Community-Based Natural Resource Management (CBNRM) promised that the model would facilitate linkages between natural resources conservation and community well-being. However, there has frequently fallen short of expectations and many criticisms stressing on the “failure” implementation of CBNRM (Leach, et, al. 1999., Stone & Nyaupane, 2014). Some critics argue that CBNRM privileges the former over the latter and it represents the extension of neoliberalism into the exploitation of nature. In the beginning, CBNRM idea is based on the principal that if conservation and development can be achieved simultaneously and the interests of both could be served. A CBNRM project also designed to facilitating one or two communities to organize themselves so that they get benefits from the utilization of local natural resources as well as actively involved in the conservation activities (inclusion of the community in conservation agenda).
On the other hand, communities are pressured not only by internal but also by other external forces, such as government, markets, NGOs, and other external entities. These external forces have played a critical role in eroding the capacity of collective action of communities (McCay & Jentoft, 1998). As a consequence, the practice of CBNRM which is situated at the interface between community, state (government), private business, NGOs and other outside institution often creates contradictions between its promise and actual implementation (Blaikie, 2006). Since the local communities have tiny space to assert themselves and lose their critical points to control over resources (dis-embeddedness), local community tend to use violence as a tool to make their resistances and frustrations known (Meera & Schnurr, 2014).
Exclusion or alienation of community in natural resource management may have direct implications for the sustainability of the program, natural resources, and community itself (Berkes, 2008). Although there is no universal concept of ‘community’ (Kumar, 2005), it is still a central issue (subject to define) in the community-based project across the world. However, many studies have a lack of conceptualisation of community and fail to recognize how this complexity and diversity affect natural resource-based project (Stone & Nyaupane, 2014., Meera & Schnurrb, 2014). As a result, the “thin” and poor reflections of the empirical reality of community can cause misleading on the practical intervention strategies.
On the context of governance, community has been shown their potential capacity on self-govern their commons or resources. Hardin’s claim that communities will not able to govern their common sustainably is not valid (Laerhoven & Barnes, 2014). There are eight (8) design principles as an essential element or condition that will help for the success of self-governance sustainability over user generation after generation (Ostrom, 1992; Singleton & Taylor, 1992). From a resource-dependent community perspective, communities also have an organizational and institutional capacity to respond change (community resilience & community adaptability) (Matarrita-Cascante & Trejos, 2013). Above all, the resources will not suffer from the tragedy of the commons because of Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK) that embedded in the community’s body of knowledge, practice, and belief (Berkes, 2008).
In conclusion, the sustainability of CBNRM or other Community-Based Conservation program depends on the embeddedness of the program in the social, political and cultural condition of local people and the ability to ensuring social justice, supporting material wellbeing and stimulating environmental integrity (Dressler, 2010). In fact, Communities are not just geographical and social entities. Community emerges not only through the interaction among people who are living together and care about each other, but also have a capacity to participate, manage, utilize, and enhance the resources available to them (community agency) (Flint, et.al, 2008). Just as community participation needs an atmosphere of openness, trust each other, conviction and confidence (Stone & Nyaupane, 2014), so the Lack of community belongingness and unequal distribution of benefits will increase frustration and resistance to the program. For this reason, the focus of the community-based program should remain at the local level; putting the community first.
Work cited:
Berkes, Fikret. 2008. Sacred Ecology (second edition). UK: Routledge
Blaikie, Piers. 2006. Is Small Really Beautiful? Community-based Natural Resources Management in Malawi and Botswana. WorldDevelopmentVol.34, No.11, pp.1942–1957
Dressler, Wolfarm. 2010. From hope to crisis and back again? A critical history of the global CBNRM narrative. Environmental Conservation, 37 (1): 5–15
Flint, Courtney G, et.al. 2008. Where Is ‘‘Community’’ in Community-Based Forestry? Society and Natural Resources, 21:526–537
Kumar, Chetan 2005. Revisiting ‘community’ in community-based natural resource management. Oxford University Press and Community Development Journal. 2005
Laerhoven, Frank Van, and Clare Barnes. 2014. Communities and Commons: the role of community development support in sustaining the commons. Community Development Journal vol 49, no 51, pp 18-32
Leach, Melissa, Robin Mearns and Ian Scoones. 1999. Environmental Entitlements: Dynamics and Institutions in Community-Based Natural Resource Management. World Development Vol. 27, No. 2, pp. 225-247
Matarrita-Cascante, David, and Bernardo Trejos. 2013. Community Resilience in Resource-Dependent Communities: a Comparative Case Study. Environment and Planning A, vol 45, page 1387-1402
Meera, Talia, and Matthew A. Schnurr. 2013. The community versus community-based natural resource management: the case of Ndumo game reserve, South Africa. Canadian Journal of Development Studies
Ostrom, Elinor. 1992. Community and the Endogenous Solution of Commons Problems 4(3): 343-351
Singleton, Sara & Michael Taylor. 1992. Common property, collective action, and community. Journal of Theoretical Politics 4(3): 309-324
Stone, Moren Tibabo & Gyan Nyaupane. Rethinking community in community-based natural resource management. Community Development, 45:1, 17-31
McCay, Bonnie & Svein Jentoft. 1998. Market or Community Failure? Critical Perspectives on Common Property Research. Human Organization, Vol. 57, No. 1, 1998
No comments:
Post a Comment