Top Banner
Power, Empowerment and Social Capital in Shaping Community-Based Conservation Diana K. Guzmán Colón, MS Candidate College of Agriculture and Natural Resources Michigan State University 13 Natural Resources Building East Lansing, MI 48823 [email protected] Create PDF files without this message by purchasing novaPDF printer (http://www.novapdf.com)
26

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

Oct 01, 2014

Download

Documents

There is no single factor that could account for the disappointment involved in community-based conservation projects. Much criticism goes towards a lack of realistic and relevant goals as the main cause of project discontinuity. 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. 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.
Welcome message from author
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Page 1: Power, Empowerment and Social Capital in Shaping Community-Based Conservation

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

Diana K. Guzmán Colón, MS Candidate College of Agriculture and Natural Resources Michigan State University 13 Natural Resources Building East Lansing, MI 48823

[email protected]

Create PDF files without this message by purchasing novaPDF printer (http://www.novapdf.com)

Page 2: Power, Empowerment and Social Capital in Shaping Community-Based Conservation

Outline

I. Introduction. A significant number of community -based conservation projects fail when implemented. What are the factors that could account for success?

II. Community-based conservation A. History and Important Assumptions B. Critiques

III. Power and Empowerment Theories A. “Power To”, “Power Over” and Decentralization B. Role of Institutions C. Empowerment via participation D. Traps and Problems

IV. Social Capital within communities a. Definitions b. Aspects and Forms c. Approach

V. Thriving Projects a. Zambia b. Philippines c. Costa Rica

VI. Conclusion

Create PDF files without this message by purchasing novaPDF printer (http://www.novapdf.com)

Page 3: Power, Empowerment and Social Capital in Shaping Community-Based Conservation

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 place-

based 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

specific’s 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

Create PDF files without this message by purchasing novaPDF printer (http://www.novapdf.com)

Page 4: Power, Empowerment and Social Capital in Shaping Community-Based Conservation

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, Muir’s 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 1980’s, 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

Create PDF files without this message by purchasing novaPDF printer (http://www.novapdf.com)

Page 5: Power, Empowerment and Social Capital in Shaping Community-Based Conservation

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 people’s 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

Create PDF files without this message by purchasing novaPDF printer (http://www.novapdf.com)

Page 6: Power, Empowerment and Social Capital in Shaping Community-Based Conservation

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 there’s 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 won’t 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 community’s 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 don’t 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 60’s 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

Create PDF files without this message by purchasing novaPDF printer (http://www.novapdf.com)

Page 7: Power, Empowerment and Social Capital in Shaping Community-Based Conservation

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 Non-

governmental organizations (NGO’s), 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.

Create PDF files without this message by purchasing novaPDF printer (http://www.novapdf.com)

Page 8: Power, Empowerment and Social Capital in Shaping Community-Based Conservation

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 don’t 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.

Create PDF files without this message by purchasing novaPDF printer (http://www.novapdf.com)

Page 9: Power, Empowerment and Social Capital in Shaping Community-Based Conservation

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 won’t 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 won’t 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 1980’s (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

Create PDF files without this message by purchasing novaPDF printer (http://www.novapdf.com)

Page 10: Power, Empowerment and Social Capital in Shaping Community-Based Conservation

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 Date Definition

Bourdeu 1983 Made up of social obligations that can be convertible into economic capital and may be institutionalized in the forms of a title of nobility

Coleman 1988 Relations between and among actors that encourage productivity. This could act as resources for individuals to realize their personal interests.

Putnam 1993 Given by trust, set of norms and networks which can improve social relations that lead to working effectively towards common goals and benefits.

World Trade Organization 1998 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.

Petersen 2002 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.

Table 1. Definitions of social capital through the years, from different researchers. Adapted from Egger 2007.

In terms of community-based conservations Putnam’s 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

Create PDF files without this message by purchasing novaPDF printer (http://www.novapdf.com)

Page 11: Power, Empowerment and Social Capital in Shaping Community-Based Conservation

(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

Create PDF files without this message by purchasing novaPDF printer (http://www.novapdf.com)

Page 12: Power, Empowerment and Social Capital in Shaping Community-Based Conservation

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 ‘80’s with the international concept of community-

based 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 Kaunda’s administration during the

decade of the 1980’s 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

Create PDF files without this message by purchasing novaPDF printer (http://www.novapdf.com)

Page 13: Power, Empowerment and Social Capital in Shaping Community-Based Conservation

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 country’s 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 project’s

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,

Create PDF files without this message by purchasing novaPDF printer (http://www.novapdf.com)

Page 14: Power, Empowerment and Social Capital in Shaping Community-Based Conservation

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

Create PDF files without this message by purchasing novaPDF printer (http://www.novapdf.com)

Page 15: Power, Empowerment and Social Capital in Shaping Community-Based Conservation

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 90’s:

World Wildlife Fund – Local NGO, European Union, and the World Bank (Hamú, 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 (Hamú et al., 2004). For the conservation of habitat, the current

Create PDF files without this message by purchasing novaPDF printer (http://www.novapdf.com)

Page 16: Power, Empowerment and Social Capital in Shaping Community-Based Conservation

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 (Hamú 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).

Create PDF files without this message by purchasing novaPDF printer (http://www.novapdf.com)

Page 17: Power, Empowerment and Social Capital in Shaping Community-Based Conservation

Information Availability Constant updates on research information

Newsletters in local languages

Radio intermissions

Comic books with environmental topics

Flyers

Interactive activities 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

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:

NGO’s 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.

Create PDF files without this message by purchasing novaPDF printer (http://www.novapdf.com)

Page 18: Power, Empowerment and Social Capital in Shaping Community-Based Conservation

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, NGO’s 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 didn’t 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 (Hamú 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

Create PDF files without this message by purchasing novaPDF printer (http://www.novapdf.com)

Page 19: Power, Empowerment and Social Capital in Shaping Community-Based Conservation

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, NGO’s, 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 it’s mentioned constantly on

Create PDF files without this message by purchasing novaPDF printer (http://www.novapdf.com)

Page 20: Power, Empowerment and Social Capital in Shaping Community-Based Conservation

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 community-

based 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

Create PDF files without this message by purchasing novaPDF printer (http://www.novapdf.com)

Page 21: Power, Empowerment and Social Capital in Shaping Community-Based Conservation

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 community-

based 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.

Create PDF files without this message by purchasing novaPDF printer (http://www.novapdf.com)

Page 22: Power, Empowerment and Social Capital in Shaping Community-Based Conservation

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

Create PDF files without this message by purchasing novaPDF printer (http://www.novapdf.com)

Page 23: Power, Empowerment and Social Capital in Shaping Community-Based 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 NGO’s 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

Create PDF files without this message by purchasing novaPDF printer (http://www.novapdf.com)

Page 24: Power, Empowerment and Social Capital in Shaping Community-Based Conservation

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.

Create PDF files without this message by purchasing novaPDF printer (http://www.novapdf.com)

Page 25: Power, Empowerment and Social Capital in Shaping Community-Based Conservation

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

Hamú, 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.

Create PDF files without this message by purchasing novaPDF printer (http://www.novapdf.com)

Page 26: Power, Empowerment and Social Capital in Shaping Community-Based Conservation

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

Create PDF files without this message by purchasing novaPDF printer (http://www.novapdf.com)