Community based natural resource management

Community-based natural resource
management

Contents
1. What is CBNRM?
2. Key assumptions of CBNRM
3. Aim of CBNRM
4. Focus of CBNRM
5. Benefits of CBNRM: Financial&Non-financial
6. The cost to communities of CBNRM
7. Participation in CBNRM
8. Issues of CBNRM
9. Strategies to improve CBNRM
10. Case study: Macubeni&Nqabara, Eastern cape
11. Opportunities of CBNRM in Mongolia
12. Conclusion
13. 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

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.

 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.

There 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.

 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

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 vicugna
In Botswana one family can earn
up to $600 by breeding the
insects for commercial
companies.
Dactylopus coccus
In 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 hyacinthinus
Arctic (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

Strategies to improve CBNRM
Understand 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.

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.

Develop 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 Mongolia
Mongolia 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,

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

Community based natural resource management

More Related Content

What's hot

Similar to Community based natural resource management

More from Kherlen Shinebayar

Recently uploaded

Community based natural resource management