Hostname: page-component-7f64f4797f-bnl7t Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-11-04T01:50:42.119Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The livelihood impacts of the Namibian community based natural resource management programme: a meta-synthesis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 June 2010

HELEN SUICH
HELEN SUICH*
Affiliation:
PO Box 566, Milsons Point, NSW 2061, Australia
*
*Correspondence: Helen Suich e-mail: helensuich@yahoo.co.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Community based natural resource management (CBNRM) programmes aim to achieve the joint objectives of biodiversity conservation and improved rural livelihoods by providing incentives to sustainably manage relevant resources. Since 1998, more than 50 natural resource management institutions, known as conservancies, have been established in order to manage wildlife resources, on communal lands in Namibia. The national programme is often cited as a CBNRM success; however, despite its rapid spread, there are few systematically collected or analysed household-level data which demonstrate the long-term ecological, social and economic impacts of Namibian programme. A meta-synthesis was undertaken to determine the range of positive and negative livelihood impacts resulting from CBNRM programme activities in two key regions, and the factors affecting how these impacts have been felt by households or individuals. Impacts were categorized according to any changes in access to and/or returns from the five key assets of the sustainable livelihoods framework, namely financial, human, natural, physical and social assets. Positive and negative impacts were felt on financial, human, natural and social assets; only positive impacts were identified as affecting physical assets. Individual- and household-level impacts differed depending on the specific activities implemented locally and, according to the duration, frequency and timing of the impacts, the circumstances and preferences of households and their access to particular activities and consequent impacts. If a greater understanding of the extent and importance of different impacts is to be gained in the future, more rigorous and comprehensive data collection and analysis will need to be undertaken. Analyses will need to consider the whole range of activities implemented, both the benefits and costs associated with these different activities, and will also need to provide contextual information to allow the relative importance of impacts resulting from CBNRM activities to be better understood.

Keywords

community based natural resource managementlivelihoodsimpactmeta-synthesisNamibia

