Community-based conservation
Community-based conservation is a conservation movement that emerged in the 1980s, in response to escalating protests and subsequent dialogue with local communities affected by international attempts to protect the biodiversity of the earth. These contentions were a reaction against traditional 'top down' conservation practices, whereby governments or large organisations exert control at a local level, which were perceived as disregarding the interests of local inhabitants.[1] This stems from the Western idea on which the conservation movement was founded, of nature being separate from culture. The objective of community-based conservation is to actively involve and give some control to members of local communities in conservation efforts which may affect them, and incorporate improvement to the lives of local people while conserving areas through the creation of national parks or wildlife refuges.[2]
History
[edit]The conflicts that led to the growth of community-based conservation are indicative of the historical connection between European colonialism and 'classical' conservation. The classical 'national park' model of conservation, first established through the creation of Yellowstone National Park in 1872 and Yosemite National Park in 1890, aimed to preserve what European settlers perceived as 'pristine natural wilderness'. However, this perception largely ignored the widespread anthropogenic changes to these landscapes generated by indigenous land management, and also justified the expulsion of those indigenous peoples.[3] Thus, classical conservation created protected areas based on a highly exclusionary model of protectionism, with an estimated 20 million people displaced from their land.[4] This conservation strategy was used widely until the 1970s when indigenous people started to fight for their rights and land. In 1975 the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) and the World Parks Congress recognized the rights of indigenous people and to recognize their rights of the protected areas.[5] More policy changes came about that increased the rights of indigenous people. Community-based conservation came into action from these changes.
Strategies
[edit]One strategy of community-based conservation is co-management or joint management of a protected area. Co-management combines local peoples’ traditional knowledge of the environment with modern scientific knowledge of scientists.[6][7] This combination of knowledge can lead to increased biodiversity and better management of the protected area.
Building collaborations that promote diversity, inclusivity, and cultural sensitivity enhance institutional and social dynamics. These elements help in managing power dynamics and addressing diverse objectives and perspectives of various stakeholders. Examining partnerships that Foster Diversity, the analysis of United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), and Equator Initiative (EI) projects for integrating biodiversity conservation and poverty alleviation, suggests that effective conservation initiatives often involve a range of 10-15 collaborators.[8] These stakeholders include a combination of local and national NGOs, government entities at different levels, international agencies, and academic institutions. These partners play a role in supporting conservation projects by providing financial support, capacity building, networking opportunities, innovation, technical training, and community health services.
Assessing the role of community participation using a study of community involvement in vegetative-based conservation control sedimentation rates in the Wonogiri Reservoir and surrounding areas published in the Journal of Environment and Earth Science.[9] Examining the methodology used in research, involved a survey with 300 respondents from five villages in the area of the Wonogiri reservoir. Data collection techniques included questionnaires and Focus Group Discussions. The analysis involved validity tests, reliability tests, multicollinearity tests, correlation tests, T-tests, and F-tests etc. to understand the influence of the five capitals and government incentives on farmers' conservation decisions. The research methodology outlined in the article could serve as a useful guide for conducting similar studies in other regions facing similar environmental challenges. The emphasis on the role of government incentives in motivating public participation in conservation efforts was a community concern in all regions.
Ecological and community impacts
[edit]Positive ecological outcomes are evident in areas like the Naibunga Conservancy, Kenya, where community-based conservation efforts were implemented indicating significant ecological benefits such as increased biomass productivity and improved soil nutrient content in conserved areas.[10] Community impacts include better access to education, healthcare, improved community management, and sustainable use practices, including seasonal grazing zones, as well as food security through distributed resources like meat and firewood.
Relevance in research
[edit]Journal article from Journal of Suboptimal Lands titled Community Based Peat Conservation is relevant to researchers interested in environmental conservation, peatland ecosystems, carbon storage, and community involvement in conservation efforts.[11] It provides valuable insights into the importance of protecting peatlands and engaging local communities in conservation initiatives. Researchers could further explore the effectiveness of community-based conservation strategies, the economic benefits of peatland conservation, and the long-term implications of land degradation on peat ecosystems.
