2.6 Participatory Forestry: A new perspective in the link between people and forests
2.6.3 The 'new' conservation
The failure of the early conservation initiatives to deliver the objectives that define the principal goal of conservation did not mean an end of the conservation movement.
While conservation still maintained its main goal of preserving the natural resource base; a new thinking occupied the conservation movement in the 1970s (Berkes, 2004; Jeanrenaud, 2002). This shift indeed fuelled a remarkable change in the manner in which conservation had been formally conceptualised. In contrast to the exclusionary, top-down approaches which separate nature from humanity, the new conservation is defined in terms of its people-oriented approaches (Berkes, 2004;
Brown, 2002; Brown 2003). It is grounded on the notion that seeks to integrate conservation objectives with those of the developmental needs of the local communities (Shackleton et al, 2002). The visible trend that develops is that the issue \
of natural resource management is no longer handled as a single concern, but rather as the one that primarily incorporates biodiversity and livelihoods concerns. This shift is perhaps best presented by Forsyth and Leach (1998 cited in Twyman, 2000: 324) who assert that:
There is now increasing recognition that effective resource management must be linked with issues of equitable access to natural resources, the promotion of sustainable livelihoods and the alleviation of poverty through participatory and empowering processes of development.
Jeanrenaud (2002) postulates that since the end of the 1970s, the international conservation movement had adopted various conservation with development narratives, promoting the idea that conservation and development are mutually interdependent. It could perhaps be deduced that the integration of conservation and development explains that the paradigm shifts that have been witnessed in development thinking and practice in the 1970s and beyond cannot be alienated among the issues that influenced the new thinking in conservation literature and practice. In this, the devolution of management responsibilities and the transfer of land ownership from the state to local communities and the participatory approaches in particular have had a fundamental influence (Shackleton et al, 2002; Shitima, 2005, Twyman, 2000). The popularity of participation in the lexicon of development has brought a new way of thinking among contemporary development planners as well as policy makers. The participatory approaches to development continue to play a yardstick role in policies and programs that are related to poverty alleviation and equally so, it is gaining widespread application on the issues that concern the management of natural resources like forests (Arnold, 2001; Bigombe Logo, 2002;
Grundy et al, 2005; Matakala and Kwesiga 2005; Shitima, 2005; Twyman, 2000). It is in this regard that the conservation practices and policies are increasingly incorporating the people-oriented approaches as a new ingredient in achieving conservation objectives (Jeanrenaud, 2002). Moreover, the devolution of management responsibilities has, according to Shackleton et al (2002), transferred control over natural resource management decision-making to local people. It has created the space to accommodate local interests and livelihood needs, and empowered resource users to benefit from and influence the outcomes of these new policies.
37
i
The emphasis on decentralization and devolution of decision-making powers in the management of natural resources has had a fundamental impact in promoting the culture of new conservation. This approach seeks to reconcile the previously conflicting views between conservation objectives and the development needs of local communities (Brown, 2002). It acknowledges and seeks to address the detrimental effects imposed by the previous practices to the livelihoods of rural communities and thus insists on promoting participation from below. Jeanrenaud (2002) contends that there are external and internal influences that prompt the evolution of the people- oriented conservation, these include:
• A growing concern for livelihoods, particularly among field practitioners;
• A growing emphasis on sustainable use;
• A recognition of indigenous knowledge and management systems; and
• The influence of participatory development and donor funding requirements.
These influences are in their context, an explanation as to why the contemporary debates on conservation policies and practices have become enmeshed in the wider discussions that relate to the environment, rural livelihoods and development (Bigombe Logo, 2002; IUCN, 2003; Jeanrenaud, 2002; Twyman, 2000). The multidimensional nature of these influences, perhaps, further reveals that the new conservation (people-oriented conservation) is rooted on research findings that have attributed an inseparable relationship between the environment and development, particularly in poverty-stricken areas (IUCN, 2003). Hence, the new conservation is, according to Brown (2002), enshrined in contemporary conservation policies and practices that consider people as the potential partners in the sustainable management of natural resources. It promotes the notion of simultaneous interest in the welfare of people and nature (Jeanrenaud, 2002; Wollenberg et al, 2004).
A plethora of approaches and practices that depict the new conservation agenda have emerged in many parts of the world in the past few decades, particularly in the 1980s (Hughes and Flintan, 2001; Jeanrenaud, 2002). Concepts such as Integrated Conservation and Development Projects (ICDPs), community-based conservation, community-based natural resource management, community-based coastal resource management, community forestry, primary environmental care and collaborative management all refer to the approaches and practices which seek to integrate rather 38
•-f*
than separate nature conservation and development (Brown, 2003; Jeanrenaud 2002;
Khanya-MRC, 2003). However, it is worth noting here that although these approaches share the same sentiment, that of integrating conservation with development, each of them has its own assumptions, history and contested meanings (Jeanrenaud, 2002) and thus their varying definitions largely depend upon the context and country involved (Carson, undated). For instance, in India and other parts of Asia, joint forest management has been a more popular term which depicts the collaboration of various stakeholders in forest management (Behera and Engel, 2004; Shitima, 2005). It seems that the varying nature of the above concepts in terms of their assumptions, history and meanings and context reflects a visible link with what has been mentioned above with regard to Parker's (1980 cited in Hackett, 1995) assertion that conservation is viewed differently according to one's social and economic philosophy. This in turn reinforces the fact that the focus of the conservation movement is not guided/ rooted in common objectives and outcomes. Although the new conservation is represented by multiple approaches as outlined above, the discussion that pertains to its practical application in this study will only concentrate on the Community-Based Natural Resource Management (CBNRM) approach.