**4. Discussion**

**3.2. Dimensions of conservation and livelihood framing in the THWS**

**Actors Framing of conservation and local livelihood based on key words**

70 Indigenous People

develop alternative livelihood options

replaced our interests in the forest

Local government staffs The NGO have a good agenda of conservation in the THWS as it is important to

community to find a common ground for cooperation The NGO The THWS is home to some the last species of the great apes among other important

Farmers The forest is the only source of our livelihood. We have been depending on this

alternatives that will equate what we get from the forest Hunters There is no way we can stop hunting completely. With income generated from hunting,

Youths It is through money from the forest that our parents are also to send us to school. Some

Chiefs We have been working with the NGO to see how this conservation can work. As of now,

Elites - The agenda of conservation as pursue by the NGO have less meaning to our people.

Policy makers We are aware that local people rely on the forest for livelihood and this makes it difficult

Researchers Conservation and livelihood issues in the THWS are complex and need more than just a

to guarantee our full support to conservation

are not benefiting from this money

out adequately considering local livelihoods

without alternatives provided, it will really affect the entire community

conserve biodiversity. However, the livelihoods of the local community members also need to be taking into account. We are always available to assist the NGO and the local

wildlife. The gazettement of this forest area will pose a major challenge to the livelihoods of the local community members but we are working with them to see how we can

forest for some many years. Now, our rights and feature livelihood are threatened by conservation. We do not see the possibilities of the NGO providing us with livelihoods

we send our children to school. We do not yet see any viable alternative that can

of us who are not opportune to study earn our own living from the forest. We are aware that conservation is important but if the conservation goal is to take our forest away

they are no benefits that can encourage us to give our full supports. We all rely on this forest for livelihoods and cultural reasons. We need assurance beyond words of mouth

The NGO received a lot of money for conservation but the local community members


for conservation objectives to be achieved without providing alternatives livelihood options. We are working to put in place and enforce policy that enable environmental protection and at the same time protect the rights of the local people to benefit from

single answer to reconcile it. The absence of effective collaboration among stakeholders is already an early indication that the strategies in place will not be sustainable and need

way the different actors frame the issues as observed above.

these resources

to be re-addressed

**Table 1.** Actors perceptions and framing of conservation and local livelihood.

The difference in actors' views in the framing of conservation and local livelihoods challenges in the THWS indicated they were no effective collaborative actions between stakeholders. The absence of a common ground for action explains why there is little or no overlapping in the Based on the framings, governance and strategies presented in the results above, we questioned if the implementation of the THWS project at this stage is closing down or opening up opportunities for the local community members? With reference to the normative emphasis on reductions in poverty and social injustice as define by and for particular people and settings—strategies and dynamics [23]—see **Figure 2**, we also argue based on the results of this study that the strategies in the THWS are not been pursued in practice as a result of political, institutional and cognitive pressure and also because the strategies do not look beyond the immediate challenges. The complex nature of local institutions, involving elites, chiefs, hunters, farmers and youths who hold completely different agendas and interests in the conservation project, makes it more challenging for a single solution (mainly based on improving livelihood and community awareness) to work. The inability of the NGO to develop robust and resilience strategies for actions beyond the visible challenges enables them to embark on controlling the challenges (stability) rather than to responding to them as they evolve (durability, resilience and robustness). Actions aiming to promote sustainability should involve assumptions about the temporality of change and the style of action (**Figure 3**) [23].

The THWS project is observed to be more concern with the temporality of change (providing immediate solutions to the challenges and bring the situation under control). These types of strategies leave out important dynamic properties of sustainability and thus close up

**Figure 3.** Combining dynamic properties of sustainability. Source: Ref. [13].

 opportunities for the marginalised group (local community members). Given the complex settings of conservation and local livelihood interactions (SES), a sustainable system would consist not only measures to control the immediate challenges but also open up to respond adaptively to emergent challenges, resist shocks in a more responsive fashion (resilience) and at the same time, identify, track and response to long-term shift that may occur in the system (durability and robustness).

In line with the arguments above, we question a new agenda and strategies needed to ensure sustainability in the THWS conservation project. The goal of sustainability is in a SES is the need to develop a common language that cut across disciplines to analyse how interactions among a variety of factors affects outcomes [4, 5] as presented in **Figure 4**.

The analysis of a SES requires a range of expertise and approaches, which may be very expensive for grassroots institutions to afford as in this case study. Thus, the next questions at this point are how can such institutions achieve sustainability under constraint resources? What approach will best maximise resource usage and enable sustainability? And how can "a common language" as defined by Ostrom be developed for actors with diverse interest? The pathways approach [13] attempts to answer some of these questions by emphasising on collaborative actions in policy development and implementation. With the hint that meaningful actors' collaboration and participation can minimise implementation cost and at the same lead to sustainability, we will advocate this type of approach to the THWS project. However, for this to work, there is the need for the project to revisit the questions posed above on achieving sustainability. One method of paving the way to sustainability in the THWS will be the use of the participatory mapping approaches to define "a common ground" for actions and to allocate and manage resources.

Analysing Environment-Development Interventions Through the Lens of Indigenous People... http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.69885 73

**Figure 4.** A multitier framework for analysing a SES. Source: Ref. [4].
