Article Type: Research Article Article Citation: José Manuel Elija Guamba (PhD). (2021). MANAGEMENT
OF CONSERVATION AREAS WITH PARTICIPATION OF COMMUNITIES IN MOZAMBIQUE. International
Journal of Research -GRANTHAALAYAH, 9(1), 189-201. https://doi.org/10.29121/granthaalayah.v9.i1.2021.2990 Received Date: 02 January 2021 Accepted Date: 31 January 2021 Keywords: Conservation
Areas Communities Participation Social Inclusion Natural Resources
This article discusses the challenges of managing conservation areas; in search of new institutional instruments and mechanisms that make effective conservation of biodiversity and ecosystems in protected areas. The management of conservation areas in some countries has been made from a growing demand for involvement of stakeholders and communities in decision-making in the process of managing natural resources. There are three issues surrounding the debate on participatory management of conservation areas, namely: the distribution of authority and responsibilities in the decision-making process; distribution of benefits and sustainability (ecological, social and economic). The main reasons that justify the management of these areas with the participation of communities are: the restriction on access to resources can compromise the food security of families living there and; it is a prerequisite for communities to be able to carry out their activities, to set up joint enterprises with them, or other forms of management that make their participation effective. The analytical approach was based on the theory of natural resource management and complemented by recent contributions from research in the areas of political sociology, poverty and the environment on the phenomenon of "participation". The local dimension, although the integrative synthesis between the natural and the human, historically and spatially located, makes essential a participatory management of conservation areas in countries such as Mozambique, because it allows the understanding and transformation of social relations that are carried out from a certain mode of production and organization established in a defined space of protection and conservation.
1. INTRODUCTIONConservation areas are spaces
that are created and established with the aim of preserving ecosystems and
biodiversity, natural resources and cultural values of nature, through the
establishment of the legal and normative framework and institutionalization of
other specific instruments of management and participation. These areas are
created and administered in the different territorial echelons of the public
administration. At the local level, the establishment of these, has generated
intense conflicts that sometimes reach great proportions, between the
populations living in these places and their survival depends on the use of the
resources that are intended to preserve and the authorities that manage these
areas. According to Barbanti
Jr. (2001), from these conflicting processes that occur in the areas of
conservation, the terms "problem" and "environmental" were
replaced by "conflict" and "socio-environmental". However,
it is practically unanimous among scholars that environmental problems are
forms of social conflicts, which involve interests, senses and ends, in the
relationship between man and the environment. In other words, environmental
conflicts are configured when social actors defend different logics for the
management of collective assets of common use. The control of these problems and conflicts is called
management of conservation areas. The pressures are constant and quite varied,
according to the possibilities of contribution to a consumer market, such as
illegal trade in animals of wild fauna, introduction of exotic species or, in
the case of this research, the production of coal to meet the basic needs of
communities. Thus, although officially protected, it does not guarantee
adequate conservation in order to ensure the maintenance of its ecosystems. Morsello (2001), in his approach, clarifies that there are
several research projects in conservation areas, but that many are directed
only to biological aspects, being of fundamental importance the existence of
research that addresses social aspects constituting, together, elements that
support the elaboration of management plans, in joint actions involving
managers, scientists and communities. 2. OBJECTIVES 2.1. GENERAL
OBJECTIVE
The general objective is to
provide tools for the development of appropriate policies for the protection of
ecosystems and biodiversity and the adoption of an effective management system
for conservation areas, with an appropriate framework and the participation of
the communities living in them. 2.2. SPECIFIC
OBJECTIVES
·
Collect data, collect the
documentation and available information on conservation areas in Mozambique; ·
Make a diagnosis on the
biological situation, biodiversity, socio-economic management systems and participation
of local communities; ·
Identify and analyze the various
pressures, threats and opportunities that enduring conservation areas; ·
Analyze Mozambique's experience
of community-based natural resource management in conservation areas. 3. METHODOLOGY The methodology used was
exploratory research, which consisted of a bibliographic review and case study
on biodiversity conservation in Mozambique. The typology of this research and empirical
theoretical research, which, for Garcia and Fadel (2012) should combine the
theoretical approaches with the collected information making an analysis from
the observation of reality. This objective research method contributes to
absorb the knowledge generated by local communities, which to some extent can
be used to solve the problems identified by the social environment. This research will combine this
method with that of action research that is defined, by Thiollent, (2005), as
a methodology derived from social research based empirically, conceived and
carried out in association with an action or the resolution of a
collective problem, and in
which all those interested in the management of conservation areas are
involved in a cooperative or participatory
manner. This action research method is used in Environmental Education work in
conservation areas to sensitize communities of the importance of maintaining
these areas. According to Tozoni-Reis (2005), themethodology of action research in
Environmental Education is centered on three "practices" that are
articulated among themselves: the production ofknowledge, educational action and
the participation of those involved, taking, as a starting point, an existing
problem identified by communities in this research communities are no longer the subject of
studies to be agents of research and producers of knowledge of their own reality. The main feature of action research and the collective construction of
knowledge, where everyone has an active voice (GONZALES, TOZONI-REIS and DINIZ,
2007). Thus, according to the theoretical basis of action research, we
established the following methodological steps for this research: problem
detection, interaction, generating theme, monitoring of decisions and actions;
problem solving; level of consciousness. The extensive literature review
forms the foundation for theoretical research – empirical combined with action
research. On this, Severino (2008, p. 122) shows that "it is the one that
takes place from the available register, resulting from previous studies and
research, in printed documents, such as books, articles, theses, etc. Data,
information and theoretical concepts have been used in search of solutions to
environmental degradation problems. In the case of this research, it
was given phase to themes related to the conservation of ecosystems and
biodiversity, namely: (1) management of resources commonly used; (2)
participation and citizenship (participation, representation, public space...);
(3) legal framework and international conventions. 4. LITERATURE REVIEW Some countries are investing in
the creation of protected areas such as the strategy of conserving
biodiversity, natural resources and the cultural values of humanity (Rodrigues
et al., 2003). In these Conservation Areas, various levels of protection and
intervention are established (Morsello, 2001). Most
protected areas have been created to protect species of terrestrial fauna and
flora, but they occasionally protect a considerable number of bodies of water,
which makes them of great importance for aquatic species (Agostinho et al.,
2005). These spaces are separated in
some parts of the territory and limited the use of land and occupation, as well
as the use of their resources. Protected areas are no longer seen as fenced
areas for development, but rather for the maintenance of flora and fauna
species to improve the water cycle and its rainfall regime, avoid erosive
processes and silting up rivers, as well as other aspects that influence
quality of life. The implementation of protected
areas has faced major challenges. The causes of these areas result from the way
these areas were established, with the dislodging of the populations living in
these areas, the restrictions of the use of their resources, without
involvement or consultation of the leaders of the communities, which resulted
in social and cultural conflicts in some cases without alternatives of
survival. Man's pressure on nature has
increased over time, in a dimension that accompanies economic growth and
technological innovations. Today, scientific research on environmental problems
has been showing frightening results about the future of the planet we live in.