Information

Type
THEMATIC SECTION: Community-based natural resource management (CBNRM): designing the next generation (Part 1)
Information
Environmental Conservation , Volume 37 , Issue 1: Thematic section. Community-based natural resource management (CBNRM): designing the next generation (Part 1) , March 2010 , pp. 45 - 53
Copyright
Copyright © Foundation for Environmental Conservation 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Adams, W. (2004) Against Extinction. The Story of Conservation. London, UK: Earthscan.Google Scholar
Adams, W. & Hulme, D. (2001) Conservation and community. Changing narratives, policies and practices in African conservation. In: African Wildlife and Livelihoods. The Promise and Performance of Community Conservation, ed. Hulme, D. & Murphree, M., pp. 9–23. London, UK: James Currey.Google Scholar
Agrawal, A. & Gibson, C.C. (1999) Enchantment and disenchantment: the role of community in natural resource conservation. World Development 27 (4): 629–649.Google Scholar
Attree, P. (2006) The social costs of child poverty: a systematic review of the qualitative evidence. Children and Society 20 (1): 54–66.Google Scholar
Bair, C. & Haworth, J. (2005) Doctoral student attrition and persistence: a meta-synthesis of research. In: Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research, ed. Smart, J.C., pp. 481–534. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bandyopadhyay, S., Humavindu, M., Shyamsundar, P. & Wang, L. (2004) Do households gain from community based natural resource management? An evaluation of community conservancies in Namibia. Policy Research Working Paper, World Bank, Washington DC, USA.Google Scholar
Blaikie, P. (2006) Is small really beautiful? Community-based natural resource management in Malawi and Botswana. World Development 34 (11): 1942–1957.Google Scholar
Bond, I. (2001) CAMPFIRE and the incentives for institutional change. In: African Wildlife and Livelihoods. The Promise and Performance of Community Conservation, ed. Hulme, D. & Murphree, M., pp. 227–243, Oxford, UK: Heinemann.Google Scholar
Bondas, T. & Hall, E.O.C. (2007) Challenges in approaching meta-synthesis research. Qualitative Health Research 17 (1): 113–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boudreaux, K. (2007) Community based natural resource management and poverty alleviation in Namibia: a case study. Mercatus Policy Series Policy Comment No. 10, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA, USA.Google Scholar
Carney, D., ed. (1998) Sustainable Rural Livelihoods: What Contribution Can We Make? London, UK: DFID.Google Scholar
Carney, D., Drinkwater, M., Rusinow, T., Neefjes, K., Wanmali, S. & Singh, N. (1999) Livelihood Approaches Compared. A Brief Comparison of the Livelihoods Approaches of the UK Department for International Development, CARE, Oxfam and the United Nations Development Programme. London, UK: DFID.Google Scholar
Davidson, A., ed. (2008) Case Studies on Community Based Tourism Enterprises. Windhoek, Namibia: WWF-LIFE.Google Scholar
DFID (1999) Sustainable Livelihood Guidance Sheets. London, UK: DFID.Google Scholar
Emerton, L. (1998) The nature of benefits and the benefits of nature: why wildlife conservation has not economically benefited communities in Africa. Community Conservation in Africa Working Paper No.5/1998, IDPM, Manchester, UK.Google Scholar
Ferraro, P.J. (2009) Counterfactual thinking and impact evaluation in environmental policy. New Directions for Evaluation 2009 (122): 75–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferraro, P. & Pattanayak, S. (2006) Money for nothing? A call for empirical evaluation of biodiversity conservation investments. PLoS Biology 4 (4): 482–488.Google Scholar
Finfgeld, D.L. (2003) Meta-synthesis: the state of the art – so far. Qualitative Health Research 13 (7): 893–904.Google Scholar
Ghimire, K. & Pimbert, M., eds (1997) Social Change and Conservation: Environmental Politics and Impacts of National Parks and Protected Areas. London, UK: Earthscan.Google Scholar
Hulme, D. & Murphree, M. (1999) Communities, wildlife and the ‘new conservation’ in Africa. Journal of International Development 11 (2): 277–85.Google Scholar
Hulme, D. & Murphree, M. (2001) Community conservation in Africa. An introduction. In: African Wildlife and Livelihoods. The Promise and Performance of Community Conservation, ed. Hulme, D. & Murphree, M., pp. 1–8, London, UK: James Currey.Google Scholar
IIED (1994) Whose Eden? An Overview of Community Approaches to Wildlife Management. London, UK: IIED.Google Scholar
Jacobsohn, M. & Owen-Smith, G. (2003) Integrating conservation and development. A Namibian case study. Nomadic Peoples 7 (1): 92–109.Google Scholar
Jones, B. (2006) Case studies on successful southern African NRM initiatives and their impacts on poverty and governance. Country study: Namibia. Promoting integrated natural resource management as a means to combat desertification: the Living In A Finite Environment (LIFE) project and the #Khoadi//Hoas Conservancy, Namibia. Paper prepared for the United States Agency for International Development and the IUCN Transboundary Protected Areas Research Initiative [www document]. URL http://www.irgltd.com/Resources/Publications/Africa/Namibia%20case%20studies%20phase%201%20final%20report%20v2.pdfGoogle Scholar
