|main page|
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2003 14:36:38 -0700
Author: jshores@juno.com
Subject: [PPMT]S3: Defining Success
Warm greetings, colleagues!
I welcome this forum for sharing ideas and hearing
differing points of view. It is exciting to think that we have participants
scattered around the world, in different lands, cultures, and time zones.
I have a very different perspective on the swing of the
pendulum mentioned by my esteemed colleague Stephan Fuller in his recent
message. In my experience, biodiversity advocates are losing confidence in the
community co-management experiments because the results have been disappointing.
Mr. Fuller states, "There will never be another successful PA in a
developing country anywhere in the world unless community co-management is seen
as axiomatic." I think the key word here is "successful" and
there are different ways to define it. Community development is an experimental
process. If one economic development scheme does not work, we try another one.
If one community management scheme does not work, we try a different one. Once
there was agroforestry, then social forestry, and now community forestry.
Unfortunately
the experiments in biodiversity conservation can be fatal. As one colleague
reminds me, every success in biodiversity conservation is temporary; every
failure is final. So I would question whether any of the efforts to establish
protected areas "anywhere in a developing country" have been
successful, truly successful. No loss of biodiversity; evolution allowed to
continue without modern human impacts. Where does Mr. Fuller think this has
happened, hether there was community co-management or not? For that matter,
whether in a developing country or not? Even in developed countries with their
greater GDP and wealth, an economic downturn can change citizens from long-term
conservationists into short-sighted extractionists. It is this fickleness of the
human element that causes despair among the biodiversity advocates. Success is
only temporary, while every loss is final.
"Paying for Parks" is an issue with a long
history of discussion. Mr. Fuller suggests that there should be international
support for those protected areas providing global benefits. In the US, we have
an active recovery program for endangered species. Under Mr. Fuller's proposal,
would the US receive international funding to support species recovery programs?
Would all World Heritage Sites and International Biosphere Reserves receive such
funding? How would it be administered? We have a large number of WHS and IBR
sites in the US, and they are expensive. I think a far more practical approach
is for each country to accept responsibility for resident species and ecosystems
and work with neighboring countries to conserve migratory species and
transboundary ecosystems. There can and should be international funds for
special cases, but this might be the exception rather than the rule.
Some countries charge higher gate fees to foreigners than
to nationals to visit national parks. Some countries consider this
discriminatory. Should the US increase the entrance fee to Yellowstone and the
Grand Canyon to US$100 for foreigners? Ecuador charges this amount for visiting
the Galapagos. There are clearly many different ways to view justice and equity
in these matters.
One path to resolving the issue of community co-management
is to ensure that the community involvement is real, as suggested by our
moderator Khadga Basnet. Empowerment involves rights (and these clearly go far
beyond rapid appraisals and questionnaires) as well as responsibilities.
Biodiversity advocates sometimes despair when they don't see effective
accountability in the formula. When the managing communities accept that their
co-management responsibilities go well beyond the immediate community to involve
a responsibility to the nation and the planet, the biodiversity advocates are
able to breath more easily. Until this happens on a regular basis, we sometimes
find ourselves holding our breath, and hoping for the best. But we still have
this daunting feeling: Success is only temporary, while every loss is final.
How do you define success? From which perspective?
// John Shores
//
San Jose /
California / USA
web site: http://www.geocities.com/shores_system/
--------------------------
Moderator's
comment/s
This session is concerned with 'Management systems: parks,
protected areas, and community development' in protecting biodiversity. Our
particular interest - effectiveness
of community based conservation approach and its future has been well focused in
the last few comments/discussions including this one and a previous one by John
Shores. This is a very good oportunity to provide your input to it. Please send
your views to share with participants around the world. -Khadga Basnet
Date: Sat, 19 Apr 2003 12:31:12 +1000
Author: "ajay sharma" <a.sharma@cqu.edu.au>
Subject: [PPMT]S3: RE: COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION AND PAs
Management
Hello friends
We usually have voices from one side of the tables in these
forums, which probably tilt our discussions. I am neither from Government nor
industry or any of their lobbies. But for the sake of discussion, would like to
raise a few points that usually come from that side of table.
Protected Areas (PAs) are protected as per the wishes of
the funding agency. So funding from local Government agency or an international
agency produce different results as well as model of participations. If a
program is adopted as long term strategy and policy (usual Government mode) it
has a different mode of implementation (and field results) in comparison to a
program, which is a guest appearance (usual external funded projects). In case
of an external funded project, from day one, all concerned would know it well
that a fast forward is being switched ON for 3 or 5 or 7 years, so everybody
(including NGOs) jump at the money and start defining objectives as well as
outputs as per their own skills, goals, and mandate. Here, role of individuals
from the organisations come in play. A Forest officer would be still worried
about illegal felling or fire or grazing as one reported case can cost in terms
of transfer, penalty, bar on promotion, or further bad. No body wants negatives
to fall on them, especially for a short-life program. So conduct (as well as
emotional attachment) on a program is different from that in the usual job. I
guess the persons in funding agency as well as NGOs also keep there personal
interests foremost, so be watchful while criticising others.
Same effect (family business Vs Guest project) also guides
people's participation. If conducts and outputs of the family business and guest
program are contrasting, then it is not going to go. Field implementation
officer has to choose one sustainable mode of operations. It is not that easy to
camouflage for resourceless field worker as it is for us
(computer savvy individuals & organisations) to talk of
ecology one day and water other day, education one day and then bio-diversity
other time and jump to energy or environment next time. If field worker looses
focus or credibility, it looses its masses. It is very difficult to accept a
role change in field unless there is an institutionalised mandate change from
top. In developing countries, if a forest guard is able to protect hundred's of
miles of area bare foot and with just 5-ft long cane, it is not possible without
people's participation. If outsiders doubt the participation existing there for
decades, then re-consider the validity of a paid role-play on a temporary stage
of a guest program.
Enlightened people might blame government agencies for fast
shrinkage of green covers. Reviewing the shrinkage pattern, one might find it
more nicely co-related to an expansion rate of a neighbouring town or boom in
regional timber market than a rise in local consumption patterns, incomes or
change in livelihoods. Without getting into that analysis, everybody considers
that moving people out for PAs and forcing them to agriculture or dairy would
solve the problem. There is no denial to the fact that succession changed its
course in vacated PAs due to lower biotic disturbances.
But one should really look into the fact that how many of
the displaced families stayed in the buffer zone and how many moved to towns.
Removing people form scene is a temporary measure and un-abated population
growth rate will render these moves un-sustainable, probably before climax of
the fresh succession. So the issue of PAs is also linked to aspects as far
fetched as population control. I have still to see a funding agencies talking of
forests, PAs, population control, education and livestock simultaneously.
Neither there are any plans to reform timber trade or increase non-conventional
energy technologies in urban areas.
This brings us to another point, when we are not packaging
solutions to all issues through a single window type of operations (as once
conceived in the watershed approach), then singling out the weakest link and
beating the bushes is not fully justified. Also expecting the peoples’
participation to do wonders is like betting on a limping horse. It is similar to
having a people's govt elected in Iraq to work as per US mandate. The option
will work under some circumstances but there would always be a question mark on
sustainability, equity, and advantages to local affected populations.
There are so many other points but I would stop here for a
while. But I am a researcher, I have to offer some solutions also though that
might sound stupid to a few. One paper on practical approach on people's
participation to reduce fuelwood headloading was presented in a FAO conference
in 1999. I am checking if the proceedings are out, then I will offer a more
accessible quotation. For overall approach to the PAs issue (or any area), I
wrote a paper describing a holistic scenario covering issues (what's happening,
what's being done, what should be done) regarding forests, community,
wastelands, mines, agriculture, wastelands, livestock development, etc. to draw
a big canvass of the local issues, their status and probable solutions. Once the
canvass is drawn and objectives are decided, all organisations and individuals
may adopt that as guiding line and identify their roles as well as targets
within the overall mandate or goal. And over the years, no-body deviates from
the line without achieving the target. This applies equally to civil
administration, departments of birth control, livestock, wasteland development,
water resource development, education, forests, NGOs and funding agencies. I
know it sounds too big and ambitious but in its absence, it is a FREE FOR ALL
game in PAs and all parties are free to have their own agendas, policies, and
implementation strategies. Also
I would like to mention that anything short of it would
only dress up the programs as GUESTS and not as FAMILY at home. Unfortunately
the paper is gathering dust for three years as many publishing house feel that I
am too immature to comment on issues across various fields, which could be
right. But I feel drawing a big canvass showing the status as well as overall
goal is important and would like to discuss it further if it sounds interesting
to anybody.
