sustainable use of biological diversity in

8/18/2019 Sustainable Use of Biological Diversity in ...

1/185

52CBD Technical Series No.Secretariat of the

Convention onBiological Diversity

-

Background to the ‘Satoyama Initiative for the benefit of biodiversity and human well-being’

Japan


2/185

SUSAINABLE USE OF BIOLOGICAL DIVERSIY

IN SOCIOECOLOGICAL PRODUCION LANDSCAPES

Background to the ‘Satoyama Initiative or the benefit

o biodiversity and human well-being’


3/185

2

Sustainable use o biological diversity in socio-ecological production landscapes

Acknowledgements

Te Secretariat o the Convention on Biological Diversity, the Ministry o the Environment o Japan, and theUnited Nations University Institute o Advanced Studies would like to thank those who contributed articlesor this volume o the echnical Series.

Tis document has been produced with the financial support o the Ministry o the Environment o Japanand the United Nations University Institute o Advanced Studies. Te views expressed herein can in no waybe taken to reflect the official opinion o the Secretariat o the Convention on Biological Diversity, the Minis-try o the Environment o Japan, the United Nations University Institute o Advanced Studies or the editors.

Published by the Secretariat o the Convention on Biological Diversity. ISBN 92-9225-242-9

Copyright © 2010, Secretariat o the Convention on Biological Diversity

Cover photo credits (rom top to bottom): Flickr Creative Commons - Abishesh, Archivio Parco Nazionaledelle Cinque erre, K. Ichikawa, Flickr Creative Commons - Rita Willaert.

Te designations employed and the presentation o material in this publication do not imply the expressiono any opinion whatsoever on the part o the copyright holders concerning the legal status o any country,territory, city or area or o its authorities, or concerning the delimitation o its rontiers or boundaries. Tispublication may be reproduced or educational or non-profit purposes without special permission rom thecopyright holders, provided acknowledgement o the source is made.

Citation:

Bélair C., Ichikawa K., Wong B.Y. L., and Mulongoy K.J. (Editors) (2010). Sustainable use o biological diversity in socio-ecological production landscapes. Background to the ‘Satoyama Initiative or the benefit obiodiversity and human well-being.’ Secretariat o the Convention on Biological Diversity, Montreal. echni-cal Series no. 52, 184 pages.

Publication layout and typesetting: Caroline Bélair

For urther inormation please contact:

Secretariat o the Convention on Biological Diversity World rade Centre413 St. Jacques, Suite 800Montreal, Quebec, Canada H2Y 1N9

el: 1 (514) 288 2220Fax: 1 (514) 288 6588Email: [email protected]: http://www.cbd.int

United Nations University Institute o Advanced Studies (UNU-IAS)6F International Organizations CenterPacifico-Yokohama1-1-1 Minato Mirai, Nishi-kuYokohama 220-8502 Japanel: +81-45-221-2300Fax: +81-45-221-2302Email: [email protected]: http://www.ias.unu.edu

http://www.satoyama-initiative.org/en/


4/185

3

Table of Contents

Foreword .....................................................................................................................................................................4Introduction ...............................................................................................................................................................5

Overview articles .......................................................................................................................................................7Bridging managed and natural landscapes. Te role o traditional (agri)culture in maintaining

the diversity and resilience o social-ecological systems ...............................................................8Customary sustainable use o biodiversity by indigenous peoples. Case studies relevant to the

Satoyama Initiative rom Suriname, Guyana, Cameroon and Tailand ................................... 22Satoyama-like landscapes in North America: Diverse landscapes, diverse governance models .......36Surveying the coverage and remains o the cultural landscapes o Europe while envisioning

their conservation............................................. ................................................................................45

Case studies ..............................................................................................................................................................51

Africa

Te communal orest, wetland, rangeland and agricultural landscape mosaics o theLower ana, Kenya: A socio-ecological entity in peril ................................................................54

Te Maasai’s shifing modes o subsistence...............................................................................................63How armers in Kitui use wild and agricultural ecosystems to meet their nutritional needs ............ 67Changing land-use in the ragile Lake Nyasa catchments o anzania:

A lowland-highland nexus ..............................................................................................................73

Americas

Te ayllu system o the Potato Park ...........................................................................................................84 Land use and biodiversity patterns on chacras in northeast Argentina .................... ..................... .......91 Te sustainable use o biodiversity in paddies and fields o Louisiana ..................... ..................... .......95 Forest management through community-based orest enterprises in

Ixtlán de Juárez, Oaxaca, Mexico....................................................................................................98

AsiaKandyan homegardens: A promising land management system in Sri Lanka .................... ...............102Village small tank systems: An integrated landscape or adaptation to a changing climate ............109Te owita agroecosystem ...........................................................................................................................113Land use and natural resource utilization and management in Kampong Cham, Cambodia .........116Agroorestry homegardens in the rural landscapes o Bangladesh .....................................................120Homegardens: Sustainable land use systems in Wayanad, Kerala, India ..................... ...................... .125Regional circulation that combines biogas power generation with agriculture and livestock

husbandry in Kyoto, Japan.............................................................................................................129Reintroduction o traditional agriculture or the conservation o natural, historic, and cultural

heritage in the Zushi-Onoji region, Machida City, okyo, Japan ...................... ...................... .132own revitalization through the promotion o historical and cultural heritage in the

community o Kanakura, Machino own, Wajima City, Ishikawa Preecture, Japan ............136Europe

BurrenLIFE - Farming or conservation in the Burren .........................................................................142Te dehesa/mantado landscape .................................................................................................................149Cinque erre National Park: Where armland meets the sea .................. ...................... ...................... .152Challenges in collective action or natural resource management: A study o common

property regimes in the municipality o Guitiriz (northwest o Spain) .................................. 157Landscape management in Germany ......................................................................................................163

OceaniaLiving by utilizing various modified natural resources in the Solomon Islands .................... ............168Nature-riendly agriculture in the State o Queensland, Australia ......................................................172

Synthesis o case studies ......................................................................................................................................178

Annex: Paris Declaration ....................................................................................................................................182

able o Contents


5/185

4


Foreword

We are pleased to introduce this volume o the ech-nical Series o the Convention on Biological Diversity,which ocuses on the sustainable use o biodiversity. Lieis neither possible nor worth living without all the goodsand services we derive rom biodiversity, including, interalia, the provision o our ood and medicines, spiritualand cultural ulfilment, water and air purification, croppollination, erosion control and the regulation o climateand natural disasters. Whether or not we continue to de-rive benefits rom biodiversity will depend upon how we

use it and how our activities impact our natural environment. Recent scientific assessments document thatunsustainable use o the goods and services we derive rom ecosystems, or example through deorestation,

overexploitation o natural resources and unplanned urbanization, has led to biodiversity loss and degrada-tion o ecosystem services with increasingly serious consequences or the uture o nature and human well-being, ood security, healthcare and human society in general.

Te 193 Parties to the Convention and their partners are currently engaged in preparing a post 2010 bio-diversity strategy aimed at re-establishing a harmonious relationship between man and nature through thesustainable use o biodiversity. Tey are conscious that they have to address in particular the loss o orestecosystems and other natural habitats, overfishing and destructive fishing practices, management o areasunder agriculture, aquaculture and orestry, pollution rom excess nutrients, the protection and restorationo ecosystems that provide essential services and contribute to local livelihoods, climate change mitigationand adaptation, and desertification.

Te strategic vision o how humans can live sustainably at the heart o the dynamic ecological systems

that support lie on Earth is reflected in many traditional socio-ecological production landscapes, such asthe Japanese land-management practice o satoyama. Tis publication presents case studies and articles thatdescribe relationships between humans and nature in socio-ecological production landscapes around theworld. Te examples highlight the various physical structures, management techniques and governance sys-tems that characterize these landscapes, as well as the benefits they provide or biodiversity, the threats theycurrently ace, and ways to address these threats. We hope that the international community can learn romsuch enlightened practices and adapt them, as appropriate, to current global changes.

We would like to thank all the authors o the case studies and articles and everyone who contrib-uted to this publication, including the staff o the Japanese Ministry o the Environment, the United NationsUniversity Institute o Advanced Studies, and the Secretariat o the Convention on Biological Diversity.

Ahmed Djoghlaf Executive Secretary Secretariat o the Conventionon Biological Diversity

Sakihito OzawaMinister o the EnvironmentJapan


6/185

5

IntroductionTe urge or survival has led humans to explore

their surrounding natural environment or usableresources and cultivation. Tis in turn has led hu-mans to master the various uses o available natu-ral resources, as well as to find the best ways oextracting them. On the other hand, humans havealso learned about the negative impacts their activi-ties can have on the natural environment, includingnatural resource depletion, decreased productionand soil erosion, and that a balanced way o utilizingand managing land and natural resources is vital toensure that the land continuously provides necessarynatural resources. Over time, humans have gradu-

ally developed unique systems based on harmoniousinteractions with their natural environment. Tesesustainable systems have enhanced land manage-ment practices and made natural resource use moreeffective. Tese socio-cultural systems and associ-ated traditional ecological knowledge are orces thathave, over centuries, shaped and ormed uniquelandscapes adapted to various geographical andsocio-cultural backgrounds around the world. Suchsustainable human-influenced landscapes, whichhave been known to be beneficial or biodiversityconservation and human well-being, are reerred tohere as socio-ecological production landscapes1.

o conserve biodiversity, considerable efforts havebeen ocused on preserving pristine environments,such as wilderness, where human activities areminimal. However, biodiversity conservation alsoinvolves human-influenced areas, such as socio-eco-logical production landscapes, which can containrich sustainable practices and traditional knowledge.Tese landscapes are ound throughout the worldunder various local names, such as dehesa in Spain,muyong in the Philippines and chitemene in Malawi.In Japan, such landscapes are termed satoyama, acombination o two words which denote mountains,

woodlands and grasslands ( yama) and surrounding villages (sato).

