towards decentralised governance of natural resources, a process of change

Towards decentralised governance of natural resources, a process of changewith a case study of CBNRM in Botswana

Wageningen International

Kumasi, May 2008

Why decentralisation in NRM governance?

Why decentralisation?

To increase effectiveness and inclusiveness of decision-making;

To increase efficiency in raising revenue from resource management;

To more effectively enforce accountability; To optimise linkages (synergy) with sectors

that affect or are affected by what happens in the forestry sector

Programme

1. Changing paradigms from “fortress conservation” to collaborative management of natural resources

2. CBNRM as example of decentralised governance in NRM

3. Case study on CBNRM in Botswana4. Group work on change processes in NRM from

State to community control from different stakeholder perspectives

Elements of fortress conservation: Creation of protected areas Exclusion of people as residents Prevention of consumptive use Minimization of other forms of human

impact

Formalization of fortress conservation: Establishment conservation administration based

on European models e.g. Game department, Forest department, National Parks department

Incorporation of conservation in international development debate:

Value of rich flora and fauna in the tropics Increasing pace of development and landscape

change Mankind as destroyer of natureBUT Fortress conservation increasingly contested, hence

the need for a paradigm shift

Conceptual origins of the paradigm shift towards collaborative management:

Reaction on failing top-down and blue-print approaches; The “assumed” capacity of community structures managing

their environments in pre-colonial times; The importance of participatory approaches in current

development thinking (a.o. driven by international conventions). “People living with natural resources should be granted local ownership in the management and conservation of these resources” (sustainable development);

The linkage of conservation objectives to local development needs in order to mitigate the negative impact of conservation on local people. “People bearing the costs of living with resources should benefit”;

Belief in market mechanisms to give (monetary) values to natural resources and assuming these will translate in conservation efforts;

Through community conservation more natural resources can be conserved (in addition to isolated parks and reserves in which small or migratory populations may not be sustained).

Collaborative NRM generally focuses on community involvement: f.i. those principles and practices that argue that conservation goals should be pursued by strategies that emphasize the role of local residents in decision-making about natural resources (Hulme and Murphree, 2001)

1. Changing paradigms from “fortress” conservation to collaborative management

Typology of community conservation initiatives: Protected area outreach – to enhance integrity of

parks and reserves by aiming to educate and benefit surrounding local communities;

Collaborative management – seeks to create agreement between local communities and conservation authorities for negotiated access to natural resources

Community-based conservation – sustainable management of natural resources through devolution of control

Protected areaOutreach

Collaborative Management

Community-based Conservation

Objectives Conservation of ecosystems, biodiversity and species

Conservation with some rural livelihood benefits

Sustainable rural livelihoods

Ownership/tenurestatus

State owned land and resources (e.g. national parks, forest and game reserves)

State-owned land with mechanisms for collaborative management of certain resources with the community. Complex tenure and ownership arrangements

Local resource users own land and resources either de jure or de facto. State may have some control

Managementcharacteristics

State determines all decisions about resource management

Agreement between state and user group about managing some state-owned resources. Management arrangements are critical

Conservation as an element of land use. Emphasis on the development of the rural economy

Examples Parks and People initiatives in Kenya

Campfire programme in Zimbabwe

CBNRM programme in Botswana

Current thinking on forest governance is built on decentralisation of management functions (e.g. conventions, FLEGT, mainstream paradigm)

Decentralisation to variety of levels (district, community, chieftaincy)

Large variety of approaches under various names (community forestry, joint forest management, co-management, participatory forestry management, CBNRM, etc.)

Community-based Natural Resources Management (CBNRM) in Southern Africa taken as example to explore the importance of governance aspects

2. CBNRM as example of decentralised governance in NRM

2. Key governance issues that determine the success/failure of CBNRM (some caution from the experience in Southern Africa):

1. Is tenure secured? Lack of clarity on ownership in most CBNRM

programmes (landholder rights versus user rights)

Rights over different natural resources not always well-defined

Lack of legal status for communities State retains management control


2. What is the capacity of the community to exercise new rights in CBNRM? Lack of management capacity (traditional

versus modern community) Different objectives within communities Complicating physical characteristics of the

resource


3. Organisation building? Usually no organisations for CBNRM exist, new

ones have to be created Conflict between new organisations and existing

structures


4. Is there CBNRM supportive legislation in place? Decentralisation legislation is not always clear in

terms of rights devolved to communities Land administration units are usually not

reoriented to recognise community rights Scattered rules and regulations regarding NRM

located in different ministries


5. Is there sectoral coordination? Usually numerous overlapping interests from

different Ministries and Departments, e.g.Agriculture (Livestock) Parks and wildlifeTourismRural DevelopmentWaterForestryFisheriesLocal Government, etc.


