Power, Empowerment and Social Capital in Shaping Community-Based Conservation

Power, Empowerment and Social Capital in Shaping Community-Based Conservation
Diana K. Guzmn Coln, MS Candidate College of Agriculture and Natural Resources Michigan State University 13 Natural Resources Building East Lansing, MI 48823 diana.ecorevo@gmail.com
Create PDF files without this message by purchasing novaPDF printer (http://www.novapdf.com)
Outline I. II. Introduction. A significant number of community -based conservation projects fail when implemented. What are the factors that could account for success? Community-based conservation A. History and Important Assumptions B. Critiques Power and Empowerment Theories A. Power To, Power Over and Decentralization B. Role of Institutions C. Empowerment via participation D. Traps and Problems Social Capital within communities a. Definitions b. Aspects and Forms c. Approach Thriving Projects a. Zambia b. Philippines c. Costa Rica Conclusion
III.
IV.
V.
VI.
I.
Introduction
Community-based conservation was proposed as a means to integrate environmental conservation and economic development as means to alleviate environmental problems in a certain area and provide a source of income especially for poor communities. But a significant number of community based conservation projects have failed in the long term when implemented (Bryant, 1998; McShane & Wells, 2004; Pollini, 2011). There is a consensus among scholars that there is no single factor that could account for the disappointment involved in these conservation projects. Much criticism implicates a lack of realistic and relevant goals as the main cause of project discontinuation. Many point out a disinterest in decentralization of power and resources, which in turn, adds the issue of social justice to the projects. In developing countries most of these programs are funded by international organizations. These organizations often try to apply a planned agenda which contains generic objectives and deadlines. Time allotted to the development of conservation projects was another criticism commonly found in literature. By having strict deadlines, implementation takes place without a thorough study for the implications of the project for the environment and the community. There are a few projects that take into consideration the actual needs of the community. Few case studies explore the areas of community power before the project, empowerment through the project via capacity building, or social capital among the members of the community(McShane & Wells, 2004). The concept of community is in itself a broad topic with many definitions, defining what placebased community is poses a large challenge for implementing such big conservation projects. Engaging people in the local community and having a process of participatory research could help ameliorate the burden of a broad concept, instead of having a global how to do list that is not consistent with specifics areas environmental ethics, traditional ecological knowledge, environmental history, political ecology, ecological economics, etc. This paper gives a brief history of the concept of community-based
conservation and its attempt to integrate this kind of project with development, the theories of power and empowerment, and social capital. This paper will discuss three different case studies in Zambia, Philippines, and Costa Rica and how theories or terms such as community empowerment, community power, social capital, traditional ecological knowledge and capacity building played a role in shaping a community-based conservation project. II. Community-Based Environmental Projects
In North America, during the Progressive era of early 20th century, Muirs model was adopted as a means for conservation for several decades. Conservation strategies during that time did not to include people living in and depending on forest areas that were planned to be closed down for protection, instead, they were forced to leave their lands(Bates, 1960). That model was called Fortress or colonial conservation. At the same time, international conservation agencies funded projects with the Western idea of nature separated from culture for these areas to remain pristine. By the 1980s, concerns about the rapid decline in biodiversity and depletion of resources were still growing, especially in developing countries. Global outcry for social and ecological justice, protests and subsequent dialogue with local communities helped create a new conservation concept termed community-based conservation(McShane & Wells, 2004). Under this new term international institutions such as
International Union for Conservation of Nature recognized the rights of indigenous people to have access to these protected areas to help sustain their livelihoods, hence the aim of community-based conservation is having a co-management strategy that it could serve to alleviate extraction of natural resources, boost biodiversity, and give way to sustainable development projects. The concept of community-based conservation has taken several forms and names throughout the years. Conservation organizations have developed programs like Integrated Conservation and Development Projects, People-Centered Conservation and Development, Community-based natural resource management, Community wildlife management (CWM), and Grassroots conservation. All have
a similar goal which is to promote biodiversity conservation and providing economic sustainability via tourism, sustainable agriculture and general sustenance. There has been a remarkable success for some projects, but unfortunately there is a higher number that have failed. The theory does not necessarily translate into practice, but it is only a cosmetic label for funding (Nelson & Wright, 1995). The assumptions and objectives in which these projects are rooted are as follows : (McShane & Wells, 2004). Assumptions: By having diversified local livelihoods, human pressure will be less on biodiversity, leading to improved conservation. Local people and their practices, rather than external factors constitute the most important threat to biodiversity. Community-based conservation and its derivatives offer sustainable alternatives to traditional protectionist approaches to protected area management. Objectives: Poverty alleviation. Under the argument that raising peoples income will decrease environmental degradation and protect the environment. Improved social organization. The project should help poor nations and poor people to manage their own natural resources through improved social organization. Social change can lead to socioeconomic development without environmental degradation. Social equity and justice. Equity should be provided by political systems that secure citizen participation. The assumptions pose severe constraints that are bound for project failure if not addressed in depth by the agency or organization proposing the project. By increasing living standards in local communities the pressure on biodiversity might increase by the higher demand for meat and other products. New development could influence in-migration and can further segregate marginalized groups, and reduce the revenues from development projects, resulting in reduced expectations and support from local communities(McShane & Wells, 2004; Wainwright & Wehrmeyer, 1998). Another flaw from these
assumptions is that the real root causes of biodiversity loss are not well identified, and assumptions that local people and their land use is the sole cause of biodiversity loss. This is a generalization that can affect the success of the project. Criticism also lies on the implementers when there is a pre-conceived notion that the skills required to participate in a community-based management program are already in place(Nelson & Wright, 1995). Capacity building and local organization is often lacking from these programs, or if theres one, it is often focused on technical activities rather than managerial or organizational. Often, capacity building comes with good institutional support from governments and donor agencies. Funding agencies however, cannot assume that governments have the capacity and interest to support conservations projects as many are not willing to turn responsibility to the communities(Nelson & Wright, 1995). Regularly, funding organizations wont deal with the governments when it seems necessary, political stability is beyond the scope of community based conservation and is more than often one the causes for collapse of the projects. In the case of communities, there is an issue of trust; trust is something that cannot be obtained over a short period of time, and a good implementation plan needs time for evaluation and trust building. But time builds on communitys patience and lowers any high expectations the community had for the project. One of the most important constraints is the funding from donor agencies and implementing organizations. Many projects need continued funding and dont have an exit strategy beforehand, which leaves them with limitations for 3 to 5 years when the funding runs out(McShane & Wells, 2004). With this, great amounts of money are spent and little impact is made on these communities, implementation is focused on tasks-results rather than adaptive learning for an adaptive management plan. By empowering communities via the process of governance, capacity building, education over adaptive management, they are more prone to resilience over a radical change in politics and a bigger voice power over decision making. III. Power and Empowerment
The concept of power has been under debate since the 60s in the United States(Waste, 1986), but there are agreements as of how power could be transferred from a dominant group to the powerless. Power can be seen as access to natural resources, control over decisions and the right to dispose of
products(Bryant, 1998; Nelson & Wright, 1995). The concept has as an objective to have a generalized capacity of social systems to get things done in the interest of collective goals. There are currently three models for power: power to, power over, and decentralization(Nelson & Wright, 1995; Raik, Wilson, & Decker, 2008). Power to is how power is present in multiple and heterogeneous social relations, while power over is the access to decision making, the power that A has over B, power over can be a coercive force centered on government institutions. Power over is held by the ruling class, while power to is a process of empowerment given to the powerless from this ruling class. When a shift in power occurs from one group to another, a process of decentralization occurs and power is equally divided among the classes. Consensus among community-based conservation projects critics is that a process of
decentralization is necessary for participation from the local community to occur(McShane & Wells, 2004; Raik et al., 2008). However, it is often seen that any notion of empowerment given by one group to another hides an attempt to keep control, thus a complete shift of power never occurs. Like any other management strategy, shifts in power should not be attempted blindly(Tew, 2002). Ideally, reaching a local consensus on resource use and investments via negotiation is a way for transferring control of projects from state to local community. This shift of power from government to community is not often seen as the biggest challenge for the projects, it is ensuring that the government will be responsive to the needs of groups(Nelson & Wright, 1995). It is important to, once again, have in mind that before attempting to shift power in a system, the basis of existing and future institutions has to be understood. Waste (1986) and other scholars have indicated that a transfer of power should not to be given to individuals but to specific institutions. The creation of local institutions is broad field in sociology, with a number of theories that go beyond this paper, but the basis of institutions are of utmost importance for the implementation of projects and decentralization of power in communities. One example are Nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), which are institutions commonly involved in community-based conservation programs and play a major role in promoting participation, cooperation, consultation, action and information sharing (Nelson & Wright, 1995). Most of these organizations provide a non-autocratic approach and work at a grassroots level with community members.
