Vulture Conservation: Interdisciplinary Research and Community Empowerment

To conclude, we must also look at the systems of thought that have articulated and suggested some solutions to problems concerning vultures. So far, academic and scientific research is the main tool by which problems are identified, factors are analysed and solutions are mooted, from which may emerge suggestions, advice and pressure for policy makers and information for changes in public attitudes.

The academic revolution that occurred in the 1960s, 70s and 80s, allowed interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary fields to emerge; the better to understand and analyze the complex issues underpinning general and vulture conservation. The complexity of the issues discussed in this book, which were severely simplified for lack of space in one volume, could not be investigated or solved by single academic discipline. For example, the diclofenac problem was uncovered by toxicologists, veterinary scientists, ornithologists, zoologists, ecologists and biogeographers. Solutions and further understanding of the externalities have emerged through the work of sociologists, cultural scientists, economists and geographers.

Amateur bird-watchers, policy makers and advocates and stakeholders in landuse activities also play a role. In Europe and North America legal scholars and political scientists are also important. If one looks at the journals from which the articles cited in this book were derived it will be seen that some are from the hard sciences such as toxicology and veterinary medicine, while others are from the ecological and social sciences.

The background from which such interdisciplinary work could emerge has taken time to develop. The emergence of 'environmentalism' as a contemporary intellectual and political debate was a major contributory factor behind the revised, integrated perceptions that occurred during the 1970s. New terms such as sustainable development became popular 'battlecries' and value representations for a new politically and ecologically based awareness, within the theme of sustainable development. Sustainability and environmentalism have acquired increasingly broad perspectives, giving 'a fuller understanding of the multiplicity of ways of comprehending the extraordinarily complex nexus of development-environment relations' (Peet and Watts 1996: 38). The Stockholm Conference of 1972 may be seen as an expression of the international environmental and wildlife concerns developed over the previous decade. By 1974, more than one hundred nations had set up environmental departments, agencies and/or committees and laws, and non-governmental organizations had developed.

Older studies were less likely to attempt to cross-disciplinary borders in a manner suited to the solution of integrated problems. Important recent fields upon which such studies may rest include political ecology, human ecology, cultural ecology, the cultural ecology of development and environmental sociology. These disciplines and their associated fields, are based on the knowledge that the environment is not static but chaotic. As aptly described by Holling (1993: 553-554), the 'knowledge of the system we deal with is always incomplete. Surprise is inevitable. Not only is science incomplete, the system itself is a moving target' and therefore 'there is an inherent unknowability, as well as unpredictability concerning these evolved managed ecosystems and the societies with which they are linked'.

Another relevant position, from which complex problems may be understood, concerns the work of Norgard (1994), which postulates the truism that society and nature are in permanent coevolution; society changes, and consequent social changes affect nature, with changes in nature also affecting society and so on forever. This describes a coevolutionary cosmology, which comprises some basic principles, as being the basis of a coevolutionary framework. These principles enumerate an enabling structure and guide for the study of complex interfaces between society and nature.

The first principle holds that people are part of the larger environment in which their social spaces are situated, and should be seen as such when socioenvironmental relations are appraised. The second principle argues that 'how we reason affects the social and environmental systems in which we evolve' (Norgaard 1994: 94) and 'understandings must necessarily keep evolving, replacing themselves, to keep up with the cosmos that our understandings are changing' (ibid. 95). The third principle is of conceptual pluralism, rooted in the tenets of the second principle, and holds that there are different ways of knowing and that participants in such situations must be aware and tolerant of different conceptual frameworks, paradoxes and of the position that specific knowledges may have limited rather than universal applications. The fourth principle describes the development of scientific and other knowledge is a socially derived process, which is affected by social needs and perceptions, which shows the 'collective nature of understanding' (Norgaard 1994: 97).

Changing conditions (the fifth principle) and context (the sixth principle) are related to history. Norgaard (1984: 525) argues that coevolution provides the 'linkage between economic and ecological paradigms' and that the 'perspective emphasises how man's agricultural activities modify the ecosystem, and how the ecosystem's responses provide cause for subsequent individual action and social organisation' (Norgaard 1994: 26). Ever more complex relations are created between the socioeconomic system and the ecosystem, as production must be increased to feed expanding populations and this enhances the 'material transformation of nature' as the 'creation of human activity' (Woodgate and Redclift 1998: 6).

