A distinctive characteristic of this reserve is that almost the whole of its territory is under either community, “ejidal”, or private ownership rather than federal control. CONANP had to take a different approach when working with communities on climate change adaptation issues; CONANP decided to work with an ecosystem-based perspective. This approach has required the flexible interpretation of federal regulations and institutions governing conservation and climate change mitigation policies. At the core of this flexibility has been the rejection of a strictly administrative polygon approach to define large conservation areas in which no productive activities can take place in the mangrove ecosystems. Open discussions and negotiations with the local communities have resulted in CONANP taking a flexible approach, which has used local knowledge to identify an ecosystem, and livelihood, relevant division of the mangroves into areas designated for pure conservation and for sustainable productive activities. Maintaining sustainable productive activities in the mangrove systems supports the long-term goal of changing community attitudes towards maintaining the mangrove systems as an integral component of community livelihoods.
1. Intensive dialogue & negotiation (before and after the establishment of the reserve) with local communities.
2. Listening and accepting the validity of local communities’ and field workers’ views when designing policies.
3. Willingness to change institutional regulations & approaches to accommodate diverse points of view and local knowledge.
4. A capacity to monitor the effectiveness of planned measures, and to be able to recognize when plans need to be changed with local community support.
1) It soon became clear that designating a conservation area solely based on an administratively pre-defined polygon was not going to come out as a successful conservation and management strategy, because the polygon: a) was not encompassing correctly the ecosystems and their connectivity; b) excluded the possibility of communities for generating a sense of belonging to the reserve, without which joint responsibility for its conservation cannot be possible.
2) Conservation and livelihoods are two sides of the same coin. In ecosystems in which communities live, you cannot have one without the other.
3) A balance between conservation and livelihoods was achieved through negotiation and open-mindedness on both sides: a smaller conservation area was accepted in return for stricter controls, and greater fisherman-led effort for maintaining a sustainable approach to productive activities in the rest of the reserve.