We are IntechOpen,
the world’s leading publisher of
Open Access books
Built by scientists, for scientists
4,800
123,000
140M
Open access books available
International authors and editors
Downloads
Our authors are among the
154
TOP 1%
12.2%
Countries delivered to
most cited scientists
Contributors from top 500 universities
Selection of our books indexed in the Book Citation Index
in Web of Science™ Core Collection (BKCI)
Interested in publishing with us?
Contact book.department@intechopen.com
Numbers displayed above are based on latest data collected.
For more information visit www.intechopen.com
Chapter 6
Creating Modern Community Conservation
Organizations and Institutions to Effect Successful
Forest Conservation Change
Robert H. Horwich, Sam Shanee, Noga Shanee,
Arnab Bose, Mark Fenn and Joydeep Chakraborty
Additional information is available at the end of the chapter
http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/61133
Abstract
Despite increased investment, current conservation strategies have failed to stop
environmental degradation and loss of biodiversity of the earth’s ecosystems with
consequent climate change. Community Conservation’s (CC) 30 years of experience has
produced a successful, cost-effective, field-tested flexible formula to catalyze
communities to stop deforestation and biodiversity loss. Our method focuses on four
concepts: 1) catalyzing projects, leaving ownership to on-site community-based
organizations (CBOs) or local nongovernmental organizations (NGOs); 2) encourag‐
ing creation of CBOs; 3) helping build complex federations or networks for a stronger
community voice; and 4) creating conservation contagion for regional change. Based
on trust, we initially make the community aware of their special forests and wildlife
and ask their help in protecting them. Then we help them create CBOs and build
federations of conservation activists to strengthen and empower them to manage their
projects and their natural resources. By bringing community members to interact
together from within a large region, we strive to create conservation contagion. Case
histories from Assam, India; northern Peru; the Huon Peninsula in Papua New
Guinea; Madagascar; Belize; and Wisconsin, USA demonstrate successes based on the
formation of CBOs and community federations, allowing communities to play a
powerful role in protecting and restoring forests.
Keywords: CBOs, community-based organizations, community conservation, insti‐
tutions, NGOs
© 2015 The Author(s). Licensee InTech. This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons
Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution,
and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
132
Precious Forests - Precious Earth
1. Introduction
Despite increased financial resources, current conservation strategies, focused mainly on
protected areas, have generally failed to stop environmental degradation, contain the rapid
loss of biodiversity [1] and stem deforestation of the earth’s forests [2-4] with consequent
climate change [1, 5]. Billions of dollars over past decades have yielded few results [2, 5, 6].
The rise of alternative conservation methods involving local communities in the early 1980s
generated controversy [7-11] mainly due to lumping of all community-based conservation
projects. Yet, small community conservation projects (CCPs) and large integrated conservation
and development projects (ICDPs) have very different philosophies, concepts and actions with
most controversy and failure attributed to ICDPs [3, 12]. Today, there are thousands of CCPs
[13-15] replacing community-based institutions which were once common globally, to manage
forests [16, 17], fisheries [18] and water resources [17].
Some social scientists have been critical of community conservation [10, 11]. Others question
whether rural communities can manage their forests and natural resources cooperatively [19,
20]. Yet still others question effectiveness of protected areas [21, 22] noting successes in
community-based management systems outside protected areas [23].
What has emerged from what we describe in this article is a highly successful, cost-effective,
field-tested method of community conservation [2, 3, 24, 25]. Not just an alternative, it can
strengthen traditional conservation methods and protected areas that lack financial and
human resources to succeed alone. It is a solid solution to environmental degradation [2, 3] of
landscapes through building complex community organizations out of small, simpler ones [3,
25]. This is not surprising since many rural communities show favorable characteristics toward
reduction of forest loss: 1) they live on-site where deforestation occurs; 2) they once had
successful forest management organizations/institutions; 3) they have indigenous knowledge
of the area; and 4) their numbers, thought detrimental, are potential conservationists [2, 3].
Indeed, when asked for help they have responded as conservationists.
At the center of successful CCPs is the creation of new conservation organizations or institu‐
tions managed by empowered communities. Such institutions in practice [2, 3, 25] and research
[26] have proved effective in forest conservation and management [21-23, 26-31].
Since our early work in Belize, Community Conservation (CC) has focused on creating com‐
munity organizations and complex institutions to protect and manage community projects
and environmental landscapes (Table 1). Since 1984, we have evolved a field-tested flexible
formula to facilitate catalyzing conservation contagion [3] to stop deforestation and biodiver‐
sity loss.
Generating conservation contagion [3] encourages local people as on-site conservationists [1,
14]. When conservation practitioners act as catalysts rather than project owners, communities
respond favorably and contagion and community activism can emerge [3](see presentations
on www.communityconservation.org). Conservation contagion often has a nonlinear effect
[32, 33] as described in the following case histories. Our practitioner conclusions have a high
Creating Modern Community Conservation Organizations and Institutions to Effect Successful Forest...
http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/61133
1986 – Naïve attempt to create Board or Committee to oversee the CBS in Belize, eventually leading to the Woman’s
Conservation Group managing the project in 1998
1988 - Begin work with newly formed Ferry Bluff Eagle Council in Wisconsin, USA
1992 – Initiate Kickapoo Reserve to create valley-wide Kickapoo Community Sanctuary in Wisconsin, USA
1997 – First proposal to create a formal federation of community-based organizations to co-manage protected areas of
Belize, resulting in UNDP grant to create the federation. 1999 – Attempt to carry out the project goals curtailed by
project steering committee changing project goals
1998 – Creation of successful federation of community groups protecting the Manas Biosphere in Assam, India by
2004-2006; creation of two federations of 34 surrounding villages to protect Kakoijana Reserve Forest
2004 – Advising the creation of a federation of clan landowners in Papua New Guinea resulting in the Tree Kangaroo
Conservation Program initiating the first Conservation Area in Papua New Guinea in 2010
2008 - Using new Madagascar laws to create federations of community-based groups to create around protected areas
as buffer areas with federation network in Toliara District
2009 – Using new 2002 Peru laws, to begin expansion of Yellow Tailed Woolly Monkey Conservation Project to
encourage community groups to create community conservation concessions to protect and manage lands with
potential to create a network of these groups
2010 – Using new Ghana laws, expand existing community-based CREMA of 15 surrounding villages to protect Cape
Three Points Forest Reserve
Table 1. Attempts and practices to create complex community institutions.
probability of success and are supported by social science research [26]. This paper discusses
the evolution of community organizations and institutions guided by nongovernmental
organizations (NGOs) and shaped by historical events using examples from India, Peru, Papua
New Guinea, Madagascar, Belize and the USA.
2. Methods
Each project had its own methods of research, education, economic development, and
community development integrating community members with the ultimate goal of conser‐
vation. They followed a series of 10 stages that we identified: 1) identify the project; 2) initiate
or encourage a community-based organization (CBO); 3) train the CBO; 4) collect biological
and sociological data; 5) develop community/outreach; 6) develop management and operation
plans; 6) develop infrastructure; 7) formalize the plan; 8) implement the plan; 9) formalize
management and project components; 10) terminate advisory role [34].
The projects’ bases were social: 1) initiate contact with the community and ask their help; 2)
build trusting social relationships; 3) participatory education; 4) identification of leaders and
5) supporters; 6) development of a formal infrastructure and plans; 7) form local networks of
conservation activists; 8) diffusion from the target village to other communities to generate
conservation contagion; and 9) develop vertical contacts with government and other NGOs
(for specific project methods see: [2, 3, 25, 35, 36]).
133
134
Precious Forests - Precious Earth
3. Results — Case histories
3.1. Assam, India – Order out of chaos
The Golden Langur Conservation Project (GLCP) was initiated in 1998 to test methods and
concepts developed in Belize, in a challenging new political situation in India with a high
human population, militants in the forest, ethnic violence and 250, 000 internal refugees [2, 3,
25]. Given the potential for conservation contagion, the project focused on regional change of
the entire Indian range of the golden langur, Trachypithecus geei. Contagion began first with
participating researchers who focused on the flagship species. Following many meetings and
workshops involving communities, NGOs and governmental agencies, the GLCP formed the
Manas Biosphere Conservation Forum to focus on the main Indian range of the golden langur.
As conservation contagion gathered momentum, community groups were catalyzed.
Kakoijana, a 17km2 isolated Reserve Forest, with 95% deforestation became a model for future
regional work. It was surrounded by 34 villages that formed forest committees to replant
degraded areas and Self Help Groups to improve villagers’ economic condition with microenterprises [3, 25; Bose pers.com.]. Interaction of forest committees and Self Help Groups
empowered communities to protect specific forest areas. Eventually, all villages patrolled
forested areas and formed two federations to protect the regenerating Kakoijana Reserve
Forest and its langurs resulting in an increase of forest canopy cover from 5% to 80%, an
increase in the langur population from less than 100 to over 500 [3] and an increase of other
avian and mammalian species.
Focused on the Manas Biosphere in 2000, new CBOs emerged from conservation contagion
generated by community meetings and workshops throughout the Biosphere. Four celebra‐
tions within the Manas Biosphere attracted progressively larger crowds of 6, 000 to 35, 000
participants from the government, NGOs and communities. Following a cessation of militant
violence, including an accord in 2004 with the Central Government of India by the Bodoland
Liberation Tigers and a ceasefire by the National Democratic Front of Bodoland, more
conservation gains occurred.
