Rethinking the decentralisation and devolution of biodiversity conservation

This article challenges devolution and populist approaches to biodiversity conservation and forest management by examining several of the main assumptions on which they are based.The concept of partnership in conservation is based on the following, often contested,assumptions: local populations are interested and skilled in sustainable forest resource use and conservation;contemporary rural communities are homogeneous and stable; local, community-based tenurial, knowledge and management systems are uniquely suitable for forest conservation.These assumptions are challenged as follows:traditional practices are not always sustainable, sustainability may have been realised in the past due to lack of other demands on resources which is not now the case, human relationships with the environment are dynamic, people may not be interested in maintaining traditional ways of living and relationships with the environment, rather they may want development and see conservation of biodiversity as an obstacle.ideals of homogenous stable communities are a misleading myth, whole village communities in fact tend to be heterogeneous, factional and stratified. different interest groups subsumed in the category"community" interact with the local environment and its resources in different ways making the realisation of "community management" difficult to realise.changing forest ownership and the transfer of authority over forests to local communities are usually viewed as prerequisites for biodiversity conservation. However in practice the relationship has been shown to defy broad generalizations. The article concludes that completely community-centred approaches to biodiversity conservation may be just as unsatisfactory as completely government-centred approaches.