HWCM - Ministry of Environment and Tourism

More documents

Recommendations

Info

National Workshop on Human Wildlife Conflict Management 2005 Working Group Session 1 1. Decentralisation/ devolution of wildlife management and regulatory framework (Facilitators: Ben Beytell and Brian Jones) Problem area Direct threats to human life: Too much red tape; Make as easy, quick and local as possible; Need a flexible approach No uniform institution across country (some areas have conservancies, others not). Appropriate institutional arrangements • Needs a quick decision: • Devolution to MET regional offices, consulting with lowest appropriate institutional level, eg conservancy. Where there are no conservancies, have to look at the appropriate institution eg Regional Council, CDCs. Potential threats to life • Devolve to lowest appropriate institution eg MET regional office, conservancies etc; • Involve other institutions eg Regional Councils; • Need a decision-making framework with no delays, local decisions taken; • The group debated the merits and demerits of whether we should allow people to make mistakes; • Debate over level MET needs to be involved. Capacities required on the ground • MET required to do investigations; • Capacity built in conservancies, institutions such as Regional Councils, NAMPOL; • Whatever we are proposing needs to have capacity-building, and monitoring for decisionmaking and good information campaign. Damage to crops, livestock and property Elephants: Destruction Chasing Mitigation • Devolve to lowest appropriate institution eg MET regional office, conservancies; • Declaration of a problem animal – speed up process and who decides. • Devolve to lowest appropriate institution eg MET regional office, conservancies; • Elephants are given on quota system, but need to decide when to use the quota; • Conservancy has the right to decide which elephants are to be shot and when. During a short discussion, the PS underlined the need for devolution to the lowest levels. 58
National Workshop on Human Wildlife Conflict Management 2005 2. Key Issues for Developing Self-Insurance Scheme Policy (Facilitator: Dr M Lindeque and Fanuel Demas) Key Issues Objectives of the scheme Guiding principles Key Concerns for policy List of approaches • Balance individual losses with collective gain; • Increase threshold of tolerance to wildlife; • Motivate better management—create an incentive • Policy can provide guidance, but rules must be decided by specific communities, for example: • Time period by which one must submit a claim • What will be covered • Focus on legal entities that have the capacity to pay out and earn an income from wildlife, i.e. conservancies • Based upon a well-researched understanding of the financial level of loss. • What should be covered and where is the benchmark • How do we assess benchmark • What are the principles Affordability; De-linking from market value. • Who should be covered • Members • All residents • Neighbours • Financial mechanisms • Management; • Level of financing; • Source of funding; • Capital and process vs. recurrent costs, reinsurance. • Who are the culprits • What wildlife species Elephants, lions, etc • What value do those animals have for the revenue creation, biodiversity, etc How will this impact upon who the culprits are • Legal issues • How will payment be made out • Must be clear about not distorting the process as a result of external funding. Discussion Diggle added that the group had also discussed the situation of a conservancy as a legal body making a payment – are they taking ownership over the animals The PS raised the issue of whether payments should be made in cash or in kind, and the group felt that for livestock, cash payments should be made, while for crops, there was more potential for replacing lost cereals or produce. Jo summarised discussions by saying that essentially people have accepted responsibility and have organised themselves at institutional level to deal and negotiate with Government to accept rights and responsibilities. The point was raised as to where money was going to come from to pay compensation and who would verify claims in areas where there were no conservancies. The PS responded by saying that people had the opportunity to organise themselves into conservancies that are institutions that could operate self-insurance schemes. 59
Page 1 and 2:
National Workshop on Human Wildlife
Page 3 and 4:
Page 5 and 6:
Page 7 and 8: National Workshop on Human Wildlife
Page 57: National Workshop on Human Wildlife
show all

HWCM - Ministry of Environment and Tourism

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?