Despite the peace, illegal loggers still threatened government staff and community residents.
In response, the late Rajen Islari, coinitiator of the GLCP, and Kampa Borgoyari, Minister of
Environment of the newly formed Bodoland Territorial Council, created the first paid com‐
munity forest protection force to protect the western Reserve Forests of the Biosphere. This
stimulated the formation of other community protection forces with 19 CBOs composing the
Unified Forest Conservation Network (Table 2, Figure 1). Sixteen of those CBOs protect almost
the entire 285, 000 hectare Manas Biosphere. Most illegal logging has ceased although there
are still problem areas. The expanded project became the Manas Elephant Protection Project.
The total Indian golden langur population increased from 1500 [37] to over 5600 golden langurs
[3, 38] with evidence that elephant [39] and tiger [40] populations may be increasing. The
combined efforts of government, NGOs and CBOs catalyzed by the GLCP, resulted in the
lifting of the “in danger” listing of UNESCO on the Manas Biosphere.
Creating Modern Community Conservation Organizations and Institutions to Effect Successful Forest...
http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/61133
Community Groups
Date Form
Location
1. Green Forest Conservation
2006
Kachugaon
Protected Area
Kachugaon RF & helps
others
# vol
116
2. Jharbari-Nounwgwr Eco-tourism Society 2007
Jharbari
Chirang RF
40
3. Biodiversity Conservation Society
2006
Ultapani
Chirang RF
40
4. Green Earth
2010
Labnypur
Chirang RF
11
5. New Horizon
2006
KoilaMoila
Manas RF
5
2006
Kuklung
Manas RF
30
2006
Panbari
8. United Social Welfare Society
2012
Labdanguri Kahitema
9. Swmkwr Mittinga Onsai Afat
2005
Bansbari
2007
Bhuyapara
6. Raigajli Ecotourism & Social Welfare
Society
7. Panbari Manas NP Protection &
Ecotourism Society
10. Manas Bhuyapara Conservation &
Ecotourism Society
Manas NP - Panbari
Range
Manas NP- Bansbari
Range
Manas NP –Bansbari
Range
Manas NP - Bhuyapara
Range
11. Manas Maozagendry Ecotourism Society 2006
Koklabari
12. Manas Agrang Society
2006
Simlibari
2006
Barama
2011
Uttarkuchi Subankhata Subankhata RF
2011
Nonaipara
16. Green Leaves Society
2007
Khoragat
17. Bodoland Forest Protection Force
2006
Balapara
18. Dwi Bajrum Eco-Tourism Society
2014
Udalguri
19.Daoka Raja Eco-tourism Society
2013
Chakrasila
13. Manas Souci Khonghor Ecotourism
Society
14. Manas Chowki Eco-Tourism Society
15. Green Valley Forest & Wildlife Protection
Society
United Forest Conservation Network – BTC
(Umbrella Federation)
2009
Manas NP Koklabari
Manas NP- Bhuyapara
Range
Dhira RF
Khalingduar RF,
Barnadi WS
Manas NP - Khoraghat
Range
Manas NP - Rupai &
Khoraghat Ranges
Manas NP –
Bhairabkunda Area
28
26
40
25
30
24
69
20
10
21
59
20
Chakrasila WS
Manas Biosphere
Reserve
19. Green Conservation Federation
2005
Kakoijana RF
20. Nature Guard
2005
Kakoijana RF
Total 614
Table 2. Assam, India community groups formed (RF = Reserve Forest, NP = National Park WS = Wildlife Sanctuary).
135
136
Precious Forests - Precious Earth
Figure 1. Map of the Manas Biosphere Reserve and other areas protected by community groups (numbers correspond
with Table 2). Source: original.
Nature’s Foster (NF), our main NGO partner, initiated a new Biosphere project focused on
human elephant conflict, under the Assam Haathi Project that focused on a fringe village where
elephants damaged village gardens and rice paddies. NF proposed to create a protective
electric fence (Figure 2) if the village would provide labor and posts cut from non-protected
forests. Participating families would pay a small maintenance fee and maintain the fence. Fiftythree families agreed to the proposal but one group declined to participate.
The complex community institution that resulted was modeled after the Kakoijana federations
and the Manas Unified Forest Conservation Network. This institution is a complex multicentric
federation built on smaller groups [26]. The fence that was to be maintained included two
solar-powered electric stations, and a number of gates to be closed at night when the electricity
was turned on. For ease in dividing tasks for fence maintenance, the seven hamlets created
nine smaller groups of three or four people to do specific jobs, including maintenance of the
power system and wires, opening and closing gates and cutting and clearing vegetation
around the electric fence. An administrative committee represented by all hamlets and the two
cultural communities, Bodos and Rajbanshis was appointed to administer and maintain the
system. Thus far, the 6km fence encircling 2.5km2 of village area has functioned well for the
past four years with no elephant depredations from the adjacent Manas Biosphere forests. The
reticent families have since joined the project since they continued to suffer depredations.
Other fringe communities have requested similar projects and negotiations are being carried
out to interest the Bodoland Territorial Council in more projects.
Creating Modern Community Conservation Organizations and Institutions to Effect Successful Forest...
http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/61133
Figure 2. Aerial photo of the original solar electric fence (omiting the village in the bottom corner). Source: original
3.2. Northern Peru – Law and conservation contagion for community management and
protection
The Yellow Tailed Woolly Monkey Project (YTWMP) was initiated by Neotropical Primate
Conservation (www.neoprimate.org) in 2007 focused on creating a community reserve
corridor between two protected areas in the cloud forest of northern Peru to protect popula‐
tions of the endemic Critically Endangered yellow-tailed woolly monkey (Lagothrix flavicau‐
da). Initially, the community was suspicious of the intentions of foreigners promoting
conservation [41]. Rapid progress occurred through conservation contagion from two com‐
munity-oriented workshops through help from the Ronda Campesina, a traditional CBO that
establishes community security where there is not adequate government protection [42]. In all
other areas, contagion has worked through word of mouth and media to create situations
where the community groups have solicited help from the project.
137
138
Precious Forests - Precious Earth
With conservation contagion, the YTWMP expanded its goals, capitalizing on the 2002
Peruvian laws, by helping communities form CBOs to create conservation concessions and
private conservation areas. The YTWMP, using its flagship species, expanded to focus on a
landscape of endemism bounded by the Marañón and Huallaga rivers. Table 3 lists the groups
the YTWMP is helping with concessions. Figure 3 locates the protected areas. The project is
also helping to create local federations to function as community networks to educate them‐
selves to manage their community reserves. As the project expands, it has the potential to
incorporate as many as 50 community CBOs, managing an additional 500, 000 hectares of cloud
forest and lower tropical rain and dry forests. This Marañón-Huallaga community landscape
is a subcenter of endemism within the Tropical Andes Biodiversity Hotspot [43]. Three
endemic primates inhabit the landscape: the yellow-tailed woolly monkey, the Andean night
monkey (Aotus miconax) and the San Martin titi monkey (Callicebus oenanthe). The area also
contains 13 additional primate and numerous other endemic species.
Group or Towns
Date
Community Protected Area
Hectares
Formed
Stage of
Concession
1,
2009
San Angel’s Gardens
7,418
Awarded
2.
2010
Gran Simacache
41,269
Awarded
3.
2009
Iguahuana Dry Forests of Delta
423
Awarded
4.
2011
Hocicon
509
Created
5.
2008
Pampa del Burro
2,700
Awarded
6.
2010
Shitaryacu
1,592
Awarded
7.
2010
Tres Quebradas
4,177
Awarded
8.
2007
Hierba Buena Allpayacu
2.282
Awarded
9.
2010
Copallin
11,549
Awarded
10.
2012
Alto Renaco
3,372
Last stages
11.
2011
El Quinillal
11,540
Awarded
12.
2013
Sacha Runa
2,538
Awarded
13.
2013
Larga Vista 1
22
Awarded
14.
2013
Larga Vista 2
23
Awarded
15.
2014
The Monkeys Jungle
324
Created
16.
2014
Maorna
874
Created
17.
2015
Quiscarumi
11
Created
18.
2010
Berlin
98
Awarded
19. AMPA
2008
El Breo
113,826
Awarded
20. AMPA
2012
Pucunucho
24
Awarded
21. AMPA
2013
Mangapaquina
14
NGO PA
Government PA
Creating Modern Community Conservation Organizations and Institutions to Effect Successful Forest...
http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/61133
Group or Towns
Date
Community Protected Area
Hectares
Formed
Stage of
Concession
22.Government
2010
Rio Nieva Resrved Zone
36,348
Last stages
23.Government
2009
Cordilla de Colon National Sanctuary
39,216
Created
24.Government
2009
Chayunain Communal Reserve
23,598
Created
1987
Alto Mayo Protected Forest
182,000
Created
community comanagement
25.Government
Table 3. Peru community groups formed and other protected areas worked with.
Figure 3. Map of the Mareñón-Huallaga Landscape in Northern Peru indicating the Government Protected Areas
(green) , NGO and Community Reserves (yellow) (numbers correspond with Table 3). Source: original
139
140
Precious Forests - Precious Earth
3.3. Huon Peninsula, Papua New Guinea (PNG) - First conservation area
The Tree Kangaroo Conservation Program (TKCP) began in 1996 to study the endan‐
gered Matschie’s tree kangaroo (Dendrolagus matschiei), endemic to the Huon Peninsula and
expanded into a community conservation initiative [44], focused on the area defined by the
Yopno, Urawa and Som rivers (YUS area). When CC joined the initiative, three clans were
participating to create a Wildlife Management Area (WMA) similar to other communityprotected areas [45]. However, WMAs had many disadvantages. PNG law draws on
Australian law to include customary groups [46] with local land tenure systems and the
inherent land rights [47, 48] in which indigenous clans own 97% of the land. By 1991, less
than 3% of PNG lands had protected status [49-51] and most (88%) were WMAs created
under the Fauna Act of 1966. Thus, novel approaches were necessary to conserve forests
and wildlife yet retain clan control of their lands [52].
Papua New Guineans’ view of the natural world shows strong attachment to their lands, rivers,
and mountains – reflected in the popular saying among many rural Papua New Guineans that
“land is life” [53]. Although they have managed their lands for thousands of years, traditional
views have been partially supplanted by Christian teachings complicated by modern com‐
mercialism [54], with pressure from the Land Tenure Conversion Act that provides a mecha‐
nism to convert customary ownership to private land ownership [46]. Recent YUS history laid
foundations for clans working together in the TKCP. Originally, Yupno people lived in
scattered groups but were moved to create villages after the Second World War with pressure
from the Lutheran mission, to establish a “Christian Community” [55]. Thus, clans of different
descent groups live together in villages.
After a first visit in 2002, CC wrote a proposal to create a Conservation Area by 1) gathering
legal information, 2) facilitating landowner visits to other protected areas, 3) forming a local
conservation group, and 4) creating a landowner group to develop a management plan. The
Conservation Area has strong objectives similar to National Parks and is more comprehensive
than WMAs [52]. Although the Conservation Areas Act was enacted in 1978, it was never
previously used since there was no functioning National Conservation Council [56, 57] that
determines the criteria, rules and regulations for the Conservation Area. This council was
appointed in 2003, perhaps stimulated by the TKCP, opening the way for the YUS Conserva‐
tion Area [52]. The TKCP and the YUS clans chose the Conservation Area because of its strength
and its maintenance of the clans’ decision-making rights over their customary lands [52].
By 2003, the TKCP had collected pledges for 36, 363 hectares from 26 clans [58] (Figure 4). The
first meeting of clan landowners and the Department of the Environment and Conservation
(DEC) occurred in 2004 and a proposal for the YUS Conservation Area was submitted [59].
The TKCP next worked with the YUS Local Level Government, the District Government and
the Morobe Provincial Government to gain local government approval. Finally, they worked
with the National DEC to develop the proposal for official approval by the PNG National
Executive Council (NEC) [59, 60]. The final proposal to the NEC [60, 61], declared over 68, 182
hectares of over 100 clans from 37 villages [61]. The National Government approved the YUS
Conservation Area and it was gazetted in January 9, 2009 [60].
Creating Modern Community Conservation Organizations and Institutions to Effect Successful Forest...
http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/61133
Figure 4. Initial map of the developing YUS Conservation Area in process indicating the 26 clans represented by 2003.
Source: original.
Since the state’s role has been ineffective in accommodating existing private land ownership
[62], the YUS Conservation Area, the first in PNG, and its community comanagement role [63,
64] may strengthen the government’s role. Comanagement balances local interests with a legal
basis. Although landowners cede some rights, the Management Committee reflects the
interests of the landowners as well as the Provincial and National governments [56].
The YUS Conservation Area, a model project [60, 65], now protects 75, 676 (187, 000 acres)
hectares and includes 45 villages within the Finisterre and Sarawaged mountain ranges [66]
(Figure 5). The TKCP trained landowners to develop management plans and will develop a
guide for other communities [60]. It has formed a local CBO to advise the management
committee and an in-country NGO and has established a trust fund to maintain the YUS
Conservation Area.
Another PNG project, the Tenkile Conservation Alliance, that focused on two other tree
kangaroo species has been working steadily in the same direction. Given these two projects,
the laws and NGOs supporting the community approach, Community Conservation submitted
a proposal to Conservation International to use a series of workshops to stimulate conservation
contagion for initiating other Conservation Areas in PNG [67].
141
142
Precious Forests - Precious Earth
Figure 5. Map of the completed YUS Conservation Area of 187, 000 (75, 676ha) acres. Dotted lines indicate clan boun‐
daries, solid dots indicate villages. Source: [66].
3.4. Southwest Madagascar – A plan laid out
A consortium of government and NGOs made a regional plan to create federations of com‐
munity reserves to support existing protected areas and to triple the number of protected areas
in accordance with the Madagascar National Environmental Action Plan.
In recent times in Madagascar, the local perception that forests belong to the “fanzakana”
(government) led to forest degradation from lack of enforcement and loss of respect for the
government [68, 69]. In 1996, the government stimulated community-based natural resource
management through the GELOSE (Gestation Locale Securise) law that encouraged contracts
between the forest service, the local municipality, and a voluntary community association
(COBA, Communaté de Base). This cumbersome GELOSE was simplified by Contractual
Forest Management (GCF) in 2000 through transference of forest management rights to the
communities. Thus, in the third phase of the National Environmental Action Plan (NEAP) that
emphasized a landscape approach supported by GELOSE and GCF, over 400 GELOSE
contracts were formed throughout Madagascar [69]. By 2009, over 150 such contracts had been
signed in the south and southeast alone and the figure is now well over 250 in the south and
southwest Madagascar.
Since 2005, after a socioeconomic assessment of southwestern Madagascar [70], WWF and the
National Association for the Management of Protected Areas in Madagascar (ANGAP)
fostered community comanagement of the dry forest landscape in support of the Durban
accord to triple the amount of protected areas in Toliara District [70]. They worked with
communities to form village associations and encouraged the GELOSE law for community
comanagement [71]. This legal transfer of management responsibility from the state to villages
or communes includes a traditional agreement (dina) signed by the village association (COBA),
the commune and a government representative, usually the Waters and Forest Service (L’Eaux
et Forêts) for forested areas [69, 71].
Creating Modern Community Conservation Organizations and Institutions to Effect Successful Forest...
http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/61133
Once functional and strong associations for land and natural resource management are
formed, the areas of community protective influence can be demarked. Then community
comanagement federations are formed around community-protected lands often around
public protected areas to work with NGOs and ANGAP or other agencies. Coordinators can
then strengthen the associations and federations to further their goals by training the com‐
munity members in the 13 topics [72] relative to both technical and governance aspects of
community management. The associated COBAs then elect a coordinator. Coordinators and
participating NGOs can train community members with a 1-2 year training course while living
in or frequently visiting the villages. Short-term workshops could supplement the long-term
on-site training and tutoring. Such a 2-year program would prepare the associations and staff
for formal management. The comanagement federation would work with ANGAP or the
Waters and Forest Service to create a management plan to include an active forest protection
force to patrol and post their lands to discourage encroachers. Associations would set up
forestation programs for fuel-wood and other future needs. Plantations would emphasize
forest corridors between Federation lands where feasible.
Table 4 and Figure 6 indicate the plan for the following four Regions of south-southwestern
Madagascar: Menabe, Atsimo-Andrefena, Androy, and Anosy. This evolving conservation
work emphasizes supporting and expanding the areas under protection by having commun‐
ities work together with ANGAP and NGOs to both strengthen government protected areas
and connect them with community protected areas.
Group
Type
State Protected Area
Community PA
Type
Ha
Alokaina
OPCI
1 Andranomena SR
2 Menabe Antimena
APC
1. 6420
Agnalamaitso
2. 195000
3 Allee des Baobabs
APC
small
Hahitamami
AI
4 Kirindy Mite NP
72200
Fimami
AI
5 Mikea NP
250000
Velondriake Fiama AV
6 Velondriake
APC
80000
Tsifota &
AV
7 Honco
APC
>4000
Mitoimafi
AI
8 PK32-Ranobe
APC
77851
Fimihara
AV
9 Jardin des Roses
APC
>200
Filobe
AV
10 Belalanda
APC
.3000
Tamia
AV
11 Tsinjoriake
APC
>15000
Ohemiha
OPCI
12 Amoroni Onilahy
APC
>12000
Club Tsita
AV
13 Ranomay
APC
>300
Fimimano
AI
14 Nosy Ve & marine park
APC
>6000
Tsitinginy
AV
15 Honko, Nosy Satrana
APC
>500
Fiherenamasy
Tsimanempesotse
Andrangy
Rodobey
AICPM
16 Tsimanampesotse NP
43200
177000
143
144
Precious Forests - Precious Earth
Group
Type
State Protected Area
Community PA
Type
Ha
Hihitse
AI
17 Menarandra Sud
APC
>4000
Komiholo
OPCI
18 Angavo
APC
>8000
Fikasana
OPCI
19 Nord Ifotaka
APC
>15000
20 Sud-Quest Ifotaka
21 Corridor PI-PII
Andohahela
22 Behara-Tranomaro
Makarefi
OPCI
23 Ankodida
APC
Table 4. Madagascar community groups formed in southern and southwestern regions of Madagascar and official or
estimated surface areas under national park or community conservation status. (Community group types include
Intercommunal Associations – AI; Village Association – AV; Public Organization of Intercommunal Cooperation –
OPCI; and AICPM. Protected Area Types include National Park – NP; Special Reserve – RS; Community Protected
Area - APC).
Figure 6. Map of Toliara Province in Southwestern Madagascar showing Community Protected Areas, Government
Protected Areas, and Community Groups they are associated with (numbers correspond with Table 4). Dotted lines
indicate the provincial border; dots are towns. Source: after WWF by Louise Jasper.
