The role of communities in sustainable resource management - PowerPoint Presentation

Slide1

The role of communities in sustainable resource management

22 February 2018: Margaret

Skutsch

Seminario de Discusión sobre

Sustentabilidad

Socio-ecológicaSlide2

Context

The idea that communities must be involved in natural resource management to achieve

local level sustainability

is the ´norm´ these days in most

social science writings on SD

and in policy statements of

many

countries

The alternatives – full government control, or ´leave it to the individual/to the market´ - are generally considered unsatisfactory on

intellectual, pragmatic and ideological grounds

Underlying intellectual

logic: man is not separate from nature,

but intimately

part of the existing socio-ecological

systems, which can only be understood when the social element is included.

Pragmatic

logic of governance:

community management is cheaper; the need to co-opt/get support rather than opposition from locals is obvious; fortress conservation has tended to fail in the past

; make use of local knowledge of local conditions; potential

for win-win,

etc

;

Ideological logic: communities (should) have rights to, but also responsibilities for, land and resources; communities know what is good for their environment and have customary and traditional practices supporting this; social justice; respect for local knowledge, values and

cosmovisions

; lack of faith in government´s abilities and the market

The

notion of community management of natural resources is strongly bolstered by work of

Ostrom

and followers who created better understanding of the value local institutions in common property

managementSlide3

Points of critique: outline of talk

What do people mean/envisage when they speak of ´communities´?

Do communities in fact identify/act as decision making units (as opposed to cultural units)?

Is the populated rural landscape covered wall-to-wall by communities who self-identify as such?

How homogeneous are communities internally and what are the implications?

Are communities really self-determining; to what extent is management influenced by outside forces and coalitions?

Are communities effective managers of the environment, what is the evidence?

Why is the community idea so dominant in new policy such as REDD+? Why has the concept ´community´ replaced the idea of ´social´ in SESs, as theory moves to practice?Slide4
Slide5
Slide6
Slide7
Slide8

Speaking of communities

Usually visualized as:

Small (in terms of population) - although could be cascade of small units linked to a bigger concept of community, particularly in West and Central Africa

Place-based, territorially distinct social groups with accepted traditional (inherited) or modern (elected) leadership/

spokesmanship

Shared norms and cultural values, probably stemming from tradition, leading to locally acceptable behavior patterns

Homogeneous social structure (often implicitly assumed to be democratic/egalitarian)

May or may not have common property land; most have at least some individualized land

In

M

exico the English term ´communities´ (or agrarian nucleus) refers to both

ejidos

and

comunidades

indigenas

.

Both are legal organizational forms with fixed rules of tenure/ownership following Agrarian Law

In most other countries there are no formal definitions (in Chile the term refers only to groups of indigenous people living in special reserves)

In much development literature the term is often loosely used to mean ´rural people´ (e.g. ´raising community awareness´; ´community livelihoods´;

´access of communities to forest resources

´)Slide9

Communities as decision-making units

Clearly: some are, but it very

much depends on the circumstances. An isolated tribe of 70 individuals in the Amazon is very different from a community in Michoacán, and again from one in rural Holland, when it comes to following a communal decision making system.

There may be some aspects of life which are decided communally or on lines of tradition while others are entirely individualized/modernized

A sense of cultural identity/singularity does not necessarily mean there is a accepted common decision making system

Faced with an interviewer from outside there is a tendency for local people to stress/exaggerate their unity and solidarity

The paper by Agrawal and Gibson (1999) throws a lot of light on how we

conceptualise

´community´ and to what extent this is a valid conceptualizationSlide10

Wall-to-wall coverage

There is an unspoken assumption that the rural population is basically divided into ´communities´ whose territories fit together like a jigsaw puzzle across the entire rural landscape.

In reality: while there

may

be

some

communities, in the sense of self-organizing units, much of the landscape is just full of people who are administered only through the normal tiers of government (municipalities being the lowest tier).

The situation may be different in parts of Africa where land tenure is differently managed

It is difficult to get hard figures but I estimate that about 50% of the Mexican rural population (rural = living in settlements of less than 2500 people) live in recognized agrarian nuclei (

ejidos

and

comunidades

indigenas

).

The rest just live in villages, as small landowners or as

labourers

.

It

is clear that in many

other countries too,

a large proportion of the natural resources do not fall

under

any recognizable ´community organization´.

Slide11

It is pertinent to consider the difference between territories which are formally under ´community ownership´ (said to cover 22-28% of the world´s forest, Martin and White 2002, FAO 2016) and those that are actively ´managed´ by communities

As regards community forest management, 5 countries predominate:

Data from

Balooni

and Lund 2013, Mexico updated from Bray and other sources. Note: 55-60% of Mexican forest falls in

ejido

/CI land, but only a fraction of this is ´managed´ (for timber)

Approach

No

of units

Av.

size forest (ha)

% total forest

India

JFM

112,816

218.47

36.02

Nepal

FUGS

17,685

93.45

45.45

Philippines

CBFM

1,786

907

21.14

Mexico

Ejidos

/CIs

2,417

Av.

5,300, but mostly much smaller

19.80

Tanzania

CBFM/JFM

2,323

1,775.72

12.34Slide12

Internal homogeneity and coherence

The idea that communities are models of equality and democracy is a romantic idea of outsiders who have never lived in them.

Leaving aside gender inequality, which is rampant, most are managed in a top-down manner whether the leaders are hereditary or elected. Traditionally, young (men) have little decision making power. They have to ´learn´ first before they are allowed to have opinions.

Moreover, communities may also be made up of social classes such that most of the resources are in the hands of a small group and many of the rest act as

labourers

In the

ejidos

of Mexico, where land was first equally distributed among members, currently an average of one third of all residents (families) are not considered

ejidatarios

and have very limited rights to land and forest products. The 1992 changes to the Agrarian Law have made legal what was already a

de facto

process of

c

oncentration of propertySlide13

In community forest

ejidos

of Quintana

Roo

, there may be 45

ejidatarios

who own the forest enterprise

and 40,000 ha of

selva

mediana

and

a further 200 adult men who are paid a wage to do the work. This separation of capital from labour is of course not surprising, nor necessarily a bad thing, but is hardly visible in writings about community forest enterprise in Mexico.

There

is

tension

and

incoherent

policy

basis

in

many

international

natural

resource

promotion

programmes

;

they

cite

strengths

of local

institutions

as a

rationale

for

the

involvement

of

communities

but

demand

´

democratic

´ and

idealised

standards

of

modern

liberal western culture (

gender

inclusivity

,

equality

in

benefit

sharing

etc

), as

exemplified

e.g

. in

the

World

Bank and UN-REDD+

support

programmes

for

REDD+

See

Coomes

Takasaki

and

Rhemtulla

(2016)

for

an

interesting

insight

into

how

class

difference

impacts

land

management

and

landscape

appearanceSlide14

Self determination

The paper by

Ojha

et al (2016) highlights the forces of ´

glocalization

´ (with 5 case studies) on the integrity of communities and their decision making

Community decision-making

is very

much influenced by links to outside world:

Adaptation to capture government subsidies and funds

Alignment to market

Alignment to (national) political parties and movements

This affects values and norms as well as practice

Such connections may fragment internal structure as different groups take advantage of external linkages to consolidate their position internally

This is probably not new. It is increasingly clear that pre-colonial communities also operated thus. However, there are more opportunities today. Slide15

Effective

management

?

This is a central issue for policy. Is community management effective in achieving sustainable use of natural resources combined with economic growth and social benefit (the three pillars of SD) at the local level

?

Note: it is difficult to quantify this as failures are much less likely to get published;

no comprehensive global

studies

are available.

Obviously, there have been successes, but:

Fikret

Berkes

(2004)

¨the result of community based conservation experiments have been

mixed

at best, and the performance of many have been well below expectations

¨

FAO (2016) ¨While CBF regimes are now a major modality of forest management throughout the world, they are generally performing below expectations¨

There

is disagreement over whether failure is due to (1) improper implementation (lack of necessary underlying

conditions, such as secure land tenure)

or (2) the impossibility of the win-win-win aim (particularly the aim of achieving poverty reduction via more sustainable management of the environment)

If (1), what really matters is: under what circumstances can and does it work? Under what circumstances does it not work? What are the success and failure factors?Slide16

Ostrom´s principles for successful CP management

(

since adapted by others,

including

Agrawal 2003,

Baland

and Plateau 1996):

1. Clear group boundaries (i.e. members and territory).

2

. Rules on use of common goods matches local needs and conditions.

3

. Those affected by the rules can participate in modifying the rules.

4

. Rule-making rights of community members are respected by outside authorities.

5

. Community members monitor members’ behavior.

6

. Graduated sanctions for rule violators.

7

. Accessible, low-cost means for dispute resolution.

8

. Nested tiers of responsibility from the lowest level upwards to higher level authorities

BUT THESE RULES APPLY ONLY TO THE CASE OF COMMON PROPERTY, WHILE THE VAST MAJORITY OF COMMUNITIES HAVE LITTLE OR NO COMMON PROPERTY.Slide17

Why

is

the

community

approach

so popular

with

decision

makers

?

Policy

documents

are full of

what

,

frankly

,

is

mindless

hype

about

community

mangement

:

¨

There

is

no

better

way

to

ensure

the

careful

stewardship

(of

forests

) –

whether

in

the

Amazon

Basin

,

the

Andean

Highlands

or

the

jungles

of Central

America

–

than

to

give

indigenous

communities

full control

over

the

land

¨ -

President

of

the

InterAmerican

Development

Bank, 2016

¨

Community

control of

forest

lands

is

a

gift

that

keeps

giving

¨ -

Union

of

Concerned

Scientists

, 2013

¨

Going forward, the Bank plans to

……

strengthen its poverty alleviation and forest governance to enable stakeholder participation in the formulation and implementation of policies, strategies, and programs in efforts to foster community ownership and long-term sustainability of

forests¨ World Bank FCPF REDD+

programme

2008

BUT NOTE THAT

MUCH

ACADEMIC LITERATURE TOO TAKES A VERY SIMPLISTIC VIEW OF COMMUNITIES AND OF THE POTENTIAL FOR THEM TO ACHIEVE SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT. IT FOCUSES ALMOST ENTIRELY ON THE FEW SUCCESS STORIES

(this week´s reading from Bray and

Antorini

is a case in point).Slide18

Example:

¨Success of community forestry in Mexico¨

Bray and

Antinori

(2006)++ for whole of Mexico

Ellis et al (2015)

for Quintana

Roo

Communities with

forests

+/- 8000 (out of total of 30,000)

213

(

out

of total of 279)

Communities with sustainable timber management plans,

of which:

2417

85

% that sell standing timber

54

41

% that sell cut logs

35

47

% that sell sawn wood

11

11

% that process sawn wood to furniture

< 1

(+/- 20 cases in whole country)

< 1 (about 4 cases in whole state)Slide19

Why has

the

social

element

in SES

1

been

morphed

into

the

idea ´

communities

´?

A

conceptual

confusion

between

´

communities

´

meaning

rural

people

in general,

a social

class

, and

´

communities

´

meaning

self

organizing

social/

decision

making

groups

In

practice

,

it

is

much

easier

to

work

with

an

organized

community

than

with

rural folk in general

An

idealised

,

romantic

notion

about

the

way

rural

communities

operate

and

their

connection

to

nature

A

focus

on

communities

means

we

do

not

have

to

tackle

the

much

more

difficult

and

dangerous

actors

in

the

world

A

focus

on

communities

means

we

do

not

have

to

address

underlying

social issues

which

are

contentious

,

such

as

population

growth

BUT

THERE MAY VERY WELL BE ALTERNATIVE

EXPLANATIONS AND I HOPE YOU WILL COME UP WITH SOME MORE!

1

.

In

most

social

science

relating

to

SD and in

many

ecological

studies

dealing

with

SESs

, as

well

as in

national

and

international

policy

Slide20

Additional

references

Agrawal, A. (2003) Sustainable governance of common pool resources: context, methods and politics.

Annu. Rev. Anthropol

.

32:243–62

Baland

, J.M. and

Platteau

, J-P. (1996)

Halting degradation

of

natural resources

:

is there

a

role

for

rural communities

? Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Balooni

, K. and Lund J.F. (2014) Forest rights, the hard currency of REDD+.

Cons.

Lett

. 7, 3

Berkes

, F. (2004) Rethinking community-based conservation.

Conserv

. Biol

. 18,3 621-630

Coombes

, O.T., Takasaki, Y. and

Rhemtulla

, J. M. (2016) Forests as landscapes of social inequality: tropical forest cover and land distribution among shifting cultivators.

Ecology and Society

21(3); 20

Ellis, E.A.,

Kainer

, K.A., Sierra-

Huelsz

, J.A.,

Negreros

-Castillo, P., Rodriguez-Ward, D. and

DiGiano

, M. (2015)

Endurance and Adaptation of Community Forest Management in Quintana

Roo

, Mexico.

Forests

6

,

4295-4327

FAO (2016) Forty years of community based forestry. FAO Forestry Paper 176: Rome: FAO (Gilmour, D.)

Ostrom

, E. (1990) Governing the commons: the evolution of institutions for collective action. Cambridge University Press