Home       About us   Issues     Search     Submission Subscribe   Contact    Login 
Conservation and Society
An interdisciplinary journal exploring linkages between society, environment and development
Conservation and Society
Users Online: 298 Home Print this page Email this page Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size



 
Previous articleTable of Contents Next article

OPINION
Year : 2009  |  Volume : 7  |  Issue : 1  |  Page : 11-14

From Displacement-based Conservation to Place-based Conservation


1 Department of Earth & Environment, Florida International University, Miami, FL 33199, USA
2 Centro de Investigaciones en Geografía Ambiental; Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México; Antigua carretera a Pátzcuaro No. 8701. Col. Ex-hacienda de San José de la Huerta C. P. 58190, Morelia, Michoacan, Mexico

Correspondence Address:
David Barton Bray
Department of Earth & Environment, Florida International University, Miami, FL 33199
USA
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/0972-4923.54791

Rights and Permissions
Date of Web Publication29-Jul-2009
 


How to cite this article:
Bray DB, Velazquez A. From Displacement-based Conservation to Place-based Conservation. Conservat Soc 2009;7:11-4

How to cite this URL:
Bray DB, Velazquez A. From Displacement-based Conservation to Place-based Conservation. Conservat Soc [serial online] 2009 [cited 2017 Sep 21];7:11-4. Available from: http://www.conservationandsociety.org/text.asp?2009/7/1/11/54791


   Problem Statement Top


The viability of biodiversity conservation based uniquely upon a model of protected areas is being questioned in the developing world, and new evidence is emerging on the social and ecological costs of displacing people in order to 'impose wilderness' (Neumann 2002; Igoe 2004; Rodrνgues 2006). This re-evaluation of the strict protected areas model is driven in part by new data showing that some human-dominated regimes of land use and tenure are effective complementary conservation strategies that can achieve both sustainable livelihoods and biodiversity conservation, although there are tradeoffs in all forms of conservation land use (Velαzquez et al . 2003a; Zimmerer 2006). A vigorous debate frequently based on fragmentary data is giving way to a more nuanced appreciation of the costs and benefits of varying forms of land use and their benefits for conservation and development. This is greatly assisted by the maturation of models of community forest management for timber and protection in Mexico (Bray et al . 2005, 2008), indigenous reserves in Brazil (Nepstad et al . 2006), and participatory landscape conservation planning in Madagascar (Hanna et al . 1998).

Strict protected areas or 'parks' were a U.S. creation, as in the iconic parks of Yellowstone and Yosemite, although it is now known more clearly that in both cases wilderness was created by banishing or placing under strict controls indigenous peoples who had managed the landscape for millennia, in what has been called a 'dramatic reversal of the origin myth of national parks' (Redford & Sanderson 2006). As the strict protected area model has vigorously expanded in the developing world over the last several decades (Naughton-Treves et al . 2005), parks have commonly been created in areas where indigenous and local peoples are still resident, and where displacement, when attempted, receives a good deal more attention than it did in the 19th century United States.

Human displacement for the creation of parks has a variegated history in the developing world. Despite some early examples, active displacement of long-resident peoples in Latin America is rarely done (Bray & Anderson 2005). Displacement efforts are slightly more common when external colonization by land-hungry settlers overruns a protected area, but barely so, since even quasi-democratic governments prefer a few angry environmentalists over thousands of poor citizens. A troubling pattern of active displacement does, however, continue to occur in other parts of the world. For example, an estimated 120­­-150,000 people were either physically displaced or deprived of resource rights by parks in the Congo Basin (Cernea & Schmidt-Soltau 2006), largely without compensation. That these large-scale recent displacements take place in some of the poorest societies and most authoritarian governance systems in the world should cause conservationists to question the defensibility and future of this strategy. As well, it is questionable whether the policy of several African governments to carry out shoot-on-sight of suspected wildlife poachers, which includes 'impoverished peasants searching for small game and fish', would be thinkable anywhere else in the world (Neumann 2004).

