Conservation in a Crowded World : Case studies from the Asia-Pacific [1 ed.] 9781742246215, 9781742233451

Citation preview

CONSERVATION in a CROWDED WORLD



UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 1

14/11/12 9:14 AM

John Merson is the Executive Director of the Blue Mountains World Heritage Institute, and Associate Professor in Environmental Studies at the University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia.

Rosie Cooney is Chair, UCN CEESP/SCC Sustainable Use and Livelihoods Specialist Group, (SULi), and Visiting Fellow at the Institute of Environmental Studies, University of New South Wales, and the Fenner School of Environment and Society, Australian National University.

Paul Brown is Associate Professor in Environmental Humanities, University of New South Wales.

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 2

14/11/12 9:14 AM

CONSERVATION in a CROWDED WORLD Case studies from the Asia–Pacific

Edited by John Merson, Rosie Cooney and Paul Brown

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 3

14/11/12 9:14 AM

A UNSW Press book Published by NewSouth Publishing University of New South Wales Press Ltd University of New South Wales Sydney NSW 2052 AUSTRALIA newsouthpublishing.com © University of New South Wales Press Ltd 2012 First published 2012 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 This book is copyright. While copyright of the work as a whole is vested in the University of New South Wales Press Ltd, copyright of individual chapters is retained by the chapter authors. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study, research, criticism or review, as permitted under the Copyright Act, no part of this book may be reproduced by any process without written permission. Inquiries should be addressed to the publisher. National Library of Australia Cataloguing-in-Publication entry Title: Conservation in a crowded world: Case studies from the Asia–Pacific/ edited by John Merson, Rosie Cooney, Paul Brown. ISBN: 9781742233451(pbk) 9781742241371(epub) 9781742243849(mobi) 9781742246215(epdf) Subjects: Nature conservation – Asia. Nature conservation – Pacific Area. Land use – Asia. Land use – Pacific Area. Conservation of natural resources – Asia. Conservation of natural resources – Pacific Area. Other Authors/Contributors: Merson, John. Cooney, Rosie. Brown, Paul. Dewey Number: 333.7095 Design Stan Lamond Cover design Josephine Pajor-Markus Cover image Shutterstock Printer Griffin Press This book is printed on paper using fibre supplied from plantation or sustainably managed forests.

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 4

14/11/12 9:14 AM

Contents Acknowledgments Foreword

viii

Jon Hutton

1

Introduction: environmental conservation and sustainable use John Merson, Rosie Cooney and Paul Brown

1 Wildlife, Communities and Protected Areas 11 Introduction John Merson, Rosie Cooney and Paul Brown 1

16

Community-based conservation and livelihood strategies for the protection of the snow leopard (Panthera uncia) and its habitat in Ladakh, India Vandana Mohindra and Rinchen Wangchuk

3

12

Landscape-based conservation and sustainable resource use in the developing world: a case study from Sri Lanka Sanjay Kalpage, John Merson and Daniel Robinson

2

2

34

Evaluation of integrated conservation and development programs (ICDPs) in the protected areas of Bhutan Karma Tshering, Johannes Bauer and Terry Delacy

55

4

Prospects for ecotourism in Kerala: a review of the Thenmala project KM Sajad Ibrahim 77

5

Protected areas and conservation landscapes: the case of Ba Be National Park, Vietnam Robert Nurick and Michael Dine

6

95

Indigenous land use and conservation in the Anangu lands of central Australia George R Wilson and Jennifer Smits

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 5

117

14/11/12 9:14 AM

2 Sustaining Natural Resource Systems Introduction John Merson, Rosie Cooney and Paul Brown

143 144

7

The uncertainties and inequalities of groundwater use in Bangladesh Crelis Rammelt 147

8

Grain for Green conservation program and farmers’ livelihood development in the Loess Plateau, China Li Wang, John Merson, Sandy Booth, Yonggong Liu and Xiaoyan Wang 167

9

Revegetation, bioenergy and sustainable use in the New South Wales central west Alex Baumber, John Merson, Mark Diesendorf and Peter Ampt

186

10 Towards community-based resource management: the development and mobilisation of fisheries resource indicators at Koh Sarai, Thailand Jawanit Kittitornkool, Kongkiat Kittiwattawong and Naiyana Srichai

205

3 Conservation and Commercial Use 231 Introduction John Merson, Rosie Cooney and Paul Brown 232 11 Applying the principles of conservation through sustainable use to the commercial kangaroo harvest in New South Wales, Australia Peter Ampt and Alex Baumber

235

12 Cats or quolls: can keeping Australian native mammals as pets be a useful conservation strategy? Rosalie Chapple, Rosie Cooney, Stephen Jackson and Sarah Doornbos

256

13 Potential gains and challenges from biodiscovery access and benefit-sharing: lessons from case studies and national systems Daniel Robinson 277

14 The exploitation of non-timber forest products and the plight of tribes in Kerala forests in India G Gopa Kumar

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 6

299

14/11/12 9:14 AM

Conclusions John Merson, Rosie Cooney and Paul Brown Notes and references Index

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 7

316

324

365

14/11/12 9:14 AM

Acknowledgments The publication of this book has been possible through the generous support of a number of individuals and institutions. In particular we’d like to thank the Institute of Environmental Studies, the Faculty of Science and the International Office at the University of New South Wales; the Faculty of Technology and Environment at Prince of Songkla University in Thailand and Marina Resort in Phuket for hosting the workshop in 2010 which brought together the contributors to this book; also the University of Kerala in India for their support and enthusiastic engagement with the project. Invaluable administrative and editorial assistance was also provided by Sarah Terkes, Jane Young and Anne Savage, along with Jane McCredie and the editorial team at UNSW Press.

viii



UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 8

14/11/12 9:14 AM

Foreword Under any realistic scenario, this century will see dramatic escalation of the tensions between expanding human use of environmental resources and their conservation. We have some well-tried and tested tools in the conservation toolbox – protected areas being (rightly) among them. But conserving biodiversity and natural resources in ‘used’ landscapes – within which people live, work and find their livelihood – is an ongoing and increasingly critical global priority. If we are to avoid a catastrophe throughout the world’s rural areas where both biodiversity and people are clinging to existence, then an accommodation between conservation and development is neither a choice, nor an optional conservation strategy, but a pragmatic necessity. It will only be achieved with creative and flexible thinking and a keen attunement to the nuances of social and cultural context. This collection of case studies from the Asia–Pacific highlights an array of regional experiences, offers a wealth of insights into meeting this enormous challenge, and will, perhaps, provide some evidence and comfort that conservation and development can indeed be reconciled. Jon Hutton Director, United Nations Environment Programme

1

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 1

14/11/12 9:14 AM

Introduction: Environmental conservation and sustainable use John Merson, Rosie Cooney and Paul Brown, University of New South Wales

This book explores the broad and multifaceted challenges of conservation and sustainable use of environmental resources in a world of over seven billion people. In both rural and urban landscapes, communities and environmental systems face extreme pressure at a wide range of temporal and spatial scales, under conditions of population growth, climate change, escalating trade and consumption, and rapid urbanisation. Traditional conservation approaches have focused on separating people from nature, most visibly through a long tradition of establishing formal protected areas that exclude people. However, the most pressing challenge for the future lies in reconciling environmental ‘conservation’ with the sustainable use by people of natural resources, wildlife and ecosystems. Maintaining biological diversity and ecosystem services within landscapes – in many cases landscapes in which people live and use natural resources – raises difficult questions: What, exactly, is to be conserved? Is use compatible with conservation, and under what circumstances? Are trade-offs between conservation and development necessary? And how might we pursue and find the elusive win-win solutions? Protected areas

Over the last century there has been a remarkable global growth in the number of formal protected areas, and these now constitute a profoundly

2

C o n s e rv a t io n in a C ro w d e d W o r l d

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 2

14/11/12 9:14 AM

important repository of the earth’s biodiversity. They function as a patchwork of biodiverse islands in landscapes shaped by an increasingly homogenous pattern of agricultural and industrial production. From 1900 to 1950 around 6000 were created worldwide; by 1960 there were almost 12 000; and currently in the early twenty-first century there are almost 160 000 listed in the UNEP-World Database of Protected Areas (WDPA 2012). This is a remarkable growth in the effort to protect the globe’s vulnerable biodiversity, with 36 out of 191 countries having between 10–20 per cent of their land managed as protected areas, and another 24 countries with over 20 per cent. In around a third of all listed protected areas in the late 1990s, local human use of the resources within their boundaries was prohibited (Pretty 2002). In the majority of protected areas, some access for local people to use resources has been allowed. Formal protected areas have certainly had success in conserving biodiversity. For instance, a 2001 study of 93 national parks in 22 tropical countries showed that, despite 70 per cent having populations living within them, all fared much better than their surrounding areas in maintaining forest cover (Bruner et al. 2001). Community-based conservation

Creating formal, state-run protected areas is not the only successful conservation strategy. The UNEP-World Database of Protected Areas (WDPA) is only a record of those areas created by governments, and hence does not include diverse forms of community-based conservation. Estimates suggest that around 11 per cent of the world’s forests are under community management or administration (Molner et al. 2004). Forests under community-based conservation in Africa, Asia and the Americas cover 3.7 million km2 and are at least as extensive as state forest protected areas (West & Brockington 2006). The Indigenous and Community Conserved Areas global database lists many locally conserved areas (Cenesta 2009), and stricter state protection is not necessarily better. For example, Porter-Bolland et al. (2011) found that

I n t ro d u c t io n : E n v iro n me n t a l c o n se rva ti on a n d su sta i n a bl e u se

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 3

3

14/11/12 9:14 AM

formally-protected areas have higher deforestation rates than community-managed areas, highlighting the importance of greater rule-making autonomy by local communities for both conservation and livelihoods. In the face of population growth, climate change and globalised trade and investment, community-based efforts to protect areas of highvalue biodiversity require unprecedented levels of political commitment and material support by community members, governments, funding organisations and NGOs to maintain a balance between the extremes of over-protection and over-use. This requires intensive social negotiations to bring together the interests of a diverse range of stakeholders in establishing a workable relationship between humans and natural systems, and determining what constitutes sustainable use of wildlife and ecosystems. Sustainable use

The concepts of sustainability and sustainable use remain ambiguous and controversial, with a wide range of meanings used in diverse contexts (Cooney 2007). The understanding of what ‘sustainable’ means shifts between a tight focus on conservation of particular wildlife species to the opposite extreme – a broad ecosystem approach taking account of social, economic, political and cultural context. The meaning also shifts between biocentric positions that emphasise the intrinsic value of species and biologically diverse ecosystems, to anthropocentric positions privileging the value of biodiversity for servicing human needs. There are further matters of terminology, in particular questions about what is being used. For example, is it ‘wild species’ or ‘wild resources’ or ‘natural resources’, and at what scale does sustainable use operate– from a grain of soil to the entire biosphere (Cooney 2007, pp. 12–35). Context and purpose are also essential to the meaning of sustainable use. To allow and develop the use of species and landscapes can be a matter of rights (for example, the rights of indigenous/traditional peoples); or an imperative for those who rely on use for subsistence; or an optional economic/cultural land use. When use is demonstrated

4

C o n s e rv a t io n in a C ro w d e d W o r l d

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 4

14/11/12 9:14 AM

to be sustainable, it can be consistent with conservation objectives. Indeed, sustainable use can also be understood in some circumstances as a positive tool for conservation – where the benefits from use motivate communities, private interests, governments, scientists and others to invest in monitoring, management and enforced protection of resources and retention and restoration of habitat (Webb 2002; Hutton & LeaderWilliams 2003). The complications of achieving sustainability may be summarised in the following way: Given that sustainability must be understood as a process rather than a state, that not only the target resource but broader ecosystem impacts need to be taken into account, that sustainability may need to incorporate socio-economic factors in some way, that sustainable use may be of anything from a single species to an entire landscape, that uses may be multiple and of different types, that direct measurements of populations can be unfeasible and proxies may have to be used, and that a very large array of factors have been identified as influencing likely sustainability, it is not surprising that developing ways to detect whether use should be considered unsustainable or sustainable is challenging (Cooney 2007, p. 40).

Landscape and people

Premising conservation on human habitation in landscapes and sustainable use of resources is by no means straightforward. Such an approach challenges long-standing conservationist understandings, and it reconfigures mainstream western conceptions of the human–nature relationship. As van Oudenhoven et al. (2010, p. 9) note: Mainstream conservation practice, with a number of notable exceptions, has failed to internalize the notion that human and natural systems have often coevolved and that the former may not necessarily be incompatible with conservation goals. The old view that nature functions best without the interference of

I n t ro d u c t io n : E n v iro n me n t a l c o n se rva ti on a n d su sta i n a bl e u se

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 5

5

14/11/12 9:14 AM

humans remains ingrained in the consciousness of ‘Big Conservation’ and this continues to have profound consequences for the way in which conservation is practiced … This approach to nature conservation has resulted in a conservation discourse that is ahistorical (it misrepresents humans’ role in the evolution of natural systems) and depoliticised (it ignores communities’ rights to their territories and livelihood resources).

To cite one relevant example of the importance of human involvement, Pretty (2002, p. 66) explains the role of nomadic pastoralists in the savannah ecosystem in East Africa. When the Maasai and their cattle were removed from protected areas there was a significant re-growth of scrub and woodlands, impacting downwards on the numbers of antelope and other grazing animals once abundant in these areas. Such an example begs the questions of what is a natural environment and where the boundary lies between landscapes that are degraded by overuse and those that are sustained by appropriate or customary use. International efforts: the Convention on Biodiversity

The challenges and complexities of sustainable use have been central to international debate within the United Nations’ Convention on Biodiversity (CBD). One of the Convention’s core objectives is sustainable use of biodiversity, and approaches to achieving this objective have been further articulated in the Addis Ababa Principles and Guidelines (AAPG) for the Sustainable Use of Biodiversity (CBD 2004). CBD Parties are exhorted ‘to integrate the Guidelines in the development or review of policies, programs, national legislation and other regulations, sectoral and crosssectoral plans and programs addressing issues of biological diversity’ (CBD 2004, p. 2). Arguably, making progress on sustainable use of biodiversity is also central to achieving the CBD’s Aichi targets (CBD 2010), the agreed framework for global action to stem biodiversity loss established in 2010 at the Convention’s Conference of the Parties (COP 10) in Nagoya, Japan. Some of the key concepts reflected in the AAPG for operationalising sustainable use include the empowerment of local users of biodiversity

6

C o n s e rv a t io n in a C ro w d e d W o r l d

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 6

14/11/12 9:14 AM

to be accountable and responsible for that use (AAPG Principle 2); the need for an interdisciplinary approach that takes social, cultural, political and economic factors into consideration in achieving use, involving local/indigenous people and other stakeholders including the private sector (AAPG Principle 9); and the importance of reflecting the needs and contributions of indigenous/local communities, who live with and are affected by the use and conservation of biological diversity, in the equitable distribution of the benefits from the use of those resources. The CBD’s recent Satoyama Initiative squarely addresses the conservation value of managed, human-shaped landscapes in which people live and find their livelihood (CBD 2010). This initiative, aimed at benefiting biodiversity and human well-being, proposes a landscapeoriented and community-based approach to biodiversity conservation that recognises the value of secondary, human-modified landscapes for conservation and the potential for rural communities to live in a sustainable balance between use and conservation. There is a great need to understand how principles, such as those enunciated in international instruments, are being applied – if they are – and their impact in practice. This volume provides some ‘groundtruthing’ to assist this. For example, many of the case studies presented here fit well within the conceptual framework of the Satoyama Initiative, with conservation pursued as part of a dynamic harmony between human activity and its ecological support system. Our case studies and key questions

Originating in a sequence of international research workshops in 2009–10, this book assembles diverse case studies from the Asia–Pacific region, to explore how communities have responded to the challenges of conservation and sustainable use.1 The chapters cover approaches to rural land use in forest and farming areas – with conservation of biodiversity through sustainable use as a key objective. They deal with threats to sustainability along the edges of World Heritage areas, including threats from increased incidence of

I n t ro d u c t io n : E n v iro n me n t a l c o n se rva ti on a n d su sta i n a bl e u se

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 7

7

14/11/12 9:14 AM

drought under climate change scenarios. They cover issues of wildlife protection in circumstances where the managed use of certain species as a resource may bring about sustainability of a whole ecosystem, as well as providing local benefits. And they consider conservation of biodiversity and its interaction with local livelihoods in ‘wild’ places that might be protected through sustainable ecotourism. The case studies in this collection have been drawn from Australia, China, Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Sri Lanka, Thailand and Vietnam. When the contributors met in July 2010 in Phuket to delineate concepts and case studies, much discussion centred on a viable framework for analysing what appeared to be a sprawling field of research and practice. From this came the three-part structure of the book, which is organised around three broad questions: • How can we harmonise the relationships between wildlife and communities in and around protected areas? • How can we sustain the natural resource systems used and relied on by communities? • Can the relationship between commercial use of species and ecosystems be compatible with and contribute to their conservation? These questions find their foci and responses in different landscapes. We consider the first question in relation to formal protected areas – those nuclei of biodiversity; the second takes us outwards to encompass human managed social-ecological landscapes; and we relate the third question to landscapes and societies at the broadest scale, to encompass even activities within urban homes. Place and context

An important element of concern for all contributors has been the matter of context – that is, the different political, cultural and economic contexts represented in this volume. This concern is not unusual, and is indeed common among researchers looking at community adaptation to changing environmental and economic circumstances. For example,

8

C o n s e rv a t io n in a C ro w d e d W o r l d

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 8

14/11/12 9:14 AM

in reviewing much of the theoretical research into adaptation to climate change, Brunner and Lynch (2010, p. 193) observed that: [Because] context matters, extensive research cannot provide a dependable understanding for reducing vulnerabilities in all local communities, even if it is billed as globally comprehensive. Too much of importance is left out.

In other words, local culture, values and politics matter as much as ecological and scientific knowledge in advancing conservation and social outcomes. The ‘political ecology’ operating at the local level largely shapes how different communities will respond to environmental change. This means that policymakers at a national and international level need to recognise that ‘context matters’ and that environmental governance needs to be flexible and adaptive to local and regional circumstances. However, as the preparations for this book confirmed, when governments enact protected area legislation, often the template has been drawn from protected areas in those developed countries that have extensive lightly populated ‘wilderness’ areas, such as the United States, Australia, Canada and Russia. This may not be appropriate for densely populated and developing regions where the bulk of the globe’s biodiversity is to be found, such as in Asia, Africa and South America. In many of these regions, human use of natural resources, from forest to marine, has been an integral characteristic of wider ecosystems. In Europe also there are few ‘wilderness’ areas or even large complex ecosystems that have not been shaped by human use, and remnant biodiversity is part of a wider landscape that includes agricultural or urban environmental systems. The case studies in this volume reinforce the importance of placebased and community-level deliberative processes and solutions, and they indicate the diversity of management responses needed from both governments and communities. The case studies explore a wide range of conceptual and definitional issues, while highlighting the value of new

I n t ro d u c t io n : E n v iro n me n t a l c o n se rva ti on a n d su sta i n a bl e u se

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 9

9

14/11/12 9:14 AM

context-dependent practical approaches. They do this without proposing any one model for conservation and sustainable use, though they do represent a pool of experience and ideas of international relevance. We have aimed to show specific communities’ efforts to reconcile what are frequently seen as inevitable trade-offs between conservation and economic/social development. It is our hope that the book will provide some further insight into how potentially competing goals can be reconciled through localised adaptive processes. There is rarely, if ever, a one-size-fits-all solution, and generally there is a need for fewer overarching regulatory or management assumptions on the part of government agencies, and more attention given to local values, knowledge and context.

10

C o n s e rv a t io n in a C ro w d e d W o r l d

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 10

14/11/12 9:14 AM

1 Wildlife, communities and protected areas

11

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 11

14/11/12 9:14 AM

Introduction This section of the book examines the conceptual challenges, conflicts, practical problems and lessons evident from the twentieth-century experience in using protected areas legislation to effect conservation. The complexity of the relationship between people, places and wildlife is a key dimension of the six case studies in this section. Many problems arise from ill-considered attempts to delineate artificial boundaries between human activity and wildlife domains, and solutions lie in adaptive measures which re-integrate these, recognising that people and landscapes are inextricably linked. The need to take a broad landscape perspective is a common theme across the case studies, with recognition that, despite all good intentions, a formal Protected Area may not achieve the full range of conservation objectives. This problem can be identified in the south of Sri Lanka, where the lack of an appropriate landscape-scale approach to land management has led to major problems for both wildlife and people. Kalpage et al. (Chapter 1) use the case of wild elephant management in Sri Lanka’s south to show how the practice of managing elephant habitat in an administratively fragmented way exacerbates human–elephant conflict. The majority of elephant populations are found outside protected areas, but this is also where economic development and traditional agriculture are taking place. However, traditional shifting or seasonal farmers of the region use key areas of habitat only in the wet season to grow cash crops, whereas in the dry season the areas are not used for farming and are the preferred habitat of elephants. Recognising and enabling this dual land use could provide a win-win for both elephants and traditional communities. The case provides an example of management involving multiple land uses, addressing the socio-economic interests of traditional communities and the habitat needs of wildlife, while maintaining an effective buffer zone for vulnerable high-value conservation areas. Complexities of managing the human and wildlife interface are also found in the case of the snow leopards in the Ladakh region of north-

12

W ild lif e , c o mmu n it ie s a n d p ro t ecte d a re a s

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 12

14/11/12 9:14 AM

ern India, as Wangchuk and Mohindra explain in Chapter 2. Over the past few decades the snow leopard population of the high Himalayan plateau has been in decline due to conflict with human population in the region. Grazing competition in the grassland between native blue sheep (bharal) and goats, and domestic herds, has led to a decline in the native species that are prey for the leopards. As a consequence, the leopards have been forced to feed on domestic sheep and cattle, and are thus being hunted and killed by the local villagers. A project was started in the 1990s to reverse this trend, beginning with the building of covered pens to protect the domestic herds at night and the establishment of a compensation fund for the loss of stock. These funds were made available on condition that villagers would not kill the leopards, and over the past two decades the shooting of leopards has largely ceased and their numbers have stabilised. A program of ecotourism has also been established, associated with the snow leopard program, bringing additional economic development to the region. Strategies such as this which address the local drivers of decline, through recognising and addressing community needs and priorities, are critical for achieving conservation of high-end predators such as the snow leopard while supporting the livelihoods of local village communities. The issues raised in the first two chapters arise from efforts to conserve iconic species, but they are also relevant for the conservation of whole ecosystems and landscapes. In Bhutan, a large proportion of the country is designated as protected areas, and in most of these areas communities of farmers and herders live within park boundaries. This arrangement is based on an assumed compatibility between conservation goals and the needs of local populations. However, this does not resolve political conflicts over economic development and changing uses of these natural resources, as Karma Tshering et al. discuss in Chapter 3. Many efforts have been made to reconcile economic development with conservation in these areas, under the rubric of integrated conservation and development projects (ICDPs). This chapter examines the efficacy of such ICDP activities for biodiversity conservation, finding that many

W ild lif e , c o mmu n i ti e s a n d prote cte d a re a s

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 13

13

14/11/12 9:14 AM

of these interventions are unlikely to be having any positive impact on conservation, and highlights the importance and potential of ecotourism as a strategy for reconciling these imperatives. Sajad Ibrahim in Chapter 4 assesses the Kerala government’s efforts to establish a model form of sustainable tourism through the Thenmala Ecotourism Project, based around the Shenduruney Wildlife Sanctuary in India. The goal of this project was to involve the community in three types of tourism: eco-friendly tourism, ecotourism ‘proper’ and pilgrimage tourism. However, the pressures arising from increased visitation, the level of visitor dissatisfaction with information and infrastructure, and the low level of local benefits suggest that to date Thenmala fails to qualify as ecotourism. Some of the reasons for this include the lack of involvement of the local community, failures of governance, and the lack of a common understanding of sustainability and responsible tourism inside government and between stakeholders. The challenges of reconciling changing land uses, conflicting community values and biodiversity conservation have often been overlooked in relation to the management of protected areas and their buffer zones, as Nurick and Dine (Chapter 5) discuss in relation to the Ba Be Lake area of northern Vietnam. Over the past couple of decades, population growth through migration into the region has put pressure on natural resources. This has led to an understandable focus on conservation policies based on strict exclusion from parts of the protected area. However, Nurick and Dine’s study shows that the creation of exclusion zones prohibiting local communities’ access to traditional forest resources, alongside interventions to support agricultural intensification, has had complex conservation and livelihood impacts, including illegal use in exclusion zones and over-exploitation of water and land in the surrounding buffer zones. Exclusionary interventions have ignored the feedback mechanisms by which the unsustainable use of land and water within the buffer zone impacts on the protected area. The area is experiencing ongoing deforestation, landslides, ongoing siltation of the lake, and declining fish populations and water quality due to a high nutrient

14

W ild lif e , c o mmu n it ie s a n d p ro t ecte d a re a s

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 14

14/11/12 9:14 AM

run-off from agricultural fertiliser and irrigation. The authors call for the implementation of strategies that genuinely seek ‘double sustainability’, in which a poverty-reduction agenda is fully integrated with biodiversity conservation goals. The final chapter in this section focuses on an example of community empowerment and conservation through supporting rights and capacity of indigenous people to manage land and resources. Wilson and Smits (Chapter 6) have worked with the Aboriginal traditional owners of Angas Downs station in Central Australia, who have established an Indigenous protected area on their property. The Anangu, the traditional owners, are making use of western science in conjunction with Indigenous traditional knowledge to control feral animals, restore and reintroduce native ecosystems and species, monitor landscape health and generate income for the community. Land management here draws on and enables communities to strengthen cultural linkages to land and wildlife. John Merson, Rosie Cooney and Paul Brown

W ild lif e , c o mmu n i ti e s a n d prote cte d a re a s

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 15

15

14/11/12 9:14 AM

1 Landscape-based conservation and sustainable resource use in the developing world: a case study from Sri Lanka Sanjay Kalpage, John Merson and Daniel Robinson, University of New South Wales

Introduction Protected areas (PAs) – such as nature reserves and national parks – have been a cornerstone of biodiversity conservation since the late nineteenth century (Bengtsson et al. 2003; Dudley et al. 2005). Unfortunately, several studies have revealed significant gaps in their coverage – for example, Rodrigues et al. (2004) demonstrate that endemic species are under-represented, while Schmitt et al. (2009) show that the coverage of tropical forests is especially poor. Moreover, Margules and Pressey (2000, p. 243) describe how issues such as deforestation in

16

W ild lif e , c o mmu n it ie s a n d p ro t ecte d a re a s

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 16

14/11/12 9:14 AM

areas surrounding PAs and the spread of invasive species into reserves erode the ability of PAs ‘to promote the long term survival of the biodiversity they contain’. Critics have also raised potential problems with two fundamental concepts that underlie the ‘traditional’ approach to conservation that led to the creation of most of the world’s PAs: (1) the idea of nature as static and (2) the view that people are separate from nature (Fisher 2008, pp. 18–19). The idea that nature exists at or near a static equilibrium condition translated into the view that in order to conserve nature it must be maintained in (or returned to) an unchanging ‘pristine’ condition (Gunderson & Holling 2002; Bengtsson et al. 2003). This view minimised the importance of the interaction of these wilderness areas with the overall landscape surrounding them, and as a result landscape management in general, and conservation in particular, have been historically approached from the scientific tradition of reductionist thinking whereby each landscape component was considered in isolation (Maginnis et al. 2004). Reductionism is a way of understanding complex things (for example, objects, phenomena, theories) by breaking them up into a set of small, easy-to-understand elements. This approach has been applied widely to land-use planning, where land is discretely and rigidly compartmentalised according to its functionality or use. Consequently, wildlife has been corralled into PAs chosen for a number of reasons: sometimes on the basis of biological importance, but often because the land was of no interest to anyone with power or influence (Maginnis et al. 2004, p. 322). This approach has resulted in many PAs becoming ‘islands in an intensively managed landscape’ where many of the land-use practices may negatively impact biodiversity within the PAs (Siegfried et al. 1998; Bengtsson et al. 2003, p. 389). For example, pesticides used in agriculture in surrounding areas may enter reserves through natural processes such as the water cycle, or invasive species can spread into a PA from adjacent areas (Harvey et al. 2008; Chazdon et al. 2009).

La n d s c a p e - b a s e d c o n s e rv a t io n a n d su sta i n a bl e re sou rce u se

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 17

17

14/11/12 9:14 AM

Supporters of the traditional approach to conservation have typically assumed that humans need to be excluded from PAs because they have a negative influence on the landscape. This has sometimes led to the physical displacement of local people and restriction of their customary access to resources (Borrini-Feyerabend et al. 2004; Agarwal & Redford 2009; Dowie 2009). This raises issues of equity, since as Adams et al. (2004, p. 1146) point out, ‘the eviction of former occupiers or right holders in land and resources, can cause the exacerbation of poverty as well as the contravention of legal or human rights’. Moreover, the marginalisation of local communities may be shortsighted from a conservation perspective. In India, Nagendra et al. (2006) describe how the denial of traditional access to forest products to villagers living near a tiger reserve led to increased poaching and the extraction of timber within the park. This chapter proposes a ‘landscape-based’ approach to address these deficiencies of the traditional approach to conservation, and explores its practical application to elephant conservation in south-eastern Sri Lanka. A possible mechanism to share forested land between elephants and farmers is discussed, and the potential impacts of this approach on key stakeholder groups are outlined. The aim is to ensure that local communities and government policymakers obtain tangible benefits from the conservation of both forested land and elephants. Such incentives to conserve these resources are in accordance with the principles of ‘sustainable use’ of biodiversity, an approach endorsed by leading conservation organisations such as the IUCN.1 Finally, the potential for wider application of this approach within Sri Lanka and in other developing countries is discussed.

An alternative approach: landscape-based conservation Given the above deficiencies of the traditional approach to conservation and its underlying assumptions, several conservationists have proposed

18

W ild lif e , c o mmu n it ie s a n d p ro t ecte d a re a s

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 18

14/11/12 9:14 AM

a more holistic approach that addresses conservation at the scale of the whole landscape (Sanderson et al. 2002; Velázquez et al. 2009). Sanderson et al. (2002, p. 41) characterise a landscape-based approach as follows: Parks and reserves can effectively protect some elements of biodiversity and contribute to the conservation of nature, but often, strict protection is not possible over sufficient areas. As a result virtually all PAs are embedded in a landscape in which natural resource exploitation of multiple types occurs. Effective biodiversity conservation must therefore integrate use and protection across the landscape. For landscape scale conservation to be socially as well as ecologically sustainable, these strategies must succeed in a mosaic of different land uses that not only conserves biodiversity, but also allows people to make a living.

In this context, it is important to define the term ‘landscape’, since it is often interpreted differently by different people (Phillips and IUCN World Commission on Protected Areas 2002). We will use the definition of landscape proposed by Sayer et al. (2007, p. 2679): ‘a geographical construct that includes not only the biophysical components of an area but also social, political, psychological and other components of that system’. The landscape approach appreciates the inability of the current PA network alone to protect a significant portion of global biodiversity, and attempts to address several key deficiencies of the traditional approach to conservation. In particular, instead of operating from the premises that nature is static, and rigidly compartmentalising types of land use, it considers the relationships among land uses across the entire landscape. It adopts a systems-based approach that acknowledges that nature is dynamic. Instead of viewing people as apart from nature and necessarily detrimental to it, it explicitly considers the interactions between people and nature within the landscape and looks for possibilities of sustainable use of natural resources.

La n d s c a p e - b a s e d c o n s e rv a t io n a n d su sta i n a bl e re sou rce u se

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 19

19

14/11/12 9:14 AM

Applying the landscape approach: conservation of the Asian elephant in Sri Lanka Although several international conservation organisations, including the World Wildlife Fund, the Wildlife Conservation Society and the IUCN, are increasingly adopting landscape-based approaches, this concept is still being fine-tuned (Didier et al. 2009; Morrison et al. 2009). There is an imperative to explore its application in practical situations to better understand its complexities and the potential pitfalls in its implementation. With this in mind, a landscape approach is now applied to elephant conservation in Sri Lanka. In order to keep the analysis manageable, it is focused on a specific landscape where rapid development is requiring policymakers to make difficult decisions regarding land use. Overview of Sri Lanka’s biodiversity and conservation landscape

Sri Lanka is an island located at the tip of southern India. Despite its relatively small size (65 610 km2) the country has a wealth of biodiversity, and has been designated as one of the world’s 34 biodiversity hotspots (Mittermeier et al. 2004). It has high levels of endemism but, unfortunately, much of Sri Lanka’s biodiversity is under threat – with the main drivers of biodiversity loss being habitat degradation, overexploitation of species, spread of invasive alien species and pollution (IUCN Sri Lanka 2007). The key agency responsible for managing Sri Lanka’s biodiversity is the Department of Wildlife Conservation, which manages a network of national parks and sanctuaries covering about 14 per cent of the country’s land area. In addition, the Forest Department manages forest reserves comprising about 23 per cent of the country’s land area. Despite the significant amount of land devoted to conservation, much of Sri Lanka’s biodiversity lies outside these areas (Jayasooriya et al. 2006). A key example is the Asian elephant (see Plate 1), which ranges exten-

20

W ild lif e , c o mmu n it ie s a n d p ro t ecte d a re a s

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 20

14/11/12 9:14 AM

sively outside the PA network (Groom et al. 2006). It is therefore important that conservation efforts are not limited to this network, but target the entire landscape. The Asian elephant in Sri Lanka

The Asian elephant (Elephas maximus) is Sri Lanka’s flagship species (IUCN Sri Lanka 2007). Throughout recorded history – that is, as far back as the sixth century BC – the elephant has played a special role in Sri Lanka’s culture, religion and folklore. Elephant conservation is also important from an ecological perspective, as the Asian elephant is listed as Endangered in the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species (IUCN 2009). Sri Lanka’s approximately 4800 elephants comprise about 10 per cent of the estimated global population of 40 000–50 000 animals (IUCN 2009). They are distributed throughout the country’s dry zone, with significant concentrations in the south-east, north-east and northwest (de Silva & de Silva 2007). Sri Lanka has two main zones based on rainfall. The wet zone is located in the south-west corner of the country, while most of the rest is considered the dry zone (with an intermediate zone sometimes being defined between them). Although Sri Lanka’s PA network is important for elephant conservation, a significant proportion of the animals live outside reserves, and even elephants found within the PA network range outside them, especially in the dry season (Santiapillai et al. 2010, p. 21). The main threat to Sri Lanka’s elephants is a reduction of their habitat resulting from a combination of deforestation, expansion of agriculture and human population growth, which in turn has resulted in an escalating human–elephant conflict (Santiapillai et al. 2006). (Since only about 7 per cent of male elephants in Sri Lanka have tusks, poaching is a not a significant issue: Fernando et al. 2005). Around 75 people and over 200 elephants die each year in the conflict that arises when elephants, faced with dwindling habitats, raid crops (Santiapillai et al. 2010; Yatawara 2010).

La n d s c a p e - b a s e d c o n s e rv a t io n a n d su sta i n a bl e re sou rce u se

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 21

21

14/11/12 9:14 AM

The Sri Lankan government dedicates much effort and many resources toward resolving this conflict (Bhattacharjya 2010). The 2006 National Policy for the Conservation and Management of Wild Elephants states that the conflict is ‘the most serious problem facing elephant conservation in Sri Lanka’ and ‘it is leading in just one direction; to the eventual destruction and elimination of elephants from non-conservation areas, and to the loss of crops, property and human lives’ (Government of Sri Lanka 2006, section 2). It has been estimated that the Department of Wildlife spends more than 50 per cent of its time and budget on mitigating the conflict, a percentage which is unlikely to reduce in the near future (Yatawara 2011). Policymakers are also recognising the tremendous potential of nature tourism based around charismatic species such as elephants and leopards as the country recovers from the 26-year-long civil conflict which ended in 2009 (Miththapala 2010). Given the ecological and conservation benefits of elephants, their importance from a cultural perspective, and the growing human– elephant conflict, it is important that Sri Lanka quickly develops a coherent policy for elephant conservation within the broader landscape. The feasibility of applying such a landscape-scale approach within the country’s south-eastern region is now explored.

Sri Lanka’s south-east region Overview

Sri Lanka’s south-east region comprises the districts of Hambantota, Ampara and Monaragala, covering an area of 12 226 km2, equivalent to 19 per cent of the country’s land area (Department of Census & Statistics 2011). It is relatively sparsely populated – containing only 8 per cent of Sri Lanka’s population – and has been under-developed historically, as evident from data on literacy rates and the percentage of poor households, compared with the national averages (Department of Census & Statistics 2011).

22

W ild lif e , c o mmu n it ie s a n d p ro t ecte d a re a s

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 22

14/11/12 9:14 AM

Land use

The south-east contains prime agricultural areas especially suitable for rice production. A large proportion of people are dependent on farming, and the three districts produce about 27 per cent of the country’s paddy harvest although comprising only 19 per cent of the country’s land area (Department of Census & Statistics 2011, Tables 5.2, 5.4). On forested land, farmers practise shifting agriculture or chena, a land-use method dating back centuries (World Bank 2009).2 This form of agriculture is currently the main form of land use in elephant habitat which lies outside PAs but is contiguous to parks, most of which falls under the jurisdiction of the Forest Department (Campos-Arceiz et al. 2009). In traditional chena, a patch of forest, usually about a hectare, is cleared, burned and cultivated annually during the rainy season only, for about three or four years (see Plate 2). Because no artificial fertilisers are used, the soil condition in the patch deteriorates in time and is abandoned (Fernando et al. 2006). Farmers return to formerly cultivated patches only after about 20 years, by which time they are reforested. Typical crops include maize, sorghum, green gram, soy bean, chilli, tomato, onion, watermelon and banana (de Silva & de Silva 2007). Present-day chena cultivation is slightly different from the traditional practice, as the increasing scarcity of forest land means that farmers cultivate more or less permanent plots (de Silva & de Silva 2007). However, they still do so only during the rainy season, leaving the land fallow during the dry season that comprises 5–6 months of the year. They usually clear away only bushes, leaving taller trees intact, and their use of fertiliser is generally less than in other forms of agriculture (Geiser 1995). Chena farmers are among the poorest groups of people in Sri Lanka’s south-east (de Silva & de Silva 2007). As government forest land is utilised for chena cultivation, the practice is technically illegal, but social norms and customs dictate recognition of pre-existing family rights (World Bank 2009). Given the region’s relative under-development, a number of stateled large-scale development projects have been established there over

La n d s c a p e - b a s e d c o n s e rv a t io n a n d su sta i n a bl e re sou rce u se

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 23

23

14/11/12 9:14 AM

the last few years. These include a new international port, a new international airport, rural electrification schemes, a road rehabilitation program and multipurpose irrigation schemes. These activities have acquired a sense of urgency given that the leaders of the ruling political party, who are from the Hambantota district, want to cater to their political constituents.3 National parks and elephant habitat

The south-east contains several national parks and a considerable area under forest cover. The Department of Wildlife Conservation manages an area of over 400 000 hectares, including seven national parks and eight sanctuaries. The largest and most significant is the country’s oldest and best-known PA – Ruhunu National Park (Uragoda 1994). About 45 per cent of Sri Lanka’s total elephant population of about 4800 is found in the south-east (de Silva & de Silva 2007). The Forest Department manages many areas outside PAs that contain important elephant habitat (Jayasooriya et al. 2006). Human–elephant conflict in south-east Sri Lanka

There has been escalating human–elephant conflict in the south-east in recent years (Santiapillai et al. 2010). Campos-Arceiz et al. (2009) conducted a detailed study of the conflict and recorded 975 incidents in the region from June 2004 to May 2005.4 Crop damage was the most commonly recorded type of incident, being present in 92 per cent of cases. House damage accounted for 11 per cent of the incidents5, as elephants attacked houses to consume stored foods such as paddy rice, and 22 attacks on humans were recorded, comprising 3 per cent of the incidents (Campos-Arceiz et al. 2009). Most crop raiding was done at night, by male elephants. Based on this and similar results from other studies in India, the authors believe that male elephants who are solitary, or move around in groups of two to three, are more willing to engage in this type of risky behaviour compared to females who are generally found in herds containing calves.6 However they do point out that

24

W ild lif e , c o mmu n it ie s a n d p ro t ecte d a re a s

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 24

14/11/12 9:14 AM

herds may start raiding crops in highly fragmented landscapes where resources are extremely limited (Campos-Arceiz et al. 2009). Elephant impacts on people in the south-east are both serious and likely to increase significantly. Currently, the south-east suffers a relatively small proportion of Sri Lanka’s human–elephant conflict, accounting for roughly 20 per cent of recorded human deaths and injuries despite containing about 45 per cent of the elephant population (de Silva & de Silva 2007). Unfortunately, the conflict is expected to grow drastically with the spread of irrigated agriculture and reduction of elephant habitat, as has been the case in the north-east and north-west of the country7 (de Silva & de Silva 2007). Mitigation measures

Since crop raiding generally takes place at night, farmers keep watch from dusk till dawn (see Plate 3). When elephants arrive, the people attempt to drive them away by shouting, wielding firebrands and lighting fire-crackers (Perera 2009). Although this strategy tended to prevent large-scale crop damage in the past, the elephants have now become habituated to such measures and are more desperate since food is less abundant elsewhere, especially in the dry season. As marauding elephants destroy their crops and put their livelihoods at risk, farmers retaliate, often using cruel means – for example, using poison concealed in palatable fruits such as pineapples to kill the elephants (Santiapillai et al. 2010). The government’s approach – consisting of translocating problem animals, conducting elephant drives to move animals into PAs, and using electric fences to confine elephants to parks – has largely been ineffective (Santiapillai et al. 2010). Translocation has failed due to difficulties in identifying problem animals since crop-raiding generally takes place at night, combined with the high cost of translocating an elephant, and the tendency of translocated elephants to return to their former ranges (Fernando et al. 2008). Elephant drives have stressed the animals, making them even more aggressive towards humans, and often

La n d s c a p e - b a s e d c o n s e rv a t io n a n d su sta i n a bl e re sou rce u se

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 25

25

14/11/12 9:14 AM

fail to remove the real trouble-makers, the adult males that are responsible for most of the conflict, and have proved prohibitively costly (Rodrigo 2011).8 Although the use of electric fences has been effective in some areas, flaws in their design, structure and maintenance often allow elephants to breach them (Fernando et al. 2008). Perhaps even more crucial is their location, as several fences erected on the boundaries of national parks have elephants on both sides due to the animals’ wide-ranging behaviour, and hence do not prevent those outside the fence raiding crops (Fernando et al. 2008). Furthermore, since electric fences are also established in an ad hoc manner in elephant habitat outside national parks, their access to food and water sources in these areas has become restricted9 (Fernando et al. 2005; Gunaratne & Premarathne 2006). The root cause of the failure of these government interventions can be seen as their reliance on a traditional approach to conservation, based on a static view of nature, and the idea that people are separate from nature. First, land-use planning and management in Sri Lanka is compartmentalised and lacks cohesiveness and a systems-based approach. Land is divided into various rigid and discrete categories which fail to recognise the underlying ecological reality – such as ‘urban land’, ‘paddy land’, ‘forest land’ and ‘national parks’. These are managed by different departments and/or ministries who typically do not consult each other when developing land-use policies (Dalal-Clayton & Dent 2001). Elephant conservation and mitigation of human–elephant conflict are viewed as the sole responsibility of the Department of Wildlife Conservation, whose jurisdiction is limited to the country’s PA system (Jayasooriya et al. 2006). However, since an estimated 70 per cent of elephant habitat lies outside the PA network, this means the Department of Wildlife only has jurisdiction over 30 per cent of the entire range of elephants in the country (Santiapillai et al. 2010). Second, as pointed out by Santiapillai et al. (2006, p. 95), ‘conservation measures to date have mainly depended on legislative protection of the species and reservation of habitat – essentially keeping people and

26

W ild lif e , c o mmu n it ie s a n d p ro t ecte d a re a s

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 26

14/11/12 9:14 AM

elephants apart’, in accordance with the traditional view that people are separate from nature. The current approach does not adequately take into the account the fact that elephants, even those generally living in PAs, range outside these areas, and that the costs are incurred by people who live within elephant habitat outside PAs. Although the government has launched some compensation schemes to address the damage elephants cause, to date these unfortunately have not been successfully implemented.

The landscape approach in practice: impacts and implications Given the deficiencies of the current approach to elephant conservation in south-eastern Sri Lanka, a more holistic, landscape-based approach may be more effective. This section outlines a new strategy which involved the sharing of resources among the stakeholders, and draws on recent research on elephant behaviour. Key stakeholder groups and their requirements

A key question that needs to be addressed in trying to mitigate the human–elephant conflict is how resources can be used to meet the needs of the three main stakeholder groups: elephants, government policymakers and farmers. Each of the groups currently faces difficulties in meeting their specific requirements. Chena farmers are currently the most affected local community, although with the spread of irrigation agriculture into elephant habitats other farmers are beginning to be affected as well (Campos-Arceiz et al. 2009). The main need of this group is land to cultivate chenas during the rainy season. The main difficulty they face is the threat to their crops and themselves from elephants. Also, although for the time being the government turns a blind eye to their illegal use of state land, they would presumably like to have more secure rights to the land they cultivate. The main need of the elephants is habitat with adequate food and water resources; their main issues are dwindling habitat and conflict with humans, where they are inevitably the losers.

La n d s c a p e - b a s e d c o n s e rv a t io n a n d su sta i n a bl e re sou rce u se

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 27

27

14/11/12 9:14 AM

Policymakers responsible for the management of land that contains elephant habitat would like these areas to generate economic revenue, especially given the increasing need of land for agriculture and infrastructure development. The human–elephant conflict has become a politically sensitive issue for the government as it tries to balance the complaints of villagers who live with elephants against the needs of local and international conservationists and people in the rest of the country, many of whom demand the protection of this national icon (Bandara & Tisdell 2004). Sharing resources among key stakeholder groups

A group of Sri Lankan elephant experts has proposed a method to share resources between elephants and farmers based on over ten years of field research on elephant ranging patterns using radio telemetry, which has yielded three main insights (Fernando et al. 2005). Elephants range extensively outside reserves

Sri Lankan elephants range extensively outside national parks and reserves, some of them having home ranges that are entirely outside the PA network (Fernando et al. 2005; Santiapillai et al. 2006). Since they use their habitat fairly intensively – generally making maximum use of available food and water resources – such habitat must be conserved both within and outside the reserves. This implies that the current practice of translocating animals into parks is likely be extremely harmful, since these PAs are probably already close to their carrying capacities (Fernando et al. 2008). Elephant ranges are small, but elephants show high fidelity to these ranges

The observed home range sizes were 34–232 km2 (Fernando et al. 2008). In comparison, home ranges 3–5 times larger have been recorded in similar studies conducted in southern India. Elephants show high fidelity to their home ranges, possibly because this enables them to be familiar with the distribution and fluctuations in resource availability in

28

W ild lif e , c o mmu n it ie s a n d p ro t ecte d a re a s

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 28

14/11/12 9:14 AM

these areas (Fernando et al. 2008). As familiarity with their home ranges may be an important fitness trait for elephants, translocation may be detrimental to their survival. Elephants extensively utilise lands under chena cultivation, especially in the dry season

Contrary to popular belief, chena cultivation is not harmful to elephants since, as it is currently practised, cultivation is limited to the rainy season and abandoned patches are allowed to regenerate during the dry season. The resulting landscape matrix of vegetation patches in various stages of succession provides optimal elephant habitat. Elephants largely use chena land during the dry season, when the fields are fallow. During the wet season, when the fields are cultivated, they are able to find food elsewhere, within the reserve network and in forested land outside the PA system. Hence there is the opportunity to use this traditional landuse method to maintain suitable elephant habitat. Landscape-based land-use planning

In order to implement a landscape-based approach, it is proposed that three zones of land use are delineated across the landscape: ‘human habitat’ from which elephants are excluded, such as towns, urban areas and irrigated/permanent agriculture; ‘managed elephant ranges’ (MERs) on land in elephant habitat outside reserves, where elephants coexist with chena farmers; and PAs which conform to the current network of national parks and sanctuaries. MERs and PAs would be contiguous, while electric fences would be constructed on the ecological boundaries between human habitat and MERs (Groom et al. 2006). Temporary electric fences would be constructed around chenas within MERs in the wet season when they are under cultivation; these would be taken down once crops are harvested to allow elephants access to the regenerating scrub forest in the plots. This is different from the current approach of building permanent electric fences in a largely haphazard manner, restricting access to food and water resources, especially in habitat which lies outside PAs (Fernando et al. 2006).10

La n d s c a p e - b a s e d c o n s e rv a t io n a n d su sta i n a bl e re sou rce u se

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 29

29

14/11/12 9:14 AM

The approach would drastically reduce the need for translocation and elephant drives, although problem animals that stray into areas designated as human habitat would have to be moved back into MERs. Furthermore, the human–elephant conflict would be reduced, because elephants would have better access to resources in areas outside PAs, especially in the dry season.11 Perhaps even more importantly, an escalation of the conflict would be averted. As pointed out previously, while current levels of conflict are relatively low in the south-east, this is expected to increase drastically if more elephant habitat is taken over by development activities and permanent irrigated agriculture. Impacts on stakeholders Elephants

The approach would help elephants since some of their key habitat will be preserved within MERs. Furthermore, they would have unhindered access to key food resources in the dry season, when fodder is scarce elsewhere, since most of the electric fences within their habitat would be taken down or disabled during that period. Government policymakers

The proposed approach is likely to reduce the human–elephant conflict, a key issue faced by government policymakers. However, steps must be taken to make the proposed MERs economically viable to help convince policymakers to designate land for this purpose, as there are many competing demands for land. One possible activity is to encourage nature-based tourism within MERs, centred around elephant viewing. This could include high-end camping safaris as well as small-scale eco-friendly lodges in these areas, from which the government could derive user fees and tax revenues. There are numerous examples that indicate that tourism based on large charismatic species can be a profitable form of land use (Walpole & Leader-Williams 2002; Bothma et al. 2009; Johnson et al. 2009). There is also the possibility of obtaining carbon credits for avoided deforestation through a REDD-type scheme (UN-REDD Programme

30

W ild lif e , c o mmu n it ie s a n d p ro t ecte d a re a s

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 30

14/11/12 9:14 AM

2009).12 It is important to keep in mind, however, that since the international process for awarding carbon credits for avoided deforestation (that is, this type of case) is still being worked out, these credits cannot be claimed immediately. However, voluntary markets for carbon credits are up and running and there have been some REDD-type examples from Indonesia and South America (Walsh 2008; Marshall 2009; Banyan 2011). Government policymakers should be concerned to safeguard the various environmental services – such as watershed protection and mitigation of soil erosion and nutrient loss from soil – provided by MERs (World Bank 2009). The benefits from these services are likely to be highly significant, given the findings of several studies that have attempted to quantify ecosystem services in various parts of Sri Lanka, including the south-east (Emerton & Kekulandala 2003; Emerton 2005; Wattage & Mardle 2008). Farmers

It is important that the local people who coexist with elephants, such as chena farmers and villagers who live within or adjacent to MERs, benefit economically from the presence of these animals, or at the very least do not suffer losses. Thus comprehensive compensation and insurance schemes should be introduced, because although the human–elephant conflict will be reduced, inevitably there will still be some crop raiding by solitary bulls. Policy reform, and possibly legal reform, is required to make chena cultivation a legitimate land-management regime. This will have to be accompanied by policies regulating chena cultivation in the relevant forest areas, which should be developed in consultation with stakeholders such as farmers, local communities and conservationists. A more stable land tenure system would be provided for chena farmers on condition that they refrain from environmentally harmful practices such as the excessive use of chemical fertilisers. This is in line with some co-management approaches advocated by conservationists in which

La n d s c a p e - b a s e d c o n s e rv a t io n a n d su sta i n a bl e re sou rce u se

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 31

31

14/11/12 9:14 AM

communities are granted tenurial rights in exchange for their commitment to observe certain rules and restrictions in the exercise of those rights (Barber et al. 2004, p. 115). In addition, some of the tourism benefits from the MERs should be shared with locals. There are several potential mechanisms for doing this. One way is to encourage tourism operators within MERs to contribute to local development. For example, a private camp near South Africa’s Addo Elephant National Park has specifically allocated a percentage of its turnover to support a local community trust fund (Castley et al. 2009, p. 316). Another possibility is establishing a government-administered levy, incorporated into the legal framework governing MERs. A potential model is the imposition by India’s Ministry of Environment and Forests of a ‘conservation levy’ on all privately-run tourist facilities within 5 kilometres of the boundary of a PA to fund park management, conservation and local livelihood development (Government of India 2011, p. 6).

Conclusions This case study illustrates some of the issues resulting from a traditional reductionist approach to conservation that perceives nature as static and views people as apart from nature. Sri Lanka’s current approach to elephant conservation – which focuses on trying to restrict elephants to the country’s PA system without adequately taking into account their ranging behaviour within the overall ecosystem – has been largely ineffective. The use of a landscape-based approach informed by a detailed understanding of elephant behaviour has been suggested as an alternative strategy for elephant conservation in south-eastern Sri Lanka, where MERs are created in elephant habitat outside, but contiguous to, the current PA network. In the MERs, farmers who cultivate patches of land using a traditional chena system in the wet season could share these resources with elephants in the dry season, when the land is left fallow. This type of land use could provide economic benefits

32

W ild lif e , c o mmu n it ie s a n d p ro t ecte d a re a s

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 32

14/11/12 9:14 AM

to the government authorities that have jurisdiction over the land, through initiatives such as elephant-based nature tourism and obtaining carbon credits for avoided deforestation. Furthermore, the land set aside as MERs would provide habitat for many other species apart from elephants and help achieve a much better level of biodiversity conservation compared with other less environmentally-friendly landuses such as irrigated agriculture. This approach could be extended to develop a set of MERs covering the entire island. If better resource sharing can be achieved in the north-east and north-west, where the human–elephant conflict is more intense than in the south-east, there will be tremendous benefits for farmers, the government and, of course, the elephants. While differences in land use and sociological factors must be taken into account, the solution ultimately lies in promoting better resource sharing among farmers and elephants and ensuring that local communities receive some of the benefits associated with elephants, such as proceeds from nature tourism. This approach can also be adapted to alleviate the human–elephant conflict in nearby countries. As Fernando et al. (2005, p. 2466) point out, ‘with over two thirds of Asian elephant habitat in non-conservation areas, the human–elephant conflict represents a widespread, complex and intractable challenge to conservation and is the major threat to elephants across their range’. The landscape-based approach outlined here offers valuable insights for potential resource-sharing arrangements between people and elephants that will help mitigate the conflict in neighbouring countries such as India.

La n d s c a p e - b a s e d c o n s e rv a t io n a n d su sta i n a bl e re sou rce u se

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 33

33

14/11/12 9:14 AM

2 Community-based conservation and livelihood strategies for the protection of the snow leopard (Panthera uncia) and its habitat in Ladakh, India Vandana Mohindra and Rinchen Wangchuk, Snow Leopard Conservancy Trust, India1

Introduction India’s first protected area, Hailey National Park (now the Jim Corbett National Park), was established in 1936 to protect the endangered Bengal tiger (Panthera tigris tigris). By 1970, another four parks had been declared and today, the formal protected area (PA) network has over 600 reserves, covering approximately 4.8 per cent of the country’s

34

W ild lif e , c o mmu n it ie s a n d p ro t ecte d a re a s

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 34

14/11/12 9:14 AM

total area. These are managed by government agencies exclusively for wildlife/biodiversity protection. This chapter begins with a brief look at India’s historical approach to protected area management, referred to as the Exclusionary Model, as well as an introduction to two different conservation approaches, conservation through sustainable use (or CSU) and community-based conservation. Next, it presents a study of a conservation initiative that has applied CSU and community-based conservation in a fragile trans-Himalayan ecosystem. Spearheaded by the NGO Snow Leopard Conservancy-India Trust (SLC-IT), the initiative’s participatory approach has been highly successful and the authors attempt to unpack the elements that have been crucial to its success. The chapter goes on to critically assess India’s Protected Area legislation and reviews the problems and consequences of some of these laws for conservation within PAs, and more significantly, for the people who live in them. The chapter concludes with a discussion on India’s current conservation framework and the key priorities for change if the country is to achieve positive conservation outcomes while upholding the values of social justice, equity and human rights for its people.

The exclusionary model: India’s historical approach to biodiversity conservation and protected area management As in many other parts of the world, communities across India had customary rights to use natural resources on their traditional community-held lands. From the time of British colonisation, however, natural resource governance became centralised and customary rights were extinguished and turned into ‘concessions’ that could be revoked when required (Wani & Kothari 2007, p. 10). This change in approach towards customary rights played a crucial role in forming India’s conservation laws.

C o m m un it y - b a s e d c o n s e rv a t io n f o r t h e p r ote cti on of th e sn ow l e opa rd

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 35

35

14/11/12 9:14 AM

From its inception, Indian conservation law has been based on an exclusionary model that has separated people from wildlife. Broadly, it involved declaring protected areas with core zones that are wholly or partially free of human habitation and resource use, surrounded by buffer zones where some resource use and/or habitation is permitted, but regulated. The principle was that ecosystems and wildlife would flourish if left free of human interference, and implementing this approach became legally possible due to the extinguishment of customary rights. While there is no doubt that the use of this model has contributed immensely to protecting India’s biodiversity, in the four decades that have passed since the first crucial piece of legislation was enacted (Wild Life (Protection) Act 1972), local communities have suffered displacement and marginalisation on an enormous scale (Wani & Kothari 2007, p. 11). Ironically, in many cases ecosystems have not wholly benefited either, as the displacement of people has caused widespread infringement on park lands and triggered clashes between communities and park authorities, thus putting tremendous pressure on the wildlife.

A study in CSU and communitybased conservation as undertaken by the Snow Leopard Conservancy-India Trust Snow leopards (Panthera uncia) are only found in the high mountain ranges of Central and South Asia (McCarthy & Chapron 2003). Notoriously elusive, they have earned the name ‘grey ghosts’, and are known as shan in local Ladakhi. All across the snow leopard’s range, humans threaten their survival. The current population has been estimated at between 4080–6590, of which India is home to between 200–600 (see McCarthy & Chapron 2003, Table II). Numbers are thought to have declined by about 20 per cent in the last 16 years (IUCN 2011 et al. 2008) and the IUCN Red List categorises the snow leopard as Endangered.

36

W ild lif e , c o mmu n it ie s a n d p ro t ecte d a re a s

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 36

14/11/12 9:14 AM

McCarthy and Chapron (2003) have assessed the primary direct threats to snow leopards by region. In Bhutan, India, Nepal, Pakistan, the Tibetan plateau and parts of southern China, the main factors directly threatening snow leopards are loss of natural habitat due to human population growth; depletion of their natural prey due to increasing competition with livestock; and retaliatory killings by local communities in retribution for livestock depredation (McCarthy & Chapron 2003). There is also a demand for live animals for zoos and circuses, primarily in China (IUCN 2011 et al. 2008). Conflicts with pastoralism underlie the major threats. The snow leopard’s main natural (or wild) prey species are the bharal or blue sheep (Pseudois nayaur) and the ibex (Capra sibirica). According to Mishra (1997), livestock vastly outnumber wild prey species in many of India’s protected areas (including those protecting snow leopards in the Indian trans-Himalaya), and over time they outcompete wild prey, causing a decline in the latter’s numbers due to starvation. These declines cause snow leopards to prey on livestock (McCarthy & Chapron 2003; Jackson et al. in press). This is deeply damaging to local herders who rely primarily on agro-pastoralism for their livelihoods, and who retaliate by killing the snow leopards. Fox et al. (1991) assert that retributive killing is the greatest current threat to snow leopards in India.

Snow leopard conservation in Hemis National Park and environs Rinchen Wangchuk established the Snow Leopard Conservancy-India Trust (SLC-IT) in 2000 under the aegis of Dr Rodney Jackson, founding director of Snow Leopard Conservancy-USA. Jackson is known for his pioneering study radio-tracking snow leopards in the Nepalese Himalayas between 1982 and 1985 (Jackson 1996). See Plate 4. The SLC-IT project is based in Hemis National Park and its environs in the Ladakh Autonomous Region of India’s northernmost state, Jammu & Kashmir (J&K). Ladakh is a high-altitude desert covering 87 000 km2

C o m m un it y - b a s e d c o n s e rv a t io n f o r t h e p r ote cti on of th e sn ow l e opa rd

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 37

37

14/11/12 9:14 AM

(roughly the area of Austria). What makes the region particularly important for snow leopards is that it is the stronghold of the species in India (as conclusively shown by a survey across the three Himalayan states of J&K, Himachal Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh) (Fox et al. 1991, p. 283). Established in 1981, Hemis is India’s largest national park, encompassing 3350 km2. It is prime snow leopard habitat and has four species of wild sheep and goats that give it international biodiversity importance (Jackson & Wangchuk 2004, p. 97). About 1600 people live in 16 villages across three valleys, grow barley and vegetables and own more than 4000 head of livestock, of which 81 per cent are sheep and goats (the latter reared for their prized pashmina wool) and 11 per cent are yaks, cattle and crossbreeds. The Markha Valley circuit through Hemis is the most popular trekking route, attracting about 5000 visitors annually (Wangchuk & Jackson 2004, p. 97). With permission from the Department of Wildlife Protection J&K, SLC-IT began its program in Hemis in 2000. Their involvement was prompted by a survey undertaken in the 1990s which showed that people of the Markha Valley and surrounding hamlets had lost 12 per cent of their livestock to predators over a 14-month period (late 1997 – early 1999) (Wangchuk & Jackson 2004, p. 97). The average loss per household was six animals (US$297); the total loss was 492 animals (US$19 700). This was a significant hardship for these pastoralists. About 75 per cent of the losses were sheep and goats, and 55 per cent of the depredation came from snow leopards (with 31 per cent from wolves and 14 per cent from smaller predators; Bhatnagar et al. 1999). Significantly, 62 per cent of losses occurred in pastures, the other 38 per cent inside corrals. Although total losses were greater in pastures, the average loss per attack in corrals was high (up to 50 animals killed in one attack versus one or two animals per attack in pastures) (SLC-IT 2007). The shock of losing so many animals in one night (including precious calves and lambs) fuelled retaliatory killings of the big cats, and it was clear there was a critical need for intervention in this area (Wangchuk & Jackson 2004, p. 98).

38

W ild lif e , c o mmu n it ie s a n d p ro t ecte d a re a s

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 38

14/11/12 9:14 AM

Data regarding retributive killings is limited. However, anecdotal evidence from a study of six villages in Zanskar by Spearing (2002, p. 184) showed that at least 16 snow leopards had been killed over the previous seven years.

