DIGITALNA ARHIVA ŠUMARSKOG LISTA
prilagođeno pretraživanje po punom tekstu
| ŠUMARSKI LIST 9-10/2010 str. 66 <-- 66 --> PDF |
J. Tomićević, M. A. Shannon, D. Vuletić: DEVELOPING LOCAL CAPACITY FOR PARTICIPATORY... Šumarski list br. 9–10, CXXXIV (2010), 503-515 INTRODUCTION – Uvod Experience around the world has demonstrated that planning for the sustainable conservation of biodiversity requires the participation of local people living in the area (Borrini-Feyerabend et al. 2004a, 2004b; Winterbottom 1992). Local communities need to be actively involved in conservation planning and management so that their needs and aspirations are met and biodiversity is sustained (West 1991; McNeely 1993; Lewis 1996). Community participation in biodiversity management and recognition of the role of traditional knowledge in sustaining the landscape and associated biodiversity are consistently recognised as fundamental to the success of development projects (Alexander 2000). In general, research and practice has confirmed that the attitudes of local people towards the conservation of resources can be improved by increasing the benefits these populations receive as a result of supporting and carrying out protection measures, and by involving these communities directly in decision-making processes (Parry andCampbell 1992). It is also useful to not that participatory process is a key principle of emerging new modes of environmental governance (Shannon2006). Participation of local people in environmental assessments, planning, and management assumes sufficient social capacity to engage in a communicative relationship with the diverse array of other actors (Shannon 2002b). In this context, other actors consist of managers, scientists, government officials, non-governmental organizations, international experts and so on.These actors all have in common access to knowledge, theories, concepts, and vocabulary produced outside of the local community that affects the programmes and policies (Shannon 2002a; Kruger and Shannon 2000). AgrawalandGibson(2001:11) argue that “it is possible that the existence of communal norms will promote cooperative decision-making within the community.” Thus, in a participatory process, it is critical to develop inclusive communicative relationships among the network of governance actors that respects local knowledge and recognizes the importance of local needs and values.Through the communicative process, understanding that local natural resource livelihood strategies are essential to creating and sustaining biodiversity emerges and the role of local social capacity is recognized by all actors. It is for this reason that the principle of participation as an essential element of good governance (DePoe, Delicath and Elsenbeer 2004;Shannon2003b). Mr. Pekka Patosaari,Director, UN Forum on Forests Secretariat, stated at the Sixth Session of the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Peoples during the ‘Dialogue withAgencies’ focused on “Territories, Lands and Natural Resources” that one of theGlobal Objecti ves on Forestsis to “enhance forest-based economic, social and environmental benefits, including by improving the livelihoods of forest dependent people” (Patosaari, 2007). Emphasis on the importance of local communities in securing the sustainability of forests and protection of biodiversity continues to grow among managers and policy makers, and has become an international focus of research (c.f.;Agrawal andGibson 2001; Brosius, Tsing andZerner 2005;DePoe,Delicath andElsenbeer 2004).While increasing knowledge about forest dependent people and communities is a necessary first step, achieving this policy objective of improved and enhanced benefits depends on their capacity individually and collectively to participate in the communicative processes of resource management and governance (Kruger andShannon,2000). Furthermore, meeting the needs of local people should be the principal objective of forest management, and this should be reflected in control and tenure arrangements (Peluso & Padoch,1996). Poverty-oriented forestry is concerned with reducing the vulnerability of the poor by enabling people to continue to have access to the resources and product flows needed for subsistence purposes (Warner, 2003).Adetailed assessment needs to be prepared by, or at least with the people concerned, in order to identify the complete range of relationships between the people and forest that they use and/or manage, the current limitations to their livelihoods and the potentials and desire for change (Byron andArnold,1999). Experiences in community- based forestry demonstrate that a people- centred approach is viable and effective (Warner,2003). Some conservationists recommend participatory forest management over community or state forest management because participatory forestry enhances collaboration and understanding between forest communities and state authorities (e.g.Murphree 1993; Pokharel, 2000). However, Poffenberger & Singh (1998) andCampbell etal. (2001) warned that implementation of participatory forestry can be difficult, particularly where securing representation on joint management committees and reaching consensus on issues such as distribution of benefits to communities are concerned. Grumbine (1994) and Jacobson (1995) suggested that these issues can partly be overcome if resource users and managers are aware of the forest management goals and practices, and have positive attitudes towards conservation. However, denying local people the right to use natural resources found within a protected area severely reduces their inclination to support conservation and often undermines local livelihood security (Pimbert andPretty 1997).At the root of the relationship bet ween local people and management authorities lies a |