Upload
fest
View
88
Download
2
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
The role of NGOs in the successful implementation
of sustainable tourism projects
Caro StammLecturer ◊ Best-Sabel University of Applied Sciences
BerlinPhD candidate ◊ University of Lincoln
Photo by Dan Stephens
Photo by macleans.ca
Key elements of CBNRMCommunity-based natural resources management
The three premises of ‘New Conservation’ (Hulme & Murphree 1999)
• Decentralisation Conservation should move from being state-centric to being more
based in society Conservation rooted at the local level: empowerment and ownership
• Sustainable development Both conservation and development goals at the same time NOT
“environmental imperialism” Two extremes: Sustainable utilization vs. biodiversity fundamentalists
• Free market thinking Uniqueness and scarcity of species will lead to high economic values
being placed on them likelihood of conservation greatly improved
Resources CBO Cultural (people) Accountable Natural (e.g. elephants) and legal entity Community
use benefits for wider development goals
Government CBNRM policy
Donors Development funds
for tourism as livelihood option
Successful community-based tourism is heavily dependent on external support
Private Sector Joint Venture Partnerships
Bilateral Agreement
NGO
NGOs 1. Play essential role in formulation of CBNRM policy, i.e. vesting of rights
2. Facilitate drafting of constitution spelling out rights of community and responsibilities of committee
3. Act as advisor to the community during JV negotiations with PS
What the literature says about the role of NGOs in the development process of CBT projects (Forster 2004)
Strengths • Have experience in working with local communities• Can develop capacity at community level• Have information about and access to specific market segments• Advise communities during negotiations with private sector• Lobby for more responsible tourism and interests of local communities• Are able to identify and develop alternative livelihood options• May have capacity to strengthen the role of disadvantaged groups
and weaknesses• Lack sufficient business and marketing skills• Lack professionalism in developing tourism products• May offer only limited support due to dependence on external funding• Values may conflict with commercial viability of CBT ventures• Interests of NGOs and local communities may conflict
Fieldtrip 2013 – research methodology
49 semi-structured interviews in four southern African countries
• NGOs 41%• Academics 20%• Private Sector 16%• Government 15%• Community 8%
Data analysis by means of • Position analysis• Agency analysis
Development of heuristics• Ambivalence and inconsistency• Self-narratives and own theories• ‘C-families’: causes, consequences
and conditions• Gradual families: degree, intensity
and scope• Process families: stages, phases and
progression
Representation of communities –Powerless or powerful?
Powerful!
• Withhold participation Overtly, e.g. boycotting meetings Covertly, e.g. apathy, lack of enthusiasm
• Bargaining powers Learnt to tell us what we want to hear Sophisticated consumers of
development projects
Passive receivers Comparing support organisations of development aid based on highest perceived value
(Self-)constructed Apparent incapability asdiscourse of dependency actual strategy of ‘lying low’
Lack of interest ‘Wait and see’ mentality due to experiences with outsider intervention
Powerless?
• Passive Incapability of taking initiative No local leadership
• Disorganised Inability to plan ahead Limited understanding of their own
responsibilities
‘Unwilling’ ‘By choice’
Project facilitation through NGOs –Qualitative data analysis revealed recurring patterns
Success• Conceptual gap between implementers’ and receivers’ expectations and
understanding of e.g. benefits (example education)• Monitoring and evaluation of CBT projects are weak, e.g. quantifying community
benefits• Redefining ‘a good partnership’, e.g. need to recognise communities as credible
partners and no longer as ‘trouble’
Participation• Misconception that community members will automatically support CBNRM/ CBT
initiatives (collective vs. individual benefit)• Opportunity cost, i.e. the high cost of participation• Tourism favours already existing elites
Dependence• Skills needed locally to meet Western style accounting and administration
requirements• Ambivalence of promoting self-reliance and full community empowerment vs. losing
control working themselves out of a job• Disengagement strategies essentially need to be centred on the development agents• The higher the level of local ownership the more support is needed
DependencyCan heavily
expert/expat led projects be sustainable?
SustainabilityWhat constitutes a successful CBT project (and for
whom)?
ParticipationIs active
community participation
a deal breaker?
How to improve sustainable tourism project success and monitor the benefits of funded initiatives?