Enabling a Voice for the Marginalized: Global examples of community-based approaches to natural resource management

Environments Journal Volume 36(3) 2009 Enabling a Voice for the Marginalized: Global examples of community-based approaches to natural resource management Laura Sims and Apurba Krishna Deb Laura Sims received her Ph.D. from the Natural Resources Institute, University of Manitoba. Her research interests include adult environmental education and communitybased assessment processes. Currently she coordinates and facilitates in the implementation of the CIDA Tier 2 Project “Community-based pest management in Central American agriculture” and is based in the Department of Soil Science at the University of Manitoba. She can be reached at laurasims@hotmail.com Apurba Deb received his PhD from the Natural Resources Institute, University of Manitoba. He is an activist in the areas of fisheries livelihoods, small-scale fishery and indigenous ecological knowledge. He can be reached at apurba_deb@hotmail.com Abstract Bryant and Wilson (1998) criticized conventional environmental management as being largely a techno-centric state legacy. They argued that there is a clear need for environmental management to be an inclusive process involving multiple stakeholders, including state and non-state actors. Participatory approaches to environmental management have been developed and applied to address the human-nature interface in a more inclusive, collaborative and integrated way. They represent an important tool in contemporary environmental governance in numerous jurisdictions and national contexts. Particularly evident in developing-world contexts, these approaches represent an effort to engage marginalized peoples in decision-making processes that directly affect them while at the same time enhancing the conservation of natural areas and the welfare of local communities. With a particular focus on community-based natural resource management and community-based approaches to environmental assessment in developing countries, this paper supports some of the Bryant and Wilson arguments by highlighting the relative merits and challenges of a range of alternative approaches to natural resource management. Our assumption is that resource and environmental management, with active support and cooperation from stakeholders, is more effective than state-run technocratic approaches. The inherent spirit of this article is to promote a more holistic community-based resource management approach – truly ‘of the community, by the community and for the community’. Copyright © Environments: a journal of interdisciplinary studies/revue d’études interdisciplinaires. Copies may be made for personal and educational use. No part of this work may be reproduced or distributed in any form or by any means for commercial use without permission in writing from the Editor. 38 Environments 36(3) Résumé Bryant et Wilson (1998) ont accusé la gestion environnementale classique d’être en grande partie un héritage étatique technocentrique. Ils ont fait valoir qu’il existait un réel besoin d’une gestion environnementale qui repose sur un processus inclusif faisant appel à de multiples intervenants, dont des acteurs liés à l’État et d’autres qui n’y sont pas liés. Des approches participatives de gestion de l’environnement ont été élaborées et appliquées pour aborder l’interface humainnature d’une manière plus inclusive, collaborative et intégrée. Ces approches constituent un outil important en matière de gouvernance environnementale contemporaine dans de nombreux contextes nationaux et territoires de compétences. Particulièrement évidentes dans le contexte des pays en développement, ces approches représentent une initiative visant à faire participer les peuples marginalisés aux processus de décision qui les touchent directement, tout en mettant en valeur la conservation des zones naturelles et le bien-être des collectivités locales. En mettant un accent particulier sur la gestion des ressources naturelles en milieu communautaire et les approches communautaires d’évaluation environnementale dans les pays en développement, les auteurs de cet article appuient certains des arguments de Bryant et Wilson en mettant en lumière leurs mérites relatifs et les défis que posent une gamme d’approches alternatives en matière de gestion des ressources humaines. Notre postulat est que la gestion des ressources et de l’environnement, avec la collaboration et le soutien actifs des intervenants, est plus efficace que les approches technocratiques dirigées par l’État. L’esprit inhérent de cet article est de promouvoir une approche de gestion des ressources communautaire qui soit plus globale et réellement « de la collectivité, par la collectivité et pour la collectivité ». Key words Community-based approaches, environmental management, environmental assessment Introduction Bryant and Wilson (1998) in their thoughts on environmental management (EM) criticized conventional approaches of EM as being largely a techno-centric state legacy and concern. They advocated for an inclusive process of EM involving resource user communities and important stakeholders, including state and nonstate actors. Participatory approaches to EM1, including community-based natural resource management and, most recently, community-based approaches to environmental assessment, have been developed and applied to address critical issues of management at the human-nature interface in a more inclusive, collaborative and integrated way (Michaelidou et al. 2002, Spaling 2003, Berkes 2005). Spaling and Vroom explained that: Communities are increasingly viewed as essential partners with government and the private sector for sustainability 1 Following Bryant and Wilson’s (1998) description, natural resource management is considered a part of environmental management. © Copyright Environments: a journal of interdisciplinary studies/revue d’études interdisciplinaires. L. Sims and A.K. Deb 39 governance, and community-based approaches are advocated widely in resource and environmental management (Spaling and Vroom 2007: 44). These approaches represent an effort to engage marginalized peoples in decision-making processes that directly have consequences for their wellbeing while at the same time enhancing the conservation of natural habitats and resources (Michaelidou et al. 2002). Inclusion of non-state actors in a more holistic EM process provides an opportunity to address emerging issues of human-environment interactions, and also provides supportive contextual forces for solving cross-scale problems arising from a wider political, economic, and social context. In what follows, we present theoretical considerations and empirical examples of community2-based approaches to natural resource management and environmental assessment in the context of the developing world. The discussion will focus on the relative merits and challenges of these approaches and how they support both Bryant and Wilson’s (1998) criticism of conventional EM and the need for a more inclusive EM process. Community-Based Approaches to Natural Resource Management: Providing alternatives to conventional environmental management Bryant and Wilson (1998) rightly mentioned that management of the environment and associated resources involves some rational actions that state-run agencies do as a result of the state’s distinctive position in society. Despite well-intentioned measures by state-run agencies, it is recognized that common-pool resources3 are in decline throughout the world, especially in the developing world. Although the ‘common people’ are usually blamed for unsustainable practices leading to resource degradation (Hardin 1968), a group of scholars (e.g., Feeny et al. 1990, Berkes 2003) has challenged this view of resource degradation. They shifted the focus from ‘resource availability in aggregated terms’ to ‘patterns of resource uses through institutional arrangements’ in which people are in continu- Community (Common + Unity) in this article refers to a group of ‘common’ people who have developed a sense of ‘unity’ by staying and working together in a particular territory; they participate in some common economic and social activities, and usually share similar values and culture. Such sharing of values and activities helps to develop typical management institutions and local leadership. For resource-dependent communities, connectedness to natural resource bases is fundamental for the sustainability of the local institutions. 3 Common-pool resources (CPRs) are particular types of goods (usually natural resources like fishing grounds, forests, water, pastures, atmosphere), the size and characteristics of which makes them difficult, although not impossible, to manage. For many of these natural resources, there is a particular ‘standing stock’ from which resources can be extracted sustainably without negatively impacting the ‘reproducing ability’ of the resource in question. Usually, CPRs are subject to overuse, aggregation of users, pollution and potential destruction unless effective institutions are in place for proper management. CPRs may be owned by states as public goods, by communal groups for limited use by their members, and by individuals and corporations as private goods. 2 © Copyright Environments: a journal of interdisciplinary studies/revue d’études interdisciplinaires. 40 Environments 36(3) ous flux to secure access to resources before being able to exploit them. Many traditional communities have survived by understanding the critical dynamics of the nature of habitats and resources therein, and by developing a complex web of practices, values and social relations that proved mutually beneficial for the inhabitants and the local resources and habitats (Chapman 2007). Now, there is an increasing realization among scholars that natural resource systems are highly complex, dynamic and often unpredictable. Without active participation of resource-dependent local user communities, efforts to manage these natural resources would be futile (Johannes 2002, Berkes 2008). Community-Based Natural Resource Management Approach A ‘community-based natural resource management’ (CB NRM) approach acknowledges the capability of communities to manage common-property resources (Ostrom 1990). It is a search for community-level institutional alternatives to costly (and failing) top-down resource management regimes (Ellis and Allison 2004). As a political and development process, it creates political spaces where often marginalized resource users can participate in the decision-making processes. CB NRM is an acknowledgement that the ecological knowledge of the user-communities holds practical significance for local-level resource management. As an approach it values community-generated local solutions for different situation-specific problems. Importantly, CB NRM enjoys greater social acceptance at a local level: it is people-centered, empowering, flexible, relatively inexpensive from a centric management point of view, and a socio-culturally embedded approach that inherently embodies a process of social learning from social memories and experiences of the resource users. Common property theory suggests that without adequate support and cooperation of the resource users and multiple stakeholders, proper resource management is difficult. In many coastal communities, for example, where property rights have been ascribed or maintained by community institutions, the resilience of ecological systems has been maintained as a result of the rules, norms and networks-of-reciprocity created by those who depend on the resource for their livelihoods (Berkes and Folke 1998). Such local institutions play positive roles in preventing open-access of other competing groups, thus playing a positive role in resource conservation and sustainable use. Access to communally-managed fisheries resources, and the collective entitlements derived from them, are strictly governed by the locally-devised rules and norms that are established on the basis of ‘belongingness’ to certain professional groups (e.g., fishers or farmers). These age-old socially-accepted institutional mechanisms – which filter inclusion and exclusion – are critical for sustainable management of resources, livelihoods of the resource users, and the intricate functioning of the institutions themselves. The basic argument is that connectedness to natural resources through secure entitlements and rights is central to the sustenance of the informal management institutions, livelihoods, cultural capital and community empowerment process. Empirical examples of CB NRM Bangladeshi fisheries, especially the cases of wetlands and floodplains, offer a variety of dynamic examples of different kinds of CB NRM arrangements. © Copyright Environments: a journal of interdisciplinary studies/revue d’études interdisciplinaires. L. Sims and A.K. Deb 41 These include recent fisheries-based co-management collaborations between state and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) for activating and supporting community-based organizations and granting fishing entitlements to them. Approaches similar to these Bangladeshi examples can be found in other South Asian contexts. From one authoritarian finger to multiple hands of cooperation: Synergistic efforts between formal and informal institutions in Bangladesh Bangladesh is the world’s largest active deltaic floodplain at the confluence of the Ganges, Brahmaputra and Meghna rivers. The country exemplifies a case where fisheries resources (both