Page 557

How Countries with Limited Resources are Dealing with Biodiversity Problems

Jeffrey A. Mcneely
IUCN Biodiversity Policy Coordination Division, rue Mauverney 28, 1196 Gland, Switzerland

In the decade since the groundbreaking publication of Biodiversity (Wilson and Peter 1988), we have made considerable progress in promoting the conservation of the world's diversity of genes, species, and ecosystems. That publication led to comprehensive new approaches to conservation, bringing information, knowledge, awareness, and ethics into a complex mixture of protected areas, agriculture, economics, intellectual-property rights, land tenure, trade, forestry, and so forth. It also led to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), which now has been ratified by 172 countries (the United States is one of the handful of holdouts). It also has led to considerable scientific work in the field, as evidenced by this conference, numerous books and journals, and various other manifestations of interest and concern.

All this effort has led to greatly increased understanding about biodiversity and the threats to it. It is now well known that most of the world's species are found in the tropics, frequently in the countries that have the least financial, technical, and institutional means to conserve biodiversity (see table 1).

How, then, are the tropical countries coping with the challenge of conserving biodiversity? At least a partial answer is provided by table 2, which demonstrates that the tropical developing countries are making a substantial effort to establish protected areas, a major objective of which is to conserve biological diversity. In this effort, they are supported by the industrialized countries through various bilateral-aid agencies and through the Global Environment Facility, operated by the World Bank, United Nations Development Programme, and United Nations Environment Programme to provide several hundred US million dollars per year for

Page 558

biodiversity according to the priorities identified by the Conference of Parties of the CBD.

The CBD stresses the importance of international, regional, and global cooperation between states, intergovernment organizations, and the nongovernment sector in supporting action to conserve biological diversity and use biological resources sustainably. This is a clear recognition of the need of governments to collaborate with each other and with various kinds of multilateral and bilateral organizations if they are to be successful in their efforts to manage biological resources sustainably. Effects in one state—for example, consumption of such products as ivory, tiger bones, and medicinal plants—may affect biodiversity pro-

Page 559

foundly in another. When species migrate between countries, wildlife populations are shared, making collaboration essential to their conservation. Furthermore, by definition, the obligations of the CBD for sharing technology and the benefits derived from the use of genetic material require cooperation between states.

The CBD specifically mentions the private sector and nongovernment organizations (NGOs), which include businesses, academe, citizen groups, and various kinds of private conservation organizations. The NGO community includes a large proportion of the world's leading scientists who are working on biodiversity issues and who have played a major role in advocating the need to conserve biodiversity. NGOs can bring commitment, innovation, clarity of purpose, and practical knowledge to environmental and developmental issues, and they often are especially effective at the local level.

This paper is a brief review of measures under the CBD for international cooperation to support national conservation efforts.

How the Convention on Biological Diversity Promotes International Cooperation

While stressing national sovereignty over biodiversity, the CBD also strongly emphasizes international cooperation. It specifically recognizes that “the provision of new and additional financial resources and appropriate access to relevant technologies can be expected to make a substantial difference in the world's ability to address the loss of biological diversity.” It also acknowledges that “special provision is required to meet the needs of developing countries, including the provision of new and additional financial resources and appropriate access to relevant technologies.” Signatories acknowledge that “substantial investments are

Page 560

required to conserve biological diversity and that there is the expectation of a broad range of environmental, economic, and social benefits from those investments” (see Glowka and others 1994 for a guide to the CBD).

The CBD recognizes that the conservation of biodiversity and the sustainable use of biological resources are critically important for meeting the dietary, medicinal and other needs of the growing world population, for which purpose genetic resources and relevant technologies play an essential role.

