innovation in rural economics and governance: unlocking the economic potential … ·...
TRANSCRIPT
Innovation in rural economics and governance: Unlocking the economic potential of wildlife for
pro-poor development
Brian Child University of Florida
OECD Conference on “Innovation for Inclusive Development” - 21 November 2012
Wildlife is “one of the great agricultural transformations” in (southern) Africa
Financial analysis
Economic analysis
Economic Multipliers
Vertical Integratio
n in Sector Profit
to Land
Economic Multipliers
Vertical Integration
in Sector
Profit to Land
For Landholder (Financial)
Meat Meat
Hunting
Tourism
Ecological inputs
Eco
no
mic
o
utp
ut
Meat Viability
Eco
no
mic
ou
tpu
t
Shifting from a Commodity (beef) to a Bio-Experience (wildlife) Economy
Policy actions (price proprietorship)
1. Devolve ownership
2. Develop markets 0
5
10
15
20
25
1984 1987 1990 1993 1996 1999
US
$
Gross Income from Hunting in Zimbabwe
0
20
40
60
Goats Sheep Cattle Wildlife
Mill
ion
Trends in Wildlife & Livestock Numbers South Africa 1964-2007
1964 2007
South Africa • 1964: 575,000 • 2007: 18.6 million
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
50000
60000
19
91
19
96
19
97
19
98
19
99
Number of Trophies
Value Namibia
• Wildlife doubled+ • Cattle decreased 55%
Zimbabwe • Wildlife 4X • Cattle declined
Policy actions (no change)
1. Centralise ownership
2. Restrict / ban use
Kenya (lost 2/3 of its wildlife) Lions 2,800 (2002) – 1,800 (2010) Elephants 160,000 (1970) – 30,000 (2010) G Zebra 13,500 (1975) – 2,000 (2007) Impala, warthog, giraffe, topi, hartebeeste declined 70% in Mara
The poorest people live with the best wildlife – how do we transfer wildlife technology from private to
community sector?
Three challenges:
1. Making wildlife/NR viable
2. Devolve to community
3. Micro-governance
Constituents
Central Government
Local governance
Micro-governance •Elite capture •Equitable benefit sharing? •Community participation?
Poor conceptualization and operationalization.
2
3
CBNRM (the Vision) <1% misappropriation 20X number of projects
Maximize value of wildlife
Assist communities to get organized (constitutions, membership)
Face-to-face Accountability (quarterly) to members
Whole community chooses how to use income
Tax people (not wildlife) for social goods
Ensure private benefit
Participatory, activity-based budgeting
Technology Transfer
Ecotourism on Amazon River in Ecuador
REDD+ Carbon payments in Tanzania
However, our research in southern Africa shows a fundamental difference between:
• representational multi-village governance
• participatory single-village governance
Multi Villages / Representational Governance
-
100 000 000
200 000 000
300 000 000
400 000 000
500 000 000
600 000 000
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001
Zam
bia
Kw
anch
a
Allocation of Expenditure in 43 Village Action Groups in Lupande GMA 1996-2001
Chiefs extraction
VAG Administration
Wildlife management
Projects/activities
Members dividends
Committee-based Management Representational governance
Multi-Village
Community-based management Participatory democracy
Single village (face to face)
80%-20% governance rule / hypothesis
CAMPFIRE Multi
Masoka Mahenye
Chikwarakwara
Caprivi 04
Caprivi 98-06
Caprivi 07
Lupande Chiefs
Lupande 43 VAGs
Lupande CRB Zambia, Mumbwa
Sankuyo, Botswana
Botswana Multi
y = -0,236ln(x) + 1,8396 R² = 0,4418
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800
Be
nef
it S
har
ing
(%)
Community size: Number of Households
Equitable Benefit Sharing and Community Size in CBNRM Communities in Southern Africa
Representational budgeting
Economic/Governance ‘Games’
Equitable Benefit Sharing
Representational Participatory
OWS workshop 20% 80%
Maun, Group 1 44% 67%
Maun, Group 2 43% 69%
36% 72%
1
3 3
2
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Representative Budget
Participatory Budget
Level of satisfaction 1= v low; 10=high
Freq
uen
cy
Satisfaction with Budget Process
Participatory budgeting
Taking Research into Action
And unlocking elite capture
The ‘governance dashboard” – a model for participatory pro-poor research?
Return results to leadership (and
followership) the same week
Work with community to identify performance metrics
Technology
Develop and test instrument
Visualize preliminary results, create excitement and obtain mandate for ‘Action Research’
Collect data with community
Take / support corrective action e.g. participatory activity-based budgeting
Social learning / adaptive management cycle
Development
Analyzing Data
Socially
1. Clarify data to community
2. Refute/agree
3. Explain causes (model)
Statistically
Did CBO committee give you a finanical report in
the last year?
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Yes No Don't
Know
I did not
attend
% o
f R
esp
on
ses
Financial accountability
8
19
3 5
4
0 2 4 6 8
10 12 14 16 18 20
No, I strongly distrust them
No, I don't trust them
Neutral Yes, I trust them
Yes, I trust them
a lot
Do you trust the CBO leadership to manage and account for your finances?
Co
un
t
Gunotsoga Okavango Community Trust
Single Village with fair-good governance
Multi-village with governance problems
Information is POWERFUL and needs to be handled carefully
Transparent Data (visualization x discussion)
Recommendations
Mechanisms of Constituent Accountability Constitutions ;
Accounts;
Information systems
Dissatisfaction with Status Quo
Agreement
to change
Implementation of Change ???
Is there opportunity to change the way universities learn with poor people?
• Local adaptive management SDIs • Performance audit service to
implementing agencies • Regional SDI databases
Transfer curricular to regional universities and colleges
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Single Species (Biology)
Practical Management
Research techniques
Habitat management
Human Attitudes
Economics, Markets Commerce
Community
Governance / policy
(Mis) Allocation of conservation (intellectual) capital
Summary of 79 articles published in SAJWR 2004-2007
Ecology
Governance Economics
91%
9% 0%