Front Cover
 Title Page
 Theoretical and comparative issues...
 Challenges for collaborative research...
 MERGE conceptual framework
 Back Cover

Group Title: Case studies series on gender, community participation and natural resource management ;, no. 1
Title: Conceptual framework for gender and community-based conservation
Full Citation
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00081828/00001
 Material Information
Title: Conceptual framework for gender and community-based conservation
Series Title: Case studies series on gender, community participation and natural resource management
Physical Description: 14 leaves : ; 29 cm.
Language: English
Creator: Schmink, Marianne
Publisher: MERGE, Managing Ecosystems and Resources with Gender Emphasis, Tropical Conservation and Development Program, Center for Latin American Studies, University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville FL
Publication Date: 1999
Subject: Conservation of natural resources -- Citizen participation   ( lcsh )
Women in conservation of natural resources   ( lcsh )
Genre: bibliography   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references (leaves 10-14).
Statement of Responsibility: Marianne Schmink.
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00081828
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: oclc - 42860898

Table of Contents
    Front Cover
        Front Cover
    Title Page
        Title Page 1
        Title Page 2
        Title Page 3
        Title Page 4
        Page 1
        Page 2
    Theoretical and comparative issues in the MERGE conceptual framework
        Page 3
        Page 4
        Page 5
        Page 6
        Page 7
    Challenges for collaborative research learning and adaptation
        Page 8
    MERGE conceptual framework
        Page 9
        Page 10
        Page 11
        Page 12
        Page 13
        Page 14
    Back Cover
        Page 15
Full Text

MEG is a crs-aioa partners eem. of oraiain
comte to.I avnin th unesadn of *ende
issues intefed- fntrleoremaaeet
*EG aci- te inlue th deelpm n an testing 5 *

*ncop--aes gede cosdrain in th .3pemSgaio
*f deeomn and cosrvto projects. 0.ERG S
dissmnae the reslt of is aciite to scoasan
-oiym kr thog various-- cha--s snldn
p.e *ERG CaeSuisSre*o edr o mnt

Participation, an :.ua eouc aaeet

30 me:tr at
PO Bo 153
Gainesvlle, F 3211553 S
*et (3 2 S.-64
Fax (32 .9-05

Framework for
Gender and


Marianne Schmink

Case Study No. 1
April, 1999




4c i>





Case Study No. 1
April, 1999

Conceptual Framework for

Gender and Community-Based

Marianne Schmink

Published by

Supported by

The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Fo

grupo de pesquisa e extensio em
sistemas agroflorestais do Acre



'I liii





MERGE (Managing Ecosystems and Resources
with Gender Emphasis),
Tropical Conservation and Development Program
Center for Latin American Studies
University of Florida
P.O. Box 115531
Gainesville, FL 32611
E-mail: tcd@tcd.ufl.edu

John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation
University of Florida

Marianne Schmink (University of Florida)

Constance Campbell (The Nature Conservancy)
Avecita Chicch6n (MacArthur Foundation)
Maria Cristina Espinosa (IUCN)
Denise Garrafiel (PESACRE)
Susan V. Poats (FLACSO Ecuador)
Mary Rojas (WIDTECH)

Victoria Reyes-Garcia
Ronaldo Weigand Jr.
Amanda Wolfe

University of Florida
PESACRE Acre Agroforestry Research and
Extension Group
WIDTECH A Women in Development
Technical Assistance Project
FVA Vit6ria Amaz6nica Foundation
USAID/Brazil US Agency for International
John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation
FLACSO/Ecuador- Latin American Social
Sciences Faculty
UNDP United Nations Development Programme
The Nature Conservancy
Conservation International Peru

The MERGE Case Studies Series on Gender,
Community Participation and Natural Resource
Management, supported by grants from the John
D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation and
WIDTECH, is designed to show how a gender
focus has been relevant and useful in natural
resource management projects. The cases focus
on concrete examples from extension, applied
research, and participatory planning activities
involving rural communities, especially those in
and around protected areas primarily from
projects in Latin America with which the MERGE
program has collaborated. The format lends itself
to practical applications as well as training in
gender and natural resource management. The
cases are translated into English, Portuguese and
Spanish, and are available on the Intemet

The following are the first case studies of the
1. Conceptual Framework for Gender and
Community-Based Conservation, by
Marianne Schmink, 1999
2. Gender, Conservation and Community
Participation: The Case of Jaii
National Park, Brazil, by Regina Oliveira
and Suely Anderson, 1999


Case Studies Series on Gender, Community
Participation and Natural Resource Management, No. 1

Conceptual Framework for Gender
and Community-Based Conservation
Marianne Schmink

April, 1999

Conceptual Framework for Gender and Community-

Based Conservation

Marianne Schmink

During the last two decades, a
growing consensus has emerged on the need
to experiment with new ways to work with

local communities on efforts to
improve the management of
natural resources. As
development workers have
become more concerned with
environmental sustainability,
conservationists have begun to
recognize the need to work for the
benefit of local peoples'
livelihoods. New kinds of

