Growing the Wealth of the Poor - World Resources Institute

(See Box 2.1 in Chapter 2.) This has greatly increased theprofile of these programs both internationally and in-country,raising their prestige and opening new channels for interactionand influence.More-formal research and documentation of benefits,methods, and challenges faced by these enterprises are also a criticalpart of building their credibility and extending their influence.Indeed, in-depth ecosystem studies and economic analyses haveproved to be highly influential among government decisionmakersand funders pondering whether their investments havebeen worthwhile and whether they should continue to fund thismodel of rural enterprise. In other words, these are often thefoundation of high-level “demand”—manifest in politicalcommitment and funding—for scaling up a successful community-ledproject. For example, in-depth and candid reports on theconservancies in Namibia, the MACH program in Bangladesh,and the forest enterprises in Guatemala have stimulated greatinterest in the governance and enterprise innovations in theseprojects and have influenced subsequent funding commitmentsand natural resource management approaches by the U.S.Agency for International Development and other donors.162For those who cannot physically visit demonstration sites,such as donors, international NGOs, or government officials,communication of these successful cases in a variety of differentformats and depths can be nearly as effective. Today, websitesare one of the simplest and most cost-efficient means forcommunities—often with the help of ISOs—to spread theexperiences of their pilot efforts to an international audience.ISOs such as Winrock International, the Watershed OrganisationTrust, and the Rainforest Alliance all have articles andpictures on their websites documenting their work withexemplary community enterprises.International prizes and awards also play a useful role inspreading information and building enthusiasm for new community-basedapproaches, especially for donors. For example, manyof the best examples of enterprises that have successfully scaledup have received recognition—and prize money—from theUnited Nations Development Programme’s Equator Initiative.3. Capacity Follows PowerCapacity-building for nature-based enterprise is pointlesswithout real devolution of resource authority to local stakeholders.In fact, the devolution itself induces capacity, asthose involved in the enterprise find a compelling interest ingaining new competencies and the opportunity to put theseinto practice in real time.Even when central governments accept the idea that devolvingauthority over resources can stimulate the prospects for ruraldevelopment and poverty reduction, they are often reluctant torelinquish substantive management, regulatory, or budgetarypowers to local communities. One reason they put forward isthat local organizations lack the technical knowledge and experienceto manage forests or fisheries properly without degradingthem. Experience from the cases suggests otherwise and driveshome the point that success at community-based naturalresource management (CBNRM)—at least in the beginning—has more to do with putting proper incentives in place for localaction than with technical proficiency. When wildlife managementpower was granted to Namibian conservancies, they hadlittle trouble reducing poaching because communities had areason to protect their now-valuable wildlife populations.Similarly, illegal logging and unsustainable fishing practicesplunged in Guatemala and Bangladesh, respectively, whencommunities had the incentive and powers to police their localresources. While there is little doubt that technical trainingshould be a priority early on in the formation of ecosystementerprises, there is no reason to use it as a reason to slow thedevolution process or to put restrictive oversight policies in place.