It is widely recognized that where opportunities for public participation in wildlife utilization are increased, and resulting benefits are made available to participants, the public is likely to be more willing to contribute to the costs of controlling wildlife, rather than considering wildlife as a competitor for resources.[33] Other advantages deriving from public participation in decision-making and implementation are common to the management of other natural resources, including people’s support to the measures adopted and consequent improved implementation and enforcement. In line with these considerations, most recent laws envisage some involvement of the interested or concerned public in wildlife management, as well as protected area creation and/or management.
Various approaches may be taken. A basic prerequisite is that relevant available information must be made accessible to the public. Some of the laws which have been examined expressly require this. Tajikistan, for example, establishes that citizens have a right to obtain complete information "on the conditions of the animal world", and that the administration must arrange for the periodical publication of information in this regard (art. 14).
In some cases the interests of concerned people are simply required to be taken into account, without further specifications as to how such interests should be identified and interpreted. The regulations of China on nature reserves, for example, require that local economic activities and the "every day life" of residents must be properly considered in the creation and management of nature reserves, in addition to requiring initiative by local authorities in the selection of areas (reg. 14).
In other cases, the law may require consultation of stake-holders or the public, or foresees the creation of people-centred bodies with various wildlife management responsibilities, or the possibility of managing areas under agreements between interested people or communities and the administration. The devolution of legislative and/or administrative powers from the central to the local level is another way in which people may be involved in wildlife management. The following sections are respectively devoted to these various options.
In numerous countries the law requires some form of consultation of the public or of specified stake-holders in wildlife-related decision-making, such as adoption of plans or the declaration of protected areas, establishing that there must be adequate publicity of proposals, that some time is to be allowed to submit comments and that such comments must be considered or specifically addressed by the authorities.
In Botswana, public notice of proposals and subsequent confirmation by Parliament must be given for the declaration of national parks (sec. 5). Consultation of the public or even concerned owners does not seem to be required for the creation of other types of protected areas, regardless of the fact that "any" lands (and therefore not only public lands) may be concerned. The administration is however required to consult with land boards and district councils in the management of wildlife management areas (sec. 15).
In Uganda, public participation in wildlife management is an objective expressly set out in the law (sec. 3). Management plans for each wildlife protected area must be prepared following consultation of the public and of the concerned istrict (sec. 14).[34] In Australia, in adopting recovery plans for listed threatened species and ecological communities and "threat abatement plans", regard must be given to the role and interests of indigenous people in the conservation of the country’s biodiversity (secs. 270 and 271). Draft plans must be publicized in a number of specified ways (sec. 275), and comments received must be considered (sec. 276). Similar provisions apply to "wildlife conservation plans" (secs. 287, 290 and 291).
The EC Habitats Directive, in setting out the process of assessment of the implications which a plan or project may have on a site of Community importance in view of the site’s conservation objectives, establishes that, "if appropriate", the competent national authorities must obtain "the opinion of the general public" during this process (art. 6(3)).
In other cases, consultation is required by creating specific bodies, which include representation of interested associations and people, with advisory functions. In Portugal, under the law on hunting, there is an obligation for the State to consult with the various interest groups and local authorities for the formulation of the national policy on hunting and hunting management plans (art. 4© and (d)). Local hunting and fauna conservation councils (Conselhos cinegéticos e da conservaçao da fauna) are created to advise municipal authorities with a view to balancing hunting interests with agriculture, forestry, grazing and nature conservation, and enhancing the contribution of hunting to rural development (art. 44). A "General council for hunting and the conservation of nature" is also in place with advisory functions (art. 43). These councils include representatives of environmental, hunters’ and farmers’ associations, as specified in the Decree-Law of 2000 which implements the Framework Act.
In Australia, there is both a Biological Diversity Advisory Committee (sec. 504) and an Indigenous Advisory Committee (sec. 505). The composition of the former must include representation of conservation organizations, the scientific community, rural communities and indigenous people. The latter is "to advise the Minister on the operation of the Act, taking into account the significance of indigenous peoples’ knowledge of the management of land and the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity". There may also be other advisory committees established on request of the Minister (sec. 511).
In Mexico, a Technical Advisory Council for Conservation and Sustainable Development of Wildlife (Consejo Técnico Consultivo Nacional para la Conservación y Aprovechamiento Sustentable de la Vida Silvestre), with representatives of academic institutions, non-governmental organizations and concerned entrepreneurs, may advise on species protection, rehabilitation projects etc. (art. 15). In Romania, a National Council of Hunting including members of the associations, authorities and prosecutors is created as an advisory body on these matters (art. 9).
In Malawi, a Wildlife Research and Management Board, whose members are appointed by the Minister to represent the general public, is in place to advise on wildlife management, including import and export of wildlife specimens and declaration of protected areas (secs. 17-19). The Board also arranges for the conduct of wildlife impact assessments, upon request of the Minister, which may follow the request of any person who has reason to believe that any proposed or existing process or activity, whether public or private, may have an adverse effect on wildlife.
