Capacity Building: Modern day gift giving or more? The Ese Eja Story

Transcription

1 Capacity Building: Modern day gift giving or more? The Ese Eja Story Kimberley McKinson Sophomore College 2007 Conservation and Development Dilemmas in the Amazon Professor William Durham 12 th October, 2007

2 First Contact: From Columbus to Cowell From as far back as 1492 Western society has been making attempts to interact with indigenous communities in the Americas. This phenomenon of interecting with indigenous people is one that has undoubtedly spanned centuries, traversing as far back as the fifteenth century with Christopher Columbus sailing on the high seas towards the Amerindians in the New World to Adrian Cowell, author of The Decade of Destruction who in 1968 initiated contact with the Kreen Akrore people of the Amazon. Indeed this lengthy time span does suggest that resistance to Western contact is but a mere futile endeavor, since there always seems to be some factor highly motivating Western contact with indigenous communities; whether environmental, scientific or economic. Though for most indigenous communities in the Amazon, the point of initial contact with the Western world has long past, a major element that will always be associated with these preliminary exchanges is that of gift giving. This element of gift giving is one which Westerners have for the most part viewed as having the potential of acting as a catalyst for western and non-western interactions. In my opinion, this culture of gift giving that once defined Western and indigenous relations has in truth resurrected itself centuries later in the twenty first century and metamorphosed into what we so niftily call today; capacity building. Gift Giving and Capacity Building in a theoretical domain In 1991, the United Nations Development Programme and the International Institute for Hydraulic and Environmental Engineering organized a symposium entitled A Strategy for Water Capacity Building in Delft, The Netherlands. Delegates from

3 developing countries as well as various institutions defined capacity building as consisting of three key elements; 1) Creation of an enabling environment with appropriate policy and legal frameworks 2) Institutional development, including community participation 3) Human resources development and the strengthening of managerial systems (Taylor 2002, p. 4). However, for these three elements of capacity building to be set in motion, someone has to be giving someone else something, that is, gift giving. It is gift giving that is essentially at the root of capacity building, where an entity, whether a good or skill is presented within the fixed sphere of influence of us to them. Us the westerners, giving something, whether trinkets or pots and pans as was seen with Columbus and Cowell, to them the indigenous people. Thus gift giving represents a distinct One Way street. What makes capacity building fundamentally different from gift giving is the element of reception. In an environment encouraging of capacity building, no longer is a one way street constructed, but rather one that facilitates the traffic of entities both ways, hence a Two Way street. And so, capacity building matures from gift giving to become a cyclical power structure. No longer is traffic simply moving from point A to B, now B becomes actively involved in the sphere of influence. In her dissertation entitled Because It Is Ours, Amanda Stronza states many scholars and activists maintain that traditional societies are irrevocably changed when they become newly (or more intrusively) integrated with the market economy (Stronza 2000: p. 85). I indeed am in agreement with Stronza when she states this, and must maintain that her claim is highly applicable to the One Way street model of gift giving. I hereby draw upon the Kreen Akrore people of the Amazon as an example.

4 Adrian Cowell along with the Villas Boas brothers first entered the Kreen Akrore village in the Brazilian Amazon in 1968 in the hopes of contacting the group before road builders, who they believed would ultimately influence both the culture and environment of the people in a negative manner. However, Cowell and the brothers were unsuccessful in achieving their goal, as for every step we [Cowell and the brothers] were taking forward, the Kreen Akrore had begun to take a step back (Cowell 1990: p. 68). And so, because the Kreen Akrore refused to actively involve themselves in a relationship with Cowell and the brothers who represented Western forces that were looking out for their best interest, they were sadly exploited by the road builders. These road builders had no intention of incorporating the Kreen Akrore into the sphere of influence, but rather these road builders represented a civilization intent on its current understanding of development, [and] would make no allowance for the forest people that stood in its path (Cowell 1990: p. 70). Thus the Kreen Akrore population that was 500 strong in 1968 was reduced to begging and selling their women as prostitutes and reduced to 78 (Cowell 1990: p. 71). In addition, their original territory was degraded by gold panning, settlement and cattle breeding. The Kreen Akrore woefully proves that the One Way street ultimately triggers a state of vulnerability. A Case Study: The Ese Eja navigate the Two Way Street Having stated that the One Way street model of gift giving is one that causes vulnerability, it therefore follows that the Two Way street of capacity building is one that allows for sustainability. It is from this inference that I contemplated the possible effect that capacity building could have on the harmonization of two seemingly contrasting

5 notions; conservation and development. Thus, I hypothesized that The Ese Eja people s effective reception of capacity building and gift giving ultimately allowed them to realize the delicate balance between the conservation and development of both their culture and environment. In May of 1996, Ese Eja members of the Native Community of Infierno and Rainforest Expeditions signed a contract to begin building and co-managing Posada Amazonas, an eco-tourism lodge. Posada Amazonas has come to be represent a sterling example of a collaboration which many years ago would have seemed unfeasible, a collaboration between a western business and an indigenous community. In truth, the successful Two Way street that was built at Posada Amazonas reflects effective capacity building within a cyclical power sphere. It was the external as well as internal capacity building that took place at Posada Amazonas that prevented this collaboration from simply becoming a case study of the One Way street model. External factors that aided capacity building came in the form of contributions from the Peru-Canada Fund (US$ 350,000), The World Bank (US$ 50,000) and The MacArthur Foundation (US$ 50,000). These funds contributed to the construction of he lodge as well as the training of community members. Loans and grants in truth were not limited to these sources; and final estimates put the contributions towards infrastructure at US$ 650,000, training at US$ 100,000 and community decision-making and development at US$ 60,000 (UNDP 2005: p. 2). Thus with Rainforest Expeditions as party A and the Ese Eja as party B, it can be said that these gifts, that is, financial contributions were given to party B. However, as illustrated in the Two Way street model, what differentiates gift giving from capacity building is the element of reception.

6 Thus, though the Ese Eja received these more than generous contributions from external sources, a significant amount of internal capacity building and growth took place amongst the community members that ultimately placed them securely within the sphere of influence. Management of Posada Amazonas is split fifty-fifty while 60% of all profits go to the community and 40% to Rainforest Expeditions. A critical tenet of the agreement was that community members should be actively involved in the enterprise, not only as staff, but also as owners, planners, and administrators; further they should join Rainforest Expeditions in making decisions about the future of the company as well as providing services for tourists (Stronza 2000: p. 74). This active involvement is illustrated superbly through the Comite de Control, a team consisting of ten community members that is rotated every two years. These individuals are elected by the community, and represent the community s best interests, working alongside Rainforest Expedition mangers in the areas of operations, human resources, investments and financial results (UNDP 2005: p. 4). The Ese Eja have not stopped here, but have also invested in the training of guides from their community, they have constructed a secondary school and have improved the road connecting Infierno to Puerto Maldonado. They have thus invested in their own development, growth and maturity and have been the driving force behind the creation of their own enabling environment, institutional development and managerial systems. And so, the Ese Eja people actively involved themselves in the equation that is the Two Way street which has resulted in them being able to sustain both their culture and environment.

7 Indeed environmental conservation is greatly attributed to the fact that Posada Amazonas is an eco-tourism lodge, similarly, the Ese Eja people know that tourists come to see the flora, fauna and wildlife, thus there is much motivation and incentive for protecting the environment. However my hypothesis attributes the end result of sustainability and the harmonization between conservation and development not to ecotourism and the minimal effect it has on the environment due to it being non-extractive, but rather to the way in which the capacity of the community was built, both internally and externally. Thus, I greatly believe that even if the eco-tourism project remained a constant, yet one removed the variable to capacity building, then conservation and development would not have been effectively achieved. Likewise, if the business venture had been changed to a more extractive activity, yet capacity building remained a constant, I do believe that conservation could still work in harmony with development if the community s capacity was now tailor made to being more aware and educated about how they would have to interact differently with both the environment and outside forces. The Kayapo Indians are a good example of such an extractive industry model. The link between development and culture In doing my research, it has become evident that a recurring theme amongst scholars focusing on this subject matter is the negative effect that development can have on the culture of an indigenous community. Indeed the Kreen Akrore illustrate this view superbly. However, if we take the Kreen Akrore as the norm, then once again I view the case study of the Ese Eja people as the exception to the rule. In Because It Is Ours, Amanda Stronza states A lack of Ese Eja identity and tradition in Infierno is apparent in

8 the most obvious way people speak, dress and interact with outsiders, as well as in invisible or more subtle ways, such as how people perceive and characterize their identity and their spirituality (Stronza 2000: p. 48). The question I now pose to Stronza is, do we as Westerners have the right to say that another culture should remain stagnant? The stereotypical Western view is one that sees indigenous communities as possessors of a true sense of identity and culture, and often we assume that we should have a great say in how these people, their communities and cultures progress over time. And so once again I ask, if an indigenous community wishes to be exposed to Western development, whether on a small or large scale, who are we to say no? Evolution is a natural part of life, but being stagnant and stationary is not. With that said, having visited Posada Amazonas I must say that culture is seemingly absent from the community if we expect that a rich culture can only be represented by having people dress in traditional garb, and chant and sing their time-honored songs daily. In truth this is the stereotypical Western view of how culture in an indigenous community should be represented, a view that has remained constant over centuries even though the passage of time ultimately signifies change and continuity. I believe that the Ese Eja are not losing their culture because of their involvement in Posada Amazonas. Visiting an Ese Eja farm I noticed that homes are still built using customary materials and techniques and not all members of the community participate in eco-tourism but in fact remain faithful to farming activities which have been a part of their way of life. The use of traditional Ese Eja surnames such as Pesce and Mishaha as well as the continuing importance of traditional medicines and the great importance of the Shaman illustrates that the Ese Eja culture is very much alive. In truth and in fact, Posada Amazonas

9 represents the beginning and growth of a new aspect of Ese Eja culture, one that holds many possibilities. Concluding Thoughts In concluding, I must say that indeed the Ese Eja people s effective reception of capacity building and gift giving ultimately allowed them to realize the delicate balance between the conservation and development of both their culture and environment. I believe that the success of the Posada Amazonas Lodge can be largely attributed to the internal as well as external capacity building projects that occurred within the Ese Eja community. It is this capacity building which occurred at such a significant level that has made it the determining factor in the success of the lodge, rather than the particular ecotourism industry that the lodge belongs to. Capacity building could thus be that keystone element which so many have been searching for to begin the healing process that is necessary to conserve the valuable resources of the Amazon region. The Ese Eja community is an inspiration and hope for the interactions between two worlds which once seemed poles apart. It is capacity building that is the link between these two realms.

10 Bibliography Aragón, L E. 1994, The Amazon as a Study Object: Building regional capacity for sustainable development, Stockholm University, Institute of Latin American Studies, Stockholm Cowell, A. 1990, The Decade of Destruction: The Crusade to save the Amazon Rain Forest, H. Holt, New York Golder, B. 1996, Capacity Building for Indigenous Peoples Organizations in the Amazon Region [Online] Available at: Hall, A. 2000, Amazonia at the Crossroad: The challenge of sustainable development, Institute of Latin American Studies, London Pesce, M.N (ed.) 2003, Guía Interpretiva del Tambopata Research Center y Posada Amazonas Rainforest Expeditions S.A.C, Tambopata Research Center. Stronza, A. 2000, Because It Is Ours: Community Based Ecotourism in the Peruvian Amazon, University of Florida Taylor, P. 2002, Capacity Building for Integrated Water Resources: the Importance of Local Ownership, Partnership and Demand Responsiveness [Online]

11 Available at: UNDP Special Unit for South-South Collaboration 2005, Document B: Guidelines for Case Study Report. Sharing Innovative Experiences Knowledge Sharing for Local Development in the South: Examples of successful applications of knowledge networks in the South [Online] Available at: