EEPA Report June09

8/8/2019 EEPA Report June09

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/eepa-report-june09 1/36

Participation, conservation and livelihoods Evaluating the effectiveness of participatory approaches in protected areas

(EEPA)

Synthesis report

(June 30 2009)

IHEID (GREG)

Institut de recherche pour le développementNCCR North-SouthUNESCO (MAB, CPM)

World Conservation Union (IUCN-Sur, WCPA)

With the support of

Geneva International Academic network (GIAN) –

[Now: Swiss Network for International Studies (SNIS)]

QuickTime™ et undécompres s eur

s ont requis pour vis ionner cette image.



Project Coordinator: Marc Hufty Professor, IHEID20 Rothschild, 1211 Geneva 21, SwitzerlandTel: +4122 908 4520, Fax: +4122 908 [email protected]

Partners: Marc Hockings Vice-Chair Science and Management of Protected Areas, WCPA-IUCNUniversity of Queensland, Gatton Campus, School of Natural andRural Systems Management LawsQueensland 4343, AustraliaTel: +617 54601140, Fax: +617 [email protected]

Gonzalo Oviedo

Senior Social advisor, IUCN28, rue Mauverney, 1196 Gland, Switzerland

Tel: +4122 999-0287, Fax: +4122 999 [email protected]

Catherine AubertinDirectrice de recherche, IRD-Orléans.Pôle Politiques de l’environnementCentre IRD, 5 rue du Carbonne, 45072 Orléans cedex 2, FranceTel: +33 238499532, Fax: +33 [email protected]

Meriem Bouamrane

Programme specialistUNESCO, Division of ecological and earth sciences

Man and the Biosphere (MAB) Programme1, rue Miollis, Paris 75732, Cedex 15, FranceTel: +33 1 45 68 40 67 ; Fax: +33 1 45 68 58 [email protected]

Responsible for the report:

Sandra Gagnon

Research Assistant, IHEID20 Rothschild, 1211 Geneva 21, SwitzerlandTel: +4122 908 4520, Fax: +4122 906 [email protected]

Thematic area: Sustainable Development

Funds obtained from GIAN: CHF 135,000

Estimation of co-financing: CHF 110,000

Project duration and start date: 12 months, commencing November 1st, 2006

Extension to October 1st 2008

GIAN (SNIS) funds managed by: IUED (IHEID)



Index

Project Summary

I. Introduction

II. Objectives and Methodology

III. Comparison Participation, Conservation and Livelihoods

IV. Interpretation and Conclusion

References



Project Summary

Protected areas are the most concrete instrument the international community has to offer for nature conservation. Their number has increased rapidly over the past few decades to over

108,000 and land protected areas cover more than 12% of the Earth’s emerged lands. Thequestion of their ecological and social sustainability is therefore one of the main challengesto global environmental governance today.

Historically, most protected areas were created under the assumption that, for conservationto be successful, humans had to be excluded from these areas. Many studies havepresented evidence that this approach was ineffective. Starting in the 1970s, a new approachadvocated local participation in the governance and management of protected areas. It isnow widely believed that conservation and human livelihoods are not necessarilyincompatible, and that conservation may be best achieved if local participation in protectedareas’ governance is guaranteed.

But the ‘participation paradigm’ is under challenge. Some conservation biologists andresearchers are questioning ‘people-centred’ governance models. A major problem is thatthere is no systematic and evidence-based study that could demonstrate that participatoryapproaches actually achieve better conservation, and at the same time improve people’slivelihoods, as it is commonly advocated.

This project, developed jointly by the World Conservation Union (IUCN), the GraduateInstitute for Development Studies (IUED), the Institut de recherche pour le développement(IRD), and the UNESCO Man and Biosphere programme (MAB), aimed mainly at developinga methodology to evaluate the effectiveness of participatory and co-managementapproaches in protected areas governanceand testing it in pilot protected areas.

The project built on the partners’ experiences to develop an assessment methodology for investigating the meaning and impacts of the changes in protected areas’ governance andmanagement brought about by the introduction of participatory approaches. Empirical test of this methodology was carried out in specific sites in Latin America. The methodology alloweddoing correlation between the effectiveness of participatory approaches, in relation withconservation objectives (conservation of ecosystems, species and natural resources) andsocial objectives (livelihood and governance).

Few cases can demonstrate the establishment of efficient participatory processes andinstitutions, this is mainly due to strong path dependencies situation. Governance processes,with their loads of inequities and asymmetric power in decision-making, are difficult tochange in daily practice, even if the official discourse is in line with the new participatoryparadigm. As demonstrated in the case studies, this hold true for some of them, but does notexplain all the cases that appear when it comes to protected area’s governance. In these

cases we have focused on actors’ roles, interests, discourses, practices, perceptions, levelsof influence and strategic interactions in decision-making.

Finally, it was observed that participation could contribute in achieving livelihood andconservation objectives in the self-mobilisation and functional levels, i.e., when the localactors themselves take the lead, along with NGOs or other civil society partners, to protecttheir environment, livelihoods or way of life. At the opposite, in the older parks, where thelevel of participation was the lowest, some conservation objectives could be achieved, butnot due to participation, and no real livelihoods enhancement could be noted. Therefore, itcan be concluded that participation, taken in its original sense – empowerment of localpeople, mainly through their own will – has proved to reconcile conservation and livelihoodsand taking local people out of marginalisation.



I. Introduction

The fortress model

Standard protected area (PA) approaches that have dominated over the past 150years have tended to see people and nature as disconnected and incompatibleentities, often necessitating the exclusion of human communities from natural areasof interest, prohibiting their use of natural resources. Even if some category of protected areas (e.g. those corresponding to IUCN categories V and VI – IUCN,1994) can accommodate human communities, more attention has been given tothose designed to exclude them as both residents/users and decision-makers(usually corresponding to IUCN categories I, II and III). It is noted that manyprotected areas in the world include human settlement or encompass resources onwhich human are dependant, and that conventional exclusionary approaches havecaused important social costs (Borrini-Feyerabend et al. 2004a).

This conventional approach is exemplified by the first modern parks, the Yosemiteand Yellowstone National Parks, established in the Rocky Mountains of the UnitedStates in 1864 and 1872. Their underlying rationale turned into a long-term model for protected areas worldwide, with considerable influences on nature conservationapproaches until today (Dowie 2009). The often-referred ‘Yellowstone model’ (e.g.Stevens 1997) emphasises the preservation of ‘pristine’ environments in reverencefor nature, human recreation and scientific purposes. Fundamentally based on thenotion of ‘wilderness’, humans were neither accepted to live inside the protectedareas nor allowed to use the area for extractive purposes in order to preserve andmaintain its inherently ‘wild and untouched’ state. However, in many cases local

people (not least in Yosemite and Yellowstone, see Dowie 2009 and Colchester 1994) had been using the areas for hundreds of years, ‘invisible’ to earlyconservationists.

Participation comes in

Later, the idea of local communities participation, aimed at improving conservation,has emerged. As a concept, participation refers to a general idea of inclusion,equality, representativity, legitimacy, ‘voice’ or democracy, and it can be defined as ‘aprocess through which individual or collective actors influence and share control over the decisions and resources that affect them’1. It participated in a general movementtowards the inclusion of those who were concerned (the public) in decision-making,

in association with decentralization in nation-states, new public management ingovernment agencies, accountability in policy-making, or ‘modern governance’(Rhodes 1996).

Historically, the concept came out of a radical critique of domination. For Paulo Freire(1974), participation and consciousness raising would help the dominated freethemselves from their internalization of the dominants’ values, as well as liberatingthe dominants from their own determination. In this somewhat evangelizing andpaternalistic perspective (Rahnema 1992), progressive non-alienated intellectualswould facilitate this liberation through a new form of dialogic interaction. Chambers

1

From the World Bank’s definition of participation in development: ‘a process through which stakeholdersinfluence and share control over development initiatives and the decisions and resources which affect them’(1996: xi).



(1983) popularized the idea in the development field. He pointed out an existing top-down bias in the design of development projects, in favor of the rich, the educated,the urban, the powerful and the man. It was to be compensated by a newmethodology (Participatory Rural Appraisal) where special attention was given to theneeds of usually voiceless social categories through their participation in research

and in the design of development projects.Participation was a fundamental innovation. Faced with the failure of numerous localdevelopment projects, mainstream development organizations admitted the difficultyof implementing top-down strategies excluding local people from the design andimplementation of development projects, and adopted the participatory approach. Itbecame a part of the standard tools of international organizations, bilateralcooperation and NGOs. It was very attractive. On one side the inclusion of localactors (labeled stakeholders) facilitated a better knowledge of local reality, theownership of development projects and the cooperation of grassroots organizations.On the other side, by showing sensitivity to people’s real problems, it gave a new

legitimacy to development projects and it allowed reconciliation with radical critique(Rahnema 1992).

Participation had the same good fortune in environmental governance as indevelopment. It has become a central concept in the sustainable development2 debate, especially since the 1992 Rio Declaration. Various multilateral environmentalagreements explicitly refer to participation (Convention on Biological Diversity,Convention to Combat desertification, Aarhus Convention, etc.).

With its diffusion came a wave of criticisms. For the most radical critics, it had beenlargely ‘co-opted and mainstreamed by governmental and nongovernmentalagencies, part of a new development ‘tyranny’ that betrays the concept’s populist

roots’ (Walker et al. 2007: 423). Despite some successes, it has rarely meant a realtransfer of part of the power to local actors (Pimbert and Pretty 1995; Cooke &Kothari 2001), especially when it comes to indigenous peoples (Chapin 2004). Twoother concepts have been also reconsidered in the same wave: community (Agrawaland Gibson 1999) and empowerment (Walker et al. 2007; Cooke & Kothari 2001).

This reassessment underlines the ambiguity of the participatory approach. It is beingused from at least three different perspectives. For what we could label an ‘idealistic’perspective, it has become an act of faith in development (Cleaver 2001): if we canget the techniques right, we have win-win situations. For an ‘instrumental’perspective, it is mainly a practical mean for defusing opposition to externalinterventions and making projects socially acceptable, for mobilizing people, and for gaining funding or political support. And for a ‘radical perspective’, it is a mean for achieving empowerment and liberation.

Paradigmatic evolution within the conservation field

The first international programme to integrate participation in an explicit fashion wasthe Man and Biosphere Programme (MAB) and its Biosphere Reserves (BR). Thefirst MAB sites were established in 1976 with the aim of reconciling conservation anddevelopment, through a zoning system with three main functions: conservation,development and logistical (research and training). This integrative tool has been

2 A ‘development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations tomeet their own needs’ (WCED 1987).



adapted in a variety of socio-cultural contexts with different results and modalities(UNESCO 2003a; 2003b).

Since, there has been growing recognition that, without local involvement,conservation can hardly be successful (Hutton et al., 2005). The need for acommunity approach to protected areas was debated and legitimized at successiveWorld Congresses on National Parks and Protected Areas in 1982, 1992 (McNeely1992; McNeely & Miller 1984) and 2003 (then the World Parks Congress).

One of the most convincing arguments in favour of participation was on one side thatthe involvement of local communities in caring for nature reduces management costsand increases conservation efficiency. The central idea being that if people areinvolved, they are more likely to agree with and support any project or initiative. Onthe other side community participation is seen as a way to ensure that local peoplelivelihoods are considered in decision making, and that their right are respected.

Within the ‘global conservation regime’ (Rodary et al. 2003), the concept is now wellestablished and promoted as a mean for achieving sustainable development. In fact,most of the PAs include participation in their design (Child 2004), and much literaturehas been dedicated to its variations (community conserved areas, community-basedconservation, community wildlife management, collaborative or co-management,community-based natural resource management, state / community co-managementand integrated conservation and development programmes, Barrow & Murphree2001).

The participatory approach under question

But a renewed scepticism soon appeared (Agrawal 1997; Wilshusen et al. 2002;Hutton et al. 2005; Locke and Dearden 2005; Holmes 2007). Critics are pointingseveral issues, which can be summed up in two main streams: (1) from theconservation side, the effectiveness of participatory approaches is put in doubt:conservation is not enhanced by participation, and livelihoods objectives competewith conservation objectives when people increase their access to resources under protection; (2) from the social side, the implementation of participatory approaches isquestioned: participation is seen as an instrument to achieve conservation objectives,often disconnected with local needs. Only a limited degree of participation is allowedto local communities when it comes to the control over key decisions on protectedarea design, management and evaluation, and logically they are not very active inparticipatory schemes.

These critiques raise many questions. Do we have evidence that participatory

approaches are really successful for conservation purposes, as well as for humanwell-being and social equity? What are the specific conditions that allow for suchdiverse objectives to be compatible? What are the driving forces behind actors’performance and roles in participatory management? What are the constraints toprotected areas management in participatory policy contexts?

In analytical terms, participation is considered as a social institution (a coherent set of durable social norms) that is affected by the governance processes regulating theaccess to resources in a protected area. More specifically, whenever the access tosome resource (i.e. water, minerals, forests, land or wild animals) is claimed byactors in competition, various rules, norms and institutions will develop, defining

whose entitled to what, when and on which conditions (Commons 1934). This isequally true when the claims follows conservation objectives, economic productivity



or when it emerges from livelihood’s needs. In other words, these arrangementssimultaneously structure the way in which actors gain or maintain control over resources, and how they can use them for their livelihoods. This process of negotiating arrangements for cooperation and competition, whether formal (codifiedwithin written or customary laws) or informal (non codified and derived from the

practice), is the sense we give to governance processes (Hufty 2007).The introduction of a new norm, such as the participation, modifies the governanceprocess. On the one hand, participation as such theoretically gives voices to allactors. Yet this already affects the way actors interrelate one with another – power relations – and opens up the ground for alliance or coalitions setting. On the other hand, the different actors perceive the norm differently, each holding a differentposition in the local or regional power structure. How actors translate the new normwith respect to their social position influences the extent to which the norm modifiesthe governance process.

The research questions then becomes:

- How is participation integrated within local and regional protected areasgovernance?

- What is the effect of its introduction on the control and access toresources?

- What are the impact of its introduction on the conservation of resourcesand the livelihoods of local people?



II. Objectives and methodology

Goal

This research project aims to contribute to the sustainability of protected areas andthe livelihood security of local communities linked to them, through enhancedcompatibility of conservation and livelihoods objectives.

Objectives

• To develop and test a conceptual and methodological approach for theassessment of the environmental, socio-economic and governance impacts of participatory / co-management approaches in protected areas;

• To assess the effectiveness of participatory / co-management protected areasgovernance regimes both for conservation and local livelihoods in selected protectedareas in developing countries, with a view to testing the methodology and tools andproduce preliminary results;

• To facilitate synergy, collaboration and learning among existing relevantinitiatives and research programs;

• To exchange national experiences among participating teams on bestpractices for effective participatory approaches in management and decision making;

• To disseminate lessons learned and a conceptual and methodologicalproposal for evaluating the effectiveness of participatory protected areas governanceregimes in developing and developed countries.

Methodology

The methodology builds on existing methodologies, as reported in the scientificliterature, and particularly on the experiences of the four project partners and in someof their related ongoing projects: 1) the project ‘Peoples, protected areas and globalchange’ (NCCR-NS) led by IHEID and aimed at comparing livelihood strategies,institutional settings, and participation in 10 protected areas3; 2) the IUCN/WCPAproject on assessing the management effectiveness of protected areas (Hockings etal. 2004) the ‘Action Thématique Interdépartementale (ATI) Aires Protégées’, an IRDprogramme that intend to constitute a network for comparative and prospectiveresearch on protected areas4; 4) the MAB research project on dialogue in the WorldNetwork of Biosphere Reserves, including methodology for comparing the diversity of

contexts and itineraries of selected sites.The methodology developed generates qualitative tools for assessing participation inprotected areas governance and management. It encompasses five main elements:(1) the description of the protected area under study; (2) the description and analysisof its participatory status; (3) the analysis of the influence of participation on theachievements of conservation objectives; (4) the analysis of the influence of

3 See the book: Galvin, M. and Haller, T., (eds). 2008. People, Protected Areas and Global Change:Participatory Conservation in Latin America, Africa, Asia and Europe. Bern : NCCR North-South /Geographica Bernensia

4 See the book: Aubertin, C. et Rodary, E. (éds.) 2008. Aires protégées : espaces durables? Marseille: IRD.



participation on the enhancement of local people livelihoods; (5) and the identificationof correlations5 between participation, conservation and livelihoods.

Description of protected area

Each case study addresses: the genesis and the context of the PA creation (goals

and objectives, the definition and evolution of the boundaries and spaces, statusbefore and after the establishment of the PA), its normative status (legal, formal andinformal), the bio-physical context, the socio-economic context, the external factorsthat affect these contexts, and the actors. Whenever possible, this includes a timedimension.

Participation

What type of participation is to be found in a given PA? What are the formal norms,mechanisms and practices that govern decision-making processes and differentcategories of actors involved (Grid 1)? How can they be described and analysed?When we are referring to ‘practices’, we refer to what is really happening in the field.

That is the actual actors behaviour as opposed to their discourses or what theypretend to be doing, or the discourses.

Data were obtained through field data collection techniques (direct observation andinterviews of stakeholders: community, national and local authorities, NGOs, privatesector, etc.) and consultation of reports, minutes and other written documentation onthe process. Direct observation of interactions took place during the meetings,consultation processes, or any forum where decisions were being taken with respectto the management of the PA. The specific meeting to be observed depended oneach context. The sample dimension (i.e. the number of communities andstakeholders to be interviewed) varied for each case. Since Chambers’ works (1997),we know that, to be realistic, it is important to include a large spectrum of acommunity’s individuals, including ‘big men’ as well as women and marginalisedindividuals.

5 In the sense of causal links.



Grid 1: Participation in the PA

(Based on Stringer et al. 2006; Beuret 2006; Govan 2002; Pretty 1995).

Level of participation

Description /Criteria

Authority and responsibility Practice toobserve

Examples of indicators of practices

Passive Informalarrangements betweengovernment

andcommunitymembers

Top-down, information andcontrol belongs to externalprofessional and governmentmanagers

No room for manoeuvre (legal or other constraints) for local people

Local communitiesare beinginformed of whatis going to happen

or alreadyhappened but theydo not influencethe agenda

Local actors are informed and their preference has no impact on thedecision adoptedMechanisms developed for informing

local people at a specific frequencyLocal actors feel their views are notconsidered

Consultative Semi-formalor formalagreementson access toresources(establishment of someform of communityinstitution)

Driven and controlled bygovernment and external agents(externally defined problems andsolutions)People not able to influence theprocess

Local actors areconsulted, theymight have aninfluence on theagenda, but theyare not involved indecision making

Mechanisms developed for consulting a significant % of localactorsLocal actors are listened but their preference has no impact on thedecision adoptedLocal actors feel their views areconsidered but has low impact ondecision adopted

Functional /seeking

consensus andnegotiation

Negotiatedagreements

betweengovernmentand localcommunities

Form group to meetpredetermined objectives

Development of agreementsUsually done after major project

decision made: initiallydependent on outsiders but maybecome self-dependent (andinvolving communities indecision-making)

Negotiation occur between local

actors, externalagents andgovernmentsSome level of shared decision-making

Concrete cases followed wherelocal actors have space and time to

express their concerns and wherethe agenda is influenced by localactorsDecision-making form wheredifferent views are taken in finaldecision (including local actors)Local actors feel their views areconsidered and has impact ondecision adopted

Interactive/sharingauthority andresponsibility

Joint analysisand actions,and decision-making

Reduced authority of governmentagenciesUse of local institutionsPeople have stake in maintainingor changing structures or practices

Substantialcommunityrepresentation onmanagementboardsUses of participatory

approaches

Concrete cases followed wherelocal actors take decisions, haveauthority and responsibility, andinfluence the agendaLocal actors feel their views aresignificant in decision adopted

Self-mobilization/co-management/transferringauthority

Communitymanagedareas

Decision-making primarily bycommunity institutions andcommunityRepresentation of governmentagencies depends on decisionsby communitiesCommitment to activepartnership

Local actors takedecisionsindependent of externalinstitutions

Local and resident population arethe first to raise area managementissues (that lead to PA)Local and resident communitieshave the complete authority andresponsibility for the areaLocal actors feel their views aredecisive in decision adopted



Conservation

The assessment of conservation dynamics covers the evolution of the conservationstatus of the PA, and more specifically the achievement of conservation objectivesand management plans in terms of ecosystems, species and natural resourcespreservation. This is done by determining if the PA management achieved what wasset out to do. This type of analysis is easier when pre-existing plans, targets or standards (even when implicit) have been established, against which achievementscan be measured. Specific values, attributes, indicators and methods can be used toaddress the achievement of conservation objectives (Hockings et al. 2006). Valuesrepresent something to be maintained or protected. They are often reflected in thePA objectives. These values include, for example, populations of endangeredspecies or protection of the forest from the damaging human activity such as illegallogging, illegal over-exploitation of resources, harvesting, land degradation andconversion, etc.

Scientific literature and reports were used when available to address the

achievements of conservation objectives in a PA. However, as it was not always thecase (or the report might exists but not in a comprehensive or detailed form),interviews with stakeholders was one of the main techniques used for addressing theachievements of conservation objectives. It is essential to remember that these wereperception of PA authorities, experts, and local communities with respect to theevolution of these aspects. The type and number of stakeholders interviewed varieddepending on the conservation objectives of the PA. For instance, if the conservationobjectives specifically address forest cover, the views of the national and localauthorities, NGOs, the local communities and the private sectors was to beconsidered.

When available, quantitative data on species (richness, specimen counts, and rarespecies), populations (dynamic, structure, distribution), and ecosystems(perturbation, succession, productivity, nutriment retention etc.), complemented theresults. When possible, the use of baseline data (i.e. before the establishment of theparticipatory approach), either quantitative or qualitative was also very useful for refining the quality of data obtained.

Livelihoods

How does participation affects local people livelihoods? How does it affect their capacity to gain a means for living? This section aims at assessing the change inlivelihoods for different social groups, brought about by the participatory process. The

method used takes from the assets methodology developed by Kuster et al. (2006).Apart from the usual natural resources assets and the gain that can be derived fromit, this method incorporates non-financial and social aspects of the possibleincreased in livelihoods.

Of significance for our study, the natural assets include change in the type of use of ecosystem goods and services since the participatory process establishment, theresource harvested or extracted for subsistence or in terms of marketable productthat provide resource to obtain livelihoods. The economic assets includes the changein amount of goods produced or harvested since the participatory processestablishment, the change in trade pattern, the change in access to local markets,the changes in other economic and subsistence activities (around the PA), and thechange in household income, consumption, poverty level. Finally, the social assetsinvolve the changes observed along the participatory process in: the cohesion among



actors, contacts and coalitions created, political power, bargaining power, equitabilityin the access to resources and in the empowerment of women and other marginalised categories.

Most of the data were obtained through interviews of local communities members, aswell as local authority representative. The data obtained consisted in perception of the stakeholders of their livelihoods evolution. Specific criteria and indicators weredeveloped and adapted to each situation. Scientific literature and reports (national or international) reporting livelihood, income, market, etc. were also used.

Participation, conservation and livelihoods

What is the contribution of the participatory paradigm to the reconciliation of conservation and development objectives? What are the existing and possiblecompromises between these objectives? Do new forms of institutional arrangementsemerged from these compromises? Are these new institutional arrangementsfacilitating dialogue, practical arrangements and consensus? Are they the result of the participatory paradigm or other mechanisms? Here we identified the impact of participation, on the observable changes in terms of both conservation practices andlivelihoods, taking into consideration the time dimension. The analysis was performedwith the data obtained in the preceding sections.

Case studies

These three variables were addressed in the context of 9 protected areas in LatinAmerica.

The Amazonian Park of French Guyana is situated on the Guyana plateau and under Amazonian influence, is covered of wet and dense tropical forest and encompass avery great biological diversity. Its protection motivated by political (good image in the

international community) and economic reasons was the result of long debates andimportant legal actualizations within the French Protected Areas system. Indeed, thelegislative reform of the French national parks of 2006 integrates the sustainabledevelopment philosophy as regards to management of the protected areas, allowingthe presence of the local populations, Amerindian and Bushinenge ethnical localcommunities, and promoting their participation in the management of the naturalheritage. This case study raises questions with respect to the institutions that claim toincarnate the ‘local’ and the respect or evolution of the community’s lifestyles.

The French Guyana Regional Natural Park was established following a localinitiative, supported by the State. It is situated in the Mana/Awala-Yalimapo region, at

the extreme North West of French Guyana. It is an indigenous site, home of 3 Kali'navillages, which are forming the rural commune d'Awala-Yalimapo. This commune andthe 3 others that form the Park, along with the Regional Council and the GeneralCouncil, form the Territorial Communities. They are highly involved in thenegotiations of the chart that will establish responsibilities of all contracting parties for the sustainable development of the territory. A Mix Syndicate and its ManagementBoard includes the Territorial Communities and has the function to manage the Park.The indigenous local communities, with their customary authorities, do not have anyrecognised and formalised voice in the Syndicate. But since almost only indigenousKali’nas inhabit the rural commune d’Awala-Yalimapo, they have 2 seats, out of 15,in the Management Board of the Mix Syndicate.

The Manu Biosphere Reserve was established in 1977 and is part of theVilcabamba-Amboró hotspot in the Amazon basin, on the eastern slope of the



tropical Andes of Peru. The Reserve is the home of various contacted indigenouscommunities and indigenous peoples in voluntary isolation, spread over the core andtransition area of the park. Quechua colonisers and peasants, living in the transitionzone are maintaining the cultural values and communal organisation they broughtfrom the Andes. The Manu Biosphere Reserve governance system is a Supervisory

Council conformed of 99 representatives from regional and local governments, civiland productive associations, peasant and indigenous communities (its actualcomposition includes 8 representatives of indigenous and 14 of peasants’communities), NGOs and tour operators. The SC elects an Executive Commission (1out of 11 seats for indigenous communities, 1 for peasants).

The Sanctuary of Flora Island of La Corota and the Humedal Laguna de la Cocha,are natural areas in the Columbian Andes with international recognition. This territoryis the home of peasants, settlers and indigenous peoples from the Inga, Kamentsáand Quillasingas ethnic groups. While the Sanctuary was established unilaterally bythe State, the initiative for the designation of the Humedal Laguna de la Cocha, a

Ramsar Site, is attributed to the peasants and indigenous people. These actors, upto 550 families, have coordinated their work through the Minga, a pre-ColumbianAndean system of communitarian work where the structure of the decision ishorizontal, without hierarchies, but with levels of coordination, action andcollaboration. It is embedded in a practice of solidarity and social utility.

The Pilón Lajas Territorio Indígena and Biosphere Reserve sites on the eastern slopeof the tropical Andes, in the Amazon basin in Bolivia. From the sixties productivistscolonization policies led thousands of indigenous Quechua and Aymara populationsin the Amazonian zones, inhabited by Amazonian indigenous populations, tsimane'and moseten'. The indigenous territory was established by the State in 1992, longafter the Biosphere Reserve recognition (1977) that had up to then, no practical

reality. The Governance of the Protected Area is a co-management system betweenthe Reserve direction, which receive most of the funding and the council of theautochthonous population, the Regional Council Tsimane Mosetén (CRTM), whocoordinate community’s activities.

The Yungas Biosphere Reserve is located in the North of Argentina. At an altituderanging from 500 to 4,960 meters, the Yungas ecoregion encompasses a richdiversity in species and landscapes. Close to 13% of the reserve is now legallyprotected in national and provincial parks, forming the ‘core area’ of the reserve. Therest of the area is constituted of the buffer and transition zones. The landmanagement, use and tenure are conflicting in the area since the early development

of sugar cane industries and forestry activity. Indigenous groups, such as Kollas,Guaranis as well as Wichis are deeply involved in these disputes. A participatoryprocess was initiated before the creation of the Biosphere Reserve in order to includethe local communities, municipalities, private sector and NGOs. A CoordinationCommittee and the Regional Committees are the main medium for participation,where the local communities living within the Reserve do not have formalrepresentation seats.

The Tortuguero National Park is located on the Caribbean coast of Costa Rica. Itcovers 80.574 hectares on land and 45.755 hectares on sea. It is part of the Meso-American Biological Corridor (MBC). The main goal of the Park is the conservation of

wildlife, especially marine turtles. A participatory process was initiated in 2002 by theEuropean Union (project COBODES) in order to include the local communities,municipalities, private sector and NGOs. A Regional Committee and a management



plan were set up in 2004, but the local communities living within the corridor do nothave formal representation seats. Costa Rica has implemented a worldwiderenowned protected area system, but it still faces important tensions betweenconservation of marine turtles and a persistent trade of this animal. At the TortugueroNational Park, the local economy, traditionally based on an unsustainable

exploitation of natural resources, switched to the exploitation of a new resource(tourism), but fauna and flora products are still illegally used. The creation of the Parkincreased inequalities between business activities in the hand of ‘foreigners’ andlocal livelihoods activities. These conflicts are linked to a very low level or even anabsence of participation of local populations in the Park management.

The Yasuní National Park is located in the Eastern provinces of Pastaza andOrellana in Ecuador. The Park was created in 1979 with a surface of 678’000 ha.Over the years, it was extended to 982’000 ha, and it is the largest continental Park(IUCN Category II) of Ecuador. Ten years after its creation, it was included into theUNESCO’s program MAB. Formally, local participation is established and local

people have representants in the management instances. But the Park is undergoingsome controversies related to the possible exploitation of oil within its limits andencroachments by colonos, and it can be said safely that Ecuador’s government hasnot complied with its obligations with regards to the Park management plans.Contradictory legal norms cohabit with social conflicts.



III. Comparing participation, conservation and livelihoods

Description of the protected areas

Before entering in the comparisons for the 3 variables, here is a descriptive synthesisof each protected areas, including biophysical context, conservation category, andyear of creation (Grid 2). In addition, some criteria have been identified that informand explain, in most cases, the differences observed. These include the reasons for the PA creation and the type of actors that influenced its creation (Grid 2), thenormative aspects including legal prescription for local participation, the mechanismsand instruments involved in PA coordination, and the spaces and mechanisms for local communities participation in decision-making (Grid 3). Finally a presentation of the actors completes the analysis (Grid 4).