Jones, B. & Murphree, M.W. (2004) Community-based natural resource management as a conservation mechanism: lessons and directions. In: Parks in Transition. Biodiversity, Rural Development and the Bottom Line, ed. Child, B., pp. 63–103. London, UK: Earthscan.Google Scholar
Jones, B. & Weaver, L.C. (2009) CBNRM in Namibia: Growth, trends, lessons and constraints. In: Evolution and Innovation in Wildlife Conservation. Game Parks and Transfrontier Conservation Areas, ed. Suich, H., Child, B. & Spenceley, A., pp. 223–242. London, UK: Earthscan.Google Scholar
Kiss, A., ed. (1990) Living with wildlife. Wildlife resource management with local participation in Africa. World Bank Technical Paper. World Bank, Washington DC, USA.Google Scholar
Levine, S. (2007) Trends in human development and human poverty in Namibia. Background paper to the Namibian Human Development Report, UNDP, Windhoek, Namibia. [www document] URL http://www.sarpn.org.za/documents/d0002886/HD_report_Namibia_UNDP_Oct2007.pdfGoogle Scholar
Marshall, G. (2005) Economics for Collaborative Environmental Management. Renegotiating the Commons. London, UK: Earthscan.Google Scholar
Mendelsohn, J., Jarvis, A., Roberts, C. & Robertson, T. (2002) Atlas of Namibia. Cape Town, South Africa: David Phillip.Google Scholar
Mosimane, A. & Muranda, N. (2007) Torra Conservancy's contribution to poverty alleviation. MRC Research Report, University of Namibia/Multidisciplinary Research Centre, Windhoek, Namibia.Google Scholar
Mulonga, S. and Murphy, C. (2003) Spending the money: The experience of conservancy benefit distribution in Namibia up to mid-2003. Research Discussion Paper No.63 Windhoek: DEA/MET.Google Scholar
Murphree, M. (1993) Communities as Resource Management Institutions. Gatekeeper Series No. 36. London, UK: IIED.Google Scholar
NACSO (2007) Namibia's Communal Conservancies. A Review of Progress and Challenges in 2007. Windhoek, Namibia: NACSO.Google Scholar
Neumann, R.P. (2005) Model, panacea, or exception? Contextualizing CAMPFIRE and related programs in Africa. In: Communities and Conservation. Histories and Politics of Community Based Natural Resource Management, ed. Brosius, J.P., Tsing, A.L. & Zerner, C., pp. 177–193, Walnut Creek, CA, USA: Alta Mira Press.Google Scholar
Nott, K. & Curtis, B. (2005) Aromatic resins from Commiphora trees. Roan News. Wildlife Society of Namibia, Windhoek, Namibia.Google Scholar
Ogbaharya, D.G. (2006) A capability theory of CBNRM: the case of Namibia's communal conservancy programme. Paper prepared for the International Conference of the Human Development and Capability Association, the International Conference of the Human Development and Capability Association on ‘Freedom and Justice’, Groningen, The Netherlands, August 29-September 1, 2006 [www document]. URL http://www.equatorinitiative.org/index.php?option=com_docman&task=doc_download&gid=423&Itemid=398&lang=enGoogle Scholar
Pagiola, S., Arcenas, A. & Platais, G. (2005) Can payments for environmental services help reduce poverty? An exploration of the issues and the evidence to date from Latin America. World Development 33 (2): 237–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pagiola, S., Rios, A.R. & Arcenas, A. (2008) Can the poor participate in payments for environmental services? Lessons from the Silvopastoral Project in Nicaragua. Environment and Development Economics 13 (3): 299–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shackleton, S., Shackleton, C., Netshiluvhi, T., Geach, B., Ballance, A. & Fairbanks, D. (2002) Use patterns and value of savannah resources in three rural villages in South Africa. Economic Botany 56 (2): 130–146.Google Scholar
Suich, H. (2003) Summary of partial results from the socio-economic household survey regarding community based natural resource management and livelihoods in Caprivi and Kunene. WILD Working Paper No.12. WILD, Windhoek, Namibia.Google Scholar
Thorne, S., Jensen, L., Kearney, M.H., Noblit, G. & Sandelowski, M. (2004) Qualitative meta-synthesis: reflections on methodological orientation and ideological agenda. Qualitative Health Research 14 (10): 1342–1365.Google Scholar
Vaughan, C., Mulonga, S. and Katjiua, J.B. (2003b) Cash from conservation: Torra community tastes the benefits. A short survey and review of the Torra Conservancy cash payouts to individual registered members. WILD Working Paper No.15. WILD, Windhoek, Namibia.Google Scholar
Walsh, D. & Downe, S. (2005) Meta-synthesis method for qualitative research: a literature review. Journal of Advanced Nursing 50 (2): 204–211.Google Scholar
Wunder, S. (2008) Payments for environmental services and the poor: concepts and preliminary evidence. Environment and Development Economics 13 (3): 279–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Suich Supplementary Material

Appendix.doc

Download Suich Supplementary Material(File)
File 62.5 KB