New Focus of Environment & Development Policy?: CBNRM & Sustainable Livelihoods

Policy context: national control and transfer of technology v. community control and empowerment

Past failings of development initiatives and move to CBNRMExample of successful policy - Community Forestry in Nepal

Agenda 21 - The Global move to local solutions for global problems

Integrates environment and development concernsStrongly oriented to bottom-up participatory and

community-based approachesAcceptance of market principles, within appropriate

regulatory frameworkSustainable development seen as involving -

Secure wealth creation Stewardship Empowerment Revelation

Changing Project Emphasis - From

things to people Robert Chambers (1983) questioned many conventional

wisdoms of development planning and action. He recognised many problems -

Spatial bias - e.g. roadside Project bias - analysis of interventions, not poverty Person bias - who practioners meet Dry season bias Diplomatic bias Professional bias - single issues

Termed problems ‘Development Tourism’. Major impact on Brundtland report / Agenda 21 etc.

Called for ‘Putting the Last First’ and move to community-based natural resource management (CBNRM)

Importance of resource ownership

Resource management the responsibility of part of society who ‘owns’ the resource

Conflicts arise where ownership is contentious

Enhancing Participation in Environmental Research – ‘Learning from the South’

Growing recognition in EU & US-based Environmental Literature that best practice examples of community participation in natural resource management decision-making (whether land, water, forest etc.) can be found in the developing worldParticipation has been a central theme in Development research for over 20 years (e.g. Chambers, 1983 arguments on development biases)Increasingly formalised in political frameworks that environmental management must be developed from the ‘bottom-up’

Participatory Approaches are a reaction to problems of past development interventions“Delusion and disappointment, failures and crimes have been the

steady companions of development and they tell a common story: it did not work” Sachs, 1995; p.1

“From the early colonial era to the present, attempts have been made to introduce soil & water conservation measures in a wide range of

settings, yet many have failed.” Scoones et al., 1996; p.1 “The last 30 years have seen the unremitting failure of livestock

development projects across Africa” Scoones, 1994; p.3

The general conclusion: For every problem there is a solution that is simple, direct & wrong

Best Practice Examples: Community Forestry in Nepal (Dougill et al., 2001)

Best Practice Examples: Community Forestry in Nepal (Dougill et al., 2001)

Where do ‘Conceptual Models & Participatory Approaches’ fit in with all of this ? All case studies involved establishing & empowering community groups to develop simplified representations (ie. conceptual models) of socio-ecological systems Models typically developed as flow diagrams showing interactions of social, economic & political driving forces & their influence on a range of environmental services & processesVERY SUCCESSFUL ON SMALL SCALE PROJECTS WITH

COMMUNITY EMPOWERMENT AS A DUAL AIMKey stage was community agreeing indicators (of sustainability / degradation) and system boundaries, ie. Participation must be from start of Project Design & include Monitoring and EvaluationFramework developed in my work is based on 4 stages of experiential learning (Kolb, 1984)

What do Policy-Makers look for in a Policy Brief?

Research Case Study 1 - Nepali Forestry

Problems of Development Interventions and move to Community Based Natural Resource Management

Himalayan Degradation: Myth of Deforestation and Erosion

Shift to Community Forestry (reasons and implications)

Nepali Poverty & Forest Dependency

Key PointsForest resources essential element of livelihood systems in

many waysScale of tree losses great, but has been widely exaggeratedLosses from hill and montane forests greater in all regionsRoot causes often linked to changes in external pressures on

local systems, often been associated with change from communal ownership (post Tragedy of Commons views)

Nepal’s Forest Resources5.8 million ha - 41.6% of the country (a further 14.5%

classed as degraded forest - ICIMOD, 1998)Tropical deciduous, sub-tropical pine and mixed hardwood

forests (Sal and Chilaune)Forest degradation rates of 3.4% (79-86) now greatly

reduced by move to Community ForestryAvg earnings c. $200 a year (lower in rural areas) = 7th

poorest country

Community Forestry (CF) and Forest User Groups (FUG’s)

Aid and Govt policies focused on Community involvement in all aspects of forest resource management (CF) and control on resource access

Discussion of issues and forest management plan now made at local level by FUG

Key issues: Participation Policing Rehabilitation / Sustainability Local flexibility

Koshi Hills and NUKCFP NUKCFP - Nepal-UK CF Project. NGO working in two

regions W. and E. (Koshi hills) funded by DFID (£5.6 million)

Role is to facilitate community discussions, help devise management plans and assess/ report lessons from one FUG to others

Aim to ensure that ALL members of community benefit

Leeds Research Involvement

Research aimed at assessing impact of CF on resource management practices and social livelihoods

Based on participatory methodologies first, integrated with environmental assessments (Dougill et al., 2001 - see NBB)

Has CF improved forest management? alleviated poverty? empowered local people?

In many cases yes, but FUG’s an ideal forum for further advances in empowerment (and thus poverty alleviation and sustainable env management)

Lessons learnedFocus on forestry must be extended to consider the

integrated forest, farm, livestock system. Can also discuss water, education, electricity and roads

Active involvement of women and the landless essential to improved forest management

Sharing knowledge between FUG’s and areas essentialSplitting of FUG’s to hamlet level ensures widest

participation

Key case study lessons

Holistic discussions enabledAnnual nutrient input to fields control yields NOT soil

fertility (i.e. compost and fertiliser support critical)Lack of labour and capital control livestock no’s that

determine compost quality and quality (and yield)Positive nutrient balance - more concern over acidification

with inc. urea useCommunity Forestry has not yet had a +ve effect on farming

systems and therefore most peoples livelihoodsFUG (improved social capital) offer forum for discussion on

such issues

Remaining Research QuestionsHow to identify approaches that improve environmental

management without impacting negatively on the poor’s resource access?

How to maintain successful village committee’s after project end?

How to spread successes to areas where project support has not aided committee establishment?

How to change institutional structures to enable community empowerment and to prioritise the needs of the poor?

What has happened with political upheaval & uncertainty in years since this research?

Sustainable Livelihoods - Lessons from early experiences

Theoretically posed many challenges in trying to establish new development planning approaches and practice:

Can be applied in different ways Holistic analysis makes focused entry point key Often clashes with entrenched policy structures and processes Research tools not fully defined SL approaches often not shared with partners

“A balance must be found between wholesale promotion of a new paradigm and simply re-labelling existing activities” (Carswell & Jones, 2004)

Key Reading

Chambers, R. (1997) Whose Reality Counts? Putting the First Last. IT Publications.

Dougill, A.J. et al. (2001) Impacts of Community Forestry on farming system sustainability in the Middle Hills of Nepal. Land Degradation and Development, 12, 261-76.

Jones, S. & Carswell, G. (2004) Environment, Development & Rural Livelihoods. Earthscan – see Chapter 7.

http://www.livelihoods.org/