Including local knowledge in conservation planning: the case of the western coastal protected areas in Suriname

ABSTRACT

There is increasing recognition of the importance of local knowledge in conservation governance and sustainable use of natural resources. This article studies three social-ecological systems: Bigi Pan, Noord Coronie, and Noord Saramacca – each designated as a Multiple Use Management Area (MUMA) by the Surinamese government. The main focus of this article is how local knowledge and user perspectives may contribute to the management of a MUMA, including to making decisions about biodiversity and natural resources. We use an action research approach that includes qualitative case study methodology, participant observations, group and individual interviews. The analytical framework is based on the SES model from Ostrom (2009) to understand interactions between subsystems as mediated by local and other forms of knowledge. We also explore how participatory engagement with MUMA resource users includes local knowledge and user perspectives. The findings show how local knowledge can offer tools and solutions to improve conservation governance by supporting the development of realistic management plans and by supporting better understanding of the interactions between social and ecological subsystems. Moreover, action research helps to recognize local knowledge as valuable for science and promotes social learning among stakeholders. This paper concludes that local knowledge has contributed to policy decisions that are connected to the use practices of the people who are of the place and know the context well. The inclusion of local knowledge through participatory drafting of management plans has contributed to overcoming some major management challenges and helped to build a supportive social environment for conservation.

Key policy highlights

• Local support for MUMAs will only be successful if community engagement is truly institutionalized.

• Participatory drafting of management plans is helpful in recognizing local knowledge and promoting social learning among stakeholders.

• Embedding local knowledge in management plans is fundamental to securing sustainable outcomes in MUMAs.

• Local knowledge includes knowledge about the resource system, individual resource units, and the governance system.

• Local resource users and local government agencies held various opinions about community engagement.

• Local knowledge is the result of the interactions between subsystems of SES.

EDITED BY:

• Torsten Krause

KEYWORDS:

• Mangrove forest
• traditional knowledge
• local community engagement
• conservation planning
• Multiple Use Management Area

1. Introduction

Human use of tropical rainforest goes back thousands of years and includes hunting, fishing, and shifting land cultivation while drawing on traditional knowledge and practices (Molles 2016). Many of these traditional land uses continue today in one form or another. The local knowledge behind such land use is relevant for understanding how natural systems can be managed sustainably, especially in times of social and environmental change (Carvalho and Frazão-Moreira 2011; Nordic Council of ministries 2015; Díaz et al. 2018). Local knowledge is created in a local context and follows the accumulation of observations and experiences of, and beliefs about, the interaction between living beings (including humans) with one another and with their environment. Those interactions themselves evolved via adaptive processes and are transferred through generations (Cook et al. 2014; Berkes 2018).

Local knowledge is considered one of the most common sources of information about the condition of protected areas (Duffield et al. 1998). Moreover, there is increasing recognition that local knowledge is relevant for the sustainable management and governance of resource systems around the world. Such knowledge can contribute to the wise use of natural resources and the conservation of biodiversity (Berkes et al. 2000; Molles 2016; Ogawa et al. 2021). Practically, the inclusion of local knowledge in conservation decision-making and governance processes can help connect management plans and strategies to the needs of local people. Including local knowledge can moreover lead to community support for the implementation of government policies (Russell et al. 2013).

Arguably, the best way to include local knowledge is to make local people active participants in decision-making (Carvalho and Frazão-Moreira 2011) and to be sensitive to their local reality (Lynam et al. 2007). Direct communication with local users and stakeholders, consideration of their values, and recognition of their use of specific resources (i.e. a certain type of bird) can provide information for decision-making that reflects the specificity of a concrete social-ecological system (Henderson and Nakamoto 2016). Discussing specific issues and concerns with local users and stakeholders can moreover improve joint understanding and promote social learning to collaboratively meet the challenge of conserving biodiversity and ecosystem services (Tàbara and Pahl-Wostl 2007; Sutherland et al. 2013).

Literature on local knowledge has shown it offers observations of environmental change within social-ecological systems that are aligned with scientific data (Krupnik and Jolly 2002; Chalmers and Fabricius 2007) and is valuable when monitoring the performance of conservation goals (Davenport and Anderson 2007). Scientific and local knowledge may moreover complement each other to improve our understanding of ecosystem processes and the influence of human practices on environmental processes (Chalmers and Fabricius 2007; Prell et al. 2009). The integration of local knowledge is furthermore considered cost-efficient because it saves money and offers an attractive solution to the data shortage experienced by many management agencies (Cook et al. 2014; Martin-Lopez and Montes 2015). Scientific studies can also be impractical due to the high costs and therefore, local knowledge and contributions of local users are valuable, useful, and complementary data sources that can result in a more complete conservation approach (Gilchrist et al. 2005; Ban et al. 2013; Cook et al. 2014).

Notwithstanding the above, the inclusion of local communities and the knowledge they hold is often overlooked or only superficially taken up in wetlands and other conservation planning (Joshi et al. 2021). Specifically, the social dimension of social-ecological systems is often neglected in favor of more technocratic management approaches to natural resources that fail to embrace a holistic perspective that includes local needs and issues (Sellamuttu et al. 2012; Joshi et al. 2021). This is problematic, especially as most conservation areas already lack sufficient management capacity, an issue that community engagement may help remedy (Lynch et al. 2016).

In the western coastal areas of Suriname, the first author of this study has engaged with local communities and their knowledge in an attempt to improve management capacity of these areas in a way that is responsive to local needs via the drafting of management plans for the areas. These areas are designated by the Surinamese government as Multiple Use Management Areas (MUMAs) and are listed as IUCN Category VI ‘Protected area with sustainable use of natural resources’ (IUCN 2020). MUMAs can be commercially utilized within sustainable limits with permits required for both research and resource extraction (UNDP 2011). The Surinamese MUMAs consist of wetlands with mangrove forests and a high biodiversity richness (Ottema 2009; Teunissen 2011). Local communities use these MUMAs in various ways, including for fishing, hunting, agriculture, beekeeping, cattle breeding, smoking fish, and tourism (Spaans et al. 2016; Djosetro and Behagel 2019; Djosetro 2019a, 2019b, 2019c). The MUMAs are also of interest to international science and conservation networks as a natural habitat for migratory birds. More recently, they have come into focus for their natural carbon content (as sequestered in the mangrove forest, among others). Finally, oil fields were recently discovered near the coast. These increased demands for and pressures on natural resources in the areas are becoming more challenging for effective management of the vast MUMAs, due to financial and human capacity constraints (UNDP 2011).

In the past, the management and monitoring activities in the coastal MUMAs of Suriname did not include the knowledge and perceptions of local communities but were primarily based on or representative of scientific, ecological knowledge. Although the active participation of the local communities in conservation in theory is promoted by international conventions such as the Convention of Biological Diversity (CBD) and the RAMSAR convention, both to which Suriname is a party, in practice local communities have not been adequately considered with regard to management planning. While local people who live and work in or near the MUMAs are often hired to guide researchers in the field, the contribution of locals is often not acknowledged in scientific reports, and their resource uses have not been sufficiently recognized in management plans. This situation however is changing and in 2017, the involvement of the local community in the design of plans and strategies regarding protected areas of Suriname became part of the national policy (National Development Plan 2017–2021), giving the first author of this study (in her role as government advisor) the opportunity to engage with the local communities inhabiting the areas to draft management plans.

This article explores the new role that local knowledge and user perspectives have come to play in the management of the MUMAs of the western coast of Suriname. Doing, so, it analyzes the contributions that the inclusion of local knowledge and the engagement with local users and stakeholders make to conservation planning and management, and how community engagement is crucial for including local knowledge in management. To study this systematically, we use the Social-Ecological Systems (SES) model from Ostrom (2009) to understand interactions between resources, users, and governance as mediated by local and other forms of knowledge. We furthermore explore how participatory engagement with MUMA resource users includes local knowledge and user perspectives. We employ a participatory action research approach that includes qualitative case study methodology, participant observations, and group and individual interviews. In the methods section, we first describe our use of the SES model and our research methodology, after which present our results. We then discuss the practical contribution of local knowledge to nature conservation and management in Suriname as well as other geographies.

2. Methods

2.1. Analytical framework

The role of local knowledge in nature conservation governance and management can be studied from a social-ecological system (SES) perspective (Folke 2004; Ruiz-Mallén and Corbera 2013; Fernández-Llamazares et al. 2021). This literature emphasizes that local knowledge is the result of local use practices and experiences, and that local knowledge plays a key role in steering the interactions between SES subsystems of the resource system, resource units, governance, and users towards sustainable outcomes (Ruiz-Mallén and Corbera 2013). Specifically, local knowledge can enhance the capacity of social-ecological systems to respond to social and environmental change, as social learning processes allow local knowledge to be adapted over time. In our analysis, we apply the SES model of Ostrom (2009) to identify interactions between SES subsystems and to highlight the role that local knowledge and participatory processes play in these interactions.

Social-ecological systems include four major subsystems (see Figure 1): (1) the resource system, for example a protected area (PA) encompassing a specified territory containing forested areas, water systems and wildlife; (2) resource units (e.g. trees, shrubs, fauna, types of wildlife, and amount and flow of water); and (3) the governance system (e.g. the government and other organizations that manage the PA, the specific rules related to the use of the PA, and how these are formulated for (4) users (e.g. individuals who use the PA in diverse ways for sustenance, recreation, or commercial purpose). The interactions among these subsystems and the outcomes they produce shape the governance system and influence management planning, among others. An important condition to effectively manage a resource system is a good relationship between resource users and governmental agencies, including having resource users learn about and share common knowledge about relevant SES attributes (Ostrom 2009).

Figure 1. The core subsystems in a framework for analyzing social-ecological systems (Adapted from Ostrom 2009).

Within the SES literature, knowledge is sometimes only associated with the user (U) subsystem – as a mental model of the resource system that local resource users have access to (Partelow 2018). A more integral perspective on knowledge is found in studies on local and traditional knowledge. These discuss how knowledge of the social-ecological system follows from the interactions across social-ecological subsystems, for example when local communities set limits on hunting certain animals via sanctions, rituals, and other customary institutions as they understand the effect that hunting has on the animal population (Ruiz-Mallén and Corbera 2013). Tàbara and Chabay (2013, p. 75) moreover argue that we should consider the knowledge of social-ecological systems as ‘composed of hybrid social-ecological components derived from experimental and observational processes of learning’, not just as a mental model of the SES. In other words, studying local knowledge is a good way to understand the repeated and routinized interactions that characterize a social-ecological system and its elements. Such an integral perspective on knowledge also means that when interactions between subsystems change, for example, due to increased user pressures, this will also change the behavioral intentions of users and governmental institutions (Hunt et al. 2012). The perspective also highlights how the participation of local communities can bring out local knowledge of different social-ecological subsystems that are relevant for management interventions and for steering towards sustainable outcomes.

2.2. Participatory action research

This article studies the role of knowledge and engagement with local users in management planning in three Social-Ecological Systems: the coastal protected areas of Bigi Pan, Noord Coronie, and Noord Saramacca in Suriname, each one designated as a MUMA (see Figure 2). The first author of this article used a participatory action research approach to both study and improve the role of local knowledge and participation in the management of these MUMAs. Action research often involves a qualitative case study to create a desired outcome in a specific situation, exploring different dimensions – policies, knowledge, and actors – of the case (Babbie 2010). We adopt the two main principles of participatory action research (Kemmis et al. 2014). First, we recognized and included participants as part of the research process. In this specific case, that means we included and helped record the ongoing research that local users do in their daily lives about the social-ecological system of which they are a part of. Second, the research is oriented towards making improvements in the practice by the participants themselves (Kemmis et al. 2014), who in our case include both local users and local government officials. These improvements and participant actions are recorded in the management and action plans that resulted from this research.