Furthermore, the CBD expects that “the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity will strengthen friendly relations among states and contribute to peace for humankind.” This implicitly recognizes the principle of ecological security—that the peace and stability of a nation depend not only on its conventional military defenses, but also on its environmental stability. Environmental degradation within a country can result in social collapse and appalling human tragedies, leading to disputes within and between nations and even, ultimately, to war. In particular, overexploitation of resources shared between nations, such as water supplies and fish stocks, also can lead to conflict (see, for example, Homer-Dixon 1994). Therefore, stemming the loss of biodiversity contributes to peace and harmony between nations.

Elements of the CBD that are specifically relevant to international cooperation include the following.

• Article 3. Principle. “States have, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations and the principles of international law, the sovereign right to exploit their own resources pursuant to their own environmental policies, and the responsibility to ensure that activities within their jurisdiction or control do not cause damage to the environment of other States or of areas beyond the limits of national jurisdiction.”

• Article 5. Cooperation. “Each Contracting Party shall, as far as possible and as appropriate, cooperate with other Contracting Parties, directly or, where appropriate, through competent international organizations, in respect of areas beyond national jurisdiction and on other matters of mutual interest, for the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity.”

• Article 8. In situ conservation. “Each Contracting Party shall, as far as possible and as appropriate: (m) cooperate in providing financial and other support for in situ conservation . . . particularly to developing countries.”

• Article 9. Ex situ conservation. “Each Contracting Party shall, as far as possible and as appropriate, and predominantly for the purpose of complementing in situ measures: (e) cooperate in providing financial and other support for ex situ conservation . . . . and in the establishment and maintenance of ex situ conservation facilities in developing countries.”

• Article 12. Research and training. “The Contracting Parties, taking into account the special needs of developing countries, shall: (a) establish and maintain programmes for scientific and technical education and training in measures for the identification, conservation, and sustainable use of biological diversity and its components and provide support for such education and training for the specific needs of developing countries.”

Page 561

• Article 13. Public education and awareness. “The Contracting Parties shall: (b) cooperate, as 0appropriate, with other States and international organizations in developing educational and public awareness programmes, with respect to conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity.”

• Article 15. Access to genetic resources. “2. Each Contracting Party shall endeavour to create conditions to facilitate access to genetic resources for environmentally-sound uses by Contracting Parties and not to impose restrictions that run counter to the objectives of this Convention. 4. Access, where granted, shall be on mutually agreed terms and subject to the provisions of this Article. 5. Access to genetic resources shall be subject to prior informed consent of the Contracting Party providing such resources, unless otherwise determined by that Party. 6. Each Contracting Party shall endeavour to develop and carry out scientific research based on genetic resources provided by other Contracting Parties with the full participation of, and where possible in, such Contracting Parties.”

• Article 16. Access to and transfer of technology. “Each Contracting Party . . . undertakes to provide and/or facilitate access for and transfer to other Contracting Parties of technologies that are relevant to the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity or make use of genetic resources and do not cause significant damage to the environment. Access to and transfer of technology to developing countries shall be provided and/or facilitated under fair and most favourable terms, including on concessional and preferential terms where mutually agreed.”

• Article 17. Exchange of information. “The Contracting Parties shall facilitate the exchange of information, from all publicly available sources, relevant to the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity, taking into account the special needs of developing countries.”

• Article 18. Technical and scientific cooperation. “The Contracting Parties shall promote international technical and scientific cooperation in the field of conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity, where necessary through the appropriate international and national institutions.”

• Article 20. Financial resources. “The developed country Parties shall provide new and additional financial resources to enable developing country Parties to meet the agreed full incremental costs to them of implementing measures which fulfill the obligations of this Convention and to benefit from its provisions.”

What Developing Countries are Doing for Themselves

This list of internationally agreed principles might imply that the developing countries are dependent on the largesse of the developed countries to take care of their own biodiversity. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Virtually all countries in the tropics have implemented a wide range of measures to conserve their own biodiversity and to use their biological resources sustainably. Of course, they can do even better if they receive additional support, but many of them are turning difficult circumstances to their advantage by using innovative and costeffective approaches to conservation and sustainable use.

