I f/1(/fj-cf:-- ttg 7 /lJltX b :2- Task Order No 1602 I Contract No PCE-I-OO-96-00002-00 I Report I Comanagement ofResources in Sri Lanka: I Status, Issues and Opportunities I By I PhIlIp J DeCosse and Shenne S Jayawlckrama I May 1997

For I Uruted States Agency for InternatIOnal Development/Sn Lanka I and the Government ofSn Lanka

EnVironmental PolIcv and InstItutIOnal Strengthening Indefinite Quantity Contract (EPIQ) I Partners InternatIOnal Resources Group Wmrock InternatIOnal and Harvard Institute for International Development I Subcontractors PADCO Management Systems InternatIOnal and Development Alternatives Inc Collaboratmg InstitutIOns Center for Naval Analvsls Corporation ConservatIOn InternatIOnal KNB Engmeenng and Applied SCiences Inc Keller Bllesner Engmeenng Resource Management InternatIOnal, Inc I Tellus Institute Urban Institute and World Resources Institute I I I I I I I I I Co-management of Resources in Sri lanka: I Status, Issues, and Opportunities I I I by I I Philip J DeCosse and Shenne S. Jayawlckrama I I I I I

USAID/Sn Lanka Natural Resources & Environmental Pohcy Project I International Resources Group, Ltd. (NAREPpnRG)

I A project of the United States Agency for Jnternabonal Development and the Government of Sri Lanka I I I I I EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Sn Lanka's envIronmental resources are commg SItuatIOns In Sn Lanka, where commurutIes have lost under mcreasmg pressure from an expandmg theIr tradItIOnal hnk WIth natural resources, co­ I populatIOn and economy As they do, It becomes management efforts must spread the focus among a more and more eVIdent that the government alone much WIder group ofstakeholders cannot resolve all of the growmg resource I management Issues It IS necessary, therefore, to A reVIew of co-management efforts worldWIde find new strategIes for the management of these looks m partIcular at mternatlOnal expenence WIth resources, partIcularly strategies that seek to share Integrated conservatIOn and development projects I management responsIbilIty among groups ofpeople (ICDPs), SOCIal forestry, coral reef management, who have a stake m the resource ThIs study ImgatlOn water management, and the use ofdIrect discusses a strategy descnbed as collaboratIve mcentives These dIverse expenences suggest that I resource management, or co-management for short co-management efforts have often been focused too narrowly and have, consequently, faIled to change ThIs study proVIdes the reader wIth a clanficatIOn of mcentIves for resource depletIOn that ongmate I some ofthe concepts pertammg to co-management, outSIde the realm of the co-management actIVIty an overview ofthe framework for co-management They also suggest that Issues such as land tenure In Sn Lanka, and a diScussion ofthe expenences of must be addressed If a sound framework for I co-management efforts In Sn Lanka and worldWide resource management IS to be bUllt The study concludes by draWIng polley lessons and suggestmg opporturutles for more effectIve use of The framework for resource management In Sn I the co-management approach In Sn Lanka Lanka IS largely regulatlOn-onented The state owns more than 82% of the natIOn's land area and ItS The "resources" that thIs study focuses on, although land-based resources More than 28% ofthe land I state-owned, are de facto open access resources area IS adITIIllistered eIther by the Forest Department FIve groups of people-the commuruty, local or the Department ofWIldhfe ConservatIOn, both of support mStItutIOns, outSIde local beneficlanes, whIch see theIr roles not only as "protectors" but I central resource mstitutIOns, and external also as "polIcemen" Although the legIslatIon under stakeholders-are IdentIfied as stakeholders m the wluch the Forest Department and the Department of co-management process The study defines co­ WIldlIfe ConservatIOn operate remams very control­ I management as "the actIve engagement of onented, these InstItutIOns' attItudes toward commurutIes and outSIde local beneficIanes In the commuruty mvolvement m management actiVItIes IS collaboratIve management ofde facto open access slowly changmg ThIS ShIft IS reflected not only In I resources by local support mstitutIOns and central documents such as the recent Forestry Sector resource InstItutIOns" Master Plan but also In the actIOns ofmany wIldlIfe and forestry officers who have begun to work In I The dlstmctlOn between co-management and cooperatIon WIth commumtles at the grassroots commuruty-based management IS Important While level The Coast ConservatIOn Department and the commuruty-based management places the pnmary ImgatlOn Department have taken the testIng ofco­ I focus on the commuruty, co-management seeks to management further than other government share responsIbIlItIes among the Wider group of agenCIes stakeholders The assumptIon that a commumty I lIVIng In the VIcimty ofa resource WIll always have The hlstoncal and cultural context for co­ a stake m Its management IS not accurate The management IS as Important as the polIcy and legal strength ofthe commuruty's "stake" depends on ItS framework AnCIent systems for Jomt management I relatIOnshIp WIth the resource Where the of resources were swept away by colOnIal-era commumty retams a strong relatIOnshIp WIth the legtslatlOn such as the Crown Lands Encroachment resource and has both the capaCIty and the InCentIve Ordmance of 1840, which confiscated large tracts of I to actIvely engage m ItS management, emphaSIS on rural land and severed cOmmUnItIes' lInks WIth VItal the commuruty makes sense However, In many parts of their land As a result of thiS and

I CO-MANAGEMENT IN SRI LANKA PAGE I succeedmg laws, landlessness has become acute and conclUSIOns and develop recommendatIOns for poverty assocIated WIth landlessness has become the future actIOn The mam conclUSIOn IS that the co­ root cause ofmany resource management problems management approach IS VIable and that It IS The abrogation ofcommumty-based nghts reflected necessary for the sustamable management of~ In the Crown Lands Encroachment Ordmance stIli of Sn Lanka's natural resources Co-management remainS the legal baSIS for property nghts In Sn strategIes must be based on a clear understandmg of Lanka ThIS Impedes the sustamablhty of co­ the commumty-resource relatIOnshIp and a reahstic management efforts assessment of the capabIhtles of the vanous stakeholder groups In many co-management A reVIew of the SrI Lankan experIence WIth co­ efforts, the commuruty has been the prImary focus, management dIscusses several projects funded by often to the pomt where It receIves more attentIOn the Uruted States Agency for InternatIonal than the resource Itself Co-management project Development-the Shared Control of Natural deSIgners must, therefore, clarIfy whether theIr Resources project, the Coastal Resources prImary goal IS commumty development or Management ProJect, and The ASia FoundatIOn Improved resource management The assumptIOn specIal projects on commumty-based resource that commumty development and SOCIOeconomic management-and others Implemented by the Forest Improvement WIll lead to Improved resource Department, the Imgatlon Department, and the Sn management has not been vahdated by expenence Lanka chapter of the InternatIOnal Dmon for the ConservatIOn ofNature Future co-management efforts must be deSIgned and Implemented WIthin a broader framework First, The Sn Lankan expenence reveals five pnnclpal these efforts must be hnked to and have the strong pomts First, even though the co-management support of central resource mstltutlOns These approach suggests an eqUItable shanng of instItutIOns must prOVIde the supportIve pohcy, responSIbIlities among stakeholders, most co­ legal, InstItutIOnal, and techrucal framework reqUIred management efforts st1l1 place heavy emphaSIS on to sustain co-management efforts The more a the commumty ThIS appears to be the case even In central resource InstItutIOn takes "ownershIp" ofthe sItuatIOns where much ofthe damage to resources co-management concept, the more likely It IS that ongInates from outSIde the commumty Second, co-management WIll be repltcated In other areas even though stakeholders partIcIpate In co­ Second, inadequaCies m the legal framework for co­ management actIVItIes, they often do not have a role management are hkely to pose threats to the m the actual management ofthe resource In most sustamabIlIty ofmany co-management efforts unless cases, sole responsIblllty for management remams legal reform IS achIeved In order to make co­ With the state and co-management efforts emphaSIse management VIable m the long run, the package of partiCipatIOn over management Third, even though nghts accrumg to commumtles should be formally co-management projects Involve entlre commumttes, expanded Since transfer oftItle for many ofthese they frequently focus on mdlvldual actIvitIes rather resources IS currently out of the questIOn, than collective effort Fourth, even when commumtles must be granted more extenSIve use commumties have "dIsengaged" from resources, nghts There IS also much to be done to facIlttate they can still remam Important players In co­ the recogmtlon ofcommumtles as legal entitles for management efforts merely because theIr prOXimIty the purpose ofentenng mto contracts With the state to the resources enables them to act as or other parties T/urd, co-management efforts "watchdogs" Fifth, If co-management efforts do must seek to mvolve a broader set ofactors In theIr not address the land shortage Issue, management actIVItIes Smce the group defined as "outSide local successes can be eroded by resource depletIOn and beneficlanes" IS often a slgmficant cause of encroachment degradatIOn, future co-management projects must test approaches to bnng thIS group mto co­ The study draws from past co-management management expenences In Sn Lanka and worldWIde to make

PAGE II CO-MANAGEMENT IN SRI LANKA I TABLE OF CONTENTS

I EXECUTIVE SUMMARY I TABLE OF CONTENTS I1l LIST OF FIGURES IV I LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS V I INTRODUCTION AND PROBLEM STATEMENT 1 A Context and Settmg 1 I B Purpose and Methodology 1 II CO-MANAGEMENT - TERMS AND CONCEPTS 3 A What IS a "Resource"? 3 I B What IS a "Commuruty"? 4 C The Commuruty-Resource RelatIOnshIp 6 D "Co-management" Defined 8 I EA Note on ParticipatlOn 8

III REVIEW OF CO-MANAGEMENT EXPERIENCES FROM ASIA AND BEYOND 11 I A Purpose and Methodology ofReVIew 11 B Lessons Learned 11 1 Integratmg ConservatIOn WIth Development 11 2 SocIal Forestry 13 I 3 Management ofCoral Reefs 14 4 ImgatlOn Water Management 14 I 5 DIrect IncentIves for Resource ConservatIon 15 IV FRAMEWORK FOR CO-MANAGEMENT IN SRI LANKA 17 A Htstoncal and Cultural Context 17 I B The Legal Framework 19 C The Pobcy and Plannmg Framework 21 D The InstitutIonal Framework 24

I V REVIEW OF CO-MANAGEMENT APPROACHES IN SRI LANKA 27 A Shared Control ofNatural Resources (SCOR) 28 B Coastal Resources Management Project (CRMP) 29 I C The ASIa FoundatIon's SpeCIal Projects on Commumty-Based Resource Management 31 1 KahaIla Pallakele Human Elephant Conflict Project 31 2 RItlgala Commuruty-Based Resource Management Project 33 I D Other Co-Management Efforts m Sn Lanka 35 1 Forest Department 35 2 ImgatlOn Management DIVISIOn ofthe ImgatlOn Department 37 I 3 InternatIOnal UnIOn for the ConservatlOn ofNature (ruCN/Sn Lanka) 38 E DISCUSSion 39 I VI CONCLUSIONS AND RECOM:MENDATIONS 43 REFERENCES 50

I LIST OF INTERVIEWS 53 I I CO-MANAGEMENT IN SRI LANKA PAGE III LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 Select Charactenstics ofResources 3

Figure 2 Co-management Stakeholders and TheIr RelatIOnshIps 5

Figure 3 Commuruty-Resource RelatIonshIps and ImplIcatIOns for CommunIty-based Co-management 7

Figure 4 Projects Included m RevIew 11

Figure 5 Select Sites m Sn Lanka Where Co-management Projects are Bemg Tested 27

PAGE IV CO-MANAGEMENT IN SRI LANKA I I LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS BAP BIOdIversIty ActIon Plan CBO Commuruty-Based Orgarusation I CBRM Commuruty-Based Resource Management CCD Coast ConservatIOn Department CLEO Crown Lands Encroachment Ordmance I CRMP Coastal Resources Management Project DS DiVIsiOnal Secretanat DWLC Department ofWIldhfe ConservatIOn I FD Forest Department FO Farmers' OrgamsatIOn FSMP Forestry Sector Master Plan I HEC Human-Elephant Conflict ill ImgatlOn Department IIMI InternatIOnal ImgatlOn Management Institute I Th1D ImgatlOn Management DIVISIon IUCN InternatIOnal Uruon for the Conservation ofNature LDO Land Development Ordmance I M/ALF Mirustry ofAgnculture, Lands & Forestry MlTEWA MmIstry ofTransport, EnVIronment & Women's Affairs NARA NatIOnal AquatIC Resources Agency I NFP NatIOnal Forestry Pohcy NGO Non Governmental Orgamsation NTFP Non-TImber Forest Product I PC ProvIncIal CouncIl PRA PartICIpatory Resource Assessment PS PradeshIya Sabha I RITICOE RItigala Commumty-Based Development & EnVIronmental Management FoundatiOn SAM SpeCIal Area Management I SCOR Shared Control ofNatural Resources SDA Southern Development Authonty SLO State Lands Ordmance I SNR Stnct Natural Reserve TAF The ASIa FoundatIOn URI Umversity ofRhode Island I WJMS Wana Jana Mlthuro Sanvidanaya WLO Waste Lands Ordmance I I I I

I CO-MANAGEMENT IN SRI LANKA PAGE V I INTRODUCTION AND PROBLEM STATEMENT

I A CONTEXT AND SETTING conservatlOn to be done "at the grassroots level through commuruty partICIpatIOn" (M/TEWA, As Sn Lanka's envrronmental resources come under 1995 69) I Increasmg pressure from an expandmg populatlOn and economy, new strategIes need to be sought to Efforts to test co-management pnnclples on the nnprove theIr management Resource management ground have been attempted by the Coast I problems are made more acute by the financIal ConservatlOn Department, the Forest Department, constramts placed upon those government the ImgatlOn Department, and the International InstItutions with responslblhty for management of Uruon for the ConservatlOn ofNature Smce the I the resources One optIon for Improvmg resource early 1990s, mne co-management pliot actIVItIes management IS to engage those people who have a have been dIrectly funded by the Umted States stake In resources to manage them better These Agency for InternatlOnal Development (USAID) 2 I efforts, descnbed as collaboratIve resource management, or co-management for short, have Thtrd-party reVIews of lessons learned from these gamed consIderable attentIon InsIde and outside Sn mynad actlVlties are few The InternatIOnal I Lanka m recent decades 1 Resources Group portIon ofthe Natural Resources and EnVIronmental Pohcy Project (NAREPP/IRG) Co-management has been a focus of a number of commIssIOned a study by Nakatam (1992), whIch I natlOnal enVIronmental pohcy developments m Sn recommended a strategy for supportmg co­ Lanka Led by the Forest Department, WorkIng management early m the Project, and others by Groups on forestry legislatlOn are currently NakashIma (1995 and 1996) m whIch he reVIewed I examInmg optlOns for altenng use nghts on the expenences of the Kahalla Pallekele Human­ different categones of forest land to enable more Elephant COnflICt Project and the RItlgala sustaInable management The soon-to-be-released Commuruty Resource Management Project There I Coastal Zone Management Plan Includes exphclt has not yet, however, been a comprehensIve review recommendatIOns for extenslOn ofthe SpecIal Area of the status of and opporturutles for co­ Management approach, whIch reflects elements of management work In Sn Lanka I co-management WIth Its goal of promotmg the "conservation and sustamable use" ofblOdlverslty, B PURPOSE AND METHODOLOGY the ConventlOn on BlOlogical DiversIty, to WhICh I Sn Lanka IS a SIgnatory, reqUIres that countnes The purpose of thiS study IS to reVIew the context "promote envIronmentally sound and sustamable for and expenences With co-management m Sn development m areas adjacent to protected areas Lanka and draw lessons for natlOnal poltcy I With a VIew to furthenng protectlOn ofthose areas" development The methodology employed IS to (ArtIcle 8e) The Strategy for the PreparatIon ofa undertake a reVIew of co-management mSIde and BIOdIverSIty Action Plan, WhICh IS currently bemg outSIde Sn Lanka and then to draw lessons I prepared under the MImstry of Transport, applIcable to the development ofa co-management EnVIronment and Women's AffaIrs, calls for a polIcy framework WhICh WIll allow bIOdIverSIty I 2 The USAID-funded projects and the Implementlng or overseeing organlSatzollS are lISted here Demyawatta J Collaboratlve resource management descnbes any Settlement on the Shore ofBolgoda Lake (!he ASia Foundatzon collaboratlve arrangement between resource stakeholders - TAF), Obeysekarapura Urban EnVironmental Improvement I TlIe term more commonly used m Sn Lanka, commumty-based (TAF) Kahalill Pallekele Human Elephant COnjllCt Project resource management IS one type ofcollaboratlve resource (TAF) Rmgaill Commumty Resource Management Project management wInch pillces emphasIS on the commumty as the (TAF) Horton PiIlIIIS Natlonal Park Management (TAF) I pnmary and most lmpOrtanl actor m the resource management Rekawa Lagoon SpeCial Area Management Site (Coastal process We use the term co-management not only because Resources Management Project - CRMP) Hlkkaduwa SpeCIal It descnbes a broader set ofposslble arrangements but also Area Management Site (CRMP) Huruluwewa Watershed and because It IS the term now regularly used Internatlonally (see Nrlwala Watershed Actlvltles ofthe Shared Control ofNatural I for example World COlIServatlOlZ 2/96 publrshed by EUCN) Resources Project (SCOR) I CO-MANAGEMENT IN SRI LANKA PAGE I approach here Admittedly, because of time from each of the projects These lessons are fit constraInts on this study, It may not cover all co­ together Into a set of recommendatIOns for future management actiVIties and does not place an equal actIOn In the area ofco-management weight on all resources Management offorests and protected areas, for example, receives greater In light of the conSiderable difference of OpInIOn attention than management of urban pollutIOn surroundmg terms and concepts pertaInmg to co­ Future studies will need to address tills Imbalance management In Sn Lanka, the study begInS with a reView and clanficatlOn ofsome ofthese concepts Tills report IS D.Q1 an evaluatIon of any of the Smce It IS Important for co-management projects or mstltutIOns mentIoned m It Indeed, practitIOners mSlde Sn Lanka to budd on successes NAREPP has no mandate to do so and, what IS elsewhere and to aVOid makmg the same ffilstakes, more, has not dedicated the sufficient tIme or the study then turns to a review oflessons learned resources to have completed an evaluation Each of from co-management expenences outSide Sn the co-management projects underway In Sn Lanka Lanka, With a speCial emphaSIS on ASian has ments whIch would take much longer to expenences After a review of the hlstoncal and understand than allowed by this study The cultural context and the policy, Illstltutlonal and persistent and energetic work of countless people legal framework for co-management In Sn Lanka, on these projects has created the opportumty to the study then turns to a review of the co­ look more closely at new paradigms for resource management efforts III Sn Lanka The study closes management m Sn Lanka Rather than evaluatmg, WIth a summary ofconclUSions as well as pohcy and therefore, the focus IS on the lessons which emerge research recommendatIOns

"

PAGE 2 CO-MANAGEMENT IN SRI LANKA I I II CO-MANAGEMENT - TERMS AND CONCEPTS There IS considerable difference of opinIOn In Sn Whatever the resource type, It can slgmfy a Lanka about what constitutes "co-management" potential threat or cost to a commumty as well as a I The differences stem from a lack of cIanty potentIal benefit The elephants m Kahalla Pallekele concernmg the resource and the nghts associated may be a benefit to the urban mhabltants of With It, the commuruty and other stakeholders m the Colombo who want to preserve them, but they are I resource management process, and the relatIonslup a dlstmct threat to the people ofthe area SImIlarly, between commumtles and resources Each ofthese the health Improvement objectives of co­ concepts IS therefore reviewed below With the management efforts at Demyawatta have been I objective of clanfymg their potential applIcatIOns adopted because of the threats to the commumty In additIon, the concept ofpartiCipatory or bottom­ posed by poorly managed water up planmng, WhICh has contnbuted conSiderably to I the way co-management IS practised here, IS In addition to resource types, resources can be discussed charactensed on the baSIS ofthe rzghts associated With them In any common property management I A WHAT IS A "RESOURCE"? systems, the major nghts can be Identified as 1) nghts ofdirect use, 2) nghts of mdlrect economic How can the resource around wluch co­ gam, 3) nghts of control, 4) nghts of transfer, 5) I management IS orgamsed be descnbed? A context reSidual nghts, and 6) symbolIc nghts (Crocombe, for understandIng the apphcatlOn of the term 1971 referenced m Lynch, 1991 13) To thIS hst "resource" IS gIven by descnbIng three aspects ofall can be added nghts of exclUSIOn, which allow I resources types, nghts, and ownership categones, outSiders to be excluded from use ofthe resource as Illustrated m FIgure 1 Although most resource When "use nghts" over land are altered, It need not types are defined by land use (e g, forestry, Imply a change In title or the owner ofa resource, I fishenes, wIldlIfe management), they can also be but rather the bundle of nghts associated With It defined by their phySIcal features (water resources, Management strategIes for resources to which a SOIls, watersheds) and by the ecosystems which are commumty has nghts of direct use, control and I present WIthm them (such as wetlands, grasslands, transfer Will be different from strategIes for coral and sandstone reefs) resources for which a commumty has only I I Resource Types Land Use PhYSICal Features Resource Rights I Ecosystems I I State owned and managed state owned under leasehold I Pnvately owned by IncllVid'ls Prlvatelyowned bycommumt's Resource Ownership I Categofles FIgure 1 Select CharactenstIcs ofResources

I CO-MANAGEMENT IN SRI LANKA PAGE 3 symbolIc nghts A community hVIng next to a Nanayakkara argues, IS rare In Sn Lanka "Today Stnct Natural Reserve may have symbolic nghts communIty of ownershIp In Sn Lanka IS almost and nghts ofmdlrect econOmIC gam, but their nghts non-eXIstent" (1996 39) Although the Veddahs ofdIrect use are by definItIOn very limIted A clear come the closest ofrural groups to have a defined understandIng of thIs dIverSIty of nghts that a corporate status, even they have not establIshed community has Wlth respect to a gIven resource IS clear rules definmg members In the community a prereqUIsIte to deSIgnIng effectIve co-management There IS precedent for pnvate resource ownershIp strategIes for the resource 3 by commUnitIes In such InstItutIons as sports and SOCIal clubs Fmally, resources can be descnbed on the baSIS of ownership categones To develop or alter Although most ofSn Lanka's natural resources are IncentIves for conservatIOn, one must know who under the legal ownershIp and management ofthe owns the resources ofconcern Although land has state, theIr rapId degradatIon IS testImony to the fact tradItIOnally been dIVIded mto that whIch IS owned that the state's management IS not effective publIcly and that whIch IS owned pnvately, thIS Panayotou and Ashton argue that "Most tropIcal dIVISIOn masks other subtletIes of resource forests are de Jure state property, but de facto open ownershIp SpeCIfically, It does not allow for access WIth an undefined but large number of pnvate ownershIp by a community, nor does It nonexclUSIve claImants" (1992 201) Most other allow for easy InclUSIOn of shared ownershIp natural resources are under SImIlarly open access agreements under leaseholds Resource ownershIp regImes In thIS study, It IS assumed the resources categones are thus diVIded mto four groups (1) held pnvateIy by IndIVIduals do not present the most state owned and managed, (2) state owned under pressIng problem for resource management, as It IS leasehold, (3) pnvately owned by mdlvlduals, and more straIghtforward to alter IncentIves for (4) pnvately owned by commUnities 4 Legally, most IndIVIdual owners than for other ownershIp forests, wetlands, waters and protected areas In Sn categones It IS assumed further that most ofthe Lanka are state owned and managed, although lease remammg resources are effectively under open agreements are beIng explored for management of access regImes Co-management IS one means of forests Other examples ofstate owned resources tryIng to mtroduce elements ofsustamable common under leasehold would Include the long-term lease property management systems mto the management agreements of forests to commUnItIes In the ofopen access resources PhllIppmes Although pnvate community ownershIp ofrural resources occurs m other parts B WHAT IS A "COMMUNITY"? ofthe world, pnvate ownershIp by communIties, as Irutlally, exploratIon ofthe co-management concept 10 Sn Lanka focused on the community, hence use of the term "communIty-based resource j See Bruce et al (1985)for a thorough dISCUSSIOn ofthe bundle ofrights that may be held by resource managers management" Because the term "community" suggests the eXIstence of a smgle, coheSIve SOCIal 4 TIle categories used here mImiC Lynch s (1991 14-15) orgarusatlon resldmg 10 an well-demarcated area, It wInch mcIude (1) publzc mdlvldual (2) publIc communal (3) can become a source of confuSIOn In the private mdlvldual, and (4) pmare communal He uses the conceptualIsatIon and analySIS of co-management term mdlvldual to mean tlUd a resource IS held by a smgle legal entity (e g the Stare a corporatlon or an mdlvldual) In fact, most co-management projects do not work and communal to mean tlUd ownershIp nghts are shared by WIth a smgle community defined as such but WIth a more than one legal entity one of whIch IS a communzty of set of commUnItIes or even WIth an artIfiCIal persons A publlc /lldlvldual resource therefore IS one that groupmg ofdIsparate people and organisatIOns who IS held by the state and the state only wrrh 110 OIvnershlp or use nghts grawed to any other elumes A public communal may be umted by havmg a stake 10 the same resource IS one m whIch the state OWIIS the resource but 011 resource In the case of The ASIa FoundatIOn's wl/lch SIgnificant ownerslllp nghts are shared among more (TAF) RItlgala Commuruty Resources Management than one legal entities Pn~ate communal resources therefore Project, fourteen VIllages compnsed of MuslIms, mclude those rare cases In whIch a community IS gIven complete ownErshIp nghts

