Evaluating the Strengths and Limitations of Community Natural Resource Management - Coursework Example

School Evaluating the Strengths and Limitations of Community Natural Resource Management Biodiversity, fresh water and food are of paramount importance to our living. They are natural gifts to us, which essentially reveals that we co-exist with them. Their extinction would mean extinction of human lives as well. In particular, fresh water is used in practically everything in our lives: “domestic water supply for personal consumption, irrigation for food production, an input in the production process of industrial and consumer goods, a natural resource that sustains the biodiversity around us and shapes the landscapes in which we live, and even the basis of some of our recreational activities” (Budds, p.142). However, the increasing population and failure to preserve water resources have brought worldwide water crisis. Key water management challenges include “effective water management, controlling water pollution, conserving aquatic biodiversity, and coping with changes to water resources associated with climate change” (Budds, p.142). Up to date, there are around 1.2 billion people mostly coming from developing countries who “still lack access to sufficient and safe water to meet their basic needs” (qtd. in WHO and UNICEF, 2000). On the other hand, our biodiversity, which includes “trees, insects, mammals, corals, amoeba, fungi and all aspects of flora (plant life), fauna (animal life) and the dynamic interactions between them”, is facing extinction (David Humphreys, p.183). The increasing rate of biodiversity extinction is largely caused by “climate change, pollution and habitat loss; for example, due to urbanisation and tropical forest clearance” (Budds, p.184). Lastly, we have a growing concern regarding food. It is noted that some agricultural practices aimed at increasing productivity have negative effects on the environment. The result is an ever-increasing difficulty to produce food: “farmers complained that they were unable to raise any pigs – the litters were too small and the young only survived a few days. The apple trees were coming into bloom but no bees droned among the blossoms, so there was no pollination and there would be no fruit. The roadsides, once so attractive, were now lined with brown and withered vegetation as though swept by fire” (Goodman, p.220). The negative agricultural practices mentioned in the book includes use of agricultural chemicals such as insecticides (Goodman, p.220). In this paper, we take a particular look at the concept of community natural resources management, how they are done, their strengths and limitations and the possible solutions in the future: how community natural resource management can be used for future environmental policies. The discussion will deal heavily with biodiversity and water resources, although we will also be mentioning agriculture once in a while. Community natural resource management’ as a key environmental policy response  Water resource Although considered natural resources, most water resource management involves human intervention. Construction of dams, for example, are unnatural but are practiced for economic reasons (Budds, p.146). Also indirectly, “people also induce changes to water resources”, such as through “the rules, practices, roles and customs through which water management is organised” (Budds, p.146). Recently, the concept of global water crisis is surfacin. It includes both “the decreasing availability of fresh water through increasing demand and consumption (from agriculture, industry, rising populations, cities), pollution and changing climatic conditions, and the lack of access to drinking water among lower-income groups, largely in developing countries” (Budds, p.152). There are various responses to the water crisis. For example, how the Greek government has solved the problem is different from the conception and solution of the Irish government. The Greek government resorted to water demand management, which independent studies warned of “having serious social, economic, political and environmental implications” (Budds, p.159). Particular steps undertaken by the Greek government include “public awareness campaign, a ban on watering gardens, washing cars and filling swimming pools, and an increase in water prices of 105–338%” (Budds, p.159). Price serves as a cost to consuming water, thus higher price will shift the demand down. What happened in Greece was not laudable as the water problem was sensationalized by the media, thus justifying “urgent measures without the usual public consultation or consideration of alternatives” and in the end surfaced to be “market-oriented measures” which were not necessary (Budds, p.161). Privatization. One of the ways community have managed water resources is privatization. This move is based on the premise of neoliberals: “that the private sector and the market should play greater roles in the economy and social life” (Budds, p.162). This is done through more private sector participation and limited government intervention in both planning and regulation. An example of a privatized water supply is Bolivia. “In September 1999, a forty-year concession contract to manage Cochabamba’s water and sewerage utility was awarded to Aguas del Tunari, a multinational consortium led by International Water” so that throughout the city and region, the company “had the right to install water meters on wells at the cost of the user, and take over community networks without compensation” (Budds, p.163). This was however ended as it faced protests from the residents. Biodiversity The extinction of biodiversity has invited a different solutions. Recognizing that the extinction was mainly due to human activities, a Convention on Biological Diversity. Among the goals of the convention are: “the conservation of biodiversity, the ‘sustainable use’ of the components of biodiversity and the fair and equitable sharing of the benefits arising out of the utilization of genetic resources (qtd. in UN, 1992). While the first goal is obvious, the second pertains to the use of biodiversity ‘in a way and at a rate that does not lead to the long-term decline of biological diversity, thereby maintaining its potential to meet the needs and aspirations of present and future generations” (qtd. in UN, 1992). Protected Areas. “A protected area is a designated area of land or sea that is dedicated to the protection of biodiversity and of natural and cultural resources” (David Humphreys, p.200). The intiative for this type of strategy began at the World Park Congress. It is defined as “an area of land and/ or sea especially dedicated to the protection and maintenance of biological diversity, and of natural and associated cultural resources, and managed through legal or other effective means” (David Humphreys, p.200). The adoption of protected areas has been a worldwide phenomonenon with over 106,000 protected areas globally in 2007 (David Humphreys, p.2007). Protected areas are not treated in isolation. Many of them are linked to other protected areas across the country’s boudaries. An example of his is the Danube Delta which “has been acknowledged internationally” and “both the Romanian and Ukrainian sides of the Delta have been recognised as biosphere reserves and awarded the title of transboundary Biosphere Reserve” (Video 14). The Ecological networks which links protected areas from different countries and continents is a response of the policy makers to the “spatial complexity of holistic nature management. International boundaries provide a different challenge. Like any socially produced boundary, international political borders can arbitrarily divide nature. The creation of transboundary protected areas that span two or more countries is a response to the challenge presented by international boundaries” (David Humphreys, p.201). Co-Management Since implementation of “protected areas” were criticized by some especially of the displaced minorities, some countries resorted to co-management arrangement which features active involvement of the local communities. “Co-management is an approach to resource management and nature conservation in which various actors –such as national and regional governments, ministries, public forest authorities, local communities and indigenous peoples – work together towards shared goals” (David Humphreys, p.205). There are two identified approaches in conducting the co-management arrangement: the top-down and the bottom-up. The top-down approach is characterized by the national or regional government setting priorities which trickles down to the minorities. This approach is particularly applied in India through their Joint Forest Management scheme. The scheme is expected to solicit more participation from the local community, however, the employed top-down approach “only partially resolved tensions between localised approaches to nature management and the centralised planning approaches favoured by government bureaucracies” (David Humphreys, p.205). The main issue for the local communities is the security of tenure in the land that they manage. On the other hand, they clamor for a botton-up approach where they are able to design their own priorities and free from intervention of other actors (David Humphreys, p.206). Non-state Actors and NGO Aside from the government, there are also allowed NGOs that conduct resource management. They comprise of international organizations such as WWF and other local organizations. NGOs and other non-state actors also face criticisms as some are deemed as participants in land-grabbing (David Humphreys, p.211). Public-Private Ownership The partnership is based on the foundations of neo-liberal view. It particularly assumes that private ownership is efficient, thereby limited government intervention is much more beneficial. This scheme also received criticisms as it makes the prices of natural resources higher. Agriculture Two of the popular policies in agriculture are the organic food and slow food. Development of organic food includes the “banning of pesticides and fossil fuel-based fertilisers, codes of animal welfare and the pursuit of practices that would benefit wildlife” (Audio 14). On the other hand, slow food includes “a responsibility to protect the kind of foods, traditions and cultures that make pleasure and a pleasurable life possible” (Audio 14). The aim also involves protection of the environment, animal welfare and public health (Audio 14). These moves are upon the realization that some agricultural practices are damaging the environment, which in turn hurts the supply of food. Strengths and Limitations of Community Natural Resource Management In this section, we shall discuss the strengths of water, biodiversity and agriculture management policies employed by the government. The demand management approach used in water conservation which involves “public awareness campaign, a ban on watering gardens, washing cars and filling swimming pools, and an increase in water prices” have mixed results (Budds, p.159). The public awareness campaign is most probably the safest and most friendly approach to the problem. However, it has the negative effect of sometimes being inefficient and costly. Governments spend on media ads to inform the public and pay people to reach far-flung areas to be informed. The more controversial move is privatization. It is primarily because privatization entails costs on the part of the consumers. People has notion that water, being part of the natural resource should be delivered free, through the efforts of the government and not be commodified (Budds, p.171). Private companies usually manage more efficiently than the government. This is an observation in almost all industries and in almost all countries. Privatization usually results to better services. Some of the criticisms to public management are: “inefficient, poor performance, often corrupt, the necessary funds and access to finance to improve services” (Budds, p.168). These concerns are answered by privatization. Privatization therefore has a formidable strength which will be accepted by those who have the capacity to pay. On the other hand, it is obviously anti-poor. If a country has a percentage of its population who struggles to buy food, how can it be able to finance for water consumption. In this lies the problem of privatization. Several approaches were observed to manage biodiversity. One of these is the assignment of protected areas. The proponents of protected areas believed that they are “the greatest legacy we can leave to future generations” (David Humphreys, p.200). The creation of protected areas aims to preserve unharmed parts of natural resources. This policy has great implication to the environment, and at the same time has economic benefits. Protected areas in some countries are turned into parks which can be a good business for the government. They are indeed a beauty to behold and a legacy to future generation. However, the reason why it still receives opposition is the manner in which local communities are displaced from this protected areas. “Protected area policy has often excluded local communities. The conflict between conservation and livelihood objectives is a recurring theme in protected area policy” (David Humphreys, p.203). A multitude of local people have lost both homes an livelihood because of the creation of protected areas. Co-management is the more popular approach to biodiversity management as it involves local communities in decision making. Its strength is drawn from the fact that it is encouraging much support from the people especially those who are directly affected by the policy. Among the two ways of achieving co-management, the bottom-up way is favored by the local communities. This one gives them more freedom to decide than the top-down approach. At the same time it gives them security of tenure over the land that they manage. The co-managemet approach is very promising especially if both the government and the communities come to an agreement. Some of the approaches to managing biodiversity are the involvement of non-state actors and public-private ownership. The success of the non-state actors in helping manage biodiversity lies on how genuine are their conviction. The most common pitfalls of NGOs is the profit motive. Some may start with the genuine desire to help the government, but they may get enticed by the money involved in the process. This is the weakness of non-state actors. If they fall to the lure of money, they make the situation worse. Lastly, public-private ownership can indeed provide efficiency and better services. However, it introduces te same problem: it can make prices increase so that consumers are worse off. The agriculture policies designed to achieve sustainable food production are both laudable. Organic food and soft food both have good implications for the environment. The only problem is how they will be accepted by the people. The Role that Community Natural Resource Management might play in environmental policy Community resource management policies can change the face of natural resources. The most popular among these policies is the privatization, which definitely changes the way people see the resources – especially water, land and biodiversity. Privatization shifts the mindset of the people from being a free rider to a responsible user of an finite resource. With prices on the use of water, demand will shrink for its preservation. It inculcates disipline and responsibility on the people, aside from generally improving services and facilities. It is of course noteworhty that this development has some disadvantages. This is where the government can come it to intervene. The people who will be unable to access the costly water, should be assisted by the government. This could come in terms of aid or free water supply. The biodiversity management policy of co-management surfaces as the most effective of the policies. In this approach, the local government, together with the local communities and the private sector can all come together. The only important question to answer is who should lead wmong the three groups. I suggest that the top-down approach, with proper consultation should be practiced. It is just fitting that the government takes the lead in behalf of its constituents. References "Audio 14." n.d. Budds, Jessica. "Water: natural, social and contested flows." Environmental Issues and Responses. Ed. Claudia Aradau, Jessica Budds William Brown. n.d. David Humphreys, Juliet Fall. "An idea of nature: biodiversity and protected areas." Environmental Issues and Responses. Ed. Claudia Aradau, Jessica Budds William Brown. n.d. Goodman, Michael K. "Rural Challenges: food and agriculture." Environmental Issues and Responses. Ed. Claudia Aradau, Jessica Budds William Brown. n.d. "Video 14." n.d. Read More