Improved livelihoods and governance of natural resources ... - WWF

© HELGE DENKER, NACSO / WWF-NAMIBIALEARNINGPAPERImproved livelihoods and governanceof natural resources through localownership, participation and benefitsPrinciples of community based natural resource management (CBNRM)

Written by Melissa de KockCover design by: Malin Redvall / www.reddesign.noFront cover photo: Helge Denker, NACSO / WWF-NamibiaPrinted by Weberg printshopPublished in December 2010 by WWF-World Wide Fund ForNature (Formerly World Wildlife Fund), Oslo, NorwayAny reproduction in full or in part must mention the title andcredit the above-mentioned publisher as the copyright owner.© Text 2010 WWFAll rights reservedWWF is one of the world’s largest and most experiencedindependent conservation organizations, with over5 million supporters and a global Network active inmore than 100 countries.WWF’s mission is to stop the degradation of the planet’snatural environment and to build a future in which humans livein harmony with nature, by conserving the world’s biologicaldiversity, ensuring that the use of renewable natural resourcesis sustainable, and promoting

TABLE OF CONTENTS1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................12. WHAT IS CBNRM..........................................................................................................................13. RELEVANCE FOR WWF-NORWAY.............................................................................................34. CORE PRINCIPLES OF SUSTAINABLE CBNRM.......................................................................44.1 Core principles relevant at a strategic / policy level.....................................................................44.2 Core principles of sustainable CBNRM relevant for practical programme implementation ........7CASE STUDY: CONSERVATION SUCCESS AND IMPROVED LIVELIHOODS FROM CBNRM ..11

8. The community that will manage and benefit from the resource and the geographic extent of the resource which will be managed, must be clearly defined by the community itself, and legitimised by the government. This will provide both internal and external legitimacy, circumvent conflict over who is meant to manage and benefit, and prevent exploitation of the resource by outsiders. If the community defines itself, there is greater potential for developing an authority with required external and internal legitimacy xxx . This will also contribute to the sense of ownership (see point 3.1(7)), and to self determination and thus empowerment which also is an important benefit of successful CBNRM. 9. Equitable partnerships, collaboration and trust between local communities and the public and private sector are required. Such partnerships include those between the community and government agencies, with NGOs -­‐ as supporters for communities and as supporters or challengers where necessary of governments -­‐, and with the private sector investors. There is a potential imbalance of power between communities and the government and with private sector partners which can be addressed by facilitation and technical support from an external agency and provision of capacity building, and through security of tenure for communities and their knowledge of their rights xxxi . Trust is crucial to partnerships and building trust with communities and between communities and other stakeholders may take time, particularly if there have been failed interventions previously or other stakeholders have not treated them equitably in the past. CBNRM in southern Africa has been facilitated through successful longterm collaborations between communities and governments assisted by support organisations. For example, the CAMPFIRE Association (Zimbabwe) or the Namibian Association of CBNRM Support Organisations (NASCO), provide capacity building, technical support and policy inputs to communities and government partners and, as such, are crucial in promoting CBNRM in those countries xxxii . 4.2 Core principles of sustainable CBNRM relevant for practical programme implementation Both sets of principles outlined in points 3.1 above and 3.2 below are required for sustainable CBNRM. The principles outlined in point 3.1 above lay the foundation for sustainable CBNRM, and need to be in place before, or be put in place while, the principles below are applied. Similarly, the principles below need to be applied in practical programme implementation to complement those in 3.1. Implemented in synergy, they will contribute to sustainable CBNRM. 1. Capacity building is required to ensure that community members and their institutions have the required knowledge, skills and expertise to manage the resources and resulting income, and to negotiate with (and stand up to) other stakeholders xxxiii . There may be barriers hindering people from participating effectively in planning processes and from management, which need to be 7

