Local perceptions, concerns, and motivations influence conservation contexts and outcomes. In this study, we explore the beliefs around strangler figs within an Iban community in Indonesian Borneo and clarify how these influence land use and the status and distribution of these keystone tree species. The study was conducted with an Iban community in West Kalimantan in the Sungai Utik Indigenous Forest. We interviewed 32 adults (one per household) regarding their perceptions and behaviors towards strangler figs and applied 16 km of transects (width 100 m) to survey strangler figs in both old growth forest and in farmland–fallow mosaics. Most respondents (30 of 32 or 94%) considered large strangler figs to host various supernatural entities that may be dangerous if disturbed. The community protects these trees from damage wherever they occur. One fig species, Ficus benjamina, is used in healing rituals. We recorded 19 species of strangler figs inside the transects and 25 in total (individuals with woody stems/roots reaching the ground). Similar densities of strangler figs were found in farmland mosaics compared to forest (1.21 vs. 0.90 individuals/ha) with many reaching large sizes (mean canopy diameter 16.46 ± 8.54 vs. 10.25 ± 3.17 m). The figs that occur in the farmland mosaic originate in regrowth areas and result in 1% to 2% of the total farmland being protected from clearing. Our study demonstrates the value of integrating cultural and ecological data. Recognizing the significance of strangler figs in this community can inform conservation that sustains both biodiversity and culture.
Tag: conservation
Policy impact on woodland resource management, use and conservation in Mozambique: a case study of selected sites in Dondo, Nhamatanda, Gondola and Manica districts
Policy principles for sustainable and just land systems
Land systems are the nexus of many global sustainability and justice challenges. Here we present eight guiding principles (P1–8) for improved land system policies following the heuristic stages of a policy cycle. The principles are as follows: embrace recognitional justice (P1), be politically strategic (P2), consider multiple policy goals (P3), address systemic issues (P4), take an integrative scope (P5), foster co-development (P6), adopt clear and monitorable targets (P7) and integrate diagnostic and adaptive capacities (P8). We then explore how well policies align with these principles in two globally relevant cases (land-based climate mitigation and biodiversity-friendly agriculture). In both cases, we find that when policies align poorly with the principles at the agenda-setting stage, there is further misalignment at the policy formulation stage. In the instances when recognitional justice is embraced at the onset, policies subsequently integrate more diverse goals and co-development, but they insufficiently consider political strategy and struggle to handle system complexity. Nonetheless, we identify promising policy mixes that provide benefits to multiple actors, integrate multiple goals, take an integrative scope and have strong monitoring and adaptation, aligning well with multiple principles. Further investigation of these principles could reveal promising policy pathways for land systems.
Diagnosing scaling bottlenecks in 10 community conservation initiatives in southern and eastern Africa
Scaling area-based conservation, including initiatives led or comanaged by Indigenous Peoples and local communities, is a flagship goal of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework. Conservationists often aspire to scale initiatives, but this is rarely achieved in practice. Identifying and addressing factors that limit initiative adoption (i.e., bottlenecks) could improve scaling strategies. We used insightsfrom 84 expert surveys to identify potential risk factors and bottlenecks to scaling 10 community, area-based initiatives in southern and eastern Africa. The number of reported potential risk factors and bottlenecks varied among initiatives. However, unfair benefit sharing, unequal decision-making, inflexible rules, and top-down leadership were frequently identified as bottlenecks. Although adopting initiatives had costs (e.g., increased local conflicts, reduced local access to natural resources and cropland), most experts believed these costs were offset by other benefits and thus did not constitute bottlenecks. Our results did not capture local perspectives, but they suggest scaling strategies that strengthen environmental governance may support more socially just and durable approaches to meeting area-based conservation goals.
Natural forest management as a conservation tool: divergent opinions on constraints, possibilities, and alternatives
Measures for conservation of biodiversity and sustainable use of its components, section 13.3.3: managing biodiversity in forestry
Avoid Cherry-Picking Targets and Embrace Holistic Conservation to Pursue the Global Biodiversity Framework
The Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) marked a renewed commitment to addressing the global biodiversity crisis. This framework of four goals and 23 interim targets is intended to guide and accelerate conservation efforts over the next 25 years and is more ambitious than its predecessor, the Aichi 2020 targets. However, the pursuit of multilateral agreements is dependent upon national pledges, and the limited success of the Aichi targets shows that national pledges are of little worth without aligned (sub)national action. We assessed the submitted National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plans of several member countries to determine their alignment with the bold ambition of the GBF. We find a lack of alignment between the GBF and country submissions across many targets, with the notable exception of Target 3—commonly interpreted as increasing protected area coverage to 30% by 2030. Reflecting on the submissions, recent developments, and our collective experience, we outline key considerations that could help guide future submissions and implementation strategies. We caution against cherry-picking specific targets, highlighting that an overemphasis on Target 3 will fail to achieve the overarching vision of living in harmony with nature. This requires a more holistic and inclusive approach to conservation and a focus on the full suite of GBF targets.
