Community-based natural resource management

Contents1. What is CBNRM?2. Key assumptions of CBNRM3. Aim of CBNRM4. Focus of CBNRM5. Benefits of CBNRM: Financial&Non-financial6. The cost to communities of CBNRM7. Participation in CBNRM8. Issues of CBNRM9. Strategies to improve CBNRM10. Case study: Macubeni&Nqabara, Eastern cape11. Opportunities of CBNRM in Mongolia12. Conclusion13. Bibliography

What is CBNRM?

The community-based natural resource management (CBNRM) approach combines conservation objectives with the generation of economic benefits for rural communities. In other words community-based natural resource management refers to the collective use and management of natural resources in rural areas by a group of people with a self-defined, distinct identity, using communally owned facilities.

Key assumptions of CBNRM Locals are better placed to conserve natural

resources People will conserve a resource only if benefits

exceed the costs of conservation People will conserve a resource that is linked

directly to their quality of life.

When a local people’s quality of life is enhanced, their efforts and commitment to ensure the future well-being of the resource are also enhanced.

Aim of CBNRM Obtain the voluntary participation of communities in a

flexible program that incorporates long-term solutions to problems arising from the use of natural resources.

Introduce to natural wildlife resources a new system of group ownership and territorial rights for the communities resident in the target areas. The management of these resources should be placed under the custody and control of resident peoples.

Provide appropriate institutions under which resources can be legitimately managed and exploited by local people for their own direct benefit. These benefits can take the form of income, employment, and production of venison.

Provide technical and financial assistance to communities that join the program to enable them to realize their objectives.

Focus of CBNRM

The focus of CBNRM is not merely the wise management of natural resources. As important, if not more important, is the need for community development, local self government and the creation of local institutions for the management of common property resources.

Benefits of CBNRM

CBNRM has 2 kind of benefits financial and non-financial. Though in the end, the achievements of CBNRM can be measured only by the capabilities attained by communities through wildlife management.

Financial benefits of CBRNM

Substantial financial profits have rarely been made from natural resources, and the benefits to individuals are often overstated. Many CBNRM initiatives have no knowledge of markets and no economic planning and this generates false expectations. In South and Central America and Southeast Asia, CBNRM is a complementary activity that supplements people’s incomes and activities rather than being the mainstay of their economy.

Financial benefits of CBRNM

Another problem with large numbers of people sharing benefits is that although the size of the collective benefit can run into tens or even hundreds of thousands of U.S. dollars, the individual or household benefits are very small. Even in the widely acclaimed CAMPFIRE (Communal Areas Management Programme for Indigenous Resources) project in Zimbabwe, the average annual benefit to households is about Z$250 (less than US$7) per annum.

Financial benefits of CBRNMThere are, however, important exceptions, and the following characteristics seem to make a difference: the unit value of the product the level of extraction versus level of

replenishment the availability of a reliable market the opportunity cost of land and labor the number of people laying claim to or sharing the

benefit the level of government cooperation the potential for intra-community conflict, often

precipitated by power struggles.

Financial benefits of CBRNM In Central America, community guards earn good incomes

from guarding turtle eggs while Namibian game guards receive substantial benefits from anti-poaching patrols.

Protected area entry fees are an important source of income for communities in East Africa. In Uganda, communities living adjacent to national parks receive 20% of the gate fees while the Kenya Wildlife Service share 25% of their entry fees with neighboring communities.

Of course many of the initiatives are highly dependent on external funding and donor grants and most of the projects would not be viable without substantial donor contributions.

Financial benefits of CBRNM (examples)

In Peru vicuña wool harvesting is one of the main economical incomes for locals. A single scarf made of vicuña

wool worth $4,000.

Vicugna vicugnaIn Botswana one family can earn up to $600 by breeding the insects for commercial

companies.

Dactylopus coccusIn Costa Rica sea turtle eggs are sold for $100-$300 per

egg.

Lepidochelys olivacea

In South America Hyacinth macaws are reaised to be sold as

pets. The average price for 1 macaw is $14,000.

Anodorhynchus hyacinthinusArctic (Inuit) hunter

households can earn up to $7000 a year by hunting local

wildlife.

