Co-management and Concessions in Namibia by Brian Jones
Co-management and Concessions in Namibia by Brian Jones
Co-management and Concessions in Namibia by Brian Jones
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
MET Objectives (2)• Strategies to achieve objectives– 1. Outside PAs• Promote susta<strong>in</strong>able use of wildlife through giv<strong>in</strong>guse rights to farmers (communal areaconservancies).• Mechanism = form of co-<strong>management</strong>– Shared decision mak<strong>in</strong>g with farmers– Def<strong>in</strong>ed rights, roles <strong>and</strong> responsibilities– Extension <strong>and</strong> capacity build<strong>in</strong>g for conservancies• Results: Increased wildlife, <strong>in</strong>creased <strong>in</strong>come
People, livestock <strong>and</strong> wildlife co-exist<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> Sesfonte<strong>in</strong><strong>Co</strong>nservancy, Kunene Region
MET objectives (3)• Strategies to achieve objectives– 2. Protected Areas• Integration of PAs with surround<strong>in</strong>g economies• Integration of PA <strong>management</strong> with <strong>management</strong>of surround<strong>in</strong>g l<strong>and</strong>scape• Work with people liv<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> parks, removed fromparks, <strong>and</strong> park neighbours
<strong>Namibia</strong>’s PA Network
PA CO-MANAGEMENT: POLICYDIRECTIONS– Emerg<strong>in</strong>g policies <strong>and</strong> legislationpromote co-<strong>management</strong> <strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g:• Protected Areas & Resident People• <strong>Co</strong>ncessions Policy• HWC policy• Draft Parks & Wildlife ManagementBill
Exist<strong>in</strong>g co-<strong>management</strong> <strong>in</strong>itiatives• Bwabwata (<strong>in</strong>cl. MNC):– Agreement with Resident community;– cooperation across larger l<strong>and</strong>scape• Mangetti:– TA, Regional <strong>Co</strong>uncil, L<strong>and</strong> Board– contractual park• Greater Fish River:– private sector, communities, Regional <strong>Co</strong>uncil– <strong>Co</strong>operation across larger l<strong>and</strong>scape
Exist<strong>in</strong>g co-<strong>management</strong> <strong>in</strong>itiatives(2)• Greater Fish River:– private sector, communities, Regional <strong>Co</strong>uncil– <strong>Co</strong>operation across larger l<strong>and</strong>scape• Kunene:– <strong>Co</strong>nservancies, TAs, Regional <strong>Co</strong>uncil– <strong>Co</strong>ntractual park• <strong>Co</strong>ncessions– Direct to communities <strong>in</strong> or neighbour<strong>in</strong>gparks: Kunene; Khaudum GR.
Why co-<strong>management</strong> &concessions?• Motivations for co-<strong>management</strong>:– Threats – residents/neighbours (strategic)– Social equity – recognition of claims on l<strong>and</strong><strong>and</strong>/or access to resources, culturalassociations; HWC etc. (ethical)– Problem of Parks as isl<strong>and</strong>s (strategic)– <strong>Co</strong>ntribute to development (political/strategic)
Why co-<strong>management</strong> &concessions? (2)• Motivations for concessions– General• Addresses social equity issues forresidents/neighbours• Increases benefits from parks to society/nationaleconomy• Incentive for communities to support PAs –become real economic “stake – holders”– Kunene• Foundation for community buy-<strong>in</strong>, proof of newapproach.
Change language