Creating Modern Community Conservation Organizations and Institutions to Effect Successful Forest...
http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/61133
3.5. Belize – Missed opportunity for community comanagement
The Community Baboon Sanctuary (CBS) was initiated in 1985 as an experiment to protect a
viable population of black howler monkeys (Alouatta pigra) that is endemic to southern Mexico,
northeastern Guatemala, and Belize. With the introduction of community conservation to
Belize, we first saw evidence of conservation contagion [3]. As a result, many communities
sought opportunities similar to what was occurring in the CBS in Belize. Many communities
stimulated the Government of Belize to create protected areas and the government, with
comanagement experience with NGOs, involved communities in comanagement through
signing of memoranda of understanding (MOUs) [73] signing at least 20 community groups
as comanagers (Table 5, Figure 7). Eventually, the Government of Belize incorporated com‐
munity comanagement into government policy [74]. However, despite this, lack of financial
support and government motivation [75] left many CBOs struggling to manage their protected
areas.
Group Name
Group
Year
Form.
Form.
1.Women’s Conservation Group
1998
1985
Community Baboon Sanctuary 4700
Yes
2.Assn Fr of 5 Blues Lake NP
1993?
1994
5 Blues Lake NP
1846
Yes
3.Aguacaliente Management Team
1996
1998
Aguacaliente WS
2485
Yes
4.STACA
1994
2001
Billy Barquedier NP
745
Yes
5.Assn of Fr of Freshwater Creek
1998?
2001
Honey Camp NP
3533
No?
6.Fr of Mayflower Bocawina NP
1999
2001
Mayflower Bocawina NP
3570
Yes
7.Itzamna Society
2000
2001
Noj Kaax Meen Elijio Panti NP 5753
Yes
8.Rio Blanco Mayan Association
1994
1994
Rio Blanco NP
43
Yes
9.Rancho Dolores EDG
2000?
2002
Spanish Creek WS
2728
Yes
10.Green Reef
1996?
1996
Bacalar Chico NP & MR
7166
Yes
11.Friends of Swallow Caye
1996
2002
Swallow Caye WS
4078
Yes
12.TASTE to SEA
2000
1996
Sapodilla Cayes MR
12500
?
13.FoN to SEA
1993
1996
Laughingbird Cay NP
4600
Yes
14.FoN to SEA
1993
2003
Gladden Spit & Silk Cayes MR 11808
Yes
15.Friends of GraGra Lagoon
1994
2002
GraGra Lagoon NP
600
Yes
16.SATIIM
1998
1994
Sarstoon-Temash NP
19025
No
17.FAMRACC
1998?
1998
Cay Caulker MR
4395
Yes
18.Guardians of the Jewel
2000?
1994
Monkey Bay NP
965
No?
19.GPWSCMC
2003?
1998
Gales Point WS
4135
No
20.SACD
2007
1996
Corozal Bay WS
82049
No
TOTAL
PA Name
Ha
Com
Stim. PA
176,724
Table 5. Belize Community Groups Formed (all except CBS are comanaged with the Government of Belize [from 76,
77] (Assn = Association, Fr = Friends, EDG= Environmental and Development Group, NP = National Park, FAMRACC
= Forest and Marine Reserve Association of Cay Caulker, FoN = Friends of Nature, GPWSCMC = Gales Point Wildlife
Sanctuary Community Management Committee, SACD = Sarteneja Alliance for Conservation and Development,
SEA=Southern Environmental Association, STACA = Steadfast Tourism and Conservation Group, TASTE = Toledo
Association for Sustainable Tourism and Empowerment).
145
146
Precious Forests - Precious Earth
Figure 7. Map of Belize with Community Baboon Sanctuary (No.1) and Protected Areas comanaged with informal and
formal agreements with Government of Belize Departments of Forestry and Fisheries (numbers correspond with Table
5). Source: [76, 77].
Seeing the possibilities for creating a strong community comanagement system, CC wrote a
proposal to be administered by the Protected Areas Conservation Trust (PACT), a parastatal
Belizean organization, for a GEF grant to develop five community projects and a communitybased network for all CBOs in the country [78]. The projects selected by PACT included
Sarstoon-Temash National Park, Freshwater Creek Reserve Forest, Gales Point Manatee, Five
Blues Lake National Park, and Aguacaliente Wildlife Sanctuary. As a result of CC’s action to
involve communities in the management of the Sarstoon-Temash National Park [3, 79, 80], an
indigenous NGO, Sarstoon Temash Institution of Indigenous Management (SATIIM), was
initiated and they wrote their own proposal that was consequently funded.
CC’s proposal [78] was funded and the project began in 1999, with CC staff as project advisers.
After 6 months, the project steering committee changed the project goals [75] and CC staff were
eliminated from the project. PACT hired a young Belizean woman with a Masters degree but
no community conservation experience and the steering committee acted as project advisers.
As a result of these changes, the project was deemed a failure [81] and the $750, 000 and added
funds were essentially wasted with no hope of renewal.
Creating Modern Community Conservation Organizations and Institutions to Effect Successful Forest...
http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/61133
After the project completion, CC staff attempted to recreate the community comanaged
network. They worked without funding with Matt Miller, a Peace Corps (PC) staff to develop
the network through PC volunteers placed in communities managing protected areas [82].
When Miller’s PC affiliation ended, it was impossible to proceed, and the communities have
been left to struggle on their own. A few years later in 2007, the Association of Protected Areas
Management Organizations (APAMO) was formed, perhaps influenced by the idea of creating
a community comanagement system, to create a network of protected areas.
A recent trip to Belize in mid 2014 to make a video on the CBS and its legacy as a community
model unexpectedly indicated how fickle governments can be on conservation issues and how
strong conservationist communities can be. With the discovery of oil prior to our visit, the
government and the Minister of Forests, Fisheries, and Sustainability began to put pressure
on the Indigenous NGO SATIIM that was comanaging the Sarstoon-Temash National Park to
allow drilling for oil within the park, which was essentially illegal. This initiated an uneasy
relationship between NGOs and communities toward the government. A new unpalatable
contract was promoted by the government and the NGOs, CBOs, and APAMO attempted to
negotiate a better contract. The government then stipulated that all comanagers would be
restricted from receiving any funding if they did not sign the contract that would give the
government power over the protected areas. Most of the NGOs signed the contract or they
would not be able to continue their work, but many communities have resisted. Two indige‐
nous comanagers SATIIM and Itzamna Society have been removed by the government as
comanagers. SATIIM and some of the Mayan communities have resisted and won some legal
battles against the government with the courts stating that these Mayan communities have a
right to these lands as their homelands.
The situation is currently in flux. However, the comanagement system which started with the
Belize Audubon Society in the early 1980s, had been working well for over 30 years. In many
cases, it was the communities that stimulated the government to create protected areas and
had worked hard with little training and resources to protect their lands for Belize, with little
support from the government. These same communities are now being disregarded by the
Minister of Environment. Belize, which had been an early pioneer of successful comanagement
for its protected areas is now dismantling it.
3.6. Wisconsin – Rugged individualism blocks community power
While rural southern Wisconsin proved to be fertile ground to stimulate activism and the
formation of CBOs, it has proved difficult to catalyze conservation contagion and a sense of
regional communalism that has occurred in other countries. This reticence seems to be due to
individualism which is a strong element in the American psyche [83].
Community conservation work began in Wisconsin in 1988 with the Ferry Bluff Eagle Council
(FBEC) using the CBS as a model [84] (Table 6). However, shortly after successfully working
with landowners FBEC discontinued work on the community eagle sanctuary and focused on
Eagle Days, an ecotourism project that leaves over $1 million annually in the Sauk-Prairie
community from winter eagle viewing [85; Moermond pers. com.]
147
148
Precious Forests - Precious Earth
Group
Date Created
Protected Area
Ha
Ferry Bluff Eagle Council
1987
Private/public lands
NA
Kickapoo Reserve Board
1996
Kickapoo Valley Reserve
3895
Valley Stewardship Network
1999
Private/Public Stewardship
NA
Blue Mounds Area Project
1997
Private Lands
6364
Sauk Prairie Conservation Alliance
1998
Badger Lands
3425
Kickapoo Community Sanctuary
never
Never accepted
NA
Table 6. Wisconsin USA community groups formed.
In 1992, CC created a proposal [86] for a plan to create the Kickapoo Valley Reserve as part of
the Kickapoo Community Sanctuary based on the CBS in Belize. The proposal was the
resolution to a failed project to create a dam and lake from properties of 144 families by eminent
domain that had caused community strife for over 30 years. Much of the proposal was adopted
by a committee headed by the Governor’s appointee. Through the political process, a 9, 000
hectare reserve was created with a local management board of governor appointees: three
members from the adjacent communities, three from the Kickapoo Valley, and three from the
state to cover education, environment, and tourism. A few years later, the Ho-Chunk tribe,
were given two additional positions on the Board. Although the reserve staff and Board have
been successful reserve managers, the community sanctuary idea was omitted from the
proposal. Currently in February 2015, another Governor is seeking to dismantle the commun‐
ity-based Kickapoo Valley Reserve Board and place the reserve under the Department of
Natural Resources, which has also been considerably downsized. This again shows how
changeable government can be.