Figure 2. Map of the western coastal protected areas of Suriname.

As a governmental civil servant, the first author took the lead in the process of revising draft management plans for the three MUMAs. The management plans needed updating, as current management plans were not considered to be usable by local users and by local governmental actors. While there was an attempt to update the management plans as part of the Suriname Coastal Protected Area Management project (UNDP 2011) in 2013 and 2014, it was not completed due to disagreements between the Suriname Forest Service (LBB) and the team of consultants about the role of different relevant stakeholders in the management of the MUMA. The draft management plans have successfully been revised in 2019 under the leadership of the first author and through the extensive engagement of users and stakeholders, the process of which serves as the primary data source for this article, in addition to a set of group and individual interviews, as discussed below.

The approach used by the first author for revising the drafts of the management plans included engagement processes that focused on the problems and concerns that local users and local government agencies experienced at each MUMA. Local people were invited to present their situation, diagnose and prioritize problems, and develop potential solutions (Warburton and Martin 1999). The approach emphasized local knowledge and practices, values, needs, and perspectives (Stringer et al. 2006; Gavin et al. 2015) and thus yielded many insights into the problem context from the perspective of multiple stakeholders (Eelderink 2020). Put simply, the approach helped to present what is happening on sites and to co-create and implement an action plan that was made an integral part of the management plan. Many elements of the action plan follow directly from suggested actions and use of knowledge by local communities. The action plan moreover helps define the desired future situation that will contribute to overcoming management challenges (Rogers et al. 2013). These management plans were completed in 2019 and as of 2020 two of the management plans - Bigi Pan and Noord Coronie MUMAs – have been implemented with funding from the European Union (EU) and in 2021 with funding from the US Fish and Wildlife Service.

2.3. Respondents

The selection of the respondents as representatives of each MUMA user group was based on the criteria of frequent or daily interactions with the MUMA. Sometimes, representatives could not be easily determined because not all users were known. In these cases, we used the snowball method by asking the interviewees if they could help identify and approach representatives of a certain user group. The role of the respondents was to gain better understanding of social-ecological interactions in the MUMAs and to be engaged in the drafting of the management plans. This was crucial to develop a realistic management plan that includes actions and steps to tackle real life issues. Integrating the local contribution in the management plans is moreover a way of recognizing their use practices and core values related to nature.

In 2018, user groups of all three MUMAS were interviewed at location. User groups included fishermen, beekeepers, (rice, fruit, and vegetable) farmers, hunters, tour operators, and government agencies. The government agencies include the Ministry of Spatial Planning and Forest Management (RGB by its Dutch acronym), currently called the Ministry of Land Policy and Forest Management (GBB by its Dutch acronym), which is responsible for forest and nature management; the Ministry of Agriculture, Animal Husbandry and Fisheries; the Ministry of Regional Affairs; the Ministry of Public Works; the Ministry of Police and Justice; and the Ministry of Defence. The local offices of these ministries in the districts were also interviewed.

In the capital and the three districts (Nickerie, Coronie, and Saramacca), a total of 81 persons were interviewed, either individually or as part of small groups. An average of 20 persons were interviewed per location. The focus of the interviews was on understanding the problem context from the perspective of each user group and on co-creating an action plan to improve the situation to the desired situation to which all parties can relate.

In addition to the interview and participatory data, an in-depth analysis of 64 documents was conducted, including scientific papers, grey literature, and policy documents. Grey literature concerns professional research reports, while policy documents include management plans, national developing plans (nationaal ontwikkelingsplan), and the like.

2.4. Data collection methods

In 2018, fieldwork was undertaken by the first author to engage with the local communities of the three districts in which the MUMAs are located and to study subsystems of the MUMAs and interactions between them. The main focus is on the interaction between resource users and other subsystems to examine the different meanings of use practices, why people act in a certain way. Data collection was done through semi-structured interviews. Interviews lasted on average half an hour. Different languages (Dutch, Sranan Tongo, English, and Javanese) were used by the first author (who masters all four languages) because not all interviewees spoke Dutch. The local population consists of many different ethnic groups who have their own language. Suriname in the past was a colony of the Netherlands, and the official language in Suriname today remains Dutch. In addition, ethnographic methods, including personal and group interviewing and participant observation were used to explore local users’ various experiences, meanings, interpretations, and practices.

Respondents may be considered vulnerable to government interventions and therefore explicit consent was requested and their contributions were anonymized. Respondents were also asked whether recording the interviews on tape was allowed and permission was granted in all cases, both orally and in writing. The researcher informed the stakeholders that the collected data serves two purposes: for this research and for the update of the management plans. While collecting data for updating the management plans, the researcher took the opportunity to assess the existence of local knowledge about the social-ecological environment. Some users, such as hunters, have experienced environmental changes over time and have adapted their use of natural resources. The importance of engaging with these users is that we can learn about these changes and adaptations, which allows us to understand how activities were performed and how they interact with the other subsystems. The interviews were all transcribed to assist in analysis. Multiple local community proposals discussed during these interviews are also included in the action plans, which are an integral component of the management plans for the MUMAs.

In addition to the interviews, a four-day field expedition to the east side of the Bigi Pan MUMA was conducted via the sea, and the Noord Coronie MUMA was also visited as part of participant observations with the aim of verifying data by looking at practices in the field to yield a more complete picture of the situation. Halfway through the visit to the Noord Saramacca MUMA, the visit had to be interrupted due to a technical problem with the boat. The participant observations were carried out jointly with the game wardens, the Forest Management department staff, and a local field guide. A representative of the local government was also present in the Bigi Pan MUMA field expedition.

Finally, validation workshops were held at the local and national levels to discuss first drafts of the management plans and to validate primary results from the research on local knowledge. The purpose of the workshops was to validate the information gathered and to allow room to include issues and actions that were overlooked in previous phases. This is followed up by the implementation phase of the management plans. The cycle of planning, learning, reflecting and applying continues even outside and after the project, and also continues to include the participation of the first author of the article, now in the role of university lecturer and external consultant.