inland and coastal territories) have been managed sustainably (meaning the ‘right direction’ for both the resources and the user communities) for millennia. Fishers, using their informal local institutions, took judicious steps for sustainable management and conservation of the resources. However, many of these traditional institutions are threatened by a population explosion and a lack of proper support from the relevant formal institutions. It is widely acknowledged that – given the present level of resources, and the expertise and efficiency of relevant state agencies – managing the vast fisheries resource in the floodplains and on the coasts is utopian. To cope with the situation, fisheries management in Bangladesh has witnessed experimentation and partnership development among community-based organizations and NGOs (Ahmed et al. 1997, Toufique 1998, Thompson et al. 2003). Prior to the pre-colonial regime (before 1757), fisheries management was the de facto job of fishers as the user community. Historical records show hardly any symptoms of unsustainable use of resources and habitats. The enactment of the Permanent Settlement Act (1793) and the Bengal Act II (1889) by the colonial rulers empowered landlords to exercise control over the land and waterbodies, with a view to maximizing rent generation from users. With the enactment of The East Bengal State Acquisition and Tenancy Act (1950), this Zamindari system was abolished and consequently control of the properties was handed over to the state (Ahmed et al. 1997). Rather than viewing wetlands as an important source of aquatic resources, the state-bureaucracy viewed them merely as a source of increased revenue. Such money orientation had serious negative repercussions on the overall health of the fisheries resources. Since 1980, exclusive rights to use the different waterbodies have been transferred through a competitive bidding and leasing process – mostly to powerful non-fishers, thus legally and socially excluding the poor fishers of their de facto rights to fish. Usually, the absentee leaseholders attempt to maximize their catch within the designated lease period without considering the long-term sustainability of the fisheries resource. In such power plays of the leasing process, it is always the genuine (professional, full-time and often caste-based) fishers who are unable to compete and consequently whose livelihoods – along with a rich heritage of ecological knowledge and culture – are threatened. Moving towards a more collaborative management approach, the Government of Bangladesh introduced a more progressive New Fisheries Management Policy in 1986. The objectives of the policy were to: free fishers from exploitation by intermediaries, leaseholders and financiers; redirect major benefits of fisheries to genuine fishers; and ensure conservation and propagation of fish© Copyright Environments: a journal of interdisciplinary studies/revue d’études interdisciplinaires. 42 Environments 36(3) eries resources (Ahmed et al. 1997). This new policy allowed for collaborative arrangements to be forged between NGOs and the Department of Fisheries (DoF) who had control over licensing. For example, in the 1980s, the donordriven project ‘Community-Based Fisheries Management’ experimented in a limited number of floodplain wetlands with different ways for involving fishers in the management of wetlands (Muir 2003). The key features of this project included the conservation of aquatic resources through stakeholder participation, capacity building, raising awareness on sustainable-use of resources, and diversification of fishers’ livelihood activities in order to enhance familial income and reduce dependence on seasonal floodplain fishery. The project depended heavily on NGOs for mobilizing small-scale fishers at the grassroots level. It is acknowledged that, although the growth of partnerships between the DoF and NGOs is perceived to be slow, a general acceptance of their complementary roles has emerged (Thompson et al. 2003). Recently, the Bangladesh government has undertaken measures to review leasing procedures and involve fishers more effectively in fisheries management. Such a shift reveals an acknowledgement by the state of the importance of involving fishers in promoting sustainability and conservation of the fisheries resources of the country. Another example of co-management can be found at the local level in some floodplains where fishers and farmers have developed collaborative arrangements for rotational paddy farming and fish farming in different seasons of the year4 through the mediating role of NGOs and local entrepreneurs. As the water rises during monsoons, the paddy straws decompose and release nutrients into the water, which in turn produces food for the fish. The excreta from fish and other organisms add to the nutrient contents of the soil, thus adding to the growth of the paddy plants. The indigenous knowledge and practice-based cropping cycles have augmented local crop production, and proven economically and environmentally beneficial. Examples of Traditional Institutions: Old but Bold Strategies Historically, small-scale fisheries have provided a livelihood base for coastal Bangladeshi communities; consequently, evidence of community-based management practices has evolved over time. Such traditions of fisheries management at the local level are not only significant for subsistence strategies, but are important for sustenance of indigenous cultures and knowledge bases, maintenance of social identity and a sense of belongingness. These age-old management institutions that informally grant fishing entitlements to pertinent community members through rotating fishing sites manifest the capability of harmonious management of the socio-culturally embedded local institutions. The following examples of community-based territorial management are based on findings recorded through a year-long, qualitative case study in the South-east coastal areas of Bangladesh (see Deb 2009 for details). Participatory methods such as key informant interviews, focus-group discussions and participant observation were extensively used to explore the local-level management systems in detail. Popularly known as ‘faar’, such locally-crafted, diverse 4 Paddy farming occurs in the dry period followed by fish farming in the wet/monsoon period thus providing two different products in a year. © Copyright Environments: a journal of interdisciplinary studies/revue d’études interdisciplinaires. L. Sims and A.K. Deb 43 management institutions in Bangladesh are evidenced in traditional fishing villages, which are inhabited by caste-based Hindu professional fishers. The word faar connotes both the locally-devised management system and the local fishing grounds controlled by