IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ibn/jsd123/v8y2015i2p99.html

Local Governance Institutions, CBNRM, and Benefit-sharing Systems in Namibian Conservancies

Author

Listed:
  • Alfons Mosimane
  • Julie Silva

Abstract

The provision of socio-economic benefits to community members is a key component in the design and implementation of community based natural resources management (CBNRM) initiatives in rural areas. Namibian CBNRM legislation requires that the local governance systems develop a benefit sharing plan (MET, 1995). Local governance systems that are developed within CBNRM programs determine the types and amounts of benefits that community members receive. This paper investigates the role of local governance in establishing benefit-sharing mechanisms and whether local governance facilitates or impedes the equitable distribution of benefits. We also examine whether community characteristics often highlighted in community based conservation literature as facilitating decision making in CBNRM (i.e., size of community, level of community homogeneity, and existence of shared norms) contribute to better local governance for benefit sharing. We use two case studies in Namibia to examine local governance and benefit sharing (Uibasen conservancy in Kunene region and Mayuni conservancy in Caprivi region). We draw on qualitative data from in-depth interviews with conservancy residents conducted in 2011. The findings of the study suggest local governance institutions in conservancies have not developed adequate benefit-sharing systems, and the expectations of conservancy members are largely based on speculation about what they should receive stemming from unclear guidelines regarding realistically deliverable benefits. We find that community characteristics have little impact on local governance outcomes with regards to benefit-sharing systems. This suggests that local governance structures need more external support and oversight in designing and implementing methods for distributing benefits to community members. We argue that fairness and equitable sharing of benefits can only be achieved when it is an explicit objective of the benefit-sharing systems used by local governance structures and involves transparency.

Suggested Citation

  • Alfons Mosimane & Julie Silva, 2015. "Local Governance Institutions, CBNRM, and Benefit-sharing Systems in Namibian Conservancies," Journal of Sustainable Development, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 8(2), pages 1-99, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:ibn:jsd123:v:8:y:2015:i:2:p:99
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/jsd/article/download/43349/25422
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/jsd/article/view/43349
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Agrawal, Arun, 2001. "Common Property Institutions and Sustainable Governance of Resources," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 29(10), pages 1649-1672, October.
    2. Agrawal, Arun & Gibson, Clark C., 1999. "Enchantment and Disenchantment: The Role of Community in Natural Resource Conservation," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 27(4), pages 629-649, April.
    3. Leach, Melissa & Mearns, Robin & Scoones, Ian, 1999. "Environmental Entitlements: Dynamics and Institutions in Community-Based Natural Resource Management," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 27(2), pages 225-247, February.
    4. Blaikie, Piers, 2006. "Is Small Really Beautiful? Community-based Natural Resource Management in Malawi and Botswana," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 34(11), pages 1942-1957, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Millner, Naomi & Peñagaricano, Irune & Fernandez, Maria & Snook, Laura K., 2020. "The politics of participation: Negotiating relationships through community forestry in the Maya Biosphere Reserve, Guatemala," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 127(C).
    2. L. Jamila Haider & Benjamin Neusel & Garry D. Peterson & Maja Schlüter, 2019. "Past management affects success of current joint forestry management institutions in Tajikistan," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 21(5), pages 2183-2224, October.
    3. Van Hecken, Gert & Bastiaensen, Johan & Windey, Catherine, 2015. "The frontiers of the debate on Payments for Ecosystem Services: a proposal for innovative future research," IOB Discussion Papers 2015.05, Universiteit Antwerpen, Institute of Development Policy (IOB).
    4. Ojha, Hemant R. & Ford, Rebecca & Keenan, Rodney J. & Race, Digby & Carias Vega, Dora & Baral, Himlal & Sapkota, Prativa, 2016. "Delocalizing Communities: Changing Forms of Community Engagement in Natural Resources Governance," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 274-290.
    5. Yeboah-Assiamah, Emmanuel & Muller, Kobus & Domfeh, Kwame Ameyaw, 2017. "Institutional assessment in natural resource governance: A conceptual overview," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 1-12.
    6. Robinson, Brian E. & Provencher, Bill & Lewis, David J., 2013. "Managing Wild Resources: Institutional Choice and the Recovery of Resource Rent in Southwest China," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 120-132.
    7. Kobe De Pourcq & Evert Thomas & Bas Arts & An Vranckx & Tomas Léon-Sicard & Patrick Van Damme, 2015. "Conflict in Protected Areas: Who Says Co-Management Does Not Work?," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(12), pages 1-15, December.
    8. Ruben Weesie, 2019. "Towards Adaptive Commons: A Case Study of Agro-Pastoral Dams in Northern Ghana," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(2), pages 1-29, January.
    9. Siegelman, Ben & Haenn, Nora & Basurto, Xavier, 2019. "“Lies build trust”: Social capital, masculinity, and community-based resource management in a Mexican fishery," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 123(C), pages 1-1.
    10. Nunan, Fiona, 2006. "Empowerment and institutions: Managing fisheries in Uganda," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 34(7), pages 1316-1332, July.
    11. Chomba, Susan & Treue, Thorsten & Sinclair, Fergus, 2015. "The political economy of forest entitlements: can community based forest management reduce vulnerability at the forest margin?," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 37-46.
    12. Nygren, Anja, 2005. "Community-based forest management within the context of institutional decentralization in Honduras," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 33(4), pages 639-655, April.
    13. De La Cruz S., Marco & Dessein, Joost, 2021. "Beyond institutional bricolage: An ‘intertwining approach’ to understanding the transition towards agroecology in Peru," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 187(C).
    14. Purnamita Dasgupta, 2007. "Common Property Resources as Development Drivers: A Study of Fruit Cooperative in Himachal Pradesh: India," Working Papers id:917, eSocialSciences.
    15. Johnson, Craig & Forsyth, Timothy, 2002. "In the Eyes of the State: Negotiating a "Rights-Based Approach" to Forest Conservation in Thailand," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 30(9), pages 1591-1605, September.
    16. Schusser, Carsten, 2013. "Who determines biodiversity? An analysis of actors' power and interests in community forestry in Namibia," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 36(C), pages 42-51.
    17. O. T. Thakadu, 2005. "Success factors in community based natural resources management in northern Botswana: Lessons from practice," Natural Resources Forum, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 29(3), pages 199-212, August.
    18. Kerr, John, 2002. "Watershed Development, Environmental Services, and Poverty Alleviation in India," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 30(8), pages 1387-1400, August.
    19. Okumu, Boscow & Muchapondwa, Edwin, 2017. "Determinants of Successful Collective Management of Forest Resources: Evidence from Kenyan Community Forest Associations," EfD Discussion Paper 17-11, Environment for Development, University of Gothenburg.
    20. Fisher, Janet A. & Patenaude, Genevieve & Giri, Kalpana & Lewis, Kristina & Meir, Patrick & Pinho, Patricia & Rounsevell, Mark D.A. & Williams, Mathew, 2014. "Understanding the relationships between ecosystem services and poverty alleviation: A conceptual framework," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 7(C), pages 34-45.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • R00 - Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate, and Transportation Economics - - General - - - General
    • Z0 - Other Special Topics - - General

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ibn:jsd123:v:8:y:2015:i:2:p:99. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Canadian Center of Science and Education (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/cepflch.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.