The main environmental problems resulting from these researches are: global
warming, the destruction of the ozone layer, reduced availability of clean
water, destruction of biodiversity, among others. Economists are increasingly
concerned about research on environmental problems, the search for new
paradigms that can generate alternatives for managing this natural resource by
looking not only at economic growth but also at encouraging the reduction of
environmental degradation and improving the conditions of the well-being of
populations. Thus, the management of natural
resources, encounters 3 major challenges, namely: ·
The search for viable solutions
to the growing problems of environmental degradation and for the sustainable
management of common resources; ·
The adoption of appropriate policies
and management systems for the use of natural resources on a large scale; ·
Find property rights systems
suitable for the sustainable use of natural resources. The answer to these questions was found, in the
empirical analysis of the forms of cooperation of communities for the benefit
of common goods, by Elinor Ostrom in his work '' Common Pool Resource (CPR)', distinguished
with the Nobel Prize in Economics in 2009. Ostrom's theory provides evidence
on the rules and mechanisms that discipline the exploitation of common natural
resources by its users. The author designs a new paradigm for the management of
common resources, and the implementation mechanisms that sustain cooperation in
human societies. The assumption of their theory and that local communities do
alone, an efficient management of resources than when they are forced to follow
rules imposed by the authorities. The way to arrive at the resolution of
conflicts that emerge in the management of resources of common use and through
organization and cooperation between individuals and institutions with interest
in the use of these resources in a sustainable way; respecting the biota's load
capacity and the time of its restoration. This theory shows the principles
and rules that can manage collective property, avoiding overexploitation of
resources, one of the consequences referred to by Garret Hardin in his work
("The Tragedy of the Commons") with regard to
the management of common resources. Ostrom's theory comes in a different
theoretical field from Hardin, who maintained that users of a common good are
held hostage in a system that as the degradation of resources, on which they
depend for their survival, the consequence will be their exhaustion, thus
showing the inability of their management by communities. On the one hand,
population growth, which had resulted in increased consumption of natural
resources, on the other hand the way communities organize themselves to extract
these same resources. In this analysis the author suggests only two forms of
organization for common resource management: state-centralized system and
private property. In Ostrom's theory of the
management of common resources, he does not ignore the hypothesis of the
tragedy of the commons, but on the basis of practical
cases studied by him, he observed that for thousands of years, human
communities organized themselves to manage common resources and did so in a
sustainable way. The lessons that can be drawn
from Ostrom's empirical studies on the management of common resources, and that
there are alternative solutions for the efficient management of common
resources, that is to say that there are alternatives
to Hardin's fatalism. According to the author, both state and private property
are subject to failure in some circumstances (Ostrom et al, 1999). Success in
managing common resources requires effective governance of resources; which can
be managed by small groups of users, which integrate according to common rules,
respected and accepted by all members of the group, involving institutions at
different scales. Common natural resources are
indispensable for all and are a source of income or productive means, and are necessary to meet human needs and provide the
well-being of communities give the importance of management through an
efficient and sustainable process. There are several conceptions
about the issue of the participation of local communities in the process of
natural resource management. In this sense, we can find several conceptions of
participation in the management of common resources. For Avelar (2004). "Participation is a Latin
word whose origin dates back to the 15th century. It
means "to take part in", to share, to be associated with feeling or
thought. Understood succinctly, it is the action of individuals and groups with
the aim of influencing the political process. Broadly speaking, 'participation
is the action that takes place in solidarity with others within the state or of
a class, with the aim of modifying or preserving the structure (and therefore
values) of a system of dominant interests' (Pizzorno,
1966)" (Avelar, 2004: 3). For Sachs (1986), the indicators
of participation are: the power of initiative gained by the community; space
for real local experiences; the degree of symmetry in civil society's relations
with different levels of government and market forces; existing mechanisms for
agreements and conflict resolution and; the nature of
the planning process. Arnstein (2002) created the
"Citizen Participation Ladder", which graduates participation in
eight levels (manipulation, therapy, information, consultation, pacification,
partnership, delegation of power and citizen control). Pimbert,
M. and Pretty, J., (2000), in turn, created the "Typology of
participation", graduating it into seven types (passive participation,
participation as information extraction, participation by consultation,
participation by material incentives, functional participation, interactive
participation and self-mobilization). For Gohn
(2001), it is not the Community committee itself that informs us about its
nature, but rather the process in which it is inserted: "The Community committees could be both valuable
tools for the establishment of democratic and participatory management, characterised by new patterns of interaction between
government and society around sectoral social policies, and may also be formal
bureaucratic structures and/or simple links for the transmission of social
policies drawn up by summits, mere structures for transferring resources to the
community, with the burden of administering them; or instruments for
accommodation of conflicts and integration of individuals in previously defined
schemes." Gohn (2001). "The experiences of
"Community Conservation" carried out in Southern Africa embrace a
wide variety of orientations, starting from forms of passive participation,
where communities have limited control over the decision-making phases, for a
full and direct participation in resource management, defined active
participation. Between these two extremes there are several combinations, which
stimulated discussion in the scientific context, as well as the identification
of various classifications, which focused on different aspects, including the
level of participation, the ownership regime or the participatory or