the communities. It denotes a particular territory in the adjacent estuary or sea – a microhabitat where fish and shellfish aggregate and are eventually harvested. It is related to the livelihood strategies of small-scale fishers; it connects to the social appropriation of a particular waterbody or territory and, hence, the system is linked to the socio-cultural capitals of the communities. Faar as a management system is socially recognized, enforceable, and adds meaning to de facto exclusive hereditary fishing rights. Similar institutions like padu and sangam have been recorded from Kerala and Sri Lanka (Amarasinghe et al. 1997, Lobe 2002). Comparable aspects of the rural institutions of Southeast Asia are shown in Table 1. These institutions are broadly castespecific, and mostly limited to the operations of Estuarine/Marine Set Bag Nets (ESBN/MSBNs) in the shallow fishing zones. The entitlement is usually temporary in nature – although some fishers in Chittagong district enjoy faar for generations, thus rendering resource-use rights transferable and sellable. These hereditary Hindu fishers lack a legally-recognized arrangement with the local administration, and hence, their age-old institution faces enormous pressures from competing fishers from other villages. There are sharp variations in Faar administration, but there is commonality in the sense that decisions about allocation of fishing spots are taken independently by traditional village leaders. For example, in the cases of Maijghona fishing village of the south-east coast, the village leader and his associates arrange a lottery on a pre-declared date prior to the advent of spring tide for allocating 40 fishing spots on Buramatamuhuri River among 70 competing households of the same village. In the case of Tarasghata fishing village, a raffle-draw is arranged on the tenth lunar day for temporary allocation of fishing spots on a fortnightly basis. In some instances, those who win the ‘best locations’ hire nets from others who failed to win the lottery. In this way, at least a minimum income is ensured across the fishing villages. There is general acceptance of the integrity of the system; those deprived still set their nets outside the regulated areas. Fishers keep separate routes for navigation and the ‘swimming of buffaloes’. In other cases, such as in the fishing village of Boalkhali Jaladaspara, faars are allocated for a whole year at a reasonable cost depending on the strategic fishing spots. Finally, in the Sitakunda coastal belt of the south-east and Sunderbans fishing zones in south-west Bangladesh, there are some areas where faars are controlled by some fishers for years. Beyond these arrangements, there are some de facto arrangements among the fishers. Mechanized boat owners with multiple sets of ESBN/MSBNs maintain certain alignments for setting their nets. These fishers can enjoy the faar from one fortnight to generations, depending on local arrangements. Participatory observations with the traditional fishers (Deb 2009) revealed that there are different combinations in net setting (e.g., side-by-side, parallel, back-to-back and zigzag). As is evidenced from the operational arrangements of nets in the estuary and shallow sea, the setting combinations allow certain portions of the fish to escape through the gaps and distances maintained between fishing gear. © Copyright Environments: a journal of interdisciplinary studies/revue d’études interdisciplinaires. 44 Features Pulicat lake, Tamil Nadu, India Negombu estuary, Sri Lanka Kerala- Cochin estuary, India South-east coastal belt of Bangladesh Property rights arrangement Padu shared by three villages Four Rural Fisheries Societies (RFS) share the access to the fishing grounds Three Sangams (society) allocate access Faar primarily a village based institution; inter-village arrangements are also evident Caste specificity Institutional basis of right holders Geographical territories of fishing sites Christian and Hindu fishers Christian fishers Hindu caste-based fishers Fishers belong to Hindu traditional fishing castes Village leadership institution operates the lottery Under the guidance of church, RFS operates lottery Lottery is facilitated by individual society The village leader determines the allocations Located close to the mouth of the estuary; fishing grounds again divided into 25 sites for 56 nets Stake net Close to the mouth of the estuary; two fishing grounds – sub-divided into 22 fishing spots – accommodate around 70 nets Stake- seine net Close to one of the mouths of the estuary; three main fishing grounds sub-divided into 78 sites for 78 nets Stake net Usually close to the mouth of the sea; also prevalent along the shallow coastline far from the fishing village; number of nets varies from 40 to 100 ESBN, MSBN and gill nets Primarily shrimp Mainly shrimps Mainly shrimps Allocation granted on a daily basis within a monthly cycle of assigned days Daily basis using a weekly cycle and a yearly lottery to assign starting points in rotation Rotation for allocation takes place annually in the general meeting Targets a variety of fishes and shell-fishes On a fortnightly basis in most of the cases; yearly allocations are also evident; some fishing sites in the Chittagong belt are ‘marketable’ and transferable through generations Fishing technology used Catch Duration of entitlement Modified from Lobe (2002). Environments 36(3) © Copyright Environments: a journal of interdisciplinary studies/revue d’études interdisciplinaires. Table 1. Comparison of features of rural institutions of Southeast Asia L. Sims and A.K. Deb 45 Interestingly, the management of the faar system is correspondingly associated with the specific fishing gear used (i.e., ESBNs), as is the case with the stake nets for the Padu and Sangam systems (Lobe 2002). The local wisdom in setting nets contributes towards conservation and sustainable use of resources (see Deb 2009 for more details). It is apparent that faar, as a traditional caste-based system of granting fishing entitlement, bears a significant role in building social capital and solidarity among the user communities. Each time a faar is allocated, it provides the holders opportunities to transform their social networks. Particularly, fishers who get long-term possession of certain fishing locations tend to revitalize their relationships with business owners and moneylenders. Such value-oriented social capital is important for the community members, as many individuals use and maintain the capital as a safety net for coping in adversity. However, such community-based institutions are increasingly subject to cross-scale influences imposed by political elites (Deb 2009). In Bangladesh, the leasing-out of common property resources – such as waterbodies – to