Ingredients for Success Tool
↓ Download as PDFA printable version of this tool to take into the field.
Social obstacles are not exceptions to the restoration process; they are part of it. Communities attempting to reverse environmental decline will encounter resistance from within: people who fear change, who can't afford the risk of trying something new, or whose short-term interests conflict with the collective good. They will encounter resistance from outside: commercial interests threatened by community autonomy, government agencies that don't recognize local authority, powerful actors who benefit from the status quo. The communities that succeed don't avoid these conflicts. They anticipate them, develop strategies for working through them, and build the collective strength to persist through them.
Recognize It
-
Is there internal resistance (community members who are skeptical, fearful, or actively opposed to the proposed change)?
Internal resistance is almost universal in early-stage restoration. Some community members will have more to lose from change than others, or will have been burned by failed initiatives before, or simply won't believe the proposed solution can work. Recognizing this as normal (and understanding its specific sources) is the starting point for addressing it.
-
Are there community members whose economic situation makes the risk of trying something new genuinely prohibitive?
Skepticism rooted in poverty or debt is different from skepticism rooted in preference or habit. Families who are one failed crop away from starvation, or who are locked into debt relationships with suppliers or landlords, face real constraints that abstract arguments about long-term benefit won't overcome. These constraints need to be addressed directly, not argued past.
-
Does the proposed restoration put the community in conflict with outside authority (government agencies, national laws, commercial operators, neighboring communities)?
Many restorations eventually require communities to assert control over resources that outside actors also claim: fisheries, forests, water, land. This is predictable, and communities are better served by anticipating it and developing a strategy than by hoping it won't arise.
-
Are there actors outside the community who benefit from the status quo and have the means to actively obstruct change?
Pesticide dealers, commercial fishing operations, mining companies, landlords: actors whose income depends on the community's continued dependence have both the motive and sometimes the means to push back hard. Naming these actors and their interests honestly is essential for developing effective responses.
-
Has the community found ways to design its rules and governance so that they're enforceable without requiring heroic effort?
Rules that depend on constant vigilance, high enforcement costs, or the goodwill of people with conflicting interests tend to fail. The most durable rules are those that are easy to monitor, understood and accepted by most community members, and carry consequences that are consistently applied.
Amplify It
If the community is already navigating social obstacles, these strategies strengthen its capacity to persist.
Make the rules easy to enforce
The most effective governance solutions are ones that minimize the cost of enforcement. Apo Island's no-fishing sanctuary rule could be monitored by a single person watching from the beach: a task rotated among families so no one bore it alone. When enforcement is simple and shared, it's sustainable. When it requires constant effort from a dedicated few, it eventually breaks down.
Build collective responses to economic pressure
When outside actors use economic leverage to punish communities for changing (paying less for goods, calling in debts, withdrawing credit) individual community members are vulnerable. Collective responses change the equation: marketing cooperatives find alternative buyers, mutual aid networks cover gaps, unified negotiating positions force creditors to accept reasonable terms. The Punukula farmers who faced pesticide dealer retaliation didn't resist individually; they organized collectively, and won.
Convert skeptics through results, not argument
The most effective response to internal skepticism is visible success. Early adopters who demonstrate that the new approach works (that yields improve, that costs fall, that fish return) provide evidence that no amount of advocacy can match. Design for early wins that skeptics can see and verify, and let results do the persuading.
Give a potential spoiler a stake in success
Sometimes the most effective way to neutralize opposition is to bring the opponent inside. In a Thai project, a district official who was involved in illegal logging in the project communities was given a seat on the project's board of trustees. The discomfort of sitting in restoration meetings among those communities led him to stop the logging.
Establish legal and government relationships before you need them
Communities that wait until a conflict with outside authority has reached a crisis before seeking legal standing or government recognition are at a disadvantage. Building those relationships earlier (when there's less pressure) creates the foundation for effective advocacy when disputes arise. Knowing which government bodies have relevant authority, and which officials are potential allies, is preparation that pays off.
Use nonviolent collective action when other avenues are blocked
When legal channels fail and negotiation stalls, nonviolent collective action (public demonstrations, organized civil disobedience, strategic use of media) has been effective in cases where communities faced powerful outside opposition. TBS's Water Warriors combined legal action with nonviolent resistance when the government tried to stop the johad movement and when mining companies responded to legal challenges with physical intimidation. Having a range of tools, and being willing to use them, matters.
Build It
If the community hasn't yet developed strategies for navigating social obstacles, these approaches help establish them.
Name the obstacles honestly before they arrive
The most useful preparation for social obstacles is to anticipate them specifically, not generically. Who in the community is most likely to resist, and why? Which outside actors have interests that conflict with restoration? What legal or regulatory barriers exist? Naming these concretely, before they become active conflicts, allows the community to prepare rather than react.
Start with changes that require the least social disruption
Gradual conversion (starting with willing early adopters, demonstrating results, and expanding as evidence accumulates) reduces the risk that resistant community members need to take on before they've seen proof that the approach works. Khao Din converted to agroforestry gradually precisely because the financial stakes were too high for families to risk everything at once. The sequencing of change matters.
Design for low-cost cooperation
Rules and collective actions that make reasonable demands on people's time and energy are more likely to be sustained than those that require exceptional effort. Ask: what's the simplest governance arrangement that would work? What's the minimum viable collective commitment that gets things started? Start there, and build complexity only as trust and capacity develop.
Develop outside relationships that can provide legal, financial, or political support
Communities facing outside opposition rarely succeed alone. Outside organizations (legal aid groups, advocacy NGOs, government allies, university partners) can provide resources, expertise, and credibility that shift the balance when communities face powerful opposition. Building these relationships before they're urgently needed is far easier than trying to establish them under pressure.
Work Around It
When internal opposition is strong enough to block collective action
Start smaller. Work with the subset of community members who are willing, demonstrate results at a scale that doesn't require buy-in from opponents, and let evidence accumulate. Forced consensus that papers over genuine opposition tends to collapse under pressure; voluntary adoption that spreads as results become visible tends to hold.
When outside opposition is too powerful to confront directly
Find the paths of least resistance. Legal channels, government allies, outside advocacy organizations, and public attention can all shift the power balance in situations where direct confrontation would fail. TBS didn't win every battle through force of will; it built a movement large enough, and with enough legal and public legitimacy, that even powerful opponents couldn't simply ignore it.
When the economic constraints facing community members are too severe for gradual conversion
Address economic vulnerability directly before asking people to take on additional risk. This might mean working with outside organizations to provide bridge support, designing interventions that use labor rather than cash, or identifying quick livelihood wins that reduce financial pressure enough to make experimentation possible. A community that is financially desperate cannot absorb the risk of change, however promising.
When government or legal authority actively blocks restoration
Document everything, build outside alliances, and look for legal or political leverage points. Communities that have successfully challenged government opposition have typically done so by combining legal action with public visibility: making the cost of continued opposition higher than the cost of accommodation. This takes time and outside support, but it has worked in situations that initially seemed unwinnable.
Learn More
Learn about systems thinking and how communities navigate the social obstacles that inevitably arise during restoration.