However, the weight of orthodoxy and the weaknesses observed at this level discussed below have led us to suggest a complementary approach in section 5.3.1 of this report. From the ethical point of view, eco-swap seems to imply that village communities are not aware of the need to manage natural resources sustainably and that they must be compelled to move in this direction in return for project attention to their immediate needs. This generalization appears hasty, to say the least. While it is true that farmers are not always free of blame for environmental degradation, it is just as possible to find places where farmers have guaranteed and continue to guarantee natural resource conservation. This study shows that, contrary to the commonly accepted view that villagers are responsible for deforestation, areas around villages are in fact patches of woodland replanted over time by the villagers themselves and not at the instigation of outside agents.
Negotiation is thus unbalanced from the start.
Here again, we come up against the notion of unequal power in the negotiating process, which affects the chances of carrying out activities successfully. The net result was that only 200 seedlings survived. In short, neither the villagers nor the project came out of the operation with any credit. The foregoing also shows that the use of eco-swap involves a very great risk of harming relationships between the project and villagers . Finally, this short-term focus is not conducive to approaching activities from the standpoint of management capacity or replicating experience.