PAGE 4 CO-MANAGEMENT IN SRI LANKA I I I

Policy I technical support I ReceIVe benefrls If resources are weill­ Technical and managed suffer costs If pollbcal not feedbaclc I Often derIVe value through agents In communrty Loca! Support OutsIde Local , fnstftutfoRS Banafie/aries I !~~<~~~ ~~~'klc:itt*"l*:gf~ ~'f«lll::IiOOs}

Direct management Denve value but have I no management Indirect management (through stake In resource I communrty)

I Resource I Figure 2 Co-management Stakeholders and Their RelatlOnshlps I Chnstlans and Buddhists are Involved By virtue of Use ofthe term "commumty" In "commumty-based the chansmatIc leadershIp ofRev T Chandraratna resource management" also dimInishes the I of the Thanthmmale Monastery and the sound Importance of other stakeholders In the co­ management of TAP, the fourteen Villages have management process To ensure that all co­ been moulded Into a sIngle commumty with a management stakeholders are Identified and I perceived common stake In the SNR and In mcluded m the process, the major categones ofco­ Improvmg their lIvehhood, but they were not so management stakeholders are diVIded mto five when the project began One of the major groups, mcludmg the commumty Itself, local I constramts to the co-management project at Horton support mstltutlOns, outSide local beneficIanes, Plams IS that the community IS not a commumty at central resource InstltutlOns and external all, but a geographically dispersed set ofreSidents stakeholders S I who have been difficult to umte In the case ofthe project at Huruluwewa, the "commumty" mcludes The "commumty" mcludes those who hve next to or all the members of a watershed covenng four In the Immediate VICInity ofthe resource and who I DIVISional Secretanats and more than 47,000 receive direct benefits or suffer direct costs from It hectares The greatest danger of usmg the term "commumty" IS that It may give a mlsleadmg I suggestlOn of the potential of the group of J In us PartlClpatl011 Sourcebook (19900) the World Bank defines the major stakeholders In any partlclpatory project to stakeholders to come together to manage a resource be the followmg government dIrectly affected groups mcommon (includl1lg the poor and margmallSed) and Indirectly affected I groups (NGOs Ifltermedlary organISatIOns, pnvate sector buslllesses tec1ll1lcal and projesslollfJl bodies)

I CO-MANAGEMENT IN SRI LANKA PAGE 5 The communIty may have eXisted pnor to the co­ apphcatlons of co-management assume that the management effort, or It may have to be created out commumty has a stake 10 a resource and IS of common concern for management of the IOterested m Its Improved management A careful resource The communIty mayor may not receive understand10g of the relatIOnship between value from the resource (see discussIOn of corrunurutles and the resources of10terest IS thus an community-resource relatIOnship below) Under essential prereqUIsite to plannmg of communlty­ "local support InstitutIOns" are mcluded those based co-management projects, particularly Ifthey NGOs, goverrunent officIals, or other organIsatIOns are to make the community the pnmary focus of whose objectIve It IS to Improve management ofthe resource management activities resource or to Improve the lIvelIhood ofthe pnmary stakeholders Local support InstitutIOns may To attempt a clanficatlOn of the relatIOnships manage resources directly or With and through the between commUnities and resources, four pnmary communIty "Outside local beneficlanes" mclude types ofrelationships are defined For each type of those who may benefit from direct mteractlOn With relatlOnshlp, ImplIcatIons for co-management are or use ofthe resource, but who do not lIve In the suggested and an example of the type of vlc10lty ofthe resource and are hkely to have httle relatIOnship IS Identified 10 Sn Lanka The four stake 10 ItS sustamable management Examples of relatlOnshlps are shown 10 Figure 3 thiS group 10clude traders of products from the resource (e g, loggers, poachers) and others who In the first type ofcommuruty-resource relatlOnshlp, directly consume the resource "Central resource the community reahses httle or no value from the 1OstltutlOns" are those government and non­ resource, 10 spite ofhv10g next to It In such cases, government actors who constitute a source of corrunuruty-based management IS not an appropnate expertise and resources from which the local approach smce the communIty has httle or no support 1OstltutlOns can draw 10 the management of mcentlve to ensure that the resource IS managed the resource Fmally, "external stakeholders" are sustamably To the extent that resource defined to mclude those people who may benefit degradation IS occumng, It IS the lIkely result of from Improved management ofa resource, but who actions by outSide local beneficIanes, and resource are not 10 the vlc10lty ofthe resource and have no management Improvements should, therefore, focus direct 1OteractIOn With It Included here would be on thIS group rather than the communIty An such people as urban dwellers who place value on example of thIS relatIonshIp 10 Sn Lanka 10cludes the contmued eXistence ofa resource, beneficlanes the commUnIties surroundmg the Attldlya of the power generated from water captured In Sanctuary These commUnItIes are predommantly well-managed watersheds, and the world engaged m wage actiVitIes 10 Colombo and the communIty that benefits from knOWIng that rare surroundmg areas, and realIse VIrtually no benefits species endemIC to Sn Lanka are be10g preserved from the Sanctuary The relatIOnships between the five groups and the resource are shown m Figure 2 In a second type ofrelatIonsrup, a slgOlficant benefit or cost of the resource accrues to only a few C THE COMMUNITY-RESOURCE members of the commuOlty, while the rest of the RELATIONSHIP commumty has httle or no mteractIOn With the resource In such a case, commUnity-based It IS often ImplICItly assumed that a communIty management IS not hkely to be appropnate, smce It hVlOg 10 the VICinity ofa resource WIll have a stake generally Imphes IOvolvement by all or most ofthe 10 the sustamable management of that resource commuruty Ifthe members ofthe community who Tills IS not always the case Ifthe greater part ofa benefit from the resource can be Idel)tlfied, then It corrunUnIty denves ItS hvehhood from employment may be suffiCient to tram or educate thiS few m 10 a nearby textJ1e factory, for example then the sustamable resource management methods to ensure value of the resource to the commuOlty may be better management ofthe resource An example of marg10al In such cases, It IS unlikely that a co­ thIS type ofrelatIOnshIp 10 Sn Lanka would be the management effort focused pnmanly on small groups ofspeCialised turtle egg poachers who commUnIties will have much success, since such operate at many pomts along the southern coast

PAGE 6 CO-MANAGEMENT IN SRI LANKA I I [ T_h_e_c_o_m_m_u_n_lty J I

(3) Limited (4) Slgmficant (2) Significant I (1 ) Benefit or Benefit or Benefit or ~ Commumty Cost of Cost of Nature of Cost of Realizes Little Resource Resource Relationship ~ Resource ~ I or No Benefit ~ Accrues to Accrues to Accrues to < ,~ from the , ~~ Broad Cross- Broad Cross- , ~ Few Members ~, ~ s " ,~ Resource ~ section of ~ section of ~ ofCommumty I ~ Commumty g Commumty ~ ~ :{ ~ ~ ....""'=', ~:::.::.....~...-...... ~ ~~~~ ~~ ...... ~""""' ... <-::;-..:::...... ~:::...... =».~ os~~~ ~~ ...... ~

Turtle egg .):~ I Example from Communities "1 Communities , poachers In Kahalle-Pallekele around Attldlya 4 surroundmg Rekawa, Bundala ~ communities 1 SrI Lanka Marsh Sanctuary SmharaJa Forest and elsewhere ~ 1 1 '\ ~ ~ ~~ ,J I ...... ~~ ...... ~ ...... ~ ""~~"*~:£.w ~ ~~

ce en Good opportunity to j opportunity for I focus on commu'ty :J community-based Impl1catlons Community-based Community-based approach to co­ Resource <~ approach IS not approach IS not management for assessments appropnate likely to be '1 essential to co- I Communlty­ appropnate A Altenng property management Identify and work nghts may succeed based Co­ planning With those who are Training education I management denvlng value from or incentives for few RealistiC resource may be sufficient Attempt supplanting assessment of resource value With th ~ opportunity cost to l" i 0 er Income community ~ ~f generating actiVity 1 t I ~---l:.~'" '" l.. L...:e~s,;;;se~n~la:::;...._== I '- ~ ~ ~ ~ , , ~, h ~ ~~ ~"~~~~ ~O-· -~ -- I 'r::Reso~/ I I Figure 3 Commuruty-Resource RelatlOnslups and ImphcatlOns for Commuruty-based Co-management The rest ofthe commumtles In which the poachers commuruty Commuruty-based co-management has lIve and work have very httle Influence over their the potential for success In these COmmUnities, Since I resource management actIons, and thus It wIll VIrtually the entire commumty has a stake, however probably not be helpful to engage the broader small, In the resource Commumtles such as those I community to alter their management patterns surroundmg the RItlgala Forest would be an I example ofthIs relatlOnshlp, as they enter the forest In a thIrd type ofcommumty-resource relationship, to harvest ofa small number ofmedlcmal plants like the benefits or costs denved from the resource by wild cardamom which cannot be found on the I the commumty IS small, but they are wIdely market Although the value ofthe cardamom and dlstnbuted across all the members of the other non-timber forest products IS not great by

I CO-MANAGEMENT IN SRI LANKA PAGE 7 companson With theIr total Income, the commumty hlstoncal and cultural context here DeSIgn ofco­ recogruses that the forest glVes them somethmg they management efforts In Sn Lanka must pay speCIal cannot get anywhere else attentIon to asseSSIng whether thIS myth of the noble peasant can be venfied for a given communIty In a fourth type ofrelatIOnshIp a slgmficant benefit In Sn Lanka or not or cost of the resource accrues to a broad cross­ sectIOn ofthe commuruty Here the opportUnIty for The four precedIng types of commuruty-resource communIty-based co-management IS very good, relatlOnsrups assess the level ofongOIng InteractIOn SInce the entire communIty has a large stake In the between commumty and the resources 10 their resource When the communIty has a strong sense VICInIty A fifth type ofrelatIOnship has notrung to of Its relationship to the resource, IncludIng some do With ongoIng Interaction, and IS based Instead on establIshed SOCIal rules for resource management, a deSIre ofthe communIty to own the resource for then the opportUnIty to establIsh pnvate communal ItS own sake ThIS IS the encroachment problem ownershIp may be good Introduction ofalternatIve common not only 10 SrI Lanka but all over the Income generatIOn actIVItIes should be done only world In the context ofan extreme land shortage wIth a careful pnor assessment ofthe opportUnIty for settlements, many rural Inhabitants are Interested costs to the communIty of gIVIng up use of the In land-based resources only for the land, not for resource Although there are not many examples of any ofthe resources ThIS Issue WIll be returned to commUnItIes that denve SIgnIficant benefits from In greater detaIl In the chapters on Sn Lanka resources In Sn Lanka, there are numerous examples where a resource IS a slgmficant threat or D 'CO-MANAGEMENT" DEFINED cost to the commumty at large A good example of thIs relatIonsrup would be the commumties menaced Usmg these terms and concepts, therefore, co­ by elephants In Kahalla Pallekele and the many management IS defined as follows urban commurutles who are threatened by the health hazards ofunc1ean water The actIve engagement of commUnItIes and outSIde local beneficIanes m the collaboratlve The communIty-resource relatIonshIp types management ofde facto open access resources descnbed above make It apparent that a communIty by local support InstItutIOns and central must have a strong incentive If It IS to be engaged resource InstItutIOns In the management ofa resource Although haVIng an IncentIve IS necessary, It IS not suffiCient, for a The defimtion should highlight two pomts In communIty must also have the capacity and particular First, use of the term "actIve knowledge to manage resources (Ascher, 1994 2) engagement" should make It clear that co­ TypIcally, such capaCIty relIes upon IndIgenous management IS not appropnate for those k.nowledge If commUnItIes have less and less commUnItIes who have no relatIonshIp With InteractIOn With resources, and If traditIOnal resources ofconcern The second pomt IS that both management practIces and systems have been commumtles and outSIde local beneficlanes should eroded by decades ofexclUSIOn by the authontles, be engaged In the resource management process, then It cannot be assumed that they still have the With no presumptIOn that either of the two IS of capacity to manage resources Honadle and greater Importance VanSant argue that the assumptIon ofcommUnItIes haVIng the know-how to manage resources IS one of EA NOTE ON PARTICIPATION the fundamental myths In development - the "myth of the noble peasant" "SInce rural VIllagers," One other Idea ments bnef diSCUSSion Common to accordmg to the myth, "know how to do It, the most work on resource management IS an emphaSIS answer IS to get out oftheIr way and let them get on on the Importance ofpartICIpatIOn ofcommUnItIes With the Job" (1985 101) As we shall dISCUSS m the process, which IS alternatIvely descnbed as below, the capacIty and know-how of rural SrI partIcIpatory or bottom-up plannmg and Lankans to manage resources IS lImited by Implementation Although not new to development companson With many countnes, as a result ofthe

PAOE S CO-MANAGEMENT IN SRI LANKA I

6 plannmg , the Importance of participatIOn has example, WIJayaratna, 1994, White, 1996, , and the I gamed an IncreaSIng acceptance over the years TAF Annual Report, 1995) In theIr summary Virtually all of the NAREPP-funded co­ reVIew ofmtegrated conservatIOn and development management efforts have made partIcIpatlon an programmes, Wells and Brandon recogruse that "the I essential element In their approaches (see, for sustamabJ1lty of project benefits depends strongly on the effectIve partICIpatIon of local people" (1993 63) PartICIpatIOn IS essentIal to the I successful planmng and ImplementatIOn of any development actiVIty, Includmg co-management In 6 For a dISCUSSIon ofthe Importance ofpartlClpatlOn lit addItIOn, a focus on partiCIpatIOn and commumty the 1970s and 1980s see Cemea s (1992) pIece on the mobilIsatIOn often helps to bnng about the I PlDER project launched In MexICO lit the early 1970s or Honadle and VanSant (1985) Oil mtegrated mral attItudmal changes necessary to Improve resource I de.elopment projects management practIces I I I I I I I I I I I I

I CO-MANAGEMENT IN SRI LANKA PAGE 9 I III REVIEW OF CO-MANAGEMENT EXPERIENCES FROM ASIA AND I BEYOND A PURPOSE AND METHODOLOGY OF Lanka IS uruque m ItS cultural tradItIons, polIcy REVIEW settmg, and resource endowment, the successes and I faIlures ofco-management practitIOners elsewhere The co-management approach, or vanatlOns akm to m Asia and the world can and should be bUllt upon It, have been undertaken around the world for many I years Development orgamsations m Latm Amenca B LESSONS LEARNED Implemented SOCIal and commumty forestry programs begmrung m the early 1980s (see reVIews 1 Integratmg ConservatIon With I m Gregerson, Draper and Elz, 1989) Working Development " closely WIth the Club du Sahel, the World Bank developed a sene'S ofproJects m the late 1980s on Recent years have seen a rapId acceptance ofthe I co-management m Burkina Faso, Ivory Coast, concept of "Integrated ConservatIOn and NIger, Chad and Mall, whIle USAID supported Development Projects," or ICDPs These projects SImIlar efforts dunng the same penod m The "attempt to ensure the conservatIOn of bIologIcal I Gambia, Botswana, NIger and Senegal The well­ dIverSIty by reconcIlmg the management of known CAMPFIRE program m ZImbabwe IS only protected areas WIth the SOCIal and econOmIC needs one ofmany efforts m East and Southern AfrIca to ofthe local people" (Wells and Brandon, 1992 3) I give commuruties a more actIve and formalIsed role Put another way, they are "efforts to finance m resource management conservatIOn by IdentIfymg and developmg commercIal actIVItIes that rely upon, and, consequently, would encourage the preservatIon of, I ASUl Imha, SOCial Forestry m West Bengal India Shlvahk HIlls Resource Management Nepal, Commuruty Resource natural habItats" (SImpson, 1995 1) An Management [reviewed ill Poffenberger, 1990]-Indla, underlymg assumptIon ofthe ICDP approach IS that I Ecodevelopment Project [reviewed m World Bank projects can mtroduce a set of economIC actIVItIes 1996b]-Phlhppmes Manne Conservation and to commuruties whIch WIll reduce the pressure on Development Program [reViewed by White the resource ofmterest (1996)]-Phlhppmes, SOCial Forestry, India, SOCial I Forestry m West Bengal [reviewed by Owen (1991)}-Indonesla Central Moluccan Reef Phlllppmes Few assessments of ICDPs have been as well San Salvador Island Thailand ReefProtectron ill Phuket researched as Wells and Brandon's work entItled I [reViewed ill \VJ:ute et al (1 994)]-Indonesla, Dumogo-Bone People and Parks Lmlang Protected Area NatIonal Park IndoneSia. Gunung Leuser National Park, Management wah Local CommunztIes (1992) 7 In Nepal Annapurna Conservation Area, Nepal, Roval Clutwan NatIOnal Park Th8lland Khao Yal National Park this piece, they conducted m-depth reviews ofmore I [revIewed m Wells and Brandon 1992] than twenty of the most successful ICDPs from Latm AmerIca 10 projects m 5 countries [reviewed by developmg countnes around the world The Current (1994) Wells and Brandon (1992) and Cernea projects they exammed had been underway for at (1992)] least three years ThIS study also reVIews works on I Africa 9 projects 8 countnes [reviewed by Wells and Brandon (1992)} ICDPs by SImpson (1995), Southgate and Clark (1993) and Ferraro and Kramer (1995) StudIes by I Figure 4 Projects Included m ReVIew Cernea (1992) and Brandon and Ramankutty (1993), although not explICItly on the subject of In ASia also, projects deSigned to mvolve mtegratmg conservatIon and development, were I commumtles m resource management date to the 1980s and In a few cases before Among the better 7 It IS worth notlng that Wells and Brandon support co­ known expenences With co-management have been management efforts In fact, even after concluding that ICDP I the Annapurna ConservatIOn Area work m Nepal, expenences demonstratedfiuulamentalflaws, they stzll proceed the West Bengal SOCial forestry efforts m India, and to condude that l111UJVatlve well-deszgned ICDPs at carefully the PhIlIppmes SOCIal forestry work Although Sn selected sites are essennal to the conservatzon of I biodiversity (1992 61) I CO-MANAGEMENT IN SRI LANKA PAGE II mcluded because ofthe relevance ofsome oftheir Africa, ASIa and Latm Amenca traces findmgs to the ICDP approach from conservatIOnIsts' and donor agencies' 10Slstence on work1Og 10 or Observations on mtegratmg conservatIOn and very close to threatened habitats development are grouped around three broad themselves By definItIOn, thiS categones ofresults that emerge from the Wells and approach Ignores how performance of Brandon review (1) the scale and scope ofICDPs, the entire economy mfluences resource (2) the hnkages between development and use and management offrontier areas" conservatIOn, and, (3) resource morutonng (1993 165)

By and large, analysts have found that mtegrated Overly-narrow approaches to local resource conservatIOn and development projects have been management project deSIgn IS nothmg new focused too narrowly Wells and Brandon Cernea's general analySIS of "bottom-up conclude that ICDPs have been "Implemented on approaches" to rural resource management too narrow a front" because "threats to parks and recogmsed that successful local participatory their neighbours often ongmate far from park projects reqUired the support of"top echelons" of boundanes" To date, the replIcatIOn ofICDPs has government agencies and "the mtegrated skIlls of been "rare," m part because their expenences were profeSSIOnal researchers and development too locatIOn-specific to provide lessons for practltloners" to be successful (1992 57-59) rephcatlOn on a larger scale The ongms ofthreats Brandon and Ramankutty's (1993) revIew of inside commUnIties and parks Include 10 particular envIronmental challenges m ASIa reaffirms the the "laws, polICies, patterns of resource access, Importance of broadening the focus of local SOCial changes, and economic forces" "One ofthe resource management projects to mclude such clearest lessons," Wells and Brandon therefore actions at the "top" as tax mcentlves, legal reforms, conclude, "IS that Implementation of the next and mstltutlOnal priority settmg generation of ICDP mltlatlves needs to mvolve slgmficantly larger collaboratIOn among The ICDP review brought out a second governments, conservatIOn groups, development lesson-that the econonuc lmkage between NGOs, development organIsatIOns and aId development actiVIties andresource consen'atlOn agencies" In tills process, the local "NGO and IS often unclear (Wells and Brandon, 1992, World government agencies charged with protected area Bank, 1996b, Southgate and Clark, 1993) ProJect­ management can play only a lImited role" Instead, mtroduced mcome generatIOn actiVIties are high-level commitment and Involvement from deSigned to conserve resources by provldmg an governments Will also be necessary (Wells and mcentlve for resource users to stop unsustamable Brandon 199261-64) A recent World Bank consumptIon In a stark conclUSion, Wells and review of lessons learned from ICDPs In India Brandon argue "In VIrtually all proJects, the cntlcal found that there was a recurrent need to mcorporate lmkage between development and conservatIOn has project concerns mto "regIOnal plannmg and been mIssmg or unclear" Gomg further, they argue regulatIOn" (World Bank, 1996b 59) that "very few projects appeared likely to generate enough economic or finanCIal benefits to become Wells and Brandon are not alone m findmg that self-suffiCient" (Wells and Brandon, 1992 64) mtegrated conservation and development projects Inaccurate assessment of incentives has resulted have been Implemented too narrowly In a review from such overSIghts as the fact that "most ofconservation projects 10 the Amazon, Southgate bIOlogIcally Important areas do not have the and Clark find that projects have not adequately potentIal for enough tounsm to support recogmsed "powerful mcentlves for depletion" conservatIon" (1992 64) and to overstatements of orlgmatmg far from park boundaries They add the potentIal value ofnon-timber forest products to that commumties (Southgate and Clark, 1993 164)

"The worst shortcommg 10 the current Even where mcentlves are suffiCient, attentIOn must campaign to save biological diverSity 10 be paid to who can gam from them "Where tounsm