Interventions and outcomes The Snow Leopard Conservancy employed a participatory process known as Appreciative Participatory Planning and Action (APPA), developed by the Mountain Institute-Nepal (Jackson & Wangchuk 2004, p. 307). APPA seeks to build on a community’s strengths and use low-cost, locally appropriate solutions (Wangchuk & Jackson 2004, p. 99). It is practised through an iterative process that seeks to (1) discover the community’s strengths and resources, (2) envision short- and long-term futures if resources were mobilised and the community acted collectively, (3) design a basic action plan for guiding development and conservation in ways that limit long-term dependency on outside financial sources and (4) motivate participants to initiate community-improvement actions immediately (Jackson & Wangchuk 2001, p. 140). Reducing depredation losses by predator-proofing livestock pens

The major focus of the conservancy’s intervention was to curtail multiple killings of livestock by snow leopards in corrals. Their team began by encouraging locals to participate in planning and solutions, drawing on traditional knowledge regarding livestock movements, predator behaviour and corral building. The primary causes of depredation were found to be poorly constructed corrals, placement of livestock in prime predator habitats and lax daytime guarding practices (Wangchuk & Jackson 2004, p. 100). One simple but effective solution was found – to predator-proof night-time corrals using low-cost methods and minimal external support (Wangchuk & Jackson 2004, p. 101). SLC-IT agreed to give technical

C o m m un it y - b a s e d c o n s e rv a t io n f o r t h e p r ote cti on of th e sn ow l e opa rd

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 39

39

14/11/12 9:14 AM

and financial aid – on the condition that no snow leopards or wolves would be killed and any instances of poaching would be reported to the authorities (Wangchuk & Jackson 2004, p. 102). A superior pen was designed to prevent snow leopards from entering, with a sturdy door and a roof made of wire meshing supported by wooden poles. Villagers provided local materials such as stone and mud for the walls, and free labour, while SLC-IT provided the door, poles and wire meshing (see Plate 5). Leopard-proof pens for safeguarding livestock have been used successfully elsewhere in Asia. Outcomes of predator-proofing livestock corrals

The program has been highly successful in reducing predation from corrals. Depredation surveys in all snow leopard hotspots have been carried out since 2000. In any area that the Snow Leopard Conservancy undertakes corral improvement or income-generation activities, village stewards are asked to keep records of livestock predation. In Hemis, records show that total livestock losses were reduced from 12.4 per cent in 1999 to 9.8 per cent in 2004–05. Livestock losses from within enclosures were particularly effectively reduced, from 38.2 per cent in 1999 to 0.4 per cent in 2004–05. In villages where livestock pens have been improved, no revenge killings have been recorded (Wangchuk & Jackson 2004, p. 102). SLC-IT has proofed 22 community enclosures and 21 individual pens across 19 villages. It is estimated that each predator-proofed community corral saves two or three snow leopards from being trapped or poisoned by angry herders. The team is now constructing pens in Zanskar’s Sheila Phu and Zangla villages (SLC-IT 2011, September). Income generation through wildlife-based ecotourism: financial incentives for communities to conserve snow leopards

The Snow Leopard Conservancy has helped communities develop supplementary incomes from small-scale tourism projects that provide direct incentives to preserve wildlife while simultaneously raising living

40

W ild lif e , c o mmu n it ie s a n d p ro t ecte d a re a s

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 40

14/11/12 9:14 AM

standards. According to conservationist Shafqat Hussain, the need for this approach is simple: ‘you cannot expect people who are struggling to survive to subsidise a species for purely environmental reasons’ (National Geographic 2009). In 2001, with financial support from UNESCO and technical expertise from the Mountain Institute, SLC-IT invited village participation to develop eco-friendly alternative livelihoods that required minimal investment. Tourism was seen as a viable option, given the 5000-odd visitors who pass through Hemis each summer. However, these tourists had until then provided little or no benefit to local people (SLC-IT 2007). One of the outcomes of this initiative was the Ladakh Himalayan Homestays program. This program is based on a combination of snow leopard treks and ‘homestays’ in traditional dwellings along trekking routes. Local women (‘house mothers’) offer a room, full board and an insight into their culture. Income goes directly to them and helps compensate losses incurred from livestock depredation, making communities less dependent on government compensation to offset the costs of living with snow leopards. Importantly, 10 per cent of all profits go into a Village Conservation Fund that supports conservation activities (see Plates 6 and 7). Homestay households further increased their income by offering additional services such as renting packhorses, setting up communityowned solar showers and working as nature guides (SLC-IT has trained 42 youth who also assist in wildlife population monitoring) (SLC-IT 2007). Outcomes of the Homestays program

Ninety-six households in 21 villages in Hemis and surrounding areas are currently involved in the Ladakh Himalayan Homestays program (SLC-IT 2007). The program has had several positive impacts. Foremost is the fact that participating households have greatly benefited from the additional income. Significantly, it has empowered Ladakhi women, whose respected status as ‘house mothers’ places them at the heart of the

C o m m un it y - b a s e d c o n s e rv a t io n f o r t h e p r ote cti on of th e sn ow l e opa rd

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 41

41

14/11/12 9:14 AM

program. This economic empowerment has gradually changed herders’ perceptions of snow leopards. From threats, they are now seen as assets that are worth more alive than dead, whose presence draws visitors and provides economic opportunities throughout the region (SLC-IT 2007). Nothing illustrates this change better than an insight from Rinchen Wangchuk, SLC-IT’s program director: ‘when we started the program in 2000, villagers asked us why we had chosen to name our organisation after such a despised animal (namely, the snow leopard). Less than a decade later, a board sprang up in Hemis’ Rumbak village, proclaiming Welcome to the Snow Leopard Capital of the World’. Awareness-raising and community education

An important component of the Snow Leopard Conservancy’s efforts is increasing understanding of the importance of the snow leopard, its prey, and its fragile ecosystem, especially among rural communities and decision-makers (Jackson et al. 2002, p. 106). In 2005, SLC-IT collaborated with the Indian NGO Kalpavriksh to start the Snow Leopard Conservation Education Programme. The program targets 300 children across ten schools and focuses on Ladakh’s biodiversity, the threats it faces and conservation actions, with the hope that the children will become future stewards of their natural environment and its wildlife, including snow leopards. Kalpavriksh also developed a handbook for educators entitled Ri-Gyancha (‘Jewel of the Mountains’), which was launched in 2010 by His Holiness the Dalai Lama. The team undertakes quantitative surveys in every participating school and also collects written testimonials from participants. Results have shown continuous improvements in children’s knowledge of conservation issues (S Padmanabhan 2011, pers. comm. 4 July). The programs popularity led to the team being invited to conduct an environmental education training program for 39 government schoolteachers in collaboration with the J&K education department, while two other schools have incorporated environmental education based on the Ri-Gyancha handbook into their curriculums (SLC-IT, 2010 December, 2011 March).

42

W ild lif e , c o mmu n it ie s a n d p ro t ecte d a re a s

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 42

14/11/12 9:14 AM

Monitoring snow leopard populations

In 2003–04 SLC-IT, along with California-based Snow Leopard Conservancy-USA and the Department of Wildlife Protection J&K, conducted the world’s first snow leopard census, using remote cameras to identify individual animals. Adapting techniques pioneered for estimating Bengal tiger numbers (Karanth 1995), the team, led by snow leopard expert Dr Rodney Jackson, successfully identified ten individuals based on their pelage patterns – the distinctive arrangement of spots on their coats that help identify one snow leopard from another. The results of the survey suggested that Hemis potentially supported up to 175 snow leopards, substantially more than Fox and Nurbu’s (1990) estimate of 50–75 individuals (Jackson et al. 2005). Since then, SLC-USA and SLC-IT have been focusing on training local biologists and village stewards in conducting sign transects and setting remote camera traps for deriving reliable population estimates (SLC-USA Website 2011).

Lessons learnt The case study demonstrates that one can achieve outcomes that benefit both people and wildlife by acknowledging community rights and responding to community needs, and from this basis seeking to enlist people’s assistance in conservation – rather than denying use-rights, ejecting communities from PAs and consequently alienating them from conservation efforts. The Snow Leopard Conservancy has illustrated that long-term, sustainable conservation solutions are possible when people live with and use biodiversity – provided the people are placed at the heart of the conservation effort, are given direct incentives to preserve wildlife, their livelihood needs are met, and their overall standards of living are enhanced. In this way, people become guardians of wildlife and assets to conservation.

C o m m un it y - b a s e d c o n s e rv a t io n f o r t h e p r ote cti on of th e sn ow l e opa rd

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 43

43

14/11/12 9:14 AM

India’s key Protected Areas legislation and its impacts on biodiversity and people To understand how best to incorporate the lessons learnt from the case study into India’s conservation framework, this section briefly appraises the country’s key legislation for protected areas and considers the core deficiencies. India has enacted a range of legislation relating to biodiversity. Among these, two Acts are key to our discussion on protected areas: the Wild Life (Protection) Act (WLPA) 1972; and the Scheduled Tribes & Other Traditional Forest Dwellers Recognition of Forest Rights Act (Forest Rights Act) 2006.

The Wild Life (Protection) Act 1972 India’s primary legislation pertaining to PAs is the WLPA and subsequent amendments. The WLPA empowers the state governments, and in specific instances the central government, to declare any area which includes national parks, sanctuaries, conservation reserves, community reserves and tiger reserves a protected area. These categories constitute India’s formal PA network. In addition, there are several other categories that provide varying degrees of protection. A major concern with the WLPA is that its approach to managing national parks and sanctuaries continues to remain exclusionary and top-down, and shows a reluctance to decentralise decision-making and devolve power to local communities (Kalpavriksh 2003, p. 2). Additionally, the Act has caused problems for local communities due to its exclusion of people from PAs and restrictions on customary rights. In particular, the provisions related to sanctuaries and national parks (NPs) have created serious conflicts with local people, in turn adversely affecting wildlife (Pathak 2006). Since sanctuaries and NPs account for 22 per cent of India’s forest area (MoEF 2005), our discussion focuses on these two categories.

44

W ild lif e , c o mmu n it ie s a n d p ro t ecte d a re a s

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 44

14/11/12 9:14 AM

Sanctuaries

When a sanctuary is declared, the government appoints a settlement officer who is authorised to enquire into and determine the rights of people over land within the sanctuary’s limits (WLPA, section 19). Amendments to the Act have sought to protect people’s rights by: legislating that a sanctuary can be declared only when a formal notification has been issued, the period for preferring claims has elapsed, and the government has disposed of all claims (1991); directing states to make interim arrangements for people’s needs (such as fuel, fodder and other forest produce) while rights are being settled (2002); and attempting to redress previous injustices by directing that forest-dwellers can be only relocated ‘voluntarily and on mutually agreed terms’ (2006) during the notification of tiger reserves. However, these amendments have mostly failed the people. Even after the Amendment Acts were enacted, rights were not settled, and prohibitions on resource use within sanctuaries came into force with none of the safeguards (MoEF 2005, p. 105). Up until early 2011, the WLP Amendment Act 2006’s safeguards for affected people had been widely misinterpreted and/or disregarded during the relocation of villages from four tiger reserves, and forest-dwellers continued to lose their rights over traditional lands (Kalpavriksh 2011; FoCN 2011). MoEF (2005, p. 105) states that to date, few PAs have completed the process of recording people’s rights, let alone completing the acquisition of rights and provision of compensation. People continue to live in these lands, and their rights are extinguished without being determined or settled, despite the fact that the law is clear that their rights remain intact until such time that they are expunged through a formal process of compensation (MoEF 2005, p. 105). National parks

Most of the provisions for sanctuaries also apply to national parks (NPs), with some key differences. Where a legitimate claim of peoples’ rights over the land is accepted, the settlement officer may provide compen-

C o m m un it y - b a s e d c o n s e rv a t io n f o r t h e p r ote cti on of th e sn ow l e opa rd

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 45

45

14/11/12 9:14 AM

sation, but no continuance of any rights is permitted. The only exception to this extinguishment of rights pertains to resource use, where (similar to the provision for sanctuaries) forest produce may be removed for meeting personal bona fide needs but not for commercial purposes (WLPAA 2002, section 19). A national park therefore ‘is legally defined as an area without human habitation and with limited human use’ (Fox & Nurbu 1990, p. 6). However, this is seldom the case, as the settlement of rights often takes years and final notification is delayed – sometimes indefinitely – leaving true national park status as a goal to be achieved sometime in the future (Fox & Nurbu 1990). Resettlement of people from national parks and sanctuaries

Implementation of the WLPA’s provisions have caused an estimated 100 000 people to be displaced from India’s PAs over the last three to four decades (Wani & Kothari 2007, p. 13), while 3–4 million people still live within them (Wani & Kothari 2007, p. 11). According to the Act’s provisions, communities will need to be relocated from national parks once the settlement of rights and final notification is complete. This points to a fundamental question – does India have the resources and capacity to undertake relocation in a just manner? In 2005, a central government committee estimated that there were roughly 350 000 people still living inside India’s 28 tiger reserves and it would cost approximately Rs16 630 million (US$368 million) to relocate them all (MoEF 2005, p. viii). Considering that tiger reserves constituted only one-fifth of the area covered by PAs, the cost of relocating people from all PAs would be five times higher than that figure. The report advised against relocation (MoEF 2005, p. viii) and recommended that only villages in critical core areas should be relocated. Karanth and Karanth (2007, p. 54) took issue with the report’s conclusions, stating that the costs of resettlement were reasonable if the future costs of delivering social services to remote areas were taken into consideration.

46

W ild lif e , c o mmu n it ie s a n d p ro t ecte d a re a s

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 46

14/11/12 9:14 AM

Despite Karanth and Karanth’s compelling counter-argument, the fact remains that ‘the quality of relocation in the country has mostly verged on being disastrous’ (MoEF 2005, p. 94). In one instance, the residents of Kraska village in Sariska National Park were resettled on lands outside the core area, only to face hostility from existing residents. Their lives were so fraught that they sold their new land and returned illegally to the core. Here they lived in a war-like atmosphere until they were forcibly evicted again, only to live an impoverished life elsewhere (MoEF 2005, p. viii). The committee found a similar pattern with several other resettlement cases. Resettled people often lived in poverty and remained dependent on neighbouring PAs for their firewood, fodder and minor forest produce (MoEF 2005, p. 93). In other words, relocating villages outside protected zones often simply shifted the pressure on PAs from within to without (MoEF 2005, p. 117). The other major issue involved instances where communities were not resettled outside PAs (due to bureaucratic delays or non-availability of land and/or funds) but were nevertheless marginalised due to dispossession – that is, their access to natural resources was barred or restricted (Wani & Kothari 2007, p. 13). In Ranthambore National Park, the forest department promised to relocate Hindala village, but no resettlement took place (MoEF 2005, p. ix). Meanwhile, people continued to live inside the park without water, schools or medical facilities. Since they were officially ‘illegal residents’, no infrastructure could reach them. And without any legal livelihood options, they illegally utilised forest produce, which led to conflicts with park authorities. Sadly, this is an all-too-common situation (see MoEF 2005 for detailed case studies). Relocating people has not always been positive for biodiversity either, as it has triggered clashes between communities and authorities. In Karera Great Indian Bustard Sanctuary, anger due to the non-settlement of rights for over two decades resulted in the entire bustard population being wiped out (Gangopadhyay 2005, in MoEF 2005, p. 108). In Bandhavgarh Tiger Reserve, the badly managed relocation process led to

C o m m un it y - b a s e d c o n s e rv a t io n f o r t h e p r ote cti on of th e sn ow l e opa rd

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 47

47

14/11/12 9:14 AM

73 instances of deliberate setting of fires as well as poisoning of wildlife between 1995 and 2000 (MoEF 2005, p. 100). Fishermen in Pench Tiger Reserve, who used the reserve’s reservoir for fishing before the area became protected, deliberately started fires each time one of their (now illegal) boats was seized (MoEF 2005, p. 113). There have certainly been instances where resettlement has taken place sustainably, and even been undertaken voluntarily, as in Bhadra Tiger Reserve (MoEF 2005, p. ix). Here, people were compensated at rates four times higher than the norm and resettled on fertile agricultural lands 50 kilometres from the reserve (MoEF 2005, p. 95). But these examples are few and far between. What history tells us is that in most cases, India has not had the resources or the required arable lands or transparency and accountability to ensure a just resettlement process. It is thus apparent that the WLPA’s provisions regarding the extinguishment or restriction of rights in NPs and sanctuaries have caused severe difficulties both for people (via the loss of land, resources and livelihoods) and for biodiversity (via pressures from the illegal use of resources by fringe communities and conflicts with local people).

The Forest Rights Act 2006 The Forest Rights Act 2006 (FRA), which extends to the whole of India except Jammu & Kashmir, recognises the rights and occupation in forestland of certain forest-dwelling people and scheduled tribes including (significantly) those living within sanctuaries and NPs (FRA, section 2). Thus, it is ‘an important welcome step towards reversing the historical marginalisation of these peoples’ (Kothari 2008). The FRA does allow for some areas of NPs and sanctuaries to be designated as ‘critical wildlife habitats’ to be managed as ‘inviolate areas for wildlife conservation’. However, under the Act, people may only be resettled after strict conditions have been satisfied and the recognition of rights is complete (FRA, section 4). However, having rights does not automatically ensure they are upheld. Up until early 2011, the FRA’s safeguards for affected persons

48

W ild lif e , c o mmu n it ie s a n d p ro t ecte d a re a s

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 48

14/11/12 9:14 AM

had not been implemented during the relocation of villages from tiger reserves (MoEF & MoTA 2010), and forest dwellers continued to lose their rights over traditional lands. Implications of key legislation for Hemis National Park and a rationale for the coexistence of people and wildlife

Hemis NP is situated in Jammu & Kashmir state (J&K), which has been accorded special status under the Indian Constitution in keeping with commitments made to the erstwhile princely state before its accession to India in 1947. Due to this, no law enacted by parliament is applicable in J&K unless ratified by the state (except in areas such as defence). While the WLPA does not apply in J&K, the state enacted the Jammu & Kashmir Wildlife (Protection) Act 1978 (J&K WLPA), which is almost identical to it. The J&K Act’s provisions regarding the extinguishment of people’s rights in NPs (section 35) are identical to those of the WLPA. At present, Hemis still has to complete its settlement of rights process, so rights have not yet been extinguished. Communities continue to live in the park, use its land for agriculture and grazing livestock, and carry out commercial livelihood activities such as homestays, all of which are prohibited by the J&K WLPA. J&K has not yet adopted the FRA or enacted its own equivalent (A Kothari, pers. comm. 4 July 2011), thus communities cannot take advantage of the rights granted under the FRA, which include rights to continued habitation and sustainable use of biodiversity. Until such time as J&K adopts an equivalent of the FRA, amends the J&K WLPA’s provisions regarding national parks, or changes Hemis’ status from a national park to a sanctuary (which will allow the continuation of rights to be granted), authorities will be duty-bound to relocate communities in Hemis NP outside the core area after final notification is complete. This will not only curtail people’s rights, but also put an end to SLC-IT’s exemplary community conservation initiatives within the park. Advocates of the exclusionary model would argue that the relocation of Hemis’ resident communities would benefit the park’s biodiversity.

C o m m un it y - b a s e d c o n s e rv a t io n f o r t h e p r ote cti on of th e sn ow l e opa rd

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 49

49

14/11/12 9:14 AM

To begin with, snow leopards would be better off without the constant threat of being killed by angry herders. Next, the removal of people from the park’s core area would negate the need for SLC-IT’s man–animal conflict mitigation initiatives. And finally, there would be a surge in the big cat’s prey populations, as they would no longer have to compete with livestock for scarce pasture – an apparent win-win for biodiversity. However, this approach could potentially have unacceptable human rights consequences (in terms of large-scale displacement or dispossession); be prohibitively expensive (as the government may not have the requisite funds); practically unfeasible (due to the unavailability of arable lands); and probably have negative conservation consequences as well (due to the illegal use of the park’s resources by fringe communities, and conflicts between authorities and affected people). Moreover, while certain areas do need to be managed exclusively for wildlife, relocating people en masse simply creates a fresh set of pressures. Communities that have learnt to live with so-called ‘edge effects’ – that is, the conflicts that exist at the boundaries of all wildlife and human inhabited areas – act as buffers between wildlife and the wider human community. Shifting people out of PAs simply creates new edges of conflict (such as on the fringes of India’s national parks and sanctuaries) where efforts to reconcile people and wildlife have to start all over again. Finally, large swathes of land would be left uninhabited, putting pressure on authorities to step up patrolling to keep poachers at bay. For, as seen in Hemis, communities that have a stake in conservation play key roles as wardens of wildlife which would otherwise fall prey to poaching syndicates (who often recruit displaced fringe communities), as has happened in many other PAs. Thus, the authors are not arguing on the basis of what is best for conservation in the short term (in other words, ensuring that biodiversity is free from human disturbance), but for what strikes the best balance between human and conservation interests (that is, participatory conservation and CSU), which the authors believe will be best for conservation in the long term.

50

W ild lif e , c o mmu n it ie s a n d p ro t ecte d a re a s

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 50

14/11/12 9:14 AM

To achieve this delicate balance between human interests and conservation interests, policy- and law-makers must re-evaluate the relationship between people and wildlife and allow PAs such as Hemis to be managed under a more inclusive and participatory legislative regime. Another reason for not fulfilling the FRA and WLPAA 2006’s provisions is that many people, including conservationists, object to the idea of people coexisting with wildlife on ideological grounds. The FRA, which legitimises these very uses, has come under pressure from conservation groups and retired forest officials, who have challenged its provisions in the courts. Meanwhile, the future of Hemis’ conservation programs and community rights to land hangs in the balance.

Underlying influences shaping India’s conservation approach For over two decades, environmental groups have advocated amending the WLPA to enable greater participation of local communities in conservation efforts. However, a handful of environmental groups have consistently blocked these attempts (Kothari et al. 2009, p. 30). The reason is simple: a difference in ideology. At one end are the traditionalists, who see people as obstacles to conservation and believe they must be separated from biodiversity, while at the other are the pro-use groups, who believe people should be partners in conservation and empowered to coexist with wildlife, while retaining their rights for livelihoods and well-being. Kothari et al. (2009, p. 22) astutely observe that though the debate is often portrayed as one of conservation vs. human rights or wildlife vs. people, in effect, it is really about differing ideologies about how to manage biodiversity, and by whom. One camp favours a centralised bureaucracy aided by ‘experts’, another argues for decentralisation and local governance, while a third advocates a balance between the two. The resultant conflicting agendas reflect the different approaches taken by environmental legislators, conservation groups and even the courts in managing India’s protected areas. So where do we go from here?

C o m m un it y - b a s e d c o n s e rv a t io n f o r t h e p r ote cti on of th e sn ow l e opa rd

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 51

51

14/11/12 9:14 AM

Key priorities for change in India’s conservation approach While the authors support the view that certain ecologically sensitive areas need to be managed exclusively for wildlife such as tigers, they are equally aware that in a country such as India it will never be possible to relocate all the villages now inside PAs. Thus, a significant part of conservation efforts should be on evolving participatory coexistence models that conserve entire landscapes, within which human activity is restricted only in certain scientifically selected ‘critical areas’ (Kalpavriksh 2011, p. 11). However, this doesn’t mean that sustainable use and participatory conservation do not have limitations. The ecotourism model used in Hemis is limited by problems of scale – large-scale tourism undertaken without appropriate legal protection and monitoring can cause considerable damage to ecosystems. Therefore, ecotourism is a successful conservation tool only when used at sustainable scales and as a supplement to other livelihood strategies. Further, in outlining the injustices that have occurred while relocating people from PAs, this chapter is not proposing a complete discontinuation of resettlements. Rather, it is presenting sustainable use and coexistence as viable alternative models for conservation, as well as serving as a clarion call for ensuring impartial relocation processes that are based on empirical recommendations and participatory methods instead of ad hoc methods that use unlawful means. A study of successful, incentive-driven, voluntary resettlements in Nagarhole National Park illustrated that, if managed correctly, resettlements can greatly benefit biodiversity-rich areas while upholding people’s livelihood rights and, in some cases, even enhancing them due to better access to opportunities in the new locations (Karanth & Karanth 2007). In Nagarhole, the emphasis was on the importance of scientific rigour in identifying biodiversity hotspots to maximise conservation efforts (Karanth & Karanth 2007, p. 54). These authors argue that many social

52

W ild lif e , c o mmu n it ie s a n d p ro t ecte d a re a s

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 52

14/11/12 9:14 AM

advocacy groups, rooted in their experience of coercive displacements, are ‘ideologically opposed to relocation’, and thus lose the opportunity to gain much-needed benefits for both wildlife and people (Karanth & Karanth 2007, p. 54). Additionally, communities who live in areas adjacent to PAs must play a central role in park management and conservation. In a recent essay, eminent conservationist George Schaller states ‘it is painfully clear that good science and good laws do not necessarily result in effective conservation. Communities must be directly involved as full partners in conservation by contributing their knowledge, insights and skills’ (Schaller 2011, p. 91). Societies protect what they value. India’s current conservation approach has led to many local communities not valuing biodiversity by physically and materially excluding them and ensuring they do not benefit from its protection. Although ecological, social and economic values often conflict with each other, they each need to be satisfied to a greater or lesser degree via prudent choices and trade-offs. Building legislative fortresses around islands of biodiversity is not a long-term solution, as the last 40 years of conservation efforts have shown. It is time to try a new approach.

Conclusions Today, India’s biodiversity is under siege. Competing interests for land and resources, a top-down, exclusionary conservation regime, the politics of different strands of environmentalism, and pervasive corruption, all contribute to its vulnerability. Grassroots initiatives such as Snow Leopard Conservancy clearly illustrate that truly sustainable conservation comes from stewardship across the entire community, whether they reside within or outside reserves. Hundreds of community-led initiatives across India are creating similar success stories, unsupported by either legislation or government funding (Pathak et al. 2006). It is apparent that the country must move swiftly to bring about significant changes

C o m m un it y - b a s e d c o n s e rv a t io n f o r t h e p r ote cti on of th e sn ow l e opa rd

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 53

53

14/11/12 9:14 AM

in its conservation framework and align itself more closely with international paradigms such as those laid out by the CBD’s Addis Ababa Principles and Guidelines. The task at hand is to implement governance that is adaptive, locale-specific, decentralised, transparent, participatory and incentive-driven, if we are to preserve what remains of India’s shrinking natural habitats. Finally, we must never lose sight of the fact that people are inextricably linked to the natural environment and we stand to gain enormously if we reframe the conservation paradigm in the more democratic terms of coexistence, co-management, sustainable use and benefit-sharing. This may be the strongest prescription for the long-term, sustainable conservation of India’s wildlife and natural ecosystems.

Dedication Rinchen Wangchuk, pioneer conservationist, co-author, mentor and dearest friend, passed away in March 2011, before this chapter reached the publisher’s desk. He will be sorely missed by all whose lives he touched, especially the snow leopards for which he tirelessly crusaded.

54

W ild lif e , c o mmu n it ie s a n d p ro t ecte d a re a s

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 54

14/11/12 9:14 AM

3 Evaluation of integrated conservation and development programs (ICDPs) in the protected areas of Bhutan Karma Tshering, Government of Bhutan, Johannes Bauer, Charles Sturt University, Bathurst, NSW and Terry Delacy, Victoria University, Melbourne1

‘In time, protected areas will survive only if they address human concerns and gain the support of the local people.’ David Sheppard, Secretary-General of the Vth IUCN World Parks Congress

This chapter examines the concept and effectiveness of integrated conservation and development programs (ICDPs) as a major biodiversity conservation management tool in the protected areas of Bhutan.

C o n s e rv a t io n a n d d e v e lo p me n t in t h e prote cte d a re a s of B h u ta n

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 55

55

14/11/12 9:14 AM

These programs, largely funded through donor projects, are popular management tools in the protected areas of Bhutan, mainly because of the development opportunities they offer local communities. However, park managers are becoming increasingly sceptical over whether ICDPs in Bhutan are meeting conservation objectives. The chapter starts with describing Bhutan’s approach to biodiversity conservation and the emergence of ICDPs as the dominant strategy. The results of a survey of park management professionals are then presented, evaluating the effectiveness of ICDPs in achieving conservation outcomes. The chapter goes on to discuss the results and highlights the potential of ecotourism development as one of the most viable activities for striking a balance between conservation and development in Bhutan.

Bhutan’s development philosophy and environmental conservation Bhutan’s economy is one of the world’s smallest and least developed, and is largely based on agriculture and forestry (NSB 2008). Approximately 70 per cent of the population live in rural areas and depend on subsistence agriculture – see Plate 8 (NSB 2008). The country has only very recently emerged from self-imposed isolation. Although Bhutan may have been deprived of enjoying the benefits of the technological and scientific advancement of the world during its time of relative isolation, one can also say that it has shielded itself from the negative impacts of modernisation. Political leadership is important for steering the development of a country, and Bhutan has been fortunate in having responsible and visionary leaders in its monarchs. From a century of peaceful monarchy it transformed into a democratic form of governance in 2008, when His Majesty Jigme Singye Wangchuck abdicated the throne to announce a

56

W ild lif e , c o mmu n it ie s a n d p ro t ecte d a re a s

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 56

14/11/12 9:14 AM

democratic political system. His Majesty declared that Bhutan’s development philosophy should not aim at increasing the gross national product (GNP), but rather strive to achieve what he termed ‘Gross National Happiness’ (GNH). This is a deliberate and great divergence from the rest of the world, which has chosen GNP, the measure of economists, as its development goal. Instead, the people and government of Bhutan have chosen to walk their own path, the ‘Middle Path’, pursuing happiness as their development goal. Four key pillars uphold this vision of GNH: environmental conservation, cultural preservation, good governance and equitable socio-economic development. Environmental conservation, as one of these key pillars, is considered a top priority by the people and government of Bhutan, and the country has taken significant policy measures to protect the natural environment. On the international front, Bhutan is a signatory to major environmental agreements2, and this international commitment is matched by its national and local environmental policies. An extensive network of ten protected areas (PAs) and biological corridors cover a total of over 51 per cent of the country (NCD 2008), reflecting Bhutan’s commitment to environmental conservation. The country presently has forest cover over 72.5 per cent of its area, and has made a pledge in the Constitution to maintain a minimum of 60 per cent forest cover for all times. Hunting of any species is completely banned but regulated fishing is permitted.

The protected areas system in Bhutan The first protected areas in Bhutan were established in 1966. King Jigme Dorji Wangchuck, the third King of Bhutan, and his Royal Highness Prince Namgyel Wangchuck (then Minister of Trade, Industries and Forest), declared by Royal Government order that the royal family’s former hunting reserves in the south would become Bhutan’s first PAs, the Phipsoo and Manas Wildlife Sanctuaries (Seeland 2000). In 1974 a government notification created more PAs, forming Bhutan’s

C o n s e rv a t io n a n d d e v e lo p me n t in t h e prote cte d a re a s of B h u ta n

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 57

57

14/11/12 9:14 AM

first protected areas system. This system was revised in 1993, with the involvement of the World Wildlife Fund (WWF), after it was recognised that it lacked ecological representation. A landscape approach to biodiversity conservation was adopted and biological corridors were designed in a further revision in 1999. In 2008 Wangchuck Centennial Park, the largest national park in Bhutan, was declared as a tribute to the monarchy in recognition of its visionary leadership. The present PA network is illustrated in Figure 3.1. In addition to these protected areas, other small areas of ecological, cultural and landscape significance have also been designated. Figure 3.1 Bhutan’s protected area network, including biological corridors

Jigme Dorji National Park

Wangchuck Centennial Park Bumdeling Wildlife Sanctuary

Torsa Strict Nature Reserve

Thurumshingla National Park Jigme Singye Wangchuck National Park

Phipsoo Wildlife Sanctuary

Royal Manas National Park

Sakteng Wildlife Sanctuary

Khaling Wildlife Sanctuary

Source: Nature Conservation Division (NCD) 2008

58

W ild lif e , c o mmu n it ie s a n d p ro t ecte d a re a s

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 58

14/11/12 9:14 AM

A unique feature of Bhutan’s protected areas management policy is that it allows local people to live within and around the protected areas. As discussed in the section below, this is in stark contrast with many other countries where local people continue to be displaced from protected areas. In Bhutan, the protected areas are inclusive of the people. An estimated 49 423 local people (NCD 2008) reside within the protected areas (see Table 3.1). These people live in communities and practise subsistence farming. Table 3.1 Overview of Bhutan’s protected areas: area size, estimated number of households, population and major source of livelihood Protected area

Total no. Size (km2) households

Approx. population

Major source  of livelihood

Jigme Dorji NP*

4 200

1 040

5 000

Subsistence agriculture, mainly yak herding

Jigme Singye Wangchuck NP

1 400

1 741

5 500

Subsistence agriculture

Bomdeling WS**

1 300

853

5 000

Subsistence agriculture

Royal Manas NP

1 000

1 088

10 646

Subsistence agriculture

768

1 649

6 500

Subsistence agriculture

3 736

1 061

7 905

Subsistence agriculture, mainly yak herding

Sakteng WS

650

614

3 500

Subsistence agriculture, mainly yak herding

Phipsoo WS

278

500

5 372

Subsistence agriculture

Khaling WS

273

NK

NK

Subsistence agriculture

Toorsa SNR***

644

NK

NK

–

14 249

>8546

>49 423

Thrumshingla NP Wangchuck Centennial NP

Total

Notes: * NP = National Park ** WS = Wildlife Sanctuary *** SNR = Strict Nature Reserve NK = not known (inventory in these areas has not been conducted) Source: Nature Conservation Division (NCD) 2008.

C o n s e rv a t io n a n d d e v e lo p me n t in t h e prote cte d a re a s of B h u ta n

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 59

59

14/11/12 9:14 AM

Integrated conservation and development projects: the concept and its implementation in Bhutan What is an ICDP? The concept of integrating conservation and development evolved in the early 1980s, along with a conceptual shift in natural resource management to include the importance of the livelihoods of local people. The previously dominant conservation management paradigm typically considered humans separate from nature and opposed having people live within areas set aside for nature conservation (Grove 1995; MacKenzie 1998; Adams 2003, 2004). There are many examples in South Asia of local and indigenous people being evicted from protected areas in line with this approach. The Nepalese government forced the resettlement of 22 000 non-indigenous settlers in 1964 when establishing the wildlife sanctuary that subsequently (in 1973) became Royal Chitwan National Park, the country’s first national park (Nepal & Weber 1993). Later it relocated the entire indigenous population of Rara National Park. The forced move of villagers from Rara’s two settlements during the late 1970s was catastrophic, as many of the mountain villagers are said to have died of malaria when they were resettled in the lowlands (Furer-Haimendorf 1975, 1984, cited in Stevens 1997). In some cases, walls have been built to keep out traditional resource users. Perhaps the most dramatic example is Gir National Park in India’s Gujarat state, where a 400 kilometre, one metre high rubble wall was built to prevent grazing (Raval 1991, cited in Stevens 1997).

60

W ild lif e , c o mmu n it ie s a n d p ro t ecte d a re a s

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 60

14/11/12 9:14 AM

By the 1990s, the dominant discourse of traditional, top-down exclusionary approaches to protected areas (‘fortress conservation’ or ‘fences and fines’ approach) no longer enjoyed hegemony (Hutton et al. 2005, p. 342). Evidence had emerged indicating these traditional approaches are often not effective in reaching conservation objectives. Host local communities become hostile to such approaches, since they lose access to resources and are alienated from resource protection. Alternative approaches that involve local people can help to emphasise the linkage between people and natural resources, and can provide a sense of moral responsibility in the community for the conservation of resources that benefit them economically. This viewpoint has gained popularity and has led to the emergence of alternative approaches that integrate nature conservation with the needs of local people, using terminology such as integrated conservation and development programs (ICDPs), eco-development, community-based conservation (Berkes 2003) and incentivebased conservation programs (Spiteri & Nepal 2005). There are various interpretations of the concept of an ICDP. Generally they are programs or activities that link biodiversity conservation with local socio-economic development (see Box 3.1 overleaf). The underlying rationale of the ICDP approach is that biodiversity conservation essentially involves the same resources that local communities need or may need in the future for their livelihoods and development. So if conservation of those resources is to be maintained into the future, the conservation programs will need to address the development needs of the local communities whose activities might otherwise threaten biodiversity and the natural resource base in general. Meeting further developmental needs through conservation practices helps in providing local incentives for natural resource conservation, an approach likely to be more sustainable than approaches that work in opposition to or on exclusion of local people.

C o n s e rv a t io n a n d d e v e lo p me n t in t h e prote cte d a re a s of B h u ta n

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 61

61

14/11/12 9:14 AM

Box 3.1 Common features of ICDPs Despite the diversity of terminology and variation in the scope of activities perceived to comprise ICDPs, they have a number of common features: • biodiversity conservation is the primary goal • there is a recognised need to address the social and economic requirements of communities who might otherwise threaten biodiversity, and the natural resource base in general • they aim to improve relationships between state-managed protected areas and people living in and around PAs • they seek to devolve control or ownership of protected area resources to local communities • the majority of ICDPs are externally driven, and are initiated and funded by international conservation organisations and/or development agencies (even if implemented by governmental bodies). Without some form of external financial assistance, relevant government departments can rarely afford to implement these projects.

Source: Hughes & Flintan (2001)

ICDPs in Bhutan In Bhutan, the protected area management situation demands an integrated approach – encompassing conservation and development considerations and taking account of people – because of the presence of local residents with critical livelihood needs in almost all of the ten protected areas. Such a situation is conducive to using ICDPs as primary management tools. Building partnerships with the local residents through ICDPs has been seen in Bhutan as a pragmatic way forward in protected area management. Recognising ICDPs as a tool for PA management, Bhutanese managers have developed guidelines (NCD 2003) for their planning and implementation that set out the following objectives:

62

W ild lif e , c o mmu n it ie s a n d p ro t ecte d a re a s

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 62

14/11/12 9:14 AM

• to conserve the ecological integrity of the protected areas through reduction of pressure on natural resources • to improve the living conditions of people living inside and in the buffer zones of the protected areas and to provide alternative livelihood opportunities for these people • to increase the awareness of local communities about conservation issues and improve natural resource management by local communities • to integrate development services as one of the strategic considerations in planning biodiversity conservation. Under the ICDP label, several programs have been implemented in PAs in Bhutan, largely through the support of donors. They include a range of activities such as infrastructure development (for example, bridges, trails, extension centres, irrigation channels), agriculture and livestock intensification, supply of roofing materials and solar panels, community-based tourism, training and environmental awareness, and even providing scholarships for poor children. The ICDP process in Bhutan is based on four stages (NCD 2003) that need to be co-ordinated by park management. In Stage 1, the identification stage, information is collected to identify activities that have the potential of fulfilling conservation and development needs. The ICDP guidelines also provide a set of conditions for defining the eligibility of an activity as an ICDP. Each activity must fulfil three conditions: (1) it contributes to socio-economic development, (2) it contributes to the ecology and (3) it is sustainable. In this stage the concept of the ICDP is introduced to the local people and other relevant partners. In Stage 2, the planning stage, planning is undertaken involving the local stakeholders, the most feasible activities will be selected, and planning for their implementation will occur. In Stage 3, the implementation stage, the selected programs are implemented. Finally, Stage 4 is the monitoring and evaluation stage, involving monitoring and measuring performance and progress, and evaluating outcomes.

C o n s e rv a t io n a n d d e v e lo p me n t in t h e prote cte d a re a s of B h u ta n

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 63

63

14/11/12 9:14 AM

In all four stages the park management should play the lead role. However, since there are typically many development sectors operating in parks, it may become difficult for the park management to effectively co-ordinate ICDPs. This is particularly the case where district administrations place priority on development, and seek ICDP support for development priorities.

Ecotourism as an ICDP activity Bhutan has made an enormous commitment towards environmental conservation. PA management in Bhutan, as opposed to the conventional management approach, assents to people living within and around these areas. The stringent conservation policies weigh heavily, however, on the local people living in and around these protected areas, with increased wildlife predation impacting on their subsistence livelihood. On the other hand, the local people are a vital link to nature conservation and strengthening this link is fundamental to achieving the conservation objectives. This situation has demanded an integrated management approach based on combining conservation and development, which has been pursued ever since the inception of Bhutan’s PAs. In this context ecotourism development may offer a viable option. While there are many definitions of ecotourism, the one framed by the International Ecotourism Society USA succinctly defines it as ‘responsible travel to natural areas which conserves the environment and improves the welfare of the local people’ – see Plate 9. Ecotourism essentially embraces the elements of enhancing environmental education, ecological protection, and supplementing economic opportunities for host local communities. Thus ecotourism appears to be a highly appropriate ICDP activity addressing conservation objectives and development aspirations – although this hypothesis needs to be tested.

64

W ild lif e , c o mmu n it ie s a n d p ro t ecte d a re a s

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 64

14/11/12 9:14 AM

Assessing the conservation effectiveness of ICDPs in Bhutan Research aim and objectives Although the concept of ICDPs sounds good in theory, and the protocols for ICDP implementation are in place, there is scant information available on how effective ICDPs have been on the ground in meeting biodiversity conservation goals in Bhutan. Our research sought to fill this gap. The specific objectives of our study were to: • identify the ICDPs implemented in the protected areas and assess their effectiveness in meeting biodiversity conservation objectives • understand the strengths and weaknesses of the ICDPs, challenges in their implementation, and strategies for improvement • assess the current role and future potential of ecotourism in contributing to effective ICDPs.

Methodology The main method used for this evaluation was a questionnaire-based survey of park staff involved in ICDPs from six protected areas where ICDPs are implemented, along with staff of two conservation divisions. The questionnaire focused on identifying the types of ICDPs under operation, asking respondents to assess their effectiveness in meeting biodiversity conservation, their weaknesses and recommendations for improvement, and tourism as a potential key activity for ICDPs. The questionnaire was administered to 26 conservation officials, all of whom held direct responsibilities for working on ICDPs in the office and field (see Table 3.2 overleaf). They form the core team for planning and implementing ICDPs and collectively have many years of work experience in this field, and were thus considered best placed to judge their achievements in relation to biodiversity conservation.

C o n s e rv a t io n a n d d e v e lo p me n t in t h e prote cte d a re a s of B h u ta n

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 65

65

14/11/12 9:14 AM

Table 3.2 Overview of respondents to ICDP questionnaire Protected Area/Conservation Division

No. of respondents

Nature Conservation Division

4

Royal Botanical Parks Division

2

Jigme Dorji National Park

3

Jigme Singye Wangchuck National Park

5

Thrumshingla National Park

2

Royal Manas National Park

5

Bomdiling Wildlife Sanctuary

4

Sakteng Wildlife Sanctuary Total respondents

1 26

Results ICDP activities

The scale of and level of experience with ICDP activities within the PAs varied widely. Jigme Dorji National Park (JDNP) had the highest level of exposure to ICDPs as it was the first park to obtain project funding for such programs, and Sakteng Wildlife Sanctuary was the most recent protected area to begin implementing ICDP activities. In total, 25 different ICDP activities were identified as being implemented in six of the PAs (see Table 3.3). As can be seen, almost all development-related activities (whether or not they should actually qualify as an ICDP activity) were included in the ICDP basket. Responses indicated that ICDPs include mainly rural development activities, ranging from infrastructure development to agriculture and livestock intensification to providing scholarships to local children for their education. They encompassed a wide range of activities, many of which may seem contentious in promoting biodiversity conservation. The most common ICDP activities reported were environmental education, construction (trails, bridges, irrigation channels) and supply of corrugated galvanised iron sheets for roofing.

66

W ild lif e , c o mmu n it ie s a n d p ro t ecte d a re a s

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 66

14/11/12 9:14 AM

s Mea n effe ctiv ene ss

No.

ICDPs

No.

of PA

Table 3.3 List of ICDP activities reported as implemented in six protected areas, and mean assessments of their effectiveness in meeting biodiversity conservation objectives

1

Community-based tourism

1

5

2

Supply of roofing materials (corrugated galvanised iron sheets)

5

4

3

Supply of solar lighting panels

4

4

4

Livestock intensification/stud bulls

3

4

5

Tree plantation

3

4

6

Eco-camp

1

4

7

Development of visitor centre

1

4

8

Environmental education to schools and communities

6

3

9

Trails, bridges development

6

3

10

Irrigation development

6

3

11

Agriculture intensification: includes supply of seed, fencing materials, tools, provision of training, vegetable gardens

4

3

12

Support to community services in health and schools

4

3

13

Training and study tour to community and other partners

4

3

14

Pasture/fodder development

3

3

15

Hot spring development

1

3

16

Scholarships for poor children

1

3

17

Resting sheds for people

2

2

18

Supply of piglets

1

2

19

Milk-processing unit

1

2

20

Collection of medicinal plants and incense

1

2

21

Waste dump pits

3

1

22

Supply of kerosene oil

2

1

23

Supply of oil expeller

2

1

24

Establishment of poultry and supply of pullets

1

1

25

Supply of spotlights

1

1

Notes: No. of PAs refers to protected areas implementing this activity, from a total of six PAs where ICDP programs are implemented. Mean effectiveness uses a scale of 1–5 (1 = very ineffective, 2 = somewhat effective, 3 = don’t know, 4 = mostly effective, 5 = very effective).

C o n s e rv a t io n a n d d e v e lo p me n t in t h e prote cte d a re a s of B h u ta n

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 67

67

14/11/12 9:14 AM

Conservation effectiveness and importance of ICDPs

In terms of biodiversity conservation effectiveness, only seven activities from the total of 25 ICDP activities implemented were rated by respondents as ‘mostly’ or ‘very’ effective in meeting biodiversity conservation objectives (average rank of 4 or 5, Table 3.3). These activities were community-based tourism, supply of roofing materials, livestock intensification, supply of solar lighting panels, tree plantations, eco-camps, and development of visitor centres – see Plate 10. For nine activities, respondents did not know whether they were effective or ineffective – these included environmental education, building of trails and bridges, irrigation development, and agriculture intensification. Four activities were rated ‘somewhat effective’, and five activities as ‘very ineffective’, the latter including poultry establishment, waste dump pits, supply of kerosene oil, supply of oil expeller and supply of spotlights. In terms of the importance of ICDPs in achieving the management objectives of protected areas, the majority of respondents (18/26) rated ICDPs as ‘very important’ (see Figure 3.2), with most of the rest (5/26) rating them as ‘moderately important’. Only very few rated them as unimportant (1/26) or only slightly important (1/26). Figure 3.2 Responses to question ‘How important would you consider the role of ICDPs in achieving the PA management objectives?’ (n = 26) 20 18 No. of respondents

16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Not at all important

68

Slightly important

Don’t know

Moderately important

Very important

W ild lif e , c o mmu n it ie s a n d p ro t ecte d a re a s

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 68

14/11/12 9:14 AM

Problems associated with ICDPs Examination of the level of satisfaction of managers with existing ICDPs for achieving positive impacts for biodiversity conservation found that the majority of them (19/26) were moderately satisfied with the ICDPs (see Figure 3.3). Only one manager from 26 reported being ‘very satisfied’ – this respondent was from the PA that was implementing community-based tourism. One manager remarked that ‘ICDPs were not properly started and are just fulfilling the wishes of the local people’. Figure 3.3 Responses to question ‘Overall, how satisfied are you with the ICDPs in achieving positive impacts for biodiversity conservation?’ (n = 26) 20

No. of respondents

18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Very dissatisfied

Dissatisfied

Slightly satisfied

Moderately satisfied

Very satisfied

The managers were asked to state the problems and weaknesses of ICDPs. The major points identified by the respondents were the following. These are arranged in order of apparent severity: ICDPs are highly donor dependent and lack financial sustainability. Almost all ICDPs were donor dependent, and their implementation period relied on the period of project funding, thus lacking continuity and sustainability. 2. ICDPs are driven by district development priorities rather than priorities for conservation. The activities that were selected for 1.

C o n s e rv a t io n a n d d e v e lo p me n t in t h e prote cte d a re a s of B h u ta n

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 69

69

14/11/12 9:14 AM

ICDPs reflected the priorities of the local district administration, typically favouring quick socio-economic benefits over longterm conservation gains. 3. ICDPs lack long-term benefits for conservation. Due to this bias in selection of activities, ICDPs were often not providing any long-term benefits for conservation. 4. ICDPs lack institutional ownership and have weak monitoring. The park management is responsible for monitoring ICDPs. However, some of the ICDP activities that are selected by other sectors, like the district administration, appear to lack proper monitoring by the park management. Weak co-ordination between institutions impacts on effective monitoring of ICDP activities. 5. Communities are becoming too dependent on ICDPs. This is because the present nature of ICDP activities revolves around fulfilling socio-economic benefits. 6. There is pressure to implement ICDPs in all villages. Since ICDPs have provided direct economic benefit to local people, this leads to pressure on park management to provide these benefits to all residents. Not meeting this demand has in some cases led to hostility toward the park management.

Local peoples’ co-operation and support for ICDPs As almost all the current ICDP activities involved provided direct benefits to the local people, their support and co-operation towards park management was expected. The majority of the surveyed managers (22/26) indicated they ‘agreed’ or ‘strongly agreed’ that ICDPs have a positive impact on the attitude of the local people towards conservation (see Figure 3.4). However, this supportive attitude did not necessarily translate into behaviour that was good for conservation. ‘While it

70

W ild lif e , c o mmu n it ie s a n d p ro t ecte d a re a s

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 70

14/11/12 9:14 AM

is good to see their positive attitude towards ICDPs I am hoping it will be matched by their positive behaviour towards conservation, which is something I am yet to see,’ said one ICDP manager. Figure 3.4 Responses to the question ‘Would you agree that ICDPs have a positive impact on the attitude of the local people towards conservation?’ (n = 26) 22 20

No. of respondents

18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Strongly disagree

Disagree

Don’t know

Agree

Strongly agree

The potential for growth of ecotourism as an ICDP activity Currently the role of tourism as a community-based initiative is limited to only one park – Jigme Singye Wangchuk National Park. However, the potential for its expansion to other PAs was strongly supported by the survey of managers. Respondents were asked whether, in addition to the existing ICDPs in their park, they thought there were any other activities linking conservation and development that should be pursued – see Figure 3.5 overleaf. In response to this question most nominated ecotourism (16/26). The next most popular response was environmental education (6/26).

C o n s e rv a t io n a n d d e v e lo p me n t in t h e prote cte d a re a s of B h u ta n

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 71

71

14/11/12 9:14 AM

Figure 3.5 Responses to the question ‘In addition to the existing ICDPs in your park, do you think there are any other activities that link conservation and development that should be pursued?’ (n = 26) 18

No. of respondents

16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Ecotourism

Environmental education

Others

The survey further asked the managers to indicate their agreement with the proposition that tourism is a tool for conservation and development and should be promoted in protected areas. A great majority of them (24/26) ‘agreed’ or ‘strongly agreed’ with this statement (see Figure 3.6). Figure 3.6 Responses to the statement ‘Tourism is a tool for conservation and development and should be promoted in protected areas’ (n = 26) 16 No. of respondents

14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Strongly disagree

72

Disagree

Don’t know

Agree

Strongly agree

W ild lif e , c o mmu n it ie s a n d p ro t ecte d a re a s

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 72

14/11/12 9:14 AM

Challenges of promoting ecotourism in protected areas While there was much support from respondents for ecotourism as an option for integrating conservation and development, there are many challenges associated with its implementation. Managers were asked to identify key challenges and their relative importance. The following challenges were identified, presented here in order of priority: 1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

Strong level of community participation and support: the host communities need to be actively involved in tourism development to give them ownership over its implementation. Code of conduct: guidelines or a code of conduct with clear dos and don’ts are needed, in order to operate tourism in a responsible manner. Guidelines should also include good monitoring and evaluation mechanisms to ensure sustainable utilisation of the tourism resources. Increasing community capacity and training: capacity for ecotourism activities needs to be built for all partners involved with tourism, particularly the local communities. Equitable distribution of benefits: the benefits flowing from ecotourism operations should not be confined to just a few individuals, but be widely shared through community-based programs. Building partnerships: tourism development demands a multisectoral approach and therefore needs the concerted effort of a wide range of partners. All relevant partners to be included need to be identified, and partnerships among them built accordingly. Obtaining funds for tourism development: funds will need to be mobilised to build infrastructure and human capacity, especially for the start-up of tourism operations. Marketing: a viable volume of visitors is needed in order bring economic benefits that can contribute to wider community support for environmental conservation. To achieve this volume, effective marketing is necessary.

C o n s e rv a t io n a n d d e v e lo p me n t in t h e prote cte d a re a s of B h u ta n

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 73

73

14/11/12 9:14 AM

Discussion Park management must be much more then rural development, important as that is. Some conservationists have become sceptical about Bhutan’s integrated approach. They find it difficult to see a difference between management inside protected areas and outside them, and cynically comment that ‘the whole country is a national park’. ICDPs are one of the core management strategies for PAs in Bhutan, and the results of our surveys indicate that PA managers generally view them as important elements in achieving PA management objectives. However, it is not clear that all ICDP activities are effective in achieving conservation outcomes, and our results indicate that PA managers view only a subset of ICDP activities as making important contributions to conservation. Others appear to be aimed primarily at local development and have little conservation rationale. Park managers and conservation officials identified several weaknesses with current ICDPs, underlying their limited success in promoting conservation goals. The desires of the local people to fulfil their immediate socio-economic needs puts pressure on park management to undertake development-oriented projects, hindering these managers in selecting programs with greater conservation content. The socioeconomic benefits flowing from the ICDPs also raise the expectations of the local people, in some cases causing conflict between communities. This has been the case in the communities of Merak and Sakteng villages in Sakteng Wildlife Sanctuary, where the provision of roofing sheets to only one of the two communities caused the other to become hostile to the park management. This in turn has negative consequences for conservation, as the community does not want to co-operate with park management (see Box 3.2), undermining the rationale for the ICDP.

74

W ild lif e , c o mmu n it ie s a n d p ro t ecte d a re a s

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 74

14/11/12 9:14 AM

Box 3.2 Tackling conservation and development in the Merak and Sakteng communities in Sakteng Wildlife Sanctuary A long-standing conflict between the communities of Merak and Sakteng in Sakteng Wildlife Sanctuary over corrugated galvanised iron (CGI) roofing sheets provided under the ICDP has raised questions over the viability of the national policy of integrating conservation and development activities. In 2006, under an ICDP, 240 households in the Sakteng community were provided with CGI sheets worth nearly Nu.6 million (approx. US$135 000). Due to lack of funds these commodities could not be provided to the 290 households of nearby Merak. Disgruntled, the people of Merak allegedly started flouting the conservation rules and regulations in the park. In the course of this study park manager Tenzin Wangchuk said, ‘The Merak people are very reluctant to cooperate with the park management’s initiatives and programs these days. Some of them even started felling trees, poaching wild animals and even refusing porter-pony services to our staff.’ However, the Merak gup (village headman) indicated that he was not aware of such incidents, and that the people had requested CGI sheets which had been promised to them. The park management has submitted a project proposal to obtain funds from WWF to provide the roofing materials.

Source: Samal (2009)

Another major concern of surveyed park managers with ongoing ICDP activities is the ‘sustainability’ of the programs, as almost all of the present activities are highly dependent on donor funding, tied to development aid projects, and offer only short-term economic and/or conservation benefits. This is risky, as when the funding from the donors becomes scarce or exhausted the co-operation and support of the local people is also expected to decrease. Designing appropriate mechanisms to achieve long-term livelihood and conservation benefits is a challenge.

C o n s e rv a t io n a n d d e v e lo p me n t in t h e prote cte d a re a s of B h u ta n

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 75

75

14/11/12 9:14 AM

ICDPs are likely to remain central to PA management in Bhutan. To enhance their conservation impact, however, park management needs to have more control over prioritising the ICDP activities rather than merely accepting the list provided by the district governance. Existing guidelines for implementation of ICDPs need to be followed. The lead author of this research (Tshering) was the chief co-ordinator in formulating the document ‘Striking the Balance’ (NCD 2003), which presents guidelines for identifying conservation and development programs. The document provides a systematic and rational approach to identifying, planning, implementing and monitoring ICDPs. For an activity to be eligible as an ICDP it will need to incorporate the three themes of socio-economic development, biodiversity conservation and sustainability. PA managers need to work with the different sectors and use these guidelines in selecting appropriate ICDP activities. In light of these issues, park managers identified ecotourism as an ICDP activity with the potential to deliver sustainable, long-term benefits for both development and conservation. The principles of ecotourism complement the overarching development vision of Bhutan – seeking the middle path approach to development, and increasing Gross National Happiness. Ecotourism development under proper planning and management, that meets the challenges of adopting correct practices, has the capacity to take Bhutan forward in its development aspirations.

76

W ild lif e , c o mmu n it ie s a n d p ro t ecte d a re a s

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 76

14/11/12 9:14 AM

Plate 1 Elephants in field, southern Sri Lanka Photo: S. Kalpage

Plate 2 Chena farmer harvesting tomatoes near Yala National Park Photo: S. Kalpage

UNSW_ConsMngmt_ColourPics.indd 1

15/11/12 1:41 PM

Plate 3 Tree hut from which farmer keeps watch over crops Photo: S. Kalpage

UNSW_ConsMngmt_ColourPics.indd 2

15/11/12 1:41 PM

Plate 4 A snow leopard photographed using remote cameras,

Ladakh & Zanskar © Snow Leopard Conservancy

Plate 5 A delighted herdsman inside a new predator-proofed

corral in Tangyar village, Nubra Valley © Gudrun Batek 2007

UNSW_ConsMngmt_ColourPics.indd 3

15/11/12 1:41 PM

Plate 6 Rinchen Wangchuk identifying blue sheep horns at

a nature guides’ training session in Tangyar pasture © Jigmet Dadul, Snow Leopard Conservancy-India Trust 2005

Plate 7 Apricots, one of Ladakh’s main exports, drying on a homestay roof © Vandana Mohindra 2007

UNSW_ConsMngmt_ColourPics.indd 4

15/11/12 1:41 PM

Plate 8 Many villages in

Bhutan are surrounded by protected forest areas, and by wildlife which poses a threat to the farming community Photo: Tourist Commission of Bhutan

Plate 9 The lack of roads

in Bhutan, especially in the higher regions, means horses are important pack animals for the local people as well as for trekking tourists Photo: Tourist Commission of Bhutan

Plate 10 Recognising the benefits of ecotourism, the Bhutanese government

is developing campsites in protected areas with basic facilities, including areas for pitching tents, cooking sheds and toilet amenities Photo: Tourist Commission of Bhutan

UNSW_ConsMngmt_ColourPics.indd 5

15/11/12 1:41 PM

Plate 12 Shenduruney Wildlife Sanctuary Photo: Somesh S

UNSW_ConsMngmt_ColourPics.indd 6

15/11/12 1:41 PM

Plate 11 View of Shenduruney

Wildlife Sanctuary Photo: Arun Kumar V

Plate 13 Lakeside livelihoods

at Be Be National Park Photo: R. Nurick

Plate 14 Wilpia Soak before fencing and rehabilitation Photo: G. Wilson

UNSW_ConsMngmt_ColourPics.indd 7

15/11/12 1:41 PM

Plate 15 Wilpia Soak after fencing and rehabilitation Photo: G. Wilson

Plate 16 Anangu rangers locating and documenting rock art on Angas Downs

UNSW_ConsMngmt_ColourPics.indd 8

15/11/12 1:41 PM

Plate 17 Angas Downs ranger Paul

Pumpjack igniting a small patch burn

Plate 18 Cool burns trickle around fire-sensitive mulga (Acacia aneura) and reduce risk of large hot wildfires on Angas Downs

UNSW_ConsMngmt_ColourPics.indd 9

15/11/12 1:41 PM

Plate 19 An area of the Zhoujiagou Watershed in Huachi County before the GFG Program was established, in 1999 World Bank Loess Plateau Project Phase II

Plate 20 The same area of the Zhoujiagou Watershed in Huachi

County after the GFG Program was established, in 2009 Photo: Research team 2009

UNSW_ConsMngmt_ColourPics.indd 10

15/11/12 1:41 PM

Plate 21 The cheap and simple pen made by farmers for sheep-rearing in Huachi County

Plate 22 A household interview conducted by

authors in a local community in Huachi County Photo: Research team 2009

UNSW_ConsMngmt_ColourPics.indd 11

15/11/12 1:41 PM

Plate 23 Native grass growth between mallee rows near West Wyalong, at row spacings of 1.5 metres Photo: Alex Baumber 14 March 2010

Plate 24 Native grass growth between mallee rows near West Wyalong, at row spacings of 3 metres Photo: Alex Baumber 14 March 2010

UNSW_ConsMngmt_ColourPics.indd 12

15/11/12 1:41 PM

Plate 25 Sunset

over the islands of Kor Sarai in the Andaman Sea, Thailand Photo: Kongkiat Kittiwattanawong

Plate 26 Western grey

kangaroos (Macropus fuliginosis) on Fowler’s Gap Research Station, western New South Wales Photo: Alex Baumber

Plate 27 View of Barrier Ranges on Fowler’s Gap Arid Zone Research Station Photo: Peter Ampt

UNSW_ConsMngmt_ColourPics.indd 13

15/11/12 1:41 PM

Plate 28 Eastern quoll (Dasyurus viverrinus),

the key species assessed in Chapter 12 Photo: S. Jackson

Plate 29 Northern

Territory keeper Carlia Miles with northern brush-tailed phascogales (Phascogale pirata). All native mammals can be kept by licensed keepers in the Northern Territory. Photo: G. Miles

UNSW_ConsMngmt_ColourPics.indd 14

15/11/12 1:41 PM

Plate 30 A collection of more than 65 seeds and herbs on display to demonstrate the breadth of Khon Pga k’nyau (Karen) local knowledge of plant-based medicines and foods (Baan Mae Ka Pu, Amphoe Samoeng, Chiang Mai). Photo: D.F. Robinson, c28 March 2005

Plate 31 Argan fruit drying in the sun before de-pulpage. The trees growing in the

background are argan trees endemic to the Souss Valley region of Morocco (near Cooperative Tagmate, Aziar, Souss-Massa [Agadir] Region). Photo: D.F. Robinson, 30 April 2011

UNSW_ConsMngmt_ColourPics.indd 15

15/11/12 1:41 PM

Plate 32 (left) Non-timber forest products for sale in a local market Credit: Keystone Foundation, shared under the Creative Commons Share-Alike License

Plate 35 (below) Installation of a deep tube-

well for drinking water in rural Bangladesh. Photo by AMRF (permission by copyright holder)

Plate 33 (above) Collecting non-timber forest products Credit: Keystone Foundation, shared under the Creative Commons ShareAlike License

Plate 34 (right) Communitybased arsenic-free deep tube-well in Bangladesh. Photo by AMRF (permission by copyright holder)

UNSW_ConsMngmt_ColourPics.indd 16

15/11/12 1:41 PM

4 Prospects for ecotourism in Kerala: a review of the Thenmala Project KM Sajad Ibrahim, Department of Political Science, University of Kerala

Tourism is an important commercial activity contributing to the development of many countries. Over the last few decades, the nature of tourism has undergone great transformation that has included the emergence of sustainable tourism. The evolution of sustainable tourism is highly significant, as traditional tourism has frequently had adverse impacts on nature, ecosystems and culture. It is against this backdrop that ‘ecotourism’ emerged. The term itself was coined by Hector Ceballos-Lascuráin, a Mexican environmentalist who developed a new concept of naturebased travel to relatively undisturbed areas with an emphasis on education (Ceballos-Lascuráin 1996) that has gradually been developed in subsequent years. Although the term ecotourism is still often used synonymously with sustainable tourism, in reality ecotourism should be viewed as a subset of the larger concept of sustainable tourism (Ceballos-Lascuráin 1998, p. 8). Sustainable tourism is not just limited to areas of ecologi-

P ro s p e cts for e cotou ri sm i n K e ra l a

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 77

77

14/11/12 9:14 AM

cal significance, but aims to reduce the negative impacts of tourism in a holistic way across urban, rural and wilderness areas, addressing issues of economic viability, socio-cultural sensitivity and environmental sustainability in both mass tourism and the various niche tourism segments. Ecotourism is a type of sustainable tourism that emphasises conserving nature and improving the lives of local people in rural and wilderness areas, and further aims to teach people about environmental conservation. While ecotourism is often promoted as a way to reconcile local development with conservation of biodiversity and natural resources, the actual impacts of ecotourism initiatives are not always assessed. This chapter seeks to examine the meaning and concept of ecotourism, and examine its implementation and impacts, in India. It focuses on the implementation of ecotourism at Thenmala in Kerala state, one of India’s first ecotourism projects, and aims to better understand its impacts for biodiversity and the local people, and its potential to reconcile development and conservation. This work is based on a literature review on and on fieldwork carried out at Thenmala Ecotourism Project in 2010. This chapter first explores the concept and emergence of ecotourism. Second, it focuses on ecotourism in the Indian context through an examination of government policy guidelines and the development of ecotourism projects. Finally, it reports a detailed study on Kerala’s Thenmala Ecotourism Project to better understand the problems and prospects of ecotourism in India.

