Please note - this is a temporary window. id21 is joining forces with Eldis and therefore the id21 website has been suspended. Soon all id21 content will be available on the Eldis website.

Tearing down fences – who benefits from biodiversity conservation?

How can conservation be combined with development? Conservation used to mean putting up fences and introducing fines. Today, a more positive approach has been adopted, which includes generating income in ways that do not threaten biodiversity. How successful has this approach been?

Research by the Overseas Development Institute (ODI) in central Africa indicates that in areas with little tourism alternative income-generating strategies have not been very effective. Existing livelihoods strategies need to continue and develop in ways that make use of information about local wildlife as well as the social and economic conditions of individual communities.

International pressure to preserve threatened biodiversity sometimes conflicts with local people’s livelihood systems, which usually rely on converting natural habitats to agriculture. It is easy for outsiders to see people as part of the problem rather than the solution, and to underestimate their positive contribution. Although development agencies have tried to respect the importance of local human needs, they have often failed to design programmes that take them into account. The tension between conservation as preservation of the existing biological capital, and conservation as sustainable exploitation, remains largely unresolved.

In its research the study found that:

Most of the Central African protected areas currently exist in name only and, with few exceptions, the resident populations receive little benefit from their existence.
Tourism may be overrated as a way of contributing to protected area management costs, especially in areas with chronic problems of social instability and/or national insecurity.
Participatory conservation projects are problematic in areas where the population is low and there is no evident crisis in the local economy.
New income generation schemes aiming to replace people's livelihoods often result in them refusing to become involved or being actively hostile.
Existing design and management skills are not suitable for combining conservation with participatory development.
Alternative uses of natural resources sometimes affect the activities of other traditional resource users, such as hunter-gatherers. There is no necessary connection between the sustainable harvest of a particular forest product and the sustainable management of the forest as an ecosystem.

In its conclusion the report suggested that:

Caution should be exercised in the selection of conservation sites - particularly where national governments lack the ability or will to implement existing legislation or to change the law.
Strategies to enhance people’s livelihood require institutional structures that are flexible and responsive to local needs.
Tourism can be promoted as a non-consumptive use of natural resources only in particular places where there is a realistic chance of it developing.
Providing compensation for conservation may prove impractical due to the long-term costs of protected area management and support for local communities.
Care must be taken to ensure that project funding reaches the local people for whom it is intended; holding funds offshore is likely to be the safest long-term solution.
Private and public sector interests may actively oppose policies favouring local suppliers.

Source(s):
Participatory Biodiversity Conservation – rethinking the strategy in the low tourist potential areas of tropical Africa, ODI Natural Resource Perspective #33 by D. Brown (1998)

Funded by: DFID, World Bank, CIRAD

id21 Research Highlight: 30 January 2001

Further Information:
David Brown
Overseas Development Institute
111 Westminster Bridge Road
London SE1 7JD
UK

Tel: +44 (0)207 922 0300
Fax: +44 (0)207 922 0399
Contact the contributor: d.brown@odi.org.uk

Overseas Development Institute, UK

Views expressed on these pages are not necessarily those of DfID, IDS, id21 or other contributing institutions. Articles featured on the id21 site may be copied or quoted without restriction provided id21 and originating author(s) and institution(s) are acknowledged. Copyright © 2009 IDS. All rights reserved.

id21 is funded by the UK Department for International Development. id21 is one of a family of knowledge services at the Institute of Development Studies at the University of Sussex. id21 is a www.oneworld.net partner and an affiliate of www.mediachannel.org. IDS is a charitable company, No. 877338.