Page 562

One issue of particular interest, because it affects both cultural diversity and biological diversity, is the role of indigenous groups and local communities in managing protected areas.

Indigenous peoples often have cultural values and institutions that differ from those of the dominant culture within which they are found. As Alcorn (1997) has pointed out, most indigenous peoples are politically marginal groups that are known variously as tribals, hill tribes, or other such terms. They often claim property rights to ancestral lands and waters and the right to retain their own customary laws, traditions, languages, and institutions, as well as the right to represent themselves through their own institutions. Furthermore, indigenous peoples that live in areas that are important for conservation are linked closely to their local resource base and frequently have developed resource-management systems and social institutions that are responsive to environmental feedback. Thus, their local knowledge has a particular contribution to make to protected-area management.

But the primary reason why managers of protected areas in the tropics are recognizing the decision-making authority of indigenous peoples is that they have prior rights over the lands and waters in which protected areas are being established, and many would assert that such peoples have rights to make decisions about how to manage their ancestral lands. Indeed, article 8(j) of the CBD says, “Subject to its national legislation, [each Contracting Party shall] respect, preserve, and maintain knowledge, innovations, and practices of indigenous and local communities embodying traditional lifestyles relevant for the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity and promote their wider application with the approval and involvement of the holders of such knowledge, innovations, and practices and encourage the equitable sharing of the benefits arising from the utilization of such knowledge, innovations, and practices.”

In most parts of the tropics, rural villagers believe that they have historical rights to the land and resources that governments have declared “protected” in the national interest (for example, Vandergeest 1996). No areas of “empty” land exist that could be managed free of human influence, although most governments have followed the European model of claiming all forests to be the property of government. This conflict has led to the wide recognition that conservation of biodiversity cannot succeed unless it is linked to economic opportunities and investments aimed at those who otherwise might threaten the viability of protected areas through their activities in pursuit of their livelihood.

The increasing attention given to local communities does not imply necessarily that local communities are the major threat to protected areas and the biodiversity they support. In fact, in most tropical countries, the major threats to protected areas come from outside influences, such as government-supported timber concessions, road-building activities, agricultural subsidies, mining concessions, dam construction, expanding populations, air and water pollution, and (in the longer term) climate change. Most such problems need to be addressed as part of regional planning and central government policy rather than protected-area management.

People can be expected reasonably to institute their own conservation measures when they are the primary decision-makers and beneficiaries. Numerous examples can be cited from various parts of the world (for example, Birckhead and others

Page 563

1992; Kemf 1993; Kothari and others 1996; Stone 1991; UNEP 1988; Wells and Brandon 1992; West and Brechin 1991; Western and others 1994). These examples support the general point that earning the support of local communities means giving them a stake in the success of a well-managed protected area.

When areas within the traditional territories of indigenous peoples are managed as limited-access extractive reserves, they may be considered legitimate protected areas worthy of international recognition. In Australian “indigenous protected areas”, for example, land tenure is vested with the aboriginal people, but the land usually is managed by the National Conservation Agency under a leasing arrangement.

In Nicaragua, the Miskito people have formed their own NGO, “Mikupia”, to manage the Miskito Coast Protected Areas, overseen by a commission that includes four representatives from the national government, one from the regional government, one from the Mikupia, and two from the Miskito communities (Barzetti 1993).

In Peru, the 322,500-hectare Tamshiyacu-Tahuayo Communal Reserve contains no permanent settlements (Bodmer and others 1991). It is divided into a fully protected core area and an area of subsistence use. Actions voluntarily implemented by the local people to control exploitation include prohibition of the use of nets and lances in the oxbow lakes of the reserve during low-water seasons, limitations on fishing technology, prohibition of commercial fisheries, and prohibition of the use of fish poisons. Fish populations in the area appear to be rebuilding, and the local communities are benefiting directly from their self-imposed management programs.

In the Philippines, the Kalahan Education Foundation, a local NGO established by the Ikalahan Tribe, is implementing an integrated program of community forest management and the extraction of nontimber forest products, leading to the production of jams and jellies from forest fruits, the extraction of essential oils, the collection and cultivation of flowers and mushrooms, and the manufacture of furniture. The foundation is based on the Kalahan reserve, which supports about 550 Ikalahan families that live within the 14,730-hectare reserve of ancestral land.

In eastern Indonesia, many fishing villages have established a form of marine protected area called petuanang as part of a body of traditional resource-management practices known as sasi. The pentuanang has certain closed seasons and is carefully managed in terms of permitted fishing techniques, and only certain types of fishing gear are permitted (Spiller 1997). However, more recently, the demand for increased production of fish for trade and export has weakened the control of village leaders in managing traditional resource-management systems, although modern approaches to participatory planning could help resurrect the traditional management systems that worked well for many generations.

In Papua New Guinea, where about 97% of land is in community ownership, the government has established wildlife-management areas where local communities voluntarily agree to certain controls on exploitation (Eaton 1985). Each wildlife-management area has a wildlife management committee with representatives from local communities and from resource-management agencies of the government. These committees have instituted such measures as royalties for the

Page 564

taking of deer, ducks, and fish by outsiders; hunting restrictions, such as forbidding all nontraditional hunting methods, the use of shotguns, and the use of dogs; prohibition of the collection of crocodile eggs; fishing restrictions, such as forbidding the use of commercially manufactured nets, hurricane lamps, and fish poisons; and restrictions on logging. In all areas, the rules enacted tend to promote traditional practices and authority.

Interestingly enough, many developing-country governments are finding that conservation actually pays, especially through tourism. For example, Galapagos National Park generated direct revenues of US$3.7 million in 1995. The Galapagos National Park kept about a third of the receipts, and the rest was used to support protected areas on the mainland of Ecuador (Southgate 1996). Some protected-areas systems in the Caribbean do even better, largely because of dive tourism. Divers spend about US$30 million per year at the Bonaire Marine Park in the Netherlands Antilles, US$14 million in protected areas in the British Virgin Islands, more than US$53 million per year in marine protected areas in the Cayman Islands, and US$23 million in Virgin Islands National Park on St. John (OAS/NPS 1988).

Not surprisingly, some governments are turning to the private sector to help earn greater benefits from tourism. For example, through the Zambia Privatisation Agency, the Zambian National Parks and Wildlife Service offered some 25 prime locations in the parks on competitive-tender lease. These locations include sites in the Mosi-Oa-Tunya National Park, at Victoria Falls, and in the South Luangwa National Park, Kafue National Park, and Blue Lagoon National Park. Sites include government-owned lodges, camps, and other tourist attractions.

Some private tourism companies also are seeking ways to contribute to protected areas. One illustration of corporate approaches to funding conservation through tourism is Operation Eye of the Tiger which has been established with funding from Outdoor India Tours Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi, and has links with Kentucky Fried Chicken in the United States. This operation has pledged to create disturbance-free habitats for tigers, to carry out ecodevelopment and conservation education, and to promote research on the tiger, its habitat, and its allied species.

The National Parks Trust of South Africa has negotiated an agreement with the Conservation Corporation, a private group, for the management of the Ngala Game Reserve. This led to the establishment in 1992 of the first “contract reserve” between Kruger National Park and a private enterprise, giving the Conservation Corporation exclusive rights for operating tourist activities in 14,000 hectares of the park. The fees paid to the park are used for wildlife management, research, educational programs, and community-based projects adjacent to Kruger National Park (Borrini-Feyerabend 1996).