However, these landscapes are increasingly threat-ened in many parts o the world due to various pres-sures such as unplanned urbanization, industrial-ization and diminishing rural population. o tacklethe critical issue, the Ministry o the Environmento Japan (MOE-J) and the United Nations UniversityInstitute o Advanced Studies (UNU-IAS) jointly1 Reerring to the definition o the Japan Satoyama SatoumiAssessment or “satoyama and satoumi landscapes” as “dynamicmosaics o managed socio-ecological systems producing a bundle

o ecosystem services or human well-being”, the term “socio-ecological production landscape” has been applied to describe thetarget areas o the Satoyama Initiative.

initiated the Satoyama Initiative to promote activi-ties based on undamental principles and guidelines(such as the Ecosystem Approach) towards the longterm goal o “realizing societies in harmony with na-ture.” Tis Initiative covers a wide range o human-influenced areas, such as villages, armlands, and adjacent woodlands and grasslands, which have beenormed and maintained sustainably and which havethe potential to contribute to both biodiversity con-servation and human well-being.

Tis document is a collection o case studies andarticles that address how relationships between hu-mans and nature unction in socio-ecological pro-duction landscapes around the world. Te exampleshighlight the various physical structures, manage-ment techniques and governance systems that char-acterize these landscapes, as well as the benefits theyprovide or biodiversity and human well-being, thethreats they currently ace, and ways to address thesethreats. Case studies were submitted to the Secre-tariat o Convention o Biological Diversity (SCBD)and field studies were conducted or the UNU-IAS.Case studies were submitted to the SCBD by expertsas voluntary contributions to a call made by SCBDin collaboration with MOE-J and UNU-IAS, as parto the in-depth review on the sustainable use o bio-diversity in preparation or the ourteenth meeting

o the CBD Subsidiary Body on Scientific, echni-cal and echnological Advice (SBSA-14) and thetenth Meeting o the Conerence o the Parties to theCBD (COP-10).

Te first part o this document presents a selectiono synthesis articles o relevance to socio-ecologicalproduction landscapes worldwide. An approach toaddressing biodiversity conservation through theinclusion o human communities, and indicators tomeasure socio-ecological resilience, are presented.Based on our case studies rom Suriname, Camer-oon, Guyana, and Tailand, the characteristics o

customary sustainable use o biodiversity by indig-enous peoples, and the threats customary manage-ment systems are currently acing, are highlighted.Protected landscapes across North America, and thediverse governance regimes associated with theselandscapes, are then explored. Finally, the opportu-nities and challenges in surveying the coverage andremains o cultural landscapes in Europe are pre-sented.

Te second part o the document presents 23 casestudies o socio-ecological production landscapesaround the world. Tese case studies cover 18 coun-

tries: Argentina, Australia, Bangladesh, Cambodia,Germany, India, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Kenya, Mexico,Peru, Portugal, Spain, Sri Lanka, Solomon Islands,

Introduction


7/185

6


anzania, and United States o America (figure 1).Te case studies are representative o various cli-mates, including tropical, sub-tropical, Mediter-ranean, and temperate climates, and geomorphicenvironments, including plains, hills, coasts andmountainous areas, or a mixture o these. In addi-tion, they represent areas with diverse historical,cultural and socio-economic conditions, rom sub-sistence communities in the remote mountainous villages o Peru to the urban ringes o metropolitanokyo, Japan.

In the final part, a synthesis article presents anoverview the eatures o socio-ecological productionlandscapes based on the case studies collected here.Te synthesis highlights the various physical struc-tures, management techniques and governance sys-tems that characterize these landscapes. In addition,it presents an overview o the benefits they provideor biodiversity, the threats they currently ace, andways to address these threats.

Figure 1. Location o the case studies


8/185

Overview Articles

© C. Gardi


9/185

8


or ocused largely on the negative aspects o humanactivity (Foley et al ., 2005; Green et al ., 2005; Hansenet al ., 2001; Maiorano et al ., 2008; Western, 2001),resulting in a simplistic but pervasive view o all ag-riculture as inherently damaging to biodiversity andecosystems. Tis means that traditional agriculture

is not only threatened by the orces that drive theincreasing homogenization and industrialization oagriculture, but also by dominant conservation prac-tices. In order to counter this view, a clear distinctionbetween the ecological impacts o traditional landuse practices and those o more destructive activitiessuch as logging, mining and industrial agriculture isneeded.

Te goal o this paper is to acilitate a conserva-tion approach that (i) builds on the ecological andsocial synergies that exist in traditionally managedlandscapes in and around protected areas and (ii)

integrates conservation and social goals to achievea reduction in the levels o marginalization o in-digenous communities while preventing ecosystemdegradation and biodiversity loss. Central to this ap-proach is the notion o landscapes as coupled social-ecological systems, whose integrity and resiliencedepend on both their social and ecological compo-nents and the combined ability o these componentsto retain their structure and unction afer distur-bances (Gunderson and Holling, 2002).

Te paper, firstly, revisits the conceptual underpin-nings o different approaches to nature conserva-

tion. Drawing on insights rom political and histori-cal ecology and systems theory, it demonstrates theambiguities inherent in current conservation effortsand discusses the importance o the notion o socio-ecological systems to conservation. Secondly, it ex-plains the unctioning o social-ecological systemsin a conservation context by outlining the variouspractices and conditions whereby indigenous andrural communities can have positive impacts on theintegrity, richness and resilience o ecosystems andlandscapes. Tirdly, it proposes indicators that takeull account o the social and cultural dimensionso ecosystem unctioning and that can be used (a)or the endogenous monitoring o the integrity andresilience o social-ecological systems by local com-munities, and (b) as a tool to help implementation

Bridging managed and natural landscapesThe role of traditional (agri)culture in maintaining the diversity and resilience of

social-ecological systems*

Frederik J.W. van Oudenhoven1, Dunja Mijatović1 and Pablo B. Eyzaguirre1

1Bioversity International, Emails: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]

*This is a revised version of a paper that will be published later this year as part of a special edition of the journal Management ofEnvironmental Quality on ‘Traditional agricultural landscapes and Community-Conserved Areas’.

1. Introduction

Te recent shif toward the inclusion o commu-nities in nature conservation signals a broaden-ing perspective among conservationists. Earlierpractices o encing off pieces o nature as a way o‘mitigating’ human impact proved costly, unsustain-

able, and dubious in terms o social and conserva-tion impacts (Adams et al ., 2004; Liu et al ., 2001).With more than 1.1 billion people living within theworld’s 25 biodiversity hotspot areas -- in many caseswithin the 12 per cent o the world’s land area thatis under some orm o protected area management(Cincotta and Engelman, 2000) -- such practices arealso prooundly unrealistic. Many have called or anapproach to biodiversity conservation that includesdevelopment needs and community participationas integral elements o both ecosystem and conservation management strategies (Adams et al ., 2004;

Agrawal and Gibson, 1999; Amend et al ., 2008;Brown, 1992; UNESCO SC, 2008).

Exclusionary approaches to nature conservationwere ounded on the conception o “nature” and hu-man society (and thus culture) as separate entities.Tis assumption ignored the role that indigenousand local communities have played in shaping manyglobally important and unique ecosystems throughlong and complex processes o co-evolution (Esco-bar, 1999). Still today, much o the world’s biologi-cal diversity is in the custody o indigenous and lo-cal communities employing a variety o subsistence

strategies to sustain their lieways (Oldfield andAlcorn, 1987). Some o these strategies are compat-ible with conservation aims, while others are not.Te conservation o protected areas in the uturewill depend on our ability to understand, harnessand support those practices that are beneficial to themaintenance o the diversity and resilience o natu-ral ecosystems.

A common ramework or understanding thesepractices is needed to achieve a more concerted shifto participatory management practices that not onlyinclude communities, but also support and rely on

their ways o using and maintaining landscapes.Studies in this field have most ofen addressed hu-man activities in such ecosystems as disturbances


10/185

9

times, has ramed the interaction between the hu-man and natural realm in terms o a struggle (Col-chester, 2003). Tis view was ofen justified in theace o threats to nature rom industrialized arm-ing and logging, the oil, gas and mining industries:threats that are largely a question o national andglobal economic and environmental policies.