PAGE 12 CO-MANAGEMENT IN SRI LANKA I revenues are hIgh, the benefits tend to be captured (usually through leases) to a commumty or by the pnvate sector In major CitIes or by the central commumtles for the Jomt management of some I treasury funds" (Wells and Brandon, 1992 64) aspect of publIc lands In each Instance of SOCIal There IS lIttle eVIdence that those who benefit from forestry, "tenunal nghts are granted and are I ICDPs represent real threats to the parks, and that cancellable by government bureaucracIes WIth legal those who threaten the parks receive sufficIent Junsdiction over 'publIc' forests" (Lynch, 1991 20­ benefits to reduce their potential threat (Ferraro and 21) SOCial forestry efforts have thus paId I Kramer, 1995, Wells and Brandon, 1992) To use conSIderably more attentiOn to legal and tenure the stakeholder language Introduced above, while questIOns than have ICDPs (poffenberger, 1990, commurnties may receIve some benefits from Current 1994, and Lynch, 1991) I project actlVlty, the outsIde local beneficianes of resource consumptIon have not, In most ICDPs, In one of the most well-known of these SOCIal been given adequate compensatIon to discontmue forestry efforts m ASIa, the Forest Management I theIr explOItative consumptIon ofthe resource Bureau of the Phlhppmes granted 25 year communal forest leases to the commurnty, Such fundamental problems With attempts to predicated on a Commumty Forest Stewardship I Integrate conservation and development activIties Agreement agreed to by the commuruty and the lead SImpson (1995) to present two fundamental bureau Most ofthe 15 or so ofthese agreements questIons If such projects are "expected to be estabhshed by the end of 1990 had effectively I sustamable", he asks, "why are mternatlonal funders ensured that outSIders would be kept out of the needed to Initiate them? Second, If they are not forests (Lynch, 1991 21-22) Forests which were expected to be commerCIally successful, would It once being degraded at a rapid rate are now I not be better to take the money apphed to theIr regeneratmg establishment and make direct payments for conservatIOn Instead?" Simpson's questions must In expenments SImIlar to those In the PhilIppInes, I be taken senously by deSigners ofco-management the West Bengal Forest Department has worked out projects If such projects are to create mcentlves Jomt Forest Management (JFM) Agreements With for sustaInable conservatIOn of resources, then commumtles With the explICIt objective of I incentives must be suffiCient for those damagIng the rehabIlltatmg degraded forests The West Bengal resource to alter their patterns of Income example began In the 1970s WIth the Forest generation Expenence WIth ICDPs around the Department agreemg to give the Villagers 25 I world has shown that these alternative InCentIves percent of all revenues generated from the sale of have been conSIstently underestImated firewood and tImber on managed lands The efforts were so successful that by the end of 1989, I A final shortcomIng of ICDPs has been that they commumty-based Forest ProtectIon Comnuttees have been deSigned WIthout adequate understandmg (FPCs) were protectmg 152,000 hectares offorest ofthe SOCIo-econonuc context or suffiCient baselme land As commumtles gamed control over and I data InformatIOn gamed dunng project executIon, Improved the management ofonce almost denuded Wells and Brandon argue, was not suffiCient to land, conflIcts began ansmg-first, because the overcome tros fundamental flaw at the begInnmg of FPCs dId not have clearly defined nghts to restnct I the projects (1992 64) The same problem has access of outSIders to the forest resource they plagued the CAMPFIRE and Luangwe Integrated managed, second, because, as India has gone Resource Development Project m Zambia (Barbier, through a decentralisation process, an increaSing I 1992 132) number ofdisputes have ansen over the allocation ofmanagement nghts and responSibIlItIeS In order 2 SOCIal Forestry for the process to continue successfully, the I ongolOg mvolvement of researchers and central ICDPs have generally paid httle attention to the pohcy-makers was necessary (Poffenberger, 1990 legal nghts ofcommumtles to the protected areas of 9-18) It was also necessary to ensure that benefit I Interest SOCial forestry efforts, by contrast, offer shanng arrangements hke the JFM agreements an example of the state explICitly grantIng nghts contmued to gam legItimacy By 1996, the major

I CO-MANAGEMENT IN SRI LANKA PAGE 13 obstacles had been overcome, and nearly all state of the unIque charactenstIcs of the water media governments had established JFM policIes and were (Norse, 1993 38-44) Sn Lanka, possessIng manne InItIatmg programmes to regIster mformal vIllage envIronments ofconSIderable dIverSIty, has a need forest management groups (poffenberger, 1996 7) to mamtam and Improve management of manne resources Because the potentIal apphcatIOn ofco­ Many authors stress the Importance of addressmg management to the manne enVIronment IS most use and ownershIp nghts m the ASian context "If likely to focus on near-shore reefs, thiS review IS forest departments want to sustamJomt protection confined to these sites actiVities, they will need to establtsh better methods to support theIr rural partners Procedures will Whtte's reVIews ofco-management expenences on need to be developed to formally acknowledge the coral reefs around the world (1994 and 1996) echo authonty ofuser groups to restnct access and to some of the themes that have been noted above, benefit from forest productIOn" (Poffenberger, although WIth a slIghtly dIfferent emphaSIS As WIth 1990 39) In thiS conclusIon, Poffenberger IS Wells and Brandon, he recommends that the scope echoed by DaVIS (1988 7), who argues that "the and scale of co-management be broad enough to key Issue IS tenure" m the sustamable management mclude not only the community but also other of forest resources Lynch concludes that the stakeholders "In some cases, much ofthe authonty "mdIscnnunate legallabellmg offorest resources as IS m the hands ofthe local commuruty orgamsatlOns, public has effectIvely created open access In other cases, much ofthe authonty IS In the hands sItuatIOns" and has "provIded economIC and of a government agency In VIrtually all cases, polItIcal ehtes wIth easy legal access to forest however, a level of government contInues to resources " (Lynch, 1991 9-10) After a reVIew assume responsIbIltty for overall poltcy and of eleven SOCIal forestry projects m Central coordmatIOn of functIons" (1994 14) In coral Amenca, Current finds m the same vem that reefs, as In ICDPs, the narrow scope of projects "the case of land ownershIp laws IS the most must be aVOIded WhIte argues that commumtIes common and troublesome one m Central Amenca" need aSSIstance In deahng WIth problems that (1994 7) As an appropnate response to the ongmate outSIde the communIty and that resource management problems m the forest sector, "commurutles are constraIned by theIr own legal and Panayotou and Ashton conclude that "a reasonable InstItutIonal mandate to deal WIth outSIders" (1996 dose ofboth secure property nghts and equalIty WIll 119) go a long way m savmg both people and forests" (1992 209) In reef co-management projects, baselme data and morutonng systems are essential because "complete ExpenmentatIOn WIth Improved ownershIp nghts and practIcal envIronmental and resource use must be undertaken WIth care Expenences m IndIa surveys are a prereqUISIte to helpIng a commumty show that resource management Investments must deCIde on a feaSIble management plan whIch can be coupled WIth "strong encroachment control" to offer tangIble results" What IS more, "baselme data prevent them from actmg as a "magnet" for new and momtonng of the coral reef resources are settlers (World Bank, 1996b 59) reqUIred to Illustrate to fishermen the condItIOn of theIr envIronment" and make the case for future LIke the ICDPs, SOCIal forestry efforts have also Improvements to pohcy makers (WhIte, 1994 8) suffered from a lack ofbaselme InfOrmatIon WIthout wruch assessment ofmanagement effectiveness and 4 IrngatlOn Water Management the abIlIty to re-onent projects has not In many cases been pOSSIble (Panayot9u and Ashton, 1992, ImgatlOn water IS one ofthe most preCIOUS natural Wlckramasmghe, 1994, World Bank 1996b 61) resources m agncultural economIes Jomt management oflITIgatIOn water systems has a long 3 Management of Coral Reefs rustory In many parts ofthe world Smce lITIgatIon systems usually cover vast areas of land, agencIes ConservatIOn ofresources In terrestnal and manne mandated to oversee them rarely have the enVIronments are not the same, pnnclpally because manpower, faCIlItIes, or mformatlon to control and

PAGE 14 CO-MANAGEMENT IN SRI LANKA I dlstnbute water at the lower levels of the system ThIs IS especially Important m order to re-onent the (Uphoff, 1986 4) Most systems, therefore, have bureaucracy and "create a more positive attItude some form of Jomt management with varying toward partICIpatIOn mvolvIng engmeers and I degrees of balance between agency management technICIans m a process of collaboratIOn WIth and user management-from the completely farmers " (Uphoff, 1986 93) Legal recognItIon agency-managed Mwea scheme In Kenya to the for water user groups IS also an Important factor I Jomtly-managed Gal Oya scheme In Sn Lanka to the ThIS not only gives them more legItImacy In the completely user-managed ZGl1Jera systems In the eyes ofengmeers and agency staffbut also enables PhIlIppines them to operate bank accounts and raise funds I Uphoffsuggests that, after taking the incentive and Among the many goals of IrngatlOn water success factors Into consideratIOn, co-management management are greater relIabilIty and eqUIty m efforts should be oPPOrtUnIstIC and venture mto the I water dlstnbutlOn, Increased agncultural most promIsmg areas prodUCtiVIty, and reductIOn m conflicts between water users Generally, the more congruence there 5 Direct Incentives for Resource I IS between the ObjectIves of water users and ConservatIOn Irngation agenCIes, the more lIkely It IS that farmer partICIpatIOn wIll be hIgh and better water ICDPs have typically relIed on mdlrect mcentlves to I management WIll be achIeved International Improve resource conservatIOn, Ie, resource experIence has shown that Imgatlon systems that degraders are "lured" away mto other more use the partICIpatory approach have consIstently financially rewardmg actiVItIes The assumptIOn IS I Improved the management and productIvIty ofthe that, by gettIng those who destroy the resource to system In India's Pochampad scheme, the Irngable do something else, the qualIty ofthe resource wIll area Increased by some 35% after newly-establIshed Improve Judgmg from the experIence of ICDPs, I PIpe CommIttees mtroduced a rotatIon system In however, the use of these IndIrect inCentIves has ThaIland's Nong WaI scheme, Farmer OrgamsatIons met WIth only lImIted success In ImprovIng raIsed cropping mtenslty from 50% to 90% m a management of protected areas In additIOn, I perIod of two years On the other hand, the 1 8 mdlrect mcentIve programs can be very expenSIve, millIon acre, agency-managed Gezlra scheme m smce they call for conSiderable mteractlOn WIth the Sudan suffered from some twenty years ofstagnant communIty m the re-engmeenng of SOCial and I crop YIelds, whIch experts attnbute to the failure to economIC patterns For these reasons, SImpson mvolve farmers as "partners" In management (1995) asks whether It would not be better to take Analyses of IrrIgation management efforts m the the money applIed to the establIshment ofmdlrect I Pluhppmes and Sn Lanka suggest economic rates of Incentive programs and make direct payments for return m the 50% range (Uphoff, 1986 18-22) conservatIOn mstead What IS meant by direct mcentives, and what have been the expenences of I The commumty's role m IrngatlOn water resource managers In applymg them around the management usually mcludes helping to deSIgn, world? construct, operate, and mamtam ImgatIon I structures, allocating water to different users, and DIrect mcentlves for resource management call for resolvmg COnflIctS ansmg from water allocatIon and an agreement between the party that has a direct use Users' mcentlve to engage m JOint actIOn IS stake m conservmg a resource and the party I weak when water supply IS eIther extremely scarce responSIble for the resource's qualIty They are or extremely abundant (Uphoff, 1986 64) Uphoff collaborative 10 the sense that there IS an agreement also notes that farmers With Insecure land claIms are and each party participates In management In the I "less WIllIng than land owners to contnbute to case ofa park, a direct mcentIve agreement mIght permanent capItal Improvements In the IrngatlOn be made between the government representmg the system" (Uphoff 1986 77) publIc's mterest m conservmg the site and the I COmmUnItIes or outSIde local beneficlanes who are Strong pohey support for partICipatory ImgatlOn responSIble for degradmg It Each SIde makes I management systems IS a cruCIal factor for success explICIt ItS needs and works out an acceptable I CO-MANAGEMENT IN SRI LANKA PAGE 15 agreement to conserve the resource Typically, thIs ofWlldhfe, 1993 or SImpson and SedJo, 1996), to mIght Include estabhshment of a momtored date there are few concrete examples of direct agreement by which the commumty takes incentIve programs One of the few well-known responsIbIlity for preventIng resource destructIOn examples IS the use ofdirect IncentIves to conserve whIle the government agrees to provIde and wolves In the western Umted States There the maintain some needed servIce to the communIty government made a dIrect agreement wIth the (e g, a school, a chruc or a road) Even If a prIvate landowners on whose land wolves mIght communIty has no actIve relatIonshIp WIth or need breed Under the agreement, each landowner who of a resource, theIr very presence next to the has WIld wolves reproduce on hIS or her land and resource mIght make them VIable candIdates for successfully raIses the pups to adulthood receIves a dIrect InCentIve agreements to pohce a resource at direct payment of $5,000 SInce the InceptIOn of a lower cost than the state the program In 1992, ecologists have found that It has made a slgmficant Impact on wolf population Although economIsts and conservatIOnIsts are recovery, In part because the landowners have workIng out the detaIls of how dIrect incentive become less adversanal towards the wolves, and measures mIght work (see, for example, Defenders have begun to see them as a potential asset

PAGE 16 CO-MANAGEMENT IN SRI LANKA I I IV FRAMEWORK FOR CO-MANAGEMENT IN SRI LANKA For most of the post-Independence era, the and WIll not be sustaInable, the "command and management of natural resources 10 Sn Lanka has control" mentahty has been slow to change I consIsted pnmanly ofcentrahsed, control-onented strategIes State agencIes mandated to manage In the last decade or so, there have been several natural resources have tradItiOnally perceIved theIr InItiatIves whIch have sought to take resource I role not only as "protectors" but also as management to the local level so that resource users "polIcemen" and have perceIved local commumtIes can play a role 10 planmng for and managmg eIther as passIve observers that can be Ignored or as resource use Chapter V wIll look at some ofthese I potentIal threats that must be controlled The mam InItIatIves 10 more detaIl Before these co­ thrust ofresource management has, therefore, been management efforts are revIewed, It IS Important to to restrIct and control peoples' 1OteractlOn wIth conSIder the hlstoncal and cultural context and the I resources The adoptIon of thIS "command and legal, pohcy, and mstltutlonal framework WIthIn control" approach has been based on the notIon that whIch co-management 10ltlatlves have been the country's natural resources are the property of attempted ThIS chapter Will attempt to gIve the I the state Tills mentahty has been remforced by the reader an understandIng of the backdrop agaInst fact that the state does, Indeed, own more than 82% WhICh the field-level co-management efforts of the natIOn's land area and Its land-based operate I resources A HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL CONTEXT Forests, protected areas, and wI1dhfe are conSIdered I to be the most precIous natural resources of this In the pre-colOnIal era, a well-defined and wldely­ country The Forest Department (FD) and the accepted system oftradltlOnal service tenure, called Department ofWlldhfe ConservatIon (DWLC), by raJakanya, prevaJ1ed In Sn Lanka The k10g owned I VIrtue oftheIr mandate to conserve these resources, all the country's resources and would bestow on are the pnnclpal agencies Involved In natural cltlzenS-IndlVlduals and communItles-the legal resource management 10 Sn Lanka The 1987 nghts to tracts ofland and other resources In return I Report of the Land CommIssIOn noted that the for service to the monarchy Almost every famIly largest smgle land use claSSIficatIon m Sn Lanka IS could claIm nghts to a tract of land and could for forestry and wIldhfe More than 28% of the deCide how these resources would be used as long I natIOn's land area IS reserved and admInIstered by as the family served the monarch as reqUIred eIther the FD or the DWLC (FSMP 51) The Resources such as forests and lITigatIon works were 16 1% adm10lstered by the FD conSIsts of forest managed collectIvely and commurutles had accepted I reserves, proposed reserves, and natIonal hentage methods of controlhng and allocatmg theIr use wIlderness areas The 124% admmlstered by the Two aspects oftills ancIent system are Important to DWLC conSIsts of natIOnal parks, nature reserves, note First, communIty-based tenunal nghts were I stnct natural reserves (SNRs), sanctuanes, and legally recogrused Second, strong systems for Jomt Jungle corndors (FSMP 52) Although there IS a management ofnatural resources eXIsted long history of commumty partIcIpatIOn m the I management ofnatural resources for agnculture and Colomal land laws, espeCially those mstituted under ImgatlOn 10 Sn Lanka, 10 forest and protected area Bntlsh rule, changed thIS system of commumty­ management commUnIties have been VIewed as based resource ownershIp and management I potential threats The guldmg prmclple, therefore, radically The Crown Lands Encroachment has been to hmlt or prohIbit peoples' mteractlOn Ordmance (CLEO) of 1840 declared(that all lands WIth these resources The FD, for mstance, has for whIch tItle was not regIstered could be vested 10 I attempted for decades to enforce thIS With a system the Crown Even though much of thIS land was ofpefITIlts and heavy fines Although It has become customanly owned and used by cOmmUnIties, eVident over the years that the ngld, centrahsed common property nghts were Impossible to I approach to resource management IS not effective estabhsh As a result, vast amounts of land were vested In the Crown and subsequently transferred to

I CO-MANAGEMENT IN SRI LANKA PAGE 17 Bntlsh planters for coffee cultivatIOn ThIS land frequently assocIated WIth unsustaInable resource Included large areas of fallow chena land 8 The use Waste Lands Ordmance (WLO) of 1897 consolIdated thIs transfer of lands by authonsIng Centunes-old systems that commUnIties had Government Agents to declare by notIce that developed to manage their natural resources, which particular tracts of land were the property of the mcluded allocatmg use nghts and restnctIng Crown Ifno claims were made wlthm three months outsiders' access, were swept away by the CLEO of ofthe date ofthe notIce The Land Reform Laws 1840 whIch severed commurutles' lmk WIth Vital of the 1970s stipulated a cellmg of 50 acres on areas oftherr land The outcome ofthe CLEO, the pnvately-owned agnculturalland and vested In the WLO, and the Land Reform Laws ofthe 1970s was state all lands III excess oftills amount Although SImply that too much. land was vested In th.e state these Land Reform Laws were enacted WIth the Even after major attempts to transfer state land, the stated goal of redlstnbutmg lands to the landless, state stl11 owns some 823% ofthe country's land they resulted In addIng to the state's already area (Land ComnuSSIOn, 1990 44) The state, WIth excessIve mhentance ofland ItS limited finanCial and human resources, has not been able to manage thIS vast amount of land The land ownershIp Issue colours the hlstoncal and effectIvely Although access to these lands has been cultural context for natural resource management legally restncted, the lack of enforcement and The CLEO, formulated to take over lands on whIch absence of any semblance of management has coffee cultIvatIOn could be extended, had the more fostered the ImpreSSIOn that It IS "no one's land" deletenous effect of makmg thousands of people (De Silva, 1993 40) Moreover, many tracts of landless overrught The problem oflandlessness has land confiscated In the 1970s were SImply grown more severe over the years-more than 19% abandoned afterward As a result, large amounts of of rural workers m Sn Lanka are landless (FAO, land have become de facto open access areas which 1985 In Land CommIsSIon, 1990 109)-and there have been subject to encroachment and has been no slgruficant progress m dealIng With thIS unsustamable use problem As a result, poverty and landlessness have become the root cause of many resource The self-suffiCIent, sustaInable lIfestyle of ancient management problems In Sn Lanka today Sn Lankan commumtles was eroded not only Although governments between 1935 and 1985 had because ofthe sudden loss oflands but also because ahenated over 831,000 hectares of land to rural ofthe pervasIve nature ofthe commercIal economy people under cololllsatlOn schemes, VIllage that took firm root In the Bntlsh penod ColOnies expansIOn schemes, regulansatlOn ofencroachment such as IndIa were so large that the effects of the schemes, and other settlement programmes (Land colonIal land poliCIes never reached many rural CommISSIon, 1990 133), there IS stdl a severe areas In those areas, therefore, commumtles shortage of land that can be pnvately owned remamed highly dependent on natural resources Parcels ofland that have been passed down through such as forests and contmued to engage In their generations are hIghly fragmented now and these tradItional systems ofresource management In Sn small plots of land are ImpOSSIble to cultIvate Lanka, the SItuatIOn has been qUite dIfferent Most effiCIently Consequently, expansion to rural commurutles have had relatIvely easy access to accommodate new generatIOns IS sometImes nearby towns and have mteracted closely WIth the possible only through encroachment The InCIdence commerCIal economy Whde many stIlI use forests of encroachment, therefore, IS very hIgh-the and other natural resources, the extent of their Report ofthe LandCommission puts the number at rehance IS very small and, In many cases, the 6% of the natIOn's total land area (20)-and IS knowledge and use of tradItIOnal management practIces has all but dIsappeared

8 In ancIen! Sn Lanka cherza cultzvatlon was not all ullSustamable or damagmg agncultural practlce Farmers had a system ofrotatlon for use ojland Fallow land was left for a few years to regenerate and then re-used

PAGE 18 CO-MANAGEMENT IN SRI LANKA I

B THE LEGAL FRAMEWORK co-management efforts In areas admImstered by the I DWLC In Chapter II, co-management was defined as an arrangement In wluch local support instItutiOns and The Fauna & Flora ProtectiOn Ordmance also I central resource instItutIons actIvely engage prOVIdes a lugh level ofprotectIOn to elephants and commumtIes and outsIde local beneficlanes In the other endangered specIes both 10Slde and outSIde of management of de facto open access resources protected areas The ordInance recogmses, I The purpose of thIs sectIon IS to determine the however, the need to protect farmers and rural extent to whIch these types of collaboratIve commumtles from damage caused by elephants In arrangements are supported In legIslatiOn For such cases where there appears to be "senous damage to I arrangements to work smoothly In the long term In ltfe or property:' the ordmance allows the DIrector Sn Lanka, where landlessness IS one of the major ofDWLC to Issue permIts eIther to outSIders or to causes ofresource degradatIon, Issues such as land the cultIvators concerned to have these elephants I tenure and commumty-based nghts must be captured or kIlled addressed Therefore, thIS sectIOn dIscusses legal ImplIcatiOns for co-management not only In The Forest Ordmance, admlmstered by the Forest I legIslatIOn developed explICItly for the management Department, prOVIdes the legal framework for the of natural resources but also In legIslatiOn that management and conservatIOn offorest land In Sn prOVIdes for mcreasmg secunty of tenure and for Lanka When thIS ordmance was enacted m 1907, I commumty partICIpatiOn m natural resource-based ItS pnmary thrust was revenue collectiOn from development actIVItIes tImber productiOn Over the years, the ordmance has been amended to reflect conservatIOn concerns I The Fauna & Flora ProtectIOn OrdInance, the key It now affords protectIOn to fauna and flora wlthm law that prOVIdes for the protectIOn ofwIldhfe and forest reserves On the whole, the Forest Ordinance flora In protected areas, IS admInIstered by the remams largely regulatwn-onented Rural I DWLC ThIS law grants varyIng levels of commumtIes are allowed to use certam types of protectIon to SNRs, natIonal parks, nature reserves, forest products only If they have obtamed the Jungle corndors, sanctuanes, refuges, manne reqUIred permIts As a result, much of forest I reserves, and buffer zones The mam thrust ofthe officers' tIme IS spent ISSUIng permIts, momtonng Fauna & Flora ProtectiOn Ordmance IS regUlatIOn theIr use, and appearmg 10 court agamst VIolators and restrzctwn A large part ofthe ordmance lIsts (Forestry Plann10g Umt, 1995 286-288) The I out prolublted acts, permIt reqUIrements, and fines ordmance contams lIttle recogmtwn ofthe role or Among the acts prohIbIted In most protected areas rzghts ofrural commumtles 10 forest management are tappmg, collect1Og, or remOVIng plants, cleanng I land for cultIvatIon, and allOWIng domestIc ammals Although the pnmary emphasIS IS on keep10g people to stray Flsh10g In protected areas IS allowed only out offorests, there IS one proVISIon that could be WIth a permIt However, permIts may be granted used to share WIth local commumtles the I free-of-charge to those commumtles who have responSIbIlIty for management ofsome non-cntlcal fish\~d In these waters "by custom or usage" forest areas ThIS proVISIon enables the MIruster of Lands to "constItute any portIOn of a forest [as] a I ThIS ordmance does not recogmse that local Village forest for the benefit ofany VIllage or group commumtzes or other stakeholders can playa role of VIllage commumtles" and to "make regulatiOns 10 the management of protected areas or In the for the management ofvIllage forests" I protectIon of WIldlIfe Moreover, WIth the exceptIon ofthe prOVISIon recogrusmg commumties' The Coast ConservatIon Act, adm10Istered by the customary fish10g nghts 10 protected areas, It does Coast ConservatIon Department, seeks to regulate I not acknowledge the need to reconcIle protected development actIVItIes In the coastal zone 9 The act area management WIth the needs of surroundmg commumtles ThIS ordmance strongly reflects I DWLC's "command and control" approach to 9 V,e coastal zon.e IS defined as the area lymg wlthm 300 metres landward ofthe mean lugh water mark and two resource management and offers httle support for I kIlometres seaward ofthe mean low water mark CO-MANAGEMENT IN SRI LANKA PAGE 19 emphasIses the Importance of estabhshmg a Lanka (Lynch & Talbott, 1995 36) ThIS IS sCIentIfic basIs for coastal zone management by reflected In several Supreme Court judgements, calhng for documentatIon of the status of natural whIch have refused to recogmse tradItIOnal resources In the coastal zone and for the assessment communal ownerslup ofnatural resources and have ofthreats caused to these resources The act also clearly demonstrated an aversIon to excludmg recogruses the need to reconctle the SOClo-economlC "outSIders" from USIng these resources needs of local commUnIties wIth the need to (Nanayakkara, 1996 40) The fact that conserve the coastal zone For Instance, It calls for commurutles do not have the legal rzght to exclude a programme to prOVIde alternatIve employment for outsulers from USIng a collaboratlvely-managed people dIsplaced by effectIve coastal zone resource IS a major constramt to the sustamablhty of regulatIon The Coast ConservatIon Act estabhshes co-management efforts permIt procedures for development actIVItIes undertaken In the coastal zone The 1988 The Land Settlement Ordmance (LSO) contams a amendment to the act stnctly prohIbIts the "mmmg, rare acknowledgement ofcommunal land nghts In collectIng, stonng, burnIng, or transportmg of Sn Lankan law The LSO has a speCIal provIsIon to coral" and reqUIres the demohtlOn ofall kIlns m the allow settlement officers to set apart state land as a coastal zone It also prOVIdes polIce officers WIth "communal chena" reserved for the use of broad powers to enforce thIS act and declares that mhabltants ofa certaIn VIllage (De SlIva, 1993 41) halfthe fines collected w111 be credIted to the PolIce Once tlus land has been declared, outSIders can use Reward Fund Although thIS act IS regulatlon­ the land only With the consent ofthe vIllagers Tlus onented to a large extent, It proVIdes a baSIC proVISIon IS UnIque In that It gIves a communIty the frameworkfor collaboration among stakeholders nght to exclude outSIders from usmg theIr resource

