4.4 Population dynamics and conservation
Grazia Borrini-Feyerabend, Alex de Sherbinin and Gayl Ness
Local communities do have the power to influence population dynamics. Frequently, the issue of population dynamics is among the first identified by villagers discussing local conservation matters.
What is meant by population dynamics?
Population dynamics refers to the growth or decline of a population in a specific territory (e.g., a country, a region, a municipality, or a village).
The population of a territory grows when:
Age and sex distribution represents the proportional distribution by age and sex of people living in a territory. For instance, a territory might have 40 per cent of its population under age 15, 50 per cent between the ages of 15 and 64, and 10 per cent over age 65. This represents a "young age distribution", because a high proportion of the population is concentrated in the youngest age groups. Further, the sex composition might be 40 per cent male and 60 per cent female, which could reflect either male out-migration or the tendency for women to live longer than men.
How does it affect conservation?
Population dynamics affects the degree and rate of the use of natural resources. Conversely, the presence or absence of available natural resources is a determinant of local population size and density, and of the movement of people into and out of a territory.
Population growth
Today, many populations in the developing world are growing rapidly.
This is largely due to rapid declines in mortality (especially infant
mortality) while fertility has declined only slightly. Rapid population
growth puts more pressure on resources, and declining resources make life
more difficult for people. In the rural areas of the developing world
rapid population growth may mean that:
Population decline
Population decline can also have an impact on local resources. In some cases it can be beneficial, particularly when ecosystems left undisturbed revert to a richer level of biodiversity. This, however, usually requires decades, if not centuries, and some ecosystems may never return to their pre-human settlement condition.
Population decline can also be harmful to the environment, specifically in cases where human-managed environments provide a rich habitat for a wide variety of species. The breakdown of interaction between human communities and local ecosystems may even lead to a net loss in local biodiversity (Ghimire and Pimbert, 1996).
Migration
People have always moved from place to place. Nomads and pastoralists move with their herds in search of better pasture land. Individuals move to new places to find land, work, or a better living environment. Sometimes people are driven out of their homes by floods, droughts or violence.
People coming into an area will need to use local resources, and this may make local attempts at conservation more difficult. If a territory is seen to be relatively rich in resources (more jobs or land) people will want to move into the area.
One of the major demographic phenomena of the late 20th century has been the rapid growth of urban areas as a direct consequence of out-migration from rural areas. Urban areas in the developing world are growing at a rate one to two per cent faster than national population growth rates. This is due largely to the concentration of economic opportunities, infrastructure, and social services.
| Box 5 Conservation without counting
The government of a developing country established a national park 30 years ago. The only people living nearby were in a small village of 400 at the edge of an escarpment. They planted corn, fished, and hunted for their food. Planning for the park did not take account of this village. Today the village has 1,500 people, is growing at about three per cent per year, and more than half the inhabitants are under 15 years of age. Villagers complain: "...government put the boundary of the park right next to our village, and forbids hunting in the park. If we cannot hunt, we have less to eat, and the baboons come to take our crops". Hunting does continue in the park and the game population is declining. Villagers also complain that there will not be enough land for their children. Already many young people have to migrate to the towns to find work. The future does not look good to them, nor does the conservation of the park's wild species. |
Taking population dynamics into account
Failure to take account of population dynamics can lead to failure in conservation initiatives. When we plan for conservation of resources, we must ask how many people live around or in the conservation area, how many of the resources they need for their welfare and survival, and how those people are changing in numbers and in composition. Are they growing or declining? Are there going to be more or fewer children with respect to a given number of adults? Are there going to be more or fewer women with respect to a given number of men (e.g., because of male migration)? How are these phenomena going to affect their livelihood and their interaction with and dependence on natural resources?
Natural increase (births minus deaths) is the easiest to study. There are good and effective tools for counting numbers of people and estimating how many there will be in five, ten or 20 years. This is done with population projections, an easy technique that provides good predictions of the future size and age and sex composition of populations.
Making population projections allows people in a village or district
to see how many people, and of what ages, there will be in the future.
Local people can then use these estimates for planning purposes. They
can, for example:
The birth rate can also be reduced easily and safely. Today there are government and non-governmental family planning programmes that can help people to limit the number of births and increase the amount of time between them. These programmes have been successful in reducing fertility in highly varied contexts. Well-run programmes are also very effective in improving the health of women and of children.
