conservation through poverty alleviation local community perceptions of governance of icd &...
DESCRIPTION
Research to Policy: Final Research Workshop Conservation Through Poverty Alleviation Local community perceptions of governance of ICD & Multiple UseTRANSCRIPT
Conservation Through Poverty Alleviation
Local community perceptions of
governance
of ICD & Multiple Use
What is governance?
Management of a protected area
• What is done in pursuit of conservation objectives • The means and actions to achieve conservation
Governance of a protected area
• Who decides what to do• How those decisions are undertaken• Who holds power, authority and responsibility• Who is (or should be) held accountable
What is good governance?
• Effective participation of informed local communities
• Transparency & having access to information
• Negotiated agreements between communities & authorities on natural resource use
• Fair compensation for the costs of conservation
• Equitable benefit sharing that addresses the needs of the poor & the marginalised
What does good governance look like?
Organisation 1
• Out sourced goats from near Kampala
• Goats were distributed but many died as not used to local conditions
• Local communities resented not being included & goat project failed
Organisation 2
• Local people sourced the goats
• Local people were responsible for goat health
• Communities gained benefits from being involved with the whole process plus the benefits from the goats
Why is ICD not working more effectively?
Governance Hypotheses
ICD is more likely to be successful as a community project if local people perceive that they are:
• Involved with ICD
• Have ownership of an ICD project
• Receive an equitable share of benefits
Why is ICD not working more effectively?
How do local people define involvement with ICD?
Do local people feel involved in ICD projects?
Do local people feel a sense of ownership of ICD?
What are local perceptions on governance of Multiple
Use?
Governance Research Questions
Our study
Focus group discussions with village groups
Exploring how communities define involvement with ICD & their perceptions on governance of ICD projects around Bwindi
Questionnaires with authorised resource users
Perceptions on governance of the Multiple Use Programnme
Why is ICD not working more effectively?
How do local people define involvement with ICD?
Do local people feel involved in ICD projects?
Do local people feel a sense of ownership of ICD?
What are local perceptions on governance of Multiple
Use?
Governance Research Questions
Community definitions of involvement in ICD
• A process that starts from the decision about what type of project should be implemented
• Then continues with decisions on implementation to actual implementation & monitoring
• Strong emphasis on village LC1 participation & responsibilities
• Local community projects work best when villagers have guidance & support from experts
Community definitions of involvement in ICD
• No 39, Male, Active weaver: “The park people didn't give the chance to get what we wanted and my participation couldn't influence the meeting and decision of the park. We don't participate in any rules and regulations, so ownership is all by park”
Why is ICD not working more effectively?
How do local people define involvement with ICD?
Do local people feel involved in ICD projects?
Do local people feel a sense of ownership of ICD?
What are local perceptions on governance of Multiple
Use?
Governance Research Questions
Community perceptions on ICD governance
• When asked about involvement & ownership of ICD projects, villagers identified limitations to governance that had resulted in their opinion that ICD projects had failed
Community perceptions on ICD governance
• No village group had felt able to influence ICD decisions
• They did not know how to influence the decision-making process
• They did not believe that they could change decisions or policies
Community perceptions on ICD governance
• Lack of a feedback system - they give suggestions but are not listened to
• They often do not know who to communicate to
• Implementers do not ask villagers what they need
Community perceptions on ICD governance
• No.92, Male, Active herbalist: “we never benefited as we wanted, so it is not worth it, because of limitations in harvest season and resources and zones. So as we are neighbours we always go illegally and take what we want”
Community perceptions on ICD governance
• Decisions at parish or sub-county level do not reflect the village situation
• No monitoring at village level
• Lack of trust in local ICD leaders – do not feel as though they receive an equal share of the benefits
• ICD leaders should be re-elected every year to avoid corruption
Community perceptions on ICD governance
• No32, Male, No card weaver: “currently I don't have enough money to help me to get to MUP again. The chairman would always get money from us to go to the meetings and I could not afford it. That's why I am not active anymore.”
• No.36, Female, No card weaver: “I never knew my name is in MUP....I don't know if there are any group of people authorized to go to the park.”
ICD governance summary
• Village LC1 decision-making, involvement & responsibilities including monitoring
• A transparent feedback system for accountability
• Village-led projects with guidance & support from experts
ICD governance summary
• These local perceptions are important to understand factors critical for ICD success as a community project
• Also important is for ICD to have a conservation impact by reducing unathorised resource use
Why is ICD not working more effectively?
How do local people define involvement with ICD?
Do local people feel involved in ICD projects?
Do local people feel a sense of ownership of ICD?
What are local perceptions on governance of Multiple
Use?
Governance Research Questions
Multiple Use Programme
• An example of ICD at the village level
• Our study: interviews with 107 authorised resource users to explore perceptions on MUP governance & benefits
• Authorised resource users are first registered for MUP then receive an identity card to be able to go to the forest
• Cannot go to the forest without a card
Identity cards
Issuing of identity cards was a primary issue:
• 16% were registered but never received a card (unable to collect forest resources)
• 57% had received a card & were active (defined as harvesting MUP resources during the past year)
• 22% had received a card but were inactive (had not been to the forest in the last year)
• 5% were on the MUP list but had never registered
Authorised Resource User: card & activity status
Who can benefit from MUP?
• Wealthier villagers with positions in their community were more likely to have received an identity card than poorer villagers
• Poorer villagers were less likely to have a position in their community
• Villagers without card stated that they did not know who to ask to obtain an identity card
Identity cards
• No. 18, Male, No card weaver: “I never received the card. I want to be active. I asked the chairman, the answer was that our names are among the ones who have received their cards. I was left in confusion if he had used another name. Any person would use my name to harvest when I'm not aware.”
Benefits of MUP
• Selling products & resources for household consumption were the most commonly stated benefits
• Other benefits:
– Social values; being part of a group
– Forest protection from sustainable harvesting
– Cultural; being able to continue traditional harvesting
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Economic values Resource access Social values Protecting the forest Cultural values
Pe
rce
nta
ge o
f re
spo
nd
en
ts
MUP Benefits
Benefits from MUP for villagers
Benefits of MUP
No107, Male, Active weaver: “I have achieved what I wanted. We are getting the resources; I have even got the income I expect. I sell trays for 5000 and baskets for 4000. On average if you get all the resources, you can make 8-10 products.”
No benefits from MUP
• No104, Male, Active weaver: “All people are losing out because what we were given is not really what we wanted. Like timber, meat, firewood and building materials.”
Why were some people with cards inactive?
• Resources are not sufficient for household consumption or to make products to sell
• Other activities are more beneficial (including gaining a higher income than MUP)
• Poor health or old age
• No market for MUP products
• Expectations of income or other resources not met
Reasons for MUP inactivity
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Insufficient resources forhousehold or to sell
Other activities are morebeneficial
Health problems No market for MUPproducts
Expectations not met
Per
cen
tage
of
resp
on
den
ts
Inactivity Reasons
Motivations for MUP & unathorised resource use
• Making an income from MUP products & gaining resources for household consumption were the most important benefits of MUP
• Not enough resources to make an income or for household consumption were the top reasons for MUP inactivity
• Having resources for household use & to sell were primary motivations for unathorised resource use
Other reasons for inactivity
From the data analysis:
• Villagers with smaller families (average 5 members) were more likely to be inactive than villagers with larger families (average 7 members)
MUP governance
• Strong link between involvement, ownership & attitude
• The more involved villagers were in MUP, the greater their ownership of MUP & they had more positive attitudes towards MUP & the national park
• Whilst authorised resource users described corruption amongst local leaders, they positively described their trust with UWA
CTPA questionnaire data analysis
• Significant positive relationship between involvement, ownership & benefit
• The more involved local people were in the design & planning of ICD, the more ownership they felt of a project & the greater amount of benefits they said they gained
• Effective involvement is key
CTPA questionnaire data analysis
• People with little involvement in ICD did express ownership of a project when they obtained a direct, immediate benefit e.g. goat
• Nonetheless, effective involvement is key
Multiple Use Summary
• Wealthier villagers can benefit from MUP whereas poorer villagers are not able to access forest resources
• Making an income & gaining resources for household consumption were the main benefits of MUP
• Insufficient resources to make products to sell or for household use were the main reasons for inactivity
Governance
• Effective participation in MUP implementation led to a higher sense of ownership & more positive attitudes towards MUP & the national park
• Good governance is important for ICD success as a community project
• But does this pose a conservation impact?
• How best to balance village-led ICD with targeting projects to reduce unathorised resource use?