So, Did We Have An Impact On Conservation?

Sharing Experiences At A BCN Partner Meeting In Indonesia

"Maybe the idea of using income as an indicator for conservation is an American idea. Maybe that's why BCN is analyzing it."

"Right. In Irian Jaya, income is not a good indicator because people value resources differently, not just because it contributed to their income."

"I agree. Right now people are most interested in this project because it could give them more management and control over their coastal resources. That's why they are doing a community mapping exercise."

"No, I disagree. In Central Sulawesi, increasing incomes is such a fundamental objective of people living there that it is a good indicator of under what conditions they are willing to conserve resources to increase that income."

That is -- though paraphrased -- what we were talking about at 9pm on a Monday night last September. We were 16 people sitting under a Coleman lantern in an open air pondok (think a sort of big gazebo) in Gunung Halimun National Park -- which happens to be the largest remaining tract of lowland forest on the island of Java and, therefore, a perfect location to discuss the environment and resources we are all interested in conserving and managing.

For two days, from early morning until late at night, two representatives from each of the six projects BCN supports in Indonesia were sharing experiences, analyses and attitudes (we also took walks in the surrounding forest and took advantage of a canopy walk, so it wasn't all work). During the first morning, the group agreed to focus the discussion on several issues common to all the projects, including:

* The organizational and market structure of the various enterprises being developed;

* The design of socioeconomic and biological monitoring programs;

* The merits challenges of working with communities, especially in and around protected areas;

* The need for transparency and good communication when working with communities;

* The process of obtaining resource extraction and sales permits from the Indonesian government;

* The need to focus project energy on policy change; and

* The role of "outside" NGOs and other organizations in affecting both policy and business development.

This meeting produced no consensus on how to address these issues (if it had, I would have been worried), simply because they are so often site - and project-specific in their complexity. In other words, in Irian Jaya, it can be comparatively easier to work with community members because communication tends to be more direct and open than in, say, West Java. In West Kalimantan, the Yayasan Dian Tama project had fewer problems in obtaining bamboo, rattan and damar (a resin tapped from trees) permits because these non-timber forest products do not carry the same degree of political baggage and bureaucratic inertia as timber-cutting rights at the LTFE/Harvard project. And within the TNC-led project at Lore Lindu National Park, the honey hunting venture in Napu Valley is more likely to be sustainable in part because the enterprise and market structure is so much more straightforward than for the butterfly ranching in nearby Palolo Valley.

Having acknowledged the many differences, however, we also identified many commonalities across all project sites. For example, it is better to focus first on changing local -- even village-level -- policies and resource regulations than to go for national level change. The primary enterprise role for all of the lead NGOs is to act as an intermediary in marketing, negotiating for permits with government officials, and providing skills and training. And, despite what many people in government, academic and NGO circles believe, villagers can take an active, productive role in monitoring the environmental and socioeconomic impacts the projects are having (this is clearly demonstrated in the two Irian Jaya-based projects).

So, what -- aside from some new friendships (always important) and a sore butt from sitting on a wooden floor for 14 hours a day (mostly my problem, I think) -- were the meeting's outcomes? First and foremost, the group agreed that it is important that the "lessons learned" from their experiences reach a wider audience. They hope to stage a one-or two-day seminar in early 1999 that would target a wide conservation and development audience to convey the work and analyses they have done, why it's important, how conservation "success" can be measured in many different ways, and how each of the projects has, in its own way, had a positive impact on conservation in Indonesia.

Second, they agreed that there now needs to be focus on some written products, such as a comparative analysis of butterfly farming in Irian Jaya and butterfly ranching in Central Sulawesi.

Third, they agreed that other media need to be pursued, especially the production of a video describing all six Indonesia-based projects and their impact on conservation and the communities with which they work.

And finally, there was a commitment to follow-up these new contacts and acquaintances with cross-site visits, like one between the GHNP project staff and YDT, since they are both producing rattan and bamboo handicrafts.

Whether or not all of these things are acted upon is uncertain. New ideas come up, initiatives fade, and the day-to-day details of project implementation can overwhelm even the best of intentions. But the meeting ended with an agreement that face-to-face gatherings like this one are extremely valuable, that one should have taken place much, much sooner in the project cycle, and that another similar meeting should be planned for this Network of projects, even after the BCN funding has ended.

Unfortunately, the question about whether or not income is a good incentive for or indicator of conservation success was never resolved. Perhaps they are waiting for BCN staff to figure that one out. Stay tuned.

WHY BIODIVERSITY   FIELD STORIES   PARTICIPATE   RESULTS   MARKETSPACE ABOUT THE NETWORK   WHAT'S NEW   LEARNING MATERIALS   SEARCH   LINKS   SITE MAP   HOME