In this essay, Fikret Berkes, a long time proponent of community-based conservation, explores many concerns facing community based conservation today, lessons that have been learned, and offers ideas for where CBC can go from here to make it more successful. Since it has become a more popular approach to conservation, there have also been many debates surrounding it implementation and success. This debate can be summarized into two positions: one which holds the failure of community conservation is due to improper implementation, especially in regard to the devolution of authority, rather than weakness or impracticality of the concept itself; and second which holds that, while both equally important, conservation and development objectives should be “delinked” because together they do not serve either objective well. Berkes believes, however, that asking whether CBC works or not is the wrong question: sometimes it does, sometimes it does not. Of greater importance is the exploration of the conditions under which it does work and which it does not. To get at this understanding he begins by exploring conceptual shifts in the field of ecology that influenced the beginning of CBC and will influence the direction it is heading and its success. These shifts include the shift from reductionism to a systems view of the world, a shift to include humans in the ecosystem, and a shift from an expert-based approach to participatory conservation and management.

Along with these shifts, Berkes suggests that the future of conservation and ultimately the success of CBC lie in a new truly interdisciplinary and adaptive view and practice of conservation, taking lessons from many differing fields as well as the communities themselves. The rest of the essay is a discussion of many of these ideas for a successful and sustainable CBC.

To begin with, since communities are elusive and constantly changing Berkes argues that it is more productive to focus not on “communities” but on institutions, which are vital to the conservation process and for the greatest success would involve distributing authority across multiple institutions.

Nature is complex. And if so, Berkes argues that central management of such complex systems is a “poor fit”, working neither at the level of the government nor the community. Since conservation deals with complex systems problems then these problems need to be addressed at various levels simultaneously. And since the community level is essential in successful and sustainable conservation, the multi-level, or “cross-scale” approach has to be planned bottom-up rather than top down. In other words, the goal should be “as much local solution as possible and only so much government regulation as necessary” (pg. 626).

A typical conservation case may involve either of the following: 1) three levels of organization, community, regional or national, and international, 2) a number of local groups at the intra-community level, 3) a variety of NGO’ and governmental agencies, and 4) one or more international groups. Therefore, co-management of conservation in practice is a linkage of all of these parties. Berkes proposes that co-management alone is not enough and CBC needs to adopt adaptive co-management practices. By sharing power and responsibility, as opposed to a “token consultation and passive participation”, and creating a context that encourages learning and stewardship and builds mutual trust, adaptive co-management can play a significant role in making CBC successful.

To Berkes there is little debate regarding the importance of incentives in conservation but there has often been a mismatch between what conservationists thought of as community benefits and what communities saw as benefits. Rural communities in the developing world rarely equate benefits with simple monetary reward and various social and political benefits are also likely to be important, such as equity, empowerment, and access to resources.

Since objective and worldviews may differ greatly between conservationists and those of indigenous communities they are working with, Berkes states that it has been difficult at times to truly blend traditional ecological knowledge with scientific knowledge. Because these differences will often be there, community based conservation involving traditional knowledge works best when the community and traditional knowledge are involved from the outset of projects, allowing for the most seamless integration of knowledge. Along the same lines, the author continues to argue that there needs to be a development of a cross-cultural conservation ethic. Our current definition of conservation is too simplistic and Western-centric. A broader and more encompassing definition of conservation would allow for a more sustainable conservation model.

Prepared by Erin Smith

Amidst widespread international endorsement and implementation of community-based natural resource management (CBNRM) schemes, this oft-cited essay criticizes basic assumptions about the concept of 'community' that guide such intervention efforts. Agrawal and Gibson explore social theories throughout history that have influenced present day ideas about communities, noting that the general perception presumes communities to be small, geographically fixed, cohesive social units that are threatened by the forces of globalization. Social theorists in the 19th and early 20th century who viewed the community as an “organic whole” that evolves in the direction of “contract, territory, and individual rights” are cited as contributing to today's attractive conception of community, a conception that bolsters rhetoric opposed to state- and market-dominated control of resources (p.630).

Past theories and scholarship about community in relation to environmental stewardship are also reviewed to explain why such enthusiasm for local groups to manage their own resources manifests today. A premise of CBNRM theory states that if a benefit flow is created from sustainable management that significantly compensates locals for altering their previous practices, then this incentive will serve to perpetuate sustainable management. But this article delves deeper to ask questions like, “What if communities are dominated by elites? What if they have scant interest in conservation?” (p.639). The authors propose that simplistic, positive conceptions of community as functions of either spatial units, social structures, or shared norms do not account for the complexities of intra- and extra-community politics, the challenges of managing resources that have a widespread geographic distribution and are coveted by external groups of people, nor the difficulty of trying to change community norms that are counterproductive to conservation aims. While fully supporting the trend to devolve management powers to local people, the authors suggest that intervention efforts that accept the idea of the “mythic community” (p.640) will suffer from lack of understanding about the dynamics of local level processes and outcomes. Rather, institutions, which contain mechanisms for people to develop and enforce new rules, are suggested as a better conduit of CBNRM. Agrawal and Gibson argue that more critical attention must be paid to the diverse interests of multiple community members, the politics that surround these interests and decision-making processes, and the influential external and internal institutions that mediate their interactions.

In shifting the focus of CBNRM research away from prescriptive ideas about community and towards a greater consideration of the nuances of politics and institutions, the authors foresee better opportunities for more tangible and effective avenues of intervention. Specifically, they suggest four new areas of research for CBNRM: 1) implementation of systems of checks and balances of authority, 2) more devolution of power to local actors and the formation of local federations with potential for increased bargaining power with the state, 3) implementation of reasonable and just decision- making processes, and 4) assurance of revenue flows that are locally generated. The article's conclusion caveats these suggestions with a reminder that institutional outcomes cannot be accurately predicted, and that uncertainty is an inevitable aspect of the reconfiguration of power sharing in CBNRM projects.

Prepared by Megan Glore

“The ideology of modernist top-down development prevails in Botswana, and across much of Southern Africa, although it is masked by participatory, empowering and community-oriented language and images. Coercive conservation efforts are undermining the rural populations' individual and collective actions to manage resources” (p. 767).

Using material from her PhD fieldwork conducted from 1995 to 1997 in the Ghanzi District of western Botswana, Twyman questions the integrity of stated motivations and objectives that guide community-based natural resource management (CBNRM) projects. Twyman's research analyzes the power dynamics manifest between local inhabitants and government authorities during the initial phases of a CBNRM project in the recently delineated Wildlife Management Area (WMA) of Okwa. While the concept of CBNRM adheres to a principle of building local people's capacity for decision making, this case study shows that in practice, locals are not presented with true choices or options, that official policies pose fundamental obstacles to the decentralization of power, and that the language of authorities serves to manipulate and subordinate locals to the wishes of the policy implementers. Quotations, images, and a table that summarizes expectations and outcomes from CBNRM consultation meetings illustrate the detriment that these circumstances cause to achieving community empowerment. Discussions of land rights and the basic concept of 'community' further substantiate the criticism levelled at such projects.

In Okwa, a sustainable wildlife management regime was sought through a government-sponsored partnership between WMA inhabitants and a safari company interested in the WMA land. At consultation meetings held between the Department of Wildlife and National Parks (DWNP) and WMA dwellers, Twyman identified a framework of 'functional participation' that underlay the DWNP's approach, evident insofar as the group meetings did not facilitate locals to come to decisions in an open and informed manner, but instead simply promoted the policy implementers' preferences and agenda for how the conservation effort should proceed.

Denying locals the ability to make truly free and informed choices, the authorities only presented the inhabitants with two options: continue subsistence hunting or lease their hunting quota to a safari company. The implementers ignored research identifying local practices already in place for sustainable resource use, and disregarded numerous studies that suggested alternative wildlife management schemes. It is noted that 'tacit compliance' was imposed upon constituents, as the DWNP let it be known to locals that success was only likely to come if they followed recommended conservation strategies.

