Community Natural Resource Management: Promise

0

Society and Natural Resources. 13:705-715, 2000 Copyright © 2000 Taylor & Francis 0894-1920/2000 $ 1 2 .0 0 + .00

IS

Community Natural Resource Management: Promise, Rhetoric, and Reality STEPHEN R. KELLERT JAI N. MEHTA SYMA A. EBBIN LALY L. LICHTENFELD School o f F orestry and E nvironm ental Studies Yale U niversity N ew H aven, C onnecticut, U SA

C o m m u n ity n a tu ra l resource m a n a g e m e n t ( C N R M ) has been e xten siv e ly p ro m o te d in recent y e a r s a s a n a p p ro a c h f o r p u rs u in g b io lo g ic a l c o n se rva tio n a n d so cio ec o n o m ic objectives. The ra tio n a le f o r C N R M is o ften c o m p ellin g a n d convincing. R ela tively little d a ta exists, how ever, regarding its im plem entation, p a rtic u la rly the re c o n cilia ­ tion o f so c ia l a n d e n viro n m en ta l goals. T his a rticle su m m a rize s em p irica l evidence regarding the im plem en ta tio n o f C N R M , b a se d on fiv e case stu d ies in N epal, the U.S. sta tes o f A la sk a a n d W ashington, a n d K enya. S ix so c ia l a n d e n viro n m en ta l in d ic a ­ to rs are u se d to e va lu a te a n d co m p a re these cases, inclu d in g equity, em pow erm ent, conflict resolution, k n o w le d g e a n d aw areness, b io d iv e rsity pro tectio n , a n d su s ta in ­ able resource u tilization. The results o f th is a n a lysis in d ica te that, d e sp ite sincere a tte m p ts a n d so m e success, se rio u s d eficien cies are w id ely evident. In e sp ecia lly N e p a l a n d K enya, C N R M rarely re su lted in m ore eq u ita b le d istrib u tio n o f p o w e r a n d e co n o m ic benefits, red u ced conflict, in crea sed co n sid era tio n o f tra d itio n a l o r m o d e m e n viro n m en ta l know ledge, p ro te ctio n o f b io lo g ic a l diversity, o r su sta in a b le resource use. B y contrast, C N R M in th e N o rth A m e ric a n ca ses w as m o re successful. Institu tio n a l, environm ental, a n d o rg a n iza tio n a l fa c to r s h e lp e xp la in the o b se rv ed differences. K ey w o rd s biodiversity, com m unity resource m anagem ent, Kenya, N epal, sustain­ ability, U S A

V ariations o f w hat can be collectively term ed com m unity natural resource m an ag e­ m ent (C N R M ) have exerted significant im pact on the organization o f natural resource m anagem ent d uring the past d ecade and m ore. V arious expressions o f C N R M include social and com m unity forestry, com m unity w ildlife m anagem ent, coop erativ e or co m an ­ agem ent, buffer zone m anagem ent, participatory m ultipurpose com m unity projects, R eceived 16 D ecem ber 1999; accepted 12 April 2000. Various organizations provided resources and perm issions essential for the case studies. We particularly w ish to thank the N orcross W ildlife Foundation, World W ildlife Fund/Nepal Program, U .S. Fulbright Program, U .S . Man and the Biosphere Program, C onnecticut Sea Grant Program, Yale U niversity Program in Agrarian Studies, Sw itzer Foundation, Sussm an Foun­ dation, and the governm ents o f N epal, Kenya, and the U.S. states o f Alaska and Washington. M any individuals, com m unities, and organizations provided generous assistance and support, more than can be individually acknow ledged in this article, and, thus, w e offer our co llective thanks for their invaluable help. A ddress correspondence to Stephen R. Kellert, School o f Forestry and Environm ental Studies, Yale University, N ew Haven, CT 065 1 1 , U S A . E-mail: stephen.kellert@ yale.edu

705

706

5 . R. K ellert et al.

com m unal area m anagem ent fo r indigenous resources, and others (W estern and W right 1994). D espite often im portant differences, all these expressions o f C N R M share certain characteristics, including: • A com m itm ent to involve com m unity m em bers and local institutions in the m an ag e­ m ent and conservation o f natural resources. • A n interest in devolving po w er and authority from central an d /o r state g overnm ent to m ore local and often indigenous institutions and peoples. • A desire to link and reconcile the objectives o f socioeconom ic dev elo p m en t and environm ental conservation and protection. • A tendency to defend and legitim ize local an d/or indigenous reso u rce and property rights. • A b elief in the desirability o f including traditional values and ecological k n ow ledge in m odem resource m anagem ent. T his m ixture o f political, organizational, socioeconom ic, epistem ological, and in sti­ tutional features o f C N R M has been rationalized and prom oted in various w ays (IIE D 1994; W estern and W right 1994; Lynch and T albott 1995; K othari et al. 1997; U phoff 1998). C N R M has been advanced as a w ay o f im proving the social and econom ic stan ­ dards o f local and rural peoples (W ells and B randon 1992). An em phasis on pow er, participation, and property rights o f frequently m arginalized peoples also represents a prom inent objective (G ilm our and F isher 1991; L ittle 1994; Lynch and A lcorn 1994; S trum 1994; Sarin 1995). A n additionally co m pelling asp ect o f C N R M is its stress on achieving conservation goals through econo m ic and social incentives, and by in co r­ porating the traditional know ledge and w isdom o f local peoples accum ulated o ver generations o f intim ate participation w ith the natural env iro n m en t (B erkes et al. 1994; K leym eyer 1994). R ather than being new , C N R M can be view ed as a m odem attem p t to revive often quite established and traditional local and indigenous cultural and institutional m ech ­ anism s for m anaging and conserving the natural en v iro n m en t (C roll and Parkin 1992; B erkes et al. 1998). T he reality fo r m uch o f the w orld, how ever, is th at m any traditional practices for regulating nature have eroded as a conseq u en ce o f expanding m arkets, industrialization, urbanization, state pow er, econom ic globalization, and profound alter­ ations in property rights, life-styles, and consum ption patterns (B urch 1986; G oodland et al. 1990; M iller et al. 1991; W orster 1993). T he desire to revive, at least in m o d i­ fied form , traditional resource m anagem ent practices often originates in the b elief that it m ay better achieve and reconcile tw o persisten t and rarely attained objectives: the alleviation o f rural poverty and the conservation o f biological div ersity (P ark er 1997; B utler 1998; M ehta and K ellert 1998; W ainw right and W ehrm eyer 1998). C N R M initially gained attention during the early 1970s w hen m any b ecam e d ise n ­ chanted w ith the results o f large-scale, capital-in ten siv e, and centrally planned co n ser­ vation and developm ent projects (H orow itz and P ain ter 1986). Interest particularly developed in agriculture, w ater m anagem ent, and forestry, centering on prom oting the participation and enhancem ent o f the pow er and d ecision-m aking ro le o f local co m m u ­ nities (L ittle 1994). C om m unity approaches further d eveloped in national p ark and protected area m anagem ent, w ith m any believing the com bined effects o f ecological insularization and chronic conflict w ith local peoples jeo p ard ized the long-term su stain ­ ability o f p rotected areas (D asm ann 1984; M achlis and T ichnell 1985; M acK in n o n et al. 1986; W est and B rechin 1991; N epal and W eber 1995; S tevens 1997; and others). In these and other cases, the argum ents for C N R M w ere both p ow erful and convincing. Yet prom ise and rhetoric represen t one reality, and the im plem entation

C om m unity N atu ra l R esource M a n a g em en t

707

and delivery on optim istic aspirations and p ro nouncem ents quite another. A chieving the goals o f C N R M has been com plicated and o rganizationally challenging. E ffectively im plem enting C N R M necessitates a careful and difficult blending o f local, national, and som etim es international interests and institutions, as w ell as reconciling m ultiple and som etim es conflicting objectives. By contrast, state m anagem ent o f natural resources, although fraught w ith m yriad difficulties and little ev id en ce o f broad-based success, is often less com plicated and difficult. T his article exam ines the experience o f C N R M in three countries, nam ely N epal, K enya, and the U nited States. It cites factors associated w ith the success, shortfall, and failure o f C N R M . D ata w ere obtained in a series o f case studies con d u cted during the period 1 9 9 3 -1 9 9 8 . T he com plexity and variability o f C N R M m ake com parative ev alu ­ ations difficult. To facilitate com parisons, w e selected six variables co vering econom ic, social, and environm ental objectives o f C N R M . T hese six variables and b rief attributes o f each include: • E q u ity — the distribution and allocation o f socioeconom ic benefits and resources. • E m p o w erm en t— the distribution o f pow er and status, particularly am ong local p eo­ ples, including authority devolved from central and state g overnm ents to local peoples and institutions; as w ell as participation in decision m aking, sharing o f control, and/or dem ocratization. • C onflict resolution — the handling and resolving o f conflicts and d isputes o ver reso u r­ ces am ong local peoples and am ong local, state, and national entities and interests. • K now ledge and aw a ren ess— the consideration, incorporation, and production o f traditional and m odem ecological know ledge in m anaging natural resources. • B iodiversity p ro te ctio n — the conservation and protection o f biological diversity and associated habitats, including the preservation and recovery o f rare, im periled, or flagship species, o r im periled populations o r stocks o f species. • Sustainable u tiliza tio n — the consum ptive and nonconsum ptive utilization o f natural resources in w ays intended to m aintain the long-term availability o f these resources in a nondim inished m anner for present and future generations.

Study Approach A detailed account o f the social and ecological contexts and m ethods em ployed in each o f th e case studies is not possible because o f space constraints, b ut these are described elsew here (Ebbin 1998; M ehta and K ellert 1998; H einen and M ehta 1999; M ehta et al., subm itted). A b rief description o f the study areas and o u r m ethods is presented instead.

Study Areas Nepal T he assessm ent o f C N R M in N epal involved case studies in the A nnapurna C onservation A rea (A C A ) and M akalu-B arun C onservation A rea (M B C A ). B oth areas are located in the H im alayas and have a diverse fauna and flora. V arying ethnic, cultural, and linguistic groups reside w ithin these areas. T he g reat m ajority o f these people rely on subsistence agriculture and pastoralism fo r th eir livelihoods, although incom es are often supplem ented by soldiering, seasonal labor, and trade. T ourism is also an im portant source o f incom e for people in these areas. A CA is m anaged by a national, nongovernm ental organization (N G O ), w hile the m anagem ent o f M B C A is a jo in t undertaking o f the N epal w ildlife agency and an international N G O (the U nited S tates-based T he M ountain Institute). B oth areas receiv e external financial su p p o rt to

708

S. R. K ellert et al.

im plem ent conservation and developm ent program s. F orm al, co m m u n ity -b ased in sti­ tutions have been organized in each area w ith legal authority to use and m anage com m unity forests and other natural resources. K e n ya T h e K enya case focused on the K im ana C om m unity W ildlife S anctuary (K C W S ), located in southern K enya. K C W S w as developed as a conseq u en ce o f a grow ing real­ ization that w ildlife conservation in the region n eeded to reach b eyond th e bo u n d aries o f protected areas and include com m unity involvem ent to achieve its conservation goals (N d u n g ’u et al., 1996). T he K C W S includes several im portant ecological h ab i­ tats (see Irgia 1995), and serves as a w ildlife co rrid o r betw een A m boseli and T savo W est national parks. R esident people are p redom inantly M aasai. P astoralism is the m ain occupation o f the m ajority o f the people, although m any have turned to settled agriculture. T ourism also contributes to the local eco n o m y . K C W S is m anaged by a board o f local com m unity m em bers. T he K enya W ildlife Service, a parastatal agency, financially and technically supports the conservation and dev elo p m en t program s o f K C W S. L ocal com m unities have legal rights and authority to u se an d m anage the natural resources o f K C W S. U nited States T he N orth A m erican case studies involved coop erativ e m an ag em en t o f N orth A m erican Pacific salm on (O ncorhynchus spp.) in the states o f W ashington and A laska. T he W ashington case study occurred in the P uget S ound region, w ith com an ag em en t involving 20 native tribes possessing legal fishing rights w orking jo in tly w ith the W ash­ ington S tate D epartm ent o f Fish and W ildlife. T he A laska case study occurred in the K uskokw im R iv er w atershed area, w here m anag em en t o f the salm on resource w as the focus o f a w orking group o f 12 m em bers including fishing o rganizations and interests, local com m ercial and subsistence users (m ostly tribes), fish processors, and the A laska D ep artm en t o f F ish and G am e (A D F G ). A ll m em bers w ere involved in deliberations and decision m aking, although final m anagem ent authority resided w ith A D FG .

M eth o d s D iverse m ethods w ere em ployed in the five case studies, including q u an titativ e and q ualitative data collection from both prim ary and secondary sources. T h e N epal case studies occurred from 1996 to 1998. F our h undred random ly selected persons residing in each o f the tw o conservation areas w ere surveyed, structured interview s w ere conducted w ith field sta ff and senior governm ent officials, an d m ore inform al and o pen-ended interview s w ere conducted w ith com m unity leaders. T he K enyan case study occurred in 1 9 9 6 -1 9 9 7 , and in the sum m er 1998. D ata collection m ethods included sem istructured interview s w ith a sam ple o f 50 local people, p articipant observation o f m eetings and daily activities o f K C W S m anagem ent, and review o f official records and oth er relevant literature. D ata for the U .S. case studies w ere collected during 1 9 9 3 -1 9 9 5 . T hree m ethods w ere principally em ployed: (1) participant observation at m eetings and fishing activ i­ ties; (2) review o f m anagem ent docum ents and fisheries data; an d (3) sem istructured interview s w ith a sam ple o f 228 persons, including P uget S ound and K uskokw im m em bers and fisherm en, past and present com anagers, and o th er persons involved in salm on m anagem ent.

C om m unity N atural R esource M an a g em en t

709

Study Findings L im ited space necessitates only a sum m ary o f the findings, although m ore detailed results can be found elsew here (E bbin 1998; M ehta and K ellert 1998; H einen an d M eh ta 1999; M ehta et al., subm itted). T h e overall im plem entation o f C N R M varied greatly, w ith som e program s m arked by relative effectiveness and success, and others burdened by m ism anagem ent and failure. B ased on these analyses, our general conclusion is that the problem s and deficiencies o f im plem enting C N R M w ere m ore evident than expressions o f efficiency and effectiveness. M oreover, m ost o f the success en countered involved socioeconom ic objectives, w hile m ost o f the failures focused on conservation and biodiversity protection goals. A s noted, six variables representing socioeconom ic and environm ental objectives o f C N R M guided our analysis, and a sum m ary o f the results is presented next.

Equity C N R M occasionally resulted in m ore equitab le distribution o f benefits and d ecisio n ­ m aking responsibility am ong local, often subsistence, and indigenous peoples. T he shift from state to m ore com m unity-based m anagem ent o f natural resources som etim es assisted m arginalized and neglected groups in obtaining a g reater ro le and stak e in the allocation and proprietary control o f local natural resources. D esp ite this o cca­ sional success, w e frequently en co u n te re d — especially in K enya and N epal, although far less in N orth A m eric a— a highly uneven distribution o f benefits. C ertain in d iv id ­ uals, com m unities, and interests m aterially and politically benefited to a far greater extent than others. F or exam ple, local com m unities living in rem ote areas o f A C A and M B C A in N epal received substantially less dev elo p m en t benefits than their co u n ter­ parts residing in clo ser proxim ity to the C N R M headquarters. In K enya, only a sm all m inority o f com m unity m em bers received m onetary benefit from K C W S, and a general consensus existed that revenues w ere m isappropriated by b oard m em bers and used for personal gain.

Empowerment T he various case studies revealed a conscio u s attem pt at devolving authority from national and state to m ore local and often indigenous peoples and institutions. Yet the actual extent and effectiveness o f this devolution w as uneven and often q u estio n ­ ably effective. Local com m unities w ere frequently o nly m arginally m ore em pow ered than prior to the im plem entation o f C N R M , w ith con sid erab le control still residing in national and state authorities. M oreover, devolution often resulted in pow er being concentrated in particular groups and sectors in the local com m unities. T his situation w as especially evident in K enya and N epal, w here certain groups unduly appropriated and often m isused their increased authority to ad vance personal interests and agendas. F or exam ple, in both N epal and K enya, traditionally pow erless groups such as w om en and m inorities w ere rarely em p o w ered by the shift to C N R M . In A C A and M B C A , w om en and low -caste people w ere highly u nderrepresented in executive com m ittees responsible for m anaging local resources. In K enya, devolution o f authority typically resulted in pow er bein g concen trated in p articular com m unity groups and m em bers, w ith others routinely excluded. M oreover, in both N epal and K enya, the entitlem ent o f com m unity forests and w ildlife rem ained largely w ith the state, and governm ent officials often intervened if local institutions did not perform w ithin the param eters o f approved m anagem en t plans.

710

S. R. K ellert et al.

T he m ajor exception, as indicated, w as in N orth A m erica, w here a substantial and significant shift in pow er from state to local and indigenous p eoples occurred under C N R M . In the P uget S ound case study, com an ag em en t especially em pow ered p artici­ p ating tribes, often providing indigenous groups w ith the status o f partners in fisheries m anagem ent. N ative participation in K uskokw im co m an ag em en t decision m aking w as lim ited, how ever, by not having sufficient legal rights and authority to m anage local fisheries. T he N orth A m erican cases suggest the im portance o f p o ssessing a clearly articulated judicial and legislative m andate as a basis fo r significant and sustained transfer and redistribution o f po w er and authority.

Conflict Resolution L atent and at tim es overt conflict w as frequently en countered in the cases exam ined, although it w as often difficult to determ ine if this contention w as m ore ex ten siv e than prior to the im plem entation o f C N R M . W hat seem ed clear w as that C N R M d id not dam pen or dim inish the extent or frequency o f resource disputes. M oreover, C N R M at tim es fostered conflict by unrealistically expanding individual and gro u p expectations, unduly increasing conservation and developm ent objectives, an d diffusing d ecisio n ­ m aking authority am ong a w ide array o f interest groups and stakeholders. T ension and conflict w ere m ost evident in N epal and K enya and least p resen t in the N orth A m erican cases. In N epal, conflicts occurred both w ithin and betw een in stitu ­ tions. F o r exam ple, local elites often held key institutional posts, som etim es resulting in pow er struggles am ong m em bers and betw een m em bers and users. In som e instances, po w er struggles o ccurred betw een local institutions due to overlap p in g jurisd ictio n s and m andates (H einen and M ehta 1999). In K enya, w ildlife dep red atio n conflict w as especially prom inent and often rarely resolved, in part due to little or no co m p en sa­ tion being provided fo r dam age inflicted. C onflicts also occurred am ong K C W S board m em bers and the public ov er allegations o f pow er abuse and em b ezzlem ent, as w ell as o ccasional disputes w ith neighboring group ranches o v er boundary delineations. In the U .S. cases, evidence occurred o f increased intertribal allocation conflicts in the P uget S ound region and u p riv e r-d o w n riv e r disputes in the K uskokw im w atershed, although these conflicts w ere often settled at the local or regional level. In general, C N R M occasionally offered a m ore effectiv e institutional b asis for expressing and resolving disputes. M oreover, the ex perience o f conflict can be a creativ e and productive process, and this situation som etim es prevailed. A frequently encountered problem , how ever, w as conflict fostered by inflated expectations, esp e­ cially w here anticipations w ere either frustrated or associated w ith unrealistic assu m p ­ tions regarding w hat C N R M could accom plish.

Knowledge and Awareness C N R M is often prom oted as a w ay to better connect traditional w ith m o d em ecological know ledge, as w ell as m ore effectively utilize local u nderstanding develo p ed o ver generations o f extended environm ental relationship. O ur case studies indicated the im plem entation o f this goal w as elusive and difficult to sustain. R elatively few instances w ere encountered, ex cep t in N orth A m erica, o f system atic attem pts at incorporating traditional ecological know ledge, o r rendering m odem scientific understandings and m ethods m ore m eaningful and accessible to local peoples. T his pattern o f deficiency w as m ost evid en t in N epal and K enya. F or exam ple, in M B C A in N epal, despite a policy o f consulting local herders in d eveloping strategies

C om m unity N atural R esource M an a g em en t

711

for reducing w ildlife depredations (S hrestha et al. 1990), little or no con crete effort w as observed. In A C A , attem pts w ere m ade to strengthen traditional practices o f d iv er­ sified and m ixed farm ing by introducing new technologies for increasing crop yields (A dhikari and L am a 1997), but the long-term effectiveness o f this effort rem ains highly uncertain. In K enya, the historical system o f M asaai livestock grazing and k n ow ledge o f w ildlife m ovem ents w as not considered, nor w as any n o ticeable ex ch an g e o f in fo rm a­ tion on conservation and developm ent m atters o bserved betw een local and indigenous peoples and g o vernm ent officials. T he outcom e in N orth A m erica w as m ore am biguous, although com anagem ent g enerally resulted in a m ore effective m ixing o f m odem and traditional know ledge. We also observed g reater access to m odem know ledge am ong local peoples, although little attem pt occurred at system atically incorporating indigenous environm ental un d erstan d ­ ings. C om an agem ent in A laska did expand the reporting o f traditional and experiential know ledge, as w ell as observations and opinions o f m em bers, fisherm en, and other stakeholders. In W ashington state, tribes and state biologists jo in tly shared resp o n ­ sibility for collecting m anagem ent inform ation and p ro d u cin g analyses, as w ell as distributing, review ing, and critiquing this data by both state and tribal biologists.

Biodiversity Protection C N R M is frequently advanced as a m eans fo r achieving m ore effectiv e w ildlife and biodiversity protection by appropriately con sid erin g hum an socioeconom ic needs and aspirations. T his “philosophy o f conservation for dev elo p m en t” is com pelling, and one conservationists have difficulty opposing. In the cases exam ined, how ever, especially in N epal and K enya and to a le sser degree in N o rth A m erica, w e found the socioeconom ic goals o f C N R M typically assum ed a m uch h ig h er priority, at tim es com prom ising and subverting biodiversity conservation objectives. In K enya and N epal, the conservation o f biological resources w as not consistently or strongly supported by C N R M organizations and institutions. Interview s w ith field sta ff in both A C A and M B C A revealed m ost o f the w ork focused on com m unity d ev el­ opm ent and local institution building, w ith relatively little tim e dev o ted to m onitoring and protecting biological diversity. M oreover, both conservation areas tended to pursue a w ildlife conservation approach o f “benign neglect” rath er than “active m an ag em en t.” B asic data w ere lacking on w ildlife population dynam ics and habitats fo r the m ajority o f species, and although routine biological inventories w ere conducted (K M T N C 1995; S hrestha et al. 1990), ecological studies o f threatened and en d an g ered species and related conservation problem s rem ained rare. In K enya, little scientific data on w ildlife populations and habitats w as collected. E ncroachm ent on w ildlife habitat in parts o f the K C W S also rem ained unchecked, and patrols o f gam e scouts w ere highly sporadic. In both N epal and K enya, local attention largely fo cu sed on co m m unity d ev elo p ­ m ent and social w elfare objectives, w ith m ost residents view ing C N R M as a m eans for pursuing social and econom ic advancem ent and rarely as a device fo r prom oting biodi­ versity protection. M oreover, a frequent stress on resource utilization in the absence o f clear biodiversity protection goals and local support frequently enco u rag ed legal and illegal overexploitation o f biological resources. C N R M rarely functioned as a m ore effective alternative to state controlled protected area m anag em en t or traditional w ildlife conservation. In general, biodiversity protection goals u nder C N R M w ere often diluted, underm ined, and com prom ised. T he N orth A m erican situation w as less problem atic and, in the case o f P uget Sound, appeared to advance biological resource protection. E cological inform ation on various

712

S. R. K ellert et al.

salm on stocks im proved, and coordination o f conservation efforts w as enhanced am ong diverse stakeholders including state agencies, fishing groups, co m m ercial interests, and tribes. T he survival o f the salm on also em erged as a critical concern am ong the public, regulators, and politicians. T his m ore effectiv e focus on bio d iv ersity co n servation goals m ay have stem m ed fro m an em phasis on a single flagship species, the salm on. A d d i­ tionally, strong legal m andates and relatively m ore evo lv ed and financially supported m anagem ent regim es contributed to better co nnecting co n servation w ith d evelopm ent objectives. Still, societal forces inim ical to co n servation and b eyond the control o f C N R M , as w ell as an em phasis on econom ic and political objectives, occasionally subordinated biodiversity protection goals.