Bushmeat

Non-financial benefits of CBRNM

Invariably, the most important benefits from CBNRM are non-financial. Benefits such as: Community empowerment More secure livelihoods Cultural benefits Improvements to the natural resource base Greater understanding of sustainable use Improvement to habitat management

The cost to communities of CBNRM It should be recognized that while local communities

in many instances pay the bulk of the cost of conservation, the benefits are often experienced by governments and visitors. The cost of living with wildlife includes damage to crops and livestock, the opportunity cost of land, the opportunity cost of being separated from neighboring communities, and the cost of lack of access to resources because of agreements. At Bharatpur National Park in India, the cost of conservation to local people (in the form of lost opportunities) was estimated as US$60 000 per year in 1996, but the benefits went almost entirely to private tourism operators and government.

Participation in CBRNM Participation is generally believed to be a

good thing in development theory and a key feature of CBNRM, but it comes in many different forms. There are strong reasons why CBNRM should be participatory. The user is typically part of the system and has his finger on a pulse; effective participation by members of the group is essential for the legitimacy of initiatives; and local people mistrust authorities and want to be involved and informed because of bad historical experiences. Pretty et al (1994) highlighted 7 categories of participation, along a gradient of community involvement and empowerment.

Typology of participation of CBNRM

Typology of participation of CBNRM

Issues of CBNRM

Issues of CBNRM

Issues of CBNRM

Issues of CBNRM

Issues of CBNRM

Strategies to improve CBNRMUnderstand and describe the social–ecological system

• Baseline studies were conducted to understand the local history, dynamics and key social, institutional, ecological and economic strengths and weaknesses of CBNRM. A combination of participatory and conventional methods was used, and local capacity was developed by involving local people. A particular effort was made to understand the interactions and feedbacks between the different components of the social– ecological system (Berkes & Folke, 1998).

Establish and communicate a clear vision

• Visioning facilitates mutual understanding and gives purpose (Olsson et al., 2004).

Build on local organizations

• Knowledge networks facilitate knowledge exchange and learning, and increases the resilience of local organizations (Olsson et al., 2004).

Plan ahead

• Goal-setting and planning and foresight is an integral part of the adaptive management cycle (Kay et al., 1999; Lessard, 1998). A land-use plan, a conservancy management plan and a management and development plan should be developed. All plans needs to have strong inputs from community members, and used a combination of technology and “low-tech” methods such as participatory mapping and participatory learning and action.

Strategies to improve CBNRM

Create rules for resource use (and enforce them):

• In communal areas with weak property rights, rules that exclude “outsiders” from using common pool resources can act as a substitute for property rights, which are an essential components of institutional development (Roy & Tisdell, 1998). Rules for natural resource use, and penalties when they are broken, should be drawn up. Rules and codes of conduct are key components of common property management systems, and signify the difference between open access or a “Tragedy of the Commons” (Hardin, 1968) and common property management systems (Ostrom, 1990; Fabricius, 2004).

Communicate the vision, plan and rules:

• Communication deserves “serious attention” in adaptive co-management of natural resources (Vincent, 2003) and can take place at four levels: dialogue; reflection on history; “folk culture” such as drama, story telling and music; and diffusion of new knowledge. Frequent communication and information meetings with local, provincial and national government role-players should take place. A community communication initiative should be launched, with information brochures and notices being circulated to households and displayed in prominent places.

Strategies to improve CBNRMDevelop management capacity

• The capacity for ecosystem management is essential for the development of resilient institutions and governance structures (Olsson, 2003; Folke et al., 2005). Capacity could be developed through training courses, and in all cases through the planning process and on-going reflection and participatory planning and learning (Vernooy & McDougall, 2003).

Finance the initial stages of the initiative

• Although CBNRM should become independent of donor funds (Fabricius et al., 2001), seed funding is essential in the early stages of community-based initiatives, to compensate for the initial lack of financial capital elucidated earlier. Funds could be raised from the national government’s poverty relief grant to implement the conservancy and land use plans.

Monitor and learn all the time

• Monitoring is essential in adaptive collaborative management (Vernooy & McDougall, 2003) and forms the basis for reflection and learning (Vincent, 2003). Monitoring programmes have three main objectives: (a) to learn about ecosystem management through adaptation and feedback; (b) to monitor the processes and activities associated with external interventions and local action; and (c) to assess the outcomes of management strategies and actions for ecosystems and human well-being.

