Wild Life, Wild Livelihoods

Home , Community property, Michael Paynter, Wildlife trade

WILD LIFE, WILD LIVELIHOODS

Involving communities in sustainable wildlife management and combating illegal wildlife trade © United Nations Environment Programme, 2018

ISBN No: 978-92-807-3696-0 Job No: DEP/2168/NA

Publication Wild life, Wild Livelihoods: Involving Communities in Sustainable Wildlife Management and Combatting the Illegal Wildlife Trade

Published in February 2018 Produced by Ecosystems Division, UN Environment

Director of Publication: Julian Blanc Authors: Rosie Cooney (IUCN/CEESP/SSC SULi), Dilys Roe (IIED), Holly Dublin (IUCN/CEESP/SSC SULi and IUCN ESARO), Francesca Booker (IIED)

Disclaimer The designations employed and the presentation of material in this publication do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of United Nations Environment Programme concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city area or its authorities, or concerning delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. Moreover, the views expressed do not necessarily represent the decision or the stated policy of the United Nations Environment Programme, nor does citing of trade names or commercial processes constitute endorsement.

Reproduction This publication may be reproduced in whole or in part and in any form for educational or non-profit purposes without special permission from the copyright holder, provided acknowledgement to the source is made. United Nations Environment Programme would appreciate receiving a copy of any publication that uses this publication as a source.

No use of this publication may be made for resale or any other commercial purpose whatsoever without prior permission in writing from the United Nations Environment Programme.

Citation Cooney, R., Roe, D., Dublin, H. and Booker, F. (2018) Wild life, Wild Livelihoods: Involving Communities in Sustainable Wildlife Management and Combatting the Illegal Wildlife Trade. United Nations Environment Programme, Nairobi, Kenya

Design Communication Division, UN Environment

United Nations Environment Programme P O Box 30552, Nairobi, 00100, Kenya Tel +254 20 7621234 Email: [email protected] www.unenvironment.org

UN Environment promotes environmentally sound practices globally and in its own activities. Our distribution policy aims to reduce UN Environment’s carbon footprint. WILD LIFE, WILD LIVELIHOODS

Involving communities in sustainable wildlife management and combating illegal wildlife trade

Rosie Cooney1, Dilys Roe2, Holly Dublin1,3 and Francesca Booker2

1 IUCN CEESP/SSC Sustainable Use and Livelihoods Specialist Group 2 International Institute for Environment and Development 3 IUCN Eastern and Southern Africa Regional Office WILD LIFE, LIVELIHOODS

“The fundamental cause of biodiversity loss worldwide is that those in a position

2 to preserve it lack sufficient incentives to do so” (Kiss, 2004)

UN Environment Assembly Resolution The long history of experience in 2/14 on Illegal trade in wildlife and community wildlife management wildlife products calls for an analysis remains crucially relevant for current of international best practice with efforts to combat the ITW crisis, but has regard to involving local communities been largely overlooked in the race for in wildlife management. In response solutions emphasizing a top-down and to this resolution, UN Environment has increasingly militarized approach. In commissioned the International Union particular, effective enforcement requires for Conservation of Nature and the community support for conservation International Institute for Environment and cooperation with authorities. and Development to prepare this report. The community wildlife management The report summarizes insights from literature indicates when this is most decades of research on community likely to be forthcoming, and when it is wildlife management, and draws lessons not. Efforts to address unsustainable from new analyses focused specifically use and ITW often pay lip service to on engaging Indigenous Peoples and these lessons but fail to reflect them Local Communities (IPLCs) in combating in the design and implementation of the illegal trade in wildlife (ITW). Based new programmes. Community-based on a recognition of the importance approaches are frequently written off as of community “voice” in enabling ineffective, even before the necessary sustainable and effective outcomes, effort has been made to put in place the it goes on to survey the opportunities conditions that will make them effective. and constraints for IPLCs in terms of Building robust opportunities for IPLCs their participation in key international to be heard and to exercise their rights policy forums that influence wildlife at all levels is critical in promoting management (specifically, the Convention more effective and equitable wildlife on Biological Diversity; the Convention on conservation strategies. International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora; the Convention on Migratory Species; the United Nations Environment Assembly; and the Inter- governmental Panel on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services). 4 WILD LIFE, WILD LIVELIHOODS References Interviewees and Two: Consultees Appendix actions recommended and Table lessons of One: Appendix conclusions Summary Part four:

three: Part

Part one: implications policy and summary Executive Acronyms Abstract Table ofcontents

two: Part 3.3 3.1 2.3 3.2 2.1 2.2 1.2 1.1 1.3

Introduction

Conclusions and recommendations level international at engagement IPLC for factors disabling and Enabling decision-making international in iplcs for points” “entry of Review re-stated? just or learned Lessons bodies policy key conservation in engagement IPLC for mechanisms of Review CWM of history extensive the from learned Lessons ITW tackling in communities engaging on learned Lessons Framing the issue: rights of IPLCs in managing wildlife and combating combating and wildlife managing in IPLCs of rights issue: the Framing Introduction experience to date to experience – management wildlife in communities involving in practices best and Lessons ITW and use unsustainable it tackling in communities of role the and “crisis” ITW The scope and – background report This

43 44 23 43 56 53 57 68 60 23 65 37 13 41 13 19 15 8 6 3 © Rosie Cooney 6 WILD LIFE, WILD LIVELIHOODS CBNRM CBFM CBD CBC CAMPFIRE CAMI Acronyms FPIC FLoD FECOFUN ECOSOC DSI CoP CMS CITES CWM GMGSF IIFB ICDPs ICCAs IP ILK IPLCs IPBES IRDNC IUCN ESARO IUCN IUCN

Community-based Forest Management Forest Community-based Diversity Biological on Convention The Conservation Community-based Resources Indigenous for Programme Management Areas Communal The Initiative Mammal Asian Central First Line of Defence in Combatting IWT project IWT Combatting in Defence of Line First Nepal in Users Forestry Community of Federation Council Social and Economic Nations United Development and Initiatives Services Parties the of Conference Species Migratory on Convention The Fauna and Flora Wild of Species Trade Endangered in International on Convention The Management Wildlife Community NaturalCommunity-based Resources Management Free, Prior and Informed Consent Indigenous Areas Conserved and Community Global Major Groups and Stakeholders Forum Integrated Conservation and Development Projects Indigenous and Local Knowledge Indigenous International Forum on Biodiversity The Inter-governmental Panel on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services Services Ecosystem and Biodiversity on Panel Inter-governmental The Indigenous Peoples Indigenous Peoples and local communities The IUCN Eastern and Southern African Regional Office Regional African Southern and Eastern IUCN The Nature of Conservation for Union International Integrated Rural Development and Nature Conservation

IUCN SULi The IUCN Sustainable Use and Livelihoods Specialist Group IWBN Indigenous Women’s Biodiversity Network ITW Illegal Trade in Wildlife IWT Illegal Wildlife Trade LMMA Locally Managed Marine Area MIKE Monitoring the Illegal Killing of Elephants MGs Major Groups MGFC Major Groups Facilitating Committee MoU Memorandum of Understanding NBSAP National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan NGO Non-Governmental Organization NTFP Non Timber Forest Product PES Payment for Ecosystem Services PFM Participatory Forest Management RRI Rights and Resources Initiative UNDP The United Nations Development Programme UNDRIP The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples UN FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations UNEA The United Nations Environment Assembly UNEP The United Nations Environment Programme UNESCO The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization WMA Wildlife Management Area 8 WILD LIFE, WILD LIVELIHOODS The key findings are as follows: as are key findings The they face. barriers the and arenas, decision-making relevant international deliberations and Communities (IPLCs) for Indigenous Peoples and Local opportunities the reviews further report the engagement, effective their supports that regime a of policy determinant a critical is “voice” community that insight the on Building “crisis”. ITW current the to tackling responses community-level on focused work recent more from insights with this supplementing (CWM), management wildlife community in experience of decades from lessons and insights synthesizes report This fisheries). and timber including and flora, and fauna (covering use of unsustainable widespread wildlife of abackground against (ITW), wildlife in trade illegal the in upsurge recent the about concerns by motivated was resolution […]”. This products wildlife and wildlife in trade illegal and of use unsustainable the to addressing approach an as management wildlife in regard to involving local communities with practices best international of “…an analysis for 2016, calling May in Assembly Environment Nations United the of meeting second the at passed 2/14 to Resolution responds report This and policyimplications Executive summary 4 to participate in key in to participate 2 1 approach emphasizing fences and and fences emphasizing approach protectionist a of top-down resurgence the places, many in involved, has crisis ITW current to the response the poaching, of militarization increased an of a result as Partly direction in the wrong run can ground Boots on the use. and sustainable conservation wildlife from benefit and to manage to IPLCs governments national by rights of devolution the particularly key insights, to implement failure aconsistent been has there However, commitments. policy government in reflected well are many and work, of decades from clearly and consistently emerged have wildlife of trade and use illegal and unsustainable reduce to ameans as management wildlife community fostering in practices Best lessonsforgotten learned, Lessons

fines, guns and boots. However, unless accompanied by strengthened accountability measures, this can lead to – and has led to – human rights abuses, restricted livelihood options, and hardship for IPLCs. These approaches can also backfire in conservation terms, driving disenfranchisement, resentment and anger. They also undermine the potential for collaborative approaches, such as increased IPLC participation in combatting ITW. 3 It ain’t what you do – it’s the way that you do it

Effective enforcement against ITW and community engagement can – and should – be mutually reinforcing. In any setting, good enforcement relies critically on support from communities, particularly through the provision of intelligence. On the other hand, communities need strong and reliable backup when their interests or resources are threatened, © Andrea Moroni and it would endanger them to combat such threats themselves. Currently, however, enforcement is often poorly targeted and ineffective. 10 WILD LIFE, WILD LIVELIHOODS 5 stewards of natural resources is critical. critical. is resources natural of stewards key and beneficiaries direct as women Including people. right the to target order in these to understand need different priorities and motivations, and interventions with individuals of up made are Communities a whole. as community the of engagement potential the undermine can that threat aconstant is individuals) powerful more by benefits of capture inequitable (the capture Elite restrictions. international or national by restricted is species of use the where or degraded, or scarce monitor, or to view difficult migratory, is wildlife where and/or potential development or agricultural high has land when challenging more is CWM people. local by self-chosen and appropriate culturally be must options different These guides). or (e.g. guards as employment wildlife-related and (PES), services ecosystem for payments (NTFP), products forest non-timber in trade and of harvesting wildlife, hunting or viewing on based tourism include wildlife from financially to benefit communities Ways for critical. be may incentives – financial costs significant imposes wildlife with living where – or needs subsistence acute facing are people where financial, be necessarily not need benefits Although ITW. (to a few) high-value of payoffs high the given challenging particularly is This it. conserving of costs the to outweigh need conservation from benefits overall The force. motivating a strong be can rights resource and land strengthened through resources own their to manage communities of Empowerment alone. inadequate be may each though important, both are benefits and Rights anti-poaching. including conservation, in engage actively and support to incentives realistic need members Community (but it’s not only money) It’s the incentives, stupid unpunished. go players powerful other or “kingpins” while ITW, of impact or extent the of unaware are who and needs, subsistence acute battling are ITW, from profits the of fraction a tiny only gain who individuals and communities on focused often is It 6 conservation in the long term. term. long the in conservation undermine even can outcomes and design, poor from suffer Many limited. very is initiatives these of effectiveness the for evidence-base the However, IPLCs. by wildlife of use illegal and/or unsustainable to reduce mechanism a as deployed often are initiatives “alternative livelihood” So-called effective community-based wildlife wildlife community-based effective for basis a fundamental is wildlife and from conservation andmanage benefit use, to sustainably communities for tenure) land (including rights enforceable and secure clear, Establishing use. illegal unsustainable often and unmonitored unmanaged, into practice in translates frequently wildlife to use rights of lack the non-use, in resulting from Far behaviour. illegal perpetuates and resentment sparks hunting, gathering or grazing rights traditional of removal The it. to conserve incentive their removing thereby people, local for value economic no or little leaves it that extent an to such wildlife manage and to use rights restricts often policy international and National negotiate. to communities for straightforward is that one and level, international and national local, at regulation and policy enabling with framework governance a supportive needs CWM impact. greater far to have likely is wildlife conserving in participants active to be communities supports and fosters that partnerships and policy governance, of environment an creating term long the in but action, direct promise they as appealing very be can projects site-level Individual not sites Think systems,

management. Communities therefore need support and help in securing the transfer of, and respect for, Local voices land and resource rights at national level. International 8 restrictions imposed via multilateral agreements or should be the import restrictions should be based on very careful consideration of how these will affect community wildlife loudest voices management at the local level. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, Policies often ignore the benefits of using land for communities need greater voice in wildlife, and favour agricultural, extractive or other decision-making as well as in the commercial development. This drives loss of wildlife development of policies that affect them. and can restrict community rights and interests. This applies at every level, from local to Wildlife policy needs to be integrated into sectoral and global. Despite well-established policy development policies and land-use planning. commitments on the importance of IPLCs in conserving wildlife, IPLCs have little or Research has shown a strong correlation between the no influence in conservation and wildlife high prevalence of ITW and high levels of corruption. management decision-making at the Corruption hampers CWM and facilitates ITW. Because national level. At international level their tackling corruption is a complex and monumental task, influence is highly variable – from well a common response is to do nothing. But small anti- integrated to virtually absent. Clear “entry corruption steps that are integrated into wildlife-related points” for IPLC input; the support of initiatives can prove beneficial. the secretariats of relevant international policy-making bodies; functioning IPLC Building the technical, financial and managerial networks; and the provision of dedicated capacity of communities often requires initial support funding are crucial to enable their from external sources, including community-based meaningful participation and contribution organizations, NGOs, donors, government agencies and to debate. the private sector. When supporting and building these partnerships, however, it is critical to avoid domination by potentially conflicting agendas. 7 Think globally, govern locally

Effective community governance requires clarity on who constitutes the community doing the managing. 4 The terms “communities” and “IPLCs” Legitimate institutions need to be developed within and differ according to context: We generally use by these communities to ensure equitable benefit sharing “communities” when referring to local, site-level conservation activities (e.g. “community-based and effective resource management, based on respect wildlife management”); and “IPLCs” where for legitimate traditional institutions where these exist. the rights and interests of many groups and These power structures must be accountable to the peoples are concerned e.g. “IPLC engagement in community. Attention must be paid to understanding the international policy”). diverse and heterogeneous groups within communities and how power and benefits are shared. 12 WILD LIFE, WILD LIVELIHOODS PART ONE: INTRODUCTION

1.1 This report – background and scope

In May 2016, following concerns about the escalating illegal trade in wildlife and wildlife products, UNEA passed Resolution 2/145. The Resolution called for ”…an analysis of international best practices with regard to involving local communities in wildlife management as an approach to addressing the unsustainable use of and illegal trade in wildlife and wildlife products…” This report responds to that resolution. Compiled by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) and International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED) with financial support from UN Environment, it presents a synthesis of lessons from the literature on community-based approaches to wildlife management and a review of opportunities for community participation in international biodiversity policy-making processes.

Part One briefly sets the scene by highlighting relevant commitments on human and specifically indigenous rights, and reviews the rise of concern and policy attention regarding the illegal trade in wildlife (ITW) as the key international conservation issue prompting UNEA Resolution 2/14.

Part Two reports the results of a literature review carried out to identify lessons learned and best practices on involving communities in wildlife management. The review first addresses the large and well-established body of literature on community-based approaches to wildlife management, covering three decades of experience in this field, and draws out key lessons learned and best practices. However, the recent upsurge of high-value ITW has brought new dynamics and implications for conservation. The review therefore goes on to consider the limited literature in recent years specifically addressing community involvement in tackling ITW in the context of the current “crisis”.

The lessons from this experience, particularly on the factors that facilitate or constrain effective CWM, are highly relevant to the current debate on ITW. Yet, these lessons appear to have been overlooked in the urgency to find quick-fix solutions to a complex problem. Indeed, the three decades of literature on CWM is remarkably consistent in the lessons it highlights and the policy prescriptions it provides. This begs the question as to why these lessons are not being heeded. The answer may lie in the political nature of conservation and in the power of the vested interests that benefit

© Julian Blanc 14 WILD LIFE, WILD LIVELIHOODS date and making key recommendations keyrecommendations making and date to learned lessons the summarizing by study the concludes Four Part participation. such towards steps first very the taking currently only are and recognition official such no have which those for and supported, and recognized clearly is IPLCs of participation and role the which in arenas those for both insights offers It arenas. policy these in participation community for factors disabling and keyenabling highlights review This processes. these with engage to attempted or engaged have that organizations IPLC of representatives with consultation and interviews with supplemented research desk on based is study the of part This practice. in effectiveness their as well as ITW, and to conservation relevance of processes policy-making international in IPLCs of participation the for exist currently that opportunities the reviews which report, this of Three to Part us brings insight This “voice”. a to have enabled and mobilized, and organized to be need they this For rights. their to demand able are communities when to happen likely only are CWM for required reforms governance and political crucial to say, is 2010). the That (Nelson, coin” same the of sides two are sustainability and “democracy out, points review we reports the of one As implement them. to seek and learned already lessons the of heed to take States Member encouraging by but before, times numerous made been have that recommendations making and wheel the reinventing by not ITW and communities on debate to the value add could UNEA reform. embracing than rather quo status the maintaining from “Indigenous Peoples”. term the use we case which in only, peoples indigenous to explicitly referring are we when is to this exception The (CBD). Diversity Biological on Convention the of policy the in entrenched well is which “IPLCs”, term the use we processes, policy international or national as such scales, larger at peoples and communities affect that contexts discussing When forth. so and management” wildlife “community-based conservation”, “community “communities”, of literature this in used typically terminology the use we interventions, conservation site-based with primarily concerned literature research the discussing When context. on depending “IPLCs”, or “communities” either use we paper the Throughout peoples local and communities. non-indigenous indigenous both encompassing to wildlife, proximity close in living communities to rural to refer statements) policy other in and Resolution UNEA the in (as used communities” “local term the We interpret to terminology: respect with practice following the adopt we report, this of purposes the For not. do communities local law, while rights human international in recognized rights collective peoples having fundamental identities as “peoples” with indigenous with distinct, as recognized are communities local and peoples indigenous policy international in instance, For implications. and meanings varying with policy, conservation and/or literature research relevant in used all are communities” “rural and communities”, “Indigenous Peoples”, “indigenous peoples and local communities”, “local “communities”, terms The ITW. on afocus with use, unsustainable to tackling aresponse as management wildlife in engagement community strengthening for in the literature, particularly in the context 1.2 Framing the issue: rights of evictions for the establishment of protected areas or due to the of IPLCs in managing tightening of restrictions around them (Brockington and Igoe, 2006). Concerns wildlife and combating regarding respect for these rights are equally relevant to actions to combat unsustainable use and ITW unsustainable use and ITW.