Empowering the communities through participation gives them a perception of being an autonomous agent(Zimmerman, Israel, Schulz, & Checkoway, 1992). Empowering via participation depends on the willingness of external institutions to give up some of their existing power and allow the community to collaborate and make decisions at a local level. For this to happen it has been suggested that organizations take a form of participatory research called Participatory Rural Appraisal approach, considered successful by many international development organizations and several Non-Governmental organizations (NGO)(Nelson & Wright, 1995). Participatory Rural Appraisal objectives are to take into account traditional and local ecological knowledge from the community to management programs, and it highly encourages participation from individuals that would benefit (or be affected) by conservation projects(Wainwright & Wehrmeyer, 1998). Usually in PRA, the role if the planner is to provide capacity building, inspire confidence among the member of the community and provide assistance within their own professional knowledge. Ensuring the stimulation for participation among community members starts with the behaviors and attitudes of the organizers and community leaders. Frequently, taking the mentality of they participate in our project, is less of an incentive for communities than we participate on their project. Active engagement and attitudes of organizers on the local community is crucial on the early stages of a project. The process of empowering via participation on a PRA starts with appraisal, and then continues on with planning and later experimentation setting up a future project implementation via planning and experimenting with the proposal from the community to later implement these ideas on the project and then monitor and evaluate. Being able to monitor and evaluate should be part of what the community is able to do with capacity building received from the experts for knowing how to self-monitor these projects(Garcia & Lescuyer, 2008). After the project is implemented the community is expected to spread this knowledge to their peers. Of course there are many agents and events during the process that will spark debate, thus no consensus arises. All these steps dont happen in a short period of time and several of them take longer than others. Keeping the community interested during this period from planning to implementation is a topic that still has to be studied.
Placing guidelines on how to carry out a conservation project in a community could be oversimplifying the process if the desire is to have the community participate. The suggestions on PRA are a good starting point for community involvement but the organizing institutions have to ask themselves, what is the purpose of participation? Is it used as an end or as means to improve project effectiveness? As an end to get more funding associated to this label, or as means to empower and establish an effective conservation plan? Nelson and Wright (1995) have identified some of the traps and problems associated with empowerment via participation. The first is an upper to upper bias where the only interaction in the community is done by the local elite and project managers or funding agencies, without taking into consideration the needs of the poorest. This result in a project that does not address the concerns of the whole community and their needs are misrepresented by a group with power. The second problem is that rushing the methods inevitably leads to failure on facilitating an ongoing process of participation and empowerment. The third is a lack of power transfer and/or relations from the implementing agencies to the community. Often the lack of this transfer occurs from the government towards the community, in this case most organizations wont take assertive steps to get involved. The fourth setting up rigid rules when in reality the factors that affects the implementation of and the project itself can change at any time. Setting up a conservation project can be unpredictable process and if the implementers wont adopt an adaptive planning method, the project will ultimately fail and lack participation (McShane & Wells, 2004). The fifth is setting unrealistic objectives and goals that would look attractive for funding agencies, governments, and members of the community. Having people in the community participate in a conservation project could be risky because of the challenge to the local power structure. Nevertheless, empowering the community via participation and capacity building can give the community the power to negotiate with the power over. IV. Capital
Social capital has become a popular theory in Sociology literature since the late 1980s (Svendsen & Svendsen, 2009). In a broad sense it deals with topics of the creation of networks, collective action, set of rules in a community, trust, and reciprocity. The concept itself has varying definitions since it was first developed (Table 1). The incorporation of social capital evaluations in community-based conservation has
been hindered by the lack of research on how to better quantify social capital. (Nguyen Ngoc, Dwivedi, Rossi, Alavalapati, & Thapa, 2011)It is difficult to quantify individual experiences and ways of reflecting personalities, relationships, and power and privileges. It seems that it is easier to evaluate the capital in local institutions among the communities rather than evaluating individuals. But that again is a biased option because it might not take into consideration the perceptions all members of the community have towards their own institutions or the conservation project per se. Nevertheless, (Nguyen Ngoc et al., 2011) points out that indication of greater social capital within a community help in ensuring positive attitudes and better outcomes.
