Can a balance be found between conservation and development? Or are solutions doomed to an endless see-saw ride, tilting in favour of plants and animals one day? And people and communities the next?

Imagine living in one of the poorest countries in the world. Imagine it is blessed with virgin rainforests, lowland gorillas and elephants. You live in the forest with your family. They and you are hungry.

Your wife and children know as well as you that the local gorillas make good food. And excellent money if sold. But conservationists working in the region warn you not to kill the animals because they are on the verge of extinction. Guards make sure you don't enter the areas of the forest set aside for the endangered species.

So what do you do? Ignore the warnings, risk imprisonment so you can hunt down the gorilla to feed your family?

Or do you spare its life, and let your family go hungry?

This scenario is not unknown in the Central African Republic. Admittedly, the example overlooks many complex issues. But as a snapshot, it captures the dilemma of balancing human needs with environmental needs.

Twenty years ago, attempts to resolve this dilemma were carried out under the banner of Integrated Conservation and Development (ICDP). At the time, considerable faith was placed in ICD and its potential to enhance both the riches of the forest and the wealth of the people.

Today, ICD approaches have lost much of their status as a panacea.

So, is environmentally sustainable economic development an oxymoron? Are conservation and development mutually exclusive?

Nowhere are these questions more vexing than in landscapes where an excess of human poverty and a wealth of biodiversity exist side-by-side.

It is in this context where complex and challenging trade-offs have to be made between the welfare of the environment and the welfare of the people.

According to CIFOR's Cameroon-based researcher, Marieke Sandker, to ensure these trade-offs succeed it is necessary to understand how local people relate to their environment.

Says Sandker, "I think we've all seen how economic development can trample over the environment. But there are also many examples of conservation efforts ignoring people's food security."

Sandker says conversation and development are not always mutually exclusive, as seen in environmental service payments and ecotourism.

Creating a strategy that benefits both forests and people requires a good understanding of how the many aspects of conservation and development interact with each other.

An eye for the options

Finding the right balance requires a clear picture of the conservation and development options available. To assist with this CIFOR has developed a visioning tool (see a balanced view).

By using CIFOR's visioning tool, people can share their view of the landscape's future. They can test different land-use strategies and find possible options for balancing conservation and development , Sandker says.

CIFOR has made good use of its visioning tool in Tri National de la Sangha, on the borders of Cameroon, the Republic of Congo and the Central African Republic. The border zone's rich biodiversity is home to some of the world's most exotic animals, including elephants, gorillas and chimpanzee. At the same time, 80% of households in the region earn less than $1 a day. Significantly, 20% of this comes from hunting.

Using CIFOR's visioning tool, local forestry representatives worked with CIFOR to build a model that explored how various natural resource management strategies affected the local elephant population and average household income in Tri National de la Sangha. The visioning exercise indicated that elephants and households would most benefit in the long-term by focusing on improving governance than on better or more anti-poaching measures.

For example, local communities are meant to receive 50% of the taxes paid by logging and safari companies to hunt animals and extract forest resources. But this money gets smaller and smaller as it moves down the bureaucratic chain towards the communities, where whatever remains is invested in development projects.

By using the visionary tools officials can identify the kinds of support strategies each planning option may require. In the above example, these may include training people in more effective accountability and transparent management practices. Or they might include campaigns to increase people's understanding of how caring for local resources can lead to increased tax-generated income.

Neither Sandker nor CIFOR suggest visioning produces flawless predictions. All the precise science in the world can never predict with absolute certainty the future of a forest or rural landscape. Some variables defy prediction – an act of God, a global economic downturn, or a sudden change in the surrounding political environment. But CIFOR's visioning tool can work with many of the known variables and help land planners make decisions more likely to benefit both forests and people. JR, MS