Typology of relations between communities and conservation areas: A conceptual framework from a comparative study in the Andean Amazon
Key messages
- Despite the importance of relations between communities and conservation areas in achieving effective and sustained conservation outcomes, there are few approaches for understanding and addressing the diversity of these relations – including conflict – and for building collaborative processes based on evidence and knowledge management.
- To address that gap, this paper presents a typology of relations with two core components: a comparative matrix and a map of driving forces. It was grounded in a comparative study in the Andean Amazon that analysed 16 cases of relations between communities (Indigenous Peoples, local communities and Afro-descendant Peoples) and conservation area managers (and other relevant government agencies).
- The comparative matrix describes four types of relations – conflict, collaboration, coexistence and mutualism – across six dimensions and strategies/responses.
- The map of driving forces represents how each type of relation is shaped by the interaction among strengthened capacities, alignment of interests and quality of engagement.
- These components could provide a basis for participatory diagnostic and planning tools. This, in turn, would enable the different actors in conservation areas to better understand their relations around topics that are important to communities and conservation areas. In this way, they could identify pathways towards more collaborative, inclusive and evidence-based governance.
Comparative analysis of relations between communities and conservation areas in the Andean Amazon: Findings from 16 case studies using a proposed typology of relations
Key messages
- This is the second of two briefs that compare 16 cases in the Andean Amazon to understand relations between conservation authorities and communities. The first brief “Typology of relations between communities and conservation areas: A conceptual framework from a comparative study in the Andean Amazon ” builds the conceptual framework; this brief applies it to identify emerging patterns across the cases.
- The brief examines four types of relations (conflict and tension, coexistence, collaboration and mutualism) across six dimensions: land/resource rights, livelihoods, decision making, communication, institutional capacity and community capacity/cohesion.
- Conflict and tension are most consistently associated with misalignment around land/resource rights and livelihoods, especially where conservation is perceived as restricting access without credible alternatives.
- Coexistence is common across the cases but tends to be shallow and fragile, often persisting in contexts of limited engagement and weak institutional capacity.
- Collaboration emerges where communities have meaningful roles in decision making and where engagement is structured, routine and linked to concrete actions.
- Mutualism is rare and context specific, occurring where conservation reinforces territorial governance, engagement reflects shared authority and capacities on both sides support long-term implementation.
- Unpacking relations by analysing their dimensions provides a way to understand the driving forces behind relations: it can inform the design of context-specific strategies and it can guide the targeting of limited resources for the most effective outcomes.
- A central practical takeaway is to strengthen the three driving forces together: shared interests (rights/livelihoods), better engagement (influence, transparency, problem solving) and sufficient capacity (to follow through). Dialogue without material change can backfire and create ‘participation fatigue’.
SWM Community Conservancy Project Newsletter, Issue 4 -September 2023 to February 2024
We are pleased to release the fourth issue of the Sustainable Wildlife Management (SWM) Community Conservancy (CC) Project newsletter covering the four countries where the CC model is being promoted within the Kavango Zambezi (KAZA) landscape (Botswana, Namibia, Zambia and Zimbabwe). Under the SWM Programme, this new Project, funded by Agence Française de Développement (AFD) and co-funded by the European Union (EU), is now halfway through its implementation. We are working together with communities across the Kavango-Zambezi (KaZa) region in North-East Namibia, Northern Botswana, Southern Zambia and Northern Zimbabwe promoting the CC model to achieve coexistence between people, livestock and wildlife in this biodiversity-rich landscape. This includes several initiatives, such as building partnerships with the private sector, which redirect the flow of socio-economic benefits to local communities. This approach will also benefit conservation by reducing unsustainable hunting for wild meat and mitigating human-wildlife conflict. A strong network of CCs will enhance connectivity between habitats in the KaZa landscape and contribute to conservation efforts in this unique region. We are proud to be partnering with Wild Entrust Africa (WEA) in Botswana, the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) in Namibia, the Peace Parks Foundation and Wild Entrust in Zambia and Zimbabwe, as well as with the respective Governments, to enhance synergies between wildlife conservation and community well-being.