How Ngos are Supporting Protected Areas in the Tropics

Recognizing that governments are unable to take full responsibility for all protected areas, NGOs have stepped in in many countries to provide their flexible

Page 565

and creative approaches to overall plans for national protected-area systems. NGOs are playing a particularly important role in Latin America (Redford and Ostria 1995), including the following:

• The Programme for Belize (PFB) has been given responsibility for management of the 92,614-hectare Rio Bravo Conservation and Management Area and for holding the land in trust for the people of Belize. Originally supported by private donations, PFB hopes to earn sufficient revenue from forest products and tourism to become self-sustaining.

• In Guatemala, the Fundacion Defensores de la Naturaleza was given authority in 1990 by the Guatemalan Congress to manage the operations and administration of the Sierra de las Minas Biosphere Reserve (236,300 hectares), including the work of the park guards; it is in charge of management decisions, including training, infrastructure, and communications, under the supervision of the National Council of Protected Areas.

• In Panama, the Asociacion Nacional Para la Conservacion de la Naturaleza has an agreement with Panama's Institute for Natural Renewable Resources (INRENARE) to demarcate the boundaries of the Darien Biosphere Reserve (597,000 hectares), to train and equip park personnel, to install infrastructure, and to conduct biological inventories.

• In Bolivia, the Fundacion Amigos de la Naturaleza (FAN) has been granted a 10-year management contract by the National Department for the Conservation of Biodiversity for the Noel Kempff Mercado National Park (927,000 hectares). FAN is responsible for hiring rangers, building infrastructure, and helping to reduce poaching.

• In Colombia, the Fundacion Pro-Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta is responsible for managing three areas within the Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta National Park (300,000 hectares), including land-protection and community-outreach activities.

• In Ecuador, the Fundacion Natura has a formal agreement with the Ministry of Agriculture to participate and collaborate in the management of protected areas, working on training staff and raising funds, including facilitating a debt-for-nature swap valued at US$10 million.

• In Paraguay, the Fundacion Moises Bertoni is legally responsible for managing the Mbaracayu Forest Nature Reserve (63,000 hectares).

Governments are beginning to give greater legal recognition to the role of NGOs in protected areas. In 1993, the congress of Colombia passed a law that recognized the role of civil society in conservation and named private reserves as legal conservation units. Colombia now has some 120 private protected areas that are mobilized into the Network of Private Nature Reserves, an NGO that comprises private farmers and landowners, community organizations, agricultural cooperatives, and other NGOs.

In the Philippines, partnerships have been formed between the public and private sectors by integrating the assistance of NGOs into the management of protected areas at national and local levels. A new NGO, known as the NGO for Integrated Protected Areas, Inc. (NIPA), has been established to recruit and co-

Page 566

ordinate local support activities, to provide technical assistance, to monitor implementation, and to assist in the establishment and implementation of a livelihood fund that will be used to support village socioeconomic-development projects and employment activities designed to reduce pressures on the protected areas. NIPA now is supporting work at 10 high-priority protected areas in the Philippines, establishing protected-area management boards consisting of local governments, NGOs, and representatives of indigenous peoples. NIPA has recruited local NGOs to assist with field activities, community organizing, and strengthening of the protected-area management boards. Progress is promising, and communities are now aware of the need to integrate conservation and development activities.

NGOs also are involved in supporting the effective management of Indonesia's Kerinci-Seblat and Lore Lindu National Parks (Elliott and others 1993). In Kerinci-Seblat, four provincial NGO alliances are working on soil- and water-conservation projects in five park-boundary villages; in Lore Lindu, four small NGO alliances are implementing a range of community-development activities in the Lake Lindu enclave. These NGOs are providing an effective channel for reaching local communities, a critical element in the success of integrated conservation and development projects. However, the NGOs are not self-supporting. They require access to technical expertise, training in technical and managerial skills, and funding for overhead and field activities. Java-based national NGOs and international NGOs, such as The Nature Conservancy, are serving as intermediaries between donors and the local NGOs, thereby overcoming some of the operational constraints that grassroots NGOs face when working with donors.

One example of a grassroots NGO working in support of a protected area is the Foundation for Community Development in Indonesia's Wasur National Park. This new local NGO has a field staff of community organizers; a management board of community representatives, teachers, and other informal leaders; and a steering committee that is composed of government officials, a representative of the World Wildlife Fund (WWF), the head of the local government, and community representatives. Although the legal status of the foundation is just being established, it is already working in the park to help local communities meet their immediate economic needs (Barber and others 1995).

At the opposite end of the spectrum is a remarkable new quasi-NGO, the Leuser International Foundation (LIF). In 1995, this private nonprofit organization was granted a 7-year, renewable, exclusive “conservation concession” for a contiguous area that includes the existing Gunung Leuser National Park (905,000 hectares), 505,000 hectares of protection forest, and 380,000 hectares of production forest in Sumatra, Indonesia. This concession grants LIF the right to manage and coordinate activities for conservation and sustainable development within the ecosystem, on the basis of objectives and work plans that are reviewed and approved by the minister of forestry. The long-term objective of the project is to transform the area within the boundaries of the ecosystem into an expanded national park that has multiple use zoning, as mandated in Indonesia's Conservation Act of 1990 (Rijksen and Griffiths 1995). The government concluded a financing agreement with the European Union in May 1995, under which the European Union has provided a grant of US$40.6 million—to be matched by US$22.5 mil-

Page 567

lion from the Indonesian government—to LIF for its conservation activities. Under this concession, LIF essentially is assuming the government's role of making and implementing conservation and development policy for a particular site, albeit within a framework of government supervision. Discussions also have been held within the ministry of forestry concerning a possible expansion of LIF's concession to include a monopoly on selling the value of Leuser's carbon-sequestration function on the international market that is beginning to develop under the impetus of the Framework Convention on Climate Change (Barber and Nababan 1997).

In Nepal, the King Mahendra Trust for Nature Conservation (KMTNC), a semiautonomous, nongovernment, nonprofit organization, has been established for the purpose of conserving, preserving, and managing nature and its resources in an effort to improve the quality of life of the Nepali people. KMTNC is designed to raise funds for the development and management of protected areas and to execute projects; it has established associated national trusts in the UK, Japan, the Netherlands, France, Germany, and Canada. It has worked in Sagarmatha National Park, Chitwan National Park, the Annapurna Conservation Area Project, and elsewhere on various aspects of protected-area management. KMTNC is managed by a board of directors that comprises various senior government and nongovernment officials and several representatives of the international community.

A major innovation for Nepal is enabling the Annapurna Conservation Area (762,900 hectares) to be managed by KMTNC, which is able to raise money directly from overseas (especially from WWF) and has considerable autonomy, enabling it to bypass many of the procedures associated with government agencies and to execute projects with a relatively slim and flexible bureaucracy. In the Annapurna Conservation Area, KMTNC has an autonomous and substantial role in managing an innovative multiple-use conservation area that is probably a unique arrangement for an NGO in Asia. Its main management objectives include forestry and wildlife conservation, alternative-energy development, community education, and tourism, and it fully involves local residents in the planning and management of the natural resources of the area. Management costs are supported by entrance fees charged to tourists in the conservation area (US$13/day).

These examples show that NGOs, supported by both domestic and international funding, have played important roles in conserving biodiversity in various parts of the tropics. They often provide an extremely useful supplement to government-organized initiatives.

International Cooperation to Provide Financial Support to Biodiversity in the Tropics

It is widely appreciated that insufficient funds are being invested to conserve biodiversity and that innovative approaches are required for generating the additional financial support required for implementing the CBD (Li 1995; Newcombe 1995; World Resources Institute 1989). The need for additional resources arises

Page 568

from the imbalance between a country's need for capacity-building and provision of basic infrastructure for conserving biodiversity and the country's ability to mobilize resources. Resources can be augmented through existing mechanisms, such as the fiscal system, user charges, resource rental fees, and privatization, as well as through such new mechanisms as environmental taxes and betterment charges. Even so, it appears that domestic resources in most developing countries will continue to be inadequate for financing the conservation of biodiversity, because of the limited tax and capital base of many of these countries, their underdeveloped taxation systems and weak capital markets, and the need to divert resources to servicing foreign debt. The reasons external financial resources are needed to conserve biodiversity are listed in figure 1.

