Probing the Powers at Play in Co-Management from the Bottom
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Probing Powersthe Playat in Co-Management from the Bottom Up: Case Th Cahuitf eo a National Park, Costa Rica By Viviane Weitzner Natural Resources Institute Universit f Manitobyo a email: [email protected] Papepresentee b o t re th t da Vlllth Biennial Conferenc Internationae th f eo l Association Stude foth r f Commoyo n Property "Constituting the Commons: Craning Sustainable Commons in the New Millennium" Indiana Universit Bloomingtonn yi , Indiana 31-Juny Ma , , 200e4 0 May 2000 1. Introduction: Putting People Back into Co-Management___________ reasons"Theretwo Cahuitaare why hands people the stillthe is in of here: leaders;1)Its dignity."Its 2) •* :; ; ' ... , . , -Cahuita Playwright Claudio Reid (Pers. Comm., 1998) .•- ' . * ; ' While experts are increasingly noting the lack of critical edge given to the treatment of the concep f communito t common yi n property theory (e.g., Agrawal 1997; Leac . 1997)al t e he th , same lac f criticako l edg evidenes i t with regard treatmene th o concepse t th f o t f powero t . Aside from recent inquiry intsociologicae oth l underpinning f poweso co-managemenn i r t (e.g., Jentoft 2000) and the questioning of the real interests and motivations of states in decentralizing power in environmental decision-making (e.g., Ribot and Agrawal's panel at the 1998 IASCP and the field of political ecolog general)n yi , three common assumptions relate powedo t r pervad literature eth e on co-management ) powe1 : somethins i r g tha devolves i t d fro locae state mth th lo e t level/co - management institution; 2) co-management spans a spectrum of arrangements with different degree power-sharingf so , where statspectrue th ef o managemen communitd d man en e on t ya s ti self-control is at the other; and 3) the degree of public participation and power-sharing can be evaluated using adaptations of Arnstein's (1969) ladder of citizen participation. This paper presents a critical inquiry into these three assumptions and sheds light on the various types of power at play in co-management through an examination of the process of conflict and collaboration in Cahuita National Park, Costa Rica. The Cahuita experience is precedent- settin firse th ttha n gs i casi t i t f collaborativeo e management betwee state locad nth ean l people inationana l par outcomCoste n ki th s aconflica Ricawa f eo d an ,t management process. With over 25% of Costa Rica under protected area status - 12% of which has national park status - there is a lot riding on the possibility that the Cahuita approach can be adapted to other conservation areas as the government shifts from the "fences and fines" (Wells and Brandon 1992) approach to protected areas managemen t adoptei t 1970se th n di , toward processa f "deconcentration,so decentralization democratization"d an (Solorzano 1997). •< '•"•'. \(' .' .' •' The Cahuita case pushes against the conventional view of co-management as a devolution powerf o highlightd ,an missinsa g link 'assumed awaypicture th n i 'co-managemenf eo t envisioned above - namely, the role of individuals and leaders. The experience offers some very rich insights individuaintw oho l empowermen hanleadershie d on an td par e e (bot communitf th th o t n n pho o y member governmend san t officials) communitd an , y identit r "dignity"Claudie yo us o (t o Reid's description cited aboveothee th n r o )hand affecn negotiatione ca , th t outcomed san - co f so management (cf. Pinkerton 1998; Geddes 1998). These insights invite reflection on the appropriatenes f usinso Arnsteie gth n ladde r evaluatinfo r g co-management. Furthermore, from a broader perspective, the Cahuita case provides the opportunity to begin to probe the question: What type f powet plaso a co-managementn ye i rar theo d yw affecho d t an ,outcomes ? This paper begin briefly sb y outlinin Cahuite gth a case study thet I . n reflect three th en so common assumptions about power outlined above through the lens of the Cahuita case, and by drawing on relevant critical literature. The various insights into the different power spheres and type f poweso r that affect co-managemen chartede ar t papee Th . r conclude highlightiny sb e gth main lessons from Cahuita with regard poweo st r issues that affect co-management theord yan practice. The analysis is based on six-and-a-half months of fieldwork conducted collaboratively with Marvin Fonseca BorraUniversite th f so f Costyo a Rica fieldwore Th . k took plac thren ei e main stages between February 1998 and September 1999, and combined a variety of qualitative and participatory approaches aime strengthedto collaborativnthe e management arrangementhe in t park. Activities included interviews base n open-endeo d d questions wite Managementh h t Committee, community organizations, government officials and community members in Cahuita and neighbouring communities; participant observation through attending Management Committee meetings, community event pard skan tours; focus group participatord san y mapping with resource user Cahuitsn i neighbourinn i d aan g communities (fishers, tour operators, guides, turtle userd san hunters); a women's gathering to better understand the role of women in decision-making; presentation and verification of preliminary results through a workshop with the Management Committee and interested parties; and a planning session to address some of the issues that arose researche inth spaciny B . visitr gou s ove periora one-and-a-half do f througyeard an s- h ongoing follow-u involvemend pan t with Cahuita since hav e thew e n- been abl folloo et procese wth s closely. 2. From Conflict to Collaboration: Case Th Cahuitf eo a National Park, Costa Rica1 2.1 From Cocoa and Coconuts to Conservation and Catering The histor f conflico y collaboratiod an t n betwee e Governmennth f Costo t a Ricd aan Cahuita largela , y Afro-Caribbean community locate southeastere th n do n Pacific coas f Costo t a Rica, begins in 1970 (Figure 1). That year, the coral reef lining Cahuita Point and 1067 ha of coastline were declare nationada l monument withou consultationy tan state .Th e wante protecdo t t corae th l reef, considere mose dth t importan countrye th historicae n i twelth s a s , a l l artefactn si the area, the flora and fauna and the various marine ecosystems (Executive Decree 1236-A). But for the farmers who survived from small-scale cocoa and coconut production and subsistence huntin fishind gan g withi nationae nth l monument boundaries restrictione ,th s that came wite hth protectew ne d aref lifo e y aendurethad foreshadowewa ha t a f r oveyearso 0 d fo d 10 r en . e dth Concerns grew when they hear stat e contemplatins dth ewa g changin categore gth f protecteyo d are nationaato l park, which would mean even greater resourc restrictioneuse expropriatiosand n of lands (Palmer 1977). Spurred by growing community concerns, an Ad Hoc Commission of government officials and community leaders was established in 1974 to review the needs of local people and propose amendments for consideration by the Legislative Assembly during its legal review of the change in protected area category. Although Cahuita took the lead, neighbouring communities were also asked for input. In 1977, the Commission presented its report - an Agreement between the community of Cahuita and the government - to President Oduber. Among other things, the Agreement recognized that local people were a "favourable factor"' in term f conservinso naturae gth cultura d an l l resource areae th t f stateI .so d that those people living withi boundariee nth proposee th f so d park should continu resido et thein eo r propertd yan engage in subsistence activities "as long as they do not extend beyond their currently occupied areas r changeno their traditional methods f work".o 197A 7 study reveale lane th df o d tha% 87 t was owned by small-scale farmers, and, of these, 93% did not want to sell their land (Ramirez Fo mora r e in-depth descriptio f thino s cas Fonsece ese Weitzned aan r (1999); Weitzne Fonsecd an r a (1999)d an ; Weitzner (2000); see also Palmer (1977) for a vivid account of Cahuita's folk-history. 1977) people Th . e living withi boundariee nth pare th kf so therefor larga d eeha stak ensurinen i g that the government pay heed to their proposed amendments. Whe nationae nth l parestablishes kwa 1978n di , Commission'c howeverHo d A e th , s proposed amendments were disregarded in the Executive Decree declaring the park. The government's official position was that in the long term, the lands in the park would be expropriated, and their owners paid compensation. Due to lack of fund and because many owners did not have e necessarth y document o shot s w titl r possessiono e ,peoplw fe onl a ye have received compensation even today. t shoulI 2 notede db , tha practicn i t e many people continued their traditional livelihood activities and continued to work theirfarms after the establishment in the park. It was not until the Manilla fungus hit the region in the late 1970s and early 1980s, destroying 95% of the cocoa crops, that farmers decided to give up their cocoa farming activities (Kutay 1984). Those with crops withi pare nth k boundaries were more disposed selo t l thei rstate e land th do an ,t many who were previously against changing their livelihood to tourism turned to the expanding industry as the only viable alternative.