The grow
women's im]
role in grass
projects is r
etrant cip

partnerships among governments,
non-governmental agencies, grass- influe
roots organizations, research instit
institutions, and local community
groups are emerging. These new rg
forms of experimentation signify a partn
comprehensive re-thinking of conse
approaches to conservation and dev
development, with an emphasis
on learning from the diversity of
local-level initiatives and linking these
experiences to appropriate macro-level
The conservation/ development in-
terface poses new challenges for dealing
with a multiplicity of stakeholders and social
actors operating at differentlevels and with
widely divergent degrees of power. These
dynamics lead to constant negotiation of dif-
ferent kinds over the outcomes of conserva-
tion and development initiatives. Not only
are rural communities facing off with gov-
ernment agencies, business interests, and
non-governmental organizations, but within
the communities there are also significant
differences in interests, perspectives, and
power. It is within rural households and
communities that differences shaped by
gender are most apparent. While gender
has long been recognized as a key variable
to be addressed in development work, gen-
der analysis within conservation efforts has

nce p

only begun. The growing recognition of
women's important role in grass-roots pro-
jects is not yet reflected in strategies to influ-
ence policy, institutions, and or-
ganizational partnerships for con-
ing servation and development. Still
)n of less have conservation initiatives
portant adopted more fundamental analy-
ses of gender relations and their
s-roots implications for natural resource
lot yet use and management.
Sin The MERGE program
(Managing Ecosystems and Re-
s to sources with Gender Emphasis) is
policy, a collaborative network of organi-
, and nations working to address these
onal issues. In 1994, the program re-
ceived support from the MacAr-
s for thur Foundation for a training, re-
n and search, and capacity-building
Lent. program involving the University
of Florida, the Latin American So-
cial Sciences Faculty (FLACSO) -
Ecuador, Conservation International -Peru,
and the Nature Conservancy as well as local
partner organizations in Ecuador and Peru.
At the same time, a MERGE program in Bra-
zil began with support from the U.S. Agency
for International Development USAID-Brazil
Environment program.
The MERGE program developed
and adapted training and technical
assistance programs for different audiences
and contexts, with a central focus on work
with local communities through
collaborative partnerships. The partners
also were concerned with documenting,
evaluating, and drawing more general
conclusions from this work. Periodic
workshops and meetings allowed us to learn
from our collective field experiences to build
a conceptual framework for understanding
some of the key gender issues in
community-based conservation and resource
management projects.

Gender, Community Participation and Natural Resource Management, No. 1

Glossary of Key Terms and Concepts
Community refers to a heterogeneous group of people who share residence in the same geographic
area and access to a set of local natural resources. The degree of social cohesion and differentiation,
strength of common belefs and institutions, cultural diversity and other factors vary widely within and
among communities.
Community-based consenation refers to a particular form of project design and implementation that
seeks to achieve social equity through community participation in natural resource management.
Community-based conservation projects are distinct from strictly presenrarionist projects, and from
those administered without community participation. Similarly, community-based strategies differ
from development projects that are solely concerned with increasing product ity or income without
regard to social equity or to environmental considerations.
Conservation refers to the long-term maintenance of ecosystem biodiversity through the management
of multiple forms of resource use and preservation. The concept. as defined here, applies to the
landscape scale (as opposed to generic or species-level conservation), and includes the different human
groups as well as the natural species that inhabit the ecosystem. Conceptualized in this manner.
conservation encompasses a broad and complex range of social and ecological interactions and
Empowerment means "leveling the playing field" in a manner that gives equal voice to the
perspectives and the priorities of less-powerful groups within the community, be they defined by class,
ethnicity. migratory status, or gender.
Gender refers to socially constructed differences and relations between men and women that vary bN
situation and context. Gender analysis requires going beyond statements about "vomen" and "men"
to understand how historical, demographic. institutional, cultural, socioeconomic and ecological
factors affect relations between women and men of different groups, which partly determine forms of
natural resource management. Gender analysis focuses on the interaction of gender with other
socially-important variables, such as age, marital status, economic roles, ethnicity, and migratory
Institutions are sets of formal and informal rules and norms that shape interactions of humans with
others and nature.
Learning processes refer to learning in a collaborative mode that incorporates analytical and social
skills, including a focus on gender, along with technical information and local perspectives and
knowledge. Outside and local partners work together to test, apply, and adapt emerging concepts.
Livelihood systems include the strategies and practices, including natural resource management and
socioeconomic forms of organization, that people use to meet their basic needs in site-specific and
culturally variable ways.
Participation can range from simply being informed, to receiving material benefits, to empowerment
through full involvement in project decision-making and management.
Stakeholders are different social actors, formal or informal, who can affect, or be affected by, the
resource management issues at hand. Stakeholder analysis involves different levels of analysis and
relationships to resources, including organizations, groups and individuals at international, national.
regional and local levels, as well as different actors within local communities and domestic groups.

In keeping with the emphasis on dynamic product of our collective work and
learning and collaboration, the MERGE reflection that illustrates the learning process
program did not set out to apply an a priori within the MERGE program (Poats, Arroyo
set of principles derived from theoretical and Asar 1998). It also helps to guide future
reflection. Rather, our goal was to stimulate research and documentation efforts. The
a collective learning process and to develop framework builds on the work of others
a conceptual framework from the insights interested in participatory conservation,
generated by field applications in different gender and environment to develop a
sites. Thus the MERGE conceptual specific focus on gender issues in
framework discussed in this case study is a community-based conservation.

Gender, Community Participation and Natural Resource Management, No. 1

The logic of the MERGE conceptual
framework covers the prospects for
community participation in conservation
and development projects, conditioning and
limiting factors, the relevance of gender for
successful and equitable conservation, and
the importance of learning processes and
institutional strategies for project
sustainability. Drawing on the relevant
literature, we will discuss each of the
propositions in turn. Working definitions of
key terms and concepts can be found in the
glossary (above).