The initiation of what was to become the Valley Stewardship Network (VSN) originated with
the idea of the remainder of the Kickapoo Valley as a buffer zone of the Kickapoo Valley
Reserve [84] that harkened back to the creation of the Kickapoo Community Sanctuary,
modeled after the Community Baboon Sanctuary in Belize. It led to the creation of a consortium
of water quality monitors for the Kickapoo River. VSN has developed a number of programs:
to help Kickapoo Valley communities develop management plans, clean up rivers and connect
local consumers with local farmers, as well as a strong water monitoring program. VSN’s data
are used by the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources and local counties; they have also
aided additional conservation organizations that were initiated to fight against factory farms,
water bottling initiatives, and frac sand mining.
The Blue Mounds area Project targeted private landowners to protect the biodiversity on their
lands with a focus on prairies and oak savannas [84]. It reached ~200 members and 5260
hectares of land through an ecological extension agent and an active education program.
CC used the Kickapoo Valley Reserve as a model to convert the Badger Army Ammunitions
Plant (BAAP) lands into a community reserve. CC first approached Citizens for Safe Water
Around Badger (CSWAB), an NGO monitoring the BAAP lands [84], but they never fully
Creating Modern Community Conservation Organizations and Institutions to Effect Successful Forest...
http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/61133
embraced the Kickapoo model. Eventually, General Services Administration (GSA), whose
responsibility was to redistribute the government lands, developed a program for all stake‐
holders to participate in the process. Community Conservation Coalition for Sauk Prairie
(CCCSP) developed to take over project leadership from CSWAB. CCCSP coordinated an
education program and produced a proposal to create a natural prairie protected area instead
of a chemical-plant-based commercial area. Under a different name, Sauk Prairie Conservation
Alliance (SPCA) continued monitoring the land exchange and building demolition process,
eventually establishing an office in one of the remaining buildings. The Badger History Group
developed as an offshoot of SPCA and helped to gain more community support for maintain‐
ing the area as a protected area with a potential recreational role.
The Badger Reuse Committee, established by GSA, worked with the proposed landowners to
follow a reuse plan based on the proposal of CCCSP. The lands have been distributed jointly
to the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, the Ho-Chunk tribe, and the Department
of Agriculture who had an experimental farm on the lands. These three landowners signed an
agreement with Sauk County, the Department of the Army, and the townships of Merrimac
and Sumpter, in which the lands reside, to form the Badger Army Ammunition Plan Oversight
and Management Commission. The commission is composed of the Ho-Chunk, Wisconsin
DNR, Sauk County and the two townships. There are also stakeholder representatives from
CSWAB, SPCA, the Badger History Group, University of Wisconsin-Baraboo, Bluffview
Sanitary District, City of Baraboo, Sauk Prairie School District, Village of Sauk City, and the
Wisconsin Wildlife Federation with liaisons from The US Army and USDA [87].
The original proposal [86] to create the Kickapoo Community Sanctuary began with the
Kickapoo Valley Reserve. However, when the proposal was taken over by a drafting committee
of the Kickapoo Valley Advisory Committee coordinated by an appointee of the Governor,
much of the community concepts were removed in the revised proposal. When the land was
given over to the state the community concept became even more reduced.
Later when we began developing a watershed program with a new proposal [88] to develop
a valley wide water quality program, it resulted in Valley Stewardship Network but never
developed any concrete interest in unifying the valley into a community sanctuary. In 2007-8,
Community Conservation led a workshop to develop community conservation skills in the
Kickapoo Valley with the repeated goal of establishing the Kickapoo Community Sanctuary
[89]. There was difficulty in getting existing conservation organizations interested in the idea
and a yearlong campaign using the Kickapoo Chautaqua, a musical event, to propagate the
idea failed. A final push in 2010 resulted instead in developing an annual Earth Day program.
It is puzzling why U.S. villagers, with more formal education, were unable to understand what,
presumably, less-educated rural people in India, Ghana, Peru, Belize, and Papua New Guinea,
almost immediately grasped. However, this difference became clear considering the individu‐
alism that dominates the U.S. psyche [83]. Leopold’s Odyssey [83] indicated how, during the
late 1930s and 1940s, Leopold struggled with the same problem with U.S. people, that occurs
as strong as ever today. In his later life, Leopold saw U.S. conservation losing ground and
understood that there were three intertwined elements in U.S. culture that conflicted with
conservation and ecological interdependence. He felt that Americans understood themselves
149
150
Precious Forests - Precious Earth
as isolated individuals acting in their own self-interest for short-term profit. He stated that the
“current doctrine of private-profit and public-subsidy” do not require community obligation
from private landowners. Leopold stated “We rationalize these defects as individualism, ”
“but they imply no real respect for the landowner as an individual.” He rather called them
“bogus individualism” [83 p. 259], which he believed was based on selfishness and short‐
sightedness. Leopold believed that industrialization, economic determinism, and individual‐
ism were destroying the land. It seems the USA has not progressed much today in this respect.
4. Discussion
4.1. Encouraging community conservation organizations and institutions
Although there is controversy generated around the issue of community conservation on one
hand, and a ubiquitous use of the many words connoting community conservation in the
literature, there are few definitions of what is meant by the terms [3]. To those that have been
successfully working with communities to protect their environment, the controversy is a mute
point and only an academic discussion. When carried out with trust between NGOs and
communities and when communities are asked for help and given the incentives and respon‐
sibilities to protect their environment, they have responded positively. At the center of the
success is treating community partners with trust [90], the use of small but adequate budgets
used to develop programs, and creating or encouraging the development of simple community
organizations as building blocks to develop more complex federations or networks to create
an effective solution to stop the spiraling rates of deforestation and loss of biodiversity. Until
the conservation community understands and utilizes the numerous rural residents and helps
them develop as powerful allies, the world’s natural areas will continue to be degraded,
fragmented, dwindle and eventually disappear or become ineffective as natural ecosystems.
The basis of successful CCPs is helping communities to create and maintain viable, functional,
and empowered community organizations and institutions. By doing this, we are recreating
and strengthening new forms of cooperative institutions to replace those that were lost due to
colonialism. Community conservation does not replace “traditional” protected areas but
strengthens them by creating trusting working relationships between governments, NGOs,
and communities and giving communities the power, training, and responsibilities to create
a more fulfilled life in relative harmony with the natural world they live in.
In general, community organizations have been based on villages or hamlets as in Belize,
Assam, India, Peru, and Madagascar. In Papua New Guinea, clans are the basic unit since
villages were a somewhat artificial creation by the Christian missions [55]. Although village
units are often heterogeneous in culture and religion, this does not preclude failure [91] and
methods can be found to incorporate these variations. Indeed, research on forest management
groups shows examples of successful heterogeneous groups [92]. In practice, in the Assam
Haathi electric fence project, Bodo and a Rajbanshi, co-developer project leaders work together
to inform their respective communities in coordinating the project. In other Assam areas,
despite a history of ethnic violence, trusting relationships and positive social incentives help
Creating Modern Community Conservation Organizations and Institutions to Effect Successful Forest...
http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/61133
diverse communities work together and capitalize on alliances between community members.
In the Ultapani-Labanapur villages in the Manas Biosphere, Bodos and Nepalis work together
and know each others’ languages. In the Kakoijana area, many tribes with Hindus and
Christians work together. St Margaret’s village, Belize, is composed of refugees from Central
America, ex-patriots from the USA and Belizean Creoles that work together. In Peru, the
communities involved in these conservation projects are a mix of immigrants from the coast
and Andean highlands, with some indigenous.
Although protection of large landscapes is a reason for creating traditional protected areas [23],
large landscapes can be protected by community federations [25]. Indeed, there are questions
about the effectiveness of traditional protected areas [23]. As in Assam, communities can play
a powerful role to support existing protected areas if they are enlisted as full partner conser‐
vationists. Communities can also play a major role with nonpublic lands which is important
since 90% of forests are outside of protected areas. Indeed, many of the forests in Nepal are
being well protected by communities that have been incorporated into a large, complex
network of 15, 000 community forest user groups with international linkages [93].
4.2. Conservation contagion
Conservation contagion is a powerful tool that can be encouraged [3]. Existing community
networks can be encouraged or new ones created to spread awareness [32]. Workshops and
meetings that include people from different areas and cultures can help contagion to jump
geographic and cultural gaps. People with extensive contacts are natural net-workers who can
propagate contagion across geographical and cultural gaps [32]. Encouraging face-to-face
meetings and interactions encourages project dispersal and contagion. Encouraging villagers
from one community that has experienced a successful project to inform or help train other
communities can be a powerful tool to encourage conservation contagion. We are using
villagers in a successful community project in Côte d’Ivoire to influence their neighbors across
the Tanoé River in Ghana with the possibility of a transboundary community reserve.
4.3. Laws and government support of community conservation
The strongest conservation option is when government, NGOs, and communities work
together. Country laws that support community management are also important. In Assam,
there was a change in government when the Bodoland Territorial Council (BTC) took over
area administration under the Assam state government. The close working relationship with
the Minister of Environment, Kampa Borgoyari, strengthened the situation but funding and
other actions were not always continuous since there was no formal law in place directing all
actors. Thus, we are working with the BTC to see if we can get the law changed to incorporate
the successful community action that has protected Assam’s forests in recent times.
In contrast to India, Belize created a mechanism for communities to sign MOUs to comanage
National Parks and other protected areas. However, the government agencies have lacked the
resources and motivation to help train and encourage the community comanagers [75]. Thus,
government and NGOs have worked with their own protected areas but neglected the catalytic
151
152
Precious Forests - Precious Earth
role in strengthening community comanaged protected areas. Now, even worse, the govern‐
ment is working against them.
