ECOLOGICAL SOUNDING

© 2003 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journals/geb

Global Ecology & Biogeography

(2003)

12

, 89–92

Blackwell Science, Ltd

Three challenges for a real people-centred conservation

KATRINA BROWN

School of Development Studies, University of East Anglia, Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K., E-mail: k.brown@uea.ac.uk

ABSTRACT

Many commentators attest to a paradigm shift in biodiversityconservation, away from exclusive protected areas towardsmore people-centred or community-based conservation. Thishas been referred to as ‘new conservation’. However, newconservation could be thought of as an attempt to re-labeland re-package conservation and to ‘get people on board’existing strategies. According to its critics even so-callednew conservation policy, practice and institutions remainexpert-driven, undemocratic and autocratic. I argue that

for new conservation to become reality, then more funda-mental changes in priority-setting, decision-making andorganization are required. This paper presents threechallenges for a real people-centred conservation: a morepluralist approach to understanding knowledge and valuesof different actors, greater deliberation and inclusion indecision-making, and a remodelling of institutions to supportconservation.

Key words

community conservation, conservation policy,decision-making, institutions, pluralism.

The complementarities and conflicts between biodiversityconservation and human development continue to be thesubject of heated academic and policy debates as articulated,for example, in recent exchanges in the journal

ConservationBiology

about the role of indigenous people in forest con-servation and long-term opportunities for sustainabledevelopment in Amazonia (Redford & Sanderson, 2000;Schwartzman

et al

., 2000; Terborgh, 2000) and in

Science

onhuman populations and species richness in Africa (Balmford

et al

., 2001; Faith, 2001; Huston

et al

., 2001). There is ageneral agreement that conservation policy and practice haschanged significantly in the past two decades or so, andpeople-oriented approaches have been widely accepted andadopted. Authors disagree, however, about the extent towhich this represents a meaningful paradigm shift ormere window-dressing by major conservation interests andplayers ( Jeanrenaud, 2002). Although there is evidence of aresurgent protection paradigm (reviewed and critiqued byWilshusen

et al

., 2002) it seems likely, as Adams & Hulme(2001, p. 198) have commented, that the new conservationnarrative, characterized as community conservation, is ‘hereto stay’.

According to Hulme & Murphree (1999), so-called newconservation represents three major shifts in thinking andpractice. These include a move away from a state-centric to acommunity level focus; a reconceptualization of conservationbased on ideas of sustainable development, utilization andecological dynamics; and incorporation of neo-liberalism

ideas and market forces to ‘make conservation pay’. Accord-ing to this description, new conservation is manifest in arange of approaches and practices in all continents of theworld since the 1980s. These include integrated conservationand development projects (ICDPs), community-based con-servation, community-based natural resource management,extractive reserves and wildlife utilization. These activitiestake place both within and outside existing protected areas.They can broadly be characterized as ‘people-centred’ con-servation. They have experienced various results in terms ofsuccess and effectiveness in reaching their dual objectives. Ipropose that if these people-centred conservation approachesare to be successful in meeting both conservation and devel-opment objectives, then more fundamental changes in theirdevelopment, design and practice are necessary. In this shortpaper I identify the need for more pluralist understandingsof different knowledges, values and worldviews to informconservation; for the adoption of deliberative inclusionaryprocesses to decide and implement conservation; and for theneed to transform conservation institutions to support a moredynamic, adaptive and integrated approach to conservationand development. This recognizes conservation as a socialand political process that necessitates full consideration ofthe economic, political and social, as well as ecological andenvironmental, impacts of different courses of action and thatthere exist a wide range of stakeholder and societal interestsin conservation decisions (Ghimire & Pimbert, 1997; Song &M’Gonigle, 2001; Brechin

et al

., 2002).

90

K. Brown

© 2003 Blackwell Publishing Ltd,

Global Ecology & Biogeography

,

12

, 89–92

The first challenge for people-centred conservation con-cerns the ways in which different understandings, meaningsand values of biodiversity, the environment and nature areintegrated and applied in devising conservation priorities andaction. More pluralist understandings of value systems cansupport conservation in a number of ways, as outlined byGadgil

et al

. (1993). The concept of traditional ecologicalknowledge (TEK) is particularly useful as it differs from theway local or indigenous knowledge is normally conceptual-ized and used to support conservation, which is a very staticperspective of knowledge as an input into externally definedstrategies and priorities. A TEK approach, as developed byBerkes (1999), requires that we take account of how know-ledge is embedded within the management strategies, socialinstitutions and ultimately the worldviews of different actors.Thus it links traditional or local knowledge more directly tovalue systems and is therefore more useful in supporting bothpolicy and practice for conservation and development. It alsoviews knowledge and practice and institutions as evolvingand adapting to changes in context and circumstances (Berkes

et al

., 2000).An example of how even quite recently-settled migrants

acquire knowledge, learn and adapt their resource manage-ment practices is found in a study of colonist, or pioneer,farmers in eastern Amazonia (Muchagata & Brown, 2000).Although farmers may have migrated to a very differentenvironment, within a decade they were found to be able toidentify and use many forest species that have becomeextremely valuable within their livelihood systems. The devel-opment of knowledge in these communities conforms tomodels of TEK, where taxonomic knowledge of species,soil types and ecosystem attributes is acquired rapidly,but the shared understandings of ecological processes andthe social institutions to manage them takes much longer todevelop.

I suggest that a form of ‘fusion knowledge’, neither strictlylocal or traditional, nor external or scientific, may be mostuseful in developing locally appropriate (in terms of cultureand resources) and adaptive systems of managing diversebiological resources. It is often at the interface between differentways of knowing and different forms of knowledge thatinnovations in resource management and practice can be made.For example, in the case of the colonist farmers, support forthe development of institutions, such as farmers’ groups, tomanage forest biodiversity could potentially make significantdifferences to the evolution of more sustainable naturalresource management practices at the forest frontier inAmazonia. These opportunities to bring together outsiders’ andlocal knowledge to development new management practicesconstitute fusion knowledge, which is close to what we havedescribed earlier as ‘knowledge-in-action’ (Blaikie

et al

.,1997), and which is potentially an important focus forconservation.

The second challenge for real people-oriented conservationis to find fair and just means of including the plural values,knowledge and interests of the different stakeholders recogn-ized above. In order to do this, we need to move beyond‘participation’ as practiced normally in attempts to integrateconservation and development. Many forms of participationpracticed are still passive and sometimes even coercive, and anumber of recent publications have criticized and dissectedthe application of participation in conservation projects. Weneed to apply methods and tools for deliberative inclusionaryprocesses that radically transform decision-making andmanagement processes and open up co-management frame-works to allow for learning and collective action. ‘Deliberation’means careful consideration or discussion. Decision-makingand planning thus require social interaction and debate.Deliberation implies that different positions of stakeholdersare recognized and respected. Participants are expected toreflect on and evaluate and re-evaluate their and others’ posi-tions, and the process of deliberation aims to bring aboutsome kind of transformation of values or preferences and tofoster negotiation between participants in order to reach adecision. ‘Inclusion’ is the action of including differentparticipants in these processes.

A broad range of procedural techniques, mechanisms andmethods have developed under the broad umbrella of ‘delib-erative inclusionary processes’. These have developed and areapplied in many different areas of environmental manage-ment and local governance, in both developed and developingcountries. They include, for example, citizen’s juries, focusgroups, issue forums, participatory rural appraisal, visioningexercises and various types of workshops and workinggroups. These methods typically put an emphasis on workingwith small groups of people; focusing on the future and oncommon ground; urging full attendance and participation;incorporating the widest possible range of interests; and seek-ing public commitments to action (Holmes & Scoones,2000). They are seen widely as being important in leadingto fairer processes and ‘better’ decisions (meaning more effi-cient, effective, equitable and legitimate) and to the empower-ment of marginalized actors, for example women, which issometimes viewed as an end in itself. These methods providea means of accommodating plural actors and their values andknowledge into decision-making and management.

In the case of a marine protected area in Tobago in theeastern Caribbean, a range of techniques were employed tofacilitate conflict resolution and instigate consensus baseddecision-making and management (Brown

et al

., 2001). Anumber of methods, including stakeholder analysis, focusgroups, surveys, workshops and multi-criteria analysis, wereused to include all relevant stakeholder groups and enabledebate and transparent decision-making. The key lessonsfrom this process were threefold. First, inclusion of all relev-ant actors necessitates a very thorough and rigorous analysis

Three challenges for a real people-centred conservation

91

© 2003 Blackwell Publishing Ltd,

Global Ecology & Biogeography

,

12

, 89–92

of stakeholders: it requires that many different techniques areused to encourage people to participate and to articulate theirviews. Secondly, building trust in the process and betweendifferent stakeholders takes time but is vital for the success ofboth process and outcome. Participants have to be confidentthat their views are heard and noticed, and decision-makingand priority setting have to be transparent and accountable.Thirdly, this is an ongoing, adaptive and learning process.Consensus and agreement is not an end-point nor necessarilydesirable. Rather, the process must evolve as necessary andfind ways of dealing with conflicts and disagreements that donot impose ‘consensus’.

