Conserving Biocultural Diversity through Community–Government Interaction: A Practice-Based Approach in a Brazilian Extractive Reserve
- What expectations towards ICMBio become visible from the daily lives of community members?
- How does ICMBio approach the community, and how are rules and regulations enforced and (re-)produced between local ICMBio staff and community members?
- How does the community respond to ICMBio’s approaches?
2. Theoretical Background
3. Materials and Methods
3.1. Case Description
3.2. Data Collection
3.3. Data Analysis
4.1. Community’s Expectations
4.2. ICMBio’s Approach
“Their sense of right and wrong is very subjective. For them is it natural to eat an animal. I asked a child of 5 years what she felt when she saw a picture of a fresh water turtle. She put her hand on her belly and went ‘mmmm’.”
“We don’t go there and put specific rules to the communities. They don’t accept it. So every time we say, it’s your house, it’s your way, you decide what you want to do. If you want to protect one (beach), it’s okay. Zero, okay, next year we will talk again.”
4.3. Community’s Response
5.1. Discussion of Results
5.2. Discussion of Theory, Methods and Scope for Further Study
Conflicts of Interest
- Could you tell me about your daily life and your work?
- Where do you hunt?
- Where do you fish?
- What plants do you grow in your garden?
- What species of fish do you eat?
- What animals do you hunt?
- How many times a week do you fish?
- Are there any types of fish you do not eat?
- Are there animals that are not hunted?
- Are there people that do not use resources sustainably?
- Do all community members live the same lifestyle?
- Are there places where people do not fish?
- Do you eat animals that have their young with them?
- Can you tell me about your project?
- Can you tell me about your experience in the community?
- Do you think the community has any idea about sustainability?
- Do community members consume all species they encounter?
- Does the community have plenty of space to hunt?
- Do community members engage in conversations about conservation?
- Do all settlements know about conservation efforts?
- Do people outside the reserve have the same consumption patterns regarding game?
- Are community teachers interested in awareness projects?
- Do you have any idea about the size of the turtle and tortoise population?
- How do you communicate with community members about turtle and tortois consumption?
- Do community members keep their promises regarding natural resource use?
- Does the community have a sense of sustainability awareness?
- Does the community act upon sustainability beliefs?
- Do people close to the road have different eating habits than people far away from the road?
- Is the community aware of habitat degradation and/or species decline?
- How often do you visit the reserve?
- How often do community members visit you?
- For what reasons do community members visit you?
- Are there problems in the reserve that you cannot solve?
- Do community members like visits from ICMBio?
- Do you have the same approach as managers of other reserves?
- Gavin, M.C.; McCarter, J.; Mead, A.; Berkes, F.; Stepp, J.R.; Peterson, D.; Tang, R. Defining biocultural approaches to conservation. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2015, 30, 140–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Berkes, F. Community-based conservation in a globalized world. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2007, 104, 15188–15193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Colding, J.; Folke, C.; Elmgvist, T. Social institutions in ecosystem management and biodiversity conservation. Trop. Ecol. 2003, 44, 25–41. [Google Scholar]
- Western, D.; Wright, M. Natural Connections: Perspectives on Community-Based Conservation; Island Press: Washington, DC, USA, 1994. [Google Scholar]
- Larson, L.R.; Conway, A.L.; Krafte, K.E.; Hernandez, S.M.; Carroll, J.P. Community-based conservation as a potential source of conflict around a protected area in Sierra Leone. Environ. Conserv. 2016, 43, 242–252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hulme, D.; Murphree, M. Communities, wildlife and the “new conservation” in Africa. J. Int. Dev. 1999, 11, 277–285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Boafo, Y.A.; Saito, O.; Kato, S.; Kamiyama, C.; Takeuchi, K.; Nakahara, M. The role of traditional ecological knowledge in ecosystem services management: The case of four rural communities in Northern Ghana. Int. J. Biodivers. Sci. Ecosyst. Serv. Manag. 2016, 12, 24–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Negi, C.S. Traditional culture and biodiversity conservation: Examples from Uttarakhand, Central Himalaya. Mt. Res. Dev. 2010, 30, 259–265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aiken, S.R.; Leigh, C.H. Dams and indigenous peoples in Malaysia: Development, displacement and resettlement. Geogr. Ann. Ser. B Hum. Geogr. 2015, 97, 69–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dowie, M. Conservation Refugees: The Hundred-Year Conflict between Global Conservation and Native Peoples; MIT Press: London, UK, 2009; Volume 20, ISBN 978-0262012614. [Google Scholar]
