INTEGRATING COMMUNITY
BASED NATURAL RESOURCE
MANAGEMENT INTO UNCCD
DESERTIFICATION
STRATEGIES – EXPERIENCES
IN SELECT SOUTHERN
AFRICAN COUNTRIES
February 2007
This publication is made possible by the support of the American People through the United States Agency for International Development
(USAID). The contents of this publication are the sole responsibility of International Resources Group (IRG) and do not necessarily reflect
the views of USAID or the United States Government.
INTEGRATING
COMMUNITY BASED
NATURAL RESOURCE
MANAGEMENT INTO
UNCCD DESERTIFICATION
STRATEGIES –
EXPERIENCES IN SELECT
SOUTHERN AFRICAN
COUNTRIES
Report written by Graham von Maltitz.
IUCN South Africa Country Office
International Resources Group
1211 Connecticut Avenue, NW,
Suite 700
Washington, DC 20036
202-289-0100 Fax 202-289-7601
www.irgltd.com
P.O. Box 11536, Hatfield
Pretoria, 0028
Tel: +27 12 342-8304/5/6
Fax: +27 12 342-8289
www.iucnsa.org.za
CONTENTS
Acknowledgements................................................................................................ 1
1. Introduction ...................................................................................................... 3
2. Alignment of CBNRM with CCD Strategies ................................................. 5
2.1 CBNRM as a Strategy for Sustainable Resource Management......................................................7
2.2 CBNRM as a Mitigation Strategy for the Effects of Drought and Desertification ....................8
3. CBNRM Achievements in Combating Desertification in Southern Africa 9
3.1 Environmental Achievements in Combating Desertification .........................................................9
3.2 Socio-economic Achievements in Combating Desertification ................................................... 12
3.3 Policy and Institutional Achievements in Combating Desertification....................................... 14
4. Case Studies of SADC Countries Links between the UNCCD
and CBNRM..................................................................................................... 17
4.1 SADC ....................................................................................................................................................... 17
4.2 Botswana ................................................................................................................................................. 18
4.3 Malawi ...................................................................................................................................................... 19
4.4 Namibia.................................................................................................................................................... 20
4.5 South Africa ............................................................................................................................................ 21
4.6 Zimbabwe ............................................................................................................................................... 23
5. Alignment of NAPs with CBNRM Initiatives............................................... 25
6. Recommendation on Enhancing Linkages ................................................... 29
7. References ....................................................................................................... 31
Appendix 1. Overview of Desertification and the UNCCDs
Response Strategy .......................................................................................... 35
1. What is Desertification? ........................................................................................................................ 37
2. What Causes Desertification? .............................................................................................................. 41
3. Why is Combating Desertification Important? ................................................................................ 43
4. How is Desertification Prevented or Reversed?.............................................................................. 44
Appendix 2. Overview of CBNRM...................................................................... 45
Appendix 3. Flows and Values of Environmental Goods and Services .......... 49
Appendix 4. Terms of Reference for the Study ................................................ 53
ABBREVIATIONS
ADF
African Development Foundation
BMSLP
Biodiversity Management and Land Support Program (Namibia)
BOCOBONET
Botswana Community Based Organisations Network
BOCONGO
Botswana Council for NGOs
CAMPFIRE
Communal Area Management Programme for Indigenous Resources
CBNRM
Community Based Natural Resource Management
CBO
Community Based Organisation
COMPASS
Community Partnerships for Sustainable Resource Management (Malawi)
CRIC
Committee of the Review on the Implementation of the Convention
DWNP
Department of Wildlife and National Parks
EPWP
Expanded Public Works Programme (South Africa)
FAO
Food and Agricultural Organization
FGD
Focus Group Discussions
FIRM
Forum for Integrated Resource Management
FRAME
USAID Natural Resource Management Programme
GEF
Global Environmental Fund
GoB
Government of Botswana
IUCN
International Union for the Conservation of Nature
IVP
Indigenous Vegetation Project
KyT
Kgetsi ya Tsie (KyT)
LB
Land Board
LIFE
Living in a Finite Environment Programme (USAID funded)
MET
Ministry of Environment and Tourism
NAP
National Action Programme
NAPCOD
Namibia’s Programme to Combat Desertification
NGO
Non government Organisation
NRMP
Natural Resources Management Project
OP#15
Operation Program on Sustainable Land Management (GEF)
1
SADC Elms
SADC Environment and Land Management Sector
SADC
Southern African Development Community
SAFIRE
Southern Alliance for Indigenous Resources (Zimbabwe)
SMIF
Sustainable Management of Indigenous Forest (Malawi)
SRAP
Sup-regional Action Programme
STMT
Sankuyo Tshwaragano Management Trust
UNCBD
United Nations Convention for BioDiversity
UNCCD
United Nations Convention to combat Desertification
UNDP
United Nations Development Programme
UNFCC
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
USAID
United States Agency for International Development
Veld
A southern African word from the Afrikaans meaning rangeland
WWF
World Wildlife Fund
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
FRAME is acknowledged for funding this document. It is the information from the case studies and
comments from the case study authors that made this document possible. In this regard thanks to Brain
Jones, Russell Taylor, Jaap Arntzen, Dave Grossman, Daulos Mauambeta and all their co-authors. In addition
the UNCCD focal points have provided valuable additions to the document and important comment on
the drafts was received from Godwin Fishani Gondwe, Fhatuwani Tshivhase, Uazamo Kaura, Emmanuel
Otsogile, Khulekani Mpofu, Maria Mbengashe, Custom Nyirenda. Brigitte Schuster from IUCN, Carmel
Mbvizo and Marna van der Merwe from CSIR and Bob Winterbottom from FRAME have also provided
valuable comment.
1
1. INTRODUCTION
This study forms a component of a larger study being conducted by the USAID-funded FRAME programme
that reviews CBNRM in five southern African countries in terms of their contribution to the United Nations
Convention to Combat Desertification. This study reviews the link between the individual countries
UNCCD response strategies as expressed through their NAPs and national reports and the CBNRM
initiatives in the individual countries. Readers are referred to the FRAME national case studies and synthesis
study to get information on the degree to which CBNRM is achieving UNCCD goals.
Flowing out of the 1992 Rio Earth Summit, more formally referred to as the United Nations Conference on
Environment and Development (UNCED), Agenda 21 recognized biodiversity, global climate change and
desertification as environmental issues of global significance. It was also acknowledged that as a continent,
Africa was the most severely impacted by desertification. The United Nations Convention to Combat
Desertification in Those Countries Experiencing Serious Drought and/or Desertification, Particularly in Africa
(UNCCD) of 1994 aims to combat desertification and mitigate the effects of drought. All signatories to the
convention are required to draw up and implement a National Action Program (NAP). All Southern African
Development Community (SADC) states have ratified the convention; all but Namibia, Angola and
Mauritius have developed National Action Plans. The UNCCD has a biannual Conference of Parties (COP)
and in-between has a Committee of the Review on the Implementation of the Convention (CRICs). African
countries have been obliged to submit three national progress reports, one in 1999, one in 2002 and one in
2004.
The UNCCD is unique amongst the global environmental conventions in that it emphasizes a bottom up
approach to policy development and implementation, and in that it has a strong focus on social issues in
addition to the environment. It requires countries to undertake an integrated approach that considers socioeconomic as well as environmental issues when developing their desertification strategies. It requires
countries to tackle root causes, and not just symptoms of desertification. In particular the UNCCD
recognizes a link between poverty and desertification. Compared to the Convention on Biological Diversity
(CBD) and the Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the UNCCD is also unique in that
until 2002 it did not have a dedicated GEF funding stream.
In Appendix 1, an overview is given of the UNCCD strategy, with a particular focus on its relevance in
southern Africa. An issue of importance to this study is the fact that desertification takes place in areas other
than desert margins. It is important to distinguished between desertification resulting from poor land
management and desertification relating to climate change. Where poor land management is involved,
program interventions can be used to counter desertification. Where climate change is involved program
interventions may be more important in mitigating the impacts of desertification. CBNRM can potentially
play both roles.
In, what has largely been a parallel process to the implementation of the UNCCD in SADC, has been the
establishment of Community Based Natural Resource Management (CBNRM) as a mechanism for both
environmental conservation and rural development. CBNRM is practiced in some form in most if not all
SADC states. In some countries there is formalised CBNRM policy, though in most countries it is practiced
without a specific legislative framework. CBNRM implementation pre-dates the formation of most countries
UNCCD NAPs, and in most instances has been linked to biodiversity conservation initiatives rather than
desertification. This conservation link has, in part, been due to the fact that biodiversity funding from the
GEF was available before desertification funding streams where established. Appendix 2 considers briefly the
INTEGRATING CBNRM INTO UNCCD DESERTIFICATION STRATEGIES
3
definition and key features of CBNRM. This is an important step in developing the methodology for
assessing the links between CBNRM and the UNCCD.
To understand if CBNRM is reducing desertification it is important to consider how desertification is
quantified. The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (Adeel 2005) considers desertification to be a reduction
in the flow of ecosystem goods and services. Appendix 3 goes into more detail on ecosystems goods and
services and possible ways of quantifying desertification.
With more than two decades of CBNRM implementation, CBNRM has gone from piloting to full grown
projects and programmes in many countries. The objective of this review is to consider if CBNRM qualifies
as a response strategy for countering desertification, to assess to what extent CBNRM meets global,
regional and national UNCCD objectives, to assess to what extent CBNRM is incorporated into NAPs as a
desertification strategy, and to evaluate the extent to which countries highlight their CBNRM successes
when reporting to the UNCCD. Based on this, the review will consider what opportunities exist for greater
alignment between the UNCCD and CBNRM implementation. This review is closely linked to case study
reviews of CBNRM in Botswana, Namibia, Malawi, Zimbabwe and South Africa being undertaken by
FRAME, and draws heavily on these review case studies, and will focus particularly on the same SADC
countries.
4
INTEGRATING CBNRM INTO UNCCD DESERTIFICATION STRATEGIES
2. ALIGNMENT OF CBNRM WITH
CCD STRATEGIES
The obligations and principles of the UNCCD are compared with CBNRM principles (see Appendix 2) in
Table 1 below. CBNRM alignment is based on interpreting key southern African literature on CBNRM
(including Fabricius et al. 2004, Turner, 2004, Child, 2005, Shackleton and Campbell 2002, the FRAME case
studies and synthesis, Bond 1999), but remains a subjective assessment due to the fact that unlike the
UNCCD, CBNRM has no formal definition.
It is clear that CBNRM is well aligned with the objectives and principles of the UNCCD. CBNRM is,
however, only one approach to meeting UNCCD objectives. It has a focused approach on communal
natural resources. In Southern Africa the focus tends to be on non-agricultural resources. CBNRM as given
in most definitions does not specifically target desertification or specifically use the term desertification.
CBNRM tends rather to use terms such as sustainable land management and hence has the same overall
objective. CBNRM is used both in situations of preventing resource degradation and in improving
production from already degraded areas. CBNRM, like the UNCCD aim at achieving sustainable resource
management practices both from direct environmental interventions and through reducing rural poverty. In
many instances CBNRM attempts to introduce alternative land use and livelihood strategies that are both
socially and economically beneficial whilst ensuring sustainability of the natural resource base. CBNRM tends
to have a higher emphasis on biodiversity conservation in its interventions than is the case with the
UNCCD.
INTEGRATING CBNRM INTO UNCCD DESERTIFICATION STRATEGIES
5
Table 1. Comparison of country obligations under the UNCCD and
achievement through CBNRM implementation
Country Obligations under the UNCCD
CBNRM Alignment
The objective of the Convention is “to combat desertification
and mitigate the effects of drought … through effective action
at all levels, supported by international cooperation and
partnership arrangements, in the framework of an integrated
approach which is consistent with Agenda 21, with a view to
contributing to the achievement of sustainable development in
affected areas.”
CBNRM has the objective of sustainable development through
the sustainable use of natural resources, and typically places
emphasis on community development.
The Convention defines "combating desertification" to include
activities that are part of the integrated development of land
in arid, semi-arid and dry sub-humid areas for sustainable
development and which are aimed at:
Wildlife based CBNRM is typically more focused on the
prevention of degradation rather than restoration, though
afforestation efforts as practised in the Malawi case study
clearly also address rehabilitation and restoration.
ƒ Prevention and/or reduction of land degradation;
Though not covered in any of the case studies, some CBNRM
practices focus on soil and water conservation and / or
livestock management on rangelands.
ƒ Rehabilitation of partly degraded land; and
ƒ Reclamation of desertified land.
Though not placing an emphasis on desertification there is an
implicit assumption that CBNRM is aimed at reducing natural
resource and biodiversity degradation. CBNRM, though an
integrated approach, has typically only focused on limited
sectors (e.g. wildlife or veld or non timber forest products).
The objectives of CBNRM and UNCCD are, therefore,
closely aligned and complimentary, though CBNRM only
forms a small component of what is covered in the UNCCD.
Maintenance of wildlife for hunting or tourism has a secondary
benefit of maintaining the environment in an un-degraded
state.
Parties in general are obliged to:
ƒ Adopt an integrated approach addressing the physical,
biological and socio-economic aspects of the processes of
desertification and drought;
CBNRM takes an integrated approach to sustainable resource
management. Implementation has, however, often been
limited to specific sectors such as wildlife management or
rangeland management.
ƒ Give due attention, within the relevant international and
regional bodies, to the situation of affected developing
country Parties with regard to international trade,
marketing arrangements and debt with a view to establish
an enabling international economic environment conducive
to the promotion of sustainable development;
CBNRM has typically focused more on the project rather than
global level, though southern African CBNRM initiatives have
also been involved in global lobbying around issues such as
trade in wildlife products.
ƒ Integrate strategies for poverty eradication into efforts to
combat desertification and mitigate the effects of drought;
CBNRM integrates strategies for poverty reduction into
natural resource management.
ƒ Promote cooperation among affected country Parties in
the fields of environmental protection and the conservation
of land and water resources, as they relate to
desertification and drought;
Though CBNRM should be a cooperative approach, it is
typically aligned strongly to the department of national parks
and wildlife, environmental affairs, forestry in the case of
community forestry management, or fisheries in the case of
community fisheries management) rather than other
departments such as water or agriculture.
ƒ Strengthen sub-regional, regional and international
cooperation;
CBNRM has been used as components of trans-boundary
conservation initiatives, and has also resulted in a large amount
of regional collaboration between practitioners.
Cooperate within relevant intergovernmental organisations;
ƒ Determine institutional mechanisms, if appropriate, keeping
in mind the need to avoid duplication; and
Core to CBNRM is the establishment or strengthening of local
resource management institutions. It has also been involved in
promoting institutional change, for instance in the devolution
of management and use rights as well as land tenure.
ƒ Promote the use of existing bilateral and multilateral
financial mechanisms and arrangements that mobilize and
Has typically been funded through bilateral and multilateral
biodiversity funds rather than desertification funds.
6
INTEGRATING CBNRM INTO UNCCD DESERTIFICATION STRATEGIES
Country Obligations under the UNCCD
CBNRM Alignment
channel substantial financial resources to affected
developing country Parties in combating desertification and
mitigating the effects of drought.
The Convention places the following additional obligations on affected country Parties, i.e. countries whose lands include, in
whole or in part, arid, semi-arid and/or dry sub humid areas affected or threatened by desertification:
ƒ Give due priority to combating desertification and
mitigating the effects of drought, and allocate adequate
resources in accordance with their circumstances and
capabilities;
CBNRM is one approach to achieving this.
ƒ Establish strategies and priorities, within the framework of
sustainable development plans and/or policies, to combat
desertification and mitigate the effects of drought;
CBNRM is one approach to achieving this.
ƒ Address the underlying causes of desertification and pay
special attention to the socio-economic factors contributing
to desertification processes;
CBNRM directly deals with underlying causes of resource
degradation such as breakdown of management structures,
appropriate tenure, perverse legislation.
ƒ Promote awareness and facilitate the participation of local
populations, particularly women and youth, with the
support of nongovernmental organisations, in efforts to
combat desertification and mitigate the effects of drought;
and
Common to most CBNRM projects.
ƒ Provide an enabling environment by strengthening, as
appropriate, relevant existing legislation and, where they do
not exist, enacting new laws and establishing long-term
policies and action programmes.
CBNRM programmes have lobbied for changes in legislative
frameworks. In a few instances, specific CBNRM legislation has
been enacted, though in most instances existing legislation has
changed to allow CBNRM implementation.
Other general UNCCD principles:
Putting people first.
Ensure preventive measures are taken for lands that are not
yet degraded.
Participatory approaches.
Ensure provisions of alternative livelihoods.
CBNRM should reduce or reverse degradation.
CBNRM looks to tourism, wildlife and natural resources to
replace or compliment un-sustainable agricultural practices.
2.1 CBNRM AS A STRATEGY FOR SUSTAINABLE RESOURCE
MANAGEMENT
Operation Program on Sustainable Land Management (OP#15) is the Global Environmental Facility (GEF
2003) program for combating desertification. The fact that they use the term sustainable resource
management (SRM) rather than restoration, reversing desertification or re-vegetation is indicative of the fact
that the best strategy for countering desertification is seen as prevention of desertification through
sustainable land management practices rather than restoring already degraded areas. Of the three ‘on-theground’ strategies promoted in OP#15, sustainable rangeland / pasture management and sustainable
forest/woodland management can both be implemented through CBNRM practices. Sustainable agriculture
is of less importance to the CBNRM debate.
CBNRM as practiced in Botswana, Namibia and Zimbabwe has a focus on the use of high valued wildlife
and veld products as a driver of sustainable resource management. This is also the case in some of the
conservation area linked CBNRM projects in South Africa. CBNRM as implemented in Malawi involves a far
wider array of less valuable and yet important basic resources. In all cases the sustainable use of the
resource base is a basic underling principle.
INTEGRATING CBNRM INTO UNCCD DESERTIFICATION STRATEGIES
7
In all cases CBNRM is a strategy for enhancing the sustainability of natural resource management. However,
in many cases the emphasis during implementation has been more on social rather than environmental
issues. The extent to which CBNRM has achieved sustainability in resource management has been poorly
researched, though there is extensive evidence that it has, at least in some situations, had positive influences
on the resource base (see Section 3 for examples from the southern African case studies).
2.2 CBNRM AS A MITIGATION STRATEGY FOR THE EFFECTS
OF DROUGHT AND DESERTIFICATION
Though CBNRM has typically been viewed and promoted as a strategy for sustainable resource
management, it may also be an appropriate adaptation strategy to mitigate the impacts of drought and
climate change. Though severe drought has an impact on natural systems, the severity of the impact is likely
to be less than on agricultural systems and the natural systems will continue providing more environmental
goods and services during drought periods than will be achieved from agricultural systems. Moving to wildlife
or natural resource based livelihood strategies could give communities greater drought resilience.
While natural droughts are not considered as desertification, it is often drought periods that put the greatest
strain on environmental systems and acts as the catalyst for long term desertification in poorly managed
areas. It is also drought periods that put the greatest strain on agrarian livelihoods. Recent experience in
Southern Africa indicates that most rural communities cannot survive drought periods without external
assistance. Subsistence and commercial agricultural practices may provide a subsistence living during times of
good rain, but do not have the resilience to withstand drought periods. There is growing evidence that
natural woodland products form an important safety-net during periods of crop failure.
CNBRM is likely to give rise to livelihood practices that are not as vulnerable to drought as crop agriculture
and livestock husbandry. With predictions of increased frequency of drought and decreased mean
precipitation in much of the sub-region, CBNRM may be an appropriate drought adaptation strategy.
8
INTEGRATING CBNRM INTO UNCCD DESERTIFICATION STRATEGIES
3. CBNRM ACHIEVEMENTS IN
COMBATING DESERTIFICATION IN
SOUTHERN AFRICA
Country cases studies of CBNRM projects in five Southern African countries, Botswana, Malawi, Namibia,
Zimbabwe and South Africa were undertaken by IUCN/FRAME to investigate the linkages between
CBNRM and Desertification (Arntzen et al. 2007a, Grossman and Holden, 2007, Jones and Mosimane,
2007, Mauambeta et al. 2007, Taylor and Murphree, 2007). A synthesis study and economic assessment
have also been conducted (Jones 2006, Arntzen et al., 2007b). These sources are used as the primary data
for identifying UNCCD related benefits, and though supplementary resources are used, this is by no means
a comprehensive literature review of all examples of benefits that may accrue from CBNRM. Discussions
with UNCCD focal points indicate that in many of the SADC countries there is a greater level of CBNRM
implementation than reflected in NAPs and Country reports to the UNCCD, but that this is not
documented and researched.
Achievement from CBNRM in reducing or preventing desertification is divided into direct environmental
evidence of reduced desertification and socio-economic benefits that are likely to have secondary effects on
reducing desertification. Socio-economic benefits are also key prerequisites for long term sustainability of the
CBNRM projects.
3.1 ENVIRONMENTAL ACHIEVEMENTS IN COMBATING
DESERTIFICATION
Despite over twenty years of CBNRM implementation in Southern Africa there is surprisingly limited
qualitative assessments on the impacts of CBNRM on the degradation status of the natural resource. There
is, however, a growing amount of qualitative data that indicates likely environmental benefits from CBNRM,
and from which it can be deduced that CBNRM is either reversing existing degradation or preventing
further degradation.
Many of the Southern African CBNRM projects have focused on wildlife (game) management, both in
conservation areas and on communal land. It is assumed, though not proven, that areas managed under a
wildlife management regime are likely to be less environmentally degraded than alternative land use options
such as subsistence grazing. This assumption is likely to be robust, particularly where free ranging wildlife is
concerned. A further assumption is made that where wildlife numbers are increasing that the entire
environment is likely to be in a less degraded state. From the case studies it is clear that large tracts of
southern Africa are being maintained through CBNRM for wildlife management, either for hunting or
ecotourism. Examples include:
In Namibia based on the LIFE project (LIFE 2004, Barnes 2007).
•
There are 50 registered communal area conservancies covering over 10 million ha of land in five
different biomes.
•
Well documented increases in wildlife, particularly in the north-west of the country.
INTEGRATING CBNRM INTO UNCCD DESERTIFICATION STRATEGIES
9
•
In the #Khoadi //hoas Conservancy management initiatives are anticipated to have positive impacts on
reducing desertification. Re-introduction of Rhino into the conservancy has been approved based on
how well other game is being managed.
•
The Nyae Nyae conservancy has experienced large increases in many game species.
In South Africa (Ref):
•
Most land claims on conservation areas were settled in a manner where the community has agreed to
the reserves continuing as a Contractual Park. This includes the Makuleke land claim in northern Kruger
Park, Dwese/Kwebe and Mkumbati on the Wild Coast, The Kalahari Gemsbok Park, and the
Richtersveld National Park.
•
Some reserves have been established on communal areas and these include the Mawewe cattle game
project, Mthethomusha nature reserve, the Mahushe Shongwe reserve, the Tembe reserve, Pilansberg,
and Mdikwe reserve. The level to which CBNRM principles have been implemented varies greatly.
•
The Khomani San project, a land reform initiative, has to date had no environmental benefits due to a
near total collapse of institutional structures. South African Land Reform is unique in CBNRM
implementation in that it often involves new communities on new parcels of land who do not have a
history of working together. Resource management issues fall to the background as these new
institutions undergo power struggles in getting established and fulfilling roles for which they have had no
previous experience.
•
In the Richtersveld the contractual park arrangement is clearly resulting in less environmental
degradation than if no such agreement was in place. However, a history of disputes and low tourism
revenue means that to date successes have been minimal.
In Zimbabwe (Ref):
•
CAMPFIRE projects have been initiated in 37 districts of which 51% are considered to be full
participation. It is estimated that 55% of the area in participating wards (~ 4 million ha) is under the
campfire program.
•
Elephant and buffalo numbers have increased in participating areas.
•
Despite many problems, revenue from hunting continues to flow to communities and community
structures continue to exist and support hunting as a land use option.
•
In an assessment of three districts, the loss of wild lands between 1989 and 1997 was found to be only
2% over the 9 year period (Conybeare 1998). However, an assessment of habitat quality by Dunham et
al (2003) indicated extensive habitat deteriorate over his study period.
In Botswana (Ref):
•
The CBNRM program covers the entire country with over 100 villages and 135 000 people involved in
CBNRM.
•
The Sankuyo Tshwaragano Management Trust is located in a wildlife management area just south of
Moremi Game Reserve. CBNRM has allowed the community to move from cattle management to
wildlife based incomes, with associated benefits to the habitat. Decreased poaching, increased local
appreciation of wildlife and reduced wildlife-human conflict has been reported from focus group
discussions.
10
INTEGRATING CBNRM INTO UNCCD DESERTIFICATION STRATEGIES
Malawi does not have extensive wildlife outside of reserves as is found in other Southern African countries.
Therefore, at present, CBNRM does not concentrate on wildlife management per say but other forms of
natural resources.
•
Within protected areas, CBNRM projects have not expanded the reserve network, but communities
have been permitted to harvest select resources from inside the reserves. CBNRM Projects are being
implemented in communal areas, and do not focus on game management, but on other natural
resources that have great value to the local people.
An interesting anomaly from the Namibia study is that residents are using wildlife income to build up
livestock herds. This has possible degradation implications, but also highlights the fact that community
members are forced to be reliant on a diversity of livelihood options including livestock. A positive aspect is
that the conservancies have recognised the need to manage livestock in a sustainable manner. This example
amplifies the need for CBNRM to take a more holistic view on livelihoods and natural resource
management that includes management of both wildlife and livestock (Jones and Mosimane, 2007). In the
Malawi Sustainable Management of Indigenous Forest (SMIF) project increased household livelihoods and
income did not result in decreased charcoal production and it is clear that simply raising household
livelihoods will not on its own stop charcoal making whilst the trees remain an open access resource
(Mauambeta et al., 2007).
In addition the wildlife focused projects, CBNRM has also been used in most southern African countries to
promote more sustained natural resource management, either through restoration of degraded areas or
through assisting in the commercialisation of non-timber forest products (veld products). The impact of
these projects on the state of desertification is in most cases poorly quantified, but subjective evidence
indicates that environmental benefits are being achieved as highlighted from the case studies.
In Botswana the Kgetsi ya Tsie project has realised the constraints of resource management in open access
areas. It has also undertaken re-aforestation of economically important tree species (marula). Members have
also been trained in sustainable harvesting techniques. Aspects of tenure do, however, still remain
problematic.
In South Africa the LandCare programme has focused on soil and water conservation and rangeland
management in addition to other objectives, both of these are likely to achieve environmental benefits.
Working for Water eradicated alien plant species which are having high impacts on indigenous biodiversity
and water yield. This project is, however, not a true community based project as the term is typically used.