At Buccoo Reef Marine Park, this approach, which wastermed ‘trade-off analysis’, was developed as a means ofenabling stakeholders to evaluate options and debate anddiscuss their priorities in an open and transparent decision-making framework that engaged local communities andgovernment agencies in a comanagement process. However,these approaches can only go so far and enabling institutionaland legal frameworks are necessary to support the decisionsmade through such deliberative and inclusionary processes,otherwise the processes and the stakeholders become under-mined and disempowered (Tompkins

et al

., 2002). Thispresents a third challenge to real people-centred conservation.

This third challenge is to create new institutions for con-servation and development that are flexible and adaptableand which are able to manage complex ecological systemsand accommodate diverse stakeholder interests and values.Institutions provide both the backdrop for, as well as thelocus of, all conservation actions. Institutions in the broadestsense mean the formal and informal rules that govern humanbehaviour. They are made up of formal constraints (rules,laws, constitutions) and informal constraints (norms ofbehaviour, self-imposed codes of conduct) and their enforce-ment characteristics. They are often referred to as ‘rules inuse’. Clearly, then, the institutional characteristics of conser-vation initiatives range from the designation and constitutionof protected areas, relevant legal and organizational frame-works, the formal and informal property rights and rulesthat govern the management of biodiversity; and the normsand traditions of the different stakeholders and actors whoimpact on it.

We have used the notion of institutional fit in analysingthe appropriateness of the conservation institutions trying toimprove the integration of human needs with biodiversity.The concept has been developed from the work of writerssuch as Berkes, Folke and Holling (see Pritchard

et al

., 1998),drawing on insights from ecology, political science and insti-tutional economics. Institutions do not ‘fit’ the ecosystemsthey seek to manage for a number of reasons. These includethe complexity and dynamics of ecosystems; uncertainty overfuture changes; factors such as irreversibility and resilienceand disturbance. Furthermore, there are also problems of

fit

between

the different institutions involved, in terms oftheir objectives, interests and worldviews, and their scaleof operations.

Even in a relatively successful initiative in people-centredconservation, such as the development of extractive reservesin Brazilian Amazonia, these problems of institutional fit haveconstrained the benefits, both to local people and in terms ofbiodiversity conservation (Brown & Rosendo, 2000). Eventhese innovative institutions have problems in dealing withand reconciling external pressures such as those imposedby markets, and because of the different worldviews of keyactors in conservation and development, ranging from theWorld Bank and international environmental organizations,to grassroots movements of migrants and farmers.

Thus, significant innovations in institutions are necessaryfor people-centred conservation. Institutions have to workacross scales in both spatial and organizational or socialterms. They have to link global and international interestswith local needs and development priorities. They have toevolve and adapt and be based on principles of social learningin order to cope with ecological and social complexity. Mostinstitutions are not good at this; they are often based ontradition and on applying constraints to behaviour ratherthan being flexible and facilitating. However, we do have suc-cessful examples, and the evolution of the co-managementarrangements in places as diverse as southern Africa andCaribbean islands demonstrate that better-adapted, appropri-ate, ‘well-fitting’ institutions are possible. A concern for socialand environmental justice and a much more dynamic andadaptive ecological understanding are necessary prerequisitesfor institutions to meet the dual demands for conservationand development.

In conclusion, the policy and institutional landscape ofconservation and development is rapidly and quite signi-ficantly changed and changing. A wide range of differentstrategies and approaches will be necessary in the future toreconcile and trade-off the needs and demands of globalto local societies. These will include traditional protectedareas, but increasing more integrated and people-centredapproaches to biodiversity conservation. I have outlined onlythree of the challenges for more successful, meaningfulpeople-centred conservation. These are not exclusive and arenot the only challenges. Very serious issues such as economicand cultural globalization and global environmental changeprovide the backdrop against which resilient and adaptivepolicy will evolve. Furthermore, issues of power inequalitiesand politics may act as serious constraints to these newapproaches. However, integrated and pluralist approaches tonew conservation are necessary if it is to bring benefitsboth to society and to biodiversity conservation. If thisnew conservation is really to make a difference, then morenovel approaches to priority setting and implementation areneeded.

92

K. Brown

© 2003 Blackwell Publishing Ltd,

Global Ecology & Biogeography

,

12

, 89–92

REFERENCES

Adams, W.M. & Hulme, D. (2001) If community conservation is theanswer in Africa, what is the question?

Oryx

,

35

, 193–200.Balmford, A., Moore, J.L., Brooks, T., Burgess, N., Hansen, L.A.,

Williams, P. & Rahbeck, C. (2001) Conservation conflicts acrossAfrica.

