Community Conservation

Research Network

Communities, conservation
and livelihoods
Anthony Charles, Editor

INTERNATIONAL UNION FOR CONSERVATION OF NATURE

About IUCN
IUCN is a membership Union uniquely composed of both government and civil society organisations.
It provides public, private and non-governmental organisations with the knowledge and tools that enable
human progress, economic development and nature conservation to take place together. Created in 1948,
IUCN is now the world’s largest and most diverse environmental network, harnessing the knowledge,
resources and reach of more than 1,400 Member organisations and some 15,000 experts. It is a leading
provider of conservation data, assessments and analysis. Its broad membership enables IUCN to fill the
role of incubator and trusted repository of best practices, tools and international standards. IUCN provides
a neutral space in which diverse stakeholders including governments, NGOs, scientists, businesses, local
communities, indigenous peoples organisations and others can work together to forge and implement
solutions to environmental challenges and achieve sustainable development.

www.iucn.org
https://twitter.com/IUCN/

About the Commission on Environmental, Economic and Social Policy

(CEESP)
CEESP is a unique network of approximately 1,500 volunteers representing disciplines from biology and
anthropology, economics and law, to culture and Indigenous peoples – among many others. Our work
represents the crossroads of conservation and development. CEESP contributes to the IUCN mission by
providing insights and expertise and promoting policies and action to harmonise the conservation of nature
with the crucial socio-economic and cultural concerns of human communities—such as livelihoods, human
rights and responsibilities, human development, security, equity, and the fair and effective governance of
natural resources. CEESP’s natural and social scientists, environmental and economic policy experts, and
practitioners in community-based conservation provide IUCN with critical resources to meet the challenges
of 21st century nature and natural resource conservation and the goal of shaping a sustainable future.

www.iucn.org/commissions/commission-environmental-economic-and-social-policy

About the Community Conservation Research Network (CCRN)

The CCRN is a global partnership of Indigenous, academic, community, governmental and non-
governmental partners, focusing on the linkages of environmental stewardship and sustainable livelihoods at
a local community level. The CCRN engages with and supports communities and Indigenous organisations,
drawing on a range of expertise covering the commons, social-ecological systems, community-based
management, climate and environmental change, governance and rights, conserved areas, natural
resources, engagement and empowerment. Through on-the-ground participatory research and international
synthesis, the CCRN produces knowledge, insights and policy recommendations to improve the
effectiveness and equity of environmental conservation and the sustainability of livelihoods. The results of
CCRN’s work are covered in this book, and throughout the CCRN’s resources platform, which includes the
documentary Sustainable Futures – Communities in Action and the results of the international conference
Communities, Conservation and Livelihoods held jointly with IUCN-CEESP.

www.communityconservation.net
[email protected]
https://twitter.com/ccrn_news
Communities, conservation
and livelihoods
Anthony Charles, Editor
The designation of geographical entities in this book, and the presentation of the material, do not imply the expression of
any opinion whatsoever on the part of IUCN and CCRN concerning the legal status of any country, territory, or area, or of its
authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries.

The views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect those of IUCN and CCRN.

IUCN is pleased to acknowledge the support of its Framework Partners who provide core funding: Ministry of Foreign Affairs of
Denmark; Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Finland; Government of France and the French Development Agency (AFD); the Ministry
of Environment, Republic of Korea; the Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation (Norad); the Swedish International
Development Cooperation Agency (Sida); the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation (SDC); and the United States
Department of State.

The Community Conservation Research Network (CCRN) is grateful for funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities
Research Council of Canada (SSHRC) and from Saint Mary’s University, and the support of Indigenous, community,
government and academic partners.

Published by: IUCN, Gland, Switzerland in collaboration with CCRN, Saint Mary's University, Halifax, Canada

Copyright: © 2021 IUCN, International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources

Reproduction of this publication for educational or other non-commercial purposes is

authorised without prior written permission from the copyright holder provided the source is fully
acknowledged.

Reproduction of this publication for resale or other commercial purposes is prohibited without prior
written permission of the copyright holder.

The source of all maps unless otherwise indicated is Saint Mary's University, Department of
Geography and Environmental Studies, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada.

Citation: Charles, A. (ed.) (2021). Communities, conservation and livelihoods. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN and
Halifax, Canada: Community Conservation Research Network.

Individual chapters and community stories within this report should be referenced as: Author(s)
(2021). 'Title of chapter/story'. In: A. Charles (ed.) (2021), Communities, conservation and livelihoods.
Gland, Switzerland: IUCN and Halifax, Canada: Community Conservation Research Network.

ISBN: 978-2-8317-2096-8 (PDF)

978-2-8317-2097-5 (print version)

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.CH.2021.01.en

Cover photo: Aerial view of Nalma village (Nepal). Photo by Mokhamad Edliadi/CIFOR-ICRAF (CC BY-NC-ND 2.0)

Copyediting and layout: Diwata Hunziker

Printed by: Marquis Printing, Canada

Available from: International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN)

Rue Mauverney 28
1196 Gland
Switzerland
www.iucn.org/resources/publications
www.iucn.org/commissions/commission-environmental-economic-and-social-policy/resources

Community Conservation Research Network (CCRN)

Saint Mary’s University
Halifax, Nova Scotia, B3H 3C3
Canada
[email protected]
www.communityconservation.net
Table of contents
List of boxes, figures and tables ix
Foreword xi
Preface xii
List of contributors xiii
Acknowledgements xv
Acronyms and abbreviations xvii

Chapter 1 Introduction 1
Anthony Charles

1.1 Content and structure 2

Chapter 2 Community-based approaches for linking conservation and livelihoods 4

Anthony Charles and Fikret Berkes

2.1 Historical background 4

2.2 Community-based conservation 5
2.3 The Community Conservation Research Network 6
2.3.1 CCRN’s conceptual framework 7
2.3.2 Key insights from CCRN research 11
References 11

Chapter 3 A social-ecological systems lens for community conservation 13

Fikret Berkes

3.1 Introduction 13
3.2 Scale and level 13
3.3 Emergent properties 14
3.4 Governance 14
3.5 Local-level institutions 14
3.6 The nature of change in social-ecological systems 14
3.7 Focusing on the social system 15
3.8 Highlighting linkages between ecosystems and governance 16
3.9 Conclusions 16
References 18

Chapter 4 Meanings and motivations: communities and conservation 19

Merle Sowman, Wayne Rice, A. Minerva Arce-Ibarra and Ivett Peña-Azcona

4.1 Introduction 19
4.1.1 Meanings of conservation 19
4.1.2 Local and Indigenous community ‘motivations’ 20
4.2 Conclusions 23
References 23

Communities, conservation and livelihoods iii

 Chapter 5 Biodiversity outcomes of community conservation
24
Philip Dearden, Bruce Downie, Juan Carlos Seijo and Anthony Charles
5.1 Introduction 24
5.1.1 Communities and biodiversity conservation 24
5.1.2 Biodiversity conservation as a primary objective 25
5.2 Conservation concerns and outcomes 26
5.3 Discussion 27
5.4 Conclusions 28
References 29

Chapter 6 Livelihood outcomes of community conservation 30

Cristiana S. Seixas, Laura Loucks and Sharmalene Mendis-Millard

6.1 Introduction 30
6.2 The communities 31
6.2.1 Trigger events and responses to livelihood threats 31
6.2.2 Windows of opportunity 32
6.2.3 Interventions 32
6.3 Factors contributing to positive livelihood outcomes 33
6.4 Concluding remarks 35
References 35

Chapter 7 Governance and community conservation

36
Derek Armitage, Ana Carolina Esteves Dias, Ella-Kari Muhl, Mitsutaku Makino, Tawney Lem,
Laura Loucks and Aoi Sugimoto

7.1 Introduction 36
7.2 Why ‘governance’? 36
7.3 Lessons on governance 37
7.3.1 Multi-level collaboration and participatory engagement 37
7.3.2 Access and management rights 38
7.3.3 Social learning 38
7.3.4 Knowledge co-production 38
7.3.5 Leadership and capacity building 39
7.4 Conclusions 40
References 41

Chapter 8 Power in realising community conservation and livelihoods 42

Prateep Kumar Nayak

8.1 Introduction 42
8.2 Linking power to community conservation 42
8.2.1 What are the main power issues in the community conservation
and livelihood context? 43
8.2.2 What are the conservation and livelihood challenges linked to power? 44
8.2.3 What community initiatives are effective in addressing issues of power
related to conservation and livelihoods? 44
8.2.4 How are the practical outcomes related to power? 45
8.3 The power of power: Can it help conservation and livelihoods? 46
8.4 Conclusions 48
References 48

iv Communities, conservation and livelihoods

Chapter 9 Indigenous perspectives on community conservation
49
Richard Nuna, Trudy Sable, Dawn Foxcroft and Marta da Graça Z. Simbine

9.1 Introduction 49
9.2 Conservation and the respected environment of the Innu 49
Contributed by Richard Nuna, with Trudy Sable
9.3 Relationship and connection: Conservation Principles of the Nuu-chah-nulth Nation,
West Coast of Vancouver Island 51
Contributed by taaʔisumqa, Dawn Foxcroft
9.4 Translating conservation: The Xichangana concept 52
Contributed by Marta da Graça Z. Simbine
9.5 Conclusion 54
References 54

Chapter 10 Concluding synthesis and highlights 55

Anthony Charles and Fikret Berkes

10.1 Highlights by chapter 55

10.2 Ingredients for success in linking communities, conservation and livelihoods 59
10.2.1 Social-ecological systems and resilience 59
10.2.2 Meanings and motivations 59
10.2.3 Governance 60
10.2.4 Linking knowledge and practice 61
10.3 Policy recommendations for governments 61
10.4 Conclusions 62
References 63

Postscript 64
Anthony Charles
References 66

Community stories 67
Introduction to community stories 69
Anthony Charles
References 69

Koh Pitak Island, Thailand

Community conservation revitalises livelihoods and marine resources 70
Dachanee Emphandhu and Philip Dearden
Key messages 70
Community profile 71
Conservation and livelihood challenges 71
Community initiatives 71
Practical outcomes 72
Reference 73
Acknowledgements 73

Koh Sralao, Cambodia

Seas of change in a coastal fishing community 74
Furqan Asif, Jason Horlings and Melissa Marschke
Key messages 74

Communities, conservation and livelihoods v

 Community profile 75
Conservation and livelihood challenges 75
Community initiatives 76
Practical outcomes 76
References 77
Acknowledgements 77

Les Village, Bali, Indonesia

When conservation becomes a way of life 78
Humayra Secelia Muswar and Arif Satria

Key messages 78
Community profile 79
Conservation and livelihood challenges 80
Community initiatives 81
Practical outcomes 81
References 82
Acknowledgements 82

Haruku village, Maluku Province, Indonesia

Conservation embedded in tradition and culture 83
Ahmad Mony and Arif Satria

Key messages 83
Community profile 84
Conservation and livelihood challenges 84
Community initiatives 85
Practical outcomes 85
References 86
Acknowledgements 86

São Luiz do Paraitinga and Catuçaba, Brazil

From land degradation and disaster to conservation and development 87
Camila A. Islas, Alice R. de Moraes, Juliana S. Farinaci and Cristiana S. Seixas

Key messages 87
Community profile 88
Conservation and livelihood challenges 88
Community initiatives 89
Practical outcomes 90
References 91
Acknowledgements 91

Vila dos Pescadores, Cubatão, state of São Paulo, Brazil

Community well-being, environmental challenges and livelihoods in a Brazilian
mangrove shantytown 92
Cintia Nascimento

Key messages 92
Community profile 93
Conservation and livelihood challenges 93
Community initiatives 93
Practical outcomes 94

vi Communities, conservation and livelihoods

 References 95
Acknowledgements 95

Punta Allen, Quintana Roo, Mexico

Community-based ecosystem conservation – The spiny lobster fishery 96
Juan Carlos Seijo and Maren Headley

Key messages 96
Community profile 97
Conservation and livelihood challenges 97
Community initiatives 98
Practical outcomes 98
References 99
Acknowledgements 99

Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada

Communities fighting food insecurity with self-sustaining initiatives 100
Sadie Beaton, Miranda Cobb, Will Fawcett-Hill, Marla MacLeod, Laura Mather, Tiffanie Rainville
and Satya Ramen

Key messages 100

Community profile 101
Conservation and livelihood challenges 101
Community initiatives 101
Practical outcomes 103
References 104
Acknowledgements 105

Tsitsikamma, South Africa

Food security and livelihood threats from a marine protected area 106
Ella-Kari Muhl

Key messages 106

Community profile 107
Conservation and livelihood challenges 107
Community initiatives 108
Practical outcomes 109
Future concerns 109
References 110
Acknowledgements 110

Olifants Estuary, South Africa

Community fishing rights, conservation, and threats from mining 111
Merle Sowman

Key messages 111

Community profile 112
Conservation and livelihood challenges 112
Community initiatives 113
Practical outcomes 114
References 115
Acknowledgements 115

Communities, conservation and livelihoods vii

 Chilika Lagoon, India
Reflections on community conservation 116
Prateep Kumar Nayak

Key messages 116

Community profile 117
Conservation and livelihood challenges 117
Community initiatives 118
Practical outcomes 118
References 119
Acknowledgements 119

Qeshm Island, Iran

Community-led conservation and ecotourism 120
Razieh Ghayoumi and Anthony Charles

Key messages 120

Community profile 121
Conservation and livelihood challenges 121
Community initiatives 121
Culture 121
Conservation 122
Practical outcomes 122
References 123
Acknowledgements 123

Indigenous communities in Bolivia’s northern Amazon

Opportunities and challenges 124
Alison Macnaughton

Key messages 124

Community profile 125
Conservation and livelihood challenges 125
Community initiatives 126
Practical outcomes 126
References 127
Acknowledgements 127

Clayoquot Sound, Canada

Community engagement in a UNESCO Biosphere Reserve 128
Laura Loucks

Key messages 128

Community profile 129
Conservation and livelihood challenges 129
Community initiatives 130
Practical outcomes 131
References 132
Acknowledgements 132

viii Communities, conservation and livelihoods

List of boxes, figures and tables
Chapter 2
Figure 1 CCRN sites 7
Table 1 List of CCRN sites (community and region) and sources of community stories 8
Box 1 Summaries of two community stories 9
Figure 2 Social-ecological systems lens 10

Chapter 3
Figure 3 Social-ecological system for community conservation
16
Box 2 Seagrass re-planting in Tokyo Bay 17

Chapter 5
Figure 4 Frequencies of conservation concerns 26
27
Figure 5 Frequency of anticipated conservation outcomes

Chapter 6
Figure 6 Process of community (re)organisation that generates positive
livelihood outcomes 31
Table 2 Factors contributing to positive livelihood outcomes (n=26 cases surveyed) 34
Table 3 Percentage of cases with positive livelihood outcomes in the face of trigger
events, windows of opportunity and/or interventions in the social-ecological
system (n=26 cases surveyed) 35

Chapter 7
Table 4 40
Summary of governance attributes addressed in selected CCRN cases

Chapter 8
Table 5 List of CCRN sites considered in this chapter (based on the numbering as indicated) 43
Table 6 Key measures to examine power in community conservation 47

Community stories
Figure 7 Geographical overview of community stories
68

Koh Pitak Island, Thailand

70
Figure 8 Map of Thailand and location of Koh Pitak Island

Koh Sralao, Cambodia

Figure 9 Map of Cambodia and location of Koh Sralao 74

Les Village, Bali, Indonesia

Figure 10 Map of Indonesia and location of Les Village 78
Table 7 Key differences between seafood fishing and ornamental fish fishing 79

Communities, conservation and livelihoods ix

 Haruku village, Maluku Province, Indonesia
Figure 11 Map of Indonesia and location of Haruku Island 83

São Luiz do Paraitinga and Catuçaba, Brazil

87
Figure 12 Map of Brazil and location of São Luiz do Paraitinga

Vila dos Pescadores, Cubatão, state of São Paulo, Brazil

Figure 13 Map of Brazil and location of Vila dos Pescadores, Brazil 92

Punta Allen, Quintana Roo, Mexico

Figure 14 Map of Mexico and location of Punta Allen 96

Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada

Figure 15 Map of Canada and location of Halifax 100

Tsitsikamma, South Africa

Figure 16 Map of South Africa and location of Tsitsikamma Marine Protected Area 106

Olifants Estuary, South Africa

Figure 17 Map of South Africa and location of the Olifants Estuary 111

Chilika Lagoon, India

Figure 18 Map of India and location of Chilika Lagoon 116

Qeshm Island, Iran

Figure 19 Map of Iran and location of Qeshm Island 120

Indigenous communities in Bolivia’s northern Amazon

Figure 20 Map of Bolivia and location of Pando and Beni Departments 124

Clayoquot Sound, Canada

Figure 21 Map of Canada and location of Clayoquot Sound UNESCO Biosphere region 128

x Communities, conservation and livelihoods

Foreword
It was with great pleasure that IUCN Commission on Environment, Economics and Social Policy (CEESP)
partnered with the Community Conservation Research Network (CCRN) in May of 2018 to host the
Communities, Conservation and Livelihoods Conference. Through this partnership, we had the opportunity to
shine a spotlight on Indigenous peoples and local communities (IPLCs) around the world, show how they are
engaging in environmental conservation supporting sustainable livelihoods, and articulate how they can be
best supported in policy and practical programmes.

Indigenous peoples and local communities are, and remain, at the forefront of protecting the planet, and share
with us a wealth of knowledge, experience and sustainable practices that the world desperately needs. At
the same time, we also must recognise that nature managed by IPLCs is under increasing pressure, including
from resource extraction, commodity production, mining, and transport and energy infrastructure, which has
only been exacerbated with the COVID-19 global pandemic. The IPBES Global Assessment documented that
while nature is generally declining less rapidly in IPLCs’ land than elsewhere, it is declining there as well. The
negative impacts of these pressures include continued loss of subsistence and traditional livelihoods, impacts
on health and well-being, and loss of economic development opportunities from the sustainable use of natural
resources. These impacts also impede traditional management practices, transmission of Indigenous and
local knowledge (ILK), and the ability of IPLCs to effectively manage natural resources that are relevant to
the broader society. Therefore, it is ever more important that the voices, stories and experience of IPLCs are
recognised and elevated in the national and global policy context.

I am pleased that CEESP is able to support the CCRN in celebrating and elevating these local community
efforts through this Communities, conservation and livelihoods book. The book brings together a decade
of experience from across the globe and provides us with examples of community leadership, success
and sustainable livelihoods in conservation, as well as highlighting existing and persistent challenges that
communities face in a changing world.

I applaud the CCRN, under the leadership of Anthony Charles, and all of their collaborators who have built
upon and learned from the deep knowledge of Indigenous and local communities’ collective action. I invite you
to be inspired and engaged by the stories and experiences of the Indigenous and local communities in this
book.

Kristen Walker Painemilla

Chair
IUCN Commission on Environment, Economics
and Social Policy

Communities, conservation and livelihoods xi

 Preface
The story begins several thousand years ago. Over the course of millennia, Indigenous societies have been
linking together their need to sustain livelihoods with an appreciation of the importance of the natural world
and a recognition of the need for stewardship. Others, over time, also began practicing this crucial balancing
of healthy ecosystems and sustainable livelihoods. Today, we see this as a critical feature of the modern world.
The tensions involved are present globally, notably in how we seek to address climate change while also
maintaining the functioning of our social and economic systems. The need for joint attention to conservation
and to sustaining economies is apparent as well in local, place-based communities around the world. In every
country of the world, in urban neighbourhoods and rural towns and villages, people are coming together
in their communities to find solutions that sustain their livelihoods and maintain, or restore, healthy local
environments.

This book celebrates the efforts of local communities, literally thousands of them the world over, all seeking to
resolve the essential challenge of conservation and livelihoods. The book reflects the results of over a decade
of studies focusing on communities, conservation and livelihoods, through the Community Conservation
Research Network (CCRN), a global initiative that involves a wide range of Indigenous, academic, community
and non-governmental organisations (NGOs). As will be seen in this book, the linkages of conservation and
livelihoods arise within underlying ‘social-ecological’ systems, they are rooted in the varying meanings of
and motivation for conservation, they are affected by issues of power and of governance, and they lead to
a wide range of biodiversity and livelihood outcomes. And in many situations, there are crucial Indigenous
perspectives to be considered.

The CCRN initiative has involved 30 sites globally, with participatory action research that engages local
communities and Indigenous organisations to explore how environmental conservation and sustainable
livelihoods are interwoven. This has led to a set of Community Stories, each recounting the experiences of one
of the CCRN sites, as well as a range of videos, webinars and animations. These resources are all available on
CCRN’s website, together with a participatory map, to invite others to share community stories. The CCRN
website also provides the thematic results of a major international meeting convened by CCRN and IUCN
(International Union for Conservation of Nature) with the same title as this book – Communities, Conservation
and Livelihoods. We in the CCRN are very grateful in particular to IUCN’s Commission on Environmental,
Economic and Social Policy (CEESP) which not only co-hosted the conference, but also supported the
publication of this book.

CCRN’s work builds on the deep knowledge of Indigenous and local communities themselves, and the
research efforts of Nobel Prize winner Elinor Ostrom and many others over the past half-century. Their work,
and that of Ostrom in particular, show the importance of ‘collective action’ – people in communities meeting
their challenges together by working together. As we live through the COVID-19 pandemic and a new era for
societies around the world, the need for collective action has never been greater.

This book contains many inspiring stories of collective action of communities around the world, as they
address and, in many cases, solve local challenges of environment and livelihoods. Although these stories
reflect experiences before COVID-19, within them are ingredients of collective action that we need to move
forward today.

Anthony Charles, Editor

Saint Mary’s University and
Community Conservation Research Network

xii Communities, conservation and livelihoods

List of contributors
A. Minerva Arce-Ibarra
Department of Systematic and Aquatic Ecology, El Colegio de la Frontera Sur, Chetumal, Mexico
Derek Armitage
School of Environment, Resources and Sustainability, University of Waterloo, Canada
Furqan Asif
Environmental Policy Group (ENP), Wageningen University, Netherlands
Sadie Beaton
Ecology Action Centre, Halifax, Canada
Fikret Berkes
Natural Resources Institute, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada
Anthony Charles
School of the Environment and School of Business, Saint Mary’s University, Halifax, Canada
Miranda Cobb
Inspiring Communities, Halifax, Canada
Alice R. de Moraes
Commons Conservation and Management Group, University of Campinas (UNICAMP), Brazil
Philip Dearden
Department of Geography, University of Victoria, Victoria, Canada
Ana Carolina Esteves Dias
University of Campinas (UNICAMP), Brazil and University of Waterloo, Canada
Bruce Downie
Kesho Trust, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania
Dachanee Emphandhu
Faculty of Forestry, Kasetsart University, Thailand
Juliana S. Farinaci
Commons Conservation and Management Group, University of Campinas (UNICAMP), Brazil
Will Fawcett-Hill
Ecology Action Centre (formerly), Halifax, Canada
Dawn Foxcroft
Uu-a-thluk, Nuu-chah-nulth Tribal Council Fisheries, Port Alberni, Canada
Razieh Ghayoumi
Research Center for Environment and Sustainable Development, Department of Environment, Tehran, Iran
Maren Headley
School of Natural Resources, Marist University of Merida, Mexico
Jason Horlings
School of International Development and Global Studies (formerly), University of Ottawa, Canada
Camila A. Islas
Commons Conservation and Management Group, University of Campinas (UNICAMP), Brazil
Tawney Lem
West Coast Aquatic, Port Alberni, Canada
Laura Loucks
Clayoquot Biosphere Trust, Tofino, Canada
Marla MacLeod
Ecology Action Centre, Halifax, Canada

Communities, conservation and livelihoods xiii

 Alison Macnaughton
Department of Geography, University of Victoria, Canada
Mitsutaku Makino
Atmosphere and Ocean Research Institute, University of Tokyo, Japan
Melissa Marschke
School of International Development and Global Studies, University of Ottawa, Canada
Laura Mather
Ecology Action Centre (formerly), Halifax, Canada
Sharmalene Mendis-Millard
Centre for Community Research, Learning and Action, Wilfrid Laurier University, Waterloo, Canada
Ahmad Mony
Center for Agricultural and Rural Development Studies (CARDS), IPB University, Bogor, Indonesia
Ella-Kari Muhl
School of Environment, Resources and Sustainability, University of Waterloo, Canada
Humayra Secelia Muswar
IPB University (Bogor Agricultural University), Bogor, Indonesia
Cintia Nascimento
Community Conservation Research Network, Saint Mary’s University, Halifax Canada
Prateep Kumar Nayak
School of Environment, Enterprise and Development, University of Waterloo, Canada
Richard Nuna
Environment Department, Innu Nation, Labrador, Canada
Ivett Peña-Azcona
Department of Agriculture, Society and Environment, El Colegio de la Frontera Sur, San Cristóbal de Las
Casas, Chiapas, Mexico
Tiffanie Rainville
Ecology Action Centre (formerly), Halifax, Canada
Satya Ramen
Ecology Action Centre (formerly), Halifax, Canada
Wayne Rice
University of Cape Town, South Africa & University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Trudy Sable
Community Engaged Research, Office of the VPAR and Anthropology Department, Saint Mary’s University,
Halifax, Canada
Arif Satria
Faculty of Human Ecology, IPB University, Bogor, Indonesia
Juan Carlos Seijo
School of Natural Resources, Marist University of Merida, Mexico
Cristiana S. Seixas
Commons Conservation and Management Group, University of Campinas (UNICAMP), Brazil
Marta da Graça Z. Simbine
Commons Conservation and Management Group, UNICAMP, Brazil and Licungo University, Mozambique
Merle Sowman
Department of Environmental and Geographical Science, University of Cape Town, South Africa
Aoi Sugimoto
Japan Fisheries Research and Education Agency, Yokohama, Japan

xiv Communities, conservation and livelihoods

Acknowledgements
This book is the result of a decade of collaborations and partnerships. There are so many people and
organisations to thank for making that possible.

To begin, all the contributors are grateful to the local communities around the world, who have shown what
cohesion and strength, sustainability and resilience, struggle and success, look like ‘on the ground’. We
are inspired by what is achieved by local communities, and we are grateful to those we have worked with
collaboratively over the years.

The success of CCRN, as a network, is a result of the great efforts of all CCRN participants, many of whom
were involved over the course of a full decade. The complete list of participants is given below. While many
contributed directly to this book, every single person contributed to the knowledge and understanding that the
team has developed over the years (core team marked with an asterisk.)

Minerva Arce-Ibarra * Cheryl Chan Alex Zachariah

Derek Armitage * Amy Cousins Natalie Ban
Sadie Beaton * Ana Carolina Esteves Dias Maarten Bavinck
Fikret Berkes * Juliana Farinaci Nathan Bennett
Maggy Burns * Jack Frey Meriem Bouamrane
Cathy Conrad * Luciana Gomes de Araujo Alfonso Cuevas
Philip Dearden * Maren Headley Libby Dean
Dachanee Emphandu * Karla Diana Infante Ramírez Nancy Doubleday
Dawn Foxcroft * Camila Alvez Islas Bruce Downie
Barbara Fullarton * Marta Leite Razieh Ghayoumi
Dave Gauthier * Alison Macnaughton Russ Jones
Jennifer Graham * Philile Mbatha Helen Joseph
Don Hall * Ahmad Mony Melissa Marschke
Tawney Lem * Alice R. de Moraes Prateep Nayak
Laura Loucks * Ella-Kari Muhl Cristina Pita
Dan MacCormack * Humayra Secelia Muswar Silvia Salas
Marla MacLeod * Cintia Nascimento Sonia Salas
Mitsutaku Makino * Polo Palomo John Abraham
Sharmalene Mendis-Millard * Ivett Peña-Azcona Ivana Amidzic
Kelly Murphy * Jeremy Pittman Nathan Dennison
Richard Nuna * Malloni Puc Alcocer Renee Field
Trudy Sable * Kaitlyn Rathwell Amy Heim
Arif Satria * Wayne Rice Shannon Hicks
Juan Carlos Seijo * Ranuka Ruschano Patrick Larter
Cristiana Seixas * Aibek Samakov Trymore Maganga
Merle Sowman * Marta da Graça Z. Simbine Robynique Maynard
Aoi Sugimoto * Nadine Soutschka Rodrigo Menafra
Samantha Berdej Meagan Symington Cristina Otella
Amy Berry Raúl Villanueva Ashley Shelton
Mauricio Castrejon Mendoza Samantha Williams Rebecca Zimmerman

Communities, conservation and livelihoods xv

 CCRN participants include core contributors who have been with CCRN since before it formally began, and
whose participation literally made the whole network possible. There are also many student members of the
CCRN, successfully trained over the course of the past decade. Then there are affiliates, who joined mid-
way and have made their own outstanding contributions. Further, we all owe a great deal to the various staff
members who have worked with CCRN over the years, and kept everything moving along so well.

It would be too lengthy to describe the contribution of each CCRN participant. However, there is one person
who will receive a special note: Fikret Berkes has provided crucial guidance throughout the CCRN enterprise,
and although not listed as an editor of this book, he has helped in guiding this project as well – he has the
status of ‘Honorary Editor’.

The CCRN is composed of not only individuals; several CCRN partner organisations have played essential
roles. The Innu Nation (Labrador, Canada) and the Nuu-chah-nulth Tribal Council (British Columbia, Canada)
have provided an Indigenous grounding for us all, as well as active participation. The Ecology Action Centre
and West Coast Aquatic have been strong and supportive non-governmental partners. Environment and
Climate Change Canada, a unit of the Canadian government, was also an important partner throughout the
CCRN’s experience.

Other organisations and individuals provided crucial support over the years. Most notably, we are grateful
to the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC) for their major funding of the
CCRN, and to Saint Mary’s University for hosting the network. Nexus Media produced several videos and a
full-length documentary for CCRN – all freely available on the CCRN website. Collaborating with Nexus Media,
and notably its leader Don Duchene, has been a pleasure. White Raven Consulting, notably Dawn Foxcroft
and Kelly Poirier, produced wonderful animations (also available on the CCRN website) and excellent meeting
facilitation. Brenda Parlee and Charles Levkoe provided excellent reviews that greatly improved the book, and
Diwata Hunziker and Beth Abbott gave valuable support in the production of the book.

One other organisation and two individuals deserve a special note. When the CCRN began envisioning a
major conference to share insights on the interactions of around the world, a new collaboration developed with
the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Commission on Environmental, Economic and Social
Policy (CEESP). This proved to be an exceptionally productive and enjoyable partnership. At the core was a
continuing close interaction with CEESP Chair, Kristen Walker Painemilla, and Deputy Chair, Ameyali Ramos.
Together, CCRN and IUCN CEESP brought to reality the highly innovative 2018 meeting, Communities,
Conservation and Livelihoods, the results of which may be found today on the CCRN website. The book you
are reading, written by CCRN and co-published by IUCN CEESP, is another output of this strong collaboration.

xvi Communities, conservation and livelihoods

Acronyms and abbreviations
BWFRC Bayers Westwood Family Resource Centre
CBD Convention on Biological Diversity
CBT Clayoquot Biosphere Trust
CCA Community conservation area
CCRN Community Conservation Research Network
CEESP Commission on Environmental, Economic and Social Policy
CRUF Common Roots’ Urban Farm
CSO Civil society organisation
DAFF Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, Oceans and Coasts Branch
DEA Department of Environmental Affairs
EAC Ecology Action Centre
EBM Ecosystem-based management
EMP Estuary management plan
GEF Global Environment Facility
HDI Human Development Index
ILK Indigenous and local knowledge
IPBES Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem
Services
IPLC Indigenous peoples and local communities
ISANS Immigrant Settlement Association of Nova Scotia
IUCN International Union for Conservation of Nature
LEK Local ecological knowledge
MPA Marine protected area
NEST West Coast Nature, Education, Sustainability, Transformation
NGO Non-governmental organisation
NTC Nuu-chah-nulth Tribal Council
OECM Other effective area-based conservation measures
PA Protected areas
PES Payments for environmental services
REDESUAPA Rede para o Desenvolvimento Sustentável do Alto Paraíba (Upper Paraíba
River Sustainable Development Network)
SANParks South African National Parks
SDG Sustainable Development Goals
SES Social-ecological systems
SEZ Special Economic Zone
SSHRC Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
SWF Samudram Women’s Federation
TCO Tierras Comunitarias de Origen (Original Community Territories)
TEK Traditional ecological knowledge
TNP Tsitsikamma National Park
UN DESA United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs
UNESCO United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization

Communities, conservation and livelihoods xvii

 Photo: Dennis Jarvis (CC BY-SA 2.0)

xviii Communities, conservation and livelihoods

Chapter 1

Introduction
Anthony Charles

In most places around the world, people are SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth), and
an integral, sometimes dominant, part of the those of a more environmental nature, such as SDG
environment. This has two implications. First, a key 14 (Life Below Water) and SDG 15 (Life on Land), as
requirement for sustainability success lies in finding well as SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities)
ways to meet the dual goals of conserving nature and SDG 13 (Climate Action).
and providing for the well-being and quality of life of
people. Second, while conservation and stewardship Several major international initiatives are
certainly require considering the problems created also addressed, including the work of the
by human impacts, they can also draw on the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on
considerable potential of humans to solve a range of Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES)1 and
environmental challenges. the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD).2 The
book is especially relevant to the International Union
Global sustainability requires corresponding for Conservation of Nature (IUCN)3 in particular its
responses at a global level. Equally, there is a Commission on Environmental, Economic and Social
need for bottom-up change. Indeed, there is much Policy (CEESP)4 which is publishing this book as
that can be done, and is being done, at the local part of an ongoing collaboration with the Community
level. This book explores how local communities Conservation Research Network (CCRN).5 The book
around the world are successfully responding to builds on recent CCRN work linking communities,
threats to the environment and local livelihoods. As conservation and livelihoods (see for example,
communities continue to make a difference at the Armitage et al., 2017).
forefront of conservation, it is an auspicious moment
to explore the links of community environmental In seeking to contribute to progress of the SDGs, and
stewardship, sustainable livelihoods and government build on the links mentioned above, this book intends
engagement, and to appreciate the ‘power of to explore three inter-related themes:
community’.
1 the nexus, or interaction, of conservation and
The issues raised in this book are of international livelihoods in local-level communities, and the
environmental policy interest, in particular in relation actual or potential involvement of governments
to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) (UN and civil society;
DESA, n.d.). Many of the 17 SDGs are directly related
to the efforts of local communities to engage in 2 the values and goals that underlie decisions, and
environmental stewardship supporting sustainable the institutions within which decisions are made;
livelihoods, including those with a human focus, such and
as SDG 1 (No Poverty), SDG 5 (Gender Equality) and

1 www.ipbes.net
2 www.cbd.int
3 www.iucn.org
4 www.iucn.org/commissions/commission-environmental-economic-and-social-policy
5 www.communityconservation.net

Communities, conservation and livelihoods 1

 3 the nature of success in conservation-livelihood only to communities, on the most successful paths
linkages, and the potential for increased attention for environmental and livelihood sustainability, but
within the conservation field to action at the local also to governments, on opportunities for scaling-
level. up community stewardship and enhancing the role
of local communities in conservation policy and
Accordingly, the book addresses several key practice. Drawing on participatory and community-
questions to help build a better understanding of based approaches to conservation, the book
(and support for) the links between sustainable makes a case for greater attention, in national and
livelihoods and environmental conservation from a international policy, to conservation at the local level.
community perspective: What does conservation The environment will not only benefit from, but may
and stewardship mean to different communities and fundamentally depend on, these local stewardship
governments? What motivates action and policy practices.
for conservation of biodiversity and for sustaining
livelihoods? How do local conservation initiatives The key messages of the book suggest
meet community livelihood priorities? How are various priorities for going forward in community
communities meeting challenges, and what can we conservation and its role in achieving the SDGs and
learn from their experiences? How can government contributing to global initiatives.
policy best support local stewardship and livelihood
initiatives? Can we find synergies between Western Part I is composed of 10 chapters, including the
science and the local and Indigenous knowledge, Introduction. Chapter 2, by Charles and Berkes,
practices and values of communities? How do we introduces community-based approaches linking
deal with trade-offs in order to achieve the double conservation and sustainable livelihoods. The chapter
objectives of conservation and livelihoods? first briefly reviews the historical context of resource
management and conservation, then introduces
1.1 Content and structure community-based conservation, the CCRN and
the international collaboration that led to this book,
This book highlights concrete examples of: and a preview of insights or ‘key messages’ arising
from more than a decade of studying communities,
• how local-level community conservation initiatives conservation and livelihoods.
can be self-sustaining and successful;
The core guiding idea of social-ecological systems
• how they can benefit both conservation and (SES), the integrated concept of humans in nature, is
livelihoods when effectively supported by the focus of Berkes in Chapter 3. Treating social and
government policy and practice: and ecological subsystems as coupled, interdependent
and co-evolutionary, the SES approach can ensure
• how recognising community knowledge helps a holistic, integrated view of environmental and
to improve both economic and environmental natural resource topics and, in particular, community
outcomes. conservation.

While the emphasis is on grassroots efforts A key question arises in any SES as to how various
of local communities, the book also looks at players in society see the ideas of ‘conservation’
community involvement in larger-scale conservation and ‘stewardship’. Different societies and cultures
activities. It builds on and adds to a well- have different meanings and perceptions of what is
established understanding of the potential for meant by conservation. A related question concerns
improved environmental stewardship and resource conservation motivation. What is it that motivates
management through community involvement. various players within and across communities,
including governments, business, civil society and
The insights into the workings of local stewardship others, to take on conservation efforts? The theme
described throughout the book provide guidance not of ‘meanings and motivations’ for conservation is

2 Communities, conservation and livelihoods

examined by Sowman, Rice, Arce-Ibarra and Peña- (Charles and Berkes) attempts a ‘synthesis of the
Azcona in Chapter 4. syntheses’ to bring together all the various insights
provided so far in the book, with an emphasis
While local communities typically take action on lessons and recommendations for policy and
based on multiple objectives, achieving real practice in linking communities, conservation and
environmental benefits for the community is a key livelihoods.
one in conservation initiatives. Success in conserving
biodiversity and restoring the health of ecosystems Finally, a Postscript to the main text briefly discusses
supports community quality of life. Dearden, Downie, the themes – notably the links of local communities,
Seijo and Charles examine the achievement of conservation and livelihoods – in the context of the
positive ‘biodiversity outcomes’ in Chapter 5. In this COVID-19 pandemic.
regard, CCRN results indicate that sustaining local
livelihoods is also a vital motivation for community Part II of the book provides a set of community
action. Indeed, the success of community stories, with inspiring examples of work toward
conservation seems to depend considerably on community conservation and sustainable livelihoods,
success with livelihoods – it is an essential result of in 10 communities and four regions across the
most such endeavours. Accordingly, Seixas, Loucks globe. The communities are: Koh Pitak Island
and Mendis-Millard examine the importance of (Thailand); Koh Sralao (Cambodia); Les Village,
achieving positive ‘livelihood outcomes’ in Chapter 6. Bali (Indonesia); Haruku Village, Maluku Province
(Indonesia); Sao Luis do Paraitinga and Catucaba
Issues of governance around who makes decisions, (Brazil); Vila dos Pescadores (Brazil); Punta Allen,
and how, are addressed by Armitage, Esteves Quintana Roo (Mexico); Tsitsikamma (South Africa);
Dias, Muhl, Makino, Lem, Loucks and Sugimoto Olifants Estuary (South Africa); Halifax (Canada). The
in Chapter 7. The chapter examines community four regions include clusters of communities in: i)
conservation and conservation-livelihood links at a northern Amazon (Bolivia); ii) Chilika Lagoon (India); iii)
community level, taking a governance perspective Qeshm Island (Iran); and iv) Clayoquot Sound, British
that draws on the SES framework, conservation Columbia (Canada). The nature of these locations
meanings and motivations, and the nature of and considerations leading to the production of
biodiversity and livelihood outcomes. the community stories are discussed in a brief
introduction to Part II.
Related to governance is power – an underlying
force affecting decision-making within community The book has been developed to be concise and
conservation, and any other realm of society, who readable, with chapters and community stories that
has power and who does not is a critical factor in are all deliberately short, and with limited references.
influencing outcomes. Certainly, this is the case for However, readers are invited to explore the CCRN
local communities with their internal power dynamics website for more detail and extensive references, as
and external influences, as explored in Chapter 8 by well as further readings and multimedia resources.
Nayak.

Although most case studies do not focus on

Indigenous communities or Indigenous knowledge,
there are crucial lessons to learn from Indigenous
perspectives on community conservation that apply
broadly. There are also crucial issues of rights in
Indigenous cases. These matters are explored by
Nuna, Sable, Foxcroft and Simbine in Chapter 9.

Each of the chapters in the book provides a form

of synthesis around a certain theme. Chapter 10

Communities, conservation and livelihoods 3

 Chapter 2

Community-based approaches for linking

conservation and livelihoods
Anthony Charles and Fikret Berkes

This chapter provides a brief review of the historical doing’, neglect of knowledge sources other than
context of resource management and conservation conventional scientific ones, and more.
(section 2.1), followed by an introduction to the
concept of community-based conservation (2.2). All of this has led to a recognition of the inadequacy
The international collaboration that led to the of current conservation and management
present book is discussed in section 2.3, along approaches, and a serious questioning of
with the conceptual framework that underlies its conventional top-down management (Charles, 1995,
approach (2.3.1) and a preview of some of the 2001; Berkes, 2021). As a result, recent decades
insights or ‘key messages’ that have arisen from have seen a range of efforts and improvements in
more than a decade of studies on communities, how environmental and resource management are
conservation and livelihoods (2.3.2). approached (Charles, 2017).

2.1 Historical background Three major shifts along these lines can be
highlighted:
Historically, at least prior to the 20th century,
decision-making about natural resource use and Firstly, there has been an appreciation of the benefits
environmental conservation often took place at a of participatory approaches in resource management
relatively local level such as within specific areas or and conservation, including the idea of joint decision-
communities (see, for example, Garcia et al., 2014, making or co-management (Pinkerton, 1989). This
p. 27, and corresponding references). That changed, has helped to incorporate the knowledge and
especially in the 1900s, with the rise of the modern capabilities of local resource users into conservation
nation state, as the focus shifted to centralised, top- (Berkes, 2018). At the same time, increased
down governmental decision-making (Garcia et al., awareness has helped to reduce the problem of
2014). poor compliance, when rules imposed from the top
down are not accepted locally. A shift to participatory
This shift led, on the one hand, to considerable management – in which resource-dependent
success in expanding scientific understanding of communities share decision-making power and
resources (such as forests and fish), their human responsibility with the government (Berkes, 2009) –
uses, and (in theory at least) how those resource has had major implications for conservation success.
uses can be carried out sustainably. On the other We have been witnessing a rapid evolution of science
hand, there has been a wide range of environmental and management practice toward much greater local
destruction and resource mismanagement engagement to better understand and conserve the
(deforestation, fishery collapse, etc.), notably in environment (Charles et al., 2020).
the latter part of the 20th century. The causes of
these (sometimes) dramatic failures are varied: Secondly, the excessive focus on only scientific
underlying attitudes about nature, issues of colonial knowledge, as noted above, has been challenged
legacy, corporatisation (for example, the post-1970s through the recognition of Indigenous knowledge
emergence of vertically-integrated fisheries), failure or traditional ecological knowledge (TEK) by
at adaptive management or lack of ‘learning-by- international programs and conventions, and the

4 Communities, conservation and livelihoods

need to increase the range of knowledge available
to solve problems (Berkes & Folke, 1998; Díaz
et al., 2018). Although still in progress, a broadening
of knowledge sources – to include Indigenous
knowledge, and that of natural resource users,
among others – is now increasingly accepted.

Thirdly, there has been a universal recognition of the

need for greater attention to local-level community-
based conservation and stewardship. Indeed,
abundant evidence shows that over the centuries,
Local communities in rural areas, such as here in Vietnam,
local ecosystems and resources have been managed often rely on natural resources for livelihoods, and engage in
successfully at the community level. Many Indigenous conservation practices to maintain those livelihoods.
Photo: A. Charles
and other societies continue in this way, using forms
of management that reflect the need to address
human issues more fully, in contrast to top-down a reassessment and rethinking (Berkes, 2007). On
control (Berkes, 2021). This particular shift in thinking the other hand, hundreds of contemporary case
on environmental and resource management is studies have been brought together, notably by
discussed further in the next section. Nobel laureate Elinor Ostrom and others, showing
the conditions under which communities can
2.2 Community-based conservation successfully engage in ‘collective action’ within
local commons, reinforcing sustainability linkages
This book focuses on examining community- between communities and local ecosystems. Overall,
based conservation and stewardship – which can the evidence suggests that community-based
be considered as a shorthand for governance approaches are most likely to succeed under certain
that operates ‘from the ground up’ and deals specific conditions:
with interactions across levels of organisations.
According to the original definition by Western and 1 Land and resource rights must be secure, with
Wright (1994, p. 8), community-based conservation authority and responsibility devolved to the
“includes natural resources or biodiversity local level. Such empowerment is necessary
protection by, for, and with the local community”. for bottom-up management, but also requires
But communities are not isolated from other levels capacity development for all players for
of decision-making and external drivers. Thus, to communication to be effective.
account for institutional linkages at multiple levels
of organisation, such as policies at the national 2 Community-based approaches and joint
level that impact and shape conservation at the management need to include not only
local level, there is a need to consider communities ‘participation’, but also deliberation involving
together with their various linkages. The seminal all of the parties in order to achieve equitable
definition of Western and Wright can therefore be and effective outcomes. Passage of time for
extended: “Community-based conservation includes social learning and trust development are often
natural resources or biodiversity protection by, for, necessary as well (Berkes, 2009).
and with the local community, taking into account
drivers, institutional linkages at the local level, and 3 Respect for Indigenous elders and other
multiple levels of organisation that impact and shape knowledge-holders is necessary before local
institutions at the local level” (Berkes, 2007, p. 15193). and traditional knowledge can be used. In this
regard, empowering local resource users and
Community-based conservation is not a panacea. communities has the advantage of leading to
Several decades of community-based conservation greater acceptance of conservation measures and
experience have produced mixed results, requiring thereby improving effectiveness.

Communities, conservation and livelihoods 5

 4 It is useful to draw on effective community governments, non-governmental organisations
mechanisms to resolve conflicts over resource (NGOs), universities and other researchers. The two
use. Thus, if communities have developed key aims of the CCRN are: i) to understand and
their own strong local rules and institutions, support the efforts of local communities around
shared resources (the commons) can be used the world to engage in environmental conservation
sustainably. that sustains local livelihoods; and (ii) to address
the need for governments to better engage with
5 Perhaps most importantly, community-based local communities and Indigenous rights-holders,
approaches succeed subject to the basic lesson to support community conservation and livelihood
of commons theory: people and communities efforts, and to better utilise community knowledge.
are motivated to conserve resources if they are
likely to benefit from their own stewardship, their To accomplish these aims, the CCRN identifies and
restraint in using available resources (Ostrom, promotes best practices in local-level conservation
1990). and stewardship (including community initiatives,
governance arrangements and policy measures) for
These are recurring themes throughout this book. long-term sustainability of resources and associated
livelihoods.
Whatever the nature of the decision-making, the
underlying motivation for local communities and The work of the CCRN has been two-fold:
resource users to protect their environment is very
often rooted in the reality that individual and collective „ First, the network has engaged in comparative
livelihoods rely on healthy ecosystems (Ommer, research across 30 sites internationally, reflecting
2007; Borrini-Feyerabend, 2010; Charles, 2017). the wide diversity of local communities around
Local ecosystems, through the services they provide the world. The communities include those that
– i.e. nature’s contributions to people (Diaz et al., are inland (including forest and agricultural
2018) – support communities, and their sustainable areas, among others) and those that are coastal
livelihoods and social services (such as education (including urban, fishing and touristic areas, among
and health), and provide the resilience needed to others). Table 1 lists all the sites, and Figure 1
deal successfully with shocks and stresses. For this shows those sites and the countries where
reason, a community in tune with its environment they are located (with some countries having
maintains the capability to draw from that same multiple sites). Descriptions of many of the sites
environment, while at the same time protecting it are included in the Community Stories part of
from negative human impacts. That is why the local this book, and many others are available on the
community level is where much of the progress in CCRN’s website.
conservation has occurred – even while the attention
of governments and international bodies is often The initiatives that have taken place at these
placed more on larger-scale national, regional and locations reflect the many different contexts for
global approaches. community conservation and sustainable livelihood
initiatives, even though all involve conservation and
2.3 The Community Conservation livelihood linkages at the local level. The studies
Research Network carried out in each location have been built around
longstanding partnerships, often between the local
The CCRN initiative was established in 2012 community, communities or regional/Indigenous
as a mechanism to explore community-based organisations and external researchers, and
approaches for linking conservation practices involved participatory action research. Typically,
and sustainable livelihoods. Accordingly, the the key goals of these partnership arrangements
CCRN focuses on exploring community-based have been to empower local communities through
conservation within its international partnership of recognition of their local knowledge and values, to
Indigenous organisations, community organisations, further knowledge-building and capacity-building,

6 Communities, conservation and livelihoods

Figure 1 CCRN sites

CANADA

FRANCE

JAPAN
IRAN
JAMAICA

INDIA
MEXICO
THE GAMBIA KYRGYZSTAN CAMBODIA
THAILAND

ECUADOR

TANZANIA INDONESIA

BRAZIL
BOLIVIA

CHILE MOZAMBIQUE
SOUTH AFRICA

Source of the map: Based on United Nations World Map (2020).

and to develop and highlight policy measures that of community efforts linking conservation and local
support those communities. livelihoods, and is continuously expanding as it
receives new submissions from around the world.
„ Second, the CCRN has developed a learning
and networking platform on the themes of The local communities covered in the CCRN’s work
communities, conservation and livelihoods. The have been varied – geographically, and in scale
platform focuses on local communities around and scope. Box 1 offers a prelude to two of the
the world, engaging in conservation (stewardship) community stories featured in Part II, illustrating two
activities to ensure sustainable livelihoods and distinct contexts, among many, of CCRN partners:
healthy local economies. The website displays a small-community case (Koh Pitak, Thailand) and a
the results of CCRN studies, as well as a regional example involving multiple communities (the
range of materials on local communities linking Nuu-chah-nulth Nation, Canada).
conservation and livelihoods.
2.3.1 CCRN’s conceptual framework
The materials include practical community stories
from CCRN sites, together with a full-length The CCRN’s local-level, community-based
documentary, a series of short videos, webinars participatory research and capacity building
and animations, guidebooks on governance and have been grounded using a unified conceptual
SES, and an in-depth set of presentations from framework. Based on an SES perspective that
the Communities, Conservation and Livelihoods recognises the interdependence of human and
conference (co-hosted by IUCN CEESP and biophysical components (described in Chapter 3), it
CCRN). There is also an interactive resource, typically consists of multiple levels nested within one
Communities in Action, that spotlights the diversity another.

Communities, conservation and livelihoods 7

 Table 1 List of CCRN sites (community and region) and sources of community stories

SOURCES OF COMMUNITY STORIES

GOVERNING
THE COASTAL
COUNTRY CCRN SITES THIS BOOK CCRN WEBSITE COMMONS

Bolivia Northern Amazon * *

Brazil São Luiz do Paraitinga and Catuçaba * *
Brazil Paraty Bay * *
Brazil Vila dos Pescadores, state of São Paulo * *
Cambodia Koh Sralao * *
Canada Clayoquot Sound Biosphere Reserve * *
Canada Nuu-Chah-Nulth Nation *
Canada West Coast Vancouver Island *
Canada Eastern Shore, Nova Scotia *
Canada Halifax, British Columbia * *
Canada Port Mouton, Nova Scotia *
Canada Innu Nation *
Chile Coquimbo Region *
Ecuador Galapagos Islands *
France Delta du Rhône Biosphere Reserve *
Gambia Tujereng *
India Odisha *
India Chilika Lagoon * * *
Indonesia Bali * *
Indonesia Les Village, Bali * *
Indonesia Haruku Village * * *
Iran Qeshm Island * *
Jamaica Bluefields *
Japan Tokyo Bay *
Japan Abashiri, Shiretoko, Tokyo Bay, Hiroshima and Ishigaki * *
Kyrgyzstan Ysyk-Köl (Issyk Kul) Biosphere Reserve *
Mexico Mayan Zone (Xmaben and Noh-Cah) *
Mexico Punta Allen, Quintana Roo * * *
Mozambique Limpopo District *
South Africa Olifants Estuary * * *
South Africa Tsitsikamma Marine Protected Area * *
Tanzania Saadani National Park *
Thailand Koh Pitak * * *

8 Communities, conservation and livelihoods

Box 1 Summaries of two community stories

Koh Pitak, Thailand Nuu-chah-nulth Nation,

Canada
Summarised from Koh Pitak Island, Thailand Community Summarized from Foxcroft et al. (2016) and Clayoquot
Story. Sound, Canada Community Story.

Contributed by Dachanee Emphandu and Philip Contributed by Laura Loucks

Dearden

Koh Pitak is a small community on an island Indigenous Nuu-chah-nulth people live in

off the coast of Thailand. Koh Pitak once several communities on the west coast of
enjoyed abundant ocean resources, but Vancouver Island, in the Canadian province of
over-fishing by themselves and others, as British Columbia. For thousands of years, the
well as habitat damage, led to declining Nuu-chah-nulth have been living in coastal
marine resources over several decades. ecosystems and watersheds, where their
The community saw the need for action to society, economy and culture continue to be
rebuild those resources and safeguard their deeply connected to their natural resources.
livelihoods. They acted with respect for local Of particular importance for Nuu-chah-nulth
culture and beliefs, with effective participation communities, in terms of culture, food and
in decision making and a sense of equity in livelihoods, is salmon fishing. The Nuu-chah-
sharing natural resources. The community nulth have developed fishery management
took on major stewardship initiatives to protect plans to benefit their communities and
the island’s resources, by creating no-fishing ensure sustainability of fish populations,
zones in a nearby National Park, reseeding based on traditional principles of “iisaak
shellfish populations, improving waste disposal (living respectfully), qwa’aak qin teechmis
and restoring mangrove forests along the (life in the balance), and hishuk ish ts’awalk
coast. They also embarked on an innovative (everything is one and interconnected)”
project: developing local tourism in a way (Clayoquot Biosphere Trust, n.d.). While
that fits with the community’s culture, and full implementation of community-level
which was able to reduce their reliance on stewardship in Nuu-chah-nulth communities
fishing by diversifying their livelihoods. Finally, has been delayed, since court cases have
from a social perspective, the community been underway to ensure recognition of Nuu-
worked out a system for sharing fish more chah-nulth resource access rights (Foxcroft
carefully among the people, to ensure a fair et al., 2016), the Nuu-chah-nulth Nation is
sharing arrangement. Through the efforts of showing nevertheless how to link together
environmental stewardship, social planning cultural values, stewardship practices and
and livelihood diversification, Koh Pitak today sustainable livelihoods, moving toward those
has gained healthier ecosystems, a more goals with practical conservation efforts at a
sustainable economy and numerous positive local and a regional level, even as higher level
social benefits. actions take place.

Communities, conservation and livelihoods 9

 Figure 2 Social-ecological systems lens

INTERACTIONS

Meanings of Motivations for

conservation conservation

Indigenous Governance of Power and

perspectives conservation politics

Biodiversity Livelihood
outcomes outcomes

INTERACTIONS

Source: Adapted from Berkes et al. (2016).

As an example of an SES, consider the Japanese • Within an SES lens, processes of governance, and
concept of satoyama (sato = village; yama = hill). This the range of relevant decision-making processes,
is typically a mosaic of mixed forests, rice paddy, are then considered, including issues of power and
dry rice fields, grasslands, streams and ponds, politics, as well as Indigenous perspectives.
and coupled systems of humans and nature. More • An assessment is undertaken of both biodiversity
recently, the same concept has been applied on and livelihood outcomes – notably, what
coasts as satoumi, a mosaic of coastal ecosystems, constitutes success for both environment and
together with the people who live and work in them. livelihoods, reflecting an understanding of their
The concept has been applied in rebuilding Japan crucial importance.
after the 2011 earthquake and tsunami, in a manner
that was bottom-up, customised by region and The chapters are organised around these aspects,
centred on local communities. including the overall SES framework (see Figure 2).
The set of community stories provided in Part II is
The SES lens of the CCRN is composed of several built on these aspects as well.
components, revolving around the conservation
initiatives undertaken by, or involving, local The conceptual framework led to the identification of
communities: models and approaches to assess how community
engagement and leadership, as well as government
• The approach focuses first on the diverse involvement, do or do not lead to success, measured
meanings of conservation for all players in the in both biological/ecological and human-focused
system (such as local communities, groups within goals. This understanding can help to empower
them and governments), as well as corresponding communities to enhance their natural environments
motivations for conservation (both locally and at and local economies, and to guide both communities
higher levels). and policy-makers to successful paths of
stewardship and livelihood sustainability.

10 Communities, conservation and livelihoods

2.3.2 Key insights from CCRN research environmental and natural resource decision-
making and monitoring;
Several key results have emerged from the work of • Adequate attention to ensuring sustainable
the CCRN over the past decade, and from a range livelihoods and local economies;
of preceding studies, which can provide guidance • Supportive governments, in practice and policy,
for communities, policy makers and decision makers and recognition of community knowledge;
at all levels, from local to global. They have been
tested through analysis of the results from various Reflecting the values of local people, and showing
CCRN sites, leading to a range of results that have respect for Indigenous and local communities, and
been presented in publications and conferences, their traditional sustainable use and stewardship
and are reflected as well in the CCRN documentary, practices.
Sustainable Futures – Communities in Action, as
well as other videos on the CCRN website.

This book is not about the CCRN itself, but explores

the CCRN themes described throughout this chapter,
and insights from a decade of collaboration among
CCRN participants. The insights are highlighted
in detail throughout this book, from multiple
perspectives, leading to a full analysis (synthesis) in
Chapter 10. As a preview of these results, below are
three essential points to bear in mind:

1 Local communities around the world, in cities

and in rural areas, are on the frontlines of
environmental challenges, providing inspiration as Neighbourhoods in cities rely on food sources and public
markets, such as here in Zanzibar (Tanzania), for local food
they undertake homegrown stewardship efforts security and livelihoods.
to support sustainable local economies. Given Photo: A. Charles
the chance, local communities and resource user
bodies can resolve environmental and livelihood
challenges, in ways that make a positive difference References
locally, and may well provide inspiration globally.
Armitage, D., Charles, A., Berkes, F. (eds.) (2017). Governing
the Coastal Commons: Communities, Resilience and
2 A two-way connection exists between the well-
Transformation. Oxford, UK and New York, USA: Earthscan,
being and livelihoods of local communities, and Routledge/Taylor & Francis. Available at: https://doi.
the health of ecosystems. A healthy environment org/10.4324/9781315688480
is crucial for communities. Conversely, strong and
cohesive communities make conservation efforts Berkes, F. (2007). ‘Community-based conservation in a
more effective in maintaining healthy ecosystems. globalized world’. Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences 104(39): 15188–15193. Available at: https://doi.
org/10.1073/pnas.0702098104
3 Successful stewardship initiatives typically require:
Berkes, F. (2009). ‘Evolution of co-management: Role
• Community empowerment and strong of knowledge generation, bridging organizations and
relationships, supporting both local involvement in social learning’. Journal of Environmental Management
environmental conservation activities (supporting 90(5): 1692–1702. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jenvman.2008.12.001
local livelihoods and economies) and community
engagement in larger-scale conservation; _____ (2018). Sacred Ecology. 4th Edition. New York, USA
• Active and meaningful engagement of local and London, UK: Routledge. Available at: https://doi.
communities and Indigenous rights-holders in org/10.4324/9781315114644

Communities, conservation and livelihoods 11

 _____ (2021). Advanced Introduction to Community-based Garcia, S.M., Rice, J., Charles, A. (eds.) (2014). Governance
Conservation. Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA, USA: of Marine Fisheries and Biodiversity Conservation: Interaction
Edward Elgar. and Coevolution. Oxford, UK: Wiley-Blackwell. Available at:
https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118392607.ch2
Berkes, F. and C. Folke (eds.) (1998). Linking Social and
Ecological Systems. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, Ommer, R.E. (2007). Coasts under Stress. Restructuring and
UK. Social-Ecological Health. Montreal, Canada: McGill-Queen’s
University Press. Available at: http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.
Berkes, F., Arce-Ibarra, M., Armitage, D., Charles, A., Loucks, ctt7zmmg
L., Makino, M., Satria, A., Seixas, C., Abraham, J., Berdej, S.
(2016). Analysis of Social-Ecological Systems for Community Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the Commons: The Evolution of
Conservation. Halifax, Canada: Community Conservation Institutions for Collective Action. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
Research Network, Saint Mary’s University. Available at: University Press. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1017/
https://www.communityconservation.net/resources/social- CBO9781316423936.001
ecological-systems-guidebook/
Pinkerton, E.W. (1989). Cooperative Management of Local
Borrini-Feyerabend, G. (2010). Strengthening what works: Fisheries. Vancouver, Canada: University of British Columbia
recognising and supporting the conservation achievements Press.
of Indigenous peoples and local communities. IUCN CEESP
Briefing Note 10. Available at: https://portals.iucn.org/library/ United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs
node/9672 (UN DESA) (n.d.). ‘The 17 Goals’. UN DESA [website].
Available at: https://sdgs.un.org/goals
Charles, A. (1995). ‘The Atlantic Canadian groundfishery:
Roots of a collapse’. Dalhousie Law Journal 18(1): 65–83. Western, D. and Wright, R.M. (eds.) (1994). Natural
Connections. Perspectives in Community-based
_____ (2001). Sustainable Fishery Systems. Oxford, UK: Conservation. Washington DC, USA: Island Press.
Wiley-Blackwell.

_____ (2017). ‘The Big Role of Coastal Communities and

Small-Scale Fishers in Ocean Conservation’. In: P.S. Levin
and M.R. Poe (eds.), Conservation for the Anthropocene
Ocean: Interdisciplinary Science in Support of Nature
and People, Chapter 21, pp. 447–461. Amsterdam, The
Netherlands: Academic Press, Elsevier. Available at: https://
doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-805375-1.00021-0

Charles, A., Loucks, L., Berkes, F., Armitage, D. (2020).

‘Community science: A typology and its implications for
governance of social-ecological systems’. Environmental
Science & Policy 106:77–86. Available at: https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.envsci.2020.01.019

Clayoquot Biosphere Trust (CBT) (n.d.). ‘Overview’. CBT

[website]. Available at: https://clayoquotbiosphere.org/about-
us/overview

Díaz, S., Pascual, U,. Stenseke, M., Martín-López, B.,

Watson, R.T., Molnár, Z., Hill, R., Chan, K.M.A., Baste, I.A.,
Brauman, K.A. et al. (2018). ‘Assessing nature’s contributions
to people’. Science 359(6373): 270–272.

Foxcroft, D., Hall, D. and Cowan, L. (2016). Nuu-chah-nulth

Territory, Canada: The Nuu-chah-nulth continue to fight for
their aboriginal fishing rights even after these rights were
recognized in Ahousaht et al vs Canada (2009) [website
article]. Available at: https://www.communityconservation.
net/nuu-chah-nulth-territory-canada/

12 Communities, conservation and livelihoods

Chapter 3

A social-ecological systems lens for

community conservation
Fikret Berkes*

3.1 Introduction

What is a social-ecological system (SES) lens and

why is it important for community conservation?
These questions embody the conceptual
background of the SES lens addressed in this
chapter and explicitly links the ‘human system’ (e.g.
communities, society, livelihoods) and the ‘natural
system’ (i.e. ecosystems) in a two-way feedback
(or mutual feedback) relationship. This integration
(interlinkage, interconnection) is important. In
any conservation effort, the interaction between The rural countryside of the Catuçaba district. A community-
ecological and social subsystems must be taken into level social-ecological system.
Photo: Alice de Moraes
consideration. These links are related to peoples’
knowledge (including local and traditional knowledge)
and management institutions, as well as rules and and the importance of diverse sources of knowledge
norms that mediate how humans interact with the (Díaz et al., 2018). The assessments have recognised
environment (Armitage et al., 2017). that humans-in-nature constitute a ‘complex adaptive
system’, which tend to exhibit feedbacks that occur
An SES lens is crucial because integrating in ways that are not necessarily predictable (Berkes,
communities, conservation and livelihoods cannot be 2015). The SES lens draws attention to the various
accomplished from a narrow perspective. In the SES characteristics of complex adaptive systems, as
approach, the unit of analysis is the human system described in the next sections. Understanding and
and the natural system together, as an integrated, working with these various characteristics is essential
interacting, intertwined, coupled and often co- for the success of community conservation.
evolving system (Ostrom, 2009).
3.2 Scale and level
As used here, the SES approach builds on the work
of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, which It is useful to make a distinction between scale
was a major international effort to look at the state of and level within an SES. Following Cash et al.
ecosystems globally, and the interaction of ‘human (2006), ‘scale’ may be defined as the spatial,
well-being’ and ‘ecological services’. IPBES, another temporal, quantitative, or analytical dimensions
major international effort, has built on this approach, used to measure and study any phenomenon,
examining the interaction between human well- and ‘levels’ as the units of analysis that are located
being and ‘nature’s contributions to people’, with an at different positions on a scale. Where space,
emphasis on the cultural aspects of the relationship time and jurisdictional scales are often referred to,

* This chapter is based on a guidebook (Berkes et al., 2016) prepared by a CCRN team: Fikret Berkes (Chair), Minerva Arce-Ibarra,
Derek Armitage, Anthony Charles, Jennifer Graham, Laura Loucks, Mitsutaku Makino, Arif Satria, Cristiana Seixas, John Abraham and
Samantha Berdej.

Communities, conservation and livelihoods 13

 the consideration of multiple levels within a scale SES lens to governance helps to: i) examine how
is important, for example, in referring to levels power relations, decision-making, and various
of governance. It is often noted that ‘high-level’ arrangements can promote conservation; ii)
governmental policy should enable innovation and recognise effective and equitable local practices; and
conservation success at the community level, while iii) inquire how such initiatives or practices can be
mobilisation at the community level and horizontal integrated into higher-level conservation as part of
networks among communities at the same level can multi-level governance.
drive change at those higher levels. The multi-level
approach thus helps focus on the different levels at 3.5 Local-level institutions
which conservation action can take place.
Of particular importance for governance are local-
3.3 Emergent properties level institutions, which have been documented
extensively (Ostrom, 2009; Berkes, 2015; Armitage
A complex system can exhibit ‘emergent properties’ et al., 2017). Nevertheless, there is a lack of
– features of a system as a whole that are not understanding about how local institutions can be
apparent when the system is reduced to its parts. effective in an environment of multiple economic
Emergent properties are those characteristics sectors. Impacted by urbanisation and economic
that cannot be predicted or understood simply by activities, such as recreation, fishing, shipping,
examining the components of the system. Resilience mining, hydrocarbon development and others,
of an SES is one such characteristic. The idea coastal areas provide a good example of how
of resilience is to be able to maintain the overall communities can face conservation challenges
function and structure of a system of humans and from processes originating at other levels. Local-
nature, despite unexpected shocks to that system. level institutions play a major role in ‘multi-level
As conditions change, an SES may cope with or approaches’ for good governance, replacing ‘top-
adapt to changes; or it may transform into a different down’ approaches with participatory processes
SES. Resilience is an insightful way of thinking about involving local communities, often as partners
change; coping, adapting and transforming are all with civil society organisations, higher levels of
aspects of resilience (Brown, 2016). government and industry. Success in practice
depends on local incentives and acceptance from
3.4 Governance community-level institutions. Despite many examples
of local-level conservation, fundamental gaps remain
The system of rules, institutions, organisations between theory and practice (Armitage et al., 2017).
and networks that help societies prevent, mitigate These challenges hold back the effective meeting of
or adapt to local and global environmental joint socio-economic and environmental objectives.
change, or governance, is a crucial ingredient in
conservation. An SES lens contributes to thinking 3.6 The nature of change in social-
about governance by highlighting the importance of ecological systems (SES)
conservation-focused institutions and governance
arrangements that: (i) match the scale of a particular SES are never static, as they are always changing.
SES; (ii) adapt as the systems change over time; and Certain key characteristics of working with SES
(iii) help steer the systems towards sustainability. reflect a dynamic reality consisting of: drivers,
Key ingredients for success include the presence feedback, thresholds and transformation:6
of multi-level institutions, partnerships among
state and non-state actors, appreciation of diverse Drivers. A broad range of factors lead to changes in
perspectives and knowledge, and shared learning SES. The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment defines
and social processes that provide opportunities a ‘driver’ as any natural or human-induced factor
for adaptation (Armitage et al., 2017). Applying the that directly or indirectly causes a change in an SES.

6 For further reading, please see Berkes et al. (2016).

14 Communities, conservation and livelihoods

A direct driver (i.e. changes in local resource use) is
one that can be identified and measured. Indirect
drivers (i.e. demographic change) operate more
diffusely, often by altering one or more direct drivers.
Identifying drivers is a major part of the SES analysis.

Feedback. Complex adaptive systems have

feedbacks that can be either self-reinforcing or
self-moderating (self-correcting). If a loop (i.e.
an interaction between components) in the SES
sustains the direction of change, it is called a A river and mangrove social-ecological system harvested by
community-level small-scale fishers, in Koh Sralao (Cambodia).
positive (reinforcing) feedback. If it reverses (or tends Photo: F. Berkes
to reverse) the direction of change, it is called a
negative (balancing or stabilising) feedback. As with
drivers, identifying feedbacks is an essential part of Worldviews. Every culture has its own way of
the SES analysis. thinking about the world and the functioning of
the universe. A worldview entails a complex of
Thresholds. The resilience of an SES is related to knowledge, practice and belief (Berkes, 2015).
whether or not the system crosses certain thresholds Understanding the worldview in which a local or
or ‘break points’ (or tipping points) between two traditional management system is embedded is of
alternate states or system configurations. When paramount importance in the practice of community
crossed, thresholds can involve sudden and conservation. Existing local stewardship often
dramatic change. Thresholds may be related to depends on the worldview of a community or
the ecological system or the social system or both. society. This becomes especially relevant when
Unlike drivers and feedbacks, thresholds can be very focusing on meanings of conservation, motivations
difficult to identify: we know they are present but not for conservation, and conservation outcomes.
exactly when or where (i.e. how much harvesting will
lead to crossing the threshold to overfishing). Collective action. Any action taken together by
a group of people whose goal is to enhance their
Transformation. In some cases, social, economic, status and achieve a common objective is called
political and ecological conditions change in such a collective action. The theory of collective action
way that an existing SES cannot be maintained by suggests that people will only be motivated to
coping and adapting. The resulting change may be cooperate under conditions in which the benefits
a fundamental or systemic shift in the SES, referred from cooperating exceed individual costs, and the
to as transformation (Brown, 2016). A diversity of problem of free-riding is resolved. When individuals
transformative changes has been documented, repeatedly communicate with one another in a
involving trust-building, mobilising social networks, localised setting, they learn whom to trust and how
collaborative learning, change of values, and creating to organise for collective action. However, barriers
public awareness as part of the transformation to collective action can arise when social capital
process (Armitage et al., 2017). is eroded and people develop a sense that not
everyone can be trusted to behave consistently for
3.7 Focusing on the social system collective benefit.

Certain core concepts of SES focus specifically on Power and agency. Power is the ability to influence
the social aspects, including worldviews, collective outcomes; agency is the ability of individuals or
action, and power and agency. Incorporating these groups to undertake actions despite constraints
into community conservation increases the chances imposed by larger social structures. Power and
of success. agency are relevant to SES because they are about
how conservation is shaped, and who has access

Communities, conservation and livelihoods 15

 to benefits. Conservation is not about natural Figure 3 Social-ecological system for community
resources only, but rather about the relationships conservation
between different actors, wherein power relations
and leadership become important. Conservation
initiatives can be arenas of conflict that result in INTERACTIONS
unsustainable outcomes. Moreover, issues of power
frequently occur. Conservation is often associated
with the control of resources that have been wrested Ecosystem and Human system
from the local people by state and global interests for resource system and governance
Meanings system
preservation at the expense of local livelihoods.
Motivations
3.8 Highlighting linkages between Ecosystem
Resource
users and
ecosystems and governance services Outcomes
communities

In light of these various considerations, Figure 3

shows a schematic diagram of the SES approach.
Four parts can be distinguished. The left-hand
INTERACTIONS
side is the natural resource system, providing
ecosystem services to humans. On the right-hand
side is the social system, including resource users Note: This figure, developed by a CCRN team (Berkes et al.,
and communities that interact within a governance 2016), shows in broad terms the natural system (resource
system. The governance system includes all system) in interaction with the human system and the
the decision-making about resource use and governance system.
management. The feedback between two main
parts is shown by the interactions (top and bottom leadership, and various groups came together in
arrows) between the ecological side of the SES an alliance that shaped governance by compelling
and the social side. The CCRN themes of meaning, the different levels of government to contribute
motivations and outcomes are shown in the middle, resources. The famous woodblock prints from the
connecting the two sides of the SES. early 19th century help illustrate the meaning of
conservation in the Japanese worldview, that the bay
The diagram indicates that an analysis involves is an SES with people intertwined with the natural
understanding and describing the components environment. As the bay changed over time, various
and connections. Concretely, it may also involve drivers resulted in environmental degradation, but
determining the drivers, feedbacks and other other drivers subsequently led to a transformation
system concepts described in this chapter, as towards sustainability through community-initiated
well as addressing the social system concepts conservation. The Tokyo Bay case exemplifies the
of worldviews, collective action, and power and fundamental essence of the SES approach, without
agency, indicating how these may affect the various going into the full detail of system properties and
components and their interactions. The case study other elements described in Figure 3. The integration
of seagrass bed re-planting in Tokyo Bay illustrates of humans in nature shows that people have the
how these concepts are applied (Box 2). capability to despoil their environment – but also
to restore it. Such restoration is both ecological
3.9 Conclusions and social/cultural; in Tokyo Bay, it borrows from
a worldview that informs community conservation
This chapter has highlighted the importance of where people are part of a healthy ecosystem.
using an SES lens, and its various core ideas and
approaches in community conservation. Notably,
the Tokyo Bay case exemplifies collective action
at work, where the divers showed agency and

16 Communities, conservation and livelihoods

Box 2

Seagrass re-planting in Tokyo Bay

Contributed by Mitsutaku Makino

Woodblock prints (ukiyoe) of Tokyo Bay from the early 19th century, showing people integrated with the coastal environment.
For further reading, please see Makino (2018).

Since the 17th century, Tokyo Bay has been famous as a production area of high-quality fish
for sushi. According to maps of fishing grounds from the late 19th century, the majority of the
coastal areas were tidal lands with shallow bottoms covered by seagrasses. The pictures of
famous woodblock prints (Ukiyoe) of Tokyo Bay (see illustrations) printed in the early 19th century,
show people living along the coast, catching/farming sea foods and enjoying boating.
Since the 19th century, Tokyo Bay has been developed and reclaimed, especially in the 1960s
when the national government promoted heavy industry development. As the main driver of
Japanese economic growth in the 1960s and the 1970s, Tokyo Bay has become one of the
most urbanised bays in the world. In Yokohama, Japan’s second largest city facing the west
coast of Tokyo Bay, only 500 m remain of the original 140 km total natural coastline. As a result,
seagrass beds crucial for the eggs and juvenile stages of fish and shellfish have almost entirely
disappeared.

In 1981, a group of scuba divers started a sea-bottom clean-up, and local researchers started
experimental re-planting of sea grasses. Local fishers then established a no-take zone to help
speed up recovery and restoration. More recently, local residents, schools, environmental NGOs,
private companies and others joined the re-planting. Interaction with high-level policy was an
integral part of the restoration effort. Formal alliances among the above groups were established,
and governments at various levels (city, fisheries agency, Cabinet office) started financially
supporting the alliance starting from about 2003 onwards.

The activities of local people and others, supported by various levels of government, have
successfully expanded the seagrass-covered areas of Tokyo Bay. At the same time, it is well
accepted that local people’s lives are not something to be eliminated from the ecosystem, but
rather are an indispensable component of the ecosystem.

Communities, conservation and livelihoods 17

 References

Armitage, D., Charles, A., Berkes, F. (eds.) (2017). Governing

the Coastal Commons: Communities, Resilience and
Transformation. Oxford, UK and New York, USA: Earthscan,
Routledge/Taylor & Francis. Available at: https://doi.
org/10.4324/9781315688480

Berkes, F. 2015. Coasts for People. Interdisciplinary

Approaches to Costal and Marine Resource Management.
First edition. New York, USA: Routledge. Available at: https://
doi.org/10.4324/9781315771038

Berkes, F., Arce-Ibarra, M., Armitage, D., Charles, A., Loucks,

L., Makino, M., Satria, A., Seixas, C., Abraham, J., Berdej, S.
(2016). Analysis of Social-Ecological Systems for Community
Conservation. Halifax, Canada: Community Conservation
Research Network, Saint Mary’s University. Available at:
https://www.communityconservation.net/resources/social-
ecological-systems-guidebook/

Brown, K. (2016). Resilience, Development and Global

Change. First edition. London, UK: Routledge. Available at:
https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203498095

Cash, D.W., Adger, W., Berkes, F., Garden, P., Lebel, L.,
Olsson, P., Pritchard, L. and Young, O. (2006). ‘Scale and
cross-scale dynamics: governance and information in a
multilevel world’. Ecology and Society 11(2): 8. Available at:
https://doi.org/10.5751/es-01759-110208

Díaz, S., Pascual, U., Stenseke, M., Martín-López, B.,

Watson, R.T., Molnár, Z., Hill, R., Chan, K.M.A., Baste, I.A.,
Brauman, K.A. et al. (2018). ‘Assessing nature’s contributions
to people’. Science 359(6373): 270–272.

Makino, M. (2018). Abashiri, Shiretoko, Tokyo Bay, Hiroshima,

and Ishigaki, Japan: Five Communities Practicing Coastal
Ecosystem Conservation. Halifax, Canada: Community
Conservation Research Network, Saint Mary’s University.
Available on-line at: https://www.communityconservation.
net/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/Japan-Community-Story.
pdf

Ostrom, E. (2009). 'A General Framework for Analyzing

Sustainability of Social-ecological Systems'. Science
325(5939): 419–422. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1126/
science.1172133

18 Communities, conservation and livelihoods

Chapter 4

Meanings and motivations: communities and

conservation
Merle Sowman, Wayne Rice, A. Minerva Arce-Ibarra and Ivett Peña-Azcona

4.1 Introduction how ‘conservation’ is perceived and what motivates

different people and communities to conserve
As resource managers, researchers and the environment or act as stewards of resources
communities look for solutions to the increasing is necessary to inform conservation policies,
rates of species extinction, habitat destruction, approaches and practices.
biodiversity loss and destruction of cultural heritage
and livelihoods, interest in understanding the 4.1.1 Meanings of conservation
meanings of and motivations for conservation
has increased over the last few decades. The As a baseline for this chapter, an assessment
continued degradation of the environment and was made of the extent to which the meanings of
increasing evidence of the negative social impacts conservation were addressed within the studies
of conservation programmes worldwide have raised of 30 sites by the CCRN. This was done using a
questions about the effectiveness of conventional qualitative scale based on whether meanings were
conservation management, which is dominated addressed explicitly, implicitly or not at all, within
by state-centric, science-based and regulatory either (a) the study’s research objectives, or (b)
approaches. information provided by researchers either in the
CCRN database or in the corresponding community
Conservation and natural resource management story. It was determined that 26.7% (n=8) of cases
agencies are mandated to focus on meeting addressed meanings of conservation explicitly, 60%
ecological goals and international conservation (n=18) addressed it implicitly, and 13.3% (n=4) of
‘targets’ or ‘obligations’, often to the detriment of cases did not address meanings.
the livelihoods and culture of local and Indigenous
communities. Several of these communities Research shows that the meaning of ‘conservation’
have suffered from significant impacts as a differs amongst, and within, the different rights-
result of conservation initiatives, including being holders, user and stakeholder groups associated
dispossessed of their lands or restricted from with a particular resource(s). The different meanings
gaining access to ancestral sites or traditional ascribed to the notion of conservation were evident
resource areas with devastating consequences. in several of the CCRN sites examined. For example,
it has been found that Indigenous communities like
For most Indigenous peoples, cultural identity the Zapotec and the Maya from Mexico have local
and environment are intertwined and indivisible Indigenous terms that refer to local practices of
(Watters, 2001/2002; Puc-Alcocer et al., 2019). Their caring for landscapes and which incorporate cultural
relationship with their traditional lands and waters values and worldviews (Peña-Azcona, 2015; Puc-
is intrinsic to their well-being as well as to their Alcocer et al., 2019). For the Zapotec, “caring is for
cultural survival (Jentoft et al., 2003). Typically, local using”, wherein their relationship with the land and
and Indigenous communities have long-standing resources is reproduced in their practices rather than
customary systems of resource use and governance in any ´conservation´ rhetoric. For the Nuu-chah-
that regulate access, use and involve resource nulth, an Indigenous Nation living on Vancouver
users in management decisions. Understanding Island, Canada, the natural environment is

Communities, conservation and livelihoods 19

 considered to be intrinsic to their culture and identity use practices, with which they have been
and conservation is not perceived as a management engaged in for generations.
activity. However, meanings and motivations may
differ across communities and socio-ecological and 2 Secondly, an attachment to place – land, sea,
cultural contexts as well as within communities living natural resources and attributes – involves an
in a particular geographical space. intimate ‘attachment’ to and ‘sense of place’.

4.1.2 Local and Indigenous community 3 Thirdly, socio-economic needs of local and
‘motivations’ Indigenous communities are often linked to
maintaining a healthy ecosystem and deriving a
A similar analysis of CCRN cases was carried out much-needed source of livelihood.
to examine whether motivations were addressed
explicitly, implicitly or not at all. The analysis 4 Finally, an ethical responsibility to take care of
finds that 50.0% (n=15) of the cases addressed the earth, prevent degradation of the environment
motivations explicitly, whereas 46.7% (n=14) and use resources sustainably, endures in many
addressed the topic implicitly, with only one case local and Indigenous communities and is key to
study not addressing motivations. motivating conservation practices.

Motivations for conservation that are more personal Accordingly, this chapter will focus on the above-
and associated with values, ethics, belief systems mentioned four key local and Indigenous community
and worldviews – as well as cultural norms, ‘motivations’. A further assessment of the case study
attachment to place, customary livelihood practices database and community stories indicated that a
and perceptions of nature – are referred to as large majority of the cases included each of the four
‘intrinsic’, or internal motivations. However, these types of motivation, with roughly equal frequencies
intrinsic motivations are influenced and mediated by (100%, 100%, 96.6% and 93.1%, respectively, of
a number of ‘extrinsic’, or external factors (such as cases covering the four types of motivation).
political history, tenure rights, people’s vulnerability
context and awareness of international conservation Cultural institutions
goals), as well as coercive factors (such as fines and
arrests), and economic incentives associated with Different cultures have different and often unique
many conservation programmes and projects. Whilst ways of perceiving and relating to their environment,
recognising and securing legitimate tenure rights with equally diverse understandings that influence
is an important contributing factor to fisheries and their actions and behaviour. However, little attention
conservation management (FAO, 2014), there are has been paid to the influential role of cultural
other important cultural, ethical and socio-economic institutions (i.e. values and belief systems governing
motivations that have emerged as key to community communities) in garnering support for conservation.
conservation efforts. This is notable since there are many examples where
Indigenous Peoples regard ‘conservation’ as internal
Research conducted by the CCRN offers to their culture and daily practices. This was evident
insights into what motivates local and Indigenous in well over half of the CCRN case study sites.
communities to conserve natural resources and For example, the continued central role of cultural
landscapes over and above coercion and punitive institutions is demonstrated in the cases of the
measures and economic incentives. Findings from Indigenous Nuu-chah-nulth people of Vancouver
the 30 CCRN sites emphasise the importance of four Island, Canada and the Maluku people of Haruku
key local and Indigenous community ‘motivations’: Island, Indonesia.

1 Firstly, in several of the cases local and A fundamental concept to the Nuu-chah-nulth is
Indigenous, cultural institutions are inextricably hishukish ts’awalk, which translates to ‘everything is
linked to their environmental and natural resource one, everything is interconnected and nothing exists

20 Communities, conservation and livelihoods

without the other’. It illustrates interdependence and
connection with their environment. The concept
has installed an intrinsic sense of ‘cultural pride’ in
the community, which has led to their continued
contestation for their Aboriginal fishing rights.

The Maluku people continue to practice sasi laut,

a cultural institution regulating the management of
coastal resources based on their cultural knowledge,
norms and value systems. Central to this belief is a
recognition of the interlinked relationship between
Conservation practices are often linked to traditional
the marine and land environment, which includes activities, such as this canoe race of the Caiçara people on
the ‘social system of society’. However, sasi laut as the Brazilian coast.
Photo: Ana Carolina Esteves Dias
a cultural institution does not operate alone and has
been weakened by external and internal pressures
from other resource management institutions. commercial fishers are thought to be motivated
by financial interests, including targeting newly
Safeguarding resources for future generations to introduced marketable species, due to substantial
maintain cultural traditions is key. For example, investments in fishing gear (especially boats), whilst
fishers from the Tsitsikamma area in South Africa local Indigenous fishers with lower mobility have
consider being able to walk to traditional fishing more place-based motivations to conserve native
spots and catching fish for a special Sunday meal as species deemed more culturally acceptable to their
is an integral part of their culture and community. diet.

In general, cultural values and institutions are not In the Chilika Lagoon of India, a customary fishery
integrated into ‘modern’ conservation institutional influenced by the Hindu caste system, fishers
arrangements and approaches. For instance, in possess a strong sense of attachment to their
the case of the Ysyk-Köl (Issyk Kul) Biosphere environment, as illustrated by a commonly used
Reserve in Kyrgyzstan, a lack of integration of fisher phrase, “Maa [Mother] Chilika is crying”, in
sacred sites into conservation approaches has been response to the current ecological state of the
observed (Samakov, 2015). Moreover, it should lagoon.
be acknowledged that while cultural institutions
remain influential, they constantly evolve in complex A strong connection with nature is also observed
and unpredictable ways in response to countless amongst fishers of the Olifants Estuary, located
internal and external factors (see, for example, the on the west coast of South Africa. Previously
community story on Haruku village, Maluku Province, marginalised, fishers there have a long history of
Indonesia, in this book). traditional fishing, which has led to a strong sense of
belonging and attachment to the river system. This
Attachment to place is clearly articulated by fishers when they say, “The
river is the heart of the fishing people”, “we were
A strong connection to a place can influence born from the river” and “you feel it in your blood…
conservation motivations in local and Indigenous its part of who you are”.
communities, as illustrated in the following examples.
A sense of attachment to place or natural elements
In the northern Amazon region of Bolivia, local is equally relevant to many local and Indigenous
community fisheries have undergone several community members of the Ysyk-Köl (Issyk Kul)
changes, such as the introduction of a new fish Biosphere Reserve in Kyrgyzstan, who still possess
species, paiche, and the emergence of a local a strong connection to and respect for the sacred
commercial fishery sector. The urban-based sites in the area.

Communities, conservation and livelihoods 21

 These examples illustrate how attachment to place Therefore, it becomes clear from these cases that
can motivate conservation in local and Indigenous socio-economic needs remain important and require
communities. Nonetheless, the current challenge of consideration within any conservation initiative, since
‘cultural erosion’ in communities due to globalisation they can be diverse within communities, and have a
and market-based influences cannot be ignored. variable impact on conservation motivations.

Socio-economic needs Ethical responsibility

The potential to influence community conservation A ‘duty of care’, or ethical conservation motivation,
motivations, by providing increased opportunities is often at the core of local and Indigenous
for tangible benefits and improvements to socio- communities. A few examples illustrate this finding:
economic status, is broadly recognised. However,
when conservation becomes a commodity, it may • In the case of the Nuu-chah-nulth, whose fishing
be problematic since community motivations for rights have not been ‘respected’ by the State,
conservation are not exclusively based on protecting conservation of resources remains a core principle.
livelihoods for the future, but are also informed by As mentioned earlier, their belief in ‘everything is
cultural institutions, attachment to place and an one’ dictates that taking care of the resources is
ethical obligation to their environment. Thus, the taking care of themselves and vice versa.
challenge is how to balance socio-economic needs, • This ethical responsibility is also evident in the
cultural rights and conservation. case of the fishers of the Olifants Estuary, captured
by one fisher as follows, “Our forefathers have
In the case of the Maluku people of Indonesia, the protected this river for generations … and we need
introduction of non-extractive economic development to protect it as we would protect our own mother.”
in the form of marine tourism is thought to have (Sowman, 2017).
largely preserved cultural conservation motivations. • As noted in the community story on Haruku village,
Another example of trying to achieve this balance Maluku Province, Indonesia, “sasi laut is a form of
can be found in the case of the Samudram Women’s traditional institution regulating the management
Federation (SWF) of Odisha, India (Zachariah- of coastal resources based on the knowledge,
Chaligne, 2015). Although supported by a local norms and value systems of the Indigenous
ethical view of conservation, financial and social people of Maluku”, and “has been implemented
incentives are largely responsible for motivating by the Harukunese for over 400 years”. The
marine turtle conservation, within the local importance of maintaining this cultural institution is
community. prominent among local leaders and communities
who consider maintaining sasi laut as similar
In the same respect, it is important to note that to maintaining the sustainability of their natural
socio-economic motivations may differ within resources, since protecting natural resources will
communities. For example, the Bolivian case depicts result in their abundance.
the subsistence needs of local Indigenous fishers • In the case of the Bolivian Amazon region, the
on one hand, and on another the financial needs of threat to native fish species from an introduced
local urban-based commercial fishers. Similarly, the species, paiche, was an issue of deep concern to
fishers of Chilika Lagoon, while referring to its social- Indigenous communities, despite the possibilities
cultural and economic importance, commonly state for expanding and enhancing livelihood
that “Chilika was our bhata handi [rice pot], and our opportunities for local fishers.
local bank [fish as cash]”. Interestingly, the fishers
themselves suggest that they could easily manage
without cash, if they have plenty of fish in the lagoon
(i.e. their bank).

22 Communities, conservation and livelihoods

4.2 Conclusions Puc-Alcocer, M., Arce-Ibarra, M., Cortina-Villar, S.,
Estrada-Lugo, E.I.J. (2019). ‘Rainforest conservation in
There are different meanings associated with the Mexico’s lowland Maya area: Integrating local meanings
of conservation and land-use dynamics’. Forest Ecology
term conservation in different cultural contexts.
and Management 448: 300–311. Available at: https://doi.
The Western notion of conservation has a strong org/10.1016/j.foreco.2019.06.016
focus on restricting access to and protection
and stewardship of resources, whereas in many Samakov, A. (2015). ‘Sacred Sites: Opportunity for Improving
Indigenous and local communities, cultural identity Biocultural Conservation and Governance in Ysyk-Köl
and practices are inextricably linked to relationships Biosphere Reserve, Kyrgyz Republic’. Masters dissertation
(Master of Natural Resources Management). Faculty of
with the use and conservation of resources and the
Graduate Studies of the University of Manitoba, Winnipeg,
environment. Canada. Available at: http://hdl.handle.net/1993/30911

In local and Indigenous communities, conservation Sowman, M. (2017). ‘Turning the Tide. Strategies, innovation
relies mainly on customary institutions and cultural and transformative learning at the Olifants estuary, South
values, including the community’s own laws, Africa’. In: D. Armitage, A. Charles, F. Berkes (eds.), Governing
the Coastal Commons: Communities, Resilience and
norms, customs, traditions and institutions, for
Transformation. Oxford, UK and New York, USA: Earthscan,
governing resource access, use and management. Routledge/Taylor & Francis. Available at: https://doi.
These cultural assets influence local meanings and org/10.4324/9781315688480
motivations for conservation, which in turn determine
local support for conservation initiatives. Attachment Watters, L. (2000/2001). ‘Indigenous Peoples and the
and connection to place were also strong motivators Environment: Convergence from the Nordic Perspective’.
UCLA Journal of Environmental Law and Policy 20 (2): 237–
for conservation behaviour. Economic incentives,
304.
such as tangible benefits and improvements to
socio-economic status, were also found to influence Zachariah-Chaligne, A. (2015). ‘Orissa, Odisha, India: The
community conservation motivations. Therefore, an Role of Samudram Women’s Federation in Reducing Poverty
awareness of the meanings and motivations that and Protecting Resources’. CCRN Community Stories
guide conservation behaviour in local contexts, and [website]. Available at: https://www.communityconservation.
net/odisha-india/
a respect for the customary and cultural institutions
that inform resource access, use and governance,
are critical to promoting conservation outcomes that
are socially just and ecologically sustainable.

References

Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) (2014). Voluntary

Guidelines for Securing Sustainable Small-Scale Fisheries in
the Context of Food Security and Poverty. Rome, Italy: FAO.
Available at: http://www.fao.org/3/a-i4356en.pdf

Jentoft, S., Minde, H. and Nilsen, R. (2003). Indigenous

Peoples: Resource Management and Global Rights. Utrecht,
The Netherlands: Eburon Academic Publisher.

Peña-Azcona, I. (2015). Percepción socio ambiental de las

Áreas Destinadas Voluntariamente para la Conservación
en el Istmo Oaxaqueño (Socio-environmental perception
of the Voluntarily Designated Areas for Conservation in the
Oaxacan Isthmus). MSc dissertation (Natural Resources
and Rural Development). El Colegio de la Frontera Sur,
San Cristóbal de las Casas, Chiapas, Mexico. Available
at: https://ecosur.repositorioinstitucional.mx/jspui/bitstre
am/1017/1431/1/100000001628_documento.pdf

Communities, conservation and livelihoods 23

 Chapter 5

Biodiversity outcomes of community

conservation
Philip Dearden, Bruce Downie, Juan Carlos Seijo and Anthony Charles

5.1 Introduction fisheries in Canada (Lemieux et al., 2019). At the

other end of the scale, there may be tribal parks,
The increasing erosion of biodiversity is one of for example, that are more fiercely protected and
the greatest challenges facing humankind. The effective in biodiversity conservation than any
Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) is an distantly-administered government park. It is this side
international treaty, signed in 1993, that focuses of the spectrum, i.e. a range of community conserved
on trying to stabilise the trend. A cornerstone areas, which is the focus of this chapter.
of the effort is the expansion of protected area
systems, where a priority is placed on recovery and 5.1.1 Communities and biodiversity
conservation of animal and plant populations, as conservation
well as ecosystem functions and services, to reach
sustainable levels. The CBD's Aichi Targets call for Many community-conserved areas fall under the
such protected area networks to cover 10% of the category of OECMs and still seek legitimacy from
marine environment and 17% of the terrestrial by government. They may have been protected by the
2020 (CBD, 2010). community for generations but still remain vulnerable
to government take-over or resource exploitation.
To encourage the achievement of the targets and They may also be more recent, with the community
recognise areas where biodiversity is conserved but realising that it has to act to protect its own resources
that are not part of formal protected area systems, and use them wisely. In either case, a key challenge
the CBD created, in 2010, a new category of area lies in obtaining external recognition, which in turn
to be included in the totals – other effective area- requires: i) establishing whether the area actually
based conservation measures (OECMs). OECMs are protects biodiversity; ii) if so, determining how this
defined as “a geographically defined area other than is done; and (iii) implementing ways to know if it
a Protected Area, which is governed and managed in succeeds.
ways that achieve positive and sustained long-term
outcomes for the in-situ conservation of biodiversity, In considering the first step, a cautionary note is in
with associated ecosystem functions and services order. A study of Langtang National Park in Nepal
and where applicable, cultural, spiritual, socio- (Fox et al., 1996) found that conflict had arisen
economic, and other locally relevant values” (CBD, related to grazing in the park by local villagers.
2018, p. 48). When livestock grazing was accommodated by
the park, there was a reduction of conflict between
The perceived strengths and weaknesses of OECMs, the park and the local communities, and among
in terms of adding to biodiversity conservation, have the communities. Unfortunately, however, the red
been addressed by researchers such as Jonas et al panda (the species the park had been established
(2018). At one end of the scale, governments may to protect) was adversely affected by the grazing
merely seek to strengthen resource use closures, and rapid declined. From a social perspective,
where poor management has led to resource and accommodating the grazing demands of local
biodiversity collapse, into OECMs to help achieve villagers looked good; from a biological perspective, it
their commitments to the CBD, as the case of was undermining the survival of the species the park

24 Communities, conservation and livelihoods

 mainly of (a) community stories on the CCRN website
and (b) cases described in Armitage et al. (2017).

5.1.2 Biodiversity conservation as a

primary objective

Citing the red panda example earlier, the fundamental

question is whether or not the key implication is
being heard and addressed. Many conservation
concerns and outcomes documented in the CCRN
case studies could be considered as secondary or
Community initiatives to conserve biodiversity produce indirect, so the survey of biodiversity objectives was
important outcomes around the world, as in this sacred forest conducted to highlight cases where biodiversity
of Mozambique.
Photo: Almeida Sitoe conservation, in its most concrete form, was
considered a primary objective.

had been created to protect. This example illustrates The survey asked: (1) whether biodiversity
the critical line between development initiatives that conservation was a primary or secondary objective
do, or do not, enhance biodiversity conservation. in the respective locations; and (2) whether
“The problem in terms of biological diversity is not conservation was approached directly or indirectly.
that the grazing lands are not managed, but that Of the 18 responses from CCRN researchers, seven
no one speaks for the red panda” (Fox et al., 1996, indicated that conservation was a primary objective.
p. 568). In one case, where biodiversity conservation was
stated as a primary objective, it appeared to take
Biodiversity outcomes of community conservation an indirect route, with a focus on establishing a
have been demonstrated by a range of studies in more sustainable and just use of natural resources
different environments around the world. There are (Foxcroft et al., 2016). Meeting these objectives may
at least two reasons why it is important to focus contribute considerably to biodiversity conservation,
on biodiversity: i) valid community development despite being a more indirect route, compared to
initiatives can take place that do not aim to improve other projects which focus directly on biodiversity
biodiversity conservation; and ii) among those itself. An example of the latter involves a process of
initiatives that do have the biodiversity focus, there is assessing direct biodiversity impacts of ocean uses
still a wide range of possible strategies, from activities (Seijo & Headley, 2020). The direct/indirect distinction
designed to have a direct impact on biodiversity does not suggest that indirect approaches have a
(i.e. cessation of hunting/collecting a given species) lesser impact on biodiversity than direct approaches,
to activities that seek to enhance incomes and but it is useful to understand the subtle difference in
thereby reduce dependence on extractive activities perspectives. Furthermore, in some cases, survey
detrimental to biodiversity conservation. respondents may have biodiversity conservation as
an overall goal, yet do not express this explicitly in a
This chapter discusses two sources of data on statement of objectives.
connections between biodiversity outcomes and
local communities, within the various cases examined From the survey results, community initiatives –
by the CCRN. The following section discusses the whose primary goal was biodiversity conservation –
results of a survey of CCRN researchers, carried out identified specific conservation objectives, including:
in 2018, on biodiversity objectives and outcomes,
producing results for a significant majority of the • to protect and/or restore species populations;
CCRN’s sites. The second part of the analysis • to detect and understand changes in species and
examines a somewhat larger set of self-reported habitats;
case studies in the CCRN database, comprised • to relate impacts to human activities; and

Communities, conservation and livelihoods 25

 • to understand the role of traditional ecological ‘destructive resource use’ covers ecosystems
knowledge (TEK) in understanding habitats/ and habitat because it specifically involves natural
species. resources, it was assigned to a different category
from concerns of ‘quality of ecosystems and
Significantly, the objectives contrast with initiatives habitat’, which broadly relate to marine and terrestrial
whose primary goal was social, and focused on: ecosystems and habitats.
participation in governance; building local knowledge
of conservation; and interactions within SES, In the course of this process, seven categories were
including livelihood implications and adaptations. identified: i) environmental impacts (environmental
degradation, unsustainable development and
The rationale for projects whose primary goal was pollution, both chronic and disaster-based); ii)
biodiversity conservation included: quality of ecosystems and habitat; iii) resource
over-exploitation, (iv) destructive resource uses;
• ongoing research interests; v) improving resource management; vi) climate
• degradation of environments and loss of species change (seasonality and drought); and vii) exotic
abundance; and endangered species. The frequencies of these
• conflict among users; concerns are shown in Figure 4.
• reducing human impact;
• improving access rights to resources; and The results reflect the particular cases examined
• over-fishing. here, which overall had a rural and resource-
based emphasis. As a result, we see that the three
Community objectives were being met by a number categories dealing with natural resources (over-
of activities, including: data collection and monitoring; exploitation, destructive use, and management)
formulating action plans; and building public dominate with a total count of 25 out of the 46
awareness and engagement processes. Concerning concerns expressed – and arising in about three-
monitoring, the following activities were reported: quarters of the locations. Another main set of
informal processes of observation; periodic data concerns lies in the first two categories, e.g.
collection; and workshops with stakeholders. environmental, ecosystem and habitat impacts, with
a combined count of 15, arising in just over 50% of
5.2 Conservation concerns and locations.
outcomes

To consider the nature of conservation objectives Figure 4 Frequencies of conservation concerns

and outcomes in a broad sense, a text analysis
was carried out on the set of CCRN case studies
(community locations). The focus was on the main 12

conservation concerns reported in each case study; 10

a total of 28 cases were examined, and 46 concerns 8

were identified (with many case studies indicating 6

4
multiple concerns). These concerns were then
2
categorised by identifying sets of related concerns.
0
For instance, the use of poison, such as cyanide,
s

t)

s
ta

en
ct

ie
us
tio

gh

for catching marine ornamental fish, environmental

bi

ec
pa

em
ta

ou
ce
ha

sp
m

oi

dr
ur
pl

damage caused by sand dredging and impacts of

li

&

ed
so

an

g
ta

ex
s

n
m

er
re
en

i
er

ud
te

ng

deforestation were grouped together as ‘destructive

m

e
ov

ce
ys

cl
iv

da
n

ur
ct

in
ce
ro

os

en
(
so
ru
vi

ur

resource use’. This category was considered

ec

e
st
En

at
Re

&
so

De
of

lim

ic
Re

ot

separate from ‘resource over-exploitation’, which

y

C
lit

Ex
ua
Q

involves over-use of resources but not destructive

use per se. Similarly, although the category Source: Authors.

26 Communities, conservation and livelihoods

 Figure 5 Frequency of anticipated conservation outcomes

14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0

n
y

th

es

es

ng
or
lit

lit

fit

t io

io

t io
al

ac

ic

di
pp
i

bi

ne

at
ab

he

ta

pa
ct

an
na
sp

rv
su
be

ap
n

ra

ci
m

st

se
ai

ai
d

rt i
ad
t
n

er
te
st

st

en

n
te

pa
co
ys

d
su

su

bl
ec

te
nm
at

un
os

si

t&
a
ot

to
rv
ce

lim
on
ie

er

&
Ec

se
Pr

en
ur

ks
ec

ov
sp

s
C
on
so

es

m
in
Sp

G
Re

ll

er
lc
Re

en

ra

w
ca

ar

tu

po
Aw
Lo

ul

Em
C
Source: Authors.

In a manner analogous to that for conservation Benefits; vi) Responsible Practices; vii) Government
concerns, analysis of the set of CCRN community Support; viii) Climate Adaptation; ix) Awareness and
locations was also used to identify the conservation Understanding; x) Cultural Links to Conservation; and
outcomes arising out of the actions described in xi) Empowerment & Participation.
the respective ‘community stories’ (recognising that
some actions may be ongoing making outcomes Categories i) to v) reflect actual conservation
anticipated rather than realised). The ‘practical outcomes, while the categories vi) to xi) are
outcomes’ section of each Community Story was direct ‘paths’ to conservation outcomes. A large
reviewed, to identify the primary conservation- or majority, 65% (35 out of 54), of outcomes are actual
biodiversity-focused outcomes that were anticipated conservation outcomes, while 35% (19 out of 54) are
to result from the corresponding actions. A total of indirect (categories vi–xi). The direct conservation
54 outcomes were identified, across the locations. outcomes include three major groupings: a) those
Although the focus was on concrete improvements relating to natural resources (12); b) those relating to
in ecosystems, resource populations and the like, ecosystems and spaces (13); and those relating to
many case studies had, as their primary outcomes, specific species (6). The numbers seem to reflect a
results that could be seen as leading directly to reasonably wide range of ‘scales’ for the outcomes.
conservation, but not necessarily relating to the state
of the environment directly. Some examples are 5.3 Discussion
adoption of more responsible practices in resource
use (such as less destructive fishing), provision of Direct versus indirect conservation. Within the
government support and improved awareness of set of community experiences assessed, there was
the environment – all leading to better conservation a stronger orientation towards indirect rather than
results. direct action to enhance biodiversity conservation.
However, this focus is hardly surprising since the
The outcomes were then grouped into sets of main focus of the CCRN in selecting the sites
related outcomes, out of which 11 categories were was to gain greater understanding of community
identified (Figure 5): i) Resource Sustainability; approaches towards conservation. This contrasts
ii) Ecosystem Health; iii) Protected Spaces; iv) with the common practice of biophysical scientists
Species Sustainability; v) Local Conservation determining conservation strategies and activities,

Communities, conservation and livelihoods 27

 which often failed through lack of awareness of
the human component in decision making and
inadequate provision of benefits to local peoples
(Bennett & Dearden, 2013). Regardless, it is also
clear that many community development initiatives
must be better positioned in understanding local
ecosystems and conservation needs at both local
and broader scales.

Monitoring. In many cases of community

conservation, there was a lack of attention paid
to the monitoring of biodiversity outcomes as well
Local communities around the world, such as here in Tobago,
as a lack of formal monitoring protocols. However, benefit from biodiversity values and ecosystem services.
many government-managed protected areas (PA) Photo: A. Charles
also suffer from inadequate consideration and
comprehensive monitoring plans. A recent survey of
threats to global PA concluded that the increasing 5.4 Conclusions
reliance on remote sensing for monitoring was not
producing the quality of data required to assess the The overall context provided at the start of this
ecological outcomes of protection effectively (Schulze chapter was based on recent initiatives to include
et al., 2018) and called for more locally gathered data OECMs in countries’ official reporting to the CBD.
to improve assessments. Most of the concerns raised in this regard are about
whether OECMs conserve biodiversity and if so,
Local people on the ground can provide such under what conditions. Although the cases examined
monitoring and understanding, especially when here do not represent a category of OECMs (in fact
aided by the scientific community, in terms of some are not OECMs), it was found that to a large
protocols and measurements. This is another strong extent, the cases highlighted were successful in
rationale to expand the role of community conserved improving both community and ecosystem health
areas, which, given adequate support, may be over the timeframes examined.
more effective for biodiversity conservation than
government-managed areas. The utility of these initiatives would be improved
through greater attention to formal assessment
Compliance. Illegal resource extraction (i.e. illegal of biodiversity outcomes. Such assessments
fishing or wildlife exploitation within a protected often require input from trained scientists, who
area) is a key issue to be resolved in community may be from government, universities or the NGO
conservation and conserved areas. Other relevant sector, working in partnership with communities.
issues to be considered include: i) what should be Collaborative approaches provide fertile grounds
the timeline of protected area moratorium in the for such initiatives. While formal protected area
face of uncertain levels of illegal activity? ii) what systems, such as national parks, commonly involve
should be the role of communities in monitoring and collaborations with outside agencies, institutions
in enforcing compliance within established PAs? and communities, these are mostly a secondary
(iii) what should be the guidelines to restore and/ rather than a primary component. This contrasts with
or conserve ecosystem biodiversity, functions and virtually all CCRN examples, where partnerships and
services? With these in mind, it is also important to collaboration are at the very heart of the initiative.
note that communities practice self-policing when Park agencies can learn much from a collaborative
they have internalised the need to exclude any approach in moving forward the effective protection
form of illegal and free-riding behaviour from the of biodiversity for future generations.
ecosystem they want to protect.

28 Communities, conservation and livelihoods

References Lemieux, C.J., Gray, P.A., Devillers, R., Wright, P.A., Dearden,
P., Halpenny, E.A., Groulx, M., Beechey, T.J., Beazley,
Armitage, D., Berkes, F. and Charles, A. (eds.) 2017. K. (2019) “How the race to achieve Aichi Target 11 could
Governing the Coastal Commons: Communities, Resilience jeopardize the effective conservation of biodiversity in Canada
and Transformation. Oxford, UK and New York, USA: and beyond’. Marine Policy 99: 312–323.
Earthscan, Routledge/Taylor & Francis. Available at: https://
doi.org/10.4324/9781315688480 Schulze, K., Knights, K., Coad, L., Geldmann, J., Leverington,
F., Eassom, A., Marr, M., Butchart, S.H., Hockings, M.,
Bennett, N. and Dearden, P. (2013). ‘Why local people Burgess, N.D. (2018). ‘An assessment of threats to terrestrial
do not support conservation: Community perceptions protected areas’. Conservation Letters 11(3): e12345.
of marine protected area livelihood impacts, governance Available at: https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12435
and management in Thailand’. Marine Policy 44: 107–116.
Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2013.08.017 Seijo, J.C., and Headley, M. 2020. Punta Allen, Quintana Roo,
Mexico: Community-based ecosystem conservation – The
Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) (2010). Decision spiny lobster fishery. Community Story.
X/2. The Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020 and the
Aichi Biodiversity Targets. Conference of the Parties to the
Convention of Biological Diversity. Tenth meeting, Nagoya,
Japan, 18–29 October 2010. UNEP/CBD/COP/DEC/X/2.
Available at: https://www.cbd.int/doc/decisions/cop-10/
cop-10-dec-02-en.pdf (available in Arabic, Chinese, French,
Russian and Spanish)

_____ (2018). ‘Decision 14/8. Protected areas and other

effective area-based conservation measures’. Report of the
Conference of the Parties to the Convention of Biological
Diversity on its Fourteenth Meeting. Sharm El-Sheikh, Egypt,
17–29 November 2018, p. 81. Available at: https://www.cbd.
int/doc/decisions/cop-14/cop-14-dec-08-en.pdf (available
in Arabic, Chinese, French, Russian and Spanish at: Available
at: https://www.cbd.int/meetings/COP-14)

Fox, J., Yonzon, P. and Podger, N. (1996). ‘Mapping Conflicts

Between Biodiversity and Human Needs in Langtang National
Park, Nepal’.’ Conservation Biology 10(2): 562–569. Available
at: https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1523-1739.1996.10020562.x

Foxcroft, D., Hall, D. and Cowan, L. (2016). Nuu-chah-nulth

Territory, Canada: The Nuu-chah-nulth continue to fight for
their aboriginal fishing rights even after these rights were
recognized in Ahousaht et al vs Canada (2009) [website
article]. Available at: https://www.communityconservation.
net/nuu-chah-nulth-territory-canada/

Jonas, H., MacKinnon, K., Dudley, N., Hockings, M.,

Jessen, S., Laffoley, D., MacKinnon, D., Matallana‐Tobón,
C.L., Sandwith, T., Waithaka, J. and Woodley, S. (2018.
‘Editorial essay: other effective area-based conservation
measures: from Aichi Target 11 to the Post‐2020 Biodiversity
Framework’. Parks 24 (Special Issue): 9–16. Available at:
https://parksjournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/
PARKS-24-SI-Low-ResWeb.pdf

Communities, conservation and livelihoods 29

 Chapter 6

Livelihood outcomes of community

conservation
Cristiana S. Seixas, Laura Loucks and Sharmalene Mendis-Millard*

6.1 Introduction described on the CCRN website (as of May 2018),

and an additional six sites.7
This chapter highlights key positive livelihood
outcomes of community conservation and/or During the survey, researchers not only identified the
livelihood initiatives. Livelihood outcomes are seen livelihood outcomes they found in the corresponding
as part of a process of community action related study sites, but they also described three key
to conservation, economic, governance and/or aspects that led to community mobilisation for
social dimensions of communities. Communities improving conservation and/or livelihoods (Seixas &
correspond to a group of people who live and work Davy, 2007):
within a specific ecosystem, and act collectively
to improve local livelihoods while conserving the 1 Trigger events;
natural systems on which they (and potentially others) 2 windows of opportunity; and/or
depend. 3 interventions.

The focus is only on positive outcomes as they Livelihood outcomes often evolve as communities
indicate how livelihoods improved in relation to these respond to certain kinds of social-ecological
community initiatives. To this end, the accumulated changes, which could include a trigger event or an
information was reviewed from the CCRN community intervention that catalyses people to take action (e.g.
stories (May 2018) to identify key factors that new conservation and/or development projects, or
contribute to positive livelihood outcomes. These even a research project). Under certain conditions, a
were then selected and categorised according to four window of opportunity to change the status quo can
dimensions of livelihood outcomes: emerge.

1 conservation; Results from the survey informed our conceptual

2 economic; model of how SES generate positive livelihood
3 governance; and outcomes over some period of time (Figure 6). While
4 social. the model is expressed in broad terms, it is useful for
describing the complex relationships and feedback
We applied this structure in a systematic survey of loops that affect the four dimensions of livelihood
researchers working in 26 of the CCRN community outcomes.
sites, carried out in May 2018; this covered 20 sites

* We thank all the researchers and partners who responded to our survey during the CCRN Network Meeting in May 2018, as well as
those communities working with them. We also thank Canada’s Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC) for funding.
C.S.Seixas wishes to thank the São Paulo Funding Agency (FAPESP grant; 18/08839-3) for a Visiting Scholar fellowship.

7 Bali, Indonesia; Bay Ranobe, Madagascar; Catuçaba, Brazil; Eastern Shore Forests, Canada; Haida Gwaii, British Columbia, Canada;
Halifax Food, Canada; Koh Pitak, Thailand; Kosi Bay, South Africa; Mahahual, Mexico; Maumeta and Beloi, Timor-Leste; Noh Cah, Maya
Zone, Mexico; Nuu-chah-nulth Fisheries, British Columbia, Canada; Odisha, India; Praia do Sono, Brazil; Punta Allen, Mexico; Queshm
Island, Iran; Saadani National Park, Tanzania; São Luis Paraitinga, Brazil; Tarituba, Brazil; Trindade, Brazil; Tsitsikamma National Park,
South Africa; Vila Pescadores, Brazil; West Coast Aquatic, Canada; West Coast NEST, British Columbia, Canada; Xai-Xai, Mozambique;
Ysyk-Köl (Issyk Kul) Biosphere Reserve, Kyrgyzstan.

30 Communities, conservation and livelihoods

 Figure 6 Process of community (re)
For example, the conceptual model illustrated in organisation that generates positive livelihood
Figure 6 points to a few steps: outcomes

• Actors mobilise community-level resources,

described as assets – natural, financial, physical, Mobilisation
of assets
human and social capitals – (DFID, 1999) to either
Natural capital
improve or diversify local livelihoods. Financial capital
• As assets are mobilised and mediated by Physical capital
Human capital
governance arrangements and, in some cases, Social capital

catalytic elements, various livelihood outcome

dimensions are improved.
• Catalytic elements refer to factors that facilitate Motivation of
Governance
ACTORS
both the initial planning and implementation of an arrangements
to improve Catalytic
initiative, as well as the ongoing maintenance of an conservation elements
and/or livelihoods
initiative.
• Improved conservation, economic, governance
and social dimensions of livelihood outcomes
Livelihood
directly impact the state of community assets and outcomes
governance arrangements. Trigger event
Conservation
Window of opportunity
• These steps lead to a virtuous circle in which Intervention (project)
Economic
Governance
positive livelihood outcomes are continually Social dimensions

increased. Source: Authors.

6.2 The communities

handcrafting also take place in some rural and
Our study includes a diversity of community coastal communities. Urban dwellers often rely on
types located in various parts of the world, with multiple livelihood activities.
a wide range of population sizes and a variety of
ecosystems. In some cases, community populations 6.2.1 Trigger events and responses to
are less than 100 people (i.e. Noh Cah ejido livelihood threats
neighbouring the Sian K’aan Biosphere Reserve,
Mexico), whereas in other cases there are over A trigger event may be a shock to an SES that
100,000 people. The ecosystem area inhabited and occurs over a short period of time (i.e. a disaster
used by the population may be smaller than 100 ha or new regulation) or a stress over a long period of
(i.e. urban gardens) or as large as the West Coast of time (i.e. environmental degradation or loss of rights)
Vancouver Island (stretching over 300 km); it could directly impacting a community that spurs people
also be a very isolated rural community (i.e. Praia to react. When existing livelihoods were threatened
do Sono, Brazil), or an urban community, such as or unsustainable, the study found that communities
Halifax in Nova Scotia, Canada. Regardless of these mobilised assets to change the status quo for
variations in population size and inhabited ecosystem different reasons in the following ways:
area, some general patterns were identified in cases
where communities have mobilised assets to improve • Responding to a natural disaster (i.e. a flood in
livelihoods. São Luis do Paraitinga, Brazil) or human-induced
disaster (i.e. oil spills at Vila dos Pescadores,
The communities involved, particularly those in Brazil); or even to extreme weather events (i.e.
rural and coastal areas, have traditionally focused extreme rainy season in Punta Allen, Mexico).
on one or a combination of the following livelihood • Responding to displacement (i.e. Kosi Bay
options: small-scale fishing, farming, eco-tourism community, South Africa, displaced by the
and/or forestry. Medicinal plant harvesting and establishment of protected areas (PA)).

Communities, conservation and livelihoods 31

 • Fighting for access rights to resources (e.g. after
a protected area was imposed on the traditional
area they depend on, as for communities
neighbouring the Tsitsikamma National Park,
South Africa; the Caiçaras from Trindade,
neighbouring the Serra da Bocaina National Park,
Brazil)
• Fighting for user rights (i.e. the court action taken
by Nuu-chah-nulth people in western Canada for
fishing rights)
• Dealing with resource scarcity (i.e. the Octopus in
Traditional houseboat fishers in the western part of Japan.
Bay Ranobe, Madagascar) Fishing families historically travel around the country for
• Raising awareness of and countering many days at a time, teaching fishing methods in return for
local access to resources.
environmental degradation (i.e. for forests on the Photo: Mitsutaku Makino
Eastern Shore in Nova Scotia, Canada); restoring
degraded areas (i.e. restoration of seagrass beds,
in Tokyo Bay, Japan) • new legal instruments or policies providing new
• Responding to government resource management options (i.e. terms of agreement for fishing in a no-
proposals (i.e. Haida Gwaii Marine Planning, take protected area, in Tarituba, Brazil)
western Canada) • funding opportunities (i.e. for establishing and
• Protesting against industrial development implementing PA in Bali, Indonesia)
threatening livelihoods (e.g. fisher mobilisation • emergence of new markets (i.e. development of
against mining development in Olifants Estuary, tourism in Queshm Island, Iran).
South Africa; the Koh Sralao villagers protesting
against sand dredging in their area, Cambodia); Of the community cases examined, only three did
protesting against environmental problems in not include a trigger event or window of opportunity
general (i.e. as the Chilika Lagoon fishers do in that led to changes in livelihoods: i) Ysyk-Köl (Issyk
India) Kul) Biosphere Reserve, in Kyrgyzstan; ii) the sacred
• Revitalising traditional institutions (i.e. the sasi laut forest of three communities in Limpopo District of
in Haruku village, Indonesia) Mozambique; and iii) the Noh Cah ejido from the
• Resisting resource use practices that violate Maya Zone in Quintana Roo, Mexico. All three were
Indigenous peoples’ values and sacred lands studies reporting on very long-term community
(as for forest harvesting in the Clayoquot Sound conservation initiatives. Available information for the
UNESCO Biosphere Region, Canada). first two indicates how communities have conserved
sacred sites and their importance for their identity;
6.2.2 Windows of opportunity all three highlight the importance of combining top-
down and local conservation efforts.
Windows of opportunity emerge often in broader
socio-political and economic contexts that 6.2.3 Interventions
communities can take advantage of. They may or
may not occur concomitantly to a trigger event or Interventions, understood as the implementation of
an intervention. In the context of the CCRN sites, new conservation and/or development projects, or
windows of opportunities refer to the following: even a research project, took place in most of the
cases and acted as catalytic elements for community
• changes in legislation or policy providing new action and associated asset mobilisation. Some
options (i.e. Canada’s Ocean Act that fostered examples of specific activities include:
West Coast Aquatic, a co-management board,
and the designation of the Clayoquot Biosphere • training workshops (which could be for various
Reserve) purposes, such as with tourism service providers

32 Communities, conservation and livelihoods

 in Mahahual, Mexico, or to promote dialogue sense of place were reported in over 65% of the
between staff and neighbouring communities of cases.
Saadani National Park, Tanzania); • Conservation factors most reported (ranging from
• training in diverse issues and skills (e.g. to 42% to 54% of the cases) were: new conservation
strengthen local fisheries organisations in Bolivia; actions; monitoring resource use; identification
to teach fishers how to produce value-added of ecologically significant areas to protect; new
products in Odisha, India; to train children and sustainable use practices; and development of
their families on the value of conserving water in management plans.
the face of climate change in Coquimbo region, • In terms of economic factors, livelihood
Chile; and to train fishers in environmentally-friendly diversification occurred in 46% of the cases
fishing techniques to replace cyanide, as in Les studied (e.g. including tourism – most common in
Village, Bali); rural and coastal areas – and gardening – most
• participatory research (e.g. to document climate common in urban areas), while household income
change and environmental perceptions by the (the second most reported economic factor) was
Tujereng in West Africa’s Gambia; to develop a found to increase in only 31% of the cases.
participatory monitoring plan in Tarituba, Brazil);
• social marketing campaigns (i.e. “Cuidamos These results reveal strong patterns regarding the
lo nuestro para los nuestros” (we take care of iterative process of how communities reorganise
what is ours, for our people) to encourage local in their response to either a trigger event and/or
consumption of whole lobsters and adoption of window of opportunity and/or intervention. Based
responsible fishing practices in the Galapagos on the patterns in the data gathered (Table 2), the
Islands, Ecuador); and analysis found that changes in governance and
• funding for conservation and sustainable social relationships for livelihood improvement (i.e.
development (i.e. Canada’s CA$ 12 million positive outcomes) are required for changes in
endowment fund for the Clayoquot Sound conservation and economic aspects of livelihoods.
UNESCO Biosphere Region). In other words, a trigger event and/or a window
of opportunity and/or an intervention can move
In a few cases, the interventions focused primarily on a community towards reorganisation; improved
conservation or social goals, but in most cases, they governance and social relationships are integral
were designed to tackle and improve both. to this reorganisation process, in order to lead to
positive conservation and economic outcomes.
6.3 Factors contributing to positive
livelihood outcomes For example, in a post-disaster situation, the
community of São Luiz do Paraitinga in Brazil
The analysis involved factors contributing to improved its governance process and strengthened
positive livelihood outcomes in the community sites social and cultural ties through numerous festivities,
(cases) surveyed, and assigned the categories which then led to conservation actions (such as
of conservation, economic, governance or social peoples’ involvement in restoration projects) and new
improvements. The results are shown in Tables 2 livelihood options (such as changing practices to
and 3. The key findings of the analysis are: cultivate agro-ecological products and setting up a
street market to sell them, among others). In another
• Governance and social factors were more instances, the community story of Eastern Shore,
prominent in most of the cases. in Nova Scotia, Canada, illustrates “how the efforts
• Improved dialogue and information flows among of key local champions helped drive an evolution of
parties and improved stewardship occurred in community identity over time, allowing for increased
almost 70% of the cases. collective action related to protection both of
• Strengthened relationships, community wilderness and local livelihoods” (Rainville et al., n.d.).
empowerment, leadership, social learning, and
strengthened local cultural values, identity and

Communities, conservation and livelihoods 33

 Table 2 Factors contributing to positive livelihood outcomes (n=26 cases surveyed)

No. of
DIMENSIONS OF LIVELIHOOD OUTCOMES
cases
New conservation actions 14
Monitoring resource use 12
Identification of ecologically significant areas to protect 12
New sustainable use practices 11
CONSERVATION
Development of management plans 11
FACTORS
Revision of management plans 10
Habitat restoration 9
Activism to stop degradation 6
Habitat creation 5
Livelihood diversification 12
Increased household income 8
Use of new/more sustainable technologies 7
Diversification of products and market chain 6
ECONOMIC Improved profits – overcoming middlemen 5
FACTORS Increased income from Payment for Ecosystem Services 4
Improved profits – Certification of origins/fair trade 3
Increased access to financial capital 3
Improved profits – Eco-certification 3
Improved profits – Value-adding in processed foods & handicrafts 3
Improved dialogue among parties 20
Improved communication/information flows within and between parties 18
Improved stewardship 18
Emergence of new partnerships around common interests 17
Self-organising behaviour 16
GOVERNANCE Conflict reduction/increased collaboration 13
FACTORS New management regulations 13
Strengthen old partnerships 11
Influence in government policies 11
Emergence of new bridging organisations 11
Revitalization of local institutions 11
New rights achieved 6
Strengthen relationships 20
Community empowerment 19
Leadership/agency enhancement or development 17
Social learning 17
Strengthen local cultural values, identity & sense of place 17
Knowledge co-production 16
SOCIAL Emergence of learning opportunities & learning networks 14
FACTORS Increased capacity to negotiate 12
New mechanism created to value Indigenous and local knowledge 11
Women’s empowerment 9
Improved food security 8
Improved education 7
Improved human health 7
Improved water security 6

34 Communities, conservation and livelihoods

Table 3 Percentage of cases with positive
outcomes reinforce actions that help to mobilise
livelihood outcomes in the face of trigger
events, windows of opportunity and/or community assets and strengthen governance
interventions in the social-ecological system arrangements, which in turn, mediate the flow
(n=26 cases surveyed) of these assets to improve the four dimensions
of livelihood outcomes (conservation, economic,
Percentage governance and social) in a virtuous circle.
LIVELIHOOD OUTCOMES
of cases
Governance factors 54% The case studies reviewed also suggest that
Social factors 49% community-driven conservation efforts can contribute
to nature-based development providing positive
Conservation factors 40%
livelihood outcomes (as evidenced from the eco-
Economic factors 22%
tourism case in Koh Pitak, Thailand, the fisheries
case in Punta Allen, Mexico and the forestry case
The data shows an average of 19 factors that in Eastern Shore, Nova Scotia, Canada). On the
contribute to positive outcomes per case (SD=9, other hand, when top-down conservation initiatives
Med=21). The two cases with the least number constrain livelihood options (as evidenced from the
of positive factors (two factors each) were among implementation of no-take PA in Brazil and Tanzania),
the three cases for which no trigger event nor the governance, social and economic dimension of
window of opportunity were reported for community livelihood outcomes may be severely affected.
mobilisation. This suggests that when community
actors respond to a trigger event or take advantage
of a window of opportunity, they mobilise assets References
to produce more positive livelihood outcomes than
otherwise. However, more research is needed to Department for International Development (DFID) (1999).
Sustainable livelihoods guidance sheets. Available at: https://
validate this assertion.
www.ennonline.net/dfidsustainableliving

6.4 Concluding remarks Rainville, T., Beaton, S, Graham, J. and Burns, M. (n.d.).
Eastern Shore, Nova Scotia, Canada: Forest, Livelihood and
Understanding livelihood outcomes as part of a Identity Conservation. CCRN Community Stories. Available
process of community action can help explain the link at: https://www.communityconservation.net/wp-content/
uploads/2017/05/Eastern-Shore-EAC_Forest_Community-
between conservation and livelihoods.
Story-Final.pdf

As has been described throughout the chapter, Seixas, C.S. and Davy, B. (2007). ‘Self-organization in
communities often mobilise their assets in response integrated conservation and development initiatives’.
to social-ecological change (trigger events, International Journal of the Commons 2(1): 99–125. Available
windows of opportunity or interventions), whether at: http://www.thecommonsjournal.org/index.php/ijc/article/
view/24
they occur externally or internally. This mobilisation
response forces a reorganisation of how assets are
governed and of social relationships, which leads to
improvements identified as factors that contribute to
livelihood outcomes (four dimensions). Governance
and social factors, such as improved dialogue and
information flows, and strengthened community
empowerment were most prominent in our cases.
Conservation factors (i.e. new sustainable use
practices) and economic ones – primarily livelihood
diversification and increased household income
– were also reported as contributing to positive
livelihood outcomes. These positive livelihood

Communities, conservation and livelihoods 35

 Chapter 7

Governance and community conservation

Derek Armitage, Ana Carolina Esteves Dias, Ella-Kari Muhl, Mitsutaku Makino,
Tawney Lem, Laura Loucks and Aoi Sugimoto

7.1 Introduction make decisions about issues of importance. It could

refer to, for example, protecting fish stocks, deciding
This chapter outlines some lessons about how about the suitability of aquaculture, fostering local
governance affects communities, their livelihoods development opportunities, or making a choice to
and their relationship with conservation. Governance set aside lands and waters for strict protection. The
is defined as the institutions (rules) and social outcomes of governance processes can be hard to
interactions (including various processes) that reflect define, and the definitions depend on who is making
societal preferences, and that influence who makes decisions about the impacts on ecosystems and
decisions about natural resources (e.g. fish, forests, human well-being. Governance is thus about politics,
wildlife), as well as the timing, political feasibility and and how power (formal and informal) is distributed
acceptability of these institutions and processes. (often unequally) among different actors in society
Governance is more than a matter of ‘management’ and leveraged to facilitate or constrain action by
(i.e. operation and implementation of rules) – it communities.
involves values, relations of power and visions about
alternative pathways forward.8 There is ample evidence that communities can
and should be a focal point for how environmental
Across the CCRN, experiences in the diverse commons are governed – the lands, coasts
sites reflect the many challenges confronting local and oceans upon which depend our well-being
communities. Some of the challenges are social (Sowman & Wynberg, 2014; Bennett & Satterfield,
and economic, such as out-migration, lack of 2018). Strong local governance is the foundation
employment opportunities, or tourism pressure. for success at other levels as well. Increasingly,
Other challenges involve new policies and rules such examples from around the world demonstrate
as the imposition of regulations limiting access to the that communities and diverse sets of partners
natural resources upon which communities depend. (government, NGOs and others) are collaborating to
Increasingly, the challenges confronting communities characterise, understand and respond to social and
emerge from (un)natural processes like climate ecological dimensions of environmental change and
change and its many effects (i.e. ocean acidification). its consequences. Yet, the distribution of power has
In this context, innovative forms of governance not always been advantageous where communities
are often needed to redefine how communities, are concerned, and for every example of a positive
governments and non-governmental organisations transformation in governance, there is a converse
(NGOs) interact to solve historically embedded example of communities whose livelihoods and
challenges (Armitage et al., 2017). efforts to conserve their environments have been
threatened by particular governance policies and
7.2 Why ‘governance’? practices (such as changes to historical access
rights). How should we interpret such processes of
As noted earlier, governance refers to the rules, governance? And what lessons can we leverage for
institutions and processes through which societies those engaged in other community-based contexts?

8 For further information on governance, please see the CCRN guidebook on the subject (Berdej et al., 2016).

36 Communities, conservation and livelihoods

7.3 Lessons on governance

Communities address change in diverse ways and

seek to deliberately transform untenable social,
economic and ecological situations using multiple
livelihood and conservation strategies. An initial
survey across CCRN cases finds five broad themes
or ‘ingredients’ of governance, and how communities
deal or apply them in their specific context (Armitage
et al., 2017):

1 Multi-level collaboration and participant

engagement; A coastal community on the west coast of France which is
2 Access and management rights; an example of local decision-making leading to improved
conservation and livelihood solutions.
3 Knowledge co-production; and Photo: A. Charles
4 Leadership and capacity building.

Table 4 outlines the key insights on governance with co-developed a monitoring protocol to provide
a few examples to provide additional context. These information about fishing impacts in the marine
insights are not a blueprint for change – rather they environment and the relevance of fishing to sustain
offer entry points to understanding why governance local livelihoods (Dias and Seixas, 2019). The
is an important foundation for communities, protocol was part of a formal agreement between the
conservation and livelihoods. protected area and small-scale fishers of the Tarituba
community to temporarily allow small-scale fishing
7.3.1 Multi-level collaboration and inside the Tamoios Protected Area. The agreement
participatory engagement was a tool to mitigate conflicts created after the
implementation of the no-take zone which made the
Across all of the cases where some positive social practice of fishing illegal (Seixas et al., 2017). While
and ecological outcomes are documented, a the underlying bureaucratic rationale that led to this
foundational governance ingredient is the set of situation is problematic, the ultimate solution reflects
institutional arrangements that fosters processes the importance of intentionally-developed multi-level
of multi-level collaboration and participatory collaboration.
engagement (i.e. in which local and Indigenous
cultural practices are included), and that help to In Canada, experience on the West Coast of
bring together multiple actors and perspectives. For Vancouver Island, also highlight processes of multi-
instance, experiences in the Shiretoko World Heritage level collaboration and participatory engagement.
(Japan) site offer a valuable example of where For example, an institutional arrangement involving
various stakeholders, such as coastal fishers, the sub-regional roundtables has led to work on strategic
tourist and environmental sectors and academics, plans that include fishery management, long-term
have cooperated to achieve the sustainable use salmon enhancement (production), habitat restoration
of local ecosystem services. The experience also and monitoring. The plans incorporate Indigenous,
illustrates a process in which diverse actors across local and scientific knowledge. Participation at the
levels of decision making have taken into account roundtables is inclusive, capturing the concept of
the recommendations and advice from the UNESCO involving everyone who is impacted – including
World Heritage Committee. Indigenous groups, other levels of government,
commercial and sport fishers, aquaculture,
The Shiretoko case reflects a similar case in Brazil. stewardship groups, tourism and others. As a result,
In the Tamoios Protected Area, a no-take zone, the roundtables have the potential to be beneficial to
small-scale fishers, managers and researchers the sustainability of wild salmon in the region.

Communities, conservation and livelihoods 37

 7.3.2 Access and management rights For example, in the context of the West Coast of
Vancouver Island roundtables, one of the most
Most of the sites analysed by the CCRN are valuable outcomes has been that groups with
experiencing some form of ‘change’, or more interests that outwardly appear divergent find
specifically, are trying to adapt to new or more common ground to work together in ways not
intense drivers of social and ecological uncertainty previously anticipated. At one roundtable, when a
(e.g. climate change, new markets). In this context, conflict arose, an exercise was used to encourage
a number of examples have emerged of policies all participants to put aside ‘how’ to proceed on the
and institutional arrangements that are intended fishing plan, and instead recall ‘why’ they voluntarily
to support communities – including potentially came to the table. They unanimously agreed “it
innovative changes in access and management was all about the fish”. While the group had varying
rights and/or customary approaches – and ideas of how to express their values about fish,
sometimes in the context of co-management. While learning that they all held common values allowed
the potential for positive change is apparent, clarity them to continue working together in ways that were
about access and management rights is often beneficial for the resource and their communities.
problematic.
A similar process of learning is illustrated in the
An example is the Tsitsikamma Marine Protected context of the Clayoquot Biosphere Trust (CBT), also
Area (MPA), in South Africa. Prior to a 2016 on the west coast of Vancouver Island. Here, the
regulation change that allowed 20% of the no- CBT Board consists of 10 voting members from five
take MPA to be re-zoned as open with control First Nation and three non-Indigenous communities,
to registered community fishers (Muhl, 2019), as well as two co-chairs, one representing a Nuu-
selected communities were consulted, but their chah-nulth community and another representing
recommendations for re-zoning were not adopted. a non-Indigenous community. Four non-voting
The feedback to the community has therefore not advisors represent provincial and federal government
been satisfactory. This has resulted in a loss in agencies. Board members are required to live in the
legitimacy of the MPA in the communities’ eyes, and community they represent and oversee the financial
as a result, many of the historical community fishers management and strategic development of a CA$ 12
continue to fish at ‘their spots’ within the no-take million endowment fund created by the government
zones, in what they deem is a sustainable manner. of Canada as a stable asset for the Clayoquot Sound
The Tsitsikamma example shows that where access Biosphere Reserve region.
and management rights are being re-negotiated, the
legitimacy of the process may be as crucial as the Initially, CBT Board members advocated for grant
focus on the rights themselves. making in their own individual communities rather
than for all people and organisations in the region.
7.3.3 Social learning The lack of a regional focus often resulted in heated
discussions and sometimes outright conflict.
Learning through change is recognised as a However, the CBT overcame these obstacles with
necessary feature of governance. Sometimes, the creation of community volunteer grant-making
learning processes support better responses and advisory committees to make recommendations to
adaptation to change, while others are linked to the Board for the disbursement of the organisation’s
efforts to a more fundamental transformation of social funds. Over time, the committees have developed
and ecological conditions. Regardless, opportunities grant-making criteria that support region-wide social
for social learning provide a key ingredient of values and project funding priorities.
governance for community conservation – among
different groups and in ways that help to challenge 7.3.4 Knowledge co-production
assumptions and social relations of power among
actors (civil society, government, industry). Linked to learning processes is an acknowledgement
that governance processes must recognise

38 Communities, conservation and livelihoods

and incorporate multiple sources and types of 7.3.5 Leadership and capacity building
knowledge. This emphasis on knowledge pluralism
and/or knowledge co-production is ultimately A final ingredient evident across many cases and
needed to build a holistic, integrated understanding experiences studied is the importance of governance
of complex systems reflected in communities and leadership and capacity building to overcome
conservation situations. conflicts, build trust, generate knowledge, as well
as foster entrepreneurial activities (i.e. income and
For example, the managers and community fishers livelihood diversification).
in the Tamoios and Tsitsikamma MPAs previously
cited had different views on the importance of the For example, while the overall situation is complicated
area. For the managers, the marine environment in Tsitsikamma (as noted above), the rezoning of the
is ecologically relevant for conservation, while the no-take protected area came from pressure exerted
fishers view the environment as part of their identity by an organised group of local community fishers.
where they were born and raised. In the South The leadership group protested the lack of access
African Tsitsikamma case, knowledge co-production to the coastline as a violation of their historic right to
has not occurred because rules have largely been use the marine resources for their livelihoods, food
created and implemented in a top-down fashion security and well-being. By exerting pressure on
from the regulating authority. The result of a lack the local municipality and threatening to use their
of knowledge-sharing is an MPA that is viewed as vote for an opposing party in the upcoming election,
illegitimate. In the case of the Brazilian Tamoios the people were able have 20% of the no-take
MPA, however, the participatory approach to design MPA rezoned to accommodate the needs of local
the monitoring protocol enabled the integration of community fishers (the regulations were then further
different knowledge types and perspectives and improved and addressed via an activist film that
formed the basis for more shared understanding highlighted ongoing issues made in partnership with
(Dias and Seixas, 2019). As experiences in the CCRN the communities).9
show, knowledge co-production is very much an
important catalyst for better outcomes. Similarly, during the design of the monitoring protocol
for the Tamoios MPA in Brazil, the leadership of the
On the west coast of Vancouver Island, the 2018 local community of Tarituba was a key ingredient
Clayoquot Biosphere Trust Vital Signs report (CBT, in mobilising people to participate in the process.
2018) highlights data collected from over 20 different Participants were, in general, waiting for an informal
local organisations and synthesises this data
according to 14 of the 17 SDGs. The results were
used to initiate conversations throughout the region
to discuss complex issues such as the relationship
between tourism growth and the widening gap
between household income and the rising costs
of living. Moreover, these discussions provided an
opportunity to explore conservation issues that are
often invisible to local residents, such as the link
between the increasing size of area closures due to
shellfish contamination and the water-use restrictions
implemented during the peak tourism season.

The world over, people gather in their communities to

address local environmental and livelihood challenges.
Photo: A. Charles

9 https://www.communityconservation.net/born-on-the-rocks/

Communities, conservation and livelihoods 39

 ‘approval’ of the local leader, which means they and threatened to take them to court again in 2016
would only participate if the leader invited them. and 2017. The controversy over the issue endures
Such examples highlight the importance of the role of and in spite of the rezoned areas being open for legal
‘informal’ leadership in catalysing action at the local and recognised fishing, community fishers continue
level. to go to their place of preference and risk fines, often
placing themselves in dangerous situations to avoid
However, it is equally important to recognise the rangers. The leadership vacuum that exists – the
many forces that can be aligned against local regulating authority (SANParks) is no longer seen as
leadership and capacity building efforts. Indeed, the a legitimate actor in this issue – means that continued
Tsitsikamma experience reflected a strong counter- uncertainty and conflict is likely (Muhl, 2019).
narrative and ‘push-back’ on community efforts.
Here, many in the marine conservation community 7.4 Conclusions
publicly criticised efforts to open access to
community members and have taken the regulating What do the examples reveal for the role of
authority (formerly the South African Department of governance in the ways in which communities
Environmental Affairs) to court connect conservation and livelihoods? Are the
over their 2015 decision to rezone (which they won) interests of local resource users in conservation

Table 4 Summary of governance attributes addressed in selected CCRN cases

AND PARTICIPANT

CO-PRODUCTION
COLLABORATION

AND CAPACITY
MANAGEMENT
ENGAGEMENT

ACCESS AND

KNOWLEDGE
MULTI-LEVEL

LEADERSHIP
COUNTRY CCRN CASE STUDY SITES
LEARNING

BUILDING
RIGHTS

SOCIAL

Bolivia Northern Amazon ** ** *

Brazil Paraty Bay * * *
Brazil Vila dos Pescadores, state of Sao Paulo * **
Canada Clayoquot Sound ** ** ** * **
Canada Nuu-Chah-Nulth * ** ** **
Canada Eastern Shore, NS ** * **
Chile Coquimbo Region * **
India Odisha ** * ** **
India Chilika lagoon ** * *
Indonesia Bali ** * * ** **
Indonesia Haruku Village ** ** * ** **
Iran Qeshm Island * * *
Jamaica Bluefields ** ** * *
Japan Tokyo Bay ** ** * **
Kyrgyzstan Ysyk-Köl (Issyk Kul) Biosphere Reserve * * * ** **
Mexico Mayan Zone (Xmaben and Noh-Cah) * * * **
Mexico Punta Allen ** ** ** * *
South Africa Olifants Estuary * * * *
South Africa Tsitsikamma * ** *
Tanzania Saadani National Park * *
Thailand Koh Pitak ** ** * **

** = Strong presence | * = Limited presence | Blank = No clear presence

40 Communities, conservation and livelihoods

practice matched by meaningful involvement Dias, A.C.E. and C.S. Seixas. (2019). ‘Participatory design
in decision processes at multiple levels? Are of a monitoring protocol for the small-scale fisheries at
the community of Tarituba, Paraty, RJ, Brazil’. Ambiente &
governance processes emerging in contested
Sociedade 22: e00702. Available at: https://www.scielo.br/
conservation situations that support a pathway
pdf/asoc/v22/1809-4422-asoc-22-e00702.pdf (English) and
forward for more just and equitable outcomes, or https://www.scielo.br/pdf/asoc/v22/pt_1809-4422-asoc-
for situations of increased uncertainty because 22-e00702.pdf (Portuguese)
of changing environmental conditions? Indeed,
there are many challenges to move towards the Muhl, E.-K. (2019). An analysis of the perceptions surrounding
the re-zoning of the Tsitsikamma Marine Protected Area.
governance principles and practices (or lessons)
Master's thesis (Environmental and Geographical Science).
outlined here. In many contexts, ways of governing
Department of Environmental and Geographical Science,
are deeply entrenched, which calls for greater social Faculty of Science, University of Cape Town, South Africa.
learning or knowledge co-production to engage Available at: http://hdl.handle.net/11427/31347
with historical top-down decision making and power
inequities among different groups. In most settings, Seixas C.S., A.C.E. Dias and De Freitas, R.R. (2017).
‘Navigating from government-centralised management to
governance outcomes will be contested and reflect
adaptive co-management in a marine protected area, Paraty,
trade-offs across multiple objectives. Limits on
Brazil. Turbulence, winds of opportunity and progress towards
capacity and leadership are also significant in many transformation’. In: D. Armitage, A. Charles, F. Berkes (eds.),
contexts. Yet, as reflected across the many cases Governing the Coastal Commons: Communities, Resilience
within the CCRN (Table 4), communities are working and Transformation, Chapter 9, pp. 157–180. Available at:
in partnership with enabling governments in ways https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315688480-9
that achieve important outcomes for their livelihoods
Sowman, M. and Wynberg, R. (eds.) (2014). Governance
and conservation efforts. The ingredients for effective
for Justice and Environmental Sustainability: Lessons
governance are clearly emerging. across Natural Resource Sectors in Sub-Saharan Africa.
London: Routledge/Earthscan. Available at: https://doi.
org/10.4324/9780203120880

References

Armitage, D., Charles, A., Berkes, F. (eds.) (2017). Governing

the Coastal Commons: Communities, Resilience and
Transformation. Oxford, UK and New York, USA: Earthscan,
Routledge/Taylor & Francis. Available at: https://doi.
org/10.4324/9781315688480

Bennett, N. and Satterfield, T. (2018). ‘Environmental

governance: A practical framework to guide design,
evaluation, and analysis’. Conservation Letters 11(6): e12600.
Available at: https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12600

Berdej, S., Armitage, D., Charles, A. (2016). Governance and

Community Conservation., Halifax, Canada: Community
Conservation Research Network, Saint Mary’s University.
Available at: https://www.communityconservation.net/wp-
content/uploads/2016/01/Governance-and-Community-
Conservation-Guidebook-1.pdf

Clayoquot Biosphere Trust (CBT) (2018). Clayoquot

Sound Biosphere Region’s Vital Signs 2018. Tofino, BC,
Canada: Clayoquot Biosphere Trust. Available at: https://
clayoquotbiosphere.org/files/file/5f34519fe3bab/Vital_
Signs_18_web_final.pdf

Communities, conservation and livelihoods 41

 Chapter 8

Power in realising community conservation

and livelihoods
Prateep Kumar Nayak*

8.1 Introduction individual and associating it with existing structural

forces. Individuals or groups exercise power over
Power is at the heart of community conservation, others because of their position in society (i.e.
and in turn influences its ultimate success and structural power);
failure. Despite this, and the central role of power in
understanding environmental conservation generally 3 Power often goes beyond the agency/structure
(Scott, 2001; Raik et al., 2008), attention to the dualism as both the social structure and the
actual workings of power in community conservation agent interact and depend upon one another
settings has been limited. This is particularly true with in identifying enduring structural preconditions
regard to the conditions determining the success and that shape contingent human interaction (realist
failure of community conservation, i.e. there has been power).
a lack of attention to how power affects economic,
social, historical, cultural and political conditions This chapter is about the relevance of power in
(Njaya et al., 2012; Nayak et al., 2016). There is, in realising the goals of environmental conservation and
reality, little discussion on what power means and sustainable livelihoods at the community scale. The
how it manifests (Sinclair & Ommer, 2006; Jentoft chapter explores how influences of negative power
et al., 2007). dynamics tend to derail community conservation
initiatives and livelihood outcomes, while inversely,
There is no simple definition or specific approach positive or constructive power can help create
through which to understand power (Raik et al., stronger foundations for community conservation
2008) due to which Berdej et al. (2019) define it as and help promote sustainable outcomes. This is
the capacity to cause effect. Power can be defined in done by drawing on community cases of the CCRN.
multiple ways (Winter, 1996; Lukes, 2005; Raik et al., In particular, the sites listed in Table 5 form the basis
2008): of the analysis in this chapter (and are referred to by
the corresponding numbering throughout).
1 Power rests with the individual or a group who
exercises it over another. Human agency plays 8.2 Linking power to community
a central role in how power manifests either as conservation
coercion or constraint (i.e. agent-centred view);
Power is a dominant force shaping conservation
2 Power reflects through the social–political and livelihood processes in a variety of community
conditions in which individuals operate and contexts. Even though its extent of influence varies,
structural processes that shape human relations power seems unavoidable – both inherent and
and interests, which places power outside the integral to the goals of conservation and livelihoods,

* This chapter has benefited from the insights shared by members of the CCRN Power and Politics in Community Conservation
Working Group: Luciana Gomes de Araujo, Maarten Bavinck, Sadie Beaton, Anthony Charles, Dawn Foxcroft, Cintia Gillam, Don
Hall, Grant Daniel Murray, Merle Sowman and others. I thank Maria Carmona for the excellent work she did on compiling the case
studies from the CCRN database. This research was funded by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
(SSHRC).

42 Communities, conservation and livelihoods

Table 5 List of CCRN sites considered in this
chapter (based on the numbering as indicated) and inseparable from conservation and livelihood
processes at the local scale. Power influences
community conservation and livelihood processes
COUNTRY CCRN SITES literally around the world – and across north
and south, rich and poor, Indigenous and non-
1 Bolivia Northern Amazon Indigenous, democratic and non-democratic, rural
2 Brazil Paraty Bay and urban, etc. This directs us to the need for global
3 Brazil São Luiz do Paraitinga and Catuçaba attention to power in order to make conservation and
livelihood outcomes successful.
Vila dos Pescadores, state of São
4 Brazil
Paulo
Power in relation to conservation and livelihoods is a
5 Cambodia Koh Sralao
dynamic process that must be considered not only
6 Canada Clayoquot Sound Biosphere Reserve in the present but, equally importantly, in the past
7 Canada West Coast Vancouver Island as well as in the future. The various CCRN stories
8 Canada Eastern Shore, Nova Scotia
cover the past, present and future of community
conservation and livelihood initiatives. Four inter-
9 Canada Halifax, British Columbia
related questions help generate a number of insights
10 Canada Nuu-Chah-Nulth Nation on linking power to community conservation and
11 Chile Coquimbo Region livelihoods:
12 Ecuador Galapagos Islands
8.2.1 What are the main power issues in
13 India Chilika Lagoon the community conservation and
14 India Odisha livelihood context?
15 Indonesia Bali
Power issues are inherent in the way local and
16 Indonesia Haruku Village
Indigenous communities are threatened by economic
17 Indonesia Les Village, Bali development activities, e.g. overfishing, aquaculture,
18 Iran Qeshm Island Geopark logging, mining and tourism development. These
Abashiri, Shiretoko, Tokyo Bay, activities may be prioritised by decision makers
19 Japan over and above the needs of the local community
Hiroshima and Ishigaki
Ysyk-Köl (Issyk Kul) Biosphere
(food security, subsistence, livelihoods, cultural
20 Kyrgyzstan and religious practice, etc.) and the environment
Reserve
(conservation or sustainable use). Actors with
21 Mexico Mayan Zone (Xmaben and Noh-Cah)
economic power and close ties with the government
22 Mexico Punta Allen, Quintana Roo
are often in a more advantageous position when it
23 South Africa Olifants Estuary comes to resource use and economic activities. In
24 South Africa Tsitsikamma Marine Protected Area some cases, resource management is affected by
decisions and actions of external actors (i.e. from
25 Tanzania Saadani National Park
outside the local community). For instance, the
26 Thailand Koh Pitak building of hydroelectric dams upstream in another
27 The Gambia Tujereng state or jurisdiction affects biodiversity and fish
stock downstream. Such power issues were seen to
dominate the conservation and livelihood context in
several CCRN cases [numbers 1, 4, 6, 8, 13, 12, 15
and 23 in Table 5].

Further, territorial rights and access privileges of

Indigenous and other local communities are
often disregarded by more powerful actors (e.g.

Communities, conservation and livelihoods 43

 government, commercial fishers, lumber mills,
mines, aquaculture lobby), leading to power
imbalances. The informal and customary institutional
regulations enforced by local communities with
regard to resource conservation, protecting food
security and livelihoods are often overturned in this
process. Territories of Indigenous communities are
subsequently encroached or invaded, including the
natural resources that could be sourced from therein
[1, 8, 13].
In cities around the world, such as here in Chile, power
Policy making and enforcement on resource differences can be seen clearly in the nature of housing
and local livelihoods.
management is often not coordinated among Photo: A. Charles
local, regional and national levels of government.
For example, although there may be national laws
or policies on conservation, local enforcement is negotiation. Other cases suggest that the potential
weak and flawed [13, 15]. Resource management for conflict is high due to competing interests and
in protected areas (PA) usually follows a top-down intensive utilisation of resource areas [1, 2, 6, 7, 15,
approach. This has been a source of conflict since 16, 19, 24, 25].
PA managers make decisions without a prior
understanding of its impact on the local communities. Among the other challenges to conservation and
More often than not, lack of transparency from the livelihoods are: (i) depletion of resources (i.e. fish)
PA managers, lack of information provided to the through overexploitation [5, 12]; (ii) loss of access
local community on the benefits of conservation rules rights and a host of restrictive government measures
and regulations, and lack of communication between keeping people away from the site of conservation
PA managers and local communities further intensify [6, 12]; and (iii) growing food insecurity and poverty
the conflicts [1, 2, 20, 24, 25]. [9, 11]. These processes have provoked extensive
human mobility. Rural out-migration is common
8.2.2 What are the conservation and across the cases, hampering the availability of rural
livelihood challenges linked to workers and lowering social cohesion [3, 5, 8, 13].
power?
Many communities suffer from multiple
Illegal entry by outsiders for unregulated activities vulnerabilities resulting from environmental and
is a key challenge to community conservation economic development processes, e.g. industrial
and livelihoods initiatives. Such interventions have development including ports and tourism hubs and
resulted in numerous conflicts across cases. For or environmental change through floods, cyclones,
example, since the 1990s, there has been a rapid droughts, pollution and other natural disasters,
increase in commercial logging and fishing in the impacting human well-being [4, 11].
Bolivian Amazon, where urban-based fishers lacking
fishing rights invade Tierras Comunitarias de Origen 8.2.3 What community initiatives are
(TCOs), or communal rights areas. In Chilika Lagoon effective in addressing issues of
(India), encroachment and de facto privatisation power related to conservation and
has occurred in customary areas that are key to livelihoods?
both conservation and livelihoods. In Paraty Bay
(Brazil), serious conflicts have surfaced between Social capital and leadership by community
fishers and PA managers due to a top-down members are key factors in fighting for the rights of
approach, conflicting agendas (tourism is a priority, the community and ensuring resource conservation
fisheries is not), unidirectional communication, lack [4, 5, 11, 13, 14, 17, 18, 22, 26]. In Qeshm Island
of transparency and absence of a mechanism for (Iran) and Ysyk-Köl (Issyk Kul) Biosphere Reserve

44 Communities, conservation and livelihoods

(Kyrgyzstan), spiritual and social values motivated carried out by the government and thus may not
the local people to participate in conservation and translate into positive outcomes [5, 6, 8, 10, 13, 24].
as a source of power. Strategic collaborations of
communities with researchers, NGOs, academia The CCRN survey found that multiple forms of
and government happened in multiple contexts community activism were used by communities
[1, 7, 8, 9, 11, 22, 23]. Institutions are seen as the to address power issues. In Koh Sralao, villagers
lifeline of community initiatives in most cases, where engaged in protests, public consultations and
strengthening the institutional and organisational meetings with sand dredgers, with the support of
foundation took priority [1, 2, 9, 11, 22, 23]. In some NGOs. In Chilika Lagoon (India), fishers resorted to
cases, a combination of community-based co- social and political movements to protest acts of
management and territorial user rights approaches external forces, resulting in successful court cases
in conservation and management has been leading to a ban on aquaculture. In Tsitsikamma
successful [22, 23]. (South Africa), the community created an
organisation to represent local farmers who wanted
With reference to institutional responses, Brazil’s to access the coast, and actively protested the
Paraty Bay is an example. There, efforts are regulating authority such that the community became
underway to ensure community rights to access increasingly mobilised.
resources within PA and the local institutions are
leading joint discussions between fishers and PA 8.2.4 How are the practical outcomes
managers. In Sao Luis and Catucaba, a network related to power?
of local leaders, local and state governments, local
and regional NGOs, and researchers was formed to A common outcome, across the community stories,
create synergies among diverse conservation and pertains to the initiatives of local communities
livelihoods efforts. to politically organise themselves to address
powerlessness. External shocks, such as major
In India, Odisha’s Samudram Women’s Federation disasters, can trigger communities to self-organise
(SWF), established in response to conservation and and undertake sustainable development or
livelihood challenges, is both a state-level federation conservation initiatives [3]. Power gained through
of women fishers and a social enterprise, providing self-organisation has strengthened cultural identity,
social, financial and infrastructural support to local helped to preserve local traditions, promoted local
women fishers to engage in conservation-led development and improved communities’ capacity
livelihood activities. This highlights the important to act collectively [3, 11].
role of women in aiding community conservation
initiatives and the need for tilting the power balance In several instances, local management authorities,
in favour of the marginalised gender [4, 5, 11, 14]. cooperatives and NGOs worked together based
Power emanates from alternatives and options on principles of cooperation, collaboration and
being made available to the communities. To this participation [7, 8, 9, 14, 15, 24, 25]. Others
end, diversification of livelihoods and engaging in include more formal arrangements between
multiple conservation arrangements have helped local communities and governments through co-
communities to prevent further degradation of the management that implies power sharing [1, 3, 4, 6,
natural environment and loss of income [3, 5, 8, 13]. 22, 23, 27]. These various ways of working together
have yielded better resource management, i.e.
In many instances, local communities fight for their fishery recovery [12], and enhanced the capacity
rights through social struggle, protests and legal and agency to engage with powerful actors and
action. In some cases, local fishers engage with a challenge decisions [23]. Participatory methods
national network of small-scale fisheries to strengthen and engagement of stakeholders is not easy, but
their voice and ability to negotiate demands. In other once harnessed could significantly contribute to
cases, where courts decide in favour of local and the success of conservation initiatives [3, 6, 8, 12].
Indigenous communities, the decision may not be Decentralising management systems at differing

Communities, conservation and livelihoods 45

 scales may provide an alternative to a monocentric Community-level institutions are at the core of
approach, as an outcome of positive power how conservation and livelihood outcomes are
dynamics [13]. obtained. Institutions helped strengthen roles
and the capacity of communities in conservation
Scientific/technical knowledge often takes planning, implementation, monitoring and
precedence when it comes to decision-making enforcement. Oftentimes, there is a need for a
on resource management. Knowledge is power, ‘bridging’ organisation that could facilitate interaction
but in some cases, local communities do not have and communication between the actors and
decision-making power as their knowledge system stakeholders – whether an NGO, a government
is not readily recognised. Indigenous knowledge agency, a university or a collaborative network
and various forms of community-based traditional [13, 15, 17]. In Bali Indonesia, this successfully
ecological knowledge (TEK), while remaining largely connected diverse actors or groups through
untapped, can be used for conservation efforts. collaboration, communication, and resource sharing.
Several cases show that conservation initiatives that
balance both scientific and traditional knowledge 8.3 The power of power: Can it help
have a high probability of success if power issues conservation and livelihoods?
are addressed [3, 6, 7, 13, 16, 21, 23, 27].
What is power in the context of community
Initiatives to highlight the role of power have conservation and livelihoods? Is power an inner
generated practical outcomes that include: strength of the community or is it externally
ordained? The CCRN stories show how individuals
1 a greater appreciation of the rights and and communities are capable of defining their own
entitlements of different users and stakeholders power and devising empowerment strategies.
[23]; Community voices also give an indication that power
may be, and often is, linked to external, antecedent
2 emergence of strong leadership at the community factors. Politics goes hand in hand with power in this
level that spearheads conservation initiatives entire process – where there are issues of power,
and negotiations (e.g. transparent and strong there is politics.
individual leadership [22] and NGO leadership
motivating a shift away from cyanide fishing [17]); Power can be visible, invisible or purposely hidden
within the community conservation and livelihood
3 strengthened social capital and unity among context:
community members due to their inter-
relatedness and common history [17]; • Firstly, in visible power situations, communities
can hold power explicitly to influence and shape
4 emergence of gender awareness, encouraging conservation and livelihood processes and
participation of women [16] (e.g. the importance outcomes. As such, they remain in the driver’s
of women in water management and decision- seat leading the process to obtain desired
making in Coquimbo Region, and the role outcomes, and may have varying levels of support
of women in mangrove conservation and from external actors.
sustainable livelihoods in Villa dos Pescadores • Secondly, hidden power situations are somewhat
and in Koh Sralao); and opposite to the visible power situations. Here,
community conservation actors hold power
5 power-related outcomes have facilitated implicitly, with their ultimate agendas concealed,
better communication, exposure, education to achieve objectives. The associated politics
and awareness about conservation and its leads to exclusion of those without adequate
contributions to livelihoods, such as a record power.
overall increase in awareness and efforts to • Thirdly, some cases show the role of invisible
protect coastal areas. power in the context of community conservation

46 Communities, conservation and livelihoods

Table 6 Key measures to examine power in community conservation

KEY AREAS MEASURES TO EXPLORE

Develop perspectives on – Geography, history, society-culture, environment-resource, political- administrative,

context economic-livelihoods

Understand the ‘bone of – Power to do what? What does power signify?

contention’ – Issues, problems, objects, motivations, aspirations

Dissect the nature of power – Who is allied with whom? Who is gaining in the power dynamics? Who is losing?
– What is at stake (livelihoods, rights, ecosystem health, cultural identity)?

Recognise the drivers – Proximate causes (human activities or immediate actions)

– Underlying forces (fundamental systemic processes)

Identify main actors/ – Who are the actors/stakeholders, and their roles?
stakeholders – What are the competing interests?

Comprehend purpose of – How is power used by different actors, and to what ends?
claiming or grabbing power – What outcomes can actors obtain by possessing power?

Know the strategies adopted – What strategies and counter-strategies are being used (e.g. networks, activism, protest,
negotiations, court cases)?

Evaluate the impacts – What is the range of impacts?

– How is the community, their conservation initiatives and livelihoods impacted?

Examine the responses – What is being done? What was done in the past?
– What has been the government’s role?
– How strong is the voice of NGOs and civil society?

Clarify the key trends – Where is the situation heading?

– What are the future consequences?
– What is the future if things remain unresolved?

and livelihoods. In this situation, power is socially easily produce negative politics, which can have
and culturally embedded, and centres around pernicious effects on conservation and livelihood
norms, values, beliefs, knowledge, ideology, outcomes. The CCRN cases offer insights on how to
worldviews and perceptions that condition or respond to such adverse situations.
influence individuals’ or groups’ exercise of power.
In this sense, power seems to be deeply rooted in In all these power situations, conservation and
the place where conservation and livelihoods are livelihood goals become vulnerable: will outcomes
debated and realised. reflect what is best for the community? What needs
to be done to deal with the realities associated with
Concurrently, there are several nuances about power visible, invisible and hidden power? A review of
in a community that must be considered. First and community examples reveals a list of ingredients that
foremost, not everyone has power, i.e. power rests can positively promote conservation and livelihood
with some individuals or entities while others do not goals and outcomes at the community level. These
have it at all. Therefore, those who have power can may be categorised as follows:
compel others to follow suit. Secondly, those who
have power do not sit idle. Rather, they are often • Normative ingredients: norms, rules, customs,
inclined to exercise their power over others (typically practices, traditions, enabling policies and laws,
those who have less or no power) to restrict their awareness and education, social interactions and
freedom and actions. These processes of power relationships;

Communities, conservation and livelihoods 47

 • Structural ingredients: strong institutions and References
organisations at local but also multiple levels,
political space for involvement in decision making, Berdej, S., Silver, J. and Armitage, D. (2019). ‘A Political
Ecology Perspective on Bridging Organizations and Their
distribution systems for benefit sharing, market
Influence on Marine Conservation’. Society & Natural
linkages; and Resources 32(11): 1258–1275. Available at: https://doi.org/10.
• Functional/action ingredients: social 1080/08941920.2019.1626960
movements, protests and struggles, court cases,
training and exposure, dialogues, policy and Jentoft, S. (2007). In: The Power of Power: The Understated
programme implementation. Aspect of Fisheries and Coastal Management. Human
Organization 66(4): 426–436. Available at: https://doi.
org/10.17730/humo.66.4.a836621h2k5x46m2
8.4 Conclusions
Lukes, S. (2005). Power: A Radical View. Second edition.
Is the manifestation of power always negative? Or London, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
can power positively contribute to the realisation of
community conservation and livelihood goals and Nayak, P.K., Armitage, D. and Andrachuk, M. (2016). ‘Power
and politics of social-ecological regime shifts in the Chilika
promote sustainable outcomes? If so, how? Table
lagoon, India and Tam Giang lagoon, Vietnam’. Regional
6 lists key areas to better understand power within Environmental Change 16(2): 325–339. Available at: https://
the context community conservation and to enable doi.org/10.1007/s10113-015-0775-4
communities to successfully respond to the multiple
challenges posed. Njaya, F., Donda, P. and Bene, C. (2012). ‘Analysis of Power in
Fisheries Co-Management: Experiences from Malawi’. Society
& Natural Resources 25(7): 652–666. Available at: https://doi:
The CCRN’s community stories help us to build
10.1080/08941920.2011.627912
a social-ecological image of power. They clarify
where power rests in both the social and ecological Raik, D.B., Wilson, A.L. and Decker, D.J. (2008). ‘Power in
domains, and takes shape through the influence Natural Resources Management: An Application of Theory’.
of their highly dynamic interactions. Power reflects Society & Natural Resources 21(8): 729–739. Available at:
a social-ecological reality in either promoting or https://doi:10.1080/08941920801905195
hindering community conservation and livelihood
Scott, J. (2001). Power. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
goals and outcomes.
Sinclair, P.R. and Ommer, R.E. (eds.). (2006). Power and
Restructuring: Canada’s Coastal Society and Environment.
New York, USA: ISER Books, St. John’s University Institute for
Social and Economic Research.

Winter, S.L. (1996). The “power” thing. Virginia Law Review

82(5): 721–835.

48 Communities, conservation and livelihoods

Chapter 9

Indigenous perspectives on community

conservation
Richard Nuna, Trudy Sable, Dawn Foxcroft and Marta da Graça Z. Simbine*

9.1 Introduction biological and ecological factors. As Sebastien

Piwas said in our film, Nakatuenita: Respect:10 “If you
This chapter presents three perspectives on do not respect the animal spirits, you will not be able
Indigenous community conservation: i) reflecting to get any food. The word respect is very powerful
the voice of the Innu Nation of Labrador, on the among the Innu. If you don’t respect anything,
eastern side of Canada; a perspective from the how… do you think you are going to get respect
Nuu-chah-nulth, on the western coast of Canada; from the animals? How can the animals respect you
and iii) a focus on communities of Machangana if you don’t respect the animals?” Respect, because
in the Limpopo District of southern Mozambique. we only take what we need and leave something
The first describes the Innu perspective on using behind for another time, or other Innu, or other
and protecting the environment (conservation), and humans. Everything has to do with this. What do
the roles of Indigenous knowledge and respect for you call it? The circle of life; everything is connected.
Innu decision-making. The second is a personal The word ‘conservation’ could be translated in that
account of Nuu-chah-nulth life on the west coast of sense, ‘conversationally’ – we leave things alone so
Vancouver Island (Canada) leading into a discussion others can use them.
of the Nuu-chah-nulth worldview and the principles
that guide their use of the world around them.
The third essay focuses on language, in particular
how the concept of ‘conservation’ arises in the
Xichangana language (prominent in the Limpopo
District) despite there being no actual translation of
that word.

9.2 Conservation and the respected

environment of the Innu

Contributed by Richard Nuna, with Trudy

Sable

The Innu have always been supportive of

conservation in all aspects of living. The Innu are part
of the land; we are part of the animals we survive on. Artwork at the entrance to Sheshatshiu, a community of the
Innu Nation, in Labrador (Canada).
We do not manage wildlife or the environment;
Photo: A. Charles
we simply manage our behaviour towards these

* We would like to raise our hands to all of the ancestors who took such great care, despite devastating colonization practices, to keep
and hand down our teachings through the generations. ƛ̓eekoo ƛ̓eekoo to all the caretakers of the air, lands and waters, both past and
present. M.G.Z.S. thanks SSRHC/CCRN and São Paulo Funding Agency (FAPESP grant 15/19439-8) for supporting field research and
CAPES for a PhD scholarship.

10 For more information and to view the film, please see: www.communityconservation.net/nakatuenita-respect

Communities, conservation and livelihoods 49

 We have been here for millennia after millennia Our workers, because they are all hunters
learning from our grandfathers, brothers and sisters themselves, have this knowledge and grew up with
of the land – the animals; this is how we, the Innu, their grandparents and parents, and gathered all
became human. Because everything from the Earth this kind of knowledge from stories and going on
has been useful to us, it has taught us to treat and the land with them. This is the traditional knowledge
heal ourselves from the flora and fauna, and from that Western science is always looking to gain.
what is used for the different daily lives of Innu. You are also trying to understand what the Innu
Knowledge is, or what traditional knowledge is in
We have learned through observations of the comparison to Western Knowledge. Once, they had
different species and their interactions with their this group of scientists from different fields trying to
surroundings and with other species like the Barren ask our Tshishennuat (Elders) about the Innu way,
Ground Grizzly Bear’s den, who we call Matashu, Innu knowledge. I guess they tried – what do you
our sweat lodge because the bear’s den is like the call it? – a trick question to one of our Elders: “A
sweat lodge. And, in stories, Innu have lived with the certain waterfowl, do you know where this particular
Bear. The Bear taught us to pick boughs for our tent species of duck nest?”. The Tshishennuat said, “Yes,
floors. And these respected animals have been our we know where this certain species of duck nests.”
teachers of how to live and interact with nature and And the scientist asked them, “Where?”, and the
because of these, their teachings have been passed Tshishennuat, talking amongst themselves, said,
down through storytelling. Every animal has its own “We won’t tell you.” And the scientist asked, “Why?”.
Innu story, and its interaction with its surroundings; “Because everything that we tell you, you exploit,
no animal or plant is disrespected. and you try and sell it for financial gain.”

The Innu are the Maritime Archaic people and we The Innu Nation has given our support in all kinds
were seafaring; we have names for the sea animals of conservation matters of the environment. The
as well and stories that derived from the sea, so in all Akamiuapishkau Mealy Mountain National Park was
aspects of being Innu, we have lived. These stories the idea of the Innu, and we negotiated the Impact
are the same as with Algonquian speaking languages Benefit Agreement and all the cultural significance of
which, I believe, include the Innu, the Cree, the the Innu land use for 10,700 square km in that area.
Ojibway, the Naskapi, the Mi’kmaq, the Blackfoot, the We negotiated the Forest Process Agreement, where
Cheyenne and the Mohicans, just to name a few. We we saved a lot of habitats, including the Red Wine
have names for animals that have long been extinct Caribou Reserve. We supported the Lac Joseph
like the woolly mammoth (katshituask), the camel Wilderness Reserve, and are lobbying for the Eagle
(kampuatau) and animals that you would find in River Waterway Provincial Park.
South America like the alligator (tshishkutatak) and
the giant sloth (katshintutashkunet).11 And in stories, Throughout all this, we have maintained our Innu
they tell of the ice ages. values.

Today, we incorporate that belief and understanding

of our natural world, and work on conservation and
respect of the environment. Only an Innu can bring
that knowledge ‘to the table’ in dealing with the ever-
changing environment that we live in. We, the Innu
Nation in Labrador, work with the Western science
point of view for conservation, but do more – we
cannot abandon our way of living with the natural
world or our spiritual world, which are one and the
same.

11 The spelling and pronunciation of these words may need more research.

50 Communities, conservation and livelihoods

9.3 Relationship and connection: (Richard Atleo), in his book Ts’awalk (Atleo, 2005),
Conservation Principles of the explains that unlike a Western scientific model
Nuu-chah-nulth Nation, West where connection needs to be proven, Nuu-chah-
Coast of Vancouver Island nulth’s worldview is based on the assumption
that everything is interconnected. For me, this
Contributed by taaʔisumqa, Dawn Foxcroft understanding is present in the teachings handed
down by my grandmothers and aunties to speak
ukłaamaḥ taaʔisumqa, c ̓ išaaʔaqsup histaqšiƛ to and pray to our relatives the trees, plants and
nuučaanułatḥ. histakšiƛaḥ c ̓ umaaʕas. mamałn̓ i ciic creatures when harvesting for medicines, materials
ʕimtii. Dawn Foxcroft. or food; the stories we are told about when we were
once great whalers with the practices our whalers
My name is taaʔisumqa, I am a woman of Tseshaht underwent before, during and after the hunt that
from the Nuu-chah-nulth Nation. I am from Port connected them to the ancestors, environment and
Alberni, BC, Canada. My English name is Dawn spiritual realm; and how the seats, or positions,
Foxcroft. of our Ha’wiih (Hereditary Chiefs) are directly
connected to our creator, and the seat or position of
My mother, Deb Foxcroft, from where my Nuu-chah- Chief itself has a life.
nulth lineage is from.
Nuu-chah-nulth do not have a word that directly
Growing up, she brought me and my sister along translates to conservation, but rather have deeply held
with her in boats, on floatplanes, walking down principles and practices that guide our relationship
gravel roads alongside the ocean waves while with everything that surrounds us. It is from this
she worked across the Nuu-chah-nulth territory. understanding of interconnection when Umeek
This gave me and my sister the opportunity to speaks about the Nuu-chah-nulth’s ‘conservation
witness the strength, governance and relationships ethic’. For Nuu-chah-nulth, as for many Indigenous
our people have with each other and to their communities around the world, the principle, practice
environment. and application of what is referred to as ’conservation’
is a western concept and can be problematic as it
In my early twenties, I began working with the is typically enforced as a practice of ‘no touch’ and
Nuu-chah-nulth Tribal Council’s (NTC) Fisheries, ‘no use’. A Western ‘conservation ethic’ seems to
an aquatic resource management department imply that humans lack self-control when it comes
called Uu-a-thluk, meaning ‘to take care of’ in to our environment, as seen in rules and regulations
our language. Uu-a-thluk supports all 15 Nuu- communicated through signage and policies enforced
chah-nulth communities and is led by a council by conservation officers and fines. This type of
of Ha’wiih (Hereditary Chiefs). Here, my practice conservation separates humans from the ecosystem
of being witness, listening and learning from our and is outside of a Nuu-chah-nulth worldview.
Elders, Chiefs and knowledge holders continued.
In this work, I have been honoured to hold up our Unlike a Western model, where the environment
communities as they take care of our environment, needs to be protected and kept away from
learning about the interconnections between people, Nuu-chah-nulth believe and practice
everything and how this knowledge is in practice hishukish ts’awalk (everything is one, everything is
through protocols, ceremonies and governance. interconnected and nothing exists without the other),
iisaak (respect with caring and action), and uu-a-
I am grateful for the wisdom and the teachings of thluk (to take care of). These principles cannot be
our Nuu-chah-nulth communities passed on from put in practice without an ongoing active relationship
our ancestors and the creator. These teachings between us, the sky, land, water, and all of the
help us, not just as Nuu-chah-nulth people, but creatures in the environment. This deep relationship
as humans, to understand our connections and requires interaction, use, and maintenance.
place as a part of everything around us. Umeek

Communities, conservation and livelihoods 51

 We are an ocean people, the coastlines and the 9.4 Translating conservation: The
species we survive alongside with are at the core Xichangana concept
of who we are and who we are going to be as
Nuu-chah-nulth people. In developing Uu-a-thluk Contributed by Marta da Graça Z. Simbine
Fisheries, the Ha’wiih (Hereditary Chiefs) outlined
these principles – hishukish ts’awalk, iisaak, and uu- In environmental sciences, the term conservation
a-thluk – as the foundation for the work to be done. means the set of actions that aim to preserve or
The work is not just about access and economics restore the good quality of the biotic and abiotic
– it is about maintaining the important relationship components of a given ecosystem. However, in
we have to our ocean and waterways, a relationship other languages, this word may not find a direct
that is at the foundation of our songs, dances, translation. Xichangana is one of those languages,
ceremonies, language and governance. where there is no word that expresses exactly the
concept of conservation, that is, there is no word
As Nuu-chah-nulth, in order for us to live into these that itself is equivalent to the translation of the
principles and practices it is important for us to be in term ‘conservation’. However, there are verbs, like
good relationship with ourselves and with everything ku lhaissa, which means, ‘to care for’ or ‘to treat
around us. When we are healthy and thriving as in a desirable way’, and ku vekissa, which means
Indigenous people in our lands, our environment ‘to save well or properly’ or ‘to preserve’. Thus,
equally thrives. Taking care of the ocean is not just both ku lhaissa and ku vekissa are translations
the work of a department of the NTC – it is our way of synonyms of the verb ‘to conserve’ and when
of life, a way of survival and what it is to be Nuu- properly contextualised, they express the concept
chah-nulth. that environmental sciences attribute to the word
‘conservation’.
The long, painful history of colonisation of Nuu-
chah-nulth has damaged our relationship to our Accordingly, this essay explores the views of
environment through theft of our lands and children, conservation held by local communities whose
being persecuted for our language and culture, and languages do not directly translate the concept of
not recognising our Ha’wiih authority to take care of conservation as it is described in the environmental
their own territories. Despite this, I have witnessed sciences. This contribution arises from research
hishukish tsawalk, iisaak and uu-a-thluk in how that seeks to analyse sacred forests based on the
our Nuu-chah-nulth protocols and governance are ecosystem services approach in order to contribute
held-up and practiced, in the way our Ha’wiih put to their long-term maintenance (Simbine, 2020).
these principles into action by protecting the herring Such research took place in the Limpopo District of
stocks, even though the Canadian government wants southern Mozambique, in East Africa, through direct
to open herring to commercial harvesting, and how and participatory observation and semi-structured
our language is used at our gatherings to share interviews involving 163 members of the communities
stories and teachings that enforce these principles of Chilaulene, Chirindzene Sede and Zongoene Sede.
and practices. The principles of hishukish tsawalk,
iisaak and uu-a-thluk are spoken about often – we These communities are in rural areas characterised
call this haahuupa, or teachings. I also witness how by a matrix of agricultural crops, forest fragments,
these are put into action to protect who we are as patches of vegetation and non-urban housing areas.
Nuu-chah-nulth and in turn our environment. They In this region live the communities of Machangana, a
continue to remind and challenge us to recognise part of the Tsonga ethnic group of the Gaza Province.
and practice our relationships, interconnections and There are two characteristics of the Machangana to
responsibilities to ourselves and everything around mention here: their main language is Xichangana,
us. and one of their most important traditions consists of
worshipping ancestors through rituals often held by
trees.

52 Communities, conservation and livelihoods

The rural Machangana communities of Limpopo
District have a low level of schooling and purchasing
power, which makes them highly dependent on
natural resources. Traditional agriculture is the
main source of income and to complement it,
the communities exploit the native vegetation for
the production of firewood or charcoal, obtaining
construction material, producing household utensils
and for medicinal purposes. In addition, they practice
small-scale fishing and livestock husbandry, and
eventually hunt as an alternative source for animal
protein. Indigenous societies point the way to the future, in how
conservation arises through an intricate cultural connection
of the natural world and humans.
It is in the socio-cultural context described here that Photo: A Charles
the rural communities of Limpopo District use the
term ‘kwati’ (in Xichangana) to refer to patches of
vegetation or forest fragments. Kwati includes all guardians. Thus, there is a set of actions aimed at
types of terrestrial natural vegetation, regardless of maintaining the kwati la ntumbuluko by a set of
the successional stage or degree of degradation informal institutions that lead to total restriction (i.e.
or conservation status (locally designated mafossi, Phalhelo la ka Chirhaminhane Mhula, at Zongoene), or
xikuko or xilhalha). However, three distinct views on sustainable use of the forest resources (i.e. Phalhelo la
kwati are highlighted: ka Chirindza, at Chirindzene). These actions represent
the conservation view of Limpopo District’s local
Kwati near housing constructions: tend to be more communities.
undesirable the more advanced it is in successional
stages. It is associated with providing shelter for In essence, the view of conservation of the
animals that may represent some ‘danger’, or a rural Machangana communities of Limpopo
place of socially repudiated activities. In these cases, District resembles the conservation vision of the
people tend to destroy the kwati because it does not environmental sciences, since it also seeks to
even represent scenic beauty. safeguard a given ecosystem due to its value.
However, the difference between the two lies in
Kwati distant from housing areas: where the point that, while the conservation of forests
communities collect natural resources. Additionally, in the view of the environmental sciences results
communities recognise that soils tend to be more from their ecological value, the main motivation for
fertile the more advanced is the successional stage conservation for the rural communities of Limpopo
of kwati it supports. Therefore, in case of the need District is its symbolic value. This difference in vision
for fertile soil for agriculture, people destroy the kwati, results in a difference in the criteria of evaluation of
replacing native vegetation with agricultural fields. the conservation status. In the first case, the criteria
focus exclusively on biophysical factors (i.e. fragment
Kwati la ntumbuluko: literally translated as ‘traditional size, tree density and size, vegetation biodiversity).
or cultural forest’: a sacred forest. People do not On the other hand, the Indigenous peoples also
call a forest fragment or patch of native vegetation take into account social factors (cleanliness of the
in this category kwati, but instead phalheluene or main entrance, existence of constructions and
phalhelo or txuatxua (in Chirindzene), terms that artefacts that symbolise the sacredness, respect for
refer to the spirituality performed in these places. In institutions, engagement of the local community in
addition, there is a person or a restricted group of traditional ceremonies, and frequency of visitors).
people whose life history of their ancestors relates
to the origin of the kwati la ntumbuluko, who has To optimise the efforts of local communities, notably
the responsibility of ensuring its preservation – the in Limpopo District, and conserve the remnant

Communities, conservation and livelihoods 53

 Coastal Forests of East Africa (one of the 10 most held traditions is the continuity of the past into the
endangered forest types in the world), it is important future and provides continuity of place and identity.
to consider these two views of conservation. By doing
so, managers will be safeguarding both symbolic and Similarly, according to the Machangana, the
ecological values of the sacred forest – as it is of vital distinction between types of landscapes also
importance to Limpopo District. requires attending to the spiritual connection and
includes the symbolic value, which draws from long
9.5 Conclusion held practices of land use. All these practices protect
the landscape and its cultural significance.
These reflections from the Innu of Labrador (eastern
Canada), the Nuu-chah-nulth of British Columbia To translate ‘conservation’ implies including the
(western Canada) and the rural Machangana of spiritual and cultural meanings (Simbine, 2020).
Limpopo District of Eastern Africa illustrate the Eber Hampton of the Chickasaw Tribe of Oklahoma
inseparability of peoples’ spirituality and cultural speaks of this spiritual orientation as how Indigenous
psyche from their traditional landscapes. peoples find their identity as an “unalienated self”
(Hampton, 1995, p. 19), unalienated from the
The sense of spirituality is a lived experience of landscape they inhabit. The ultimate conservation is
connection with something greater than the individual taking care of ourselves and, inseparable from this,
self. In this case, spirituality is integrated with the is taking care of our environment, our larger ‘self’.
physical landscape, the driving forces of the natural There is no real separation between us and the
world, while incorporating the stories of change over environment.
time.

Conservation is more than preserving or protecting References

physically defined ecosystems through scientific
understanding. It includes the preservation of a deep Atleo, E. R. (2004). Tsawalk: A Nuu-chah-nulth worldview.
Vancouver, Canada: UBC Press. Available at: https://www.
inter-relationship between people, the landscape,
ubcpress.ca/tsawalk
and the powers that perpetuate and change it. It is
a reciprocal and social relationship, one of mutual Hampton, E. (1995). ’Toward a Redefinition of Indian
respect in which ritual, oral traditions and ceremonies Education’. In: M. Battiste and J. Barman (eds.), First
act to embody and communicate important Nations Education in Canada: The Circle Unfolds, pp. 5–46.
information and teachings of how to behave within Vancouver, Canada: UBC Press.
this relationship (Sable & Francis, 2012).
Sable, T. and Francis, B. (2012). The Language of this Land,
Mi’kma’ki. Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada: Nimbus Press.
As noted for the Innu in section 9.2, the animals
and the land are teachers, which require behaving Simbine, M.G.Z. (2020). ‘Instituições Informais e
with respect. The legends are ways people learn Contribuições da Natureza para as Pessoas: Subsídios para
from and pass down ancestral knowledge that has a Conservação das Florestas Sagradas em Moçambique’
(Informal Institutions and Nature’s Contributions to People:
been key to peoples’ survival – more than that, their
Guidance for Conserving Sacred Forests in Mozambique).
happiness and cultural identity and connectedness Doctoral Thesis (Ecology), Universidade Estadual de
to the landscape. Dawn Foxcroft explains how the Campinas, Campinas, Brasil.
teachings they receive include their ancestors in
everything they do, and thus gives them a seamless
vision for taking care of their future. As both she and
Richard articulate, everything is inter-dependent.
Thus, how people behave by these principles and
apply their teachings is crucial to the health of the
ecosystem as defined scientifically. Beyond that, how
people behave in the present and according to long-

54 Communities, conservation and livelihoods

Chapter 10

Concluding synthesis and highlights

Anthony Charles and Fikret Berkes

The strong connections between conservation and To address these questions, the book adopted
livelihoods, at a local community level, have been an SES lens, and drew on conservation-related
strongly illustrated through the discussion in the knowledge and practice, as well as ideas of
preceding chapters. These connections are shown governance, to explore how communities, working
in the many different ways communities engage in together cooperatively, can improve their ability
environmental stewardship and conservation, and in to conserve the local environment while building
building sustainable livelihoods and local economies. strong local economies. In the subsequent sections,
some of the key results and conclusions from each
Community conservation can arise through local chapter are compiled and synthesised, followed by
choices, such as a fishing community that avoids an assessment of ‘ingredients for success’ for local
harvesting in spawning areas, to restore fish communities effectively linking conservation and
populations, or a city neighbourhood that saves livelihoods, and a set of policy recommendations
land for an urban garden, to improve food security. aimed at governments, concerning how best to
Community conservation can also appear as protests support local communities with their conservation
against outsiders damaging the local environment and livelihood initiatives.
or as lobbying of governments for better policies to
help communities sustain local ecosystems. The 10.1 Highlights by chapter
motivation behind these conservation efforts may
combine the goal of safeguarding local livelihoods Chapter 1 – Introduction
with the strong love of the place, the home, the
community, where people live. The key goals of this book were to explore (a)
interactions of conservation and livelihoods in
Against this backdrop of the diverse forms and local-level communities, (b) the actual or potential
motivations for community conservation, the book involvement of governments and civil society, (c)
aims to provide understanding of, and support the values and goals that underlie decisions, (d) the
for, local communities seeking to achieve both institutions within which decisions are made, (e) the
environmental conservation and sustainable nature of success in conservation-livelihood linkages,
livelihoods. Also crucial is the related aspect of and (f) the potential for increased attention within the
providing guidance to governments, and external conservation field to action at the local level. Also
players seeking to support local communities in important is to understand how local community
their efforts. To accomplish these aims, the book conservation initiatives can benefit both conservation
has sought to address a series of major questions and livelihoods when effectively supported by
relating to community conservation: the ‘why’ and government policy and practice, and can use
‘how’ of conservation. Who gets to have a say in community knowledge to improve both economic
conservation/management, and what are their values and environmental outcomes.
and needs? How do we best deal with diverse
livelihoods and actors?