Responding to unsustainable use and ITW requires While an exhaustive review of policy in actions and interventions that affect the way people this area is well beyond the scope of this use and interact with wildlife across the wide range document (for a recent comprehensive of landscapes and seascapes inhabited by vulnerable analysis of rights that conservation species of plants and animals. These areas may be actors should observe, see Jonas et al. owned, managed, used or inhabited by IPLCs who rely (2015)), we highlight here key high-level on them and the species they contain for food, shelter, policy commitments of most relevance income and other livelihood needs, and whose cultures, specifically to efforts to combat traditions and wellbeing may be deeply embedded in unsustainable use and ITW (Table 1). It these practices. Efforts by external actors to address is worth noting that while international unsustainable use and ITW can therefore have significant law and policy represents commitments implications for the rights and livelihoods of IPLCs, either made by signatory states, human positive or negative, depending on how the interventions rights commitments are also binding are implemented and the degree to which the actors upon international organizations, and involved respect or fail to respect their rights and there is an argument that conservation interests. NGOs likewise have an obligation to avoid infringing these rights (Makagon Relevant rights span rights of individuals, peoples and et al., 2014). In Table 1 we include key communities, and include both substantive (e.g. life) international commitments made by and procedural (e.g. participation in decision-making) States, as well as a set of commitments rights. IPLCs have suffered abuses and had livelihoods made by leading international undermined in the name of conservation over many conservation NGOs. decades. This has been extensively if patchily highlighted

© Yannick Beaudoin 16 WILD LIFE, WILD LIVELIHOODS managing wildlife and combating unsustainable use and ITW. and use unsustainable combating and wildlife managing in IPLCs of rights to the relevant actors key of commitments and principles Table policy Major 1. (1992) Biological Diversity Convention on (1992) Declaration Rio High level intergovernmental policy commitments Implementation of Plan WSSD (2002) 7 6 8 from the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity of biological use sustainable and conservation the from benefit people local the if reversed be only can trend this activities; human to due rates atunprecedented lost being […] iscurrently Biodiversity 44. requirements use sustainable or conservation with compatible are that practices cultural traditional with accordance in resources of biological use customary 10(c) encourage […] and protect Article practices and innovations knowledge, of such holders of the involvement and approval the with application wider their […] promote and communities local and of indigenous practices and innovations knowledge, maintain and preserve […] respect, 8(j) Article level atevery of women participation full for need the and components, of its use sustainable the and diversity of biological conservation to the relevant practices and innovations knowledge, of traditional use the from arising benefits equitably of sharing desirability the and resources, biological on lifestyles traditional embodying communities local and indigenous of many dependence traditional and close the Preamble: recognizes development. sustainable to achieve essential therefore is participation full Their development. and management environmental in Principle role 20. have avital Women development. of sustainable achievement the in participation effective their enable and interests and culture identity, their support duly and recognize should States practices. traditional and knowledge of their because development and management environmental in role have avital communities local other and communities their and people Principle Indigenous 22. all. for future abetter ensure and development sustainable to achieve order in partnership to aglobal forge mobilized be should world of the youth of the courage Principle and 21. ideals creativity, The level. relevant atthe citizens, concerned all Principle 10. Environmental issues are best handled with the participation of participation the with handled best are issues Environmental UN Declaration on the Article 8. Rights of Indigenous 2. States shall provide effective mechanisms for prevention of, and redress People (2007)9 for: […]

(b) Any action which has the aim or effect of dispossessing them of their lands, territories or resources

Article 18. Indigenous peoples have the right to participate in decision-making in matters affecting their rights, through representatives chosen by themselves in accordance with their own procedures, as well as to maintain and develop their own indigenous decision-making institutions.

Article 19. States shall consult and cooperate in good faith with the indigenous peoples concerned through their own representative institutions in order to obtain their free, prior and informed consent before adopting and implementing legislative or administrative measures that may affect them.

Article 26. 1. Indigenous peoples have the right to the lands, territories and resources which they have traditionally owned, occupied or otherwise used or acquired.

2. Indigenous peoples have the right to own, use, develop and control the lands, territories and resources that they possess by reason of traditional ownership or other traditional occupation or use, as well as those which they have otherwise acquired.

3. States shall give legal recognition and protection to these lands, territories and resources. Such recognition shall be conducted with due respect to the customs, traditions and land tenure systems of the indigenous peoples concerned.

CBD Plan of Action The objective of this plan of action is to promote, within the framework of on Customary Use of the Convention, a just implementation of Article 10(c) at local, national, Biodiversity (2014)10 regional and international levels and to ensure the full and effective participation of indigenous and local communities at all stages and levels of implementation 18 WILD LIFE, WILD LIVELIHOODS biodiversity resources. biodiversity and to land access of deprived not are IPLCs that ensure and biodiversity; of use sustainable customary respect and recognize knowledge; traditional of importance the respect and recognize youth; and women of participation full the including planning, and policy of level every at IPLCs of participation meaningful support biodiversity; on IPLCs of dependence the recognize rights; human respect should ITW and use unsustainable addressing on focused initiatives conservation minimum, a As ITW. and use to unsustainable responding in practice good of bedrock the form should they Nevertheless, context. this in application their on literature little is there generally, more CWM around or ITW around literature the in considered been rarely to date have obligations and rights these As Rights Human on Initiative Conservation Commitments made by leading international conservation NGOs 2020 for Biodiversity 2011- Plan Strategic CBD 11 12 indigenous and local communities, at all relevant levels. relevant atall communities, local and indigenous of participation effective and full the with Convention of the implementation the in reflected and integrated fully and obligations, international relevant and legislation to national subject respected, are resources, of biological use customary their and of biodiversity, use sustainable and conservation the for relevant communities local and of indigenous practices and innovations knowledge, traditional the Target 18: 2020, By participation and accountability. participation equitable for procedures and frameworks, institutional and policy legal, as such elements including use, resource natural sustainable and conservation on work of our context the in communities local and peoples of indigenous rights the secure can that systems of governance improvement the Support 4. Encourage good governance programs. conservation of our scope the within rights their of fulfilment and protection the to support and rights of their infringements to vulnerable are who to those to avoid harm efforts special Make vulnerable the Protect 3. programs. conservation of our scope the within rights of human realization and protection the promote and Support programs conservation within rights human Promote 2. mission. our pursuing while rights of human to infringements contribute not we do that sure make and rights; human proclaimed internationally Respect rights human 1. Respect 1.3 The ITW “crisis” and the role of communities in tackling it

ITW is at the top of the international conservation agenda (Challender and MacMillan, 2014; Sutherland et al., 2014). It is also high on the development agenda – many of the iconic species that are in the sights of poachers are in poor countries that depend on them to support tourism industries or the livelihoods of rural communities. The issue is also high on the security agenda, as ITW is, in many cases, associated with organized crime syndicates, illegal arms trafficking and, in some cases, armed militant groups (Carlson et al., 2015). Targeted species include elephants, rhinos, pangolins and tigers, as well as an array of other high value species in trade receiving much less attention, including timber and medicinal plants, birds, reptiles, fish, and primates.

Although there is no definitive starting point for the current surge in ITW, data from the CITES Monitoring the Illegal Killing of Elephants (MIKE) initiative show an upsurge in elephant poaching from 2007 (CITES, 2017), peaking in 2011. Subsequently there was a decline in poaching but it remains at levels considered unsustainable. Rhino poaching in South Africa similarly increased significantly from 2008 (Standley and Emslie, 2013). There was international media attention on poaching in early 2012 following the slaughter of 300 forest elephants in Cameroon’s Bouba N’Djida National Park. The number and range of national, regional and international statements and commitments on ITW made since then by a wide variety of public and private sources is evidence of the importance accorded to it. There has also been an increased level of funding allocated to tackling it. Analysis by the World Bank shows that $1.3 billion was committed to combatting ITW between 2010 and June 2016, equivalent to about $190 million per year, peaking at $316 million in 2014 (Wright et al., 2016).

The emphasis of most policy debates and funding © Will Shirley allocations has, to date, been primarily on reducing the demand for illegal goods in consumer countries, and 20 WILD LIFE, WILD LIVELIHOODS pdf?sequence=8&isAllowed=y K1607258_UNEPEA2_RES14E. handle/20.500.11822/17508/ biodiversity/ brazza_declaration_final_en.pdf statement publications/illegal-wildlife-trade-kasane- WSSD_POI_PD/English/WSSD_PlanImpl.pdf csu-en.pdf 10 https://www.cbd.int/doc/publications/cbd- documents/DRIPS_en.pdf aconf15126-1annex1.htm 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 9 8 7 6 5 to important is it that awareness of lack through not is This livelihoods. community to support intended initiatives to allocated been has ITW on spent billion 15% $1.3 the of only that shows analysis Bank World The investment. and attention less far received engagement community transnational coordination. By contrast, and operations intelligence-led including enforcement, to law 19% went a further and poaching, prevent to help management area to protected allocated was funding the of 46% about that shows Wright by analysis Bank World the example, For chain. supply the along enforcement law strengthening on-the-illegal-wildlife-trade publications/declaration-london-conference- Wildlife Trade.pdf Wildlife Illegal on Statement template/statement/Hanoi convention/articles/default.shtml?a=cbd-10 http://wedocs.unep.org/bitstream/ See article 10 (c ) and 8 (j) https://www.cbd.int/ 8(j) 10(c )and article See https://www.un.org/documents/ga/conf151/ http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/documents/ http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/unpfii/ https://www.cbd.int/decision/cop/?id=12268 http://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/ http://www.greatervirunga.org/IMG/pdf/ http://undocs.org/A/RES/69/314 https://www.gov.uk/government/ http://iwthanoi.vn/wp-content/themes/cites/ http://undocs.org/A/71/L.88 https://www.gov.uk/government/ http://www.thecihr.org/about/ et al. (2016) (2016) intervention likely to be effective. effective. to be likely intervention engagement community of types the influence will factors ITW (Biggs ITW towards attitudes and of perceptions their and authorities, wildlife and wildlife with interactions community of nature the influence factors historical and environmental, legal, political, Socio-economic, complex. often and diverse are which communities, relevant of range awide to engage how of understanding clear detailed, no and approach blueprint SULi (IUCN required changes fundamental the to embrace a reluctance and ground the on this to deliver how of understanding detailed no is there that be rather may issue 2). (Table The communities of rights and roles the boosting regarding commitments clear include years recent in statements intergovernmental Many level. policy the at not least at communities, engage et al. , 2017; Cooney , 2017; Cooney et al. et al. , 2015). There is no no is , 2015). There , 2017). All these these , 2017). All Table 2: International Policy Commitments on Communities and ITW

London Increase capacity of local communities to pursue sustainable livelihood opportunities and eradicate poverty Declaration (2014)13 Work with, and include local communities in, establishing monitoring and law enforcement networks in areas surrounding wildlife

Kasane Promote the retention of benefits from wildlife resources by local people where they have traditional and/or Statement legal rights over these resources. We will strengthen policy and legislative frameworks needed to achieve this, (2015)14 reinforce the voice of local people as key stakeholders, and implement measures which balance the need to tackle the illegal trade in wildlife with the needs of communities, including the sustainable use of wildlife.

Brazzaville Recognize the rights and increase the participation of indigenous peoples and local communities in the Declaration planning, management and use of wildlife through sustainable use and alternative livelihoods and strengthen (2015)15 their ability to combat wildlife crime.

UN General Support […] the development of sustainable and alternative livelihoods for communities affected by illicit Assembly trafficking in wildlife and its adverse impacts, with the full engagement of the communities in and adjacent to (2015)16 wildlife habitats as active partners in conservation and sustainable use, enhancing the rights and capacity of the members of such communities to manage and benefit from wildlife and wilderness.

Sustainable Enhance global support for efforts to combat poaching and trafficking of protected species, including by Development increasing the capacity of local communities to pursue sustainable livelihood opportunities Goals target 15.c (2016)17

Hanoi Statement Recognize the importance of supporting and engaging communities living with wildlife as active partners (2016)18 in conservation, through reducing human‐wildlife conflict and supporting community efforts to advance their rights and capacity to manage and benefit from wildlife and their habitats; and developing collaborative models of enforcement. Sustainable livelihoods are most likely to be secured with the engagement of relevant community groups and the appropriate retention of benefits from wildlife for local people surrounding protected areas. The active participation of local people is critical to effective monitoring and law enforcement as well as sustainable socio-economic development.

UN General Increase the capacity of local communities to pursue sustainable livelihood opportunities, including from Assembly their local wildlife resources, and eradicate poverty, by promoting, inter alia, innovative partnerships for (2017)19 conserving wildlife through shared management responsibilities, including community conservancies, public- private partnerships, sustainable tourism, revenue-sharing agreements and other income sources, such as sustainable agriculture.

Initiate or strengthen collaborative partnerships among local, regional, national and international development and conservation agencies so as to enhance support for community-led wildlife conservation and to promote the retention of benefits by local communities for the conservation and sustainable management of wildlife. WILD LIFE, LIVELIHOODS

2.1 Lessons learned from the extensive history of CWM

2.1.1 Background and scope

The UNEA Resolution calls for guidance on involving communities in wildlife management as a response to “addressing the unsustainable use of and illegal trade in wildlife and wildlife products” generally. Decades of experience in engaging and supporting communities in sustainable wildlife management can help inform current efforts. These initiatives are variously termed integrated conservation and development projects (ICDPs), community-based natural resources management (CBNRM), participatory forest management (PFM), community wildlife management (CWM) or community-based conservation (CBC). Sometimes the terms have a specific meaning and at other times they are used interchangeably. In this section we review this literature, and in section 2.2 we go on to examine more recent lessons in tackling the current surge in ITW.

There have been numerous reviews of the impact and effectiveness of these approaches at the global (Anderson and Mehta, 2013; McShane and Wells, 2004); regional (Hulme and Murphree, 2001; Roe et al., 2009); and national (Braganza et al., 2012; Mauambeta and Kafakoma, 2010) level. The intention here is neither to repeat these analyses, nor to assess the impacts and achievements of community-based approaches, but rather to revisit the key lessons learned in terms of the factors that enable or constrain success and to explore the relevance of these lessons to today’s context. Thus, our literature search focused predominantly on existing global, 24 WILD LIFE, WILD LIVELIHOODS factors appear to have been overlooked, overlooked, been to have appear factors al et (1997), Roe Hunter and (1998), Hartley (1990), Murphree Ostrom by ago decades identified those with strongly resonate factors – these here surprises no be should There level. international and national at issues to policy itself, resource the of attributes economic and physical from range These wildlife. conserving and managing in action community effective of disablers or keyenablers being as review literature this from emerged that factors key the highlight we Here CWM for factors 2.1.2 Key enabling and disabling systems. management wildlife aquatic than rather terrestrial on literature more far found 2013; Shackleton Mehta, and (e.g. Anderson reviews other of experience the mirroring systems, on management endogenous community information of apaucity with initiatives formal/planned on literature by dominated also was It Africa. Southern towards particular in and Africa, towards biased heavily was found we literature The 1990 to 2017. from dating reports technical and chapters book books, articles, journal included and literature, language to English limited was review Our constraints. resource and to time due review of all the literature comprehensive or a systematic conduct not did we but reviews, broader the from lessons of synthesis the to enrich opportunistically, studies and donor/implementer – reports case site-specific or national as – such literature other We captured experience. of reviews thematic or America) Latin Asia, Africa, (predominantly regional . (2000) and many others. Many of these these of Many others. many and . (2000) et al. , 2010). Finally, we we , 2010). Finally, strategies. livelihood with tune in seasonality and utilization of ease proximity, as such attributes other highlight also (2000) et al. Roe (see below). community the of cohesion social the and options, other with compares management its how is key issue the low, or high be may wildlife of value absolute the while (1990) that notes Kiss however, to own”. Overall, people local for valuable “too it consider they that in people, to local wildlife over authority devolving to governments keyobstacles the of one as value high (2010) identifies Nelson Similarly, instead). value the capturing poachers (and to prevent high is price the while harvest to maximize atendency in resulting resource the of value future the over 3) uncertainty and rights; community weaker overriding interests vested 2) powerful risks; high to take willing poachers attracts resource the when rights property community enforcing of 1) difficulty the including: factors of to a variety due be can this (2012) that Freese notes high. exceptionally are values wildlife when management community of viability the questioned have commentators Some needs. subsistence urgent to meet struggling are they when particularly uses, land alternative from or use, illegal unsustainable, from than management and use wildlife legal sustainable, from value economic greater to derive have usually will people local value, economic of terms In interventions. or policy planning those by understood to be need values Local management. wildlife of tradition no have may groups other but values, spiritual and identity culture, to their intrinsic be may wildlife managing IPLCs, some For people. to different values aesthetic and cultural different have species different value, social of terms In value. economic or social high to have has wildlife So effort. and time their of investment the worth to be has it rights, user ascribed are they where land or land, own their on wildlife to manage motivated to be communities For Wildlife attributes norm. the become have penalties punitive and efforts enforcement law state-led militarized heavily on dependence increased an where ITW, and poaching in upsurge latest the to address urgency the in however,