Author Bourdeu
Date 1983
Definition Made up of social obligations that can be convertible into economic capital and may be institutionalized in the forms of a title of nobility Relations between and among actors that encourage productivity. This could act as resources for individuals to realize their personal interests. Given by trust, set of norms and networks which can improve social relations that lead to working effectively towards common goals and benefits. Degree of social cohesion in communities. It refers to a process. Between people that establish networks, norms and social trust, and facilitates coordination and cooperation for mutual benefit. It is an interaction between both: Between those individuals that interact through systems that enhance and support, and those behaviors that are predictable and mutually beneficial.
Coleman
1988
Putnam
1993
World Trade Organization
1998
Petersen
2002
Table 1. Definitions of social capital through the years, from different researchers. Adapted from Egger 2007.
In terms of community-based conservations Putnams definition is how best exemplifies the way social capital should be present at the time of project implementation. There are four central aspects inside the concept of social capital on this definition (Pretty & Ward, 2001) : (a) Relations of trust (b) Reciprocity and Trust (c) Common rules, norms, and sanctions
(d) Connectedness, networks, and groups Additional to these four central aspects of social capital, Woolcock and Narayan (2000) made a distinction between three forms of capital, bonding, bridging and linking. Bonding capital refers to the ties among people on the same situation (family, friends and close neighbors), bridging capital are the more distant ties such as loose friendships and co-workers, and linking which reaches out to different people on different situations who are away from the community (this enables community members to take advantage of other resources not available to them). The central aspects are crucial components for each of the forms of capital. Usually reinforcing social capital in a community is easier from a local level from bonding escalating to linking capital, but given that some projects are planned for areas that have different tribes, getting these communities to trust each other, reciprocate, follow common norms, and share a connectedness might seems more difficult. One of the many important reasons for addressing social capital is that, in bridging capital for example, groups can be highly capable of resolving conflicts through mediation and negotiation (Sanginga, Kamugisha, & Martin, 2007)). Information and knowledge sharing among individuals in the community can be a method for enhancing trust. Methods such as the previously mentioned PRA are excellent in providing mechanism for individuals in the communities to familiarize themselves with each other. Workshops and other group activities can be utilized to enhance social cohesion, commitment, and support for projects. Having levels of social capital, nevertheless, is not the only resource managers have for increasing trust and better resolve conflicts. For example, in the southwestern highlands of Uganda, Sanginga et al. (2007) studied that combining local policies and social capital in a positive way resulted in improved agreements and conflicts among community members were minimized. Combining different strategies for social cohesion was called the synergy approach by Woolcock and Narayan (2000)
V.
Thriving Community-Based Conservation Projects
Accounting for all the different types or names given to community-based conservation projects, there are a few around the world that have overcome tedious processes, political turmoil, lack of funding, lack of participation and centralization of power. Pulling all the factors, actors, stakeholders and
funding together does not involve a linear process; it may even take more than a decade for the projects to finally be deemed somewhat successful at accomplishing some of its goals. In analyzing the following projects one could understand the roles that empowerment, participation, social capital and decentralization of power played in each one. It is important to keep in mind that every country has a different history, culture, perceptions, and even regions within countries differ from one another, reiterating that having realistic goals for each region instead of a to do list is the best starting approach for any project. Not all projects applied every single theory and recommendation from critics, however, there are some strategies that overlap among the different projects. I chose to discuss three projects from different countries, each project implemented for different reasons and for different outcomes. Zambia: In East Zambia, South Luangwa National Park was created in 1988. The project established adopted the name of Luangwa Integrated Resource Development Project (LIRDP), and it was very similar to a number of other projects that also started in the 80s with the international concept of communitybased conservation. The Norwegian government has had a partnership with the Zambian government since 1965, providing funding for poverty alleviation and fighting against corruption in the government (Dalal-Clayton, Dalal-Clayton, & Child, 2003). Under President Kaundas administration during the decade of the 1980s the park adopted the concept of integrating the community as co-managers (Child & Barnes, 2010). The main source of income for the community surrounding the park was agriculture, which often provided low yields with little opportunity to benefit economically and thus putting pressure on wildlife for bush meat. Poaching was the main issue for the park managers and the decline in wildlife affected one other source of income: safari hunting (Wainwright & Wehrmeyer, 1998). Thus
the main goal for the project was providing an alternative livelihood through managing a safari hunting business and spreading knowledge about wildlife in order to decrease current threats. Transfer of Power One of the goals for the program was giving the community autonomy over certain areas of the park. Government devolved property rights over land, making the community responsible for tasks such as law enforcement, maintenance of local institutions and some of the finances. At first, the project was funded by the government and donor country, but had an escape plan for this kind of model. Between the countrys government and the Norwegian government they developed and transition plan from dependence to self-sustainable form of profit, which was the conservation project through the safari and hunting business. Under this project 60% of all income went to management and maintenance of institutions and 40% went directly to the community (schools, housing, hospitals, etc) (Wainwright & Wehrmeyer, 1998). Government officials utilized Participatory Rural Appraisal and surveys to monitor the needs and effectiveness of management strategies in the community. On the survey by Wainwright and
Wehrmeyer (1998) only 10% had an understanding of what LIRDP was, but nevertheless the projects philosophy (community engaging in wildlife conservation) was understood. Another interesting finding was that 70% of the surveyed felt that poaching had decreased and 47% thinks that wildlife is more important now than what it was before the project. A form of social capital: An interesting fact about this project is that it works under no legislation. All agreements are made verbally (Child & Barnes, 2010). Although not directly accounted for as empirical data by studies,
by not having any laws that make the community comply with the rules and procedures in this project there has to be a degree of trust among the community members.
