Introduction
As debates rage on about changes required to build a different future for the planet, the role of conservation nongovernmental organisations (NGOs) as the global watchdogs of sustainability is increasingly prominent, but also questioned, in the public sphere. Vigorous debates about the role and effects of conservation NGOs call for independent analysis and debate about contemporary challenges and solutions. This book aims to showcase and challenge some of the latest engagements between critical social science and conservation NGOs. The authors have sought to do this partly because they believe it to be fundamentally important. Through such engagements it is possible to learn more about the consequences and politics of conservation policy, the way in which organisations function, and the interactions between various epistemologies and epistemic communities. This is a productive and insightful area for both researchers and practitioners. The chapters that follow showcase and debate some of the approaches that demonstrate these insights.
The authors also wanted to bring the chapters in this book together because the engagements can occasionally be frustrating. Too much of it is played out in contentious and adversarial ways that makes mutual learning and exchange difficult. The point is not that all the conflict is unwelcome, for some of these issues are best approached agonistically, where the difference is resolved through public debate, claiming space and airing of differences (Matulis and Moyer 2016). Consensus can be stifling and cloying. Still, however, it does not seem that the balance is right. Too many of the antagonisms on which Redford commented (2011 and reproduced in Chap. 9 of this book) remain. Therefore, there is also a commentary on, and an attempt to shift, the tone of these interactions. As will be clear from the commentaries (see particularly commentaries by Wilkie and Cleary), this book itself shows that there is still much work to be done.
Anthropological interest is not merely about whether NGOs make a difference but, paraphrasing Gregory Bateson, about understanding the difference that makes a difference (Bateson 1973). The real interest involves contributing to a more multifaceted understanding of NGOs, their forms of action and the contextual realities within which they operate. How is it possible to represent what conservation NGOs are and what they do if we acknowledge that they are dynamic and made up of webs of relations and networks rather than monolithic entities? Are anthropological and related critiques one step behind a dynamic reality, or one step ahead in terms of shedding light on NGO practice? Are conservation NGOs, in turn, ready for or resistant to ‘informed criticism’ (MacDonald 2003)? Are academics able to speak to the complex realities of conservation professionals and activists, and are the latter ready to explore and challenge basic assumptions and contentious politics? Where conservation NGOs look for success stories to describe achievements or give a positive spin, are social scientists, in turn, overemphasising the flipside of the coin? As Brosius noted:
The discontent with critical literature and the difficulties of meaningful engagement persist a decade later. Neither the chapters, nor commentaries represented here shy away from strong positions, leading to some frustration in terms of nurturing fruitful exchanges. Can we, as Ashish Kothari (see Ashish Kothari (Chap. 12) of this book) and others, call for ‘further shed[ding] stereotypes and be[ing] open to collaborations that can make conservation more effective and also more democratic and socially sensitive’? Notably, many of the commentaries reacting from the conservation NGO field, express more alignment with Redford’s summary of social science contributions in Chap. 9 compared to other chapters. One reason, we suggest, concerns the challenge of representation, translation and contextualization in anthropology. Another, concerns the potential differences of perspective. What is certain is that there is a need for both more debate and multiple perspectives.Anthropologists are seen to be fiddling while Rome burns. Furthermore, what anthropologists view as critiques derived from a particular set of theoretical premises, those in the conservation community view as criticisms, and this creates resentment. The fact that anthropologists, although prepared to critique, often fail to provide alternatives, only reinforces the perception that their criticisms are corrosive, irresponsible, and without validity. (2006: 684)
Nonetheless, first things first—this book is about conservation NGOs, but what do we mean by that? What constitutes a conservation NGO? The answer may appear straightforward, yet the ever-changing faces of conservation NGOs, histories of transformation from protest to advocacy, business or public service delivery point to significant differences, not merely subtle variations. The chapters herein challenge common assumptions about who and what conservation NGOs are and what they do. The sheer diversity of conservation NGOs both in terms of internal differences, underlying structures and evolving practices make them dynamic social entities. Compared to government hierarchies, NGOs’ structures are more flexible, responsive to project funding and shifting dynamics. From Latin America to Asia, the NGO scene includes both affiliates of international organisations and homegrown institutions varying considerably in terms of political weight, constituencies and action forms (Miller 2007).
Many environmental organizations have shifted from initial positions of advocacy and confrontation to cooperation and interaction (Kraft 2001). One study of environmental justice organizations suggests a shift toward formalization, partnerships and networking (Perez et al. 2015). In Asia, for example, it has been suggested that policy influence on domestic environmental NGOs is limited compared to wider global processes (Frank et al. 2007); although, some national organizations, as in Indonesia, have been pivotal in influencing governmental environmental policies (Ruysschaert 2013). One of the challenges of this debate is to point to trends and patterns while capturing the diversity involved.
Conservation NGOs as Boundary Organizations
The idea of conservation NGOs as ‘boundary organizations’ offers one gaze to recast the debate. The concept has been used to describe organisations working at the boundaries between science and politics (Guston 2001; Carr and Wilkinson 2005). We suggest here a more expansive approach conceptualising boundary organisations as covering a broader set of boundary interactions, identities and relationships (O’Mahony and Bechky 2008). Organizations do not operate as self-contained entities in isolation, but evolve through boundary interaction with a variety of networks, multiple sectors and institutional contexts well beyond the science–policy interface. This entails roles of reshaping and defining the contours of conservation concerns, identities and constituencies as well as ways of framing and positioning themselves ideologically in relation to other actors. Thus, while conservation etymologically is about preserving and maintaining something, practice entails constant responses to and engagement with changing social, political and economic boundaries. Larsen (Chap. 2 of this book) notes how this creates friction between commonly held ideas of pure conservation action versus publicly contested forms of (inter)action.
Conservation NGOs inevitably entail interactions with a wide range of actors. Where business and government may appear as odd bedfellows with conservation on paper, today they are regular partners in more explicit terms. The question is not whether this takes place or not, but rather understanding the implications of these entanglements, transboundary transactions and the choices behind them. Ranging from explicit strategic engagement to tacit involvement, boundary interaction from conflict and contestation to cooperation is shaping the nature and outcomes of conservation action.
It is increasingly difficult to maintain divides between domestic and/or international, civil society (i.e., the state) or conservation and development. Faced with daunting climate change and biodiversity loss challenges, boundaries are continuously challenged to explore new frontiers of action. The ensuing questions of benefits and costs of this new set of interactions are frequent in the public sphere between organisations working with, and those challenging, the mainstream (McDonald 2016). What from one perspective may represent win–win gains, of shifting practice through alliance building and conversation, is from another perspective seen as giving in to the status quo.
Redefined roles, in relationship to social movements and grassroots organizations, business partnerships and state politics, are part and parcel of an NGO’s life. Specific sectoral negotiations, or campaigns, often reveal changing alliances, diverse positionalities and intrasectoral divergences among global NGOs (Pallas 2013). Where conservation NGOs may engage in boundary maintenance to communicate and single out their core values and distinctive roles in society, they may equally challenge boundaries and venture into new forms of action. Engagements in social justice issues, for example, are not uniform, and complexities are rarely evident in the policy statements and self-representations of conservation action even within one NGO. Indigenous representatives may appear as board members in one context, be offered central roles in the development of policy standards, yet remain outside decision-making contexts in others.
Interrogating the nongovernmental of conservation, in this respect, concerns one important boundary. For one, certain forms of ‘NGO’ action today are often far more governmental than the name and history suggests. Red tape, permits and control, but also collaborative funding arrangements, capacity-building and long-term partnerships with state agencies are part and parcel of conservation work. Blurred boundaries are the rule rather than the exception in the (non)governmental sphere. Relationships with the state remain fraught with complexity between complicity, outright contestation of some ministries and decisions, while delivering services to and building capacity of others. Indeed, state machineries are equally complex and contradictory, rendering sensitivity to networks and ‘transboundary’ activity a critical feature of ethnographic attention to state-related NGO action.
Several papers cross-examine the implications of NGOs moving closer to, while speaking to and struggling against power. Conservation NGOs also display power and influence, and therefore merit analytical attention. The range includes conservation NGOs speaking with power and authority in local settings to internal power struggles or power implications of transboundary alliances with business and the state. 1
In 2016, for example, Survival International launched an official complaint against the World Wildlife Fund (WWF), under the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises, for having contributed to violence against the Baka in Cameroon through support of protected area creation and eco-guards targeting Baka in Southeastern Cameroon. The allegations suggested the centrality of NGO support in maintaining—and failing to secure the respect of human rights—in a highly unjust system, nurturing displacement and even violence (Survival International 2016). This situation was not as unusual as it might appear.
Over the last couple of decades, human rights and local NGOs have denounced the impacts of conservation NGOs (Colchester 2003; Pyhälä et al. 2016). The relationship between conservation and human rights remains fraught and uncertain (Winer et al. 2007). Some NGOs’ call for and support to militarized enforcement to fight the wildlife crisis is increasingly present in parts of the world (Duffy 2014), resulting in ‘green militarization’, which is understood as the use of military and paramilitary technologies in the pursuit of conservation (Lunstrum 2014). Still, the analytical point is not one of displaying NGO power alone, but of recognising the diversity of the power relationships at stake.
Power deficiencies, weakness and short-lived windows of opportunity of NGOs are far more frequent than actual influence. Furthermore, shifting alliances over time are not captured by the somewhat simplistic opposition between international NGO power trumping local action. Many NGOs today engage in alliances and collaborative efforts with indigenous people, local communities and their organizations. This book therefore insists on understanding NGOs as diverse and constituted both by varied webs of relations, responses to the contexts within which they operate, and portfol...