Skepticism

Can Integrated Conservation and Development Projects ever truly attain each goal?

ICDPs face many threats including non-sustainable funding, corruption, short time frames, and unequal distribution of resources. They have been accused of attracting attention without any progress to be shown in either development or conservation, and in the cases that a goal is met, it is often true that the connection between development and conservation cannot be maintained so one overpowers the other. Not surprisingly, local community members generally demonstrate more enthusiasm toward development than conservation,(8) and their needs often involve exploiting the very ecosystems they are supposed to be protecting.

Lijiang, Yunnan, China: What used to be a quiet, historic village is now overrun by tourists. Few of the vendors benefiting from the industry are locals. (2)

• ·         Development overpowers conservation

o    Development projects are more successful than their partner projects in conservation. Although successful development gives short-term help to the people involved, the practices implemented may not be sustainable. (2)This is especially detrimental to the kind of fragile, biodiverse areas chosen specifically for ICDPs.

o    Example: The Yunnan Great Rivers ICDP’s site has experienced a monumental boom in tourism in recent years: many tourists visiting Lijiang (A designated "cultural zone") were unable to find accommodations during the 2012 National Holiday. Tourists place high demand on the local ecosystems including for food, infrastructure, services such as interpretation, and authentic souvenirs such as animal furs and other items that should be closely regulated and protected.(2)

• ·         Inadequate Law enforcement

o    Poor implementation of legislation has been identified as a major contributor to failed ICDPs in Indonesia and Nepal. (8, 11) Even when pro-active laws are established, if they are not respected and enforced, change is impossible.

• ·         Corruption: who is really profiting?

o    The stated motives of ICDPs are clear: improve the quality of life of people in the area concerned and assist in conservation of its biodiversity. Unfortunately, many ICDPs have been accused of being fronts for private profit, especially in the tourism industry.

• ·         Unclear goals

o    Some authors believe that the goals of some ICDPs are poorly conceived: For example, the authors of "Investing in Biodiversity," a review on Indonesian ICDPs believe Indonesian ICDPs have been targeting the impacts made by local communities when the greatest threats to biodiversity come from roads, mines, immigration, and logging. (11)

• ·         Ethics

o    In his review of an ICDP in Ranomafana, Madagascar, Joe Peters questions the ethics of the ICDP concept, poses this query: "Is biodiversity preservation still good if it practically denies 27,000 of the poorest people in the world access to subsistence resources?" He concludes that in the case of Ranomafana, the ICDP is a poor choice and that other strategies should be examined.(7)