Grid 2: Context

Protected Area Naturalregion/

PA category /IUCNcategory

Year crea-tion

Reason for creation Influence in creation

Guyana Amazo-nian Park

Guyanashield,tropical forest

FrenchNational Park/II

2007 Political (French international "good image" and physicalpresence in Amazon), economic (potential touristdevelopment), scientific and territorial (organise andcontrol Guyana territory)

Official discourse: contribute to global conservationefforts

Top-down: French government emitted thelaw and decree

GuyanaRegional Park –West Pole

Atlanticcoastallowlands

FrenchRegionalPark/V

2001 Political (for Regional Conceal, to extend its influence inGuyana to the detriment of the General Conceal andindigenous and bushinenge communities)

Official discourse: to promote local sustainabledevelopment

Local* (regional council, general council,communes, and West Guyana communityof communes), endorsed by the state

Manu BR Amazonbasin,eastern slopeof the tropical

Andes

MABBiosphereReserve/II

1977 Not specified

Official discourse: Conservation

Top-down, Government of Peru createdthe park through a supreme decree

Not specified for the BR

Santuario deFlora Isla de laCorota –HumedalLaguna de laCocha

Easternslope of thetropical

Andes

ColombianProtected

Area/III –Ramsar site/IV

19772000

Sanctuary: conservation

Humedal: To protect their livelihood and environmentfrom irrigation and electric energy production projects,and to struggle against natural, economic and sociocultural decline

Sanctuary: top-down, unilateral creation bythe State

Humedal: buttom-up. Peasants andindigenous people + friends from urbanareas, founded the Association for PeasantDevelopment

Pilón LajasTerritorio

Indígena and BR

Easternslope of the

tropical Andes, Amazonbasin

MABBiosphere

Reserve/VI

Park:1977

RB: 1992

Not specified Not specified for BR

Territorio indigena: CESA

Yungas BR Easternslope of thesub-tropical

Andes


2002 Economic (potential funding expected to come with thecreation of the BR and the associated tourismdevelopment and funding for conservation activities),politic (good image of the government), and ecologic(conservation)

Official discourse: Conservation, ecological corridor,sustainable development

ONGs and State

TortugueroNational Park

Caribbeancoastallowlands

Costa RicanNationalPark/II

1975 Marine Turtles conservation A biologist and its international NGO wasthe first to note the importance of marineturtles and initiate efforts to protect them

Yasuní BR Amazonbasin

MABBiosphere

1989 Pressing from bilateral and multilateral cooperation, as acondition to obtain credit

Top-down: The state prepared andpresented the Yasuni proposal to the MAB



* Here several actors can speak in the name of the ‘local’, including not only inhabitant communities but alsocommunes, the general council and the regional council, that are decentralised entities.

Grid 3: Legal prescription and mechanism for local participation

Yasuní BR Amazonbasin


1989 Pressing from bilateral and multilateral cooperation, as acondition to obtain credit

Official discourse: conservation

Top-down: The state prepared andpresented the Yasuni proposal to the MAB

Cinturão VerdeBR

Atlanticcoastal

MABBiosphere

1994 To bloc a project of highway around city that wouldendanger forest

Civil society, national and internationalNGOs, local leaders

ProtectedArea

Legal prescription for participation

PA Management board /coordination Participation mechanism for local communities?

Guyana AmazonianPark

National law 2006 on NationalParks propose a Park chartnegotiation among all actors

- Administration Council: 44 members, ‘local’*representatives are in majority compared to the state

- ZLA (Free adhering zone): communes adherevoluntarily (within a scientifically delimited zone)

Yes 5 customary authorities in the Administration Council

Customary authorities seat on Socio economic committee(non binding decisions)

GuyanaRegional Park –West Pole

National law on French NaturalRegional Park proposes a chartnegotiation among all actors

Mix Syndicate

Management Board (Comité syndical) of the MixSyndicate: 15 members

Yes in the Mix Syndicate and its Management Board (2representatives per communes)

Customary authorities can be invited at the Management

board and the inhabitant assembly (1 consultation seats for representative of each commune inhabitant assembly)

Manu BR National protected area systemprovide for participatorymanagement

Management Board: 99 seats, no quota for eachsector, or any reserved seats

Executive Commission: 19 members, 11 seats

Yes in the Management Board (actual composition is 8representatives of indigenous and 14 of peasants’communities) and in the Executive Commission (1 out of 11seats for indigenous communities, 1 for peasants)

Santuario deFlora Isla de laCorota –HumedalLaguna de laCocha

The national system of protected areas (SINAP) hasparticipation as one of itsfundamental basis

Minga: pre-Columbian Andean system of communitarian work. Horizontal decision structureswithout hierarchies, but levels of coordination, actionand collaboration. 550 families.

General Assembly of members (maximal instance) andCoordinating Committee with an horizontal structurewithout hierarchy

ADC Association for Peasant Development (Minga of

Minga)Network of Natural Reserve (properties of themembers of the Association)

Sanctuary working team

Yes in the Minga ASOYARCOCHA, general assembly, ADC, Reserve Network. Everyone has rights andresponsibilities in the decision-making in all the Mingainstances

Sanctuary working team: conformed by local personal

Pilón LajasTerritorioIndígena andBR

Decree and law provide for local communities participationin PA governance

National System of Protected Areas (SNAP)

Co-management between the Reserve direction (whichreceive most of the funding) and CRTM that coordinatecommunity’s activities.

CRTM (Conseil Régional Tsimane’)

Moseten’) and its General Assembly of 51 members

Yes in the co-management system

CRTM: Communities representatives are present atGeneral Assembly

Yungas BR Provincial laws for citizenparticipation, national protectedarea policy oriented towardsparticipation

Management Committee

Four Regional Committees, each elected 3representatives to the Management Committee.Election of members and organisation to be developed

by each regional committee through a participatoryprocess (not finished when the whole process gotparalysed)

Yes in the Management Committee (in theory: localcommunities elect 1 of 3 regional representatives to theManagement Committee, but was not put in practiceeverywhere)

Regional Committees: all the stakeholders could participatein the creation of these committees. All included communityrepresentative when the process stopped

Consultation process during the Reserve creation

1 year participatory process for the institutionalisation of thereserve including the management organs

TortugueroNationalPark

Environmental RegionalCouncil of TortugueroConservation Area(CORACTo) wasestablished according tothe articles Nº 29 and Nº30 of the BiodiversityLaw, from April, 1998.The CORACTo is ruled

by other environmentaland state laws such asGeneral Law of Public

Regional Council (CORACTo), 7 seats,elected by the General Assembly

passive participation of local communities in theCORACTo system



Grid 4: Actors

TortugueroNationalPark

Environmental RegionalCouncil of TortugueroConservation Area(CORACTo) wasestablished according tothe articles Nº 29 and Nº30 of the BiodiversityLaw, from April, 1998.The CORACTo is ruledby other environmentaland state laws such asGeneral Law of PublicAdministration, Law of Financial Administration,and Internal Control Law.

Regional Council (CORACTo), 7 seats,elected by the General Assembly

passive participation of local communities in theCORACTo system

Yasuní BR National constitution Management Board, 7 members Yes, 3 representatives of indigenous community

Protected Area Actors

Guyana Amazonian Park - Local communities: Amerindian (Wayãpi, Teko, Wayana) and Bushinenge (and customary authorities)

- Governmental representatives: environment, health and social affairs, agriculture and forest, etc and decentralized administration(Territorial community: communes, general council, regional council)

Others:

- Competent national and local personalities (qualified for their national competencies, scientific or institutional)

Guyana Regional Park –West Pole

- Local communities: Kali’na (and customary authorities)

- Governments representatives (and decentralized administration): West Guyana Community of the Communes, and territorial communities(Regional conceal, general council, 4 communes)

Others:

- Inhabitants assembly (whole population, local personality and community conceal if exist)

- Association council when they exist (environmental, cultural, economic and tourist),

- Scientific committee

Manu BR - Local communities: indigenous communities (contacted and in voluntary isolation), Andean settlers (colonos)

- Government representatives (Instituto Nacional de Recursos Naturales, INRENA)

Santuario de Flora Islade la Corota – HumedalLaguna de la Cocha

- Local communities: campesinos (peasants and settlers) and indigenous peoples from the Inga, Kamentsá and Quillasingas

- ADC (Minga de Minga)

Pilón Lajas TerritorioIndígena and BR

- Local communities: tsimane’ and moseten’, Conseil Régional Tsimane’ Moseten’ (CRTM), Andean settlers,

- Government representatives: municipalities, prefectures and park authority

Others:

- CESA (Centro de Servicio Agro-pecuario)

- Evangelist missionary organization

- French NGO Vétérinaire sans Frontière (VSF)

Yungas BR -Local communities: Tinkunaku, Comunidad de Finca Santiago, Qullamarka (regroupement Kollas of the Salta province)

-Government representatives (provinces of Salta and Jujuy, National Parks Administration) and municipalities

Others:

-NGOs (Fundación ProYungas, Greenpeace Argentina, Fundación Vida Silvestre Argentina, Yaguareté)

-Universities (Salta, Jujuy, Buenos Aires and Tucumán)

-Private sector: enterprises (Tabacal, Ledesma)

-External actors (MAB South America, WCS, FFEM, GEF, OAS, UNDP, UNEP)

Tortuguero National Park -Local communities: Afro Caribbean populationS, migrants (Nicaragua and a fex from Colombia (San Andreas island) and a few foreigners(mainly: North America, Europe)

-Governmental representatives: Central MINAE (Ministerio del Ambiente y Energia), MINAE Guapiles, MINAE Tortuguero, (SINAC (SistemaNacional de Areas de Conservacion) is the department of MINAE in charge of PA management)

Others:

-NGOs: CCC (Caribbean Conservation Corporation)-External actors: European Union, Banque Mondiale



Participation

In most cases specific legal instruments and institutions were created to ensure localcommunities participation. But did they influenced the creation of the PA? How are

decision-making bodies structured? What is the space of local communities in their composition? These aspects will help describe the participatory level in each PAobserved at various steps from its creation, implementation and functioning.

