Area vialageimeit with Local Comminit Michael Wells ard Katrin with Lee Hannah USAUJ The World Bank World Wildlife Fmfld U.5. Agency for international The World Bank ~ ~~~~~~~~~DevelOPflnenl 'C- People and Parks - _ Linking Protected Area Management J with Local Communities Michael Wells and Katrina Brandon with Lee Hannah The World Bank * The World Wildlife Fund * U.S. Agencyfor International Development Washington, D.C. © 1992 by The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development / THE WORLD BANK 1818 H Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20433 All rights reserved Manufactured in the United States of America First printing January 1992 The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this study are entirely those of the authors and should not be attributed in any manner to the World Bank, its affiliated organizations, or members of its Board of Executive Directors or the countries they represent; to the World Wildlife Fund; or to the U.S. Agency for International Development. The maps that accompany the text have been prepared solely for the convenience of the reader; the designations and presentation of material in them do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the World Bank, its affiliates, or its Board or member countries concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city, or area, or of the authorities thereof, or concerning the delimitation of its boundaries or its national affiliation. The material in this publication is copyrighted. Requests for permission to reproduce portions of it should be sent to the Office of the Publisher at the address shown in the copyright notice above. The World Bank encourages dissemination of its work and will normally give permission promptly and, when the reproduction is for noncommercial purposes, without asking a fee. Permission to copy portions for classroom use is not required, although notification of such use having been made will be appreciated. The complete backlist of publications from the World Bank is shown in the annual Index of Publications, which contains an alphabetical title list and indexes of subjects, authors, and countries and regions. The latest edition is available free of charge from the Distribution Unit, Office of the Publisher, The World Bank, 1818 H Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20433, or from Publications, The World Bank, 66, avenue d'Iena, 75116 Paris, France. At the time of writing, Michael Wells was a consultant to the Policy and Research Division of the World Bank's Environment Department, Katrina Brandon was with the Wildlands and Human Needs Program of the World Wildlife Fund-U.S., and Lee Hannah was with the Africa Bureau of the U.S. Agency for International Development. Currently, Michael Wells remains a consultant to the same division in the Bank, Katrina Brandon is a senior fellow with World Wildlife Fund-U.S. and a consultant to the Policy and Research Division of the World Bank's Environment Department, and Lee Hannah is the Philippines and Madagascar Program Adviser with Conservation International. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Wells, Michael, 1954- People and parks: linking protected area management with local comnmunities / Michael Wells and Katrina Brandon, with Lee Hannah. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references. ISBN 0-8213-2053-X 1. National parks and reserves-Management-Citizen participation. 2. Natural areas-Management-Citizen participation. 3. Conservation of natural resources-Citizen participation. 4. Economic development projects-Management-Citizen participation. I. Brandon, Katrina, 1957- . II. Hannah, Lee Jay. III. Title. SB486.M35W45 1992 333.78'091724-dc2O 92-134 CIP Contents Foreword vii Acknowledgments viii Summary ix 1 Rationale for a new approach 1 Background 1 Parks and people 1 Integrated conservation-development projects 3 Need for the study 3 Methodology 3 Selection of the case study sites 4 2 Protected areas and their neighbors 8 Protected areas and surrounding lands 8 Traditional parks 8 Multiple-use areas 10 Local threats to protected areas 11 Information gathering 13 3 Case study projects in Costa Rica, Tanzania, and Thailand 15 Talamanca Region, Costa Rica 15 Context 15 Project 16 Evaluation and lessons 17 East Usambara Mountains, Tanzania 18 Context 18 Project 18 Evaluation and lessons 20 Khao Yai National Park, Thailand 21 Context 21 Project 22 Evaluation and lessons 23 4 Implementing integrated conservation-development projects 25 Protected area management 25 Buffer zones 25 Local social and economic development 27 The rural development track record 28 Compensation and substitution 30 Need for linkages 30 iii People and Parks 5 Efforts to promote local development 32 Resource management outside protected areas 32 Community social services 33 Nature tourism 34 Road construction for market access 36 Direct employment 37 Linking the benefits from development to conservation 37 Appendix. Natural resource management components of case study projects 37 Agroforestry 37 Forestry 38 Irrigation and water control 39 Wildlife 40 6 Local participation 42 What does local participation mean? 42 Forms of participation 43 How do projects promote participation? 44 Agents of change 44 Institution building 45 Local participation issues for projects 45 Modified local participation 47 7 Participating organizations 48 Government agencies 49 Direct participation 49 Indirect participation 50 Nongovernmental organizations 51 Role in the case study projects 51 Strengths and weaknesses 52 Donors (and lenders) 53 Which organizations should be involved? 54 Need for partnerships 54 8 Measuring effectiveness 55 Changes outside protected areas 55 Changes inside protected areas 55 Linking inside with outside 56 Scale of projects 57 9 Conclusions and recommendations 60 Are integrated conservation-development projects necessary? 60 Lessons for the future 61 Projects as part of a larger framework 61 Scale of projects 62 Participating organizations 62 Site selection 63 Local participation 63 Financial resources 64 Project design and implementation 64 A final word 65 iv Contents Appendix. Case study summaries 66 Africa Burkina Faso Nazinga Game Ranch 66 Burundi Bururi Forest Reserve 66 Rumonge, Vyanda, and Kigwena Reserves 69 Kenya Amboseli National Park 69 Wildlife Extension, Amboseli National Park 70 Madagascar Andohahela Integral Reserve and Beza Mahafaly Special Reserve Area 71 Niger Air-Tenere National Nature Reserve 73 Rwanda Volcanoes National Park 75 Tanzania East Usambara Mountains 76 Zambia Luangwa Integrated Rural Development project 78 South Luangwa National Park 79 Asia Indonesia Dumoga-Bone National Park 80 Gunung Leuser National Park 82 Nepal Annapuma Conservation Area 83 Royal Chitwan National Park 85 Thailand Khao Yai National Park 86 Latin America Costa Rica Osa Peninsula 88 Talamanca Region 90 Mexico Monarch Butterfly Overwintering Reserves 92 Sian Ka'an Biosphere Reserve 93 Peru Central Selva Region 95 Bibliography 97 Tables, boxes, and maps Table 1.1 Protected area categories and management objectives 2 Table 2.1 Case study protected areas 9 Box 1.1 Case study protected areas: sites and projects 6 Box 2.1 People-park conflicts 10 Box 2.2 Innovative legislation for multiple-use conservation areas 11 Box 2.3 Studies of threats to protected areas 12 Box 2A Proximate threats to protected areas 13 v People and Parks Box 2.5 Variations in community characteristics of communities in or around protected areas 14 Box 4.1 uNTEsco's Man and the Biosphere Program 26 Box 4.2 Benefits of buffer zones 27 Box 4.3 Lupande/Administrative Design for Game Management Areas (ADMADE), Zambia 28 Box 4.4 Case study projects using compensation or substitution 31 Box 5.1 Local contributions to social services: The Annapurna project 39 Box 5.2 Nature tourism 35 Box 6.1 Effective local participation 44 Box 6.2 Agents of change 45 Box 6.3 Institution building 46 Box 7.1 Grass collection in Royal Chitwan National Park, Nepal 49 Box 7.2 Organizational structure of the Air-Tenere project, Niger 50 Box 7.3 Complexities of governmental relations at Talamanca, Costa Rica 50 Box 7.4 The King Mahendra Trust for Nature Conservation, Nepal 51 Box 7.5 Nongovernmental organizations in partnership at Khao Yai National Park, Thailand 52 Box 7.6 Strengths and weaknesses of nongovernmental organizations 53 Box 8.1 Ambiguous or missing linkages between the development components of projects and their conservation objectives 57 Box 8.2 Comparing the scale of the case study projects 59 Maps Map 1.1 Case study sites 5 Map 3.1 Talamanca Region, Costa Rica 16 Map 3.2 East Usambara Mountains, Tanzania 19 Map 3.3 Khao Yai National Park, Thailand 22 Nazinga Game Ranch, Burkina Faso 67 Burundi Forest Reserves, Burundi 68 Amboseli National Park, Kenya 70 Andohahela Integral Nature Reserv^, Madagascar 72 Beza Mahafaly Special Reserve, Madagascar 73 Air-Tenere National Nature Reserve, Niger 74 Volcanoes National Park, Rwanda 75 East Usambara Forest Reserves, Tanzania 77 South Luangwa National Park, Zambia 79 Dumoga-Bone National Park, Indonesia 81 Gunung Leuser National Park, Indonesia 83 Annapurna Conservation Area, Nepal 84 Royal Chitwan National Park, Nepal 86 Khao Yai National Park, Thailand 87 Osa Peninsula, Costa Rica 89 Talamanca Region, Costa Rica 91 Monarch Butterfly Overwintering Reserves, Mexico 92 Sian Ka'an Biosphere Reserve, Mexico 94 Central Selva, Peru 96 vi Foreword Conserving biological diversity has emerged as a widely acclaimed ICDPS in what is-as far as we priority shared by both conservation and develop- know-the most rigorous analysis of this approach ment organizations. While parks and protected undertaken so far. The results are sobering but areas have been the traditional approach to con- encouraging. Although progress has been modest servation, many protected areas are rapidly be- in many areas, this is partly attributable to finan- coming "islands" as the wildlands around them cial constraints and to the lack of experience of the are converted to alternative, often incompatible, participating organizations. uses. In the face of relentless hurnan pressures, This study lays the groundwork for providing enforcement alone will not preserve these areas. the World Bank, the World Wildlife Fund, the U.S. Conservation thus requires a perspective that Agency for International Development, and other stretches well beyond park boundaries and in- agencies with information about what is needed to volves national policies as well as programs affect- develop and implement IcDPs in the future. It high- ing rural conmnunities. lights the critical importance of launching projects New approaches to protected area management in a supportive policy environment and makes that integrate the needs of local people while con- specific recommendations for future project de- serving natural resources have increasingly been sign and implementation. The authors also em- initiated over the past decade. Such projects, intro- phasize the need for a mix of organizations with duced in this report as integrated conservation- complementary skills and resources-including de- development projects (IcDPs), combine the most velopment agencies and nongovernmental orga- difficult aspects of rural development and of con- nizations-to work together with governrnents and servation. The common objective of icDPs is to link local people in the design and implementation of the conservation of biological diversity in protected ICDPS. areas with local social and economic development. If we are to preserve biodiversity in parks and The World Bank, the World Wildlife Fund, and protected areas, the challenge before us is to build the U.S. Agency for International Development on the lessons of People and Parks and truly learn initiated this study to assess the early experiences how to link protected area management with local of ICDPS. Michael Wells, Katrina Brandon, and their communities. colleagues have examined twenty-three of the most Mohammed T. El-Ashry R. Michael Wright Jerry Wolgin Director Senior Vice President Acting Director Environment Department Developing Countries Program Office of Analysis, Research, and The World Bank The World Wildlife Fund Technical Support, Africa Bureau United States Agencyfor International Development vii Acknowledgments We owe our largest debt to the people living in Bunch, Mac Chapin, Gary Cohen, Steve Cornelius, and around protected areas who generously con- Charles Geisler, Nicole Glineur, Gary Hartshorn, tributed their time and expertise in response to Peter Hazelwood, David Hulse, Kevin Lyonette, our inquiries, together with field staff of our case William McLarney, Ridley Nelson, Samuel Paul, study projects and employees of government con- Mario Ramos, Colin Rees, Walt Reid, Frances servation agencies. Seymous, Alfredo Sfeir-Younis, Ted Smith, Pamela The study was directed by John Spears and Stanbury, Roger Stone, Benjamin Stoner, Dwight Mohan Munasinghe for the World Bank and by Walker, Barbara Wyckoff-Baird, and Montague Michael Wright for World Wildlife Fund-U.S. Yudelman. Gloria Davis provided helpful ideas and guidance Invaluable assistance was provided during site throughout. Valuable discussions were also held visits by Nieck Bech, Russell Betts, Teeka and with John Dixon, Mary Dyson, John English, Agnes Sarnita Bhattarai, Bruce Bunting, K.S. Depari, Ri- Kiss, Russell Mittermeier, Jeff McNeely, Alison Ri- chard Donovan, Suraphon Duangkae, Ketty chard, Jeff Sayer, Mingma Norbu Sherpa, and Jan Faichampa, Chandra Gurung, David Hulse, Jack Wind. Hurd, Bob Kakuyo, Joseph Lindi, Clark Lundgren, Michael Wells prepared the Indonesia, Mada- James Lynch, Robert Malpas, Nilamber Mishra, gascar, Nepal, Tanzania, and Thailand case stud- John Newby, Sheila O'Connor, Pisit na Patalung, ies. Katrina Brandon conducted the Costa Rica and Samson Rana, Alberto Salas, Andy Silcox, Tray Mexico case studies. Lee Hannah prepared the Sinha, Anne-Marie Skjold, Wilas Techo, Biswanath case studies for Burundi, Kenya, and Rwanda. Kent Upreti, and David Western. Elbow's visits to protected areas in Niger and Excellent editorial and production support was Burkina Faso provided background for the case provided by Meta de Coquereaumont, assisted by studies for those two countries. John J. Earhart and Jane Seegal (editor), Katrina Van Duyn (proof- Robert Simeone prepared the case study on Cen- reader), and Mary Mahy (desktopper). The Uni- tral Selva, Peru. Michael Kiernan provided detailed versity of Maryland Cartographic Services Depart- information on the Boscosa project in Costa Rica, ment, particularly Joseph School and David Nale, Central Selva in Peru, and the Pilot Forestry Plan transformed cryptic sketches into maps. in Mexico. Financial support was provided by the World In addition to those already named, many oth- Bank through the Norwegian Support to the Envi- ers also commented on earlier drafts of the manu- ronment, the World Wildlife Fund-U.S., and the script: Emmanuel Asibey, Greg Booth, Roland U.S. Agency for International Development. viii Summary m - National parks, wildlife reserves, and other types tion in conservation thinking toward a greater em- of protected areas are at the forefront of efforts to phasis on the broader societal role of protected conserve biological diversity. But many protected areas and their potential contributions to sustain- areas are in crisis. Already underfunded, they have able development. Although the ICDP approach has come under increasing pressure from the expand- been heavily publicized and is rapidly expanding ing scale of human activities outside-and some- its influence, assessment of activities to date has times inside-their boundaries. Conflicts of inter- been limited. The twenty-three case study projects est have thus arisen in many areas of the world examined in this report were selected from among between protected areas and local people. Tradi- those that have been described as the most prom- tional approaches to park management and en- ising and effective (chapter 1). forcement activities have been unable to balance The physical and ecological characteristics of these competing objectives. the case study projects varied substantially, as did In response, a new set of initiatives, introduced their management objectives and their relations here as integrated conservation-development with local people. Variability in the institutional projects (ICDPs), has been launched. These projects influences-laws, policies, social changes, and eco- attempt to ensure the conservation of biological nomic forces-was also considerable. It was ap- diversity by reconciling the management of pro- parent that many of the projects had begun with tected areas with the social and economic needs of only a very limited understanding of the root local people. The smaller ICDPS include biosphere causes of the threats to the protected areas that reserves, multiple-use areas, and a variety of ini- they were attempting to conserve, threats that arose tiatives on the boundaries of protected areas, in- from complex social, economic, cultural, and po- cluding buffer zones. Larger projects include the litical interactions (chapter 2). To provide more implementation of regional land use plans with insight into this diversity-and the similarities as protected area components, as well as large-scale well-three case study projects, one in each re- development projects with links to nearby pro- gion, and their accomplishments are examined in tected areas. some detail (chapter 3). This study looks at the early experiences of twenty-three such projects in Africa, Asia, and Latin Design and implementation issues America. The report explores the social, ecologi- cal, technical, and institutional issues that arise To achieve their objectives, icDPs engage in three from these attempts to link protected area man- distinct types of operations. Protected area manage- agement with local development. It identifies the ment activities include biological resource invento- vital elements in the design of ICDPS and assesses ries and monitoring, patrols to prevent illegal ac- the effectiveness of field experience. Last, it elabo- tivities, infrastructure maintenance, applied bio- rates lessons for future programs to conserve logical research, and conservation education. Some biodiversity in developing countries. icDPs try to establish buffer zones around protected areas. While the concept has strong intuitive ap- What are integrated conservation-development peal, there are many difficulties in trying to put it projects? into practice, and actual working examples of buffer zones among the case study projects were Understanding integrated conservation-develop- virtually nonexistent. Local social and economic de- ment projects requires understanding the evolu- velopment activities constitute the third type of op- ix People and Parks eration, and these use approaches that are compa- ICDPS were concentrated in five areas: (1) natural rable to those in rural development projects, or resource management outside protected areas, par- simpler approaches that rely on compensation and ticularly in agroforestry, forestry, irrigation and substitution strategies (chapter 4). water control, and wildlife; (2) community social Efforts to promote social and economic devel- services, such as schools and health clinics; (3) opment among communities adjacent to protected nature tourism; (4) road construction for market area boundaries represent the central concern of access; and (5) direct employment generation. the icDP approach and clearly distinguish it from The case study projects have resulted in nu- other conservation approaches. Promoting local merous benefits for local people, principally development is a highly complex and challenging through income gains and improved access to so- task for conservation practitioners, and in this ef- cial services. From a strictly development perspec- fort, many of the lessons from earlier rural devel- tive, several of the projects appear quite promis- opment projects are applicable to icops as well. To ing, and one or two of them quite successful. But achieve their aims, icDPs must ensure that the ac- in virtually all the projects, the critical linkage be- tivities of their development components are con- tween development and conservation is either sistent with the overall goal of conserving missing or obscure. biodiversity. One of the most challenging tasks for Thus it is questionable whether many of the ICDP managers is to promote development activi- project activities have generated local benefits that ties that not only improve local living standards have reduced pressures on the parks or reserves but also lead to strengthened management of pro- they are trying to protect-the key objective of tected areas. ICDPS (chapter 5). At a more general level, ICDPS need to challenge the widespread but unsupported assumption that Empowering local people people who are made better off as a result of a development project will refrain from illegal ex- Involving local people in the process of change ploitation of a nearby protected area even in the and development and enabling them to wisely absence of the negative incentive provided by more manage the resource base is a necessary, but diffi- effective penalties. Such expectations appear na- cult, component of icDps. Few of the projects speci- ive, and the need to strengthen guard patrols and fied what they meant by local participation, and to impose penalties for illegal activities in pro- most have treated local people as passive benefi- tected areas remains strong. Enforcement activi- ciaries rather than as active collaborators. Some ties are not inconsistent with the icDP concept when ICDPS found it necessary to generate short-term ben- they are integrated with genuine local develop- efits to establish credibility. But such immediate ment efforts and serious attempts to improve local gains are not a substitute for the time-consuming people-park communications through educational and intensive process of involving communities in campaigns and other means. project design and implementation over the long These complexities all reemphasize the impor- term. Achieving a balance between the short- and tance of establishing explicit linkages between the long-term goals is essential, as is balancing partici- different components of an icDP. Many types of pation with enforcement activities (chapter 6). development activities have the potential for in- creasing local incomes and living standards. What Participating organizations is less clear is how such activities can be expected to enhance the conservation of biological diver- The case study icDPs were executed by a mix of sity, particularly in the absence of more effective government agencies, conservation and develop- enforcement. In other words, very careful thought ment nongovernmental organizations, and devel- needs to be given at the design stage to the follow- opment agencies operating independently or in ing question: what are the anticipated linkages partnership. Nongovernmental organizations between the planned realization of social and eco- ranged from small local organizations to large in- nomic benefits by people living outside the park or ternational conservation groups, yet few had the reserve boundaries and the necessary behavioral capacity to design, implement, evaluate, or fund response the project seeks to achieve to reduce large IcDPs. Government agencies often lack ad- pressure inside the boundaries (chapter 4)? equate financial resources and personnel, and ju- Attempts to generate local social and economic risdictional conflicts between agencies responsible benefits through the development components of for activities inside protected areas and those op- x Summary erating outside these areas were common. The non- cial incentives encouraging overexploitation of tim- governmental organizations participating in ICDPS ber, wildlife, grazing lands, and crop fields; an brought important strengths and experience in con- absence of linkages between the needs of conser- servation but sometimes lacked the expertise vation and the factors encouraging development; needed to design, implement, or evaluate inte- and laws, policies, social changes, and economic grated projects with development components. forces over which poor people in remote rural There is debate over whether ICDPS should be areas have no influence. top-down or bottom-up in their design and imple- Addressing these issues in a meaningful way mentation. Top-down tends to be associated with would require engaging the highest levels of gov- governments and international organizations, and ernments throughout the industrialized and de- bottom-up with nongovernmental organizations. veloping worlds and mobilizing resources on a The case studies revealed little convincing evidence much larger scale than has been done so far. To- that, working independently, governments, con- day, even under the best of conditions, ICDPS cen- servation organizations, or development organi- tered on protected areas and directed to local popu- zations can effectively plan and implement ICDPs. lations can play only a modest role in mitigating Partnerships between conservation and develop- the powerful forces causing environmental degra- ment organizations and between these organiza- dation. tions and government agencies are proposed as In these circumstances, it is perhaps remark- essential for the success of ICDPS (chapter 7). able what the case study projects have managed to achieve. icDPs are attempting to combine the most Measuring effectiveness difficult aspects of conservation and park manage- ment with rural development. Despite formidable The ultimate objective of ICDPS is the conservation constraints, what many of this first generation of of biological diversity in parks and reserves. All projects have achieved is significant. While tradi- icDps must eventually face the test of whether they tional enforcement will continue to play a critical have strengthened the ability of protected areas to role-and in many cases needs desperately to be conserve the species and ecosystems the areas were strengthened and expanded-it will have to be established to protect. It is possible for a project to coupled in many instances with efforts to benefit have successful social and economic development local people. This means that innovative, well-de- components without being an effective icDP. signed icDPs that constructively address local The scale of projects was an important element people-park relationships at carefully selected sites in their effectiveness. For example, if a project are an essential element in the conservation of works in only a few of the communities surround- biodiversity, and therefore of sustainable develop- ing a protected area, its overall influence in pro- ment efforts. tecting the park may be weak, even if the project's But for ICDPS to play a significant role in con- effectiveness in those communities is strong. Sev- serving biological diversity, decisive actions need eral other factors were also associated with im- to be taken by implementing organizations, by provements in biodiversity conservation at case national governments, and by lenders and donors, study sites, including more effective enforcement, including international development agencies. mitigation of the adverse impacts of tourism, spe- Without deliberate and concerted actions by these cific agreements for local development, and direct groups, the outlook for biodiversity will be bleak. linkage of conservation goals to development ben- The long gestation periods needed for ICDPS to pro- efits (chapter 8). duce results clearly means that these actions must be taken sooner rather than later. Recommenda- Lessons tions for future ICDP initiatives are made in several categories: (1) projects as part of a larger frame- ICDPS cannot address the underlying threats to bio- work that includes such preconditions as adequate logical diversity. Many of the factors leading to political support, enabling legislation, realistic in- the erosion of biodiversity and the degradation of stitutional arrangements, and compatibility with protected natural ecosystems in developing coun- regional development, resource tenure, and insti- tries originate far from park boundaries. Among tutional orientation; (2) scale of projects; (3) par- them are public ownership of extensive areas of ticipating organizations; (4) site selection; (5) local land unmatched by the capacity of government participation; (6) financial resources; and (7) project agencies to manage these lands; powerful finan- design and implementation (chapter 9). xi People and Parks The challenge for the future is not just to design and implement more effective ICDPS. That will be feasible, although it will require more financial support, creative modifications of existing ap- proaches, and application of a much more thor- ough understanding of the rural development pro- cess. The greater challenge will be to engage the individuals and organizations that have the capac- ity and the commitment to establish social, eco- nomic, legal, and institutional environments that facilitate rather than frustrate achievement of the icDP goal of conserving biodiversity. xii 1. Rationale for a new approach Protected areas-such as national parks and wild- theme of protecting natural phenomena from ex- life reserves-have long been recognized as play- ploitation for public enjoyment served as a model ing a crucial role in conserving biological diver- for the development of protected areas worldwide sity. But many of these areas are at serious risk, (Machlis and Tichnell 1985). Many parks were es- partly because of the hardship they impose on tablished-particularly in Africa and Asia-to pro- members of local communities. Traditional ap- tect the larger mammals that had captured the proaches to park management have generally been imagination of Europeans and North Americans unsympathetic to the constraints facing local and to attract international tourism (Hales 1989). people, relying on guard patrols and penalties to Although national parks are perhaps the best exclude local people. This study looks at new ap- known, there are several other types of protected proaches to protected area management that are areas (table 1.1). Protected areas and parks that attempting to address the needs of nearby com- were established mainly to maintain biological di- munities by emphasizing local participation and versity and natural formations are referred to as by combining conservation with development. We strictly protected areas (categories I to III). The have coined the term "integrated conservation- remainder (categories IV to VIII) allow some de- development projects" (IcDps) to refer to projects gree of human use and controlled exploitation. that use these approaches. These management categories are based on vari- This study of twenty-three projects in Africa, ous laws and regulations governing protected ar- Asia, and Latin America is intended to identify the eas. But legal protection rarely translates into pro- lessons of the first few years of ICDP implementa- tected area security. Many of the most important tion, and the implications for future conservation protected areas are experiencing serious and in- policies, programs, and projects. creasing degradation as a result of large-scale de- velopment projects, expanding agricultural fron- Background tiers, illegal hunting and logging, fuelwood collec- tion, and uncontrolled burning. If current trends The world's biological diversity is increasingly con- continue, the biological diversity in many critical centrated in the diminishing number of natural conservation areas will diminish dramatically in areas that have remained more or less unchanged the next few decades. by human activities (Wilson 1988). Biodiversity conservation efforts have concentrated on estab- Parks and people lishing networks of parks and reserves to protect these sites. As a result, many of the world's out- Most protected areas were originally established standing and most celebrated natural areas have with little or no regard for local people, few of been granted official conservation status through whom could benefit from tourism. In fact, park designation as a national park, wildlife reserve, or management has emphasized a policing role aimed other protected category. at excluding local people-sometimes character- National parks originated in the United States ized as the "fences and fines" approach. Machlis in the nineteenth century. Boundaries were drawn and Tichnell (1985, 96), among others, have ar- around "special places" so they could be "set aside" gued that this "preservationist approach .... requires from the "ravages" of ordinary use (Hales 1989, an essentially militaristic defense strategy and will 140) for visitors' inspiration and enjoyment. The almost always heighten conflict." 1 People and Parks Table 1.1 Protected area categories and management objectives Category Type Objective I Sdentific reserve/strict nature reserve Protect nature and maintain natural processes in an undisturbed state. Empha size scientific study, environmental monitoring and education, and mainte nance of genetic resources in a dynamic and evolutionary state. II National park Protect relatively large natural and scenic areas of national or international significance for scientific, educational, and recreational use. III Natural monument/natural landmark Preserve nationally significant natural features and maintain their unique characteristics. IV Managed nature reserve/wildlife sanctuary Protect nationally significant species, groups of species, biotic communities, or physical features of the environment when these require specific human manipulation for their perpetuation. V Protected landscapes Maintain nationally significant natural landscapes characteristic of the harmonious interaction of people and land while providing opportunities for public recreation and tourism within the normal life-style and economic activity of these areas. VI Resource reserve Protect natural resources for future use and prevent or contain development that could affect resources pending the establishment of management objectives based on appropriate knowledge and planning. VII Natural biotic area/ Allow societies to live in harmony with the environment, anthropological reserve undisturbed by modern technology. VIII Multiple-use management area/ Sustain production of water, timber, wildlife, pasture, and managed resource area outdoor recreation. Conservation of nature oriented to supporting economic activities (although specific zones can also be designed within these areas to achieve specific conservation objectives). Source: International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN 1985). The conservation community has acknowl- to parks through such measures as education, rev- edged that communities next to protected area enue sharing, participation in decisions, appropri- boundaries frequently bear substantial costs-as a ate development schemes near protected areas, result of lost access-while receiving little in re- and-where compatible with the protected areas' turn. Local residents, who tend to be poor and objectives-access to resources (McNeely and receive few government services, often perceive Miller 1984). More recently, growing awareness of protected areas as restricting their ability to earn a the complexity of the links between poverty, de- living. It is not surprising that the pressures of velopment, and the environment has led to a search growing populations and unsustainable land use for ways to link conservation with development, practices outside protected area boundaries fre- make "sustainable development" work, and make quently lead to illegal and destructive encroach- conservation people-oriented (for example, World ment. Commission 1987). Reflecting these concerns, the 1980 World Con- Recognition thus is growing that the successful servation Strategy, a major document reflecting the long-term management of protected areas depends views of numerous groups, emphasized the im- on the cooperation and support of local people, portance of linking protected area management and that it is often neither politically feasible nor with the economic activities of local communities ethically justifiable to exclude the poor-who have (iucN 1980). The need to include local people in limited access to resources-from parks and re- protected area planning and management also was serves without providing them alternative means adopted enthusiastically by conservationists and of livelihood. This has led to increasing efforts by protected area managers at the 1982 World Con- protected area managers and conservation organi- gress on National Parks, in Bali. This congress zations to obtain local cooperation, and to the in- called for increased support for communities next troduction of icDPs. 2 Rationale for a new approach Integrated conservation-development projects Human Needs Program projects were examined in this study. ICDPS vary considerably in scale and scope. The smaller projects include biosphere reserves, mul- Need for the study tiple-use areas, and initiatives on the boundaries of national parks, including buffer zones. Larger Despite growing interest in the ICDP approach- projects include both regional land use plans with and new and expanded funding sources-field ex- protected area components and large-scale devel- perience is limited. There is little analytical litera- opment projects with links to nearby protected ture in this area, and criteria for evaluating the areas. Most icDPs aim to stabilize land use outside projects have not yet been clearly identified. Many protected boundaries and to increase local incomes, projects have barely proceeded beyond the plan- in order to reduce the pressure for further exploi- ning stages, and the few advanced or completed tation of natural resources in the protected area. projects have not been systematically examined. Many ICDPS also emphasize conservation educa- The extent to which investments in ICDPS are cost- tion. effective, sustainable, or replicable approaches to Efforts to link conservation and development protected area management and the conservation have featured prominently in the discussion of of biodiversity is thus still unknown. sustainable development that has blossomed since An examination of ICDPS was considered im- the early 1980s. As a result, ICDPS have received portant for several reasons. First, many develop- considerable attention among conservation orga- ing countries are giving the conservation of nizations, international development agencies, na- biodiversity a more prominent position on their tional governments, and private foundations. ICDPS agendas. Policymakers thus are asking which ap- have been funded or implemented by many of proaches are appropriate and cost-effective. Sec- these organizations. ond, the number of ICDPS being initiated has grown The World Bank's 1986 policy on wildlands- dramatically. It has become rare to find a forest or defined as natural areas relatively untouched by park management project proposal that does not human activities-recognizes the importance of talk about local community involvement, buffer wildland management to development projects zones, or other ICDP concepts. These and future and requires that wildland management be con- projects should benefit from an evaluation of the sidered in economnic and sectoral planning (Ledec experience to date. Finally, and perhaps most ur- and Goodland 1988). The wildlands policy has gent, a failure to initiate and maintain more effec- resulted in increasing numbers of development tive approaches to managing protected areas will projects with a conservation or protected area com- result in the continued rapid decline of critical ponent. The policy emphasizes the need "to in- natural ecosystems. New and effective approaches clude local people in the planning and benefits [of need to be adopted in the 1990s to prevent sub- wildland management areas]." It also notes that stantial, possibly catastrophic, further losses in bio- "rural development investments that provide farm- logical diversity. ers and villagers in the vicinity of [wildland man- agement areas with] an alternative to further en- Methodology croachment" can contribute to effective conserva- tion in parks and reserves. The study was based on site visits, supplemented The World Wildlife Fund launched the Wild- by sources that included project proposals, progress lands and Human Needs Program in 1985, with reports, and evaluations. Whenever possible, dis- matching financial support from the U.S. Agency cussions were held with past and present project for International Development (USAID) and the managers and their staff, protected area managers Moriah Fund. This program consists of about and their staff, senior representatives of national twenty protected area projects in developing coun- agencies charged with protected area administra- tries that have been planned to give equal empha- tion, senior staff of national nongovernmental or- sis to conservation and development. The pro- ganizations participating in the project, national gram aims to use community development initia- staff of international nongovernmental organiza- tives to minimize the impact of local people on tions participating in the project, intended benefi- significant wildland areas. It is an experimental ciaries of the project development and education program, the first of its type to be launched by a components, and other individuals in the coun- conservation organization. Several Wildlands and tries with relevant knowledge. 3 People and Parks Some of these discussions were in formal meet- International, Inter-American Foundation, USAID, ings, others in informal settings. Discussions with U.S. Peace Corps, Wildlife Conservation Interna- the intended beneficiaries of projects in Africa and tional, World Bank, International Union for the Asia required interpreters; whenever possible, Conservation of Nature and National Resources these discussions were informal and without (IucN), World Wildlife Fund, and other individu- project or government representatives present. als with experience of developing country conser- The agenda for the case study reviews was flex- vation and development issues. ibl^ and varied according to project scope and Case study selection was limited to projects scale. It was recognized in advance that only lim- with social or economic development components ited quantitative information would be available linked to protected areas that had been imple- on any project. The limnited time available for site mented for at least three years as of late 1989. visits precluded collecting original data, which About thirty projects that satisfied these criteria meant that most of the information collected was were originally identified. Fewer than ten had been qualitative. operating for more than six years. Final selections Approaches to community use of natural re- reflected a desire for representation from Africa, sources were excluded from the study if they did Asia, and Latin America. The choices also reflected not include a protected area and did not have the a subjective assessment of what were felt to be the conservation of biological diversity as their princi- most interesting and varied projects, and the logis- pal objective. Examples of such approaches in- tical feasibility of visiting and evaluating the clude social forestry (see, for example, Gregersen, projects during the study. Preference was given to Draper, and Elz 1989) or extractive reserves (see, eight countries where ICDPs had been initiated at for example, World Wildlife Fund 1990). This more than one site. A small number of sites were study's scope is broader than the related work of included where some efforts had been made to Poole (1989), which was limited to the consider- improve local people-park relations without a spe- ation of indigenous peoples living in conservation cific project. Most site visits, usually for one to two areas, principally in Latin America. Additional icDp weeks, were conducted between September 1989 case studies may be found in the work of West and and March 1990. Most sites were visited by one of Brechin (1990), who also discuss protected areas in the authors, although several sites were visited by industrialized countries. others under supervision by the authors. Brief descriptions of the projects at each case Selection of the case study sites study site are included in box 1.1 and their loca- tions are shown on map 1.1. Summaries describ- Candidate sites were identified through discus- ing and analyzing each case study, and site maps, sions with the staffs of the Asian Development are included in the appendix. Extended versions Bank, CARE, Catholic Relief Services, Conservation of these summaries are available from the authors. 