Consideration of multiple issues within societies and cultures across continents is also relevant. It is acknowledged that we must study different structures within these cultures, as a society is dominated by structures, which are 'any recurring pattern of social behavior' and the 'ordered interrelationship between the elements of a social system or society'; examples being 'kinship, religious, economic, political and other institutions as well as associated norms, values and social roles' (Marshall 1994: 517). Structures may 'constrain action or even determine it' (Craib 1992: 34), and are the foundation of the human-vulture relations described in this book.

Participation of governments in conservation is important, but participation of the local people in a context is even more important. For example, will local people listen to a government order banning diclofenac? Therefore, academic research on participation is important. True participation has been termed 'socio-economic empowerment' (Zimmerer 1994: 118), implying total support and motivation from the local people. Scholars have researched social participation, why sometimes it does not achieve its objectives and what must be done to enable effectiveness. This is a particularly relevant issue, considering the entwined nature of the vulture issues between local people's activities and ecology.

One study articulated seven forms of participation as being in common usage. The first four, described as manipulative, passive, consultative and material incentive based, are in reality 'non-participation' and have 'no positive, lasting effect on people's lives' (Pretty 1995: 1252). In manipulative participation 'participation is simply a pretence' as local people or their representatives have no real power: passive participation is also unilateral, as local people are not consulted (ibid.). Consultative participation involves an agenda set, defined and controlled by professionals, without the devolution of real consultative power to local respondents. Incentive-based participation occurs when rewards are given to participants.

However, when the rewards or external pressure ceases, so does the co-operation and vice-versa (Pretty 1995; Pretty and Shah 1997). The last three, arguably better forms of participation advocated by Pretty (1995) are: functional participation, which involves local people in meeting objectives, and may or may not involve them fully in decision making; interactive participation, where local people participate in joint analysis and development; and finally self-mobilisation which refers to participation where people take independent action to solve local problems and exercise control over decision-making, even though they may be supported by requested aid agencies. This, similar to the socio-economic empowerment mentioned above, is probably the only form of participation that would benefit local vulture conservation. Local people might still require information on the conservation of vultures and their food sources, the effects of local activities on their ecology and the value of these birds to local ecosystems.

References:
Abuladze, A. 1998. The Bearded Vulture Gypaetus barbatus in Caucasia. pp. 177-182. In: R.D. Chancellor, B.-U. Meyburg and J.J. Ferrero (eds.). Holarctic Birds of Prey. ADENEX- WWGBP, Merida and Berlin.

Acharya, R., R. Cuthbert, H.S. Baral and K.B. Shah. 2009. Rapid population declines of Himalayan Griffon Gyps himalayensis in Upper Mustang, Nepal. Bird Conservation International 19: 99-107.

Adamian, M.S. and D. Klem, Jr. 1999. Handbook of the Birds of Armenia. American University of Armenia, an affiliate of the University of California, Oakland-Yerevan.

Bahat, O. 1995. Physiological adaptations and foraging ecology of an obligatory carrion eater— the Griffon Vulture Gyps fulvus. PhD thesis, Tel-Aviv University, Tel-Aviv.

Bahat, O. 1997. Conservation of threatened raptor populations in Israel. pp. 177-189. In: Y. Leshem, A. Froneman, P. Mundy and H. Shamir (eds.). Wings over Africa. Proceedings of the International Seminar on Bird Migration and Flight Safety: Research, Conservation, Education and Flight Safety. Tel Aviv Univerity, Tel Aviv.

Baker, A.J., D.F. Whitacre and O. Aguirre. 1996. Observations of king vultures (Sarcoramphus papa) drinking and bathing. Journal of Raptor Research 30(4): 246-47.

Baker, E.C.S. 1932-1935. The nidification of birds of the British Empire 1-4. London: Taylor and Francis.

Cade, T.J. 2007. Exposure of California Condors to lead from spent ammunition. Journal of Wildlife Management 71(7): 2125-2133.

Calder, W.A. and J.R. King. 1974. Thermal and caloric relations of birds. In: D.S. Farner and J.R. King (eds.). Avian Biology. Academic Press, New York 4: 259-413.

California Condor Recovery Program. 2012. California Condor Gymnogyps califormianus Recovery Program Population Size and Distribution November 30, 2012.