Figure 1. Chiefdoms in and around South Luangwa National Park.
Remarks Although the approach of LIRDP was one that we can categorize as Top-Down due to the way the project was implemented (Government and management decided what the needs of wildlife and the local community were beforehand, and enforced by law), and the inevitability of having a community-based conservation project in the area there was an integrative process coupled with devolution of land and continuous surveys to get individual perceptions. In this specific project, government support and political stability played a major role for the implementation and amount of success in this type of project. One of the goals for this project, wildlife conservation, seemed to be
reaching a stable point. The other goal for this project was unclear, since 40% of the interviewed felt that their living standards have not improved and wanted to have more profits. One of the authors pointed out that there was a time where tourism was low due to the civil wars and political stabilities of neighbor countries in Zambia, which could be a threat to the project in the future. Although the project seems to be working with verbal agreements, an unforeseen event could occur that could shake the stability and the progress of LIRDP, thus having legislation can be seen as a safety net. In this project government was the key actor. Philippines: The environmental policies in the Philippines might be one of the most comprehensive in the world. Much had to do with a surge in democracy in 1986 when the administration at that time, led by authoritarian President Ferdinand Marcos fell. This event gave way for many democratic reforms that led to a reorganization of government initiatives and legal frameworks with decentralization as a main focus (Pulhin & Dressler, 2009). The conservation approach taken by the Philippines was devolution of state power by implementing community-based projects nationwide. Called Priority Protected Areas Project, it sought to include representation of local communities and indigenous people. This newfound form of democracy in the Philippines grasped the attention of international donors in the early 90s: World Wildlife Fund Local NGO, European Union, and the World Bank (Ham, Auchincloss, & Goldstein, 2004). There are many community-based conservation projects in the Philippines; this paper briefly discusses the project in Northern Sierra Madre Natural Park in the eastern coast of Luzon, which has a population of 23,000 people who live inside the park. The main source of income from around the buffer areas are timber harvesting, a land that was given to companies in 1965. Current threats to this area is the ongoing migration from the coastal areas to inland mountains, and with it the degradation of habitat (Ham et al., 2004). For the conservation of habitat, the current
aims and the need for community engagement are to reduce the intensity of floods and droughts in the area, which is a constant threat to the livelihoods of the residents, protect the soil from erosion to help maintain the structure of the forest, and maintaining the integrity of the systems thus regulating local climate. Outreach and Participation: Under their National Integrated Protected Area Systems (NIPAS) law, new protected areas can only be established after consulting and consent from the local community (Pulhin & Dressler, 2009). Involvement of locals in decision-making provided hardly any opposition from the community (Ham et al., 2004). Hence communication and public awareness were significant components of projects proposed for the park. From interactive sessions and focus groups, asking multi-stakeholders, and socioeconomic and biological data they came up with key issues that were affecting the community. Among these issues were: migration, limited livelihood sources, lack of technical knowledge and low level of environmental awareness. A paper by Van Weerd (2004), discusses the strategies that took place for effective communication in lessening the lack of knowledge about the project and the local environment, and prepare local representatives for public advocacy (Table 2).
