Co-management of wildlife and protected areas Cooperating with communities.

Co-management of wildlife and

protected areas

Cooperating with communities

Themes today What is co-management? Fortress conservation Pros and cons of co-management Examples

The CAMPFIRE model The Uluru model

Obstacles to effective co-management Different motivations Community-government relations Community representation

Case study: lobster co-management in Maine

What is co-management? Cooperation in regulating a resource

government or non-governmental organization local communities

“Community-based management” or “community-based conservation”

3 components: community participation in decisions community ownership of natural resources linking conservation to economic benefits

Decentralisation

Fortress conservation People threaten

“wilderness” Resistance

breaking rules protesting appealing to human rights

advocates Ineffective management

corruption cookie-cutter solutions

Pros and cons of co-management Local knowledge and

experience more effective easier acceptance

Problems invasions lack of resources disagreements

Managing protected areas Regulations Enforcement Dispute

resolution

Examples Communal Areas

Management Program for Indigenous Resources (CAMPFIRE)

Uluru

The CAMPFIRE model Decision-making

power Financial incentives Producer

communities ward and village

development committees

wildlife committees

Managing protected areas: CAMPFIRE

Regulations Enforcement Dispute resolution

X

X

The Uluru model Uluru-Kata Tjuta National

Park Freehold title granted to a

land trust Leased back to government Managed by Aboriginal board Community members get

entrance rights rental payments park fees direct and indirect employment

Dispute resolution by lawyer

Managing protected areas: Uluru Regulations Enforcement Dispute resolution

Obstacles to effective co-management

Different perceptions and incentives Community-government relations Intra-community conflict

Different motivations Governments and

NGOs financial benefits attracting funds recreational potential species’ rights

Local residents may share these

But may have different interests and concerns

Addressing different perceptions Legislation

prioritize wildlife resentment from local

people

Yield to requests Compromise

Community-government relations Communication difficulties

language cultural differences inaccessibility different decision-making processes

Mistrust Disagreements over land control Unequal power relations Lack of “ownership”

Community representation Inappropriate administrative

boundaries Intra-community rivalry Capture by elite

Lobster co-management in Maine Acheson, James M. 1987. The

lobster fiefs revisited: economic and ecological effects of territoriality in Maine lobster fishing. Pp. 37-65 in B.J. McCay and J.M. Acheson (eds.) The question of the commons: the culture and ecology of communal resources. Tucson: The University of Arizona Press.

Acheson, James M. and Laura Taylor 2001. The anatomy of the Maine lobster comanagement law. Society and Natural Resources 14: 425-441.

Common property lobster management

Harbor gangs Zone Management Law

lobster policy management zones elected councils of lobster license

holders councils succeeded where legislation

failed disagreements about management issues of representation

Swan’s Island Conservation Zone

Changes Technology Population growth Disputes Fishermen need

government Government needs

fishermen