Sustainable Utilization T he objectiv e o f sustainable utilization is closely asso ciated w ith biodiversity p ro tec­ tion, although focusing m ore on m anaging species w ith a clear econom ic benefit. In m ost o f the cases exam ined, sustainable utilization goals tended to be underem phasized and the victim o f m ism anagem ent. C N R M also occasionally increased the pressu re to exploit natural resources by unduly fueling ex p ectatio n s and increasing access. T his situation especially prevailed in N epal and K enya. In N epal, a review o f local com m unity forestry m anagem ent plans in both co n ser­ vation areas revealed a focus m ore on procedural issues (e.g., duties and responsibilities o f local com m ittee m em bers, rules regardin g co operation and forest p roduct ex trac­ tion, punitive m easures) than on basic technical m atters such as silvicultural practices and strategies, stand dynam ics, and forest regeneration. M oreover, local institutions and com m unities often set harvesting quotas fo r forest products w ith little co n sid era­ tion o f w hether these levels w ere sustainable o ver the long term . D ecisions regarding extraction o f forest products tended to be influenced m ore by external com m ercial interests, with local institutions often allow ing tim ber harvesting o f com m unity forests in response to higher prices (E uroconsult 1996; M . K. T hakali, personal co m m u n ica­ tion 1997). M onitoring o f com m unity forests and o th er natural reso u rces to determ ine sustainability over the long-term w as rarely a m ajor priority in eith er conservation area. A n analogous situation prevailed in K enya, w here grazing pressures and n o n co n ­ sum ptive w ildlife utilization rem ained unchecked u nder C N R M , w ith relatively little effort devoted to short- o r long-term m echanism s for achieving sustainability. In ter­ view s w ith K C W S staff revealed no baseline data on how m uch cattle grazing the sanctuary could sustain before adversely effecting the habitats o f resident w ildlife. K C W S also failed to negotiate w ith neighboring co m m u n ities’ reductions in irrigation diversions to p rotect w ildlife-rich w etlands areas. A better situation existed in A laska and W ashington. F or exam ple, inventory and m onitoring o f various salm on stocks w as a reg u lar m anagem ent tool em ployed in both the P uget S ound and K uskokw im areas. Interview s w ith state and tribal fisheries m anagers revealed som e salm on stocks w ere m ain tain ed and a few restored. C o m an ­ agers, nonetheless, tended to believe they had not been successful in arresting the decline of. m any salm on stocks, especially in th e P uget S ound region, although lim ited success occurred in preventing future dim inution. A s p reviously suggested, m ore effec­ tive resource utilization in N orth A m erica m ay have stem m ed from an em phasis on a single species, and the ability to institutionalize rational procedures, both m od em and traditional, for sustaining the targeted resource.

C om m unity N atu ra l R esource M a n a g em en t

713

Conclusions and Recommendations T he argum ents for C N R M are im portant and relevant. Yet the ev id en ce accum ulated in the five case studies exam ined in three coun tries on three continents suggests the reality often falls far short o f the rhetoric and prom ise o f C N R M . T he com plexity o f goals, interests, and organizational features o f C N R M renders its im plem entation exceedingly difficult. A m ajor and co nsistent obstacle w as the inability to control and guide the behavior o f com plex organizations, particularly bureaucratic and local institutions. E ffectively m anaging organizations is difficult and alien terrain for m ost govern m en t sponsored program s. T he eventual success o f C N R M m ay depend, how ever, as m uch on institution building and organizational reform as on socioeconom ic d evelopm ent and scientific considerations. A problem o f C N R M w as the difficulty o f reconciling and harm onizing the o b jec­ tives o f socioeconom ic developm ent, biodiversity p rotection, and sustainable resource utilization. W e encountered a far g reater em phasis and record o f success in the area o f hum an developm ent. C N R M at tim es em pow ered elem ents o f local com m unities and generated a som ew hat m ore equitable allocation o f resources. E ffectively resolving conflicts and incorporating traditional ecological k n ow ledge w ere less frequently ach ie­ ved goals, but notew orthy efforts and som e im provem ent occasionally occurred. S u s­ tainable resource utilization and especially biodiversity protection objectives w ere, how ever, rarely achieved. E ven m ore om inously, these co n servation goals w ere often subordinated and underm ined by an inordinate em phasis on social and econom ic developm ent. O verall, the findings seriously question w hether C N R M can effectively integrate and reconcile the goals o f socioeconom ic d ev elo p m en t and environm ental protection. C N R M in N orth A m erica w as generally m ore successful, partly as a conseq u en ce o f an em phasis on a single resource. A dditionally, strong legal support, and a relatively m ore organizationally developed and financially supported infrastructure, resulted in g reater success. W e w ould recom m end far m ore em phasis on institution building and public ed u ca­ tion. D eveloping viable local institutions and g enerating public understanding and sup­ port for both econom ic developm ent and environm ental conservation constitute a fo rm i­ dable challenge. R esource m anagers and environm ental scientists m ust assum e positions o f status and responsibility equal to those o f d evelopm ent-oriented professionals. T he effective im plem entation o f C N R M is extraordinarily com plex and difficult. W e believe its success w ill be m ore likely to o ccur if the challenge o f im plem entation is explicitly acknow ledged. A num ber o f relatively naive assum ptions generally prevail regarding the im plem entation o f C N R M , and w e w ould suggest the follow ing instead be generally assum ed: • Interest group and stakeholder conflict w ill be a norm ative rath er than exceptional condition. • H eterogeneous interests and dem ographic differences should be expected. • E xtensive institution building w ill be necessary before C N R M can be effectively im plem ented. • S ignificant disparities w ill exist betw een the needs o f local peoples and ecosystem s and species w ith large territorial requirem ents. • E ducational efforts w ill be necessary, particularly the social and environm ental bene­ fits o f CN R M . C N R M is relatively new , and judg m en ts regarding its eventual effectiveness rem ain tentative and prelim inary at this tim e. M o re extensive evaluation will be necessary

714

S. R. K ellert et al.

before confident conclusions can be offered reg ard in g its eventual im pact. O ur analysis suggests significant and serious concern regarding its cu rren t im plem entation. T he rhetoric and prom ise o f C N R M rem ains pow erful and persuasive, but this should not be substituted for rigorous and objective evaluation. T he dual o bjectives o f biological conservation and social developm ent m ay invite frustration and som etim es failure. It m ay becom e necessary to con sid er the possibility that the im portance o f each goal is better served by establishing independent, although p erhaps parallel m ethodologies and infrastructures.

References Adhikari, J., and T. Lama. 1997. A n e w approach in p ro te c te d area m a n a g e m e n t: A d e ca d e o f c o n serva tio n a n d d e ve lo p m en t (1 9 8 6 -1 9 9 6 ). Kathmandu, Nepal: K ing M ahendra Trust for Nature Conservation/Annapurna Conservation Area. B erkes, F., C. Folke, and M. G adgil. 1994. Traditional ecological kn ow led ge, biodiversity, resilience, and sustainability. In B io d iv ersity c o n se rva tio n , ed. C. A. Perrings, K. G. Maler, C. Folke, C. S. H olling, and B. O. Jansson, 2 8 1 - 2 9 9 . Dordrecht: K luwer. Berkes, F., M. K islalioglu, C. Folke, and M. G adgil. 1998. Exploring the basic ecological unit: ecosystem -lik e concepts in traditional societies. E co syste m s 1(5 ):4 0 9 —4 15. Burch, W. R , Jr. 1986. The rhetoric o f wilderness: P hilosophical paradigms and real estate scam s. H a b ita t 3 : 3 6 -4 1 . Butler, V. 1998. Controversy in Kenya: Unquiet on the western front. In tern a tio n a l W ildlife 28(6): 1 2 -2 3 . Croll, E., and D. Parkin, eds. 1992. B ush base: F orest fa rm , culture, en viro n m en t a n d d e v e lo p ­ m ent. London: Routledge. Dasm ann, R. 1984. The relationship betw een protected areas and indigenous people. In N a tio n a l parks, conservation, a n d d e ve lo p m en t: The role o f p ro te c te d a rea s in su sta in in g so ciety, ed. J. A. M cN eely and K. R. M iller, 6 6 7 - 6 7 1 . W ashington, DC: Sm ithsonian Institution Press. Ebbin, S. A. 1998. E m erg in g co o p era tive in stitu tio n s f o r fis h e r ie s m a n a g e m e n t: E q u ity a n d e m p o w e rm e n t o f in d ig e n o u s p e o p le s o f W ashington a n d A la ska . Ph.D. dissertation, Yale U n i­ versity. Euroconsult. 1996. M a k a lu -B a ru n c o n se rva tio n project, N ep a l: P roject e va lu a tio n . Kathmandu, Nepal: Euroconsult/H is M ajesty’s Government. G ilm our, D. A., and R. J. Fisher. 1991. V illagers, fo re sts, a n d fo re ste r s: The p h ilo so p h y, p ro c e ss a n d p ra c tic e o f c o m m u n ity fo r e s tr y in N epal. Kathmandu, Nepal: Sahyogi Press. G oodland, R., G. Ledec, and M. Webb. 1990. M eeting environm ental concerns caused by com m on-property m ism anagem ent in econ om ic developm ent projects. In C om m on p ro p e rty resources: E co lo g y a n d c o m m u n ity-b a se d su sta in a b le d evelo p m en t, ed. F. Berkes, 1 4 9 -1 6 3 . London: Belhaven Press. H einen, J. T., and J. N. M ehta. 1999. Conceptual and legal issues in the designation and m anage­ ment o f conservation areas in N epal. E nviron. C onserv. 26( 1):2 1 —29. H orow itz, M. M ., and T. Painter. 1986. A n th ro p o lo g y a n d ru ra l d e ve lo p m en t in West A fric a . Boulder, CO: W estview Press. International Institute for Environm ent and D evelopm ent. 1994. W hose E d en ? A n o v erview o f c o m m u n ity a p p ro a ch es to w ild life m a n a g e m e n t. London: International Institute for Environ­ m ent and D evelopm ent/O verseas D evelopm ent Administration. Irgia, B. K. 1995. E n viro n m en ta l A sse ssm e n t o f the P ro p o sed K im ana W ildlife Sa n ctu a ry. Report subm itted to Kenya W ildlife Service. Nairobi, Kenya: Kenya W ildlife Service. K ing Mahendra Trust for Nature Conservation. 1995. A n n u a l report 1994/1995. Kathmandu, Nepal: K ing M ahendra Trust for Nature Conservation. K leym eyer, C. D. 1994. Cultural traditions and com m unity-based conservation. In N a tu ra l c o n n ectio n s: P ersp ectives in c o m m u n ity -b a se d co n se rva tio n , ed. D. W estern and M. Wright, 3 2 3 - 3 4 6 . W ashington, DC: Island Press.

