Cutting up the world pie and what happened next

Rash, Felicity; Horan, Geraldine

doi:10.4324/9780429446214-1

Cited by 2 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…British indirect rule relied on a system of native administration and territorial exclusion whereby traditional authorities were empowered, forced, or invented by the colonial government to manage day‐to‐day affairs in rural localities where centralized administrative control was limited and costly (Christopher, 1988; Crowder, 2012). Traditional authorities evolved into a new cadre of intermediaries (Rodgers, 2021), often motivated by political‐economic imperatives rather than the interests of their community (Okoye, 2021; Rash & Horan, 2020). Given their inherited role in public office, CBFiM projects that engage local chiefs and elders on behalf of entire communities need to consider the limitations this might impose on the opportunities for bottom‐up governance (Mansuri & Rao, 2004), particularly with respect to representation, procedural justice, and the distribution of project benefits.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Community‐Based Fire Management in East and Southern African Savanna‐Protected Areas: A Review of the Published Evidence

Croker,

Woods,

Kountouris

2023

Earth's Future

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The introduction of fire suppression policies and expansion of exclusionary protected areas in East and Southern African savannas have engendered a wildfire paradox. Outside protected areas, livestock have replaced fire as the dominant fuel consumer. Inside their boundaries, wildfire intensity has increased due to accumulating flammable biomass. Community‐Based Fire Management (CBFiM) is recognized as an alternative fire management strategy to address the wildfire paradox and promote equitable fire governance across conservation landscapes. Yet, there has been little investigation into the implementation and effectiveness of CBFiM across East and Southern Africa's savanna‐protected areas. Here we employ a social‐ecological systems framework to develop a systematic map of the published literature on the framing and features of CBFiM in this context. We characterize the challenges and opportunities for their design and implementation, focusing on the relationship between governance systems and community participation in fire management. We find that CBFiM projects are commonly governed by the state and international non‐governmental organisations who retain decision‐making power and determine access to savanna resources and fire use. Existing CBFiM projects are limited to communal rangelands and are developed within existing Community‐Based Natural Resource Management programs prioritizing fire prevention and suppression. Planned CBFiM projects propose an exclusive early‐dry season patch mosaic burning regime to incorporate indigenous fire knowledge into modern management frameworks, but evidence of indigenous and local peoples' involvement is scarce. To provide equitable fire management, CBFiM projects need to address inequalities embedded in protected area governance and centralized suppression policies, and account for changing state‐society and intra‐society relations across the region.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Community‐Based Fire Management in East and Southern African Savanna‐Protected Areas: A Review of the Published Evidence

Croker,

Woods,

Kountouris

2023

Earth's Future

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…External governance in local projects risk reproducing colonial policies of "divide and rule" through Native Administration by adopting "inclusion through exclusion" strategies to mitigate conflicts and promote congruence of interests between multi-level actors (Young, 1994;Khapoya, 2012;Rash and Horan, 2020). In this way, the transfer of exclusion rights rather than management rights to select local elites can introduce political-economic hierarchies in local agrarian politics, such as greater autocracy in the absence of traditional institutions, and result in local carbon capital accumulation (Davis and Wagner, 2003;Antona et al 2004;Olowu and Wunsch, 2004;Tsosie, 2007;Saito-Jensen et al 2010;Mansuri and Rao, 2012;Scales, 2014;Ford et al 2020).…”

Section: Contextual Challengesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Indigenous fire stewardship omitted from savanna burning emissions abatement schemes in East and Southern African savanna-protected areas

Croker

Woods

Kountouris

2023

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Late dry-season wildfires in Sub-Saharan Africa’s savanna-protected areas are intensifying, increasing carbon emissions, and threatening ecosystem functioning. Addressing these challenges requires local community engagement and support for wildfire policy. Savanna burning emissions abatement schemes first implemented in Northern Australia have been proposed as a communitybased fire management strategy for East and Southern Africa’s (ESA) protected areas. Here we critically examine the application of savanna burning emissions abatement schemes in ESA, characterizing their contextual and implementation challenges. We argue that the effective transfer of the Northern Australian fire management model in ESA savannas is limited by political and institutional barriers, and hindered by the region’s recent colonial history, population growth, and consequences of rapid climatic change. Results We show that the application of Northern Australian savanna burning methodologies in ESA tend to adopt centrally determined objectives and market-based approaches, prescribe early dry season burns, and assume biodiversity co-benefits. These features restrict opportunities for indigenous leadership in fire management and income generation through carbon trading, and present multiple biogeophysical inconsistencies that jeopardize emissions mitigation potential. We suggest that future feasibility and scoping assessments address asymmetries between policy-relevant institutions and local land governance systems, explicitly acknowledging colonial legacies in institutional arrangements across protected areas and hierarchies in agrarian politics that threaten processes of equitable decentralisation in natural resource management. Conclusions To provide a community-based strategy, savanna burning schemes need to establish context specific legal frameworks and implement free, prior, and informed consent to safeguard the roles and responsibilities of indigenous and local peoples and their distribution of carbon benefits.

show abstract

Cutting up the world pie and what happened next

Cited by 2 publications

References 0 publications

Community‐Based Fire Management in East and Southern African Savanna‐Protected Areas: A Review of the Published Evidence

Community‐Based Fire Management in East and Southern African Savanna‐Protected Areas: A Review of the Published Evidence

Indigenous fire stewardship omitted from savanna burning emissions abatement schemes in East and Southern African savanna-protected areas

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About