politically powerful non-fishers not only undermines fishers’ rights and livelihoods, but also causes long-term negative impacts on the aquatic resources because the management practices of most of the leaseholders are not conducive to the principles of sustainable use and conservation. Continual growth in population, technological innovation, and economic changes may lead to the malfunctioning of co-management arrangements, and may contribute to the breakdown of communal systems of property rights (Deb 2009). For these reasons, meaningful community-level participation in fisheries management – accompanied by legal recognition of communal rights – could serve to protect user-communities’ access to resources and promote sustainable management processes. Overall, the faar system symbolizes a socially-crafted age-old institution that is widely perceived to be tuned to the very essence of the nature-society complex system. This system illustrates how non-state actors are capable of managing their environment and resources through local socio-cultural constructions. Wilson et al. (2003) argued that fisheries are so complex and chaotic that it is difficult to predict their nature based solely on quantitative information. They reviewed examples of fisheries management from different areas of the world and advocated that many traditional systems successfully managed fisheries based on indigenous knowledge of parametric controls (such as protection of important spawning and nursery areas or imposing limits to access). This review of the ‘complex system management’ supports Bryant and Wilson’s (1998) argument that state environmental managers must work together with common people in a mutually beneficial and acceptable way, through a synergy of technical and indigenous knowledge. We recognize, however, that without a strong political commitment in favor of integration and pressure from the resource users and civil societies, such synergies remain difficult. Adapting a Conventional Tool to be More Inclusive: Community-Based approaches to Environmental Assessment As in the case of resource management more generally (discussed above), scholars and practitioners in the field of environmental assessment (EA) have © Copyright Environments: a journal of interdisciplinary studies/revue d’études interdisciplinaires. 46 Environments 36(3) adapted a conventional EM technique to take a more inclusive approach. Community-based (CB) approaches to EA have emerged over past decades as a critical tool in development planning (Spaling 2003, CIDA 2005, Spaling and Vroom 2007). They initially emerged as an effort to integrate environmental sustainability concerns into development initiatives by creating context- and scale-appropriate EA processes that respond to local community-level needs, concerns, and aspirations (Meredith 1992, Spaling 2003). They are a highly participatory way to engage community members and a variety of related stakeholders in planning processes around proposed community-level projects and programs (Neefjes 2000, Sinclair et al. 2009). In contrast to the conventional EA process often used for large projects, CB approaches to EA have “been adapted in an innovative way to smaller, community-based projects that utilize natural resources for basic livelihood needs” (Spaling 2003: 153). They use the basic components of an EA or strategic EA process and rely on legitimate participatory methods to facilitate meaningful community-level participation (Neefjes 2001, Spaling and Vroom 2007, Sinclair et al. 2009). CB approaches to EA provide an opportunity for community members to engage actively in the systematic assessment of environmental, social and economic impacts that a new proposal might bring to their community based on existing information, participant-lived experience, communal cultural values, and local knowledge (Meredith 1992, Sinclair et al. 2009). Meaningful participation in this assessment process generates opportunities for community participants to provide input into the development of proposals in their initial stages – before implementation – consequently enabling the possibility for collaborative decisions to be made (Spaling and Vroom 2007). CB approaches to EA provide a development framework that enables a community to take more direct control in the sustainable co-management of local resources (Neefjes 2000, Spaling 2003, CIDA 2005). Sinclair et al. explain that in CB approaches to EA: a participatory forum facilitates a process of communal dialogue and collective decision-making that includes: the development of goals, the sharing of knowledge, negotiation and compromise, problem-posing and problem-solving, the evaluation of needs, and research and discussion usually around questions of justice and equity...This process helps communities clarify values, be more adaptive and pro-active, respond to change, develop an appreciation for the human/ ecological interface... and participate in a process where they are heard (Sinclair et al. 2009: 148). Although we recognize that similar participatory processes to CB approaches to EA could be employed by Corporate or State interests – for example, with the aim of manipulating communities to acquiesce to ‘desired’ development projects and shifting responsibility and risk to communities – that is not the case for the examples cited in this paper. The goals of the CB EA process described here include equity, sustainable development (Meredith 1992), provision of alternatives to the contemporary neo-liberal paradigm, and facilitation of a more holistic evaluation process (Kakonge and Imevbore 1993). © Copyright Environments: a journal of interdisciplinary studies/revue d’études interdisciplinaires. L. Sims and A.K. Deb 47 Empirical examples of CB approaches to EA The emergence of CB approaches to EA has been supported by various practical guides and best practice suggestions. For example, Sinclair et al. (2009) found that CIDA (2005) and USAID (2007) handbooks for EA have developed guidelines for using participatory appraisal tools in community-level EAs for community-development initiatives. Meaningful community participation is stated by both agencies to be critical in this process. Further, Sinclair et al. (2009) described how SAIEA (2005) developed a set of policy guidelines for southern African countries regarding EA processes for development projects and public participation. These examples show how development agencies are adapting to better integrate environmental and livelihood concerns through development and implementation of CB approaches to EA (Neefjes 2001). The systematic integration of these approaches into development work directly addresses Bryant and Wilson’s (1998) call for an EM process that involves state and non-state actors in a planning