Community-based conservation (CBC) and participation is widespread in current policy decisions surrounding natural resource management, this review demonstrates cases of community involvement in conservation projects. CBC is founded on the idea that if conservation and development could be simultaneously achieved, then both interests can be served. Communities and local knowledge are often more involved in implementing natural resource management as they receive more losses in the exchange than stakeholders, however they tend to lack ownership of the projects. Communities have the most familiarity with their environment through local knowledge, gathered over generations, and are therefore most entitled to speak on behalf of their local area. CBC is effective through the use of traditional knowledge, the common property theory, cost effectiveness and, most importantly, the fact that participation is crucial for successful conservation. Community participation is effective when the local population are involved as natural resource managers rather than co-operating users.
A community is a group of people living in the same place or sharing similar interests, and are the most affected by natural resource management and policy decisions in their local area (James et al, 2012). Culturally specific knowledge, or local knowledge, is a community and/or culture’s experience and perception of their local area, built over generations through spoken communication (Hirschfeld and Gelman, 1994). Local knowledge could be entirely factual or possibly could be enforced by spiritual beliefs about the natural landscape, which is common in Indigenous societies. Traditional knowledge can be holistic in outlook and treats uncertainty and fluctuations as intrinsic to all ecosystems. Therefore, traditional knowledge is adaptive by nature, and is typically gathered over generations by individuals whose livelihoods were defined by traditional knowledge (Berkes et al, 2000). Community-based conservation programmes (CBC) achieve their goals through allowing individuals near protected areas to participate in land-use policy, giving people proprietorship over wildlife resources, and providing local people with economic benefits arising from conservation (Bajracharya et al, 2006).
Over the past few decades the phrase “community participation” has been increasingly used in academic literature, policy and international conference papers as a key element in encouraging sustainable development. Communities were previously viewed as an obstruction to conservation, as natural resource management was one-dimensional, with the priority being preserving unspoiled natural landscapes (Agrawal and Gibson, 1999). Local support for conservation in many countries remains weak due to conservation being portrayed as a concern of the elite who are insensitive to rural people and their livelihood needs (Berkes, 2004). Societal structures still revolve around a “top-down” approach and are defined by geo-political, economic and cultural bonds (Chirenje et al, 2013). This approach resulted from the colonial roots of conservation, where the elite believe they are uniquely endowed with the expertise to control and manage ‘wilderness’ and that other individuals, including those who live in natural areas, must leave (Corry, 2018). The elite controlling conservation is a huge problem due to the importance of local knowledge in natural resource management, whereas the elite only have general knowledge of conservation, if that.
Previously, intrusive resource management and planned development were widely used and resulted in poor conservation outcomes (Agrawal and Gibson, 1999). Therefore, policy makers reconsidered the place (or lack of) communities in conservation activities and introduced a more participatory approach to natural resource management. Community-based natural resource management (CBNRM) has been proposed and is widely promoted as an alternative to corporate, ‘top- down’ approaches in conservation. Participatory planning is how communities reach a socio-economic goal by consciously recognizing its problems and drafting plans to resolve these problems (FAO, 2003). This shift is required because the expert-based approach to conservation was based on typical analysis, whereas there is too much uncertainty within conservation (Kates et al, 2001).
Customary institutions or customary village councils (CVCs) are commonly found in developing areas, where the majority of conservation priorities exist (Bertolini, 2015). These are informal governance local institutions, holding a substantial amount of authority over local activities (FAO, 2018). Therefore, it is widely known that CVCs are experienced in the management and governance of the local area, and they should be more involved in managing natural resources and in conservation activities. The common property theory must also be introduced as a key reason for involving communities in conservation. This theory concerns the management of natural resources while taking common-pool resources into account, resources which can be used by all and degraded by all (Pokrant, 2011). Due to the fact that degradable resources must be considered alongside the usage and degradation by humans. The local community are most familiar with natural resources and are more knowledgeable about the ecological limits of the resource, therefore it is vital that local communities and knowledge are included in governance because their familiarity with the area is far more important than visitor’s authority (Agrawal and Benson, 2011).
It is important to consider conservation groups local to me in order to understand fully the place of communities and local knowledge in conservation. Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth (FoE) are examples of prominent UK NGOs with many local groups. Greenpeace uses a participatory approach in local groups however does not give locals authority or management of activities (Frank, 2013). Whereas FoE is a participatory pressure group where members are allowed substantial degrees of both autonomy and influence over the running of the organisation (Dobson, 2016). Friends of the Earth is more grounded in its morals and is more widely accepted, due to the fact that it is more accepting of its members. Greenpeace would be regarded as more successful than FoE, however it is also more criticized due to its elite and corporate structure and ‘top-down’ approach. This approach highly regards local’s knowledge but allows the organisation to be run by the elite, including law and media professionals. Both organisations are extremely successful from their acceptance of local communities and traditional ecological knowledge (TEK) but operate completely differently.
Using the example of joint forest management in African countries, local communities and knowledge had always been treated as less important than the knowledge of the authoritative body. Communities are often primarily involved in implementing resource management however they have a lack of control over decision-making. Using this example, the right-holder of the forest was the government and local communities were duty bearers (Chirenje et al, 2013). However, system change shifted towards the engagement of communities in resource management, which has enabled improve service delivery and accountability of the public sector (Chirenje et al, 2013). Globally, communities should have the right to participate in and manage conservation activities and natural resource management because biodiversity conservation and livelihood needs are ultimately complimentary goals (Berkes, 2007). Both these factors relate to beings’ holistic, non-material needs, which are often clouded by material obsessed authoritative bodies, who are commonly those who govern and manage natural resources.
It is also important to consider that benefits affect both conservation and the local communities, through socio-economic benefits and environmental benefits. Local CBC creates benefits to society such as increased access to natural land, improved infrastructure as well as improvements in health, sanitation and social services (Bajracharya et al, 2006). As mentioned previously, many conservation issues are prominent in developing countries, where crop-raiding is rife and highly affects both emotional, social and financial wellbeing of inhabitants. A participatory approach towards CBC allows locals to voice their opinions about crop raiding and allow the issue to be reduced, in turn reducing poverty (Kiss, 2004). Therefore, in our materialist world, it is important to consider the economic benefits that CBC provides, through reduced poverty and increased profits from sustainable conservation activities.
The Ecologically Noble Savage debate argues that individuals all have holistic relationships with nature when the materialist layer concerning imaginary needs and duties is broken down (Raymond, 2007). This debate enforces that indigenous societies possess extensive and intensive knowledge of natural resources. This more holistic approach to and knowledge of nature is more valued than any authoritative figure could possess and it is important that indigenous peoples are involved in conservation to allow further integration of modern and traditional knowledge. Brosius and Russell (2003:55) call for a “social definition of conservation that validates and encourages small-scale local conservation efforts”, due to the benefits arising from the use of local knowledge. A successful example of this is shade-grown coffee, which conserves components of biodiversity and sustainable local development projects in the Equator Initiative (2002) and elsewhere. A more effective age of conservation empowers relationships between grassroots groups and international organisations. Also, when considering the true nature of conservation, it is a subject surrounding human’s holistic connections with nature and wildlife. Therefore, holistic and traditional knowledge must be used to further research.
In academic literature, TEK is often perceived as a separate entity to authoritative knowledge and management schemes, however it is integrated into current global and local environmental policy. For example: resource rotation is one of the most widespread tools of traditional resource management systems, which is used globally to improve crop yield for agriculture (Berkes et al, 2000). The example of resource rotation demonstrates how some TEK management techniques address the management of complex systems on a larger scale. TEK is not isolated from other management systems, it is rooted in institutions and local social norms. Research will prosper from the integration of TEK as it allows communities to become partners in the cooperative process of knowledge creation and sharing and empowers indigenous peoples through the acceptance of their knowledge (Berkes, 2004).
On the other hand, it is important to consider that conservation targets are made for all projects, and these hold the most importance in conservation (Souto et al, 2014). In many cases, communities are seen as interfering with or slowing down the process of achieving aims. This could be accurate to an extent as communities represent a larger proportion of people with conflicting opinions between themselves and/or with authoritative bodies. However, the familiarity of communities with conservation organisations would reduce chances of conflict and improve the effectiveness of projects, as different perspectives and ecological knowledge would be taken into account.
In the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, it has been concluded that ecosystem management and human well-being should be integrated as they are complimentary goals (Berkes 2007). Communities are the most familiarised with local environmental issues as well as receiving the largest burden from local environmental degradation, therefore it is crucial that communities are involved in the governance of natural resources. Communities have the largest right in governing natural resources as they are the most disadvantaged by problems arising in natural resource management. Knowledge is power, and the use of TEK is a mechanism for co-management and empowerment. TEK is not another resource to be mined by outsiders, rather, Traditional knowledge projects can be partnerships for the cooperative process of creating and sharing knowledge (Berkes, 2004). Conservation issues must be framed as long-term sustainability commitments that consider both global and local commons, to ensure individual needs and the needs of the environment are met.