beyond protected areas: landscape approaches to reconcile conservation and development
TRANSCRIPT
Beyond protected areas: Landscape approaches to reconcile conservation and
development
Terry Sunderland,IUCN Conservation Congress
7th September 2016
• Difficulty justifying protectionist approaches alone
• Inclusion of poverty alleviation strategies
• Integrated Conservation and Development Project (ICDP) approach introduced in the 1980s
• Integrated approaches focus on PA’s but in the context of the wider landscape (buffer zone)
• Previous studies of these missed the “landscape” context
• Very little critical analysis of ICDPs
From protected areas to “landscapes”
What strategies have contributed to the achievements of landscape-
scale “integrated conservation and development projects?”
Two geographical case studies: Lower Mekong and Cameroon
THINKING beyond the canopy
Lower Mekong• Biodiversity hotspot of global
significance• Major threats: habitat loss,
infrastructure development, land grabbing, wildlife trade
• Laos, Cambodia and Vietnam (15 sites):• Forested landscapes (> 10,000
ha)• History of conservation
intervention in previous 7-10 years
Research
• Landscape trends and threats analysis• ICDP comparison (multi-variate analysis, qualitative assessment of
outcomes) = analysis of organisational strategies• Governance and policy review• Land cover change• Potential for rewards mechanisms (PES, REDD+)• “Best practice” for integrating conservation and development
Threats analysis
What do projects actually do?
Land cover change
• Surprisingly, majority of protected areas experiencing low levels of deforestation and tree cover loss
• HOWEVER, significant degradation outside of PA’s
Project implementation “best practice”
Potential for reward mechanisms (PES, REDD+)
• PES is seen as a “win-win” for conservation and development• Strong legislative framework for PES (e.g. Vietnam)• Implementation is complex and beneficiaries often unclear• None of the sites surveyed have established PES schemes• Thus potential for REDD+ is uncertain
• Concept of Technical Operations Units (TOU) was developed upon creation of the Ministry of Environment and Forestry in 1992 (articles 41 & 42 of Decree)
• Forest Environment Sector Programme (FESP) framework, elaborated in 2003 by the Government of Cameroon with assistance of international development partners:
• [A] “TOU is a delimited geographical area, based on ecological, socio-economic, cultural and political characteristics for the enhancement of integrated landscape management involving all stakeholders”
• Similar to the French “terroir” in which landscapes are administrative units
Cameroon: Technical Cooperation Units (T0U)
ToU’s in Cameroon• TOU’s of varying extent
and geographical coverage and complexity
• Often “managed” by external agents with funding from bilateral arrangements (e.g. German Development Bank (KfW))
• Sustainability?
• TOU Conservator is appointed by PM decree
• A Management Committee is created and organised by PM decree
• The key advantage is that within the TOU area, all stakeholders elaborate and implement a holistic management concept using the synergy of their partnership
How are ToU’s administered?
• 440,000 ha.• Complex mosaic of
forest, timber concession, PA’s and community managed areas
• Home to Cross River gorilla and other endangered species
• Strong pressures from cross-border trade
The Takamanda-Mone TOU
• Integrated landscape management tool
• Multi-stakeholder land use-based forest management approach
• Focused management interventions on specific land uses
• Promote platform for societal dialogue between managers of various land-use types (timber production, nature protection, industrial agriculture, industry, habitation, recreational areas)
Advantages of TOU process
• Increased involvement of local people in forest management issues
• Promoting community development through use of: Forest royalties from exploitation of
forest management units (UFA) and production forest reserves
Income generated from direct exploitation of forest resources (Community Forest Management)
Harvesting and commercialisation of non-timber forest products
Accompanying development measures initiated in communities close to nature protection areas- Village Development Plans
Impact of TOU’s on local populace
• Traditionally a key component of conservation delivery
• HOWEVER, recent systematic review (Roe et al. 2016) suggests such initiatives are largely ineffective
• Estimated alternative livelihoods would have to contribute >25% of HH income to change behaviour
A word about “alternative livelihoods”
THINKING beyond the canopy
Lessons learned (for Indonesia??)
Landscape-scale initiatives with agreed and negotiated goals and objectives from the start have better outcomes, but flexibility is absolutely key (adaptive management)Multi-stakeholder participation and partnerships are criticalImplemented should happen with a full understanding of policy processesBeware alternative livelihoods!Greater integration at landscape scale should be real and not assumedLonger-term time scales = better outcomes. Process not project!