contractual approach." (Belloti, 2012) The acceptance of conservation projects
is divided between a population that finds there an opportunity for a better
life and a population that questions the fact that it is forced to change its
life, eventually breaking with traditions relevant to its emotional, social and religious balance. "Another key issue to be
taken into account in convincing local people to join the project may be that
wildlife can be potentially more competitive than other forms of land use,
particularly in dry savannas with little potential for
agriculture or grazing for livestock." (Pinto & Cardoso, 2012) It is in this idea of change that
there is greater adherence to conservation projects, especially with the
possibility of being able to obtain a job in the various activities of the
conservation area. A widespread ambition and seen as a means to have a more
unobstructed life. "... Rural populations must
be provided with appropriate tools to enable them to take the reins of
conservation as legitimate owners of their territory, while valuing traditional
knowledge and knowledge, which for centuries have regulated the symbiotic
relationship between man and nature." (Belloti, 2012) The destruction of forests
deprives people not only of wood, medicine, etc. but also of reliable
freshwater reservoirs, for example, increasing the risk of flooding. The
destruction of insects can lead to crop failure scum of crops that depend on
their pollination. The extermination of insect pest enemies can end with the
pest control services of an ecosystem and often leads to a major outbreak of
pests. The extinction of underground organisms can destroy soil fertility.
Examples can be multiplied (Ehrlich, 1997). Tropical forest plants can be
useful for modern agriculture in three different ways: as a source of new
plantations that can be grown; as a source for breeding improved plant
varieties; and as a source of new biodegradable pesticides. (Plotkin,
1997). The properties of biological diversity imply great resilience for
ecosystems and organisms, and is described as a benefit arising from the
services of biosphere ecosystems. In the face of increasing human
pressure on the environment, all these benefits should strongly encourage
nature conservation actions. The most precious and intangible value of
biodiversity is the fact that it results from the long evolution of life on
Earth, exclusive in the solar system, due to the accumulation of processes
triggered by life itself (Wilson, 1994). 5. TROPICAL DIVERSITYTropical
zones concentrate the highest rates of biological diversity (Wilson, 1997).
Some theories try to explain the reasons for this phenomenon: the hypotheses of
time, climate stability, spatial heterogeneity, competition and predation are
some of the most accepted theories (Pinto-Coelho, 2000, apud Horowitz, 2003).
The hypothesis of time states that, as tropical environments are older than
arctic and temperate environments, their species had more time to evolve and
diversify (Ricklefs, 1996). The hypothesis of climate
stability says that tropical regions have been less disturbed by the glacial
periods that have followed in the last 65 million years. The continuous
droughts of the Ice Age restricted species to geographical isolation by
increasing species variety (Ricklefs, 1996). Spatial
heterogeneity establishes that very varied habitats favor increased diversity,
since they offer greater combinations of micro habitats and ecological niches.
The hypothesis of the competition argues that in the tropics there is greater
competition between organisms, which induces their increasing specialization in
the use of available resources (Pinto-Coelho, 2000 apud Horowtz,
2003; Ricklefs, 1996). Wilson
(1997) cites examples about the diversity of species in tropical ecosystems
that express the richness of these areas: in a single legume plant in the
Tambopata Reserve in Peru, 43 ant species belonging to 26 genera were found,
the same as the entire ant fauna of the British Isles (Wilson, 1997); in the
sum of ten hectares randomly selected in a Malaysian forest, 700 tree species
were identified, the same amount of species that
occurs throughout North America (Wilson, 1997). Mozambique
located on the eastern coast of Africa, is part of countries with a diversity
of species of tropical ecosystems and has ecosystems of great ecological,
social and economic value. It has several areas considered of great importance
from the biological point of view, called "Hotspots" of Biological
Diversity and with a biodiversity of natural resources (IUCN 2005). The
characterization of ecosystems was based on the categorization system developed
by the World Wildlife Foundation (WWF) called eco regions, with three main
categories, namely: (i) eco terrestrial regions, (ii)
eco coastal and marine regions and (iii) eco regions of freshwater systems. Thus,
there are 3470 vertebrate species in Mozambique, namely 271 species of mammals,
816 of birds, 280 of reptiles, 84 of amphibians and 2019 of fish. 234 are
endemic or almost endemic species and 503 vertebrate species are threatened
with extinction and protected by national and international law. In this
conservation process, 20 vertebrate species were introduced into the
conservation areas. The regions with high biodiversity and areas
rich in endemic, threatened and protected species in
Mozambique are: 1)
The
Region of Serra da Gorongosa - Rift Valley - Marromeu Complex in the Provinces of Sofala
and Manica; 2)
The
Rugged Region of Chimanimani In Manica Province; 3)
The
Libombos Mountains in Gaza And Maputo Provinces; 4)
The
Coast of Inhambane, Gaza And Maputo Provinces; 5)
The
Centre Of Endemism in Maputaland To the South of Maputo
Province; 6)
The
Inselbergs Mountain Range in The Provinces of Zambezia
And Nampula, 7)
Including
Mount Chiperone And Mount Namúli; 8)
The
Quirimbas Archipelago in Cabo Delgado Province; 9)
The
Niassa Special Reserve in Niassa Province. Mozambique
is recognized as a resource-rich country with regions rich in biodiversity and
endemic species, where it has established conservation areas; and considered to
be able to emerge from poverty, develop, and grow from an economic point of
view at the level of the most prosperous in the region and the African
continent. The Conservation
Areas occupy about 18.57 million hectares, which correspond to about 25% of the
national territory, and include 7 National Parks, 9 National Reserves, 20
Official Coutadas, 3 community conservation areas and
50 Bravio Farms. Given the
importance that conservation areas have, not only in the conservation of
biodiversity, but also for the socio-economic development of the country,
especially of local communities living in rural areas, the Government has
established the National Administration of Conservation Areas (ANAC) to respond
to the challenges that arise in managing these areas and the new dynamics of
the need for participation and inclusion of the communities that live there and
contribute to the generation of revenues aimed at sustaining the biodiversity
conservation and improving the well-being of communities. The
social relations present in the territory of conservation areas are relevant
