Using six social and environmental indicators the authors compare cases from Kenya, Nepal and Washington and Alaska in the United States, to evaluate the implementation and effectiveness of community natural resource management (CNRM). While there are often important differences between various CNRM expressions, all of them share the following:

• a commitment to involve community members/local institutions in the management and conservation of natural resources
• the transposition of power and authority from central government to local, often indigenous institutions and peoples
• a desire to link and reconcile socioeconomic development objectives with environmental conservation and protection
• a tendency to legitimize local and/or indigenous resource and property rights
• a belief in the benefit of including traditional ecological knowledge in modern resource management.

With this in mind, Kellert and colleagues evaluated the cases on their success at implementing these goals. They use six indicators to analyse project results: equity, empowerment, conflict resolution, knowledge and awareness, biodiversity protection, and sustainable utilization. The case sites in Nepal included the Annapurna Conservation Area (ACA) and Makalu-Barun Conservation Area (MBCA), and in Kenya, the Kimana Community Wildlife Sanctuary (KCWS) located in southern Kenya. The residents are predominantly Maasai. The North American case studies involved cooperative management of North American Pacific salmon (Oncorhynchus spp.) in the states of Washington and Alaska.

Overall the authors found that problems and deficiencies of implementing CNRM were more apparent than expressions of efficiency and effectiveness. Additionally, most of the successes encompassed socioeconomic objectives, and most of the failures focused on conservation and biodiversity protection goals, implying the difficultly in accomplishing both sets of objectives simultaneously. Kellert and colleagues found that in Nepal and Kenya, CNRM rarely resulted in more equitable distribution of power and economic benefits, reduced conflict, increased consideration of traditional or modern environmental knowledge, protection of biological diversity, or sustainable resource use, giving particulars for each.

However, CNRM in the North American cases was more successful. The authors suggest that greater success was seen in the North American cases for various reasons including focus on a single species (salmon), greater infrastructure, strong legal mandates for conservation, greater financial support, and a clearly articulated judicial and legislative mandate which helped in the redistribution and transfer of power and authority to local and indigenous communities. North American cases were also more successful at integrating traditional and modern ecological knowledge. Kellert et al. believe this is due to indigenous communities role as project co-managers.

Despite these successes, all of the cases showed that socioeconomic and political goals were given greater priority over conservation, which subordinated biodiversity protection goals. This was a more apparent problem in Nepal and Kenya, where the stress on resource use and absence of clear biodiversity protection goals and laws often led to legal and illegal over exploitation of resources. The problem was less apparent in North America, and again Kellert et al. feel this is due to focus on a single species but also more concise and enforced legal mandates. However, even within this environment they found that biodiversity protection still took second seat.

Kellert and colleagues conclude that the most prominent and consistent obstacle to CNRM success was the inability to control and guide the behaviour of complex organizations, particularly bureaucratic and local institutions. It was difficult to reconcile and harmonize the varying objectives of socioeconomic development, biodiversity protection, and sustainable resource use. Thus concluding CNRM success will depend on institution building and organizational reform as much as it does on reconciling and aligning these other factors. Additionally, strong legal and financial support is also equally important. In the end, the authors suggest that importance of all of the goals of CNRM will be better served by establishing independent, although parallel methodologies and infrastructures.

Prepared by Erin Smith