Abstract
This research analyses divergent approaches in international conservation. At one end of the spectrum are approaches that aim to delink local livelihoods from natural forests, at the other end of the spectrum approaches aim to actively link livelihoods to natural forests. Both sets of approaches aim to save the natural forest. This research unpacks the conceptual origins of the approaches, harnesses analysis by targeted community members and from professionals who have implemented the approaches internationally. As shown in the literature review there is a dearth of concrete evidence around the efficacy of the approaches, and the voice of targeted community members are almost non-existent. The review reveals deeply engrained historical Euro-centric conceptual origins of the ‘delinking’ approach, a red thread emerges from Judaeo-Christian ideals of a separation of humans from nature, to exclusionary Royal Forests and National Parks to the spread and institutionalisation of ‘fortress conservation’ and ‘command and control’ approaches in the Global South during colonial and post-colonial periods. In the last few decades more participatory conservation approaches have emerged, often with alternative livelihood approaches (ALAs), designed to wean people off forests, providing a viable livelihood substitute.Community Based Forest Management (CBFM) is spreading, as failures in more top-down approaches have become clear. The CBFM case study in Zambia has both forest-based livelihood approaches and ALAs applied side by side. Facilitated analysis with target communities revealed that ALAs were perceived as having tokenistic impacts equating to on average only 1.2% of all forest-based livelihood contributions, clearly an unviable substitute to forests. In some cases, ALAs such as crop and goat introductions were perceived as increasing pressure on the forests, rather than sparing the forest. However, as ‘free handouts’ – gestures, ALAs were appreciated, especially in a degraded forest site. Forest livelihood sources played a significant role, providing from 20% to 44% of all community livelihood needs. Within CBFM promoting forest use was seen as critical to incentivize forest maintenance. CBFM professionals confirmed these findings but explained factors that favour continued promotion of ALAs. This included a conflation of simplistic Euro-centric narratives about people separate from nature, pragmatic interests of implementing organizations more interested in sustainable funding than sustainable forestry, and delinking approaches better sustaining post-colonial power imbalances, control and induced dependency.
To link or not to link? Evidence suggest ALAs are not generally effective and 'use it or lose it’ forest-based livelihood approaches, although often stifled, are. However, a simplistic ‘delinking’ concept appeals to funders and reinforces neocolonial power dynamics. CBFM itself part formalizes yet part undermines customary practices, particularly swidden agriculture. This research indicates that international conservation (including CBFM which is at the least-worst end of the spectrum) requires a root and branch decolonization in terms of power and concepts. Researchers can play a role in this, facilitating analysis by local forest dependent people and sharing their realities, rather than doing research on them.
| Date of Award | 17 Jan 2025 |
|---|---|
| Original language | English |
| Supervisor | Eshani Beddewela (Main Supervisor) & Byongjun (Phil) Hwang (Co-Supervisor) |