4 Rationale for a new approach Map 1.1 Case study sites 15~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~1 Africa Asia Latin America 1. Burkina Faso, Nazinga Game Ranch 10. Indonesia, Dumoga-Bone National Park 15. Costa Rica, Osa Peninsula 2. Burundi, Bururi Forest Reserve and 11. Indonesia, Gunung Leuser National Park 16. Costa Rica, Talamanca Region Rumonge, Vyanda, and Kigwena 12. Nepal, Annapurna Conservation Area 17. Mexico, Monarch Butterfly Reserves 13. Nepal, Royal Chitwan National Park Overwintering Reserves 3. Kenya, Amboseli National Park 14. Thailand, Khao Yai National Park 18. Mexico, Sian Ka'an Biosphere 4. Madascar, Andohahela Integral Reserve Reserve 19. Peru, Central Selva 5. Madagascar, Beza Mahafaly Special Reserve Area 6. Niger, Air-Tenere Nature Reserve 7. Rwanda, Volcanoes National Park 8. Tanzania, East Usambara Mountains 9. Zambia, Lupande Game Management Areas and South Luangwa National Park 5 People and Parks Box 1.1 Case study protected areas: sites and projects (See appendix for more information; all dollar amounts are current U.S. dollars.) Africa Volcanoes National Park, Rwanda. The 150 square kilometer park is surrounded by intensive agriculture. Since 1979, Air-Tenere National Nature Reserve, Niger. This 77,000 square an African Wildlife Foundation project has attempted to kilometer game reserve was established in 1988. A 1982- protect the park's gorillas and promote tourism. Funding 86 conservation project was the forerunner to a three-year exceeds $250,000 annually. $2.5 million project emphasizing conservation, protection, and rural development in and adjacent to the reserve. The Asia earlier project was funded by the World Wildlife Fund International, IUCN, and the government of Niger. Annapurna Conservation Area, Nepal. This 2,600 square ki- lometer multiple-use area was established in 1986 under Amboseli National Park, Kenya. A 1977 World Bank loan the jurisdiction of Nepal's leading nongovernmental or- supported tourism development, water-point develop- ganization, the King Mahendra Trust for Nature Conser- ment, and community services to compensate local people vation, to mitigate the effects of tourism on the environ- for loss of access to the 600 square kilometer park. The ment and to promote local development. The 1986-89 separate, community-based Wildlife Extension project, cost was $450,000; total project revenues from all sources which aims to improve local participation and use of from 1989 to 1991 are about $200,000 a year. wildlife, has an annual budget of $50,000. Dumoga-Bone National Park, Indonesia. The 3,000 square Beza Mahafaly and Andohahela Reserves, Madagascar. One kilometer park was established in 1982 to protect the Malagasy and two American universities helped local rivers supplying two irrigation projects used by 8,000 people establish the 6 square kilometer Beza reserve in farmers to grow paddy rice. Funding was provided by a 1985. The project has implemented local development $60 million World Bank loan, about $1 million of which and conservation programs and recently was expanded was used to establish the park. to include the 760 square kilometer Andohahela. Funding for 1977-89 was $450,000. Gunung Leuser National Park, Indonesia. The 9,000 square kilometer park is acutely threatened by agricultural en- Bururi Forest Reserve, Burundi. The Bururi project pro- croachment and logging, both facilitated by road con- motes conservation and forestry activities around a 20 struction. Buffer zones have been delineated but not imple- square kilometer forest reserve, begun with USAID funding mented. of $1.2 million from 1983-87. Replication is under way at three other reserves, totaling 58 square kilometers, with Khao Yai National Park, Thailand. The 2,200 square kilome- funding of $500,000 for 1986-91. ter park, an important tourist attraction, is threatened by logging, poaching, and the development of incompatible East Usambara Mountains Forest Reserves, Tanzania. This tourist facilities. Two Thai nongovernmental organiza- patchwork of eighteen forest reserves covering 16 square tions began a project in one of 150 villages on the park kilometers has been threatened by logging and shifting border in 1985 to promote conservation through develop- cultivation. A government project with technical assis- ment, later expanding into several other communities. tance from IUCN has worked in fifteen villages to promote The 1985-89 cost was $500,000. conservation and development since 1987. Funding for 1987-91 was $1.5 million. Royal Chitwan National Park, Nepal. The 900 square kilo- meter park, established in 1973, is a premier tourist at- Nazinga Game Ranch, Burkina Faso. A 940 square kilometer traction surrounded by a rapidly growing population. ranch was established to protect dwindling wildlife and Park officials permit villagers to collect grasses once a provide local communities with benefits from employ- year for house construction and thatching. ment, safari hunting, tourism, and meat production. Gov- ernment and Canadian International Development Agency Latin America funding was $3.1 million during 1979-89. Central Selva, Peru. This is the site of the 1,220 square South Luangwa National Park, Zambia. This is a 9,050 square kilometer Yanachanga-Chemillen National Park and for- kilometer park surrounded by game management areas. est and indigenous reserves. A S22 million usAID-funded The Lupande project, replicated as the national Admin- project (1982-87) was initiated to maximize sustained pro- istrative Design for Game Management Areas (ADMADE) ductivity of the watershed and increase local income. program, promotes return of safari hunting revenues to From 1988 to the present the World Wildlife Fund-U.S. local communities, job creation, and antipoaching in a has provided $100,000 in support for the Yanesha For- game management area. Annual funds are $50,000 for estry Cooperative, implemented by the Amuesha Indians the pilot project and $3 million over four years for the once USAID support ended. ADMADE project. The Luangwa Integrated Rural Develop- ment project (LIRDP), initiated in 1988, is a large, regional Monarch Butterfly Overwintering Reserves, Mexico. A clus- project with funding of $25 million for five years. Both ter of five mountaintop reserves, totaling 5 square kilo- projects are being implemented by the government of meters, protects butterflies. A Mexican nongovernmental Zambia. organization is working to promote tourism and educa- 6 Rationale for a new approach Box 1.1 cont. tion in local communities and reduce the high level of il- marine habitats. A local nongovernmental organization, legal logging that threatens the tiny reserves. The World Amigos de Sian Ka'an, supports the reserve and its resi- Wildlife Fund contributed more than $250,000 in 1985-90. dents through small-scale development and publicity, with less than $100,000 annually. The nearby Pilot Forestry Osa Peninsula, Costa Rica. The 1,750 square kilometer pen- Plan also works with local communities on their collec- insula indudes several protected areas, all threatened by tive landholdings to improve forestry practices. logging. The Boscosa projec,t initiated in 1987 by the World Wildlife Fund, supports income-generating activities and Talamanca Region, Costa Rica. The region includes a vari- local organizational activities. Funding from various ety of protected areas, induding the Gandoca-Manzanillo sources for the Boscosa project has been approximately Wildlife Refuge. A Costa Rican nongovernmental organi- $850,000 for 1988-91. zation has promoted small-scale development activities emphasizing sustainable development practices in the re- Sian Ka'an Biosphere Reserve, Mexico. This 5,200-square- gion since the early 1980s. Funding was $1.2 million in kilometer multiple-use reserve includes terrestrial and 1984-88 from numerous donors. 7 2. Protected areas and their neighbors - - This chapter describes the variety in site condi- and ecological characteristics-from wet to dry, tions facing project managers as they began their flat to mountainous, fertile to barren-and in the work and discusses the implications of these con- degree of transformation experienced as a result ditions for project design, implementation, and ef- of human activity. They also contain different sets fectiveness. The initial site conditions can be char- of plants and animals. There appeared to be few acterized in terms of the physical and ecological generalizable implications, except that-because attributes of the protected area, the institutional most ICDPS were in rural areas-the best opportu- arrangements for its management, and the politi- nities for IcDP-generated income gains occurred cal, cultural, and socioeconomic characteristics of where conditions were favorable for agriculture- the surrounding communities-including any con- wet climate and flat, fertile land. (Conditions at straints imposed by the presence of the protected specific sites are described in the appendix, and area. In some cases the local human dynarnics were some project activities designed to take advantage as intricate as the biological systems the project of local conditions are discussed in chapter 5.) were working to conserve. The case study protected areas can be divided Understanding the complex and variable rela- into traditional parks and multiple-use areas. Fol- tionships between the protected areas and their lo- lowing the classifications of the International Union cal communities-particularly any threats to the for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources protected area posed by local people's activities- (IUCN), the traditional parks largely correspond to requires site-specific analysis. We therefore ex- category II, national parks, but include categories I plored the extent to which the design and imple- and III (see table 1.1 in chapter 1). The multiple- mentation of integrated conservation-development use areas largely correspond to category VIII, mul- projects (ICDPS) appeared to be based on an appro- tiple-use management areas and managed resource priate level of understanding of local site conditions. areas, but also include categories V and VII. Bio- sphere reserves-which were not classified-are a Protected areas and surrounding lands type of multiple-use area. The most obvious feature of the protected areas Traditional parks represented in our case studies is their wide varia- tion in size, from Niger's 65,000 square kilometer Traditional parks totally excluded local people from Air-Tenere National Nature Reserve in the south- consideration when they were initially established. ern Sahara to the 5 square kilometer Monarch But- Parks in this category include Andohahela (Mada- terfly Overwintering Reserves in Mexico (table 2.1). gascar), Bururi and Rumonge (Burundi), Chitwan Not surprisingly, there is no clear relationship (Nepal), Corcovado (Costa Rica), Gunung Leuser between the size of a protected area and the neces- (Indonesia), Khao Yai (Thailand), Luangwa (Zam- sary scale of an icorx. The nature, extent, and distri- bia), Usambara (Tanzania), Volcanoes (Rwanda), bution of local human activity, as well as local and Yanachanga-Chemillen (Peru). Management of people-park relations, are as important for ICDP these parks has been oriented toward enforcement design and implementation as the absolute size of and has been generally unsympathetic to the needs the protected area (icDP scale issues are discussed of the local population. People who had been liv- in more detail in chapter 8). ing inside the parks were either forcibly evicted or In addition to size, the case study parks and allowed to remain in small enclaves inside the surrounding lands vary dramatically in physical boundaries but legally excluded from the parks. 8 Protected areas and their neighbors Table 2.1 Case study protected areas Size Region/country Protected area (sq km) Project Africa Burkina Faso Nazinga Game Ranch 940 Nazinga Game Ranch Burundi Bururi Forest Reserve 20 Bururi Forest project Rumonge, Vyanda, and Kigwena Reserves 58 Rumonge Agroforestry project Kenya Amboseli National Park 488 Amboseli Park Agreement Wildlife Extension project Madagascar Andohahela Integral Reserve 760 Conservation in Southern Madagascar project Beza Mahafaly Special Reserve Area 6 Conservation in Southern Madagascar project Niger Air-Tenere Nature Reserve 65,000 Air-Tenere Conservation and Management of Natural Resources project Rwanda Volcanoes National Park 150 Mountain Gorilla project Tanzania East Usambara Mountains 160 East Usambara Agricultural Development and Environmental Conservation project Zambia Lupande Game Management Areas 4,840 Lupande Development project South Luangwa National Park 9,050 Administrative Design for Game Management Areas program (ADMADE) Luangwa Integrated Rural Development Project (LIRDP) Asia Indonesia Dumoga-Bone National Park 3,000 Kosinggolan and Toraut irrigation projects Gunung Leuser National Park 9,000 None Nepal Annapurna Conservation Area 2,600 Annapurna Conservation Area project Royal Chitwan National Park 900 Village Grass Collection Thailand Khao Yai National Park 2,200 Sup Tai Rural Development for Conservation project and the Environmental Awareness and Development Mobilization (TEAM) project Latin America Costa Rica Osa Peninsula Boscosa project Corcovado National Park 400 Golfo Dulce Forest Reserve Guaymi Indigenous Reserve Isla de Cano Biological Reserve Golfito Forest Reserve Talamanca Region ANAl Talamanca project Gandoca-Manzanillo Wildlife refuge 50 La Amistad Biosphere Reserve 2,000 Mexico Monarch Butterfly Overwintering Reserves 5 Monarch Butterfly Overwintering Reserve Protection Sian Ka'an Biosphere Reserve 5,230 Amigos de Sian Ka'an (ASK) Community Development project Pilot Forestry Management and Processing Plan (PFP) Peru Central Selva Central Selva Resource Management project San Matias-San Carlos Protection Forest 1,500 Yanachanga-Chemillen National Park 1,220 Yanesha Communal Reserve 350 Yanesha Communal Forestry project Source: Compiled by authors, based on site visits. 9 People and Parks These parks were already well-established be- the Thai national parks are bordered by villages fore the projects began, and local people-park rela- occupying these reserves. Government agencies tions were invariably already poor, if not hostile are frequently unable or unwilling to support, or (box 2.1). All of these parks were under consider- even to condone, development activities directed able pressure from local human activities, and sev- toward these illegal settlements, considerably com- eral had already become seriously degraded be- plicating any attempt to launch ICDP initiatives. fore the projects began. In some cases, people will be willing to be re- Management plans exist for most of the tradi- settled from traditional parks if they receive com- tional parks included in the study. Many were pensation (see Osa Peninsula case, box 2.1). In prepared when the parks were established, with other cases, resettlement is involuntary and can foreign funding and technical assistance. Some of lead to conflict, especially when people feel that the more recent plans recommend considering lo- their traditional lands have been usurped to create cal perspectives as a part of park management, but a park or reserve. (See Cernea 1988a for a discus- little explicit guidance is provided on how this sion of resettlement in World Bank-financed might be done. Few of these recommendations projects.) have been implemented, largely because of fund- The case study projects linked to traditional ing shortages. parks have all been directed toward villages just The authority of traditional park management outside the park boundaries. The projects were usually does not extend beyond park boundaries implemented by organizations that were adminis- or into human enclaves in the park. Legal jurisdic- tratively distinct from the park managers. Rela- tion over the lands and people adjacent to the park tionships between the project and park managers is usually shared by other agencies of the national have proved to be key factors determining a government and the local governments. Thus tra- project's effectiveness. (For more detail, see chap- ditional park management agencies rarely can le- ter 7.) gally initiate an ICDP outside a traditional park, even if they want to and have the funding. Multiple-use areas Some of the traditional protected areas are bor- dered or surrounded by forested areas that have The multiple-use area case studies can be divided been designated for timber production or water- in two groups. First are protected areas that spe- shed protection, and where permanent settlement cifically permit human settlement and natural re- is illegal, as in Indonesia and Thailand. Some of source use, within designated zones, inside a larger the icDPs in this study were directed toward com- multiple-use area that also includes fully protected munities occupying these restricted areas. In Thai- zones. These include the case study sites at Air- land, for example, several million people live and Tenere (Niger), Annapurna (Nepal), Sian Ka'an farm illegally in national forest reserves. Many of (Mexico), and the game management areas around Box 2.1 People-park conflicts Gunung Leuser, Indonesia. Local resentment of the park is particularly strong in Aceh Tenggara District, where 82 percent of the land has been set aside for conservation. The underequipped and understaffed national park guards appear to have had no effect on the rapid forest destruction resulting from illegal logging and agricultural encroachment. Park officials who reported illegal practices to the police or local government authorities have been threatened. Any new initiatives would appear doomed without a fundamental shift in the relationship between the park managers, the local government, and village communities. Khao Yai, Thailand. Enforcement measures following the establishment of the national park met with hostility and resulted in armed clashes between Royal Forestry Department personnel and villagers, with loss of life on both sides. Despite aggressive protection measures, illegal activities in the park have continued, mainly poaching and the removal of timber and other forest products. In the first four months of 1986, for example, 258 poachers were arrested in the park. By the mid-1980s, at least 5 percent of the park's forests had been lost to encroachment and perhaps another 5 to 10 percent degraded. Osa Peninsula, Costa Rica. Displaced workers from abandoned banana plantations invaded Corcovado National Park on the Osa Peninsula in 1985. The government was unable to stop the invasion, and hundreds of people began panning for gold, a process that causes severe damage to rivers through sedimentation and mercury pollution. A court order forced the police to evict the miners, after compensatory benefits were negotiated between the outgoing government and the nearly eight hundred miners and their families. New squatters soon invaded the park and attempts to evict them have escalated to armed conflicts. 10 Protected areas and their neighbors Luangwa (Zambia). Second are traditional parks Simply put, an ICDP consists of conservation ac- that expressly provide for local social and eco- tivities, in parks or in the fully protected zones of nomic development outside the park boundaries. multiple-use areas, and development activities, out- These parks and reserves were established at the side traditional parks or inside the human-use same time or after the beginning of the IcDp: Beza zones of multiple-use areas. At a traditional park Mahafaly (Madagascar), Amboseli (Kenya), and site, ICDP development activities based on positive Dumoga-Bone (Indonesia). Although a few coun- incentives are usually attempting to modify a his- tries have passed legislation that establishes or tory of punitive, enforcement-oriented park man- permits multiple-use conservation areas (box 2.2), agement. At multiple-use areas, however, there are establishing them in most countries would require far greater opportunities to balance-and establish new legislation. linkages between-development and conservation. Multiple-use areas have two advantages over traditional parks for implementing ICDPs. First, the Local threats to protected areas multiple-use area legislation generally establishes a single management authority responsible for both What are threats? They have been defined as "ac- the fully protected zones-where no hunting, farm- tivities of human or natural origin that cause sig- ing, or other human use is permitted-and the nificant damage to park resources, or are in seri- zones set aside for human use. Granting such sole ous conflict with the objectives of park administra- jurisdiction can simplify icDP management and fa- tion and management" (Machlis and Tichnell 1985, cilitate coordination of a project's development and 13). Local threats to protected areas in developing conservation components. countries usually arise from unsustainable exploi- The second advantage derives from the fact that tation through hunting, agricultural encroachment, the multiple-use approach is, by definition, more burning, logging, the collection of forest products, supportive of local communities. Not surprisingly, or a combination of these. However, this partial it has proved easier for icDps to establish positive list provides little insight into the underlying fac- relations with local people who feel their aspira- tors motivating the people carrying out these ac- tions, needs, and opinions have been taken into tivities, or how they might be induced to modify account-regardless of whether they support the them. These underlying factors can vary dramati- conservation objectives of the fully protected zones. cally from one protected area to another or even ICDPS at multiple-use areas rarely have to deal with within a single protected area. the entrenched resentment and hostility that can It is extremely difficult to generalize about build up outside the borders of a traditional park. threats to protected areas in any useful way. The Box 2.2 Innovative legislation for multiple-use conservation areas Air-Tenere, Niger. Legislation originally permitted three types of protected areas in Niger: total game reserves, with access generally limited to researchers; partial game reserves, allowing hunting of certain species; and national parks, where exploitation is forbidden but tourism is allowed. Legislation passed in 1988 provided legal support for a conserva- tion project in the Air-Tenere region (under way since 1982), establishing a total game reserve (the Addax Sanctuary) of 12,805 square kilometers within a partial game reserve of 77,360 square kilometers. The Addax Sanctuary was established in unused areas. The remainder, the Air-Tenere National Nature Reserve, was designed to promote the continued use of natural resources by the indigenous population. Resident populations were assured of the rights to settle, move freely throughout the reserve, and collect dead wood, medicinal plants, and so on; however, hunting and "needless" damage of vegetation are forbidden. Annapurna, Nepal. In 1985, the King of Nepal issued a directive to manage tourism while safeguarding the environ- ment in the highly stressed Annapurna region. Surveys of local residents found resistance to a national park designation, similar to opposition elsewhere in Nepal where national parks have been associated with resettlements and a significant Army presence. A "Conservation Area" was recommended. In contrast to national parks, conservation areas are each divided into zones, some of which allow hunting, collection of forest products, allocation of visitor fees for local develop- ment, and delegation of management authority to the village level. Legislation was passed in 1986 to establish the Annapurna Conservation Area and initiate the Annapurna Conservation Area project. Game Management Areas, Zambia. Two legislative changes lie behind the Lupande and Luangwa projects. The first change, extended to numerous governmental agencies, was the authority to establish revolving funds. This allowed different agencies, in this case the National Parks and Wildlife Service, control over revenues, which in turn enabled them to share hunting fees with local communities. A second change permitted government agencies to hire non-civil servants. This created a flexible hiring system allowing the National Parks and Wildlife Service complete control in establishing the Village Scout Program, which employs local people as wildlife scouts. 11 People and Parks few studies that have attempted to compare types is one of the most pervasive threats to protected of threats have generally been unsatisfactory and areas worldwide, including many of the case study have concentrated on the visible manifestations sites. The threats to at least four of the sites are instead of the underlying causes (box 2.3). These partly attributable to the collapse of formerly domi- studies do not adequately distinguish causes and nant natural resource industries. The demise of symptoms (for example, "local attitudes" or "hu- banana production near the Osa Peninsula and of man encroachment"), give little insight into the cacao at Talamanca, both in Costa Rica; coffee and causes of particular threats, and do not identify then tea in Tanzania's Usambara mountains; and the relative significance of the threats. mahogany at Sian Ka'an, Mexico, all led to substan- One reason for the difficulty in analyzing even tial local changes. With the loss of jobs and the lack site-specific threats is that many of their funda- of alternative employment in these regions, people mental causes lie well beyond protected area stepped up the rate of conversion of forested land boundaries. For example, illegal timber cutting in- to agriculture and intensified logging for timber. side parks could have multiple causes, including The activities of local people may well repre- migration into regions with undeveloped labor sent the most immediate, direct, and visible threat. markets, changing agricultural practices, high But in many cases the rising pressures on natural population growth, new access to forest product ecosystems derive from laws, policies, social markets, government pricing policies, the need to changes, and economic forces over which poor convert savings to cash, and so on. Different rural people have no influence yet which can se- groups-whether based on ethnic origin, social verely curtail their options. This suggests that seri- class, or other characteristics-may respond dif- ous efforts to conserve biodiversity must extend ferently to any of these changes. Such levels of beyond local communities. complexity were common among the communi- The areas surrounding parks and other pro- ties targeted by the case study projects. tected areas have generally been portrayed as mar- The most evident proximate threats to the case ginal for agriculture, remote from markets and study protected areas are shown in box 2.4, al- employment opportunities, and lacking services, though these descriptions do not present the un- roads, and infrastructure, and the people as poor, derlying causes. (These are described, where with little political influence. While the case study known, in the appendix.) Rapid population sites reveal a measure of truth in such character- growth-through natural increase or migration- izations, they are simplistic. The comrnunities ad- Box 2.3 Studies of threats to protected areas In the early 1980s a study by the iU¶CN (1984) summarized the kinds of threats facing forty-three of the world's most threatened protected areas. The top ten reported threats were 1. Inadequate management resources 2. Human encroachment 3. Change in water regime or hydro development 4. Poaching 5. Adjacent land development 6. Inappropriate internal development (for example, roads) 7. Mining and prospecting 8. Livestock conflicts 9. Military activity 10. Forestry activities. A subsequent survey of 135 parks in more than 50 countries (Machlis and Tichnell 1985) reported the most common threats as 1. Illegal removal of animal life 2. Lack of management personnel 3. Removal of vegetation 4. Soil erosion 5. Local attitudes 6. Conflicting demands on management 7. Fire 8. Human harassment of animals 9. Loss of habitat L10. Vegetation trampling. 12 Protected areas and their neighbors Box 2.4 Proximate threats to protected areas Africa Air-Tenere, Niger Tourism, poaching, livestock grazing during droughts Amboseli, Kenya Livestock grazing, tourism Bururi/Rumonge, Burundi Fuelwood collection, grazing, agricultural encroachment, fire East Usambara, Tanzania Agricultural encroachment, logging Beza Mahafaly, Madagascar Livestock grazing Andohahela, Madagascar Poaching, agricultural encroachment, burning Luangwa, Zambia Poaching Nazinga, Burkina Faso Poaching Volcanoes, Rwanda Hunting, agricultural encroachment Asia Annapurna, Nepal Fuelwood collection, water pollution, poor sanitation, littering Dumoga-Bone, Indonesia Poaching, agricultural encroachment Gunung-Leuser, Indonesia Road construction, logging, agricultural encroachment Khao Yai, Thailand Agriculture, poaching, logging, inappropriate development Chitwan, Nepal Fuelwood collection, livestock grazing Latin America Monarch, Mexico Logging, agriculture, cattle grazing Osa, Costa Rica Logging, gold-mining, agricultural expansion Central Selva, Peru Colonization, agricultural expansion, cattle-ranching Sian Ka'an, Mexico Logging Talamanca, Costa Rica Road construction, agricultural expansion, tourism jacent to these protected areas are not homogenous. munity Development Association of Thailand, a They vary considerably in their social and political nongovernmental organization, revealed how ex- systems, economic activities, institutions and au- tensive a stranglehold local moneylenders had on thority structures, history and longevity at par- the local economy. In Costa Rica, the Boscosa ticular sites, and linkages with regional, national, project carried out socioeconomic surveys, land- and international economies (box 2.5). Variations use studies, and forest inventories, which were in these characteristics within areas are in some used to initiate planning with the local community cases as significant as variations between different and to provide baseline data for the project. The areas. Understanding the interaction of these vari- process of collecting this information provided an ables helps in understanding the local threats fac- important opening to effective local participation ing the case study protected areas. in these three projects. Among the remaining projects, Amboseli (Kenya), Lupande (Zambia), Information gathering and Nazinga (Burkina Faso) were originated by people who knew the areas and their communities Comparison of the case study sites has empha- intimately. Other icDPs started with much less in- sized the difficulty in generalizing about the ex- formation. tent to which local communities pose an ultimate, Several techniques for gathering advance proximate, direct, or indirect threat-or no threat- knowledge about communities are available (see, to parks; this is a site-specific judgment. Thus icDp for example, Carruthers and Chambers 1981, CIDE design should be based on detailed site-specific and NEs 1990, Gregersen 1988, Kumar 1987, Molnar studies of the local socioeconomic, political, and 1989, and Noronha 1980). However, except for cultural contexts. those described above, the case study projects did A few of the case study projects conducted par- not conduct socioeconomic assessments of their ticularly effective surveys. In Nepal, a three-mem- targeted beneficiaries-either because they did not ber survey team spent six months collecting infor- recognize the importance of gathering systematic mation on what became the multiple-use information on local people or had inadequate re- Annapurna Conservation Area, developing a pro- sources. Most projects thus began with a very lim- visional management plan based on discussions ited understanding of the dynamics underlying with community leaders and villagers throughout the threats to the protected areas they were seek- the region. At Khao Yai, interviews with Sup Tai ing to protect. villagers conducted by the Population and Com- 13 People and Parks Box 2.5 Variations in community characteristics of communities in or around protected areas Ethnicity. In some areas, local populations are ethnically heterogeneous (Annapurna, Nepal; Usambara, Tanzania); in some there are several prevalent groups (Dumoga-Bone, Indonesia; Khao Yai, Thailand; Talamanca, Costa Rica; Volcanoes, Rwanda); and in some, populations are relatively homogeneous (Air-Tenere, Niger; Amboseli, Kenya; Beza Mahafaly, Madagascar; Corcovado, Costa Rica). Numbers. Population densities range from very high (Bururi, Burundi; Chitwan, Nepal; Dumoga-Bone, Indonesia; Monarch, Mexico; Volcanoes, Rwanda) to very low (Air-Tenere, Niger; Amboseli, Kenya; Annapuma, Nepal; Lupande/ ADMADE, Zambia; Sian Ka'an, Mexico). Length of residence. Some communities are well-established (Air-Tenere, Niger; Amboseli, Kenya; Annapurna, Nepal; Beza Mahafaly, Madagascar; Lupande/ADMADE, Zambia), while others consist of recent migrants (Chitwan, Nepal; Dumoga- Bone, Indonesia; Monarch, Mexico; Osa, Costa Rica; Usambara, Tanzania). In other areas, long-standing populations, often indigenous groups, faced a rapid influx of migrants (Central Selva, Peru; Sian Ka'an, Mexico; Talamanca, Costa Rica). Local organizations. Responsibility for decisionmaking rested with elected officials (Beza Mahafaly, Madagascar; Monarch, Mexico), government appointees (Nazinga, Burkina Faso; Usambara, Tanzania), traditional leaders (Air-Tenere, Niger; Amboseli, Kenya; Lupande/ADMADE, Zambia) and combinations of these. Some communities appeared to lack organized decisionmaking mechanisms (chapter 6). Location and access. Most sites are remote from cities and markets, although recent road construction has made some areas accessible (Dumoga-Bone and Gunung Leuser, Indonesia; Khao Yai, Thailand; Talamanca, Costa Rica) (chapter 5). Tourism. Some areas draw substantial numbers of tourists (Air-Tenere, Niger; Amboseli, Kenya; Annapurna and Chitwan, Nepal; Monarch, Mexico; Volcanoes, Rwanda). More government services tend to be provided in such areas, although services are usually oriented toward tourists, not local communities (chapter 5). Land and resource use. Most areas were heavily dependent on the land and the natural resource base for subsistence. Predominant use patterns were pastoralism (Amboseli, Kenya); agriculture (Dumoga-Bone, Indonesia; Lupande/ADMADE, Zambia); mixed agriculture and pastoralism (Air-Tenere, Niger; Andohahela and Beza Mahafaly, Madagascar); and mixed agriculture and forestry (Beza Mahafaly, Madagascar; Bururi and Rumonge, Burundi; Monarch and Sian Ka'an, Mexico; Osa and Talamanca, Costa Rica; Usambara, Tanzania; Volcanoes, Rwanda). These ranged from traditional systems for subsistence production (Amboseli, Kenya; Central Selva, Peru) to subsistence and commercial sectors in the same area (Osa and Talamanca, Costa Rica) (chapter 5). 14 Case study projects in Costa 3. Rica, Tanzania, and Thailand - _ The previous chapter described how the case study with other lands, these comprise part of La Amistad projects faced a wide variety of local conditions Biosphere Reserve, which extends through much when their work began. These variations added to of the county. A variety of endangered species live the complexity of an already challenging task-to in the protected areas in the region. reconcile local people to a new or established pro- Commercial banana production is prevalent in tected area. In this chapter the focus shifts to the the flat areas bordering the Sixaola river. projects. Smallholder agriculture, mainly plantain and root The approaches to project design and imple- crop production for export, predominates in the mentation varied; and no single project was typi- rest of the Sixaola floodplain. Elsewhere, cacao cal. It is therefore very difficult to characterize was the principal source of income for many small integrated conservation-development projects farmers until 1980, when monilia pod rot, a fungal (icDps) with a tidy definition. Assessments of the disease, devastated production in the region. The projects for this study were strongly influenced by Talamanca region is one of the most racially het- an appreciation of the subtleties in local context, erogeneous zones in the country, with three pri- many of which became apparent only from site mary ethnic groups: blacks, mestizos (mixed Span- visits and interviews with project staff and mem- iards and Indians), and Indians. bers of the local communities who were expected Despite a long history of plantation agriculture to benefit from the projects. Some of these subtle- in the region, many of the hillsides are heavily ties disappeared again when the case study analy- forested, although many of the trees are secondary ses were condensed for the appendix. So, case study growth. Cacao and coconut production and fish- projects in three protected areas are given more ing were the major economic activities along the thorough treatment here: the Talamanca region in coast, but they have been replaced by tourism, Costa Rica, the East Usambara mountains in Tan- land speculation, and logging. The rapidly erod- zania, and Khao Yai in Thailand. Although the ing beaches near Puerto Viejo are becoming in- choice of these examples was subjective, they il- creasingly popular for surfing, fishing, tourism, lustrate issues and lessons applicable to many of and other recreational uses. the case studies. In the last ten years the Costa Rican govern- ment has built numerous roads throughout the Talamanca Region, Costa Rica region. Tourism grew and land prices increased rapidly once the travel time from the Central Val- Context ley to the Talamancan coast was shortened. But the road building has also resulted in deforesta- Talamanca county is in the extreme southeastern tion along the new roads. Timber contractors seek- section of Costa Rica, bordered on the east by the ing lumber and migrants looking for agricultural Caribbean Sea and on the south by Panama (see land have been clearing the forest where roads map 3.1). Ecosystems in the project area include have provided access. One reason for the migrants' beaches, coral reefs, coastal plains, fresh water actions is that Costa Rican law requires land im- swamps and mangroves, tropical moist forest, and provements to establish property rights. The re- an inland mountain area that rises to nearly 4,000 sult has been that new migrants cleared land to meters. Talamanca has two national parks, one claim it and old-time farmers suddenly cleared biological reserve, one protected zone, five indig- land to stop migrants from claiming their land- enous reservations, and a wildlife refuge; along resulting in high levels of deforestation. 15 People and Parks Map 3.1 Talamanca Region, Costa Rica NICARAGUA TALAMANCA CARIB8FAN COSTA RICA COSTA _ \ ', W ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~R I C A _ Puerto Limon San OCEAN . d \ ~~~CA RIBBEAN SEA Puerto Viejo t ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Monti peaks (over 600 meters) E - a e g g _ - ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Main Road | ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ - i- _ International BNoundary | w z~~~~~~~J~> National Parks or Reserves Gandlanza n W Scanlec A Mounta~il ek omvers60mees Project on issues related to community participation. ANAC's principal objective, according to project papers, is ANAI is a Costa Rican nongovernmental organiza- to promote individual responsibility for land stew- tion that has worked in Talamanca since 1976 to ardship, based on the belief that "the most apt integrate conservation of natural ecosystems with stewards of tropical lands are the peasants who the development needs of rural peoples. The De- have committed their lives to them. Whatever aids velopment Research Corporation for the Socio-En- these peoples helps the tropical environment and vironment (CIDESA), founded by one of A.NAl'S staff, vice versa." ANAI has initiated or supported a vari- works closely with ANAI on this project, especially ety of activities throughout the region. lb Three case study projects With funding from World Wildlife Fund-U.S., ares of tropical plants and 120 hectares of forest, ANAi began a land titling project in connection with that it uses to test for new agroforestry and agri- proposals to establish the Gandoca-Manzanillo cultural species. CIDESA has also initiated a small- wildlife refuge. The 50 square kilometers proposed scale organic farming plot in one of the local com- for reserve status consisted of private and munities, and a women's vegetable gardening unclaimed lands, some under cultivation and some project. In 1989, ANAI began the community techni- wild. This activity involved creating a new cat- cians program to develop local leaders who can egory of protected area that would allow private provide information for agricultural and ownership subject to restrictions on use. When agroforestry development and can act as liaisons ANAI heard that a road was to be constructed between their community and outside agencies. through the proposed refuge, it asked the govern- ANAI also helped create a regional procurement, ment to officially decree the refuge as soon as processing, and marketing association. possible. This partially undermined the process of Other activities include environmental educa- community dialogue that ANAI had initiated. ANAI tion and training, support to communities on tour- not only promoted establishment of the refuge, ism development, and work with the Indian groups but has played an important role in emphasizing on oral histories and other activities. its protection. ANAI financed protection activities until the Costa Rican government took over re- Evaluation and lessons sponsibility in 1989. ANAI helped farmers occupying land in or next * ANAI has been active in the Talamanca re- to the refuge with the complicated titling process. gion for more than ten years. Its activities are not Bureaucratic snags have turned what was to have an integrated program but a collection of small- been a quick process into a five-year effort. Two scale rural development activities widely spread communities have bought farmland on which they throughout the region. intend to retain forest on 70 percent of the land. . The national government has supported Another community near the refuge has accepted ANAi'S efforts financially and politically. The head land-use restrictions. of the National Park Service commented that ANAI ANAI has also been active in protecting the four and CIDESA have influenced the government's per- species of marine sea turtles that nest on the beaches ception of the importance of promoting develop- and has initiated research on lobster and butter- ment activities with protected area management. flies. Field trials with ornamental and medicinal This may have an important influence on Costa plants are under way to test their adaptability to Rica's evolving park management structure. the agroecology of Talamanca. With the assistance * Relations between ANAi and the municipal- of the Green Iguana Foundation, ANAI has also ity of Talamanca have been strained. The munici- started two projects to raise green iguana. The pality would like to attract large-scale develop- program is intended to provide local residents with ment and feels that potentially large tax revenues a source of protein and income, relieve pressure have already been lost because of the conserva- on wild iguanas, and justify maintaining the forest tion-oriented use restrictions promoted by ANAI. cover. The municipality sees conservation as thwarting ANAI has helped forty communities in Talamanca local economic development, instead of support- establish nurseries, with nearly 600 smallholder ing it. farmers participating. The nurseries emphasize sta- * External factors, such as road building and bilizing incomes through crop diversification, pro- government delays in granting land title, have in- moting reforestation, improving soil management, fluenced local perceptions of ANAL. Although the and promoting environmental education and com- refuge is protected, misunderstandings and un- munity organization. ANAI promotes the planting even local support continue to be problems-erod- of tree crops that can absorb surplus labor, unlike ing local confidence in ANAI and making the orga- slash-and-burn agriculture, and that will provide nization the target of frequent rumors. And the a stable and diversified production base for local refuge designation has not deterred development. communities. Cacao has been the most popular . Thecommunitiesactivelyparticipateinnurs- species. ANAI estimates that since the inception of ery management and other project activities. There the project, more than 1.8 million cacao trees have is also some limited, informal participation in de- been distributed throughout the area. sign and evaluation of some project components. ANAI has two experimental farms, with 80 hect- But there is no formal emphasis on building local 17 People and Parks institutions, although ANAI iS strengthening local East Usambara Mountains, Tanzania leadership ability through the community techni- cians and nursery programs. Context * The community nursery program-the most visible and well-established program component- Located in northeastern Tanzania, the East has succeeded in terms of community participa- Usambara mountains cover about 32,000 hectares tion in decisionmaking, the number of communi- with a high point of 1,500 meters (see map 3.2). ties involved, and the number of seedlings pro- The mountains belong to the Eastern Arc, a com- duced. But the greatest number of seedlings have paratively old and isolated mountain chain with a been cacao plants, which could cause problems if remarkably high degree of biological endemism. prices continue to fall. This problem highlights the The mountains contain high-quality hardwood for- difficulty of balancing decisionmaking with sound ests and are the principal source of water for technical decisions: ANAI staff view themselves as streams that supply urban and agricultural areas technical specialists who can provide the farmers in the surrounding lowlands. with guidance, but they are unwilling to dictate Once extensive forests have been replaced by a what should be planted-and they note that the patchwork of shrinking forest remnants, many of farmers are most interested in producing cacao them modified by human activity, mainly tea es- seedlings. tates and smallholder farms. The forest remnants * Despite the project's experimental nature, include eighteen forest reserves covering about ANAI documented little of the activities, obstacles, 160 square kilometers and 90 square kilometers of key issues, or ways to replicate the project. It will public land that has not been cleared for agricul- be difficult for ANAI or other organizations to as- ture. Industrial logging (until 1987) and cardamom sess which activities were successful and why. cultivation have significantly degraded the area's * Although many of the development activi- natural forests. ties have a conservation orientation, ANAI'S conser- The forest reserves are under the jurisdiction of vation and development activities have no explicit the Forestry and Beekeeping Division of the Min- linkage. Its activities do not focus on any specific istry of Lands, Natural Resources, and Tourism. protected area in the Talamanca region, although District authorities have jurisdiction over the pub- its