for research and analysis of the human sciences, but it has less prominence in
the list of research conducted in these areas. In this case it is possible to
carry out surveys of information on the relationship of these areas with the
local population, of socio-economic activities that threaten the nature and
cultural aspects, often unique and characteristic of each region. The
information and data disclosed show that the areas of conservation, through the
body that administers them, are instruments, which has the potential to
safeguard the natural heritage and serve for the scientific development of
topics relevant to natural, socio-economic, socio-environmental and political
aspects. Research
and research institutions play an important role in scientific development in
conservation areas, and their relationships with local populations and
communities. Discussions on socio-economic development, enhancement of
biodiversity, biomes, local culture and encouraging environmental
sustainability practices are topics that can be investigated in research,
disseminated in seminars and conferences; but also, in board meetings, as
proposals for improvements in the management and environmental
socio-environmental management of conservation areas. 6. PARTICIPATION OF LOCAL COMMUNITIES IN BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION The
characterization of Mozambique's ecosystems is not systematized, and there is a
need for the definition of criteria for their categorization and comprehensive
studies on their specific ecological processes, as well as information on their
distribution and geographical extent. Existing bibliographic references that
meet a more systematic description of the country's ecosystems refer to
regional or mainland work or to specific work on geographically circumscribed
areas, resulting in a generalized description or lacking appropriate national
coverage. In this strategy paper, a system of categorization designated – Eco
regions- under development by the World Wild Fundation
(WWF) was adopted as support for the description of the country's ecosystems. The
criteria for their characterization reflect biogeographic affinities in
recognition of hierarchical factors such as: (i) the
climate at regional level, (ii) physiognomic characteristics and specificity of
biological resources such as vegetation, flora and animal population, (iii)
geological and soil properties and, (iv) various factors that define
differently the composition, structure and functioning of certain biological
processes in certain regions. Eco
regions in Mozambique are regrouped into three categories, namely: (i) Eco continental plate regions, (ii) Eco coastal and
marine regions and (iii) Eco regions of freshwater systems. 7. RESULTS ANALYSISFrom an
environmental point of view, African countries are commonly defined as a world
of contrasts, as it is possible to find various types of ecosystems, each
characterized by different landscape and heritage elements. However, in any of
these areas live human communities that establish diversified relationships
with space and as natural resources, fauna and flora. However, populations
establish direct contact with the environment, on which they depend to survive
and produce, marked by permanence and continuity without systemic planning. In
Mozambique, the close relationship between populations and the environment
shows a high trend for households living in poverty, with a particular focus on
rural areas. In view of the productive incapacity and difficulty, derived in
many cases from the negative effects of climate change, communities have
perpetuated the practice of collecting and extracting natural resources for
consumption, sale or transformation, significantly affecting conservation
areas. The reasons for a high value relate to the proliferation of practices of
stealth cad, unregulated fishing, cutting wood for fuel, uncontrolled burning. Given the
sociocultural characteristics that define the population of African countries,
including Mozambique, distinguishing them from that of any other region of the
world, the principles inherent to participatory management of conservation
areas and the involvement of local groups in the actions promoted arise
spontaneously, valuing the accountability of target groups and awareness of the
identification of alternatives to some traditional practices. The
identification of alternative forms of planning of conservation areas involving
basic communities implies the adoption of co-management systems among local
populations, civil society organizations such as non-governmental
organizations, associations, cooperatives, municipalities and other
decentralized government entities. In this
perspective, community conservation areas are now more flexible in
decision-making regarding ecosystem modification, the conservation of
biological diversity, the creation of specific services and the adaptation of
cultural values and patterns that underpin community life, giving them identity
systems and reinforcing the sense of belonging. In
Mozambique, some experiences can be referenced, such as the legal framework
that regulates the organization and functioning of conservation areas that
enshrines these principles of participatory management. However, major
challenges remain for the effective compliance of this legislation, which
relate to the difficulty of managing commonly used resources (Hardin, 1968);
and also conflicts that result from the need to withdraw populations living
within conservation areas that have generated man-fauna conflict often with
human losses, among others. What differentiates these concepts is above
all the degree of participation of communities and their real influence on
project management, which tends to be relatively incipient. An idea that
results from an inclusive discourse for participation and sharing, but which
tends to be diluted in the implementation of the measures, clearly favouring the protection of ecosystems and biodiversity.
However, there is an undeniable increasing attention of policy makers to the
problem of conservation and its coexistence with local communities, as well as
their willingness to rebuild some protected areas. Mozambique,
as a signatory to the Convention on Biological Diversity, has committed to
promoting the development of conservation areas through participatory processes
of planning, administration and management of protected areas. The
participatory management methodology creates a favourable
environment for greater efficiency and effectiveness in the activities that are
carried out for the conservation of biological diversity and integration of
local communities, the private sector and other civil society actors engaged in
nature conservation. This
participatory management methodology is guided by some principles that address
issues of ownership of resources, conservation planning, use of resources,
aspects associated with the presence of communities in the interior or
surrounding protected areas, administration and management, promotion of
investments, treatment of the private sector and participation of other actors.