Communities, conservation and livelihoods 55

 Chapter 2 – Community-based approaches This, in turn, can help to empower communities
for linking conservation and livelihoods as they work to maintain or restore their natural
environments and local economies – guiding both
The understanding of how decision-making about communities and policy makers toward the same
natural resource use and environmental conservation path of stewardship and livelihood sustainability.
should take place has shifted over time. There
is now increased appreciation of (a) the benefits As indicated in the Tokyo Bay example, the
of participatory approaches, with joint decision- key elements are: the roles of collective action;
making and co-management; (b) the importance the importance of agency and leadership; the
of Indigenous and traditional ecological knowledge effectiveness of governance and underlying
(TEK) and the knowledge of natural resource users; aspects; the meaning of conservation within a
and (c) the need for greater attention to local-level given worldview; the drivers of environmental
community-based conservation and stewardship. change; and the possibility of transformation
This leads to a focus on community-based ‘toward sustainability through community-initiated
conservation and stewardship, which “…includes conservation’. The integration of humans in nature
natural resources or biodiversity protection by, for, shows that people have the capability to despoil
and with the local community, taking into account their SES, but can also restore it, both ecologically
drivers, institutional linkages at the local level, and and socially.
multiple levels of organisation that impact and
shape institutions at the local level” (Berkes, 2007, Chapter 4 – Meanings and motivations
p. 15193).
• The meaning of ‘conservation’ differs amongst,
The CCRN has contributed to understanding and within, the different rights-holders, users and
and documenting community-based approaches stakeholder groups associated with a particular
for linking environmental conservation practices resource. Further, meanings and motivations may
and sustainable livelihoods, and addressing differ across communities and social-ecological
how governments can better engage with local and cultural contexts but also within communities
communities and Indigenous rights-holders. Through living in a particular geographical space.
a unified SES perspective, the CCRN found that • In seeking to examine whether motivations were
successful stewardship initiatives typically require addressed explicitly, implicitly or not at all, it was
certain key attributes: (a) community empowerment determined that 50% of the cases (community
and strong relationships; (b) active and meaningful stories) addressed motivations explicitly, whereas
engagement of local communities and Indigenous 47% addressed it implicitly, leaving only one
rights-holders in decision-making; (c) adequate community not addressing motivations at all.
attention to sustainable livelihoods and local • Four local and Indigenous community motivations
economies; and (d) supportive governments, in were found to be important: i) cultural institutions;
practice and policy, reflecting the values of local ii) attachment to place, including a ‘sense of
people. belonging’ and a ‘sense of place’; iii) socio-
economic needs; and iv) ethical responsibility.
Chapter 3 – Social-ecological systems A large majority of the cases included each of
(SES) these four types of motivation, with roughly equal
frequencies.
An SES lens adds an important capability for
a more integrated, holistic and comprehensive Chapter 5 – Biodiversity outcomes
understanding and implementation of community
conservation. An SES lens, using the key concepts In surveying CCRN researchers, conservation was
briefly reviewed in the chapter, helps in identifying reported to be a primary (rather than secondary)
models and approaches that can be effective in objective in 39% of the community sites involved
meeting both biological/ecological and social goals. in the survey. Community initiatives whose primary

56 Communities, conservation and livelihoods

goal was biodiversity conservation had objectives livelihood options, the governance, social and
including: to protect and/or restore species economic dimensions of livelihood outcomes may be
populations; to detect and understand changes in negatively affected.
species and habitats; to relate impacts to human
activities; and to understand the role of TEK. This is Chapter 7 – Governance
in contrast with initiatives whose primary goal was
social, which focused on: participation in governance; Governance analysis of community stories found five
building local knowledge of conservation; and major governance themes: (i) multi-level collaboration
interactions within SES, including livelihood and engagement; (ii) access and management rights;
implications and adaptations. (iii) social learning; (iv) knowledge co-production; and
(v) leadership and capacity building. The first two
A separate assessment of drivers, across the and the last of these arose with more prominence.
set of CCRN community stories, identified seven Specific insights relating to each of the governance
categories of concerns: i) environmental impacts; themes were as follows:
ii) quality of ecosystems and habitat; iii) resource
over-exploitation; iv) destructive resource uses; v) A foundational governance ingredient is an
improving resource management; vi) climate change; institutional arrangement that fosters processes
and vii) exotic and endangered species. Three of of multi-level collaboration and participatory
these categories dealing with natural resources engagement, and that helps to bring together
(over-exploitation, destructive use, management) multiple actors and perspectives.
dominated the results, arising in almost three-
quarters of cases. The second most prevalent • Policies and institutional arrangements to support
category involved environmental, ecosystem and communities included potentially innovative
habitat impacts, arising in over 50% of the cases. changes in access and management rights and/
or customary approaches, sometimes in the
Chapter 6 – Livelihood outcomes context of co-management.
• Opportunities for social learning among different
Positive livelihood outcomes arose in the categories groups in ways that helped to challenge social
of conservation, economic, governance and social relations of power among actors (civil society,
improvements. The analysis of cases found that: government, industry) were key ingredients of
(i) overall, governance and social factors stood out governance for community conservation.
in most of the cases; (ii) improved communication
and information flows, and improved stewardship Governance processes that recognise and
occurred in almost 70% of the cases; (iii) stronger incorporate knowledge pluralism and/or knowledge
relationships, community empowerment, leadership, co-production were ultimately needed to build
social learning, and local cultural values, identity and a holistic, integrated understanding of complex
sense of place were reported in over 65% of the systems.
cases; (iv) the most frequently reported conservation
factors were: new conservation actions, monitoring A final ingredient evident across many cases was the
resource use, identification of ecologically significant importance of leadership and capacity building
areas, new sustainable use practices, and new to overcome conflicts, build trust and generate
management plans; and (v) livelihood diversification knowledge, as well as to foster entrepreneurial
occurred in 46% of the cases and household income activities for livelihood diversification.
increased in only 31% of the cases.
Chapter 8 – Power
The findings suggest that community-driven
conservation efforts can contribute to nature-based The assessment of power in community conservation
livelihoods providing positive outcomes. However, focused on four main themes:
when top-down conservation initiatives constrained

Communities, conservation and livelihoods 57

 • Power issues in the community conservation
and livelihood context: Economic development
activities, territorial rights and access privileges;
and policy making, enforcement and resource
management in PAs.
• Conservation and livelihood challenges
linked to power: Illegal entry by outsiders;
depletion of resources; loss of access rights;
restrictive government measures; increasing food
insecurity and poverty; human mobility; multiple
vulnerabilities resulting from environmental and
economic development processes.
• Community initiatives for addressing
Koh Sralao village, in Cambodia, has a history of community
issues of power: Social capital and leadership; organisation around resource conservation.
strategic collaborations; institutions as the lifeline Photo: Furqan Asif
of community initiatives; role of women; power
emanating from alternatives; social struggle,
protests and legal action; community activism. 1 “The word respect is very powerful among
• Practical outcomes related to power: the Innu. … Respect, because we only take
Community initiatives to organise; working together what we need and leave something behind for
based on principles of cooperation, collaboration another time, or other Innu, or other humans.
and participation; co-management that implies Everything has to do with this. What do you call
power sharing; and ‘knowledge is power’. it? The circle of life; everything is connected. The
word ‘conservation’ could be translated in that
Community stories show how individuals and sense…”
communities are capable of defining their own
power and formulating empowerment strategies. 2 “Nuu-chah-nulth do not have a word that directly
Community voices direct us to the fact that power translates to conservation but rather have deeply
may be, and often is, linked to external, antecedent held principles and practices that guide our
factors. Community stories also help us to build relationship with everything that surrounds us.”
a social-ecological image of power. They clarify
that power rests in both the social and ecological 3 “Xichangana is one of those languages, where
domains, and takes shape through their dynamic there is no word that expresses exactly the
interactions. Power reflects social-ecological concept of conservation… However, there are the
reality in either facilitating or hindering community verbs, like ku lhaissa, which means, ‘to care for’
conservation and livelihood outcomes. or ‘to treat in a desirable way,’ and ku vekissa,
which means ‘to save well or properly’ or ‘to
Chapter 9 – Indigenous perspectives preserve'.”

The review shows clearly how language and culture Equally crucial are the values and principles
are crucial ingredients in understanding and carrying involved. The Indigenous perspectives provided by
out conservation. The word ‘conservation’ often does Nuna, Sable, Foxcroft and da Graça Z. Simbine,
not have a direct translation in Indigenous languages. respectively, highlight the following:
For the Innu Nation (discussed by Richard Nuna and
Trudy Sable), the Nuu-chah-nulth Nation (discussed • “We, the Innu Nation in Labrador, work with the
by Dawn Foxcroft) and the Limpopo District of Western science point of view for conservation,
Mozambique (discussed by Marta da Graça Z. but do more – we cannot abandon our way of
Simbine), it was noted that, respectively: living with the natural world or our spiritual world,
which are one and the same.”

58 Communities, conservation and livelihoods

• “Nuu-chah-nulth believe and practice hishukish undergoing change so as to still retain essentially the
ts’awalk (everything is one, everything is same function, structure, identity and feedbacks”
interconnected and nothing exists without the (Walker et al., 2004). This capacity is especially
other), iisaak (respect with caring and action), important in a rapidly changing world. Local
and uu-a-thluk (to take care of). These principles communities need the capability to persist (cope
cannot be put in practice without an ongoing with change), adapt (with suitable adjustments)
active relationship between us, the sky, land, or transform if the pressure to change becomes
water and all of the creatures in the environment.” overwhelming (Brown, 2016).
• “…the view of conservation of the rural
Machangana communities of Limpopo District Resilience is relevant at all levels, and certainly for
resembles the conservation vision of the local communities (Berkes & Ross, 2013). Several
environmental sciences, since it also seeks to factors are needed for building resilience (Folke et al.,
safeguard a given ecosystem due to its value.” 2003). Fundamentally, key aspects to produce crucial
collaborative, feedback-based problem-solving
10.2 Ingredients for success include: learning to live with change and uncertainty;
in linking communities, nurturing ecological, cultural and economic diversity
conservation and livelihoods (for increasing options and reducing risks); creating
opportunities for self-organisation (including fostering
Building on the above syntheses, this section draws social memory); strengthening local institutions;
on CCRN reviews of the efforts of local communities building linkages and problem-solving networks; and
to link conservation and livelihoods. These key sharing management responsibility.
aspects could be called ‘ingredients for success’.
While not all are needed all the time, each of the 10.2.2 Meanings and motivations
ingredients incrementally adds to the possibilities for
success. These ingredients arise in both community- Three key insights relating to the meaning of and the
based and large-scale conservation initiatives, and motivation for local-level conservation have emerged
provide guidance for communities, policy makers from the studies described in this book:
and decision makers at all levels ranging from local to
global. The ingredients of success are grouped into • Embracing the two-way connection
four categories: (i) SES and resilience; (ii) meanings between well-being of communities and
and motivations; (iii) governance; and (iv) linking the health of ecosystems is a crucial starting
knowledge and practice. point for community conservation. First, a
healthy environment is crucial for communities.
10.2.1 Social-ecological systems (SES)and Community conservation, in maintaining or
resilience rebuilding healthy ecosystems, supports
sustainable and diversified livelihoods of local and
Using an SES perspective provides an integrated Indigenous peoples, and contributes significantly
approach for undertaking community conservation, to the sustainability of local, regional and national
and for understanding how communities engage in economies. Conversely, strong and cohesive
environmental conservation in ways that support communities make it possible to have effective
sustainable livelihoods and local economies. An conservation efforts. This implies that to maintain
underlying SES perspective is the key idea of healthy ecosystems, mechanisms are needed
resilience. Many studies and practical experiences to ensure that conservation efforts effectively
have shown the importance of resilience as the ability support communities, by ensuring adequate
to respond to, or absorb, shocks and stresses, while attention to the need for sustainable livelihoods
maintaining the functioning and identity of the system that fully support local and Indigenous peoples.
(SES). Conservation and livelihoods go hand-in-hand
(Charles, 2017).
Resilience can be seen as the capacity “of a • A focus on livelihoods is essential for
system to absorb disturbance and reorganise while effective conservation. This is related to the

Communities, conservation and livelihoods 59

 two-way connection mentioned above. The and ecosystem-based management (EBM) take
success of conservation initiatives, whether a broader view that is more comprehensive, that
local or larger-scale, and whether initiated by a includes feedback learning, and takes uncertainty
community, a government or others, typically into account (Long et al., 2015; Berkes, 2012).
depends on how they support the sustainable
livelihoods of a full range of community members. From a governance perspective, therefore, this
This applies in planning economic development, shift reflects adaptive governance that is inherent
embracing new livelihood alternatives that are in the efforts of many communities described in
resilient in the face of a changing climate and this book. It includes collaborative approaches and
economy, and moving away from practices that partnerships, notably co-management (sharing of
have depleted the local environment. A diversity of power and responsibility between the government
local livelihoods can also be important, to give the and local resource users) and knowledge co-
community flexibility to move away from practices production (see below), facilitated by good
that deplete local resources, and to find more leadership and networks. Three major insights
sustainable alternatives. Accompanying this will be relating to governance for local-level conservation
efforts to support sustainable traditional livelihoods can be highlighted:
where feasible.
• Values, respect and relationships are • Community empowerment reflects the capacity
essential to achieving conservation success. of local communities to seek out and implement
When efforts are made to reinforce and tap into local solutions to safeguard environments and
the values of local people, both the support for livelihoods, and to participate fully in larger-scale
and the effectiveness of conservation can be initiatives (i.e. government-led ones). On the one
dramatically increased. Conservation initiatives hand, this leads to successful stewardship of
that show respect for Indigenous peoples and local ecosystems by enabling local environmental
local communities (IPLCs), and their traditional conservation activities, which also supports the
sustainable use and stewardship practices, sustainability of local livelihoods and economies.
can be more effective. Success is more likely At the same time, empowerment leads to
when relationships are developed in a way that better community engagement in larger-scale
empowers people and their local communities conservation, producing success in achieving
to carry out their own conservation activities and stewardship of landscapes and larger ecosystems.
to be involved in larger-scale efforts. Specifically, Such larger-scale conservation decision-making
when governments and businesses build must therefore be inclusive of the local level
respectful partnerships with local communities, – rural and Indigenous communities, urban
this enhances understanding and leads to more neighbourhoods, and municipalities.
beneficial decisions. • Active and meaningful engagement of local
communities and Indigenous rights-holders
10.2.3 Governance typically leads to improved conservation and
management practices. Conversely, excluding
Governance is about decision making, including communities from resource decision-making
sharing of responsibility and power, and setting increases the likelihood of conflict, unsustainable
the policy agenda and objectives. Thus, it must management and resource decline. Community
be highlighted that governance is not only for and government initiatives all need to be inclusive,
government. Within its realm, policy making involves letting a full range of people take part – across
setting the rules and guidelines for ‘management’, gender, ethnicity and socio-economic status. This
which is about action, i.e. ‘management plans’ has many positive impacts, with greater buy-in
and harvesting decisions. Indeed, it is clear and greater investment in community processes,
that conventional top-down management has broadening the reach of solutions. When the whole
had severe limitations (Holling & Meffe, 1996). community is involved in addressing a problem,
Modern approaches of adaptive management people are more likely to support the solution.

60 Communities, conservation and livelihoods

• Government support raises a community’s
chances of success. Notably, local community
conservation initiatives benefit when supported
by government practice and policy. Governments
(and in some cases, businesses and other
organisations) can be positively engaged through
funding, expertise, active support and helpful
policies. Accordingly, government policies and
regulations support progressive community action,
and government resources flow towards workable
solutions. Nevertheless, the evidence suggests
that government support is not necessary in all
Local children of Olifantsdrif village near the Olifants Estuary
circumstances. (South Africa). The well-being of youth and future generations
can provide a strong motivation for community conservation.
Photo: Wayne Rice
10.2.4 Linking knowledge and practice

Knowledge production is crucial in linking by IPBES and defined as for TEK above (Díaz et al.,
communities, conservation and livelihoods. 2018).
Specifically, sustainable livelihoods and more
effective conservation require using all sources of The process for knowledge creation is also important.
knowledge as a means to improve problem solving. The desired approach for increasing the range of
Indeed, appropriate environmental conservation and knowledge for learning and problem-solving has
management practices must draw on the in-depth brought together all those involved, working together
knowledge of local and Indigenous communities. to define the important questions and the knowledge
Utilising a wide range of traditional and local generation approaches (Clark et al., 2016), drawing
knowledge is crucial, and knowledge sharing leads to different knowledge sources jointly (Armitage et al.,
better community engagement and more workable 2011) and embarking on knowledge co-production
outcomes. and participatory research. As such, communities can
increase their own understanding of change through,
The creation of pathways for sharing education for example, ‘community science’ (Charles et al.,
and knowledge is an important ingredient in 2020). The process of learning collectively bridges
communities that have succeeded in conserving different kinds of knowledge respectfully, such as
both their natural environment and local livelihoods. combining science and local observations to respond
This was seen in the case of Port Mouton Bay, Nova to climate change, taking into account issues of
Scotia (Canada) where fishers and independent values and equity.
scientists together built a knowledge base, from
many sources, to assess aquaculture impacts on 10.3 Policy recommendations for
the local fishery (Charles et al., 2020). Depending on governments
the context, the multiple forms of knowledge might
include: (i) traditional ecological knowledge (TEK), The support of governments and other external
i.e. a cumulative body of knowledge, practice and players can be important, although not necessarily
belief, evolving by adaptive processes, and handed essential for community livelihood and conservation
down through generations by cultural transmission; success. There is evidence that governance can run
(ii) Indigenous knowledge, i.e. the local knowledge more efficiently if the government supports small-
held by Indigenous peoples or local knowledge scale, community-based initiatives. Accordingly,
unique to a given culture or society; and/or (iii) local governments and other players should recognise
knowledge, i.e. practitioner knowledge which is not that their own conservation actions can be improved
multi-generational (Berkes, 2018). Related to these by involving local communities and community
is Indigenous local knowledge (ILK), the term used knowledge.

Communities, conservation and livelihoods 61

 From this perspective, the following key approaches human well-being, such as SDG 1 (No Poverty),
are recommended: SDG 5 (Gender Equality), SDG 8 (Decent Work and
Economic Growth), and better paths to meeting
1 Acknowledge the role and expertise of local cross-cutting goals, such as SDG 11 (Sustainable
communities. Engage communities on a variety Cities and Communities) and SDG 13 (Climate
of levels, with both scientific and management Action).
agencies working directly with communities.
10.4 Conclusions
2 Ensure that government resources are
targeted for community conservation, and Local communities, around the world, in cities
that policy not only pays attention to, but actually and in rural areas, are on the frontlines of many
‘mainstreams’ the conservation potential of local environmental challenges. Their stewardship efforts
communities. Management agencies should align are inspiring, and help to support sustainable local
their programmes and resources to be effective at economies. The successful conservation practices
the local level. of communities embrace the fundamental links of
protecting livelihoods and the environment, using
3 Ensure that policy-making takes into account community decision-making to improve both
its effects on communities, where government conservation and community well-being.
programmes fit with realities at the local level and
government conservation policy considers impacts The CCRN sites, including those highlighted in this
on communities. book (Table 1 and Figure 1), provide a fairly good
sampling of regions and countries. Even though
4 Seek and explore examples of successful there obviously are differences from one region to
management models that address community another and from one site to another, our findings are
concerns, and support opportunities to learn (perhaps surprisingly) consistent. That is, there are
about and implement them. more similarities than differences in the community
conservation experience with respect to motivations,
5 Build local capabilities for communities to challenges and opportunities across the spectrum –
develop their own knowledge base and their from industrialised Western countries to developing
sustainable livelihood options. nations, whether located in Asia, Africa, or the
Americas.
6 Seek opportunities to ‘scale up’ from
community successes to improve large- While this book has laid out a path toward successful
scale management, and ‘scale down’ high-level community-based conservation and sustainable
initiatives to help local efforts. livelihoods, issues of power imbalances can thwart
such efforts and indeed, communities may find
As noted at the beginning of the book, the efforts of themselves engaged not in actions that move them
local communities in environmental stewardship that directly toward better environmental and social
support sustainable livelihoods can be an important outcomes, but rather in struggles against external
vehicle for achieving the SDGs (UN DESA, n.d.). forces that threaten both the environment and the
Governments and civil society around the world have well-being of communities. This reality must be
pledged to work toward the SDGs, and an effective recognised: to achieve the benefits of community
way to do that may well be through empowerment conservation, there must be the right local conditions
and policy support to local communities and their and suitable policy support, combined with broader
local stewardship actions. As has been shown considerations of equity and social justice.
earlier in the book, the practical and policy support
by governments can, with the right support, lead Community initiatives are undoubtedly challenging at
to improved local environmental conditions and times, and not always successful, but the evidence
contribute to meeting the SDGs, such as SDG 14 (Life suggests that with the right support, communities
Below Water) and SDG 15 (Life on Land), improved can combine multiple sources of knowledge, adopt

62 Communities, conservation and livelihoods

an integrated perspective, and utilise participatory Brown, K. 2016. Resilience, Development and Global Change.
and cooperative approaches, to restore ecosystems, First edition. London, UK: Routledge. Available at: https://doi.
safeguard important natural areas, build secure local org/10.4324/9780203498095
economies and monitor change over time. In this
Charles, A. (2017). ‘The Big Role of Coastal Communities and
way, they can meet both conservation and livelihood Small-Scale Fishers in Ocean Conservation’. In: P.S. Levin
goals, and resolve both environmental and livelihood and M.R. Poe (eds.), Conservation for the Anthropocene
challenges, perhaps even overcoming otherwise Ocean: Interdisciplinary Science in Support of Nature
intractable problems. and People, Chapter 21, pp. 447–461. Amsterdam, The
Netherlands: Academic Press, Elsevier. Available at: https://
doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-805375-1.00021-0
Many of the successes of local communities happen
’under the radar’, perhaps even unknown to their Charles, A., Loucks, L., Berkes, F., Armitage, D. (2020).
respective national governments – as larger-scale ‘Community science: A typology and its implications for
initiatives have tended to receive much more attention governance of social-ecological systems’. Environmental
and funding. There may be a need for an appropriate Science & Policy 106: 77–86. Available at: https://doi.
‘re-balancing’ across levels of action and decision- org/10.1016/j.envsci.2020.01.019
making. This fits closely with the emerging consensus
Clark, W.C., van Kerkhoff, L., Lebel, L. and Gallopin, G. (2016).
on the need for a multi-level and cross-scale ‘Crafting Usable Knowledge for Sustainable Development’.
approach to governance, taking into consideration PNAS 113(17): 4570–4578. Available at: https://doi.
costs, capacities and institutional arrangements, org/10.1073/pnas.1601266113
and the relative benefits of engaging at each level
of decision making. Indeed, from that perspective, Díaz, S., Pascual, U., Stenseke, M., Martín-López, B., Watson,
R.T., Molnár, Z., Hill, R., Chan, K.M.A., Baste, I.A., Brauman,
community-based approaches are well-placed to
K.A. et al. (2018). ‘Assessing nature’s contributions to people’.
draw on the major thrusts in modern conservation, Science 359(6373): 270–272.
notably for more participatory governance. An
increased focus of governments on the local scale Folke, C., Colding, J. and Berkes, F. (2003). Building resilience
of the community could expand and ‘scale-up’ the and adaptive capacity in social-ecological systems. In: F.
benefits of local-level conservation, as demonstrated Berkes, J. Colding and C. Folke (eds.), Navigating Social-
Ecological Systems, pp. 352–387. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
so clearly throughout this book.
University Press. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1017/
CBO9780511541957.020

References Holling, C.S. and Meffe, G.K. (1996). ‘Command and Control
and the Pathology of Natural Resource Management’.
Armitage, D., Berkes, F., Dale, A., Kocho-Schellenberg, E. and Conservation Biology 10(2): 328–337.
Patton, E. (2011). ‘Co-management and the co-production
of knowledge: Learning to adapt in Canada’s Arctic’. Global Long, R.D., Charles, A., and Stephenson, R.L. (2015). ‘Key
Environmental Change 21(3): 995–1004. Available at: https:// principles of marine ecosystem-based management’. Marine
doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2011.04.006 Policy 57: 53–60. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
marpol.2015.01.013
Berkes, F. (2012). ‘Implementing ecosystem-based
management: evolution or revolution?’. Fish and Fisheries United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs
13(4): 465–476. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467- (UN DESA) (n.d.). ‘The 17 Goals’. UN DESA [website]. Available
2979.2011.00452.x at: https://sdgs.un.org/goals

Berkes, F. (2018). Sacred Ecology. 4th Edition. New York, Walker, B., Holling, C.S., Carpenter, S.R. and Kinzig, A. (2004).
USA and London, UK: Routledge. Available at: https://doi. ‘Resilience, adaptability and transformability in social-ecological
org/10.4324/9781315114644 systems’. Ecology and Society 9(2): 5 [online]. Available at:
https://doi.org/10.5751/es-00650-090205
Berkes, F. and Ross, H. (2013). ‘Community Resilience:
Toward an Integrated Approach’. Society & Natural Resources
26(1): 5–20. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2
012.736605

Communities, conservation and livelihoods 63

 Postscript
Anthony Charles

The vast majority of this book was written prior to transportation, personal services, government,
the COVID-19 pandemic, including all the chapters infrastructure and natural resource sectors. The
and all the Community Stories. However, with the impacts on the natural resource sector are seen
book being published in the middle of the pandemic, around the world. For example, in coastal fishing
it is important to give some consideration to what communities, Bennett et al. (2020) report reduced
this means in relation to the theme of the book – capabilities to go fishing (due to distancing
Communities, Conservation and Livelihoods. We requirements) and a loss of access to markets (due
begin with a brief look, through a local community to broken transportation links). They note particular
lens, at the impacts of the pandemic and some of the risks to “rural and isolated indigenous communities”
responses, then turn to how the links of communities, that “may have reduced immunity and access to
conservation and livelihoods highlighted throughout healthcare” (p. 339).
this book may be affected by and evolve in a
pandemic world. The disruption is extreme in many places, but local
communities are also responding. Pandemic-related
Impacts of the pandemic and community community responses may be immediate (i.e. shifts
responses in employment, access to food, or services offered
in the community) or more long-term (i.e. changes
The pandemic has had incredible negative impacts to economic sectors or to how jobs operate). Such
worldwide on health and well-being, as well as on responses can be driven by individuals or groups in
livelihoods. At a community level, the pandemic the community, or by higher levels of government.
has affected almost every aspect of life. A survey The responses can vary depending on how they
in one location (Nova Scotia, Canada) of COVID-19 were funded, who is served by the actions, and the
impacts on local communities, and the range of gaps designed to fill in the social, economic and
their responses, may give some indications (Charles environmental needs of the community.
et al., 2020). The survey finds that communities
were affected in such areas as: health and access Around the world, the list of constructive COVID-19
to medical services; food security and insecurity; responses, taking place within local communities, is
employment and livelihoods; social and recreational growing daily. Notably, IUCN and its Commission on
activities; childcare and schools; facilities and Environmental, Economic and Social Policy (CEESP)
services for seniors; and public space and facilities. are compiling a range of such cases (IUCN CEESP,
There are also changes apparent in how local 2020). Such responses may be seen in all parts of
communities are operating, whether resulting from the world – for example, in coastal communities
the pandemic itself or from restrictions put in place as (Bennett et al., 2020), there are many instances of
responses. This could include, for example, changes food sharing. This is demonstrated in Hawaii, where
in community decision-making arrangements, or in “the local food movement has grown substantially…
social or cultural activities, that affect quality of life. helping to supply vulnerable populations (elders)
and food banks”, and the Pacific Islands, who are
Economic impacts affecting communities arose benefiting from “strong existing social networks”
in the retail, food services, healthcare, education, (p. 339). There are also cases (Bennett et al., 2020)

64 Communities, conservation and livelihoods

in which communities “have acted collectively to future could be made stronger, more sustainable and
reassert their rights to food, livelihoods, or safe more equitable, by re-designing economic activities
working conditions” and have worked to maintain in a way that makes those environmental benefits
livelihoods (i.e. in Sri Lanka, with efforts to “rebuild permanent, even as the pandemic threat is removed
local supply chains as imports have fallen…” (p. 340). and livelihoods are restored and sustained.

Communities, conservation and At the same time, there is no doubt that in the short
livelihoods in a pandemic world term, it is challenging to focus on conservation
activities (and climate action) when health and welfare
The impacts of the pandemic on health, quality are threatened immediately by the pandemic in many
of life and livelihoods have been extensive in local places. Thus, on the negative side, it seems that
communities the world over. The responses of many of the conservation practices documented in
communities have been, in many cases, equally this book may not have been maintained as usual.
impressive. But what have been the environmental Local communities, like nations and whole societies,
impacts, and the conservation responses, at the are facing this reality. In the longer term, however,
community level? How are we seeing the pandemic the ultimate message reflected throughout this
affecting the linkages between environmental book must be committed to our collective memory:
conservation and livelihoods at the community level? conservation practices (and climate action), on the
And what might the future hold, as communities one hand, and human well-being and sustainable
grapple now with the pandemic, and with ongoing livelihoods, on the other hand, are inextricably
conservation and livelihood challenges? linked. The set-back due to COVID-19 must be only
temporary.
COVID-19 reminds us above all how interconnected
Planet Earth is. No part of the planet has escaped Into the future
the pandemic. As with the impacts of climate change,
no place and no one is immune. Just as for the What does the future hold, as communities grapple
challenge of climate change, clearly not all pandemic today with a pandemic and continue to face a
concerns arise on a local level, nor can they be range of ongoing environmental conservation and
solved at a local level. There are limits to the extent sustainable livelihood challenges?
that local communities can deal with forces as global
as climate and pandemics. The insights provided in this book reinforce a crucial
point in moving into the future, a point highlighted
A second point, from an environmental perspective, over the past decades by Nobel Prize winner Elinor
is that underlying the pandemic outbreak are critical Ostrom and many others: the crucial power of
questions about the complex connection of how ‘collective action’ – when people, coming together
humans interact with wild species. There is much to in communities, meet their challenges by working
learn in that regard, and all the evidence has yet to together.
emerge.
In the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic, the need
Nonetheless, we can see mixed impacts of for collective action has never been greater. Some
COVID-19 on the environment. On the one hand, of that collective action can be seen at a large scale,
in industrialised countries, the economic downturn across nations, but it is also very apparent within
resulting from the pandemic may have led to some local communities the world over.
improvements in environmental conditions, such
as reduced air pollution and pressure on natural While the Covid-19 pandemic, like climate change,
resources. This is not cause for celebration, given affects us all globally, the same lesson about the
the immense negative effects of the pandemic, but importance of collective action holds when the
it is worth noting. Indeed, there is some thought challenges faced by local communities are more
being given to the possibility that our economic localised. We have seen many such challenges

Communities, conservation and livelihoods 65

 in the instances cited in this report – often in the
form of threats, from outside forces, to the local
environment or to local livelihoods. Communities
trying to conserve their local resources and support
local livelihoods are forever engaged in struggles with
many external forces.

The ingredients needed to move forward are

contained within the many inspiring stories of
collective action – both in this book, as communities
address and in many cases solve local challenges of
environment and livelihoods, and in recent examples
of local communities tackling pandemic challenges
worldwide. It is not an easy path, but one that can
help us to ‘build back better’ into the future.

References

Bennett, N.J., Finkbeiner, E.M., Ban, N.C., Belhabib, D.,

Jupiter, S.D., Kittinger, J.N., Mangubhai, S., Scholtens, J., Gill,
D. and Christie, P. (2020). ‘The COVID-19 Pandemic, Small-
Scale Fisheries and Coastal Fishing Communities’. Coastal
Management 48(4): 336–347. Available at: https://doi.org/10.
1080/08920753.2020.1766937

Charles, A., Sweeney, L., Dean, L. and Zimmerman, R.

(2020). Nova Scotian Communities & COVID-19: Challenges
and Resilience. Saint Mary's University, Halifax, Nova Scotia.
Available at: https://www.communityconservation.net/nova-
scotian-communities-and-covid-19/

International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN)

Commission on Environmental, Economic and Social Policy
(CEESP) (2020). ‘CEESP Newsletter’ [online]. IUCN CEESP
[website]. Available at: https://www.iucn.org/commissions/
commission-environmental-economic-and-social-policy/
resources/newsletters

66 Communities, conservation and livelihoods

Community stories

Photo: Holladay Photo by Mark Holladay Lee

Communities, conservation and livelihoods 67

 Figure 7 Geographical overview of community stories

CANADA

IRAN

MEXICO INDIA

THAILAND
CAMBODIA

INDONESIA

BRAZIL
BOLIVIA

SOUTH AFRICA

Koh Sralao

São Luiz do Paraitinga

and Catuçaba Koh Pitak Island

Vila dos Pescadores,

Cubatão
Chilika Lagoon
Pando and Beni
Departments
Qeshm Island
Punta Allen, Quintana Roo
Tsitsikamma

Olifants Estuary
Halifax, Nova Scotia Haruku village,
Maluku Province
Clayoquot Sound
Les Village, Bali

Source: Based on United Nations World Map (2020).

68 Communities, conservation and livelihoods

Introduction to community stories
Anthony Charles

This part of the book contains 14 Community Stories, The idea is to first describe the nature of the
each providing a compelling real-world example of community (or region), then address the challenges
engagement in community conservation, linked to being faced – whether environmental, or involving
sustainable livelihoods. Of the 14 stories, the initial social, economic, cultural or governance aspects –
set of 10 focus on specific local communities and the followed by the community’s initiative(s) in response
subsequent set of four deal with the communities to those challenges, and the resulting outcomes.
located within a larger region. The Community As reflected in Part I of the book, the approach
Stories are geographically diverse, coming from considers both biodiversity outcomes and livelihood
a variety of locations around the world. They also outcomes, although the extent to which each of
reflect a diversity of challenges, and responses to these is discussed varies with the nature of the
those challenges, at the local level. Some reflect clear Community Story (and the aims of the communities
successes, while others are nuanced, with elements themselves).
of both success and (perhaps) failure – or at least,
unresolved challenges. In addition to the Community Stories within this
book, others are available on the CCRN website
The stories all reflect initiatives that are undertaken (CCRN, 2020), as well as in CCRN's documentary
by communities (or on-the-ground regional bodies) Sustainable Futures – Communities in Action,
themselves, even if supported in some ways by other CCRN videos and animations, and the book
external entities, including some of the organisations Governing the Coastal Commons (Armitage et al.,
represented within the CCRN. The stories are, 2017).
accordingly, written from the perspective of the
community, not of those engaged in the research Many ‘stories’ are also available from NGOs,
about that community. (Since the CCRN approach is international agencies, research bodies and more.
one of participatory action research, the communities Most strikingly, in local communities the world over,
themselves, or members of them, were typically the links of sustainable livelihoods and environmental
involved in the studies, but the focus here is on the stewardship are active today, providing continuing
community and its experience, not the research inspiration to us all.
process.)

Any accounts such as these necessarily reflect the References

perspective of the authors; as a result, readers will
see considerable diversity in the approaches taken Armitage, D., Charles, A., Berkes, F. (eds.) (2017). Governing
the Coastal Commons: Communities, Resilience and
for the various Community Stories. There is, however,
Transformation. Oxford, UK and New York, USA: Earthscan,
a common structure used in all the stories. After a Routledge/Taylor & Francis. Available at: https://doi.
list of ‘key messages’, each story is presented in four org/10.4324/9781315688480
parts:
Community Conservation Research Network (CCRN) 2020.
‘Community Stories’. CCRN [website]. Halifax, Canada:
1 Community profile Community Conservation Research Network, Saint Mary’s
2 Conservation and livelihood challenges University. Available at: www.communityconservation.net/
3 Community initiatives community-stories
4 Practical outcomes

Communities, conservation and livelihoods 69

 Koh Pitak Island, Thailand Community
conservation revitalises livelihoods and marine
resources

Dachanee Emphandhu and Philip Dearden

Myanmar Laos

Figure 8 Map of Thailand and

location of Koh Pitak Island

Thailand
Bangkok

India Cambodia

Vietnam

200 km Malaysia
Indonesia

Key messages

„ Conservation initiatives, such as habitat creation and fishing restrictions, have

improved the biodiversity around Koh Pitak Island.

„ Establishing a community-based tourism industry enabled further development

of lower-consumptive activities to support island livelihoods and reduce
dependence on marine resources.

„ Community conservation on Koh Pitak Island was successful due to leadership,

social capital, distributional equity, tourist attractions, media interest, village
culture, support network and timing.

70 Communities, conservation and livelihoods

Community profile

Koh Pitak is an island ecosystem located

approximately one km off the coast of Chumporn
Province in the Gulf of Thailand, in Bang Num Jeud
Sub-District, Luang Suan District (Figure 8). The
area of the small, relatively steep island is 113.92 ha,
about one-half consisting of natural vegetation and
the rest mainly coconut plantation or housing. The
island is inhabited by about 45 related households,
the majority of whom are Buddhist. Koh Pitak was
established over a hundred years ago by fishers Interviewing two of the main exponents of the ‘garden
culture’
who took shelter along its coasts. The abundant Photo: Philip Dearden
sea resources surrounding the island allowed the
community to flourish (Dearden et al., 2016).
• Designating a local no-take zone where villagers
Conservation and livelihood seed giant clams; this site has become popular for
challenges dive and snorkel tourism;
• Restoring mangrove populations along Koh Pitak’s
The marine environment around Koh Pitak Island was shoreline;
formerly very productive and diverse but suffered • Improving waste disposal through the use of
rapid decline around 20 years ago due to over-fishing micro-organisms that rapidly digest organic waste.
and pollution. The decline in marine resources led The treated wastewater from this system is then
the island community heavily into debt – a situation used to develop and water home gardens. These
faced by many Thai fishing communities during this gardens have become a popular tourist attraction,
period (Dearden et al., 2016). Senior levels of the where the village teaches visitors how to create
government were unresponsive to the plight of the such gardens; and
community. • Initiated a study to understand the tourism
carrying capacity of Koh Pitak by monitoring water
Community initiatives quality, waste and the quality of visitor experience
(Dearden et al., 2016).
Conservation was seen at Koh Pitak as being
an essential element of livelihood recovery. The "I want it to be like it was 30 years ago, with the
community, under charismatic leadership, recognised seas full of fish…"
that they themselves were partially to blame for the
Headman of Koh Pitak regarding
environmental degradation that had occurred and
their main goal for conservation
designed initiatives to reverse this trend. Some of
these initiatives included:
Influencing marine policies
• Establishing a community-based tourism industry As for all other coastal communities in Thailand, Koh
that enabled further development of lower- Pitak is ostensibly governed by the same fisheries
consumptive activities to support island livelihoods laws, rules and regulations of the country. However,
and reduce dependence on marine resources; through their own initiative, the community has
• Creating an artificial reef which enhanced marine managed to create unprecedented flexibility in this
biodiversity and provided supplemental income for respect that is of national importance. One example
fishers; is the stewardship of a local island, Koh Kram, about
• Protecting marine resources through seasonal 1 km further offshore Koh Pitak.
closures, zoning and the use of grow nets;

Communities, conservation and livelihoods 71

 Practical outcomes

The success observed on Koh Pitak Island can be

attributed to several factors:

Leadership. A charismatic, far seeing and powerful

village leader was critical to the transformations.

Community social capital. The community

has very high social capital and unity due to their
interrelatedness and common history.
Although Koh Pitak is now known for its community-based
tourism, it is still a fishing village. Community conservation Distributional equity. Activities are undertaken by
has facilitated the return of a productive fishery.
Photo: Philip Dearden groups; a proportion of all income is returned to the
community fund with full transparency.

Koh Kram has the best remaining biodiversity in Tourist attractions. Koh Pitak does not offer the
the area and is part of a larger national park, Mu coastal tourism attractions typically associated with
Koh Chumporn. Nevertheless, the administration Thailand, such as long, white sand beaches and
of Mu Koh Chumporn has allowed the villagers to azure blue seas. Had it done so, it is quite likely that
have stewardship over the island who, in turn, have the island would have already been consumed by
developed a no-take fishing zone and oversee a mass tourism. The tourist attractions are more suited
reseeding and enhancement of giant clams in the to the kind of community-based tourism that has
area. They are allowed to enter and leave as they developed there.
wish and take tourists there. This kind of practical
relationship between the Thai National Parks Media interest. There has been significant media
Department and local communities is very rare. interest in the transformation of the village, providing
ample free marketing for tourism.
Another important example is the current
revision of the Thai National Fisheries Law to Village culture. The village enjoys a slow pace of
recognise the abilities of communities, such as life that is well suited to low-key tourism development.
Koh Pitak, to manage their own fisheries. Although
Koh Pitak figures prominently, it is not the only Support network. The village enjoyed an extensive
fishing community to be recognised in this area. support network ranging from government agencies,
Interestingly, the community has elected to have institutions (such as universities) and other villages
a smaller ocean area for than permitted under the developing community-based initiatives.
proposed bill, due to a practical recognition of their
own limitations in patrolling a larger area. Timing. The conservation and tourism initiatives
coincided with the growing popularity of the Thai
Although the ever-changing constitutional landscape King’s ‘self-sufficiency’ philosophy, which promotes
of Thailand embraces decentralisation, it is usually small, local, low-impact development and living
more in terms of theory than practice in a centuries- a moderate, self-dependent life without greed or
old hierarchical society. The attempts which are overexploitation of, for example, natural resources.
now being made to allow more local control are
at least partly the result of the demonstrably
successful coastal management practices shown by
communities such as Koh Pitak.

72 Communities, conservation and livelihoods

 "For me […] conservation cannot be done by
only one person, or by one community. It must
have collaboration among communities and
organisations that we call it ‘our conservation
network’. It is a network of conservation in many
aspects: giving ideas, supporting each other and
working together. Conservation is not only at our
homeland but covers from mountain to the sea.
This conservation network is like a jigsaw that
missing one piece can bring a whole mission
down."

Koh Pitak village head sharing

his thoughts on conservation

Reference

Dearden, P., Emphandhu, D., Songpornwanich, S., and

Ruksapol, A. (2017). 'Koh Pitak: A Community-Based,
Environment and Tourism Initiative in Thailand’. In: D.
Armitage, A. Charles, F. Berkes (eds.), Governing the Coastal
Commons: Communities, Resilience and Transformation,
Chapter 10, pp. 181–197. Oxford, UK and New York, USA:
Earthscan, Routledge/Taylor & Francis. Available at: https://
doi.org/10.4324/9781315688480

Acknowledgements

We thank S. Songpornwanich and A. Ruksapol for their

ongoing work with the villagers and for granting access to
their field work results.

Communities, conservation and livelihoods 73

 Koh Sralao, Cambodia Seas of change in a
coastal fishing community

Furqan Asif, Jason Horlings and Melissa Marschke

Thailand Laos

Figure 9 Map of Cambodia

and location of Koh Sralao

Cambodia

Phnom Penh

Vietnam

100 km

Key messages

„ The Koh Sralao community works together to safeguard mangrove forests

which form a critical link to their livelihood.

„ Community activism concerning coastal resource management issues and

resistance to sand dredging contributed to the termination of nearby dredging
activities.

„ The development of a Special Economic Zone in the provincial capital has

provided valuable economic opportunities for young women, contributing to
livelihood diversification.

74 Communities, conservation and livelihoods

Community profile

Koh Sralao is a small 300 household mangrove-

estuarine fishing village on the southwestern coast
of Cambodia (Figure 9), approximately 22 km
from the provincial capital Koh Kong. The village is
accessible only by boat. Given the remote nature of
the community, most goods and products need to
be shipped in and out.

Villagers rely heavily on the marine environment,

with fish making up the bulk of their dietary protein. A barge carrying sand from sand mining operations in Koh Kong.
Photo: Furqan Asif
The local marine resources have been the source
of sustenance and livelihood for many decades.
Although the main activity is crab fishing, a diversity
of fishing activities is found, including green mussel about fish stocks. The observations made by Koh
culture, shrimp and grouper fishing (Marschke, Sralao fishers are consistent with statistics for the
2016). Gulf of Thailand which shows a dramatic decrease
in catch per unit effort (an indirect measure of fish
Local fishers use mechanised boats and gill nets or abundance) over the past decades.
crab traps to harvest the marine resources in and
around the mangrove estuarine area, or within a The declines observed in Koh Sralao‘s aquatic
few kilometres of the coastline. Households work resources may be due to a number of different
together, with men (sometimes with their wives or factors. Fishers have observed an increase in foreign
hired workers) going out to fish daily or spending fishing vessels in the nearshore area. Thai fishing
a few days on their boats and women sorting, vessels may be moving into Cambodian waters as
processing and selling aquatic products to a handful a result of Thailand’s fisheries reform (World Fishing
of local traders (aquatic products typically go to the & Aquaculture, 2016). Fishers also talk about the
provincial town, and then may move to Cambodia’s impacts of climate change on aquatic resources.
capital or into Thailand). Although the direct effects of climate change on
fisheries in Koh Sralao are not yet clear, it seems
However, sustaining a small-scale fisheries livelihood that rains and the timing of the monsoon is less
is challenging (Marschke, 2012) and livelihoods predictable, and storms may be more frequent.
have diversified within and beyond the village. For Ocean warming is also likely impacting fish migration
example, households may have family members routes and reproduction (Savo et al., 2017).
working (temporarily or permanently) in construction
or factory jobs. While this work has typically been in Sand dredging
another province either in Cambodia’s capital or in In addition to the persistent decline in catch, sand
Thailand, there are now wage labour opportunities dredging, which began in the Koh Sralao area in late
particularly for young women in the provincial capital 2007, has had an impact on the aquatic resources
at the special economic zone (SEZ) near the border surrounding the Koh Sralao community (see photo
with Thailand. above). The shorter-term impacts of this dredging
are clear (Marschke, 2012):
Conservation and livelihood
challenges • Fish habitat is being destroyed. Dredging deepens
shallow channels, impacting fish and other aquatic
Declining fish populations habitat in the process.
Fishers have spoken about fish declines for decades • Fish migration routes are being disturbed, and the
(Marschke, 2012) and continue to be concerned water is said to be more turbid.