2.5. Data analysis

Data analysis took place during the entire engagement process. All data, interview transcripts, and documents were analyzed using qualitative data analysis software (Atlas-ti). A mix of open and deductive coding was used. Open coding has made us aware of important themes, such as local knowledge related to nature used for the livelihood strategies and engagement strategies that are important for the western MUMAs in Suriname. During deductive coding, multiple categories from the SES literature were used, including specific users (fishers, rice farmers, etc.), government and local institutions, specific resource units (fish, birds, mangrove trees, etc.), resource systems (mangrove, coastal seas, etc.), and so on. Deductive coding has provided relevant data regarding community engagement in management planning and the interactions between SES subsystems.

3. Results

Below, the interactions between social-ecological subsystems in the MUMAs are presented with an emphasis on the role that knowledge and community engagement play in shaping these interactions. In terms of the subsystems of the resource system, governance system, and resource units, the three MUMAs are mostly similar, and we first describe them jointly on a general level. Next, we describe the users of each MUMA separately, as the user groups of each MUMA differ more clearly from one another. We continue by discussing in-depth how different types of local knowledge give us insight into the interactions between subsystems in the different MUMAs followed by a reflection on the participation of local users in management planning. We then conclude this result section with a reflection on the management plan as it gives a good view of some of the outcomes of the social-ecological interactions in the MUMAs.

3.1. The social-ecological system of the three MUMAs

3.1.1. General characteristics

On 18 March 1985, the Republic of Suriname joined the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands of International Importance Especially as Waterfowl Habitat, thereby obliging wetland conservation to be part of its national, regional, and spatial planning and to make wise use of all wetlands within its territorial boundaries. Under Decree L-2 by the national government, the Bigi Pan area was named a ‘Multiple Use Management Area’ (MUMA) on 30 December 1987. The Noord Coronie area and the Noord Saramacca area were both named MUMA on 25 March 2001. Table 1 shows the general characteristics of each MUMA, which are described below.

Table 1. Main characteristics of the western coastal protected areas in Suriname.

CHARACTERISTICS	BIGI PAN MUMA	NOORD CORONIE MUMA	NOORD SARAMACCA MUMA
Date of establishment	1987	2001	2001
Land size	68,000 ha	27,200 ha	100,400 ha
Districts	Nickerie	Coronie	Saramacca
Location	Located in the districts Coronie and Nickerie and partly in the Atlantic Ocean (Ministerial Decree 1987 No. 4423/0880)	Located in the district Coronie between Burnside and Jenny and partly in the Atlantic Ocean (Ministerial Decree 2001 No. 451/0129)	Located in the district Saramacca and partly in the Atlantic Ocean (Ministerial Decree 2001 No. 452/0130)
Governance	Government, Ministry of RGB Other governmental agencies have policies that apply to this MUMA.	Government, Ministry of RGB Other governmental agencies have policies that apply to this MUMA.	Government, Ministry of RGB Other governmental agencies have policies that apply to this MUMA.
Local LBB office	Game wardens and educational staff	Staffed by only1 educational officer. This MUMA is managed by the LBB office of Nickerie	Not operational. This MUMA is managed centrally
WHSRN site Hemispheric importance	1989	–	1989
RAMSAR site/Important Bird Area (IBA)	–	–	Within the boundaries of this MUMA is the Coppename Monding Nature Reserve, which is a RAMSAR site and internationally recognized as an Important Bird Area (IBA)
Ecosystem & habitats	Mangrove forest, wetlands, shallow salt to brackish water, rice fields, rich of fish & coastal birds & migratory birds, mud flat near shore	Mangrove forest, wetlands, shallow salt to brackish water, coconut trees, rich of fish & coastal birds & migratory birds, mud flat near shore	Mangrove forest, wetlands, shallow salt to brackish water, rich of fish & coastal birds & migratory birds mud flat near shore
Main activities	Fishing, large-scale rice cultivation, hunting (mainly on birds), tourism	Fishing (near the coastline in the marine area, hunting (many birds), grazing and cow raising, beekeeping	Fishing, hunting (mainly on birds), large-scale cultivation of fruit & vegetable, grazing and cow raising, mining
Specific driving-forces on biodiversity	Hunting in closed season and also on protected birds, increased tourism activities, competition among user groups (fishermen and tour operators), land erosion at some places at the coastline	Hunting in closed season and also on protected birds, construction of a concrete sea wall (2018) due to many years of land erosion	Hunting in closed season and also on protected birds, oil exploration and extraction activities.
Residential areas	Not inhabited	Inhabited	Inhabited
Management plan	1990, 1995, 2013 (draft), 2019	2000, 2014 (draft), 2019	2000, 2014 (draft), 2019

The three MUMAs are wetlands mostly covered with mangrove forests and contain swamps with shallow salt to brackish water, with vegetation of short salt plants and salt marsh grasses. These MUMAs are also known for their rich fishing waters and sedentary coastal birds, and they are important habitats for numerous coastal and migratory shorebird species (Ottema 2009). The mudflats near the coastline of the MUMAs are important feeding grounds for these birds.

Bigi Pan MUMA was designated by the Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve Network (WHSRN) in 1989 as one of the three hotspots in Suriname as a site of hemispheric importance which means that this site hosts a minimum of 500,000 shorebirds (migratory birds) each year (Winn et al. 2013). Within the boundaries of the Noord Saramacca MUMA, the Coppename Monding Nature Reserve was the first protected area established (1966) in Suriname. This Nature Reserve is the only established Ramsar site in Suriname and is internationally recognized as an ‘Important Bird Area’ (IBA) (Ottema 2009). Moreover, this Nature Reserve is also designated as a hotspot by the WHSNR.