Even in Latin America, however, protected area establishment frequently strips local residents of resource rights creating situations where conservation goals are barely achieved or become a source of constant conflict. For example, the Monarch Butterfly Biosphere Reserve in Mexico has received major policy and budgetary attention from the Mexican government and conservation nongovernmental organizations over the last 10 years, and is still considered one of the most contentious protected areas in the country. Parks are bureaucratic top-down creations of central governments and are thus dependent on the vagaries of public policy and unstable budgets. This is particularly true if there having not been sustained efforts to co-manage them with local residents, as is the case with the Monarch Reserve and many others. Some 90% of the six billon dollars spent annually on conservation is in economically developed countries, and funding for conservation is declining in strategic areas like the Amazon Basin (Brooks et al . 2006). Given pressing economic problems, developing governments are unlikely to consistently dedicate adequate funding to biodiversity conservation. As well, recent experience in the United States shows how shifts in public policy can quickly reduce protection on federal lands.


   Novel Conservation Initiatives Top


At the same time, overall protection strategies are shifting from strict protected areas to 'people-centered protected areas' (Naughton-Treves et al . 2005). It has been estimated that only around 9% of the world's 98,400 terrestrial protected areas are in the strictest IUCN categories of I and II (Naughton-Treves et al . 2005: 231). When these strict protected areas have achieved local and national stakeholder support they can be effective, but when they alienate local people or shut them out of decision making a crucial conservation opportunity is lost. People defend places from which they derive their livelihoods and their identity (Kates et al . 2001; Cheng et al . 2003). Long-resident local peoples may indeed contribute to biodiversity loss, particularly through subsistence and commercial hunting. But new efforts to combine traditional knowledge and scientific knowledge are emerging as indigenous people struggle with new constraints, and significant numbers of indigenous communities are moving toward figuring out how to profit from new conservation strategies like payment for environmental services (Herman et al . 2003). As well, long-settled rural peoples are showing that even relatively intensive human use can be compatible with a substantial degree of biodiversity. About 4.5 million sq. km of global conservation areas are used for agriculture (Zimmerer 2006). Timber production has been heavily criticized (Rice et al . 1997, 2001) but there is evidence that many forms of selective logging have minimal effect on biodiversity (Putz et al . 2000).

We are at a new stage of research into the relative effectiveness of various land tenure regimes for biodiversity protection (Hayes 2006, 2007). Better data is being produced on what works more effectively in different situations and the costs and benefits of different strategies, and this research takes us well beyond protected areas. For example, Naughton-Treves et al . (2005) call for 'expanding the frontier of research into protected area effectiveness and deforestation' and suggest more emphasis on buffer zones. However, the most appropriate comparison for evaluating protected areas is not 'no protection', normally the case in buffer zones, but community-based management (Bhagwat et al . 2001). There is increasing evidence that bottom-up, community-based processes, in concert with carefully planned support from governments and NGOs, can achieve multiple socially desirable goals (Velαzquez et al . in press; Fisher et al . 2005).


   Evidence at a Glance Top


Some of the strongest evidence has come from the emergence of community forest management for timber in Mexico and Guatemala and the emergence of indigenous territories elsewhere in Latin America. While many Mexican communities suffer from deforestation due to cattle raising and agriculture as is the case elsewhere in the tropics (Coomes et al . 2008), the alternative of forest management for timber has eliminated deforestation in many cases. In Mexico, the presence of many large forest communities established by Mexico's agrarian reform process has some similarities to indigenous or extractive reserves in other countries, although with a much longer history and more secure land tenure (Bray et al . 2005). The ejido is a product of Mexico's agrarian reform process and is a common property that can be used for agricultural, livestock, or forestry purposes. A historical process has produced from this common property form of governance well-established community forest enterprises that are mature social and economical institutions. The evolution of strong governance structures has proved to be a trigging factor for achieving more or less sustainable forest management in many cases (Bray et al . 2005). Some of these community forests are proving to be comparable with protected areas in terms of the preservation of forest cover and other measures of biodiversity conservation. For example, Bray et al . (2004) found that a region of community forests managed for the production of timber had the lowest rate of land use change recorded anywhere in southeastern Mexico, and was lower than two other regions dominated by protected areas (see also Bray & Klepeis 2005). Duran et al . (2005) found that community forests in Quintana Roo and Guerrero, in tropical and temperate forests, had similarly low rates of deforestation to a national sample of 74 protected areas. In collaboration with the Wildlife Conservation Society, a recent study aimed at examining the conservation performance of community timber management with protected areas at the level of the Maya Forest, including the Petιn of Guatemala suggested that long-inhabited communities with forest management for timber perform as uninhabited protected areas, although neither community forests nor protected areas perform well in the face of advancing agricultural frontiers (Bray et al . 2008). In both the Mexican and Guatemalan cases, multilevel forest governance institutions have been created by the communities and external agents, with forest extraction regulated by the state under its environmental laws.

But what is happening under the canopy in timber-extracted community forests? In Mexico, all legal logging is carried out under government approved management plans that require various forms of selective logging as well as silvicultural measures including protection of endangered or threatened species and retention of forests in riparian zones. The more sophisticated forest communities have adopted a number of site specific modifications needed to maintain ecosystem functional integrity. Mexico also has the largest number of communities in the world that follow the standards of the Forest Stewardship Council ( http://www.fsc.org/fsc-rules.html ). Studies have shown that community logging in Quintana Roo is 'benign' to both migrant and resident bird species. Other studies have shown that community harvest intensities in the Guatemalan Petιn are among the lowest in the world and have little impact on biodiversity (although there is the much debated issue of mahogany harvest sustainability, see also Snook 2005). Further afield in Brazil, a recent study by Conservation International scientists found that mahogany logging in an indigenous community in the southeastern Amazon Basin had little impact on small mammals, habitat structure, and seed predation (Lambert et al . 2005).

Many protected area advocates argue that only large uninhabited forests can preserve keystone species like jaguars ( Panthera onca ). However, Gerardo Ceballos, the head of the only large-scale study of jaguar populations in Mexico, has compared jaguar habitat in both protected areas and community managed forests. He and his team noted that 'in the Calakmul Biosphere Reserve, there have been invasions of ejidos all along its southern border, where several have penetrated the nuclear zone. Breaking this accelerated advance of the agricultural frontier is the most important challenge to resolve in the next decades. The forest ejidos present a viable alternative in this sense. For example, in the ejido Caobas, in Quintana Roo, great has been our surprise to find a diversity of species, including jaguar, tapir, and white-lipped peccary, in logging areas'. (Ceballos et al . 2005). The forest of Caobas has been logged by the community for over 20 years, and this has not hampered significantly the presence of large predators. Similar finding have been reported for Oaxaca, Guerrero, and Michoacαn. Larger predators and managed human use can coexist on landscapes, just as they do with difficulty in the American West.


   Conclusion Top


All of these experiences in conservation are based in places where people live and where they are prepared to defend their livelihoods. In most of these cases, no one can talk about displacing them because they are the owners or have secure legal access. The emergence of 'place-based' conservation that has little to do with so-called 'integrated and conservation and development projects' and is a new robust form of conservation which can be one answer to balancing the equation between poverty alleviation and biodiversity protection. It merits full inclusion as a second pillar of biodiversity conservation appropriate for the needs of developing countries. It is important to make parks work (Terborgh et al . 2004). However, parks in developing countries, and even increasingly in the developed world, can only work when they recognize the rights of local communities, and when they are embedded in larger landscapes where communities exercise broader bundles of rights over land use and conservation decisions (Berkes 2004; Velαzquez et al . in press), a position on which there is an emerging new consensus in the conservation world (Redford & Sanderson 2006). A world is coming where most conservation will be 'place-based', and deriving its legitimacy from multiscale and participatory governance, and displacement-based conservation will be consigned to the dustbin of history.

Acknowledgments

Financial support for the second author came from UNAM-DGAP-PASPA and CONACYT (convenio 92498). McGill University provided logistic support in polishing the manuscript.[36]

