Reconciling economic development with biodiversity conservation is a key element in achieving sustainable development, particularly in rural areas of developing countries experiencing chronic poverty.Community-based conservation projects have become popular in recentyears with non-government organisations (NGOs) and donors but what have they learned from them? Have they translated principles of biodiversity conservation and sustainable development into worthwhile action? Can lessons from local projects improve the effectiveness of large-scale programmes funded by international agencies? A paper published by the Overseas Development Institute in the Rural Development Forestry Network series, suggests new ways to make more of such approaches.

Attempts to prove the feasibility of community-based projects have made little progress. Although the Global Environment Facility (GEF)committed US$300 million to biodiversity conservation projects in over 50 countries in the period 1991-1994, most NGO projects are small-scale and receive little financial support or political backing. Coping with external policy and legal constraints and other site-specific issues leaves few resources for evaluation and the generation of models that can be scaled-up for general use. There is also a lack of appreciation of what local participation really involves in practice. Communities within biologically diverse ecosystems often receive few economic benefits from conservation schemes. Instead local people often bear most of the costs, especially in the short term.

The cooperation of local communities is often proposed as a pillar of successful biodiversity conservation. In economic terms it usually means replacement of foregone livelihoods. But political and ethical issues of access to natural resources also have to be resolved. Some national governments see these debates as a threat to their authority, or do not recognise the length of time needed to achieve true local consensus and cooperation. A further reason for the gap between expectations and results of local biodiversity conservation initiatives is that basic yet often faulty assumptions that lie behind their design remain unchallenged. They are that:

• biodiversity conservation is in practice compatible withsustainable development, local support will stem from improved living standards, and local incomes can be boosted without depleting biodiversity
• a project-based approach is effective against powerful external forces perpetuating environmental ills
• NGOs can effectively implement biodiversity conservation projects without outside help and advice.

Learning from experience has been limited because projects have not been designed or resourced in ways that enable effective research and analysis to take place. The author suggests that what needs to be done most is to:

• develop and systematically test new approaches and methodologies which re-examine assumptions, emphasise local involvement, and make use of applied research and adaptive learning
• set up small experimental conservation projects that draw on a wider range of human and organisational resources, and employ fresh techniques drawn from both ecological and social sciences
• seek to influence the biodiversity conservation investments of large international programmes (especially the GEF) by nurturingpromising local initiatives, encouraging their replication or scaling-up to a point where they can influence official programmes.

Source(s):
`Biodiversity Conservation and Local People's Development Aspirations:new piorities for the 1990s`. By M.P. Wells Rural Development Forestry Network #18a (Winter 1994/Spring 1995), ODI, London.

Funded by: ODA (now DFID), 1994

id21 Research Highlight: 1998-September-15

Further Information:
Michael P. Wells
Tunnelveien 3
3400 Lier
Norway

Contact the contributor: wells@online.no

ODI, Rural Development Forestry Network