Indigenous Rangers as Stewards for the Environment; A Case Study of the YUS Conservation Area in Papua New Guinea

Indigenous Rangers as Stewards for the Environment;

A case study of the YUS Conservation Area Rangers, Papua New Guinea

Jackie Delie

Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon

YUS Conservation Area rangers in training, Papua New Guinea (Photo by: Lisa Dabek, 2014)

I have adhered to university policy regarding academic honesty in completing this assignment.

Submitted to Professor Susie Dunham on behalf of the faculty of the OSU Fisheries and Wildlife

Department Graduate Studies in partial fulfillment of the degree requirements for the Wildlife

Management Certificate Program, 2014 – 2015.

2 Indigenous Rangers as Stewards for the Environment

ABSTRACT

A central strategy to conservation relies on the creation of Protected Areas (PAs). There are

several categories of PAs ranging from exclusionary “wilderness” zones, off limits to all but a

few park guards and scientists, to Community Conserved Areas (CCAs) initiated and managed

by a local population. The establishment of PAs as “wilderness” zones has a history of

excluding indigenous peoples from their land rights and livelihoods. However, this study finds

that indigenous peoples are well positioned as environmental stewards and should play an active

role in the management of PAs.

Globally, rangers play a role in conservation management and are considered the

“frontlines” to conservation, but at the local level what role do rangers play? In addition to the

review of literature on rangers as stewards for the environment, a qualitative case study of the

YUS Conservation Area Ranger Program in Papua New Guinea (PNG) was conducted to

research the role of YUS Rangers and the interaction between local Rangers and landowners.

The study found that establishment of an indigenous ranger program can potentially be an

effective conservation management tool if clear objectives, community involvement, effective

enforcement, continuous ranger training, education and public awareness are incorporated.

Ranger’s role in conservation has the prospective to expand beyond “guardians” to become

community liaisons and promoters for achieving the goals of the protected area. In PNG,

Rangers play a leadership role in conservation and the program itself has created career

opportunities for local people. Local communities and government are included in all processes

and phases of planning and implementation of the YUS Conservation Area Ranger Program.

Keywords: Indigenous peoples, environment, rangers, stewardship, conservation, land

management, Papua New Guinea, YUS Conservation area.


AKNOWLEDGEMENTS

A big thank you to Dr. Lisa Dabek and Trevor Holbrook for their mentorship as I worked

through my research paper. Without my academic advisor, Susie Dunham, I would have too

many questions unanswered, so thank you very much. And a special thanks to the Tree

Kangaroo Conservation Program employees, and all the YUS Conservation Area Rangers who

continue to work hard to protect the land and culture they love.

To all rangers protecting the environment and species within, thank you for the work you do.

Cheers!


TABLE OF CONTENTS

Abstract 2

Acknowledgements 3

Table of Contents 4

Abbreviations 6

List of Figures 7

List of Appendices 8

Introduction 9

Purpose of the Study 10

Significance of the Study 11

Research Methods 11

Definition of Key Terms 12

Limitations of the Study 13

Conservation and Indigenous Peoples 14

Development of New Conservation Principles 15

Indigenous Peoples Compatibility with Protected Area(s) Objectives 17

Management of Protected Areas 19

Co-Management of Protected Areas 19

Indigenous Community Management 21

Indigenous Rangers in Protected Areas 26

Roles and Responsibilities of Rangers 26

Importance of Indigenous Rangers 27

Implementation and Success of an Indigenous Ranger Program 29

Case Study 36


YUS Conservation Area Ranger Program 39

Landowners Perspective of YUS CO Rangers 43

Discussion 46

Recommended “Best Management Practices” for YUS Ranger Program 46

Conclusion 51

References 52

Appendices 54

Appendix A: Interview with Daniel Okena 54

Appendix B: YUS Conservation Area Ranger Survey 61


ABBREVIATIONS

CAs – Conservation Areas

CAMC – Conservation Area Management Committee

CCAs – Community Conserved Areas

CEPA-PNG – Conservation and Environment Protection Authority of Papua New Guinea

CLC – The Central Land Council

ICCA– Indigenous Peoples’ and Community Conserved Territories

IPA– Indigenous Protected Area

IRF – International Ranger Federation

IUCN – International Union for Conservation of Nature

PAs – Protected Areas

PNG – Papua New Guinea

RFA– Ranger Federation of Asia

TKCP – Tree Kangaroo Conservation Program

TNC – The Nature Conservancy

UNDRIP – United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples

UNEP – United Nations Environment Programme World Conservation Monitoring Centre

WDPA– World Database on Protected Areas

WMAs – Wildlife Management Areas

WPC – World Parks Congress

WWF – World Wide Fund for Nature

YUS – Yopno, Uruwa, Som River catchments

YUS CA – YUS Conservation Area

YUS CO – YUS Conservation Organization


LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Integrated Outcomes for a Ranger Program

Figure 2. Map of YUS Conservation Area, Papua New Guinea

Figure 3. Organizational Structure of YUS Conservation Area Ranger Program


LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix A: Interview with Daniel Okena

Appendix B: YUS Conservation Area Ranger Survey


INTRODUCTION

The creation of protected areas has been a central element in the conservation of threatened and

endangered areas, and species worldwide. Historically, the motivation for protecting natural

areas ranged from religious to resource or species management, including initiatives such as

limiting the exploitation of particular species in certain areas or designating sacred groves

(Chape, Harrison, Spalding & Lysenko, 2005). Protected areas include natural parks – the most

internationally famous – but they also encompass a broader spectrum of different types of nature

parks with a wide range of goals and different types of management regimes. The diversity is

evident in the breadth of the classification schemes developed by the International Union for the

Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN), such as biosphere reserve, scientific

reserve, natural monument, world heritage site, or wildlife sanctuary (Stevens, 1997). There are

now more than 1,000 such designations that are collectively referred to as “protected areas”,

which are seen as the last strongholds of nature and are believed to play a vital role in providing

humankind a range of ecological services (Chape, Spalding, & Jenkins, 2008).

Sustaining the integrity of protected areas is a key function of any robust management

regime. Active management requires negotiation and persuasion, and sometimes enforcement in

order to bring together conflicting aims for the good of the protected area and its linkages to the

wider landscapes (Chape et. al., 2008). When dealing with people, management of protected

areas also needs a human face. At the grassroots level that human face are often rangers.

Rangers are the frontlines of conservation and are perhaps the most important protectors

of the world’s natural and cultural treasures. Throughout the world they are known by many

different titles – rangers, forest guards, eco guards and field enforcement officers (World Wide

Fund for Nature [WWF], n.d.). Whatever their title, their role has become increasingly


important for the management of wildlife and natural resources within conservation areas. Their

responsibilities have expanded to include environmental interpreter, community liaison officer,

field naturalist, facilitator, protector and enforcer (Central Land Council [CLC], n.d.;

International Ranger Federation [IRF], n.d.). A central part of their role includes the

development and delivery of environmental education, regarding both the protected area and

wider conservation principles. Indigenous peoples are uniquely positioned as local conservation

leaders with their traditional knowledge and some with their experiences in environmental

stewardship (Aziz, n.d.). Organizations, such as the International Ranger Federation (IRF),

IUCN, the World Wide Fund for Nature-International (WWF) and The Nature Conservancy

(TNC), are working to raise awareness of the critical work performed by the world’s national

park rangers and to provide training tools for rangers.

Purpose of the Study

This report summarizes the current literature on the growth of indigenous rangers as

environmental stewards and their roles in managing protected areas. A qualitative case study of

the YUS Conservation Area Ranger Program in Papua New Guinea (PNG) will be conducted to

address the following research questions: What role do local rangers play in conservation

management? And how do landowners in Papua New Guinea view the YUS Rangers?

To provide a comprehensive review of literatures and outline a conceptual framework for

sustainable management of the YUS Conservation Area (YUS CA), this research will focus on

the following primary objectives:

1. To determine the role rangers play in conservation and their impact for managing

protected areas both globally and within Papua New Guinea.


2. To assess program objectives and operations of the first ranger program in Papua

New Guinea, and the long-term sustainability of implementing a ranger program in

the area.

3. To examine the relationship between indigenous communities/ landowners and local

rangers in YUS.

4. To identify “best management practices” that could assist with the continuous

development of the YUS Conservation Area Ranger Program.

Significance of the Study

This study provides insight into the growing paradigm shift of conservation and indigenous land

management, and the responsibilities of indigenous rangers in conservation. Educators, scholars,

conservationists, landowners and the YUS Conservation Area Ranger Program will have relevant

information, and an analysis of “best practices” for managing protected areas and their resources.

The research can be additional reference material for the Tree Kangaroo Conservation Program

(TKCP) and the YUS Conservation Area Ranger Program in assessing management practices in

the YUS CA. Additionally, the IRF and the Conservation and Environment Authority in Papua

New Guinea (CEPA-PNG) can reference the study or use the paper as a platform for future

research on the role of indigenous rangers in conservation management. Specifically, CEPA-

PNG can use the study in scaling up future ranger programs across PNG.

Research Methods

Research was conducted from peer-reviewed literature concerning aspects of protected areas,

land management and indigenous ranger’s role in conservation management. Key words


searched included conservation management, indigenous land rights, ranger’s importance to

capacity building and indigenous rangers as stewards of the land. I referenced internal reports

from international organizations, non-profit organizations and government programs that are

working with rangers currently such as IUCN, IFR, Working on County Program in Australia,

TNC and WWF.

Additionally, I analyzed the YUS Conservation Area Ranger Program in Papua New

Guinea and landowner’s perceptions of the rangers through an interview with Daniel Okena,

Research and Monitoring Coordinator for TKCP. Survey questions were created for TKCP

employees to interview YUS Rangers about how they perceive their role as rangers and the work

plan of the ranger program. I utilized information from the YUS Landscape Plan, the YUS

Conservation Area Ranger Manual and from the interview with Daniel Okena to identify current

processes in place.

Lastly, a review was conducted of regional and international land management and

ranger programs to identify “best management practices” for protected areas. These findings

were then compared to the YUS Ranger Program to see how these management practices can be

applied to ensure its long-term sustainability and success.

Definition of Key Terms

Below are a list of key terms and their definitions for how they are applied in this research paper.

Indigenous peoples: Communities, peoples and nations that have a historical continuity with pre-

colonial societies on their own territories. In accordance with their own traditions,

cultural patterns, social institutions and legal systems they continue their ethnic identity

for future generations.


“Local” and “Indigenous” knowledge: Refers to bodies of knowledge, know-how and practices

that are maintained and developed by communities or peoples with long histories of close

association with natural systems.