Thanking you
Ajay Sharma
Doctoral Fellow
PSG, Central Queensland University
Rockhampton 4702, Queensland, Australia
---
Moderator's comment
Mr. Sharma, thank you for your input. Protected areas are
established and managed under the overall national policies and acts of
protected areas (in case of trans-boundary protected area, it is done by mutual
understanding, agreement, and cooperation between/among the countries
concerned). Both theoretically and practically, all donors or projects should
come under the national priorities, goals, policies, and Acts. -Khadga Basnet
Date: Sun, 20 Apr 2003 09:44:03 -0500
Author: "D. Jane Pratt" <dpratt@mountain.org>
Subject: [PPMT]S3: Re: Balance and Development
Hi John,
Thanks for raising an important historical point -- and one
that's relevant to current debates. Royal preserves were important in conserving
habitat over many centuries -- I believe the Portugese kings, for example,
declared most of Brazil a royal preserve during colonial times, and other
European royalty did the same, both in their own countries and in 'their'
colonies. They were often brutal in enforcement -- the penalty for poaching in
the King's preserve was death. But they did protect habitat very effectively.
This tension has re-surfaced today in conflicts between
environmentalists, who tend to be strongly opposed to hunting, and hunters, who
kill game but often provide financial support for protection of habitat. During
a recent visit to Central Asia, I learned that many protected areas are
threatened because the governments lack funds to maintain them. Their 'last and
best hope' is that big game hunters are willing to pay mega-bucks, up to
$20-40,000 per animal, for the 'right' to shoot a strictly controlled number of
rare species, creating the revenue that makes continued protection of the rest,
and of their habitat possible. Somewhat related, the official position of the
UIAA, I believe, is that climbing should be free of fees, even though
governments depend on this revenue to support the protected areas around peaks.
The point, I think, is that sustainability requires funds.
Ideally, this would come from community-based tourism and alternative
livelihoods, as suggested by Stephan Fuller's recent posting. But with big money
available from hunters and climbers, I think some of the questions we need to
address are whether and how integrated conservation/development programs can
work with these other communities -- whose agendas are complementary in some
respects, and antithetical to conservation values in other respects.
All the best,
Jane
Date: Sun, 20 Apr 2003 12:39:59 +0600
Author: "Shashanka saadi" <shashanka@fo.actionaid-bd.org>
Subject: [PPMT]S3: Re: Balance and Development
Dear Jane,
Thanks indeed for the "True
capitalistic-conservationist view" on the issue. It is true that the brutal
Portugees kings and other colonialists like the Brits conserve the forests by
using the tag of "Kings Forest or Royal Forest". THeir notion was
never to prevent forest rather occupy it for their own resource collection and
maintain flow of natural resources. And again, at that time the greater
population was not have chance to consume forest-based resources due to the
pattern of society. However, when the demand increased the forests lost their
essence of preservation and the profit-oriented parties and companies
indiscriminately destroyed them as well as their inhabitants. It is the
"rich" section of the society including the actors, actresses,
smugglers, kings, lords, owners of different multinational companies who consume
the materials made up of from forests inhabitants skin, flesh, bone, etc.
Governments of Central Asia are failing to protect their
forests because those forest management are not community based and the
community do not own those forests rather those are treated as government's
property. And the governments of those Central Asian countries do not lack fund
rather they need extra income from the forests for other development purposes.