1. How is the potentialfor community-
based conservation constrained or
enhanced by historical, ecological,
cultural, socioeconomic and political
factors at diverse scales? [Political
ecology analysis]
Because of a variety of factors that
operate at different scales of socio-ecological
organization, participation by local
communities is a necessary but
hardly sufficient condition to The poli
achieve conservation with social
equity. For example, approach
community-based wildlife it has be
management may face particular the stud,
challenges due to the migration
patterns of animals at regional decision
scales (Holling, Schindler, given p:
Walker and Roughgarden 1995). role tl
In the social sphere, decisions
about deforestation are affected relate
by national and international reSO
policies and markets, and by de4
demographic and institutional
factors that influence access to
natural and economic resources (Schmink
1994). An example is the impact of markets
and commercial pressures on ecosystems
and the livelihood strategies of local
communities (Campbell 1996). External
market demand may undermine local
mechanisms regulating harvests of high-

value products, such as medicinal plants,
that have both local uses and international
markets. At the same time, local decisions
are not merely blind reflections of forces
"external" to communities: they are forged
and transformed by pre-existing perceptions
and social relations among different groups
that interact with change processes (Arizpe,
Paz and Velazquez 1996: 93; Leach 1994: 221-
227). As Leach (1994: 227) points out, a
realistic strategy must recognize that the
results of conservation and development
projects will neither be easily negotiated nor
fully predictable.
To identify the complex factors that
influence resource use, and to understand
the interactions between them, requires
what we refer to as a genderedd political
ecology" approach. The proposed
framework permits the analysis of how
political, socioeconomic and ecological
factors, over time, condition decisions about
the management of natural resources by
different social agents. Although the term
"political ecology" has been applied in
varying ways, most applications share a
common concern for the socioeconomic,
political and ideological structures that
influence the interaction of human groups
and the natural environment (Blaikie 1995;

tical ecology
h, at least as
en applied to
y of land use
is, has rarely
priority to the
hat gender
)ns play in
Source use

Bryant 1992; Peet and Watts
1993; Peluso 1992; Schmink and
Wood 1987; Thrupp 1989).
The approach views all
decisions about resource use as
behaviors that are embedded in
an overlapping matrix of social
and natural systems. The
emphasis is on understanding
the opportunities and
constraints, and the incentives
and disincentives, that influence
the decisions that are made by
individual actors or groups.
Local communities, for example,

may have a choice between hunting in
nearby protected areas or raising domestic
animals for protein, or between clearing the
forest for agricultural fields or harvesting
marketable products from forests. The
political ecology framework requires
analysis of both the socio-structural and the
environmental context within which the user

Gender, Community Participation and Natural Resource Management, No. 1

makes choices about resources.
Considerations such as seasonal fruiting of
trees, game abundance, household
consumption needs, market prices, labor
migration, as well as the configuration of
state policy and the strength of local
organizations and alliances figure into the
analysis, at least to the extent that they are
found to affect the decision in question.
By focusing on a careful analysis of
particular resource-use decisions, and by
pursuing a strategy of "progressive
contextualization" of inquiry (Vayda 1983),
the analyst is in a position to "map" how the
interplay of social and environmental factors
yield particular outcomes (such as
overhunting). The map of conditioning
factors produced by this methodology can
then be used to identify those particular
domains within the decision environment
that are subject to modification, thereby
leading to more desirable outcomes (such as
community-based rules for game
management). The merit of the approach is
that it is eminently site-specific, yet also
highly sensitive to the manner in which
forces beyond the particular site influence
local outcomes. Moreover, the findings
produced by the political ecology
framework not only provide a R
systematic understanding of the
interplay of socio-environmental mania
factors that lead to the observed conl
patterns of resources use, but also thereft
serve to specify concrete policy
interventions. direct
The political ecology negoti
approach, at least as it has been mult
applied to the study of land use
decisions, has rarely given priority conflict
to the role that gender relations of st
play in resource use decisions.
Yet such considerations can be easily
introduced into the framework inasmuch as
gender relations are a prominent feature of
the context within which resource decisions
are made. In the Peruvian Amazon, for
example, proximity to market is associated
with differences in the gender division of
labor, in access and control over resources,
and in patterns of decision-making
(Espinosa 1998). The task, therefore, is to
introduce an explicit gender awareness into

re in
or in

the approach, thereby producing a
genderedd political ecology" framework.
This point will be explored further below.

2. Who are the multiple stakeholder
groups involved in direct or indirect
negotiation for resources? In what
ways are their interests complementary
and/or in conflict? How do their
different levels ofpower and resources
affect the outcomes of negotiations?
[Stakeholder analysis]
For all of its advantages, a
community-based strategy confronts a host
of formidable challenges (Brandon and
Wells 1992; Brown and Wyckoff-Baird 1992;
Little 1994; Wells and Brandon 1992; West
and Brechin 1991). In the definition of
conservation adopted here, there are always
multiple users of ecosystems and resources.
Resource management for conservation
therefore involves direct or indirect
negotiation among multiple, often
conflicting, groups of stakeholders, some
who reside locally and some who do not,
each of whom is endowed with different
levels of economic and political
ce The focus on multiple and
nt for often conflicting agendas requires
tion analysis of the broader context
that defines the relative
volves bargaining position of different
direct groups, and the trade-offs and
limitations that are inherent in
mong conflict negotiation and resolution
often (Agrawal 1997; Silva 1994). With
groups respect to gender, explicit
elders attention must be paid to the
disadvantages women may have
in patriarchal systems and in
relation to state policies and the market
(Agarwal 1994; Deere 1995b; Kabeer 1994).
These inequalities may constitute obstacles
to social equity that can be resolved only by
strategies to "level the playing field"
(Mayoux 1995).
Conflict resolution has become an
important tool of conservation work in
recent years (see, for example,
Chandrasekharan 1997). Some conflicts may

