Building partnerships with communities for biodiversity conservation: lessons from Asian mountains

Abstract

Applied ecology lies at the intersection of human societies and natural systems. Consequently, applied ecologists are constantly challenged as to how best to use ecological knowledge to influence the management of ecosystems (Habel et al. 2013). As Hulme (2011) has pointed out, to do so effectively we must leave our ivory towers and engage with stakeholders. This engagement is especially important and challenging in areas of the world where poverty, weak institutions and poor governance structures conspire to limit the ability of local communities to contribute to biodiversity conservation. These communities often bear disproportionate costs in the form of curtailed access to natural resources, ecosystem services, and developmental programmes, and also suffer wildlife-caused damage, including injuries or loss of human life, and economic and psychological impacts (Madhusudan & Mishra 2003). It is well-recognized that conservation efforts in large parts of the world historically have been perceived to be discriminatory by local people (Mishra 2016). The need for engagement with local communities is therefore embedded in the 2020 Aichi biodiversity targets and is widely thought to be critical to the success of conservation efforts. However, although the need for engagement is clear, as ecologists and practitioners we often have little formal training in how we should engage with local communities and how we can recognize the pitfalls and opportunities provided by developing genuine partnerships. The practical challenges of achieving effective engagement are considerable (Agrawal & Gibson 1999; Waylen et al. 2010, 2013), and such forays are fraught with difficulties and ethical considerations (Chan et al. 2007). When they are done badly, conservation interventions can damage relationships and trust, and lead to serious injustice to local people and setbacks for ecological outcomes (Duffy 2010). Much has been written on knowledge exchange and participatory research approaches (e.g. Reed et al. 2014 and references therein). This Practitioner's Perspective seeks to focus on the next logical step: the elements that practitioners and researchers need to consider when engaging with communities to effect conservation. Engagement around the management of protected areas has been discussed and formalized (e.g. Dudley 2008). Considerable literature has also emerged, particularly from Africa, on the use and co-management of natural resources, commonly referred to as community-based natural resource management or CBNRM (e.g. Fabricius 2004; Roe, Nelson & Sandbrook 2009; Child & Barnes 2010). There have been attempts to draw general principles for CBNRM (e.g. Thakadu 2005; Gruber 2010). In the related field of community-based conservation, however, while there have been efforts to draw lessons (e.g. Berkes 2004), little exists in terms of frameworks or guidelines for effectively working with local communities to effect biodiversity conservation in multi-use landscapes (Mishra 2016). The eight principles for community-based conservation outlined here (Fig. 1) build on ideas developed in fields as diverse as applied ecology, conservation and natural resource management, community health, social psychology, rural development, negotiation theory, and ethics (see Mishra 2016). They have been developed, challenged and tested through 20 years of community experience and our own research on the endangered snow leopard Panthera uncia and its mountain ecosystems, in South and Central Asia. We suspect that with contextual adaptations, their relevance for applied ecologists and practitioners may be universal. The work of the Snow Leopard Trust and its partner organizations, the Nature Conservation Foundation (India), Snow Leopard Conservation Foundation (Mongolia), Snow Leopard Foundation (Kyrgyzstan), Snow Leopard Foundation (Pakistan), and Shan Shui (China), has been spread over Asia's important snow leopard habitats. Snow leopards have a tendency to kill livestock, and communities can bear a heavy cost from these depredation events (Mishra et al. 2016; Mishra, Redpath & Suryawanshi 2016). As a consequence, snow leopards often suffer from retribution killing across their range. We sought to develop programmes with communities, so that conditions for wild snow leopards and their prey were improved, whilst the impact of predation by snow leopards on pastoralists’ livelihoods was minimized, leading to a cessation in retribution killing (Mishra et al. 2003). The objective therefore was to build partnerships with communities to improve both biodiversity and social outcomes. We use the term community to denote a hamlet or village, a collection of individuals or households who identify themselves as a group, live in the same area, and share systems of local resource use, traditions and governance (Mishra 2016). The principles outlined here were arrived at through personal reflection and conceptualization by one of us (CM) who started applied research in snow leopard landscapes in 1996, piloted and implemented community-based efforts in the Indian Himalaya since 1998, and has closely worked with and advised field teams in the other four countries since 2008. The authors have been collaborating with each other and with our range-country partner teams. Our community-based work and the formalization of these principles have been influenced by our research findings as well as literature from diverse fields including applied ecology, conservation and natural resource management, community health, social psychology, rural development and negotiation theory (e.g., Fisher, Ury & Patton 1991; Karp 1996; Portes 1998; Colman 1999; Cohen 2001; Smutko 2005; Jones & Wells 2007; Atlee et al. 2009; Gerdes & Segal 2011; Gambrill 2012; Mishra 2016). The development of effective engagement with communities can be a daunting task. We provide a set of eight general principles that should be considered when working in such situations, characterized by the acronym ‘PARTNERS’ (Fig. 1, Table 1). Build strong relationships with local people through sustained field presence and immersion Train and hire local people in the team Assess rather than assume threats to biodiversity Design and evaluate contextually appropriate interventions to address specific threats Be aware of gender issues in community and team Reach out to the majority of the community, but work with relatively small groups Invest in social capital Ignore social and cultural contexts when implementing programmes Focus solely on programme participants forgetting to build in a role for the entire community in the intervention portfolio Create new groups within the community for programme operations, instead of traditional ones Focus solely on community land for landscape species conservation Treat community members with respect Seek to create an equal partnership Engage in open and honest communication Take note of societal divisions and individual differences within the community View local communities as recipients of aid or providers of services Use societal divisions and individual differences within the community to advance the conservation agenda Disclose your purpose and clearly communicate goals Reiterate your aims of beneficence and non-malfeasance Maintain transparency whenever making choices, such as the selection of households for a pilot intervention, or hiring of community members as programme staff Interact with a broad set of community members, not just leaders or local programme coordinators Withhold information from communities, especially about potential negative impacts of interventions Make decisions and choices without consulting the community Hire local champions as paid programme staff Employ transparent, objective criteria or fair standards in negotiations with communities Discuss potential interventions individually with community members before formal negotiation with the community Involve community members in the design of interventions Record details and nuances of a community-based intervention through written agreements Include mechanisms that allow to revisiting and making changes to signed agreements Build in incentives and tangible stakes Bring third-party mediation if negotiations are not moving forward Haggle or bargain for a bigger piece of the pie Push the community to make urgent decisions Withhold information Walk away from the community if negotiations are not moving forward Try to look at issues from the community's perspective Take both rational and emotional aspects into account when making decisions Make the effort to increase our capability for empathy Assume that most community members – like most other people – are decent and intelligent Forget that our own behaviour can often be irrational or irresponsible Walk away because of perceived inaction on part of the community, rather than catalyzing action Monitor threats, interventions and impact Adapt and improve interventions whenever possible or necessary Help communities when they have urgent needs unrelated to biodiversity Look for ways to assist communities in biodiversity unrelated needs with interventions that are linked to biodiversity Assume that threats and priorities remain stable Forget that problems are opportunities to improve conservation interventions Make promises and create expectations that one cannot keep Get directly involved in biodiversity-unlinked interventions if the team lacks the necessary expertise Collaborate proactively with government officials and share expertise Facilitate cooperation and communication between various government sectors Act as a bridge between local communities and wildlife managers Compromise and reconcile, while being prepared to oppose the government when warranted View the government as anathema for community-based conservation Assume there is no role for the practitioner in policy formulation, management planning and implementation Effective community-based programmes rely on strong and resilient relationships between practitioners and local people. These relationships are built through sustained presence in the field, not occasional meetings and workshops. Sustained presence helps generate trust, useful contextual knowledge, acts as an early warning system to identify and tackle new and emerging issues, and increases the support for conservation programmes by local communities. People often choose to participate in such programmes not just for personal gain, but because of the relationships with practitioners and with the programme through long-term contact. Failure to invest the time and effort involved in long-term relationship-building can lead to limited community support. In an Eastern Himalayan region, for example, in the absence of such presence and relationship building, we were unsuccessful in starting programmes that could have obviously benefited communities, while in other sites, similar programmes were readily embraced by communities who were familiar with us (Mishra 2016). Likewise, many communities where people had initially appeared reluctant, came forward to develop conservation partnerships with us over time as we built relationships with them. Even when a relationship is established, if people are pushed for urgent decisions or action without sufficient trust in the practitioners, this is usually a deal-breaker in community-based efforts. It is of course impossible to be present everywhere. However, in our experience, having a base in a relatively large community in the focal landscape, combined with periodic visits to other communities, has been useful in building strong relationships. Training and hiring individuals drawn from local communities helps strengthen local presence, bringing in more knowledge, and adding value to the team, but this does not absolve the practitioner from the need for immersion in the communities. Conservation interventions must address specific threats to biodiversity, and need to be developed in a way that is appropriate for the local community and local