role in the formation of the Gandoca-Manzanillo lic lands and the estates. Local people also have Wildlife Refuge was vital and its interest in pro- considerable-but unclear-rights over the public tecting La Amistad Biosphere Reserve is strong. lands. The difficulty in establishing direct linkages in ar- The East Usambara population of about 40,000 eas undergoing rapid change was evident in a consists almost entirely of poor farmers from sev- 1987 external evaluation of the project: eral ethnic groups. Many are migrants to the area, Thus far ANAI has concentrated its effort on im- attracted by wage labor opportunities in private mediate issues: agroforestry technology, appropri- coffee and tea estates. Tea and cardamom are now ate roads, creation of the refuge, and land titling. the principal crops. Cardamom is a major export Several of these issues have been resolved satisfac- crop for Tanzania, and production has been en- torily and the others appear headed for satisfac- couraged by the government. Cardamom cultiva- tory resolution. Even if all are resolved, however, tion requires shade, which the natural forest canopy ANAI will not have fully attained its dual goals of provides, but it degrades the soil after a few years development and conservation. In particular the of production, requiring the clearing of more plots. conservation goal will remain in jeopardy because Since industrial logging ended in 1987 in response population will increase; lands will be sold to new to international pressure, cardamom cultivation farmers; existing farmers will intensify land use has been the greatest single threat to the remain- and also bring more land into production; forests ing forests. and wildlife products will increase in value. (McCaffrey and Landazuri 1987, 32) Project * Lack of secure long-term funding has pre- vented ANAI from increasing project activities and The East Usambara Agricultural Development and making long-term project commitments. This also Environmental Conservation project began in early has meant that much of the director's time is spent 1987; according to project papers, its goals were fund-raising and reporting. "improving the villagers' living conditions and 18 Three case study projects Map 3.2 East Usambara Mountains, Tanzania EAST USAMBARA FOREST RESERVES TANZANIA LutindiJ Klangangua Kizerui, Kwamgumi Zirai -> pKwezitu egia X Gomber_ *Kiwanda * Selected Cities and Towns Kwemdimu / |- Main Roads E7 J Forest Reserves ~t EJUA an Scale _< g e ~~~~~~~~~M a n g u b u °' eer o 1 2 3 4 5 Kilomnete. - \\ l/ / 1-\ ) ~~~~~~~~~~~~UGANDA) ;7 E~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ \E N Y\ A ssrsAla| TANZANIA (a ND(AN Da, OS Saar, OCEAN > ~~~~~~ZAMSIA ) MOZAMBIQUE 19 People and Parks the regional resource functions, while adequately including coffee, cloves, black pepper, cinnamon, preserving the forests' biological diversity and en- pineapples, and sugarcane; and planting trees vironmental value." The project was implemented along the forest reserve boundaries. by the Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock De- The project now includes agricultural and rural velopment, through the Tanga Regional Authori- development initiatives for protecting the forests, ties, in collaboration with the Forestry Division conserving soil, and generating income. The initia- and the International Union for Conservation of tives include establishing individual and village Nature and Natural Resources (iucN). Thus the tree nurseries; contour planting, mainly with pine- project was integrated with existing central and apples and guatemala grass; promoting women's regional government institutions. The project re- activities, including a chicken-raising project, ceived funding from the European Community shops, commercial vegetable gardens, and a sew- (EC) through early 1990, and has received limited ing project; establishing coffee nurseries in two funds from other sources through June, 1992. The villages; organizing village pit-sawing groups; es- project applied for a three-year extension from the tablishing and stocking several fish ponds; assist- EC, but further funding is still uncertain. ing villagers with road repair and maintenance; In a separate initiative Finnida financed and distributing seeds and establishing private veg- conducted an inventory of the East Usambara for- etable gardens; and stall-feeding livestock. ests in 1986 in collaboration with the Forestry Di- The project's first two years saw relatively little vision, leading to the publication of a forest man- progress in getting people to work together effec- agement plan in 1988. The management plan has tively in planning or carrying out development not yet been implemented, and its future relation- activities. For example, pit sawing is one of the ship with the project is unclear. The Finnish team most lucrative local enterprises. Yet virtually none summarized agriculture in the East Usambara as of the economnic benefits from pit sawing are cap- "a combination of decaying estates and ineffec- tured locally, and the project has had little success tive, often unsustainable small-scale farming" in encouraging local people to participate. Com- (Finnida 1988, 1-11). munal cash crop development at nurseries and Project activities are directed by the project man- other small-scale enterprises has also failed to at- ager, a salaried employee of the Ministry of Agri- tract support. This unwillingness to collaborate culture and Livestock Development working with may spring from a lack of experience cooperating two expatriates-a technical adviser and an agri- on joint ventures. Many of the villagers are com- cultural adviser. Other Tanzanian agricultural and paratively recent migrants to the area, and conse- forestry staff from the Ministries of Agriculture quently there are no traditions of community for- and Livestock Development and Lands and Natu- est management in the area. ral Resources also work on the project as counter- part staff. Evaluation and lessons The area initially selected for attention by the project contains about 25,000 people, most of whom * The first two years of this project were mainly live within two days' travel of the project head- spent building and equipping the project center quarters at Amani. To promote interaction with and staff housing. Implementation thus cannot yet these communities the project selected a village be fully evaluated. coordinator from each of fifteen target villages. * Strong endorsement of the project by the The regional government in Tanga pays their sala- Tanzanian government is indicated by participa- ries and has guaranteed to make the positions per- tion by the Ministries of Agriculture and Livestock manent. The village coordinators are the primary Development and Lands and Natural Resources, link between the project and the villages. They are the placement of salaried ministry personnel in either trained by the project or sent to attend short key project posts, and a guarantee of the perma- courses. They meet monthly in Amani to report nence of the village coordinator positions. This progress and problems. Many of the village coor- commitrnent suggests that the activities have a dinators have established agricultural demonstra- good chance of being sustained, although contin- tion plots in their own villages. ued external funding will be essential. The project began in 1987, with an emphasis on * The Forestry Division does not have enough three activities: surveying villagers, including ex- personnel to enforce regulations in the forest re- tensive discussions with local people about project serves. UJnless enforcement capacity is strength- objectives; promoting substitutes for cardamom, ened rapidly, the public land forests are unlikely 20 Three case study projects to survive for long. However, the boundary tree process of preparing one and resolving the issues planting activities promoted by the project are an that arise can encourage participation by villagers important first step in conserving the forest re- in identifying and addressing collective problems. serves. By the end of 1989, 60 kilometers of the Imposing a plan from the outside or insisting that targeted 100 kilometers of boundary had been one be developed could be self-defeating. Villag- planted with trees. ers do not appear to consider fuelwood shortage * An effective community outreach mecha- as a major constraint, and it seems unlikely that nism was essential because of the large target popu- this issue would catalyze interest in what could be lation and the long travel time between villages. a highly innovative collaborative venture. The village coordinator approach seems to be work- * The project activities appear to have done ing well. The individuals selected as village coor- much to gain the trust and respect of local people. dinators seem dedicated to their work, and their This may not be "development," but it seems to be active participation and high morale are evident at contributing to forging a relationship and creating formal meetings and in communal village activi- an atmosphere that will promote the credibility- ties. With substantial support from the project lead- and possibly adoption-of future project initia- ers the village coordinators appear to have estab- tives. lished constructive relationships with other villag- * There is little evidence yet that conservation ers. The project appears to be highly regarded and goals are being achieved; however, by the end of its personnel well respected in the Amani region. 1989 the project had probably done as much as, if Local participation in activities promoted by not more than, could reasonably be expected. the project has included constructing fish ponds, planting trees to mark the forest boundaries, set- Khao Yai National Park, Thailand ting up private nurseries, and planting contour lines for soil conservation. Most of these activities Context were wage work, although some boundary tree planting was voluntary. The farming techniques The 2,200 square kilometer Khao Yai National Park promoted by the project have not been widely is about 200 kilometers northeast of Bangkok (see adopted, which is not surprising given the brief map 3.3). It includes some of the largest remaining project history. areas of tropical moist forest in mainland Asia and * Substantial data are available on the East has exceptionally diverse plants and animals. For Usambara forests, but no comparable baseline sur- many rare species it is one of the last remaining veys have been carried out to describe the adjacent viable habitats in Thailand. The park is also part of farming systems, which are one of the project's the hydrological cycle of northeast Thailand, con- principal targets. The project's first agricultural taining the headwaters of four major rivers and adviser conducted a few preliminary and informal supplying two large reservoirs. Khao Yai attracts surveys, but they are incomplete. The lack of sys- 250,000-400,000 Thai and foreign visitors annually tematic agricultural and socioeconomic informa- who spend 150 million baht ($5 million) on admis- tion creates two problems for project personnel, sion, lodging fees, transportation, food, and other making it difficult for them to decide how to ap- services in the park (Dixon and Sherman 1990). proach farming-system changes and, later, how to The annual budget for park management is ap- determine which changes in agricultural practices proximately 3.5 million baht ($120,000). or socioeconomic variables are attributable to the Land surrounding the park has been almost project. entirely deforested in the last three decades. The * An external evaluation of the project was park is under pressure from illegal hunting and carried out in 1989 by a team that included repre- logging and from large-scale development sentatives from iucN', the European Community, projects-including some tourist facilities-that are the Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock Devel- incompatible with its protection function. opment, the Forestry Division, and the Tanga Re- About 53,000 people live in 150 villages around gional Authority. Reconmmendations included de- the park. Most illegally occupy land classified as veloping village woodlots as part of village land- reserved forest (as do more than 7 million Thai use or resource-management plans. This would villagers throughout the country). Limited and spo- require more cooperation and planning among vil- radic park enforcement measures have generated lagers than currently seems feasible. Part of the hostility and armed clashes between local villag- value in producing a land-use plan is that the ers and personnel of the National Parks Division 21 People and Parks Map 3.3 Khao Yai National Park, Thailand A KHAO YAI NATIONAL PARK THAILAND Nakhon Ratchasima > .; \5Sok Noi \ / Pak Thongchai - Roads * WFT Villages Sara Buri 7r 00 l0-000li;0000.S. t:X ^ ....... . */ Selected Cities and Towns ' Non-project Villages Scale \*_yatthaya 1 \ *v0000l'.tl,E'jabl0t0XW§,tj0 10 20 30 Kilometers MYANMAR LAOS VIETNA / X Nay l0pl[.9 $ THAILAND E / ~~~~~~~Prachin BurX wnkig CAMBODIA -N- / \ < - N - / ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~7h.il :; 1K / / J X ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~South China GKOK Sea of the Royal Forestry Department; people on both some of Thailand's most important environmental sides have been killed. However, illegal activities issues. It had no previous experience in project in the park have continued, mainly poaching and implementation. logging. A preliminary survey found that Sup Tai vil- lagers were poorer than average and heavily in Project debt. Health and sanitation levels were low. There were no formal village institutions, literacy was In 1985 two Thai nongovernmental organizations- rare, and a third of the villagers-mainly recent the Population and Community Development As- immigrants-had no legal land titles. The survey sociation and Wildlife Fund Thailand-began revealed that middlemen (loan sharks) controlled working together in Sup Tai village just outside village economies, providing credit to farmers at a the park boundary. The Population and Commu- usurious 5 percent a month and then taking over nity Development Association, the largest nongov- the lands of those unable to repay the loans. As in emmental organization in Thailand, has been or- many other rural areas of Thailand, the heavy in- ganizing rural development programs emphasiz- debtedness of villagers, who had no access to al- ing community participation since 1974. Its activi- ternative credit sources, appeared to be the major ties have reached more than 16,000 villages and constraint to change. Many villagers acknowledged have led to improvements in health, family plan- illegally hunting and logging in the park. ning, and income in many poor rural communi- The Sup Tai Rural Development for Conserva- ties. Wildlife Fund Thailand, founded in 1983 and tion Project, which began in 1985, sought to find now a World Wildlife Fund-International affiliate, ways to conserve the park's natural resources while is a relatively small conservation organization that promoting improved income-generating opportu- achieved prominence by attracting attention to nities. The project was built around a new village- 22 Three case study projects level institution, the environmental protection so- provided 5 million baht ($180,000), and the Popu- ciety. An elected village commnittee administers lation and Community Development Association, the society with supervision from a full-time project which gave one million baht ($36,000). For the manager. The environmental protection society was TEAM project USAID provided a three-year grant of established as a vehicle for enabling villagers to 5.3 million baht ($190,000) but discontinued its make decisions and, eventually, to become finan- funding early in 1990 after Wildlife Fund Thailand cially and organizationally self-sufficient and in- declined to increase the project scope to include dependent from the project. more villages. The most important project activity has been to The project has brought major changes to Sup provide loans to environmental protection society Tai. Early on, the project attracted national and members from a revolving loan fund, in exchange international attention, culminating in a visit from for commitments to abide by park regulations. In- the prime minister in 1987. The announcement of terest rates on the loans were set at commercial this visit led the province to carry out road im- bank levels-1 percent a month. From 1985 to 1989, provements that dramatically reduced the travel 436 loans totaling about 2.1 million baht ($75,000) time from Bangkok. Two years later, in another were made to Sup Tai residents. The loans have significant event for the village, Sup Tai was con- been repaid in full and on time, almost without nected to the country's electricity network. These exception. Early in 1990, the Bank of Agriculture changes, which resulted from but were not en- and Agricultural Cooperatives agreed to provide couraged by the project, have already altered the credit directly to Sup Tai farmers on an experi- villagers' economic situation. The road improve- mental basis. ment appears to have contributed to the rapid Other conservation and development activities penetration of a cash economy and soaring land have also been promoted, including soil conserva- prices, both of which the villagers see as benefits. tion, livestock and fish raising, fruit tree cultiva- tion, cooperative stores, improved sanitation and Evaluation and lessons health practices, and a small park trekking pro- gram for tourists. Education programs have been * Villagers and officials assert that illegal ac- designed to improve environmental awareness and tivities continue throughout the park, mainly hunt- to inform villagers of park regulations. Trees have ing and logging, although the projects have led to been planted in the hills above the village to mark improved relations between villagers and park per- the park boundary. sonnel. The overall project goal of strengthening In 1987 Wildlife Fund Thailand withdrew from protection for Khao Yai National Park has not been the project to initiate the Environmental Aware- achieved, even in the area immediately around ness and Development Mobilization (TEAM) project Sup Tai or the other project villages. A significant in ten villages on the opposite side of the park, exception is that agricultural encroachment around with conservation education activities in another Sup Tai ended after trees were planted to mark the forty villages. The Population and Community boundary. Development Association continued working in * The loan programs provide important eco- Sup Tai, expanded into two nearby villages dur- nomic benefits to villagers, although not yet on a ing 1987, and had extended into three more by scale large enough to enable them to become inde- 1991. Both the new project and the expansion of pendent of the middlemen. the other projects are based on the Sup Tai model. * The credibility of the environmental protec- The National Parks Department has had very little tion society as a viable organization separate involvement in either of the projects. from-if clearly related to-the projects has been A project manager from the Population and emphasized. To some extent the project's sustain- Community Development Association has been ability depends on having the society continue on-site at Sup Tai since 1985, employing a few after the nongovernmental organizations with- local staff. Since 1987 this manager has also super- draw. Yet even the Sup Tai environmental protec- vised project activities in the nearby villages of tion society is not likely to become self-sufficient Non Kradong and Sok Noi. Wildlife Fund Thai- soon, contrary to earlier predictions. land has two on-site project managers, one re- * Funneling the loans through the environ- sponsible for each group of five villages. mental protection society was the major incentive Funding for the Sup Tai project (1985-90) came for villagers to participate in the institution and to from Agro Action, a German foundation, which support the project's conservation goals. There is 23 People and Parks little evidence that villagers perceive the planned had a profound effect on Sup Tai. Land prices connection between the availability of credit increased at least sixfold from 1985 to 1989. Many through the environrmental protection society and farmers have been unable to resist these prices and reduced illegal activities in the park. The implica- have sold their land, becoming renters or moving tion is that the projects have not yet effectively elsewhere. Others have been forced to give up linked their development activities and their con- their land in lieu of debt repayments and have servation objectives. T his is admittedly difficult to remained as renters or hired laborers or have joined assess because the villagers' role in illegal activi- Thailand's growing migratory rural population. ties in the park-before or now-is unknown. The number of absentee landlords has increased Apart from the loans, economic benefits considerably. This pattern appears to have been flowing from the projects are difficu.lt to identify repeatled at several sites around the National Park, and measure. Whether these benefits are enough particularly those within reach of major highways. to reduce the incentive to use natural resources The effects of these trends on the national park from the park is questionable. Farming that em- and on the conservation objectives of the projects phasizes soil conservation and new crop varieties are impossible to predict. In certain areas these has had some success, mainly in Sup Tai, but adop- effects are likely to escalate on a scale that may tion is not yet widespread. swamp any economic benefits of the projects. This - The partnership between the twvo project or- illustrates the difficulty of predicting the effects of ganizations provided a valuable opportunity to local clevelopment initiatives on parks. link expertise in conservation and development. * Evaluations carried out by the Population The Population and Community Development As- and Community Development Association's re- sociation has been able to draw on its well-estab- search and evaluation division have provided valu- lished community-development and family-plan- able inputs to the management of the various ning programs and could play a significant role in projects. These evaluations have included exten- future replication of the Sup Tai m.odel at other sive interviews with villagers. protected area sites. For Wildlife Fund Thailand, a * Despite widespread, favorable attention to relatively small organization, the TEAM project con- the projects around Khao Yai, there is no indica- stitutes a considerable administrative burden. The tion that any Thai government agency or nongov- split between the two- organizations has unfortu- ernmental organization plans to replicate this ap- nately resulted in a loss of balance in the projects, proach on a larger scale elsewhere. The National with the Poplulation and Communitv Development Parks Division is desperately short of resources, Association giving iess emphasis to the effect of its and its staff have neither the training nor the expe- activities on the park and Wildlife Fund Thailand rience needed for a community development or making relatively little progress on the develop- extension program. The staff also lack the jurisdic- ment aspects. tion to operate outside national park boundaries. 0 Both organizations have learned that staff- Its parent agency, the Royal Forestry Department, ing is critical to maintaining progress. The Popula- has to confront the reality of millions of people tion and Community Development Association is living illegally on reserve forest lands throughout a large and well-established organization, with a Thailand, of which only a small fraction adjoins large supply of trained and experienced person- national park and wildlife sanctuary boundaries. nel. Wildlife Fund Thailand has an extremely small * ,Many of the villages around Khao Yai have staff and little experience in project rmanagement. now been reached in one way or another by the It has also had difficulty finding, hiring, and re- two projects. Only in Sup Tai, however, have any taining suitable project field staff. The rTEw ap- of the activities been operating long enough to be proach of two project managers, each covering evaluated, and in Sup Tai they are in danger of five villages, appears to stretch limited resources being overwhelmed by the effects of road building too thinly. and escalating land prices. Even in Sup Tai the a Except for the loan program, the willingness precise nature of the project's successes and their of local people to participate in project activities is implications for replication are elusive. Project ac- closely related to villagers' personal reactions to the tivities in most of the other villages are too recent project staff. Project personnel in place at the end to have had an effect on park uses. Despite the of 1989 all appeared to be capable, enthusiastic, many irnpressive aspects of the ICDP initiatives dedicated, and highly respected by the villagers. around Khao Yai National Park, there are few signs * Electrification and road improvement have that the park deterioration is being stopped. 24 Implementing integrated 4. conservation-development projects Earlier chapters discussed the concept of integrated to emphasize biological resource inventories and conservation-development projects (IcDps) and de- monitoring, patrolling to prevent illegal activities, scribed some of the projects. This chapter looks at infrastructure maintenance, applied biological re- the ICDP approach in more detail and analyzes the search and, possibly, conservation education. These most innovative components. icDP operations as a activities are essentially similar to traditional-park whole cover three areas: management activities and have been well de- s Protected area management. This area, where scribed elsewhere (for example, MacKinnon and conservation activities are donminant, has been thor- others 1986; Miller 1978). (The constraints facing oughly discussed in the conservation literature, existing park agencies and their relative lack of and discussion here is limited, effectiveness are discussed in chapter 7.) * Buffer zones around protected areas. An attempt Buffer zones is made to clarify this ambiguous notion, leading to the conclusion that buffer zones are a significant Managers of protected areas are well aware of the component in few, if any, of the case study projects. buffer zone concept. Management plans for tradi- a Local social and economic development. This is tional parks and multiple-use areas frequently re- the innovative and most challenging aspect of icPs, fer to buffer zones, and several national conserva- and most of the chapter concentrates on this topic. tion strategies have promoted the idea. Buffer zones The discussion highlights the magnitude of the have become so popular, in fact, that they are part challenge confronting icDP managers and identi- of virtuall all ro posals for protecting natural fies several important issues that the case study r pop r g projects have not yet addressed explicitly. A sub- Despite their intuitive appeal, however, buffer set of the development component with more lim- zones have not been adequately defined, and there ited aims, the compensation and substitution ap- are few working models. The term has been used proach, is also discussed. to describe almost any initiative involving people By definition, the development component that takes place near a protected area. As a result, separates ICDPS from other conservation projects. there is a lack of consensus on issues involving For an icDp to achieve its biodiversity conservation buffer zones-their objectives, their location, goals, however, it is not enough for the develop- whether they should be inside or outside parks, ment component to foster improved local living what criteria should determine their area, shape, standards-a difficult enough task. The develop- and permitted uses (Wind and Prins 1989). ment process must not only be economically and Buffer zones first received widespread atten- biologically sustainable, but must also conserve tion as a result of ucrEsco's Man and the Biosphere the ecosystem of the protected area. To satisfy this Program, which featured buffer zones as a key exacting requirement, explicit linkages between component of biosphere reserve models. The pro- projects' development components and conserva- gram was the first attempt to link protected areas tion objectives are needed. with local social and economic development. The results from more than a decade of program imple- Protected area management mentation have been unconvincing, however (box 4.1). ICDP activities in a traditional park-or the fully Several definitions of buffer zones have been protected zone of a multiple-use area-are likely proposed. In an influential book that emerged from 25 People and Parks Box 4.1 UNESCO'S Man and the Biosphere Program The biosphere reserve concept of the Man and the Biosphere Program first appeared in 1979, emphasizing the value of incorporating the needs and perceptions of local people in the establishment and management of reserves. The model biosphere reserve was described as consisting of a protected core area surrounded by a buffer zone and then a transition area. In the model, use of the buffer zone was limited to activities compatible with the protected core area, such as certain research, education, training, recreation, and tourism. Development activities involving local communities were intended to take place in the transition area (Batisse 1986). In later versions of the model the buffer zone and the transition areas were renamed the inner and outer buffer zones, although their functions were unchanged. There are about 300 biosphere reserves worldwide. Comparisons between particular reserves and the model usually show that the distinction between the inner and outer buffer zones has blurred or disappeared, and little attention has been paid to promoting development in the buffer areas. Although the program has helped highlight the need to consider the relationship between protected areas and local people, the program has not demonstrated workable approaches. One reason for the program's disappointing results is that most biosphere reserves were superimposed on existing parks and reserves (Hough 1988a). The agencies responsible for managing these areas usually lacked the resources, inclination, or ability to modify their management approach. As a result, the change of status to a biosphere reserve was in name only, with little change in emphasis or management philosophy. (This experience corresponds with the problems facing traditional parks described in chapter 2.) the 1982 World Parks Congress, MacKinnon and are readily apparent. Most result from the fact that others (1986, 90) offered the following: a buffer zone effectively expands the protected Areas adjacent to protected areas, on which area by keeping major human impacts at a greater land use is partially restricted to give an distance than would a conventional boundary. added layer of protection to the protected The social benefits from buffer zones are more area itself while providing valued benefits questionable. The sustainable use of wild plant to neighboring rural communities. and animal species would require a determination of sustainable exploitation limits for a variety of These authors emphasize that first priority should species, which is likely to be very difficult. Tropi- be given to protecting the park or reserve, and that cal ecosystems are extremely complex, and the benefiting local people is a secondary function. long-term effects of removing single, let alone mul- Buffer zones tend to be conceived as relatively tiple, species are not well understood. Even where narrow strips of land on park boundaries, within sustainable use levels could be determined for a which the "sustainable" use of natural resources variety of species with reasonable certainty, com- will be permitted. The activities envisioned for plex regulatory and enforcement mechanisms buffer zones usually include hunting or fishing would presumably be required to ensure that these using traditional methods, collecting fallen tim- limits were not exceeded. It is not clear who should ber, harvesting fruit, seasonal grazing of domestic be responsible or how such limits might be en- stock, and cutting bamboo, rattan, or grasses. Ac- forced. While it is possible that local communities tivities forbidden in buffer zones generally include would perceive a self-interest in keeping buffer burning vegetation, cutting live trees, construct- zone exploitation sustainable, there is little evi- ing buildings, and establishing plantations. dence to support such an assumption. A variety of spatial patterns and arrangements Another potential social benefit from buffer for buffer zones have been described (see, for ex- zones-providing a mechanism by which local ample, Lusigi 1981, MacKinnon and others 1986, people can genuinely benefit from the existence of Van Orsdol 1988). Few of these descriptions are a protected area-must also be carefully qualified. based on working examples, probably because For example, it may be difficult to convince local these are so rare. Although conservation biologists people that restricted buffer zone access consti- have given extensive consideration to the appro- tutes a valuable benefit if they had unrestricted priate shape and size of protected areas, relatively use of the area prior to establishment of the pro- little consideration has been given to the factors tected area or if the proposed buffer zone area has that would determine whether buffer zones should already been degraded. Both of these situations be inside or outside park boundaries, or how far are common on traditional park boundaries. the zones should extend. Another type of benefit that local people might Biological and social benefits have been claimed derive from buffer zones would be some measure for buffer zones (box 4.2). The biological benefits of protection from wildlife depredation. In parks 26 Implementing integrated conservation-development projects Box 4.2 Benefits of buffer zones Biological benefits * Provide a physical barrier to human encroachment into the strictly protected core zone. * Provide extra protection from storm damage and micro-climate variation in small reserves. * Enlarge the effective area of natural habitat of the reserve and reduce species loss through edge effects. * Extend the habitat-and thus the population size-of large, wide-ranging species. * Enhance the environmental services provided by the reserve-for instance, by protecting watersheds and by contributing to climatic regulation. Social benefits * Promote the sustainability of use of wild plant and animal species by local communities, thus safeguarding supplies of medicinal plants and wildlife for hunting. * Provide a mechanism by which local people can genuinely benefit from the existence of a protected area and thus foster local interest in supporting conservation. * Compensate local people for loss of access to the core-area resources. Source: Poore and Sayer (1987). where large-mammal populations have expanded efits to a secondary role, and by their focus on because of effective protection, the animals often specifically designated areas of land along pro- pose substantial threats to local people's crop fields, tected area borders. their livestock, and even their lives. Under this interpretation, the game manage- Overall, one of the most serious problems with ment areas around South Luangwa National Park buffer zones is the implication that the limited in Zambia (box 4.3) were the only operating buffer benefits that can flow to local people can change zones among the case study areas. Although buffer their behavior, reduce pressure on the plants and zones had been legally established in the animals in the protected area, and thereby enhance Annapurna Conservation Area in Nepal, on the the conservation of biological diversity. It is diffi- borders of Gunung Leuser National Park in Indo- cult to find logical reasons for this expectation. In nesia, and at the Monarch Butterfly Overwinter- a review of projects for the International Union for ing Reserves in Mexico, none was functioning at Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources the time of our study. (IucN), Oldfield (1988, 1) found few examples of The case study projects show a large gap be- buffer zone management programs that "have suc- tween buffer zone planning and reality. This is at ceeded in establishing stable and compatible land least partly because most protected area manage- use systems around a protected area in such a way ment agencies have no legal authority to establish that local people are genuinely reconciled to the or manage buffer zones-outside or inside park conservation function of the area." boundaries. The governments of Nepal and Indo- In an attempt to increase the utility of the con- nesia are currently considering appropriate legis- cept, Wind and Prins (1989) recently defined park lation. buffer zones simply as areas outside of parks that To sum up, current buffer zone definitions are are designed to protect parks. This approach gives inconsistent and overlook practical problems, and renewed emphasis to protection, firmly relegating this precludes their implementation in all but very the supply of economic benefits to local people to limited circumstances. The buffer zone concept, a secondary role, to be implemented wherever pos- although deceptively simple and intuitively very sible. Even using this simple definition, the diffi- appealing, thus faces considerable challenges. It culties in establishing and regulating appropriate remains, however, a high priority for many con- exploitation regimes are still likely to pose serious servation programs, a key component of tradi- constraints on implementation. tional-park management plans, and a potentially Following the conservation literature and the important tcDP component. approach taken in most protected area manage- ment plans, this study distinguishes buffer zones Local social and economic development from other ICDP development components by the zone's principal emphasis on park protection, Promoting social and economic development which relegates the supply of local economic ben- among communities adjacent to protected area 27 People and Parks Box 4.3 Lupande/Administrative Design for Game Management Areas (ADMADE), Zambia The game management areas can be thought of as large buffer zones surrounding many of Zambia's national parks. Wildlife is strictly protected inside national parks. However, the entire Lupande/ADMADE project depends on revenues from hunting in the game management areas. Because a revenue-sharing system was instituted to provide local communities with proceeds from concession and hunting-trophy fees, local people suddenly had an important economic interest in preserving wildlife in their immediate area. As a result, poadcing has been virtually eliminated from the game management areas because of the villagers' vigilance. Wildlife populations in some game management areas now exceed those inside some national parks. boundaries is the central concern of ICDPS, clearly portant-be aware of the approaches that seem to distinguishing them from other conservation offer the greatest promise of future success. projects. This is a new, highly complex, and chal- For example, starting with the experience of lenging task for conservation practitioners. It in- the major international development agencies, the troduces them to rural development, a field with World Bank and many of the bilateral donors of an immense analytical literature and decades of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and field experience, much of it disappointing. Development dramatically expanded their lend- Approaches to overcoming or mitigating rural ing for rural development projects in the 1970s. poverty vary according to perceptions of the un- The projects were directed toward smallholders derlying causes. The linkages are complex, vari- with their own land; only incidental benefits were able, and not well understood. For example, the planned for the "poorest of the poor"-laborers fact that poverty and environmental degradation and the landless without productive assets (World are often found in close proximity should not nec- Bank 1988, 8). According to a World Bank policy essarily be taken as evidence of causality in either paper of 1975, the objectives of the projects in- direction (Jagannathan 1989). This argues for hu- cluded improved productivity, increased employ- mility and flexibility in ICDP design and implemen- ment and thus higher incomes for target groups, tation. To reemphasize the conclusion of chapter and minimum acceptable levels of food, shelter, 2, adequate knowledge of local social, economic, education and health. These projects thus bear biological, and cultural factors that shape resource- compa rison to ICDP development components. use patterns is an essential prerequisite to using It has long been apparent that many of the economic development to change these patterns to gains from these rural development projects were more park-friendly activities. not sustained after project completion. In fact, many A recent World Bank survey (1990, 38) of what projects were later judged failures (Lewis 1988). A is known about the poor points to two "overwhelm- World Bank evaluation suggested that despite se- ingly important determinants of poverty," rious mistakes in the past, the general approach could still succeed (1988). But the report also called ... access to income-earning opportunities and for substantial changes in rural development the capacity to respond. Where households projects that amounted to a new model of devel- are confronted with opportunities to use their opment. Even in the best circumstances, the report labor to good purpose, and where house- warned, rural development projects can be ex- hold members are skilled, educated and pected to be expensive, lengthy, and difficult, with healthy, minimum standards of living are a high failure rate. assured and poverty is eliminated. Where These were the key lessons: such opportunities are not present, and where access to social services is severely * Rural development was most successful limited, living standards are unacceptably when government commitment to the projects was low. strong. * When appropriate national policies are ab- The rural development track record sent, the ability to sustain even successful projects is doubtful. The larger policy environment was The wise ICDP manager should surely become in- perhaps the single most important factor affecting formed about some of the pitfalls that have beset project success or failure. past rural development projects, and-most im- * Sociological studies were inadequate for use 28 Implementing integrated conservation-development projects in rural development planning, especially in rela- ent, the blueprint approach calls for behaving as tion to the beneficiaries' social, economic, and cul- if it were nearly perfect, and although there is a tural characteristics. need for "a close integration of knowledge build- * Many integrated projects were too ambitious ing, decision making, and action taking roles, [the and complex, often placing impossible demands blueprint approach] sharply differentiates the on local leadership and institutions. As a result, functions .... of the researcher, the planner and the the projects performed more poorly than those administrator." with simpler designs. A "bottom-up" model of development has * Projects with independent management emerged more recently and has been strongly pro- units outside regular administrative structures moted and tested by development nongovernmen- sometimes helped achieve short-term objectives, tal organizations such as the Aga Khan Founda- but at the expense of needed long-term institution tion, CARE, the Ford Foundation, and World Neigh- building. bors. As the antithesis of the top-down model, the * Reliance on expatriate technical assistance bottom-up approach emphasizes building slowly can enhance project implementation but shifts em- from a small scale, with flexible and adaptive phasis away from human capital development. project management, learning by doing, and in- * There was a common failure to involve po- volving stakeholders in all stages of a project cycle. tential beneficiaries in the identification and de- The literature describes different models of ru- sign of projects. As a result, the beneficiaries had ral development and the considerable controversy little stake in sustaining the projects. surrounding evaluations of their relative effective- * Production components require locally ness. In general, the organizations implementing proven technical innovations, which are often not icDPs-particularly the nongovernmental organi- available. zations-have been more influenced by the bot- * Monitoring should be routine, with evalua- tom-up approach. (The extent to which rural de- tion conducted as an occasional special exercise. velopment approaches have contributed to ICDP achievements is described in later chapters.) Reports by or about other large development The case study icDps that include rural develop- agencies generally tell a similar story. Yet-to ment components-most of them small scale-in- briefly preview the case study findings-most of clude East Usambara (Tanzania), Khao Yai (Thai- the icDPs showed no evidence of having absorbed land), and Talamanca (Costa Rica), described in more than one or two of these lessons. detail in chapter 3. Others include Air-Tenere At the same time, although the earlier rural (Niger), Andohahela and Beza Mahafaly (Mada- development projects and ICDPS have similarities, gascar), Annapurna (Nepal), Boscosa (Costa Rica), some clear distinctions can be drawn. Most obvi- Central Selva (Peru), Lupande/ADMADE and the ous, many of the international agencies' rural de- Luangwa Integrated Rural Development Project velopment projects were significantly larger, (Zambia), and Monarch and Sian Ka'an (Mexico) more complex, and supported by financial re- (see appendix). sources of a magnitude greater than any IcDP. In There is an important distinction between the addition, many of the rural development projects objectives of ICDPS and of rural development were implemented directly by government agen- projects, regardless of whether the latter's meth- cies, but ICDPS have been managed by different ods are top-down or bottom-up. Although rural types of organizations, including local, national, development projects seek to improve living stan- and international nongovernmental organi- dards and mitigate poverty, ICDPS aim to conserve zations. biological diversity in protected areas. The icDPs The large-agency integrated rural development are therefore attempting to use rural development projects have been criticized for being too "top- as a means of achieving this goal. This fundamen- down." Top-down projects establish centralized tal distinction adds a layer of complexity to the decisionmaking bureaucracies that fail to in- design and implementation of IcDPs for which there volve-or be sensitive to the interests of-stake- are few, if any, useful precedents. It is not enough, holders (the intended project beneficiaries). Such then, for the social and economic development projects also rely too much on project "blueprints" components of icDPs to avoid the pitfalls of rural that demand adherence to a rigid-and usually development; the icDPs must also organize their short-project cycle. As Korten has pointed out activities to enhance-or at least not threaten- (1979, 18), where knowledge is nearly nonexist- nearby protected areas. 29 People and Parks Compensation and substitution on these sources. But an icDP could provide alter- natives that attempt to increase incomes, reduce One subset of the ICDP development component costs, or provide access to new ways of earning a can be identified, with rather more modest goals. living. These alternatives might include direct em- The aim here is to compensate local people for ployment, low-interest loans, fertilizer subsidies, economic losses caused by the establishment of a improved access to markets, promotion of nonrural protected area; provide substitutes for resources enterprises, new skills training, and so on. Serious to which access has been denied, such as meat, practical issues are likely to arise in determining timber, and grazing land; or provide alternative who should benefit, the form of substitution, and sources of income through new economic activi- what the total value of the substitutes should be. ties. As with buffer zones, compensation and sub- This approach can be justified based on the stitution are intuitively appealing and have a cer- simple equity argument: that local people should tain simplistic logic. And, as with buffer zones, not have to make economic sacrifices to protect an there are substantial obstacles to practical imple- area established to provide global benefits (by con- mentation. The key questions for ICDP compensa- serving unique and valuable genes, species, and tion ancl substitution strategies are who should ben- ecosystems). It also can be argued that providing efit, by how much, and for how long. appropriate compensation or substitutes can re- Addressing these questions requires identify- move the economic incentive to illegally exploit a ing the appropriate community forum and mak- protected area's natural resources. The latter argu- ing the case that continued compensation, substi- ment is intuitively very appealing but whether tution, or both depend on effective conservation of compensation and substitution can remove the in- the protected area. centives to exploit in unclear. For compensation or substitution to be effec- The compensation and substitution components tive, some form of explicit agreement is desirable. are likely to be oriented toward people living in It should specify the rights and obligations of the the immediate vicinity of a traditional park in- respective parties-the local people and the IcDP or stead of, for example, people living in regional protected area managers. The agreement should urban areas who buy and sell natural products also be supported by enforceable penalties that such as fuetwood that were collected from the provide enough incentive for both sets of parties protected area. Benefits are thus directed toward to comply. Although theoretically plausible, such actual or potential agents of park depletion, and agreements are extremely rare. Local people, in not to the ultimate sources of demand for the re- particular, usually have no recourse. sources. Four ICDP case studies included components that Compensation is relatively simple, at least in used compensation or substitution (box 4.4). Agree- theory, and could be in cash payments, goods, or ments with local communities were reached at two services. These could be provided in exchange for sites, Amboseli National Park, Kenya, and Beza agreements by local people to relinquish their Mahafaly, Madagascar. At Amboseli, the govern- former rights of access and to respect the conser- ment has failed to keep its side of the agreement vation goals of the protected area. Substitutes can for more than a decade. At Beza Mahafaly, the be targeted on specific resource uses. For example, agreement has been maintained for several years if a protected area was formerly used as a source through delicate negotiations with local and na- of fuelwood, woodlots outside the boundaries tional politicians. might provide an adequate substitute. If a tradi- tional park was formerly used to graze livestock, water points (in arid areas) or stall-feeding (in wet Need for linkages areas), for example, could be substituted. Direct substitutes may not be available outside This chapter has discussed three different compo- the protected area, or may not be consistent with nents of ICDPS: protected area management, buffer the area's objectives. For example, if a traditional zones, and local social and economic development. park represents the only local source of construc- The activities in each of these components must be tion materials, medicinal plants, certain fruits, or compatible with those of the other components- rare animal species, substitutes probably cannot and consistent with a project's conservation goals. be provided for individuals formerly dependent One of the most challenging tasks for ICDP manag- 30 Implementing integrated conservation-development projects Box 4.4 Case study projects using compensation or substitution Amboseli, Kenya. In exchange for relinquishing access to the proposed national park, Masai pastoralists were promised compensation, some concession rights, and water points for their livestock in an arid area outside the park. After the park was established and a water piping system constructed, cutbacks in government funding ended the compensation payments and maintenance of the piping system. This system has now been inoperative for more than a decade. The pastoralists have continued to bring their cattle into the park, particularly during the dry season, thus competing with the large wild herbivores. Ironically, the continuing Masai presence appears to have discouraged poaching, which has devastated other parks in East Africa. Annapurna, Nepal. Tourism had resulted in heavy fuelwood demands for cooking and for heating water, leading to rapid deforestation. Following negotiations, the owners of the many small lodges in the conservation area agreed to purchase kerosene stoves and to be bound by a regulation that fuelwood collection be limited to subsistence use. This measure has dramatically reduced the demand for fuelwood in the conservation area. Beza Mahafaly, Madagascar. An agreement was reached between the project, the local population, and local political leaders to give up land for a small reserve in exchange for future development benefits, including an access road, an irrigation canal, and a school. While the canal is not yet working, the other activities have been implemented, some after long delays. Forest guards have been hired from local villages and the reserve is adequately protected. Local people have supported the project's conservation goals while receiving fairly modest development benefits in return. This appears attributable to the complete absence of government services in the area and a ten-year involvement of expatriates committed to a positive relationship with local communities and an effective dialogue with government agencies. Chitwan, Nepal. In 1976 park authorities responded to local pressure by allowing villagers to collect tall grasses for house construction and thatching once a year from inside the national park, which is now the only remaining local source. This arrangement, which is at the discretion of the park authorities, restores a former practice that was interrupted when the park was established in 1973. While villagers benefit from this arrangement, rapid population growth and an acute shortage of resources have led to increased pressure on the park, which now relies for protection on 500 permanently deployed soldiers from the Nepalese Army. ers is to promote development activities that not inescapable and widespread need to strengthen only improve local living standards but also lead guard patrols and to impose penalties on those to strengthened park management. conducting illegal activities in parks. This is not This goal can create difficult dilemmas for inconsistent with the ICDP concept when such en- project managers. For example, building an access forcement activities are integrated with genuine road may enhance local development by improv- local development efforts and serious attempts to ing market access-but experience shows it may improve local people-park management commu- also improve park access for illegal hunting, tim- nications through education campaigns. ber cutting and settlement. Improving farming These complexities all reemphasize the impor- tools or introducing draft animals may allow farm- tance of linking the different components of an ers to increase productivity-but it may also free ICDP. A wide range of development activities can up labor, thereby leading to more land clearing increase local incomes and living standards. What and an expansion of the agricultural frontier. Ag- is less clear is how these and other project devel- ricultural development may principally benefit opment components can be expected to enhance smallholders-but the rural landless may repre- the conservation of biological diversity, particu- sent a greater threat to the park. larly in the absence of more effective enforcement. More generally, projects need to challenge the During project design, very careful thought must convenient and widespread-but totally unsup- be given to the anticipated linkages between the ported-assumption that people made better-off social and economic benefits for people living out- by a development project will refrain from illegal side protected area boundaries and the needed be- exploitation of a nearby park in the absence of the havioral responses to reduce pressure on resources negative incentive provided by more effective pen- inside the boundaries. alties. Such an expectation is naive; there is an 31 5. Efforts to promote local development - _ This chapter describes how the case study projects works; new crop varieties and cultivation meth- attempted to generate social and economic ben- ods; soil treatments to reduce erosion, increase efits for local people through (1) natural resource infiltration, and restore fertility; contour planting management outside core protected areas, (2) com- and maintenance of vegetation cover; energy sav- munity social services, (3) nature tourism, (4) road ing to reduce fuel consumption; production of tree construction for market access, and (5) direct em- seedlings to provide fuelwood and construction ployment. The chapter also briefly considers how materials; wells and boreholes for livestock in arid these benefits were distributed-to individuals, areas and stall-feeding in wetter areas; and low- groups, or communities-and whether the ben- intensity logging. efits have contributed to the integrated conserva- Resource management activities were concen- tion-development project (ICDP) goal of conserving trated in four sectors: agroforestry, forestry, irriga- biological diversity. tion and water control (for crops or livestock), and wildlife. In evaluating resource management Resource management outside protected areas within ic-DPS, this study did not evaluate whether particular technical approaches were appropriate, Most of the projects have attempted to encourage except where such judgments were evident from the use of improved natural resource management the experience of the projects. The study was more in and around their targeted communities, with concerned with identifying whether the technolo- two immediate objectives. The first was to increase gies had been widely adopted, whether resource the income of individuals or groups with natural management practices had been intensified as a resource ownership rights (or access) while con- result, whether economic benefits had been gener- serving the natural resource base-soils, primary ated locally, how the benefits were distributed, or secondary forests, fresh water, wildlife, and so and whether protected area conservation was-or on. The second was to encourage the substitution was likely to be-enhanced as a result (see the of more intensive production systems for existing appendix to this chapter). The study recognized extensive systems, thus reducing future pressure that although some of the ICDP activities had no on protected ecosystems. Extensive systems are direct link to conservation, they nonetheless played any form of logging, collection of fuelwood or a valuable role in generating local popular sup- other forest products, hunting, livestock grazing, port for the projects; and that some ICDPs have shifting cultivation, slash-and-burn agriculture, or been operating for too short a time for positive other uses that deplete the resources of an area, results to be widely apparent. with the practitioners then moving on to new ar- The case study projects with resource manage- eas, a strategy that now only appears sustainable ment components make clear that local physical, in the increasingly rare situation of population ecological, and climatic conditions limit available densities that are both low and stable. technologies. Although technologies are increas- In some case study areas, appropriate technolo- ingly available to enhance productivity and inten- gies for improved resource management were al- sify land use in wet areas (World Bank 1990), op- ready known and used on a limited basis locally, tions in dry areas are extremely limited (Nelson in which case the ICDPS usually attempted to en- 1990). Few of the projects have allocated enough courage adoption on a wider scale; in other areas, resources to carry out systematic experiments to new technologies were needed. Technical options identify new agricultural or agroforestry options, used in the case study projects included irrigation althoughL some have established informal linkages 32 Efforts to promote local development to research institutes. Thus there is a lack of site- priate social and institutional arrangements must specific packages to provide alternative cultiva- also be established. These can include formal ar- tion methods for the marginal lands at most of the rangements with government agencies responsible case study sites. There has been little use of indig- for programs such as agricultural research and enous knowledge and technologies. extension, education, health care, wildlife, forestry, Land and resources in some areas have histori- and so on. They also can include the establishment cally been abundant and readily accessible. People or modification of community organizations that living near traditional parks that at least nomi- can both mediate between villagers and outside nally protect relatively large areas of forest or other bodies--such as government representatives and natural systems may believe this abundance con- ICDP personnel-and make local resource manage- tinues, despite the outsider's view that only frag- ment decisions. ments of the original plant and animal species remain. In these circumstances the conservation or Community social services intensification of land-use practices is unlikely to be attractive to local residents. In the absence of Several of the case study projects have provided- other incentives, merely suggesting or demonstrat- or supported the establishment of-basic social ing better resource management practices is un- services in the communities they are targeting. likely to bring significant change. For example, These services have included school building con- farmers are unlikely to be unduly concerned about struction, support for teacher salaries and equip- soil erosion-and prepared to invest valuable la- ment purchases, construction and support of health bor resources in controlling it-if they can burn clinics, family planning, sanitation and nutrition and clear nearby forest land and continue exten- programs, and a day care center. Although these sive cultivation practices. types of services are more commonly provided by There is little evidence as yet among the case government, many of the communities targeted studies of widespread adoption of environmen- by ICDPS are in remote areas, beyond the reach of tally benign technologies with the potential to in- existing national programs. crease income or intensify land use. It is, however, As an ICDP component the provisio:A of commu- too early to evaluate the projects that started com- nity-level social services can be a response to the paratively recently, many of which are emphasiz- expressed needs of a community-or it can be part ing agroforestry. In a few cases, projects have pro- of the compensation in exchange for setting aside moted alternatives before local people felt they protected lands or for cooperating with the project's were needed. Examples are the woodless house conservation objectives. construction technique introduced at Air-Tenere. Among the case study projects the most ex- Although this knowledge may prove useful, few plicit compensation package was the agreement people as yet have adopted this construction tech- reached with the people of Beza Mahafaly, in Mada- nique. gascar, which included providing a school and It is evident that an appropriate framework of support for a teacher's salary. At Amboseli, in incentives must be established to encourage the Kenya, a clinic was provided for the Masai as part adoption of new technical options or the continua- of the agreement to establish the park, although tion of sound existing practices. These incentives alternate grazing lands were the pivotal issue. In should be directed toward groups or individuals the remaining cases, community social services whose actions threaten the protected area. Incen- were provided to improve local living standards, tives may be specifically designed to provide local without direct or explicit conservation links. people with income-earning opportunities that are Social services can be provided to communities contingent on respecting regulations in protected under various arrangements. They may be given areas. They could include improved access to mar- "free" by the project or as part of an agreement kets, low-interest credit, the clarification or reform that includes other components-as at Beza of land tenure arrangements, shares of revenue Mahafaly. Or, a nominal fee may be charged those from tourism and safari hunting, direct employ- using the services. The services also may represent ment by the protected area or the ICDP, limited the outcome of a joint venture between the project access to resources from within the protected area, and the community, requiring the community to and provision of community services. contribute cash, labor, or other goods and services. To facilitate the identification, dissemination, The latter approach has been successfully adopted and adoption of sound technical practices, appro- by the Annapurna project in Nepal (box 5.1). 33 People and Parks Several questions arise when ICDPS provide com- exchange earnings from tourism associated with munity services. What kind of community services protected areas. Khao Yai and the Monarch But- are appropriate in particular circumstances? Who terfly Overwintering Reserves also attract many selects the services-the project or the commu- domestic tourists. nity? If the community, which members of the The tourism components of the case study icDPs community make the selections? And who ben- have emphasized mitigating the environmental ef- efits? We look at these issues in the discussion of fects of tourism (Air-Tenere, Niger, and community participation in icDPs in chapter 6. Annapurna, Nepal), increasing the economic re- turn from tourism (Volcanoes, Rwanda), redirect- Nature tourism ing the economic benefits from tourism toward local people (Amboseli, Kenya, and Annapurna, The benefits from all kinds of international tour- Nepal), and conducting promotion and education ism are of considerable interest to governments activities for tourists (Monarch and Sian Ka'an, badly in need of foreign exchange. The economic Mexico) (box 5.2). benefits to be gained from tourism linked to natu- The results thus far have been disappointing, to ral areas-nature tourism-have long been recog- say the least. In general, all spending by visitors- nized as significant for conservation. Nature tour- on transportation, food, lodging, or even park en- ism can generate benefits for conservation at sev- try fees-goes directly to the central treasury or to eral levels: by providing an economic return to the private corporate interests that have been granted nation, it can justify setting aside large areas of concessions (Annapurna is an exception). At popu- land for conservation; entry fees can generate sub- lar sites, tourism revenues greatly exceed protected stantial funds to support management; and tourist area operating budgets. It is unusual for any of expenditures (on lodging, transportation, food, these revenues to be returned directly for park guides, and souvenirs) can be an important source management and extremely rare for a revenue of income for comnmunities nearby, compensating share to go to local people. For example, the value them for loss of access to traditional resources and of visits by tourists to Khao Yai National Park in giving them an incentive to conserve the wildlife. Thailand has been estimated at $5 million annu- The case study icDPs have promoted nature tour- ally, which is about 100 times the national park ism to provide funds for protected area manage- budget; none of it goes to local people. The rev- ment and generate income gains for local commu- enues from tourists visiting the mountain gorillas nities. (For a more general discussion of nature of Rwanda are returned to Volcanoes and other tourism, see Boo 1990 and Lindberg 1991). national parks in Rwanda but, again, local people In economic terms, tourism is the most impor- do not participate in the benefits. In three case tant activity in or around the case study sites at study projects, local people received some share of Air-Tenere (Niger), Amboseli (Kenya), Annapurna entry fees or amounts paid to concessionaires: (Nepal), Chitwan (Nepal), Khao Yai (Thailand), Amboseli (Kenya), Annapuma (Nepal), and Mon- Monarch (Mexico), and Volcanoes (Rwanda). The arch (Mexico). Some local employment opportuni- countries in which these case studies are located, ties were linked to tourism at Chitwan (Nepal) plus Costa Rica, all generate substantial foreign and Volcanoes (Rwanda), but these were insuffi- Box 5.1 Local contributions to social services: The Annapuma project The Arinapurna Conservation Area project in Nepal has avoided investing in community projects as "gifts" and has consistently insisted on local participation, in cash or labor, in any community project. At least a 50 percent local contribution is usually planned, and wherever possible project inputs are limited to contributions in kind (such as purchased goods). This is based on the belief that when local people are interested enough in a venture to invest in it-as opposed to receiving a perhaps-unwanted gift-they will have a greater interest in ensuring that the venture succeeds. On this basis, local people in the village where the project headquarters is located raised 100,000 NR ($5,000) as match- ing funds for a community health center, a process that took more than a year. For a local small-scale hydroelectric project, a Canadian donor provided 900,000 NR ($45,000) and the project provided 350,000 NR ($17,000). The panchayat (the local political organization) obtained and took responsibility for a five-year bank loan to cover the remaining 550,000 NR ($27,000). The owners of small tourist trekking lodges raised 50 percent of the cost of repairing and cleaning up the footpaths and trails in their area. This approach, although painstakingly slow, appears to be working extremely well and eliciting serious local consideration and participation. It may, however, be undermined by the eagerness of other donors to become in- volved in the conservation area and to make large grants to the communities-something local leaders are well aware of. 34 Efforts to promote local development Box 5.2 Nature tourism Air-Tenere Reserve, Niger. This area has become an increasingly popular attraction for European and North American tourists who cross the desert in all-terrain vehicles. The wildlife of the reserve are a primary attraction for tourists and, thus, are economically important. The development of a locally based tourist industry is recognized by the project as a potentially important long-term development strategy that, if properly controlled, may be made compatible with conser- vation objectives. The project is attempting to promote increased local participation in the tourist industry, which is currently dominated by tour operators located in Agadez, about 300 kilometers south of the reserve. The project has cooperated with local artisans in establishing a center for displaying and selling local arts and crafts. Annapurna Conservation Area project, Nepal. Since Nepal was opened to foreign visitors in the 1950s, tourism has expanded rapidly to become the country's top foreign exchange earner. More than 30,000 trekkers visit the spectacular Annapurna area each year (its permanent population is 40,000). The growth in the number of visitors has led to a proliferation of small tea shops and trekking lodges along the trails but has had a substantial negative impact on the natural environment. Large areas of forest have been cut to provide cooking, heating, and lodging for visitors. An early goal of the conservation project was to increase the local economic benefits from tourism and to reduce the environmental impact of trekkers. Training courses for the owners of lodges and tea shops have upgraded the quality of service, standardized menus and prices, and improved standards of sanitation and waste disposal. These successes have greatly enhanced the status and influence of the project locally. To conserve energy in the conservation area, lodges and expeditions are now required to use kerosene, with fuelwood collection being limited to subsistence use. The conservation project has provided expertise, but not financing, for lodge owners to install back boilers (which heat recycled water during cooking to conserve energy) and solar panels. Lodge owners have also contributed to the cost of trail upgrading and maintenance. The value of the economic benefits being accumulated by lodge owners has not been estimated but is clearly consider- able by local standards and has dramatically increased the average per capita income. The use to which this surplus is being put has not been monitored. Some lodge owners have bought land in the nearest town, Pokhara, while others send their children to better schools in larger towns. In the villages on the major trekking routes, the incomes of about 100 to 150 families owning tea shops or lodges have significantly increased in the last decade. However, employment for nonfamily members appears to be very limited, and with the notable exception of some seasonal vegetables, most supplies are bought from Pokhara, many originating from outside Nepal. Some goods are purchased from traders who move up and down the trails, and employment for porters has undoubtedly increased because all goods must be carried by hand. But the significant local economic benefits from tourism have not been distributed widely either among or within villages. An entry fee to the Annapurna Conservation Area has been collected from visitors since 1989. The 200 rupee (NR, $8) fee, which required government approval, is yielding an annual revenue of 4 million NR ($160,000)-equal to half the revenues from all of the trekking permits issued in Nepal, or more than 40 percent of the revenues from all of the national parks combined. The revenues collected pass directly to the Annapurna Conservation Area project. Royal Chitwan National Park, Nepal. Chitwan has grown in importance as a tourist destination since the first wildlife safari lodge was established in 1965. Seven high-cost tourist lodges now have licenses to operate in the park, and more than forty small ones have sprung up outside. The park entry fee is now 250 NR ($9). Trained elephants are used to transport people around the park from both areas. The number of visitors has risen steadily and seems likely to continue to grow. Except for the annual grass collection (see box 4.4 in chapter 4), the benefits flowing from the park to local people are minor. In contrast to Nepal's Himalayan parks, local people are only marginally involved in tourism in Chitwan park. While traders benefit, most people face higher local prices as a result of tourism. Khao Yai, Thailand. Khao Yai has become a premier tourist destination since its establishment in 1962 as Thailand's first national park. During the 1980s the park attracted 250,000 to 400,000 Thai and foreign visitors annually. These visitors spend an estimated 150 million baht ($5 million) each year on admission, lodging fees, transportation, food, and other services within the park; the annual budget for park management is 3.5 million baht ($120,000). Virtually none of the revenue goes to people living in the villages surrounding the park. The Sup Tai project, in Sup Tai village next to the park (see chapter 3), includes a small jungle trekking program for visitors. This program attracts several groups each year to Sup Tai village, but the economic benefits generated are modest, even for one village. Monarch Butterfly Overwintering Reserves, Mexico. The spectacular display of the Monarch butterflies provides a unique nature tourism opportunity. The reserves received nearly 100,000 visitors in 1989. Yet only one of the five reserve areas is equipped for tourism. The facilities include an interpretive trail and visitor center, with the nearest community receiving the entrance fees to use for community projects. The community also benefits from sales and employment generated by a small store that Monarca, A.C., the nongovernmental organization implementing the project, helped establish in 1986. Women from the community have put up stands to sell food to tourists. In general, however, tourism to the area is unregulated and disorganized. Benefits to the local community are unevenly distributed and offer insufficient incentive to stop deforestation. As employment in the area continues to decline, the unrealized conservation value of tourism increases while the tiny reserves continue to be logged. Volcanoes National Park, Rwanda. The park's mountain gorillas are the nation's main tourist attraction. Prior to the start of the tourism component of the project in 1979, the park received about 1,200 visitors annually. Visits increased to nearly 5,000in 1983 and more than 10,000 in 1989. This increase, combined with an increase in gorilla viewing fees (from $5 to $200 per person), has led to a thirtyfold increase in tourism revenues. Plroject staff have habituated gorilla groups to human pres- ence, permitting the animals to be closely approached by tourists. Current direct tourism revenue at the park is about $1 million annually. A proportion of the proceeds are returned to conservation in Rwanda but none goes to local people. The government has recently put significant pressure on the project to allow more visits to the gorillas to earn higher revenues. 35 People and Parks cient to attract much popular local support for the more likely to be selected for subsistence use and parks. local exchange rather than for sale in small towns To summarize this rather bleak picture, a senti- or other regional markets. In these circumstances ment expressed by Hemanta Mishra (1984) of the it can be difficult to introduce new crops, new King Mahendra Trust for Nature Conservation at varieties, or new cultivation techniques that are the 1982 World Parks Congress bears repeating. less threatening to the environment without im- Although he was referring specifically to Nepal's proving market access. Some of the case study Royal Chitwan National Park, his thoughts are projects attempted to improve market access applicable to many conservation sites today: through road construction and through the pro- motion of marketing associations (chapter 6). Our preoccupation with hopes that tourism Roads that provide or improve access to re- will catalyze local support or change public gional product and labor markets are highly val- attitudes seems to be self-defeating since the ued and can serve as powerful incentives to the benefits from tourism were overplayed both adoption of more intensive agricultural and for- by government authorities and tourist orga- estry techniques. Although the distribution of ben- nizations.... The concept of selling the idea efits froim improved market access varies by com- of a national park from the benefits to the munity, the economic situation of entire villages local people from wilderness-oriented tour- can improve significantly. The construction or im- ism has not been successful and is unlikely provement of access roads has had a substantial to have any positive impact within the next impact at several of the case study sites. In some decade. (203, 207) cases these improvements were initiated by the projects, while in others they were unconnected. Even if the vast conservation benefits poten- At Beza Mahafaly, in Madagascar, villagers spe- tially available from nature tourism could be real- cifically agreed to the establishment of a reserve in ized, it is important to remember that only a small exchange for external support for local develop- minority of protected areas attract significant num- ment projects. Improvement of an access road to bers of visitors. The characteristics of sites attract- the nearest market town was a top priority. On a ing large numbers of tourists include spectacular much larger scale, the Luangwa Integrated Rural scenery, large mammals, uniqueness, reasonable Development Project (LIRDP) in Zambia includes a access, and developed infrastructure (such as roads substantial road construction component. In Indo- and accommodation facilities). The proportion of nesia the irrigation projects linked to Dumoga- most countries' protected areas for which large- Bone National Park would have had little value scale tourism is viable is thus extremely small. In without the improvement of a highway connect- particular, the potential for many tropical moist ing the valley with nearby towns, enabling local forest sites to attract large numbers of tourists is rice surpluses to be exported. limited. For example, the Gunung Leuser and However, roads can have other, less predict- Dumoga-Bone National Parks in the Indonesian able effects on protected areas. As described in Outer Islands, which are biologically among the chapter 3, substantial road improvements at Sup most important conservation sites in Southeast Tai village on the border of Khao Yai National Asia, are unlikely ever to attract significant num- Park in Thailand have caused local land prices to bers of tourists. In Madagascar, the presence of soar, forcing indebted smallholders off the land rare and endangered species attracts small num- and adding to Thailand's rapidly growing popula- bers of visitors to several tropical forest sites. This tion of migratory landless. The effects of these form of "ecotourism," or adventure tourism, can changing land ownership patterns on the national make modest contributions to local economies but park are impossible to predict. does not have the potential to attract the volumes Roads also can directly endanger conservation, of tourists who flock to Nepal's Himalayan parks as is reaclily evident in the Amazon. Gunung Leuser and the African wildlife parks. National Park, in Indonesia, has been cut in two as a result of the transformation of a rough seasonal Road construction for market access road through the park into an all-weather high- way. Settlers have expanded along the road from Product marketing opportunities in remote rural three small enclaves, removing timber and other communities tend to be limited by the difficulty of forest products, burning, and planting annual access to and from villages. Crops are therefore crops. Gunung Leuser's species-rich lowland for- 36 Efforts to promote local development ests have now been degraded in a swath stretch- Linking the benefits from development to ing for several kilometers on both sides of the conservation road, essentially bisecting the park and threaten- ing its ecological integrity. The case study projects have brought benefits to All roads also open the possibility of increased local people, principally through income gains and inward migration, possibly by people attracted by improved access to social services. Some of these the IcDP. Roads, in turn, facilitate the transport of gains have been achieved by innovative project illegal products-fuelwood, construction materials, components implemented under challenging cir- or wildlife-from a protected area. As with many cumstances. From a strictly developmental per- other ICDP interventions, road construction requires spective, several of the projects appear quite prom- a mechanism to monitor effects and modify project ising-and one or two very successful. approaches during implemen-tation. However, the goals of ICDPS are considerably more ambitious than to provide social and eco- Direct employment nomic benefits. The ICDP approach has to be judged on whether development initiatives have contrib- The most direct source of income arising from an uted to improved management and security of a ICDP is a job with the project or with the protected protected area, and whether local people have be- area targeted by a project. All case study projects come reconciled to the existence of the protected created at least some local employment, whether area. The critical linkage between development temporary or permanent. Positions included game and conservation is still generally missing or un- scouts (in Africa), park wardens and guards, clear. It is still doubtful that many icDp-generated guides, community extension workers, adminis- local benefits have reduced pressure on the areas trative staff, cooks, manual laborers and construc- the ICDPS are trying to protect. tion workers, carpenters, and mechanics. The di- Questions remain about the adequacy of the rect distribution of these benefits is obviously lim- benefits generated, their distribution, and even ited to the employees and their families, and de- their specific purposes. A key issue is the extent to pends on where they spend their wages. which local people have participated in ICDP com- The Administrative Design for Game Manage- ponents designed to provide them with benefits. ment Areas (ADMADE) program in Zambia supports More than two decades of rural development ex- 400 village scouts permanently. The Nazinga Game perience suggests that project success is rarely Ranch in Burkina Faso hired about 600 local people achieved without local participation. These issues for about two years during the initial construction are discussed in greater detail in chapter 6. and has hired intermittently since then. No other projects have come close to matching this number Appendix. Natural resource management of jobs, although many provided long-term em- components of case study projects ployment for much smaller numbers. The project in the East Usambara Mountains in Tanzania hired Agroforestry fifteen village coordinators and trained them in extension work. The government has committed Annapurna Conservation Area project, Nepal. As to hiring these individuals as permanent civil ser- part of efforts to combat deforestation, the first vice employees after the project ends. Local hiring stage of this project included establishing several by the other projects has been limited. community nurseries and distributing tree seed- Most project-related employment has resulted lings free or at low cost. Farmers have been en- from specific needs related to construction, main- couraged to plant trees to stabilize slopes and pro- tenance, accommodation, and so on. Job opportu- vide fuelwood and fodder. Although the demand nities through the projects can create considerable for seedlings has been encouragingly high, there is local goodwill and can make a substantial eco- little information on survival rates. It is thus diffi- nomic contribution, particularly in the case of small cult to know how effective the nurseries are. As communities. If the period of employment is lim- predictions of local fuelwood deficits become more ited by the length of the project, however, any pessimistic, the successful promotion of high-alti- conservation benefits are likely to be temporary. tude tree planting in the near future assumes criti- At this stage there has been little evidence of in- cal importance. The project is also encouraging creased indirect employment arising from stimu- stall-feeding of livestock, a major shift in land use, lation of local economies by any project. which could focus greater attention on the pro- 37 People and Parks duction of fodder trees. from receiving or buying tree seedlings from the The second stage of the Annapurna project project nurseries, although some families have been started in 1991 and emphasizes agroforestry as the relocated from the reserves. Increased enforcement main tool for boosting the incomes of the poor farm- appears to have been critical in reducing illegal ers who comprise the vast majority of the region's logging and fuelwood collection. population. Possible technical solutions are to be East Usambara Mountains, Tanzania. Industrial worked out with assistance from outside experts logging was stopped before the project began. The and a local agricultural research station. This ap- major resource management challenge has been to pears to be the best strategy in the absence of ad- introduce an effective substitute for the cultivation equate resources to invest in infrastructure, such as of cardamom, an important local income source hydroelectric power generation. But little is known and a major export crop, but one that degrades the about the farrning systems now used or their po- soil and requires continuous forest clearing. Dem- tential for productivity improvements. There are onstration agroforestry plots have been established few convincing examples of successful agricultural in several villages and project staff have worked or forestry development in the Himalayas, and the directly with individual farmers to experinment with Annapurna project faces a formidable challenge in a variety of cash crops in combination with differ- attempting to significantly improve economic con- ent tree species. The project has been operating for ditions for the region's farmers. only two years and thus is not ready to be evalu- Bururi and Rumonge projects, Burundi. When the ated. However, despite clear local interest, there is Bururi project began, logging and fuelwood col- no evidence that any of the new options are being lection for local use had already degraded part of widely adopted as cardamom alternatives. this very small reserve, and pine plantations had Talamanca Region, Costa Rica. Small farmers been established inside the reserve. Project activi- throughout the region depended on cacao as a ties had initially emphasized the establishment of primary source of income until monilia pod rot, a nurseries and plantations to produce exotic tree fungal disease, devastated cacao production. ANAI, species, primarily pines. But a subsequent project the local nongovernmental organization running evaluation pointed out that the plantation trees the project, has promoted community-run nurser- were of little economic interest locally, that the ies in an attempt to introduce improved varieties plantations had little conservation value, and that of cacao and other agroforestry species, to estab- illegal exploitation of the reserve was continuing lish a stable and diversified production base for unchecked. In response the project reoriented its local communities. ANAI reviews characteristics of activities, hiring eleven guards and an agroforestry species grown worldwide to identify those that adviser led by a Peace Corps volunteer. are suited to the agroecological conditions in The guards sharply reduced reserve encroach- Talamanca. Tests for suitability are carried out on ment. Project personnel report that the wood bio- an experimental farm, and if successful, the plants mass produced as a result of the project are transferred to the nurseries. Local demand has agroforestry activities has started to provide an been generated for one crop native to Brazil, pre- alternate source to the reserve's trees. The govern- viously unknown in Costa Rica, which produces a ment assumed financial responsibility for the refreshing juice. Creating demand for such new project after USAID funding expired in 1987, by products has proved difficult, however, because which time the project had distributed 250,000 seed- farmers prefer to plant cacao. They are familiar lings to local farmers, consolidated reserve man- with it, a market-albeit weak-exists, it is easy to agement and enforcement, and marked the reserve transport and store, and so on. Most of the forty boundaries. Recent cutbacks in government sup- community-run tree nurseries have planted im- port have led to problems such as an inability to proved cacao varieties. buy plastic seedling bags, reducing the nurseries' distribution capacity. Forestiy The Rumonge project is attempting to replicate the Bururi experience around three small reserves, Boscosa, Costa Rica. Although this was conceived beginning with nursery establishment and as a natural forest management project involving agroforestry trials. By 1988 eight nurseries had small farmers, it soon became apparent that the been established and were producing more than extensive resource degradation in the region, 200,000 seedlings annually. At Bururi and mainlv from logging, combined with complex so- Rumonge, local people appear to have benefited cial and economic issues, would require a broader 38 Efforts to promote local development spectrum of activities. The project began to pro- and small tools-billing the ejido a percentage of mote reforestation, ecotourism, management of the the future harvest. Although the concept is prom- existing forest (as an alternative to cutting new ising, the PFP has not yet been able to fully realize forest) for timber and nontimber products (such as all its aims since not all ejidos have a good endow- medicinal and ornamental plants), and improved ment of valuable tree species. agriculture and agroforestry in cleared areas ca- pable of supporting agriculture. Natural forest Irrigation and water control management activities were set aside for the first two years of the project in favor of providing im- Air-Tenere National Nature Reserve, Niger. This mediate and visible solutions to problems identi- massive multiple-use area is situated in an harsh fied by local communities. The lack of clear techni- environment on the southern fringes of the Sahara cal options, especially of silvicultural techniques Desert. Rainfall is sporadic and averages less than appropriate to local conditions, led the project to 100 millimeters annually. The population of about broaden its focus into agroforestry, agricultural 4,500 is concentrated in two settlements with year- development activities, reforestation, and commu- round access to water. The project has established nity organization. nurseries in both settlements. Windbreaks, tree Central Selva, Peru. One of the goals of the project stands, and six small experimental dams have been was to demonstrate that sustainable management established in and around village gardens to con- of primary tropical forests is technically and eco- tain soil erosion resulting from water runoff. The nornically viable, based on the strip shelterbelt sys- dams were very popular and another 662 dams tem. Following forest inventories, long and nar- were constructed during the following two years. row (20- to 40-meter wide) strips are clear-cut By 1989 soil erosion had stabilized, vegetation through existing forest, and logs are extracted by growth had improved, and most of the gardens animal traction. All cuttings are used: small pieces had benefited directly or indirectly from the pro- for fence posts, larger sections for lumber, and tection afforded by the dam system. Teams of lo- scraps for charcoal. Natural regeneration reclaims cally recruited laborers were employed to con- the gaps, maintaining high levels of species diver- struct the dams. The project has also attempted to sity. The Amuesha Indians have now formed a restore two degraded pastures, following requests forestry cooperative using this system on their from herders. At one of these sites the activity lands, and have begun to demonstrate the system's involves placing barriers to water courses (similar technical viability. However, external factors, in- to long dams) to hold water over a longer period cluding violent civil unrest and severe economic of time and reduce erosion. problems, have caused delays. And the link be- The Air-Tenere conservation situation is un- tween these activities and reduced encroachment usual in that the threats to the reserve have come in the park is unknown. from tourism and poaching, the latter mainly by Sian Ka'an, Mexico. The objectives of the Pilot soldiers. The indigenous population does not hunt Forestry Plan (PFP) are to find the best land uses and is tolerant of wildlife. The publicity surround- and harmonize the ecological equilibrium, to fos- ing the project, the legal prohibitions against hunt- ter social participation in the productive process, ing, and the enforcement activities of project staff and to improve and diversify horizontal and verti- have largely eliminated poaching in the area as the cal integration of established industry. The project protected area boundaries have come to be recog- involves the participation of fifty-three ejidos (com- nized and respected. Tourist activities are now munities) and 9,000 families, or half of the rural controlled by recognized guides. Local residents households in the state of Quintana Roo. pose a threat only during droughts, when their PFP staff work with each ejido to develop a livestock tend to destroy the sparse vegetation forest management plan based on local forest in- needed by wild herbivores. The restrictions on de- ventories, which ejido members are trained to carry structive grazing in the new protected area remain out, including demarcation of a permanent forest largely untested because rainfall in the area has area. The inventory results are entered into a com- been normal in recent years. puterized data base to produce maps and charts Beza Mahafaly and Andohahela Reserves, Mada- giving projected tree growth and potential har- gascar. As part of the original agreement to estab- vesting levels. The PFP has assisted ejidos in orga- lish the small reserve at Beza Mahafaly, the project nizing to obtain financing to purchase logging committed to rebuild an irrigation canal. For vari- equipment, including saw mills, trucks, tractors, ous bureaucratic, engineering, and financial rea- 39 People and Parks sons, this commitment has remained unfulfilled forced off their land by the project. They were for more than a decade. Small agricultural demon- prevented from clearing new agricultural sites by stration plots have been established in one village the park guards and ultimately were forced to close to the reserve to stimulate the cultivation of disperse to other areas. new cash crops. So far the results have been disap- pointing. Despite these setbacks the reserve is in- Wildlife tact, and there appears to be substantial local po- litical support for the project. The support appears Lupande Development project and ADMADE, Zam- to derive from the provision of a school, the con- bia. Legislation under colonial rule turned over tinuing prospect of irrigation, and the attention wildlife ownership to the state. Poaching escalated given to villagers and local and national political as a result, both because people no longer had a figures by the project staff and associated research- stake in preserving wildlife and because the local ers-Malagasy and expatriate. people took what they saw as rightfully theirs. At Andohahela, small-scale irrigation works Relations between wildlife officers and local people have been introduced to expand irrigated areas in were increasingly strained as government officials valley bottoms. Individual farmers in several vil- attempted to enforce the law amid declining wild- lages have increased their incomes as a result of life populations. The Lupande Development project this program, despite some technical problems with resulted from the need to develop a management dam and water channel construction. The conser- strategy that would reconcile local needs with im- vation implications of this program and whether it proved wildlife management and conservation. is leading to intensified agriculture are unclear. In The project included establishing various wildlife at least one case, expansion of his irrigated rice management committees who began planning for fields led a farmer to clear steep forested slopes the use of wildlife as resources; training and em- adjacent to the reserve to be able to continue culti- ploying local villagers as scouts to protect wildlife vating manioc and cassava. in the community; giving examples of sustained Dumoga-Bone National Park, Indonesia. The de- wildlife use; and sharing revenue from concession velopment component of this major project in north and trophy fees, which could be used to finance Sulawesi has allowed more than 8,000 farmers to local community improvements. grow 10,000 hectares of irrigated rice. Establish- Between 1984 and 1987 poaching levels declined ment of the national park to protect the headwa- by 90 percent, the wildlife population increased, ters of the rivers supplying the irrigation systems and local residents benefited from access to game was a condition of the $60 million World Bank meat and wildlife-related employment. The Ad- loan for the projects. The farmers who benefited ministrative Design for Game Management Areas were almost entirely migrants and transmigrants (ADMADE) project wvas developed to extend the suc- from Java and Bali who were already familiar with cess ol the Lupande project into other game man- the cultivation of paddy rice. They have derived agement areas. More than 400 village scouts have considerable economic benefit from the project, been trained and employed under ADMADE. Rev- and the region has recently become a net rice ex- enues from hunting concessions alone have re- porter for the first time. This project has undoubt- turned over $230,000 to local communities for de- edly been successful in increasing farmer incomes, velopment projects. In 1990 the government of stimulating the regional economy, intensifying ag- Zambia agreed to divide the revenue from trophy riculture, stabilizing land use, and linking a na- and license fees-previously paid to the central tional park to an economic development initiative. treasury-between the central government and It also represents one of the more impressive trans- communities in the ADMADE program. This may migration projects in Indonesia. However, the ef- effectively double community revenues. The por- fective protection of the park is primarily attribut- tion of the funds received by the central govern- able to the cancellation of logging concessions and ment supports park management (15 percent) and strict enforcement, the latter facilitated by a sub- the national tourist board (10 percent). Forty per- stantial park operating budget and local govern- cent goes to wildlife management, including vil- ment cooperation. The rice farmers presumably lage scouts, and 35 percent goes directly to com- have little interest in clearing forest land and have munity projects. enough income to make encroachment unattrac- Luangwa Integrated Rural Development Project tive; the original Dumoga Valley inhabitants, who (LIRDP), Zambia. LIRDP has the same roots as the lived in and around the forest, gave up or were Lupande development project and ADMADE. While 40 Efforts to promote local development Lupande and ADMADE focus specifically on wild- sulted in dramatic increases in the populations of life, LIRDP is a broader economic development pro- large mammals found on the ranch. Economic stud- gram. Included in this program are agricultural ies have suggested that game ranching at Nazinga improvement, nurseries, fisheries, wildlife re- can be profitable, although game meat production sources, and infrastructure development, particu- has not yet resulted in any direct economic ben- larly road construction. The program is also coor- efits to the local population. Local participation in dinating credit for villagers, provision of agricul- revenues from meat production and from tourism tural inputs, and marketing systems. Apart from have been planned but not implemented. Hun- the substantial external funding from donors, most dreds of local people were employed by the project of the funds for LIRDP are derived from wildlife during its construction phase. revenues; however, the allocation of revenues from Surprisingly, the single greatest benefit real- wildlife use differs substantially from ADMADE'S. ized by the local population has been a substantial Sixty percent of LIRDP revenues go to project man- increase in fishing opportunities. The creation of agement costs such as village scouts and road con- numerous permanent water points about the ranch struction, and the remainder goes to community has greatly increased fish populations. The ranch projects. has implemented a fisheries management program Nazinga Game Ranch, Burkina Faso. The ranch to control and regulate access to fishing rights. was conceived to protect and conserve wildlife Permits are issued free for subsistence fishing or through game meat production. The ranch has specially authorized groups such as a women's been extremely successful in restoring (principally cooperative, and for a fee to groups who wish to through dam construction and fire control) and fish commercially. (For a more detailed treatment managing the formerly degraded habitat and in of the wildlife component of natural resource man- mounting antipoaching operations. This has re- agement, see Kiss 1990.) 41 __ a 6. Local participation While the overall goal of integrated conservation- What does local participation mean? development projects (IcDPs) is to conserve bio-- logical diversity, specific project activities are fo-- Chapter 5 described examples of social and eco- cused on people and on changing human behav- nomic benefits for local people that resulted from ior. Not surprisingly, therefore, nearly all of the IcDP activities. Is this local participation? Most likely planning documents for the case study projects not. Local participation viewed as a process goes emphasize local participation. Few of the projects, well be yond simply sharing in social and economic however, have specified what they mean by par- benefits. Local participation has been described as ticipation, nor detailed how they expect local par- "empowering people to mobilize their own ca- ticipation in project development activities to re- pacities, be social actors rather than passive sub- duce threats to nearby protected areas. Some un- jects, manage the resources, make decisions, and certainty and ambiguity thus surround the issue control the activities that affect their lives" (Cernea of local participation in IcDps, in theory and in 1985,10). practice. Projects may be classified on the basis of their This chapter addresses local participation-in approaches to and relationships with the intended development generally and in icDPs specifically- beneficiaries. At one end are projects that perceive asking what local people are participating in, who local peoples' involvement as passive-the benefi- is participating, and how they get to participate. ciary approach. The goals of this approach to de- The chapter also describes the efforts by the case velopm,ent are tangible economic benefits, al- study projects to elicit local participation and ex- though those who are to receive them have only a amines the implications for protected area man- limited role in generating them. At the other end agement. are projects that seek to involve people in the pro- Concern with community participation in de- cess of their own development, adopting a partici- velopment projects is not new (Midgeley 1986). Its patory approach. In these projects, development is importance was highlighted in the World Bank's perceived as a way to empower people and im- 1975 sectoral policy paper on rural development, prove their ability to control their lives and use although evaluations of subsequent failed rural and manage resources. The project is a catalyst to development projects lamented its absence (see stimulate self-reliance among the poor and un- chapter 4). Although unambiguous examples of derprivileged. This approach emphasizes the role successful participation are rare, local participa- of local institutions-both formal and informal- tion has recently become virtually indispensable in providing people with the means to control in discussions of development. Failure to empha- their lives. size participation dramatically increases the chance Projects with a beneficiary orientation gener- of rejection for proposed development efforts. De- ally set their goals in terms of changes in readily spite the popularity of participation, Cernea (1985), measurable indexes, such as income levels, farm among others, has argued that local participation productivity, infant mortality rates, and literacy is still more myth than reality in rural develop- rates. Project success is then gauged by improve- ment programs. The organizations implementing ments in these indexes. The goals and measures of icDPs are thus attempting to implement a concept effectiveness in projects with a participatory ori- that the development community itself has found entation are more elusive. Eventually such projects elusive. seek to achieve goals similar to those of benefi- 42 Local participation ciary projects; however, they are oriented more * Information-gathering. Project designers or toward establishing a process leading to change managers both collect information from and share that can be sustained after the project ends. information with intended beneficiaries on the Paul (1987) summarizes much of the literature overall project concept and goals. on the participatory approach by suggesting that * Consultation. Intended beneficiaries are con- its objectives include increasing project effective- sulted on key issues during the project. Beneficia- ness, increasing the capacity of beneficiaries to take ries have an opportunity to interact and provide responsibility for project activities, and facilitating feedback during project design, implementation, cost sharing through local contributions of land, or both. money, or labor. Others have pointed to the im- . Decisionmaking. Beneficiaries participate in portance of involving stakeholders-intended ben- decisionmaking for project design or implementa- eficiaries-to give them a vested interest in, and tion, implying a greater degree of control and re- presumably greater commitment to, achieving sponsibility than the passive acceptance of possi- project goals. It is not easy to measure achieve- bly-unwanted benefits. ments against these kinds of objectives, particu- * Initiating action. When beneficiary groups larly over short periods, while projects are still identify a new need in a project and decide to under way and before more tangible benefits have respond to it, they are taking the initiative for their become apparent. own development. This is different from acting or It is difficult to classify the case studies accord- deciding on tasks or issues identified by the project. ing to participatory or beneficiary approach, for * Evaluation. Participatory evaluation by ben- several reasons. First, some projects encouraged eficiaries can provide valuable insights and les- participation in some components and activities sons for project design and implementation-in- but not in others. Second, the ability or willingness formation that otherwise is likely to remain un- of local people to participate in projects varies sig- known. nificantly even at a single site. Third, participation implies at least some recognition of empowerment These areas seem as applicable to ICDPS as to through a democratic process. As is the case with rural development projects. They are not necessar- rural development in general, many of the com- ily cumulative or sequential. For example, there munities where ICDPS are operating are rigidly hi- can be local decisionmaking without prior partici- erarchical, with strong local leaders. In these cir- pation in information-gathering or in consultation. cumstances the opportunities for participation A project may not have a consistent approach to among disadvantaged groups, such as women, the participation that stretches across all of its compo- landless, and ethnic minorities, may be limited. nents or activities. To use Paul's (1987) term, project Despite these caveats, projects in three of the components may each have their own "intensity" case study areas can be said to have adopted a of participation. However, despite this potential consistently participatory approach. The projects for variability in approaches to participation, most in Annapurna (Nepal), Khao Yai (Thailand), and of the case study projects made implicit choices Osa Peninsula (Costa Rica) each started with a early in the project about the relative emphasis clearly stated goal of eliciting local participation, they planned to give to local participation (box and commitment to a process of participation was 6.1). clearly reflected in the activity choices. Three other Local participation in projects as defined for case study projects involved local people in con- this study implies the consistent involvement of sultation before protected areas were established- local people in strategic project issues rather than Amboseli (Kenya), Beza Mahafaly (Madagascar), their occasional or limited involvement in day-to- and Sian Ka'an (Mexico). The remaining projects day activities. By this measure, local participation adopted a more-or-less beneficiary approach. was substantially incorporated in infonnation-gath- ering in Amboseli (Kenya), Annapurna (Nepal), Forms of participation Boscosa (Costa Rica), Khao Yai (Thailand), and Sian Ka'an (Mexico); in consultation in the same The literature (especially Cohen and Uphoff 1977; projects plus Beza Mahafaly (Madagascar) and Paul 1987; and Salmen 1987) identifies five main Lupande/ADMADE (Zambia); in decisionmaking in areas in which local people can participate in rural Annapurna (Nepal), Beza Mahafaly (Madagascar), development projects: Boscosa (Costa Rica), Lupande!ADMADE (Zambia), 43 People and Parks Box 6.1 Effective local participation Annapurna, Nepal. Prior to the project, a three-member survey team (twvo Nepalese and one expatriate) spent six months i collecting information in the area that eventually became the multiple-use Annapurna Conservation Area. The team developed a provisional project design and management plan based on discussions with leaders and villagers throughout the region. After the survey, however, the team concluded that a national park designation along traditional restrictive lines would not be well received. After considering various options, they recommended a new legal designation, a conservation area that would specifically allow hunting, collection of forest products, allocation of visitor fees for local development, and delegation of management authority to the village level. Extensive consultations and local participation in decisionmaking have continued to be a feature of the project, and the project managers have, wherever possible, resisted the unilateral imposition of regulations affecting local people. At the outset the project recognized the need to establish the trust of a skeptical local population, to convince them that they would benefit from-or at least not be harmed by-the project. The second step was to attempt to motivate people to make resource-management decisions. In any community activities, the project has avoided free gifts and always insisted on local participation, with cash or labor. At least a 50 percent local contribution is usually targeted and, wherever possible, inputs by the project are limited to contributions in kind (purchased goods). Khao Yai, Thailand. Before beginning the project at Sup Tai village, the Research and Evaluation Division of the Population and Development Association of Thailand, one of the implementing nongovernmental organizations con- ducted an extensive baseline survey. The survey revealed that the inhabitants of Sup Tai were poorer than the average for Thailand. About 80 percent of the households were in debt, health and sanitation levels were low, and malaria was common. There were no formal village institutions capable of coordinating project activities. Literacy was low and one- third of the villagers, mostly recent immigrants, were without legal land title. The survey emphasized the extent to which the welfare of the villagers was linked to and dependent upon middlemen, from whom they received credit at 5 percent a month. It was apparent that the park provided an illegal source of income for many villagers. This survey had considerable influence on the project design. Two subsequent surveys have measured progress against these baseline results. All of the surveys included numerous interviews with villagers. Osa Peninsula, Costa Rica. The Boscosa project developed and employed what project papers termed a "participative communal extension process," which emphasizes community involvement in project design, execution, and evaluation. For example, in one pilot community, land tenure, land use, land-use capability, and current agricultural practices were evaluated. Farmers were interviewed to determine their experiences with, and desire for, alternative crops or techniques. With help from the project, twenty-three farmers formed a production association. With technical assistance from the project, the association decided on crops and developed a communal nursery. Following this early involvement in project design and decisionmaking, the community organized other initiatives such as agroforestry, reforestation with native species, a women's arts and crafts group, and primary timber processing using a portable saw. A recent internal evaluation of the project concludes that the community "shows a more conscious approach toward forest productive management and has a long-term planning outlook on aspects such as resource use, development of proposals for new initiatives, buying of "forestry permits," and development of a community-managed forest. The Boscosa project has actively contrib- uted to encouraging and sponsoring forums for dialogue about conse:rvation and development on the peninsula by numerous interest groups, including small farmers, loggers, gold miners, and tourism proponents. The project has also provided technical support, especially in organizational development, to local organizations in the region. and in the Yanesha Forestry component of Central ing the project, and workers or volunteers from Selva (Peru); in initiating action in the Boscosa (Costa among the beneficiaries who act as community Rica) project; and in evaluation in the Khao Yai mobilizers. (Thailand) project at Sup Tai. While some of the other projects featured occasional or limited par- Agents of change ticipation, it did not appear to be a consistent or principal emphasis. Ideally, agents of change do not act as leaders and do not tell the community what to do (Midgley How do projects promote participation? 1986; Ti lakaratna 1987). Their task is to foster grass- roots participation and build local institutions. Sev- Two principal approaches to organizing and sus- eral case study ICDPS employed agents of change taining community participation in projects can (box 6.2). be identified from the literature: employing agents Most. of the field staff of the case study projects of change and building local institutions. Agents have essentially acted as agents of change. In most of change are also referred to as field workers, cases these people, whether expatriates or nation- extension workers, community organizers, or ani- als, were experienced, well-trained, energetic, and mators. Paul (1987) distinguishes two categories: knowledgeable. Trusting relationships frequently field workers employed by the agency implement- have been developed with local people and their 44 Local participation Box 6.2 Agents of change Air-Tenere, Niger. The project has established a network of village representatives from among the pastoralists. The selected representatives are people recognized locally as having authority within their herding groups. Their tasks are to be well-informed about the rules, goals, and activities in the reserve; to oncourage others to support these rules and goals; and to inform enforcement authorities of any infractions of the rules observed within their districts. These representatives receive no remuneration from the project, although they attend an annual workshop sponsored by the project. East Usambara, Tanzania. The area selected for the initial project focus contained about 25,000 people, many of them living two days' travel time from the project headquarters. To promote interaction with these communities, the project selected a village coordinator from each of fifteen target villages. The regional government pays the village coordinator's salaries and has guaranteed to maintain the positions permanently. The village coordinators are the primary link between the project and the villages, meeting monthly as a group to report progress and problems. They are either trained by the project or sent to attend short courses. The village coordinators have begun working closely with farmers in their own villages, and most have established agricultural demonstration plots. Khao Yai, Thailand. At Sup Tai village, the principal agent of change is the full-time project manager from the Population and Development Association, the implementing nongovernmental organization. This manager has hired a small number of local staff but works directly with villagers on project activities. The Population and Development Association has been active in thousands of villages throughout Thailand and its field personnel are well educated and trained, with extensive community development experience. South Luangwa, Zambia. The main local agents of change are the village scouts. These are young men-selected by local chiefs-who are employed by the National Park and Wildlife Service and trained in wildlife enforcement. Hiring game scouts from local villages has been an effective way of generating community support for reducing poaching. The next stage of the project calls for hiring some fifty community facilitators to monitor socioeconomic effects and to involve more disadvantaged members of the community, especially women. Talamanca, Costa Rica. The project began a community technicians program in 1989 with representatives from each of forty communities where nurseries have been established. The program is intended to develop local leaders who can provide information on agricultural and agroforestry development and can act as liaisons between their community and outside agencies. Each community selects a representative, plus an alternate, to receive advanced training in agriculture and agroforestry. Representatives tend to be younger, better-educated members of the community. When they return to their villages, they train others in what they have learned, often on an individual basis. Farmers work on the community technicians' land in exchange for the time they receive from the community technician. leaders, many of whom had been suspicious and local people in these procedures to the extent that distrustful, if not openly hostile, when the projects they [come to] regard them as the normnal way of began. Project staff frequently have appeared to conducting community affairs." Several of the personify the projects from the local perspective, projects sought to build local institutions (box 6.3). and their leadership and counsel obviously have Most of these institutions are of relatively recent been valued in many of the targeted communities. origin and few, if any, have become independent Not surprisingly, there were several examples of the projects. among the case studies where it was difficult to imagine project activities continuing without these Local participation issues for projects individuals. In other words, care must be taken to avoid creating new dependencies. Some ICDP managers recognize that building the capacity for people to make their own decisions Institution building and take initiative can be a long-term prospect. The need for patience can conflict with feelings of It has been argued that participation through in- urgency about the need to change or stop destruc- stitutions or organizations is more likely to be tive patterns of protected area degradation. This effective and sustained than individual participa- dilemma has been clearly expressed by the princi- tion (for example, Uphoff 1987). Local institutions pal adviser to the Air-Tenere project in Niger: can act as a focus of mobilization among local people and as a link between local people and The intention is to involve local people in external organizations, whether governmental or the design of projects.... However, while lo- nongovernmental organization. Institution build- cal communities may identify the problems ing has been defined by Midgeley (1986) as "the which concern them (and which may or may creation of procedures for democratic decision not match the objectives of various projects making at the local level and the involvement of or donors), true participation is often only 45 People and Parks Box 6.3 Institution building Annapurna, Nepal. The project promoted the establishment of a forest management committee in one village and lodge management committees in some of the villages along popular trekking routes. The forest management committee has helped reestablish community control over local forests, as existed prior to nationalization in the 1950s. Both the lodge and forest management committees have started to make some key resource management decisions, with prompting and support from the projects, although they are not yet close to becoming self-sufficient organizations. Central Selva, Peru. The Amuesha Indians formed a six-person committee to determine the best structure for organizing forestry activities. The committee consisted of one representative from each of five communities and the proposed forestry activities administrator. A cooperative structure, similar to Amuesha communal government systems, was selected and, shortly thereafter, members from the five communities joined to establish a forestry cooperative. Members participate in working groups; the heads of working groups make decisions collectively. Although the members like the cooperative decisionmaking, not all of the native communities have joined the cooperative. This may be partly because the cooperative has not yet been able to generate revenue for participating communities, and because of the long distance between cooperative headquarters and some of the nonparticipating communities. Khao Yai, Thailand. Project development and conservation activities at each village are centered around the environ- mental protection society. These institutions were created to enable villagers to take control of resource management and to encourage them to take some responsibility for safeguarding the national park. Considerable emphasis has been placed on establishing the credibility of the environmental protection society as a viable organization separate from the project centers. Low-interest loans funneled through the environmental protection society are the major incentive for villagers to participate. The training of elected environmental protection society committee members, particularly in the administra- tion of loans, has advanced at one village but remains at an early stage elsewhere. A 1989 evaluation of the project saw little prospect of the committee members being able to take over the societies in the near future. LupandelADMADE, Zambia. The administrative structure of Lupande/ADMADE was designed to balance national-level management with systems of local participation. The most decentralized unit is the Wildlife Management Subauthority, with one subauthority for each chiefdom. Members of each subauthority include the chief and headmen, head teachers, party chairmen, and other local authorities. One responsibility is to determine what community development projects will be funded with revenue returned from wildlife use. However, these groups are not yet free-standing local institutions; they are closely tied into the national political system. Osa Peninsula, Costa Rica. The Boscosa project has helped establish or strengthen numerous small, local organizations throughout the Osa Peninsula. These organizations include a locally organized cooperative whose ultimate objective is to process wood into low-priced furniture, and agricultural producers' associations in three different communities. The project has also tried to strengthen existing community groups. Project staff have trained local communities in program development, proposal writing, and fund-raising. At least fourteen proposals have been submitted by communities for agroforestry, reforestation, forest-products processing, and other activities. Several have already received funding and others are being reviewed by a variety of donors. Most of these institutions have been established recently; none yet has shown the capacity to assume responsibility for local resource management. Talamanca, Costa Rica. The project helped create the Talamanca Association of Small Producers (APPTA), a regional procurement, processing, and marketing association. The association was established in 1987 and is administered locally by farmers involved in the project. It is one of the few regional outlets for procurement of agricultural inputs or marketing assistance. APFrA has not yet been involved in marketing local products, but it has established a store where it is selling agricultural inputs. APPTA has also completed feasibility studies on marketing and processing major agricultural crops in the region. APPTA is now independent of the project, although it maintains close ties. User groups have been established for community nurseries and women's organic-farming groups. About 600 house- holds in forty communities have decided to participate. Each group decides how to organize the work, what seedlings to establish, the labor contributions from members, and so on. While these user groups are not formal institutions, they are often the only organized groups in the communities. developed after a project has already been duce tangible evidence of the beneficial re- accepted and is under implementation.... The sults of its various activities. (Newby 1989, urgency of the region's conservation prob- quoted in Kiss 1990, 57) lems dictates against the lengthy process of developing local support and participatory Some barriers to local participation are com- capacity, however important this may be for mon to an,y development project, including icDPs. long-term success.... The project's philoso- As mentioned above, existing authority structures phy is that popular support and, eventually, in many societies inhibit widespread participation voluntary and internally motivated partici- in decisionmaking. In addition, national govern- pation, can only be achieved through a be- ments may limit the extent of local empowerment, lief in what one is doing. Therefore, the ap- particular,y where they perceive a threat to their proach which the project is taking is to pro- own authority. 46 Local participation Overlooked by most of the projects is the fact ICDP goals have been established at several sites, that icDPs by definition limit participation. For an but only one has yet demonstrated the capacity to icDP to achieve its basic objective-biodiversity con- operate independently of the project or to have a servation-people can only be empowered in as- significant impact on nearby parks. Tangible pects of development, including local resource progress is thus difficult to demonstrate. management, that do not lead to overexploitation This apparent lack of progress is at least partly or degradation of the protected wildlife and wild- attributable to the projects' relatively short dura- lands. In practice this can be very difficult to achieve tion and illustrates how lengthy and difficult a using economic incentives. There is always likely process eliciting local participation in any devel- to be a conflict of interest between rural people's opment project can be. The limited experience to ability to earn a living and the management of date suggests that at least a decade is likely to be nearby protected areas. It is unrealistic to assume needed-instead of one or two years. Such lengthy that resource-poor people, living next to what may periods will require patience and conunitment from appear to them to be limitless resources of land, donors, icDP managers, and the intended benefi- trees, plants, and animals, will readily support park ciaries. These long periods are also likely to be conservation ideals. ICDPS are based on the prin- accompanied by a continued escalation of threats ciples of mitigating such conflicts of interest by against the protected area that the project is trying promoting alternative income sources and educa- to conserve. tion programs. But the conflicts cannot be expected Neither the beneficiary nor the participatory to disappear, and the general need for strict en- approach to icDPs has been demonstrably effective forcement appears inescapable. so far in achieving ICDP goals in the case study projects. The beneficiary approach may not be sus- Modified local participation tainable, and the participatory approach takes long to implement. Although neither approach can sub- Although all of the case study projects are com- stitute for enforcement, participation can facilitate mitted to participation in principle, most have a more cooperative relationship between protected treated local people as passive beneficiaries of areas and local people and thus make enforcement project activities and have failed to involve people more humane and acceptable. in the process of change and their own develop- A balanced approach would seem essential. In ment. As a result, the targets of the projects often the long term, local participation, as defined in have no stake in or commitment to the activities this section, should be sought as much as possible. being promoted. None of the projects based on However, short-term benefits also are needed to this beneficiary approach has demonstrated sig- establish the projects' credibility locally and to over- nificant progress toward its goals. come distrust among the target population. The On the other hand, some of the projects adopt- continuing-and probably intensified-need for ing a participatory approach have made impor- enforcement will have to be balanced between these tant progress in winning the trust and confidence long- and short-term goals. The appropriate na- of skeptical local populations and eliciting the par- ture of this balance for individual projects will, ticipation of community members in project-initi- once again, depend on a thorough assessment of ated activities. Locally credible networks of agents local social, political, economic, cultural, and bio- of change and new institutions consistent with the logical factors. 47 7. Participating organizations - _ There are three principal roles for organizations in arch and Sian Ka'an (Mexico), and South Luangwa, an integrated conservation-development project Zambia projects. (ICDP): Some interesting arrangements and partner- Project implementation. The case study projects ships emnerged from the case studies. For example: were executed by a mix of government agencies and nongovernmental organizations, indepen- * The project at Khao Yai National Park, Thai- dently or in partnership. Some of the government land, started as a result of collaboration between agencies were those specifically responsible for a large Thai nongovernmental organization with protected area management, but others were not. extensive rural development experience and a The nongovernmental organizations ranged from small recently formed national conservation non- large, sophisticated international conservation governmental organization interested primarily in groups to small local organizations for which the wildlife protection. Government participation was ICDP represented a major undertaking. minimal. * Management of the protected area. Personnel of * The government of Nepal delegated its man- the government agencies managing the parks agement authority over the Annapurna Conserva- played various roles in the ICDPS. Managers of the tion Area to a national conservation nongovern- traditional parks generally had little or no direct mental organization. involvement in project management. Some were * Nc national nongovernmental organizations highly skeptical of the ICDP'S intentions; their col- are involved in the African case studies-all of the laboration with the project, if any, tended to be participating nongovernmental organizations are unenthusiastic and weighted down by bureaucratic foreign-based. The Air-Tenere, Volcanoes, and procedures. At multiple-use sites, the management Usambara projects are being executed by the gov- agencies tended to be much more involved with ernments of Niger, Rwanda, and Tanzania respec- the projects, either collaborating fully with the tively, with substantial technical assistance-and project implementation organization or actually funding at Air-Tenere-from international conser- managing the project. vation nongovernmental organizations. * Sourceoffunds.Financingwasgenerallypro- * In Latin America most of the projects are vided by international conservation nongovern- being implemented by nongovernmental organi- mental organizations, by international develop- zations with little direct government participation. ment agencies, and-less frequently-by national But authorizations and cooperation were frequently governments and by multiple donors. World Bank required from a bewilderingly complex assortment loans funded the Amboseli (Kenya) and Dumoga- of ministries, departments, and agencies of the Bone (Indonesia) projects and USAID grants sup- national and local governments. ported the Andohahela and Beza Mahafaly (Mada- gascar), Bururi (Burundi), Central Selva (Peru), This chapter discusses the roles of different or- Khao Yai (TEAM) (Thailand), and South Luangwa ganizations in the case study projects, identifying (Zambia) projects. The World Wildlife Fund-U.S. the strengths and weaknesses of the participating participated in funding or implementing all, or government agencies, the nongovernmental orga- portions, of the Andohahela and Beza Mahafaly nizations, and the donors (or lenders). The chapter (Madagascar), Annapurna (Nepal), Boscosa and then discusses which organizations ought to be Talamanca (Costa Rica), Central Selva (Peru), Mon- involved in ICDPs, and in what capacity. 48 Participating organizations Government agencies context, the effectiveness of government programs in providing basic services to rural conimunities- Protected area management agencies are gener- such as education, health care, and road mainte- ally found in the ministries responsible for forests nance-are also key factors in determining income (Asia and Latin America) or wildlife (Africa). Their levels and living standards in communities near challenging mandate-managing large areas of parks, thereby affecting the pressure likely to be land for conservation-is frequently out of all pro- exerted on park resources. portion to their minuscule resources, inadequate legal powers, and lack of political influence. Con- Direct participation sequently, these agencies tend to appear ineffec- tual in managing and protecting their parks. Government agencies have taken lead roles in the Outside park boundaries the situation is worse. projects at Air-Tenere, (Niger, box 7.2), Amboseli Park managers tend to be poorly placed to address (Kenya), Andohahela (Madagascar), Bururi (Bu- the problems confronting local people. Few park rundi), Chitwan (Nepal), Dumoga-Bone (Indone- management agencies have jurisdiction outside sia), South Luangwa (Zambia), and V cdcanoes park boundaries, and the legal authority over lands (Rwanda). In some of these projects, nongovern- adjacent to parks is usually shared between local mental organizations working in international con- government and several ministries. Most of the servation such as African Wildlife Foundation, agencies lack equipment and the most basic tech- Wildlife Conservation International, International nical expertise. Field staff are often poorly paid, Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural ill-equipped, ill-trained, lacking opportunities for Resources (iucN), and World Wildlife Fund have advancement, and isolated from their families for provided extensive technical assistance and much long periods. In combination with the traditional of the total funding. (Chapter 3 describes the struc- orientation toward an enforcement role, these con- ture of the Usambara project.) straints ensure that most park management agen- In cases where government agencies have taken cies lack the inclination or capacity to respond con- a lead role, financial sustainability after the project structively to local people-park issues. Not surpris- ends has sometimes been uncertain. The Amboseli, ingly, this has led to conflicts of interest between Kenya, and Bururi, Burundi, projects encountered park managers and local communities, leading to substantial problems after external project fund- resentment, hardship, and sometimes violence. ing was exhausted, leading to significant break- One of the earliest and most widely reported downs in project operations. In Tanzania, regional examples of cooperation between government of- and national government agencies have allocated ficials and local people is at Royal Chitwan Na- considerable staff resources to the Usambara project tional Park in Nepal. This arrangement has pro- and are committed to creating permanent posi- vided what appears to be only temporary relief, tions for the fifteen village coordinators hired lo- however, and continued strict enforcement may cally and trained by the project. Nonetheless, the be the only hope for Chitwan (box 7.1). project still may be threatened by discontinuity of Despite these constraints, government agencies external funding. In Zambia, there are enough sa- have played important roles in ICDPS either through fari revenues to support the project, but the inter- direct participation-by taking a lead role in imple- national ivory ban could cause major revenue short- menting the project-or through indirect partici- falls for the government agency. pation by delegating their authority or facilitating Governments may not always share the conser- project performance. Beyond the immediate project vation priority of ICDP staff, particularly when tour- Box 7.1 Grass collection in Royal Chitwan National Park, Nepal Prior to the park's establishment in 1973, local people had used the area to collect fuelwood, graze livestock, and collect tall grasses for building material. For two years after the establishment of the park, these activities were banned. Several hundred soldiers from the Royal Nepal Army were deployed to enforce the regulations, resulting in frequent conflicts and arrests. The local population is rapidly expanding, and the pressure on land and resources appears to be such that local people have little choice but to collect fuelwood illegally and to take their cattle into the park for grazing. Chitwan appears I only to have bought some time, because the conflict will increase with the disappearance of the few remaining patches of forest outside the national park that have satisfied local needs for fuelwood and grazing land. Without the continuing presence of the army, it seems inevitable that Chitwan would have been lost as a park several years ago. 49 People and Parks Box 7.2 Organizational structure of the Air-Tenere project, Niger The project is administered by the Service of Wildlife and Fisheries of the Ministry of Agriculture and Environment. The on-site project director, a Niger forester, is directly responsible to the dlirector of wildlife and fisheries in Niamey. He is aided in his administrative duties by the assistant director, also a Niger forester. Other Niger nationals on the project staff include three foresters, three guides, four nurserymen, four extension workers, two site foremen, and a garage staff of eight, including drivers. Expatriate participants include the iucN/World Wildlife Fund representative based in Niamey, who is the principal project coordinator-adviser, an adviser for conservaition, an adviser for rural development, a head mechanic (a German volunteer), and two biologists (Peace Corps volunteers). ism revenues are at stake. In Rwanda, the Volca- emments to help ICDPS is the passage of legislation noes project is financially self-sustaining because to establish multiple-use areas (as in Nepal and in of the high revenues derived from foreign tourists Niger) or to clarify jurisdiction outside the bound- viewing the gorillas. However, the government is aries of existing protected areas (as is being con- exerting considerable pressure to increase the scale sidered in Indonesia and in Nepal)(chapter 2). of tourism and thus generate more foreign-cur- At times govemments indirectly hinder ICDPs. rency earnings. Conservation interests are con- As discussed above, in the absence of specific en- cerned that increased contact could have a detri- abling legislation, most agencies have lacked the mental effect on gorillas. jurisdiction needed to take the lead in the case study I('DPS, even in the unusual circumstances Indirect participation where they have had the capability and adequate resources. As a result, to work in communities In a few cases, government authority over pro- outside parks, some projects have had to consult tected areas has been delegated to a nongovern- and work with complex and frequently overlap- mental organization. The Nepal government has ping local and national government agencies (box relinquished most of its authority over the mul- 7.3). Projects with activities in different sectors (for tiple-use Annapurna Conservation Area to the King example, agriculture, tourism, forestry, education, Mahendra Trust for Nature Conservation, a na- and heallth) often have had to reach agreement tional nongovernmental organization, while the with several government agencies. This task has University of Madagascar has been given jurisdic- proved to be a considerable burden for the projects tion over the Beza Mahafaly Reserve. Monarca, in Latin America. A.C. has an agreement with the Mexican govern- The Dumoga-Bone project in Indonesia placed ment to provide education, trail maintenance, considerable emphasis on incorporating the views guards, and so on, at one of the Monarch Butterfly of the m,any local and national government agen- Overwintering Reserves, but relations and collabo- cies that had an interest in the irrigation projects, ration are often strained. There were no other ex- the transmigration of farmers, and the establish- amples of effective collaboration between national ment of a national park. Frequent on-site meetings nongovernmental organizations and their govern- with these agencies contributed to the timely reso- ments among the case study projects. lution of differences and helped to prevent bu- Governments can also facilitate, authorize, or reaucratic procedures from unduly delaying the at least tolerate projects without actively partici- project. However, this was a $60 million project pating. One of the most important ways for gov- involving 8,000 farmers. Smaller projects with less Box 7.3 Complexities of governmental relations at Talamanca, Costa Rica ANA[, the small local nongovernmental organization executing the Talamanca project in Costa Rica, has limited staff resources. The organization has agreements with, and receives funds from, several government ministries, including those for natural resources, justice, and agriculture. For a land-titling project component, ANAI has worked with additional public and private agencies. The project area includes several different categories of protected area-including a biosphere reserve, a wildlife refuge, Indian reservations, and a national park. Separate government offices administer each of these. In addition to these four agencies, ANAI must coordinate its activities with at least ten more government agencies. The elections in 1990 necessitated the building of a completely new set of relationships with incoming personnel in each government agency. 50 Participating organizations obvious economic significance may not be able to tion is limited. The World Bank describes NGO as attract this level of cooperation. "private organizations that pursue activities to re- In many countries where protected areas are lieve suffering, promote the interests of the poor, under pressure, there is little prospect-at least in protect the environment or undertake community the short term-of management agencies making development" (Cernea 1988b, 43). a meaningful contribution to ICDPS, even with fund- ing and technical assistance from international or- Role in the case study projects ganizations. The Administrative Design for Game Management Areas (ADMADE) program in Zambia A few principal categories of NGOS have been en- is an exception, although the success of this pro- countered in this study, with the most basic dis- gram may be closely related to the specific set of tinction being between national and international conditions associated with wildlife safari hunting ones. The national NGOS tend to be either develop- in game management areas outside national parks ment- or conservation-oriented, but not both. The in southern African savannas (see also Kiss 1990). only national organization with extensive devel- Strengthening protected area management opment experience in the sample was the Popula- agencies to enable them to manage protected areas tion and Community Development Association adequately would require long-term investments (Thailand). National NGOS played principal roles in expanding park and reserve networks, estab- in the projects at Annapurna (Nepal), Khao Yai lishing conservation monitoring programs, train- (Thailand), Monarch (Mexico), and Talamanca ing field staff and their managers, purchasing and (Costa Rica). The organizations were rarely in- maintaining equipment, and improving salaries, volved in protected area enforcement, tending to working conditions, and career prospects to at- place greater emphasis on local development and tract more and better educated employees. These education. agencies also require support to increase their ca- Some of the national NGOS are truly "national," pacity to absorb funds from foreign lenders and with extensive resources and considerable exper- donors and to coordinate their responses to the tise gained through project experience. These in- diverse interests and priorities of these organiza- clude the King Mahendra Trust for Nature Con- tions. servation in Nepal (box 7.4) and the Population Finally, and of critical importance in the ICDP and Development Association in Thailand. The context, these agencies need to change from a other national NGOS involved in projects in Latin purely enforcement orientation to one substantially America are much smaller. ANAI (in the Talamanca more sympathetic to communities living in and project in Costa Rica) and Friends of Sian Ka'an around parks. This will require not only changes and Monarca, A.C. (both in Mexico) were estab- in attitude at all agency levels but also completely lished to conserve specific protected areas and their new skills in such areas as communication, exten- surrounds. In each of these cases, there is little sion, education, and mediation. distinction between the activities of the project and those of the NGO. Nongovernmental organizations Most of the international NGOS represented in the case studies are widely known and well-estab- As several authors have pointed out (for example, lished conservation organizations, including Wild- Brown and Korten 1989), the term nongovernmen- life Conservation International (part of the New tal organization (Nco) embraces such a diverse York Zoological Society), iucN, and World Wildlife range of organizations that its value as a classifica- Fund. An exception has been Catholic Relief Ser- Box 7.4 The King Mahendra Trust for Nature Conservation, Nepal Established in 1982, the King Mahendra Trust for Nature Conservation is the largest and most influential conservation organization in Nepal. Royal patronage has contributed significantly to the trust's success. The King Mahendra Trust also has close ties to influential politicians and has been given a remarkably autonomous and significant role in the manage- ment of the Annapurna Conservation Area. This is probably a unique arrangement for an NGO in Asia-or for any NCO on an issue of such global importance. The trust may raise money directly from overseas and has been able to lobby successfully for new legislation needed to guarantee its autonomy. The trust has been able to bypass many of the inefficiencies and time-consuming procedures associated with government agencies and to execute projects with a relatively slim and flexible bureaucracy. 51 People and Parks vices, an international development NGO partici- highlighting environmental issues and concerns, pating in the Burundi projects and the Conserva- devising education and awareness programs, and tion Foundation/World Wildlife Fund, which was lobbying governments and international agencies. directly involved in implementation of the Boscosa Conservation NGOS have also made substantial con- project. No other international development NGOS tributions to establishing and managing protected have participated, although a small number, par- areas by mobilizing funds and providing expatri- ticularly cARE, have recently started to become in- ate technical assistance. However, groups having volved in ICDPS. International NGOS have seldom little experience in development have struggled to been involved directly in project implementation, implement effective development within IcDPs. tending instead to work with government agen- On the other hand, development NGOS have cies or local NGOS. The international organizations' implemented many small, low-cost, and innova- principal role has been to contribute or raise funds tive projects that have benefitted poor people in and to provide expatriate technical assistance, remote rural communities throughout the devel- sometimes in the form of the project manager or oping w%orld. The NGO approach to development leader. has been associated with sensitivity to local needs, There was an intriguing partnership between flexibility, and site-specific solutions involving ap- two national NGOS, the Population and Develop- propriate technologies. This bottom-up approach ment Association of Thailand, and Wildlife Fund can help to avoid the cumbersome bureaucracies Thailand, at Khao Yai, Thailand (chapter 3 and of central governments and the top-down blue- box 7.5). This partnership combined the Popula- print designs of rural development projects spon- tion and Development Association's extensive sored by international development agencies (chap- project management and participatory rural de- ter 4). InL ICDPs, however, many development NGOS velopment experience with Wildlife Fund have only recently started to introduce environ- Thailand's conservation expertise and knowledge mental components to their projects, and few have of wildlife issues. The two organizations' capaci- given explicit consideration to the conservation of ties appeared to complement each other. Unfortu- biodiversity. nately, this partnership did not survive more than NGOS have played a valuable role in identifying a few years, after which the two NGOS each began and promoting innovative project concepts and concentrating their efforts in separate communi- drawing attention to the need for ICDPS. This role is ties on the park boundaries. Problems facing each particularly important because many of the re- of the organizations in implementing their now- sponsible government agencies are unwilling or separate projects can, to some extent, be attributed incapable of reacting. What, then, are the appro- to the loss of the balanced approach that had been priate future ICDP roles for conservation and devel- facilitated by the partnership. opment NGOs? A recent review of World Bank projects involv- Strengths and weaknesses ing NTGos reported that many 3cos see their main role as serving as an institutional bridge between a Conservation-oriented NGOS have taken a leading project and its beneficiaries, linking project objec- role in the first generation of ICDPS. The conserva- tives andl activities to the needs and environment tion groups have previously proved effective in of beneficiaries (Salmen and Eaves 1989). The Box 7.5 Nongovernmental organizations in partnership at Khao Yai National Park, Thailand Two NGos-the Population and Community Development Association and Wildlife Fund Thailand-agreed to jointly develop and implement the pilot project. The Population and Development Association has been organizing community development activities since 1974 and is the largest NGO in Thailand. Its activities have reached more than 16,000 villages and have led to improvements in health, family planning, and income. Its approach is characterized by community participation in decisionmaking, training of villagers, and the provision of 'ow-interest credit. Wildlife Fund Thailand was founded in 1983 and has rapidly achieved prominence by attracting attention to some of Thailand's most important environmental issues. It is affiliated with the World Wildlife Fund-International. The Population and Development Association and Wildlife Fund Thailand started the project in 1985 at the village of Sup Tai. Although they now manage separate projects, the two organizations still collaborate. By 1989 their "development for conservation" programs had expanded to thirteen villages, ten of them managed by Wildlife Fund Thailand and three of them by Population and Development Associates. Wildlife Fund Thailand reached another forty villages with mobile conservation education units. 52 Participating organizations World Bank study argued that involvement of in- regard some NGO activities as an unwelcome intru- termediary NGOS in Bank-sponsored projects can sion in politics. In turn, NGOS sometimes face the help to translate beneficiary needs and knowledge dilemma of accepting some government funds and of local conditions to the World Bank or the bor- putting their credibility or future autonomy at risk. rower, translate project guidelines to communi- Finally, the reports and literature emanating ties, organize beneficiaries to take advantage of from some of the NGOS sponsoring the projects project benefits, deliver services to less accessible suggest confusion between what has been planned populations, and serve as intermediaries to other and what has been achieved. In some cases the NGOS. These seem logical roles for NGOS in ICDPS. public relations effort has been set in motion too In addition to their many strengths, however, early. This has several undesirable effects: it sug- NGOS also have limitations (box 7.6). Annis (1987), gests that the ICDP approach is relatively quick and among others, has written that the strengths for easy, when in fact ICDPS are complex and long- which NGOS are acclaimed can also be serious weak- term commitments; it overrates some weak nesses-that "small-scale" can merely mean "in- projects, rather than concentrating on needed im- significant," "politically independent" can mean provements; it places unrealistic expectations on "powerless" or "disconnected," and "innovative" some promising projects too early; it inhibits the can mean simply "temporary" or "unsustainable." experimentation and learning that are essential in These potential weaknesses suggest a need for such innovative ventures; and it can lead to large some caution in assessing the capacity of any NGO numbers of visitors, all requiring the valuable time to execute icDPs unassisted. of project managers. Promoting development has proved difficult even for NGOS experienced in managing rural de- Donors (and lenders) velopment projects. Doing so for an icDP would likely prove extremely challenging for international Many donors have become increasingly interested conservation NGOS with limited experience in in funding ICDPS as part of their expanding envi- projects targeting poor rural people or for national ronmental mandates and growing interest in links conservation or environmental NGOS that were between conservation and development. For the originally established to lobby governments, raise case study projects, principal funding sources have money for the establishment of specific protected included multilateral organizations (the World areas, or raise conservation awareness through edu- Bank and the European Community), bilateral cation programs. agencies (in Canada, the Netherlands, Norway, Another constraint facing NGOS iS the resistance Sweden, Switzerland, the United States, and West of some governments and their agencies to NGO in- Germany), private foundations, and the interna- volvement in development projects. Governments tional NGOS (which, in turn, have their own fund- frequently feel threatened by the growth of NGOS ing sources, including private foundations). and often react to their activities with suspicion Smaller national NGos that are executing projects and hostility (Cernea 1988b). Governments may can spend considerable time on-and sometimes Box 7.6 Strengths and weaknesses of nongovernmental organizations Comparative advantages * Reaching the rural poor, particularly in remote areas * Facilitating local resource mobilization and promoting rural participation * Delivering services at relatively low cost * Finding innovative solutions Comparative limitations * Limited ability to scale-up successful projects * Limited ability to develop community organizations that are self-sustaining after special staff and resources are withdrawn * Lack of technical capacity for complex projects * Lack of strategic perspective and linkages with other important actors * Limited managerial and organizational capacities Source: Brown and Korten (1989). 53 People and Parks be overwhelmed by-requirements to write de- over whether ICDPS should follow a top-down or tailed proposals and evaluation reports and to meet bottom-up approach (see, for example, Hough and regularly with donors. Examples include Amigos Sherpa 1989). Top-down is associated with gov- de Sian Ka'an, Mexico; ANAI'S Talamanca project, ernments and with international organizations, and Costa Rica; and Wildlife Fund Thailand's TEAm bottom-up is associated with NGOs. The case stud- project at Khao Yai, Thailand. In some cases these ies have revealed little convincing evidence that tasks were overwhelming the modest administra- either governments or conservation or develop- tive capacities of the organizations and detracting ment NIGOs, working independently, can effectively from the pressing daily management needs of the plan and implement ICDPs. projects. Actual or perceived pressure from do- Government agencies interested in, or respon- nors to report concrete results also resulted in some sible for, conservation frequently lack financial re- overoptimistic project analyses and internal evalu- sources and enough trained personnel, and are ations. By contrast, most project field staff appeared oriented away from community participation in realistic about the magnitude of the challenge they natural resource management. It is thus difficult had taken on. for them to execute ICDPS. Many of the projects and donors have adopted On the other hand, many projects implemented time schedules that seem unrealistically short given by NGOS have been tolerated rather than encour- their ambitious objectives. In particular, perhaps aged by government. Although this may result in because they have been applying for short term projects that facilitate local decisionmaking, are grants, projects have tended to predict the achieve- sensitive to local community needs, and are inde- ment of financial self-sufficiency within a few years. pendent of ponderous bureaucracies, there are Such predictions have proved unrealistic, particu- three problems. First, conservation and develop- larly at sites where there are no alternative fund- ment NfGOS alone often lack the necessary expertise ing sources such as foreign tourists or safari hunt- to identify, design, implement, or evaluate inte- ers. grated projects. Second, NGO operations are un- Some of the projects have been subject to alarm- likely to be permitted by most governments to ing funding bottlenecks and have continued only reach a scale large enough to make a meaningful through the remarkable persistence of their field difference to the conservation of biological diver- staff. These include Andohahela and Beza Mahafaly sity. (The scale of the case study projects is consid- (Madagascar), East Usambara (Tanzania), and TEAM ered in, chapter 8.) Third, the prospects for project at Khao Yai (Thailand). In some cases the delays success are limited without the active participa- were related to the renewal of short-term grants, tion of government in establishing a policy and while in others they were attributable to poor com- legislative environment supportive of ICDPs. It could munications between the funding agency and the also be argued that without the basic services that project. only government can provide on a significant The types of relationships between donors and scale--such as education, health care, and infra- case study projects vary considerably, but with structure-there is little chance of instigating ma- notable exceptions, the donors tend to share a num- jor, sustainable change in remote and poor com- ber of characteristics. Often they require that funds munities. be expended rapidly over short periods, they re- quire frequent reporting of tangible project achieve- Need for partnerships ments, they limit their financial commitments to two-to-three-year funding cycles, they have ineffi- For ICDP design and implementation, the above cient and overly bureaucratic mechanisms for trans- factors point strongly to the need for partnerships ferring funds to field staff, and they invariably between different types of organizations. Two types support "projects" instead of core activities of gov- of partnership can be envisioned-between devel- emnment agencies or NGOS. This study suggests that opment and conservation NGOS and between NGOS these characteristics reduce the likelihood of ICDPS and government agencies. International develop- being effective in achieving their goals. ment agencies can play an important role in facili- tating and encouraging these partnerships, par- Which organizations should be involved? ticularly in encouraging government agencies to participate. Reflecting the continuing debate over rural devel- The need for such partnerships is one of the opment project design, there is also an argument strongest conclusions to emerge from this study. 54 8. Measuring effectiveness -- __ Several criteria could be used to evaluate integrated * Attempt to identify any causal links between conservation-development projects (IcDPs). One changes in conditions inside protected areas and approach might be to build on the indexes used to project initiatives outside-in particular the extent monitor and evaluate rural development projects, to which changes inside are attributable to project such as target populations' incomes and wealth, activities as opposed to exogenous events and pro- literacy, productivity, and nutrition and health. cesses. Another approach would be to assess the effective- ness of projects in eliciting the participation of lo- Changes outside protected areas cal people in project activities and in promoting institutions to facilitate local decisionmaking. The Boscosa (Costa Rica) and Khao Yai (Thailand) But these approaches are based on measures of projects surveyed people living in the villages the means and not the end product; they do not where the project was to be implemented to estab- adequately measure progress against the ultimate lish baseline data against which to measure subse- goal. Every ICDP must eventually face the test of quent project effects. None of the other case study whether it has contributed to the conservation of projects has systematically monitored the effects biological diversity by improving the prospects of its development activities on local people. Few for survival of the targeted protected area. Indexes conducted baseline surveys, and little relevant data of ICDP effectiveness must therefore include key have been produced to quantify project benefits to ecological features, as well as the more familiar individuals or communities. The few external social and econonic development variables. evaluations have all been based on qualitative The effectiveness of an ICDP is likely to be con- analysis. As a result, it has not been feasible to strained by the scaling of the project in relation to produce an economic or financial evaluation of both the protected area and the surrounding popu- any project. The analyses of local social and eco- lation. The protected areas targeted by the case nomic changes since the projects began (summa- studies vary in size from a few square kilometers rized in chapters 5 and 6) have thus been based to several thousand square kilometers. Other things mainly on informal sources and interviews, supple- being equal, protecting larger reserves may be ex- mented by project reports. pected to be more difficult than protecting smaller reserves. But, regardless of a protected area's size, Changes inside protected areas icDps that target only a small proportion of the local population are unlikely to have a significant Protected area management agencies in develop- conservation impact. ing countries generally lack adequate resources Evaluating the effectiveness of a project requires for systematic monitoring, particularly in large pro- comparing initial goals with subsequent progress tected areas. Exceptions include occasional studies toward them, as reported by project monitoring associated with the preparation of park manage- systems. These steps should be followed: ment plans, periodic inventories of plants and ani- mals by visiting researchers, and aerial counts of * Assess the effects of ICDP activities on people large mammals in African savanna parks. outside protected area boundaries. Only three case study protected areas included * Assess the status of the plants and animals a component designed to compensate for this ab- inside the protected area, and changes in their sence of basic ecological data. All three are African status since the ICDP began. savanna ecosystems dominated by large mammals 55 People and Parks (Amboseli, Kenya; Lupande/ADMADE, Zambia; and * Direct linkage of conservation goals to develop- Nazinga, Burkina Faso). In the remaining cases, it ment benefits. Although many projects attempted was difficult to assess what changes had taken to provide local communities with benefits, few place in wildlife and wildlands, which of these projects established a direct linkage between the changes resulted from human activities, or whether conservation aim and the benefits received by lo- the trends have been positive or negative. cal commnunities. The Lupande/ADMADE (Zambia) In the case of large-scale forest conversion or program is an exception. More local employment, agricultural encroachment, such as at Andohahela increased meat for local consumption, and rev- (Madagascar) and Gunung Leuser (Indonesia), or enue sharing for development are directly tied to in the case of very small reserves, such as Beza wildlife protection. Mahafaly (Madagascar) and Bururi (Burundi), ad- verse trends were usually obvious, even if At the remaining sites there was little evidence unquantified. In other cases, the estimates of de- of change in what appear to be extremely high structive and illegal activities inside park bound- levels of destructive and illegal activities. aries range from nonexistent through anecdotal to informed guesswork. Despite the relative lack of Linking inside with outside scientific data, informal project reports combined with the results of interviews with villagers, project With the limited quantity of information available personnel, park officials and their field staff, and from project monitoring and evaluation, it is ex- visiting researchers have persuasively suggested tremely difficult for external reviewers to establish that destructive and illegal activities inside pro- ex-post causal relationships between events inside tected area boundaries have diminished at several and outside protected area boundaries. Of greater sites since the ICDPS began. These improvements concern is that few of the case study projects have appear to be associated with the following factors: effectively made that connection. While chapter 5 describes how several of the projects have gener- * More effective enforcement. This has been ated social and economic benefits for local people, achieved by hiring appropriately equipped and it is questionable whether many of these benefits supervised park guards, and resettling people from led to improved park security. within the protected area boundaries-changes ef- The Annapurna (Nepal), Beza Mahafaly (Mada- fected by the park authorities and by the gascar), and Lupande/ADMADE (Zambia) projects implementers of the ICDP (Air-Tenere, Niger; provided the only unambiguous examples of ef- Amboseli, Kenya; Bururi, Burundi; Chitwan, fective and positive linkages between conserva- Nepal; Dumoga-Bone, Indonesia; Lupande/ tion inside and development activities outside park ADMADE, Zambia; Nazinga, Burkina Faso; and Vol- boundaries. Some of the case studies where such canoes, Rwanda). In several of these cases there is linkages were missing or ambiguous are described considerable local resentment and hostility toward in box 8.1. the parks. It might be argued that icDPs promoting gen- o Mitigation of the adverse effects of tourism. The eral social and economic development in local com- Annapuma (Nepal) project has substantially re- munities would not expect to observe specific links duced deforestation rates within the multiple-use between individual program components and im- conservation area by persuading the owners of proved people-park interaction. And in some cases, small lodges to burn kerosene instead of wood as once-hostile relations between park personnel and their principal energy source. At Air-Tenere local communities have improved substantially (Niger), tourists have been required to travel with because of the mediation of project personnel. guides to minimize their impact. Nonetheless, the development components of IcDPs * Results of specific agreements. Local commu- have been influential in reducing threats to pro- nities and project representatives have agreed that tected areas only in a few cases. During start-up, investments in local development would follow project staff may need to spend considerable time from the establishment of a protected area. Ex- establishing a positive relationship with local amples have included repair of a road, construc- people, particularly in areas with a history of tion of a school, and the promise of an irrigation people-park tension. In such cases, linkages may project, all at Beza Mahafaly (Madagascar), and not readily be apparent even though vital prepara- land titling at Talamanca (Costa Rica). tory work is going on to build trust and goodwill 56 Measuring effectiveness Box 8.1 Ambiguous or missing linkages between the development components of projects and their conservation objectives Amboseli, Kenya. The reserve is apparently healthy, particularly in comparison with other East African parks, despite the project's failure to achieve its objectives in fifteen years. Khao Yai, Thailand. Low-interest loans to members of village environmental protection societies on the condition that park regulations be respected have considerably reduced individual debt burdens. It is not at all clear, however, that this has resulted in reduced poaching or logging in the adjacent national park. Luangwa Integrated Rural Development Project (uRDP), Zambia. Although LIRDP is similar to ADMADE, it is a broadly based integrated rural development project with fishery, agriculture, road construction, and community service components. Funding for these activities depends mainly on wildlife use and trophy fees. The ADMADE program has managed to clearly link the local benefits to wildlife, but the L[RDP project disperses funds to all of the project activities. It is thus unclear whether the link between wildlife and development can be made clear in the eyes of local people. Monarch, Mexico. Local people receive gate receipts from tourists visiting the butterflies. Yet this has not prevented the local residents from logging in the reserve. In this case, the direct benefits from a conservation area have been insufficient to become an incentive to reduce pressure on the protected area. Sian Ka'an, Mexico. Lobster fishermen, who claimed that land inside the park was rightfully theirs when they wanted to earn additional income from farming, posed a potentially significant threat to the reserve. Amigos de Sian Ka'an, the nongovernmental organization running the project, developed an intensive agricultural farm to demonstrate that high levels of production could be achieved on small parcels, thus partly negating the fishermen's claims. The fishermen lost their interest in farming, and the demonstration farm continues even though it is too far from local communities to be useful for training them. Note: Other examples are described in chapter 5 and the appendix. locally and thereby provide a basis for future link- will include lands outside the protected area ages. boundary and, in the case of multiple-use areas, The argument that conservation will automati- may also include lands inside the overall area cally be strengthened by improving the living stan- boundaries. Reach depends on the location and dards or increasing the incomes of people outside distribution of the intended beneficiaries and the park boundaries is appealing-and the principal ease of access to them. justification for icDPs. However, the case study a Diversity refers to the range of activities car- analyses demonstrate that this argument is sim- ried out by the project. Increasing the diversity plistic and that projects need to establish explicit may allow a wider range of threats to be addressed linkages between their development components and increase the possibilities of finding new solu- and their conservation objectives. tions. But greater diversity also may promote more change than local people are willing to make and Scale of projects add complexity to management-making failure more likely. Assessing the scale of an ICDP must begin with the * Intensity refers to the level of effort of project physical size of the protected area targeted by the activities-over a given area or directed toward a project. The variations in size of the case study specific population. A project must generally de- protected areas was considerable, from the 65,000 cide how thinly to allocate its finite resources. For square kilometer Air-Tenere National Nature Re- example, a project with a full-time, on-site project serve in Niger to the 6 square kilometer Beza manager in each target village is more "intensive" Mahafaly Special Reserve in Madagascar and the 5 than a project where one worker covers several square kilometer Monarch Butterfly Overwinter- villages. This is difficult, and perhaps impossible, ing Reserve in Mexico (table 2.1). to measure. Three project design features can be used to show the scale of an IcDp: Using this approach, the total scale of a project can be expressed in terms of three variables: reach, * Geographic reach is the area enclosed by the diversity, and intensity. In practice, the total scale physical boundaries within which project activi- will be subject to a number of limniting constraints. ties take place. Reach need not be synonymous The first is funding, not just the total funds obtain- with the physical size of the protected area. Reach able but their pattern of availability over time and 57 People and Parks the extent to which lenders or donors are prepared ample, box 8.2 tentatively applies this approach to to conmmit their funds. The second constraint is an assessment of the scale of some of the case management capacity, the ability of implementing study projects. organizations-whether government agencies or How far should a project's geographic reach nongovernmental organizations-to effectively be, or how far should activities extend beyond the manage a project. Third is the availability of ad- protected area boundaries? There is no single an- equately trained and experienced personnel to staff swer to this question. The appropriate scale for a a project. The fourth constraint is a project's politi- project depends on site-specific aspects of the so- cal acceptability-locally and nationally. cioeconomic context and on the level and intensity A project may need to make trade-offs among of threats to the protected area. Some of the vari- reach, diversity, and intensity. For example, a ables discussed in this section (especially intensity project with an inadequate reach can have little and diversity) cannot be measured precisely. They hope of having a significant effect on a protected may, nonetheless, be useful for evaluating the ad- area, because only a small proportion of the target equacy of icDps. population has even the possibility of being af- Constraints inhibiting scale increases are finan- fected by the project. But, with an extended reach, cial, human (for project planning, management, a diverse project becomes difficult to manage. A and staiffing), institutional (absorptive capacities range of varied activities carried out over a large of the imnplementing organizations), technological area affecting many different communities will be (better methods for resource use), and distribu- difficult to coordinate. Rural development projects tional (directing benefits to local people). The scale along these lines have tended to suffer organiza- of most of the case study projects has been too tional failures. Finally, with limited funds and lim- small in relation to the protected areas or to the ited staff resources, reach and intensity can be surrounding populations to have had a significant trade-offs. For example, at Khao Yai, Thailand, effect. Some of the projects are targeting small one of the project nongovernmental organizations parks, and others are pilot initiatives next to larger has emphasized intensity (working intensively in parks. But apart from small-scale replications a few villages), while the other, with pressure from within IC'DPS, few of the organizations that initiated donors, has emphasized reach (visiting and work- or implemented these pilots have shown the incli- ing in many more villages). As an i!lustrative ex- nation or capacity to promote replication. 58 Measuring effectiveness Box 82 Comparing the scale of case study projects Using the method described in the text, three ICDPS might be compared as follows: Reach Intensity Diversity Dumoga-Bone, Indonesia high high low East Usambara, Tanzania moderate moderate high Khao Yai, Thailand Population and Development Assodation, Sup Tai low high high Wildlife Fund Thailand (TEAM) high low high Dumoga-Bone, Indonesia. The eastem half of this 3,000 square kilometer park drains into the Dumoga valley. The park was established to protect the upper watershed of two large irrigation projects. As a result, 12,000 farmers have been able to grow paddy rice. The Dumoga-Bone irrigation projects reach throughout a large river valley (reach = high), affect almost all of the land and people in the valley (intensity = high), and have a single objective, irrigated rice cultivation (diversity = low). East Usambara, Tanzania. About 40,000 people in twenty-five to thirty villages live among sixteen small forest reserves totaling 160 square kilometers. The forests have been degraded by logging and shifting cultivation. The project is working in fifteen of the villages close to the reserves on a variety of small-scale rural development initiatives and promoting more intensive cash crop alternatives to shifting cultivation. The East Usambara project reaches almost half of the villages located among the forest reserves (reach = moderate), has a paid coordinator in each village (intensity = moderate), and has pursued a diverse range of activities (diversity = high). (See chapter 3.) Khao Yai, Thailand. This 2,200 square kilometer park is surrounded by more than 100 villages. The original project started in one village on the northern boundary, Sup Tai, and was a joint effort of two nongovernmental organizations- the Population and Development Association and Wildlife Fund Thailand. All subsequent activities have been based on some variation of the Sup Tai model. Wildlife Fund Thailand dropped out of Sup Tai and began the TEAM project on the park's eastern boundary. This project focused on two groups of five villages, with a headquarters and field manager in one village in each of the two groups. Mobile education activities were planned for forty more villages. The Population and Development Association continues the project at Sup Tai and has expanded into two other nearby villages, with plans for expansion into three further villages starting in 1990. The Khao Yai projects reach only a small proportion of the villages that threaten the national park (reach = low). The Sup Tai project has several full-time, on-site staff (intensity = high) and has attempted a wide range of activities (diversity = high). The TEAM project is similarly diverse but has fewer staff trying to work in more villages (intensity = low). (This project is more fully described in chapter 3.) Applying the same variables to some of the other case studies: Reach Intensity Diversity Air-Tenere, Niger moderate moderate moderate Amboseli, Kenya National Park high moderate low Wildlife Extension high low low Annapurna, Nepal Stage I moderate high high Stage II high moderate high Beza Mahafaly, Madagascar moderate high moderate Lupande/ADMADE, Zambia moderate high low Osa/Boscosa, Costa Rica moderate moderate high Sian Ka'an, Mexico low low moderate Talamanca, Costa Rica high moderate high At their current level of operations, the Amboseli Wildlife Extension (Kenya), Andohahela (Madagascar), Khao Yai (Thailand), Monarch and Amigos de Sian Ka'an (Mexico), and Talamanca (Costa Rica) projects all appear to be too small in relation to the area they are trying to protect or the surrounding population they are hoping to influence. These ICDps should thus be considered pilot projects. 59 9. Conclusions and recommendations This study of integrated conservation-development veloping worlds and mobilizing resources on a projects (IcDPs) was expected to identify local de- much larger scale than has been done so far. Now, velopment strategies that are compatible with eco- even under the best of conditions, ICDPS centered system conservation, local incentives that most ef- on protected areas and targeting local populations fectively discourage threats to parks, the best ways can play only a modest role in mitigating the pow- to involve local people in protected area manage- erful forces causing environmental degradation. ment, and the types of organizations that best fa- When, in addition, these projects are trying to de- cilitate these approaches. velop new approaches while relying on tiny bud- These questions remain largely unanswered. gets, inexperienced implementing organizations Concise, clear-cut lessons for replicating existing (often dependent on one or two key individuals), projects did not emerge. Instead, what stands out and limited access to usable technology, and when, most clearly is that the problems that individual furthermore, the projects are constantly struggling icDps are attempting to address are enormous, com- for official recognition, their ambitions must real- plex, and variable. By comparison, the pioneering istically be limited. efforts examined in this study appear small in- In these circumstances the achievements of the deed. Many projects have annual budgets of less case study projects are perhaps remarkable. Within than $100,100-some considerably less-and few relatively short periods of time, several projects have received funding totaling more than $1 mil- have established components that appear promis- lion. By development project funding standards, ing and that have elicited a measure of support these amounts are very small. More fundamen- among the local population. Although measurable tally, these projects are small in terms of the influ- progress has been rare, early experiences of the ence they can exert over the forces threatening case study ICDPS offer some valuable lessons for protected ecosystems. This inability to change the future initiatives in this area. parameters of the environment in which they are operating appears to be the projects' greatest weak- Are integrated conservation-developmentprojects ness. necessary? Many of the factors leading to the loss of biodiversity and the degradation of protected natu- Most of the analysis to this point has emphasized ral ecosystems originate far from park boundaries. how challenging and complex ICDP implementa- They include public ownership of extensive areas tion can be: how necessary it is to understand the of land, unmatched by the capacity of government socioeconomic context of each project; how impor- agencies to manage the land; powerful financial tant it is to elicit local participation; how difficult it incentives that encourage overexploitation of tim- is to promote social and economic development in ber, wildlife, grazing lands, and crop lands; an remote rural communities; how limited is the ca- absence of linkages between the needs of conser- pacity to participate of most government protected vation and the factors encouraging development; area management agencies; and so on. This study and laws, policies, social changes, and economic has reviewed the early experiences of more than forces over which poor people in remote rural twenty projects and found that progress has been areas have no influence. very modest. One might well ask, why bother? Addressing these issues in a meaningful way Why promote the expansion of a concept that ap- would require engaging the highest levels of gov- pears to be so difficult to put into practice? If the emments throughout the industrialized and de- commitment to conserve biodiversity is sincere, 60 Conclusions and recommendations then the answer is that ICDP approaches must be Threats to parks and their neighbors often origi- reinforced and expanded simply because there are nate far from park boundaries. Local people, the few viable alternatives. intended beneficiaries of icDPs, are commonly the Increasing resource demands from growing ru- most visible agents of park degradation; however, ral populations and continuing large-scale conver- their actions are often attributable to laws, poli- sion or degradation of natural ecosystems will ex- cies, patterns of resource access, social changes, ert ever-increasing pressure on parks and reserves. and economic forces-factors that ICDPS and their While traditional enforcement will continue to play sponsors can have little hope of influencing. Fur- a critical role-and in many cases needs desper- thermore, many of the case study ICDPS have proved ately to be strengthened-it is inconceivable that vulnerable to external events that have caused networks of protected areas can be maintained project operations to be suspended or have led indefinitely by what amounts, in some cases, to directly to protected area degradation on a large military force. This leads to the conclusion that scale. These have included commodity price col- innovative, well-designed icDPs at carefully selected sites lapses in several countries (leading to very high that constructively address local people-park relation- local unemployment and hardship), guerilla war- ships are essential to the conservation of biodiversity fare in Peru, kerosene shortages in Nepal, land and thus to sustainable development. price escalation in Thailand, a debt-related budget This is not to say that even successful IcDPs can crisis in Kenya, and the ivory ban that threatened alone conserve biodiversity. The other initiatives to reduce hunting revenues in Zambia. and policy measures that are needed have been It is not likely-or even desirable-that icDP well described by others, notably McNeely and managers will ever have control over, or even be colleagues (1990). able to influence, all of the parameters of the envi- ronment in which they operate. However, field Lessons for the future experience has highlighted certain aspects of this external environment that appear fundamental to This chapter, drawing on earlier discussions and project effectiveness. These can be used to derive a findings, sets out the lessons from this study for series of project preconditions. Although these pre- future design and implementation of ICDPS. These conditions are not universally applicable, this study lessons have been grouped into seven areas: (1) suggests the need for caution before proceeding projects as part of a larger framework, (2) scale of with an ICDP in the absence of any of them. These projects, (3) organizations participating in projects, preconditions include: (4) project site selection, (5) local participation in projects, (6) financial resources of projects, and (7) * Serious political commitments to the project. Ex- project design and implementation. plicit commitments to support, or at least cooper- The lessons presented below are in descending ate with, the ICDP must be obtained in advance priority. This is to emphasize that lessons in the from local authorities, from influential local lead- final area-on-the-ground project design and ers, and from high levels within appropriate agen- implementation-although critical to project ef- cies of the national government-including all fectiveness, are likely to prove considerably easier agencies with relevant interests and authority. to apply than those emerging from the other five * Legislation conducive to the achievement of ICDP areas. In fact, failure to effectively address the les- objectives. Jurisdiction over lands outside park sons in the other areas is likely to leave barriers boundaries is often unclear and can provide a sig- that will frustrate even the best design and imple- nificant barrier to ICDP implementation. Legislative mentation efforts. reform will often be needed to give ICDPs, park management agencies, or both, the authority to act Projects as part of a larger framework outside existing park boundaries; to clarify over- lapping authorities over lands adjacent to parks It has become clear from the case studies that ICDPS among local governments and national govern- have been implemented on too narrow a front. ment agencies; to establish multiple-use areas that Conserving biodiversity in protected areas cannot include conservation (protected) and development be regarded solely as an issue of protected land (human-use) zones; to establish buffer zones out- management, even if that management has been side the boundaries of existing traditional parks; expanded and reoriented as part of an ICDP to in- to delegate government authority over a traditional clude park neighbors. park or a multiple-use area to a separate icDP man- 61 People and Parks agement organization; or to provide for a share of larger protected areas in developing countries, park entry and concession fees to go to the parks more substantial initiatives will be needed. Most system, or be passed through the ICDP to local com- ICDPS are operating on a scale considerably smaller munities. than that of the immediate problems they are try- * Realistic institutional arrangements for project ing to address, and even the larger ICDPS are small management. Where appropriate, new management by development project standards (chapter 8). structures should be empowered to represent dif- Small ICDPS can be considered to have made a ferent national and local interests involved in the significant contribution to biodiversity conserva- ICDP, including collaboration with the protected tion only if their experiences provide the basis for area management agencies, if local park manage- replication on a larger scale, either by expanding ment is to remain administratively separate from to include more communities or more develop- the project. These arrangements could include ex- ment activities around their targeted protected ar- plicit authorization for icDPs implemented by ap- eas, or by launching new and more substantial propriately qualified nongovernmental organiza- projects at additional sites. Thus far, such replica- tions and, possibly, the delegation of limited park- tion has been rare (and governments appear to management authority to these organizations. have tolerated some of the ICDPS implemented by * Compatibility with regional development. Project nongovernmental organizations only because the development components should ideally be coor- projects have remained so small). This is not the dinated with regional development initiatives. At fault of the implementing organizations. Many of the very least there should be effective communi- these groups and agencies have been extended to cation between regional development planners and their limits by the original project and lack the the ICDPS. Particular care will need to be taken to resources to scale up. Quite appropriately, many avoid the establishment of an "attraction zone" of these organizations view experimenting with that draws new migrants close to a heavily subsi- this new approach as their major contribution, a dized, rapidly developing area close to a park, and role to which they are aptly suited; they regard to avoid environmentally damaging regional de- expansion and replication as the task of others. velopment projects that threaten to undermine the The scale of iCDPS must be expanded cautiously. ICDP and the protected area (such as uncontrolled Many rural development efforts have collapsed as development). a result of attempting to expand too quickly, plac- * Systematicattentiontolandownershipandother ing impossible demands on local leadership and resource access rights of the projects' intended benefi- institutions, and becoming far removed from their ciaries. Lack of secure tenure has prevented many intended beneficiaries. The management structures ICDPS from persuading settlers or recent migrants of large projects can become so complex that to adopt a long-term perspective toward land man- decisionrnaking becomes rigid. Large projects in a agement, including more intensive cultivation out- relatively small and underfinanced sector such as side park boundaries. Priority should thus be given biodiversity conservation can also attract a dispro- to clarifying or establishing secure land tenure and portionately large share of available financial, hu- resource access for individuals and communities man, and institutional resources-to the detriment living adjacent to park boundaries. of protected areas elsewhere in the country. a Commitment to institutional reorientation. Gov- These dangers are now relatively well-known, ernment agencies responsible for traditional-park even though some development projects continue management face considerable constraints in to disregard them. Unless these risks are over- implementing ICDPS or supporting ICDPS imple- come and the scale of icDP operations is substan- mented by other organizations, even with funding tially increased, prospects for biodiversity conser- and technical assistance from intemational orga- vation will continue to deteriorate. nizations. Many of these agencies require strength- ening and reorientation toward a more people- Participating organizations centered approach. icDP implementation has been assisted by govern- Scale of projects ment agencies, conservation and development non- governmental organizations, and development Small-scale ICDPS are appropriate to relatively small agencies. Each type of organization has important parks or those under little threat from surround- contributions to make. However, the experiences ing populations. But to have a significant effect on of the case study projects demonstrate that, work- 62 Conclusions and recommendations ing independently, none of these organizations can protected areas in countries that have already made effectively plan and implement icDps (chapter 7). significant progress in establishing protected area One of the clearest lessons from this study is that networks and the institutions to manage them, implementation of the next generation of ICDP ini- that have outstanding ecological significance, and tiatives linking ecosystem protection with local eco- that have local site conditions that threaten the nomic development needs to involve significantly viability of the protected ecosystems but appear larger collaboration among governments, conser- favorable to successful project implementation. vation groups, development nongovernmental or- What local site conditions can be considered ganizations, development organizations, and aid favorable for ICDP implementation? In general, fa- agencies. vorable conditions would include Partnerships provide a basis for effectively ad- dressing the challenge that distinguishes ICDPs from * Relatively low or, at least, stable population all other conservation or development projects: densities (if population densities are judged too the need to link socioeconomic development with high or are in biologically sensitive areas, con- biodiversity conservation. Two types of partner- sideration may need to be given to resettle- ship will be particularly important in project de- ment) sign and implementation: partnerships between * Widespread use of traditional or appropriate development and conservation nongovernmental technologies for resource extraction organizations, and partnerships between these non- * Protected areas where effective management is governmental organizations and government agen- already in place cies. * Local leaders and responsible central govem- The need to fit icDPs into a larger development ment agencies willing to cooperate framework has already been emphasized. Non- * Participation of capable organizations, probably governmental organizations and government agen- in partnerships as described above. cies charged with protected area management can play only a limited role in this process. High-level Sites not meeting these criteria may require differ- commitment and involvement from governments ent approaches. will also be necessary. International development agencies such as the World Bank can facilitate- Local participation and possibly finance-these partnerships, particu- larly by encouraging the appropriate individuals Eliciting authentic participation in projects is diffi- and organizations to participate. cult and time-consuming in developed countries In many cases, the organizations available to and even more so in developing nations. But evi- play key roles in ICDPS have institutional weak- dence from icDps has confirmed one of the princi- nesses. For example, the government agencies re- pal lessons from rural development projects: that sponsible for protected area management tend to the sustainability of project benefits depends be politically weak and to lack resources, equip- strongly on the effective participation of local ment, and adequately trained personnel-making people. This means more than participation as it extremely difficult for them to carry out basic project beneficiaries or as paid employees. It means management, let alone participate effectively in participation in decisionmaking, in problem iden- ICDPS. In such cases, organizational strengthening, tification, in project design and implementation, and possibly reorientation, will be an important and in project monitoring and evaluation. This priority-one that donors have tended to avoid in approach views local development as a process favor of discrete projects. rather than a product, with project personnel per- forming a facilitating role. Establishment of a pro- Site selection cess of local participation has proved to be a more effective method of sustaining project benefits (and Should an ICDP be established in association with therefore more cost-effective on a long-term basis) every protected area? Absolutely not. The ICDP ap- than approaches that attempt to deliver economic proach is clearly not only experimental but com- benefits without involving local people or build- plex, time-consuming, and expensive, requiring a ing community commitment to the outcome of the complex mix of inputs. This suggests that the next project. generation of full-scale iCDPs should give highest Some projects have shown signs of promise in priority to (although not necessarily be limited to) winning the trust and confidence of local people, 63 People and Parks eliciting the participation of community members * Most projects were designed without ad- in project-initiated activities, and starting institu- equate understanding of the socioeconomic con- tions for local resource-management decisionmak- text. Although useful knowledge was gained by ing. Several promising local organizations have capable field staff during project execution, it did been formed to manage resources. However, al- not compensate for a lack of baseline data collec- though some of these institutions and the networks tion. "Quick-and-dirty" data collection and analy- of field workers established by the projects have sis methods, such as rapid rural appraisal, were attracted local backing, very few are independent rarely used (chapter 2). of the projects. Without operational independence, * There was a general failure to specify ex- achieving icDP goals and sustaining benefits once a actly how ICDP development activities were ex- project has finished will be difficult (chapter 6). pected to lead to enhanced protected area man- agement. The ICDP approach has to be judged by Financial recources whether development has improved the security of protected areas and whether local people have Much more money is needed, and over a consider- come to accept the existence of the protected area. ably longer period of time. While more money In virtually all projects, the critical linkage between resources will not automatically overcome many development and conservation has been missing of the constraints identified in this study, ICDPS or unclear (chapter 4). will not be able to expand to the scale needed to * Few projects have identified viable alterna- make a significant impact without large, long-term tives to the extensive resource-use practices that donor commitments. threaten many protected areas. Rural development As development practitioners have learned, the in general lacks site-specific technical options, par- rapid scaling up of complex projects is rarely suc- ticularly in drier areas; nonetheless, the case study cessful because it overwhelms the absorptive ca- projects have made few attempts to use indig- pacities of the implementing organizations and enous knowledge and technologies, and few of the the intended beneficiaries. This study has also ob- projects have conducted systematic experiments served that long periods are needed to elicit local to identify new options (chapter 5). participation in projects, an ICDP prerequisite, par- * Vlery few of the projects appeared likely to ticularly if new local institutions are to be estab- generate enough economic or financial benefits to lished. become self-sufficient. Deriving significant eco- These factors all suggest that annual project nomic benefits from areas that lack tourism poten- funding needs will build up slowly over several tial has proved extremely difficult. Areas where years from fairly low levels, in contrast to conven- nature tourism can finance conservation or pro- tional donor financing preferences for projects that vide benefits to local people remain limited. Most use loan and grant funds fairly rapidly. Large one- biologically important areas do not have the po- time financial inputs or short-term grants for ICDPS tential for enough tourism to support conserva- should thus be avoided. Furthermore, it is usually tion. And at sites where tourism revenues are high, unrealistic to expect that these projects will be- the benefits tend to be captured by the private come financially self-sufficient or that their recur- sector in major cities or by central treasury funds rent costs will be financed by governments after a (chapter 5). few years. * The social and economic benefits flowing to local people as a result of icDP development activi- Project design and implementation ties are difficult to identify and are unevenly- sometimes narrowly-distributed. There is little Several icDPs have suffered from severe design and evidence that those benefiting represent threats to implementation flaws. Some of these problems are the parks, and there are few examples of those attributable to the new and complex challenges of threatening the parks-usually the poorest and IcDps; others result from a failure to consider the the landless-receiving enough benefits to reduce well-documented lessons from decades of rural their potential threat (chapter 5). development programs of both development agen- a When projects have provided or subsidized cies and development-oriented nongovernmental community services, such as schools and health organizations (chapter 4). The most serious prob- clinics, links between the service and protected lems noted among the case study projects were the area management objectives have not always been following: clear. IProjects that required a local contribution of 64 Conclusions and recommendations cash or labor to community services had more their use of park lands rapidly; that superior tech- positive results than those that donated goods or nological options are available to intensify agricul- services (chapter 5). ture or that people will automatically adopt them * Most of the ICDP field staff, whether expatri- if the options are there; that local institutions for ates or nationals, have been experienced, well- resource management can easily be established; trained, energetic, and knowledgeable. Positive re- that change on a significant scale can be brought lationships have been developed with local people, about without government involvement; or that many of whom were distrustful, if not outright providing local jobs or financing community ser- hostile, when the projects began. Project field work- vices is equivalent to local participation (chapter 4). ers frequently have personified the projects lo- cally-and their leadership and counsel were ob- A final word viously valued in many of the targeted communi- ties. Careful attention will have to be paid to how For the initiatives collectively described here as these projects will continue under local control integrated conservation-development projects to after these charismatic leaders leave (chapter 6). play a significant role in conserving biological di- * Projects have given little attention to moni- versity, decisive actions need to be taken, jointly toring and evaluation. Very few projects monitor and separately, by implementing organizations, the effects of their development activities and most national governments, and lenders and donors- could provide no information on changes in a tar- including international development agencies. geted protected area (chapter 8). Without deliberate, concerted actions by these * There were few, if any, working examples of groups-including the organizations represented a buffer zone. Although conceptually attractive by the authors-the outlook for biodiversity in and potentially useful, the buffer zone remains ill- developing countries will be bleak. The long ges- defined in practice, particularly without specific tation periods that ICDPS need clearly mandate that enabling legislation (chapter 2). these actions be taken sooner rather than later. * Many nongovernmental organizations The challenge is not just to implement more implementing the smaller projects on the bound- effective ICDPS. That should be feasible, although it aries of existing protected areas have been unable will require more financial support and creative to establish constructive relationships with the pro- modifications of existing approaches, with a more tected area managers. This contributed to a sepa- thorough understanding of rural development. The ration between development and conservation as- greater challenge will be to engage the individuals pects of the projects (chapter 7). and organizations with the commitment and ca- * The design of several projects apparently was pacity to establish social, economic, legal, and in- based on unjustified assumptions. In particular, it stitutional environments that facilitate-instead of is clear that project implementers should not as- frustrate-achievement of ICDP biodiversity con- sume that communities can be induced to change servation goals. 65 ii S Appendix Ill 111 Case study summaries Africa been a substantial increase in fishing opportuni- ties. ThTe creation of numerous permanent water Burkina Faso, Nazinga Game Ranch points about the ranch has greatly increased the number and species of fish. The ranch has imple- Protected area. The 1,000 square kilometer mented a fisheries management program to regu- Nazinga Game Ranch. late access to fishing rights. Project. The Nazinga Game Ranch. In late 1989 the Ministry of Environment and Implementing organization. The African Wildlife Tourism assumed full control of the ranch and the Husbandry Development Association, a nongov- participation of the African Wildlife Husbandry ernmental organization formed by expatriates to Development Association was ended. establish and manage the ranch, in partnership Evaluation. The permanent water points and rou- with the government. tine antipoaching patrols were key factors in the Responsible government agency. Ministry of Envi- reported threefold increase in wildlife populations ronment and Tourism. between 1981 and 1984. The project has been very Funding. From 1979-89, the project received a successful in improving wildlife habitat and in- total of $3.1 million in grants from the Canadian creasing wildlife populations. This success was the International Development Agency and contribu- result of a sound research program and a two- tions of land and salary support from the govern- pronged approach to protection: antipoaching ac- ment of Burkina Faso. tivities and environmental improvement (dam con- Project area and scope. The project has focused struction, and pasture and fire management). In on habitat and antipoaching measures to restore other words, the project has succeeded in devising wildlife populations for safari hunting and the and implementing technical solutions to specific game meat production inside the ranch bound- problems. Benefits to local people have, however, aries. been limited to direct employment. Region. The idea for the ranch originated dur- ing the 1972-74 Sahel drought, although major Burundi, Bururi Forest Reserve funding did not become available until 1979. Project activities. The original project goals were Protected area. The Bururi Forest Reserve com- to research, design, and develop rational use of prises about 20 square kilometers. About 16 square wildlife resources in the region, to increase the kilometers }f the reserve remain in natural forest; resources, and to benefit the local people. the remainder is deforested and is now in pine Antipoaching measures and the establishment of plantations. water points were an early priority. Extensive hous- Project. Bururi Forest project. ing facilities and 600 kilometers of roads were con- Implementing organization. The government of structed by 1984, employing substantial numbers Burundi, with voluntary assistance provided by of local people. The project did not begin harvest- the U.S. Peace Corps. ing for meat production until 1989. Responsible government agency. National Insti- Tourism and safari operations, although suc- tute of Nature Conservation of Burundi (the park cessful revenue earners for the ranch, have not yet service). brought much benefit to local populations. In spite Funding. The Bururi Forest project was funded of the ranch's focus on game production, the single by a five-year grant of $1.2 million from USAID. The greatest benefit realized by local populations has grant ended in 1987. 66 Case study summaries 5Ouaga\dougo NAZINGA GAME RANCH BURKINA FASO BURKINA N XFASO i--:.\ t Konmoro ~ - -- - i i - :-- - - a m Village Hunting Zones Totally Protected Zone a Nazinga Game Ranch r- Roads Scale BURKINA FASO - -- Intemational Boundary 0 2 4 r, 8 10 GHANA * Selected Cities and Towns K'lometem Project area and scope. Approximately 100 square forestry, and agroforestry extension. The project kilometers; population 4,000-5,000. upgraded the reserve forest guard contingent from Region. The Bururi Forest project focuses on a one to eight and marked the reserve boundary. small patch of highland forest in central Burundi Project extension agents incorporated conserva- that was under threat from fuelwood gathering, tion messages in their extension discussions with grazing, and agricultural encroachment. The for- local farmers, and presentations and demonstra- est had been preserved as a royal hunting area tion plots were established in local primary and before becoming a forest reserve. secondary schools. The project initially attempted Land use around the Bururi forest is mainly to establish plantations of exotic tree species next subsistence agriculture. About 4,000 people live to the reserve. Following an evaluation that pointed within 2 kilometers of the reserve. The forest is out the problems with such an approach, planta- transected by several footpaths that are important tion forestry was de-emphasized and an links between outlying areas and the village of agroforestry extension program developed instead. Bururi. Evaluation. The Bururi Forest project has made Project activities. The Bururi Forest project was a major contribution to the conservation of this the first donor-supported project of the Burundian small reserve. Project records document a dramatic National Institute of Nature Conservation. The decline in reserve violations following the estab- project objective was to improve management of lishment of the agroforestry program. Several fami- the Bururi forest reserve and provide alternative lies living inside the reserve have been relocated. sources of wood products to the local community. Project staff regard environmental education as Project activities included enforcement, education, the greatest project success. However, USAID fund- 67 People and Parks ( RWANDA BURUNDI FOREST RESERVES BU RUN DI B U R U N D I ZAIRE TANZANIA N _ j < , ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Nyamugari * * jMugomere a Nurseres ONGE a Project Villages - Road ED ForeSt Reserves Mutambara Muhanda Project Exotic Plantations U ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Scale :| Makombe R.UE Buruhukiro 0 1 2 3 4 ~O~ESTRE~E~E Kilometers \w\agu Murago \ \Mwagu -.* iiitn+ifit0 f MSKabwayi Gatete Mugan * il tll I I 1 tSjgSjjEll Klgutu L a k e V\jj Ep Karonda aMaramyya Tan ganyika l~~~~~~l~ ~~ l<~~"~~ Il~~ *Vyanda a n g a n y i k a 68 Case study summanres ing was phased out in 1987 and the project has in absolute terms, cover a larger area than the since faltered for lack of funds. Although Bururi reserve, and forest degradation is more se- agroforestry activities have been turned over to vere. To reduce the problems with recurrent costs local cooperatives, the project lacks funds for even encountered at Bururi, efforts are being made to basic nursery supplies such as plastic bags for seed- develop revenue-generating activities within the ling distribution. The long-term implications of project. Whether these actions will ensure the sus- these recurrent cost problems for project sustain- tainability of this larger and more ambitious project ability are unclear. will become clear only after external donor sup- port ends in 1991. Significant tourism is likely to Burundi, Rumonge, Vyanda, and Kigwena Reserves depend on succesful habituation of the reserves' chimpanzees to the presence of visitors. Protected area. Rumonge Forest Reserve com- prises 10 square kilometers; Vyanda Forest Re- Kenya, Amboseli National Park serve, 40 square kilometers; and Kigwena Forest Reserve, 8 square kilometers. Protected area. Amboseli National Park, a 488 Project. Rumonge Agroforestry project. square kilometer savanna park important for its Implementing organization. The government of large mammals and permanent water. Burundi, in association with Catholic Relief Ser- Project. Amboseli Park Agreement. vices. Implementing organization. The government of Responsible government agency. National Insti- Kenya, with part-time technical assistance from tute of Nature Conservation of Burundi. the New York Zoological Society. Funding. Catholic Relief Services has provided Responsible government agency. Wildlife Conser- project funding through several grants spanning vation and Management Department. five years and amounting to approximately Funding. The project was funded primarily $500,000. through a $37 million World Bank concessional Project area and scope. The project works in eight loan, which benefited Amboseli as part of a larger villages surrounding three protected areas. Total effort to foster wildlife and tourism in Kenya. project area is over 100 square kilometers, with a Project area and scope. The project addressed com- population of more than 3,000 people. munities within several group ranches around Region. The local economy is fairly diverse, with Amboseli National Park, primarily those within agriculture supplemented by fishing and trading 10 kilometers of the park. opportunities on nearby Lake Tanganyika. The Region. The Amboseli basin is an area of peren- project is trying to replicate the approach devel- nial springs at the foot of Mount Kilimanjaro. Wild- oped at Bururi. The project is attempting to life are abundant, concentrating around springs in strengthen protection of the three reserves and to the dry season and dispersing to the outlying ba- provide alternative sources of wood products, em- sin during the rains. The people of Amboseli are ployment, and income to local communities. Masai pastoralists who have occupied the area for Project activities. As at Bururi, the major empha- centuries. The Masai have traditionally relied on sis is on reserve management and agroforestry. the springs of Amboseli to water their stock. The Six reserve guards have been hired-the first full- Masai hold group tenure to the land surrounding time guards assigned to any of the reserves. With Amboseli and maintain open range, which is criti- the assistance of local government the project has cal to wildlife dispersal. Amboseli National Park relocated thirty families living illegally in the re- incorporates the largest system of springs in the serves. An agroforestry extension program has dis- basin, an area of critical importance to both live- tributed tree seedlings through a network of ex- stock and wildlife in the dry season. tension agents and model farmers; this network Project activities. Previous conservation areas also serves as a channel for environmental educa- (game reserve, 1906; national reserve, 1948) at tion. To help promote tourism, the project has built Amboseli had permitted Masai use of the area. trails for visitors, has trained guides, and has de- This right was removed when the national park veloped tourism plans for the area. was established, with a complex set of direct cash Evaluation. The project was up and running rela- payments and development measures offered to tively quickly because of its reliance on the the Masai in compensation. Major components of agroforestry and enforcement techniques used at the project were water supply, direct compensa- Bururi. But the Rumonge reserves, although small tion, community services, and tourism develop- 69 People and Parks SUDAN ETH-IOPIA AMBOSELI NATIONAL PARK KENYA UGANDA Nairobi SOMALIA Scale KENYA 0 10 5 20 La,Nairon Ko,ees Group Ranch V OLGULULUI Group Ranch 94/f4/ SEE ~~~~~A I MBIRIKANI\ p Group Ranc n | Nl~~~ Group Ranch~ KUKU Group Ranch Booster/ ntaa B o g AMBOSeLI > ~~~ ~~Risa v O Grp RhGroup Ranch r VaZ ~42NATIONAL Lake wfps -Srms structed to provide the Masai with access to spring modify their use of the park. water without entering the park. The government agreed to pay direct compensation to the Masai, Kenya, Wildlife Extension project, Amboseli National proportional to wildlife use of Masai lands. Park Park headquarters were relocated adjacent to Masai lands, and included a school and dispensary. The Prot-ected area. Amboseli National Park lies Masai were assisted in developing contracts with wholly within the project area. Chyulu Hills and tourism operators for camping concessions on Tsavo West National Parks border the project area Masai land. on the north and east. The project is intended to Evaluation (see Kiss 1990). Despite being one of improe attitudes toward wildlife and conserva- the most cited examples of protected areas return- tion in communities bordering all three parks. ing benefits to local communities, the goals of the Project. Wildlife Extension project. Amboseli Park Agreement are still largely unreal- Implementing organization. The project is an in- ized. The piping system has not been fully func- dependent activity, designed and managed by an tional for more than ten years. Compensation was expatriate zoologist with a social science back- terminated by government financial constraints in grouncl. the early 1980s. The dispensary is well-used, but Responsible government agency. The project works the school is not. Tourism development on Masai closely with the regional game warden and other lands has been minor. Because government com- representatives of government, but there is no for- mitments have not been honored, the Masai still mal government involvement. use springs in the park to water livestock. To date, Funding. The project has received funding from however, the Masai have received few of the ben- several sources, with major support coming from 70 Case study summaries the African Wildlife Leadership Foundation and panded in 1966. About 40 percent of the reserve uNEsco. Annual funding is on the order of $50,000. has been deforested. The 6 square kilometer Beza Project area and scope. The project area is defined Mahafaly Special Reserve was established in 1985. as the Loitokitok division of the Kajiado District in The reserve protects a small area of southwestern southern Kenya. The Loitokitok division comprises Madagascar's rapidly declining riverain and spiny approximately 4,626 square kilometers, with a hu- bush forest. The 760 square kilometer Andohahela man population of approximately 30,000. Integral Reserve in southeast Madagascar includes Region. The Wildlife Extension project operates a unique transition zone from the eastern in the interface between Amboseli and Tsavo West rainforests into the southern spiny desert. Parks in southern Kenya. The project addresses Project. The Conservation in Southern Mada- many of the same Masai communities affected by gascar project was initiated in 1977. The project the Amboseli National Park Agreement. primarily focused on conservation activities at Beza Project activities. The Wildlife Extension project Mahafaly until 1985, when it expanded to include has focused on the needs of women, on household development activities at Beza Mahafaly and con- conservation, and on facilitating constructive rela- servation and development activities at tionships between wildlife officials and the com- Andohahela. munity. Key project activities are educational work- Implementing organizations. The School of shops, small-scale community development Agronomy (University of Madagascar), Yale Uni- projects, facilitation of government-community in- versity, and Washington University. terface, and development of education and train- Responsible government agency. Both reserves are ing materials. Community representatives attend under the jurisdiction of the Nature Conservation workshops at which community needs are dis- Service within the Directory of Waters and Forests cussed and means of project assistance are formu- of the Ministry of Animal Husbandry, Waters, and lated, resulting in small-scale community conser- Forests. The School of Agronomy at the University vation projects. The Wildlife Extension project fa- of Madagascar has been granted responsibility for cilitates implementation of these projects with tech- Beza Mahafaly. nical assistance and fund-raising. The project also Funding. The World Wildlife Fund provided works closely with local government officials and $120,500 during 1977-85 and $165,000 during wildlife officers to develop an extension-as op- 1985-89. USAID provided $170,000 for 1987-89, posed to enforcement-approach to wildlife con- $70,000 for road construction (from public law 480 servation. The project has produced educational funds), and has committed $140,000 for a canal materials and assisted government and university project. training in wildlife extension. Project area and scope. Villages in the immediate Evaluation. The Wildlife Extension project's hu- proximity of the reserves. man-oriented approach has produced little tangible Region. In 1977, three collaborating universities evidence of increased community appreciation of sought a site in southwestern Madagascar for con- wildlife. This is in part because of the large size of servation, training, and research. People in the Beza the project area (4,626 square kilometers) in relation Mahafaly area expressed an interest in protecting to project staff (one director and two assistants) and an area of forest that they believed to be sacred. funding. Volunteers who were expected to serve as There are eight villages within 20 kilometers of the the link between the project and the community reserve, with a total population of less than 2,000. have not been easily accepted in the Masai commu- The local Mahafaly people have taboos against nity, which has a strong emphasis on traditional killing wildlife. Maize, manioc, sweet potato, and leadership. The project has established good work- rice are the major crops. Preliminary tests sug- ing relations with local and central government and gested that local soils could sustain agriculture for conservation nongovernmental organizations, but two to three decades after forest clearance. the impact thus far has been insignificant. Project activities. At Beza Mahafaly the project aimed to provide people with an incentive to sup- Madagascar, Andohahela Integral Reserve and Beza port conservation efforts by making an agreement Mahafaly Special Reserve Area with them specifying the obligations of villagers and the benefits that they would receive. The Protected area. The Andohahela reserve-be- project then sought funding to repair an important lieved to be the richest center of biodiversity in access road, renovate a 10 kilometer irrigation ca- Madagascar-was established in 1939 and ex- nal, build and equip a school, and develop a pro- 71 People and Parks gram for small-scale agricultural activities. Al- munity involvement in conservation in Madagas- though the canal is not complete, the other activi- car. The decision to create the reserve was made ties have been implemented, some after very long by the entire population of the valley, in anticipa- delays. Forest guards have been hired from local tion of development activities to improve their villages, and the Beza Mahafaly Reserve is ad- livelihoods. These benefits have taken more than a equately protected. decade to be delivered, and many of the activities The Andohahela project has hired eleven forest are focused on the single village of Analafaly. The guards from local villages and has begun a series major benefit has come from road repairs, which of surveys to formulate a development and con- have improved access to the nearest market town. servation program that will build upon the Beza Completion of the canal project will probably re- Mahafaly experience. Ten small irrigation projects sult in a significant increase in income for about have been completed, irrigating 40 hectares of land 600 families. Local people have supported the for twenty-three families. Various small-scale ag- project's conservation goals while receiving fairly ricultural activities have also been initiated. modest development benefits in return. Several Evaluation. The relatively small Beza Mahafaly factors appear to account for this behavior: the Reserve has become an important model of com- complete absence of government services in the ANDOHAHELA Mozambque INTEGRAL NATURE RESERVE Chan-el MADAGASCAR | j \, 0 !0 \K\ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Anlnnaanao MADAGASCAR -N- cell I~~~~~NDtAN A Forest Posts L) OCEAN * Villages 6 Number of Villages * Selected Towns Main Road Secondary Roads [ Integral Nature Reserves I _ A t 0-0 0~~~~~~ A M ,4 'S e . +. X /~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Sc >;/ 1g< 9 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Tolagnaro 0 20 40 60 Kilometers 72 Case study summaries BEZA MAHAFALY SPECIAL RESERVE MADAGASCAR Beza Mahafaly / Selected Cities and Towns - N - .E/ ] Proposed Extentions . Existing Reserve Area -Road - - Abandoned Road / S~~~~~~~~~~~~~~cale M < ..