Communities, conservation and livelihoods 75

 • Boats have been dredging near the edge of the
mangroves, partially damaging some trees and
completely ripping out others

Community initiatives

Koh Sralao is a village with a history of community

organisation around resource management
(Marschke, 2012). This means that villagers have
been able not only to organise formally but also use
informal channels to express their concerns.
The sun sets on houses at Koh Sralao coastal fishing village
Sand dredging in Cambodia.
Photo: Furqan Asif
Villagers have been concerned about sand dredging
since it began in 2007, and have been involved in
protests, public consultations and meetings with fishing village, such gains are time-sensitive, and it
multiple actors, including the sand dredgers. At one is unclear how many young women will return to the
point, the sand dredging came within eyesight of village at another point in their lives.
Koh Sralao, which mobilised villagers yet again. The
Koh Sralao community has received support from Meanwhile, a small, but growing number of men
NGOs, including an activist NGO that initiated an in the village have moved out of fishing-based
anti-sand mining campaign in 2015. livelihoods by leaving the village and finding work,
either in Koh Kong town or Phnom Penh the capital.
Mangrove conservation Most of this work is in the informal economy, but
The Koh Sralao community has worked together is seen as less precarious than fishing. Young men
to safeguard their natural environment. They have may be less interested in fishing, as fishing cannot
become aware of the importance of conserving consistently provide for their material well-being
the mangrove forests that form a critical link to their (Asif, 2020). The long-term implications on the lives
livelihood. For example, annual mangrove replanting and livelihoods of villagers in Koh Sralao are unclear.
became a community tradition in the late 1990s. What is certain, however, is that it will depend partly
The area is known for its mangroves which span on the future state of marine resources in coastal
23,750 hectares in a protected area and features Cambodia.
an ecotourism site set up near the Peam Krasop
community. Practical outcomes

Livelihood diversification Sand dredging

Households have responded to marine resource One of the outcomes of the initial protests to the
degradation by shifting livelihood activities within sand dredging was that the dredging activities
and beyond the village, with regional factory wage moved to another area, out of sight of Koh Sralao.
work emerging as another diversification strategy. Even so, the community wanted the activity to stop
It is predominantly young women in Koh Sralao altogether, since the negative impacts of the sand
that go to work at the Koh Kong SEZ located near dredging continued to be felt. Community members
the provincial town, since SEZ factories mainly worked with a local activist NGO, providing
hire women between the ages of 18 to 25 (Narim interviews to media and spearheading a social
& Paviour, 2016). However, there is no maternity media campaign, to share the impacts of a decade
leave for women, and it is difficult for them to return of continuous sand mining on coastal livelihoods. In
to the SEZ after the age of 28. Thus, while young November 2016, the Ministry of Mines and Energy
women are gaining more opportunities beyond the announced that they had halted sand dredging

76 Communities, conservation and livelihoods

operations in Koh Kong, with a total ban on coastal Marschke, M. (2012). Life, Fish and Mangroves: Resource
sand dredging for export emerging in mid-2017 Governance in Coastal Cambodia. Ottawa, Canada:
(Lamb et al. 2019). University of Ottawa Press. Available at: https://doi.
org/10.1017/s0030605312001731

The ban on sand dredging is certainly welcome _____ (2016). ‘Exploring Rural Livelihoods Through the Lens
news to the villagers and for the conservation of the of Coastal Fishers’. In: K. Brickell and S. Springer (eds.).
mangrove ecosystem. More broadly, this story not Handbook of Contemporary Cambodia, Chapter 8, pp.
only highlights the challenges of natural resource- 101–110. London, UK: Routledge. Available at: https://doi.
based livelihoods and the pressures that coastal org/10.4324/9781315736709
communities face (shaped by socio-economic
Narim, K. and Paviour, B. (2016). ‘Sand Extraction in
and political forces), but also the importance and Koh Kong Province Halted, Ministry Says’. The Cambodia
impact of grassroots community activism for coastal Daily [website], 17 November 2016. Available at: https://
ecological conservation. english.cambodiadaily.com/news/sand-extraction-koh-
kong-province-halted-ministry-says-120637/
Livelihood diversification
Savo, V., Morton, C., Lepofsky, D. (2017). ‘Impacts of Climate
Local factory labour opportunities continue to
Change for Coastal Fishers and Implications for Fisheries.’
provide a higher, more consistent income than Fish and Fisheries 18(5): 877–889. Available at: https://doi.
would otherwise be the case for most young women org/10.1111/faf.12212
in Koh Sralao. Women are sending remittances
home, and for these households this is an additional World Fishing & Aquaculture (2016). ‘No more free rides –
source of income (even if time sensitive), all the more as Thailand reforms fisheries’. World Fishing & Aquaculture
[website], 11 October 2016. Available at: https://www.
important given the challenge of small-scale fisheries
worldfishing.net/news101/industry-news/no-more-free-
livelihoods (Horlings & Marschke, 2020). The longer rides-as-thailand-reforms-fisheries
term implications of such wage work, in the sense of
helping to sustain coastal livelihoods and villagers’
well-being, remains to be seen. Acknowledgements

This work was supported by funding from the Social Science

References and Humanities Research Council of Canada and the Urban
Climate Resilience in Southeast Asia (UCRSEA) project. We
Asif, F. (2019). ‘From Sea to City: Migration and Social greatly appreciate the insights from the people we spoke with
Well-Being in Coastal Cambodia’. In: A.G. Daniere and – villagers, activists, NGOs and civil servants – in undertaking
M. Garschagen (eds.), Urban Climate Resilience in this research.
Southeast Asia, The Urban Book Series, pp. 149–177.
Cham, Switzerland: Springer. Available at: https://doi.
org/10.1007/978-3-319-98968-6_8

Asif, F. (2020). Coastal Cambodians on the Move: The

Interplay of Migration, Social Wellbeing and Resilience In
Three Fishing Communities [Thesis, Université d’Ottawa/
University of Ottawa]. Available at: http://ruor.uottawa.ca/
handle/10393/40420

Horlings, J. and Marschke, M. (2020). ‘Fishing, farming

and factories: adaptive development in coastal Cambodia’.
Climate and Development 12(6): 1–11. Available at: https://doi.
org/10.1080/17565529.2019.1645637

Lamb, V., Marschke, M. and Rigg, J. (2019). ‘Trading Sand,

Undermining Lives: Omitted livelihoods in the global trade
in sand’. Annals of American Association of Geographers
109(5): 1511–1528. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/2469
4452.2018.1541401

Communities, conservation and livelihoods 77

 Les Village, Bali, Indonesia When
conservation becomes a way of life

Humayra Secelia Muswar and Arif Satria

Laos

Thailand Philippines
Vietnam
Cambodia

Palau Figure 10 Map of Indonesia

and location of Les Village
Singapore Brunei
Malaysia

Indonesia

Jakarta

East Timor

Australia
500 km

Key messages

„ Les Village’s marine environment was devastated by cyanide traditionally used

for catching marine ornamental fish, leading to a decline in the local economy
and fishers’ livelihood.

„ Local conservation began when eco-friendly approaches to catching fish were

introduced to restore local marine resources.

„ Local fishers easily adapted to these new community-based conservation

approaches as they were in line with karma (Hindu-Bali’s belief) and their way
of life.

78 Communities, conservation and livelihoods

Community profile

Les Village is a fishing community located in the

east of Buleleng Regency of Indonesia (Figure 10).
Les Village consists of 25.57 km of coastline
comprised of rock, gravel and sandy beaches.
Locals mostly depend on fishing for their livelihood,
as the land is very dry and not fertile enough for
agriculture. However, residents can find other work
as construction workers, merchants, businessmen
or in the non-formal employment sectors of farming
Fishers in traditional boats
and animal husbandry. Tourism is not a significant Photo: James Frey
livelihood source for locals.

Les Village fisheries consists of the seafood and the as fishing gear, fishing time, fishing pattern, fishing
ornamental sectors. About 100 fishers are active location, the post-capture treatment of fish and
in the seafood sector, while 50 fishers are active their income scheme (Table 7). One important
in the ornamental fisheries sector (with the village characteristic of the marine ornamental fishers of Les
being a significant contributor to the local marine Village is their closeness to their religion. One of the
ornamental fish trade). There are four main groups most fundamental belief-systems for Hindu-Bali is
of fishers in this village, one of which specialises in ‘karma’, the idea of a balance of life: if Mother Nature
the ornamental fish sector and inadvertently caused is respected, nature will give the best of what it has,
damage to the local marine environment by using and vice versa. The belief system also plays a role in
cyanide to catch fish. characterising the fishers, such as their knowledge,
the role of women, the social structure and social
Marine ornamental and seafood fishers have position of the fishers (Satria, 2009).
fundamental differences in the way they fish, such

Table 7 Key differences between seafood fishing and ornamental fish fishing

SEAFOOD FISHING ORNAMENTAL FISH FISHING

Fishing methods Bottom trawling; dredging; gillnetting; Cyanide (old method); barrier net; scoop net; bucket
and gear harpooning; midwater trawling; pole/ decompression
trolling
Fishing time Night-time Early morning in clearer waters, making fish more visible
Fishing pattern Fishers go out on a boat, and use their Fishers dive to coral reef areas (ornamental fish habitat),
gear to catch the fish then line fish with a barrier net. Fish are herded and
trapped in the net. After, with a scoop net, fish are taken
and put in a decompression bucket.
Location Usually middle of the sea where pelagic Usually only a few kilometres from the beach, where the
fish congregate at night; use motor boat location is reached by swimming or small boat.
Post-capture Captured fish are put into cool storage Release from decompression bucket to a plastic
treatment container; oxygen added for the fish; live fish is a must
Income scheme Fisher’s income depends on catch, a set Income depends on catch and price determined by the
selling price, and market demand middlemen.

Communities, conservation and livelihoods 79

 Conservation and livelihood most frequently raised by fishers. Using cyanide
challenges had become transmissible knowledge. Fishers
faced a dilemma to survive and had to choose
Initially, nets were used to catch ornamental fish between catching fish with cyanide or not being
in Les Village. However, an increasing demand in able to eat at all. The use of cyanide eventually
the 1980s prompted the fishers to look for ways to became unlawful and Les Village fishers were
improve their catch. In 1985, the cyanide method of often detained for violation of the law against the
fishing was introduced to support marine ornamental use of cyanide to catch fish. Yet, the government
fish market demand (Muswar & Satria, 2011; offered no solution, without which fishers would
Pasaribu-Guzina, 2013; Sentosa, 2004). Fishers continue to violate the law in order to support
discovered that cyanide makes fish lethargic, thereby themselves and their families. The combination of
making them easier to catch (Muswar & Satria, 2011; lack of education and lack of guidance from the
Pasaribu-Guzina, 2013); fishers kept the cyanide in a state thus established a livelihood dilemma for
bottle and sprayed the cyanide in the ornamental fish fishers.
habitat (Sentosa, 2004).
2 Market demand. The ornamental fish trade is
Beginning in the 1990s and into the 2000s, marine part of the global and international market, and
ornamental fish began to be a lucrative commercial whether they like it or not, local fishers are a part
commodity. Fishers concentrated on fulfilling their of a globalised market system. To maintain a
household needs and generating income, while livelihood, they must meet a demand that comes
exploiting Mother Nature to satisfy marine ornamental from first-world countries. The greater the market
fish markets (Bryant & Sinead, 2005). The use demand – in this case, via the middlemen – the
of cyanide made fish easier to catch; however, more fish must be caught. Thus, Les Village
environmental deterioration began to be felt by fishers and the local environment are exploited
fishers in the 2000s. The use of cyanide negatively and marginalised in order to meet the demand of
impacted the local marine environment as live coral more powerful countries and peoples (Bryant &
coverage fell below 10%, ornamental fish population Sinead, 1997).
decreased to below 20% and population of all
species decreased to an estimated 10% of their 1986 3 Lack of public and stakeholder awareness
population (Frey, 2012). and involvement. The marine ornamental
fish trade is part of international trade, which
Coral reefs became bleached and only unique involves stakeholders. This means that capitalist
ornamental fish were left. Not being able to meet industrialisation brings constant pressures on
market demand, this development depleted fishers’ individual firms (big or small) to maintain low costs
income and devastated their social and economic (Mansfield, 2011). One of the main ways firms do
life. Lack of government concern created a sense this is by ‘externalising’ the costs of their impacts
of abandonment among marine ornamental fishers. (including environmental, social and health) – in
Fishers said that the government is only punishing other words, finding a way to make someone else
them because of their use of cyanide, but gave no pay those costs. In fisheries, firms benefit from the
instructions on how to change their ways or preserve environment – they profit from the fish – but they
the environment. Three reasons, in particular, do not pay the full costs of the impact their fishing
relate to the root causes of the destructive fishing has on the local fisheries or the environment. In
methods: the case of Les Village, fishers were pressured to
continue to use cyanide in order to meet market
1 Fishers’ knowledge. Les Village fishers did demand. Fishers were put in a difficult dilemma:
not know of any other way to catch fish. Locals wanting to conserve the environment when it
possessed limited information about fishing began to degrade, but lacking the education to
methods, especially since they have no senior know the negative impacts of cyanide and, even
high school or higher education. This concern was worse, lacking support or knowledge about

80 Communities, conservation and livelihoods

 solutions. However, fishers continued to fish as
they needed to support their livelihood. Others
would profit from their environment and take
whatever they conserved if they did not (Bryant &
Sinead, 2005; Mansfield, 2011).

Community initiatives
This situation continued for nearly 20 years. In the
early 2000s, when reefs were already damaged and
degradation reverberated, government still did not
Artificial reef structures ready for installation on the reef.
come to help; however, the NGO Yayasan Bahtera Photo: James Frey
Nusantara (YBN) came and provided much needed
support to the fishers. Originally engaging the fishers
under the guise of a buyer, YBN provided fishers Around 2005, YBN worked with the Marine Aquarium
with training and new equipment for environmentally- Council (MAC) to legitimise the environment-friendly
friendly fishing, thus moving from cyanide to using transformation of marine ornamental fish trade in
nets and barriers only. The approach that the NGO Les Village. Not only fishers, but also the middlemen
helped to implement was particularly successful and exporters, were certified as eco-friendly actors.
since it acknowledged the fishers’ belief system, Although the certification expired in 2008, fishers
thus helping Les Village fishers transform from the continued to apply the sustainable eco-friendly
destroyer to the guardian. fishing methods. Now, LINI (Indonesian Nature
Foundations), an environmental NGO, works with Les
The value of environmentally-friendly fishing that was Village fishers to continue this sustainable way.
implemented brought back fishers’ consciousness
about the balance of life. They realised that using Practical outcomes
cyanide meant demolishing their own natural
resources, since they suffered from the effects of The success of this conservation movement by Les
using cyanide: diminished fish stocks, disappearing Village’s communities of marine aquarium fishers
coral reefs and heavy debt. Thus, Les Village’s was a collective effort. Several factors and important
ornamental fishing community worked with the NGO actors were involved:
to restore their marine livelihood.
Leadership – The NGO’s leadership was the most
The initiative consisted of the following actions: powerful tool for motivating this community to move
from using cyanide to using environmentally friendly
1 Establishment of a new marine ornamental fish fishing practices.
group that committed to ecologically-friendly
fishing practices (no cyanide), and community- Community Social Capital – The community has
based marine environmental management. very high social capital and unity due to their inter-
relatedness and common history. Together, they
2 Creation of artificial reefs to enhance Les Village’s inadvertently destroyed their marine environment,
marine diversity. suffered and are recovering their livelihood.
Togetherness and trust is the biggest part of this
3 Design of a community-based no-take zone. community’s social capital.

4 Improvement of the belief that ‘karma’ does exist, Fishers’ Belief System – Their beliefs as Hindu-Bali
and that “if we treat our nature good, nature will teach them to put trust on ‘karma’.
give us good fish”.

Communities, conservation and livelihoods 81

 Support Networks – The village has an extensive Acknowledgements
support network with NGOs, researchers (from
universities) and trade chain actors that buy and sell The authors would like to thank Les Fishers Community
and Dr Arya Hadi Dharmawan for their useful critiques,
their eco-fish.
suggestions, support and insightful comments on this paper.

Timing – The conservation was done just in time.

The NGO came in at a critical ecological time,
when fishers were getting more confused and
frustrated from suffering from their sinking livelihood
and questioning what they were doing to their
environment.

References

Bryant, R. and Bailey, S. (1997). Third World Political Ecology.

New York, USA: Routledge.

Frey, J.B. (2012). A community-based approach to

sustainable ornamental fishing on coral reefs, Bali, Indonesia.
Master's thesis (Natural Resources Management). Natural
Resources Institute, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg,
Canada. Available at: https://umanitoba.ca/institutes/
natural_resources/canadaresearchchair/thesis/James%20
Frey%20Master’s%20Thesis%20Dec%202012.pdf

Mansfield, B. (2011). “Modern” industrial fisheries and the

crisis of overfishing. In: R. Peet, P. Robbins, M. Watts (eds.),
Global Political Ecology, Chapter 4. London, UK: Routledge.

Muswar, H. and A. Satria. (2011). Impact of Fisheries

Ecolabelling (Case Study: Les Village’s Ornamental Fish
Fisher). Sodality: Transdisciplinary Journal of Sociology,
Communication, and Human Ecology, December 2011, pp.
273–296. Available at: https://doi.org/10.22500/sodality.
v5i3.9693 (in Bahasa Indonesia).

Pasaribu-Guzina, S. (2013). Assessment of an

Environmentally-Friendly Method of Ornamental Fishing
Associated with Revenues of Fishers In Tejakula Sub-
District, Buleleng Region, Bali, Indonesia. Master's thesis
(Environmental and Management). School of Environmental
and Sustainability, Royal Roads University, British Colombia,
Canada. Available at: http://hdl.handle.net/10170/641

Satria, A. (2009). Fishers Political Ecology. Yogyakarta,

Indonesia: LKis. ISBN: 9789791283885 (in Bahasa Indonesia).

Sentosa, P. (2004). Sustainable Marine Ornamental Fish

Business: A Case Study on How to Catch Cyanide to Non-
Cyanide Ornamental Fish in Tejakula District, Regency,
Bali). Master's thesis (Environmental Science Studies).
Graduate Program, University of Indonesia, Jakarta,
Indonesia. Available at: http://lib.ui.ac.id/bo/uibo/detail.
jsp?id=73982&lokasi=lokal (in Bahasa Indonesia).

82 Communities, conservation and livelihoods

 Haruku village, Maluku Province, Indonesia
Conservation embedded in tradition and culture

Ahmad Mony and Arif Satria

Laos

Thailand Philippines
Vietnam
Cambodia

Palau Figure 11 Map of Indonesia

and location of Haruku Island
Singapore Brunei
Malaysia

Indonesia

Jakarta

East Timor

Australia
500 km

Key messages
„ Haruku village is a coastal community that uses sasi laut, a local knowledge
and culture-based practice of coastal resource conservation.

„ Sasi laut was weakened in the 1980s and the early part of the 2000s, due to a
lack of government concern about destructive fishing activities as well as the
Maluku conflict in 1999–2002. Subsequently, starting in early 2004, through the
cooperation of multiple stakeholders, the sasi laut system has strengthened,
helping local fishing communities to consider global issues related to
conservation practices

„ Cooperation of multiple parties at multiple levels is the best approach for

sustainable sasi laut practices.

Communities, conservation and livelihoods 83

 Community profile

Haruku village is located in the island of the same

name, in Maluku Province, Indonesia (Figure 11).
Most of the island is hilly terrain and nearly all of the
population is along the coast. The island consists
of four Muslim villages and seven Christian villages
(Central Bureau of Statistics of Central Maluku
Regency, 2015). The people of Haruku Island depend
on the plantation sector as their main livelihood.
Marine resources are not yet used as the main
support system for livelihoods due to limitations on Harvesting lompa fish
Photo: Jacky Manuputty
local utilisation of fishery commodities.

In the island, an Indigenous practice of coastal inland resources, the preservation of culture, and
resource protection, called sasi laut, has been used ensuring the availability of fish in the waters.
for hundreds of years. Sasi laut is a form of traditional
institution regulating the management of coastal Conservation and livelihood
resources based on the knowledge, norms and value challenges
systems of the Indigenous people of Maluku. This
system regulates the rights and obligations of the Recently, the practice of sasi laut has weakened
Indigenous peoples in utilising and protecting coastal due to external and internal pressures of the actors
resources. As defined by Harkes and Novaczek involved. The external factors that threatened the
(2000, pp. 1–3), sasi laut “…prohibits the use of existence of the legal practice of sasi laut were
destructive and intensive gear (poisonous plants and modernisation and commercialisation, which
chemicals, explosives, small mesh lift-nets), but also resulted in the erosion of traditional values (Harkes
defines seasonal rules of entry, harvest and activities & Novaczek, 2001). Within the Haruku society, sasi
allowed in specific parts of the sea. The regulations laut practices were faced with challenges, such as
are guarded and enforced by an institution known as internal political conflicts, competition in the local
the kewang, which functions as a local police force. economy, regeneration of kewang and the power
Their legitimacy, as well as that of the sasi institution of outsiders who did not consider the social and
itself, is based on adat, or customary law”. cultural conditions of the Indigenous community. In
addition, locals spoke of such factors as access to
Sasi laut has been implemented by the Harukunese fishery commodity markets, capital limitation and
for over 400 years. This practice is related to the lack of human resources as the main constraints to
establishment of Haruku Village and their motivation switch the orientation of their livelihood income from
to save lompa fish (Thrissima balema), a sacred fish plantation to fishery systems (i.e. fishing/aquaculture).
species related to the history of the founding of the
village (Mony, 2015). The actors involved in the development of sasi laut
had three main interests, economic, ecological
Climate change in these coastal areas, which is and cultural. The economic interests were normally
characterised by ecological and seasonal changes, represented by communities, businesses and
has provided an understanding for Indigenous local governments. The ecological interests were
peoples about the importance of maintaining sasi represented by the traditional leaders, NGOs,
laut as a local institution to protect coastal areas. universities, donor agencies, environmentalists and
Maintaining sasi laut, amidst the impacts of climate researchers. Cultural interests were represented
change and social transformation, will have an by the Indigenous communities, universities and
important impact on the preservation of coastal and government. This mixture of interests created

84 Communities, conservation and livelihoods

uncertainty about the implementation of sasi laut, as Third, as a social institution, sasi is vulnerable to
kewang were unsure of which motivations to follow, family economic problems during its implementation.
thus weakening sasi laut practices. To overcome this problem, kewang have been
provided a business unit in the form of economic
Community initiatives management of marine tourism. Kewang have some
guest houses with some units rented to researchers
The Indigenous community of Haruku, which had and tourists (local and foreign) visiting Haruku Island,
been more moderate and adaptive to the issues of thereby providing additional income locally.
coastal resource management, drew on cooperation
among actors to further develop sasi laut. Advocacy Fourth, there has been a decline in involvement in
of relationships with outside parties aroused a new kewang that is needed to perform surveillance on
awareness to expand the scope of sasi laut and resources. Some NGOs and donors have noticed
the adaptation of new values in sasi laut gained the problems of kewang regeneration through education
support of the community. Furthermore, the people and training.
were actively involved in such programmes as a
mangrove nursery and rehabilitation of mangrove Fifth, the rise of awareness of kewang, and their
areas in the estuary of the Learisa Kayeli River, one of experience in dealing with outside parties (NGOs,
the lompa fish habitats. The importance of mangrove universities and donors), has encouraged kewang
rehabilitation had been increasingly recognised after empowerment. Kewang of Negeri Haruku have
the occurrence of coastal erosion in the last few established the Foundation of Haru-Ukui Kalesang
years, which directly threatens human settlements to empower kewang in Maluku and coordinate
and other public infrastructure. implementation of inter-kewang of sasi laut in Haruku
Island. Through this foundation, the kewang in
Practical outcomes Haruku Island has facilitated some kewang leaders
from other villages to attend national seminars
Due to both external and internal pressures, changes on coastal conservation and empowerment of
in the political, governance, natural resources Indigenous people.
and societal livelihood systems have affected the
orientation of the sasi laut management system Recently, sasi laut has been developed by expanding
in Maluku, resulting in some positive and negative the objects of conservation, including mangrove
changes: ecosystems, the Gosong bird (Eulipoa wallacei,

First, there has been an increasing awareness of

efforts to protect coastal areas and the natural
resources therein. This awareness encouraged
the emergence of the kewang, assisted by outside
parties, such as NGOs and donor agencies, to widen
the area protection of the sasi laut system on other
resources.

Second, the emergence of gender awareness

has encouraged women’s involvement in the sasi
laut institution. The involvement of women in the
institution was based on the consideration that
one of the dimensions of Indigenous sasi is female,
providing a certain space for the presence of women
in the sasi institution pertaining to the processes of Sasi Laut Festival of Haruku Village
law enforcement against woman offenders on sasi. Photo: Paul Noris

Communities, conservation and livelihoods 85

 or Moloccan scrubfowl), turtles and other coastal References
resources. In addition, sasi laut is supporting marine
tourism through a sasi laut festival in Haruku Village. Central Bureau of Statistics of Central Maluku Regency
(2015). Haruku Island in Figures 2015. Available at: https://
Gender discourse has also been adopted through
malukutengahkab.bps.go.id/publication/2015/11/05/
the representation of women in the local police corps, c7bf99c2cd891d6c31c9263c/kecamatan-pulau-haruku-
kewang. This was facilitated through the efforts made dalam-angka-2015.html
by such external parties as NGOs, donor agencies
and universities. Harkes, I., and Novaczek, I. (2000). ‘Institutional resilience
of sasi laut, a fisheries management system in Indonesia’,
conference paper delivered at the Constituting the Commons:
In terms of legislation, the practice of local
Crafting Sustainable Commons in the New Millennium, Eighth
wisdom in Indonesia, such as sasi laut, has been Biennial Conference of the International Association for the
recognised by the state through various laws and Study of Common Property, Bloomington, Indiana, USA,
regulations. Political and natural resource governance 31 May – 4 June 2000. Available at: http://dlc.dlib.indiana.
changes, coupled with the strengthening of marine edu/dlc/handle/10535/2314
conservation discourse in Indonesia, make sasi
_____ (2001). An Institutional Analysis of Sasi Laut, A
laut more effective for coastal area protection and
Fisheries Management System in Indonesia. Available at:
resources therein. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/42763079_
Institutional_Resilience_of_Sasi_Laut_a_Fisheries_
In Maluku, the strengthening of sasi laut practices is Management_System_in_Indonesia
able to address the challenges of sustainability in the
local system, particularly in implementing traditional Mony, A. (2015). Political Ecology on Coastal Resources
Management: Case Study of Power Relations on Sasi Laut
ecological knowledge (TEK), amid global efforts to
Management in Haruku Island (Ekologi Politik Pengelolaan
develop marine conservation networks. Therefore, Sumberdaya Pesisir: Studi Kasus Relasi Kuasa Pengelolaan
the authority of sasi laut management must be Sasi Laut di Pulau Haruku). Master's thesis. IPB University,
responsive to the dynamics of the political system, Bogor, Indonesia.
economy, law, governance, science and technology.
In conclusion, the transformation of sasi laut should
be aimed at strengthening the capacity of human Acknowledgements
and institutional resources that are adaptive and
Our gratitude is expressed to the community of Haruku
responsive to external changes. Village who has assisted us a lot in collecting data for this
research.

86 Communities, conservation and livelihoods

 São Luiz do Paraitinga and Catuçaba,
Brazil From land degradation and disaster to
conservation and development

Camila A. Islas, Alice R. de Moraes, Juliana S. Farinaci and

Cristiana S. Seixas

Guyana
Venezuela Suriname
France
Colombia

Ecuador

Figure 12 Map of Brazil

and location of São Luiz do
Paraitinga

Peru
Brazil
Brasilia
Bolivia

Paraguay

Chile

Argentina

200 km Uruguay

Key messages
„ Severe land degradation and environmental disasters can act as triggers to
new community conservation and development initiatives and as stimulus to
existing ones.

„ Bridging organisations can foster community initiatives through projects

addressing environmental conservation and restoration in parallel to local
capacity building and community development.

„ Cultural identity can play a central role in engaging communities in projects of

nature conservation.

Communities, conservation and livelihoods 87

 Community profile

São Luiz do Paraitinga (hereafter São Luiz) is a

municipality with about 10,000 inhabitants, located
in Eastern São Paulo State of Brazil, near the Atlantic
coast (Figure 12). The municipality is situated within
the Paraíba Valley, which links the two largest
metropolitan areas in Brazil (São Paulo and Rio de
Janeiro). Out of the ~730 km2 of the municipality’s
area, 10% are encompassed by Serra do Mar State
Park, a protected area, and 13% are in its buffer
Traditional dance presentation at the central square,
zone. The main land uses/cover are pasture (53%) in front of the main church, during the festivity of the
and fragmented forests (37%), while cattle breeding Holy Spirit (2016).
for dairy, forestry and agriculture are the main Photo: A. Moraes

economic activities (Akarui, 2017). The municipality

is also embedded in the Atlantic Forest biome – a In this context lies Catuçaba, a rural district of
hotspot for biodiversity conservation, i.e. one of the São Luiz comprising a village with around 1,000
highly threatened biomes in the world (Myers, 2000). inhabitants and its surrounding rural neighbourhoods.
Most inhabitants make their living from small-scale
The landscape of São Luiz has been shaped by animal husbandry and other smallholding activities
specific material and immaterial cultural features that (Moraes, 2019).
were strongly influenced by coffee plantations from
the early 20th century and by the Caipira way of life, a Until a few decades ago, the village was partially
local designation to a rural livelihood which involves isolated from the urban centre due to poor road
typical food, music, tales, dances and festivities (see access. However, the road connecting the village to
photo). downtown was paved by the year 2000, facilitating
outsiders’ access and products transportation, and
The city’s architectural ensemble is the largest improving the access of villagers and rural inhabitants
historical collection of the State’s architectural to infrastructure, education and health. Tourism-
heritage, and its population proudly keeps alive related activities have been modestly flourishing in
several displays of immaterial culture (Moraes, the territory, supported by its beautiful landscape,
2019). The local economy currently depends on pleasant climate and historical farms.
public services, and the Human Development Index
(HDI = 0.690) is among the lowest in the State’s Conservation and livelihood
municipalities. In this context, cultural tourism and challenges
ecotourism are promising alternatives for economic
development. Land degradation is longstanding in the region.
Agriculture has been practiced since the settlement
Rural communities in Brazil are important SES, of the first colonisers in the late 17th century, in spite
specifically in south-eastern states such as São of the hilly landscape and low nutrient availability
Paulo, where landscapes are highly fragmented and permeability of the soil (Akarui, 2017). Economic
and urbanised. Landscapes there sometimes have cycles (cotton, coffee and cattle), along with poor
patches of native vegetation that are especially soil management techniques, contributed to land
important to wild animals, serving as habitat and degradation, impoverishing the soil, and more
‘stepping-stones’, which generate various ecosystem recently covering the land with Brachiaria, an
services and are also home to human communities invasive exotic grass that poorly feeds the cattle
and their livelihoods (Moraes, 2019). The vast majority and worsens soil permeability. As a result, cattle
of rural properties (96%) in the municipality of São productivity has declined and many landowners fell
Luiz are owned by smallholders (Akarui, 2017). back on other activities to complete their income.

88 Communities, conservation and livelihoods

Meanwhile, due to the promises of better job and
education opportunities in urban centres, rural
out-migration hampered the availability of rural
workers and lowered social cohesion. Currently, land
degradation in such social context threatens most of
the traditional livelihoods.

On 1st January 2010, São Luiz suffered from a flood

of great magnitude, when the river crossing the
downtown area raised over 11 metres above its
regular level in a matter of hours, largely damaging
The scenic landscape around Catuçaba district: degraded
the historical buildings and affecting the whole pastures and patches of biodiversity-rich Atlantic forest
population, both urban and rural. Fortunately, there covering its hills and valleys
Photo: C. Islas
were no fatalities. Other than the high precipitation
registered in end-2009 and early 2010, the flood was
caused by factors linked to land degradation in rural above). The tragedy seems to have reinforced a
areas, such as soil compaction in poorly managed sense of place and local people’s capacity to cope
pastures, fires commonly used to clear land, scarcity and regain their community life with their own hands,
of forests near watercourses and human occupation and at the same time acknowledging and being
of floodplains. grateful for all the solidarity and help they received
from external people and institutions.
Community initiatives12
One of the community initiatives working to improve
In the face of the disaster’s intensity and tremendous conservation and livelihoods was the Comunidade
material losses, the population of São Luiz showed a da Vila (Village Community). In 2012, the Learning
remarkable capacity to self-organise in order to cope Communities initiative began in Catuçaba. The main
with the emergency situation and, later, to rebuild goal of the project was to promote an environment
and restore the functioning of the city. Since the for reflection about nature conservation and local
floods, the territory as a whole has been targeted by development, and to facilitate the planning of
diverse projects focusing on forest restoration, agro- collective actions (Araujo et al., 2017; Moraes, 2019).
ecological production and capacity building. Together with local people, the initiative planned and
organised several cultural events and community
The 2010 disaster stimulated new and ongoing actions over three years (Araujo et al., 2017).
community initiatives, mostly with the help of local Although the project ended in 2015, the community
and regional NGOs and government organisations. continued to meet until 2017, focusing on a street
During the post-disaster reorganisation phase, market with local products, tourism-related activities
the community actively participated in decisions and festivities (Moraes, 2019).
regarding the reconstruction of historical buildings
and other issues. In addition to engineering work
conducted at the government’s initiative, most post-
disaster initiatives focused on keeping the vibrancy of
local cultural manifestations.

The community also showed a remarkable sense

of place and attachment to both São Luiz, similarly
to Catuçaba, and its surrounding area (see photo

12 The data and analyses on the social-ecological system of São Luiz and Catuçaba refer to the period 2012-2017. The authors
acknowledge that changes have occurred in the system since then. Although they are not analysed here, we have added some
information about the current situation, based on non-systematic observation.

Communities, conservation and livelihoods 89

 A local NGO, Akarui,13 had been developing projects funded by the Global Environment Facility (GEF). The
for nature conservation integrated with socio- Recovery and protection of climate and biodiversity
economic development in the region since 2003. After services in the Paraíba do Sul Basin of the Atlantic
the 2010 flood, their prominence increased as Akarui Forest of Brazil project is based on Payments for
members’ attachment to and knowledge about the Environmental Services (PES) and other incentives
territory, in addition to their technical expertise, led for sustainable land management and conservation
efforts to a sustainable development of rural areas in private lands.14 The members of REDESUAPA
of the municipality. Akarui has carried out projects are still in touch with each other, but the network
regarding socio-environmental characterisation, itself is on 'standby mode'. However, the synergies
forest restoration, agro-ecological transition, created by REDESUAPA are reflected in a number
pasture management and improvement of farmers’ of other initiatives concerning local development,
income. The NGO is still working in the territory, conservation and ecological restoration.
currently expanding their initiatives to encompass
environmental education and food security and Practical outcomes
sovereignty.
The development of initiatives is neither easy nor fast,
After the extreme events of 2010 (flood) and but they have certainly been flourishing and creating
2013/2014 (severe drought), more community arenas for community learning, empowerment and
members got interested in taking part in restoration development in São Luiz do Paraitinga (including
projects, and a growing number are willing to adopt Catuçaba). Although the 2010 flood was an important
agro-ecological principles to their production chain. trigger to various initiatives, it is still unclear how
An Agenda 21 plan, built through participatory successful they will be in terms of self-maintenance
methods for the watershed, including guidelines for and mitigating the risk of floods in the future.
its sustainable development, is a featured product of
Akarui. The NGO acknowledges rural communities These bottom-up initiatives have valued rural
as their main partners (Akarui, 2017). livelihoods and fostered opportunities for people
to remain in rural areas. Inhabitants have been
Finally, another initiative named Rede para o self-organising to strengthen their Caipira identity,
Desenvolvimento Sustentável do Alto Paraíba (Upper preserve local traditions (e.g. festivities and foods)
Paraíba River Sustainable Development Network), or and promote local development, with an overall
REDESUAPA, began their work after the 2010 floods. understanding that their good quality of life depends
The network encompasses diverse stakeholders, on nature conservation (Moraes, 2019). Small,
including local leaders, local and state government, low-cost initiatives triggered improvements in
local and regional NGOs and researchers, who met the community capacity to self-organise and act
voluntarily in the municipality. In addition to project collectively for a common goal (Moraes and Islas,
development, REDESUAPA created synergies among 2020), although leadership and broader participation
ongoing efforts and aimed at influencing public of community members in such initiatives remain a
policy based on a systemic view of the territory, and challenge.
promoting ecological restoration, sustainable farming
and community-based tourism. For instance, in Bridging organisations, such as NGOs and
2016, REDESUAPA wrote an open letter addressed university teams, play a crucial role in linking local
to the candidates running for Mayor asking for their stakeholders with one another and with outside
commitment to priority guidelines for urban and institutions (i.e. State Environmental authorities and
rural sustainable development in the municipality. funding agencies), facilitating learning opportunities,
The network played a key role in the efforts to bring fundraising and providing access to technical
investments of a big project to the region, which is advisory (Araujo et al., 2017). In the course of creating

13 For further information, please visit: www.akarui.org.br (in Portuguese).

14 For further information, please visit the website of the project: https://www.infraestruturameioambiente.sp.gov.br/conexao/

90 Communities, conservation and livelihoods

environments where diverse local and outside References
stakeholders can interact and collaborate, the
initiatives have generated a feedback loop, which is Araujo, L.G., Dias, A.C.E., Prado, D.S., De Freitas, R.R.,
Seixas, C.S. (eds.) (2017). Caiçaras e caipiras: uma prosa
attracting more and more initiatives (Moraes, 2019).
sobre natureza, desenvolvimento e cultura (Caiçaras and
caipiras: a prose on nature, development and culture).
Until 2017, several stakeholders were joining Campinas, São Paolo, Brasil: Grupo de Pesquisa em
efforts to work synergistically, for instance through Conservação e Gestão de Recursos Naturais de Uso
REDESUAPA, to positively transform the region’s Comum (CGCommons), Núcleo de Estudos e Pesquisas
landscape at the watershed level. The efforts were Ambientais (NEPAM), Universidade Estadual de Campinas
(UNICAMP). Available at: https://30c07274-acac-4851-
benefiting from both bottom-up and top-down
aca1-731321759162.filesusr.com/ugd/b6df3d_b0a9d63e5d
initiatives, taking into account both local knowledge bf4b83b117aba0d4ad4ab0.pdf
and technical/scientific expertise, and involving
stakeholders with different levels of political power. Akarui (2017). Subsídios para um plano de restauração
Above all, the efforts involved a diverse array of florestal da bacia do Chapéu, São Luiz do Paraitinga, SP
individuals who believe in a more sustainable and just (Recommendations for a forest restoration plan for the
Chapéu river basin. São Luiz do Paraitinga, SP). São Luiz
society, and struggle year after year to accomplish
do Paraitinga, Akarui. Available at: https://6a9df363-4618-
their vision. 4222-848e-c4ccd9c9a57f.filesusr.com/ugd/596978_
c7d96ee7ec924ff393dfff32f68bee64.pdf
In the face of socio-ecological change over the
last decade, various community initiatives towards Moraes, A.R. (2019). ‘Ecosystem services in a hilly rural
conservation and social development have emerged landscape: contributions for resilience-based management’.
Doctoral thesis (Ecology). University of Campinas, Brazil.
in São Luiz do Paraitinga (Moraes, 2019; Moraes
Available at: http://repositorio.unicamp.br/jspui/handle/
& Islas, 2020). Many tourism-related activities REPOSIP/338484
have been developing, especially those regarding
ecotourism (e.g. farm hotels and rafting) and cultural Moraes, A.R., Islas, C.A. (2020). ‘Community responses
tourism (e.g. religious, art and local food festivities). to historical land degradation: Lessons from São Luiz do
More recently, other community initiatives were Paraitinga, Brazil’. In: M. Arce-Ibarra, M.R.B. Vázquez, E.B.
Baltazar and L.G. Araujo (eds.), Socio-environmental regimes
established as local markets of agro-ecological
and local visions. Transdisciplinary experiences from Latin
products and craft fairs. After the 2010 floods, the America, pp. 363–379. Cham, Switzerland: Springer.
municipality drew the attention of many governmental
and non-governmental organisations (NGOs) Myers, N., Mittermeier, R.A., Mittermeier, C.G., da Fonseca,
favouring the emergence of new environmental and G.A.B., and Kent, J. (2000). ‘Biodiversity hotspots for
social initiatives. The success of these initiatives conservation priorities’. Nature 403: 854–858. Available at:
https://doi.org/10.1038/35002501
has depended on population engagement and
participation, as well as aligning to local demands
and inherent dynamics of the local SES. The question Acknowledgements
ahead may be if and how these initiatives will thrive
(or perish) in the long term, and which factors will We thank the population of São Luiz do Paraitinga and,
determine their course. in particular, Catuçaba community, the NGO Akarui and
REDESUAPA for their commitment and availability for our
projects. We also thank SSHRC/CCRN, PREAC/UNICAMP
and FAPESP (Grant 2015/19439-8) for funding and CAPES
and CNPq for scholarships to C.A.I., A.R.M., J.S.F. The project
also received strong support from our entire CGCommons
Team (Commons Conservation and Management Group at
University of Campinas, Brazil).

Communities, conservation and livelihoods 91

 Vila dos Pescadores, Cubatão, state of
São Paulo, Brazil Community well-being,
environmental challenges and livelihoods in
a Brazilian mangrove shantytown
Cintia Nascimento

Guyana
Venezuela Suriname
French Guiana (Fr.)
Colombia

Ecuador

Figure 13 Map of Brazil

and location of Vila dos
Pescadores

Peru
Brazil
Brasilia
Bolivia

Paraguay

Chile

Argentina

200 km Uruguay

Key messages

„ Many members of the community of Vila dos Pescadores rely on artisanal

fishing for their livelihoods.

„ The industrial activity in the Santos estuary has led to the pollution of
mangroves, affecting fish stocks and impacting human and ecological well-
being, notably in the community of Vila dos Pescadores;

„ Although the community works with government institutions, private partners

and local NGOs to improve their community and restore the mangroves, further
dialogue with decision makers is needed.

92 Communities, conservation and livelihoods

Community profile

The community of Vila dos Pescadores (Figure 13)

is an urban slum located in a mangrove area, in the
city of Cubatão, Brazil. This community is located in
the Santos Estuary, where many of the people living
in the community use the mangroves for artisanal
fishing, which is a large source of income for people
living in the area. For many populations in the
mangrove slums of Cubatão, artisanal scale fishing
contributes to their food security.
Fisher in the Santos Estuary
Conservation and livelihood Photo: Cintia Nascimento

challenges
Community initiatives
As an extremely impoverished mangrove-based
region, mangrove conservation is vital to the The Vila dos Pescadores community leader José
livelihood of Vila dos Pescadores community. The Arnaldo dos Santos (Vadinho) works extensively with
mangrove ecosystem serves to secure the land, government agencies, the private sector and NGOs
preventing erosion while stabilising the coast, while to improve the well-being and living conditions of
the roots of mangroves act as filters in retaining community members. Vadinho is a fisher and also
sediment. Moreover, mangroves play an important the president of the Community Association of Vila
role as an exporter of organic matter to the estuary, dos Pescadores.
contributing to primary productivity in the coastal
zone. Many aquatic and terrestrial species with The community association has benefitted
ecological and economic value, such as fish and from a partnership with the Instituto de Pesca
shellfish, are found in mangroves where conditions (Fisheries Institute of São Paulo state, located in
are ideal for breeding, nursery and shelter (Gillam & the neighbouring city of Santos), which gives the
Charles, 2019). community important support about fishers’ rights
and environmental education (Gillam & Charles,
The community of Vila dos Pescadores also suffers 2018). The institute undertakes significant research
from environmental vulnerability by being located in on coastal resource management in the area.
an industrial hub in the Santos Estuary, the largest
port in Latin America. Garbage accumulates in the Aiming to improve the well-being of the community,
mangroves of the community. The pollution affects the community leader Vadinho also works with
fishing by trash accumulation in spawning sites for local private partners and NGOs in the area such
fish and shellfish, and destruction of fish nets. as Teto (roof) (GEF, n.d.). Teto’s community work is
focused on the most excluded slums, with its main
Similarly, environmental disasters in the estuary engine being the joint action of its residents and
harm fishers’ livelihoods by causing fish mortality volunteers who work to generate concrete solutions
and environmental pollution, further affecting the to social problems considered a priority: poverty.
community’s and fishers’ well-being. On 2 April Among other NGOs, Teto’s staff and volunteers
2015, an environmental disaster occurred in worked with Vadinho, aiming for the mobilisation,
the Santos Estuary when a fire occurred in the and self-management and support networks of Vila
Ultracargo fuel company involving six fuel tanks. dos Pescadores community members. The main
Consequently, fishers at Vila dos Pescadores were objective is for the community to achieve their basic
temporarily unable to fish, impacting their main rights, through the regularisation of community
source of income and livelihood as well as their well- members’ property, installation or settlement of
being, as fishing is part of their identity (see photo). basic services, construction of permanent housing

Communities, conservation and livelihoods 93

 and improvement of community infrastructure (GEF,
n.d.). Considering that there are a large number of
people living in shacks in the community of Vila dos
Pescadores, this is an important step in improving
the lives of fishers and other community members.

One of the partnership’s projects aims to assess

sustainability through quality of life with fishers in the
Santos Estuary and the southern coast of São Paulo
state.

Practical outcomes Fisher and her son in the Santos Estuary

Photo: Cintia Nascimento
Residents of Vila dos Pescadores community
highlighted the need for assessing the well-being women also shared pictures of a state government-
of fishers and the community in general, their funded mangrove reforestation project in 1992
livelihoods and conservation challenges, and that involved fishers at Vila dos Pescadores, and
the dialogue between the community and the discussed the need for more mangrove conservation
government. The analysis of fishers’ well-being is projects involving women and fishers in the
important at the policy level to allow interventions, community.
such as selective urbanisation, involvement of fishers
in conservation initiatives and implementation of The relational well-being in the community is relevant
racial consciousness projects in the community. as women in the community, wives of fishers and/
or fishers themselves have reunited to fight for their
Conservation measures are needed for the long rights after the Ultracargo disaster. It proved to be
term, but with the economic pressure weighing a starting point in Vila dos Pescadores for their
on the Santos Estuary as the largest port in Latin fishing, environmental and conservation rights. The
America, often fishers are not a political priority for environmental disaster led community members
any of the three government levels. The existing to get involved with the Fisheries Institute and local
social capital among community members, with key NGOs. Locals are now more engaged as members
leadership from Vadinho, is a first step in fighting for host meetings and post pictures related to fisheries
fishers’ rights and conservation of mangrove areas of issues and mangrove conservation.
Vila dos Pescadores.
Fishers take pride in their profession and profound
Following the Ultracargo disaster in April 2015, environmental knowledge of the mangrove areas
fishers and community members had a ‘wakeup of Cubatão, in the Santos Estuary. Once highly
call’ to fight for their rights. Women and fishers want influential stakeholders, such as environmental
to actively participate in conservation actions in the NGOs and government agencies, give their support
community. For example, fisher Helena Barros held to fishers and community members, conservation
women’s and fishers’ meetings at her house after efforts have a great potential for expansion and
the disaster. Many women in the community reunited improving food security in this impoverished
again to discuss fisheries and livelihood issues. community. With respect to Vila dos Pescadores
community, it has an invaluable pool of social
The women were friends during their adolescence, capital and local environmental knowledge that can
when Helena Barros organised (in her house) craft be channelled to conservation projects. Recently
courses for 35 teenage girls in the 1990s. The girls developed linkages between universities, municipal
learned how to make hand-painted dishcloths for and state government agencies, NGOs and the
sale to improve food security in the community. The community has led to a positive impact on the

94 Communities, conservation and livelihoods

implementation of conservation initiatives in the Acknowledgements
community.
We would like to extend our deep appreciation to the
residents of the community of Vila dos Pescadores, and
Some of the possible solutions to the problems of
particularly to Community Leader José Arnaldo dos Santos
environmental degradation in Cubatão are: investing (Vadinho), fishers Ana Paula Lourenço and Robson dos
in public policies for environmental education Santos and their family for the support for my field trips in the
in slums and the industrial hub; empowering Santos Estuary; and Romeu Magalhaes (Municipal Secretariat
communities in mangrove conservation projects; for the Environment of Cubatão). This research was funded
and intensification of dialogue on environmental and by the Robin Rigby Trust, which also supported development
projects within the community of Vila dos Pescadores.
sustainable development issues among government,
We also acknowledge funding from the Social Sciences
business and civil society. Although dialogue is and Humanities Research Council of Canada, through the
improving, conversations between the community Community Conservation Research Network, and from
and external entities need to continue, and ensure the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of
that the message of conservation reaches the ears of Canada.
policy makers and decision makers.

References

Gillam, C. and Charles, A. (2018). Fishers in a Brazilian

Shantytown: Relational wellbeing supports recovery from
environmental disaster. Marine Policy 89: 77–89. Available
at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2017.12.008

Gillam, C. and Charles, A. (2019). Community wellbeing: The

impacts of inequality, racism and environment on a Brazilian
coastal slum. World Development Perspectives 13: 18–24.
Available at: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/
pii/S2452292917300620

Gillam, C.F. (2016). ‘Effects of Social and Environmental

Inequalities on the Wellbeing of a Slum Community: The case
of Vila dos Pescadores in Southeast Brazil’. Master's thesis
(International Development Studies). Saint Mary’s University,
Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada. Available at: https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.wdp.2019.02.006

Global Environment Facility (GEF) UNDP [website]. Available

at: https://www.thegef.org/project/effective-conservation-
and-sustainable-use-mangrove-ecosystems-brazil

UOL (2013). Map of Cubatao. Prefeita e vice de Cubatão

(SP) têm mandatos cassados, mas seguem nos cargos.
Available at: https://noticias.uol.com.br/politica/ultimas-
noticias/2013/05/24/prefeita-e-vice-de-cubatao-sp-tem-
mandatos-cassados-mas-seguem-nos-cargos.htm

Communities, conservation and livelihoods 95

 Punta Allen, Quintana Roo, Mexico
Community-based ecosystem conservation –
The spiny lobster fishery
Juan Carlos Seijo and Maren Headley

United States

Figure 14 Map of Mexico and

location of Punta Allen

Mexico

Mexico City

Belize

Guatemala
Honduras
El Salvador
Nicaragua

200 km

Key messages

„ Through a combination of community-based co-management and territorial

user rights, the Vigía Chico Cooperative in Punta Allen has had great success
in supporting resource conservation and management, and providing a stable
livelihood for fishers and their community, in part through fishery harvest
strategies used by small-scale fishers to help maintain stable profits.

