Beyond Fences: Seeking Social Sustainability in Conservation

4.28 Management styles

Aban Kabraji

As the experience of running NGOs and complex development and field projects increasingly shows, the success of projects, institutions and complex development initiatives depends not so much on the quantum of human or financial resources available, but on their effective management.

Good management practice for conservation is no different than good management in general. Whether one is dealing with complex development projects, large institutions, private sector companies or a bank, success depends on the ability to apply resources wisely. A fine balance must be maintained among people, their performance for the objectives agreed and the resources — their input, availability and use — to achieve the purpose agreed upon. When such a balance is struck, people manage resources wisely, and successful initiatives and institutions emerge. This is the essence of good management and it depends on a multiplicity of factors, most of which derive from human values, cultures and norms. How well a manager understands and responds to those will make the difference between a good conservation project or a failure.

Management theory is a proliferating field which is usually thought of as having the greatest relevance to the corporate sector. As the experience of running NGOs and complex development and field projects increasingly shows, the success of projects, institutions and complex development initiatives depends not so much on the quantum of human or financial resources available, but on their effective management. Increasingly, then, the new management theory of the corporate sector is beginning to influence that of conservation and development NGOs. Without attempting to encapsulate the complex debates of current wisdom, there are a few basics that can be adopted as good practices in conservation initiatives, be they field projects or complex institutional programmes.

Take the idea of management seriously. Too many scientists assume that a PhD implicitly gives them the ability to manage people effectively. On the contrary, academic training (and especially the physical sciences as they are taught), tend to foster an isolationist, hierarchical, top-down and directive style and a 'boss knows best' arrogance. Good managers recognize both the necessity of incorporating the vigour that good science provides, and the necessity of putting themselves into listening and learning mode when faced with complex initiatives.

This is equally true of social scientists or people from government backgrounds, who come in with an assumption that management is a simple matter of common sense. Common sense does contribute to good management, but good management is not based on common sense only. It is also based on certain principles and styles, and this has to be recognized as the first step in a learning process.

Good managers are not born, they are trained, either formally through a course, or by emulating a role model or leader figure who they regard as having a successful management style. A great deal depends on where you are coming from and the values, ideas and personality traits you bring to the job in hand. The best managers are secure individuals, confident in themselves and happy in their jobs. They provide leadership by example, as much as by guidance and direction, and they combine a multitude of styles — activist, reflective, theorist, pragmatist — which are brought to bear in varying measure on different occasions.

Management structure must emerge from the needs of a project or programme, and not the other way around. The more innovative and demanding the project, the more flexible and responsive the structures will need to be. Increasingly, the old models of rigid hierarchical structures derived from bureaucratic models of management are discarded as unworkable in the complex world of conservation, and are being replaced by structures more akin to a web. These have the virtue of being decentralized but connected, of being responsive (if you tweak one strand of a web the whole structure moves), but independent, and of being open and transparent. Such attributes of management are essential when projects demand constant adaptability to changing circumstances, donors change the goal posts, and one is not playing on a level playing field.

What does all this mean in terms of the management of a conservation initiative? Some points to be considered — which all imply an open and confident management style — include the following:

think through clearly the objectives of the initiative; use a Logic Framework Analysis or ZOPP Planning Exercise, whenever possible; if at the end of the process you find that the initiative is being done for the money (donor pressure) or for political considerations (your partners expect it), then be honest with your planning team from the start;
choose the best people you can find and try to ensure that systems and resources are in place to tempt them to join you, and stay on; remember that there is no substitute for human competence, and that competence is a priceless resource to be recognized, identified and pursued at all reasonable cost — on it hinges the success or failure of an initiative; good project managers will hire people who they recognize as good or better than themselves, and will see themselves as coordinating a team, not heading it. Good people attract other good people, and this has a multiplier effect;
recognize that good professionals are demanding and, to deliver their best, they require autonomy, support and feedback in terms of results and effectiveness;
make sure that the initiative has a clear structure with well thought out job descriptions, clear reporting lines (there can be one direct and multiple additional lines so as to foster sharing, cooperation and teamwork), and measurable indicators of accountability and results; clarity, and openness to question decisions and their rationale are essential;
be flexible to adapt to changing circumstances and new dimensions; good managers do not personalize circumstances that prove their decision wrong; they learn from mistakes and reorganize structures and styles to respond to the different demands of a project;
make sure that people, material and information are easily accessible; the more open the systems, the more likely people will 'own' them and feel responsible for the whole rather than their individual piece; this requires ensuring that communication systems are in place and open to all the stakeholders with the initiative;
as a certain management style pervades an institution (or a team), it becomes part of the organizational culture; if this carries within it the values of openness, respect and collaboration, it in turn will influence members and partners in the initiative; more importantly, it will make the team less dependent on just one individual for direction and decision-making, and on a shared sense of values, of what's right and what you expect of yourself in any circumstance; a "corporate identity" will develop for the team and its partners;
at the beginning of the initiative, think of the question you must ask yourself at the end of it; i.e., have we made a difference? Is an institution, a community or an ecosystem now stronger and more stable than before? Has capacity been built, have leaders emerged, have ideas taken root, are new initiatives emerging independently? Are the old ideas, the old leaders, even the project heads being challenged by the community that they have helped strengthen through the project? Most importantly, have the stakeholders developed the capacity to take over the management of their resources? If they have, do they share a sense of partnership with the managers of the initiative? If you are able to respond positively to some of these questions, your initiative will have made a difference.