Another pIece of legIslatIOn that could potentially Even though the general lack of recogmtlOn of have slgruficant ImplIcatIOns for the mtroductlOn of communal ownershIp poses a constraInt to co­ co-management efforts on a broad scale IS the management, there are several areas In eXlstmg ThIrteenth Amendment to the ConstItutIOn legIslatIon, whIch address Issues such as land Enacted m 1987, thIS amendment proVIdes for the settlement and resource management m agnculture devolutIOn of a wIde range of legIslatIve and and IrngatlOn, that could be used to strengthen the executIve powers to the prOVInCIal level These framework for co-management For Instance, powers cover envIronmental protectIOn, publIc legIslatIOn such as the State Lands OrdInance and lands, agnculture, ImgatlOn, and many other areas the Land Development Ordmance has the potentIal hnked to natural resource management There IS to Increase secunty of tenure and land ownershIp currently confuSIOn over the dIVISIOn of and, therefore, can be used to strengthen IncentIves responslblhtles between the central government and for commumty management of land-based provmcIaI governments and a marked lack of resources LIkeWIse, legIslatIOn such as the ImplementatIOn capabIlIty at the provincIal level As Agranan ServIces Act and the IrngatlOn a result, prOVInCIal government InstItutIOns currently Amendment Act, whIch grant legal recogmtlOn to do not play a sIgmficant role In co-management resource user groups (I e Farmer OrgamsatlOns) efforts (See SectIOn D ofthIs chapter for a more can lend enormous credIbIlIty to these groups and detaIled dIscussIOn) faclhtate theIr acceptance as equal partners In co­ management efforts The Issue of commumty-based property nghts IS often an Important factor In co-management Many past governments have recogmsed that the arrangements In Sn Lanka, legIslatIOn such as the state owns more land than It can manage, that CLEO of 1840, whIch effectIvely abrogated all landlessness IS one ofthe major reasons for poverty communIty-based tenunal nghts, precIpItated the and resource degradatIOn, and that pnvate erosIOn of tradItIOnal JOInt management systems ownershIp IS hkely to lead to more effiCIent and based on commumty ownershIp ThIS rejectIon of sustamable land use Although legIslatIOn such as tradItIOnal communal ownershIp has remamed the the State Lands Ordmance (SLO) and the Land legal basIS ofmost recogmsed property nghts In Sn

PAGE 20 CO-MANAGEMENT IN SRI LANKA I

Development Ordmance (LDO)IO have sought to management nghts and use nghts pertammg to the I estabhsh a ratlOnal basIs for the alIenatlOn ofstate dlstnbutory channels lands, the process of transfemng state lands to pnvate hands has been slow and mconsistent The In most ofthe leglslatlOn that has been dIscussed I SLO proVldes for the grant and dlSposltlOn ofstate here, there IS httle speCific provIsIon for lands The LDO provides the framework for the collaboratIve management ofnatural resources In "systematic development and altenatlOn of state fact, the legal framework does not allow for I lands" The legal tenure system m Imgated commurutles to own resources as corporate bodies settlement projects, which cover a large area ofthe Only In the case ofde facto open access resources Dry Zone, IS based upon 99-year leases prescnbed such as ImgatlOn canals does the community, I by the LDO (Harkeret ai, 1995 43) Although the through FOs, have the nght to manage resources In LDO recommends that mapping and land use perpetuity There are, however, several proVISions planning be done pnor to ahenatlOn, It IS often a m vanous types of leglslatlOn that endorse the I pOlttiCai deCISion conducted m a haphazard manner concept ofcommunity participatlOn m the plannmg (De Stlva, 1993 38) The LDO also prOVides for a and ImplementatlOn ofdevelopment actiVItIes Local Land AdvIsory CommIttee, representmg the I Interests of local cOmmUnities, to be appOinted to C THE POLICY AND PLANNING review land use plans developed pnor to the FRAMEWORK ahenatlOn ofland This committee's powers are I now vested In Dlstnct Agncultural Committees All post-Independence governments m Sn Lanka (DACs) have stressed the Importance of popular partiCipatIOn m the natIOn's development and have I Unhke In the area ofnatural resource management, sought to faclhtate thIS at all levels of there IS a very strong legal framework for adnurustratlon ThIs approach has been reflected m community partlcipatlOn m ImgatlOn management the Increasmg decentrahsatlOn of power that has I and agncultural development The ImgatlOn occurred m the past decade The thmklng behmd Ordmance of1946 proVlded for the establishment of both the ThIrteenth Amendment and the recently DACs, whIch would coordinate all actiVItIes related proposed "devolutlOn package" has been that local I to agnculture and Imgatton In each dlstnct The commumtles should have a stronger VOice In the DACs conSIst of cultivators and relevant formulatIOn of strategies to manage the finanCIal, government officers The Agranan ServIces human, and natural resources oftheir regIOn I (Amendment) Act of 1991 grants Farmer OrganisatIOns (FOs) the status of"body corporate Pohcy makers at natIOnal instItutIOns such as the With perpetual succession" These FOs can enter DWLC and the FD have been slow to mcorporate I Into legally-bmdmg agreements With government the "bottom-up" approach Into their pohcIes and agenCIes and other parties and act on behalf oftheIr plans There IS mcreaSIng recogmtIon, however, members In purchaSing mputs, marketmg produce, that regulatlOn and enforcement alone are not I and entenng Into farmmg contracts The ImgatlOn effectIve and that the actIve engagement of local (Amendment) Act of 1994, formulated to commurutles IS essential m order to reduce pressure strengthen the legal framework for the ImgatlOn on resources hke forests and protected areas m a I Department's (ID) partiCIpatory water management sustainable manner ThIS sectIOn exanunes the efforts, recogmses FOs estabhshed In IrngatlOn extent to which the collaborative management systems as legal entIties and reqUIres the DIVISional approach IS supported In pohcles and plans I Secretary to aSSIst In ImplementIng Fa deCISions developed for the management ofnatural resources These FOs enter Into legally-bmdmg agreements In SnLanka WIth the ill to transfer responslblhty for the I operation and maintenance ofdlstnbutory channels The National Forestry Pohcy (NFP) and the These agreements formally establIsh FOs' Forestry Sector Master Plan (FSMP), both adopted In 1995, constitute the first coherent, long-term I framework for forest development m Sn Lanka JO Both the SLO and the WO are admInistered by the I Land CommISSIoner They were also the first pohcy documents m the CO-MANAGEMENT IN SRI LANKA P 1"'1='::> I forestry sector to empaslse both development and Will contmue unless thiS problem IS addressed conservation The NFP and the FSMP both reflect Consequently, the FSMP IdentIfies Improvmg the afundamental change In tlte conceptual baSIS for welfare ofrural commUnitIes as one ofthe goals of forest management-that forests are Important not the forestry sector It also IdentIfies secunty of only for theIr tImber value but also for theIr tenure for rural commUnitIes as one of the most ecosystems and that they must be conserved for the Important mcentlves for sustamable forest benefit ofboth current and future generatIons ThIs management Although the FS:MP declares that the IS a far cry from the productIOn and regulatlOn­ state must remain the highest authOrIty m the orIented, "keep people out" approach reflected In forestry sector, It defines the state's role 10 relatIOn preVIous forest laws and polIcIes The NFP and the to the support It should prOVide to empower local FSMP both contatn very strong endorsements ofthe resource users to become effective resource participatory resource management approach managers The FSMP also proVides a deSCrIptIon of the dlstnbutlOn of roles among the vanous The NFP declares that, m the management and partners m future co-management efforts-the FD, protectIon of natural forests and forest plantations, the DWLC, other government mstltutlons, local "the state WIll, where approprIate, form commumtles, NGOs, and pnvate firms-for paJ tnershTps wIth local people, rural commuOltIes, dIfferent types of forests (Forestry Planning Urnt, and other stakeholders, and mtroduce appropnate 1995 10-12) tenunal arrangements" It advocates progressively entrust10g the establIshment and management of Although both the NFP and the FSMP prOVIde a Industnal forest plantatIons to rural commUnities very supportIve framework for co-management, and prIvate comparues with appropnate they Include lIttle detail on exactly how these enVIronmental safeguards The NFP also pledges to polICIes and plans are to be Implemented promote the effiCIent utIlIsatIOn offorest products Moreover, the extent to which the FD has actually and to encourage forest-based rural development engaged local commumtles and other stakeholders actIvitIes ofNGOs and CBOs It calls for zonmg of m forest management IS mInImal The diSCUSSion of state forest lands mto four categorIes on which the FD's co-management actiVitIes later on 10 thIS varIOUS degrees of co-management are pOSSible study Will show that, although progress has been These categones are 1) Class I forests which are made m the past few years, the level ofcommurnty strIctly protected, 2) Class II forests whIch wIll be engagement 10 managmg forest lands has not been managed according to plans developed Jo1Otly WIth very hIgh The Wide gap between plans and rural commumties-eontrolled collectIOn of non­ practIce IS a reflectIOn of the mter-InstltutlOnal tImber forest products (NTFPs) and dead fuelwood COnflIct between the Forestry Planning UOlt (which WIll be allowed, 3) Class III multIple-use forests on led the development ofthe FS:MP and NFP) and the which rural commumtIes can harvest timber FD (wluch IS charged With ImplementatIon ofthese sustamably and collect NTFPs-thls wtll mclude polICies and plans) The FS:MP's approach to forest buffer zones, and 4) Class IV forests on which management would reqUire a dramatic forest plantatIOns and agroforestry can be transformatIOn of current FD management establIshed to produce timber and NTFPs-thls practices In lIght ofthiS sItuatIon, It IS unreallstlc mcludes degraded state lands that can be reforested to ~pect that the FSMP Will be Implemented In full unless there IS a complete re-Orlentatwn of The FSMP, whIch IS to be Implemented over the the FD bureaucracy perIod 1995-2020, IS the outcome ofseveral years of consultatIOn and debate It acknowledges that In the area of wtldlIfe and protected area the government has not been effective In managmg management, unhke In the areas of forestry or all forest lands and that local commUnitIes do not coastal zone management, there have been no currently have the nghts and mcentlves to use these recent attempts to comprehenSively review and forests sustamably (Forestry Plannmg UnIt, 1995 revise the eXlstmg polIcy and plannmg framework 3) It also recognises that poverty aSSOCIated With EXIstIng DWLC pohcles emplulSlse enforcement of landlessness IS the pnmary cause ofdeforestation 10 regulatwns to keep people out ofprotected areas Sn Lanka and that the converSIOn of forest lands

PAGE 22 CO-MANAGEMENT IN SRI LANKA I

and provide bttle opportumty or encouragement The management plans dIVIde the forests mto I for collaboratmg wIth local commumtIes protected core zones, tradItional use zones, recovery zones, VIllage mtegratlOn zones, and buffer The lack of SCIentIfic research and natIOnal-level zones accordmg to theIr need for protectIOn and I planning has been felt most acutely In the area of theIr capaCIty to accommodate commumty use The elephant management Much of the landmark DWLC has also developed management plans for elephant research conducted In Sn Lanka-for several wetland sItes under ItS management and for I Instance, the studIes by McKay In 1973, a few protected areas declared by the Mahaweh Vancuylenberg In 1972, and Iswaran In 1979-IS Authonty Although many management plans have approxImately 20 years old and only covers been developed, mostly on donor agencies' adVIce I elephant populatIons In small areas ofthe country and WIth theIr fundIng, they have rarely been Although human-elephant confhct has Increased Implemented WIth any degree ofsuccess rapIdly over the past two decades as a result of I large-scale c1eanng of forests for settlements and The reVIsed Coastal Zone Management Plan agnculture, no coherent strategy has been (CZMP), to be finalIsed m 1997, IS an update ofthe developed In response to thIS Instead, the DWLC CZMP adopted by the Cabmet ofMimsters In 1990 I has tended to deal WIth each trouble spot on a case­ The plan IdentIfies the coastal problems the CCD by-case baSIS WIth adhoc responses When conflIct should address In the next four years and suggests reaches cnSIS levels, as m the recent case of strategIes to respond to these problems The I Handapanagala, the DWLC has responded by CZMP recogmses that the regulatory approach12 translocatmg herds A major constramt to the used by CCD m ItS first ten years IS not suffiCIent to development of a comprehensIve plan to prevent achIeve effectIve management ofthe coastal zone I and manage human-elephant conflIct IS the lack of It strongly advocates the concept of SpeCIal Area relIable mformation on elephant behaVIOur, habItat Management (SAM) WhICh IS a commumty-based reqUIrements, food preferences, the qualIty of and collaboratIve means to "cope WIth the Impact I eXIstmg habItat, etc on WhICh to buIld a response of mdividual resource use deCISIons and conflIcts There IS also no comprehensIve mformation on the over an area that mIght mclude resources not m the extent of the damage caused by human-elephant legally deSIgnated coastal zone" (Coast I conflict (both In terms of threats to elephants and Conservation Department, 1996 9) The CZMP elephant habItat and In terms ofthreats to humans, IdentIfies 22 potentIal SItes for SAM planning Each property, and crops) Some of thIS mformation IS SIte has been rated With respect to four "factors of I recorded by DWLC officers at the field level, but It concern" and the sites WIth the hIghest cumulatIve has not yet been conSIstently documented or values have been recommended as hIgh pnonty sites analysed for SAM ImplementatIon (Coast ConservatIon I Department, 1996 99) The "factors ofconcern" In addItIOn to natIOnal-level polICIes and plans, are 1) the seventy of SOCial, economiC, and several management plans have been developed for envIronmental Issues, 2) the relative nchness and I speCIfic resources such as forests and other abundance ofcoastal ecosystems, 3) the feaSIbIlity protected areas For mstance, the FD has of management based on Size, locatIOn, legal, and developed management plans for mne conservatIon InstItutIOnal factors, and 4) the eXIstmg or potentIal I forests m the wet zone mcludmg the SmharaJa and value ofecononuc development m the area Two of Knuckles forests Seven of these management the hIghest pnonty SItes have, SInce 1993 been plansll mclude detaIled strategIes for engagmg local developed as pIlot SAM SItes These two SItes I commumtles 10 resource management actiVItIes

11 VIIS approdc1r focused pnmanly on ISsumg permzts for relatlvely large devekJpment prOjects While tIllS helped to I 11 Management plansfor the followmg sevell cOllservatlonforests m the Wet Zolle Mere prepared by prevent adverse Impacts on coastal resources that might have WeN with lDAlWorld Baltle fwulmg III 1995 bee/l caused by these projects It was not able to deal WIth the Bambaraboruwa-Messana, Dellawa, Oliyagankele and degradatlon caused by cumulatlve effects ofcontlnued use of I Welrhena, Kekalladura, Kalulawattegoda Vlharakele, alld coastal resources by lIldlV/duals or commUl1ltles Kottawa-Kombala I CO-MANAGEMENT IN SRI LANKA PAGE 23 Hlkkaduwa and Rekawa, wIll be dIscussed In DIVISIonal Secretanats and Pradeshlya Sabhas At Chapter V ofthIs report all levels, there are NGOs that constItute a Vital part ofthe mstitutlOnal framework for co-management The BIOdIversIty Action Plan (BAP), whIch IS still NGOs that are Involved In facIlItatmg community In the process of development, WIll also advocate participatIOn In resource management mclude the Involvement of commUnities m bIodiversity March for Conservation, EnVIronmental FoundatIOn management The Strategy Document for the Ltd, and Sarvodaya on a natIOnal level, and preparatIOn of the BAP clearly accepts that "any SmharaJa Sumlthuro and Dumbara Sumithuro on a plan to conserve bIOdIverSIty has to recognIse the local level underlYing soclOecononuc causes of loss of bIOdIverSIty" and that bIOdIverSity conservatIon The DWLC, whIch now functIons under the should be "centred at the grassroots level through MInIStry of Pubhc AdminIstratIOn and Home communIty partIcIpatIOn" (MinIstry of Transport, Affarrs, IS mandated to protect the country's WildlIfe EnvIronment and Women's AffaIrs, 1995 32,69) resources and manages some 124% ofthe nation's Networks ofNGOs dealIng WIth bIodIverSity Issues entire land area Although the DWLC's approach have been establIshed to provIde mput mto the IS almost completely regulatIOn and enforcement preparatIOn of the BAP ThIS IS expected to help onented, there IS growmg recogmtzon that It ensure that local-level concerns are IdentIfied and simply does not have suffiCient manpower to rely addressed m bIOdIverSIty management strategIes on enforcement alone and that more sustainable approaches must soon be developed DWLC's field In most areas, although the supreme authonty over officers, In partIcular, have realIsed that theIr work most common property natural resources IS securely would be much more effective Ifthey could develop held by the state, a relatIvely SupportIve polIcy a less confrontational relationshIp WIth local envIronment eXIsts for communIty partICIpatIOn m commurutles Although DWLC's pnmary means of the conservatIon and management of these InvolVIng local commUnItIes thus far has been resources The problems, however, anse m the through publIc-awareness programmes, It has ImplementatIOn stage There are two major reasons recently begun to recognIse, WIth expenence In for problematIC ImplementatIOn First, threats to places like Rttlgala, that commUnItIes can playa effective natural resource management frequently much more actIve role m protected-area anse as an outcome of polICIes of other sectors management Even though attItudes wlthm the For mstance, threats to WIldlIfe Increased DWLC are begmnmg to change, It IS unlikely that dramatically as a result of the MahawelI the DWLC will have the capability or the Development Programme's actIvItIes Second, commItment to support broad-based collaboratIve IncorporatIng communIty partIcIpatIOn mto many protected-area management efforts In the near areas may reqUIre a complete change m attItudes of future agency bureaucracIes ThiS type of re-onentatlOn cannot be achieved through pohcy formulatIon but The FD, whtch now functIOns under the MInIstry of by long-term human resource development Agnculture, Lands and Forestry, manages over one mIllIon hectares of natural forest and forest D THE INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK plantatIOns In Sn Lanka In the past decade or so, the FD has begun to recognIse the need to Involve There are mstItutlons at all levels of government local commuruties In forest management In spIte of that have vanous roles In natural resource the fact that the FSMP and NFP proVIde a strong management At the natIOnal level, there are pohcy framework for co-management and that the FD has makmg bodies such as the MInIstry ofAgnculture, three years of expenence With a participatory Lands and Forestry and the MinIstry of Flshenes forestry programme-Implemented In 18 dlstncts and AquatIC Resources, ImplementIng agencIes such throughout the country In locatIOns such as as the DWLC, the FD, and the CCD, and technIcal Dlyatalawa, Hambantota, Teldemya, and agenCIes such as National AquatIC Resources Huruluwewa-It IS stilI not eqUIpped or onented to Agency (NARA) At the provincIal level, there are adopt co-management on a broad baSIS In fact, the Provincial CouncIls At the local level, there are FD IS still uncertam about tlte role local

PAGE 24 CO-MANAGEMENT IN SRI LANKA I commumtles should play In tlte management of PCs serve as the lInk between the central I forest lands Many of the FD's partIcIpatory government and Pradeshlya Sabhas 14 Future co­ actIVItIes have gIven COmmUnItIes a role In actIvitIes management efforts should take advantage of thiS lIke tree planting on unforested lands prevIOusly lmk and engage PCs more actively In co­ I used for chena management It IS also lIkely that pes WIll have stronger mcentlves to support co-management than The CCD and the ID are both leaders In terms of central government mstltutIOns because their I theIr endorsement and adoptIOn of the co­ constituents WIll benefit directly from better management approach Both institutIons have resource management The constraint to PCs' IdentIfied the actIve engagement of local mvolvement, however, has been theIr lack of I commUnItIes and other stakeholders as a mterest and lack of capabIlIty ThIS IS lIkely to prereqUIsite for sustainable resource management remam a constraint for the next few years and have led the development ofpolICies, plans, and I legislation to faCIlItate use of the co-management At the local level, governance and admInIstration IS approach on a broad scale currently complIcated by the fact that two parallel instItutIOns (the DIVISIOnal Secretanat and the I At the provmcwl level, the PrOVinCial CouncIls PradeshIya Sabha) functIOn WIth a poor definItIOn of (PCs) possess legIslatIve and executIve powers over roles and responSIbIlities and very lImited many areas mcludmg natural resource management, coordmation The Pradeshlya Sabha (PS), an I publIc lands, lITIgatIon, agnculture, and inter­ amalgamatIOn of the former Town CounCils and prOVinCial transport Although the Thirteenth VIllage CounCIls, IS a locally elected body which IS Amendment to the ConstItutIOn was adopted m responSible mamly for the prOVISion of pubhc I 1987, ImplementatIOn has been weak because of utIlIties and serVIces, the PS reports to the PC The confuSIOn over the dIVISIon ofpower between the DIVISIonal Secretary (DS), the eqUIvalent of the central and provincIal governments and because of former AsSIstant Government Agent, IS appOinted I the lack oftechrucal capabIlIty and staffresources at by and reports dIrectly to the MinIStry of Home the proVinCIal level (De SlIva, 1993 45) Affairs and PublIc AdmIrustratIOn and IS responSIble Moreover, WIth the exceptIOn ofthe Northwestern for coordinating all government development I Province, no PC has even attempted to actively programmes m the DIVISion The DS carnes the manage the natural resources ofIts province 13 The delegated authonty ofall natIonal agenCIes In that Southern ProVInce has recently shown an Interest 10 DIVISIon and often has field officers from agenCIes I managing (and more speCIfically, accru10g the such as the ill or the Department of SOCial SefVIces benefits ofmanagmg) natIOnal parks 10 Its prov1Oce located m ItS office PSs and DSs often admInIster It has formally requested that the revenue generated the same geographIcal areas I from Yala NatIOnal Park be returned to the province The recently establIshed Southern Ofthe two mstltutions, the DIVISIOnal Secretanat IS Development Authonty (SDA), which works 10 better funded, better connected, and has a hIgher I collaboration With the Southern PC, has also taken level of technIcal capaCIty The DS carnes the a strong Interest In envIronmental management devolved authonty to coordinate the actiVities of These are sIgns that proVIncwl governments are field officers of government agenCIes and has a I begmnIng to recogmse tlte inCentIves to better good traditIOnal rapport With the local community manage tltelr natural resources On the other hand, PSs are elected by local COmmUnitIes and are more accountable to them, I they also have close hnks With provmcial government and oversee the provIsion ofImportant I public utilItIes and servIces Co-management

U Pratleslrlya Sablras are tire umt ojlocal govemment Jj V,e Northwestem ProvlIlce adopted the first IIltroduced III 1987 to most rural areas under the 1111rteenth I ProvlIlclal Envlronmelltal Act III Sn Lanka III 1990 VIIS Amelulment 17,e equIvalent unit III urban areas III the act IS based 011 tire NatlOllal EllvrrollmelltaI Act Mwucrpal COUilClI or the Urban CowlCzl

I CO-MANAGEMENT IN SRI LANKA PAGE 25 InItIatIves should, therefore try to get hoth these development actIvIty In addItIOn NGOs also have InstztutlOns on board to ensure effectIve speCific areas ofexpertIse-for Instance, Sarvodaya representatlOn and partlclpatlOn at the communIty In communIty empowerment, EFL In legal Issues, level 11FC In sCientIfic knowledge, and Wayamba GOYI Sanwardana Padanama (WGSP) In rural Smce NGOs typically have a better rapport with development Co-management expenence 10 Sn local commurutles than government InstitutIOns do, Lanka shows that NGOs are often a cruczal they are Important players In any collaborative member oftlte co-management partners/up

