Community Management Of Protected Areas For Conservation

COMMUNITY MANAGEMENT OF PROTECTED AREAS FOR CONSERVATION (COMPACT): A Promising Approach to Integrated Conservation and Development
Projects (ICDPs) By
Ishaani Sen A thesis submitted to the Graduate School‐New Brunswick Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of Master of Science Graduate Program in Ecology and Evolution written under the direction of Prof. David Ehrenfeld and approved by ________________________ ________________________ ________________________ ________________________ New Brunswick, New Jersey
January 2008

ABSTRACT OF THE THESIS COMMUNITY MANAGEMENT OF PROTECTED AREAS FOR CONSERVATION (COMPACT): A Promising Approach to Integrated Conservation and Development
Projects (ICDPs) by ISHAANI SEN
Thesis Director: Dr. David Ehrenfeld
Integrated conservation and development projects (ICDPs) aim to combine the goals of biological conservation and socio‐economic development. In this thesis I explore the historical context of ICDPs, analyze the debate around ICDPs, and put forth recommendations for future ICDPs. I then go on to examine the Community Management of Protected Areas for Conservation (COMPACT), a suite of ICDPs implemented by the Small Grants Programme of the Global Environment Facility. I analyze the COMPACT methodology and approach to understand why COMPACT initiatives are innovative and successful. I use COMPACT projects implemented in the Sian Ka’an Biosphere Reserve and World Heritage Site as a case study in this analysis. I conclude by highlighting the key aspects of COMPACT’s methodology and approach that have enabled it to successfully combine conservation and development goals.
ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to thank my advisor, Dr. David Ehrenfeld, for his invaluable support and guidance. I would also like to thank Dr. Peter Morin and Dr. Smouse for their help. I am grateful to Dr. Richard Lathrop for his help and guidance. Dr. Laura Schneider has also been a source of learning and support. I would like to thank Dr. Colleen Hatfield, Dr. Julie Lockwood, Dr. Joan Ehrenfeld, and Dr. Ted Stiles for enhancing my academic experience at Rutgers. Many, many thanks to Dr. George Kraemer, Dr. James Utter, and Dr. Yuri Gorokhovich for providing academic and emotional support during my undergraduate days, and beyond. Marsha Morin has been a pillar of support, and I am deeply grateful to her for all her help. I would like to thank all my beloved friends in the graduate program for being such wonderful, inspiring people, especially Kristen Ross and Jean Maire Molina. Thanks to Jim Trimble and John Bognar for technical assistance and computer wizardry. I would like to thank Dr. Marta Aizenmann and Dr. Raquel Cruz for taking care of me over the years. At the United Nations, I owe much to William Kennedy and Dr. Terence Hay‐Edie for invaluable assistance with my research. I owe more than I can possibly repay to my beloved aunt and uncle, Robin Shweder and Dr. Falguni Sen. You have been my guardian angels, and my guiding lights. I could not have done this without your love, support, and blessings. Much love and thanks to my aunt, Mita Hosali, and my cousins, Judy Chen and Aneesa Sen, for all that they have done for me. Thanks to Wairimu Njoya, for being a source of comfort, love, laughter, support and inspiration. My darling friend Abigail Payne: you are the
iii

sister of my heart. I cannot imagine how I would have survived thus far without you. All my love and thanks, always.
To my father, Devapriya Sen, my grandfathers, Nripendra Prasanna Sen, Ajay Prakash Ghosh and Jim Bray, and my grandmother, Bithika Ghosh: your love and blessings are with me always.
To my family, I owe everything. Your love and unstinting support are the greatest gifts that I could ever have asked for. My grandmother, Nandita Sen, my mother, Sikha Ghosh, my sister, Paramita Sen, and my brother, Nirbhay Prashant Sen: you are my everything.
iv

DEDICATION I dedicate this work, as I do everything, to my mother, Sikha Ghosh. You are my janma janmantar ki janani , my mother in every life— past, present, and future.
v

CONTENTS

Abstract

ii

Acknowledgements

iii

Dedication

v

Index of Acronyms

viii

1. Introduction

1

1.1 Definitions of ICDPs

1

1.2 Approach of ICDPs

1

1.3 Controversy regarding ICDPs

3

1.4 The Community Management of Protected Areas for Conservation 3

(COMPACT) Program

2. The Historical Context of ICDPs

5

2.1 Framing the drivers of biodiversity loss: poverty versus consumption 5

2.2 Sustainability as a guiding principle

6

2.3 Linking biodiversity conservation and poverty alleviation

7

2.4 The displacement of sustainable development by poverty reduction 9

2.5 Changes in the international aid environment

10

3. The Debate Around ICDPs

13

3.1 Assumptions

13

3.1.1 Poverty causes biodiversity loss

13

3.1.2 Poverty reduction will reduce biodiversity loss

15

3.1.3 Biodiversity is important to poverty reduction

17

3.1.4 Importance of local threats

18

3.1.5 Importance of participation

19

3.2 Formulation

20

3.2.1 Should conservation and poverty reduction be separate

policy realms?

20

3.2.2 Combining conservation and development goals

23

3.2.3 Trade‐offs between biodiversity and development

27

3.2.4 Sustainable development

28

3.2.5 Institution and capacity building

30

3.2.6 Empowerment and participation

30

3.2.7 The role of protected areas

31

3.3 Execution

33

3.3.1 Effectiveness

33

vi

3.3.2 Equity and participation

34

3.3.3 Monitoring and evaluation

36

3.3.4 Issues of scale

36

3.3.5 Financial sustainability

37

4. Recommendations

38

4.1 Adaptive management as an essential tool for ICDPs

40

4.2 Financial sustainability

44

5. The COMPACT Approach

46

5.1 Innovative approaches and measurable successes

49

5.1.1 Combining conservation and development goals

54

5.1.2 Funding

54

5.1.3 Landscape approach

54

5.1.4 Equity, participation, and capacity building

55

5.1.5 Sustainability

56

5.1.6 Conservation and development benefits

57

5.1.7 Learning

58

5.1.8 Monitoring and evaluation

58

6. Case Study: Sian Ka’an Biosphere Reserve and WHS

60

6.1 Democratic institutional arrangements

60

6.2 Monitoring

61

6.3 Inclusive communication strategies

62

6.4 Diverse and multi‐tiered project portfolio

63

6.5 Capacity building

64

6.6 Learning

65

6.7 Education, knowledge, and dissemination

67

6.8 Documented successes

69

7. Conclusions

71

8. Bibliography

73

9. Appendix

78

vii

CAS CBD CBO COMPACT CoP7 GBO2 GEF ICDP IUCN LCB MA MDGs NGO SGP UNESCO WHS WWF

INDEX OF ACRONYMS Council for Support and Monitoring Convention on Biological Diversity Community‐based organization Community Management of Protected Areas for Conservation Seventh Conference of the Parties Global Biodiversity Outlook 2 Global Environment Facility Integrated Conservation and Development Project The World Conservation Union Local Consultative Body Millennium Ecosystem Assessment Millennium Development Goals Non‐governmental Organization Small Grants Program United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization World Heritage Site World Wide Fund for Nature

viii

1
1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 Definitions
The term ‘integrated conservation and development project’ (ICDP) is a ‘collective label for a new generation of projects that started to go outside park and reserve boundaries and pay particular attention to the welfare of local people’ (McShane and Wells 2004). The ICDP approach attempts ‘to ensure the conservation of biological diversity by reconciling the management of protected areas with the social and economic needs of local people’ (Wells and Brandon 1992). ICDPs represent ‘an approach to the management and conservation of natural resources in areas of significant biodiversity value that aims to reconcile the biodiversity conservation and socio‐economic development interests of multiple stakeholders at local, regional, national and international levels’ (Frank and Blomley 2004). According to Salafsky and Margoluis (2004), ICDPs are not a ‘specific conservation intervention’; rather, they are ‘a loose cluster of strategies and tools brought together to achieve both conservation and development goals’.
1.2 Approach ICDPs can be put in 3 general categories, based on their specific objectives: those
that seek to 1) conserve species; 2) maintain ecosystem health; and 3) promote human livelihoods (Robinson and Redford 2004). ICDPs have a multitude of approaches, but over the last decade they have developed a distinct ‘menu’: those that focus on sustainable development objectives use the approaches of poverty alleviation, capacity

2
building, and participation and empowerment; those that have conservation objectives focus on park protection and management, and management of natural resources (Robinson and Redford 2004). The term ‘integrated’ might be a misnomer, since some ICDPs aim to accomplish development using conservation methods; some are conservation projects with development involvement; and some have dual objectives of both (Robinson and Redford 2004).
Conservation activities can be grouped into 4 broad categories: direct protection and management; law and policy; education and awareness; and changing incentives (Salafsky and Margoluis 2004; Salafsky et al. 2002). Each category contains approaches; each approach employs certain strategies; and each strategy uses certain tools (Salafsky and Margoluis 2004; Salafsky et al. 2002). ICDPs employ approaches from all 4 categories, but certain approaches are more common (Salafsky and Margoluis 2004).
Within the direct protection and management category, the most commonly used approaches are protected areas (PAs), managed landscapes, and species and habitat restoration (Salafsky and Margoluis 2004; Salafsky et al. 2002). Within the law and policy category, ICDPs commonly use enforcement approaches (Salafsky and Margoluis 2004; Salafsky et al. 2002). Within the education and awareness category, informal education approaches are most common (Salafsky and Margoluis 2004; Salafsky et al. 2002). Within the changing incentives category, ICDPs most commonly use approaches associated with conservation enterprises, economic alternatives, conservation payments, and nonmonetary values (Salafsky and Margoluis 2004; Salafsky et al. 2002).