Most conservation organisations now recognise the importance of incorporating people and their needs into conservation efforts (Pimbert and Pretty, 1997; Vermeulen and Sheil, 2007; McNeely and Mainka, 2009). It has been argued that recoupled social–ecological systems would be more viable than decoupled systems for long-term conservation of biodiversity (Hoole and Berkes, 2010). Various push and pull factors have encouraged national and international conservation agencies to opt for a more conciliatory approach to conservation. According to Lockwood (2009:9) the
"...factors driving the change include greater scientific understanding of the role of humans in shaping environments and landscapes; cultural and social awareness of local and indigenous communities; acknowledgement of human rights, especially of indigenous people to their environments; recognition of the rights of people to have a say in decisions that affect them; democratisation and devolution of central government power; and political economic forces leading to more business-like approaches".
Since the 1980s, top–down conservation practices have been remodelled in a number of ways to adjust to a participatory approach and to integrate development and conservation aims (Adams, 2001). Various participatory and integrated projects have been designed to address the needs of park-dependent communities. These projects have been often based on
innovative land use strategies, including biosphere reserves, multiple–use conservation areas, Buffer Zones adjacent to protected areas, extractive reserves, social/community forestry, and a variety of other approaches (Pandey and Wells, 1997).
The projects which are commonly known as Integrated Conservation Development Programmes (ICDPs) (Wells and Brandon, 1992), have been implemented with the aim of reducing the impacts of protected areas to local communities by providing alternative resources and livelihood opportunities. In contrast to conventional conservation practice, ICDPs are based on the premise that human and non-human systems are interdependent and, therefore, conservation and development are inextricably linked (Barrett and Arcese, 1995). Moreover, ICDPs can be viewed as a testimony to the shift in the protected area management paradigm to address shortcomings of exclusionary conservation practices and to some extent to redress the past anomalies in wildlife conservation. It has been taken as "...an attempt to undo the damage caused by ignoring, limiting, upsetting, and eroding the original (indigenous) natural resource management systems"(Borrini–Feyerabend, 2002:9). It is also an advance over past conservation practices that ignored rural people (Hackel, 1999) and seeks to re-distribute the costs and benefits associated with natural resource management (Hughes and Flintan, 2001).
The ICD concept, which aims to link conservation with socio-economic development of adjoining communities, was considered so promising in its early stages, that almost every conservation project talked about its potential at the time (Wells and Brandon, 1991). According to MacKinnon (2001:1), ICDPs
"... offer an almost irresistible cocktail of perceived gains such as biodiversity conservation, increased local community participation, more equitable sharing of benefits and economic development for the rural poor".
In principle, it seemed that the concept could offer something to everyone, being easily saleable to a broad range of interests, from local communities to international development and conservation agencies (Wells et al., 2004).
As a result, since the 1980s, most of international development agencies' support for biodiversity conservation has been mainly in the form of ICDPs (Sayer and Wells, 2004; Van Schaik et al., 2002). Many national governments have taken ICD approaches as an opportunity to fulfil their obligations under the CBD and other international agreements and
to tap into international funding for local development. For example, Indonesia embraced ICDP as its main approach to biodiversity conservation covering 40% of the country's conservation estates and with more than US$300 million budget mostly donated from international agencies (Wells et al., 1999). Over two decades, billions of dollars have been spent in ICDPs (Terborgh and Boza, 2002) covering all parts of the continents from Costa Rica to Cambodia and from Kenya to India. By the late 90s, there were thought to be over three-hundred ICDPs worldwide (Hughes and Flintan, 2001). In many countries, the ICD approach is a mainstream conservation practice rather than just a paradigm. For example, the government of Botswana allocated 20% of its land in an attempt to bring conservation and development together (Twyman, 2000).
A diverse range of initiatives has been initiated to link biodiversity conservation in protected areas with social and economic development of the adjoining communities (MacKinnon, 2001). The scale and scope of these initiatives ranges from a local NGO- driven programme in a small area to a large scale regional/ trans-boundary project supported by big donors. Some of the well-known projects and programmes based on ICDP principles in the 80s and early 90s were the Communal Areas Management Programme for Indigenous Resources (CAMPFIRE) in Zimbabwe, and the Luangwa Integrated Rural Development Project (LIRDP) and the Administrative Management Design (ADMADE) for Game Management Areas, both in Zambia, the Eco-Development Project in India, the Annapurna Conservation Area Project in Nepal, Sustainable Development Reserve (MSDR) in Brazil, and the Community Based Natural Resource Management (CBNRM) programme in Southern Africa. Similarly, protected area outreach programmes have been the dominant model adopted in Savannah national parks of East Africa (Roe et al., 2000).
In generic terms, these projects have been referred to as pro-people conservation, community based conservation, pro-poor conservation, community conservation, participatory conservation, eco-development, collaborative conservation, Buffer Zone management, community based wildlife management, incentive based conservation, etc. Although there would be a considerable degree of overlap between them, it is important to recognize that each can have different priorities (Maginnis et al., 2004). There is also considerable diversity in the philosophy and strategies of each of these programmes (Mahanty, 2002), such as conservation through development (CTD), development through
conservation (DTC) and conservation and development (C&D) (Frank and Blomley, 2004; Robinson and Redford, 2004).
These approaches are based on different interpretations of the conceptual linkages between conservation and development, and have been implemented in many different countries in variable guises (Brosius et al., 1998; Brown, 2002; Frank and Blomley, 2004). According to Brandon and Wells (1992:560), there are three major strategies that the ICD projects
"..have attempted often in combination: strengthening of park management and/or creating Buffer Zones around protected areas, providing compensation or substitution to local people for lost access to resources; or encouraging local social and economic development." Besides this, a review of subsequent literature suggests that most of the participatory and integrated conservation programmes hold the following common features:
i) The main aim of the programmes is biodiversity conservation, and development activities have been implemented as a means to achieve conservation objectives (Barrett and Arcese, 1995; Sanjayan et al., 1997;; Hughes and Flintan, 2001; Uniyal and Zacharias, 2001).
ii) Almost everywhere, these initiatives have been either directly implemented or facilitated by local wildlife/park authorities (Gibson and Marks, 1995; Shackleton et al., 2002; Budhathoki, 2004 see annex 9 for abstract of this article; Musumali et al., 2007; Springer, 2009).
iii) Community level investments are the most common component of the programme (Barrett and Arcese, 1995; Sanjayan et al., 1997; Hughes and Flintan, 2001; Berkes, 2007; Kaimowitz and Douglas, 2007).
iv) The programmes are largely site-specific interventions and focus on substitution and compensation to reduce local threats to conservation (Brandon and Wells, 1992; Larson et al., 1998 cited on Franks and Bomley, 2004; Muttulingam and Shen, 1999; Songorwa, 1999; Hughes and Flintan, 2001; MacKinnon, 2001; Sayer and Wells, 2004).
v) The programmes are incentive-focused rather than empowering people (Hughes and Flintan, 2001; Barrow and Fabricius, 2002; Worah, 2002; Balint and Mashinya, 2008; Hemson et al., 2009).
vi) The programmes are generally externally motivated and funded (Hughes and Flintan, 2001; Worah, 2002; Frank and Blomley, 2004; Sayer and Wells, 2004).