What does TNC staff say about the social side of their work and capacity building needs for social impact assessment?
Results of April 2011 survey on needs for capacity building on socioeconomic monitoring and working with local human communities and indigenous peoples
By Supin Wongbusarakum, Paulina Arroyo, Karen Wongand Kristen P. Patterson, The Nature Conservancy
______
To support efforts to improve the Conservancy’s conservation work and more effectively integrate the humandimension in our strategies, we recently asked Conservancy program and focal area directors and staff to participate in a brief exploratory survey. The objectives of the survey were tobetter understand: 1) the needs for capacity building on socioeconomic monitoring at the Conservancy, and 2) staff’s interests and needs regarding working with local human communities and indigenous peoples. This survey was available in English, Spanish, Bahasa, and Portuguese on Survey Monkey[1]from March 23 through April 11, 2011. E-mail messages were sent to directors of different programs and focal areas to ask for their participation and help in reaching out to their staff whose work may be related to local human communities and indigenous peoples.
Profiles of Respondents
A total of 235 people participated in the survey. Of the respondents, 40.1% focus their work onNorth America and 59.9% all other regions (see Table 1). Nearly 60% of the respondents were program/project managers and project field staff/conservation practitioners (See Table 2).Eighty-one percent of the respondents said that at least half to most of their work required interaction with local human communities and stakeholders. Referring to integrating local communities and indigenous peoples into conservation work, the top three topics of greatest interest among the respondents are: 1) planning and land use management tools to work with local peoples, 2) capacity building for local people (most frequently chosen as most important), and 3) management of local land and other natural resources (see Table 3).
Table 1: Geographical focus of respondents and TNC staff
Survey Participants* / TNC Staff[2]Geographical focus / Case Frequency / Percent / Number / Percent
North America / 112 / 40.1 / 2223 / 61.9
Asia-Pacific / 65 / 23.3 / 258 / 7.2
Latin America / 52 / 18.6 / 246 / 6.9
Caribbean / 15 / 5.4 / 47 / 1.3
Africa / 10 / 3.6 / 10 / .3
North Asia / 8 / 2.9 / 64 / 1.8
No specific geographical focus / 2 / 0.7 / 671 / 18.7
Other geographical or thematic focal area(s). / 15 / 5.4 / 72 / 2.0
Total / 279 / 100 / 3591 / 100
*Some respondents have more than one geographical focus.
Table 2: Position of respondents
Case Frequency / PercentProgram or project manager / 85 / 36.6
Project field staff / 52 / 22.4
Director of conservation / 25 / 10.8
Director of science / 22 / 9.5
All others* / 48 / 20.7
Total respondents / 232 / 100.0
*All others include state and regional directors, policy directors and staff, conservation planners, directors of conservation, scientists, philanthropy staff, external affairs staff, measure specialists, and all others.
Examples of respondents’ description of their work with communities and/or indigenous peoples…..
“…..I work directly with communities to implement conservation projects which directly impact families.”
“Many aspects of my work involve local communities - land protection projects with area landowners, protection projects with local land trust partners, outreach events regarding our work, etc.”
“As most of the land in Solomon Islands is owned by indigenous people, the only way to do conservation is to work with them.”
“I interact with local/traditional communities in explaining why their area is important and needs to be protected, and what the long-term benefits are if their area is protected. I also explain that their traditional conservation values are very important and supports/compatible with modern conservation values, such as SASI (temporary closure of areas on land or in the sea from harvesting) and other traditions.”
Table 3: Topics of greatest interest in integrating local communities and indigenous peoples into conservation work
Most important / Second most important / Third most important / Response Count / Percent of Total 228 RespondentsPlanning and land use management tools to work with local peoples / 49 / 44 / 47 / 140 / 61.4
Capacity building for local peoples / 68 / 37 / 33 / 138 / 60.5
Management of local land and other natural resources / 40 / 45 / 26 / 111 / 48.7
Ways local communities make decisions / 23 / 31 / 33 / 87 / 38.2
Local and indigenous ecological knowledge systems / 15 / 26 / 30 / 71 / 31.1
Land and natural resource security / 11 / 15 / 16 / 42 / 18.4
Legal frameworks for communal and indigenous rights / 5 / 15 / 12 / 32 / 14.0
Forest carbon and REDD related to rights / 11 / 5 / 6 / 22 / 9.6
U.N. Declaration of Indigenous Rights / 0 / 0 / 1 / 1 / 0.4
Others / 5 / 5 / 9 / 19 / 8.3
Is it important that the Conservancy works with local communities and indigenous peoples and why?
We asked how beneficial it would be for the respondents to better understand local communities and stakeholders in their project areas. Eighty-one percent rated the importance of such understanding as “very high” (53%) and “high” (29%), while 5% rated “low” and “very low.” The most important reason why respondents said they work with local communities and indigenous peoples is to achieve biodiversity conservation goals. Other top reasons include(a) ensuring project sustainability, and (b) contributing to local people’s livelihood and well-being. Three out of every four respondents also mentioned respecting local people’s rights (see Table 4).
Table 4: Important reasons to work with local communities and indigenous peoples
Response Count / Percent of Total 233 RespondentsTo increase chances of achieving biodiversity conservation goals / 227 / 97.4
To ensure project sustainability / 194 / 83.3
To contribute to local peoples’ livelihoods and well-being / 194 / 83.3
To respect local peoples’ rights / 182 / 78.1
To comply with the international declaration on human rights / 85 / 36.5
I do not think it is important for the Conservancy to work with local communities and indigenous peoples / 3 / 1.3
Other (please specify) / 39 / 16.7
Examples of other reasons to work with local communities and indigenous people….
‘It's not that I think local livelihoods are not important, but our primary aim is to ensure strategies are successful, which is most directly tied to project sustainability (and indirectly to livelihoods).”
“To ensure buy-in, empowerment, or taking up of conservation objectives in a participatory way.”
“To minimize or eliminate potential conflict of conservation projects with livelihoods and well-being of local peoples.”
“In the region where I work, TNC has always worked with local and indigenous communities. There is no way to work in conservation without working with local communities.”
What types of capacitiesin conducting a social study or assessment[3]do Conservancy staffmost need?
Despite the fact that 65% of the respondents have never received any kind of training on how to conduct a social study, 42% havebeen involved in designing or conducting a social study or assessment,. Thirty-nine percent of the respondents said that they had not done so by themselves but used social data from someone else for their current work. Sixty-one percent of the respondents had institutional partners they could work with to assess social impacts of their conservation project. Forty percent of these partners are academic institutions, 19% other conservation organizations, and 16% governmental agencies.
Examples of social study respondents were involved with…..
“This [conducting social science studies]would NOT match TNC's mission.”
“Local knowledge surveys, participatory mapping, climate change vulnerability and adaptation studies (design, implementation and training).”
“Community-based fire management at La Sepultura Biosphere Reserve, Mexico. Documented traditional fire knowledge, burning practices, fire governance.”
“We did a socio-economic evaluation of our watershed communities in 1993, and I have participated in many more assessments of other communities over the years.”
“We subcontracted an NGO to conduct PRA [participatory rural appraisal] at one of the reserves we are working to understand natural resource use patterns of local residents and find out constraints and challenges in managing natural resources.”
“Conflict analysis in the territorial claims between villages pertaining to the management of natural resources.Specifically as a facilitator/mediator to analyze the root of the problem and to find alternative solutions in a participatory way.
Which areas of social impact assessment and monitoring on local communities would be most useful for the respondents’ work? Table 5 shows the responses. Top responses included 1) livelihood dependency on natural resources and other benefits from nature (62% of all respondents); 2) local resource use patterns and methods (55%); and resource governance and management system (46%). In terms of subject areas for socioeconomic monitoring training, how to use social data to develop conservation strategies was selected by the highest number of people (72%), following by how to measure social impacts (42%), and how to engage a local community in conservation work (41%) (see Table 6). In-person training workshop was chosen as the most useful training format by 67% of all the respondents. Webinar on-line training series was preferred by those who answered the survey in English (61% vs 36% among non-English participants). Short training sessions at conferences are identified as the second most useful format for all respondents (47%) (see Table 7).
Table 5: Most important conservation impacts on local communities to assess and monitor
Most important / Second most important / Third most important / Response Count / Percent of Total 233 RespondentsLivelihood dependency on natural resources and other benefits from nature / 55 / 53 / 37 / 145 / 62.2
Local resource use patterns and methods
(both traditional and modern) / 52 / 37 / 39 / 128 / 54.9
Resource governance and management systems / 40 / 30 / 38 / 108 / 46.4
Beliefs, values, and attitudes towards conservation / 37 / 33 / 28 / 98 / 42.1
Demographics and stakeholder characteristics / 21 / 17 / 26 / 64 / 27.5
Access and rights to natural resources / 13 / 29 / 17 / 59 / 25.3
Local and traditional knowledge systems / 10 / 19 / 14 / 43 / 18.5
Social and cultural practices / 1 / 6 / 15 / 22 / 9.4
Health / 0 / 2 / 9 / 11 / 4.7
Others** / 3 / 1 / 3 / 7 / 3.0
** Including‘social network analyses,’ and ‘Identification of messages that resonate with and motivate local communities towards conservation.’
Table 6: Needs for socioeconomic monitoring training
Most important / Second most important / Third most important / ResponseCount / Percent of total 230 Respondents
How to use social data to develop conservation strategies / 86 / 53 / 27 / 166 / 72.2
How to measure social impacts / 27 / 43 / 27 / 97 / 42.2
How to engage a local community in conservation work / 37 / 25 / 32 / 94 / 40.9
How to integrate social and biological monitoring / 14 / 35 / 32 / 81 / 35.2
Methods to analyze qualitative and quantitative social data / 13 / 13 / 27 / 53 / 23.0
Socioeconomic indicators / 14 / 18 / 16 / 48 / 20.9
Basic steps to conduct a socioeconomic assessment / 21 / 13 / 10 / 44 / 19.1
How to communicate socioeconomic monitoring results / 5 / 6 / 28 / 39 / 17.0
Methods to collect social data / 7 / 8 / 9 / 24 / 10.4
How to integrate human rights in your conservation work / 0 / 4 / 9 / 13 / 5.7
Others / 4 / 2 / 4 / 10 / 4.3
Examples of other comments on areas for socioeconomic monitoring training…..
“I want to know enough to be able to contract out to professionals rather than develop in-house expertise; what resources and institutions to partner with to conduct these analyses.”
“…how to integrate social-ecological system variables into one approach; and how to learn from our cross organizational efforts - we are leaking knowledge like a sieve and that is a crime.”
“How to select the most suitable social intervention that supports conservation and makes it work.”
“No time to do any of this myself.”
“How to distribute conservation benefits in communities.”
Table 7: Most useful types of socioeconomic monitoring training format
Response Count / Percent of Total 228 Respondents / Percent of 55 Non-English Speaking Respondents / Percent of 180 English Speaking RespondentsIn-person training workshops by TNC or other institutions / 153 / 67.1 / 80.4 / 60.3
Webinar mini series on-line training / 129 / 56.6 / 35.7 / 60.9
Short training sessions at conferences / 106 / 46.5 / 46.4 / 44.7
On-line information and resources through Conservation Gateway / 68 / 29.8 / 26.8 / 29.6
E-mail updates / 32 / 14.0 / 14.3 / 13.4
Others / 19 / 8.3 / 14.3 / 6.1
Examples of additional comments on training format….
“Access to mentors or coaches on specific topics, once we start applying what we learned.”
“Webinar is probably the most feasible, but in person training would be most impactful. Another idea is if you attend the webinar, you are eligible for some one-on-one "consulting" from a social science team, to work through a research project, or for analysis specific to your work.”
“Training by doing with communities!”
Supin’s conclusion
There are many discussions and debates around the question of whether TNC should engage in promoting human well-being, to what extent, and how to measure our social impacts.The results of this survey as well as my conversations with Conservancy staff from different regions over the past few months have made a few things clear to me regarding these discussions.
