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

1. 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

2. 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

3. 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)

4. Importance of resource ownership • Resource management the responsibility of part of society who ‘owns’ the resource • Conflicts arise where ownership is contentious

5. Enhancing Participation in Environmental Research – ‘Learning from the South’ • Growing recognition in EU & US-based Environmental Literaturethat 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’

6. 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

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

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

9. 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)

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

11. 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)

12. Nepali Poverty & Forest Dependency

13. 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)

14. 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

15. 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

16. 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

17. 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)

18. 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

19. 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

20. 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?

21. 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)

22. 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/