1 / 31

Towards decentralised governance of natural resources, a process of change

Towards decentralised governance of natural resources, a process of change. with 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;

rooney-carey
Télécharger la présentation

Towards decentralised governance of natural resources, a process of change

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Towards decentralised governance of natural resources, a process of change with a case study of CBNRM in BotswanaWageningen InternationalKumasi, May 2008

  2. Why decentralisation in NRM governance?

  3. 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

  4. Programme • Changing paradigms from “fortress conservation” to collaborative management of natural resources • CBNRM as example of decentralised governance in NRM • Case study on CBNRM in Botswana • Group work on change processes in NRM from State to community control from different stakeholder perspectives

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

  6. 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 nature BUT • Fortress conservation increasingly contested, hence the need for a paradigm shift

  7. 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 developmentneeds 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).

  8. 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)

  9. 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

  10. 2. CBNRM as example of decentralised governance in NRM • 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

  11. 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

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

  13. 2. Key governance issues that determine the success/failure of CBNRM (some caution from the experience in Southern Africa): 3. Organisation building? • Usually no organisations for CBNRM exist, new ones have to be created • Conflict between new organisations and existing structures

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

  15. 2. Key governance issues that determine the success/failure of CBNRM (some caution from the experience in Southern Africa): 5. Is there sectoral coordination? • Usually numerous overlapping interests from different Ministries and Departments, e.g. • Agriculture (Livestock) • Parks and wildlife • Tourism • Rural Development • Water • Forestry • Fisheries • Local Government, etc.

  16. 2. Key governance issues that determine the success/failure of CBNRM (some caution from the experience in Southern Africa): 6. Is the community defined? • “Community” is an elusive concept • Differentiation and stratification: • Gender • Age • Power • Income/wealth • Ethnical differences

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

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

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

  20. Case study: Community Based Natural Resources Management (CBNRM) in Botswana

  21. 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

  22. 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

  23. Innovative concepts in sustainable natural resources managementcase: CBNRM in Botswana The CBNRM process in Botswana in (practical) steps: • Community mobilisation (dissemination of information, favourable conditions, presence of extension agents) • Collecting relevant community information (socioeconomic survey) • Formation of community-based organisation (constitution, capacity development, linkages) • Natural resources planning (natural resources inventory, land use and management plan, natural resources utilisation options) • Resource user rights (leases, sub-leases, rights and duties)

  24. Innovative concepts in sustainable natural resources managementcase: CBNRM in Botswana • Joint ventures and other commercial options (preconditions, guidelines and contracts) • From planning to implementation (management requirements) • Utilisation of financial benefits (reinvestment options, income utilisation plans, impact monitoring) • Natural resources monitoring (data collection and analysis)

  25. Innovative concepts in sustainable natural resources managementcase: CBNRM in Botswana The 10 guiding principles of CBNRM in Botswana (lessons learnt): • Decision-making authority must be at community level • Decision-making must be representative • The “community” must be as small as possible • Leadership must be accountable • Benefits must outweigh costs • Benefits must be distributed equitably • Benefit distribution must be linked to natural resources conservation • Planning and development must focus on capacity-building • Planning and development must be co-ordinated • The CBNRM process must be facilitated

  26. Innovative concepts in sustainable natural resources managementcase: CBNRM in Botswana 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)

  27. Innovative concepts in sustainable natural resources managementcase: CBNRM in Botswana 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

  28. Innovative concepts in sustainable natural resources managementcase: CBNRM in Botswana 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

  29. 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 minutes Report back: 10 minutes per group

  30. 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

More Related