 |
 |
| |
|
| This is a low-cost component of our overall conservation strategy. Yet, in view of the current economic and political milieu in the Solomon Islands, it is unrealistic to expect community-based conservation projects to succeed with only short-term expert guidance and financial support. Solomon Islanders have development needs that far exceed the assistance provided to them by their central and provincial governments. To date, we have assisted some communities with development needs, particularly in biodiversity-rich areas in which resource management is contentious and local communities have been unwilling to forfeit income from fishing unless alternative means for income were offered. Given the widespread failure of cash-generating enterprises in the region, we have assisted some communities with building low-cost infrastructural projects such as schools, clinics, and community halls, but only when the communities provide labor and timber and cover other expenses (e.g., fuel for chainsaws).
This project assists local communities in managing and conserving their resources for future generations. However, unlike conservation initiatives that focus exclusively on preservation, we work towards local developmental needs. The idea is to economically empower rural communities by establishing several long-term horizon cash enterprises and infrastructural initiatives, while simultaneously promoting resource management and conservation. Local authorities want to manage and conserve their resources, but local people need cash and basic services. The income that rural people are losing by not selling marine resources harvested from the MPAs and "no-take" zones needs to be compensated for by developing small-scale economic enterprises and rural services not provided by the government. Solomon Islanders have development aspirations that cannot be ignored. Women's sewing cooperatives and building schools, clinics, and community halls are being set-up as alternatives to more damaging activities such as logging and industrial bait fishing. This project is also helping local communities to develop a "custom" training school and training high school students in monitoring habitats and species targeted for protection and learning GIS. The development initiatives are not presented as a trade-off for conservation but, rather, we present conservation, development, and education as a three-pronged approach to improving well-being. Indeed, we are aware of the potential risk of launching a community-based MPA under a program that pairs economic incentives with environmental conservation. However, we can say the following after five years of experience. In some instances, participants were more interested initially in the economic incentive than in resource conservation. However, members who were truly concerned about the health of the marine resources believed, as we did, that if the closures had noticeable biological results people would see the value of the long-term closures and understand the benefits for the community, thus lessening their focus on the economic incentives. This process has already begun across the region, and as other villages witness the success of their neighbors' MPAs (e.g., a greater number of invertebrates), they become increasingly interested in managing their resources. We have confirmed through experience that when local people witness tangible management results and participate in environmental education it is possible to move beyond the economic dependency created by financial incentives as a component of conservation projects. It is crucial, however, to maintain a relatively long-term presence in a region and to provide some communities with initial infrastructural assistance, since government and non-government organizations in the region have failed to do so. Our current educational and development approach seeks to do both. Yet, not all communities establishing MPAs have received or will receive this kind of assistance. We have strategically positioned the development initiatives (e.g., clinics) in areas that can be accessed by a number of villages, thus avoiding envy between communities. We are also avoiding the promotion the MPAs as a trade-off for the development projects, and we make this very clear to all communities from the beginning. In the future, as before, affected communities will be required to financially commit resources to avoid dependency and to make the initiatives truly participatory.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