The principles that guide the conservation, restoration and management of
protected areas in the legal framework in Mozambique are: • Ownership
of Natural Resources Natural
resources in soil and subsoil, inland waters, territorial sea, continental
shelf and the exclusive economic zone are owned by the State; • Sustainable
Development Development
should be based on environmental management that meets the needs of the present
generation without compromising the balance of the environment, allowing future
generations to also meet their needs; • Sustainable
Exploitation of Natural Resources Forest
and faunistic resources should be used rationally and controlled, through the
application of scientific and technical knowledge, with a view to achieving
resource conservation objectives for present and future generations; • Integration
of Local and Private Sector Communities Policies
for economic and social development and biodiversity preservation should
involve local communities, the private sector and civil society in general, with
the aim of achieving sustainable development in the present without compromise
future generations; • Establishment
of Partnerships and International Cooperation Concertation
of harmonious solutions with international organizations is promoted conservation
and management of forest and wildlife resources. The
so-called Community Based Natural Resources Management (CBNRM) management model
distinguishes three forms of community participation in conservation projects,
namely: Protected Area Outreach, Co-Management (Collaborative Management) and
Community Based Natural Resources Management (CBNRM). (Cencini,
2004) The CBNRM
approach in Mozambique began in the 1990s in the Tchuma
Tchato project, inspired by the experiences of the
Campfire Programme projects – in Zimbabwe and the
Administrative Management Design Programme (ADMADE) –
in Zambia (Nhantumbo, Chonguca
and Anstey 2003 and Jones, 2002). The Tchuma Tchato project in Tete Province comes in an attempt to
resolve the conflict between the safari operator who has a bravio
farm concession and local communities. The project consisted of the involvement
of communities living in the concession area, in the management of natural
resources and obtaining benefits that would result from the revenues generated
by the operator in the exploitation of natural resources. The
project was later influenced by the development of CBRNM policies that provided
practical experiences for planners and policymakers. Currently the policies and the legal
framework that regulates the organization and functioning of conservation areas
incorporates a significant part of the results of the implementation of CBRNM,
going beyond the limits of the approach of the Tchuma
Tchato project. The
implementation of CBRNM aimed to achieve the social objective of the policy by
promoting practices of sustainable use, generation and distribution of the
resulting benefits and involvement of the Community in the effective management
of natural resources, as well as the framework of this objective in the legal
framework (Nhantumbo, Chonguica
and Anstey, 2003). Legislation
on conservation areas provides, among other things, for participatory
management of natural resources and the possibility of granting the management
of fauna and flora to local communities and the private sector. This process is bringing significant
improvements in the conservation and sustainable use of natural resources, with
benefits for communities. This
process leads to the need to develop a management plan that defines the main
rules for the use of natural resources. This plan should be developed through a
participatory process involving different actors in the area (e.g. women, coal producers, traditional leaders, fishermen,
farmers, traders, students, teachers, local government, local authorities,
private sector, etc.). This plan is summarized in a document called a management
agreement that must be approved by local community interest groups in the use
of natural resources and local government authorities. The
Government, in wanting to insert all actors in the decision-making on public
policies, through the institutionalization of mechanisms of participation, must
be willing to also to establish less unequal
relationships. In this sense, Santos Júnior (2001, p.105) points out that: [...]
social inequalities generate situations of power asymmetries and inequality of
social participation conditions. [...] However, despite the limitations, local
governments can intervene to expand citizens' access to social and political
rights and thereby enable groups in situations of social disadvantage. It is also necessary to highlight, in this
case, that, instead of strengthening emancipatory relations, participatory
processes have often been used to strengthen unequal relations, through the use
of energy by actors with greater economic and political power, as formulated by
Santos (2002, p.74): "[...]
the public space and the debates and social demands that constitute, can be
co-opted by hegemonic interests and actors to, on the basis of legitimate
social exclusion and repression of difference." Still according to with the author, the institutionalization of participation can bring
other risks, which distort its meaning, as a process against hegemonic. [...]
Perversion can occur in many other ways: by bureaucratising
participation, by reintroduction of clientelism in new forms, by party instrumentalization,
by the exclusion of subordinate interests through the silencing or manipulation
of participatory institutions (SANTOS, 2002, p.75). Despite
the importance of institutionalizing the participatory management process, as a
way of ensuring the right to participation of the population, hegemonic
interests can, through the State itself, appropriate these institutions of
participation, contributing to the strengthening of an even more asymmetric
relationship. In this
context, in Mozambique, the stimulus to participation involves not only the
establishment of the legal framework, but also the existence of effective
mechanisms for the empowerment of communities and their leaders, without
simplifying the demands and contempt of local knowledge that is always present
in the communities. In the case of
rural communities living in conservation areas in socio-economic poverty, some
of the choices are not accessible, given the level of need they go through. In
this sense, even if there are moments of definition or consultation with the
population, these may not constitute a choice. The
criteria that guide the choices may be the most diverse. According to Sen
(2000), social choices are permeated by factors such as prior access to
information, opportunities for discussion with other actors and the
construction of social values arising from the interaction of all actors
involved. The vision of freedom defended by the author involves "[...]