Increasing realization on the ofen negative socio-economic impacts o protected areas has made thisapproach o “ortress conservation” more difficult todeend. Conservation practices have begun to ac-knowledge the livelihoods o human communitiesin protected areas, though the benefits are debatedamong conservationists (Berkes, 2004; Brosius andRussel, 2003; Western, 2001). Communities are al-lowed to remain within protected area boundaries aspart o community-based conservation schemes, buttheir inhabitants continue to be seen as invasive, inneed o mitigation (Fairhead and Leach, 2000). Eventhe concept o buffer zones, established as part o theUnited Nations Educational, Scientific and CulturalOrganization (UNESCO)’s ‘Man and the Biosphere’(MAB) program in the early 1970s, was intended tocontain human activities within specified areas andkeep them out o others (Colchester, 2003). Bufferzones have been seen as a compensation or exclu-sion. Te requent disappointments that character-

ize buffer zone experiments are ofen attributed tooutside development or conservation agencies sup-porting activities that have little to do with tradition-al land use practices (Sayer, 1991).

Te growth o the UNESCO MAB network (in2009 it reached 553 reserve areas in 107 countries)and the growing attention given by the Food andAgriculture Organization o the United Nations(FAO), the Global Environment Facility (GEF), theInternational Union or Conservation o Nature(IUCN) and other global institutions to bioculturallandscapes (see, e.g., Persic and Martin, 2008), as

well as growing recognition o ‘Globally ImportantAgricultural Heritage Systems’ and ‘Indigenous andCommunity-conserved Areas’ signal an encourag-ing trend towards the recognition o local commu-nities’ role in conservation. Yet a diverging trend,one that redraws the sharp division line betweenhuman and nature and views them in an inclusivecontext, is taking place simultaneously (Brosius andRussel, 2003; Chapin, 2004; Colchester, 2003). Tediscontent with the dichotomizing division between“nature” and human society and the disruptions itis causing to livelihoods o indigenous, agrarian and

pastoral communities has become a prominent ea-ture o the current debate on protected areas andconservation. oday, the list o global wrongdoers

and monitoring o conservation approaches that aimto prevent and reverse the loss o biocultural diver-sity and to strengthen the social-ecological resilienceo protected areas and agricultural biodiversity.

2. Harnessing (agri)culture or conservation

2.1. Context: Human–environment interactions –discourse and practice

Ecologists have traditionally sought to study eco-systems in their pristine state, away rom the con-ounding influence o human activity (Gallagher andCarpenter, 1997). Te conservation movement, romits onset, ollowed suit in the same spirit, ocusing onpreserving those wild areas in the world where “na-ture” conormed to the ideal o pristine or where it

could revert to a wild state by the removal o humanpresence or impacts. Tis approach to nature conservation has resulted in a conservation discourse thatis ahistorical (it misrepresents humans’ role in theevolution o natural systems) and depoliticized (itignores communities’ rights to their territories andlivelihood resources). A striking example o how hu-man presence is seen purely as a threat in rainorestconservation are Lovelock’s (2007) recent thoughtson storing nuclear waste in Arican rainorests in or-der to deter human incursions.

Scientific understanding o the relationship be-

tween human activity and ecosystem integrity hassignificantly advanced over the last decades. In anissue o Science dedicated to ‘human-dominatedecosystems’, the authors note that scientists now un-derstand that nature, as we know it, is neither pri-mordial nor pristine (Janzen, 1998; Vitousek et al .,1997). From climate to biogeochemical cycles andthe distribution and abundance o individual spe-cies, nature is prooundly affected by human activity.Mainstream conservation practice, with a number onotable exceptions, has ailed to internalize the no-tion that human and natural systems have ofen co-

evolved and that the ormer may not necessarily beincompatible with conservation goals. Te old viewthat nature unctions best without the intererence ohumans remains ingrained in the consciousness o“Big Conservation” and this continues to have pro-ound consequences or the way in which conserva-tion is practiced (Adams and Hutton, 2007).

2.1.1. Enduring ortress conservation

Since the establishment o Yellowstone NationalPark in 1872, saving primeval pieces o nature inas pristine a state as could be achieved, along withcharismatic (mega)auna has been an iconic cause o

the conservation movement. Te practice o encingoff large tracts o natural landscapes and ecosystemsis rooted in a culture that, since Judeo-Christian

Bridging managed and natural landscapes


11/185

10


tion o land and biological resources and associatedknowledge or the purpose o commercializationand control (Ghimire and Pimbert, 1997).

Using the Arenal-ilaran Conservation Area inCosta Rica as an example, Isla (2008) describes how,under the banner o ‘sustainable development’, theenclosure o large tracts o rainorests has enabledbiopiracy and the commodification o the commons,effectively criminalizing the traditional resourceuses o 118 communities in the area. Enclosure isaided by “debt-or-nature swaps” and “conserva-tion concessions,” a concept conceived by WWF andCI and pioneered with the International MonetaryFund and the World Bank, by which an indebtedcountry cedes management over pieces o nature tooreign governments, conservation agencies, or cor-porations in exchange or payment or partial cancel-lation o national debt (Ellison, 2003).

A substantial number o individual studies show acontinuing trend towards the exclusion and in somecases expulsion o local communities rom conservation areas (Agrawal and Redord, 2009; Brock-ington and Igoe, 2006; Emerton, 2001; Muttenzer,2008). Te act that, despite these measures, rateso biodiversity loss and environmental degradationcontinue to accelerate (Adams et al ., 2004; Liu et al .,2001), provides sufficient reason to look or alterna-tive approaches to conservation.

2.1.2. Historical ecologies, cultural landscapes andcoupled social-ecological systems

“Even the landscapes that we suppose to be most reeo our culture may turn out, on closer inspection, to beits product ” - Simon Schama (quoted in Brockington2002, p.23)

I the voice o indigenous and rural communitieshas been underrepresented in global conservationdiscourse, the same has long been true o their rolein shaping and maintaining landscapes and ecolo-

gies (DeGeorges and Reilly, 2009). Tis mutualconnection between nature and society orms theoundation o the field o historical ecology. Rival(2006) argues or the importance o using a dia-chronic analysis o ecological systems to accountmore ully or their structural and unctional prop-erties, especially how these have evolved in relationto the development o human societies. She reers toPosey and Balée (1989), who in their writings aboutindigenous land management strategies in the Bra-zilian Amazon challenge the view that human ac-tivity amounted to little more than the occasional

disturbance o natural processes. People’s adaptationto their environment involved an active and quitesophisticated modification o that environment, the

put orth by indigenous leaders includes not onlyExxonMobil, exaco and Cargill, but also the moresurprising names o Conservation International(CI), Te Nature Conservancy (NC), the WorldWildlie Fund (WWF), and the Wildlie Conserva-tion Society (WCS) (Agrawal and Redord, 2009).Indigenous opposition to their activities overshad-owed the World Parks Congress in 2003 (Brosius,2004) and, one year later, 200 indigenous represen-tatives at the meeting o the International Forum onIndigenous Mapping, stated that the “activities oconservation organizations now represent the singlebiggest threat to the integrity o indigenous lands”(quoted in Dowie 2005, p.2).

Te field o political ecology offers a critical per-spective on these trends and the generally problem-atic relationship between protected areas and humancommunities (Neumann, 2004). Building on an ex-ploration o different meanings o ‘nature’, how theseare constructed and by whom, and how they gainprimacy in global discourse, it examines the roots ocontemporary conservation practice.

Escobar (1999) writes that different orms o socialorganization (patriarchal, indigenous, capitalist, sci-entific) produce different ideas about what natureis and inorm different and ofen competing strate-gies on whether and how it must be managed. Tisresults not merely in a conflict over resources, butalso in a struggle between knowledge systems, or, asBoillat et al . (2008) call them, ontological commu-nities. Redord and Sanderson (2000, p.1364) illus-trate: “conservation with use should not crowd outconservation without use as a policy objective (…)we do not agree that “orest people and their repre-sentatives…speak or the orest.” Tey may speak ortheir version o a orest, but they do not speak or theorest we want to conserve.”

Te exclusive view o ‘nature’ held by the “modern-Western ontological community” is also the one es-poused by some o the world’s governments and con-servation agencies. Te international policy debateon nature conservation and its social impacts may bediverse (Adams et al ., 2004), but in practice westernnatural science analysis remains the universal tool ochoice or defining conservation needs and actions(Adams and Hutton, 2007), increasingly supportedby number o alliances between political, corporateand conservation entities1 (Chapin, 2004). Tis deacto devaluation o indigenous orms o knowledge,culture and legal systems acilitates the appropria-1Corporate partnerships listed on the websites o the main con-

servation agencies: Barrick Gold, Bunge, Chevron, DuPont,Harrah’s Entertainment Inc., Rio into, McDonalds and Kraf (CI2009), Shell, Coca Cola, Union Carbide, Cargill, Wall Mart, Nike(WWF 2009), Domtar, Monsanto, Microsof (NC 2009).


12/185

11

mental and climatic changes, and social and culturaltransormations. It ollows also that conservationpractice must be phrased in terms o change andresilience, both ecologically and socially. Instead opromoting a conservation agenda based solely oncontemporary patterns o biodiversity and ecosys-tems -- and the challenges with which they are aced-- current conservation efforts must anticipate uturethreats and accommodate the dynamic genetic andecological processes o communities responding tochange (Mace et al ., 1998).

Te incorporation o human communities as a ba-sic element in the analysis o ecosystems and land-scapes adds urther complexity, revealing propertiesthat emerge rom the interplay o behavioral, bio-logical, chemical, physical, and social interactionsbetween living organisms (Michener et al ., 2001)and are not apparent when these systems are studiedseparately (Liu et al ., 2007). Tese emergent prop-erties (e.g., olklore, (agro)biodiversity, ood sover-eignty) are the tangible outcomes o the various waysin which communities interact with ecosystems andlandscapes, discussed in the section below, and arecentral to the indicators o resilience in social-eco-logical systems presented later in this paper.