Gender, Community Participation and Natural Resource Management, No. 1

not be resolvable through negotiation, such
as where uses by different groups are
exclusive or incompatible. Stakeholder
analysis is a useful step in conservation
projects because it illuminates potential
problems, and helps to identify the less-
powerful groups who may deserve special
attention in order to participate in
negotiations about changes in resource use
(Grimble and Chan 1995; Schwartz and
Deruyttere 1996: 10-12).
Stakeholder analysis The
involves the identification of
different groups and institutions, parti
both formal and informal, who proje
may affect or be affected by a and
resource management initiative.
These groups may include well no1
organized to unorganized groups empop
at different levels (international to loca
local) with direct or indirect
relationships to local resources, as
well as different groups within
local communities (Stronza 1996a). The
analysis of the groups, their different
interests, conflicts and complementarity, and
relative power and resources can provide
useful practical input into project planning.
Stakeholder analysis can range from
qualitative "mapping" of interests and
alliances, to quantitative modeling of
outcomes of conflict according to different

3. How can participation by local
communities contribute to goals of
achieving conservation with improved
livelihoods? [Stakeholder analysis
within the community]
A commitment to the involvement
of local communities in environmental
management and development was affirmed
in the 1992 Rio Declaration on Environment
and Development. Dissatisfaction with the
performance of governments, the growth of
NGO involvement in conservation and
development, and the strengthening of
grass-roots organizations all contributed to
the emergence of recent experiments in
conservation and development.
Community-based conservation is a strategy
that seeks to reconcile the dual goals of

ct sp
lay or
t lead
l peo

biodiversity conservation and improved
livelihoods for local communities. Yet the
crucial task of defining objectives and
monitoring progress towards these goals is
complicated by the long-term nature of
measures of conservation success, the
competing agendas among different actors,
and the necessarily subjective and context-
specific notion of "improvement."
Moreover, the links between the two
potentially conflicting goals are
ng of poorly understood.
In what ways can local
on" is people benefit from conservation?
ecific And in what ways can local
communities contribute to
r may conservation? The most direct
to link is through community-based
ent of natural resource management
pie. systems that contribute to local
livelihood systems (Bodmer et al.
1997). Strategies to add value to
resources and reduce the negative
impact of their use through community
management provide clear incentives for
conservation with community participation
(Bodmer 1994). For example, local
processing of Brazil nuts can help to stabilize
populations living in Amazonia's extractive
reserves and stimulate interest in managing
Brazil nut trees and their habitat (Campbell
1996). More research is needed to explore
these links between biological conservation
and local livelihood benefits, and under
what conditions they work well (Brandon,
Redford, and Sanderson 1998; Redford and
Mansour 1996; Stevens 1997).
The theme of participation engages
everyone from the large development
establishment (GP-NET 1995; Schwartz and
Deruyttere 1996) to grass-roots social
movements, NGOs and academics (Escobar
1998; Guijt and Shah 1998) Yet participation
in conservation by local people can range
from simply being informed about a project
to full involvement in decision-making and
management. The meaning of "participation"
is project specific and may or may not lead
to empowerment of local people. Some
approaches, rather than empowering local
people, extract information and resources
from them in order to further the agendas of
outsiders (Rocheleau 1995; Thrupp 1989).

Gender, Community Participation and Natural Resource Management, No. 1

Other strategies may heighten or cause
conflicts, or include local participation only
in the distribution of benefits dispensed by
outsiders. These include the distribution of
compensatory resources, such as health and
educational services, in exchange for limits
placed on local people's access to key natural
resources. Similarly, transfer payments to
local people may compensate for restrictions
on their use of resources, in recognition of
the contribution local ecosystems make to
global environmental health. These
negotiated agreements are alternatives to
true community participation. Benefits are
not linked to resource management and
conservation, and incentives for compliance
depend on outside inputs.
The degree of participation by
different local groups in project decision-
making and implementation is a key factor

in empowering local groups to
defend their own interests and to
develop and adapt the institutions
required to sustain natural
resource management strategies
over the long term. Rural people's
direct participation in scientific
research and project
implementation can contribute
invaluable local ecological
knowledge and increase the
potential flexibility in responding
to uncertainty and change in
resource use systems (Rocheleau
1995). Empowerment of local
people for democratic
participation in decision-making
often is a positive goal in itself

analysis inv
the identify
of different
and institui
both forma
informal, wh
affect or
affected 1

(Agrawal 1997). Yet community
participation is no guarantee of conservation
success, especially because of the influence
of factors in the broader context, discussed
previously. At the same time, outside
interventions will always encounter a social
and political dynamic inherent in local
communities, and this resilience may lead to
unexpected responses that complicate the
goal of "empowerment" (Leach 1994: 221-
The analysis of community
participation and empowerment builds on
the broader political ecology and
stakeholder analyses. It focuses on the

participation in resource management by
different individuals and groups within and
outside the community, and how this
changes resource use, social organization,
livelihood strategies, and political
organization of the community.

4. In what ways do gender relations
differentiate people's connections with
natural resources and ecological
systems? (including knowledge, use,
access, control, and impact on natural
resources, and attitudes towards
resources and conservation) [Gender
relations and resources analysis]
Gender is among the key variables
that, in interaction with other factors,
distinguishes groups of resource users.
Furthermore, users are also
der distinguished by changing
demographic patterns (migration,
wolves family composition, economic
cation strategies) and institutions that
govern formal and informal access
to resources and land (state
tions, policies, markets and common
l and property regimes) (GENDER-
Smay PROP 1996). Yet even
S conservationists who are
be sympathetic to community-based
by a approaches do not always
pe recognize the relevance of gender
in differentiating user groups nor
lent how those differences might be
'e. relevant to the implementation of
conservation programs (Loudiyi
and Meares 1993; Rocheleau, Thomas-
Slayter and Wangari 1996). So far, most
empirical studies of gender issues in natural
resource management in Latin America
focus on agricultural examples, rather than
conservation (Casey and Paolisso 1996;
Feldstein and Poats 1989; Poats, Schmink
and Spring 1988).
Since natural resource use is only
part of the social complex that defines a
community and its gender-differentiated
groups, understanding their dynamics
requires an analysis of the broader historical
and social context (Leach 1994: 26). The
gendered political ecology approach focuses

