seaturtle.org : MTN : ARCHIVES : Sign In

Given the increasing number of ‘community-based’ sea turtle conservation initiatives worldwide, it is perhaps surprising that a manual such as this has only recently been published. Targeted toward environmental conservation organizations (ECOs) that have marine turtle programs, it will be of interest to all such organizations who work in rural communities in the developing world.

There are two main purposes of the book: (1) to outline a conceptual relationship between marine turtle conservation and community well-being; and (2) to present a methodology for identifying, monitoring, and improving the links between them. The first chapter of the book is dedicated to outlining the conceptual relationship, exploring key concepts such as community, livelihoods, poverty, well-being, and community capitals (e.g. social, natural, financial, political). A significant strength of the conceptual approach is its holistic view of community well-being, moving beyond strictly economic considerations. Chapters 2 through 4 present the ‘how to’ elements of establishing a Community Livelihood Improvement Program (CLIP), including directions for identifying and monitoring links between marine turtle conservation and community well-being; establishing partnerships between the conservation organization, community, and government; creating a community plan; agreeing on a vision; and implementing participatory, adaptive data-based management. Chapters 2 and 3 offer an overview of the process, while chapter 4 provides a ‘toolbox’, including questions to stimulate discussion of key topics, specific group activities, and examples of appropriate targets and goals (e.g. ‘conserve 100% of turtle nests’, ‘improve the access road’, and ‘build septic tanks’). The final chapter offers three case studies from Costa Rica and Panama.

Overall, this manual is a useful starting point for those conservation organizations who are considering linking their marine turtle conservation program to a community livelihood improvement program (CLIP), or for those who would like to expand or modify existing CLIPs. However, there are a few caveats. The description of the methodology (Chapters 2 to 4) is often too vague, particularly since it is targeted toward conservation organizations that may not have existing expertise or capacity in social sciences or community development. The substantial time, resources, and facilitation skills required to implement the participatory methodology outlined in the manual are not clearly specified; for those organizations that are already stretched, or who lack the relevant expertise, this should not be underestimated. While some activities are clearly described (for example, visualizing livelihoods using a time allocation analysis, p. 46), other activities, such as conducting a baseline survey, are only briefly covered (p. 54). Other similar manuals (e.g. Bunce et al. 2000) provide much more detailed and user-friendly instructions on the implementation of basic social science data collection and monitoring tools (e.g. surveys, interviews, focus groups).

Another concern regarding this publication is the assumption that participatory processes will be both possible and straightforward. The proposed ‘CLIP’ methodology emphasizes the importance of participation and relies heavily on participatory processes, such as public workshops and consultations, participatory data collection, and local involvement in baseline and follow up assessments. While this is certainly a valuable part of the methodology, too little consideration is given to the possible challenges. What if people are not interested in participating? What if interest wanes and community members develop ‘participation fatigue’? What if people cannot afford the time to participate in the CLIP-related activities, such as day-long workshops? The importance of including underrepresented groups, such as women and the poor, is repeatedly highlighted. However, there are often complex cultural and political reasons for the exclusion of these groups from decision-making processes, and simply inviting them to public meetings will not guarantee their participation. Rather than simply assert the importance of equity and participation, the book could do more to acknowledge the challenges in achieving these, and to offer potential solutions (such as holding separate meetings for men and women).

The three case studies included in Chapter 5 (Tortuguero and Junquillal in Costa Rica, and Chiriquí in Panama) are helpful in illustrating the concepts and methodology outlined in the preceding chapters, providing rich detail regarding the evolution of CLIPS at three different sites. They also illustrate the complexities and challenges involved in conducting such programs, such as: the threat of external processes (e.g. foreign-controlled tourism development); the difficulty of realizing a ‘community’ vision in places where inter-group conflict is high; the need for outside expertise to facilitate a CLIP (as described in this book); and the fact that livelihood improvement programs do not necessarily guarantee widespread local support for marine turtle conservation.
While not without its flaws, this book provides a valuable contribution to the practical literature on marine turtle conservation. Readers actually intending to implement a community livelihood improvement program in conjunction with their marine turtle conservation work may need to consult additional sources (or, depending on their situation, seek outside expertise), but this document provides a good starting point. As to the key underlying assumption of this publication – that community-based conservation (or CLIP) is an effective way of pursuing marine turtle conservation – I refer readers to recent discussions in MTN (Ferraro 2005, 2006; Pritchard 2006). In the opinion of this reviewer, community well-being should be valued for its own sake, not simply as a means to an end.

BUNCE, L., TOWNSLEY, P., POMEROY, R. and R. POLLNAC. 2000. Socioeconomic Manual for Coral Reef Management. Australian Institute for Marine Science, Townsville, Queensland, Australia.

FERRARO, P.J. 2005. An economist’s reflections on the 25th Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation: Empirical program evaluation and direct payments for sea turtle conservation. Marine Turtle Newsletter 109:2-6.

FERRARO, P.J. 2006. Response to Comment by Peter C.H. Pritchard. Marine Turtle Newsletter 111:4-5.

PRITCHARD, P.C.H. 2005. Comment on the Guest Editorial By Paul J. Ferraro. Marine Turtle Newsletter 111:3-4.

Reviewed by Noella Gray, Nicholas School of the Environment and Earth Sciences, Duke University Marine Laboratory, 135 Duke Marine Lab Rd., Beaufort, NC, 28516, E-mail: njg3@duke.edu