In Peru, legislation exists to promote the creation of protected areas on titled land (Private
Conservation Areas) and on government lands (Conservation Concessions). There also exists
a formal protected area category for government/community comanagement with indigenous
communities (Communal Reserve). The existence of this legislation has been a main factor in
encouraging CCPs in Peru, although the complexities of this legislation and the detailed
planning required by government agencies means that these mechanisms are in many cases
only viable for CBOs connected to outside NGOs [94]. Similar legislation exists throughout
Latin America [95] but, as in Peru, CCP success using these mechanisms depends heavily on
communal, local and national government willingness.
Forward-looking governments realize the importance of including communities in the
conservation process because they understand that they cannot effectively manage and
conserve Protected Areas without the help of local communities [96]. For example, in Belize,
our work influenced the government to create new policies for community comanagement
institutions [74]. In Assam, India we are striving to convince the new Bodoland tribal govern‐
ment to use existing older laws or to create new laws for community comanagement institu‐
tions [2]. In Papua New Guinea, we motivated the government to use the Conservation Area
law, a powerful law that had not been used before. In Madagascar, Peru and Ghana which
have created existing laws to encourage community-based institutions, we are seeking to use
those laws to help communities create CBOs and community-based institutions.
5. Conclusions: Practitioner knowledge parallels and is supported by
research
As practitioners, many of our independent findings from over 30 years work in 15 countries
[3] are supported by social science research [26] and may be considered as important tenets to
follow by practitioners of community conservation. Although much of social science on
institutions and community organizations has focused on common-pool resource systems, the
community-based organizations we have encouraged are not formed for shared resource use
but focus on community control and ownership for institutional change to close existing openaccess systems and protect resources. The motivation of the CBOs and NGOs and the complex
institutions formed by them, focuses on common good or altruistic incentives rather than
competitive or self-serving motivations (what social scientists refer to as “rational egoist”
incentives). When economic incentives are reduced, other incentives are more likely to emerge.
In some cases, economic incentives are even perceived as a hindrance to conservation by CBOs
and they refuse to cooperate with outside conservation agents as a protest against the way big
conservation is administered [97].
5.1. Conservation contagion
Conservation contagion, observed in Belize, India, and Peru, was noted by a Peruvian villager
in a video interview, and similarly Ostrom [26 p.57] noted that “Farm households who
Creating Modern Community Conservation Organizations and Institutions to Effect Successful Forest...
http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/61133
innovate and are successful or common-property arrangements that increase their joint yield
are frequently copied by others. These connections are like a ripple across the landscape rather
than strongly linked situations.” Conservation contagion shows similar processes to institu‐
tional change that happens in small increments or very large changes [26 p.109].
5.2. Communities create CBOs
Most analyses of what is necessary for successful resource management by local people include
the ability to create microinstitutions to regulate resource use [95]. From conservation practice,
catalyzing communities to create microinstitutions is a high priority and communities will
readily create CBOs when given good incentives. Once CBO-NGO trust occurs for conserva‐
tion methods and solutions, communities are quick to form their own organizations and see
the value of creating the large complex institutions. Ostrom [26 p. 221] noted similarly that
against conventional theory, many groups have organized on their own [98] or with external
help: “local groups of resource users, sometimes by themselves and sometimes with the
assistance of external actors, have managed to create viable institutional arrangements for
coping with common-pool resource problems.” She further notes [26 p. 221] that national
governmental agencies have been notably unsuccessful in their efforts to design similar
institutions. “Contrary to the conventional theory, many groups in the field have self–
organized to develop solutions to common-pool resource problems at a small to medium
scale.”[98].
5.3. Polycentric institutions
Bringing together people from one or more villages can create simple organizations that in turn
can be used to build more complex institutions such as federations or networks to comanage
regional areas or landscapes as has been accomplished in the Manas Biosphere and the Kakoijana
Reserve Forest [25]. While acting in concert when needed, each CBO functions autonomously
and can strengthen each other as similarly noted by Ostrom [26 p.280]. McKean [16] notes that
such “institutions for managing very large systems need to be layered with considerable
devolution of authority to small components to give them flexibility and some control over their
fate.” It may function better than centralized government institutions because they utilize local
knowledge and can be considerably cheaper [26 p. 281-2]. “By utilizing base institutions that
are quite small, face-to-face communication can be utilized for solving many of the day-today problems in smaller groups. By nesting each level of organization in a larger level,
externalities from one group to others can be addressed in larger organizational settings that
have a legitimate role to play in relation to the smaller entities” [99 p.12].
In practice, federations or networks function similarly to what Ostrom has called multi- or
polycentric institutions. CC first began encouraging such institutions in the Community
Baboon Sanctuary in Belize by catalyzing the seven communities along the Belize River in 1985
to create the CBS Board consisting of members from each village [35, 36]. Later in 1998, CC
proposed a more complex community network of all Belizean communities managing
protected areas [3] with similar ideas in Madagascar and Ghana, as occurring in Assam and
Peru. Ostrom [100] notes that local people may more effectively manage small-scale resources
than national agencies because they can better respond to local situations in a field of diversity.
153
154
Precious Forests - Precious Earth
5.4. Focus on altruistic rather than selfish incentives
Whereas much social science research focuses on common pool resources with an assumption
of a “rational egoist” mentality for material benefits, CC in practice, emphasizes social,
conservation and altruistic incentives to stop an open-access situation. However, in addition
to what we have found in practice, there is evidence that community members use altruistic
and conservation incentives not just selfish incentives [26 p.102, 110; 101].
The CBOs and NGOs that CC works with seek to protect the common resources from other
users who would deplete them. CC encourages simple organizations and complex institutions
with the common goal of closing an open-access situation. Thus, all individuals in the group
have a similar view. Once protection of the common resource is accomplished then other
aspects of common resources pool may occur as the group begins management and seeks
sustainable use of some of the resources.
As practitioners, conservation success depends on motivating these aspects rather than
economic or self-interest incentives. This may seem counterintuitive, since emphasis in
community conservation and ICDP literature has stressed that local communities mainly
respond to finances. In practice, that mentality may occur with initial community contact.
Researchers are puzzled why communities actively patrol and protect areas even without pay
as in Kakoijana, India, Côte d’Ivoire, Peru, and Costa Rica; they do it for the same reason,
conservation and the common good. When the communities develop their own institutions
and organizations, the rules they place on the community are respected more. Low project
finances reduce self-interest incentives and encourages altruistic, cooperative incentives just
as external laws and high investment projects do the opposite.
5.5. Trust
Trust is important in response to these cooperative and altruistic values [90]. Positive incen‐
tives and motivations increase when people are empowered and their self- determination and
self-esteem are enhanced. [26 p. 112].
5.6. Strengthening community partners
Uphoff et al. [102] note three objectives that lead to success in rural development: productivity,
well-being, and empowerment. Well-being includes a wide range of attributes that develops
a feeling of self-worth. This is the main reason we involve community members and CBOs in
livelihood and economic development, to strengthen our rural partners. Well-being in our
partners leads to empowerment. Involving them in meaningful work of conserving and
protecting their areas develops pride and fulfillment in what they are doing. Helping them to
increase their economic status adds to their sense of well-being.
5.7. External sanctions
External sanctions are resisted by communities and are not the best way to proceed and can
lead to resentment [26 p. 78-9].
Creating Modern Community Conservation Organizations and Institutions to Effect Successful Forest...
http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/61133
5.8. Group monitoring
Group monitoring is important [103]. Our rural partners in India, Belize, USA, Ghana, and
Peru monitor species, wildlife, illegal activities and other natural resources.
5.9. Funding
Large funding with no local input can be harmful since it promotes a “handout” mentality
encouraging local groups to capture the funds rather than pursuing their own goals [26 p. 278]
and encourages corruption [103]. As noted elsewhere [3], research has shown that people do
not always act rationally and in their own interests. Ariely [104] noted that experiments
conducted with rural Indian villagers asked to do various tasks for three levels of pay (one
day, two weeks, and five months) did not differ in the first two levels but those who could
earn the equivalent of five months pay did the task significantly worse. Ariely [104] also noted
that using money to motivate people could be counterintuitive. For tasks requiring cognitive
ability, low-to-moderate performance-based incentives can help. But if financial incentives are
too high, the attention to the reward becomes distracting and creates stress that reduces the
level of performance.
5.10. Support of large institutions
It is important to have the support of large-scale institutions such as government or interna‐
tional or large regional NGOs, to support the community organizations. Uphoff et al.[102]
devote a chapter to the importance of rural community organizations working with govern‐
ment and supporting laws. In Assam, success happened with support of the newly formed
Bodo tribal government while in Belize lack of government support has left CBOs in need of
help. Similarly, Communal Conservancies in Namibia have flourished because of government
and large international organizational support [3].
Author details
Robert H. Horwich1*, Sam Shanee2, Noga Shanee2, Arnab Bose3, Mark Fenn4 and
Joydeep Chakraborty3
*Address all correspondence to: ccc@mwt.net
1 Community Conservation, Gays Mills, Wisconsin, USA
2 Neotropical Primate Conservation, Manchester, UK
3 Natures Foster, Bongaigaon, Assam, India
4 Winrock Foundation, Hanoi, Vietnam
155
156
Precious Forests - Precious Earth
References
[1] Persha L, Agrawal A, Chhatre A. Social and ecological synergy: local rulemaking, forest
livelihoods, and biodiversity conservation. Science. 2011; 331:1606-1608.
