0576-A2
Olivier Dubois 1
There is a general agreement that for land and natural resource management (NRM) to succeed, they must combine sustainablility, the accommodation of different values and values, and, thus, participatory decision-making processes. This in turn requires that policy and strategies acknowledge uncertainties, the need for adaptiveness and the political dimension of land and NRM.
Three general principles are proposed to achieve this, i.e.
Based on the above, while sustainable forest management and poverty alleviation should remain the ultimate goals of collaborative forest management, as an interim stage, we propose more workable objectives, i.e.
Over the last two decades or so land use and natural resource management (NRM) have witnessed the emergence of a new spirit, characterised by three main features:
Developers are often faced with a diversity of land uses, as illustrated in Figure 1. Conventional management methods are efficient in differentiating these land uses according to physical criteria. However, actual use of land does not depend only on physical factors because claims change as demands from society and stakeholders' entitlements evolve. For instance, community groups may very well wish to continue practising their traditional shifting cultivation systems. But outside groups such as agribusiness companies or environmental groups may very well oppose this, the former because it competes for land, the latter because it wishes to leave forest untouched. This leads often to conflicting situations, and often turns natural resource management into the management of a confusing `battlefield', as illustrated in Figure 2.
Figure 2: The land and natural resources "battlefield"
(Source: Dubois: 1999)
The "battlefield" scenario has led to a gradual consensus that "modern" policies and planning strategies regarding land use and NRM should account for:
This is further discussed below.
General Principle A: A stepwise process is recommended, i.e. co-viability (or reduced unsustainability) in the short-term, aiming at sustainability in the long-term
One illustration of the above lies in the differences in focus between different types of farming systems, i.e. (Lightfoot et al, 1993)
Farming systems with a predetermined focus (often crops) ↕ Farming systems with a natural resource focus, i.e. aiming at the regeneration and/or rehabilitation of natural resources (e.g. recycling, etc) ↕ Farming systems with a livelihood focus, i.e. including non-farm and non-rural activities. |
Farmers often combine these different focuses in time and space according to circumstances, and in particular threats to their means of existence. Examples include seasonal migration in the Sahel, and combination of intensive systems in home gardens (including recycling of waste) and extensive systems in slash-and-burn fields in South-East Asia or Central Africa. Policies and strategies to assist farmers must acknowledge the co-existence of these strategies, and thus be flexible and adaptive.
Biodiversity protection is seldom the main objective of development initiatives. Rather it is built in projects that aim at the conservation of natural habitats. It has been realised that this objective is more achievable when combined with development activities. Projects that follow this strategy are known as Integrated Conservation and Development Projects (ICDP). Approaches to develop them are discussed in turn.
General Principle B: "Control and command/Fines and fences" strategies seldom work on the ground because they not cost-effective and difficult to enforce. Collaborative strategies to achieve Principle A are more bound to achieve sustainable outcomes but they involve significant transaction costs in the short and medium term.
In the face of widespread failure of government-led attempts to manage forests in a sustained fashion and for the public benefit, community involvement in forest management has become a major topic of donor-funded initiatives in tropical forestry over the last 10-15 years. More recently community forestry has tended to broaden its partnership scope, i.e., from community-project staff towards collaboration with other local stakeholder groups, i.e., mainly government and private sector.
Partnerships are not set in stone. They keep evolving according to changes in local conditions and stakeholders' interests and power. Therefore collaborative forest management should be seen as forms of dynamic partnerships along a continuum, as illustrated in Figure 3.
Several practitioners advocate collaboration on the grounds that:
However, collaborative strategies also have their limitations:
Figure 3: Continuum of forms of collaborative management, with an emphasis on community-government partnerships
General Principle C: Collaborative approaches require that issues related to stakeholders' relationships and power be addressed
There is increasing evidence that situations where significant disparity in power allows power to be exercised usually results in outcomes being potentially more unstable than in situations where parity in power favours constructive negotiation, and this even if active participation has been achieved (Sidaway, 1997) - see Figure 4.