PAGE 26 CO-MANAGEMENT IN SRI LANKA I I v REVIEW OF CO-MANAGEMENT APPROACHES IN SRI LANKA Co-management IS a relatively new concept In Sn the only area In which there IS a strong precedent Lanka Although commuruty participatIOn has been for co-management In thiS chapter, we Will I actively sought In many areas ofrural development, examme several approaches that have been used m particularly m sectors lIke agnculture, ImgatlOn, Sn Lanka to share responsibilIty for resource and health, thiS effort has focused mamly on giVing management among local commumtles, government I commumtles the opporturuty to vOice their opinIOns agencies, NGOs, and other parties on management deCISions that wIll affect them There are a few examples, most of them very We look first at four projects Initiated and funded I recent, where projects or programmes have gone by USAID the Shared Control of Natural beyond thiS to actually give commUnities and other Resources (SCOR) Project, the Coastal Resources stakeholders a role In the management of a Management Project (CRMP), and the ASia I resource ImgatlOn water management IS perhaps Foundation's Special Projects m CBRM m Kahalla I I Sri Lanka

I Kantale IMD (INMAS)

TISSa Wewa I IMD (lNMAS)

Huruluwewa Watershed (SCOR) I of Mannar RdIgala CBRM Project l------\\d/!-r-----''OW I (TAF) Kahale-Palleke/e Human-Sephant ConfJict Project I (TAF) Dlyatalawa PartICipatory Forest I Project (FD) Peak Widemess Area "'~---

I -.~ ~~ JIIIIr-- -1 Rekawa Lagoon SAM SIte I Figure 4 Select Sites In Sn Lanka Where Co-management Projects are Bemg Tested I

I CO-MANAGEMENT IN SRI LANKA PAGE 27 Pallekele and Ritlgala SCaR and CRMP are There IS one Important POInt to note before the projects managed by InternatIOnal InstItutIons-the dISCUSSIOn ofSCaR's expenence begInS SCaR IS InternatIOnal ImgatlOn Management Institute a very well-funded project (US$ 7 ml1bon over SIX (lIMI) and the Umverslty of Rhode Island (URI) years) wluch IS Implemented by lIMI, an 1OstitutlOn respectively-with considerable expertise m that has extensive mternatlOnal expenence With resource management throughout the world These agncultural productIOn Issues Therefore, SCOR projects have relatively large budgets and staff had easy access to funds, staff, and techmcal resources and slgmficant techmcal capabl1lty The expertise In the deSign stage and contInues to draw Rltlgala and Kahalla Palleke1e projects, on the other from these valuable resources In project hand, have very small budgets and are managed ImplementatIOn and morutonng SCOR IS SimIlar In Jomtly by The ASia FoundatIOn's field staff and tms respect to the Coastal Resources Management small local NGOs Next, we look at expenences Project (CRMP) wmch IS discussed In the follOWIng With different types ofco-management efforts used sectIOn The ASia FoundatIOn (TAF) commumty­ by the Forest Department (FD), the ImgatlOn based resource management proJects, however, are Department (ill), and the Sn Lanka chapter ofthe very dIfferent In that they had very small budgets InternatIOnal Uruon for ConservatIOn of Nature and \tmlted sCIentIfic expertIse eruCN) ThIS chapter concludes WIth a general dISCUSSion ofthe major lessons that can be learned One of the most notable features of SCOR's co­ from these co-management expenences management effort IS ItS comprehenSIve deSign process Project deSigners Involved numerous local A SHARED CONTROL OF NATURAL stakeholder groups In the IdentificatIOn of the RESOURCES resource management problems to be addressed and bUIlt the project strategy upon the lessons of The SCOR project, managed by IIMI, work.s In the prevIous co-management efforts In Sn Lanka (In Huruluwewa and Upper Nilwaia watersheds to particular, the expenences ofwater user groups In ptlot-test a partIcIpatory approach to sustaInable major ImgatlOn systems) Dunng the partIcIpatory resource management In watersheds SCOR resource assessment, IIMI staffworked closely WIth focuses pnmanly on "IncreasIng the sustamable eXlstmg groups of resource users to map land use productIVIty of land and water resources" by patterns and to gauge the community-resource Integratmg conservation concerns WIth productIOn relatIOnshIp by studyIng the demand and supply goals (Wuayaratna, 1995 1) The Huruluwewa charactenstlcs ofthe land and water resources The project area compnses 420 square kilometres (total project deSIgn was based, therefore, on a good populatIOn 39,000) and the Upper Nllwala project understandmg of the dynamICs underlyIng the area compnses 52 square kl10metres (total prevallmg methods ofresource use for agncultural populatIOn 23,500) SCOR's strategy IS to first production Smce factors like tenure secunty, orgamse and strengthen user groups 10 the project incentive structures, and access to credit, seeds, areas and to then faCilitate the establishment of fertIliser, etc were IdentIfied as senous constraInts formal state-user agreements In order to Increase to sustaInable productiVity, project deSigners placed users' control over the relevant land and water great emphaSIS on strengthenIng the legal, polIcy, resources An Integral part of the SCOR and instItutIOnal framework for Jomt land and water phIlosophy IS that secunty of tenure reduces the management temptatIOn for explOitatIve land use and enhances the incentIve to engage In sound productIOn The deCISIon to choose entIre watersheds as the practices that have long cost-recovery penods The resource to be managed IS an Interestmg one ThiS type of tenure secunty that SCOR advocates IS complIcates project ImplementatIOn to a certaIn shared control (I e some degree of "communal" extent because the geographIcal boundanes ofthe ownership) rather than exclUSive mdlvldual property watershed are not congruent WIth the administrative nghts (I e the transfer of ownership title to an boundanes (WIJayaratna, 1995 9) and because the IndiVidual) Interests and SOCIOeconomic condItIons of commumtles In different areas ofthe watershed do not COinCIde Therefore, the reSIdents ofdIfferent

PAGE 28 CO-MANAGEMENT IN SRI LANKA I

areas wIthin the watershed are not a "communIty" PartICIpatory Forestry Project SCaR assIstance for I that IS unIted either by common mterests or by some "mInI-projects," such as the one In Maha tradItIOnal lmks However, SCaR capltahses on the Meegaswewa In the Huruluwewa watershed, has one common Interest-that the potentIal benefits leveraged relatIvely large bank loans for user I from Integrated use ofthe watershed can be large groups' actlvltles-SCOR's grant IS used as Project actIvItIes such as the constructIOn of mmI collateral Many ofthe other project actIVItIes such hydropower plants have used thIS approach as agroforestry, conservation farmIng, Integrated I effectIvely to hnk the goal ofelectnclty generatIOn water management, access to InformatIOn, etc seek to the preservatIOn offorest lands m upper areas of to bUlld permanent lmks between user groups and the catchment relevant natIOnal agencies and to Illustrate to these I agencies that jomt management can be effectIve and The operatIOnal focus ofSCaR IS at the user group sustaInable level and the watershed level At these levels, I project staffpersons known as catalysts work wIth A feature that dlstmgUlshes scaR from many other user groups and relevant offiCIals (I e Grama co-management efforts In Sn Lanka IS ItS use of Nl!adhan, extension agents) to prOVIde traInIng In detailed actIon-research to direct project actiVIties I and help Implement sol! and water conservatIOn scaR uses studIes ofland capability, fertlhty levels, strategIes and other development actIVItIes A great dramage qualIty, etc and SOCIOeconomIc and deal of scaR's success can be attnbuted to Its envIronmental analyses to evaluate different land I well-tramed catalysts The MId-Term EvaluatIOn of and water use optIons SCaR also uses GeographIc the SCaR proJect, conducted m 1995, InformatIOn Systems (GIS) to charactense water recommended that lIMI should move away from and land resource use In dIfferent subsystems ofthe I fieldmg catalysts from ItS own staffand focus more watershed (SCOR Momtor Jan-Aug 1995) ThiS on mvolvmg NGOs and local InstItutIOns m plaYIng gives project actiVitIes a sohd sCIentific and thIS role (30) It also adVIsed that lIM! change Its technIcal foundatIOn SCOR also places a strong I role from "Implementor" of SCaR to "an emphasIS on morutorIng and evaluatIOn A detaIled mcreasmgly lower-profile consultatIve and adVISOry set ofmdlcators assesses the proJect's performance role as It gUIdes other InstItutIOns to helpmg user not only In terms of land and water conservatIOn I groups "(30) In spIte of thIS recommendatIOn, and productIVity but also In terms of user group however, IIMI stIll remaInS at the forefront of actiVities, Investments, and partICipatIOn SCaR ImplementatIOn ThIS InVItes doubts about I the sustamabIhty of SCaR's work after the bIg B COASTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT budgets and technIcal interventIOns are ended PROJECT (CRMP)

I scaR supplements Its strong field work WIth close The CRMP, managed by the Umverslty ofRhode lmks WIth provIncIal and natIOnal level InstItutIOns Island, focuses Its field actIVItIes on Hlkkaduwa and SCOR's actIVItIes are coordInated at the watershed Rekawa CRMP uses these two sItes to I level by a Watershed Resources Management Team, demonstrate the potential of the SpeCial Area at the proVInCIal level by a ProVInCial Steenng Management (SAM) concept SAM IS a co­ CommIttee, and at the natIonal level by a NatIOnal management approach m which COmmUnItIes work I Steenng CommIttee Such mstltutlOnal WIth local and natIOnal government to develop and arrangements serve as an effectIve means to obtam Implement management plans for the sustamable use the collaboratIon of a vanety of external of resources wlthm a defined geographiC settmg I stakeholders and central resource InstItutIOns Very early on m CRMP's work, the Coast Conservation Department (CCD) took "ownershIp" ThiS approach has obtamed certam policy and ofthe SAM concept and has SInce champIOned thIS I InstitutIOnal responses that support SCaR's approach to Integrated coastal management actiVIties and has helped bUild a larger framework CRMP's efforts In Htkkaduwa and Rekawa are for project actiVItIes For mstance, SCaR has therefore closely enmeshed With CCD's work I obtamed legally-recognIsed usufructuary fights (for a 25-year penod) for some farmers under the FD's I CO-MANAGEMENT IN SRI LANKA PAGE 29 At both the HIkkaduwa and Rekawa sites, there are Second, CR1v1P educates and organises local entire ecosystems which are de facto open access commUnities and tries to nurture a "sense of resources for the use ofwruch several groups ofthe ownership" of the resource management process local community compete In Hlkkaduwa, the Full-time CRMP catalysts work with commumtles Manne Sanctuary IS bemg rapidly degraded by In both sites and help the varIOUS stakeholder over-use and poor management Much ofthe threat groups to play an active role In the management to the sanctuary's famous coral reef comes as a planrung process The institutIOnal mechamsm used result of glass-bottom boats, fishing boats, to enable collaborative plannmg and management IS untreated waste discharged by hotels and the SAM CoordInatmg Committee At both Sites, restaurants, and tounsts walking on the corals The the Coord1Oat1Og Committees are chaired by the SAM process In Hlkkaduwa bnngs the Immediate DIVISional Secretary and compnsed of stakeholders-the hotehers, restaurant owners, representatives of stakeholder groups, relevant glass-bottom boat owners, and fishermen-together government agencies (I e CCD, NARA, DWLC, with local government, CCD, DWLC, and other Ceylon Tounst Board, IrngatlOn Department), and relevant parties to Jomtly develop strategies to other parties (I e the Hambantota Integrated Rural manage their resource more sustamably In Development Programme) The DIVISIOnal Rekawa, the lagoon and surrounding lands are Secretanes at these two sites have perceived the gradually bemg degraded and made less productive sustainable management of the resources as their Unsustainable resource use methods employed by responSibIlity and have taken a strong leadership fishermen and farmers, 11legal coral mmIng, turtle role In the SAM process ThiS has been cntlcal to egg poaching, and mangrove clearing are some of the success ofthe CRMP effort the major threats to the lagoon ecosystem In both these cases, since large sectIOns ofthe community An Important feature ofthe CRMP approach IS ItS denve substantial benefits from the resources baSIC premIse that project activities "must be part of concerned, the community-resource relatIOnshIp IS a large, more comprehenSive natIOnal planmng and qUIte strong Particularly In Hlkkaduwa, where the management effort for long-term success and coral reefs and other tounst attractions draw some susta10ablhty to occur" (White et aI, 1994 3) To Rs 110 mIllion annually (SAMPlan/or Hlkkaduwa, tlus end, CRMP's field actiVIties have been coupled 1996 1), the potential benefits from sustamable with an effort to strengthen the polIcy and resource management are large institutIOnal framework for collaborative management of coastal resources The SAM There are two Important features of the SAM concept IS strongly advocated In the new Coastal planrung process In Hlkkaduwa and Rekawa First, Zone Management Plan (to be adopted In 1997) and It has placed great emphasIs on data collectlOn and In Coastal 2000 (1992) and has become an 10tegral analysIs EnVironmental profiles of both sites part of CCD's approach Recently, the SAM produced early on In CR1v!P's history prOVIde approach has also been endorsed by the newly extensive assessments ofthe resources In question created Southern Development Authonty (SDA) The NatIOnal AquatiC Resources Agency (NARA) However, even Wlth active and capable stakeholders has been Intimately Involved with all resource and a supportive pohcy framework, expenence at assessments conducted at the two sites and plays a Hlkkaduwa and Rekawa has shown that there are leadmg role m proViding the sCientific and techmcal lImits to what the current players can achieve It expertise reqUIred for SAM plannIng In spite of has become eVident that many ofthe threats to the NARA's sCientific mput, however, resource resources concerned anse as a result ofpohcles 10 degradation problems such as the operation of other Sectors (such as fisherIes, tounsm, or excessive numbers of glass bottom boats at Irngatlon) In order to be successful In the long­ Hlkkaduwa have not been addressed successfully run, these co-management efforts Will need to yet Although NARA has recommended that the mvolve these other parties and combme number ofboats allowed In the manne sanctuary be enforcement and self-regulatIOn m a manner that IS lnwted to 50, the current number ofboats operat1Og accepted by all players exceeds 70

PAGE 30 CO-MANAGEMENT IN SRI LANKA I Although the eXIstence ofa supportIve polIcy and human-elephant conflIct has resulted not only 10 I mstitutional framework Increases the lIkelIhood that regular elephant 10Junes and deaths but also 10 these co-management efforts wIll be sustainable, severe damage to human COmmUnitIes (10 terms of there IS stIll doubt about whether the momentum for death, InJury, and property/crop damage, etc) 10 the I co-management can be mamtamed m the absence of project area DWLC officers estImate that there are the catalytIc CRMP project and ItS financial and approXImately 150-200 elephants In the Kahalla tecluucal resources In theory, SAM does not need Pallakele area Project statIstICS 10dicate that 10 I long-term external support, because ImplementatIon 1993, vIllagers Incurred more than Rs 3,200,000 In and momtonng ofthe SAM plan becomes a local losses as a result of elephant-related damage In responsIbIlIty It remams to be seen, however, addItIon, 3 people were kIlled, 5 people were I whether tms Will be a realIstic expectatIOn, gIven the maImed, and 31 houses were destroyed that year hrruted tecluucal, financIal, and project management VIllagers resldmg In thIS area are very poor and capabIlIty of local government mstitutIOns and heaVIly dependent on chena cultIvation They are, I CBOs therefore, not eqUIpped to WIthstand the human and economIC losses 10fltcted by elephants C THE ASIA FOUNDATION'S SPECIAL I PROJECTS ON COMMUNITY-BASED Although DWLC IS responSIble for the management RESOURCE MANAGEMENT of elephants and other wIldhfe m Sn Lanka, It has not been effective In prOVIding protectIOn eIther to I The ASIa FoundatIOn (TAF) manages a set offive humans or to elephants m thIS SituatIOn for two special projects to pdot test the community-based major reasons First, there IS no coherent elephant resource management (CBRM) approach In rural management strategy for DWLC to Implement I and urban settings The CooperatIve Agreement Second, DWLC's finanCIal, techmcal, and human between USAID and TAF states that these projects resources are completely Inadequate to cover the Will seek to address "a few CrItical and manageable vast area under ItS JunsdlctlOn Project staff claim I bIOdiverSity and urban pollutIOn Issues by the that the project area reqUIres 60-70 DWLC rangers commUnities In collaboratIOn With relevant prIvate If elephants are to be afforded effectIve protectIOn and publIc sector organisatIOns" The mam There are, however, only 7 rangers m the Kahalla I objectIve ofthese efforts IS to enable COmmUnitIes Pallekele area and theIr movements are severely to manage local resources by enhancmg the capaCIty restncted by the fact that they do not have a vehicle ofcommuruty NGOs, and publIc and pnvate sector As a result, the rangers cannot respond In a tImely I agenCIes (TAF Workplan 1994) It IS Important to manner to elephant-related emergenCIes and note that the emphaSIS from the beg1On1Og was on vIllagers take the law Into theIr own hands to defend mstltutlOnal strengthemng to bUIld a good their lIves and crops from elephant attacks I foundatIon for Improved resource management m the future The agreement did not make speCific The Kahalla Pallekele BEC project started under claims to attempt to create lInkages between the SpeCIal Projects InitIatIve m 1993 WIth the goal I development and conservatIOn ofresources of strengthening commumtIes to "manage local resources" The local resource to be managed In 1 Kahana PaUakele Human-Elephant the case of Kahalla Pallekele IS the elephant I Conflict Project populatIon ThIS resource IS dIfferent from the other resources dIscussed In thIS study for two The Human-Elephant COnflICt (HEC) Project works reasons FIrst, It does not generate any benefits for I m 45 vdlages In the DIVISIons of Galgamuwa and the pnmary stakeholders, rather, It generates only Gmbawa In the Northwestern Provmce Like most costs For tms reason, the project focuses on trymg ofSn Lanka's dry zone, the KahalIa Pallekele area to minimise elephant-related costs Second, the I used to be pnme habitat for elephants With the resource IS mobIle and mteracts With other large-scale cleanng of forests for lITIgated commUnities and resources 10 a fairly large agnculture and human settlements In the post­ geographIC area, therefore, management outcomes I Independence era, there was substantial elephant may have an Impact on commumties and resources dIsplacement and habItat loss Increasmg levels of outSIde the project area

I CO-MANAGEMENT IN SRI LANKA PAGE 31 The HEC project IS Implemented by a NGO external assistance are now bemg channelled coalItIOn named the Wana lana Mlthuro through project-strengthened CBOs Although It IS Sanvldanaya (WJMS) IS The basIc thrust of the not clear how the success of these rural WJMS strategy IS to address the elephant-related development actiVities Will Improve the qualIty of Issues by first helpIng villagers to address their the resource (elephants), It IS expected that SOCioeconomiC problems The assumptIOn mcreased awareness and communIty empowerment underlyIng this approach IS that better wtll contnbute positively to elephant management In SOCioeconomiC conditIOns and Improved the future It IS already eVIdent that, as governance Will reduce Villagers' vulnerabilIty to commumtles begIn to be perceived as Important elephant-related damage and consequently reduce actors In controllIng human elephant COnflict, the the pressure on elephants In each DIvISion, WJMS relatlOnslup between DWLC and the communIty has has helped to establish an Apex Body to bnng Improved Villagers now understand the value of together the different players In the resource elephants as a natIOnal resource and are willmg to management process Each Apex Body IS chaired engage 10 habitat ennchment actiVitIes DWLC has by the DIvIsIOnal Secretary and consists of also recogmsed the benefits of collaborating With representatives ofthe local communIty, DWLC, and local commUnIties and IS Increasmgly seIzmg thiS other government InstitutIOns Project actiVities opportUnIty dunng the first three years have focused on 1) introdUCIng new crops and cultivatIOn techmques Looking at project outcomes from an elephant that reduce potential for conflict With elephants, 2) management perspectIve, there IS lIttle eVidence to strengthenmg commumty-based orgamsatlOns suggest that overall pressure on the elephant (CBOs) and ImprOVIng their capability to Interact population was reduced or that the quality of With providers of services (credit, marketmg, elephant habitat was Improved In fact, the agncultural extensIOn, etc ), 3) enhancmg decrease In human elephant confhct In the project knowledge of elephant behaVIOur and habitat and area has been accompamed by an mcrease m teachmg methods of elephant deterrence conflict In other areas 16 There IS growmg Numerous trainIng programmes In forestry, anImal recogrutlon among project staff and DWLC officers husbandry, agnculture, gram storage, bee keepIng, that elephant deterrence and removal strategIes do and nursery development have been conducted 10 not constitute elephant management and that they order to encourage new means of Income Will not prOVide a long-term solutIOn to the human generation elephant COnflict It IS eVIdent that the effectiveness ofthe HECproject IS undermmed because It does LookIng at project outcomes from a SOClOecononliC not have a larger framework wlthm which to perspective, Villagers appear to be better off now work-there eXIsts no coherent elephant than before the project began The success of management strategy and lIttle researchI7 on which elephant deterrence methods taught to Villagers has to ground such a strategy Under these succeeded In redUCIng the InCidence of human­ Circumstances, a project ofthIS nature cannot have elephant conflict PrelImInary data mdlcates that a sIgmficant Impact on human elephant conflict on crop damage has decreased from 921 hectares In a regIOnal or natIOnal level It must be emphaSIsed 1993 to 19 hectares In 1995, and the number of that the Kahalla Pallekele project was nQ1 deSigned houses destroyed has decreased from 31 m 1993 to 1 m 1995 Anecdotal eVidence also suggests that

the IntroductIOn of new entrepreneunal actiVities 16 RA D Ranasmghe a DWLC ranger at the has Increased Incomes and that Increasing levels of Meegalawa Beat Office stated that human elephant conflict III lwnlrem Kurunegala Dlstnct IS presently on the rzse In Spite ofprOject actlVltleS IS TIle four NGOs m the WJMS coalitIOn are Wayamba GOVI Sanwardana Padanama (WGSP) Orgall/satlOn for 17 SlIIce adequate SCIentific data are not aVailable, It IS Resource DevelopmelU and EnVIronment (ORDE) Wayamba lwt pOSSIble to accurately asSeSS the Impact ofproJect EnVIronmental SCIence Explorers (WESE) and March for actlvltles on elephants For I1lStance iffarmers' crops are COllServatlOIl (MFC) WJMS Imks tire rural developmelU a cruCIal pan ofan elephant s lwrmal dIetary zntake. then experience of wasp and ORDE wah the conservatIon protectmg crops aru:l deterring elephan.rs from entering experzence ofWESE and MFC chenas WIll have a negatIve Impact on elephants