Family planning programmes are sometimes opposed on religious or cultural grounds. Such opposition often conflicts with the real needs of women who, because of their responsibilities in child-bearing and child-rearing, increasingly prefer to have fewer children. Surveys show that in many countries there is a large unmet need for family planning among women; that is, many women who express a desire to limit or space births do not have access to family planning services.
| Box 6 Conservation with counting (and more!)
In another country that will remain unnamed villagers worked with a government agency to plan together for conservation of game in their nearby forest. As part of the basic assessment, a population projection was done. This showed the villagers that the number of local residents would grow from 1,200 to 2,500 in just 25 years, with many more children needing schooling, and many more young people needing jobs. To plan for this, the village worked out a scheme with the government where they acquired responsibility for the management of the forest. The government helped them build a rustic tourist lodge on the shore of a lake bordering the forest; the villagers now act as wildlife guides for the tourists, and sell them crafts and food. The local institution in charge of managing the forests often calls for community meetings to discuss various problems and decisions to be taken. There have been lengthy debates about the difficult working conditions of women, the scarcity of good agricultural land, the declining catch of fish in the lake and the growing number of households. Today, several women regularly visit the district health centre and receive health and family planning services. Although transport to the health centre is not easily available, the health of children is generally improving and women have — and wish to have — fewer children than before. People feel reasonably secure of their livelihood and the game population in the forest is not, at least at the moment, in jeopardy. |
Migration is not so easy to change. Whereas population growth through natural increase tends to be more or less predictable, migration can change population size dramatically from one year to the next. Witness the boom and bust cycles of some mining towns, where people initially attracted to new job opportunities quickly move out when mineral resources are depleted and the industry closes down.
People may be attracted to a new area by the lure of new opportunities or unexploited resources (so-called pull factors), or they may be driven into an area by violence, drought, famine, or lack of opportunity in their original lands (push factors). The construction of a new road or landing strip may also open up previously inaccessible lands, thus removing barriers to migration.
Government policy can provide incentives and disincentives to migrants. Incentives can include giving new settlers rights to virgin land or land occupied by indigenous peoples. Disincentives can include enforcement of land tenure laws, or recognition of the right of preexisting groups to have control of local resources. Policy in the form of state-sponsored violence against disenfranchised populations can also affect population movements, inducing people to move into previously protected areas in order to escape persecution.
What can be done at the local level?
Local communities do have the power to influence population dynamics. Frequently, the issue of population dynamics is among the first identified by villagers discussing local conservation matters. As illustrated in Box 6, a community engaged in internal discussions and accustomed to organize and take action may make more use of health and family planning services (or even set up their own if necessary). The villagers may also figure out ways of stopping the out-migration of their best work force, or of preventing newcomers from settling in their area. This could be facilitated by well-organized land tenure regimes and well-established rules for access to common land and resources. And local institutions for resource management are likely to be of paramount importance.
Improving women's status is a key ingredient for sustainable development. Educated women and women who form self-help associations are more likely to be aware of environmental issues and also more likely to practice family planning. Village women's associations, in conjunction with local institutions for resource management, can go a long way toward improving the use of natural resources, and gaining equitable access to them.
References
Barton, T., Borrini-Feyerabend, G., de Sherbinin, A. and P. Warren,
Our People, Our Resources: Assisting Rural Communities in Population
Appraisal and Planning Processes, IUCN and UNFPA, 1997 (forthcoming).
Ghimire, K. and M. Pimbert, Social Change and Conservation: Environmental
Politics and Impacts of National Parks and Protected Areas, UNRISD,
Geneva, 1996 (in press).
McNeely, J. and G. Ness, "People, Parks and Biodiversity: Issues
in Population-environment Dynamics", IUCN, Gland (Switzerland), 1995.
United Nations, Population, Environment and Development, Proceedings
of the United Nations Expert Group Meeting on Population, Environment
and Development, UN Headquarters, 20-24 January 1992, United Nations,
New York, 1994.
Wolfson, M., Community Action for Family Planning: A Comparison of
Six Project Experiences, OECD, Paris, 1987.