In Malawi, both the COMPASS and the SMIF CBNRM projects have focused on a diversity of income
generating activities to assist in increasing the sustainability of resource use. These included bee keeping,
reforestation/ afforestation, alternative energy sources, eco-tourism, wildlife domestication, wildlife
management, medicinal plant production and environmental education as well as a number of activities
linked to agricultural production. Extensive areas of woodlots have been established which helps mitigate
the impacts from deforestation in the area. The community members state that animal species are starting
to move back into the forests where they had become locally extinct. There are also reports that rivers are
starting to become perennial again.
Environmental achievements from CBNRM differ widely between projects. Projects include both
conservation objectives (linked to eco-tourism) and management of resources for sale and consumption. In
most instances the resource based initiatives have not included agriculture, but as in the Malawi example,
this is not always the case. The wildlife and tourism potential of an area versus the potential of the area for
other activities would seem to be an important component in wildlife management success. The Malawi
example indicated that in areas without wildlife, CBNRM interventions can have very positive impacts in
reducing the environmental components of desertification.
INTEGRATING CBNRM INTO UNCCD DESERTIFICATION STRATEGIES
11
3.2 SOCIO-ECONOMIC ACHIEVEMENTS IN COMBATING
DESERTIFICATION
The UNCCD identifies a direct link between desertification and poverty. The southern African case studies
highlight many areas in which CBNRM has helped alleviate poverty and has helped diversify household
income streams. The low returns per household in some projects still remains problematic and it is clear
that in most situations CBNRM based activities, on their own, are insufficient to sustain livelihoods.
Consequently, CBNRM needs to be seen as one strategy in a broader livelihood strategy based both on
natural resources and other income streams (as illustrated in the Malawi study). Though the extent of areas
under some form of CBNRM wildlife management is impressive, these areas will only remain as wildlife
areas if communities continue to gain tangible benefits from maintaining this land use. From the case studies
there is mixed success in contributing directly to rural livelihoods, but there are also isolated examples
where impressive benefit streams are being achieved. A summary of some of the benefits identified are
given below, with greater detail being available from the individual case study documents.
Namibia (LIFE 2004, Barnes 2007):
•
In 2004, the total value of the contribution of the national CBNRM programme to net national income
and increased capital value of wildlife in North West Namibia from 1990 to 2003 was N$417, almost
matching the total investment in CBNRM by government and donors of N$464 million.
•
By 2005 income to CBNRM participants in conservancies was just over N$20 million (approx. US$3
million). This income was generated through conservancy/enterprise cash income; household/wage
income; and conservancy non-financial benefits mostly in the form of game meat from either harvested
trophy animals or game cropped by the conservancies.
•
The #Khoadi //hoas Conservancy generates an annual amount of US$11 000 from hunting licences and
the new Grootberg lodge is likely to provide substantial benefits in the future. It currently provides
employment for 16 people and the community will get 15% of turnover, this equated to US$50 000 in
the first year of operation. A number of other benefits will be linked to community activities such as
craft and agriculture. Community benefits have gone to community level infrastructure rather than
direct household dividends.
•
In the Nyae Nyae conservancy, the conservancy activities account for 28% of local jobs and 35% of cash
income to the conservancy residents. In this conservancy all members have received cash dividends
ranging between N$75 and N$620 between 1998 and 2005. The conservancy has also at times funded
social infrastructure such as schools and community gardens.
South Africa:
•
South Africa has taken a unique approach in some projects in that the state pays individual community
members to engage in resource management activities. Examples of this approach include Working for
Water (which probably falls outside the definition of a CBNRM programme), Landcare and Department
of Environmental Affairs and Tourism’s CBNRM projects. Rapid implementation is achieved combined
with high community financial benefits. A critical concern is the long term sustainability of this approach
as funding to individual projects is short term (Von Maltitz et al *** other Refs).
•
The Makuleke community receives substantial dividends from leasing its tourism rights in Kruger
(Grossman et al in prep), and in the past received substantial benefits from trophy hunting. Trophy
hunting has been stopped as a condition of the lease agreement with a private tourism operator. Other
communities such as Dwesa/Kwebe and Mkambati have struggled to set up joint ventures with the
private sector due, in part, to land tenure issues and a lack of community cohesion.
12
INTEGRATING CBNRM INTO UNCCD DESERTIFICATION STRATEGIES
•
In the two South African case studies, the Khonami San and Richtersveld, there have so far been very
modest livelihood impacts, largely as a result of institutional problems in developing land management
practices.
Zimbabwe:
•
Despite wide scale acceptance of CAMPFIRE and its rapid growth, even into areas with limited wildlife
habitat, actual household dividends from the program have been modest and in most instances no
direct household dividends have been paid, the money has been used rather for community level
infrastructure. More recently the trend has been to a greater proportion of dividends being retained by
district councils.
•
Of the dividends that reach the producer community, most are used for community level initiatives and
there is a high degree of transparency and accountability in this process which is a very encouraging
trend (Child et al (2003).
Botswana:
•
94 legal CBO NRM entities exist, 35 of which generate income (IUCN 2006).
•
Revenue from commercial use is estimated at P19.3 million with subsistence in kind income estimated
at P16.2 million in 2005.
•
800 jobs are created, most (520) as joint ventures with the private sector. This only represents about
1.2% of the adult population in CBNRM areas.
•
The Kgetsi ya Tsie project concentrates on veld products. It is estimated that incomes range from P150
to P350 / month / member. It, therefore, represents an additional, but not predominant source of
income, but has allowed members access to material goods that they would otherwise not have
afforded. These benefits are particularly important to disadvantaged and vulnerable groups such as old
woman.
•
The Sankuyo Tshwaragano Management trust has only 372 people as the total population of the village.
CBNRM has been able to provide 102 people with employment opportunities. The trust received
revenues of P7.7 million in the period 2000 – 2005 and provides additional household benefits such as
access to game meat and employment opportunities. Household dividends of P500 per household
where paid in 2005. In addition the trust provides scholarships.
Malawi:
•
During COMPASS 1 (2000 to 2004) US$511 000 worth of community benefits were generated by
participating communities.
•
Beekeeping is expected to increase production of honey from the current 40 tones to 800 tones in
2009.
•
In 2005 fish farmers produced 500 metric tones of fish
•
63 tones of raw baobab material has been supplied to a process facility for processing into oil and
powder in 2006 with cash income going directly into local communities pockets
•
In addition water efficient irrigation practices are being used to a number of high values vegetables and
herbs on 985 smallholder farms.
•
Individual project participants attest to the fact that involvement in the projects has assisted in lifting
them out of poverty and has provided food security. 50% of the 10 000 households targeted where
able to produce adequate food for home consumption and sale.
INTEGRATING CBNRM INTO UNCCD DESERTIFICATION STRATEGIES
13
•
A total of 350 ha of village woodlots and many private woodlots have been established in the BERDO
project.
•
In the SMIF Project, communities have generated income close to MK3.5 million from various
conservation based enterprises such as guinea fowl rearing, Baobab and Tamarind Juice production,
Wines, tree seedling and timber sales, and similar products.
Long term sustainability of CBNRM projects is only likely where the benefits of project participation exceed
the costs. This is further complicated since shared resources are being used and there is always the
possibility of individuals effectively privatizing the commons for their personal gain. This is effectively what
happens with charcoal production in Malawi, where individuals are choosing to continue charcoal
production despite gaining access to alternative livelihoods. Poaching of wildlife is also a mechanism to
“privatise” a shared resource. At present most of the wildlife based projects are reporting a reduction in
poaching which bodes well for longer term success. However, concern is raised that where community
members are receiving very low household benefits, the buy in to these programmes may diminish in time.
3.3 POLICY AND INSTITUTIONAL ACHIEVEMENTS IN
COMBATING DESERTIFICATION
In all case studies CBNRM has had positive impacts on the establishment of local institutional structures for
resource management. This impact is extensively reviewed in Jones (2007 in prep). However, as is the case
with Kgetsi ya Tsie project in Botswana, environmental management is often a low priority issue, with
greater priority on job creation and resource exploitation. Despite this, institutions are gaining a growing
awareness on the importance of sustainable resource management in livelihoods and in some instances this
is leading to changes in other activities such as livestock management.
In the case of the Richtersveld, South Africa, involvement in natural resource planning has been taken up by
the youth and has become a core issue in the local Integrated Development Plans (IDP, a South African
municipal planning process). This is the only case where sustainable land management issues form the centre
of the IDP process (Grossman and Holden, 2007).
The CAMPFIRE experience in Zimbabwe has been particularly successful in establishing functional
democratically elected natural resource management committees. Currently changes in national policy are
likely to erode CAMPFIRE successes. For instance there is a trend back to central government control of
resources and land (Taylor and Murphree, 2007).
CBNRM implementation has almost always been accompanied with some level of awareness raising on
desertification related issues, particularly relating to unsustainable land management practices.
CBNRM initiatives have linked to changes in policy in all Southern African countries. Although specific
CBNRM legislation is not the norm, CBNRM proponents have been responsible for affecting legislation on
resource tenure and the devolution of resource management. The impact of CBNRM on liberalising the
policy environment to promote sustainable community resource management has probably been far
stronger than the impact of the UNCCD on policy at this stage.
The importance of land tenure and devolution of resource use rights remains important, and though all
southern African countries are showing change in this regard, actual land and resource ownership is not the
norm. In some instances such as Botswana and most of the communal land in South Africa there is de facto
open access to resources. In the case of Botswana this is due to the legislative environment, whilst in South
Africa it is due to breakdown of community level institutional structure and unclear policy leadership. In
Namibia the formation of conservancies plays an important role in enhancing tenure control. In the case of
Zimbabwe devolution has been stalled at the level of District Councils. In Botswana, Namibia and
14
INTEGRATING CBNRM INTO UNCCD DESERTIFICATION STRATEGIES
Zimbabwe where hunting is a key driver of CBNRM, the government departments are responsible for
setting of quotas, and CBNRM institutions have varying access to this process.
INTEGRATING CBNRM INTO UNCCD DESERTIFICATION STRATEGIES
15
4. CASE STUDIES OF SADC
COUNTRIES LINKS BETWEEN THE
UNCCD AND CBNRM
There is a SADC level Sub-regional Action Program (SRAP) for the UNCCD as well as individual national
action programmes (NAPs) for individual countries. Of the five selected case studies, Botswana only
finalised its NAP in September 2006 and Namibia has never produced a formalised NAP, despite having
one of the most formalised desertification strategies. Malawi, South Africa and Zimbabwe have all produced
NAP documents. This Section reviews the SRAP and each countries NAP as well as the countries reports
to the UNCCD CRICs to identify synergies between the NAPs and CBNRM. Each NAP and National
Report is assessed for direct links to CBNRM programmes. In addition the NAPs and reports are assessed
against the CBNRM criteria as given in Section 3.
4.1 SADC
The SADC Sub-Regional Action Program (SRAP) was prepared by SADC Elms and presented to the
UNCCD in 1997. The SRAP does not explicitly analyse the degradation priorities of the SADC region, but
states “over-cultivation, overgrazing and deforestation have previously been identified as the three major
causes of desertification in the sub-region, they are in fact the result of much deeper underlying forces of a
socio-economic nature, the most obvious and intuitively discernible causes consist of major ecosystem
changes, such as land conversion for various purposes, and a general over-dependence on natural
resources”.
The SRAP identifies the following seven key intervention areas, none of which directly relate to CBNRM,
though CBNRM could conceivably be a component of intervention three below:
1. Capacity Building and Institutional Strengthening,
2. Strengthening of Early Warning Systems,
3. Cooperation in the Sustainable Management of Shared Natural Resources and Ecosystems,
4. Information Collection, Management and Exchange,
5. Development and Transfer of Appropriate Technology to the Community Level,
6. Development of Alternative Sources of Energy, and
7. Socio-economic Issues (of which land resource rights is identified).
The SADC SRAP does not explicitly or implicitly draw a link between desertification and CBNRM, and with
the exception of highlighting land resource rights as a component of socio-economic issues, does not
highlight any of the key CBNRM principles such as land tenure, devolution of ownership and/or
management, community institutional structures. It does however stress the need to deal with the
underlying causes of desertification and what it terms the overdependence on natural resources. It sees
many of these resulting from policy failure. As such it supports the same rationale underpinning many
CBNRM projects.
INTEGRATING CBNRM INTO UNCCD DESERTIFICATION STRATEGIES
17
In terms of programmes it links to the The Kalahari-Namib Action Plan that incorporates aspects of CBNRM.
In the SADC reports to the CRICs the reports mention community based transboundary resource
management, the WWF CBNRM programmes and community based management of indigenous forests as
projects being undertaken to combat desertification, all of which can be seen, at least in part, as CBNRM
programmes.
4.2 BOTSWANA
Botswana developed a draft NAP in 2002 and the finalised NAP was presented to the UNCCD in October
2006, making it the most up-to-date NAP in the region. One benefit of its recent origin is that it takes
climate change into consideration more than in any of the other regional NAPs. The NAP, quoting the state
of the environment report identifies three types of degradation, bare soils degraded areas (28 592 km2);
partially degraded areas (35 159 km2) and bush encroached areas (37 141 km2), this equates to one sixth
of the land area. The communal areas which account for 70% of the country are considered to be the areas
most susceptible to degradation, though the NAP recognises that the actual causes of degradation require
greater research. The seminars undertaken during NAP development identified the following as the causes
of land degradation. These are overgrazing, veldt fires, drought, soil erosion, deforestation, population
growth, indiscriminate allocation of arable lands in unsuitable areas, sand river mining, loss of cultural values,
decline in land productivity, increased exploitation of veldt products and lack of alternative livelihoods. The
seminars also identified poverty, lack of community empowerment, inadequate capacity among stakeholders,
lack of coordination among stakeholders, lack of financial resources and dearth of researched information in
the field of land degradation in Botswana as indirect causes of land degradation.
The CBNRM program is highlighted as an approach under the policy section (even though the CBNRM
policy is still in draft form). CBNRM as presented in the NAP is a broad based approach to resource
management and not specifically linked to wildlife management. In addition the NAP identifies CBNRM as
the core strategy in the National Forestry Policy for sustainable forest management. It emphasises the need
to move away from reliance on agriculture due to the vulnerability of agriculture to climate. It also promotes
the use and commercialisation of indigenous plant products. Although the human wildlife conflict is
highlighted as well as the need for both sustainable agriculture and tourism, the use of CBNRM as a
mechanism to achieve this is excluded from this section. Devolution of wildlife ownership is also not
explicitly proposed. The concept of equitable benefit sharing of natural resources is highlighted through
reference to the National biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan. The NAP refers specifically to the
Community Based Strategy for Rural Development which broad framework is encompassing all forms of
community based initiatives including those relating to natural resources utilization and any other activity
that communities may venture into.
18
INTEGRATING CBNRM INTO UNCCD DESERTIFICATION STRATEGIES
Table 2. Identifies key activities and output for NAP implementation.
The following are identified as having direct CBNRM relevance
(original numbering is maintained from the NAP)
Objective
3. To facilitate capacity building for stakeholders involved in
combating desertification and mitigating effects of drought.
Activity
3.1 Train stakeholders on participatory approaches for the
conservation and sustainable utilization of natural resources.
3.2 Develop and support training programmes to facilitate the
participation of the youth, women and disadvantaged groups.
3.3 Build capacity of communities to help combat
desertification.
4. To facilitate establishment of alternative livelihoods projects
particularly for people living in marginal and degraded areas.
4.1 Identify alternative livelihood projects.
8. To ensure effective participation of all stakeholders
particularly women, in decision making processes and
implementation of the National Action Programme.
8.1 Create effective partnerships with all stakeholders,
particularly women.
4.2 Disseminate information on alternative livelihoods
projects/programmes.
8.2 Review roles / functions of stakeholders regularly and
incorporate emerging issues in the consultative framework.
8.3 Provide information to all stakeholders to facilitate their
effective participation in national action programmes.
9. To control and prevent land degradation.
9.5 Promote participatory land use planning.
9.6 Empower local communities to manage natural resources
in their areas.
In the Botswana reports to the UNCCD the Community Based Natural Resources Management Policy
(CBNRMP) and Community Based Strategy for Rural Development (CBSRD) are highlighted as
components of Botswana’s desertification strategy. Both these strategies have elements that are supportive
of CBNRM principles.
The NAP identifies a number of current programs, which include CBNRM as it relates both to wildlife
management and other veld products as projects currently on the ground relating to combating
desertification.
4.3 MALAWI
The Malawi NAP identifies extreme poverty, high population pressure and a very high reliance of the
population on the natural resource base as the main causes of desertification in Malawi. The NAP provides
a number of symptoms of desertification, but it is not clear if these are generic or specific to Malawi.
•
Reduction of yield or crop failure in irrigated or rainfed farmland;
•
Reduction of perennial plant cover and biomass produced by rangeland and the consequent depletion
of food availability to livestock;
•
Reduction of available woody biomass and the consequent extension of distance to sources of
fuelwood or building material;
•
Reduction of available water due to decreasing of river flow or groundwater resources;
•
Encroachment of sand that may overwhelm productive land, settlements or transport and
communications systems;
INTEGRATING CBNRM INTO UNCCD DESERTIFICATION STRATEGIES
19
•
Increased flooding, sedimentation of water bodies, water and air pollution. Societal disruption due to
deterioration of life-support systems that calls for outside help (relief aid) or that prompts people to
seek haven elsewhere (the phenomenon of environmental refugees).
The Malawi NAP identifies 15 broad areas of intervention of which two can be seen as having direct
relevance to CBNRM these are:
4: Promote community based forest/natural resource management activities and promote
alternative sources of income activities for the people that engage in exploiting natural resources
like selling wood.
8. Define proper policies for managing natural resources and implement them at national level -this
includes coming up with subsidiary legislation for the legislation already in place.
The Malawi NAP has identified various organizations and donor agencies which are directly or indirectly
involved in the UNCCD initiative in the country. For example, there are a number of funded community
based natural resource management micro-projects of relevance to the NAP in areas such as beekeeping;
tree seedling production, (fruit) tree planting, agroforestry, establishment of village forest areas, woodlots
and seed banks; aquaculture, guinea fowl and goat rearing; vegetable production; and mats and baskets
production. These have been supported by Donor Agencies such as JICA, EU, FINIDA, DANIDA, USAID,
GTZ,and ADB; and NGOs such as the Wildlife and Environmental Society of Malawi, the Malawi
Environment Endowment Trust, and the Mulanje Mountain Conservation Trust; and the Government
(Malawi Government, 2004).
Both the COMPASS-USAID project and the SMIF-GTZ Project are highlighted in national reports to the
UNCCD as a history of CBNRM projects that have been initiated in Malawi. The SMIF Project is listed as
the first top ten UNNCD related project, while the COMPASS Project does not appear under the top ten
UNNCD related projects (Malawi Government, 2004).
4.4 NAMIBIA
Namibia’s National Program to Combat Desertification (NAPCOD) was established in 1994, and this
predated the UNCCD. This program had external funding from 1994 until 2004. NAPCOD officially ended
in 2004 after which the Ministry of Environment and Tourism (MET) decided to incorporate some of these
activities into the GEF Country Pilot Partnership (CPP), which will put environmental issues under one
umbrella. A new GTZ program (2005 -2008), Biodiversity Management and Land Support Program
(BMSLP) currently supports the work done under NAPCOD phase III, with regard to ecological restoration
of degraded lands in pilot areas, this program also worked closely with the recently Bush Encroachment
Project to work on the results provided by these studies.
In Namibia the NAPCOD replaced the more conventional NAP development process and framed
Namibia’s implementation strategy. As a consequence of this Namibia never developed a formal NAP
document.
NAPCOD identified bush encroachment, deforestation, overgrazing, soil erosion, salination and
deterioration of rangelands as contribution to the desertification of Namibia and identifies the direct and
indirect causes of Namibia’s desertification as including:
•
Too many people and livestock in one place for too long, contributing to overgrazing and deforestation;
•
Inappropriate provision of artificial water points;
•
Absentee farm management;
•
Inappropriate fencing in dry areas;
20
INTEGRATING CBNRM INTO UNCCD DESERTIFICATION STRATEGIES
•
Rapidly increasing human population;
•
Lack of consideration for low and variable rainfall;
•
International policies and economics;
•
Urban populations -directly and indirectly; and
•
Social and socio-economic factors, especially poverty.
The main objectives of the final phase of the programme where to:
•
Establish national-level and local-level monitoring systems to track desertification,
•
Strengthen the capacity of selected community based organizations that support them to implement
sustainable natural resource management,
•
Improve the frame conditions for sustainable natural resource management practices,
•
Share NAPCOD experiences with regional, SADC and international desertification partners, and
•
Develop the capacity to operate and manage NAPCOD.
Namibia’s reports to the UNCCD highlight CBNRM as one of its key implementation strategies, though
little detail is given, and it only links the term of CBNRM to wildlife specific projects, whilst many other
projects seem to fall under a more generalised definition of CBNRM as is the case in Malawi. The
NAPCOD uses what they term the Forum for Integrated Resource Management (FIRM) approach for much
of their planning, which is a community level planning tool and could be seen as a component of CBNRM
implementation in many circumstances.
4.5 SOUTH AFRICA
South Africa has undertaken an initial assessment of the extent and types of land degradation (Hoffman and
Ashwell 2001), and the results of this are used in quantifying land degradation in the NAP. The so-called
homeland areas in particular showed high levels of degradation, and in many instances the types of
degradation experienced within homelands differed from the types of degradation experienced outside of
the homelands. For instance homelands are suffering from loss of cover and deforestation whilst private
ranches have problems with bush encroachment. Based on this the NAP recognises land degradation as
summarised in Table 5.
INTEGRATING CBNRM INTO UNCCD DESERTIFICATION STRATEGIES
21
Table 3. Forms of land degradation in South Africa from the South African NAP
Forms of land degradation
Soil degradation: water erosion
Soil degradation: wind erosion
Non-erosive soil degradation: salinisation, acidification, water-logging, loss of fertility
Veld degradation including:
ƒ Loss of cover
ƒ Bush encroachment
ƒ Alien plant invasion
ƒ Change in composition of plant species
ƒ Deforestation and
ƒ Clearing of veldt
Loss of biodiversity
Increased social, economic and environmental vulnerability to drought
Loss of rural livelihood opportunities
Feedback between climate and land, which affects natural resources degradation including degradation of water resources
South Africa has a set of Community Based Natural Resource Management Guidelines, and these are
promoted through the NAP for community level natural resource management.
The NAP identifies three programs for NAP implementation, piloting of a community planning package,
aforestation and renewable energy. The planning package specifically relates to the use of CBNRM
principles. CBNRM as used in the South African NAP is far broader than the wildlife based CBNRM of
Zimbabwe, Botswana and Namibia.
No 2004 report from South Africa to the CRIC is available on the UNCCD web site, so only results from
the 1999 and 2002 reports are considered, both predating the NAP.
CBNRM and South Africa’s CBNRM achievements are not specifically highlighted in the reporting. A few
programs that have CBNRM elements are, however, mentioned and these include community forestry
programmes and the LandCare program. In addition, the Desert Margins Initiative is mentioned which also
has aspects of CBNRM. Though not mentioned in current reporting, DEAT is currently funding three
CBNRM project under the Expanded Public Works Program (EPWP, a poverty relief fund) that are
addressing land degradation in Limpopo, Eastern Cape and Mpumalanga Provinces.
Since adoption of the NAP by Cabinet, South Africa has developed the Resource Mobilization Strategy to
mobilize resources for the implementation of NAP related projects. And DEAT is on the verge of finalizing
the Tripartite Agreement between Global Mechanism and DBSA on "Rehabilitating Drylands for Poverty
Alleviation Fund" i.e. a Desertification fund, which include, among other things, each party contributing
1million for the first three years. This will give effect to the findings of Resource Mobilization Strategy of
which one of them is for government (through DEAT) to have an account with an independent financial
institution so that private sector can contribute monies relating to address the latter.
22
INTEGRATING CBNRM INTO UNCCD DESERTIFICATION STRATEGIES
4.6 ZIMBABWE
The Zimbabwe NAP states, “The single biggest problem which is being addressed by the NAP process is
that of land degradation. This is mainly as a result of climatic and human activities. The human factors of land
degradation in Zimbabwe include: excessive concentrations of human and livestock populations in ecological
marginal areas, poor agricultural practices, gold panning, poverty and deforestation which is a result of overdependence on trees for livelihood by rural communities”. The Zimbabwe NAP more than any of the other
regional NAPS highlights the importance of the impacts of communal tenure on resource degradation
including highlighting the breakdown of traditional resource management structures. It recognizes that
desertification problems are most severe in communal areas.
The following are given as the priority areas for project implementation:
•
Water resource provision,
•
Energy provision,
•
Provision of alternative livelihoods,
•
Education, public awareness and capacity building,
•
Land rehabilitation, and
•
Environmental information system for the NAP.
Within the land sector the NAP highlights adopting community approaches like CAMPFIRE and the setting
up of local level rule making.
The 1999 and 2002 national reports do not make mention of CAMPFIRE or CBNRM in general. The 2004
report makes extensive references to CAMPFIRE, SAFIRE and general community resource management.
However achievements gained through CAMPFIRE initiatives are not highlighted or quantified, other than
giving the number of districts in which CAMPFIRE has been implemented. In fact problems experienced by
CAMPFIRE get more attention than successes.
INTEGRATING CBNRM INTO UNCCD DESERTIFICATION STRATEGIES
23
5. ALIGNMENT OF NAPS WITH
CBNRM INITIATIVES
Despite the apparent close alignment between CBNRM and the UNCCD, the level to which CBNRM is
highlighted in regional and country NAP strategies, and the degree to which CBNRM achievements is
acknowledged in UNCCD reporting is varied, but typically quite low in southern Africa, and almost nonexistent in the SADC SRAP. NAPs and the SRAP tend to highlight the importance of social-economic
factors underpinning land degradation, but seldom unpick this to the level of detail that is used as the basis
for CBNRM implementation. Though the constraints proposed by communal land ownership are picked up
in some NAPs (e.g. Zimbabwe and South Africa), the steps needed to tackle communal management of
resources are not spelt out.
This difference in detail between NAPs and CBNRM is possibly best explained by the different level of focus
of the two processes. NAPs are a national strategy and therefore place priorities on national issues such as
policy, fund raising, national coordination and inter-governmental alignment. The SRAP looks at SADC wide
issues and issues that are best tackled on a multi-country basis. By contrast CBNRM focused on direct
project interventions, looking at details of how sustainable management gets implemented at the community
level. The NAPs also cover a far wider sphere of issues than CBNRM which has a specific focus on
community based resource management. The fact that CBNRM is not highlighted as an implementation
strategy in many of the NAPs, and is poorly reported in most country reports does, however, indicate poor
contact between CBNRM initiatives and the UNCCD country and regional processes. One reason for this
may be that CBNRM in southern Africa has tended to be strongly aligned with the biodiversity convention
for historical funding reasons. A number of the UNCCD focal points agreed that CBNRM implementation is
far wider than covered in the reports. In some instances it seems that community based approaches are
taken for granted, though the low level of tenure and resource devolution indicates that even where
community participation is taken for granted, the full policy prerequisites necessary its implementation are
not.
Each NAP was reviewed to see if it directly addressed or spoke to the nine CBNRM principles identified in
Section 4. In addition NAPs were looked at to see if they directly included CBNRM as a component of their
strategy, whether they saw community tourism as a strategy and if they directly aimed to tackle
deforestation. Results of this analysis are presented in Table 6 and discussed below.
INTEGRATING CBNRM INTO UNCCD DESERTIFICATION STRATEGIES
25
yes 1
Malawi
yes
yes 10
yes
Namibia
yes
Yes 10
South Africa
yes
Zimbabwe
yes
Community level monitoring
and evaluation
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
?3
yes
yes
yes
yes
?3
yes
yes
yes
?9
yes 7
yes
yes
yes 4
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
Yes 10
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
Yes 10
yes
?2
as far a
RDCS
yes
yes
Benefit sharing livelihood
enhancement
Resource management
planning (community)
Recognition of traditional
knowledge
development of local
institutional
Devolution of land tenure
yes
Tackling deforestation
Botswana
yes 8
Community based tourism
yes
CBNRM/ CBFM
SADC
Natural resource based
Devolution of resource
management
Community based
Table 4. Results of analysis done of “links” between the NAPs of 5 SADC countries
reviewed and the CBNRM and its principles
yes
5
1. Community based rural development strategy.
2. Talks to a policy of redistribution, but not of tenure security.
3. Though it might be implied, this is not specifically highlighted.
4. Implied since mention is made of communities developing plans, manage and monitor.
5. The suggestion is made that IKS can be used for monitoring.
6. Refers to participatory monitoring techniques.
7. Refers to land resource rights.
8. Refers to this in relation to the Kalahari-Namibia action plan.
9. Despite mention, the issue of devolution of resource management is not picked up as a clear
strategy for sustainable resource use.
Not surprisingly, all NAPs and the SRAP acknowledge that desertification is related to the natural resource
base. In general all the documents imply the need for restoration or improvement of the natural resource
base and development of mechanisms for its long term sustainable use. All NAPs, but not the SRAP also at
some level acknowledge community involvement in resource management. Most of the NAPs specifically
speak of Community Based Natural Resource Management / Forestry Management at least somewhere in
the document. In the case of Botswana this is both directly and through links to the community based
strategy for rural development, about which no detail is given. Despite links been made to community based
resource management in all the NAPs but not the SRAP, most NAPs pay relatively little attention to this
and provide limited or no detail on what might be involved. The South African NAP makes specific
reference to utilisation of the South African CBNRM guidelines in project implementation.
26
INTEGRATING CBNRM INTO UNCCD DESERTIFICATION STRATEGIES
Despite the majority of land in the SADC region (with the exception of South Africa) being communal land,
there is surprisingly little mention in the NAPs on what is needed for UNCCD implementation on land used
communally.
It is clear that in some reporting (e.g. Namibia), that the term CBNRM is seen as a term applicable only to
Wildlife management initiatives. This despite, the fact that CBNRM practitioners in Namibia may view it
more broadly. In all but Malawi many projects that seem to have many aspects of CBNRM are not
categorised as such in NAP reporting. By contrast in Malawi CBNRM projects cover a wide range of both
natural resource and agricultural issues, with low focus on wildlife and conservation. In none of the national
reports (with the possible exception of Namibia) is CBNRM highlighted as one of the key national strategies
for countering desertification.
Regarding devolution of resource tenure and resource management, land and tenure reform is mentioned
in a number of the NAPs and this is an ongoing process in a number of the countries. Malawi also highlights
that traditional tenure can provide good long term security to land and that titled tenure is not always
needed for sustainable management (referring largely to agricultural use). The specific strategy of devolution
of resource use and management as a tool to achieve sustainable resource management was not clear from
any of the NAPs.
All NAPs considered alternative incomes and livelihoods as important. However none of the NAPs made
the specific link with resource sharing that is a key principle of CBNRM philosophy. In a few cases use of
tourism as an alternative land use is mentioned. Most NAPs provide no specific information on what
alterative livelihood opportunities are envisaged.
The importance of developing local resource management institutions differed between countries, and in
some of the NAPs was implied rather than stated specifically. Though all NAPs speak of institutions and
institution strengthening, in most cases it was not always apparent if this would be down to the level of local
institutions. In most cases institutional strengthening seemed to be implied more for national or regional
level institution and state institutions rather then local community institutions. In the Zimbabwe case it was
made clear that local institutions would be at the level of Regional District Councils.
The development of Community Resource Management plans was either explicit or inferred in most NAPs,
though was missing from the Malawi NAP and SADC SRAP.
CBNRM principles were not found to conflict with national UNCCD strategies. The level to which NAPs
and National Report directly linked to CBNRM initiatives or principles was, however, relatively low.
Although CBNRM was mentioned in some NAPs and inferred in most, it was seldom highlighted as a
central approach (South Africa being a possible exception). In most instances links to CBNRM were inferred
rather than explicit. Some aspects of CBNRM such as resource sharing was absent in all NAPs.
CBNRM would seem to fully adhere to the principles of UNCCD implementation in the SADC region,
though in some countries NAP priority interventions do not make specific provision in their implementation
strategy of sustainable natural resource management projects. Though on the ground implementation of
sustainable resource management is clearly the overall objective of NAPs, specific mention to implementing
these types of projects is an oversight in many of the NAPs implementation priorities. This is seen as a
shortcoming of the NAPs, which in most cases have only given superficial detail on what is required for
implementation. In country reporting there seems to be a tendency of countries to latch on to a few
initiatives that are seen as specific desertification initiatives, and to not report on a large number of other
initiatives that may be achieving UNCCD objectives, but that have not been specifically labelled as
desertification initiatives
Though CBNRM can easily be seen as fitting in with the UNCCD principles, it is clear that the UNCCD is
far wider than CBNRM and incorporates many aspects of natural resource management that fall outside of
CBNRM. Though CBNRM may have many synergies with the biodiversity convention, and may in many
INTEGRATING CBNRM INTO UNCCD DESERTIFICATION STRATEGIES
27
instances have been funded through biodiversity funds, there is no reason why all aspects of CBNRM
implementation cannot be considered as components of a UNCCD strategy.
The level to which the sub-regions CBNRM achievements were highlighted in UNCCD reporting was very
disappointing, and though mentioned or inferred in all instances, no reporting specifically quantifies CBNRM
achievements.
28
INTEGRATING CBNRM INTO UNCCD DESERTIFICATION STRATEGIES
6. RECOMMENDATION ON
ENHANCING LINKAGES
CBNRM is clearly well aligned to the objectives of the UNCCD, and CBNRM implementation should be
considered as one amongst many strategies being undertaken by southern African countries in fulfilling their
obligation to the UNCCD. CBNRM when used in its broader sense is the strategy for managing resources
on communal land. In the southern African context it is often used with a more focus meaning relating
specifically to community based wildlife management in the case of Botswana, Namibia, South Africa and
Zimbabwe, while in Malawi it used in the broader sense. Both usages of the term CBNRM have potential as
desertification strategies, but the more focused wildlife based CBNRM is likely to be more restrictive in
where it can be applied.
It is clear from the case studies that CBNRM is not well represented by the SADC countries in their
reporting to the UNCCD, and that much of the learning from 20 or more years of CBNRM implementation
is poorly integrated into UNCCD strategies. The unique complexities of communal land management,
though highlighted in many NAPs, receive very limited consideration in the NAPs when it comes to specific
implementation strategies.
The case studies also indicate that CBNRM is not a panacea for solving all rural development problems. In
most cases CBNRM provides an important additional income, particularly in agriculturally marginal areas, but
is seldom, if ever, enough to fully support rural livelihoods. In many cases the income per household is very
limited. It does, however, have the potential for providing a more sustainable flow of benefits than
inappropriate agricultural practices that may lead to long term resource depletion and degradation.
Broadening CBNRM to cover a wider set of resources including livestock management and even agriculture
into a holistic livelihoods process as has been done in Malawi would is seen as a way of increasing the
benefit flows from CBNRM project implementation.
The following recommendations are made to forge greater synergy between CBNRM and the UNCCD
national initiatives, and to enhance the implementation of the UNCCD objectives of countering
desertification.
1) The CBNRM community needs to actively engage with National and regional UNCCD processes. The
successes that have been achieved in both enhancement of rural livelihoods and in the reduction of
desertification need to be highlighted as well as the criteria for success. In this regard National CBNRM
projects need to proactively provide information of successes to the UNCCD focal point in time for
including in National UNCCD progress reports.
2) Where CBNRM projects or programmes propose an alternative land use (such as wildlife management
and tourism) it needs to demonstrate that this is both an environmentally and a socio-economically better
land use for the region than competing land uses. Understanding impacts particularly on the poor is
important.
3) CBNRM has often been assessed in terms of its contribution to biodiversity conservation, and in this
regard it has been questioned as a cost effective strategy. However, its achievements in preventing
desertification or in developing human livelihoods is not as well researched or documented, and it is
important not to confuse successes in terms of biodiversity conservation with successes in terms of CBNRM
being an appropriate strategy for sustainable natural resource management. Effective monitoring and
evaluation on both the environmental and social-economic impacts of project implementation is needed.
INTEGRATING CBNRM INTO UNCCD DESERTIFICATION STRATEGIES
29
4) In many situations CBNRM has taken an exclusively wildlife and nature conservation focus, CBNRM
initiatives should be broadened into considering the totality of natural resource management in the project
communities. It also needs to consider how wildlife management fits with the rest of the communities’
diverse natural resource based and other livelihood strategies. CBNRM in its broader sense is simply the
strategy for management of shared natural resources in areas of communal tenure, and since most of
southern Africa is communal tenure, CBNRM should be the core to UNCCD implementation in these
areas.
5) It seems that CBNRM activities have typically been conducted under the banner of the UN Convention
of Biodiversity. National and international advocacy is needed by the CBNRM community to show that
although CBNRM may have been funded in the past through Biodiversity funding, that it is equally a strategy
for countering or reversing desertification. This is both true for CBNRM as a wildlife management strategy
(where appropriate) and in its broader sense.
6) It is important to understanding what CBNRM model will work in different circumstances. Wildlife based
CBNRM is only applicable in some circumstances. Selecting the correct set of natural resource interventions
needs to be project specific. A broader understanding is needed to guide practitioners in this regard.
7) Understanding the core drivers of poor land management in communal area is core to both UNCCD
and CBNRM success. In particular both initiatives need to work together on developing an appropriate
legislative environment that enables locally sustainable land management. Though legislative reform is clearly
an objective in UNCCD implementation, the CBNRM experience on necessary conditions for sustainable
community resource management does not seem to be effectively shared with UNCCD initiatives. The
legislative environment in all the case study countries falls short of what is required to fully support
community based land and resource management.
8) NAPs, by their nature, are a very broad brush approach to the Nation’s desertification problems, and as
such they lack detail on how their objectives can be implemented. Development of NAPs was an initial
commitment from signatories to the UNCCD, but the focus needs to move from national planning to local
implementation. In this regard the learning from CBNRM implementation could be of great benefit to the
national and international UNCCD process. In particular Land tenure and full devolution of community
ownership of natural resources remains as critical constraint to sustainable land management on communal
areas in all of the investigated countries. Tackling this policy issue would greatly benefit both CBNRM and
UNCCD implementation.
9) Mechanisms to understand tradeoffs between different environmental goods and services needs
additional research. In many instances increased food production is traded off against other regulatory
services. Use and promotion of wildlife requires tradeoffs with conventional agricultural and livestock
practices. Better understanding of the true costs of these tradeoffs is required for appropriate decision
making on alternative land use options. Understanding these tradeoffs may well favour CBNRM over other
land uses. Perverse agricultural subsidies may further skew these tradeoffs.
10) Resilience of land use options in a period of climate change has been poorly investigated. It is very
possible that a natural resource based / wildlife based livelihood strategy may have far greater resilience than
a crop or livestock based strategy. CBNRM is therefore not only a strategy for countering desertification,
but may equally be a strategy for adapting to the impacts of climatically driven desertification. The
implications on appropriate land management strategies given climate change is not currently explored in
the existing NAPs, but is likely to be a critical issue in the future given current climate change scenarios for
the sub-region.
30
INTEGRATING CBNRM INTO UNCCD DESERTIFICATION STRATEGIES
7. REFERENCES
Acocks, J.P.H. 1953. Veld Types of South Africa. Memoirs of the Botanical Survey of South Africa. 8: 1 –
128.
Adeel, Z., Safriel, U., Niemeijer, D and R. White. 2005. Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Desertification
Synthesis. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. World Resources Institute, Washington, DC.
Arntzen, J, Setlhogileand and I. Barnes. 2007b. The impacts of CBNRM on livelihoods, poverty reduction and
food security: what does it contribute and are there alternatives? IUCN/ USAID FRAME.
Arntzen, J. Buzwani, B. Kgathi, L. Setlhogile, T and M. Motsholapheko. 2007a. Botswana case study. IUCN/
USAID FRAME.
Bruce, J., Fortmann, L. and Nhira. C. 1993. Tenure in Transition, Tenures in Conflict: Examples from the
Zimbabwe Social Forest. Rural Sociology. 58.
Balmford, A. .L. Moore, T. Brooks, N. Burgess, L.A. Hansen, P.H. Williams & C. Rahbek. 2001. Conservation
Conflicts across Africa. Science 291: 2616-19.
Bonan GD, D Pollard and S.l. Thompson. 1992. Effects of boreal forest vegetation on global climate. Nature
359, 716 – 718.
Bond, I. B. Child, D. de la Harpe, B. Jones, J. Barnes and H. Anderson. 2004. Private land contribution to
conservation in South Africa. In Child, B. ed. Parks in Transition, Biodiversity, Rural Development
and the Bottom Line. IUCN, SASUSG and Earthscan, London, Sterling. VA.
Child, B. 1988. The role of wildlife utilization in the sustainable development of semi-arid rangelands in
Zimbabwe. DPhil thesis, Oxford University.
Child 2005 In: Lyman, M and Child, B. Natural Resources as Community Assets -Lessons from Two
Continents. Sand Country Foundation & Aspen Institute. www.sandcounty.net/assets/index.htm
Claussen M, V Brovkin, A Ganopolski, C Kubatzki1 and V Petoukhov. 2003. Climate change in northern
Africa: the past is not the future Climatic Change 57: 99–118
Fabricius, C., E. Koch, H. Maome and S. Turner, Eds. 2004. Rights, Resources & Rural Development.
Community Based Natural Resource Management in Southern Africa. Earthscan. London. Sterling
VA.
GEF, 2003a, Sustainable land management. Operational Program 15. Global Environment Facility,
Washington DC.
Geist 2005. The causes and progression of desertification.
Giannini, A., Biasutti, M., Held, I.M. and A.H. Sobel. 2006. A global climate systems perspective on African
environmental change. Kluwer Academic Publishers. Netherlands.
http://www.appmath.columbia.edu/users/sobel/Papers/africa_ccSep01.pdf
Grossman, D. and P. Holden, 2007. Case studies on successful southern African NRM initiatives and their
impacts on poverty and governance: South Africa. IUCN/ USAID FRAME.
Hoffman M. T. & Ashwell A. 2001. Nature divided. Land degradation in South Africa. University of Cape
Town Press, Cape Town.
INTEGRATING CBNRM INTO UNCCD DESERTIFICATION STRATEGIES
31
IPCC. 2001. Climate Change the Scientific Basis. Contribution of working group 1 to the third assessment
report of the integrated panel on climate Change. JT Houghton, Y Ding, DJ Griggs, M Noguer, PJ
van der Linden, X Dai, K Maskell and CA Johnson (eds.). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,
United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 881pp.
Jones, B. 2006. Synthesis report. IUCN/ USAID FRAME.
Jones,B. and A. Mosimane, 2007. Promoting integrated natural resource management as a means to combat
desertification; the LIFE project and Namibian CBNRM. IUCN/ USAID FRAME.
Lambin, E.F. 1997. Modelling and monitoring land-cover change processes in tropical regions. Progress in
Physical Geography 21, 375-393.
Malawi Government (September 2004). The Third Malawi National Report on the Implementation of the
United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification.
Mauambeta, D.D.C, H.Mwalukomo and R.P.G. Kafakoma, 2007. CBNRM in Malawi: the case of Bwanje
Environmental Rural development Organisation and Kam’mwamba sustainable management of
indigenous forests project. IUCN/ USAID FRAME.
Mermut, A.R. and Eswaran, H. Some major developments in soil science since mid-1960s. Geoderma 100:
403-426.
Mortimorea, M. and B. Turner. 2005. Does the Sahelian smallholder’s management of woodland, farm trees,
rangeland support the hypothesis of human-induced desertification. Journal of Arid Environments
63: 567–595.
Nobre CA., PJ. Sellers and J Shukla. 1991. Amazonian Deforestation and Regional Climate Change. Journal of
Climate: 4, 957–988.
Pielke Sr., RA., G Marland, RA Betts, TN Chase, JL Eastman, JO Niles, D Niyogi, and SW Running. 2002. The
influence of land-use change and landscape dynamics on the climate system—relevance to climate
change policy beyond the radiative effect of greenhouse gases. Philos. Trans. A 1797, 1705–1719.
Reynolds, J.F. Stafford-Smith, D.M. and E. Lambin. 2003. Do humans cause deserts? An old problem through
the lens of a new framework: the Dahlem Desertification paradigm. In: Allsopp, N, Palmer, A.R.,
Milton, S.J. Kirkman, K.P., Kerley, G.I.H., Hurt C.R., and C.j. Brown (Eds) Proceedings of the VIIth
International Rangelands Congress 26th July . 1st August 2003, Durban, South Africa.
Scholes, R.J. and R. Biggs. eds., 2004. The regional scale component of the Southern African Millennium
Ecosystem Assessment. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. CSIR. Pretoria. South Africa.
Shackleton, C and Campbell, B. Empowering communities to manage natural resources: Case studies from
Southern Africa. SADC Natural Resources Management Programme and CSIR.
Swift J. 1996. Desertification: Narratives, winners and losers. In: The lie of the land: Challenging received
wisdom on the African environment, edited by Leach, M. and Mearns R. James Currey. Oxford.
Taylor, R.D. and M.W.Murphree, 2007. Case studies on successful southern African NRM inititatives and
their impact on poverty and governance: Masoka and Gairesi case studies Zimbabwe. IUCN/
USAID FRAME.
Thomas, D.S.G. 1995. Science and the desertification debate. Journal of Arid Environments 37: 599–608.
32
INTEGRATING CBNRM INTO UNCCD DESERTIFICATION STRATEGIES
Tiffen, M., Mortimore, M. and Gichuki, F. (1994) More People, Less Erosion.Environmental Recovery in
Kenya, Nairobi: ACTS Press.
Turner, S. 2004. A crisis in CBNRM? Affirming the commons in southern Africa. Centre for International Cooperation, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam. Paper to be presented at the 10th IASCP Conference,
Oaxaca, 9-13 August 2004.
United Nations. 1997. Convention to Combat Desertification. Interim Secretariat for the Convention to
Combat Desertification (CCD). Geneva.
UNEP/GRID-Arendal. Global soil degradation. UNEP/GRID-Arendal Maps and Graphics Library. 1997.
Available at: http://maps.grida.no/go/graphic/global_soil_degradation. Accessed December 12, 2006
UNEP/GRID-Arendal. Aridity Zones. UNEP/GRID-Arendal Maps and Graphics Library. 2002. Available at:
http://maps.grida.no/go/graphic/aridity_zones. Accessed December 12, 2006.
von Maltitz, G,P., Versfeld, D. Matela, S. Sulaiman, A. Oettle, N. Koelle, B. and Critchley, W. 1998. Soil and
water conservation: an audit of South African approaches and activities. Department of Water
Affairs and Forestry, Pretoria.
Winslow, M., Shapiro, B.I., Thomas, R. and Shetty, S.V.R. 2004. Desertification, drought poverty and
agriculture: research lessons and opportunities. Aleppo, Syria; Patancheru, India; and Rome, Italy:
joint publication of the International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas (ICARDA),
the International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT), and the UNCCD
Global Mechanism (GM). 52 pp.
INTEGRATING CBNRM INTO UNCCD DESERTIFICATION STRATEGIES
33
APPENDIX 1. OVERVIEW OF
DESERTIFICATION AND THE
UNCCDS RESPONSE STRATEGY
The UNCCD defines desertification as “land degradation in arid, semi-arid and dry sub-humid areas
resulting from various factors, including climatic variations and human activities”. It goes on to define land
degradation as “the reduction or loss of the biological or economic productivity and complexity of rainfed
croplands, irrigated croplands, or range, pasture, forest and woodlands resulting from land uses or from a
combination of processes including processes arising from human activity and habitat patterns, such as:
•
Soil erosion caused by wind and water;
•
Deterioration of the physical, chemical and biological or economic properties of soil; and
•
Long term loss of natural vegetation (UNCCD 1997).
It is important to note that the area covered by the UNCCD includes tropical areas with up to about 800
mm of yearly rainfall, and not just areas conventionally seen as deserts. It includes arid, semi-arid and dry
sub-humid areas which are defined on the basis of their ratio of precipitation to potential evaporation (see
Table 1). These areas are collectively referred to as drylands. As such most of Southern Africa is included
(see map in Figure 1), and for practical purposes the UNCCD can be considered as applying to all of South
Africa, Botswana, Lesotho, Malawi, Swaziland, Mozambique, Zimbabwe and Namibia, most of Tanzania, and
the southern portions of Angola and Zambia and parts of southern Madagascar. Hyper-arid areas are
excluded from the formal definitions of the UNCCD, but there is growing consensus that they can also be
degraded and are therefore normally included (Adeel, 2005). Though not covered by the convention,
desertification can occur in all climatic zones, and is not restricted to drylands.
Table 5. The definition of arid, semi-arid and dry sub-humid areas based on the
relationship between precipitation (P) and potential evapotranspiration (PET)
P/PET
Approximate precipitation
in tropical regions in mm
per year
Hyperarid *
< 0.05
< 200
Arid
0.05 -0.20
200 – 400
Semi-arid
0.20 -0.50
400 – 600
Dry sub-humid
0.50 -0.65
600 – 800
* This is excluded from the UNCCD definition of areas subject to desertification as it is already desert.
INTEGRATING CBNRM INTO UNCCD DESERTIFICATION STRATEGIES
35
Figure 1. The UNCCD is aimed at arid, semi-arid and dry subhumid areas, and this
definition includes most of Southern Africa.
The UNCCD is unique amongst the UN global environmental conventions in that it makes a strong link
between environmental issues and human livelihoods. In essence the UNCCD realises that combating
desertification is linked to the sustainability and development debate in Africa (Thomas 1999). The program
has an emphasis on putting people first and using a bottom up approach, even in the development of NAPS
36
INTEGRATING CBNRM INTO UNCCD DESERTIFICATION STRATEGIES
and policy. It recognises that humans are a main driver of desertification, but also that human development
and the eradication of poverty need to be linked to the countering of desertification.
1. WHAT IS DESERTIFICATION?
The concept of desertification often conjures up images of an advancing desert (Swift 1996). In South Africa
this notion was popular and emerged from Acocks’s (1953) theories of a Karoo vegetation that was
advancing into the grasslands. The media also perpetuated the concept of an advancing Sahel. In both cases
annual rates of advancement where proposed. The modern view on desertification is that it is not an
advance of deserts along a uniform front, but rather a phenomenon that can take place in isolated locations
due to location specific land management that leads to desert like conditions. Patches of decertified land can
be found within a landscape of good quality land, even in areas of relatively high rainfall (Hoffman and
Ashwell 2001). Reynolds et al. (2003) goes as far as suggesting that desertification must always be
considered as having both an ecological and socio-economic dimension.
Understanding exactly what desertification means in practical terms remains surprisingly problematic and is
hotly debated within scientific circles (Reynolds et al, 2003, Winslow et al., 2004, Geist 2005). Mapping and
quantifying the impacts of desertification is even more difficult (Mermut and Eswaran 2001). The Millennium
Ecosystem Assessment (Adeel, 2005) recommends assessing desertification based on the sustainable supply
of environmental goods and services. Even when using this approach, unpicking the desertification signal
from impacts driven by natural climatic variation remains problematic (Lambin 1997). In southern Africa,
variance in rainfall is negatively correlated with mean annual rainfall, so it is the more arid areas that also
experience the most intense deviations from the mean annual rainfall.
In general, desertification can be seen as a long term decrease in the production potential of the land. That
is a decrease in the potential of the land to provide environmental goods and services. What is meant by
environmental goods and services will be discussed more fully below, but incorporates a basket of use and
non-use values relating to both direct primary production (including agriculture) as well as less tangible
benefits such as biodiversity, aesthetics, maintenance of ecosystem processes and mitigation of impacts from
climate variability. Understanding desertification is further complicated as the term is applied to both
agricultural crop land and rangeland. Opening of new cropland clearly reduces many existing environmental
services from the land and replaces them with new services related to crop growing, the tradeoffs between
the loss of some services with the gain in others therefore needs to be considered (Mortimore and Turner
2005).
Desertification can manifest in a number of different ways. The following are some of the manifestations of
desertification identified in Southern Africa (based on Hoffman and Ashwell 2001; Sombroed and Sene).
•
Soil degradation
-
Sheet erosion (water erosion)
-
Rills and gullies (dongas) (water erosion)
-
Loss of topsoil (wind erosion)
-
Deflation hollows and dunes (wind erosion)
-
Overblow (wind erosion)
-
Salinisation
-
Loss of nutrients
-
Acidification
INTEGRATING CBNRM INTO UNCCD DESERTIFICATION STRATEGIES
37
•
-
Waterlogging
-
Pollution
-
Soil mining
-
Compaction and crusting
Vegetation (rangeland / ‘veld’) degradation
-
Loss of cover
-
Change in species composition
-
Bush encroachment
-
Alien plant invasion
-
Deforestation
-
Loss of biodiversity
Desertification is considered to be primarily a human induced phenomenon, though it can also be linked to
changes in rainfall. Southern Africa has highly variable rainfall, and prolonged periods of above average
rainfall and drought are the norm. Until the 1980s long term rainfall patterns suggested there was a cyclic
pattern with no long term trend. However there is growing evidence that global climate change is impacting
on local weather and that in some instances this is leading to droughts that are unprecedented in the long
term records (see Figure 2). Climatically induced desertification is therefore a possibility in the region (see
Figure 3).
38
INTEGRATING CBNRM INTO UNCCD DESERTIFICATION STRATEGIES
Figure 2. Long periods of below average rainfall are considered as a cause of
desertification, and in some instances this may be linked to global climate change.
Increased temperature also reduces the effective rainfall. At the local level management
practices do not directly influence rainfall and the community has no control over the
weather. They can, however, adapt to the impacts.
From the perspective of CBNRM projects and programmes it is useful to disaggregate desertification into
two components, desertification resulting from poor land management (project participants have control
over this impact) and desertification resulting from climatic change (project participants have no control
over this impact, but the project can help the community adapt to the consequences). Climate variation, i.e.
normal cycles of drought can trigger desertification due to poor land management and this impact should
not be confused with true long term changes in climate. I.e. land management needs to take into
consideration the impacts of drought years to be sustainable. It will be shown in later chapters that in many
circumstances CBNRM may be an appropriate strategy to both prevent desertification as well as an
adaptation response to climate change.
INTEGRATING CBNRM INTO UNCCD DESERTIFICATION STRATEGIES
39
Figure 3. Climate model projections of change in temperature (a) and precipitation (b)
for year 2050 (from Scholes and Biggs 2004).
Note that these specific maps are for one model (HADCM3) and one scenario (IPCC SRES A2) only. The general spatial
pattern for the 10 models and four scenarios examined is broadly similar, but the magnitude of change differs, and the precise
location of rainfall changes varies between models. See also Giannini et al. (2003).
Desertification from poor land management / over exploitation
Desertification resulting from poor land management can be directly reversed or reduced through
management interventions. It is this aspect of desertification where CBNRM projects have the potential to
directly combat desertification. Current thinking within the GEF and confirmed by scientific studies is that in
most instances the cost of preventing desertification is far cheaper than reversing desertification.
Desertification is closely linked to poverty, and it is generally accepted that there is a negative feedback loop
between poverty and bad land management practices that results in a downward spiral in land quality and
increased poverty. Reversing the degradation is therefore assumed to improve livelihoods. There is,
however, a cost to reducing degradation, especially in the short term, and it may be impossible for a
community to achieve long term sustainability without short term external assistance.
The link between poverty and desertification is complex, and many have suggested that the policy
environment, rather than poverty per se may be core to the degradation problem. For instance in South
Africa there is a clear link between homeland policy and areas of desertification (Hoffman and Ashwell
2001).
Desertification from prolonged drought or climate change
At the local level a project cannot influence climate variability, but rather can only adapt management
practices to lesson the impacts. It is now generally accepted that global warming is a reality driven directly to
40
INTEGRATING CBNRM INTO UNCCD DESERTIFICATION STRATEGIES
human impacts on global CO2 level and other greenhouse gasses (IPCC, Monbiot, 2006), (see Figure 3).
Management intervention in a single CBNRM projects will not directly impact on global climate. However,
CBNRM projects may play an important role in increasing carbon sequestration, particularly below ground
carbon sequestration. There is a possibility that the project maybe able to claim carbon credits for this. The
project therefore may have a global carbon benefit (see Table 2).
In addition to global climate change, there is growing evidence that local environmental management may
impact on local climate (Pielke et al. 2002). As plant community structures are alerted there are changes in
the flux of energy, water vapor, air momentum, CO2, trace gases, and mineral aerosols and these can lead
to altered climate (Bonan et al. 1992, 2003). The impact on climate due to deforestation of the Amazon
was shown by Nobre et al. (1991) and for temperate forests by Bonan et al. (1992). Deserts, such as the
Sahara are suggested as ‘hot-spots” for vegetation climate interactions and it is pointed out that these
interactions are non-linear (Claussen et al. 2003). CBNRM projects are not likely to operate on a scale
where a single project will have a noticeable feedback effecting local climate. It is, however, feasible that
CBNRM programmes over a whole region may have climatic influences to that region, though even more
likely is that a lack of sustainable management projects will result in reduced plant cover and this will have a
negative feedback into climate.
Table 6. Long-term changes in soil carbon density resulting from a meta analysis of
different land use changes experiments. Guo and Grifford (2002)
Conversion
Impact “+” implies
increase in SCD and “-“
a decrease?
Pasture to plantation
−10%
Native forest to plantation
−13%
Native forest to crop
−42%
Pasture to crop
−59%
Native forest to pasture
+ 8%
Crop to pasture
+ 19%
Crop to plantation
+ 18%
Crop to secondary forest
+ 53%
2. WHAT CAUSES DESERTIFICATION?
Clearly reduced rainfall can cause desertification, and hence reductions in the mean long term precipitation
will make an area more arid. Long term increases in mean temperature would have a similar effect. Though
this climatic link to desertification cannot be ignored, it is the direct anthropogenic impacts on desertification
that are of greater interest as this is where there is local leverage for reversing desertification. This section
will ignore the consequences of climate change and focus exclusively on anthropogenic causes. In this regard
desertification can be seen as a result of a long-term failure to balance demand for and supply of ecosystem
services in drylands (Adeel 2005).
It is important to distinguish between drought and desertification. Drought is a natural occurrence, and
experienced frequently within the drylands. Increased agricultural pressure on the land can aggravate the
consequences of drought and lead to desertification.
A simplistic view is that desertification is caused by mismanagement of land or through the overuse of
environmental goods and services. In most cases it is the removal of vegetation that is the initial cause of
INTEGRATING CBNRM INTO UNCCD DESERTIFICATION STRATEGIES
41
desertification, though soil and soil nutrient loss is often the consequence (Winslow 2004). Highlighted poor
land management practices that lead to desertification include:
•
Unsustainable agriculture,
•
Deforestation,
•
Removal of natural vegetation,
•
Over use of heavy machinery,
•
Overgrazing,
•
Inappropriate crop rotation and poor irrigation practices (nep 2005).
Within the CBNRM context it is overgrazing, removal of natural vegetation and deforestation that are likely
to be the most relevant aspects of desertification to CBNRM type projects.
The drivers of this mismanagement of natural resources are extremely complex. It is generally accepted that
poverty plays a major role in mismanagement, and there are a number of complex interactions. Of great
concern is the downward spiral where poverty results in over-use, this decreases the ability of the
environment to provide environmental goods and services which in turn increases the level of poverty
(Figure 4). Rural poverty is normally linked to a high reliance on ecosystem goods and services, both
through agricultural activities and through the use of natural products such as fuelwood.
Clearly there is a strong link between population growth and desertification. Over the last century many
rural areas have had a 10 fold or more growth in population. Quite simply, some areas have exceeded the
carrying capacity of the natural environment to support the increased human population. Increased
population forces agricultural practices onto more marginal land and can increase competition between
pastoralists and crop production. There is, however, evidence that in at least some situations it is the land
management practices, not the population density per se that are the cause of desertification (e.g. Tiffen et
al. 1994). To ignore the impacts of population on resource dependant livelihoods would be short sighted.
Livelihood diversification or migration may be the only options in some areas, though in other areas
agricultural intensification or the movement to more lucrative production systems may be appropriate. In
relation to CBNRM the land use relating to game production, use of timber and non-timber forest products
and tourism may be more financially and ecologically sustainable than cattle or crop production, especially in
more marginal areas (Child 1988, Bond et al. 2004, Balmford et al., 2002).
Land in communal land tenure systems is particularly susceptible to mismanagement, though there is
growing evidence that it is not the tenure system per se, but rather the management structures (or lack of
structures) that may be more important. Where there is de facto open access to a resource then
degradation is very likely. This is especially true if there is strong competition for the resource. However,
where there is controlled access to the resource then there is good evidence that degradation can be
reduced or prevented. Private land tenure is sometimes promoted as a mechanism to reverse degradation,
and the Machakos area of Kenya is a good example of where changes in land tenure linked with awareness
raising around degradation has had dramatic impacts in reversing land degradation (Tiffen et al. 1994).
However, there are also many examples including those in first world countries such as America and
Australia where there is widespread desertification on private land. Equally, there are many examples where
traditional tenure does not result in degradation. Traditional tenure can give individuals secure tenure to
resources including agricultural fields (Bruce 2000).
Abandoning of traditional management practices due to impacts of colonial rule, changes in human
population density, globalisation and the move to a cash-based economy may all have impacts on
desertification. Green evolution agricultural practices are both contributors to desertification and potential
42
INTEGRATING CBNRM INTO UNCCD DESERTIFICATION STRATEGIES
solutions to desertification depending on how they are implemented. There is a growing recognition of
traditional knowledge systems in the countering of desertification (e.g. Scoones 1994).
Underpinning most of the above are aspects of policy and legislation. Many rural land use practices are
driven by an inappropriate policy framework. For instance wildlife and timber resources where nationalized
during colonial times which removed local incentives for their conservation, and prevented sustainable usage
practices from emerging. Perverse incentives including agricultural subsidies have driven inappropriate
agricultural practices.
Figure 4. The downward spiral of desertification (Adeel 005)
3. WHY IS COMBATING DESERTIFICATION IMPORTANT?
Quoting from Hama Arba Diallo’s foreword to the Desertification Synthesis of the Millennium Ecosystem
Assessment he states that “based on a sound summary of scientific evidence, (the assessment) states that
desertification must imperatively be addressed to meet the Millennium Development Goals of the United Nations.
Desertification must be fought at all levels, but this battle must ultimately be won at the local level. There is
evidence that success is possible. All the while, the report makes it now clearer that this phenomenon is
embedded in a global chain of causality and that its impact is felt far beyond the boundaries of affected areas.
Desertification contributes significantly to climate change and biodiversity loss”. (Adeel et al. 2005)
Desertification is potentially the most threatening ecosystem change impacting livelihoods of the poor.
Persistent reduction of ecosystem services as a result of desertification links land degradation to loss of
human well-being (Adeel 2005). This is because more people in drylands than in any other ecosystem
depend on ecosystem services for their basic needs. About 41% of the global earth surface is drylands, and
INTEGRATING CBNRM INTO UNCCD DESERTIFICATION STRATEGIES
43
the drylands are home to 2 billion people or one third of the world’s population. Already 10 – 20 % of the
drylands can be considered as degraded (Adeel, 2005).
Desertification leads to food insecurity and famine.
Areas outside of drylands are intricately linked to drylands. For instance dust clouds from desertified areas
can have impacts on cities many hundreds of kilometres away.
On the whole, combating desertification yields multiple local and global benefits and helps mitigate
biodiversity loss and human-induced global climate change. Environmental management approaches for
combating desertification, mitigating climate change, and conserving biodiversity are interlinked in many
ways. Therefore, joint implementation of major environmental conventions can lead to increased synergy
and effectiveness, benefiting dryland people (Adeel, 2005).
4. HOW IS DESERTIFICATION PREVENTED OR REVERSED?
The UNCCD takes the opinion that desertification is reversed through bottom up engagement with local
communities. It draws strong linkages between desertification and poverty and advocates that both need to
be tackled to gain long term sustainability. Emphasis is placed on tackling the root causes of desertification,
rather than simply the symptoms.
The UNCCD places the first priority on development of national action plans. It stresses the importance of
a bottom up process and a consultative process, realising the importance of cross sector collaboration.
Since desertification is linked to land management practices it is a change in land management practices that
is key to countering desertification. Understanding and addressing the drivers of desertification is more
important than simply addressing the symptoms. In this regard setting a supportive legal framework that
does not include environmentally perverse incentives is important. In this regard addressing land and
resource tenure may be important.
44
INTEGRATING CBNRM INTO UNCCD DESERTIFICATION STRATEGIES
APPENDIX 2. OVERVIEW OF
CBNRM
In order to consider how well CBNRM is aligned to UNCCD objectives it is important to consider what
constitutes the fundamental distinctions of a CBNRM project. It is not the objective of this report to
conduct a review of CBNRM, but rather key features are extracted from the literature. The term CBNRM
has been used fairly loosely in the literature and has been interpreted differently in different parts of the
world, and in different applications. In addition, closely related activities such as Community Based Forestry
Management, Community Based Rangeland Management, Community Based Water Management and
Participatory Forest Management have been used to describe projects with a CBNRM framework (Turner
2004).
Box 1 gives a number of contemporary definitions of CBNRM. For the purposes of this review CBNRM
projects are considered to have all or most of the following features:
1. Community bases i.e. relate to a community of individuals, normally in a situation where there is a
shared or communal natural resource to which all members have shared access. In the southern
African context this normally refers to communities residing on land that is variously termed
traditional tenure, customary tenure, communal tenure or tribal tenure. In some instances the
community may have access to state land such as state forestry or conservation land.
2. Natural resource based with an emphasis on sustainable management and use of the renewable
resources. In many southern African cases CBNRM is wildlife based and linked to hunting and
ecotourism, but CBNRM can be linked to a far wider range of natural resources.
3. Benefit sharing. Resource management is directly linked to community benefits and enhancing
livelihoods. The link between natural resource production and the benefits derived should be
transparent and immediate. This may be either in direct production or financial returns to
individuals, or through shared resources such as schools, clinics etc.
4. Devolution of ownership of the land or the resources on the land may be involved. In many of
the southern African states the communal land is legally state land, though in a few instances land
reform is resulting in communities gaining title to the land as a group or as individuals. Devolution of
ownership is not normally considered a pre-requisite for CBNRM to work, providing usage rights
and management are devolved. However, full devolution of ownership can pave the way for
CBNRM implementation.
5. Devolution of management and usage rights. Management is passed down from the state to the
resource user community. The level to which this devolution takes place may vary and may involve
local authorities, traditional authorities or new resource management institutions. Most practitioners
believe that management should be devolved to the lowest practical level, though in practice the
state often resists total devolution.
6. Development of local resource management institutions. For a shared resource to be managed
sustainable, some form of local institution needs to co-ordinate the management and use of the
resource. Development of resource management institutions is a key component of CBNRM
projects.
INTEGRATING CBNRM INTO UNCCD DESERTIFICATION STRATEGIES
45
7. Natural resource management plans and structures are put in place at the community level. For
CBNRM to be affective the community needs to develop a plan around how resources will be
managed. This may for instance include off-take quotes, limits on what products can be harvested
and how resources will be distributed in the community.
8. Incorporation of traditional knowledge systems. There is growing belief that local knowledge is
needed to manage local problems. This should be incorporated with, not replace scientific
knowledge.
9. Resource monitoring and evaluation structures are put in place at the community level. Only
through monitoring is it possible to assess impacts of the management plans. This information
should be fed back into an adaptive management system.
All of these CBNRM principles are also principles of the UNCCD, or are highlighted as issues for inclusion
in NAPs. The UNCCD recognises the importance of local community involvement [Article 3, (a)] and has
as its basis sustainable resource management (Article 3 (b), Annex 1 Article 8.3.(b)]. Development of
alternative livelihoods is strongly promoted [Annex 1 Article 8.3.(a)]. The devolution of ownership and
resource tenure is suggested as an issue for inclusion in NAPs [Annex 1 Article 8.3.(c)]. The UNCCD
emphasizes local management of resources [Annex 1 Article 8.2(c)]. Institutional development including
local level institutional development is highlighted [Annex 1 Article 8.3.(c)]. Local or traditional knowledge is
highlighted in Article 17 (c) under research, in Article 18.2. and can be inferred through the conventions
requirement to consult local communities, woman and children [Article 3, (a), Article 10. (e)]. Monitoring
and evaluation is required [Annex 1 Article 8.3.(e)].
CBNRM in southern Africa has tended to have a focus on wildlife management, and this is clearly the case
from the Botswana, Namibia and Zimbabwe where CBNRM is almost synonymous with community based
conservation. Advocates for this approach emphasize the importance of basing CBNRM around high value
resources (e.g. Child 2005). Not all countries, or all regions within a country, have extensive wildlife
resources or the potential for wildlife management as is the case in Malawi. Under such circumstances
CBNRM is focused around a wider variety of less valuable natural resources and is in effect nothing more
than the management of common or communal natural resources (Turner 2004). Where CBNRM is
focused on wildlife management there tends to be strong linkages with tourism and or hunting whilst where
CBNRM is focused on other natural resources the focus is more on household use and sale of resource
based products.
Readers are referred to the FRAME synthesis reports (Arntzen et al. 2007b, Jones 2006) and the Botswana,
Namibia, Malawi, South Africa and Zimbabwe FRAME cases study reports (Arntzen et al. 2007a, Grossman
and Holden, 2007, Jones and Mosimane, 2007, Mauambeta et al. 2007, Taylor and Murphree, 2007) for
greater detail on the implementation and success of CBNRM in the sub-region. These are available from the
FRAME web site http://www.frameweb.org/ev02.php?ID=15189_201&ID2=DO_COMMUNITY.
46
INTEGRATING CBNRM INTO UNCCD DESERTIFICATION STRATEGIES
Box 1. Some contemporary definitions of CBNRM
CBNRM is a process by which landholders gain access and use rights to, or ownership of, natural resources; collaboratively
and transparently plan and participate in the management of resource use; and achieve financial and other benefits from
their stewardship. Child and Lynam 1995.
CBNRM as an institutional or organizational development program, whereby wildlife is used to economically empower local
people, with the money flowing through communities providing the catalyst for them to organize themselves around
democratic and managerial principles. Only organized and reasonably equitable communities are likely to conserve or
develop (Child 2005).
CBNRM definition as taken from the CBNRM Network site (http://www.cbnrm.net/)
CBNRM is the management of natural resources under a detailed plan developed and agreed to by all concerned
stakeholders. The approach is community-based in that the communities managing the resources have the legal rights, the
local institutions, and the economic incentives to take substantial responsibility for sustained use of these resources. Under
the natural resource management plan, communities become the primary implementors, assisted and monitored by
technical services.
Sources: CBNRM Net (2001), Soeftestad (1999), USAID (2000). Comments: This is an amalgamation of definitions found in
three sources. This definition is used by CBNRM Net.
CBNRM can be characterized as follows:
(1) It addresses both human and natural resource issues, such as the long-term benefit of present and future generations
given the inefficienyinefficiency of state management and objectives such as equity, poverty alleviation and empowerment of
marginalized user communities,
(2) CBNRM as a strategy reflects in social and policy terms the parallel nestedness and connectedness of organisms, species,
associations and ecocystemsecosystems in the natural universe and the interdependence between micro and macro levels,
(3) CBNRNM starts with communities as a focus for assessing natural resource uses, potentials, problems, trends and
opportunities and for taking action to deal with adverse practices and dynamics, with cooperation and support from other
actors linked horizontally (e.g. other communities) and vertically (e.g. higher level or external entities, such as local or district
governments, regional bodies, government agencies, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), universities, or other
organizations that have an interest in resource conservation and management),
(4) While in the past NRM was seen as the domain of either state sector institutions endowed with appropriate authority,
expertise and other resources, or private sector institutions pursuing individual economic interests and benefits, CBNRM
operates mostly in a middle sector of organizations such as user groups, community management committees, local councils,
producer co-operatives and similar, though it works best when there are complementary, supportive public and private
sector activities,
(5) While management by a central government agency will not qualify as CBNRM, any organization, governmental or
other, either on its own or in combination, can undertake CBNRM. CBNRM is management at the local, community level,
and
(6) CBNRM is the management of natural resources under a detailed plan developed and agreed to by all concerned
stakeholders. The approach is community-based in that the communities managing the resources have the legal rights, the
local institutions and the economic incentives to take substantial responsibility for sustained use of these resources. Under
the natural resource management plan, communities become the primary implementers, assisted and monitored by
technical services.
Sources: Uphoff (1998). Comments: This definition is taken from a key note presentation at the international CBNRM
workshop that took place in Washington DC, USA, in May 1998. The workshop and all its output is available on CBNRM
Net.
1. CBNRM refers to the collective use and management of natural resources in rural areas by a group of people with a selfdefined, distinct identity, using communally owned facilities. The aims of CBNRM are to:
(1) Obtain the voluntary participation of communities in a flexible program that incorporates long-term solutions to
problems arising from the use of natural resources,
(2) Introduce to natural wildlife resources a new system of group ownership and territorial rights for the communities
resident in the target areas. The management of these resources should be placed under the custody and control of
resident peoples,
(3) Provide appropriate institutions under which resources can be legitimately managed and exploited by local people for
their own direct benefit. These benefits can take the form of income, employment, and production of venison, and
(4) Provide technical and financial assistance to communities that join the program to enable them to realize their objectives.
The focus on CBNRM is not merely the wise management of natural resources. As important, if not more important, is the
need for community development, local self-government and the creation of local institutions for the management of
common property resources.
Sources: Fabricius (n.d.).
INTEGRATING CBNRM INTO UNCCD DESERTIFICATION STRATEGIES
47
APPENDIX 3. FLOWS AND VALUES
OF ENVIRONMENTAL GOODS
AND SERVICES
The concept of ‘ecosystem services’ is also useful for this discussion. As defined by the Millennium
Ecosystem Assessment (MA), ecosystem services are ‘the benefits that people get from ecosystems’ (Figure
5). Some of these benefits are physical products that are traded in markets: in MA terms these are
‘provisioning services’, while economists generally refer to them as ‘goods’. Others are less tangible or
tradable, and fall into the MA categories ‘supporting services’, ‘regulating services’ and ‘cultural services’. The
important concept is that any given landscape (read ‘ecosystem’) delivers a whole range of ecosystem
services, to a range of beneficiaries at different scales. An ecosystem is said to be ‘degraded’ if the total flow
of ecosystem services is reduced (in a persistent rather than transient way) relative to its potential.
Prevention of degradation does not necessarily mean that all ecosystem services have to remain unchanged:
societal preferences for one service over another change over time in any event. Similarly, the objective of
land restoration is to increase the package of services, not just one. If in the process of preventing
degradation or promoting restoration with respect to one or a few services, another service is substantially
degraded, that should be a cause for concern, and a reason to undertake a tradeoff analysis.
INTEGRATING CBNRM INTO UNCCD DESERTIFICATION STRATEGIES
49
Figure 5. Linkages between Ecosystem Services and Human Well-being. This is based on
the MA (2004) approach as adapted in Biggs et al. 2004
Many other factors
also influencing wellbeing
HUMAN WELL-BEING
Direct and indirect
causes of ecosystem
change
Desertification
Overharvesting
Pollution
Climate change
Habitat loss
Management choice
etc
Some causes come
from outside the
area, such as global
pressure, and some
local issues add up
to have large
consequences
Freedom of choice
Basic material
income
Health
Good social
relations
Environmental
security
ECOSYSTEM SERVICES
Provisioning services
Food
Water
Wood
Regulating services
Climate
Floods
Disasters
Cultural services
Aesthetics
Spiritual
Recreational
Supporting services
Soil, nutrients, growth
Environmental services are linked to many aspects of human well being, which the MA has classified as basic
material income, health, good social relations and environmental security. It is considered that all of these
lead to increased freedom of choice.
Desertification as per the UNCCD definitions is clearly a complex process that links humans and the
environment. A lot of effort in desertification research has revolved around the impact that humans have on
the environment, but equally important is the benefits that humans gain from the environment. The MA and
others have suggested that desertification is best expressed as reductions in environmental goods and
services as a consequence of land degradation (Adeel 2005). Assessing or quantifying this complicated by
the fact that any intervention raising the level of one service may simultaneously reduce the value of another
service.
Globally we have increased provisioning services, but at the cost of decreased regulatory, cultural and
supporting services (see Table 3). In desertified areas provisioning services as well as other environmental
services have all been reduced. Increasing benefits from one service may well lead to decreases in other
services, and complex tradeoffs between services are involved. Desertification could, however lead to
decreases in all services. Strategies to combat desertification could benefit all or some services depending on
the nature of the interventions.
Understanding the tradeoffs requires some level of quantification of all the interactions and then a process
to decide on appropriate actions. To achieve this, the method of total economic value (TEV) could be used
(see Box 2). Alternatively a multi-criteria decision support process could be used. Both these approaches
suffer from the fact that they apply the weighting that society currently places on the resource as the basis
50
INTEGRATING CBNRM INTO UNCCD DESERTIFICATION STRATEGIES
of decision making. From a computational perspective TEV is very hard and expensive to compute and a
stakeholder based multi-criteria approach may be more effective.
Table 3. The global change in economic goods and services as identified in the MA. ↑
represents a global increase, ↓ a global decrease, ↔ represents regional differences in impacts.
Not that local situations do not always represent global change, and desertified areas
probably show a decrease in all goods and services.
•
Provisioning
-
-
•
•
Food
Box 2. The total economic value
approach to understanding tradeoffs.
•
Crops ↑
•
Aquaculture ↑
•
Livestock ↑
•
Capture fisheries ↓
DUV = direct-use vale,
•
Wild foods ↓
IUV = indirect-use value,
Fiber
•
Timber ↔
•
Cotton, hemp, silk ↔
•
Wood fuel ↓
-
Genetic resources↓
-
Biochemical and natural medicines ↓
-
Fresh water ↓
TEV = DUV + IUV + OV + BV + EV
Where TEV = total economic value,
OV = option value,
BV = bequest value, and
EV = existence value (Langholz et al. 1999).
Regulating services
-
Air quality ↓
-
Climate regulation local ↓ / global ↑
-
Water regulation ↔
-
Erosion regulation ↓
-
Water purification and waste treatment ↓
-
Disaster regulation ↔
-
Pest regulation ↓
-
Pollution ↓
-
Natural hazard regulation ↓
Cultural services
-
Spiritual and religious value ↓
-
Aesthetic value ↓
-
Recreation and ecotourism ↔
INTEGRATING CBNRM INTO UNCCD DESERTIFICATION STRATEGIES
51
APPENDIX 4. TERMS OF
REFERENCE FOR THE STUDY
The consultant will conduct a desktop study of the links between desertification control strategies and the
pursuit of results and outcomes supported by the UNCCD, and the impacts and results attributable to
CBNRM programmes and related investments. The consultant will also examine the scope for greater
integration between efforts to mainstream sustainable land management as a means to achieve the aims of
the UNCCD, and the investment in CBNRM and biodiversity conservation programmes, and comment on
the opportunities to facilitate collaborative efforts on the ground. In this regard, the consultant will contact
and exchange information with the UNCCD focal points in southern Africa with particular emphasis on
South Africa, Namibia, Botswana, Zimbabwe and Malawi. He will also refer to and integrate material from
the case studies and synthesis paper currently being developed further by country consultants.. The
consultant will review the possible scope of research and analysis and proposed contacts with the project
coordinator and develop an outline for the study for approval by the project coordinator within one month
of signing the contract .
The consultant is encouraged to look at “Progress against desertification: Case studies of experience from
Ghana” by Stephen Turner and Boubacar Thiam, (2005). These studies in turn rely on USAID’s (2002)
“nature, wealth and power” analytical framework. Also at another study, “Étude du Sahel: Rapport ètude
pilot Niger” by Yama Boubacar, Mahamane Larwanou, Addou Hassane, and Chris Reij (2005) in conjunction
with International Resources Group, as these will be used as a benchmark for the southern African study.
They are respectively available at:
http://www.frameweb.org/ev_en.php?ID=12246_201&ID2=DO_TOPIC
http://www.frameweb.org/ev_en.php?ID=12318_201&ID2=DO_TOPIC
The consultant will also liaise with other consultants as and when necessary.
INTEGRATING CBNRM INTO UNCCD DESERTIFICATION STRATEGIES
53