COMMUNITY IN CONSERVATION

THEORETICAL

MARINE/ FISHERIES PASTORAL PROTECTED AREAS WILDLIFE

MARINE/ FISHERIES

Callicott, JB (1991). “Conservation ethics and fishery management.” Fisheries 16(20): 22-28.

Fujita, R, T Foran, et al. (1998). “Innovative approaches for fostering conservation in marine fisheries.” Ecological Applications 8(1): 139-150.

Many modern fisheries management systems create incentives to overfish, leading to negative economic and environmental consequences for human welfare and marine ecosystem health. In this paper, we review problems faced by many fisheries managers, including overcapitalization, by-catch of nontarget species, and alteration of marine food webs. We recommend the formulation of alternative fisheries management goals based on risk-averse, multispecies management. We discuss alternative fisheries management systems, including transferable fishing privileges, community development quotas, and individual transferable quotas (ITQs). We argue that fostering fisheries conservation will require combining stringent performance criteria with alternative fisheries management designed to create incentives for sustainability. (SSCI)

Newkirk, G (1996). “Sustainable coastal production systems: a model for integrating aquaculture and fisheries under community management.” Ocean and Coastal Management 32(2): 69-83.

Develops a system for integrating aquaculture and fisheries management into conservation plans based on local conditions and objectives; has international applications. (PAIS)

Pinkerton, E, Ed. (1989). Cooperative Management of Local Fisheries. Vancouver, University of British Columbia Press.

Sen, S and J-R Nielsen (1996). “Fisheries co-management: a comparative analysis.” Marine-Policy 20: 405-418.

White, AT, Ed. (1994). Collaborative and Community-based Management of Coral Reefs: A Lesson from Experience. West Hartford, CT, Kumarian Press.

PASTORAL:

Agrawal, A (1994). “I don't need it but you can't have it: politics on the commons.” Pastoral Development Network 36a(July): 36-55.

Humphrey, C and D Sneath (1996). Pastoral Economy and the Environment. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

PROTECTED AREA:

Adam, J (1996). “National parks: new uses for old tools.” Conservation Issues 3: 1.

Adams, AB (1962). Appendix C. in First World Conference on National Parks. Proceedings of a conference organized by the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN). AB Adams, Ed. Washington, D.C., U.S. National Park Service: 408-410.

Barzetti, V, Ed. (1993). Parks and Progress. Washington DC, IUCN.

Batisse, M (1982). “The biosphere reserve: a tool for environmental conservation and management.” Environmental Conservation 9: 101-111.

Batisse, M (1986). “Developing and focusing the biosphere reserve concept.” Nature and Resources 22(3): 2-11.

Batisse, M (1997). “Biosphere reserves - a challenge for biodiversity conservation & regional development.” Environment 39(5): 6.

Bedward, M, RL Pressey, et al. (1992). “A new approach to selecting fully representative reserve networks: addressing efficiency, reserve design, and land suitability with an iterative analysis.” Biological Conservation 62: 115-125.

Bella, L (1987). Parks for Profit. Montreal, Harvest House.

Brandon, KE and M Wells (1992). “Planning for people and parks: design dilemmas.” World Development 20(4): 557-570.

Brechin, SR and PC West (1990). “Protected areas, resident people, and sustainable conservation: the need to link top-down with bottom-up.” Society and Natural Resources 3: 77-79.

Cain, SA (1968). “Natural area preservation: national urgency.” BioScience 18: 399-401.

Carpenter, JF (1998). “Internally motivated development projects: a potential tool for biodiversity conservation outside of protected areas.” Ambio 27(3): 211-216.

Projects conceived and implemented internally by local communities in the developing world (Internally Motivated Projects = IMPs), inherently meet local needs, often addressing issues of livelihood security and income generation, and thus are more sustainable than externally motivated projects focused primarily on biological conservation. This paper evaluates whether internally motivated development projects exhibit resource conservation payoffs and offer an avenue for low cost and sustainable conservation outside of protected areas. IMPs were identified from the files of conservation and development agencies. Project activities were evaluated for their potential payoffs to soil, water, biodiversity conservation, and air quality. Results show that on-farm soil and water conservation are common, and acknowledged payoffs of IMPs. Biodiversity conservation payoffs do occur, but are not often explicitly recognized by the project implementers and are the secondary consequences of other activities. IMPs offer an avenue for direct resource conservation of on-farm soil, water and genetic resources, and indirect conservation of biodiversity by reducing off-farm impacts. (Author)

Carruthers, J (1997). Nationhood and national parks: comparative examples from the post-imperial experience. in Ecology and Empire: Environmental History of Settler Societies. T Griffiths and L Robin, Ed. Seattle, University of Washington Press.

Cerovsky, J (1993). Transboundary protected areas. Parks for Life: Report of the IVth World Congress, IUCN.

Clay, JW (1985). “Parks and people.” Cultural Survival 9(1): 2-5.

Clemente, CR (1993). “Extractive reserves examined.” Bioscience 43: 644-646.

Conca, K (1996). Informal regimes, non-state actors, and state authority: the transnational governance of national park systems. Paper presented at the 92nd annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, San Francisco.

Elliot, H, Ed. (1974). Second World Conference on National Parks. Morges, Switzerland, IUCN.

Fletcher, SA (1990). “Parks, protected areas and local populations: new international issues and imperatives.” Landscape and Urban Planning 19(2): 197-201.

Ghimire, K and M Pimbert, Eds. (1997). Social Change and Conservation: Environmental Politics and Impacts of National Parks and Protected Areas. London, Earthscan.

Goodwin, H (1996). “In pursuit of ecotourism.” Biodiversity and Conservation 5(3): 277-291.

Hales, D (1989). Changing concepts of national parks. in Conservation for the Twenty-first Century. D Western and M Pearl, Ed. Oxford, Oxford University Press.

Halffter, G (1985). “Biosphere reserves: Conservation of nature for man.” Parks 10(3): 15-18.

Hall, J (1983). “Positive management for strict natural reserves: reviewing effectiveness.” Forest Ecology and Management 7: 57-66.

Hall, M (1995). “Ecotourism or ecological imperialism?” The Geographical Magazine 67: 19.

"Ecotourism" is an admirable concept, but its implementation has come at the expense of indigenous people on whom Western cultural values are being forced. Western ideas about ecological conservation tend to separate humankind from nature, whereas there is no such division in traditional societies. The principles of sustainability advocated by ecotourism must also take into account the values and culture of the host community and the interrelationship between ecology, society, and the economy. (Wilsonweb)

Harmon, D (1987). “Cultural diversity, human subsistence, and the national park ideal.” Environmental Ethics 9(Summer): 147-158.

Harrison, J, K Miller, et al. (1984). “The world coverage of protected areas: development goals and environmental needs.” Ambio 11: 238-245.

Heinen, J (1996). “Human behavior, incentives, and protected area management.” Conservation Biology 10(2): 681-684.

Hough, JL (1988). “Obstacles to effective management of conflicts between national parks and surrounding human communities in developing countries.” Environmental Conservation 15(2): 129- 136.

International Union for the Conservation of Nature (1994). Guidelines for Protected Area Management Categories. Gland, Switzerland, IUCN.

Kemf, E (1993). Indigenous Peoples and Protected Areas: The Law of Mother Earth. London, Earthscan.

King, D and W Stewart (1996). “Ecotourism and commodification: Protecting people and places.” Biodiversity and Conservation 5(3): 293-305.

The ability of ecotourism to protect both people and places is an unresolved, and growing, concern. Commodification of host culture and environment is a widely reported social impact of tourism and spawns an array of implications regarding indigenous people's view of their places and themselves. The degree of impact from ecotourism development is related to the degree of market development within the indigenous community and their state of decline regarding natural resource scarcity. Pre-existing power differentials between local people and other groups may be exacerbated by ecotourism development. To protect both people and their places, native people's claim to control should be legitimized by conservation and government authorities, particularly indigenous people's role in technical management of the protected area. Regional and national government controls are relevant at the inception of ecotourism development, but ultimately should be reduced to one of infrastructure planning and coordination. (OVID)

Kramer, RA, Cv Schaik, et al., Eds. (1997). Last Stand: Protected Areas and the Defense of Tropical Biodiversity. New York, Oxford University Press.

Leader-Williams, N and SD Albon (1988). “Allocation of resources for conservation.” Nature 336: 533-535.

Mackinnon, J, K Mackinnon, et al. (1986). Managing Protected Areas in the Tropics. Gland, Switzerland, IUCN.

Margules, CR, AO Nicholls, et al. (1988). “Selecting networks of reserves to maximize biological diversity.” Biological Conservation 43: 663-676.

