Turner examines CBNRM projects and programs implemented throughout southern African countries in the last decades in order to determine if their overall lack of efficacy places the application of this integrated development-conservation strategy in a state of crisis. He considers the variety of natural resource sectors that CBNRM serves and recognizes the inherent differences between intervention-driven versus traditional forms of resource management. This contributes to the broader picture of CBNRM that his paper portrays. Taking a holistic view of the issue, he points to a fundamental variable of CBNRM that is often at the root of CBNRM failures. He notes that sound local governance, an essential element of CBNRM, is lacking in most cases. He declares the issue of local governance to be the real crisis of CBNRM in southern Africa and cites its oversight as a factor that compounds the problem. Turner advocates for more research and development directed towards the enhancement of local governance in communities.

Despite the prevalence of CBNRM projects in southern Africa that concern wildlife conservation and eco-tourism, Turner reminds us that both externally- and internally-initiated CBNRM applies to other natural resource sectors, as well. Range or pasture management, forestry, fisheries, and water management are relevant domains of communal stewardship that are objects of study and development.

He differentiates between 'focused' CBNRM initiatives that are brought to local communities by external actors, and 'everyday' or 'general' CBNRM of common-pool resources that stems from indigenous practices and is still governed, at least partially, by traditional authorities. As 'everyday' CBNRM is ubiquitous and persists throughout the region, Turner argues that scholarship and intervention must be refocused to specifically support these management schemes rather than pouring funding and research into new projects that rarely meet with success. This call to enhance 'everyday' CBNRM is justified by the majority numbers of people affected by it compared to those involved with 'focused' CBNRM, and by the prediction that communal areas will retain their prominent role in the economies and societies of impoverished rural communities into the future. Urgency for this change, this affirmation of 'the commons', is implied as he cites the rapidly changing political and social forces that bear down upon traditional institutions.

Turner suggests ways that scholars can contribute to the affirmation of the commons and the improvement of local governance. To attract greater policy support, research yielding data on market and income values of products from natural resources under communal management is needed.

Research revealing the detrimental costs of negligence to support local governance will highlight the importance of endeavouring to enhance it. Researchers must innovate low-cost, large-scale ways to support local governance and 'everyday' CBNRM. Turner stipulates that these strategies should operate through a general framework of local governance and be applicable to all scenarios of natural resource management, rather than limiting themselves to a myopic focus on sector-specific initiatives. In addition, for countries featuring a dichotomy of communal land users and freehold land owners, the differences in their rights must be identified and removed. Lastly, 'focused' CBNRM projects that are achieving, or have good potential to achieve enhancement of local governance and political confidence, should be sought out regardless of their impacts on biodiversity or revenues. Sustainable management of resources cannot proceed without a basis of competent local governance.

Prepared by Megan Glore