All PAs have a legal normative basis for the participation of local communities. Thesenormative provisions are either national laws or are included in national or provinciallaws with respect to the management of protected areas and National Parks.

Reasons and influence in creation

Few PA emanated from local wishes and needs and created through concertedefforts of local communities. It was the case of the Humedal Laguna de la Cocha,

and to some extent the Cinturão Verde BR where local civil society was involved, aswell as national and international NGOs, and the Guyana Regional Park, where theinitiative was local, involving the communes, the general and the regional councils(decentralised entities). In 5 cases, it came from a government unilateral decision(Guyana Amazonian Park, Manu, Santuary Isla de la Corota, Pilon Lajas, Yasuni), 2other cases, from an important involvement of NGOs (national or international), jointly with the state and scientific institutions (Yungas BR and Tortuguero NationalPark).

The form of local participation configured during the establishment of the protectedarea in those 2 last categories (state unilateral and state with NGOs and scientificexperts) hardly benefited from local communities inputs. In some cases, still, aconsultation process occurred, but it was not binding and ended up as informationcampaigns (Yungas and Guyana Amazonian Park). In these top-downconfigurations, where the very idea of creating a PA came from the government or NGOs, inhabitant communities are generally consulted or informed, but not alwayson a regular and comprehensive basis. If their formal adhesion is often mandatory inthe status of some regimes (biosphere reserves for example), their real buying of theproject and effective participation in objectives setting, decision-making,responsibilities sharing, etc. is not always actively looked for, even though thenational laws, management plan and other PA guiding documents provide for this.This ends up with various configurations: unequal accessibility to knowledge,

capacities and funding, unequal influence in PA management and governance (land

Yasuní BR -Local communities: Waorani, Nacionalidad Waorani del Ecuador (NAWE), Consejo Bayle Waorani (elders council), Quichuas: FECUNAE, every Quichuas community has: president, vice-president, secretary, treasurer and vocals, Tagaeri- Taromenane, Settlers:Grouped in cooperative, which are then grouped in organization of second level, represented by the FOCAO.

-Government representatives: Ministry of environment and ministry of agriculture

Others:

-NGOs conservationist, national and international

-Private sector: oil companies that operates within the Park, the reserve and the Biosphere reserve

Cinturão Verde BR -Local community: City inhabitants

-Government representatives: Forest Institute, Municipalities, Sao Paolo state technicians…

Others

-Representatives from primary, secondary and tertiary sector

-NGOs and river basin representatives



use rights, responsibilities and benefits), imbalanced livelihoods possibilities (market,trade chain, tourism, etc.), poor transparency and absence of social control6, and lowrepresentation in the decisive committee for the inhabitant populations (no reservedseats for indigenous or inhabitants, or very few compared to the rest of stakeholders…).

Local community space in decision-making

The Management Committee in all cases includes, in theory, local representatives.But the definition of ‘local’ and the election mode can vary enormously, in terms of efficiency clarity in the local inhabitant representation. The ‘local’ is not alwaysrestricted to the population living inside the protected areas but can also includeurban population surrounding the park, whether or not they count on the protectedarea for their subsistence.

In the Tortuguero Conservation Area (ACTo), the Environmental Regional Council of Tortuguero Conservation Area (CORACTo) is formed by local representatives

coming from State institutions, local governments, community organizations,universities, and the private sector. All these sectors are supposedly directly or indirectly involved with the development of ACTo as a region. However, thedistribution of districts grouping different villages does not match with the pattern of the ACTo protected areas, which means that some locals have representatives inthis committee whereas others do not. Tortuguero is represented by the municipalityof Guapiles, 4 hour away from the village with no interaction with it. In addition, thelocal populations living in the protected areas have very different livelihoods,increasing the gap existing with concrete claims.

In the Guyana Amazonian Park, ‘local’ representatives include, in addition to the

communes leaders, the general council and the regional council. Thesedecentralised entities are all acting in the name of the local, for the same territory, atthe same political level and for the same people. Even if this local categoriesaltogether is in majority compared to the state in the Administration Council, their interest does not necessarily goes in the sense of the inhabitant’s concerns. Localindigenous communities representatives, customary leaders, have little voiceresulting in little power in decision-making processes (5 seats out of 44 members).

A similar pattern can be observed at the Guyana Regional Park where therepresentatives of the kali’na communities of the Awala-Yalimapo communeparticipate in the Mix Syndicate and its management board, with only 2 voices out of

15. And again, the other entities are numerous and superposed.The case of the Yungas Biosphere Reserve is also showing an ambiguous definitionof ‘local’ where no particular scheme ensure the presence of local communitiesrepresentatives within the Coordination Committee. Here, the Regional Committees(4 on total) elect each 3 representatives on the Management Committee. The form of election of these representatives was to be decided upon stakeholder’s agreements.They could be municipal leaders, representative of private sectors, or communitymembers (that include inhabitant of cities surrounding the reserve). Therefore, it waspossible that communities living within the Reserve were not ‘directly’ represented,

6 Leaving possibilities, in some cases, for leaders to take advantages of their position to gain morethan their share (fund, land use rights, etc).



i.e. not by a community leader, but by a person elected by the majority of the localcommunities inhabitants and surrounding cities inhabitants. In reaction, the Kollaindigenous communities, who are living within the Reserve and who are in a territorialclaiming process on a large part of the Biosphere Reserve, planned to create a fifthcommittee that would be at an equal decision-making level with Regional

Committees within the Coordination Committee. That was before the Reserveimplementation got blocked, in large part due to these, and other, representationproblems.

In the Manu BR Management Board, the situation is similar, with 8 representatives of indigenous communities and 14 for peasant communities out of a total of 99 seats. Inthe Executive Commission these two groups have each 1 seat out of 12. Again, if local communities have a voice, they are far from a real share of influence ondecision-making processes.

The Yasuni BR has a coordination committee with 3 representatives of indigenouscommunity and colonos, out of 7 representatives (private, public and association).

However, the role of this committee is not at the forefront of the decisions taken inthe context of the Park. Yet, it lies behind the Technical Advisor Group in themanagement of the Park, while both groups suffer from finance constraints andlimited political support.

In the Cinturão Verde BR only 2 seats out of 34 in the Management Board arereserved for local population.

The case where local communities have the most influence in the decisions is theHumedal Laguna de la Cocha with the Minga governance system. This Andean pre-Columbian mode of communitarian work has an horizontal decision-making structurewithout hierarchy, but it has several levels of coordination, action and collaboration. It

is embedded in a practice of solidarity and social utility. There is a General Assemblyof members and a Coordinating Committee, responsible for implementing decisionsand policies of the Assembly. This committee has a horizontal structure withouthierarchy. Everyone has rights and responsibilities in the decisions affecting theassociation, individual or collective interests. Peasants are also regrouped within theAssociation for Peasant Development (ADC), which was originally created to struggleagainst natural, economic and socio-cultural decline. It regroups all the Minga of theWetland (Minga of Minga). The farms of members of the ADC are natural reserves,private conservation areas.

In Pilon Lajas, There is formally a co-management between the Reserve direction

(which receive most of the funding) and the CRTM, which coordinate communities’activities.

Other level of local communities or indigenous representation can be contemplated,such as Regional Committees (Yungas BR), public consultations prior to PAestablishment (Guyana Amazonian Park, Guyana Regional Park, Yungas BR,Cinturon Verde BR), Socio Economic Committee (Guyana Amazonian Park), but theactual authority and influence of these alternative participation space is notstraightforward and is generally non constraining and of consultation nature.Consultation has however a particular status since it is often a prerequisite for thecreation of a PA. It is generally during this phase that the approval from the localpopulation will be sought, a prerequisite in some PA cases, namely the biospherereserves. This was the case of the Cinturão Verde BR: the consultation processreceived a strong support from the whole population (through a petition that aimed at



the retreat of the highway project that would surround the city and at the support for the creation of the BR) and was decisive in the creation of the Reserve.

However, whether consent of the population will be transformed in space for participation for actors that wish to get involved is another story. In the case of theYungas BR, the consultation process reached the support of indigenous communitieswithin the area but once the reserve created, these same actors could not find a wayto remain involved in the Reserve governance (they were relegated to undirectedparticipation through Regional Committee).

Overall level of participation

The case studies are distributed in the participation spectrum (see Figure 1), varyingfrom passive in the case of the Tortuguero National Park or passive/consultative inthe Yasuní BR and the Manu BR, to self-mobilisation at the Humedal Laguna de laCocha. The Guyana Regional Park – West Pole and the Yungas BR rankmedium/low participation (consultative/ functional), and the Santuary Isla de laCorota rank functional, while the Guyana Amazonian Park shows a higher level of participation (functional/interactive), as well as the the Pilón Lajas Territorio Indígenaand BR and the Cinturão Verde BR (interactive) (see Figure 1).



Figure 1: Distribution of the case studies according to their participation level in thespectrum from passive to self-mobilisation

Self-mobilisation elements appear in several PAs throughout their creation andimplementation process. It was decisive in the creation of Humedal Laguna de la

Cocha and the Cinturão Verde BR. In other cases local self-mobilisation isassociated to indigenous movements and territorial claim, transposed withinthe PA context to claim further participation space or land use rights (PilonLajas, Yungas BR).

Time dimension

Most of the PAs studied were created during the last 20 years, under theparticipatory paradigm. It can be observed that PAs older than 20 years’ ones, Manu,Tortuguero and Yasuni, showed the lowest levels of participation(passive/consultative). All the others PA had higher level of participation (Table 2,Figure 1).

Type of protected areas

All types of PAs do not have the same objectives in terms of conservation andlivelihoods. It would be expected from biosphere reserves, specifically dedicated tothe reconciliation of conservation and development7, to display higher level of participation than national parks, aimed at conservation, in particular those createdunder the old conservation paradigm. Indeed, biosphere reserves are supposed,

7 Biosphere Reserve have formally three functions (Persic et al. 2008): Conservation: to contribute tothe conservation of landscapes, ecosystems, species and genes; Development: to foster economicand human development which is socio-culturally and ecologically sustainable; Research and

monitoring in a world network: to support demonstration projects, environmental education andtraining, research and monitoring related to local, regional, national and global issues of conservationand sustainable development.

P a s s i v e

I n t e r a c t i v e

C o n s u l t a t i v e

F u n c t i o n a l

S e l f -

m o b i l i z a t i o n

C i n t u r ã o V e r d e S ã o

P a u l o B R

T o r t u g u e r o N P

Y a s u n i B R

M a n u B R

P i l o n L a j a s T I + B R

L a g u n a d e l a C o c h a

G u y a n a R e g i o n a l P a r k

Y u n g a s B R

G u y a n a A m a z o n i a n P a r k

S a n c t u a r y I s l a d e l a

C o r o t a

Increasing level of participation

Protected Areas



within their very conception, to respond to local will and assent. The results for thebiosphere reserves (2 passive/consultatives, 1 consultative/functionals, and 2interactives) have more to do with their year of creation than to their belonging to thebiosphere reserve network. The PA presenting the highest level of participation, theHumedal Laguna de la Cocha, is a Ramsar site and category VI of the IUCN

(managed resource protected area (Andrade 2007))8

. Tortuguero National Park, of the IUCN category II (MINAE 2006), has the lowest level of participation (passive), theSantuary Isla de la Corota, category III9 of the IUCN, shows medium level of participation (functional), the Guyana Amazonian Park, IUCN category II, displaymedium level of participation (functional/interactive), and the Guyana Regional Park,classified as IUCN category V10, present a slightly lower level (consultative/functional)(table 2 and Figure 1).

Conservation

The existing participatory processes can have an impact on conservation, but in veryfew cases were we able to demonstrate it (Humedal Laguna de la Cocha and theCinturão Verde BR).In the case of the Humedal Laguna de la Cocha, the conservation objectives(conservation of representatives ecosystems, connectivity, construction of anecological corridor and production alternative that do not harm the environment) aregetting achieved through the collaborative work of the local communities:conservation of natural resources (water, soil, forest, biodiversity) could beenhanced, forest exploitation and use of chemical in the agricultural productionreduced, and a red of natural reserves developed. In the case of the Cinturão VerdeBR, the participation of the civil society allowed blocking the project of highwayconstruction around the city, destroying and perturbing important part of the Atlantic

forest.In 3 other case studies, it was not possible to evaluate the level of accomplishment of the conservation objectives through participation since their creation is very recent(Guyana Amazonian Park, Guyana Regional Park and Yungas BR). It can bementioned, in the case of the Yungas BR, the Sausalito case that is outside thereserve but that was influenced by its actors and debates. This case shows howthese actor’s involvement and cooperation can modify the eco-politic dynamic andgenerate significant conservation outcomes11. In the Guyana Amazonian Park, the

8 IUCN category VI: Managed Resource Protected Area: protected area managed mainly for the

sustainable use of natural ecosystems. Definition: Area containing predominantly unmodified naturalsystems, managed to ensure long term protection and maintenance of biological diversity, whileproviding at the same time a sustainable flow of natural products and services to meet communityneeds (Bishop et al. 2004).9 IUNC Category III: Natural Monument: protected area managed mainly for conservation of specificnatural features. Definition: Area containing one, or more, specific natural or natural/cultural featurewhich is of outstanding or unique value because of its inherent rarity, representative or aestheticqualities or cultural significance (Bishop et al. 2004).10 Protected Landscape/Seascape: protected area managed mainly for landscape/seascapeconservation and recreation. Definition: Area of land, with coast and sea as appropriate, where theinteraction of people and nature over time has produced an area of distinct character with significantaesthetic, ecological and/or cultural value, and often with high biological diversity. Safeguarding theintegrity of this traditional interaction is vital to the protection, maintenance and evolution of such an

area.11 Under the strong demand of the ethanol markets, the Ledesma Company wanted in 2002 to extendits sugar cane fields on a area of 1050 has of his property and for which it had obtained the



core of the park is highly regulated, which might result in conservation objectivesachievements in a close future.

In 2 other cases, positive conservation outcomes could be observed, but could not belinked to participation (Tortuguero NP and Manu BR). In the Yasuni BR case, nopositive conservation results were noted; resource extraction norms are not compliedby private oil and wood companies and unsustainable practices are maintained. It isdifficult to evaluate if participation of the local communities could help in that sense.

In Pilon Lajas, the situation is worse, indigenous people are themselves involved inunsustainable deforestation on their territory (they are either indicating where to findgood value trees to foresters or are cutting trees themselves) in alliance with settlers.Deconcentrated state agents are not able to prevent or control these activities: theylack financial capacity and legitimacy and are faced with peasants syndicatesupported by the central state. Annual deforestation rate in the Reserve’s buffer zonewent from 36 ha between 1975 and 1987, to 465 ha between 2001 and 2005 (WCS2005). Livelihoods

What links can we establish between participation and enhancement of livelihoods?The actual enhancement of livelihoods is best observed in the Humedal Laguna de laCocha: rising of familial income, healthy alimentation, personal, familial and grouphappiness, self and group valorisation, and property or sense of belonging to thearea. Income raised up to 2,8 times compared to the average of the region, and up to1,2 times the national average. Health protection raised (100 % of the population iscovered through one of the health program reflecting a better active citizenpositioning). A rising of 40 to 80 % in food produced locally was also noted, reducingvulnerability. These livelihoods outcomes could be achieved through market andtrade alternative for equitable prices and sale of transformed products (jam, pickles,syrup, and milk products, and small agricultural alternative production (production of blackberries, milk cows, veal, rainbow trout in earth pools…). These are directlylinked to participation since both the Minga and the Reserve are managed andcoordinated through the involvement of the population.

In 3 other case studies, it was difficult to evaluate, since their creation is very recent(Guyana Amazonian Park, Guyana Regional Park and Yungas BR). These changesinvolve human adaptation, therefore a significant time period. Still, potentialmodification of access to resources can be expected in the Guyana Amazonian Parkfor indigenous and local communities. However enlarged rights expected are

concerning livelihood activities (subsistence, handicraft, tourism), without clarifyingthe question of the legal status of indigenous groups and the full rights over land and

authorization of the province to deforest, after an environmental impact study, as provided for in thelaw. It faced a strong opposition coalition, constituted at the beginning of Greenpeace and CTAsyndicate, then other partners within the Biosphere Reserve, the Administration of Protected Areas,the University of Salta, the Foundation Vida Silvestre and ProYungas. The principal argument of theopponents was that this place constituted an essential part of the biological corridor binding twosections of Yungas (Calilegua with the Sierra del Maíz Gordo). After a media campaign byGreenpeace, local demonstrations and two mediation sessions, the company moved back in 2004 andaccepted a two years moratorium. It entrusted in 2006 ProYungas the execution of a plan of territorial

management plan on 150'000 has. It was the first company of Argentina to do it. In July 2007, it gaveup deforestation and incorporated Sauzalito in the management plan of the province of Jujuy as aprivate reserve.



resources that correspond to them. They have to be first recognised as inhabitant’scommunity by the customary leaders sitting on the Park Administration Council. Localpopulations are therefore only recognised according to their place of residence andthe use rights that is associated to it. This whole process is left out to negotiation inthe context of the Chart agreement, which encompass the participation of various

other actors and where the needs and rights of indigenous local people risk of beingweighed down.

The same type of weakness in the recognition of indigenous or traditional localcommunities rights occurs in the Guyana Regional Park. Here, some of the plannedintervention, research or support in terms of livelihoods possibilities (tourism,handicrafts, sustainable trade…) are blocked by a particular land rights regime: theZDUC. It is a national scheme allowing the use of limited areas for subsistenceactivities. The state representatives have the power over the establishment, extent of the area, and duration of the rights agreed. This leaves indigenous inhabitants with avery precarious juridical situation in a strict, rigid and constraining regime that blocks

livelihood possibilities. Livelihoods gains in the Regional Park would thereforenecessitate further agreements or even changes in specific instruments that may notfall under the competence of the PA.

In the Yungas, an interesting social asset could be observed where local people gotmore organised in order to defend their rights over resources. This comes with a newpolitical space that they occupy in the context of the Biosphere Reserve creation, atthe local and at the regional level. This is the case of indigenous community, yetalready involved in their own fight to gain the titles of their territory. For the first time,all categories of actors were sitting at the same table with a theoretical equality. Inanother example, the Pilon Lajas Biosphere Reserve context coincided with theemergence of indigenous claims for rights and territory.

In 3 other cases, no enhancement of livelihoods could be observed that could beattributed to participation (Manu BR, Tortuguero NP, Yasuni BR). In the Manu BR,livelihoods gains were observed in the sense of taking part in low impact agricultureproject. In Yasuni BR, Quichuas communities benefited from Park guards trainingand work possibilities within the Reserve. In addition, agreements and support for implantation of ecotourism communitarian and agricultural projects was obtained withQuichuas communities living in the buffer zone. However, Waorani, another ethnicgroup of the Reserve, were left out of these developments. These last examplesdemonstrate form of participation fairly different from a share of the decision makingpower and an effective participation in the management and governance of the PA.

They only take part in proposed sustainable activities that aim first of all at reducingthe impact of human activities. However, it can be noted that in the Yasuni caseworkshop leading to these agreements were organised with the Quichuas leaders todetermine jointly the conservation and population needs. In addition, the alliance withconservationist allowed indigenous people to get land and citizen rights: The territorywhere Tagaeri-Taromenane was declared an intangible zone since 1992 by thegovernment (758’051 ha) to protect the rights of this population to conserve itstraditional form of life and the natural resources it needs.

In the context of the Cinturão Verde BR a youth programme in environmentaleducation to improve livelihood of the local population was created. It is a two-year

environmental education programme for local disadvantaged youth, that offersworking opportunities in fields such as tourism, agroforestry and recycling. This socioenvironmental programme for the young represents an important contribution for the



creation of an ‘eco jobs’ market. At present, there are 15 eco-formation centres in 12municipalities. In its twelfth anniversary, the program has graduated 1.300 studentsand offered 670 environmental employments.