Some countries foresee the creation of people-centred bodies with specific responsibilities in the management of wildlife, which may be additional to the simple submission of advice which these bodies may be allowed to offer. Among these is Mauritania, which envisages the creation of wildlife management associations within each commune, for the express purpose of enabling people’s participation in wildlife management. The associations participate in the definition of policies, monitoring and surveillance of wildlife, establishment of hunting seasons and of allowed species and quotas, etc. (art. 3). For their funding, they are entitled to a share (20 percent) of the moneys earned under the law (art. 21).
In Italy, a model for collective management of hunting areas by entities in which most concerned interests are represented was introduced by the law of 1992 and has been rather successful. Hunting areas within every region are divided into a number of units (ambiti territoriali di caccia). The managing bodies of these areas must be made up by representatives of hunters’ and farmers’ associations (60 percent), of environmental associations (20 percent), and of local authorities (20 percent). They are made responsible for a number of relevant activities such as monitoring the state of the resources, planning habitat improvement, and allocation of funds to farmers for their participation in such activities (art. 14(11)).
In France, the Féderations départementales des chasseurs, which comprise all hunters within a department, as well as managers of hunting areas, contribute to management of wildlife and to law enforcement, formulating a schéma départemental de gestion cynégétique to be approved by the Department’s Prefect. There is also an advisory body (Conseil départemental de la chasse et de la faune sauvage), which must issue its opinion regarding the schéma. The Associations communales de chasse agréées, co-ordinated by the Féderation départementale, are created especially where properties are fragmented into small parcels, joining landowners with a view to ensuring appropriate technical management of hunting. They address issues such as maintenance of appropriate wildlife populations levels, training, control of dangerous animals, surveillance of compliance with hunting plans, contribution of hunters to the maintenance of habitats, etc. Owners may object to the inclusion of their land into those falling under the activity of any "Association" (Guibert, 2000).
Numerous laws envisage the possibility for interested individuals or communities to enter into agreements for the management of areas or resources for wildlife-related purposes which may or may not include economic exploitation. Pursuant to the Albanian law, the State promotes private investments aiming at the preservation and management of fauna. The administration may enter into agreements with any persons concerning wild animal breeding, tourist hunting or other activities related to the implementation of the law (art. 14).
In Romania, the law refers to "contracts", whose minimum contents are set out, granting the right to manage hunting areas, subject to criteria to be specified (arts. 8 and 13). The law of Guinea envisages the possibility for the administration to enter into management agreements for protected areas, particularly with local communities and associations (art. 11).
The law of Uganda also recognizes a role for local or private initiatives through "Community wildlife areas", i.e. areas in which holders of property rights in land may carry out activities for the sustainable management of wildlife, subject to land use measures which may be prescribed (sec. 19(8)).
In Portugal, the State may hand over the management of hunting areas of national interest or of unclassified hunting areas to associations or local authorities (article 14 of the Framework Law on Hunting). In Australia, "conservation agreements" may be entered into by the Minister and indigenous people or body corporates established by them or for their benefit, regarding protection, conservation and management of any listed species or ecological communities, or their habitats, and mitigation or avoidance of actions that might adversely affect biodiversity (art. 305).
A concern sometimes shown in the laws is to ensure that such arrangements are set up in an equitable manner, with equal opportunities offered to all members of communities and fair distribution of benefits. For example, in Cameroon, free technical assistance is offered by the wildlife administration to local communities for the formulation of agreements for the management of community hunting areas (article 25 of the decree on hunting). A meeting of the community, supervised by the concerned technical administration, must be held for the designation of a person to be responsible for the initiative. All participants must sign the report of the meeting (art. 27).
A similar objective is pursued by the law of Uganda. Where the applicant for a wildlife use right is a community or part of it, it must supply a statement explaining how the community has been made aware of the proposal and specifying the role and proposed functions of the body which will manage the activity for which the application is submitted (sec. 32(3)).
In Burkina Faso, local authorities may benefit from the technical assistance of local wildlife services, and all possible measures must be adopted to ensure the participation of representatives of local communities in the management of "local refuges" (arts. 96-98). "Village hunting areas" may be created by communities, with approval of the competent local authority, and may be managed by village associations or any other legal persons, including professionals, even for commercial purposes (art. 100). In any case, revenue and taxes deriving from local refuges and village hunting areas must be distributed between local budgets and village wildlife management organizations (art. 102).
There are numerous examples of countries with a federal or similarly decentralized structure which have delegated some legislative powers in the wildlife management sector to local authorities. This has happened for example with Länder of Austria and Germany, cantons of Switzerland, comunidades autónomas of Spain and regions of Italy. The 2000 law of Mexico expressly makes wildlife a shared responsibility of the Federal Government, States and Communes (art. 6). In most cases, local authorities are enabled to legislate within the framework set out by national legislation.
Sometimes powers given for the adoption of legislation at the local level are mainly for the regulation of local initiatives. The law of Burkina Faso, for example, refers to local administrations (collectivités territoriales décentralisées) to determine activities which are allowed within "local refuges" (art. 95) and to local communities (communautés de base) to determine activities which are allowed in "village hunting areas" (art. 101).
In Zimbabwe the adoption of by-laws by district councils, enabled by legislation of 1988, has enhanced the implementation of the CAMPFIRE programme. In this case, by-laws frequently revamped traditional, often wise rules for the management of natural resources, restoring also community identity. However, this system has been criticized for the insufficient consultation of local people before the adoption of the by-laws and the excessively lengthy and complex procedure for their official adoption, which requires publication in the official journal of laws (Kalèn and Trägårdh, 1998).[35]
A further level of devolution experienced in some countries has been to endow the protected area management entities with powers to determine applicable rules within their concerned areas. The experience of formulation of management plans for Italian protected areas, including "national" parks shows an active involvement of the local authorities in whose territory the park is located, as well as of other entities (e.g. environmental associations), which has proven to be quite fruitful. Pursuant to the framework law on protected areas of 1991 (art. 12(7)), these plans prevail over any other planning instruments which might otherwise apply over the same area.
Some recent laws allow the definition of the respective responsibilities of the central government and local governments through agreements between them. In Australia the Commonwealth and the States or self-governing territories may enter into agreements concerning environmental protection, sustainable use of natural resources and effectiveness of environmental impact assessment processes through co-ordination of Commonwealth and State procedures (secs. 44-65A). In Mexico, after setting out respective responsibilities, the law similarly allows agreements regarding specified matters for better co-ordination (art. 11).
There are also cases in which local bye-laws have an unclear legal status, but still significantly contribute to appropriate wildlife management, as local support is a useful pre-requisite of successful implementation. In the experience of Zanzibar, for example, the issue of decreasing antelope populations was addressed mainly by the adoption of by-laws, in addition to the enhancement of the participation of hunters in management. Although the by-laws in some cases simply reinstated existing laws which were not adequately enforced, through their adoption as local laws they received a much better implementation. The perception of antelope as an open-access resource was thus replaced by that of a resource belonging to the villages, which felt responsible for their management (Williams, Masoud and Othman, 1998). The uncertain legal status of bye-laws under the existing legislation of Zanzibar, however, undermines the stability of these arrangements.
An increasing number of laws show a concern to preserve and enhance cultural and social aspects as being part of wildlife management. This is also a sign of greater consideration of the role of people and their interests, lifestyles, etc. The law of Burkina Faso, for example, expressly aims at harmonizing the protection of resources with the need to meet economic, social and cultural requirements (art. 2). Respect for cultural diversity generally tends to be further emphasized in legislation on biodiversity. For example, it is one of four "general principles" expressly set out in the Costa Rican law on biodiversity (art. 9). In France, hunting is defined as an "environmental, cultural, social and economic activity" and contributes to agro-sylvo-wildlife balance (code rural, art. L.220-1). In the law of Mauritania, classification of land into some category of protected area or declassification is authorized only if the advantages from the ecological, social, economic and cultural point of view exceed possible disadvantages (art. 19).
Consideration of cultural aspects may add value to opportunities for sustainable economic development offered by wildlife and protected areas. Some laws conceive protected areas as places where the whole local heritage is to be enhanced, in its natural, historic cultural or anthropological aspects. These objectives are pursued, for example, in the significant revisions adopted in 1998 of the 1992 Italian law on protected areas. Pursuant to these revisions, management of protected areas is expected to bring out the value of local agro-sylvo-pastoral uses and traditions. The individual regulations for each park are to be conceived, rather than as a series of prohibitions, as a means to focus on local characteristics and values and sustainably manage them. With a similar approach, pursuant to the law of Bulgaria national parks are to be managed for purposes, among others, of "sustainable use of the renewable natural resources while preserving traditional forms of livelihood, and provision of conditions for the development of tourism" (art. 29(2)).
| [33] As noted in the previous
chapter, arrangements aiming at obtaining economic benefits from sustainable
wildlife-related activities, through the involvement of interested people,
have a much better chance of success if the same people may receive direct
financial benefits. In Zimbabwe, thanks to income generated from wildlife,
conflicts between wildlife and human activities such as livestock and agriculture
have been at least reduced. But this is not always the case. In Kenya, for
example, the policy has been to retain most of the revenue at the central
level in a consolidated fund (Kenya Wildlife Fund Trustees and United Nations
Environment Programme, 1988). In other cases, the sharing of benefits has
been inequitable, with large amounts appropriated only by large-scale farmers
– whether or not they are exposed to problems caused by wildlife or
involved in wildlife-related activities – to the detriment of small
ones. Among the ways to improve the compensation system to meet the needs
of small farmers, arrangements such as compensation with food, utilization
of a proportion of funds generated from tourism in wildlife areas for insurance
for crop and livestock damage are suggested by Kenya Wildlife Fund Trustees
and United Nations Environment Programme. [34] Williams, Masoud, and Othman note that throughout Africa there is a range of community participation approaches, with increasing levels of participation, custodianship of resources, and exposure to economic costs and benefits. The following are some examples given:
|
