View the CCRN’s Mozambique Community Story as a PDF

KEY MESSAGES

• People who practice traditional ceremonies of evocation of ancestral spirits inhabit rural communities in the Limpopo district in Mozambique
• Places where the residences of the founders of the communities were once located, currently host traditional ceremonies – i.e., these are sacred natural sites or sacred forests
• The sacred forests are important for the local way of life, however, conflicting use of land and resources are negatively affecting their maintenance

(1) Marta da Graça Z. Simbine (2) Cristiana S. Seixas 
(1) Licungo University, Mozambique (2) University of Campinas
Key contact:mart.simbine@gmail.com

Community Introduction

Chilaulene, Chirindzene Sede and Zongoene Sede are three rural communities of Machangana people, a part of the Tsonga ethnic group. These communities are in rural areas characterised by a matrix of agricultural crops, forest fragments, patches of vegetation and non-urban housing areas at the Limpopo district in Gaza Province, southern Mozambique (Figure 1). The Machangana communities’ way of life includes traditional rites of worshiping ancestor’s spirits, locally called kuphalha. Such ancestors are the founders or old heroes of the community. In Chilaulene, Chirindzene Sede and Zongoene Sede there is a sacred natural site, also known as the sacred forest, where ancestors lived, and where local communities evoke ancestral spirits in cases of drought, crop pests, good agricultural productivity, and other relevant occasions in their life.

In all three communities, there are people who have embraced the responsibility of taking care of the sacred forests for many years. These are the custodians or guardians of spiritual, cultural, and biological values, and they are descendants of the founders of the respective localities. The sacred site of Chilaulene (0.6 ha), includes mostly herbaceous vegetation, with a few shrubs and sparse trees, and a marsh, whose custodians are the members of the Chilaule (Sigode) family. The sacred forest of Chirindzenehas (60.5 ha) has a water spring and a stream running through it, and it is guarded by the Matavel family members. Until the construction of a memorial to national heroes in the community in the 2010’s, the sacred forest of Chirindzene was also used to host community celebrations and cultural festivities.

Figure 1: The Gaza province in the southern Mozambique (A); The Limpopo district in Gaza’s coastal zone (B); The location of the sacred forests in Chilaulene, Chirindzene Sede and Zongoene Sede communities in the Limpopo district (C).

Nowadays, it is strictly used for traditional ceremonies. The sacred forest of Zongoene (7.0 ha), also known as sacred forest of Xirhaminhane Mhula, is guarded by the Mhula (Michavo) family members. Small-scale agriculture is the main source of livelihood for the three communities, followed by small-scale livestock rearing, artisanal fishing and charcoal production.

Conservation Challenges 

The view of nature conservation of the rural Machangana communities of Limpopo district resembles the conservation vision of the environmental sciences, since it also seeks to safeguard a given ecosystem due to its intrinsic value. However, the main motivation for conservation for the rural communities of Limpopo district is its symbolic value. Thus, the criteria of evaluation of the conservation status of the sacred natural sites takes into account the biophysical factors (e.g. fragment size, tree density and size, vegetation biodiversity) and also social factors (cleanliness of the main entrance, existence of constructions and artefacts that symbolize the sacredness, respect for institutions, engagement of the local community in traditional ceremonies, and frequency of visitors). Below, we present the challenges for conservation of each of these sacred natural sites by considering these factors.

In all the communities, the spiritual invocation ceremonies tend to be modified from the traditional ways, due to the lack of financial means to cater for the expenses that a traditional ceremony entails or to facilitate the presence of visitors. There is also less adherence by local people to the ceremonies due to changes in the spiritual values ​​of the members of the communities. This is caused mainly by the emergence of new religious sects or governance dynamics imposed by the formal governance. Another challenge is that all sacred natural sites have vestiges of uses not allowed by local institutions, probably caused by inhabitants who are unaware of the sacredness or do not share belief in the sacredness of these sites.

Challenges for conserving the sacred site of Chilaulene

One of the major challenges for the preservation of the sacred forest of Chilaulene relates to small-scale livestock farming. The lack of a properly organized cattle-drinking system forces herdsmen to lead their cattle to the pond that is part of the sacred site, causing its degradation. In doing so, they contribute to the weakening of the sacred vision that the community members have had over that natural monument, as it represents a non-spiritual use and therefore not accepted by local institutions. Watering the cattle at the sacred site pond has led to the decreasing conservation status, and consequent diminishing local community awareness of the sacredness.

Another challenge emerged in the mid-1970s, when part of the sacred site was converted into a cemetery for the burial of community members. Moreover, not all the Chilaulene community members are aware of the existence of a sacred site adjacent to the community cemetery. This may be associated with a lack of artifacts that would signalize the sacredness of the place. Therefore, part of the portion that remained for ceremonies of evocation of the ancestral spirits nowadays holds graves of other people.

Challenges for conserving the sacred forest of Chirindzene

Many members of the Chirindzene Sede community claim that the sacred forest guarantees water in the village and without it they would die of thirst. This conviction arises from the fact that the creek that emerges in the forest has been the main source of water up until 10 years ago when the government started drilling boreholes in the community. Prior to this, the management of the stream and its banks sought to ensure that the water remained sufficiently clean for human consumption. However, after the drill of boreholes, only a small fraction of the community uses the stream (to wash clothes and watering the cattle). This has led to poor management and reduction of the water quality.

The community is also facing a reduction in actions that promotes the visibility of the sacred forest, both inside and outside the village, threatening the perpetuation of local community lifestyles. This situation arises from two main reasons: (1) the numbers of visits by national and foreign people and (2) the celebrations of national commemorative dates or local festivities are diminishing.

Challenges for conserving sacred forest of Zongoene

After the Mozambique civil war (from the 1970s to the early 1990s), many non-natives migrated to the residential areas of Zogoene Sede. As they needed land for agriculture, they converted part of the sacred forest into fields, reducing its area. Additionally, the newcomers settle their housing close to center of the neighbourhoods and far away from the forest. The distance among residential neighbourhoods and disputes among local leaders of each neighbourhood contribute to a significant part of the residents not engaging in traditional ceremonies of the sacred forest of Zongoene.

Community Initiatives 

Despite the reported challenges, community members have been engaging in some initiatives to minimize them and to maintain their traditional ceremonies, which for a long time have constituted their way of life.

The traditional leaders of the Chilaulene community are taking the lead in the efforts of preventing the conversion of the entire area of ​​the sacred site into a cemetery. In effect, the custodians of the sacred site have sought to avoid that new graves are established in the remaining portion of the sacred site, in addition to the appeals for the exhumation of the bodies buried in the portion already transformed into a cemetery.

In Chirindzene Sede, between 2002 and 2005, the local community, supported by the Community Association for Health and Development (Associação Comunitária para Saúde e Desenvolvimento – ACOSADE), implemented an initiative for conservation of the sacred forest of Chirindzene. This initiative resulted in the delimitation of that sacred forest, placement of plates inscribing local rules (prohibitions) related to the forest (Figure 2), as well as the construction of huts at the entrance of forest. These actions have had a positive impact, since the whole community now knows the significance of this place. Under the same project, honeybee hives were built for honey production and generation of alternative income for community members, but the lack of technical assistance led to failure of this activity.

In the beginning of the 2000s, the community of Zongoene Sede joined efforts to build a hut with cement and other more resistant materials replacing the previous one built with local material. In addition, in 2012 the community, in collaboration with the environmental authorities of Gaza Province, reforested with Eucalyptus sp (an exotic species) at least ¼ the forest area previously deforested.

Figure 2: Prohibitions related to the sacred forest of Chirindzene written in xichangana: “It is forbidden to cut tree branches, to practice agriculture, to burn, to build housing, to clear path/short cuts and to heard animals”. (A) and the traditional ceremony in the sacred forest of Zongoene (B).

Practical Outcomes

The Limpopo district belongs to the Maputaland centre of endemism, an ecoregion of global interest for the conservation of biodiversity. By conserving their sacred natural sites, the communities of Chilaulene, Chirindzene Sede and Zongoene Sede are contributing for conserving the biodiversity of the Maputaland forest mosaic, including endemic species of trees and, probably of other groups of living beings as well.

In addition to the immaterial benefit of spiritual use (which contributes to strengthening the identity of local communities), the three communities also get other benefits from their sacred natural sites. These benefits include other immaterial benefits (e.g., sense of place, leisure and learning), material benefits (such as food and medicinal resources), and regulating benefits (such as regulation of the quantity and quality of freshwater and the microclimate regulation).

The above context described here has resulted from the attempt to register the institutions and context underlining natural sacred natural sites in Mozambique (Simbine, 2020) – a country with deficiency in several ecological, social and anthropological data sets. Through this research, we found that most of the challenges to the conservation of the sacred natural sites are potentially minimized by raising awareness of the existence and importance of sacred natural sites among all community members and empowering the local communities, and in particularly the custodians, to deal with pressures posed by government. We understand that this research is an important step towards increasing awareness on sacred natural sites, and we hope that this contact with custodians of sacred natural sites, may reverberate in future collaboration with external actors.

Acknowledgements 

We thank the population of Chilaulene, Chirindzene Sede and Zongoene Sede for their availability to contribute to our research. We also thank the São Paulo Funding Agency (FAPESP grant 15/19439-8) and SSHRC/CCRN for supporting field research and the Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Education Personnel (CAPES) for M.G.Z.S. Ph.D. Scholarship.

References

Simbine, M.G.Z. (2020). ‘Instituições Informais e Contribuições da Natureza para as Pessoas: Subsídios para a Conservação das Florestas Sagradas em Moçambique’ (Informal Institutions and Nature’s Contributions to People: Guidance for Conserving Sacred Forests in Mozambique). Ph.D. Dissertation in Ecology, University of Campinas, Brasil.

View the complete CCRN’s Clayoquot Sound Community Story as a PDF

Laura Loucks

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 assist with transformation when supported by a network of collaborative organizations with a shared set of principles and a united vision to inspire change.

Community Profile

For millennia, the Indigenous Nuu-chah-nulth people have had strong cultural and livelihood connections with the terrestrial, fresh water and marine ecosystems of the west coast of Vancouver Island, Canada. Within this area, Clayoquot Sound is located primarily in the Nuu-chah-nulth Ha’ huulthii (homelands) of Hesquiaht, Ahousaht and Tla-o-qui-aht First Nations, encompassing nearly 350,000 hectares of a complex and globally significant social-ecological landscape (Figure 1).

The ecosystems of Clayoquot Sound are rich in biodiversity and characterized by a large contiguous rainforest canopy of old growth western red cedar and western hemlock covering steep-sided coastal mountains throughout six watersheds.

Figure 1: Clayoquot Sound UNESCO Biosphere region

Conservation and Livelihood Challenges

Resource extraction, conflict and collective action
Over the last 50 years, local communities have constantly struggled to assert local access rights to Crown resources and shape government policies for more sustainable resource management practices in fishing and logging. In the forestry industry, unresolved Aboriginal land claims and corporate rights to Timber Forest Licenses were at the heart of unsustainable land use. For example, logging companies commonly built roads along steep mountain slopes, despite the high risk of soil erosion and damage to stream and river habitats. Similarly, large tracts of old growth rainforest were clearcut, causing significant ecological damage without the consultation or consent of the Nuu-chah-nulth Ha’ wiih, who carry the traditional responsibility to preside over and protect the Nuu-chah-nulth Ha’ huulthii⁽⁹⁾.

However, in 1982 the affirmation of Aboriginal rights and treaty rights within Section 35 of the Canadian Constitution marked an enormous shift in Canadian Law⁽⁵⁾. These rights were further strengthened in the seminal Meares Island Case, which catalyzed a transformation process still underway in Clayoquot Sound⁽⁵⁾.

In 1984, a coalition of leaders and residents from Tla-o-qui-aht First Nation and the town of Tofino sought to protect Meares Island, within Clayoquot Sound, from being logged by the MacMillan Bloedel forestry company. The Nuu-chah-nulth Tribal Council claimed the island as part of the traditional territory to which it had Aboriginal title and sought a court injunction against the logging of the Island. Subsequently, the logging company requested their own court injunction against the coalition. In an unprecedented decision, the British Columbia Court of Appeal granted the injunction to the Nuu-chah-nulth based on the irreversible damages of unsustainable forestry practices⁽⁵⁾. In the words of Justice Seaton,

“It appears that the area to be logged will be wholly logged. The forest that the Indians know and use will be permanently destroyed. The tree from which the bark was partially stripped in 1642 may be cut down, middens may be destroyed, fish traps damaged and canoe runs despoiled. Finally, the island’s symbolic value will be gone. The subject matter of the trial will be destroyed before the rights are decided”^{(5, pg.149)}.

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 10 years of conflict⁽⁹⁾. 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 hybrid protocols designed to respect both traditional ecological knowledge (TEK) and scientific knowledge systems^(6). Recommendations of the scientific panel were eventually instituted through watershed management plans that now provide the foundation for adaptive ecosystem management in the region. One plan is in the Indigenous community of Ahousaht, where Chief Maquinna has noted:

“The Ahousaht believe that this is the beginning of a new era, based on recognition and celebration of Ahousaht people and culture, conservation of the world-class forest and marine resources of Clayoquot Sound, and the development of a more diversified, sustainable local economy, including community forestry.”⁽⁸⁾

Community Initiatives

Today, the principles and protocols established by the Scientific Panel are embodied in local community organizations with new governance models based on the shared desire to build a sustainable future on West Coast Vancouver Island. One such example is the Clayoquot Biosphere Trust (CBT), which is led by a voluntary board of directors, representing all local First Nations and communities within the Clayoquot Sound Biosphere Reserve, with a vision:

“…to live sustainably in a healthy ecosystem with a diversified economy and strong, vibrant and united cultures while embracing the Nuu-chah-nulth First Nations living philosophies of Iisaak, (living respectfully), Qwa’aak qin teechmis (life in balance) and Hishuk ish ts’awalk (all things are connected)”⁽²⁾.

In 2016, a collaboration of the CBT, First Nations, municipal governments, local education organizations and destination marketing organizations, 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 organizations to participate fully in the learning economy, together with visiting learners⁽⁷⁾(Figure 2). By linking learning with tourism, the West Coast NEST is creating a global network of learners who can help catalyze a new local economic opportunity while shifting values towards sustainable livelihoods.

Figure 2: Nuu-chah-nulth Elder Ray Haipee teaching visiting learners.

Nested within the Nuu-chah-nulth values of Iisaak, qwa’aak qin teechmis and hishuk ish ts’awalk, the education tourism initiative is an opportunity to transform conventional tourism to attract a different type of visitor: one who wants to stay longer on the West Coast, learn from local people, experience local culture and contribute to stewardship of this ecologically significant place.

In this manner, local community organizations are working to shift away from an unsustainable tourist ‘consumer’ economy and moving incrementally towards a new ‘conserver’ economy, where broken cultures are restored and damaged SES are re-built. The communities see education tourism as having the potential to support an economic return from visiting learners while expanding local learning opportunities.

Seven principles for education tourism:
1) Attract co-learners: we welcome others to learn with us.
2) Community reciprocity: we share benefits between communities.
3) Local knowledge holders are experts: local people are reimbursed for sharing their knowledge.
4) Learning networks of practice: together, we are creating a culture of learning and collaborative problem solving.
5) Stewardship-in-place: every community has an outdoor classroom and a place to learn from the land.
6) Holistic hands-on learning: we learn best by applied learning and practice.
7) Cultural safety and sharing: we create safe spaces for learning and healing across cultural boundaries.

Practical Outcomes

References

Acknowledgements

Support for this story was provided by the Community Conservation Research Network (CCRN) and the Clayoquot Biosphere Trust (CBT).

View the complete CCRN’s Japan Community Story as a PDF

Mitsutaku Makino, Fisheries Research Agency of Japan; mmakino@affrc.go.jp

Key Messages

• Japan’s diverse climate produces a wide range of marine ecosystem types.
• Increasing urbanization throughout Japan has resulted in widespread conservation efforts of resources to protect lifestyle and traditional culture.
• Differences of the local culture dynamics can be linked to coastal ecosystem changes.

Community Introduction

Japan is an island country comprised of 4 large islands and thousands of smaller islands which stretch from Russia to the north and Taiwan and the Philippines to the South. Located at the middle latitudes in the northwestern Pacific, Japan is bordered by the Pacific Ocean to the east and the Sea of Japan to the west. Due to the ocean currents and climate conditions, Japan has wide-ranging marine ecosystems from sub-arctic to tropical (Figure 1).

Figure 1: study sites

With a population of approximately 127 million(1), land and resources are of high value and protecting these areas are of high priority. Although known for its urban development, Japan is home to many coastal, rural communities which rely on primary resource production for their livelihoods.

Conservation and Livelihood Challenges

Abashiri coast is sub-arctic, salt-water lake on the northern coast of the northern island of Hokkaido. Distant from big cities, it has a small population and relies heavily on large fisheries production. Due to the amount of fishing that takes place, sea grass and sand beach conservation is a top priority for the Abashiri community (Figure 2).

Figure 2: sea grass bed in Abashiri community

Tokyo-bay is a temperate, enclosed bay located in Tokyo, on the largest island of Honshu. This area is highly industrialized with a huge nearby population. Especially over the last 60 years, urban development has increased as new residents move into the area, putting further strain on the already at-risk resources. As a result, locals have taken action in order to protect and restore the sea grass beds and their traditional seafood culture (Figure 3).

Figure 3: Tokyo Bay

Hiroshima suburb is a temperate, inland sea located in the Hiroshima prefecture on the western side of the largest island, Honshu. Distant from big cities and with a decreasing population, sea grass bed conservation (Figure 4) is very important to the traditional sea grass culture that is vanishing in the region.

Figure 4: Hiroshima Suburb

Ishigaki Island is a tropical lagoon. It is a remote island southwest of the 4 main island located close to Taiwan. Coral reefs and sea grasses are at risk due to an increasing population and a fast growing tourism industry (Figure 5).

Figure 5: Ishikagi coral reef

Shiretoko is a sub-arctic ecosystem located in the most northeastern part of the northern island of Hokkaido. Recently gaining status as a World Heritage Site, locals are concerned with how the management and conservation of this site impacts their traditional fishing lifestyle (Figure 6).

Figure 6: Shiretoko fishing community

Community Initiative

The coastal ecosystem conservation activities conducted by the local communities are part of a comparative analysis study that explores and discusses the differences of the SES conditions that each community experiences, and their influence to the nature of community conservation. The comparative study seeks to:
1) Develop integrated diagrams of coastal ecosystem functions, services, uses, and stakeholders, by collaboration with local officers and local ecosystem researchers in the different sites (Figure 7).

2) Conduct stakeholder interviews asking their interests, activities, concerns, conflicts, etc., and develop Stakeholder Tables. Also, important statistics relating to the above stakeholders are collected.

Figure 7: summary of the ecosystem functions, ecosystem service uses and stakeholders (case of Abashiri)

3) Based on above, conduct a comparative analysis among the sites, with special emphasis on the governance, meanings and motivations in each site.

Practical Outcomes

Meanings and motivations for conservation are dependent on the local culture for the ecosystem service uses. In other words, the meanings and motivations are reflecting the local way of living in harmony with t      he coastal ecosystems.

• In Abashiri, local people have a strong fisheries-oriented culture, and the culture is still at the very core of the local motivations and meanings for conservation.
• In Hiroshima, seagrass is deeply linked to the local traditional lifestyle, but the community itself is diminishing now.
• In Ishigaki, the traditional coral reef culture is surviving, but the population and the tourism industry is growing very fast.
• In Tokyo, the traditional lifestyle was almost totally destroyed, but local people (mainly the new residents) are very proud of the local seafood culture.
• In Shiretoko, engaging in consistent interactions and incorporating local-ecological knowledge provided some successes between management authorities and local communities.

We found that such differences in local culture dynamics can be linked to coastal ecosystem changes. In Tokyo bay, the coastal ecosystem was almost totally destroyed, and the objective of the conservation was the revival of traditional lifestyle and culture. In Abashiri, on the opposite case, the coastal ecosystem has remained relatively unchanged, and their only objective/motivation is resource sustainability and productivity.

The comparative analyses shows that with higher biodiversity, we will have more diverse use-types and stakeholders, more conflicts, so more public initiatives are important for community conservation activities. Also, the dynamics of ecosystem and cultural changes are synchronized, and the meanings/motivations for local conservation activities are linked to those dynamics.

These relationships among the social system conditions, ecological system conditions, and the nature of the community conservation activities, should be properly incorporated when designing the conservation activities in specific areas. There is no one-fit-all approach when it comes to conservation

References

1. World Bank. 2013. Japan. From http://databank.worldbank.org/data/reports.aspx?source=2&country=JPN&series=&period

Acknowledgements

This research is being carried out with the aid of a Doctoral Research Award from the Canadian International Development Research Centre, a doctoral award from the Social Science and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC) of Canada, a SSHRC grant held by Dr. Derek Armitage as part of a Coastal-Marine Transformation Project, and support from the SSHRC-funded Community Conservation Research Network (CCRN).

See below for the Japanese language abstract for this community story, “網走、知床、東京湾、広島、石垣、日本：沿岸生態系の保全を実践ファイブコミュニティ.”

View the CCRN’s Bali Community Story as a PDF

Samantha Berdej (a), Derek Armitage (a), Arif Satria (b)

University of Waterloo, Canada (a), Bogor Agricultural University, Indonesia (b), smberdej@uwaterloo.ca

Key Messages

• Coastal and marine environments are socially complex, made up of diverse actors, interests and views.Bridging organizations are designed to cope with diversity in order to span these differences.
• Bridging organizations can be significant to enabling community voices and leadership in conservation efforts.
• Bridging organizations can help to generate conservation outcomes that are integrative and better reflect the full spectrum of actors and interests-inclusive of communities-in a given context.

Community Introduction

The Indonesia province of Bali is located in the westernmost end of the Lesser Sunda Islands, between Java to the west and Lombok to the east (Figure 1). It is situated in the southwest corner of the Coral Triangle, a region home to the highest marine biodiversity on Earth. The province supports close to four million inhabitants, many of whom are intimately linked to the sea as a source of livelihoods, food security and culture. Marine resources are a cornerstone of the region’s economies and societies, supporting activities such as tourism, local and commercial fisheries, ornamental fisheries and mariculture. Indonesia as a whole has the largest reef-associated population of any country in the world(1), making coastal communities here among the most vulnerable to current and future environmental changes.

This community story focuses on three sites: the Bali Marine Protected Area Network (head office located in the provincial capital of Denpasar), the Nusa Penida Marine Protected Area, and the East Buleleng Conservation Zone.

Figure 1: Map of local sites in Bali Province, Indonesia

Conservation and Livelihood Challenges

As elsewhere in Indonesia, Balinese waters face a combination of threats that include overfishing and destructive fishing practices, uncoordinated coastal development, sewage and garbage disposal at sea, dredging and reef channel development, and other damaging practices(2). Intensive utilization of coastal areas by different and sometimes competing interests has meant that the reality of coastal-marine conservation here is remarkably complex and the potential for conflict is high. Options for conservation in this region are confounded by the challenges of a still-evolving decentralization movement, and social, economic, and political complexities such as overlapping authorities, multiple interests and policy domains, and unresolved boundaries of customary tenure(3,4).

In light of these challenges, the success of conservation initiatives will depend in part on navigating the ‘messiness’ inherent in dynamic and socially complex coastal-marine environments. Innovative strategies are needed to facilitate collaborative and adaptive decision-making, and to better engage and integrate social dimensions such as culture, stakeholder values and local practices into conservation initiatives.

Community Initiative

Coastal and marine environments are of importance to a wealth of social actors and groups in Bali, such as local resource users, commercial interests, government agencies, NGOs and universities. Yet, in many cases actors do not interact with one another, and cooperation with regards to resource management can be poor. Furthermore, the presence of multiple actors with different interests implies significant trade-offs in the face of diverse, and potentially conflicting, objectives such as food security, livelihood development and biodiversity conservation.

Figure 2: Members of the local fishing association in north Bali

Figure 3: Seaweed farmers at low tide, Nusa Penida MPA (Photo: S. Berdej)

This situation can be improved through bridging organizations – independent entities that are designed to connect diverse actors or groups through some form of bridging process, such as knowledge-sharing(5).

Bridging organizations can contribute to a more balanced conservation effort through collaboration, communication and resource sharing – all of which include and resonate with local communities.

This community story focuses on five bridging organizations in Bali Province – four NGOs and one government entity. Each has adopted a series of roles and functions to ‘bridge’ diverse actors. Some of these roles include:

• Fostering social networks that cross scales (from community to international) and sectors (between fisheries, tourism and biodiversity conservation).
• Introducing and mobilizing outside ideas and expertise in community settings.
• Providing community groups access to outside resources (human, technical, financial).
• Building capacity and capabilities among different actors, including community groups.
• Fostering regional institutions and local leadership.

Figure 4: Multiple and overlapping uses in the Nusa Penida MPA (Photo: S. Berdej)

Practical Outcomes

Overall, bridging organizations are significant in navigating socially complex coastal-marine environments, leading to more robust and inclusive conservation outcomes. Their involvement in conservation efforts across Bali Province has resulted in a number of important insights for policy makers, managers and practitioners that are of relevance to developing and ongoing conservation efforts. We speak to some of these insights below, with specific attention to what they mean for communities.

Bridging organizations have helped to broaden and strengthen roles for communities in conservation. In facilitating key learning opportunities – such as ecology workshops or skills development – bridging organizations have improved community capacity in conservation planning, implementation, and monitoring/enforcement. For example, community members in the East Buleleng Conservation Zone have been trained in marine ecology and monitoring techniques, and have been certified in underwater diving to carry out autonomous coral reef monitoring. Some bridging organizations have also advocated and fostered local leadership (and not just involvement) in conservation processes by, empowering local institutions or embedding key community/traditional leaders on decision-making teams. Community-based organizations were created and supported to, for example, take on a majority responsibility in the implementation and management of Local Marine Management Areas in East Buleleng.

Through their involvement, bridging organizations have generated, or are expected to generate, more representative and integrated conservation efforts. Planning and decision-making in the Nusa Penida MPA and Bali MPA Network, for example, is carried out via multi-stakeholder management units composed of representatives from government, fishers’ associations, traditional council, community groups, tourism operators, NGOs and so on. These have produced conservation efforts – such as MPA zoning plans and management strategies – that better account for the wealth of actors and their interests.

Bridging organizations are positioned at the nexus of where actors meet and information flows, and so they are better able to bring together multiple interests and values, as well as engage in trade-off negotiations. In doing so, these organizations provide pathways and platforms for communities to more fully and meaningfully engage in conservation efforts that meet and sustain their needs. Conservation outcomes in these sites to-date have included management plans that reflect joint objectives for biodiversity conservation, livelihoods and community welfare; and zoning strategies that balance the needs of seaweed farmers, tourism operators, fishers, and culture(6,7).

The conservation of coastal and marine resources is a global issue with enormous implications for future human welfare. Bridging organizations can and do have a significant role to play here. In particular, the value of bridging organizations has been demonstrated to communities – in strengthening community voices in wider forums, empowering local leadership, and in helping to balance community needs with regional priorities.

Figure 5: Fishing boats in north Bali – pelagic and ornamental fishing make up a large part of livelihoods here

References

Burke, L, K Reytar, M Spalding and A Perry. 2012. Reefs at Risk Revisited in the Coral Triangle. Washington, USA: World Resource Institute.

Mustika, PL, IMJ Ratha and S Purwanto. 2013. The 2011 Bali marine rapid assessment. 2nd English edition. RAP Bulletin of Biological Assessment 64. Bali Marine and Fisheries Affairs, South East Asia Center for Ocean Research and Monitoring, Warmadewa University, Conservation International Indonesia, Denpasar.

Welly, M., W. Sanjaya, D. Trimudya and W.G. Yanto. 2011. Profil Perikanan Nusa Penida, Kabupaten Klungkung, Propinsi Bali. Pp. 28.

Wardana, A. 2015. Debating spatial governance in the pluralistic institutional and legal setting of Bali. The Asia Pacific Journal of Anthropology, 16(2): 106-122.

Crona, BI and PN Parker. 2012. Learning in support of governance: theories, methods, and a framework to assess how bridging organizations contribute to adaptive resource governance. Ecology and Society, 17(1): 32.

Berdej, S and D Armitage. 2016a. Bridging organizations drive effective governance outcomes for conservation of Indonesia’s marine systems. PLOS ONE, 11(1), e0147142. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0147142

Berdej, S and D Armitage. 2016b. Bridging for better conservation fit in Indonesia’s coastal-marine systems. Frontiers in Marine Science, 3:101. doi: 10.3389/fmars.2016.00101

Acknowledgements

This research is being carried out with the aid of a Doctoral Research Award from the Canadian International Development Research Centre, a doctoral award from the Social Science and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC) of Canada, a SSHRC grant held by Dr. Derek Armitage as part of a Coastal-Marine Transformation Project, and support from the SSHRC-funded Community Conservation Research Network.

University of Campinas (UNICAMP), Brazil; ¹cristiana.seixas@gmail.com

View the CCRN’s Paraty Community Story as a PDF

Key Messages   

• In Tarituba, participatory monitoring of the fisheries, if implemented, may strengthen agreements and interactions between fishers and the protected area manager and improve decision-making.

• In Praia do Sono, local ecological knowledge was recorded to improve terrestrial resource management and contribute to protected area reclassification.

• In Trindade, conflicts between fishers and protected area managers are escalating due to the lack of the establishment of formal and continuous arenas to promote negotiation regarding resource conservation and resource use inside protected areas.

Community Introduction

Paraty is a coastal municipality (Figure 1) located in Southeastern Brazil with a population of 37,000 (74% urban). The current economy of the municipality is based on tourism, services and fishing. The rural population is distributed among several communities, including those of Caiçara people along the coastline. Caiçara people are of mixed origin (Portuguese colonists, Amerindians and African descendants), undertaking subsistence activities directly related to the exploitation of natural resources, such as fishing, small-scale agriculture, and tourism1.

Paraty encompasses important preserved areas of the Atlantic Forest Biome – a biodiversity hotspot. In fact, there are five protected areas (PAs) in Paraty, each of them imposing different degrees of restrictions to resource users. The Caiçara communities of Tarituba, Praia do Sono and Trindade are affected by those restrictions while at the same time their livelihoods contribute to sustainable use of the forest and the sea. This context is the basis for a dilemma that challenges the restrictive environmental conservation goals of Protected Areas against the livelihoods and social and economic development needs of these three Caiçara communities.

Figure 1: Paraty, Tarituba, Praia do Sono and Trindade (elaborated by Camila Alvez Islas).

Caiçara communities
Tarituba is a community of approximately 430 people located at the north boundary of Paraty municipality (Figure 2). The tropical marine ecosystem adjacent to Tarituba has experienced several changes over the last half century including declining fish stocks, invasion of exotic species, increased water pollution due to land development as well as the development of an offshore oil and gas industry2,3. Community livelihood activities are based on local resources (mainly fish), tourism, and the private sector. Tarituba fisheries take place inside the Ilha Grande Bay.

Figure 2: Tarituba – Ana Carolina Diaz

Praia do Sono is located on the southern coast of Paraty municipality, 25 km from the downtown area. The community (Figure 3) of 320 inhabitants is only accessed by boat or on foot (1 hour walking trail from the nearest road access). Fishing, tourism-related activities, and small-scale agriculture account for most of the local livelihoods1,4.

Figure 3: Praia do Sono Community – Camila Islas

Trindade has about 1,000 inhabitants, of which about 50 are small-scale fishers1,5. The community area overlaps with two Protected Areas – Serra da Bocaina National Park (SBNP) and Cairuçu Environmental Protected Area. Tourism and fisheries are important components of local livelihood1 (Figure 4).

Figure 4: Trindade Community – Luciana Araujo

Conservation and Livelihood Challenges

In Tarituba, the main fishing spots are inside Tamoios Ecological Station, which is a no-take Protected Area (PA). Tamoios Ecological Station was established in 1990 as a compensatory measure for the nuclear power plant of Angra dos Reis, but was only implemented in 2008. The PA has generated serious conflicts between fishers and the PA managers, because Tamoios Ecological Station was created in a top-down manner, restricting local livelihoods2,3.

Praia do Sono is located inside the Juatinga Ecological Reserve (REJ), created in 1992 to protect the Atlantic Forest and Caiçara communities living inside this area. The “Ecological Reserve” is not a category currently recognized within Brazil’s National System of Protected Areas established by law in 2000 (SNUC), hence REJ is currently under a reclassification process. This reclassification will affect Praia do Sono, as it will either fall under a more restrictive management system or lead to an arrangement that allows for sustainable resource use. The Atlantic Forest is an important source of resources; many community members possess valuable local ecological knowledge about its wildlife. The Atlantic Forest’s potential in provisioning aesthetic or tourism services, as well as the use of non-timber forest products, makes it vulnerable to change.

In 2010, a participatory assessment of the sustainability of Trindade fisheries was conducted by a local NGO to support a fisheries agreement between the Serra da Bocaina National Park and small-scale fishers in the scope of the Bocaina Mosaic Council6 (council which oversees conservation efforts). The head of the park did not legitimate this initiative because fisheries in Trindade were not a priority in the park’s management agenda. Eventually, the final report of the Trindade fisheries assessment was not acknowledged by the head of the park and the council of the Mosaic did not take action resulting from the assessment. The lack of acknowledgement of the Trindade fisheries in the final report has generated uncertainty among fishers, a lack of confidence in the Mosaic’s council, and intensified conflict between fishers and the park6,7.

In the consultative Council of the park, one of the priorities of the current officers is tourism within the protected area, in a partnership with a community-based organization that is led by local tourism boat-owners and fishers. However, the communication between community leaders and managers during the meetings is unidirectional and controlled by the PA managers. Community members do not understand the rules governing the PAs and attribute this difficulty to the lack of access to information and little dialogue with managers. Since 2010, fishers and community leaders from Trindade are seeking to build arenas to discuss problems related to the restrictions of the park over the land and marine areas of the PA, with the Park head. These initiatives include their participation in (i) the review of the Management Plan of the Park, (ii) building agreements related to tourism activities done inside the marine area of the Park, and (iii) the negotiation to build an agreement to control fisheries inside the marine portion of the Park5,6,7.

Community Initiative

Efforts are underway, in all three communities, to ensure community rights to access resources within protected areas (PAs) and contribute to community conservation of both fisheries and terrestrial resources. These efforts are supported by local and university partners, the latter being UNICAMP (Brazil) and the University of Manitoba (Canada).

In Tarituba, an agreement has been developed between fishers and Tamoios Ecological Station in order to allow certain fishing gear and vessels inside the PA. The fishers are concerned about fisheries management, conservation, and their own livelihoods. Agreeing to meet, both fishers and PA managers attended workshops to express concerns and demands while learning about the others’ concerns and agenda. Joint discussion on local livelihoods and conservation led to the designing of a Terms of Agreement in 2013, however, this agreement has not been officially issued yet due to internal conflicting agendas within the PA government agency.

In Praia do Sono, the local community is working with researchers to improve terrestrial resources management, and to contribute to the debate on PA reclassification. Locals and PA staff participated in interviews and wildlife photo identification.

In Trindade, examining the institutional context of fisheries and PAs is essential in order to analyze how the community interacts within institutional contexts and to determine how this influences small-scale fisheries on a local level. Ongoing research in Trindade is analyzing (a) what communities and PA managers have been learning over the past 8 years when PAs started to be implemented in the communities and (b) how implementation impacts fisheries on a local level. Workshops about participatory monitoring were developed with the community, to discuss building a monitoring process for fisheries and tourism, based on local knowledge and developed by the community. The next step is the development of a monitoring protocol with some fishers of Trindade.

Practical Outcomes

Tarituba
As a result of the increasing interactions between PA managers and fishers, a better dialogue system and a better understanding of needs and beliefs has been established between fishers and PA managers, leading to the design of the participatory monitoring program of artisanal fisheries3. Although both fishers and, to a lesser extent, PA managers are unsure of who is ultimately responsible for conservation, the participatory monitoring program will be important in reducing conflict and in improving decision-making among protected area management and ensuring local fisheries rights, food security and traditional livelihoods. In parallel, further research in Tarituba will attempt to better understand the institutional arrangements and degrees of restrictions of PAs, its influence on community based conservation, and how this is reflected within fisher stewardship.

Praia do Sono
Community members express how local ecological knowledge is being lost due to increased contact with regional markets and, over the last decade, due to new religion restrictions; however, the norms and practices regarding stewardship and conservation that were initially created from the local ecological knowledge of community members are still playing a role in natural resources management. Although hunting has impacts on wildlife, and has been criminalized, local rules and taboos may help promote sustainable use and resource conservation4. Incorporating local ecological knowledge in PA management may offer a faster assessment of wildlife than conventional biological research as well as local management rules for sustainable wildlife use within PAs. Empowerment of the local community is essential so that they can better negotiate their rights to access resources and practice their traditional livelihoods with the no-take protected area manager.

The research regarding local knowledge on wildlife and its management has triggered considerable discussion among locals and the PA staff. A Praia do Sono leader has highlighted the importance of communities working together with the university to negotiate with government over the rights of traditional communities to their land.

Trindade
Community members have been expressing frustration on how the implementation of PAs has influenced their livelihood. Since 2010, when the Consultative Council of the Park was created, not much has advanced in terms of participatory management, shared decision-making and integration between conservation goals and livelihoods. Nevertheless, community leaders continue to participate in different arenas to claim their rights over their land and sea, seeking to develop agreements with the park regarding tourism and fishing.

With advice from researchers, fishers are debating developing a monitoring protocol for fisheries and tourism. Although two workshops have been conducted about this topic, the monitoring plan was not developed yet because fishers are involved in other activities. They have been investing their time engaging in a national network that represents small-scale fishers throughout the country to get better opportunities to negotiate their demands.

Paraty
For Paraty Bay as a whole, insights from seven years of partnerships among communities, fishers and university researchers have been compiled. A series of upcoming workshops involving fishers and community members from Tarituba, Trindade and Praia do Sono will discuss these insights as well as advances and barriers to community conservation and commons governance. The three communities will also host further workshops about learning processes involving governance in coastal communities and protected areas.

References

1. Hanazaki, N., Berkes, F., Seixas, C. S., & Peroni, N. 2013. Livelihood Diversity, Food Security and Resilience among the Caiçara of Coastal Brazil. Human Ecology, 41 (1):153-164.

2. De Freitas, R. R. 2014. Implicações de políticas de conservação e desenvolvimento na pesca artesanal costeira em uma área marinha protegida da Baía da Ilha Grande. PhD Thesis. State University of Campinas. 273p.

3. Dias, A.C.E. 2015. Fisheries participatory monitoring at Tarituba community, Paraty (Brazil): Reconciling conservation and small-scale fisheries. Masters Thesis, State University of Campinas, Brazil. 188p.

4. Islas, C.A. 2015. Conhecimento Ecológico Tradicional Caiçara sobre animais silvestres como aporte para um Manejo de Base Ecossistêmica. Masters Thesis, State University of Campinas, Brazil. 199p.

5. Bockstael E, Bahia NCF, Seixas CS, Berkes F. 2016. Participation in protected area management planning in coastal Brazil. Environmental Science & Policy 60: 1–10

6. Araujo, L. 2014. A Pesca Costeira Artesanal de Paraty, RJ: Uma Análise Multiescalar sob o Enfoque da Cogestão de Recursos Comuns. Doctoral dissertation. IFCH/NEPAM/UNICAMP. Universidade Estadual de Campinas. 362p.

7. Bahia, N.C., Seixas, C.S., Araujo, L.G., Farinaci, J.S. & Chamy, P. 2013. Implementation of a national park over traditional lands of the Trindade community in Paraty, Brazil In: Magro, T. C.; Rodrigues, L. M.; Silva Filho, D. F. ; Polizel, J. L.; Leahy, J.; (Eds.). Protected Areas and Place Making: How do we provide conservation, landscape management, tourism, human health and regional development? Protected Areas and Place Making Conference Proceedings. Piracicaba: ESALQ. 46-51pp.

View the CCRN’s Tanzania Community Story as  PDF

Key Messages

Activities are underwayin the Saadani National Park area intended to result in:

• Involving communities in alternative, environmentally compatible livelihood activities that improve well-being for local residents.
• Improving the relationship between the management of Saadani National Park and the surrounding communities.
• Improving land management to arrest deforestation and ensure conservation of critical resource features both within and outside the national park.

Community Introduction

Tanzania’s Saadani National Park, established in 2005 with an area of 1,100 km2, is a coastal strip along the Indian Ocean north of Dar es Salaam. Within the national park system, Saadani is the only coastal park and is especially important for protecting rapidly diminishing coastal forests, the Wami River estuary and mangrove environments, along with a marine component of offshore coral reefs and turtle rearing beach(1).

Figure 1: Map of the Saadani Natinal Park in Tanzania

Four ecozones make up Saadani National Park: the marine environment of the Indian Ocean; the fresh water ecosystem of the major river courses; the coastal forests; and the humid savanna. The marine environment includes the breeding areas and habitat for over 40 fish species and significant populations of gastropods, echinoderms and corals. Mangrove forests and salt pans are located in the central and southern Saadani. Additionally, nesting beaches of the threatened green turtle are protected within the park. The Wami River and its corridor along the southern border of the area remains an important natural freshwater system especially in the river’s lower reaches. The coastal forest zone is critical for regulating the water cycle and provides habitat for a wide variety of mammals including elephants, leopards, kudu, suni, duiker, bush babies and Colobus monkeys. The humid savanna, including long grass, short grass and black cotton plains, supports grazers and browsers such as hartebeest, waterbuck, buffalo, and reedbuck.

Figure 2: Hippos in the Wami River, Saadani National Park (Photo Credit B.K. Downie)

The park was created from three major components of crown land which together comprised approximately 500 km2 of the total land area. Negotiations with villages of the area resulted in the remainder of the park being composed of former village lands(2,3). However, community residents do not believe that the benefit commitments made by the Tanzania National Parks Agency (TANAPA) in exchange for the land, such as employment and community services, have been realized(4). Furthermore disputes over the actual boundary of the park continue and remain extremely contentious(5). TANAPA wants to retain existing lands and believes that more land needs to be added to the park to ensure integrity of key resources(6).

The Saadani Community

The villages bordering Saadani National Park are small and subsistence livelihood based, with fishing dominating along the coast and agriculture taking over in inland communities. Services remain limited and public infrastructure is poor. The economies of the villages are very small and dominated by micro enterprises linked to and supplementing the production from subsistence agriculture and fishing.

