10.05.2015 Views

Hunting for Sustainability in Africa

Hunting for Sustainability in Africa

Hunting for Sustainability in Africa

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

<strong>Hunt<strong>in</strong>g</strong> <strong>for</strong> <strong>Susta<strong>in</strong>ability</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> – Ethiopia Research Brief<strong>in</strong>gs<br />

Revenue shar<strong>in</strong>g from wildlife tourism and hunt<strong>in</strong>g<br />

Background<br />

• Local people often bear the cost of protected area designations, <strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g controlled hunt<strong>in</strong>g areas, as<br />

they <strong>for</strong>ego <strong>in</strong>come from alternative land uses<br />

• In many places across the world, revenue shar<strong>in</strong>g schemes have thus been developed, based on the<br />

assumption that people will support wildlife conservation if they receive tangible benefits from it<br />

• We analyse here the governance processes of a scheme that aims to share revenues from trophy hunt<strong>in</strong>g<br />

and wildlife tourism <strong>in</strong> the Southern Nations, Nationalities and Peoples Regional State, Ethiopia<br />

• Qualitative data was collected through a comb<strong>in</strong>ation of document analysis, semi-structured <strong>in</strong>terviews,<br />

focus group discussions and stakeholder workshops that <strong>in</strong>cluded governmental authorities as well as<br />

community members<br />

Key f<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>gs<br />

• All study participants welcomed the scheme and saw it as<br />

work <strong>in</strong> progress. Four areas of the current legislation and<br />

implementation practice were seen to require improvement:<br />

– In<strong>for</strong>mation on the detail of the scheme was lack<strong>in</strong>g<br />

among many actors<br />

– Roles and responsibilities of the actors were imbalanced –<br />

district governments were very <strong>in</strong>fluential whereas local<br />

communities tended to be passive<br />

– Accountability was compromised, as limited provisions<br />

had been made <strong>for</strong> monitor<strong>in</strong>g and evaluation<br />

– Disbursement of the shares was usually not associated to<br />

hunt<strong>in</strong>g or tourism, and overall revenue was too limited<br />

to have an impact<br />

Conclusions<br />

Region<br />

Zone<br />

Districts<br />

Communities<br />

Protected Areas<br />

Fig.: In<strong>for</strong>mation flows between actors. Thicker l<strong>in</strong>es denote<br />

more frequent communication.<br />

• The revenue shar<strong>in</strong>g scheme was established <strong>in</strong> 2007, and it was thus too early to assess its impacts<br />

on conservation-related attitudes and behaviour. Our analysis of governance processes now <strong>in</strong><strong>for</strong>ms<br />

the government’s current revision of legislation and implementation practice<br />

• It seems unlikely that the scheme will lead to attitude and behaviour change among the local<br />

population <strong>in</strong> the future, given the miss<strong>in</strong>g connection between conservation-relevant behaviours<br />

and the amount of revenue distributed. This might be addressed by a turn towards co-management<br />

of the protected areas, where responsibility <strong>for</strong> wildlife is shared between government and local<br />

communities<br />

• However, at a political level, <strong>for</strong>malised revenue shar<strong>in</strong>g as <strong>in</strong> this scheme might help to make the<br />

monetary value of wildlife conservation visible, thus provid<strong>in</strong>g arguments aga<strong>in</strong>st land conversion<br />

Contact: Yitbarek Tibebe yitbarektibebe@fzs.org May 2012<br />

1/5

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!