8
SocialEcological Systems and Conservation: Fikret Berkes University of Manitoba March 2009 Putting People Back into the Picture Why communitybased conservation? • Conserving biodiversity depends on our understanding of social systems and their interactions with ecological systems • Because most of the world’s biodiversity is not in protected areas (PAs) but on lands used by people • There are limits to PAs that can be created; biodiversity can only be conserved by the people living with it (Dali 1950) Historically, livelihoods depended on ecosystem services • Smallscale agriculture, forest resource use, smallscale fisheries, hunting and gathering economies depended on the use of a portfolio of resources • Continues today in some rural areas, especially areas with indigenous people • Indigenous peoples inhabit 2030% the earth, 46x more than the area of formal designated PAs of the world Three models for biodiversity conservation • Establish PAs that exclude human use • Human use permitted adjacent to core protected areas, with buffer zones (e.g., Biosphere Reserves) • Human use permitted, but with strategies that seek to connect livelihoods and biodiversity conservation • Ongoing debates around these three models Trends in biodiversity conservation • Peoplefree PAs approach under criticism (IUCN’s 1975 Kinshasa Resolution on Protection of Traditional Ways of Life; Durban Accord; CBD) • Communitybased conservation giving mixed results (Brown 2002; Berkes 2004) • Increasing interest in participatory approaches that create local incentives, e.g., UNDP Equator Initiative

Social Ecological Systems and Conservation · sacred groves and in coffee plantations •Endemic tree species more abundant in forest reserve but threatened trees more abundant in

  • Upload
    others

  • View
    2

  • Download
    0

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: Social Ecological Systems and Conservation · sacred groves and in coffee plantations •Endemic tree species more abundant in forest reserve but threatened trees more abundant in

Social‐Ecological Systems and Conservation: 

Fikret Berkes

University of ManitobaMarch 2009

Putting People Back into the Picture

Why community‐based conservation?

• Conserving biodiversity depends on our understanding of social systems and their interactions with ecological systems

• Because most of the world’s biodiversity is not in protected areas (PAs) but on lands used by people

• There are limits to PAs that can be created; biodiversity can only be conserved by the people living with it(Dali 1950)

Historically, livelihoods depended on ecosystem services

• Small‐scale agriculture, forest resource use, small‐scale fisheries, hunting and gathering economies depended on the use of a portfolio of resources

• Continues today in some rural areas, especially areas with indigenous people 

• Indigenous peoples inhabit 20‐30% the earth, 4‐6x more than the area of formal designated PAs of the world 

Three models for biodiversity conservation

• Establish PAs that exclude human use •Human use permitted adjacent to core protected areas, with buffer zones (e.g., Biosphere Reserves) 

•Human use permitted, but with strategies that seek to connect livelihoods and biodiversity conservation

•Ongoing debates around these three models

Trends in biodiversity conservation

• People‐free PAs approach under criticism(IUCN’s 1975 Kinshasa Resolution on Protection of Traditional Ways of 

Life; Durban Accord; CBD)

• Community‐based conservation giving mixed results (Brown 2002; Berkes 2004)

• Increasing interest in participatory approaches that create local incentives, e.g., UNDP Equator Initiative

Page 2: Social Ecological Systems and Conservation · sacred groves and in coffee plantations •Endemic tree species more abundant in forest reserve but threatened trees more abundant in

Trends: fine‐grained conservation models; rejection of ‘blueprints’

•Models developed by large int ENGOs: seek unifying cons principles, for general application

• However, monolithic models tend to view the world through relatively coarse filters

• At odds with emergence of fine‐grained models adapted to local conditions (Bawa et al. 

2004), using diagnostic approaches (Ostrom 2007 PNAS)

Western Ghats, SW India,biodivesity hotspot

•High biodiversity and high pop density• Government‐designated forest reserves• Traditional sacred groves• Biodiverse agro‐forestry systems (as opposed to monoculture) 

•Annual, perennial, and tree crops are grown together by landholders in species combinations evolved over hundreds of years

Page 3: Social Ecological Systems and Conservation · sacred groves and in coffee plantations •Endemic tree species more abundant in forest reserve but threatened trees more abundant in

W Ghats: landscape level conservation

• Bhagwat et al. (Ecology and Society 2005) compared the biodiversity of 3 groups in these three areas

• Found surprisingly high levels of biodiversity sacred groves and in coffee plantations

• Endemic tree species more abundant in forest reserve but threatened trees more abundant in sacred groves 

• Concluded that sacred groves & agro‐forestry are an integral part of conservation strategies

(a) trees, (b) birds, (c) macrofungi (Bhagwat et al. 2005)World Heritage Site Planning with the Ojibwa of N Ontario and N Manitoba

• Four Ojibwa (Anishnaabe) communties• Pikangikum FN (pop 2,200) has a Land Use Strategy (2006) and is in the process of obtaining a Sustainable Forestry License necessary for commercial forestry

