Integrated Conservation and Development Project - Critiques of ICDPs

Critiques of ICDPs

Conservation organizations do not necessarily understand the social and economic arenas they are trying to work in. They are the ones to start the ICDPs, rather than the rural people, and have little experience working with communities. They are also unwilling to bear or support legal battles over land and are not willing to strengthen rural organizations because they find it to be “too political” (1-Hughes and Flintan 2001). However, WWF claims that ICDPs strengthen local organizations and "broker new land-use agreements between governments and communities, and helping communities challenge encroachment upon their natural resources, ICDPs involve local communities to improve livelihoods and conservation" (6-WWF).
Agroforestry and organic gardening projects do not work as well because it is difficult for indigenous people to market what is grown.
Minority ethnic groups and women are many times not accounted for in the redistribution of costs and benefits. There are many limitations on participation by women, so many feel there are not equal opportunities for all people within the community.
External effects like a growing market demand for forest and wildlife products, demographic pressures and vested interests like illegal logging, mineral extraction and ranching often go disregarded by ICDPs.
In addition, community-based conservation projects are often found to be divergent to the goals of biodiversity conservation, and should be based more on biological sciences. As stated by Katrina Brandon with, “Not all things can be preserved through use” (2-Chapin 2004).
Another problem is that some of the ICDPs that are funded internationally may not be financially or economically sustainable once their external funding has been exhausted.