First, while achieving biodiversity conservation remains the Conservancy’s primary goal, many staff are already taking human welfare into consideration as a strategy for achieving that goal. We are interested in ensuring sustainability of our conservation projects and we recognize the importance of contributing to local people’s livelihood and well-being. In most regions, supporting human well-being is implicit in our conservation strategy and work. As several of the respondentsnoted in individual comments, people live in the areas in which we are working and there is no other way for our conservation work to succeed unless the people’s welfare is taken into equal or even primary consideration. There is definitely a wide range of urgency regarding the need to address human well-being, and different levels of consequences for our conservation work when the people part is not adequately addressed. In some parts of the world where we work, nature conservation means human survival. In others, it means enhancing our recreational and esthetic values.
Second, while the Conservancy is now emphasizing and our staff generally understand the importance of measuring the social impacts of our work, we may need other types of social-science-related work to pave the way for successful measures. A very high percentage of survey respondents believe their work would benefit if they better understood the human communities and stakeholders with whom they work. Nearly one out of every two respondents wants to know how to engage a local community in conservation; a similar ratio wants to know how to measure social impacts. More importantly, nearly three out of every four people want to know how to use social data to develop conservation strategies. All these results indicate that we should not wait to start measuring social impacts, but rather that we should obtain social data and apply them at the planning stage of our work. Having baseline data and an understanding of local communities will not only help us develop locally relevant and appropriate strategies in working with communitiesvis-à-vis conservation, but also help us decide which non-biological targets or social goals would be realistically attainable through our work and what will be required. It will also help us able to formulate and decide on objectives and specific indicators of the measure of social impacts of our work. Baseline social data allow us to track changes and monitor our impacts at our conservation sites.
Third, many of us at the Conservancy are already practicing socioeconomic assessment. Respondents may not have been trained on how to do socioeconomic assessment and monitoring. Staff may not be doing it well and are struggling with lot of issues. However, many staffwork on the ground with people and they try to figure things out on their own or ask possible partners with more experience to help. As a social scientist, I have received numerous requests from different parts of the world asking for support in socioeconomic assessment. Despite the fact that training and technical support in the field would help us do a better job with addressing (or not addressing) human aspects in conservation planning and assessing our social impacts, we do not currently have the capacity to meet the everyone’s needs. In the survey results, in-person training workshops ranked highest among both English and non-English survey participants, followed by Webex mini-training series and short training sessions at conferences. In my own experience, a socioeconomic training workshop is a first step in capacity building and needs to be followed-up by technical assistance in the field over a period of time to make sure that the assessment will become successful. This follow-up would require us to have a budget and more skilled social scientists — some based in the regions or with focal area teams — to make it a reality.
The Conservancy’s core value of commitment to people is reflected in the survey results. Three out of every four respondents mentioned respecting local people’s rights.At least about half of the respondents are interested in benefits of nature on the communities livelihood and other aspects of life, their traditional and current patterns of resource use, their resource governing system and belief, values and attitudes toward conservation. There are clear needs to build more social science capacity in the organization. The next question for all of us to answer is how we will best meet these needs.
Other thoughts shared by respondents
“As programs are asked to focus mostly on "large-scale" issues, leaders & managers tend to think that working with local & indigenous communities is unnecessary. We need to figure out a way to become more literate across the organization about why and when we need to work with local communities & indigenous peoples, and how to do it responsively & effectively. I don't think this issue was covered, and it affects our ability to engage with local stakeholders.”
“Having been with TNC for ~20 years, I have watched our interest in certain conservation approaches wax and wane; one of those is our work with local communities. In the 1990's we sought to work with people and communities to advance our conservation work in places that we identified as being important for biodiversity conservation. We made commitments to local people and places in ways that helped our work and mission. It took a great deal of effort. After a period of time, we began backing away from that type of work (in the 2000's) and began looking for bigger and better/higher leverage conservation projects that didn't involve working with communities. As a result, we stepped away from some of the conservation projects and activities that we had launched, which left some of our community partners puzzled. We said we are no longer doing community based conservation. There is a balancing act that we must seek as we again develop conservation projects in which we hope to establish relationships with and commitments to local communities. While the natural communities we protect don't necessarily understand our shifting priorities, local human communities do, and the commitments we make to them must be done carefully, with great forethought, strong purpose, and we must be prepared to maintain those commitments or else risk reputational and mission-harm if we abdicate prematurely.”