Science

,

291

, 2616–2619.Berkes, F. (1999)

Sacred ecology: traditional ecological knowledgeand resource management.

Taylor & Francis, Philidelphia.Berkes, F., Colding, J. & Folke, C. (2000) Rediscovery of traditional

ecological knowledge as adaptive management.

Ecological Appli-cations

,

10

, 1251–1262.Blaikie, P.K., Brown, P., Dixon, P., Sillitoe, M., Stocking & Tang, L.

(1997) Knowledge in action: local knowledge as a developmentresource and barriers to its incorporation in natural resourceresearch and development.

Agricultural Systems

,

55

, 217–237.Brechin, S.R., Wilshusen, P.R., Fortwangler, C.L. & West, P.C.

(2002) Beyond the square wheel: toward a more comprehensiveunderstanding of biodiversity conservation as a social and politicalprocess.

Society and Natural Resources

,

15

, 41–64.Brown, K., Adger, W.N., Tompkins, E., Bacon, P., Shim, D. & Young, K.

(2001) Trade-off analysis for marine protected area management.

Ecological Economics

,

37

, 417–434.Brown, K. & Rosendo, S. (2000) The institutional architecture of

extractive reserves in Brazil.

Geographical Journal

,

166

, 35–48.Faith, D.P. (2001) Overlap of species richness and development

opportunity does not imply conflict. Science debate responses toHuston,

et al.,

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi /eletters/293/5535/1591, October 2001.

Gadgil, M., Berkes, F. & Folke, C. (1993) Indigenous knowledge forbiodiversity conservation.

Ambio

,

22

, 151–156.Ghimire, K.B. & Pimbert, M.P., eds (1997)

Social change and conser-vation

. Earthscan, London.Holmes, T. & Scoones, I. (2000)

Participatory environmental policyprocesses: experiences from North and South

. IDS Working Paper113. Institute of Development Studies, University of Sussex,Brighton UK.

Hulme, D. & Murphree, M. (1999) Communities, wildlife and ‘newconservation’ in Africa.

Journal of International Development

,

11

,277–285.

Huston, M.A., Balmford, A., Moore, J., Brooks, T., Burgess, N.,Hansen, L.A., Lovett, J.C., Tokumine, S., Williams, P., Woodward, F.I.& Rahbeck, C. (2001) People and Biodiversity in Africa.

Science

,

293

, 1591–1593.Jeanrenaud, S. (2002)

People-oriented approaches to global con

-

servation: is the leopard changing its spots?

IIED, London.

Muchagata, M. & Brown, K. (2000) Colonist farmers’ perceptionsof fertility and the frontier environment in eastern Amazonia.

Agriculture and Human Values

,

17

, 371–384.Pritchard, L., Colding, J., Berkes, F., Svedin, U. & Folke, C. (1998)

The problem of fit between ecosystems and institutions. IHDPWorking Paper 2. IHDP, Bonn.

Redford, K. & Sanderson, S. (2000) Extracting humans from nature.

Conservation Biology

,

14

, 1362–1364.Schwartzman, S., Moreira, A. & Nepstad, D. (2000) Rethinking

tropical forest conservation: perils in parks.

Conservation Biology

,

14

, 1351–1357.Song, S.J. & M’Gonigle, R.M. (2001) Science, power and system

dynamics: the political economy of conservation biology.

Conser-vation Biology

,

15

, 980–989.Terborgh, J. (2000) The fate of tropical forests: a matter of steward-

ship.

Conservation Biology

,

14

, 1358–1361.Tompkins, E., Adger, W.N. & Brown, K. (2002) Institutional

networks for inclusive coastal management in Trinidad andTobago.

Environment and Planning A

,

34

, 1095–1111.Wilshusen, P.R., Brechin, S.R., Fortwangler, C.L. & West, P.C. (2002)

Reinventing a square wheel: critique of a resurgent ‘ProtectionParadigm’ in international biodiversity conservation.

Society andNatural Resources

,

15

, 17–40.

BIOSKETCH

Katrina Brown

is Reader in Natural Resources, Environment and Development at the School of Development Studies and Senior Research Fellow in the Centre for Social and Economic research on the Global Environment, both at the University of East Anglia. She leads the programme on social resilience, social capital and justice in the new Programme on Environmental Decision-Making in CSERGE. Katrina is also a founding coapplicant of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, a cross-Research Council initiative with its headquarters at UEA. Her research examines development-related issues including inclusionary decision-making processes, and institutional dynamics of ecosystems and conservation. Her latest book is

Making waves: integrating coastal conservation and development

and she is editing a volume entitled

Adaptive institutions for conservation and development: innovations in Amazonia

for Columbia University Press.