Innovations in Conservation - Equilibrium Research

Innovations in Conservationp a r k s i n p e r i l

Community-based Sustainable Natural Resource Use in Protected Areas

Experiences from the Parks in Peril Program in Latin America and the CaribbeanAna Maria González V. and Angela Sue Martin

The Nature Conservancy (TNC) is a leading conservation organization working around the world to protect ecologically important lands and waters for nature and people. Since 1951, TNC has been working with communities, businesses and people like you to protect more than 117 million acres of land, 5,000 miles of river, and 100 marine sites around the world. TNC’s mis-sion is to preserve the plants, animals and natural communities that represent the diversity of life on Earth by protecting the lands and waters they need to survive.

www.nature.org

Since 1990, The Nature Conservancy, the United States Agency for International Development, local government agencies and non-governmental organizations have been working together through the Parks in Peril Program (PiP) to protect and manage more than 18.2 million hectares of endangered habitats in 45 protected areas in 18 countries of Latin America and the Caribbean. PiP works with partner organizations to improve financing, supportive policies, and manage-ment of individual sites as well as entire systems of protected areas, including private, indigenous, and municipal reserves, as well as national parks.

www.parksinperil.org

The United States Agency for International Development (USAID) is an independent U.S. government agency that receives foreign-policy guidance from the U.S. Secretary of State. Since 1961, USAID has been the principal U.S. agency extending assistance to countries worldwide recovering from disaster, trying to escape poverty, and engaging in democratic reforms.

www.usaid.gov

Community-based Sustainable Natural Resource Use in Protected Areas

Experiences from the Parks in Peril Program in Latin America and the Caribbean

Ana Maria González V. and Angela Sue Martin

Community-based Sustainable Natural Resource Use in Protected Areas: Experiences from the Parks in Peril Program in Latin America and the Caribbean

Copyright © 2007 The Nature Conservancy, Arlington, Virginia, USA. All rights reserved.

Series Editor: Angela Martin

Translation from Spanish to English: Leslie Simmons

Design/Layout: Kristen Truitt

Cover Photo: © Kimberly John

Production: Imaging Zone

Parks in Peril Program Director: James F. Rieger

Contributors to this publication: María Fernanda Aillón, Felipe Carazo, Jorge Cardona, Tatiana Egüez, Jaime Fernández-Baca, Sandra Isola, Maritza Jaén, Luís Martínez, Vilma Obando, James F. Rieger, Julio Rodríguez, Gladys Rodríguez, Leslie Simmons, Andrew Soles, Yendry Suárez, and all of the individuals from The Nature Conservancy and partner organiza-tions who prepared evaluation reports for Park in Peril projects.

Please cite this publication as:González V., Ana M., and Martin, Angela S. 2007. Community-based Sustainable Natural Resource Use in Protected Areas: Experiences from the Parks in Peril Program in Latin America and the Caribbean. Parks in Peril Innovations in Conservation Series. Arlington, Virginia, USA: The Nature Conservancy.

This publication is made possible by the generous support of the American people through the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) through the Award No EDG-A-00-01-00023-00 for the Parks in Peril Program. The contents are the responsi-bility of The Nature Conservancy and do not necessarily reflect the views of USAID or the United States Government.

For further information on the Parks in Peril Program, please visit www.parksinperil.org

Parks in Peril ProgramThe Nature Conservancy4245 N. Fairfax Drive, Suite 100Arlington, VA 22203-1606 USATel: +1-703-841-5300Fax: +1-703-524-0296 www.parksinperil.orgwww.parquesenpeligro.org

Foreword

The Parks in Peril (PiP) Program began in 1990 as the U.S. Agency for Interna-tional Development’s and The Nature Conservancy’s urgent effort to safeguard the most imperiled natural ecosystems, ecological communities, and species in the Latin America and Caribbean region. A partnership among the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), The Nature Conservancy (TNC), and governmental and non-governmental organizations throughout Latin America and the Caribbean, over time PiP evolved through three distinct phases until 2007, adapting to changing needs and priorities in the region and promoting an advancing strategy to conserve increasing amounts of biodiversity. For 17 years, the program operated in threatened national parks and reserves of global biological significance, seeking to conserve these critically important ecosystems by building local institutional capacity for site management. USAID – both the Latin Amer-ican and Caribbean Regional Bureau in Washington, as well as individual Missions – invested more than $77 million in the program; with TNC and partner match, the total that flowed through PiP was more than $104 million. PiP activities also resulted in indirect leverage – funding attracted by sites and partners strengthened by PiP, or complementing PiP investment – of more than $450 million.

PiP has become well known for its success in transforming “paper parks” into functional protected areas through what is called “site consolidation” – the pro-cess of consolidating the infrastructure, staff, tools, institutional and technical capacity, and financing necessary to protect and manage protected areas, and to ensure their management can respond to threats that may arise in the future. PiP has consolidated 45 protected areas in 18 countries, totaling more than 18 million hectares. Through Multi-Site and Alliance Strategies developed during the third phase of PiP (2002-07), PiP changed the way entire systems of protected areas are managed, bringing together multi-institutional alliances to collaborate on sig-nificant conservation challenges. Nearly all the achievements of Parks in Peril have depended vitally on the diligence, insight, and ingenuity of the staff of PiP’s count-less partner organizations in the countries where PiP worked.

As part of the process of closing “PiP 2000 – A Partnership for the Americas,” USAID, TNC, and partner staff described the program’s seminal thematic achievements in the Parks in Peril Innovations in Conservation Series. The series includes bulletins, which provide a quick survey of a topic and PiP’s contribu-tions, as well as publications, which provide a much more thorough treatment of each topic for an audience interested in greater detail. The other bulletins and publications of the Innovations in Conservation Series, as well as PiP’s End-of-Project Reports and about 700 other publications of the Parks in Peril program, may be found on the final PiP DVD (published in March, 2008) and on the Parks in Peril website, www.parksinperil.org. Added to the capacity for science-based conservation and participatory management that PiP fostered in the region, these publications constitute an indelible legacy – a foundation for future conservation and development in Latin America and the Caribbean.

Jim Rieger, Ph.D.

Director, Parks in Peril Program

1. INTRODUCTION 1

2. GENERAL ELEMENTS OF COMMUNITY-BASED SUSTAINABLE USE INITIATIVES 3

2.1. Overall Framework 32.2. Local Benefits of Community Sustainable Natural Resource Use 52.3. Parks in Peril in the Development of Community Sustainable Use Initiatives 7

3. FACTORS TO CONSIDER IN DEVELOPING COMMUNITY SUSTAINABLE USE INITIATIVES 10

3.1. Factors Associated with the Current and Potential State and Use of Natural Resources 103.2. Social and Cultural Factors of Communities Engaged in Sustainable Use Initiatives 133.3. Economic Factors 173.4. Political and Regulatory Factors 233.5. Institutional and Operational Factors 26

4. POSSIBILITIES FOR EXPANDING THE SCALE AND IMPACT OF INITIATIVES 29

4.1. Dissemination of Knowledge and Organizational Strengthening 314.2. Markets, Financing and Economic Incentives 354.3. Political and Institutional Arrangements 394.4. Lessons Learned for Scaling Up Community Sustainable Use Initiatives 43

5. CONCLUSIONS 49

ENDNOTES 51

REFERENCES 54

ANNEXES 59

1. Parks in Peril Projects: Additional Examples 592. Steps in Conducting a Feasibility Study 61

Table of Contents

Community-based Sustainable Natural Resource Use in Protected Areas: Experiences from the Parks in Peril Program in Latin America and the Caribbean �

1. Introduction

Along with their wide range of ecosystems, in all but a handful of cases Latin America’s protected areas and buffer zones contain human settlements that interact or affect their natural systems1 in one way or another. The survival of these settlements, especially those with high levels of poverty and marginaliza-tion, is highly dependent on these natural resources, so conservation of biodiversity is contingent on communities using them sustainably and in a form compatible with conservation objectives.

Many of these communities have established strong dependencies and bonds with the natural resources that surround them, particularly those with ancient ties to the land. When this is also combined with cultural, spiritual and esthetic elements, their prac-tices may be compatible with conservation aims, enhancing the viability of protected areas (TIL-CEPA, 2007). Conversely, the use practices of other local communities can constitute a threat to the sustainability of ecosystems for various reasons, including pressure to alleviate conditions of poverty.

More and more it is being recognized that pro-tected areas cannot be treated as entities separate from the communities who live there, who use their resources, and for whom these resources may have cultural value. Effective management is not pos-sible without addressing issues related to traditional cultural practices, poverty, and the legal, institutional and socioeconomic context framing community practices. Increasing the benefits protected areas offer and reducing the costs to these communities is also a strategy to mobilize social support for mainte-nance and protection, especially in areas with severe poverty (WPC, 2003).

In different ways, some of these situations are reflected in protected areas supported by The Nature Conservancy’s Parks in Peril Program (PiP) from 1990 to the present. One of the five goals established was thus to incorporate protected areas in the economic life of local society as a means of integrating conservation aims and the needs of com-munities inhabiting or impacting on those areas. PiP

efforts were consequently directed toward strategies to both conserve biodiversity in Latin American and Caribbean protected areas, and also have them generate benefits for local populations through com-munity-based2 natural resource use activities that would be economically, environmentally and socially sustainable.

The purpose of this publication is two-fold. First, it presents the people and institutions engaged in conservation and sustainable use in protected areas, and elements considered necessary for designing and implementing such community initiatives so that they generate sustainable local benefits. Second, it examines critical factors in expanding or scaling them up, thereby reaching more people and addressing threats to biodiversity at greater scale. These concepts are illustrated and complemented through experiences gathered from all over Latin America and the Caribbean in protected areas that have received support from the Parks in Peril Program.

This is not intended to be an exhaustive compilation of every element that needs to be in place for the successful development and subsequent expansion of sustainable use initiatives. It presents factors that have been considered key and which have been cor-roborated during 17 years of experience in 45 pro-tected areas of Latin America and the Caribbean.

This publication joins in the widespread recognition that protected area conservation will not be suc-cessful unless it integrates social processes ensuring that local communities are involved in decision making, equitable distribution of benefits and costs generated by protected areas, and the develop-ment of sustainable economic opportunities that improve their living conditions without endangering the natural integrity of the areas. It also recognizes that the main objective of these areas is to conserve biological diversity and assure continued flow of environmental goods and services. The purpose of a protected area is not to reduce the poverty of local communities, wherein poverty is understood as a

� Community-based Sustainable Natural Resource Use in Protected Areas: Experiences from the Parks in Peril Program in Latin America and the Caribbean

multidimensional element that involves the absence of assets and opportunities, vulnerability, and lack of voice and vote. However, protected areas have enormous potential for contributing to better living conditions for the people who live in or near them, so the need to address this issue is both practical, in order to achieve real conservation, and ethical, in respect and recognition of the vital rights and aspi-rations of communities.


2.1. Overall FramewOrk

The idea of conserving biodiversity in protected areas and their potential to alleviate the livelihood problems of the people who live there, as well as the need to offer benefits so that local communities become allies in conservation through sustainable resource use actions, have been recognized world-wide by different entities and guidelines in the hope that this will translate into concrete actions at the regional, national and local level. Several factors encouraged a change in paradigm about protected areas, formerly understood as excluding human pro-cesses, including (Lockwood et al, 2006):

Greater scientific knowledge about the role of human beings in the formation of natural sur-roundings and landscapes;

Understanding of the cultural and social value of indigenous and native communities;

Recognition of human rights, especially those of indigenous and native communities over their natural surroundings, as well as the rights of women and minorities;

Recognition of how multiple cultural outlooks influence protected area management;

Recognition of people’s right to participate in the decisions that affect them;

Strengthening of democratization processes; and

Intensification of economic forces promoting more entrepreneurial approaches to protected area management.

In addition, there is a global framework that gener-ates guidelines in this regard.

ü

ü

ü

ü

ü

ü

ü

Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD)

The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) brings together these ideas in its different articles, among other things calling on governments to:

Protect and encourage customary use of biological resources in accordance with traditional cultural prac-tices that are compatible with conservation or sustain-able use requirements (article 10c);

Support local populations to develop and implement remedial action in degraded areas where biological diversity has been reduced; (article 10d);

Promote environmentally sound and sustainable devel-opment in areas adjacent to protected areas with a view to furthering protection of these areas (article 8e);

Subject to its national legislation, respect, preserve and maintain knowledge, innovations and practices of indigenous and local communities embodying traditional lifestyles relevant for the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity and promote their wider application with the approval and involvement of the holders of such knowledge, innovations and prac-tices and encourage the equitable sharing of the benefits arising from the utilization of such knowledge, innova-tions and practices (article 8j);

Promote exchange of information that shall include exchange of results of technical, scientific and socio-economic research, as well as information on training and surveying programmes, specialized knowledge, indigenous and traditional knowledge as such and in combination with the technologies referred to in Article 16, paragraph 1. It shall also, where feasible, include repatriation of information (article 17.2).

Fifth World Parks Congress, 2003

The Fifth World Parks Congress of the World Con-servation Union (IUCN) held in Durban, South Africa, in 2003, provides an important framework for placing protected areas on the sustainable devel-

ü

ü

ü

ü

ü

2. General elements of community-based sustainable use initiatives


opment agenda. Its theme, Benefits Beyond Boundaries, recognized that through the goods and services they offer, protected areas contribute to social, economic and environmental components of sus-tainable development. Their inclusive management can therefore increase this contribution helping to alleviate poverty while also achieving conserva-tion aims. (Lockwood et al, 2006). The Congress also emphasized the role of indigenous peoples, including nomadic peoples and local communities, in attaining sustainable development. The survival and physical, cultural, and spiritual wellbeing of these communities depends on maintenance of their rights, knowledge and access to natural resources in and outside of the protected areas. In its Action Plan establishing the different outcomes to be obtained, the following are worth highlighting:

Outcome 2: Protected areas make a full contri-bution to sustainable development.

Outcome 5: The rights of indigenous peoples, including mobile indigenous peoples and local communities are secured in relation to natural resources and biodiversity conservation.

Program of Work on Protected Areas of the Convention on Biological Diversity

In 2004, the Seventh Meeting of the Conference of Parties (CoP7) to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CDB) adopted a Program of Work on Protected Areas inspired by the Application Plan of the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD), the Millennium Goals and the Accord and Action Plan of the Fifth World Parks Con-gress. The program establishes objectives, targets and timelines for signatory countries to support the establishment and maintenance of complete national and regional protected areas systems, effectively administered and financed and ecologically rep-resentative. The program recognizes that the pro-tected areas provide an array of ecological goods and services while also preserving natural and cultural heritage, and that they can contribute to poverty alleviation through opportunities for employment and livelihoods for people living in and around them (Dudley, N. et al. 2005).

ü

ü

The second element of the Program of Work, “Gov-ernance, Participation, Equity and Benefit Sharing,” structured with goals, targets and activities, refers to the need to (i) promote equity and benefit-sharing, and increase benefits from protected areas for indig-enous and local communities, and (ii) enhance and secure involvement of indigenous and local commu-nities and relevant stakeholders (Goals 21. and 2.2, respectively).

One of activities recommended is to use social and economic benefits generated by protected areas for poverty reduction, consistent with protected-area management objec-tives (Activity 2.1.4). The development of sustainable natural resource use initiatives is a strategy for car-rying out this activity within the Program of Work.

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment

Elsewhere, the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA) systematized scientific knowledge about the current condition of ecosystems, the consequences for human wellbeing from changes in them, and options for responding to these changes. Among other findings, the Assessment defined the services ecosystems offer and which benefit people. These services were grouped in four main categories: (i) supply services, or natural resources that are pri-marily used for economic activities such as food, wood, fuels and medicines; (ii) regulatory services such as flood control and climate stabilization; (iii) support services that include pollenization, soil formation and water purification; and (iv) cultural services that have esthetic, spiritual or recreational values, and provide both tangible and intangible benefits (MA, 2005).

According to the MA, these services are at risk and any progress toward the goals of eradicating extreme hunger and poverty, improving health and pro-tecting the environment will not be maintained if the greater part of the ecosystem services on which humanity depends continue being degraded.

Millennium Development Goals (MDGs)

The MA indicated that current degradation consti-tutes an obstacle to achievement of the Millennium Development Goals agreed in 2000 through the United Nations Millennium Declaration. These


goals consist of eight objectives and measurable targets with defined time periods to combat poverty, hunger, disease, illiteracy, environmental degrada-tion and discrimination against women. While environment might have been considered a basic crosscutting element contributing to all of the goals on human wellbeing3, the seventh refers specifically to this theme: ensure environmental sustainability, which among other elements sets forth the need to integrate principles of sustainable development in country policies and programs and reverse the loss of environmental resources.

2.2. lOcal BeneFits OF cOmmunity sustainaBle natural resOurce use

The natural resources contained in protected areas make a positive contribution to people’s livelihood in social, economic and cultural aspects, especially to marginalized and poor populations living in those areas, and those more dependent on their natural surroundings. While each protected area and community has its own particularities, the poor frequently depend directly for their survival on a wide range of natural resources and services from the ecosystems (DFID et al, 2002: 2). The poor are especially dependent on the goods and services provided by biodiversity; even though it may be hard to quantify, this dependence is largely related to the role of biodiversity in people’s productive systems and the level of resilience and adaptability the poor have developed to environmental changes (Roe and Elliot, 2005).

Sustainable natural resource use activities represent a means to offer tangible benefits to local stake-holders in protected areas, with the potential of reducing the poverty and marginalization of com-munities located in and adjacent to protected areas.

If local stakeholders receive such tangible benefits from a protected area, and which are sometimes even essential to their survival, then they will feel motivated to contribute toward its conservation and to reduce practices that place the continuity of these benefits in jeopardy. In this sense, the devel-opment of community sustainable use initiatives takes on relevance from a pragmatic viewpoint4. It is necessary to provide incentives and alternatives so

that local communities change patterns of resource use harmful to biodiversity, and strengthen those that protect it. Communities will be able to change their detrimental practices only if they can satisfy their needs through other means (Fisher et al, 2005; Springer, 2007). Engaging local communities in sustainable natural resource management and use has also legitimized the areas and their possibili-ties of long-range sustainability. Especially in the poorest countries, protected areas need to be seen as viable land use options that contribute to sustain-able national and local development. Likewise, if the activities take place in buffer zones, this can pre-vent the advance of communities into the protected areas. People will have greater incentive to follow regulations and agreements about the management of the protected areas if they can participate in decision making about the actions to be carried out (Fisher et al, 2005).

On the other hand, local stakeholders who depend more greatly on natural resources and in many cases have property and/or use rights, end up assuming a good part of the costs associated with the creation and management of protected areas. For example, many communities are adversely affected by rules and regulations placing restrictions on how natural resources such as land, wood and wildlife can be accessed and used, and which sometimes ignore the rights of indigenous and native peoples. The creation and expansion of protected areas has sometimes generated negative impacts on food security, liveli-hoods and cultures of local communities (Roe and Elliot, 2003). Furthermore, in some situations the designation of protected areas was steered by techni-cians interested in conservation, authorities and/or governments, without giving local communities the opportunity to participate or recognizing the value of traditional livelihood systems for conservation (Molnar et al, 2004). On occasion, the creation of these areas has caused communities to be displaced from their places of origin5. The upshot of all these costs has sometimes been resentment on the part of the local communities who live within or near the protected areas, and an increased threat of illegal incursions to obtain natural resources (Scherl et al, 2004).

In light of these costs, local stakeholders would only have an incentive to support conservation


actions in these areas if they had access to equiva-lent benefits, derived from sustainable use of the resources. The costs they must absorb because of conservation should therefore be accompanied by an equitable provision of genuine options and alterna-tives (Fisher, 2005). This way local communities are not alone in making sacrifices for the conserva-tion of biodiversity that generates not only local but national and global benefits. Instead, it reduces the pressure these communities may be under to exploit natural resources in an unsustainable and indiscrim-inate manner.

Viewed from a multidimensional perspective6, com-munity initiatives for management and sustainable use have potential for generating a wide range of benefits contributing to their wellbeing:

Generation of income. Increase in income level improves the quality of life of local communities while lessening economic incentives to extract natural resources unsustainably. However, non-monetary incentives are also important to foster cooperation and establish ties of trust.

Access to additional economic and financial resources For example, revolving credit mecha-nisms, micro-financing schemes, and others

Generation of direct employment to carry out unsustainable use projects, all the way from har-vest to commercialization. Some jobs are seasonal, while others last a year.

Reduction of incentives for carrying out illegal activities in use and extraction of natural resources

Improvement of essential infrastructure for the life of communities, whether from revenues generated through sustainable use activities or the result of public and private investment for their implementation

Improvement in the health of the communities, for example through access to drinking water or by assuring sustainable production of plants with medicinal benefits

Food security from projects that guarantee a constant flow of sources of food or income to meet nutritional needs

ü

ü

ü

ü

ü

ü

ü

Acquisition of knowledge and capacities to develop activities in sustainable use of natural resources

Strengthening of ties within and with other community organizations, for social cohesion. In general, empowerment of community groups by acquiring a sense of ownership and responsibility for activities, which contributes to the construction of social capital.

Promotion of gender equity by providing women access to resources, opportunities and forums of decision making

Strengthening of cultural patterns and traditions related to the use of natural resources.

Political benefits such as formal recognition of rights of management or shared management of protected areas and/or the creation of formal and non-formal forums for influencing decisions made about protected areas. By having greater voice and control over the use of natural resources, local communities will have better guarantees of being able to utilize a resource in the future if they pre-serve it in the present.

Reduction of vulnerability to environmental degradation and natural disasters through both improved stability of ecosystems and possibilities for communities to face and recover from adverse situations.

In general, sustainable natural resource use activities should not be viewed as individual isolated projects, but as holistic approaches to empower communities and enable them to participate in their own develop-ment and in the conservation of their natural sur-roundings (Binswanger and Aiyar, 2003).

Sustainable use activities should provide local com-munities with the incentives that create willingness to sacrifice part of the resources that could be used today, so as to ensure future benefits. To sacrifice benefits in the near term, resource users must have an expectation of earning more by preserving resources today to obtain benefits tomorrow (Gam-bill, 1999). In this sense, there are two factors that affect community motivation to preserve natural resources in the future: how much they anticipate earning from the use of the resource in time, and

ü

ü

ü

ü

ü

ü


when they want and/or need to receive the ben-efits. The how much will depend on each particular circumstance, but in general communities will be motivated to participate in activities offering a continual and stable flow of income. Regarding the when, it should be emphasized that some community processes for sustainable resource use depend on a number of variables (described in greater detail further on) and both external and internal factors. The when will thus have to be adjusted according to each context. As a consequence, it is advisable to avoid promoting activities based on unrealistic expectations about how quickly processes can be materialized and concrete results reported. It is also a good idea to diversify activities so that com-munities obtain a steady flow of benefits, including some in the short term. At times communities value stability over the actual amount of income. For example, the person in charge of the project to cultivate and market butterflies at the Río Plátano Reserve, in Honduras, preferred to work full time on this activity, which represented a stable income during the entire year, and give up fishing for lob-ster, an activity subject to fluctuations.

The element of sustainability in these community initiatives does not just pertain to natural resources. It also has to do with reduced vulnerability and lowered dependence of local inhabitants of pro-tected areas and their buffer zones on unsustainable sources of income, and not reducing the livelihood options of other inhabitants (WRI, 2005).

Given the above, encouragement has been pro-vided for the birth of small businesses, community cooperatives and rural microenterprises7 engaged in sustainable productive activities allowing inhabit-ants to obtain part of the benefits described, and in turn, contributing to conservation of the natural resources. At the Latin American level, for example, “Mexico has more than 1000 communities man-aging their forests in communal lands (ejidos) and is a world leader, with 500,000 hectares of forest certified by the Forest Stewardship Council, most of which are in the hands of community businesses” (UNDP, 2005: 5). In the region, there are innova-tive experiences in landscape management carried out through local initiatives that have led to positive results in terms of food security, rural livelihoods and conservation of biodiversity.