McNeely, JA (1989). Protected areas and human ecology: how National Parks can contribute to sustaining societies of the twenty-first century. in Conservation for the Twenty-First Century. D Western and MC Pearl, Ed. New York, Oxford University Press.

McNeely, JA (1994). “Protected areas for the 21st-century - working to provide benefits to society.” Biodiversity and Conservation 3(5): 390-405.

Since the first national park was created at Yellowstone in the USA in 1872, over 8500 protected areas have been established worldwide. Virtually all countries have seen the wisdom of protecting areas of outstanding importance to society, and such sites now cover over 5% of Earth's land surface. However, many of these protected areas exist only on paper, not on the ground. Most are suffering from a combination of threats, including pollution, over-exploitation, encroachment, poaching, and many others. In a period of growing demands on resources and shrinking government budgets, new approaches are required to ensure that protected areas can continue to make their contributions to society. First and foremost, protected areas must be designed and managed in order to provide tangible and intangible benefits to society. This will involve integrating protected areas into larger planning and management frameworks, linking protected areas to biodiversity and climate change, promoting greater financial support for protected areas, and expanding international cooperation in the finance, development and management of protected areas. (Journal)

Munro, DA (1995). New partners in conservation: How to expand public support for protected areas. in Expanding Partnerships in Conservation. JA McNeely, Ed. Washington DC, Island Press: 13-18.

Nelson, JG (1991). “Beyond parks and protected areas: from public ownership to private stewardship to landscape planning and management.” Environments 21: 23-34.

Nepal, S (1997). “Sustainable tourism, protected areas and livelihood needs of local communities in developing countries.” International Journal Of Sustainable Development And World Ecology 4(2): 123-134.

During the last two decades, extensive networks of protected areas in many developing countries have stimulated growth in protected area-based tourism. As protected area tourism occurs in isolated and remote rural regions, it is often assumed that such regions will experience stimulation of economic activities induced by tourism from which local people will be able to derive tangible benefits. Evidence suggests that this is rarely the case. Indeed, in the majority of protected areas, benefits have hardly reached the local community which bears the heaviest burden of protected area management. When a protected area is established and opened for tourism, it is often outsiders who rush in to siphon-off a major portion of the tourism income generated locally. Nevertheless, there are some pioneering approaches such as CAMPFIRE (Communal Areas Management Programme for Indigenous Resources) and ACAP (Annapurna Conservation Area Project) which have attempted to fulfil livelihood needs of local communities using benefits derived from wildlife or nature-based tourism. Both projects emphasize a people-centred, participatory democratic approach. Citing various examples from developing countries, this paper discusses the dependent nature of tourism in general, impact of protected area tourism on local livelihoods, and some constraints and opportunities for the long-term viability of protected areas. (Author)

O'Neill, KM (1996). “The international politics of national parks.” Human Ecology 24: 521-539.

National parks are the keystone institutions of environmental conservation. Because national parks make certain lands part of the state itself, international agencies and nongovernmental organizations that promote national parks propose, in effect, to alter the state, as well as the local economy and state relations with social groups. Has international political pressure caused states to create national parks? I consider whether countries highly involved in international politics have the largest proportions of land in national parks. I conclude that many states create minimal park systems as symbolic gestures to the international community. Field researchers may find it easier to explain the success or failure of parks if they identity why state officials decide that adopting international conservation norms will enhance state authority over people and state sovereignty over land. (Author)

Price, M (1996). “People in biosphere reserves: an evolving concept.” Society and Natural Resources 9: 645-654.

Rao, K and C Geisler (1990). “The social consequences of protected areas development for resident populations.” Society and Natural Resources 3: 19-32.

Schelhas, J and W Shaw (1995). Partnerships between rural people and protected areas: Understanding land use and natural resource use decisions. in Expanding Partnerships in Conservation. JA McNeely, Ed. Washington DC, Island Press: 206-214.

Scott, JM and B Csuti (1997). “Noah worked two jobs.” Conservation Biology 11 Oct.: 1255-1257.

The preservation of Earth's biodiversity is discussed. Maintaining the planet's biodiversity in the face of the rising tide of human population will be difficult and requires the setting up of a network of conservation areas in which all aspects of biodiversity are represented. In situ biodiversity conservation requires solutions to the problems of reserve selection and reserve design, which are very different. First, the complete array of biodiversity must be represented in areas designated for protection. However, no matter how fully all facets of biodiversity are represented in any proposed reserve network, each reserve must be able to maintain population, community, and ecosystem processes over both ecological and evolutionary time. (Journal)

Smith, PGR and JB Therberge (1987). “Evaluating natural areas using multiple criteria: theory and practice.” Environmental Management 11: 447-460.

Snelson, D (1995). Neighbors as partners of protected areas. in Expanding Partnerships in Conservation. JA McNeely, Ed. Washington, Island Press.

Stankey, GH (1989). “Linking parks to people: the key to effective management.” Society and Natural Resources 2: 245-250.

Stevens, S (1997). Conservation Through Cultural Survival: Indigenous Peoples and Protected Areas. Washington DC, Island Press.

Theberge, JB (1989). “Guidelines to drawing ecologically sound boundaries for national parks and nature reserves.” Environmental Management 13(6): 695-702.

Tisdell, C (1995). “Issues in biodiversity conservation including the role of local communities.” Environmental Conservation 22(3): 216-221.

Venter, A and C Breen (1998). “Partnership forum framework: participative framework for protected area outreach.” Environmental Management 22(6): 803-815.

Contemporary trends in natural resource management are reviewed, with specific reference to the shift in conservation management strategies away from law enforcement-based strategies towards strategies aimed at facilitating local community participation in the management of natural resources. This review lays a foundation for the presentation of a conceptual framework, the partnership forum framework, for the planning, implementation, and evaluation of protected area outreach programmes. The framework proposes that protected areas should function as integral components of the local social, economic, and environmental systems and that the integration of the protected area into these systems should be managed through comanagement institutions. The establishment of such institutions is discussed, and it is argued that the development of comanagement institutions can be characterized into four progressive phases: a preliminary communication phase, a problem-solving phase, a pilot project phase, and a comanagement phase. The framework proposes that during the three initial phases the partnership forum members will develop management procedures that they will use during the comanagement phase. The framework is presented as a design Skeleton around which the site-specific characteristics of specific protected area outreach programs will combine to form an outreach program, i.e., the framework is process rather than project based. (Source)

Wells, M and K Brandon (1992). People and Parks: Linking Protected Area Management with Local Communities. Washington DC, World Bank.

Wells, M and KE Brandon (1993). “The principles and practice of buffer zones and local participation in biodiversity conservation.” Ambio 22(2-3): 157-162.

West, P (1994). “Introduction: Resident peoples and protected areas.” Society and Natural Resources 7: 303-304.

West, P and S Brechin, Eds. (1991). Resident Peoples and National Parks: Social Dilemmas and Strategies in International Conservation. Tucson, University of Arizona Press.

Westing, AH, Ed. (1993). Transfrontier Reserves for Peace and Nature: A Contribution to Global Security. Nairobi, UNEP.

Westing, AH (1998). “Establishment and management of transfrontier reserves for conflict prevention and confidence building.” Environmental Conservation 25(2): 91-94.

Wright, RG and DJ Mattson (1996). The origins and purpose of national parks and protected areas. in National Parks and Protected Areas: Their Role in Environmental Protection. RG Wright, Ed. Cambridge, MA, Blackwells.

Zube, EH and ML Busch (1990). “Park-people relationship: an international review.” Landscape and Urban Planning 19(2): 117-131.

WILDLIFE:

Bissonette, JA and PR Krausman, Eds. (1995). Integrating People and Wildlife for a Sustainable Future. Bethesda, MD, The Wildlife Society.

Edwards, SR and A Tiega (1995). Issues and actions for the future of wildlife and people. in Integrating People and Wildlife for a Sustainable Future. JA Bissonette and PR Krausman, Ed. Bethesda, MD, The Wildlife Society.

Geist, V (1988). “How markets in wildlife meat and parts, and the sale of hunting privileges, jeopardize wildlife conservation.” Conservation Biology 2(1): 15-26.

International Institute for Environment and Development (1994). Whose Eden? An Overview of Community Approaches to Wildlife Management. London, IIED.

Prescott-Allen, R and C Prescott-Allen (1982). What's Wildlife Worth? London, International Institute for Environment and Development.

Scott, MJ, E Ables, et al. (1995). “Conservation of biological diversity: perspectives and the future for the wildlife profession.” Wildlife Society Bulletin 23(4): 646-657.

Swanson, TM (1991). “Wildlife utilization as an instrument for natural habitat conservation: a survey of the literature and of the issues.” IIED LEEC Paper DP 91-03, International Institute for Environment and Development, London.