conditions. This means considering the inherent complexity of communities (Waylen et al. 2010), and asking whether the interventions are: (i) founded on a scientific understanding of the problem and designed to address the problem at the appropriate scale, (ii) to local knowledge and to gender and other to the and to the local social capital and example, if wild prey are limited by (e.g. Mishra et al. having efforts is to an increase in their while may be implemented in an community with a strong of such as in et al. be to in a where wildlife is protected out of a of et al. In one of our programme to the of our interventions and the in from the local communities to the programme for many years our efforts. Our research that had relatively negative wild to et al. We Snow Leopard in the region, our programme at et al. 2016). is important that a role is for the entire community or its and not just for directly We have this by having interventions within a community, or having elements in the intervention that can the entire community (e.g. community development It is also useful to recognize that this is a partnership and considering may outcomes rather than implementing strong the of the communities or practitioners on should be of knowledge with of and information with community members on issues as understanding in wildlife damage and most can be in developing knowledge and of the challenges for community-based interventions is how to when effective interventions need to be contextually that specific that are are can the of new and with local people must be honest and and local communities need to be as equal and rather than of In one a community in that had been with us for more than a and not to its conservation It out that our team members had that if the community members were not in the we could choose to work with community in the This negotiation to a from had the community members over the next we to the and our partnership with this community is the that this community considered a programme to perceived was an important for is not about and but the psychological local communities, or have a considerable influence on The lies in the of local people when their behaviour may or (e.g. killing a snow our us local communities as the of aid in the there be no in the This is a as the starting of community-based conservation is the of (Mishra 2016). It is and to consider that in many the communities are the in this in the form of their potential support for biodiversity conservation that we are It is important to be aware of local divisions and within and between local communities as these can have However, such divisions and within the community for conservation is both and in the practitioners need to be especially aware that or perceived or can be beneficence and non-malfeasance form important guidelines of community-based work about our goals and It is the to clearly the conservation and of the and of choices are and their potential may be – including or members must be provided with opportunities in a or individually to and share their and the transparency that the community choices and on and community systems. As part of a is important to consider with communities as so that lessons can be and approaches When choices are to be such as households be involved in a pilot or from the local community should be to support or the conservation is important to make choices the choices should not be by the practitioner but community often than the disproportionate influence of one or more individuals from the community is the implementation of interventions at the community There is often the to hire such individuals as a but this is not usually a The potential influence of local champions on the community to when for their time and effort if Effective negotiation the intervention between the community and the practitioner is to community-based conservation efforts. a form of negotiation where both from relatively and a can be and the relationship between communities and may also be as usually information et al. is to an by having and open and on the of the rather than their negotiation also over The of partnerships and interventions on the to people over the design and implementation of the In the absence of community members may to instead of considering costs and We have to the intervention ideas individually with community members before making formal and negotiations with the entire ideas individually with people who are not to be can also be to on the and one and how to address the practitioner for of the ideas in this way can make the intervention more generate support and especially people have been sought in in away may make if the best potential is than the to a in community-based conservation, this is often not a there is no communication and relationship building must There be when the negotiations do not forward time and such situations, third-party for by a from community in the same region, may be and are in When there is broad on the need and of intervention, and of and is signed agreements the tangible stakes for the community and increase the written in a and should also mechanisms to to and of conservation behaviour that the programme is designed to is one of the most critical for effective community It the and understanding of the and emotional of & Segal researchers to the from the perspective of the community and helps that while conservation may be critical for may a part in the of local people. can us in of interventions be more effective in a and us a understanding of that may at be irrational or done – or – in a Our ability to with local people and can be through immersion in a community, relationships to more and and is necessary because of the in conservation opportunities and also opportunities for both the interventions and the relationship with the The relationship building with communities and practitioners must not to interventions before trust is However, the community to an intervention, this must be done while implementing community efforts is important as