Information Availability
Constant updates on research information Newsletters in local languages Radio intermissions Comic books with environmental topics Flyers Education through theatre Ecological tours of research stations Discussion groups to inform about current land use, natural resources, and land-use planning framework for sustainable
Interactive activities
development. Community visits once a month
Table 2. Communication strategies in Northern Sierra Madre, Philippines (Van Weerd 2004)
These activities can be considered a form of capacity building with workshops and discussions on how to better manage conservation, and identify potential threats in order to make sound decisions in the future. Role of local institutions: NGOs were key for disseminating information and mobilizing community members to participate in the awareness-raising camping that started in 1999. Results from the survey (Graph 1) indicate that after engaging in these activities or being exposed to the information being spread about the project, their knowledge and awareness about the environment increased from having limited knowledge to average in 2000.
Graph 1. Results from the survey in Van Weerd 2004. Before refers to a survey made in 1999 and After refers to the same survey completed in 2000.
Having a sense of what the project is about and what it can do for the welfare of the community might be an important process for the continuous support of conservation in the area. An example of
how a community can use their newly acquired knowledge and power was seen when a logging company situated around the buffer zone of the park requested permission to construct a logging road through the park. After the impact assessment indicated that this development would destroy an area of primary forest, NGOs lobbied with indigenous people against this project and organized leaders to vote against. Parties in favor were the Protected Area Management Board and Mayors, which also tried to convince the leaders of the community to vote in favor. At the end the project was downvoted and many didnt see this type of development as beneficial for the community. Many of the socieconomical and biological research projects are funded by a partnership between private and public Universities and the Dutch government (Ham et al., 2004). Over the years, the students have created a body of interdisciplinary knowledge on the subjects of forest exploitation, change over land-use, and forest policy. This partnership has been successful in setting up an
information and training center on one of the campuses (Isabela State University). The commitment from higher education institutions can play an important part in terms of translating the project into action and providing capacity building for management. Remarks: Van Weerd (2004) criticized the government for establishing rigid rules regarding what kind of research can be performed inside the forest. It may take more than five years to obtain a permit for new conservation research to start. Also, in the meantime it is prohibited to take samples of flora and fauna, thus delaying the development of a database and making it difficult for scientist to describe the ecosystem. Although decentralization is supposed to be the bases for many projects inside the park, there is a lack of power transfer in certain areas. In the logging road example, although the leaders in the community had voted against this project, the road was still constructed. With this the community could start to mistrust their government and lose interest in participating, because their comments and concerns are not been taking into consideration anymore. In this area of the Northern Sierra Madre, the framework established by the new democracy of 1986 paved the way for a number of projects that by law required participation from the community members. Institutions are an important component for translating academic work, disseminating information, organizing individuals, capacity building, and getting a grasp on the needs of the community involved in the projects. Notable success from the conservation standpoint, include reduced number of timber harvesting inside the forest, a variety of institutions such as some governmental agencies, NGOs, the church, the media, and universities are becoming more and more interested in the protection of the environment. However, from the social standpoint, no rigorous studies have been made for the constant migration to this mountainous area. Although it is an issue that its mentioned constantly on
surveys and interviews as a concern, migration seems to be ignored in many if not all of the cases. Ignoring the issue for much longer can drive individuals to exploit resources despite much effort to conserve the ecosystem services in the park. Costa Rica Ostional Wildlife Refuge covers an 800 mile extend of beach and 200 miles of inland forest on the Pacific Ocean side of Costa Rica. Because of its history, it presents an interesting case of communitybased conservation towards resource use. The refuge is known as the primary nesting site for the Olive Ridley sea turtle (Lepidochelys olivacea) but it was not known to the world until 1969 when a Peace Corps volunteer spotted an arribada (turtles emerging from the beach towards the shore to nest)(Campbell, 1998). Harvesting turtle eggs by the community in the area was the primary source of income and method of substance for the small population of the area, but in 1992 a road was built and it increased population in the area. Harvesting nevertheless was still permitted but the concern for overexploitation made the Costa Rican government deem harvesting illegal and created the wildlife refuge coupled with a research station. The local community was enraged, vandalizing research
stations and still recurred to harvesting, even though there were legal consequences for doing so. With subsequent research nevertheless, scientists came to the realization that beaches were becoming saturated with nests and the mortality rate was too high (Richard & Hughes, 1972). There was not enough time for the eggs to harvest until the next arribada was due, and thus turtles looking for a spot to lay their eggs would crush other nests. Due to the high tensions between the community and the scientists, community members organized in subsequent years and decided to join scientists for finding an argument in favor of harvesting in the refuge. Scientific and social evidence was convincing enough that the government proceeded with a regulated harvesting program in the area (Campbell, 1998). This plan was to be
sustainable, keeping in mind the natural mortality rate of hatchlings due to predator and stress and where egg subtraction would be low enough to ensure the survival of this resource. Institutions: The creation of institutions was of utmost importance in the development of this communitybased conservation project. These institutions are all governmental, and have different responsibilities for the management of the project. All wildlife refuges are under The Wildlife Directorate of the Ministry of Environment and Energy (MINAE), the agency responsible for overseeing the administration of the project is the Institute of Marine Fisheries (INCOPESCA), and the Association for Rural Economic Development (DINADECO) is the government liaison with the Ostional Association. The project was established with a solid legal, social and economic framework. Any decision made by the agencies has to have the approval of the community; community participation is insured by law.
