From Participation to Partnership in Biodiversity Protection: Experience from Germany and South Africa

Society andNatural Resources, 15:161±177, 2002 Copyright # 2002Taylor & Francis 0894-1920/2002$12.00 + .00

FromPart icipation to Partnership inBiodiversity Protection:ExperiencefromGermany andSouthAfrica

SUSANNESTOLL-KLEEMANN Social Systems Potsdam Institute for ClimateImpact Research Potsdam, Germany

TIMOTHYO’ RIORDAN Centre for Social and Enonomic Research on the Global Environment University of EastA nglia Norwich, United Kingdom

Lossesin biodiversity are becoming alarming. T osafeguardwhat is left means placingpriority on the protection of species and habitats. Ideally, this should be a goalin its own right. In practice, people have to see a directgain. However, par- ticipationis by no means guaranteed to ensure adequate saf eguard.However, par- ticipationas a preludeto partnerships that bind government, agencies, and communitiesthrough coordinated f undingis much more likely to be successf ul.In theCape F loralK ingdomof South Africa, one of the world’ s25``hot-spots,’’public± privatepartnerships are regarded as vital. In the Uckermark L akesNature Park in northeastGermany the partnership approach is proving the only uncontested way to biodiversitymanagement. T hisarticle discusses why partnerships are so essential f or thefuture of biodiversity. It also assesses what dif ®cultiesremain in order to ensure cooperativelinkages between community gain and ecological enhancement.

Keywords biodiversity,Cape Floral Kingdom ( SouthAfrica), participation, partnership,Uckermark Lakes Nature P ark( Germany)

Readers of Societyand Natural Resources aref amiliarwith adecade of discussion as to how farbiodiversity canbe protected byplacing ` `ecology’’or ``people’’®rst in biodiversity management (e.g.,West and Brechin 1991;Wells and Brandon 1992; McNeely1995; Pretty and Pimbert 1995;Sinclair et al.2000) .We brie¯y reviewthis debate and observe that the primaryobjective must liewith the integrity of biodiversity( WBGU 2000,4) .This priority ismost notably the casein regions where the remaining species and habitats areextraordinarily rich and extensivelythreatened. We also allude to the scienti® cevidence that justi® es the extension of protection to largerand interlinked areas.We believethat this process necessarilyembraces

Received1 September2000; accepted 17 January 2001. Address correspondenceto Susanne Stoll-Kleemann, Social Systems, Potsdam Institute for Climate ImpactResearch, PO Box 601203, 14412 Potsdam, Germany. E-mail: susanne.stoll@ pik-potsdam.de

161 162 S.Stoll-Kleemannand T .O’Riordan ecological,economic, and socialobjectives into acoordinated approach. We note this because anyprocess of extension willinevitably involve land users and landowners whose willingcooperation willbe vitalf or the maintenance and enhancement of biodiversity. To illustrate these preliminary observations weselect two casestudies. One derives from the experience of German protected areasmanagement, and the other covers the emergingopportunities for the comprehensive management of the Cape FloralKingdom in South Africa.The German caseis signi®cant because itprovides a positive exampleof integrated biodiversity management in acountry where there is still much opposition to protected areas( BNL1994;Stoll 1999;WBGU 2000;Stoll- Kleemann 2001a;2001b) .The South African exampleis pertinent because of the sustained effort over the past 2yearsto create aprocess for acoherent and participatory partnership for biodiversity management alongthe lines advocated in the literature wereview.We explainthat even well-meaningparticipation often fails.A nd weexplore how partnerships canemerge from successful participation, and viceversa.

Overview Biodiversityconnects ecologyand society through science, partnerships, and ethics. The planet bequeathed to humanity anabundance of species and habitats. Nowa- days,by common agreement, weare witnessing, and areparty to, anextraordinary loss of species and their ecologicalsettings. Salaand his colleagues(2000, 1770) , extrapolatingpresent trends, believethat globalbiodiversity is likelyto be sub- stantiallyundermined bythe year2100. A ccording to Pimm and Raven( 2000,844) , some 18%of the species contained inthe global` `hot spots,’’within which some 30± 50%of allspecies mayexist (Myerset al.2000, 845), will be lost by2050, even if all of those areasare f ullyprotected. If only the existingsaf eguarded sites in the hot spots remain, these authors suggest that some 40%of their species maydisappear over the next halfcentury. This is due both to disturbance and to the destructive effects of fragmentation. SouleÂ and Sanjayan(1998, 2060) contend that atleast halfof total land area should be protected, compared to only 6±8% today, ifspecies varietyis to be guaranteed. Inamdar et al.( 1999,1856± 1858) observe that only through avarietyof ®nancing and management partnerships could anyextension in site safeguard beyond 10%be attained. Theyadvocate the followingprescriptions: prioritizing, consolidating, and rationalizingthe protected areanetwork; devolved responsibility for sustainable harvesting to the localscale; privatizing some of the protected area services; and devisingnew ways to generate income (e.g.,providing carbon seques- tration and watercatchment functions). The ``ecology-® rst’’perspective (also known as`` fortress conservation’’or ``fences and ®nes’’)emerged inits pure form in the colonial period when conservation ``was imposed from the top’’(Gbadegesin and Ayileka2000, 89) .Gbadegesin and Ayileka (2000,90) are also convinced that in most parts of the developing world biodiversity conservation is still characterized bythe top-down management echoing colonial governments. Such anapproach continues to haveits advocates.A ccording to Brown (inpress, 3),there issupportive literature that views` `localcommunities’ welfareand development asdirectly con¯icting with the objectives and practice of biodiversity conservation.’’Salafsky and Wollenberg (2000)note that activitiesbased on strict conservation of ``core’’protected areasrequire enforced boundaries within which no consumptive use of biologicalresources is permitted (see also Brown in press). FromParticipation and Partnership 163