Local or Indigenous Ranger: An individual from the local community or country employed to

effectively contribute to the protection and management of conserved area(s) through

their knowledge of traditional practices and culture.

Limitations of the Study

Although the research reached its aims, there were some unavoidable limitations. First, because

of the timeframe and budget, the study is limited by the number of participants, personal stories,

comments and opinions from YUS community members about the YUS Conservation Area and

the YUS Ranger Program. Second, the limited timeframe affected the number of rangers who

were able to be interviewed regarding their role in the management of YUS CA. Lastly, there

are few literature peer-reviews that analyze indigenous rangers and the role of rangers in the

field, which could have a biased effect on the analysis of implementation and “best management

practices” for a ranger program.

CONSERVATION AND INDIGENOUS PEOPLES


One of the most powerful legacies of the western scientific tradition has been the separation of

humans from nature, which developed as a central tenet of the natural sciences. In the

conservation tradition this separation is also known as “wilderness thinking”, where a pristine

nature, in its totality of genetic diversity and species diversity, exists outside of human activity

(Brockington, Duffy & Igoe, 2010). Wilderness thinking has been replicated in land tenure

systems including national parks, reserved lands and protected areas. Around the world, these

land tenures have a history of excluding indigenous peoples from their land rights and

livelihoods (Stevens, 1997; Brockington et.al., 2010; Dowie, 2009; Carey, Dudley & Stolton,

2000; Diegues, 1998). This is illustrated with the well-known example of Yellowstone National

Park when it was first conceived as a wilderness area. In 1871, the Shoshone-Bannock

inhabitants were relocated to the Wind River Reservation and the park was turned over to the US

Army in 1886 (Kothari, Corrigan, Jonas, Neumann and Shrumm, 2012). Following the

Yellowstone model other areas forced the relocation of indigenous peoples, including the

expulsion of the Ik farmers to create the Kidepo Valley National Park in Uganda and the

Mongondow people to create Domonga-Bone National Park in Sulawesi (Kothari et. al., 2012).

The adoption of this wilderness thinking has enabled proponents to transform nature on a

massive scale, without regard for the delicate web of human-nature relationships. This is not

only the basis for insurmountable conflicts, but it is also an inadequate foundation for the

establishment and sustainability of protected areas. As a World Wide Fund for Nature-

International (WWF) report states (Carey et. al., 2000):

“Loss of traditional rights can reduce people’s interests in long-term stewardship of the

land therefore the creation of a protected area can in some cases increase the rate of

damage to the very values that the protected area was originally created to preserve…


Putting a fence around a protected area seldom creates a long term solution to problems

of disaffected local communities, whether or not it is ethically justified” (p. 25).

Human rights infringements resulting from wilderness thinking practices have forced

rethinking of this ideology, to create participatory conservation practices. It has been estimated

that up to 85 percent of the world’s protected areas are inhabited by indigenous peoples

(International Union for Conservation of Nature [IUCN], 1996). Conservation ideas concerning

the role of traditional populations started to evolve beginning with the Kinshasa Resolution of

1975. The resolution recognized the importance of traditional ways of life and land ownership,

and called on governments to devise means by which indigenous peoples could bring their land

into conservation areas without relinquishing their ownership, use and tenure rights (Colchester,

2004).

However, it was not until the International Congress on National Parks and Protected

Areas in Caracas (IUCN, 1992) where the positive role of traditional populations in conservation

was recognized. The central issue addressed by participants was the fact that a majority of

protected areas are inhabited by indigenous peoples (Diegues, 1998). Congress realized that the

denial of resident’s rights was counter-productive to conservation objectives (Diegues, 1998). At

that time, the World Conservation Union defined a national park in terms of state ownership or

control; “where the highest competent authority of the country has taken steps to repent or

eliminate as soon as possible exploitation or occupation of the whole area” (Colchester, 2004).

Development of New Conservation Principles

In 1996, following the Congress on National Parks and Protected Areas, the WWF

adopted a “Statement of Principles on Indigenous Peoples Conservation”. The WWF principles


endorse the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), which

protects collective rights that may not be addressed in other human rights charters. The

collective rights and principles emphasize the following (WWF, 1996);

1) Recognizes the importance of indigenous resource rights and knowledge for the

conservation of earth’s most fragile ecosystems.

2) Indigenous people’s right to their lands, territories and resources which they have

traditionally owned or otherwise occupied, and that those rights must be recognized

and effectively protected.

3) Recognizes, respects and promotes the collective rights of indigenous peoples to

maintain and enjoy their cultural and intellectual heritage.

4) Knowledge, innovations and practices of indigenous and other traditional peoples

have much to contribute to the management of protected areas.

5) The need for governments and protected area managers to incorporate customary

resource use and indigenous land tenure as a means of enhancing biodiversity

conservation.

6) The need for governments and protected area managers to assist indigenous people’s

organizations in the design, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of

conservation activities, and to invest in strengthening such organizations.

The development of new principles from a large, international organization was the start

to a new paradigm for conservation that incorporates different levels of human interaction. This

understanding has led to the adoption of the present IUCN (1996) and World Parks Congress

(WPC) definition of protected areas:


“An area of land and/or sea especially dedicated to the protection and maintenance of

biological diversity, and of natural and associated culture resources, and managed

through legal or other effective means.”

This definition has been instrumental in guiding a conservation paradigm shift, and is now

widely accepted at the regional, national and international levels, for example, by the United

Nations Environment Programme World Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEP). Most

recently, the 2003 Durban Congress in South Africa adopted wide-ranging recommendations to

improve the coverage and management of protected areas, and reinforced the need for a

spectrum of different types of protected areas to effectively conserve natural and cultural values

(Dowie, 2009). Similar to the 1975 Kinshasa Resolution, the Durban Accord urges commitment

to involve indigenous peoples in establishing and managing protected areas, the need to instate

effective mechanisms for open dialogue, and for international conservation agencies to adopt

clear policies on indigenous peoples and protected areas (Chape et. al., 2008). Although land

tenure disputes and human rights issues around protected areas continue today, there are

organizations and communities developing their own policies and practices with indigenous

peoples at the forefront of land management.

Indigenous Peoples Compatibility with Protected Area(s) Objectives

“We conserve nature because we live in it, because it is our life.”

– Masaii elder (Dowie, 2009, p.23)

Indigenous peoples have a profound relationship with their territories as a result of living in them

and depending upon them for generations. Their long association with their territories is

expressed both in customary law, and in complex religious and symbolic schemes. Often these


territories are sacred or have spiritual significance (Dowie, 2009). The people have detailed

knowledge of their resources and this knowledge may be refined from generation to generation,

thus may not be apparent either to researchers or the local peoples themselves. Such knowledge

provides the basis for local decision-making about a range of activities such as hunting,

gathering, fishing, agriculture, healthcare and adaptation to environmental or social change

(Aziz, n.d.; Sobrevila, 2008). For indigenous peoples the concept of land generally embraces the

whole territory they use including forests, rivers, mountains and seas (Fernández-Baca & Martin,

2007). In general, the local people have cultivated a habit of mind whereby respect and care for

the environment are seen as a moral obligation (Aziz, n.d.; Fernández-Baca & Martin, 2007;

Beckford, Jacobs, William, & Nahdee, 2010). With land as their central element, many

indigenous peoples clearly see that their long-term survival depends on them caring for their

land/ country.

For all the above reasons, protected area(s) objectives should be compatible with the

existence of indigenous peoples in or around their borders. However, while there may be

convergent points of view over the long-term value of protecting areas with natural and cultural

significance, there are divergent views on the way in which these areas are declared and

managed.

MANAGEMENT OF PROTECTED LANDS

Establishment of protected areas is just the start to achieving the objectives for which it was

reserved. As Chape et. al. (2008) explains, “to manage protected areas requires organizations,


individuals or communities that operate under a recognized set of policies, and/or traditions” (p.

120). Emphasis is placed on the human element for what is fundamental to successful

management. When protected areas overlap with indigenous lands and territories, it is necessary

to establish formal agreements between the communities and agencies responsible for

conservation. Without establishing common objectives and commitments to conservation, the

declaration of protected areas usually means the transformation of land into restricted areas

under the control of national, state and territory governments (Lawrence, 1996). As previously

discussed, restrictions on access to land and the rights to live on traditional lands has meant the

loss of livelihoods, traditions and autonomy for indigenous communities.

Depending on the extent in which a country’s legislation recognizes indigenous territories

and the goals of the community, different management systems of protected areas have been

established (Lawrence, 1996). This research focuses on two progressive conservation

management strategies for protected areas; co-management of protected areas and indigenous

community management.

Co-Management of Protected Areas

There is no generic model for successful co-management between indigenous peoples and

management agencies. The process of co-management is an on-going process of consultation

and negotiation, leading from the management agency and from the traditional owners

(Lawrence, 1996; Ghimire & Pimbert, 1997). Each agreement must be separately negotiated to

address the needs and goals of each local community. The amount and kind of participation by

indigenous peoples may be broadly defined or very limited by the language of legislation

establishing co-management (Stevens, 1997). However, the success of co-management stems


from the empowerment, equity and social justice of a partnership. The main principles which

co-management stands by are a clear legal basis for specifying rights and responsibilities, and

goodwill between traditional owners and staff of the management agency (Lawrence, 1996).

In addition to allowing participation in management of parks and protected areas by local

people, current co-management agreements specify that there be associated economic benefits.

Economic benefits can include park-related amenities (e.g. permits for tourism) or hiring of local

people to manage the park in positions such as rangers, researchers, planners or managers

(Stevens, 1997). The agreement should provide a compensation package for any negative

impacts including any loss of traditional resource use rights, caused by the creation of a protected

area. Further, co-management agreements should guarantee traditional use of natural resources

on a sustained yield basis (Stevens, 1997; Sobrevila, 2008).

Co-management can be a successful partnership, however, problems can occur with

implementation. International cooperation projects with indigenous peoples have often

introduced new institutions to serve as a link between indigenous communities and the project

instead of strengthening the existing traditional institutions (Fernández-Baca & Martin, 2007;

Agrwal & Gibson, 1999). Large international conservation groups are still inclined to think and

act globally, valuing macro over regional ecosystems. In doing so they have come to emphasize

globalized management systems over local ones, leaving indigenous peoples in powerless roles,

with traditional knowledge and environmental ethics less likely to be valued (Dowie, 2009).

