Integrated Conservation and Development Project

Integrated conservation and development projects (ICDP) are biodiversity conservation projects with rural development components. This is an approach that aspires to combine social development with conservation goals. These projects look to deal with biodiversity conservation objectives through the use of socio-economic investment tools. The World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) first introduced ICDPs in the mid 1980s. They wanted to attend to some of the problems associated with the “fines and fences” (nonparticipatory) approach to conservation.

ICDPs Under WWF

The Wildlands and Human Needs Program was initiated in 1985 by WWF and it incorporated around 20 ICDPs. They wanted to improve the quality of life of rural people through projects that integrated the management of natural resources with economic development. By 1994, WWF was behind more than 50 ICDPs. Today there are around 300 ICDPs.

Various Names of ICDPs

ICDPs are under many different names like “People-Centered Conservation and Development”, “Eco-development”, “grassroots conservation”, community-based natural resource management (CBNRM) and community wildlife management (CWM). All of these names were created by the conservation organizations, not the indigenous people.

Characteristics of ICDPs

Biodiversity conservation is the primary goal. ICDPs call to deal with the social and economic requirements of communities who might threaten biodiversity. They want to improve the relationships between state-managed protected areas and their neighbors. ICDPs do not inevitably seek to delegate ownership of protected area resources to local communities. They usually receive funding from external sources. They are externally motivated and initiated by conservation organizations and development agencies. ICDPs are normally linked to a protected area, usually a national park. (Hughes and Flintan)

ICDP Assumptions

1. Diversified local livelihood options will reduce human pressure on biodiversity, leading to improved conservation.
2. Local people and their livelihood practices comprise the most important threat to the biodiversity resources of the area in question.
3. ICDPs offer sustainable alternatives to traditional approaches to protected area management.

Critiques of ICDPs

Conservation organizations do not necessarily understand the social and economic areas they are trying to work in. They are the ones to start the ICDPs, not the rural people. Conservationists have little experience working with communities. They are also unwilling to bear support legal battles over land and are unwilling to strengthen rural organizations because they consider it “too political”. Agroforestry and organic gardening projects do not work as well because it is difficult for indigenous people to market what is grown.
Minority ethnic groups and women are many times not accounted for in the redistribution of costs and benefits. There are many limitations on participation by women, so there are not equal opportunities for all people in the community.
External effects like a growing market demand for forest and wildlife products, demographic pressures and vested interests like illegal logging, mineral extraction and ranching are disregarded.
In addition, community-based conservation projects are divergent to the goals of biodiversity conservation, which should be based on biological science. Katrina Brandon stated, “Not all things can be preserved through use”.
Also, some of the ICDPs that are funded internationally may not be financially or economically sustainable once the external funding has been exhausted.

Successful Projects

Annapurna Conservation Area Project, Nepal Bwindi Impenetrable Forest, Uganda Lake Mburo National Park, Uganda Amboro National Park, Bolivia Yancheng Coastal Zone Biosphere Reserve, China Crater Mountain Wildlife Management Area, Papua New Guinea Mount Elgon, Uganda Ngorongoro Conservation Area, Tanzanla Kilim Ijum, Cameroon Ostional Wildlife Refuge, Costa Rica Projects funded by the UK Department for International Development (DFID)
For ICDPs to be successful Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) systems need to be institutionalized and unnecessary data needs to be avoided.

Related Books

In the Dust of Kilimanjaro- David Western
Indonesia- World Bank
Investing in Biodiversity- Michael Wells

References

-Integrating Conservation and Development Experience
Ross Hughes and Fiona Flintan
Copyright: 2001, International Institute for Environment and Development
-World Watch: Vision for a sustainable world
A Challenge to Conservationists
Mac Chapin
Copyright: 2004, Worldwatch Institute
-www.eldis.org/static/DOC18609.htm
Designing integrated conservation and development projects (ICDPs): illegal hunting, wildlife conservation, and the welfare of the local people.
Johannesen, AB (2006)
-http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/africa_today/v048/48.1ndiaye.html
A Practitioner's View of Conservation and Development in Africa: Integrated Management and the Djoudj National Park in Senegal
Abdoulaye Ndiaye
Copyright: 2001 Africa Today Consultants, Inc
-www.eldis.org
-www.panda.org

External Links

Case Studies:
-[1]
-[2]
-[3]
-[4]
-[5]