کارایی اقتصادی و انگیزه هایی برای تغییر در انجمن حیات وحش با استفاده از طرح نامیبیا
|کد مقاله||سال انتشار||مقاله انگلیسی||ترجمه فارسی||تعداد کلمات|
|21258||2002||15 صفحه PDF||سفارش دهید||محاسبه نشده|
Publisher : Elsevier - Science Direct (الزویر - ساینس دایرکت)
Journal : World Development, Volume 30, Issue 4, April 2002, Pages 667–681
Five community wildlife conservation and utilization initiatives, or conservancies, on communal land in Namibia were appraised to determine economic and financial worth. Conservancies are economically efficient and able to contribute positively to national income and the development process. They also provide a channel for the capture of international donor grants (wildlife non-use values) as income, and generate attractive financial returns for communities. Donor grants are very important catalysts in promoting land use change in conservancies. Ability to generate income from tourism is important. Flexibility and adaptability in design are key factors, ensuring effective rural development and conservation.
In this paper, five community wildlife conservation and utilization initiatives, on communal land in Namibia, have been analyzed to determine their financial profitability, and their economic efficiency. The degree to which these community projects can contribute positively to the national income, and thereby to the economic development process, is central to the study. Also investigated was the degree to which the initiatives provide private returns to project investment, as well as to investments made by communities. Namibia has adopted policy and legislation to allow community-based natural resource management (CBNRM)1 on communal land. Much of the initial focus of CBNRM has been on wildlife, which is threatened with displacement by growing rural human populations and illegal use. The approach devolves rights over wildlife to local communities and aims to make wildlife conservation part of the rural development process. In this context, CBNRM initiatives must be financially attractive for the community, economically efficient for the country, and reasonably financially viable for donors and the government. Without these incentives, they will not be sustainable, and will not result in development or conservation. (a). The setting Namibia is a large country (830,000 km2) straddling the Tropic of Capricorn on the west coast of southern Africa. It is very dry, and climate ranges from semi arid in the northeast to extremely arid on the west coast. Vegetation ranges from savanna woodland in the northeast, through savanna to desert in the west and south. Rain-fed crop production is limited to very small parts of the north and northeast. Most land in the country is only suitable for extensive grazing by livestock or wildlife, and rangeland carrying capacities are low. Permanent surface water is restricted to a few rivers on the northern, north eastern and southern borders. The human population of the country, at 1.7 million, is small, with 30% living in urban centers. The rural economy has two different tenure systems. Forty-three percent of the country, mostly in the drier parts, contains private, medium scale, commercial ranches. Forty-five percent, mostly in the less dry north, is communal land. Communal land is state-owned, but occupied by rural tribal communities—most of the country's population. Communities practice traditional systems of pastoralism in the south and west, and agro-pastoralism in the north and northeast, but their access to markets and infrastructure is poor. In the northeast, among San communities, some sedentary hunting and gathering is practiced. Wildlife resources of high importance for tourism occur in less densely settled north western and north eastern communal lands. Elephant (Loxodonta africana), buffalo (Syncerus caffer), hippopotamus (Hippopotamus amphibius), sable (Hippotragus niger), roan (Hippotragus equinus), lechwe (Kobus leche), sitatunga (Tragelaphus spekei), lion (Panthera leo), leopard (Panthera pardus) and wild dog (Lycaeon pictus) are of conservation importance in the northeast. In the northwest, desert-adapted wildlife species such as elephant, black rhinoceros (Diceros bicornis), mountain zebra (Equus zebra), springbok (Antidorcas marsupialis), kudu (Tragelphus strepsiseros), and oryx (Oryx gazella) occur. Attractive scenery, enhancing tourism value, exists in both places. Communities were historically not permitted to use these wildlife resources, and were effectively alienated from them. The tendency was for expanding traditional land uses to displace wildlife, and poaching was fairly common. In the 1980s, local nongovernment organizations (NGOs) initiated donor-funded community game guard programs, giving some communities a sense of “ownership” over their wildlife. (b). CBNRM in Namibia In the late 1960s, Namibia granted private landholders custodial rights to manage and use wildlife on their land ( Joubert, 1974). The incentives associated with this have resulted in increased wildlife stocks on this land ( Barnes & de Jager, 1996). In 1996, a legislative amendment granted similar custodial rights over wildlife to communities on communal land ( Corbett & Jones, 2000; Jones, 1995; Jones & Murphree, 2001). This change, part of a national CBNRM program, made it possible for communities to form “conservancies,” register these, and thus acquire, from the state, partial rights to common property management and use of wildlife in defined areas. By 2001, 14 conservancies had been registered, and some 20 more were in the process of being developed. About five conservancies had drawn up plans for the use and management of their natural resources, mainly wildlife. The CBNRM program is loosely coordinated from within government and local NGOs, by the Namibia Association of CBNRM Support Organizations (NACSO). Communities are assisted by the local NGOs, donor-funded projects, and a government-backed policy and legislative framework. Funding for this assistance comes mainly from international donors. It takes the form of grants to pay for technical assistance, local NGO facilitation and training activities, and some conservancy recurrent and capital requirements. Since the 1980s communities interested in CBNRM have benefited to varying degrees from donor funds, initially, mainly to employ community members in wildlife protection (community game guards), but also to provide facilitation and training, as well as, lately, capital investments. One aim of CBNRM is for donor inputs to conservancies to be gradually replaced by income from natural resource use, leaving communities self-sufficient. To some extent this has happened, but so far no conservancies are entirely self-sufficient financially, and many receive a significant proportion of their income from donors. The potential for income generation from natural resources in conservancies is dominated by nonconsumptive tourism (Barnes, 1995a and Barnes, 1995b), partly through community-owned and run activities (mostly campsites), and partly through joint ventures between communities and private sector investors (lodges and camps). A second important source of income is safari hunting tourism, also involving joint-venture arrangements. Other, less significant and more localized income sources include thatch-grass harvesting, fishing, pole and fuel-wood harvesting, cultural services (traditional villages and shows), crafts production, game meat harvesting and live game sale. Communities bear costs associated with wildlife in the form of damage to crops in agro-pastoral areas and to water points in the drier pastoral areas. Such costs, as estimated from limited empirical research, are documented by Barnes (1995b). They generally amount to less than 5% of wildlife use values. This is a relatively low value, in the broader African context, and it appears to be due to the low productivity of the land for agriculture and livestock, as well as the relatively low human population densities. CBNRM (or ICDP or CWM) interventions are based on the contention that if communities are allowed to benefit directly from the use of natural resources, then they will have an incentive to invest in and conserve these resources (Barbier, 1992; Callihan & Stuart-Hill, 2000; Child, 1993; Emerton, 2001; Lewis, Kaweche, & Mwenya, 1990; Roe, 2001). Many conservation programs in developing countries now include CBNRM strategies, and they are widely seen as essential for wildlife conservation, particularly outside protected areas. Some workers, such as Gibson and Marks (1995), Barrett and Arcese (1995), Sullivan (1998), and Infield (2001), consider that CBNRM, as practiced in Africa, is inadequate as a conservation and/or development strategy. Problems listed include inappropriate incentive structures, inappropriate distribution of benefits, lack of suitably democratic institutions, intracommunity conflicts, excessive reliance on consumptive wildlife use, excessive reliance on financial benefits from natural resource use, and others. In the case of Namibia's CBNRM program, most of these problems appear to be applicable only exceptionally, or not at all. Design of CBNRM in Namibia has involved care to try and ensure that scale, institutional structures, combinations of resource uses involved, and combinations of economic values captured, are flexible and appropriate to the specific setting. One unresolved question, however, is a common assertion or suspicion that material benefits, resulting from tourism and consumptive wildlife use in CBNRM, are inadequate to compensate communities for all the costs of investing in wildlife (Barrett & Arcese, 1995; Infield, 2001). Apart from a few studies (Barnes, 1995c; Barnes, Cannon, & Morrison, 2000; Bond, 2001; Jansen, 1990), no rigorous analysis has been done of the financial and/or economic merits of CBNRM as a development strategy. Most discussion about this has had to be conjectural. Our study directly addresses this question, in the context of Namibia.
نتیجه گیری انگلیسی
(a) Conservancies in Namibia, as constituted and planned, are economically efficient. They are able to contribute positively to national income and the development process. The likelihood of their being sustainable is high. Their receipt of donor funding, as part of the national CBNRM program, means that they also provide a channel for the capture of wildlife non-use values, as income. (b) Conservancies also provide very attractive financial returns for communities. These returns are made up of income from wildlife use (direct wildlife use values) as well as donor grants (reflecting international non-use values). The latter considerably enhance the attractiveness of conservancy investment for communities, but direct use values alone, can generate positive financial returns. Donor grants perform a very important catalytic role in initiating and speeding up land use change. From the donors' perspective, conservancies also tend to be financially viable. (c) Tourism (primarily nonconsumptive tourism but also safari-hunting tourism) is a particularly important income generator for all conservancies. In the development of tourism, joint ventures between private investors, with skills and access to markets, and communities are very important. Other consumptive wildlife and natural resource uses are less important, but they serve usefully to spread risk. (d) The existence of natural wildlife populations on conservancies (reducing the need for investments in stock) is a very significant factor affecting the economic efficiency and financial viability of conservancies. Acquisition of stock for restocking is not economically efficient at the conservancy level, unless there are no opportunity costs involved. It can, however, have wider, longer term economic benefits. (e) Flexibility and adaptability in design has allowed Namibia's conservancy initiatives to embrace an apparently sound rural development framework, which includes significant intangible values and benefits as well as financial income for communities, derived from both use and non-use. The conservancies appear able to deliver positive financial incentives to communities, contribute positively to national development, conserve wildlife, and be at least as sustainable as other rural development initiatives.