Apart from rhetorical forms of manipulation by authorities, Botswana has official policies that fundamentally handicap the achievement of CBNRM objectives. Formal proprietary rights to land are only devolved to stewards that utilize it for an approved commercial activity and the government withholds the rights to lands that are used for subsistence purposes. Although stated as an alternative to a joint venture with the safari company, the option for people to continue traditional livelihoods is neither sustainable nor viable without land rights.

The concept of 'community' itself poses another fundamental problem for CBNRM projects in the Kalahari. The author's research has shown that extensive community structures have historically been absent amongst the people that have settled the Okwa WMA. Thus, official plans to re-introduce ‘community management’ to the settlements are impractical and dismissive of the actual social make-up of its constituents.

Referring to cases from Zimbabwe, Zambia, Canada, and Australia, Twyman suggests that the decentralization of environmental management will continue to be problematic and CBNRM projects will not succeed until the political power dynamics of the process are confronted and counterbalanced. She cites further marginalization of local people and continued detriment to their natural environments as evidence that weakens the viability of CBNRM approaches currently in use. She calls for a new approach to integrated conservation-development projects that will designate appropriate local managerial structures and administer an appropriate distribution of rights in order to build the capacity of and empower local land and wildlife stewards.

Prepared by Megan Glore

“Despite the mainstreaming of livelihood studies, such studies have tended to focus on the material aspects of securing a reasonable subsistence, and have often failed to make explicit the symbolic importance of how different aspects of livelihoods are constituted, and how these semiotic aspects affect material strategies” (p.469-70).

Taylor bases this paper on research he conducted in three small villages of Botswana's sandveld, located on the northern periphery of the prized wildlife conservation area of the Okavanga Delta. The villages, Khwai, Mababe and Gudigwa, are inhabited by the San, the first peoples of southern Africa, more commonly known as Basarwa in Botswana. A national context of unequal distribution of wealth, restrictive conservation policies, and ethnic stigmatization underpins the social and economic marginalization of the Basarwa. Taylor explores the ways in which conservation, tourism and restrictive legislation associated with Botswana’s Community Based Natural Resource Management (CBNRM) Program have affected Basarwa livelihoods. The article emphasizes the material foundations of these livelihood strategies while drawing attention to the cultural meaning and symbolism these strategies are laden with and the way in which ethnicity influences access to and management of natural resources.

Though their traditional mode of subsistence - hunting and gathering - is still an integral aspect of their cultural identity and survival, the Basarwa today rely on a diverse and interdependent mix of subsistence strategies. The author focuses on three significant constituents of their livelihood portfolio: money, livestock, and hunting. Two of the research sites are located in Wildlife Management Areas (WMA), where new and highly contentious restrictions on wild game hunting and livestock rearing have been imposed. Possibilities to work in businesses associated with the safari operations of the protected Delta exist, but lack of formal education or training, geographic remoteness, and ethnic stigmatization greatly hinder the Basarwa’s access to paid employment. Historical trends of adherence to hunting, cattle rearing and employment, and the legislative and social forces dictating their legitimacy are explored. Each of the three livelihoods are shown to be meaningful ways of “looking for life” (p.469), yet the Basarwa remain severely disadvantaged in regard to each one. Taylor stresses that while the material importance of each livelihood strategy is widely acknowledged by policy makers, the interdependence of these three strategies and their associated cultural meanings have been largely ignored. It is suggested that consideration of the semiotics and interconnectedness of each livelihood strategy would better inform legislation implemented in the name of pro-community wildlife conservation.

Taylor critiques Botswana's conservation policy by stating that, “the erosion of collective control over wildlife is ironic with the move to a community quota under the CBNRM Programme, which is ostensibly meant to facilitate greater community control of wildlife” (p.485). He builds on this observation by suggesting that the converse legal approach to wildlife conservation, - increasing the possibilities for subsistence hunting by the Basarwa, might foster more sustainable wildlife management. Each separate livelihood is so interconnected and tenuous that the author warns interventionists of the pitfall of trying to replace one with another.

Prepared by Megan Glore