The concept and development of ecotourism Since the 1960s society has become increasingly concerned with peace, human rights and the environmental destruction of our planet and its socio-cultural impacts. These ideological changes are reflected in the changing face of the global travel and tourism industry worldwide.

78

W ild lif e , c o mmu n it ie s a n d p ro t ecte d a re a s

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 78

14/11/12 9:14 AM

The responsible tourism or eco-friendly tourism movement evolved in the 1970s as a reaction to many negative consequences of tourism, including prostitution, crime, drug trafficking, cultural devastation, destruction of natural landscapes and natural resources, and economic discrepancies. The movement grew to include cultural organisations, educational groups, ethnic institutions and friendship tours. Ecotourism assumed greater significance in the late 1980s as a strategy for reconciling conservation with development in ecologically rich areas. Major ecotourism initiatives took place in the developing world, notably in Latin America, Asia and Africa, and Australia. The global importance of ecotourism was recognised with the launching of the year 2002 as the ‘International Year of Ecotourism’ by the United Nations General Assembly (UN DESA 2002).This UN initiative was a testament to the growing importance of ecotourism, not only as a sector with great potential for economic development, but also as a powerful tool for conservation of the natural environment if properly planned and managed. Ecotourism is ‘primarily concerned with the direct enjoyment of some relatively undisturbed phenomenon of nature’ (Valentine 1992). Ecotourism has been suggested as a way in which increasing numbers of visitors seeking an intrinsically environmental tourism experience can be accommodated while minimising the costs and enhancing the benefits associated with natural area tourism (Boo 1990; Cater & Lowman 1994). It concerns travel to a natural area; involving local people; feeding economic profit into local environmental protection; and contributing to the maintenance of the local environment and species diversity through minimising visitor impact and promoting tourist education (Ceballos-Lascuráin 1998; Diamantis 1999; Fennell 1998). In this way, ecotourism is promoted by governments and the tourism industry as a sustainable alternative to mass tourism. However, conceptions of the meaning of ecotourism and motivations for pursuing it vary. The tourism industry, for example, may regard ecotourism as an exciting new venture and product to market.

P ro s p e cts for e cotou ri sm i n K e ra l a

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 79

79

14/11/12 9:14 AM

Environmental groups, by contrast, tend to see it more as a philosophy for conservation and protection of natural and cultural dimensions. Various definitions have emerged from environmental commentators. Coll et al. (1995, p. 2) define ecotourism as ‘tourism that involves travelling to relatively undisturbed natural areas with the objectives of studying, admiring and enjoying nature and its wild plants and animals as well as any existing cultural aspects, past or present, found in these areas’. IUCN (1994) defines ecotourism as tourism which is developed and maintained in an area (community or environment) in such a manner and on such a scale that it remains viable over an indefinite period and does not degrade or alter the environment. The definition provided by the International Ecotourism Society includes the welfare of local people: ecotourism is ‘responsible travel to natural areas which conserves the environment and improves well-being of local people’ (TES 1991). Ecotourism, in fact, existed as both concept and practice long before the coinage of the term in the mid-1980s. But practitioners and academics quickly embraced the new term as the preferred word for tourism that is environmentally focused and responsible. The diversity of definitions indicates the lack of consensus on the precise meaning of ecotourism, although careful examination of these definitions reveals common characteristics. Blamey (1997) has distilled three core criteria of ecotourism that recur in these and other definitions – namely, a nature-based element, an educational or learning component, and a requirement of sustainability: • Basis in nature: virtually all definitions of ecotourism refer to the natural environment, with the prefix ‘eco’ generally taken to mean ‘ecology’ or ‘ecosystem’. These references generally allude to the perception that ecotourism should be ‘nature based’ – that is, its attractions should be based primarily on the natural environment or some element thereof. • Learning: in terms of visitor motivation and the actual interaction between the visitor and the attraction, ecotourism definitions generally include an element of education, learning or

80

W ild lif e , c o mmu n it ie s a n d p ro t ecte d a re a s

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 80

14/11/12 9:14 AM

appreciation about the natural attractions that form the basis of the ecotourism product. • Sustainability: almost all ecotourism definitions maintain that this form of tourism must be ‘sustainable’. The reference here stems from the concept of sustainable development, which was defined and popularised by the Brundtland Report as ‘development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs’ (WCED 1987, p. 43). This imperative of sustainability is clearly linked to the desire to foster a form of tourism that avoids the negative impact of conventional mass tourism. Ecotourism is inherently limited in the extent to which it can be developed and promoted, given that it cannot support large numbers of tourists without setting in train a process of succession and change which destroys the very reason for its existence – the natural environment. Ecotourism markets are expanding faster than any other tourism segment. Ironically, this rapid expansion threatens the sustainability of ecotourism and the extent to which it can contribute to sustainable development. Conservation of natural areas and sustainable development are essential to the planning and management of ecotourism. Hence central to a sustainable ecotourism industry are controls, restrictions and limits, codes of ethics and conduct. There has not been a uniform final conclusion on the definition of ecotourism among scholars. Not only is the understanding and comprehension of ecotourism continuously deepened, but researchers, developers and business operators all view it from different areas of priority. However, academic debate on the meaning of tourism is of little value without detailed examination of the practical realities of the implementation of ecotourism initiatives. The link between theory and its application in the real-world situation is very important. As a new method of tourism, ecotourism has been adopted differently in many parts of the world, and issues in developing countries such as India are of particular importance, given the environmental assets involved.

P ro s p e cts for e cotou ri sm i n K e ra l a

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 81

81

14/11/12 9:14 AM

Ecotourism in India In India, tourism is emerging as a key sector in the economy. It is presently India’s second largest foreign exchange earner (Roy & Tisdell 1998). Tourism was given the status of an industry in 1986 and became eligible for several incentives, including tax incentives, subsidies, priorities in the sanctioning of loans by the state financial institutions, and preference for provision of electricity and water connections. The Ministry of Tourism developed a forward-looking National Tourism Policy in 2002 after intensive consultation with state governments, industry associations and stakeholders (Government of India 2002; National Tourism Policy 2002). The policy aims to evolve a framework which is government led, private sector driven and community welfare oriented. Ecotourism in the Indian context has significant implications for nature and culture conservation, rural livelihoods and conservation education. A set of Policy Guidelines on Ecotourism was issued by the Department of Tourism in July 1998, while the National Tourism Policy states that special emphasis should be laid on ecotourism, the parameters of which should be broader than nature alone (Government of India 2002). India offers enormous diversity in topography, natural resources, ecosystems and climate. There are landlocked mountain regions, lush valleys and plains, arid desert regions, white sandy beaches and islands. India is also well known globally for its rich and varied cultures. The protected ecosystems of India (biosphere reserves, mangroves, coral reefs, deserts, mountains and forests, flora and fauna, seas, lakes and rivers and caves) have become the major resources for ecotourism. In order to protect and preserve these resources, India has created a number of national parks and 421 wildlife sanctuaries in different parts of the country. Those which have already become popular with tourists include Kaziranga and Manas in Assam; Jim Corbett in Uttar Pradesh; Keoladeo, Ghana, Ranthambore and Sariska in Rajasthan; Kanha and Bandhavgarh in Madhya Pradesh; Bandipour in Karnataka and Similipal in Orissa (Khanna 2002).

82

W ild lif e , c o mmu n it ie s a n d p ro t ecte d a re a s

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 82

14/11/12 9:14 AM

The 2002 National Tourism Policy defines ecotourism in the following way: ‘responsible travel to natural area without disturbing the environment’; ‘forest tourism is ecotourism in forest areas’; and ‘wildlife tourism is controlled ecotourism in protected areas, i.e. national parks and sanctuaries’. The objectives for ecotourism highlight the role of local communities, including ‘involving local communities in management of ecotourism in these areas; to ensure benefit to local communities; and improvement of socio-economic conditions for the local communities by creation of livelihood opportunities and employment generation’ (Government of India 2002) Few studies on ecotourism in India exist. The most noted comprehensive study is that of Bhatt and Liakhat (2008), who found that initiatives carried out in the name of ecotourism have had both positive and negative impacts on people and the environment. A study by Chakravarty (2003), focused on the proposed marine park at Malvan in Maharashtra, highlighted potential problems with ecotourism and suggested alternatives. Maharana et al. (2000) highlighted the significance of ecotourism in vulnerable regions of India with rich biodiversity and religious importance (sacred sites), and argued for further development of such ecotourism in the interests of both economic development and preserving biodiversity.

Ecotourism in Kerala Kerala is known to its inhabitants as ‘God’s Own Country’. It has beautiful hills and valleys, lakes, backwaters, lagoons and seashores, associated with a rich heritage of art, culture and indigenous medicines, coupled with ideal climate conditions. It attracts tourists in large numbers and is one of the most popular destinations in the world. Beaches, palmfringed backwaters, exotic wildlife, mountains, unique culture and traditions, art and festivals give it a distinctive charm. Kerala is also often regarded as India’s most advanced society. ‘Responsible tourism’ is adopted as the cornerstone for tourism development in the state. Every

P ro s p e cts for e cotou ri sm i n K e ra l a

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 83

83

14/11/12 9:14 AM

year a large number of foreign and domestic tourists visit Kerala. In 2008, for example, it was estimated that 598 929 foreign tourists and 7 591 250 domestic tourists visited Kerala (Government of Kerala 2008). The Kerala government has taken various steps to launch ecotourism since 1998, based on the various policy guidelines of the government of India. Kerala has 12 wildlife sanctuaries and also two national parks, creating a base for ecotourism activities, and there is large scope for activities such as mountaineering, trekking and birdwatching. Kerala is well connected by road and rail and has a long coastline. Kerala Forest Department staff are well trained in the conservation of wildlife and natural resources. The basic objectives adopted for ecotourism in Kerala are: to convert the entire tourism industry in Kerala into eco-friendly mode 2. to strengthen ecotourism development initiatives in the state 3. to ensure local community involvement in tourism initiatives leading to employment and income generation 4. to create public awareness of and involvement in responsible tourism development (Government of Kerala 2010). 1.

The Kerala Forest Department has been entrusted with the task of evolving modalities for developing community-based ecotourism programs in potential ecotourism spots through the institutions of Vana Samrakshana Samithi (VSSs, or Forest Protection Committees) and Eco Development Committees (EDCs). VSSs are mechanisms for the joint management of forest areas by the Forest Department and members of the local community. EDCs are also part of joint management, providing opportunities for the local community to take part in day-to-day management of particular ecologically important areas. While VSSs are primarily for forest area management, EDCs are primarily for protecting the interests of local people, especially forest-dependent communities, while implementing tourism and other related programs (Government of Kerala 2007). One EDC consists of 40 to 50 families in a region. For

84

W ild lif e , c o mmu n it ie s a n d p ro t ecte d a re a s

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 84

14/11/12 9:14 AM

example, in the Thenmala core area (see below) there are three EDCs, with another six in the peripheral area. A key aim of EDCs is to support livelihoods by encouraging tourist flow, enabling income through tips and providing food and other needs to tourists. There are few studies on ecotourism in Kerala. The most notable is a review by Correya and Jacob (2011) which focused on three different types of ecotourist destination, at Kumbalangi (backwater tourism), Cherai (beach tourism) and Munnar (high-range tourism). According to this study, all three destinations have failed in terms of environmental sustainability, benefits for local people and increasing revenue generation, each of which is considered a core concern for ecotourism. Another notable study by Damayanti and Masuda (2008) on Kerala’s Periyar Tiger Reserve explored the role of local people in sustainable tourism, finding a change in local livelihoods from forest-dependent to independent, based on providing various services to tourists. Both studies indicate adverse impacts of ecotourism projects on the life of local people.

Thenmala Ecotourism Project Thenmala is a small village at the foothills of the Western Ghats, in Kollam district in Kerala. It is predominantly a forest area with a lot of human intervention at the periphery of the forest. Nearby is the Peppara dam of the Kallada Irrigation Project (KIP), the biggest irrigation project in the state, with a reservoir 22 km2 in area. Around this water body is the famous Shenduruney Wildlife Sanctuary (see Plates 11 and 12), which covers about 108 km2 and contains a rich variety of flora and fauna: 34 species of mammals, 245 species of birds, 36 varieties of reptiles, 22 species of amphibians and 42 species of fishes. This sanctuary was established for the conservation of a most important endemic and endangered tree species with valuable medicinal properties, Gluta travancorica (known locally as chenkurinji). The Thenmala Ecotourism Promotion Society (TEPS) was launched by the Kerala government in July 1998 to promote ecotourism activi-

P ro s p e cts for e cotou ri sm i n K e ra l a

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 85

85

14/11/12 9:14 AM

ties at Thenmala and its surroundings, based primarily on the wildlife sanctuary and the reservoir. This initiative pre-dated the government’s formal policy on ecotourism. TEPS adopted a strategy of co-ordination between the Kerala Forest Department, Irrigation Department and Tourism Department, with ecotourism activities such as trekking and birdwatching trails developed and implemented through EDCs with the aim of ensuring benefits to local people. Most of the land in this area is under the control of the Forest Department, with some controlled by the Irrigation Department. The Tourism Department has the minor role in the initiative. The administration of TEPS is carried out by a board consisting of government officials, mostly from the Forest Department. EDCs have no representation on this board. In most cases the board does not interfere with ecotourism activities in practice, providing only broad direction. TEPS launched the first phase of the Thenmala Ecotourism Project (TEP) in December 1999, with the establishment of a deer rehabilitation centre and boating in the reservoir. The second phase was launched in January 2001 and the project was opened to the public in April 2001. The TEP was the first of its kind in Kerala, and possibly in India, developed in tune with internationally accepted principles of ecotourism. Its objectives were to develop Thenmala dam and its surroundings as a major tourist destination, and to promote ecotourism on the basis of sound principles of ecological sustainability. The famous Shenduruney Wildlife Sanctuary is the most important resource of Thenmala ecotourism, with the lake formed by the damming of the Kallar River (for irrigation and hydropower) at its centre. The TEP has adopted a threefold strategy: eco-friendly general tourism, ecotourism and pilgrimage tourism. The eco-friendly general tourism is restricted to the periphery of the sanctuary, with the ‘real’ ecotourism taking place within the sanctuary. This is a consciously developed strategy based on analysis of what is happening in various other Indian wildlife sanctuaries in terms of tourist pressure, and is aimed at reducing the impact on forest ecosystem inside the sanctuary. The eco-friendly

86

W ild lif e , c o mmu n it ie s a n d p ro t ecte d a re a s

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 86

14/11/12 9:14 AM

general tourism and the ecotourism activities are the focus of the study reported here. Firstly, eco-friendly general tourism takes place at the periphery of the sanctuary in an area divided into three different zones: Culture Zone, Leisure Zone and Adventure Zone. The objective of the Culture Zone is to familiarise tourists with the traditional culture of Kerala. It includes a restaurant with Kerala foods, shopping areas (shop courts) with plenty of Kerala’s art and crafts, and an amphitheatre presenting Kerala’s art and culture through dance performance. An open-air Musical Dancing Fountain is another attraction of this zone. In the Leisure Zone, a boardwalk leading to the dam is the most important installation. Other attractions are beautiful pathways, the Sway Bridge, and a sculpture garden with the theme of ‘man and nature’. Finally, the Adventure Zone offers an elevated walkway through the canopy of trees, giving visitors the opportunity to experience the flora and fauna from the treetops, and other adventure activities including mountain biking and rock climbing. Secondly, ‘real’ ecotourism takes place in the core area of the TEP, in and around the Shenduruney Wildlife Sanctuary. Tourists can trek through the forest, or take boat trips on the lake starting from a landing area several kilometres inside the sanctuary. In order to minimise vehicle traffic, two battery-powered vehicles transport visitors through the sanctuary to the landing. Due to the presence of rare species, visiting certain areas of the sanctuary like Pandy Motta and Dharbhakulam regions is limited. The three most popular ecotourism trails in the sanctuary are the Kallar trail, the Kuttilappara–Choodal birdwatching trail and the Dharbhakulam trail, all of which aim to enable tourists to view flora and fauna. There are over 950 species of flowering plants and almost 250 species of birds in the sanctuary area. Trekking in restricted areas may be allowed with prior permission from the Forest Department. Finally, the pilgrimage tourism associated with the TEP aims at developing an eco-friendly circuit from Thenmala connecting the three

P ro s p e cts for e cotou ri sm i n K e ra l a

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 87

87

14/11/12 9:14 AM

Ayyappan (Hindu deity) shrines in the area (Kulathupuzha, Aryankavu and Achankovil) related to the famous Hindu pilgrimage centre of Sabarimala. This strategy involves proactive steps, including monitoring the ecological impacts of tourism, to ensure that the environmental issues affecting Sabarimala will not occur in these places. The TEP also includes an Environmental Education and Interpretation Centre, which provides information about environmental conservation and the significance of ecotourism. The ecotourists have the opportunity to visit the deer rehabilitation centre, the Palaruvi waterfalls and Thenmala dam, which are nearby but not part of the ecotourism project. A visit to these places enables the ecotourists to enjoy their natural beauty. The TEP was considered a success in its initial year of launching. It showed strong and increasing tourist inflows – both domestic and foreign – and was honoured with the best Eco-friendly Tourism Project Award for 2002 by the government of India. Unfortunately, however, it is not clear that its early potential and promise has been realised.

Review of ecotourism in Thenmala We explored the implementation and impacts of the TEP through field research in Thenmala area over ten days in October 2010. The study involved interviews with tourists, local people and TEP officials. Eightyfive tourists were interviewed regarding tourist facilities and tourist issues in the Thenmala area, fifty local people were randomly selected for interview and, finally, ten officials were interviewed to seek clarification regarding issues raised by the tourists and locals. All interviews were conducted in an informal atmosphere wherein respondents were encouraged to express their views freely and anonymously. A fundamental principle of ecotourism is the conservation of nature and natural resources. Our study indicated that important principles of

88

W ild lif e , c o mmu n it ie s a n d p ro t ecte d a re a s

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 88

14/11/12 9:14 AM

ecotourism have been violated in the TEP. One of the important criticisms levelled against the project in interviews with local people is the deforestation involved. According to interviewees, since the launching of the project many trees have been uprooted, badly affecting the conservation of flora and fauna. Many local people commented that the launching of the ecotourism initiative and the unrestricted entry of tourists had resulted in the disappearance of animals and birds. Further, tourist travel at night through the forest area was felt to create a lot of disturbance affecting the normal life of animals. Local people have a key role in ecotourism. At Thenmala, however, our interviews with local people indicate that they have not gained much benefit from the project, having been denied job opportunities in the project area. According to the local people, very few (less than 5 per cent) of the total employees have been recruited locally, with the rest coming from different parts of Kerala based on the ruling party’s affiliation. While local people have been given the chance to work as tourist guides, this has provided little benefit as they have not been given proper training or regular wages. Hence, they are not willing to work as guides, and this adversely affects the tourist experience (see Table 4.1). In addition, even those who are employed have not been paid well, with serious complaints made regarding reimbursement of employee provident funds. Further, trekking was an important activity that provided income to the locals, but since 2008 the Forest Department has stopped granting trekking permits, citing violation of forest rules and security issues. Finally, the existence of the project has adversely affected a number of aspects of their routine life, including the security of local women, who have reported incidents of harassment and threats from the tourists. Local people have conducted protests on many occasions to seek redress for their grievances.

P ro s p e cts for e cotou ri sm i n K e ra l a

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 89

89

14/11/12 9:14 AM

Table 4.1 Thenmala Ecotourism Project: an overview Major strengths

Major weaknesses

1. Natural features with rich biodiversity and rare species 2. Policy initiatives that support sustainable ecotourism 3. Smooth law and order, peace and tranquillity 4. Constant increase in the state and central budget allocation for ecotourism 5. Well-informed and watchful conservation groups 6. Rural village life rich and diverse with unique attractions 7. Known for specific tourism products like backwaters, migratory birds, tiger trails and the like

1. Various activities failed to contribute sufficient job opportunities to the local people 2. Lack of basic infrastructure 3. Government undermining skills of local people to run ecotourism projects 4. Increasing neglect of solid and liquid waste management 5. Absence of clear guidelines for monitoring ecotourism projects 6. Ecotourism project mechanism and practices in line with mass tourism concept 7. Warnings of environmentalists and nature conservationists about excessive tourism activities are sidelined 8. Lack of co-ordination among various line departments causing serious hurdle for development of ecotourism

Tourists raised a number of issues with their experience of ecotourism at Thenmala (see Table 4.2). The increase in the number of visitors has led to a serious problem of pollution, especially the dumping of waste. Many locations in the project area had been subject to dumping of food waste and plastic containers, and much waste had been dumped into the river basin as well. Respondents viewed this as a grave violation of ecological conservation and the principles of ecotourism. This dumping is due to the lack of proper management of waste disposal and the lack of any awareness/education campaign on waste by the TEP project management. Tourists indicated that a weakness in their experience of tourism in Thenmala was the lack of a unique local culture to experience and learn about. This is due to the local people being predominantly settler populations from Tamil Nadu and Sri Lanka. Most of the tourists visiting Thenmala are internal Indian tourists, especially from nearby states,

90

W ild lif e , c o mmu n it ie s a n d p ro t ecte d a re a s

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 90

14/11/12 9:14 AM

and are not enthusiastic about the cultural experiences on offer. Further, like those with local people, tourist interviews also indicated that the level of tourism in the forest area appears to have affected its peaceful atmosphere and its wildlife. Many were disappointed that they did not come across any of the wild animals or rare birds mentioned in advertising. Further, the inflow of tourists had led to the entry of tourists into the protected core areas of the wildlife sanctuary, in violation of forest rules. Table 4.2 Summary of issues raised by tourists Issue

Satisfied (%)

Dissatisfied (%)

No opinion (%)

Waste dumping

15

78

7

Food and accommodation

23

68

9

Availability of tourist guides

12

82

6

Transportation facilities

32

64

4

Attitude of officials

56

33

11

Overall assessment

23

57

20

Many tourists raised the issue of non-availability of guides. This meant they were not gaining proper information regarding the ecotourism project, leading to confusion and leaving the TEP without visiting many project sites. Although local people have been recruited as guides, they refused to take responsibility without adequate salaries. Further, the route-map was reported as being very poor in providing information. The TEP appears to lack some vital facilities for tourists. Major issues raised were the shortage of proper accommodation and limited food availability. The available food was very costly and many tourists were unable to afford it. Within the project area there were only limited accommodation facilities, and hotels situated away from the project site were reported as substandard in every sense. An important suggestion raised by tourists was that the future development of the TEP depends

P ro s p e cts for e cotou ri sm i n K e ra l a

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 91

91

14/11/12 9:14 AM

on the provision of eco-friendly accommodation and the availability of quality food. The officials who are in charge of managing the TEP have their own views regarding current issues. According to them, there are limited employment opportunities for the locals. Few locals are recruited, and primarily for low-level jobs, with more than 70 per cent of the jobs being given to people from outside the region. This is due to political involvement – the Kerala state government has to meet the demands of the ruling party’s workers to provide maximum job opportunities to its cadres. The TEP does provide training for local people to work as volunteers to help tourists, but as their income depends on the tips received from the tourists, many locals are not interested. On pollution-related issues, the officials expressed their helplessness, pointing out that the government is not keen to implement any waste management scheme, and members of the TEP management are not ready to take up the issue. They also raised the issue of misallocated government funding. Even the funds released for tourist management are not effectively utilised due to mismanagement. For example, one important issue was that many members (government officials and political leaders) do not attend the meetings of the Thenmala Ecotourism Promotion Society (TEPS), meaning important issues such as waste management and maintenance are not effectively discussed. The overall picture presented by the officials reveals ineffective management by government.

Discussion: prospects for ecotourism at Thenmala There is no doubt that sustainable tourism has a significant role to play in Kerala. While implementing ecotourism in the state, one important objective has been to preserve the natural environment and reconcile conservation with development in ecologically rich areas. However, an examination of the objectives of ecotourism and the way in which it has

92

W ild lif e , c o mmu n it ie s a n d p ro t ecte d a re a s

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 92

14/11/12 9:14 AM

been launched in Kerala presents a picture of total inconsistency. As a first ecotourism project, Thenmala fails to qualify as a major ecotourist destination due to several weaknesses. The TEP has failed to adequately engage the local people and ensure they gain benefits from from the project, running counter to one of the basic objectives of ecotourism. Local people gain few and low-level jobs, and in general are disappointed with their role. As a strategy for conservation and sustainability, the ecotourism experiment in Thenmala appears to be a failure. Tourism appears to be disturbing forest wildlife and possibly causing some species to leave the area, in turn meaning that tourists feel they cannot experience the real forest. Deforestation and pollution, especially large-scale dumping of plastic containers, has worsened. These problems, which go to the heart of the meaning of ecotourism, raise questions about management of the development of ecotourism. In India, the government is solely responsible for the promotion of ecotourism, and weaknesses in implementing sustainable tourist policies are the responsibility of government officials. Even the local committees formed for the purpose of management are not free from the control of government. While government agencies make some effort to involve the local community by providing jobs, it appears that in Thenmala such involvement has failed to materialise due to the political involvement in the issue. The ruling parties, who have enormous leverage in the administration of the TEP, recruit people from other areas, especially their own affiliated people, have little interest in locals with no relationship with their parties, and thus important positions are given to party members. These ‘managers’ are frequently not highly motivated to enforce relevant rules and controls, and often fail to build a rapport with the local population, who then become indifferent or resentful toward the project. As a destination officially supporting responsible tourism, Kerala needs to make greater efforts to build an effective administration that will be able to support sustainable tourism. One important drawback of

P ro s p e cts for e cotou ri sm i n K e ra l a

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 93

93

14/11/12 9:14 AM

the TEP is the minor role allocated to the Department of Tourism which, although primarily responsible for all of Kerala’s tourism, is not providing any support to Thenmala. At present the management of Thenmala is handled mostly by the Forest Department, which has poor knowledge of tourism. Better co-operation between these two departments will be vital for the success of Thenmala. Similarly, greater involvement of local people in TEP management is essential. Despite many defects in operationalising its principles, Thenmala continues to offer an ideal location for the development of ecotourism. Building these governmental links, overcoming the politicisation of tourism development, and enabling local people to play a meaningful part are the necessary conditions for a genuinely sustainable form of tourism in Kerala.

94

W ild lif e , c o mmu n it ie s a n d p ro t ecte d a re a s

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 94

14/11/12 9:14 AM

5 Protected areas and conservation landscapes: the case of Ba Be National Park, Vietnam Robert Nurick, Institute of Development Studies, UK and Michael Dine, People, Resources and Conservation Foundation, Vietnam

Introduction Ba Be National Park, in Bac Kan Province of north-eastern Vietnam, was established as the eighth protected area of Vietnam in 1992 (Prime Minister of Vietnam 1993) and an ASEAN Heritage Park in December 2003 (ASEAN 2003). It represents a critical remnant of a karst forest that once covered all northern Vietnam and southern China (Wikramanayake et al. 1997).1 The Biodiversity Action Plan for Vietnam lists the Ba Be/Na Hang Conservation Complex among the 12 highest priority sites for biodiversity conservation in the country (Government of SRV & GEF 1994), supporting high levels of botanical and faunal diver-

P ro t e c t e d a re a s a n d c o n s e r va ti on l a n dsca pe s i n V i e tn a m

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 95

95

14/11/12 9:14 AM

sity, particularly for primates, reptiles and butterflies (Le Trong Trai et al. 2004). Ba Be Lake is the largest natural lake in Vietnam, and a central component of the karst landscape. With Ba Be Lake and its feeding watercourses, the park holds and maintains a key role in the hydrological cycle that supports wet rice cultivation in the downstream Red River Delta (Ba Be National Park & Birdlife International 2010). In February 2011, Ba Be Lake was declared the third Ramsar site in Vietnam, reflecting its unique wetland and freshwater ecosystem value (Ramsar Secretariat 2011). In this chapter we discuss the impact of the establishment of the national park on communities situated within it, drawing on the findings from research conducted in February 2010 by the co-authors, with funding provided by the University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia under the Science Faculty Research Grant Program.2 We also explore the challenges of environmental change for livelihoods, and local people’s adaptation strategies. We begin by providing an overview of Ba Be National Park, its ecology and biodiversity. We analyse the impacts of the park on local people’s livelihoods using the Sustainable Livelihoods Framework, and the dynamics of livelihood strategies and conservation goals. We then explore the influence that local perceptions of environmental change have had on these dynamics, and conclude with a discussion of possible future directions of biodiversity conservation and livelihood strategies for those living in the lakeside communities.

Ba Be National Park Ecology and biodiversity Ba Be National Park is located on the western border of Ba Be District, in Bac Kan Province, 254 kilometres north of Hanoi (see Figure 5.1). The park covers 10 048 hectares, and is surrounded by a 34 702 hectare

96

W ild lif e , c o mmu n it ie s a n d p ro t ecte d a re a s

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 96

14/11/12 9:14 AM

buffer zone. This zone is also shared with nature reserves located to the west and south of Ba Be National Park. The park falls mainly within the commune of Nam Mau (the local administrative unit). Figure 5.1 Location of Ba Be National Park

The Districts of Bac Kan Province

Ba Be National Park BA BE NGAN SON

CHO DON

Vietnam

BACH THONG TXBAC KAN

Commune boundaries

NARI

CHO MOI

District boundaries Nam Mau Commune

Source: Adapted from Zingerli (2001, p. 16)

Recent data from the Ba Be District Statistics Office (2010) and Vietnam Conservation Fund (2005) indicate that the population residing in the national park and its buffer zone has increased from 19 714 in 2005 to 25 332 in 2009. Some 3559 people (613 households) live in the park itself in 11 villages. Nearly half the population of the Nam Mau commune is considered as poor according to the Vietnamese government’s poverty measurement criteria (Nam Mau Commune 2010).

P ro t e c t e d a re a s a n d c o n s e r va ti on l a n dsca pe s i n V i e tn a m

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 97

97

14/11/12 9:14 AM

The national park contains a matrix of habitats including terrestrial and aquatic, natural and man-made, primary and secondary, karst and non-karst, natural regeneration, tropical dense forest and bushes. The geology, geomorphology and landform of Ba Be National Park has led to a diversity of habitats that includes mountainous, limestone karst, rivers and valleys, and lake and riparian regions. This range of habitats includes ecosystems vital for the conservation of globally important species in tropical forest on limestone and hills (Le Trong Trai et al. 2004). The park conserves a diverse range of floral taxa endemic to karst environments, such as Excentrodendron, Garcinia fagraeoides, Annamocarya sinensis, Markhamia stipulata and Paphiopedilum species, and narrowly endemic mammal species including François’ langur (Trachypithicus francoisi), the Vietnamese salamander (Paramesotriton deloustali) and the Tonkin frog (Rana bacboensis) (Le Trong Trai et al. 2004).

Pressure on ecology and biodiversity During the American War (1955–75), forest cover was greatly reduced, particularly on the slopes and hills. Deforestation and expansion of agricultural land continued in the post-war scramble for reconstruction and development (1979–85) (Zingerli 2005). The remaining forest and Ba Be Lake represent crucial livelihood resources for local villagers, who depend on fisheries and harvesting of forest products. Hunting of wildlife for both subsistence consumption and for trade has had the greatest impact on wildlife numbers and local species decline (Hill 2000). Several local hunters reported to Pilgrim et al. (2009) that they had killed the globally endangered white-eared night heron (Gorsachius magnificus). More recently, observations were made of hunting of the globally endangered François’ langur (Trachypithecus francoisi) inside the park (M Dine, pers. obs. 2011). In June 2011, a World Bank delegation conducting an official visit to Ba Be National Park interviewed an animal trader who had a number of nationally significant species that he claimed were all caught within the park (Thiennhien.net 2011).

98

W ild lif e , c o mmu n it ie s a n d p ro t ecte d a re a s

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 98

14/11/12 9:14 AM

There has been great pressure on aquatic biodiversity as a result of extensive deforestation. Clearance of watershed forests has led to increased water runoff, soil erosion and sedimentation in the lakes and rivers (Bac Kan People’s Committee & Ba Be National Park 2001; Nurick 2010). Local people report that the depth of the lake has reduced from 80 metres in 1963 to 20 metres in 2010 (Nurick 2010). The depth of the Nang River, the outlet of the lake, has also reduced significantly, from 15–20 metres in 1986 to 5–7 metres in 2010 (Nurick 2010). Sediment deposition in the rivers has been compounded by agricultural activities and livestock grazing on alluvial floodplains and close to the tops of riverbanks. This has resulted in the removal of riparian vegetation, which no longer provides adequate bank protection, leading to widening of rivers as a result of the higher intensity and volume of flows that now occur more frequently (Nurick 2010; M Dine, pers. obs. 2011). Alluvial accumulation has also resulted from infrastructure development such as road construction, riverbed mining for gold, floodplain mining for gemstones and iron ore mining (Vietnam News 2011). From 1978, when extensive forest clearance commenced in the sub-catchments surrounding Ba Be Lake, to the present, extensive deposition of sediment has expanded the downstream low-lying floodplain areas. Concerns have been raised that this ongoing deposition threatens the future of the lake itself. Professor Luu Nhu Phu of the Institute of Water Resources predicts that the lake will be completely filled in 90–100 years (Vietnam National Administration of Tourism 2010). This data is supported by local people, who report that over the period 1978 to 2010 the floodplain has encroached into the lake, in places by as much as 400 metres (Nurick 2010). This deposition of sediment has gradually covered critical fisheries habitat such as the once extensive aquatic reed beds and egg-laying zones, lowering the lake’s natural ability to replenish fish stocks. In 1975, 105 fish species and subspecies were recorded (Mai et al. 1991), with a recent survey in 2009 suggesting a marked diversity decline to 47 species (Thai Ngoc Tri 2009).

P ro t e c t e d a re a s a n d c o n s e r va ti on l a n dsca pe s i n V i e tn a m

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 99

99

14/11/12 9:14 AM

Changing institutional structures and rural livelihoods The preceding section described the continuing pressures on, and decline of, the ecology and biodiversity in Ba Be National Park. In this section we present the Sustainable Livelihoods Framework as an analytical tool to analyse the dynamics of ecological change and rural livelihoods within the park.

Sustainable Livelihoods Framework This framework conceptualises household activities and livelihood strategies based on their bundle of capital assets (natural, social, financial, physical and human) (Scoones 1998). The ability of households to access and use their capital assets is mediated or modified by social factors such as gender, age and class, local institutional structures – for example, land tenure, rules and customs – and by government and non-government organisations. Livelihood strategies are pursued within the context of trends (for example, population changes, national and international policy) and shocks that include environmental hazards – for example, floods, drought and conflict (Ellis 2000, p. 30). It is the interaction between households’ assets and mediating processes that determines the degree of resilience (or conversely, the degree of vulnerability) to environmental change as households pursue activities to sustain livelihoods (Ellis 2000; Stewart Carloni & Crowley 2005).

Historical context For the rural communities residing in northern Vietnam, natural capital – agricultural land and forests – has provided and continues to provide the foundation for sustaining livelihoods. These communities comprise Tay, Mong and Dao ethnic groups, and are some of the poorest commu-

100

W ild lif e , c o mmu n it ie s a n d p ro t ecte d a re a s

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 100

14/11/12 9:14 AM

nities in Vietnam (Zingerli 2001, 2005). The Mong and Dao communities are concentrated in the upland areas and the Tay in the valleys (Zingerli 2001). Historically, customary land tenure regimes (based primarily on communal ownership of land by groups) mediated households’ access to and use of natural capital. The landscape for these communities comprised forests, grazing lands, wet and dry fields, terraced and shifting cultivation fields, and household gardens. Private or semi-private ownership was limited to fields in the valleys. Reciprocal social relations enabled households to call on labour of other households. Throughout the feudal dynasties and French colonial rule, influence of central government on these tenure relations was limited to the levying of taxes on lowland field cultivation (Vuong Xuan Tinh 2001). Those households that had access to rice fields in the valleys sustained livelihoods through cultivating rice, whereas poorer households without such fields cleared upland forests and cultivated rice, maize, fruit trees and vegetables. Upland maize was consumed by these households to supplement their rice consumption. Poorer households would also provide labour for the better-off households on their upland and valley farms on an exchange basis (Zingerli 2001, 2005). From the 1950s to the late 1980s, traditional land tenure relations based on communal ownership were replaced by government land tenure policies. Agricultural land and forests became formally owned by the state and allocated to co-operatives and collectives for access and use, administered through the commune. People were workers in these co-operatives and had no rights in deciding how land (farms and forests) could be used. However, government collectivisation policies, and the creation of co-operatives and collectives, were not fully established in the remote northern areas, so here land tenure relations continued to be influenced by community-based customs (Vuong Xuan Tinh 2001). With collectivisation, the nomadic lifestyle of the upland Dao gave way to permanent settlements in villages in the upland areas (Zingerli 2001).

P ro t e c t e d a re a s a n d c o n s e r va ti on l a n dsca pe s i n V i e tn a m

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 101

101

14/11/12 9:14 AM

Changes to the collectivisation programs started in the 1970s, opening the way for household decision making in agriculture (Zingerli 2005). In Ba Be District, this resulted in households being encouraged to increase agricultural production through cultivating upland fields, such that the land-use pattern around Ba Be Lake changed significantly. During the period 1983–98, the proportion of upland areas allocated to fields and rice terraces increased from 10 to 17 per cent (Zingerli et al. 2002). Policies of decentralisation of land management to households were further implemented through the national Land Law of 1988 and 1993, which formally abolished communal ownership through allocating fully transferable agricultural land- and forest-use rights to households, individuals and organisations at the district and commune levels (Vuong Xuan Tinh 2001). Three categories of forest were created: Special Use, Protection and Production. Under this framework, use rights could be allocated for Production Forest, and to a limited extent for Protection Forest. National parks, nature reserves and forests with environmental or historical/cultural significance were all classified as Special Use Forest (Zingerli 2001). The creation of Ba Be National Park and its subsequent classification as Special Use Forest resulted in significant changes in land management and the livelihoods of those residing within the park (discussed in detail in the following section). As with forest resources, access to and use of lake resources were governed by communal tenure relations, with all households living adjacent to the lake (see Plate 13) having access for fishing with wooden canoes (constructed from forest timber). Access to and harvesting of aquatic resources in the rivers and streams entering and flowing from the lake were restricted to the households located adjacent to them. In the early 1960s, the Ba Be District Level Fishing Co-operative was created to supply fish to support the war effort. It was disbanded in 1979 (Nurick 2010). The management of the lake and its aquatic resources now falls under the jurisdiction of the national park authorities. The impacts that the change in management regime has had on livelihoods of those residing adjacent to the lake is discussed below.

102

W ild lif e , c o mmu n it ie s a n d p ro t ecte d a re a s

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 102

14/11/12 9:14 AM

The application of the Sustainable Livelihoods Framework to these historical dynamics is summarised in Table 5.1. Table 5.1 Application of the Sustainable Livelihoods Framework to the historical dynamics of the Ba Be Lake community Capital assets

Access mediated by

In context of

Resulting in

Composed of activities

Natural capital • forests • valley farms • lake Social capital • reciprocal arrangements

Communal ownership Semi-private ownership Nam Mau Commune Cooperatives/ collectives

American War Conflict with China Migration Government collectivisation policies (limited influence) Decentralisation

Livelihood strategies

Shifting cultivation • upland maize • rice • vegetables, fruit, trees Valley rice cultivation Livestock rearing Fishing Labour exchange

Source: After Ellis 2000

Creation of the park The establishment of Ba Be National Park in 1992 saw it become the responsibility of the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development, with a National Park Management Board established to manage and run the park. In 2002, this responsibility transferred to the People’s Committee of Bac Kan Province, which still governs it (Guignier 2011). In forests within national parks (classified as Special Use Forests), not more than 5 per cent of the forest area is permitted to be used for agriculture. Special Use Forests have three zones: Strict Protection, Ecological and Restoration, and Service Administrative. Strict protection zones are areas of forest which have viable natural ecosystems and are protected from human impact. Ecological restoration zones are those areas that require restoration of forests and ecosystems through forestry management activities. Service administrative zones are areas for construction of offices, research stations, and tourist and recreational facilities (Guignier 2011). In 1992 the total area of Ba Be National Park was 7610 hectares; this was increased to 10 048 hectares in 2001, with areas zoned according

P ro t e c t e d a re a s a n d c o n s e r va ti on l a n dsca pe s i n V i e tn a m

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 103

103

14/11/12 9:14 AM

to the categories above. In addition to the three zones, however, Ba Be has villages located within it. These villages are essentially residential enclaves within the park (Greiser 2003). Within the strict protection zone (SPZ; 38% of land area) only activities related to biodiversity conservation are permitted. In the ecological and rehabilitation zone (ERZ; 61% of the area) upland crop cultivation is not permitted, nor is the felling of trees for construction, fuelwood or canoes, nor the harvesting of non-timber products. However, households with contracts to manage the ERZ (for payment), awarded by the National Park Management Board, are permitted to collect non-timber forest products for home consumption only. Only those with contracts are permitted to enter the ERZ. Mobile rangers and guard units are responsible for enforcing and monitoring these rules. The administrative and service zone comprises the remaining 1 per cent of the park area (UNESCO 2005; Bac Kan People’s Committee & Ba Be National Park 2001; Grieser 2003). The executive authority of the villages within the national park does not lie with the park authority (the People’s Committee of Bac Kan Province), but with the Nam Mau Commune People’s Committee. As well as being required to follow the regulations regarding access and use of natural resources in the zones of the national park, residents of these villages have further conditions placed on them: they are required to establish Forestry Protection Groups to ensure that there is no further expansion of cultivated land; existing cultivated land on slopes steeper than 10 degrees has to be converted to forestry; construction of new houses and buildings must be approved by both the park authority and the people’s committee; and regulations for use and management of aquatic resources must also be agreed with the two authorities (Greiser 2003, pp. 5–7). Although the park and its zoning was established in 1992, until 1998 enforcing park regulations was not a priority. Efforts during this period focused on building the infrastructure – roads, ranger stations, administration buildings, electricity supply – and relocating the villages in the

104

W ild lif e , c o mmu n it ie s a n d p ro t ecte d a re a s

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 104

14/11/12 9:14 AM

upland areas of the SPZ and ERZ. Households within the park continued to cultivate upland farms, collect timber and non-timber products and hunt in all three zones (Zingerli 2005). In 1998, enforcement of the regulations became a priority. With funding from the United Nations Development Program/Global Environmental Fund (UNDP/GEF), the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (the park authority at the time) implemented the Creating Protected Areas for Resource Conservation Using Landscape Ecology (PARC) project. This project aimed at improving the operational capacity and efficiency of the management to enforce the rules of the park, and reducing threats to biodiversity through combining conservation and community development objectives (Bao et al. 2004). As well as the enforcement function, the PARC project aimed to diversify the livelihood strategies of households within the park away from reliance on natural capital derived from the forests. The project was designed to intensify lowland agriculture through introducing high yielding variety (HYV) rice and maize, and promote off-farm income-earning activities such as handicrafts and tourism, including homestays and performance of cultural activities for tourists. The project also included an educational component focusing on raising awareness of biodiversity conservation, and on forestry and land management practices. Income-earning activities also included employing residents living within the park to implement forest management plans (UNDP 2009). The lakeside villages were granted exclusive fishing rights to the lake in return for self-regulation and refraining from destructive fishing practices such as dynamiting (Grieser 2003). In 2004, the Ba Be Lake Management Co-operative was established as part of the PARC project to manage and regulate fishing practices and use of the lake. The co-operative has 54 members from the lakeside villages. Its board is made up of representatives from the National Park authority and the people’s committees of Nam Mau and Khanh Ninh communes. The co-operative is also responsible for collecting fees from boats ferrying tourists

P ro t e c t e d a re a s a n d c o n s e r va ti on l a n dsca pe s i n V i e tn a m

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 105

105

14/11/12 9:14 AM

across the lake, which are shared among the boatmen, the co-operative, the Nam Mau commune and the tourist guide (Bao et al. 2004). In 2007, the park authorities introduced additional regulations, restricting fishing hours, limiting net mesh size, and prohibiting the use of motor boats, the construction of new wooden canoes and fish farming (Nurick 2010; Bac Kan People’s Committee 2006).

Impacts of Ba Be National Park and the PARC project on livelihood strategies The impacts of the creation of the National Park on rural livelihoods are summarised in Table 5.2. The loss of access and use of forest resources brought about by the creation of the national park has resulted in significant changes to rural livelihood strategies and livelihood outcomes for those households located within its boundaries. For the poorer households that are not able to produce sufficient food from valley farms, the loss of upland farms represents a severe blow, and they can suffer food shortages for between two and four months each year (Bac Kan People’s Committee & Ba Be National Park, 2001). In the past, survival strategies have relied on harvesting timber, other forest products and hunting. These strategies have been lost with the creation of the national park, for along with restrictions on the use of forest products, all hunting and trapping of animals is prohibited in Special Use Forests (Government of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam 2006). These losses have combined to result in poorer households becoming more dependent on wage labour on farms of the wealthier households (Zingerli 2005). The wealthier households have also lost access to their upland farms, and in turn become more reliant on engaging with the market economy (Zingerli 2005). For those households residing in lakeside communities, fishing has become a more significant and intensive activity for supplementing household food as well as for generating income, intensifying the pressure on these resources (Nurick 2010).

106

W ild lif e , c o mmu n it ie s a n d p ro t ecte d a re a s

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 106

14/11/12 9:14 AM

P ro t e c t e d a re a s a n d c o n s e r va ti on l a n dsca pe s i n V i e tn a m

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 107

107

14/11/12 9:14 AM

Communal ownership Semi-private ownership Nam Mau Commune Cooperatives/ collectives

National Park Management Board Forestry Protection Groups Ba Be Lake Management Committee NGOs

Natural capital • forests • valley farms • lake Social capital • reciprocal arrangements

Physical capital • roads • electricity

Source: After Ellis 2000

Human capital • biodiversity awareness education • training for farmers • training in animal husbandry and veterinary science Financial capital • credit facilities

Access mediated by

Capital assets

Creation of National Park PARC project

American War Conflict with China Migration Government collectivisation policies (limited influence) Decentralisation

In context of Livelihood strategies

Resulting in

Intensive farming Provision of products and services for tourists Wage labour Migration

Shifting cultivation • upland maize • rice • vegetables, fruit, trees Valley rice cultivation Livestock rearing Fishing Labour exchange

Composed of activities

Table 5.2 Application of the Sustainable Livelihoods Framework to the impacts of the creation of the national park on rural livelihoods at Ba Be (indicated in italic type)

Environmental sustainability Pressure on existing forest Pressure on wildlife

Livelihood security Loss of upland farms and timber and non-timber forest products Increased food insecurity for poorer households Improved food security for less poor households Greater dependence on wage labour and engagement with market economy Greater reliance on fishing Paid employment opportunities Risk of criminalisation

Impacts

Poorer households which have lost upland farms have gained new employment opportunities patrolling forests and participating in forest management. However, the payment for such environmental services is very modest, despite some increases since 2003 (Zingerli 2005; Nurick 2010). The evidence suggests that for many households, current livelihood strategies include disregarding the law and continuing to cultivate upland farms and to collect timber and non-timber products, and therefore they risk being criminalised (Zingerli 2005). This is further demonstrated by evidence that encroachment of forest for agriculture continues (Guignier 2011, p. 9) and that the number of reported illegal hunting incidents has remained ‘stubbornly high’ in the park (Bao et al. 2004, p. 11). A local paper reported that meat and wine derived from protected animals killed in Ba Be forest is openly available at restaurants in Ba Be District (ThienNhien.net 2011). There is strong evidence that the introduction of agricultural intensification through high yield varieties of rice and maize increased incomes and food security for some households. The hybrid varieties have shorter cropping cycles, resulting in farmers harvesting twice a year (Nurick 2010; Bao et al. 2004). It has been argued that the success of this initiative has reduced the tensions between park residents and park authorities that resulted from the strengthening and enforcement of the regulations in 1998, which led to an arson attack on the boat station. Bao et al. (2004, p. 16) state: ‘the PARC project has helped to mitigate the losses from illegal activities by improving villagers’ incomes through new farming technologies, [and] the overall situation has largely become peaceful’. However, agricultural intensification is an opportunity available only to those with valley farms, the capital to invest in the inputs required, and the additional labour requirements needed to successfully exploit the new technology, which favours wealthier households. Poorer households have limited access to valley farms. In addition, many poorer, often one-parent households (or with one parent too sick to work) have neither the labour needed to cover seedlings with the polythene sheeting required to protect newly-planted crops from the cold, nor the cash to purchase

108

W ild lif e , c o mmu n it ie s a n d p ro t ecte d a re a s

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 108

14/11/12 9:14 AM

the sheeting, seed, fertilisers and pesticides required for the high-yielding varieties. While both government financial institutions and non-government organisations provide access to credit at preferential rates to enable households to invest in the new technologies, eligibility to access such credit depends on membership of formal groups that will act as guarantors. Government and non-government organisations also provide training and extension advice and support to farmers, thereby enabling them to effectively utilise the new agricultural technologies (Nurick 2010). Although the PARC project introduced hybrid maize in the valley farms, this does not substitute for the loss of upland maize, an important food source particularly for poorer households. The new hybrid varieties have poor flavour, and are cultivated for fodder and sale. This new source of fodder replaces the traditional practice of the older men and women taking the buffalo to the forest to graze (Nurick 2010). The PARC project also provided training in livestock breeding, animal husbandry and veterinary science (UNDP 2009). Tourism represents an opportunity for households to diversify their livelihoods. The number of domestic tourists to Ba Be National Park increased from 3000 to more than 43 000 over the period 1997–2004, with the number of foreign tourists increasing from 1359 to 2940 over the same period (UNESCO 2005). Communities put on cultural events – dancing and singing – for tourists and provide homestays. Off-farm income-earning activities such as weaving and wine production are aimed at tourists, and those with boats can offer a water-taxi service (Nurick 2010). However, in practice the expectations of tourists for information, local culture and local handicrafts have not been met, resulting in entertainment being provided through karaoke and alcohol (Bao et al. 2004). Ironically, the tourist infrastructure that has been developed – roads and large-scale accommodation together with swimming pools, restaurants and bars – is at odds with the ecotourism vision of international donors, competes with village-level provision of services, and opens up previously inaccessible biodiversity rich areas to the wider economy (Bao et al. 2004; Zingerli 2005).

P ro t e c t e d a re a s a n d c o n s e r va ti on l a n dsca pe s i n V i e tn a m

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 109

109

14/11/12 9:14 AM

Migration of young men and women (typically in the 18–25 age group) from Ba Be to seek work elsewhere in Vietnam and abroad is an important livelihood strategy for many households that depend on their remittances to provide for food and other requirements (Nurick 2010). It is questionable whether the community development projects initiated by the PARC project, and the potential for households to increase their access and use of other forms of capital – human, social, financial and physical – can provide sufficient compensation for the loss of upland farms and forests. While some households have succeeded in enhancing their incomes and food security, specifically through the agricultural intensification program, for those that have not been able to benefit from this the other initiatives do not provide sufficient alternative opportunities to sustain livelihoods.

Environmental change, vulnerability and livelihood strategies Overlaying the impacts of the creation of the Ba Be National Park on rural livelihoods is the additional dimension of vulnerability of households to environmental change. Table 5.3 summarises the environmental changes that are occurring and the influence they are having on residents’ abilities to sustain their livelihoods. Deforestation in the upland areas of Ba Be National Park and the areas immediately adjacent to the park has occurred since the 1970s. One of the consequences of deforestation for lakeside communities is the incidence of flooding, which has a significant impact on their ability to sustain livelihoods. Indeed, this is the greatest environmental shock that they experience (Nurick 2010). The greatly increased, now rapid runoff after rain results in sediment deposition in valley farms, siltation of the lake, and landslides. Residents reported that in recent years they have experienced flash floods, whereas in the past the water level would

110

W ild lif e , c o mmu n it ie s a n d p ro t ecte d a re a s

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 110

14/11/12 9:14 AM

P ro t e c t e d a re a s a n d c o n s e r va ti on l a n dsca pe s i n V i e tn a m

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 111

111

14/11/12 9:14 AM

Source: After Ellis 2000

Flooding Pests Drought

Creation of National Park PARC project

National Park Management Board Forestry Protection Groups Ba Be Lake Management Committee NGOs

Physical capital • roads • electricity

Human capital • biodiversity awareness education • training for farmers • training in animal husbandry and veterinary science Financial capital credit facilities

American War Conflict with China Migration Government collectivisation policies (limited influence) Decentralisation

Communal ownership Semi-private ownership Nam Mau Commune Cooperatives/ collectives

• Natural capital • forests • valley farms • lake Social capital • reciprocal arrangements

In context of

Access mediated by

Capital assets Livelihood strategies

Resulting in

Intensive farming Provision of products and services for tourists Wage labour Migration Cultivation adaptation strategies Intensive fishing strategies

Shifting cultivation • upland maize • rice • vegetables, fruit, trees Valley rice cultivation Livestock rearing Fishing Labour exchange

Composed of activities

Environmental sustainability Pressure on existing forest Pressure on wildlife Siltation of lake Landslide Infertile land Decline in fish species and stocks Pollution

Livelihood security Loss of upland farms and timber and non-timber forest products Increased food insecurity for poorer households Improved food security for less poor households Greater dependence on wage labour and engagement with market economy Greater reliance on fishing Paid employment opportunities Risk of criminalisation Loss of livestock Greater food insecurity Destruction of houses for poorer households Health impacts Impacts differentiated by age and gender

Impacts

Table 5.3 Application of the Sustainable Livelihoods Framework to the environmental changes occurring at Ba Be Lake and the influence they are having on the ability of the residents of the community to sustain their livelihoods (indicated in bold italic type)

rise gradually over several days. Residents have also observed that rainfall patterns are changing, resulting in floods occurring earlier in the year (Nurick 2010). Lakeside communities are particularly vulnerable to flooding. Livestock is lost, crops are destroyed and farmland is rendered infertile due to the sediment deposited. In one community it had not been possible to cultivate rice for the previous three years, because of this deposition. Poorer households are vulnerable to floods; their houses are not constructed of concrete but thatch and wood, and are located below the flood water line in rocky areas with poor agricultural potential (Nurick 2010). The hybrid maize varieties introduced in the late 1990s (through the PARC project) have, however, provided farmers with alternative livelihood strategies enabling them to adapt to changing environmental conditions. The shorter cropping cycle of the hybrid varieties allows farmers to reduce the risk to their crops by planting and harvesting earlier. Households that depend on fishing as part of their livelihood strategy are also vulnerable to flooding. For several days after a flood the turbidity of the water prevents fishing. The longer term impact results in siltation of the lake and sediment deposition on the lake’s fish-breeding grounds. The decline in fish stocks resulting from environmental change compounds the decline attributed to increased fishing by people who have lost access to upland farms and forest products. Residents of the lakeside villages report that the climate is becoming drier with prolonged periods of drought. This contributes to the loss of vegetative cover in the upland areas of the park and the neighbouring areas, through forest fires and the appearance of fissures in the ground, compounding the severity of water runoff and sediment deposition in the valleys and lake. Drought directly impacts on people’s livelihoods through loss of fodder, food and water supplies for irrigation. Farmers can adapt to the drier conditions through their choice of crops. If the rain comes later than expected they cultivate maize rather than rice. However, farmers report that the hybrid maize is particularly susceptible

112

W ild lif e , c o mmu n it ie s a n d p ro t ecte d a re a s

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 112

14/11/12 9:14 AM

to the growing prevalence of pests associated with the warmer weather, and they respond to this through greater application of pesticides. In turn, however, pesticide pollution has been associated with the decline in fish numbers in the streams and lake in the park (Nurick 2010).

Intra-household impacts Women in the local households are the most vulnerable to the loss of access to forests and upland farms, and to environmental change. They are responsible for acquisition of firewood for cooking and space heating. Prohibition of collection from the Strict Protection Zone results in travelling further distances or risking criminalisation. They also have responsibility for collecting wild foods – for example, mushrooms, vegetables and medicines from the forest to supplement household food supplies – and fodder for livestock and income generation. Children from the age of 11 assist in collecting firewood and forest products, and are thus equally vulnerable. Health impacts associated with environmental change affect household members to differing degrees. Children and older men and women are most vulnerable to ill-health as a result of the wetter and cooler atmosphere during times of rain and floods. Women are expected to provide the firewood needed for space heating and to care for sick members of the household. In households where there is neither the labour to collect nor cash to buy firewood, the ill-health experienced by the very old and young worsens. The warmer, more humid months can also cause illness – mould and damp penetrate homes, leading to respiratory problems. The livelihood strategies of professional fishermen (those who fish for at least 15 days per month) are influenced both by environmental change and the regulations introduced by the park authority. These fishermen have experienced significant declines in fish catch over the last decade, in part due to siltation of the lake and destruction of breeding areas. Changing strategies have included more intensive fishing strate-

P ro t e c t e d a re a s a n d c o n s e r va ti on l a n dsca pe s i n V i e tn a m

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 113

113

14/11/12 9:14 AM

gies with smaller net mesh size, resulting in smaller fish being caught, and the collection of eggs and larvae as alternative income sources. Fishermen who contravene the regulations/laws introduced in 2007 in relation to limiting fishing times, the types of gear that are permitted, and the prohibition of motorboats for fishing, risk penalties if caught. The environmental changes experienced by local residents bring additional challenges to livelihood security. The evidence suggests that changing institutional structures resulting from the creation of the National Park have compounded the environmental changes. While the intensification of agriculture has brought with it opportunities for farmers to adapt, many are increasingly vulnerable to environmental shocks such as floods and drought. The degree of vulnerability is differentiated by age and gender, with older residents, women and children being the most vulnerable.

Discussion The creation of Ba Be National Park has resulted in profound changes to rural livelihoods for households within the park boundaries. For the lakeside communities, access to natural resources, the mainstay of rural livelihoods, has changed markedly, with households no longer permitted to farm or collect timber and non-timber products from the upland areas. For these households, farming is restricted to the valleys. The PARC project has enabled those with valley farms to intensify their agriculture and they have experienced increases in yields and enhanced food security. Shorter cropping cycles, access to pesticides, seed and fertiliser and other technology have benefited these households. However, for the poorer households with little valley land, and/ or little access to credit, labour and technology, the loss of upland areas for farming and collection of timber and other products represents a significant loss, constraining their ability to move out of poverty. Zingerli (2005) estimated that approximately 35 per cent of households within her study were classified as poor or very poor. Furthermore, the

114

W ild lif e , c o mmu n it ie s a n d p ro t ecte d a re a s

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 114

14/11/12 9:14 AM

evidence presented in this chapter suggests that alternative off-farm income-earning activities introduced as part of the livelihood diversification strategy of the park authorities and international donors have failed to deliver sustainable alternatives for the poorer members of the communities. The evidence presented in this chapter also questions whether the creation of the park has achieved its biodiversity conservation goals. There is strong evidence that wildlife continues to be harvested from the park and sold openly in the local markets, deforestation continues both within the upland areas of the park and immediately adjacent to it, resulting in landslides, siltation of the lake and flash floods engulfing the lakeside communities. Landslides have further undermined livelihood strategies, destroying livestock, crops and infrastructure. Concern has been raised that siltation of the lake is undermining its ability to sustain the rich biodiversity for which the lake is renowned. Evidence from scientific research, and the observations of residents of lakeside communities, points to a continuing reduction in fish species and numbers. The current structures governing the management of the park are failing to deliver either sustainable livelihoods for the poorer residents living within the park, or securing the intended biodiversity conservation goals. Although the PARC project included community development activities, it has been argued that biodiversity conservation was the primary goal, the project having only an instrumental interest in community development: ‘Only where biodiversity is endangered is there a reason for PARC to take measures for socio-economic development … Socio-economic issues are considered as supporting factors to ensure conservation’ (Zingerli 2005, p. 741). A new approach is needed that has at its core a poverty reduction agenda integrated with biodiversity conservation goals – an approach that promotes ‘double sustainability’ – pro-poor policies and biodiversity conservation (Cernea & Schmidt-Soltau 2006, p. 1826). Central to such a departure from the current management approach in Ba Be would be the involvement of residents and communities in

P ro t e c t e d a re a s a n d c o n s e r va ti on l a n dsca pe s i n V i e tn a m

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 115

115

14/11/12 9:14 AM

the management and decision-making processes that govern the park. This conclusion supports the findings of a recent review of evaluations of protected area projects conducted by the Evaluation Co-operation Group of the International Financial Institutions, the evaluation offices of the Global Environment Facility, UNDP and FAO: ‘To carry forward project results after completion, local stakeholders and communities must have ownership of the process’ (ECG 2010, p. 3). External agencies – government and non-government alike – should take on the role of enablers for communities to take on the management and ownership of their resources, establishing appropriate funding mechanisms and making information readily available (ECG 2010). A detailed analysis of the Ba Be and Na Hang Complex by Guignier ‘has demonstrated that the governance of protected areas was Statecentred, providing very specific (few) opportunities for local communities to collaborate’; although the Government of Vietnam’s draft decree on Special Use Forests included within its scope ‘co-management of special use forests … this innovation has almost disappeared in the decree adopted in December 2010’ (Guignier 2011, pp. 45–6). The challenge facing those concerned with securing sustainable livelihoods and biodiversity conservation within Ba Be National Park is to develop strategies that derive from management and governance structures that have at their core the representation of local people.

116

W ild lif e , c o mmu n it ie s a n d p ro t ecte d a re a s

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 116

14/11/12 9:14 AM

6 Indigenous land use and conservation in the An _ angu lands of central Australia George R Wilson, Australian Wildlife Services, Canberra and Jennifer Smits, Fenner School of Environment and Society, Australian National University, Canberra1

Introduction The relationship between Indigenous Australians, land and wildlife is a special one, intimately connected to maintenance of culture, religion, lore, health and well-being. Indigenous Australians have been huntergatherers for at least 40 000–60 000 years, using a great variety of wild species of plants and animals for a diverse range of purposes (Mulvaney & Kamminga 1999). Today, however, traditional modes of management have broken down, many native wildlife species have declined or are locally or nationally extinct, and opportunities for sustainable use of wildlife are curtailed by regulation or impeded by complex and overlapping jurisdictions. New approaches are needed that support Indigenous

L a n d u s e a n d c o n s e rv a t io n in An _ a ngu l a n ds of ce n tra l Au stra l i a

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 117

117

14/11/12 9:14 AM

re-engagement with wildlife management; integrate western science with Indigenous knowledge to assist in management; allow for sustainable use, and encourage regional coordination in wildlife management. This chapter examines aspects of, and obstacles to, Indigenous wildlife management in Australia, focused on management by the Anangu people in central Australia. It first sets the scene by outlining the historical context of Indigenous wildlife management, introducing the Anangu and highlighting relevant aspects of the policy environment for wildlife management. It then delineates and explores the concept of Regional Adaptive Wildlife Management Plans, an approach that could encourage regional co-operation and facilitate the blending of traditional practice with western science to ensure sustainable use of wildlife and the economic benefits it can bring. It goes on to explore application of this approach in detail using as an example Angas Downs, a pastoral property south-west of Alice Springs owned by the Anangu people. Finally, issues for the future of regional Indigenous wildlife management are discussed.

Historical context of Indigenous wildlife management Indigenous use of wildlife traditionally existed within a framework of customary law, in which peoples’ moral responsibility to look after their country returned food, water and other necessities (Rose 1984). Indigenous traditional law (or ‘lore’) such as the Tjukurpa in Pitjantjatjara, a central Australian language, is based on totemism, taboos and prescribed responsibilities for the land (Collins et al. 1996). Importantly, Indigenous law applied constraints on access. Semi-nomadic units moved freely over their own land but did not trespass on sacred sites or other lands without due reason or permission (Berndt & Berndt 1999). They sought to secure supplies of particular food resources and influenced arid ecosystems prior to British settlement, particularly by

118

W ild lif e , c o mmu n it ie s a n d p ro t ecte d a re a s

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 118

14/11/12 9:14 AM

hunting, burning, manipulation of waters and dispersal of plant propagules (Morton et al. 2011). Restricted access affected what, where and when hunting and gathering occurred and by whom. For instance, hunting of the red kangaroo (Macropus rufus) in central Australia was forbidden near totemic sites for the species (Newsome 1980). These restrictions resembled English game laws and protected species which might otherwise have been overhunted (Grey 1841, cited in Blainey 1982). Bill Gammage (Gammage 2011) has reviewed descriptions of the landscape before and after settlement and compiled how Aboriginal people managed the land in a systematic and complex manner, including limiting access to sites with special attributes. With British colonisation and settlement of the Australian rangelands beginning in the 1800s, land use and management significantly changed with major consequences for wildlife. The sacredness of places was disregarded, waterholes were drained by livestock, and grazing animals exploited native plants, all for the benefit of distant markets. Vegetation was used as a food for exotic grazing animals – first sheep, then cattle, also horses and camels – some of which roamed wild. The process continued after the creation of the Australian Commonwealth in 1901. Many species of native animals disappeared from much of the Australian rangelands. For instance, changes in pastures brought extinction or rarity to smaller members of the kangaroo family (Bettongia lesueur, Lagorchestes conspicillatus, Onychogalea lunata) through removal of long grass used for shelter (Newsome 1980) and the impact of rabbits and exotic predators in the form of foxes and cats. By contrast, the supply of water troughs and bores in the pastoral country, control of dingoes, and the establishment of short grass communities from livestock grazing benefited the larger red and grey kangaroo populations (Macropus spp.). Changes in wildlife distribution and abundance are evident on Aboriginal lands as elsewhere. However, on Aboriginal lands in central Australia, even the larger game species are less common than they are thought to have been previously, and hunting may well have contrib-

L a n d u s e a n d c o n s e rv a t io n in An _ a ngu l a n ds of ce n tra l Au stra l i a

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 119

119

14/11/12 9:14 AM

uted to the lower numbers (Wilson et al. 2010). The availability of new technologies and altered economic and social circumstances are contributing to changes in Indigenous wildlife use throughout the world. Guns, motor vehicles, motor boats, chainsaws, shovels and metal digging sticks have made hunting and gathering more efficient and have increased geographic range, mobility and opportunity. In central Australia today, Indigenous people continue to regularly use the wild animal and plants that remain, although their traditional management regimes have broken down and land use and management has substantially changed.

Anangu of central Australia The Anangu of central Australia are the Ngaanyatjarra Pitjantjatjara Yankunytjatjara-speaking people south-west of Alice Springs.2 They are members of a social system referred to as the Western Desert cultural block. They speak a range of dialects – including Ngannyatjarra, Ngaatjatjarra, Manjintjatjarra, Pitjantjatjara and Pintupi. Their population is estimated at between 5000 and 6000 people and they can be found from Halls Creek and Balgo in the north of Western Australia (WA) through Imanpa and Angas Downs in the Northern Territory (NT) to Oodnadatta and Yalata in South Australia (SA). The communities in this cross-border region share language and cultural ties irrespective of the state/territory borders that are a legacy of the colonies that preceded the Australian states. They are subject to all manner of differing state/territory legislation, notwithstanding that the Australian government has the constitutional power to make laws in respect of Aboriginal people. The Australian government also has a direct involvement in the region through its responsibility for the management of the Indigenous-owned Uluru-Kata Tjuta National Park (Uluru is also known as Ayers Rock).

120

W ild lif e , c o mmu n it ie s a n d p ro t ecte d a re a s

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 120

14/11/12 9:14 AM

The benefits of Indigenous land management and sustainable wildlife use Land management has a high priority in Indigenous eyes. Senior Indigenous spokespeople regard caring for country as integral to their cultural and social well-being (Davies et al. 1999). The many social benefits resulting from involving Indigenous Australians in natural resource management are well documented, including improved school engagement and educational outcomes, motivation and job-readiness (Hunt et al. 2009). ‘Being on country’ for reasons that are a priority to Indigenous people could play a greater role in reversing some of the causes of community dysfunction – contact with the criminal justice system, domestic violence, low educational achievement, high unemployment, poor health and substance abuse. Active involvement in wildlife management can reconnect people to the land and sea, and communities and individuals to the values of Indigenous law and customs. Being involved in land and wildlife management engenders a sense of pride, ownership and responsibility among Indigenous people. Wildlife management also provides a framework for maintenance and passage of Indigenous culture and ecological knowledge to younger generations. It can provide economic development opportunities and create jobs in a sector that is important to Indigenous people, and underpins tourism and bushfood enterprises, thus tackling the poor Indigenous employment statistics. Stories about the land, sea and wildlife also underpin many of the paintings in the highly successful Indigenous art industry. There are flow-on health benefits from Indigenous involvement in wildlife management. It improves health and well-being through increased physical activity and increased reliance on bushfoods, which increase the number of food species available to supplement the diet and replace processed foods. Research confirms the benefits of this relationship. Burgess et al. (2009) report that participation by Indig-

L a n d u s e a n d c o n s e rv a t io n in An _ a ngu l a n ds of ce n tra l Au stra l i a

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 121

121

14/11/12 9:14 AM

enous people in land management brings significant health benefits, including a reduction in obesity, blood pressure, diabetes, and kidney and cardiovascular disease. Research to explore the options for greater involvement of Indigenous people in regional natural resource decision making and management is needed. If science and Indigenous wildlife management work together, Indigenous capability to manage land and wildlife resources will be improved. This could lead to Indigenous groups holding more decision-making powers over wildlife management.

Addressing Indigenous disadvantage In 2009 the Commonwealth government produced a report entitled ‘Closing the Gap on Indigenous Disadvantage’ (Australian Government 2009). It noted the need for a strong focus to address the marked disadvantage of remote Indigenous communities in levels of health, education, life expectancy and living conditions compared to non-Indigenous Australians. Through the Council of Australian Governments (COAG), $6.3 billion was committed to Closing the Gap programs from 2008 to 2014. Expenditure under the commitment to Closing the Gap is focused on improving literacy, numeracy, infant mortality, health outcomes and overall life expectancy (Macklin 2008). There is no mention of land or resource management to reflect the priority that it has in Indigenous eyes. The government program that addresses these topics, the Indigenous Protected Area Program, is relatively small. An Indigenous Protected Area (IPA) is an area of Indigenous-owned land or sea where traditional owners have entered into an agreement with the Australian government to promote biodiversity and cultural resource conservation. IPAs protect Australia’s biodiversity while providing training and employment for Aboriginal people on their own country. The program to support IPAs is part of the Caring for our Country (CfoC) program administered by the Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (SEWPAC). The CfoC

122

W ild lif e , c o mmu n it ie s a n d p ro t ecte d a re a s

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 122

14/11/12 9:14 AM

program also funds the employment of Indigenous Working on Country rangers through the Working on Country Program (SEWPAC 2008) to undertake land and cultural management activities on their country in order to protect and conserve. IPAs currently cover more than 23 million hectares. They are part of Australia’s network of protected areas, the National Reserve System, covering more than 89 million hectares (SEWPAC 2011). Australia’s protected areas are all managed, at least in part, according to one of six international classes developed by the World Conservation Union. These range from strict nature conservation areas, through national parks incorporating recreation and tourism, to multi-use reserves allowing limited consumption of resources for personal and commercial use. Many IPAs are managed as Category VI (Protected Area with sustainable use of natural resources), defined as: [an] area containing predominantly unmodified natural systems, managed to ensure long term protection and maintenance of biological diversity, while providing at the same time a sustainable flow of natural products and services to meet community needs (IUCN 1994).

A review of the IPA program (Gilligan 2006) found that it contributes significantly to conservation goals in a cost-effective manner and has considerable potential to support broader government objectives to deliver social, health and economic benefits in a manner particularly constructive for Indigenous communities. Nonetheless, it is our view that the IPA program could have a stronger emphasis on sustainable use, particularly the management and productive use of land to supply indigenous communities with food and resources. The Closing the Gap report (Australian Government 2009) noted that crucial to success is ensuring that local people are actively involved in the design, delivery and control of these services. Likewise, strong local involvement is critical for effective implementation of the land management components of Closing the Gap that are part of the IPA program (SEWPAC 2010).

L a n d u s e a n d c o n s e rv a t io n in An _ a ngu l a n ds of ce n tra l Au stra l i a

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 123

123

14/11/12 9:14 AM

Regional coordination of wildlife management Coordinated land and wildlife management and service delivery across regional landscapes could consolidate the benefits outlined above. This is needed to address common threats such as feral animals and wildfire and in obtaining benefits from opportunities such as the emerging carbon market. In central Australia, regions of common interest cross state borders. The Ngaanyatjarra Pitjantjatjara Yankunytjatjara (NPY) An _angu lands cover 350 000 km2 over three states. Figure 6.1 Location of Anangu Lands

Northern Territory

Uluru Nat Park, Petermann & Katiti Lands

Queensland

Ngaanyatjarra Lands

Western Australia

Anangu Pitjantjatjara Yankunytjatjara Lands South Australia New South Wales

Victoria

Tasmania

Source: Map produced by Australian Wildlife Services 2012

124

W ild lif e , c o mmu n it ie s a n d p ro t ecte d a re a s

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 124

14/11/12 9:14 AM

Changing the administrative and legal responsibilities that underpin these externally imposed jurisdictions and borders would be a very time-consuming and costly legal exercise. It would nevertheless make considerable sense for An _angu Lands and these communities of interest to be more strongly coordinated and active than they currently are. The Ngaanyatjarra Pitjantjatjara Yankunytjatjara Women’s Council (NPYWC), which began in 1980, is an example of a cross-border organisation that is effective in advancing its goals of ‘relieving the poverty, sickness, destitution, distress, suffering, misfortune or helplessness’ of An _angu. It grew out of a perception by An _angu women that they needed to collaborate at the regional scale. We believe the same is true for natural resource management and sustainable use of wildlife. One way to achieve better regional coordination is through development of a Regional Wildlife Adaptive Management Plan (RWAMP) (Wilson & Woodrow 2009). The principles of an RWAMP are outlined below, before exploration of practical application at Angas Downs IPA. However, such an approach is currently being inhibited by the different land tenure and service delivery arrangements that operate in different jurisdictions. In the case of the Anangu Lands, this involves three state jurisdictions and the Australian government. Regional management of single-species, high-profile pests such as the camel is proving slow, complex and costly to effect. A National Feral Camel Action Plan was published in 2009 and $19 million of government funding committed to implement control under the Australian Feral Camel Management Project (see – Ninti One Ltd 2011), but by 2012 there is still much to be done to reduce camel populations. Even within jurisdictions, Indigenous involvement in wildlife management is impeded by complex and costly processes (Cooney & Edwards 2009).

L a n d u s e a n d c o n s e rv a t io n in An _ a ngu l a n ds of ce n tra l Au stra l i a

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 125

125

14/11/12 9:14 AM

Regional Wildlife Adaptive Management Plans The objective of an RWAMP (as set out in Wilson & Woodrow 2009) is to outline options for Indigenous management and sustainable use of wildlife resources in a culturally appropriate manner, so that species provide for the needs and aspirations of the Indigenous community. The RWAMP describes the resource base and its cultural and biodiversity values in order to define management targets and enable monitoring. Effective sustainable management of kuka (game meat) and mirka (plant food) should be based on monitoring and the collation of data regarding species presence, distribution, habitat associations, ecological requirements and status. Indigenous knowledge and experience are integral to this process. Western technology and science can inform and supplement information gathering and enable analytical and decisionmaking processes. Resource management strategies and actions identify techniques for proactive management of preferred native wildlife species, and consider how their populations may be increased in a manner consistent with biodiversity conservation priorities. Strategies included in RWAMPs can include establishing land-use and protected area management zones, managing feral animals and weeds, restoring and maintaining water supplies and other infrastructure, fire management and largescale species reintroduction projects. Some of the relevant strategies are explained in more detail below.

Cultural mapping Cultural mapping is a key component of RWAMPs and central to the Indigenous desire to ensure their culture is not lost. It also ensures the continued use, support and reinvigoration of traditional ecological knowledge (TEK), which is combined in RWAMPs with scientific knowledge to underpin biodiversity conservation and sustainable use. Collect-

126

W ild lif e , c o mmu n it ie s a n d p ro t ecte d a re a s

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 126

14/11/12 9:14 AM

ing family group genealogy is also important as it identifies people who speak for important locations and who can take responsibility for places and maintain customary land management practices.

Land-use zones An RWAMP identifies maps and describes land-use/management zones. Defining land-use zones is crucial to enable sensitive management for sustainable use, and requires extensive consultation with and agreement by the community. Definition of these zones is based on cultural mapping and local and scientific knowledge of the landscape. Language names help identify the broad land-use/management zones. Four examples in Pitjantjatjara are given below. Miil-miil: sacred/cultural zones

Miil-miil are sacred and cultural sites to which access is limited. These sites can also have major conservation significance, both intrinsically and because they have lower hunting pressure and other disturbances. There are issues of cultural confidentiality that need to be addressed in documenting special sites. Some aspects and indeed the location of sacred sites is restricted information. The dilemma is how to document them and manage them without destroying their cultural significance. Atuny Ngura: protected places

Places which have particular biodiversity significance are designated as Atuny Ngura – ‘protected places’ or species management areas. They are hotspots for biological conservation of threatened species and can be sites for multi-species conservation. For example, in the APY Lands remnant populations of waru (Petrogale lateralis, black-footed rockwallaby), nganamara (Leipoa ocellata, mallee fowl) and tjakura (Egernia kintorei, great desert skink), are subject to strategic predator control plans, particularly for feral foxes.

L a n d u s e a n d c o n s e rv a t io n in An _ a ngu l a n ds of ce n tra l Au stra l i a

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 127

127

14/11/12 9:14 AM

Kuka atamananyi: resource-use zones

RWAMPs nominate resource-use/harvest zones for which sustainable use management plans are developed for hunting and gathering bush foods such as malu (red kangaroo), kalaya (Dromaius novaehollandiae, emu), kipara (Ardeotis australis, bustard), wattle (Acacia spp.) seed, mangata (Santalum acuminatum, quandong), and kampurarpa (Solanum spp., bush tomatoes). Within these areas, controls and regulations upon access and vehicle movements are developed in consultation with communities and help from wildlife scientists, together with recommended harvesting regimes, rates of take and other management prescriptions. Consultation with Anangu aims to identify known hotspots and preferred habitat for malu, kalaya and kipara. In these areas, traditional owners encourage conservation management. Kuka atamananyi are consistent with the IUCN category VI guidelines for Managed Resource Protected Areas, and are complemented by the nominated refuge areas, Atuny Ngura, where hunting does not occur. Visitor management zones

Visitor management zones provide access and recreational activities for visitors as well as opportunities for visitors to contribute to the regional economy. The visitor management areas also consider safety of travellers in remote and extreme environments and the protection of cultural sites. A system of permits and the provision of maps are key aspects of visitor management. As for Kuka atamananyi, visitor management zones are consistent with the IUCN Category VI guidelines for Managed Resource Protected Areas, ensuring the environment is protected for the benefit of all people. Visitor management zones are particularly important as there is unmet demand for quality Indigenous experiences and nature-based experiences in Australia (Tourism Australia 2008), providing tourism as a key means to support ongoing development in these remote communities.

128

W ild lif e , c o mmu n it ie s a n d p ro t ecte d a re a s

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 128

14/11/12 9:14 AM

Increasing preferred species RWAMP strategies may include methods to increase populations of preferred species as a resource to be used. The key strategies include controlling predation (both human and by dingoes and foxes), and provision of water, shelter and quality food. Some species, such as kalaya (emu), benefit from cleaning out of soaks and rock holes and access to bores, providing damage from camels is minimal. There may be added benefit from fox-baiting in such areas, but this would need to be based on minimising threats to non-target species, including from a possible increase in cat and rabbit activity. Increases in malu (red kangaroo) could be served by considering possible refuge zones from subsistence harvest. It could be worth establishing predator-exclusion fenced areas for protecting wildlife, such as the wildlife sanctuaries that exist at Watarrka National Park and Uluru-Kata Tjuta National Park. It could also be worth establishing a predator-free breeding facility to promote survival and subsequent release, as is being done on Angas Downs IPA (see below). Such facilities require dedicated resources for ongoing diligent monitoring and maintenance. Such initiatives would benefit from striving for some short-term successes with commoner species such as emus, before going on to more threatened species such as kipara and mala, so that participants can get a more immediate sense of satisfaction to balance the longer term habitat management initiatives.

Developing wildlife enterprises The RWAMP outlines options for sustainable use of wildlife resources in a culturally appropriate manner so that species provide for the needs and aspirations of the Indigenous community. Opportunities can be developed to sell wildlife-based products and services such as food, tourism and art, and carbon offsets/alternative energy to the wider community and the market economy.

L a n d u s e a n d c o n s e rv a t io n in An _ a ngu l a n ds of ce n tra l Au stra l i a

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 129

129

14/11/12 9:14 AM

Training A major theme of RWAMPs is to emphasise Indigenous priorities in regard to maintenance of the Tjukurpa, land and wildlife resources. In practical terms this means land and wildlife management should have a higher profile in training and education and the lands themselves should be regarded as a major training resource. There are opportunities for stronger collaboration between teaching institutions, government agencies and the private sector, including tour operators and the pastoral and mining industries, to deliver training. Training and support for the land-related enterprise opportunities identified above will help lay the basis for maintaining Indigenous culture, creating employment opportunities, and improving health and welfare.

Angas Downs IPA: a case study in application of RWAMP principles Angas Downs IPA can be considered a case study of sustainable use of wild resources to assist address Indigenous need. Its current management plan (Wilson et al. 2005) reflects RWAMP principles, and there is scope for further integration of these principles in future iterations. Angas Downs is a 320 500 hectare (>3200 km2) pastoral lease located 300 kilometres south-west of Alice Springs in the Northern Territory (NT), and 135 kilometres from Uluru-Kata Tjuta National Park. It is a biologically and culturally rich area in the Finke Bioregion of the Northern Territory. The Angas Downs lease was first taken up by William Liddle in 1927. He and his Aboriginal descendants ran sheep, then cattle, until the 1990s. As with many pastoral enterprises during the 1980s and 1990s, Angas Downs struggled financially and was eventually taken over by a mortgagee. In 1994 the lease was purchased by the Imanpa Development Association Inc. of the nearby Imanpa (Indigenous) Commu-

130

W ild lif e , c o mmu n it ie s a n d p ro t ecte d a re a s

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 130

14/11/12 9:14 AM

nity. It is managed by their company Lisanote Pty Ltd. In 2009, Angas Downs was declared an IPA after a management plan was developed in 2005 in consultation with the local community, with funding provided by the IPA program under the Caring for Country program (SEWPAC 2010). The plan sought to adhere to the principles of IUCN Category VI Protected Areas, and remains a planning resource for members of the Imanpa Community. Angas Downs is important to Anangu because it has significant Tjukurpa (Indigenous law and customary knowledge) places and sacred sites where ceremonies continue to occur. The acquisition and management of the land is a community-based initiative that seeks to balance conserving and restoring natural systems with deriving benefits from commercial use. In the past the property was damaged by poor land management practices, cattle and feral animals. Today it provides employment and income for the community, creates learning and training opportunities, and improves Indigenous health (through exercise and diet). It reconnects Anangu to the land and culture, instilling a sense of pride.

Angas Downs IPA Plan of Management The Angas Downs IPA Plan of Management (PoM) (Wilson et al. 2005) outlines the natural and cultural resource base, land management operations, sustainable development opportunities, training and education and collaborative partnerships for management of the property. The goals of the plan are ambitious and comprehensive. The objective of the PoM is to manage land and wildlife resources in order to maintain Anangu culture, conserve biodiversity and enable sustainable production in support of human communities and economic development. To achieve this, it has two strategies: first, blending the Tjukurpa (Anangu law and customary knowledge) with Piranypa (white people’s) non-Anangu scientific knowledge to improve wildlife habitat, enhance landscapes and increase the numbers of wildlife preferred as

L a n d u s e a n d c o n s e rv a t io n in An _ a ngu l a n ds of ce n tra l Au stra l i a

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 131

131

14/11/12 9:14 AM

bush tucker; and second, improving health and well-being of communities and maintaining culture through tourism and other enterprise development centred on land management. The PoM details priorities for environmental restoration and activities to restore and protect biodiversity, including bush foods. Activities include: • water management: restoring and maintaining water points, erecting fences around key water and cultural sites to keep out large feral animals (see Plates 14 and 15) • reducing the density of feral animal populations, including camels, horses and cattle • reducing the impact and spread of weeds • restoring patch burning and reducing fire hazard • re-establishing and protecting threatened or significant species: including: • building a 266 km2 feral herbivore-free wildlife enclosure • establishing a native animal breeding compound, initially for emu • establishing a native plant nursery, initially for quandong • managing a small sustainable cattle production operation restricted to a 250 km2 zone. A key feature of the PoM and the associated funding provided by the IPA program is the provision of ongoing scientific support to monitor landscape and ecosystem health and wildlife populations. The plan enables scientists to work with Indigenous communities to help them manage their land and wildlife through sustainable use, and sound monitoring and surveying underpin all of this work.

132

W ild lif e , c o mmu n it ie s a n d p ro t ecte d a re a s

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 132

14/11/12 9:14 AM

Monitoring and surveys Mapping of cultural sites and knowledge There is ongoing mapping of cultural sites on Angas Downs IPA, using a combination of Ranger CyberTracker surveys (see below) and photographic/voice/video records (see Plate 16). Elders from the Imanpa community record stories about the land and special places. Files are being entered into the Ara Irititja Anangu cultural database, a purposebuilt computer archive that digitally stores repatriated materials and other contemporary items. Significantly, in June 2010 Indigenous rock paintings and engravings were rediscovered at Puna Kura Kura waterhole, and elsewhere in the Liddle Hills in August 2011. CyberTracker

CyberTracker is a software program built for field monitoring and data capture using hand-held PDAs (personal digital assistants), which have GPS (global positioning system) capability. The program uses lists of icons and photos, making it easier to use by non-literate people. It is used widely across Indigenous ranger groups in Australia and allows Indigenous knowledge to be effectively captured and combined with science to monitor environmental factors. CyberTracker information is collected by Angas Downs rangers using a tailored system involving collection of information on feral management, fauna, rare plants, weeds, fire, hunting etc. over specific survey routes. The data are collated and mapped every few months. CyberTracker surveys are providing evidence of species’ presence/ absence in different areas and habitats of Angas Downs. More complex density and population measurements are made with aerial surveys. Aerial surveys

Aerial surveys are a cost-effective way of assessing populations over large areas quickly. Much of Angas Downs does not have road access, and

L a n d u s e a n d c o n s e rv a t io n in An _ a ngu l a n ds of ce n tra l Au stra l i a

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 133

133

14/11/12 9:14 AM

aerial surveys can monitor trends both of feral animals, in the context of operations to reduce physical environmental damage, and of preferred animal species such as kangaroos, in the context of strategies to increase their numbers. Fixed-wing aerial surveys are conducted over Angas Downs and surrounding landscape annually. Ten transects are placed 7.5 kilometres apart running east–west across the width of the property. The lines are overflown using a Cessna 182 travelling at a ground speed of 185 km/h-1 (100 knots), and a height of 76 metres (250 feet) above ground level. Observers count kangaroos, camels, horses and cattle. Sampling intensity is approximately 5 per cent of the total 4000 km2 survey area. A correction for habitat is applied to the kangaroo data (Caughley et al. 1976). Aerial surveys enhance the Anangu rangers’ knowledge of the density and distribution of surveyed animals. This helps them manage landscapes where these animals exist to either encourage populations or control them. Based on 2010 surveys, kangaroo populations were estimated at 2900 ± 1000 for the property. This is assumed to be a good population base from which it is hoped numbers will increase, aided by restrictions on hunting, reduced grazing competition from feral animals, and provision of reliable water supplies. Camel populations were estimated at 600 ± 350. Camel numbers were higher than expected, despite likely population dispersion due to high rainfall during 2010. Camel population management is a priority for Angas Downs management. Track-based monitoring

Tracking plots on sandy substrate areas are set up on Angas Downs, each of approximately 2 hectares (100 x 200 m), using the methodology described by Southgate and Moseby (2008). Rangers record all evidence of animal tracks, scats and other traces within the plot area. Age of the sign and abundance are also recorded. This method enables the rangers to identify where native animals and ferals are occurring without intensive, intrusive animal trapping.

134

W ild lif e , c o mmu n it ie s a n d p ro t ecte d a re a s

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 134

14/11/12 9:14 AM

Lizard and small mammal trapping

Pitfall and funnel trapping is used to survey for small mammals and reptiles on Angas Downs. ‘Drift fence’ barriers direct foraging animals towards traps (funnel traps or 20 L buckets dug into the soil). Surveys during 2010–11 identified 39 reptile species, six small mammal species and four amphibian species, many of which had not previously been listed on Angas Downs species lists. Photo points

Photo points are established around the property as reference points enabling comparison landscape health through time. At each photo point, Angas Downs rangers erected two steel posts 5 metres apart to facilitate aligning the photos. They take photos at each point every two to three months and collate the images in a photographic journal. Landscape Functional Analysis

Landscape Functional Analysis (LFA) is a field-based method of assessing soil and site conditions and vegetation cover (Tongway & Hindley 2004). LFA assesses how the landscape regulates resources (water and nutrients) – whether they are being lost or recycled within the landscape, and hence how healthy or unhealthy a landscape is, and how it is functioning. On Angas Downs there are 28 LFA transects at selected photo points and other areas of interest. Each patch/interpatch type is assessed for 11 easily identified soil surface properties. Training is ongoing for the rangers, but illiteracy is inhibiting the transferring and uptake of this knowledge. Inclusion of the method on a CyberTracker system could increase LFA capacity building. Water quality

In 2010, measurement of total dissolved solids suspended in water across the IPA showed that some watering points and troughs on Angas Downs exceeded the acceptable health level for stock and animals using total dissolved solid guidelines set out by ANZECC (Australian

L a n d u s e a n d c o n s e rv a t io n in An _ a ngu l a n ds of ce n tra l Au stra l i a

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 135

135

14/11/12 9:14 AM

and New Zealand Environment Conservation Council 2000). Further testing after flushing and cleaning the troughs indicated that regular cleaning is sufficient to provide adequate water quality for stock and wildlife. Rangers now regularly clean and maintain water points across the property for wildlife. Feral animal and weed control

There is a clear need for feral animal and weed control in Australia’s remote regions. Herbivores such as camels, horses and cattle can pose major threats to biodiversity. Rabbits can also do substantial damage. However, in many communities rabbit management is more complex than straightforward pest control, as rabbits can be a very important food source. Predators can also pose threats and require control programs. On Angas Downs, mustering of feral cattle and horses for sale is ongoing. Camels are shot on an opportunistic basis, when they are seen, with an annual take of between 70 and 100 beasts. Weed control is limited to spraying of couch grass (Cynodon dactylon) in high conservation areas and poisoning of Athol pine (Tamarix aphylla) in isolated sites. Fire management

Angas Downs rangers have completed a course in Indigenous fire management run with neighbouring rangers at Uluru National Park and Docker River. They are reinstating traditional mosaic burning (see Plate 17). Cool burns at the right time of the year reduce fire damage to the dominant overstorey and create a mosaic of vegetation ages (see Plate 18). Under the PoM, the aim is to reduce the risk of large wildfires and to increase the heterogeneity of habitats and niche ecosystems.

Reintroduction of Kuka Iritija Angas Downs rangers have begun the training for reintroduction of wildlife now locally extinct – Kuka Iritija (animals from before). Doing so

136

W ild lif e , c o mmu n it ie s a n d p ro t ecte d a re a s

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 136

14/11/12 9:14 AM

should have benefits for biodiversity conservation, assist development of ranger skills, reinforce community knowledge and pride in wildlife, and be an asset for ecotourism. It has the potential to strengthen culture and self-esteem which were lost following disappearance of totemic animals for which people are responsible. Cats and foxes continue to threaten native mammals, and might well cause more extinctions in the future (Johnson 2006). On current trends, without remedial action it is likely that critical weight range species (Burbidge & McKenzie 1989) will continue to disappear in remote Australia. A breeding and release program for emus is currently being implemented. Emus are classified as Vulnerable in the Northern Territory, and were once more numerous on Angas Downs. While there are other species that are considerably more threatened, emus were chosen as an initial species for a number of reasons. Emus are a keystone species in the propagation of a number of plants. They play a vital role in dispersing seeds and their decline can be associated with a decline in quandong trees. The quandong fruit is an important food source and the wood and seeds are wanted to produce artefacts, art and jewellery for sale at the local Mt Ebenezer Roadhouse Art Gallery (which is also owned by the Imanpa Community and Lisanote Pty Ltd). Rearing emus is providing training opportunities for rangers in working intensively with animals. Emus are relatively easy to rear, and the program is likely to be successful and provide motivation for more difficult efforts. The presence of emus in the wildlife enclosure will be a significant attraction for proposed tourism ventures on Angas Downs, thus helping to ensure long-term economic development for the community. Emu is also an important healthier alternative to processed foods. The goal is for emu eggs to be hatched, with birds reared to juvenile age and then released, initially into a feral-free wildlife enclosure, and eventually onto the property as a whole. Once emus are re-established, the rangers will apply their new skills to reintroducing other more difficult to raise species such as bustard or plains turkey (Ardeotis australis), mala (a small hare wallaby, Lagorchestes

L a n d u s e a n d c o n s e rv a t io n in An _ a ngu l a n ds of ce n tra l Au stra l i a

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 137

137

14/11/12 9:14 AM

hirsutus, extinct in the wild NT), brush-tail bettong (Bettongia penicillata, extinct in the wild NT), greater bilby (Macrotis lagotis, Vulnerable in the NT) and brushtail possum (Trichosurus vulpecula, endangered NT) (Department of Natural Resouces, Environment, the Arts & Sport, NT 2007). Advice, support and benefit from prior experience is available from a range of previous and continuing reintroduction projects, including the mala enclosures at nearby Watarrka National Park and Uluru-Kata Tjuta National Park and the Arid Recovery Project at Roxby Downs, South Australia.

Sustainable hunting Under current management arrangements, hunting on Angas Downs is governed by the 2005 Plan of Management, the rangers and their manager, and there is very little killing of native species. In 1962, between 208 and 260 red kangaroos were harvested per year for community consumption (Rose 1965). Firearms were more readily available in the 1960s than today. Today the resident kangaroo population does not support a harvest at these rates (pers. comm. P Coombs, Anangu Elder, Imanpa Community 2010). The enthusiasm and demand for kangaroo in the local community remains strong, however, and frozen kangaroo tails are favoured items in the store. These come from pastoral lands elsewhere in Australia where kangaroo populations are higher.

Training The Indigenous rangers are receiving training in conservation and land management at the Alice Springs campus of Charles Darwin University and in 2011 six rangers completed the Certificate II in Conservation Land Management. Progress beyond that level will depend on higher standards of literacy and numeracy being reached.

138

W ild lif e , c o mmu n it ie s a n d p ro t ecte d a re a s

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 138

14/11/12 9:14 AM

Enterprise development Tourism

There is unmet demand for Indigenous tourism (Tourism Australia 2008; Director of National Parks 2010), and Angas Downs’ prime location on the main roads between Uluru-Kata Tjuta, Watarka (Kings Canyon) and Alice Springs provides a strategic advantage for attracting some of the hundreds of thousands of tourists visiting the region and indeed crossing the property each year to stop, experience and learn. The ‘Red Centre Way’ is a promotional campaign that seeks to link these sites. Angas Downs has natural beauty and wildlife viewing opportunities. Tourists seek contact with Indigenous people and their culture, and also look for wilderness experiences as a break from urban lifestyles. The Indigenous owners of Angas Downs have long hoped to develop an Indigenous tourism business on the property. The IPA plan of management allows for the development of a wildlife sanctuary, a fourwheel-drive route to the north of the property for tag-along tours, and short half-day cultural tours at important sites. The desire to grow tourism was reinforced in 2010 at a ‘Stepping Stones’ workshop on Angas Downs with Anangu from Imanpa and Docker River. Other aspirations developed at this workshop included setting up small campgrounds where guides would meet groups to tell stories and share the history of the property. In the long term, the community hopes to build a tourism complex on Angas Downs, taking advantage of the restored environment and ensuring ongoing economic viability of the property. In the interim, they are developing a small Indigenous tour business for tourists to learn about the IPA and the traditional ecological knowledge and culture of the people. Successful trials with school, university and mini tour groups have already demonstrated the potential of this project.

L a n d u s e a n d c o n s e rv a t io n in An _ a ngu l a n ds of ce n tra l Au stra l i a

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 139

139

14/11/12 9:14 AM

Carbon

The Indigenous owners of Angas Downs have expressed interest in exploring the opportunity of managing their land for production of carbon offsets. Income from participating in either a voluntary system such as the Carbon Farming Initiative or the introduction of a compliance-based carbon trading scheme could help to improve funding for land and conservation management on Angas Downs and provide more local jobs. Offsets could be obtained by altering current land management practices – to reduce carbon emissions by reducing the number of livestock (cattle and camels) and managing burning practices to reduce greenhouse gas emitted by wildfires; to sequester carbon into increased native vegetation; and to sequester carbon into better managed soils. Research is required on the potential of these opportunities and the risks associated with participating in a carbon enterprise. Collaborating with scientists and universities will be integral in shaping the potential of Angas Downs with respect to carbon trading assets and describing the risk of such an enterprise in the coming years.

Discussion and conclusions Notwithstanding large investments being made to address health, social and legal issues affecting Indigenous Australians, support for sustainable use of land and wildlife is rarely given the priority by funding programs that reflects the central focus that land and wildlife has for Indigenous communities. In remote areas, employment in land management roles is often one of the few meaningful work prospects available for Indigenous people. Sustainable land management and wildlife use presents an opportunity for greater employment and a framework for government Indigenous policy. Through greater support from funding and scientists, these opportunities encourage sustainable use of resources found on Indig-

140

W ild lif e , c o mmu n it ie s a n d p ro t ecte d a re a s

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 140

14/11/12 9:14 AM

enous land by supplying products for both market-based enterprises such as tourism and new industries (for example, carbon economy), and for subsistence through harvesting of animals and plants. Development of an RWAMP – integrating scientific support with Indigenous ecological knowledge, which is being successfully implemented on Angas Downs IPA – will ensure Indigenous people continue to hunt wildlife, while increasing the wildlife population base from which they take their resources. It will also help build resilience in Indigenous communities through economic development, culture maintenance and improvements to Indigenous health and living arrangements.

L a n d u s e a n d c o n s e rv a t io n in An _ a ngu l a n ds of ce n tra l Au stra l i a

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 141

141

14/11/12 9:14 AM

142

W ild lif e , c o mmu n it ie s a n d p ro t ecte d a re a s

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 142

14/11/12 9:14 AM

2 Sustaining natural resource systems

143

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 143

14/11/12 9:14 AM

Introduction Strategies for regeneration, conservation and sustainable use are all critical in efforts to sustain the natural resources and ecosystems on which communities fundamentally rely to meet basic needs. Across four chapters, this section shows that success relies on building or restoring community adaptiveness and capacity to effectively address complex environmental challenges. This is evident in the work of the Arsenic Mitigation and Research Foundation (ARMF), an NGO based in Bangladesh. Rammelt in Chapter 7 describes how building a local management group among the very poor in two Bangladeshi villages has allowed these extremely disadvantaged communities to address the critical problem of arsenic contamination of drinking water. This problem comes with the introduction of shallow tube-wells, made necessary as climate change and limited access to surface water in the dry season force people to use underground aquifers naturally contaminated with arsenic. Waterborne arsenic now threatens the health of as many as 60 million of the rural poor in Bangladesh. The ARMF’s successful strategies include locally determined programs of safe tube-well construction supported by participatory forms of ongoing community decision-making and management. The success of the program is a reminder that contextspecific and community-based strategies have multiple benefits, particularly the development of community resilience in the face of degraded or diminished access to natural resources. Possibly the largest and most significant global example of landscape restoration ever undertaken is the reafforestation and regeneration of the vast, eroded Loess Plateau region of north-western China. Wang et al. in Chapter 8 review this massive multi-billion dollar project, involving the Chinese government and the World Bank, which has seen thousands of hectares of eroded land terraced and reafforested. The aim is to achieve the rehabilitation of vegetation and hydrological systems in the region while increasing agricultural productivity and supporting

144

Su s t a in in g n a t u ra l re s o u rc e s y s te ms

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 144

14/11/12 9:14 AM

local livelihoods. The project has involved significant change in the way of life and agricultural practices of the region’s rural communities, the poorest in China. Remarkably, farmers have been persuaded to give up cultivation and grazing of sheep and goats on steep slopes and hillsides, and to convert land to native and production forests in what has been called the ‘Grain for Green’ regeneration scheme. Change was difficult to bring about, and has relied on large-scale financial compensation from the government. The scheme has resulted in higher incomes from terracing of steeper slopes, the growing of new, more profitable crops, and increased capacity to pursue off-farm income. It has also led to the reafforestation of the more degraded hillsides previously used to graze sheep and goats. These newly created and protected forest areas are providing improvements to the catchment, reducing erosion and re-establishing biodiversity across the landscape. Arguably, communities are now more resilient in the face of the climate change-induced drought that is now having a major impact on the region’s rural productivity. Farming communities in rural New South Wales in Australia show a similar potential for reafforestation of land cleared and degraded from over-grazing. As Baumber et al. in Chapter 9 explain, climate change factors such as long-term drought in the south-east of the continent, along with the demand for biomass to supplement coal in energy production, are driving a move to farm-based forestry. This could provide farmers with a new source of income both through providing carbon sequestration services, and providing biomass for the emerging bioenergy industry – income that could justify their giving up marginal grazing land for reafforestation. Environmental advantages would come from the re-establishment of mixed native vegetation on farms across a large part of New South Wales. The conservation values here, as in China, would be in retaining moisture and improving catchment functions, along with the rebuilding of habitat and native biodiversity. This in turn may strengthen resilience in the face of climate change and enhance ecosystem services across the rural landscape. Commu-

Su s t a in i n g n a tu ra l re sou rce syste ms

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 145

145

14/11/12 9:14 AM

nity benefits could extend beyond the individual farm to local industry producing carbon-neutral bioenergy. This could help build new income streams at the community and regional scale, including new jobs in a number of economically depressed rural areas. This is also the subject of Chapter 9, where Baumber et al. address the potential of using native agro-forestry in Australia for both environmental restoration and as a source of biomass for bioenergy production. The fourth example of the sustainable use of natural resources can be seen in the islands in the Andaman Sea off the coast of the southern Thai province of Satun, the site of several marine parks. Kittitornkool et al. in Chapter 10 describe how traditional fishing communities of Koh Sarai have mobilised for a greater role in fisheries governance in the face of declining fish stocks and increased incursions from illegal commercial trawling. These communities are being encouraged to play a larger role in the management of the region’s fisheries with support from marine and social scientists, building on local knowledge and using appropriate, easy-to-use indicators. Villagers are highly motivated to play an active role in the maintenance of the region’s rich marine biodiversity, to gain official support for the declaration of a trawling-free zone to conserve the fish stocks on which they rely, and to assist in preventing unsustainable and destructive illegal trawling, common in the coastal regions of Thailand and South-east Asia generally. John Merson, Rosie Cooney and Paul Brown

146

Su s t a in in g n a t u ra l re s o u rc e s y s te ms

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 146

14/11/12 9:14 AM

7 The uncertainties and inequalities of groundwater use in Bangladesh Crelis Rammelt, Institute of Environmental Studies, University of New South Wales; Arsenic Mitigation and Research Foundation

Introduction This chapter reflects on the notion of sustainable use of natural resources in the context of water management in Bangladesh. Polluted and irregular surface water resources prompted a national shift to groundwater for both agricultural and domestic sectors in the 1960s and 1980s, respectively. About a decade ago, natural occurring arsenic was detected in the shallow groundwater supplies, putting at risk drinking water and food security for an estimated 20–60 million people. Although progress is extremely slow, the sinking of deep groundwater tube-wells (see Plate 34) seems to be the most popular response to the problem.1 The strategy is not without risk: this chapter explores how a range of geological, technological, political, institutional and cultural factors are likely to affect continued and equitable access to adequate water resources.

G rou n dw a te r u se i n B a n gl a de sh

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 147

147

14/11/12 9:14 AM

Sustainable use refers in part to use that does not lead to the longterm decline of natural resources. For most sources of water, it implies withdrawal within the resource’s replenishment capacity. For some finite water sources, it means minimising unnecessary use or impacts. Biophysical limits of water resources and the ecosystem services they provide inevitably lead to questions about distribution, especially in a country with a dense population. The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), signed by Bangladesh in 1992, developed the 2004 Addis Ababa Principles and Guidelines (AAPG) for the Sustainable Use of Biodiversity (CBD 2004). Although these principles deal with the use of living resources, to some extent they are relevant to the use of non-living natural resources such as water. In the AAPG, the ‘sustainable use’ of water resources involves addressing inequity in terms of access to water resources within and between the communities, sectors and nations that share a catchment area. In the AAPG, people’s participation is recommended as an instrument to address such inequities (CBD 2004). However, there is a shortcoming when it comes to clarifying the associated practical difficulties. Authors in the field of participatory development were aware of these challenges long before the establishment of the CBD and this chapter will explore some of their insights (Freire 1972; Howes & Chambers 1979). Another shortcoming with the AAPG is the lack of understanding of the various forms of inequity. This is not uncommon for governance in the field of environment and development in general; differences between unequal distribution of income, services, resources and technology are often blurred. The easy way out has been to look merely at financial indicators. The AAPG broadens the perspective by focusing on equity of access to ecosystem services, but that is still only one facet. Other inequities include the ownership of natural resources and the control or decision-making power over conservation, use and protection. While the AAPG stress the importance of a government’s recognition of local stewardship, they fail to clarify that structural imbalances within communities make local management in many developing

148

Su s t a in in g n a t u ra l re s o u rc e s y s te ms

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 148

14/11/12 9:14 AM

countries extremely unequal. In other words, ‘local stewardship’ does not automatically make it ‘equitable’. I begin with a systemic overview of the major water resources in Bangladesh and the ecosystem services they provide in the domestic and agricultural sectors. This sets the scene for understanding current risks associated with the sinking of deep groundwater tube-wells to address the arsenic crisis. Arsenic mitigation programs are failing to deliver equitable outcomes after more than a decade of efforts. Two historical cases will show that this failure reflects past experiences in the water sector. Finally, I present an alternative approach drawing on experiences with a participatory drinking water program. Drawing from these experiences, the chapter ends with important implications for the current conception of equity and participation in the AAPG.

Water use in Bangladesh Surface water and groundwater resources Bangladesh has the world’s largest delta, which is made up of the catchment areas of three major river systems flowing through China, India, Nepal, Bhutan and Tibet: the Ganges (renamed Padma once it enters Bangladesh), Brahmaputra and Meghna (collectively the ‘GBM’). Three-quarters of all rainfall in the GBM basin occurs during the monsoon months from June to November, much of which discharges into Bangladesh. In combination with rainfall in the country itself, and its typically flat topography, slowly rising monsoon floods affect up to one-third of the cultivable land in a normal year. Another reality is created by seasonal water shortages and droughts. During the dry season, all over Bangladesh surface water-bodies dry out, and water is only available in parts of the river system sustained by groundwater outflow (ICID 2008). In recent decades, this ‘normal’ flood and drought pattern has been destabilised as a result of several natural and anthropogenic changes

G rou n dw a te r u se i n B a n gl a de sh

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 149

149

14/11/12 9:14 AM

in the GBM basin. Climate change has been linked to changing rainfall patterns (Shah 2009), enlarged areal extent of floods (Höfer & Messerli 2006), increased frequency of storm surges pushing further inland and losses of land due to sea-level rise (IPCC 2007). For an adequate water reserve, Bangladesh is heavily reliant on its neighbours. There have been a number of far-reaching infrastructure developments along the India–Bangladesh border, such as the completion of the Farakka barrage on the Ganges on the Indian side of the border, which is said to have halved dry-season water flows in downstream Bangladesh (Faisal 2002). The planned Indian River Linking Project is also expected to have serious impacts (Yasmin 2004). Other developments, both nationally and across the border, have affected surface water quality, particularly pollutants originating from agricultural, industrial, household and municipal sources (Faisal 2002). This environment has led to the spread of diseases such as typhoid, cholera, dysentery, pneumonia, tuberculosis and malaria (Black 1990; UNICEF 1998). Groundwater aquifer systems in Bangladesh can be categorised as deep or shallow. The two systems are generally isolated from each other by an impermeable clay layer, or aquitard (Ahmed 2005). Groundwater in the shallow aquifers is available throughout the year but the watertable fluctuates with the natural and the agricultural seasons, and as a result of changes in the GBM basin. For example, deforestation upstream may reduce infiltration rates from precipitation and thus reduce recharge of groundwater downstream (Shah 2009). With respect to deep aquifers, understanding of availability and recharge patterns is limited (Bruining et al. 2009; Burgess et al. 2010). While pathogenic microorganisms do not survive in the underground anaerobic conditions, in large parts of the delta it is a different contamination that threatens the quality of groundwater resources. Globally, arsenic contamination of water is not unusual and can have a range of causes (Amini et al. 2008). In Bangladesh, West Bengal and Nepal the threat is natural in origin – although the exact hydrogeological phenomenon is not fully understood, arsenic is found in the

150

Su s t a in in g n a t u ra l re s o u rc e s y s te ms

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 150

14/11/12 9:14 AM

sediments deposited during the formation of the delta (Ahmed 2005; Ahmed et al. 2006). Arsenic contamination occurs in 61 of Bangladesh’s 64 districts. Studies assert that 18–35 million people are at risk from drinking this ‘slow poison’ for many years, using the Bangladesh Drinking Water Standard (BDWS) of 50 ppb (parts per billion) as the ‘safe’ limit. However, the World Health Organization guideline limit of 10 ppb nearly doubles the population estimated to be at risk (Smith et al. 2000). While the most toxic form of arsenic ingestion is through drinking water, certain fruits and vegetables take up some of the arsenic from irrigation water, leading to another path for poisoning. The extent of this problem is as yet unclear (Huq et al. 2006). In general, arsenic concentrations peak in the shallow aquifers at depths of 20–70 metres, but the depth, thickness and lateral continuity of aquifers varies, even within villages (Ahmed 2005; Ahmed et al. 2006). Models have indicated that contaminated sources could not only remain so for a very long time, but that there is even a probability of an increase in concentrations with time (Ravenscroft et al. 2005). So far, deeper aquifers are not significantly affected by arsenic.

Ecosystem services from water resources Bangladesh’s rural population has always relied on an abundance of surface water during the rainy season and on various types of reservoirs to store water for the dry months. However, extreme weather conditions, climate change, water diversion by neighbouring countries, Green Revolution agriculture, industrial pollution, poor sanitation schemes, overpopulation and poor housing conditions have all negatively affected surface water resources and disrupted the associated traditional farming and household practices (Faisal 2002; Yasmin 2004; Höfer & Messerli 2006; Shah 2009). Many expected that groundwater could relieve dependence on irregular and polluted surface water. As a result, Bangladesh saw two major expansions in groundwater use in the course of the twentieth century –

G rou n dw a te r u se i n B a n gl a de sh

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 151

151

14/11/12 9:14 AM

one in the domestic sector for drinking water and another in the agricultural sector for irrigation water. In the domestic sector, the sinking of tube-wells for water supply and sanitation started in the 1950s and peaked in the late 1980s (Black 1990; Caldwell et al. 2003). Sometime after the mid-1980s the number of tube-wells jumped, from less than 1 million to 6–11 million by the turn of the century (Rammelt 2009). Today, the technology ‘meets’ the daily drinking water needs of 97 per cent of the population (Ahmed 2005). Although this ‘tube-well revolution’ has contributed to halving infant mortality in the 1960–96 period by reducing exposure to communicable diseases (Black 1990; UNICEF 1998; Caldwell et al. 2003), it has also led to the current exposure to arsenic. The second expansion occurred in the agricultural sector. For centuries, traditional irrigation practices in the delta drew from surface water bodies. Groundwater irrigation began modestly in the 1920s, and picked up pace during the Green Revolution in the 1970s with the sinking of small-capacity shallow tube-wells, which continued until the mid-1980s. The installation of large-capacity deep tube-wells began in the late 1960s (Hamid 1993; Pitman 1993; Caldwell et al. 2003; ICID 2008). Over the same period, large-scale water management infrastructures with combined flood control, drainage and surface water irrigation functions emerged in the first half of the twentieth century and have mostly spread since the 1950s (ICID 2008). These often had tremendous negative social and environmental consequences (Wood 1999; Warner 2006), but their contribution to irrigation remained relatively low. By the late 1990s, surface water irrigation through gravity canals covered only 10 per cent of the total irrigated area, with another 20 per cent covered by low-lift pumps and traditional water-lifting methods. The remaining 70 per cent was covered by groundwater irrigation through tube-wells (Ahmed 2005). The vast majority of current freshwater withdrawals are used for agriculture (96%), with small proportions for domestic (3%) and industrial uses (1%) (CIA 2010). By far the largest share is currently extracted

152

Su s t a in in g n a t u ra l re s o u rc e s y s te ms

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 152

14/11/12 9:14 AM

from shallow depths: 92 per cent for the domestic sector (Caldwell et al. 2003) and 81 per cent for the agricultural sector (ICID 2008), with the rest from deeper aquifers (see Figure 7.1). Figure 7.1 Distribution of deep and shallow groundwater use between sectors Agricultural deep tube-wells

Other

Agricultural shallow tube-wells (81% of agricultural use)

Household shallow tube-wells (92% of domestic use)

Household deep tube-wells

Irregular surface water and arsenic-contaminated shallow groundwater seriously undermine the provision of ecosystem services in the domestic and agricultural sectors. The shift to groundwater has brought along new technical solutions with a new range of risks, and new problems of access. These will be discussed in turn, with a focus on drinking water.

Deep tube-wells and their risks Among the different technical solutions to the arsenic problem, such as water filters or rainwater tanks, deep tube-wells are the most widely accepted (World Bank 2004; Ahmed et al. 2006), partly because their use is identical to that of the familiar shallow tube-well. To spread coverage over larger communities, organisations are attempting to implement deep tube-wells as community-based water supplies, or as a supply for larger piped-water systems. Continued and equitable access to uncontaminated water from these water supplies is challenged by two broad

G rou n dw a te r u se i n B a n gl a de sh

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 153

153

14/11/12 9:14 AM

interrelated classes of risks – one physical (geological and technological) and the other social (political, institutional and cultural).

Physical risks At present, the shallow and deep aquifer systems are isolated from each other as a result of one or both of the following conditions: (1) the aquitard creates a hydraulic barrier or (2) differences between the two aquifer systems in terms of groundwater flows are such that shallow groundwater does not reach deeper aquifers (Aggarwal et al. 2002). As a result, most deep tube-wells are safe at present. However, drilling more deep tube-wells in the future could compromise the aquitard’s impermeability. The high rate of extraction of deep groundwater that would ensue could elicit two mechanisms: (1) if arsenic already occurs in the deep sediments, deep groundwater extraction could trigger its release or (2) groundwater flow regimes could change so that arsenic from the shallow aquifer is transferred to the deep aquifer (Burgess et al. 2002; World Bank WSP 2005; Bruining et al. 2009). While there is no consensus, it appears that deep pumping by hand tube-wells for domestic supply only, as opposed to irrigation with its high extraction rates, presents a minimal risk of eliciting either of these mechanisms (Burgess et al. 2010; Radloff et al. 2011). Ideally, this would be better understood before making substantial investments in the installation of deep tube-wells (Aggarwal et al. 2002). However, a shift to deep groundwater extraction for irrigation would not be surprising considering the warnings regarding the limits of shallow groundwater stocks (Wood 1999; Crow & Sultana 2002; Rahman et al. 2007). Political factors may increase this risk. The potential threat to food exports posed by crops irrigated with arsenic-contaminated water may prompt the authorities to proceed with the development of deep groundwater irrigation despite the uncertainties (Rammelt 2009). Many other uncertainties remain – deforestation, water diversion and climate change are other physical risk factors that are likely to influ-

154

Su s t a in in g n a t u ra l re s o u rc e s y s te ms

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 154

14/11/12 9:14 AM

ence geochemistry, infiltration rates, temperature, evaporation, salinity, river flow, soil moisture and so on. All of these variables could play a role in the release of hazardous compounds such as arsenic (Bruining et al. 2009).

Social risks As explained, deep groundwater irrigation poses a physical risk for continued access to arsenic-free deep groundwater for drinking water purposes. I now explore several social risks to continued and equitable access to water supplies. In the past, village communities were largely self-contained and selfreliant subsistence economies relying on social procedures to deal with potential conflicts. Today, traditional community-based institutions have given way to systems dependent on inputs, credits, markets, and administrative support from outside. This shift is also occurring in the water sector. Traditionally, prosperous villagers would share dug wells or ponds with their neighbours, and families would join forces to dig ponds for the collection of subsurface water and rainwater (Black 1990; Rammelt 2009). More or less formal and permanent organisational structures were in charge of maintaining drinking water supplies and for ensuring relatively fair access for all. When the shift to household-based shallow tube-wells gained momentum, people began to abandon traditional water supplies, including their collective operation and maintenance procedures. The required arsenic mitigation technologies are generally more sophisticated and more expensive than installing a shallow tube-well. Communities could share the investment and maintenance costs, but this requires the establishment of local institutions, which might not be easy to set up in areas where social capital has eroded. It is also possible that community-based deep tube-wells might not be used by people with access to shallow tube-wells closer to their homestead. Slow arsenic poisoning might not be a priority when there are time constraints and other more urgent sufferings.

G rou n dw a te r u se i n B a n gl a de sh

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 155

155

14/11/12 9:14 AM

So far, this chapter has explored physical and social risks associated with the use of deep tube-wells as community-based drinking water supplies. A large-scale shift to deep groundwater for irrigation could compromise continued access to arsenic-free drinking water. Economic limitations of the poor and the erosion of social capital could impair local maintenance and shared use of the water supplies. The establishment of communitybased institutions, alongside the installation of shared drinking water infrastructures, becomes an important strategy to minimise these risks. An important role for these institutions in the long term will be to shift to other technologies if deep tube-wells become contaminated. As explored in the next section, the development of communitybased institutions has been promoted in order to achieve more equitable outcomes in both the domestic and agricultural sectors. However, two cases show that past market-based and top-down credit-dependent water management arrangements have not promoted fair access, and may even have worsened it. These offer important lessons for current arsenic mitigation efforts.

A history of unequal access to water There is a movement of international policies and norms attempting to address issues of equity in access to natural resources. The CBD’s AAPG, for example, propose to ‘develop means of ensuring rights of access and methods for helping to ensure that the benefits derived from using components of biodiversity are equitably shared’ (CBD 2004, p. 14). Resource users should participate in decisions about use of the resource, and the AAPG suggest providing ‘adequate channels of negotiations’ to resolve potential conflicts (CBD 2004, p. 16). Huge practical difficulties remain for applying such guidelines to water in Bangladesh. The poor, who form by far the largest section of the Bangladeshi population, have least access to resources and are generally imprisoned

156

Su s t a in in g n a t u ra l re s o u rc e s y s te ms

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 156

14/11/12 9:14 AM

in various poverty traps. This inhibits independent initiatives, reinforces dependencies, and makes them a particularly difficult group to reach in development programs (Freire 1972; Howes & Chambers 1979). To use the AAPG terminology, ‘channels of negotiations’ are at risk of being compromised by existing power structures and discriminatory networks. This can affect both top-down and bottom-up initiatives in water resource management. Top-down approaches are funnelled downwards, through local government and NGOs, to primarily benefit affiliated local core groups in villages. When viewed from the bottom up, the poor, being in a dependent position, have profound difficulties challenging the status quo. Village elites are in a better position to influence investments and access services provided by local institutions. These inequities have occurred in the past for both domestic and agricultural sectors, and can be seen again in today’s arsenic mitigation efforts.

Access to shallow domestic tube-wells Inequities in access for the poor have been characteristic of the deployment of shallow tube-wells for household use since the 1970s. The initial program was carried out by the Directorate of Public Health Engineering (DPHE) with financial support from various external donors (for example, USAID and UNICEF). Although the aim was to reach the entire community, ‘the allocation of [domestic shallow] tubewells mostly favoured the influential community, [and] as a result the program could not reach the low-income group in most cases’ (Miah 1998, p. 1). In practice, tube-wells often effectively became the property of powerful individuals. At the outset of the program the community did not contribute financially to the installation, but in the course of time so-called cost-sharing principles were adopted. An application form had to be signed by members of at least ten families who, on paper, all contributed to the cost of sinking a tube-well. The person listed as the ‘head

G rou n dw a te r u se i n B a n gl a de sh

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 157

157

14/11/12 9:14 AM

of community’ on the application form, usually a man, and often the most prominent and wealthiest among the applicants, was automatically designated as caretaker (Black 1990). In practice, he provided most or all of the necessary cash, and in return, he expected preferential treatment by having the tube-well installed close to, or even within, his homestead.

Access to irrigation tube-wells Inequities in access have also been characteristic of the deployment of irrigation tube-wells. In the early stages of the Green Revolution in the 1960s, the Bangladesh Agricultural Development Corporation (BADC) – a public-sector agency – controlled the infusion of governmentsupplied subsidised resources: credit, equipment, improved seeds, fertilisers, pesticides and agricultural extension services under so-called Integrated Rural Development Programs (Mandal 2002). It quickly became clear that those with power and influence, the ‘surplus’ farmers (that is, those who could produce surpluses for sale), enjoyed better access to the inputs, while others had to purchase them on the market at a much higher price. In 1985, the Bangladesh Planning Commission aimed to ensure a more equitable distribution of benefits through the establishment of agricultural co-operative societies of 25–50 farmers (Hamid 1993). In the 1970s and 1980s, financed by the World Bank, the Swedish and Canadian governments joined in and installed thousands of irrigation tube-wells in collaboration with the Bangladeshi government. On paper, these were intended to serve the co-operatives, but an evaluation by the Swedish International Development Authority (SIDA) concluded that the majority had been installed on the land of the well-to-do farmers (Stroberg 1977). Looking at the details of the procedures, the SIDA evaluation noted fraud in hundreds of application forms where signatures were falsified, and stated that it would have been surprising had this not been the case – officials with close ties to the elite monitored the procedures (Stroberg 1977).

158

Su s t a in in g n a t u ra l re s o u rc e s y s te ms

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 158

14/11/12 9:14 AM

These programs failed to create co-operatives independent of the local elite, who were able to monopolise and re-lend the subsidised farming inputs or sell irrigation services (Stroberg 1977; Hartmann & Boyce 1983; Hamid 1993). The monopoly position of tube-well owners and caretakers was also used to gain the support of wealthy constituencies before local elections (Hartmann & Boyce 1983). This power structure continues to dominate the rural scene to this day (Rammelt 2009).

Access to arsenic mitigation technologies These two historical cases show that access to adequate water supplies has been polarised by unequal access to technologies, credits, markets and decision-making processes in general. Both the DPHE and the BADC have distributed tube-well technologies – often on credit – to wealthier sections of the rural population. The poor were left to purchase them on the market, which only became feasible when the production of hand pumps had expanded and prices had dropped (Hartmann & Boyce 1983; Black 1990). With the current need for arsenic-free water supplies, comparable inequalities have started to show in arsenic mitigation programs. The largest initiative so far has been the World Bank-funded Bangladesh Water Supply Program Project (BWSPP) (2005–09), a follow-up to the Bangladesh Arsenic Mitigation Water Supply Project (BAMWSP) (1998–2006). The programs included nationwide testing of shallow tube-wells and the implementation of drinking water supplies, including deep tube-wells with or without piped water systems. Progress of the BAMWSP remained slow throughout its course (News From Bangladesh 2002; Pearce 2006) and the World Bank is even reported to have considered withdrawing its investment in it (Atkins et al. 2007). The new BWSPP was launched with the intention to build on lessons learned, and was backed by a further US$40 million of World Bank funding. However, in 2007 the World Bank asserted that BWSPP also made extremely slow progress, with only US$1 million disbursed after nearly three years (World Bank 2007).

G rou n dw a te r u se i n B a n gl a de sh

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 159

159

14/11/12 9:14 AM

From a range of news sources and local studies, it is clear there has been little success resolving the arsenic crisis (News From Bangladesh 2002; Atkins et al. 2007; Rammelt 2009; SOS-Arsenic 2011). By 2006, water supplies installed under Bangladesh’s National Policy for Arsenic Mitigation (NPAM) were said to have reached less than 14 per cent of the population at risk: 12 per cent through deep tube-wells and 2 per cent through water filters, rainwater tanks and other technologies (Ahmed et al. 2006). To make things worse, many technologies have broken down within a year or so after their installation, or the water supplies are in reality not community based, but have been appropriated by well-to-do villagers (Crow & Sultana 2002; Atkins et al. 2007; Rammelt 2009). Six years after the start of BAMWSP, even the World Bank (2004, p. 23) admitted that ‘[a]verage figures conceal the disparity in service access and distribution. Despite high rural water supply coverage, distribution of services has been inequitable’. Under BAMWSP, 90 per cent of the capital costs of a chosen water supply were to be covered by the program, and the remainder by local communities in cash or in labour. The subsidised technologies were, in theory, granted to community-based organisations (CBOs) and not to individuals. Requests for water supplies were examined at the district level and the installation monitored by the DPHE. The required amount was transferred to a bank account with the mandatory approval of the Union Council chairman2 (World Bank 1998). Similarly, with BWSPP the provision of water services was channelled through Union Water Supply and Sanitation Committees (within the Union Councils). The plan was that communities would participate in site selection and make cash contributions. Operation and maintenance would become the responsibility of users; caretakers would undertake minor repairs and major repairs would be done by DPHE or private sector mechanics (World Bank 2004). From our observations, these steps in the implementation process did not take place (Rammelt 2009). The process of implementation of water supply technologies has been subject to capture by local elites. The World Bank assumed that

160

Su s t a in in g n a t u ra l re s o u rc e s y s te ms

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 160

14/11/12 9:14 AM

‘[i]nfluential drivers (Champions) and commitment to improve water and environmental sanitation related services … exist at local government levels’ (World Bank WSP 2005b, p. 1), but this is generally not the case. Local government officials tend to work with direct links to contractors, village elites and Union Council members. In theory, the community was given the right to choose the technology and placement, but in practice, decisions were typically taken in such a way that the arsenic-free water supply ended up in or very near the homesteads of influential villagers. We have witnessed numerous similar cases in the districts of Jessore, Munshiganj, Kushtia and Gopalganj (Rammelt & Boes 2004; Rammelt 2009). One villager commented: ‘In theory, we decided upon the placement of the water supply. In practice, it was the union chairman who installed it at the house of a friend.’3 Government corruption is, however, not the main issue here; even if union (a collection of villages) level officials follow correct procedures, things can still go wrong at the community level. Procedures are biased towards those who are familiar with public institutions and who are confident negotiators. Moreover, the poor have difficulty contributing their full share of the amounts required under cost-sharing arrangements. Under the same program, instances have been found where wealthy families collected signatures for deep tube-well application forms from their neighbours by offering to pay the full share of the contribution. In return, the community ‘agreed’ to have the deep tube-well installed on the property of the wealthy family, mirroring the same difficulties faced by earlier shallow tube-well programs (Rammelt 2009). This outcome is not just symptomatic of government programs – NGOs are not immune. Many instances have been found where deep tube-wells, pond sand filters and rainwater harvesting installations provided by various NGO projects ended up in the hands of wealthier households. In many cases, the NGO staff simply distributed ‘community-based’ deep tube-wells to those who could afford to pay the 10 000 taka ‘community’ contribution (Rammelt 2009). These inequities are compounded by the hurry of many funding

G rou n dw a te r u se i n B a n gl a de sh

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 161

161

14/11/12 9:14 AM

agencies to install a predetermined number of water supplies. NGOs tend to install drinking water supplies as fast as possible in order to meet the targets set, to a large extent, by donors, ‘umbrella’ NGOs or international agencies. These parties generally demand measurable outcomes and fixed project deadlines. Bidding systems that introduce an atmosphere of competition and haste compound the problem. Fast implementation implies working with those households that can quickly contribute larger sums to cost-sharing schemes, provide a pond for a water filter system, or possess a site for a deep tube-well installation (Rammelt 2009).