PAGE 32 CO-MANAGEMENT IN SRI LANKA I

to reduce human-elephant conflict at a regIOnal or development and should be mtegrated Into eXlst10g I natIOnal level It IS Important, however, to examine development plans for the regIons concerned what projects lIke thIS can reahstlcally achIeve In tenus ofelephant management by working solely at 2 RltIgala Commumty-Based Resource I the local level Many DWLC officers and wIldlife Management Project experts are ofthe VIew that Intense human-elephant conflIct WIll contInue as long as hIgh populatIOn The RttIgala Commumty-Based Resource I denSItIes ofhumans and elephants remam In areas Management (CBRM) ProJectI9 covers the regIOns lIke Kahalla Pallekele m Sn Lanka's dry zone bordenng on and 10cludmg the Rttlgala Stnct Natural Reserve (SNR) m the Anuradhapura I The project has not been able to sIgruficantly change Dlstnct Estabhshed 10 1941 under the authonty of the InCentIves currently In place wIth respect to the Flora and Fauna ProtectIOn Act, the SNR IS a elephant management For VIllagers, the fact that uruque cultural and bIOlogical hentage, In partIcular I the compensatIOn scheme18 for elephant-related With respect to medICInal plants The SNR IS damage IS almost meffective IS an mcentlve to kIll or managed by the DWLC and lIes In the Injure elephants SInce they do not get Anuradhapura Dlstnct of the North Central I compensated for the damage Incurred, vIllagers' ProvInce, about 27 km north ofDambulla and 36 want to make sure that It does not happen again km southeast ofAnuradhapura Threats to the SNR Hence, the compensatIOn scheme IS a "negatIve" have mcluded harvest and sale of hardwoods I 10centIve for elephant protectIOn If the (partIcularly ebony), chena cultivatIOn, cattle compensatIOn scheme was work1Og (If It paId grazIng, poachmg, collectIon ofplants for food and vdlagers the amount claImed withIn a reasonable medICIne, and firewood collectIon It IS not clear I tIme), thIS would neutralIse the InCentIve to kIll or how much of thiS degradatIOn can be attnbuted to Injure elephants It IS adnuttedly hard to try to buIld local InhabItants and how much to outSIders "POSItIve" IncentIves for elephant protectIOn In a I commumty whIch denves no benefits from the A pre-CBRM phase of the project was begun In eXIstence of elephants Nevertheless, more 1994 to senSltlse members of the fourteen area emphasIs must be placed on try10g to neutrahse the VIllages to theIr potentIal to create a JOInt I IncentIve to destroy elephants management structure and to demand better servIce from local support mstItutIOns By 1995, vIllagers Ifslnular projects are to be rephcated In other areas had Jomed together Into the Rttlgala Commumty­ I of Sn Lanka, there must be a stronger sCIentIfic based Development and EnVIronmental baSIS and a more supportIve pohcy framework for Management FoundatIon (RITICOE), whose elephant management There IS an urgent needfor ChaIrman IS the Rev T Chandaratna Dunng thIS I SCIentific research on elephants (theIr bIOlogy, same short penod, they were successful In behaVIour, ranges, habitat, etc) to be camed out In demandIng and reCeIVIng better servIce from the collaboratIOn WIth DWLC ThIS research should be DWLC, the FD, and vanous levels of local I used by DWLC to IdentIfy hIgh-conflIct areas and government Techmcal support for the medlcmal develop plans for sustamable elephant management plants work has been prOVIded SInce the pre-co­ Such plans must address Issues such as mcentlves, management phase by the Bandaranalke Memonal I InstItutIOnal mechamsms, cullmg and comdor AyurvedIc Research InstItute and overSIght has been done by TAF It IS Important to note that thIS phase ofthe project was a test phase, and that the I emphasIS was not so much on resource management 18 VIllagers are entitled to government compensatlOnfor as It was on explonng the potential for bnngrng any elepha.nt-related damage the Department ofSacral ServIces compensates for crop and property loss and DWLC commumtles together In a Viable management I compellSates for loss oflife However rillS system IS structure rendered all but meffecnve for two reasOlIS first the process oflodgmg a claim IS tlme-cOIlSummg and nddled I WIth bureaucranc procedures second claims are usually 19 11le term commull/ty-based resource management paid after olle or two years alul even then ollly a fractlon (CBRM) IS used here because It was the precise termlllology I ofthe ongmal claim IS paid used by TAF CO-MANAGEMENT IN SRI LANKA PAGE 33 The CBRM project Itself, whIch got underway m managed SNR WIll bnng dIrect benefits to them, 1995, IS desIgned to contmue thIs partICIpatory pnmanly via Improved avaIlabIlIty of water work whIle attemptmg to mcrease the economIc aSSOCiated WIth Increased tree cover The elder opporturuties ofthe communIty and ensure that the members of the communIty argue that there has SNR becomes more sustamably managed One been a steady reductIOn In water avaIlabIlIty for project document descnbed the ObjectIves of the Irngatlon 10 the past several decades, and that the project as developIng "a CBRM programme for the pnmary cause oftills declIne IS the loss oftree cover conservatlOn and sustamable use ofmedicmal plant m the SNR They conclude that the benefits from resources In and around RItlgala" whIle another Improved water aVaIlabIlity assOCIated WIth the document goes further to say that the objectIve IS project exceeds the opportUnIty costs ofgIVIng up "protectmg the RItlgala range and surroundmg areas illegal use of the SNR TAF recognIses that the whIle educatIng InhabItants about ItS value and long-term sustaInabIlIty ofthe project reqUIres that prOVIdIng them With mcome generatIon the commumtles see a long-term benefit to opportumtIes" The project works on three fronts forsakIng use ofthe SNR Unfortunately, WIthout 1) educatIOn and awareness-raIsmg, 2) promotIng the abIlIty to conduct the resource assessment TAF liaIson between those players currently or had enVlslOned, It IS not pOSSible to assess thIS long­ potentIally Involved WIth the SNR, and, 3) term IncentIve questIOn WIthout such an IntrodUCIng Income-generatIng opportumtles assessment, It IS not pOSSIble to ensure sustaInabIhty ConSIderable progress has been achIeved to date m expandIng the ex SItu productIOn and proceSSIng of Any diSCUSSIon of the long-term sustamablhty medICInal plants, hardwoods and fruIt trees VIllage potentIal ofthe project cannot Ignore the challenges commIttees have been formed and are functIomng posed by the current legal status ofthe SNR While successfully, and numerous educatIOnal and co-management projects generally assume that awareneSS-raISIng actIVItIes have been undertaken commurutles can receIve benefits from the resource In additIon, the project has successfully Improved they are beIng asked to manage, In RItlgala these relatIons WIth, and the delIvery ofservIces from, the stakeholders have Virtually no nghts to the DWLC resources ofthe SNR By law, access to the SNR IS stnctly limIted The restncted fights that Anecdotal eVIdence suggests that Illegal IncurSIOns nelghbounng commumtIes enJoy WIth respect to mto the SNR are occumng less frequently and that SNRs, and Indeed WIth respect to most protected the SNR IS not beIng degraded at the same rate as areas In Sn Lanka, represent a senous constraInt to before Unfortunately, hard SCientific eVidence on the potentIal for sustamable co-management efforts changes 10 resource qualIty and management are not If some shanng of management responSIbility IS to avaIlable to valIdate these anecdotes As TAF has be undertaken for protected areas, therefore, then recogmsed, thIS mabilIty to assess changes m the allocatIOn of fights between the state and resource qualIty will constram theIr long-term COmmUnItIes must be reconSIdered abIlIty to know whether resource management IS Improving In partIcular, project managers wIll The RttIgala project draws attentIon also to the Imk need to have more concrete knowledge about the between Income-generatIng actIVities and their rate ofchange m resource qualIty and the source of Impact on resource conservatIOn The Income­ damage to the resource Co-management projects generatmg actIVitIes at RItlgala are not reVIewed, such as the one at Rttigaia need to be adequately except to note that they have been rapidly adopted, funded to carry out baselme studies and establlsh partIcularly WIth respect to the ex SItu cultIvatIOn of momtormg systems early m project med)cmal plants In spIte of these successes, It IS ImplementatIOn not at all clear that these and SimIlar actIVItIes have had any Impact on the quallty of the SNR Even Apart from assessIng resource quahty, assessments the theoretlcallmk between cultivatIOn ofmedICInal and baselIne studIes need to be used to determme plants and ItS Impact on the SNR IS not clear, SInce the benefits accruing to a VIllage from a resource an expandmg market for mediCinal plants mIght be At RJtIgala, many VIllagers belIeve that a better an incentIve for VIllagers to cultivate ex Situ and

PAGE 34 CO-MANAGEMENT IN SRI LANKA I then augment tms With collectIOn from the SNR In Learnmg from thIS expenence, the ADB-funded I fact, on the basIs ofour reVIew, It appears that the Participatory Forestry ProjeceO was launched m Improvements 10 SNR management have less to do 1993 ThIS project works m almost all parts ofthe With new Income-generatmg opporturutles and more country to prOVIde farmers WIth more "ownershIp" I to do With 1) Improved patrolling and enforcement over the afforestation process The FD conducts a by the DWLC (due In great measure to the project's PartiCipatory Resource Assessment (PRA) pnor to hal son work), 2) mcreased fines for Illegal SIte selectIOn and mtroduces partICipatory forestry I mcurslOn, and 3) Improved awareness ofthe value actiVItIes only If local commumtles are capable of ofthe SNR (agam, due to the proJect) Ifresource and mterested m takmg an actIve role m the Improvements cannot be hnked to the mcome afforestation process and If their partiCIpatIOn has I generatIng actlVltIes ofthe project, then thIS should the potential to decrease current pressure on be noted by co-management desIgners, smce the forested areas The FD uses the follOWing four Income-generatmg actIvities (credit, medicmal agroforestry models to encourage the conversIOn of I plants, home gardens, etc) absorb the majonty of non-forest lands to forests Homestead thIS and other co-management project efforts Development, Farmers' Woodlots, Protective Woodlots, and MIscellaneous Plantmg I D OTHER CO-MANAGEMENT EFFORTS IN SRI LANKA The Homestead Development model IS encouraged on pnvate lands WhICh have been abandoned or I 1 Forest Department under-developed On such lands, the FD and the local commumty jomtly deCIde whIch species to Any dIscussIOn ofexpenences ofco-management In plant and the FD prOVIdes mdlvlduals WIth the I SrI Lanka IS Incomplete without mentIon of the seedlIngs The FD also prOVides technical adVice on Forest Department (FD) Smce the FD has under mamtammg these plants and on developmg other ItS junSdlction a vast amount of de facto open means ofmcome generatIon I access resources In thIS country, It has the potentIal to be one ofthe major players In co-management The Fanners' Woodlots model IS pursued on barren inItiatives In Sn Lanka As mentIOned previously, state lands m the VICInIty offorests The FD makes I the FD has only recently recogrused the Importance an effort to select poor fanners who are engaged m ofInvolvIng rural commumtles m the management IllICIt tImber fellIng to participate m thIS actIVity ofthe country's forests The targeted land area IS diVided Into separate plots I for each famIly and 25-year lease agreements are The FD's first formal social forestry initIative, drawn up between the FD and the farmers The funded by the ASIan Development Bank (ADB), IS leases are renewable If the land IS managed I now WIdely consIdered a failure both In terms of satlsfactonly Fanners are allowed to plant and expected outputs and communIty particIpatIon harvest any crop on the land on condItIon that a Tills mltlatlve, launched In 1982, worked m Villages mInImUm of 1, 000 seedhng ofa timber species per I m five up-country dlstncts to address fuelwood hectare are planted They are entItled to all revenue scarcIty The extent of commumty participatIOn generated from the land for the penod ofthe lease was that farmers were contracted to plant seedhngs The FD also prOVIdes famIlIes WIth an additIOnal I provided by the FD The farmers had no chOice m Incentive payment In the form of food coupons species planted In fact, farmers' requests to plant The Farmers' Woodlots model was very successful useful native fruIt and timber species mstead ofthe In ItS first 2-3 years-revenue from the cash crops I non-native pme and eucalyptus were Ignored became farmers' maIO source of mcome and, as a (Lynch & Talbott 96) It IS now recognIsed that result, they dramatically reduced their engagement such an arrangement, where the FD plays the In IlliCit fellIng However, as the canopy cover from I dommant role and commumtles playa passive role, the grOWing tImber specIes develops, production of IS unsustamable and does not adequately use the cash crops IS more difficult and mcome has started I knowledge and capabilities ofthe commumty 20 171e food Old componem of thiS project IS funded by AusAld

CO-MANAGEMENT IN SRI 1...ANKA PAGE 35 fallmg It has become eVIdent now that farmers will 10 the sense that It IS a partnership between the FD contmue to stay away from IlliCit felling only If they and the mdlVldual VIllagers or families However, It can find another means of lOCO me generation IS not collaborative 10 the sense that all these mdlvlduals jom together as a "commumty" 10 a The Protective Woodlots model works on state smgle mltlatlve With the FD Second, these lands 10 sensitive areas such as watersheds, landshde participatory forestry actiVItIes are rarely earned out areas, or the coastal belt UnlIke Farmers' on degraded FD lands and almost never 10 actual Woodlots activities, which are Implemented by forests Therefore, thiS project does not actually mdlvldual farmers, ProtectIve Woodlots activities give commumtles any role In managmg 1M are Implemented Jomtly by commumty groups, who resource but mstead seeks to use the commumty to request FD assIstance In tree plantmg When a site create such a resource The FD thmkmg IS stili that IS selected, the FD establIshes and strengthens a It can manage zts own lands effectively while local-level organisatIOn to coordmate tree plantmg commuruties can playa role m creatmg new forests actiVIties and resolve any conflIcts that might anse The trees that are planted under thIS model are The FD has begun usmg another co-management usually multI-purpose tree species like mango, approach very recently "mformal agreements" WIth rambuttan, bamboo, or rattan The FD proVides commumtles In developmg thiS approach, the FD seedlmg and fertiliser and limited food aid to the has recogrused the fact that, In many forested areas Villagers Although the FD signs a 5-year In Sn Lanka, neighbounng commurutles do not have agreement with the local-level orgamsatlOn, a very close relatIOnship With the forest and do not usufruct nghts to the products ofthese trees are not rely on the forest for a large part oftheir livelihood clearly defined There has been less demand for For thIS reason, the FD seeks to create a dIrect Protective Woodlots among Village commUnities mcentlve for nelghbounng commumtles to help than there has been for Farmers' Woodlots protect forests from threats offellmg and cleanng, which IS often done With the communIties' consent The MIscellaneous Plantmg model IS used on small or collUSIOn The FD first meets With vdlage groups areas of state lands In schools and offices or along and explainS to them why thiS forest resource IS roads The FD provides the necessary gUIdance to Important to the FD and the country It then commumty groups to engage 10 small-scale tree encourages these groups to Identify some of their plantmg Tills IS accomparued by general awareness urgent needs 10 terms ofmfrastructure or services raIsmg about deforestatIOn and the value offorests The FD then makes a "deal" With the commuruty-that It Will bear the capital cost ofone With respect to all four models the FD attempts to of these reqUirements (I e a school, tank, road, work With and strengthen eXlstmg communIty clIniC), If the communIty agrees to protect the groups Some of the groups that are mvolved In forests (1 e to stop being agents for illICit timber participatory forestry aCtiVities were constituted fellers, to report IlliCit fellIng to forest officers) under SCOR, the Integrated Management ofMajor The community must also donate their labour for Irngatlon Schemes (INMAS) programme, and the constructIOn ThiS approach has been used for Mahaweh Development Programme Motivators more than a year In 32 forest areas m 4 dIstncts 10 recruited from WithIn the local commumty to serve the Sabaragamuwa and Southern regIOns as a lIaison between FD officers and Villagers have been very successful In mobIhsmg the commumty The FD faclhtates a monthly forum, chaIred by the and bUIldIng the commuruty's confidence In the FD Beat Forest Officer, at which CBO leaders diSCUSS Field-level forest officers, on the other hand, have the SOCIOeconomic needs of the community The been slow to get out oftheir "pohcmg" rple mto a FD, through ItS Forest Officers, faCIlitates the faclhtator's role Even though thiS project IS mamtenance of the InItial road, school, etc and centered around commumty partiCipatIOn, there are supplements tms With other forms ofSOCIOeconomic two features of the project that should be noted assistance In addition to the monthly meetmg, a First, 10 many cases, management actiVities such as quarterly meetmg IS held at a dlstnct level, chaired tree plantmg and harvestmg are conducted by the Dlstnct Forest Officer ThiS IS a useful mtlzvulually, not collectively ThiS IS collaborative forum at which local commumty representatives can

PAGE 36 CO-MANAGEMENT IN SRI LANKA I

provide mput mto plans for dlstnct-Ievel FD was supported by poltcles and legIslatIOn tltat I activities and also comment on the performance of endorsed tlte collaboratIve management the Beat Forest Officers approach

I 2 IrrIgatIOn Management DIvIsIOn of the The INMAS programme IS now Implemented m 35 IrrIgatIOn Department major ImgatlOn schemes21 and covers a total land area of 157,000 hectares Among the 35 lITIgatIOn I The ImgatlOn Department (ill) IS probably the schemes covered by INMAS are Padavlya and InstitutIOn with the lengthIest and most valuable Tlssawewa In the Anuradhapura Dlstnct, expenence With collaborative resource management RJdlyagama In the Hambantota Dlstnct, and Kantale I 10 Sn Lanka In the early 1980s, the government 10 the Tnncomalee Dlstnct The IMD IS the recogrused that the Agnculture Mlmstry's efforts to admtmstenng authonty for the INMAS programme mtegrate the dehvery ofImgatlOn, agncultural, and Each scheme has a Project Manager and a Project I other services were hampered by the non­ Management Committee (FMC) The PMC mvolvement of fanners m management deCISions formulates the cultivatIOn calendar for the year, ImgatlOn water was Identified as "the most cntlcal oversees eqUItable dlstnbutlOn oflITIgatIOn water, I and IImltmg resource 10 the productIOn cham" and IdentIfies trammg needs ofFOs, and coordmates the the ill found that eqUIty m the dlstnbutlon of prOVISIons of credit, seeds, and other mputs IrngatlOn water was a major concern for farmers Accordmg to the ImgatlOn (Amendment) Act of I (Mmlstry ofLands, 1984) In 1982, the lITIgatIOn 1994, more than 50% of the PMC must be Management DIVISion (IMD) mltlated a programme constituted ofFO representatives The programme 10 25 major lITIgatIOn schemes to establIsh viable IS also well mtegrated mto the natIOnal and regIOnal I farmers orgamsatIons (FOs) that would represent policy framework and has support from high levels farmer 10terests and enable them to partiCipate 10 of government At the national level, the the management process The Imtlal success ofthiS programme IS guided by a Central Coordmatmg I approach m the Gal Oya scheme provided the Committee for Irngatlon Management which Impetus to the development of the Integrated consists of relevant offiCials at the secretary and Management ofMaJor ImgatlOn Schemes (INMAS) director levels At the dlstnct level, the programme I programme, which focused on the mstltutlOnal IS momtored by a Sub-Committee of the Dlstnct strengtherung ofFOs with a view to buIldmg a high Agncultural Committee degree ofmanagement capabl1lty I The IMD approach has been very successful 10 (1) The INMAS programme has prOVided a means by obta1Omg fanner partiCipatIOn m O&M actiVities, which both major stakeholders-fanners and (2) estabhshmg a sustamable, self-financ1Og I government agencles-could pursue their own mechamsm for O&M, (3) 1Ocreas1Og agncultural 10terests On the one hand, farmers' agncultural productIOn ofSubSidiary crops,22 and (4) obta1Omg productiVity was restncted due to problems of legal recogmtlOn for FOs The mstltutlOnal I unrehable ImgatlOn water supply and poor rapport structure for FOs IS now finnly 10 place at several WIth government officers Therefore, the potential levels-field canal groups (FCGs) at the pnmary benefits from effective management of lITIgatIOn level, dlstnbutory canal orgamsatlons (DCOs) at the I water were large and would accrue to a large secondary level, and sub-PMCs and PMCs at the proportIOn of settlers On the other hand, the In tertiary level All groups are based on well-defined was reqUIred to Implement the government's hydrological boundanes Nearly 7,300 FCGs and I deCISion to recover operatIOn and mamtenance (O&M) costs of1mgatIon systems Therefore, the Involvement of fanners m plannmg and .J Major ImgatlOn schemes are defined as those with over 2 000 acres ofImgated lan.d I ImplementatIOn ofO&M and other actiVities and the Improvement of farmer-officer relatIOnshIps was - P(1(ldy ylelils have dropped Slllce the IIltroductlOIl ofthe Important In retrospect, It IS eVident that much of INMAS programme However the IlIgher level of II/Come I INMAS' success IS due to the fact that It gen.erated by cultivatlllg SubSIdiary crops III the Yala season capItalIsed on tlt,S convergence ofInterests and has more thalJ offset the lower level of II/Come generated by I p(1(ldy III the Maha seasoll CO-MANAGEMENT IN SRI LANKA PAGE 37 over 700 DCOs have been establIshed to date slgmficant mcreases m agncultural prodUCtiVity or They have contnbuted Impressively to IrngatlOn SOCIOeconomic Improvements also acts as a water management and O&M in the past decade In dlsmcentlve for partlclpatmg m co-management 1994, the total monetary value 0 f the shramadanan activities mamtenance work done by FOs was Rs 5 2 millIon In 1995, thiS value was Rs 43 millIon Of the 3 International Umon for the ConservatIOn 1,160 dlstnbutory channels In the 35 IrngatlOn of Nature (IUCN/Sri Lanka) schemes, 526 have been handed over to DCOs Smce FOs have body corporate status, they have mCN, a strong supporter of co-management been able to enter mto legally-bmdmg agreements worldWide, has done a lot ofwork In Sn Lanka to with the ill to transfer management and use nghts strengthen the framework for co-management As ofthese dlstnbutory channels O&M for numerous mentIOned preVIOusly, mCN has prepared other dlstnbutory channels are carned out by DCOs management plans for nme conservatIOn forests m on a contract baSIS (Programme ofINMAS, 1996) the Wet Zone The seven most recent management FOs have developed mstltutlOnal mechamsms to plans, adopted m pnnclple by the FD m 1995, allocate water and resolve conflicts that anse over mclude detaIled strategies for the InItIatIOn of co­ water use or allocatIon These conflicts are solved management m certam parts of these forests more because ofthe commuruty's acceptance ofand Although none ofthese management plans has been respect for the Fa's leadership than as a result of Implemented yet, IUCN (With GTZ fundmg) IS the use of the Fa's legal powers Stronger and pIlot-testmg the co-management approach m five 24 more demandmg FOs have resulted in mcreased vIlIages adjacent to the Knuckles forest effiCiency, transparency, and accountability m ill actlvlttes The Participatory Resource Assessment (PRA) conducted pnor to the selectIOn ofsites showed that Although the IMD's expenence with the INMAS the commUnIties m these five vIllages used the programme has been largely successful, there IS now forest for collectIOn of food, fuelwood, bUlldmg some concern that populatIOn pressures and poor matenals, etc The PRA also IdentIfied the most SOCIOeconomic conditions m many ImgatIOn urgent SOCIOeconomic needs of the commumty schemes may undermme the sustamabllIty of co­ The thrust of the IUCN activity IS to "wean management actiVities In the past, there was commUnIties off the forest" ThIS IS done by adequate land for each settler fanuly to cultivate and proVldmg assistance to help VIllagers Improve theIr a large proportIOn of the commumty stood to SOCIoeCOnOffi1C condltlons It IS assumed that better benefit from Improved water management SOCIOeconomic conditIOns Will reduce the need to Therefore, there was a strong mcentlve to use the forest and Will, therefore, reduce pressure partiCipate m co-management activIties However, on the forests In Etanwala, IUCN proVided the smce the land allotted to settler famIlIes IS not VIllage WIth a water tank that worked on the gravity suffiCiently large to accommodate the second and pnnclple to proVIde potable water to Villagers ThiS thIrd generations, there IS hIgh unemployment m the was accompanIed by awareness programmes which commuruty Smce the proportIon ofthe communIty emphaSised the VItal lmk between forest quahty and that stands to benefit from Improved water water avaIlabIlIty In many Villages, temporary management IS decreasmg (I e earlIer all settlers sheds constructed for events hke weddmgs or stood to benefit because they all had land to funerals are made usmg poles cut In the forest cultivate, now only those second and third IUCN has proVIded vIllagers With a metal shed that generatIOn settlers who have land to cultivate stand can be disassembled and re-used for all their events to benefit), partiCipatIOn m co-management The metal shed has proved to be an easy and activities IS dwmdhng The fact that Improved effective substitute for wooden sheds and has water management has not been accompanIed by reduced the need for poles from the forest

23 ShramaJalltl roughly trallSlated meallS dOlUltlOllof labour Sltramadanll activities are usually conducted In 24 TIle five villagers are Kalugala Nellikolawatta large groups Etallwala Krvulewadrya alul Sulugune In the Kaluly area

