توانمندسازی و موسسات : مدیریت شیلات در اوگاندا

The perception of communities as homogeneous and concern over representation and accountability of structures are key critiques of community-based natural resource management (CBNRM). A focus on understanding institutions that mediate access to, and control over, natural resources is seen as a way forward to improving management regimes that include local people. Experience in the implementation of integrated lake management in Uganda is drawn on to understand how institutions can be challenged to improve access to fisheries for marginalized stakeholders. Processes such as empowerment and the formation of accountable and representative structures are part of the way forward.

Managing natural resources remains a challenge in developing countries, where information is scarce, demands are often high and the resources available to improve management are limited. The shift away from centralized management has been broadly welcomed, and community-based natural resource management (CBNRM) approaches have been embraced in many countries for different types of natural resources and situations. Multiple conditions for successful management of common property resources by local users, or communities, have been identified and discussed in the literature (Agrawal, 2001, Fabricius, 2004 and Oström, 1990). While the participation of local people in natural resource management has been welcomed, CBNRM has been criticized and accused of being ineffective, both in terms of improving management and improving livelihoods (Agrawal and Gibson, 1999, Allison and Ellis, 2001, Blaikie, 2003 and Leach et al., 1999). Critiques of CBNRM challenge assumptions about communities, incentives, interests of and structures. There is an emerging consensus that natural resource management efforts that involve local people should focus on facilitating negotiations and empowering the marginalized through existing and new institutions, rather than focusing on the communities themselves (Agrawal and Gibson, 1999 and Leach et al., 1999). This article reviews critiques of CBNRM and identifies how an institutional approach to developing and analyzing locally based natural resource management should make interventions more appropriate and effective. The analysis draws on the environmental entitlements approach (Leach et al., 1999) to identify the types of institutional arrangements that influence access to, and management of, lake fisheries in Uganda, both before, and as a result of, the introduction of a new approach to lake management. Fisheries co-management has been introduced in Uganda within the context of a more integrated approach to lake management, bringing together multiple sectors (such as environment, forestry, health, and community development) to co-ordinate planning and management, and improve livelihoods ( ILM, 2004a and ILM, 2004b). The experience of fisheries co-management and integrated lake management (ILM) in Uganda builds on the critiques of CBNRM, by demonstrating how local people can be empowered, while recognizing diversity in terms of power, influence and assets, and enabled, to challenge institutional arrangements that impede equitable access to the benefits of fisheries resources. The analysis confirms suggestions in the environmental entitlements literature that indirect approaches that enable people to use, and where necessary, challenge and change institutional arrangements may be more appropriate than directly trying to change institutions (Leach et al., 1999). This is due to the complexity, multiplicity and diversity of institutional arrangements between and within households and communities. Such indirect approaches include empowerment, creating networks of structures for lake management, ensuring accountability, devolving rule-making powers, establishing poverty-focused access rights, managing conflict and integrating natural resource management with wider socio-economic development initiatives. The analysis of these processes confirms observations made in the literature regarding how people can claim their rights through appropriate institutions, and contributes to the further development of an institutional approach to supporting and analyzing the involvement of local people in natural resource management.

The critique of the focus on communities within CBNRM and fisheries co-management highlights the types of assumptions that have been inaccurately made about communities. The consensus on the need to recognize and reflect the diversity of socio-economic difference within “communities,” as well as the difficulties involved in defining spatial limits of communities which may exclude some stakeholders, such as migratory fishers, has led to a call for a greater analysis of the types of institutions that mediate access to, and control over, natural resources. This focus on the nature of institutions, leading to a greater understanding of the power, influence and assets of different stakeholders, should strengthen community-based approaches, making them more appropriate and effective, with greater flexibility, reflecting diversity and difference. As noted by Leach et al. (1997), recognizing and understanding institutions does not necessarily mean that it is possible to implement processes or structures that directly influence these institutions to achieve agreed objectives, whether these are about the management of the resource, or about who benefits from the resource. Indirect approaches are needed that empower and enable marginalized stakeholders to challenge institutions that impede their access to resources and to decision-making structures. This may include the formation of new management structures, which may, or may not, lead to new institutions. The experience in Uganda provides strong evidence in support of an indirect approach to challenging, strengthening and changing institutions to facilitate local-level NRM. Analysis of the ILM approach confirms that empowerment, recognition of the diversity of interests and different degrees of power within “communities,” and understanding of the environment in which local institutions operate, including the meso and macro levels, are vital components of an institutional approach. This is supported by the National Fisheries Policy (2004), which, although it has objectives such as controlling access and enforcing regulations, it also recognizes the role of fisheries community-based organizations in decision making and development planning, illustrating a broader understanding of fisheries management. Enabling local people to monitor the performance of organizations in which they are represented is seen as essential for accountability, transparency and effectiveness. This is reflected in BMU legislation and guidelines, through democratic elections and guidance on committee meetings and decision making. Networked structures, as illustrated by Lake Management Organizations, can further support local-level NRM by strengthening the role and influence of local people and organizations at all levels. The ILM approach has the right ingredients to address livelihoods concerns and improve natural resource management, but ongoing support is needed for the more marginalized in ensuring that they benefit from the new arrangements. Resources, further capacity building and supervision and performance reviews are needed to build on the efforts to date. Conflict within and between BMUs has been observed, though not all of it is associated with lake or fisheries management (ILM, 2004b) and not all Fisheries Officers have embraced the new approach and fully appreciated how their relationships with the fisheries communities should change. While BMUs and LMOs provide fora for conflict management or resolution, support may be needed to enable the parties involved to reach mutually agreeable positions. Coherent and effective lake management cannot, however, await the spontaneous formation of institutions and processes by communities that may lead to piecemeal and opposing aims within a particular lake. A lake-wide approach promotes coherence and co-ordination of efforts, for maximum effectiveness in terms of improving livelihoods and improving natural resource productivity. The interests of stakeholders from the fish landing sites would, however, be strengthened by the formation of a BMU federation, to further strengthen the voices of fisheries communities in negotiations with local and national government and other development partners. Involving local people in the management of natural resources requires diverse, situation specific arrangements and approaches, recognizing the diversity and complexity of livelihoods and the fact that the management of natural resources is just one component of their livelihood strategies. Understanding the context and institutions involved in using and managing natural resources is key to developing approaches to improve the benefits of the natural resources received by more marginalized stakeholders. Empowerment is critical to any new approach to supporting the role of local people in the management of natural resources and can come from multiple sources. Many lessons have been learnt from CBNRM approaches and an institutional approach should strengthen the effective involvement of local people in management arrangements, building on how people already use and manage resources, and reflecting diversity within communities and differences in power and influence between stakeholders.