Reflecting on the next generation of models for community-based natural resources management

Abstract

Community-based natural resource management (CBNRM) has been a pervasive paradigm in conservation circles for three decades. Despite many potentially attractive attributes it has been extensively critiqued from both ecological and sociological perspectives with respect to theory and practice (for example Leach et al. 1999; Berkes 2004; Fabricius et al. 2004; Blaikie 2006). Nonetheless, many successful examples exist, although an equal number have seemingly not met expectations. Is this because of poor implementation or rather a generally flawed model? If the criteria and conditions for success are so onerous that relatively few projects or situations are likely to qualify, what then is the value of the model? The questions thus become: how and what can we learn from the past theory and practice to develop a new generation of flexible, locally responsive and implementable CBNRM models, and what are likely to be the attributes of such models?

Local institutions, actors, and natural resource governance in Kgalagadi Transfrontier Park and surrounds, South Africa

“…Despite the promise of collaborative approaches, conservation policies should consider how local institutions can provide incentives for or pose constraints to participation by community members. A deeper understanding of institutions needs to zero down to examine as Shackleton et al (2010) suggest, what and whose interests are protected, who gains, who loses and what institutional mechanisms can be developed to promote greater access and use rights, security of such rights, equity and justice between actors in collaborative governance arrangements in and beyond parks. We recommend that local institutions should be (re)configured to allow active participation by all actors in decisionmaking, information sharing and equitable access to natural resources (see Lockwood et al, 2010;Cundill et al, 2013;Moorman et al, 2013) …”

The promise of common pool resource theory and the reality of commons projects

“…Important underpinning assumptions that drive the continued dissemination of this natural resource model are that rural communities are motivated by beneficial opportunities to cooperate and are best placed to make decisions about resource management and use. 1 Despite the continuing popularity of these projects, they have generated disappointing outcomes in practice (Blaikie 2006;Shackleton et al 2010). This article discusses how common pool resource (CPR) theory may have contributed to the poor performance of commons projects.…”

Bringing People Back into Protected Forests in Developing Countries: Insights from Co-Management in Malawi

“…Mounting anthropogenic pressures causing forest degradation and deforestation threaten forest ecosystem services and the livelihoods of 1.2 billion forest-dependent people globally. These pressures make remaining natural forest stocks in protected forests stand out and become the (relatively) new frontier for unsustainable extraction or forest conversion to other land uses, and co-management an attractive potential solution [9,10]. Over 25% of forested land in developing countries is under some community control [11], a significant proportion in protected areas.…”

“…Ultimately, co-management challenges and potential solutions are generally known, e.g., [6,[23][24][25]. Challenges increasingly lie in how to use this knowledge, including determining configurations that work in particular contexts [3,5,9]. The purpose of this study is to examine challenges of bringing people back into protected forests in developing countries as a means to promote sustainable management through co-management approaches.…”