Gender, Community Participation and Natural Resource Management, No. 1

on the material and ideological roots of
gender relations (Agarwal 1994), including
gendered sciences; gendered rights and
responsibilities; and gendered participation
in organizations and political activity
(Rocheleau, Thomas-Slayter, and Wangari
1996). According to Rocheleau et al. (1996),
the multiplicity of women's roles (producer,
reproducer, and "consumer") leads them to
integrate complex systems instead of
specializing. For this reason, women may be
more attentive to the ecosystem as a whole.
In many situations, women's
responsibility for family subsistence and
health causes them to focus more on
livelihood systems and on the environment,
as opposed to the more commercial
orientation of men who are
primarily involved in market-
oriented endeavors (Paolisso and Be
Gammage 1996; Rocheleau et al. neg
1996). If so, then women could proce
constitute key potential allies in
conservation strategies based on power
sustainable livelihoods for local empi
communities (Arizpe, Stone and entails
Major 1994; Kabeer 1994; Sen
1994). This approach, which is to con
more holistic and normative, has di
been advocated as an alternative per
to market-oriented concepts and
strategies, because it focuses on
the quality of life and ecosystem COn
over the long term, and both while
market and non-market values.
Research is needed to assess how COr
realistic such an approach is, traditic
under what conditions, and to detel
what extent, gender differentiates
goals, values, power and resource
use practices among user groups.
Analysis of gender relations and
gendered resource use and management is
an explicit part of any strong social analysis.
This involves collecting and analyzing
gender-disaggregated information on
livelihood systems, rights and
responsibilities, resource use, and values
and attitudes regarding key resources.
Where appropriate, much of this
information may be gathered using
participatory methods such as focus groups,
resource mapping, activities calendars, and

ss inv
ns ar

oral history interviews (Slocum, Wichhart,
Rocheleau and Thomas-Slater 1995).

5. Does stakeholder participation in
gender-focused learning processes
improve the ability of local actors to
negotiate their interests in
conservation? [Project analysis]
If we accept that a gender focus is
useful for conservation, how can gender
analysis be useful in learning processes to
empower local groups? How do we expect
these learning processes to translate into
changes in conservation practice? How are
they related to empowerment of different
groups in relation to community-based
resource management? In
the keeping with the need to "level
the playing field", gender-focused
ion learning strategies may increase
wolves awareness of the importance that
women and other groups be able
rences, to sit at the negotiating table
nent (Poats 1995). Because the
itivity negotiation process involves
and to power differences, empowerment
entails sensitivity to conflicts and
nt to different perspectives within
1ves communities, while respecting
1 community traditions and self-
ties, Project analysis builds on
acting political ecology, stakeholder and
S gender analysis to focus on how
S project activities, costs and
Id self- benefits, and other outcomes
tion. differentially affect different local
groups at different stages, and
how the behavior of these different actors
affects the outcome of the project and
achievement of goals. Different
conservation and development
organizations have radically different project
frameworks and forms of monitoring and
evaluation, among other key institutional
issues, that must be addressed.

6. How are changes in resource use
and management by local communities
linked to biodiversity conservation?
[Sustainability analysis]

Gender, Community Participation and Natural Resource Management, No. 1

Community-based conservation
requires responding to local felt needs, while
not over-exploiting natural resources
(Bodmer et al. 1997). Within the definition
of conservation adopted here, fully
protected areas are included (to replenish
harvested populations, for example) along
with managed areas (Bodmer
et al. 1997). Comparative Anal
research on management of
common property resources by institute
communities around the world includes
has demonstrated that
attention to both institutional
and biological parameters are unpredi
essential to management of pol
success (Agrawal 1997). In m
addition to the socioeconomic
information required, aspects
community-based man
conservation projects need stituti
ways to monitor the biological
changes associated with diverge
changing resource use both
strategies associated with outside c
socioeconomic changes.
Analysis of biological
sustainability requires basic biological
inventories of key resources and habitats,
and information on reproductive biology
and ecology of key species, to identify
sustainable and non-sustainable patterns of
use and how they can realistically be
adapted through management (Bodmer et
al. 1997). Information is needed on harvest
impacts, economic returns, and changes in
institutional arrangements, as they affect
different social groups, in order to project
likely biological and economic outcomes
under different scenarios. Linear
programming can also be used as a
predictive modeling tool to analyze
sustainability (Aradjo 1997; H. Arguello
1996; M. Arguello 1995; Slinger 1996).

7. How can stakeholder learning
contribute to conservation success in
the long run? How can it be
incorporated into a broader strategy for
institutional change and partnership
that provides continuity in research,
exchange, technical assistance and

ysis ol
onal p
nd in
of re
ons, a
nt int

other participatory activities with local
communities? [Institutional analysis]
Success in community-based
conservation projects depends, in part, on a
combination of stakeholder learning
processes, institutional arrangements and
partnerships for continuity, and
community participation.
f the Process, politics, and
process institutional arrangements are
significant factors in achieving
Ltion to
S community-based conservation
that over the long term (Agrawal
nature 1997). Analysis of the
institutional process includes
both attention to the somewhat
formal unpredictable nature of politics,
source both formal and informal aspects
of resource management
ent institutions, and the divergent
nd the interests both within and outside
erests communities. An adaptive
and approach to long-term
management will require
unities, attention to all these factors.
Rules and norms about
resource use promote stability of
expectations and consistency of behavior,
although they are continually being
renegotiated (Agrawal 1997). Successful
local resource management requires local
control over making and implementing rules
about conservation, use and management of
resources, as well as the authority to resolve
disputes about the rules (Ostrom 1990; 1992).
Who represents the community, and how
they are accountable to different groups, are
also key questions with respect to
heterogeneous communities.

