Innovation in rural and governance: Unlocking the economic potential of wildlife for pro-poor development

Brian Child University of Florida OECD Conference on “Innovation for Inclusive Development” - 21 November 2012 Wildlife is “one of the great agricultural transformations” in (southern) Africa

Shifting from a Commodity (beef) to a Bio-Experience (wildlife)

Financial analysis Economic analysis

For Landholder (Financial) Economic Multipliers

Tourism

Vertical Economic Economic

Economic Integration output Economic Economic Multipliers Hunting in Sector

Meat Viability Vertical Integratio Profit n in to Land Meat Meat Sector Profit to Land

Ecological inputs Gross Income from Hunting in Zimbabwe Zimbabwe 25 • Wildlife 4X Policy actions ( proprietorship) 20 • Cattle declined

15 10 1. Devolve ownership US$ 5 0 2. Develop markets 1984 1987 1990 1993 1996 1999 Trends in Wildlife & Livestock Numbers South Africa 1964-2007 South Africa 60 • 1964: 575,000 • 2007: 18.6 million 1964

40 2007

Million 20

0 Goats Sheep Cattle Wildlife

60000 Number of Trophies Namibia 50000 • Wildlife doubled+ • Cattle decreased 55% 40000

30000

20000

10000

0

1991 1996 1997 1998 1999

Kenya (lost 2/3 of its wildlife) Policy actions (no change) Lions 2,800 (2002) – 1,800 (2010) Elephants 160,000 (1970) – 30,000 (2010) 1. Centralise ownership G Zebra 13,500 (1975) – 2,000 (2007) Impala, warthog, giraffe, topi, hartebeeste 2. Restrict / ban use declined 70% in Mara The poorest people live with the best wildlife – how do we transfer wildlife technology from private to community sector?

Three challenges: 1. Making wildlife/NR viable 2. Devolve to community 3. Micro-governance Central Government

2

Micro-governance •Elite capture •Equitable benefit sharing? Local governance •Community participation? 3 Poor conceptualization and operationalization. Constituents CBNRM (the Vision) <1% misappropriation 20X number of projects

Face-to-face Accountability Maximize value of wildlife (quarterly) to members

Assist communities to get organized (constitutions, membership) Ensure private benefit Tax people (not wildlife) for social goods

Participatory, activity- based budgeting Whole community chooses how to use income Technology Transfer

Ecotourism on Amazon River in REDD+ Carbon payments in Ecuador Tanzania

However, our research in southern Africa shows a fundamental difference between: • representational multi-village governance • participatory single-village governance Committee-based Management Community-based management Representational governance Participatory democracy Multi-Village Single village (face to face)

Multi Villages / Representational Governance

Allocation of Expenditure in 43 Village Action Groups in Lupande GMA 1996-2001 Chiefs extraction

600 000 000 VAG Administration

500 000 000 Wildlife management

400 000 000 Projects/activities Members dividends 300 000 000

200 000 000

100 000 000 Zambia Kwancha Zambia

- 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 80%-20% governance rule / hypothesis

Equitable Benefit Sharing and Community Size in CBNRM Communities in Southern Africa 100% Chikwarakwara

90% Lupande 43 VAGs y = -0,236ln(x) + 1,8396 Mahenye R² = 0,4418 80% Masoka

70%

60% CAMPFIRE Multi Sankuyo, Botswana 50%

40%

30%

20%

Caprivi 07 Benefit Sharing (%) Sharing Benefit 10% Caprivi 98-06 Zambia, Mumbwa Lupande CRB Botswana Multi Lupande Chiefs 0% Caprivi 04 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800

Community size: Number of Households Economic/Governance ‘Games’

Representational Participatory budgeting budgeting

Equitable Benefit Sharing Representational Participatory OWS workshop 20% 80% Maun, Group 1 44% 67% Maun, Group 2 43% 69% 36% 72%

Satisfaction with Budget Process 6

5 4 3 3 Representative 3 Budget 2 2 Participatory Budget Frequency 1 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Level of satisfaction 1= v low; 10=high Taking Research into Action And unlocking elite capture The ‘governance dashboard” – a model for participatory pro-poor research?

Develop and test Visualize preliminary results, instrument create excitement and obtain mandate for ‘Action Research’

Technology Development

Work with community to identify performance metrics

Collect data with community Social learning / adaptive management cycle

Return results to Take / support corrective action leadership (and e.g. participatory activity-based budgeting followership) the same week Analyzing Data

Statistically Socially

1. Clarify data to community 2. Refute/agree 3. Explain causes (model)

Single Village with fair-good Multi-village with governance governance problems

Did CBO committee give you a finanical report in Gunotsoga Okavango Community Trust

the last year? 20 19 18 16 70 14 12 60 10 8 8 50 Count 5 6 4 40 4 3 Financial accountability 2 30 0 20 No, I No, I don't Neutral Yes, I Yes, I strongly trust them trust them trust them % of Responses 10 distrust a lot 0 them Yes No Don't I did not Do you trust the CBO leadership to manage and account for your finances? Know attend Recommendations

Transparent Data Agreement (visualization x Dissatisfaction with Status discussion) Quo to change

Implementation of Change ???

Mechanisms of Constituent Information is Accountability Constitutions ; POWERFUL and needs Accounts; to be handled carefully Information systems Is there opportunity to change the way universities learn with poor people? • Local adaptive management SDIs • Performance audit service to implementing agencies • Regional SDI databases

Transfer curricular to regional universities and colleges Thank you

• [email protected] (Mis) Allocation of conservation (intellectual) capital

60 Summary Single Species (Biology) 50 Practical Management of 79 Research techniques 40 articles Habitat management 91% published 30 Human Attitudes in SAJWR Economics, Markets Commerce 20 Community 2004- 9% 0% Governance / policy 2007 10 0

Ecology

Economics Governance