Success Factors for Community-Based Natural Resource Management (CBNRM): Lessons from Kenya and Australia

Abstract

Recent concerns over a crisis of identity and legitimacy in community-based natural resource management (CBNRM) have emerged following several decades of documented failure. A substantial literature has developed on the reasons for failure in CBNRM. In this paper, we complement this literature by considering these factors in relation to two successful CBNRM case studies. These cases have distinct differences, one focusing on the conservation of hirola in Kenya on community-held trust land and the other focusing on remnant vegetation conservation from grazing pressure on privately held farm land in Australia. What these cases have in common is that both CBNRM projects were initiated by local communities with strong attachments to their local environments. The projects both represent genuine community initiatives, closely aligned to the original aims of CBNRM. The intrinsically high level of "ownership" held by local residents has proven effective in surviving many challenges which have affected other CBNRM projects: from impacts on local livelihoods to complex governance arrangements involving non-government organizations and research organizations. The cases provide some signs of hope among broader signs of crisis in CBNRM practice.

Payments for environmental services and community-level socioeconomic wellbeing: Comparing programs in Vietnam and Australia

“…Many reviews of community environmental management and PES advocate for strong community involvement and claim that community involvement is a crucial feature of successful programs (Baker et al 2001;Colfer 2005;Sheil et al 2006;Boissière et al 2009;Mustalahti 2009;May 2010;Tole 2010;Altman 2012;Thuy et al 2013;KimDung, et al 2013;Measham & Lumbasi 2013). This suggests that PES are more successful when communities are consulted about the nature and extent of their involvement and provide the impetus for the program.…”

“…Indeed, Pham et al (2010: 64) argue that 'intermediary boundary organizations' such as NGOs, the state or community groups in Vietnamese PES programs can be crucial, acting 'as service and information providers, mediators, arbitrators, equalizers, representatives, watchdogs, developers of standards and bridge builders'. However, the study village was typical of wider findings that outside organisations can undermine program success when they focus on measurable outputs rather than holistic sustainability, undermine local people's interests, customs and cultures and leave communities without impetus for environmental preservation (Colfer 2005;Mustalahti 2009;Pham et al 2010;Bayrak et al 2013;Measham & Lumbasi 2013). Thus, assuming that communities benefit from PES programs at all, wellbeing benefits can be gained from PES when outside organisations, including the state, provide targeted support and empower communities for the long-term rather than merely impose their will on communities in the short-term.…”

“…Local conditions influence the success or otherwise of PES programs, as strategies that work in one context may not work in another (Tole 2010). Yet there are certain actions that, regardless of an environmental program's location, might increase the likelihood of its success (Measham & Lumbasi 2013). Identifying what causes programs to fail or to succeed can help improve future programs.…”

Investigating the Role of the Local Community as Co-Managers of the Mount Cameroon National Park Conservation Project

“…This law also enables GIZ, the German Development Bank Kreditanstalt für Wiederaufbau (KfW) and other international organisations to exert more influence in controlling natural resource management policies in Cameroon, which make them become a sine qua non in formulating and implementing forest projects with Westernised political ideology [32] that does not fit local perspectives. Measham and Lumbasi [33] show that CBNRM that are initiated, owned and managed by communities have survived the negative impact of livelihoods and complex governance strategies that resulted from influential actors' management strategies in state-controlled initiatives. We argue that community forest management would be a better option to enable communities to claim ownership of the project, manage it following local perspectives and enhance community benefits and livelihoods.…”

Learning from one another: evaluating the impact of horizontal knowledge exchange for environmental management and governance

“…While the inclusion of local communities in decision-making at all levels of environmental management and governance has been presented as crucial for capacity building and social-ecological integrity, there are also strong critiques of participatory community-based approaches, summarized in Measham and Lumbasi (2013), including a lack of autonomy in contexts where higher level stakeholders are often supervising the interventions. For example, Palmer Fry et al (2015) described the "power struggle" that occurs between marginalized community members and other stakeholders, such as NGO employees and government officials, in determining which conceptualizations and approaches are used for determining and improving community well-being within conservation interventions, and therefore what is monitored during such interventions.…”