2.2. How do indigenous and rural communitieshelp anchor biodiversity and strengthen ecosystemresilience?

Te Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA)mentions agriculture as one o the principal driversbehind the degradation and depletion o ecosystemservices. Soil erosion, eutrophication o water bod-ies, invasive species, large-scale land conversionand deorestation are some o the main impacts oan agriculture that needs to support an increasingnumber o people (MA, 2005). A predicted one bil-lion additional hectares o natural ecosystems willbe converted to agriculture by 2050, primarily in thedeveloping world (ilman et al ., 2001), and are likelyto increase the tension in the relationship betweenagriculture and nature conservation.

Other sources, however, highlight the importantrole that certain orms o agriculture based on agro-ecological principles can have in sustaining wildspecies diversity and maintaining ecosystem services (Amend et al ., 2008; Gilpin et al ., 1992; Hajjaret al ., 2008; Oldfield and Alcorn, 1987; Scherr andMcNeely, 2008). In the section below some o themechanisms through which agricultural practicescan help sustain the diversity and resilience o natu-ral ecosystems are detailed with the use o selectedexamples. Tese mechanisms are essential to our un-derstanding o social-ecological systems and serve asa basis or the indicators o resilience presented later.

consequences o which can still be seen today in theshape o the landscape and the composition o plantcommunities (Balée, 2000).

Te view o landscapes as “the physical maniesta-tion o the long-term human history o the environ-ment” (Rival, 2006, p. S90) has been incorporated inthe concept o ‘cultural landscapes’. In academia theconcept encompasses the ull extent o maniesta-tions o human-environment interactions, includingassociated uses, belies, ecologies, practices and tra-ditions (Fowler, 2003). Seen in that broader sense,the term indeed applies to almost the entire world’ssurace (Vitousek et al ., 1997). In conservation cir-cles, however, and more specifically the UNESCOWorld Heritage Committee that adopted the conceptin 1992, cultural landscapes have been interpreted ina more narrow sense distinct rom “natural” land-scapes as “areas illustrative o the evolution o hu-man society and settlement over time,” (quoted inPersic and Martin 2008, p.8) that should moreoverbe selected on the basis o representativity and “out-standing universal value” (Fowler, 2003). While notintentionally elitist, this interpretation can be mis-leading when applied to superficially human-reelandscapes, where the structure and unction oecosystems ofen nevertheless reflect less obvioushuman influences (Pickett and Cadenasso, 1995).

Charismatic Uluru and the rice terraces o the Phil-ippine Cordilleras classiy as cultural landscapes, butthe more subtle human imprints on Amazonian soiland plant communities described by Balée wouldnot. Unless taken more broadly, the concept o cul-tural landscapes remains o limited use in account-ing ully or the role o human agency in shapingecosystems and landscapes.

Current approaches to conservation, particularlythe management o protected areas, are largely basedon the idea o a ‘balance o nature’, which viewsundisturbed (by humans) ecological systems as or-

dered and in a state o stable equilibrium (Wu andLoucks, 1995). Te idea has been important in theormulation o conservation geographies (choice oterritories, boundaries and scales o protected ar-eas) and has contributed to the marginalization ohuman activities (Zimmerer, 2000). Now largelyrejected by the scientific community, this view hasbeen replaced with approaches and concepts such asnonequilibrium ecology, complex adaptive systems,and biocomplexity, all o which revolve around theunderstanding that ecosystems are in constant fluxand that they are complex, non-linear and behave

unpredictably (Wu and Loucks, 1995). Not onlyecosystems, but also the current global context hasto be understood as a result o a complex interplaybetween economic and political activities, environ-



13/185

12


species) and its relevance or ecological researchand orest conservation. Nabhan (2000) highlightsthe importance o traditional knowledge to en-dangered species conservation and shows how theknowledge system o the O’odham and Comcáacarmer-gatherers in the Sonoran desert, U.S.A., isbased on an elaborate understanding o the ecolog-ical interactions among locally occurring species,regardless o whether these are o direct economicbenefit. urner et al . (2000) show the complexity othe ecological knowledge o indigenous communi-ties in British Columbia, Canada, exemplified bythe use o ecological indicators and adaptive strat-egies or the monitoring, enhancement and sus-tainable harvesting o resources. Tey emphasize

that in order to appropriately integrate traditionalknowledge into current management systems, itsuse must be coupled with an understanding o andrespect or the culture o the people in which theknowledge is situated.

2.2.2. Cultural values

raditional knowledge is embedded in complexcultural systems (Berkes et al ., 2000). Culture canbe understood as an expression o the interactionover time between communities and their natural,historical and social environments. Tese environ-ments not only satisy people’s material needs orood, odder, water, medicines and other naturalresources, but also provide the bases or ethical val-ues, concepts o sacred spaces, aesthetic experiences,and personal or group identities derived rom thelocal surroundings (Kassam, 2009). Social, ethicaland spiritual relationships thus have an ecologicaloundation; and the practical maniestation o cul-tural values can have consequences or the ecologicalsystem (ibid .). Failure to recognize this interactionmeans ignoring the role that cultural practices playin the shaping o landscapes and the maintenance obiodiversity and ecosystem services.

• In the eastern Himalayas, numerous areas consid-ered sacred by the indigenous ibetans are ound inhabitats with greater species richness, diversity andendemism than surrounding areas and have an im-portant role in the conservation o unique ecologi-cal systems and old-growth orests (Salick et al .,2007). Sacred spaces can be recruitment areas orpopulations o seed-dispersing birds and bats thatare o importance to the regeneration o surround-ing ecosystems (Gadgil et al ., 2000), provide habi-tat or birds controlling insect outbreaks on adja-cent crop fields, and may serve as seed banks or

locally adapted crop varieties and medicinal plants(Berkes et al ., 2000). A botanical survey in a Nige-rian sacred grove documented 330 plant species as

Tis discussion is particularly relevant to the debateabout the role o indigenous and local communi-ties in biodiversity conservation and protected areamanagement. Tese communities, in their tradition-al/ancestral environments, have to be considered in-trinsic elements o social-ecological systems that areshaped by a long-term, continuous process o inter-dependency and co-evolution. We argue that tradi-tional knowledge, culture, institutions and land-usepractices, especially those related to agriculture, playan important role in the resilience o these systems.

2.2.1. raditional (ecological) knowledge

Indigenous people ofen have detailed knowledgeo local agro-ecological conditions, characteristics

o plants and animals, resources and ecological pro-cesses in the ecosystems and landscapes on whichthey depend or sustenance and lieways (Berkeset al ., 2000; Nabhan, 2000; Stave et al ., 2007). Tisknowledge is accumulated over hundreds and some-times thousands o years as it is passed rom genera-tion to generation, but is also constantly adjusted tochanging conditions and new experiences (Berkes etal ., 2000; Fernandez-Gimenez, 2000). It is place- andculture-specific and derived rom interactions be-tween humans, animals, plants, natural orces, spir-its and land orms (Kassam, 2009).

raditional ecological knowledge (EK) can beseen as the memory o human-environment dy-namics in social-ecological systems. Te longer thismemory, the more accurately traditional ecologicalknowledge can be expected to reflect the complexi-ties o social-ecological interactions and acilitatecommunities’ adaptation to changes in surround-ing ecosystems. It is the basis or continued innovation and the sustainable use and conservation oresources, and thus central to the resilience o social-ecological systems. Te extent to which EK is su-ficient to deal with the pace o current social, eco-nomic and environmental changes is unclear. Wherechanges are unlike the ones captured in the collec-tive memory o a community, traditional knowledgeby itsel may be inadequate and direct a communitytoward adaptive responses that may be inappropriateand endanger ecosystems and/or livelihood security(Kassam, 2009). Nevertheless, scientists are begin-ning to acknowledge the important role this knowl-edge can play in the design and implementation oconservation projects.

• A number of studies describe the particular waysin which traditional peoples in diverse geographi-cal areas understand ecological processes. A sur-

vey by Stave et al . (2007) among the urkana peo-ple in Kenya shows the depth o their knowledge olocal plants (105 specific uses or 113 woody plant


14/185

13

ogether these ensured the viability o the pasto-ral landscape (Bassi and ache, 2008). Disruptiono the Borana system o governance as a result otheir marginalization by government policies hasresulted in a deterioration o the landscape (ibid.).

• An example of how dierent social institutionscreate different landscapes is provided by Kepe andScoones (1999). Tey describe how the actions omodern and traditional institutions associatedwith grassland uses in the Mkambati area o SouthArica cause shifs in dominant species and grass-land states. Tese grasslands are not merely theproduct o climate and geology, but largely also ohuman choice and action.

• Sometimes social institutions are not sucientto ensure the conservation o resources. On theMaluku Islands o Indonesia, prohibitions o entry,harvest, or hunting in community-controlled areasare regulated through the ancient sasi institution.According to a study by Zerner (1994) the rein- vigoration o sasi in a contemporary context hascontributed to improved resource management.More recent work by Novaczek et al . (2001), how-ever, shows that sasi does little to protect fisheriesagainst externally driven threats such as commer-cial fishing.