Finally, it is worth emphasizing that the develop-ment of sustainable natural resource use activities is not necessarily enough to motivate communities to participate in conservation initiatives. Strategies should be formulated with complementary mea-sures, such as the establishment of a policy agenda that enables conservation, the implementation of awareness raising and educational activities for the communities, and others. In addition, sustainable use activities will not necessarily lead to perfect or optimal results in terms of either conservation or local community development. While it is unrealistic to assume that the integration of conservation and development aims will maximize environmental and social outcomes, it will generally lead to better results than would be achieved if such integration is not considered (Fisher et al, 2005).

2.3. Parks in Peril in the DevelOPment OF cOmmunity sustainaBle use initiatives

The Nature Conservancy (TNC), along with social organizations throughout the Latin American and Caribbean region, and the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), designed the Parks in Peril Program (PiP) with the object of strengthening and protecting a significant group of protected areas in the region. Since 1990, diverse actions have contributed to the protection and administration of more than 18.2 million hectares of endangered habitats in 17 countries of Latin America and the Caribbean.

One of PiP’s five goals is to integrate protected areas into the economic lives of local society8. From the outset of the program, achievement of this objective signified support for community activities and pilot projects in sustainable resource use (Brandon et al, 1998). As the years passed, and especially from 1994 on, the PiP vision evolved toward strategies recon-ciling the vision– sometimes juxtaposed- between strict protection of biodiversity and the search for short, medium and long-term benefits for local com-munities. As a consequence, support was provided for the protection of fragile ecosystems threatened by human activities, while also working with local organizations so they could support communities in the implementation of education and economic


development projects compatible with community conservation (Millán, 2006).

In the majority of PiP-supported sites, strate-gies of strict protection in protected areas evolved bearing in mind the economic and social needs of those inhabiting these areas and their buffer zones, in order to promote joint work so that they would become allies for conservation. This signified the recognition that development of local populations is a direct and necessary condition for conservation (Castro et al, 2003).

The activities supported by PiP through its local partners made it possible to achieve the objective established, centering on the following areas:

Environmental education. PiP supported the development of strategies in which, through communication, awareness-raising and educa-tion, those in charge of protected areas could promote positive changes in behaviors, both individual and group, regarding conservation and use of natural resources9.

Local Management Committees. PiP became involved in the creation and consolidation of formal forums for participation and decision making about protected areas, such as the management committees, which are attended by public, private and community actors with greatest influence on the areas10.

Pilot projects in sustainable natural resource use (the theme of this publication). Some of the most common projects included the manu-facture and sale of handicrafts, raising lesser species, aquaculture, agroforestry and payment for environmental services (Annex 1 contains examples of Pip projects).

Until 2003, the development of community sus-tainable resource use projects enjoyed the technical support of different programs set up by TNC at the level of the central office. For example, the Local People’s Program, created in 1995, aimed to increase levels of understanding about relations between local people at PiP sites and how they generated impacts on the protected areas. In 1998 this program was replaced by the Community Conservation Program

ü

ü

ü

(CCP). The CCP maintained interest in the theme by supporting the relation between the conserva-tion of biodiversity, protected area management and local human populations. In addition, it proposed incorporating elements of greater scale in planning processes for conservation, such as migration, popu-lation growth, socio-political structures, and other issues. With the support of USAID’s WIDTECH program, the CCP worked on community con-servation strategy that included methodologies to improve participation, including the use of tools to integrate socioeconomic data in technical conserva-tion instruments, and strategy to incorporate the theme of gender and train TNC in this area (Hill Rojas, 2000).

Parks in Peril also had the support of TNC’s Com-patible Economic Development Program. This was created in 1999 to provide sites and partners with technical support in carrying out income-generating projects. The focal point of the program’s atten-tion was on support for partner NGOs in carrying out activities to generate their own resources for financial self-sustainability. Some of these activities involved the development of productive activities with the participation of the local communities, and which would therefore generate income for both the NGO and the communities11. The projects received technical assistance, particularly to help them become financially viable and impact on conserva-tion of the natural resources. TNC also created the EcoEnterprise Fund, which offered investment capital for socially and environmentally responsible business in Latin America and the Caribbean. With an investment fund providing capital and a fund for technical assistance, it was possible to support some of the productive initiatives meeting the require-ments of involving the partner NGOs, and having a value for conservation and for the livelihood of local communities12.

Each site selected during the different phases of PiP supported the launching of pilot projects on use compatible with natural resources. Based on the first years of experience, TNC and its local partners were able to identify some key elements for developing successful processes, such as making appraisals of communities’ needs, training local outreach teams, conducting feasibility studies for income-generating projects, and the implementation of participatory


monitoring systems. These elements guided actions in subsequent years.

With time it also became evident that it was dif-ficult to influence a sufficient number of commu-nity members through the sustainable use projects, making it necessary to adjust this component of PiP to place the emphasis on capacity building for com-munities so that they could implement and manage their own sustainable use initiatives and have local support to carry these out. The aim was to reach a greater number of participants. Support was also provided for the establishment of inter-institutional agreements and the formation of coalitions among different local stakeholders, making it possible to increase participation in site management, carry out model projects in sustainable natural resource use generating elements for later replication, and when appropriate, promote co-management of the pro-tected areas in order to generate greater autonomy of community organizations in developing new initiatives. Each of these activities was carried out with the support of local partners with experience in community work.

Finally, the importance of integrating local com-munities in conservation processes in protected areas was measured through the use of indicators from the Site Consolidation model developed by PiP. This model guided the process of strengthening protected areas to improve elements necessary for their efficient management13 and which could be monitored periodically. With respect to local sup-port for communities, at consolidated sites the main community groups (or other stakeholders) located in critical zones of the protected area participate in pilot initiatives for the sustainable use of local natural resources. These pilot initiatives are docu-mented so that they can be adapted in other geo-graphical areas14.

�0 Community-based Sustainable Natural Resource Use in Protected Areas: Experiences from the Parks in Peril Program in Latin America and the Caribbean

Many community initiatives in sustainable natural resource use have been promoted in protected areas and buffer zones in order to improve the living conditions of local inhabitants, reduce pressure on the environment and obtain support from the local communities for conservation processes in the pro-tected areas.

Sustainable natural resource use aims to integrate conservation, the social fabric and livelihood needs, along with financial security. Various components must be in place for integration to be successful, such as strong governance systems; sound planning and adaptive management; multidisciplinary infor-mation; building and strengthening of capacities and capabilities; scientific, social and economic research; monitoring and evaluation, the long-term commit-ment of stakeholders; patience and willingness to collaborate, among other key factors (WRI, 2005).

No matter what the type of initiative or project, whether sustainable agriculture, tourism, payment of environmental services, or other type, its devel-opment—including the idea cycle of idea, design, execution and monitoring—must be carried out bearing in mind a series of conditioning factors that are part of the local context, needs and norms. The success of alternatives is sometimes so dependent on specific contexts that these must be identified in order to formulate differentiated approaches.

Following are some of the necessary factors that have been identified for the design and launching of community initiatives for sustainable use of natural resources in protected areas. Although the different factors have been grouped in thematic categories to facilitate presentation, this does not mean there are rigid distinctions between one category and another. In actual practice there is a degree of interdepen-dence among the categories, as will be seen in the cases and experiences appearing in this publication.

3.1. FactOrs assOciateD with the current state anD use OF natural resOurces

Existing productive activities.

In addition to the agroecological conditions of the soil, it is important to consider past as well as present productive activities in the area and to dis-tinguish between the methods and technologies that either degrade natural resources or permit sustain-able use. It is also necessary to ascertain whether these activities have generated economic or other benefits for local residents. This information facili-tates a decision about whether productive activi-ties should be maintained, improved or eliminated in order to achieve conservation objectives and improve living conditions for people15. For example, in Selva El Ocote Biosphere Reserve in the state of Chiapas, Mexico, a study of existing productive activities, such as coffee growing, cattle ranching and corn crops, indicated that these systems generate negative environmental impacts due to the tech-nologies employed, making it necessary to look for alternatives (Castro et al, 2003).

Such an analysis also facilitates decisions about diversification to include possible sustainable use activities. Diversification not only lends greater stability to the community economy, but such a mix can also generate greater ecological resilience, at the landscape level, at least (WRI, 2005). It should be kept in mind that, rather than replacing an eco-nomic activity with one that is more environmen-tally sustainable, sometimes communities will try to carry out both so they can enhance their income-generating possibilities. For example, a person can work on a plantation during the day, and continue hunting at night (Bovarnick and Gupta, 2003). To the degree possible, such situations should be identi-fied and solved.

3. Factors to consider in developing sustainable community initiatives

Community-based Sustainable Natural Resource Use in Protected Areas: Experiences from the Parks in Peril Program in Latin America and the Caribbean ��

Environmental impact of the proposed sustainable use activities.

It is necessary to determine what impact the pro-posed alternatives may have on conservation of biodiversity. The contribution to conservation will be viable to the degree that proposed activi-ties respond to an analysis identifying threats to the protected area’s conservation, indicating the sources and proposing strategies to overcome them. Even though many threats are at a large scale and local communities are not the only ones directly respon-sible, in addition to responsibilities for threats, it is advisable to identify possibilities for communities to develop activities that directly help to mitigate these threats and their effects on local contexts. Com-munities can modify their role and stop being either responsible or victims, and become a part of the solution. In Chagres National Park, Panama, it was determined that forest conversion due to urbaniza-tions and unsustainable farming and grazing prac-tices was the main threat to the site’s conservation. Partner organizations CEASPA and SONDEAR have been carrying out sustainable agriculture proj-ects on 50 farms located in critical areas in order to help reduce these threats. The Conservation Area Planning tool developed by TNC included the pos-sibility of incorporating sustainable use activities in the threat analysis and in a subsequent plan for their abatement or elimination16. If local communities receive satisfactory benefits from these activities that depend on biodiversity, they will have an incentive to address internal and external threats that damage biodiversity (Salafsky et al, 1999).

Some of the community initiatives have not been directed explicitly toward solving conservation threats, but to intervening in their underlying causes. How-ever, it has been agreed that communities commit to changing the practices that represent threats in exchange for receiving support for an interven-tion that addresses some of these underlying causes. For example, in Ecuador’s Cayambe-Coca Nature Reserve, communities committed to stop burns of the paramo in return for support to create a micro cheese business as a productive alternative. This agreement was understood as a short and medium-range solution, trusting that in the long run it would serve in starting up a long-term process that would tackle the threat more directly (Arroyo et al, 2001).

case 1Sustainable mangrove use based on a conservation plan, Granada

The Sandy Island/Oyster Bed Marine Protected Area spans 787 hectares along the southwest coast of the island of Carriacou, in Granada. The area has an extensive ecosystem of coral reef, mangroves and sea grass. The mangroves are especially important as habitat for an oyster species and as a spawning site for several species of fish. To contribute to this marine area’s conservation, the region received support from Parks in Peril within the frame of a memorandum of understanding between the Government of Granada and TNC.

One of the activities included the design of a manage-ment plan for the area based on Conservation Area Planning methodology. The plan’s formulation was supported by a local NGO, Carriacou Environmental Committee (CEC), the University of the West Indies, the Forest Department of the Government of Granada and Saint George University. The draft version was finalized in August 2006, community revision was concluded by February 2007, and the final product will be published in July 2007 for distribution to stakeholders and/or government ministries. The plan lays out in participa-tory form the specific activities to be carried out with local communities so they can respond to strategies for dealing with the main threats to conservation targets identified for the area.

The mangroves were one of the conservation targets identified as priorities, given the serious state of threat from inappropriate management. The document estab-lishes activities to promote sustainable use of species in order to mitigate the threat of mangroves being destroyed, corresponding to the specific objective of an 80% reduction in further loss of vegetation from human activities in the next two years. They included commu-nity work in mangrove restoration, as well as training in replanting techniques.

In general, all of the proposed activities in the manage-ment plan respond to the need to prevent or lower impacts of human activities on the conservation targets identified, and to improve the environmental conditions of resources.

�� Community-based Sustainable Natural Resource Use in Protected Areas: Experiences from the Parks in Peril Program in Latin America and the Caribbean

Characteristics of the resource(s) to be used.

Ideally, sustainable use activities should be designed on the basis of products already being generated or an easily identified potential. Design will require ascertaining the quantities of the particular resource and/or service that communities can access and pos-sibilities of increasing this amount without affecting conservation aims. In this context, when opting to make use of a certain resource (such as an animal species), one needs to consider their singularity and the level of threat to ensure that the rate of exploita-tion does not exceed capacity of recovery.

If potential access and supply is not assured at the outset, the undertaking will be too risky (Bovarnick and Gupta, 2003). The seasonality of some products is a key consideration in this analysis, since some markets demand a given supply in order to generate profits17. Likewise, there may be down-times when communities perceive no benefits, making it neces-

The Kipla Sait Tasbaika Kum Indigenous Territory (KST) is located in the heart of the Bosawás Biosphere Reserve in Nicaragua. With an area of 1,136 square kilometers, it is one of the reserve’s largest territories. From 2000, the Saint Louis Zoo was contracted to conduct research generating information about the reserve and for training. These investigations have enriched management plan formulation processes by the indigenous of KST to set out guidelines for sustainable use of the site’s natural resources, abating threats.

Research included a study on hunting and wild animal populations in KST. The main objective was to assess the sustainability of hunting in the territory and determine whether hunting of certain species was reaching a point greater than the reproduction rate, with subsequent risk of extinction. The study served two purposes: to generate information useful for conservation of the species, and to ensure a source of animal protein for local consumption.

Abundance patterns were investigated for animals being hunted in different land use zones of the territory and then compared with hunting patterns, while an estimate was also made of meat consumption in the communities. To analyze abundance patterns, between October 2003 and December 2004, trained forest rangers participated in monitoring animals, including birds. To investigate

characteristics of hunting and community consumption of hunt animals, 20 men and women promoters were trained to conduct surveys of hunters and households in eight communities.

The study concluded that in most of the mammal cases, hunting was sustainable because reproduction and repopulation rates were higher than the rate of hunting. Nonetheless, certain recommendations were made about strategies for better management and monitoring of wild animals in the territory, with three in particular: (i) continue protecting the conservation zone in KST and maintain its connectivity with the other territories; (ii) prohibit hunting of the three most endangered species, the tapir (Tapirus bairdii), peccary (Dicotyles pecari) and spider monkey (Ateles geoffroyi) during certain months of the year, possibly compensating for the cut-back in meat by hunting other species such as the agouti (Dasyprocta punctata), saino (Tayassu tajacu) and red bocket and white-tailed deer (Mazama americana and Odocoileus virginianus); and (iii) develop a program to monitor populations of all other hunted animals in order to assess compliance with management plan regulations, both for wildlife conservation and the food security of KST communities.

Source: Saint Louis Zoo et al, �00�.

sary to diversify products to be used. In the Atitlán Volcano region of Guatemala, from 2002 to 2004 a fruit project was supported to promote a change from the customary annual crops to perennials. The incentive to participate and benefits were limited, however, since there was no way to guarantee a flow of income allowing those involved to receive income while permanent crops reached a point of produc-tivity. Annual crops ensuring steadier flows with guaranteed markets remained the most important for participants. (Source: interview with Jorge Car-dona, TNC- Guatemala office, May 2007).

case 2 Study of the wildlife population and hunting sustainability in Bosawás, Nicaragua


3.2. sOcial anD cultural FactOrs OF cOmmunities engageD in sustainaBle use initiatives

Socio-demographic characteristics.

Through a participatory analysis of the social con-text, or social mapping, important socio-demo-graphic features of communities can be ascertained, bearing mind, however, that communities are het-erogeneous. It is essential that this be a participatory process, not a social investigation aimed at a passive population. Their needs and priorities can be gauged more exactly by determining these characteristics, and suitably incorporated into the proposed sus-tainable use proposals. The analysis of socio-demo-graphic factors can also point to underlying reasons why the communities may not be utilizing their natural resources sustainably. Population growth, for example, can generate additional pressure on com-munities to carry out activities that generate liveli-hood benefits in the short run.

Information on heterogeneity and the composition of communities in socio-demographic terms—geo-graphical location, occupation, ages, gender and history of residence—has an influence on real pos-sibilities of having differentiated labor to carry out the activities. Consideration of these characteristics, including language, makes it possible to determine different ways initiatives can be implemented. For example, on the north side of Guatemala’s Sierra de las Minas Biosphere Reserve, some Q’eqchi´ and Poqomchi’ communities have few members who can speak Spanish, and most of those are men. By hiring staff that speak Q’eqchi’ and Poqomchi’, the organization Defensores de la Naturaleza was better able to facilitate successful activities in subsistence agriculture and production of commercial crops by these communities.

Gender distribution has also proven to be an impor-tant factor18. Information about sex and the age pyramid can ensure that proposed activities are consistent. For example, women are generally more dependent on natural resources; they gather foods and wood from local ecosystems, manage water and raise lesser species (GEF, 2006). Sustainable use projects should therefore incorporate gender so

that any differences that may have an influence can be taken into account. Women’s participation must respond to an identification of the roles, values, and power structure existing between men and women. In the Sian Ka’an Biosphere Reserve, in Mexico, a traditional medicine project was supported in which male Elders transmitted their knowledge. Women’s participation was not promoted at the start, because the goal was to rescue Mayan traditions, and in that culture it is the men who engage in this activity and are trained as priests. It was only as time passed that some women began to become involved and shared their knowledge, especially in working with domestic gardens. By contrast, in the traditional medicine project developed in Calakmul Biosphere Reserve, women were the major participants since the emphasis was on family health, a matter of spe-cial interest to them (González and Martin, 2007).

Occupation is another significant factor to ensure that productive activities are coherent with people’s experience, vocation and interests. When actions were launched in Podocarpus National Park, Ecuador, different occupations were identified according to clearly distinguishable human groups. Mestizo campesinos living in the forest and paramo were mainly engaged in raising livestock, while inhabiting the eastern side of the Andes inside the park were members of the Shuar people, who prac-tice traditional forms of agriculture and small-scale hunting. Furthermore, park inhabitants also included groups of miners extracting gold on a small scale, but through the use of mercury. The actions proposed were therefore differentiated according to the pro-duction vocation of each group (Ulfelder, 2002).

Another critical consideration is the population’s educational level. If the rate of illiteracy is high, training processes should be correspondingly adjusted. In the annual workshop on Best Practices and Challenges for Site Consolidation Practices, held in Monterrey, Mexico, in March 2007, the PiP director for La Amistad International Park in Costa Rica and Panama, Felipe Carazo, emphasized that one of the factors for success in carrying out activities on the Pacific side in Panama was the high educational level in local communities in compar-ison with other sectors of the park. In contrast, Cole Genge, director for Amboró and Carrasco national


parks in Bolivia, mentioned that one of the greatest challenges for community work lies in the low levels of training and schooling of local populations there.

The power structures existing in communities need to be factored in for an equitable distribution of roles, responsibilities and benefits. It is important to establish who are the owners, who are the ones who directly manage and generate control over natural resources, who has an important influence on their management and distribution, who has access to higher levels of decision making and who is mar-ginalized from access and decisions due to their status or lineage. If these elements are not taken into account, initiatives may be based on erroneous assumptions about how collective decisions are made, eventually leading to conflicts of all types. Indeed, potential conflict over the use of natural resources is yet another vital element to consider. The utilization of traditional institutions or the cre-ation of new systems of organization can encourage equitable processes of decision making and effective mechanisms for conflict resolution, and should be taken into consideration according to the particular conditions of each case.

Finally, migration is a socio-demographic factor with possible influence on the impact of sustainable resource use activities. For example, even if local communities do change their productive practices to reduce threats to biodiversity, in-migration by other people alters these results due to the increased pressure on natural resources. Migration toward the protected area can actually increase once people hear that quality of life and income are improving for local populations. This migration can diminish the advances achieved in human development and con-servation, by generating more demographic demands and greater pressure to use resources (Timmer and Juma, 2005). Hence, activities for the sustainable use of natural resources should not only consider the existing population, but also observe population trends (Bovarnick and Gupta, 2003).

case 3Impacts of migration

In the first phase of PiP, some partner organizations were unable to carry out community activities that had successfully engaged the support of local groups. One of the characteristics these cases had in common was the high level of migration generated into the areas. Reasons included: (i) search for better productive areas; (ii) favorable colonization policies sponsored by governments; and (iii) the effect of political instabilities. In these cases, projects implemented at the site involved people new to the region or with little expectation of remaining over the long run. This translated into less interest in the environmental conditions of the region.

Brandon et al, ��.

Cultural characteristics of the communities.

Recognition of cultural traditions and myths existing in communities makes for a better understanding of their current and potential actions in relation to the natural surroundings. In some protected areas, native or indigenous communities may have been carrying out certain productive activities since ancient times, and thus maintaining current patterns of biodiversity depends on the continuity of these anthropogenic disturbances (Barber et al, 2004).

Native and indigenous groups have generally incor-porated the natural surroundings into their cul-tural systems, and in some nature may not even be perceived as something separate. For the indig-enous peoples who inhabit Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta, in Colombia, this mountain is a living being in which all of the elements of nature are a vital part of their culture. These are a mountain people accustomed, whenever possible, to moving from one elevation to another in their territories in order


to diversify their crops and adjust to season, and growing, weeding, collecting and harvesting periods. This allows the earth to rest and forms of livelihood to be distributed, ensuring that a variety of products will be available throughout the year (www.prosi-erra.org). Consideration of such cultural elements is critical in carrying out sustainable use activities. The stories and lessons handed down from genera-tion to generation in some cultures serve to restrict and control natural resource use, and while they may have symbolical or mythical origins, they also have positive impacts on maintenance of integrity and ecological functions (MacDonald)19.

Cultural differences also need to be recognized with respect to the practical and administrative side of initiatives. For example, when TNC signed a contract with the indigenous Tourism Network created in the Caribbean sector of La Amistad International Park, it was suggested that the rep-resentative sign each page, explaining that this was customary. The indigenous did not understand this well, however, and later expressed their disagree-ment with the practice. They manage funds and have to subcontract with other indigenous for some of the activities, and felt that asking them to sign each page would be interpreted as an indication of distrust, detrimental to good relations between the parties. The TNC office explained that this was a recommendation and the purpose was certainly not to erode cultural practices related to making internal arrangements. It was necessary to clarify that this procedure was recommended for contracts by people outside of indigenous communities, but that the choice of procedures regarding internal affairs was up to them (Felipe Carazo, interview June 7, 2007).

The cultural traditions that affect natural resource use may also have an influence on a community’s interest and willingness to participate. Inasmuch as possible, it will be important to identify community members’ motivations and interests in engaging in these activities. Some communities will be unin-terested in the concept of protected areas because it places limits on carrying out a traditional practice, and thus may not want to be involved in their man-agement and sustainable use. For cultural reasons, people may be unwilling to dedicate more effort to

activities representing only small increases in income or having results in the medium or long term. This will be more evident if people have invested time and capital in other livelihood activities and are concerned about the risk of failure. Other commu-nities or their members will not have the time or resources available to invest in the protected areas, even though they may be interested. Identification of the different motivations will aid in the formula-tion of strategies to encourage people and groups to participate in community initiatives.

If cultural motives cause resistance to a sustainable use alternative, it may be better to promote sustain-able management of traditional activities rather than new ones to replace them (Bovarnick and Gupta, 2003). Some productive activities are a part of such deeply rooted traditions in the economic lives and cultures of the communities that it is important to recognize and seek strategies for managing them. In Mexico’s Calakmul Biosphere Reserve, attempts in the early ‘90s to disengage campesinos from ranching were unsuccessful because of the strong cultural ties with this activity, which is even an important symbol of status. Intensive, small-scale programs were thus proposed that would meet demand with less environmental degradation. It was not until campesinos in a nearby village suf-fered the negative consequences from unsustainable ranching in a region of scarce water resources, and the demands of time and work, that they voluntarily abandoned this practice, making a gradual transi-tion to less degrading methods. “The failure of this project was a stroke of luck for environmental suc-cess” (Haenn, 2001: 12).


case 4Cultural diversity in Río Plátano, Honduras

To contribute to the implementation of the management plan for the Río Plátano Biosphere Reserve in Hon-duras, Mosquitia Pawisa Apiska (MOPAWI) and TNC, with the support of the Río Plátano Biosphere Project of the State Forest Administration (PBRP-AFE) and the Biology Department of Universidad Nacional Autónoma of Honduras, conducted an environmental assessment designed to facilitate decision making about manage-ment and protection of the reserve.

One of the study’s four components analyzed the socioeconomic and cultural setting to profile the five different peoples living in the region: the Miskitos, Pech, Tawahkas, Garífunas and mestizos. The appraisal included participatory workshops and collection of new information among the inhabitants in order to establish a baseline. Valuable information was generated about the adaptations communities had made to the natural environment. Different livelihood strategies resulting from these adaptations have been distributed among family members, and have impacted on the natural setting. The study also analyzed population dynamics and interactions among the different communities, as well as the cosmovision, expressed through myths and beliefs of each people, making it possible to explain part of the population’s relation to nature. For example, the Pech indigenous must request permission from the spiritual owners of the forest in order to enter and take something out. In addition, mention is made of the changes these communities have undergone in their cultural patterns and the reasons for these, such as population growth, exposure to market economy, the incorporation of outside technologies, and the threats this led to in terms of natural resource management.

To eliminate, reduce or mitigate threats to priority conservation targets brought together the cultural dif-ferences among the groups with respect to developing economic options compatible with sustainable natural resource management. Based on the cultural analysis, it was also possible to establish the importance of pro-moting strengthening of multi-culturality and protection of sites with cultural value.

Source: MOPAWI and TNC, �00�

Existing local knowledge.

Although carrying out community sustainable resource activities generally involves training and capacity building, these should ideally be struc-tured so as to compile existing local knowledge and capacity (technical, administrative and entrepre-neurial). A main element to consider is the exper-tise of local communities with respect to managing natural resources. These communities usually have extensive knowledge about the natural resources around them, especially those that have been used for several generations. In some situations, the way local communities have managed nature, based on their prior knowledge, is central in the composi-tion of existing biodiversity. An understanding and promotion of such knowledge is therefore crucial for the conservation of that biodiversity (Molnar et al, 2004).

When assessing local knowledge, it will also be nec-essary to identify the technical and scientific knowl-edge communities may have acquired previously from outside sources, in order to avoid generating duplications.

“What has been learned up to now is that every

educational process must be based on the feelings of the

people, even when this involves raising chickens”

— Bonamico et al, �00�

Viewing all of the above elements as a whole, the message is that an analysis of the social context is indispensable. The overall knowledge generated from such an analysis makes it possible to calculate the best way of incorporating communities in sus-tainable use projects, thus maximizing local sup-port by taking into account the key characteristics of these populations, in addition to the setting. The analysis of local context also constitutes a baseline for monitoring the advances and outcomes of initia-tives (GEF, 2006).


3.3. ecOnOmic FactOrs

Markets.

One of the most important determinants in car-rying out community sustainable use initiatives is the existence or absence of markets and distribu-tion chains for the products and services involved. Success in commercializing the goods and services produced in protected areas generally marks the difference between using the resources as sup-port for low-income subsistence, and turning them into a significant and sustainable source of income (WRI, 2005). It is necessary, therefore, to make a complete analysis of existing and potential markets, which constitutes a business plan with at least these elements:

Current and potential demand for the product and/or service in the desired markets (local, national and/or international)

External factors that increase or lower demand for the product and/or service

Price trends and fluctuations and the factors that impact on them

The features and/or volumes of products and/or services preferred by current and potential markets, and which are requisite in order to generate the minimum expected profits

Technical requirements for accessing new mar-kets (i.e., sanitary regulations, certifications)

Logistical requirements, such as conditions of transport, communication, bulking centers and others

Stages in the distribution chain (including intermediation) and possibilities for modifying these so that communities retain greater value20

Possibilities of raising the prices of the prod-ucts/services offered

Possibilities for adding value to the products and/or services

Existing competition (comparative advantages of the product and/or service)

ü

ü

ü

ü

ü

ü

ü

ü

ü

ü

Special market niches for the products and/or services

Appropriate marketing strategies

In the case of sustainable use activities that are being promoted, improvement of the ways communities are already exploiting and commercializing prod-ucts can also be taken into consideration. These can include information, abilities and distribution system related to the markets. This situation can be advantageous in terms of lower implementa-tion costs and possibly, the generation of income in more reduced periods. This would help people supply their needs to obtain rapid returns on invest-ments in capital and labor. On the other hand, when the activities incorporate new products, this can mean capital, more time to carry out the required feasibility analysis, higher levels of training, and the development of new systems and market channels (Bovarnick and Gupta, 2003). In the Río Plátano Biosphere Reserve (Honduras), in 1996 a project was launched in the Raistá community to establish a butterfly farm as a means of producing local income to support conservation, promote processes of environmental education and create a tourist attrac-tion in the zone. This activity had not been carried out before, and thus required a process of technical training in both the handling of butterflies and their commercialization. Learning was particularly dif-ficult in relation to shipping the butterfly cocoons. While participants were in training, the butterflies sometimes failed to survive the trip to their final destination due to delays in getting them shipped21, and they lost some buyers. Notwithstanding, there has sometimes been reason to swallow these costs and undertake new alternatives with better results in terms of conservation and local well being.

It can also occur that an alternative is proposed for which there is already strong competition in the market, which makes it difficult to generate addi-tional revenues. Existing competition is a key ele-ment for consideration and can arise in at least two ways. First, markets can be flooded with promising products or services having similar characteristics and qualities. This heightened competition leads to a decline in prices, with negative effects for partici-pants. Secondly, when there are a large number of cases in which goods and services are offered with no planning and irregular quality, the poor quality

ü

ü


of certain providers damages everyone’s image. For example, there is concern in Latin America that many local communities are attempting to enter into ecotourism without knowledge about how to market their product. This has led to a saturation of “eco-tours” and inadequately managed lodging, offering few guarantees to tourists and local cultures (Epler, 1998). As a consequence, it has been recom-mended that initiatives be developed that can access existing, but not highly competitive markets.

This situation with ecotourism occurred in the Amboró National Park in Bolivia, where partici-pating communities saw ecotourism as the panacea that would solve all their economic problems. Despite efforts to help communities understand the investments and work that would be necessary versus the potential for generating income in the short run, some of them launched initiatives without considering potential risks and needs. Instead of specializing in different aspects of tourism, most offered the same lodging and routes, trusting that tourists would choose theirs. The outcome has been that access roads have become the deciding factor and the city of Santa Cruz has received much fewer visitors than those that are closer. In the case of tourism, it has been recommended that this activity be perceived as one of several activities in a port-folio of possibilities in a community. This is because tourism can be unstable due to market fluctuations and national and international economic trends, as well as political events and the image generated by the media (Drumm and Moore, 2005).

It should be kept in mind that even when markets exist, there is no assurance that resources will be used sustainably; from an economic standpoint there is a logic to exploiting resources in the short and medium term rather than preserving opportuni-ties for future generations (Lockwood et al, 2006). Increase in the value of natural resources does not necessarily ensure that there will be a corresponding increase in incentives for local communities to conserve them. Given the absence of guaranteed long-term benefits from sustainable use activities, increase in the value of the resources can create incentive to overexploit resources in an accelerated manner (Bovarnick and Gupta, 2003).

case 5Mesquite artisans in Cuatro Ciénegas, Mexico

In the Cuatro Ciénegas Valley in northern Mexico, four ejidos (El Venado, San Vicente, Eliseo Mendoza Ber-ruelo and La Vega) in the region have used and traded mesquite (Prosopis sp) for years, leading to a signifi-cant reduction in reserves of this wood. Currently La Vega is the only ejido authorized to use this resource in the valley, but its reserves are now low.

The purpose of the project receiving PiP support was to identify an alternative use for the species that would simultaneously generate a benefit for the communi-ties and preserve the resource over time. The main obstacles that had to be overcome to carry out the project were the lack of organization among producers, inadequate management techniques, and inequitable distribution of work and earnings for the producers. The alternative proposed was to use the wood to make handicrafts, a finished product that would provide higher profit margins.

The project initiated with a situation appraisal of mes-quite in the Cuatro Ciénegas Valley, followed by training for participants in crafting products. Another emphasis at this stage was organizational strengthening, which led to formalization of the groups in legally recognized structures. These, in turn, banded together as a rural cooperative known as “Artesanos La Esperanza” and “Artesanos La Vega”. The creation of these two artisans groups facilitated equitable distribution of earnings among the beneficiaries. A catalogue with products and prices was prepared as a marketing document, and points of sale were arranged in nearby cities. One factor that enhanced the business was the adaptation of the models and types of handicrafts based on an analysis of existing supply and demand, thus boosting sales.

TNC and its partner, ProNatura, supported training of the artisans, organizational strengthening, equipping and promotion of the handicrafts. Other organizations col-laborated in the project’s development. The Technolog-ical Institute of Monterrey provided technical assistance for the artisans’ formal organization, as well as creating capacities in financial and marketing areas. In addition, the government Secretariat of Agriculture, Livestock and Fishing (SAGARPA) offered funding to acquire the necessary equipment to produce the handicrafts, while the National Commission on Protected Areas supported training and sale of the products at the Visitors Center of the Cuatro Ciénegas Flora and Fauna Protection Area.


Infrastructure.

Infrastructure is an essential component in bringing products and services to the market. Key elements include the existence and quality of access routes to transport products to the different distribution chains, and the associated costs of transport This is especially crucial if the goods to be traded are per-ishable, requiring that they be moved quickly to their final destination. Infrastructure is also essential in providing services. Tourism, for example, requires roads of a certain quality, as well as the existence or possibility of visitor attention centers, lodging, and other facilities.

Infrastructure also includes communications between production sites and different points of the chain. If not offset by a transportation and com-munication system, geographic isolation can curtail

any possibility of marketing products successfully. Having forms of communication suitable to the context, such as the Internet, facilitates actions and contact with the outside world.

Conversely, the existence of infrastructure can also have counter-productive effects by contributing to expansion of the agricultural frontier at the expense of forest. Some development plans have stressed pol-icies for national integration, with highway construc-tion as a means of opening up new areas and creating new markets. Highways can facilitate the trade of products generated from sustainable resource use projects. In general terms, these policies contribute to the zone’s development, but on some occasions have led to uncontrolled colonization of the regions and the introduction of unsustainable patterns of natural resource use.

Cuatro Ciénegas is an oasis of freshwater springs and streams in the midst of the parched Chihuahuan desert. As much as 40 feet deep, these springs are home to unique species like the Cuatro Ciénegas pupfish and cichlid, as well as living stromatolites—reef-like formations made by microbes, linked to the origins of the planet. This area teems with endemic species. The refuge has more than 75 species of fish, reptiles, amphibians, crus-taceans, mollusks, insects and more than 400 species of cactus found nowhere else in the world. An impressive variety of bats and migratory birds also find refuge in this rare sanctuary with its gypsum dunes, native grassland, xerophilic shrubs, and canyon systems. Altogether, this area’s endemism, evolutionary importance and ecological significance have made it an international priority for conservation action.

Water clearly plays a key role in this highly threatened system, which must compete with everything and everyone else thirsting for life in Cuatro Ciénegas. Surface and groundwater is extracted for irrigation or diverted for other purposes, with sources depleting more rapidly than they can be recharged. Beckoned by the alluring turquoise waters, people try to escape the heat swim-ming in the cool pozas, or for the very poor, because it is the only place to bathe, leading to contamination and upsetting the delicate balance of these ecosystems. Habitat conversion, the spread of exotic species, livestock grazing, cutting mesquite for firewood, cacti and reptile

poaching, and unregulated tourism affect the area of Cuatro Ciénegas, as well.

Constructed more than 100 years ago, a network of seven main canal systems directs water from these springs and pools; five of these lie within the valley. About a foot deep in the open field, these open conduits carry some 1000 liters per second of running water, a refreshing sight under the blazing sun. But an estimated 70% of that water never reaches its destination; it evapo-rates into the air, sinks into the soil, or is wasted. The rural communities depend on this system to bring water for their subsistence, primarily growing alfalfa to sell as forage and basic grains for themselves. Life is a struggle, particularly in the ejidos, a system that arose after the Mexican Revolution granting communally-owned land or water rights to the most poor. Without electricity or paved roads, they have little technology or machinery, limited marketing channels and scarce cash to purchase inputs.

With TNC’s help, partner organization Pronatura Noreste had acquired a key, 2721-hectare property, Rancho Pozas Azules, with more than 150 pools; however, the rights to water flowing into the nature reserve had been granted to Ejido Antiguos Mineros del Norte. With the Parks in Peril program, Pronatura aimed to decrease the amount of water use, allowing levels of springs and pools to rise and thus restoring and maintaining wetlands and associated species. This could be achieved by closing the canals and

case 6 Conservation improving quality of life in Ejido Antiguos Mineros del Norte, Cuatro Ciénegas, Mexico22


replacing them with pipelines to avoid excess water loss, using gravity-driven extraction systems rather than costly energy sources, and efficient drop irrigation systems with precision microdrip hoses. To promote sustainable use of aquatic and terrestrial resources, solar panels would be installed, providing the communities with a source of elec-tricity. Government agencies and universities were ready to assist with training and support to help farmers market their products and other residents to run small businesses, along with other sources of livelihood such as semi-sta-bled goat herds and family vegetable gardens.

Ejido Antiguos Mineros del Norte had approached Prona-tura and was interested in collaborating, so the first stage of the multi-pronged project took place in this community of 28 families. There was abundant water, but very little they could access. Alfalfa is a thirsty plant requiring much irrigation, so crops had to be located near the canals, a long walk away from their homes for the men. There was no drinking water, so each day women and children made several 300 to 500-meter trips lugging barrels of water back to the houses. Gastrointestinal illnesses were common. Some of the people venture into the sierras to collect candelilla, a plant used for wax, pulling out as much as they can load onto a pack animal or carry them-selves; it will be worth very little when they sell it. It is an existence of drudgery and exhaustion, of grueling work in harsh circumstances with little hope of change, just to keep on surviving, one day at a time. The ejido is mostly

made up of small children and people aged 50 or more; as soon as they finish elementary school, the younger members of the community normally migrate to the cities or to the U.S. in search of better opportunities.

In 2002 Pronatura Noreste began activities in the ejido, supported by Parks in Peril. Things went so well that a second ejido invited them to start a project there, and then a third, and a fourth community. At this writing, a total of 7.2 km of open canals have been closed and efficient irrigation systems have been installed over 35 hectares.

Thanks to the water enhancement project, Antiguos Mineros del Norte has a surplus, and in 2005 the ejido granted Pronatura Noreste rights to 300 liters of water per second to use for restoration and conservation purposes. Water levels have risen one full meter in Rancho Pozas Azules Reserve, recovering natural patterns and flows. Streams are running once again, and ponds and wetlands that had disappeared have been brought back, increasing habitat for the emblematic and vulnerable Coahuilan box turtle (Terrapene Coahuila). Migratory birds such as the gray crane have returned. Water enhancement projects in other communities are expected to supply at least an additional 400 liters of water per second for further restoration.

Source: Leslie Simmons, �00�

Available labor.

It is important to assess the labor available in local communities, as well as worker mobility during dif-ferent periods of the year. Some alternative liveli-hood initiatives can be labor-intensive, so existing supply of workers and labor costs need to be con-sidered. During the coffee harvest, for example, additional workers must generally be hired. In the case of La Amistad International Park, on the Costa Rican Pacific side, as part of strategy to promote and improve tourist attractions, some of the organiza-tions in the Quercus Network carried out a project to post signs in the tourism area. The aim was not only to provide visitors with information, but also to beautify communities and strengthen a sense of identity and pride among residents. While the project achieved its objectives, the style employed for signage increased costs unexpectedly due to the elevated demand for labor. One of the associa-tions, ASOPROLA, had to cover the expense since

this was not a cost category for which cooperation resources could be used, and very few people were willing to contribute toward this expenditure.

On the other hand, if the proposed initiatives are not labor-intensive, they may not generate employ-ment for those engaged in unsustainable activities. Extra labor can be employed to continue in unsus-tainable production alongside the proposed activi-ties. The migration processes referred to earlier can generate such a surplus of available labor.

Access to financing sources.

The implementation of sustainable use alternatives requires funds, either from donations or credit, to cover the initial investment and operating costs (fixed and variable)23. Once projects begin and generate revenues, dependence on external resources can decline or become totally unneeded, but during


the first few years outside financing from donors or state subsidies will usually be necessary. In general, a continual flow of resources must be planned for. A good part of sustainable use activities require short-run income as seed capital and some projects do not show profits until the medium and long term, so the availability of financing should be ensured.

One of the main constraints for community orga-nizations is that they do not have enough savings, and access to formal sources of credit is extremely difficult since they cannot offer the level of guaranty demanded. Risk and uncertainty are factors that limit access to formal loans, so at times communities must fall back on informal means, which makes their productive activities more expensive. However, there is an increasing range of organizations pro-viding microcredit and other forms of community financing so that they can eventually contribute their own resources, reducing dependence on outside sources.

Achieving financial sustainability without such outside support can take several years, if possible at all, making the need to seek out different external sources a constant in most cases of community initia-tives. Given this reality, the cost of accessing sources needs to be calculated, since negotiating funds involves a series of actions requiring time and money that have to be planned ahead. In addition, if the community initiatives begin operating with resources provided for them, such as donations, this should be incorporated since it affects the true profitability of the initiative.

Tenure and access to land and natural resources24

One of the core elements to consider in promoting conservation and sustainable use of natural resources in protected areas is the establishment of and clarity about rights over tenure25, access and use of land and its resources. In relation to the theme of this pub-lication, the central idea is that there is more pos-sibility of people and groups participating in sustain-able use and management practices if they have clear and secure tenure rights over resources through formal, informal, and/or traditional measures in each of the different types of tenure: private, state and communal26. Possession of legal rights over the control and use of natural resources is fundamental

for communities to be able to make long-range deci-sions about those resources (GEF, 2007).

Up-to-date and accurate information is essential to carry out sustainable use activities in protected areas. Identifying the type of ownership and control over access to natural resources by local communities, as well as the existence of conflicts over the property and use, facilitates planning of differentiated strate-gies and permits an understanding of who has the rights to receive benefits and manage activities. On the other hand, if property rights are unclear, human actions that degrade the environment can take place without any mechanism of control to ensure that those responsible pay part of the costs of such degra-dation (Western and Wright, 1999).

It can be difficult to obtain reliable information about land tenure, so it must be determined what is critical for management efforts in the protected areas. In addition, identification of unresolved issues about tenure- such as conflicts over use, the absence of land titles, irregular assignment of titles, and others- is fundamental in order to envision poten-tial obstacles for initiatives. In general, unresolved issues about land tenure add more elements to the social and political complexity of many protected areas, which affects the effectiveness of actions carried out within them. For example, in the Río Plátano Biosphere Reserve in Honduras, unre-solved conflicts over access and use of land meant there were limited incentives for using the natural resources sustainably. In this reserve, the project to set up a butterfly farm, mentioned earlier, had to be suspended due to conflicts among several people over tenure and use of the property where the farm was to be established. The project was not re-launched until two years later when the facilities were moved to the private property of the farm’s technical and administrative director. In contrast, the resolution of tenure conflicts in Mexico’s El Tri-unfo Biosphere Reserve facilitated the participation of local communities in conservation and sustainable use (Martin and Rieger, 2003).


Right now there is no information about the number of people or actual uses within Panama’s Chagres National Park at the time it was created in 1984. Nor is there any precise information on the migration of new colonizers afterwards. It is known that there are legally established farms whose owners have taken actual possession of the lands, although the exact location is not known in many cases. It is also known that over time and for different reasons, the property of some of these farms has passed to State institutions. Some situations have indicated that land titles were drawn up after the park’s creation, making these illegally constituted within the protected area. Some local authorities have endorsed processes for legal recognition of land improvements by giving certifications to people who purchase possessory rights to land in the park, without park staff becoming aware of the situation. These information gaps, complexities, and contradictions make decisions difficult with respect to park management and developing sustainable use initia-tives, and expose the institutions involved to conflictive situations.

In 2003, TNC and its partners ANAM, ANCON, SON-DEAR and CEASPA conducted studies and consulta-tions, resulting in the Alto Chagres Conservation Plan. One of the strategies identified in the plan was “the search for viable alternatives for the management of human settlements within the park.” When the plan was being updated, the challenge of territorial ordering and consolidation was a priority.

Given these needs, with PiP support a study was made aimed at the adoption of a detailed ordering of use zones (permitting human presence) contemplated in the management plan, making it possible to guide decisions for the park’s effective management (Bonamico et al, 2007). The study included a census of all park residents, registration of all properties with evidences of farming and forestry activities, and an update of the situation of properties with possessory rights and legally constituted within park limits.

After a bidding process, the CEPSA company was con-tracted to do the study in constant coordination with park staff. The result was a baseline using a computerized, geo-referenced information system that will provide land tenure data contributing to a detailed ordering of the ter-ritory. This will contribute to the sustainable development of the communities, as well as protection of biodiversity

and natural resources. Likewise, the study indicated alternatives for achieving conservation, selecting a wide range of options such as payment for environmental ser-vices, promotion of environmentally compatible activities, recognition of proprietary rights, exchange, land pur-chase, ecological easements, private reserves, etc. The results will also facilitate decision making for ANAM, as the entity with jurisdiction over the park, and execution of management activities for the park’s consolidation. The methodology proposed combined qualitative and quan-titative research methods with the use of both participa-tory and traditional tools (surveys) during the phases of appraisal, analysis, validation, and dissemination of results (Bonamico et al, 2007).

The complexity and sensitivity of these themes was reflected in the terms of reference for the study, which were discussed at length before the institutions arrived at a consensus. The terms mention that since any tenure study in a protected area can create reservations among inhabitants and promote land speculation and cornering of the market, the necessary measures were to be taken to clarify any doubt arising during the study, mainly in the field. Also, from the start the most appropriate channels were defined for effectively communicating the objective of the investigation and for resolving concerns and ques-tions, based on ongoing communication and agreements made with the competent authorities. Furthermore, the study was not begun until the management plan had been finalized so that the major technical elements would be in place to determine the scope of the work.

In July 2007, the land tenure study is in its final phase and the expected outcomes have been obtained. These will make it possible to define priority actions regarding land tenure within the protected area, whether clearing up claims, land purchase or legalization of pending titling processes.

case 7 Population census and agricultural and forest registration in Chagres National Park, Panama


The elements set out in the next section are part of an economic feasibility study that is important to make before launching activities for sustainable use of natural resources. This is a way to assess the anticipated profitability of an activity while also comparing it with different alternatives, and thus avoid carrying out initiatives that do not yield the benefits expected by communities. Annex 2 provides an illustration of the necessary steps in a feasibility study through the example of a tourism initiative.

3.4. POlitical anD regulatOry FactOrs

Local, national and international policies and leg-islation. Activities to be carried out in protected areas are strongly influenced by policies and by the instruments governments use to apply them. As a consequence, policy instruments and existing laws and rules regulating impacts need to be examined in light of their impacts on sustainable community use initiatives, assessing also whether these can be changed if necessary. The most important are those that enable the application of socioeconomic incen-tives for sustainable natural resource management by local communities, as well as those policy instru-ments or regulations with problems that need to be corrected.

Notably, these elements in the institutional and reg-ulatory sphere (local, national and international) can sometimes have both a positive and a negative effect on sustainable use initiatives. There are policies that have been intentionally conceived to impact posi-tively on conservation and sustainable resource use in the protected areas, like those mentioned in the pre-vious chapter on the overall frame. There are others designed to encourage the development of economic and productive sectors, which end up having positive or negative impacts on protected areas, and which can thus influence sustainable use initiatives within those areas27. Such an occurrence makes it necessary to promote forms of inter-institutional coordination, as will be explained further on.

Policy instruments and legislation can be classified in various categories (Lockwood et al, 2006):

Regulatory instruments. These prohibit, restrict, or establish quotas for the extraction of natural

resources in certain categories of protected areas. There are also regulations that limit or promote the expansion of the agricultural frontier toward protected areas, which disturbs the stability of their natural ecosystems. Legislation that promotes the protection of intellectual property, along with mechanisms to ensure previous, free, and informed consent of the communities, are also conditions that enable activities to be carried out.

Economic instruments (act in market processes). These include the creation of markets for natural resources, which permits the establishment of mechanisms for the payment of environmental ser-vices. Likewise, the existence of subsidies and other detrimental financial mechanisms that encourage unsustainable forest, fishing, and agricultural activi-ties, is another critical element in analyzing condi-tioning factors. For example, according to Bolivian legislation, to claim a property title the applicant is required to demonstrate having worked and “improved” the land; improvements generally sig-nify investments in the land for productive use. As a result, many of the colonizers have cut down trees and planted crops in the buffer zones of Amboró National Park, which has been counter-productive to conservation and sustainable use aims (Brandon, et al. 1998).

Voluntary, non-economic measures. These are self-regulatory measures that communities can determine to ensure sustainable use of the natural resources.

Framework strategies. These strategies provide an overall orientation for action in sustainable use, such as the Program of Work in Protected Areas

Institutional reforms. These modify existing institu-tions or establish new ones. Entities created for the co-management of protected areas are examples of an institution that influences the possibilities and sphere of action of the sustainable use activities to be implemented in protected areas.

Education. Educational campaigns increase knowl-edge about environmental values and problems, as well as inform about potential solutions, which sustainable use activities can be.


case 8Community regulations for protection of paramo in Cayambe-Coca, Ecuador

One of the protected areas that make up part of the Condor Bioreserve in the Andes mountains, northern Ecuador, is the Cayambe-Coca Ecological Reserve. Here, communities have established regulations for the conservation of threatened ecosystems, including the paramo that limits the reserve. The regulations are backed by agreements signed between the communi-ties and local associations and the Ecuadorian Forest Institute and Nature Areas and Wildlife (INEFAN).

The regulations have limited inhabitants’ activities, but were accepted since they were agreed participatively by representatives of the community. For example, the com-munities pledge to respect the areas of the paramo that have been designated as common pasture, where strict rules must be followed. For example, pigs are not allowed to graze there. Likewise, unsustainable fishing techniques are prohibited, such as the use of nets or dynamite.

The regulations establish a series of fines for noncom-pliance. If a member of the communities breaks the rule against grazing pigs, the owners are notified, and if there is no response the animal is removed for the good of the community. In general, the procedure for offenders in cases associated with animals is a call to attention by the leaders; for the second violation there is an economic penalty, and finally, the animal is removed from the paramo. Also, whoever burns hectares of the paramo must pay with native plants to reforest. The purpose of the sanctions is to provide direct benefits to the protected area. Other penalties include the elimination of grazing rights and access to water service. In certain situations, the reserve directors collaborate in assessing the damages caused in order to determine the penalty.

The imposition of sanctions is controlled by the com-munity’s provincial council with the support of commu-nity park guards. According to Luís Martínez, in charge of the reserve area, community participation with the leadership of the park guards has made the system of rules and penalties more expeditious and effective since it matches the laws and traditions of the com-munities themselves. Sometimes when violators of the regulations are members from outside the community, the State will take charge of imposing sanctions, but even so, the community keeps an eye out that sanc-tions are complied with.

Source: Interview made by TNC, January �00�

Category of the protected areas and processes prior to zoning. The IUCN category given to the pro-tected area is an important guide for decisions about activities to develop in benefit of local communi-ties within the area. Used to assign categories to around two-thirds of the world’s protected areas, this system recognizes that while some categories such as I and II have stricter regulations to prevent human activities, others, especially categories V and VI, allow for sustainable use of renewable resources, guided by a management plan that ensures con-servation of biodiversity (Lockwood et al, 2006) (See table 1). It is worth clarifying that in terms of protection and the presence of human settlements, categories are not always standard among the dif-ferent countries. For example, in one country a national park guarantees that no one can live within the boundaries, but in another, government agencies may tolerate the presence of some inhabitants. Gen-erally, legislation conflicts with reality on the ground (Brandon et al, 1998).

Category V, Terrestrial and Marine Protected Landscape accepts management regimens in recognition of the value of human interactions in the natural setting, the role humans exercise in the state of the world ecosystems and support for traditional forms of livelihood. Like V, category VI, Protected Area with Managed Resources, permits sustainable manage-ment of the goods and services of the areas so that community needs are satisfied. However, it also includes an area of unalterable natural systems that must be managed so that at least two-thirds remain unchanged (Scherl et al, 2004).

The great majority of protected areas also have dif-ferent management zones. Even when these have not been defined formally, it is necessary to identify them in order to determine regions where different sustainable use activities will be carried out.


case 9Zoning in the Sierra de las Minas Biosphere Reserve, Guatemala

There are approximately 140 small rural communities in the sustainable use and buffer zone of the Sierra de las Minas Biosphere Reserve in Guatemala. The Q’eqchi´ and Poqomchi’ indigenous communities on the north slope of the reserve, with low educational levels and a high rate of illiteracy, depend on subsistence agriculture and the production of some commercial crops, extraction of resources and employment as laborers on nearby coffee and cardamom plantations. The ladinos (of Spanish and mestizo origin) on the southern slope depend primarily on small-scale ranching, production of commercial crops and timber extraction.

When work with the reserve communities first began, the organization Defensores de la Naturaleza had to deal with mistrust and, in some cases, open opposition. This was mostly due to fear that resource extraction would be completely prohibited. However, division of the reserve in four management zones, designed to optimize activities and result in joint, participatory work, helped eliminate that fear (Secaira et al, 2000).

In the process of zoning the reserve it was established that the 105,000-hectare core area would be dedicated to conservation and limited tourism, with no extractive activities or human settlements permitted. Sustainable extrac-tion from the forests would be permitted in the multi-purpose or sustainable use zone, but not settlements. In the 92,000-hectare buffer zone, where there were over 100 settlements, sustainable use of natural resources would be promoted. Finally, 4000 hectares were set aside for the recovery of conifer forest affected by deforestation (Millán, 2006).

Table. 1. IUCN Protected Area Categories

categOry DescriPtiOn sustainaBle use PermitteD

i. strict nature reserve / wildlife Preserve

Managed primarily for scientific purposes of protection of nature. This is the strictest category, where the most extensive unaltered areas are found with little or no intervention in management.

No

ii. national ParkManaged mainly for conservation of ecosystems and recreational purposes

No

iii. natural monumentManaged mainly for conservation of specific natural purposes that can be species or communities

No

iv. habitat/species management

Managed mainly for conservation with intervention at the administration level; protects species or communities where some manipulation is permitted for management purposes

Yes

v. Protected landscape/seascape

Managed mainly for landscape/seascape conservation and recreation Yes

vi. managed resource Protected area

Managed mainly for the sustainable use of natural ecosystems Yes


Type of governance.28

Who makes decisions and how they are made is a cen-tral element in order to propose sustainable natural resource use actions in protected areas. The type of governance depends on the existence of legal, insti-tutional (formal and informal) mandates and legal and ancestral rights. Four main types of governance have been identified for the protected areas (Lock-wood et al, 2006):

Public protected areas: Local or national gov-ernment agencies make decisions, including possibilities for carrying out sustainable natural resource activities.

Co-managed protected areas: Management of the protected areas and decision making by two or more organizations (generally one is a government entity). Decisions about sustain-able use will have to go through the corre-sponding entities.

Private protected areas: Private actors make decisions and are in charge of compliance. In these areas important conservation and sustainable resource use initiatives have been implemented, whose lessons have been described through networks of private owners.

Community conservation areas29: Traditional indigenous, native and local communities make decisions about an area. One characteristic of these areas is that management decisions lead to conservation of natural and cultural resources, although the direct aim of man-agement may not be conservation per se, but related to subsistence, food security, or the reaffirmation of cultural values. The main moti-vation in most of these can be the pursuit of guarantees that resources related to subsistence will be provided on a sustained basis. This can offer an ideal opportunity for promoting, strengthening, or making sustainable actions visible, bearing in mind that communities are not homogeneous and social and cultural differences need to be assessed. In addition, these areas frequently have managed to avoid or fight off projects not beneficial to ecosystems in their territory, such as mining, uncontrolled tourism, hydroelectric dams, and others.

ü

ü

ü

ü

Political instability and conflict.

The presence of conflicts and political instability at the national or local level can alter possibilities of implementing sustainable use projects, not only because of their impact on beneficiaries’ lives, but also due to limitations in accessing markets and the changes in policies that affect them. Likewise, the political history of countries can influence social and economic dynamics in the sites. Changes in govern-ments are generally accompanied by modifications in institutions, as well as those in charge of conser-vation and development programs, thereby altering these processes. For this reason, an analysis of the political and institutional setting at the appropriate scale is also desirable.

3.5. institutiOnal & OPeratiOnal FactOrs

Local forms of organization.

To carry out sustainable use initiatives at the com-munity level, it is necessary to determine the orga-nizational level of participating groups and their capacity to manage initiatives even beyond the period of project support. A careful study is recommended of the mandates, composition, and effectiveness of active local institutions in order to develop strate-gies for maximizing their collaboration, as well as to formulate activities for their strengthening along-side the implementation of sustainable use actions. Based on this analysis, it is advisable to assess the training needs of existing organizations in such areas as business management, business leadership, conflict resolution, financial planning, financial management and accounting. The assessment should include prior experience in carrying out livelihood initiatives, tech-nical expertise and other experience. It is also a good idea to establish whether promoting the creation of new organizations is necessary, while avoiding the duplication of functions in those existing. The rep-resentativeness and legitimacy of existing organiza-tions is also important, along with influential leaders in the community that should be involved as guides in implementing activities. Local organizations can often be found to have multiple aims, and conserva-tion is just one of these. Each aim should be recog-nized and encouraged to contribute to the interests of the initiative being promoted.


Integration with other plans, programs, and projects at the sites.

To avoid duplication and create synergies, it is important to examine any other plans, programs, and projects in the region that communities are implementing either independently or with help from outside agencies. There may be possibilities for complementarities between the community initiatives being proposed, and others that already exist. Forums of institutional coordination, such as management committees for the protected areas, facilitate the search for information about related activities, and even more, in establishing agreements for joint work.

In response to a public health problem related to the spread of a virus in Mexico’s Ría Celestún and Ría Lagartos reserves, in 1996 the organization ProNatura Península de Yucatán offered to help the local clinic determine priority areas for vaccination campaigns and improved sanitation. Information was gathered on fuel use, waste management and the sanitary conditions of housing. The database of health information produced was then used by envi-ronmental institutions such as TNC to coordinate actions in high-risk zones.

Since 1995, Parks in Peril has supported different actions for the conservation of areas comprising La Amistad International Park (PILA) and its buffer zone. These included the need to promote benefits for local com-munities based on support for the growth of cultural and ecological tourism in community lands of indigenous ter-ritories located in the watershed of the Yorkín River in the Talamanca-Bocas del Toro region, PILA buffer zone and Caribbean border between Panama and Costa Rica. The watershed area is mainly inhabited by the Bribri indig-enous people living in six communities in Panamanian territory, and five communities in indigenous territory on the Costa Rican side.

“Our network has been formed, we have our

own capacity to manage tourism in the territory,

ecological culture, education. We have had to fight,

but we have been able to find these spaces and

opportunities that didn’t exist before...”

—Jorgelli Rodríguez, member of the Indigenous Network

The idea of developing tourism in Yorkín was first imple-mented more than ten years ago as an income-gen-erating alternative, particularly since the site is largely unsuitable for traditional crops grown in the rest of the

Talamanca Valley. However, even though the communi-ties received training and financing, tourism activity had produced unsatisfactory results due to several factors: internal social and ethnic divisions, deficient land com-munications and data transmission, insufficient tourism infrastructure, and lack of clarity about the marketing concept.

To lay the foundations of a new program aimed at strengthening tourism offerings in the Bribri indigenous Reserve of Talamanca, in 2003 the SEDER consulting firm conducted a feasibility study to review previous experience and determine whether community cultural tourism was a viable and relevant alternative for develop-ment in the zone. The study made it possible to profile the population of the watershed, analyze the tourism development process, do a market survey, and assess current and potential supply and demand. Because of the watershed’s special cultural characteristics, the feasibility of this element was studied first, followed by socio-political factors, and finally, technical and finan-cial aspects. To conduct the study, workshops were held with members of the Yorkín community and Bribri reserve, as well as in-depth interviews with key people (including tourism operators, area residents and tourists). An exhaustive investigation was made of statistics and history, through a review of documents, collection of field data, and participatory and passive observation in the community of Puerto Viejo, where a tourism initiative was already underway.

case 10 Multiple factors considered in promoting cultural tourism in Río Yorkín, La Amistad International Park, Costa Rica and Panama


The study revealed that local leaders and other actors felt ecotourism had a great deal of potential in the Bribri Indigenous Reserve, and could not only generate eco-nomic income but also strengthen traditional indigenous culture as long as the process was suitably regulated to keep tourism from “breaking up and deconstructing their society” (TNC, 2004: 15). The emphasis of tourism offering in the reserve, aimed at a selected segment of visitors as opposed to mass tourism, would revolve around showing and sharing the rich ecological wealth of the region and traditional day-to-day aspects of their culture, in what was denominated “cultural tourism”.

“Many of the organizations making up the

Network have been working for several years;

what we’re looking for in bringing them together

is to help us mutually strengthen our capacities.

At the beginning we made an appraisal of all of

the 17 organizations, and we identified each one’s

products and capacities. Then we looked for a way

to organize ourselves and to think about the type of

tourists we wanted to visit us, and what spaces each

organization was going to manage.”

—Jorgelli Rodríguez, member of the Indigenous Network

The details of the study also made it possible to formu-late the logic framework for the program, with different activities to design and operate the “indigenous tourism route”; strengthen processes of training in planning and managing community tourism; and solve – through the formation of a trust fund- deficiencies in basic services and infrastructure as initial elements before carrying out marketing and informational efforts focused on increasing numbers of visitors from the desired segment. The study also included a series of recommendations for launching a program in keeping with the social, ecological, and ecological conditions of the region and its inhabitants. The study’s findings also built a case for preparing formal regulations on tourism in the Bribri Indigenous Reserve to establish the parameters and services offered, thus allaying the fears of indigenous communities about uncontrolled tourism.

In addition to determining the feasibility of the initia-tive, the study generated opportunity for representatives and leaders to tackle the matter collectively. From this arose the need for an internal organizational structure to coordinate and organize efforts and agreements about the tourism to be offered. As a consequence, the Indig-enous Tourism Network was created in 2005, comprised initially of 15 organizations and grassroots groups (now 17) interested in this type of enterprise. The Network aims to be an entity for mutual support and coordination guaranteeing the organization of a high-quality service and a common agenda uniting the tourism proposal. The Network later received support for building members’ capacities, assisted by several institutions such as the National Institute of Learning, which structured a course tailored to the characteristics of the indigenous.

Currently the groups are now organized in that formal structure and have developed their own mechanisms for making decisions, rules and procedures, reaching con-sensus about the tourism activities to be promoted in the territory. The area of influence has extended from Yorkín and covers the Talamanca region. The tourism offering has incorporated visits to the productive projects of groups, bringing tourists to see the farms and learn about indig-enous polycultivation methods. This has enriched the offering, made it possible to strengthen such practices, and generated greater interest in groups. Other organiza-tions such as the Costa Rican Institute of Tourism (ICT), the Port Development Board of the Atlantic Slope (JAP-DEVA), and Asociación ANAI have supported the process through new and complementary studies, training for Network members and access to the tourism market.

Today the Network is the entity responsible for imple-menting the strategy for indigenous tourism in the region, and the guidelines it developed were approved by the Talamanca Bribri Development Association (ADITIBRI), the local government for the indigenous. With the cre-ation of the Network it has become evident that the main benefit of this process, even more than generating income, is the development of indigenous autonomy. They have known how to demonstrate that they are capable of directing development efforts in their region, linking an economic activity that respects their thought structure. The challenge for the future is to consolidate the Network and acquire more of a business outlook, initiate autono-mous management of their tourism enterprise, exposing themselves to dynamics that are different from receiving support through cooperation projects, and continue inte-grating tourism horizontally with local agriculture.

Source: TNC, �00�; Rodríguez, �00�; Interview with Felipe Carazo, June �, �00�.


Many sustainable natural resource use initiatives have the potential to be scaled up and generate impacts of greater magnitude. Scaling up refers to the expansion of benefits at different levels: (i) more people, (ii) more extensive geographic area; and, (iii) more quickly, equitably and sustainably (Roe, 2004). The term has been used in reference to the replica-tion, expansion or adaptation of techniques, ideas, approaches, and concepts (the means), as well as an increase in the scale of impacts (the ends) (WB, 2003). Scaling up makes it easier for community initiatives to extend their geographic and social cov-erage, generate multiplier effects, augment political and economic influence, and empower participa-tory community processes. It also makes it easier for projects to contribute significantly in achieving national and global goals, both environmental and in relation to Millennium poverty reduction goals (UNPD, 2005). Hence, the aim of community ini-tiatives is to have a significant impact on the well-being of rural populations and/or maintenance of biodiversity in their making them viable for replica-tion (Western and Wright, 1999). In this context, one objective of scaling up must be to broaden the impact of community initiatives, requiring the con-vergence of multi-sector, multi-level actions.

A community initiative for sustainable use of natural resources can be expanded in any one or combi-nation of four ways30. This can be accomplished directly, in that the community organization is directly responsible for expansion actions, or indi-rectly, when third parties promote the expansion of the experience acquired or process carried out by that organization. Depending on the particular context, some types of expansion will have more potential to achieve broader conservation goals. The following table outlines the different types31:

The impacts of expanding and replicating initia-tives (quantitative increase) and those derived from strengthening organizational capacities and insti-tutional resources (qualitative) can generate more immediate tangible benefits than creating programs in other areas or generating policy changes (func-tional or policy expansions, respectively). Likewise, these two first types involve fewer risks than the last two in terms of generating local benefits (Roe, 2004). Consistent with this, according to the report of the Equator Initiative32, the most common forms of scaling up in local initiatives are quantitative and organizational (Timmer and Juma, 2005). However, the actions carried out to scale up in one type can drive and encourage positive changes in another.

4. Possibilities for expanding the scale and impact of initiatives

Table 2. Types of Scaling Up

tyPes OF scaling uP DescriPtiOn

QuantitativeWhen a program or initiative expands in size, replicates, or broadens its activities in other regions. This type of scaling up can be an expansion of impact within an area, based on one or more successful initiatives or transferal of the experience to other new regions.

FunctionalWhen an organization increases its scope of work, particularly in relation to its intervention in themes other than those in which it was originally engaged.

OrganizationalWhen an initiative or organization is strengthened in order to improve its effectiveness, performance and sustainability, for example, through greater financial autonomy and improved management capacities.

Political

When initiatives and/or organizations become involved in political processes, they exercise an influence in this sphere and strengthen their relations with both the national and local government. Scaling up can be direct, through the establishment of alliances and policy making, or indirect, by influencing existing institutions and policies.

Source: Roe, �00�; Timmer and Juma, �00�


For example, due to the expansion of one commu-nity initiative towards different geographic points, the necessary incentives can be created to generate policy changes within the regulatory frame that later facilitate other changes in this direction.

Despite the potential benefits, possibilities of scaling up community initiatives should be assessed cau-tiously. When expanded, sustainable use initiatives risk reaching levels where resources are exploited at intolerable rates for conservation. Excessive repli-cation can harm already existing initiatives by cre-ating additional competition in markets. Likewise, increased earnings in local communities can heighten abilities to exploit other natural resources in an unsustainable manner (Bovarnick and Gupta, 2003).

As a result, it is best to make feasibility studies assessing not only possibilities for expanding ini-tiatives, but also the impacts these could have on the ecosystems being intervened. Some elements to consider regarding the risks in scaling up are: (i) whether the broadened initiative is competi-tive (generates sufficient changes or is sufficiently distinctive to attract resources and attention); (ii) whether the initiative has to potential to be finan-cially sustainable; (iii) whether the initiative is highly dependent on external conditions and if these are present; and (iv) whether there may be high levels of resistance to the initiative (Ford Foundation, 2004). The studies will be more effective if the initia-tives have developed mechanisms to measure their advances, which will provide the evidence necessary to assess the feasibility of their being scaled up33. This will provide the feedback required for adequate decision making on whether or not to move ahead with the expansion of the alternative in question.

Occasionally some initiatives that are successful on a small scale are less so at higher levels, due to limitations in legal and political frames (MA, 2005). Some initiatives are islands of success whose replicability is limited because achievements have depended on costly investments in technology, inputs and advising (Binswanger and Aiyar, 2003) 34.

Two elements need to be combined for successful scaling up: (i) guidelines that can be replicated and adopted based on the establishment of substanti-ated methodological steps; and (ii) adjustment of

the guidelines to specific contexts. The use of gen-eral procedures to scale up and their adaptation to specific situations can be observed in Figure 1 (WB, 2003). Adaptation to different contexts and moni-toring of progress in the “scaling” process are both essential, since what may work in a given context may not necessarily work in another geographic area, socio-political process, or different organization.

Figure 1. Process for Scaling Up Project Impact

Contextualist adaptation and development of approaches and processes

Universalist replication and fine-tuning of procedures

Context 2

Context 1

Successful Experience

Source: WB, �00�

Following below are the elements, requirements and strategies to consider for scaling up community sus-tainable natural resource use initiatives in protected areas Some of these elements are influenced by enabling conditions related to the intrinsic charac-teristics of the community groups or organizations in charge of sustainable use actions and their “capac-ities to mobilize the skills and wills required to mark the difference in community efforts” (UNPD, 2005: 10). There are also external enabling condi-tions stemming from the setting; they determine the way communities/organizations will be able to relate to the outside world in their attempt to expand, and over which they have less control. Several of the factors considered in the design and implementa-tion of local community initiatives, described in the previous chapter, are applicable to the contexts and to scaling up. Each of the elements described below contributes in greater or lesser degree to the four different types of scaling up presented above.


The capacity of community enterprises to represent

a difference depends especially on their internal

organization, on how they distribute risk by

diversifying the range of products and subproducts

they offer, and on the way they relate and negotiate

with the outside world.

— UNPD, �00�: �

4.1. DisseminatiOn OF knOwleDge anD OrganizatiOnal strengthening

Learning and dissemination of lessons based on small-scale experiences. Effective dissemination of les-sons, procedures and techniques developed in local community initiatives will facilitate the development of other initiatives in other places, which leads to quantitative scaling up. The indispensable requisite for this to happen is for the community initiative to have systematized its experiences so that results have the documentary backup required for their dissemination. Having members of the community group with capacities to disseminate and extend the experiences is an additional condition that facilitates their spread. Similarly, when community initiatives know about one another and learn about other experiences in different spheres of action and are interested in incorporating these in their own work, this will facilitate functional scaling up35. At the macro level, based on the analysis of several experiences and case studies, members of the team working with the Global Environment Fund’s Small Grants Fund say it is possible to accumulate global benefits from projects carried out by NGOs and grassroots community organizations, no matter how small they might be, if they keep track of lessons learned and promote dissemination and sharing of knowledge with other communities and general public at national and global levels (GEF, 2007).

According to Bumacas et al (2006), there are three vital elements for building the knowledge base nec-essary for scaling up initiatives36:

i. Systematization and documentation of the commu-nity experience. This makes it possible to both catalyze knowledge sharing and disseminate the experiences that can facilitate scaling up in different spheres of decision making. Fos-tering the communities’ sense of ownership and follow-up allows them to participate in selecting suitable information and desirable products for systematization.

On some occasions, effective means of com-munication for systematization can include manuals that compile analysis and successful pilot experiences, in order to document prac-tices and establish simple procedures about management systems, strengthening tools and strategies conducive to scaling up (Binswanger and Aiyar, 2003; WB, 2003). However, these documents must be flexible enough to be adapted to different contexts so that they are more than just recipes for scaling up. Models and general lessons should be combined with approaches accounting for the particularities of each context.

ii. Community-directed sharing of knowledge. There are several strategies allowing community representatives to share their practices. Among those used most in recent years, promoted by Parks in Peril to extend lessons over a broader geographic area, is the one called “campesino to campesino”. Under this approach, mem-bers of community groups train representa-tives of other groups who in turn work as promoters and spread lessons within their own communities. Based on PiP experience, these extensionists or agents of change at the local level are not only more aware of local needs and demands, but have greater power of convocation, influence and conviction. In some protected areas of Latin America such as the Condor Biosphere Reserve, PiP facilitated the formation and strengthening of groups of community park guards who, among other actions, supported the development of sustain-able use initiatives. As members of the com-munities, they provided an innovative vehicle for scaling up lessons within those same communities and in turn, to other regions. In Mexico’s El Triunfo Biosphere Reserve, as


well, the positive results in curbing extraction of shate palm leaves for trade and promoting wise palm production were disseminated through campesino-campesino exchanges in communities expressing an interest in partici-pating (Castro et al, 2003). Some projects have also demonstrated that transfer of knowledge has worked better if promoters utilize their own farms to demonstrate in local language the effectiveness of the new technologies being promoted (GEF, 2007)37.

“As a Yanesha I transmit some things that my

compatriots perhaps do not understand. In this

sense, my participation is very interesting for the

population.”

—Jerónimo Valerio, ProNaturaleza extensionist in Selva Central, Peru.

Support was necessary for meetings between the communities to share experiences, since it is usually difficult for these actors to do this on their own at the beginning. The positive effects from such opportunities have extended widely, motivating the creation of exchange networks among organizations, as well as communities. For example, PiP promoted a south-south exchange between institutions with common interests, while TNC and other organizations38 supported several activi-ties held by the Network of Environmental Funds of Latin America and the Caribbean (RedLAC), which was formally established in 1999 as a coalition for learning and exchange, and consists of 21 environmental funds in 14 countries. The mission of RedLAC has been to promote and strengthen environmental funds throughout the region through a system of continual learning for conservation of natural heritage and sustainable development. Addi-tionally, there are regional structures conducive for the replication of local community efforts. The Asociación Coordinadora Indígena y Campesina de Agroforestería Comunitaria de Centroamérica (ACICAFOC), for example, is

an non-political, community-based organiza-tion and forum for sharing experiences, and from there to other regions.

iii. Research done by communities. Opening opportu-nities for communities to conduct and orient research in their territories also strengthens them while providing elements for them to broaden their scale of intervention. Also, the results of these investigations become more important for other potential followers of these initiatives. For example, the design and implementation of sustainable use initiatives as pilot or demonstration sites emphasizing the need to generate lessons makes these easier to replicate and adapt in other geographical areas. The demonstration sites become spaces where communities carry out their own inves-tigations applied to themes that interest them; they can compile experiences and follow up on achievements. Demonstration sites can be visited constantly not only by close neighbors but communities farther away, which facilitates both quantitative and functional scaling up. This has been an effective strategy for motivating other communities and outside agencies to replicate the experiences, even in different contexts. The demonstration sites have also served as spaces for local communities to learn technical productive techniques improving their efficiency, and thus increase the scale of their actions. To the extent that sites dissemi-nate lessons about organizational management and enable organizations to strengthen their capacities, dissemination of lessons likewise contributes to organizational scaling up. Orga-nizational expansion is also facilitated through the strategy of disseminating experiences by making it possible to attract new sources of funding for community initiatives.


To see the farm and what Mr. Bernam explained to us about the results he has gotten

using this combination of grass with leucaena really had an impact on me. It made

me think that if such an elderly man as he could change, I could too, and that there

are simple things we could do but we didn’t know what they are.”

— Julio Espino, beneficiary of the project for participatory planning of sustainable productive activities in the north sector of Chagres National Park, Panama

From 2005, PiP supported the indigenous territories of Li Lamni and Kipla in the Bosawás Nature Reserve in devel-oping sustainable activities in farming and raising lesser species. The main objective was to reduce environmental degradation and alleviate poverty by raising nutritional levels. This was achieved by introducing best practices and appropriate technologies for soil conservation, agroforestry and care of animals in the six communities of the Kipla territory and four in the Li Lamni territory. In this way, threats to soils were abated and livelihoods of local residents were improved. Once the communities were selected by members of the associations of the territories (Kunaspawa and Ademscum), TNC met with the leaders and elders of each community so that they were informed about the purpose of the activities to be carried out, and to make an assessment of the primary local problems.

To generate a multiplier effect, after being trained each participant in the project had to train another five families. For example, the indigenous promoters were in charge of demonstrating ways to improve diet by establishing gardens on their land to generate additional income. In addition, the activities, processes and results were dis-seminated in order to reach a greater number of people.

An important impact was generated from these activities in terms of nutritional health, diversifying beneficiaries’ food sources and family economy. On their small parcels, indigenous farmers were able to cultivate up to six dif-ferent products using fertilizers from local resources, as well as traditional crops such as rice and beans. There was broad participation in the project from the moment

of its design, through implementation and monitoring, including women. However, the project had to overcome the obstacle of limited coordination between TNC and some government institutions in the territories, due to transportation difficulties.

As the Parks in Peril program draws to an end, there are ten communities using the tools generated through local initiatives. Furthermore, the central government through the Agriculture and Forest Ministry, which supported the technical part of the project, has initiated a special program–“Zero Hunger”- in all of the Li Lamni and Kipla communities, based on the model developed by TNC.

“Through PIP I could work full time in the

preparation and execution of the Agroecological

Program, which benefited me and my family

through learning how to cultivate different kinds of

non-traditional crops such as cabbage, watermelon,

pepper, onion and papaya.”

— Juana Cornejo Llezeth, president of the Organization of Indigenous Women in the Kipla Sait territory, who also

participated as a project promoter.

case 11 Expansion of best practices in Bosawás Nature Reserve, Nicaragua


One of the conservation threats in the district of Palcazu, buffer zone in the province of Oxapampa in the Peruvian section of Selva Central, has been the unsustainable management practices in ranching, degrading soils to the point where they are unproductive. As a strategy to tackle this problem, ProNaturaleza with support of TNC has promoted the development of silvopastoral systems among district owners, encouraging high-yield forage while maintaining and improving soil fertility. Training in silvopastoral systems, as well as technical assistance for agroforestry systems, has been given to members of Asociación de Ganaderos del Palcazú (AGADIPAL), who have replicated the experiences beyond the scope of the project.

To date, 30 properties are registered as having developed silvopastoral systems, but Anibal Escobar, ProNaturale-za’s lead on agroforestry systems in Palcazu, confirms that there are other individuals who have also developed these systems for a total of between 50 and 60 proper-ties. This multipler effect has been possible because the trained farmers and ranchers have served as extension workers, promoting the adoption of these best practices.

What has made the replication of the methodology more effective are the “field schools” which gather 10 to 15 cattle ranchers for learning opportunities. The field schools use properties to plant the silvopastoral systems and then introduce livestock to the system so that the participants learn by doing. People who have success-fully implemented the silvopastoral systems have been contracted to share their successes and ideas using the common language of cattle ranchers. According to Anibal, it has been shown that the ranchers trust these contracted local ranchers more than if the farms

belonged to indigenous people from the area. In this way, “they more quickly believe that the system works.” The process for deciding to change productive practicies is not the same for each person and entity. It reqires the development of distinct incentives and demonstration methods. The opportunity to see other farmers’ experi-ences has allowed the farmers to understand that there is no unique recipe for each farm. Juan Saldani, one of the first cattle ranchers involved in the project, was learning over time that the system should be adapted to the topography, existing species, and the soil quality on each property. Comparing the properties with silvopas-toral systems in place with those that do not—where the livestock are exposed directly to the sun—Juan concludes that “it is an extraordinary system, because logically… if the livestock is in a pasture without shade, it has to stop eating to look for shade in another location… until the sun goes down.”

One of the reasons this has been possible is that the campesinos trained in the techniques have also been trained in the field to serve as promoters for the adop-tion of these practices with other farmers. The system is easy to implement and the costs of setting it up are low, which makes it more attractive to others who are interested and need to improve the quality of their soil. In addition, AGADIPAL, TNC, the municipal district of Palcazu and the German Service of Social and Technical Cooperation provided financial support to disseminate lessons about procedures at the local level. According to Javier Narváez, President of AGADIPAL, the manual has helped to promote these practices and thanks to the manual, there are many people interested in participating in the silopastoral practices which “is difficult, but shows long-term results.”

Broadening of membership. Increased numbers of members in the organizations boosts the actions car-ried out, permitting the expansion of initiatives and the integration of new perspectives, experiences and visions. It especially facilitates quantitative scaling up.

Having a broad and cohesive group lends more credibility and greater negotiating power to develop agreements at a higher scale (UNDP, 2005). In addi-tion, some individual costs, such as certification for organic production, are lower with more members in the organization, when constituted as a federation or association of producers. The formation of producer

cooperatives with open affiliation mechanisms is an example of horizontal integration in communities dedicated to sustainable farming activities. In addi-tion to facilitating the dissemination of knowledge, together members have larger volumes of the product or service, which is sometimes necessary to access broader and more competitive markets or negotiate better prices in existing markets.

Formation of capacities for organizational manage-ment. The formation of capacities in organizational management enables organizational scaling up in that actions generate results with greater effectiveness. In

case 12 Replication of the agroforestry systems in the Palcazu Valley in Central Selva, Peru39


turn, the strengthening and creation of new capaci-ties is a requisite for all the other types of scaling up. To tackle challenges at greater scale, organiza-tions must either have or acquire the necessary technical and entrepreneurial capacity to perform adequately in changing and demanding scenarios. Strengthening helps communities have the capacity to undertake new activities and trade their activities suitably-even accessing international buyers through the Internet-, in order to survive in broader markets and have an influence in political spheres. In 2002 the greatest challenge for the honey production project in Ecuador’s Podocarpus National Park was participants’ interest in extending their production to national markets, although none had the knowl-edge or experience to penetrate more competitive markets. It was thus necessary to undertake pro-cesses of training alongside the development of the productive activities (Ulfelder, 2002).

Another factor is strong leadership with a clear, long-term commitment within local organizations, which contributes to the decision to take on greater risk and scale up community initiatives. For this reason, in addition to key technical capacities, leaders must also gain the capacity to negotiate in order to drive processes of expansion (UNPD, 2005)40.

Scaling up in any of the different types means that community organizations will be subjected to a more complex and changing context. As a consequence, capacity of adaptation and flexibility is fundamental for organizations wishing to grow with their produc-tive initiatives so that they join together with other organizations, expand their scope of action, and strengthen their relations with the government.

4.2. markets, Financing anD ecOnOmic incentives

Access to broader and specialized markets. The pos-sibility of accessing global markets has enabled both quantitative and functional expansion of sustainable natural resource use activities in protected areas. The Internet and other technological advances make it possible to retrieve information and offer prod-ucts effectively and quickly, and local community initiatives need support to take advantage of these technological advances and share precise informa-

tion. The sustainability of many initiatives will depend on the ability to access and benefit from markets that recognize the value of the products and services stemming from protected areas.

Preferential access for environmentally and socially friendly products has been common in certain specialty markets. Often these consumers are even willing to pay extra to support social and environ-mental aims, in addition to acquiring products with specific quality characteristics.

For example, the international movement encour-aging organic products and trade based on principles of equity, solidarity and sustainability has gained significant ground. The global market for organic foods, particularly in the industrialized nations, is currently growing 20% to 30% a year (UNPD, 2005). These markets are accessed through alliances among local community groups, small businesses, nongovernmental organizations and sometimes local or national governments. Another example is the market certifying that production takes place in favorable habitats for bird conservation. Ecotourism that incorporates bird watching is another growing market. According to the Research Program of the World Trade Organization, while representing just a small percentage of the global volume, this type of tourism is showing annual growth of 20% (UNPD, 2006). The fair trade market offers yet another opportunity; aimed at supporting rural producers, the explicit objective is to pay a fair price for their work and ensure that benefits are utilized in com-munity development, essentially expanding the idea of a cooperative to the world level. It offers an opportunity for low-income producers who would otherwise have few options to reach high-value international markets (WRI, 2005). The distinctive stamp of this market is that the main value of the products and services is determined by their specific place of origin, their producers and the use made of the benefits received at the local level. Fair trade is a localization strategy that rejects the global homog-enization of consumer products, but fosters expan-sion of the global market41.

Access to any of these markets require compli-ance with specific requirements to obtain official certification, a process that involves investing time and economic resources that can sometimes be


subsidized in sustainable use projects. This is espe-cially necessary when there is a risk producers will discover their operations and potential earnings are less than the costs of being certified. Community organizations should be trained so they can comply with these requirements. In addition to the chal-lenges of certification, they will have to constantly expand markets and collectively maintain the vol-umes and qualities demanded. When expansion into new markets involves integrating new factors in the production chain to give added value to products, then functional scaling up has been achieved.

Markets for environmental services that generate national and global benefits have the potential to promote scaling up processes for local initiatives. These markets provide important possibilities for the communities that ensure the conservation of those services through their sustainable use activi-ties. However, communities require training in order to access these markets and carry out the necessary negotiations so that benefits are distributed equi-tably (Bumacas et al, 2006).

With the backing of its partner, Asociación Vivamos Mejor, from 2002 to 2006 PiP supported conservation and sustain-able development actions for ecosystems and species in the region of the Atitlán volcanic chain. Some of these activi-ties involved the promotion and establishment of a regional system of five municipal parks, the strengthening of insti-tutional capacities for conservation planning and threat reduction, promotion of ecotourism, and production of organic coffee. With respect to the last of these, production and commercialization of organic coffee in the department of Sololá and Multi-use Reserve of the Atitlán Lake watershed (hereafter RUMCLA) is one of the main strategies of community sustainable development considered in the Site Conservation Plan for the Atitlán Volcanic Chain, and in the Sustainable development Plan for RUMCLA and the department of Sololá, 2006 – 2010.

Coffee growing has generated important earnings for families in rural communities for several decades. However, this activity has been in crisis since the late 1990s up to the first part of the 2000 decade when international prices plunged in response to global overproduction and the decrease in per capita consumption in buyer countries. This crisis affected large and small producers alike. Some changed to other types of crops, with sometimes negative envi-ronmental impacts. In light of the renowned quality of coffee from this region43, other producers became interested in accessing specialty coffee markets and began the conversion from traditional to organic cultivation, motivated primarily by the higher prices offered by this specialty market.

“There is no doubt that the support from the PiP program was fundamental, because we were starting the transition

to organic coffee production. It was the solution for a huge obstacle in terms of financing for certification. Not all

cooperation projects perceive the importance of supporting coffee cultivation due to the instability of prices and the

competition. The main point here is the belief in what was being done in this respect … Now there are other challenges

we’ll be able to overcome little by little.”

— Rainiero Lec Sicay, Manager of ECOAPOCS.

Transformation of growing techniques so that coffee can obtain special certification is a process that takes at least three years. In the meantime, costs that must be assumed by producers include: (i) a longer wait before revenues are received in comparison to the immediate returns from sales of traditionally grown coffee; (ii) higher costs in terms of labor; (iii) costs involved in certification visits. The capacity-building producers require takes a considerable amount of time, as well. Nevertheless, organic cultivation has been embraced in the Atitlán region because of the positive

case 13Organic coffee in Atitlán, Guatemala: an alternative with socially acceptable and ecologically desirable benefits42


affects it is considered to have on families’ living condi-tions. These lie mainly in the higher income expected in the future, and improvement of environmental conditions from the lower contamination of soils and water sources as agrochemicals are eliminated. Furthermore, most of the product is shade-grown coffee, thanks to other species such as aguacate (Persea americana), “k’ip” (Chamaedorea sp) and “hoja de maxan” (Calathea lutea), diversifying production systems on the farms.

There is a complexity of reasons that the number of organic growers has not grown more: immediate eco-nomic needs, unwillingness to go though the temporary period of low production during the transition from conventional to organic coffee, little capacity or inclina-tion to incur the higher costs of developing management mechanisms for crops, such as living or non-living bar-riers, pruning, etc.

Notwithstanding, some small producers organizations such as Asociación Unidos para Vivir Mejor (ASUVIM), located in the village of Pak’ip, Santa Clara la Laguna, are engaged in the production and trade of organic coffee. Others involved in both conventional and organic produc-tion include Federación de Pueblos Maya (FEDEPMA)44, Vecinos Mundiales, ADENISA, la Voz que Clama en el Desierto, Ijatz’ and Cotz’ij ya’. These groups supportedThese groups supported the formation of a regional organization, “Asociación de Productores Orgánicos de Café de Sololá” -APOCS- (now known as Empresa Campesina de Comercialización de la Asociación- ECOAPOCS-), which arose from mem-bers’ need to obtain benefits by shortening the chain of intermediation, and the need to trade their conventional and organic coffee in new markets.

Either directly of through cooperation resources, ECO-APOCS has supported the development of its members’ organizational, administrative, and managerial capacities for the processing and marketing of coffee, as well as the acquisition of infrastructure to improve product quality. Altogether there are around 350 producers of organic coffee associated in these organizations, and their par-cels are located mainly the municipalities of San Lucas Tolimán, Santiago Atitlán, San Pedro la Laguna, San Juan la Laguna, Santa Clara la Laguna, Santa María Visitación and Palá in Santa Catarina Ixtahuacán. ECOAPOCS has also carried out fund raising to cover the costs of both organic and fair trade certification.

Through ECOAPOCS, campesino-to-campesino exchanges have been promoted in Central America, especially between Nicaragua and Costa Rica. In addi-

tion, PiP has provided support so that some of the organi-zation’ managers could participate in international coffee fairs.

PiP also helped cover the costs of certifying organic coffee for the small producer associations, along with providing technical assistance and training in organic growing techniques and preparing organic fertilizer, and the production of coffee plantlets in nurseries by Asoci-ación Vivamos Mejor, especially to renovate old planta-tions (10-30 years old). Based on experiences during the PiP period, a handbook on organic coffee cultivation was prepared and has served as a foundation for scaling up and encouraging conventional producers to begin the transition to organic growing techniques in the Atitlán region.

“…Currently the association can now export organic

coffee and in part, the environment has improved

and is now being managed with greater conservation

of soil and forest, and has been reforested-which

is very important in the community. There is

more care for the environment, the coffee is grown

under shade. And there have been benefits for the

organization, for Asociación Integral Unidos para

Vivir Mejor and the three communities in the

area, which are Santa Clara la Laguna, Aldea

Paquip and Aldea Palestina, through ASUVIM

and Vivamos Mejor, so benefits show up in the

communities.”

—Daniel Balux, Manager of Cooperativa Unidos Para Vivir Mejor –ASUVIM- Volcanos of Atitlán, Guatemala

The transformation of production and access to the specialty market has generated positive outcomes on various fronts. Prices for fair trade, certified organic coffee from the 2006-2007 harvest were US$ 173/quintal (100-lb unit), US$ 58/quintal higher than the price set for conventional coffee in international stock markets. As the benefits become apparent, the area under organic production in Atitlán has extended. Still, the increase is


small. Most producers are smallholders and do not have additional land to expand production, and there is a ten-dency to continue conventional production on their farms since it represents immediate or near-term income.

“I don’t think we can do conservation if we ignore

the economic factor, and coffee is part of this. Also,

agriculture in this area is part of the population’s food

security, which has to be considered. We need to work

on agriculture, the forest element, the declaration of

parks as conservation areas as a whole. Economics

is basic in developing other themes; we can’t live on

resource conservation alone.”

—Héctor Chávez, Coordinator of the Training and Com-munity Organization Program, FEDEPMA

The volume of organic coffee has also risen. For example, trade of this product has experienced annual average growth of 29% for ASUVIM since the 2003 – 2004 season45, with exports placed in the United States, Hol-land, England, Germany and Japan. This organization’s experience in production, processing, and trade of

organic coffee has been applied in other areas of Sololá, especially in the community of Palá, in the municipality of Santa Catarina Ixtahuacán. Small producers in this area are interested in learning, and in receiving better prices for their product thanks to organic production.

The trend and expectation of directing bodies in the dif-ferent organizations is to increase the number of mem-bers who are organic growers, as well as the area and volume of production. Fortunately, awareness among small producers continues growing with respect to the social and environmental benefits these special coffees generate. This has translated into an abatement of the threat represented by conversion of coffee plantations to other uses with negative environmental impacts.

Importantly, the community initiative in organic coffee has been complemented with other income-generating activi-ties. For example, ASUVIM has incorporated tourism by setting up coffee tours, in which visitors to the region are taken to learn about the productive and processing stages of this crop, and to the café where they can sample and purchase coffee as well as handicrafts, all a part of the community initiative.

Source: Girón S. Estuardo. �00�. El café orgánico de Atitlán: Una alternativa con beneficios socialmente aceptables y ecológi-camente deseables. Logros y retos del Programa Parques en Peligro sobre la estrategia de promoción de la producción de café orgánico en la cadena volcánica de Atitlán. The Nature Conservancy, Guatemala

Other economic incentives. With the advancement of assessments and evaluations of environmental services from protected areas (and eventual incorpo-ration in national statistics46) and to a good measure sustainable use actions by local communities, new economic incentives will be created that reward and/or compensate the efforts of the communi-ties and enable a scaling up of any of the four types established. Likewise, with growing understanding of the contribution that community sustainable use initiatives in protected areas make to global devel-opment goals, such as the Millennium Goals, more incentives will arise to promote the expansion of such initiatives.

Facilities for financing. Access to more financial services is vital for initiatives to expand into larger arenas. While organizational scaling up specifi-cally demands that organizations manage to diver-

sify funding sources, this is also necessary for the three other types of expansion. Diversification of financing not only refers to outside sources, but also to the possibility of greater self-financing and resources generated by the community organiza-tions themselves. Setting up systems whereby com-munities in the initiatives contribute financially (in cash or kind) increases the sense of ownership and interest in scaling up processes being done in the best way possible (Binswanger and Aiyar, 2003).

Savings and credit modalities also offer opportuni-ties for making the community activities financially self-sustaining, but at times it may be necessary to do some marketing of the projects for outside sup-port from private institutions, civil society, or local, national and foreign governments. Scaling up can be facilitated with the strengthening and development of financial mechanisms that recognize public goods


and services- such as conservation of biodiversity, protection of watersheds, and carbon sequestration- that generate global benefits thanks to the actions carried out locally by communities. Some of these mechanisms have been payment for environmental services, debt-for-nature swaps, ecological easements and others.

One of the limitations in scaling up community ini-tiatives has been the decline in multilateral, bilateral and private funding sources interested in investing in the learning processes necessary for an eventual scaling up. The limited support for learning initia-tives and long-term processes results in “islands of success unable to extend to other spheres and thus increase their impact” (Bumacas et al, 2006). This situation has sometimes been solved through the interest of donor organizations in financing pro-grams rather than isolated projects, making it pos-sible to guarantee longer-term commitments, greater integrality of actions and complementarity with other initiatives.

4.3. POlitical anD institutiOnal arrangements

Regulatory and institutional frameworks.

While the increase in levels of income from sustain-able natural resource use projects is an incentive to expand actions, community initiatives will be able to scale up more effectively if there are policies, norma-tive and regulatory instruments, and enabling insti-tutions for these processes (Barber et al, 2004). Sup-port and political will based on a favorable climate is thus one of the basic elements allowing communi-ties to scale up. Here it should be emphasized that political arrangements are possible when institutions with jurisdiction and responsibilities exercise their duties in a manner consistent with purposes of con-servation and improvement in well being.

Some of the policies that can facilitate scaling up have to do with decentralization, co-management of protected areas, and the creation of institutional and financial incentives for market transformation (GEF, 2006). Also, local initiatives will be able to have greater impact and relevance if they manage to integrate with the programs and policies that

are part of multilateral agreements on environment (GEF, 2007). There are national and international policies and regulations, however, which distort markets and institutions, generating harmful incen-tives that undermine the potential of sustainable natural resource use initiatives. To promote scaling up, reforms may be necessary in trade policies that have been detrimental to conservation or sustainable use initiatives. Some multilateral trade agreements, fiscal and exchange policies, customs and tariff bar-riers, for example, can encourage exploitation of nat-ural resources and spread of the agricultural frontier at the cost of protected areas and their buffer zones.

Certain international trade regimens need to be reformed so they favor production and commer-cialization of environmentally sustainable products and services. Likewise, the existence of subsidies can contribute to development and even foment unsus-tainable activities, such as over fishing or subsidies for the use of pesticides and chemical fertilizers in agriculture. Political scaling up that makes it possible to access decision-making spaces can facilitate the promotion of such reforms, which in turn foments other types of expansion. Nevertheless, the decision about modification of these commercial barriers outweighs the scale and scope of community initia-tives, so these should be considered externalities to keep in mind. While changing them would be desir-able, this is the competence of government institu-tions at different levels (local and national).

On occasion, scaling up has been possible because legal possibilities open up for local communi-ties to have spaces of decision and participation in regional and national arenas. This allows them to promote policy decisions enabling such initia-tives and to reform those that do not. Promotion of community conservation areas and co-manage-ment systems establish a favorable climate for them to be expanded, and with this, the sustainable use initiatives carried out within. In addition, having community leaders of the initiatives with the ability to be negotiators with decision makers on poli-cies in an equitable and open setting has proved to be an important element to access and influence political processes. This means not only coordinating meetings among local groups and decision makers, but also creating communication materials to dis-


seminate processes and results to different publics (Timmer and Juma, 2005).

Having spaces for participation is one way of achieving political scaling up. This type of expansion allows communities to become involved with social efforts to generate changes regarding conservation threats at the site, as well as problems related to communities’ development. This also makes it pos-sible for other types of scaling up to be linked with transformations of policy and normative instru-ments, which increases their impact, importance, and possibilities of replication.

Institutional arrangements and policies established with a “top down” perspective should converge with community initiatives that propose concrete, “bottom up” solutions such that they are able to plan and implement sustainable processes of scaling up. It is not generally feasible to assume that what is hap-pening at a lower level can be understood on the basis of what is happening at a higher level. Equally, what is happening at the local level should not simply be gen-eralized to the global level, either (Reid et al, 2006). This convergence enhances effectiveness through dialogue and knowledge sharing so that global and national policies are incorporated in local and tra-ditional knowledge and the local solutions obtained are tied with those that tackle issues of greater scale. Convergence also involves the search for points of encounter between locally held perceptions about biodiversity use, and the value the national and inter-national community places on biodiversity.

On the other hand, if policies that regulate macro-economic and governance aspects at greater scale generate incentives for the unsustainable exploita-tion of natural resources, communities’ ability to make sustainable use of natural resources and extend successful processes will be limited. One of the core aims of some community initiatives is therefore to be demonstration models, enabling them to influ-ence national policies and thus have the support to expand scope and impact. As demonstration models, they must then provide evidence of their impact so that decision makers at the policy level will be more willing to accept the changes necessary and facilitate scaling up (Ford Foundation, 2004).

At the institutional level, a limitation in scaling up that must be overcome is incompatibility between the holistic vision communities have for the devel-opment of their initiatives, and the closed institu-tional requirements in which they have to operate. Communities rarely act within environments restricted to a specific sector, with execution times defined under strict logic frameworks (Bumacas et al, 2006). Scaling up processes need to have ade-quate flows of information and actions among the different participants at each level.

Intersectoral coordination.

At times decisions related to the formulation and implementation of public policies with the poten-tial to affect resource conservation and sustainable use are made by agencies in sectors different from those directly charged with protected areas. At the moment policies and norms are being formulated, convergence of interests and establishing stra-tegic alliances among sectors (such as agriculture, tourism, energy and transportation) is thus very important. Such convergence lends greater possi-bilities for scaling up of any type. Integration with other processes and sectors based on the definition of common rules and procedures can make it easier for community initiatives to diversify their sphere of action and gain additional sources of technical and financial support, achieving functional and organiza-tional scaling up.

To the extent that unsustainable use activities in protected areas and buffer zones are established and managed as strategic planning components for con-servation at the level of units of land, and from there, of ecosystems, landscapes and ecoregions, these actions may possibly be able to expand more easily under a large-scale orientation. Landscape-level approaches help local initiatives become integrated in national and regional land planning, as well as in existing development plans. Scaling up will be more effective and sustainable if what one is attempting to change is not only a specific productive project, but also the social, environmental, and economic process it involves. For community initiatives to be more than isolated actions, they need to form part of national strategies of conservation and other sectors that are flexible and adaptable to the experiences (Western and Wright, 1999).


Alliances with peer organizations and partners.

Integration through alliances, networks or associa-tions formed of several community organizations can also facilitate economies of scale for quantita-tive and organizational scaling up, in that they raise the effectiveness of the operations and their rep-lication. Creating networks makes it possible to expand knowledge sharing for capacity building, so the people responsible for carrying out sustainable use activities will have to explore the possibility of forging alliances with partners having the potential to scale up the activities.

Alliances should be established so as to avoid the creation of bureaucratic structures and intermedia-tion systems that block the flow of information and resources necessary for joint work and whose func-tioning demands additional resources47. It is impor-tant for alliances to have procedures and rules that are clear but simple, to avoid unnecessary bureau-cracy and the duplication of activities (Binswanger and Aiyar, 2003).

In the frame of PiP and with support from La Amistad-Pacific Conservation Area (ACLA-P) under Costa Rica’s Ministry of Environment and Energy, in 2003 a prior pro-cess of work with community groups was resumed with community groups in this area. The principal aim was to integrate the different groups through the exchange of experiences so that they could establish common conser-vation agendas in this sector of the park.

Through the mechanism of information sharing, the groups recognized they had elements in common, giving rise to their interest in joining together in a network. This interest and motivation was strengthened when the groups participated in a binational exchange to learn about the experience of the ADATA Network in Panama.

“Together we work for a single ideal: to be united in

confronting the possible threats affecting La Amistad

International Park and seek out opportunities

of economic and social development for our

communities.”

— Róger Romero U., Member of the Quercus Network

The network was finally created in 2005 under the name of Quercus, the scientific name of an oak found abun-dantly in the park, and brought together five community groups under a structure dedicated to several themes related to conservation and improved quality of life for Network members. The organizations belonging toThe organizations belonging to Quercus include Asociación de Productores La Amistad

(ASOPROLA), a producer association in Altamira de Bio-lley; Asociación Cámara Ecológica de Turismo de Santa María de Brunka (ACETUSAMA), engaged in tourism; Asociación de Turismo de Tres Colinas de Potrero Grande (tourism); Asociación de Mujeres Organizadas de Biolley (ASOMOBI), a women’s association in Biolley de Buenos Aires; Grupo Comunitario de La Lucha de Potrero Grande, a community group; and Asociación de Desarrollo Integral de Biolley (ADI BIOLLEY), the local development association. The Network set up a coordi-The Network set up a coordi-nation structure, rules and procedures for carrying out its areas of work: protected areas, tourism and sustainable production, education and planning.

“Such a valuable experience has been created with

communities to exchange with whomever, exchange

in order to share, as a lesson learned in general, how

these things are achieved …seeing what happens

after three years of projects, in reality the change

is enormous, and what is especially exciting and

motivating is that they’re convinced that this is their

path, it’s what they want to do and keep on doing.”

— Vilma Obando, INBIO. Interview June �, �00�

At the start each group was carrying out independent productive projects with their own markets with support from other organizations and financing sources, such as the Global Environment Fund’s Small Grants Program.

case 14 The Quercus Network in La Amistad International Park, Costa Rica


Some of the products in these projects were organic coffee, blackberry, honey, organic vegetables, and organic fertilizers, while services included recycling and different initiatives in community rural tourism. By joining together in an alliance, as a unified group they were able to diversify their offering with an eye to sharing information and ties to different markets, with greater opportunities for scaling up. For example, one of the groups producing honey took advantage of a contact made by the organic coffee producers in order to promote the honey as an export once the required certification had been obtained. Likewise, they have been able to integrate some of the tourism initiatives of the different associations to improve the overall tourism offering and structure.

Integration of the organizations has also permitted the replication of community initiatives. For example, based on the successes obtained by ACETUSAMA, the honey production project has united additional mem-bers of the community of Santa María de Brunka and organizations in the buffer zone under the Network’s orientation. Other organizations have become inter-ested in participating, increasing the number of allies in the Network. Sessions of the Network have been the primary forum for delegates from each organization to share their experience.

Source: Romero U, �00�; electronic interview with Yendry Suárez Chacón and staff with Vilma Obando, June �, �00�, and Felipe Carazo, June �, �00�.

Alliances with government agencies having influ-ence and political backing has proven effective for scaling up local initiatives. Furthermore, local, national and international NGOs can serve as facili-tators and mediators for scaling up and replication of initiatives (GEF, 2007). It has also been useful to establish alliances with other producer organi-zations, private businesses, research centers and academic sectors that have the possibility of facili-tating expansion of initiatives. Apart from the agen-cies involved, these alliances should be based on the recognition of having a common purpose and the conviction that collective work will be more effective than working alone in achieving the desired impact. They should also be based on collaboration, trust, transparency, specificity and adaptability. Alliances with multidisciplinary groups open the possibility of communities acquiring capacities in manage-ment and political negotiation, the establishment of agreements, conflict resolution, and other areas (Bumacas et al, 2006). In addition, capacity-building, leveraging of additional resources, legal advising and dissemination of best practices can be gained by associating with NGOs (GEF, 2007).

Linkage between organizations and private compa-nies can also be beneficial if the latter have experi-ence is these activities, access to more markets and investment possibilities, and if they also share similar social and environmental interests in the protected areas. Since communities assume technical and administrative commitments for work with busi-ness partners, they need to be prepared to negotiate and reach agreements so that companies maintain and respect their interests and traditions. If this is achieved, these associations can generate various benefits such as a constant flow of income and access to credit, training, business planning and marketing, in addition to sharing the risk inherent in expanding a particular unsustainable use activity. (WRI, 2005). The products of community initiatives can acquire added value by incorporating new phases of the pro-ductive chain (a vertical functional scaling up), while clusters of community businesses with comparative advantages are created enabling them to expand their markets and scope of action. The type of agreements made with private companies include the following (Bovarnick and Gupta, 2003):

Temporary alliance (joint venture) with a local ü

case 15Alliance with a private tourism operator in the Cayambe-Coca Reserve, Ecuador

In the ecotourism project with the Quichua community of Oyacachi in Ecuador’s Cayambe-Coca Reserve48, the ecotourism committee formed of community members established a verbal agreement with the Tropic interna-tional tourism operator, which has offices in Quito. Based on the agreement, Tropic is in charge of promoting the new products in its tourism package and the community is responsible for local operations. This has provided greater access to the tourism market. The agreement will continue as a verbal commitment during a trial period while the community of Oyacachi meets required international standards on infrastructure, including the creation of a tourist information office. Once these stan-dards are met, the agreement can be formalized.


group, wherein dividends are distributed pro-portionally or equitably in accordance with the efforts of the parties

Long-term contracts in which companies offer technical assistance and guarantee purchase of the product in mutually agreed and beneficial terms

Concession awarded a company to offer ser-vices in a protected area managed by a local community. The company shares profits or pays for the concession right.

Contract with the company to carry out a specific activity such as a marketing campaign, construction of a work or advising on a specific issue

4.4. lessOns learneD aBOut scaling uP cOmmunity sustainaBle use initiatives

“Each situation has its own individual reading. You

have to take the time to make this reading. There may

be elements in common, like they all revolve around

resource management and improvement in quality of

life. But the navigation route is different. The lesson is

to take the time to get to know those contexts.”

— Felipe Carazo, personal interview, June �, �00�

The following lessons were garnered from TNC experiences in attempting or achieving upward expansion within the framework of Parks in Peril and other programs.

General lessons

Not all initiatives are capable of being expanded; sometimes this is undesirable. In some cases the stability of ecosystems and even the integrity of communities may be placed at risk.

A realistic analysis should be made of the

ü

ü

ü

ü

ü

resources available, needs, and the existence of enabling factors to scale up the initiatives.

Scaling up should include an ongoing analysis of the local situation within the context of regional, national and international processes, unearthing conditions that facilitate the scaling up processes and emphasizing each particular context.

There is no one recipe that can be used uni-versally for scaling up, so methods have to be adapted to the different contexts.

It is important to bear in mind that some ele-ments are difficult to predict. The sustainable use alternatives to be scaled up will operate under a national and even a global economy, and some of those components are unforesee-able. It should be noted that the uncertainty of national and international markets is a constraint for scaling up processes. Fluctua-tions in the price of products and consumer behavior exacerbate uncertainty for initiatives interested in growing. Many of them must face- and generally are unprepared to do so- disadvantageous terms of exchange, oligarchic practices and other effects of an international trading system that is far from being fair and equitable (UNDP, 2005).

Taking risks can be quite costly and scaling up initiatives is a process with difficulties and factors that are difficult to anticipate. It is consequently preferable to attempt expanding initiatives with greater potential for success and more likely to generate benefits at a larger scale.

Stages in the process

Scaling up can be done in stages, affording the opportunity to learn from each stage before moving on to the next level. This also makes it possible for the integrity of community aspira-tions and objectives to be conserved.

Carrying out expansion in stages provides the flexibility to gather previous experiences and new knowledge so that the necessary adjust-ments can be made to changing circumstances.

ü

ü

ü

ü

ü

ü


It should be kept in mind that the productive activities to be scaled up can deal with deeply rooted patterns in the culture. Modifying these patterns and extending the modification at greater scale or to other regions, even with the motivation of learning from other suc-cessful experiences, requires time in order to be responsible and lasting.

A recommendation is to anticipate organiza-tional needs at each stage so that the necessary capacity-building actions can be promoted.

Successful cases should have systems for dis-seminating knowledge and lessons learned that facilitate additional processes of expansion. These successful cases will have to have the capacity to generate evidence of real possibili-ties for success and scaling up.

The expansion of initiatives is more effective if constructed based on the experience of already existing organizations.

It is better to begin at small scales, focusing efforts on a few community initiatives so that they can become models with a multiplier effect. These models should have simple mech-anisms and procedures that can be adapted to other initiatives.

Quantitative scaling up should aim at creating economies of scale so that the costs of repli-cation do not rise proportionally in line with expansion.

Scaling up processes must take care to produce positive results in the near term so that benefi-ciaries maintain the level of motivation neces-sary for continuing.

To broaden the scale of initiatives, efforts need to be made toward the leadership and self-esteem of the community organizations (orga-nizations convince themselves they can do it) and toward generating training processes, even in the medium and long term. Tools for scaling up

While effective, personalized methods such

ü

ü

ü

ü

ü

ü

ü

ü

ü

as campesino-to-campesino dissemination of knowledge have limits as to the number of people that can access these mechanisms. Effective forms of mass communication are necessary for a broad audience.

Handbooks to disseminate best practices and guide the scaling up process should be prepared in such a way that these documents can be adapted to specific experiences and contexts.

Holding exchanges of experience in which the representatives of communities are exposed to other places and experiences is a powerful strategy to motivate scaling up, even more powerful than attending a course at the site alone.

Support and sustainability for scaling up

The formation of coalitions with stakeholders increases possibilities of generating sustainable scaling up processes that go beyond the con-text of specific projects.

In seeking outside support to expand initia-tives, it is a good idea to place an emphasis on demonstrating the multiplicity of benefits they generate, not just environmental and eco-nomic, but social, political and cultural.

Scaling up will be more sustainable over time if linked with other sectors, policies and plans with interventions in the region.

ü

ü

ü

ü

ü


Pacaya-Samiria, Peru’s largest national reserve, occu-pies 1.6% of the country’s land area. The reserve was originally set aside in the 1940s to protect the “paiche” (Arapaima gigas), the largest freshwater fish in the world, whose distribution is restricted to the Amazonian basin. Declared a national reserve in 1972, this territory contains the largest extension of protected flood forest in Amazonia. It currently includes the Pacaya, Samiria and Yanayacu Pucate watersheds, and offers a wealth of resources to human populations in the area. Due to its extension and location in Peruvian Amazonia, Pacaya-Samiria harbors a representative sample of the ecosys-tems of tropical moist forest. Since 2002, Parks in Peril has supported its activities with the objective of contrib-uting to conservation of those ecosystems.There are around 42,000 people living around the edges of the reserve, distributed in 94 communities. The buffer zone contains some 50,000 people distributed in 109 communities and three small cities. The lifestyle of most reserve inhabitants is subsistence-related and in conse-quence they are highly dependent on the conservation of natural resources.

“The large number of residents who have changed

from simply users of resources into their primary

caretakers, along with the achievements in

recuperating species and ecosystems, makes this an

extraordinary experience, unique in all of Latin

America”

— Vásquez and Tovar, �00�: ��

To address threats to biodiversity from human activities, especially those locally associated with overexploitation of natural resources such as the paiche and yellow-spotted river turtle (Podocnemis unifilis), different community management strategies were implemented, offering benefits to local residents while conservation activities were implemented. These strategies were complemented by previous studies and projects49.

As of 2002, the strategies were accompanied by local management groups created at the initiative of the com-munities themselves. The first management groups were formed in 1994 and are now assuring the sustainable

use of the resources, both directly through extractive activities such as fishing or harvest of palm fruits, and indirectly through others such as tourism (Vásquez and Tovar, 2007). The groups, each containing from 7 to 57 people, have also supported the surveillance work of park guards, as well as participating actively in the devel-opment and implementation of management plans for different endangered species.

With respect to the paiche, after several years of institu-tional support from TNC and other national and foreign institutions50, in 2002 PiP supported protection activities for the species, aimed first at recuperating the popula-tion affected by indiscriminate fishing. It was necessary to ban fishing until the population rose. These activities were effective according to the findings of yearly counts directed by the management groups. Later, preparation of the management plan, initiated by ProNaturaleza, was strengthened51 and the plan was approved by competent authorities in 2004. The plan was an important achieve-ment, “fruit of more than a decade of experience in joint work by professionals and local residents, in search of a sustainability model for the paiche and its habitat to guar-antee inhabitants would be able to enjoy the use of this resource indefinitely, maintaining a healthy population of these fish and generating benefits for the local popula-tion … Management of the paiche in El Dorado lake is a reality we dream of replicating in the rest of the country” (OSPA-UPC, 2006: 10-11). The plan established a fishing quota corresponding to 10% of all adult indi-viduals recorded each year through the monitoring plan. During these years there were 220 individuals, permitting sustainable commercialization of 4500 kg of slate fish representing income of approximately US$23,431 dis-tributed among the members of the management group. Part is used to cover the costs of investment and the remainder, or profit, is distributed equitably among the members. Paiche fishing is done almost entirely by the men due to the strength required in capturing and han-dling the fish. The management plan also incorporated other conservation activities, including a ban on harmful fishing techniques such as the use of toxic substances, as well as periodic cleaning of the channels and conser-vation of surrounding forest (OSPA-UPC, 2006).

The time waiting for the paiche management plan to be approved was utilized to design a work system for subsequent planning that involved all of the actors, including competent authorities, from the start. This process involved opening opportunities in institutions for

case 16 Local management groups in Pacaya-Samiria, Peru


the local communities to present their management plans to the authorities. The joint work initiated among all of the local and national stakeholders- community, public and private- expedited approval of later management plans.

For sustainable use of the yellow-spotted turtle, with PiP support the management groups received tech-nical assistance between 2002 and 2004 in sustainable management, as well as gathering and systematizing data on this species. Intervention to protect the turtle has involved collecting nests and placing them on artificial beaches to protect them from predators and illegal extraction of eggs (Vásquez and Tovar, 2007). Although both men and women participated in the different activi-ties, it was mostly the men who took charge of taking care of the natural beaches until turtles laid their eggs, and the women were more involved in the re-nesting since they were considered more adept at handling the eggs. Children also participated in this activity by helping take care of the artificial beaches and during the turtles’ release. In 2005 the management groups and other organizations together prepared the first management plan for the Yanayacu watershed. The data systematized in previous years was the best instrument possible for demonstrating the groups’ good management to the reserve administration, reflected in increased populations of the species. This allowed them to negotiate permits for commercializing a controlled number of turtles. The commercialization and management plan were finally approved by all of the authorities in 2005. In 2006, four management groups were able to commercialize 6,809 turtles, obtaining earnings of approximately US$10,000.

Several factors have facilitated the good results of com-munity management of species in Pacaya-Samiria. In political terms, the Maser Plan for the Reserve approved in 2000 established a strategy that validated local partici-pation in natural resource management. This participation also received the legal support of several regulations, such as the laws on Fishing and on Protected Areas. The political will and commitment of several authorities aided the development of actions, as well in overcoming bureaucratic procedures. Also, ongoing technical support prepared the local groups for the formulation, implemen-tation and monitoring of the management plans, as well as in their organizational strengthening.

In addition to the paiche and turtle management plans, other plans have been approved to date for the yarina palm (Phytelephas macrocarpa), with four management groups, and moriche palm (Mauritia flexuosa, with one. Thanks to PiP support up to 2005 and other funding, the management groups have also prepared six management

plans for arahuana (Osteoglossum bicirrhosum). Appli-cation of these plans is being monitored by the groups themselves, along with a reserve administrative team.

Quantitative scaling up of these processes has been possible in that other communities have been motivated to create management groups or join existing ones. Furthermore, the Peruvian Society for Environmental Law (SPDA), which is participating in the program of Con-servation, Management and Use of Biological Diversity in the Loreto Region, is interested in replicating the successful experience in community management and sustainable use in Pacaya Samiria. As a result, members of some management groups are now participating in training courses to enrich the process with their experi-ences and motivate new groups.

The weakness of some local communities has been com-pensated by existing management groups’ dissemination of knowledge in these new communities. The turtle com-mercialization process generated a guide for buyers and sellers on what has been learned thus far. Likewise, the publication La Fauna Silvestre en la Reserva Nacional Pacaya Samiria: Una guía para el manejo comunal, written by Pedro Vásquez and Carolina Tovar (2007), presents general guidelines and a synthesis of the steps followed for managing resources such as wildlife. These steps can be applied to other species and regions inter-ested in carrying out similar processes.

The economic results from trading products have also permitted groups to become strengthened and expand in organizational terms, while advancing toward financial self-sufficiency. The generation of management plans, some with a national scope, offers potential for scaling up in the political arena with the existence of a procedural and negotiation tool.

The case of Pacaya Samiria has demonstrated that threats to biodiversity associated with human activities can be mitigated through work with local communi-ties, ensuring that it has the political, institutional and commercial support to improve wellbeing while also promoting conservation of the area. Today many local residents recognize the socioeconomic benefits that the reserve generates and openly support its conservation (Bodmer and Puertas, 2007).

Note: In addition to the species mentioned here, based on an animal census the Bodmer and Puertas document (�00�) confirms that hunting has decreased since the reserve administration involved local communi-ties in management. For example, in the community of San Martín de Tip-ishca on the Samiria River, an assessment made in �� when there were strict controls reported that �� animals were hunted. In comparison, in �00� when the communities were involved, the count was �� animals.


“Well, I’ve started to pass my knowledge on to other

people who come to the nursery. I tell them about the

advantages of using organic fertilizer for the plants,

and I’m trying to get my neighbors to learn about the

usefulness of this type of practice. For example, with

Mrs. Sixta Bartuano, in Palenque, I’m replicating

poultry raising and the way to feed them better using

peanut forage on parcels. I’ve also talked with my

brother, who is making protein banks with leucaena.

He now has one hectare and has asked for another

1500 plantlets for the next rainy season.”

— Marisol de Cerrad

To curtail advance of the agricultural frontier and promote and implement sustainable production alternatives, PiP and partner SONDEAR supported a community project from July 2004 to January 2007 in Chagres National Park’s northern sector. Some of the participating farms were located in the buffer zone. Deeply rooted in the cul-ture, ranching is the predominant activity on these farms and has caused adverse effects in terms of environmental degradation.

The project included a range of activities: initial identifica-tion and profile of producers with whom a work plan was agreed; approaching local authorities and representa-tives of government agencies with a presence in the area in order to coordinate actions; training of selected producers in sustainable production techniques; and the implementation of activities on pilot farms accompanied by an awareness-raising program with producer families in the north sector of Chagres National Park, on sustain-able natural resource management and use.

Decision making for the project always involved all actors and took place in planning meetings called to define the details of activities. Even though the process was slow, this guaranteed participation and follow-up of tasks by

the producers. One of the project’s core elements was the preparation of farm management plans. Participants initiated the process by preparing maps of the current situation (at the start) of their farms, which were then characterized with the accompaniment of technicians. The characterization was complemented with training trips providing participants with the opportunity to learn first hand about successful experiences in applying sustain-able techniques to productive systems, and which could be replicated adaptively with their own farms in mind. This gave participants the tools to prepare a management plan meeting their needs and the special features of the area. It is worth noting that the planning process involved all members of the family- understood as the main unit of production- who were able to make the plan reflect their expectations regarding their land. When the plan was being prepared, each member, including women and children, was listened to so that together they could visu-alize the future for their land in the following years. This ensured that they would all take responsibility for the dif-ferent farm activities set out in the plan, and engendered a strong sense of ownership and commitment toward the management plan and its ongoing implementation. The process was also accompanied by technical staff who advised the families in selecting the best alternatives.

The producers’ active participation was a key element in the project. In fact, the development of activities depended 80% on producers who had to attend the theoretical and practical training, as well as provide labor to implement the management plan (reforestation was the only activity they didn’t help out with) and they received training, inputs, tools, materials and technical assistance. The project was able to promote the preparation of five-year plans on 31 farms (1,838 hectares), 28 of which are farm production models. The total number of beneficia-ries was 155 people, many of whom participated in the training sessions. In addition, 45.95 ha were reforested with native timber and fruit species, along with improved pasture on 130 ha and live fences on 19 ha.

“…what I learned I can do here on the farm and in

other places, in Los Santos or someplace else; it will

always be with me.”

case 17Replication of the participatory planning model for sustainable production activities in Chagres National Park, Panama


The project has been replicated thanks to organized visits to the model farms and the interest of people who participated in sharing the experience. The repli-cation taking place in the region has been at the farm level. Based on an analysis of the institutional context, it was discovered that the region has no strong group organizations and that the participants prefer to work at the level of their own farm rather than in group models. By scaling up to the communities so that they can then practice on their own farms, beneficiaries felt they were working for themselves and not for a collec-tive formed for a specific purpose.

“The farm management plan is very useful

because it guides us as we go along, so we’re

planning on doing it every year; I’m going to have

that management plan at home to keep guiding

me about work on the farm.”

— Heraclides and Adelicia Córdoba

In addition, the planning model at the farm-unit level has been scaled up and applied to other projects and processes in the region. According to Maritza Jaén of SONDEAR, use of this participatory methodology as a fundamental part of productive projects has even been taken up by national and international donors, whose requirement for funding projects is the existence of a management plan formulated by the beneficiaries. In this region and elsewhere in the country, other organi-zations have supported similar pilot projects in which activities are based on single-farm management plans. Working within the normative of a management plan has increasingly been promoted as a requisite for sus-tainable production projects in the park.

Source: Bonamico et al, �00�. Interview with Maritza Jaen, SONDEAR (June ��, �00�) and Julio Rodríguez (July ��, �00�).


Parks in Peril was able to support processes in which rural communities located within protected areas and their buffer zones have improved their oppor-tunities of ensuring a livelihood through sustainable natural resource management and use, and have found new market niches for productive activities such as agriculture, tourism, payment for environ-mental services and others. Based on these pro-cesses, PiP made advances toward its goal of inte-grating protected areas in the economic lives of local society and thus combining conservation aims with the satisfaction of local development needs.

“Communities depend on natural resources to live.

So going from hunting to a sustainable productive

activity in the long run and having this generate

funds for me so that I can make a living from it is an

enormous challenge”.

— Vilma Obando, INBIO. Interview, June �, �00�

There have been important challenges to overcome in the task of promoting sustainable resource use. Work with marginalized communities located in isolated areas in order to carry out viable sustain-able use activities has required dedication due to the many conditioning factors that determine whether or not they will succeed. These include the hetero-geneity of interests, power relations, social and cul-tural characteristics within the communities, market conditions, existing policy and regulatory frames, entities of governance and community participa-tion, and regional and international contexts, among others. Nonetheless, there are tools that can be used to make an analysis of impacts and economic, social, and environmental feasibility, so that decisions can be based on the best information possible. While this does not ensure success, it lowers the odds of failure.

Once conditioning factors are identified and adjusted to the degree needed and possible, the implementation of community activities in natural resource use has allowed those in charge of pro-tected areas to:

Improve the quality of life of local communities;

Influence development in rural areas by main-taining the viability of the communities living in or around protected areas;

Foster a sense of local identity;

Create local allies for the areas’ conservation;

Highlight the local and regional benefits gen-erated by the protected areas; and

Contribute to preserving or fostering existing ways of living in the areas or their zones of influence, maintaining possibilities for planned and sustainable growth.

Given all of these economic, political and insti-tutional factors and requirements, from local to regional to national, scaling up sustainable use activities can also make it possible to accomplish goals and meet regional, national and even interna-tional commitments. Nevertheless, here it is worth repeating the message of several conservation and development organizations: protected areas cannot be expected to take sole responsibility for the devel-opment of local communities in and around them. This development depends on innumerable struc-tural issues that affect life and transcend the scope and jurisdiction of the areas. Sometimes there is no significant potential for the development and scaling up of sustainable use activities in these areas because of factors such as “the lack of attractions for mar-ketable tourism, their isolation, or the presence of species and habitats that are particularly sensitive or endangered… protected areas cannot be forced into a situation in which their entire justification depends

ü

ü

ü

ü

ü

ü

5. Conclusions


on their ability to reduce poverty in the human communities around them” (Barber et al, 2004). For these reasons, commitment is required from several entities (government, private business, multilateral or national and local organizations, etc.) to move conservation aims forward and increase wellbeing in the communities located in zones of biological importance.

The scale and complexity of threats to biodiversity conservation in protected areas, including factors related to poverty and limited development, are of greater magnitude than what is generally dealt with in local communities. In situations where conserva-tion problems have caused different levels and scales, solutions will similarly be found at multiple levels and scales (Fisher et al, 2005). Through community sustainable use initiatives, however, protected areas can make a significant contribution to sustainable development, understood as the possibility of people using resources at a lower rate than the rate of recu-peration and restoration, while the benefits derived are distributed equitably. And this contribution will be greater to the degree that successful initiatives can be scaled up thanks to the existence of enabling technical, institutional and political conditions.

Scaling up community sustainable natural resource use initiatives in protected areas requires planning, evaluation, learning, experimentation and long-term commitment in order to adapt what is learned in successful experiences to new scales and contexts of greater magnitude. Successful cases of scaling up do not depend so much on replicating initiatives, as on their adaptation to the external and internal condi-tions in which they operate. Success also depends on integration of initiatives into processes of greater dimension, such as development plans and programs that consider community needs priority, as well as threats to diversity.

There is no single recipe for promoting successful community initiatives and then scaling them up. By its very nature, conservation done by communi-ties is a response at the local level to local situations, and thus requires rules, regulations and institutions suited to their context. Nevertheless, their expan-sion will depend on the right linkage and harmoni-zation with regional processes of conservation and development, which have their own dynamics. The

challenge is to intervene appropriately at each level (local, regional) without neglecting effects on other levels.

Conservation is changing in a fundamental way. It is

responding to the interests and concerns of a variety of

social actors, including indigenous and relevant local

communities. As such, conservation can no longer be

pursued as a solitary value, independent or superior

to other concerns, or be controlled by small groups of

professional experts. Instead, it must be pursued by

all of society, together with, and by means of, other

important social objectives such as subsistence, cultural

diversity, appropriate community development amd

social equity

— Lockwood et al, �00�: ��


1 For example, in 1985 some 84% of South America’s national parks overlapped with community lands, and many communities have legal rights over park land and their management (Lockwood et al, 2006).

2 This is understood as groups of people sharing a geo-graphic unit (district, watershed, protected area, etc.) or having interests in common (user association, coffee producers, members of a cooperative, etc.).

3 In reference to the Millennium environmental goal, it has been commented that the emphasis on protected areas and forests assumes these are key to the conservation of natural resources, but that this overlooks the existence and value of other productive landscapes such as farmlands, grasslands, coastal zones, swamps, and others also inhab-ited by local communities. Also, the focus on quantity of protected areas also overlooks the quality of the natural resources in these areas, as well as systems of management, governance and use rights for the people living there. Nor does it contemplate measurement of how the costs and benefits of the protected areas are distributed in society (Roe, 2003).

4 An ethical argument also exists for attempting, through conservation, to promote actions that reduce poverty and improve living conditions of local communities: which is that poverty is a serious issue for humanity. There is an ethical responsibility to compensate local communities for the costs to them from creating protected areas that curtail their possibilities of carrying out activities for their survival (Fisher, 2005). Even if it were unnecessary to engage people so that conservation processes can be better, respect for their rights over land, resources and cultural identity should be a non-negotiable point of departure for carrying out activities that affect them (Roe and Elliot, 2005).

5 Available knowledge of how populations have been dis-placed by the creation of new protected areas of different categories, the social impacts of these displacements, and problems in the approach used to compensate the displaced, is based mainly on the analysis of case studies (Agrawal and Redford, 2007).

6 People’s wellbeing and overcoming poverty requires tackling a multiplicity of dimensions that consider lack of power, freedom and rights, as well as the absence of physical assets.

7 A micro-enterprise can be defined as a one-person, family or community unit that employs no more than ten workers

and whose purpose is to produce goods and services for trade in different markets. (Arroyo et al, 2001).

8 The other four goals are to: 1) build on-site logistics capacity for park management; 2) develop the analytic and strategic capacity necessary for long-term management of these areas; 3) create long-term financial mechanisms to sustain the local management of these areas; and 4) use PiP site-based activities and methodologies to influence conservation in other sites in the region’s most imperiled ecosystems (www.parksinperil.org).

9 For more information see: González, A.M. and A. S. Martin 2007. Strengthening Communication, Education and Public Awareness in Protected Areas. Parks in Peril Innovation in Conservation Series. Arlington, VA, USA: The Nature Conservancy.

10 For more information see: González, A.M. and A. S. Martin 2007. Management Committees in Protected Areas. Parks in Peril Innovations in Conservation Series. Arlington, VA, USA: The Nature Conservancy.

11 Other activities did not involve productive activities and centered on the production of publications, promotional items, membership campaigns, provision of training ser-vices, and others.

12 More information about the EcoEnterprise Fund at www.ecoenterprisesfund.com

13 In the model, elements identified as indispensable for effective protected areas management are organized in four categories: strategic planning, basic protection of the area, financing, and support of local groups for the pro-tected area.

14 More information on the site consolidation model can be found in: Balloffet, N.M. and Martin, A.S. 2007. Site Consolidation in Parks in Peril: A General Framework for the Strengthening of Protected Areas and TNC, 2007. Measures of Success: Scorecard Manual for Site Consolidation–Parks in Peril Program. Both publications are part of the Parks in Peril Innovations in Conservation Series. Arlington, VA, USA: The Nature Conservancy. URL: www.parksinperil.org.

15 On occasions, generating new productive activities as alternatives to those existing is more costly than adapting current activities. (Molnar et al, 2004). People are already familiar with them, and may already have established markets. The opposite may be true at other times, which is why it is important to make assessments beforehand.

Endnotes


16 More details about CAP methodology in: conserveonline.org/workspaces/cap.

17 The theme of market access is explored in more detail further on.

18 More information in: González, Ana M. and Angela S. Martin 2007. Gender in the Conservation of Protected Areas.. Parks in Peril Innovation in Conservation Series. Arlington, VA, USA: The Nature Conservancy. URL: www.parksinperil.org.

19 Analyzing the cultural context makes it possible to avoid unrealistic generalizations about traditional cultural pat-terns and conservation and to obtain precise information on each given context, since not all traditional practices generate benefits in terms of sustaining and restoring biodiversity (Timmer and Juma, 2005).

20 Intermediation has generally been viewed as a situation that must be modified, since these actors retain a high per-centage of profits that could remain in the hands of local communities. However, in certain circumstances interme-diation can play a positive role for the community initia-tive. Sometimes intermediaries support the production and distribution chain at certain points where the com-munity does not yet have the capacity to manage indepen-dently. In these cases, the profits obtained by the interme-diary can offset the cost (time and money) acquiring this capacity would represent for communities, and then later on they can assume the process directly. “The key is for them to learn to negotiate with intermediaries to assure a good sales price and greater profit for the microbusiness” (Arroyo et al, 2001: 27). The existence of producer associa-tions and their strength to guarantee product quality and quantity facilitates that power of negotiation.

21 Along with having to comply with shipping requirements, the community is four hours away by launch from the airport where the butterflies are shipped out.

22 Based on the case study prepared by Leslie Simmons: “Conservation Improving Quality of Life in Ejido Anti-guos Mineros del Norte, Cuatro Ciénegas, Mexico” and on González and Martin (2007c).

23 It is also recommended to have a reserve fund for use in times of emergency (Arroyo et al, 2001).

24 More details in: González, Ana M. and Angela S. Martin 2007. Land Tenure in Protected Areas. Parks in Peril Innova-tions in Conservation Series.URL: www.parquesenpeligro.org.

25 Tenure consists of an array of norms and social conven-tions, defined by law or custom, that determine how an individual or group can use, share, sell, lease, inherit, and/or control ownership of land and the natural resources

within, during a given time and under specific circum-stances (FAO, 2002).

26 There is another type of tenure that consists of common use, or open access, but in this case no one has specific assigned rights and no one can be excluded from the flow of benefits. A situation known as the “Tragedy of the Commons” can occur in this type of tenure, wherein the property does not offer appropriate incentives for its sustainable use because individuals are not responsible for the total cost of their decisions about the property, even though they enjoy its benefits. In other words, individuals are able to improve their particular situation, but at the cost of the common good. The ultimate effect can be the degradation of the resources given the lack of control over access and use (IAvH et al, 2000).

27 More details in: González V., Ana M. and Angela S. Martin 2007. Policy Agenda for Protected Areas Management. Parks in Peril Innovation in Conservation Series. URL: www.parquesenpeligro.org.

28 More details in: Ballofet, Nicole and Angela S. Martin 2007. Governance Trends in Protected Areas: Experiences from the Parks in Peril Program in Latin America and the Caribbean. Innovations in Conservation Series, Parks in Peril Pro-gram. URL: www.parquesenpeligro.org.

29 These areas were formally included as a category recently, defined as natural and modified ecosystems with signifi-cant levels of biodiversity, ecological and cultural values that are being voluntarily conserved by local and indige-nous communities through ancestral law or other effective means (Lockwood et al, 2006). Their formal incorporation is part of the movements to rescue cultural diversity and human rights and which therefore also advocate co-man-agement schemes for protected areas (Borrini-Feyera-bend, 2005).

30 Literature on this theme has established different forms of scaling up and the following types have been identified.

31 These categories are presented separately in order to facili-tate presentation, but are not necessarily mutually exclu-sive. Some cases can fall into two or more categories at the same time.

32 The Equator Initiative is an alliance between the United Nations, civil societies, the business sector, governments and communities to defend and support local-level development projects that link economic improvements and poverty reduction through conservation and sustain-able use of biodiversity. (More information at: www.undp.org/equatorinitiative).

33 The World Bank (2003) established a system classifying conducive practices for scaling up based on the type and quality of evidence available. The types of practice are:


innovations (minimal levels of objective evidence), promising practices (anecdotal reports and testimonies), models (evi-dence based on some cases), good practices (clear evidence based on different settings and evaluations), best practices (evidence of impact in multiple settings, review by experts, comprehensive analyses) and policy principles (verified in multiple settings, considered applicable and essential for success).

34 Likewise, it also important to bear in mind that unsuc-cessful initiatives and even those not contributing to con-servation of biodiversity, can also be interested in, attempt, and achieve extension.

35 In broader terms, one of the aims of PiP intervention in the different sites of Latin America and the Caribbean was to have these become platforms for expanding lessons and acting at greater scale.

36 These elements contribute equally to capacity-building of local organizations, which is also a necessary condition for scaling up their initiatives.

37 Knowledge sharing between campesinos also encourages the establishment of ties that, as an additional benefit, can translate into social support networks useful in the future.

38 Interagency Planning Group (IPG), Private Agencies Collaborating Together (PACT), the World Bank, World Wildlife Fund (WWF), Global Environmental Fund (GEF), and others.

39 Sources: Parks in Peril Final Report 2007, interview conducted by Jaime Fernández of Anibal Escobar, Javier Narváez and Juan Saldani, July 2007.

40 According to Ritchie (1999), good leaders have the right personal qualities: the ability to convoke the people, moti-vate and listen, stimulate creativity and provide an open climate, and enjoy respect and trust.

41 According to international law and Fairtrade Labelling Organizations International (FLO), the entity responsible for the definition and certification of Fair Trade Criteria, from 2004-2005 worldwide sales of products with the Fair Trade seal rose 32%. As of December 2006, FLO was working with 569 producer organizations representing over a million farmers and workers in more than 50 coun-tries of Africa, Asia and Latin America (www.fairtrade.net/figures.html).

42 Case based on Girón, 2007.

43 Dues to the local bioclimatic conditions and the organo-leptic qualities of the coffee, this region is one of the country’s five most important regions for this product, and recognized, classified and promoted internationally by the

National Association of Coffee Growers (ANACAFÉ) (http://www.guatemalancoffees.com/)

44 FEDEPMA unites several small organizations, including Asociación Maya Nuevo Amanecer Integral (AMNSI) and Unión de Productores Agrícolas (UPROA), located in Santiago Atitlán.

45 This despite the effects of Tropical Storm Stan, which slashed yields from the 2005 – 2006 coffee harvest.

46 Given that goods and services generated by biodiversity have not been incorporated in national statistics, develop-ment agencies, including governments, donors and NGOs, have underestimated the potential of biodiversity and therefore the need for its conservation to alleviate devel-opment problems such as poverty.

47 This is true unless there is a fund raising mechanism or a justification for effective scaling up.

48 More detailed description in Annex1.

49 For example, in 1999 as part of the joint work of the administration of Pacaya-Samiria Nature Reserve, the local communities, Pro Naturaleza, the National Institute of Natural Resources (INRENA) of the Peruvian govern-ment, TNC and USAID-Peru did a study in representa-tive areas f the reserve to assess possibilities for using wildlife sustainably as a way of addressing the threat rep-resented by indiscriminate hunting. The study employed a multidisciplinary and participatory approach to incor-porate interactions between biological needs of animals-considering at least 29 species- and the needs of the local population. The study had the approval of communities in the villages involved, and information on hunting stress was obtained through the participation of local hunters in data gathering, making it possible to ensure a better appli-cation of the findings (Bodmer et al, 1999).

50 This support included the “Employment and Natural Resource Sustainability Project” launched in 1999 and funded with TNC/USAID resources to design a natural resource conservation program in the reserve. This pro-gram was later supported by the project “Local Participa-tion in Protected Areas Management” (PALOMAP) and finally by Parks in Peril.

51 With management plan understood as one that “responds to technical and scientific planning of the use of natural resources and environmental services of ecosystems in order to satisfy the economic, social and cultural expecta-tions of the users present without compromising the pos-sibility of meting the needs of future users” (OSPA-UPC, 2006: 19).


Agrawal, Arun and Kent H. Redford. 2007. Con-servation and Displacement: An Overview. In: Red-ford, Kent H. and Eva Fearn (Eds). “Protected Areas and Human Displacement: A Conserva-tion Perspective”. Working Paper No. 29. New York: Wildlife Conservation Society.

Arroyo, Paulina, Susan V. Poats, Toben E. Galván and Marco Tituaña C. 2001. Microempresas comunita-rias creadas como iniciativas de conservación: Estudios de caso de la Reserva Ecológica Cayambe-Coca. Arlington,Arlington, VA, USA: The Nature Conservancy.

Barber, Charles V., Kenton R. Miller, and Melissa Boness. (Eds). 2004. Securing Protected Areas in the Face of Global Change: Issues and Strategies. Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge: World Conserva-tion Union (IUCN).

Binswanger, Hans P. and Swaminathan S. Aiyar. 2003. Scaling Up Community-Driven Development: Theoretical Underpinnings and Program Design Implications. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper No. 3039. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=636401.

Bodmer, Richard E., Christina M. Allen, James W. Penn, Rolando Aquino and César Reyes. 1999. Evaluación del uso sostenible de la fauna Silvestre en la Reserva Nacional Pacaya-Samiria, Perú. Working documents América Verde, No. 4b. Arlington, VA, USA: The Nature Conservancy.

Bodmer, Richard and Pablo Puertas. 2007. Impacts of Displacement in the Pacaya-Samiria National Reserve, Peru. In: Redford, Kent H. y Eva Fearn (Eds). “Protected Areas and Human Displace-ment: A Conservation Perspective”. Working Paper No. 29. New York: Wildlife Conserva-tion Society.

Bonamico, G., Rodríguez, J., Contreras, L., Jaén, M. and Pizarro, A. 2007. Proyecto Parques en Peligro Sitio Alto Chagres: Sistematización de una Experiencia Compartida de Ejecución para la Consoli-

dación del Alto Chagres (2002 – 2007). Panama: ThePanama: The Nature Conservancy.

Borrini-Feyerabend, Grazia. 2005. Understanding and Optimising Governance: A Copernican Revolu-tion for Protected Areas? IUCN Commission on Environmental, Economic and Social Policy (CEESP). URL: www.iucn.org/themes/ceesp/Publications/CMWG/governance-for-CBD-draft-06-04-05.doc

Bovarnick, Andrew and Ajay Gupta. 2003. Local Business for Global Biodiversity Conservation. Improving the Design of Small Business Development Strategies in Biodiversity Projects. United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and the Global Environment Fund (UNEP/GEF).

Brandon, Katrina, Kent H. Redford, and Steven E. Sanderson (Eds). 1998. Parks in Peril: People, Politics and Protected Areas. Washington, DC: Island Press.

Bumacas, Donato, Delia C. Catacutan, Gladman Chibememe and Claire Rhodes. 2006. Enabling Local Communities to Develop and Scale Up Ecoagriculture: A Grassroots Perspective. In: Mc Neely, J., Scherr, S. eds. “Farming with Nature: The Science and Practice of Eco-Agriculture”. Washington DC: Island Press. http://www.worldagroforestrycentre.org/downloads/publications/PDFs/bc06250.pdf

Campaña, Jorge Luis and Saskia Flores. 2007. Lecciones aprendidas del Proyecto de Ecoturismo en Oyacachi, Reserva Ecológica Cayambe Coca, Biore-serva del Cóndor, Ecuador. Ecuador: Ecociencia.

Castro H, Juan C., Rigoberto Hernández J., Sonia Náñez, Salvador Rodríguez, Carlos Tejeda, Alexser Vázquez, Kim Batchelder, and Alba Z. Maldonado F. 2003. Conservación con base en la comunidad. Trabajos con comunidades en áreas natu-rales protegidas de Chiapas, Mexico. Instituto de Historia Natural, Comisión Nacional de Áreas

References


Naturales Protegidas. Arlington, VA, USA: TheArlington, VA, USA: The Nature Conservancy.

Center for Compatible Economic Development -CCED-. 1999. Pathways. Building a Local Initiative for Compatible Economic Development. Arlington, VA, USA: The Nature Conservancy.

Department of International Development (DFID), European Commission (EC), United Nations Development Program (UNDP) and the World Bank (WB). 2002. Linking Poverty Reduction and Environmental Management. Policy Challenges and Opportunities. The World Bank.

Drumm, Andy, Alan Moore, Andrew Soles, Carol Patterson and John E. Terborgh. 2004. Desar-rollo del Ecoturismo. Un manual para los profesionalesos profesionales de la conservación. Volumen II. Desarrollo y Manejo del ecoturismo. Arlington, VA, USA: The Nature Conservancy.

Drumm, Andy and Alan Moore. 2005.2005. Desarrollo del Ecoturismo. Un manual para los profesionales de la conservación. Volumen 1: Introducción a la planifica-ción del ecoturismo. Segunda Edición. Arlington, VA, USA: The Nature Conservancy.

Dudley N., et al. 2005. Towards Effective Pro-tected Area Systems. An Action Guide to Implement the Convention on Biological Diversity Programme of Work on Protected Areas. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, Montreal, CBD Tech-nical Series no. 18. URL: http://www.cbd.int/doc/publications/cbd-ts-18.pdf

Epler W. Megan. 1998. Meeting the Global Challenge of Community Participation in Ecotourism: Case Studies and Lessons from Ecuador. Working Docu-ments América Verde, No. 2. Arlington, VA, USA: The Nature Conservancy.

Fisher, Bob. 2005. Poverty and Biodiversity Conser-vation. In Policy Matters. No. 16: Livelihoods and Conservation–Arguments Shaping the Debate. March, 2006. URL: www.iucn.org/themes/ceesp/Publications/newsletter/PM14-Section%20I-part2.pdf

Fisher, R.J. Stewart Maginnis, W.J. Jackson, Edmund Barrow and Sally Jeanrenaud. 2005. Poverty and Conservation. Landscapes, People and Power. Landscapes and Livelihoods Series. No. 2. IUCN Forest Conservation Programme. Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK: World Conservation Union (IUCN).

Fundación Defensores de la Naturaleza (FDN). 2004. Refugio de vida Silvestre Bocas de Polochic “Nido de la Vida”: Plan maestro 2004-2008. Apro-bado por el Consejo Nacional de Áreas Prote-gidas. Guatemala: Fundación Defensores de la Naturaleza.

Ford Foundation. 2004. Asset Building for Social Change: Pathways for Large-scale Impact. New York: Ford Foundation.

FMB/WB. 2005. Reserva Natural del Bosque Mba-racayú. Plan de Manejo 2005 - 2010. Asunción, Paraguay: Fundación Moisés Bertoni para la Conservación de la Naturaleza (FMB), World Bank.

Gambill, David. 1999. Intentionally Sustainable: How Community-Based Resource Management Enables and Encourages the Sustainable Use of Resources. Gender Working Papers. Washington DC: DevTech Systems, Inc.

GEF NGO Network and GEF Small Grants Programme 2007. The Reaffirmation of Thinking Globally, Acting Locally. Experiences from NGOs and CGOs Implementing GEF Projects. New York: Global Environmental Facility, United Nations Development Program.

Global Environment Fund. 2006. The Role of Local Benefits in Global Environmental Programs. Evaluation Report No. 30. Office of Evaluations. Wash-ington, DC: Global Environment Fund.

González, Ana M., and Martin, Angela S. 2007. Land Tenure in Protected Areas. Innovation for Con-servation Series of the Parks in Peril Program. Arlington, VA, USA: The Nature Conservancy. www.parksinperil.org.


González, Ana M. andAngela S. Martin 2007. Gender in the Conservation of Protected Areas. Innovation for Conservation Series for the Parks in Peril Program. Arlington, VA, USA: The Nature Conservancy. www.parksinperil.org.

Haenn, Nora. 2001. “Biodiversidad es diversidad en uso”: Conservación basada en la comunidad en la Reserva de la Biosfera de Calakmul. Working Documents América Verde. No. 7b. Arlington, VA, USA: The Nature Conservancy.

Harvey, Celia, Francisco Alpizar, Mario Chacón and Roger Madrigal. 2005. Assessing Linkages between Agriculture and Biodiversity in Central America: Historical Overview and Future Perspec-tives. Mesoamerican & Caribbean Region, Conservation Science Program. San José, Costa Rica: The Nature Conservancy.

Hill Rojas, Mary. 2000. Assessing the History and Current Status of Community Conservation at the Nature Conservancy. A Review of Literature for the Strategic Planning Process of the Community Conser-vation Program, International Conservation Sci-ence, The Nature Conservancy. Washington DC: WIDTECH/USAID in Collaboration with LAC/USAID and The Nature Conservancy.

Instituto Alexander von Humboldt (IAvH), Departamento Nacional de Planeación (DNP), WWF, Red de Reservas de la Sociedad Civil, UAESPNN. 2000. Incentivos para la Conservación y Uso Sostenible de la Biodiver-sidad. Bogotá, Colombia.Bogotá, Colombia.

Lockwood, Michael, Graeme L. Worboys and Asís Kothari (Eds). 2006. Managing Protected Areas. A Global Guide. London: Earthscan.

MacDonald, Kenneth Iain. Community-Based Conservation: A Reflection on History. Paper for the Working Group on Collaborative Management of Natural Resources. Commis-sion on Environmental, Economic and Social Policy (CEESP). IUCN. URL: www.iucn.org/themes/ceesp/Publications/TILCEPA/CCA-KMacDonald.pdf

Martin, Angela and James Rieger. 2003. The Parks in Peril Site Consolidation Scorecard. Lessons from Protected Areas in Latin America and the Caribbean. Parks in Peril Program. Arlington, VA, USA: The Nature Conservancy.

Millan, William. 2006. A Heritage for People. Parks in Peril. Parks in Peril Program. Arlington, VA, USA: The Nature Conservancy.

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005. Eco-systems and Human Wellbeing: General Synthesis. Washington, DC: Island Press.

Molnar, Augusta, Sara J. Scherr and Arvind Khare. 2004. Who Conserves the World’s Forests? Community-Driven Strategies to Protect Forests and Respect Rights. Washington, DC: Forest Trends and Ecoagriculture Partners.

Mosquitia Pawisa Apiska (Agencia para el Desa-rrollo de la Mosquitia, MOPAWI) and TNC. 2002. Diagnóstico Ambiental. Reserva del Hombre y la Biosfera del Río Plátano. Tegucigalpa, Honduras.

Organizaciones Sociales de Pescadores y Proce-sadores Artesanales (OSPPA). 2006. Plan de Manejo de Arapaima gigas “paiche” en la Cocha El Dorado, Cuenca Yanayacu Pucate- Reserva Nacional Pacaya Samiria. 2004-2008.2004-2008. Peru: USAID-PERU, TNC, Pronaturaleza.

Poverty and Conservation Learning Group (PCLG). 2006. Local Action – Global Aspira-tions: Could Community Conservation Contribute More to International Biodiversity and Poverty Reduction Goals? In: BioSoc: the Biodiversity and Society Bulletin. Issue 10. International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED).

ProNaturaleza and TNC. 2005. Programa Selva Central. En busca de la Armonía Hombre-Natura-leza. Video. TeleAndes Producciones. Peru:Video. TeleAndes Producciones. Peru: ProNaturaleza and TNC.

Reid, Walter V., Fikret Berkes, Thomas Wilbanks and Doris Capistrano. (Eds). 2006. Bridging Scales and Knowledge Systems: Concepts and Appli-


cations in Ecosystem Assessment. Millennium Eco-system Assessment. Washington DC: Island Press.

Ritchie, Beth. 1999. Community-Based Land Use Planning in Conservation Areas: Lessons from Local Participatory Processes that Seek to Balance Eco-nomic Use with Ecosystem Protection. América Verde. Training Manual No. 3. International Program. Arlington, VA, USA: The Nature Conservancy.

Rodríguez, Jorgelli. 2006. Abriendo espacios de participación que antes no existían. Serie Historias desde el Corazón. Arlington, VA, USA: The Nature Conservancy.

Roe, Dilys. 2003. The Millennium Develop-ment Goals and Natural Resources Manage-ment: Reconciling Sustainable Livelihoods and Resource Conservation or Fuelling a Divide? In: Satterthwaite, David (ed). The Millennium Development Goals and Local Processes: Hitting the Target or Missing the Point? International Institute for Environ-ment and Development.

Roe, Dilys and Joanna Elliot. 2003. Pro-poor Con-servation: The Elusive Win-win for Conservation and Poverty Reduction? Paper presented at the 5th IUCN World Park Congress, Durban, South Africa. In Policy Matters. No. 16: Livelihoods and Conservation – Arguments Shaping the Debate. March, 2006. URL: www.iucn.org/themes/ceesp/Publications/newsletter/PM14-Section%20I-part2.pdf

Roe, Dilys (ed). 2004. The Millennium Develop-ment Goals and Conservation. Managing Nature’s Wealth for Society’s Health. London: International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED).

Roe, Dilys and Joanna Elliot. 2005. Poverty-Conser-vation Linkages: A Conceptual Framework. Poverty and Conservation Learning Group. London: International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED).

Romero Ureña, Róger. 2006. Buscando juntos opor-tunidades de desarrollo en el PILA. Serie Historias desde el Corazón. Arlington, VA, USA: The Nature Conservancy.

Saint Louis Zoo and the University of Saint Louis. 2006. Poblaciones de Animales Silvestres y Sosteni-bilidad de la Cacería en Kipla Sait Tasbaika Kum, Bosawás, Nicaragua. Prepared in collaborationPrepared in collaboration with Asociación Indígena Kunaspawa and the Community Peoples of the Kipla Sait Tasbaika Kum Territory.

Salafsky, Nick, Bernd Cordes, John Parks, and Cheryl Hochman (1999) Evaluating Linkages between Business, the Environment, and Local Com-munities: Final Analytical Results from the Biodi-versity Conservation Network. Washington, DC: Biodiversity Support Program.

Scherl, Lea M., Alison Wilson, Robert Wild, Jill Blockhus, Phil Franks, Jeffrey A. McNeely and Thomas O. McShane. 2004. Can Protected Areas Contribute to Poverty Reduction? Opportu-nities and Limitations. Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK: World Conservation Union (IUCN).

Secaira, E., A. Lehnhoff, A. Dix, and O. Rojas. 2000. Delegando el manejo de un área protegida a una ONG. El caso de la Reserva de la Biosfera Sierra de las Minas en Guatemala. Monografía prepa-rada para Trasladando el poder: La descen-tralización y la conservación de la biodiver-sidad. Washington, DC: Biodiversity SupportWashington, DC: Biodiversity Support Program.

Solano, Clara, L. Peñuela, A.M. Lora, D. Arcila and S. Sguerra (Eds.). 2006. Memorias VII Congreso Interamericano de Conservación en Tierras Privadas. Cartagena de Indias, Colombia: The Nature Conservancy, Fundación Natura, Aso-ciación Red Colombiana de Reservas Natu-rales de la Sociedad Civil, Unidad de Parques Nacionales Naturales and WWF-Colombia.

Springer, Jenny. 2007. Addressing the Social Impacts of Conservation: Strategies, Experience, and Future Directions. In: Redford, Kent H. and Eva Fearn (Eds). “Protected Areas and Human


Displacement: A Conservation Perspective”. Working Paper No. 29. New York: Wildlife Conservation Society.

TILCEPA. Tema sobre comunidades indígenas y locales, equidad y áreas protegidas – TIL-CEPA- IUCN World Commission on Pro-tected Areas; IUCN Commission on Environ-mental, Economic and Social Policy Comisión. URL: www.iucn.org/themes/ceesp/Wkg_grp/TILCEPA/TILCEPA.htm

Timmer, Vanessa and Calestous Juma. 2005. Biodiversity Conservation and Poverty Reduction Come Together in the Tropics. Lessons learned from the Equator Initiative. In: “Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development” 47(4): 24-44. Heldref Publications.

The Nature Conservancy (TNC). 2002. Final Closeout Report for the Parks in Peril V Program (FY96 to FY02). Arlington, VA, USA: The Nature Conservancy and the United States Agency for International Development (USAID).

The Nature Conservancy (TNC). 2004. Estudio de Factibilidad para el Programa de Fomento al Turismo Cultural en Río Yorkín, Salamanca, Bocas del Toromanca, Bocas del Toro. Informe Final. Parques en Peligro. SEDER. USAID.

Ulfelder, William. 2002. Definiciones de la conserva-ción con base en la comunidad, a escala de paisaje en el Parque Nacional Podocarpus de Ecuador y en las Montañas Poconos de Pensilvania. Arlington, VA, USA: The Nature Conservancy.

United Nations Food and Agriculture Organiza-tion (FAO). 2002. Land Tenure and Rural Devel-opment. FAO Study 3, Land Tenure. Depart-ment of Sustainable Development.

United Nations Development Programme. 2005. Aprendiendo del Éxito: Cómo Integrar las Empresas Comunitarias dedicadas a la Biodiversidad y a los ODM. Una Síntesis de Estudios de Caso de Experien-cias Comunitarias Provenientes de Latinoamérica. UNDP/BDP/MA. Grupo LAC- SURF.

United Nations Development Programme. 2006. Community Action to Conserve Biodiversity: Linking Biodiversity Conservation with Poverty Reduction. Small Grants Program of the UNEP, Equator Initiative and the Energy and Environment Group of the UNDP.

Vásquez R., Pedro and Carolina Tovar I. 2007. La fauna Silvestre en la Reserva Nacional Pacaya Samiria: Una guía para el manejo comunal. Lima, Peru: Centro de Datos para la Conservación – Universidad Nacional Agraria La Molina, ProNaturaleza, The Nature Conservancy, USAID.

Western, David and R. Michael Wright (Eds). 1994. Natural Connections: Perspectives in Commu-nity-Based Conservation. Washington DC: Island Press.

World Bank. 2003. Scaling-Up the Impact of Good Practices in Rural Development. Working Docu-ment to Support Implementation of the World Bank Rural Development Strategy. Report Number: 26031. Department of Agri-culture and Rural Development.

World Park Congress (WCP). 2003. Poverty and Protected Areas. WPC Recommendation 29 from the 5th IUCN World Park Congress, Durban, South Africa: World Conservation Union (IUCN).

World Resources Institute (WRI). 2005. World Resources 2005: The Wealth of the Poor - Managing Ecosystems to Fight Poverty. In collaboration with the United Nations Development Program, United Nations Environment Program and World Bank. Washington DC: WRI.


1. aDDitiOnal examPles FrOm the Parks in Peril PrOgram

Examples of PiP Projects

sustainable agriculture and agroforestry (e.g., coffee, cacao, and fruits)

The Asociación de Pequeños Productores de Talamanca (APPTA), established in 1987, is a regional cooperative that supports more than 1500 small farmers living in the southeast region of Costa Rica, within the la amistad Biosphere reserve. Most of the association members are Bribri and Cabecar indigenous, although other ethnic groups are also represented. APPTA has been dedicated to promoting the management of organic agro-ecosystems, processing and marketing of the products grown by members of indigenous communities, and technical assistance for producers. In addition to accessing new local, national and international markets for such products as cacao, banana and certain other fruits, the prices paid to producers range from 15% to 60% higher for certified organic goods. The association has received support from local grassroots organizations, NGOs and the Ministry of Environment and Energy. Access to the different markets has enabled producers to diversify production on their farms and have a more permanent source of income.

Source: Bamacas et al, �00�, www.appta.org/presesp.htm

sustainable use of marine resources

On Mexico’s isla espíritu santo, as part of the PiP program and with funding from the government, a pilot project was implemented in 2002 on alternative uses of marine biodiversity. The project’s feasibility was based on a study of potential sites for aquaculture involving native mollusk species. Two species were selected (clams and oysters) and with the participation of local fishermen, experimental cultivations were carried out aimed at replacing uncontrolled gathering. The participants represented 40% of all fishermen on the island.

sustainable use and commercialization of timber products

In Bolivia’s carrasco national Park, with support from PiP and partner CIDERER, a project was implemented to sustainably gather seeds of native forest species with the participation of four communities in the region. The project was scaled up to other communities as an alternative form of generating income from the collection and sale of seeds, while at the same time conserving forests and reducing pressure from illegal forest extraction in the park. The seeds, especially of mahogany and tropical hardwoods, are sold as certified native to Fundación Centro Técnico Forestal (CETEFOR) and other markets at nurseries, universities and other outlets. The project provided technical assistance and financial support for a small investment in equipment, as well as training in seed storage, marketing, and financial management. All members of the families involved participated, since the men climb the trees and the women and children gather seeds that fall to the ground. Some communities decided to set up nurseries and sell the seeds ready for reforestation. The project has been successful in part because there was a guaranteed market from the start, encouraging the families to become involved in the project. Communities have viewed the achievements as positive even though profits, while improving quality of life, continue marginal in light of the problems they face locally. It has been a challenge to diversify markets since demand for seeds has fluctuated from year to year. In years when sales fell off, the other significant challenge was to convince communities not to compensate for this temporary loss in revenues by cutting down trees to sell the timber.

sustainable use and commercialization of non-timber products. some of these are rubber, resins, fruits, nuts and medicinal plants.

Parks in Peril supported the implementation of a honey production project in San Pedro de Vilcabamba, in the buffer zone of the Podocarpus national Park in ecuador. Encouraged by the good results, producers agreed to place a levy on honey production to support the conservation activities of their association (Asociación de Productores Apícolas). The funds were used to cover conservation costs in the buffer zone, including materials, field trips and patrolling. Another system used was called “forests for honey,” and consisted of establishing contracts between producers with small amounts of land and land owners. The honey producers set up hives on their neighbors’ property, who in exchange for lending their land and not cutting trees received 10% of the honey produced or 10% of the profits from its sale. In 1999, the association assumed complete responsibility for the project and continues operating, trading the honey in local markets under the brand name “Abejita Longeva”. The women and adolescents have taken on an important leadership role, which has contributed to strengthening the stability of gender and inter-generational relations within the project.

Annexes


grazing, breeding and commercialization of livestock

In the guaraqueçaba environmental Protection area, located along the southern coast of Paraná in Brazil, under PiP sponsorship from 1998 to 2002, a sustainable model was sought for Asian water buffalo grazing, a threat that had arisen when this activity was introduced with the opening of a road in the 1970s and which has caused extensive deforestation to make way for pastures. The model, which increased milk production 30% in the first few months the project was implemented, was set up on a private property and then replicated on other farms in the communities of Antonina and Fazenda Ana Terra. Landowners were provided with technical assistance to establish the model in exchange for replanting their property with riverine forest trees.

Payment for environmental services

Since 2003, Fundación Amigos de la Naturaleza (FAN) has supported activities related to territorial ordering in different areas of Bolivia as a legally-backed instrument contributing to the conservation of biodiversity and facilitating connectivity between several protected areas. In the community of Cabra Cancha south of the amboró national Park, the ordering plan made it possible to consolidate protection for an important wetland area supplying water for crop irrigation, human consumption, and animals. All in all, 64 ha of wetlands in cloud forests were protected in the ecoregion of Yunga, located in a zone called Piritial. The landowners or community members living in the sector agreed not to make productive use of the areas in order to conserve them. Two beneficiary communities contributed economic resources to conserve the area, making it a case of payment for environmental services at the local level

(Solano et al, �00�).

ecotourism

Living in the cayambe-coca reserve, located in Ecuador’s condor Biosphere reserve, are two ancient indigenous communities: the Quichuas (or Kichwa) in Oyacachi and the Cofán in Sinangoe. With PiP support, the Quichua community of Oyacachi carried out an ecotourism project included in the management plan designed in 2000. Support for the project consisted of a feasibility study (which included a market study, financial study, social appraisal, and a study on the carrying capacity of some of the potential visitation sites), identification and valuation of tourist attractions, design of routes and construction of trails, an assessment of infrastructure and proposed improvements (later funded through resources raised by the Ecotourism Committee and financed by the town council), a program of strengthening and capacity-building for the communities, and a business plan bringing together elements from several of the abovementioned activities. Construction of a web page for the project was also supported to promote tourism (http://www.oyacachi.org/).

Ecotourism is based on the recreational and medicinal use of hot springs, the scenic beauty of the landscape, the high quality and level of conservation of the ecosystems, and the cultural values of their ancient peoples (Campaña and Flores, 2007). Now every year around 20,000 people visit the hot springs- the main attraction- and walk the ecological trails, while also acquiring handicrafts. Some community members were trained as guides by the reserve team along with the Ministry of Tourism and Ecoscience. Fundación Esquel also participated in training the Ecotourism Committee in several areas, while support from Ecoscience included the preparation of a marketing plan, production of promotional material and design of a monitoring system The ecotourism initiative has been an important strategy to generate community funds, especially given that agriculture is almost exclusively subsistence and grazing is an increasingly threatened activity (Campaña and Flores, 2007). Some of the resources from tourism have been used to create a fund to compensate those who have lost livestock to the Andean bear. There is an average of four such attacks a year, and compensation will reduce the number of bear hunts by those victimized. Some guides were produced as part of the project, enabling it to be scaled up: the operational handbook of the Oyacachi Ecotourism Committee; manuals for guides, restaurants and lodging establishments; and a document on rules of conduct for visitors. “In ecotourism the community found a complement for traditional economic activities, and an alternative to improve quality of life without affecting conservation of the zone, which is now their responsibility too by virtue of belonging to a protected area”

(Drumm and Moore, �00�: ��).


2. stePs in cOnDucting a FeasiBility stuDy

Although a feasibility study must be adjusted to the project or initiative to be carried out, there are certain common elements that are critical. Below are the steps suggested for ecotourism projects.

1. Preliminary questions

Answering the following questions helps define the services to be offered:

Who are the potential customers and can they be reached? (Be as specific as possible in describing the characteristics of the customers and strategy to attract them.)

Who are the potential competitors?

What are their comparative advantages?

•

•

•

2. information gathering

Collect greater information on the logistics involved in setting up the business. The information can be gathered in responses to questions such as the following:

industrial contextHow “healthy” is the country’s tourism industry as a whole? Is it growing, consolidating, changing or contracting? Is the number of similar businesses growing? How sensitive is ecotourism and the local tourism industry to changes in economic and political conditions at the world and national level?

capacity of the participantsHow much income does the community, businessperson or NGO expect to receive from the ecotourism enterprise? Will the business replace other income-generating activities or simply complement existing ones? If the goal is to replace existing sources of income, are community revenues expected to stay the same or increase? How much are the participants willing to invest in terms of time and economic resources? Can the participants risk their own savings or can they take personal responsibility for repaying loans? Are the community or NGO participants willing to take an active role in the administration or operation of the ecotourism business? Is it possible to obtain financing or attract enough investment to pay for the infrastructure and equipment necessary to set up the business?

target market (potential customers) Can the target market be easily identified? Are visitors of a particular type or come from a single country, or are they diverse, from different countries, and have many reasons for visiting? Is the target market extensive enough to generate the credit required for investments? Annually, is this target market growing, contracting or remaining the same? How loyal are the potential customers to existing businesses?

Facing the competitionHow strong is the competition? What are their specific strengths, in what areas do they have experience and where might they be vulnerable? How difficult is it for competitors, including your business, to get into the market? Are there significant barriers that hinder entry? Could there be anyone else who might establish a similar business? (For example, if there is a great deal of competition for guide services in the community, the need for resources might cause people to lower their prices, with a rapid affect on earnings from such services.)

Procurement of suppliesWhere are the suppliers of the ecotourism business located (for example, suppliers of food, gasoline, construction materials and business services)? How are communications carried out with suppliers? How do transportation costs affect the cost of supplies?

Promotion optionsWhat types of options are there for promoting the product and how much would they cost? How much will continual promotion of the product cost? What is the composition and profile of the travel group (preferred activities, lodging preferences, membership in wildlife or conservation organizations, frequency of travel, future travel intentions, travel expenses)?

administrationWhat administrative problems might be encountered in offering the type of ecotourism service proposed? Who will work in the business? What special skills and knowledge will be required in successful employees? How will they be selected and trained? What special skills and knowledge are necessary to manage an ecotourism business? How will decisions be made and who will make them?

adjustment of the organizationHow will the proposed ecotourism product affect the community? What are the potential benefits to the community and what negative impacts could it possibly have? How will profits be distributed among the participants? If an NGO is involved, will the association proposed benefit the aims of the project and will it use the NGO’s skills?


3. Definition of goals

Reach an agreement about the goals of ecotourism, documenting the expectations of the stakeholders.

4. inventory of resources

Make an inventory of tourism resources, including a list of lodging alternatives, transportation options, guide services and related infrastructure that already exists or can be implemented at the site.

5. market analysis

Understand who the potential customers are, what their reasons are for acquiring the products and/or services, and who is competing for similar customers. The result should be an approximate idea of the product’s projected volume of sales.

6. competitor analysis

Know who the competition is and what their strengths and weaknesses are.

7. Description and operation of the business

Put together a description of the business’ operations, including the way services will be provided and how staff, resources and facilities will be utilized.

8. sales projection

Decide how many customers the business will attend in a given period and at what price level. This will be utilized to make financial projections.

9. Financial analysis

Make an analysis to establish whether the business will have the capacity to produce enough income to cover initial costs. Identify the breakeven point where the business’ income covers its costs. Consider social and environmental costs related to ecotourism development, as well as those necessary to monitor environmental impacts.

10. viability assessment

Decide whether the initiative will generate enough economic and conservation benefits to generate more revenues than costs and thus improve the living conditions of the community involved.

Source: Drumm et al, �00�

Innovations in Conservation - Equilibrium Research

Documents

Transcript of Innovations in Conservation - Equilibrium Research