Box 20 Good management in Northern Pakistan

In the Northern Province of Pakistan, the Aga Khan Rural Support Programme (AKRSP) has worked for years to make mountain village communities self-reliant by providing them with credit, infrastructure development, training, education and health services, all managed through the structure of village organizations (VOs).

One day AKRSP received from one of the village communities a request for help to develop their wild animal and plant resources in much the same way as their agriculture was managed. The communities would invest in the conservation of their resources. They would not allow any hunting or poaching of ibex, urial, markhor and snow leopard and medicinal plants, and patrol the range to ensure no one else did. In return the community would expect an economic benefit, through trophy fees for hunting, or investment in infrastructure for ecotourism and a share in the benefits thereof, or access to markets for herbs and medicinal plants. They wished to forge a new social contract.

AKRSP approached IUCN Pakistan, who, in turn, developed a project with the Government of Pakistan which sent it to UNDP for GEF funding. Funding was approved, and work began. The first challenge was to implement the complex design of the project, which had recognized from the start the critical importance of developing partnerships and ensuring that all the partners were represented at various levels of the decision-making process.

The hiring of project personnel began by a process of open advertisement, with preference expressed for local people who spoke the local languages (although this was balanced out by persons from elsewhere if the level of technical experience required was not available locally). Selection took place through an open interview panel process. The project team was chosen to represent a cross sector of disciplines both in the social and physical sciences.

The reporting lines within the project team follow a matrix style but there is a strong emphasis on accountability to the partners in the project, the communities, government and AKRSP. It is clearly recognized that no technical competence will substitute for the success which comes out of community management, ownership and commitment to conservation. Thus the project team focuses on providing the support, facilitation and technical advice necessary to guide the villagers in attaining their objectives. It also uses its technical know-how and access to transliterate traditional knowledge and conservation practice to the outside world and its markets. (Project reports are written in English but the language of discourse and the plans are in Urdu or another local language.)

The style of management is open, participatory and inclusive. Many communities and NGOs who have heard of the initiative wish to join in. Wherever possible, an attempt is made to include them.

To manage and monitor the project on a regular basis, the project management team meet periodically with a support group drawn from the partners in the project and thematic units (communication, education, business, law, environmental assessment). At these sessions, the project team speak of problems of logistics and management of conceptual issues and of what works and doesn't. Constant modification of the project's management is thus possible, based on ground realities.

Correspondence, reports and literature are widely disseminated and shared with all partners, encouraging a culture of involvement and participation. All reports, both programmatic and financial, are available and circulated to all partners.

There is an attempt to build learning into the project from inception; to allow for this, budget lines exist to document case studies of special relevance to the project for wider dissemination.

Many of the safeguards of good management have been built in, but for another five years no one can be sure whether the project will actually work. Ultimately that will depend not so much on such factors as the climate and its effects on the biology of the ibex, but on whether the project team earns the trust of the communities with whom they work, on whether the communities in turn value the resources enough to invest in them in anticipation of long-term gain, and whether government and politicians can be convinced to deliver on their promises. All this will only be possible with project managers who understand the importance of such principles of management as honesty, openness, sharing, collaboration, delegation, decentralization, negotiation, compromise, flexibility and trust.

For too long successful projects in conservation have depended on physical targets to measure achievement. Physical targets in themselves mean nothing unless they are sustainable and renewable. This, in turn, is not possible without managers who understand the value of sustainability and the factors fostering it. Good management is integral to the sustainability of conservation!

4.29 Cross-cultural communication and local media

Ricardo Ramírez

Whose message?