• Monitoring and reporting of CBNRM impacts and results is required against biodiversity, livelihoods and governance indicators. This is required to justify continued donor investment, and to prove its value as a preferred land use option for governments. • CBNRM can also be affected by myriad external factors, such as political change, natural ecosystem dynamics, climate change, etc. xlviii . Please refer to the following case study for an example of successful CBNRM. CASE STUDY: CONSERVATION SUCCESS AND IMPROVED LIVELIHOODS FROM CBNRM The Namibian Conservancy programme, a government programme supported by a number of NGOs including WWF, enables local people living on communal lands to use wildlife and nature-­‐based tourism enterprises as an additional livelihood strategy once registered as a communal ‘conservancy’. Conservancies are multiple-­‐use areas, in other words, community members continue with their usual subsistence activities such as livestock or agriculture alongside wildlife management, according to a management plan which includes zones for multiple use, tourism and wildlife. Through far sighted legislation passed in 1996, the Government transferred rights over (certain species of) wildlife to communities, if registered as a conservancy, and enabled those communities to manage and use the wildlife within their demarcated Conservancy for their own benefit, primarily through hunting and photographic tourism initiatives. Communities have the right to enter into agreements with private sector partners for the use of the wildlife, and retain all revenue generated through those agreements. The community elects a representative community institution who manages the conservancy on the community’s behalf. Communal conservancies cover 16.1% of land in Namibia, complementing the state managed protected area network which comprises 16.5% of the country. More than 230 000 community members are involved and benefit from conservancies and the broader CBNRM Programme, which is approximately 10% of the country’s population. Income and benefits from Namibia’s CBNRM Programme increased from approximately N$600,000 in 1998 (four conservancies) to N$35 million in 2009 (59 conservancies) xlix . This income is supplementary income for these communities who are primarily subsistence farmers. This additional money remains within the community, and is used as determined by the community to fund conservancy operations, and to distribute to individuals or villages and to undertake community 11

projects. In the case of village payouts, the villages collectively decide how to spend that money and have constructed maize storage facilities, school buildings, ceremonial buildings, and boreholes, which benefit the whole village and which would not have been possible without that money l . It is rare that CBNRM becomes the sole or even primary source of income for rural people living on communal land, but rather the CBNRM income or benefits are supplementary to people’s existing livelihoods (e.g. farming) and are valuable as an additional livelihood diversification strategy li . The community in a registered conservancy retains all the revenue generated from the conservancy, for example from hunting and tourism concessions and/or community campsites. Since inception of the programme in the mid-­‐1990s, the attitudes of many local communal area residents have changed from resentment of the state managed wildlife system where the state received all benefits, whilst the community bore the brunt of wildlife in their area, to seeing wildlife as a community asset. Prior to the formation of communal conservancies, wildlife was largely regarded as competition to livestock grazing and/or despised as a threat to personal assets (i.e., crops, livestock, and infrastructure) or even the lives of one’s family. Poaching is no longer socially acceptable and the presence of wildlife is being promoted through participatory community land-­‐use zoning processes which create core wildlife (wildlife only) and multiple-­‐use (wildlife mixed with livestock and people) areas in which wildlife numbers are increasing and flourishing lii . The change in attitudes is attributable to the increased income and other benefits local communities receive from wildlife enterprises and management liii . While economic benefits, such as income or employment, are easier to quantify, other important benefits for communities are less quantifiable socio-­‐cultural benefits such as participation in decision-­‐making and authority to make decisions regarding the resource (i.e. empowerment) and receipt of meat from hunted wildlife to supplement diets. The change in attitude has resulted in improved governance over the wildlife and a significant recovery of wildlife populations, with population trends of all species (with the exception of lion and hyena in some conservancies in the north east of Namibia) either stable or increasing. The increasing wildlife populations have resulted in increased tangible benefits for the communities – including cash pay-­‐outs, job creation, tourism enterprise development, meat (from trophy hunting) livlv . Increasing wildlife numbers include lions which, in the Kunene have increased from approximately 30 to an estimated 125 by 2008 lvi and expanded their range by several thousand square kilometres. Such a recovery was only possible because it was accompanied by a massive recovery of the prey base and increased tolerance by resident communities. Namibia is the only country in the world where populations of black rhino outside protected areas are rising (Weaver, Petersen, Diggle and Matongo, 2010). The free-­‐roaming black rhino population has more than doubled from 1990 to 2008 in the north-­western communal and state lands, and elephant numbers have increased from approximately 7,000 in 1995 to more than 16,000 by 2008. 12