Emerging constraints
[edit]The challenges and controversies in horizon scanning reveal a complex landscape of environmental and social issues. With growing violence against environmental human rights defenders and the unpredictability of human migration patterns, the urgency of addressing these issues becomes apparent.[12] Horizon scanning efforts encountered difficulties in balancing novelty with plausibility, impact, and pervasiveness, particularly concerning topics less familiar to collaborators. Moreover, the under-representation of economic and legal expertise in the collaboration underscores the need for diverse perspectives in assessing emerging trends. Discussions often veered into debates over the nature of identified trends and their potential impact, highlighting the nuanced nature of horizon scanning. Amidst these challenges, the significance of community-based conservation emerges as a multifaceted approach that benefits both nature and people. It underscores the inseparability of conservation efforts from ethical considerations and aims to balance biodiversity conservation with human well-being. Ultimately, community-based conservation stands as a strategy for addressing the interconnected crises facing our planet.
See also
[edit]- Community-based management
- Conservation reserves and community reserves of India
- Communal wildlife conservancies in Namibia
- Conservation community
- Indigenous and community conserved area
- Communal Wildlife Conservancies in Namibia
References
[edit]- ^ Brockington, D. (2002) Fortress Conservation: The Preservation of the Mkomazi Game Reserve, Tanzania. International African Institute, Oxford( ISBN 0-253-34079-9)
- ^ Gezon, Lisa. (1997) Institutional structure and the effectiveness of integrated conservation and development projects: case study from Madagascar, Human Organization 56(4), pp. 462–470 (ISSN 0093-2930)
- ^ Cholchester, M. (2004) Conservation Policy and Indigenous Peoples. Environmental Science & Policy 7(3), pp.145-153
- ^ Veit, P. G., Benson, C. (2004) When Parks and People Collide. Carnegie Council for Ethics in International Affairs. 16 Oct. 2009
- ^ Cholchester, M. (2004) Conservation Policy and Indigenous Peoples. Environmental Science & Policy 7(3), pp.145-153
- ^ WPC Recommendation 25 Co-management of Protected Areas, World Parks Congress (2003) "Archived copy". Archived from the original on 2006-09-27. Retrieved 2009-12-11.
{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link) - ^ Child, B.;Jones, B. (2006), Practical tools for community conservation in southern Africa, Participatory Learning and Action 55 (ISSN 1357-938X)
- ^ Berkes, Fikret (2007-09-25). "Community-based conservation in a globalized world". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 104 (39): 15188–15193. doi:10.1073/pnas.0702098104. ISSN 0027-8424. PMC 2000555. PMID 17881580.
- ^ Ainun Jariyah, Nur (2014-09-30). "Partisipasi Masyarakat Dalam Rehabilitasi Lahan Dan Konservasi Tanah (RLKT) Di Sub Das Keduang, Kabupaten Wonogiri, Jawa Tengah". Jurnal Penelitian Sosial Dan Ekonomi Kehutanan. 11 (3): 211–221. doi:10.20886/jpsek.2014.11.3.211-221. Archived from the original on February 16, 2020.
{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unfit URL (link) - ^ Galvin, Kathleen A.; Beeton, Tyler A.; Luizza, Matthew W. (2018). "African community-based conservation: a systematic review of social and ecological outcomes". Ecology and Society. 23 (3). doi:10.5751/ES-10217-230339. ISSN 1708-3087.
- ^ Manalu, Arman (2020-04-01). "Community Based Peat Conservation". Jurnal Lahan Suboptimal: Journal of Suboptimal Lands. 9 (1): 11–22. doi:10.33230/JLSO.9.1.2020.439. ISSN 2302-3015.
- ^ Esmail, Nafeesa; McPherson, Jana M.; Abulu, Latoya; Amend, Thora; Amit, Ronit; Bhatia, Saloni; Bikaba, Dominique; Brichieri-Colombi, Typhenn A.; Brown, Jessica; Buschman, Victoria; Fabinyi, Michael; Farhadinia, Mohammad; Ghayoumi, Razieh; Hay-Edie, Terence; Horigue, Vera (July 2023). "What's on the horizon for community-based conservation? Emerging threats and opportunities". Trends in Ecology & Evolution. 38 (7): 666–680. Bibcode:2023TEcoE..38..666E. doi:10.1016/j.tree.2023.02.008. hdl:20.500.11820/89a17cb7-11ea-4099-8f0e-4ca84478d123. PMID 36935248.