4.5 Gender concerns
in conservation
Anoja Wickramasinghe
Women's autonomy over resource management should be treated as a key issue if resources are to be sustained. Unless such a transition is accepted, powerful, male-dominated institutions will control the resources and deepen the problems faced by rural women.
Womens relationship to natural resources
Women's relationship to natural resources has evolved over generations and is embedded in culture. In terms of tribal living, it is possible to visualize how the division of tasks evolved. Women took care of the extended family, which includes a multitude of tasks: home maintenance; caring for children, the sick and the elderly; producing crops; gathering food for family consumption; fetching water; and collecting fuelwood.
In hunting and gathering societies, women were in a privileged position because of the availability of resources. In such societies, women developed technologies freely. For instance, household utensils were made using the leaves of trees, shrubs, palms and grasses; edible and medicinal oils were extracted from nuts and kernels; leaves, roots, stems, nuts and fruits were used as food; and species for domestication were collected and nurtured. Women also developed technologies for making mats and for drying grains and other food. Great knowledge and skill converted resources into usable forms.
In more recent and 'advanced' societies, women who carry the knowledge, experience and skills of utilizing and managing resources have been increasingly confined to a narrow household sphere. They have been deprived of traditional authority over resource management and have become dependent on market products. In addition, with the continuing fragmentation of land among family members (particularly sons) women's access to resources has shrunk. Attending to traditional tasks has become problematic and drudgery has increased. Over the last two centuries women's share of the formal economy and the production sectors, particularly in rural areas, has fallen dramatically. Women's sphere has been reduced to a narrowly defined domestic life while men's access to resource use and management has broadened dramatically. I speak on the basis of my knowledge of Sri Lanka, but the same considerations apply to many other societies.
Women and agricultural production
During recent decades, women have been displaced in resource management. Traditional soil and water conservation practices and organic fertilizer and pest control techniques have been replaced by externally-designed, more expensive methods. New hybrid varieties grown for cash revenue have become increasingly dominant. Replacing women's low-cost, self-sustaining management practices with short-term crop-specific external inputs has exhausted the resource base of the land. Soils, water, organic compounds and the wealth of wild plant species — frequently used for mulching, fodder and medicinal purposes — are threatened.
Decisions over selecting seeds, crop mixtures, applying traditional technologies, controlling pests and weeds and enriching soils no longer belong to women. Even attempts to restore traditional and cultural resources and introduce "environmentally friendly technologies" assume a male-dominated institutional frame. "Organic farming" is an example. Men's efforts in demonstration plots and experimental trials are usually publicized, while the organic farming practices continued by women through their experience and knowledge are overlooked. Long-standing indigenous resource management practices, which include organic fertilization, pest control by applying ash, and weed control by applying crop residues, are harmonious with the total environment and within the capacity of women. Women's long-standing relationship with natural resources is overlooked to the detriment of recovery. In many countries, the customary division of labour relegates the handling of tools and equipment and the extension of credit exclusively to males, on the basis of men's ownership of land.
Womens contribution to biodiversity
During early civilization, natural cultivars were transferred into the farmlands by early agriculturalists. Women were largely responsible for gathering and preparing food and medicinal herbs, and were knowledgeable about the resources, their locations and their domestication and propagation. With the transition to commercial crops, traditional cultivars have been replaced with a few high-yielding varieties, at the cost of biodiversity and women's control over genetic resources. The diversity in the genetic resources, maintained through natural selection without environmental stresses, is lessened. With the introduction of foreign varieties, traditional practices of storing seeds collected in the wilderness or at harvesting are often abandoned.
| Box 7 Biodiversity loss in Kelegama, Sri Lanka
The nature of biodiversity changes was highly visible in the course of conducting research in Kelegama, Sri Lanka, during 1987-1989. Although the women interviewed were able to recall numerous locations where widely-used plant varieties were once obtained, they were unable to find these varieties any more. In addition, the overall environmental degradation in these areas has inhibited the migration of seed-carriers like birds and animals. About 14 varieties of root crops, used during off-harvest seasons as a substitute for the staple diet of rice, are no longer available. Nearly 84 varieties of plants, with medicinal and food values, have been lost. Indigenous varieties of millet, cassava, wild rice, sesame, pumpkins, melons, cucumbers and herbs are no longer available. What is seen in the case of Sri Lanka is not only a transition from local cultivars to foreign ones, but also a transition from women's control over genetic resources to external gene pools managed by male-dominated sectors. The costs are the depletion of diversity and more expensive seeds and other materials. |
Women and forest resources
The history of women's link with natural resources shows a pattern of retreat. The forest, for example, once used by women as a free resource for a multitude of products, is now greatly reduced. Also, many forests are demarcated as "protected areas" where women are forbidden to extract forest products. As a result, women must often walk long distances to collect wood and spend more time burning raw or wet wood. As a result they compromise their leisure, productive and household activities.
Women are increasingly forced to depend largely on man-made, privately-owned systems. Women bear the brunt of resource depletion, becoming exhausted as supplies fall. With the continuous fragmentation of land, and increasing landlessness, the problems associated with fuelwood scarcities will only grow.
The limited insight into the problems of deforestation and the restriction of state intervention to producing timber reduces the forest's ability to meet many survival needs. The forest economy built up by women over generations has collapsed. Despite the obvious magnitude of the crisis, fuelwood is not a major concern for foresters. Yet for women, collecting fuelwood is debilitating drudgery, which requires more and more energy and time. Today, the links among women, survival and forest products are the least acknowledged elements of the forestry sector.
With the realization of the adverse affects of deforestation and the resulting environmental crisis, some attempts are being made, with women's participation, to reclaim the livable environment. But women's labour is not a remedy in itself. Women need to contribute to formulating strategies for conserving forests; managers of forest conservation programmes must reformulate policies to accommodate women's knowledge and needs.
Women and water resources
Not only is water essential for drinking, cooking, hygiene and sanitation, it also permits women to produce vegetables in their gardens for the family pot. Women without adequate supplies of clean water nearby face enormous difficulties. During water scarcities, women's ability to assure health, food security and proper nutrition for their family is jeopardized. In addition, reduced crop production as a result of water shortage reduces the ability of women to earn an income from casual work in the fields of others.
Depending on the distance and depth of water, a considerable amount of labour is needed to make it available. Where springs do not emerge at the surface, women have to lift water out of dug wells. Even if surface water in rivers and tanks is accessible, heavy contamination is a major deterrent in some areas.
Water gathering requires additional time which could be spent on production activities or household welfare. It also weakens physical and mental health. Moreover, women's inability to fetch adequate quantities tends to reduce the amount of water used. A study covering two villages in Sri Lanka (Kolobissa and Rassagala) showed that women spent at least six to eight hours a day fetching water for domestic use alone.
Strategies for empowerment
It is hard to achieve gender equity in access to resources and management decisions on the grounds of women's potential contributions to conservation. It requires the transformation of social attitudes, commercial interests, policies and politics. Resource policies need to be restructured to reflect grassroots needs. Women want to be contributors to the sustainable management of resources. Policy-makers however, remain reluctant.
Much information is still needed to sensitize decision-makers about the potential contribution of women. In some countries, a shortage of information and poor awareness of issues remains a constraint to the grassroots approach required. Moreover, most women have no formally organized institutions to influence national policy. Special efforts are required of policy-makers and programme designers if women are to contribute to resource management strategies.
How can women be empowered to modify the systems that damage the natural resources? How can this happen in countries where cultural constraints exclude women from decision-making structures? One prerequisite is a recognition of equal rights to resources, including household land. This requires the acceptance of women as well as men as legal owners to the land.
Women's autonomy over resource management should be treated as a key issue if resources are to be sustained. Unless such a transition is accepted, powerful, male-dominated institutions will control the resources and deepen the problems faced by rural women. The solution lies in providing a fair share and opportunity to women who have the knowledge, experience and desire to take care of resources for the sustenance of future generations.
References
Agawal, B., Cold Hearth and Barren Slopes: The Woodfuel Crisis
in the Third World, Zed Books, London, 1986.
Boserup, E., Women's Role in Economic Development, St. Martin's
Press, New York, 1986.
Davidson, J. and I. Dankelman, Women and Environment in the Third World,
Earthscan, London, 1988.
Klee, G., World System of Traditional Resource Management, Halstead,
New York, 1980.
Wickramasinghe, A., Deforestation, Women and Forestry, International
Books, The Netherlands, 1994.
4.6 Participation in conservation why, what, when, how?
Grazia Borrini-Feyerabend
The participation of local people provides a unique assurance of the sustainability of the conservation initiative ... most local communities possess greater stability and continuity than national governments. Their investments are made for the next generation rather than for the next election.
If we understand "participation" in the simplest of its meanings — taking part, sharing, acting together — people's participation is nothing less than the basic texture of social life. For millennia, people have "participated" in shaping their cultures and survival strategies in an immense variety of ecological environments. For the greater part of human existence, this sharing of tasks and responsibilities took place in self-regulated small groups — 50 or 60 individuals — who interacted face-to-face and shared the hunting, gathering, leisure and learning of daily life.
With the advent of agriculture, and especially with the development of industrial production, social units grew in size and became internally diversified and specialized. Regulations and enterprises developed and, promoted by special groups, had to face the consensus, the indifference or the opposition of the rest of society. Spontaneous participation became an important test of confidence and trust.
In recent decades, large-scale planning, government services and regulations, entrepreneurial projects and development schemes have increasingly dominated socio-political life. In this context, "people's participation" is valued and sought after by virtually all institutions, large and small alike. Why is this so? What benefits can be expected from participation; in particular, what are the benefits for a conservation initiative?
Benefits of participation
To begin with, participation is a condition by which local knowledge, skills and resources can be mobilized and fully employed. Local people may understand very well the causes and possible remedies of deforestation or soil erosion in their environment. They may know how to find and use plants of unique properties or how to prevent animals from damaging new seedlings. They may be able to offer labour, land, food, shelter or tools to run a project. Contributions like these increase the flexibility of an initiative and its responsiveness to local conditions. They also reduce the chance of mistakes with major environmental consequences and often mean the difference between success and failure. In fact, the overriding benefit of people's participation is the increased effectiveness of any initiative.
Another major benefit is a more efficient use of resources. Local knowledge and skills help minimize waste and obtain results with limited investments. Participation can bring to the project the full benefits of human and material resources that would otherwise remain idle or poorly utilized, and local monitoring discourages the undue use of assets and promotes accountability and respect for rules.
Most of all, however, the participation of local people provides a unique assurance of the sustainability of a conservation initiative. In fact, local people are — at least potentially — the most directly interested in the positive results of such initiatives. When people initiate them or participate in setting them up; when they invest their own hopes and resources in them, they are likely to remain motivated to sustain them in the long run. In fact, most local communities possess greater stability and continuity than national governments. Their investments are made for the next generation rather than for the next election.
Agencies concerned with the effectiveness, efficiency and sustainability of conservation initiatives can thus profit from people's participation. But participation directly benefits local people as well. When people take part in assessing environmental problems, resources and opportunities, they acquire information and enhance their awareness of the factors that play a role in their lives. When people act and contribute, they often acquire new skills and have the opportunity of organizing themselves, with a variety of returns for local equity, self-reliance and building of community or group identity.
| Box 8 What to expect from participation
You can expect the following when people participate in a conservation
initiative:
|
Problems with participation
Given all the benefits listed above, is participation universally desirable?
Does it create any problems? The management of an initiative may wish
to consider the following potential issues and constraints:
| Box 9 Ambiguity in participation
The current widespread interest in people's participation in environmental and development programmes surely derives from the impressive benefits that participation is expected to bring. It also derives, however, from a certain ambiguity about the concept itself. The possible interpretations of participation (which also reflect alternative interpretations of the concepts of development and democracy) span from it being "a means to facilitate and improve external interventions" to being "an end in itself". If local people participate, they are willing to contribute local resources: this is the basic rationale for promoting participation as "a means". For instance, people participate when they provide free labour for local construction, free or low-cost lodging and food for external workers, or necessary land, timber, building materials, animals, water, etc. From this point of view, participation considers only the people who are involved in specific activities in a given period of time. The phenomenon is relatively easy to monitor and evaluate. The rationale of participation as "an end in itself" is more lofty, and its practice and evaluation are more complex. People participate when they take an active role in planning, deciding, implementing and evaluating initiatives. In this way, people — in particular the poor and disadvantaged — end up organizing to overcome problems and to gain more control over their local environment and livelihood. Thus, seeking participation aims beyond the horizon of a specific initiative. A main indicator of success is the development and strengthening of local organizations, which can represent people's interests and concerns long after a specific initiative has ceased to exist. The above views can appear incompatible, but, as often happens in real life, specific people in specific contexts end up being more influential than ideological approaches in determining results. At times, participation promoted for the sake of savings and work efficiency has caused a major development of local awareness and concern. On other occasions, well-intentioned agencies never managed to arouse the interest of local people for their own development and/or empowerment.
|
How do we seek participation?
