SAGE-GT for enhancing the power of Indigenous Peoples and local communities in area-based conservation

IIED and partners in the SAGE initiative are developing a relatively simple, low-cost tool for use by Indigenous Peoples and local communities (IPs and LCs) and other key actors in governance of a protected or conserved area to increase the power, authority and influence of IPs and LCs.
 

Article, 16 July 2024
Collection
Conservation, communities and equity
A programme of work showing how IIED is building capacity to understand and implement equitable conservation and enhance community voice in conservation policymaking
A group of women and men are seated outside in discussion.

The Munje Beach Management Committee uses the SAGE-GT framework, while two other actor groups do the assessment in the background (Photo: Dalmas Moka, Chemi Chemi organisation

SAGE-GT is highly complementary to the existing SAGE tool which focuses on improving the quality of protected or conserved area governance in terms of principles of equitable governance.

Background

The SAGE initiative, a collaborative effort of a number of NGOs and universities from the global North and South led by IIED, aims to improve the governance and equity of protected and conserved areas (PCAs) and any associated measures designed to support conservation.  

Over the last 20 years much attention has been given to governance quality, including equity and respect for rights, and how to assess these – and this has now been integrated in the concept of ‘equitable governance’ that is a key element of the 30x30 target of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework.   

Much less attention has been given to governance type - the balance of power, authority and influence between IPs and LCs and other actors at the site.   

“While some actors will prefer the language of authority/influence, this is fundamentally about the balance of power between key actors,” said IIED principal researcher Phil Franks.  

“Whatever the language, there is increasing attention to this issue across the whole spectrum of different approaches in area-based conservation from community engagement in government-managed areas to conservation that is genuinely led by Indigenous Peoples and local communities (IPs and LCs-led conservation).

A fisherman, standing surrounded by water, holds up an octopus he has caught.

Octopus fisherman, Munje Beach Management Unit, Kenya (Photo: CORDIO, Kenya)

“But beyond the rhetoric what do these terms really mean and imply for area-based conservation? How do you know if what is described as “community-based natural resource management” or “IPs and LCs-led conservation” is genuinely IPs and LCs-led, and in the many situations where there could – and should – be a real shift in the balance of power/authority/influence, how can this be achieved in practical terms?” 

The main leverage points for advancing equitable governance – as in the 30x30 target – are in governance quality. But it has long been clear that a key factor that enables or constrains progress on equitable governance is the governance type, and specifically the level of power/authority/influence of IPs and LCs.

Recent research (PDF) increasingly points to the need for much more attention to governance type as an enabling condition or barrier to progress on equitable governance of PCAs.

Developing the SAGE-GT tool

The SAGE-GT tool directly responds to this need with initial support from the Darwin Initiative. The first key development was to unpack the existing PCA governance typology which, in terms of power balance, has just four categories: 

  1. Governance by government
  2. Governance by private actors (including NGOs with long-term management agreements)
  3. Governance by IPs and LCs, and 
  4. Shared governance (any combination of the others).

We have produced a framework that identifies the difference in the power balance within each of these four main governance types – see the table below.   

In terms of the level of power/authority/influence of IPs and LCs, governance by government and private governance are equivalent and therefore grouped together on the left-hand side. Shared governance has three subtypes, while the other governance types have two apiece.

Governance by government, private and/or NGO actorsShared governance between government, private and/or NGO actors and IPs and LCsGovernance by IPs and LCs
Power is exclusively with government/ private/NGO actorsPower is almost entirely with government /private/NGO actors but IPs and LCs provide input where requestedPower is mainly with government /private/NGO actors but IPs and LCs have authority/influence on some issuesPower is evenly shared between government/ private/NGO actors and IPs and LCsPower is mainly with IPs and LCs but government/private/NGO actors have authority/ influence on some issuesPower is almost entirely with IPs and LCs but government/ private/NGO actors provide input where requestedPower is exclusively with IPs and LCs

IUCN typology of PCA governance types (dark blue) unpacked into sub-types (light blue) as being used in the SAGE-GT tool.

A second key development was the realisation that sub-types of governance (balance of power/ authority/influence) might be different in different dimensions of PCA governance. SAGE-GT assesses power balance in five dimensions: 

  1. PCA management
  2. Rights and duties of different actors
  3. Access to and use of financing
  4. Governance structures and processes, and 
  5. Knowledge and values that shape the approach to conservation.

This framework of five dimensions, each with five questions (based on five indicators), serves as the assessment framework for SAGE-GT in the same way that the equitable governance principles and questions do for the SAGE tool.

However, while each SAGE question has a set of specific responses for that question, the response to a SAGE-GT question is always one of the seven sub-types shown in figure 1, which translate to an Indigenous Peoples and local communities 'influence score' of 0-6.

The chart below, from the first pilot in Uganda at Echuya Central Forest Reserve (ECFR), shows the responses of five different actor groups to the question “what is the balance of power between community and non-community actors over determining the overall objectives of conserving and using the PCA?”.

Batwa Indigenous People
Civil society organisations
 
APower is entirely with non-community actors
 BPower is with non-community actors. Community (IPs and LCs) members provide input only if requested
Community women
Community men
 
National/local government 
CPower is with non-community actors, but community (IPs and LCs) have some influence
 DPower is evenly balanced between community (IPs and LCs) members and non-community actors
 EPower is mainly with community (IPs and LCs) members, but government actors have some influence
 FPower is with community (IPs and LCs) members. Non-community actors provide support if requested
 GPower is entirely with community (IPs and LCs) members

Different actor groups determine the overall objectives of conserving and using Echuya Central Forest Reserve, Uganda

As with SAGE, SAGE-GT is a multi-stakeholder assessment where different groups of actors (for example Indigenous Peoples, men and women of local communities, protected area management, local government, national government agencies, NGOs and the private sector) complete the assessment in their separate groups and then come together to share and discuss their, often different, findings.   

Again, as with SAGE, where there is a clear difference of opinion (for example, if a government agency believes that IPs and LCs have real influence over decisions while they say they don’t) there is a discussion that usually reveals valid constraints that explain the difference of opinion. Participants then identify pathways to change and specfic ideas for actions to improve the situation.  

The process is also designed to generally enhance the power/authority/influence of IPs and LCs where national policy clearly enables this, or there is the will at site level to push the boundaries of how the policy is interpreted and applied.

Pilots in progress and future development

SAGE-GT has already been piloted at sites in Kenya, Uganda, Nepal and the Philippines (read a full report of the Philippines assessment), with further pilots in each country to follow in August/September following some changes in the questions and the assessment process in response to initial feedback.

Three men and a woman stand either side of a presentation board facing the camera.

Park managers participating in a SAGE-GT assessment at Mt Kitanglad National Park, Philippines

While still a work in progress, the SAGE-GT tool is already good enough to test in a range of other contexts, and we would like to hear from organisations interested in participating in this next phase.  

We are also keen to hear from donors interested to contribute to funding the further development and scaling up of this tool for increasing the power, authority and influence of IPs and LCs in area-based conservation.

Contact

Phil Franks ([email protected]), principal researcher, IIED's Natural Resources research group