Assessing natural resource management through integrated environmental and social-economic accounting

• Author: Huon Morton,Etti Winter,Ulrike Grote
• Date: 01 December 2016
• Published date: 01 December 2016
• DOI: 10.1177/1070496516664385
• Subject Matter: Articles

Article

Assessing natural resource

management through

integrated environmental

and social-economic

accounting: The case of a

Namibian conservancy

Huon Morton

1

, Etti Winter

1

, and Ulrike Grote

1

Abstract

Local natural resource management in its diverse manifestations holds core to its

principles that the marginal and vulnerable households are empowered to manag e

valuable natural resources to improve social and economic equality and conser ve

biodiversity. Yet studies aiming to identify the impacts often show inconsistent

results. Through constructing an integrated Environmental and Social Accounting

Matrix (ESAM), we aim to assess how natural resources are used in different sectors

and by different livelihoods, thus delivering different direct and indirect benefits

to the community. The study was conducted in Namibia’s Sikunga Conservancy,

which manages wildlife and fish resources in the Zambezi region. Our village-level

ESAM shows an economic structure that strongly disadvantages remote households

and identifies a small sector of the economy that benefits significantly from the use

of natural resources. The ESAM approach is able to isolate undesirable socioeco-

nomic developments such as unequal benefit sharing, which hinders community

development.

Keywords

community-based natural resource management, multiplier analysis,

village economy, Namibia, social accounting matrix

Journal of Environment &

Development

2016, Vol. 25(4) 396–425

!The Author(s) 2016

Reprints and permissions:

sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

DOI: 10.1177/1070496516664385

jed.sagepub.com

1

Institute of Environmental Economics and World Trade, Leibniz University of Hannover, Hannover,

Germany

Corresponding Author:

Huon Morton, Institute of Environmental Economics and World Trade, Leibniz University of Hannover,

Ko

¨nigsworther Platz 1, Hannover, Lower Saxony 30167, Germany.

Email: morton@iuw.uni-hannover.de

Local natural resource management (NRM) concepts, namely, community-

based natural resource management (CBNRM) and comparable programs

such as f‌isheries comanagement and community-based f‌isheries management

continue to gather momentum as national decentralization and democratization

programs sweep across sub-Saharan Africa (Blaikie, 2006; Dressler et al., 2010;

Fabricius et al., 2013; Sowman & Wynberg, 2014). By transferring property

rights for natural resources, CBNRM aims to provide communities with an

increased incentive to sustainably manage the natural resources they depend

upon and at the same time deliver equitable economic growth (Berkes, 2004;

Jones & Weaver, 2008).

1

Despite the popularity of the philosophy, the overall impact of CBNRM

remains unclear (Lewins et al., 2014; Riehl, Zerrif‌f‌i, & Naidoo, 2015; Silva &

Mosimane, 2012). Impacts can be measured at multiple scales; at the national

level, CBNRM programs appear to be having a positive impact throughout sub-

Saharan Africa. Increases in wildlife headcounts (Roe, Nelson, & Sandbrook,

2009) and income (Frost & Bond, 2008; Naidoo et al., 2016) have been recorded

in sub-Saharan countries with CBNRM. CBNRM programs have also been

found to boost economic activity in other sectors (Muchapondwa & Stage,

2013). Social Accounting Matrices (SAMs) have been applied in Namibia to

analyze the impact of hunting tourism (Samuelsson & Stage, 2007) and angling

tourism (Kirchner & Stage, 2005), as well as the value of Namibia’s protected

areas (Turpie, Barnes, Lange, & Martin, 2010), with all studies showing

CBNRM helps stimulate growth in other sectors within the Namibian economy.

However, benef‌its at national and community level may not necessarily

trickle down to individual households (Leisher et al., 2016; Nunan, 2006;

Riehl et al., 2015).

Using various quasi-experimental methods, recent studies reveal inconclusive

results. The impact of CBNRM on income has been statistically insignif‌icant for

the average household (Pailler, Naidoo, Burgess, Freeman, & Fisher, 2015;

Riehl, 2014; Suich, 2013), whereas improvements in health (Naidoo &

Johnson, 2013; Riehl, 2014) and food security (Pailler et al., 2015) have been

identif‌ied. The question therefore remains: Why are the impacts of CBNRM

inconsistent?

One possible reason is that particular livelihoods benef‌it more than others

from CBNRM (Collomb et al., 2008; Scanlon & Kull, 2009; Suich, 2013).

Looking primarily at the direct income and f‌inancial aspects while neglecting

the indirect benef‌its from conservation may present another reason why impacts

of NRM are conf‌licting (TEEB, 2012; WAVES, 2016). It is well established that

the value of natural resources within CBNRM areas far exceeds the economic

output from production and tourism (Turpie et al., 2010). Despite the economic

value of natural resources, Humavindu and Stage (2015) identif‌ied the risk of

long-term environmental sustainability due to unsustainable f‌inancing of con-

servancies, particularly younger conservancies, which may fail to generate

Morton et al. 397