In this section of this paper, I briefly surveyed promising innovations in financing the conservation of biodiversity and described each financial tool and the policies, technologies, and entrepreneurial initiatives that make the tool successful. I estimated the importance of each tool, described limits to its wider use, and identified actions that could enhance that tool's leverage. My emphasis was on innovative tools that are relatively poorly known.

FIGURE 1 Reasons external financial resources are needed to conserve biodiversity.

Page 569

This discussion seeks to help the widest range of investors who could and should have a hand in crafting and using these financial tools. They include the full spectrum of those both active and potentially active in the conservation of biodiversity: the international governing system; national governments; the private sector, both national and multinational; and NGOs, both local and international. Table 3 gives an overview of the characteristics of various funding mechanisms (McNeely and Weatherly 1996; Panayotou 1995).

Conclusions

With the global economy now dependent on the reliable flow of biological resources from all parts of the world, international cooperation is essential for ensuring that biological resources are used in a sustainable way that leads to the conservation of biological diversity. Such cooperation can produce many benefits, but these depend, above all, on adequate investments in the field of biodiversity. The wealthy industrialized countries have recognized that they can benefit from biological resources that are found in developing countries, whose economic conditions do not enable them to invest adequately in conserving biodiversity. The developing countries are showing a remarkable capacity for innovation, as the examples from local communities and NGOs have shown, but they need funding. The Convention on Biological Diversity is one means of determining the kinds of activities that are most suitable in which to invest. Clearly, international cooperation in implementing the Convention on Biological Diversity will lead to increased support of the developing countries whose own efforts at conservation are helping to make the world a better place for all people to live in.

References.

Alcorn JB. 1997. Indigenous peoples and protected areas. In: Borrini-Feyerabend G (ed). Beyond fences: seeking social sustainability in conservation. Gland Switzerland: IUCN. p 44–9.

Barber CV, Afiff S, Purnomo A. 1995. Tiger by the tail? reorienting biodiversity conservation and development in Indonesia. Washington DC: World Resources Inst; Jakarta Indonesia: WALHI and Pelangi Inst.

Barber CV, Nababan A. 1997. Eye of the tiger: conservation policy and politics on Sumatra's last rainforest frontier. Jakarta Indonesia: World Resources Inst and WWF-Indonesia Prog.

Barzetti V (ed). 1993. Parks and progress: protected areas and economic development in Latin America and the Caribbean. Washington DC: IUCN and Inter-American Development Bank.

Birckhead J, de Lacy T, Smith L (eds). 1992. Aboriginal involvement in parks and protected areas. Canberra Australia: Austral Inst Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Stud.

Bodmer R, Penn J, Fang TG, Moya I. 1991. Management programmes and protected areas: the case of the Reserva Comunal Tamshiyacu-Tahuayo, Peru. Parks 1(1):21–5.

Borrini-Feyerabend G. 1996. Collaborative management of protected areas: tailoring the approach to the context. Gland Switzerland: IUCN.

Borrini-Feyerabend G, Brown M. 1997. Social actors and stakeholders. In: Borrini-Feyerabend G (ed). Beyond fences: seeking social sustainability in conservation. Gland Switzerland: IUCN. p 3–7.

Eaton P. 1985. Tenure and taboo: customary rights and conservation in the South Pacific. In: Third South Pacific national parks and reserves conference: report, vol II. South Pacific Regional Environment Programme. New Caledonia: Noumea. p 164–75.

