jp8589 WRI.qxd - World Resources Institute

CHAPTER 4
FOUR STEPS TO ENVIRONMENTAL INCOME
ownership and management. Many nations have made
significant progress in crafting new forestry, wildlife, and
fishery laws that specifically sanction local management
regimes. In South Africa, for example, the 1998 Marine
Living Resources Act included a provision recognizing the
legitimacy of managing local fisheries for subsistence use
(WRI et al. 2003:180). In Africa alone, more than 30
countries have passed new forest laws since 1990 that
mandate varying levels of decentralization and new opportunities
for local participation in management (Shyamsundar
et al. 2004:20). However, interpreting these laws and establishing
the limits of local management authority are ongoing
challenges that demand continued state attention and experimentation.
This includes not only the details about
technical management itself, but also such institutional
questions as the structure of local management committees.
The state, for instance, may play a progressive role by
encouraging gender balance on such committees.
2. Granting resource tenure. As stated earlier, tenure is a
central requirement for real access and control of resources.
As it defines the parameters of local control, perhaps the
state’s most important contribution is to clearly establish the
resource rights of communities in a legally unambiguous
manner. This allows communities to make firm management
plans and financial commitments without fear of disenfranchisement.
It gives them the legal basis to seek redress through
the courts if they feel their resource rights have been violated.
This access to redress is essential to the exercise of true
authority, and lack of this right is a frequent bugaboo of local
management efforts.
3. Requiring community consent. One way that the state
can safeguard local community management rights is to
insist on a requirement of free, prior, and informed consent
(FPIC) by the community whenever large-scale economic
projects like mining, energy extraction, or major timber
harvests are proposed nearby. Planning for such projects
often excludes effective community participation and
conflicts with local priorities. FPIC is both a principle and
a process that some governments and international institutions
are beginning to incorporate into their policies. As a
principle, FPIC is the right of local communities and
indigenous peoples to participate meaningfully, through
consent procedures, in decisions about how the land they
occupy and the natural resources they depend on are to be
utilized. As a process, FPIC enables rural communities—
who are often politically weak—to present their concerns
to those proposing large-scale projects, whether they are
from the government or the private sector. Its intent is to
promote equal bargaining power among all parties and
shield communities from coercion, threat, or manipulation.
Without this shield, experience shows that poor communities
often lose control of local resources. (See Box 3.3.)
CO-MANAGEMENT EXPERIENCES IN SAMOA
In 1995 the Fisheries Division of Samoa developed a co-management
policy for the nation’s small-scale coastal fisheries. It began to work with
fishing communities to develop Village Fisheries Management Plans,
providing villages with any technical assistance they needed to develop
the plans. Provided the rules proposed in the management plans were
consistent with national law, the government would help the communities
make them legally binding by issuing them as by-laws. Once approved,
the by-laws were disseminated via radio.
Within the first two years of implementing the co-management policy, the
Fisheries Division had helped 44 communities adopt Fisheries
Management Plans. These plans all contained elements of sound ecosystem
management. For example, all of the plans banned the use of
dynamite (a destructive fishing practice), 86 percent established local
marine protected areas, and 75 percent set mesh size limits on fishing
nets to reduce the accidental capture of juvenile fish. The government
implemented the program gradually, providing extension services to
roughly 10 new villages per year. Extension officers would first meet with
the community; if it was interested, the officers would convene a community
assembly to negotiate the co-management arrangement, including
the various duties and obligations of the state and the community.
Satisfaction with the program was generally high. An internal review in
2000 found that 86 percent of the villages were implementing management
plans at or above average competency (King and Fa’asili
1999:138-140; World Bank 2004:42)
COMMUNITY-BASED FISHERY MANAGEMENT IN SAMOA
Management Technique
% of Villages Adopting
Banning the use of chemicals and dynamite to kill fish 100
Banning the use of traditional plant-derived fish poisons 100
Establishing small protected areas in which fishing is banned 86
Enforcement of limits on the size of mesh nets 75
Banning the dumping of rubbish in lagoon waters 71
Placing controls or limits on the number of fish fences or traps