Conservation efforts can only be sustained by the very communities who derive a livelihood from their environment. They should be both the beneficiaries and the ultimate decision-makers of a conservation programme.

Understanding peoples knowledge of their environment and learning about their aspirations for the future is a communication task

Listen and you may understand

Dealing with cross-cultural communication and local media focuses more on how to listen than on how to talk. Communication begins by learning to learn about existing knowledge and hopes. Listening requires skill and respect; the best communicators tend to be those who have trained themselves to learn and derive meaning from different media: from the elder's anecdotes and oral history, from the artists' symbols, their songs and poetry, and from traditional theatre and pup-petry. Before effort and resources are dedicated to explaining outsiders' proposals, conservation workers must first learn about local perspectives, indigenous knowledge and people's hopes for the future. This task is the essence and starting point for cross-cultural communication to take place in the context of a rehabilitation or conservation programme.

Le griot in Mali, just like el merolico in Mexico, is a storyteller who entices villagers to hear their sung message (Chiovoloni, 1994). People gather to listen to the message as it conveys meaning; after all, the source and content of the message was gathered from other villagers and, after all, who can refuse to listen to the predicaments and stories of others conveyed through the wit of local language?

Professionally yours

No one expects conservation workers to become village jesters. However, many rural development workers who are involved with conservation programmes are increasingly being asked to facilitate local planning and bottom-up development. The trend towards decentralized decision-making and more local government is the major reason for the emphasis on participation. While many development workers are faced with this new role of facilitation, they hardly asked for it, nor have they received relevant training to fulfil such a function. Moreover, even those who have received training work in conditions where bottom-up planning and learning from rural people lead to no professional rewards. Facilitation requires a new professionalism to allow rural workers to gain respect from performing their new role (Pretty and Chambers, 1993).

The field of communication lends a hand to conservation workers by making the task of listening respectable professionally and rewarding. Communication is about bridging understanding. This is done by exchanging messages to create meaning and to enrich the knowledge base of rural communities to help them face change. Achieving this outcome is very rewarding and it represents the major goal of facilitation. Communicating the potential rewards of a conservation initiative cannot lead to a sustained programme if rural communities are not offered an opportunity to value and challenge the outside proposal on the basis of their own know-how and their mechanisms for dealing with change.

Local knowledge, traditional media and social patterns

Puppets in West Africa are an example of traditional media whereby the puppeteers perform for the benefit of their audience. The performance, however, does more than entertain: it conveys messages which may at times challenge the status quo. The puppets are often able to express ideas and challenge accepted norms of their society; they are a buffer which allows the young to communicate to the elderly issues which are too delicate to address directly. The young can challenge the old through the puppets. It is the only medium that is socially acceptable to deliver such a message.

The example is important because it demonstrates the close link between local knowledge, traditional media and social patterns to accommodate change, all of which maintain the delicate balance taking place as rural communities strive to face new options. Economic and environmental degradation place great stress on rural communities, and local expression often becomes the buffer and the means to accommodate evolving survival strategies in communities. Conservation efforts cannot take root without an understanding of the close interrelationship between local knowledge and local media which allows for expression to take place in a culturally acceptable manner.

Bridging local and outside knowledge

The challenge of cross-cultural communication is to bridge local and outside knowledge. Communication happens when information from one person's knowledge base is packaged and transferred (communicated) in a form that others may understand and from which they can derive meaning to enrich their (different) knowledge base. The 'packaging' and the 'transfer' of the information can take place in many forms, ranging from traditional media (the spoken word, theatre, songs and art) to simple graphics and illustrations (as used for visualizing information for rapid appraisal), to electronic media (audio recordings, photographic and video images). Traditional media works best among people of the same culture (same knowledge base) as the information tends to be coded according to accepted symbols and perspectives. An example is humour, which, even as an effective tool to enhance communication, loses its value easily across culture: translating jokes between languages is rarely possible. A good facilitator learns to decode traditional media, much in the way a social anthropologist learns to understand a culture. In selected instances, the facilitator seeks to harness the creativity of local artists to convey messages from outside (FAO, 1995a). This approach, however, requires extensive investigation into local perspectives to ensure that the message is understandable and meaningful locally.

Locally-produced media

Local media refers to communication materials produced locally, be they traditional or modern (electronic). Community participation in message production is easiest achieved in the short run through traditional media, as local artists are experts in their media. There are, however, numerous examples of locally-produced media products using modern electronic media (see, for instance, FAO, 1987 and 1989, FAO/Querre, 1991). The electronic dimension provides access to the mass media and to broadcasting opportunities which traditional media have rarely controlled. Providing communities with the access and skill to take control over both traditional and modern media is the key to making communication useful to conservation efforts.

Visualizing information a common language

Another dimension of learning about local knowledge is the visualization of local knowledge using simple graphics and maps. Rapid rural appraisal (RRA) and participatory rural appraisal (PRA) refer to a number of tools by which a facilitator may assist rural communities to visualize their knowledge and share their understanding of their environment through information presented as drawings, models and maps. The facilitator suggests sequences of techniques to illustrate and organize the information which rural people are willing to share.

One could argue that PRA techniques indeed constitute an imposition of media which is sometimes regarded by technicians as too simple, and unsophisticated. Nevertheless, using a media which locals and outsiders may manipulate with the same ease and under the same conditions is an important contribution to dialogue and understanding. A simple diagram becomes a common language. Visualizing communication networks is another useful entry point for the conservation worker. This PRA tool allows a community and a facilitator to map out the networks of information exchange which all stakeholders exploit; it helps recognize source of information and major patters of communication (FAO, 1995b).

Agriculture and health are two sectors where communication activities have followed top-down models of communication. Agricultural extension has been dominated in many countries by the transfer of technology model with a predominantly one-way flow of information: from researchers, through extension workers, to farmers. Health communication has been greatly influenced by social marketing where research into people's beliefs is used to design messages to modify audiences' behaviour related to immunization, nutrition, and sanitation. Communication in the conservation area has evolved more recently and has been influenced more by the education field. At the basis is the skill of listening to enhance learning about existing knowledge. From this perspective, communication for conservation will play the most effective role when the facilitators are willing to listen before they speak.

References

Chiovoloni M., "The interactive power of puppets and theatre", ILEIA Newsletter, 10.1: 12-13, 1994.
Pretty, J. and R. Chambers, Towards a Learning Paradigm: New Professionalism and Institutions for Agriculture, IDS Discussion Paper No 334, IDS/IIED, Brighton (UK), 1993.
FAO, Pioneering a New Approach to Communication in Rural Areas: The Peruvian experience with video for training at grassroots level, Development Communication Case Study, FAO, Rome, 1987.
FAO, Le Diapo-Langage: Nouveau Regard sur la Diapositive, La Communication pour le Dévelopment, Etude de Cas, FAO, Rome, 1989.
FAO/Querre, Les Milles et un Monde: Manuel de Radio Rurale, FAO, Rome, 1991.
FAO, Artists for a better life (video), Communication for Development Service, FAO, Rome, 1995a.
FAO, Understanding Farmers' Communication Networks, Communication for Development Service, FAO, Rome, 1995b.

Suggested reading

FAO, Communication: A Key to Human Development, Communication for Development Service, FAO, Rome, 1994.
Fuglesang, A., About Understanding: Ideas and Observations on Cross-cultural Communication, Dag Hammarskjöld Foundation, Uppsala (Sweden), 1982.
Williamson, H. A., "The Fogo process: development support communications in Canada and the developing world" in Casmir, F. L. (ed.), Communication in Development, Ablex Publishing Corporation, Norwood (New Jersey), 1991.

4.30 Social sustainability

Eva Wollenberg and Carol Colfer

It is important to maintain flexibility in our vision of what social sustainability is and to be open to revising that vision according to the needs of our work.

In discussing conservation issues and dilemmas it is common to hear the term "social sustainability" or reference to the "social aspects of sustainability". Although these concepts are used frequently, they are rarely defined in practice. It may be helpful to consider some of the ways in which social sustainability has been defined in order to come up with your own terms and understanding. Clear understanding of social concerns in your initiative can help clarify the initiative's objectives and priorities and provide a more structured basis for assessment and monitoring.

Before discussing some interpretations of social sustainability, it is worth mentioning at least three reasons why the social dimensions of conservation often suffer from lack of careful understanding.

First, conservation has conventionally dealt with people only as a threat to natural resources. It has not considered the role of people in resource management, the impact of conservation activities on people's well-being, or the need for different groups of people to participate in decisions of the conservation initiative. Some conservation managers therefore continue to question the relevance of people to sustainability of a resource. They may not be aware of the potential positive relationships between people and the resource. Also, the terms related to social phenomena may not yet be part of the vocabulary of conservation managers. A first step in defining social sustainability is therefore recognizing that people play potentially diverse roles in conservation initiatives and that many of these roles can positively contribute to the goals of the initiative.
Second, there is often confusion as to whether we are talking about the "sustainability of the natural resource", or the "sustainability of some aspect of people's lives". And integrating the two in a single concept is neither immediate nor easy.
Third, it is not easy to measure many social conditions (e.g., well-being). Seemingly straightforward concepts such as "health" or "income" quickly become controversial when assessed in different places, times and cultural settings. The relative nature of the relevant indicators means that we can more easily measure and compare movement towards a goal rather than achievement of the goal itself. Moreover, as the social sciences often rely on conversations and interviews, the quality of information can be highly variable, subject to the quality of the relationship between the questioner and the person providing answers. A substantial amount of judgement and interpretation may be required on the part of the questioner. While these methodological issues are not unique to the social sciences, they do seem to be more problematic than they are in ecology or resource management. This has discouraged some managers from examining social phenomena because of the difficulty of setting easy-to-measure objectives and because of the difficulty of finding quantitative indicators for assessing progress towards such objectives.

Understanding these hurdles can make it easier to understand why defining social sustainability can be a trying task. Despite the difficulties, a number of definitions do exist. Three are most frequently encountered:

social sustainability refers to the maintenance or improvement of people's well-being, often with a focus on the people most dependent on or close to the resource;
social sustainability refers to the actions of people that affect the sustainability of a natural resource; and
social sustainability refers to the maintenance of an equitable distribution of benefits across generations (i.e., the Brundtland Commission definition of meeting the demands of the present without compromising the needs of the future).

You may wish to choose one, all, or some combination of these definitions. You may also wish to confront these definitions with the broad understanding of social sustainability offered at the beginning of

Beyond Fences (page 1, volume 1) and discussed in pages 14 and 15, volume 1:

"...social sustainability depends on addressing the social, economic and cultural needs of the communities affected by a conservation initiative and on assuring the conditions (e.g., finances, technology, political authority and social organization and consensus) to maintain the conservation practices established..."

Taken together, various definitions provide a comprehensive picture of social sustainability, even though not all may be relevant to your purposes. A brief explanation of some aspects introduced in the definitions is given below. For each of them we try to identify some dimensions that could be examined in detail at the field level.

Well-being

The well-being of people living in and near natural resources may depend on:

security and sufficiency of access to resources — both now and in the future;
economic opportunity — the resources should maintain or enhance people's livelihood opportunities;
decision-making opportunity — people have a right to meaningfully participate in decisions affecting their lives;
justice — there should be fair resolution of conflict and distribution of benefits, rights, responsibilities and incentives;
heritage and identity — people's rights to their cultural values, behaviour, land use and material goods should be respected, both for the present and as a necessary context for the acculturation of the young; and
safety and health — employment, residence in, or use of natural resources should not endanger people's safety and health (either physical or mental).

Actions of people

In seeking to understanding how people's actions can affect the quality of natural resource management, the work of Ostrom (1994) is relevant. Ostrom refers to the capacity of a group to cooperate effectively as "social capital". By assessing this social capital, or potential for cooperation, and the incentives people face for use of the resources, it is possible to predict the likelihood of good resource management. Building on Ostrom's ideas and those of others on common property resource management, at least eight social conditions can be identified as being necessary for effective resource management by a group:

clear boundaries of the resources;
capacity to protect the resources;
effective decision-making and conflict resolution mechanisms;
capacity to monitor the quality of the resources;
organizational efficiency, i.e., people organized in small or nested groups to enable regular contact and communication;
incentives and benefits for good resource management;
inputs — people have the necessary labour, technology, information, capital and other inputs necessary for sustainable management; and
shared value of conservation or commitment to preserving the natural resources.

Inter-generational distribution

Inter-generational distribution of benefits focuses on the persistence or improvement of social equity over time. Indicators for assessing inter-generational benefits include:

the stability of people's well-being;
the maintenance of "social capital";
equitable inheritance systems;
tenure security; and
values of opportunities available to the younger generation.

Any definition of sustainability is inherently relative and is bound by the limits of the time, place and people where it was defined. What is considered an important aspect of sustainability today may not be important tomorrow. What is considered important to sustainability in a forest village in Africa may not be important to coral reef sustainability in the South Pacific. This relative nature is as much true of ecological sustainability as it is of social sustainability. The definition of sustainability will depend on society's needs, goals and our understanding of the world around us. It is therefore important to maintain flexibility in our vision of what social sustainability is and to be open to revising that vision according to the needs of our work.

References

Ostrom, E., Neither Market Nor State: Governance of Common-Pool Resources in the Twenty-first Century, International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington D.C., 1994.

<<< BACK CONTENTS NEXT >>>

Return to the Biodiversity Support Programme publications database