for course therefore is an important of for the of community-based programmes in achieving biodiversity outcomes the need for and Conservation practitioners often need to to to important community such as and that are not linked directly with biodiversity conservation. to in such there is no practitioners can consider the costs and and a aspects while making example, how serious is the problem or the is serious to have on the ability of community members to participate in conservation programmes, or if serious issues are could be example, our teams to assist communities with and when an in or when a large of in or when damage in parts of and (Mishra 2016). useful – not appropriate – is to whether the problem or the needs are or to assist the community with issues unrelated to biodiversity is important from a perspective (e.g. a or a and could also strengthen the relationship how to is more when the problem is for example, access to for the communities. issues important in and need to be with the community, including the and resource needs of the our expertise of and the of expectations is an important part of community-based conservation. programmes can especially create expectations community members that the conservation practitioner not be to expectations are to in communities with the practitioner has a long-term biodiversity interventions that lead to of and social capital could be to that conservation is embedded within such as economic and and local development Even at the local and the role of strengthen the role of local communities in conservation, is to work closely with to create and These need to decisions that economic development needs with of biodiversity, and strengthen the of communities in such This changes in including the of policy appropriate management planning and a system in support of community-based conservation, and the of practitioners in policy planning and can conservation needs and possible and efforts for biodiversity and human with the government can also improve the and of community-based efforts. In our conservation is about the between the need to biodiversity and the need for development and support of the we improve the of the in negotiations in of working with can be with being being or by the same that are for or them. In practitioners need to both with and oppose the government when warranted in the of biodiversity conservation. and negotiation can this Our ability to our ecological knowledge to improve the management of biodiversity and natural is in large part on the way we with local communities across the In most is not appropriate or to or and communities. more effective is to from genuine long-term built on respect and In the of for example, when to a snow leopard we were to to the of the local community to because we had a relationship with (Mishra 2016). We not have to invest time to build a partnership or trust from We have outlined here we consider to be the principles to ecologists and practitioners build such partnerships. The principles (Fig. 1, Table 1) have us to build strong and long-term relationships with communities to develop interventions on strong such to to programmes to to & Mishra programmes to cost of depredation events Redpath & Suryawanshi to improve et al. and on community land (Mishra et al. 2016). killing of snow leopards and of their prey have or been in our programme (see Mishra 2016). we have wild and use by snow leopards in of our (Mishra et al. 2016). It is the and challenges with community-based partnerships can be there are challenges to to There is no so engagement needs to be a long-term if is to be This on the of communities that can be with This can be by having the long-term of communities of the and themselves with support from practitioners as and when an has us to our work to communities in countries over of snow leopard on community engagement can be a way of bringing applied ecological with community experience to the management of natural and conservation of However, to be effective needs to be done – through genuine partnerships of practitioners and community built on the principles outlined in this This is where our can assist The principles are a of critical aspects of community – the practical and the ethical – that have relevance for biodiversity conservation. They have from long-term to 20 partnerships with communities in landscapes across Our work a of land and example, our teams have worked with communities influenced by with strong traditions of and with a that the and use of wildlife et al. 2016). our partner communities have been of that the theory of and of We have been to work effectively in both the of threats that our programmes have has also been from traditional killing of snow leopards to predation to emerging and threats such as in snow leopard habitats. We that in to have and biodiversity practitioners consider each of the principles with necessary contextual while building conservation the ideas and designed the principles with support from and and the of the with support from authors to the and for We are to Nelson and the Conservation for their support for our for Nature has been a long-term of the work that to this and the We also the for the management for community livelihoods & snow leopard The of the not have been possible without the long-term work and of our partner by and have not been because this does not Mishra is involved in ecological and community-based conservation and management, and cooperation and policy the snow leopards and of Asia. was the of the Snow Leopard Trust from to to work on of the endangered snow leopard as a of the is the for the Snow Leopard aims to and support for community-based conservation of the endangered snow leopard various various and local is a social working at the for and has experience of working with practitioners and from fields on the understanding and management of conservation and the social and outcomes of conservation Redpath is a conservation at the of over years as a with to to and conservation a of systems in and Asia.