Amy Forsgren
WLF 501
Introduction and Background
Community based conservation (CBC) is based on the idea that locals and
indigenous communities should be actors in the management of natural resources
(Fisher, 2001). It seeks to link conservation with sustainable development and the
protection of biodiversity and natural landscapes with the protection of traditional
indigenous groups and cultures (Igoe, 2006).
CBC came about several decades ago in response to authoritarian practices
that ignored the rights of local communities and often forced groups to people to
relocated, resulting in hardship and distrust for many people (Chicchón, 2009) as
well as ignoring that humans for centuries have been a significant part of the
landscape (Mann, 2005).
CBC approach heavily emphasizes the inclusion of local and traditional
knowledge. This has lead to implementing programs in areas such as the Kaa-lya
del Gran Chaco National Park in Bolivia, where education programs and a highly
involved collaborative effort have been implemented to protect the resource.
Indigenous groups offered native knowledge of plants and resources in the region
and reportedly achieved a successful conservation rates (Beltran, 2000).
CBC asserts that many traditional practices are considered sustainable and
ecologically friendly (Wilshusen et al., 2002). It also allows locals living in the area
to help maintain the natural systems that they depend on and access daily. However,
these assumptions have caused some problems in that they assume that traditional
practices are sustainable, which may not always be the case and asserts that local
and indigenous groups have the best interests of the resource at heart (Igoe, 2006;
Wilshusen et al., 2002). These assumptions and lack of funds, lack of trust between
stakeholders, and lack of or only token acknowledgement of local and traditional
rights and needs in the area are many reasons why Community-based management
produced few successful results (Fisher, 2001).
Another issue that questions the decentralizing and community approach of
CBC is political ecology theory. Political ecology seeks explain the complexities of
interplay between society and natural resources, as well as interactions between groups
within society (Blaikie & Brookfeild, 1987 as referred to in Robbins, 2005). This theory
addresses environmental concerns from multiple levels, i.e. local, regional, and global. It
covers scales of power and authority from local indigenous groups to international
organizations and governing bodies (Robbins, 2005). Political ecology shifts the idea of
human dimensions of environmental change from homogenous communities, dependant
on local rules and regulations for resource use and access, to a web of actors using the
resource in different ways, with varied access to control and power (Nygren & Rikoon,
2008).
This is demonstrated by Zimmerer (2000). Looking at irrigation in the
Cochabama region of Bolivia, Zimmerer notes that although may places have taken up a
community-based approach to water management, historically, irrigation had been
developed in this region to accommodate large-scale farming and adverse geographical
and ecological conditions that canal-based management is not necessarily equipped to
handle. Because of canal-based management widespread implementation in the region,
irrigation has become difficult to organize, leaving certain farmers without access to
water. Zimmerer (2000) suggests that community-based irrigation was not a natural
phenomenon or a practical social solution.
The failure of many CBC attempts can be attributed to its inability to account for
multiple stakeholders and varied scales involved environmental resources (Berkes, 2004).
Currently, a number of collaborative efforts are being experimentally implemented to try
to find the correct solution to environmental degradation and conflicts over conservation
among stakeholders at various scales. For example encouraging the use of traditional
privately owned common property that can be used for multiple types of resource
use in Mexico, offering necessary habitat for keystone species (Bray and Velazquez,
2009).
These attempts have lead to the acknowledgement that no program or
process should be put into affect without first understanding the local social
phenomena (Berkes, 2004; Peterson et al., 2010; Zimmerer, 2000).
In addition, understanding how systems currently function may uncover
important cultural practices that should be considered in management plans, also,
reinforcing trust and local participation in new management practices. The goal of
this project is two-fold: to understand the cultural perceptions of the high Andean
watersheds and, most importantly, identify any traditional management practices
that might be used in Municipal watershed management plan.
Research Question:
Is there a form of sustainable traditional management practices
already in place that could be included in a management plan for the
Yacuambi river basin?
Sub Questions:
What is the social understanding, or meaning, of the watershed to
people living in the Yacuambi River Basin Area? What are peoples’
uses of water?
Are people concerned with the water? What do they see as a problem
or not as a problem?
What do people think solutions to watershed problems should be?
Who should solve them?
Who are the primary stakeholders in this watershed area?
Literature Review
Political intervention in water management is currently shifting in two
directions, upward toward the national or supranational and downward toward the
regional or local scale (Moss & Newig, 2010). For Ecuador, this intervention is
primarily the latter, with locals becoming increasingly more involved with water
management (Boelens & Doornbos, 2001; Garcia & Brown, 2009) Depending on the
social and ecological considerations, a local self-management approach to water
policies may be appropriate, but with the current broad issues of climate change
and multiple uses across political boundaries, it may not always be the best solution
(Moss & Newit, 2010). The Yacuambi Wetlands seeks to take a local approach,
therefore, understanding the current forces in play is necessary to protect the
wetlands.
Studies conducted nearby Yacuambi and in similar protected area in South
America, have uncovered complications dealing with interactions between social
and ecological aspects. Many Protected Areas are designated with the desire to
protect critical habitats and watersheds, but data used to examine these areas was
often disparate and inaccurate regarding human occupation and land use, which has
partly created a disparity between land use and legal status on paper. In addition,
there are few, if any, areas of empty wilderness that do not have to account for
human interaction with the natural environment (Naughton-Treves, et al., 2006).
Podocarpus National Park, a protected area just south of Yacuambi, struggles
to mediate between necessary human activities and protection of the resource.
Interests vary between key stakeholders and there is little coordination between
actors, such as NGO’s and tour operations, in the Podocarpus community. The result
is that many activities are in practice on the ground that are not legally accounted
for on paper (Clark, et al., 2009). Given the small amount of support by local actors,
Clark, et al. purports that successful management cannot be achieved until
individuals and institutions enter into the management decision-making process
that combines diverse interests with common goals. The same need for an effective
management decision-making process was found to be true in the Condor
Bioreserve in Ecuador, as well (Ziegelmayer, Clark, & Nyce, 2004).
Those affected most by the implementation of protected areas are those who
depend on it for their livelihood (Saelemyr, 2004). Rural communities see protected
areas as an obstacle to daily living rather than a way to protect resources that they
are dependant upon. In general, they do not see the park in terms of aesthetic value
but rather as a resource for daily living (Saelemyr, 2004). It is possible that many in
the Yacuambi valley may share these same sentiments.
Protected areas provide many economic as well as ecological benefits, such as
watershed protection, forest products and biodiversity. Different management approaches
will provide different benefits at different scales: local, regional or global. Therefore, the
first step in a collaborative protected area is to determine the costs and benefits at each
scale by understanding key stakeholders, such as landowners, scientists, local
communities, and NGOs. Each stakeholder will have different motivations for protecting
the areas and therefore play different roles in the protected area (McNeely, 2001).
Conflicts over conservation and resource use, as well as their allocations are
deeply rooted in culture. Local/indigenous groups view the natural world as the
source of their life, both economically and culturally. It offers spaces, material, and
means for cultural identity, and sustenance for life (Peterson et al., 2010).
References:
Beltran, J. (Ed.) (2000). Kaa-Iya del Gran Chaco National Park and integrated
management natural area, Boliva. Indigenous and traditional peoples and protected
areas: Principles, guidelines and case studies. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and
Cambridge, UK and WWF International, Gland, Switzerland. 29-39.
Berkes, F. (2004). Rethinking community-based conservation. Conservation Biology,
18(3), 621-630. doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.2004.00077.x.
Boelens, R., & Doornbos, B. (2001). The Battle of water rights: Rule making amidst
conflicting normative frameworks in the Ecuadorian highlands. Human Organization
60(4), 343- 355.
Bray, D. B., & Velazquez, A. (2009). From Displacement-based Conservation to Placebased Conservation. Conservation and Society, 7(1), 11-14.
Chicchón, A. (2009). Working with Indigenous Peoples to Conserve Nature: Examples
from Latin America. Conservation and Society, 7(1), 15-20.
Clark, S. G., Cherney D. N., Ines A., Bernardi De Leon, R., Moran-Cahusac, C., (2009).
A Problem-oriented overview of management policy for Podocarpus National Park,
Ecuador. Journal of Sustainable Forestry, 28, 663-679.
doi:[10.1080/10549810902936243]
Fisher, R. J. (2001). Experiences, challenges, and prospects for collaborative
management of protected areas: An international perspective. In L. Buck, C. Geisler, J.
Shelhas & E. Wollenberg (Eds.), Biological diversity: Balancing interests through
adaptive collaborative management (pp. 81-96). Boca Raton: CRC Press.
Garcia, R., & Brown, S. (2009). Assessing water use and quality through participatory
research in a rural Andean watershed. Journal of Environmental Management, 90, 30473047.
López-Rodiguez, F.V. (2010). Propuesta para la conservación de los humedales Tres
Lagunas, Laguna Grande y Condorcillo y los ecosistemas adyacentes localizados en Oña,
Nabón, Saraguro y Yacuambi en el sur del Ecuador. Universidad técnica particular de
Loja. Unpublished report.
Mann, C. C. (2005). 1491: New revelations of the Americas before Columbus. New York:
Knopf.
McNeely, J. (2001). Roles for civil society in protected area management: A Global
perspective on current trends in collaborative management. In L. Buck, C. Geisler, J.
Shelhas & E. Wollenberg (Eds.), Biological diversity: Balancing interests through
adaptive collaborative management (pp. 27-49). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
Moss, T., & Newig, J. (2010). Multilevel water governance and problems of scale:
Setting the stage for a broader debate. Environmental mangement, 46, 1-6.
Naughton-Treves, L., Alvarez-Berrios N., Brandon, K., Bruner A., Holland, M., Ponce,
C., Saenz M., Suarez, L., & Treves, A. (2006). Expanding protected areas and
incorporating human resource use: A study of 15 forest parks in Ecuador and Peru.
Sustainability: Science, practice, & policy, 2(2), 32-44. Retrieved September 15, 2010
from http://ejournal.nbii.org
Naughton-Treves, L., Holland, M., & Brandon, K. (2005). The role of protected areas in
conserving biodiversity and sustaining local livelihoods. Annual review of environment
and resources 30, 219-252.
Neumann, R. P. (2005). Making political ecology. Human geography in the making.
London: Hodder Arnold.
Nygren, A., & Rikoon, S. (2008). Political Ecology Revisited: Integration of Politics and
Ecology Does Matter. Society & Natural Resources, 21(9), 767-782.
doi:10.1080/08941920801961057.
Ravnborg, M., (2010). Oganising to protect: Protecting landscapes and livelihoods in the
Nicaraguan hillsides. Conservation and Society 6(4) 283-292. dio:10.4103/09724923.49192
Rikoon, J. (2006). Wild horses and the political ecology of nature restoration in the
Missouri Ozarks. Geoforum 37(2), 200-211. doi:10.1016/j.geoforum.2005.01.010
Robbins, P. (2004). Political ecology: A critical introduction. Critical introductions to
geography. Malden, MA: Blackwell Pub.
Saelemyr, S. (2004). People, park, and plant use: Perceptions and use of Andean ‘Nature’
in the southern Ecuadorian Andes. Journal of Geography, 58, 194-203.
Wilshusen, P. R., Brechin, S. R., Fortwangler, C. L., West, P. C., (2002) Reinventing the
square wheel: Critique of a resurgent “protection paradigm” in international biodiversity
conservation. Society and Natural Resources 15:17-40.
Ziegelmayer, K., Clark, T.W., & Nyce, C. (2004). Biodiversity and watershed
management in the Condore Bioreserve, Ecuador: An analysis and recommendations.
Journal of Sustainable Forestry, 18(2-3), 139-170.
Zimmerer, K. (2000). Rescaling irrigation in Latin America: The cultural images and
political ecology of water resources. Ecumene, 7(2), 150-175. Retrieved from Academic
Search Premier database.