Salt production is the only industrial activity in the immediate area although sisal plantations exist to the north and a sugar cane plantation is proposed in the southwest corner of the area. Tourist lodge facilities pre-dated the park and have expanded since park establishment, although by comparison to other national parks in Tanzania, both numbers of sites and park visitation remain relatively small(4).

Figure 3: Small business enterprise in Saadani village (Photo Credit B.K. Downie)

Conservation and Livelihood Challenges

Although relatively close to major population centres, the infrastructure of the Saadani, including water and power systems, transportation and communications, are not well developed due to the small and dispersed population. Local village economies remain very small with limited wage, employment, and public services such as education and health care.

The interaction between resource extraction and environmental change is the biggest challenge facing the Saadani. Species that have supported both human need and ecosystem function are being diminished or lost due to overharvesting, resulting in the associated impact on other species. For example, as fresh water fish stocks decline in the Wami River, the dependent bird and reptile species diminish as well. Population pressure leads to increased conversion of land to agriculture, which diminishes the coastal forest cover and impacts the water regime, which in turn impacts agricultural productivity.

Figure 4: Fisher in dhow off the coast (Photo Credit B.K. Downie)

Sensitive and vulnerable landscapes present significant challenges for conservation and management in the context of the Saadani and have been the focus of some of the conflict between the park and the communities. Coral reefs, as an example, have experienced considerable degradation. With the establishment of the park, a key reef and island complex was closed to community harvest. Mangroves, also highly impacted by human activity, are a priority for protection within the park and additional areas currently outside the park are a priority for acquisition.

Incompatible land uses also illustrate the conflict between conservation and community needs. A private sector salt producer currently operates in an enclave within the park and park management wants the operation closed and the area added to the park. However, the salt company is one of the few employers in the area and closing the operation would seriously impact potential wage employment for local people. Similarly, the most severe environmental impact in the area is the diminishing forest land which is being converted to agriculture or simply removed for the production of charcoal. This land use pattern will have an inevitable negative impact on the viability of the park unless the trend is reversed, yet land for agriculture and the energy and income resulting from charcoal production will be extremely challenging to replace.

Community Initiative

Given the above situation, there are great needs for:

• Community led activities that foster long-term sustainability of community based conservation and development initiatives.
• Support for local communities, both rural and urban, to understand the conservation values of the environment in which they live.
• Support for communities to implement development interventions that are compatible with and build on those natural resource values.
• Support for protected areas management agencies to work with local communities in the cooperative achievement of both protected areas and community objectives.

Figure 5: Fishers in Saadani village going to fish (Photo Credit B.K. Downie)

These activities have been undertaken by the Kesho Trust, a Canadian charitable organization (registered 2005) and also registered as a Tanzanian NGO (2006). The Kesho Trust has a long term commitment to the Saadani area and is involved in a variety of initiatives in the area. As part of their ongoing work, the Kesho trust initiated a project called Promoting Environmental Conservation and Cooperation (PECC) in the Saadani in 2013. The purpose of this project was to help improve the relationships between villagers and the Saadani Park management through understanding and discussion. The project established, and works with, 10 person committees in each of the six communities in the area (Buyuni, Gongo, Matipwili, Mkange, Mkwaja, Saadani).

In September, 2015 a series of meetings was held in three out of the six PECC communities and then a workshop was convened with two representatives from each of the community committees to review the progress of PECC. Participants were asked to explain what was working effectively and why and how they felt the project was affecting their relationships with the park. The outcomes were positive and people were keen to continue the work of the committees in each village(7).

Practical Outcomes

A recent review of PECC identified four key project activities as being the most beneficial to the Saadani area communities.

Communication

The opportunity to have important issues heard and discussed with park staff was critical for village participants, even if solutions were not immediately possible.

Community Collaboration

Meeting with other village communities was important in understanding that others experienced similar issues and that there were potential collective solutions.

Observing other Conservation Organisations

Visits to conservation organisations and agencies in Dar es Salaam provided new information and ideas about ways to work with designated conservation areas. Visiting the Wildlife Department of the Ministry of Natural Resources was considered to be especially valuable.

Education

Developing, and using songs, drama and poems helped people in their villages learn about the process and benefits of conservation.

Figure 6: PECC workshop with representatives from all six participating villages (Photo Credit B.K. Downie)

References

1. Tanzania National Parks (TANAPA). (2009). Saadani National Park: general management plan 2010-2020 (p. 168). Arusha, Tanzania: TANAPA.
2. Baldus, R. D., Roettcher, K., & Broska, D. (2001). An introduction to Tanzania’s future 13th national park (Tanzania Wildlife Discussion Paper No. 30). Dar es Salaam: GTZ Wildlife Programme in Tanzania.
3. Bloesch, U., & Klötzli, F. (2004). Coastal forests of the Saadani National Park (Tanzania Wildlife Discussion Paper No. 37) (p. 30). Dar es Salaam, Tanzania: Tanzania Wildlife Discussion Paper.
4. Downie, B. K. (2015). Conservation influences on livelihood decision-making: A case study from Saadani National Park, Tanzania. PhD Thesis. Victoria: University of Victoria.
5. Orozco-Quintero, A. (2014). Uvinje Village and Saadani National Park, Tanzania. Retrieved from http://www.justconservation.org/uvinje-village-and-saadani-national-park,-tanzania
6. Tanzania National Parks (TANAPA). (2014). Research priorities for national parks (p. 46). Arusha, Tanzania: TANAPA.
7. Downie, B.K. (2016). Towards the resolution of a conservation and community conflict: A Tanzania case study. Policy Matters. 20. (p. 66-80).

Acknowledgements

The commitment and support of the people of the Saadani area villages has made the work possible. Funding support beyond the ongoing donations to the Kesho Trust by private individuals has come from two donor organizations: 1) initial stages of the PECC project were funded by the Tanzania Foundation for Civil Society; and, 2) a recent project review and subsequent workshops, focused on community based tourism as an alternative livelihood activity, was supported by IUCN.

See below for the Swahili language abstract for this community story, “Hifadhi ya Taifa ya Saadani, Tanzania: Kukuza Uendelevu wa Muda Mrefu wa Uhifadhi wa Kijamii na Maendeleo.”

A video concerning the Kesho Trust  project Promoting Environmental Conservation and Cooperation (PECC)

View the complete CCRN’s Kyrgyzstan Community Story as a PDF

Aibek Samakov,University of Manitoba; aisamakov@gmail.com

Key Messages

Linking the two models of conservation currently practiced in the Ysyk-Köl Biosphere Reserve could improve overall conservation by:

• Providing a complementary set of incentives for conservation
• Imparting traditional ecological knowledge to future generations
• Improving communication between interested parties

Community Introduction

The Ysyk-Köl Biosphere Reserve (YKBR), the largest protected area in Kyrgyzstan, gained international UNESCO designation in 2001(1). The YKBR has a territory of 43,100km2 and an altitude of 1,609 to 7,439 meters above sea level. The YKBR consists of a number of ecological subzones from valleys to high mountains. It is home to 335 species, most of them birds (267), with 39 included in the Red Book of Kyrgyzstan(2,3).