Secure economic benefit: Unlike many other community-based conservation projects, the Ostional program had a steady source of income, which is the harvesting of turtle eggs for consumption or to sell. Harvesting is well regulated with groups going out each day and under the supervision of a biologist. Groups are also accompanied by a chief, or a leader, who is in charge of supervising protocols. Chiefs do not remain in power for long, they are changed annually to prevent corruption. In the Ostional community, only members of the Association who pay their membership fees are allowed to participate in the harvesting program, that way relationships of trust are formed and common rules are followed. From the harvest sales, 40% is kept by INCOPESCA and 30% goes towards Association expenses (capacity building, maintenance of buildings, etc.), and the rest is distributed in salaries for the people who participate in the conservation project.
Since this area has an economic steadiness, immigration is likely to occur towards the coast. Institutions created a policy to deal with this situation that in order to participate in the project, the person has to have lived in the area for at least five years (Campbell, 1998). This and the fees for the Association discourage immigration, hence it is not a main concern for the area as it was for the project in the Philippines.
Community survey by Campbell (1998): When harvesting was prohibited or there was no regulation, the Ostional area was mainly an agricultural community. A survey done in 1992, after the project, found that 60% of the people relied on turtle egg harvesting while only 30% relied on agriculture. The same survey was conducted in 1995 and 70% saw harvesting as their main source of income, while 22% relied on agriculture. Overall 63% of the people surveyed agreed that the project had positively impacted the community.
Graph 2. Taken from Campbell 1999 survey in Ostional Wildlife Refuge, Costa Rica
The project in Ostional developed differently than other examples in the literature, the resource in this case turtle eggs were in abundance and the community was eager to set up a conservation
project that would benefit every household. Although this is a unique example, it provided support for the importance of solid institutions, law enforcement, addressing social issues, and social cohesion. VI. Conclusion
Although this was a brief and simple examination of the factors behind some of the projects that have been termed successful by scholars, there are some key events that stand out. In all three conservation projects, the devolution of land to the community and attempts of decentralization where the first steps towards the inclusion of the surrounding community. Some believe that a community is capable of managing their own projects but from these examples it is inferred that some sort of governmental institution is necessary for law enforcement and regulation. Another lesson learned from these projects was the importance of keeping the community informed via any of the means previously explained, constantly surveying, and monitoring progress. It is important to note that two of the main causes for failure on other projects were not a main concern for these projects; this was funding availability and political stability. In Zambia, government had a transitional plan if funding was to be cut short, in Philippines, well established international NGOs and the Dutch government partnership with Universities provide a safety net for continuous interdisciplinary research funding that could improve the living conditions of the community around the park. In Costa Rica, the biology of the Olive Ridley turtle and the vast beaches for nesting provides a stable source of income and nutrition. Seen that having an agenda with unrealistic goals before hand has failed, funding agencies and academics can still draw lesson from each of the different community-based conservation projects in the world. It is absurd to think that if one project was successful following certain guidelines, another project would perform the same. Because of regional perceptions, different cultures and traditions, amount of ecological knowledge among other things that differ from place to place, it is best to assess the community first and ask what their needs are. Conservationists already know the needs of the
ecosystem and wildlife, governments already know what their own needs are, now local communities, funding agencies, academics and governments need to draw upon interdisciplinary approaches and work in cooperation for improving what community-based conservation is.