•Whitefeather Forest is the forestry site• Potential World Heritage site

Page 4: Social Ecological Systems and Conservation · sacred groves and in coffee plantations •Endemic tree species more abundant in forest reserve but threatened trees more abundant in

Cheekahnahwaydahmungk Cheekahnahwaydahmungk KeetahkeemeenaanKeetahkeemeenaan

Keeping the LandKeeping the Land

A Draft Land Use Strategy

for the

Whitefeather Forest and Adjacent Areas

Ojibwa concept of “Keeping the land”

Keeping the land requires all management tasks be done together.Pikangikum elders do not believe that segregating the land into separate areas slated for either “protection” or “development” will be an effective way of ensuring ahtik [caribou] survival

(O’Flaherty et al. Ecology and Society, 2008)

Ojibwa concepts on forest ecosystem renewal

“When a forest gets too old, it can no longer produce animals. They get tired of eating old food. The Creator knows animals cannot continue eating old food. The Creator brings fire to the land through the Thunderbird”

– Whitehead Moose, PFN

“Where there is a fire, the ground becomes green the next year, and animals are there to feed. When you go to a plantation, it is drastically different, you don’t see any animals or birds there.”

‐Matthew Strang, PFN

Page 5: Social Ecological Systems and Conservation · sacred groves and in coffee plantations •Endemic tree species more abundant in forest reserve but threatened trees more abundant in

Living in balance with the land

“Re-creation” – human health

Healing the mind, body and soul

Social Gatherings

Elders knowledge

Going on the Land Strong Leadership

Elders Guidance

Community Assembly

Respect the Land

Respect People

Kinship relationships

On the importance of protecting all species    

“The Creator put everything on the earth for a reason even if we don’t know that reason.  How can we decide which bush should stay and which should go?”

‐ Ella Dawn Green, Shoal Lake FN

• The Creator provided everything that the people would need for their survival

• In return, the Ojibwa hold the responsibility to maintain these gifts given to them

• Every species has a reason to be there, known or unknown to humans

• For that reason the full set of plant species should be kept

• The value of a plant, such as its medicinal value, cannot be known ahead of time. 

Page 6: Social Ecological Systems and Conservation · sacred groves and in coffee plantations •Endemic tree species more abundant in forest reserve but threatened trees more abundant in

Paakumshumwaau‐MaatuskaauBiodiversity Reserve, James Bay, 

Quebec, 4,259 sq km• Initiated by the Cree Nation of Wemindji•Multiple objectives: ecological, political, cultural

• Biodiversity and landscape conservation; security from hydro‐electricity development threat; reaffirming land and resource rights; community identity, cohesion and cultural needs

Page 7: Social Ecological Systems and Conservation · sacred groves and in coffee plantations •Endemic tree species more abundant in forest reserve but threatened trees more abundant in

Experience with the two Canadiansubarctic indigenous PAs

• People‐free parks, ‘fences‐and‐fines’approach still dominant

• The PA status does not accommodate well the following:‐ Multifunctional, cultural landscapes‐ Multiple objectives (political, cultural, environmental)

‐ Multi‐level governance needs‐ Designing a fine‐grained PA application

Possible solutions• Flexibility under new IUCN Category V • IUCN recognition of Indigenous Community Conserved Areas (ICCAs)

• Increasing recognition of IK/TEK and ways to combine such knowledge with science

• PAs increasingly requiring multi‐level, adaptive governance, participatory approaches,

•… partnerships, learning approaches to deal with a rapidly changing world

Page 8: Social Ecological Systems and Conservation · sacred groves and in coffee plantations •Endemic tree species more abundant in forest reserve but threatened trees more abundant in

Nature Morte Vivante (Still life – fast moving)        Salvador Dali 1956, with apologies to Carpenter et al. 

Ecology & Society 2009Conclusions

• Re‐connecting social‐ecological systems• Going beyond conventional conservation models, creating a diversity of experiments

•Working with local people, fostering stewardship ethics and cultural connections to the land

•Not the creation of artificial “islands” of conservation through ‘human‐free’ PAs

• But locally driven approaches, as the best hope for conservation in a complex world.

Acknowledgements• Nathan Deutsh and Catie Burlando for several photos• Whitefeather Forest Management Corp. for Land Use Strategy 

and draft map• Janene Shearer for the Anishnaabe values diagram• Melanie Zurba for help with the powerpoint preparation• Iain Davidson‐Hunt, Michael O’Flaherty, Colin Scott, Claude 

Peloquin, Kaleekal Thompson for intellectual support• Project support:

‐ Shastri Indo‐Canadian Institute for Kerala, Western Ghats‐ Sustainable Forest Management Network (SFMN) for the Northern 

Ontario case‐ SSHRC CURA project for the Northern Quebec case ‐ Canada Research Chairs program (www.chairs.gc.ca)