 
   References Top

1.Berkes, F. 2004. Rethinking community-based conservation. Conservation Biology 18: 621-30.  Back to cited text no. 1    
2.Bhagwat, S., N. Brown, T. Evans, S. Jennings and P. Savill. 2001. Parks and factors in their success. Science 293: 1045-1046.  Back to cited text no. 2    
3.Bray, D.B., E.A. Ellis and N. Armijo. 2004. The institutional drivers of sustainable landscapes: a case study of the ′Mayan Zone′ in Quintana Roo, Mexico. Land Use Policy 21: 333-346.  Back to cited text no. 3    
4.Bray, D.B. and P. Klepeis. 2005. Deforestation, forest transitions, and institutions for sustainability in south-eastern Mexico, 1900-2000. Environment and History 11: 195-223.  Back to cited text no. 4    
5.Bray, D.B., L. Merino-Pιrez and D. Barry. 2005. The community forests of Mexico: Managing for sustainable landscapes. Austin, USA: University of Texas Press.  Back to cited text no. 5    
6.Bray, D.B. and A.B. Anderson. 2005. Global conservation non-governmental organizations and local communities: Perspectives on programs and project implementation in Latin America. Working Paper No. 1, Conservation and Development Series. Miami, USA: Institute for Sustainability Science in Latin America and the Caribbean, Latin American and Caribbean Center, Florida International University.   Back to cited text no. 6    
7.Bray, D.B., E. Durαn and V.H. Ramos. In Press. Tropical deforestation, community forests, and protected areas in the maya forest. Ecology and Society .   Back to cited text no. 7    
8.Brechin, S.R., P.R. Wilshusen and L. Crystal. 2002. Beyond the square wheel: toward a more comprehensive understanding of biodiversity conservation as social and political process. Society and Natural Resources 15: 41-64.  Back to cited text no. 8    
9.Brooks, T.M., R.A. Mittermeier, G.A.B. da Fonseca, J. Gerlach, M. Hoffmann, J.F. Lamoreux, C.G. Mittermeier, et al . 2006. Global biodiversity conservation priorities. Science 313: 58-61.   Back to cited text no. 9    
10.Ceballos, G., C. Chαvez, H. Garcia, et al . 2005. Ecologνa y conservación del jaguar en la región de Calakmul. In: Biodiversitas: Boletνn bimestral de la comisión nacional para el conocimiento y uso de la biodiversidad 62: 2-7.  Back to cited text no. 10    
11.Cernea, M.M. and K. Schmidt-Soltau. 2006. Poverty risks and national parks: Policy issues in conservation and resettlement. World Development 34: 1808-1830.  Back to cited text no. 11    
12.Cheng, A.S., L.E. Kruger and S.E. Daniel. 2003. "Place" as an integrating concept in natural resource politics: Propositions for a social science research agenda. Society and Natural Resources 16: 87-104.  Back to cited text no. 12    
13.Coomes, O.T., F. Grimard, C. Potvin and P. Sima. 2008. The fate of the tropical forest: Carbon or cattle? Ecological Economics 65: 207-212.  Back to cited text no. 13    
14.Durαn, E., J.F. Mas and A. Velαzquez. 2005. Land use/cover change in community-based forest management regions and protected areas in Mexico. In: The community forests of Mιxico (eds. Bray, D. and L. Merino). Volume 10. Pp. 215-238. Austin, USA: University of Texas Press.  Back to cited text no. 14    
15.Fisher, R.J., S. Maginnis, W.J. Jackson, et al . 2005. Poverty and conservation: Landscapes, people and power . Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK: IUCN The World Conservation Union.   Back to cited text no. 15    
16.Hannah, L., B. Rakotosamimanana, J. Ganzhorn, et al . 1998. Participatory planning, scientific priorities, and landscape conservation in Madagascar. Environmental Conservation 25: 30-36.   Back to cited text no. 16    
17.Herman, R., S. Kandel and L. Dimas. 2003. Compensación por servicios ambientales y comunidades rurales. Lecciones de las Amιricas y Temas Crνticos para Fortalecer Estrategias Comunitarias . Miami, USA: Prisma Editors.   Back to cited text no. 17    
18.Hayes, T.M. 2006. Parks, people, and forest protection: An institutional assessment of the effectiveness of protected areas. World Developmen t 34: 2064-2075.  Back to cited text no. 18    
19.Hayes, T.M. 2007. Does tenure matter? A comparative analysis of agricultural expansion in the mosquitia forest corridor. Human Ecology 35: 733-747.  Back to cited text no. 19    
20.Igoe, J. 2004. Conservation and globalization: A study of national parks and indigenous communities from East Africa to South Dakota . Belmont, USA: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning.  Back to cited text no. 20    
21.Kates, R.W., W.C. Clark, R. Corell, et al . 2001. Sustainability science. Science 292: 641-642.  Back to cited text no. 21    
22.Lambert, T.D., J.R. Malcolm and B.L. Zimmerman. 2005. Effects of mahogany ( Swietenia macrophylla ) logging on small mammal communities, habitat structure, and seed predation in the southeastern Amazon basin. Forest Ecology and Management 206: 381-398.  Back to cited text no. 22    
23.Neumann, R.P. 2002. Imposing wilderness: Struggles over livelihood and nature preservation in Africa . Berkeley, USA: University of California Press.   Back to cited text no. 23    
24.Neumann, R.P. 2004. Moral and discursive geographies in the war for biodiversity in Africa. Political Geography 23: 813-837.  Back to cited text no. 24    
25.Naughton-Treves, L., M.B. Holland and K. Brandon. 2005. The role of Protected Areas in conserving biodiversity and sustaining local livelihoods. Annual Review of Environment and Resources 30: 219-252.  Back to cited text no. 25    
26.Nepstad, D., S. Schwartzman, B. Bamberer, et al . 2006. Inhibition of Amazon deforestation and indigenous lands. C onservation Biology 20(1): 65-73.  Back to cited text no. 26    
27.Putz, F.E., K.H. Redford, J.G. Robinson, et al . 2000. Biodiversity conservation in the context of tropical forest management. Environmental Department Paper No. 75. Washington, DC, USA: The World Bank.  Back to cited text no. 27    
28.Redford, K.H. and S.E. Sanderson. 2006. No roads, only directions. Conservation and Society. 4(3): 379-382.  Back to cited text no. 28    
29.Rice, R.E., R.E. Gullison and J.W. Reid. 1997. Can sustainable management save tropical forests? Scientific American 276: 44-49.  Back to cited text no. 29    
30.Rice, R.E., C.A. Sugal, S.M. Ratay et al . 2001. Sustainable forest management: A review of conventional wisdom. Advances in Applied Biodiversity Science 3: 1-29.  Back to cited text no. 30    
31.Rodrνgues A.S.L. 2006. Are global conservation efforts successful? Science 313(25): 1051-1052.   Back to cited text no. 31    
32.Snook, L.K. 2005. Sustaining mahogany: Research and silviculture in Mexico′s community forests. Bois Et Forets Des Tropiques 285(3): 55-65.  Back to cited text no. 32    
33.Terborgh, J. and C. van Schaik. 2002. Why the world needs parks? In: Making parks work (eds. Terborgh J., C. van Schaik, L. Davenport and M. Rao).Pp. 3-14. Washington DC, USA: Island Press.  Back to cited text no. 33    
34.Velαzquez, A., G. Bocco, F.J. Romero, et al . 2003. A landscape perspective on biodiversity conservation: the case of Central Mexico. Mountain Research and Development 23(3): 240-246.  Back to cited text no. 34    
35.Velαzquez, A., E.M. Cuι-Bδr, A. Larrazabal, et al . In Press. Building participatory landscape-based conservation alternatives: a case study of Michoacan, Mexico. Applied Geography .   Back to cited text no. 35    
36.Zimmerer, K.S. 2006. Cultural ecology: at the interface with political ecology - the new geographies of environmental conservation and globalization. Progress in Human Geography 63-78.  Back to cited text no. 36    



