Transcript Env and Society: Research Case Study 3 and Module Questions

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
CBNRM
 Example of successful policy - Community Forestry in
Nepal
Agenda 21 - The Global move to local
solutions for global problems
 Integrates environment and development concerns
 Strongly oriented to bottom-up participatory and
community-based approaches
 Acceptance of market principles, within appropriate
regulatory framework
 Sustainable 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 communitybased 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 world
Participation 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 & processes
VERY SUCCESSFUL ON SMALL SCALE PROJECTS WITH
COMMUNITY EMPOWERMENT AS A DUAL AIM
Key stage was community agreeing indicators (of sustainability /
degradation) and system boundaries, ie. Participation must be from
start of Project Design & include Monitoring and Evaluation
Framework 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 Points
 Forest resources essential element of livelihood systems in
many ways
 Scale of tree losses great, but has been widely exaggerated
 Losses from hill and montane forests greater in all regions
 Root 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 Resources
 5.8 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 Forestry
 Avg 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 learned
 Focus 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 essential
 Splitting of FUG’s to hamlet level ensures widest
participation
Key case study lessons
 Holistic discussions enabled
 Annual 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 use
 Community Forestry has not yet had a +ve effect on
farming systems and therefore most peoples livelihoods
 FUG (improved social capital) offer forum for
discussion on such issues
Remaining Research Questions
 How 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/