C om m unity N a tu ra l R esource M an a g em en t

715

Kothari, A., N. Pathak, J. Suryanarayan, and F. Vania. 1997. C om m unity in vo lv em e n t in W ildlife C onservation: S o u th A sia review . Pune, India: International Institute for Environm ent and D evelopm ent. Little, P. D . 1994. The link betw een local participation and im proved conservation: A review o f issu es and experiences. In N a tu ra l c o n n ec tio n s: P e rsp e ctiv e s in c o m m u n ity-b a se d c o n se r­ vation, ed. D . Western and M. Wright, 3 4 7 - 3 7 2 . W ashington, DC: Island Press. Lynch, O. J., and K. Talbott. 1995. B a la n cin g acts: C o m m u n ity -b a se d fo r e s t m a n a g e m e n t a n d n a tio n a l law in A sia a n d the P acific. Baltim ore, M D: World R esources Institute. Lynch, O. J., and J. B. Alcorn. 1994. Tenunal rights and com m unity-based conservation. In N a tu ra l con n ectio n s: P ersp e ctiv e s in c o m m u n ity -b a se d co n serva tio n , ed. D. Western and M. Wright, 3 7 3 - 3 9 2 . W ashington, DC: Island Press. M achlis, G. E., and D. L. Tichnell. 1985. The sta te o f th e w o r ld ’s p a rk s: A n in te rn a tio n a l a ssessm e n t f o r resource m a n agem ent, p o lic y , a n d research. Boulder, CO: W estview Press. M acK innon, J., G. C. M acK innon, and J. Thorsell. 1986. M a n a g in g p ro te c te d a rea s in the tropics. Gland, Switzerland: International U nion for Conservation o f Nature and Natural R esources. M ehta, J. N., and S. R. Kellert. 1998. Local attitudes toward com m unity-based conservation p olicy and program mes in Nepal: A case study in the M akalu-Barun Conservation Area. E nviron. C onserv. 2 5 (4 ):3 2 0 -3 3 3 . M ehta, J. N., L. L. Lichtenfeld, and S. R. Kellert. C onservation for developm ent or developm ent without conservation? Subm itted for publication in B io d iv ersity a n d C onservation. M iller, K. R., W. V. Reid, and C. V. Barber. 1991. Deforestation and sp ecies loss. In P reserving the g lo b a l b io d iversity: The c h a lle n g e o f sh a re d lea d ersh ip , ed. J. T. M athews, 7 6 - 111. N ew York: W. W. Norton. N d un g’u, M ., A. K anuki, and D . Sumba. 1996. R ev ie w o f the p ro g ress a n d im p a ct o f C W S p ro je c ts th a t n e ig h b o r A m b o se li N a tio n a l P a rk in K ajiado d istrict. Report submitted to Kenya W ildlife Service. Nairobi, Kenya: Kenya W ildlife Service. N epal, S. K., and K. E. Weber. 1995. M anaging resources and resolving conflicts: National parks and local people. Int. J. Sustain. D ev. W orld E col. 2 :1 1 -2 5 . Parker, S. 1997. Annapurna Conservation Area Project: In pursuit o f sustainable developm ent? In A p p ro a c h es to su sta in a b le d e ve lo p m en t, ed. R. M. Auty and K. Brown, 1 4 4 -1 6 8 . London: Pinter. Sarin, M. 1995. Joint forest m anagem ent in India: A chievem ents and unaddressed challenges. U nasylva 18 0 (4 6 ):3 0 —36. Shrestha, T. B ., L. N. Sherpa, K. Banskota, and R. K. N epali. 1990. The M a k a lu -B a ru n N a tio n a l P ark a n d C o n se rv a tio n A rea: M a n a g e m en t p la n . Kathmandu, Nepal: Department o f National Parks and W ildlife C onservation/W oodlands M ountain Institute. Stevens, S., ed. 1997. C o n serva tio n through c u ltu ra l su rviva l: In d ig en o u s p e o p le s a n d p ro te c te d areas. W ashington, DC: Island Press. Strum, S. C. 1994. L essons learned. In N a tu ra l c o n n ectio n s: P e rsp e ctiv e s in c o m m u n ity-b a se d c o n serva tio n , ed. D . Western and M. Wright, 5 1 2 - 5 2 3 . W ashington, DC: Island Press. U phoff, N . 1998. C o m m u n ity -b a se d n a tu ra l resource m a n a g em en t: C onnecting m icro a n d m acro p rocesses, a n d p e o p le w ith th e ir enviro n m en ts. A paper presented at International W orkshop on C om m unity-B ased Natural Resource M anagem ent, held in W ashington, DC, 1 0 - 1 4 M ay. 1998. W ainwright, C., and W. Wehrmeyer. 1998. Su ccess in integrating conservation and developm ent? A study from Zambia. W orld D ev. 2 6 (6 ):9 3 3 -9 4 4 . W ells, M ., and K. Brandon. 1992. P eople a n d p a rk s: L inking p ro te c te d area m a n a g e m e n t w ith lo ca l co m m u n ities. W ashington, DC: World Bank/W orld W ildlife Fund/U .S. A gency for Inter­ national D evelopm ent. West, P. C., and S. R. Brechin, eds. 1991. R esid e n t p e o p le s a n d n a tio n a l p a rk s: S o cia l d ile m m a s a n d stra te g ie s in in te rn a tio n a l co n serva tio n . Tucson: U niversity o f Arizona Press. W estern, D., and R. M. Wright, eds. 1994. N a tu ra l con n ectio n s: P ersp ectives in c o m m u n ity-b a se d co n serva tio n . W ashington, DC: Island Press. Worster, D. 1993. The w ealth o f nature: E n viro n m en ta l h isto ry a n d the eco lo g ica l im agination. N ew York: O xford U niversity Press.