The role of NGOs in the successful implementation

of sustainable tourism projects

Caro StammLecturer ◊ Best-Sabel University of Applied Sciences

BerlinPhD candidate ◊ University of Lincoln

Photo by Dan Stephens

Photo by macleans.ca

Key elements of CBNRMCommunity-based natural resources management

The three premises of ‘New Conservation’ (Hulme & Murphree 1999)

• Decentralisation Conservation should move from being state-centric to being more

based in society Conservation rooted at the local level: empowerment and ownership

• Sustainable development Both conservation and development goals at the same time NOT

“environmental imperialism” Two extremes: Sustainable utilization vs. biodiversity fundamentalists

• Free market thinking Uniqueness and scarcity of species will lead to high economic values

being placed on them likelihood of conservation greatly improved

Resources CBO Cultural (people) Accountable Natural (e.g. elephants) and legal entity Community

use benefits for wider development goals

Government CBNRM policy

Donors Development funds

for tourism as livelihood option

Successful community-based tourism is heavily dependent on external support

Private Sector Joint Venture Partnerships

Bilateral Agreement

NGO

NGOs 1. Play essential role in formulation of CBNRM policy, i.e. vesting of rights

2. Facilitate drafting of constitution spelling out rights of community and responsibilities of committee

3. Act as advisor to the community during JV negotiations with PS

What the literature says about the role of NGOs in the development process of CBT projects (Forster 2004)

Strengths • Have experience in working with local communities• Can develop capacity at community level• Have information about and access to specific market segments• Advise communities during negotiations with private sector• Lobby for more responsible tourism and interests of local communities• Are able to identify and develop alternative livelihood options• May have capacity to strengthen the role of disadvantaged groups

and weaknesses• Lack sufficient business and marketing skills• Lack professionalism in developing tourism products• May offer only limited support due to dependence on external funding• Values may conflict with commercial viability of CBT ventures• Interests of NGOs and local communities may conflict

Fieldtrip 2013 – research methodology

49 semi-structured interviews in four southern African countries

• NGOs 41%• Academics 20%• Private Sector 16%• Government 15%• Community 8%

Data analysis by means of • Position analysis• Agency analysis

Development of heuristics• Ambivalence and inconsistency• Self-narratives and own theories• ‘C-families’: causes, consequences

and conditions• Gradual families: degree, intensity

and scope• Process families: stages, phases and

progression

Representation of communities –Powerless or powerful?

Powerful!

• Withhold participation Overtly, e.g. boycotting meetings Covertly, e.g. apathy, lack of enthusiasm

• Bargaining powers Learnt to tell us what we want to hear Sophisticated consumers of

development projects

Passive receivers Comparing support organisations of development aid based on highest perceived value

(Self-)constructed Apparent incapability asdiscourse of dependency actual strategy of ‘lying low’

Lack of interest ‘Wait and see’ mentality due to experiences with outsider intervention

Powerless?

• Passive Incapability of taking initiative No local leadership

• Disorganised Inability to plan ahead Limited understanding of their own

responsibilities

‘Unwilling’ ‘By choice’

Project facilitation through NGOs –Qualitative data analysis revealed recurring patterns

Success• Conceptual gap between implementers’ and receivers’ expectations and

understanding of e.g. benefits (example education)• Monitoring and evaluation of CBT projects are weak, e.g. quantifying community

benefits• Redefining ‘a good partnership’, e.g. need to recognise communities as credible

partners and no longer as ‘trouble’

Participation• Misconception that community members will automatically support CBNRM/ CBT

initiatives (collective vs. individual benefit)• Opportunity cost, i.e. the high cost of participation• Tourism favours already existing elites

Dependence• Skills needed locally to meet Western style accounting and administration

requirements• Ambivalence of promoting self-reliance and full community empowerment vs. losing

control working themselves out of a job• Disengagement strategies essentially need to be centred on the development agents• The higher the level of local ownership the more support is needed

DependencyCan heavily

expert/expat led projects be sustainable?

SustainabilityWhat constitutes a successful CBT project (and for

whom)?

ParticipationIs active

community participation

a deal breaker?

How to improve sustainable tourism project success and monitor the benefits of funded initiatives?