PAGE 38 CO-MANAGEMENT IN SRI LANKA I

I IUCN works to a large extent with eXIsting CBOs In the Sn Lankan expenences discussed m thiS such as Dumbara SUffilthuro and Hantha Mlthuro chapter, the roles and responslb111tleS ofthefour which also work for the conservatIOn of the sets ofco-management players are almost never I Knuckles forest Much ofIUCN's work In this area dIstributed evenly In fact, some players are never consists of awareness ralsmg, mobilising Involved m co-management arrangements at all participatIOn 10 development actlVltles, and The commuruty IS almost always at the center ofco­ I proVldmg substitutes for forest products As SUCh, management efforts willIe outside local beneficlanes the commumtIes are not glVen a role m the often do not come mto the co-management picture management ofany part ofthe forest Rather, the at all For mstance, TAP's projects 10 Kahalla I project seeks to reduce their mteractIOns With the Pallekele and RItlgala focus very heavl1y on forest moblhsmg the commumty to engage m project actlVltles even though consIderable damage may be I E DISCUSSION caused by poachers, etc The FD's "mformal agreements" are made between the FD and the The co-management efforts discussed In thiS commumty, even though the commumty does not I chapter Involve many different types of resources pose a great threat to the forest In thIS case, the (from elephants m Kahalla Pallekele to the lagoon m outside local beneficIanes-llllclt fellers-may Rekawa) and many different types ofarrangements constitute a bigger threat but are excluded from co­ I (from the natIOnally-endorsed Project Management management Commtttee approach m the ill's major Imgatlon systems to the mformal agreements between the FD ThiS heavy emphaSIS on the commumty IS I and communItles) The compOSltlon ofthe set of understandable and should not be considered a co-management players also vaned slgmficantly weakness m these approaches The commumty IS a among these efforts In Huruluwewa, some 39,000 VISIble and often coheSive group ofplayers that are I farmers throughout the watershed collaborate With relatively easy to define and, more Importantly, easy IIM! and relevant government agencies In to reach Outside local beneficlanes-for example, Htkkaduwa, groups ofhotehers, restaurant owners, In the case of a forest resource, tlhclt fellers-are I glass-bottom boat owners, and fishermen often not eaSily defined or reached and, therefore, collaborate With CCD, NARA, and local hard to mcorporate mto a project approach It IS government Sn Lanka's hmlted expenence With unclear exactly how outside local beneficlanes such I thiS new approach to resource management has as IllICit fellers can be engaged m resource demonstrated that there IS no smgle formula for management The FD, m ItS Farmers' Woodlots co-management In fact, the most slgmficant approach, succeeds m the short-term In dlvertmg I features of the co-management approach IS Its people from IlliCit fellmg by glvmg them 25-year fle.\.7bllIty and ItS abilIty to bnng together many sets leases to plots of barren land so that they can of actors With divergent mterests In thiS sectIOn, engage In afforestation and the cultlvatlOn of cash I we Will diSCUSS the lessons that can be learned from crops However, m thiS case, these farmers engage these Sn Lankan expenences In their tree plantmg and cultivatIOn actlVlty on an mdlVldual baSIS and do not have to collaborate WIth I In Chapter II, co-management was defined as "the a larger communIty Also, they do not have any active engagement ofcornrnumtles and outside local role m managmg the forest resource Itself benefictanes m the collaborative management ofde I facto open access resources by local support Even though these InItiatives are termed co­ InstitutIOns and central resource InstitutIOns" management or commUnIty-based resource Accordmg to thiS co-management seems to management, most of them offer stakeholders no I encapsulate three dlstmct concepts It IS an opportumty to be Involved In the actual arrangement m which 1) the four sets of actors management of the resource For example, In mentioned above have more or less equal roles, 2) Rltigala, the local commumties cannot even legally I these actors take an active role m the management step mto the SNR, let alone help to manage It In of the resource, 3) collectll1e actIOn takes Hlkkaduwa, although stakeholders can use the I precedence over mdlvldual actIOn sanctuary, wlthm certam limits, the actual

PAGE 39 management of It IS solely the responsibility ofthe development In RJtlgala) are carned out on an DWLC In the FD's Farmers' Woodlots model, as mdlvldual baSIS There are, of course, some mentIOned earlIer, farmers manage their plots of actIvItIeS (I e , Jomt patrollmg ofchenas In Kahalla formerly barren land but have no management role Pal1ekele) which are conducted collectively In the forest Itself The IUCN approach IS to divert the commumty from USing the forest resources In It IS mstructIve to look at why these three features this way, most co-management efforts zn Sn of co-management are so weakly fulfilled In a Lanka have emphasised partICIpatIOn over country that has a relatIvely strong framework for management INMAS IS one ofthe few examples collaboratIve management The nature of the of a stakeholder group actually playing an actIve community-resource relatIOns/up explams thIS role In the management ofa resource partially In Sn Lanka today, the commefClal economy has penetrated almost every corner ofthe Co-management efforts such as the projects In country, WIth the exceptlOn of fuelwood, Rltigala and Kahalla Pallekele were deSigned to test commUnities fulfill most of their matenal needs vanous strategies to 1Ovolve local commumtles 10 through market transactions Smce most rural the management of their resources In their first commUnitIeS have "disengaged" from natural few years ofoperation, therefore, they have focused resources, they do not possess the traditIOnal maInly on commuOity mobIlisatIOn and awareness resource management slalls that their ancestors did creatIOn to bUIld a foundatlOn for JOint actIOn In the Some co-management Imtlators In Sn Lanka have future ThiS approach has been successful In recognised thIS and tned to gIve commumtles a acluevmg a remarkable change ofthe communIty's realistiC role In the co-management process ThiS IS attItude toward resource management Issues clear In the FD's "mformal agreements" approach, Before the project started, the community felt that where the community makes a deal to stay away elephant management and preservation ofthe SNR and keep outSiders away from the forest In return was the government's responsIbIlity After the for a road, school, etc ThIS shows that even when work done by the WJMS coalrtlOn and the catalysts, the commumty-resource relatIOnship IS weak, the commumty feel some "ownershIp" over the commumtIes can be Important players m co­ resource Issues and beheve that they have a management merely because oftheir proximity to sigruficant role to play In resolVIng them They also the resource and their consequent ablltty to act as are more aware of theIr nghts and responSibIlities "watchdogs" With regard to the resource and demand better service from the DWLC These outcomes In The manner In which the community-resource themselves contnbute mdlrectly to better resource relatIOnship IS addressed IS often the key to a management, even though the commumty does not sustamable co-management arrangement If the have a direct management role resource IS Vital to a commumty-Ifa large sectIOn of the commumty denves slgmficant benefit from Although collectzve effort IS one of the Vital It-then they have an mcentIve for the community features ofco-management, many of the Sn Lankan to manage thIS resource effiCIently and sustamably projects focus mostly on zndll'ldual actiVities The This incentive can be strengthened by ensunng that FD's Farmers' Woodlots model, although It IS the the commuruty Will be able to 1) enJoy the benefits centerpiece oftheir PartiCipatory Forestry ProJect, ofsound management In the future, and 2) exclude proVides plots ofland to IndiVidual farmers who do outSiders from enJoymg these benefits In their tree plantmg and cultivation Independent ofthe Hlkkaduwa, glass-bottom boat owners understand larger commumty ThiS IS qUite unlIke SOCial that the reef damage their boats cause Will reduce forestry projects In many other parts of the world their future Income They, therefore, have the where entire commumtles obtain nghts to parts of incentive to hmlt and Improve their use of the the forest which are then "communally" managed sanctuary However, the fact that they cannot Even In Ritlgala and Kahalla Pallekele, though prevent new boat owners from obtaln1Og permIts IdentJficatlOn and planmng of project actiVities IS erodes thIS incentive In the case ofthe forests, the done by the community as a whole, many of the commumty does not rely heavIly on the forest and entrepreneunal actiVities (1 e home garden has little Incenttve to protect It The FD, therefore,

PAGE 40 CO-MANAGEMFNT IN ~-, I, I

provides a direct mcentive-a school, road, IS no eVidence that thiS has resulted In I etc -to the commuruty to protect the forest These Improvements In the qualtty of the resources "mfonnal agreements" will only work m the long concerned The Sn Lankan expenence seems to tenn only If the total benefits to the community suggest that even though SOCIO-economlc I from the school, road, etc are greater than the Improvement does not always result In Improved opporturuty cost ofglv10g up collud1Og with timber resource quahty, It IS almost always a strong fellers In both these cases, If the communIty incentivefor stakeholders to participate and stay I orgamsational structure IS not cohesive enough and engaged In co-management actiVIties For strong enough to mfluence mdlvldual decIsions, It IS Instance, In the Farmers' Woodlots approach, likely that rndiVIduals would soon return to farmers start losmg Interest m co-management I unsustamable resource use because the benefits efforts when theIr mcome from cash crops starts to accrUing on an mdIVIdual basIs are unlikely to decrease They have told FD mobilisers that Ifthe outweigh the opportUnity cost of glvmg up that Income from cash crops cannot be sustamed by I resource use another alternative, they would go back to JllIclt felhng In many INMAS Villages, when farmers fall As discussed m Chapter IV, landlessness associated to see their successful water management work I With poverty IS one ofthe major causes ofresource rewarded by Increased Income levels, they start degradation In tills country As successful as 10s1Og mterest In contInu1Og their partiCipation partICipatory actiVItIes may be, as a commumty's Both the FD and the ill are now searchmg for ways I population expands, the ultimate need IS land For to Increase fanners' mcomes and maIntaIn the tms reason, every co-management effort that seeks mcentlve to partiCipate to be effective and sustamable must address this I Issue The only co-management effort ofslgmficant A lesson to be learned from the projects discussed longeVity that has been conSidered In this IS that central resource Institutzons can pTay a Vital report-the ill's INMAS programme-has found roTe In Imtzatmg, guulmg, and garnerzng Itlgh­ I the land shortage Issue an Impediment to ItS level support for co-management efforts They sustamablhty In the first several years, the INMAS can also play an Important role m estabhshIng a approach was a great success In terms of farmer larger pohcy, legal, and technIcal framework for co­ I partiCipation, mcreased reltablltty ofwater supply, management and contnbutIng to the sustamablltty and Improved operatIOn and mamtenance and rephcability of the effort In the cases of Currently, however, a large number ofsecond and Hlkkaduwa and Rekawa, NARA has establtshed a I third generatIOn settlers cannot be accommodated sound technIcal framework for SAM plannIng and on the limited amount of IrrIgated land avaIlable the CCD has estabhshed a supportive poltcy and The settlers who are landless have no mcentlve to legal framework for SAM ImplementatIOn ThiS I partiCipate m co-management actiVIties This IS one overall framework has lent a great deal ofweight to reason for the marked decrease In partiCipatIOn m the co-management effort and has been an mcentlve recent INMAS efforts for local support InstitutIOns such as the DS to I whole-heartedly support these InItiatives As With the landlessness Issue, so must the poverty Moreover, SInce the CCD has establIshed firm Issue be addressed Almost all co-management "ownership" ofthe approach, It wIll be commItted I efforts discussed m thiS chapter Imk conservation to rephcatmg It at other locations On the other and development objectives Underlymg thiS hand, In the absence of a supportIve DWLC approach IS the assumption that the soclo-economlc framework for elephant management, TAF's I Improvements generated by development actiVities success In redUCIng human-elephant confhct In the Will reduce pressure on the resource and KahaIla PaIlekele area cannot have a pOSItive Impact consequently Improve resource quality In the cases on the elephant resource (because the elephants I of Kahalla Pallekele, RItlgala, and the Villages deterred from entermg the project area Will merely adjacent to the Knuckles, co-management projects enter Into conflict m nelghbounng areas) have had success m provldmg mcreased I employment opportUnities, Improvmg access to It IS Important also to keep m mInd the TAF I services, and IncreaSIng mcomes However, there approach to partiCipatory development-that CO-MANAGEMENT IN SRI LANKA PAGE 41 policies do not always ongmate from above TAF relIance on them The same SituatIOn IS also eVident seeks, through mnovatlve projects lIke Rttlgala and at the two SCaR sItes Kahalla Pallekele and others at Demyawatte, Obeysekarapura, and Demyawatte, to create the A notIceable feature of many Sf! Lankan co­ demandfor polley changefrom the bottom TAF management efforts IS that they are based more on has seen a marked change In the DWLC's attItude assumptIOns about the potentIal of community toward co-management smce Its projects began mvolvement than on sohd InformatIon and good The pnmary cause for the change IS that DWLC resource assessment Two of the common now sees the communIty as a mature, demandmg, assumptIOns made are that 1) the communIty and potentially useful group, not as threats to knows better than anyone else how to manage theIr DWLC resources Even though there has been no resources, and 2) damage done to the resource by re-onentatlOn from the center, the field-level outSiders IS done With the collUSIOn of the officers are slowly begInning to mcorporate community Too much faith In these assumptions communIty needs mto theIr management actIvItIes can lead to efforts that put "too many eggs" m the and requestmg communIty assistance whenever the community "basket" and fall to conSIder and need anses Recently, D\VLC requested the address the underlyIng causes of resource communIty's help m obtaInmg mformatlOn on a degradatIon Threats to resources usually herd ofelephants m the Kahalla Pallekele area orlgmatefrom far beyond the communzty-often from poliCIes In sectors such as agnculture, land, Another lesson to be learned from the Sn Lankan mdustnal development, or trade expenence IS that catalysts play a VItal role In mobzlIszng the communzty and other stakeholders Of the projects dIscussed m thiS chapter, only to partzczpate In co-management actzvztzes In the SCOR and CRMP conSIdered these Issues through case of both the FD and the ID actIvitIes, the co­ the preparatIon of SCientIfic assessments of the management actIVItIes would not have been resource problems Although the FD and ruCN successful If the catalysts had not first bUIlt the conduct PRAs pnor to SIte selectIOn, It IS doubtful communItIes' confidence In the government whether these limited assessments are adequate to agencIes Catalysts mRttlgala and Kahalla Pallekele Identify the ongm and extent of damage to the have been able to work as equals WIth the resource and to develop a good mOnltonng system commumty to buIld a strong local foundatIOn for Smce many co-management projects WIll not be co-management and to create "ownership" of and able to spend the time and expense on empowerment over the resource Issues On the comprehenSIve assessments, eXlstmg assessments, other hand, the catalysts at Hlkkaduwa and Rekawa such as the wetland reports produced by the Dutch­ are CRN1P field staff pOSItIOns recrUited at a hIgher funded Wetlands Project and the mne conservatIOn level Co-management actIvItIes m Hlkkaduwa and forest management plans, should be used where Rekawa are often lrutlated and led by these catalysts pOSSible to supplement PRAs and the commUnities tend to show some degree of

PAGE 42 CO-MANAGEMENT IN SRI LANKA I I VI CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The paper draws from the expenences of co­ accorded full protection and effective enforcement management In Sn Lanka and other countnes to ofownership by the state ThiS does not preclude I Identify several major lessons that should be a role for the pnvate sector and local commumtles, considered when makmg future decIsIOns regardmg but such a role needs to be stnctly regulated and support for co-management projects These closely momtored" (1992 211) It should not be I conclusIOns and recommendatIOns are presented assumed that co-management IS synonymous With below a reduction In enforcement on the part of government authontles or With the transfer of I 1 Co-management IS both vIable and enforcement responSibIlIty to commumtles or necessary for management of SrI pnvate parties In most cases, co-management I Lanka's natural resources actiVIties should be coupled With enforcement In the face of hmlted budgets for resource 2 A clear understandmg ofthe management, government resource managers commuDlty-resource reJatJQnShlp IS I around the world have come to recogmse that essentIal to co-management project engagmg resource users at the local level may be deSIgn the only effecnve means ofensunng the sustamable I management ofresources ThIs IS especially true 10 Inadequate attentIOn has been paid 10 Sn Lanka to Sn Lanka, where the state has neither the funds nor the relatIOnship between rural commumtles and the the staffto effectively manage the 82 3% ofthe land resources which need to be better managed It IS I area It owns Slgmficant progress has been often assumed not only that the commumty has a achteved 10 Sn Lanka 10 Improv1Og the environment vested mterest In sustamable management of for collaboratIOn between the commumty and other resources but also that ItS knows best how to I stakeholders, most notably 10 several expenmental manage ItS resources ThiS IS not always the case co-management actiVities (as discussed 10 the For 1Ostance, m many areas close to forests, I prevIous chapter) and 10 the efforts by a few commumtles have lmuted mteractlOn WIth and lzttle government 1Ostltunons to refocus attentIOn toward mterest 10 the forest Co-management project local resource users As a result ofthese efforts, It deSign must mclude a careful assessment of thiS IS now clear that collaboratIOn between the relatIOnship, because the nature ofthe relationship I commumty and other stakeholders, or co­ can have a slgmficant beanng on the ultimate management, IS a vIable optlOn for achlev10g more success of the co-management effort If, for sustamable management of environmental example, a resource generates no or mlmmal I resources In the face of expected further benefits for a commumty, then It IS unlIkely that reductIOns 10 government resource management engagmg that commumty m a co-management budgets and constantly 1Ocreas1Og pressure on process Will be sustamable In thIS mstance, It may I resources, co-management IS not only an 1Oterest1Og be more effective to try the direct 10centlve but a necessary option for Sn Lanka approach The greater the commumty's mteractIon With the resource and the higher the proportIon of I In spite of ItS potentIal benefits, co-management the commumty that gams or loses from that should not be blIthely conSIdered a panacea for mteractlon, the more lIkely IS the success of co­ resource management problems Although local management projects I commuruties should always be consulted concernmg the management of resource~ III theIr VlcmIty, It IS EVidence from Sn Lanka makes It clear that rural not always appropnate for them to be 'actively' commuruty relatIOnships With land-based resources I engaged In a formal co-management process A have more to do With a SImple deSire to own land resource whtch IS ofconSIderable Importance to the than With a relIance on the output from the natIon may reasonablyJustIfY direct management by resource Where resources are under threat from I the relevant government InstttutlOn As Panayotou encroachment, and mdeed thiS mcludes many I and Ashton argue, these resources should "be protected areas, the response should mclude a set of CO-MANAGEMENT IN SRI LANKA PAGE 43 pohcy measures that are explicItly desIgned to carrytng them out It can be done 2S Three optIons resolve the land questIon are worthy of conSIderatIOn Flrst, natIonal technIcal 1OstltutlOns can develop economIes of Exammatlon of the communIty-resource scale If they are engaged to carry out SImIlar relatIOnshIp thus reqUIres co-management project assessments In dIfferent sItes In large part because desIgners to make a careful and realzstlc of ItS experiences 10 SAM plannmg, NARA, for assessment of the social, cultural and economic example, has now developed an expertise In certam benefits and costs which accrue to a communIty coastal resource assessments With time, other from the resource of mterest In additIOn, It central resource mstltutlons can develop parallel reqUIres a close exammatlOn of whether the expertIse 10 other techrucal areas communIty has the capacIty and know-how to manage the resource Co-management efforts 10 Sn Second, "sectoral" resource assessments can Lanka and around the world have paid 10sufficlent generate much ofthe baSIC knowledge reqUIred to attentIOn to the need for thIS analysIs Research understand a resource problem, leav10g limIted data wlthm Sn Lanka should thus be directed to collectIon to be done at a partIcular SIte ThIS examm10g thiS relatIOnshIp between commUnIties process IS underway for resources such as wetlands, and the resources they mIght manage where the Wetlands ConservatIOn Project has conducted comprehenSIve data collectIOn efforts for 3 Since an exphclt objectIve of co­ all acceSSIble wetlands dunng recent years A co­ management IS to Improve the resource, management project for one ofthese wetland sItes resource assessments and momtorlng could therefore undertake a relatively cheap systems must be mcluded m project resource assessment us10g the baSIC data from the desIgn Project The management plans prepared by IUCN for the seven Wet Zone forests IS another pOSSIble Without an understandmg of the conditIOns and source ofdata for resource assessments trends of the resources to be managed, It IS not possible to know whether co-management projects ThIrd, resource assessments can be made more are effectIve Expenences from outside Sn Lanka cost-effectIve by makmg them a trammg ground for have shown that most co-management actIvItIes are Sn Lankan graduate students In the natural launched WIthout such resource assessments sCIences The government mIght suggest or even Several co-management expenences 10 Sri Lanka strongly recommend that co-management funders suggest that adequately broad resource dedIcate funds to graduate students and theIr assessments have not been conducted, pnmanly professors to conduct resource assessments because Implementors did not have the financIal and technIcal resources at theIr dIsposal to carry out Development of resource assessments must be such assessments One of the lessons emergmg linked to Simple and cost effective momtormg from TAF's successful communIty organISatIOn systems Smce resource changes often take a long work at Kahalla Pallekele IS that the resource tIme to be VISIble, many co-management projects problem of elephant mcurslOns cannot be solved have emphaSised the measurement of "level of WIthout a better understandmg oftheIr movements partICIpatIOn" m co-management actiVities rather and behaviour than attempting to measure changes m the resource Itself For mstance, the RItlgala and Kahalla Resource assessments can 10deed be expensIve If Pallekele projects use levels of partiCipatIOn and they are exhaustive, but they need be neither The Improvements 10 SOCIOeconomIc condItIons as response to potentIally expensive resource Indlcatqrs of performance WhIle thIS informatIOn assessments should not be to forsake them altogether but to find cost-effective means of

2.1 171ere eXists a considerable body oflzterature and experiences on appropnate and cost effective enVIronmental alul SOCIa-economiC momtorlllg systems See for example World Balik (1996b) Marks (1996) and Valadez and Bamberger (1994)

PAGE 44 CO-MANAGEMENT IN SRI LANKA I IS useful and InterestIng, It does not effectively 5 The causal link between alternatIve indicate the proJects' progress toward the goal of mcome generatIOn activities and their I Improved resource management Although Impact on resource management has measurement of definItive change In resource been unclear. I qualIty often takes years to be VISible, indicators of change are often Vlslble m the short-run The There IS lIttle eVidence from Sri Lanka, or Indeed objectives of co-management Include not only from elsewhere around the world, to show that Improvement m the bves of the commumty but mtroductlOn by projects of alternative Income­ I Improved management of a resource Without generatIOn actiVIties at project sItes results In long­ momtonng systems to tell us whether the resource term reductzon ofpressure on resources Although I IS becomIng better managed, It IS ImpOSSible to It IS assumed that such activItIes Will be a suffiCIent know whether co-management IS workmg incentive for commuruty members to stop overuSing resources, such assumptions have often I 4 The Impact of "outside local underestimated the Impact of outSiders on the benefiCiaries" on resource quahty and resource (see above) and the true opportumty cost management has been underestimated to Villagers of giVIng up use of the resource In I part, thiS IS because alternative Income generatIOn As mentIOned earlier, most co-management actiVities Introduced In co-management projects approaches In Sn Lanka have focused on the have focused on part-time Income enhanCing I commumty as the pnmary stakeholder Yet It IS actlVltles for a small number ofvillagers rather than eVident that rural commumtIes often do not have a full-time employment ThiS has been the case With strong relatlonslup WIth the resource and, therefore, most attempts to market non-timber forest products I do not qualIfy as pnmary stakeholders Moreover, or Introduce new products (bee-keeping, mat­ In many cases of resource degradatIOn, the group weaVlng, etc) Nevertheless, where a broad cross­ defined as "outside local beneficlanes" are the section ofthe community can observe real gaInS I cause ofdegradanon rather than the communIty from resource management, as In the case of the Wells and Brandon (1992) note that an mru-hydro power plant at Upper Ndwala or In eco­ unwJ1IIngness to recognise the Importance ofthese tounsm projects such as the Annapurna project In I outSide stakeholders was the cause of failure of Nepal, the lIkelihood of their engaging In many ICDP projects A Similar unWillIngness to sustamable resource management IS Increased The recogmse the role of these parties appears to be expenence ofTAF'sand mCN's actIVities suggest I present In Sn Lanka Apart from the CRMP efforts that, while alternative Income generating actiVities In Rekawa and H1kkaduwa, the language used In are often an mcentlve for commumtles to stay polIcy documents In Sn Lanka to date has Involved In project activities, thiS Involvement does I emphaSised IncorporatIOn of the "commumty" In not necessarily translate Into better resource resource management, while outSide local management The power ofbetter SOCioeconomIC benefiCIarIes are rarely mentIOned In keepmg With conditions as an Incentive to stay Involved m co­ I the language used by the CRMP and the CCD, the management actiVIties IS Illustrated by the INMAS term "collaborative" rather than "community-based" case As commurutles realIsed that Improved water resource management should be consistently used m management was not resultIng In better I Sn Lanka The term "collaborative" allows for a SOCioeconomiC condIttons, the Incentive to engage broadenmg ofthe co-management concept to take In co-management actiVities began declImng the primary emphaSIS off the communIty In I additIOn to changing the terminology to encompass In conservIng protected-area resources, regIOnal outSIde local beneficianes, there 15 an urgent need to centers of economic development have a greater deSign and test vanous approaches to bnng thiS set likelIhood ofreducmg resource pressure than do the I ofplayers Into co-management localised Income-generation actIVities of co­ management projects When familIes who once survived off resource consumptIOn from protected I areas are offered slgmficant alternative Income sources (e g, full time Jobs In factOries), their