There is no 'recipe' for participation, nor any all-purpose description of what it should entail. But every effort should be made to overcome ambiguity, and to be explicit about why, where, when and how people are expected to participate in the conservation initiative (see Box 10: Specificity in participation). When this is done, it is usually found that certain conditions and forms of support are needed, i.e., that participation needs to be allowed, facilitated and promoted. It may seem to be a paradox, but people's participation in a conservation initiative has to be specifically planned.
| Box 10 Specificity in participation
|
What would constitute effective participation in a conservation initiative?
The answers to this question can be many. For instance the following,
or various combinations of the following, can all be taken as examples
of participation in a conservation initiative:
| Box 11 Avenues of participation
There are several possible ways for people to participate:
|
It is important to remember that not all local people possess the same capacities, interests or willingness to participate in a conservation initiative. Distinguishing among different stakeholders and making sure that they are all given a chance to participate is crucial (see concept file on social actors and stakeholders).
References
Bass, S., Dalal-Clayton, B. and J. Pretty, Participation in Strategies
for Sustainable Development – Environmental Planning Issues
No. 7, IIED, London, 1995.
Borrini, G., Enhancing People's Participation in the Tropical Forests
Action Programme, FAO, Rome, 1993.
Cernea, M. M., Putting People First, World Bank, Oxford University
Press, New York, 1985.
Chambers, R., Rural Development: Putting the Last First, Longman,
London, 1983.
Cohen, J. and N. Uphoff, "Participation's place in rural development:
seeking clarity through specificity", World Development 8:
213- 235, 1980.
Drijver, C., "People's participation in environmental projects in
developing countries", IIED, Dryland Networks Programme, Paper No.
17, 1990.
Durning, A. B., Action at the Grassroots: Fighting Poverty and Environmental
Decline, Worldwatch Paper 88, Worldwatch Institute, Washington D.C.,
1989.
Ghai, D. and J. Vivian (eds.), Grassroots Environmental Action: People's
Participation in Sustainable Development, Routledge, London and New
York, 1992.
Ghimire, K. and M. Pimbert (eds.), Social Change and Conservation:
Environmental Politics and Impacts of National Parks and Protected Areas,
UNRISD, Geneva, 1996 (in press).
Hirshman, A. O., Getting Ahead Collectively: Grassroots Experiences
in Latin America, Pergamon Press, New York, 1985.
Kropotkin, P., Mutual Aid, first edition 1902, reprinted by Extending
Horizons Books, Boston (Massachusetts), 1955.
Max Neef, M. A., From the Outside Looking In: Experiences in Barefoot
Economics, Dag Hammarskjöld Foundation, Uppsala (Sweden), 1982.
Ndione, E. S., Dynamique Urbaine d'une Societe en Grappe, ENDA,
Dakar, 1987.
Oakley, P. and D. Marsden, Approaches to Participation in Rural Development,
ILO, Geneva, 1984.
Oakley, P. et al., Projects With People, ILO, Geneva, 1991.
Pradervand, P., Listening to Africa: Developing Africa from the Grassroots,
Praeger, New York, 1989.
Rahnema, M., "Participation" in Sachs, W. (ed.), The Development
Dictionary, Zed Books, London, 1992.
Ralston, L. Anderson, J. and E. Colson, Voluntary Efforts in Decentralized
Management, Institute of International Studies, University of California,
Berkeley, 1981.
Reader, J., Man on Earth, Penguin Social Sciences, London, 1990.
Richards, P., Indigenous Agricultural Revolutions, Unwin Hyman,
London, 1985.
World Bank, The World Bank Participation Sourcebook, The World
Bank, Washington D.C., 1996.
| <<< BACK | CONTENTS | NEXT >>> |