End notes i Jones and Murphree 2004 ii Emerton 2001; Fabricius, Matsiliza and Sisitka 2002; Child and West Lyman 2005 iii ARD, 2001 iv Weaver and Skyer 2005 v Magome and Fabricius, 2005; Weaver and Skyer, 2005; Fischer, Muchapondwa & Sterner 2005; Atwell, 2005 vi Hamilton et. al. 2007; Mbewe et. al 2005 vii Weaver et al 2010; NACSO, 2010 viii SCBD and UNDP 2008; Rights and Resources 2008; Weaver and Skyyer 2005; de Kock 2007 ix UN 1993a x UN 1993b xi UN 1992 xii ILO Convention 169 1989 xiii UN 2007 xiv Murphree 1991 as cited in Murphree 2005; IIED 1994; Gibson and Marks 1995; Child and West Lyman 2005; Fabricius, Matsiliza and Sisitka, 2002; Fabricius et al. 2005; Jones and Murphree 2004; Schuerholz and Baldus 2007 xv Fabricius 2005 xvi Fabricius, Matsiliza and Sisitka, 2002; Fabricius et al., 2005; Jones and Murphree, 2004; Child and West Lyman, 2005; Child, 2005a xvii Fabricius, 2005 xviii Fabricius et al. 2005; Child and West Lyman, 2005; Murphree, 2005; Jones and Murphree, 2004; Child 2003; Metcalfe, 1996 xix Barrow and Murphree 1998; Fabricius et al. 2005; Bond et al. 2010 xx Murphree, 1991 cited in Murphree, 1995; Gibson and Marks, 1995; Emerton, 2001; Jones and Murphree, 2004; Barrow and Murphree, 1998; Fabricius, Matsiliza and Sisitka, 2005 xxi Barrow and Murphree 1998; Fabricius, Matsiliza and Sisitka 2002; Fabricius et al. 2005 xxii Child 2003 xxiii Child 2003 xxiv Barrow and Murphree 1998 xxv IIED 1994; MET 2005 xxvi Bond et al 2010 xxvii Barrow and Murphree 1998; Turner 2005 xxviii Sandwith et al. 2001; Metcalfe 2003 xxix Child, 2003; Weaver and Skyer, 2005:90; Barrow and Murphree, 1998 xxx Jones and Murphree 2004; Atwell 2005 xxxi Jones and Murphree 2004 xxxii Bond et al. 2010 xxxiii Child, 2003, Child and West Lyman 2005; IIED 1994 xxxiv Child 2003; Child and West-­‐Lyman 2005 xxxv Fabricius, Matsiliza and Sisitka 2002; Fabricius et al. 2005 xxxvi Fabricius et al. 2005 xxxvii Jones, 1998; Child and West Lyman, 2005; Fabricius, Matsiliza and Sisitka, 2002; Fabricius et al., 2005 xxxviii Child and West Lyman 2005 xxxix Atwell 2005 xl Barrow and Murphree, 1998 xli Adams and Hulme, 2001; Jones and Murphree, 2004; Child and West Lyman, 2005) xlii Adams and Hulme, 2001; Jones and Murphree, 2004 xliii Jones, 1999 xliv Sandwith et al. 2001; Bhandari 2003; Norton et al. 2001; Taylor 2001; Berkes 2003; du Pisani and Sandham 2006 14

xlv Jones and Murphree, 2004 xlvi Magome and Fabricius, 2005 xlvii Jones and Murphree 2004; Atwell 2005 xlviii Magome and Fabricius, 2005 xlix NACSO 2010 l de Kock 2007 li Magome and Fabricius 2005; Weaver and Skyer 2005 lii Weaver et al 2010 liii Weaver and Skyer 2005 liv Jones 1998; Child 2003; Weaver and Skyer 2005; Nott and Jacobsohn 2005; Weaver et al, 2010 lv Weaver et al 2010; NACSO, 2010 lvi P. Stander, 2008 in NACSO, 2010 lvii WWF in Namibia 2010 References Adams, W.M. and Hulme, D. (2001b). “Changing Narratives, Policies and Practices in African Conservation.” In Hulme, D and Murphree, M (eds) African Wildlife and Livelihoods. The promise and performance of Community Conservation. Cape Town, David Philips. Anstey, S. (2009). Institutional Change And Community Based Natural Resource Management In Northern Mozambique: The Village Goes Forward: Governance and Natural Resources in North Niassa Centre for Applied Social Sciences, University of Zimbabwe, May 2009 Atwell, C.A.M. (2005). “Review of CBNRM activities in the Region.” The Feasibility Study Draft Report regarding the Development of the Limpopo National Park and its Support Zone. Development Bank of Southern Africa, Agence Française de Developpement and the Ministry of Tourism of Mozambique. Nepad Project Proposal and Feasibility Fund. October 2005 Barrow, E. and Murphree, M. (1998). “Community Conservation from concept to Practice: A practical framework.” Community Conservation Research in Africa: Principles and Comparative Practice. Working Papers. Paper No. 8. Institute for Development Policy and Management, University of Manchester. August 1998. http://www.sed.manchester.ac.uk/idpm/publications/archive/cc/cc_wp08.pdf Bond, I., Chambwera, M., Jones, B., Chundama, M. and Nhantumbo, I. (2010) REDD+ in dryland forests: Issues and prospects for pro-­‐poor REDD in the miombo woodlands of southern Africa, Natural Resource Issues No. 21. IIED, London. Child, B (2005) “Principles, practice, and results of CBNRM in Southern Africa.” In Child, B. and West Lyman, M (eds) Natural Resources as community assets. Sand County Foundation and the Aspen Institute. Child, B and West Lyman, M. (2005). “Introduction.” In Child, B. and West Lyman, M (eds) Natural Resources as communityassets. Sand County Foundation and the Aspen Institute. Child, B. (2003). Origins and Efficacy of Modern CBNRM Practices in the Southern African Region. Corbett, A. and Jones, B. (2000). The legal aspects of governance in CBNRM in Namibia. Paper prepared for the CASS / PLAAS second regional meeting, on the legal aspects of governance in CBNRM, University of the Western Cape, 16-­‐17 October 2000. De Kock, M. (2007). Exploring the efficacy of community based natural resource management in Salambala Conservancy, Caprivi Region, Namibia. University of Stellenbosch, South Africa. Emerton, L. (2001). “The Nature of benefits and the benefits of nature: Why wildlife conservation has not economically benefited communities in Africa.” In Hulme, D and Murphree, M (eds) African Wildlife and Livelihoods. The promise and performance of Community Conservation. Cape Town, David Philips. Fabricius, C. (2005). “The fundamentals of community-­‐based natural resource management.” In Fabricius, C. and Koch, E. with Magome, H. and Turner, S. (eds Rights, Resources and Rural Development: Community-­‐based Natural Resource Management in Southern Africa. Earthscan Publications Limited. London, UK. Fabricius, C., Koch, E., Turner, S., Magome, H. and Sisitka, L. (2005). “Conclusions and recommendations: What we have learned from a decade of experimentation.” In Fabricius, C. and Koch, E. with Magome, H. and 15

