Mangroves of tropical and subtropical shores and deltas contribute to ecosystem functioning and human wellbeing in numerous ways but continue to be lost or degraded worldwide at a rapid pace. Overexploitation driven by poverty is often the root cause of mangrove destruction and degradation. The negative feedback cycle between destruction and poverty can only be broken by justly valuing current or introducing new sustainable livelihood options to foster long-lasting local support for mangroves. The large array of non-timber forest products (NTFPs) that mangroves offer have rarely been developed beyond the subsistence level and remain undervalued as “products of the poor”. In light of the global trends towards sustainability and bio-economy, today they represent a major business opportunity for forest communities to produce high value-added end-user products. Even though mangrove NTFPs have been recognized to have high potential toward inclusive development and poverty alleviation and to be highly gender-equal, the development of mangrove NTFPs has continued to attract very little funding or research interest. Several ecological characteristics make commercialization of mangrove NTFPs particularly challenging. Production at economies of scale, including quality standards, as well as marketing and value chain management are all essential in order to develop these products beyond their subsistence role. To be most effective, a systems perspective on NTFP development is needed, whereby product-market development occurs in unison and based on a participative, inclusive and fair development approach. The species/product of choice for value-added product-market development in any specific community or area will depend on several factors. To address many of the typical constraints and maximize the chances of success, we suggest that the use of village or district-level cooperatives may be particularly useful. A better use of the untapped potential of mangroves for local livelihoods may form a most convincing advocate for local protection and restoration of mangrove forests. Therefore, funding agencies, governments and researchers alike are called to invest in mangrove NTFP development as a way to locally incentivize sustainable mangrove protection and restoration.

With the start of the development of natural protected areas, many approaches with regard to management of wildlife appeared to have neglected the involvement of local people. During the past few decades the Local Resource Management (LRM) topic has increasingly captured attention. Instead of a top-down based approach to management, LRM tries to involve local people in the management of natural resources. The CAMPFIRE programme in Zimbabwe is an example of an LRM based project, in which active participation of local people is the central theme. This project is based on utilization of wildlife resources and management by communities living with wildlife. The goal is to reach an effective participation of local people which intends to involve them in the design and implementation of wildlife projects, so that these projects will reflect people's needs more accurately (IIED, 1994). According to the authors of the book "Whose Eden" (lIED, 1994) three broad principles should be fulfilled in order to achieve effective participation of communities with regard to the conservation of wildlife. In short these principles include: 1. recognition of local community right to ownership of wildlife resources 2. building on formal and informal structures that facilitate community participation in wildlife management 3. operation of effective mechanisms for the sharing of benefits of wildlife resources with communities In CAMPFIRE, the implementation of these principles turned out to be somewhat disappointing. First, the producer communities are restricted to their role of producer, instead of having become owners of wildlife resources. Second, participation of communities is mainly restricted to the project implementation. The goal was, though, to involve communities in all stages of the project. Finally, benefits to the commumties arising from the management of wildlife should equally be distributed parallel to the disadvantages caused by wildlife. At the moment benefits are not equally shared within the communities. In practice the principles to achieve effective participation are not working out well. It may be on account of the fact that the formulated principles are simply not realistic enough on which to base local resource management. In our opinion, the principles are too utopian. Little attention is paid to the complexity of social reality, for example, the different and conflicting interests of various stakeholders are not taken into consideration.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract