Download to read offline
U-PCLG update from equity workshop January 2015
This document summarizes discussions from a workshop on equitable and fair conservation at Bwindi Impenetrable National Park in Uganda. Key points addressed include: - Research found that feelings of unfair distribution of costs and benefits of conservation, such as lack of support for crop raiding, were major drivers of unauthorized resource use, alongside poverty. - Stakeholders discussed the importance of equitable sharing of conservation costs and benefits for community support of conservation. They proposed ideas to strengthen revenue sharing policies and guidelines to better target those most affected by conservation. - Guidance was proposed to help conservation practitioners adopt more equitable and targeted approaches to integrated conservation and development based on the workshop discussions and research findings. Feedback was requested on how to make
More Related Content
Similar to U-PCLG update from equity workshop January 2015
More from International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED)
U-PCLG update from equity workshop January 2015
- 1. Equity / FairnessWithin Conservation - R2P Workshop 2015 Update for UPCLG
- 2. Who undertakes unauthorizedresource use & why despite over 25 years of ICD at Bwindi Impenetrable National Park
- 3. To better understandlocal needs from Bwindi & how best to address them
- 4. Enhancing Equity /Fairness • The R2P Research shed new light on drivers of unauthorised resource use • Poverty is a major issue • But it is only half of the story
- 5. Feelings of unfairdistribution of costs & benefits were just as important a driver as poverty unfair share of Revenue Sharing jobs given to outsiders lack of support over crop raiding
- 6. Improving ICD • Atargeted, fairer approach • For Bwindi, this especially means targeting ICD to benefit those suffering the greatest costs of conservation
- 7. Equitable / FairConservation • A workshop with UWA, Conservation Practitioners, Local Govt, Community Representatives • Objectives: – Raise awareness of key research findings from R2P project – Explore different views on fairness / equity in conservation – Develop and agree ideas for making Revenue Sharing more equitable and fair
- 8. Exploring Different Viewson Equity / Fair Conservation
- 9. Exploring Views • Whatdoes equitable / fair or inequitable / unfair conservation mean to you – explain this as general principles or specific examples • Why is equity / fairness important for communities and conservation?
- 10. Local Government ConservationCommunities Equitable sharing of the costs and benefits from protected area conservation Conservation that benefits everyone Including 2nd tier villagers affected by crop rading Benefit according to socio- economic & cultural needs Benefits to those who ‘deserve’ according to regulations Targeting people closer to the Park who bear the costs Equitable governance Transparency Participation of ley stakeholders Communities deciding projects that address their needs What does fair conservation mean to you?
- 11. Local Government ConservationCommunities Equitable sharing of the costs and benefits from protected area conservation One group takes all benefits Benefits are not equal to costs of Park conservation Removing people from the Park without compensation No “compensation” of crop raiding Tracking gorillas on community land with no compensation to the community Equitable Governance UWA – LG relationship is not harmonised Lack of accountability of the funds to the community What does unfair conservation mean to you?
- 12. Local Government ConservationCommunities Peaceful coexistence by all stakeholders Increased ownership Increased community ownership Sustainability of conservation Helps make conservation sustainable Reduced maintenance costs by UWA Why is fair conservation important?
- 13. Develop and agreeideas for making Revenue Sharing more equitable and fair
- 14. Enhancing Equity /Fairness in Revenue Sharing • How can we strengthen implementation of the next round of revenue sharing to make it more equitable / fair? • How could we strengthen the revenue sharing policy to make it more equitable / fair (as this will be reviewed in the next two years as part of the new Wildlife Policy)?
- 15. Local Government ConservationCommunities Timely release of funds Explanation of RS guidelines to local people Capacity building of all involved for greater sustainability Format of project proposals harmonised to match LG standards Support proposals to be sustainable Monitoring RS in one strategy with all other NGOs Strengthen ‘fairness’ of next round of Revenue Sharing
- 16. Local Government ConservationCommunities % of RS for vermin guards (not responsibility of LG) Clarity of RS funds to alleviate human – wildlife conflict Increase gorilla levy in % not amount RS beneficiaries according to crop raiding not frontline or 2nd tier parish Compensation for those most affected by crop raiding Strengthen ‘fairness’ of Revenue Sharing Guidelines
- 17. Equity / FairnessWithin Conservation - R2P Workshop 2015 ICD Guidance
- 18. ICD Guidelines • Operationalisethe research recommendation into practical guidance for ICD practitioners • So what are our main research recommendations? • And what ‘practical guidance’ can we produce? NB: UWA comments received on the outline
- 19.
- 20. Resource Users • Understandthe “who & why” of unauthorized resource use to better target ICD interventions • Fundamentally this involves understanding those bearing the greatest cost of conservation • Improving ICD: a more targeted, equitable approaches
- 21. Governance • Enabling localvoices in decision-making • How do local people define “participation”?
- 22. ICD Guidance: focusis on supporting practitioners adopt a more targeted, equitable approach But what practical guidance can we produce?
- 23. ICD Guidance -Part 1 definitions & information • Summary of Bwindi research • Key concepts of ICD & the ICD concept • Legal & institutional frameworks supporting ICD in Uganda • Evidence of what works
- 24. ICD Guidance -Part 2 Practical Guidance A. Understanding the ‘who and why’ of resource use To improve targeting of ICD towards drivers of biodiversity loss by understanding who has the greatest impact on conservation & their reasons for doing so B. Mapping poverty - conservation linkages To further inform targeting of ICD interventions by fully identifying how the costs of conservation are manifested at the local level C. Evidence modelling what ICD success looks like To identify the evidence that supports ICD success while learning from past interventions how to improve future practice D. Enabling local voices in decision-making To determine the best ways to involve & collaborate with local people throughout the ICD process E. Enhancing equity To help ensure that fundamental aspects of equity are incoporated into ICD interventions
- 25. ICD Guidance –Your Comments! Technical aspects • Technically robust? • Any gaps? Usefulness of the practical guidance sheets • Are the sheets practically useful? • Any improvements?