Linking the 3 variables

Success of participatory approach to reconcile both conservation and livelihoodsobjectives could only be demonstrated in the Humedal Laguna de la Cocha inColombia. Through participation in an association, ADC and a network of reserves,most of the members, peasants and indigenous peoples, get direct benefits and theconservation outcomes are positive as well. For example, several projects andsupport programmes for ecological agriculture, developed by the association Mingaand the reserve network gave financial benefits, higher that forest and coalexploitation. With this Minga self-management and governance system, they lead thedevelopment of their communities and conservation activities on the reserve network.The ‘bien vivir’ of families is associated to conservation work and sustainableproduction in the reserves, training of young people, and children, and processes of communication and communitarian participation.In the Cinturão Verde BR, new spaces for actor dialogues in the cooperative workwere successfully developed. However, the conservation and livelihoodsachievements are still modest in comparison to the territory concerned by the BR.Livelihoods here are also particular since no one is dependant on the BR resourcesfor its living, since it is mostly an urban population that is concerned. Here we refer more to social and economic assets (environmental education programme for localdisadvantaged youth and eco-jobs). Still, we can consider that in this case study,participation has successfully contributed to reconcile conservation and livelihoodsobjectives.

In the Guyana Amazonian Park, possible link between participation and conservationand livelihoods has the potential to be developed in a coming future. The upcomingnegotiation of the Park Chart (where communities representatives will have a voice)will have to take several decisions that will impact on both conservation andlivelihood (rights and access to resources): craft production (control of species, tradechain structure, exploitation threshold…), tourism activity (whether indigenous peoplewill have priority to develop infrastructure), etc. The result of these negotiations willshow if the end result is positive for both objectives.

In the other cases, the actual research could not demonstrate that participationcontribute to the reconciliation conservation activities and livelihoods concerns. The

creation of the Manu Park and BR generates a tendency to sustainable activitiesdevelopment that contributes to livelihoods enhancement, but was not alwayscompatible with the care for the environment.

In Yasuni BR, projects from conservation NGOs follow international model of NGOsthat fund it. They do not take in consideration the specific context where it is applied,neither does it respect the particular form of life of highly vulnerable Amazonianpeople.

Many of the programs that claimed raising livelihoods through participation (seecases where livelihoods gain were obtained from taking part in sustainable activitiesand conservation projects in Manu BR and Yasuni BR), had in fact as a first aim to

find ways of producing livelihoods with reduced impact on natural resources(ecotourism, bird raise, handicraft, park rangers formation, small production of coffee



and cocoa). In addition to not responding to population’s identification of their ownneeds and self involvement, these importation from the outside society can changethe way of life and of consumption of local communities and bring new needs thatrequires money to be satisfied.

On the government side in the Yasuni BR, land titles give rights (land and resources)to indigenous people but they do not secure clear rules for actions of private oil andwood companies, and NGOs. Unsustainable resource extractions, illicit andinadequate exploitation of natural resources are still going on. The empowerment of all indigenous groups in the Reserve did not raised. It only changes the socialenvironment increasing economic differences within leaders and communities(Quichuas and Waorani leaders assimilated the conservation and participationdiscourse as a way to reach economic resources through national and internationalNGOs projects).

Inequalities related to the development of ecotourism and other allowed economicactivities and low redistribution of conservation benefits was observed in some

cases. For example in Tortuguero NP some locals inhabitants are kept outside themarket, only a few investors (national and foreigners) effectively gain money fromecotourism and most of the benefits from the recreational use of the park go back tothe State; in Yasuni BR very little portion of the gains from tourism goes to localcommunities (the main share stays with the coordinator) and in Manu, even if tourismactivity increased in recent years, it beneficiated the population around the PA, it stilldoes not touch the indigenous and settlers’ population living inside the Park. Thosewho beneficiate are those with more power and good connections.

Finally, no conflict resolution schemes could be observed in the case studies. On thecontrary, violence is continuing in some cases for example in the Yasuni BR.



IV. Interpretation and Conclusion

Institutions, governance and power relations

Social institutions play a crucial role in explaining environmental changes andconservation. This has long been identified (Agrawal 2001, Leach et al. 1999, Leach& Mearns 1991, Robbins 1998). In particular, scholars investigated how institutionsimpact on environment, how variations in the rules, authority and power relationsbrings differing environmental consequences for similar land-use regimes, and alsohow top-down or bottom-up management and governance systems have differentimpact on resources use, or how ‘communities’ have been overemphasised asconservation agents. Indeed, it was observed that the management of naturalresources has as much to do with creating or transforming social institutions thanwith physical control and organisation.

Norms and institutions are modified through various governance processes.Observing how the participation norm is adopted in PA management andgovernance, involve surveying power relations between actors interacting collectivelyor in competition. Here, determining how the rules and decisions with respect toresources use and access are adopted (in other words, how voice and power isshared when determining the legitimate rules of the game) becomes as relevant as

the rules as such.

In practical terms, the cases studies allowed observing formal norms explicitlyformulated through the PAs governance process: the categories of actors that have

seats and voice in decision-making committee, the way decisions are taken, the

group of actors with a voting majority, the way each actors group are represented,including local communities. However, established norms are no guarantee foreffective practice as it could be observed in Pilon Lajas BR. The state here has amajority in the coordination committee while power should be shared at 50 % withindigenous communities. In the same way informal norms were also identified, forexample, inequities in terms of local communities participation in decision-making

processes. In addition, the analysis of power relation allowed highlighting allianceand coalitions between actors and other unofficially binding relations.

Each institutional arrangements (passive participation, functional, self-

mobilisation…), as identified in the case studies, is characterised by certain norms

and practices (these being or not coherent with the norms) and is adopted throughgovernance processes. For example, in the self-mobilisation case (Humedal Lagunade la Cocha), norms were modified by collective actions (agreements between shoreresidents to protect their life form and livelihoods against economic interest of extractions companies), and a real participatory scheme was created, composed of agroup of norms and corresponding practices. In other PAs, the scheme is not alwaysthat straightforward.



Integration of participation within PAs governance Vs Path dependency

As already mentioned in the introduction, participation is considered, in thegovernance analytical framework, as a meta-norm. It takes its origin in the normativediscourses of development and conservation fields. The trajectory of the participatoryparadigm from its inclusion in the conservation regime to the application at the locallevel can be traced over the last 20 years. In a multi-level governance path, it wasadopted at the international level and introduced in national and local contextes allaround the world through various channels (i.e. conservation and sustainabledevelopment programs built around local participation, such as in the CBD, the WorldBank, bilateral agreements, etc.).

According to Foucault, rational rules are necessary for the construction of thisdiscourse (1971). As a social fact discourses reflect power structures inherent tosocial interactions that are being materialized in a specific space, apprehended associal fields (Bourdieu 2001). As this social space is structured around commoninterest and references, actors interact according to their habitus and capitals

(symbolic, social, economic and cultural) (Bourdieu 1984: 113). In doing so, theyposition themselves in the field. A power game among the agents will determine theauthor and content of legitimate discourse.

Given this constructed nature of the participatory discourse, it is of no surprise to find,in practice, that development and conservation programmes based on it are hardlycorresponding to local will. This is what we can observe in most case studies wherethe idea and PAs proposition was external (except for the Humedal Laguna de laCocha, the Cinturão Verde BR and the Guyana Regional Park). The consequencesof this external origin, where local communities are ‘included in a participatoryproject’ vary between a nice participatory discourse but little real place in decision-

making process for local communities once they gave their ascent to the project(Yungas BR), and the use of the participation terminology to get local people to takepart in low impact livelihoods projects (Yasuni BR and Manu BR), rather thanattributing them a share of the decision making power.

Path dependency theory is helpful in explaining why so little power is beingtransferred in many areas of Latin America. As a general pattern, the power structureoriginates from the colonial times and still follows a top down structure, where thelocals have little say. This is even truer for the indigenous communities. In practicallyevery country of the Latin American continent, political and social power is still in thehand of big agricultural producers (Conde 1964).

According to the path dependency perspective, institutions are very stables andpersistents; further modification or creation of institutions is bond to characteristics of previously established ones and to previous events (North 1990). Social changes aresubjected to forces that are path dependent, i.e. strongly mediated by a certaincontext, which is characterised by a set of institutions that constrain history to a set of ‘path’ (Krasner 1988). Governance processes, with their loads of inequities andasymmetric power in decision-making, are difficult to change in the practice, even if the official discourse adopt the new participatory paradigm and rhetoric. In the caseof the Yungas BR, Manu BR, Yasuni BR, Tortuguero National Park, and to a certainextent Pilon Lajas and the two French parks, power distribution stems from thecolonial epoch and is today concentrated within the government and private sector,

reducing the possibilities for developing effective participation rules and norms. Here



the unequal12 power distribution and its impact on decision-making is a strong factor preventing the sharing of power and responsibilities with actors that do not belong togovernment and decentralised authorities. These, in some cases, work hand in handwith the private sector, hardly leaving more than a consultation – or lowrepresentation – possibility to indigenous and peasant’s communities living within the

PAs.In particular, the 3 oldest PAs, still highly marked by the fortress paradigm, show thelowest level of participation. From the colonial time to the conditioned aid frominternational NGOs, multilateral and bilateral agencies, local communities werepoorly listened, were imposed restrictions on their livelihoods and are now beingoffered to ‘participate’ in low impact livelihoods projects (ecotourism, sustainableextensive agriculture, etc.). The idea always being to prevent them and their livelihoods to threat natural resources preservation.

Agency

In some cases local communities, indigenous or peasants (indigenous organisations,peasant syndicates…) are confronting the dominant actors – with more or lesssuccess. Path dependency is a strong force in these configurations, but still does notexplain everything. For example, in the case of the Yungas BR, far away fromaccepting the imposition of the hegemony (state and expert), local communitiesraised voices and criticised the BR governance process when they felt they were putaside. This contributed – but was not the only reason – to the paralysis of theprocess. This demonstrates strong enough agency to stop the process, but notenough to acquire the legitimacy to act at the decision making level. Power divisionand structure as well as internal conflicts in the area, as explained by pathdependency, root way before the governance process studied. Even without direct

link with it, it sets the power relation scene and the holder of negotiation legitimacy.Indeed, the critical point here, from a governance perspective (Hufty 2007), is thefight over the legitimacy in the norms and rules negotiations. Determining who hasvoice and leadership in establishing the norms (meta-norms, constitutive norms,regulative norms and social institutions) is at the centre of strategic deployment of actor’s agency (Giddens 1984) and power relations.

