|
||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||
|
|
Is There Still Time for Lesan?
When we recognized the error of our narrow focus, we decided to significantly restructure our forest program — not just in Lesan, but in all our Indonesian forest conservation sites.
But although changing a program's structure is not too difficult, changing understanding and attitude is quite another matter. To break through established thought and work patterns requires a considerable effort from management.
A narrow, site-focused conservation approach prevailed, where staff only focused on their own site without learning from what happened in other parts of the program — we called this the "ego-site syndrome." Changing this attitude takes time to really become effective at the ground level.
So far, not a single oil palm has yet been planted in Lesan, and we are working hard to turn things around. Several local communities now seem to be having second thoughts after initially agreeing to allow the planting of oil palm on their lands. These communities can have a strong influence on the final decision, but they are also tempted by financial incentives from the oil-palm developers.
But support for our efforts from the local government — in terms of revised, more environmentally friendly land use planning — is not yet forthcoming. We have had several discussions with local district-level politicians, and they appear very much committed to develop oil palm in the area.
Still, there are opportunities to convince the government to focus oil palm development on areas where it does less damage to forest and community livelihoods.
Lesson: Work at Bigger Scale
Where did things go wrong, and how could we prevent similar mistakes?
- We think that the Conservancy worked at a geographic scale that was too small for our overall goal of protecting large areas of orangutan habitat.
- The 12,000 hectare area of Sungai Lesan is also not a naturally defined ecosystem. Presently we are protecting one side of the river, but not the other or upstream forests.
- In a way — and without quite realizing it in our negotiations with the local government — we had "traded" the protection of a relatively small forest area for the conversion of a much larger one.
If we had taken a much broader landscape-level approach, we could have pushed for sustainable forest management in the entire Lesan River watershed. It is unlikely that all of the forest would have been protected, but we could have worked toward low-impact forest use — such as well-guided, reduced-impact forestry or some form of agro-forestry — or any other land use that does not require the forest to be clear cut.
Also, rather than just a focus on community development and protective management of the Sungai Lesan forest, we could have focused more on engaging the private sector — and thus influencing land-use planning in the area. This approach would very likely have been a more cost-effective approach as well, potentially leading to bigger conservation gains for less money.
If we had been successful, we could have maintained economic outputs from the area — keeping local communities, government and the private sector happy while also protecting the forest stands in the watershed. We could even have incorporated well planned oil-palm plantations in the area, retaining landscape level connectivity and protecting ecologically sensitive areas.
Now that the lines have been drawn on the maps, these steps have become much harder. Our choice to conserve 12,000 hectares of forest opened the door for the destruction of the surrounding 30,000-40,000 hectares.
Moving Beyond Site-Based Conservation
Let us be clear: The Conservancy's systematic approach to conservation and strong focus on monitoring and measures was one of the reasons why we could identify shortcomings in the Lesan approach in the first place.
And without the Conservancy's ambition to really make a big impact on the conservation status of the world’s natural places, we wouldn’t be asking ourselves the questions posed in this article.
But it seems to us that conservation today has many similarities to what is known as “asymmetric warfare.” This term refers to a military situation in which two opponents of unequal power interact and attempt to exploit each other's weaknesses.
Such struggles often involve strategies and tactics of unconventional warfare, with the "weaker" combatants attempting to use flexible, grass-roots strategies that undermine their larger opponent's strength.
Site-based conservation is like conventional war: We draw up our battle lines and defend our patch against the attacks of an opponent. But when you practice such conservation in places like Indonesia, you either win or lose (and unfortunately more often the latter than the former).
And while knowledge gained at sites is critical for scaling up conservation, the Conservancy cannot afford to work at sites alone. To be really effective in places such as Borneo, we need to think much bigger — to find other actors that do have the capacity to guide forest management in large areas.
What we are calling for is an approach that leans towards unconventional warfare — carefully pick battles, know when to advance and when to retreat, build up support from local people, and develop alliances with organizations whose goals overlap with ours.
We might not even draw clear battle lines, but instead use a more flexible approach in which the overall goal (the conservation of large intact landscapes and species diversity) may take precedence over the individual battles.
The Potential Efficiencies of Scaling Up
Indeed, we have already taken note of these lessons to some extent. For instance, we have now established two influential and potentially cost-effective scaling-up programs — the Orangutan Conservation Services Program (OCSP) and the Responsible Asian Forest Trade (RAFT) program.
These are strong initiatives attracting considerable funding and with the potential to influence land use at a large scale:
- Both approaches work through NGO and business partners to achieve a joint goal with a relatively small amount of seed funding.
- The potential conservation impact of these two programs is much higher than those based on site-based conservation. For less than than $2.50 per hectare, the Conservancy and partners have helped facilitate the certification of a 200,000 ha timber concession in East Kalimantan — making forest management there compatible with wildlife conservation goals.
- In Lesan, by contrast, we have spent more than $50 per hectare per year to retain its conservation values. Conservation comes at a price and funding is limited, so we need to look at the most cost-effective way of achieving conservation.
In the meantime, we are back to the drawing board in Lesan — and in the many other large forest areas in East Kalimantan requiring the kind of attention that we should have given Sungai Lesan in the first place.
Nature picture credits (top to bottom, left to right): Photo © Mark Godfrey/TNC (Illegal logging path, Lesan River, Indonesia); Photo © James J. Stachecki (Orangutans in Borneo).
Join The Nature Conservancy on
Facebook
Flickr
Twitter