References: Bates, L. (1960). CONSERVATION AND THE GOSPEL OF EFFICIENCY - THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATION MOVEMENT, 1890-1920 - HAYS,SP. [Book Review]. American Historical Review, 65(4), 930-931. doi: 10.2307/1849463 Bryant, R. L. (1998). Power, knowledge and political ecology in the third world: a review. Progress in Physical Geography, 22(1), 79-94. doi: 10.1177/030913339802200104 Campbell, L. M. (1998). Use them or lose them? Conservation and the consumptive use of marine turtle eggs at Ostional, Costa Rica. Environmental Conservation, 25(4), 305-319. doi: 10.1017/s0376892998000393 Child, B., & Barnes, G. (2010). The conceptual evolution and practice of community-based natural resource management in southern Africa: past, present and future. Environmental Conservation, 37(3), 283-295. doi: 10.1017/s0376892910000512 Dalal-Clayton, B., Dalal-Clayton, D. B., & Child, B. (2003). Lessons from Luangwa: the story of the Luangwa integrated resource development project, Zambia: International Institute for Environment and Development. Egger, M. C. (2007). Cultivating Social Capital: Community Gardens in Lansing, MI. Masters of Arts, Michigan State University. Garcia, C., & Lescuyer, G. (2008). Monitoring, indicators and community based forest management in the tropics: pretexts or red herrings? Biodiversity and Conservation, 17(6), 1303-1317. doi: 10.1007/s10531-008-9347-y Ham, D., Auchincloss, E., & Goldstein, W. (2004). Communicating protected areas: IUCN Commission on Education and Communication, IUCN--the World Conservation Union. McShane, T. O., & Wells, M. P. (2004). Getting biodiversity projects to work: towards more effective conservation and development: Columbia University Press. Nelson, N., & Wright, S. (1995). Power and participatory development: theory and practice: Intermediate Technology Publications. Nguyen Ngoc, T., Dwivedi, P., Rossi, F., Alavalapati, J. R. R., & Thapa, B. (2011). Role of social capital in determining conservation attitude: a case study from Cat Tien National Park, Vietnam. [article]. International Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology, 18(2), 143-153. doi: 10.1080/13504509.2011.560455 Pollini, J. (2011). The Difficult Reconciliation of Conservation and Development Objectives: The Case of the Malagasy Environmental Action Plan. Human Organization, 70(1), 74-87. Pretty, J., & Ward, H. (2001). Social capital and the environment. World Development, 29(2), 209-227. doi: 10.1016/s0305-750x(00)00098-x Pulhin, J. M., & Dressler, W. H. (2009). People, power and timber: The politics of community-based forest management. Journal of Environmental Management, 91(1), 206-214. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2009.08.007 Raik, D. B., Wilson, A. L., & Decker, D. J. (2008). Power in Natural Resources Management: An Application of Theory. Society & Natural Resources, 21(8), 729-739. doi: 10.1080/08941920801905195 Richard, J. D., & Hughes, D. A. (1972). Some observations of sea turtle nesting activity in Costa Rica. Marine Biology, 16(4), 297-309. doi: 10.1007/bf00347753 Sanginga, P. C., Kamugisha, R. N., & Martin, A. M. (2007). The dynamics of social capital and conflict management in multiple resource regimes: A case of the southwestern highlands of Uganda. Ecology and Society, 12(1). Svendsen, G. T., & Svendsen, G. L. H. (2009). Handbook of social capital: the troika of sociology, political science and economics: Edward Elgar.
Tew, J. (2002). Social theory, power and practice: Palgrave Macmillan. Wainwright, C., & Wehrmeyer, W. (1998). Success in integrating conservation and development? A study from Zambia. World Development, 26(6), 933-944. doi: 10.1016/s0305-750x(98)00027-8 Waste, R. J. (1986). Community power: directions for future research: Sage Publications. Woolcock, M., & Narayan, D. (2000). Social Capital: Implications for Development Theory, Research, and Policy. The World Bank Research Observer, 15(2), 225-249. doi: 10.1093/wbro/15.2.225 Zimmerman, M. A., Israel, B. A., Schulz, A., & Checkoway, B. (1992). FURTHER EXPLORATIONS IN EMPOWERMENT THEORY - AN EMPIRICAL-ANALYSIS OF PSYCHOLOGICAL EMPOWERMENT. American Journal of Community Psychology, 20(6), 707-727. doi: 10.1007/bf01312604

Power, Empowerment and Social Capital in Shaping Community-Based Conservation

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Power, Empowerment and Social Capital in Shaping Community-Based Conservation

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Power, Empowerment and Social Capital in Shaping Community-Based Conservation

World Trade Organization

Thriving Community-Based Conservation Projects

Figure 1. Chiefdoms in and around South Luangwa National Park.

development. Community visits once a month

Anda mungkin juga menyukai