6. Is the community defined? “Community” is an elusive concept Differentiation and stratification:

• Gender• Age• Power• Income/wealth• Ethnical differences


7. Is there agreement on the benefits of CBNRM? What are benefits in CBNRM? Who defines benefits? Competition with other land uses? Competition with individually controlled

benefits?


8. State – local relationships? Unclear devolution (lip service to

decentralisation) Retention of control by the state Power relations favor the elites Distrust of rural communities


9. What is the role of other (usually very powerful) stakeholders? Donors (is CBNRM still the fashion of the day?) (International) NGOs (institutional interests) Tour operators, safari hunters, timber

companies, natural resources industries

Case study:

Community Based Natural Resources Management

(CBNRM) in Botswana

Botswana – dry and sparsely populated Democratic country since independence in 1966 Dominated by one tribe (livestock herders) Economic mix of diamond production, tourism and

livestock Early emphasis on land use planning (17% PAs,

22% WMAs, 163 CHAs) Scope for CBNRM (the right conditions) Key role of USAID as donor Importance of legislation and policies

CBNRM in Botswana is characterised by a common property regime (rights vested in a specified group; non-members are excluded) with clear resource boundaries, formal sets of enforceable rules and user groups well-defined.

CBNRM in Botswana can be viewed as having a: Conservation focus Rural development focus Democracy and good governance focus

CBNRM as paradigm at the interface of biodiversity conservation and poverty alleviation

Main stakeholders: Government (central and district), Private sector, NGOs, communities

Innovative concepts in sustainable natural resources managementcase: CBNRM in Botswana

The CBNRM process in Botswana in (practical) steps:1. Community mobilisation (dissemination of

information, favourable conditions, presence of extension agents)

2. Collecting relevant community information (socioeconomic survey)

3. Formation of community-based organisation (constitution, capacity development, linkages)

4. Natural resources planning (natural resources inventory, land use and management plan, natural resources utilisation options)

5. Resource user rights (leases, sub-leases, rights and duties)


6. Joint ventures and other commercial options (preconditions, guidelines and contracts)

7. From planning to implementation (management requirements)

8. Utilisation of financial benefits (reinvestment options, income utilisation plans, impact monitoring)

9. Natural resources monitoring (data collection and analysis)


The 10 guiding principles of CBNRM in Botswana (lessons learnt):

1. Decision-making authority must be at community level2. Decision-making must be representative3. The “community” must be as small as possible4. Leadership must be accountable5. Benefits must outweigh costs6. Benefits must be distributed equitably7. Benefit distribution must be linked to natural resources

conservation8. Planning and development must focus on capacity-building9. Planning and development must be co-ordinated10. The CBNRM process must be facilitated


Benefits of CBNRM in Botswana Secure access to natural resources for subsistence Employment creation (direct management or joint venture) Financial benefits (direct management or joint venture) Intangible benefits

Local institution building (improved governance) Participatory development (governance) Representative and accountable leadership

development (governance) Self-confidence, pride gained (governance) Cultural identity and social cohesion strengthened

(governance) New skills learnt (economic development)


Benefits of CBNRM in Botswana (continued)

Conservation of natural resources (to sustain economic development) Scope to solve problems with problem animals Reduced poaching Incentive to conserve threatened species Reduced habitat degradation Scope to create corridors to protected areas Scope for increased environmental education Leverage for more investment in conservation


Problems and constraints facing CBNRM in Botswana

To expand CBNRM beyond wildlife has proved difficult CBNRM is not fully politically accepted nor institutionally

embedded Communities do not have sufficient capacity to fulfil

management role Link between community benefit from natural resources and

actively conserving them is fragile Community structures are not the right entities to manage

businesses Communities are complex entities and equitable

representation does not come easy Building community capacity in CBNRM is a long-term process

Group work

Form 4 stakeholder groups (private sector, NGOs, communities, central government), discuss and report back on flip chart

Reflect on a generic process of change from NRM by the State to management by a local community Describe the changing roles within your stakeholder group (qualify in terms of vision on development and conservation, and power to influence change processes) Define the resistance to change you may expect from within your own stakeholder group as well as from external forces

Timing Group work: 50 minutesReport back: 10 minutes per group

Format feedback group work

Stakeholder: …..

In columns on flipchart: Roles under a centralised NRM regime Roles under a devolved NRM regime What does the changed role mean for:

– Our vision on development and conservation

– Our power to influence change processes What resistance do we expect from:

– Within our own stakeholder group– Other stakeholders

towards decentralised governance of natural resources, a process of change

Documents

conservation authorities

conservation goals

natural resources hulme

local people

local development needs

resource management

collaborative nrm

local ownership