ارتباط بین جامعه، محیط زیست و مدیریت تعارض: تجارب از شمال کنیا

There is increasing interest in community-based approaches to the management of natural resources in Africa. Pastoral areas present particular challenges and opportunities to community-based management programs. We consider an example where there are multiple definitions of the community that uses a resource, and these definitions are both nested and overlapping. Working at multiple levels of social organization and in multiple sites was critical for overall program success. We find addressing conflict can be a measure to address resource scarcity. We conclude noting signs that reduced insecurity has established the preconditions under which sustainable resource management can be accomplished.

There has recently been a great deal of attention paid in the literature to the issue of local participation in natural resource management in Africa (Barrett et al., 2001, Environment & Natural Resources Team, 2002, Ingles et al., 1999, Kellert et al., 2000, Moore et al., 2000, Ribot, 2002 and Turner, 1999). These studies illustrate that community participation is a critical component of efforts that attempt to cause positive economic and ecological change in African communities. This study contributes to the growing literature on community management of natural resources by presenting information on such a program in a pastoral area of northern Kenya. It illustrates how local participation led the natural resource management project to take an unexpected route to achieving positive economic and ecological change by encompassing issues of conflict management. This study also contributes to the literature on common property management in risky production environments. As is increasingly understood, the finding that common property management regimes function best with clearly defined boundaries and membership (Ostrom, 1990 and Ostrom, 1992) is in conflict with the finding that such clear definitions can be welfare reducing in highly variable environments (Goodhue and McCarthy, 2000, Nugent and Sanchez, 1999, van den Brink et al., 1995 and Vedeld, 1998). This has led to a recent and growing interest in pastoral development efforts that strengthen management structures while still providing for flexibility in land use patterns (Fernandez-Gimenez, 2002, Niamir-Fuller and Turner, 1999 and Turner, 1999). This study identifies some of the promise and notes some of the challenges of conducting such an effort to build land use management plans on existing social structures. This study also contributes to a growing literature on the relationship between environmental variables and conflict. It is recognized in the literature that natural resource management and conflict management are closely related (Castro and Nielsen, 2003, FAO, 2000, FAO, 2001, Lind, 2002 and Lind and Sheikh, 2001). The literature to date has largely focused on how environmental scarcity leads to increased conflict and how natural resource management plans can be designed to manage conflict (Homer-Dixon, 1991, Homer-Dixon, 1994 and Lind and Sturman, 2002). The current study provides a different perspective on the relationship between environmental variables and conflict as it illustrates how conflict management can be a precondition for implementing a resource management plan. This approach also reflects some of the findings in the recent literature on development efforts in insecure pastoral areas. It is increasingly recognized that addressing insecurity is a critical first step for any development efforts designed to improve pastoral welfare in such areas (Galaty, 2002, Kenya Human Rights Commission, 2000, Kratli and Swift, 1999, Lind, 2002 and Odhiambo, 2000). As we will illustrate below, what began as a program to improve the well-being of pastoral populations through improving resource management evolved to become a program that focused on reducing insecurity, thus both enhancing well-being and allowing the potential for improved environmental management. An important element of the case study we present is that adoption of a community driven approach led the implementing agency to confront issues of conflict management that they had not anticipated in their original program design. The study illustrates that flexibility and adaptability are not only relevant to understanding the behavior of pastoralists, but also critical to designing effective participatory approaches for community natural resource management. In the following section we briefly describe the study area. This is followed by a section that places community management of natural resources by pastoral populations in a historical context. In section 4 we describe the management structure of natural resources in the study area, with specific emphasis placed on ambiguities arising over geographic boundaries. Section 5 discusses insecurity in the study area. In section 6, we focus specifically on environmental management efforts in Marsabit District, and place specific focus on the evolution of a German Donor agency (GTZ) funded project in the area. We close in section 7 with a discussion of the prospects for the future with this effort, and also summarize the larger themes of policy relevance illustrated by the case study.

When there are multiple users who can exert a claim on a natural resource, management of the resource will almost inevitably require addressing conflicts arising from these multiple claims. Community management of natural resources does offer promise, but must explicitly consider the linkages between community management, environmental management, and conflict management. We have highlighted issues arising when there are multiple nested and overlapping definitions of community who have claims on a given resource. Ambiguity in decision-making authority provides great flexibility for production in an uncertain environment, but also raises real challenges for resource management plans. The nested structure of social organization allows some possibility of achieving harmonization of management plans by calling together groups who share membership of a common larger social structure, as was illustrated by the MDP case. This allows harmonization of rules without formally allocating any one level of social organization exclusive decision-making authority, thus preserving aspects of flexibility without conflicting with cultural precedents. In addition, borders between communities may be ambiguous. Reconciling multiple claims within a single management protocol requires facilitating dialog across decision-making authorities in different areas who have claims on a given resource. Dividing up rangeland into range management units based on vegetation type is often done in pastoral development plans, but the neat lines on the map may have little meaning to communities that have claims of varying strength on resources within different range units. Working with existing definitions of resource areas introduces some ambiguities, but also appears to offer some promise. This study also illustrates that conflict management may be important for environmental management even if the conflict is not primarily due to contestation over a particular resource. While there is undoubtedly some element of resource competition involved in northern Kenya’s insecurity, the cycle of violence and retribution has taken on a life of its own. Conflict management in this case was required to provide adequate security within which environmental management efforts could be undertaken. Importantly, we find that communities are able to improve security by entering into dialogue with each other. What was required was facilitation to bring groups together and allow them to sort out their problems, and to define their own plan of action. It should also be noted that the success of these efforts were obtained due to the encouragement of formal administrative structures early in the process and the eventual ratification of the outcome by government institutions. A different issue illustrated by this study is that community participation can lead development agents to become involved in issues that differ from their original program focus. MDP’s original focus on environmental management required program staff to become involved in conflict management. Working together with the formal administration, other development agents, traditional leaders, and community members, they were able to modify their program to address conflict management directly. Again, we would stress that the support of the government agencies grew over time and contributed to the current success of these efforts. Overall, we find that improvement in the well-being of residents of pastoral areas is possible by working with pastoral communities and allowing them to define their own plans. The accomplishments to date of the MDP project have not resulted in a transformation of pastoral society, but rather build on the existing structure of pastoral society. Learning from the lessons of the MDP effort offers promise for efforts to improve environmental management and human welfare in other pastoral areas. This study has illustrated both the potential and limits of community management of natural resources. We document that there are ways to establish and enforce rules in a common property production setting characterize by uncertainty without undermining flexibility in resource use patterns. We note that while it is well understood that resource scarcity can lead to conflict, it is also possible that conflict management can be an important element of addressing resource scarcity. Communities can identify solutions to both environmental degradation and insecurity if given facilitative support, which suggests there is reason to be cautiously optimistic about pastoral development efforts which adopt this approach.