An alternative approach Since 1996, Delft University of Technology (TUD) in the Netherlands and a number of NGOs in Bangladesh have been running a student program addressing various water management issues. The work has led to the formation of the Arsenic Mitigation and Research Foundation (AMRF). In collaboration with two local NGOs, AMRF has established communitybased clean drinking water supplies in several arsenic-affected villages (see Plate 34) since 2005, aiming to reduce the inequities outlined above. Underlying the AMRF program is the recognition that a lack of conflict over access to a resource does not necessarily indicate there is an abundant supply and that there is solidarity between the users. The absence of conflict could also indicate severe marginalisation of individuals to such an extent that they do not have the means to bring about a conflict (Freire 1972; Howes & Chambers 1979). In her own words, one poor villager explains the problem: Eighty per cent of people are poor; they pull rickshaws, work as labourers and do all the small underpaid jobs. They usually do not get any assistance from government and NGOs while the 20% influential people somehow manage. With the installation of tube-wells, for example, these will go to the richer 20%

162

Su s t a in in g n a t u ra l re s o u rc e s y s te ms

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 162

14/11/12 9:14 AM

who own most of the land. We stay poor and do not have the means to do anything alone, but if we unite, we can fight this.4

The objective of the AMRF program was to learn from past failures and to take every precaution to vest ownership of the infrastructure for clean water supply in the poor sections of a community. In the AMRF working areas, it was observed that once a rural community actually co-operatively owned the infrastructures, solidarity was extended to the extremely poor in the community – who normally have little or no time or money to contribute. Setting up the necessary community-based drinking water supplies involves three phases: surveying, organising and facilitating (see Figure 7.2).

Physical process

Figure 7.2 Phases of implementation: physical and social processes Surveying

Organising

Facilitating

• Data collection in the working area

• Site selection

• Money collection and savings

• Tube-well screening

• Installation of the water supply

• Technology assessments

• Setting up an information centre • Setting up homestead gardening

Select and analyse a village

Social process

• Maintenance of the water supply

• Orientation meetings • Socio-economic survey • Arsenicosis patients identification

Establish drinking water and public health systems

Sustainable development of water and health systems

• Consultation and agreement

• Maintenance of the committee

• Establishment of a committee

• Follow-up treatment • People’s organisations

• Raising awareness • Treatment of patients

Surveying

Organising

Facilitating

G rou n dw a te r u se i n B a n gl a de sh

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 163

163

14/11/12 9:14 AM

In the surveying phase, we (the staff of AMRF) test tube-wells for arsenic contamination in order to identify exposed communities, we carry out household surveys to identify poorer communities, and we diagnose potential arsenicosis patients. This leads to the selection of villages, and to an understanding of the local context. In the organising phase, we work directly with the local communities. We assist them with the selection of a site and the installation of a safe water supply (usually a deep tube-well). Training is provided on arsenic and its risks, and village meetings are held to elect a water supply committee. The initial surveys help us understand the local power relations, and to ensure the voices of the poor are heard in the meetings (because usually the better-off dominate). We also distribute medicine to patients, and help them set up vegetable gardens to improve their diets. This phase leads to the establishment of safe drinking water supplies and the provision of health support. In the facilitating phase, our direct involvement is reduced. We begin to support activities leading to the sustainability of the water and health systems, such as money collection and savings, and the maintenance of the water supply by the committees. Many water supply projects in Bangladesh have failed to benefit the poor, in large part because they are implemented in a hurry to meet the targets set by donor agencies. In doing so, organisations ignore the essential steps presented in Figure 7.2, such as orientation meetings with the communities, socio-economic surveys before organising the establishment of committees, site selection and land registration before the installation of a water supply, and so on. While essential, these steps are no guarantee for success in the long term. Our direct involvement in the communities must not suddenly come to a halt, but must be gradually reduced. Ultimately, the committee will have to monitor the water supply, and the community (through village volunteers, for example) must monitor the committee. Our approach represents work-in-progress, and will be elaborated as new findings emerge from practice. Initial results seem promising; over the past five years, we have installed 23 community deep tube-wells that

164

Su s t a in in g n a t u ra l re s o u rc e s y s te ms

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 164

14/11/12 9:14 AM

are currently being used and maintained by a total of 1600 families. The sustainability of these water supplies is not guaranteed – only time will make this determination. However, the lesson is that if implemented quickly, 23 deep tube-wells will only serve 23 well-to-do families; if done properly, 23 deep tube-wells may serve many more, and may even trigger a range of other developmental activities through building community organisations. Already, committees are encouraged to go beyond only managing the deep tube-wells by establishing themselves as ‘people’s organisations’ that will access other public services and programs. Some have, for example, obtained new roads and sanitary latrines from the local government or set up vaccination centres.

Conclusion This chapter set out to examine the concept of sustainable use in the context of water resources and ecosystem services in rural Bangladesh. One of the leading international policy frameworks for sustainable use of natural resources is the CBD’s AAPG. The AAPG could benefit from experiences with practical implementation of water projects on the ground. Application of those AAPG specifically related to equity in resource use and local participation in resource management faces complex challenges on the ground. Established inequalities of ownership of natural resources and of control over decision-making processes entrench the exclusion of marginalised social groups. The AAPG suggest, for instance, that ‘[t]he needs of indigenous and local communities … should be reflected in the equitable distribution of the benefits from the use of those resources’ (CBD 2004, p. 18). Gaps remain in understanding the practical implications of this statement. Improvements of the CBD’s program will require a stronger integration of experiences with community participation engagement (Krueger 2009). Based on the experiences detailed in this chapter, application of the CBD’s guidelines will require a more comprehensive understanding of different forms of inequity. This will be essential for a better involvement of poor social

G rou n dw a te r u se i n B a n gl a de sh

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 165

165

14/11/12 9:14 AM

groups within communities in decision making, management and use. The AAPG place considerable emphasis on the adoption of adaptive management approaches to natural resource management (CBD 2004). Genuine attempts to address the arsenic crisis in this way seem to be lacking. Some of the earlier mentioned physical and social risks with deep tube-wells can only properly be dealt with by well-established forms of community-based institutions, which will take time to develop. The bulk of drinking water projects unfortunately pay too little attention to facilitating their formation and monitoring their functioning. Donor agencies generally focus on quick and tangible results, and underestimate the slow but crucial social processes that underlie them, which have been our explicit focus in the AMRF program.

Acknowledgments The ideas presented in this chapter reflect my collaboration with Dr Masud Md. Zahed and Mr Palash Torfder, respectively of AITAM and PRIDE, as well as with Mr Jan Boes of AMRF. The chapter also draws on research under the supervision of Dr John Merson and Dr Phillip Crisp. I would like to thank them for their contributions.

166

Su s t a in in g n a t u ra l re s o u rc e s y s te ms

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 166

14/11/12 9:14 AM

8 Grain for Green conservation program and farmers’ livelihood development in the Loess Plateau, China Li Wang, John Merson and Sandy Booth, University of New South Wales; Yonggong Liu, China Agricultural University, Beijing and Xiaoyan Wang, Sichuan Social Academy, Chengdu

Introduction The idea of development based on the sustainable use of natural resources was first highlighted in 1980 in the ‘World Conservation Strategy’ (IUCN et al. 1980). The World Conservation Union (IUCN) states that sustainable use of natural resources can support human needs on a continuous basis while contributing to the conservation of biological diversity (IUCN 2000). The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) provides for its parties to ‘adopt economically and socially sound measures that act as incentives for the conservation and sustainable

G ra in f o r Gre en i n th e Loe ss P l a te a u , Ch i n a

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 167

167

14/11/12 9:14 AM

use of components of biodiversity’ (Article 11). The actual incentives can take many forms, including social or financial incentives (Myers & Kent 2001). One significant form of incentive-driven conservation is the idea of payments for ecosystem services (PES) which involves providing payments or other financial benefits to those who ‘supply’ ecosystem services (Alix-Garcia et al. 2003; Pagiola & Platais 2005). Land degradation and soil erosion are particularly pressing examples of unsustainable resource use, and are present all over the world (Pimentel et al. 1995; Eswaran et al. 2001; Foley et al. 2005). Loss of soil eventually renders arable land unproductive. As agricultural land is degraded and abandoned, more forests are cut and converted to agricultural land to meet the needs of an increasing human population (Vanacker et al. 2007), with detrimental consequences for biodiversity and ecosystem services. The Loess Plateau in western China presents a tragic scene of unsustainable use and overexploitation of the ecosystem, including massive deforestation, soil erosion and land erosion, as well as dramatic losses of biological diversity since the early 1900s (COSTLOP-CAS, Wei et al. 2006; Chen et al. 2003). In the early Pleistocene, the Loess Plateau was a high flat plain covered by a thick layer of rich soils, and densely vegetated with forest and grass (Richthofen 1877; Shi 2001). Currently more than 70 per cent of the plateau is dissected by deep gullies that cut through the hills, caused by serious soil erosion that began about 3000 years ago as the population grew and forest clearing was widespread (He et al. 2004). More than 90 per cent of the sediment eroded from the plateau has been deposited into the Yellow River, and the lower reaches of the river’s bed have been raised at an annual rate of 8–10 centimetres due to sedimentation (Shi & Shao, 2000). Since the establishment of the Peoples’ Republic of China in October 1949, the Chinese government has been involved in the rehabilitation and restoration of the vulnerable ecosystem of the Loess Plateau. From the early 1950s to the late 1980s, a great effort was made to plant trees, shrubs and grass, and to introduce tillage and dry-land farming

168

Su s t a in in g n a t u ra l re s o u rc e s y s te ms

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 168

14/11/12 9:14 AM

techniques to achieve self-sufficient food production and soil erosion control (Chen et al. 1988; Zhou et al. 2006). However, vegetation cover remained poor and for many reasons soil erosion continued (Chen et al. 2007). Farmers in the region faced increasing poverty as a result of both environmental degradation and poor agricultural productivity. In 1999, the Chinese government initiated a comprehensive incentive-based conservation program, called Grain for Green (GFG), to combat degradation and environmental deterioration as part of China’s long-term national strategy for sustainable development (Xu et al. 2006a). Both the scale and magnitude of investment of GFG make it the largest ecological restoration and environmental rehabilitation program in the world (Liu & Diamond 2005; Uchida et al. 2005). The GFG program aims to achieve the rehabilitation of vegetation and environmental restoration in western China, including the Loess Plateau region. It is designed to achieve sustainable use of natural resources while increasing agricultural productivity. This chapter reviews and analyses the GFG program as an example of biological and ecosystem regeneration involving sustainable use of natural soil and vegetation resources. The analysis is based on research carried out by the authors over the period 2009–10. The chapter begins with a systematic review of the GFG program’s policies and implementation procedures. The second section outlines the results of an empirical case study carried out in Huachi County, in the area of Gansu Province in the Loess Plateau, examining the impacts of the GFG on land-use change and farming practice in this area, and the effects on farmers’ livelihoods and household income. Finally, insights and implications drawn from this analysis and case study are discussed.

The Grain for Green conservation program The aims of the Grain for Green program are to increase national forest cover, improve vegetation regeneration, alleviate poverty, support

G ra in f o r Gre en i n th e Loe ss P l a te a u , Ch i n a

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 169

169

14/11/12 9:14 AM

household livelihoods, and establish a more sustainable agricultural production structure (Bennett 2008; Cao et al. 2009). Target GFG sites are initially designed to focus on areas with high potential to minimise soil erosion. The priority program areas are the upstream regions of major river systems in China, including the Yellow and Yangtze, which have experienced massive ecological degradation and environmental stresses over the past 50 years. This area includes the Loess Plateau, which crosses the Yellow River Basin.

Components of the GFG program The GFG program involves three main components. First, cropland on steep slopes (defined as slopeland of 25 degrees or more) is retired from cropping and converted to forests and/or grassland. Replanted forests can be of two kinds: ‘ecological forests’ of native trees and shrubs, aimed at regenerating native vegetation and stopping soil erosion; and ‘economic forests’ of orchards and timber trees, aimed at providing income benefits while stopping soil erosion. Replanted grassland is primarily native alfalfa, used as fodder for domestic stock. Second, cropland on gentle slopes (defined as slopeland of 10–25 degrees) is converted to contour terraces. Contour terracing improves the agricultural productivity of land and farmers’ incomes. Third, the program involves the establishment of bans on grazing and tree-cutting on fragile mountains/hills and barren marginal lands with high levels of soil erosion, and replanting these areas with forests (ecological and/or economic) and grass. These areas may be owned either communally or by individual farmers. The ratio of ecological forest to economic forest should be no less than 4 to 1, based on regional or local GFG program objectives (State Council 2000a). Participating farmers receive grain, cash compensation and free seedlings (trees, shrubs or grass) in return for retiring cropland on steep slopelands. On gentle slopelands, the contour terracing improves land productivity and farmers’ income, and no additional benefits are received. Where grazing is banned on fragile mountains/hills and marginal lands,

170

Su s t a in in g n a t u ra l re s o u rc e s y s te ms

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 170

14/11/12 9:14 AM

farmers receive only seedlings for grass replanting. When a community is selected for participation in the program, participating households can choose to retire all or part of their steep cropland for regeneration. Individual farmers take responsibility for the maintenance and development of the regenerated forests and grasslands, according to a responsibility contract with the government they sign before the land is retired. Individual farmers own the products from economic forests on their land, and can sell and benefit from these. In replanted ecological forests, farmers are prohibited from cutting and selling timber or fuel wood. On replanted steep slopeland grazing is strictly forbidden, but harvesting alfalfa for fodder is permitted. Since its inception in 1999, the GFG program has made dramatic and nationally significant impacts on soil erosion and regeneration of cropland. GFG has been implemented in more than 2000 counties across 25 provinces and municipalities in China. Expenditures have been large: the Chinese government had spent around US$40 billion on the program by 2010 (SFA 2010). As a result of the increase in vegetation brought about by following its principles, the overall national forest coverage rate increased from 16.8 per cent in 1999 to 20 per cent in 2010 (SFA 2010). In total, around 25 million hectares of degraded land and fragile hills had been retired and converted under the GFG program by 2008. This includes over 23 million hectares of degraded land reforested nationwide, including 8.5 million hectares of cropland and 14.5 million hectares of barren marginal lands converted to forest (SFA 2000–2009). Another 1.8 million hectares of fragile mountains/ hills were closed from grazing and reforested under the program by 2008. The GFG program is ongoing and will continue to expand to more provinces and regions of China (State Council 2007).

Compensation to farmers Payments to participants in the GFG scheme are a core element in its success. The GFG program is one of China’s first ‘payment for environ-

G ra in f o r Gre en i n th e Loe ss P l a te a u , Ch i n a

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 171

171

14/11/12 9:14 AM

mental services’ (PES) schemes (Bennett 2008). PES schemes reward landowners for conserving the source of the ecosystem service with subsidies or market payments from those who benefit (WWF 2010). The Chinese government provides participant farmers with three types of compensation – grain, cash payments and free seedlings – for retiring land from production and thereby providing ecosystem services of regenerated vegetation and improved land productivity. Seedlings are provided to participant farmers only in the first year. Grain and cash payments are delivered annually for two to eight years after retiring their land: two years for planting of grassland, five years for planting of economic forests, and eight years for planting of ecological forests. Both grain and cash compensations are usually quite generous. Participant farmers who convert their cropland to forest or grassland receive compensation of 1500–2250 kilograms of grain/ha/year (worth about 2100–3150 Yuan RMB (US$308–463)/ha/year), and a cash payment of 300 Yuan RMB (US$44)/ha/year. This appears to compare well to international standards. For example, GFG farmers’ compensation level is higher on a per hectare basis than the average rental payment (US$112.68/ha/year) of the US Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) in 2002 (Heimlich 2003; Uchida et al. 2005), which likewise involves farmers retiring land from production for conservation.1 Adequate compensation to farmers is likely to be critical in order to ensure they do not return retired cropland to cultivation after payments cease. Studies have found that the level of GFG compensation payments exceeds the likely value of crop yields from the retired land (Bennett et al. 2008; Xu et al. 2010), for the periods of time in which compensation is paid. However, in the longer term, the loss of cropland due to land retirement will lead to a considerable reduction in grain and crop production by individual small farmers, which is likely to become an issue when financial compensation ceases (Wang et al. 2007) although, to some extent, loss of cropland will be offset by income from economic forests planted on retired land and by improved productivity of terracing (see following section).

172

Su s t a in in g n a t u ra l re s o u rc e s y s te ms

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 172

14/11/12 9:14 AM

Improvement of land productivity Another key aspect of the GFG program is cropland development to improve participant farmers’ agricultural productivity. The building of level terraces has enhanced water infiltration, raised the rainfall utilisation rate, raised land quality and crop yields, and conserved soil and water (Deng et al. 2006). For instance, the average yield of maize has increased in some areas from 3000 kg/ha on gentle slopeland to 6000 kg/ha on converted terrace, and the yield of potatoes from 7500 kg/ha to 12 000 kg/ha (Chen et al. 2003). In most areas the GFG program has introduced mulching technologies on terraced areas, including crop residue mulching, straw mulching and plastic film mulching, to further increase productivity and farming sustainability. Wang et al. (2004) found that grain yield in mulched plots was 28.9 per cent higher than in plots without mulching. The terracing of slope land has also resulted in a significant shift from labour-intensive farming practice to a more efficient farming system. For instance, simple farming machines are now used, such as small-size land cultivators – seeding machines that can be used on level cropland. To some extent, this has reduced farmers’ on-farm labour time and allowed them to seek income from the growing off-farm labour market (Uchida et al. 2007).

Case study: the GFG in Huachi County The Loess Plateau and Huachi County The case study area of Huachi County in Gansu Province was selected as a geographically typical region of the Loess Plateau, with roughly average rainfall and temperatures. Over the last decades in Huachi County, rainfall has been irregular in time and space, temperature has increased and natural disasters have become more frequent (Huachi

G ra in f o r Gre en i n th e Loe ss P l a te a u , Ch i n a

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 173

173

14/11/12 9:14 AM

Statistics Bureau 1999–2008). Huachi County is a region with traditional rain-fed agriculture, severe soil erosion and environmental degradation since the 1950s. It covers 3800 km2 and has a population of around 0.13 million, with more than 86 per cent of the population working in agriculture in 2008. Before implementation of the GFG program, 90 per cent of the region suffered from soil erosion. The GFG program was launched in Huachi County in 2000, and is still running. It was implemented by government agencies, from the levels of county government, to township governments, and eventually to community committees and individual farmers. Study methods

This study was conducted by secondary data collection, policy and document analysis, and a field survey with co-operation from the Huachi County Water and Soil Conservation Bureau. Quantitative research, including secondary statistical data collection and a questionnaire-based survey of individual households (n = 35 households), was implemented in the study area. The field survey also involved qualitative approaches, including semi-structured interviews with relevant government agencies, local communities and individual farmers; small group discussions; and focus-group interviews (for example, women, poor farmers). Achievements of the program in Huachi County

The key components of the GFG program – the conversion of croplands to forest or grassland and banning of livestock grazing on mountains and hills – were implemented from 2000 onwards by both the Huachi County and township governments, in accordance with state government policy. With regards to environmental regeneration, over the last decade more than eighteen 320-hectare areas of forest and seventeen 166-hectare areas of grassland were planted, with another 5046 hectares of natural forests and grasslands protected from grazing (Huachi Statistics Bureau 1999–2008). In addition, more than 10 040 hectares of eroded gentle

174

Su s t a in in g n a t u ra l re s o u rc e s y s te ms

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 174

14/11/12 9:14 AM

slopeland has been converted to terraces. Plates 19 and 20 demonstrate the dramatic landscape changes achieved under the program. There have been significant improvements to the regional ecosystem in terms of reduced soil erosion and vegetation regeneration (see Table 8.1). Soil erosion has been controlled across more than 1606 km2, nearly half the affected area in the county.2 Cover of forest and grass has been increased from 19.8 per cent in 2000 to about 26.8 per cent by the end of 2008 (Huachi Statistics Bureau 1999–2008). According to interviews with officials from Huachi County Forestry Bureau, reafforestation in particular has led to increased species diversity of trees, shrubs and grasses – rebuilding local ecological communities. Changes in land-use patterns

The Grain for Green program in the case study area has significantly changed land-use patterns. Table 8.1 shows the long-term shift in land use from 1982 compared to 2008 across the entire county, based on the survey. In 2008, the greatest changes compared to 1982 were the increases of replanted economic forests (3077%), terraces (559%) and ecological forests (273%). Correspondingly, total use for crops on steep and gentle slopeland has been greatly reduced (88%) over this period. Table 8.1 County-level land-use pattern comparison between 1982 and 2008 Year

Arable land  (ha) Total

Terrace

Ecological forest (ha)

Economic forest (ha)

Grassland (ha)

Steep/gentle slopeland

1982

57 266

3830

53 436

68 220

107

198 867

2008

31 668

2 5 2 2 4

6 444

254 726

3 400

214 727

Change

– 45%

+ 559 %

– 88%

+ 273%

+ 3077%

+ 7%

Land-use change experienced by individual small households over a decade, based on the 35 household questionnaires, is shown in Table 8.2.

G ra in f o r Gre en i n th e Loe ss P l a te a u , Ch i n a

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 175

175

14/11/12 9:14 AM

In 1999 almost half of each household’s cropland, on average, was steep slopeland, and another third was gentle slopeland. By 2009, the percentage of household cropland on steep and gentle slopeland was reduced to 0 and to 7 per cent respectively, with a corresponding increase in terraces to 25 per cent of land. All cropland on steep slopeland had been retired to become economic forests, ecological forests or grassland, increasing household average areas under these land uses to 16.5 per cent, 16.5 per cent and 33 per cent respectively. The grazing ban on grassland has shifted 100 per cent of individual farmers’ previous land subject to free grazing to replanted grassland for pen-feeding fodder. Table 8.2 Estimated land-use change at the household level from 1999 to 2009 (n = 35) Land-use types

1999 Area (ha)/HH*

Cropland

Steep slopeland (> 25 degrees)

2009

Percentage (%)

Area (ha)/HH*

Percentage (%)

2

49

0

0

1.31

33

0.3

7

0

0

1

25

Economic forest

0

0

0.67

16.5

Ecological forest

0.33

8

0.67

16.5

Grassland (alfalfa)

0.33

8

1.33

33

Vegetables

0.06

2

0.06

2

Gentle slopeland (10–25 degrees) Terrace

* HH: rural household that participated in the survey. Source: Huachi household survey, 2009

Changes in farming practices

Since the introduction of China’s Family Planning Policy (also known as the one-child policy) in the late 1970s, there has been an obvious trend towards smaller families both in rural and urban areas (Ding & Hesketh 2006). The rural household in Huachi County has on average 4–5

176

Su s t a in in g n a t u ra l re s o u rc e s y s te ms

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 176

14/11/12 9:14 AM

family members and at most three labourers. Before the GFG program, farmers needed to grow crops on at least 4 hectares of slopeland to sustain their families, and they suffered physically from the traditional tillage techniques and the heavy load of farming activities each year. After the program, more than half of their cropland has been retired, with the productivity of remaining land improved, relieving the farmers to a great extent from their high-input, low-output farming activities. The field survey of local households revealed that more than 80 per cent of the farmers are happy with the amount of land they have retired. With their reduced amount of cropland, local farmers carefully choose the crops or grains they plant. Before the GFG program, they planted winter wheat (a key grain crop for self-consumption) on more than three-quarters of their land, with the other quarter planted to maize, soybean, millet and benne (sesame), all cash crops for household income. Following land retirement and terracing, there has been a major shift in crop selection. Enabled by the higher productivity of the terraced slopeland, farmers have reduced planting of winter wheat and increased planting of cash crops such as maize, soybean and potatoes. These crops have higher yields than winter wheat on the same area, increasing agricultural income. Millet was previously favoured, as it shows drought resilience, but it has low productivity and is not planted in terraces. There were substantial increases of yields of all crops on the terraced land compared to yields on slopeland: winter wheat (300%), maize without mulching (146%), soybean (60%) and potato (167%) (see Table 8.3). On terraced land, maize yields using plastic film mulching are higher by 35 per cent compared to maize without plastic film mulching. Overall, reduced planting area of winter wheat has been greatly counterbalanced by increased productivity per hectare. Furthermore, crops on terraced land show increased resilience to drought. In 2006, after the implementation of the GFG program in most areas of Huachi County, the whole county experienced a severe drought. Data on crop yields over this period indicate that wheat, maize, soybean and potatoes

G ra in f o r Gre en i n th e Loe ss P l a te a u , Ch i n a

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 177

177

14/11/12 9:14 AM

grown on terraced land were more resilient to drought than those grown on slopeland. Table 8.3 Market price, average yield and crop resilience to drought on slopeland and terraced land in Huachi County Crops

Price* (Yuan  RMB/kg)

Yield (kg/ha) Slopeland

Yield change per cent (%)  in 2006 due to drought

Terrace

Slopeland

Terrace

Winter wheat

0.4

750

3000

– 60

– 40

Maize (no plastic film mulching)

0.4

2250

5550

– 50

– 40

Maize (plastic film mulching)

0.4

**

7500

**

– 25

1.2

1875

3000

– 50

– 35

0.4

4500

12000

– 50

– 30

1.8

600

–

– 35

–

0.8

3750

***

– 40

***

Soybean Potato Millet Alfalfa (dried)

* The price is based on local market prices for 2009. ** Plastic film mulching is suitable only for terraces, not slopelands. *** Alfalfa is an important native fodder plant in Huachi County. Source: Huachi household survey, 2009

Changes in sheep-rearing practices

Strict bans on grazing on the regenerated mountains/hills and marginal land have dramatically reduced livestock numbers in Huachi County. In early 1999, more than 80 per cent of households were raising sheep, with an average 50–60 sheep per household. Under the GFG, each household is allowed to have only 15 sheep or fewer. The GFG has shifted livestock raising from free grazing to pen feeding (see Plate 21), reducing the pressure on the grasslands. In order to have enough fodder for pen feeding, native grass and alfalfa have been planted on retired croplands and on barren marginal land. Alfalfa can regrow quickly after harvesting, which can take place 2–3 times each

178

Su s t a in in g n a t u ra l re s o u rc e s y s te ms

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 178

14/11/12 9:14 AM

year, and its deep roots can not only stop soil erosion but also capture the water from the deep soil layer during dry season. While numbers of sheep kept by each household have been reduced, the Huachi County government provided technical support and new high-quality species of sheep to increase the income from each animal. Changes in household income

These changes in land use and off-farm income have led to shifting patterns of household income during and after the implementation of the GF program (Figure 8.1). The average annual household income has increased from 4250 Yuan RMB (US$625) before the GFG in 1999, to 4755 Yuan RMB (US$699) in 2002 during program implementation, and to 22 730 Yuan RMB (US$3343) in 2009. Land retirement subsidies of cash payments and grain comprised over 25 per cent of households’ total income during the program compensation period. Income from grain/crops was about six times higher in 2009 than in 1999, mainly attributable to increased market prices, higher proportion of cash crops and improved land productivity. In one of the most dramatic changes, income from livestock decreased markedly, from 82 per cent of household income in 1999 to only 20 per cent in 2009. However, yield of wool and income per sheep has increased with the adoption of improved rearing techniques and methods. In 2009, when the GFG compensation ceased, farmers’ off-farm income had risen to comprise over 50 per cent of total income. It was found from interviews with local households (see Plate 22) that each household has an average of one or two young family members (from 20–35 years old) working in nearby towns and cities as seasonal migrant labourers, working off farm from one to seven months per year. Most of them come back to help with harvesting during the busy farming seasons (from early July to late September). Alongside the freeing-up of farmland labour, this increase in off-farm labour has been helped by China’s urbanisation process and rapid economic development over the last decade (Kung 2002; Zhang & Song 2003).

G ra in f o r Gre en i n th e Loe ss P l a te a u , Ch i n a

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 179

179

14/11/12 9:14 AM

Figure 8.1 Average annual income structure of participating rural households (n = 35) in 1999, 2002 and 2009, in Yuan RMB 100% 750

90%

925

4880 Grain/crops

Household income

80% 800

70%

4500

Livestock

60% Off-farm work

50% 3500

40%

1800 12000

30%

Land retirement subsides Orchard

20% 1230

10% 0 1999

0%

0 2002

0 1350 2009

Source: Huachi household survey 2009

Discussion The Grain for Green program has clearly achieved major successes in combating land degradation, reduced productivity, deforestation and soil erosion. In Huachi County it has dramatically shifted patterns of land use, increasing areas of forest and protected grassland while simultaneously boosting agricultural productivity and improving local livelihoods. The keys to the program’s success lie clearly in its links to local livelihoods, the high level of community participation, and the positive incentives it provides, yet these and other factors will be critical in determining whether the benefits of the program will be maintained over the long term.

180

Su s t a in in g n a t u ra l re s o u rc e s y s te ms

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 180

14/11/12 9:14 AM

Linking livelihoods and conservation in the GFG program In general, there is a very strong argument that if conservation strategies are to be effective, they need to take account of local livelihoods (Salafsky 2000; Sanderson & Redford 2004). The GFG program has successfully integrated environmental rehabilitation with improvement in farmers’ livelihood strategies. The GFG program encourages and enables participant farmers to modify their agricultural practices and income-generating activities so that they do not rely heavily on program compensation payments for their livelihood. The program encourages a strategic shift in rural labour allocation from low-profit grain production to more profitable crops and, more importantly, from on-farm work to off-farm work (Uchida et al. 2009). In Huachi County this study found a dramatic increase in the proportion of income derived from off-farm income after the GFG program. Earlier studies, carried out two years after the program began, found no impact on off-farm employment (Xu et al. 2004; Uchida et al. 2007), but Groom et al. (2006) found a noticeable increase of off-farm labour participation in data collected four years after the program began. This factor is likely to have long-term benefits for alleviating rural poverty. Off-farm activities, including self-employment and income-earning from wages, both in local job markets and in migrant labour markets, have been a driving force in reducing poverty in rural China (deBrauw 2002; Kung 2002; Bowlus & Sicular 2003).

Community-based conservation and the GFG program Community-based conservation empowers local people in the management of conservation projects with the aim of creating accountability and ownership of conservation objectives (Spiteri & Nepal 2006).

G ra in f o r Gre en i n th e Loe ss P l a te a u , Ch i n a

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 181

181

14/11/12 9:14 AM

The participation of the community and farmers in the GFG program has been described as ‘quasi-voluntary’ (Uchida et al. 2009; Xu et al. 2010). The Chinese State Forestry Administration (SFA) and provincial and sub-provincial forestry bureaus are primarily responsible for targeting general areas of land for retirement and setting land retirement quotas to be met by local county and/or township governments (Zuo 2002). Under the circumstances, local county and/or township governments feel obligated to provide the requisite area of land and coerce farmers into participating. Xu et al. (2010) found that nearly half of participant households in its study sample believed that they did not have the autonomy to choose whether or not to participate, nor which plots to retire. Likewise, in this study it was found that the targeting of areas and households for land retirement was generally conducted via a top-down approach, with limited participation and consultation with the local community and farmers. It is possible that lack of genuine ownership of the program may decrease the likelihood that local people will continue to respect and uphold the retirement of land areas from production in the years following the end of the program.

Incentive-driven conservation and the GFG program The idea that positive incentives, rather than regulation and punishment, can be an effective method of achieving sustainable ecosystem management is widely recognised (Sanchez-Azofeifa et al. 2007; Sommerville et al. 2010). It is generally accepted that well-designed, incentive-driven programs can motivate people to manage ecosystems to produce environmental services (Brown 2002; Landell-Mills & Porras 2002). In the case of the Grain for Green conservation program, financial compensation from the Chinese government has clearly provided a powerful economic incentive for individual farmers to voluntarily convert croplands to areas of environmental regeneration. It is clearly

182

Su s t a in in g n a t u ra l re s o u rc e s y s te ms

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 182

14/11/12 9:14 AM

one of the principal inducements for the magnitude and scale of the program’s achievements to date. Survey data presented here show that compensation has been highly effective in inducing farmers to retire and regenerate degraded cropland and other areas. However, the GFG program is a short-term PES program only, with payments ceasing at the end of the program. This could mean that the conservation benefits seen so far are only temporary. Once compensation stops, it is possible that farmers will no longer be willing to maintain forests and grassland out of production. An evaluation of the sustainability impacts of the GFG program carried out by Uchide et al. (2005) suggested that a certain percentage of participant farmers would shift their retired cropland back into cropping activities if the government were to stop the payments at the end of the program. Their study further concluded the conservation impacts would probably be short-lived if no further incentives were provided. Post-program land-use decisions and behaviours of participating farmers have been one of the key concerns in long-term conservation set-aside programs elsewhere. Cooper and Osborn’s (1998) study found that farmers’ post-program responses depended on the rate of current and post-program conservation payments, as well as their own perceptions of the program’s impacts on their future livelihood. In this GFG study, however, more than half of the interviewed farmers indicated that they believe their changed income structure after the GFG intervention would enhance their livelihood beyond the program. Nevertheless, there were still various issues of concern raised by participants that could have implications for the sustainability of environmental benefits. First of all, the future potential income from the retired cropland is insecure, because market prices of fruits from the replanted economic forests are unpredictable. In addition, with the bans on sheep grazing in many areas, some households are short of fodder for pen feeding. Furthermore, workers from the farms are generally unskilled, and the off-farm jobs they gain are typically temporary and insecure. All these factors mean that farmers may seek to take land back

G ra in f o r Gre en i n th e Loe ss P l a te a u , Ch i n a

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 183

183

14/11/12 9:14 AM

out of retirement to generate additional income in the future, depending on factors such as changes in market prices for key goods and changes in labour market opportunities. A fundamental feature of the GFG conservation model is that it is driven by and relies on a massive investment from government. This necessarily places major constraints on the expansion of the program across space or over time.

Climate change and the GFG program Another source of uncertainty regarding the enduring impacts of the GFG program is climate change. The GFG program strategies include little consideration and integration of climate change, potentially impairing their long-term sustainability. For instance, orchards have greatly increased in area under the GFG, but their yield is heavily dependent on the amount of irrigation water available and the existence of favourable temperatures during certain periods. China’s National Climate Change Program (NDRC 2007) indicates that a significant decline in precipitation and a warmer surface temperature are expected in the Loess Plateau in the next 50–100 years. Such unfavourable changes would be likely to greatly affect orchard yields and hence farmers’ income. Although the terraces play a significant role in coping with drought and unfavourable climatic disturbances on the arid plateau, to achieve sustainable agriculture further investments and support are likely to be required to cope with limited and unreliable availability of water. Given these facts, the conservation strategies of the GFG program will need to be reassessed and revised in the face of future climate change.

Conclusion As a national conservation strategy, the Grain for Green program has had a major impact on sediment retention and soil erosion control, as well as on overall ecological rehabilitation and regeneration. These

184

Su s t a in in g n a t u ra l re s o u rc e s y s te ms

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 184

14/11/12 9:14 AM

benefits have been driven by large compensation payments from the Chinese government and investment in increasing agricultural productivity, which together have improved farmers’ incomes while achieving environmental objectives. Farmers’ post-program land-use decisions, particularly whether or not they convert rehabilitated land back to cropland after compensation payments cease, will be critical determinants of whether the conservation and environmental benefits of the GFG program will be sustained in the long term. Further important uncertainties derive from the interaction of farmers’ livelihood strategies with market factors and the impacts of climate change.

G ra in f o r Gre en i n th e Loe ss P l a te a u , Ch i n a

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 185

185

14/11/12 9:14 AM

9 Revegetation, bioenergy and sustainable use in the New South Wales central west Alex Baumber, John Merson and Mark Diesendorf, University of New South Wales and Peter Ampt, University of Sydney

Introduction Revegetation of heavily-cleared forest and woodland ecosystems is a widespread natural resource management (NRM) goal in Australia, including in the region that is the focus of this chapter – the central west of New South Wales. Tree plantings that generate commercial returns for landholders could help to promote greater uptake of revegetation practices. Bioenergy, in the form of electricity generation, industrial heat or transport fuels, has been suggested by a number of authors as an option to drive establishment of such plantations (for example, Howard & Ozlack 2004; Bell 2005; Total Catchment Management Services 2008).

186

Su s t a in in g n a t u ra l re s o u rc e s y s te ms

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 186

14/11/12 9:14 AM

The idea of harnessing commercial drivers such as bioenergy production to promote revegetation raises a number of issues around the concepts of ecological restoration and sustainable use. Harvesting biomass from replanted ecosystems can create incentives for both the maintenance of such ecosystems and the establishment of more plantings. However, trade-offs are also likely to be required between ecological and economic objectives. Such trade-offs, as well as undesirable side-effects, have become increasingly topical for bioenergy production. Recent expansion of bioenergy crops, particularly for liquid biofuels, has demonstrated the capacity for bioenergy to act as both a driver of positive change through both revegetation and climate change mitigation (Simpson et al. 2009; URS Australia 2009), and a driver of negative change through deforestation, increased carbon emissions, dispossession and competition with food production (Gallagher 2008). This chapter explores whether the concept of sustainable use may have applicability for revegetation activities that seek to harness the commercial driver of bioenergy to deliver NRM objectives. Two case studies in the central west of New South Wales are explored in order to identify potentially viable revegetation strategies and highlight implications for policymakers. Revegetation, restoration and sustainable use

Revegetation is a widespread natural resource management goal in the heavily cleared farming landscapes of Australia. Revegetation is typically aimed at conserving biodiversity, protecting soil health, maintaining water quality and both mitigating and adapting to climate change. Much of the focus has been on woodland and forest ecosystems, with the terms ‘revegetation’ and ‘restoration’ often used interchangeably in this context (for example, Cork et al. 2006). While this focus is partly a response to high rates of deforestation since European settlement, it is not the only factor, as a greater proportional loss has occurred in temperate grasslands (Beeton et al. 2006). Also significant is the fact that many forests are iconic ecosystems and that woody

S u s t a in a b le u s e in t h e N e w S ou th Wa l e s ce n tra l w e st

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 187

187

14/11/12 9:14 AM

vegetation provides habitat and resources for many animal species (Vesk & Mac Nally 2006). Revegetation has been promoted by all levels of government in Australia, as well as by non-government organisations (NGOs). The most common support programs involve grants to assist landholders in undertaking revegetation activities. Market-based approaches have also been explored to some degree, including the eligibility of revegetation activities for carbon credits (Greenhouse Gas Reduction Scheme 2007) and biodiversity credits (Department of Environment and Climate Change 2007). However, despite these incentives, revegetation typically imposes a net cost on landholders, due to both the direct costs (for example, planting and fencing) and the loss of productive land. Sustainable use is defined under the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) as the use of biological diversity in a way and at a rate that does not lead to its long-term decline. Sustainable use includes both extractive use (for example, forest harvesting) and non-extractive use (for example, ecotourism) and has been explored extensively within the CBD, the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) and the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES). The work of these institutions goes beyond the basic notion that sustainable use is preferable to unsustainable use, recognising that, in some circumstances, the use of biodiversity may be more beneficial for conservation than no use at all. This idea is sometimes referred to as conservation through sustainable use (for example, Webb 2002; Ampt & Baumber 2006) and is well encapsulated in the following quote from the CBD’s Addis Ababa Principles and Guidelines for the Sustainable Use of Biodiversity (CBD 2004, p. 7): ‘encouraging sustainable use can provide incentives to maintain habitats and ecosystems, the species within them, and the genetic variability of the species’. The role of sustainable use in conservation is subject to a diverse range of viewpoints (Cooney 2007). Sustainable use is sometimes viewed narrowly as relating only to ‘wild living resources’ (for example, IUCN 2000), a term that could exclude replanted ecosystems. In other cases,

188

Su s t a in in g n a t u ra l re s o u rc e s y s te ms

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 188

14/11/12 9:14 AM

such as the CBD-sponsored Satoyama Initiative (Nature Conservation Bureau 2009), sustainable-use principles are applied to the conservation of ‘secondary nature’, which includes managed environments created by local people engaged in farming, forestry or other activities. This initiative is named after the Satoyama Landscape of Japan, a mix of managed forests, rice paddies, irrigation ponds and grasslands that provides crucial habitat for endangered species and valuable ecosystem services. Other examples of modified ecosystems where the ongoing use of biodiversity provides an incentive for conservation include the damar agroforests of Sumatra and the cork oak forests of the western Mediterranean. The damar agroforests are so-named because of the central role of the damar tree (Shorea javanica), which provides resin for production of incense, varnish, paint and cosmetics. The harvest of this resin provides an incentive to maintain the forests in favour of monocultures of coffee or pepper. The Indonesian government has granted some farmers special usage rights to damar agroforests on state land in order to buffer the World Heritage-listed Bukit Barisan Selatan National Park (Kusters et al. 2008). Similarly, the continued use of cork in winebottling has been championed by groups such as WWF (2006) in order to help maintain the 2.7 million hectares of cork oak (Quercus suber) forests in the western Mediterranean. These planted forests provide diverse mosaic habitats that continue to support endangered species such as the Iberian lynx (Lynx pardinus), the Iberian imperial eagle (Aquila adalberti) and the Barbary deer (Cervus elaphus hispanicus), with the concept of conservation through sustainable use encapsulated in the following argument: ‘Because the forests have an economic value to local communities, people care for the forests. This helps maintain their environmental values as well as reducing the risk of fires and desertification’ (WWF 2006, p. 2). Mirroring the debate on whether sustainable use is relevant to ‘secondary’ as well as ‘wild’ ecosystems is the question of whether ‘naturalness’ should be a key benchmark for revegetation activities. While Jordan (1994, p. 32) advocates a goal of naturalness in his argument that resto-

S u s t a in a b le u s e in t h e N e w S ou th Wa l e s ce n tra l w e st

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 189

189

14/11/12 9:14 AM

ration should ‘compensate for human influence on an ecological system in order to return the system to its historic condition’, Lindenmayer et al. (2008, p. 82) argue that it is often ‘difficult to determine what is “natural” in landscapes long influenced by humans, where naturalness may not even be an appropriate characteristic to consider’. In bringing together the concepts of sustainable use and revegetation in this chapter, a broad interpretation of both concepts has been applied, extending to modified ecosystems and to goals of restoring selected ecosystem services rather than a goal of naturalness. It is also argued that the concept of sustainable use has applicability beyond simply preventing biodiversity loss. Where one seeks to restore an ecosystem with the aim of sustainably harvesting elements of biodiversity from that ecosystem, incentives may be created to not only maintain the ecosystem, but to actually enhance it through further revegetation. Bioenergy as a potential driver of revegetation

Bioenergy is energy derived from organic matter (biomass). It currently accounts for around 10 per cent of the world’s primary energy supply (International Energy Agency 2008), although its contribution can be much higher in developing countries where local sources of biomass are widely used for cooking and heating (IEA Bioenergy 2007). The industrialised world has recently seen strong growth in bioenergy use, particularly focused around liquid biofuels such as ethanol and biodiesel for transport. The main focus of this chapter is woody perennial energy crops, which are usually grown for electricity rather than for liquid biofuels.1 Simpson et al. (2009) highlight a number of examples from Europe and North America where woody bioenergy crops such as willow and poplar have contributed to local environmental enhancements, including increases in soil organic matter, removal of contaminants such as cadmium, improved water quality and enhanced habitat for deer, birds and bees. In Australia, the most prominent example of bioenergy being explored as a driver for revegetation is the Oil Mallee Industry Development Plan, which involves the planting of mallee (multi-stemmed

190

Su s t a in in g n a t u ra l re s o u rc e s y s te ms

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 190

14/11/12 9:14 AM

Eucalyptus species) in the Western Australian wheatbelt. This area is highly productive in terms of food and also has significant ecological values, but suffers from a major problem with dryland salinity from past clearing of deep-rooted native vegetation (Wildy et al. 2003). The primary driver for planting strips of mallee within wheatfields is to increase the amount of seasonal rainfall that is utilised by vegetation, thus preventing further rises of the saline groundwater. However, these plantings have also been shown to sequester carbon and to provide food and habitat for a variety of vertebrate and invertebrate animals (URS Australia 2009). Salinity mitigation alone is often an insufficient incentive for revegetation due to high costs, lag time before results are observed and the perception (often incorrect) that successful mitigation requires collective action across multiple properties (Pannell et al. 2001). Thus, widespread revegetation depends in large part upon the ability to derive a commercial return from the planted trees. A number of commercial drivers have been explored for mallee, including bioenergy (in the form of electricity, wood pellets or liquid fuels), eucalyptus oil (hence the name Oil Mallee), activated carbon and carbon credits from enhanced sequestration (URS Australia 2009). The industry is yet to become economically self-sustaining, with much research and development work funded by state and federal government agencies (for example, Wildy et al. 2003; Enecon 2007; URS Australia 2009). While bioenergy can be a driver for positive land-use change, it has also been implicated in environmental degradation. Certain biofuel feedstocks such as palm oil for biodiesel and corn for ethanol have raised concerns around deforestation, dispossession and ‘food vs fuel’ (for example, Soyka et al. 2007; Searchinger et al. 2008; Gallagher 2008). Proposals to use native forest biomass for electricity generation in Australia have also been met with fierce resistance from conservation groups (for example, The Wilderness Society 2003). Careful policy consideration is required in order to promote bioenergy production systems that have positive environmental impacts while restricting those that have negative impacts.

S u s t a in a b le u s e in t h e N e w S ou th Wa l e s ce n tra l w e st

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 191

191

14/11/12 9:14 AM

Opportunities for bioenergy-driven revegetation in the NSW central west

The two case study sites explored in this chapter lie in the central west of New South Wales, Australia, and have been selected due to the alignment of revegetation goals and proposals for regional bioenergy development. These two regions, shown in Figure 9.1, are the Lachlan Shire, surrounding the town of Condobolin, and the Central Tablelands, which includes the towns of Lithgow, Oberon, Mudgee and Bathurst. Figure 9.1 Location of the two case study sites in the NSW central west

Central Tablelands case study

Lachlan Shire case study

Mudgee Bathurst Oberon

Lithgow Sydney

N

0

100

200

300

400

Kilometres

Despite the relative proximity of these two areas, they differ significantly in terms of rainfall, topography, existing land uses, environmental issues and demographic trends. The Lachlan Shire lies at the western margin of the NSW wheat/sheep belt, has predominantly low relief and has been heavily cleared for cropping and grazing (see Figure 9.2).

192

Su s t a in in g n a t u ra l re s o u rc e s y s te ms

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 192

14/11/12 9:14 AM

Figure 9.2 Land use around Condobolin in the Lachlan Shire Condobolin

Towns Major roads Grazing land Tree/shrub cover Cropping land Conservation area

N

0

10

20

Kilometres

Note: The white area at the top left of the figure, outside Condobolin, is the Agricultural Research Station, and the large white area at the bottom is a seasonal wetland. Source: LUMAP (NSW Government 2007)

Dryland cropping of wheat and barley and grazing of sheep and cattle are the dominant land uses in the Lachlan Shire. While average annual rainfall is around 450 mm (Bureau of Meteorology 2010), drought between 2001 and 2009 has had a significant impact on cropping success. The Central Tablelands region straddles the Great Dividing Range, which divides the coastal strip of New South Wales from its western slopes and plains. Dominant land uses include grazing of sheep and cattle, plantations of exotic radiata pine and some cropping (see Figure 9.3 overleaf). Native vegetation occupies a larger proportion of the landscape than in the Lachlan Shire, with the Greater Blue Mountains

S u s t a in a b le u s e in t h e N e w S ou th Wa l e s ce n tra l w e st

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 193

193

14/11/12 9:14 AM

World Heritage Area bordering the region to the east. Annual rainfall is much higher than at Condobolin, averaging 858 mm at Lithgow and 634 mm at Bathurst. While the Central Tablelands have also been drought-affected over the period 2001–09, the region has spent much less time under drought declaration than the Lachlan Shire (Industry and Investment New South Wales 2010). Figure 9.3 Land use in the NSW Central Tablelands N

Towns Major roads Grazing land

Tree/shrub cover

Cropping land

Conservation area

0

50 Kilometres

Source: LUMAP (NSW Government 2007)

Environmental issues also differ between the two case study sites. Soil erosion is a significant problem in the tablelands, while compaction, acidification and sodicity are concerns for the Lachlan Shire (Molino Stewart Pty Ltd 2009). Salinity is not a major concern in most of the Lachlan Shire, but several parts of the Central Tablelands have been classified as having high salinity hazard (Central West Catchment Management Authority 2007). Water issues also differ, as the Central Tablelands sit

194

Su s t a in in g n a t u ra l re s o u rc e s y s te ms

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 194

14/11/12 9:14 AM

upstream of a number of major dams while Condobolin has been heavily impacted by restricted water releases from upstream dams in recent years. Biodiversity conservation is a key issue in both areas, with revegetation identified as a tool for increasing remnant patch sizes and improving connectivity (Lachlan Catchment Management Authority 2006). The Lachlan Shire had a population density of 0.45 persons/km2 in 2006 and the population declined by around 7 per cent between 2001 and 2006 (Australian Bureau of Statistics 2010). Population density in the Central Tablelands is much higher, at 3.94 persons/km2, and an increase of 1.6 per cent was recorded between 2001 and 2006 (Australian Bureau of Statistics 2010).2 One way to view the land-use and demographic trends in the two case study regions is in relation to what Holmes (2006) terms Australia’s ‘multifunctional rural transition’. Holmes argues that Australia has seen a shift away from a dominant productivist mentality and towards a mix of values relating to: • production (of agricultural commodities) • consumption (of land for lifestyle/amenity) • preservation (of biodiversity, landscape beauty, heritage). Based on the relative significance of these values, Holmes has identified seven different land occupation modes for rural Australia (see Figure 9.4). Figure 9.4 Land occupation modes for rural Australia identified by Holmes (2006) CONSUMPTION

PRODUCTION

Small farm or pluri-activity

Rural amenity

Productivist agricultural

Peri-metropolitan

Marginalised agricultural Conservation

Indigenous

(potential to combine production and protection)

PROTECTION

S u s t a in a b le u s e in t h e N e w S ou th Wa l e s ce n tra l w e st

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 195

195

14/11/12 9:14 AM

The Lachlan Shire retains a strong productivist mode, with primary industries (agriculture, forestry and fishing) employing 35 per cent of the workforce (Australian Bureau of Statistics 2010). However, employment in this sector declined by 14 per cent between 2001 and 2006 under successive years of drought. Holmes (2006, p. 149) identifies marginalised agricultural areas as having ‘high potential for landholders to adapt their production strategies to enhance protection outcomes’. Bioenergy-driven revegetation could qualify as just such a strategy. Wheat production has been increasingly marginal in the Lachlan Shire in recent years and some forestry plantations in the Central Tablelands that have questionable long-term viability could also qualify as marginalised agriculture. Climate change projections indicate that both regions are likely to be placed under further stress from reduced rainfall and increased evapotranspiration. Primary industries account for only 7 per cent of total employment in the Central Tablelands, rising to 17 per cent in the Oberon Shire where much of the plantation forestry and wood processing is based (Australian Bureau of Statistics 2010). Parts of the Central Tablelands have seen an influx in recent years of so-called ‘rural lifestylers’ (or ‘tree-changers’) who are not dependent on the land for their income (Central West Independent Review Panel 2007). These areas would fall under Holmes’ modes of ‘rural amenity’ or ‘pluri-activity’, with some far eastern parts potentially classed as ‘peri-metropolitan’ due to their proximity to Sydney. These areas could also provide opportunities for bioenergy-based revegetation, as landholders may not require a return that is competitive with agriculture. However, significant adoption would require a close alignment between landholder goals for amenity and recreation and conservation objectives such as habitat provision or erosion control. Bioenergy options for the case study regions

Research is ongoing at both case study sites to identify potential bioenergy options and to explore landholder attitudes. New data collection to date has included a total of 47 semi-structured interviews with key

196

Su s t a in in g n a t u ra l re s o u rc e s y s te ms

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 196

14/11/12 9:14 AM

informants (shown in Table 9.1). These interviews were undertaken between April 2010 and October 2010 by researchers based at the University of New South Wales, the University of Sydney and the Blue Mountains World Heritage Institute, paired with stakeholders from local government, catchment management authorities, Landcare groups and the timber industry. Table 9.1 Breakdown of semi-structured interviews undertaken in the Lachlan Shire and Central Tablelands April–October 2010 Lachlan Shire

Central Tablelands

• 14 landholders (all commercial cropping and grazing enterprises) • 6 government (local council, catchment management and state) • 4 industry (eucalyptus oil, contract services, rural supplies, energy and farming industry)

• 19 landholders (11 commercial, 3 semicommercial and 5 small non-commercial) • 6 industry (forestry, nursery and energy sectors) • 4 environment group representatives • 3 Landcare group coordinators • 3 government (local council, catchment management and state)

Note: Some interviews are included in more than one category.

In the Lachlan Shire, a group of landholders and other interested parties have formed the Lachlan Renewable Energy Alliance (LREA) to explore the idea of growing blue mallee (Eucalyptus polybractea) for bioenergy and other co-products such as eucalyptus oil and charcoal. While these ideas have been strongly influenced by the experiences of the fledgling Oil Mallee industry in Western Australia, there are also significant differences. Dryland salinity is not a major concern around Condobolin, but there is a focus on diversifying farm incomes, sequestering carbon, stabilising soils, providing habitat for biodiversity and enhancing social resilience (Total Catchment Management Services 2008). The LREA envisions planting over 250 million blue mallee trees on 67 500 hectares of land within a 100 kilometre radius of Condobolin by 2019 (Total Catchment Management Services 2008). The LREA approach involves block plantings of around 4000 trees per hectare. Trees would be harvested every 12–15 months using a coppicing

S u s t a in a b le u s e in t h e N e w S ou th Wa l e s ce n tra l w e st

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 197

197

14/11/12 9:14 AM

approach (where trees resprout after harvest from an underground lignotuber). Mallee production data from the Condobolin Agricultural Research Station have been used to determine these design features and to select seedstock (Total Catchment Management Services 2008). Mallee biomass productivity has been estimated at 2–3 dry tonnes per hectare per year (t/ha/yr) at Condobolin (Total Catchment Management Services 2008), compared with estimates of 5–15 t/ha/yr for the Western Australian wheatbelt (URS Australia 2009). This difference may be due to factors such as soil type, groundwater availability and planting styles (blocks at Condobolin vs ribbons in Western Australia). Wood pellets, for export to Europe or Japan for electricity generation, have been explored by the LREA. Preliminary economic modelling based on an average yield of 2.5 t/ha/yr (Total Catchment Management Services 2008) has shown that farmers would need to attract a price of at least $19/t for biomass and $2/kg for eucalyptus oil in order to match current returns from grazing and cropping (around $83/ha/yr). While eucalyptus oil prices are fairly well known and $2/kg is considered conservative, there is greater uncertainty in relation to the price for biomass, due to uncertainty about pellet markets and production costs. Another option could involve competing with firewood on the home heating market in Sydney, Melbourne and Canberra using a biomass product with lower production costs than wood pellets. This market offers higher prices than the bulk pellet export market, but is more limited in size. Landholders at Forbes, 100 kilometres from Condobolin, have also been participating in a trial to grow mallee biomass for co-firing with coal (Delta Electricity 2010). This option may reduce risks and investment costs for landholders, but could also offer lower returns and less local employment. The Central Tablelands have not seen the same level of landholder interest in bioenergy as at Condobolin. However, the relatively high rainfall levels and existing wood processing sector could create opportunities for integrated production of timber, pulpwood and bioenergy. Potential plantation species for bioenergy production include:

198

Su s t a in in g n a t u ra l re s o u rc e s y s te ms

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 198

14/11/12 9:14 AM

• Eucalyptus globulus (Tasmanian blue gum) – the most widespread native plantation species along the southern coast of Australia, with a subspecies bicostata suitable for the NSW Central West (Booth & Ryan 2008). • Eucalyptus nitens (shining gum) – another common plantation species suited to the Central Tablelands, but yet to be assessed for bioenergy. • Corymbia maculata (spotted gum), E. cladocalyx (sugar gum) and E. camaldulensis (river red gum) – all identified by Booth and Ryan (2008) as possible plantation species for lower rainfall areas. • Eucalyptus viminalis (manna gum) – identified by Bennell et al. (2009) as having good bioenergy potential. The leading bioenergy options for the Central Tablelands are likely to be electricity generation or the production of liquid fuels through enzymatic or thermo-chemical conversion. The most likely option for electricity generation would be co-firing with coal at the Wallerawang power station near Lithgow. Liquid fuel production would most likely be located close to the existing wood-processing facilities at Oberon to take advantage of biomass waste streams and transportation routes. Potential environmental and social outcomes

Depending on how they are planned and managed, plantings may be able to supply bioenergy and other products as well as contribute to a number of revegetation goals, such as carbon sequestration, salinity mitigation, soil conservation and biodiversity conservation. In addition, they may help to increase social resilience. Plantations established on previously cleared land can sequester carbon even under periodic harvest (as average carbon storage will be increased relative to what was previously in the landscape). Carbon credits have been targeted by the Oil Mallee industry in Western Australia as a potential ‘circuit-breaker’ mechanism that could fund new plantations. Bioenergy can also replace fossil fuels and reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.

S u s t a in a b le u s e in t h e N e w S ou th Wa l e s ce n tra l w e st

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 199

199

14/11/12 9:14 AM

Salinity is a significant problem in parts of the Central Tablelands and strategically-located bioenergy plantations could help reduce recharge of saline aquifers. This could contribute to the Central West CMA’s (2007) goals relating to forestry plantings in key saline landscapes, interception plantings in key upland landscapes and perennial plantings at key recharge sites. However, high levels of water use by plantations may be problematic in other areas if runoff and groundwater flows are reduced for downstream users (Parsons et al. 2007). Soil conservation is a major issue at both case study sites. Bioenergy plantations could contribute to the Central West CMA’s (2007) goals relating to perennial vegetation for landscape protection and the Lachlan CMA’s (2006) goal of rehabilitating actively eroding, fragile or severely degraded land. As with ameliorating salinity, plantings to stabilise soils would need to be strategically targeted, with the Lachlan CMA (2006) identifying gullies, scalds and riparian areas as key sources of sediment loss. Interviews with landholders around Condobolin have also identified a role for mallee plantings in providing windbreaks. Biodiversity benefits could result from bioenergy plantations through the provision of habitat or connection of existing remnants through corridors or buffers. Mallee plantings in Western Australia have been found to provide food and habitat for a variety of birds, mammals, reptiles, amphibians and invertebrates (Smith 2006). Bioenergy plantings could also contribute to a more heterogeneous landscape mosaic, an approach which Fischer et al. (2008) term ‘wildlife-friendly farming’. Compared to a land-sparing approach in which large blocks are dedicated to either production or conservation, wildlife-friendly farming is characterised by greater resilience, enhanced ecosystem services and a management focus on the interactions between biodiversity and the human environment. Implementing a wildlife-friendly landscape mosaic also has implications for the food vs fuel debate. Moving away from an intensive farming approach based on maximising the yield of a single commod-

200

Su s t a in in g n a t u ra l re s o u rc e s y s te ms

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 200

14/11/12 9:14 AM

ity towards a mosaic approach that emphasises diversity and resilience could actually have the effect of reducing food production in the short term (for example, if mallee replaces some wheat at Condobolin). Such impacts may be offset over the longer term by increasing system resilience (for example, if mallee helps reduce salinity risks or enhances adaptation to climate change), but these impacts will be felt by different stakeholders at different times. The case study interviews revealed a general lack of concern about competition between bioenergy and food production, but overseas experience (for example, with US corn ethanol) has shown that such concerns often arise not from local stakeholders but from distant consumers or policymakers affected by food price rises (Mitchell 2008). Mixed-species plantations will be examined as part of the ongoing work in the Central Tablelands. However, a mix of species can present challenges, including higher management costs and a tendency for eucalypts to monopolise resources (Dickinson et al. 2008). Research from North Queensland indicates that plantation age and proximity to intact forest are likely to be at least as important for biodiversity as having a mix of species (Kanowski et al. 2005). Landholders at Condobolin have not considered any plantation options other than monocultures of blue mallee. However, these sites may still have considerable diversity if native grasses are able to grow in between the rows of coppiced mallee. Row spacing appears to be a critical factor in this regard, based on observations of mallee plantings for eucalyptus oil near West Wyalong (about 100 kilometres south of Condobolin). The plantation manager there has switched from 1.5 metre row spacings to 3 metre row spacings to allow greater native pasture growth (see Plates 23 and 24), which in turn increases water infiltration (Andrew Cummings pers. comm.). The LREA have proposed planting mallee in a double-row format, with 1.5 metres between the paired rows and 2.5 metres between each pair (Total Catchment Management Services 2008).

S u s t a in a b le u s e in t h e N e w S ou th Wa l e s ce n tra l w e st

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 201

201

14/11/12 9:14 AM

Implications for revegetation and bioenergy policy The ongoing work in the Lachlan Shire and the Central Tablelands has significant implications for policymakers, as well as for other regions in Australia and across the globe. Neither of these examples represents archetypal cases of sustainable use, as they do not involve harvesting from existing ecosystems or ecosystems that could be classed as either ‘natural’ or ‘wild’. However, both case studies demonstrate the potential role of bioenergy in providing incentives to first establish and then maintain woody native vegetation in heavily cleared landscapes. The trade-offs required between economic and environmental objectives are still to fully emerge for these case studies and potential side-effects remain unknown. This creates a critical need for integrated policy approaches that are able to combine the often disparate sectors of revegetation, plantation management and bioenergy development. Revegetation policy is usually focused on improving environmental outcomes, while plantation management policy more often uses a benchmark of maintaining values in the face of threats such as forest clearance, soil and water degradation and the exploitation of vulnerable people. Government regulations, such as the Plantations and Reafforestation Code in New South Wales, are commonly employed to prevent such threats, along with industry self-regulation and voluntary certification schemes (for example, Forest Stewardship Council 2002; Australian Forestry Standard Limited 2007). Where plantations are seen to offer significant economic benefits, instruments such as subsidies, tax breaks or research and development funding may be used to promote them. Bioenergy policy can be divided according to two distinct visions of sustainability. The first vision is of a sector that can contribute positively to the mitigation of climate change through the replacement of fossil fuels, as well as contributing to economic development and potentially to landscape rehabilitation. The second vision is of a sector that poses a threat to existing landscapes (particularly forests) and provides compe-

202

Su s t a in in g n a t u ra l re s o u rc e s y s te ms

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 202

14/11/12 9:14 AM

tition with food production. The first vision leads to the promotion of bioenergy through subsidies, mandates or emissions trading schemes, while the second has seen the emergence of restrictive regulations (for example, a ban on the use of forest biomass for electricity in New South Wales) or sustainability certification schemes (for example, Roundtable on Sustainable Biofuels 2010). Competition with food, particularly from liquid biofuels, is an area of ongoing policy development, with proposals to ban further biofuel expansion (Eide 2008) or restrict it to ‘idle land’ that has no current productive use or conservation value (Gallagher 2008). Bringing these policy areas together in relation to bioenergy-driven revegetation creates both opportunities and challenges. Selecting an appropriate mix of policy instruments from the revegetation, plantation and bioenergy sectors is likely to require an adaptive management approach, with policies refined as more information comes to light. There may also be opportunities to create integrated policy instruments that advantage certain types of bioenergy that create environmental or social benefits, such as Brazil’s biodiesel subsidies, which are structured to reward production in economically depressed areas of the country (Pousa et al. 2007), or Germany’s feed-in tariffs that award bonus rates to biomass sourced from short-rotation energy crops or from land managed under landscape conservation programs (Bundestag 2008). Another policy challenge could emerge as a result of conflicting visions of bioenergy as a driver of landscape rehabilitation on the one hand and a competitor with food production on the other. This conflict could become more pronounced if liquid fuels from woody crops become a commercially viable option, resulting in the food vs fuel issue spilling over from liquid biofuels into the sphere of woody crops. Nuanced policy measures may be required that recognise the potential threat to food security in some areas while also recognising that, in other areas, bioenergy production may actually protect food production (for example, by mitigating salinity) or may be a more appropriate land use where cropping has become marginalised due to climate change impacts (for example, Condobolin).