However, I want to raise some other points: Big oil
companies like SHELL/UNICAL also pay high amount of money for forests and
environment preservation though they destroyed the biggest forests in African
countries.
NOw they are taking all out effort to do so in the Central
and South Asian countries.
I would raise the issue that is it fund that would save the
forests or is it the ownership and management of community that could save the
forests??
Shashanka
Saadi
Associate
Programme Coordinator
ActionAid Banglades
--------------
Moderator's comment
Jane Pratt or anybody, would you like to respond to
Shashanka Saadi's question:Is it funds or the ownership and management of
community that would save the forests? - Khadga Basnet
Date: Sun, 20 Apr 2003 13:22:42 +0200
Author: "Wolfgang Bayer" <WB_BAYER@WEB.DE>
Subject: [PPMT]S3: Re: Balance and Development
Jane raised an important point - I think -
"conservation through use" is probably the most promising approach
(whatever use may mean). Trophy hunting normally involves few people, so the
disturbance of local communities is minimal. But, not all trophy hunters are
pleasant people!!
Eco-tourism should imply that the tourists are people
interested in the environment and in the living conditions of local people, but
bringing groups of people by bus or mini-bus into a village on a regular basis
into a village changes things there - at the beginning it has entertainment
value for the local people. If it is done more regular business opportunity, but
the daily routine changes. If larger numbers of people do come to a village,
people may display their traditional costumes and almost "prostitute"
themselves to be photographed for a fee (I witnessed such cases in Tunisia also
in mountainous areas accessible by bus).
The "royal game approach" is selective: In Europe
it was deer, wild boar and some birds that were most protected (including
pheasants, which were introduced in most parts). Bears and wolves disappeared in
most of Europe centuries ago. The deer in particular was often
"overprotected", sometimes deliberately bred and often fed in winter,
so that the aristocracy could hunt at leisure - remnants of the royal hunts are
sometimes called by concerned foresters "deer brothels". The
alienation of wildlife from local people also means that in times of crisis,
local people slaughter wildlife on large scale (this happened - not in mountain
areas, but on the plains - in parts of West Africa). By the way wildlife farming
in southern Africa, where so-called hunting farms are common (most lucrative
business at present) is also selective - predators are problematic species
there, and antelopes are generally more preferred than e.g. zebras.
Nature protection has also a strong legal dimension. It
involves not only national or local laws, but also inter-national agreements.
Certain species of animals or plants may be totally protected (country wide, see
also the CITES agreement for trade with protected animals and plants and their
products).
On the other end is the total protection of an area, only
very selected people can enter. National parks allow visits, whereas biosphere
reserves are stratified, with a core protected zone (normally less than 10% of
the area), and further zones with variable strictness of use restrictions.
Biosphere reserves offer greater flexibility of combining use and protection
than national parks. In this respect it should be stressed that floristic
biodiversity of often greater under - sometimes pretty intensive - use, than if
areas are totally protected. It should be defined, what should be protected and
how. And this process should involve various stakeholders, and not only
specialists.
Wolfgang
Dr. Wolfgang
Bayer, Rohnsweg 56, 37085 Gottingen
Date: 20 Apr 2003 05:31:34 -0000
Author: "Nakul Chettri" <chettrin@rediffmail.com>
Subject: [PPMT]S3: Re: COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION AND PAs
Management
Dear Friends,
It is indeed an exciting experience to go through various
issues and the experience cited by experts from all over the world on Community
Participation and PAs Management. I would like to add few additional points on
the comments made my other friend. Mr. Fuller states, "There will never be
another successful PA in a developing country anywhere in the world unless
community co-management is seen as axiomatic." I have some reservation on
his statement. As we know that the Government of Bhutan has been effective on
managing its 40% of the total land under PAs and the biodiversity with an strong
and effective policy and not very necessarily with community participation. So,
community participation alone is not the only means for effective PA management.
There are many Protected areas that have lost most of its
important wildlife and flora over the past time and have faced "Empty
forest syndrome". Still, the pseudo-efforts are made to protect these empty
forests for the shake of getting fund. This is just a loss of resources and
time.