C ln iforCllabrtv

The MERGE conceptual framework
proposes a set of research questions and
approaches that address the broad range of
factors that condition experiments in
community-based conservation. Given the
lack of systematic comparative analysis of
cases in particular sites, the questions

Gender, Community Participation and Natural Resource Management, No. 1

constitute a comprehensive research agenda
for the future.
The framework suggests the need to
combine research at different levels of
analysis, qualitative and quantitative tools of
data collection and analysis, and methods
from the social, economic and biological
sciences in order to address the broad set of
questions. Moreover, the long-term nature
of conservation issues requires systematic
monitoring of impacts on different social
groups and natural habitats over time.
These challenges underscore the need to
strengthen collaboration between
researchers, project implementers, and local
peoples to address the evolution of these
complex relationships over time.
The experience of building and
modifying the MERGE conceptual
framework has reinforced the importance of
the principles of learning and adaptation as
applied to conservation work. Only by
engaging the commitment and creativity of a
broad coalition of partners can the challenge
of community-based conservation be

1. How is the potential for community-
based conservation projects constrained
or enhanced by historical, ecological,
cultural, socioeconomic and political
factors at diverse scales? [Political
ecology analysis]

Historical context:
What are the key historical periods
that have shaped current socioeconomic and
ecological conditions? How are these
periods distinguished by changing
government policies? What are the
connections to international, national,
regional and local markets for local
resources? Which groups have been
involved with these markets historically,
and what was their relationship? How have
patterns of land use and resource use

changed during different historical periods?
How did population density, composition,
and pressure on resources change?

Ecological context:
What are the key resources and
ecological systems in this setting? How are
they being used and how is that use
changing? How much is known
(scientifically, and in terms of local
knowledge) about the biological dynamics at
different scales? What kinds of protected
areas exist and how are they managed?
How effective are existing conservation
strategies in relation to key species and/or

2. Who are the multiple stakeholder
groups involved in direct or indirect
negotiation for resources? In what
ways are their interests complementary
and/or in conflict? How do their
different levels ofpower and resources
affect the outcomes of negotiations?
[Stakeholder analysis]
Who are the different users of the
most important natural resources? How are
their interests defined? How do they
conflict? What are the possible bases for
cooperation or complementarity? How were
they involved in the history of the protected
area proposal? What kinds of negotiating
strategies have been attempted? What were
the results? What state and non-
governmental organizations are involved in
the area? What community organizations
exist (formal and informal)? What kinds of
(formal and informal) property regimes and
resource management institutions currently
exist? How effective are they? For which
groups do they regulate access/control to
key resources?

Gender, Community Participation and Natural Resource Management, No. 1

3. Under what conditions does
participation by local communities
contribute to goals of achieving
conservation with improved
livelihoods? [Stakeholder analysis
within the community]
What does "local community" mean
for this case? What scales are involved in
community-based conservation efforts? In
what ways does each community
participate? Within the community, who
participates, and how? Who are the relevant
stakeholder groups within heterogeneous
communities? Who represents them?
Which "local groups" have been
empowered? What kind of support or
benefits do they receive? How are their
activities affected? In which decisions have
they participated? How has local
knowledge been recognized and
incorporated in planning?

4. In what ways do gender relations
differentiate people's connections with
natural resources and ecological
systems, including knowledge of use
of access to, control of, and impact on
natural resources, and attitudes
towards resources and conservation?
[Gender relations and resources
What are the patterns of livelihood
strategies by different groups of
households? How do gender relations
differentiate links with key natural resources
and ecological systems, as well as attitudes
towards conservation? What are the key
groups differentiated by gender and other
key social dimensions (e.g. female-headed
households; conch collectors or babassu-nut
crackers; male out-migrants)? How do these
gender differences affect resource use and
biodiversity conservation?

5. Does stakeholder participation in
participatory learning with a gender
focus improve the ability of local
groups to negotiate their interests in
conservation? [Project analysis]
What were the steps that led to the
development of protected areas and local
conservation-and-development projects?
Who were the key actors (outsiders and
local)? What were the objectives? How was
the project implemented? What problems
arose and how did they affect the project?
What kinds of training experiences have
been offered to stakeholders? To whom
(numbers, types and representation of
participants)? For what purposes? In what
way was a focus on gender and community
participation incorporated? What were the
results of these training experiences?

6. How are changes in resource use
and management by local communities
linked to biodiversity conservation?
[Sustainability analysis]
How can improved natural resource
management practices form a bridge
between biodiversity conservation and
livelihoods of local people? Are non-
sustainable uses of resources being reduced?
Are sustainable uses being enhanced? Are
natural habitats being maintained? Are fully
protected areas included in the management
plan, as controls for harvesting programs
and as reservoirs to replenish natural
populations? Are local people directly
involved in monitoring the status of
resource populations and designing and
implementing management plans? Do they
recognize a connection between biodiversity
conservation and economic benefits for their

7. How can stakeholder learning
contribute to conservation success in
the long run? How can it be
incorporated into a broader strategy for
institutional change and partnership
that provides continuity in research,
exchange, technical assistance and

Gender, Community Participation and Natural Resource Management, No. 1

other participatory activities with local
communities? [Institutional analysis]
How have the results of training
affected project strategies in community
outreach, planning, research and evaluation?
What has been the strategy for training-of-
trainers? What has been the strategy for
community empowerment? What has been
the strategy for policy change? What
organizational partnerships and networks
have been strengthened?