This article has been cited by
1 Strategic Actions to Value, Conserve, and Restore the Natural Capital of Megadiversity Countries: The Case of Mexico
J. Sarukhan,T. Urquiza-Haas,P. Koleff,J. Carabias,R. Dirzo,E. Ezcurra,S. Cerdeira-Estrada,J. Soberon
BioScience. 2014;
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
2 Deconstructing Community for Conservation: Why Simple Assumptions are Not Sufficient
Kerry Ann Waylen,Anke Fischer,Philip J. K. McGowan,E. J. Milner-Gulland
Human Ecology. 2013; 41(4): 575
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
3 Amplifiers on the Commons: Using Indicators to Foster Place-Based Sustainability Initiatives
James G. Cantrill
Environmental Communication A Journal of Nature and Culture. 2012; 6(1): 5
[VIEW] | [DOI]
4 Conservation of the jaguar Panthera onca in a community-dominated landscape in montane forests in Oaxaca, Mexico
Joe J. Figel, Elvira Durán, David Barton Bray
Oryx. 2011; : 1
[VIEW] | [DOI]



 

Top
 
Previous article Next article
 
  Search
 
    Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
    Access Statistics
    Email Alert *
    Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  

 
    Problem Statement
    Novel Conservati...
    Evidence at a Glance
    Conclusion
    References

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed4395    
    Printed279    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded1349    
    Comments [Add]    
    Cited by others 4    

Recommend this journal