--<- --|- - - - Antavimar K,1mete-s MADAGASCAR iNDIAN OCEAN area, a ten-year involvement of expatriates com- resident population to remain and protected their mitted to developing and maintaining a positive customary resource-use rights, including fuelwood relationship with local communities, and an effec- collection, harvesting of fruits and certain plants, tive dialogue with government agencies. Several and livestock grazing. other factors suggest that the Beza experience Project. The Air-Tenere Conservation and Man- would be difficult to replicate: the reserve is small; agement of Natural Resources project. there were low population densities, stable agri- Implementing organizations. The World Wide cultural systems, and a relative abundance of Fund for Nature, the World Wildlife Fund-Inter- fuelwood in the vicinity of the reserve; and a rela- national, and the International Union for Conser- tively large number of local people were hired as vation of Nature and Natural Resources (IucN). forest guards. Responsible government agency. Service of Wild- Andohahela is more than 100 times larger than life and Fisheries of the Ministry of Agriculture Beza Mahafaly and is surrounded by an equiva- and Environment. lently greater population. It is too early to evaluate Funding. For 1982-85, $580,000. For phase I of this project component. the integrated project phase (1987-90), $2.7 mil- lion. Niger, Air-Tenere National Nature Reserve Project area and scope. The project began in 1982. Conservation activities have reached throughout Protected area. The Air-Tenere National Nature the reserve. Recent development initiatives have Reserve covers 65,000 square kilometers of arid focused on one of the two permanent settlements lands on the southern fringes of the Sahara Desert. inside the reserve. The Air Mountains form a plateau with peaks ris- Region. This massive multiple-use area contains ing to 2,000 meters, extending into the sandy plains only 4,500 people, all of Twareg descent. The of the Tenere region. This exceptionally harsh en- Twaregs have a benevolent attitude toward wild- vironment supports several rare mammal species life and do not represent a serious threat to the including the Barbary sheep, ostrich, and addax, reserve's plants and animals. About half live in dama, and dorcas gazelles. The reserve was estab- two villages in which the major economic activi- lished as a multiple-use area in 1988 by legislation ties are gardening and rearing livestock. The re- that banned hunting but specifically allowed the mainder of the population practices transhuman 73 People and Parks AIR-TENERE NATIONAL NATURE RESERV NIGER N1 - LIBYA ALGER A MALI Addax Sanctuary Air Tenere National Taho-a N I G E R L Nature Reserve CHAD) > Na e ~~~ eMacad Difla J Scale*A Mountain Peaks BURKINA\t^ mN y 6 ________________ (over 1800 meters) rABO Laka 0 ~~~ ~~~ ~~25 50 75 10 NIGERIA a Klometers 0 Selected Cities and Towns BENIN pastoralism. Though rainfall is erratic, the area's the promotion of techniques for woodless house short rainy seasons maintain a subsurface water construction, fuel-efficient cooking stoves, and the table that supports animal and vegetable life and establishment of two nurseries. Six experimental allows for year-round irrigated gardening at the small dams for flash-flood control were well re- two settlements. Wildlife populations have been ceived, and several hundred more were subse- hurt by recurring droughts since the late 1960s, quently constructed. compounded by human activities. As grazing re- A volunteer network of village representatives sources have dried up, trees and bushes have been has been established among local leaders. Their damaged to provide browse for camels and goats. responsibilities are to be well-informed of the rules, Soldiers have shot game animals, which have also goals, and activities in the reserve; to sensitize been harrassed by foreign tourists in all-terrain others to these rules and goals; and to inform the vehicles. enforcement authorities of any infractions. Project activities. The project objectives include Evaluation. Since the reserve was established, reconciling the sustained use of natural resources the publicity surrounding the project, legal prohi- with conservation while promoting socioeconomic bitions against hunting, and enforcement activi- development in the region. Initial conservation ac- ties of project staff have largely eliminated poach- tivities included prevention of poaching, control ing. Wildlife populations appear to be gradually of tree-cutting, surveillance of tourism, and a pub- increasing. There have been no recent droughts, lic awareness campaign. Research activities in- and so grazing regulations are thus far untested. cluded wildlife censuses, resource inventories, and Efforts to restore pastures have had limited suc- vegetation monitoring. Development activities in cess so far. Most of the villagers have benefited- and around the permanent settlements have in- directly or indirectly-from the dams. Many have cluded efforts to rehabilitate degraded pastures, also benefited from other project activities. 74 Case study summaries This project is unusual in that local people are $50,000 a year at the outset project, to more than few in number and are not a serious threat to local $250,000 a year in the late 1980s. plants and animals. While the people's relation- Project area and scope. Education activities focus ship with the project has generally been for em- on the Prefecture of Ruhengeri, which has a popu- ployment, with limited participation in lation of more than 500,000. An estimated 150,000 decisionmaking, the project appears to have made of these people live within 5 kilometers of the a promising start toward achieving its conserva- park. Most other project activities focus on the tion goals. park itself. Region. Rwanda's Mountain Gorilla project is Rwanda, Volcanoes National Park one of the most celebrated conservation-develop- ment projects in Africa. The project has used tour- Protected area. The 150 square kilometer Volca- ism development to gain government and local noes National Park. support for conservation of the easternmost popu- Project. Mountain Gorilla project. lation of the African gorilla. Implementing organization. African Wildlife The project operates in Volcanoes National Park Foundation. and protects a gorilla population shared by Responsible government agency. Rwandan Office Rwanda, Uganda, and Zaire. The area surround- of Tourism and Nature Protection. ing the park is densely populated by low-income Funding. A consortium of conservation organi- subsistence agriculturalists. Hunters living near zations provides funding to the project. The lead the park engage in hunting practices that jeopar- organization is African Wildlife Foundation. Project dize the gorillas' survival. The park also has a budgets have increased from approximately history of having areas annexed for agricultural VOLCANOES NATIONAL PARK RWANDA .~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~1 RWANDA~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ v.. ........... . ..,......?.. ..... .?--, ; ... .~ ~ ~ ........,?g,, ... ! .. , , , X ; ; . .E ' ' .~~~ N, * VillagesiI * Research Stations Kivu RWANDA * Campsite guard post * Mountain Peaks (over 3300 meters) Road Scale TANZANIA -- International Boundary 0 5 10 E] Previous Extent of Park Kilometers BURUNDI E Existing Park 75 People and Parks development schemes. In this setting the project mountain chain containing a high degree of bio- evolved a strategy of gaining central government logical endemism. Rainfall exceeds 2,000 millime- support for gorilla conservation through the de- ters a year and the mountains-with a high point velopment of tourism revenues and reducing local of about 1,500 meters-are the main source of wa- threats to the gorillas through improved enforce- ter for urban and agricultural areas in the adjacent ment and conservation education. lowlands. Topsoils are highly susceptible to ero- Project activities. Activities center on tourism sion on the steep slopes. Industrial logging (until development, conservation education, and law en- 1987), pit sawing, and undercropping of the canopy forcement. Project staff habituated groups of goril- with cardamom have significantly degraded the las to the presence of people, thus improving go- natural forests, now limited to eighteen forest re- rilla viewing and permitting increases in gorilla serves (about 160 square kilometers) and 90 square viewing fees. Visits increased from fewer than 2,000 kilometers of public land. Forest gaps have been people a year in 1979 to more than 6,000 in 1989, extensively colonized by an exotic Maesopsis. and revenues rose from a few thousand dollars Project. The East Usambara Agricultural Devel- annually to about a half million dollars a year. opment and Environmental Conservation project Project conservation education efforts have in- began in 1987. Finnida, the Finnish international cluded village and school presentations and the development agency, conducted a separate forest use of posters, films, and radio. The project has a inventory and prepared a management plan in mobile education unit, two Rwandan educators, 1988, which has not yet been implemented. and a U.S. Peace Corps education volunteer. The Implementing organizations. The Ministry of Ag- project increased the park guard contingent from riculture and Livestock Development and the thirty to sixty, and has provided equipment and Tanga Regional Authorities, in collaboration with training for all guards. the International Union for Conservation of Nature Evaluation. The enormous growth in tourism and Natural Resources (iuctN) and the Forestry and revenues at Volcanoes National Park is almost Beekeeping Division of the Tanzanian Ministry of wholly the result of the efforts of the Mountain Lands, Natural Resources, and Tourism. Gorilla project. This growth in revenues brought Responsible government agency. The forest re- about a dramatic improvement in central govern- serves and the forests on public lands are under ment and local support for the park. Attitude sur- the jurisdiction of the Forestry and Beekeeping veys indicate that most local farmers now support Division. The Ministry of Agriculture and Live- the continued existence of the park; before the stock Development has jurisdiction over the Mountain Gorilla project, most favored convert- nonforested public lands. Local people also have ing the park to agriculture. Much of the change in rights over the public lands, although these rights attitude is due to a greater understanding of the are not clearly defined. watershed protection function of the park and its Funding. The European Community provided link to agricultural production. However, the po- $1.5 million from February 1987 to June 1991. tential for conflict remains. In the future, it may Project area and scope. Based at Amani, the project become increasingly difficult to reconcile the com- has concentrated on fifteen villages near forest re- peting demands of the various groups with inter- serves in the southern East Usambara. ests in the area: the desire of farmers for more Region. Once-extensive forests have been re- agricultural land, of the government for more tour- placed by a patchwork of shrinking forest rem- ism and revenue, and of conservationists for greater nants-many of them modified by human activ- protection of gorillas and the park. The project has ity, tea estates, and smallholder farms. The local not had a major grass-roots community develop- population of about 40,000 consists almost entirely ment focus, and one of the interesting lessons of of poor farmers from several tribes. Many are re- the project is that education and tourism develop- cent migrants attracted by wage labor opportuni- ment alone-without a strong rural development ties in private coffee and, later, tea estates. Tea and emphasis-can generate considerable local sup- cardamom, a major export crop encouraged by the port for conservation. government, are the area's principal crops. Carda- mom requires shade from the natural forest canopy Tanzania, East Usambara Mountains but degrades the soil after a few years of produc- tion, requiring the clearing of new areas. Protected area. The East Usambara mountains in Project activities. The project began in 1987 with northern Tanzania belong to an old and isolated staff seconded from government departments and 76 Case study summaries EAST USAMBARA FOREST RESERVES TANZANIA Lutindi *k Klangangua I - WM X~~~~~~~~~~ikn - N - Kizerun t/ Kwamgumj Zirai 7 *'Kwezitu 17 / Segorma .nGomber .Kiwanda * Selected Cities and Towns Kwemdimu ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - Main Roada 0 Forest Reserves Scale y 1jS ~~~~Mangubu_ 5 an ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~0 I 2 3 4 2 F% / 7K[siw anusi tx * Kdometers \Mt//1g .ejsa {~ \ KENYA 2 as~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ug * INDIAN ; 4a, O tx40 < dar es Salama OCEAN ZAMBIA __ __ _ __ _ __ __ _ __ _ __ __ _ __ _ __ _ __ __ _ __ _ __ __ _ __ _ __ _ a MOZAMBIOUE \ 77 People and Parks two expatriate technical advisers. Village coordi- Zambia, LuangwaIntegrated RuralDevelopmentProject nators, one from each of fifteen villages, are em- ployed as the project's extension agents. The gov- Protected area. South Luangwa National Park, emment has guaranteed to continue these posi- 9,050 square kilometers; Lupande Game Manage- tions after the project ends. The project has pro- ment Area, 4,840 square kilometers. moted income-earning substitutes for cardamom Project. Luangwa Integrated Rural Development that do not degrade the soils; encouraged contour project (LIRDP). planting; funded road repair and maintenance; Implementing organization. The government of hired villagers to plant 60 kilometers of boundary Zambia, special regional authority specific to the trees around the forest reserves; established pri- project. vate and village tree nurseries; and promoted Responsible government agency. The project is ul- small-scale cooperative enterprises, including fish timately responsible to an interministerial com- ponds, pit sawing, and chicken raising. The project mittee chaired by the president of Zambia. Rou- planned to extend its activities into villages tine project direction is provided by an advisory throughout the East Usambara starting in 1990. committee housed in the National Commission on Evaluation. Implementation is at an early stage Development Planning. and difficult to evaluate. An effective community Funding. Funding is primarily by NORAD, the outreach mechanism was essential, given the large development agency of the Norwegian govern- population and lengthy travel times between vil- ment. The five-year NORAD grant is for $25 million. lages. The village coordinator approach seems to Project area and scope. The project encompasses be working well, and project managers have won all of South Luangwa National Park and the the respect of villagers and local government offi- Lupande Game Management Area, where the cials. A few farmers have begun growing trees population totals about 35,000. and have adopted new cash crops, but there has Project activities. The Luangwa Integrated Rural been little progress in encouraging people to work Development project (LIRDP) was initiated by the together on cooperative income-generating ven- governmtent of Zambia in 1986, although full-scale tures such as pit sawing. Community participa- implementation did not begin until 1988. The tion in project decisionmaking is limited. Pros- project is a coordinating umbrella for all govern- pects for sustainability are strengthened by the ment action in the valley. Project oversight includes participation of government line agencies (the Min- antipoaching, road construction and maintenance, istry of Agriculture and Livestock Development agricultural extension, forestry and fisheries de- and the Ministry of Land, Natural Resources, and velopment, and wildlife use. Project activities are Tourism), the placement of agency personnel in supported in the short term by donor contribu- key project posts, and government guarantees of tions and in the long term by a revolving fund that the village coordinator positions. accumulates revenues from resource development Adequate baseline surveys of the farming sys- in the valley. tems in the area have not been carried out. Further The primary project development initiative is progress will require the widespread adoption of road construction, while antipoaching law en- viable alternatives to cardamom. There is currently forcement is the dorninant conservation invest- little evidence that project conservation goals are ment. Since a major impediment to antipoaching being achieved, although the ending of commer- and eco,nomic development in the valley is the cial logging in 1987 was critically important and lack of all-season roads, over half of the project's the boundary tree planting was an important step budget is devoted to road maintenance and im- in conserving the forest reserves. The forests on provement. Project plans call for hiring and public lands, which deflect pressure from the re- equipping 300 game scouts by 1992. Roughly serves, continue to be degraded. Without strength- one-third of these scouts will be provided ened enforcement, particularly to control pit saw- through the village scout program. Salary, train- ing, it seems unlikely that the public land forests ing, and equipment for guards amount to about will survive for long, placing further pressure on 10 percent of the total project budget. Coordina- the reserves. By late 1989 the project had achieved tion of the diverse government programs that the as much, if not more, than could reasonably be project directs requires a major investment in ad- expected, although the predictions of fina,ncial self- ministration. The project has two directors and a sufficiency made by a 1985 planning mission from large staff dedicated to ensuring integrated and IUCN now seem unrealistic. sustainable development of the valley. Project ac- 78 Case study summaries tivities are supported by revenues from develop- greater capacity to collect fees from diverse sources ment of a diverse set of renewable natural re- and to spend them. However, the link between sources through a revolving fund. Forty percent maintenance of wildlife populations and dispersed of fund revenues are allocated to community regional development activities is less clear than projects while 60 percent go to project manage- in ADMADE. The degree to which a regional bureau- ment costs, including the village scout program cratic authority can improve the responsiveness of and road improvement. Revenues from wildlife government programs to local needs is the key use are the greatest contributor to the revolving issue for LIRDP. fund, but forestry concession fees may be impor- tant in the future. Zambia, South Luangwa National Park Evaluation (see Kiss 1990). It is too early to draw conclusions from the experience of the project, Protected area. South Luangwa National Park, which is diverse and ambitious and depends in 9,050 square kilometers; Lupande Game Manage- large measure on the unique management skills of ment Area, 4,840 square kilometers. its two directors. Development progress under the Project. Lupande Development project and project will come from improved access to mar- ADMADE. kets, and through improved coordination of gov- Implementing agency and responsible government ernment development programs. The project is agency. The government of Zambia, and the Na- similar to Lupande/ADMADE in some ways. It has a tional Parks and Wildlife Services. SOUTH LUANGWA NATIONAL PARK ZAMBIA National Parks Chiengi f ADMADE Program Game Management Areas i Game Management Areas - LIRDP I - e- Inmeational Boundary 'I * Selected Cities and Towns Scale / / 0 150 300 C p Komees ( - o SO XUr Chavuma N aLj \upande Deveropmnev | l 0 X ~~~~~NATION vL |sak - - ~~~N - ZAMB;A ,~ ~ Livingstone 79 People and Parks Funding. Several donors have funded various for the village scout program, where villagers had program components. The largest single donor has previously been strongly antagonistic to govern- been the World Wildlife Fund. Project budgets for ment wildlife personnel. Early evidence from the activities at Lupande-exclusive of national ex- project indicates dramatic reductions in poaching pansion-have averaged about $50,000 a year. levels in the Lupande game management area and Project area and scope. The Lupande project ad- in adjarcent areas of South Luangwa National Park. dresses a community of 400 to 500 people in the The Lupande approach was replicated as Malama area of the Lupande Game Management ADMADIE in more than ten other game management Area, which covers approximately 400 square ki- areas in Zambia beginning in 1987. ADMADE ex- lometers. pands on many of the elements of the Lupande Region. The Lupande Development project is in project. Game management areas (GMAs) are di- a game management area next to Zarmbia's South vided into administrative wildlife management Luangwa National Park. Safari hunting is permit- units. The project's goal is for these units to sup- ted in the game management area, as are human port their own wildlife management costs and to habitation and subsistence use of wildlife. The generate funds for community projects. A revolv- value of wildlife in the area is high, and one pur- ing fund returns 35 percent of revenues from sa- pose of the project is to return some of this value to fari and other hunting fees to community projects the communities that bear the costs of living with within, the GMA, 40 percent to wildlife management wildlife. activities withihn the GMA, including the village Economic activity in the Lupande area is ex- scout program, 15 percent to the national park tremely limited. Infrastructure is poor, roads are system, and 10 percent to the Zambian, Tourist impassable through much of the rainy season, and Bureau. The link between wildlife populations and there are few opportunities for formal sector em- community revenue is clearly established in the ployment. Villages in the area engage in subsis- ADMADE program. Reductions in poaching have tence agriculture, which is constrained by the pres- been substantial thus far, and local employment ence of the Tsetse and crop damage by wildlife. has been high. However, community involvement Project activities. Project activities were initiated in decisionmaking and the distribution of local in 1985 and have been supported by several do- benefits has not been widely participatory at the nors. The main activities are a wildlife harvesting local level. Still, the project represents an impor- program, the return of hunting fee revenues to tant example of linking wildlife management to local communities, a wildlife harvesting program, community development. and the hiring and training of local game scouts (the village scout program). The keystone of the Asia Lupande approach is a policy change that allows revenues from safari hunting concessions to be Indonesia, Dumoga-Bone National Park returned to local villages. These revenues are ap- plied to local development initiatives at the discre- Protected area. Dumoga-Bone National Park is tion of local chiefs. A second important feature of the most important conservation area in northern the Lupande project is the community harvest and Sulawesi and ranks as one of the highest conserva- processing of wildlife. Harvesting focuses on hip- tion priorities in Southeast Asia. The 3,000 square popotamus, the skins and meat of which are mar- kilometer park consists primarily of closed-canopy keted inside Zambia. Revenue from this program rain forest among rugged mountains reaching 2,000 is lower than from revenue returns, but employ- meters. The central Bulawan mountain range runs ment generation is high, which is of major signifi- north-south, and two major rivers flow from the cance in the Lupande area. park boundaries-the Dumoga to the east and the Part of the revenues from safari hunting and Bone tD the west. The establishment of the park in wildlife harvest are used to hire supplementary 1982-84 was closely linked with the development game scouts from local villages. These village of two irrigation projects in the Dumoga valley. scouts are trained and equipped by the project and Projects. The Kosinggolan and Toraut irrigation patrol their home areas. projects in the Dumoga valley, allowing farmers Evaluation (see Kiss 1990). Revenue return and to grow paddy rice. employment have generated powerful incentives Implementing organizations. Various ministries for communities in the Lupande area to value wild- of the government of Indonesia, the government life. This is evidenced in strong community support of North Sulawesi, and the World Bank. 80 Case study sumnmries Responsible government agency. The Directorate stant water supply for irrigation. This was achieved General for Forest Protection and Nature Conser- through strict enforcement, and the national park vation in the Ministry of Forests. was established in 1982. More than 400 farmers Funding. A $60 million World Bank loan (Irri- were evicted from the park in 1983, and each fam- gation XV). ily was provided with about 2 hectares and a house. Project area and scope. The eastern regions of the The estimated resettlement cost was 1.1 million park protect the upper watershed of the Dumoga rupiah per family, or about $240,000 overall. The river, which irrigates 110 square kilometers of rice Kosinggolan scheme was completed in 1984, irri- fields cultivated by 8,500 farmers-mainly migrants gating 4,400 hectares and benefiting 3,700 farmers. and transmigrants. Construction included 56 kilometers of main and Region. In 1960, the population of the fertile 300 secondary canals, 259 kilometers of tertiary and square kilometer Dumoga valley was about 8,000. quaternary canals, and 258 kilometers of inspec- By 1980, migrants and transmigrants had increased tion roads. During the following six years, average this number to almost 50,000. This rapid expan- farmer incomes and production levels doubled or sion-linked with improved road access, land tripled. The Toraut scheme was completed in 1988, speculation, absentee landlords, and traditional irrigating 6,600 hectares and benefiting 4,800 farm- agricultural practices-contributed to increasing ers. Construction included 56 kilometers of main pressure on the region's forests. The existing and secondary canals, 330 kilometers of tertiary Kosinggolan irrigation scheme was only partly and quaternary canals, and 355 kilometers of in- functional in 1980, and interruptions in the water spection roads. supply were attributed to deforestation of the Evaluation. This project demonstrates how a catchment area. The World Bank was asked for a strong linkage can be established between effec- loan to complete the Kosingollan scheme and de- tive park management and local economies in a velop the Toraut scheme. situation where watershed protection is critical for Project activities. Disbursements from the loan adjacent agriculture. Several factors contributed to were conditional upon the government halting de- project success. Data collected on illegal settlers forestation of the catchment areas, to ensure a con- provided an important input to resettlement plans ALAY SI I PACIFIC NGAPORE I N D 0 N E S I A OCEAN DUMOGA-BONE °\\0%c\ Pl4o'APUA NATIONAL PARK NEW GUINEA / L /NDIAN iomtoor ManadSULAWESI ISLANDX OCEAN INDONESIA Manado * Selected Cities and Towns * Weir A Mountain Peak (over 1800 meters) Celebes N - -RoadCaes * - Canal Sea 0 10 20 30 40/ X Kilo-eterr / Molucca Sea WtMOGiAi DO8NE; $/ R aguX P NARKOML - si - P- - - S TORANT SCHEME Gorontalo; ,A' bfid .- _ . KOStNGOOLAN SCHEME 81 Peopie and Parks and law enforcement action. The provincial gov- * The park is now bisected by the Kutacane- ernment played a highly supportive role and con- Blangkejeren road, which was improved in the tinues to cooperate effectively with the park man- early 1980s, with USAID funding. As a result of the agement. The loan funds included substantial bud- improved access, the park's lowland forests within gets for park guard patrols and extension programs 1 to 5 kilometers of the road, which contain the by local government representatives. And forest greatest biological diversity, are being severely concessions at the park borders were canceled. degraded by illegal logging and agricultural en- Some of the original Dumoga valley inhabit- croachrnent, particularly in the area of three rap- ants were adversely affected. Being accustomed to idly expanding enclaves. Long-term ecological dryland agriculture and the periodic clearance of studies at the world-renowned Ketambe Research forest for new land, they did not adapt rapidly to Forest may have to be abandoned because of ille- the more intensive and profitable irrigated rice gal logging. cultivation. While some were forced to sell their * Lowland forests inside the park on the lower land, others sold theirs voluntarily at low prices slopes of the Alas river valley are being logged and then attempted unsuccessfully to reenter the and replaced by dryland smallholder farming. protected, forest. * Encroachment and logging at several points Effective enforcement against landless migrants on the outer park boundary are increasing. and, more recently, gold prospectors has been the principal approach to protecting the park. The im- The extensive logging and agriculture in the migrant wet-rice farmers pose little threat to the park is occurring even on very steep slopes. Illegal park because they have no interest in clearing for- logging trails, poorly draining roadsides, and de- est land and presumably receive enough income nuded hillsides have all contributed to increasing to make poaching unattractive. The original soil erosion, landslides, heavy silt loads in rivers, Dumoga inhabitants have inadvertently been dis- and floods following heavy rains. Illegal activity is persed and no longer threaten the park. obvious from the road, with no attempt at conceal- ment. Firewood is sold at the roadside, and no Indonesia, Gunung Leuser National Park enforceiment of park regulations is evident. Na- tional park personnel appear to have had no effect Protected area. Gunung Leuser became on the rate of forest destruction. Although the per- Indonesia's first national park in 1980. Five re- sonnel are underequipped and understaffed, the serve areas were combined to create the 9,000 critical constraint appears to be local resentment square kilometer national park, which is one of the toward the park, at village and higher political most important tropical moist forest areas in the levels. Park officials who have reported illegal prac- world. The park is one of the last refuges for many tices to the police or to local government authori- threatened and endangered species requiring tropi- ties have been subject to intimidation and threats. cal rain forest habitat. A wide variety of habitat This situation has been documented and reported types are represented, from coastal swamps to al- several times in the last decade. pine vegetation on Sumatra's highest mountain. Lack of local support for the park is under- Mountainous areas predominate, however, and standable in Aceh Tenggara District, where 82 per- there are relatively few lowland areas. The spe- cent of the land has been set aside for conserva- cies-rich lowlands tend to be the most important tion. Virtually all of the land suitable for agricul- areas for conserving biodiversity. They are also ture has already been colonized, much of it in the the areas most seriously threatened by illegal hunt- park, and the expanding population may have little ing, logging and agricultural expansion. choice but to clear more forest. Any new initia- Project. There is no project at Gunung Leuser. tives to safeguard the park would appear doomed However, the case study illustrates several chal- without a fundamental shift in the relationship lenges faced by integrated projects seeking to between the park and the Aceh Tenggara govern- conserve biodiversity in critically threatened eco- ment and local communities. systems. The Indonesian government is unlikely to sup- Responsible government agency. The Directorate port mere rigorous enforcement measures in the General for Forest Protection and Nature Conser- politically sensitive Aceh region; however, there vation (PHPA) in the Ministry of Forests. are at least two sites outside the national park Region. Gunung Leuser National Park faces se- boundaries that appear to have the potential for rious threats in three areas: the development of irrigated agriculture. These 82 Case study summaries GUNUNG LEUSER NATIONAL PARK Strait of SUMATERA ISLAND INDONESIA Malacca Blangkejeren\ A~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~M A A ~ ~~~~~~BBL N - '-;' -/X INDIA N Xi ii0 CE iVj7-Ki %---- A \ Selected Cities and Towns NA L A Y S IA PCFCA Mountain Peaks (over 1 800 meters) PN CINI EAN - Roads N ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Scale P-APUA 0 10 20 30 40 I NO IA N p NEW GUINEA ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Kilometers OCEAN S-V may offer an opportunity for an integrated ap- the conservation area is a natural amphitheater proach to development that can conserve the park. surrounded by several peaks of more than 6,700 Gunung Leuser is one of several parks included in meters. The wet southern slopes support a rich World Bank-funded forestry projects. This may variety of birds and mammals, including Danfe provide an opportunity for a fresh look at this pheasant, Himalayan tahr, barking deer, serow, difficult situation. goral, Himalayan black bear, musk deer, and the rare red panda. The dry northern slopes, which Nepal, Annapurna Conservation Area extend to the Tibetan border, contain snow leop- ard and blue sheep. Protected area. The 2,600 square kilometer Project. The Annapurna Conservation Area Annapurna Conservation Area is arguably the most project. geographically and culturally diverse conserva- Implementing organization. The King Mahendra tion area in the world. There is a unique rnix of Trust for Nature Conservation (KMTNC), Nepal's ecosystems, mostly unaltered by human activity, largest conservation organization, established in including subtropical lowland, high alpine mead- 1983. ows, desert plateaus, and oak, rhododendron and Responsible government agency. The government bamboo forests. The world's deepest river gorge of Nepal, which has delegated its authority to and some of the highest mountains are located KYMTNC. here. The Annapurna Sanctuary near the center of Funding. First phase (1986-89): $440,000, includ- 83 People and Parks ing $351,000 from the World Wildlife Fund (wwF) tion, anci littering on trekking routes have all ac- and $85,000 from the U.K. trust of the KMTNC; sec- celerated, as has the rapid expansion of the resi- ond phase (1989-93): the total project revenue from dent population. These conditions led to a royal all sources from 1989 to the present is about directive in 1985 to improve tourist development $200,000 a year. while safeguarding the environment. The KMTNC Project area and scope. The first phase (1986-89) conducted surveys that led to new legislation es- concentrated on 800 square kilometers of the south- tablishing the Annapurna Conservation Area in em slopes. An 1,800 square kilometer extension 1986, specifically allowing hunting, collection of began in 1990. forest products, use of visitor fees for local devel- Region. About 40,000 people of diverse ethnic opment, and the delegation of management au- backgrounds inhabit the Annapuma area, where thority to the village level. agriculture and trade have flourished for hundreds Project activities. The project objective is to help of years in the steep-sided Himalayan valleys. Most the inhabitants-particularly the region's poor of the people are poor rural farmers. More than farmers--maintain control over their environment. 30,000 foreign trekkers visit the area each year, The areai is split into zones that permit varying leading to a proliferation of small tea shops and degrees of protection and land use. A headquar- lodges along the trails. During the last two de- ters was established in Ghandruk, the intensive cades, large areas of forested land have been cleared use zone, with a mainly local staff. Activities have for use in cooking and heating for visitors. Ex- included community development, forest manage- panding agriculture, water pollution, poor sanita- ment, conservation education, research, and train- ANNAPURNA ANNAPURNAI CONSERVATION AREA NEPAL oPokhara ,i<. * Selected Cities and Towns * Headquarters A Mountain Peaks (over 6000 meters) J -V ~~~~C H !N A1 - Major Trekking Routes NEPAL - Park Boundary Sca'e E Wilderness Zone 5Kathd ~_ s10 EJ Intensive Use Zone Kilometers - Limited Use Zone INDIA Special Management Zone 84 Case study summaries ing. High priority was given to reducing the envi- Asia. The park is one of the last remaining habitats ronmental effects of visiting trekkers and increas- of the one-homed Asian rhinoceros and the Ben- ing the local economic benefits from tourism. En- gal tiger. Chitwan also contains wild boar, gaur, try fees generate 4 million rupee ($160,000) annu- four species of deer, and the greatest diversity of ally for the project. Training courses for lodge- birds of any park in Nepal. The number of large owners helped upgrade the quality of service, stan- mammals, which had been declining, has increased dardize menus and prices, and improve standards dramatically since the park was established and of sanitation and waste disposal. Lodges and ex- hunting was strictly controlled. The Nepalese army peditions were required to use kerosene inside the provides more than 500 armed guards for law en- conservation area; fuelwood is for subsistence use forcement, funded from the national park budget. only. Reviving a traditional organization structure, The first wildlife safari lodge was established in a forest management committee was established 1965, and the park is now a popular tourist desti- in Ghandruk to enforce regulations (fining poach- nation. Seven high-cost tourist lodges are licensed ers, controlling timber cutting). to operate inside the park and more than forty Evaluation. The project started with four impor- small ones have sprung up outside. tant advantages: (1) the monarchy's personal in- Project. There is no formal project in the park, terest; (2) specific supporting legislation; (3) the but once a year villagers are permitted to collect autonomy granted to KMTNc; and (4) field surveys tall grasses for house construction and thatching and discussions with local people preceding es- from the park, the only remaining local source. tablishment of the conservation area. The kero- Responsible government agency. Department of sene regulation has substantially reduced defores- National Parks and Wildlife Conservation. tation rates, and training programs have reduced Funding. The grass collection activities have not the harmful effects of tourism and improved the received outside funding. livelihoods of lodgeowners. However, the signifi- Project area and scope. More than 100,000 people cant economic benefits from tourism have not been from local villages take part in the grass collection. distributed widely. There is little evidence to sug- Region. The Terai was largely unpopulated un- gest that most poor farmers will benefit from the til malaria eradication programs began to open up project. The project has made progress in motivat- the fertile plains io agriculture in the 1950s. Rice, ing a skeptical local population to make some for- maize, wheat, and mustard are the major crops. est management decisions, although local institu- Extensive immigration from the hills then led to tions are not likely to assume major responsibility massive conversion of the Terai forests to agricul- for several years. The project's capable and well- tural land. Population doubled during the 1970s, organized staff have established a solid founda- and about 260,000 people occupied 320 villages tion for future expansion; to label the project an around the park boundary in 1980; the population unambiguous success, however, would be prema- continues to grow at about 6 percent annually. ture. Collection of fees from visitors will contrib- Many of the communities close to the park bound- ute valuable revenues to the project, but original aries lack fuelwood and grazing land. For genera- forecasts of financial self-sufficiency by 1993 ap- tions, local people had used the park area to col- pear optimistic. lect fuelwood, graze livestock, and collect tall grasses for construction. The forced relocation of Nepal, Royal Chitwan National Park several villages from inside the proposed park area generated considerable local hostility and mistrust. Protected area. Royal Chitwan National Park is Since the establishment of the park, further ten- in the subtropical Terai region of Nepal. Chitwan sion and conflict have arisen because of prohibit- had been protected as a royal hunting reserve from ions on grazing and collection of forest products, 1846 to the early 1950s but was not made a na- and because of human injury and death as well as tional park until 1973. The original protected area crop and livestock loss from large mammals pro- of 544 square kilometers was extended to 932 tected in the park. Enforcement is strict: during square kilometers in 1977 and designated as a 1985, for example, 554 people were fined and 1,306 World Heritage Site by uNEsco in 1982. Vegetation livestock impounded. Initial hopes that tourism is dominated by Sal forests and the world's tallest would provide significant local benefits now ap- grasses, reaching 5 to 7 meters. Grasslands occupy pear unfounded, because most local people have about 20 percent of the park, supporting one of the little direct involvement with tourist activities. most impressive assemblages of large mammals in Project activities. Although there is no formal 85 People and Parks I7 , \ j ~~~~ROYAL CHITWAN _ <3 t ~~~~~NATIONAL PARK -L- - NEPAL N_: E P A L AV * Parkc Entrances 0 ilonzetes 5 10 RE5ERV *Khtmadu * Selected Cities and Towns \ IoneteE I N I A Mountain Peaks (over 5000 meters) project, once a year villagers are permitted to col- grass program are substantial, overall the park lect tall grasses for house construction and thatch- imposes considerable hardship on local communi- ing from the park. This grass cutting is not consid- ties. The people appear to have little choice but to ered detrimental to wildlife because it is permitted continue illegally taking their cattle into the park only at the end of the growing season when most and collecting fuelwood. Pressure on the park will plant material is dead, of poor nutritional quality, increase unless alternatives can be found. Without and unattractive as food for wildlife. A 1986-87 the presence of the Nepalese army, it seems un- study estimated that roughly 11 million kilograms likely that Chitwan would have survived to the of grass products were collected, valued at 10 mil- present. lion rupees ($450,000). Subtracting permnit costs and imputed labor costs yields a net value to the Thailand, l