both the processes that allow the freedom of action and decisions and the real
opportunities that people have, given their personal and social
circumstances" (SEN, 2000, p.31). However,
the participatory capacities of the population do not depend only on the
possibility of choices. The conditions in which these choices are established
end up interfering with them, in the case of a poor population, it is reflected
in concrete limits. The
choices depend, in part, on the information base that one has and, therefore,
to have greater possibilities of choices there should be no asymmetry of
information. As SEN argues, "[...] by expanding information on the
processes and projects to be implemented, consistent and consistent criteria
for social and economic evaluation can be reached" (SEN, 2000, p.288). The use
of technical language often constitutes a barrier to content assimilation and
ends up reinforcing established power relations. The type of information passed
on can also help strengthen decisions made in other spheres and not necessarily
contribute to a choice. That is, in an asymmetric relationship, who you can
choose what to disclose, so that such information serves to legitimize your
prior definitions. For
example, the complexity of the Gorongosa National
Park conservation project in Mozambique includes the expectations of the
ecological system restoration program versus the expectations of a local
population dependent on the use of natural resources for their survival, and
its success will be to find a collective ethics that is a moral in favor of
mutual understanding that should generate mutual benefits. Thus, the ethical
and moral sense, based on a natural awareness of otherness, intensifies in the
concept of the useful (Rodrigues, 2002). A utility
that is required in the face of widespread recognition of damage caused by
fractured planning. The current information network projects a holistic
awareness that is established through an idea of sharing benefits with local
communities and continuity in ecosystem influences, resulting from
participatory management involving local communities living in this
conservation area. "A
holistic evolutionary approach is used in the Gorongosa
thesis III which emphasis is on the salient reciprocal relations and kinetic
succession of land surfaces and biotic communities, influenced by landscape
processes and prime mover components." (Tinley, 1977) It will
be possible to question the ability of man to organize himself for a more
effective management of the territory, taking into account
the past of a history that is manifestly predatory, as well as the current
divergences and complexity of motivations in his actions. The answer is perhaps
no longer only a morality of the problem but in the fact that it is a growing
and widespread problem, which can transform the common idea of a utopian demand
into an emergency consciousness capable of mobilizing the world. 8. CONCLUSION The
growth of human communities and the increased demand for natural resources has
triggered a sharp increase in the ecological footprint of human beings on earth.
The fact that many commonly used resource management strategies at local level,
are planned by institutions and central authorities, away from local reality
and with little knowledge of local conditions, results in the failure of
measures and the result is often the degradation of natural resources and
biodiversity. In this
context, scientific research and the use of technologies can play a fundamental
role, assisting in informed decision-making and improving the identification
and conservation of natural resources, allowing their sustainable management. The
territory, as a space of interaction between the natural and the human,
historically and spatially located, becomes essential a participatory
management of conservation areas in countries such as Mozambique, allowing
greater understanding and transformation of social relations. Mozambique's
experience on the application of the 'community-based natural resource
management' model in conservation areas shows that the fundamental conditions
for the success of this model are: 1)
an
appropriate political, legal and institutional environment; 2)
Greater
social cohesion in communities; 3)
Control
over resources with higher substantial value (biodiversity); 4)
access
by local communities to information on natural resources, management and
markets; 5)
fair
sharing of the benefits of conservation of natural resources with communities
and other stakeholders. An evaluation of the programs implemented in
conservation areas reveals positive trends in community participation, such as:
(1) Greater interest of rural communities in investing for the future in
exchange for immediate benefits;(2) Existence of some cases of sharing benefits
of conservation areas with communities and other stakeholders; (3) Expanded
diversification and participation of communities; (3) Positive changes in
communities, attitudes, level of participation in resource management,
knowledge about resources and dissemination of good practices; (4) Need for
continued support in the areas of training, insum,
technical assistance and funding. The macro-level analysis shows that the
acceptance of Community initiatives counterbalanced by inconsistencies and or
arbitrariness in the support provided by projects (community-based natural
resource management - CBNRM) and by the weakness of their capacity and
institutional fragility of the Community committees for the management of
natural resources. A comparative study carried out in 2007 of the
implementation of this community-based natural resource management model – CBNRM,
in the policy and legal framework areas that govern conservation area
management processes in the countries of the region, namely: Botswana, Malawi,
Mozambique, Namibia, Zambia and Zimbabwe; showed positive results in community
participation, benefit sharing, poverty-fighting and significant improvements
in ecosystem and biodiversity conservation.
The
experience of "community-based natural resource management - CBNRM"
in Mozambique suggests that stakeholders' perceptions of the value of resources
and the potential benefits of co-management of natural resources have received
little attention from conservation area managers. Greater recognition of the
value of natural resources at the level of local communities and their
effective participation from timely information sharing, the development of
alternative income generation and employment activities, and a fundamental
condition for efficient management of natural resources. The sense
of starting from social groups in situations of environmental vulnerability is
to highlight the reality of the majority, democratize access to information and
understand society in its multiple contradictions. By state of
socio-environmental vulnerability, we understand the situation of specific
groups that are: (1) to a greater degree of direct dependence on natural
resources to produce, work and improve living conditions; (2) excluded from
access to socially produced public goods; and (3) absent from legitimate
participation in decision-making processes regarding the definition of public
policies that interfere in the quality of the environment in which one lives. In order
to achieve the above-mentioned local conditions, it is important to understand
the situation of education in Mozambique and its relationship with other
activities that indulge or foster it, in the sense of the democratic guarantees
that everyone must enjoy, as well as the whole set of basic goods and services
indispensable to social welfare, in line with the balance of ecosystems that we
want to be conserved. Thus,
participatory management of conservation areas is based on multidisciplinary
and should take into account the five dimensions of sustainable development,
namely: (i) social sustainability, (ii) economic,
(iii) cultural, (iv) political and (v) spatial/geographical. The fundamental
instruments of participatory management of conservation areas; are the
Community Committees for the Management of Natural Resources created in the
communities that live around the protected areas. The representativeness of
these committees in the management bodies of each conservation unit allows
their participation in decision-making and their implementation and benefits
that improve the quality of life of these communities. SOURCES OF FUNDING
This
research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public,
commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. CONFLICT OF INTEREST
The
author have declared that no competing interests exist. ACKNOWLEDGMENT
None. REFERENCES
[1] Agostinho, A.; Thomaz,
S. & Gomes, L. (2005) Conservation of the
biodiversity of Brazil’s Inland Waters. Conservation Biology, vol. 19, no. 3,
p. 646-652. [2] Arnstein, S. (2002) Uma Escada de Participação Cidadã. In: Revista Participe. Rio de Janeiro: Associação
Brasileira de Promoção da Participação. [3] Avelar, L. (2004) Participação Política. In:
Avelar, L. E Cintra, A.C. Sistema político brasileiro: uma introdução. São Paulo: Editora Unesp. [4] Barbatini JR, O. (2001) Conflitos Socioambientais: Teoria e Prática.
In ANPPAS, Indaiatuba, São Paulo. [5] Belotti, S. (2012) Meio
Ambiente e Turismo Sustentável
em Moçambique: Organização Territorial e Conhecimentos
Culturais no Parque Nacional do Zinave,
Università degli Studi di Bergamo/Università degli Studi di Napoli “L’Orientale”, IICT – Instituto de Investigação
Cientifica Tropical, Lisboa.
[6] Bensuasan, N. (2006) Conservação
da Biodiversidade em Áreas Protegidas. Rio de Janeiro,
Editora FGV. [7] Cencini, C. (2004) Vivere con la natura.
Conversazione e comunità locali
in Africa sub sahariana, Bologna, Patron. [8] Collar, N.; Stuart, S. (1988) Key forests for threatened birds in
Africa. International Council for birds Preservation: Cambridge. [9] Cronon, W. (1995) The Trouble with Wilderness; or,
Getting Back to the Wrong Nature. In:
CRONON, William (Edited by). Uncommon Ground: Rethinking the Human Place in Nature. New
York: Norton, 1996, pp. 69-90. [10]
Diamond,
J. (2005) Armas,
Germes e Aço: os Destinos das Sociedades Humana. Rio de Janeiro, Record. [11]
Dutton,
T.; Dutton, E. (1975). Reconhecimento preliminar das montanhas de
Chimanimani e zonas adjacentes com vista à criação duma área de conservação. Anais do Serviços do
Veterinária de Moçambique
20/21: 123‒203. [12]
Ehrlich,
P. (1997) A Perda da Diversidade
– Causas e Consequências.
In: Biodiversidade. Wilson, Edward (org.) (1997). São
Paulo: Editora Nova Fronteira. [13]
Garcia,
R.; Fadel, B. (2012) A Percepção do indivíduo na gestão
do conhecimento organizacional:
estudo teórico-empírico das
influências da interferência
nos fluxos informacionais na criação de conhecimento e tomada de decisão. Disponível
em:<http://www.facet.br/novo/3fem/Encontro/Arquivos/Regis_Garcia_e_Barbara.pdf>.
Acesso em: 04 out. 2012. [14]
Gohn, M. (2001) Conselhos
Gestores e Participação Sociopolítica. São Paulo: Cortez, 2001. [15]
Gonzales,
L.; Tozoni-Reis, M.; Diniz,
R. (2007) Educação
Ambiental na [16]
Comunidade: uma Proposta de Pesquisa-Acção. Rev. Eletrônica Mestr. Educ. Ambient.,
Rio Grande, v. 18. [17]
Hardin,
G. (1968) The Tragedy of the Commons. In: Science, 162. [18]
Hess,
G.; Fischer, R. (2001) Communicating
Clearly About Conservation Corridors. Landscape and Urban Planning, 55
p.195-208. [19]
Hess,
C.; Ostrom, (2007) E. Understanding Knowledge as a Commons: From Theory to
Practice. Cambridge, Massachusetts. MIT Press.
[20]
Horowitz,
C. (2003) A Sustentabilidade
da Biodiversidade em Unidades de Conservação de Proteção Integral: Parque Nacional de Brasília. 2003. 329
p. [21]
_____IUCN.
(1998) Economic Values of Protected Areas: Guidelines for Protected Area
Managers. IUCN Gland, Switzerland. [22]
_____IUCN
(International Union for Conservation of Nature). (2005). IUCN Red list of
threatened species. http:// iucnredlist.org. [23]
Jones,
B. (2002). Evaluation Report. Tchuma Tchato Programme, Tete Province,
Mozambique. Provincial Directorate of Agriculture and Rural Development. Tete. [24]
[25]
Jones,
B. (2007) Synthesis of the CBNRM Policy and Legislation in Botswana, Malawi,
Mozambique, Namibia, Zambia and Zimbabwe. WWF - SARPO Occasional Paper Number
16 October 2007. WWF Regional CBNRM Programme Number
9F0751 WWF – SARPO 10 Lanark Road Belgravia. Harare-Zimbabwe. [26]
Laville, C.; Dionne, J. (1999) A construção
do saber: manual de metodologia da pesquisa em ciências
humanas. Belo Horizonte: UFMG. [27]
Leveque,
C. (1999) A Biodiversidade. Bauru/SP: EDUSP. [28]
McNeely,
J. (1994) Critical Issues in the
Implementation of the Convention Biological Diversity. In: Krattiger
Anattole F. et al. Wedening
Perspective on Bioiversit. Switzerland IUCN/
International Academy of the Environment. Geneva. [29]
Michael
F.; Victorino
A.; Luís A. & Filipa S. (2004)
‘Checklist’ e Centros de Diversidade
de Vertebrados em Moçambique. Departamento de Engenharia Florestal, Universidade Eduardo Mondlane, Maputo. [30]
_____MICOA.
(2003). Estratégia e Áreas
de Acção para a Conservação
da Diversidade Biológica em Moçambique. Ministério para a Coordenação da Acção Ambiental (MICOA), Maputo [31]
Mooney,
H.; Bullock, S.; & Medina, E. (1995) Introduction. pp. 1-8. In:
mooney, H. s. h. Bullock S. &
Medina, E. (eds.), Dry tropical
forests, Cambridge University press, Cambridge. [32]
Morcello, C. (2001) Áreas Protegidas Públicas e Privadas: Seleção e Maneio. São Paulo: Fapesp, Annablume. [33]
Nhantumbo, I., Chonguica, E.