Long (2001), with his landmark actor-oriented theory, came as a response to theexcess of culturalist and structuralist explanations of social changes. Focused on theintroduction of actor’s perceptions, actions and practices, or agency, this theory rejectthe linear and deterministic aspects of development. This theory stresses theanalysis of ‘how social actors (both ‘local’ and ‘external’ to particular arena) arelooked into a series of intertwined battles over resources, meaning and institutionallegitimacy and control’ (Long 2001: 1).

Following a constructivist perspective (Berger & Luckmann 1967), social changes aregenerated by social actors, through their self-transforming actions and perceptions,producing constructed and evolving realities (ibid). These constructions would be theresult of social interactions between actors in the shaping of their interpersonal andcollective worlds, in a conscious manner or not.

Actors agency is best exemplified in the cases of Humedal Laguna de la Cocha andthe Cinturão Verde BR, where collaborative work among local communities permitted

12 In the case of north Argentina, it can be characterised of ‘feudal’



them to resist against extractions companies interested in the exploitation or use of their ecosystems and surrounding area (wetland and forest). Taking the lead in their own economic, politic and social development, they avoided the usual hierarchicalrelation with the state and the private sector, as depicted by the dependencia theory(just as Long observed in the Mantaro hinterland, Long 2001: 21).

The ecological indigenous: opportunity or constraint?

In their strategy to gain voice in the nature governance and resources use rights,indigenous and local communities have in many cases adopted the dominantconservation discourse (in Pilon Lajas some settlers are changing their group namefrom ‘colonos’ to ‘productores agro-ecologicos’) to gain funding or to develop alliancewith strong actors (in the Yungas BR, indigenous communities with the national parkadministration; in the Yasuni BR, indigenous communities with conservation NGOs;in Pilon Lajas, indigenous communities with conservationists). But at the same time, they claim the rights to economic development. They are notsatisfied with the assumption that they are happy maintaining their subsistencelivelihoods and claim the right to exploit natural resources and access toconsumption.

Will the conservation world be ready to go along this path? Apart from activeinternational forum in terms of indigenous environmental rights (for example see thework of IUCN’s TILCEPA group), up to now the point of alliance is only based on ashared interest for nature protection. Intrinsically, indigenous people have protectednature through time and in most situations are still continuing. However, it is not trueto keep on saying that because they are indigenous, they will conserve the naturalresources. Each situation needs careful analysis (see the Pilon Lajas case studywhere indigenous communities are entering into unsustainable extraction activities).

Participation: the end of marginalisation?

If we look at the practical outcomes of the participation paradigm, what did it changein our case studies? Did local people exit their marginal situation? Locals, and this isthe case of most of our case studies, were marginalised in political terms (they hadno power), in economical terms (limited to subsistence economy as livelihoods), andecologic (occupying non productive national territories – but that gain internationalimportance for their conservation value). We could observe that participation couldreduce, to some extend, marginalisation in terms of livelihood and conservation, onlyin the self-mobilisation and functional levels, i.e., when the local actors themselvestake the lead, or an equitable share of the decision-making power, to protect their

area, environment, livelihoods or form of life. At the opposite, in the old parks, wherethe level of participation was the lowest, conservation objectives could be achieved,but not due to participation and no real livelihoods enhancement could be noted.Therefore, it can be concluded that participation, taken in its pure and original sense – empowerment of local people, mainly through their own will – has proved toreconcile conservation and livelihoods and taking out local people frommarginalisation.

We can also observe that whenever participation is brought from external actors, thisreconciliation occurs at more limited levels. Here, dominant actors control thegovernance processes, using strategically the participation discourse, with little

devolution of power to local communities. In these cases, the participation discourseis on one hand directed to exogenous actors (to projects funders, for economic



reasons, to political authority for ‘good image’ and accumulation of politic capital or tomedias) and on the other hand, used towards local communities in order to havethem accepting to reduce their impact on natural resources. In that sense,participation is used as a strategic discourse, which is to a certain extent, counter balanced by local discourses, as well strategic (indigenous as the protector of the

nature, or local decentralised authority as the best placed authority to coordinatelocal conservation and development efforts, etc.).

Finally, even if these cases did not show the combined achievements of conservationand livelihoods objectives through participation as such, some important (even if isolated) achievements, were noted in most PAs: empowerment of localcommunities, political occupation of the new space created with the participatoryprocess, dialogue platform, alliance of actors, development of ecologic mode of productions, reduction of unsustainable practices, conservation of endangeredspecies (for example the marine turtles in Costa Rica), ecosystems as well ascorridors, etc.



References

Agrawal, A. and Gibson, C.C., 1999, ‘Enchantment and Disenchantment: The Role of Community in Natural Resource Conservation’, World Development , 27(4): 629-649.

Agrawal, A., 1997, ‘The politics of development and conservation: A legacy of colonialism’,Peace and Change, 22 (4): 463-482.

Agrawal, A., 2001, ‘Common property institutions and sustainable governance of resources’,World Development , 29(10): 1649-1672.

Barrow, E. and Murphree, M., 2001, ‘Community conservation: from concept to practice’, In Hulme, D. & Murphree, M. (eds), African Wildlife and Livelihoods: the promise and

performance of community conservation, Oxford, James Currey, pp. 24–37.

Berger, P.L. and Luckmann, T. 1967, The Social Construction of Reality , New York.

Beuret, J.E., 2006, ‘Dialogue et concertation dans les reserves de biosphères: problématiqueet enjeux’ In Bouamrane, M. (ed). Biodiversity and stakeholders: concertation itineraries,Biosphere Reserves – Technical Notes 1, UNESCO, Paris.

Bishop, K., Dudley, N., Phillips, A. and Stolton, S., 2004, "Speaking a common language: theuses and performances of the IUCN system of management categories for protectedareas", Cardiff, Cardiff University; IUCN; UNEP-WCMC, 191 p.

Borrini-Feyerabend, G., Pimbert, M., Farvar, M.T., Kothari, A. and Renard, Y., 2004a,Sharing Power. Learning by doing in co-management of natural resources throughout the world , IIED and IUCN/ CEESP/ WMWG/ Ceneata, Tehtan.

Borrini-Feyerabend, G., Kothari, A. and Oviedo, G., 2004b, Indigenous and Local Communities and Protected Areas: Towards Equity and Enhanced Conservation, IUCN,Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge.

Bourdieu, P., 1984, Questions de sociologie, Éditions de Minuit, Paris, 277p.

Bourdieu, P., 2001, Langage et pouvoir symbolique, Seuil, Paris, 423p.

Chambers, R., 1997, Whose reality counts ? Putting the first last , IT Publications, London.

Chambers, R., 1986 [1983], Rural Development: Putting the Last First , Longman, London.

Chapin, M., 2004, ‘A challenge to conservationists’, WorldWatch Nov/Dec: 17-31.

Child, B., (ed), 2004, Parks in Transition: Biodiversity, rural development and the bottom line,Earthscan, London, 267p.

Cleaver, F. (2001) ‘Institutions, Agency and the Limitations of Participatory Approaches toDevelopment’ In Cooke, B. and Kothari, U. (eds.) Participation: The New Tyranny? ZedBooks, London.

Colchester, M., 1994, Salvaging Nature: Indigenous Peoples, Protected Areas and Biodiversity Conservation, UNRISD Discussion Paper 55, Geneva, UNRISD.

Commons, J. R., 1934, Institutional economics: its place in political economy , The MacMillancompany.

Conde, R.C., 1964, ‘Cambios estructurales y clases sociales en la crisis politica Argentina’,Foro Int. 5(17): 27–37.

Cooke, B., and Kothari, U., (eds), 2001, Participation, The New Tyranny? Zed Books,London.

Dowie, M., 2009, Conservation Refugees. The Hundred-Year Conflict between Global,Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press, 336p.

Foucault, M., 1971, L'ordre du discours, Paris, Minuit, 81p.

Freire, P., 1974 [1969], Pédagogie des opprimés, Paris, Maspero.





Rhodes, R.A.W., 1996, ‘The new governance: governing without government’, Political studies, 44(4): 652-667.

Robbins, P., 1998. ‘Authority and Environment: Institutional Landscapes in Rajasthan’, Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 88(3): 410-435.

Rodary, E. and Castellanet, C., 2003, ‘Introduction. Les trois temps de la conservation’, In

Rodary, E., Castellanet, C., and Rossi, G. (eds), Conservation de la nature et développement, l’intégration impossible? , Karthala et GRET, Paris, pp.5-44.

Rodary, E., Castellanet, C., and Rossi, G., 2003, Conservation de la nature et développement. L’intégration impossible ?, Karthala, Paris.

Sabatier, P., 1988, An advocacy coalition framework of policy change and the role of policy-oriented learning therein, Policy Sciences, 21:2/3: 129.

Stevens, S., 1997, ‘The legacy of Yellowstone’, In: Stevens S, (ed), Conservation ThroughCultural Survival, Indigenous Peoples and Protected Areas, Washington, Island Press,pp. 13-62.

Stringer, L.C., Dougill, A.J., Fraser, E., Hubacek, K., Prell, C. & Reed, M.S., 2006,‘Unpacking ‘participation’ in the adaptive management of social–ecological systems: a

critical review’, Ecology and Society , 11(2): 39.UNESCO, 2003a, Réserves de biosphère : Des lieux privilégiés pour les hommes et la

nature, Paris, UNESCO.

UNESCO, 2003b, Rapport final. Atelier de formation régional sur le dialogue et laconcertation dans les réserves de biosphère d’Afrique de l’ouest , 11-17 mai 2003,Réserve de biosphère de la Pendjari, Bénin.

Walker, D., Jones, J.P., Roberts, S. M., and Fröhling, O.R., 2007, ‘When Participation MeetsEmpowerment: The WWF and the Politics of Invitation in the Chimalapas, Mexico’,

Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 97(2): 423-444.

WCED, 1987, Our Common Future, Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development , Published as Annex to General Assembly document A/42/427,

Development and International Co-operation: Environment.WCS (2005). Actualisacion del Plan de Manejo PL 2005-2009. La Paz.

World Bank, 1996, Participation Sourcebook ,http://www.worldbank.org/wbi/sourcebook/sbpdf.htm

Documents

EEPA Report June09