Building Transparency and Accountability in Natural Resource Management (NRM)

The document argues that collaborative social accountability—focused on dialogue, trust-building, and inclusive participation—is often more effective than confrontational or purely legal anti-corruption approaches in NRM. Through case studies in Uganda, Nepal, and Vietnam, it demonstrates that empowering marginalized groups, utilizing ICT for monitoring, and conducting political economy analyses can increase state responsiveness and reduce illegal resource extraction.

• In Uganda, the Forest Resource Sector Transparency (FOREST) Program (2013-2017) significantly reduced illegal forest activities, including a decrease in illegal extraction of protected forests from 90 percent in 2014 to 29 percent in 2017. The program also reduced illegal farms from 14 percent to four percent and completely eliminated livestock grazing in Central Forest Reserves.
• The FOREST Program in Uganda increased citizen oversight and state responsiveness by implementing ICT-enabled reporting and multi-stakeholder forums. This led to over 1,000 citizens reporting irregular practices and the resolution of approximately 625 cases by the National Forestry Authority (NFA), achieving an 86 percent resolution rate.
• In Nepal, the USAID Hariyo Ban and SAMARTHYA programs improved NRM governance by focusing on gender equality and social inclusion (GESI). Efforts included the development of over 331 community adaptation plans of action and 90 local adaptation plans of action, which benefited 288,499 vulnerable people and reduced the risk of resource exploitation.
• The 'Land Rights Vietnam' project (2016-2018) utilized 'insider advocacy' and consensus-building to influence the 2017 Law on Forestry, which granted ethnic minorities full legal rights to access and control ancestral and customary forests. This approach was deemed more effective than confrontation in a context with limited civic space.
• The document identifies a critical need to balance 'collaborative engagement' (proactive) and 'confrontational' (reactive) accountability techniques. While collaborative approaches build trust and are better tolerated in contested environments, confrontational tools—such as investigative journalism used in Uganda—are necessary to prevent constructive approaches from becoming 'toothless'.
• Political Economy Analysis (PEA) is highlighted as a fundamental tool for NRM programming to understand power dynamics and identify 'champions' within state institutions. In Uganda, PEA helped identify gaps in community feedback and inaction by the NFA that had previously demotivated civic monitoring.

APA

Gulzar, A., & Alexander, L. (2022). Building Transparency and Accountability in Natural Resource Management (NRM). WWF International. https://www.worldwildlife.org/documents/1329/61rl3osrdt_TNRC_CARE_Social_Accountability_Practice_Note.pdf

Chicago

Gulzar, Abid, and Lindsay Alexander. Building Transparency and Accountability in Natural Resource Management (NRM). WWF International, 2022. https://www.worldwildlife.org/documents/1329/61rl3osrdt_TNRC_CARE_Social_Accountability_Practice_Note.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |last1=Gulzar |first1=Abid |last2=Alexander |first2=Lindsay |title=Building Transparency and Accountability in Natural Resource Management (NRM) |publisher=WWF International |date=January 2022 |url=https://www.worldwildlife.org/documents/1329/61rl3osrdt_TNRC_CARE_Social_Accountability_Practice_Note.pdf |access-date=23 October 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{gulzar2022building, author = {Gulzar, Abid and Alexander, Lindsay}, title = {{Building Transparency and Accountability in Natural Resource Management (NRM)}}, institution = {WWF International}, year = {2022}, month = jan, url = {https://www.worldwildlife.org/documents/1329/61rl3osrdt_TNRC_CARE_Social_Accountability_Practice_Note.pdf}, urldate = {2026-10-23}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }