sharing of decision-making authority between local users and government agencies are the sub-set of these initiatives that is most likely to be successful. They are distinctive since they build on the following principles:

- a dual objective of protecting and improving local livelihoods and ecological conditions
- recognition of local community rights to lands and resources
- understanding of the community-resource relationship – i.e. the role of wildlife bio-diversity for livelihoods and in broader cultural partnership and communication is central to their success
- respecting and using local ecological knowledge and practice
- strengthening local institutions
- providing and improving incentives for participation

Institutions that adopt these principles have proven to be effective in terms of achieving measurable bio-diversity conservation and improvements to human welfare. One important point is that that incentives for conservation may have more to do with continued use and exploitation of resources by local people than economic incentives that provide revenue through the use of resources by ‘outsiders’ (tourists and sport hunters). The key to their success is partnership and communication, although again the extent to which such partnerships are based on equity varies. Even under conditions of co-management there are conflicts and there is an unequal balance of power between local people and government agencies. However, recognition of local rights and the search for means to address local needs is a primary step in the equitable sharing of wildlife management responsibility. Examples of co-management institutions are to be found in northern Europe, north America, the Arctic regions, Australia, India and Papua New Guinea.

Related Policy Options

Compensation Schemes

Research/Appraisal Methods

The strengths and weaknesses of co-management institutions can be assessed using combinations of anthropological research and PRA analysis. A key feature of such analysis is to develop an understanding of the ‘community-resource relationship’, and identify the value of the resource to the community (in terms of economic, consumptive and social criteria). Other methods for evaluating and monitoring the efficacy of joint management institutions can draw substantially on participatory techniques for monitoring wildlife populations. These are in their infancy, but have proved effective in establishing local indices for monitoring the changing status of fauna.

Key References

Abbot, J., and Guijt, I. 199. Changing Views on Change: Participatory monitoring of the Environment. Working paper from Sustainable Agriculture Programme, International Institute for Environment and Development..IIED-SARL Discussion Paper No.2, London, IIED. |

Ghimire, K. B., and Pimbert, M. P. (eds) 1997. Social Change and Conservation: Environmental Politics and Impacts of National Parks and Protected Areas, Earthscan Publications, London , United Kingdom.

Kothari, N., Pathak, R., Anuradha, V. and Tanjea, B. (eds.) 1997. Communities and Conservation: Natural Resource Management in South and Central Asia, London: Sage Publication.

Stevens, S. (ed.) 1997. Conservation Through Cultural Survival: Indigenous Peoples and Protected Areas. Washington DC: Island Press.

Marks, S. A.1991. Some reflections on participation and co-management from Zambia’s Luangwa Valley. pp. 346-58, in West, C.P. and Brechin S.R. (eds.) Resident Peoples and National Parks: Social Dilemmas and Strategies in International Conservation. University of Arizona Press: USA.

Marks, S. A.1994. Local Hunters and Wildlife Surveys: a Design to Enhance Participation. Journal of African Ecology, Vol. 32, pp. 233-254.

> > > [Livestock & Environment Toolbox Home]