The elephant in the room: The impacts on poverty of wildlife-focussed

community based natural resource management

Helen Suich

PhD Scholar, Crawford School

What is CBNRM?

Community based natural resource management, or CBNRM, is designed to achieve sustainable use of natural resources and poverty alleviation objectives, by devolving rights to manage resources to local communities.

In southern Africa, they typically focus on wildlife management.

CBNRM, common property and collective action …

Common property and collective action scholarship have focused on demonstrating that common property regimes can, under certain circumstances be viable institutional arrangements for natural resource management.

CBNRM based on the common property and collective action literature.

They all emphasise the design and facilitating conditions for the emergence of sustainable institutions.

The focus on process means not much attention is given to outcomes.

The research questions …

1.

What has been the impact of CBNRM activities on the multiple dimensions of poverty?

2.

What are the perceptions of CBNRM area residents of CBNRM, in particular of the incentives intended to encourage and maintain participation in CBNRM activities?

How to determine these impacts?

Selection of two CBNRM sites to study: the Tchuma Tchato project in Mozambique, and the Kwandu Conservancy in Namibia.

Poverty is multi-dimensional.

Five dimensions of poverty were measured –

financial, human, natural, physical and

social.

Poverty was also measured subjectively and objectively.

Poverty impact evaluation

Construction of poverty indices for each dimension using factor analysis.

Use these poverty indices in propensity score matching to determine average treatment effect on the treated.

Matching exercise completed several times, to compare:1. Treatment and comparison households;

2. Random and comparison households;

3. Random and purposive households.

Poverty impact evaluation

Comparison

n≈70

Treatment = Purposive Random+Treatment Purposive Random

n≈70

Treatment Purposive

n≈50

The Tchuma Tchato project

Tete

The Tchuma Tchato project

Kwandu Conservancy

Kwandu ConservancyKwandu Conservancy

Kwandu Conservancy

Poverty impacts of CBNRMTreatment vs. Comparison

Tchuma Tchato Kwandu Conservancy

Objective

Subjective

(time o

f su

rvey)

Subjective

(10

years prio

r)

Objective

Subjective

(time o

f su

rvey)

Subjective

(10

years prio

r)

Financial

Human

Natural

Physical

Social *

coefficient estimate is significantly different from zero at 95% confidence level

coefficient estimate is significantly different from zero at 99% confidence level

* significant after adjustment procedure for multiple testing (Bonferroni & Šidák)

Poverty impacts of CBNRM

Purposive vs. Random

Tchuma Tchato Kwandu Conservancy

Objective

Subjective

(time o

f su

rvey)

Subjective

(10

years prio

r)

Objective

Subjective

(time o

f su

rvey)

Subjective

(10

years prio

r)

Financial *Human

Natural

Physical

Social *coefficient estimate is significantly different from zero at 95% confidence level

coefficient estimate is significantly different from zero at 99% confidence level

* significant after adjustment procedure for multiple testing (Bonferroni & Šidák)

Perceptions of CBNRM

Expected benefits (%)

Tchuma Tchato

Kwandu Conservancy

Purposive Random Purposive Random

Employment 25 23 32 24Economic development 21 18 12 10Better quality of life 13 6 - -Protection from human-

wildlife conflict

6 23 1 13

Money - - 21 11Meat - - 12 26

Perceptions of CBNRM

Benefits received Tchuma Tchato Kwandu Conservancy

(%) Purposive Random Purposive Random

Employment 35 3 30 2

Money 5 15 33 3

Meat 3 10 22 87

Protection from human–

wildlife conflict 8 23 - 5

Grinding mill 14 14 - -

Cattle/oxen 5 5 - -

Donkey and cart 5 4 - -

Market 3 16 - -

Implications …

Two main disadvantages identified were the lack of benefits delivered to households, and the costs felt by households, especially human–

wildlife conflict.

However, 50% of all households felt that CBNRM had contributed positively to their household over the previous 10 years.These positive perceptions appear to be affected by more than just the receipt of direct benefits at the household level.

Implications …

Three critical issues:1.

benefits that impact positively on poverty

must be distributed;2.

the powerful perception that benefits are

not being distributed equitably must be addressed;

3.

the high direct costs perceived by the communities as arising from the CBNRM programs –

particularly relating to human–

wildlife conflict –

need to be addressed in perception and in fact.

Implications …

CBNRM design needs reform if it is to improve poverty alleviation outcomes.

Benefits generated need to be increased, and they need to be distributed at the community and household level.

Poverty targeting choices need to be made.

CBNRM: success or failure?

While poverty impacts may have been disappointing, they should not be considered in isolation from other processes and outcome objectives.

CBNRM and protected areas should be viewed as complementary, not mutually exclusive.

Poverty alleviation outcomes need to be improved.