Is CBNRM The Solution?

The Reality of Community-Based Natural Resource Management in Zambia

A blog entry by Anna-Lena Mieke

“CBNRM aims to align the interests of local communities with conservation goals, fostering stewardship and improving livelihoods”

 

Community-Based Natural Resource Management (CBNRM) has long seen as a solution to the challenges of conservation and equitable management of resources1,2. By decentralizing control and fostering local participation, CBNRM aims to balance biodiversity protection and the wellbeing of local communities3–5. With the inclusion of interlinked aspect – governance, natural resource management and livelihood, it has become an integral part of national conservation strategies. However, a recent study by Kachali (et al 2024) on the North Luangwa ecosystem in Zambia reveals a stark contrast between the theoretical benefits of CBNRM and its practical outcomes 6.

Theoretical Benefits vs. Practical Outcomes

 

CBNRM is designed to empower local communities by involving them directly in conservation efforts and resource management7,8. In theory, this approach should promote equity, enhance participation, and leverage local knowledge for sustainable development. The creation of Community Resource Boards (CRBs) was intended to institutionalize these benefits, giving local people a voice in decision-making processes2,9. Yet, the practical implementation of CBNRM in North Luangwa has led to unintended consequences that undermine these goals.

Instead of fostering genuine community participation, the shift to CBNRM has increased the power of customary chiefs through commercialization and bureaucratization of their roles​6. Chiefs have become gatekeepers for NGOs and government institutions, centralizing power and control over resources . This centralization has often come at the expense of local empowerment, as chiefs prioritize their interests over those of the community6.

Symbolic vs. Genuine Participation

 

The study highlights a crucial problem: the contrast between the seemingly participation of the community and the actual influence that local people have in decision-making – in other words between symbolic and genuineparticipation. While there are formal structures such as CBRs to include local voices, these often only act outwardly. Elections and representation in CRBs are frequently seen as a mere formality, with decisions ultimately influenced and made by chiefs and external actors. As a result, the local community experience thefeeling of being unseen and excluded from decision-making processes6.

From various interviews and conversations with focus groups in the North Luangwa ecosystem, it has become clear that CRBs often do not fulfill their purpose. Instead of empowering communities and involving them in important decision-making processes, they are often presented with a fait accompli. Decision-making is usually non-transparent and excludes local communities. Meetings between CRB members and villagers are rare and important decisions on for example resource allocation are made without genuine community participation. Some interviews also revealed that many people in the local communities are even afraid of the consequences of voicing a disagreement6.

The Role of External Donors and NGOs

 

But not just CRB play a role in shaping the outcome of CBNRM: External donors and NGOs also play a pivotal6. Organizations such as the Frankfurt Zoological Society influence conservation and livelihood programmes through their funding opportunities. As a result, local communities often feel excluded from decision-making processes that have a significant impact on their lives. This often leads again to a disconnect between NGOs and local communities. The dominance of external actors can maintain a cycle of dependency and disempowerment, rather than promoting local ownership and capacity building6.

Moving Towards Genuine Participation

 

The findings from the North Luangwa ecosystem underscore the need for a reevaluation of CBNRM strategies . To achieve the intended benefits of CBNRM, there must be a shift from symbolic to genuine participation. This involves ensuring that local communities have real influence over decisions, rather than merely being present at the table. It also requires a careful assessment of local power dynamics and the integration of culturally relevant governance structures.

Policymakers and conservationists must recognize that effective CBNRM cannot be achieved through top-down approaches that replicate colonial conservation models. Instead, they should focus on building inclusive, transparent, and locally legitimate institutions that truly empower communities . Only through such genuine participatory frameworks can CBNRM fulfill its promise of equitable and sustainable resource management6.

References

  1. Gurney, G. G., Adams, V. M., Álvarez-Romero, J. G. & Claudet, J. Area-based conservation: Taking stock and looking ahead. One Earth vol. 6 98–104 (2023).
  2. Marks, S. Contextual factors influencing a rural community and the development of a wildlife management regime in Zambia (1987–1997). Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning 1, 235–246 (1999).
  3. Harrison, J., Melamari, L. & Suárez De Freitas, G. The International Journal for Protected Area Managers. Protected Areas Programme vol. 12 www.cee.envirodebate.org (2002).
  4. Bennett, N. J. et al. Social equity and marine protected areas: Perceptions of small-scale fishermen in the Mediterranean Sea. Biol Conserv 244, (2020).
  5. Berkes, F. Community-Based Conservation in a Globalized World. www.pnas.org (2007).
  6. Kachali, R. N., Dawson, N. M. & Loos, J. Institutional rearrangements in the north Luangwa ecosystem: Implications of a shift to community based natural resource management for equity in protected area governance. Heliyon 10 (2024).
  7. Cleaver, F. & De Koning, J. Furthering critical institutionalism. Int J Commons 9, 1–18 (2015).
  8. Fabinyi, M., Evans, L. & Foale, S. J. Social-ecological systems, social diversity, and power: Insights from anthropology and political ecology. Ecology and Society 19, (2014).
  9. E Clarke, by J. Associates for International Resources and Development, CARANA Corporation, A.P. Gross & Company, International Programs Consortium. Cargill Technical Services (2000).

Header
Image: Emmanuel Ikwuegbu
Quote: Fabricius, C., Koch, E., Turner, S., & Magome, H. (Eds.). (2013). Rights Resources and Rural Development: Community-based Natural Resource Management in Southern Africa. Earthscan.