Another identified problem is the integration of management styles of traditional and

state resource systems. For example, in Australia the aboriginal people’s management practices

may vary according to economic and social circumstances, and may incorporate non-aboriginal

commercial activities such as pastoralism or mining (Lawrence, 1996). There is also the


difference in power relations between conservation authorities and the local people. Local

landowners may become the resource for valuable information, while the international or state

management regime continues to make all resource allocation and administrative decisions

(Stevens, 1997).

The reality of the situation is that a trade-off is usually to be effected between the two

cultures in co-management. Even though this model recognizes more of a partnership agreement

between indigenous peoples, co-management may not be a satisfactory solution to some

indigenous peoples in managing their territories. Some communities may prefer a model of

autonomous indigenous territories where they can exercise their right to self-determination

(Fernández-Baca & Martin, 2007; Stevens, 1997).

Indigenous Community Management

Under indigenous peoples and local communities’ conserved territories and areas (ICCAs), the

indigenous peoples are the dominant decision-makers and have the capacity to enforce

regulations regarding the management of the area, not state-governed sites. As defined by IUCN

(1996) as:

“natural and/or modified ecosystems containing significant biodiversity values,

ecological services and cultural values, voluntarily conserved by indigenous peoples and

local communities through customary laws or other effective means.”

Worldwide, there is a variety of ICCAs differentiated on the basis of their ecological, socio-

cultural, political and economic features. Every community’s relationship to their territory is

unique and the term “ICCA” is not usually referred to by indigenous peoples or local

communities, but is used as a generic term to enhance communication across worldviews. At the


national or local level, a more general term may be used, such as “Indigenous Protected Area”

(Australia); “Village Forest Reserve” (Tanzania); or “Voluntary Conserved Area” (Mexico).

Rules and regulations for governing and managing the ICCA vary from purely oral,

having been passed down as customary law, to formally written in the form of statutory law

(Jonas, Kothari & Shrumm, 2012). Some countries include ICCAs in their national systems of

protected areas, some seek legal titles to their lands and territories, while others consider them as

separate entities. A community’s motivation to establish ICCAs could also be for a slew of

reasons, such as concern for wildlife, secure land tenures, to sustain religious or cultural needs,

or to generate revenue (Jonas et. al., 2012; Kothari, Corrigan, Jonas, Neumann, & Shrumm,

2012). Sacred natural areas are among the oldest conserved areas in the world (Kothari et. al.,

2012).

ICCA’s offer a range of benefits in addition to the values of protected areas. Some of the

benefits include;

Decisions are made at the community level, which help to empower communities

They provide greater equity within a community

They offer communities assistance in better defining their territories, and offer lessons in

systems of conservation that integrate customary and statutory laws

They help conserve biodiversity at a relatively low financial cost, as its part of indigenous

peoples normal livelihood or cultural activities

They provide livelihood and/or additional income in a variety of occupations (e.g.

rangers, mapping officers, managers)

They can create conditions for other developmental inputs to flow into the community

(Agrawal & Gibson, 1999; Jonas et. al., 2012; Dowie, 2011).


An example of developmental inputs, the farmers involved in forest conservation in the

Himalayan belt of India are also the ones reviving a range of agro-biodiverse practices (Kothari

et. al., 2012). Local institutions and social organizations also create and enforce rules, incentives

and penalties for eliciting behavior that does not correspond to the objectives of the conservation

area (Ghimire & Pimbert, 1997). These local institutions align more with the current governance

structure embedded in the culture.

Along with the benefits of protected areas managed by indigenous communities come

threats and challenges to this management structure. One large external threat to these areas is

the result of market- or state-dominated economies, which are increasing pressures on natural

resources. The growth of the global economy promotes rapid urbanization, loss of traditional

systems and knowledge, and accumulation of capital (Stolton & Dudley, 1999; Jonas et. al.,

2012). For example, in Bolivia the government is promoting more participation of the

population in decision-making, but there are also proposals and/or permits for mining, energy

production, soybean cultivation and other projects (Jonas et. al., 2012). The government of

Bolivia’s permits pose a threat to ICCAs as they offer economic incentives to people who need

the additional income and they are projects that go against the environmental goals of the ICCA,

such as mining production.

Another large challenge for communities who manage an ICCA is to ensure their

occupation of lands and waters, as well as their governance of resources, are recognized by local

and national authorities. Customary laws and community-specific procedures can conflict with

state laws and remain unrecognized (Corrigan & Hay-Edie, 2013). There is also the lack of

security of tenure over land/waters and resources, and the lack of recognition by the state, which

exposes ICCAs to some of the threats mentioned of a growing global economy.


Further, there are internal challenges when governing or managing ICCAs. Some

challenges include changing values, loss of interests by younger generations, inadequate funding

or economic opportunities, weak internal institutions and social conflicts (Kothari et. al., 2012;

Jonas et. al., 2012). When there is local cultural disruption and change in values imposed on a

community it creates unhealthy dependencies on outside sources. As part of this phenomenon,

the youth may feel detached from their land, cultural and institutions at the very moment when

they should learn about them and nourish their own sense of identity. Without a stable internal

institution or support from government, ICCAs face threats from outside forces that impose

“development” projects such as large dams, mining, roads and urbanization (Kothari et. al.,

2012). There is also the challenge of the community’s physical boundaries that are often in

dispute due to inadequate documentation or not clearly marked.

Sustaining the integrity of protected areas or ICCAs, is a key function of any robust

management regime. Active management, whether it be a co-management system or indigenous

community management, requires communication, negotiation, persuasion and sometimes

enforcement. Indigenous rangers in management and conservation have proven to be essential

for promoting social participation, environmental protection and maintenance of strong cultural

transference (Muller, 2008; Gorman & Vemuri, 2012; WWF, n.d.; IRF, 2013).


Establishment of Indigenous Protected Areas

Indigenous Protected Areas (IPAs) emerged from the Australian Government’s 1992

commitment to increase representativeness of the National Reserve System (NRS)

through the inclusion of indigenous land (Taylor, 2015). IPAs are an invention of

Australian Aboriginals, who shun the world wilderness and speak of country, by

which they mean both land and sea (Dowie, 2009).

The process of creating IPAs in Australia is entirely voluntary as the area is

claimed, mapped and rules are set and enforced by the local aboriginals involved. As

part of the NRS, the only requirement set by the national government is that

indigenous people develop a management plan committed to conserving biodiversity

or in their words “caring for country” (Taylor, 2015).

What has set the IPA program apart from other indigenous protected areas is

the funding. As partners with the NRS, there is continuous funding to enable

Indigenous peoples to negotiate the management of existing government-declared

national parks and other protected areas, and allow development of programs such as

the Working on Country Indigenous Ranger Program (Jonas et. al., 2012).


INDIGENOUS RANGERS IN PROTECTED AREAS

Rangers have become the frontlines to conservation, safeguarding the biodiversity and cultural

values of protected areas. Throughout the world they are known by many different titles –

rangers, forest guards, eco-guards and field enforcement officers (WWF, n.d.). Employing local

people as rangers has proven to be successful for both economic reasons and the participation of

indigenous communities in management of protected areas (Muller, 2008; CLC, n.d).

Indigenous park rangers can manage protected areas through their knowledge of indigenous

culture and heritage, often working with the communities to identify management concerns and

sites of special significance. A park ranger, on the other hand, traditionally can work in many

environments and move from one park to another. Depending on the legal system under which

the protected area is recognized or the framework of the ranger program, a park ranger may have

law enforcement authority and the right to carry firearms as they seek to protect the territory.

Once implemented, indigenous ranger programs offer a variety of benefits including;

providing community-based workforce to support traditional owner aspirations, bringing to the

fore the skills and knowledge of traditional owners, offering accredited training for indigenous

peoples in land and sea management, and providing employment and career development (CLC,

n.d.; Taylor, 2015).

Roles and Responsibilities of Rangers

The primary responsibility of a ranger is to maintain the integrity of the protected area where

they work. However, the focus of the ranger’s role has expanded with the need for greater

interface with local and broader communities (Chape et. al., 2008). They develop key

partnerships and a sense of ownership for those living, visiting and working in protected areas.


In Australia for example, the Kalan Rangers together with the traditional owners and elders are

creating a database that documents scientific and traditional language names of flora and fauna

(CLC, n.d.).

At any given time a ranger may be a field naturalist, environmental interpreter, facilitator

and enforcer. Depending on the management objectives of the area, rangers are usually tasked

with patrolling hectares of land, identifying plant species, monitoring wildlife, controlling

invasive species and mapping territories (Gorman & Vemuri, 2012). Rangers often have to

battle the elements of the unforgiving terrain, especially when involved in activities such as

search and rescue, wild fire control or wildlife capture operations. Particularly in the developing

world, rangers often live and work in remote and isolated areas with minimal logistical and

institutional support (Chape et. al., 2008).

As environmental interpreters, their role includes the development and delivery of

environmental education, both on the goals of the protected area and wider conservation

principles. They have to be seen as “authoritative”, but at the same time be approachable to

community members to listen to their concerns and aims with the management of the protected

area (Chape et. al., 2008). Some communities praise the rangers and their loyalty to protecting

their communities’ territories. For example, the Voluntary Indigenous Forest Rangers Corps of

Bosawas, Nicaragua are chosen by their community and are seen as “guardians of the forest”,

having a high status within the indigenous social structure (Fernández-Baca & Martin, 2007).

Ranger’s role and responsibilities may differ around the world, but they are fundamental in

implementing ecological regulations in the territories to improve natural resource management.

Importance of Indigenous Rangers


Indigenous rangers have a growing importance as stewards of the land. As the frontlines to

conservation, rangers have extensive knowledge of their land, wildlife and culture. They are

important in bringing awareness to conserving valuable natural or cultural resources. For

example, the Cofan Park Rangers Program is responsible for controlling and patrolling

approximately 380,000 hectares of the ancestral Cofan territory in Ecuador’s rainforest

(Fernández-Baca & Martin, 2007). Cofan Rangers are legally recognized by the Ministry of

Environment and have the same rights as a park ranger. Since their implementation, there has

been a change of attitude among community members regarding resource extraction, and the

number of infractions has since been reduced (Fernández-Baca & Martin, 2007).

In addition, ranger programs play an important role in merging “old” and “new” methods,

and act as conduits between different management ideologies. An example is the area of

engagement of ranger groups in Central Australia. The Central Land Council’s (CLC)

Community Ranger Program employs more than 80 aboriginal people and is made up of 11

indigenous ranger groups (CLC, n.d.). These groups are engaged in areas such as tourism, land

based enterprise (i.e. bush products, seed collection, and sustainable camel harvesting) and media

communications.