[2] Horwich RH, Lyon J, Bose A. What Belize can teach us about grassroots conservation.
Solutions. 2011; May-June:51-58.
[3] Horwich RH, Lyon J, Bose A, Jones CB. Preserving biodiversity and ecosystems:
catalyzing conservation contagion. In: Moutinho P. (ed.) Deforestation Around the World.
Rijeky: InTech; 2012. p. 283-318.
[4] Schmitt CB, et al. Global analysis of the protection status of the world’s forests. Biol Conser
2009;142:2122-2130.
[5] Brockington D, Duffy R, Igoe J. Nature Unbound. London: Earthscan. 2008. 249 p.
[6] Kiss A. Making biodiversity conservation a land-use priority. In: McShane TO, Wells MP,
(eds.) Getting Biodiversity Projects to Work. New York:Columbia University Press; 2004.
p. 98-123.
[7] Kramer R, van Schaik C, Johnson J. (eds.) Last Stand: Protected Areas and the Defense of
Tropical Biodiversity. New York: Oxford University Press. 1997.
[8] Oates JF. Myth and Reality in the Rain Forest: How Conservation Strategies Are Failing in West
Africa. Berkeley: University of California Press; 1999.
[9] Terborgh J. Requiem for Nature. Washington DC: Island Press; 1999.
[10] Belsky JM. Misrepresenting communities: the politics of community-based rural
ecotourism in Gales Point Manatee, Belize. Rural Sociol 1999; 64: 641-666.
[11] Brechin SR, Wilshusen PR, Fortwangler CL, West PC. Reinventing a square wheel: a
critique of the new protectionist paradigm in international biodiversity conservation.
Soc Natur Res 2002;15:41-64.
[12] McShane TO, and Wells MP. (eds.) Getting Biodiversity Projects to Work. New York:
Columbia University Press; 2004. 442 p.
[13] Borrini-Feyerabend G, Pimbert M, Taghi Farvar JC, Kothari A, Renard Y. Sharing Power,
Learning by Doing in Co-management of Natural Resources Throughout the World. Cenesta:
International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED) and IUCN. 2004. 456 p.
[14] Dowie M. Conservation Refugees. Cambridge: The MIT Press. 2009. 341 p.
[15] IUCN. 2003. Policy Matters, 2003;12.
[16] McKean MA. Common property: what is it, what is it good for, and what makes it
work? In: Gibson CC, McKean MA, Ostrom E. (eds.) People and Forests Communities,
Institutions, and Governance. Cambridge: The MIT Press; 2000. p. 27-55.
Creating Modern Community Conservation Organizations and Institutions to Effect Successful Forest...
http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/61133
[17] Ostrom E. Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action.
New York: Cambridge University Press; 1990. 280 p.
[18] Singleton S. Constructing Cooperation – the Evolution of Institutions of Comanagement.
Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press; 1998.
[19] Feeny D, Berkes F, McCay BJ, Acheson JM. The tragedy of the commons: twenty-two
years later. Human Ecol 1990;18:1-19.
[20] Berkes F. Rethinking community-based conservation. Conserv. Biol. 2004;18: 621-630.
[21] Nagendra H. Do parks work? Impact of protected areas on land cover clearing. Am‐
bio, 2008;37(5): 330-337.
[22] Ostrom E, Nagendra H. Insights on linking forests, trees, and people from the air, on
the ground, and in the laboratory. PNAS. 2006;103(51):19224-19231
[23] Hayes TM, Ostrom E. Conserving the world’s forests: are protected areas the only
way? Indiana Law Rev 2005;38(3):595-617.
[24] Horwich RH, Lyon J. Community conservation: practitioners’ answer to critics. Oryx.
2007;41(3): 376-385.
[25] Horwich RH, Islari R, Bose A, Dey B, Moshahary M, Dey NK, Das R, Lyon J. Com‐
munity protection of the Manas Biosphere Reserve in Assam, India and the endan‐
gered golden langur (Trachypithecus geei). Oryx. 2010;44(2):252-260.
[26] Ostrom E. Understanding Institutional Diversity. Princeton: Princeton University Press;
2005. 355 p.
[27] Banana AY, Gombya-Ssembajjwe W. Successful forest management: the importance
of security of tenure and rule enforcement in Ugandan forests In: Gibson CC,
McKean MA, Ostrom E. (eds.) People and Forests Communities, Institutions, and Gover‐
nance. Cambridge: The MIT Press; 2000. p. 87-98
[28] Ghate R, Ghate S. Autonomy necessary but not sufficient: comparative study of
CFM, Nepal and JFM, India. J Forest Livelihood. 2010;9(1):33-44.
[29] Hayes TA. Parks, people and forest protection: an institutional assessment of the ef‐
fectiveness of protected areas. World Dev. 2006;34(12):2064-2075.
[30] Molnar A, Scherr S, Khare A. Who conserves the world’s forests? Community-driven strat‐
egies to protect forests and respect rights. Washington, DC: Forest Trends and Ecoagri‐
cultural Partners; 2004.
[31] Varughese G. Population and forest dynamics in the hills of Nepal: institutional rem‐
edies by rural communities. In: Gibson CC, McKean MA, Ostrom E. (eds.) People and
Forests Communities, Institutions and Governance. Cambridge: The MIT Press. 2000. p.
193-225.
157
158
Precious Forests - Precious Earth
[32] Christakis NA, Fowler JH. Connected: the Surprising Power of Our Networks and How
They Shape Our Lives. New York: Little, Brown and Company; 2009. 333 p.
[33] Gladwell M. The Tipping Point: How Little Things Can Make a Big Difference. New York:
Little, Brown & Company; 2002. 301 p.
[34] Horwich RH, Bernstein SE, Lyon J. Catalyzing community conservation: a guide to
developing socially sustainable projects. Unpublished manuscript.
[35] Horwich RH. How to develop a community sanctuary - an experimental approach to
the conservation of private lands. Oryx. 1990;24:95-102.
[36] Horwich RH, Lyon J. Experimental technique for the conservation of private lands. J.
Med Primatol. 1988;17:169-176.
[37] Srivastava A, Biswas J, Das J, Bujarbarua P. Status and distribution of golden langurs
(Trachypithecus geei) in Assam, India. Am J Primatol. 2001;55:15-23.
[38] Horwich RH, Das R, Bose A. Conservation and the current status of the golden lan‐
gur in Assam, India, with reference to Bhutan. Primate Conserv. 2013;27:77-83.
[39] Ghosh S. Report of wild elephant (Elephas maximus) population estimation in Bodo‐
land Territorial Council (20th-26th Feb 2008), 2008; Report to the Assam Forest De‐
partment, Guwahati, Assam
[40] Ministry of Environment and Forests. India tiger estimate 2010. Government of In‐
dia, National Tiger Conservation Authority, Delhi:Wildlife Institute of India; 2011.
[41] Shanee S, Shanee N. A new conservation NGO, neotropical primate conservation:
Project experiences in Peru. Int NGO J. 2009; 4(7): 329-332.
[42] Shanee N. The dynamics of threats and conservation efforts for the tropical Andes
hotspot in Amazonas and San Martin, Peru [thesis]. Kent: University of Kent; 2012.
[43] Myers N, Mittermeier RA, et al. Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities. Na‐
ture. 2000;403(6772): 853-858.
[44] Ross T, Dabek L. 2006. The Tree Kangaroo Conservation Program – communitybased conservation on the Huon Peninsula, Papua New Guinea. Conserv Evid. 2006;3:
47-48. (www.ConservationEvidence.com)
[45] Johnson AH. Monitoring and evaluation of an enterprise-based strategy for wildlife
conservation in the Crater Mountain Wildlife Area (Papua New Guinea) [thesis].
Madison: University of Wisconsin; 2000.
[46] Cooter R. Kin goups and the common law process. In: Customary Land Tenure: Regis‐
tration and Decentralization in Papua New Guinea. Institute of Applied Social and Eco‐
nomic Research. Port Moresby: NRI; 1991;Monograph 29. p. 33-49.
[47] Holzknecht H. Papua New Guinea’s land tenure, land use and biodiversity conserva‐
tion. In: Sekhran N, Miller S. (eds.). Papua New Guinea Country Study on Biological Di‐
Creating Modern Community Conservation Organizations and Institutions to Effect Successful Forest...
http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/61133
versity. Waigani: Papua New Guinea Department of Environment and Conservation;
1994. p. 59-66.
[48] Lamour P. Introduction. In: Customary Land Tenure: Registration and Decentralization in
Papua New Guinea. Institute of Applied Social and Economic Research. Port Moresby:
NRI. 1991;Monograph 29. p. 1-8.
[49] Eaton, P. Reinforcing traditional tenure: wildlife management areas in Papua New
Guinea. In: Stevens S. (ed.) Conservation Through Cultural Survival. Washington DC:
Island Press; 1997. p. 225-236.
[50] Collins NM, Sayer JA, Whitmore TC. The Conservation Atlas of Tropical Forests - Asia and
the Pacific. New York: IUCN, Simon & Schuster; 1991. 256 p.
[51] Hedemark M, Sekhran N. Overview of current conservation-oriented policies, legisla‐
tion and interventions. In: Sekhran, N. Miller S. (eds.) Papua New Guinea Country Study
on Biological Diversity. Waigani: Papua New Guinea Department of Environment and
Conservation; 1994. p. 339-359.