„ Fishers are building their understanding of the environmental and biological

factors which affect the abundance, spatial availability of the spiny lobster
resource and fishery profitability, and are exchanging knowledge about the
possible effects of climate change and measures that can be taken by the
community for adaptation and resilience.

96 Communities, conservation and livelihoods

Community profile

The Punta Allen community is located at the tip of

a narrow peninsula (Figure 14), and is estimated
to be less than one metre above sea level, with
a population of around 600 persons. The major
economic activities are the spiny lobster (Panulirus
argus) fishery and eco-tourism. The Vigía Chico
Cooperative runs this fishery, which operates in
Ascensión Bay, located in the Sian Ka’an UNESCO
Biosphere Reserve (Miller, 1989; Orensanz & Seijo,
2013; Seijo, 1993; Sosa-Cordero et al., 2008).
Hand-held net used to capture spiny lobsters
Photo: Maren Headley
The bay covers an area of 850 km2 and includes
a variety of habitats, such as mangroves, corals,
sponges, seagrass and macro-algae. For fishing and Conservation and livelihood
management purposes, the bay has been divided up challenges
by the fishers into individual fishing grounds, locally
known as ‘campos’, numbering 115 (Orensanz & Lobster stocks are a valuable resource to many
Seijo, 2013). fishing communities worldwide, and daily changes
in catch rates and profits make it difficult for fishers
In each ‘campo’, fishers deploy artificial shelters, from to make the best decisions throughout the fishing
which spiny lobsters are harvested, by free diving season. Factors which can affect the abundance of
using a small hand-held net, which allows females the spiny lobster include habitat quality, reproduction,
with eggs and undersized individuals to be replaced and environmental conditions such as marine
(see photo above). There are 41 ‘campo’ owners, and currents, hurricanes and climate change. In addition
each owner has exclusive fishing rights within their to the complexity of the fishery, the spiny lobster has
fishing ground. These rights are supported by internal a five-stage life cycle consisting of: (i) adults; (ii) eggs;
working rules of their cooperative and respected (iii) larvae; (iv) post-larvae and (v) juveniles – with
amongst the fishers. The individual fishing grounds each stage occupying different habitats (Lipcius &
where artificial shelters have been introduced Eggleston, 2000). Larvae develop over an estimated
are located in 25 major fishing areas, which are period of six to eight months in the ocean, drifting
characterised by different habitat and bottom types, with the currents and forming connections among
and environmental parameters such as salinity and wider Caribbean spiny lobster populations. Regions
temperature. with populations which produce their own larvae
(sources), and others which receive more larvae than
The fishers have many incentives for a co- they produce (sinks), have been identified (Kough
management approach, including high lobster et al, 2013).
catches, high prices and the cohesive group
structure of the cooperative. Co-management In many cases, these uncertainties lead to resource
has helped the fishery to develop in a sustainable over-harvesting. These types of populations are
manner such that in 2012, it received Marine known as meta-populations and require resource
Stewardship Council Certification. Most of the rules management at the local, national and international
and regulations are set by the fishers themselves. levels. It is therefore important that fishers and
Although the government has set regulations, the coastal communities have a good understanding of
fishers support the co-management approach and these factors.
there is good cooperation between the government
and the fishers.

Communities, conservation and livelihoods 97

 Community initiatives

Being situated in a Biosphere Reserve, the Vigía

Chico Cooperative has a long history of learning
about their local ecosystem and engaging in
conservation initiatives, through partnerships with
research institutions and universities such as the
University of Marista-Mérida. This has helped the
community to build knowledge about:

• factors affecting the productivity and profitability of

Recently constructed artificial shelters on the beach
the fishery and its management implications; Photo: Maren Headley

• environmental and biological factors which affect

the abundance of the spiny lobster resource; In terms of the state of the fishery itself, transparent
and strong leadership has resulted in a unified
• possible effects of climate change on the effort to conserve the spiny lobsters and ensure a
community and fishery, and measures that can be sustainable fishery. The rights-based system has
undertaken for adaptation and resilience; and eliminated the race to fish since each fisher has
exclusive access to lobsters in their fishing ground.
• relationships among catches of spiny lobster, This has also allowed fishers to develop a unique
density of artificial shelters, profitability and fishing harvesting method highly suitable to the area and the
area. resource.

Further studies will help the fishers understand the Another key outcome is in terms of social capital.
relationship among catches of spiny lobster, density There is a strong sense of community cooperation,
of artificial shelters and profitability in the various with fishers working together for the well-being of
fishing areas, and how they can adapt to varying each other, particularly in times when fishing areas
resource abundance and profitability throughout the are affected by heavy rainfall which results in lobster
fishing seasons. migration away from these areas. In these instances,
fishers with fishing grounds in affected areas are
Practical outcomes invited to form a partnership with other fishing
teams. Self-monitoring and self-policing within their
Research partnerships have led to an understanding community has been quite successful. This stems
in the fishing community of seasonal and spatial from an increased sense of fishing ground ownership,
differences in the catches and profitability within the as well as the influence of cultural heritage since
fishing areas. These differences were attributed to the majority of the fishers are third generation,
the following factors: i) how the lobster is distributed, community founding members with strong family ties.
over space and time, across the Bay, and how its
abundance changes; ii) the distance of the fishing
area from the port and its location in relation to the
mouth of the bay; iii) the density of artificial shelters;
and iv) the fishing strategies, such as the choice
of fishing intensity (number of artificial shelters
harvested per trip) and trip frequency, according
to resource abundance, to maintain stable profits
throughout the season.

98 Communities, conservation and livelihoods

References

Kough, A.S., Paris, C.B. and Butler IV, M.J. (2013). ‘Larval
Connectivity and the International Management of Fisheries’.
PLoS ONE 8(6): e64970. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1371/
journal.pone.0064970

Lipcius, R.N. and Eggleston, D.B. (2000). ‘Ecology and

Fishery Biology of Spiny Lobsters’. In: B.F. Phillips and J.
Kittaka (eds.), Spiny Lobsters: Fisheries and Culture, Second
Edition, pp. 1–41. Oxford, UK: Fishing News Book-Blackwell.
Available at: https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470698808.ch

Miller, D.L. (1989). ‘The evolution of Mexico’s Caribbean

spiny lobster fishery’. In: F. Berkes (ed.), Common property
resources: ecology and community-based sustainable
development, pp. 185–198. London, UK: Belhaven Press.

Orensanz, J.M. and Seijo, J.C. (2013). Rights-based

management in Latin American fisheries. FAO Fisheries and
Aquaculture Technical Paper No. 582. Rome, Italy: Food and
Agricultural Organization of the United Nations. Available at:
http://www.fao.org/3/a-i3418e.pdf

Seijo, J.C. (1993). ‘Individual Transferable Grounds in a

Community Managed Artisanal Fishery’. Marine Resource
Economics 8: 78–81.

Sosa-Cordero, E., Liceaga-Correa, M.A. and Seijo, J.C.

(2008). The Punta Allen lobster fishery: current status and
recent trends. In: R. Townsend, R. Shotton and H. Uchida
(eds.), Case studies in fisheries self-governance, pp. 149–162.
FAO Fisheries Technical Paper No. 504. Rome, Italy: Food
and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations. Available
at: http://www.fao.org/3/a1497e/a1497e14.pdf

Acknowledgements

We appreciate the kind involvement and generosity of

the Punta Allen community, and its spiny lobster fishing
cooperative. Community fishers have been a source of
learning and encouragement by sharing fishery knowledge
and community wisdom. We thank Dr Anthony Charles for
the editing of this manuscript.

Communities, conservation and livelihoods 99

 Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada Communities
fighting food insecurity with self-sustaining
initiatives
Sadie Beaton, Miranda Cobb, Will Fawcett-Hill, Marla MacLeod,
Laura Mather, Tiffanie Rainville and Satya Ramen

Iceland
Greenland

United
States

Figure 15 Map of Canada and

location of Halifax

Canada

Vancouver
Halifax

Montreal

United States

500 km
Bermuda

Mexico

Key messages

„ Collective action in an unsustainable social-ecological system can catalyse a

shift towards increased community sustainability when supported with financial
resources and appropriate local institutions.

„ Cross-cultural knowledge sharing and place-based learning are integral to

transforming social-ecological systems at the community level.

„ Social innovation can lead to transformation when supported by a network of

collaborative organisations with a shared set of principles and a united vision to
inspire change.

100 Communities, conservation and livelihoods

Community profile experience food insecurity, and it is strongly linked
to low income and poverty. Furthermore, 19.5% of
Nova Scotia, a Canadian province on the Atlantic children under 18 in Nova Scotia live in food insecure
coast, has a rich cultural fabric, strong food traditions households. These are the highest rates of food
and a long history of fishing, farming and community insecurity among Canadian provinces (ACT for CFS,
self-reliance (Figure 15). Food plays a central role 2014; Tarasuk & Mitchell, 2020).
for personal, community and ecological health, as
well as economic sustainability and vibrant rural and Further undermining the strength of the local food
urban communities (ACT for CFS, 2014). system, Nova Scotian farmers and fishers are
growing older, with an average age of 56 years and
Many communities in Nova Scotia rely on food farm debt in Nova Scotia rose fourfold between 1983
from large chain grocery stores and discount stores and 2010 (Statistics Canada, 2011 and 2012). The
year-round. As a secondary source, and seasonally next generation of farmers is struggling to access
dependent, there are an increasing number of funds and ensure future food supply.
farmers’ markets across the province. However, there
are several communities in which grocery stores are Food security is also connected to the knowledge
physically far away, creating a situation where people and skills needed to prepare fresh foods. With
rely on what’s available at small convenience stores prepared food (often unhealthy ‘fast food’) readily
such as those associated with many petrol stations. available and heavily marketed, along with multiple
These stores typically offer prepared, packaged and demands on our time, preparation of fresh foods
convenience foods that tend to be high in sugar, is compromised. All of this has implications for the
salt and fat, and many do not have facilities to offer healthcare system, with the rates of some chronic
fresh foods. This exacerbates economic and social disease in Nova Scotia being among the highest in
inequalities. the country (Nova Scotia Department of Health and
Wellness, 2012).
Like the rest of North America, the diet of many
Nova Scotians features processed and convenience As a community response to these issues, people
meals, with trends away from whole foods or home began initiating self-sustaining food projects such
cooked meals. In Nova Scotia itself, however, there is as community gardens. In the past, community
a strong history of growing and preserving livestock garden projects conducted by organisations
and produce, which has been resurging through the have not always been successful. The dynamic
food movement over the past decade. of underfunded organisations working with other
equally underfunded organisations meant there was
Conservation and livelihood a propensity for projects to fail or be discontinued.
challenges Over time, it became apparent that enthusiasm was
not enough to sustain individual garden projects,
Unfortunately, several rural and urban Nova Scotian particularly in vulnerable communities.
communities face issues with accessing healthy
and sustainable foods. The rate of food insecurity in Community initiatives
Nova Scotia is the third highest in Canada at 15.4%
(Tarasuk & Mitchell, 2020; see also Tarasuk, Mitchell Since the early 2000s, community-based
& Dachner, 2016; Nova Scotia Government, Finance organisations have been taking a closer look at
and Treasury Board, 2020). local food systems and working to improve access
to healthy, sustainable food. This community story
The 2017–2018 Canadian Community Health describes the work of four community groups
Survey found 15.4% of households in Nova Scotia in Nova Scotia’s capital city, Halifax, towards

All information presented in this community story was adapted with full permission and approval from Ecology Action Centre’s “Our Food:
Reconnecting Food and Community” (Ecology Action Centre, 2015).

Communities, conservation and livelihoods 101

 developing positive food environments: i) the Bayers
Westwood Family Resource Centre (BWFRC); ii) the
Immigrant Settlement Association of Nova Scotia
(ISANS); iii) Mulgrave Park gardens; and iv) Common
Roots’ Urban Farm (CRUF). These groups are linked
through their close relationship with the Ecology
Action Centre (EAC), an environmental NGO that has
been one of the first in Atlantic Canada to begin
connecting food systems and environmental issues.

Bayers-Westwood
The Bayers Westwood community, of Halifax’s
West End, is very diverse, consisting of 358
families, including 60% newcomers. These are
mostly single parent families, with many living on
disability and income assistance. As one community
member described, “The food environment is very
challenging. There is never enough food, the food
bank runs out, and there are hardly any fruit and
vegetables available.”

Since their partnership with EAC, the community Community garden at Bayers Westwood
Photo: EAC staff
garden infrastructure and leadership has grown
significantly. Bayers Westwood Family Resource
Centre hired a seasonal garden coordinator, access, such as through the ability to organise
implemented a percentage of staff time toward seed swaps, bulk food orders and intergenerational
food and garden programs, and established core language exchanges.
volunteer roles for the ongoing maintenance and
coordination of the garden. As a result, they now Garden participants often lack basic social support
have capacity to grow more produce for initiatives that affects their well-being, including their mental
like local pop-up markets, making their own garden health and livelihood outcomes. As one participant
preserves, and increase garden membership. put it, “In my ideal world… I don’t have to make a
According to the centre, factors supporting healthy decision between chicken and detergent.” As another
food access include growing space, knowledge and describes, “I feel better about myself when I am able
skill, and social support. to buy necessities.”

ISANS: Glen Forest and Multicultural Mulgrave Park

Community Gardens Mulgrave Park is a vibrant public housing
ISANS is a community organisation that welcomes neighbourhood with a rich history, comprised of
immigrants to Nova Scotia, offering services and primarily of African-Nova Scotians, in the north
creating opportunities for immigrants to participate end of Halifax, home to over 250 families. Progress
in Canadian life. In 2012, ISANS started their first in the park is a community development initiative
two community gardens; the Glen Forest Garden, that seeks to empower the residents through
followed by the Multicultural Community Garden in entrepreneurial action that inspires inclusiveness and
2013. Although vandalism put the gardens at risk, challenges stigma. One major focus of the initiative
engagement with EAC has increased the capacity is food security, including community gardens. The
to effectively run the gardens. Community members community has developed 12 accessible raised
emphasised the need for social support, indicating beds, which were built to address the needs of
a connection between social coordination and food residents living beside the garden. Due to the

102 Communities, conservation and livelihoods

multiple intersecting social and economic barriers
experienced by the majority of residents, community
members were hesitant to invest in the gardening
project. However, the children’s programme, ‘Plants-
to-Plates’, was incredibly successful at engaging
youth, and many days during the summer kids can
be found playing and working in the garden. As a
result, 70% of youth involved reported eating more
vegetables because of the garden programme which
led parents to become more open to the project.
One parent had this to say about their children: “They
love to help me at the garden, they enjoy watering,
and enjoy the veggies that I have ready. :)” and “I
have the veggies at the garden so I don’t need to
buy. Just pick-up and enjoy and most important, no The HUGS Community Garden in Bayers Westwood
Photo: EAC staff
chemicals!”.

Common Roots Urban Farm access and enjoy healthy, sustainable, local foods.
Common Roots Urban Farm (CRUF) is a community These environments include communal resources like
garden in Halifax, building “a community-built vision community gardens, shared kitchens, greenhouses,
of urban agriculture and productive landscapes” root cellars and even food box deliveries. Actions can
(Food Secure Canada, 2014), and along with over include sharing food, sharing food knowledge, and
100 individual and community plots, is made up of working together to create equitable, healthy and
a market garden, edible landscaping, and places to sustainable community food systems. The garden
sit and relax or learn and work together. Unlike the initiatives strengthen communities’ relationship
other gardens, Common Roots has a large volunteer to food and increase the availability and access
capacity and the majority of participants enjoy a to nutritious food, actively involving people in the
mid-range income. Common Roots also engages development of more localised food systems.
with newcomers and immigrants, many of who are
living on assistance. Through programmes like Deep There are, of course, challenges to be met. For
Roots, they invite newcomers to volunteer on the example, the ISANS community found that access is
farm and employ their extensive farming skills in a also allayed by the availability of culturally appropriate
new climate. In 2017, the first employee hired there food – that is, food that residents would customarily
came from the Deep Roots programme. eat – but food banks do not often serve culturally
appropriate food (or familiar foods). Participants also
Practical outcomes spoke of lacking skills/knowledge on preparing the
different foods. Language and literacy impacted
The community garden initiatives helped build peoples’ ability to buy at the grocery store, and
engagement and foster agency within the community community garden members commented on a lack
and among organisational leaders. In combination of transparency in the food system, and an inability to
with information (knowledge), motivation (attitudes “know what food has chemicals, what is organic and
and beliefs), ability to act (skills, self-efficacy and what is not going to cause harm.”
access), these individuals and groups contribute to
food systems change within their own communities Since that time, several participants in the initiatives
and by joining with others (i.e. through networks). – namely, EAC, ISANS and CRUF – embarked
on a pilot leadership series to up-skill dedicated
In short, the gardens provide ‘positive food community gardeners to support the coordination
environments’, defined by EAC as situations or of their gardens, share gardening skills and increase
cultures where communities are equipped to grow, overall sustainability through enhancing leadership

Communities, conservation and livelihoods 103

 capacity. The series also aims to help support Considering a variety of perspectives is beneficial
agency among community members who may want when addressing complex social problems like
to advocate for programmes. Other initiatives include food security, whether coming from the lens of
exchanging and co-development of resources, as health, environment, social justice or even cultural
well as collaborating on community events such as celebration. There is value in linking communities
farm tours and workshops. together to explore some of the diverse elements
of food security work in an integrated approach,
Government policy recognising food production as just one variable in a
The policy context for gardens on municipal land much larger complex system.
in the Halifax region is positive. For example,
the proposed Centre Plan for Halifax allows This approach has fostered the development and
and encourages urban agriculture. There is an integration of community food programming within
administrative order within the Halifax Regional various Nova Scotian communities. It has also
Municipality that allows community gardens on enabled new cross-sectoral collaborations to emerge
municipal land to sell their produce and reinvest that help address gaps in access to and availability of
the revenue in the garden (i.e. soil). Community healthy foods within a more localised food system.
development and recreation staff with the
municipality may help gardens become established,
helping them with the municipality’s application References
process and facilitating in-kind access to on-site
Activating Change Together for Community Food Security
infrastructure such as water or electricity.
(ACT for CFS) (2014). Making Food Matter: Strategies for
Activating Change Together. A participatory research report
There is no financial support for community garden on community food security in Nova Scotia. Revised edition
implementation from the municipality or the province, (2015). Halifax, NS, Canada: Food Action Research Centre
beyond the possibility of accessing some small (FoodARC), Mount Saint Vincent University. Available at:
grants, such as through the Community Health Board https://foodarc.ca/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Making-
Food-Matter-Report_March2015rev.pdf
funding. There are various other barriers; for example,
to put up a shed or greenhouse on municipal land, Ecology Action Centre (2015). The Our Food Project.
garden groups must secure liability insurance, which Reconnecting Food & Community, 2014–2015. Halifax, Nova
most unincorporated, volunteer community garden Scotia, Canada: Ecology Action Centre. Available at: https://
groups find challenging. In turn, this may impact the www.ecologyaction.ca/files/images-documents/file/Food/
development and expansion of gardens. EAC%20OFP%20AR%20Booklet%20May%2028%20
2015_digital.pdf

Ultimately, food is a topic that connects all of Food Secure Canada (2014). Our 8th Assembly. Available
us. Community garden projects and food skills at: https://foodsecurecanada.org/who-we-are/our-8th-
workshops have proven to be great entry points assembly/birds-eye-view-program/thursday-13
to increase awareness and engagement with food
issues. Community food programmes are tangible Nova Scotia Government. Finance and Treasury Board
(2020). Food Insecurity 2017/2018. Available at: https://
and accessible, building skills and enhancing a
novascotia.ca/finance/statistics/news.asp?id=15544
sense of agency alongside social and community
connections. ‘Positive food environments’ can Nova Scotia Department of Health and Wellness (2012).
also become points of resistance, as community Thrive! Strategy. A plan for a healthier Nova Scotia. Nova
members feel empowered to challenge the Scotia: Communications Nova Scotia.
status quo (Williams, 2016). Without a doubt,
Tarasuk, V. and Mitchell, A. (2020). Household food insecurity
vulnerable populations experience multiple types of
in Canada, 2017-18. Research to identify policy options to
marginalisation related to complex power dynamics reduce food insecurity (PROOF). Available at: https://proof.
that create barriers to agency and food security. utoronto.ca/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/Household-
Food-Insecurity-in-Canada-2017-2018-Full-Reportpdf.pdf

104 Communities, conservation and livelihoods

Tarasuk, V., A. Mitchell and N. Dachner. (2016). Household
food insecurity in Canada 2014. Research to identify policy
options to reduce food insecurity (PROOF). Available at:
http://proof.utoronto.ca

Statistics Canada (2011). ‘Farm debt outstanding –

Agriculture Economic Statistics’. Statistics Canada [website].
Available at: https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/en/
catalogue/21-014-X

Statistics Canada (2012). ‘More farms in Nova Scotia’.

Statistics Canada [website]. Available at: https://www150.
statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/95-640-x/2011001/p1/prov/prov-12-
eng.htm

Williams, P. (2016). ‘“I would have never...”: A Critical

Examination of Women’s Agency for Food Security Through
Participatory Action Research’. In: J. Page-Reeves (ed.),
Women Redefining the Experience of Food Insecurity. Blue
Ridge Summit, PA: Lexington Books.

Acknowledgements

Funding for this work was provided by the Public Health

Agency of Canada (Innovation Strategy).

Communities, conservation and livelihoods 105

 Tsitsikamma, South Africa Food security
and livelihood threats from a marine
protected area
Ella-Kari Muhl

Zimbabwe

Botswana Mozambique

Namibia
Figure 16 Map of South
Africa and location of the
Pretoria Tsitsikamma Marine Protected
Area
Johannesburg Eswatini

Lesotho
South Africa

Cape Town

200 km

Key messages

„ The Tsitsikamma area includes local communities whose food security and
livelihoods have been impacted negatively by various government actions,
notably a no-take marine protected area (MPA).
„ While MPAs are promoted as a long-term conservation strategy, no-take MPAs
threaten the food security and cultural practices of fishers in areas of low
economic opportunity and limited alternative livelihoods or transitional support.

„ A lack of communication between the regulating authority (SANParks) and

the fishers has increased conflict in the Tsitsikamma area and endangered
community members’ food security and livelihoods.

„ Participatory monitoring, with formalised consultation with community

members, may reduce conflict and strengthen conservation goals.

106 Communities, conservation and livelihoods

Community profile et al., 2013). When the legislative change to a “no
take” MPA took place in 2000 under the Marine
Tsitsikamma, or ‘place of much water’ in Khoisan Living Resource Act 18 of 1998, it was shown to
(the local Indigenous language), is an area interlinking affect not only food security for the fishers and their
the Western and Eastern Cape Provinces of South families but also their cultural identity and heritage
Africa. The Tsitsikamma Marine Protected Area (MPA) (Muhl & Sowman, 2020). The Thornham, Stormsrivier,
spans 80 km and affects the food security, cultural Nompumelelo and Sanddrif communities have been
practices and livelihoods of eight communities, reliant on fishing as a form of food security. With the
including Thornham, Stormsrivier, Nompumelelo and loss of access to fish, there has been a reported
Sanddrif (Figure 16). The Tsitsikamma National Park decline in health and increase in crime (Muhl, 2016).
(TNP) MPA was created in 1964, following the 1962
IUCN World Parks Congress. The TNP MPA is the Fishers stated that, in addition, their well-being has
oldest in South Africa. been affected by the closure of the MPA, as fishing is
part of their identity (Faasen, 2006). The current top-
At first, fishing was permitted in certain areas of down governmental conservation programme, which
the Tsitsikamma MPA, with a permit. This was later introduced a no-take MPA as a form of conservation
restricted in 1976 to only one area, before ultimately to promote sustainability and biodiversity, was
becoming a “no-take” MPA in 2000. Since this implemented without consultation with the
year, local fishers have been barred from harvesting community, and subsequently has elevated conflict
marine resources despite historically having had between community members and the regulating
access to the ocean and coastal resources. The authority (Muhl, 2019).
communities have been reliant on mixed livelihoods,
including fishing, for generations. There are currently Food security, customary rights and
5,434 people residing in the four communities who, livelihood impacts
due to low economic opportunity, are reliant on With no alternative livelihood provided, local village
fishing for food security and consider it part of their economies remained limited with few economic
cultural practice. opportunities available. Local household economies
are poor and under severe stress.
Conservation and livelihood
challenges In 2016, for example, only 52.6% of households met
the financial requirements for food security, which
Historically, the South African government enforced
racially exclusionary rules for accessing the coast
and its resources, leading to the marginalisation of
rural coastal communities (especially in the Eastern
Cape and KwaZulu-Natal), which were dependent
on coastal resources for their food security and
livelihoods (Glavovic & Boonzaier, 2007; Sunde, 2014).
In the wake of apartheid, South Africa’s National
Parks have come under increased pressure to
reconcile the wealth of natural resources to the social
and economic needs of the previously oppressed
black rural communities (Faasen, 2006).

The impacts of ‘no-take’ MPA

With the abolition of apartheid and introduction of
democracy, it was hoped that the right of small- The Stormsrivier mouth, which is located centrally in the park,
and would be accessible to fishers; however, it is reserved
scale and subsistence fishers would be restored in for tourists.
accordance with their culture and tradition (Sowman Photo: Ella-Kari Muhl

Communities, conservation and livelihoods 107

 increases fishers’ dependence on marine resources Over time, the community has become increasingly
as a supplementary food source. The Reconstruction mobilised and in 2015, following workshops
and Development Programme (RDP) housing created between the Department of Environmental Affairs
by the South African government in 2001 to create (DEA), Oceans and Coasts Branch, the Department
Nompumelelo village added 480 households to of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (DAFF),
the area, placing additional pressure on resources SANParks, the local municipality (Kou Kamma) and
(Maharajh, 2003). The timing of the completion of representatives from TAF, a decision was made to
RDP housing coincided with the delineation of a open specific areas within the MPA for fishing with
no-take MPA, increasing competition for work and restrictions. The plan to reopen certain areas was
placing strain on local amenities, with already limited approved in December 2015 through promulgation
public services and health care. of a government gazette but was then blocked by
the Friends of the Tsitsikamma, an association that
The change in coastal access and legislation has obtained a court interdict against SANParks, DEA
had a negative effect on the community, with a loss and TAF in January 2016 (RSA DEFF, 2016).
of livelihoods, fishing and recreational activity. The
community describe themselves as being ‘born Legal recognition of historically
on the rocks (coast)’, and claim original ancestry disadvantaged residents
from the Indigenous Khoi-san people, indicating a Following the closure in January 2016, the TNP MPA
consideration of the coast as a part of their culture was rezoned later in December 2016 in the new
and traditions (Faasen, 2006; Muhl et al., 2020). government gazette 40511 (Republic of South Africa,
2016) to allow three controlled fishing areas to be
Many residents in Tsitsikamma have also historically opened.
relied on coastal forests for a range of amenities,
such as medicinal plants, honey and woods for fuels However, the MPA re-opening process has been
and building materials, which they are also denied questioned as consultation was not carried out
access to. with local community members and was poorly
conceptualised with minor practical changes for the
The lack of recognition as stakeholders and the community’s food security or livelihoods.
community’s exclusion from the coastline have
illustrated that unless social and ecological factors At present, community members are required to
are considered in the design of the MPA, illegal purchase a permit. Older fishers and minors are
fishing and conflict will continue between SANParks either prohibited or unable to fish under the new
(South African National Parks) and the local gazette ruling, halting the multi-generational transfer
communities. of knowledge. This prevents the oral traditions
and teachings of the older generation from being
Community initiatives passed to the present. The subsequent absence of
SANParks at the controlled zones prevents fishers
In 1994, the community created the Tsitsikamma from communicating effectively with rangers and
Angling Forum (TAF) to represent local fishers who leads to miscommunication and further resentment
wanted access to the coast. The TAF have formally towards SANParks.
petitioned against the management of the TNP in
1976, 1995, 2006 and 2015. They have also worked The challenges and lack of capacity within SANParks
with a task team comprised of the Kou Kamma reveal the vulnerability of the Tsitsikamma fishing
municipality and SANParks to reopen the TNP in communities and the need to incorporate local
2006, 2014 and 2015. The TAF actively protested ecological knowledge (LEK) and community
SANParks in 2007, when over 70 members fished members into partnerships with researchers and
illegally in the Tsitsikamma MPA. authorities to better manage MPAs.

108 Communities, conservation and livelihoods

Practical outcomes

The Tsitsikamma community have issues of food

security and a lack of economic opportunities
or alternative livelihoods. The creation of the no-
take MPA has disrupted a reliance on fish as a
contribution to food and cultural practices (Faasen,
2006; Muhl, 2019).

The community members (see photo) have identified

five solutions that would be the most beneficial The Thornham Focus Group members with their list of
practical outcomes
towards restoring trust between community fishers Photo: Ella-Kari Muhl
and SANParks:

1 Collaboration 4 Communication
Community members and government officials To empower fishers and effectively promote
need to work together through a duty of care and collaboration, communication is necessary
environmental stewardship for the Tsitsikamma between relevant government departments,
MPA, along with an understanding that fishers SANParks, and working groups made up
would protect the resource, as long as their of interested parties, scientists and elected
cultural rights were preserved and they are community members. Increasing the capacity
allowed access to harvest medicinal plants, fish of and empowering local fishers to participate in
and other forest items sustainably. decision-making processes lead to practical, real
solutions that strengthen ownership and promote
2 Transgenerational access to Tsitsikamma care of the resource.
MPA
Emphasis is placed on elders and minors 5 Acknowledgement of customary rights
being able to access the coast for fishing and and access rights
cultural practices. The older generation hold In order to improve management, increased
the knowledge and cultural practices from their understanding of government officials of the
ancestors – they are instrumental in teaching the fishers’ customary rights and importance
youth the importance of using natural resources of access will foster respect and promote
sustainably and teaching them about the species conservation, as well as help reduce tensions and
of fish, the types of medicinal plants and how conflict between the two parties.
to harvest them in an environmentally friendly
manner. Future concerns
3 Education Dialogue between the community and the regulating
The fishers expressed interest in environmental authorities is improving; however, for there to be
education workshops for both adults and children, a successful conservation impact, policy makers
as almost a whole generation has not had access need to widely consult on proposed changes
to the sea resulting in loss of knowledge. Fishers before implementing them. Top-down processes of
listed workshops as being beneficial so that they government control only serve to further marginalise
could better understand why certain species were the community and promote resentment. A working
not allowed to be caught. This would also help to partnership is necessary to establish trust and
clarify rules as, at present, the new government understanding with an emphasis on local ecological
gazette is unclear and some fishers are unsure of knowledge combined with scientific expertise for
why certain rules are in place. better policy and practice.

Communities, conservation and livelihoods 109

 References Republic of South Africa Department of Environment,
Forestry & Fisheries (RSA DEFF) (2016). ‘Settlement reached
Faasen, H. (2006). ‘Synergies between biodiversity in court on the pilot recreational angling project in the
conservation and sustainable rural development of adjacent Tsitsikamma Marine Protected Area’. RSA DEFF [website].
communities: a case study of the Tsitsikamma National Park’. Available at: https://www.environment.gov.za/mediarelease/
Master's thesis (Conservation Ecology and Entomology). courtsettlement_tsitsikammamarineprotectedarea;
University of Stellenbosch, Stellenbosch, South Africa. https://www.environment.gov.za/sites/default/files/docs/
Available at: https://scholar.sun.ac.za/handle/10019.1/2913 courtjudment_ontsitsikammamarineprotectedarea2016.pdf

Glavovic, B.C., Boonzaier, S. (2007). Confronting coastal Sowman, M., Scott, D., Green, L.J.F., Hara, M.M., Hauck, M.,
poverty: Building sustainable coastal livelihoods in Kirsten, K., Paterson, B., Raemaekers, S., Jones, K., Sunde,
South Africa. Ocean & Coastal Management 50(1–2), J. and Turpie, J.K. (2013). ‘Shallow waters: social science
pp.1–23. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j. research in South Africa’s marine environment’. African
ocecoaman.2006.07.001 Journal of Marine Science 35(3): 385–402. Available at: http://
dx.doi.org/10.2989/1814232X.2013.836134
Maharajh, R. J. (2003). ‘Values and concerns in decision-
making about a waste reduction incinerator at Stormsriver, Sunde, J. (2014). Customary governance and expressions of
Tsitsikamma: A case study in applied ethics’. Master's thesis living customary law at Dwesa-Cwebe: contributions to small-
(Philosophy). University of Stellenbosch, Stellenbosch, South scale fisheries governance in South Africa. Doctoral thesis
Africa. (Environmental and Geographical Science). Department of
Environmental and Geographical Science, University of Cape
Muhl, E.-K. (2016). ‘Food security and livelihood threats: Town, South Africa. Available at: https://open.uct.ac.za/
an investigation into the lives of the fishers bordering the handle/11427/13275
Tsitsikamma National Park’. Honours thesis (unpublished).
University of Cape Town, South Africa.

_____ (2019). ‘An analysis of the Perceptions Surrounding Acknowledgements

the re-Zoning of the Tsitsikamma Marine Protected Area’.
Master's thesis (Environmental and Geographical Science). The author acknowledges the involvement of the community
Faculty of Science, Department of Environmental and members, as well as the support of her supervisors, Philile
Geographical Science, University of Cape Town, South Africa. Mbatha and Professor Merle Sowman.
Available at: https://open.uct.ac.za/handle/11427/31347

Muhl, E.-K., Esteves Dias, A.C. and Armitage, D. (2020).

‘Experiences With Governance in Three Marine Conservation
Zoning Initiatives: Parameters for Assessment and Pathways
Forward’. Frontiers in Marine Science 7: 629. Available at:
https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2020.00629

Muhl, E.K. and Sowman, M., 2020. Rights, Resources,

Rezoning and the Challenges of Governance in South
Africa’s Oldest Marine Protected Area. Conservation and
Society 18(4): 366. Available at: https://doi.org/10.4103/
cs.cs_19_154

Republic of South Africa (2016). ‘Protected Areas Act,

2003, Act No. 57. Regulations for the Management of
the Tsitsikamma National Park Marine Protected Area’.
Government Gazette, Vol. 618, No. 40511, Regulation
No. 10676, 19 December 2016. Pretoria. South Africa:
Government Printing Works. Available at: https://www.
environment.gov.za/sites/default/files/legislations/
protectedareasact57of2003%29_regulations_
sitsikammanationalpark_gg40511_0.pdf

110 Communities, conservation and livelihoods

 Olifants Estuary, South Africa Community
fishing rights, conservation, and threats from
mining

Merle Sowman

Zimbabwe

Botswana Mozambique

Namibia
Figure 17 Map of South Africa
and location of the Olifants
Pretoria Estuary

Johannesburg Eswatini

Lesotho
South Africa

Cape Town

200 km

Key messages

„ Fishers of the Ebenhaeser and Papendorp communities in Olifants Estuary

have strengthened their voice in negotiations and decisions affecting the
estuary and their livelihoods.

„ Increased understanding of the importance of the estuary for conservation,

livelihood and culture – amongst fishers, government officials and other
stakeholders – has led to a greater willingness to work together to achieve
socio-economic and conservation objectives.

„ Proposed mining activities in the vicinity of the Olifants Estuary pose a new
threat to the communities and require ongoing vigilance, mobilisation and
collaboration to defend rights and the environment.

Communities, conservation and livelihoods 111

 Community profile

The people of Ebenhaeser were forcibly removed

from their farmlands near Lutzville in the Western
Cape of South Africa in 1926 and relocated to
unfertile lands adjacent to the Olifants Estuary
(Figure 17). The communities have been reliant on
the estuary for fishing for generations although in
recent years reduced catches have resulted in many
seeking supplemental livelihoods (Sowman, 2009;
Williams, 2013).
View of Olifants Estuary
There are approximately 120 fishing families that Photo: Warren Witte
rely on fishing for food and as a contribution to
livelihoods. They live in two main villages adjacent north bank of the Olifants Estuary. The proposed
to the estuary – Ebenhaeser and Papendorp. The mining area is located on land identified as a critical
fishers use rowboats and gillnets, and mainly fish at biodiversity area. The southern boundary of the
night. The main target species is mullet but there is mining area borders on the sensitive Olifants Estuary
also an incidental catch, or ‘bycatch’, comprising a and associated habitats (approximately 15 km in
few linefish species such as elf and silver kob. extent), while the western boundary is adjacent to the
seashore and extends northwards for approximately
Conservation and livelihood 18 km. To the north of the proposed mining area, an
challenges existing mine is currently operating under the same
Australian company.
The Ebenhaeser and Papendorp communities face
several challenges to their livelihoods, including Fishers at the Olifants Estuary, as well as other
threats to close the fishery and proposals to build a community members, are particularly concerned
mine adjacent to the Olifants estuary. about the negative impacts that the proposed mining
activities may have on estuarine habitats, water
Closure of the gillnet fishery quality and sediment movement as well as scenic
Over the past 20 years, traditional small-scale fishers views and sense of place. Of particular concern is its
at the Olifants Estuary have been facing threats from effect on local livelihoods and plans for conservation
fisheries scientists and conservationists to close as well as a community tourism development at the
the gillnet fishery. A government policy published mouth of the estuary.
in 2005 required that gillnetting be phased out by
2014, while a draft estuary management plan (EMP) Although the Basic Assessment Report for the
published in 2008 recommended the estuary be prospecting phase has indicated that no drilling of
declared a no-take marine protected area (MPA). The experimental holes will take place on the estuary
community rejected both the policy and draft plan on banks (Sowman, 2017), fishers are concerned that
the basis of inadequate participation in the decision- once approved, environmental controls may be
making process, and failure to recognise their socio- ignored. Fishers are also concerned that should
economic and cultural rights. prospecting yield favourable results and mining be
approved, the company will request permission to
Proposed mining adjacent to the estuary extend the mining operation into the estuary and out
In April 2016, an Australian mining company, with to sea, as it happened at the existing mine site.
various subsidiaries in South Africa, submitted a mine
prospecting application for heavy mineral sands, The lack of accessible information, consultation
including zircon, phosphates, garnet, precious stones and transparency associated with the initial basic
and diamonds on two farms that lie adjacent to the environmental assessment process led civil society

112 Communities, conservation and livelihoods

to submit objections questioning the integrity of and other interested parties, in November 2013.
the process and the initial assessment report. The EMP was consequently revised to address
Despite these objections, the Minister approved the the rights and interests of the fishing and land
report, which led to a formal appeal procedure in claimant communities. The deliberations and
2018 where fishers, with support from their social negotiations amongst estuary rights-holders and
partners, raised objections to shortcomings in the stakeholders have enhanced understanding and
public participation process and the quality of the trust amongst different stakeholders, providing an
assessment report. Two of the appeals were upheld enabling environment to advance efforts to achieve
by the Minister of Environmental Affairs and the sustainable livelihoods and conservation objectives
applicant was required to undertake further public (RSA DAFF, 2012).
consultation and prepare a biodiversity assessment
of the estuary. However, a revised report has not A key success to the finalisation of the EMP was
changed the fisher community’s steadfast opposition a decision to establish a community conservation
to mining in the area. area (CCA) at the mouth of the estuary that would
be co-managed with local community members.
Although there is a policy and legislative framework While progress has been slow to formalise the CCA,
in place to regulate the mining sector, the increasing significant progress has been made in bringing
power of that sector in South Africa (with strong different groups together including representatives of
political backing), presents a serious threat to coastal the land claimants, fishers, conservation authorities
communities like those living adjacent to the Olifants and other estuary stakeholders, to discuss and
Estuary. The people of Ebenhaser and Papendorp define the boundaries of the CCA, seek agreement
are facing threats to their livelihoods and way of life – on traditional land use practices on land adjacent to
this time due to mining proposals. the protected area (i.e. grazing of sheep on the salt
marshes during periods of drought) and to develop
Community initiatives maps demarcating the area. The next steps in the
process include: i) examining various legal entities
Working with community partners, the Olifants for formalising the CCA; ii) clarifying the roles and
Estuary fishing communities are addressing the responsibilities of fishers and conservation officials in
challenges facing their community. the co-management arrangement; and iii) identifying
community members to participate in a conservation
Challenging threats to close the gillnet training programme.
fishery
The Olifants fishing communities collaborated with While there is renewed support from various
partners (University of Cape Town, Masifundise conservation agencies to accelerate the process
Development Trust and the Legal Resources Centre) to declare a conservation area at the mouth of the
to challenge proposals to close the fishery and estuary, especially with the threat of mining, the
instead developed an alternative vision and set of process has been slow due to institutional blockages.
fishery management proposals for the estuary. The
proposals recognise the fishers’ rights to resources, Challenging the mining proposition
while addressing conservation and fisheries Fishers of the Olifants Estuary are once again forced
management objectives. to mobilise the community, and enlist support
from researchers, NGOs and CSOs to address
Based on longstanding local and scientific the new threat. The recent events highlight the
knowledge, as well as extensive deliberations power of mining interests, and confirm that certain
amongst fishers and their social partners over departments (mining) wield more power than others
a four-year period, the fishers’ proposals were (environment) and are still working in silos, pursuing
presented to the Olifants Estuary Management their sectoral mandates without due consideration
Forum, a group of representatives from relevant of the context and the rights and interests of local
government departments, local famers, fishers communities. Once again, it rests on the poor and

Communities, conservation and livelihoods 113

 marginalised to be vigilant and find ways of tackling
proposals that could undermine the ecological
integrity of the system, their livelihoods and way of
life. Clearly, the partnerships that have developed
over the years between the local fishers, researchers
and NGOs have enhanced their capacity and agency
to engage with traditionally powerful actors and
challenge decisions that affect their rights.

Legal recognition of fishing communities

Between 2016 and 2019, the fisheries authority, the
Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries,
began putting in place procedures to implement the Young fisher setting off to catch fish
Small-scale Fisheries Policy promulgated in 2012 Photo: Jackie Sunde

(RSA DAFF, 2012). The policy recognises small-scale

fishers as a legal category of fishers and commits to vulnerability of coastal fishing communities in South
protect their rights, give preferential access to coast- Africa, and the importance of building networks and
dependent communities and provide support to partnerships to challenge unfair decisions, tackle
develop this new sector. complex administrative procedures and defend local
rights.
The development and promulgation of the new
policy and set of regulations (RSA DAFF, 2016) Practical outcomes
was seen as a victory for small-scale fishers who
have been struggling to gain legal access to • A much greater appreciation of the rights and
resources traditionally harvested since the advent of interests of different users and stakeholders with
democracy in 1994. However, implementation of the interests in the Olifants Estuary has emerged,
policy is proving complex and challenging, as many which has been useful in discussions with the
thousands of fishers find themselves excluded from government regarding future management of the
the process due to stringent criteria developed by estuary and fishery.
the national government which determines who is • Increased understanding amongst fishers
qualified or not as a bona fide small-scale fisher. and government officials of the importance of
the estuary for conservation, livelihoods and
Some of the traditional fishers of the Olifants culture and an initiative to declare a community
Estuary have been left off the official ‘list’ of those conservation area at the mouth of the estuary.
qualifying for long-term fishing rights to resources • A greater willingness amongst fishers and
in the Olifants Estuary. Ongoing work to challenge conservation agencies to work together in a co-
government decisions regarding who gains access management arrangement to achieve livelihood
to resources continues. and conservation objectives.
• Increased capacity and empowerment of fishers
Thus, despite a new policy which seeks to to challenge unjust proposals, plans and policies,
recognise and protect small-scale fishers and and participate in planning and decision-making
communities, fishers, such as those living at processes.
Ebenhaeser and Papendorp, fishers are at risk of • Revision of the Olifants Estuary Management Plan
being marginalised due to complex administrative to include fisher’s proposals for management of
procedures, a legalistic approach to interpreting the the fishery.
new regulations, inadequate communication with • The gillnet fishery has not been closed despite
government, and lack of capacity and skills at the government’s intention to close it at the end of
local level to challenge complex state governance 2014.
systems alone. These challenges, together with • Strengthening of partnerships between fishers,
the new threat of mining, highlight the ongoing university researchers and other social partners.

114 Communities, conservation and livelihoods

References

Republic of South Africa, Department of Agriculture, Fisheries

and Forestry (RSA DAFF) (2012). ‘Policy for the Small-scale
Fisheries Sector in South Africa’. Government Gazette 35455,
20 June 2012. Pretoria, South Africa. Available at: https://
www.nda.agric.za/docs/policy/policysmallscalefishe.pdf

_____ (2016) Regulations relating to Small Scale Fishing GNR

229 GG No. 39790, dated 8 March 2016.

Sowman, M. (2017). ‘Turning the tide: strategies,

innovations and transformative learning at the Olifants
estuary, South Africa’. In: D. Armitage, A. Charles and
F. Berkes (eds.). Governing the Coastal Commons:
Communities, Resilience and Transformation, Chapter 2,
pp. 25–42. Earthscan Routledge. Available at: https://doi.
org/10.4324/9781315688480

_____ 2009. ‘An Evolving Partnership: Collaboration between

‘experts’ and a net- fishery’. Gateways: International Journal
of Community Research and Engagement 2: 119–143.
Available at: https://doi.org/10.5130/ijcre.v2i0.1174

Williams, S. (2013). ‘Beyond rights: Developing a conceptual

framework for understanding access to coastal resources
at Ebenhaeser and Covie, Western Cape, South Africa’.
Doctoral thesis (Environmental and Geographical Science).
Department of Environmental and Geographical Science,
University of Cape Town, South Africa. Available at: https://
open.uct.ac.za/bitstream/handle/11427/4819/thesis_
sci_2013_williams_samantha.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

Acknowledgements

The author acknowledges the involvement of various fishers

of Olifants Estuary as well as students from the University
of Cape Town who have participated in research and
development work with fishers of the Olifants Estuary over
the past few years: Nico Waldeck, Jackie Sunde, Serge
Raemaekers, Samantha Williams, Wayne Rice, Nadine
Soustchka and Tayla Louw. The involvement of NGOs, such
as Masifundise Development Trust and the Legal Resources
Centre, have been critical to challenging unjust government
decisions and building capacity amongst fishers in their quest
for recognition and respect of their rights.

Communities, conservation and livelihoods 115

 Chilika Lagoon, India Reflections on
community conservation
Prateep Kumar Nayak

Afghanistan

China

Pakistan
New Delhi Figure 18 Map of India and
Nepal location of Chilika Lagoon
Bhutan

India
Bangladesh
Myanmar

300 km Sri Lanka Malaysia

Indonesia

Key messages

„ Fisher communities in the Chilika Lagoon should be an integral part of policy

creation for lagoon conservation and governance.

„ Community-based institutions can be revived and re-engaged in the

management of capture fishery in order to strengthen fishery-based community
livelihoods and food security.

„ In Chilika Lagoon, the majority of outmigration is temporary or seasonal

in nature, which makes it possible for migrating fishers to reoccupy their
customary fishing spaces if aquaculture is vacated.

116 Communities, conservation and livelihoods

Community profile

Connected to the Bay of Bengal in the south, with

the Eastern Ghats mountain ranges forming most
of its catchment on the north and the west, Chilika
Lagoon is a Ramsar Site of international conservation
importance and a biodiversity hotspot (Figure 18).

Rare, vulnerable and endangered species inhabit the

lagoon. It is the largest wintering ground for migratory
waterfowl found anywhere on the Indian subcontinent
Aquaculture ponds in Chilika
and home to Irrawaddy dolphins and the Barkudia Photo: Prateep Nayak
limbless skink. The total number of fish species is
reported to be more than 225. Along with a variety of
phytoplankton, algae and aquatic plants, the lagoon policy changes were implemented in early 1990s to
region also supports over 350 species of non-aquatic support aquaculture, including provisions to lease out
plants. A survey carried out by the Zoological Survey lagoon areas to non-fishers for aquaculture activities.
of India in 1985-87 recorded over 800 species of Another detrimental force on the Chilika lagoon was
fauna. This represents a solid ecological foundation the opening of a new sea mouth to the Bay of Bengal
to the lagoon’s small-scale fisheries system. in 2001, which has had a direct impact on biophysical
processes and, by extension, associated livelihood
The Chilika community systems. Some of the key challenges resulting from
Regional biodiversity is an integral part of sustaining the above two scenarios are described below:
the culture and livelihoods of the roughly 400,000
fishers and their families, who live in more than 150 Conservation consequences
villages. People in these villages have been engaging • Disturbance of the salinity regime and the fresh
in customary fishing occupations for generations. The water/saltwater balance.
fishery consists of traditional fisher groups whose • Random changes in water depth.
vocation is identified by their membership in certain • Increase in sand deposits, especially in the
Hindu castes: there are seven different types of fisher lagoon’s outer channel areas near the new sea
castes and five sub-castes in Chilika. The lagoon mouth.
ecosystem also indirectly supports 800,000 non- • Changes in the nature of the water inflow and
fisher higher caste villagers (e.g. Brahmins, Karans, outflow during high and low tides.
Khandayat and Khetriyas) in the watershed areas, • Infestation of barnacles affecting both fishers and
whose occupants traditionally engage in farming, their equipment.
forestry and other livelihood occupations. • Sudden appearance of what local people call sea
creatures, such as the stingray, octopus and jelly
Conservation and livelihood fish.
challenges
Social and livelihood consequences
Due to large-scale forest and land degradation, • Fish production reached an all-time low, and the
subsistence based on agriculture and forestry is on small-scale fisher economy, efficiently run by
the decline. Consequently, a number of non-fisher caste-based fishers and their organisations for
caste members have now turned to aquaculture, centuries, began to collapse.
and in some cases regular capture fishing as a • Household incomes dropped as a result of the
growing source of income (see photo). In the 1980s, decline in fish production, contributing to the loss
for example, as shrimp aquaculture grew, questions of fishery-based livelihoods.
arose about access, usage rights and changes to the • Local subsistence and household economies
rules of the game in the lagoon fish economy. Several came under stress, severe food insecurity in fisher

Communities, conservation and livelihoods 117

 communities became evident, increasing fishers’
dependence on staggering amounts of cash loans
with interest rates of 60%–120% per annum.
• More than one-third of adult fishers and their
families were occupationally displaced from fishing
and either migrated to urban centres as unskilled
workers or took up daily wage labour.
• Elite capture of customary fishing areas through
encroachment acted as a vehicle for the growth
of aquaculture in Chilika. Influential people took
control of the lagoon resulting in serious issues
around fishers’ access rights and entitlements.
Chilika fisher protest movement
Photo: Prateep Nayak
Community initiatives

Fishers use a well-known metaphor which best Livelihood reactions from fishers include efforts
explains the level of their response to these at diversification of occupation such as seasonal
challenges and initiatives: “For the poor, when outmigration and non-fishing income activities.
hunger becomes unbearable, movement and
protest becomes our last resort”. This suggests Traditional village institutions have taken initiative to fill
that social and political struggles and movements the gap created by the gradual dysfunctionality of the
are the ultimate options for the fishers when social, primary fishing cooperative societies due to recent
economic, political and environmental problems policy changes and decrease in fish production.
become rampant. Fishers realise that when To plan for the future, within the villages, several
everything seems to be going against them and community meetings and policy workshops have
nothing really works in their favour, coming together been held.
to protest the acts of the external forces becomes an
obligation. During 2018, the Chilika Development Authority
undertook one of the largest ever removal of illegal
In the past, such protest movements have been aquaculture activities in the lagoon as per the
effective. In 1992, for example, the Tata Industrial pending court orders. As a result, close to 100%
Group withdrew due to massive protest and of aquaculture farms closed down in Chilika. The
lobbying by fishers which resulted in a denial of government initiative was view in a positive light by
environmental clearance to the corporation from the the fisher communities and became a landmark
central environment ministry. Legal activism gave rise event in rebuilding collaboration with the state
to successful court cases in the State High Court departments. However, given the involvement of
and Federal Supreme Court, leading to a ban on powerful people and social elites in aquaculture,
aquaculture in and around the lagoon. and due to local caste politics, it remains to be seen
whether (and how soon) the lagoon might be back
In 1999, an anti-aquaculture protest movement was under the aquaculture influence again.
launched by the Fisher Federation with support
from the National Fishworkers Forum (India) Practical outcomes
(https://nffindia.org/wp/) and the World Forum of
Fish Harvesters and Fish Workers (https://www. A series of specific proposals arose from community
worldfisher-forum.org/who-we-are). The Chilika Fisher meetings, including:
Federation continues to play a leadership role in
fighting for fishers’ rights. • Fishers expressed their desire for priority to be
given to community level institutions, while also

118 Communities, conservation and livelihoods

 recognising that other institutions at multiple levels References
can work together with local institutions.
• Communities feel that the dominance of higher- Nayak, P. K. and F. Berkes. 2010. ‘Whose marginalisation?
Politics around environmental injustices in India’s Chilika
level government institutions can be minimised
Lagoon’. Local Environment 15(6): 553–567. Available at:
and bottom-level institutions, who often do not https://doi.org/10.1080/13549839.2010.487527
get an opportunity to participate in fishery related
decision-making, should gain some much-required Additional readings on Chilika Lagoon
political space and voice.
• The fishers also noted the need to revise some of Nayak, P.K. (2014). ‘The Chilika Lagoon Social-Ecological
System: An Historical Analysis’. Ecology and Society 19(1): 1.
the earlier institutions that have been dissolved by
Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-05978-190101
the government, such as the Central Fishermen
Cooperative Marketing Society, or those that _____ (2015). ‘Institutional Pluralism, Multilevel Arrangements
have become dysfunctional such as the Primary and Polycentricism: The Case of Chilika Lagoon, India’. In:
Fishermen Cooperative Societies at the village M. Bavinck and A. Jyotishi (eds.), Conflict, Negotiations and
level. Natural Resource Management: A legal pluralism perspective
from India, pp. 148–177. London, UK: Routledge.

Along with the above points, the fishers are interested _____ (2017). ‘Conditions for Governance of Tenure in
in pursuing a possible solution to the governance Lagoon-Based Small-Scale Fisheries, India’. In: S. Jentoft, R.
issues faced in the Chilika lagoon through the Chuenpagdee, M.J. Barragán-Paladines, N. Franz (eds.), The
introduction of a polycentric system of governance Small-Scale Fisheries Guidelines: Global Implementation, pp.
– one which would involve multiple authorities at 165–189. The Netherlands: Springer. Available at: https://doi.
org/10.1007/978-3-319-55074-9
differing scales, rather than a monocentric unit,
and with each authority having considerable _____ (2017). ‘Fisher communities in transition: understanding
independence to make their own norms and rules. change from a livelihood perspective in Chilika Lagoon, India’.
Suggestions for polycentric arrangements came from Maritime Studies 16:13. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1186/
the fishers, with a key element being that the fishery s40152-017-0067-3
institutions in the Chilika lagoon would have some
Nayak, P.K. and Armitage, D. (2018). ‘Social-ecological
authority to create regulations, to tap the community’s
regime shifts (SERS) in coastal systems’. Ocean and
local knowledge and learn from others engaged in Coastal Management 161: 84–95. Available at: https://doi.
similar systems. org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2018.04.020

Although many of the required institutions are Nayak, P.K., Oliveira, L.E. and Berkes, F. (2014). ‘Resource
already present in the lagoon, a shift to a polycentric degradation, marginalization, and poverty in small-scale
fisheries: threats to social-ecological resilience in India and
arrangement would make the responsibilities and the
Brazil’. Ecology and Society 19(2): 73. Available at: http://
authorities of each institution clear, and make it easier dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-06656-190273
to hold institutions accountable when they detract
from their responsibilities. Fostering communication
between governing authorities would, for example, Acknowledgements
elicit and share information about what has worked
well in one setting of the lagoon, ensuring that if one I would like to thank the fishers of Chilika Lagoon for their
unconditional friendship, support and collaboration. My
governing authority fails there are others that can be
work in Chilika has been funded by the Social Sciences and
relied upon. Humanities Research Council (SSHRC) of Canada.

Communities, conservation and livelihoods 119

 Qeshm Island, Iran Community-led
conservation and ecotourism
Razieh Ghayoumi and Anthony Charles

Kazakhstan

Georgia Russia
Uzbekistan
Armenia
Azerbaijan
Turkey Turkmenistan

Syria Figure 19 Map of Iran and

location of Qeshm Island
Tehran

Iraq
Iran Afghanistan

Kuwait

Pakistan

Saudi Arabia Bahrain

Qatar

United Arab
200 km Emirates Oman

Key messages

„ The people and communities of Qeshm Island, a UNESCO Global Geopark,

have a strong connection to the land and sea. This connection, and a strong
sense of environmental belonging, has encouraged them to actively participate
in community conservation, and to develop sustainable livelihoods.

„ Qeshm Island is home to sacred sites and species, which can provide a
foundation for community-based conservation areas.

„ Ecotourism offers economic, ecological and conservation benefits to the

residents of Qeshm Island, while being respectful to the local culture and new
forms of livelihood.

120 Communities, conservation and livelihoods

Community profile

Qeshm Island (Figure 19) is the largest island in the

Persian Gulf, Southern Iran - about 130 km long and
11-35 km wide (Karami et al., 2018; UNESCO, n.d.).
The weather is hot and humid with mild and short
winters. In 2016, the total population was 148,993.

In 2017, Qeshm Island was declared a UNESCO

Global Geopark (a geographical area where sites
and landscapes are of international geological
significance).15 Notably, the island includes Qeshm Tela sacred wells in historical port of Laft, Qeshm Island
County, on the eastern part of the island, and the Photo: Razieh Ghayoumi

Hara Protected Area, on the north coast (UNESCO,

n.d.). and build the economy in a way that fits with local
values. The local communities reflect a sense of
Qeshm Island is well known due to the region’s belonging, livelihood needs and spiritual and social
historical background, customs, traditional clothes, values in their involvement with conservation, and
fishing, festivals, sacred sites and ecotourism in learning how to develop tourism based on their
attractions, such as mangrove forests, turtle natural attractions and their culture (Qeshm Free Area
hatcheries, coral reefs, coastal diversity, marine Organization, 2013).
mammals and attractive geographical phenomena
(Qeshm Free Area Organization, 2013; Duchaine Culture
et al., 2010). The main sources of income for the
people on Qeshm Island are fishing and maritime Communities are working to maintain or restore
trade (Duchaine et al., 2010). various cultural activities. Among them are the
following three examples drawn from Ghayoumi
Conservation and livelihood (2014):
challenges
1 In Salakh village, in the south of the island, as
Local communities on Qeshm Island face numerous well as other communities, celebrations of the
threats and obstacles to sustainable development, Fisherman’s Norooz (Norooz-e Sayyad) – a ‘new
including lack of recognition, inappropriate tourism, year’ for the fishery – take place in late July. On
climate change, acculturation (influx of non- this day, people do not fish or consume seafood,
native people for trade and visiting), inappropriate believing that the aquatic resources need a break
development, illegitimate jobs (smuggling clothes for reproduction. They swim in the sea, in order
and foods), overfishing, pollution, capacity for oil/gas/ to be fresh and healthy until the next Fisherman’s
mineral exploration, habitat reduction, hot weather, Norooz. In the festival, people wear new clothes,
limited fresh water resources and lack of appropriate prepare many types of traditional foods, and
infrastructure. engage in traditional drumming, dance and plays
(Amani, 2013; Moormogoui et al., 2013).
Community initiatives
2 Various tree species are considered sacred by the
Two decades after development grew on Qeshm local people. One of these is the fig tree (loor or
Island, the local people have shown resilience to lool, its local name), large trees that are respected
detrimental change and increased their efforts to particularly as a result of the shade they provide,
keep traditions alive, conserve the environment important in hot weather. Fig trees have a deep

15 For further information, please see: http://qeshmgeopark.ir/en/pages/geopark/unesco-global-geopark

Communities, conservation and livelihoods 121

 connection to Indigenous life and culture, with
some even having their own individual names, and
some being considered ‘wish trees’ as people
believe their wishes will be granted by the tree
(Fallahtabar, 2017).

3 Tela wells (in the historical port of Laft) are sacred

to the local people. The wells are ancient but their
age is unknown. There were once 366 wells, each
with a specific name. However, due to storms and
earthquakes in recent years, the number of wells
has been reduced to around 100 (Dashtizadeh, Setting up a safe place for turtle egg hatching and monitoring
2012; Dashtizadeh et al., 2013; Negahban & in Shibderaz village, Qeshm Island
Photo: Razieh Ghayoumi
Jamadi, 2012).

4 In the past, methods for efficient water use were This protected area could be developed in a manner
extremely important, as was the sustainable use that draws on the successful models practiced in
of natural resources. A female water guardian, other countries, such as Australia, and incorporates
or water master known as a Mirab, carried out research, monitoring and education (Smyth, 2008).
traditional water management (Dashtizadeh, In any case, the model used should be localised to
2012). Due to climate change, decreases in water fit the needs and aspirations of the Qeshm Island
resources and cultural changes in water use, community. Mechanisms, such as Indigenous marine
as well as the modernisation of lifestyles and resource use, monitoring, research and education,
consumption patterns, local people use these could be used to help manage areas of interest,
wells much less than before. since there is recognition of the value of a mixture
of techniques and conservation approaches. Such
Conservation an initiative will create more opportunities for the
local people to become involved with conservation
Local residents of Qeshm Island voluntarily and tourism activities. In this regard, governmental
participate in conservation programmes such as and non-governmental organisations (NGOs),
sea turtle (Hawksbill) conservation (Hawksbill). In universities and research institutes could benefit
Shibderaz Village, in collaboration with the village from the support of the island community to develop
council and Qeshm Free Zone Organization, around local capabilities, and should provide assistance to
25 km of the south coast has been declared a turtle establish a community-based marine conservation
breeding and hatchery area. area through community involvement, networking,
workshops, training activities and research.
During the nesting and hatchery season, local people
educate the public, patrol beaches, tag turtles, Practical outcomes
collect eggs, transfer eggs to special safe sites and
guard the eggs (see photo). Women make different Qeshm Island, as a special place of biodiversity and
kinds of handicrafts with the sign of the sea turtle. history, has many tourist attractions specific to the
They also have ecotourism activities to introduce their island’s features, such as the traditional architecture
village and turtle conservation programme to tourists called louvers, which are particularly prevalent in the
(UNDP/GEF/SGP, 2003). historical port of Laft. Water reservoirs spread out
everywhere on the island and dhow (fishing boat)
The appreciation for the benefits of conservation has building and traditional dance and folk music are part
led to local interest in building a community-based of the traditions of the local residents (Qeshm Free
marine and coastal conservation area on Qeshm Area Organization, 2013; Dashtizadeh et al., 2013;
Island, before development makes a greater impact. Negahban & Jamadi, 2012).

122 Communities, conservation and livelihoods

Communities lead various ecotourism activities, Planning) 8(4): 369–393. Available at: http://www.jgeoqeshm.
including tours to see dolphins, mangrove forests, ir/?_action=article&au=470492&_au=Karami,%20Zein%20al-
Abedin (in Persian)
turtle nesting sites, coral reefs, nature attractions,
natural sacred sites, historical tours and scuba Moormogoui, M., Fazel and M. Zobeiri, A. (2013). Norooz-e
diving. Tourists can also purchase handicrafts and Sayyad Festival (Fisherman Annual Ceremony) Monthly News
enjoy local food cooked in a community member’s Magazine Qeshm Island Geopark No. 2: 3. Available at: http://
home (Qeshm Free Area Organization, 2013). Such qeshmgeopark.ir/files/files/file/586adba6-bb85-4b50-9677-
activities have provided economic, social and 7b9f8db0d178/Qeshm%20Island%20Geopark%20The%20
Land%20of%20Beauties%202.pdf (in Persian) (Accessed 30
environmental benefits to the community, including
March 2020).
job creation and reduction of the rate of emigration.
It seems that the increase in forms of ecotourism Negahban, M. and Jamadi, A. (2012). The Architecture of
that focus on community traditions and natural Qeshm Island. Maahoma: Tehran, Iran. Available at: http://
attractions has provided Qeshm Island residents qeshmgeopark.ir/files/files/file/41517395-884e-4ce0-88b0-
with the opportunity to preserve and maintain their a1dcfb6fd0f6/The%20Architecture%20Of%20Qeshm%20
Island.pdf (in Persian)
culture and natural resources, notably the traditional
practices that are, on Qeshm Island, often associated Qeshm Free Area Organization (2013). Qeshm Geopark
with conservation and sustainable use of natural Guide. Qeshm Free Zone, Hormozgan Province, Iran: Qeshm
resources. Geopark. Available at: http://qeshmgeopark.ir/files/files/
file/04f4eed6-4e8d-4e63-9f97-326f3460c3ce/Qeshm%20
Geopark.pdf
References
Smyth, D. (2008). ‘Just Add Water? Taking Indigenous
Protected Areas into Sea Country’. In: D. Smyth, and G. Ward
Dashtizadeh, A. (2012). Qeshm; Heritage of the Persian Gulf.
(eds.), Indigenous Governance and Management of Protected
Cultural Heritage, Handicrafts and Tourism Organization.
Areas in Australia, Chapter 8 pp 95-110. E-book published by
Qeshm Free Zone Organization.
the Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
Studies. Available at: https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/
Dashtizadeh, A., Fazel, M. and M. Zobeiri, A. (2013). Laft Port
in “Qeshm Island Geopark, the Land of Beauty”, Monthly News
United Nations Development Programme/Global Environment
Magazine, Qeshm Island Geopark, No. 1: 3. Available at: http://
Facility/Small Grants Programme (UNDP/GEF/SGP) (2003).
qeshmgeopark.ir/files/files/file/b5f913ab-fe3c-490c-97b9-
Onshore Preservation of Hawksbill Turtle Eggs through
607f1cebd14a/Qeshm%20Island%20Geopark%20The%20
Community Participation. Shibderaz, Qeshm. Project Number:
Land%20of%20Beauties%201.pdf (in Persian)
IRA-G52-2003, 2004 & 2007- 024(IRA98G52). Available at:
http://sgpgef.ir/uploads/Community%20based%20turtle%20
Duchaine, J., Hughes, H., Flippin, A. L. and Murphy, S. (2010).
conserv%20(216u).pdf
Frommer’s 500 extraordinary islands. Hoboken, N.J: Wiley
Publishing Inc.
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
(UNESCO) (n.d.). ‘Qeshm Island UNESCO Global Geopark
Fallahtabar, N. (2017). ‘The state of ecotourism in sustainable
(Islamic Republic of Iran)’. UNESCO Earth Sciences [website].
development of Qeshm (By utilizing of SWOT model)’. Quarterly
Available at: http://www.unesco.org/new/en/natural-sciences/
of Geography (Regional Planning) 7(1): 29–42. Available at:
environment/earth-sciences/unesco-global-geoparks/list-of-
http://www.jgeoqeshm.ir/article_44986.html (in Persian)
unesco-global-geoparks/iran/qeshm-island/

Ghayoumi, R. (2014.) Marine and Coastal Indigenous and

Community Conserved Areas (ICCAs) in the South of Iran
and a Review of Related Laws. The United Nations-Nippon
Acknowledgements
Foundation Fellowship Programme. Division for Ocean Affairs
We are grateful to the Division for Ocean Affairs and the
and the Law of the Sea. Office of Legal Affairs. United Nations.
Law of the Sea, United Nations, as well as the Department
New York. Available at: https://www.un.org/depts/los/nippon/
of Environment of Iran, which enabled this research. We
unnff_programme_home/fellows_pages/fellows_papers/
would also like to acknowledge the local people who are the
Ghayoumi_1314_Iran.pdf
traditional custodians of Qeshm Island.
Karami, Z., lotfi, H., Naseri Manesh, A. (2018). ‘Planning tourism
development in Iran with emphasis on the development of
Persian Gulf islands; Qeshm Island’. Geography (Regional

Communities, conservation and livelihoods 123

 Indigenous communities in Bolivia’s
northern Amazon Opportunities and
challenges

Alison Macnaughton

Pando Brazil

Figure 20 Map of Bolivia and

Peru location of Pando and Beni
Beni Departments

La Paz

Bolivia

Chile
Paraguay

200 km
Argentina

Key messages

„ Introduced fish species in the Bolivian Amazon could provide Indigenous

communities with livelihood opportunities, but may also be a threat to their
critically-important subsistence fisheries through predation and territorial
exclusion.

„ Local fishery organisations can be strengthened through ongoing dialogue,

leadership training and technical assistance.

„ Engaging with local, regional and national level actors and promoting open
spaces of dialogue (workshops, round table groups) can help identify common
interests, resolve conflicts and support discussions on future planning.

124 Communities, conservation and livelihoods

Community profile

The river systems of the northern Bolivian Amazon

(Pando and Beni departments) are home to a number
of Indigenous groups (among them are Chácobo,
Pacahuara, Takana, Cavineño and Esse Eja), who
have historically practiced traditional hunting and
gathering (Figure 20). A region of flood forests,
upland tropical forests and savannahs, it is home to
a high diversity of fish species and is considered of
high ecological significance (Carvajal-Vallejos et al., Traditional houses in Baketi community, TCO Cavineño (2015)
2014; Ibisch et al., 2003). Photo: A. Macnaughton

In 1996, after more than a century of colonial exacerbate local challenges (Macnaughton et al.,
exploitation for rubber and Brazil nut harvesting, the 2016).
Ley del Servicio Nacional de Reforma Agraria, better
known as the INRA Law of 1996 for Agrarian Reform, Fisheries based on abundant and diverse native
marked the start of a process of redistribution of land fish are a cornerstone of local subsistence for most
to Indigenous groups, as traditional users, organised communities and a secondary livelihood for some.
into communal tenure arrangements designated as However, the future of the native species fishery
Tierras Comunitarias de Origen (Original Community is somewhat uncertain, due in large part to an
Territories, or TCOs). There are currently four introduced species, paiche (Arapaima gigas). The
TCOs in the region, established in the early 2000s, world’s largest scaled fish, paiche was brought in
with a combined area of 1.5 million hectares, and 1965 to the headwaters of Madre de Dios River
a population of 8,200 people spread out in 93 (Peru) (Carvajal-Vallejos, 2011). This air-breathing and
communities, mostly located close to rivers or lakes fast-growing fish has spread into a significant portion
with limited access to regional urban centres. of the Bolivian Amazon (Carvajal-Vallejos et al., 2014)
and is now relatively abundant in lakes and river
The main livelihood activities in TCOs include eddies. In other parts of the Amazon Basin, where
seasonal harvesting of Brazil nuts and other non- it is native, paiche is an iconic species with high
timber forest products, family-based agriculture commercial value, a history of over-exploitation and
(yucca, plantain), and year-round hunting and fishing. some successful community-based conservation
initiatives (Castello et al., 2011). Although paiche are
Regulations created at the level of the TCO not native to Bolivia, they remain sensitive to fishing
establish which types of resources may be used for pressure.
subsistence and/or commercial use, and recognise
each community’s areas to fish, hunt and harvest, Since the 1990s, unmanaged commercial fisheries
with shared-access arrangements, where necessary. in the Bolivian Amazon have been rapidly increasing;
In most cases, there is also a need to develop more current production is estimated to be upwards of
specific local and regional resource management 7,000 tonnes per year. The rapid expansion is largely
plans. attributed to increasing paiche fisheries.

Conservation and livelihood To date, few Indigenous communities take part in

challenges the commercial fishing of paiche on a regular basis,
despite the need for income-generating opportunities
Illegal entry by outsiders for unregulated activities, and high, unsatisfied demand for fish in regional
such as commercial logging and fishing, poses a markets. This behaviour may be due to a variety of
significant threat to resources. Additionally, high factors, including cultural norms, distance from and
rates of poverty, food insecurity and vulnerability access to markets, inadequate equipment (nets)

Communities, conservation and livelihoods 125

 poor access to cold-storage (ice) and low returns to
producers.

Urban-based fishers from the main regional port

of Riberalta now target paiche almost exclusively
and sometimes invade TCOs to access the lakes
where paiche is most abundant. Such activities
have contributed both to conflicts and to new
opportunities for trade, although equity remains a
concern (Salas & Macnaughton, 2015). For TCOs,
paiche could be a livelihood opportunity, but may
also be a threat to critical subsistence fisheries
through predation and territorial exclusion.

Community initiatives

Since 2011, the Indigenous communities have

engaged in research with the Asociación Faunagua,
World Fisheries Trust and the University of Victoria Fisheries based on abundant and diverse native fish are a
cornerstone of local subsistence for most communities and
(Canada) to better understand the fisheries situation, a secondary livelihood for some.
and identify pathways to improve livelihood and Photo: A. Macnaughton

food security in the region. Much of this work has

focused on the paiche, providing key information common interests, resolve conflicts and discuss
on abundance and impacts, as well as potential for future planning (Salas & Macnaughton, 2015).
development. So far, these efforts have provided
important information on: Practical outcomes

• Nutritional status and food security of rural and Indigenous governments in the region were able
urban populations and key determinants, including to express concerns and priorities directly to the
the contributions of fish (Baker-French, 2013); national government through a national multi-
• Fisheries and other livelihood activities, and local stakeholder workshop held to discuss issues and
perspectives about paiche; and opportunities surrounding paiche. This was also
• Fishery value chains and mechanisms to improve an opportunity to meet with representatives of
transparency and promote greater economic commercial fishing.
equity between fishers, middlemen and markets
(Macnaughton et al., 2016; Coca et al., 2012). Subsequently, the Ministry of Environment passed an
• There have also been a range of practical administrative resolution for paiche fishery regulation
initiatives, including: and management, authorising paiche fishing in
• Pilot initiatives for value-added fish production, protected areas (PA) and TCOs as a conservation
for example, the establishment of a cooperative measure to protect native fauna.
in one of the Indigenous communities, where
paiche fillets and skins (for leather production) are While the presence of paiche and associated
produced and sold at improved prices; concerns about how to manage them has
• Strengthening local fisheries organisations through contributed to a significant increase in public
ongoing dialogue, leadership training and providing attention to the fisheries sector in Bolivia, there
technical assistance, i.e. consolidation of the is still a need for greater attention to the specific
regional fisher association; and situation of Indigenous fisheries. Notably, in terms
• Engaging with local, regional and national level of development and implementation of resource
actors and promoting open spaces of dialogue management plans within the current TCO system,
(workshops, round table groups) to identify including monitoring. Enforcement of exclusive

126 Communities, conservation and livelihoods

access to aquatic resources must also be improved Coca Méndes, C., Rico López, G., Carvajal Vallejos, F.,
to better protect resources and/or benefits to Salas Peredo, R., Wojciechowski, J.M. (2012). La Cadena
de Valor del Pescado en el Norte Amazónico de Bolivia:
Indigenous people.
la contribución de especies nativas y de una especie
introducida (el paiche – Arapaima gigas) (The Fish Value
Specific needs for the Indigenous communities Chain in the Northern Amazon of Bolivia: the contribution
include: of native species and an introduced species (the paiche
– Arapaima gigas). La Paz, Bolivia: Embajada Real de
• Capacity-building for communities and local Dinamarca, IDRC, Fundación PIEB. Available at: https://www.
pecesvida.org/content/4-publicaciones/2-publicaciones-
organisations to identify and articulate local needs
tecnicas/14-la-cadena-de-valor-del-pescado-en-el-norte-
and priorities for development and conservation. amazonico-de-bolivia-contribucion-de-especies-nativas-
• Development and implementation of resource y-de-una-especie-introducida-el-paiche-arapaima-gigas/
management plans and other governance tools at cocaal.2012-cadena-de-valor-del-pescado.pdf
a local level.
• More effective engagement in regional planning. Ibisch, P., Chiv, J., Espinoza, S. and Araujo, N. (2003). ‘Hacia
un mapa del estado de conservación de los ecosistemas
• Support for greater transparency, communication
de Bolivia’ (Towards a map of the state of conservation of
and cooperation between agencies responsible for Bolivia's ecosystems). In: P. Ibisch and G. Mérida (eds.),
regulating fishing and fish markets. Biodiversidad: La riqueza de Bolivia. Estado de conocimiento
• Improving returns to fishers, for example, through y conservación, pp. 264–272. Santa Cruz de la Sierra, Bolivia:
value-added opportunities or improved pricing Ministerio de Desarrollo Sostenible, Editora FAN.
structure.
Macnaughton. A.E., Rainville, T.K., Méndez, C.I.C, Ward,
E.M., Wojciechowski, J.M., Carolsfeld, J. (2016). Gender
transformative approaches with socially and environmentally
References vulnerable groups: Indigenous fishers of the Bolivian Amazon.
In: J. Njuki, J. R. Parkins, A. Kaler (eds.), Transforming
Baker-French, S.R. (2013). Food Security and Nutritional Gender and Food Security in the Global South, Chapter
status in Fishing Communities in Bolivia’s Northern Amazon: 9, pp. 217–240. London, UK: Routledge and International
Results of a Household Survey. Master's thesis (Human Development Research Council. Available at: https://doi.
Nutrition). University of British Columbia, Canada. org/10.4324/9781315564111

Carvajal-Vallejos, F.M., Van Damme, P.A, Cordova, L. and Salas, R. and Macnaughton, A. (2015). Improving governance
Coca, C. (2011). ‘La introducción de Arapaima gigas (paiche) in fisheries and fish farming in the Bolivian Amazon basin
en la Amazonía boliviana’ (The introduction of Arapaima gigas (Stories of Change) [online]. Available at: https://www.
(paiche) in the Bolivian Amazon). In: P.A. Van Damme, F.M. idrc.ca/sites/default/files/sp/Docume nts EN/Improving-
Carvajal-Vallejos, J. Molina (eds.), Los peces y delfines de la governance-fisheries-fish- farming-Bolivia.pdf (available in
Amazonía boliviana: habitats, potencialidades y amenazas, Spanish version)
Chapter 15, pp. 367–396. Cochabamba, Bolivia: INIA,
Imprenta Unicornio. Available at: https://www.academia.
edu/1434883/La_introducci%C3%B3n_de_Arapaima_
Acknowledgements
gigas_paiche_en_la_Amazon%C3%ADa_boliviana
This work was supported by Peces para la vida (Amazon
Carvajal-Vallejos. F.M., Bigorne, R., Zeballos Fernández,
Fish for Food Project), through the Canadian International
A.J., Sarmiento, J., Barrera, S., Yunoki, T., Pouilly, M.,
Food Security Research Fund, a programme of Canada’s
Zubieta, J., De La Barra, E., Jegú, M. et al. (2014). ‘Fish-
International Development Research Centre (IDRC)
AMAZBOL: a database on freshwater fishes of the Bolivian
and Global Affairs Canada. The author would like to
Amazon’. Hydrobiologia 732: 19–27. Available at: https://doi.
acknowledge the Asociación Faunagua, in partnership with
org/10.1007/s10750-014-1841-5
FEUPECOPINAB (Federation of Fishermen, Fish Sellers and
Aquaculturists of the Bolivian North Amazon) and the fishers
Castello L., Stewart, D.J. and Arantes, C.C. (2011). ‘Modeling
and communities of TCOs Chácobo-Pacahuara, Cavineño,
population dynamics and conservation of arapaima in the
Tacana-Cavineño and Territorio Multiétnico II (TIM II) who are
Amazon’. Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries 21: 623–640.
leading efforts together towards more sustainable fisheries
Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11160-010-9197-z
and improved livelihoods in the region.

Communities, conservation and livelihoods 127

 Clayoquot Sound, Canada Community
engagement in a UNESCO Biosphere Reserve
Laura Loucks

Iceland
Greenland

United
States

Figure 21 Map of Canada and

location of Clayoquot Sound
UNESCO Biosphere Region

Canada

Vancouver
Halifax

Montreal

United States

500 km
Bermuda

Mexico

Key messages

„ Collective action in an unsustainable social-ecological system can catalyse a

shift towards increased community sustainability when supported with financial
resources and appropriate local institutions.

„ Cross-cultural knowledge sharing and place-based learning are integral to

transforming social-ecological systems at the community level.

„ Social innovation can lead to transformation when supported by a network of

collaborative organisations with a shared set of principles and a united vision to
inspire change.

128 Communities, conservation and livelihoods

Community profile more sustainable resource management practices
in fishing and logging. In the forestry industry,
For millennia, the Indigenous Nuu-chah-nulth people unresolved Aboriginal land claims and corporate
have had strong cultural and livelihood connections rights to Timber Forest Licenses were at the heart
with terrestrial and marine ecosystems in the of unsustainable land use. For example, logging
west coast of Vancouver Island, Canada. Within companies commonly built roads along steep
this area, Clayoquot Sound is located primarily in mountain slopes, despite the high risk of soil erosion
the Nuu-chah-nulth Ha’ huulthii (homelands) of and damage to stream and river habitats. Similarly,
Hesquiaht, Ahousaht and Tla-o-qui-aht First Nations, large tracts of old growth rainforest were clearcut,
encompassing nearly 350,000 hectares of a complex causing significant ecological damage, without the
and globally significant social-ecological landscape consent of the Nuu-chah-nulth Ha’ wiih, who carry
(Figure 21). the traditional responsibility to preside over and
protect the Nuu-chah-nulth Ha’ huulthii (Murray &
The ecosystems of Clayoquot Sound are rich in King, 2012).
biodiversity and characterised by a large contiguous
canopy of old growth rainforest, covering steep-sided However, in 1982 the affirmation of Aboriginal
coastal mountains throughout six salmon-bearing rights and treaty rights within Section 35 of the
river watersheds. Canadian Constitution marked an enormous shift
in Canadian Law (Harris, 2009). These rights were
There are five different species of Pacific salmon further strengthened in the seminal Meares Island
which originate from the rivers of Clayoquot Sound Case, which catalysed a transformation process still
and each supports some element of culture, underway in Clayoquot Sound (Harris, 2009).
economy and food supply for eight different
communities within the region: Hesquiaht, Ahousaht, In 1984, a coalition of leaders and residents from Tla-
Opitsaht, Tofino, Estowista/Ty-Histanis, Ucluelet, o-qui-aht First Nation and the town of Tofino sought
Hitacu and Macoah. to protect Meares Island, within Clayoquot Sound,
from being logged by the MacMillan Bloedel forestry
In 2000, Clayoquot Sound was designated a company. The Nuu-chah-nulth Tribal Council claimed
United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural the island as part of the traditional territory to which
Organization (UNESCO) Biosphere Reserve. The it had Aboriginal title and sought a court injunction
nomination for the protected area was made after against the logging of the island. Subsequently,
more than a decade of conflict and community the logging company requested their own court
action to prevent the logging of old growth coastal injunction against the coalition. In an unprecedented
temperate rainforests. The key conservation decision, the British Columbia Court of Appeal
goals of UNESCO Biosphere Reserves are granted the injunction to the Nuu-chah-nulth based
to conserve biodiversity and to safeguard the on the irreversible damages of unsustainable forestry
sustainability of natural and managed ecosystems practices (Harris, 2009). In the words of Justice
by uniting communities and nations in peace and Seaton,
cooperation, through education, science, culture and
communication (UNESCO, 2017). “It appears that the area to be logged will be
wholly logged. The forest that the Indians know
Conservation and livelihood and use will be permanently destroyed. The
challenges tree from which the bark was partially stripped
in 1642 may be cut down, middens may be
Resource extraction, conflict and collective destroyed, fish traps damaged and canoe runs
action despoiled. Finally, the island’s symbolic value will
Over the last 50 years, local communities have be gone. The subject matter of the trial will be
constantly struggled to assert local access rights to destroyed before the rights are decided.” (Harris,
Crown resources and shape government policies for 2009, p. 149).

Communities, conservation and livelihoods 129

 The victory of the Meares Island Case also marked
the beginning of the Tla-o-qui-aht assertion of
rights and title to the Meares Island Tribal Park, and
an additional 10 years of conflict (Murray & King,
2012). In 1994, in an effort to resolve an escalating
environmental campaign, the British Columbia
government announced a Scientific Panel for
Sustainable Forest Practices in Clayoquot Sound.
Through this, the Nuu-chah-nulth principle of hishuk-
ish-ts’awalk (everything is one and interconnected)
inspired a set of new protocols designed to respect
Preparing a traditional Nuu-chah-nulth salmon bake as
both traditional ecological knowledge (TEK) and a surprise gift to visiting students who shared respectful
scientific knowledge systems (Lertzman, 2010). relations with the Yułuʔiłʔatḥ people and Hitacu community.
Photo: Cayley Webber
Recommendations of the scientific panel were
eventually instituted through watershed management
plans that now provide the foundation for adaptive organisations with new governance models based
ecosystem management in the region. One plan is in on the shared desire to build a sustainable future on
the Indigenous community of Ahousaht, where Chief West Coast Vancouver Island. One such example is
Maquinna has noted: the Clayoquot Biosphere Trust (CBT), which is led by
a voluntary board of directors, representing all local
“The Ahousaht believe that this is the beginning First Nations and communities within the Clayoquot
of a new era, based on recognition and Sound Biosphere Reserve, with a vision:
celebration of Ahousaht people and culture,
conservation of the world- class forest and “…to live sustainably in a healthy ecosystem with
marine resources of Clayoquot Sound, and the a diversified economy and strong, vibrant and
development of a more diversified, sustainable united cultures while embracing the Nuu-chah-
local economy, including community forestry.” nulth First Nations living philosophies of iisaak,
(Maaqutusiis Hahoulthee Stewardship Society, (living respectfully), qwa’aak qin teechmis (life in
2017). balance) and hishuk ish ts’awalk (all things are
connected)” (CBT, 2014a).
A recent challenge concerns the decline of fishing
and logging livelihoods over the last decade. On the In monitoring community development trends using
other hand, employment in nature tourism has rapidly a range of sustainability indicators, CBT raised the
grown, and is now one of the main economic forces above-noted tourism issue. Given the potential
for West Coast communities, attracting over one negative impacts, local leaders worked to identify
million visitors per year (CBT, 2016). However, several ways to diversify tourism livelihoods with elements
warning signs indicate the steady growth of tourism of the knowledge and sharing economy. A new
has potentially exceeded the sustainable capacity West Coast learning initiative (Loucks et al., 2015)
of many communities within the Biosphere Reserve. was started, including (i) an initiative to identify
For example, the escalating rise in the number of community education needs and priorities, involving
West Coast visitors is strongly correlated with the local organisations, educational institutions and
increased seasonal demand on emergency medical government agencies; (ii) partnerships between
services, increased summer drought vulnerability, organisations throughout the Biosphere region and
lower average income levels and a reduced supply of between municipal and provincial governments, to
long-term affordable housing units (CBT, 2016). align job training priorities; and (iii) leveraging of funds
within the region to support an education asset
Community initiatives inventory (CBT, 2014b) and research on the feasibility
of education tourism to build local learning capacity
Today, the principles and protocols established by and develop a visitor market demand for place-based
the scientific panel are embodied in local community education (Loucks et al., 2015).

130 Communities, conservation and livelihoods

In 2016, a collaboration of the CBT, First Nations,
municipal governments, local education organisations
and destination marketing organisations, launched
the West Coast NEST (Nature, Education,
Sustainability, Transformation) to connect people to
all current learning opportunities offered in the region,
focusing on four key market sectors: university field
schools; professional development courses; adult
learning; and youth learning opportunities.

The vision is to enable all local community members

and education-oriented organisations to participate Nuu-chah-nulth Elder Ray Haipis, from Yułuʔiłʔatḥ territory,
fully in the learning economy, together with visiting instructing visiting university students on how to paddle
a traditional Nuu-chah-nulth canoe to navigate harbour
learners (Loucks et al., 2015). By linking learning with currents.
tourism, the West Coast NEST is creating a global Photo: Cayley Webber
network of learners who can help catalyse a new local
economic opportunity, while shifting values towards • Stewardship-in-place: every community has an
sustainable livelihoods. outdoor classroom and a place to learn from the
land.
Nested within the Nuu-chah-nulth values of iisaak, • Holistic hands-on learning: we learn best by
qwa’aak qin teechmis and hishuk ish ts’awalk, applied learning and practice.
the education tourism initiative is an opportunity to • Cultural safety and sharing: we create safe spaces
transform conventional tourism to attract a different for learning and healing across cultural boundaries.
type of visitor: one who wants to stay longer on the
West Coast, learn from local people, experience Practical outcomes
local culture and contribute to stewardship of this
ecologically significant place. The West Coast learning initiative has demonstrated
innovative solutions for sustainable livelihood
In this manner, local community organisations are challenges. As more organisations contribute to
working to shift away from an unsustainable tourist education programme development, education
‘consumer’ economy and moving incrementally initiatives for local and visiting learners increase,
towards a new ‘conserver’ economy, where broken resulting in a broader distribution of economic
cultures are restored and damaged SES are re- benefits and sustainable livelihood options. In
built. The communities see education tourism as 2017, for example, 75 educational courses and
having the potential to support an economic return 356 educational events were offered, over 150
from visiting learners while expanding local learning temporary work opportunities were created delivering
opportunities. educational courses, and 712 temporary positions
were created to deliver educational events. In
Seven principles for education tourism 2019, these benefits have expanded to include 320
educational courses, 1,032 educational events, 66
• Attract co-learners: we welcome others to learn seasonal positions and 2,064 temporary positions.
with us.
• Community reciprocity: we share benefits between The West Coast NEST motivates both lateral and
communities. vertical connectivity across local communities in
• Local knowledge holders are experts: local people the region, as well as organisations who share
are reimbursed for expenses faced in sharing their a vision for higher learning and contribute to
knowledge. sustainable economic diversification. Working
• Learning networks of practice: together, we are within the principles and values of a Nuu-chah-nulth
creating a culture of learning and collaborative worldview helps to guide a regional vision for higher
problem solving. learning while also supporting a shared culture of

Communities, conservation and livelihoods 131

 place-based stewardship. Likewise, training has CBT (2014b). Regional Education Asset Inventory. Tofino, BC,
been provided for over 40 students of a leadership Canada: Clayoquot Biosphere Trust. Available at: https://
clayoquotbiosphere.org/files/file/5d6f46b85bb19/Regional-
program, from Nuu-chah-nulth and non-Nuu-chah-
Education-Asset-Inventory_final.pdf
nulth communities, who continue to volunteer their
time to local community projects. CBT (2016). Clayoquot Sound Biosphere Region’s Vital
Signs 2016. Tofino, BC, Canada: Clayoquot Biosphere Trust.
Local economic development capacity is growing Available at: https://clayoquotbiosphere.org/research/vital-
with the following programmes: First Nation Tourism signs
Training certificate, governance training, grant writing
Harris, D. (2009). ‘A Court Between: Aboriginal and
workshops, strategic career management training Treaty Rights in the British Columbia Court of Appeal’.
and Critical Incident Stress Management Training in BC Studies162 (Summer): 137–152. Available at:
partnership with three First Nations and the Justice https://commons.allard.ubc.ca/cgi/viewcontent.
Institute of British Columbia. cgi?article=1181&context=fac_pubs

Lertzman, D.A. (2010). ‘Best of two worlds: Traditional

The measurable benefits from education tourism
Ecological Knowledge and Western Science in Ecosystem
help to support local municipal government plans based Management’. Discussion Paper. BC Journal of
and policies to further diversify the tourism economy Ecosystems and Management 10(3): 104–126. Available
and invest in sustainable economic development. at: https://jem-online.org/index.php/jem/article/
The town of Tofino, for example, identifies several download/40/12
economic development goals in support of education
Loucks, L., Thicke, C., Bird, G., White, B. and Harris, R.
tourism such as the goal for Tofino to become
(2015). Education Tourism Market Development Strategy for
a centre of excellence in learning, research and the Pacific Rim Knowledge Initiative. Royal Roads University,
development. Sooke, BC. Available at: https://clayoquotbiosphere.org/files/
file/5d6f46888bfc9/2015-Pacific-Rim-Education-Tourism-
In summary, the West Coast NEST is an example of Market-Development-Strategy.pdf
how cross-cultural collaboration, knowledge sharing
Maaqutusiis Hahoulthee Stewardship Society (2017).
and place-based learning are integral to transforming
Ahousaht Land Use Vision. Press Release, 25 January 2017.
SES at the community level. As the number of Available at: http://www.mhssahousaht.ca/news/press-
education opportunities grow, more options for release-ahousaht-land-use-vision
new and innovative forms of sustainable livelihoods
naturally unfold, especially when supported by Murray, G. and King, L. (2012). ‘First Nations Values in
municipal government sustainable economic Protected Area Governance: Tla-o-qui-aht Tribal Parks and
Pacific Rim National Park Reserve’. Human Ecology 40:
development initiatives. All these actions, when
385–395. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10745-012-
taken together, help to support the ground swell of 9495-2
social change and transformation underway in the
Clayoquot Sound UNESCO Biosphere Reserve. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural
Organization (UNESCO) (2017). Final Report of the Twenty-
ninth session of the International Co-ordinating Council
(ICC) of the Man and the Biosphere (MAB) Programme.
References
Paris, France, 12–15 June (2017). Available at: http://www.
unesco.org/new/fileadmin/MULTIMEDIA/HQ/SC/images/
Austin, M.A., Buffet, D.A., Nicholson, D.J., Scudder, G.G.E.
FINAL_29MAB_ICC_REPORT_ENG.pdf
and Stevens, V. (eds.) (2008). Taking Nature’s Pulse: The
Status of Biodiversity in British Columbia [online]. Victoria,
BC, Canada: Biodiversity BC. Available at: http://www.
biodiversitybc.org/EN/main/downloads/tnp-introduction. Acknowledgements
html
Support for this story was provided by the Community
Clayoquot Biosphere Trust (CBT) (2014a). ‘Vision’. CBT Conservation Research Network (CCRN) and the Clayoquot
[website]. Available at: https://clayoquotbiosphere.org/about- Biosphere Trust (CBT).
us/overview

132 Communities, conservation and livelihoods

INTERNATIONAL UNION
FOR CONSERVATION OF NATURE

WORLD HEADQUARTERS
Rue Mauverney 28
1196 Gland, Switzerland
[email protected]

www.iucn.org