The YKBR is formally protected by biosphere reserve managers who see conservation as a means to protect species diversity. Although the legal documents and acts acknowledge the importance of biodiversity conservation on genetic, species and ecosystem levels, in practice, mostly species-level diversity is taken into consideration, whereas genetic and ecosystem level diversity is
underplayed.

Figure 1. Map of the YKBR(6), red dots show approximate location of sacred sites

Sacred Sites
Sacred sites are “areas of land and bodies of water, as well as constructions and items, which are spiritually or/and religiously meaningful for local people and where sacral practices and rituals are performed”(4,5). Lake Ysyk-Köl, which is considered as a sacred lake by local people, is a keystone element within the YKBR (Figure 1). There are more than 120 documented sacred sites surrounding the lake(4). For traditional practitioners who visit sacred sites, conservation means respect and reverence towards sacred sites, most of which have natural components as well as human-made components, making them biocultural hybrids.

Most of the sacred sites in YKBR are relatively small in size and contribute to biodiversity conservation in an indirect way. That is why sacred sites as community-conserved areas and formal conservation do not have competing interests, which makes these two models of conservation complementary in nature. The major difference between these two models lies in their governance systems: on sacred sites governance is predominantly bottom-up and resemble institutions for managing commons(7), whereas the governance system of the YKBR, and the state reserves within it, is mostly top-down with little involvement of local communities in decision-making and management.

Figure 2. Manjyly-Ata Sacred Site (Photo Credit: Aigine Cultural Research Center)

Conservation and Livelihood Challenges

Community members, both male and female, feel that the conservation strategies in the YKBR have been largely ineffective due to:

• Lack of collaboration between local communities and biosphere reserve managers.

• Lack of community support for YKBR
conservation strategies and activities.

• Neglect of traditional ecological knowledge by biosphere reserve managers.

“We conduct a number of events such as cleaning up the shore of the lake, the March of Parks, round table meetings and discussions to raise local people’s ecological awareness. However, it seems like they [local people] forget everything we talked about during the event as soon as the event is over” – Male Biosphere Reserve employee.
“I wonder if the Biosphere Reserve [i.e. its employees] do any work. They know how to collect money, that’s it. They are supposed to protect nature from poachers but they are “number one” poachers themselves” -Local male from Ysyk- Köl area.

Many local people think that BR is an ecological check-point, where BR employees collect a fee for entering the YKBR. They do not know what kind of an institution the YKBR is, what its functions and goals are, what the BR does – Conservation manager(8) (Note: Ecological check-points were eliminated by Government Resolution May 23, 2013.) I see the sign that says that it is a Biosphere Reserve but I don’t know what exactly they do besides charging fees to tourists for entering the Ysyk-Köl. It is just another way of earning money, I guess. – Local villager(8)

Figure 3. Interview with a YKBR ranger (Photo credit: Aibek Samakov)

Community Initiative

There is little interaction between sacred sites and the YKBR. At this point, sacred sites are not taken into account in formal conservation strategies and sacred site guardians are not trying to reach out to the YKBR. The lack of interaction between these two conservation models can be explained using the ‘path dependency concept’, where past policy and management decisions effect those in later stages(9).

The neglect of sacred sites can be explained by the fact that state-run institutions have always been reluctant to cooperate with spiritual/religious institutions. During the Soviet era, sacred sites in particular, and spirituality and religion in general, were oppressed, and since gaining independence the state has been secular. Thus, formal, state-run conservation has never paid attention to local, cultural (spiritual) mechanisms of conservation.

Local communities, on the other hand, have never received government support in managing their sacred sites. Moreover, during the Soviet era, sacred sites were preserved despite state sanctions against those who visited them(10). As a result, local communities have never relied on state support for managing sacred sites, even after gaining independence.

Figure 4. Interview with Sacred Site Guardian (Photo credit: Kairat Alibekov)

At the same time, in the last ten years, traditional practitioners, sacred site guardians, and NGOs such as Aigine have been active in promoting legal recognition of sacred sites in Kyrgyzstan. Thus, sacred sites and the YKBR co-exist on the same territory and frequently overlap. However, these two models of conservation do not interact and are not used to reinforce each other.

Practical Outcomes

Linking these two models of conservation could improve overall conservation in the YKBR by:

1. Making the concept of biosphere reserves more understandable for local communities.

2. Improving ecological monitoring.

3. Indirectly conserving species and areas.

4. Improving BR zoning.

5. Providing a complementary culture-rooted set of incentives for conservation (in addition to rational incentives).

6. Fostering a biocultural approach to conservation.

7. Collecting and using TEK in conservation.

8. Serving as a communication hub for YKBR managers and local communities.

9. Serving as a platform for local communities’ capacity building

Further Information
For more information regarding the content of this community story please see: Samakov A. 2015. Sacred sites: opportunity for improving biocultural conservation and governance in Ysyk-Köl Biosphere Reserve, Kyrgyz Republic. Thesis, University of Manitoba, Canada. Available for free at:
http://umanitoba.ca/institutes/natural_resources/pdf/theses/Samakov,%20Aibek.MNRM%202015.pdf

Figure 5. Manjyly-Ata Sacred Site (Photo Credit: Aigine Cultural Research Center)

References

1. UNESCO. 2012. Ecological Sciences for Sustainable Development. Issyk Kul. URL: http://www.unesco.org/ new/en/natural-sciences/environment/ecologicalsciences/ biosphere-reserves/asia-and-the-pacific/ kyrgyztan/issyk-kul/ Retrieved on April 16, 2014.

2. MAB. 2002. Biosphere Reserve Directory. Biosphere Reserve Information. Kyrgyzstan. Issuk-Kul. URL: http://goo.gl/16DYQi. (Accessed on May 15, 2015).

3. Ysyk-Köl Biosphere Reserve Statute. 2000. The Government of the Kyrgyz Republic. Signed on January 24, 2000. N 40.

4. Aitpaeva G. 2013. Sacred Sites of the Southern Kyrgyzstan: Nature, Manas, Islam. Aigine Cultural Research Center, Bishkek. Aitpaeva, G., Egemberdieva, A., & Toktogulova M. (2007). Mazar worship in Kyrgyzstan: rituals and practitioners in Talas. Aigine Cultural Research Center, Bishkek.

5. Wild R. & McLeod C. (Eds). 2008. Sacred Natural Sites: Guidelines for Protected Area Managers. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland.

6. Baetov. 2006. Source: www.unesco.org/mab/br/focus/2002Oct/Issyk.htm.

7. Rutte C. 2011. The sacred commons: conflicts and solutions of resource management in sacred natural sites. Biological Conservation, 144(10), 2387-2394.

8. Howlett M. 2003. Canadian environmental policy and the natural resources sector: paradoxical aspects of transition to a post-staples political economy. In: Lee, E., & Perl, A. (Eds.). (2003). The Integrity Gap: Canada’s Environmental Policy and Institutions. UBC Press.

9. Aitpaeva G., Egemberdieva A., & Toktogulova M. (Eds.). 2007. Mazar worship in Kyrgyzstan: rituals and practitioners in Talas. Aigine Cultural Research Center, Bishkek.

See below for the Kyrgyz language abstract for this community story, “Ысык-Көл биосфералык аймагы, Кыргызстан,Табигый коруктардагы жаратылышты сактоого касиеттүү жердердин кошкон салымы.”