The management of the western coastal MUMAs is entrusted to the Head of the Suriname Forest Service of the GBB ministry. The main local institutions that play an important role in the management of the MUMAs are the local LBB offices Nickerie and Coronie, the District Commissioner (DC) of the districts in which the MUMA is located, the local police, the local division of the Fisheries Department of the Ministry of Agriculture, Animal Husbandry and Fisheries (LVV) and the local division of Ministry of Public Works, Transport and Communication (OWT&C). These governmental agencies also have policies that apply to the MUMAs.

3.1.2. Users (U) active in all MUMAs

Users common to all three western coastal MUMAs are the government agencies such as LVV and OWT&C who carry out monitoring activities in the MUMAs. Foreign bird researchers visit all three MUMAs annually as well, particularly for monitoring the scarlet ibis and migratory shorebirds. Various NGOs based in the capital city Paramaribo such as Suriname Conservation Foundation (SCF) and Green Heritage Fund Suriname (GHFS) carried out project activities in collaboration with the Suriname Forest Service related to law enforcement, raising awareness for bird conservation, and mapping the marine part of the MUMAs. Table 2 shows the different user groups of each MUMA, who are described in detail below.

Table 2. Stakeholders of the western coastal MUMAs.

	STAKEHOLDERS	BIGI PAN MUMA	NOORD CORONIE MUMA	NOORD SARAMACCA MUMA
Resource users (SES/U)	Fishermen	Livelihood strategy, practices within the MUMA	Livelihood strategy, practices in the marine area near the shore	Livelihood strategy, practices in the mouth of the Saramacca river
	Hunters	Mainly on birds	Mainly on birds & small mammals	Mainly on birds
	Farmers	Large-scale rice farmers	Small-scale Vegetable & fruit farmers, small-scale cattle farmers	Large-scale vegetable & fruit farmers, small-scale cattle farmers
	Tour operators	Some own lodges that are built in the open swamp	Not applicable (NA)	NA
	Beekeepers	NA	Medium & Large scale, making use of the mangrove forest	NA
	Fish processors (smoking fish)	Livelihood strategy Small group	NA	Livelihood strategy Small group
	Local NGOs	Conservation NGO has no resources for MUMA activities	Tourism NGO has no resources for MUMA activities	NA
	Students and school children	Excursion	Excursion	NA
	Mining	NA	Near shore & offshore oil prospecting activities	On shore and near shore oil extraction
Governmental agencies (SES/U)	Local office of Forest Service	Staffed with also game wardens	Educational office	Not operational since 1913
	Local Fishery department	No staff for monitoring activities in the MUMA	Well-staffed	Well-staffed
	Local Police	Jointly control	NA	NA
	District Commissioner	Head of local Government	Head of local Government	Head of local Government
	Local OWT&C office	Little to no resources for maintenance of infrastructural works in MUMA	Little to no resources for maintenance of infrastructural works in MUMA	Little to no resources for maintenance of infrastructural works in MUMA
Scientists	Anton de Kom University of Suriname	In preparation of reforestation mangrove project	Reforestation mangrove project (started in 2010)	NA
	Foreign bird researcher	Monitoring coastal birds (Scarlet ibis) and the migratory birds	Monitoring coastal birds (Scarlet ibis) and the migratory birds	Monitoring coastal birds (Scarlet ibis) and the migratory birds
		Collect annually data of migratory birds (ringed & transmitter device) from the bird tower.	NA	NA

3.1.3. Users in Bigi Pan MUMA

Fishermen have been fishing in Bigi Pan for more than 70 years (Management Plan 2019–2023), with fishery-related knowledge transferred from father to son. In recent years, bird hunting has become a popular activity. Rice farmers form a very small user group. Agricultural land comprises 40% of the MUMA’s land area. One person owns a large area with rice fields. Rice farming in the Bigi Pan MUMA is also an activity that is older than 70 years (management plan 2019–2023) and here too knowledge transfer takes place from father to son (personal communication with a rice farmer in 2017). Tourists, tour operators, and lodge holders are also users of the MUMA and in recent years the MUMA seems to become more of a tourist resort (personal communication with a fisherman in 2017). The tourists who visit the MUMA come for recreation, relaxation, and the birds. Bigi Pan MUMA is also often visited by students and school children, either for their practical experiences or for getting to know the area. The local police and game wardens sometimes carry out joint patrol activities in the MUMA (Djosetro and Behagel 2019). There is also a small group of fish processors who until 2017 used the branches of the black mangroves to smoke their fish and are now using tree substitutes to reduce the cutting of the black mangrove. There is land erosion at some places on the coastline of this MUMA. The Bigi Pan MUMA does not contain a residential area but has communities living close by.

3.1.4. Users in Noord Coronie MUMA

The Noord Coronie MUMA includes residential areas and in 2018 a concrete seawall was built to protect this local community from coastal erosion. This MUMA comprises many coconut trees and the District of Coronie is nationally known for the good quality of honey and coconut oil. Farmers, beekeepers, and fishermen are users of this MUMA. The traditional income-generation sources in this district include agriculture, cattle breeding, horticulture, fruit cultivation, beekeeping, and fisheries (Ministerie van Regionale Ontwikkeling 2017). In addition, the MUMA is used for hunting, birdwatching, recreation (visiting the concrete sea wall), grazing cows, and harvesting the black mangrove. Hunters are interested in birds and small mammals such as the capybara. Recreationists began to visit the concrete sea wall in early 2018 after the official opening. This concrete sea wall is close to the main east-west connecting road and can be reached by car and on foot.

3.1.5. Users in Noord Saramacca MUMA

The Noord Saramacca MUMA includes residential areas of the local community and various resource practices such as fishing in the Coppename River mouth, agriculture, hunting, and mining. There are two fruit and vegetable export companies in the Saramacca District. Boskamp, a small fishing community, consists of fishermen and fish processors who also use black mangroves for smoking their fish. According to some fishermen from Boskamp, hunters from outside the Saramacca District often visit the MUMA, mainly for its birds including the legally protected species. This MUMA is also a location for mining activities by the State Oil Company of Suriname (Staatsolie).

3.2. Local knowledge of the social-ecological subsystems

3.2.1. Local knowledge of the resource system

In all MUMAs, local knowledge about environmental changes came to the surface during participatory meetings. In the Bigi Pan MUMA, many fishermen argued that the ecological function of the nursery function, especially in the eastern part, is disturbed. The fishermen explained that the salty sea water and the freshwater from the Coronie swamp did not mix well to create the brackish water that is crucial for the development of the fish population and the mangrove forest. They also explained that the natural waterways were closed off by land acquisition and it is now more difficult for seawater to enter the MUMA, resulting in more fresh water in the MUMA. They argued that freshwater stimulates the growth of grass vegetation leading to closed waterways that make boat traffic more difficult, and as a result, fishermen were unable to go to certain fishing areas by boat. As one fisherman indicated:

In the past, many fishermen went to the eastern part of the Bigi Pan MUMA, but now there is no fish there anymore.

Another interviewee explained:

The community of Wageningen, located in Nickerie District, used to fish in the Eastern part of the Bigi Pan MUMA. In the past, you could see many cars along the East-West connecting road but now, you no longer see any cars there.

Users of the different MUMAs also indicated that the excess water could not drain during the rainy season due to poor water infrastructure. They argued that poor water management also had negative consequences for large-scale agriculture in the Bigi Pan MUMA, and the Noord Saramacca MUMA. Most of the agricultural area was flooded in the rainy season. The Noord Coronie MUMA also faced water problems and, according to some community members of Coronie, the freshwater swamp was hardly taken into account when constructing the concrete seawall. During the rainy season, most of the agricultural area was flooded and rice production in these lands became a major challenge. Users of all three MUMAs proposed the development and implementation of a water management plan for their district. This proposal was made part of the 2019–2023 management plans for the Bigi Pan MUMA, Noord Coronie MUMA, and Noord Saramacca MUMA.

In addition to identifying environmental changes, local knowledge has informed the mapping of the localized fishing areas in the western part of the Bigi Pan MUMA via a local fisherman who has extensive knowledge of the environment of this site (Djosetro and Behagel 2019). The boat of the research team followed the fisherman’s boat to various localized areas where the research team took the coordinates with a global positioning system (GPS) device. Most fishermen fished in the areas around Bigi Pan because they do not have knowledge about the locations of all fishing areas. Moreover, some fishermen asserted that the local management agencies also do not know the locations of all fishing areas.

Another map was made based on local knowledge about coastal birds and shorebirds in the Bigi Pan MUMA. Some hunters had indicated that they knew the bird species that occur in the Bigi Pan MUMA and the locations where the birds can be found. These hunters asserted that during the rainy season, many species can be seen at low tide on the muddy shores along the coast. They also explained how migratory birds migrate from the coast to land areas of the MUMA – places that are dry and contain mud – during the dry season. Not only the hunters but also some of the fishermen knew the locations of the birds in the Bigi Pan MUMA. The locations pointed out on the map by these hunters and fishermen are in the process of being confirmed by the LBB via an aerial and ground survey of birds and is also of value for international bird experts, who count birds, among other things, for the assessment of the abundance and distribution of migratory bird species.

3.2.2. Local knowledge about individual resource units

Engagement with multiple users of the Bigi Pan MUMA has revealed that they were concerned about the pollution of water caused by the tourism industry. Water treatment in this area did not take place and many were concerned about an outbreak of a disease. Local users are also concerned about plastic trash that is visible at the edge of the mangrove forest and it leads to irregularities in the ecosystem (personal communication with a fisherman in 2017). Some users proposed the development of a nature tourism plan and guidelines applicable to this MUMA to maintain the ecosystem services. This proposal is now part of the management plan for the Bigi Pan MUMA and also for the Noord Coronie MUMA because of the development of tourism in this area.

Local knowledge about conditions for honey production also came up during discussions. Beekeepers of Coronie District indicated that the quality of the honey is influenced by the vegetation. One beekeeper explained:

The flowers of the black mangrove on the southern side of the seawall have no nectar that the bees need.

They explained that black mangrove usually is good for producing high-quality honey. A beekeeper explained that Triplaris surinamensis forest is also used for honey production but gives a different honey flavor. A concern of a beekeeper is that the construction of the concrete seawall that was completed in 2018 might have an impact on the black mangroves of the southern side of the seawall and proposed to investigate the impact of the concrete seawall on the environment. This proposal has been included in the management plan of the Noord Coronie MUMA.

3.2.3. Local knowledge about the governance system

Local knowledge did not only concern resource systems and units but also the governance system (GS) and led to a proposal to make the local LBB office operational again at Boskamp, in the Saramacca District. Some community members of Boskamp had indicated that hunters from outside the Boskamp community also visited the MUMA and for them, the gunshots were indicators of shooting at bird species, including protected species. They argued that the hunting activities in the MUMA can be better regulated by a local post. They did not like the fact that the birds were often hunted, and the presence of a local post might prevent the hunters from shooting protected bird species. The proposal for a local post is now also supported by the Head of the local government of Saramacca.

Engagement with the stakeholders of the Coronie District has revealed that the discussion and development of regulations for the sustainable harvesting of black mangroves for smoking fish are an important topic of governance and therefore part of the action plan of the Noord Coronie MUMA management plan. Some users were concerned about the cutting of the black mangroves in this district because of their value to coastal protection and honey production, which provides an income for many beekeepers in this district. In addition, for all three districts in which the MUMAs are located, the focus is placed on education and awareness regarding the value of mangrove forests for biodiversity and coastal protection. The development and execution of an integrated awareness program is part of the three coastal MUMA action plans and is necessary to highlight the importance of the wetland ecosystem services.

