U-PCLG update from equity workshop January 2015

Equity / Fairness Within Conservation-

R2P Workshop 2015

Update for UPCLG

Who undertakes unauthorized resource use & why

despite over 25 years of ICD

at Bwindi Impenetrable National Park

To better understand local needs from Bwindi & how best to address them

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

Feelings of unfair distribution 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

Improving ICD

• A targeted, fairer approach

• For Bwindi, this especially means targeting ICD to benefit those suffering the greatest costs of conservation

Equitable / Fair Conservation

• 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

Exploring Different Views on Equity / Fair Conservation

Exploring Views

• What does 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?

Local Government Conservation Communities

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 toregulations

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?


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?


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?

Develop and agree ideas for making Revenue Sharing more equitable and fair

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)?


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


% 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

Equity / Fairness Within Conservation-

R2P Workshop 2015

ICD Guidance

ICD Guidelines

• Operationalise the 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

Research recommendations

Resource Users

• Understand the “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

Governance

• Enabling local voices in decision-making

• How do local people define “participation”?

ICD Guidance: focus is on supporting practitioners adopt a more targeted, equitable approach

But what practical guidance can we produce?

ICD Guidance - Part 1 definitions & information

• Summary of Bwindi research

• Key concepts of ICD & the ICD concept

• Legal & institutional frameworks supporting ICD inUganda

• Evidence of what works

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

ICD Guidance – Your Comments!

Technical aspects

• Technically robust?

• Any gaps?

Usefulness of the practical guidance sheets

• Are the sheets practically useful?

• Any improvements?

U-PCLG update from equity workshop January 2015

Environment

Transcript of U-PCLG update from equity workshop January 2015