Elliott J, Khan A, Saad Z. 1993. Developing partnerships: a study on NGO-donor linkages in Kerinci-Seblat and Lore Lindu National Parks. Jakarta Indonesia: PACT.

Page 570

(table continued on next page)

Page 571

Glowka L, Burhenne-Guilmin F, Synge H. 1994. A guide to the convention on biological diversity: Env Pol Law Paper No 30. Gland Switzerland: IUCN.

Homer-Dixon TF. 1994. Environmental scarcities and violent conflict: evidence from cases. Intl Security 19(1):5–40.

Kemf E (ed). 1993. Protecting indigenous people in protected areas. San Francisco CA: Sierra Club.

Kothari A, Singh N, Suri S (eds). 1996. People and protected areas: towards participatory conservation in India. New Delhi India: Sage.

Li S. 1995. Sources of funding for the Convention on Biological Diversity. In: McNeely JA (ed.) Biodiversity conservation in the Asia and Pacific region. Asian Development Bank, Manila, Philippines. p. 304–19.

McNeely JA, Miller KR, Reid WV, Mittermeier RA, Werner TB. 1990. Conserving the world's biological diversity. Gland Switzerland: IUCN and Washington DC: WRI, CI, WWF, the World Bank.

McNeely JA, Harrison J, Dingwall P (eds). 1994. Protecting nature: regional reviews of protected areas. Gland Switzerland: IUCN.

McNeely JA, Weatherly WP. 1996. Innovative funding to support biodiversity conservation. Intl J Soc Econ 23(4–6):98–124.

Newcombe K. 1995. Financing innovation and instruments: contribution of the investment port-folio of the pilot phase of the Global Environment Facility. In: McNeely JA (ed). Biodiversity conservation in the Asia and Pacific region. Manila Philippines: Asian Dev Bank. p 320–41.

Page 572

OAS/NPS [Organization of American States/USDOI National Park Service]. 1988. Inventory of Caribbean marine and coastal protected areas. Washington DC: OAS/NPS.

Panayotou T. 1995. Matrix of financial instruments and policy options: a new approach to financing sustainable development. Paper presented to Second Expert Group Meeting on Financial Issues of Agenda 21, Glen Cove NY, 15–17 February 1995.

Redford KH, Ostria M. 1995. Parks in peril sourcebook. Arlington VA: The Nature Conservancy.

Rijksen HD, Griffiths M. 1995. Leuser development programme master plan. Amsterdam Netherlands: AIDEnvironment and IBN-DLO.

Southgate D. 1996. What roles can ecotourism, non-timber extraction, genetic prospecting, and sustainable timber production play in an integrated strategy for habitat conservation and local development? Washington DC: Inter-Amer Dev Bank.

Spiller G. 1997. Community-based coastal resources management in Indonesia. Sea Wind 11(2):13–9.

Stone RD. 1991. Wildlands and human needs: reports from the field. Washington DC: World Wildlife Fund.

UNEP [United Nations Environment Programme]. 1988. People, parks, and wildlife: guidelines for public participation in wildlife conservation. Nairobi Kenya: UNEP.

Vandergeest P. 1996. Property rights in protected areas: obstacles to community involvement as a solution in Thailand. Env Conserv 23(3):259–68.

Wells M, Brandon K. 1992. People and parks: linking protected areas management with local communities. Washinton DC: World Bank, WWF, and USAID.

Wilson EO, Peter FM (eds). 1988. Biodiversity. Washington DC: National Acad Pr.

West PC, Brechin SR (eds). 1991. Resident peoples and national parks: social dilemmas and strategies in international conservation. Tucson AZ: Univ Arizona Pr.

Western D, Wright RM, Strum S (eds). 1994. Natural connections: perspectives in communitybased conservation. Washington DC: Island Pr.

World Resources Institute. 1989. Natural endowments: financing resource conservation for development. Washington DC: World Resources Inst.