Agarwal, Bina
1994 Gender and command over
property: A critical gap in eco-
nomic analysis and policy in
South Asia. World Development
22 (10) 1455-1478.
Agrawal, Arun
1997 Community in Conservation: Be-
yond Enchantment and Disen-
chantment. Gainesville, FL:
Conservation and Development
Aralijo, Abib Alexandre de
1997 Agroforestry systems as an eco-
nomic alternative for small farm-
ers in the state of Acre, Brazil.
Master's thesis, University of
Arguello Arguello, Maria
1995 Extractive activities in north-
western ecuador: the case of the
Commune Rio Santiago-Cayapas.
Master's thesis, University of
Arguello, Heliodoro
1996 Evaluation of some alternatives
for economic development of ex-
tractive activities in Acre, Brazil.
Ph.D. dissertation, University of
Arizpe, Lourdes, Fernanda Paz, and Marga-
rita Velazquez
1996 Culture and Global Change: So-
cial Perceptions of Deforestation
in The Lacandona Rain Forest in
Mexico. Ann Arbor: University
of Michigan Press.
Arizpe, Lourdes, M. Priscilla Stone, and

David C. Major (eds.)
1994 Population and Environment: Re-
thinking the Debate. Boulder,
CO: Westview.
Blaikie, Piers
1995 Changing environments or
changing views? A political
ecology for developing countries.
Geography 80 (3) 203-214.
Bodmer, Richard
1994 Managing wildlife with local
communities in the Peruvian
Amazon: The case of the Reserva
Comunal Tamshiyacu-Tahuayo.
Pp. 113-134 in David Western
and R. Michael Wright (eds.),
Natural Connections: Perspec-
tives in Community-Based Con-
servation. Washington, D.C.: Is-
land Press.
Bodmer, Richard, James W. Penn, Pablo
Puertas, Luis Moya I., and Tula G. Fang
1997 Linking conservation and local
people through sustainable use
of natural resources. Pp. 316-358
in Curtis Freese (ed.), Harvesting
Wild Species: Implications for
Biodiversity Conservation. Bal-
timore: The John Hopkins Uni-
versity Press.

Brandon, Katrina Eadie and Michael Wells
1992 Planning for people and parks:
Design dilemmas. World Devel-
opment 20 (4) 557-570.
Brandon, Katrina, Kent H. Redford, and Steven
E. Sanderson (eds.)
1998 Parks in Peril: People, Politics,
and Protected Areas.
Washington, D.C.: Island Press.
Brown, Michael and Barbara Wyckoff-Baird
1992 Designing Integrated Conserva-
tion & Development Projects.
Washington, D.C.: Biodiversity
Support Program, World Wild-
life Fund.
Bryant, Raymond
1992 Political ecology: An emerging
research agenda in Third-World
studies. Political Geography 11
(1) 12-36.
Campbell, Constance E.
1996 Forest, field and factory: chang-

Gender, Community Participation and Natural Resource Management, No. 1

ing livelihood strategies in two
extractive reserves in the Brazil-
ian Amazon. Ph.D. dissertation,
University of Florida.
Casey, Linda and Michael Paolisso
1996 Household Response to Soil Deg-
radation: A Case Study of Gen-
der and Demographic Dynamics
in Honduras. Washington, D.C.:
International Center for Research
on Women.

Chandrasekharan, Diji
1997 Proceedings of the Electronic
Conference on "Addressing
Natural Resource Conflicts
through Community Forestry".
Rome: FAO, Forestry Depart-
ment, Forests, Trees and People
Programme, Community For-
estry Unit.
Deere, Carmen Diana
1995a What difference does gender
make? Rethinking peasant stud-
ies. Feminist Economics 1 (1) 53-
1995b Women and land rights in the
Latin American counter-reforms.
Presented to the International
Association for Feminist Eco-
nomics panel on "Property
Rights and Women's Empower-
ment", NGO Forum on Women,
U.N. Fourth World Conference
on Women, Beijing, China, Au-
Escobar, Arturo
1998 Encountering Development: The
Making and Unmaking of the
Third World. Princeton: Prince-
ton University Press.
Espinosa, Maria Cristina
1998 differentiated use of wildlife re-
sources by riberefo families of
the northeastern Peruvian Ama-
zon. Ph.D. dissertation, Univer-
sity of Florida.
Feldstein, Hilary and Susan V. Poats (eds.)
1989 Working Together: Gender
Analysis in Agriculture, 2 vols.
West Hartford, CT: Kumarian.
1995-6 International E-Mail Conference

1995 USAID Global Participation
Network, electronic discussion
group, address: cchar-
Grimble, Robin, and Man-Kwun Chan
1995 Stakeholder analysis for natural
resource management in devel-
oping countries: Some practical
guidelines for making manage-
ment more participatory and ef-
fective. Natural Resources Fo-
rum 19: 113-124.

Guijt, Irene and Meera Kaul Shah (eds.)
1998 The Myth of Community: Gender
Issues in Participatory Develop-
ment. London: Intermediate
Technology Publications.
Holling, C. S., D. W. Schindler, Brian W.
Walker and Jonathan Roughgarden
1995 Biodiversity in the functioning of
ecosystems: An ecological syn-
thesis. Pp. 44-83 in Charles Per-
rings, Karl-G8ran Maler, Carle
Folke, C.S. Holling and Bengt-
Owe Jansson (eds.), Biodiversity
Loss: Economic and Ecological
Issues. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Kabeer, Naila
1994 Reversed Realities: Gender Hier-
archies in Development Thought.
New York: Verso.
Leach, Melissa
1994 Rainforest Relations: Gender and
Resource Use Among the Mende
of Gola, Sierra Leone. Washing-
ton, D.C.: Smithsonian.
Little, Peter D.
1994 The link between local
participation and improved
conservation: A review of issues
and experiences. Pp. 347-372 in
Western, David e R. Michael
Wright (eds.), Natural Connec-
tions: Perspectives in Commu-

Gender, Community Participation and Natural Resource Management, No. 1

nity-Based Conservation. Wash-
ington, D.C.: Island Press.
Loudiyi, Dounia e Alison Meares
1993 Women in Conservation: Tools
for Analysis and a Framework
for Action. Washington, D.C.:
Mayoux, Linda
1995 Beyond naivety: Women, gender
inequality and participatory de-
velopment. Development and
Change 26: 235-258.
Ostrom, Elinor
1990 Governing the Commons: The
Evolution of Institutions for Col-
lective Action. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.

1992 Community and the endogenous
solution of commons problems.
Joumal of Theoretical Politics 4
(3) 343-52.
Paolisso, Michael and Sarah Gammage
1996 Women's Responses to Environ-
mental Degradation: Poverty and
Demographic Constraints.
Washington, D.C.: International
Center for Research on Women.
Peet, Richard and Michael Watts
1993 Introduction: Development the-
ory and environment in an age of
market triumphalism. Economic
Geography 69:3 (July): 227-263.
Peluso, Nancy Lee
1992 The political ecology of extrac-
tion and extractive reserves in
East Kalimantan, Indonesia. De-
velopment and Change 23 (4) 49-
Poats, Susan V.
1995 La dimension de g6nero en el
manejo alternative de conflicts
socioambientales: una ex-
ploraci6n preliminary. Draft pa-
Poats, Susan V., Paulina Arroyo and Rodolfo
Asar (eds.)
1998 G6nero y Manejo Sustentable de
Recursos: Examinando los Resul-
tados. Quito: FLACSO-Ecuador.
Poats, Susan V., Marianne Schmink and
Anita Spring (eds.)

Redford, Kent H. and Jane A. Mansour
1996 Traditional Peoples and
Biodiversity Conservation in
Large Tropical Landscapes.
Washington, D.C.: The Nature
Rocheleau, Dianne E.
1995 Gender and biodiversity: A
feminist political ecology per-
spective. IDS Bulletin 26 (1) 9-16.

Rocheleau, Dianne E., Barbara Thomas-
Slayter, and Esther Wangari (eds.)
1996 Gender and environment: A
feminist political ecology
perspective. Pp. 3-23 in D. E.
Rocheleau, B. Thomas-Slayter
and E. Wangari (eds.), Feminist
Political Ecology: Global
Perspectives from Local
Experience. New York:
Schmink, Marianne
1994 The socioeconomic matrix of de-
forestation. Pp. 253-275 in
Lourdes Arizpe, M. Priscilla
Stone, and David C. Major (eds.),
Population and Environment: Re-
thinking the Debate. Boulder,
CO: Westview.
Schmink, Marianne and Charles H. Wood
1987 The 'political ecology' of Amazo-
nia. Pp. 38-57 in Peter D. Little
and M. M. Horowitz (eds.),
Lands at Risk in the Third World:
Local Level Perspectives. Boul-
der: Westview.
Schwartz, Norman and Anne Deruyttere
1996 Community Consultation, Sus-
tainable Development and the In-
ter-American Development Bank:
A Concept Paper. Washington,
D.C.: Social Programs and Sus-
tainable Development Depart-
ment, Indigenous Peoples and
Community Development Unit.
Sen, Gita
1994 Development, population, and

Gender, Community Participation and Natural Resource Management, No. 1

the environment: A search for
balance. Pp. 63-74 in Gita Sen,
Adrienne Germain, and Lincoln
C. Chen (eds.), Population Poli-
cies Reconsidered: Health, Em-
powerment, and Rights. Cam-
bridge: Harvard University
Silva, Eduardo
1994 Thinking politically about sus-
tainable development in the
tropical forests of Latin America.
Development and Change 25:
Slinger, Vanessa
1996 Analysis of a planned agrofor-
estry system in Amazon urban
resettlement: a case study of the
Polo Municipal de Produaio Agro-
florestal of Acre, Brazil. Master's
thesis, University of Florida.

Slocum, Rachel, Lori Wichhart, Dianne
Rocheleau, and Barbara Thomas-Slayter
1995 Power, Process and Participation:
Tools for Change. London: In-
termediate Technology Publica-
Stevens, Stan (ed.)
1997 Conservation Through Cultural
Survival: Indigenous People and
Protected Areas. Washington,
D.C.: Island Press.
Stronza, Amanda
1996a Ecoturismo en la comunidad na-
tiva de Infierno, Madre de Dios,
Peru: Un analysis de los grupos
de interest. Unpublished report.
Thrupp, Lori Ann
1989 Legitimizing local knowledge:
From displacement to empow-
erment for Third World people.
Agriculture and Human Values
6: 13-24.
Vayda, Andrew P.
1983 Progressive contextualization:
Methods for research in human
ecology. Human Ecology 11(3)
Wells, Michael and Katrina Brandon (with
Lee Hannah)

West, Patrick C. and Steven R. Brechin (eds.)
1991 Resident Peoples and National
Parks. Social Dilemmas and
Strategies in International Con-
servation. Tucson: University of
Arizona Press.

University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs