Empowering Local People through Community-based Resource Monitoring: a Comparison of Brazil and Namibia

Abstract

ABSTRACT. Biological resource monitoring systems are implemented in many countries and often depend on the participation of local people. It has been suggested that these systems empower local participants while promoting conservation. We reviewed three wildlife monitoring systems in indigenous lands and sustainable development reserves in Brazilian Amazonia and one in Namibian Caprivi conservancies, analyzing the strategies adopted and conditions that facilitated local empowerment, as well as potential impacts on conservation. This provided insights into potential avenues to strengthen empowerment outcomes of monitoring systems in Latin America and Africa. We assessed four dimensions of empowerment at individual and community scales: psychological, social, economic, and political. The conditions that facilitated local empowerment included the value of natural resources, rights to trade and manage resources, political organization of communities, and collaboration by stakeholders. The wide range of strategies to empower local people included intensifying local participation, linking them to local education, feeding information back to communities, purposefully selecting participants, paying for monitoring services, marketing monitored resources, and inserting local people into broader politics. Although communities were socially and politically empowered, the monitoring systems more often promoted individual empowerment. Marketing of natural resources promoted higher economic empowerment in conservancies in Namibia, whereas information dissemination was better in Brazil because of integrated education programs. We suggest that practitioners take advantage of local facilitating conditions to enhance the empowerment of communities, bearing in mind that increasing autonomy to make management decisions may not agree with international conservation goals. Our comparative analysis of cases in Latin America and Africa allows for a greater understanding of the relationships between resource monitoring systems, local empowerment, and conservation.

Tackling the motivation to monitor: success and sustainability of a participatory monitoring program

“…As reported in Namibia and Amazonia by Constantino et al (2012), communities occasionally rejected conservation management actions supported by monitoring data in favor of political decisions concerning communities' developmental interests. A major challenge, identified by many studies, is the maintenance of a participatory monitoring program over time, especially if it is vulnerable to funding uncertainty (Constantino et al 2012, Dickinson et al 2012. Although in the Swedish case, funding is not a limiting factor, because the system is purely voluntary.…”

“…Certainly, there are biological aspects and economic value of the target resource, but social, psychological, political, http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol19/iss4/art7/ practical, and technical aspects of the monitoring are equally pivotal (Danielsen et al 2005b, DeCaro andStokes 2008). These include the motivation to monitor; interest in how and when the monitoring is to be carried out, in a team or not; whether there are any side activities or recreational values alongside monitoring; if individual achievements count and whether there are rewards for the participants; and what level of participants' technical skill and education is required (Hockley et al 2005, Constantino et al 2012.…”

“…Over large landscapes and when species are widely distributed, participatory monitoring, which also falls under the 'citizen science' umbrella, although citizen science may also engage people outside the local communities, is proposed to be a cost effective way of monitoring (Danielsen et al 2000, 2005a, b, 2010, Sutherland 2003, Hockley et al 2005, Silvertown 2009). This linking of monitoring to local people is believed to not only lower costs, but to empower local people in multiple dimensions and hence enhance prospects for monitoring to be sustainable in the long term, be it for conservation or management (Danielsen et al 2000, Lawrence 2006, Rist et al 2010, Constantino et al 2012). Can we learn from the existing monitoring programs of harvested migratory species, especially when global conservation initiatives, such as the Convention on Migratory Species, actively promote conservation through sustainable use (CMS 2012) and landscape and ecosystem based conservation?…”

“…Sustaining such projects requires strategic collaborations and partnerships. Most literature promoting participatory monitoring discusses the high value of the approach for conservation and management, but little is usually discussed on how to make such a program interesting for the locals to ensure their long term engagement (Lawrence 2006, Constantino et al 2012. Certainly, there are biological aspects and economic value of the target resource, but social, psychological, political, http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol19/iss4/art7/ practical, and technical aspects of the monitoring are equally pivotal (Danielsen et al 2005b, DeCaro andStokes 2008).…”

Adapting prospective structural analysis to strengthen sustainable management and capacity building in community-based natural resource management contexts

“…Applicability of PSA as a tool for decision making and sustainable management Different features are identified as necessary for sustainable CBNRM, including understanding the SES's complexities; elucidating technical, financial, social, institutional, and political constraints (Armitage 2005); building the capacity to manage (Murphree 1993); and enhancing community members' participation and empowerment (Agrawal 1995, Reed 2008, Constantino et al 2012. Additionally, the CBNRM approach is based on a multilevel governance system (Brondizio et al 2009) in which some decisions are made internally, e.g., self-governance capacity (Van Laerhoven and Barnes 2014), while others depend on external institutions that require high levels of mutual understanding and collaboration between local and external actors (Armitage 2005).…”