2.2.4. Livestock grazing and landscape management Landscapes that have co-evolved with or have been

altered by human activities ofen depend on the con-tinuation o these activities to maintain the presenceo certain species and ecosystem services. Livestock,a keystone species in such systems, can be importantin the maintenance o ecosystem states by suppress-ing dominant species, allowing others to flourish,and preventing the succession o grasslands.

• Vast areas of the Tibetan Plateau previouslyregarded as wilderness, are in act cultural land-scapes. Forest patterns do not depend on site-spe-

cific climate conditions, as previously thought, butare shaped by pastoral activities instead (Winkler,2000).

• e extent to which human activity shapes land-scapes is evident in the Mediterranean Basin,where practices such as orest clearing, cropping,wood-cutting, grazing and fire management havecreated a high degree o landscape and biologicalheterogeneity (Bartolomé et al ., 2000). In the Mon-teseney Biosphere Reserve in Spain, the ceasing osuch activities has negatively effected biologicaland landscape diversity, or example by allowing

woody species to take over the open and diverselandscape (ibid .).

compared to only 23 in surrounding areas (Warrenand Pinkston, 1998). Unruh (1994) documents sixcases in North and West Arica and India wheretrees with sacred values are spared and protected,and thereby effectively released rom competitionwith other trees used or firewood or building. InBorana (Ethiopia) symbology, the Sycamore treerepresents the Borana elders; it cannot be cut andso creates a microenvironment that acilitates thegrowth o other plants (Bassi and ache, 2008).• A very particular way in which the protection ofterritories that are o important cultural value toindigenous groups benefit rom human presence isillustrated by Klubnikin et al . (2000). Te Altaianpeople o Siberia opposed a government-initiated

dam project that would destroy much o theirsacred and cultural landscape, undermine liveli-hoods and degrade natural resources. Especially inthe current global context where land conversionand natural resource extraction remain some othe most important drivers o ecosystem degrada-tion, communities’ will and ability to take politi-cal action are an important mechanism or natureconservation.

2.2.3. Social institutions

raditional knowledge about the use o plants,landscape management and ecological processesbecomes integral to organizational and institution-al structures that shape the interactions o peoplewith the landscape and regulate the use o resources(Bavikatte and Jonas, 2009; Olsson et al ., 2004). In-digenous institutions have always been important inacilitating collective action and co-ordinated naturalresource management (Ghimire and Pimbert, 1997;Dennis et al ., 2007). Norms, taboos, prohibitions toharvest and other regulations are social mechanismsthat, while not intentionally ‘conservationist’, do o-ten have the unction o natural resource and biodiversity conservation.

• Niamir-Fuller (1998) describes the social-institu-tional mechanisms that allowed pastoral groups inSahelian Arica to utilize environmental variabilitywithout adversely affecting ecosystem unctions.Teir management systems include herd reloca-tion based on the continuous monitoring o grass-lands and the setting aside o special no-grazingzones that are used in the case o emergency. Simi-larly, Mongolian nomads manage their grasslandsaccording to temporal and spatial variability inorage availability (Fernandez-Gimenez, 2000).

• In the ‘Borana Conserved Landscape’ in Ethio-pia, access to the diverse and extremely rich eco-logical zones and resources was traditionally regu-lated through customary norms, laws and belies.



15/185

14


the crop’s evolutionary flexibility and maintainsthe adaptive capacity o the local ood system.

Agricultural systems, in turn, crucially benefit romneighboring “wild” ecosystems and the biodiversitycontained within them. Pollinator diversity, pestcontrol, reduced soil erosion and genetic materialnecessary or the continuous improvement o croplandraces are among the most important ecosystemservices sustaining traditional agriculture.

• Wild relatives of cultivated crops have been usedas sources o resistance to diseases, insects, andnematodes, to widen adaptation, improve resis-tance to environmental stresses, and to increasecrop yield (Harlan, 1976). Crop landraces main-

tained in traditional arming systems occupy anintermediate spot between these wild relatives andelite varieties used in commercial agriculture. Yam(Dioscorea rotundata) takes an important place inWest Arican societies and is still actively domes-ticated rom wild populations in nearby bushes ororests visited or hunting (Mignouna and Dansi,2003; Vernier et al ., 2003). Tis process o intrava-rietal adaptive diversification contributes towardsthe long-term evolution o the species (Dumontand Vernier, 2000). A study in Benin and Nigeria,shows that 3–14 per cent o armers that were in-terviewed are domesticating or have recently do-mesticated yams and that the knowledge o wildyams is still alive even among armers who havenever domesticated yam (Vernier et al ., 2003). Tesame study showed that in regions where yam pro-duction is commercialized, the practice o domes-tication is decreasing.

Te variety o agricultural practices employed byindigenous and local communities is important inthe creation and maintenance o landscape mosaics.Fire and water management, erosion control, settle-ment, soil enrichment, etc., help create ecosystemniches with conditions avorable to the diversifica-tion o landscapes and the evolution o species.

• Guinea’s Kissidougou savannah forests were as-sumed relics o a more extensive orest, long sincedegraded by local people. Fairhead and Leach(2000) showed how, instead, agriculture practicedby the Kissi and Kuranko helped create these or-ests. By altering soil conditions, moderating wild-fires, and through their preerence or tall treesthey altered the balance o interacting actors andconditions that determine the ecological shif romsavannah to orest.

• Dierent sources suggest that pre-Hispanic occu-pation o Amazonian sites has affected the compo-sition and diversity o its ecosystem (Balée, 2000;

• Similar observations were made in Vattenriket,a wetland in Sweden protected under the RamsarConvention, where conservation measures thatpreclude human intererence had unintended con-sequences. Afer having been used or grazing orhundreds o years, the wetland became overgrownwhen livestock were removed rom the area. Tisled to the understanding that grazing is essen-tial or maintaining certain wetland systems andshowed the importance o the history o human-environment interactions to ecological unction-ing (Olsson et al ., 2004).

• In contrast to the indiscriminate use of re inland conversion or agricultural purposes, indig-enous fire management may have an importantecological unction. In the cerrado (savannas) oBrazil, the Krahô have or thousands o years usedfire as a way o managing a mosaic o burned andunburned patches in the landscape (Mistry et al .,2005). ogether with wildfires, this practice is animportant part o the ecology o the cerrado; itmaintains a balance between grasses and woody vegetation and assists in nutrient recycling andgermination. In Australia, Aboriginal fire manage-ment plays an important role in the maintenanceo biodiversity on the Arnhem Land plateau. Tebenefits o this management system are abundant

and diverse animal and plant oods, but also theulfillment o social and religious needs (Yibarbuket al ., 2001).

2.2.5. Agricultural practices, land management anduse

Many traditional management and agriculturalsystems serve the purpose o maintaining ecosystemunctioning and contribute to the conservation obiodiversity through a number o practices, includ-ing social mechanisms o exchange and the use omore varieties and species (Dennis et al ., 2007; Haj- jar et al ., 2008). For example, indigenous agroorest-ry systems such as tropical gardens host significantdiversity and have a complex design that increasestheir productivity and resilience (Gliessman, 2000).

• Traditional shade coee plantations adjacent toorest ecosystems can harbor a high diversity oplants, insects and birds. Roberts (2000) ound thatant swarms in such plantations in Panama attracta total o 126 bird species. Habitats associated withPhilippine rice terraces that have been under cul-tivation or thousands o years still harbor uniquespecies o plants (Nozawa et al ., 2008). Pusadee etal . (2009) show how the diversity and distributiono rice landraces used by the Karen people o Tai-land is explained by cultural practices and socialdynamics between communities. Tis enhances


16/185


17/185

16


able 1. Social-ecological indicators

Widespread use o knowledge1. Retention andacquisition oindigenous knowledge ransmission o knowledge across generations (Persistence oral traditions (songs and stories),existence o education system that teaches local knowledge)

Geographical diffusion o knowledge (exchange o knowledge between different communities)

Documentation o knowledge

Acquisition o knowledge: innovation and experimentation

Number o speakers2. Use o indigenous andlocal languages Existence o education in the indigenous and local languages

Existence o community media (e.g. radio) in indigenous and local languages

Percent o children learning the indigenous and local languages

Level o emigration rom traditional territories3. Demographics

Number o generations interacting with the landscape

Folklore associated with cultivated and wild plants and animals4. Cultural values

Cultural practices: ceremonies, dances, prayers, songs and other cultural traditions

Persistence and respect o sacred sites

Existence/continuation o traditional land tenure systems, indigenous governance, customarylaws and the degree to which they are applied to the management o resources

5. Integration o socialinstitutions

Acceptance o social institutions across generations.

Use o traditional exchange and reciprocity systems (e.g. seed exchange, etc)

Availability o sae, nutritious and culturally appropriate ood in sufficient quantity and quality.6. Food sovereignty andsel-sufficiency Te abundance and use o traditional oods, seeds and medicines in the local production

system.

Intensity o ertil izer, insecticide and/or herbicide use on agricultural land

Contribution o traditional subsistence activities to indigenous communities’ economy (as op-posed to out-migration or labor).

Multiple uses o a species (ood, material, soil nutrient enrichment, shade, etc.)7. Multiple uses o landand plants Diversity o cultivated crops and varieties: grains, ruits, legumes, vegetables, tubers.

