power, empowerment and social capital in shaping community-based conservation
DESCRIPTION
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.TRANSCRIPT
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
Create PDF files without this message by purchasing novaPDF printer (http://www.novapdf.com)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
(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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)