process that is contextually-appropriate and that includes consideration of social justice and equity. There have been a variety of empirical studies that document the implementation of a more participatory community-level approach to EA. Recent examples of such case studies – Spaling and Vroom (2007), Sims (2008), and Sinclair et al. (2009) – provide clarity in terms of methods and approach. These case studies provide evidence that CB approaches to EA can be successfully applied in a variety of contexts and to a variety of proposed projects or programs. Examples include case studies from Africa, Asia and the Americas, implementing a CB approach to EA in a post-disaster reconstruction context (Spaling and Vroom 2007), development-initiative context (Pallen 1996, Neefjes 2001, Spaling 2003) and a regional watershed management context (Sinclair et al. 2009). Results also show how CB approaches to EA have been implemented for a vast array of proposals from housing developments to community forestry projects to agricultural initiatives to water supply and flood control. A critical look at these case-study results provides insight into both the benefits and challenges facing CB approaches to EA. Scholars who advocate for opening up the EM process might be heartened to see that empirical results reveal that CB approaches to EA can accrue many benefits, including meaningfully engaging community members in EM decision-making processes, facilitating a more comprehensive assessment of incoming projects and programs, individual and social learning outcomes through capacity-building, engendering a sense of communal and environmental stewardship, and facilitating a transition towards sustainability (Pallen 1996, Neefjes 2000, Sinclair et al. 2009). The ability to make more informed decisions – which, in turn, improves the implementation and success of local development projects – is augmented through improved data from local knowledge, and a reduction in costs due to fewer conflicts (Neefjes 2000). More specifically, Neefjes (2001), describing Oxfam Great Britain’s experience, commented that CB approaches to EA have provided an opportunity for more collective and inclusive decision-making processes. This in turn enables an improved focus on relevant issues and better response to stakeholders. For example, case studies in Sudan and Mozambique showed that local knowledge © Copyright Environments: a journal of interdisciplinary studies/revue d’études interdisciplinaires. 48 Environments 36(3) was incorporated through participatory EA. In Mozambique an analysis of local agriculture and markets with local farmers led to various attempts at crop diversification (Neefjes 2001). Spaling and Vroom (2007) found, as did Sinclair et al. (2009) and Pallen (1996), that meaningful public involvement provided an opportunity for project beneficiaries to participate in decisions in which they otherwise might not have had a say since views and concerns expressed during scoping drove the EA process. Spaling and Vroom explained that their: case study demonstrates how an EA approach, driven by community views and concerns, including consideration of gender, can effectively identify and manage key impacts of a housing project in a tsunami-affected area. Incorporating these findings into project design should help protect, conserve and manage environmental resources needed for sustained household recovery, and also prepare against future disasters (Spaling and Vroom 2007: 49). This deliberative process provided opportunities to share traditional and scientific knowledge. This sharing of knowledge and active public involvement in the EA process led to local capacity building and significant learning outcomes. Sinclair et al. (2009) concluded that the result of this learning through participation was local capacity building – in terms of learning the skills associated with doing a CB strategic EA – and a more robust and sustainable preferred program5. Highlighting the importance of participation and capacity building, Spaling argued that: improving the capacity of communities to assess and manage the environmental sustainability of development interventions is crucial for meeting urgent human needs in sub-Saharan Africa. It will have to begin with the people who know the potential of and constraints in their local environments for meeting these needs (Spaling 2003: 166). Case-study results have shown that CB approaches to EA are both efficient and effective. Compared to conventional EA, “community-level assessment is cost effective and timely” (Spaling 2003: 166). Spaling and Vroom (2007) found that CB EA can generate timely and relevant input for prompt project delivery to meet recovery needs. With respect to the post-disaster rehabilitation context, they concluded that community EA helps in the transition from emergency humanitarian aid to rehabilitation and reconstruction projects for the rapid recovery of households and communities with rapid assessment and early scoping of priority issues. However, one challenge facing the implementation of CB approaches to EA is a shortage of trained people able to facilitate the process. Spaling and Vroom (2007) explained that many development NGOs lack EA capacity although, they continued, this is changing through increased awareness 5 A ‘sustainable preferred program’ is one where community participants have had an opportunity to: determine the purpose of the EA process and have the proposed program presented to them directly by the proponent, assess the program and identify alternatives, identify real and potential impacts of the (new or improved) proposed program components, and share the CB strategic EA results with the proponent. © Copyright Environments: a journal of interdisciplinary studies/revue d’études interdisciplinaires. L. Sims and A.K. Deb 49 of the importance of environmental sustainability in ensuring continued project outcomes. Further, they wrote that NGOs already have good capacity with participatory tools that are readily adapted to CB approaches to EA. One of the biggest challenges of CB approaches to EA is re-aligning power so that communities are empowered to make resource and development decisions. Often re-aligning power to communities is difficult for most proponents and governments as they are not used to having decisions opened up to public scrutiny (Spaling 2003, Sinclair et al. 2009). However, these processes have provided an opportunity for community-level participants to propose grass-roots and often counter-hegemonic suggestions for project and program development. They have also provided opportunities for community participants to speak with a collective voice to project/program proponents. This, albeit at a micro level, has enabled more equitable relationships between stakeholders and proponents, especially when the proponent shared decision-making power and when there were assurances that community voices would be taken into account. For example, in Sinclair et al.’s (2009) study, it is worth noting that the Instituto Costarricense de Electricidad, the proponent, learned through the process and recognized great value in its application. Participatory EM techniques like these provide important lessons on how a conventional technique can be adapted to be more inclusive, deliberative and meaningful. Potentially, CB approaches to EA (especially if applied at a strategic level) could help inform national and international initiatives and policies. Spaling argued that: Improving the sustainability of water, agriculture, microfinance and other projects at the local level can augment national and international initiatives to address land degradation, deforestation, water pollution and other resource problems at a global scale (Spaling 2003: 166). Development agencies implementing more strategic-level assessments would facilitate a more holistic and comprehensive integration of environmental and livelihood concerns (Neefjes 2001). Doing strategic-level assessments would provide valuable opportunities to look at the broader context within which individual projects are located and would also provide an opportunity to assess cumulative impacts. In sum, CB approaches to EM provide valuable alternatives, in terms of process and techniques, to a conventional EM approach. Firstly, they provide an opportunity for different stakeholders to meet around an issue that is important to them and to participate in decision making. Secondly, meaningful communitylevel participation is empowering since marginalized voices have an opportunity to be heard and more equitable relationships between community members and other stakeholders, including state agencies, can be established. Thirdly, meaningful participation in the EM process, such as through a CB approach, facilitates learning. Community participants learn through the sharing of traditional and scientific knowledge. They also learn co-management and assessment skills, which can facilitate decisions that are more sustainable. The inclusion of non-state actors allows government and industry to learn to be more responsive to com© Copyright Environments: a journal of interdisciplinary studies/revue d’études interdisciplinaires. 50 Environments 36(3) munity needs and to take traditional knowledge into account when making decisions. Finally, results from CB approaches to EM show what a valuable contribution community-level resource users can make in managing complex systems. Involving resource users in the EM process enables a more effective, efficient, collaborative, and sustainable implementation of initiatives. Discussion and Conclusions Bryant and Wilson (1998) proposed the inclusion of state and non-state actors in the EM process through integration in a discursive ‘common ground’. The CB examples to resource management that we have outlined – particularly the CB NRM and CB approaches to EA – provide sound examples upon which alternative integrated approaches to EM could be developed to address contemporary environmental problems. The examples show that such approaches are not new. The ‘age-old’ examples of CB NRM from Bangladesh show how alternatives to conventional EM have existed for many generations. Recent initiatives, like CB approaches to EA and co-management initiatives linking NGOs, community members and government agencies, demonstrate how CB approaches can bridge the gap between members of local communities and political decisionmakers. The initiatives of many international development agencies, like CIDA, OXFAM, World Vision and USAID that incorporate CB approaches to EA as part of standard development practice for CB projects, and the new progressive fisheries policy in Bangladesh show a growing and wider acceptance of these approaches. In contrast to the positivistic EM approach criticized by Bryant and Wilson (1998), the responsibility for natural resources is shared in a CB approach, as is the risk of management. In 1998, Bryant and Wilson argued that conventional EM was largely topdown and expert-driven, with scientific and state experts involved in the EM process, problem-solving and prescription of solutions. Like Bryant and Wilson, we contend that this approach tends to exclude user communities and does not take into account the unpredictability inherent in complex environmental systems. With CB approaches to EM, the concept of ‘expert’ is expanded to include local knowledge and the ‘environmental problem’ becomes grounded within the context where it is found. For the EM of complex systems, a CB approach is cost efficient, enjoys social acceptance, integrates concepts of participatory democracy, promotes political empowerment, and includes the people who will be implementing the solution. One of Bryant and Wilson’s (1998) main critiques is that conventional EM looks at acute problems and not at the larger political, economic, and social context: the human-environment interaction is left out. They rightfully note that the people who have the potential to implement the solution are left out of this EM process. We concur with Bryant and Wilson (1998) that there is a need for a paradigm shift in the field of EM to look at it as a process, to include non-state actors, and to use alternative methods (e.g., qualitative) to understand the greater context. Within a complex system there has to be more than an examination of isolated variables. When creating a sustainable EM approach, it is crucial to include the people who know the potential and the constraints of their local environments for meeting their needs. We opine that the most effective EM is when there is © Copyright Environments: a journal of interdisciplinary studies/revue d’études interdisciplinaires. L. Sims and A.K. Deb 51 synergy between technical and local knowledge. However, we acknowledge that creating this synergy could be challenging. CB approaches to EM create political spaces where often marginalized voices can participate in decision-making processes. These spaces enable the sharing of traditional and scientific knowledge providing an opportunity for learning and capacity building to occur. Incorporating local knowledge from the real resource users can help contextualize situations to provide a more integrated, relevant, and robust approach. Bryant and Wilson (1998) criticized conventional EM for being incompatible with the needs and interests of heterogeneous grass-roots groups. CB approaches to EA provide a valuable venue for heterogeneous groups to participate in the assessment of incoming initiatives. This process involves a variety of