- Agrawal, A. Environmentality: Community, intimate government, and the making of environmental subjects in Kumaon, India. Curr. Anthropol. 2005, 46, 161–190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cepek, M.L. Foucault in the forest: Questioning environmentality in Amazonia. Am. Ethnol. 2011, 38, 501–515. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gosling, A.; Shackleton, C.M.; Gambiza, J. Community-based natural resource use and management of Bigodi Wetland Sanctuary, Uganda, for livelihood benefits. Wetl. Ecol. Manag. 2017, 25, 717–730. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Golden, A.S.; Naisilsisili, W.; Ligairi, I.; Drew, J.A. Combining natural history collections with fisher knowledge for community-based conservation in Fiji. PLoS ONE 2014, 9, e98036. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Singh, N.M. The affective labor of growing forests and the becoming of environmental subjects: Rethinking environmentality in Odisha, India. Geoforum 2013, 47, 189–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mathez-Stiefel, S.; Boillat, S.; Rist, S. Promoting the diversity. In Endogenous Development and Bio-Cultural Diversity; COMPAS-CDE: Leusden, The Netherlands, 2007; pp. 67–81. [Google Scholar]
- Arts, B.; Behagel, J.; van Bommel, S.; de Koning, J.; Turnhout, E. Forest and Nature Governance: A Practice-Based Approach; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Ayana, A.N.; Vandenabeele, N.; Arts, B. Performance of participatory forest management in Ethiopia: Institutional arrangement versus local practices. Crit. Policy Stud. 2017, 11, 19–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Maffi, L. Linguistic, cultural, and biological diversity. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2005, 34, 599–617. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Elands, B.H.M.; Vierikko, K.; Andersson, E.; Fischer, L.K.; Gonçalves, P.; Haase, D.; Kowarik, I.; Luz, A.C.; Niemelä, J.; Santos-Reis, M.; et al. Biocultural diversity: A novel concept to assess human-nature interrelations, nature conservation and stewardship in cities. Urban For. Urban Green. 2018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wiersum, K.F. New Interest in Wild Forest Products in Europe as an Expression of Biocultural Dynamics. Hum. Ecol. 2017, 45, 787–794. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed][Green Version]
- Heckenberger, M. Biocultural diversity in the southern Amazon. Diversity 2009, 2, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hajer, M.; Laws, D. Ordering through discourse. In The Oxford Handbook of Public Policy; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2006; pp. 251–268. [Google Scholar]
- Cocks, M. Biocultural diversity: Moving beyond the realm of “indigenous” and “local” people. Hum. Ecol. 2006, 34, 185–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ens, E.J.; Pert, P.; Clarke, P.A.; Budden, M.; Clubb, L.; Doran, B.; Douras, C.; Gaikwad, J.; Gott, B.; Leonard, S.; et al. Indigenous biocultural knowledge in ecosystem science and management: Review and insight from Australia. Biol. Conserv. 2015, 181, 133–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gavin, M.C.; McCarter, J.; Berkes, F.; Mead, A.T.P.; Sterling, E.J.; Tang, R.; Turner, N.J. Effective biodiversity conservation requires dynamic, pluralistic, partnership-based approaches. Sustainability 2018, 10, 1846. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cocks, M.L.; Wiersum, F. Reappraising the concept of biocultural diversity: A perspective from South Africa. Hum. Ecol. 2014, 42, 727–737. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wiley, A.S.; Cullin, J.M. What Do Anthropologists Mean When They Use the Term Biocultural? Am. Anthropol. 2016, 118, 554–569. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Eser, U. Ethical perspectives on the preservation of biocultural diversity. Bodenkultur 2009, 60, 9–14. [Google Scholar]
- Buizer, M.; Elands, B.; Vierikko, K. Governing cities reflexively—The biocultural diversity concept as an alternative to ecosystem services. Environ. Sci. Policy 2016, 62, 7–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Watts, J. Jair Bolsonaro’s rise to power casts shadow over UN environment conference: Participants at biodiversity convention say Amazon protections are under threat. Available online: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/nov/18/jair-bolsonaro-election-sparks-fears-for-brazil-biodiversity (accessed on 23 November 2018).
- Arts, K.; Rabelo, M.; De Figueiredo, D.; Maffey, G.; Ioris, A.; Girard, P. Online and Offline Representations of Biocultural Diversity: A Political Ecology Perspective on Nature-Based Tourism and Indigenous Communities in the Brazilian Pantanal. Sustainability 2018, 10, 3643. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ojha, H.R.; Ford, R.; Keenan, R.J.; Race, D.; Carias Vega, D.; Baral, H.; Sapkota, P. Delocalizing Communities: Changing Forms of Community Engagement in Natural Resources Governance. World Dev. 2016, 87, 274–290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Conklin, B.A.; Graham, L.R. The Shifting Middle Ground: Amazonian Indians and Eco-Politics. Am. Anthropol. 1995, 97, 695–710. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ribot, J.C.; Agrawal, A.; Larson, A.M. Recentralizing while decentralizing: How national governments reappropriate forest resources. World Dev. 2006, 34, 1864–1886. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ribot, J.C. Democratic decentralization of natural resources. In Beyond Structural Adjustment The Institutional Context of African Development; Springer: Berlin, Germay, 2003; pp. 159–182. [Google Scholar]
- Agrawal, A.; Gibson, C.C. Enchantment and disenchantment: The role of community in natural resource conservation. World Dev. 1999, 27, 629–649. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brockington, D. Forests, community conservation, and local government performance: The village forest reserves of Tanzania. Soc. Nat. Resour. 2007, 20, 835–848. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zent, E.L.; Zent, S. On biocultural diversity from a Venezuelan perspective: Tracing the interrelationships among biodiversity, culture change and legal reforms. In Biodiversity and the Law; Routledge: Abingdon-on-Thames, UK, 2012; pp. 127–150. [Google Scholar]
- Hay-Edie, T.; Howard, P.; Martin, G.; McCandless, S. The roles of local, national and international designations in conserving biocultural diversity on a landscape scale. Int. J. Herit. Stud. 2011, 17, 527–536. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Apgar, J.M.; Ataria, J.M.; Allen, W.J. Managing beyond designations: Supporting endogenous processes for nurturing biocultural development. Int. J. Herit. Stud. 2011, 17, 555–570. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Maffi, L.; Woodley, E. Biocultural Diversity Conservation: A Global Sourcebook; Routledge: Abingdon-on-Thames, UK, 2012; ISBN 1136544267. [Google Scholar]
- Foucault, M. Governmentality; Harvester Wheatsheaf: London, UK, 1991. [Google Scholar]
- Silva, L. Foucault in the landscape: Questioning governmentality in the Azores. Landsc. Res. 2015, 40, 397–410. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fletcher, R. Environmentality unbound: Multiple governmentalities in environmental politics. Geoforum 2017, 85, 311–315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Haller, T.; Acciaioli, G.; Rist, S. Constitutionality: Conditions for crafting local ownership of institution-building processes. Soc. Nat. Resour. 2016, 29, 68–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Haller, T.; Belsky, J.M.; Rist, S. The Constitutionality Approach: Conditions, Opportunities, and Challenges for Bottom-Up Institution Building. Hum. Ecol. 2018, 46, 1–2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Haller, T.; Merten, S. Crafting Our Own Rules: Constitutionality as a Bottom-Up Approach for the development of By-Laws in Zambia. Hum. Ecol. 2018, 46, 3–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brunner, R.D.; Clark, T.W. A Practice-based Approach to Ecosystem Management: Aproximación al Manejo de Ecosistemas Basada en la Práctica. Conserv. Biol. 1997, 11, 48–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- van der Arend, S.; Behagel, J. What participants do. A practice based approach to public participation in two policy fields. Crit. Policy Stud. 2011, 5, 169–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Arts, B.; Behagel, J.; Turnhout, E.; de Koning, J.; van Bommel, S. A practice based approach to forest governance. For. Policy Econ. 2014, 49, 4–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Behagel, J.H.; Arts, B.; Turnhout, E. Beyond argumentation: A practice-based approach to environmental policy. J. Environ. Policy Plan. 2017, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bourdieu, P. The Logic of Practice; Polity Press: Cambridge, UK, 1990. [Google Scholar]
- Behagel, J.; Arts, B.; van Bommel, S.; de Koning, J.; Turnhout, E. The Promise of Practice: The Value of the Practice Based Approach for Forest and Nature Governance Studies. In Forest and Nature Governance; Springer: Berlin, Germany, 2012; pp. 243–255. [Google Scholar]
- Krott, M.; Giessen, L. Learning from practices—Implications of the “practice based approach” for forest and environmental policy research. For. Policy Econ. 2014, 49, 12–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stellmacher, T.; Mollinga, P. The institutional sphere of coffee forest management in Ethiopia: Local level findings from Koma forest, Kaffa zone. Int. J. Soc. For. 2009, 2, 43–66. [Google Scholar]
- Wagenaar, H. “Knowing” the rules: Administrative work as practice. Public Adm. Rev. 2004, 64, 643–656. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bragagnolo, C.; Correia, R.; Malhado, A.C.M.; de Marins, M.; Ladle, R.J. Understanding non-compliance: Local people’s perceptions of natural resource exploitation inside two national parks in northeast Brazil. J. Nat. Conserv. 2017, 40, 64–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vadjunec, J.M.; Gomes, C.V.A.; Ludewigs, T. Land-use/land-cover change among rubber tappers in the Chico Mendes Extractive Reserve, Acre, Brazil. J. Land Use Sci. 2009, 4, 249–274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schmink, M.; Wood, C.H. Contested Frontiers in Amazonia, 1st ed.; Columbia University Press: New York, NY, USA, 1992. [Google Scholar]
- Salisbury, D.S.; Schmink, M. Cows versus rubber: Changing livelihoods among Amazonian extractivists. Geoforum 2007, 38, 1233–1249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Diegues, C.A. Marine Protected Areas and Artisanal Fisheries in Brazil; International Collective in Support of Fishworkers: Chennai, India, 2008. [Google Scholar]
- Criação de Unidades de Conservação. Available online: http://www.icmbio.gov.br/portal/criacaodeunidadesdeconservacao (accessed on 12 September 2018).