Another reason backing up this apparently ``purist’’contention is that con- vulsivechanges in the globaleconomy and the penetration of Western ideas and materialistic valuesinto everycorner of the globe maygive rise to potentially chaotic and destabilizing socioeconomic conditions atthe levelof localcommunities (Terborgh 1999).Y et Inamdar et al.( 1999,1856± 1885) state that in the majority view of the international community, ``purely protectionist approaches to biodiversity conservation arewidely criticised.’ ’Gbadegesin and Ayileka( 2000,90) add that ``the failingsof this top-down imposition of natural-resource policies and management on localpeople havebeen widelyexposed in the literature. ’’ The ``people included’’perspective (widelyknown ascommunity-based conservation) looks to adirect cooperative relationship between the integrity of eco- systems and the sustainable livelihoods of localpeople (e.g.,Salaf sky and Wollenberg 2000).The claimis that biodiversity protection is maintained through mechanisms that not only support localeconomies, but that also relyon empathetic localmanagement for its continuance (see McNeely1995; Pimbert and Pretty 1995; Borrini-Feyerabend 1996;Barton et al.1997; Davey 1998; Haynes 1998; Venter and Breen 1998).This is in line with Article 10of the Convention on BiologicalDiversity (CBD). The inclusion of localinterests is now widelyregarded asof fundamental signi® cance for the sustainable management of biodiversity (see West and Brechin 1991; Lucas1992; Wells and Brandon 1992;McNeely 1995; Pretty and Pimbert 1995; Borrini-Feyerabend 1996;Batisse 1997; WBGU 2000;Brown 2001).The Global Environment Facility(GEF) (2000,46) directs its funding of National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plansinto such arrangements:

Allplans and guidelines for national biodiversity planning emphasize the importance of localparticipation and consultation, and these areasare allocatedmore than halfof the budget norms of enablingactivity projects.

The followingreasons areoff ered in favorof this participatory approach. 1. Democraticnecessity .Bringingpeople into the management process recognizes their self-worth, appreciates their vitalrole and respects their citizenship cre- dentials. This approach alsoincorporates the role of localproperty rights (McNeely1995; Pretty and Pimbert 1995;Barton et al.1997) . 2. Managementlegitim acy. Effectiveand ef®cient management requires the understanding and the support of localpeople. Rigidmanagement structures do not adjust easilyto social,economic, or ecologicalchanges. Protected areasestab- lished authoritatively from abovewithout prior consent maymake them ``closed territories’’with fewlinks to the externalworlds of hydrology, ecology,and culture on which biodiversity so depends (Batisse1997, 9). From the point of view of peaceful coexistence, such adesperate state of affairsis not only counter- productive. It mayalso destroy anychance of long-term cooperation over economic activitiessuch asecotourism (asadvocated in Article 8of the CBD)(e.g., McNeely1995; Borrini-Feyerabend 1996). 3. Sharingknowledge and understanding arevital f or the success of protected areas. Allactors haveuniquely different perspectives asto whatis aproblem and what constitutes improvement. Since knowledge and understanding aresocially con- structed, whateach actor knows and believes is afunction of unique contexts and experiences. There is, therefore, no single`` correct’’understanding. What is taken 164 S.Stoll-Kleemannand T .O’Riordan

to be ``true’’depends on the framework of knowledge and assumptions brought in byindividuals and their socialand occupational settings. It is essential to seek multiple perspectives on any` `problem assessment’’byensuring the wideinvol- vement of different actors and groups (Pretty and Pimbert 1995,10) .Brown (in press) reminds us that localcommunities, often targeted for participatory processes, arerarely politically cohesive. Theyusually do not share auni® ed viewand therefore do not always,or readily,see the need for peacefullylinking multiple stakeholders and interests. The GEFreviewof participation in National BiodiversityStrategy and Action Plans( NBSAPs)( GEF2000,40) agrees that participation is byno means easily attainable:

The broad participation of various stakeholders that started with the for- mation of multisectoral coordination committees or task forces has helped bring newinf ormation and ideas into the NBSAPs,thereby increasing their relevanceand the prospects for support from various sectors. In many countries where broad participatory processes wereimplemented such as Argentina, Belize,Cuba, Mexico, and Zimbabwe,a sense of ownership has developed. But it should be noted that the contribution of these participatory processes to sustainabiliydepends on the extent and depth of participation bykey stakeholders. Participation sometimes did not extend beyond the coordination committees and task forces. Asigni®cant number of countries, however, had dif®culties in their participatory processes. Thus, the effect of participatory processes on sustainability also depends on con- tinuing these processes and ensuring they complement other factors that would support full implementation of the NBSAP.

Despite its beguilingattractiveness, therefore, the ``people-® rst’’approach is byno means easyto achieve.Barton etal.( 1997,75± 77) provide alist of constraints that should be taken into consideration when designing and implementing participatory approaches.

* Participation bycertain disadvantagedgroups mayclash with localcustoms (e.g., the participation of women, the landless, ethnic minorities, etc.) and maybe quite alien( see also GEF2000, 47) . * Governments maynot support localparticipation or empowerment, especiallyif they regardthese asa threat to the norms of their own authority or asan encouragement to opposition groups. The participatory approach also maynot be viablebecause of localpolitical opposition or sheer lackof institutional support. * Participatoryprocesses require speci® cinvestments of time and resources. In particular, the process of participation needs expert facilitation and clearobjec- tives in order to avoidchaotic meetings and ageneralloss of direction. Further- more, commitment over time is required and encouraging results maytake awhile to appear. This cantax the patience of donors, managers,staf fand localpeople alike.Threats againstnatural resources maybe escalating,and the urgency of taking action maydiscourage actors from undertaking lengthy participatory processes. * Some compromises in conservation objectives mayneed to be made. For instance, aconservation initiativedesigned byoutsiders maypropose atotal ban on local access to natural resources, which maybe simply unacceptable to residents. FromParticipation and Partnership 165

Brandon (1992,564) describes some important ``design dilemmas’’when incorporating localparticipation into integrated conservation development projects (ICDPs):

What the project de® nes asa problem (which maybe the entire reason for the project’sexistence),e.g.decline in aspecies, maynot be aconcern of localcommunities. . . . Community participation maylead the community to de® ne aset of needs which arenot linked to the conservation objectives . . . whatwould happen iflocal people decided, through participatory mechanisms, that they wanted to use the resources inanunsustainable way?

Songorwa (1999,2062± 2064) reinf orces the observations of Barton etal.( 1997) from his reviewand experience of wildlifemanagement programs in Africa.These failures of participation include:

* Failureto adopt a``bottom-up’’participatory approach with genuine local involvement and understanding. Much of this is due to anabsence of empathy among the implementing agencies.Other factors include unclear or contested property rights, so management agreements aredif ®cult to establish. * Empowerment is byno means a``clean’’concept (Brown in press).It is rarely achievedbecause of the unwillingness to share power, alreadynoted. In anycase, empowerment operates on manysocial dimensions, and maynot be achievedby economic measures alone (see also Agrawaland Gibson 1999;Cleaver 1999) . * Aninabilityto address basic community needs and to distribute bene® ts equitably. In Tanzania,notes Songorwa (1999),wildlifeprotection scouts rarelyreceive payment, and areof ten atodds with poachers who aretheir neighbors. Few communities received the wildlifemeat they werepromised. * Lackof trust inthe implementing agencies,f ailureto underwrite donor grants for poor people unable to raisetheir own funds, and unreliable income ¯ows combine to create afeelingof noncredibility, leadingto anunwillingness to cooperate. * Corruption among localof ®cialsand community leaders inmismanagingproject funds and wildlifebene® ts. Consequently, requests for volunteer labor, so essential for the success of participatory management, maypass unheeded. Adifferent problem associated with implementing participatory biodiversity strategies is described in the GEFassessment (2000,48) :

In contrast, there havebeen cases of ``participation fatigue’’ . . . where relativelysmall, heavily stretched organizationsÐ both governmental and NGOsÐ arebeing exhausted byopportunities to contribute inputs to internationally driven planning projects. In other countries, there is growingsense of frustration, especiallyin the NGO sector, with discussing wellunderstood issues yetagain without anytangible commitments of political willpoweror resources of effectiveaction. It is aconstant chal- lengeto ®nd the appropriate balancebetween the leveland type of participation needed to achieveconsensus and attract broad commitment on one side, with the urgent need for less talk and more action on the other hand.

To sum up, the issue here is not amatter of one strategyof protection or another of inclusion. Both mayhave their place.Indeed, it is increasinglylikely that 166 S.Stoll-Kleemannand T .O’Riordan conservation agencieswill have to become rural development organizations, oper- atingin partnership, ifcomprehensive biodiversity management is to be attained (Brandon 1997,107) .It is this extension of the conservation mandate that pervades the two casestudies that follow.

Case-StudyAnalysis

TheGerman Experience: Uckermark LakesNature Park The designation and management of protected areasin Germany havebeen the subject of considerable con¯ict and opposition in recent years.This is so much the casethat progress toward improving biodiversity is often stalled (see BNL1994;Stoll 1999;WBGU 2000;Stoll-Kleemann 2001a;2001b) .The causes of resistance haveless to do with possible economic losses to locallivelihoods arisingf rom conservation designation. The source of the trouble lies inthe manner of consulting localinterests. This process is often too late,too formal, and too narrow in compass (SRU1996, 59).In addition, there is much miscommunication and misunderstanding between landowners and residents on the one hand, and the highlycommited nature conservation of®cialson the other (BNL1994;Stoll-Kleemann 2001b). The Uckermark LakesNature Parkis unusual in this context. The particular achievement there lies in the successful integration of nature conservation and regionaleconomic development under the visionaryand charismatic leadership of the current ParkDirector. This mergingof objectives and adaptivemanagement havehelped to bring about reconciliation in amanner that loses little for either nature conservation or localsensitivities (Stoll 1999). Coveringan area of 895km 2,the Uckermark LakesNature Parkis one of the largestprotected areasin Germany. It is situated some 80km north of Berlin, and is composed of amosaic of postglaciallandscapes. These include about 230inter- connected lakes, heathlands, moorlands, and deciduous aswellas coniferous forests. It is also surrounded byother protected areasincluding anational park, abiosphere reserve, and another nature park. It contains species that arethreatened and rare elsewhere in middle Europe, such asotter, beaver,sea eagle, ® sh eagle,the black stork, and manylarge butter¯ ies. It alsoboasts of some 1200plant species of which 20%are highly endangered. This remarkable species richness is aproduct of the manyvariations in landscapes and vegetationtypes. The areahas characteristically been extensivelymanaged, partly due to lowpopulation densities, and partlybecause of ahistory of militaryexclusion. The main threats to biodiversity nowadaysare nonsustainable forms of agriculture and intensive ®shing. Tourism canbecome a major threat in this ecologicallysensitive region, and needs therefore to be very carefullyplanned ifnature conservation is to occur. Originallythe management priority for nature parks in Germany placed the needs of recreation over conservation (similarto category5 ``protected landscapes’’ of the IUCN de® ntion of protected areas).But the new L aÄ nder (states) haveref or- mulated these objectivies to generate anevenhigher emphasis on conservation. The Uckermark LakesNature Parkhas 15smaller nature conservation reserves, where strict nature reserve management practices aref ollowed. There arealso two larger landscape protection reserves, so that virtuallythe whole region is protected. Nowadaysthe management philosophy embraces the peaceful coexistence of nature conservation with symphatetic economic enterprise and sustainable use of natural resources (verysimilar to the overallgoals of biosphere reserves). FromParticipation and Partnership 167

Since 1996the Uckermark LakesNature Parkhas been the subject of special funding from the federal government. Some 30million DMwillbe availableover a period of 10years. This is designed to cover the purchase of land, specialcon- servation measures, and compensation for limitations of existinguse. In addition, money from the state government ( L and )is gearedto funding particular conservation contracts with farmers. For example,in 1999,contracts weremade with localf armers or farmingassociations costing 650,000DM. Other funds for these purposes come from the European Union environmental fund known as LIFE.

TheImportance of Leadership The ®rst director of the Uckermark LakesNature Parkwas an enthusiatic biologist, but not adiplomat. He wasneither understood bynor respected bythe landowners. His succesor is altogether different. Aformer politician, aman with vision, communication skills, and alegendarycapacity to create consensus in public meetings, he regainedtrust, commanded respect, and restored credibility. Asone of his staffnoted:

You cansee he is apolitician, being ableto dealwith people, understand their needs, and be believed. He only sayswhat we have all been saying before. But words areuseless until anewperson comes alongand suddenly you canchange direction. Our boss is ableto communicate with people because he carries the authority, the imageand the prestige. Asaformer minister, people believehim. If he wereto go,than the implementation of the nature park objectives would be imperiled.

Another member of staffcommented:

Our head has the relevantunderstanding to dealwith manydif ferent issues. He is ableto massagepeople but they remain content. Such individuals arerare. He has charisma in the wayhe talks and inthe manner in which he appears.

Strategic Management This leadership has helped to reduce scepticism and suspicion within the nature park regardingthe purpose of nature conservation. The administration takes the viewsof localpeople veryseriously, even when they speak illof the park and its aims. The park staffhavelearned to be empathetic and to treat personal relations asa ®rst priority. Asthe newdirector observed:

You reallyhave to work through the people who livein the area.It is only viathe process of actingtogether that full understanding is achieved.Y ou must treat their proposals seriously, wemust acton them, and wemust respond quickly. This is the wayto establish respect.

Parkof ®cialsknow that this process takes time. So they do not pressure. Sometimes they take into account newcon¯ icts, such asdisputes over hunting in the park. They areprepared to sacri®ce short-term setbacks to ensure along-term coherent goal.

AServicingAgency The Uckermark LakesNature Parkadministration visualizesitself asaservicing agencyf or localinterests. This extends beyond conservation management to advice 168 S.Stoll-Kleemannand T .O’Riordan and ®nancialsupport for farm and other enterprise schemes. These include diversi® cation into ecotourism and the manufacture and marketing of eco-products. Partof the drive is to build con® dence and self-esteem among those who are unemployed and =or who arelooking for newopportunities. The aimis to show what options areavailable, and to tailor these to the needs of individual households. Another servicingstrand is to gainthe con® dence of some localmayors and entrepreneurs to demonstrate that the park staffcanwork with economic and wider community interests. Demonstration projects, such asschemes to promote the sus- tainableuse of resources, alsohelp to convince the skeptics. Opposition is eroded when in¯uential actors become enthusiastic, so broad objectives canbe reconciled through exampleand good management. In addition, localcon® dence isgainedwhen park staffuse bicycles, solar-pow- ered boats, and their feet when entering the strictly protected areas.A llthis helps to reinforce credibility through consistency. The park also runs acomprehensive pro- gramof environmental education. In essence, the success of this remarkable park lies inastaffwith its empathetic management style, sensitive to people and to place,listening and caring,and con- stantly pursuing anintegrated approach. This leads to effectivepartnerships of both understanding and management.

SouthAfrica: Creating E ective Partnerships in the Cape Floral Kingdom South Africais byno means unique in promoting partnerships for biodiversity conservation. Such programs arebeing implemented in Botswana( the Natural Resources Scheme),Zimbabwe( the Communal AreasManagement Programme for Indigenous Resources, CAMPFIRE),and Zambia( the Administrative Management Design, ADMADE)(Gbadegesin and Ayileka2000, 90) .What is reported next is new( Figure1) . According to Myersand his colleagues( 2000,857), the CapeFloristic Province of western and southern South Africais one of the most endemic-rich hot spots on the globe. Within this province, the CapeFloral Kingdom (CFK),of the Northern, Western, and Eastern CapeProvinces of South Africa,contains 70%endemics out of 9600plant species (CAPEProject 2000,7) .Offshore, of the 11,000marine animals and 800species of seaweeds, 3500marine animalsare endemic. This total biome is not only irreplaceable in ecologicalterms, it alsosupports wellover 300,000jobs, and through tourism contributes over a®fth to the regionaleconomy (CAPE Project 8).Well-maintained and resilient fynbos (the localname for the CFKplant species) ensures reliableand conserved watersupplies, stabilizes slopes, provides an essential havenf or pollinating insects, and enriches the spectacular landscapes. These ``ecosystem services’’aredif ®cult to quantifybut in replacement valuealone they could be worth some 300million South AfricanR and (45million U.S.dollars) annually( CAPEProject 9). The CFKis seriously under threat. Myers et al.( 2000,858) observe that only 24%of its primary vegetationremains, spread over manythousands of patches rangingf rom 100km 2 to 0.1 km2.One primarycause of this biodiversity decline is the spread of agriculture. Some 22.8%of the originalvegetation is transformed, mostly on the more fertile lowlands. Asecond cause is invasion byhigh-f uel alien species. These eliminate the nativevegetation and, through anyadditional threat, cause huge ®re hazards because of their enormous fuel capacityf or extremelyhot burning in the dry winds of the Western Cape.A third cause of land degradation is FromParticipation and Partnership 169

FIGURE 1 Biodiversityin South Africa.The map shows the location of the three schemes in South Africaintroduced in the text. The CapeFloral Kingdom covers most of the south west and south of the country. It is alreadyseriously fragmented. The Ukuvuku Project is adjacent to the newlyf ormed World HeritageCape Peninsula National Park,and includes built-up areaswhere ®re hazard to property aswellas to plant and animallif eisaserious threat. Grootbos isasmall,privately run nature reserve that is in the process of expandinginto amajor protected site, involvingaround 20properties. the spread of urbanization and poorly planned tourist developments with insuf®cient environmental safeguards. 1 There aref urther threats like disconnected national, provincial, and locallaws and regulations. These havethe consequence that biodiversityin areasadjacent to protected sites is adverselyaf fected. Finally,possible effects of climate changecould wellexacerbate f urther dryingand heating (see Hulme and Downing 1996).

TheCape Action Plan for theEnvironment The CapeAction Planfor the Environment (CAPE)is aninnovative example of international partnerships in the preparation of acomprehensive management strategyf or the CFK.The 2-yearstrategy development process, funded bythe Global Environment Facility,through the World Bank,was coordinated bythe World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF)in South Africa,and involveda host of South African governmental departments and agencies. 170 S.Stoll-Kleemannand T .O’Riordan

The purposes of CAPEare:

* Toidentifyconservationpriorities through acomputer-based scienti® canalysisof keysites and corridors designated for maximum protection. This wasachieved by mapping biologicalhabitat units based on physicalfeatures and vegetationtypes. Aninteractive computer program located keysites of high irreplaceabilityand extreme vulnerability. * Tointroducea landprotection and acquisition schem e for criticalsites and corridors, supported bydonors and conservation charities, to create sophisticated management agreements and other ®nancialinducements on agriculturalland to ensure complementary protection. Only5% of additional sites willbe bought. The rest willrequire cooperative partnerships. * Toproducea 5-yearaction plan and investm entprogram to meet conservation priorities. The integrated character of this plan is designed to provide anassurance for funders that there willbe ahigh degree of reliabilityand coherence for money invested. * Toseekinternational donors and private-sector sponsorsplus conservation non- governmentalorganizations in providing the essential funding. The ®ve-year implementation program is estimated to cost 800million Rand, acolossal ®gure in South African conservation terms. This is waybeyond the capacityand political priorities of the South Africangovernments. However, asmuch as320 million Rand of this essential budget willbe funded from national and provincial sources. This is aremarkablyhigh ®gure for anation economically beset bytrying to alleviate20 years of discrimination and poverty. The earlypositive response of possibly 300million Rand from international donors attests to the success of the CAPEstrategy in convincing outsiders of its likelyef fectiveness.

TheGrootbos Initiative Grootbos, a1050-hanature reserve, is afamily-run business that is solely ®nanced bymoney generated vianature-based tourism. The income derived through these educational and recreational activitieshas been plowed back into biodiversity conservation, notably alienclearing, ® re control, and biologicalsurveys. Grootbos initiated the Walker BayFynbos Conservancywith the aimof ensuring the long- term biodiversity conservation of part of this vitalcorridor situated byWalker Bay in the Western Cape. 2 This Conservancyis animportant pilot scheme that mirrors the CAPEmission. It is acooperative arrangement run bya committed partnership of private,public, and voluntary shared landowners coveringover 11,000ha. It aimsto become aself- sustaining model for sustainable biodiversity. The Walker BayFynbos Conservancy( WBFC)has created acomprehensive management plan. This is vitalf or the future of biodiversity, asthe areais part of a crucialdesignated corridor for the CAPEproject. This plan is designed to remove all aliens,to create acomprehensive ®re control service, to inform visitors about the biologicaland cultural heritage,to promote conservation generallythroughout the region, and to engender aconservation ethic inthe localcommunities. The aimis to enable the localunemployed to see how they canbene® tfrom ecotourism and related activities,such ascontract gardeningin the locality. Within the conservancy is the FlowerValley enterprise, run byFlora and Fauna International (FFI2000).FlowerValley comprises 527ha of fynbos. This is naturallymanaged to produce cut ¯owers for international and domestic markets. FromParticipation and Partnership 171

It also uses the wasteproducts from the plants to make specialtypapers for greeting cards. The FlowerValley enterprise employs 55f ull-time workers and 165depen- dents. The network of farms that provide ¯owers for the enterprise employs 200 pickers with 500dependents. The scheme trains around 6gardeners and some 10 alienclearance contractors annually.These people willbe assisted to ®nd reliable work in the future management plan. In addition, the scheme provides training for natural farming,nutritional and health education, and preschool environmental education for the children of the employees. Parents who cannot afford the modest fees areinvited to assist in the fynbos awarenessprojects to which the children are exposed. The WBFCis seeking management funds to run anextended program of guided trails, to ®nance suitable accomodation for awiderange of localand overseas recreation users, and to extend the scope for marketing fynbos products. Already, the conservancy produces soaps, honey, and perfumes from the biome. One project is to use established poverty alleviationf unds to clearthe acaciafrom the nearby sand dunes so asto reintroduce anessential lost habitat and to create afee-paying off-road recreational experience. It isthis creativemix of biodiversity enhancement, private±public partnerships, recreational choice, localcommunity socialand economic involvement, and the prospect of long-term self-® nancing that is the hallmark of this fascinatinginitiative.

Ukuvuka In the CapePeninsula, the ecologicallydiverse and popular region south of Cape Town,an intriguing partnership for biodiversity protection and ®re management is emerging.This region wasravaged by ® res in January2000. Over 11,000 hectares wereaf fected. But for fortunate changes in wind direction, manyvaluable properties and countless shacks (occupied bythe vulnerable poor) would havebeen lost. In the wakeof this catastrophe, apublic± privatepartnership of four private- sector sponsors and ®veprivate-sector service providers plus awiderange of governmental bodies havecombined to create abiodiversity enhancement and ®re management program calledUkuvuka (meaning` `wake-up!’’in the Xhosa language).This partnership will:

* Co-ordinateall relevant public and private actors into asingle® re-management collective linked byimproved communication, education, training, and contracting enterprises. The localmedia and agasolinecompany aretwo of the sponsors who havealready initiated aprocess of awarenessraising in broadcasts, newspapers, and in gasolinestations. For effectiveparticipation, increasing the sensitivity to spotting and reducing ®re danger is avitalaspect of biodiversity protection. * Identifyall alien invasions, soil degradation, and slope instability so asto manage land systematicallyfor clearanceand stabilization. This criticalprocess of stewardship land management willbe statutory obligation on allpublic-sector bodies. Privateland owners willalso be required to clearand stabilize their land bya combination of taxincentives and specially® nanced management agreements. Landowners who do not meet their obligations may® nd that their property valueswill f alland that insurance coverageis dif®cult to obtain. To ensure likelycooperation, alllandowners willbe invited to join community groups. These willbe combinations of settlement and agriculturalowners who willbe trained and funded to prepare and carryout ®re avoidanceand alien clearanceprojects in spatialunits of biologicaland property vulnerability. 172 S.Stoll-Kleemannand T .O’Riordan

In this way,it is expected that everyone willlearn to cooperate, so that participation willbe guided bya powerful combination of awarenessof responsibility and appropriate ®nancialinducement, reinforced byspecially trained managers.These community groups willbe linked to aregion-wide FirePro- tection Association that willcoordinate the funding, training, and monitoring of management schemes. Becauseeach group willencompass agreatrange of races, income levels,and advantage =disadvantage,the strategyis to create genuine socialbonding so asto reinforce community-driven participation. * Providejob creation schem es fordisadvantaged people. Ukuvugawill provide funding to create localcontractual arrangements for the poorest people in the areas.It willbe supported bymicrocredit schemes provided bya localbank. The targets are60% women, 29%young people, and 2%disabled. Safeguards againstnepotism and corruption arepart of the performance indicators. One of the service-providing sponsors is PriceWaterhouseCoopers, which willadvise and audit the host of keyperf ormance indicators for the Campaign.Over the 4 yearsof the program, these contracting enterprises willgradually be leftto compete for work, based on the qualityand effectiveness of their activity.They willtherefore havean incentive to enter into training schemes that willalso be on offer, to become better marketers, and to diversifyinto other activities,such asecotourism services, fynbos guidingand environmental awarenessraising, and the creation of commercial products from the removed vegetation.Pro- vidingreal incentives for familiesthat arevery destitute and almost unem- ployableis another mechanism for ensuring effectiveparticipation. Furthermore, the aimis to deepen the understanding of the criticalimportance of rehabilitated biodiversity in the day-to-day livesof allresidents. Atpresent, this is farf rom being the case. These programs arestill in the design stage.It is byno means assured that they willf ul® lltheir promise. The money is not in place.Donors and sponsors still haveto be convinced. There is achronic lackof administrative and ®nancialcapacity even in the rich administrations of the Western Cape.Less than aquarter of the resources of CapeNature Conservation, the leadagency, is free to ®nance support services. The rest is locked up in unionized labor. When experienced staffleave,they arerarely replaced, stretching the goodwillof those who remain. Furthermore, localpoliticians areby no means convinced of the political advantagesof biodiversity enhancement. This skepticism is in part anecho of the former colonialist attitudes they so despised in the apartheid era.Lack of coordinated political support does not bode wellf or assured funding.

FromParticipation to Partnership We noted the dif®culties that arisewhen tryingto put participatory conservation strategies and plans into action, and whya process beyond participation is required for biodiversity protection inthe modern age.The two casestudies highlight the case for prolonged and committed partnerships, reliablef unding, strong leadership, and comprehensive awarenessraising. The casef or conservation agenciesto adopt the mantle of economic and socialdevelopment, either byextension or through cooperation, is also compelling. The GEFreport (2000)demonstrates how important inclusionary approaches are,what the impediments are,and which best practices areworthy of note. In Europe amajor effort is under wayto link habitat FromParticipation and Partnership 173 protection to regionaleconomic development (European Commission, Environ- mental Directorate 2000;Stoll-Kleemann 2001b).This is amajor policy shiftof potentially enormous signi®cance. The German casestudy portrayed here is an important foretaste of that future.

EconomicResistance and Reconciliation Wells and Brandon (1992,xi) note that manyof the forces threatening biodiversity liebeyond the boundary fence, over which localpeople havelittle ifany control. Localpeople areincreasingly conf ronted bythe relentless rules of globalmarket economics. This means that land use and agriculture arenot alwaysdetermined in their own interests, forcing them to givetop priority to survivalrather than biodiversity( vanSchaik and Kramer 1997,219) .Onlywhen less protected market economies adverselyaf fect agriculture, asis currently the casein Germany and South Africa,can multif unded stewardship schemes become more acceptable. Only ifthese forces areconstructively harnessed, asis the casein the Uckermark Lakesexample, canprogress be relied upon. Asyet,this arrangement is not assured in the CFK. The lackof necessary ®nancialand logisticalsupport adequatelyavailable to manageprotected areas( McNeely1995, 4) is afundamental issue for many administrations, not just in poor developing countries. The forces of globalmarket- based economics often restrict the room for ®nancing public-sector activities.This is certainlythe casein South Africa.Even in Germany, various sources of funding seem necessary to ensure full participation and comprehensive management schemes. Money is often cut offin midproject, and valuableand experienced of®cers arenot replaced when they leave,so goodwillevaporates alongwith empathetic communication. The continuity of funding created by® nancialpartnerships and the application of rigorous performance indicators willhave to work ifCA PEand Ukuvuka areto succeed. The German exampleshows how this canbe achievedwith cooperative income and good leadership.

InstitutionalNoncommunication Areason less covered in the literature is the apparent inabilityof individuals and their organizationalcultures to communicate faithfullyand meaningfullyto each other. Eventoday, manybiodiversity management cultures haveevolved f rom a history of top-down relationships toward localpeople. This attitude of seeming arrogance,combined with anunwillingness to address localpeople on their own terms, produces anger,resentment, and adeep unwillingness to cooperate on the part of localinterests (see Stoll-Kleemann 2001b).This form of communication by managers,specialist scientists, and programmatic administrators leads to asense of alienation and misunderstanding among those whose interests arelikely to be affected bycontroversial management decisions. This discourse of communicative barriers canindeed be self-reinforcing. For example,when threatened byaggressive challengefrom localinterests, scientists and administrators frequently recourse to evenmore self-protecting language.This in turn widens the gulfbetween managers and the managed,making mediation, evenby trained third parties, verydif ®cult. Much of this has to do with lackof appreciation. In both of our casestudies, serious efforts to understand the motivations of localinterests, to respect them, and to enable them to recognize realjob opportunities arisingf rom biodiversity conservation canovercome this impediment. 174 S.Stoll-Kleemannand T .O’Riordan

Furthermore, there is often alackof training to help allparties appreciate their need to be shareholders rather than stakeholders. Trainingis not amatter of afew daysof workshops. It is essentiallya function of culture change,a shiftinoutlook, and awillingnessseriously to understand the viewsand aspirations of others. Indeed, wego further. Trainingought to create afundamentally intuitive empathy between the managerand the managed.Such empathy canonly come through caseexperience and agenuine willingnessto reach out and admit to past mistakes. Webelievethat the two casestudies help to show how this prospect is both daunting and possible. Finally,we must not forget the socialrelations of the individual actor. Alltoo often, research and publication ignore this sensitive areaof socialpsychology± oriented management. In manycases, miscommunication and mistrust arethe result of individuals who simply dislike eachother or haveno faith ineachother’ sabilities. This interpersonal relationship mayoverride the organizationalsetting and management responsibilities of the institutions in which these individuals operate. But at times, these interpersonal struggles become so signi®cant for coherent management that they draginto the con¯ict these same organizations. The lesson welearn is that organizations need to havesophisticated intelligence asto how their employees are perceived in anyparticipatory framework. Sometimes this task is best leftto inde- pendent facilitators to discover, and diplomaticallyto address. Atother times this is asensitive management issue for senior administrators to tackle. We offer the followinginnovations inoutlook and management that still maybe needed. These build on, and do not replace, the manyvaluable initiatives already in place.We reported on these in the earlypart of this paper. The conduct of localsustainability livelihood schemes should rest on community empowerment, on socialeducation, and on training for enterprise and community sharing. This should be the target of newf unding arrangements, such asare beginning to emerge in both Germany and South Africa.The keyto such livelihoods is self-generated localincome. Some of this cancome from creativemarketing of biodiversity products, some from high-quality tourism schemes, and some from cooperative projects to guaranteethe continuation of biodiversity and watersupplies (e.g.,® re protection, alienremoval). Sadly, it is most unlikely that self-funding will evertake the placeof donation and subsidy through incentive payments. In South Africa,locally generated income from biodiversity conservation enterprise will alwaysbe desperately minimal in relation to the scaleof poverty that has to be overcome. Participation is no guaranteed route to wealthcreation. Sustainable livelihoods also require attention to localproperty rights, to social and political justice and civilrights, and to various schemes for community involvement rooted in education and localenterprise. These arerarely integrated at the outset of abiodiversity management scheme. The South African prospect offers apromising opportunity to connect socialsupport with ecologicalresilience to viable,self-sustaining enterprise. But the obstacles wehave outlined bode illf or earlysuccesses. There is aneed to involvelocal interests and to share responsibilities. Here the ideas emanatingf rom South Africaare heartening. Seeking to bring in local, regional,and national politicians, sharing interagencyendeavor and budgets, joining up pilot projects through innovativelocal monitoring and evaluation,and guaran- teeing ``stewardship’’payoffof localgroups offer one wayf orward. Public± private partnerships in management, involvingbusinesses and community leaders, are becoming commonplace (see, e.g.,case studies in West and Brechin 1991;Wells and Brandon 1992;Lucas 1992; McNeely 1995) .Connecting to the politicians in South FromParticipation and Partnership 175

Africa,with their verypressurized and suspicious biases, willbe verychallenging. Payoffswillhave to be demonstrated. Pilot schemes funded bydonors mayhave to precede the full program. In prospect is afascinatingprocess of wideningand deepening the democratic and sustainability transition of protected areamanagement around the globe. We maybe witnessing aslow process of cultural changein favorof agreatersense of collective identity and coordination, bycreating a more shared pattern of partnership governance. The need for amore coherent, yetculturally diverse, approach to sustainability atthe locallevel will seek to link informal patterns of power sharing, transparency, and participatory governance to more formal, and established, management arrangements so that protected areaswill be enabled to maintain and enhance their wildlifequalities and scenic specialties whilef ostering rural enterprise and community cohesion.

Notes 1.For a fullsurvey of threats, see the web sites f orthe CAPE Project:www.pan- da.org.za=projects=megaprojects.hmtl#capand www.fred.csir. cv =extra=cape. 2.For a fullweb reference to all this work, see www.grootbos.com and www.fynbos- conservancy.co.za.

References

Agrawal,A., andC. C.Gibson.1999. Enchantment and disentchantment: The role of com- munityin natural resource conservation. W orld Dev. 27(4):629±649. Barton,T., G.Borrini-Feyerabend,A. deSherbinin, and P. Warren.1997. Ourpeople, our resources.Gland,Switzerland and Cambridge, UK: IUCN. Batisse,M. 1997.Biosphere reserves: A challengefor biodiversity conservation and regional planning. Environment 39:7± 33. Beirat fuÄ rNaturschutzund Landschaftsp¯ ege beim BMU. 1994. ZurAkzeptanz und Durch- setzbarkeitdes Naturschutzes .Bonn:Bundesministerium fu Ä rUmwelt,Naturschutz und Reaktorsicherheit. Borrini-Feyerabend,G. 1996. Collaborativeon management of protected areas: T ailoringthe approachto the context .Gland,Swizterland and Cambridge, UK: IUCN. Brandon,K. 1992.Planning for peopleand parks: Design dilemmas. W orld Dev. 20(4):557±570. Brandon,K. 1997.P olicyand practical considerations in land-use strategies for biodiversity conservation.In Laststand: Protected areas and the defence of tropical biodiversity , ed. R.Kramer,C. vanSchaik, and J. Johnson,90± 114, New York: Oxford University Press. Brown,K. 2001.Beyond consensus and empowerment: Sustainability in linking conservation anddevelopment. Geograph.J. in press. CAPEProject.2000. CapeAction Plan for the Environment. Implementation programme report . Stellenbosch:CSIR. Cleaver,F. 1999.P aradoxesof participation: Questioning participatory approaches to development. J. Int. Dev. 11(4):597±612. Davey,A. G.1998. Nationalsystem planning for protected areas .Gland,Switzerland, and Cambridge,UK: IUCN. EuropeanCommission, Environmental Directorate. 2000. ManagingNature 2000 S ites:T he provisionsof Article 6 ofthe Habitats Directive .Brussels:Commission of the European Communities. Faunaand Flora International. 2000. Savingthe fynbos. A SouthAf ricanblueprint for biodi- versityconservation: T hemutualbene® ts of corporate participation in a ¯agshipconservation project.Cambridge,UK: Faunaand Flora International. 176 S.Stoll-Kleemannand T .O’Riordan

Gbadegesin,A., andO. Ayileka. 2000. Avoiding the mistakes of the past: Towards a com- munityoriented management strategy f orthe proposed National P arkin Abuja-Nigeria. LandUse Policy 17:89± 100. GlobalEnvironment Facility. 2000. Interimassessment of biodiversity enabling activities: Nationalbiodiversity strategies and action plans .NewYork: Global Environment Facility. Haynes,J. S.1998.Involving communities in managing protected areas: Contrasting approachesin Nepal and Britain. Parks 8(1):54±61. Hulme,M., andT. Downing.1996. Climatechange in S outhernAf rica:An explanation of some potentialimpacts and their implications for the S ADCRegion .Norwich,UK: Climatic ResearchUnit, University of East Anglia. Inamdar,A., H.deJode, K. Lindsa,and S. Cobb.1999. Capitalizing on nature:protected area management. Science 283:1856±1857. Lucas,P. H.C. 1992. Protectedlandscapes. A guidefor policy-makers and planners . London: Chapmanand Hall. McNeely,J. A.1995. Expandingpartnerships in conservation .Washington,DC: Island P ress. Myers,N., R.A.Mittermeier,K. G.Mittermeier,G. A.B.daFonseca, and J. Kent.2000. Biodiversityhotspots for conservation priorities. Nature 403:853±858. Pimbert,M. P.,andJ. N.Pretty.1995. Parks,people and professionals. Putting participation intoprotected area management .Geneva,Switzerland: United Nations Research Institute forSocial Development. Pimm,S. L.,andP .Raven.2000. Extinction by numbers. Nature 403:843±845. Pretty,J. N.,andM. P.Pimbert.1995. Beyond conservation ideology and the wilderness myth. Nat.Resources F orum 19:5± 14. Sala,O. E., F.S.ChapinIII, J. J.Armesto,E. Berlow,J. Bloom®eld, R. Dirzo,E. Huber- Sanwald,L. F.Huenneke,R. B.Jackson,A. Kinzig,R. Leemans,D. M.Lodge,H. A. Mooney,M. Oesterheld,and N. LeRoy.2000. Global biodiversity scenarios f orthe year 2100.Science 287:1770± 1774. Salafsky,N., andE. Wollenberg.2000. Linking livelihoods and conservation: A conceptual frameworkand scale for assessing the integration of human needs and biodiversity. W orld Dev. 28(8):1431±1438. Sinclair,A. R.,D.Ludwig,and C. W.Clark.2000. Conservation in the real world. Science 289:1875. Songorwa,A. N.1999.Community based wildlif emanagement(CWM) inTanzania: Are the communitiesinterested? W orld Dev. 27(12):2061±2079. SouleÂ ,M.E.,andM. A.Sanjayan.1998. Conservation targets: Do they help? Science 279:2060±2061. SRU(Ratvon Sachversta Ä ndigen fuÄ rUmweltfragen).1996. Sondergutachten``K onzepteeiner dauerhaft-umweltgerechtenNutzung la ÄndlicherRa Äume.’’ Bonn:Bundestagsdrucksache 13=4109. Stoll,S. 1999. Akzeptanzproblemebei der Ausweisung von Groû schutzgebieten. Ursachenanalyse und AnsaÄ tzezu Handlungsstrategien .Berlin:Lang. Stoll-Kleemann,S. 2001a.Opposition to the designation of protected areas in Germany. J.Environ. Plan. Manage. 44(1):111±130. Stoll-Kleemann,S. 2001b.Reconciling opposition to protectedareas management in Europe: TheGerman experience. Environment 43(5):32±44. Terborgh,J. 1999. Requiemf ornature .NewYork: Island P ress. vanSchaik, C., andR. Kramer.1997. Towards a newprotection paradigm. In L ast stand: Protectedareas and the defence of tropical biodiversity ,ed.R. Kramer,C. vanSchaik, and J.Johnson,212± 230, New York: Oxford University Press. Venter,A. K.,andC. M.Breen.1998. Partnership forum framework: Participative framework forprotected area outreach. Environ.Manag. 22:803±815. WissenschaftlicherBeirat der Bundesregierung Globale Umweltvera Ä nderungen.2000. W elt im Wandel:Erhaltung und nachhaltige Nutzung der Biospha Ä re.Berlin:Springer. FromParticipation and Partnership 177

Wells,M. ,andK. Brandon.1992. Peopleand parks: L inkingprotected area management with localcommunities .Washington,DC: InternationalBank for Reconstruction and Devel- opment=World Bank. West,P .C.,andS. R.Brechin.1991. Residentpeople and national parks. S ocialdilemmas and strategiesin international conservation .Tucson:University of Arizona Press.