As guardians, rangers are important in combating illegal commercial and non-sustainable

exploitation of these resources. Regional conflict, civil wars and political upheaval have an

impact on protected areas, and rangers are usually the ones left to defend their land (Chape et.

al., 2008). As a result of a long civil war and regional instability in the Democratic Republic of

Congo (DRC), 140 rangers have been killed protecting wildlife in Virunga National Park (U.S.

Fish & Wildlife Service [USFWS], 2014). In Mozambique, rangers of the Gorongosa National

Park stayed at their posts through the civil war without getting paid (Chape et. al., 2008).


Similar stories can be found elsewhere of rangers having stayed at their posts throughout internal

conflict fighting to protect their land and resources.

Implantation and Success of an Indigenous Ranger Program

Conservation programs, either co-managed or led by indigenous peoples, should be

designed based on a thorough understanding of the communities’ organizational structure, values

and goals. Implementation of an indigenous ranger program within the protected areas

frameworks requires a combined commitment to economic and social participation, the sharing

of culture, and the protection and management of key environmental assets. With a targeted

focus on achieving outcomes in each of these areas, the program has the potential to create

sustainable and holistic outcomes for the community (Figure 1).

Integrated Outcomes

Environment / Economic Participation / Culture

Figure 1. Integrated outcomes for a ranger program that will work towards holistic outcomes for the community

implemented in. Adapted from Ranger Program Development Strategy (p. 10), by Central Land Council.

Environmental

Stewardship

Strong cultural

& Governance

Potential Outcomes

- Traditional owner engagement and

governance

- Intergenerational knowledge transfers

- Cultural and ecological understanding of

landscape

- Rangers are achieving their employment

aspiration

- Other community members are engaged

- Effective on-ground environmental

management

- Diversified revenues sources

- Development of land and cultural based

enterprise

- Development of skills and training for

rangers

Economic

Participation


Various human, financial and infrastructure inputs are required to achieve the desired

outcomes of a ranger program. Within the context of the over-arching management plan

objectives of the area, there are general elements that can work to ensure the stability and growth

of a ranger program. The following recommendations are made to successfully and sustainably

implement, operate and expand upon a ranger program with the idea that each is adapted to local

conditions, challenges and opportunities.

Key Program Resources (Inputs)

1) Capacity Building and Training

Through capacity building and the enhancement of knowledge, skills and competencies, people

become active leaders and participants in decisions that shape their future. Providing dedicated

mentoring and support to rangers, and offering training programs can improve the rates of

retention and professionalism of a ranger program (The Nature Conservancy [TNC], n.d.). One

way to focus on individualized case management and mentoring is the development of monthly

seminars, meetings or training workshops. Another recommendation is to establish a career

structure within a ranger program that allows rangers an opportunity to build team leadership in

particular activities (e.g. fire management).

The International Ranger Federation (IRF) is an agency that is working to further the

professional standards of rangers globally in the field through training, and shared knowledge

and resources (IRF, 2013). IRF partners with The Thin Green Line Foundation to support and

equip rangers, and provides financial support to the widows of rangers killed in the line of duty.

The IRF is one of the only agencies responsible for overseeing training and strategy for protected


areas. However, various initiatives have been undertaken by IUCN – the World Conservation

Union, UNEP and UNESCO.

In 2001, the UNESCO World Heritage Centre prepared a Global Training Strategy for

World Heritage and a strategic process for capacity building (Chape et. al., 2008). The expected

outcomes from the Global Training Strategy include; understanding of related legislations and

legal obligations, trainees exposed to patrol preparation plans, and education on the importance

of work with community members and leaders (IUCN, n.d.). In addition, there are several

international exchange programs for protected area staff intended to facilitate training. One

successful program has been the Latin American Technical Cooperation Network on National

Park, Other Protected Areas and Wildlife, which has produced a large number of training

documents, manuals and held over 40 workshops (Chape et. al., 2008). There is also Ranger

Federation of Asia (RFA), PAMS Foundation and WWF’s Russel E. Train Education for Nature

Program, all with the initiative to support and train rangers in critical regions of the world.

Becoming a member of IRF, or participating in an international workshop and ranger exchange

programs is recommended to boost camaraderie between rangers and build individual skill sets.


International Ranger Federation

Rangers need training, mentoring and knowledge to support their efforts. The

International Ranger Federation (IRF), a world-wide Federation of National Ranger

Associations in 46 countries, has been instrumental in the development of training a

ranger must have, with the flexibility to be applied at different levels to reflect differing

geopolitical contexts. The organization exists to empower rangers, share knowledge and

resources, while also advancing the aims of the IUCN’s World Conservation Strategy.

Since its inception in 1992, the IRF has been successful in a number of initiatives

designed to raise the standards of professionalism of rangers. The organization also

organizes international meetings, including a World Congress every three years, and has

a “Rangers without Borders” program to establish global communication with ranger

organizations.

The IRF defines a ranger as “the person involved in the practical protection and

preservation of all aspects of wild areas, historical, and cultural sites. Rangers provide

recreational opportunities and interpretation of sites while providing links between local

communities, protected areas, and area administration” (2013).

2) Robust Monitoring and Planning

Long-term protection of resources and cultural values depends on the ability to use traditional

knowledge, and the access to data and planning tools to make informed choices. One tool is

ethno-mapping, which is a process led by the people (i.e. rangers and landowners) to map their

land. An ethno-map integrates indigenous values, land uses and significant features of the

landscape into a spatial map (Corrigan & Hay-Edie, 2013). It also takes into consideration

relevant policies and development opportunities. Community maps are a valuable tool that can

be used at the local and national level to assert more secure land and resource rights in their

territories. This is especially important when outside actors aim to access their land such as

government authorities, conservation NGOs and companies (e.g. logging, mining, plantations).

For example, the Netshidzivhem Netvhutanda, Ramunangi and other clans in Venda, South

Africa have been using ethno-mapping to map their territory. Not only have they mapped their


territory, but the mapping process has strengthened community cohesion and the confidence to

assert historical rights and responsibilities as custodians of sacred natural sites (Corrigan & Hay-

Edie, 2013). The maps can also support communities in dialogue and help during the negotiation

processes.

Investing in monitoring tools is also essential for management and collection of accurate

data. As part of IRF’s “ranger toolkit”, the organization lists the use of CyberTracker for rangers

as one of the most efficient methods of GPS field data collection during patrols. CyberTracker

can be used to record any type of observation and allows customized application for data

collection needs (IRF, 2013). There is also the tool TerraLook, which provides free, recent and

historical satellite images that can used for reporting and data collection. Understanding some

areas are very isolated and rangers would not have access to tools such as these, it is something

to consider in long-term management of an area.

Successful planning and monitoring provides accurate data that can be used for research,

expanding partnerships, updating policy and developing frameworks. If integrated planning is

not effected, then there is a risk that, if the program expands, it will become increasingly difficult

to ensure the conservation outcomes being achieved are meeting all the different requirements

(Corrigan & Hay-Edie, 2013).

3) Governance and Ranger Support Structures

Established governance structures provide strategic oversight to the direction and priorities of the

ranger program. The overall structure of the ranger program should engage traditional owners at

the community level in making decisions about the program. Implementation of a ranger

coordinator or coordination team would provide strategic, administrative and operational support

to rangers and ensure ongoing function of the program. The coordinator(s) can build capacity of


a ranger group to assume more responsibility and help oversee the collection of data monitoring.

One unique support structure implemented in the CLC program is the two positions within the

Land Management team that are designed to focus on providing mentoring and other support to

rangers (May, 2010.). They help manage non-work related and work related issues in order to

achieve the best possible outcomes for each individual ranger.

As an extension of a ranger program it is recommended to create a Junior Ranger

Program. Establishment of a Junior Ranger Program brings traditional and modern values for

looking after conserved areas into the school curriculum. Rangers could use aboriginal

examples, illustration, evidence, analogies and cases to elucidate ecological concepts. The

program can also educate on data collection and monitoring techniques used when in the field.

In Australia, the CLC program (n.d.) has students learn about managing the natural environment

by working directly with land and sea rangers in classroom activities and field experiences. Such

achievements of the program include improved weed control, educating future generations,

widespread community support for the ranger group, increased indigenous knowledge transfer

and increased community involvement. The indigenous ranger’s perspective on protecting areas

can teach children to see the natural world in context other than purely economic terms and

temper the overwhelming anthropocentric analysis of Western cultures (Beckford et.al, 2010).

4) Communication and Advocacy

Communication and advocacy should be strategically managed in order to create broader

understanding and support for the ranger program. Developing a clear program narrative and

supporting communication materials helps inform stakeholders of the work and achievements of

the program. Also, it is recommended for a program to build a network of stakeholders through


regular communications and updates, harness traditional owner participation in advocacy, and

build a nation-wide connection with other ranger programs (CLC, n.d.).

A communication tool rangers can potentially utilize is ProtectedPlanet, which

incorporates social media approaches to generate new constituencies of interests and information

for protected areas. The online interface for the World Database on Protected Areas (WDPA) is

a joint initiative between IUCN and UNEP-WCMC (IRF, 2013).

5) Partnership and Revenue Diversification

Access to funding and financing ensures that communities have what they need to effectively

implement programs, improve quality of life and promote economic security. Government

agencies and sources directed at indigenous land and community development are a potential

continuous revenue source. Other sources include philanthropic sources for culture and

environmental conservation, community and municipal services, research institutions and fee-

for-service contracts for environmental services (Corrigan & Hay-Edie, 2013). An example of a

fee-for-service contract is employing rangers to revegetate landscapes, fire management or

ecological monitoring. Eco-tourism is one form of financing, but the operation and management

of this source of funding will need to be aligned with the aims of the protected area.

Diversifying and developing strategic partnerships will build the desired revenue base over time

for the ranger program, and possibly motivate traditional owners in revenue generation (CLC,

n.d.).

The success of each ranger program can be determined by the extent to which it achieves

the recommended inputs outlined above. Streamlining reporting, communication and goals of a

program will allow opportunities for future expansion either within an existing ranger program

or across multiple ranger programs in a country.


CASE STUDY

In order to illustrate community land management and implementation of key ranger program

resources, a review of the customary laws in Papua New Guinea and the YUS Conservation Area

Ranger Program is conducted. Papua New Guinea is a land of great physical and ethnic diversity

with a unique land tenure system. Communities of different groups of Melanesians traditionally

live in isolated villages, each with their own territory and customs. Around 95% of the land is

held under customary systems of tenure in which ownership of land is vested in the kinship

group, lineage, or clan (Stevens, 1997). Individual rights to use land are derived from birth into

the group or may be inherited depending on the customary rules and social structure of the area.

Certain rights are usually exercised collectively over the group’s territory including hunting,

fishing, gathering forest products, or collecting wood for fuel (Horwich, 2005). Knowledge of

these rights is rarely documented, but can be passed down through word of mouth from one

generation to the next or, in the case of the YUS Area of PNG, knowledge of land rights is

patriarchal lineage. The boundaries of the territories are not generally surveyed or mapped, but

instead are marked by natural features (Stevens, 1997). Although customary systems and

traditional conservation practices remain important in Papua New Guinea, social changes,

population growth and economic development create pressures on wildlife and resources

(Stevens, 1997).

National parks were first created during the colonial period (up to 1975), which under the

National Parks Act of 1982 provided them security for natural resource protection (Horwich,

2005). The act commits the lands to the care, control and management of the Director of

National Parks, requiring landowners to cede their rights to the National Government. This

means that landowners have no legally enforceable means for management or participation in


discussion regarding how natural resources within the reserve are used (Horwich, 2005). There

are 58 Protected Areas (PAs) gazetted in PNG and two of the areas are National Parks followed

by other related designations, including Provincial Parks, Recreation Parks, Nature Reserves,

Historic Sites, Wildlife Sanctuaries and Scenic Reserves (National Parks Worldwide, n.d.). The

reluctance of traditional owners to part with customary land has prevented the implementation of

proposals to extend the park network.

Although the customary tenure system has proved a major constraint to the development

of national parks, it has provided the basis for the establishment of other types of protected areas

including Wildlife Management Areas (WMAs) and Conservation Areas (CAs). WMAs are

mainly concerned with protection of specific threatened species, but allow species to be utilized

by traditional landowners under an approved management program. In addition, the natural

resources (e.g. minerals and timber) on or in the land are not protected. WMAs are more

participatory in their approach than National Parks through the necessary consultation with local

landowners (Horwich, 2005).

On the other hand, a CA with its own management committee has similar objectives to

the National Parks Act but involves participation and consent of local landowners, and does not

require landowners to give up their land (Horwich, 2005). A CA has the potential for more long-

term resource, cultural and biodiversity protection, and maintains landowner representation by

way of a Conservation Area Management Committee (CAMC). The management committee is

responsible for preparing a management and development plan for the conserved land (Horwich,

2005). Compared to WMAs and local level government protected areas, the CA is the strongest

biodiversity protection because it gives land and sea protection under National Laws such that

there can be no natural resource extraction (e.g. logging or mining).


YUS Conservation Area

The YUS Conservation Area (YUS CA), established in 2009, is the first nationally-recognized

conservation area in Papua New Guinea (PNG) under the Conservation Areas Act of 1978.

Located on the Huon Peninsula, the largest and highest montane region outlying the New Guinea

Central Ranges, the area covers 78,729 hectares (760 km²) of protected tropical forests (TKCP,

2012). Geographically, the YUS Landscape straddles the Sarawaget mountain range, and is

defined by the outermost boundaries of customary land owned by the people living within the

Yopno, Uruwa and Som watersheds of the Huon Peninsula (hence the acronym YUS).

Participating communities are all those that have pledged land for conservation as part of the

initiative to not hunt, log the forest or extract resources from the core protected area. The YUS

Conservation Area encompasses 51 participating villages across 18 wards, and is comprised of

human settlements, grasslands, forests, gardens, agricultural areas as well as 46 hectares of coral

coastal waters (TKCP, 2012).

In 1996, the Tree Kangaroo Conservation Program’s (TKCP) impetus to set up the

conservation area was to protect the habitat of the endangered Matschie’s tree kangaroo

(Dendrolagus matschiei). However, the tree kangaroo has become a flagship for protecting an

extraordinary variety of other threatened and endemic species found on the Huon Peninsula. In

addition, TKCP takes a community-based approach to conservation that engages local

landowners in the decision-making process and provides benefits to the communities. For

instance, the organization has provided alternative livelihoods and hires local people in positions

such as mapping officers, research assistants and conservation rangers. The overarching mission

of TKCP-PNG is to foster wildlife and habitat conservation and support local community

livelihoods in PNG through global partnerships, land protection and scientific research (TKCP,


2012). TKCP-PNG is in partnership with the local landowner association, YUS Conservation

Organization (YUS CO), to help manage the YUS CA through community capacity building,

environmental education and outreach efforts.

Area of Study

Figure 2: Map of the YUS Conservation Area (Karau Kuna, TKCP).

YUS Conservation Area Ranger Program

In 2012, the YUS Conservation Area Ranger Program was established to patrol and monitor

wildlife inside and outside of the YUS CA. The program is the backbone to fulfilling the

obligations under the YUS CA Management Plan, including ecological monitoring, reporting,

CA awareness and data collection. Selected by village leaders and landowners, the candidates of

the ranger program were initially trained by James Cook University colleagues in the

establishment of monitoring plots and sampling (TKCP, 2012). In addition to being selected by

community members, desired qualifications to becoming a ranger include the following;

Well-developed interpersonal and communication skills; both written and oral


Commitment to goals and philosophy of the TKCP-PNG and YUS CO

Available to work in the field all year

Be from one of the communities with pledged land to YUS CA

Be physically fit and able to spend time in difficult conditions on patrol in YUS CA

Organizational Structure

One strength of the YUS Ranger Program is that the Rangers are local and nominated by

their communities. The Rangers are also landowners who generally patrol zones around their

own lands. Thirteen Rangers (12 terrestrial rangers and 1 marine ranger) are currently employed

and are divided into teams within four zones across YUS: Uruwa, Som, Yopno and Nambis

(coastal area) (Figure 2). Each of these zones is supervised by a TKCP Conservation Officer to

whom the Rangers report (Figure 3). The Conservation Officers report to the Research and

Monitoring Coordinator for TKCP, who then reports to the YUS Conservation Area

Management Committee (CAMC). The CAMC represents all stakeholders in managing the

protected area, encouraging communication among community members, and provincial and

national government levels involved in managing the YUS CA (TKCP, 2012). Current

committee members of CAMC include: YUS Landowners, Kabwum District Administrator,

Morobe Provincial Government representative, National Department of Environment &

Conservation representative, President of the YUS Local Level Government, President of the

Wasu Local Level Government and Program Manager of TKCP.


Figure 3: Organizational structure of YUS Conservation Area Ranger Program (Created by: Daniel, Okena, 2015).

Ranger’s roles and Responsibilities

“Rangers in the YUS CA play a leadership role,” states Daniel Okena, TKCP Research and

Monitoring Coordinator (personal communication, October 20, 2015). Through their various

responsibilities, the rangers take the lead in conserving the resources and culture of the area.

Currently, the functions of a YUS ranger are the following;

1. Implement the YUS Ecological Monitoring Program (EMP) by helping with

systematic monitoring and observations of key fauna.

2. Conduct monthly patrols across zones and gather data for CA management in the

YUS Record Book.

3. Serve as community liaisons and report on issues raised by the community in relation

to CA management.

4. Assist visiting researchers in YUS CA when hired.


5. Report on violations to the bylaws developed by local communities to govern the

YUS CA.

6. Participate in annual TKCP planning.

Each Conservation Officer has the responsibility to work with YUS Rangers that are in

their zone. Their primary roles are to act as an intermediary with the TKCP Research and

Monitoring Coordinator, supervise Ranger work activities according to their work plans, help

manage YUS Record Book and community feedback databases in the field, and record

community issues from Ranger’s feedback.

Data Collection and Management

YUS Conservation Area patrols are conducted over a week at monthly intervals for data

collection using the YUS Record Book. Rangers record observations of key fauna and flora,

collect spatial information about key features in the YUS landscape (e.g. walking tracks or

names of significant landmarks), record signs of

bylaw violations, and document landowner and

community issues related to Conservation Area

management. Ecological monitoring data is

collected every five years to record observations

of key fauna with the help of a monitoring

coordinator. Rangers are always equipped with

a Global Positioning System (GPS) to collect

spatial data for updating field maps, and recording notable events and observations.

Rangers present their YUS Record Book to their respective Conservation Officer during

monthly check-ins. Conservation Officers are responsible for entering data into a field database

YUS Conservation Area rangers conducting monthly

patrol (Photo by: Lisa Dabek, 2014).


and cross-checking data reliability to provide to the Research and Monitoring Coordinator.

Conservation Officers are equipped with laptops, and YUS Rangers hand-write all data entries

while on patrol.

As stated, YUS Rangers record violations, but do not enforce the bylaws. Violations are

reported to the landowner, but it is at the discretion of the landowner to bring it to the village

court (D. Okena, personal communication, October 20, 2015). The village court implements the

bylaws, developed by local communities and gazetted with the national government. If a

landowner commits the violation on their own property then the situation becomes complicated.

One landowner usually does not own the land as it is owned by a clan and the expectation is that

the occurrence would be reported (D. Okena, personal communication, October 20, 2015). Some

violations may not be reported as clans are from the same ancestors and communities have close

relationships, or because they don’t think anyone can help resolve the issue (D. Okena, personal

communication, October 20, 2015). When community members do approach the Rangers about

an issue it is because they would like the help of the Ranger to resolve the issue (personal

communication, 2015).

Capacity Building and Training

YUS Rangers have been trained in the collection of ecological monitoring and reporting

violations. In addition to meeting with their Conservation Officer once a month, biannual

communal meetings provide an opportunity for all Rangers, Conservation Officers and other

TKCP staff to come together. These meetings set agendas for the next six months and allow

time to work through issues within the work plan. There is also opportunity for ranger training

workshops, which have included in the past training on data collection methods, use of GPS,

species identification and how to share results with the community.


To involve youth and community members in conservation, TKCP began piloting a

Junior Ranger Program in 2014. The Junior Rangers participated in YUS Environment Day (on

June 5th World Environment Day),

learning about their environment and what

they can do to conserve their resources.

This is a relatively new program and will

continue to evolve.

Landowners Perspective of YUS Rangers

As landowners, YUS Rangers are active participants of land management and decision-making,

but their work also involves reaching out to other landowners to hear their perspective. Since the

establishment of the YUS Ranger Program, the response from the community has been mixed.

According to Daniel Okena, “people say Rangers are helping wildlife and the area”. Those who

are listening to conserving resources “say they are seeing changes taking place, with animals

being observed out of the YUS CA that they have not seen for a while” (D. Okena, personal

communication, October 15, 2015). The YUS Ranger Program has also created additional

income for families and extended families, while providing new skills to Rangers in data

collection and ecological monitoring. The other perspective of landowners is that Rangers are

accessing their land (D. Okena, personal communication, October 15, 2015). This feeling of

intrusion by the Rangers is not favored by some landowners, who may want complete autonomy

over their land.

YUS Conservation Area rangers conducting monthly patrol

(Photo by: Lisa Dabek, 2014).


In addition to listening to community members, Rangers also inform community

members on the initiatives and long-term management of the YUS CA. Although landowners in

the YUS region may not have heard of the word “biodiversity”, they understand the important

roles that wildlife and forest resources have for their livelihoods. The concept of conservation is

also not entirely new to the people who traditionally have land outside their villages declared off-

limits, or “Tambu” areas. These certain areas are either sacred places or homes of the spirits (D.

Okena, personal communication, October 15, 2015). Rangers continue to educate community

members on the benefits of conservation and how the YUS Conservation Area works. Their

presence has people asking questions about the Conservation Area, such as what is the number of

animals in the area? Is the number of animals increasing or decreasing? And questions about the

laws and policies of YUS CA (personal communication, 2015).

Their outreach has even sparked interest among some community members wanting to

become a YUS Ranger. However, it is uncertain if the interest from community members is

driven by the additional income, or to take a leadership role in conservation (D. Okena, personal

communication, October 15, 2015). Either way, the involvement of landowners in the decision-

making of the YUS CA management is important to the Ranger program’s success.


DISCUSSION

The success of the YUS Ranger program can be determined by the extent to which it achieves

various human, financial and infrastructure inputs (Figure 1) that are aligned with the YUS

Landscape Plan. After review, the YUS Ranger program has areas of successes, challenges and

potential areas for growth in managing the YUS CA.

Strengths of the YUS Ranger Program include:

Hiring of local landowners as Rangers and appointing local Conservation Officers:

With the customary land tenure system in Papua New Guinea, involving landowners in

decision-making and management is vital to ensuring the sustainability of the program.

Local Rangers also allow for streamlining communication between all stakeholders

involved in the YUS CA management. In addition, the hiring of indigenous rangers has

created jobs in the YUS area and provides another source of income for some families in

the area.

Protection and maintenance of YUS CA: In general, community members

acknowledge that the YUS Ranger Program is helping to ensure the resources and

wildlife are being protected.

Transfer of skills and knowledge: The program integrates traditional knowledge and

skills with more western scientific practices. Through training, YUS Rangers learn data

collection skills, plant identification and how to monitor fauna, while utilizing their own

understanding of the rainforest and its distinct features for tracking and mapping

purposes. The Rangers have also gained knowledge on the laws and policies of YUS

CA, and acquired the skills to listen to community members on their feelings regarding


YUS CA. There are valuable opportunities for YUS Rangers to share their knowledge

with community members and the Junior Ranger Program aims to engage young people

in conservation. Although the Junior Ranger Program is very new and not yet applied

throughout YUS, it is a start to involving community members in the management of

YUS.

A strong commitment to communication and skill development: The program as a

whole has a strong commitment to ensure Rangers, Conservation Officers, TKCP staff

and CAMC members communicate. Through monthly check-ins and twice-yearly

meetings there are various levels of engagement in the program. Also, these meetings

hold the opportunity for further advancement in job related skills.

Challenges and Areas of Growth of the YUS Ranger Program include:

Fluctuating attendance levels: There is difficulty in getting all YUS Rangers to attend

meetings at least once a year. Reason for this may be family matters or the long distances

it takes for some Rangers who live far from the meeting destination (D. Okena, personal

communication, October 20th, 2015).

Monitoring and quality of data collection: The ability to effectively measure the level

of success of activities delivered on the ground in achieving targets and outcomes

outlined in annual plans remains a key challenge. Although specific monitoring activities

are being completed, there is inconsistent collection and analysis of the data being

generated from these activities. Rangers do not have access to a computer, and rely on

the monthly meetings with Coordination Officers to type and review their data. These

Officers are beginners with using computers, compounded by the lack of internet


connection, so data can be difficult to obtain from them (D. Okena, personal

communication, October 20th, 2015).

There is a plan to train YUS Rangers in using new methods of data collection that

would be more efficient. TKCP plans to use the Spatial Monitoring and Reporting Tool

(SMART) monitoring tool to collect data more effectively using field computer devices.

However, cameras are currently the most requested item from Rangers because they can

show proof of violations and take photos of wildlife. In addition, there has been feedback

from Rangers in wanting to conduct a 14-day patrol at least once a year for more

effective management of the YUS CA (D. Okena, personal communication, October 20th,

2015).

Information Management Systems: Data are currently stored in files in the Lae office

and are handled by one individual, the Research and Monitoring Coordinator. Access to

an easy-to-use information management system would allow others to continually review

data. Also the reports by rangers on infractions are filed, however, there is no tracking

system in place to review the results or outcomes of the violation after it has gone

through the legal system. An established management system or developed software to

track infractions would streamline information and provide a source to ensure that all

infractions are handled according to the bylaws of the protected area.

Training and Protocol Development: The latest version of a YUS Ranger training

manual is from 2012, and an updated manual would align more work plans and provide

Rangers guidance while on patrol. Two Rangers responded that training needs

improvement and they would like more training in areas of data collection, environmental

policies of PNG and landowner rights, learn more about the subject of environmental


conservation and training in specialized equipment including computer skills (personal

communication, 2015). In addition to training in the following areas, there are

opportunities for further training in areas such as wildfire management, weed control,

informational session on land policy and bylaws, and cross-training between different

ranger groups globally. Training can also incorporate academic “field trips” with

students and rangers, teaching them about conservation initiatives within PNG and

globally.

Networking and Growth: As the YUS Ranger Program continues to evolve and

expand, there will be a need for a TKCP employee dedicated only to the monitoring and

assistance of Rangers. Currently, the Research and Monitoring Coordinator oversees

several departments and cannot be involved with the Rangers as much as desired (D.

Okena, personal communication, October 20th, 2015). With a dedicated employee

overseeing the YUS Rangers, there can be potential for more mentorship and career

development. Also, having greater exposure to a global network will provide support to

the Ranger Program in YUS. It is recommended to have YUS Ranger Program become a

member of the International Ranger Federation (IRF). As a member, the YUS Ranger

Program will become part of the world family of rangers sharing knowledge, ideas,

experiences and resources. Further, as a member of a global ranger network there is

opportunities to attend international workshops on conservation and present at a World

Ranger Congress, a triannual event held by IRF.

By identifying the successes, challenges and areas of growth for the YUS Ranger Program, it is

hoped that some new areas for development and management are uncovered. Also, the review is

a resource to ensuring “best management practices” are implemented for the program and its


sustainability for future growth. Future growth entails both within the YUS Ranger Program and

scaling up ranger programs across PNG. The CEPA-PNG can adopt key inputs from the YUS

Ranger Program and reform aspects of the program to fit the management objectives of each

protected area.


CONCLUSION

A focus of any conservation program should be the integration of environmental, economic and

cultural outcomes for the territory or country. By integrating these outcomes it will create

opportunities for all stakeholders to become involved in the management of protected areas and

effectively develop cultural and ecological understanding of the landscape, empower local

communities and provide on-ground environmental management. Under a defined management

plan, indigenous rangers can carry-out their role as stewards for the environment. Although

ranger’s role and responsibilities may differ around the world, they are fundamental in

implementing ecological regulations, educating the public and safeguarding species and natural

resources.

Recommended Research

There is a growing paradigm shift of indigenous land management and new tools are being

developed to assist in ensuring the sustainable management of these protected areas. This study

provides an overall review of indigenous rangers as stewards of the land, and more specifically

the YUS Ranger Program. Future studies can steam from this research and continue to review

community’s perception of rangers and changes that may occur. In addition, a more in-depth

survey can be conducted with opinions and views from the community members of YUS

regarding the role of YUS Rangers.

Left to right: YUS Conservation Area rangers, YUS landscape, Marine ranger in the field (Photos by: Daniel

Okena and Lisa Dabek, 2014)


REFERENCES

Agrawal, A. and Gibson, C. (1999). Enchantment and disenchantment: The role of community in

natural resource conservation. World Development; 27, 4, pp. 629-649. Retrieved from

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.335.2398&rep=rep1&type=pdf

Aziz, M. (n.d.). Co-management of protected areas without local knowledge and participation: A

case study of Lawachara National Park. Retrieved from

http://www.eastwestcenter.org/fileadmin/resources/publications/PDF/connectingcommun

ities09lawachara.pdf

Beckford, C., Jacobs, C., William, N., Nahdee, R. (2010). Aboriginal environmental wisdom,

stewardship, and sustainability: lessons from the Walpole Island first nations, Ontario,

Canada. The Journal of Environmental Education. Taylor & Francis Group, LLC. 41; 4;

pp.239-248.

Brockington, D., Duffy, R., and Igoe, J. (2010). Nature Unbound; Conservation, capitalism and

the future of protected areas. London, Earthscan.

Carey, C., Dudley, N., and Stolton, S. (2000). Squandering Paradise? The importance and

vulnerability of the world’s protected areas. World Wildlife Fund for Nature –

International. Gland, Switzerland.

Central Land Council. (n.d.). CLC Ranger Program. Retrieved from

http://www.clc.org.au/articles/info/clc-rangers1.

Chape S, Spalding M. and Jenkins M. (2008). The world's protected areas: Status, values and

prospects in the 21st century. UNEP World Conservation Monitoring Centre and

University of California Press.

Chape S., Harrison, J. Spalding, M., Lysenko, I. (2005). Measuring the extent and effectiveness

of protected areas as an indicator for meeting global biodiversity targets. The Royal

Society Publishing: Biological Sciences. 10, 1098, pp. 1-22.

Colchester, M. (2004). Conservation policy and indigenous peoples. Cultural Survival. Retrieved

from http://www.culturalsurvival.org/publications/cultural-survival-

quarterly/none/conservation-policy-and-indigenous-peoples.

Corrigan, C., and Hay-Edie, T. (2013). A toolkit to support conservation by indigenous peoples

and local communities: building capacity and sharing knowledge for indigenous peoples

and community conserved territories and area (ICCAs). UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge, UK.

Diegues, A. (1998). The myth of untamed nature in the Brazilian rainforest. NUPAUB, Research

Center on Human Population and Wetlands. Retrieved from

http://www.ethnographic.org/images/myth.pdf.

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.335.2398&rep=rep1&type=pdf

http://www.eastwestcenter.org/fileadmin/resources/publications/PDF/connectingcommunities09lawachara.pdf

http://www.eastwestcenter.org/fileadmin/resources/publications/PDF/connectingcommunities09lawachara.pdf

http://www.clc.org.au/articles/info/clc-rangers1

http://www.culturalsurvival.org/publications/cultural-survival-quarterly/none/conservation-policy-and-indigenous-peoples

http://www.culturalsurvival.org/publications/cultural-survival-quarterly/none/conservation-policy-and-indigenous-peoples

http://www.ethnographic.org/images/myth.pdf


Dowie, M. (2009). Conservation refugees, the hundred-year conflict between global

conservation and native peoples. Cambridge, MIT Pres.

Fernández-Baca, J.C. and Martin, A.S. (2007). Indigenous Peoples and Protected Areas

Management. Innovations in Conservation Series, Parks in Peril Program. Arlington, VA,

USA: The Nature Conservancy, pp. 1-20. Retrieved from

https://www.cbd.int/doc/pa/tools/Indigenous%20peoples%20and%20protected%20areas

%20management.pdf.

Ghimire, K., Pimbert, M. (1997). Social Change and Conservation. London: Earthscan

Publishing.

Gorman, J., and Vemuri, S. (April, 2012). A new era of empowerment in caring for country?

ECOS Magazine. Retrieved from http://www.ecosmagazine.com/print/EC12245.htm.

Horwich, R. (2005). A landowner’s handbook to relevant environmental law in Papua New

Guinea. Community Conservation; pp. 34-71.

The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN). (1996). IUCN World Parks

Congress 2014; a strategy of innovative approaches and recommendations for in the next

decade. Gland: IUCN. Retrieved from http://worldparkscongress.org/.

Independent State of Papua New Guinea. (2014). Papua New Guinea policy on protected areas.

Conservation & Environment Protection Authority. Retrieved from

http://www.pg.undp.org/content/papua_new_guinea/en/home/library/envrionment-and-

energy-/papua-new-guinea-policy-on-protected-areas-.html.

International Ranger Federation (IRF). (2013). Retrieved from

http://www.internationalrangers.org/toolkit/world-register-of-field-centres/.

Jonas, H., Kothari, A., and Shrumm, H. (2012). Legal and Institutional Aspects of Recognizing

and Supporting Conservation by Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities: An

analysis of international law, national legislation, judgements, and institutions as they

interrelate with territories and areas conserved by Indigenous peoples and local

communities. Natural Justice and Kalpavriksh: India. Retrieved from

http://www.iccaconsortium.org/wp-

content/uploads/images/stories/Database/legalreviewspdfs/synthesis_lr_report_engl.pdf.

Lawrence, D. (1996). Managing parks/ managing ‘country’: Joint management of aboriginal

owned protected areas in Australia. Parliament of Australia. Retrieved from

http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Li

brary/pubs/rp/RP9697/97rp2.

May, K. (2010). Indigenous cultural and natural resource management and the emerging role of

the Working on Country program. The Australian National University, 65, pp. 1-18.

https://www.cbd.int/doc/pa/tools/Indigenous%20peoples%20and%20protected%20areas%20management.pdf

https://www.cbd.int/doc/pa/tools/Indigenous%20peoples%20and%20protected%20areas%20management.pdf

http://www.ecosmagazine.com/print/EC12245.htm

http://worldparkscongress.org/

http://www.pg.undp.org/content/papua_new_guinea/en/home/library/envrionment-and-energy-/papua-new-guinea-policy-on-protected-areas-.html

http://www.pg.undp.org/content/papua_new_guinea/en/home/library/envrionment-and-energy-/papua-new-guinea-policy-on-protected-areas-.html

http://www.internationalrangers.org/toolkit/world-register-of-field-centres/

http://www.iccaconsortium.org/wp-content/uploads/images/stories/Database/legalreviewspdfs/synthesis_lr_report_engl.pdf

http://www.iccaconsortium.org/wp-content/uploads/images/stories/Database/legalreviewspdfs/synthesis_lr_report_engl.pdf

http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/RP9697/97rp2

http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/RP9697/97rp2


Retrieved from

http://caepr.anu.edu.au/sites/default/files/Publications/WP/CAEPRWP65.pdf.

Muller, J. (2008). Indigenous payment for environmental service (PES) opportunities in the

Norther Territory: negotiating with customs. Australian Geographer. 39; 2; pp. 149-170.

National Parks Worldwide. (n.d.). Nature Worldwide on Papua New Guinea. Retrieved from

http://www.nationalparks-worldwide.info/papua_new_guinea.htm

Lindenmayer, D., Burns, E., Thurgate, N., Lowe, A. (2014). Biodiversity and environmental

change: Monitoring, challenges and direction. Australia: CSIRO Publishing.

Kothari, A., Corrigan, C., Jonas, H., Neumann, A., and Shrumm, H. (2012). Recognizing and

Supporting Territories and Areas Conserved By Indigenous Peoples and Local

Communities: Global Overview and National Case Studies. Secretariat of the

Convention on Biological Diversity, ICCA Consortium, Kalpavriksh, and Natural Justice,

Montreal, Canada. Technical Series no. 64, pp. 1-160. Retrieved from

https://www.cbd.int/doc/publications/cbd-ts-64-en.pdf.

Sobrevila, C. (May, 2008). The role of indigenous peoples in biodiversity conservation; the

natural but often forgotten partners. The International Bank for Reconstruction and

Development; pp. 1-84.

Stevens, S. (1997). Conservation through cultural survival; Indigenous peoples and protected

areas. Washington D.C., Island Press.

Stolton, S. and Dudley, N. (1999). Partnerships for protection; new strategies for planning and

management for protected areas. WWF-International and International Union for

Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources. Earthscan Publications Ltd.

Taylor, P. (2015). Valuing people in the landscape: re-thinking conservation approaches. USDA

Forest Service Proceedings, pp. 187-194. Retrieved from

http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs/rmrs_p074/rmrs_p074_187_194.pdf.

TKCP. (2012). YUS Landscape Pan 2013-2015. Tree Kangaroo Conservation Program; pp. 1-

108. Retrieved from https://www.zoo.org/document.doc?id=904.

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS). (2014). Virunga National Park. Retrieved from

https://www.fws.gov/international/pdf/factsheet-virunga.pdf.

World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF). (1996). WWF Statement of principles: indigenous peoples

and conservation. Gland, Switzerland: WWF. Retrieved from

http://wwf.panda.org/what_we_do/how_we_work/partnerships/indigenous_people2222/.

World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF). (n.d.). Back a Ranger. Retrieved from

http://www.worldwildlife.org/stories/back-a-ranger.

http://caepr.anu.edu.au/sites/default/files/Publications/WP/CAEPRWP65.pdf

http://www.nationalparks-worldwide.info/papua_new_guinea.htm

https://www.cbd.int/doc/publications/cbd-ts-64-en.pdf

http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs/rmrs_p074/rmrs_p074_187_194.pdf

https://www.zoo.org/document.doc?id=904

https://www.fws.gov/international/pdf/factsheet-virunga.pdf

http://wwf.panda.org/what_we_do/how_we_work/partnerships/indigenous_people2222/

http://www.worldwildlife.org/stories/back-a-ranger


APPENDIX A

Interview with Daniel Okena, Research and Monitoring Coordinator of TKCP

Date: October 20th, 2015

Background

Thank you for the opportunity for me to interview you. My research study explores the growing

field of indigenous rangers as stewards of the environment and their roles in managing protected

areas. I am conducting a case study of the YUS Conservation Area Ranger Program to answer

the following research questions:

How much authority do rangers have?

How do landowners in Papua New Guinea view the YUS rangers?

This interview is intended for me to learn from you the role rangers play in conservation,

ranger’s impact for managing protected areas within Papua New Guinea, and understand more

the relationship between the communities and rangers.

Rangers in PNG:

1. Can you tell me how you became interested in environmental/wildlife research and

monitoring?

A. “Interested in the environment and biology”.

Notes: went on to work for the Research Conservation Foundation in PNG, attended

university for Biology. Daniel has been in the role overseeing the Rangers and

Conservation Officers for one year now, so it’s all new to him too. He has never been in

charge of people, and likes the work.

2. What role do you see rangers playing in conservation?

A. “A leadership role”.

Notes: They are the connectors to ensuring that the protection works or does not work,

Rangers communicate with the people, and they record data and findings when they walk

their zone

3. How do the YUS Conservation Area Rangers view their role in conservation?

A. “The rangers see themselves contributing to conservation. And we involve locals in

the decision making”.

4. From your perspective, what are the benefits of having rangers in the YUS Conservation

Area? In your opinion, how valuable is their role?

A. “Yes, they are beneficial in three ways.

1. Ensure the effectiveness of conservation


2. Looking out for violations

3. Reaching out to the communities

5. There are several supporters who state indigenous people and communities know their land,

and are fundamental to wildlife science and conservation. Can you provide specific

examples of how such indigenous knowledge has benefited wildlife science and conservation

in PNG?

A. “There are “tabu” areas where people believe if they go in there bad things will

happen to them. People don’t touch these areas and there is strong beliefs about these

areas. Based on that expanding [conservation] boundaries”.

“People have knowledge of tree kangaroos. And knowledge on hunting. Also, plants

they feed on applies to science”.

Notes: There is a strong oral history and the bond between clans is strong. In the

YUS area there are seven different languages and then many dialects as well. There

are different ways to say tree kangaroo. TKCP involves people in the making of laws.

“It would not work without getting to know what the people want”.

6. From your observations, what are some of the biggest differences in how locals view their

resources compared to scientists or government entities that come into the area?

A. “Locals view wildlife as another source of protein. They take things for granted.

Some people listen to conserve resources and say they are seeing changes taking

place with animals coming out of the YUS area that they have not seen for a while.”

“Once they see results they start to understand, but telling them about conservation

and its benefits is hard without the results”.

7. As the research and monitoring coordinator, what have been some of the greatest challenges

so far in coordinating the ranger program?

A. “Getting all rangers to attend meetings at least once a year. They may have other

things to attend to or the travel time takes couple days, hours for them”

“Right now conservation officers are not well versed with computers so getting data

from them is difficult”.

Notes: Offer workshops or teaching session to build on the knowledge of conservation

officers. Conservation officers are supposed to type up the data in the field before

sending to Daniel

8. In your opinion, what have been the greatest successes so far in implementing the ranger

program?

A. “Overall, on how a conservation area works and strives”

“Have been able to work with rangers, and he treats them like colleagues and not

their boss”


Notes: Daniel has been told he is a good manager, respected by his colleagues and

people say there has been good change since he came onboard. People are

contributing more to the discussion. Yes, they are excited to be a part of a group.

Community:

9. Can you please provide an example (or several examples) of feedback from YUS

communities about conservation area management?