Figure 4: Linking participation and power to the quality of outcome in negotiations over NRM
Stakeholders' relationships are important in collaborative management of natural resources. More particularly, their interactions with power exert significant influence on the outcome of negotiations. These interactions are complex. For example:
Figure 5 attempts to picture the influence of such interactions on negotiating strategies.
Figure 5: Interactions between power and relationships in negotiation strategies
Figure 5 shows collaboration is usually not achievable if building or maintaining good relationships is less important than the stakes or keeping power. Under such circumstances, negotiation should not be used to manage conflicts before bargaining powers are levelled off, as it might result in competition. Time must therefore be given to address power differences. Van Keulen and Walraven (1996) suggest some ways to deal with power differences, i.e.
Despite their importance in reaching consensus in land use and NRM, information on how to address issues of power relations is scant. Nevertheless, there seems to be a convergence in opinions that the usual way of measuring power, i.e. ex post through the outcome of negotiations, should be replaced by indirect means. These include assessing stakeholders' mutual dependence and respective roles as regards use and management of forest resources.
The `4Rs' framework might help in this type of assessment. According to this framework, local stakeholders' roles are defined by their respective `4Rs', i.e. the balance of their Rights, Responsibilities, Returns/ Revenues, and the status of their Relationships (Dubois, 1998).
The involvement of local communities in forest management is now an important principle of forest policy and practice, and a major component of international forestry aid programmes. The initial enthusiasm for this development is beginning to be tempered by experience and giving way to realism as to the challenges it faces. In particular there is a realisation that:
A multiple strategy is therefore required, combining:
But also decision makers and practitioners should not forget that there are other ways of managing natural resources - collaborative management will not be the answer in every case.
The principles to achieve this revolve around some key words, including:
Based on the above, we suggest a stepwise process in the achievement of collaborative forest management objectives. While sustainable forest management and poverty alleviation should remain the ultimate goals of collaborative forest management, as an interim stage, we propose more workable objectives, i.e.
Alden Wily, L. (2000). Community involvement in the management of forests in Eastern and Southern Africa at the beginning of the 21st century. ODI
Bass, S.; Hawthorne, W. and Hughes, C. 1999. Forests, Biodiversity and Livelihoods: Linking Policy and Practice. An Issues Paper for DFID, February 1999.
Dubois, O. 1999 `Cruising' towards Sustainable Management of Land and Natural Resources in Sub-Saharan Africa: Some `Navigational Aids'. Material prepared for the Training Module on "Land Use, Agricultural Intensification, Natural Resource Management and the Environment" within the WBI/DAI/AfDB Course on "Policy and Institutional Reform for Sustainable Rural Development", Abidjan, Côte d'Ivoire, November 29-December 10.
Dubois, O. 1998. Getting Participation and Power Right in Collaborative Forest Management: Can Certification and the `4Rs' Help? Lessons from Africa and Europe. Master's Thesis for the European Programme in Environmental Management, September 1998.
FAO 1998. Developing Participatory and Integrated Watershed Management. Community Forestry Case Study Series No 13.
Hilhorst, T. and Aarnink, N. (1999). Co-managing the commons - Setting the stage in Mali and Zambia. Bulletin 346, Royal Tropical Institute, Amsterdam, 80 p
Lightfoot, C.; Pingali, P. and Harrington, L. 1993. Beyond Romance and Rhetoric: Sustainable Agriculture and Farming Systems Research. NAGA, The ICLARM Quarterly, January 1993.
Sidaway, R. 1997. Outdoor Recreation. and Conservation: Conflicts and their Resolution. In Solberg and Miina (Eds.) "Conflict Management and Public Participation in Land Management", EFI Proceedings No 14, 1997, pp.290-301.
Vodoz, L. (1994). La prise de décision par consensus: pourquoi, comment, à quelles conditions. In Environnement and Société No 13, FUL, pp. 55-66.
Van Keulen, W.F. and Walraven, S.J.E. (1996) Negotiations in participation: improving participatory methodologies with insights from negotiation theories. Thesis Report, Department of Communication and Innovation Studies, Wageningen Agricultural University, August 1996.
1 Forestry Policy and Institutions Branch, FAO, Viale delle Terme di Caracalla, 00100 Rome, Italy. [email protected]