Turner, S. (eds) Rights, Resources and Rural Development: Community-­‐based Natural Resource Management inSouthern Africa. Earthscan Publications Limited. London, UK. Fabricius, C., Matsiliza, B., & Sisitka, L. (2002). An update of laws and policies that support community-­based natural resource management (CBNRM) type programmes in South Africa. (Final Draft). Report to the Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism (South Africa) and GTZ. August 2002. Gibson, C.G. and Marks, S.A. (1995) “Transforming rural hunters into conservationists: An assessment of Community-­‐based Wildlife Management Programs in Africa”, World Development 23 (b) 941-­‐958. Goodwin, J., and Edmunds C.(2004). Contribution of Tourism to Poverty Alleviation to Pro Poor Tourism and the Challenge of Measuring Impacts. Transport Policy and Tourism Section, Transport Division UN ESCAP Hamilton, K, Tembo, G, Sinyenga, G., Bandyopadhyay, S., Pope, A., Guilton, B., Muwele, B., Mann S. & Pavy, JM (2007). The Real Economic Impact of Nature Tourism in Zambia. NRCF, Lusaka, Zambia. Edited by Camilla Hebo Buus. IIED (1994). Whose Eden? An overview of Community Approaches to Wildlife Management. London, International Institute for Environment and Development. ILO (1989). C169 Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention. (ILO169), 1989. Jones, B. (1998). Namibia’s approach to Community-­‐based Natural Resource Management (CBNRM): Towards sustainable development in communal areas. Scandinavian Seminar College: African Perspectives of Policies and Practices 112 Supporting Sustainable Development in Sub-­‐Saharan Africa. Windhoek, September 1998. Jones, B. (1999). “Rights, Revenue and Resources: The problems and potential of conservancies as community wildlife management institutions in Namibia.” Evaluating Eden Series Discussion paper No. 2. September 1999. Jones, B. and Murphree, M.W. (2004). “Community-­‐Based Natural Resource Management as a Conservation Mechanism: Lessons and Directions”. In Child, B. (ed) Parks in Transition. Biodiversity, Rural Development and the Bottom Line. Published for IUCN and SASUSG by Earthscan Publications Limited. London, UK. Mbewe, B., Makota, C., Hachileka, E., Mwitwa, J., Chundama, M. and Nanchengwa, M. (2005). Community Based Natural Resource Management in Zambia. Status Report 2005. WWF / Zambia CBNRM Forum. Metcalfe, S (2003). Impacts of Transboundary Protected Areas on Local Communities in Three Southern African Initiatives. Paper prepared for the workshop on Transboundary Protected Areas in the Governance Stream of the 5th World Parks Congress, Durban, South Africa, 12-­‐13 September 2003. Murphree, M.J. (2005). “Counting Sheep”: The Comparative Advantages of Wildlife and Livestock – A Community Perspective.” In Osofsky, S.A., Cleaveland, S., Karesh, W.B., Kock, M.D., Nyhus, P.J., Starr, L. and Yang, A. (Eds). Conservation and Development Interventions at the Wildlife / Livestock Interface: Implications for Wildlife, Livestock and Human Health. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge Murphree, M.W. (2005). “Congruent Objectives, Competing Interests, and Strategic Compromise: Concept and Process in the evolution of Zimbabwe’s CAMPFIRE, 1984-­‐1996”. In Brosius, J. P., Tsing, A.L. and Zerner, C. (eds) Communities and Conservation. History and Policies of Community-­‐based Natural Resource Management. AltaMira Press. Walnut Creek, USA. NACSO. 2010. Namibia’s communal conservancies: a review of progress and challenges in 2009. NACSO, Windhoek. Nott, C and Jacobsohn, M (2005). “Key Issues in Namibia’s conservancy movement.” In Fabricius, C. and Koch, E. with Magome, H. and Turner, S. (eds) Rights, Resources and Rural Development: Community-­‐based Natural Resource Management in Southern Africa. Earthscan Publications Limited. London, UK. Rights and Resources (2008). From Exclusion to Ownership? Rights and Resources Initiative, 2008, Washington, USA. www.rightsandresources.org Roe D., Nelson, F., Sandbrook, C. (eds.) 2009. Community management of natural resources in Africa: Impacts, experiences and future directions, Natural Resource Issues No. 18, International Institute for Environment and Development, London, UK Sandwith, T. Shine, C., Hamilton, L. and Sheppard, D. (2001). Transboundary Protected Areas for Peace and Cooperation. IUCN – Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK 16

Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity (SCBD) and United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) (2008) Global Indigenous Peoples Consultation on Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD), Baguio City, Philippines 12-­‐14 November 2008, Summary Report, CBD Secretariat). Tsing, A.L., Brosius, J.P., and Zerner, C. (2005) “Introduction.” In Brosius, J.P., Tsing, A.L. and Zerner, C. (eds) Communities and Conservation. History and Policies of Community-­‐based Natural Resource Management. AltaMira Press. Walnut Creek, USA. Turner, S. (2004). A crisis in CBNRM? Affirming the commons in southern Africa. Paper presented at the 10th IASCP Conference, Oaxaca, 9-­‐13th August 2004. Centre for International Co-­‐operation, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam. Turner, S. (2005). “Community-­‐based natural resource management and rural livelihoods”. In Fabricius, C. and Koch, E. with Magome, H. and Turner, S. (eds) Rights Resources and Rural Development: Community-­‐based Natural Resource Management in Southern Africa. Earthscan Publications Limited. London, UK. Weaver, L.C, and Skyer, P (2005). “Conservancies: Integrating Wildlife Land-­‐use options into the Livelihood, Development and Conservation Strategies of Namibian Conservancies.” In Osofsky, S.A., Cleaveland, S., Karesh, W.B., Kock, M.D., Nyhus, P.J., Starr, L. and Yang, A. (Eds). Conservation and Development Interventions at the Wildlife / Livestock Interface: Implications for Wildlife, Livestock and Human Health. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. United Nations (UN). (1993a). Agenda 21: Earth Summit -­‐The United Nations Programme of Action from Rio. http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/documents/agenda21/english/agenda21toc.htm United Nations (UN). (1993b) Multilateral Convention on Biological Diversity. Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. United Nations Treaty Series. p142-­‐382.: http://www.biodiv.org/convention/articles.asp United Nations (UN). (2007). United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Adopted by the UN at the 107th plenary meeting. 13 September 2007. http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/unpfii/documents/DRIPS_en.pdf Weaver, L.C., Petersen, T., Diggle, R., and Matongo, G. (2010) A Decade of Wildlife Utilization in Namibia’s Communal Conservancies. 17

LIMPROVED LIVELIHOODS AND GOVERNANCEOF NATURAL RESOURCESINCENTIVE BASEDAPPROACH TONATURAL RESOURCEMANAGEMENT– Communities receiveequitable benefits whichoutweigh the negativeimpacts of conservation.PARTICIPATIONAND OWNERSHIPIMPROVED NATURALRESOURCE MANAGEMENT– Successful CBNRM results inimproved biodiversity and habitatconservation and increasedwildlife numbers and range.– Communities makethe decisions over theirresources.Why we are hereTo stop the degradation of the planet’s natural environment andto build a future in which humans live in harmony and nature.POLICY ANDLEGISLATION– Community rightsshould be enshrinedin national policiesand legislation.100%RECYCLED• IMPROVED LIVELIHOODS AND GOVERNANCE OF NATURAL RESOURCES THROUGH LOCAL OWNERSHIP, PARTICIPATION AND BENEFITS •ularWhy we are hereTo stop the degradation of the planet’s natural environment andto build a future in which humans live in harmony with nature.www.wwf.noWWF-Norge, organisasjonsnr 952330071MVA og registrert i Norge med reg.nos. © 1989 pandasymboletog ® “WWF” registrert varemerke av Stiftelsen WWF Verdens Naturfond (World Wide Fund for Nature),WWF-Norge, Postboks 6784 St Olavs plass, 0130 Oslo, tlf: 22 03 65 00, epost: wwf@wwf.no, www.wwf.no.© NASAWWF.NO