Community-based approaches to resource and environmental management.

Community-based approaches are advocated widely internationally and domestically, based on the idea that information, understanding and capacity for action and change, as well as for monitoring and enforcement, do not reside only within government agencies or the private sector. Certainly, these competencies and others often do exist within communities, outside of identified scientific, planning and management organizations. Recent commentators have noted, however, that much of what has been written takes it as self-evident that locally-based participatory approaches result in fairer and more equitable decisions, more potential for generation of context-appropriate innovations, more effective implementation of plans and implementation strategies and a generally more sustainable world.

Unfortunately, reports from the field make it clear that this is not always the case (Cooke et al., 2001). Limits do exist: community-based approaches may overlook or neglect broader social processes; some communities may be too poor or conflict-ridden to be able to help themselves; power differentials and local elites within communities can and do generate inequitable outcomes; participation by itself does not resolve conflicts and may be used in ways that mask or mute voices of dissent; a tyranny of technique can create a focus on checklists and exercises, rather than substance; and too often insufficient time, resources or effort are allocated to community-based initiatives, resulting in incomplete or ineffective efforts, dashed expectations, and the cynicism and 'participation fatigue' which follow (Cleaver, 2001).

There is a useful role here for university-based research, in carefully investigating the assumptions made in much of the existing literature and in enriching the body of public discussion that is clearly tied to experience in the field. In this vein and with respect to the particular area of interest of this theme issue of Environments, the introduction to a recent volume notes the importance of a critical examination of community-based and more traditional approaches to sustainable resource management, suggesting:

Several decades of NRM (Natural Resource Management) have proved

disappointing to efforts to halt the degradation of stressed

environments and fragile ecosystems where poverty is increasing.

Critics find that rural development policies, agencies and

practitioners have repeatedly been proved wrong and have lost

credibility; that the research establishment has shown itself

incapable of addressing the decline of rural society, the needs

of poor rural populations in fragile environments and deepening

crises in the depletion and degradation of natural resources;

and that resource management science is fundamentally on the

wrong track (Ashby, 2003: 3).

With respect to community-based and participatory approaches, this commentator concludes:

Most of the literature .... has not yet included a hard look at

how institutional and technical innovations are catalysed, or

the role of stakeholder-based participatory approaches to

research in the innovation process (Ashby, 2003: 4).

As one contribution to discussion of the problems and potential of community-based approaches to resource and environmental management, this theme issue of Environments has gathered together accounts of the experience of researchers working at the local level on three continents--Asia, South America and Europe. We view this issue as an opportunity to share what is being learned from research conducted in countries or regions outside of Canada, providing an opportunity to reflect on transferability of experience and lessons learned.

The 'communities' and 'approaches' under discussion here are as varied as their locations. In this context, we wish to clarify these two key concepts. 'Community' can be interpreted in a variety of ways and can refer to a social group extended over a broad geographic area whose sense of community is based on shared interest or a sense of shared destiny, a specified place of limited extent including diverse social groups, or some blend of the two. Whether a community is an identified location or not, community-based approaches tend to be participatory in focus and intent. 'Approaches', then, can extend from information-sharing, education, and consultation through various forms of collaborative and partnership arrangements to delegation of authority and various forms of 'citizen control'.

Our contributors offer insights into some core themes relevant to community-based research in resource and environmental management. One key challenge of resource management research, for example, relates to determining how to integrate experiential learning with scientific and technical knowledge into the planning and management of the environment. Newman and LeDrew's article in this issue provides some useful insights based on field work in North Sulawesi, Indonesia. Further, they explore how remote sensing and Geographical Information Systems can be used to complement and enhance local or traditional knowledge systems.

A second theme concerns how community-based approaches can help to bridge the gap between members of local communities and political decision makers. Newman and LeDrew discuss how community members helped to shape policies and practices to protect biodiversity in Bunaken National Park, and their discussion also illustrates clearly how real constraints minimize the effectiveness of local groups. In a similar manner, Milioli expresses the hope that a non-government organization in Santa Catarina, Brazil, will alter mining practices that have had significant negative impacts on environments and local people, but also expresses concerns about whether this will be possible. In contrast, Wang and Wall, in describing how vulnerable poorer communities in Hainan, China have experienced the impacts of development decisions and projects, suggest that these people's voices have not been heard. Furthermore, they note that, even when processes for participation are in place, local people in places with a history of top-down political regimes, like China, may continue to believe that they are voiceless.

A third important (and related) theme is the role of social groups or social mobilization in planning and management processes. A traditionally powerful mechanism for such mobilization has been co-operatives. Mansfield examines some key dimensions of success and failure for one agricultural co-operative developed in support of formerly landless farmers in Brazil. In his paper, Manuel-Navarrete provides a typology of four approaches to natural resource management, examining the role and potential of each with respect to the mobilization and transformation of a group of villages on the border between Guatemala and Mexico.

In examining lessons about and opportunities for the enhancement of community-based approaches in international settings, cross-cultural factors are one area of critical importance. Janetos examines the challenges of cross-cultural research based on her field work in northern Greece. In addition, she reflects on gender and insider-outsider dilemmas, a further reminder that key aspects of diversity in communities are related not only to culture and ethnicity, but also to gender and class. Wang and Wall highlight how cultural differences can readily emerge in situations where minority groups may perceive that they are dominated or manipulated, such as in the relationships between dominant Han people and the ethnic minority Li communities which were the subject of their investigation. In contrast, Manuel-Navarrete explores how two national cultures, Guatemala and Mexico, complicate management efforts in a shared river basin where biodiversity is important.

University-based research offers the opportunity to build bridges of knowledge and understanding across political, ethnic, cultural and theoretical boundaries. Understanding community-based resource management initiatives requires the skills of integration and synthesis that generate an awareness of core themes and common issues. At the same time, and just as importantly, access to rich, context-specific description allows for appreciation and analysis of the remarkable diversity of human-environment experience. The kind of carefully constructed documentation and analysis included in this group of contributions to Environments has a role to play in that respect as well. As editors, we hope that this collection makes a contribution to understanding some core themes and some critical aspects of diversity in community-based approaches to resource and environmental management. We would like to express our thanks not only to our contributors, but also to the pairs of reviewers who assessed each of the papers appearing in this issue. Their constructive commentary has enhanced the individual papers and the volume, as a whole.

References

Ashby, J. (2003) Introduction: uniting science and participation in the process of innovation--research for development in B. Pound, S. Snapp, C. McDougall, A. Braun, editors, Managing Natural Resource for Sustainable Livelihoods. London, Ottawa, Earthscan and International Development Research Centre. 1-19.

Cleaver, F. (2001) Institutions, agency and the limitations of participatory approaches to development in B. Cooke and U. Kothari, editors, Participation: the new tyranny? London, Zed Books, 36-55

Cooke, B and U. Kothari, editors (2001) Participation: the new tyranny? London, Zed Books