I CO-MANAGEMENT IN SRI LANKA PAGE 45 consumption ofresources from protected areas will It IS Important, however, to keep m mmd that these likely decline Local resource management efforts are two separate goals If SOCIOeconomIC must therefore be Incorporated mto larger natIOnal development IS the pnmary obJective, then thIS and regIOnal policy and development initIatives should be defined clearly and addressed expltcltly If Improved resource management IS the pnmary Where a resource IS ofcntIcal natIOnal Importance obJective, then projects should not be compelled to (e g, SmharaJa Forest) and the likelihood of local undertake extensive community development resource users beIng "lured" away from resource actiVIties, unless those activItIes can be linked to degradation through alternative Income-generating Improved resource management actlvttles IS unclear or not ltkely, then direct InCentIves for resource conservatIOn ought to be 7 Community partiCipatIOn IS a necessary conSidered SInce direct Incentive agreements do but not suffiCient conditIOn for not reqUire mtense project presence In the sustamable resource management commumty, they are likely to be less expensive to maintain In the long run than multi-obJective co­ Whether they have a large stake In the sustained management projects The direct incentive model, management of resources In theIr VICInIty or not, which has been used In the past two years by the commumtles must be engaged In management FD, ought to be further explored on an process ConSiderable attentIOn has been paid to expenmental baSIS encouragIng these partiCIpatory processes In Sn Lanka, and they have met With a great deal of 6 Co-management project deSigners must success In both Rttlgala and Kahalla Pallekele, for clanfy whether the resource or the example, the commUnities now have a clearer Idea communIty IS the primary focus of their potential for resolVIng their own resource management problems In addItion, they have Co-management projects In Sn Lanka have suffered learned to make local government respond better to from a lack of clanty about their pnmary focus theIr needs The Memorandum of Understandmg Where the commumty-resource relationship IS between RITICOE and the DWLC IS ample close, the resource IS bountiful, and a large eVidence of thIS Increased partICIpatIOn by the proportIOn of the commumty depends on the COmmUnItIes In much the same way, the co­ resource for Its livelihood, then resource management players In Rekawa, Hlkkaduwa, Improvements wIll probably make the community Nllwala and Huruluwewa recognise that the better off Such IS the case In India, where Income commurutles must be made active participants In the from "common property resources accounted for 14 resource management process and 23 percent ofthe Income ofpoor households In seven states and grazIng on communally-owned Although Improved partICipation IS essential to lands accounted for as much as 84 percent ofpoor resource management, co-management planners people's livestock fodder" (World Bank, 1992 must recogmse that partiCipation IS not suffiCient 143) Although there IS no solId eVidence to prove for enSUrIng sustaInable resource management It at thiS time, Sn Lanka's umque hlstoncal and Along With partiCipatIOn must go the "negative" cultural circumstances make It unhkely that benefits Incentive of enforcement and penalties Although to the poor from natural resources In SrI Lanka are Increased partICipatiOn cannot substitute for as great as In India Thus If projects In SrI Lanka enforcement, It can help Villagers accept and are successful In Improvmg resource quality, It does understand the need for enforcement (and not follow necessanly that the commumty WIll encourage VIllagers to help enforcement mstltutlOns benefit also protect the resource from outSide threats) ThiS IS happenmg successfully In Rttlgala as a result of In many ofthe co-management efforts discussed In RITICOE's work What co-management bnngs to the preVIous chapter, goals ofresource management resource management IS not Just partiCipatIOn ofthe and socIOeconOmIC development are Interwoven on commumty, but the active Involvement of the the assumption that one Wllliead to the other ThiS commumty In the mOnltonng and enforcement of IS certamly the case m the TAF and IUCN efforts

PAGE 46 CO-MANAGEMENT IN SRI LANKA I

collaborattvely developed management plans, which bUlldmg the capacIty of prOVInCial and local I are the real focus governments and of NGOs to share some of thiS responsibilIty 8 The mstitutlOnal and polIcy framework I for co-management has Improved m 9 The legal framework for co­ recent years, but must be further management IS madequate and Improved If co-management IS to demands prIority attentIOn I become wIdely adopted At present, the government owns and manages I Although co-management has so far been some 82% ofthe So Lankan land base and all ofIts undertaken 10 most cases on a pdot baSIS, this mland and coastal water bodIes Although future approach has tremendous potentIal to Improve the co-management projects wIll focus on these I effectiveness and sustamabl1lty of resource resources, vIrtually all legal ownerslup anti use management In So Lanka It IS now time, therefore, nghts over these resources are 10 the hands ofthe that the Government should prepare a more state Ifco-management IS to succeed as a VIable I comprehensIve polzcy and techmcal framework and replIcable optIOn for Improv1Og resource for collaborative resource management The management, then the package ofnghts accrumg to FSMP, the NFP, and the soon-to-be-released commumtles should be formally modIfied m cases I CZMP Include strong poltcy support for co­ where the commumty-resource relatIOnshIp IS management It IS now essentIal that the strong WhIle complete transfer of tItle to these BiodiverSity ActIon Plan also 10clude strengthemng resources IS not currently a VIable optIOn, I and deepenmg of these earher efforts It IS also commumties must be granted more extensIve use clear that the absence of a pohcy of Involvmg nghts over them In order to do thIS, some legal commumties and other stakeholders In the reform IS necessary to enable commumtles to be I management of protected areas and wildlIfe has recogmsed as corporate bodIes that can enter Into become a senous constraInt to sustamable agreements WIth the state and other parties management It IS crucIal that the DWLC begIn Precedent for thiS can be found m the legal I 1Ocorporatmg co-management mto ItS pohcles and recogmtlOn given to FOs by the Agranan Services plans (Amendment) Act ofl991 A greater proportion of resources must also be transferred from state I Supportive pohcles are merely dead letters If ownershIp and management to leasehold Implementmg agencies do not have the capacity and management or even to pnvate commumty the commItment to put them mto actIOn In the management I case of the forestry sector, although the FSMP provIdes an excellent framework for co­ Noteworthy progress is bemg made on the legal management, the FD IS neIther prepared nor yet Issues m the forestry sector A Task Force on I wIllIng to Implement these plans The natIOnal Forestry LegislatIOn IS currently draftmg a new InstitutIOnal capacIty to support co-management has Forestry Act which IS expected to grant use nghts reached the most advanced stage In the management for non-timber forest products to commumtles I ofcoastal resources (by the CCD, NARA and other under fixed-term leases for certam forest categones collaboratmg mstltutIOns) and lITIgatIon water (by These legal developments are an Important step the IMD of the ID) Other central resource forward for co-management, but much more I mstltutlOns have much to gam from bUIldmg on remainS to be done EVIdence from ASIa shows that their successes government-sponsored commumty forestry programs that grant annul1able use nghts do not I Even though It IS cruCial that co-management proVIde adequate InCentIVes for sustamable resource arrangements have the support ofcentral resource management The use nghts (even If not the instItutIOns (and access to theIr techmcal and resource Itself) that are granted must be pnvately I finanCial resources), these projects do not have to held by commumtles or IndiVIduals and not be InitIated and led by these mstitutlOns Much annullable If they are to encourage sustamable I more attentIOn has to be paid In the future to resource management (Lynch and Talbott, 1995) CO-MANAGEMENT IN SRI LANKA PAGE 47 In the near term In Sn Lanka, efforts should be To be successful, therefore co-management project made, perhaps under specIal permIssIOn of the instIgators should try to form effective partnershIps responsIble resource management instItution, to between NGOs and government institUtions, so that grant and test stronger use nghts to resources for the NGOs can proVIde the Imk to and understandIng commUnities Yet these efforts should be carned of the community and government agencies can out with caution, since In an environment where prOVide the lmk to fundmg (for schools, roads, Illegal encroachment often leads to legal land fights, hospitals, etc) and can faCIlitate replIcabllIty and any test ofmore pennanent land nghts might create sustamabilIty mtractable problems Lessons learned from pilot actIVIties In Sn Lanka In Its present form, the leases proposed under the are shOWing that the sequencing ofInvolvmg NGOs draft Forestry Act do not allow commUnIties to and government mstltutlons IS an Important exclude outsIders from the resources they may determmant of sustamed commUnity Involvement manage Grantmg a community the nght to use a For Instance, If the government gets mvolved too degraded or degradmg resource under fixed terms early, then the community assumes that the and condItIons WIll not be enough to ensure government will do all the work, and so theIr sustainable management ofthe resource If they are partICipatIOn IS less Ifthe NGO beginS Its pre-co­ not given the power to keep out those outsIde management work pnor to government Involvement direct beneficIanes who may be causmg the maJonty (as TAF dId 10 RItlgala and Kahalla Pallekele) and ofthe damage Ifthe commuruty stakeholder can therefore develop a clear perceptIOn of Itself and Its goals, the WhIle the legal framework for transfer ofuse nghts prospects for more active partiCIpatIOn 10 the co­ to commurutles under co-management IS developmg management process are greater In the forestry and coastal sector, It IS all but non­ eXistent In other sectors For park lands and 11 SelectIOn of sites for future co­ coastal/wetland resources In partIcular, there are management projects should be made few optIOns for the fonnal transfer ofuse nghts to usmg pre-determmed rather than ad commUnities that might Increase their incentive for hoc criterIa sustamable resource management ThIS study concludes that the co-management 10 The best InstitutIOnal arrangement for Identification process should be sectoral m scale and supportIng co-management IS a should use pre-Identified selectIOn crztena which collaboratIVe partnershIp between would contnbute to project success If the NGOs and government Institutions objective IS to effectively engage commUnities In the resource management process, then those In general, the Institutional framework for co­ "commurutles that still retam a sense ofcommunity management calls for partnerships between NGOs of ownershIp" and those "protected areas where and government instItutions Projects Implemented effectIve management IS already In place" should be byNGOs should have the advantage ofbemg more gIven hIgh Priority (Nanayakkara, 1996 39-40) senSItive to the needs of local commumtles and SOCIOeconomIc CrItenon should mclude SItes With more capable ofdevelopmg appropnate responses relatively low, or at least stable populatIOn to the commUnities' problems NGOs do not, densities," since hIgh populatIon denSItIes mean that however, have at their dIsposal either the technical the hkellhood ofsuccessful protectIon IS low (Wells expertIse reqUIred to deSign co-management and Brandon, 1992 63) To gam economIes of projects or the resources to conduct these projects scale m this IdentIficatIon process, natIonal techmcal on a scale that can have a slgmficant Impact on mInistrieS should take the lead In Identlfymg the resource management at a natIOnal level cntena and the resultmg hIgh pnonty SItes To Furthermore, the best work of NGOs can be begm ratlOnalismg the co-management efforts, the rendered unsuccessful If government does not BIOdiverSity ActIOn Plan should clearly state the create a supportive policy and legislative ecosystem types and pOSSIbly the speCific sItes environment

PAGE 48 CO-MANAGEMENT IN SRI LANk''' I where co-management efforts should be gIven value ofbenefits Design offuture co-management I serIous consideratIon efforts should be preceded by an analySIS of the costs and benefits not only ofpast attempts at co­ Along wIth these and other CrItena should go an management, but also ofmore traditIonal control­ I assessment of the benefits and costs of past co­ onented resource management options and dIrect management efforts Puot efforts In SrI Lanka have incentive agreements I vaned wIdely In the cost per beneficIary and In the I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I CO-MANAGEMENT IN SRI LANKA PAGE 49 REFERENCES

Ascher, Wilham, 1994, Communities and Susta111able Forestry 111 Developl17g Countnes The Center for Tropical Conservation, Durham ASia FoundatIon, The, 1995, Annual Report BaldWin, Malcolm Forbes, 1988, EnVIronmental Laws andInst1lutIOns ofSn Lanka (Draft), Assessment for USAID/Colombo BarbIer, Edward B, 1992, "Commuruty-based Development 10 Mnca", In Economlcsfor the Wilds Wildlife, DIverSify andDevelopment, Ed TImothy M SWarIson arId Edward B BarbIer IslarId Press Washmgton, DC Brandon, Carter and Ramesh Ramankutty, 1993, Towards an EnVIronmental Strategyfor ASIa World Bank DISCUSSIon Paper 224 The World Bank Washmgton, DC Bruce, John J, L Fortmann, and J RIddell, 1985, "Trees and Tenure An IntroductIOn" In Trees and Tenure An Annotated Bibliography for Agroforesters and Others, ed L Fortmann and J RIddell ICRAF NaIrobI Cemea, MIchael M, 1992, The BlIlldmg Blocks ofParticipation Testmg Bottom-up Plannmg World Bank DISCUSSIon Paper 166 The World Bank Wash1Ogton, DC Coast ConservatIon Department, 1996, ReVIsed Coastal Zone Management Plan, SrI Lanka, (Draft), Coast ConservatIOn Department, Colombo "Commuruty-based Resource Management Draft Framework The Obeysekerapura Low Income Settlement", 1994, Prepared by Sevenatha "Commuruty-based Resource Management Draft Framework The DenIyawatte Margmal Settlement", 1994, no author "Community-based Resource Management Draft Framework The RItigala Medlcmal - TradItIonal BIO­ dIverSIty Eco-system", 1994, no author "Commuruty -based Resource Management Draft Framework The Horton Plams / World's End NatIOnal Park / Tounst Resort", 1994, no author Crowfoot, James E and Julia M Wondolleck, 1990, EnVIronmental Disputes Community Involvement III Conflict ResolutIOn, Washmgton, DC Island Press DaVIS, Shelton H, 1988, Indigenous People's EnVironmental ProtectIOn and Sustalllable Development, Gland, SWItzerland InternatIOnal Union for the ConservatIon ofNature (IUeN) Defenders ofWIIdhfe, 1993, BlIlldmg Economic Incentives Into the Endangered SpeCies Act, Defenders of Wlldhfe, MIssoula, Montana Department ofWIIdhfe ConservatIOn, 1990, Proceedll7gs ofthe Semmar on Conservation Planfor Elephants ofSn Lanka MInIstry ofLands, IrngatIOn and Mahaweh Development, Colombo De SIlva, Lalanath, 1993, EconomiC Development Projects An AnalySIS ofLegal Processes andInstItutIOnal Responses, Natural Resources and EnVIronmental Pohcy Project, Colombo Ferraro, Paul J, and Randall A Kramer, 1995, "Affectmg Household-Level BehaVIor to Promote Ram Forest ConservatIon 10 Madagascar," Report submItted to the EPAT program ofWmrock InternatIOnal Forestry Plann10g UnIt, 1995, SrI Lanka Forestry Sector Master Plan, MInIstry of Agnculture, Lands & Forestry, Colombo Forestry Planmng Umt, 1995, NatIOnal Forestry Policy and Executive Summary MInistry of Agnculture, Lands & Forestry, Colombo Gamage, Cynl, et al, Popular PartiCipatIOn III Development AdministratIOn SLIDA DocumentatIOn Senes No 4, Sn Lanka InstItute ofDevelopment Admlmstratlon, Colombo ' Gnanaselvam, Shtrantht M, 1993, Strengthemng Local Government m Sn Lanka An AnalySIS ofSome ofthe Issues and RecommendatIOns for Future Work, InternatIOnal SCIence and Technology InstItute, Washmgton DC Gregerson, Hans, Sydney Draper and Dieter Elz, Editors, 1989, People and Trees The Role of SOCIal Forestry In Sustamable Development, Econonuc Development Instttute (EDI) Semmar Senes, The World Bank Washmgton, DC

PAGE 50 CO-MANAGEMENT IN SRI LANKA I

Harker, Bruce, et ai, 1995, Mld-Term EvaluatlOn ofthe Shared Control ofNatural Resources Sub-PrOJect, I Sri Lanka, Development Alternatives Inc Maryland HIkkaduwa SpecIal Area Management and Manne Sanctuary Coordmatmg CommIttee, 1996, Speclal Area Management Plan for Hlkkaduwa Maline Sanctuary and EnVirons, Sn Lanka, Coastal Resources I Management ProJect, Colombo Honadle, George and Jerry VanSant, 1985, ImplementatlOnfor Sustamablbty Lessonsfrom IntegratedRural Development, Kumanan Press West Hartford I InternatIOnal Urnon for the ConservatiOn of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN), 1980, World ConservatIOn Strategy LIvmgResource ConservatIOnfor Sustamable Development, Prepared by mCN, the Uruted NatIOnal Environmental Program and the World WIldlIfe Fund mCN, Gland, SWItzerland I Irngatlon Management DIVISIon, 1996, Programme ofINMAS -1996 Land CommiSSion, 1990, Report of the Land CommISSIon - 1987 Department of Government Pnntmg, Colombo I LegIslatIve Enactments of Sn Lanka Lynch, Owen J, 1991, "CommuOlty-based Tenunal Strategies for Promotmg Forest ConservatIOn and I Development 10 South and Southeast ASIa" Paper prepared for a USAID conference on envIronmental and agncultural Issues, Colombo, Sn Lanka, September 10-13 Lynch, Owen J and Kirk Talbott, 1995, BalancmgActs Commumty-basedForest Management andNatIonal I Law In ASia and the Pacific, World Resources Institute Washmgton, DC MacKinnon, John, Kathy MacKmnon, Graham Child and 11m Thorsell, 1986, Managmg ProtectedAreas In the TropICS, InternatIOnal Umon for the ConservatIOn of Nature and Natural Resources, Gland, SWitzerland I Marks, Malcolm, 1996, "A Toolkit for NGO Momtonng ofEnvironmental and SoclO-Economic Change", NIger Agncultural Sector Development Grant Workmg Paper Milner-Gulland, E J and Nigel Leader-Wllhams, 1992, "Illegal ExplOItatIOn ofWlldhfe" In EconomIcsfor I the Wzlds Wzldlife DiverSity and Development, Ed Timothy M Swanson and Edward B Barbier Island Press Washmgton, DC I Mtrustry ofLands and Land Development, 1984, Programmefor IntegratedManagement ofMajor IrrzgatIOn Systems (lNMAS), ImgatlOn Management DIVISIon, Colombo Mmistry ofTransport, EnVironment and Women's Affairs, 1995 "Strategy for the PreparatIOn ofa BAP" I Nakasruma, Steven, 1995, "RttIgala Commumty-based Resource Management Project", Unpubhshed notes Nakasruma, Steven, 1996, "The Kahalla Pallekele Human-Elephant ConflIct Project", NAREPPIIRG WorkIng Paper I Nakatam, Keith, 1992 "Commumty-based Natural Resource Management m Sn Lanka OpportuOltles for PartnershIp Programs WIth NGOs", Natural Resources and EnVironmental Pohcy Project Report PID WP6/92 I Nanayakkara, GL Anandalal, 1996, "Common Property Utlhsatlon and Development", m Soba Envzronmental PublzcatlOn 6 (1) 36--12 October NatIOnal Park Service, US Department of the Intenor, 1986, Systems Plan Mahaweb NatIOnal Parks I ReglOn Department ofWl1dhfe ConservatIOn, Colombo Norse, Elhot A, Editor, 1993, Global Manne BIOlogical DiverSity A Strategyfor BUlldmg Conservatzon mto DeC1SlOll Makmg, Island Press Washmgton, DC I Panayotou, Theodore and Peter S Ashton, 1992, Not By TImber Alone Economics and Ecology for Sustammg TropIcal Forests, Island Press, Washmgton, DC Peters, C, A Gentry and R Mendelsohn, 1989, "ValuatIon ofan Amazoman Ramforest" Nature 339 655­ I 666 Poffenberger, Mark, 1990, "Jomt Management for Forest Lands Expenences from South Asia", A Ford Foundation Program Statement I Poffenberger, Mark, 1996, "Forest RegeneratiOn at the Grassroots", World ConsenJatlOll 2/96, pages 7-8 Rekawa SpeCial Area Management Coordmatmg Committee, 1996, SpeCial Area Managementfor Rekawa I Lagoon, Sri Lanka, Coastal Resources Management Project, Colombo "Ritlgala CBRM ProJect", 1995, unpublished memo SImpson, R DavId, 1995, "Why Integrated ConservatIOn and Development Projects May AchIeve NeIther Goal", Resources for the Future DIscussIon Paper 95-20 Simpson, R David and Roger A SedJo, 1996, "Paymg for the Conservation ofEndangered Ecosystems A Companson ofDIrect and IndIrect Approaches," EnvIronment and Development EconomICS (10 press) Southgate, Douglas and Howard L Clark, 1993, "Can Conservation Projects Save BIodiversity m South America?", Amblo 22(2-3) pp163-166 Southgate, D, 1991, Tropical DeforestatIOn and Agncultural Development 111 Latlll Amenca DISCUSSIon Paper 91-01 London EnvIronmental Economics Centre, London Swanson, Timothy M and Edward B Barbier, 1992, "The End ofWtldlands and WIldlife?" In EconomICS for the Wilds WIldlife, DiverSIfy and Development, Ed TImothy M Swanson and Edward B Barbier Island Press Washmgton, DC Uphoff, Norman, 1986, Gett1l1g the Process RIght Improvmg IrngatlOn Water Management with Farmer OrgamsatlOll and PartiCipatIOn Workmg Paper for Water Management SynthesIs II Project Cornell University, Ithaca Valadez, Joseph and Michael Bamberger, 1994, Momtormg and Evaluatmg Socral Programs m Developmg Countnes A Handbookfor Pobcymakers, Managers and Researchers, EDI Development Senes, The World Bank Washmgton, DC Wells, MIchael and Katnna Brandon wIth Lee Hannah, 1992, People and Parks Lmkmg Protected Area Management with Local Commun1tles The World Bank Washmgton, DC Wlute, Alan T ,Lynne Zeltlm Hale, Yves Renard and LafcadlO CorteSI, 1994, CollaboratIve and Commumty­ basedManagement ofCoral Reefs Lessonsfrom E).penence, Kumanan Press, Hartford, ConnectIcut WhIte, Alan T, 1996, "Col1aboratlve and CommUnIty-based Management ofCoral ReefResources Lessons from Sf] Lanka and the PhllIppmes" Paper presented at the NatIOnal Workshop on Integrated Reef Resources Management, Male, MaldIves, March 16-20 Workmg Paper No 2/1996 of the Coastal Resources Management ProJect, Sn Lanka Wlckramasmghe, AnoJa, 1994, DeforestatIOn, Women and Forestry, PublIshed for the Institute for Development Research, Amsterdam by InternatIOnal Books, Utrecht, The Netherlands Wljayaratna, C M, 1995, A PartiCIpatory HolistiC Approach to Land and Water Management m Watersheds, International IrogatlOn Management InstItute, Colombo Wljayaratna, C M, 1994, "Shared Control of Natural Resources (SCOR) An Integrated Watershed Management Approach to OptimIse ProductIon and ProtectIon", In Srz Lanka Journal ofAgncultural Economics 2 (1), 60-97 Wlthanage, Sumudu, 1991, Towards Legal ProtectIOn afTroplcal Forests, Sn Lanka EnVIronment Congress, Colombo World Bank, The, 1992, World Development Report 1992 Development and the EnVironment, Oxford UnIversity Press, New York World Bank, The, 1996a, The World Bank PartICipatIOn Sourcebook, EnVironmentally Sustamable Development PubhcatlOns, Washington, DC World Bank, The, 1996b, StaffAppraIsal Report IndIa Ecodevelopment ProJect, South ASIa Department, Agnculture and Water DIVISIon, Report No 14914-IN August World ConservatIOn, 1996, Volume 2, Published by the World ConservatIon Umon (IUeN)

PAGE 52 I I LIST OF INTERVIEWS Mr AHMR Abeyrathne, Chairman, Orgamsatlon for Resource Development and Environment Mr Edward Anderson, Representative, The ASia Foundation I Mr Jayasmghe Balasoonya, Wayamba GOVI Sanwardana Padanama Mr Kapila Bandara, The ASia Foundation Ms Bernadette, Coordmator, RITICOE I Mr HTS Fernando, DWLC Office, Anuradhapura Mr Kaplla Fernando, Project Manager, mCN/Sn Lanka Mr PnthlVlraJ Fernando, Wtldhfe Expert I Mr Sena Ganewatte, Consultant, Coastal Resources Management Project Mr Malcolm Jansen, World Bank Mr Avanthl JayatJlake, Environmental SpeCialist, USAlD I Mr Dayananda Kanyawasam, AdditIOnal Conservator ofForests, Forest Department Dr Hemeslfl Kotagama, Semor Lecturer, Umverslty ofPerademya Dr Sarath Kotagama, Semor Lecturer, Open Umverslty ofSn Lanka I Mr Suml Llyanage, Forest Department Ms Sandya Mendls, BMARI representative at RITICOE Mr Mahmda Moragolla, Deputy Director, InstitutIOnal Development, IrngatlOn Management DIVISion I Mr Anandalal Nanayakkara, Legal Expert Mr V K Nanayakkara, Consultant, MlTEWA Ms Padmawathle, RITICOE I Dr Nirmahe Pallewatte, Seruor Lecturer, Umverslty ofColombo (and Coordinator, March for ConservatIOn) Mr RAD Ranasmghe, DWLC Ranger, Meegalawa Beat Office Mr Anura Sathurusmghe, Project Manager, PartiCipatory Forestry ProJect, Forest Department I Mr Jayantha Wlckramanayake, SpeCial Projects Manager, The ASia FoundatIOn I Mr HJM Wlckramaratne, Project Manager, Coastal Resources Management Project I I I I I I I I CO-MANAGEMENT IN SRI LANKA PAGE 53