Suchergebnisse

There has been a move to decentralize natural resource management (NRM) throughout southern Africa but this has taken many forms, resulting in different organizational structures. Fourteen case studies from eight countries can be classed into four types: district-level organizations, village organizations, organizations outside the state hierarchy, and corporate organizations at the village level. Attitudes towards district-level schemes amongst local people are generally negative. The greater the authority village organizations receive the more likely they are to succed. In the cases of corporate organizations, local residents have received user or proprietary rights over resources. Such cases indicate the best chances of community-based natural resources management (CBNRM) being successfull. The impact of private sector stakeholders can be positive or negative depending on the institutional arrangements in place. Many of the cases have demonstrated the key role that external facilitation plays in building the capacity of local organizations. Traditional leaders have continued to play a role in NRM, with varying degree of authority and control.

The study provides a comparative analysis of the devolution and empowerment process in 14 case studies drawn from eight countries in southern Africa. Each case study examined the extent to which policy and legislation devolves significant control over decision making and benefit flows to communities; the legitimacy and power of different community institutions and their relationship with other stakeholders such as local authority structures, NGOs, donor agencies, and the private sector; and lastly the relationship and divisions between different actors and groupings in the community. The impacts of devolution were found to differ considerably among case studies both within and between countries,of the countries from which they derive. The study revealed that while some empowerment schemes appear to be marked success others appear doomed to failure, or if one is more optimistic, have resulted in the development of capacity within certain organisations but are unlikely to result in sustainable systems of natural resource management.In the countries studied, there have been progress towards CBNRM and a more away from the previous, largely unsuccessful, centralised command and control approaches to natural resources management.In some cases the move to community -based management has been more successful in empowering local communities than in others. In most instances there is little evidence, with the possible exception of specific case studies in Nambia and Malawi, to demonstrate that devolved authority has resulted in more sustainable natural resource management. The assumption is that if true community control is in place then sustainable NRM still require attention and further research effort. The study also revealed a range of factors and conditions that may help contribute to the success of CBNRM initiatives and the empowerment of local communities. The chances of CBNRM succeeding appear greater in situations where high value resources are involved, which have the potential to provide communities with an income stream which give incentive to participate and comply with rule and regulation.

This report consists of a series of individual country papers prepared for a study on devolution, community empowerment and power relations in community-based natural resource management (CBNRM) in the SADC region. Case studies were undertaken during 1999 in eight southeastern/eastern African countries; Botswana, Lesotho, Malawi, Namibia, Zambia, Zimbabwe, South Africa (two separate studies) and Tanzania. These studies drew mainly on existing literature and the direct experiences of authors in CBNRM initiatives in their own countries. Each paper was structured under a common framework using standardised headings. Limited fieldwork was carried out in some countries. The study attempted to address the key questions. Are the approaches to CBNRM in the selected southern African countries truly community-based in that decision-making and regulation resides with local resource users or rights holders, and the benefits of resource management accrue back to the local community? If not, where does control lie, and what are the institutional arrangements and other factors which have contributed to this imbalance in power and blocked the achievement of devolution to a local level? What are the lessons learnt from the different case studies in terms of shifting the balance of power to ensure more equitable CBNRM? Within this context, each country paper investigated devolution and power relations' issues within selected CBNRM case studies. The papers examined: the extent to which policy and legislation devolves significant control over decision-making and benefits flows directly to communities and community institutions; the relationships between the community institutions and external institutions such as local authority structures, NGOs, donor agencies and the private sector; the power and legitimacy of these different structures; and the relationships between different groups and individuals within the community and the conflict that has emerged over CBNRM issues.

This paper draws together evidence from a number of studies on the impacts of natural resource devolution policies in several Asian and southern African countries from the perspective of local people. Devolution outcomes are assessed in terms of who has greater benefits and decision-making authority. Factors that have influenced the devolution process are also examined.

This paper evaluates the impacts of natural resource devolution policies in several Asian and southern African countries from the perspective of local people. Devolution outcomes are assessed in terms of who has greater benefits and decision-making authority. We also examine the factors that have influenced the devolution process. We conclude that: Most devolved NRM reflects some continuation of central government control and management over natural resources rather than a genuine shift in authority to local people. The ways in which local people realise the benefits of devolution differ widely and negative trade-offs, most felt by the poor, are common. States, communities and other stakeholders have different visions of devolution and its mode of implementation. A shared framework, more accountable to local livelihood needs and people's rights to self-determination, is required. Redefining issues of wider 'public interest' forms part of this process. Organisational models that devolve authority directly to disadvantaged resource users are more embracing of local interests and priorities than those that allocate control to higher levels of social organisation. More powerful actors in communities tend to manipulate devolution outcomes to suit themselves. Checks and balances need to be in place to ensure that benefits and decision-making do not become controlled by elites. Strong local organisational capacity and political capital enhance outcomes for local people by enabling them to mobilize resources and negotiate for better benefits. NGOs, donors, federations and other external actors have a key role in moving devolution policy and practice towards local interests.

The severity of interconnected socio-economic and environmental impacts on landscapes and people across Africa are exacerbated as a result of land degradation, conflict, poor governance, competition for land and inequality, and exacerbated by climate change. In pursuing pathways towards a more resilient future, collaborative and multi-stakeholder governance and management of landscapes have been promoted by government agencies, NGOs and conservation organisations as a possible solution. However, there is no single way to achieve effective collaboration, and different landscape projects have experimented with different entry points and engagement processes. Grounded in partnerships amongst researchers, practitioners and development partners with expertise in landscape governance and management in Africa, this book describes and collates key lessons from practice for supporting more resilient and equitable landscapes.