Looking for Medium-term Conservation and Development Impacts of Community Management Agreements in Uganda's Rwenzori Mountains National Park

Jagger, Pamela; Sellers, Samuel; Kittner, Noah; Das, Ipsita; Bush, Glenn

doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2018.06.006

Cited by 14 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 38 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In the 1990s, a new wave of decentralized natural resource management gained popularity in most countries of the Global South. Prior to this, conservation area management for most nations assumed a leviathan approach, in which state agencies forced down their conservation agenda on local people [1][2][3][4]. This state-driven management approach failed in several contexts to address the goals of preserving biodiversity and the related social complexities in the tropics [5], leading to negative repercussions on the socio-ecological dynamics of conservation sites [6][7][8][9].…”

Section: Co-management In Natural Resourcesmentioning

confidence: 99%

What (De)Motivates Forest Users’ Participation in Co-Management? Evidence from Nepal

Kimengsi

Bhusal

Aryal

et al. 2019

Forests

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The co-management concept has been echoed in scientific literature for over two decades. Emphasis has been tailored towards an understanding of structural and functional issues linked to its application and the outcomes thereof. However, a crucial aspect which still begs for scientific and policy edification, concerns the motivational drivers of actors’ participation in co-management arrangements. Studies contend that actors are motivated to participate in co-management based on their perceived benefits (e.g., income). Conclusions from these lines of argument further raise a theoretical quagmire, requiring further grounding, with regards to context-specific (de)motivators of users’ participation in co-management. The case of Nepal is pertinent. Although Nepal has a rich community-based forest management history, scientific investigations have virtually ignored the motivational drivers of participation in the co-management of natural resources (forests). Against this background, this paper seeks to explore the following: (i) the decision-making and monitoring structure of rules regulating the co-management of forests, (ii) the implications of this system on users’ motivation to participate, and (iii) the motivational drivers of users’ participation in co-management. To achieve this, five focus group discussions and 10 key informant interviews were conducted in five villages (Kunjo, Titi, Parshyang, Cchayo, and Taglung) within the Annapurna Conservation Area (ACA). We further employed narratives, framework, and thematic analyses to discuss the decision-making structure and motivational aspects of co-management. The results point to the following conclusions: (1) Despite the rather top-down decision-making setting, users remain motivated to participate in co-management. (2) Interestingly, the motivation by actors to participate is not largely driven by users’ perceived benefits. The results present another twist, a deviation from the previously understood rationale, which should be factored into co-management theory development. However, the paper equally makes a succinct request for further studies, including quantitative investigations, to ground this assertion.

show abstract

Section: Co-management In Natural Resourcesmentioning

confidence: 99%

What (De)Motivates Forest Users’ Participation in Co-Management? Evidence from Nepal

Kimengsi

Bhusal

Aryal

et al. 2019

Forests

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Community conservation would refocus on actual resource use practices, and an explicit link between management of a specific resource, its sustainability and its contribution to livelihoods. For example, in a Kenyan community area, carnivore conservation is centered on livestock husbandry (Woodroffe, Frank, & Lindsey, 2007), while in Uganda's Rwenzori National Park, forest management agreements are tied-less successfully-to permissions for subsistence use of resources (Jagger, Sellers, Kittner, Das, & Bush, 2018).…”

Section: A Way Forward To More Meaningful Cbnrm In Botswanamentioning

confidence: 99%

Power dynamics and new directions in the recent evolution of CBNRM in Botswana

Cassidy

2020

Conservat Sci and Prac

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recently, the limited control of Botswana's community conservation organizations, or trusts, over resources has been further eroded. Community trusts now exist solely to disburse funds allocated by central government. The absence of any rights to control access to or use of their resources suggests the complete collapse of Botswana's original community‐based natural resources management (CBNRM) model. This collapse could facilitate fresh approaches that return to the original intentions currently lost behind the CBNRM acronym. Access and control can be more clearly framed through broader environmental stewardship frameworks that include moving below the homogenized community identity to specific resource user groups; broadening the conservation focus beyond monetized wildlife to include other resources and ecosystem processes; and establishing formal conservation agreements separately for specific resources, with the trust coordinating adherence to the rights and responsibilities held by individual users on the one hand, and government or public agencies on the other.

show abstract

“…Las pocas evaluaciones cuasiexperimentales de los impactos de la descentralización tienden a reportar reducciones en las tasas de pérdida de bosques (Samii et al 2014), como en el caso de la India (Somanathan et al 2009;Baland et al 2010) y Nepal (Edmonds 2002), pero no en Uganda (Jagger et al 2018), mientras que Bolivia presenta resultados mixtos (Andersson y Gibson 2007;Wright et al 2016).…”

Section: Políticas Habilitantesunclassified