A. “Oh this is a good question. Well, good and bad, we will start with good. Good,

people say rangers are helping wildlife and the area”.

“Also, additional income. Rangers can benefit direct family or extended family.

Very common to help extended family as our culture is very close.”

“The not so good things people say, are rangers go into their land.” – People don’t

like intruders

10. What (if any) are some questions community members ask the YUS Rangers? From your

perspective, are rangers viewed as a resource for landowners to ask questions about

environmental law in PNG?

A. “They share the importance of conservation, but not telling people about their

jobs. And no don’t really tell people about environmental law in PNG”

Notes: There is some interests among community members to become a ranger,

possibly just for the additional income, but not sure what the reason may be exactly.

11. Can you please explain to me the structure of the ranger program?

A. “7 days every month the rangers walk their land zone the area around where they

are located, it’s not a transect”.

- Two times every year a training session is held with all rangers and a separate

meeting is held with Conservation officers twice a year in Lae.

- Rangers report to conservation officers

- These conservation officers offer a holistic approach, a broader approach to

rangers as they oversee more than rangers but a zone. They are the ones equipped

with a laptop in offices and they report to Daniel. They help write up the findings

from the rangers.

- 2-way radio system for communication and mobile phone coverage in the YUS

area

- “Communities choose rangers, but TKCP does have a list of qualifications - need

to be physically fit, be able to travel, and have some form of literacy.”

12. How are violations, issues, feedback, etc. from the community reported?

A. “Violations are reported to the landowner and the landowner brings it to the

village court.”


Notes: The village court implements the bylaws set up by the national government

and any changes are based on the bylaws.

Me: What happens if the landowner commits the violation who reports then?

A: “Well, it’s complicated. Okay, not one landowner usually owns the land, usually a

clan owns the land.”

Notes: A ranger’s job is to collect/ log on violations, but not keeping up with results

13. How often do violations occur within YUS? What types of violations are most common?

N/A

14. In your opinion, what would be the reason for why people don’t report a violation?

A. “Villagers can go either way, some people report violations other don’t want to

report friends. Very close community as the clans are from the same ancestors”.

“There is no longer “chiefs” clans are more democratic now with everyone

participating”.

15. How are the YUS Rangers trained to handle issues in their community?

A. “Rangers are not trained to handle issues. They represent TKCP and we don’t

want them involved in issues, just report the violations”.

Notes: The government would TKCP to enforce the law through rangers, but TKCP is

an NGO and wants to build on that relationship with people. Benefits about

government though is they have consistent funding and can do some things to the

program that we cannot do.

The Future of Rangers in PNG:

16. What do you see as important steps to develop a sustainable ranger program for future

generations?

A. “Looking to expand the program and adding five more rangers by next year – one

marine ranger and four terrestrial rangers”

“Join an international organization like the International Ranger Federation, but I

want to clean up some small things of how we run before applying to the

organization because I want us to be represented well.”

Individual rangers for each land, but because of budget cannot do now and only

have the resources for one ranger and several lands - “zones”.

Secure good funding, long-term funding


Looking at a junior ranger program - the education coordinator is working on this

and trying to incorporate into their long-term plan. Juniors and youths from the

YUS area to join.

17. What areas would you like more training in, to help you in leading the YUS Ranger

program?

A. “I want to integrate more with the rangers, meet with them more so I can directly

talk with them.”

“I attended a Land Council meeting in Australia, which I shared with the rangers,

and the meeting I just came back from I will share with the rangers. I learned so

much.”

Notes: Get rangers more familiar with what we are doing, this may involve more

meetings if possible or other forms of communication

18. What areas would you like more training in for the rangers?

N/A

19. In your opinion, how do you see the ranger program growing?

A. “In addition to the responses in 16, set-up a system where the ranger program can

look at files of local court systems. Right now, ranger collect data and report on

violations, but don’t have a system in place to track the result or outcome”.

Continue to have the rangers help the mapping officers map boundaries. The people of PNG

have a very oral history so boundaries are just verbal and they know their land by points (i.e.

river, tree, mountain) so boundaries can be messed-up.

Set-up the SMART monitoring tool – transition starting next year to use which will help with

data collection

It would be good to have another individual who just does rangers, as Daniel is spread thin

with his research, monitoring, management, and rangers. However, there needs to more of a

budget for another “him”.

Have a good grant from GEF to get things going.

Livelihoods conservation – coffee, which is something TKCP can track and report back to

donors for more funding.

20. Is the ranger program something PNG Conservation and Environment Protection Authority

will embed into their Environmental Policy Plan?

A. “Yes, the government is looking to adopt policies that the YUS conservation area

is doing”.


21. Do you think more walking of the zones per month are needed to ensure proper

management?

A. “Next year lots of changes, thinking of doing a 14 day walk”.

“Ecological monitoring is done every 5 years – redesigned and discussing with

lots of scientists”

22. What tools (if any) would better equip the rangers in the field?

A. “Need tents and the main thing asked for is cameras”.

Notes: Received a donation from government for safety boots as gum boots just don’t

work. In the field they go out with water proof paper, bags, raincoats and GPS

tracking device.


APPENDIX B

Survey conducted with YUS Conservation Area Rangers.

Purpose of this survey:

To understand the role you play as a ranger in PNG, how you view the role as a ranger, what you

consider to be benefit of being a ranger, and the challenges you face as a ranger. All surveys will

be anonymous and confidential, unless you choose to have your name included (see bottom of

survey). Thank you very much!

Facilitators Guide:

- Please have each ranger fill out the survey individually. They can choose to remain

anonymous or not.

- The survey can be worked on at the same time and the questions can be discussed as a

group or with each other to understand the questions.

- Please have them answer about their own communities’ perspectives and not all

communities in the YUS area.

- For all questions please have them mark an X to which applies. More than one answer is

okay to mark off.

- If they put an X next to “other” please have them explain.

- Responses to open-ended questions in the survey can be sentences or bullet points.

Survey Questions:

1. Why did you become a ranger in YUS CA?

____ Interested to learn new skills

____ A new job

____ Additional income

____ People in your community said you should

____ Other. Please explain:

2. What were your expectations of the job as a ranger before you started? Please explain.

3How do you view your job as a ranger?

____ Working hard at a job, nothing else

____ Protecting the resources within the YUS Conservation Area for future generations

____ Protecting the animals within the YUS Conservation Area

____ Still trying to understand the work

____ Think rangers are not necessary to protect or manage the area


3. How would you rate the training of the TKCP ranger program? Please only select one

answer.

____ Unsatisfactory

____ Okay

____ Good


____ Excellent

4. What areas would you like more training in?

____ How to collect data (i.e. what animals to write down that I see, what I need to be looking

for when I am collecting data, what kind of notes to take, etc.)

____ Want to learn more on the environmental policies of PNG and landowner rights

____ Want to learn more about conservation land mapping

____ Want to learn more on the broad subject of “environmental conservation”

____ Want training in specialized equipment (e.g. gear that may be used by visiting researchers –

climbing gear, mist nets, etc.)

____ Not interested in more training

____ Other. Please explain.

5. What have you learned since becoming a ranger in the YUS Conservation Area?

____ How to identify flora and fauna

____ How to record data for ecological monitoring

____ The laws and policies of the YUS Conservation Area

____ How the community feels about conservation area management


6. Are people in your community interested to learn about the work you do as a ranger?

____ Yes, all the time people ask about my work

____ Sometimes people ask about my work

____ Only my close family members ask about my work

____ No one asks about my work


7. If people ask about your work as a ranger, what is an example(s) of topics or questions they

ask you?

8. When walking transects in the forest, please indicate the challenges you may have?

____ Identifying flora and fauna

____ Recording breaches of conservation area rules

____ Rough terrain and can’t walk the fixed monitoring transect

____ Confronting the community or landowner that a breach has been found of the conservation

area policies

____ No challenges


9. When walking transects in the forest, please indicate the successes you may have?

____ Identifying flora and fauna

____ Recording breaches of conservation area rules

____ Walking the fixed monitoring transect

____ Confronting the community or landowner that a breach has been found of the conservation

area policies

____ No successes, still learning too much about the job



10. Please list the tools or resources you bring with you when you walk the transects:

11. Please describe how you feel about being a ranger?

12. How would you rate, overall, how the community feels about conservation area

management? Please only select one answer.

____ Unsatisfactory

____ Okay

____ Good

____ Excellent

13. How do you think the community views your job as a ranger?

____ Only doing a job and nothing else

____ Protecting the resources within the YUS Conservation Area for future generations

____ Protecting the animals within the YUS Conservation Area

____ Don’t understand the work

____ Think rangers are not necessary to protect or manage the area


14. Can you please provide an example (or several examples) of feedback from your community

about conservation area management?

15. Do people in your community come to you about issues relating to conservation area

management? (i.e. share with you their feedback, tell you if an issue is occurring, etc.).

Please only select one answer.

____ Yes, all the time

____ Depends on the issue

____ Only if I approach them about the issue

____ No never

16. If someone approaches you about an issues, what is their reason(s) for doing so?

____ Want the issue resolved and need your help

____ Want to report the issue so there is success in managing the conservation area

____ Just want to tell someone about the issue, but want no action taken


17. If someone does not approach you about an issue, what is their reason(s) for not doing so?

____ Don’t think there is an issue to be reported

____ Don’t want to report someone else in the community

____ Don’t think anyone can help resolve the issue

____ Don’t know who to go to

____ Other. Please explain

18. Please share what the best method is to solving an issue in your community:

____ Reporting the issue to your conservation officer right away


____ Taking care of the issue yourself, then reporting, at a later time, to the conservation officer

____ Talking with everyone in the community about the issue and coming to an agreement on

best method to solve the issue

____ Depends on the situation, but always report to the conservation officer about the issue


19. Do you think longer patrols, than the 7 days currently a month, are needed to successful

monitor your zone?

____ Yes, at least 10 days

____ Yes, at least 14 days

____ Yes, at least 20 days, but every other month

____ No, 7 days a month are okay

____ No, 7 days a month + two times a year for 14 day patrols

___ _Other. Please explain:

20. If yes to longer patrols are needed, what benefits do you think will come from conducting

longer patrols?

21. Overall, is the ranger program meeting your expectations? Please only select one answer.

____ Yes, this is what I thought the job was going to be

____ Yes, even exceeding my expectations

____ A couple aspects of the job have met my expectations, but not all

____ No, my expectations have not been met

If you have any additional comments or information you would like to share please add below:

Interviewee Name (optional): __________________________

Documents

Indigenous Rangers as Stewards for the Environment; A Case Study of the YUS Conservation Area in Papua New Guinea