The Future

What is the future of Integrated Conservation and Development Projects?

Based on the literature reviewed for this site, I feel that ICDPs are valuable tools for improving quality of life and preserving biodiversity in the modern world, but should be viewed as one approach out of many to solve these issues, and recommendations given by recent studies should be experimented with and assessed. Prior reviews may now be out-of-date, and if any ICDPs are still afloat, they should be re-assessed. I also propose more studies on how conservation and development can be integrated in the United States, as in the example of California's Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan. 

Proposed Study: The Life Cycle of an Integrated Conservation and Development Project

This figure from Baral et al 2007 illustrates trends discovered by their research on Nepal's ICDPs:

The life cycle of ICDPs Baral et al 2007:  The study examined different Conservation Area Management Comittees (CAMCs) in Nepal's Annapurna Conservation Area.Focus of the project moves from development to a transitional state of institutional strengthening to greater focus on conservation-related decisions. Perhaps many of the projects designated as unsuccessful have not been given sufficient time to reach this point.

It shows that as ICDPs age, the focus at each site slowly shifts from development to institutional support and finally to conservation. (8) I propose a study to fortify these particular findings, because if they are true, then other ICDPs should be re-examined periodically to see if their goals are in fact being met. It would imply that even if ICDPs cannot successfully enhance conservation and development at the same time, they may be able to accomplish each goal sequentially given a long enough time scale and enough support, leadership, and other important factors discussed in "Successes" on this site.

Hypothesis: ICDPs can be broken into three temporal categories: Young, middle-aged, and mature. Young ICDPs are more likely to be focused on economic development, middle-aged ICDPs focus on institutional/administrative development, and mature ICDPs focus on conservation.

Control Groups: ICDPs will be grouped by age as follows:

1. Young (0 - 5 years old)
2. Middle-aged (5 - 10 years old)
3. Mature (10 + years old)

This study will focus on ICDPs in developing countries in Asia (Nepal, Indonesia, and China all have ICDPs of varying ages to examine) under similar economic situations and each age-group will include at least five ICDPs from different places.

Methods: This study will focus on decisions made and distribution of money within ICDPs. Spending records will be examined, interviews will be conducted with organizations, involved community members, and non-involved community members to determine which issues they feel most strongly about (Development, Institutions, or Conservation,) and where how much money is going to each component.

This study will determine whether the findings of Baral et al can be applied to other countries than Nepal. If so, ICDPs will have a proven framework to focus on and can make more efficient decisions during each stage of the project's life. This could improve the management of ICDPs worldwide!