Diversity o ood sources gathered rom the wild: roots, berries, mushrooms, fish, meat.

Number o traditional cultivars or species preerred or distinct uses.

Te use o traditional medicine.

Diverse agricultural systems: intercropping, agroorestry, silvo-pastoral integrated arming andcultivation systems.

Diversity o components in the landscape that are used and maintained by communities:orests, riparian orests, fishing grounds, pasturelands, home gardens, cultivated fields, orchards,allows.

8. Complexity andintensity o interactionswith the ecosystem

Rates o landscape degradation and land conversion.9. Conservation oresources Degree to which depletion o use o water, soils, orest, pastures is prevented

Monitoring o resource abundance and ecosystem changes.

Conservation o agricultural and wild biodiversity.

Mechanisms or the total or partial protection o species and habitats; harvest restrictions.

Access to indigenous lands, territories, natural resources, sacred sites and ceremonial areas.10. Degree o autonomy;indigenous rights Recognition o indigenous institutions by both external entities and community members.

Existence o legal rameworks or indigenous veto over the use o indigenous lands.

Levels o threat rom, e.g., illegal encroachment, privatization, government expropriation,orced resettlement

Practice o ree, prior and inormed consent in development activities.Recognition and respect o sacred sites by local communities, governments, and developmentindustries.


18/185

17

use them to monitor the impacts o conservationschemes on traditional livelihoods and lieways, or,once a ‘baseline’ has been established, the tool can beused at regular intervals to monitor social-ecologicaldynamics and define priorities or community andconservation action (see, e.g., Moreno et al ., 2006).o scientists involved in the management o protect-

ed areas, on the other hand, these indicators can helpelucidate whether and how communities, in theirday-to-day interaction with landscapes, contributeto the maintenance o biological diversity and eco-systems’ ability to respond to stresses and change.In contributing to the development o a commonlanguage between traditional and scientific commu-nities, the approach can deepen the understandingo human-environment interactions and how thesemay be harnessed in a conservation context.

Te graphical depiction o the indicators as a webin figure 2 renders the complex way in which they

are interrelated. Links can be directly or indirectlycausal, or may ollow cyclic patterns o positive eed-back. A loss o traditional knowledge, caused by theextinction o local languages that encode the co-evo-lution o rural communities and ecosystems (Nab-han, 2000) or the disappearance o oral traditionso knowledge transmission, can cause, among anynumber o changes, the disintegration o traditionalsocial-ecological systems, landscape degradationand loss o biodiversity, urther eroding traditionalknowledge in the process. As explained by Kassam(2009), retention o indigenous knowledge is depen-

dent on its use; it is not embedded in people’s minds,but in the environment with which they engage.

On the basis o the described mechanisms, a set oindicators was developed (table 1). Teir implemen-tation would permit the monitoring o the extent towhich these mechanisms are used and adjusted tochanging conditions and so offer an indication othe resilience o social-ecological systems. Yet ‘mea-suring’ social-ecological resilience is challenging,

particularly because in order to clariy eatures thatcontribute to it, institutional and organizational pro-cesses must be understood as careully as ecologicalones (Olsson et al ., 2004). Conventional indicatorso ecosystem health (species richness, nutrient andwater recycling, soil productivity, etc.) ail to captureits social dimensions and only rarely provide histori-cal depth. Tey overlook a system o traditional eco-logical knowledge which is practical, attuned to localecology and embodies a complex o (socio-cultural)interactions pertinent to ecosystem unctioning andresilience.

Te indicators presented here are intended to beused by scientists and communities as a tool to helpin the implementation and monitoring o commu-nity-based approaches to nature conservation. Teycan help us understand to what extent protected areadesignations such as ‘Biosphere Reserves’ and ‘Com-munity Conserved Areas’ empower or inhibit effortsto reverse the loss o biocultural diversity, and guideefforts at improving them.

Tese indicators are tentative and may be adaptedto and applied in different study areas; they can beused alongside classic indicators o ecological health.

Te way in which social-ecological indicators areemployed by communities and conservation scien-tists will be different. Indigenous communities may

Retention and acquisition of

indigenous knowledge

Use of indigenous and locallanguages

Demographics

Cultural values

Integration of social institutions

Food sovereignty and self-sufficiency

Multiple uses of land and plants

Complexity and intensity of

interactions with the ecosystem

Conservation of resources

Degree of autonomy; indigenousrights

High resilience

Low resilience

Figure 2. Using indicators to measure the resilience o social-ecological systems



19/185

18


the conservation community continue to adhereto static views o nature, any disturbance, whetherhuman-induced or not, will be treated as a threat.While ‘nature’ in such approaches lends itsel well tobeing ‘protected’ and ‘managed’, it is too easily putat odds with agriculture and other orms o land useand, by extension, with community-based conserva-tion schemes in which communities have real au-tonomy and responsibility in their interaction withlandscapes.

It is probably naive to expect a set o social-ecolog-ical indicators to reverse the marginalization o in-digenous and local communities in protected areas.Yet knowledge is power, and where the rameworkpresented above can help traditional communitiesand conservation scientists to collaboratively gener-ate knowledge about nature and its conservation, itbecomes a mechanism or empowerment.

Acknowledgements

Te authors thank J. Brown and L. Packer or theirsuggestions in improving this paper and J. Tomp-son or her editorial help.

Reerences

Adams, W.M., Aveling, R., Brockington, D., Dickson, B. et al .(2004), “Biodiversity conservation and the eradication o pov-erty”, Science, Vol. 306 No. 5699, pp. 1146-1149.

Adams, W.M. and Hutton, J. (2007), “People, parks and poverty:Political ecology and biodiversity conservation”, Conservationand Society, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 147-183.

Agrawal, A. and Redord, K. (2009), “Conservation and displace-ment: An overview”, Conservation and Society, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp.1-10.

Agrawal, A. and Gibson, C.C., (1999), “Enchantment and disen-chantment: Te role o community in natural resource conserva-tion”, World Development, Vol. 27 No. 4, pp. 629-649.

Altieri, M.A. (1999), “Te ecological role o biodiversity in agro-ecosystems”, Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, Vol. 74,pp. 19-31.

Amend, ., Brown, J., Kothari, A., Philips, A. and Stolton, S. (eds.)

(2008), Protected landscapes and agrobiodiversity values, Valueso protected landscapes and seascapes, IUCN and GZ, Gland.

Balée, W. (2000), “Qui a planté les décors de l’Amazonie ?”, La Re-cherche, Vol. 333, pp. 18-23.

Bartolomé, J., Franch, J., Plaixats, J. and Seligman, N.G. (2000),“Grazing alone is not enough to maintain landscape diversity inthe Montseny Biosphere Reserve”, Agriculture, Ecosystems andEnvironment, Vol. 77 No. 3, pp. 267-273.

Bassi, M. and ache, B. (2008), “Te Borana conserved landscape,Ethiopia”, In Amend, ., Brown, J., Kothari, A., Philips, A., andStolton, S. (eds.), Protected Landscapes and Agrobiodiversity Val-ues, Values o Protected Landscapes and Seascapes, IUCN andGZ, Gland, pp. 105-115.

Bavikatte, K. and Jonas, H. (2009), “A Bio-cultural critique o the

CBD and ABS”, In Bavikatte, K. and Jonas, H. (eds.), Bio-Culturalcommunity protocols: A community approach to ensuring theintegrity o environmental law and policy, UNEP, pp. 12-19, [on-line] Available rom: http://www.unep.org/communityprotocols/

Similarly, simplification in agricultural produc-tion systems ofen leads to an increasing reliance onexternal agricultural inputs (seeds, pesticides andertilizers) to compensate or the loss o ecosystemservices (Altieri, 1999). Tis reduces the need tomaintain ecosystem services in and around cultivated fields and can trigger a loss in biodiversity andassociated knowledge, undermine ood sovereignty,and cause groundwater pollution, soil depletion anderosion.

3. Conclusion

We have attempted to outline an approach to natureconservation that bridges the ‘natural’ and managedelements o landscapes. Protected and agricultural

areas represent the two main categories o land useby humans. Understanding how and where the twocan orm synergies is necessary both or uture con-servation efforts and or preventing the destructiono the unique knowledge, practices and culture thatcharacterize traditional systems o land manage-ment. Historical shifs in ecology and other scientificdisciplines towards a systemic view o the environ-ment, in which humans are seen as part o the eco-system, have prepared the ground or such a conservation approach (Berkes, 2004).

Tis paper has ocused on an important barrier pre-

venting the more widespread adoption o ‘human-centered’ conservation practices, namely the lack oa common ramework or understanding the impacto human practices on biodiversity and landscapeconservation. Te (mostly positive) examples thatwere used to illustrate the mechanisms underlyinghuman-environment interactions are not to suggestthat all indigenous people and local communitieseverywhere conserve biological diversity. Rural so-cieties are undergoing rapid change and increasingpressures to use new technologies and produce mar-ketable commodities have upset traditional patternso land management and use (Ghimire and Pimbert,1997). However, traditional communities in whichthe integrity and diversity o language, social institu-tions, cultural traditions and land use practices aremaintained very likely also contribute to the diver-sity and resilience o their surrounding ecosystems.Te indicators developed in this paper can be ap-plied to determine the degree to which this conclu-sion is borne out in any individual case.