Create lasting incentives

• Lasting tangible incentives are essential for on-going natural resource management and the continued functioning of local institutions (Roy & Tisdell, 1998; Jenkins & Edwards, 2000; Milton et al., 2003; Roe, 2004

Case study: Nqabara, Eastern cape Nqabara is situated near Willowvale in the Mbhashe local municipality and

Amatole District Municipality. The area was also affected by Betterment in the mid-1960s when many people were forced to move 2 – 5 km inland, away from the productive coastal zone. The community of about 600 households lives in 10 villages under a single traditional leader and in a single municipal ward. The highly productive and well-conserved ecosystem consists of a mosaic of coastal forests and grasslands, coastal dunes and estuaries intersected by rivers and drainage lines. The biodiversity value of the area is high and it has considerable tourism potential (Palmer et al., 2002; Mafa Environment & Development, 2003). People are highly dependent on forests and grasslands for fuel, medicinal plants, grazing and natural resources for rituals. The land is communally managed and, like all communal areas in South Africa, state-owned.

Three key challenges for CBNRM at Nqabara are: the development of up-market nature tourism facilities in partnership with the private sector; the establishment of a community conservancy in partnership with government; and the cultivation and wholesale of medicinal plants in partnership with pharmaceutical companies.

Case study: Macubeni, Eastern cape Macubeni is situated in the Grassland Biome, near Queenstown in the Chris Hani

District Municipality and Emalahleni local municipality. The local community consists of about 1690 households (almost 7500 individuals) living in 14 villages in a single ward. The area is part of the catchment of the Cacadu River, which supplies water to the Emalahleni local municipality, and is the most important source of drinking and irrigation water for more than 50 downstream villages. Historically, Macubeni was part of the former Transkei and has been affected by Betterment schemes, notably the construction of the Macubeni dam in the catchment in 1986 (Fabricius & McGarry, 2004). The area is currently suffering from severe rangeland degradation, the out-migration of skilled people and a dire lack of infrastructure and services such as piped water, electricity and road networks. Land tenure is mainly communal and state-owned, although some parcels of land, such as certain fields, are privately owned (iKhwezi, 2003).

The key CBNRM challenges at Macubeni are to: prevent the causes of rangeland degradation by reducing grazing pressure by livestock; restore degraded areas, particularly wetlands and riparian areas; develop the management capacity of local decision-makers; and create incentives for ecosystemmanagement by promoting small enterprises around plant cultivation and seed production, land restoration services, erosion control teams and water production. The long-term objective is to aim towards payment for ecosystem services, notably for increased carbon fixation, and increased water production from the catchment (Fabricius & McGarry, 2004).

Opportunities of CBRNM in MongoliaMongolia offers unique opportunities to address many of the gaps in existing research on CBNRM. 1. The relatively homogenous environmental and social context in much of

the country means there is less potential for confounding variation among study sites.

2. Over 2000 CBNRM groups have been established across Mongolia in the past 5-10 years, offering a large study population from which to sample and the opportunity for a well-replicated study.

3. Because many of these groups were established with assistance from several major donors or NGOs, the groups vary somewhat consistently in key design elements, depending on the facilitating organization. This creates an unusual opportunity to compare among multiple groups in similar contexts established with different designs.

4. The wide spatial dispersion of existing CBNRM groups, there is an excellent opportunity to compare adjacent communities with and without active CBNRM projects or organizations.

5. Many of Mongolia’s ecosystems appear to respond relatively rapidly to changes in management, suggesting that if CBNRM results in a shift towards more sustainable management practices, the environmental outcomes of these changes may be detectable over relatively short time periods (e.g. 5-10 years), at least in some parts of the country.

6. Mongolia is subject to relatively frequent climatic disasters and a volatile economy, and may be particularly vulnerable to the effects of global climate change.

Opportunities of CBRNM in Mongolia

The above mentioned challenging set of circumstances make it an especially compelling and well-suited location to examine the relationship between CBNRM and resilience. This combination of factors makes Mongolia an ideal place in which to learn from ongoing efforts to develop community-based natural resource management. Mongolia offers a situation with many potential study cases that span a range of ecological conditions and design approaches, allowing for a well replicated and powerful study.

Conclusion

Community-based Natural Resource Management (CBNRM) focuses on the collective management of ecosystems to promote human well-being and aims to devolve authority for ecosystem management to the local (community) level. CBNRM therefore requires strong investments in capacity development of local institutions and governance structures.

Bibliography

“Community-based natural resource management: governing the commons” C. Fabricius and S. Collins 2007

“Rights, resources and rural development” Christo Fabricus, Eddie Koch, Stephen Turner 2004

“Community based natural resource management” Christo Fabricus