I fully agree on what Dr Paromita Ghosh has stated. The
biodiversity loss and habitat degradation from the PAs are directly related to
population increase (specially in developing countries where people are totally
or partially dependent on forest resources for their subsistence life). So, for
effective management of PAs, the priority should be given to check the
population.
It is very obvious that community participation is
necessary in many instances for effective PA management but more beyond that are
the arrangement of alternative resources, dedication on conservation, concern
and sense of belonging. It is a long-term evolving process through realisation
and not by imposition. It is easy to say community participation in management
and conservation of PAs but equally hard and challenging to bring it in
practice.
Thank you,
Nakul Chettri, ICIMOD
------
Moderator's comment
Thank you, Dr. Chettri for providing your clear view.
Certainly, success or failure of any approach depends on when and where
questions. - Khadga Basnet
Date: Sun, 20 Apr 2003 13:12:33 +0100 (BST)
Author: "Sushil Kumar Sharma" <sushilsml@yahoo.com>
Subject: [PPMT]S3: RE: COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION AND PAs
Management
I agree with Ajay's observations on Community Participation
and PAs Management.
In fact our approach towards Community Partcipation has
become Subject Matter Specialist (SMS) oriented, forgetting the basic needs of
the populace of the PAs. We forget the fundamentals/ basics of the
Socio-economic Development, where only the systems-approach had succeed. The
funding agencies have been concentrating for the last two or three decades on
multi-disciplinary approach, without weaving the disciplines into a potent
system. A common man, the unit in the community, has not to understand the
technological advances on a subject as the SMS wants him to understand. Despite
this the individual, as an opion leader, or a group of individuals, as
Partcipanting Community, agree for a short period (till the tenure of project)
to extend helping hand in the project. However, the innovations applied get
reversed the moment the project support is withdrawn. The drive behind the
Participation of the Community in PAs Management, remains some incentives in one
or the other form.
The moment such incentives get withdrawn after the project
is over, the peoples' partcipation fades away. The belongingness by the
community may not be induced as a system with the outside management support of
the SMSs. Unless the management of the project is completely handed over to the
community, and they are helped in their venture to "induce" some
system, it will be very difficult to sustain the community participation.
Actually the Community (Society) has to thrive for ever. But our approach
remains result oriented for the tenure of the project.
Therefore, I endorse the views of Ajay, and want to
emphasise on one thing that ground realities of the authorities in position in a
traditional system, can not be ignored, while chalking out the management
strategies for PAs.
Date: Sun, 20 Apr 2003 06:58:50 -0400
Author: "stephan" <climber@kingston.net>
Subject: [PPMT]S3: Re: Defining Success
John and others.
Hello back. (I am on the way out my door to catch a plane
for Beijing, where I am undertaking work in 22 Nature reserves in SW China for
much of the rest of the year - so this note will be short, by necessity rather
than design)
I am a complete pragmatist of the issue of
"success" - there is simply no single definition. You have to
"tailor the approach to the context" (to steal a phrase from IUCN and
Grazia Borrini-Feyerabend). If biodiversity specialists are getting frustrated
with lack of success working with communities, then (on balance, and to make a
gross generalization) I expect they probably don't believe in it in the first
place or they have not tried hard enough. (and I definitely level this general
criticism at many prominent environmentalists in my own country)
My point is quite simple - if you don't do it, nothing else
is likely to work either. I can give you a litany of failures, citing political
corruption, wars, insincere international donors, human greed etc. etc. But there
are lots of (at least partial) successes as well (including in my opinion in
Nepal) and I will cite areas of northern Canada (clearly a developing region)
and international where many GEF treatments which are and are going to be
"successful"
But PA experiments cannot and should not be critiqued in a
rigid academic or theoretical sense. You have to pragmatic and indeed you cannot
please all of the people all of the time (especially in democracies, where
ultimately some land use decisions are taken, without 100% support). But in
densely populated poor countries, in particular, you have to local support or a
PA will not function nor survive many of the vicissitudes of macroeconomic
shifts, changes in government and public opinion. It will simply never work
unless you provide well-defined rights and benefits. Then you stand a fighting
chance for "success"
As for payment, well you must absolutely be pragmatic here
also. I live in a federal country which has a loosely agreed formula for
equalization and transfer payments to standardize education standards and health
care – it’s a proudly social democratic tradition which most Canadians
support. "Have" provinces support "have not" provinces.
Europe also experiments this way.
Hence I definitely lean to a loosely similar global model
in which global assets are protected by global institutions. The GEF and the
modern MEAs are good initial attempts to do this. (And it is very unfortunate
that certain developed countries have neo-conservative and very parochial and
archaic views that often frustrate these efforts - among many other global
development instruments such as land mine treaties, Kyoto, the World Court, ABM
treaties and the Geneva Convention and "enemy combatants", to name a
few).
So, no I do not believe that globally significant assets in
the USA should receive support from the international community. There should be
net flow of assets out of developed countries into developing ones, "on
average" and "in theory". John's "each to their own"
model relegates much of the world to a legacy of continuing extirpations if not
final extinctions.
And to react partly the Jane Pratt's posting - she is
absolutely correct - "show them the money!" - but, we have to be
totally pragmatic about the sources of funding as well. As an active mountaineer
for 30 years I have had no problem with the concept of paying peak fees
(sometimes they are too high and I do not go , but it is one of the most cogent
examples of microeconomics at work that I have ever seen - talk about
elasticity) - nor trophy fees for that matter (I do not hunt). But user fees
only work in some spectacular places and they will always be a drop in the
bucket. We absolutely need subsidies and transfer payments.
Similarly with the philanthropic investments of Foundations
and NGOs (e.g. WWF and others for Pandas at Wolong in China). It works for
pandas, but what about the Black-Necked Cranes, 500 km to the north on the Tibet
Plateau - NOPE - here we need GEF type support, probably in perpetuity. And that
is just fine by me. More power to the NGOS and thanks and congratulations - but
it will never be enough. Sustainability of global biodiversity is a global
responsibility and needs to be funded globally. There is simply no other long
term solution.
Bye for now!
Stephan Fuller
www.fuller-imc.com
Date: Sun, 20 Apr 2003 09:12:33 +0200
Author: "Elli Broxham" <ellib@bluewin.ch>
Subject: [PPMT]S3: Re: Defining Success
[clip] "Success
is only temporary, while every loss is final. How do you define success? From which perspective?"
-John Shores [clip]
This seems to be a major problem in all environmental and
developmental work. What is the success we are aiming for? Is it sustainable
development, i.e. continued economic growth together with environmental
improvement? Or is everyone working towards something different? Do we measure
success in terms of human success, ecosystem success, economic success?
Community participation only works if it is real, as John Shores says, a
questionnaire and a quick appraisal is not the same thing at all. Real community
participation might just tell us something that we in the west don't want to
hear and don't want to fund. - Elli
----
Moderator's
comment
Thank you,
Elli for your input. -Khadga Basnet
Date: Sat, 19 Apr 2003 20:26:31 +0530
Author: "Kavita Rai" <raiskb@wlink.com.np>
Subject: [PPMT]S3: Defining Success ( In response to
community management)
Greetings to all!
In Nepal, we have just stepped into the year 2060 B.S.
However, the clock of the country's progress seems to be ticking backwards.
Citizens blame politicians, politicians blame each other and the list goes on.
Conflict, differences and self-interests exist everywhere, including in
'communities'.
When we talk of 'community management', there is often a
largely idealistic egalitarian view attached to a 'community'. In reality, it is
formed out of an intricate and complicated interrelationship, both at the inter
and intra household level where power differentials exists and change all the
time. What ignite these power imbalances are questions that need to be raised
particularly to unearth the 'community' by itself. Probably, failure to do this
led to the downfall of some 'community managed projects'.
I understand from my own experiences and current research
that strong leadership forms yet another core of dismantling the concept of a
community. If a locality has a strong leader with the right motives, powerful
relations, social integrity and importantly, an excess of resources in the tune
of finances and time at hand, benefits are accrued more by the defined
"community". Track this to some successful community management cases.
Currently, I am researching a large hydropower site with
some predominantly knowledgeable, well-exposed, smart and individualistic groups
and individuals. On site, one cannot trace 'the community' as an egalitarian
single force. However, once they have been able to identify a common interest
and a strong need to protect and use their own resources, they have managed to
utilize what one of them said "the strength of a samuha (collective group)
to get the benefits they deserved". What the project defined as
'rebellion', the people define it as a 'right'. Therefore, collective identity
comes with the identification of the foremost needs, values and interests of
groups of people. The stronger these variables, the higher the cohesive action.
This could be why some 'community management' worked. Apart from it, their other
differences exist.
As a solution, it is important to see where the
differentials and similarities exist. People need to be provided transparent
mechanisms of information flow and effective means to be able to participate
fully at all levels. If real needs do not exist, then just move on to another
field where time and money will be better spent. Development has knocked on too
many doors of 'communities' at the same time without a clear linkage or
understanding of their realities. It is time to redefine the 'community' and
instead focus firstly on the social, economic and political intricacies of the
locales that intervention seeks to address. I assume that there will be
different reactions by different people depending on their exposure, knowledge
and the worldview each has created for themselves. There should be room to
accommodate all these features. To find that equation, one has to provide time,
energy and above all a sense of apathy to 'listen' and not 'to be listened'.
Probably then, we will start understanding why 'community management' failed in
some or succeeded in others.
Alternatively, we can get into a paradigm shift of
understanding people as a complex web that may provide a variety of intervention
methods, not necessarily 'community managed' where people and society at large
could benefit directly or indirectly.
Kavita Rai
Date: Sun, 20 Apr 2003 15:38:58 -0500
Author: Sylviane Jackson <fishtailfan@yahoo.com>
Subject: [PPMT]S3: A-Factor in Community Forestry, as
elsewhere
As one who has followed development in Nepal for many years
(since a wonderful trek to the Annapurna Sanctuary in 1972), I am not surprised
to hear about the A-factor. Self-interest and greed are not exclusive to the
Iraqi looters (or the Americans who have repeatedly laid waste to their own
inner-city neighborhoods); it occurs among the poor (who seem sometimes more
concerned that their neighbors not get an advantage than that they all make
progress), and among the bureaucrats and consultants who care more about
protecting their jobs than doing something for their country. Are not
self-censorship and cover-ups just different forms of the same tendencies?
Here is an article that appeared in the Kathmandu Post on
Monday. I find it interesting for the layers of contradiction.Surely this is
what makes "RAPID participatory assessment" so dangerous.
S. Jackson
(from the
Kathmandu Post)
"3,000
trees destroyed in Community Forest" by Shahiram
Rai
Khotang, April
13: A protected community forestry of this eastern hill
district has been desgtroyed on a massive scale because of political instability
since the announcement of the cease-fire. Locals said thataround 3,000 standing
trees have been felled after the community forestry was opened for collecting
firewood and fodder.
Around 200 villagers of Patheka Village Development
Committee entered the Dhungefurke Community Forestry extended at around 35
ropanies of the forest and felled trees this month. Villagers alleged that the
vice-chairman of the community forestry was involved in the destruction that
continued for five weeks.
No government agencies paid heed to the protection of the
community forestry located about 12 km away from the district headquarters of
Diktel. The people of the Pathe and Kharmi VDCs had been extracting forest
products from the protected forestry. But it was the people of the Pathe who
were found to have been engaged in the deforestation, said the locals.
According to the decision of the community forestry users'
group, the forest was opened for the locals only to collect firewood and fodder
for a period of five weeks under the supervision of the users' group's
vice-president, Padam Bahadur Shrestha.
"We found that Shrestha let the villagers fell trees
beyond the limitation," said Laxmi Prasad Baniya, president of the users'
group. Baniya said that more than 10,000 saplings of cardamom have also been
destroyed while the cutting down of more than 3,000 big trees.
Vice-president Shrestha, however, refuted the allegations,
saying that the main reason behind the deforestation was the "dispute over
the ownership of the forestry". He claimed that the locals cut down trees
in protest against a family -- Laxmi Prasad Giri -- who had been using it as his
private property. "Members of the users' group went wild," he added.
Former chairmain of Khamri VDC, Balram Rai, informed that
the deforestation of the forestry was a collective revolt against Giri, who had
been claiming that the forest belonged to him and not to the community.
"People will continue revolting against him until he gives up
ownership," said the former chairman.
Giri, however,
claimed that seven ropanies of his arable land fell within the forest area,
hence he had a legal right to claim the entire forest. He also claimed that the
locals uprooted 60,000 cardamom saplings that were planted inside the forest
along with the trees.
Nobody is thinking of filing a complaint at the District
Administration Office over the massive scale of deforestation. "Even the
villagers threaten us with murder if we lodge a complaint. How can we do
so," said the officials of the users' group.
A section of the villagers blame the administration for
negligence in the protection of the forest even during the post-cease-fire
period when the maoist threats in the rural areas are almost non-existent.
When asked, officials at the Khotang District Forest Office
could not state whether the forestry belonged to the community or an individual.
Forest officer Chhannu Ram Chaudhary said that they would
definitely take action against them provided that they received complaints. He
also claimed that there had never been a registered forest users' group
protecting the forestry.
[End]
Date: Sun, 20 Apr 2003 01:14:15 -0700 (PDT)
Author: Krishnahari Gautam <khgautam@yahoo.com>
Subject: [PPMT]S3: Re: High dependency of local people on
mountain resources
Dear participants,
Appreciate lead paper by Dr Basnet, touching briefly the
issues of PA managment. The paper is successful documented the shifting
paradigms, and have preferred the bottom-up model for its success. Many
subsequent presentations have also supported this model. Although doubts have
been raised about the success of community management, I would reinforce my
submission that local community participation is the best option of sustainable
PA management. Success of local actions or responses matters more than the
success of large-scale conservation projects/programmes.
Dr Basnet listed "high dependency of local people on
mountain resources" as an issue for mountain park management. I have
different view on this; this could be the strength for managing mountain
PA/parks. This was the key factor for achieving exemplary successes in community
forestry programme in the hills of Nepal.
Because local people (everyone) rely on forest products so
they loved it growing. Given the appropriate environment local people
participated to their maximum extent. PA management need to cash this strength.
Another strength in the mountain region is its richness of
established local communities with long history. These communities have
tremendous indigenous knowledge, and vision for biodiversity. Moreover, the
multicultural communities create appropriate venue for biodiversity
conservation, as different ethnic member within a community, for example, may
have different importance for the same plant or vice versa.
All these situations made community forestry a great
success in mountain whereas the same programme is not that much effective in
Tarai yet.
krishna h gautam
------------------
Moderator's comment/s
Thank you Krishna Hari Gautam for a very well thought of
composition with examples for discussion. Actual participation of local
community is the best option for sustainable management (but see also Dr.
Chettri's example from Bhutan). `Management issue' has a broader connotation
that requires either mitigation or enhancement strategy to deal with in park or
community forest management. If ``high dependency of local people on mountain
resources" is the strength for managing mountain PAs, it is still an issue
how to cash it for better results.
Any idea why the community forestry in Tarai is not as
effective as it is in mountains of Nepal? - Khadga Basnet
[PPMT]S3:Closing Statement
from Moderator
Dear All:
Today is the last day of the session 3 (a long one!). I
would like to take this opportunity to thank you all who participated and I hope
you enjoyed and benefited as much as I did from this session. I learned a lot
from our participants with different background/expertise, and cultures from
different parts of the world. Thank you for this opportunity. I'll try to
prepare a summary of the discussion and send it to you in a week's time. If
anybody would like to summarize from his/her perspective, you are welcome.
Hopefully, I will meet many of you in Namche next month.
With best regards,
Khadga Basnet