Community participation in international projects: an analytical perspective from the Russian Far East

Original Paper


International projects frequently struggle with the dilemmas of community participation, whether the community in question is the object of a development or aid intervention, or is to be persuaded to cooperate on a conservation project. This paper discusses the challenges facing interventionists and the obstacles and opportunities that local people encounter as they come into contact with exogenous conservation and development projects. The key issues presented can be summarized as legacy, legitimacy, agency and communication. We argue that project planners need to understand the history of past interventions in order to respond appropriately to local expectations. At the same time, the complexity of community leadership and representation complicates the sometimes conflicting agendas of project developers and communities. Much depends on personal relations, individual agency, and initiative. Finally, the physical means of communication—language, print and broadcast media, transport and telecommunications—are important aspects to consider when assessing the limitations to community participation. Although there have been valuable successes in international projects in Russia, as in other regions of the world, a better understanding of community participation is needed to ensure more effective and sustainable means for engaging communities in project development and implementation. This paper explores these questions through a locally-grounded analysis based on the academic research and practitioner experience of the two authors in the remote home of a World Heritage site—the Kamchatka Peninsula, in the Russian Far East.


Community participation Kamchatka Protected areas International projects Development Indigenous peoples 



The authors would like to acknowledge the valuable support, collaboration and assistance of the scientists from the Kamchatka Branch of the Pacific Ocean Geographical Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences, in particular its director Robert Savelevich Moiseev, and senior researcher, Viktoria V. Petrasheva and the NGO Kamchatka League of Independent Experts, in particular its director Olga Andreevna Chernyagina. We are extremely grateful to our local informants, colleagues and friends in Esso, Anavgai, Kovran, Tigil’, Khairiuzovo, Palana and Petropavlovsk, especially (in Esso and Anavgai) Taisiya Solodyakova, Natalya Petrovna Sycheva and the Esso Library, the Indanov family and the Anavgai House of Culture, the Bystrinskii Information Centre and Bystrinskii Nature Park. Emma Wilson would also like to acknowledge the valuable support and collaboration of the ‘Project Kamchatka ‘98’ team, especially Alex Fox, and the IUCN team on the ‘Building Partnerships’ project, in particular Nikolai Shmatkov and Tim Brigham. We are of course very appreciative of the generous assistance of our funding bodies, which include but are not limited to the UK Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC), the Philip Lake and Edward Wilson Funds, the National Science Foundation and IREX. Thanks also to Craig Gerlach and two anonymous reviewers for helpful suggestions and comments. The authors take sole responsibility for the contents of this article.

Map Credit: Gavin Wood, 2006.