- Maciel, R.C.G.; da Silveira Cavalcanti, F.C.; de Souza, E.F.; de Oliveira, O.F.; Filho, P.G.C. The “Chico Mendes” extractive reserve and land governance in the Amazon: Some lessons from the two last decades. J. Environ. Manag. 2018, 223, 403–408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Athayde, S.; Stepp, J.R.; Ballester, W.C. Engaging indigenous and academic knowledge on bees in the Amazon: Implications for environmental management and transdisciplinary research. J. Ethnobiol. Ethnomed. 2016, 12, 26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wartmann, F.M.; Purves, R.S. ‘This is not the jungle, this is my barbecho’: Semantics of ethnoecological landscape categories in the Bolivian Amazon. Landsc. Res. 2017, 43, 77–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kohn, E. Anthropology of ontologies. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2015, 44, 311–327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Evans, K.; de Jong, W.; Cronkleton, P.; Sheil, D.; Lynam, T.; Kusumanto, T.; Colfer, C.J.P. Guide to Participatory Tools for Forest Communities; CIFOR: Bogor, Indonesia, 2006. [Google Scholar]
- Bernard, H.R. Research Methods in Anthropology, 5th ed.; AltaMira Press: Plymouth, UK, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Albuquerque, U.P.; Cruz da Cunha, L.V.F.; Lucena, R.F.P.; Alves, R.R.N. Methods and Techniques in Ethnobiology and Ethnoecology; Humana Press: New York, NY, UAS, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Bogner, A.; Littig, B.; Menz, W. Interviewing Experts (Research Methods Series); Palgrave Macmillan UK: Basingstoke, UK, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Newing, H. Conducting Research in Conservation; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2011; Volume 1, ISBN 9788578110796. [Google Scholar]
- Fairhead, J.; Leach, M. Misreading the African Landscape Society and Ecology in a Forest-Savanna Mosaic Part of African Studies; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1996. [Google Scholar]
- Moreto, W.D.; Brunson, R.K.; Braga, A.A. ‘Anything We Do, We Have to Include the Communities’: Law Enforcement Rangers’ Attitudes Towards and Experiences of Community-Ranger Relations in Wildlife Protected Areas in Uganda. Br. J. Criminol. 2017, 57, 924–944. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
|Offering suggestions for the improvement of livelihoods||Organising meetings on more efficient farming strategies|
|Offering alternative options for livelihoods||Showing the possibilities and benefits of making soap out of forest products|
|Offering new ideas for consumptive behaviour||Educating community members about the protection of turtles and tortoises|
|Creating new rules||Prohibiting hunting with dogs|
|Enforcing existing rules||Verifying that wood and bushmeat are not sold outside the reserve|
|Stimulating environmental awareness||Organising meetings about extractive lives|
|Assisting community members with specific problems||Helping out with family quarrels|
© 2018 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Mooij, M.L.J.; Dessartre Mendonça, S.; Arts, K. Conserving Biocultural Diversity through Community–Government Interaction: A Practice-Based Approach in a Brazilian Extractive Reserve. Sustainability 2019, 11, 32. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11010032
Mooij MLJ, Dessartre Mendonça S, Arts K. Conserving Biocultural Diversity through Community–Government Interaction: A Practice-Based Approach in a Brazilian Extractive Reserve. Sustainability. 2019; 11(1):32. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11010032Chicago/Turabian Style
Mooij, Marjolein L.J., Sabina Dessartre Mendonça, and Koen Arts. 2019. "Conserving Biocultural Diversity through Community–Government Interaction: A Practice-Based Approach in a Brazilian Extractive Reserve" Sustainability 11, no. 1: 32. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11010032