- Email: [email protected]
Problems of protected (conservation) area management in Africa
CHAPTER 8
Problems of protected (conservation) area management in Africa Most of the problems associated with protected area management in Africa can be divided broadly into the following categories: Ecological problems arise from natural causes and disasters such as drought, flood, erosion, outbreak of diseases and epidemics among wild animals, and migration and emigration problems associated with migratory species. So far, only drought and erosion have had deleterious effects on the management of biodiversity and wildlife in protected areas in Africa.
Fragile ecosystems—The problem of the Sahel and Arid Zones of Africa One of the biggest ecological problems of natural resources conservation in the arid and semiarid areas and the Sahel Zone of West Africa is its ecological instability. The extreme influence of weather on the soil and the fierceness of the main climatic factors such as wind, sun radiation, and rain (whose duration is usually short and intense) are buffered by the vegetation. The vegetation cover, in an undisturbed situation, can take several years to attain a climax status, and this is when it can support an optimum biodiversity. However, the effect of increasing human and livestock populations with concomitant pressure on land resources has altered considerably or removed vegetation covers, to the extent that it can no longer mitigate the harsh effects of wind and sun radiation and occasional but heavy rainfall. The net result is wind and water erosion. This is a process of desertification that when combined with heavy population of livestock and humans, are the main causes of biodiversity loss in the Sahel Zone of West Africa—a phenomenon that is noticeable beyond latitude 12oN (Ajayi et al., 1998). Wildlife Conservation in Africa https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-816962-9.00008-9
© 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
75
76
Wildlife Conservation in Africa
Poverty—The bane of conservation in Africa One of the biggest sociocultural and political problems with protected area management is poverty among the vast majority of African rural populations. In most countries of Africa, about 70% of the population live in rural areas and can be classified as “poor” who live under 1 or 2 dollars per day. These are children, women, and marginalized groups such as nomadic pastoralists and peasant farmers. They are alienated by the mechanisms of formal administration, and are not effectively integrated into policy and political process of development. This category of Africans live in closest proximity to protected areas. In most cases, they bear the social costs of natural resource conservation. Natural resources, particularly, nontimber forest products (NTFPs), remain their main sources of livelihood. In particular, they see wildlife and fish as cheapest alternatives to domestic livestock. Around many protected areas, trees provide fruits and nut seeds, vegetables, condiments, spices, ropes, chewing sticks, edible oil, drinks, and flavors. In the tropical rainforests and savanna woodland of West Africa, over 150 indigenous woody plants have been identified as yielding edible products for man and animals. Furthermore, for many people in rural areas, the forests play the role of a “pharmacy” from which they obtain plant parts for treating their ailments. Economic forest products such as cane/rattan are used for the production of baskets, chairs, etc. Raffia products are used for the production of mats and ropes; wrapping leaves for food, fish poison, chewing sticks, honey, and mushrooms are also obtained from the forests. However, the rural people see these as their God-given resources that they continue to exploit for their livelihood—as they are too poor to afford the alternatives. Past efforts have failed in most parts of Africa to recognize this fundamental fact and have placed too much emphasis on protecting “management areas” at the expense of human welfare.Various policies and legislative provisions were made to buttress this approach to conservation. These unfortunately have resulted into an attitude of indiscriminate exploitation of “protected areas,” which in Africa interprets that what belongs to the government belongs to nobody.This problem of attitude should therefore be recognized in any policy formulation for protected area management in Africa. Given the importance of forest products to the rural people, there was a widespread belief among rural communities that protected area management and conservation of biodiversity by its nature is a program of injustice. Furthermore, the “deprivation syndrome” they believe is in total disregard to African culture, which in many tribes is intricately interwoven with biodiversity.
Problems of protected (conservation) area management in Africa
77
The factors of poverty, disregard and disengagement from government projects among the rural populations, and the deprivation syndrome that are implicit in the past efforts in the management of protected areas have led to wanton exploitation and decimation of biodiversity. Any strategic plans for the management of protected areas in Africa that do not recognize and address this fundamental issue of rural communities and integrate them into management systems are therefore likely to fail.
Poaching and illegal trade in wildlife Poaching and illegal trade in wildlife and by-products have been problematic to wildlife conservation in Africa since the beginning of the 20th century. Poaching is characteristically exploitive, nonselective, causing decline in the resource base, and drastically reducing the monetary value of wildlife to national economies (Ajayi, 1979). There are about three levels of poaching and illegal trades in wildlife that have been identified particularly in West Africa (Ajayi et al., 1979). The rural dwellers live in closest proximity to protected areas. They exploit wildlife and other natural resources for food and cash. This category of people who turn to poachers engages in such illegal activities in order to “make ends meet.”They engage in illegal hunting because of starvation and persistent poverty. They regard natural resources as their God-given assets, which, regardless of conservation ethics, form the basis of their livelihood. This is usually the main target group of rural communities for involvement and active participation in pilot projects on integrated natural resource utilization and rural development. There is also another category of poachers who are licensed hunters. They reside in cities rather than in rural areas.There is little wildlife left outside protected areas, and therefore they deliberately invade protected areas. Their motive for illegal hunting is for trophies and the provision of “other varieties of meat” in their menu. Their poaching activities are not propelled by economic forces, but by social and cosmetic reasons as they belong to the upper or middle class of the society. There is also another category of poachers. They are organized migratory and highly mobile poachers who are contracted to hunt for bushmeat and trophies by elitist business organizations, purely for economic reasons. They are financed by rich companies or individuals in urban areas to poach in protected areas where wildlife concentration is highest. This is the main channel through which wildlife trophies and captive live animals and other natural resources are smuggled out of Africa rather than through
78
Wildlife Conservation in Africa
international airports and seaports where they can be recorded and taxed. Therefore, revenue from wildlife that should accrue to the economies of the countries concerned is usually insignificant, compared with the potential realizable monetary value of protected areas.The effect of illegal activities of this category of poachers is usually devastating to the natural resource base in protected areas and thus remains a bane of conservation.
Mitigation measures that are problematic to conservation There are solution “pills” to management problems that themselves create further problems for protected areas. Most of the problems in this category arose from poor formulation; archaic, incongruous, and repressive legal instruments; ill-conceived management principles; and misapplication of management tools by protected area managers.
Weak, outdated policies and legal instruments There are still some African countries where there is complete absence of a comprehensive policy for the management of wildlife and other natural resources. In many countries, there is no policy for the holistic approach to the conservation of biodiversity. Furthermore, even though there may be genuine efforts to manage protected areas and utilize natural resources for human welfare, these efforts are fragmented and uncoordinated. Thus, there is no natural resources institutional framework by which protected areas can be effectively managed and coordinated. Furthermore, examinations of some legislation that provide the legal basis for the management of protected areas in some West African countries show that “preservation” of natural resources rather than “conservation” is still the objective of their management efforts.There is also the problem of weak legislations and poor law enforcement, which prescribe token fees for offenders. For example, the penalty for killing a mature elephant in some African countries today and at the third millennium is only 55 cents, that is, 0.55 USD. These situations with regard to protected area management create serious constraints for field managers to the extent that they are rendered ineffective in the performance of their duties. Another problem is that several existing legislations in several African countries are inapplicable or unenforceable for conservation of biodiversity. There is inadequate overall legal regime governing biodiversity and natural resource conservation. No legal mechanisms exist for participatory planning at all levels of government, which will determine priorities
Problems of protected (conservation) area management in Africa
79
among competing resource uses and distribute costs and benefits fairly among them. Furthermore, most legislations were based on the defunct Organization of African Unity (OAU) Wildlife Algiers Convention of 1968. In consonance with the provisions of the convention, legislations should categorize animals into three “schedules”: Schedule I is for those species that are endangered and are therefore to be strictly protected. Animals that are to be partially protected are in Schedule II. Schedule III contains those species that are unprotected and that could be hunted under license. However, in practice, a staggering list of species in Schedules II and III are endangered and are on the verge of extinction and should be placed in Schedule I. The problem here is not only the necessity for legal reforms but also the dire need for comprehensive national surveys to determine the true status of biodiversity in protected areas and what is left particularly of the wildlife resource in Africa.
Inadequate government support for conservation There are numerous African countries that, through the lack of awareness of the value of conservation among government policy makers, give little support for protected area management. This has arisen mainly through ignorance of the value and significance of biodiversity. In some African countries, there is little or no provision for financing conservation and distribution of the benefits of conservation of natural resources to rural people and for rural development. Economic instruments are also not used effectively for achieving conservation objectives partly because economic development is progressing in many African countries without giving sufficient consideration to conservation. Furthermore, existing policies, where they exist, do not address the fundamental problem of poverty and the need to involve rural communities in conservation.
Cross-sectoral issues Many countries have no established mechanisms for coordination and monitoring of protected areas, management programs, and conservation activities under different sectors and tiers of government. Furthermore, research and capacity building and planning are limited to few institutions with little coordination of efforts. Research, training, and planning are usually not incorporated into the mainstream of government policies. Public awareness of conservation issues is also very limited particularly in many African countries.
80
Wildlife Conservation in Africa
Local community participation as a tool for sustainable resource use Until recently, emphasis in protected area management was placed on the importance of natural resources particularly wildlife, to the state rather than their significance to individuals, and rural dwellers who reside in closest proximity to protected areas. Post World War II, conservation policies on protected area management tended to serve vital linkages, and participation by rural communities in decision-making, conservation, and utilization of biodiversity was limited or totally lacking. The rural communities had no access to the money and other benefits accruing from natural resource conservation in protected areas. This single factor was basic to the loss of their sense of responsibility for the welfare of natural resources. Communities in the vicinity of protected areas suffered severely from underdevelopment, mainly because money accruing from conservation of natural resources did not “filter” down to the grass roots. Consequently, these remote area dwellers (RADs) or rural communities have poor social amenities and suffer severe unemployment problems. The communities’ interaction with their natural resources was often termed “illegal” under some repressive legislations. Since there was no involvement of rural communities in conservation process, natural resources continued to suffer from severe utilization pressure and decimation mainly from rural communities. It is against this background that various pilot projects were established, particularly in Southern Africa, literally to return natural resources to their “owners” so that communities can have (a) the custody, (b) the management, and (c) the utilization and benefits of natural resources, as they used to from time immemorial (Ajayi, 1990a,b,c). Indeed, what the Southern African countries were saying through the various community pilot schemes is one of the earliest messages from the beginning of times: “let them (man) have dominion over the fowls of the air, and over the cattle, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.”
Objectives of local community participation schemes in Southern Africa Using the experience and demonstration projects such as the Communal Area Management Programme for Indigenous Resources (CAMPFIRE) in Zimbabwe, the Luangwa Integrated Resource Development Project (LIRDP), the Administrative Management Design (ADMADE) in Zambia, and the various wildlife utilization schemes in Botswana, these countries have established how dependent native Africans in rural areas are on
Problems of protected (conservation) area management in Africa
81
b iodiversity. The pilot projects in these countries have also demonstrated clearly how biodiversity can be utilized with people’s participation as a tool for rural development. Furthermore, according to Ajayi (1990a,b), the objectives of the pilot schemes can be summarized as follows: (a) To improve the standard of living of the rural people who live in the project areas, through the sustainable use of the whole range of natural resource—forestry, wildlife, water resources, and agriculture (b) To cover the cost of administration and equipment including all infrastructures and superstructures (c) Without prejudice to (a) and (b) earlier, to provide revenue and other benefits at the national level In summary, the intention is to increase the productivity and revenue-earning potential of the natural resources of the project areas and to redistribute the benefits in favor of the rural populations adjacent to the conservation areas. However, as laudable as these intentions might be, there have been practical problems and constraints that constituted bottlenecks to realizing and reconciling the objectives of conservation of biodiversity with the utilization of protected areas for rural development. Some of the most intriguing constraints in protected area management and in reconciling the objectives of rural development with sustainable utilization of biodiversity require urgent, priority attention in Africa. These constraints are discussed later.
Constraints that limit the effectiveness of protected area managers from reconciling the objectives of conservation of biodiversity with rural development Observations in this sector are partly based on the author’s personal experience in many parts of Africa in protected area management and also on his personal experience when he led a mobile training seminary for United Nations/Food and Agricultural Organization (UN/FAO) in Malawi, Zimbabwe, Zambia, and Botswana (Ajayi, 1990a,b,c). The training seminar, which comprised 17 participants from the Southern African Development Coordination Conference (SADCC) countries, was to study integrated natural resource utilization with local community participation in these countries: Communal Areas Management Projects for Indigenous Resources (CAMPFIRE) in Zimbabwe, LIRDP and Administrative Management Design (ADMADE) in Zambia, and the Game Harvesting Project at Kedia
82
Wildlife Conservation in Africa
in Botswana. The major constraints reported later are those associated with protected area management with rural dwellers as their main beneficiaries.
Lack of harmonization of conservation activities and ineffective institutional framework One fundamental constraint with projects on natural resource utilization with rural community participation was the absence of harmonized legislation and institutional framework. Most of the projects in protected area management existed as “pilot schemes,” as experimentations with enabling legislations. Furthermore, the results and impacts of these projects on rural populations and natural resources varied according to the institutions upon which the implementations of such schemes were based. It is therefore important to appraise the various mechanisms that will enhance the most successful implementation of these schemes and provide ideal institution and legislative “modules” for protected area management and rural development at local, subregional, and regional levels for sustainable conservation of biodiversity and rural development.
Poor financing of conservation activities in protected areas Recent analysis suggests that government expenditures in this sector are grossly inadequate. In competing for government funds, conservation projects are often accorded low priorities in budgetary exercises partly because of the apparent lack of information on their socioeconomic values and also because the results of conservation efforts do not mature as quickly as most agricultural programs that yield quick returns. Failure to rectify this constraint could result in little growth in protected area management.
Dearth of research inputs One of the major constraints to policy formulation, project planning, and implementation in conservation of biodiversity is inadequate research input and the lack of database. There is acute shortage of basic information on the reproductive and regenerative capacities of natural resources and on the trade-offs between alternative management options in land use schemes.
Inadequate capacity building There is low capacity to conserve and utilize natural resources sustainably in protected areas partly because of inadequacy of trained personnel.There is an acute shortage of indigenous manpower in the application of key concepts and tools of scientific research. Most officers concerned with p rotected area
Problems of protected (conservation) area management in Africa
83
management and conservation of biodiversity in government ministries and parastatal and nongovernmental organizations are not adequately trained to perform their duties. Despite the expanding requirements in systematic research input and training that have been created by recent developments in Africa and the global attention on conservation of biodiversity, very few credible, functional institutions exist at subregional or regional level that can adequately cope with human resource needs for development and capacity building. The alternative is foreign training with the attendant enormous costs and inappropriate training exposures. It is thus imperative to have several institutions for various levels of manpower training that will be supportive of conservation of biodiversity and rural development.
Specific training requirements for rural development Sustainable rural developments require that people’s needs are met, put that the natural resource bases are not destroyed or depleted. However, this should be accompanied within the realm of sustainability of the resource base and the environment. The need to increase villagers’ participation therefore implied that people will have to be trained at the level on specific matters. The sustainable development of such schemes will require the participation of a multidisciplinary team of specialists (agriculturists, veterinarians, economists, social anthropologist, ecologists, etc.) who will be provided with special orientation training in the implementation of management objectives of protected areas and rural development. Africa is a culturally and ecologically diverse continent. It becomes necessary therefore to provide a relevant set of targets for specific areas given the social realities and ecological possibilities in each country. This includes the natural resources and biodiversity, with its utilization possibilities for revenue generation and poverty alleviation. There is also a need for training of trainers in capacity building. Many development workers, particularly nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), are dedicated and committed to the goals and objectives of natural resource conservation and rural development. However, they lack the skills necessary to be effective in such schemes. The training programs and tools that are currently available to them are usually too generalized for specific localities. In this regard, it is necessary to evolve training modules that will be subregionally localized to ensure relevance to protected area management objectives and rural development.
Problems of protected (conservation) area management in Africa Most of the problems associated with protected area management in Africa can be divided broadly into the following categories: Ecological problems arise from natural causes and disasters such as drought, flood, erosion, outbreak of diseases and epidemics among wild animals, and migration and emigration problems associated with migratory species. So far, only drought and erosion have had deleterious effects on the management of biodiversity and wildlife in protected areas in Africa.
Fragile ecosystems—The problem of the Sahel and Arid Zones of Africa One of the biggest ecological problems of natural resources conservation in the arid and semiarid areas and the Sahel Zone of West Africa is its ecological instability. The extreme influence of weather on the soil and the fierceness of the main climatic factors such as wind, sun radiation, and rain (whose duration is usually short and intense) are buffered by the vegetation. The vegetation cover, in an undisturbed situation, can take several years to attain a climax status, and this is when it can support an optimum biodiversity. However, the effect of increasing human and livestock populations with concomitant pressure on land resources has altered considerably or removed vegetation covers, to the extent that it can no longer mitigate the harsh effects of wind and sun radiation and occasional but heavy rainfall. The net result is wind and water erosion. This is a process of desertification that when combined with heavy population of livestock and humans, are the main causes of biodiversity loss in the Sahel Zone of West Africa—a phenomenon that is noticeable beyond latitude 12oN (Ajayi et al., 1998). Wildlife Conservation in Africa https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-816962-9.00008-9
© 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
75
76
Wildlife Conservation in Africa
Poverty—The bane of conservation in Africa One of the biggest sociocultural and political problems with protected area management is poverty among the vast majority of African rural populations. In most countries of Africa, about 70% of the population live in rural areas and can be classified as “poor” who live under 1 or 2 dollars per day. These are children, women, and marginalized groups such as nomadic pastoralists and peasant farmers. They are alienated by the mechanisms of formal administration, and are not effectively integrated into policy and political process of development. This category of Africans live in closest proximity to protected areas. In most cases, they bear the social costs of natural resource conservation. Natural resources, particularly, nontimber forest products (NTFPs), remain their main sources of livelihood. In particular, they see wildlife and fish as cheapest alternatives to domestic livestock. Around many protected areas, trees provide fruits and nut seeds, vegetables, condiments, spices, ropes, chewing sticks, edible oil, drinks, and flavors. In the tropical rainforests and savanna woodland of West Africa, over 150 indigenous woody plants have been identified as yielding edible products for man and animals. Furthermore, for many people in rural areas, the forests play the role of a “pharmacy” from which they obtain plant parts for treating their ailments. Economic forest products such as cane/rattan are used for the production of baskets, chairs, etc. Raffia products are used for the production of mats and ropes; wrapping leaves for food, fish poison, chewing sticks, honey, and mushrooms are also obtained from the forests. However, the rural people see these as their God-given resources that they continue to exploit for their livelihood—as they are too poor to afford the alternatives. Past efforts have failed in most parts of Africa to recognize this fundamental fact and have placed too much emphasis on protecting “management areas” at the expense of human welfare.Various policies and legislative provisions were made to buttress this approach to conservation. These unfortunately have resulted into an attitude of indiscriminate exploitation of “protected areas,” which in Africa interprets that what belongs to the government belongs to nobody.This problem of attitude should therefore be recognized in any policy formulation for protected area management in Africa. Given the importance of forest products to the rural people, there was a widespread belief among rural communities that protected area management and conservation of biodiversity by its nature is a program of injustice. Furthermore, the “deprivation syndrome” they believe is in total disregard to African culture, which in many tribes is intricately interwoven with biodiversity.
Problems of protected (conservation) area management in Africa
77
The factors of poverty, disregard and disengagement from government projects among the rural populations, and the deprivation syndrome that are implicit in the past efforts in the management of protected areas have led to wanton exploitation and decimation of biodiversity. Any strategic plans for the management of protected areas in Africa that do not recognize and address this fundamental issue of rural communities and integrate them into management systems are therefore likely to fail.
Poaching and illegal trade in wildlife Poaching and illegal trade in wildlife and by-products have been problematic to wildlife conservation in Africa since the beginning of the 20th century. Poaching is characteristically exploitive, nonselective, causing decline in the resource base, and drastically reducing the monetary value of wildlife to national economies (Ajayi, 1979). There are about three levels of poaching and illegal trades in wildlife that have been identified particularly in West Africa (Ajayi et al., 1979). The rural dwellers live in closest proximity to protected areas. They exploit wildlife and other natural resources for food and cash. This category of people who turn to poachers engages in such illegal activities in order to “make ends meet.”They engage in illegal hunting because of starvation and persistent poverty. They regard natural resources as their God-given assets, which, regardless of conservation ethics, form the basis of their livelihood. This is usually the main target group of rural communities for involvement and active participation in pilot projects on integrated natural resource utilization and rural development. There is also another category of poachers who are licensed hunters. They reside in cities rather than in rural areas.There is little wildlife left outside protected areas, and therefore they deliberately invade protected areas. Their motive for illegal hunting is for trophies and the provision of “other varieties of meat” in their menu. Their poaching activities are not propelled by economic forces, but by social and cosmetic reasons as they belong to the upper or middle class of the society. There is also another category of poachers. They are organized migratory and highly mobile poachers who are contracted to hunt for bushmeat and trophies by elitist business organizations, purely for economic reasons. They are financed by rich companies or individuals in urban areas to poach in protected areas where wildlife concentration is highest. This is the main channel through which wildlife trophies and captive live animals and other natural resources are smuggled out of Africa rather than through
78
Wildlife Conservation in Africa
international airports and seaports where they can be recorded and taxed. Therefore, revenue from wildlife that should accrue to the economies of the countries concerned is usually insignificant, compared with the potential realizable monetary value of protected areas.The effect of illegal activities of this category of poachers is usually devastating to the natural resource base in protected areas and thus remains a bane of conservation.
Mitigation measures that are problematic to conservation There are solution “pills” to management problems that themselves create further problems for protected areas. Most of the problems in this category arose from poor formulation; archaic, incongruous, and repressive legal instruments; ill-conceived management principles; and misapplication of management tools by protected area managers.
Weak, outdated policies and legal instruments There are still some African countries where there is complete absence of a comprehensive policy for the management of wildlife and other natural resources. In many countries, there is no policy for the holistic approach to the conservation of biodiversity. Furthermore, even though there may be genuine efforts to manage protected areas and utilize natural resources for human welfare, these efforts are fragmented and uncoordinated. Thus, there is no natural resources institutional framework by which protected areas can be effectively managed and coordinated. Furthermore, examinations of some legislation that provide the legal basis for the management of protected areas in some West African countries show that “preservation” of natural resources rather than “conservation” is still the objective of their management efforts.There is also the problem of weak legislations and poor law enforcement, which prescribe token fees for offenders. For example, the penalty for killing a mature elephant in some African countries today and at the third millennium is only 55 cents, that is, 0.55 USD. These situations with regard to protected area management create serious constraints for field managers to the extent that they are rendered ineffective in the performance of their duties. Another problem is that several existing legislations in several African countries are inapplicable or unenforceable for conservation of biodiversity. There is inadequate overall legal regime governing biodiversity and natural resource conservation. No legal mechanisms exist for participatory planning at all levels of government, which will determine priorities
Problems of protected (conservation) area management in Africa
79
among competing resource uses and distribute costs and benefits fairly among them. Furthermore, most legislations were based on the defunct Organization of African Unity (OAU) Wildlife Algiers Convention of 1968. In consonance with the provisions of the convention, legislations should categorize animals into three “schedules”: Schedule I is for those species that are endangered and are therefore to be strictly protected. Animals that are to be partially protected are in Schedule II. Schedule III contains those species that are unprotected and that could be hunted under license. However, in practice, a staggering list of species in Schedules II and III are endangered and are on the verge of extinction and should be placed in Schedule I. The problem here is not only the necessity for legal reforms but also the dire need for comprehensive national surveys to determine the true status of biodiversity in protected areas and what is left particularly of the wildlife resource in Africa.
Inadequate government support for conservation There are numerous African countries that, through the lack of awareness of the value of conservation among government policy makers, give little support for protected area management. This has arisen mainly through ignorance of the value and significance of biodiversity. In some African countries, there is little or no provision for financing conservation and distribution of the benefits of conservation of natural resources to rural people and for rural development. Economic instruments are also not used effectively for achieving conservation objectives partly because economic development is progressing in many African countries without giving sufficient consideration to conservation. Furthermore, existing policies, where they exist, do not address the fundamental problem of poverty and the need to involve rural communities in conservation.
Cross-sectoral issues Many countries have no established mechanisms for coordination and monitoring of protected areas, management programs, and conservation activities under different sectors and tiers of government. Furthermore, research and capacity building and planning are limited to few institutions with little coordination of efforts. Research, training, and planning are usually not incorporated into the mainstream of government policies. Public awareness of conservation issues is also very limited particularly in many African countries.
80
Wildlife Conservation in Africa
Local community participation as a tool for sustainable resource use Until recently, emphasis in protected area management was placed on the importance of natural resources particularly wildlife, to the state rather than their significance to individuals, and rural dwellers who reside in closest proximity to protected areas. Post World War II, conservation policies on protected area management tended to serve vital linkages, and participation by rural communities in decision-making, conservation, and utilization of biodiversity was limited or totally lacking. The rural communities had no access to the money and other benefits accruing from natural resource conservation in protected areas. This single factor was basic to the loss of their sense of responsibility for the welfare of natural resources. Communities in the vicinity of protected areas suffered severely from underdevelopment, mainly because money accruing from conservation of natural resources did not “filter” down to the grass roots. Consequently, these remote area dwellers (RADs) or rural communities have poor social amenities and suffer severe unemployment problems. The communities’ interaction with their natural resources was often termed “illegal” under some repressive legislations. Since there was no involvement of rural communities in conservation process, natural resources continued to suffer from severe utilization pressure and decimation mainly from rural communities. It is against this background that various pilot projects were established, particularly in Southern Africa, literally to return natural resources to their “owners” so that communities can have (a) the custody, (b) the management, and (c) the utilization and benefits of natural resources, as they used to from time immemorial (Ajayi, 1990a,b,c). Indeed, what the Southern African countries were saying through the various community pilot schemes is one of the earliest messages from the beginning of times: “let them (man) have dominion over the fowls of the air, and over the cattle, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.”
Objectives of local community participation schemes in Southern Africa Using the experience and demonstration projects such as the Communal Area Management Programme for Indigenous Resources (CAMPFIRE) in Zimbabwe, the Luangwa Integrated Resource Development Project (LIRDP), the Administrative Management Design (ADMADE) in Zambia, and the various wildlife utilization schemes in Botswana, these countries have established how dependent native Africans in rural areas are on
Problems of protected (conservation) area management in Africa
81
b iodiversity. The pilot projects in these countries have also demonstrated clearly how biodiversity can be utilized with people’s participation as a tool for rural development. Furthermore, according to Ajayi (1990a,b), the objectives of the pilot schemes can be summarized as follows: (a) To improve the standard of living of the rural people who live in the project areas, through the sustainable use of the whole range of natural resource—forestry, wildlife, water resources, and agriculture (b) To cover the cost of administration and equipment including all infrastructures and superstructures (c) Without prejudice to (a) and (b) earlier, to provide revenue and other benefits at the national level In summary, the intention is to increase the productivity and revenue-earning potential of the natural resources of the project areas and to redistribute the benefits in favor of the rural populations adjacent to the conservation areas. However, as laudable as these intentions might be, there have been practical problems and constraints that constituted bottlenecks to realizing and reconciling the objectives of conservation of biodiversity with the utilization of protected areas for rural development. Some of the most intriguing constraints in protected area management and in reconciling the objectives of rural development with sustainable utilization of biodiversity require urgent, priority attention in Africa. These constraints are discussed later.
Constraints that limit the effectiveness of protected area managers from reconciling the objectives of conservation of biodiversity with rural development Observations in this sector are partly based on the author’s personal experience in many parts of Africa in protected area management and also on his personal experience when he led a mobile training seminary for United Nations/Food and Agricultural Organization (UN/FAO) in Malawi, Zimbabwe, Zambia, and Botswana (Ajayi, 1990a,b,c). The training seminar, which comprised 17 participants from the Southern African Development Coordination Conference (SADCC) countries, was to study integrated natural resource utilization with local community participation in these countries: Communal Areas Management Projects for Indigenous Resources (CAMPFIRE) in Zimbabwe, LIRDP and Administrative Management Design (ADMADE) in Zambia, and the Game Harvesting Project at Kedia
82
Wildlife Conservation in Africa
in Botswana. The major constraints reported later are those associated with protected area management with rural dwellers as their main beneficiaries.
Lack of harmonization of conservation activities and ineffective institutional framework One fundamental constraint with projects on natural resource utilization with rural community participation was the absence of harmonized legislation and institutional framework. Most of the projects in protected area management existed as “pilot schemes,” as experimentations with enabling legislations. Furthermore, the results and impacts of these projects on rural populations and natural resources varied according to the institutions upon which the implementations of such schemes were based. It is therefore important to appraise the various mechanisms that will enhance the most successful implementation of these schemes and provide ideal institution and legislative “modules” for protected area management and rural development at local, subregional, and regional levels for sustainable conservation of biodiversity and rural development.
Poor financing of conservation activities in protected areas Recent analysis suggests that government expenditures in this sector are grossly inadequate. In competing for government funds, conservation projects are often accorded low priorities in budgetary exercises partly because of the apparent lack of information on their socioeconomic values and also because the results of conservation efforts do not mature as quickly as most agricultural programs that yield quick returns. Failure to rectify this constraint could result in little growth in protected area management.
Dearth of research inputs One of the major constraints to policy formulation, project planning, and implementation in conservation of biodiversity is inadequate research input and the lack of database. There is acute shortage of basic information on the reproductive and regenerative capacities of natural resources and on the trade-offs between alternative management options in land use schemes.
Inadequate capacity building There is low capacity to conserve and utilize natural resources sustainably in protected areas partly because of inadequacy of trained personnel.There is an acute shortage of indigenous manpower in the application of key concepts and tools of scientific research. Most officers concerned with p rotected area
Problems of protected (conservation) area management in Africa
83
management and conservation of biodiversity in government ministries and parastatal and nongovernmental organizations are not adequately trained to perform their duties. Despite the expanding requirements in systematic research input and training that have been created by recent developments in Africa and the global attention on conservation of biodiversity, very few credible, functional institutions exist at subregional or regional level that can adequately cope with human resource needs for development and capacity building. The alternative is foreign training with the attendant enormous costs and inappropriate training exposures. It is thus imperative to have several institutions for various levels of manpower training that will be supportive of conservation of biodiversity and rural development.
Specific training requirements for rural development Sustainable rural developments require that people’s needs are met, put that the natural resource bases are not destroyed or depleted. However, this should be accompanied within the realm of sustainability of the resource base and the environment. The need to increase villagers’ participation therefore implied that people will have to be trained at the level on specific matters. The sustainable development of such schemes will require the participation of a multidisciplinary team of specialists (agriculturists, veterinarians, economists, social anthropologist, ecologists, etc.) who will be provided with special orientation training in the implementation of management objectives of protected areas and rural development. Africa is a culturally and ecologically diverse continent. It becomes necessary therefore to provide a relevant set of targets for specific areas given the social realities and ecological possibilities in each country. This includes the natural resources and biodiversity, with its utilization possibilities for revenue generation and poverty alleviation. There is also a need for training of trainers in capacity building. Many development workers, particularly nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), are dedicated and committed to the goals and objectives of natural resource conservation and rural development. However, they lack the skills necessary to be effective in such schemes. The training programs and tools that are currently available to them are usually too generalized for specific localities. In this regard, it is necessary to evolve training modules that will be subregionally localized to ensure relevance to protected area management objectives and rural development.