It is at this point important to reemphasize that aundamental prerequisite to appreciating the contri-bution human communities make to conservationefforts is the notion o landscapes as dynamic, evolv-ing social-ecological systems in which core conservation values relate to resilience and not to speciesor ecosystems fixed in time. As long as elements in


20/185

19

PDF/communityprotocols.pd (Accessed 15 December 2009).

Berkes, F. (2004), “Rethinking community-based conservation”,Conservation Biology, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 630, 621.

Berkes, F., Colding, J. and Folke, C. (2000), “Rediscovery o tradi-tional ecological knwledge as adaptive management”, EcologicalApplications, Vol. 10 No. 5, pp. 1251-1262.

Boillat, S., Rist, S., Serrano, E., Ponce, D. and Delgadillo, J. (2008),“Struggling ‘ontological communities’: Te transormation oconservationists’ and peasants’ discourses in the unari NationalPark, Bolivia”, In Galvin, M. and Haller, . (eds.), People, protect-ed areas and global change: Participatory conservation in LatinAmerica, Arica, Asia and Europe, Perspectives o the Swiss Na-tional Centre o Competence in Research (NCCR) North-South,University o Bern, Geographica Bernensia, Bern, pp. 37-80.

Brockington, D. (2002), Fortress Conservation: Te preservationo the Mkomazi Game Reserve anzania, Indiana Univ. Pr., In-diana.

Brockington, D. and Igoe, J. (2006), “Eviction or conservation:A global overview”, Conservation and Society, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp.424-470.

Brosius, J. (2004), “Indigenous peoples and protected areas at theWorld Parks Congress”, Conservation Biology, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp.609-612.

Brosius, J. and Russel, D. (2003), “Conservation rom above: Ananthropological perspective on transboundary protected areasand ecoregional planning”, Journal o Sustainable Forestry, Vol.17 No. 1-2, pp. 39-66.

Brown, A.H. (1992), “Human impact on plant gene pools andsampling or their conservation”, Oikos, Vol. 63 No. 1, pp. 109–118.

Bush, M. and Silman, M.R. (2007), “Amazonian exploitation re- visited: ecological asymmetry and the policy pendulum”, Fron-tiers in Ecology and the Environment, Vol. 5 No. 9, pp. 457-465.

Chapin, M. (2004), “A challenge to conservationists”, WorldWatch, Vol. 17 No. 6, pp. 17-31.

Cincotta, R.P. and Engelman, R. (2000), Nature’s place: humanpopulation and the uture o biological diversity, Population Ac-tion International, Washington, DC, [online] Available rom:http://www.populationaction.org/Publications/Reports/Natures_Place/Natures_Place.pd (Accessed 11 December 2009).

Colchester, M. (2003), Salvaging nature: Indigenous peoples,protected areas and biodiversity conservation, World RainorestMovement, Montevideo.

Conservation International (CI) (2009) “Corporate partner -Conservation International”, [online] Available rom: http://www.conservation.org/discover/partnership/corporate/Pages/deault.aspx (Accessed 14 December 2009).

DeGeorges, P.A. and Reilly, B.K. (2009), “Te realities o com-munity based natural resource management and biodiversityconservation in Sub-Saharan Arica”, Sustainability, Vol. 1 No. 3,pp. 734-788.

Dennis, E., Ilyasov, J., van Dusen, E., reshkin, S. et al . (2007),“Local institutions and plant genetic conservation: Exchange oplant genetic resources in rural Uzbekistan and some theoreticalimplications”, World Development, Vol. 35 No. 9, pp. 1564-1578.

Diemont, S. and Martin, J. (2009), “Lacandon Maya ecosystemmanagement: sustainable design or subsistence and environ-mental restoration”, Ecological Applications, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp.254-266.

Dove, M.R. (1983), “Teories o swidden agriculture, and the po-litical economy o ignorance”, Agroorestry Systems, Vol. 1 No. 2,pp. 85-99.

Dowie, M. (2005), “Conservation reugees”, Orion, [online] Avail-able rom: http://www.orionmagazine.org/index.php/articles/ar-ticle/161/ (Accessed 12 May 2009).

Dumont, R. and Vernier, P. (2000), “Domestication o yams (Di-oscorea cayenensis-rotundata) within the Bariba ethnic group inBenin”, Outlook on Agriculture, Vol. 29, pp. 137-142.

Ellison, K. (2003), “Renting biodiversity: Te conservation con-cessions approach”, Conservation in Practice, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp.20-29.

Emerton, L. (2001), “Te nature o benefits and the benefits onature: Why wildlie conservation has not economically benefitedcommunities in Arica”, In Hulme, D. and Murphree, M. (eds.),Arican Wildlie and Livelihoods: Te Promise and Perormanceo Community Conservation, James Currey Publishers, London,pp. 208-226.

Escobar, A. (1999), “Afer nature: Steps to an antiessentialist po-litical ecology”, Current Anthropology, Vol. 40 No.1, pp. 1-30.

Fairhead, J. and Leach, M. (2000), “Webs o power: orest loss inGuinea”, Seminar in New Delhi, pp. 44-53.

Fernandez-Gimenez, M.E. (2000), “Te role o Mongolian no-madic pastoralists’ ecological knowledge in rangeland manage-ment”, Ecological Applications, Vol. 10 No. 5, pp. 1318-1326.

Foley, J.A., DeFries, R., Asner, G.P., Barord, C. et al . (2005),“Global consequences o land use”, Science, Vol. 309 No. 5734, pp.570-574.

Fowler, P.J. (2003), World heritage cultural landscapes, 1992-2002, UNESCO World Heritage Centre, Paris, [online] Availablerom: http://openlibrary.org/b/OL3363301M/World_heritage_cultural_landscapes_1992-2002 (Accessed 20 December 2009).

Gadgil, M., Seshagiri Rao, P. R., Utkarsh, G., Pramod, P. and

Chhatre, A. (2000), “New meanings or old knowledge: Te peo-ple’s biodiversity registers program”, Ecological Applications, Vol.10 No. 5, pp. 1307-1317.

Gallagher, R. and Carpenter, B. (1997) “Human-dominated eco-systems”, Science, Vol. 277 No. 5325, p. 485.

Ghimire, K. and Pimbert, M.P. (1997), Social change and conservation, Earthscan, London, UK.

Gilpin, M., Gall, G.A. and Woodruff, D.S. (1992), “Ecological dy-namics and agricultural landscapes”, Agriculture, Ecosystems andEnvironment, Vol. 42 No. 1-2, pp. 27-52.

Gliessman, S.R. (2000), Agroecology: ecological processes sus-tainable agriculture, Lewis Publishers, New York.

Green, R.E., Cornell, S.J., Scharlemann, J.P. and Balmord, A.

(2005), “Farming and the ate o wild nature”, Science, Vol. 307No. 5709, pp. 550-555.

Gunderson, L.H. and Holling, C.S. (2002), Panarchy: Under-standing transormations in human and natural systems, IslandPress, Washington D.C.

Hajjar, R., Jarvis, D.I. and Gemmill-Herren, B. (2008), “Te util-ity o crop genetic diversity in maintaining ecosystem services”,Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, Vol. 123 No. 4, pp.261-270.

Hansen, A.J., Neilson, R.P., Dale, V.H., Flather, C.H. et al . (2001)“Global change in orests: Responses o species, communities, andbiomes”, BioScience, Vol. 51 No. 9, p. 765.

Harlan, J.R. (1976), “Genetic resources in wild relatives o crops”,Crop Science, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 329-333.

Heckenberger, M.J, Russel, J.C., oney, J.R and Schmidt, M.J.(2007), “Te legacy o cultural landscapes in the Brazilian Ama-zon: implications or biodiversity”, Philosophical ransactions o



21/185


22/185

21

- Corporate giving”, [online] Available rom: http://www.nature.org/joinanddonate/corporatepartnerships/partnership/art19884.html (Accessed 14 December 2009).

Te World Wildlie Fund (WWF) (2009), “WWF - Partners -Corporate partnerships”, [online] Available rom: http://www.worldwildlie.org/what/partners/corporate/index.html (Accessed14 December 2009).

ilman, D., Fargione, J., Wolff, B., D’Antonio, C. et al . (2001),“Forecasting agriculturally driven global environmental change”,Science, Vol. 292 No. 5515, pp. 281-284.

urner, N., Ignace, M. and Ignace, R. (2000) “raditional ecologi-cal knowledge and wisdom o Aboriginal Peoples in BC.”, Ecologi-cal Applications, Vol. 10 No. 5, pp. 1287, 1275.

UNESCO SC (2008), Madrid Declaration on the UNESCO Manand the Biosphere (MAB) Programme and the World Networko Biosphere Reserves (WNBR), UNESCO, Madrid, [online]Available rom: http://portal.unesco.org/science/en/ev.php-

URL_ID=6362andURL_DO=DO_PRINPAGEandURL_SEC-ION=201.html (Accessed 19 December 2009).

Unruh, J.D. (1994), “Te role o land-use pattern and process inthe diffusion o valuable tree species”, Journal o Biogeography,Vol. 21 No.3, pp. 283-295.

Vavilov, N.I. [1939] (1979), Five continents, IPGRI, Rome, VIR,St. Petersburg.

Vernier, P., Orkwor, G.C. and Dossou, A.R. (2003), “Studies onyam domestication and armers practices in Benin and Nigeria”,Outlook on Agriculture, Vol. 32, pp. 35-41.

Vitousek, P.M., Mooney, H.A., Lubchenco, J. and Melillo, J.M.(1997), “Human domination o earth’s ecosystems”, Science, Vol.277 No. 5325, pp. 494-499.

Warren, D.M. and Pinkston, J. (1998), “Indigenous Arican re-source management o a tropical rain orest ecosystem: a casestudy o the Yoruba o Ara, Nigeria”, In Berkes, F. and Folke, C.

(eds.), Linking social and ecological systems: management prac-tices and social mechanisms or building resilience, CambridgeUniversity Press, Cambridge, UK, pp. 158-189.

Weinstock, J. (1983), “Rattan: Ecological balance in a Borneorainorest swidden”, Economic Botany, Vol. 37 No. 1, pp. 58-68.

Western, D. (2001), “Human-modified ecosystems and utureevolution”, Proceedings o the National Academy o Sciences, Vol.98 No. 10, pp. 5458-5465.

Winkler, D. (2000), “Patterns o orest distribution and the im-pact o fire and pastoralism in the orest region o the ibetanPlateau”, In Miehe, G. and Yili, Z. (eds.), Environmental change inHigh Asia, Marburger Geographische Schrifen, Vol. 135, pp. 201-227, [online] Available rom: http://www.danielwinkler.com/or-est_distribution___impact_o_fire_and_pastoralism_2000.htm.

Wu, J.G. and Loucks, O.L. (1995), “From balance o nature to hier-archical patch dynamics: A paradigm shif in ecology”, QuarterlyReview o Biology, Vol. 70 No. 4, pp. 439-466.

Yibarbuk, D., Whitehead, P. J., Russell-Smith, J., Jackson, D. et al .(2001), “Fire ecology and Aboriginal land management in Cen-tral Arnhem Land, Northern Australia: A tradition o ecosystemmanagement”, Journal o Biogeography, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 325-343.

Yimyam, N., Youpensuk, S., Wongmo, J., Kongpan, A. et al .(2008), “Arbuscular mycorrhizal ungi: An underground resourceor sustainable upland agriculture”, Biodiversity, Vol. 9 No. 1-2,pp. 61-63.

Zerner, C. (1994), “Trough a green lens: Te construction o cus-tomary environmental law and community in Indonesia’s Malukuislands”, Law and Society Review, Vol. 28 No. 5, pp. 1079-1122.

Zimmerer, K.S. (2000), “Te reworking o conservation geogra-phies: Nonequilibrium landscapes and nature-society hybrids”,Annals o the Association o American Geographers, Vol. 90 No.2, pp. 356-369.



23/185

22


Customary sustainable use of biodiversity by indigenous peoplesCase studies from Suriname, Guyana, Cameroon and Thailand

Centre pour l’Environnement et le Developpement (CED) and Association Okani (Cameroon);South Central Peoples Development Association (SCPDA) (Guyana);Organisation of Kaliña and Lokono in Marowijne (KLIM) (Suriname);Inter-Mountain People Education & Cultures in Thailand Association (IMPECT) ( Thailand) andForest Peoples Programme (United Kingdom)*

* For enquiries or comments about this article please email: [email protected]

1. Introduction

Te Satoyama Initiative is a timely effort to bringthe world’s attention to the act that “ protectingbiodiversity entails not only preserving pristine en-

vironments, such as wilderness, but also conservinghuman-influenced natural environments, such as armlands and secondary orest, that people have de-veloped and maintained sustainably over a long time”(http://satoyama-initiative.org/en/about). In act,ocusing on highlighting the positive interactionsbetween human societies and biodiversity and therich variety o landscapes derived rom this interac-tion during the evolution o humankind may well beone o the most rereshing actions proposed or theCBD’s post-2010 journey.

From the initial discussions about the Satoyama

Initiative there is no unified definition used to de-scribe such landscapes, but the term “socio-ecologi-cal production landscape” is proposed to reer to thetargeted areas o the initiative. “Tese are generallycharacterized by a wise use o biological resources inaccordance with traditional cultural practices that arecompatible with conservation and sustainable use”(http://satoyama-initiative.org/en/satoyama-like-landscapes/#more-110).

Although the initiative is new, it should be developed and implemented complementarily withexisting Articles and activities o the Convention,

especially with Article 10(c), which states that Par-ties shall: “(…) protect and encourage customary useo biological resources in accordance with traditionalcultural practices that are compatible with conserva-tion or sustainable use requirements” (http://www.cbd.int/convention/articles.shtml?a=cbd-10). Teauthors believe that the main content and nature othe Satoyama initiative and Article 10(c) are verysimilar as both aim to protect and encourage cus-tomary sustainable use that provides positive out-comes or biodiversity and human wellbeing.

In this paper indigenous peoples and support or-

ganisations rom Suriname, Guyana, Cameroon,and Tailand provide insight in the sophistication otheir local management systems, in particular their

customary law systems, which guide wise use o bio-logical resources. Tey also describe the threats thattheir customary management systems are acing.Tey end by providing recommendations to localand national governments about actions that should

be taken in order to improve support or these age-old sustainable management systems and to effec-tively implement Article 10(c). Te issues raised inthe paper by these “10(c) case studies” should enrichthe discussion on the development and implementa-tion o the Satoyama Initiative.

Tis paper is based on case studies that were pro-duced in each o these countries between 2004 and2008. In the same “10(c) series”, similar studies werecarried out in Bangladesh (with the traditional re-source users o the Sundarbans) and in Venezuela(with the Sanema and Yekwana peoples), but given

space constraints, only the case studies rom Suri-name, Guyana, Cameroon, and Tailand are specifi-cally explored in this contribution. All ull reportsare available online or urther reading (http://www.orestpeoples.org/documents/conservation/bases/10c.shtm). All case studies were produced bytrained community researchers and with involve-ment o as many community members as possible.Complementary to these reports, the communitieshave also produced participatory land and resourceuse maps combining traditional knowledge withGlobal Positioning System (GPS) and Geographic

Inormation Systems (GIS) technologies. Tesemaps illustrate the extent and scope o indigenousterritories and the significance and importance othe territories and resources or the livelihoods oindigenous and local communities. Te project hasalso employed a complementary approach betweentraditional knowledge and “modern” science andtechnology when trying to promote action or biodiversity conservation (such as training o communitypara-biologists in Venezuela).

2. Locations and communities

2.1 Suriname

Te Lower Marowijne region is located in north-eastern Suriname, which is part o the Amazon.


24/185

23

Te area is situated on the lower part and estuary othe Marowijne river, which flows into the Atlantic

Ocean, creating a very diverse and rich ecologicalenvironment with coastal mangrove orests, elevatedswampy orests (containing high species diversity opalms), and elevated dry land orests urther landinwards. Te area is home to eight indigenous (Am-erindian) communities belonging to the Lokono andKaliña peoples; approximately 2000 people in total.Te case study, entitled Marauny Na’na Emandobo/ Lokono Shikwabana (“Marowijne: Our erritory” inthe Kaliña and Lokono languages respectively), wasproduced by the KLIM, the organisation o Lokonoand Kaliña in Marowijne, which has united the tra-

ditional leaders o all eight communities since 2003.2.2 Cameroon

Te first case study in Cameroon was prepared bya Cameroon non-governmental organization, theCentre or Environment and Development (CED),and the Baka people near Mekas, located on thewestern side o the Dja Biosphere Reserve. Te or-est peoples in Cameroon, pejoratively reerred to as“Pygmies”, are considered to be the first inhabitantso the Cameroon orest, and are divided into threemain ethnic groups: the Baka, the Bakola/Bagyeliand the Bedzang. Te Baka are the largest group.

Teir common eature is their attachment to the or-est. Te Baka communities o Canton Dja are notrecognised as distinct socio-administrative entities.Rather, they are dependent on the Bantu villages towhich they are culturally and socially attached. Sincethe research with the Baka o Canton Dja, more“pygmy” communities in southeast Cameroon (in-cluding Ba’aka, Baaka and Baka peoples) have docu-mented their customary sustainable resource use intheir territories that overlap the Boumba-Bek andNki National Parks, which were established more re-cently (in 2005). Teir experiences are also included

in this paper.

2.3 Guyana

In Guyana the case study ocused on the Wapichan

indigenous peoples o south-west Guyana. Teir ter-ritory in the south Rupununi region eatures a com-plex mosaic o savannahs and orests, which encom-passes two major ecosystems: a savannah-grasslandecosystem that orms part o the Rio Branco – Rupu-nuni savannah; and an extensive tropical orest eco-system with a variety o vegetation types. Te climatein the region in marked by a seasonal drought (Sep-tember – January) and a pronounced rainy seasonwhich creates extensive flooding o low-lying savan-nah areas (April - July). Te indigenous populationin the South Rupununi numbers around 8395.

2.4 Tailand Te study area in Tailand is situated in the high-

lands o the western part o Chomtong district,Chiang Mai province, in northern Tailand. It islocated in the Tanon Tongchai Mountain rangeand is covered with tropical orest very rich in bio-diversity. Seven main highland indigenous groupslive in Northern Tailand, among whom th

sustainable use of biological diversity in

Documents