[52] Horwich RH. A Landowner’s Handbook to Relevant Environmental Law in Papua New
Guinea. Gays Mills: Community Conservation; 2005. 51 p.
[53] Power, T. Policy making in East Sepik Province. In: Customary Land Tenure: Registration
and Decentralization in Papua New Guinea. Institute of Applied Social and Economic
Research. Port Moresby: NRI. 1991; Monograph 29. p. 87-100.
[54] Warakai V. The attachment of spiritual and cultural and cultural values to natural
resources in Papua New Guinea. In: Sekhran N, Miller S. (eds.) Papua New Guinea Country
Study on Biological Diversity. Waigani: Papua New Guinea Department of Environment
and Conservation. 1994; p. 319-324.
[55] Wassmann, J. Worlds in mind; the experience of an outside world in a community of
the Finisterre range of Papua New Guinea. Oceania. 1993;64:117-145.
[56] Fingleton, JS. Conservation, environment protection and customary land tenure. In:
Alcorn JB. (ed.) Papua New Guinea Conservation Needs Assessment. Vol. 1. Conservation
issue, CNA Workshop and Recommendations. Washington DC: Biodiversity Support
Program. 1993;p. 31-56.
[57] Celcor. 2002 Conservation Areas Act (Chapter 262).
[58] Martin S, Dabek L, Doyle C. Tree Kangaroo Conservation Program in Papua New
Guinea 2003; Annual Field Report.
[59] Martin S, Dabek L, Glick J. Tree Kangaroo Conservation Program in Papua New
Guinea 2004; Annual Field Report.
[60] Dabek L. et al. Tree Kangaroo Conservation Program 2008; Annual Report.
[61] Martin S, Dabek L, Doyle C, Glick J. Tree Kangaroo Conservation Program in Papua
New Guinea 2005; Annual Field Report.
159
160
Precious Forests - Precious Earth
[62] Whimp, K. Governance, law and sovereignty: enforcing environmental objectives in
Papua New Guinea. In: Filer, C. (ed.) The Political Economy of Forest Management in
Papua New Guinea. Port Moresby: The National Research Institute (NRI). 1997; Mono‐
graph 32. p. 353-367.
[63] Berkes F, George P, Preston RJ. Co-management: the evolution in theory and practice
of the joint administration of living resources. Alternatives. 1991;18:12-18.
[64] Horwich RH, Lyon J. Rural ecotourism as a conservation tool. In: Singh TV, Singh S.
(eds.) Development of Tourism in Critical Environment. New York: Cognizant Commu‐
nication Corporation; 1999. p. 102-119.
[65] Ancrenaz M, Dabek L, O’Neill S. The costs of exclusion: recognizing a role for local
communities in biodiversity conservation. PloS Biol. 2007;5(11):2443-2448.
[66] Dabek L, et al. Tree Kangaroo Conservation Program 2010; Annual Report.
[67] Horwich RH. Creating Regional Conservation Change in Papua New Guinea, Pro‐
posal to Conservation International. 2009.
[68] Fenn M. Learning conservation strategies: a case study of the Parc National d’Ando‐
hahela, In: Goodman SM, Benstead JP. (eds.) The Natural History of Madagascar. Chica‐
go: The University of Chicago Press; 2003a. p. 1494-1501.
[69] Raik DB, Decker DJ. 2007. A multisector framework for assessing community-based
forest management: lessons from Madagascar. Ecol Soc. 2007;12(10):14 (online) http://
www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol12/art14/
[70] Fenn MD. The spiny forest ecoregion. In: Goodman SM, Benstead JP. (eds.) The Natu‐
ral History of Madagascar. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press; 2003b. p.
1525-1530.
[71] Erdmann TK. Selected forest management initiatives and issues with an emphasis on
the Cadre d’Appui Forestier Project. In: Goodman SM, Benstead JP. (eds.) The Natural
History of Madagascar. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press; 2003. p. 1437-1444.
[72] Bernstein SE. Training to develop community-based co-management capacity in Bel‐
ize [thesis]. Madison: University of Wisconsin; 2005.
[73] Young C, Horwich R. History of protected area designation, co-management and
community participation in Belize. In: Balboni BS, Palacio JO. (eds.) Taking Stock: Bel‐
ize at 25 Years of Independence. Viejo del Carmen: Cubola Books; 2007. p. 123-150.
[74] Meerman JC. Belize Protected Areas Policy and System Plan: Result 2: Protected Area
System Assessment & Analysis PUBLIC DRAFT. 2005. Unpublished report to the
protected areas systems plan office.
[75] Catzim A. Project systematization main report. PACT/GEF/UNDP The community
co-managed parks system project 1999-2002. PACT: Belmopan; 2002.
Creating Modern Community Conservation Organizations and Institutions to Effect Successful Forest...
http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/61133
[76] Walker Z, Walker P. The status of protected areas In Belize. PACT:Belmopan; 2009.
[77] Walker Z, Walker. P. The directory of Belize’s protected areas. PACT:Belmopan;
2011.
[78] PACT. 1998. Creating a co-managed protected areas system in Belize: A plan for joint
stewardship between government and community. Unpublished manuscript.
[79] Producciones de la Hamaca and Community Conservation Consultants. Sarstoon-Te‐
mash National Park, Transcript of Stakeholder’ Workshop. Cay Caulker: Produc‐
ciones de la Hamaca; Gays Mills:Orang-utan Press; 1998. 39 p.
[80] Caddy E, Ch'oc G, Paul S. The Sarstoon-Temash Institute of Indigenous Manage‐
ment: a grassroots initiative for social equity and sustainable development. In: MS
presented at the IUCN World Congress, Amman, Jordan Oct 10, 2000.
[81] Ravndal V. Final project evaluation, community co-managed park system of Belize.
2002.
[82] Miller M. Belize – Community co-management. Unpublished manuscript presented
to US Peace Corps – Belize. 2004.
[83] Lutz-Newton J. Aldo Leopold’s Odyssey. Washington DC: Island Press; 2006. 483p.
[84] Horwich RH. Communities saving Wisconsin birds: north and south. Passenger Pi‐
geon. 2005;67:85-98.
[85] Van Koningsveld R, Normand WC, Marcouiller DW. Eagle watchers along the Wis‐
consin River. Survey Results From the Winter of 1993-1994. 1994.
[86] Horwich RH. Proposal for the Kickapoo Community Sanctuary and Museum of Sus‐
tainability. Unpublished manuscript. 1992.
[87] http://www.co.sauk.wi.us/planningandzoningpage/badger-oversite-managementcommission (accessed 2/3/2012)
[88] Horwich RH, Lyon J, Widner, R. A preliminary proposal for the development of a
Kickapoo watershed community stewardship program. Unpublished manuscript.
1994.
[89] Horwich RH, et al. Kickapoo Community Sanctuary: keeping our rural past while
stepping into the future. Unpublished Manuscript. 2008.
[90] Poteete AR, Janssen MA, Ostrom E. Working Together. Princeton: Princeton Universi‐
ty Press; 2010. 346 p.
[91] Baland JM, Platteau JP. Halting Degradation of Natural Resources: Is There a Role For
Communities? Food and Agricultural Organization Oxford: Clarendon Press; 1996.
[92] Poteete AR, Ostrom E. Heterogeneity, group size and collective action: the role of in‐
stitutions in forest management. Dev Change. 2004;35(3):435-462.
161
162
Precious Forests - Precious Earth
[93] Ojha HR. The evolution of institutions for multi-level governance of forest commons:
the case of community forest user groups federation in Nepal. In: Sustaining Com‐
mons: Sustaining Our Future; 13th IASC International Conference. January 2011.
[94] Shanee N, Shanee S, Horwich RH. Effectiveness of locally run conservation initia‐
tives in north-east Peru. Oryx. 2014;49(2):239-247.
[95] Gibson CC, Becker CD. A lack of institutional demand: why a strong local communi‐
ty in western Ecuador fails to protect its forest. In: Gibson CC, McKean MA, Ostrom
E. (eds.) People and Forest Communities, Institutions, and Governance. Cambridge: The
MIT Press; 2000. p. 135-161.
[96] Norris S. Madagascar defiant. Bioscience. 2006;56:960-965.
[97] Shanee N. Campesino justification for self initiated conservation actions a challenge
to mainstream conservation. J Political Ecol. 2013;20:413-428.
[98] Ostrom, E. A multi-scale approach to coping with climate change and other collective
action problems. Solutions. 2010;1(2):27-36. http://www.thesolutionsjournal.com/
node/565
[99] Ostrom, E. Reformulating the commons. Ambiente & Sociedade. 2002;10:5-25.
[100] Ostrom, E. Scales, polycentricity, and incentives: designing complexity to govern
complexity. In: Guruswamy LD, McNeely JA. (eds.) Protection of Global Biodiversity,
Converging Strategies. Durham: Duke University Press; 1998. p. 149-167.
[101] Allendorf T. Residents’ attitudes toward three protected areas in southwestern Nep‐
al. Biodiversity Conserv. 2007;16:2087-2102.
[102] Uphoff N, Esman MJ, Krishna A. Reasons For Success, Learning From Instructive Experi‐
ences in Rural Development. West Hartford: Kumatrian Press; 1998. 233 p.
[103] Gibson, CC, Williams JT, Ostrom E. Local enforcement and better forests. World Dev.
2005;33(2):273-284.
[104] Ariely, D. The Upside of Irrationality. New York: HarperCollins Publishers; 2010. 334
p.