  1. Adams, W. M. & Mulligan, M. (Eds.). (2003). Decolonising nature: Strategies for conservation in a post-colonial era. London: Earthscan.Google Scholar
  2. Appiah, M. (2001). Co-Partnership in forest management: The Gwira-Banso joint forest management project in Ghana. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 3, 343–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Chambers, R. (1997). Whose reality counts? Putting the first last. London: IT Publications.Google Scholar
  4. Chapin, M. (2004). A challenge to conservationists, World Watch, November/December 2004, 17–31.Google Scholar
  5. Cleaver, F. (2001). Institutions, agency and the limitations of participatory approaches to development. In: B. Cooke & U. Kothari (Eds.), Participation: The new tyranny? (pp. 36–55). London: Zed Books.Google Scholar
  6. Cooke, B., & Kothari, U. (2001). The case for participation as tyranny. In: B. Cooke & U. Kothari (Eds.), Participation: the new tyranny? (1–15). London: Zed Books.Google Scholar
  7. Cornwall, A. (2004). Spaces for transformation? Reflections on issues of power and difference in participation in development. In: S. Hickey & G. Mohan (Eds.), Participation: From tyranny to transformation? Exploring new approaches to participation in development (pp. 75–91). London and New York: Zed Books.Google Scholar
  8. Croal, P., & Darou, W. (2002). Canadian First Nations; experiences with international development. In: P. Sillitoe, A. Bicker, & J. Pottier (Eds.), Participating in development: Approaches to indigenous knowledge (pp. 82–107). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  9. Fitzpatrick, S. (1996). Supplicants and citizens: Public letter-writing in Soviet Russia in the 1930s. Slavic Review, 55(1), 78–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gaventa, J. (2004). Towards participatory governance: Assessing the transformative possibilities. In: S. Hickey & G. Mohan (Eds.), Participation: from tyranny to transformation? Exploring new approaches to participation in development (pp. 25–41). London and New York: Zed Books.Google Scholar
  11. Goodwin, P. (1998). “Hired hands” or “local voices”: Understandings and experience of local participation in conservation. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, NS 23, 481–499.Google Scholar
  12. Gray, P. (2001). The obshchina in Chukotka: Land, property and local autonomy. Working Paper No. 29 of the Max Planck Institute for Social Anthropology.Google Scholar
  13. Gray, P. (2005). The predicament of Chukotka’s indigenous movement: Post-Soviet activism in the Russian Far North. Cambridge, UK, and New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Hailey J. (2001). Beyond the formulaic: Process and practice in South Asian NGOs. In: B. Cooke & U. Kothari (Eds.), Participation: The new tyranny? (pp. 88–101). London: Zed Books.Google Scholar
  15. Hickey, S. & Mohan, G. (2004) (Eds.). Participation: From tyranny to transformation? Exploring new approaches to participation in development. London and New York: Zed Books.Google Scholar
  16. Gunn, A., Arlooktoo, G., & Kaomayok, D. (1988). The contribution of the ecological knowledge of inuit to wildlife management in the Northwest Territories. In M. M. R. Freeman & L. N. Carbyn (Eds.), Traditional knowledge and renewable resource management in Northern regions (pp. 22–30). Edmonton: Canadian Circumpolar Institute.Google Scholar
  17. Hansen, S.A., & Van Fleet, J. (2003). Traditional knowledge and intellectual property: A handbook on issues and options for traditional knowledge holders in protecting their intellectual property and maintaining biological diversity. Washington DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science.Google Scholar
  18. Hickey, S., & Mohan, G. (2004). Participation: From tyranny to transformation? London and New York: Zed Books.Google Scholar
  19. Hivon, M. (1998). The bullied farmer: Social pressure as a survival strategy. In S. Bridger & F. Pine (Eds.), Surviving post-socialism: Local strategies and regional responses in Eastern Europe and the Former Soviet Union (pp. 33–51). London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  20. Kasten, E. (1999). Probleme und Wege des Spracherhalts bei Völkern Kamtschatkas (Problems and Means of Language Preservation among Peoples of Kamchatka). In C. Hasselblatt & P. Jääsalmi-Krüger (Eds.), Europa et Sibiria. Beiträge zur Sprache und Kultur der kleineren finnougrischen, samojedischen und paläosibirischen Völker.Festschrift für Wolfgang Veenker (Europe and Siberia; Contributions to the Language and Culture of the minority Finno-Ugrian, Samoyedic and Paleosiberian Peoples, Festschrift for Wolfgang Veenker) (pp. 217–226). Veröffentlichungen der Societas Uralo-Altaica (Publications of the Uralo-Altaic Society), Bd. 51, Wiesbaden, Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
  21. Khaloimova, K., Dürr, M., Kasten, E., & Longinov, S. (1996). Istoriko-etnograficheskoye uchebnoye posobiye po itelmenskomu yazyku (Historic-ethnographical teaching materials for the Itelmen language), Kamshat, Petropavlovsk-Kamchatskii.Google Scholar
  22. Koester, D. (2005a). Global movements and local historical events: Itelmens of Kamchatka appeal to the U.N. American Ethnologist, 32(4), 642–659.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Koester, D. (2005b). Publicity and indigenous life in the 21st Century: How indigenous people of Kamchatka discuss present conditions and future prospects. 19th International Abashiri Symposium (2004) (pp. 43–49). Abashiri, Japan, Hokkaido Museum of Northern Peoples.Google Scholar
  24. Loeb, P. R. (1999). Soul of a citizen. New York: St. Martin’s Griffin.Google Scholar
  25. Mbile, P., Vabi, M., Meboka, M., Okon, D., Arrey-Mbo, J., Nkongho, F., & Ebong, E. (2005). Linking management and livelihood in environmental conservation: Case of the Korup National Park Cameroon. Journal of Environmental Management, 76, 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. McDonald, M., Arragutainaq, L., & Novalinga, Z. (1997). Voices from the Bay. Ottawa: Canadian Arctic Resources Committee.Google Scholar
  27. Pine, F. (1998). Dealing with fragmentation: The consequences of privatisation for rural women in central and southern Poland. In: S. Bridger & F. Pine (Eds.), Surviving post-socialism: Local strategies and regional responses in Eastern Europe and the Former Soviet Union (pp. 106–123). London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  28. Schönhuth, M. (2002). Negotiating with knowledge at development interfaces: Anthropology and the quest for participaton. In P. Sillitoe, A. Bicker, & J. Pottier (Eds.), Participating in Development: Approaches to indigenous knowledge (Vol. 39, pp. 139–161). Routledge, London, .Google Scholar
  29. Tishkov, V. A. (2004). Sovremennoe polozhenie i perspektivy razvitiia malochislennykh narodov Severa, Sibiri i Dal’nego Vostoka (Contemporary situation and development prospects of indigenous peoples of the Russian North, Siberia and the Russian Far East). Moscow: Institute of Ethnology and Anthropology.Google Scholar
  30. Wilson, E. (2002a). Est’ zakon, est’ i svoi zakony”: Legal and moral entitlements to the fish resources of Nyski Bay, north-eastern Sakhalin. In E. Kasten (Ed.), People and the land: pathways to reform in Post-Soviet Siberia (pp. 149–168). Berlin: Dietrich Reimer Verlag.Google Scholar
  31. Wilson, E. (2002b). Making space for local voices: Local involvement in natural resource management on Sakhalin Island, the Russian Far East. Unpublished doctoral thesis.Google Scholar
  32. Wilson, E. (2003). Freedom and loss in a human landscape: Multinational oil exploitation and the survival of reindeer herding in north-eastern Sakhalin, the Russian Far East. Sibirica, 3(1), 21–47.Google Scholar
  33. World Watch Magazine, January/February 2005, Vol. 18, No.1. Washington: Worldwatch Institute.Google Scholar
  34. Yanitsky, O. N. (1993). Russian environmentalism: Leading figures, facts, opinions. Moscow: Mezhdunarodnye Otnosheniia Publishing House.Google Scholar
  35. Yurchak, A. (1997). The cynical reason of late Socialism: Power, pretense, and the anekdot. Public Culture, 9, 161–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Environment & Community Worldwide, Ltd.CambridgeUK
  2. 2.Scott Polar Research InstituteUniversity of CambridgeCambridgeUK
  3. 3.Department of AnthropologyUniversity of Alaska FairbanksFairbanksUSA

Personalised recommendations