S u s t a in a b le u s e in t h e N e w S ou th Wa l e s ce n tra l w e st

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 203

203

14/11/12 9:14 AM

Conclusion While further work is required in the two case study regions, bioenergy appears to provide significant opportunities to drive the establishment of new plantations of native species that could contribute to regional natural resource management goals. These opportunities are highly dependent on future developments in bioenergy markets, as well as on decisions by policymakers in the area of revegetation, plantation management and bioenergy production. The understanding gained from these case study sites has implications for other locations in Australia and around the world where similar opportunities may exist, whether they are based on bioenergy or other products. Chapter 8 of this book, by Wang et al. (2010), highlights the role of fruit orchards and ‘economic forests’ (for timber and fuelwood) in revegetating the loess plateau of Gansu Province, China. In years to come, the bioenergy plantations of the NSW central west and the economic forests of Gansu could be viewed in a similar light to the cork forests of Portugal or the damar agroforests of Sumatra, with conservationists championing the maintenance of their use activities in order to prevent broad-scale conversion and the associated loss of biodiversity and landscape health. The potential for what are today speculative land-use options to transition into valued multifunctional landscapes highlights the case for adopting an expansive view of sustainable use that covers not only the maintenance of existing ecosystems but also the establishment of new ones. While current rates of global deforestation and land degradation make the protection of existing ecosystems a priority, extending sustainable use principles to revegetation activities can create important opportunities to enhance ecosystem attributes and services. Bioenergy may be able to provide just such an incentive – to not only maintain restored ecosystems, but to establish them in the first place.

204

Su s t a in in g n a t u ra l re s o u rc e s y s te ms

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 204

14/11/12 9:14 AM

10 Towards communitybased resource management: the development and mobilisation of fisheries resource indicators at Koh Sarai, Thailand Jawanit Kittitornkool, Faculty of Technology and Environment, Prince of Songkla University, Phuket Campus; Kongkiat Kittiwattawong, Phuket Marine Biological Centre, Phuket, and Naiyana Srichai, Prince of Songkla University

Introduction Small-scale and/or artisanal fisheries, defined by the FAO as those of relatively smaller size and lower technological investment per fisher, contribute more than half of the world’s marine and inland fish catch

F is h e rie s re s o u rc e in d i ca tors a t K oh S a ra i , T h a i l a n d

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 205

205

14/11/12 9:14 AM

(FAO 2011). Millions of rural dwellers in Asia and Africa are small-scale fishers who rely on fishing activities as a primary source of income. Those in sub-Saharan Africa, South and South-east Asia in particular live in poverty, as their coastal communities are threatened by overfishing and potential depletion of fishery resources (Evans et al. 2011). Weak governance has been highlighted as the main underlying cause of the deteriorating state of the South-east Asian region’s fisheries resources (Isa et al. 2011). Consequently, one solution is to promote strong governance of small-scale fisheries, including devolved management responsibilities, and co-management arrangements with strong involvement of both local resource users and the state. Such arrangements require empowerment of marginalised fishers at the local level, as well as the development of appropriate legal and practical mechanisms for sharing management responsibilities (FAO 2011; Isa et al. 2011). Such participatory approaches to community-based resource management for small-scale fisheries, focusing on sustainable livelihoods, have been in use in various parts of the world. These approaches redefine resources as elements of an ecosystem supporting both essential processes and human needs (Berkes 2003). Effective participatory management requires cross-scale governance, learning and adaptive management, with a focus on maintaining the productive capacity and resilience of the linked social–ecological system (Berkes 2003; Wilson et al. 2006).

Towards community-based fisheries management in Thailand In Thailand, the last few decades have witnessed a drastic decline in fisheries resources, with widespread overcapacity in the fishing fleet, use of destructive fishing equipment, over-exploitation, a fuel crisis, and violation of laws and regulations (Isa et al. 2011; Nasuchon & Charles 2010; Tokrisna et al. 1997). Small-scale fishers are the most vulnerable group affected by these problems, as it is noted that the average small-

206

Su s t a in in g n a t u ra l re s o u rc e s y s te ms

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 206

14/11/12 9:14 AM

scale fisher in rural coastal Thailand earns about half of the income of the average Thai citizen. As one of the almost 50 000 households in Thailand fishing with a vessel that weighs less than 10 tonnes, the small-scale fisher usually lives in one of the 2500 rural fishing villages around the country, 80 per cent of which are located beyond municipalities, without basic infrastructure such as roads and electricity (World Resource Institute 2004). Over-exploitation of fisheries resources and conflicts over resource use among commercial and small-scale fisheries have emerged after a rapid increase in number of trawlers in Thailand since the 1960s. Smallscale fishers normally fish within 3 kilometres from shore along the coastline of their fishing villages. These areas were proclaimed as ‘conservation areas’ by the Department of Fisheries (DOF) in the 1970s, and trawling and motorised push nets are prohibited in these zones. (Push nets, used to catch shrimp, are scoop nets that are pushed on foot in very shallow waters, or before a small boat.) Conflicts among small-scale and commercial fisheries are usually caused by commercial trawling and push-net fishing still taking place within these areas. Limited governmental monitoring and enforcement, caused by limited manpower, equipments and budget to cover 2614 kilometres of coastline, have resulted in inefficient fisheries management by central and local government. These factors have seriously affected the livelihoods of over 2500 fishing villages in Thailand (Isa et al. 2011; Tokrisna et al. 1997). Since the 1990s, these limitations on government resources and consequent lack of enforcement in fisheries management have led to the development of community-based fisheries management and/or co-management in Thailand (Tokrisna et al. 1997). A growing number of fishing communities have been implementing community-based management regimes with support from both DOF and non-governmental organisations (NGOs) (Nasuchon & Charles 2010; Johnson 1998). Fishing communities’ roles in environmental management in Thailand have been increasingly highlighted in recent years. Both the 1997 and 2007 Thai national constitutions establish individuals’

F is h e rie s re s o u rc e in d i ca tors a t K oh S a ra i , T h a i l a n d

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 207

207

14/11/12 9:14 AM

and communities’ rights in the protection and conservation of their natural resources and environment. Thailand’s 2007–2011 Environmental Quality Management Plan includes the strategy of promoting community-based fisheries and coastal resource management by involving small-scale fishing community participation in sustainable use and conservation, as well as surveillance of the resources. This strategy is also highlighted in the 11th National Plan of Economic and Social Development (2012–2016). Finally, the Coastal Habitats and Resource Management (CHARM) Project was a five-year initiative (2002–2007) of fieldwork in collaborative promotion of community participation in coastal resources management, involving DOF and a number of NGOs and supported by the European Communities (EC).

Community involvement in fisheries monitoring The next challenging step for promotion of community-based fisheries management is to encourage co-operation between fishers and marine biologists to record and analyse data in relation to fisheries management (Nasuchon & Charles 2010). The CHARM project emphasised the importance of involving fishing communities in surveying and collecting data on their coastal resources by employing local knowledge and experiences in combination with science and geo-informatic system (GIS) technology (CHARM 2007). In addition, the strategy of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and countries within the Southeast Asian Fisheries Development Center (SEAFDEC) is to emphasise sustainability indicators (biological, ecological, economic and socio-economic) and time series in their fisheries resource management (Raakjaer et al. 2007). These signify the collaboration of academic researchers and small-scale fishers in developing and using databases with particular fisheries indicators to enhance the process of establishment of community-based fisheries resource management. However, bridging a gap between the concept and the practicality of engaging

208

Su s t a in in g n a t u ra l re s o u rc e s y s te ms

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 208

14/11/12 9:14 AM

both academics and local fishers in the process is a new and challenging lesson to be learned and shared in Thai society.

Objectives This chapter presents and discusses data from a three-year action research project (2009–11) initiated as a collaboration of the Thai Institute of Research and Development of Marine, Coastal and Mangrove Resources and Prince of Songkla University, Phuket campus, aiming to enhance community-based fisheries resource management. Action research is a research approach widely used in natural resource management, emphasising the participation of resource management communities in learning and the creation of knowledge (see Reason & Bradbury 2001). The project focuses on a fishing community in south-western Thailand, a process of developing indicators for monitoring changes in fisheries resources, and the potential for collaboration between an academic team and community members in the promotion and use of indicators for community-based marine resource management. Lessons and experiences derived from this research process are of significance in building up the social knowledge for sustainable fisheries management over the long term. We begin by describing the community and its conservation goals, and present the integrated research methods employed. We go on to give an overview of research results including the development of indicators and data on fisheries resources. Finally, we discuss the uptake and use of the indicators and resource database by the community, and its contribution to promoting community-based fisheries resource management.

The community and its conservation goals We carried out research in Koh Sarai Subdistrict, which includes seven villages located in a group of islands in the Andaman Sea. It is near the south-westernmost border of Thailand, adjacent to Malaysia. Plate

F is h e rie s re s o u rc e in d i ca tors a t K oh S a ra i , T h a i l a n d

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 209

209

14/11/12 9:14 AM

25 gives an indication of the beauty of the region. The subdistrict area includes the Marine National Parks of Tarutao and Ardung-Rawee archipelagos adjacent to the community. Its population is primarily Muslim and 93 per cent of its almost 1000 households rely on fishing as their main occupation. During the last few decades the increasing population, together with increase in the use of destructive fishing equipment and overfishing has led to the rapid depletion of fisheries resources. This has severely affected local people’s livelihoods and well-being, with a number of families having had to move to Malaysia to work or turn to other occupations (Kittikornkool, unpubl. data). Fishers in this area have organised themselves into a fisheries conservation group to seek to solve their own problems, with assistance from DOF officials and outside NGO staff. This began in 2003, after poverty in this area increased from 2000–03 as commercial fisheries illegally encroached within the 3 kilometre near-shore conservation area. In only a few years their voluntary actions in keeping out illegal trawlers have resulted in considerable success in preserving their fishing area. A number of projects and activities to conserve and restore the fisheries and coastal resources have been initiated through mobilisation of the villagers, such as mangrove and sea grass reafforestation and artificial reef construction. Crab bank projects have been established, involving keeping gravid female crabs in a net cage until they spawn in order to increase numbers of crab larvae. EM (Effective Micro-organisms) balls, made from organic waste liquid mixed with clay and rice bran, have been thrown into the sea where artificial reefs were sunk to accelerate fisheries spawning (EMRO 2011). A sea turtle rescue pond was established to rehabilitate turtles entrapped in fishing nets. The proactive role of the group has contributed to the emergence of six fisheries conservation groups in another six villages in the last few years. The work has been assisted by a number of NGOs and development institutions who have worked in the community during the last few years, although most development projects appear fragmented and scattered among different villages.

210

Su s t a in in g n a t u ra l re s o u rc e s y s te ms

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 210

14/11/12 9:14 AM

Nevertheless, the low quantity and quality of fisheries resources remain a key threat to the community’s livelihoods. Most of the conservation projects initiated by the community have faded away within a certain period of time, particularly the crab bank project. A major cause has been that the outcomes of conservation projects have not been concretely measurable. Further, a number of core-team members of the local conservation groups have reached the conclusion, based on long experience, that it is necessary to expand the scope of the nearshore conservation area beyond the 3 kilometre zone, and further aim to prohibit both local and outside fishers’ uses of destructive fishing equipment that over-exploits fisheries resources in their fishing areas. They are aware that the expansion of conservation areas through the legislative process will require great bottom-up efforts. Establishing effective alliances and gaining concrete data on use of and change in their fisheries resources will be key strategies. In consequence, local conservation leaders are strongly motivated to participate in the development of community-based indicators for monitoring of fisheries resources.

Integrated research methodology Our team of marine and social scientists used a set of research methods based on participation by the fishers to explore data for developing indicators for monitoring of fisheries resources. This would lead to the development of a database to be used for supporting the establishment of community-based fisheries resource management over the long term. In the first year (2008) researchers visited the community every two months for data collection, and a full-time research assistant spent most of nine months in each village to conduct qualitative research, in addition to collecting data about the social and economic characteristics of the subdistrict from secondary sources in the Subdistrict Administrative Office (SAO). A series of data collection sessions provided oppor-

F is h e rie s re s o u rc e in d i ca tors a t K oh S a ra i , T h a i l a n d

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 211

211

14/11/12 9:14 AM

tunities for the researchers to familiarise themselves with the leaders and active members of the village development groups in a number of villages, particularly the fisheries resource conservation groups.

Qualitative research methods In 2008, marine resources and environmental data were gained from unstructured and semi-structured interviews with about 40 fishers. Interviews explored their traditional ecological knowledge (TEK) of fisheries resources, and changes in their fisheries resource utilisation. In addition, a number of village leaders and active members of fisheries resource conservation groups were invited to take part in two focus group discussions. These focused on their fisheries resources conservation experiences and concerns, and their goals for the sustainability of their livelihoods and fisheries resources. Particular aspects of their conservation experiences, concerns and goals were also clarified in group discussions carried out in the mapping sessions (see below). Further, during the fieldwork periods informal group discussions with core-team fisheries resources conservation group members brought out important issues concerning the conservation constraints and limitations in the local contexts.

Mapping of natural resources and fishing activities In 2008, maps of natural resources and fishing activities were drawn based on TEK and the experience of local villagers. Two ‘brainstorm’ meetings were carried out engaging 116 fishers. The participants in each meeting were divided into six groups based on their village localities and fishing experiences (more or less than 30 years of fishing experience). Each group had a staff member facilitating the process, who asked some key questions and drew maps based on inputs of the participants. Resources and fishing activity maps were translated directly

212

Su s t a in in g n a t u ra l re s o u rc e s y s te ms

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 212

14/11/12 9:14 AM

onto A0-size, 1:50 000 printed maps, which were then digitised and transformed into the GIS layers. The densities and distributions of maps drawn by each group for each type of resources or each fishing activity were then analysed using geo-processing provided in ArcGISTM software.

Development and mobilisation of indicators for fisheries resources Indicators were developed in collaboration with community members to assess trends in fisheries resources. Indicators were selected based on the following criteria: (1) they represented the community’s main fisheries resources and (2) they required only simple data collection without imposing extra burdens on local villagers. The first indicator selected was type of fishing equipment used by villagers. Data on proportions of fishing equipment owned by Koh Sarai fishers were drawn from data collected by the SAO. The second indicator selected was the sale of the fishers’ daily catch in two local village markets. The market owners keep a record of the catch they buy from each fisher on a receipt, one copy of which is given to the seller and one retained by the market owner. These receipts have been kept by the market owners since 2007. In general, each boat is owned by a fisher who goes out fishing in the early morning and returns in the afternoon. Each receipt thus represents the catch for that day for that boat. The weight of each resource bought (fish, crabs, squid, shrimp, mantis shrimp etc.) is specified on the receipt. Crabs and shrimp are classified by fish market owners into three size groups (large, medium and small), allowing for size to be used as a further indicator for these resources. Daily catch data allows for a rough measure of catch per unit effort (CPUE) to be calculated for various species and over time periods. This is because daily effort is generally quite constant, with all fishers spending roughly the same amount of time per day fishing, and because they keep a small part of the catch for daily family consumption but sell most

F is h e rie s re s o u rc e in d i ca tors a t K oh S a ra i , T h a i l a n d

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 213

213

14/11/12 9:14 AM

to the fish markets. Average daily sales over specified periods of time (monthly, yearly) are therefore taken as an estimate of average CPUE for those periods. These approximate data are mainly used to indicate changing trends of fisheries resources rather than representing exact levels of CPUE. In 2009–10, a database system was developed to reveal fisheries resource status and trends based on this indicator. The system is set up with an easy-access interface using the integration of Microsoft AccessTM and ArcGISTM. The interface includes automatic functions to reveal CPUE averages as well as graphical output results. The user can query information for comparison based on the choices of type and size of aquatic animal and time period. The confidence interval at 95 per cent of each CPUE average was calculated to reveal the significance of the difference between CPUE values yielded. Average values with overlapped confidence intervals indicate non-significant differences. During the last two years of the project (2010–11) the research team visited the community every three or four months to collect the catch sale data and mobilise the use of this indicator. Several focus group discussions were carried out over this period involving village leaders and active members of the fisheries resource conservation groups to promote utilisation of the indicators and the database to support community-based fisheries resource management.

Development of school curricula In early 2010, with strong support from the school principal, we worked with Koh Sarai school teachers to develop a local curriculum based on the research findings and the involvement of core-team members of fisheries resource conservation groups. The project aimed to develop knowledge, awareness and behaviour in marine and fisheries resource conservation for the younger generation of Koh Sarai. The teachers took part in four workshops to promote their knowledge and skills in the curriculum development and implementation.

214

Su s t a in in g n a t u ra l re s o u rc e s y s te ms

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 214

14/11/12 9:14 AM

Results Maps of natural resources and fishing Using the TEK of local villagers, maps were developed comprising six layers of natural resources, and 12 layers of fishing activities (Table 10.1). The fishing activities of Koh Sarai community covered an area of 703 km2. The fishers normally travel a distance of 10–15 kilometres to reach fishing grounds with the longest distance as high as 23 kilometres (see Figure 10.1 overleaf). Table 10.1 List of natural resources and fishing activities based on local villagers’ brainstorming Natural resources

Fishing activities

Underwater rock Underwater sand dune Coral reef Artificial reef Watercourse Dolphin distribution

Fish trap Bottom long line Jellyfish scooping Crab trap Squid trap Crab trap for small size crab Crab bottom gillnet Mantis shrimp drifted gillnet Prawn drifted gillnet Fish drifted gillnet Crab drifted gillnet Squid drifted net

Proposed area No trawling zone

F is h e rie s re s o u rc e in d i ca tors a t K oh S a ra i , T h a i l a n d

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 215

215

14/11/12 9:14 AM

Figure 10.1 Map of marine resources and utilisation area based on data provided by Koh Sarai villagers. The dark grey area (703 km2) is the area used by local villagers for fishing. The area outlined in grey (265 km 2) shows the area of conflict between commercial and local fisheries. The area outlined by the dashed black line (525 km2) is proposed as a ‘no-trawling zone’ by the villagers. The grey circles represent areas where there are no conflicts between commercial and local fishers. The black dots indicate the presence of three species of dolphin, and the black triangles represent dugong.

Satun Province

Sera Islands

Tarulao National Park

Given the damaging impact of commercial fisheries on local livelihoods, the community proposed a ‘no trawling’ (conservation) zone, extending the existing near-shore 3 kilometre conservation zone (see Figure 10.1). This extension of the conservation area would encompass most of the area of conflict between local fishers and commercial trawl-

216

Su s t a in in g n a t u ra l re s o u rc e s y s te ms

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 216

14/11/12 9:14 AM

ers. In order to support the declaration of this area as a conservation area, villagers highlighted the values of the area as an important marine habitats (sea grass and coral reef areas), flagship species (sea turtles, dugong and dolphins) (some of these are shown in Figure 10.1), as well as non-destructive artisanal fisheries coverage. The proposal by Koh Sarai fisheries conservation group for an extended no-trawling zone was motivated by specific successful proposals initiated by other local fishery communities. According to an experienced NGO officer participating in discussions, small-scale fisher networks in two southern provinces had succeeded in legally expanding their 3 kilometre near-shore conservation areas to 5.4 kilometres. On learning about these successful cases, the core-team members of Koh Sarai fisheries conservation groups decided to mobilise toward the same goal. The Koh Sarai group aims to gain support from local NGOs and DOF officials to propose to the government the plan of expanding the 3 kilometre conservation zone to cover the 525 km2 area indicated by the dashed black line in figure 10.1. Although they have as yet no clear ideas about how to mobilise the process, they view these maps as potentially highly useful evidence to support such a proposal.

Fisheries resource indicators and their application Equipment used and types of resources caught

The types of fishing equipment used by villagers, and the proportion of their catch made up of the different aquatic animals caught, are set out in Figure 10.2 overleaf. These data are derived from 39 510 receipts collected from two local fish markets over the period 2007–09. A fisher usually owns a number of different types of fishing equipment. The catch data were based on the catch receipts from two local fish markets.

F is h e rie s re s o u rc e in d i ca tors a t K oh S a ra i , T h a i l a n d

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 217

217

14/11/12 9:14 AM

Figure 10.2 Proportion of various types of fishing equipment owned by Koh Sarai villagers (left) and the proportions by weight of various aquatic animals caught during 2007–09 (right) Other fishing equipment 9%

Mantis shrimp 2%

Squid 11% Fish gill net 14%

Fish 10% Crab gill net 47%

Shrimp gill net 30%

Shrimp 13%

Crab 64%

Examination of Figure 10.2 shows that crab (Portunus spp.), shrimp (Peneaus spp. and Metapeneaus spp.), squid (Sepia spp. and Loligo spp.) and fish are the main fisheries resources of Koh Sarai. In particular, crab is the most important resource, with crab gill nets making up almost half of fishing equipment, and crab making up 64 per cent of the daily catch sales to fish markets. Shrimp, squid and fish are also important, with shrimp making up 13 per cent of catch sales, squid 11 per cent and fish 10 per cent. A small proportion (2%) of mantis shrimp (Oratosquill spp.) is also caught and sold. Changes in CPUE and size classes over time

Daily catch data were used to analyse trends in use and status of crab, shrimp, fish and mantis shrimp. For crab, indicators derived from daily catch data were CPUE and the size of crabs caught. CPUE was calculated as the amount of crabs caught in kilograms per day per fisher. Analysis of these data shows a

218

Su s t a in in g n a t u ra l re s o u rc e s y s te ms

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 218

14/11/12 9:14 AM

significantly decreasing trend during 2007–09 (ANOVA test, p 0.05). However, the squid CPUE significantly increased over this period from 1.50 ± 0.21 kg/boat/day in 2007 to 2.00 ± 0.05 kg/boat/day in 2009 (ANOVA p 500) non-timber forest products for human use including honey, medicinal herbs, resins, incense, spices, dyes, gums, toiletries, tans, condiments and fibres. These items are called Minor Forest Produce (MFP), Non Timber Forest Products (NTFPs, the term used throughout this chapter) or, more recently, Non Wood Forest Products (NWFPs). NTFPs have traditionally been gathered by forest-dependent communities consisting predominantly of tribal people. Tribal people have been engaged in the subsistence collection of NTFPs in Kerala since time

T h e p lig h t o f t ribe s i n K e ra l a fore sts i n I n di a

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 299

299

14/11/12 9:14 AM

immemorial and their knowledge about the sustainable collection and uses of NTFPs may very often be as old as the tribe itself, handed down through generations. While in earlier times tribal people lived in the forest and collected NTFPs for their own use, more recently tribes have been re-settled by the government close to urban areas, and harvesting of NTFPs for commercial use began as a way to generate income. Recent studies suggest that an emphasis on NTFPs as a major source of income for tribal communities might be problematic for several reasons, including market instability (Padoch 1992); control of trade by local and regional elites (Ribot 2000); inequitable socially-mediated access to NTFPs (Kumar 2002); low densities of most NTFPs (La Frankie 1994), and few species having much market value (Neumann & Hirsch 2010). Although constitutionally protected, the tribes, who are generally poor and have low education levels, are numerically (and therefore electorally) insignificant, constituting less than 1 per cent of the population in a state with a total population of 34 million. The harvest, marketing and trade of NTFPs are regulated by the government through several institutional mechanisms, but their effectiveness in protecting the rights and interests of the tribal people seems questionable. With tribal communities being rapidly integrated into modern society, poor government protection, combined with a lack of NGO involvement, means the tribal people are not only at risk of losing traditional tribal knowledge but may suffer from social exclusion and exploitation. This chapter examines the socio-economic problems faced by the minority tribal populations in Kerala state in India around the collection, marketing and trade of NTFPs, and reflects on the conservation implications. Firstly, I set out how the regulatory and policy framework around forest protection and the use of NTFPs evolved in Kerala. Secondly, I discuss several government initiatives aimed at supporting the collection, marketing and management of NTFPs, including providing training on scientific collection techniques to enhance sustainability and quality, such as the Kerala State Federation of SC-ST Development Co-operatives, the Co-operative Societies, and the Vanasree Cell.

300

C o n s e rv a t io n a n d c o mme rc ia l use

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 300

14/11/12 9:14 AM

Thirdly, I explore socio-economic issues around NTFP collection and trade faced by tribal communities through a case study in three communities in southern Kerala. Finally, I discuss the implications of this work for both people and conservation and set out my conclusions.

Policy on forest protection and use of NTFPs Kerala faces widespread and ongoing loss of its forest resource. In Kerala, forest has been depleted from around 30 per cent of the land area in the mid-1950s to now less than 18 per cent (Government of India 2010). Forests play a crucial role in Kerala’s poverty eradication program due to their contribution to employment of the rural poor and support of the development of agriculture through ecosystem services such as maintaining soil fertility. National forest policies between 1950 and 1970 were mainly concerned with the production of timber. However, as concern for the depletion of forest biodiversity grew, subsequent national legislation and policies (such as the 1972 Wild Life (Protection) Act, the 1980 Forest Conservation Act, the 1988 National Forest Policy and the 2006 Forest Rights Act) have treated forests as environmental and social resources rather than merely for revenue earning.

The Forest Rights Act India’s Forest Rights Act of 2006 resulted from a protracted struggle by marginal and tribal communities of the country to assert their rights over the forest land on which they have traditionally been dependent (Government of Kerala 2006). The Act provides for the restitution of rights to access and use forests, across India, for certain people who have traditionally used them – ‘scheduled tribes’ – indigenous people listed in a schedule of the Indian constitution; and ‘other traditional forest-dwellers’ – people living in forests for at least three generations (see Mohindra & Wangchuk, Chapter 2 in this volume, for a discussion

T h e p lig h t o f t ribe s i n K e ra l a fore sts i n I n di a

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 301

301

14/11/12 9:14 AM

of this Act). Rights involved include both individual rights to cultivate land in forests and community rights over common property resources (A Antony, Vanasree Cell, pers. comm.). However, there is ambiguity surrounding the criteria for determining the beneficiaries of the Act, which has given rise to concerns within the pro-environment lobby that the definition of beneficiaries may be expanded to include other persons or parties. Indeed, under the Act permissions have already been granted to various companies to convert forest into land for other purposes.

Participatory forest management (PFM) The National Forest Policy (1988) envisages people’s involvement in the development, protection and management of forests, reflecting the view that forest management programs needed to be reoriented to respond to the needs of rural people living in and around forest areas, and that forest produce like fuel wood, NTFPs and timber should be made available to the forest-dependent villagers preferentially so that the village communities would be motivated to help in the development and protection of forests. The Indian state is concerned with pressing issues related to forest conservation like increasing population pressure resulting in forest degradation, the fragility of the ecosystem, conservation of biodiversity and the maintenance of ecological balance of the area. Having realised the necessity of ensuring people’s participation in the effective protection and management of forest resources, the Kerala government decided to develop participatory forest management (PFM). The main objectives of PFM are twofold: developing appropriate participatory approaches to forest management in different forestry and socioeconomic contexts, and introducing and sustaining such approaches in areas inside as well as outside forests. PFM is implemented through the constitution of grassroot-level participatory institutions including the Eco Developmental Committee (EDC) and the Vana Samrakshana Samithis (VSSs). The EDC deals with protection and preservation of wild animals and is not discussed further in this chapter.

302

C o n s e rv a t io n a n d c o mme rc ia l use

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 302

14/11/12 9:14 AM

The VSSs are community organisations responsible for forest protection, management and community development, comprising families living in and around forest areas (Government of Kerala 2006). They provide the connecting links between the Forest Department and individual forest users. Every household living in wards/hamlets/user-groups selected by the Forest Department authorities has the option of belonging to the local VSS. From each household, two adults (one of them a woman) can become members of the VSS. An executive committee, consisting of elected representatives of the VSS, a local NGO representative and a nominee from the Tribal Development Department, is constituted to develop and carry out the PFM plan. The members of VSSs are individually and collectively responsible for ensuring protection of the PFM and non-PFM forest areas from encroachment, grazing, fires, illicit filling, poaching, thefts, etc. They have the power to apprehend offenders and hand them over to Forest Department officers to take legal action. Financial assistance to VSSs is provided through Forest Development Agencies (FDA), each of which consists of a federation of more than 50 VSSs.

Tribal people and NTFPs Non Timber Forest Products are among the forest resources that constitute important environmental and social-economic capital for the forestdependent people of Kerala. Tribal people have been engaged in the collection of NTFPs in Kerala since time immemorial (see Plates 32 and 33). While traditionally they collected these products for their own use, more recently they have started to extract NTFPs for commercial use to generate income. NTFPs are collected and processed using a variety of techniques, and used for many food and medicinal purposes. For example, honey harvesting from wild bee colonies is a major means of livelihood for tribes in the forests of Kerala. Lemon grass oil extraction is becoming a major means of livelihood among the Muthuvas, a tribe in Idukki District. The oil, which is extracted from fresh or partly dried leaves by steam distillation, is exten-

T h e p lig h t o f t ribe s i n K e ra l a fore sts i n I n di a

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 303

303

14/11/12 9:14 AM

sively used in the perfume, soap and cosmetic industries and as mosquito repellent and disinfectant. Herbal balm involves a blend of beeswax and eucalyptus oil, both collected by the tribespeople, for external application as a pain reliever and muscular relaxant. Eucalyptus oil is obtained from eucalypt leaves by steam distillation, and has strong germicidal and disinfectant properties. A product known as Kasthuri Manjal (prepared from the rhizomes of the turmeric species Curcuma aromatica and C. zedoaria) is used for treating leprosy and skin diseases and as an antibacterial agent. These species are collected from the forests and cultivated in the tribal settlements. Their rhizomes are dried in the sun and can then be stored for long periods. Dried rhizomes can be pulverised and used in face packs. Black dammer, a resin extracted from the trunk of Canarium strictum, a large tree with spreading branches forming one of the dominant species in the evergreen and the semi-evergreen forests, is used in the manufacture of varnishes, bottling wax and as a substitute for burgundy pitch (spruce resin) in medicinal plasters, and in the treatment of rheumatism and chronic diseases.

Institutional framework and management of NTFP collection During colonial times, the British allowed collection of NTFPs on an annual lease rent basis (Shylajan & Mythili 2007). Local non-tribal people were also allowed to collect certain items. In the late 1970s, the government of Kerala granted the right of NTFP extraction exclusively to tribal people, defined as those belonging to the ‘Scheduled Castes’ (SC) and ‘Scheduled Tribes’ (ST) recognised in the Constitution of India. The collection of NTFPs is done exclusively by the members of 33 co-operative societies that have been designated for the purpose, and membership of these co-operatives is reserved for tribal people only. Each co-operative has a secretary (paid official), a president (elected member) and an executive committee. The co-operatives have the

304

C o n s e rv a t io n a n d c o mme rc ia l use

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 304

14/11/12 9:14 AM

monopoly right to procure the forest products, which are extracted by the tribes. In 1981, an apex body for the co-operatives, the Kerala State Federation of SC/ST Development Co-operatives (hereafter referred to as ‘the Federation’), started functioning (KSFSC/STDC 2010a). The Federation is aimed at the overall development of tribal people through its member co-operatives and has four branches – at Thiruvananthapuram, Trissur, Wayanad and Kothamangalam. The collection, marketing and trade of NTFPs are regulated by the Federation and the co-operatives as well as by the Union government and the Kerala Department of Forests. The role of the Federation includes the supply of credit, establishment of processing units, organisation of co-operatives and provision of training to the co-operatives. For providing organised support services to the VSSs and the EDC in the fields of scientific collection, value addition and marketing of NTFPs, an initiative called the Vanasree Cell was set up in the Forest Department in June 2010 – this is discussed further below. The PFM initiatives that started in the state during the late 1990s have given a new direction to the approach of these institutions to the management of NTFPs. Scientific management of NTFP collection and trade has been identified by the Kerala Forest Department as the greatest opportunity for the improvement of the livelihood of the forest-dependent communities while ensuring their meaningful participation in forest conservation. Developing scientific collection protocols, setting up facilities for storage, developing value-addition processes and marketing NTFPs have been intertwined with the principles and practices of PFM in the state (KJ Varghese, Chief Conservator of Forests, pers. comm.).

Collection of NTFPs The Kerala Forest Department and the Federation have identified 146 NTFPs that the tribal people are legally allowed to collect (see Table 14.1 for some of the most important).

T h e p lig h t o f t ribe s i n K e ra l a fore sts i n I n di a

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 305

305

14/11/12 9:14 AM

Table 14.1 Some of the most commonly collected NTFPs in Kerala Common name

Botanical name

Parts collected

Malabar nut tree

Adhatoda zeylanica

root and leaves

holostemma

Holostemma ada-kodien

root

shoe-flower

Hibiscus rosa-sinensis

root

false daisy

Eclipta prostrata

seed

red chillies

Capsicum annuum

fruit

Cochin turmeric (Kasthuri Manjal)

Curcuma aromatica

rhizome-root

Lemon basil

Ocimum gratissimum

stem

Jaramala

Phyllanthus amarus

whole plant

Malabar gambage (kudambuli)

Garcinia gummi-gutta

fruit

broom jute sida

Sida rhombifolia

root

nutgrass

Cyperus rotundus

seed

Indian indigo

Indigofera tinctoria

whole plant

gooseberry

Phyllanthus emblica

fruit

aloe vera

Aloe vera

leaf/whole plant

balloon vine

Cardiospermum halicacabum

whole plant

Indian pennywort

Centella asiatica

leaf

prickly-leaved elephant’s foot

Elephantopus scaber

root

ghokru

Tribulus terrestris

root

black plum

Syzygium cumini

root

cardamom

Elettaria cardamomum

fruit

sweet flag (calamus)

Acorus calamus

root

white dammer

Vateria indica

resin from bark

asparagus

Asparagus racemosus

root

silk cotton tree

Ceiba pentandra

fruit

Indian lotus

Nelumbo nucifera

root

vetivera (ramacham)

Vetivera zizanioides

root

cobra’s saffron

Mesua ferrea

flower

Malabar glory lily

Gloriosa superba

seed mace

touch-me-not

Mimosa pudica

whole plant

ivy gourd

Coccinia indica

root

wild ginger

Zingiber zerumbet

rhizome

bitter gourd

Momordica charantia

fruit

tree turmeric

Coscinium fenestratum

stem

Source: KSFSC/STDC (2010b)

306

C o n s e rv a t io n a n d c o mme rc ia l use

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 306

14/11/12 9:14 AM

Beginning in the 1960s, many tribal communities have been re-located by the government out of the forests into settlements near urban areas. To collect NTFPs the tribal people leave these settlements and go to the forest for weeks at a time, which can be perceived as a risky experience (see below). NTFPs are generally collected using traditional equipment and collection methods, but to assist in a more scientific approach to collection, the Vanasree Cell initiative recently started providing training on collection techniques that enhance sustainability and quality for products (A Antony, Vanasree Cell, pers. comm.). Vanasree is an initiative of the Kerala Forest Department, inaugurated in 2010. The Vanasree Cell helps in the improvement of the livelihoods of forest-dependent communities by making arrangements for the scientific and sustainable collection, storage, value addition and marketing of MFP. The products are marketed under the brandname Vanasree. To date, training has been provided for products such as honey, lemongrass oil, cardamom and pepper. For instance, for the last four years the honey collectors in Kerala have been trained in the scientific and non-destructive collection of honey and in value addition by a process called ultra-filtration. For black dammer collection, training programs have been developed for conservative methods of resin tapping that damage trees less than the traditional method, which involves incising and/or scorching the bark and outer layer of wood at the base of the trunk to promote exudation.

Marketing of NTFPs In the past, NTFPs were predominantly sold directly from the tribal people to private traders. However, since the inception of the Federation in 1981, the co-operatives have in principle the monopoly right to procure and auction the forest products collected by the tribal people. The tribal gatherers are paid a collection price. The co-operatives sell products to the Federation, which markets them to buyers (supported by Vanasree Cell). Value adding is achieved through the manufacture

T h e p lig h t o f t ribe s i n K e ra l a fore sts i n I n di a

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 307

307

14/11/12 9:14 AM

of Ayurvedic medicines at the Ayurvedic Medicine Manufacturing Unit called Ayurdhara. The price gained by collectors is initially set by the Federation, but in the event of market fluctuation may be re-fixed by the co-operative society. Usually, the eventual sale price of the product is split following an 80/20 proportion: 80 per cent is paid to the gatherers and 20 per cent is shared between the co-operative and the Federation to meet their expenses (Santhosh John, Chief Conservator of Forests, pers. comm.). Alongside these formal arrangements, however, some informal trading by tribes and/or middlemen to private traders takes place. The marketing of NTFPs by private traders has been in existence for a long time and their supremacy in this area continued until the establishment of the co-operative societies (Neumann 2010). Tribes may sell to middlemen/private traders, particularly where they are dissatisfied with the work of co-operatives. Private traders often offer only a low price to tribes and sell products in the market for a very high margin, weakening the position of the co-operatives in the process.

Case study To explore the practical reality of NTFP collection and trade by the tribal communities in Kerala and identify socio-economic issues faced by the communities, I conducted a case study in the field. Two questions were addressed: • What are the effects of modernisation on the traditional sustainable collection of NTFPs by tribal people? • Are the institutional mechanisms to regulate the collection and trade of NTFPs effective in protecting the tribal people against exploitation? These questions were explored through empirical investigation in the field. The bulk of the data were collected from two southern districts of Kerala state: Kollam and Thiruvananthapuram.

308

C o n s e rv a t io n a n d c o mme rc ia l use

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 308

14/11/12 9:14 AM

Case studies were carried out in three tribal settlements: Aryankavu and Vanchiyodu in Kollam district, and Pottomavu in Thiruvanathapuram district. Interviews based on structured questionnaires were carried out with local leaders of the tribal community, officials in local marketing sectors, co-operative societies and local government bodies. The questionnaires covered annual income from the collection of NTFPs, interest in collecting forest products, attitude towards traditional work, risks associated with collection and marketing, experience regarding cheating at the level of marketing, attitude of the government in addressing problems regarding collection and marketing, and evaluation of the services rendered by the Forest Department and the Federation. Non-participant observation was also used to understand the issues behind the problem.

Effects of modernisation Interviews with the tribal people, their leaders and the staff of the co-operative societies indicated that for a range of reasons, tribal people, and in particular the youth, are attracted towards urbanised culture and are increasingly unwilling to continue to pursue traditional collection of NTFPs. The tribal community of Aryankavu was re-settled there under the Kerala government’s rehabilitation program 28 years ago. Most of them are not interested in the traditional way of life and prefer non-traditional work over work in the forest (such as the collection of NTFPs). Interviewees stated they earn Rs.200–250 (around $5–6) per day for work outside the forest. To collect NTFPs they have to go inside the forest and stay there for weeks under risky circumstances. The maximum amounts they get for this effort do not exceed Rs.1000/- (around $22) and are normally around Rs.500/- (around $11). In addition they do not receive sufficient compensation for any injuries incurred during NTFP collection. As a result, the people of Aryankavu are withdrawing

T h e p lig h t o f t ribe s i n K e ra l a fore sts i n I n di a

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 309

309

14/11/12 9:14 AM

from this traditional occupation. Moreover, many of the people who are still involved in NTFP collection are unaware of the actual use of the collected items and there is a lack of understanding and guidance on how to manage the harvest sustainably. The tribal people living in the settlement of Vanchiyodu are not fully forest dependent. The majority of them are labourers in Oil Palm India Ltd, while others are engaged in daily labour works. Due to the risks associated with NTFP collection in the rainy season, they only collect during favourable seasons. The tribal people of Vanchiyodu value their cultural identity, demonstrated when an NGO was ousted after wanting to convert the community to the Pentecostal faith. In Pottomavu, there is considerable discord between the co-operative society and the Federation. The secretary of the society, Abhilash, expressed the view there was apathy on the part of the Federation in addressing the problems in connection with NTFPs. The co-operative society can collect the NTFPs only on behalf of an ‘allotment order’ for required produce from the Federation. If the tribes collect more than is required in the allotment order, the people may be forced to sell the products to middlemen, otherwise the warehouses will be overloaded with stock, and this sometimes causes damage to the products. Interviewees also expressed fear about the commercial interests of private Ayurvedic companies like Dabur and Pankajakasthuri, which have multinational linkages. The unpredictability of their demand for certain products can cause great losses to the co-operatives, for instance when strong demand is followed by a sudden drop in demand and a subsequent slashing of prices. In 2005 this situation occurred with respect to Manjal, demand for which increased as a pharmaceutical company in the United States conducted experiments on its use for cancer treatment, with a corresponding increase in price. However, once the company had fulfilled its requirements the situation changed, slashing demand and price and causing sudden loss of income for tribal communities.

310

C o n s e rv a t io n a n d c o mme rc ia l use

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 310

14/11/12 9:14 AM

Effectiveness of institutional mechanisms It was clear from interviews with forest-dwelling communities that the policy initiatives of the state government, Joint Forest Management and VSS have failed to sufficiently protect the tribes against exploitation at the level of collection and marketing of NTFPs. According to information received from the Federation, the tribal community in Aryankavu had a functioning co-operative. However, the co-operative turned out to be closed and according to the tribe had not been functioning for about one and half years. This means the people of Aryankavu have no adequate financial security for the collection and trade of NTFPs, and are forced to sell items to outside shops and agents who do not pay adequate or fair prices. People would like to have a co-operative up and running, because then supply is controlled and they get a better price. Interviewees conceded they also used to sell the forest products to outside agents when the co-operative was still functioning, because the agents gave a better margin. However, with no co-operative functioning they have little choice of where to sell, so must accept even low prices for their produce. The community of Vanchiyodu does have a functioning co-operative and a store where value-added NTFPs are sold. However, the tribal NTFP gatherers in Vanchiyodu are also not satisfied with the prices they receive. The president and secretary of the co-operative argue that unnecessary interference from politicians and other outsiders has effectively limited the sound functioning of the co-operative. The tribal people state that because the co-operative does not have sufficient capacity to handle the harvest, they have to depend on the outside agencies and the market. In addition, the margin given by the co-operative is lower than what is offered on the market. However, it is likely that if they didn’t have a co-operative at all they would be in a worse position, like the people of Aryankavu. Another problematic issue raised in interviews is that the Forest Department may issue the ‘pass’ required for legal access to the forest to

T h e p lig h t o f t ribe s i n K e ra l a fore sts i n I n di a

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 311

311

14/11/12 9:14 AM

people who do not have the right to access it. These people may misuse their access to cut trees and cultivate illegal plants. The effectiveness of the ‘pass system’ may be questioned in the absence of strong administration and enforcement by the co-operative society. The president of the Vanchiyodu Co-operative Society, Sathyarajan, argued that they adopted a comprehensive approach involving the support of all political parties. But the people are of the view that a parochial, political and community intervention is experienced there. The tribal community at Vanchiyodu unanimously stressed the need for a strong institutional mechanism for the collection, marketing and management of NTFPs as well as adequate financial aid and security in the form of loans and subsidies. The Pottomavu region is unique in the sense that the first VSS of Kerala was established there. Through the VSS, local non-tribal people who are forest dependent have the right to enter the forest and collect NTFPs. However, others enter the forest through the VSS with the intention of large-scale exploitation of the forest and its products. The tribal people expressed their concern about these (illegal) activities and the effect they may have on the environment and themselves. Interviews with the tribal community members further showed that the Community Rights, the crux of the Forests Rights Act 2006, which is celebrated as an answer to the exploitation of tribes, is not properly defined. Some interviewees pointed out that the provision of individual rights is not practical because, since 1978, tribal people have been re-located to community settlements. In addition they highlighted the absence of specifically defined forest rights and the inadequacy of the Forest Rights Committee and the VSSs. The president of the co-operative in Pottomavu further argued that although political interference with the co-operative is present and necessary, the people’s representatives in the VSSs lack adequate powers and rights. He suggested more orientation classes and training be provided to the tribes through the VSSs. Another notable thing in Pottomavu is the discord between the co-operative and the Federation. According to the secretary of the

312

C o n s e rv a t io n a n d c o mme rc ia l use

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 312

14/11/12 9:14 AM

co-operative, the Federation is indifferent to the problems of the tribes with regards to NTFP collection and trade. The co-operative can only collect NTFPs in accordance with the allotment order from the Federation. If this allotment is surpassed, the people may be forced to sell their products to intermediaries who often cheat the tribes with fake lease agreements.

Discussion and conclusion Modernisation has had a great effect on the lives of the tribal people in Kerala and their livelihood activities. The tribes traditionally lived in the forest and practised sustainable collection of NTFPs for subsistence use. When the tribes were re-located in 1978 to urban areas under the Kerala government’s rehabilitation program, trips to the forest for the collection of NTFPs became a commercial activity. The special relationship between the tribal people and the forest and its resources is acknowledged by the national and state governments and since the 1970s several regulatory and institutional mechanisms have been put in place to protect their rights in relation to their use of forest resources and assist in their collection and marketing. However, for a variety of reasons the systems seems to be failing and only a limited number of NTFPs are currently being collected and marketed. This study found that the tribal people, and particularly the youth, are unfamiliar with and uninterested in the traditional sustainable collection of NTFPs. They are absorbing the elements of modernity and the limited monetary benefits of the collection of NTFPs do not outweigh the perceived risks of going into the forest for weeks at the time, particularly during the rainy season. Income earned through the collection of NTFPs is not sufficient to meet daily requirements, and more money and better financial security can be obtained through non-forest labour. The existing marketing mechanisms of the state are seen as neither fair nor efficient. In particular, there is a wide gap between the prices paid by the co-operatives to the collectors and the final prices that products gain in

T h e p lig h t o f t ribe s i n K e ra l a fore sts i n I n di a

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 313

313

14/11/12 9:14 AM

the open market. Due to low prices, delays in payment and the bureaucratic restrictions associated with the co-operatives, collectors sometimes resort to selling their products to private traders, making them vulnerable to exploitation. Marketing of NTFPs is dominated by private traders who manipulate prices to their advantage and receive the lion’s share of the profits. Some of the common types of exploitation include low prices paid to the tribal collectors; lending money to gatherers in the lean months in order to get NTFPs at low prices during the harvest season; false lease agreements, and cheating with the measurements. Another area of exploitation lies with the non-tribal people who are illegally exploiting the forest. While the tribes are dependent on forest resources for their livelihood and use it sustainably, these outsiders overexploit forest resources for personal gain. The ignorance of the tribes about buyers, prevailing market prices and government rules are all reasons for exploitation. The gatherer’s contact is generally limited to the village buyer alone, whereas in a competitive and efficient system there should be a large number of buyers and sellers. Moreover, most of the tribal people are poor, chronically indebted to middlemen or landowners, and have no control over their labour or other terms of exchange. Thus the nationalisation of the NTFP trade has created excellent opportunities for a few private traders and mills to exploit tribes (Saxena 1999; Mr Sathyan, President of Canchyodu Tribal Co-operative Society, pers. comm.). At the same time, experience reveals that the government is incapable of effectively administering complete control over the buying and selling of the NTFPs. A lack of communication, co-ordination and co-operation between the tribes, the co-operatives and the Federation is at the root of many of these issues. A lack of awareness around their rights as forest users on the part of the tribes has led to an absence of individual commitment and proactiveness within the tribal community. By providing training and awareness programs, the attitude of the tribes can be changed to help rebuild individual commitment to the sustainable use of forest resources. Amicable solutions for the problems

314

C o n s e rv a t io n a n d c o mme rc ia l use

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 314

14/11/12 9:14 AM

between the Federation and the co-operatives should be pursued. Awareness programs for the tribes about the market demand and pricing of NFTPs are also essential to prevent exploitation. The state mechanism should ensure a fair balance between the price paid to gatherers and the market price to control exploitation at the level of marketing. Better communication and co-operation between the co-operatives and the Federation should also be promoted to ensure any issues on the ground are addressed adequately and in a timely manner. A stable source of income should be ensured for the tribes who are collecting NTFPs to prevent loss of this traditional occupation. Better marketing of products of global market interest such as products with medicinal properties and spices could be one tool to make NTFP harvesting a more profitable and stable enterprise.

T h e p lig h t o f t ribe s i n K e ra l a fore sts i n I n di a

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 315

315

14/11/12 9:14 AM

Conclusions John Merson, Rosie Cooney and Paul Brown

In this book we have presented case studies from eight countries representing the experience of conservationists, governments, NGOs and communities grappling with the challenges of sustainability in circumstances constrained by escalating population and consumption, overexploitation, urbanisation and climate change. The locations of the case studies range from formal protected areas to zones of communitybased conservation. They include places where people have occupied the landscape traditionally, and others where landscape management practices have sought to exclude people. We have tried to assemble research that represents the range of experience in dealing with the complex challenges arising from the desires and hopes for sustainability. Key themes, implications and lessons of broad relevance emerge from case studies. None of these is particularly new – indeed, many are enshrined in international policy. However, all remain highly relevant because, as these case studies show, in practice they are frequently honoured primarily in the breach. In this conclusion we again consider the three key questions that framed our inquiry and provided the structure of our book. We will not attempt to synthesise all the findings of our case study contributors but rather to present a selection of ‘matters arising’.

Protected areas, landscape and people Our first area of focus has been protected areas, asking: How can we harmonise the relationships between wildlife and communities in and around those areas?

316

C o n s e rv a t io n in a C ro w d e d W o r l d

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 316

14/11/12 9:14 AM

First, our case studies make clear that the traditional conservation approach of simple demarcation of zones from which people are excluded is far from automatically effective in conservation terms. It can also have potentially detrimental effects on people’s livelihoods and well-being. At Ba Be Lake in Vietnam (Chapter 5), Nurick et al. show that simple exclusion of people from certain strictly protected zones has not solved problems of over-use of resources, but has intensified use in other areas, while use of the strictly protected areas has continued (now illegally) since people have few other subsistence strategies. Likewise, in northern India (Chapter 2) and Bhutan (Chapter 3), the level of human occupancy of protected areas makes simple exclusion unviable from the outset, whereas in central Australia (Chapter 6) it is clear that addressing the conservation problems of weeds, feral animals and fire regimes demands human presence and active management. Kalpage et al.’s study from Sri Lanka (Chapter 1) shows how ‘thinking across the landscape’ and avoiding rigid land-use categories could lead to much more effective strategies for reducing human–elephant conflict and reconciling traditional use with elephant habitat needs. Together these examples reinforce the conclusion that keeping people out is not the answer. The second clear implication is the need to fully engage local people in planning and implementation of conservation interventions, when dealing with landscapes and contexts in which they live. This proposition is certainly nothing new. It is a basic tenet of the AAPG (Principle 9) and is supported by extensive NGO and academic writings. However, it is far from generally accepted or applied. This lesson is fundamental in the examples mentioned above, in each of which a viable conservation strategy will require the support and co-operation of local people. However, responding to the needs of local people should not in itself be simplistically seen as contributing to conservation, as experience with integrated conservation and development programs (ICDPs) in Bhutan shows (Chapter 3). It is clear from this example that genuinely ‘integrated’ conservation and development is much more than responding to communities’ expressed needs, which may run counter to conser-

Con cl u si on s

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 317

317

14/11/12 9:14 AM

vation goals. ICDPs need to address human interests in ways that align them with the conservation of biodiversity. Ecotourism is one strategy that is often hailed as viable. However, whether ecotourism is an option that genuinely has the potential to reconcile conservation and human needs is questioned in the context of the Thenmala project in Kerala (Chapter 4), where failure to adequately engage and benefit local people undermines the conservation potential of this project. By contrast, a very successful example of engaging and meeting the needs of local communities is demonstrated by the snow leopard conservation case (Chapter 2). Here, addressing the decline of leopards was achieved by first understanding the human needs and conflicting priorities that drove their decline, then addressing these elements through infrastructure and compensation in order to remove the conflict. A third key implication of the protected area case studies is that engaging and addressing the needs of local people is not just necessary for effective conservation strategies, but also for basic fairness and respect for human rights and needs. At Ba Be, conservation restrictions have had complex impacts on poverty, improving the situation for some but worsening it for others. For the Anangu in central Australia, a conservation approach based on empowering people to manage their own natural resources strengthens traditional connections to country and culture, alongside delivering conservation priorities.

The conservation and sustainable use of natural resources The second section of the book responds to the question: How can we sustain the natural resource systems used and relied on by communities? The case studies deal with resources on which people fundamentally rely to sustain livelihoods – forests, fisheries and water. In the first instance, the case studies again support the second finding mentioned

318

C o n s e rv a t io n in a C ro w d e d W o r l d

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 318

14/11/12 9:14 AM

above – that there is a need to fully engage local people in the planning/ implementation of conservation/resource management interventions when dealing with human landscapes. One motivation for this is that over-exploitation and ecosystem degradation come about due to socio-economic drivers. Effective conservation of natural resources needs to take account of these drivers, which, if harnessed appropriately, can motivate restoration, sustainable management and conservation. For example, the successful restoration of farmland envisioned in Chapters 8 and 9 is driven by economics – conservation outcomes will be secured through understanding the economic incentives and barriers that farmers experience. Likewise, in the case of the fisheries around Koh Sarai (Chapter 10), the local villagers who rely on these fish stocks for economic survival are highly motivated to invest time and resources into monitoring the ecosystem and pushing for better conservation regulations. Government intervention to re-set economic drivers is evident in the Grain for Green program explored in Chapter 8. This program was successful because it squarely addressed the economics of degradation – the Chinese government provided large compensation payments in order to induce change in farming practices and land use in a way that allowed farmers to secure greater productivity, thereby freeing them to seek further off-farm sources of income. Importantly, the outcome of these changes is restoration of ecosystem function. These examples demonstrate that use of an ecosystem under appropriate economic drivers can motivate restoration – that the benefits to be gained from such use can drive large-scale efforts to improve ecosystem function and biodiversity values. Understanding the social-economic incentives that shape people’s behaviour, and seeking to change the incentive structure so that they change their behaviour, remains an alien notion to many traditional conservationists, who often have a kneejerk reaction against the coupling of commercial gain with conservation. This may in part arise because conservation thinking is typically shaped by biologists, whose training often does not sensitise them to questions of economic

Con cl u si on s

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 319

319

14/11/12 9:14 AM

incentives, governance and livelihoods, even though these may end up dictating biodiversity outcomes. On this point, the Koh Sarai case study illustrates an engagement in resource management by both marine and social scientists working collaboratively to support local communities in natural resource management, offering a positive way forward through a holistic approach. There is a second important rationale for involving local people in resource management. As with protected area conservation, there is a need to avoid worsening social disadvantage. The problems concerning tube-wells in Bangladesh (Chapter 7) remind us that the risks of natural resource management interventions are not just biophysical, but social. As programs are implemented, pre-existing political inequities in ownership of natural resources and traditional control over decisionmaking processes may entrench the exclusion of marginalised social groups. When interventions don’t recognise and address this, it can mean well-intentioned programs merely reflect and perpetuate inequities. However, Chapter 7 stresses the importance of the time required to assess and manage these issues effectively. Interventions made under the strictures of project funding and timetables for deliverables are often rushed and lacking the time needed to build detailed understanding of community needs and power relations. Successful community engagement is slow and difficult, aiming for systemic change at the cultural and structural levels. If the changes are so difficult to achieve, is there a place for compromise in the quest for sustainable use of natural resources? The case studies in Section 2 suggest we need to accept that many used resources/ landscapes cannot be restored to pristine states or yield perfect outcomes in conservation terms. Use can drive restoration or conservation, and this can deliver genuine conservation wins, even while the outcome is ‘second-best’ conservation. For instance, in both Chapters 8 and 9, the landscapes resulting from on-farm forestry and the Grain for Green program are far from pristine – they will not contain all the biodiversity elements and ecosystem functions of unexploited landscapes. However,

320

C o n s e rv a t io n in a C ro w d e d W o r l d

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 320

14/11/12 9:14 AM

they are an enormous improvement on the degraded landscapes they replace. The case studies suggest there is an important need to be pragmatic in searching for better outcomes, rather than making the ‘perfect be the enemy of the good’.

Commercial use and conservation Our third section examined the question of whether commercial use of species and ecosystems could be compatible with and contribute to their conservation. Several case studies here have argued that in the right circumstances, commercial use could provide important incentives for conservation, reinforcing the messages about the importance of considering economic drivers from the previous section. However, commercial use is clearly a double-edged sword, as was seen in the case of using the pet trade to conserve endangered species, outlined in Chapter 12. In the case of access and benefit-sharing from biological resources in Thailand (Chapter 13), there is little evidence this form of use is having any real conservation impacts, and has sparked concerns about over-exploitation in some cases. The problems encountered at Thenmala in Kerala (Chapter 4) reinforce this. However, a further message is that making commercial use work for both conservation and people requires integration of knowledge across the social-economic-biological spectrum. For instance, for non-timber forest products in Kerala (Chapter 14), traditional tribal people are losing interest in traditional collection practices due in part to low returns, ineffective governance and administrative arrangements for marketing the produce. While traditionally these people had detailed knowledge of the forest and strong cultural links to it, these are fading rapidly in the face of threats from globalisation of supply chains. Meanwhile, making a large commercial harvest work for conservation, as in the kangaroo case (Chapter 11), requires understanding the social factors that

Con cl u si on s

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 321

321

14/11/12 9:14 AM

drive consumer choice. These in turn are governed by the commercial drivers that shape industry practice, the complex and variable regulatory environment that constrains harvest patterns, and the ecology and biology of the species and their habitat. This kind of interdisciplinary thinking is challenging in the assessment phase of system management, and even more challenging in practice. It raises a further question about whether the formal education system is adequately preparing resource managers with these interdisciplinary skills.

Summary Each of the chapters in this book conveys a biodiversity crisis – indicated by alarming rates of species extinction, degradation of landscapes and threats to the viability of human populations. They document examples of protected area management that widen the range of viable strategies to include human use as a means to achieve conservation. They indicate the importance of involving local people in decision making, and of applying holistic interdisciplinary approaches to resource management. The need to assess and harness appropriate economic drivers is strongly evident in the case studies, with the proposition that commercial use of wildlife (including endangered species as pets) or other ecosystem elements such as pharmaceuticals could be a form of use that is sustainable. From these diverse case studies and their contexts, we can extract other important general findings. One is that conservation is doomed to failure if it does not engage with the perspectives and priorities of communities who rely on biodiversity and live within ecosystems. This necessary engagement is slow and challenging. Another finding is that sustainable use is as much an opportunity as a threat, and seizing this opportunity requires ways of thinking and practice that are not adequately taught in the academy and are unfamiliar to most conservationists. Finally, we learn that conservation needs to be pragmatic and flexible and seize gains where it can, even though this may involve

322

C o n s e rv a t io n in a C ro w d e d W o r l d

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 322

14/11/12 9:14 AM

compromise with the ideal of an untouched pristine landscape or wilderness. These pragmatic approaches shape the reality of conservation in a crowded world. The examples indicate the wide potential benefits of sustainable use for protection, restoration and/or enhancement of whole systems, while sounding many warnings about the complexity and challenges involved. Realisation of this conservation potential has in some cases proved elusive, since entrenched approaches to both resource use and ecosystem protection mitigate against these initiatives, and will continue to do so until regulations change and new ‘communities of practice’ emerge.

Con cl u si on s

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 323

323

14/11/12 9:14 AM

Notes and references Introduction: Environmental conservation and sustainable use Notes 1

The key research meetings were held at University of New South Wales, Sydney in February 2009, and at Phuket, Thailand in July 2010. Contributors come from Thailand, India, Australia, Vietnam, Bhutan, Vietnam, China, Bangladesh, and Sri Lanka.

References

Bruner A, Gullison R, Rice R & da Fonseca G 2001, ‘Effectiveness of parks in protecting tropical biodiversity’, Science, vol. 291, no. 5501, pp. 125–128. Brunner R & Lynch A 2010, Adaptive governance and climate change. American Meteorological Society, USA. CBD 2004, Addis Ababa Principles and Guidance for the Sustainable Use of Biodiversity. Convention on Biological Diversity, Montreal, Dec. VII/12. Online at http:// www.cbd.int/sustainable/addis-principles.shtml, accessed 8 March 2012. CBD 2010, The Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011–2020 and the Aichi Biodiversity Targets. Convention on Biological Diversity, Montreal, Dec X/2. Online at , accessed 8 March 2012. Cenesta 2009, Indigenous and Community Conserved Areas Consortium: Worldwide ICCA Database. Cenesta, Tehran, Iran. Online at , accessed 23 March 2012. Cooney R 2007, ‘Sustainable use: concepts, ambiguities, challenges’. Paper prepared for IUCN Species Survival Commission’s Sustainable Use Specialist Group, July 2007. Online at , accessed 8 March 2012. Dowie M 2009, Conservation refugees: the hundred-year conflict between global conservation and native peoples. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. Hutton J & Leader-Williams N 2003, ‘Sustainable use and incentive-driven conservation: realigning human and conservation interests’, Oryx 37, pp. 215–226. Molnar A, Scherr S & Khare A 2004, Who conserves the world’s forests? Communitydriven strategies to protect forests and respect rights. Forest Trends Ecoagriculture Partners, Washington, D.C. Online at , accessed 8 March 2012. Porter-Bolland L, Ellis EA, Guariguata MR, Ruiz-Mallén I, Negrete-Yankelevich S & Reyes-García V 2011, ‘Community managed forests and forest protected areas: An assessment of their conservation effectiveness across the tropics’, Forest Ecology and Management 268, pp. 6–17. Online at , accessed 23 March 2012.

324

C o n s e rv a t io n in a C ro w d e d W o r l d

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 324

14/11/12 9:14 AM

Pretty J 2002, ‘People, livelihoods and collective action in biodiversity management’, in T O’Riordan & S Stoll-Kleeman (eds) Biodiversity, sustainability and human communities: protecting beyond the protected. Cambridge University Press, UK, pp. 61–86. van Oudenhoven F, Mijatovic D & Eyzaguirre P 2010, ‘Bridging managed and natural landscapes: The role of traditional (agri)culture in maintaining the diversity and resilience of social-ecological systems’, in Sustainable use of biological diversity in socio-ecological production landscapes. CBD Technical Series No. 52, Convention on Biological Diversity, Montreal, Canada. WDPA 2012, Statistics: growth in global number of protected areas (1911–2011). World Database on Protected Areas. Online at , accessed 8 March 2012. Webb G 2002, ‘Conservation and sustainable use of wildlife – an evolving concept’, Pacific Conservation Biology 8, pp. 12–26. West P & Brockington D 2006, ‘An anthropological perspective on some unintended consequences of protected areas’, Conservation Biology, vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 609–616.

1 Landscape-based conservation and sustainable resource use in the developing world: a case study from Sri Lanka Notes 1

2

3

4

5 6

‘Sustainable use’ of biodiversity is defined by the IUCN as: ‘a dynamic process toward which one strives in order to maintain biodiversity and enhance ecological and socio-economic services, recognising that the greater the equity and degree of participation in governance, the greater the likelihood of achieving these objectives for present and future generations’ (Cooney 2007, p. 15). The word chena refers to both the practice as well individual plots of land cultivated – that is, farmers who practise traditional chena cultivation grow crops within their chenas. Sri Lanka’s president and many of its top political leadership have traditionally come from urban areas in the Western Province. However, the current president is from the Southern Province. His brother and son were elected to Parliament from the Hambantota district. Human–elephant conflict incidents were defined as ‘any incident involving crop damage, house damage, and human threat or injury caused by a single elephant or group of them’ (Campos-Arceiz et al. 2009, p. 7), Some incidents included damage to both crops and houses, so the percentages do not add up to 100. Elephants are highly intelligent animals with good memories, so they know that crop raiding has its risks. The authors believe that the fact that elephants, which are generally active during the day, choose to raid crops at night, is evidence of this (Campos-Arceiz et al. 2009).

Note s a n d re fe re n ce s

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 325

325

14/11/12 9:14 AM

Together, these areas account for almost 70% of total human deaths and injuries from elephants. 8 A recent elephant drive cost over US$1.5 million (Rodrigo 2011). 9 Both the Forest Department and chena farmers who can afford them (or are provided with funds by development organisations) erect electric fences. 10 Many of these permanent fences would be taken down if the suggested approach were to be adopted. 11 In the wet season, during which chenas are cultivated, food and water for elephants is more plentiful both within PAs, and in land within MERs that is not under chena cultivation. 12 The Managed Elephant Ranges will consist of a mix of forested land and land under chena cultivation. 7

References

Adams WM, Aveling R, Brockington B, Dickson B, Elliott J et al. 2004, ‘Biodiversity conservation and the eradication of poverty’, Science, vol. 306, no. 5699, pp. 1146–1149. Agarwal A & Redford K 2009, ‘Conservation and displacement: an overview’, Conservation and Society, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 1–10. Bandara R & Tisdell C 2004, ‘The net benefit of saving the Asian elephant: a policy and contingent valuation study’, Ecological Economics, vol. 48, no. 1, pp. 93–107. Banyan 2011, ‘Protecting Indonesia’s forests’, Economist, 5 May 2011, London, UK. Barber CV, Miller KR & Boness M (eds) 2004, Securing protected areas in the face of global change: issues and strategies. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. Bengtsson J, Angelstam P, Elmquvist T, Emanuelsson U, Forbes C et al. 2003, ‘Reserves, resilience and dynamic landscapes’, Ambio, vol. 32, no. 6, pp. 389–396. Bhattacharjya S 2010, ‘Farmers helpless in the face of elephantine fury’, The Sunday Times, Colombo, Sri Lanka. Borrini-Feyerabend G, Kothari A et al. 2004, Indigenous and local communities and protected areas: towards equity and enhanced conservation. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. Bothma J, Suich H & Spencely A. 2009, ‘Extensive wildlife production on private land in South Africa’, in H Suich, B Child & A Spenceley (eds), Evolution and innovation in wildlife conservation: parks and game ranches to transfrontier conservation areas. Earthscan, London; Sterling, VA, pp. 163–184. Campos-Arceiz A, Takatsuki S, Ekanayaka SKK & Hasegawa T 2009, ‘The human– elephant conflict in southeastern Sri Lanka: type of damage, seasonal patterns, and sexual differences in the raiding behavior of elephants’, Gajah: Journal of the IUCN/SSC Asian Elephant Specialist Group, vol. 31, pp. 5–14.

326

C o n s e rv a t io n in a C ro w d e d W o r l d

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 326

14/11/12 9:14 AM

Castley G, Knight M & Gordon J 2009, ‘Making conservation work: innovative approaches to meeting biodiversity conservation and socio-economic objectives (an example from the Addo Elephant National Park, South Africa)’, in H Suich, B Child & A Spenceley (eds), Evolution and innovation in wildlife conservation: parks and game ranches to transfrontier conservation areas. Earthscan, London; Sterling, VA. Chazdon RL, Harvey CA et al. 2009, ‘Beyond reserves: a research agenda for conserving biodiversity in human-modified tropical landscapes’, Biotropica, vol. 41, no. 2, pp. 142–153. Cooney R 2007, Sustainable use: concepts, ambiguities, challenges. IUCN Species Survival Commission. Dalal-Clayton DB & Dent D 2001, Knowledge of the land: land resources information and its use in rural development. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK; New York. de Silva M & de Silva PK 2007, The Sri Lankan elephant: its evolution, ecology and conservation. Colombo, WHT Publications (private) Ltd. Department of Census and Statistics 2011, Statistical Abstract 2010. Government of Sri Lanka, Colombo. Didier KA, Glennon MJ, Novaro A, Sanderson EW, Strindberg S et al. 2009, ‘The landscape species approach: spatially-explicit conservation planning applied in the Adirondacks, USA, and San Guillermo-Laguna Brava, Argentina, landscapes’, Oryx, vol. 43, no. 4, pp. 476-487. Dowie M 2009, Conservation refugees: the hundred-year conflict between global conservation and native peoples. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. Dudley N, Baldock D, Nasi R & Stolton S 2005, ‘Measuring biodiversity and sustainable management in forests and agricultural landscapes’, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, vol. 360, no. 1454, pp. 457–470. Emerton L 2005, Values and rewards: counting and capturing ecosystem water services for sustainable development. IUCN Water, Nature and Economics Technical Paper No. 1. Emerton L & Kekulandala LDCB 2003, Assessment of the economic value of Muthurajawela Wetland. IUCN, Colombo, Sri Lanka. Fernando P, Kumar MA, Williams AC, Wikramanayake E, Aziz T & Singh SM 2008, Review of human–elephant conflict mitigation measures practiced in South Asia. World Wildlife Fund for Nature. Fernando P, Wikramanayake E, Weerakoon D, Jayasinghe LKA, Gunawardene M & Janaka HK 2005, ‘Perceptions and patterns of human–elephant conflict in old and new settlements in Sri Lanka: insights for mitigation and management’, Biodiversity and Conservation, vol. 14, no. 10, pp. 2465–2481. Fernando P, Wikramanayake ED, Janaka HK, Jayasinghe LKA, Gunawardena M et al. 2008, ‘Ranging behaviour of the Asian elephant in Sri Lanka’, Mammalian Biology 73, pp. 2–13. Fernando P, Wikramanayake ED, Weerakoon D, Janaka HK, Gunawardena M et al. 2006, ‘The future of Asian elephant conservation: setting sights beyond

Note s a n d re fe re n ce s

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 327

327

14/11/12 9:14 AM

protected area boundaries’, in JA McNeely, TM McCarthy, A Smith, L OlsvigWhittaker & ED Wikramanayake (eds) Conservation biology in Asia. Society for Conservation Biology Asia Section and Resources, Himalaya Foundation, Katmandu, Nepal, pp. 252–260. Fisher RJ 2008, Linking conservation and poverty reduction: landscapes, people and power. Earthscan, London; Sterling, VA. Geiser U 1995, ‘Indigenous resource management and external development interventions in the dry zone of Sri Lanka: from conflicts to strategies’, GeoJournal, vol. 35, no. 2, pp. 185–196. Government of India 2011, Guidelines for ecotourism in and around protected areas. Indian Ministry of Environment and Forests, New Delhi. Government of Sri Lanka 2006, National policy for the conservation and management of wild elephants in Sri Lanka. Government of Sri Lanka, Colombo. Groom MJ, Meffe GK & Carroll CR 2006, Principles of conservation biology, 3rd edn. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, MA. Gunaratne LHP & Premarathne PK 2006, The effectiveness of electric fencing in mitigating human-elephant conflict in Sri Lanka. Economy and Environment Program for Southeast Asia, Singapore. Gunderson LH & Holling CS 2002, Panarchy: understanding transformations in human and natural systems. Island Press, Washington, D.C. Harvey CA, Komar O, Chazdon RL et al. 2008, ‘Integrating agricultural landscapes with biodiversity conservation in the Mesoamerican hotspot’, Conservation Biology, vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 8–15. IUCN 2009, The 2009 Red List of threatened animals. Gland, Switzerland. IUCN Sri Lanka 2007, The 2007 Red List of threatened fauna and flora of Sri Lanka. Colombo. Jayasooriya AHM, Kitchener D & Biradar CM 2006, Portfolio of strategic conservation sites/protected area gap analayis in Sri Lanka. Ministry of Environment & Natural Resources, Colombo. Johnson SR, Boonzaaier W, Collinson R & Davies R 2009, ‘Changing institutions to respond to challenges: North West Parks, South Africa’, in H Suich, B Child & A Spenceley (eds), Evolution and innovation in wildlife conservation: parks and game ranches to transfrontier conservation areas. Earthscan, London; Sterling, VA. Maginnis S, Jackson W & Dudley N 2004, ‘Conservation landscapes: Whose landscapes? Whose trade-offs?’, in TO McShane & MP Wells (eds), Getting biodiversity projects to work: towards more effective conservation and development. Columbia University Press, New York. Margules CR & Pressey RL 2000, ‘Systematic conservation planning’, Nature, vol. 405, no. 6783, pp. 243–253. Marshall A 2009, ‘Protecting jungles: one way to combat global warming’, Time, 30 November 2009. Miththapala S 2010, ‘Wildlife Africa’s big 5, why not Sri Lanka’s big 4?’, The Sunday Times, Colombo.

328

C o n s e rv a t io n in a C ro w d e d W o r l d

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 328

14/11/12 9:14 AM

Mittermeier RA, Robles Gil P, Hoffman M, Pilgrim J, Brooks T et al 2004, Hotspots revisited: Earth’s biologically richest and most endangered terrestrial ecoregions. CEMEX, Mexico City. Morrison J, Loucks C, Long B & Wikramanayake E, 2009, ‘Landscape-scale spatial planning at WWF: a variety of approaches’, Oryx, vol. 43, no. 4, pp. 499–507. Nagendra H, Pareeth S & Ghate R 2006, ‘People within parks – forest villages, land-cover change and landscape fragmentation in the Tadoba Andhari Tiger Reserve, India’, Applied Geography 26, pp. 96–112. Perera BMAO 2009, ‘The human–elephant conflict: a review of current status and mitigation methods’, Gajah: Journal of the IUCN/SSC Asian Elephant Specialist Group 30, pp. 41–52. Phillips A & IUCN World Commission on Protected Areas 2002, Management guidelines for IUCN category V protected areas: protected landscapes/seascapes. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland. Rodrigo, M 2011, ‘Don’t stump the “stumpies” of Hambantota’, The Sunday Times, Sri Lanka, Colombo, 27 February 2011. Rodrigues ASL, Andelman SJ, Bakarr MI et al. 2004, ‘Effectiveness of the global protected area network in representing species diversity’, Nature, vol. 428, no. 6983, pp. 640–643. Sanderson EW, Redford KH, Vedder A, Coppolillo PB & Ward SE 2002, ‘A conceptual model for conservation planning based on landscape species requirements’, Landscape and Urban Planning, vol. 58, no. 1, pp. 41–56. Santiapillai C, Fernando P & Gunewardene M 2006, ‘A strategy for the conservation of the Asian elephant in Sri Lanka’, Gajah: Journal of the IUCN/SSC Asian Elephant Specialist Group 25, pp. 91–102. Santiapillai CS, Wijeyamohan GB, Athurupana R, Dissanayake N & Read B 2010, ‘An assessment of the human–elephant conflict in Sri Lanka’, Ceylon Journal of Science (Biological Science), vol. 39, no. 1, pp. 21–33. Sayer J, Campbell B, Petheram L et al. 2007, ‘Assessing environment and development outcomes in conservation landscapes’, Biodiversity and Conservation, vol. 16, no. 9, pp. 2677–2694. Schmitt CB, Burgess ND, Coad L et al. 2009, ‘Global analysis of the protection status of the world’s forests’, Biological Conservation, vol. 142, no. 10, pp. 2122–2130. Siegfried WR, Berm GA et al. 1998, ‘Regional assessment and conservation implications of landscape characteristics of African National Parks’, Biological Conservation 84, pp. 131–140. UN Humanitarian Information Center 2005, Sri Lanka provinces and districts. United Nations, Colombo. UN-REDD Programme 2009, ‘UN-REDD programme website’, , accessed 21 July 2011. Uragoda CG 1994, Wildlife conservation in Sri Lanka: a history of Wildlife and Nature Protection Society of Sri Lanka, 1894–1994. Wildlife and Nature Protection Society of Sri Lanka, Colombo.

Note s a n d re fe re n ce s

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 329

329

14/11/12 9:14 AM

Velázquez A, Cué-Bär EM, Larrazábal A et al. 2009, ‘Building participatory landscape-based conservation alternatives: a case study of Michoacán, Mexico’, Applied Geography, vol. 29, no. 4, pp. 513–526. Walpole MJ & Leader-Williams N 2002, ‘Tourism and flagship species in conservation’, Biodiversity and Conservation 11, pp. 543–547. Walsh B 2008, ‘Green banks: paying countries to keep their trees’, Time, 4 December 2008. Wattage P & Mardle S 2008, ‘Total economic value of wetland conservation in Sri Lanka identifying use and non-use values’, Wetlands Ecology Management 16, pp. 359–369. World Bank 2009, Nature-based tourism and the human–elephant conflict in Sri Lanka. The World Bank Group, Colombo, 48. —— 2009, Valuation of environmental services in Sri Lanka: a case study of agriculture and watershed benefits in the Southern Province. The World Bank Group, Colombo. Yatawara D 2010, ‘A move to solve the human elephant conflict’, Sunday Observer, Colombo, Sri Lanka, 10 February 2010. —— 2011, ‘Survey on elephants vital’, Sunday Observer, Colombo, Sri Lanka, 10 April 2011.

2 Community-based conservation and livelihood strategies for the protection of the snow leopard (Panthera uncia) and its habitat in Ladakh, India Notes 1

Snow Leopard Conservancy-India Trust, PO Box 6, Shangara House, Tukcha Main Road, Leh 194101, Ladakh (Jammu & Kashmir), India.

References

Bhatnagar YV, Wangchuk R & Jackson R 1999, ‘A survey of depredation and related wildlife–human conflicts in Hemis National Park, Ladakh, Jammu and Kashmir, India’. Unpublished Report, International Snow Leopard Trust. Campese J, Sunderland T, Greiber T & Oviedo G (eds) 2009, Rights-based approaches: exploring issues and opportunities for conservation. Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR) & IUCN, Bogor, Indonesia. Online at . Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) Secretariat 2004, COP 07 Dec, Decision VII/12 Sustainable Use (Article 10). Online at . Fox JL & Nurbu C 1990, ‘Hemis, a national park for snow leopards in India’s trans-Himalaya’, International Pedigree Book of Snow Leopards, vol. 6, pp. 71–84. Fox JL, Sinha SP, Chundawat RS, Das PK 1991, ‘Status of the snow leopard Panthera uncia in northwest India’, Biological Conservation, vol. 55, pp. 283–298.

330

C o n s e rv a t io n in a C ro w d e d W o r l d

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 330

14/11/12 9:14 AM

Future of Conservation in India Network (FoCN) 2011, ‘Comments on draft protocol/guidelines for voluntary village relocation in notified core/critical tiger habitats of tiger reserves’ (contributors), Ashoka Trust for Research in Ecology & the Environment, Foundation for Ecological Security, Kalpavriksh & Vasundhara, June. Online at . Gangopadhyay PB 2005, Letter to Additional Director General of Forests (wildlife), Ministry of Environment & Forests (copy to Tiger Task Force) from Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (Wildlife), Madhya Pradesh, 19 June 2005. IUCN 2011, IUCN Red List of threatened species, version 2011.1. Online at , accessed 28 June 2011; (assessors) Jackson R, Mallon D, McCarthy T, Chundawat RA & Habib B 2008, Panthera uncia. IUCN, UNEP & WWF 1980, World Conservation Strategy: Living Resource Conservation for Sustainable Development. Gland, Switzerland and UNEP, Nairobi, IUCN – The World Conservation Union and the United Nations Environment Programme. Jackson R 1996, ‘Home range, movements and habitat use of snow leopard (Uncia uncia) in Nepal’. PhD Thesis, University of London. Online at . Jackson R, Mishra C, McCarthy TM & Ale SB, ‘Snow leopards, conflict and conservation’, in DW Macdonald & A Loveridge A (eds) Biology and conservation of wild felids. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK, in press. Jackson R, Roe JD, Wangchuk R & Hunter DO 2005, ‘Camera-trapping of snow leopards’, Cat News, vol. 42, spring, pp. 19–21 Jackson R & Wangchuk R 2001, ‘Linking snow leopard conservation and people– wildlife conflict resolution: grassroots measures to protect the endangered snow leopard from herder retribution’, Endangered Species Update, vol. 18, no. 4, pp. 138–141. —— 2004, ‘A community-based approach to mitigating livestock depredation by snow leopards’, Human Dimensions of Wildlife, vol. 9, pp. 307–315. Jackson R, Wangchuk R & Hillard D 2002, ‘Grassroots measures to protect the endangered snow leopard from herder retribution: lessons learned from predator proofing corrals in Ladakh’, in Contributed papers to the Snow Leopard Survival Strategy Summit. International Snow Leopard Trust, May 2002, pp. 104–117, Seattle, Washington, USA. Online at . Kalpavriksh 2003, ‘Comments on the Wild Life (Protection) Amendment Act 2002’, January. Online at . Kalpavriksh 2011, ‘Legislation Brief – Recognition of rights and relocation in relation to critical tiger habitats (CTHs)’. Online at . Karanth KU 1995, ‘Estimating tiger populations from camera-trap data using capture–recapture models’, Biological Conservation, vol. 71, pp. 333–338. Karanth KU & Karanth KK 2007, ‘Free to move: conservation and voluntary resettlement in the western ghats of Karnataka, India’, in KH Redford & E Fearn

Note s a n d re fe re n ce s

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 331

331

14/11/12 9:14 AM

(eds), Protected areas & human displacement: a conservation perspective. Wildlife Conservation Society Working Paper 29, pp. 48–59. Kothari, A 2008, ‘Living in wilderness’, Tehelka Magazine, vol. 5, no. 39. Online at . —— 2009, ‘Amending India’s wildlife legislation’, Letter to Shri Jairam Ramesh, Minister of State for Environment and Forests, New Delhi, June. Online at . Kothari A, Pathak N, Bose A 2009, ‘Forests, rights and conservation – The Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act 2006, India’, Kalpavriksh, Pune/Delhi, July. Online at . McCarthy TM & Chapron G 2003, Snow leopard survival strategy. ISLT & SLN, Seattle, USA. Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) 2005, The Report of the Tiger Task Force – Joining the Dots. Project Tiger, Tiger Task Force, Government of India, New Delhi. Online at . Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) 2009, Draft Report of the Committee for looking into the Management and Funding of Community Conserved Areas in India. Government of India, New Delhi. Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) & Ministry of Tribal Affairs (MoTA) 2010, Manthan Report National Committee on Forest Rights Act, Government of India, December. Online at . Mishra C 1997, ‘Livestock depredation by large carnivores in the Indian transHimalaya: conflict perceptions and conservation prospects’, Environmental Conservation, vol. 24, no. 4, pp. 338–343. National Geographic 2009. Online at . Pathak, N 2006, ‘Amendments to the Wildlife Protection Act’, Letter to Shri A Raja, Minister of State for Environment and Forests, New Delhi, March. Online at . Pathak N, Balasinorwala T, Kothari A & Bushley BR 2006, ‘People in conservation: community conserved areas in India’, Kalpavriksh, (funded by) Bombay Natural History Society. Online at . Schaller GB 2011, ‘Politics is killing the big cats’, National Geographic Magazine, December 2011. Online at . Shackleton DM 2001, ‘A review of community-based trophy hunting programmes in Pakistan’, IUCN/SSC Caprinae Specialist Group, The Mountain Areas Conservancy Project. Online at . Snow Leopard Conservancy-India Trust (SLC-IT) 2007; 2010 Jun; 2010 Sep; 2011 Mar; 2011 Sep; Shan, newsletter. Online at . Snow Leopard Conservancy (SLC-USA) Website 2011. Online at . Spearing A 2002, ‘The snow leopard in Zanskar, Jammu & Kashmir, NW India’, in Contributed papers to the Snow Leopard Survival Strategy Summit. International Snow Leopard Trust 2002, May, pp. 175–187, Seattle, Washington, USA. Online at . Wangchuk R & Jackson R 2004, ‘A community-based approach to mitigating livestock-wildlife conflict in Ladakh, India’, in C Richard & K Hoffman (eds), Strategic innovations for improving pastoral livelihoods in the Hindu KushHimalayan highlands, volume 2: Technical papers, proceedings of an international workshop in Lhasa, Tibet Autonomous Region, People’s Republic of China, 12–19 May 2002, pp. 95–106, International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development (ICIMOD), Kathmandu, Nepal. Wani M & Kothari A 2007, ‘Conservation and people’s livelihood rights in India’, Final report of a research project conducted under the UNESCO Small Grants Programme. Kalpavriksh, India (with inputs from Vasundhara and Foundation for Ecological Security). WALPAA Wild Life (Amendment) Act 2002, Indian Ministry of Environment and Forests, New Delhi.

3 Evaluation of integrated conservation and development programs (ICDPs) in the protected areas of Bhutan Notes

Karma Tshering recently completed his PhD from the University of Sydney and is currently working for the government of Bhutan in developing ecotourism programs in the extensive network of protected areas system of the country; Johannes Bauer has worked for over 30 years in research, management and policy development for natural resources utilisation and protection as they apply to sustainable tourism, biology, wildlife management and forestry. He has supervised several international PhD students, including co-contributor Karma Tshering; Terry Delacy holds extensive experience in sustainable tourism development. He is currently a professor at the Victoria University, Melbourne, Australia. 2 Including the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), the Convention on Framework for Climate Change (CFCC), the Convention of International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), and the UN Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD). 1

References

Adams WM 2003, ‘Nature and the colonial mind’, in WM Adams & M Mulligan (eds), Decolonizing nature: strategies for conservation in a post-colonial era. Earthscan, London, pp. 16–50.

Note s a n d re fe re n ce s

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 333

333

14/11/12 9:14 AM

—— 2004, Against extinction: the story of conservation. Earthscan, London. Berkes F 2003, ‘Rethinking community-based conservation’, Conservation Biology 18, pp. 621–630. Grove RH 1995, Green imperialism: colonial expansion, tropical island Edens and the origins of environmentalism, 1600–1800. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. Hughes R & Flintan F 2001, ‘Integrating consevation and development experience: a review and bibliography of the ICDP literature’, Biodiversity and Livelihood, Issue No. 3, International Institute for Environment and Development, London. Hutton J, Adams WM & Murombedzi JC 2005, ‘Back to the barriers? Changing narratives in biodiversity conservation’, Forum for Development Studies 2, pp. 341–370. MacKenzie JM 1988, The empire of nature: hunting, conservation and British imperialism. Manchester University Press, Manchester. Nature Conservation Division (NCD) 2003, Striking the balance: guidelines for identifying ICDPs. Department of Forests, Ministry of Agriculture, Bhutan. —— 2008, Protected Areas in Bhutan, Ministry of Agriculture, Bhutan. Nepal SK & Weber KE 1993, Struggle for existence: park–people conflict in the Royal Chitwan National Park, Nepal. Division of Human Settlements Development, Asian Institute of Technology, Bangkok. NSB (National Statistics Bureau) 2008, Report, National Statistics Bureau, Nepal. Samal P 2009, ‘Tackling conservation and development in Merak’, Bhutan Times, 5 July 2009. Seeland, K 2000, ‘National park policy and wildlife problems in Nepal and Bhutan’, Population and Environment: A Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies 22, pp. 43–62. Spiteri A & Nepal SK 2005, ‘Incentive-based conservation programs in developing countries: a review of some key issues and suggestions for improvement’, Environmental Management 37, pp. 1–14. Stevens S (ed.) 1997, Conservation through cultural survival: indigenous peoples and protected areas. Island Press, Washington, D.C.

4 Prospects for ecotourism in Kerala: a review of the Thenmala project References

Babu S, Mishra S & Parida BB (eds) 2008, Tourism development revised: concepts, issues and paradigms. Response Books, New Delhi. Bhatt, S & Liakhat S 2008, Ecotourism development in India: communities, capital and conservation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. Blamey R 1997, ‘Ecotourism: the search for an operational definition’, Journal of Sustainable Tourism, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 109–130.

334

C o n s e rv a t io n in a C ro w d e d W o r l d

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 334

14/11/12 9:14 AM

Boo E 1990, Ecotourism: the potentials and the pitfalls, Vol. 1. World Wildlife Fund, Washington, D.C. Butler RW 1991, ‘Tourism, environment, and sustainable development’, Environmental Conservation, vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 201–209. Cater E & Lowman G (eds) 1994, Ecotourism: a sustainable option? John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, UK. Ceballos-Lascuráin H 1998, ‘Introduction’, in K Lindberg, M Epler-Wood & D Engeldrum (eds), Ecotourism – a guide for planners and managers, vol. 2. The Ecotourism Society, North Bennington, VT, pp. 7–10. —— 1996, Tourism, ecotourism and protected areas. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland. Chakravarty I 2003, ‘Marine ecotourism and regional development: a case study of the proposed marine park at Malvan, Maharashtra, India’, in B Garrod & JC Wilson (eds), Marine ecotourism: issues and experiences. Channel View Publications, Bristol, UK. Coll J, Kelso L, Faulkner B, Tideswell C & Atwell A 1995, Considerations on the development of an ecotourism strategy for Thailand: approaches and issues. Research Report compiled by Griffith University and Central Queensland University, Australia in conjunction with the Asia and Pacific Studies Centre for the Thailand-Australia Foundation. Correya T & Jacob R 2011, ‘Practice of ecotourism in Kerala’s tourism destinations: some emerging concerns’, International Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Systems, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 112–134. Damayanti EK & Masuda M 2008, ‘Implementation process of India eco-development project and the sustainability: lessons from Periyar Tiger Reserve in Kerala State, India’, Tropics, vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 147–158. Diamantis D 1999, ‘The concept of ecotourism: evolution and trends’, Current Issues in Tourism 2, pp. 93–122. Fennel D 1998, Ecotourism: an introduction. Routledge, London. Fennel D & Dowling RK (eds) 2003, Ecotourism policy and planning. CABI Publishing, Oxfordon, UK. Government of India 2002, National Tourism Policy 2002. Department of Tourism, Ministry of Tourism and Culture. Online at , accessed 20 May 2010. Government of Kerala 1999, Ecotourism in Kerala. Department of Public Relations, Thiruvananthapuram. —— 2007, Draft State Forest Policy. Forests & Wildlife Department, Thiruvananthapuram. —— 2008, Tourist Statistics 2008. Department of Tourism, Government of Kerala, India. Online at , accessed 12 April 2010. —— 2010, Economic Review. Kerala State Planning Board. Online at , accessed 14 November 2010. Hill J & Gale T 2009, Ecotourism and environmental sustainability: principles and

Note s a n d re fe re n ce s

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 335

335

14/11/12 9:14 AM

practice. MPG Books, Cornwall. IUCN 1994, Guidelines for protected areas management categories. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland. Online at , accessed 17 September 2010. Jafari J & Ritchie JRB 1981, ‘Towards a framework for tourism education: problems and prospects’, Annals of Tourism Research, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 13–34. Khanna, M Krishen (2002), ‘Ecotourism in India’, in Tor Hundloe (ed.), Linking green productivity to ecotourism: experiences in the Asia-Pacific region. Asia Productivity Organisation, Tokyo. Lynch P & Brown R 1999, ‘Utility of large-scale leisure research agendas’, Managing Leisure, vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 63–77. Maharana I, Rai SC & Sharma E 2000, ‘Valuing ecotourism in a sacred lake of the Sikkim Himalaya, India’, Environmental Conservation, vol. 27, issue 3, pp. 269–277. Mowforth M & Munt I 1998, Tourism and sustainability: new tourism in the third world. Routledge, London. Roy KC & Tisdell CA 1998, Tourism in India and India’s economic development. Nova Science Publishers, Commack, NY. The Ecotourism Society (TES) 1991, Ecotourism guidelines for nature-based tour operators. The Ecotourism Society, North Bennington, VT. UNDESA 2002, Actions in assisting developing countries to implement Agenda 21 Undertaken by the World Tourism Organization since 1992 (Commission on Sustainable Development acting as the preparatory committee for the World Summit on Sustainable Development Second Preparatory Session 28 January – 8 February 2002, Background Paper No. 3), United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, United Nations, New York. Valentine PS 1992, ‘Review: nature-based tourism’, in B Weiler & C Hall (eds), Special interest tourism. Belhaven Press, London, pp. 105–128. Weaver D 2001, Ecotourism. John Wiley & Sons, Brisbane. Weiler B 2003, ‘Tourism research and theories: a review’, in A Lockhood & S Medlik (eds), Tourism and hospitality industry in the 21st century. ButterworthHeinemann, London, pp. 82–93. WCED (World Commission on Environment and Development) 1987, Our common future. Oxford University Press, New York.

5 Protected areas and conservation landscapes: the case of Ba Be National Park, Vietnam Notes

Karst landscape refers to a distinctive topography that results from carbon dioxide in rainwater dissolving the carbonate bedrock (Canadian Cave and Karst Information Server 1995). 2 See Nurick (2010) for the research report. 1

336

C o n s e rv a t io n in a C ro w d e d W o r l d

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 336

14/11/12 9:14 AM

References

ASEAN 2003, ‘ASEAN Declaration on Heritage Parks’. Online at , accessed 7 July 2011. Ba Be District Statistics Office 2010, Demographic Census of Ba Be District. Bac Kan Town, Bac Kan Province, Vietnam. Ba Be National Park and Birdlife International 2010, Nomination of Ba Be National Park, Bac Kan Province, Vietnam as an International RAMSAR site. Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment, Hanoi. Bac Kan People’s Committee 2006, Decision No. 1925/2006/QD-UBND on ‘Regulation for Management, Protection and Development of the Natural Heritage of Ba Be National Park’. Bac Kan Town, Bac Kan Province, Vietnam. Bac Kan People’s Committee and Ba Be National Park 2001, Operational plan for Ba Be National Park, Bac Kan Province (period 2001–2005). Bac Kan Town, Bac Kan Province, Vietnam. Bao TQ, Dzung VV, Edwards P & Margraf J 2004, Creating Protected Areas for Resource Conservation using landscape ecology (PARC) Project Number VIE/95/G31, Report of the Final Evaluation Mission (final draft), UNDP. Canadian Cave and Karst Information Server 1995, , accessed 10 August 2010. Cernea MM & Schmidt-Soltau K 2006, ‘Poverty risks and national parks: policy issues in conservation and resettlement’, World Development 34, pp. 1808–1830. ECG (Evaluation Co-operation Group) 2010, Ensuring biodiversity in a sustainable future: lessons from evaluations. Briefing note, October 13. Online at . Ellis F 2000, Rural livelihoods and diversity in developing countries. OUP, Oxford. Government of SRV and GEF 1994, Biodiversity action plan for Vietnam. Government of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam and Global Environment Facility Project VIE/91/G31, Hanoi. Government of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam 2006, Article 12, Decision No. 186/2006/QD-TTg of 14 August 2006, Promulgating the Regulation on Forest Management. Grieser JA 2003, A conservation strategy for the Ba Be/Na Hang Conservation Complex. Government of Viet Nam (FPD) UNOPS/UNDP/Scott Wilson AsiaPacific Ltd, Hanoi. Guignier A 2011, Conserving biodiversity and sustaining livelihoods in the Ba Be and Na Hang Complex – a legal perspective. Milestone Report 9.2Live Diverse: Sustainable Livelihoods in developing Countries, Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007–2013) European Union. Hill M 2000, ‘Bird fauna of two protected forests in northern Vietnam’, Forktail 16, pp. 5–14. Le Trong Trai, Eames JC, Nguyen Duc Tu, Furey NM, Kouznetsov AN et al. 2004, Biodiversity report on the Ba Be/Na Hang Conservation Complex. Creating Protected Areas for Resource Conservation using Landscape Ecology (PARC)

Note s a n d re fe re n ce s

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 337

337

14/11/12 9:14 AM

Project VIE/95/G31&031, Government of Vietnam (FPD)/UNOPS/UNDP/Scott Wilson Asia-Pacific Ltd, Hanoi. Mai DY, Tran MT & Rguyen VH 1991, Economical-scientific-technical analysis for planning Ba Be Lake as natural reserve for conservation of the gene pool of living aquatic resources. National Symposium on Sciences and Technics, Hanoi. Summary available at , accessed 5 July 2010. Nam Mau Commune 2010. Online at , accessed 6 July 2011. Nurick R 2010, When the toad speaks it’s going to rain: livelihoods and climate change in lakeside communities of Ba Be National Park, Vietnam. Online at . Pilgrim JD, Walsh DF, Tran Thanh Tu, Nguyen Duc Tu, Eames JC & Le Manh Hung 2009, ‘The endangered white-eared night heron Gorsachius magnificus in Vietnam: status, distribution, ecology and threats’, Forktail 25, pp. 143–147. Prime Minister of Vietnam 1993, ‘On approving economic and technical foundation of the establishment of Ba Be National Park (Phase 1)’. Decision No. 83-TTG. 11.11.1992. Official Gazette, Hanoi, Vietnam. Ramsar Secretariat 2011, Viet Nam designates Ba Be National Park as its 3rd Wetland of International Importance. Online at , accessed 22 June 2011. Scoones I 1998, Sustainable rural livelihoods: a framework for analysis. IDS Working Paper 72, Institute of Development Studies, Brighton. Stewart Carloni A & Crowley E 2005, Rapid guide for missions: analysing local institutions and livelihoods. Food and Agriculture Organization, Rome. Thai Ngoc Tri 2009, Seasonal Fish Census of Ba Be Lake. People Resources and Conservation Foundation, Hanoi. Thiennhien.net 2011, . UNESCO 2005, The nomination of property for inscription on the World Heritage List: Ba Be National Park, Bac Kan Province, Vietnam. Hanoi. UNDP 2009, Creating Protected Areas for Resource Conservation (PARC) in Vietnam using a landscape ecology approach. Online at , accessed 24 May 2010. Vietnam Conservation Fund 2005, Strengthening Capacity on Management, Biodiversity Monitoring and Conservation in Ba Be National Park – 2005–2007. Hanoi. Vietnam National Administration of Tourism 2010. Online at , accessed 5 July 2011. Vietnam News 2011. Online at , accessed 16 June 2011. Vuong Xuan Tinh 2001, ‘Changing land policies and its impacts on land tenure of ethnic minorities in Vietnam’, in Enabling policy frameworks for successful

338

C o n s e rv a t io n in a C ro w d e d W o r l d

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 338

14/11/12 9:14 AM

community based resource management initiatives: 8th Workshop on Community Management of Forestlands, February 5 – March 2, 2001. Honolulu, Hawaii: East-West Center; Bangkok, Thailand: Regional Community Forestry Training Center. Wikramanayake ED, Dinerstein E, Hedao P & Olsen D 1997, A conservation assessment of terrestrial ecoregions of the Indo-Pacific region. WWF-US Conservation Science Program, Washington, D.C. Zingerli C 2001, Institutional arrangements for upland fields: a locality-specific perspective on forest land management in Northern Vietnam. Paper for the SANREM conference on ‘Sustaining upland development: tools, issues and institutions for local natural resource management’, Makati City, The Philippines, 28–30 May. —— 2005, ‘Colliding understandings of biodiversity conservation in Vietnam: global claims, national interests, and local struggles’, Society and Natural Resources, 18, pp. 733–747. Zingerli C, Castella J-C, Pham Hung Manh & Pham Van Cu 2002, ‘Contesting policies: rural development versus biodiversity conservation in the Ba Be National Park Area’, in J-C Castella & Dang Dinh Quang (eds), Doi moi in the mountains: land use changes and farming systems differentiations in Bac Kan province. Agricultural Publishing House, Hanoi.

6 Indigenous land use and conservation in the An _angu lands of central Australia Notes

Fenner School of Environment and Society, Australian National University, Canberra, ACT 2600 and Australian Wildlife Services, Canberra ACT 2600; corresponding author: [email protected] 2 Pitjantjatjara words spelt with the aid of an underlining are known as retroflex words and are pronounced by curling the tongue back slightly in the mouth (Goddard 1996). 1

References

ANZECC (Australian and New Zealand Environment Conservation Council) 2000, Australian and New Zealand guidelines for fresh and marine water quality. Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council & Agriculture and Resource Management Council of Australia and New Zealand, Canberra. Australian Government 2009, Closing the gap on Indigenous disadvantage: the challenge for Australia. Australian Government, Canberra. Berndt RM & Berndt CH 1999, The world of the first Australians. Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies, Canberra. Blainey G 1982, Triumph of the nomads. Macmillan, Sydney. Burbidge A & McKenzie N 1989, ‘Patterns in the modern decline of Western

Note s a n d re fe re n ce s

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 339

339

14/11/12 9:14 AM

Australia’s vertebrate fauna: causes and conservation implications’, Journal of Biogeography 29, pp. 465–473. Burgess C, Johnston F, Berry H, McDonnell J, Yibarbuk D et al. 2009, ‘Healthy country, healthy people: the relationship between Indigenous health status and “caring for country”’, Medical Journal of Australia, vol. 190, no. 10, pp. 567–572. Caughley G, Sinclair R & Scott-Kemmis D 1976, ‘Experiments in aerial survey’,Journal of Wildlife Management 40, pp. 290–300. Collins J, Klomp N & Birckhead J 1996, ‘Aboriginal use of wildlife: past, present and future’, in M Bomford and J Caughley (eds), Sustainable use of wildlife by Aboriginal people and Torres Strait Islanders. Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra. Cooney R & Edwards M 2009, Indigenous wildlife enterprise development: regulation and policy context and challenges. North Australian Indigenous Land and Sea Management Alliance, Darwin. Online at , accessed 15 September 2011. Davies J, Higginbottom K, Noack D, Ross H & Young E 1999, Sustaining Eden: Indigenous community wildlife management in Australia. International Institute for Environment and Development, London. Director of National Parks 2010, Uluru-Kata Tjuta National Park Tourism Directions: Stage 1 September 2010. Australian Government, Canberra. DNREAS (Department of Natural Resources, Environment, the Arts and Sport) 2007, Threatened Species List. Online at , accessed 17 August 2009. Gammage B 2011, The biggest estate on Earth: how Aborigines made Australia. Allen & Unwin, Sydney. Gilligan B 2006, The Indigenous Protected Areas Programme 2006 Evaluation. Department of the Environment and Heritage, Canberra. Goddard C 1996, Pitjantjatjara/Yankunytjatjara to English Dictionary, 2nd edn. Institute for Aboriginal Development, Alice Springs. Grey G 1841, Journals of two expeditions of discovery in north-west and western Australia. T & W Boone, London. Hunt J, Altman JC & May K 2009, Social benefits of Aboriginal engagement in natural resource management. Working Paper No. 34. Centre for Aboriginal Economic Policy Research, Canberra. IUCN 1994, Guidelines for Protected Areas Management Categories. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. Johnson C 2006, Australia’s mammal extinctions: a 50^000 year history. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. Macklin J 2008, Budget – Closing the gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians. Attorney General’s Department, Canberra. Morton SR, Stafford Smith DM, Dickman CR, Dunkerley DL, Friedel MH et al. 2011, ‘A fresh framework for the ecology of arid Australia’, Journal of Arid Environments 75, pp. 313–329.

340

C o n s e rv a t io n in a C ro w d e d W o r l d

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 340

14/11/12 9:14 AM

Mulvaney DJ & Kamminga J 1999, Prehistory of Australia. Allen & Unwin, Sydney. Newsome AE 1980, ‘The ecomythology of the red kangaroo in Central Australia’, Mankind, vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 327–333. Ninti One Ltd 2011, Australian Feral Camel Management Project. Online at . Rose D 1984, ‘Consciousness and responsibility in an Australian Aboriginal religion’, Nelen Yubu 23. Rose F 1965, The wind of change in Central Australia. Akademie-Verlag, Berlin. SEWPAC (formerly Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage & the Arts) 2011, National Reserve System. Online at , accessed 25 July 2011. —— 2008, Working on Country. Online at , accessed 19 November 2008. —— 2010, Indigenous Protected Areas. Online at , accessed 11 November 2010. Southgate R & Moseby K 2008, Track-based monitoring for the deserts and rangelands of Australia. A report for the Threatened Species Network at WWF Australia. Envisage Environmental Services, South Australia. Tongway DJ & Hindley NL 2004, Landscape function analysis: procedures for monitoring and assessing landscapes. CSIRO Sustainable Ecosytems: Canberra. Tourism Australia 2008, Destination Visitor Survey. Strategic regional research – Northern Territory Indigenous cultural experiences: summary of results. Tourism Australia, Canberra. Wilson G, Edwards M & Smits J 2010, ‘Support for Indigenous wildlife management in Australia to enable sustainable use’, Wildlife Research 37, pp. 255–263. Wilson G, Pickering M & Kay G 2005, Angas Downs Indigenous Protected Area Plan of Management. Australian Wildlife Services, Canberra. Wilson G & Woodrow M 2009, ‘Kuka kanyini, Australian Indigenous adaptive management’, in C Allan & G Stankey (eds), Adaptive environmental management: a practitioner’s guide. Springer, Dordrecht.

7 The uncertainties and inequalities of groundwater use in Bangladesh Notes

Steel or PVC tubes drilled down to a deep aquifer below the arsenic-contaminated aquifers, fitted with a filter at one end, and a pump at the other. 2 ‘Lowest’ level government institution covering 5–15 villages. 3 Field notes 18 January 2005 in Rammelt (2009). 4 M Begum, pers. comm. 4 September 2008, in Rammelt (2009). 1

References

Aggarwal PK, Basu AR, Poreda RJ, Kulkarni KM & Froehlich K 2002, Isotope hydrol-

Note s a n d re fe re n ce s

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 341

341

14/11/12 9:14 AM

ogy of groundwater in Bangladesh: implications for characterisation and mitigation of arsenic in groundwater. International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna. Ahmed KM 2005, ‘Management of the groundwater arsenic disaster in Bangladesh’, in J Bundschuh, P Bhattacharya & D Chandrasekharam (eds), Natural arsenic in groundwater: occurrence, remediation and management. Balkema, London. Ahmed MF, Ahuja S, Alauddin M, Hug SJ, Lloyd JR, Pfaff A et al. 2006, ‘Epidemiology: ensuring safe drinking water in Bangladesh’, Science, vol. 314, no. 5806, pp. 1687–1688. Amini M, Abbaspour KC, Berg M, Winkel L. Hug SJ, Hoehn E et al. 2008, ‘Statistical modelling of global geogenic arsenic contamination in groundwater’, Environmental Science and Technology, vol. 42, no. 10, pp. 3669–3675. Atkins P, Hassan M & Dunn C 2007, ‘Poisons, pragmatic governance and deliberative democracy: the arsenic crisis in Bangladesh’, Geoforum, vol. 38, no. 1, pp. 155–170. Black M 1990, From handpumps to health: the evolution of water and sanitation programmes in Bangladesh, India and Nigeria. United Nations Children’s Fund, New York. Bruining J, Schotting RJ, Rammelt CF, Boes J & Heijman SGJ 2009, Impacts of arsenic contamination and climate change on water supply systems in Bangladesh. Preliminary Proposal to NWO STW Complexity Programme. Delft University of Technology, Delft. Burgess WG, Hoque MA, Michael HA, Voss CI, Breit GN & Ahmed KM 2010, ‘Vulnerability of deep groundwater in the Bengal Aquifer System to contamination by arsenic’, Nature Geosciences, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 83–87. Burgess WG, Burren M, Perrin J & Ahmed KM 2002, ‘Constraints on sustainable development of arsenic-bearing aquifers in southern Bangladesh. Part 1: A conceptual model of arsenic in the aquifer’, in KM Hiscock, MO Rivett & RM Dovson (eds), Sustainable groundwater development. Geological Society Publishing House, Bath, UK, pp. 145–163. Caldwell BK, Caldwell JC, Mitra SN & Smith W (2003) ‘Tubewells and arsenic in Bangladesh: challenging a public health success story’, International Journal of Population Geography, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 23–38. CBD 2004, Addis Ababa Principles and Guidelines for the Sustainable Use of Biodiversity. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, Montreal. Central Intelligence Agency 2010, 3 August, ‘Bangladesh’, World Factbook. Online at , accessed 4 July 2008. Crow B & Sultana F 2002, ‘Gender, class, and access to water: three cases in a poor and crowded delta’, Society and Natural Resources 15, pp. 709–724. Faisal IM 2002, ‘Managing common waters in the Ganges-Brahmaputra-Meghna region’, SAIS Review, vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 309–327. Freire P 1972, Pedagogy of the oppressed. Penguin Education, Harmondsworth. Hamid MA 1993, ‘Improving the access of the rural poor to groundwater irrigation in Bangladesh’, in F Kahnert & G Levine (eds), Groundwater irrigation and

342

C o n s e rv a t io n in a C ro w d e d W o r l d

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 342

14/11/12 9:14 AM

the rural poor: options for development in the Gangetic Basin: a World Bank symposium. World Bank, Washington, D.C. Hartmann B & Boyce JK 1983, A quiet violence: view from a Bangladesh village. University Press Ltd, Dhaka. Höfer T & Messerli B 2006, Floods in Bangladesh: history, dynamics and rethinking the role of the Himalayas. United Nations University Press, Tokyo. Howes M & Chambers R 1979, ‘Indigenous technical knowledge: analysis, implications and issues’, The IDS Bulletin, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 5–11. Huq I, Joardar JC, Parvin S, Correll R & Naidu R 2006, ‘Arsenic contamination in food-chain: transfer of arsenic into food materials through groundwater irrigation’, Journal of Health, Population and Nutrition, vol. 24, no. 3, pp. 305–316. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Working Group II 2007, ‘Climate change 2007: impacts, adaptation and vulnerability’, in ML Parry, OF Canziani, JP Palutikof, PJ van der Linden & CE Hanson (eds), Contribution of Working Group II to the fourth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. International Commission on Irrigation and Drainage 2008, Country Profile: Bangladesh. Online at , accessed 16 July 2008. Khan MAH 1993, Environmental aspects of surface water development projects, environment and development in Bangladesh. University Press Ltd, Dhaka. Krueger L 2009, ‘Protected areas and human displacement: improving the interface between policy and practice’, Conservation and Society, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 21–25. Mandal S 2002, ‘Rural development policy in Bangladesh’, in KA Toufique & C Turton (eds), Hands not land: how livelihoods are changing in rural Bangladesh. Bangladesh Institute of Development Studies & Department for International Development, Dhaka, pp. 71–77. Miah F 1998, In quest of safe water for rural Bangladesh. International Workshop on Arsenic Problem and Water Resource Management in Bangladesh, 14–15 December 1998. Dhaka Community Hospital, Dhaka. News From Bangladesh 2002, ‘Arsenic project dumped?’, Daily News Monitoring Service, 28 June 2001, Dhaka. Pearce F 2006, ‘Arsenic’s fatal legacy grows worldwide’, New Scientist. Online at , accessed 31 March 2008. Pitman GTK 1993, ‘National water planning in Bangladesh 1985–2005: the role of groundwater in irrigation development’, in F Kahnert & G Levine (eds), Groundwater irrigation and the rural poor: options for development in the Ganges basin. International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, Washington, D.C. Radloff KA, Zheng Y, Michael HA, Stute M, Bostick BC et al. 2011, ‘Arsenic migration to deep groundwater in Bangladesh influenced by adsorption and water demand’, Nature Geoscience 4, pp. 793–798.

Note s a n d re fe re n ce s

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 343

343

14/11/12 9:14 AM

Rahman AA, Alam M, Alam SS, Uzzaman MR, Rashid M & Rabbani G 2007, Risks, vulnerability and adaptation in Bangladesh. Human Development Report 2007/2008, Fighting climate change: Human solidarity in a divided world. Occasional Paper, Human Development Report Office. Bangladesh Centre for Advanced Studies, Dhaka. Rammelt CF 2009, ‘Development and infrastructure in marginalised communities: safe drinking water in rural Bangladesh’. PhD thesis, Institute of Environmental Studies, University of New South Wales, Sydney. Rammelt CF & Boes J 2004, ‘Arsenic mitigation and social mobilisation in Bangladesh’, International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 308–319. Ravenscroft P, Burgess W, Ahmed K, Burren M & Perrin J 2005, ‘Arsenic in groundwater of the Bengal Basin, Bangladesh: distribution, field relations, and hydrogeological setting’, Hydrogeology Journal, vol. 13, no. 5, pp. 727–751. Shah T 2009, ‘Climate change and groundwater: India’s opportunities for mitigation and adaptation’, Environmental Research Letters 4, p. 13. Smith AH, Lingas EO & Rahman M 2000, ‘Contamination of drinking-water by arsenic in Bangladesh: a public health emergency’, Bulletin of the World Health Organization, vol. 78, no. 9, pp. 1093–1103. SOS-Arsenic 2011 (May 23), Arsenic poisoning in Bangladesh/India. Arsenic mitigation update. SOS-Arsenic, Dhaka. Online at , accessed 14 July 2011. Stroberg P 1977, Water and development: organisational aspects on a tube well irrigation project in Bangladesh. Swedish International Development Authority, Dhaka. United Nations Children’s Fund 1998, State of the world’s children report. UNICEF, New York. Warner J 2006, ‘Risk, representation and legitimacy of flood management schemes in Bangladesh: the case of FAP-20’, Journal of Health, Social and Environmental Issues, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 31–45. Wood G 1999, ‘Contesting water in Bangladesh: knowledge, rights and governance’, Journal of International Development, vol. 11, no. 5, pp. 731–754. World Bank 1998, Project appraisal document on a proposed grant in the amount of SDR 24.2 million equivalent to the People’s Republic of Bangladesh for an arsenic mitigation-water supply project. World Bank, Rural Development Sector Unit, South Asia Region, Washington, D.C. —— 2004, Project appraisal document on a proposed grant in the amount of SDR 27.6 million (US$40.0 million equivalent) to the People’s Republic of Bangladesh for a water supply program project. World Bank, Rural Development Sector Unit, South Asia Region, Washington, D.C. —— 2007). Implementation completion and results report on a credit in the amount of SDR 24.2 million (US$ 44.4 million equivalent) to Bangladesh for arsenic mitigation water supply. World Bank, Rural Development Sector Unit, South Asia Region, Washington, D.C. World Bank Water and Sanitation Program 2005a, Towards a more effective opera-

344

C o n s e rv a t io n in a C ro w d e d W o r l d

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 344

14/11/12 9:14 AM

tional response, arsenic contamination of groundwater in south and east Asian countries. Vol. II. Policy and Technical Report. World Bank, Washington, D.C. —— 2005b, Local government-based community WSS services. World Bank, Washington, D.C. Yasmin L 2004, ‘Bangladesh–India tussles’, South Asian Journal 5, pp. 84–94.

8 Grain for Green conservation program and farmers’ livelihood development in the Loess Plateau, China Notes

The Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) is a cost-share and rental payment program under the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), and is administered by the USDA Farm Service Agency (FSA). The CRP conservation scheme is similar to the GFG, in terms of the rental payments and financial incentives to landowners to set-aside their lands and create long-term land cover. Source: . 2 There is no data on the amount of sediment retention achieved under the program. 1

References

Alix-Garcia J, de Janvry A & Sadoulet E 2003, Payments for environmental services: to whom, where and how much? INE/CONAFOR/World Bank, Workshop on Payment for Environmental Service. Online at . Bennett MT 2008, ‘China’s sloping land conversion program: institutional innovation or business as usual?’, Ecological Economics 65, pp. 699–711. Bowlus A & Sicular T 2003, ‘Moving towards markets? Labour allocation in rural China’, Journal of Development Economics 71, pp. 561–83. Brown K 2002, ‘Innovations for conservation and development’, The Geographical Journal 168, pp. 6–17. Cao SX, Xu C, Chen L & and Wang X 2009, ‘Attitudes of farmers in China’s northern Shaanxi Province towards the land-use changes required under the Grain for Green project, and implications for the project’s success’, Land Use Policy 26, pp. 1182–1194. Chen Y, Jing K, Cai Q 1988, Modern erosion on the Loess Plateau and its control. Science Press, Beijing. [in Chinese] Chen L, Messing I, Zhang S, Fu B & Ledin S 2003, ‘Land use evaluation and scenario analysis towards sustainable planning on the Loess Plateau in China: case study in a small catchment’, Catena, vol. 54, no. 1-2, pp. 303–316. Cooper JC & Osborne CT 1998, ‘The effect of rental rates on the extension of conservation reserve contracts’, American Journal of Agricultural Economy, vol. 80, no. 1, pp. 184–194. COSTLOP-CAS 1991, Comprehensive Survey Team on Loess Plateau of Chinese

Note s a n d re fe re n ce s

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 345

345

14/11/12 9:14 AM

Academy of Sciences, The Natural Environmental Characteristics and Evolvement. China Science and Technology Press, Beijing. [in Chinese] deBrauw A 2002, ‘Three Essays on Migration, Education and Household Development in Rural China’. Working Paper, University of California, Davis. Deng X, Shan L, Zhang H & Turner N 2006, ‘Improving agricultural water use efficiency in arid and semiarid areas of China’, Agricultural Water Management, vol. 80, no. 1-3, pp. 23–40. Ding QJ & Hesketh T 2006, ‘Family size, fertility preferences, and sex ratio in China in the era of the one child family policy: results from national family planning and reproductive health survey’, British Medical Journal 333, pp. 371–373. Eswaran H, Lal R & Reich PF 2001, ‘Land degradation: an overview’, in EM Bridges, ID Hannam, LR Oldeman, FWT Pening de Vries, SJ Scherr & S Sompatpanit (eds), Responses to Land Degradation. Proceedings 2nd International Conference on Land Degradation and Desertification, Khon Kaen, Thailand. Oxford Press, New Delhi. Foley JA, DeFries R, Asner GP, Barford C, Bonan G et al. 2005, ‘Global consequences of land use’, Science, vol. 309, no. 5734, pp. 570–574. Fu BJ & Chen LD 2000, ‘Agricultural landscape spatial pattern analysis in the semi-arid area of the Loess Plateau’, China Journal of Arid Environment 44, pp. 291–303. Groom B, Grosjean P, Kontoleon A & Swanson T 2006, Relaxing rural constraints: a ‘win-win’ policy for poverty and environment in China? Environmental Economy and Policy Research Working Papers No. 3. Department of Land Economics, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK. Hao Q.Z, Oldfield F, Bloemendal J & Guo ZT 2008, ‘Particle size separation and evidence for pedogenesis in samples from the Chinese Loess Plateau spanning the past 22 m.y.’, Geology, vol. 36, no. 9, pp. 727–730. He XB, Tang KL & Zhang XB 2004, ‘Soil erosion dynamics on the Chinese Loess Plateau in the last 10,000 years’, Mountain Research and Development, vol. 24, no. 4, pp. 342–347. Heimlich R 2003, ‘Land retirement’, in Agricultural resources and environmental indicators. Economic Research Service, US Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C. Huachi Statistics Bureau 1999–2008, Huachi County Yearbook (1999-2008), Gansu. IUCN, UNEP & WWF 1980, World conservation strategy: living resource conservation for sustainable development. Gland, Switzerland and UNEP, Nairobi. IUCN 2000, The IUCN Policy Statement on Sustainable Use of Wild Living Resources, adopted at the IUCN World Conservation Congress, Amman, October 2000. Online at . Kung JK 2002, ‘Off-farm labour markets and emergence of land rental markets in rural China’, Journal of Comparative Economics, vol. 30, no. 2, pp. 395–414. Landell-Mills N & Porras IT 2002, Silver bullet or fools’ gold? A global review of

346

C o n s e rv a t io n in a C ro w d e d W o r l d

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 346

14/11/12 9:14 AM

markets for forest environmental services and their impact on the poor. International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED), London. Liu J & Diamond J 2005, ‘China’s environment in a globalising world: how China and the rest of the world affect each other’, Nature 435, pp. 1179–1186. Myers N & Kent J 2001, Perverse subsidies: how tax dollars can undercut the environment and the economy. Earthscan, London. NDRC 2007, China’s national climate change programme. National Development and Reform Commission, People’s Republic of China, Beijing. Pagiola S & Platais G 2005, ‘Can payments for environmental services help reduce poverty? An exploration of the issues and evidence to date from Latin America’, World Development, vol. 33, no. 2, pp. 237–253. Pimentel D, Harvey C, Resosudarmo P, Sinclair K, Kurz D et al. 1995, ‘Environmental and economic costs of soil erosion and conservation benefits’, Science 267, pp. 1117–1123. Richthofen FV 1877, China (Vol. II). Dietrich Reimer, Berlin. Salafsky N & Wollenberg E 2000, ‘Linking livelihoods and conservation: a conceptual framework and scale for assessing the integration of human needs and biodiversity’, World Development 28, pp. 1421–1438. Sanchez-Azofeifa GA, Pfaff A, Robalino JA & Boomhower JP 2007, ‘Costa Rica’s payment for environmental services program: intention, implementation and impact’, Conservation Biology, vol. 21, no. 5, pp. 1165–1173. Sanderson S & Redford K 2004, ‘The defence of conservation is not an attack on the poor’, Oryx, vol. 38, no. 2, pp. 146–147. SFA (State Forestry Administration) 2000–2009, China forestry development report for year 2000 to 2009. Chinese Forestry Press, Beijing. [in Chinese] —— 2010, China forestry development report for year 2010. Chinese Forestry Press, Beijing. [in Chinese] Shi H & Shao MA 2000, ‘Soil and water loss from the Loess Plateau in China’, Journal of Arid Environment 45, pp. 9–20. Shi NH 2001, Historical geography of the Loess Plateau. Yellow River Conservancy Press, Henan, Zhengzhou. [in Chinese] Shen YC, Yang QY, Jing K & Xu JX 2003, ‘Thoughts and proposals on speeding up water and soil conservation and ecological environment construction on the Loess Plateau’, Science and Technology Review 4, pp. 55–59. [in Chinese] Sommerville M, Jones JPG, Rahajaharison M & Milner-Gulland EJ 2010, ‘The role of fairness and benefit distribution in community-based payment for environmental services interventions: a case study from Menabe, Madagascar’, Ecological Economics, vol. 69, no. 6, pp. 1262–1271. Spiteri K & Nepal SK 2006, ‘Incentive-based conservation programs in developing countries: a review of some key issues and suggestions for improvement’, Environmental Management, vol. 37, no. 1, pp. 1–14. State Council 2000. Opinions of the State Council on further doing the trial work better on returning cropland to forest and grass. Chinese Government Document, No. 24 order, Beijing.

Note s a n d re fe re n ce s

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 347

347

14/11/12 9:14 AM

—— 2007. Announcement of the State Council on improving policy for the conversion of cropland to forest and grassland. Chinese Government Document, No. 25 order, Beijing. Uchida E, Xu J & Rozelle S 2005, ‘Grain for Green: cost-effectiveness and sustainability of China’s conservation set-aside program’, Land Economics, vol. 81, no. 18, pp. 247–264. Uchida E, Xu J, Xu Z & Rozelle S 2007, ‘Are the poor benefiting from China’s land conservation program?’, Environment and Development Economics, vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 593–620. Uchida E, Rozelle S & Xu J 2009, ‘Conservation payments, liquidity constraints, and off-farm labor: impact of the Grain-for-Green program on rural households in China’, American Journal of Agricultural Economics, vol. 91, no. 1, pp. 70–86. Vanacker V, Blanckenburg FV, Govers G, Molina A, Poesen J, Deckers J & Kubik P 2007, ‘Restoring dense vegetation can slow mountain erosion to near natural benchmark levels’, Geological Society of America, vol. 35, no. 4, pp. 303–306. Wang CR, Tian X & Li SX 2004, ‘Effects of plastic sheet-mulching on ridge for water-harvesting cultivation on WUE and yield of winter wheat’, Scientia Agricultura Sinica 37, pp. 208–214. [in Chinese] Wang X, Lu C, Fang J & Shen Y 2007, ‘Implications for development of Grain-forGreen policy based on cropland suitability evaluation in desertification-affected north China’, Land Use Policy 24, pp. 417–424. Wei J, Zhou J, Tian JL, He XB & Tang KL 2006, ‘Decoupling soil erosion and human activities on the Chinese Loess Plateau in the 20th century’, Catena 68, pp. 10–15. WWF 2010, Payments for ecosystem services. Online at . Xu J, Yin RS, Zhou L & Liu C 2006, ‘China’s ecological rehabilitation: unprecedented efforts, dramatic impact and requisite policies’, Ecological Economics, vol. 57, no. 4, pp. 595–607. Xu J, Tao R, Xu Z & Bennett MT 2010, ‘China’s sloping land conversion program: does expansion equal success?’, Land Economics, vol. 86, no. 2, pp. 219–244. Xu Z, Bennett MT, Tao R & Xu J 2004, ‘China’s sloping land conversion programme four years on: current situation, pending issues’, International Forestry Review 6, pp. 317–326. Zhang KH & Song S 2003, ‘Rural-urban migration and urbanisation in China: evidence from time-series and cross-section analyses’, China Economic Review, vol. 14, no. 4, pp. 386–400. Zhou ZZ, Shangguan ZP & Zhao D 2006, ‘Modelling vegetation coverage and soil erosion in the Loess Plateau area of China’, Ecological Modelling 198, pp. 263–268. Zuo T 2002, ‘Implementation of the SLCP’, in J Xu, E Katsigris & TA White (eds), Implementing the natural forest protection program and the sloping land conversion program: lessons and policy recommendations. China Forestry Publishing House, Beijing, pp. 33–49.

348

C o n s e rv a t io n in a C ro w d e d W o r l d

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 348

14/11/12 9:14 AM

9 Revegetation, bioenergy and sustainable use in the New South Wales central west Notes

There is increasing interest in producing ethanol and other liquid fuels from woody biomass, particularly in the United States (Biomass Research and Development Board 2008). 2 Population data covers Bathurst, Oberon, Lithgow and Mid-Western Regional local government areas (LGAs). 1

References

Ampt P & Baumber A 2006, ‘Building connections between kangaroos, commerce and conservation in the rangelands’, Australian Zoologist 33, pp. 398–409. Australian Bureau of Statistics 2010), Census Data Online, , accessed 21 May 2010. Australian Forestry Standard Limited 2007, Australian Forestry Standard. AFS Ltd, Canberra. Beeton RJS (Bob), Buckley KI, Jones GJ, Morgan D, Reichelt E & Trewin D 2006 (Australian State of the Environment Committee 2006), Australia State of the Environment 2006. Department of the Environment and Heritage, Canberra. Bell S 2005, ‘Constructing sustainable rural landscapes: oil mallees and the Western Australian wheatbelt’, Geographical Research 43, pp. 194–208. Bennell M, Hobbs TJ & Ellis M 2009, Evaluating agroforestry species and industries for lower rainfall regions of southeastern Australia: Florasearch 1A. Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation, Canberra. Biomass Research and Development Board 2008, National Biofuels Action Plan. US Department of Agriculture and US Department of Energy, Washington, D.C. Booth TH & Ryan PJ 2008, ‘Matching commercial tree species to sites’, in RJ Harper, TH Booth, PJ Ryan, RJ Gilkes, NJ McKenzie & MF Lewis (eds), Site selection for farm forestry in Australia. Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation, Canberra, pp. 70–80. Bundestag 2008, Act Revising the Legislation on Renewable Energy Sources in the Electricity Sector and Amending Related Provisions. [translation] Bureau of Meteorology 2010, Summary Statistics for Condobolin Ag Research Station. Online at , accessed 31 October 2010. CBD 2004, Addis Ababa Principles and Guidelines for the Sustainable Use of Biodiversity. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, Montreal. Central West Catchment Management Authority 2007, Central West Catchment Action Plan 2006–2016. Lachlan Catchment Management Authority, Dubbo, NSW. Central West Independent Review Panel 2007, Review of land use planning in the Central West: report to the Minister for Planning. Central West Rural Lands Inquiry, Sydney.

Note s a n d re fe re n ce s

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 349

349

14/11/12 9:14 AM

Cooney R 2007, ‘Sustainable use: concepts, ambiguities, challenges’. Paper prepared as background for meeting of the IUCN Species Survival Commission’s Sustainable Use Specialist Group Strategic Planning Meeting, 10–13 July 2007, White Oak Plantation, Florida. Cork S, Sattler P & Alexandra J 2006, ‘“Biodiversity” theme commentary prepared for the 2006 Australian State of the Environment Committee’. Department of the Environment and Heritage, Canberra. CSIRO & BOM 2010, Climate change in Australia: Australia’s future climate. Online at , accessed 20 April 2010. Cummings, Andrew 2010, Personal communication to Alex Baumber at GR Davis Mallee Plantation, West Wyalong, NSW, 14 April 2010. Delta Electricity 2010, Delta Electricity reduces carbon emissions with renewable biomass energy. Delta Electricity Press Release, Sydney. Department of Environment and Climate Change 2007, Biobanking: Biodiversity Banking and Offsets Scheme – scheme overview. Department of Environment and Climate Change, NSW Government, Sydney. Dickinson G, Bristow M & Huth J 2008, Mixed-species plantations: extending the science. Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation, Canberra. Eide, A 2008, The right to food and the impact of biofuels (agrofuels). FAO, Rome. Enecon 2007, Bioenergy in the Avon. Study Report for AVONGRO, Melbourne. Fischer J, Brosi B, Daily GC, Ehrlich PR, Goldman R et al. 2008, ‘Should agricultural policies encourage land sparing or wildlife-friendly farming?’, Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 6, pp. 382–387. Forest Stewardship Council 2002, FSC International Standard: FSC principles and criteria for forest stewardship. Forest Stewardship Council, Bonn, Germany. Gallagher E 2008, The Gallagher Review of the indirect effects of biofuels production, Renewable Fuels Agency, St Leonards-on-Sea, East Sussex, UK. Greenhouse Gas Reduction Scheme 2007, Introduction to the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Scheme. Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal of NSW, Sydney. Holmes J 2006, ‘Impulses towards a multifunctional transition in rural Australia: gaps in the research agenda’, Journal of Rural Studies 22, pp. 142–160. Howard B & Ozlack C 2004, Fuelling landscape repair: a bioenergy industry as a sustainable land-use and energy option for Australia. Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation, Canberra. IEA Bioenergy 2007, Potential contribution of bioenergy to the world’s future energy demand. IEA Bioenergy Secretariat, Rotorua, New Zealand. Industry and Investment New South Wales 2010, Drought maps and declarations. Online at , accessed 21 May 2010. International Energy Agency (IEA) 2008, Key world energy statistics 2008. International Energy Agency, Paris. IUCN 2000, The IUCN Policy Statement on Sustainable Use of Wild Living Resources, adopted at the IUCN World Conservation Congress, Amman.

350

C o n s e rv a t io n in a C ro w d e d W o r l d

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 350

14/11/12 9:14 AM

Jordan WR (III) 1994, ‘Sunflower forest’, in A Dwight Baldwin Jr, J De Luce & C Pletsch (eds), Beyond preservation: restoring and inventing landscapes. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, MN, pp. 17–34. Kanowski J, Catterall CP, Proctor H, Reis T, Tucker NIJ & Wardell-Johnson G 2005, ‘Biodiversity values of timber plantations and restoration plantings for rainforest fauna in tropical and subtropical Australia’, in PD Erskine, D Lamb & M Bristow (eds), Reforestation in the tropics and sub-tropics of Australia using rainforest tree species. Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation, Canberra, pp. 183–205. Kusters K, Ruiz Perez M, De Foresta H, Dietz T, Ros-Tonen MAF et al. 2008, ‘Will agroforests vanish? The case of damar agroforests in Indonesia’, Human Ecology 36, pp. 357–370. Lachlan Catchment Management Authority 2006, Lachlan Catchment Action Plan. Lachlan Catchment Management Authority, Forbes, NSW. Lindenmayer, D, Hobbs RJ, Montague-Drake R, Alexandra J, Bennett A et al. 2008, ‘A checklist for ecological management of landscapes for conservation’, Ecology Letters 11, pp. 78–91. Mitchell D 2008, A note on rising food prices. The World Bank Development Prospects Group, The World Bank, Washington, D.C. Molino Stewart Pty Ltd 2009, Regional state of the environment report: 2008–09 comprehensive report. Central West Catchment Management Authority, Wellington, NSW. Nature Conservation Bureau 2009, The Satoyama Initiative: a vision for sustainable rural societies in harmony with nature. Nature Conservation Bureau, Ministry of the Environment, Government of Japan, Tokyo. NSW Government 2007, Metadata Statement: Land Use Mapping – New South Wales. Spatial Products and Services, NSW Government, Grafton, NSW. O’Connell D, May B, Farine D, Raison J, Herr A et al. 2009, ‘Substitution of fossil fuels with bioenergy from renewable biomass resources’, in S Eady, M Grundy, M Battaglia & B Keating (eds), An analysis of greenhouse gas mitigation and carbon sequestration opportunities from rural land use. CSIRO, Brisbane, pp. 113–142. Pannell DJ, McFarlane DJ & Ferdowsian R 2001, ‘Rethinking the externality issue for dryland salinity in Western Australia’, Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 45, pp. 459–475. Parsons M, Frakes I & Gerrand A 2007, Plantations and water use. Bureau of Rural Sciences, Canberra. Pousa GPAG, Santos ALF & Suarez PAZ 2007, ‘History and policy of biodiesel in Brazil’, Energy Policy 35, pp. 5393–5398. Roundtable on Sustainable Biofuels 2010, Global principles and criteria for sustainable biofuels production: version two. Ecole Polytechnique Federale de Lausanne – Energy Centre, Lausanne. Searchinger T, Heimlich RA, Houghton F, Dong A, Elobeid J et al. 2008, ‘Use of U.S. croplands for biofuels increased greenhouse gases through land-use change’, Science 319, pp. 1238–1240.

Note s a n d re fe re n ce s

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 351

351

14/11/12 9:14 AM

Simpson JA, Picchi G, Gordon AM, Thevathasan NV, Stanturf J & Nicholas I 2009, Short rotation crops for bioenergy systems: environmental benefits associated with short-rotation woody crops. IEA Bioenergy, Task 30, International Energy Agency, Paris. Smith P 2006, First measurements in for oil mallee biodiversity project. Information sheet for the CRC for plant based management of dryland salinity. Online at . Soyka T, Palmer C & Engel S 2007, ‘The impacts of tropical biofuel production on land-use: the case of Indonesia’, Tropentag 2007: Conference on International Agricultural Research and Development. University of Kassel-Witzenhausen and University of Gottingen, 9–11 October 2007. The Wilderness Society 2003, Burning forests for power? Online at , accessed 11 September 2008. Total Catchment Management Services 2008, Overview and business analysis of a new mallee industry to be based around Condobolin NSW. Total Catchment Management Services Pty Ltd, Sydney. URS Australia 2009, Oil mallee industry development plan for Western Australia. URS Australia Pty Ltd for Oil Mallee Association of Western Australia Inc (OMA) and the Forest Products Commission (FPC), Perth. Vesk, PA & Mac Nally R 2006, ‘The clock is ticking: revegetation and habitat for birds and arboreal mammals in rural landscapes of southern Australia’, Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 112, pp. 356–366. Wang L, Merson J & Liu Y 2010, ‘Grain for Green conservation program and farmers’ livelihood development in the Loess Plateau, China’, in J Merson & P Brown (eds), Conservation and Sustainable Use, unpublished. Webb GJ 2002), ‘Conservation and sustainable use of wildlife – an evolving concept’, Pacific Conservation Biology 8, pp. 12–26. Wildy D, Pate J & Bartle J 2003, Silviculture and water use of short-rotation mallee. Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation, Canberra. WWF 2006, Cork screwed? Environmental and economic impacts of the cork stoppers market. WWF/MEDPO, Rome. Yu Y, Bartle J & Wu H 2007, ‘Modelling mallee biomass supply in Western Australia’, Bioenergy Australia Annual Conference, Gold Coast, 26–27 November 2007.

10 Towards community-based resource management: the development and mobilisation of fisheries resource indicators at Koh Sarai, Thailand References

Berkes F 2003, ‘Alternatives to conventional management: lessons from smallscale fisheries’, Environments, vol. 31, no. 1, pp. 1–19.

352

C o n s e rv a t io n in a C ro w d e d W o r l d

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 352

14/11/12 9:14 AM

Boonprakob K & Hattirat S 2006, Climate change and Thailand: crisis or opportunity. Greenpeace Southeast Asia, Bangkok. [in Thai] Coastal Resources Management (CHARM) 2007, Successes and lessons learned for future coastal resource co-management. A report of CHARM’s End-of-Project Workshop. [in Thai] Cudney-Bueno R & Basurto X 2009, ‘Lack of cross-scale linkages reduces robustness of community-based fisheries management’, PLoS ONE, vol. 4, no. 7, p. e6253. Dol:10.137/journal.pone.0006253. EMRO 2011, What is EM? Effective Microorganism Research Organisation (EMRO). Okinawa. Online at , accessed 21 October 2011. Environmental and Public Health Editorial Team 2009, One degree: a turning point for Thailand. Bangkokbusiness Bizbook, Bangkok. [in Thai] Evans L, Cherrett N & Pemsl D 2011, ‘Assessing the impact of fisheries co-management interventions in developing countries: a meta-analysis’, Journal of Environmental Management 92, pp. 1938–1949. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) 2011, The state of world fisheries and aquaculture 2010. FAO, Rome. Isa M, Ahmad A, Latun A, Ali M & Sulit V 2011, ‘Ensuring improved governance in fisheries management in Southeast Asian countries’, Fish for the People, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 12–18. Johnson C 1998, ‘Beyond community rights: small-scale fisheries and community-based management in Southern Thailand’, TDRI Quarterly Review, vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 25–31. Kittitiwattanawong K, Kittitornkool J & Srichai N 2010, ‘A study of status of marine and coastal resources at Koh Sarai, Muang District, Satun Province.’ Unpublished report submitted to the Research Institute of Marine and Coastal Resource, Phuket. [in Thai] Nasuchon N & Charles A 2010, ‘Community involvement in fisheries management: experiences in the Gulf of Thailand countries’, Marine Policy 34, pp. 163–169. Nielsen JR, Degmbol P, Viswanathan KK, Ahmed M, Hara M & Abdullah N 2004, ‘Fisheries co-management – an institutional innovation? Lessons from South East Asia and Southern Africa’, Marine Policy 28, pp. 151–160. Office of National Commission for Social and Economic Development (ONCSED) 2011, The (Drafted) 11th National Plan of Social and Economic Development (2012–2016). A document for the 2011 Annual Meeting on National Social and Development Plan & Its Implementation toward Sustainable Development (7 July 2011). [in Thai] Pomeroy R, Katon B & Harkes I 2001, ‘Conditions affecting the success of fisheries management: lessons from Asia’, Marine Policy 25, pp. 197–128. Raakjær J, Son DM; Stæhr K-J, Hovgård Holger; Thuy, Nguyen Thi Dieu et al. 2007, ‘Adaptive fisheries management in Vietnam: the use of indicators and the introduction of a multi-disciplinary Marine Fisheries Specialist Team to

Note s a n d re fe re n ce s

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 353

353

14/11/12 9:14 AM

support implementation’, Marine Policy, vol. 31, no. 2, pp. 143–152. Reason P & Bradbury H 2001, Handbook of action research: participative inquiry and practice. Sage, London. Tokrisna R, Boonchuwong P & Janekarnkij P 1997, A review of fisheries and coastal community-based management regime in Thailand. A report submitted to International Center for Living Aquatic Resource Management. Wiber M, Charles A, Kearney J & Berkes F 2009, ‘Enhancing community empowerment through participatory fisheries research’, Marine Policy 33, pp. 172–179. Wilson D, Ahmed M, Suar S & Kanagaratnam U 2006, ‘Cross-scale linkages and adaptive management: fisheries co-management in Asia’, Marine Policy 30, pp. 523–533. World Resources Institute (WRI) in collaboration with the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and World Bank 2005, World resources 2005 – the wealth of the poor: managing ecosystems to fight poverty. WRI, Washington, D.C. Worraratchaipan J, Chotethong B, Phuangchoey H, Phromnet T & Thonnawat T 2004, Decentralisation: opportunities and gaps in local environmental management. Thai Environmental Institute, Bangkok. [in Thai] Yusof Y & Mathew S 2010, ‘Roles of local institutions in fishery and coastal resources management’, Fish for the People, vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 2–11.

11 Applying the principles of conservation through sustainable use to the commercial kangaroo harvest in New South Wales, Australia Notes

FATE moved to the University of Sydney in late 2009. References

Ampt P & Baumber A 2006, ‘Building connections between kangaroos, commerce and conservation in the rangelands’, Australian Zoologist, vol. 33, no. 3, pp. 398–409. —— 2010, Building co-operation and collaboration in the kangaroo industry: towards a role for landholders. Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation, Canberra. Ampt P & Owen K 2008, Consumer attitudes to kangaroo meat products. Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation, Canberra. Archer M 2002, ‘Confronting crises in conservation: a talk on the wild side’, in D Lunney & C Dickman (eds), A zoological revolution: using native fauna to assist in its own survival. Royal Zoological Society of NSW and Australian Museum, Sydney. Australian Government 2011, Caring for our country Business Plan 2011–12. Online at .

354

C o n s e rv a t io n in a C ro w d e d W o r l d

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 354

14/11/12 9:14 AM

—— 2011, Commercial kangaroo harvesting fact sheet. Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities. Online at . Cary J, Webb T & Barr N 2002, Understanding landholders’ capacity to change to sustainable practices: insights about practice adoption and social capacity for change. Bureau of Rural Sciences, Canberra. Caughley G 1987, ‘Ecological relationships’, in G Caughley, N Shepherd & J Short, Kangaroos: their ecology and management in the sheep rangelands of Australia. Cambridge University Press Cambridge, UK, pp. 159–187. CBD 2004, Addis Ababa Principles and Guidelines for Sustainable Use of Wild Living Resources. Convention on Biological Diversity. Online at . Chapman M 2003, ‘Kangaroos and feral goats as economic resources for graziers: some views from south-west Queensland’, The Rangeland Journal, vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 20–36. Cooney R 2008, Commercial and sustainable use of wildlife: suggestions to improve conservation, land management and rural economies. Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation, Publication No. 08/199, Project No. ROS-1A. Online at , accessed 21 October 2012. —— 2009, Landholder collaboration in wildlife management: models for landholders to share benefits from kangaroo harvesting. Rangeland and Wildlife Systems, Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation, Canberra. Cooney R, Archer M et al. 2011, ‘THINKK again: getting the facts straight on kangaroo harvesting and conservation’, in press. Dawson TJ & Munn AJ 2007, ‘How much do kangaroos of differing age and size eat relative to domestic livestock? Implications for the arid rangelands’, in C Dickman, D Lunney & S Burgin (eds), Animals of arid Australia: out on their own? Royal Zoological Society of New South Wales, Sydney, pp. 96–102. Department of Environment and Conservation NSW 2006, New South Wales Commercial Kangaroo Harvest Management Plan 2007–2011. Department of Environment and Conservation (NSW), Sydney. Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities 2011, Commercial kangaroo harvesting fact sheet. Online at , accessed 22 November 2011. Dorrough J, Stol J & McIntyre S 2008, Biodiversity in the paddock: a land manager’s guide. Future Farm Industries CRC, CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems, Canberra. Edwards GP, Croft DB & Dawson TJ 1996, ‘Competition between red kangaroos (Macropus rufus) and sheep (Ovis aries) in the arid rangelands of Australia’, Australian Journal of Ecology, vol. 21, no. 2, pp. 165–172. Figgis P 2004, Conservation on private lands: the Australian experience. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland; Cambridge, UK. Fillios M, Gordon CE, Koch F & Letnic MI 2010), ‘The effect of a top preda-

Note s a n d re fe re n ce s

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 355

355

14/11/12 9:14 AM

tor on kangaroo abundance in arid Australia and its implications for archaeological faunal assemblages’, Journal of Archaeological Science, vol. 37, no. 5, pp. 986–993. Flannery TF 2004, Country. Text Publishing Company, Melbourne. Garnault R 2011, The Garnault Review 2011: Australia in the global response to climate change. Cambridge University Press, Melbourne. Gillespie R 2008, Estimating the value of environmental services provided by Australian farmers. Australian Farm Institute, Sydney. Grigg G 2002, ‘Conservation benefit from harvesting kangaroos: status report at the start of a new millenium’, in D Lunney & C Dickman (eds), A zoological revolution: using native fauna to assist in its own survival. Royal Zoological Society of New South Wales and Australian Museum, Sydney, pp. 53–76. Grigg GC & Pople AR 2001, ‘Sustainable use and pest control in conservation: kangaroos as a case study’, in JD Reynolds, GM Mace, KH Redford & JG Robinson (eds), Conservation of exploited species. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, pp. 403–423. Henry ES & Watson GK 1998, Kangaroo marketing for landowners: exploratory action research for Tilpa Rangeland Investment Company. A Report to the Total Catchment Management. Western Catchment Management Committee, Orange Agricultural College, University of Sydney. Howland B 2010, ‘The impact of kangaroo grazing on fauna within grassy woodlands’, ESA10: 2010 Annual Conference ‘Sustaining biodiversity – the next 50 years’. CC Mark Lonsdale (Chair) Manning Clark Centre, ANU, Canberra, Ecological Society of Australia. Hutton JM & Leader-Williams N 2003, ‘Sustainable use and incentive-driven conservation: realigning human and conservation interests’, Oryx, vol. 37, no. 2, pp. 215–226. IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources) 2011, The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Online at , accessed 13 July 2011. Keating BA & Carberry PS 2010, ‘Emerging opportunities and challenges for Australian broadacre agriculture’, Journal of Crop and Pasture Science, vol. 61, no. 4, 269–278. Lunney D & Dickman C (eds) 2002, A zoological revolution: using native fauna to assist in its own survival. Royal Zoological Society of New South Wales and the Australian Museum, Sydney. McAlpine CA, Grigg GC, Mott JJ & Sharma P 1999, ‘Influence of landscape structure on kangaroo abundance in a disturbed semi-arid woodland of Queensland’, The Rangeland Journal, vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 104–134. McCullough DR & McCullough Y 2000, Kangaroos in outback Australia: comparative ecology and behavior of three coexisting species. Columbia University Press, New York. Millenium Ecosystem Assessment 2005, Ecosystems and human well-being: synthesis. World Resources Institute, Washington, D.C.

356

C o n s e rv a t io n in a C ro w d e d W o r l d

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 356

14/11/12 9:14 AM

Montague-Drake R & Croft DB 2004, ‘Do kangaroos exhibit water-focused grazing patterns in arid New South Wales? A case study in Sturt National Park’, Australian Mammalogy, vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 87–100. Munn AJ, Dawson TJ et al. 2008, ‘Field metabolic rate and water turnover of red kangaroos and sheep in an arid rangeland: an empirically derived dry-sheepequivalent for kangaroos’, Australian Journal of Zoology 57, pp. 23–28. Natural Resource Management Ministerial Council 2010, Australia’s Biodiversity Conservation Strategy 2010–2030. Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, Canberra. Pannell DJ, Marshall GR, Barr N, Curtis A, Vanclay F, Wilkinson R 2006, ‘Understanding and promoting adoption of conservation practices by rural landholders’, Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture, vol. 46, no. 11, pp. 1407–1424. Payne N 2011, 2010 Annual Report: New South Wales Commercial Kangaroo Harvest Management Plan 2007–2011, NSW Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water, Sydney. Pople AR, Grigg GC, Cairns SC, Beard LA & Alexander P 2000, ‘Trends in the numbers of red kangaroos and emus on either side of the South Australian dingo fence: evidence for predator regulation?’, Wildlife Research, vol. 27, no. 3, pp. 269–276. Pople AR, Phinn SR, Menke N, Grigg GC, Possingham HP & McAlpine C 2007, ‘Spatial patterns of kangaroo density across the South Australian pastoral zone over 26 years: aggregation during drought and suggestions of long distance movement’, Journal of Applied Ecology, vol. 44, no. 5, pp. 1068–1079. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity 2004, Addis Ababa Principles and Guidelines for the Sustainable Use of Biodiversity. CBD Guidelines. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, Montreal. Smith R, Statham M, Rawnsley RP, Statham HL, Norton TW et al. 2012, ‘Effects of wildlife grazing on the production, ground cover and plant species composition of an established perennial pasture in the Midlands region, Tasmania’, Wildlife Research 39, pp. 123–136. Stafford Smith DM, Morton SR & Ash A 2000, ‘Towards sustainable pastoralism in Australia’s rangelands’, Australian Journal of Environmental Management 7, pp. 190–203. Thomsen D & Davies J 2007, People and kangaroo harvest in the South Australian rangelands: social and institutional considerations for kangaroo management and the kangaroo industry. Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation, Canberra. Trewin D 2003, 2003 Year Book Australia 85, p. 974. Australian Bureau of Statistics, Canberra. Viggers KL & Hearn JP 2005, ‘The kangaroo conundrum: home range studies and implications for land management’, Journal of Applied Ecology 42, pp. 99–107. Watson JEM, Evans MC, Carwardine J, Fuller RA, Joseph LN et al. 2011, ‘The capacity of Australia’s protected-area system to represent threatened species’,

Note s a n d re fe re n ce s

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 357

357

14/11/12 9:14 AM

Conservation Biology, vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 324–332. Webb G 2002, ‘Conservation and sustainable use of wildlife – an evolving concept’, Pacific Conservation Biology 8, pp. 12–26. Wilson G & Edwards J 2008, ‘Native wildlife on rangelands to minimize methane and produce lower-emission meat: kangaroos versus livestock’, Conservation Letters 1, pp. 119–128. Woinarski JCZ, Legge S, Fitzsimons JA, Traill BJ, Burbidge AA et al. 2011, ‘The disappearing mammal fauna of northern Australia: context, cause, and response’, Conservation Letters 4, pp. 192–201.

12 Cats or quolls: can keeping Australian native mammals as pets be a useful conservation strategy? Notes 1 2

PO Box 2313, Orange, NSW 2800 Australia. All international commercial trade of native Australian animals is currently illegal under the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999.

References

ABC 2011, . Archer M 2000, ‘Monstrous moggies or charming chuditches?’, Nature Australia 26, pp. 70–71. Archer M & Beale B 2004, Going native. Hachette Australia, Sydney. Australian Government & DECC 2007, Wollemi Pine Recovery Plan. Australian Government and NSW Department of Environment and Climate Change. Online at , accessed 21 December 2011. Barlow CG, Hogan AE & Rodgers LJ 1987, ‘Implication of translocated fishes in the apparent extinction in the wild of the Lake Eacham rainbowfish, Melanotaenia eachamensis’, Australian Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 38, pp. 897–902. BIS Shrapnel 2006, Contribution of the pet care industry to the Australian economy. Report for the Australian Companion Animal Council, BIS Shrapnel Pty Ltd, Sydney. Butler PJ 1992, ‘Parrots, pressures, people, and pride’, in SR Beissinger & NFR Snyder (eds), New world parrots in crisis: solutions from conservation biology. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C., pp. 25–46. CBD 2004, Addis Ababa Principles and Guidelines for Sustainable Use of Wild Living Resources. Convention on Biological Diversity. Online at . Chapman T. 2005. The rainbow lorikeet (Trichoglossus haematodus moluccanus)

358

C o n s e rv a t io n in a C ro w d e d W o r l d

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 358

14/11/12 9:14 AM

in south-west Western Australia. Department of Agriculture, Government of Western Australia, Perth. Chapple RS, English AW, Mulley RC & Lepherd EE 1991, ‘Haematology and serum biochemistry of captive unsedated chital deer (Axis axis) in Australia’, Journal of Wildlife Diseases, vol. 27, no. 3, pp. 396–406. Cooney R 2008, Commercial and sustainable use of wildlife: suggestions to improve conservation, land management and rural economies. Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation, Publication No. 08/199, Project No. ROS-1A. Online at , accessed 21 October 2012. —— 2009, Landholder collaboration in wildlife management: models for landholders to share benefits from kangaroo harvesting. Rangeland and Wildlife Systems, Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation, Canberra. Cooney R & Edwards M 2009, Indigenous Wildlife Enterprise Development: Policy and Regulatory Context and Challenges. Report to North Australian Indigenous Land and Sea Management Alliance (NAILSMA), Darwin, May 2009. Online at , accessed 21 October 2012. Cooney R, Chapple RS, Doornbos S & Jackson S 2010, A feasibility study into the use of Australian native mammals as pets. Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation, Canberra, Publication No. 10/072. Cork S, Sattler P & Alexandra J 2006, Biodiversity Theme Commentary. Online at , accessed 13 March 2010. DECC 2008, Why can’t you keep other native mammals – like quolls or sugar gliders – as pets? Online at , accessed 23 July 2009. Department of Sustainability and Environment (DSE) 2009, Keeping and trading wildlife factsheet – amendments to the Wildlife Regulations 2002. Victorian Department of Sustainability and Environment, Melbourne. Dickman CR 1996, Overview of the impacts of feral cats on Australian native fauna. Australian Nature Conservation Agency, Canberra. —— 2009. ‘House cats as predators in the Australian environment: impacts and management’, Human–Wildlife Conflicts, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 41–48. Fordham DA, Georges A & Brook BW 2008, ‘Indigenous harvest, exotic pig predation and local persistence of a long-lived vertebrate: managing a tropical freshwater turtle for sustainability and conservation’, Journal of Applied Ecology 45, pp. 52–62. Hance J 2011, New large horned viper discovered, but biologists keep location quiet. Mongabay, December 15th, 2011. Online at , accessed 21 December 2011. Hopwood, P 2002, ‘Native Australian mammals as pets: an overview’, in D Lunney & C Dickman (eds), A zoological revolution: using native fauna to assist in its own survival. Royal Zoological Society of New South Wales and Australian Museum,

Note s a n d re fe re n ce s

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 359

359

14/11/12 9:14 AM

Sydney, pp. 77–83. Hutton JM & Leader-Williams N 2003, ‘Sustainable use and incentive-driven conservation: realigning human and conservation interests’, Oryx, vol. 37, no. 2, pp. 215–226. IUCN 2000, IUCN policy statement on sustainable use of wild living resources. Online at , accessed 18 January 2011. Jackson SM 2003, Australian mammals: biology and captive management. CSIRO Press, Melbourne. Johnson R 2006, ‘Thirty years of rehab – experiences of a wildlife veterinarian’, Royal Zoological Society of New South Wales Forum: ‘Too Close for Comfort’. Royal Zoological Society New South Wales, pp. 15–21. Lindenmayer D 2007, On borrowed time: Australia’s environmental crisis and what we must do about it. Penguin, Melbourne. Lindsey P, Frank L, Alexander R, Mathieson A & Romanach S 2007, ‘Trophy hunting and conservation in Africa: problems and one potential solution’, Conservation Biology 21, pp. 880–883. Low, T. 2002. The new nature. Viking, Melbourne. Mattioli F, Gili C & Andreone F 2006, ‘Economics of captive breeding applied to the conservation of selected amphibian and reptile species from Madagascar’, Societa Italiana di Scienze Naturali e del Museo Civili di Storia Naturale Milano, vol. 95, no. 2, pp. 67–80. Morton SR, Hoegh-Guldberg O, Lindenmayer DB, Harriss Olson M, Hughes L et al. 2009, ‘The big ecological questions inhibiting effective environmental management in Australia’, Journal of Australian Ecology 34, pp. 1–9. NSW Parliament 2008, Animals (Regulation of Sale) Bill 2008 – 14/11/2008 – 1R 2R – NSW Parliament. Online at , accessed 7 October 2011. Parker KA 2008, ‘Translocations: providing outcomes for wildlife, resource managers, scientists, and the human community’, Restoration Ecology, vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 204–209. Parliamentary Senate Inquiry 1998, Commercial Utilisation of Australian Native Wildlife. Commonwealth of Australia. Online at , accessed 8 October 2011. Pressey RL & Bottrill MC 2008, ‘Opportunism, threats and the evolution of systematic conservation planning’, Conservation Biology 22, pp. 1340–1345. Rabinovich J 2005, ‘Parrots, precaution and Project Ele: management in the face of multiple uncertainties’, in R Cooney & B Dickson (eds), Biodiversity and the precautionary principle: risk and uncertainty in conservation and sustainable use. Earthscan, London, pp. 173–188.

360

C o n s e rv a t io n in a C ro w d e d W o r l d

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 360

14/11/12 9:14 AM

Rosser A, Leader-Williams N & Tareen N 2005, ‘The precautionary principle, uncertainty and trophy hunting: a review of the Torghar population of Central Asian markhor, Capra falconeri’, in R Cooney & B Dickson (eds), Biodiversity and the precautionary principle: risk and uncertainty in conservation and sustainable use. Earthscan, London, pp. 55–72. RSPCA 2010a, ‘Why should I have my pet desexed?’, Article ID 215. Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, Australia. Online at , accessed 7 October 2011. —— 2010b, ‘Is it acceptable to keep native animals as pets?’, Article ID 132. Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, Australia. Online at , accessed 8 October 2011. Sutherland WJ, Adams WM, Aronson RB, Aveling R, Blackburn TM et al. 2009, ‘One hundred questions of importance to the conservation of global biological diversity’, Conservation Biology 23, pp. 557–567. Tisdell C & Wilson C 2004, ‘The public’s knowledge of and support for conservation of Australia’s tree-kangaroos and other animals’, Biodiversity and Conservation 13, pp. 2339–2359. Tucker LL 2008, ‘Australia’s regulation of commercial use of wildlife: an absence of eco-logic’. PhD thesis, University of Wollongong, Australia. Online at . Van Dyck S & Strahan R (eds) 2008, The Mammals of Australia, 3rd edn, Reed New Holland, Sydney. Viggers KL & Lindenmayer DB 2002, ‘Problems with keeping native Australian mammals as companion animals’, in D Lunney & C Dickman (eds), A zoological revolution: using native fauna to assist in its own survival. Royal Zoological Society of New South Wales and Australian Museum, Sydney, pp. 130–151. Vogelnest L & Woods R (eds) 2008, Medicine of Australian mammals. CSIRO Publishing, Melbourne. Webb GJW 2002, ‘Conservation and sustainable use of wildlife – an evolving concept’, Pacific Conservation Biology, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 12–26. Webb GJW & Manolis SC 1993, ‘Conserving Australia’s crocodiles through commercial incentives’, in D Lunney & D Ayers (eds), Herpetology in Australia: a diverse discipline. Transactions of Royal Zoological Society of New South Wales, Sydney. Wilson C & Tisdell C 2005, ‘Knowledge of birds and willingness to support their conservation: an Australian case study’, Bird Conservation International 15, pp. 225–235. World Parrot Trust 2009, World Parrot Trust: twenty years, saving parrots. Online at , accessed 30 April 2010.

Note s a n d re fe re n ce s

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 361

361

14/11/12 9:14 AM

13 Potential gains and challenges from biodiscovery access and benefit-sharing: lessons from case studies and national systems Notes

This section is largely based on fieldwork in Thailand including more than 50 interviews over five years, and three local ethnographic case studies with Karen communities in Chiang Mai Province, Northern Thailand. 2 Although it should be noted that sometimes drug discovery leads are made through analysis of traditional medicinal applications and thus the research screening process is at least shortened, if not the development, safety and quality parts of the drug discovery process. 1

References Publications and websites

Barrows L 2010, ‘Conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity in Papua New Guinea – the “PNG ICBG”’. Online at , accessed 19 October 2011. Bavikatte K, Jonas H & von Braun J 2009, ‘Shifting sands of ABS best practice: Hoodia from the community perspective’, UNU-IAS Traditional Knowledge Initiative: Guest Articles (31 March 2009). Online at , accessed 16/6/09. Brockelman WY 1998, ‘Bioprospecting in Thai forests: is it worthwhile?’, Pure and Applied Chemistry, vol. 70, no. 11, pp. 2117–2126. Available from IUPAC at . CRRF 2011, ‘US National Cancer Institute Marine Collections Program’. Online at , accessed 17 October 2011. IMS 2011, ‘The global use of medicines: outlook through 2015’, IMS Institute for Health Informatics, New Jersey. Online at , accessed 16 November 11 Laird S & Wynberg R (Secretariat of the CBD) 2008), Access and benefit-sharing in practice: trends in partnerships across sectors. Technical Series No. 38. Montreal. Online at . Newman DJ & Cragg GM 2007, ‘Natural products as sources of new drugs over the last 25 years’, Journal of Natural Products, vol. 70, no. 3, pp. 461–477. PhRMA 2011, ‘Drug discovery and development’. Online at , accessed 14 November 2011. Reid WV, Laird SA, Meyer CA, Gamez R, Sittenfeld A et al. 1993, Biodiversity prospecting: using genetic resources for sustainable development. World Resources Institute, Washington, D.C. Robinson D & Kuanpoth J 2009, ‘The traditional medicines predicament: a case study of Thailand’, Journal of World Intellectual Property, vol. 11, no. 5/6, pp. 375–403.

362

C o n s e rv a t io n in a C ro w d e d W o r l d

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 362

14/11/12 9:14 AM

Robinson D 2010, Confronting biopiracy: challenges, cases and international debates. Earthscan, London. Robinson D & Defrenne E 2010, Argan: a case study on ABS?, Technical Report. Union for Ethical Biotrade, Geneva. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity 2002, Bonn guidelines on access to genetic resources and fair and equitable sharing of the benefits arising out of their utilisation. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, Montreal. Suneetha MS 2010, ‘Sustainability issues for biodiversity business’, Sustainability Science, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 79–87. Wynberg R 2008, ‘Access and benefit-sharing agreements in the commercial development of Hoodia’, in Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity (S Laird & R Wynberg, eds), Access and benefit-sharing in practice: trends in partnerships across sectors. Technical Series No. 38, CBD Secretariat, Montreal. Interviews

Buntoon Srethasirote, Project Director, Strategic Policy Project on Natural Resource Base, National Human Rights Commission; and FTA-Watch Co-ordinator (numerous interviews, February 2005 – December 2006). Chaweewan Hutacharern, Research Director, National Parks, Wildlife and Plant Conservation Department (18 and 28 August 2005). Komong Pragtong, Forest Conservation Officer, National Parks, Wildlife and Plant Conservation Department (18 August 2005). Wichar Tithipraesert, former director, Plant Variety Protection Division, Department of Agriculture (6 May 2005). Chamaiparn Santikarn (‘Cha’), Thai Traditional and Alternative Medicines Institute, Department of Public Health (May 2005). Tanit Changtavoorn, Intellectual Property Consultant, Biotec; Associate Judge, Intellectual Property and trade Court (1 June 2005). Wichai Chokevivat, Director, Thai Traditional and Alternative Medicines Institute, Department of Public Health (August 2005). ‘Ka-le’, Karen villager and activist, Baan Soplan, Mae Lan Kham, Samoeng (13–15 February 2006). Pathi Dang, Karen village elder, Baan Soplan, Mae Lan Kham, Samoeng (13–15 February 2006). Pathi Taa Ye, Karen village elder/healer, Baan Soplan, Mae Lan Kham, Samoeng (13–15 February 2006). Chamaiparn Santikarn (‘Cha’), Thai Traditional and Alternative Medicines Institute, Department of Public Health (May 2005). Suwanna Wadapikun, Academic, Northern Research Center for Medicinal Plants, Chiang Mai University (21 February 2006) Surakrai Sungkabuan, Director, Plant Variety Protection Division, Department of Agriculture (December 2006).

Note s a n d re fe re n ce s

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 363

363

14/11/12 9:14 AM

14 The exploitation of non-timber forest products and the plight of tribes in Kerala forests in India References

Government of India 2010, Forest Survey of India, Ministry of Environment and Forest, Government of India. Online at , accessed 17 June 2010. Government of Kerala 2006, Participatory Forest Management, Guidelines – 2006. Government of Kerala, Forest and Wild Life Department, Thiruvananthapuram. —— 2010, ‘Vanasree’, the wonders of wildness, Vanasree Cell Kerala Forest Department, Vazhuthakkad, Thiruvananthapuram. KSFSC/STDC 2010a, List of non-timber forest products (minor forest products). The Kerala State Federation of SC/ST Development Co-operatives Ltd, Peroorkada, Thiruvananthapuram. —— 2010b, A note on the working of the Kerala State Federation SC-ST development co-operative. The Kerala State Federation of SC/ST Development Co-operatives Ltd, Peroorkada, Thiruvananthapuram. Kumar N 2002, The challenges of community participation in forest development in Nepal. OED Working Paper No. 27931, World Bank, Washington, D.C. La Frankie JV 1994, ‘Population dynamics of some tropical trees that yield non-timber forest products’, Economic Botany, vol. 48, no. 3, pp. 301–309. Neumann RP & Hirsch E 2010, Commercialisation of non-timber forest products: review and analysis of research. Centre for International Forestry Organisation Research, Bogor, Indonesia and UN Food and Agricultural Organisation, Rome, Italy. Online at , accessed 11 June 2010. Padoch C 1992, ‘Marketing of non-timber forest products in western Amazonia: general observations and research priorities’, Advances in Economic Botany 9, pp. 43–50. Ribot JC 2000, ‘Rebellion, representation and enfranchisement in the forest villages of Macoulibantang, Estern senegal’, in C Zerner (ed.), People, plants and justice: the politics of nature conservation. Columbia University Press, New York. Saxena NC 1999, NTFP policy and the poor in India. Planning Commission, Government of India. Online at , accessed 16 June 2010. Shylajan CS & Mythili G 2007, Community dependence on non timber forest products: a household analysis and its implication for forest conservation. Indira Ghandi Institute for Development Research, Mumbai. Online at , accessed 11 June 2010.

364

C o n s e rv a t io n in a C ro w d e d W o r l d

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 364

14/11/12 9:14 AM

Index A abandonment of pets 267 Aboriginal peoples see Indigenous Australians Act on Protection and Promotion of Thai Traditional Medicinal Intelligence 1999: 289 action research 209 Addis Ababa Principles and Guidelines for the Sustainable Use of Biodiversity application of 165–6 international paradigms 54 on non-living resources 148 on sustainable use 6, 188, 236 on wildlife management 251 Addo Elephant National Park 32 aerial wildlife surveys 133–4 agricultural co-operative societies 158 agricultural gene materials 293 Agriculture Department (Thailand) 290–1 Aichi targets 6 ‘allotment orders’ 309–10 American War in Vietnam 98 Ampara district 22 Anangu people 15, 117–40, 318 Andaman Sea 146 Angas Downs Indigenous Protected Area 15, 118, 130–40 animal keeping see pets, native mammals as Animal Liberation Australia 261 Animals Australia 261 appreciative participatory planning and action 39 aquifer systems in Bangladesh 150 Ara Irititja Anangu cultural database 133 Ardung–Rawee Marine National Park 210 argan fruit products 294–6 arsenic contamination of water 150–1, 159 Arsenic Mitigation and Research Foundation 156

Arsenic Research and Mitigation Group 144 artisanal fisheries 205–6 Aryankavu settlement 309–11 ASEAN Heritage Parks 95 Asian elephants 12, 20–32 Association of Southeast Asian Nations 208 Athol pine 136 Atuny Ngura 127 Australia Angas Downs 15 commercial use of wildlife 232–3 farming practices 186–204 human occupancy of protected areas 317 Indigenous land use 117–40 mammal dealers’ licencing 250, 259 native mammals as pets in 256–76 pet ownership rates 272 reafforestation activities 145–6 sustainable use of biodiversity 235–55 Australian Feral Camel Management Project 125 Australian ringneck parrot 267 Australian Species Management Program 269 Australian Veterinary Association 262 Ayurvedic medicines 308, 310 Ayyappan shrines 88 b Ba Be District Level Fishing Co-operative 102 Ba Be Lake 98, 102, 105 Ba Be National Park 14–15, 95–116, 317–18 Bac Kan Province 95–6 Bandhavgarh Tiger Reserve 47–8 Bangladesh 144, 147–66, 320 Bangladesh Agricultural Development

I n de x

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 365

365

14/11/12 9:14 AM

Corporation 158 Bangladesh Arsenic Mitigation Water Supply Project 159 Bangladesh Drinking Water Standard 151 Bangladesh Planning Commission 158 Bangladesh Water Supply Program 159–60 Barbary deer 189 Barrier Area Rangecare Group 245–6 Barrier Ranges Sustainable Wildlife Enterprise Trial 245–9 ‘being on country’ 121 benefit sharing 277–98 Bengal tigers 34 Bhadra Tiger Reserve 48 Bharal 37 Bhutan 13–14, 55–76, 317 biodiscovery, access to and rights over 277–98 biodiversity management Ba Be National Park 96–9, 104 Biodiversity Action Plan for Vietnam 95 debates about 51 effectiveness of 68 employment in 121–2 in Bhutan 56–9 regional coordination 124–30 bioenergy production 186–7, 190–1, 196–9, 202–3 biomass see bioenergy production bioprospecting 278, 283–94 Biotec (Thailand) 291 black dammer 304 black-footed rock wallaby 127 blue mallee see mallee blue sheep 37 Bonn Guidelines on ABS 279, 286 Brundtland Report 81 Bukit Barisan Selatan National Park 189 Bureau of Animal Welfare (Victoria) 270 bush foods 121 bush tomatoes 128 c carbon credits exploiting 140

366

for bioenergy 199 from avoiding deforestation 30–1 from reafforestation 188 Caring for Country program 122–3, 131 case studies 7–8 catch per unit effort measures 213–14, 218–20 cats, tendency to become feral 262 Central Tablelands 192–6, 198–9 Central West CMA 200 Central West NSW 186–204 channels of negotiation 157 chena farming 23, 27, 29, 31–2 chenkurinji 85 Cherai 85 Chiang Mai Province 286–7 China 144–5, 167–85, 319 climate change in Australia 244 in Bangladesh 150 in China 184 in Thailand 230 in Vietnam 112–13 ‘Closing the Gap on Indigenous Disadvantage’ (Australia) 122–3 Coastal Habitats and Resource Management project (Thailand) 208, 228 Code of Practice for the Private Keeping of Australian Mammals 270 codes of conduct 73, 270 Cognis 294–5 collectivisation of land ownership 101–2 commercial activities 40–2, 232–4, 321–2 see also nature tourism; sustainable use; wildlife harvesting community-based conservation activities arsenic mitigation projects 159–61 collaborative learning in 229 factors affecting 224–9 global trends 3–4 Grain for Green 181–2 in Bangladesh 155, 163–6 in India 34–43, 83 in Thailand 206–11 in Vietnam 115–16 integrated conservation and development projects 13–14,

C o n s e rv a t io n in a C ro w d e d W o r l d

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 366

14/11/12 9:14 AM

55–76, 317–18 participatory coexistence models 52 participatory forest management 302–3, 305 principles for 317–18 ‘concessions’ 35 Condobolin Agricultural Research Station 198 Conference of the Parties to the CBD 278 conflict over resources 162–3 ‘Conservation Keepers’ group proposed 271 conservation levies 32 Conservation Reserve Program (US) 172 context, place and 8–10 contour terracing 170, 173, 175 Convention on Biological Diversity application of 148 objectives 6–7, 277–8 on genetic resources 233 on sustainable use 167, 188 Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) 188, 285 cork forests 189 corrugated galvanised iron roofing 74–5 Corymbia maculata 199 cosmetics industry 282–3, 294–6 cost-sharing principles 157–8 couch grass 136 Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (South Africa) 283 Council of Australian Governments 122 crab farming projects 210 cross-property kangaroo harvesting model 249–50 cross-scale institutional arrangements 224–5 cultural mapping 126–7, 133–6 cultural zones 127 d Dalai Lama 42 damage mitigation permits 242 Damar agroforests 189, 204 Dao ethnic group 100–1

deforestation in India 89, 93 in Vietnam 99, 108, 111 Delft University of Technology 156, 162 Department of. . . see under portfolio name, e.g. Wildlife Management Dharbhakulam region 87 dingoes, predation by 240–1 Directorate of Public Health Engineering (Bangladesh) 157 domestication of animals 256 donor agencies, deadlines set by 162, 164 donor dependence 69 double sustainability 15, 115 drugs, biodiscovery of 233–4, 280–2 e eastern quoll 259–60, 264–6 Eco Development Committees (India) 84–5, 302 Eco-friendly Tourism Project Awards (India) 87–8 Ecological and Restoration Zones 103–4 ecotourism see nature tourism edge effects 50 educational programs arsenic mitigation 164 collaborative learning 229 collecting forest products 307, 314–15 fishing communities 214, 222–3 in Bhutan, demand for 71 in Ladakh 42 Indigenous priorities 130 Indigenous rangers 138 nature tourism 80–1 electric fences, used to contain elephants 26, 29 elephants, management of 12, 20–32 EM balls 210 employment in ecotourism and biodiversity management 92–3, 105, 108–9, 121–2 emus 128, 137 enterprise development in Australia 139–40 environmental change in Vietnam 111–14

I n de x

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 367

367

14/11/12 9:14 AM

environmental movement 51, 239 Environmental Quality Management Plan (Thailand) 208, 225 environmental services see also incentive programs conservation 2–10 in Sri Lanka 31 payments for 168, 172 water resources 151–3 eucalyptus oil 198, 304 Eucalyptus spp. 199 Europe, ecosystems in 9 ex situ biological resources 292 exclusionary model 35–6, 44, 51, 61 exotic mammals see introduced species external agencies, role of 116 extinctions 256 f facilitating phase, water supply 164 Family Planning Policy (China) 176 Farakka barrage 150 farming practices see also residents of protected areas changes in 171–2, 176–8 ecological improvements 105, 108, 112 environmental effects of 99 groundwater irrigation 152–3 improving productivity 173 in Australia 238–41 in China 145, 167 in Hemis National Park 38 in Sri Lanka 31–2 irrigation tube-wells 158–9 kangaroo harvesting and 246–7 marginalised agricultural areas 196 feral animals see introduced species feral camels 125, 134, 136 Finke Bioregion 130 fire management 136 Fisheries Department (Thailand) 207 fisheries management environmental change and 112–14 strategies to reverse 105 Thailand 146, 205–30 Vietnam 99

368

flooding, due to deforestation 111–12 food vs fuel debate 200–3 Forbes, NSW 198 Forest Conservation Act 1980 (India) 301 Forest Department (Sri Lanka) 20, 23 Forest Development Agencies (India) 303 forest products 299–315 Forest Protection Committees (India) 83 Forest Rights Act 2006 (India) 48–51, 234, 301–2, 312 Forestry Department (Thailand) 292 Forestry Protection Groups 104 Forests Department (Kerala) ecotourism management 86 regulates forest products 305, 311–12 staff training 84 suspends trekking permits 89 Vanasree Cell initiative 307 François’ langur 98 Future of Australia’s Threatened Ecosystems Program 245–6 g ‘Gain for Green’ regeneration scheme 145 Gammage, Bill 119 Gansu Province 173, 204 gene banks 281, 291 genetic monitoring of wild populations 268–9 genetic resources, commercial use of 233 Gir National Park 60 Global Environment Facility 116 Gluta travancorica 85 Gopalganj district 161 Grain for Green program 169–85 great desert skink 127 grey kangaroos 119 ‘Gross National Happiness’ 57 groundwater use in Bangladesh 147–66 h habitat enhancement 200 Hailey National Park 34 Hambantota district 22

C o n s e rv a t io n in a C ro w d e d W o r l d

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 368

14/11/12 9:14 AM

health impacts of environmental change 113 Hector Ceballos-Lascuráin 77 Hemis National Park 37–9, 49 Hindala village 47 honey collection 303 Hoodia case 283–6 horned vipers 274 household income in China 179–80 Huachi County 173–80 ‘human habitat’ planning 29 hunting see wildlife harvesting husbandry of native mammals 264–5 Hussain, Shafqat 41 i Iberian imperial eagle 189 Iberian lynx 189 ibex 37 Imanpa Development Association Inc 130–1 incentive programs 182–4, 225–6, 318–20 India Conservation Framework 44–53 ecotourism in 82–94 human occupancy of protected areas 317 Kerala region 14, 77–94, 233–4, 299–315 Ladakh Autonomous Region 12–13, 34–43 National Parks in 60 protected areas 34 River Linking Project 150 villagers denied access to forest products 18 indicators for fisheries resources 213–14, 217–22, 227 Indigenous and Community Conserved Areas 3 Indigenous Australians Anangu people 318 animal keeping by 262 kangaroo harvesting by 240–1 land use by 117–40

Protected Areas 15, 122–3, 130–40 Working on Country rangers 123 Indonesia, damar agroforests 189 inequity, forms of 148–9, 156–62 Institute for Thai Traditional and Alternative Medicines 291 ‘insurance’ populations 233 integrated conservation and development projects effectiveness of 65–73 in Bhutan 13–14, 55–76, 317–18 Integrated Rural Development Program (Bangladesh) 158 International Cooperative Biodiversity Groups (ICBG) 280, 297 International Ecotourism Society USA 64, 80 International Indigenous Forum on Biodiversity 283 International Treaty for Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture 282 International Union for the Conservation of Nature landscape-based approach 20 on sustainable use 188 Red List of Threatened Species 21, 36, 242 International Year of Ecotourism 79 introduced species in Australia 119, 134, 136 management of 125, 132, 136 non-local native mammals 267 pets drawn from 262–3 Irrigation Department (Kerala) 86 j Jackson, Rodney 37, 43 Jammu & Kashmir state 49 Jammu & Kashmir Wildlife (Protection) Act 1978 49 Jessore district 161 Jigme Dorji National Park 66 Jigme Dorji Wangchuck 57 Jigme Singye Wangchuck 56–7 Jigme Singye Wangchuck National Park

I n de x

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 369

369

14/11/12 9:14 AM

71 Jim Corbett National Park 34 Joint Forest Management (India) 311 k Kallada Irrigation Project 85 Kallar River 86 Kalpavriksh 42 kangaroos aerial surveys of 134 as Indigenous food 128 harvesting of 138, 232, 235–55, 321 red and grey 119 Karen people 286–8 Karera Great Indian Bustard Sanctuary 47 karst environments 98 Kasthuri Manjal 304, 310 Kata Tjuta National Park 129 Kerala region benefit sharing 321 plant product harvesting 233–4, 299–315 sustainable tourism 14, 77–94, 318 Kerala State Federation of SC/ST Development Co-operatives 305, 311–12 Khanh Ninh 105 Koh Sarai Subdistrict 146, 205–30, 319–20 Kollam district 308 Kraska village 47 kuka atamananyi 128 kuka iritija 136–8 Kumbalangi 85 Kushtia district 161 Kwao krua vine 288–90 l Lachlan Renewable Energy Alliance 197–8, 201 Lachlan Shire 192–8 Ladakh Autonomous Region 12–13, 34–43 Ladakh Himalayan Homestays program

370

41–2 Lake Eacham rainbow fish 264 land degradation and reclamation 168, 239 Land Laws (Vietnam) 102 land use see also farming practices by Indigenous Australians 117–40 changes in 175–6 improving productivity 173 in Australia 117–40 in Central NSW 193–6 in China 170 in proximity to protected areas 17 in Sri Lanka 23–4, 26, 29 in Vietnam 101–2 political constraints on 125–6 landscape 5–6, 19, 316–18 Landscape Functional Analysis 135 lemon grass oil extraction 303–4 licensing native mammal sales and ownership 259, 273 Liddle, William 130 Lisanote Pty Ltd 131 livestock competition with kangaroos 241–2 education programs concerning 109 kangaroos as 244–5 protection from predators 37–40, 241 sheep rearing 178–9 Loess Plateau 144–5, 167–85, 204 long-necked turtles 266 Luu Nhu Phu 99 m Maasai people 6 Macropus spp. see kangaroos maize planting 177 mallee 190–1, 197–8, 201 mallee fowl 127 Malvan marine park 83 ‘managed elephant ranges’ 29–30, 32–3 Managed Resource Protected Areas 128 Manas Wildlife Sanctuary 57 manjal 304, 310 maps of natural resources 215–16 marginalised agricultural areas 196, 239

C o n s e rv a t io n in a C ro w d e d W o r l d

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 370

14/11/12 9:14 AM

Marine and Coastal Resources Department (Thailand) 226 marine parks see national parks marketing issues 73, 307–8 Markha Valley trekking circuit 38 Marsupial Society of Australia 261, 272–3 material transfer agreements 291 meat from kangaroos 243, 250 Merak village 74–5 ‘Middle Path’ 57 Miil-miil 127 Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (Vietnam) 103, 105 Minor Forest Produce 299–315 Mitchell and District Landcare Group 248 Mitchell’s hopping mouse 259–60 mixed-species plantations 201 modernisation, effects of 309–10 Monaragala district 22 Mong ethnic group 100–1 Morocco, argan fruit products 294–6 Mountain Institute (Nepal) 39 mulching techniques 173 multidisciplinary research 229 multifunctional rural transition 195 Munnar 85 Munshiganj district 161 n Nagarhole National Park 52 Nagoya Protocol annex to 295–6 delay in 298 on access regimes 278–9, 282–3 on streamlined procedures 286 on traditional knowledge 289 Nam Mau Commune 97, 104–5 Namgyel Wangchuck 57 Nang River 99 National Cancer Institutes (US) 280, 296–7 National Climate Change Program (China) 184 National Education Act 1999 (Thailand) 228 National Feral Camel Action Plan

(Australia) 125 National Forest Policy 1988 (India) 301 national parks see also protected areas in Bhutan 65–6 in India 45–6, 82 in Sri Lanka 24 in Vietnam 95–116 marine parks in Thailand 146 National Parks, Wildlife and Plant Varieties Department (Thailand) 292–3 National Plan of Economic and Social Development (Thailand) 208, 230 National Policy for Arsenic Mitigation (Bangladesh) 160 National Policy for the Conservation and Management of Wild Elephants (Sri Lanka) 22 National Reserve System (Australia) 123, 245 National Tourism Policy (India) 82–3 native animals, local extinctions of 119 native grasses 201 native mammals, purchase of 272–3 ‘naturalness’ 189–90 nature tourism development of 77–81 effect on residents 89 habitats disrupted by 91 in Australia 139 in Bhutan 64, 71–3 in Hemis National Park 40–2 in Kerala 83, 87 in Sri Lanka 22, 30, 32–3 levels of 87 limitations of 52 training guides for 89, 91 viability of 318 nature, viewed as static 17 Nepal, national parks in 60 New South Wales Barrier Ranges Sustainable Wildlife Enterprise Trial 245–9 Central West region 186–204 kangaroo harvesting 235–55 mammal dealers licensed in 250 reafforestation activities 145–6 Ngaanyatjarra Pitjantjatjara

I n de x

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 371

371

14/11/12 9:14 AM

Yankunytjatjara peoples 120, 124 see also Anangu people Ngaanyatjarra Pitjantjatjara Yankunytjatjara Women’s Council 125 non-timber forest products 299–315 Northern Research Centre for Medicinal Plants 287 o Oberon Shire 196 off-farm work, transition to 179–81 Oil Mallee industry Development Plan 190–1 p Palau Coral Reef Research Foundation 296–7 Pandy Motta region 87 Papua New Guinea 297 PARC project 105–10, 114 participatory coexistence models 52 participatory forest management 302–3, 305 participatory research 229 patents, prior art and 289–90 payments for ecosystem services 172 Pench Tiger Reserve 48 people see residents of protected areas People’s Committee of Bac Kan Province 103 Peppara Dam 85–6 Periyar Tiger Reserve 85 personal care products 282–3 Pet Industry Association of Australia 261 pets, native mammals as 232–3, 256–76 Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association 281 pharmaceutical products 233–4, 280–2 Phipsoo Wildlife Sanctuary 57 photo points 135 Phuket meeting 8 Phytopharm 284 pilgrimage tourism 87–8

372

Piranypa 131 Pitjantjatjara 118 place, context and 8–10 Plant Variety Protection Act of Thailand 1999: 289, 291 Plantations and Reafforestation Code (NSW) 202 poaching see wildlife harvesting Policy Guidelines on Ecotourism (India) 82 political issues government corruption 161 in ecotourism 92–3 land use in Vietnam 101 political ecology 9 regional constraints on land use 125–6 pollution, due to tourism 90, 92–3 Pottomavu settlement 309–10, 312–13 private conservation organisations 275 Production Forests 102 protected areas see also national parks; residents of protected areas for fishing communities 216–17 in Australia 127–8, 239 in Bhutan 57–9, 62–4 in India 34–6, 44–5 in Sri Lanka 29 landscape and 316–18 numbers of 2–3 problems with 12–15, 16 wildlife sanctuaries 82, 129 Protection Forests 102 public awareness of native wildlife 263, 271 Public Health Department (Thailand) 291 Puna Kura Kura waterhole 133 push nets 207 q quandong fruit 137 Queensland, kangaroo harvesting 237 quotas for kangaroo harvest 237–8, 242

C o n s e rv a t io n in a C ro w d e d W o r l d

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 372

14/11/12 9:14 AM

r rabbit management 136 radio telemetry, use on elephants 28–9 rainbow lorikeets 267 Ramsar Wetlands sites 96 Ranger CyberTracker surveys 133 Ranthambore National Park 47 Rara National Park 60 reafforestation activities 144–6, 170–1, 174–5, 191 Red Centre Way 139 Red River Delta 96 REDD-type schemes 30–1 reductionism 17 Regional Wildlife Adaptive Management Plans 118, 125–30 ‘reservoir’ populations 264 residents of protected areas compensation for loss of rights 45–6 conflict with elephants 21–2, 24–8, 30 conflict with snow leopards 37 denied opportunities to profit from ecotourism 89 dispossession of 47 exclusion from protected areas 18, 44–5, 52 Hemis National Park 38 landscape and 5–6 protected areas and 49, 59, 106–10, 316–18 resettlement of 45–9, 60, 104–5 ‘scheduled tribes’ 301–2 support for integrated conservation and development 70–1 use of national park resources 104 viewed as separate from nature 17–18, 26–7 resource-use zones 128 responsible tourism see nature tourism retaliatory animal killings 38–9 revegetation 244–5 see also reafforestation activities revenue from pet industry 265 Ri-Gyancha (‘Jewel of the Mountains’) 42 Rinchen Wangchuk 42, 54 Royal Chitwan National Park 60 Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty

to Animals (Australia) 261 Ruhunu National Park 24 Rumbak village 42 Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation (Australia) 246, 276 ‘rural lifestylers’ 196 rural livelihoods 100 see also farming practices s sacred sites 83, 127 Sakteng Wildlife Sanctuary 66, 74–5 salinity mitigation 191, 200 Samoeng district 286–8 San people 283–5 sanctuaries see protected areas Sariska National Park 47 Satoyama Initiative 7, 189 Satun Province 146 Schaller, George 53 ‘scheduled castes’ 304 ‘scheduled tribes’ 301–2, 304 Scheduled Tribes & Other Traditional Forest Dwellers Recognition of Forest Rights Act 2006 (India) 44–8 sea turtle rescue 210 ‘secondary nature’ 189 seed industry 282 Service Administrative Zones 103 Sheila Phu village 40 Shendurney Wildlife Sanctuary 85–7 Sheppard, David 55 shifting agriculture 23, 27, 29, 31–2 small-scale fisheries 205–6 Snow Leopard Conservancy Trust (India) 35, 37, 39–43, 53 Snow Leopard Conservancy Trust (USA) 43 Snow Leopard Conservation Education Programme 42 snow leopards 12–13, 34–43, 49–50, 318 social disadvantage 320 socio-economic factors 319 soil erosion 168, 194, 200 see also land degradation and reclamation

I n de x

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 373

373

14/11/12 9:14 AM

Souss Valley 294 South Africa 32, 283–6 South Australia 237, 272 South-east Asia, overfishing in 206 Southeast Asian Fisheries Development Center 208 Special Use Forests (Vietnam) 102–3, 107, 116 species management 129, 136–8 Sri Lanka land management 12, 20–32 landscape protection 317 State Forestry Administration (China) 182 ‘Stepping Stones’ workshop 139 Strict Protection Zones 103, 113 ‘Striking the Balance’ document 76 Subdistrict Administrative Organisation (Thailand) 221, 228 supra-community level conditions 224–5 surface water in Bangladesh 149 surveys ecotourism stakeholders in Kerala 88–92 ecotourists in India 90–1 fishing communities in Thailand 211–14 forest product collection in India 308–10 land use in China 174 land use in NSW 197–8 park staff in Bhutan 65–6 water users in Bangladesh 163–4 wildlife trapping surveys 135 Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities Department (Australia) 122–3 sustainability of ICD programs 75 Sustainable Livelihoods Framework 96, 100–10 sustainable tourism see nature tourism sustainable use community-based conservation activities 36 conservation and 2–10 Convention on Biological Diversity on 236–9 kangaroos and 244–5 of natural resources 318–21

374

revegetation and 187–90 Sustainable Use of Biodiversity 188 Suwanna Wadapikun 287 Swedish International Development Authority 158 t Tanzania, horned vipers in 274 Targanine co-operative 294 Tarutao Marine Marine National Park 210 Tay ethnic group 100–1 Tenzin Wangchuk 75 Thailand benefit sharing cases 280, 286–94, 321 Koh Sarai 205–30 marine parks 146 National Constitution 207–8 Thenmala Ecotourism Project 14, 77–94, 318, 321 Thenmala Ecotourism Promotion Society 85–6, 92 Thiruvananthapuram district 308 tiger reserves in India 46–8, 85 Tilpa Rangeland Investment Corporation 248, 250 Tjurkurpa 118, 131 tonkin frog 98 total grazing pressure 242–3 tourism see nature tourism Tourism Department (India) 82, 94 track-based monitoring 134 traditional ecological knowledge 126, 211–12 training see educational programs translocation of people see residents of protected areas translocation of problem elephants 25–6 trekking 89 see also nature tourism Tribal Development Department (India) 303 tube-wells for groundwater 147–66 u Uluru–Kata Tjuta National Park 120

C o n s e rv a t io n in a C ro w d e d W o r l d

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 374

14/11/12 9:14 AM

UNEP–World Database of Protected Areas 3 UNESCO 41 United Nations initiatives 79, 105 University of Papua New Guinea 297 University of Utah 297 v Vana Samrakshana Samithis 84, 302–3, 311–12 Vanasree Cell 305, 307 Vanchidoyu settlement 309–11 veterinarians, views on keeping native animals 262 Victoria, Australia 272 Vietnam, Ba Be National Park 14–15, 95–116, 317 Vietnamese salamander 98 Village Conservation Funds 41–2 visitor management zones 128 w Wanang region 297 Wangchuk Centennial Park 58 waste disposal management, failures in 90, 92–3 Watarrka National Park 129 water quality testing 135–6, 144, 151 supplies of 156–62, 194–5 sustainable use of 147–66 wattle seed 128 weed control 136 welfare of kept animals 260–2, 266–7, 270 Western Australia kangaroo harvesting 237 mallee oil production 197–8 mallee plantings 200 Western Desert cultural block 120 western quoll 265 white-eared night heron 98 Wild Life (Protection) Act 1972 (India) 36, 44–8, 51–2, 301

wilderness areas see protected areas Wildlife Conservation Department (Sri Lanka) 20, 22, 24, 26 Wildlife Conservation Keepers Australia 275 Wildlife Conservation Society 20 ‘wildlife-friendly farming’ 200–1 wildlife harvesting by Indigenous Australians 118–20 developing enterprises for 129 for companion animals 256–76 in Australia 120 in Vietnam 98, 115 kangaroos 232, 247–8 poaching 50, 268, 288 sustainable hunting 138 Wildlife Protection Department (Jammu & Kashmir) 38, 43 wildlife sanctuaries see protected areas wildlife trapping surveys 135 WLP Amendment Act 2006 (India) 45–8 Wollemi pine 273–4 wood pellets 198 woody perennial energy crops 190–1 Working on Country Program 123 World Bank 98, 144, 158–61 World Conservation Strategy 167 World Conservation Union 123, 167 World Health Organization 151 World Parrot Trust 263 World Trade Organization 290 World Wildlife Fund 20, 58 y Yellow River, China 170 z Zangla village 40

I n de x

UNSW_ConsMngmt_LayoutDi.indd 375

375

14/11/12 9:14 AM