stakeholders meeting around a common interest to discuss relevant issues that are related to their lives and often their livelihoods. Case studies by Spaling (2003), Spaling and Vroom (2007) and Sinclair et al. (2009) show that meaningful public participation in this discussion often leads to greater understanding and a reduction of conflict amongst the involved groups. Part of the process also involves the generation of alternatives which allows the project/policy/program to better reflect their needs and interests. Finally, Bryant and Wilson (1998) called for an EM process that includes a sense of purposive activity, dignity and responsibility, with consideration of social justice and equity. CB approaches to EM exemplify this kind of alternative approach – ones that ensure social justice, equity, and shared responsibility in decision-making and implementation. As different stakeholders, especially the resource users, are treated more equitably, there is more dignity and there is a higher level of responsibility towards sustainably managing resources. References Ahmed, M., A.D. Capistrano and M. Hussain. 1997. Experience of partnership models for the co-management of Bangladesh fisheries. Fisheries Management and Ecology 4: 233-48. Amarasinghe, U.S., W.U. Chandrasekara and H.M.P. Kithsiri. 1997. Traditional practices for resource sharing in artisanal fishery of a Sri Lankan estuary. Asian Fisheries Science 9: 311-23. Berkes, F. 2003. Alternatives to conventional management: Lessons from smallscale fisheries. Environments 31(1): 5-19. Berkes, F. 2005. Rethinking community-based conservation. Biological Conservation 18(3): 621-30. Berkes, F. 2008. Sacred Ecology, 2nd edition. New York: Routledge Taylor & Francis. Berkes, F. and C. Folke, eds. 1998. Linking Social and Ecological Ecosystems: Management Practices and Social Mechanisms for Building Resilience. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bryant, R.L. and G.A. Wilson. 1998. Rethinking environmental management. Progress in Human Geography 22(3): 321-43. Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA). 2005. Environment handbook for community development initiatives: second edition of the handbook on environmental assessment of non-governmental organiza© Copyright Environments: a journal of interdisciplinary studies/revue d’études interdisciplinaires. 52 Environments 36(3) tions and institutions programs and projects. Gatineau: CIDA. Available at http://www.acdi-cida.gc.ca/CIDAWEB/acdicida.nsf/En/JUD-47134825-NVT [Accessed on: June 21, 2008]. Chapman, P.M. 2007. Traditional ecological knowledge (TEK) and scientific weight of evidence determinations, editorial. Marine Pollution Bulletin 54(207): 1839-40. Deb, A.K. 2009. ‘Voices of the Fishantry’: Learning on the livelihood dynamics from Bangladesh. PhD dissertaion, Natural Resources Institute, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB, Canada. Ellis, F. and E. Allison. 2004. Livelihood diversification and natural resource access. Report produced for FAO Livelihood Support Program, Overseas Development Group, University of East Anglia, UK. Feeny, D., F. Berkes, B.J. McCay and J.M. Acheson. 1990. The tragedy of the commons: Twenty two years later. Human Ecology 18(1): 1-19. Hardin, G. 1968. The tragedy of the commons. Science 162: 1243-8. Johannes, R.E. 2002. The Renaissance of Community-based Marine Resource Management in Oceania. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 33: 317-40. Kakonge, J. and A. Imbevbore. 1993. Constraints on implementing environmental impact assessments in Africa. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 13: 299-308. Lobe, K. 2002. Governance in a small-scale fishery: Local response and external pressures in Kerala, India. Masters dissertaion, Natural Resources Institute, University of Manitoba. Meredith, T. 1992. Environmental impact assessment, cultural diversity and sustainable rural development. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 12(1-2): 125-38. Michaelidou, M., D.J. Decker, and J.P. Lassoie. 2002. The interdependence of ecosystem and community viability: A theoretical framework to guide research and application. Society and Natural Resources 15: 599–16. Muir, J. 2003. Fisheries sector review and future development: Theme studyPolicy framework. Consultation report of study undertaken in collaboration with DANIDA, DFID and USAID. Dhaka. Neefjes, K. 2000. Environments and Livelihoods: Strategies for Sustainability. London: Oxfam International. Neefjes, K. 2001. Learning from participatory environmental impact assessment of community-centred development: the Oxfam experience. In Analytical Issues in Natural Resources Management, B. Vira and R. Jeffery, eds. New York: Palgrave. Ostrom, E. 1990. Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pallen, D. 1996. Environmental Assessment Manual for Community Development Projects. Ottawa: Asia Branch, Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA). SAIEA Calabash. 2005. A one stop participation guide: A handbook for public participation in environmental assessment in southern Africa. South Africa: Common ground. Sims, L. 2008. Integrating sound pedagogical practice into development activi© Copyright Environments: a journal of interdisciplinary studies/revue d’études interdisciplinaires. L. Sims and A.K. Deb 53 ties: Facilitating education for sustainable development within real-life contexts. Education for Sustainable Development Conference Proceedings. Available at: http://www.mesdwg.ca. Sinclair, A.J., L Sims and H. Spaling. 2009. Community-based strategic environmental assessment: Lessons from Costa Rica. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 29: 147-56. Spaling, H. 2003. Innovations in environmental assessment of community-based projects in Africa. The Canadian Geographer 47(2): 151–68. Spaling H. and B. Vroom. 2007. Environmental assessment after the 2004 tsunami: A case study, lessons and prospects. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 25(1): 43-52. Thompson, P., P. Sultana and N. Islam. 2003. Lessons from community based management of floodplain fisheries in Bangladesh. Environmental Management 69: 301-21. Toufique, K.A. 1998. Institutions and externalities in the inland fisheries of Bangladesh. Land Economics 74(3): 409-21. USAID. 2007. Environmentally sound design and management: capacity building for partners and programs in Africa. Available at: http://www.encapafrica. org/egssaa.htm#I [Accessed on: March 2, 2010]. Wilson, D.C., J.R. Nielson and P. Degnbol, eds. 2003. The Fisheries Co-ManagementExperience: Accomplishments, Challenges and Prospects. Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers. © Copyright Environments: a journal of interdisciplinary studies/revue d’études interdisciplinaires.