Finally, many stakeholders of the Nickerie District stated that all visitors should make a financial contribution to the maintenance and management of the Bigi Pan MUMA. This proposal was made based on two concerns: Firstly, there is no governmental budget for the maintenance of the Jamaer canal and creeks within the MUMA and secondly, the number of visitors – mainly tourists – who visited this MUMA has increased considerably over the last eight years. Some users were concerned that the concentration of many fishermen in one single fishing area was leading not only to conflict but also to overfishing. The maintenance of waterways within the MUMA could solve this problem. Another concern is the disturbance that can result from tourism affecting the water quality of the MUMA. These stakeholders argued that a legal basis is necessary to collect the entrance fee so that all visitors can adhere to it. The collected fee can be used for the management of the MUMA and enforcement of pollution prevention regulations. Developing legislation to collect entrance fees/revenues for the Bigi Pan MUMA is therefore now part of its action plan.

3.3. Community engagement in management planning

During community engagement processes and the interviews, we found that local resource users and local management agencies held a broad range of opinions about community engagement in management planning. Moreover, the themes identified by participants reflect how the interactions between different social-ecological subsystems, especially between users and the governance system, are developing over time. These themes are discussed below.

3.3.1. Collaboration

A culture of collaboration between users and government agencies is becoming visible in the MUMAs. An exceptional example was when the natural dam (sand ridge) in the Bigi Pan MUMA broke in 2017. Fishermen and tour operators provided transport and lodging to various government agencies to do orientation visits in the MUMA (Djosetro and Behagel 2019). This kind of collaborative action prevented high financial costs and also saved time. Instead of waiting for formal decisions on budgets and other matters, management actions could be immediately undertaken due to the support of the resource users.

3.3.2. Exchange of information

Some of the stakeholders argued that the more local people are involved in management planning, the more complete the local context is captured. The management planning process of the MUMAs made it possible for local people to also become more aware of various developments in their district. In this way, the planning process can be seen as social learning, both about the MUMA and the larger district, where local concerns are brought in, but where regional issues are also discussed.

3.3.3. Clarification of issues

Many of the respondents did not understand certain aspects of management, for example, the game calendar. Planning in collaboration with communities offered the opportunity for community members to ask for clarification about such issues or rules that are unclear to them. A respondent also explained that he could teach his children about the rules for nature conservation if he understands what the rules mean. In addition, engagement with local communities led to a better understanding of other issues as well, for example, what is practically allowed regarding land use in a MUMA and how a MUMA differs from a Nature Reserve.

3.3.4. Voicing concerns and needs

It is not common for local people to express their opinions and feelings regarding the management of the MUMAs. At the same time, the local people were of the opinion that the government must listen to their concerns and needs. They argue that taking protective measures for the environment is good and that local people are also willing to use natural resources wisely, but the government should also be aware of what is happening in the locality (personal communication with a local government officer in 2018). Through the community engagement process, local people were happy to have the opportunity to express their concerns and needs and that their voices were considered.

3.3.5. Monitoring user behavior in MUMAs

Some local people were concerned about unsustainable practices in the MUMAs and did not know exactly what to do if they observed people who are not following the rules. They claimed that if local people were involved in management, they would have learned how to deal with non-compliance issues. According to a Noord Coronie MUMA user:

If I warned people right away, the response would be — who are you? Do you play police? I will report to LBB now if there is something. There is now a person from the District who works for LBB.

In the Saramacca District, the residents did take action and told outsiders that they are not allowed to shoot at the birds and monkeys in the area. According to the Game Law 1954 and Game Resolution 2002, some coastal bird species and monkey species of Suriname are protected. A user explained:

In the past, Chinese people came here to shoot parrots and howler monkeys. The residents have stopped that. When they see Chinese people, the residents tell them not to shoot at the animals. Now the Chinese people are not coming anymore. There are many parrots in this area and also a group of the howler monkeys is still here.

In the Nickerie District, some resource users of the Bigi Pan MUMA claimed that everyone knows that the local LBB had a limited budget and could not respond quickly when they received a tip. Still, the people from Nickerie did not approach the violators of the law themselves but called the local LBB office and sometimes the police.

In general, the local communities of the three districts were aware that government agencies do not have sufficient resources to regularly conduct patrols to safeguard resources in the MUMAs. The resource users are the ones who are frequently in the field and believe they can help with the implementation of management activities and enforcement of rules. However, the resource users have not been involved in the management and planning of the resource systems in the past. All stakeholders agreed that local communities should be involved in MUMA management planning.

3.3.6. Time of engagement

Stakeholder interviews revealed that the right timing of participatory meetings is important, especially for group interviews. Many of the fishermen of Boskamp, a small fishing community in the Saramacca District, could not attend the first meeting because they were fishing in the river at the moment the meeting was held. A participant from the group interview asked the project team to take into account the working hours of the fishing community for the next meeting. The project team was advised to hold the next meeting at a certain time of the day when many people can participate.

3.3.7. Language

Many languages were used to ensure that the local community, which consists of different ethnic groups, understood the purpose of participatory meetings. Using languages that the local people speak is important, especially when people feel in advance (for historical reasons) that the government is there to limit their use practices in the MUMA. For example, at the beginning of the Boskamp meeting, the project team felt the tension and people looked very seriously. Gradually, people started to relax being able to speak their language, and the end of the meeting became interactive. After the talks, the fishermen and fish processors showed a willingness to contribute to nature conservation and during the meeting, they made proposals to address environmental issues.

4. Discussion

4.1. The contribution of local knowledge to management decisions

Our study confirms community engagement and the integration of local knowledge in management go hand-in-hand when improving the management of protected areas (Ogawa et al. 2021). In our study, we found that integrating local knowledge of users into management planning through processes of engagement helped consider the needs and perspectives of these users and not only their knowledge of the SES (cf. Warburton and Martin 1999; Gavin et al. 2015). In the past, local communities were not involved and local knowledge had not contributed to the development of management plans for MUMAs in Suriname. Previous plans mainly concerned the ecological functions of the managed areas and did not take into account use practices. In contrast, the management plans for the western MUMAs 2019–2023 that followed this research have explicitly integrated local needs and considerations into planning. Communication with members of the communities has moreover provided the opportunity to recognize and learn from local knowledge. Integrating local knowledge helped overcome management challenges, for example wood extraction from black mangrove forests, that management agencies alone could not handle, both for practical reasons and because legitimate local decision-making requires broad support at the local level.