& Anstey, S. 2003. Community Based natural Resources Management in
Mozambique: The challenges of sustainability. Chapter prepared for SASUSG book
Vol II. [34]
Palmer,
R.; Finaly, V. (2003) Faith in Conservation: New
Approaches to Religions and Environment. World Bank, Washington D.C. [35]
Pinto, A..; Cardoso, L. (2012) Quando os elefantes
lutam e a erva sofre estratégias
de desenvolvimento e conservação
no parque nacional do
Limpopo em Moçambique. IICT
– Instituto de Investigação Cientifica
Tropical. Lisboa.
[36]
Pimbert, M.; Pretty, (2000) J. Parques,
Comunidades e Profissionais:
Incluindo “Participação” no
Manejo de Areas Protegidas.
In: Diegues, A.C. Etnoconservação:
Novos rumos para a proteção da natureza nos trópricos. São Paulo: Hucitec. [37]
Pizzorno, A. Condizioni della participazione política. In: Pizzorno, A. Le radici della politica
assoluta. Milano, Feltrinell, 1966. [38]
Plotkin,
M. (1997) A Perspectiva Para os
Novos Produtos Agrícolas e Industriais nos Trópicos. In: Wilson, E. O.
(Org); Biodiversidade – Rio de Janeiro: Nova Fronteira, 1997. [39]
Ostrom,
Elinor (1999): Design principles and threats to sustainable organizations that
manage common. Center for the Study of Institutions, Population, and
Environmental Change, Workshop in Political Theory and Policy Analysis, Indiana
University. [40]
Ostrom
et al (1999): Revisiting the Commons: Local Lessons, Global Challenges,
Science, Vol. 284. no. 5412, pp. 278 – 282. [41]
Ricklefs, R. (1996) A Economia da Natureza.
Rio de Janeiro, Editora Guanabara Koogan,
3ª ed. [42]
Rodrigues,
A.; Andelman, S.; Bakarr,
M.; Boitani, L.; Brooks, T.; Cowling, R.; Xie, Y. (2003).
Global Gap Analysis: towards a representative network of protected areas.
Advances in Applied Biodiversity Science 5. Washington DC: Conservation
International. [43]
Rodrigues,
A. (2002) Parcerias: Sustentabilidade
e Conflitos nos Modelos de Gestão Envolvendo as Comunidades, o
Sector Privado e os Governos
Locais. In: Comunidades e Maneio dos Recursos Naturais. Memórias da 2ª Conferência Nacional sobre Maneio Comunitário dos Recursos Naturais, Maio de 2001,
eds. E. Filimão & H. Massango,
pp. 37 – 63. Maputo, Moçambique: UICN, DNFFB e FAO. [44]
Sachs,
I. Ecodesenvolvimento. São Paulo: Vértice,
1986. [45]
Santos
Jr., O. (2001) Democracia e Governo
Local: dilemas da reforma urbana municipal no Brasil. Rio
de Janeiro: Revan. [46]
Santos,
M. (2002) A Natureza do espaço.
Técnica e tempo. Razão e emoção.
São Paulo: Edusp. [47]
Sen. A. (2000) Desenvolvimento
como liberdade. São Paulo: Companhia de Letras. [48]
Severino,
A. (2008) Metodologia do trabalho
científico.
ed. São Paulo: Cortez, 007. [49]
Silva,
C. (1999) Desenvolvimento de Metodologia
para análise da adequação e
enquadramento de categorias
de manejo de unidades de conservação. Dissertação de Mestrado. Rio Claro: UNESP/CEA. [50]
Thiollet, M. Metodologia da
Pesquisa-Acção. 14. ed. São Paulo: Cortez, 2005. [51]
Tinley,
K. (1977) Framework of the Gorongosa Ecosystem, Mocambique. D. Sc. thesis. University of Pretoria, South
Africa. [52]
Tozoni-Reis, M. (2005) Pesquisa-Acção:
Compartilhando Saberes. Pesquisa e Acção Educativa Ambiental. In: FERRARO JR., L.A. (Org.). Encontros e caminhos: formação de educadoras (es) ambientais e coletivo educadores. Brasília: Ministério
do Meio Ambiente. [53]
Van
Wyk, A. (1996) Biodiversity of the Maputaland Centre. In: van der Maesen,
L.J.G. et al. (eds.), The Biodiversity of African Plants: 198-207. [54]
Whittaker,
R. (1998) Island Biogeography – Ecology, Evolution, and Conservation. Oxford
University Press. [55]
Werger, M.
(1978) Biogeography and ecology of Southern Africa. Vol 1 e Vol 2. Dr W.
Junk bv Publishers, Hague. [56]
Wilson,
E. (2013) O Renascimento da Gorongosa.
in National Geographic, 125º aniversário – Os Novos Exploradores.
Junho 2013. Vol.13, nº147. [57]
Wilson,
E. (1994) Diversidade da Vida. São Paulo: Companhia das Letras. [58]
Wilson,
(1997) E. Biodiversidade. Rio de Janeiro: Nova Fronteira, 1997. 182 [59]
_________World
Resources Institute (WRI). A Estratégia Global da Biodiversidade: Diretrizes de Acção Para Estudar, Salvar e Usar de Maneira Sustentável e Justa a Riqueza Biótica da Terra. WRI:
IUCN; s.l.1992.
This work is licensed under a: Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License © Granthaalayah 2014-2020. All Rights Reserved. |