We found that the inclusion of local knowledge of different knowledge holders, when not limited to knowledge of a certain group alone (i.e. only users, only local government officials, or only scientists), supports a transdisciplinary approach that can inform new knowledge creation (Lam et al. 2020). When updating the management plans of the individual MUMAs as part of action research, local social-environmental problems as brought to the fore by local users and local management authorities were taken as the starting point for not only understanding environmental change, but also for achieving better management via a concrete action plan. In the future, bridging of knowledge systems – local knowledge enhanced with scientific research – for example on changes in mangrove forests, will lead to new insights and knowledge production for SESs governance in relation to biodiversity and ecosystem management. This is important for social learning for both the local community and researchers (Tengö et al. 2017).

Our results show that by considering local knowledge as an integral part of the social-ecological system, such knowledge adds direct value to management planning and conservation outcomes (cf. Henderson and Nakamoto 2016). A good example is how local knowledge about the different fishing areas helped both fishermen and governmental agencies via the production of fishery maps that relieve user pressures from specific fishing areas near the coast. In addition, local knowledge plays an important role in describing the environmental changes of the western MUMAs in the absence of scientific reports (the Republic of Suriname 2019). Documentation of these changes can help to capture a better understanding of the past situation in the MUMA compared to now. In many cases around the world, local observations of the environment have moreover been shown to be valuable to management planning (Moller et al. 2004) and to some extent accurate as well, especially when combined with scientific monitoring data (Pratihast et al. 2014).

4.2. Importance of local community engagement in nature conservation

We found that engagement with the local communities has provided insight into the different values and functions that communities attribute to participatory meetings and natural resource management, including preferences and priorities of the local communities for governance (Lynam et al. 2007). It is only through communication with the local communities that we understand the meaning behind their practices in the western MUMAs (Lee 1991). Lee (1991) states that the same human action can have different meanings for different people and for the observing scientist. Understanding why, for example, some fishermen of Boskamp did not attend the first meeting was important to adjust the time of engagement to reach the entire Boskamp fishing community. Communication is useful, among other things, to map the priorities and needs of the local community. Stolton et al. (2021) also argue that addressing economic needs is an important management facet. Knowing the economic drivers behind the resource users’ behavior can help capture the complexity of the situation and make decisions that match the local context.

The individual actions that are part of the updated management plans are necessary to solve some of conservation challenges the three MUMAs face. Including users and stakeholders is key to making sure those actions are also carried out. We found that the engagement with users and stakeholders has provided an opportunity not only to learn from their practical experiences., but also to identify relevant governance interventions. For example, the decision to set up a consultation committee for the Bigi Pan MUMA was broadly supported by different MUMA user groups and is therefore part of the action plan. Several studies have shown that decisions that are supported by the local communities will lead to the achievement of their conservation goals (Tàbara and Pahl-Wostl 2007; Ban et al. 2013). In this way, the local community evolves from being a ‘target population’ to an ‘active participant’ influencing local decision-making (Prell et al. 2009).

5. Conclusion

At the time of writing this paper, the management plans for three western coastal protected areas Bigi Pan MUMA, Noord Coronie MUMA, and Noord Saramacca MUMA have been revised and the action plans of these MUMAs are in the process of being implemented. The results of this study suggest that local knowledge has contributed to policy decisions that are connected to the use practices and needs of local people. The inclusion of local knowledge through participatory drafting of management plans has moreover contributed to overcoming some major management challenges, including a lack of local enforcement capacity.

The inclusion of local communities and local knowledge in conservation planning is not a given, even when community engagement has been advocated in research and policy domains for several decades now (Reed 2008; Kothari et al. 2013). We found that our approach to participatory action research, as is reported in this paper, played a major role in influencing policy decisions in nature conservation in Suriname. To do so, the first author needed to overcome some doubts in the Surinamese policy environment to have the new management plans for the three MUMAs acknowledged as valid and as informed by legitimate knowledge. While current academic debate may offer much support for the legitimacy, validity, and credibility of local and traditional knowledge (cf. Tengö et al. 2017), management and planning of nature conservation often remains resistant to this, with some notable exceptions (cf. Matuk et al. 2020).

We found that action research methods help recognize the interactions between different resource users living and working in a given region, and can steer interactions between ecological (SES resource units) and socio-cultural subsystems (SES users) (Toomey et al. 2016) toward sustainable outcomes. It is through action research that local and other forms of knowledge emerge in a planning context and provide insight into both the ecological and social environment. This approach gives the local community a voice in presenting their situation and offers solutions that can contribute to solving problems (Warburton and Martin 1999) and that are included in management planning via tangible action plans.

It is important that nature conservation policy and management planning consider impacts on local communities and find a balance between ecological and socio-economic imperatives (Bown et al. 2013). We find that individual management actions informed by local knowledge that are part of larger management plans are a good way to achieve such a balance. Including local knowledge in the sustainable management and governance of natural resources is key to creating ownership among resource users. Moreover, involving local users may attract external funding (UNDP 2019; Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act 2021) and has the advantage that it is a more cost-effective way to monitor environmental values (Danielsen et al. 2014). Another result of integrating local knowledge into management plans is that its implementation is actively supported by local resource users and the local government of the districts in which the Multiple Use Management Areas are located.

To conclude, we point out that increasing social and environmental pressure on natural resources requires new forms of governance to increase adaptive management capacity (Olsson et al. 2004; Folke et al. 2005) and to build a supportive social environment for conservation. Although calls for the inclusion of local knowledge are not new, in practice we see that management based on scientific values continues to dominate in many regions, including in Suriname until only recently. The inclusion of local knowledge via community engagement should therefore continue to be advocated for by both researchers and policymakers, and especially those who are both. Only when there is understanding and learning about local practices that are both supported by engagement with local users, can proper actions be taken to solve social and environmental challenges.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).