Kühl and Mrema (2011) have also highlighted challenges associated mobilizing widely dispersed villages into with community management of migratory species because of one community structure is difficult difficulties in gaining consensus on ownership. Rare or localized species (as well as expensive). Qin et al. (2017) are also challenging because opportunities for their sustainable use found that low socioeconomic diversity (to generate requisite benefits) are narrower: there may simply not be and moderately effective community enough wildlife on which to base a viable initiative (Hartley and Hunter, institutions can be associated with 1997) and/or some level of national or even international oversight successful social and economic project may be imposed. For example, Hartley and Hunter (1997) also warn of outcomes. Similarly, Agrawal and developing schemes that are reliant on species which may be affected Benson (2011) note that a user group’s by a CITES Appendix I listing, and the current political debate about heterogeneity has negative effects on trophy hunting once again highlights the level of external “influence” equity in distribution of benefits from that may arise when charismatic species are involved. These issues are the commons, but it is also generally discussed further in the policy section below. detrimental to institutional functioning and livelihoods. In Ngamiland, Botswana, As much depends on the potential of the land as on the attributes or cultural heterogeneity and ethnic value of the wildlife itself: different types of wildlife and different types friction have been cited as having the of land are suited to different forms of use. Photographic tourism, for most significant adverse influence on example, requires easily accessible wildlife – including charismatic community organization (Thakadu, 2005). species – occurring at high densities and in open habitats. Tourist A number of analysts have, however, hunting, on the other hand, is more suited to habitat that is less queried the importance of homogeneity. accessible and less attractive to photographic tourists, but requires Pagdee et al. (2006) and Oldekop et al. trophy-quality animals. Overall, wildlife has a higher comparative (2010) found no definitive link between advantage on marginal land where alternative options such as social diversity and conservation agriculture may be less viable (Kiss, 1990, IIED, 1994) – although as outcomes; while Brooks et al. (2006a,b) technology improves year on year, agriculture becomes increasingly and Musavengane and Simatele (2016) viable even in the most marginal lands. If land is too degraded, it may found that there can be some benefits also not be worth community investment. For example, in Tanzania, to heterogeneity including a wider much participatory forest management has taken place on highly diversity of conservation motivations and degraded land, where community involvement was sought as a last experiences. resort rather than as a strategy of choice. Consequently, potential incentives, returns and incomes in the early stages (e.g. after some In the real world, communities are not 11 years at Duru-Haitemba forest) have been minimal (Blomley and static, and rarely are they homogenous Ramadhani, 2006). For many communities, faced with high levels of or generalizable entities. Instead, poverty, long-term environmental restoration entails short-term costs they can be highly heterogeneous and they simply cannot afford. complex (Blom et al., 2010). Failing to understand this heterogeneity can be the downfall of any community engagement Community attributes initiative if little consideration is given to individuals within communities and Understanding the social context can be critical to the type of the motives they might have to work intervention and to the likelihood of its success. Many researchers against community-based conservation and practitioners in the literature on CBNRM and CBFM suggest that initiatives (Campbell and Vainio-Mattila, communities (or community groups) that manage wildlife should be 2003). Indeed, Agrawal and Gibson as small and homogeneous as possible. Chevallier and Harvey (2016), (1999) have criticized the widespread for example, note that smaller communities tend to work better than preoccupation with ”community” and an amalgamation of disparate villages. Likewise DSI (2008) found suggested more attention should be given 26 WILD LIFE, WILD LIVELIHOODS that the imposition of modern CBNRM organizations and rules can can rules and organizations CBNRM modern of imposition the that reflects which sectors, wildlife and forestry fisheries, the in CBNRM (2012) 16 of of Zulu’s by years review reinforced is This success. for potential highest the have often systems and values beliefs, traditional on based initiatives endogenous that (2010) suggest Kafakoma and Mauambeta Malawi, in CBNRM on writing hand, other the On there are ethnic conflicts, a conflicts, ethnic are there Where leaders. influential of domain the usually but view, their present to men all for typical not is it males, adult among Even 2005). (Thakadu, perspective their stated has male adult an after is it do they if and speak, kgotla Botswana’s in example, For discriminatory. ethnically or gender highly be also can institutions Traditional histories. political and social local and personalities their on depends accountability local of degree their and positions, their inherit often decentralization”. They democratic not strengthen does authorities to customary powers “giving noting: authorities, traditional against cautions (2002) Ribot distribution. to benefit relation in particularly integrity, has and representative is decisions, make can which structure a having is akeyfactor but advantage an is authority traditional a strong that (1997) note Hunter and Hartley CWM. for structures old or new of value to the as literature the in debate of a lot is There organizations management Community (Sterling reefs of closing and opening the determined has knowledge ecological traditional Indo-Pacific, the of regions some in example, For conservation. of supportive is that behaviour encourage to help all can ceremonies and rituals sanctions, customary taboos, Cultural duty.” religious of a of sense out protected is wildlife where area aBuddhist in it to propose inappropriate highly be would it Pakistan, Northern in as such hunting of tradition astrong with community Islamic an in implemented successfully be may hunting trophy “[w]hile that al et Mishra sacred. be may animals some example, For conservation. incentivize may that interventions of types the on deciding in critical also is context cultural local the Understanding (Roe et al. to work which with unit cohesive right, the to way identifying one be can itself to define community” “the Allowing 2004). (Fabricius, emerge may that conflicts any mitigate and to minimize critical therefore is groups between differences the and them within groupings the communities, Understanding this. for allow that arrangements institutional the – especially interrelate actors these which through processes the and communities, up make that interests multiple with actors multiple to the , 2000). , 2000). kgotla can be biased along ethnic lines. ethnic along biased be can forums, women rarely rarely women forums, . (2017) point out out . (2017) point et al et ., 2017). ., reconfigure pre-existing power relations among village heads and committee members, generally undermining social and ecological outcomes (e.g. through generating competition or struggles for power between traditional and modern institutions). Zulu also notes that self- evolved community initiatives have typically performed better than government-introduced initiatives.

Nuulimba and Taylor (2015) note that “[i]n Namibia, a key axis of contestation concerns the relationship between existing Traditional Authorities and new CBNRM institutions. CBNRM policy and legislation do not formally provide for traditional leaders to be involved in conservancies and there is no requirement for conservancy committees to be sanctioned by local or regional political structures. This presents complications given the role of Traditional Authorities in ensuring sustainable resource use.” Roe et al. (2000) suggest it is important to make a pragmatic assessment of which institutions have the capacity and motivation to manage wildlife resources, and to build on these wherever they lie: “experience seems to show that the solution lies with new learning institutions built on solid old foundations.” Similarly Roe et al. (2009), Waylen et al. (2010a,b), Sukin (2011) and Nunan (2016) suggest that a combination of statutory and customary law can be an effective means of enabling natural resource governance.

Finding the right balance is tricky, however. Writing about territories and areas conserved by indigenous peoples and local communities (ICCAs), Borrini-Feyerabend and Kothari (2008) note that “many communities wish the governments to recognize their customary governance institutions without trying to mould them into standardized blueprint forms, or diluting their authority. At times, this can mean avoiding the imposition of “democratic” practices such as “electing” local leaders to “run” ICCAs or having outside experts descend into an area to “help out” […]. [T]he fast and dirty imposition of rules concocted with the best of intentions by far away players may usher more problems than solutions.”

Whether new or traditional, a common theme on wildlife management structures is that they should be © Milos Prelevic devolved to the lowest level possible, corresponding to Ostrom’s (1990) principles for common property 28 WILD LIFE, WILD LIVELIHOODS and locally elected forest management management forest elected locally and managers users, forest residents, local of awareness the to raise is accountability downward this to way build one that management, forest community of context the in Tole (2010) suggest, and (2006) Blomley communities.” local the towards decision-makers the of accountability (downward) of degree the enforce and determine that settings institutional the of nature the but se, per participation of degree the be not may arrangement governance a of performance “the participation on literature much of focus the despite that suggest also management fisheries on writing (2006) Neiland and Béné others. of detriment to the benefits retain and capture leaders) village (or other capture where the committee members elite towards a tendency been has there community, wider the than rather committees management the on efforts extension to focus a of predisposition because Tanzania, in management forest participatory of case the in that noting agree, (2009) Iddi and Blomley authority.” of delegation upward through constructed to be begin resources natural to manage necessary hierarchies nested should then Only them. lead that committees the not people, the of will collective and individual the in power discretionary locating by built are communities “[s]trong that notes et al. (Harrison to achieve difficult been has this that note commentators of number a but accountability”, “downward for need the is strongly Emerging effective.” most the generally are frameworks conditions and national jurisdictional ecological and cultural local both fit that institutions community imposed] than externally [rather “self-generated (2014) suggests Alcorn America, Latin from a review In management. resource , 2015; Nunan, 2016). Child (2009) 2016). (2009) , 2015; Child Nunan, Dougill PES, of context the in Also groups. these for streams benefit other in build and this for to account needs design project that and households poorer by enjoyed access resource (informal) traditional undermine potentially can rights property of formalization the that noted America, Latin and Asia in (2013), PES of a review Agrawal in and Adhikari above. from them on imposed regulations and rules new have or government, to the control some cede to have they that mean might it where rights to formalize reluctant be may communities some that highlight (2008) Kothari and Borrini-Feyerabend communities, of interests best the in be would this (2016) suggests Chevallier While recognition. jure de imply it does Nor resources. or land from others to exclude power the or ownership absolute imply necessarily not does security Tenurial et al. (Sterling initiatives” conservation in success of hallmarks often are champions local and leadership, charismatic leadership, “Effective 2004). Dalal-Clayton, and (Child leaders to their people not people, to their answerable to be need leaders accountability, downward of spirit the et al. (Berdej resolution conflict and trust and 2006) (Pathak, in buy and energy maintaining for leadership effective and strong for need the is theme common Another flexibility. and openness transparency, promote that mechanisms with coupled responsibilities, and rights their about committees local) government. Naughton Naughton government. local) (or sometimes central from rights resource of devolution lack the is management community-based to successful impediment ongoing main the that out point commentators numerous aside, caveats these All control. legal full having than important more is resources to the access of level actual the that (2001) suggest et al. Salafsky define. to clearly difficult beneficiaries target and boundaries project making fuzzy, very be can rights resource and land rangelands, in pastoralists rights: “Communities will not and cannot learn to to learn cannot and not will “Communities rights: to devolve governments of resistance the and resources based organizations able to effectively manage natural community- strong of dearth the of situation “Catch-22” , 2017) et al. , 2016; Gutierrez et al. (2012) point out that in the case of mobile mobile of case the in that out (2012) point , 2011; Pagdee et al. (1998) point out the the out (1998) point et al. of full full of , 2006). In In , 2006). manage until they have something worth managing.” Community resource use rules and their Similarly Child (2009) points out that authority to manage enforcement resources is a prerequisite for successful community- based initiatives, not something that should be held out Roe et al. (2000) and Salafsky et al. (2001) as a reward for performance. Analysis by the Rights and both point out that a key element of Resources Initiative (RRI) in 2012, reported in Anderson having secure tenure and resource rights and Mehta (2013), shows that, at least for forests, is the ability to enforce these against there has been no devolution of rights in Africa, where both internal and external threats (and governments still own 98 percent of forest land. In the sense of empowerment that comes Asia, the situation is a bit better – governments control from this ability to monitor and enforce about 68 percent, while individuals and firms own about rules (Anderson and Mehta, 2013)). There 24 percent. The rest is owned by IPLCs, or designated is general agreement in the literature for Indigenous Peoples. Only in Latin America has a that community-based management of significant shift occurred in tenure – governments control wildlife is facilitated by local involvement about 36 percent while IPLCs control about 39 percent. in the setting and enforcement of rules – including the design and application of One of the reasons for this slow movement towards sanctions. Davis et al. (2016), writing from devolution of tenure rights are the vested interests of a Latin American perspective, highlight other more powerful public and private stakeholders (see the need to ensure collaboration and free also section on national policy and legislation below). prior informed consent by communities in As Anderson and Mehta (2013) point out: “The decision the development of rules for conservation to prioritize local claims and facilitate development of interventions. Agrawal (2007) suggests local communities is a question of choice, equity and that “rules that are easy to understand politics – not of economics or sustainability.” Koch and enforce, locally devised, take into (2004) suggests that national-level federations of account differences in types of violations, community-based organizations can help in pressing help deal with conflicts and help hold for transfer of, and then respect for, rights. In Nepal, for users and officials accountable are most example, the regional and national association of forest likely to lead to effective governance.” The user groups (FECOFUN), has been very successful as rationale for this is that: a) local people an influential force of grassroots democratic action are likely to have the best knowledge in Nepal (Rechlin et al., 2008). But Nelson (2010) about the resource and b) are best highlights an overall democratic deficit with regard to placed to use that knowledge to devise African rural communities’ abilities to assert rights and appropriate rules that result in sustainable privileges. Elsewhere in the world, Indigenous Peoples management (Arts and de Koning, 2017; often have more formally established rights in national Hayes and Persha, 2010; Persha et al., and international policy frameworks. In Africa the issue 2011). There is discussion in the literature of indigeneity is often ambiguous and sometimes on the advantages or disadvantages of controversial. African rural communities may lack the statutory and customary law, similar to political influence that international recognition of the discussion about traditional or new Indigenous Peoples as a key stakeholder group has resource management structures above. brought elsewhere. Nevertheless, ongoing processes of The consensus appears to be that a democratization and decentralization are increasingly balance is needed between the two for opening political spaces for civil society organizations CWM to be acceptable to all parties. to assert their influence in decision-making processes (Wright, 2017). In the context of participatory forest management in Tanzania, Blomley and Iddi (2009) note that “where communities are aware of their rights and returns available under CBFM, evidence suggests that they are ready and able to defend them, through active patrolling of forest areas, arresting and fining of illegal forest users and the confiscation and sale of forest produce and equipment.” Baldus (2009) also agrees that local resource management groups should set and uphold rules but acknowledges that this requires that sanctions must therefore be agreed in advance and they must be applied, irrespective of the status of those found guilty – something which can be difficult to enforce in traditional societies. Similarly Robinson et al. (2013), drawing on experience from REDD, note that while

WILD LIFE, LIVELIHOODS enforcement of community-agreed rules with respect to other community members may be feasible, enforcement against external timber extractors is much more complicated and can leave untrained and ill-equipped rural villagers in potentially dangerous situations. This resonates strongly with findings on community engagement in law enforcement against ITW and the need for community guards/rangers to be supported by formal (state/private) rangers (Wilkie et al., 2016). Blomley (2006) agrees, noting: “Where market forces are extremely high (such as near large urban centres) it may prove impossible for villages to prevent the relentless and illegal stripping of assets by outsiders (typically charcoal and timber)”. The same is true in the case of high value wildlife in ITW, where community game guards, however well-motivated, are no match for heavily armed and organized criminal gangs (IUCN SULi et al., 2015), and communities need effective and responsive backup from formal armed authorities with the power of arrest.

In addition to this need, experience from participatory forest management in Tanzania also highlights the need for payment or other forms of compensation for community inputs (Lokina and Robinson, 2008). Their research shows that where local community members 30 are involved in monitoring and enforcement with no formal compensation or payment for their time, they are more likely to take bribes, resulting in enforcement being less effective: “Protection of PFM forests cannot rely on voluntary restrictions and community involvement in forest management does not automatically ensure © Roi Dimor that forests will be protected through voluntary restrictions. Even if villagers understand the benefits of less-degraded forests for watershed protection, Relevant policies are not just those that microclimates, or environmental services including provide the framework for devolved biodiversity, communities have immediate pressures management and sustainable use of such as the need for fuelwood, medicine, food, and wildlife but also other sectoral policies income, which nearby forests provide at low cost, and that inadvertently can undermine these. outsiders have few incentives to voluntarily restrict their For example, Kiss (1990) points out use.” They suggest better enforcement is likely to happen that “perverse” policies, such as direct if community guards are formally compensated through and indirect subsidies to the livestock external enforcement budgets and given a formal share sector, are a constraint to successful of fine revenue: “This will reduce the likelihood of bribes; CWM as are quarantine and veterinary provides an incentive for the patrollers to put effort into policies that constrain production and enforcement; and could reduce conflict.” Hayes and sale of wild meat. Naughton et al. (1998) Persha (2010) in a case study of forest management in suggest that exactly this problem is Nicaragua agree: “Community forest guards stated that if evident in Botswana where, although they did not receive a stipend, they would not monitor.” the national policies are generally supportive of conservation, the Ministry of Agriculture’s network of veterinary National policy and legislation fencing in support of beef producers is not. Hartley and Hunter (1997) warn that, For CWM to flourish there has to be a supportive aside from specific sectoral policies policy and legislative framework at the national level such as agriculture, CWM must be placed that facilitates devolved management, sustainable within the broader context of land use use and associated strong and effective community policy including settlement/development organizations and institutions. Delgado-Serrano et controls and also coordinated with other al. (2015) drawing on case studies from stakeholders sectoral policies/legislation such as in Colombia, Argentina and Mexico identify public veterinary measures. A recent article policies, governance systems and legal frameworks for in The Guardian highlights the lack of management of natural resources, markets and mega coordinated land use planning as a key projects as key influencers of success. In Namibia, impediment to wildlife conservation – far community-based natural resources management and greater than the threat posed by poaching, associated rights to manage and benefit from wildlife illegal trade in wildlife or other forms of is written into national policy from the Constitution unsustainable use (Randerson, 2017). downwards. This is not the case in the majority of countries. Reviewing 20 years of experience with CBNRM A number of commentators also suggest in Australia and New Zealand, however, Curtis et al. that where policy is favourable to (2014) underline that CBNRM is not a blueprint that can community-based management this needs be rolled out nationally. Instead, it needs complementary to be encoded in legislation rather than national policy instruments that support a coherent, being subject to the whim of successive capable and multi-level governance approach that allows administrations where, as Lawry and for tailoring to the local context. Blom et al. (2010) McLain (2012) note, the potential for note that in many cases, rather than being supportive, backtracking and cancellation is real. national policies and decisions have been some of the Alcorn (2014) notes that in Latin America, most significant barriers to the success of community clear legal frameworks for community management initiatives as well as being some of forestry have been critical to success. the most significant underlying drivers of tropical Cronkleton et al. (2012) advocate, however, deforestation and forest degradation. that legal frameworks need to be as simple 32 WILD LIFE, WILD LIVELIHOODS • • • as: such principles content, policy the for And • • • • • as: such process policy the for principles include These today. pertinent seem still which management, based community- to support policy-makers for principles Fabricius et al. Areas. Management Wildlife to establish required are that prerequisites procedural of set complex and consuming time- the fulfilling in Tanzania had have in communities that struggle the describes (2007) Nelson example, an and organizational and requirements.” procedural As plagued with overly complex and prescriptive planning, often are but support and development institutional need communities Rural to CBNRM.” approach standards that “donors and governments should explore a minimum (Pulhin key impediment a further being as commentators of a number by noted are management wildlife community for guidelines and regulations complex the with associated bureaucracy of level the Indeed, possible. as political support. and financial technical, including benefits financial non- certain guarantee and CBNRM from benefits financial to reap communities for easy it Make land. and resources to rights and security long-term people Give understood. and articulated clearly conditions with skills, and training necessary the have they once themselves, users resource to the authority down to hand Aim cumbersome bureaucracies. and complex new, establishing of beware but Encourage inter-agency cooperation and coordination broken. are rules when stricter progressively get must sanctions other and Fines customs. and knowledge local on based rules local to build which upon foundation the provide that policies sub-national or national overarching broad, Create to. to get easier and to understand easy be must papers Policy experience. local on drawn and flexible and adaptive is process policy the that Ensure et al. , 2007). Taylor and Murphree (2007) suggest suggest (2007) Murphree Taylor and , 2007). (2004) suggest a number of working working of a number suggest (2004) Naidoo Naidoo implications for conservation outcomes. with communities, to some management wildlife from flows benefit from derived incentives potential the curtailing of effect the has This origin. of country the in legal completely is export and hunting the though – even species some from trophies of import the against bans some countries introducing unilateral with hunting, trophy against argument international increasing been has there Lion” the “Cecil of killing the over furore the following example, For another. in management wildlife community for options the affects country one of policy national the when however, occur, can species. More unintended consequences certain of use of levels restricting of terms in example, for CWM, on based livelihoods for has (CITES) Species on International Trade in Endangered Convention the that implications potential the (2013) highlight Abensperg-Traun and Abensperg-Traun et al. influence. an has also policy international level, national the at set be should policy national wildlifeWhile management community organizations; civic education organizations; education civic community technical capacity to support support; includes This 2002). Ribot, 2008; DSI, 2013; Agrawal, and (Adhikari wildlife to manage efforts their in communities to support agencies external for need the highlight commentators of A number External and Support Influence compromised. be would km2 50,000 circa of area an covering conservancies of viability financial the that estimate they banned to be were hunting trophy If Namibia. in to conservancies community support revenue sufficient to generate necessary how both hunting and photo tourism are et al. (2016) for example describe describe (2016) example for (2011) Cooney and to raise awareness of rights; support in et al. (2016) uses the term “governance from the ground voicing and claiming those rights; and up” to describe the need for both horizontal (community support to counter external threats and level) and vertical (community to national and beyond) corruption. Bowler et al. (2010) highlight networks for effective community conservation. that limited technical and institutional capacity prevents communities Governments responding to incentives for community- based forest management. And in a The National policy and legislation section above global review of community conservation highlights the role that governments play in establishing initiatives, Brooks (2017) notes that an enabling policy and legislative framework for CWM. strengthened local institutional capacity But, they have other important roles too. Specifically, a is an important precondition for success. number of authors point to the role of governments as This view is echoed by Kellert et al. (2000) service providers as well as regulators (Braganza et al., who suggest that institution building may 2012). Discussing CAMPFIRE in Zimbabwe, Harrison et be more important to success than socio- al. (2015) for example, highlight the need for efficient economic development. In particular, government-led technical extension services to support Brooks (2017) suggests that building community-based efforts. Also writing on CAMPFIRE, institutional capacity could help with Rihoy and Maguranyanga (2007) note that although the fostering interactions among community Rural District Councils have been heavily criticized for members that can be important, for capturing the benefits of wildlife management rather example, in community monitoring and than it flowing direct to communities, in a period of patrolling efforts. political instability they also played a critical role in maintaining political support at the national level (in a As the sections below describe, there context of pressures for recentralization). are numerous sources of such external support – from networking with other Baynes et al. (2015) suggest that government support to community-based organizations community forestry is critical for helping communities to partnering with NGOs, donors, navigate complex administrative procedures and governments and the private sector. planning requirements, so going beyond development Govan et al. (2006) suggest that all can of supportive legislation to “technical advice and be important and that multi-stakeholder assistance, training for record keeping, infrastructure and partnerships can help develop a funding”. They note, however, that the positive aspects shared national vision and a strategy of government support such as those described above for achieving that vision, although are often nullified by negative aspects associated with warning that it is important that “the patronage and corruption (see below). Indeed, Chabal aspirations of communities are treated and Daloz (1999) point to a clear causal link between as the main driving force.” Dressler et complex administrative procedures and corruption. They al. (2010) concur. Based on a review of note, therefore that “government support is an important CWM in seven countries (Philippines, but not necessary or sufficient factor in its own right.” Nepal, Madagascar, South Africa, This highlights the importance of other actors, as Nicaragua, USA and Canada) they note discussed below. that the bureaucracies of actors such as government and external funders has contradicted and undermined the purpose of strengthening and empowering community control. Berdej 34 WILD LIFE, WILD LIVELIHOODS associated with CWM initiatives. Brosius Brosius initiatives. CWM with associated partner support of type common most the are NGOs OrganizationsNon-Governmental (NGOs) local African constituencies rather than national-level national-level than rather constituencies African local to accountability their to increase need NGOs support Roe and communities of the interests do really represent NGOs environmental to which extent the query (2003) Vainio-Mattila and Campbell Similarly approaches.” and values over to aconflict leads This membership. to sustain need the and campaigns their by shaped often are NGOs of objectives policy “the that out (1997) point Hunter and Hartley NGOs. with interest of conflicts possible about warn commentators of Anumber role. a positive to play seen always not are NGOs However, monitoringcommunity and patrolling. for support technical and financial provides Kenya in al. et Wilkie example, aspecific above). As rules local on (see section guards and rangers community for stipends paying –including rules management resource local of enforcement and monitoring the supporting of terms in particularly agencies, government and communities between a buffer as role acritical play can NGOs how (2010) highlight Persha and Hayes institutions. local stakeholders, designing new initiatives and strengthening different among awareness raising constituencies, diverse together bringing in NGOs of importance the Robinson REDD, of areview In capacity. political and technical both building in role (2011) their Sukin emphasizes while accountability; and including strategic planning, financial management – sector private the with to engage capacity building of role (2011) aspecific Sumba and emphasize Elliot organizations; community-based strengthen create and to helping in importance their highlight Lyon (2007) and Horwich roles: valuable of anumber perform can NGOs people. local of needs the to address willing and able more participatory, less bureaucratic than state institutions, and as seen are they that fact to the this attribute (2003) conservation concept”. Campbell and Vainio-Mattila community-based the of promoters enthusiastic most the of “some been have NGOs how highlight (2016) describe how the Northern Rangelands Trust Rangelands Northern the how (2016) describe et al. (2009) suggest that big big that suggest (2009) et al. (2013) emphasize (2013) emphasize et al. (1998) (1998) although this has to be carefully managed managed carefully to be has this although – duration project year to four three sometimes at odds with the conventional is which initiatives, community for support long-term for need the out pointed have commentators of Anumber CWM. for support financial providing in role a critical play obviously agencies Donor Donors practice. African conservation discourse and within movement welfare animal the of influence rising the into perspectives (2007) provide and Norton-Griffiths (2012) Martin use. sustainable promoting to those agenda different a very have may who NGOs rights animal and welfare animal of involvement increasing the and ITW of context current the in pertinent are 2011). lessons (Jacobshn, These agenda” own their pursue just not and understand local issues and problems, communities, with target partnerships equal and relationships real to develop need agencies “support that emphasizes also field, the in years 20 from learned lessons own its reviewing 1990s, the since CWM supporting been has which NGO aNamibian IRDNC, partners. trusted and builders capacity genuine to becoming providers external distant being from away to move need NGOs that (2016) suggest Harvey and Chevallier donors or policymakers (Bonner, 1993). and communities between interface the on generated is “profit” whose operators middlemen being by ends financial own their serving of accused often are NGOs Furthermore, states. and NGOs between lines the blurring as conservation of pursuit in actions NGOs’ many describe (2010) who Scholfield and Brockington by echoed is This institutions. governance to avoid a culture of aid dependency. there has to be an understanding that this is a process UNDP (2012a) suggest that small grants and not a time-bound project, and that one of the first to small local organizations can provide a requirements is adequate time to develop trust with good complement to large, national-level communities. projects and programmes. (See Hughes et al. (2014) for a review of donor funding to Roe et al. (2009) suggest that donor support needs to be small organizations). Wicander and Coad flexible, adaptive, innovative and focussed on the goals (2015), writing on alternative livelihood of local resource managers themselves. Blomley and projects, similarly point to the need for Ramadhani (2006) suggest this means there needs to be funding packages that “provide realistic a willingness to “support the process as it unfolds rather levels of support and are dispersed over than strict adherence to outdated project tools such as longer timeframes”. Chevallier (2016) logframes and timelines”. Kawaka et al. (2017) suggest agrees that many donor-funded projects from a review of experience of Locally Managed Marine end prematurely, before the programme Areas (LMMAs) in Kenya that donor funding is critical and its institutions have become self- though reliance on outside donors is unsustainable, and sustaining. Kothari et al. (2013) make the as such communities should have access to budgets point that communities themselves do used by donors and NGOs to help build understanding on not typically initiate conservation related the costs associated with LMMAs. practices as a ”project” – such activities are part of life itself. Therefore, where introduced as an external intervention,

© Sumarie Slabber 36 WILD LIFE, WILD LIVELIHOODS community aspirations is crucial. Ogutu Ogutu crucial. is aspirations community to commitment their work, initiatives community to make needed markets and ideas the in to play role a vital have they While allies. risky be can partners et al. Roe and legislative reforms. policies new of creation the for lobby as well as rights, resources existing people’s local strengthen or to protect used be can that force political a progressive represent also can but sustainability, and success commercial to regard with sense make only not partnerships sector community-private that suggests (2004) Koch agents”. development to enterprise role rehabilitation and protection aresource from to move communities to enabling “[v]ital are sector private the with Similarly Braganza products. forest non-timber of harvesting or ecotourism as such management wildlife on based enterprises for skills managerial and capital the providing in critical been have sector private the with partnerships that suggest (2010) Dembetembe and 1995). Mazambani Rihoy, and Steiner 2006; Nepalz, and 2013; Spiteri Mehta, and (Anderson resource untapped acritical as sector private the highlighted have practitioners CWM 1990s the Since sector Private of CBNRM is unwillingness at the political centre to centre political the at unwillingness is CBNRM of failure of cause a common that out (2010) points Nelson the literature. throughout theme a recurring is people, to local wildlife over rights of devolution genuine on places it limitations the and Corruption, Corruption and opportunities. mechanisms market-based few relatively and tourism in aslump is there when especially alone, investments private on relying than rather efforts, to their parallel in conservation community for funding of source robust and a long-term to provide need governments and donors that suggest they landowners, to community fees lease pay who enterprises tourism in investors private about specifically Writing own. its on do can sector private the to what limitations are there that note meanwhile, (2009) warn, however, that private sector sector private that however, warn, (2009) et al. (2012) note that partnerships partnerships (2012) that note et al. (2017), (2017), especially in the context of tackling ITW. tackling of context the in especially – initiatives management wildlife community into corruption tackling for strategies new integrate and develop to design order in to change needs this that and community conservation the and community anti-corruption the between collaboration little very been has there to date that suggest They organizations. conservation of employees even and elites, local firms, sector private officials, department wildlife and forest officials, enforcement law judiciary), the of (e.g. members officials public high-level and politicians including corruption in implicated often actors of range broad review. Williams literature this in emerge also which issues – all on so and nepotism cronyism, capture, legislative and policy payoffs, collusion, embezzlement, capture, elite local patronage, rent-seeking, bribery, included: discussed Types corruption of ITW. of context the in corruption on literature the of areview (2016) provide et al. Williams but paper, this of scope the beyond is management wildlife of context the in corruption of review A detailed communities are trampled on.” marginal of rights the so doing in and government to influence interests vested powerful allows –it to CBNRM impediment a fundamental is “corruption issue: (2011) the summarizes O’Criodain rents. to extract ability the and interests vested with to do largely is this suggests (2010) Nelson measures. such implement to disincentives substantial have generally processes reform governance resource natural that control that policymakers notes he context African an from Writing resources. natural over authority divest et al. identify an equally equally an identify

might gain; and what risks they might be 2.2 Lessons learned on exposed to in doing so. There has also been an emerging body of work focused engaging communities in on “green militarization”, highlighting inter alia the increasing use of military tackling ITW equipment, tactics and training in the conservation context and the prejudicial The upsurge of high-value international ITW in recent impacts this can have on IPLCs (Büscher years presents a new – in some ways – context for and Ramutsindela, 2015; Duffy, 2014; combating unsustainable use. In this section we focus 2016; Duffy et al., 2015; Lunstrum, 2014). specifically on recent lessons learned from efforts to engage communities in tackling the current crisis of Building on the examples provided international ITW – such as the poaching of elephants through the “Beyond Enforcement” and rhinos for ivory and horn destined for foreign workshops and the FLoD field markets. programme, IIED has established an online database of case studies Recognizing the lack of attention paid to the role of documenting examples of community Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities (IPLCs) in engagement initiatives21. Based on these tackling ITW, the International Union for Conservation of case studies plus a global literature Nature (IUCN), the International Institute for Environment review, IIED has assessed the evidence and Development (IIED), TRAFFIC and other partners for the effectiveness of community have, since 2015, been attempting to synthesize this engagement approaches in tackling experience. The “Beyond Enforcement” initiative ITW (Booker and Roe, 2016). This study has brought together policymakers, practitioners, found that the most common approach IPLC representatives and researchers to share their to community engagement was direct experiences in one international (IUCN SULi et al., 2015b) involvement in anti-poaching activities and two regional workshops (Cooney et al., 2016a, – as community guards/scouts or Cooney et al., 2016b). Linked to this work has been the informants. Another common approach development of a Theory of Change focused on how, was the introduction of livelihood and through what pathways, action at community level support activities (both wildlife-based can reduce ITW (Biggs et al., 2017), and a framework for and non-wildlife based). Wildlife tourism understanding community-level incentives for engaging development was the most common form in ITW vs. supporting conservation (Cooney et al., 2017). of livelihood support activities deployed In addition, there has been the active testing of the – sometimes specifically to engage dynamic Theory of Change in the field, through a newly- poachers, but more commonly used to developed programme known as Communities: First Line generate conservation incentives for of Defence against IWT – FLoD20 led jointly by IUCN’s the broader community. Human-wildlife Eastern and Southern Africa Regional Office, SULi and conflict mitigation was also commonly IIED. employed. Very few initiatives involved community members benefiting from In other important initiatives, Wilkie et al. (2016) have sustainable harvesting and/or legal trade explored through literature review and expert interviews in wild species or their by-products as a the risks and rewards for communities of engaging in conservation incentive. efforts to counter wildlife crime. This work examines what roles communities do and should play in countering wildlife crime; their motivations; what benefits they 38 WILD LIFE, WILD LIVELIHOODS 2 1 support for poaching. for support their increase even and IPLCs to alienating contribute also can but poaching, behind drivers real the address to fail only not may treatment 2017). Such (Rowlatt, India in Park National Kaziranga in poachers suspected as villagers local of shootings 2014), and International, (Survival Cameroon in people Baka indigenous of 2014), 2013 Tanzania treatment in in Tokomeza (Makoye, Operation initiative anti-poaching the include attention media received have that Those abuses. rights human potential and/or IPLCs of treatment unjust and harsh to led has ITW against actions of up ramping the where cases of a number been have there However, sanctions. strengthened and tactics and training weapons, militarized of use toward amove been has there and intensified, have ITW against efforts enforcement law years, few past the Over essential. is wildlife of trade and use around rules legitimate breaking for penalties meaningful imposes that enforcement law Effective difficult and unlikely to succeed. make cooperative conservation approaches raiseshuman rights concerns, and may iscommunity often support ineffective, enforcement– approaches without heavily particularly – top-down militarized While law enforcement is critical, pursuing major gap in implementation. a still is there however, recognized, been has linkage this when Even threat. the of urgency perceived to the due probably overlooked, being often is linkage this ITW of context the in years, recent over generally biodiversity of conservation and governance in IPLCs of role important the of recognition strong been has there While cases overlooked being natural resource management is in many roleThe of IPLCs in conservation and emerge: key lessons of a number upsurge, ITW the on focused work this From 3 more cooperative efforts. cooperative more stymie can this and interests, criminal powerful against enforcement of lack and corruption among enforcement agents see IPLCs when – particularly authorities conservation against and resentment anger by exacerbated be can activity Illegal ITW. from returns on reliance increasing further and poverty increasing of spiral a downward into people plunging earner, income primary the of family entire an deprive can imprisonment and sold, to be assets other or land scarce for need the in result may members community individual on poaching for penalties and fines heavy IPLCs, For ITW. in reduction desired the to produce likely more is chain value the in along further trafficking in involved those on efforts enforcement law focusing and important, is actions punitive of targeting appropriate The ITW. support resentment and drive some people to illegitimate, and can cause anger and as perceived be may enforced, if plants, and animals wild of use customary on land for conservation and restrictions of Loss laws. conservation and practice customary between conflicts often are there and embedded, socially and culturally deeply and traditional often is plants) of use and fishing (as as well wildlife Hunting efforts. conservation from disenfranchisement of histories long have IPLCs contexts many In hanging fruit”. While IPLCs are sometimes sometimes are IPLCs While fruit”. hanging “low at targeted poorly or insufficient often is ITW against enforcement Law interests community timely, reliable for support target real threats and provide Effective enforcement needs to viewed as “the problem” or the perpetrators of ITW, enforcement relies on good intelligence members of these communities are often struggling to – and typically communities are in the meet basic subsistence needs and receive tiny amounts best place to know what is happening of money for poaching wildlife for international ITW on the ground, including the movements relative to their market value. They frequently have and activities of poachers. However, little information on the scale and damage caused the risks they are exposed to must be by the trade. However, they are a “soft target” for law clearly understood, properly rewarded enforcement against ITW and are often targeted, while and actively mitigated against (Wilkie et more powerful players – who are more difficult and al., 2016). For example, a recent review dangerous to control – are untouched and continue of the Mangalane Community Scouts to remove much higher value wild products (including Project in Sabie Game Park, South Africa, timber) without prosecution. highlighted that including young men from local communities in law enforcement Law enforcement needs to provide effective and timely was not sufficient to effectively deter backup to communities and defend their interests poaching, and had the potential to put and resources against illegal use (from within or them at risk of being victims of violence outside the community), particularly when community (Massé et al., 2017). The authors members attempting to do this themselves would suggest that any strategy to include local raise unacceptable risks. Failure to provide reliable communities in law enforcement must backup undermines the commitment of communities be part of a broader shift to developing to cooperate with conservation and enforcement inclusive wildlife economies. authorities in combating ITW. 5 Communities need realistic Strong relationships and coordination with effective and responsive arresting authorities are therefore essential, incentives to engage but must be built on trust, reciprocity, respect for constructively with law traditional authority, and developing shared, co-created enforcement authorities and solutions rather than simply imposing rules from outside. support conservation

4 Community support can be critical for While these final three lessons reflect effective enforcement against ITW insights from the CWM literature, they are worth re-stating in the context of IPLCs frequently have outstanding skills and ITW, where they may be lost in an over- knowledge about wildlife, due to their day-to-day emphasis on coercive enforcement. proximity, that equip them well to take part either in Involvement in ITW can be lucrative, so ITW or conservation. It is therefore crucial that they are IPLCs need strong incentives (financial supportive of enforcement efforts. In some cases they or non-financial) to protect wildlife themselves have effectively tackled poaching and ITW – and not get involved themselves in particularly where the poachers are from the community poaching and trafficking. Thus, the net itself and they can effectively apply social sanctions benefits (benefits such as income from against them. However, where poachers are armed and tourism minus costs such as human- organized outsiders, it is unrealistic to expect unarmed wildlife conflict) flowing to individuals community members to tackle them single-handedly. in communities as a result of wildlife They can, however, be the critical ”eyes and ears” of protection must be greater than the net state- or private-led enforcement efforts. Effective benefits to them of engaging in ITW 40 WILD LIFE, WILD LIVELIHOODS 6 stage of planning and implementation. every at to communities listening and input seeking through understanding these priorities requires trust to be gained but knowledge) traditional and culture maintaining management, resource security, food protection, livestock (e.g. security, goals own their reach communities help can ITW against Interventions appropriate. culturally and context local to the responsive are strategies) other or livelihoods to local support enforcement, law on focused (whether interventions that to ensure – helps benefit financial provided externally an on reliance passive of a culture engendering just – not to ITW responses the defining in communities Involving needs. community of perceptions or values imposing or assuming community the outside from people by designed externally being than rather values, and when they respond to IPLC self-defined priorities, needs effective to be likely more are ITW against Interventions ones imposed Local solutions are better than externally ITW. against enforcement law effective key for is that intelligence and information the provide to people motivating in critical are security, personal guaranteed and fair and legitimate as laws wildlife of recognition system, legal the and police the Trust in right. equation the to get order in appropriately managed and understood to be needs level, community and individual the both at benefits, the gets who and cost the bears who Further, themselves. IPLCs by determined to be needs a benefit what and a cost considered is what importantly, Most it. combat to help motivated highly are they them, from stealing as poaching view and wildlife their over ownership of sense a collective have communities Where wildlife. over stewardship or ownership and rights voice, astrengthened with empowered, to be need IPLCs paper”. “on co-management or consultation beyond well to go needs way a meaningful in communities Engaging sentences associated with enforcement). prison and fines of risk the as such costs the minus ivory poached selling from income as such (benefits 7 improved. improved. greatly be should success for prospects the ITW to combat interventions planning and designing in start the from involved implementation. Where communities are in failures to explaining way a long go can departures These they are working. which with communities the of change of theories underlying the with well align always not does this that shown has Kenya in work FLoD IUCN’s from experience ITW, reduce will communities engage to efforts to how regard with change of theory explicit or implicit an from work and implementers designers project While divergent. highly be may implementers members and project designers/ community by held effect and cause about beliefs or change” of “theories the that is context ITW the from insight A particular year timeframe of most interventions. most of timeframe year 2-5 typical the within achieved be easily can that something not process, term shouldengagement be seen as a long- Community keyto success. are reciprocity, and trust objectives, shared on based people, local and implementers project between relationships Long-term process long-term Community engagement is a and implementation of new policies 2.3 Lessons learned or and projects. Nelson (2010) notes that, at least in an African context, endless just re-stated? technical evidence can be (and has been) produced on what works, what doesn’t, The recognition that conserving wildlife is best done with and why – but this will never counter the the support and active engagement of the communities powerful, private interests which underpin living with wildlife is the foundation of decades of efforts the way policy decisions are made in the on CWM. However, the response to the recent poaching real world. Additionally, Nelson (2010) crisis in Africa and elsewhere has involved, in many suggests that real reforms are only likely places, a retrenchment and subordination of hard-won to happen when communities are able arguments in favour of community-based approaches, to to demand rights and hold policymakers a resurgence of top-down protectionist approaches that to account. For this they need to be emphasize fences and fines, guns and boots. organized and mobilized, and have their voices heard and respected. And This shift to a preoccupation with enforcement (and they need democratic mechanisms for particularly state-led, top-down enforcement) overlooks representation and accountability. a crucial element of success in combating ITW. While the extensive literature on CWM places little emphasis on the Again, nothing is new here – Strumm role of external enforcement authorities, in the current (1994) made the same point over 20 context of ITW – with sky-high prices, heavily armed years ago noting: “devolution of rights gangs, and involvement of organized criminal syndicates must go hand in hand with increasing – effective state-led enforcement is indeed essential, but democratization of power and with largely inadequate. However, wherever communities are education that builds awareness living near wildlife, their support for and cooperation with and political skills.” The process of enforcement authorities is likely to have a major impact democratization is a long and complex on the effectiveness of these enforcement efforts. Local one, but Nelson et al. (2016) report people are best placed to provide critical intelligence on that in Africa a new cadre of civil who is poaching and where. Recognizing that community society organizations are starting to support for conservation and conservation authorities play a leadership role in bringing about can be essential leads to the question of what conditions necessary reforms. are likely to create and enable that support. Here, the CWM literature provides clear, well-tested and consistent In the international arena, also, there is lessons. increasing recognition of the need for bringing community voices directly into Few of the lessons learned presented here from the wildlife policy-making processes. In the decades of experience on community conservation next part of this report we review the represent anything new. Conclusions from the literature current entry points and mechanisms of the 1990s (Kiss, 1990; Steiner and Rihoy, 1995) are within biodiversity-related international just as relevant today as they were then. What is evident, agreements and policy forums. however, is that these very lessons have, for the most part, not been acted upon. 20 https://www.iucn.org/regions/eastern-and- An enduring challenge therefore is not simply to draw out southern-africa/our-work/conservation- more and more lessons and best practices, but to find areas-and-species/communities-first-line- defence-against-illegal-wildlife-trade ways to ensure they are taken into account in the design 21 https://communitiesforwildlife.iied.org/ WILD LIFE, LIVELIHOODS

3.1 Introduction

Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities (IPLCs) have particular cultural, social and economic links with wildlife, and the conservation and use of wildlife. These links are complex and multiple. They may be the holders of traditional knowledge; nature and wildlife may be of central significance in their spiritual and cultural lives; and their livelihood and economic strategies may be particularly strongly based on use and management of wildlife. IPLCs are likely to be especially affected by wildlife conservation decision-making, and the successful implementation of conservation policy and decisions may be particularly reliant on their active engagement. The legitimacy and equity of wildlife conservation decisions will be improved by providing meaningful opportunities for the engagement and participation of IPLCs in discussions and decision-making. There is, therefore, an increasing recognition that IPLCs are a particularly important stakeholder to be involved in wildlife-related deliberations and decision-making.

This section reviews the existing and developing mechanisms for the participation of IPLCs in the deliberations and decision-making of various governing bodies of international policymaking mechanisms of particular relevance to wildlife management and conservation, in particular:

• The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) • The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) • The Convention on Migratory Species (CMS) • The UN Environment Assembly (UNEA) • The Inter-governmental panel on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES). 44 WILD LIFE, WILD LIVELIHOODS 3.2 key references in the Convention text itself text Convention the in key references by underpinned is CBD the in IPLCs of Participation Convention, representing almost universal membership. the ratified have Today, 196 countries Summit. Earth the as known also Janeiro, de Rio in Development and Environment on Conference Nations United the 1992 in at signature for opened was Convention The resources. genetic of use the of sharing equitable and biodiversity, of use sustainable and conservation the for treaty (1992) international an CBD is The Diversity Biological on 3.2.1. Convention The conservation policy bodies IPLC engagement in key Review of mechanisms for II).Appendix (see Secretariats relevant of staff with and bodies policy these with to engage, attempted or engaged, have that organizations IPLC from input email and with interviews with supplemented research desk on based is review This mechanisms. various the of constraints or strengths key to any attention with practice, in effectiveness their on experience from insights to draw aims overview this points, entry current characterizing as well As study. this of scope the beyond is these of all of review –acomprehensive IPLCs of role the recognized have some and conservation, to wildlife relevant are processes intergovernmental and (MEAs) agreements environmental multilateral other many that however, noted, be should It diversity and the sustainable use of its components.” components.” its of use sustainable the and diversity biological of conservation to the relevant practices and innovations knowledge, traditional of use the from arising benefits equitably sharing of desirability the and traditional on lifestyles biological resources, embodying communities local and indigenous many of dependence traditional and close “the references Preamble CBD 22 . The . The workings of the CBD: CBD: the of workings the in participate can groups IPLC which by routes of number are there Formally, approach. ecosystem the and areas to protected access and to benefit-sharing bushmeat from CBD, the by addressed issues of range awide across engage organizations IPLC Convention, the of working the in IPLCs of engagement for areas focal 10(c) and key are 8(j) Articles While 2005). (Clavero, text treaty the in envisaged mechanisms formal the of boundaries the pushing it, to influence CBD the around mobilized have IPLCs however, practice, In level. national the at out obligations these to carry states of role the remains –it decision-making international into input or participation IPLC for provision formal any make not does Convention the to note important is It cooperation. exchange and scientific/technical information for measures in included be should practices and knowledge indigenous that 17 clear 18 make and also sustainable use requirements.” Articles or conservation with compatible are that practices cultural traditional with accordance in resources biological of use customary encourage and “[p]rotect 10(c) to Article and […]”; practices and innovations knowledge, such of holders the of involvement and approval the with application wider their promote […] and communities local and indigenous of innovationsknowledge, and practices maintain and preserve respect, to “[…] obligation an establishes 8(j) Article level. every at women of participation full for need the recognizes further It • IPLCs can participate in the Working Group on Article 8(j) IPLC perspectives on them, propose established under the CBD. This Working Group has an innovative specific directions for policy, and structure for the UN system, with an indigenous co-Chair. This bring examples and case studies to working group is open to all Parties and indigenous peoples and substantiate a position. local communities’ representatives play a full and active role in its • IPLC observers can register as IPLCs work. Traditional knowledge is considered a “cross-cutting” issue to participate in CBD meetings, and that affects many aspects of biological diversity, so it will continue seek to make interventions from the to be addressed by the Conference of the Parties (CoP) and by floor. Participation at CoPs or other other working groups (WGs) as well. A fundamental principle of the meetings is also an opportunity to programme of work for Article 8(j) has been the participation of interact with national delegations, indigenous and local communities in the work of the Convention and seek to influence their thinking, gain its bodies. Here IPLCs participate on equal terms in discussions, their support, and organise and rather than relying on influencing Party decisions. Various measures participate in side-events. have been established to foster strong IPLC participation in this • IPLC representatives may be group, including the indigenous co-Chair and an IPLC bureau. Note, appointed to be part of national however, all outputs from the WG still need to go to CoP where they delegations, but this is very rare. are subject to Party-only negotiations towards consensus. • IPLC observers may seek and may • The CBD regularly calls for submissions from Parties and other be successful in being appointed to stakeholders, and IPLC organizations or networks may develop Working Groups or ad hoc Technical inputs into these processes. Such inputs can help frame discussions, Advisory Groups established on shape the agenda for CoP negotiations, highlight issues and illustrate specific issues.

© Cameron Oxley 46 WILD LIFE, WILD LIVELIHOODS • • • deliberations include: international in participation IPLC enable that sense informal a more in developed have that Processes meetings. CBD in IPLCs of participation to support Secretariat, the by managed established, been has fund avoluntary Importantly, participation. IPLC to enable resources financial of mobilization the to efforts, building capacity and consultation regional to Portal, Information Knowledge Traditional the as such tools, and information web-based of provision the from ranges Support deliberations. CBD in IPLCs of engagement the support and to facilitate mandated specifically is staff Secretariat The Secretariat. CBD the by provided is processes to these Support effective organization and participation at this level. to facilitate networks regional developed has and CBD, the particularly deliberations, environmental international in women indigenous of participation active the promotes network This (IWBN). Network Biodiversity Women’s Indigenous The years. of number their longstanding relations and cooperation over a of view in (MoU) Understanding of a Memorandum signed have CBD the of Secretariat the and Alliance CBD –the status formal of alevel has and listserv, a moderated runs Alliance The processes. CBD in participate who those and ground the on work biodiversity in involved those between abridge be cooperation and general and understanding, to to enhance aiming IPLCs), than broader (i.e. CBD the in interest acommon have that organizations society civil of a network is This Alliance. CBD The meetings. CBD relevant at IPLCs of participation the to support during meetings. IIFB also do their own fundraising access internet and computers rooms, meeting as such support practical of provision the through instance for team, 8(j) Secretariat’s Convention the by supported is group The inputs. and positions policy unified develop may and meetings, body subsidiary or to CoPs up lead the in meetings organizes information, shares which organizations, IPLC of a network represents This (IIFB). Biodiversity on Forum Indigenous International the of workings The rights and accountability, as well as the the as well as accountability, and rights access, their IPLCs, of participation effective and full the encourage strongly developed recommendations has food, for species animal wild of to address widespread overexploitation Bushmeat Liaison Group, established 10(c). The Article of implementation the to contribute and support that activities joint and initiatives community-based strengthening and (b) promoting and communities; local and indigenous of participation effective and full the with plans, action and strategies biodiversity national into policies or practices use sustainable customary (a) incorporating including: implementation, its realize • • • actions key some identified has diversity biological of use sustainable customary on action of plan the example, For use. and sustainable management conservation, wildlife in involvement to community relevant decisions many of taking to the contributed has IPLCs of participation Robust

participation. to enable funds provide availability, to according who, NGOs supportive of a number with work network Caribbean and American Latin its and IWNB the example, For participation. IPLC to enable organizations supportive from funds to raise Efforts outcomes. formal thereby and Parties, of understanding and attitudes the shape significantly may but process, decision-making formal the of part not are events These meetings. other IPLC organizations during CoPs or and Parties team, 8(j) Secretariat’s the by organized Side-events influence theirinfluence thinking and positions. to IPLCs allow may delegations relationships withForming national 23 which Parties may take to take may Parties which 24 that that inclusion of their traditional knowledge in the sustainable 3.2.2. The Convention on International use of wildlife resources (e.g. paragraphs 1(c), 3, 4(b) Trade in Endangered Species of Wild & (g), 6, 8(d), 15). The CBD has also called for (and the Fauna and Flora (CITES) Secretariat leads) the Collaborative Partnership on Wildlife25, a platform of international organizations Historically, CITES has had no clear focused on sustainable wildlife management including mechanisms to support IPLC participation IIFB, which incorporates IPLC dimensions of wildlife in its deliberations and decision-making, management in its work priorities. although moves to develop these are now under way. At the level of implementation at national level, IPLCs can provide input into the development of the National There are some official channels by which Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans (NBSAPs) that IPLCs may be able to provide input: Parties develop to implement the CBD. There is official guidance calling on Parties to do this (see Decisions • National NGOs representing X/226, X/527). However, in practice this has been very community voices can register as weak to date, with few Parties ensuring meaningful Observers for meetings of the CoP, participation of IPLCs in this process. the Standing Committee (SC) and the Animals and Plants Committees. In general, IPLC engagement in the CBD appears to In some cases they may require be robust and offers a real possibility of influencing the approval of their government, the CBD’s agenda and negotiations. It is seen as more but the specific conditions of their inclusive than many other Conventions. Two elements participation are governed by the that appear particularly crucial in enabling meaningful Rules of Procedure of each body, IPLC input are: which vary. Observers are free to seek the floor and provide comments when • Strong Secretariat support. There are two staff invited by the Chair. However, there members in the CBD Secretariat with the explicit is no special status accorded to any mandate to support IPLC input. This makes a major observers by virtue of representing difference in practice – flagging opportunities to IPLC voices, and typically there are input, providing support for meetings, and of course very few IPLC Observers present and the establishment of a financing mechanism to participating in CITES CoPs. There are support their active participation. If IPLCs cannot find no established structures for IPLCs funding to attend meetings, they will not be able to to network, share information on the influence discussions. significance and impact of upcoming • The presence of a strong IPLC network – the CITES proposals, prepare for meetings IIFB — that engages with the Convention. This or establish common positioning, enables effective information sharing and a strong and no dedicated Secretariat collective voice, increasing the ability of small, local support or funding sources to enable organizations to influence the agenda. participation. • IPLC Observers, if present, may However, the key challenge appears to be that despite request and be granted by the Chair positive language and practice at the international level, the opportunity to participate formally this is not being translated into meaningful engagement in Working Groups established by and inclusion of IPLCs at the national level, when it the SC or the CoP. Working Groups comes to implementation of CBD commitments through may be established during CoPs to NBSAPs. work on issues during the CoP (e.g. to develop text of a Resolution or Decision that returns to plenary later in the CoP), or may be established to work intersessionally, reporting to a later meeting. However, note that the Chair in some circumstances restricts the participation of observers in WGs, and/ or that many fewer observers may be appointed than seek to participate. • Organizations representing IPLCs and individuals from indigenous peoples or local communities have occasionally participated on national delegations to COPs. While this is somewhat rare, they have had opportunities to influence positions. In CoP Committee negotiations and debates, delegates

WILD LIFE, LIVELIHOODS have heard impassioned speeches from community leaders in support of proposals or explaining the negative impacts such proposals could have on local livelihoods, cultures, or rights to make wildlife management decisions.

There is also the potential for input via less formal channels:

• Side events held during meetings: With the advent and rapid expansion of side events as a means for civil society to interact directly with government delegations outside the formal sessions in CITES, the voice of IPLCs may have been increasing over the past two decades in CITES. However, IPLCs’ attendance at CoPs and participation in side-events is typically extremely low. As an exceptional example, through their carefully orchestrated and well- organized efforts local communities put their voices front and centre throughout the venue at COP10 in Harare, Zimbabwe in 1997. Many believe these efforts were instrumental in helping divided delegations to overcome their impasse over decisions on African elephant. At COP17 in 2016, with the support of the SADC Transfrontier Conservation Area (TFCA) 48 Network, many local community representatives from the region attended and actively participated in a series of well-organized side events on relevant trade issues.

In addition to the above entry points for IPLC © Chris Barton participation, it should be noted that in a number of ways CITES has addressed the relevance of CITES decisions to IPLCs. CITES has passed several decisions under the CITES Standing Committee to and resolutions on “CITES and Livelihoods”, which “consider how to effectively engage rural recognize the potential impacts on livelihoods of rural communities and to present findings communities of CITES-listing decisions but also the and recommendations to the Standing opportunities of sustainable income and resources Committee […]”31 – a critical first step provision through long-term species conservation for rural communities to exercise their strategies. An intersessional Working Group on CITES voice and actively engage in formal and Livelihoods was established at SC 57 in 2008 and its CITES processes. The Working Group, work was supported by the Secretariat until its mandate co-chaired by Namibia and Ethiopia, is ended at CoP 17 in 2016. The Working Group produced scheduled to have its first meeting at technical guidance and tools28 aimed at seeking to the 69th meeting of the CITES Standing assess impacts on the livelihoods of rural communities Committee at the end of November 2017. of the implementation of CITES listing decisions, Communities are now planning and minimize negative impacts and enhance positive ones. organizing for their representation and A series of CoP17 decisions29 promote continued active participation there. support for the dissemination of lessons learned from successful livelihood experiences and a variety of other tools to promote the use of the guidance provided. 3.2 3 The Convention on Migratory However, none of these decisions provide for any clear Species mechanisms or opportunities for IPLC organizations to actively participate in deliberations. To date there are no formal channels enabling IPLCs specifically to contribute There are no established networks of IPLCs that to decision-making in CMS processes. participate in CITES. One obstacle to this is that the However, there are nascent attempts to species under consideration at each CoP varies, and engage community involvement more therefore decisions at each meeting may affect different directly at the field level for the CMS’s groups’ interests. This may make forming a strong and Central Asian Mammal Initiative (CAMI). stable network for promoting IPLC voices in CITES challenging. As is the case under CITES, IPLC organizations or NGOs representing the In reality, there are high practical barriers to IPLC interests of IPLCs may: participation and no formally or informally established support mechanisms for input, as a result of which IPLC • Participate as registered Observers involvement in CITES deliberations is – with notable rare in meetings of the CoP, the Standing exceptions – very minimal. Committee or Scientific Council and provide comments upon the invitation However, this situation may now be poised to change. of the Chairs of the meetings. At CoP17 in 2016, four African countries pursued an • Participate in Working Groups, on opportunity for rural communities to have an active say in invitation of the Chair. formal decision-making processes in CITES by proposing • Participate in national delegations if the establishment of a new CITES Rural Communities invited by their government. Committee, aimed at enabling increased participation of these communities in CITES deliberations30. This In practice, participation of IPLCs via proposal was not accepted by the Parties, but there was these channels is minimal, and there broad support for the underlying intent, and a series of are no formally dedicated support decisions were adopted to establish a Working Group mechanisms to facilitate this input. 50 WILD LIFE, WILD LIVELIHOODS Argali Single Species Action Plan Action Species Single Argali their implementation. For instance, the in IPLCs to engaging reference include plans action species some CAMI, Under comm.). pers. (T. Rosen, heard needs and wants their make and conservation in engaged communities local of voices and views the to collect points focal species designated to up generally is It representatives. community local some of participation the included Bishkek in meeting CAMI first the practice, In to communities. rights management of assignment term long- promote and habitat their and (asheep) wild argali of use sustainable and management the in formally communities local to involve intention the member States. It is the leading global global leading the is It States. member Nations United all i.e. membership universal has UNEA Environment). UN as known now sometimes (UNEP, Nations Environment Programme United of body governing main the 2012 in as established was (UNEA) Nations Environment Assembly environmental agreements, the United Unlike the above multilateral three Assembly Environment Nations United 3.2.4. 12 the of agenda the on is issue this and Convention, the of work the in IPLCs of profile the to raise way under are efforts However, Doc.24.4.8 (see COP12/ practices best these of listed species, and facilitating sharing CMS- of conservation the in communities local involving for studies case practice best of compilation for called livelihoods decisions participationon community and 2017). Draft October 23-28 (Manila, 32 ). ). th meeting of the CoP CoP the of meeting 33 states Stakeholders in Policy Design at UNEP at Design Policy in Stakeholders and Groups Major of Participation for Guidelines the by guided is Engagement input. to facilitate Branch Stakeholders and Groups Major a dedicated has UNEP akey stakeholder. as viewed is that Communities Local and Peoples Indigenous of category broader the than rather Peoples Indigenous is it context this in that Note Trade Unions. and Workers and Women, Community, Technological and Scientific NGOs, Government, Local Business and Industry, Children and Youth, Farmers, • • Indigenous people and other MGs: of input to enable channels formal of a range are There Assembly (A/Res/47/190, March 16, 1993 (A/Res/47/190, March Assembly 21 Agenda in identified (MGs) Groups” “Major nine the of one as recognized are communities” their and peoples “Indigenous stakeholders. relevant all of participation active the to ensure mandate strong avery has UNEA 2017. December in basis exceptional an on held being is session third the 2016, and May 2014 and June in to date, twice met has It solutions. stakeholder in engagement developing environmental multi- enable and UNEP; of work the guide challenges; debate and develop policy to address environmental review, agenda; environmental global the to set biennially body on thedecision-making environment: it meets 34 attracted considerable civil society interest. interest. society civil considerable attracted and Cairo, in Environment the of Conference Ministers African the of 16th the of session margins the on held was consultation regional 2017 African the in instance, regions. For UNEP six the in annually Meetings held Consultative the Regional through processes and policy-making decision-making UNEP influence can Stakeholders other and Groups Major level, regional At the consultations. Regional committee. this on to sit representatives two selects IPs) (including MG Each engagement. MG coordinates and on guidance provides UNEP, and to constituents IP their from input provides that Committee Facilitating Groups aMajor by enhanced is UNEA and UNEP in MGs the of Engagement (MGFC). Committee Facilitating Groups Major The (Chapters 23- 32) as adopted by the UN General General UN the by adopted as 32) 23- (Chapters 36 . 35 ), alongside • MGs are invited to provide their input So indigenous peoples (IP) organizations need to into the preparatory process for UNEA, raise their issues within MG coordination processes including agenda setting. The UNEP to ensure that their concerns are reflected in MG Civil Society Unit runs a listserv of interventions on specific agenda items. accredited organizations and supports • In practice, staff from the UNEP Civil Society Unit will their input into the preparatory meet the chair and UNEA president to introduce them process through e.g. holding online to civil society representatives, and when civil society events (workshops and webinars), has prepared an intervention on an agenda item, will and alerting them to opportunities seek to ensure the Chair is aware of this. Behind the to make submissions on particular scenes, IPs can play an important role in working with agenda items and even topics for UNEP technical staff and Member States to develop the Ministerial Declaration (L. Zobel, appropriate wording and liaise between different pers. comm.). Typically IPs face more groups. capacity issues than other MGs. • A Global Major Groups and UNEA has a clear institutional and policy commitment Stakeholders Forum (GMGSF) is to facilitating engagement of Major Stakeholder Groups held in advance of each UNEA, including Indigenous People, and provides resources and funded by UNEP and coordinated staff to enable this. However, there remain challenges. by UNEP and the MGFC. This forum There are only 10-11 Indigenous Peoples’ organizations is the main entry point for Major accredited for UNEA – and covering a wide range of Groups’ participation at governance often highly complex issues is very challenging for a level, enabling them to articulate small group of people. Those individuals who have perspectives, agree positions, identify developed the expertise to negotiate sophisticated and explore key issues, highlight their and complex policy interfaces are often not those with own work and contributions, and plan specialist knowledge on particular topics – but funding and collaborate. and capacity are generally inadequate to bring the full • Accredited Indigenous peoples range of expertise to meetings (J. Cariño, pers. comm.). representatives can participate in Stakeholders (including IPs) are often not fully engaged discussions at UNEA itself, and early enough in the cycle to be able to make a strong in meetings of the Committee of contribution at UNEA. UNEA is the end point of a two- Permanent Representatives, which year cycle of work, and civil society (including IPs) need undertakes governance related to be engaged constructively throughout this cycle if they work in-between the biennial are to provide significant inputs. Finally, but crucially, a UNEA meetings. At UNEA they can key current issue is sustained decreases in funding of participate in discussions in Plenary the Civil Society Unit in UNEP, which has in recent years and the Committee of the Whole, and been reduced from four-five staff members to only two, there is a high-level Multi Stakeholder including the loss of a half-time dedicated focal point for Dialogue held during the two-day Indigenous People. high-level segment of UNEA. However, gaining the opportunity to be heard is difficult. There is only a single seat for the Indigenous People group in these meetings (as for other Major Groups), and only a single Major Group intervention is likely to be heard (if any) on specific agenda items. 52 WILD LIFE, WILD LIVELIHOODS • deliverables. IPBES in to participate ILK on experts and experts ILK holders, ILK for channels formal several are there and objective, this keyto achieve is IPBES in participate to holders ILK for opportunities Increasing ecosystems” and biodiversity of use sustainable and conservation to the ILK of contribution the respect and to ”recognize commitment a for provide principles operating Its assessments. its in (ILK) knowledge local and indigenous to integrate sought explicitly has IPBES inception, its From UNEP. by administered is and UNDP, FAO and UNEP, UNESCO, entities: Nations United four of auspices the under operates IPBES services. ecosystem and biodiversity of status the improve to help tools policy of arange developing buildingcapacity where and needed, services, ecosystem and biodiversity of knowledge of state the improving including deliverables other has IPBES assessments and pollinators. Besides undertaking e.g. on assessments pollination thematic global also undertakes IPBES scales. regional and global at services ecosystem and biodiversity of trends and status the established to undertake assessments on body intergovernmental an is IPBES (IPBES) Services Ecosystem and Biodiversity on Platform Intergovernmental The 3.2.5. and local knowledge systems knowledge local and Procedures for working with indigenous on guidance IPBES is Plenary, IPBES the by adopted now group, the from product Akey assessments. IPBES into ILK of integration the supporting of mandate broad the with established was force task This Task ILK Force. IPBES The 37 . 38 . • • process: formal the support to mechanisms additional some developed have IPLCs • • • • comm.). P. pers. and 2016, Bridgewater, J.Cariño (SwedBio Mechanism Participatory the via alia inter IPBES, in involvement IPLC to improve seeks and regions, programmes on traditional knowledge from various implementing organizations of composed is initiative This Knowledge”. Local and Indigenous on Distinction of “Centres initiative: anew established recently have processes knowledge biodiversity-related other and IPBES in engaged organizations IPLC participate meetings. at IPBES Plenary and to interact BES), (IIF Services Ecosystem and the International Indigenous Forum on Biodiversity called IPBES, with to engage caucus organized an developed have IPLCs CBD, the in to IIFB Similar decision-making. in role formal no have but floor, the from interventions make can Observers IPBES. of work the guide that decisions into input provide with the Rules of Procedure of Rules the with accordance in meetings, Plenary IPBES in observers as participate can organizations IPLC Accredited nominations. their in experts and holders ILK to include governments requested has IPBES and experts, to nominate stakeholders other or governments for calls through done is This assessments. specific out carry or to scope IPBES by established are groups Expert IPBES. by established groups expert within holders ILK of Participation al. (Lyver ILK document and to gather holders ILK with held were processes dialogue assessments, IPBES regional in and Assessment Pollinators IPBES the in example, For ILK. gather to specifically established been have processes assessments, of conduct the Within assessments. to specific relevant ILK gather to experts and holders ILK of workshops Dialogue 2018. experts on ILK on experts and experts ILK holders, ILK via discussions IPBES to brought be can ILK which through mechanism a participatory developing is TaskThe Force , 2015). , 39 . This should be operational by early early by operational be should . This 40 , and may be able to able be may , and et et In summary, IPBES has a strong institutional IPLC input in that forum. The official recognition commitment to integrating the input of IPLCs in its in IPBES of the significance and importance of ILK assessments, and has adopted a number of supportive has necessitated the development of guidance mechanisms to enable this input. The underlying and processes for ensuring its integration. The organized network of ILK holders to ensure this happens recognition in key UN documents such as the Rio effectively is still in its infancy. Declaration and Agenda 21 of indigenous people as a particularly important group to be included in environmental decision-making has helped shaped UNEP’s policy and processes on their engagement 3.3 Enabling and disabling in UNEA. CITES and the CMS are much older conventions, shaped at a time when ILK was not factors for IPLC engagement recognized or respected as legitimate knowledge for conservation, and IPLCs were typically largely ignored at international level in the development of conservation strategies. • Dedicated Secretariat support to advise, assist Given the growing recognition in relevant policy forums and support IPLC participation. One critical role is that IPLCs are particularly important stakeholders for ensuring IPLC networks are aware of opportunities the conservation of wildlife, there is a strong argument to input – Secretariat staff often send out such that in all relevant conventions there should be clear information to a network of IPLCs and advise them and effective entry points that enable substantive IPLC when and how to input. They may provide important voices and participation. practical support to enable preparation and coordination – for example the CBD provides meeting Currently, however, the opportunities for IPLC input rooms, and at UNEA UNEP organizes an entire civil are highly variable, ranging from almost non-existent society forum over several days to enable effective to officially recognized, supported and funded. There engagement. Secretariat staff supporting IPLCs also is a clear divergence between the older “pre-Rio” have an important “inward-facing” role – to ensure Conventions, CITES and CMS, which contain no official others in their broader organizations are aware of recognition of the role of IPLCs and no substantive the importance of IPLC engagement and provide means for their engagement, and the more recent CBD, such opportunities. Some provide key funding – see UNEA and IPBES, all of which explicitly recognize the below. Having such dedicated, mandated Secretariat importance of IPLCs (IPs in the case of UNEA) and have support is widely seen as a critical element enabling developed mechanisms to enable this. Importantly, both successful engagement. CITES and CMS have recently signalled the desire to • IPLC networking and coordination. Single voices improve the participation of IPLCs in their processes, and of individual IPLC organizations carry little these conventions can learn from experiences in other weight, and single organizations will struggle to settings to ensure such representation is effective and understand complex policy processes across many substantive. different issues and fora. Strong networking of IPLCs enables sharing of information, building of From this review, a set of factors emerge as key enabling expertise, development of shared positioning, and factors to allow IPLCs to engage meaningfully and coordination of advocacy efforts. The IIFB network effectively in these agreements: that has evolved in the CBD is particularly notable as a well-developed and effective network. In IPBES, • Formal recognition in official text of IPLC concerns, the recognition of the importance of such a network participation, and/or relevance. For instance, to support IPLC participation led to the recent articles 8(j) and 10(c) in the CBD have underpinned development of “Centres of Distinction on Indigenous the evolution of a variety of structures to enable and Local Knowledge (ILK)”. • Funding. UNEP funds IP organizations to participate in UNEA itself, and likewise in IPBES core funding has enabled some workshops to gather ILK as part of assessments. The CBD has established a Voluntary Fund, contributed to by Parties, to enable IPLC participation in meetings. Supportive NGOs and other organizations also provide funding. CITES/CMS do not have any such funding mechanisms to enable participation. WILD LIFE, LIVELIHOODS However, in all arenas IPLCs face substantial challenges in engaging in a meaningful and effective way. In some fora all the above enabling factors are missing, which of course undermines the potential for participation. However, even in those fora where there are clear and supported entry points for IPLCs, there are significant challenges. The most important identified here are:

• Funding and inadequate numbers of representatives. IPLC groups are typically politically marginalized and command inadequate financial resources to enable significant participation in international conservation processes. Despite the existence of a number of positive examples, even in UNEP the amount of funding dedicated to supporting civil society input (including to UNEA) has declined very substantially over recent years. In the CBD and IPBES restricted 54 funding means the number of IPLC representatives that can engage is very limited, and it is difficult for this limited pool to physically cover all issues and to have the specialized expertise across all the issues at stake © Rosie Cooney in a single meeting. To be effective, moreover, IPLCs need to be able to contribute throughout the policy cycle – simply turning up at major meetings is inadequate, and often too late, to substantively influence outcomes. • Networking/organization. Notwithstanding the success of IIFB, IPLC groups are not well networked in every region, and links back to regional/national level are sometimes weak. In UNEA, for example, indigenous peoples are not as strong organizationally as some other Major Groups such as women and NGOs (L. Zobel, pers. comm.) This limits the ability of delegates to access experience and technical expertise and to represent a strong and representative position in negotiations. • Lack of support from Parties/Member States. IPLCs are not necessarily supported by their governments, which in every forum retain the sole decision-making power. There may be strong tensions between 22 https://www.cbd.int/convention/text/ national government delegation and IPLC positions 23 https://www.cbd.int/decision/cop/default. shtml?id=13375 (Annex) over issues that raise questions of sovereignty and 24 https://www.cbd.int/decision/cop/default. land rights, for example. National governments may shtml?id=13186 not respect ILK as valid or valuable, instead viewing it 25 http://www.fao.org/forestry/wildlife- as backward or primitive. It is notable that in CITES, in partnership/en/ 26 the few cases where it appears IPLC voices have had https://www.cbd.int/decision/cop/default. shtml?id=12268 a strong impact, these groups have had the support 27 https://www.cbd.int/decision/cop/default. of their governments. shtml?id=12271 • National implementation and IPLC participation at 28 https://cites.org/eng/prog/livelihoods 29 national level. Particularly for the CBD, a widespread Decisions 17.36 - 17.40; see https://cites.org/ eng/dec/index.php observation is that the strong and progressive 30 https://cites.org/sites/default/files/E- commitments made at international level are not CoP17-13.pdf reflected at the level of national implementation. For 31 https://cites.org/eng/dec/valid17/81821 32 example, many NBSAPs have been formulated with 33 http://www.cms.int/en/document/ no IPLC participation and with no recognition of the international-single-species-action-plan- need for IPLC participation in implementation (M. Rai, conservation-argali-ovis-ammon-0 pers. comm.). The impact of having one or two IPLC 34 https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/ reps attending international meetings will be severely content/documents/Agenda21.pdf 35 http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/47/ limited if national consultations, preparations and a47r190.htm submissions to these international bodies and 36 http://wedocs.unep.org/ implementation of the commitments made do not handle/20.500.11822/13246 adequately include IPLC voices. There is a major 37 https://www.ipbes.net/sites/default/files/ downloads/Functions%20operating%20 gap still to be bridged between IPLC engagement principles%20and%20institutional%20 and influence at international level and its impact on arrangements%20of%20IPBES_2012.pdf governance on the ground. 38 See Annex, https://www.ipbes.net/sites/ default/files/downloads/IPBES-4-7_EN.pdf 39 https://www.ipbes.net/sites/default/files/ downloads/pdf/ipbes-5-4-en.pdf 40 http://www.ipbes.net/sites/default/files/ downloads/IPBES-4-17_EN.pdf 56 WILD LIFE, WILD LIVELIHOODS wildlife. of use sustainable and conservation robust and effective more towards path the in roadblock this overcome help will UNEA by action that hope We CWM. successful for essential is that rights resource and land of devolution challenging politically the avoiding through particularly –most CWM from lessons recognized to implement actors other and governments national of failure persistent the highlight also They to enforcement. relation in particularly conservation, and communities between relationship the shapes ITW militarized increasingly and high-value of context global new the how into insights fresh bringing while management, wildlife and to conservation approaches based community- on research from messages consistent and clear of decades reinforce They breakdown). detailed more for One Appendix (see below form summary in full in out set are insights and lessons Our intergovernmental agreements and policy. international in entrenched well now are that IPLCs of rights of body to the attention calling by discussion whole this frame We also face. they barriers the and arenas decision-making and deliberations international relevant key some in to participate IPLCs for opportunities the reviewed have we engagement, effective their supports that regime apolicy of determinant a critical is “voice” community that insight the of view In work. recent more from ITW combating for lessons specific highlighted possible, where and, problems conservation other and use to unsustainable a response as CWM on work of decades from lessons out drawn have we report this In priority. conservation current acritical is ITW global of dynamics the by driven use unsustainable and illegal, and unsustainable remains wildlife of use much Globally, RECOMMENDATIONS CONCLUSIONS AND PART FOUR:

Summary conclusions

The key findings are as follows:

1 Lessons learned, lessons forgotten

Best practices in fostering community wildlife management as a means to reduce unsustainable and illegal use and trade of wildlife have emerged consistently and clearly from decades of work, and many are well reflected in government policy commitments. However, there has been a consistent failure to implement key insights, particularly the devolution of rights by national governments to IPLCs to manage and benefit from wildlife conservation and sustainable use.

2 Boots on the ground can run in the wrong direction

Partly as a result of an increased militarization of poaching, the response to the current ITW crisis has involved, in many places, the resurgence of a top-down protectionist approach emphasizing fences and fines, guns and boots. However, unless accompanied by strengthened accountability measures, this can lead to – and has led to – human rights abuses, restricted livelihood options, and hardship for IPLCs. These approaches can also backfire in conservation terms, driving disenfranchisement, resentment and anger. They also undermine the potential for collaborative approaches, such as increased IPLC participation in combatting ITW.

3 It ain’t what you do – it’s the way that you do it

Success in any site-level intervention against unsustainable use and ITW relies critically on the approach adopted and relationships. Local ownership of conservation interventions is an important part of success. Building trust, moving slowly, and allowing the long timescales necessary to develop cooperative relationships and understand community needs and priorities are also important. Building on traditional uses, practices, rules and governance institutions can enhance effectiveness where these are perceived as legitimate © Geir K. Edland 58 WILD LIFE, WILD LIVELIHOODS 4 5 acute subsistence needs – or where living with wildlife wildlife with living where – or needs subsistence acute facing are people where financial, be necessarily not need benefits Although ITW. (to a few) high-value of payoffs high the given challenging particularly is This it. conserving of costs the to outweigh need conservation from benefits overall The force. motivating a strong be can rights resource and land strengthened through resources own their to manage communities of Empowerment alone. inadequate be may each though important, both are benefits and Rights anti-poaching. including conservation, in engage actively and support to incentives realistic need members Community it’s(but not only money) It’s the incentives, stupid unpunished. go players powerful other or “kingpins” while ITW, of impact or extent the of unaware are who and needs, subsistence acute battling are ITW, from profits the of fraction a tiny only gain who individuals and communities on focused often is It ineffective. and targeted poorly often is enforcement however, Currently, themselves. threats such to combat them endanger would it and threatened, are resources or interests their when backup reliable and strong need communities hand, other the On intelligence. of provision the through particularly communities, from support on critically relies enforcement good setting, any In reinforcing. mutually –be should –and can engagement community and ITW against enforcement Effective communities: two sides of the same coin Effective enforcement, engaged built. been have communities and authorities enforcement the between trust of relations and are respected, authorities traditional where them, breaking for penalties and rules of setting the in a say have communities where i.e. “co-created”, are they where effective more be will – these interventions enforcement to applies also This actors. external by imposed not with their cultural values, and socio-economic and accordance in themselves members community by chosen to be need wildlife from to benefit ways and and equitable by Livelihoodmembers. community options 6 conservation in the long term. term. long the in conservation undermine even can outcomes and design, poor from suffer Many limited. very is initiatives these of effectiveness the for evidence-base the However, IPLCs. by wildlife of use illegal and/or unsustainable to reduce mechanism a as deployed often are initiatives “alternative livelihood” So-called critical. is resources natural of key stewards and beneficiaries direct as women Including people. right the to target order in these understand to need interventions and motivations, individuals with different priorities and of up made are Communities a whole. as community the of engagement potential the undermine can that threat a constant is individuals) powerful more by benefits of capture inequitable (the capture Elite restrictions. national or international by restricted is species of use the where or degraded, or scarce monitor, or view to difficult migratory, is wildlife where or agricultural or development potential and/ high has land when challenging more is CWM people. local by self-chosen and appropriate culturally be must options different These guides). or guards as (e.g. employment wildlife-related and (PES), services ecosystem for payments (NTFP), products forest non-timber in trade and of harvesting wildlife, hunting or viewing on based tourism include wildlife from financially to benefit communities Ways for critical. be may incentives – financial costs significant imposes environment of governance, policy and and policy governance, of environment an creating term long the in but action, direct promise they as appealing very be can projects site-level Individual Think systems, not sites partnerships that fosters and supports communities the private sector. When supporting and to be active participants in conserving wildlife is likely building these partnerships, however, it is to have far greater impact. CWM needs a supportive critical to avoid domination by potentially governance framework with enabling policy and conflicting agendas. regulation at local, national and international level, and one that is straightforward for communities to negotiate. 7 Think globally, govern locally National and international policy often restricts rights to use and manage wildlife to such an extent that it leaves Effective community governance requires little or no economic value for local people, thereby clarity on who constitutes the community removing their incentive to conserve it. The removal of doing the managing. Legitimate traditional hunting, gathering or grazing rights sparks institutions need to be developed within resentment and perpetuates illegal behaviour. Far from and by these communities to ensure resulting in non-use, the lack of rights to use wildlife equitable benefit sharing and effective frequently translates in practice into unmanaged, resource management, based on respect unmonitored and often unsustainable illegal use. for legitimate traditional institutions Establishing clear, secure and enforceable rights where these exist. These power structures (including land tenure) for communities to sustainably must be accountable to the community. use, manage and benefit from conservation and wildlife Attention must be paid to understanding is a fundamental basis for effective community- the diverse and heterogeneous groups based wildlife management. Communities therefore within communities and how power and need support and help in securing the transfer of, and benefits are shared. respect for, land and resource rights at national level. International restrictions imposed via multilateral agreements or import restrictions should be based 8 Local voices should be the on very careful consideration of how these will affect loudest voices community wildlife management at the local level. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, Policies often ignore the benefits of using land for communities need greater voice in wildlife, and favour agricultural, extractive or other decision-making as well as in the commercial development. This drives loss of wildlife development of policies that affect them. and can restrict community rights and interests. This applies at every level, from local to Wildlife policy needs to be integrated into sectoral and global. Despite well-established policy development policies and land-use planning. commitments on the importance of IPLCs in conserving wildlife, IPLCs have little or Research has shown a strong correlation between the no influence in conservation and wildlife high prevalence of ITW and high levels of corruption. management decision-making at the Corruption hampers CWM and facilitates ITW. Because national level. At international level their tackling corruption is a complex and monumental task, influence is highly variable – from well a common response is to do nothing. But small anti- integrated to virtually absent. Clear “entry corruption steps that are integrated into wildlife-related points” for IPLC input; the support of initiatives can prove beneficial. the secretariats of relevant international policy-making bodies; functioning IPLC Building the technical, financial and managerial networks; and the provision of dedicated capacity of communities often requires initial support funding are crucial to enable their from external sources, including community-based meaningful participation and contribution organizations, NGOs, donors, government agencies and to debate. WILD LIFE, LIVELIHOODS

Table A1. Summary of major issues, lessons and recommendations from review of CBNRM literature, review of recent work on ITW, and review of IPLC engagement opportunities in key international policymaking arenas.

Factor Issues Lessons Actions

LOCAL LEVEL

Planning and Local motivation for and ownership of Interventions to combat ITW are management conservation interventions (including more likely to be responsive to the of anti-poaching) is an important part of local context, culturally appropriate, interventions their success. and successful where communities Long-term relationships between themselves identify that ITW is a project implementers and local problem, and are involved in defining people based on shared objectives, the responses to it. trust and reciprocity are key to Community engagement in efforts to success. combat ITW is a long-term process.

Wildlife The success of CWM and combating High value wildlife species (whether Assess opportunities for CWM based attributes ITW ultimately depends on the overall fauna, fish or timber) can be on site-specific characteristics. economic value (financial and non- perceived as “too valuable for local Different attributes of wildlife and financial) of maintaining the wildlife people to own”. wildlife habitat will lend themselves asset and its comparative advantage Migratory species are challenging differently to different strategies for a) in relation to alternative land uses. to manage because of difficulties in management and b) realizing value. There are a wide variety of gaining consensus on ownership and mechanisms for capturing economic in monitoring their status. value including wildlife tourism Use of rare or localized species or hunting; NTFP harvesting; may be restricted by international PES schemes; cultural ties; and agreements. employment. Severely degraded assets may not The potential for each type of generate enough (or quick enough) mechanism in any specific locality return on investment to incentivize will be determined by the type and community management. characteristics of wildlife asset but also the surrounding habitat, Wildlife has a higher comparative existence of markets, local cultural advantage on marginal land and may values and practices. never be economically viable on land with high agricultural or development potential. 62 WILD LIFE, WILD LIVELIHOODS Factor attributes Community organizations management Community management wildlife of benefits and Costs Issues collectively and/or individually. held are that rights resource and land wildlife will will uses also As vary. the different of acceptability cultural and ofwildlife significance cultural The herders. transient be may it homesteads; individual of set scattered widely a be may it village; one be may It to define. is it easy how of terms in hugely vary may community” “The atcommunity a site. specific the of characteristics the on depends also CWM of success The possible. level lowest to the devolved be should they that is structures management common theme on community a traditional, or new Whether with structures. traditional conflict cause can structures new hand other the On capture. elite of a form represent and undemocratic very be can authorities traditional Some both. andadvantages to disadvantages are There place. in put to be need will one anew and exists structure such no cases other In management. resource natural with concerned are that structures community existing pre- be will there locations some In benefits themselves. ofthe type and size the as important as is fair to be perceived widely is shared are benefits way the Ensuring overlooked. often –are costs opportunity and costs transaction –particularly management wildlife in engagement local of Costs this. offset to high particularly be likewise need may management wildlife sustainable legal, of benefits so high, very be can behaviour illegal of benefits the contexts ITW In costs. the exceed to –have form other any or cultural, monetary, –whether management wildlife in engaging from communities to local benefits The Lessons available land. land. available of use sustainable for threshold the exceed may pressure population human local cases, some In programmes. conservation community-based against to work have might they motives the and communities within individuals to given is consideration Little groups. different between conflict for potential the with complex and heterogenic highly be can they Instead, entities. homogenous or generalizable static, not are Communities homogeneous communities. localized, small, than with to engage challenging more are communities Diverse, geographically disparate to their leaders. people not people, to their answerable to be need leaders key, but are leaders local charismatic and Effective management organizations. local ofsuccessful feature akey be to appears versa vice than rather community wider to the accountable are committees management –where accountability Downward effective most to be likely are imposed] externally than [rather self-generated are that structures community old, or new Whether intermediary organizations. intermediary via than rather communities the to directly flow should Benefits defined. well is institution management community the of membership when equitable more and easier to be likely is sharing Benefit lasting, community-wide benefits. long provide can benefits monetary non- whereas elites by captured easily more are benefits Monetary and to, access resources. over control maintain, or gain, people when particularly important, more often are empowerment and equity but important, are benefits Monetary Actions of the results being accepted. accepted. being results the of chances the higher the is, this exercise an participatory more the but locality aparticular in astakeholder is who to way determine simple no is There making bodies. decision- as well as communities by others including neighbouring recognized be must ownership this and manage, they resources the of owners the as themselves identify to able be should they managers resource property common of group a as to function acommunity For community a heterogeneous within sub-groups homogeneous with work necessary If Understand community”. “the transparency, and flexibility. openness promote that mechanisms with and responsibilities, coupled rights about awareness raising by Enhance downward accountability on. to build nothing is there where structures new Introduce these. on build and resources, wildlife to manage motivation and capacity the have structures which of assessment apragmatic Make the project’s constituents. of support the has ofbenefits, type and of distribution, mode the that Ensure the damages incurred. or made, contributions and sacrifices varying the with commensurate is that away in benefits Share income. farming of seasonality as such factors to other relation in benefits of timing the consider and benefits of level some least at of supply early an Ensure community. recipient the of characteristics the and site the of context specific the on benefits of mix and type the Base Factor Issues Lessons Actions

Land and If wildlife assets are perceived as Local land and resource rights are Community organizations need support resource being open access they are generally critical to the success of CWM and to to help in pressing for transfer of, and rights over-exploited (usually illegally). combating ITW. then respect for, rights. The degree to which local In general, governments (central and communities have recognized local) have been reluctant to devolve authority over land and resources rights over natural resources to local varies hugely from country to country. people due to vested interests. In Latin America particularly, but In protected area contexts also in Asia, indigenous people are encouraging community engagement recognized by the state and their can be even more complex, especially traditional authority over specified if co-management agreements are land areas and resources is protected not an option. by law. These rights are less common in African contexts. Rights can be de facto rather than de jure and in some case formalizing rights can undermine informal, sustainable regimes

Community A key element of having secure tenure CWM is facilitated by local Provide community guards with resource and resource rights is the ability to involvement in the setting and back-up from formal enforcement use rules enforce these against both internal enforcement of rules – including the authorities, especially in the case of and their and external threats. application of sanctions. high value species. enforcement Effective enforcement is a critical However, while enforcement of Provide stipends for community guards element of combating ITW in many community-agreed rules with respect via government or NGO enforcement contexts. to other community members may budgets. be feasible, enforcement against Target law enforcement efforts on the external violators is more difficult and key drivers of ITW. potentially dangerous. Build strong relationships between Enforcement is less likely to be IPLCs and arresting authorities effective where community guards based on trust, respect for traditional are unpaid and thus susceptible to authority, and developing shared, co- bribes. created solutions rather than simply State-led enforcement against ITW imposing rules from outside. is often necessary, and is enhanced Strengthen ability of IPLCs to express by support (particularly intelligence) their views and needs directly and from local people. participate meaningfully in planning and Law enforcement against ITW is decision-making on addressing ITW. often insufficient or targeted at “low hanging fruit” (local level poachers) rather than more powerful actors. Where poorly directly it can be harsh, unjust, and drive poor people to rely more on ITW. Harsh or unjust law enforcement can undermine the potential for community cooperation with law enforcement.

NATIONAL LEVEL

Community Countries need to meaningfully show voice and inclusivity of IPLCs in their national organization dialogues 64 WILD LIFE, WILD LIVELIHOODS Factor legislation and policy National influence and support External Issues policies may it. undermine sectoral other ofCWM supportive is policy wildlife where Even policy. national in embedded is CWM to which degree the in variable hugely are countries different Currently institutions. and organizations community effective and strong associated and management devolved facilitates that level national the at framework legislative and policy asupportive requires CWM private sector. sector. private the and governments donors, NGOs, with to partnering organizations community-based other with networking –from support external such of sources numerous are There CWM. in engage effectively to support capacity and technical significant need often Communities Lessons implementation. national-level their by matched not often are level international at commitments policy Strong CWM. to support required are that reforms policy necessary the undertake to incentives lack makers Policy to fullfil. communities for difficult are which procedures, bureaucratic and complex in result can it supportive is legislation and policy when Even habitat loss. and wildlife of driver amajor be can – agriculture on example –for policy National sectoral and development it. to conserve them for incentive no is there so and people to local value economic no or little has is that extent an to such wildlife of use the restricts often policy Wildlife aspirations. their achieve communities helping to committed not if allies risky be also can but resource untapped acritical is sector private The CWM. facilitate than rather constrain can but inflexible, projects time-bound role financing acritical play Donors community needs. over priority take can agendas own their sometimes but CWM with associated organization support of type common most the are NGOs actors. other of importance the Hence corruption. and patronage with associated aspects negative by nullified be can but critical is assistance and advice technical and services extension of form the in and formulation Government beyond support, policy stakeholders in it. supporting other of and ofCWM role the includes that vision that achieving for strategy a and ITW) addressing (including conservation for vision shared a develop help can partnerships Multi-level, multi-stakeholder Actions with sectoral and development policy. development and sectoral with coordinated to be needs policy Wildlife easy for local people to understand. made to be need documents Policy options. use land different between trade-offs to assess required Coordinated land use planning is Factor Issues Lessons Actions

Corruption Corruption is a fundamental Greater collaboration is needed impediment to successful CWM. between conservation and anti- It can take many forms including corruption communities in order to bribery, rent seeking, nepotism and ensure latest thinking is incorporated cronyism and it can be perpetrated into design of CWM initiatives. by a wide range of actors from politicians to local elites.

INTERNATIONAL POLICY

International Even though CWM is practiced in Policy specific sites in sovereign states, it can be influenced by international policy (including international conservation policy such as CITES and international trade policy such as phyto-sanitary standards). It can also be affected by the domestic policy of third-party countries if, for example, that policy places restrictions on the import of wildlife-based products.

Community There are highly variable IPLCs need clear and official voice at opportunities for IPLCs to present mechanisms enabling their input, international their views and participate in key Secretariat support, and funding in level wildlife-related policy and decision- order to participate effectively. making arenas. They face major Building strong networking and challenges even in the most coordination among IPLCs is supportive arenas. essential for meaningful participation. 66 WILD LIFE, WILD LIVELIHOODS individuals and organizations, which have improved the manuscript considerably. following the from received comments valuable the for appreciation great their to express like would authors The Interviewees Appendix Two: Holly Jonas Holly Grazia Borrini-Feyerabend Kevin Chang Lazarus Kairabeb Lazarus Francisco Rosado May May Rosado Francisco Lucy Mulenkei Florence Daguitan Florence Joji Cariño Yolanda Teran Mrinalini (Tina) Rai (Tina) Mrinalini Consortium) Areas and territories Conserved Community local and peoples (Indigenous Consortium ICCA the and IIFB ofthe to members circulated was report draft then and email, via representatives ofIPLC anumber from sought was input *Initial networks and representatives IPLC Name ICCA Consortium ICCA ICCA Consortium ICCA Kua’āina Ulu ‘Auamo (KUA), Hawai’i ‘Auamo (KUA), Ulu Kua’āina (NAMA), Namibia (NAMA), TraditionalNama Association Leaders Mexico Roo, Quintana de Maya Intercultural Profesor Investigador, Universidad Kenya (IIN), Network Information Indigenous TEBTEBBA, Philippines TEBTEBBA, FPP the Caribbean and America Latin from Biodiversity on Network Women Indigenous of the Coordinator Education Global Forest Coalition, Thailand Coalition, Forest Global Affiliation Consulteesand Email interview Email Email comments Email Comments on draft on Comments Comments on draft on Comments Comments on draft on Comments Comments on draft on Comments Email interview Email Email interview Email Email interview Email on manuscript comments detailed interview, Skype Comments Name Affiliation Comments

International organisations *Draft report was circulated to UNEP, UNDP and UN DESA, as well as to all members of the Collaborative Partnership on Wildlife

United Nations Environment Comments on draft Programme

CIC – International Council for Game Comments on draft and Wildlife Conservation

Secretariat of the Convention on Comments on draft Biological Diversity

IUFRO – International Union of Forest Comments on draft Research Organisations

UN Food and Agriculture Organisation Comments on draft

TRAFFIC Comments on draft

Laetitia Zobel Associate Programme Officer, United Skype interview Nations Environment Programme

Other networks and individuals *Initial input was sought via email interview from a number of community representatives or those working with communities in relation to accessing international deliberations. Draft report was circulated to wide range of individuals and organizations working on communities and ITW and/or working with communities in relation to international decision-making fora.

Charles Jones Nomlaki Cameroon

Susan Canney Mali Elephant Project, Mali/University Comments on text of Oxford, UK

Peter Bridgewater University of Canberra Comments on text

David Wilkie and Michael Paynter Wildlife Conservation Society Comments on text

Tanya Rosen Panthera Email interview

WILD LIFE, LIVELIHOODS

ABENSPERG-TRAUN, M., ROE, D. & O’CRIODAIN, C. 2011. CITES and CBNRM. Proceedings of an international symposium on “The relevance of CBNRM to the conservation and sustainable use of CITES-listed species in exporting countries”, Vienna, Austria, 18-20 May. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland in collaboration with IIED, London, UK.

ADHIKARI, B. & AGRAWAL, A. 2013. Understanding the social and ecological outcomes of PES projects: A review and an analysis. Conservation and Society, 11, 359.

AGRAWAL, A. 2007. Forests, governance, and sustainability: common property theory and its contributions. International journal of the commons, 1, 111-136.

AGRAWAL, A. & BENSON, C. S. 2011. Common property theory and resource governance institutions: strengthening explanations of multiple outcomes. Environmental Conservation, 38, 199-210.

ALCORN, J. 2014. Lessons learned from Community Forestry in Latin America and their relevance for REDD+. USAID-supported Forest Carbon, Markets and Communities (FCMC) Program. USAID, Washington, DC, USA.

ANDERSON, J. & MEHTA, S. 2013. Global Assessment of Community Based Natural Resource Management: Addressing the Critical Challenges of the Rural Sector. USAID, Washington, DC, USA.

ARMITAGE, D. R., PLUMMER, R., BERKES, F., ARTHUR, R. I., CHARLES, A. T., DAVIDSON-HUNT, I. J., DIDUCK, A. P., DOUBLEDAY, N. C., JOHNSON, D. S. & MARSCHKE, M. 2009. Adaptive co‐management for social–ecological complexity. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 7, 95-102.

ARTS, B. & DE KONING, J. 2017. Community Forest Management: An Assessment and Explanation of its Performance Through QCA. World Development, 96, 315-325.

BALDUS, R. D. 2009. A Practical Summary of Experiences after Three Decades of Community-based Wildlife Conservation in Africa “What are Lessons Learnt? CIC Technical Series Publication No. 5. Joint publication of FAO and CIC.

BAYNES, J., HERBOHN, J., SMITH, C., FISHER, R. & BRAY, D. 2015. Key factors which influence the success of community forestry in developing countries. Global Environmental Change, 35, 226-238. 70 WILD LIFE, WILD LIVELIHOODS society, 4, 424. 4, society, and Conservation overview. aglobal conservation: for Eviction J.2006. D. & IGOE, BROCKINGTON, Washington, DC, USAID, USA. Report. Stocktaking CBNRM 2012. Philippines R. & ROSALES, M. QUIBILAN, G., BRAGANZA, 8-11. review, CEE welfare. local improving and benefits environmental global supplying for a mechanism as management forest community for base evidence 2010. The S. A. J.P., T. KNIGHT, & PULLIN, JONES, J. R., HEALEY, L., D., BUYUNG-ALI, BOWLER, 9, 1-28. Note Briefing (CEESP) Policy Social and Economic Environmental, on Commission IUCN grassroots. the from experiences and conservation–ideas community and indigenous supporting and Recognising 2008. A. & KOTHARI, G. BORRINI-FEYERABEND, UK. London, Paper. Issues IIED trade. wildlife illegal to tackle communities engaging of effectiveness the on evidence of A review defence? of line F. D. 2016. First & ROE, BOOKER, US. York, New wildlife., Africa’s for hope and Peril man: of hand 1993. At the R. BONNER, 93-100. 8, Review, Forestry International Tanzania. from lessons early Management: Forest Participatory with to scale Going 2006. H. T. & RAMADHANI, BLOMLEY, Division, Tanzania. Beekeeping and Forestry Tourism, and Resources Natural of Ministry to date. experiences and learned Lessons Tanzania: 1993 in – 2009. Management Forest Participatory 2009. S. T. & IDDI, BLOMLEY, UK. London, 128. IIED, Series Gakekeeper tanzania. in process reform government local the within forestry participatory Mainstreaming T. 2006. BLOMLEY, 13, 164-172. & Policy, Science Environmental projects. development and conservation integrated from learned lessons locally: to work REDD D. 2010. Getting T. & MURDIYARSO, SUNDERLAND, B., BLOM, Biology, 31, 5-12. Conservation trade. wildlife to illegal response acommunity‐based for change of a theory Developing D. 2017. D. W. & SKINNER, CHALLENDER, J. R., T., H. ALLAN, D., DUBLIN, ROE, R., D., COONEY, BIGGS, 18, 621-630. Biology, Conservation Conservation. Community-Based Rethinking F. 2004. BERKES, Canada. Halifax, Scotia, Nova (CCRN), Network Research Conservation Community Conservation. Community and 2016. Governance A. D. & CHARLES, ARMITAGE, S., BERDEJ, Lanka. Sri Colombo, Food, and Water on Program Challenge CGIAR the and Malaysia Penang, Center, WorldFish the by jointly Published participation. and co-management governance, of concepts the of review – a critical to governance participation From 2006. A. & NEILAND, C. BÉNÉ, BROCKINGTON, D. & SCHOLFIELD, K. 2010. The Conservationist Mode of Production and Conservation NGOs in sub‐Saharan Africa. Antipode, 42, 551-575.

BROOKS, J. S. 2017. Design Features and Project Age Contribute to Joint Success in Social, Ecological, and Economic Outcomes of Community‐Based Conservation Projects. Conservation Letters, 10, 23-32.

BROOKS, J. S., FRANZEN, M. A., HOLMES, C. M., GROTE, M. N. & BORGERHOFF MULDER, M. 2006a. Development as a conservation tool – evaluating ecological, economic, attitudinal and behavioural outcomes. CEE review, 5, 1-32.

BROOKS, J. S., FRANZEN, M. A., HOLMES, C. M., GROTE, M. N. & BORGERHOFF MULDER, M. 2006b. Testing hypotheses for the success of different conservation strategies. Conservation Biology, 20, 1528–1538

BROOKS, J. S., WAYLEN, K. A. & BORGERHOFF MULDER, M. 2012. How national context, project design, and local community characteristics influence success in community-based conservation projects. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109, 21265-70.

BROOKS, J. S., WAYLEN, K. A. & BORGERHOFF MULDER, M. 2013. Assessing community-based conservation projects: A systematic review and multilevel analysis of attitudinal, behavioral, ecological, and economic outcomes. Environmental Evidence, 2, 1-34.

BROSIUS, J. P., TSING, A. L. & ZERNER, C. 1998. Representing communities: Histories and politics of community‐based natural resource management. Society and Natural Resources, 11, 157–168.

BÜSCHER, B. & RAMUTSINDELA, M. 2015. Green violence: Rhino poaching and the war to save Southern Africa’s peace parks. African Affairs, 115, 1-22.

CAMPBELL, L. M. & VAINIO-MATTILA, A. 2003. Participatory development and community-based conservation: Opportunities missed for lessons learned? Human Ecology, 31, 417-437.

CARLSON, K., WRIGHT, J. & DONGES, H. 2015. In the line of fire: elephant and rhino poaching in Africa. Small Arms Survey 2015, 6-35.

CHABAL, P. & DALOZ, J.-P. 1999. Afrika works: disorder as political instrument, Indiana University Press, US.

CHALLENDER, D. W. S. & MACMILLAN, D. C. 2014. Poaching is more than an Enforcement Problem. Conservation Letters, 7, 484-494.

CHEVALLIER, R. 2016. The State Of Community-Based Natural Resource Management in Southern Africa- Assessing Progress and Looking Ahead. Occasional Paper 240. South African Institute of International Affairs, Johannesburg, South Africa.

CHEVALLIER, R. & HARVEY, R. 2016. Ensuring Elephant Survival Through Improving Community Benefits. Occasional Paper 243. South African Institute of International Affairs, Johannesburg, South Africa. 72 WILD LIFE, WILD LIVELIHOODS Mesoamerica. Foundation, PRISMA Rainforest University. Foundation CLARK US, from – Lessons Rights Community and 2016. Conservation E. &AL, S. KANDEL, A., DAVIS, 175-199. 21, Management, Environmental of Journal Australasian 1980s. the since Zealand New and Australia in engagement community from lessons governance: NRM devolved with experiment great 2014. The J. G. & SYME, A. CARR, C., CAVAYE, C., FREEMAN, J., BALDWIN, G., MARSHALL, H., ROSS, A., CURTIS, 10, 91. Society, and Conservation communities. forest for challenges creates rights management of devolution partial the how forestry: community in 2012. Co-management S. & SAIGAL, J. M. P., PULHIN, CRONKLETON, Use and Livelihoods. Sustainable on Group – Specialist SULi IUCN Africa. Central and West for Workshop Trade. Regional Wildlife Illegal Combating in Communities Local and Peoples Indigenous Involving Enforcement: Beyond Proceedings: 2016b. Workshop S. & DINSI, H. DUBLIN, R., D., MELISCH, ROE, R., COONEY, 10, 367-374. Letters, Trade. Conservation Wildlife to Illegal Solutions in Communities Local Engaging D. to Protectors: 2017. & BIGGS, Poachers J. R. From D. ALLAN, W. S., CHALLENDER, D., SKINNER, H., TRAVERS, A., D., KEANE, WILKIE, J., PHELPS, H., D., DUBLIN, ROE, R., COONEY, Sustainable Use and Livelihoods. on Group – Specialist SULi IUCN Basin. Mekong Lower the on a focus with Asia, Southeast for Beyond Enforcement: Engaging Communities in Combating Illegal Wildlife Trade. A Regional workshop Proceedings: J.2016a. Workshop J. &LAURENSON, D., COMPTON, ROE, J., BRUNNER, R., COONEY, 301-310. 22, Law, Environmental & International Comparative European, of Review use. sustainable and livelihoods CITES, voices: community local 2013. M. Raising & ABENSPERG‐TRAUN, R. COONEY, 41. 22, Law, Comparative and International of Journal Arizona policies. development international and participation of rights indigenous The 2005. B. CLAVERO, Programme. Geneva, Switzerland. (MIKE) Elephants of Killing Illegal the Monitoring CITES Findings. 2016 – Preliminary December To Africa 31 in Elephants of Killing Trends Illegal of and Levels Report: 2017. MIKE CITES CITES US. Press, University Columbia development. and conservation effective Towards more to work: projects P. biodiversity M. T. (eds.) Getting O. & WELLS, MCSHANE, In: Zambia. in experience Luangwa the from learning to CBNRM: approaches Transforming 2004. B. & DALAL-CLAYTON, B. CHILD, UK. London, Earthscan, Areas. Transfrontier Conservation to Ranches Game and Parks Conservation: Wildlife in Innovation and (eds.) Evolution S. & ANNA, B. CHILD, H., SUICH, In: conservation. communal and private state, in Innovation 2009. B. CHILD, 17667-70. 106, Sciences, of Academy National the of Proceedings commons. forest from benefits livelihood and storage carbon between synergies and Trade-offs 2009. A. & AGRAWAL, A. CHHATRE, DELGADO-SERRANO, M. D. M., OTEROS-ROZAS, E., VANWILDEMEERSCH, P., ORTÍZ-GUERRERO, C., LONDON, S. & ESCALANTE, R. 2015. Local perceptions on social-ecological dynamics in Latin America in three community-based natural resource management systems. Ecology and Society, 20.

DOUGILL, A. J., STRINGER, L. C., LEVENTON, J., RIDDELL, M., RUEFF, H., SPRACKLEN, D. V. & BUTT, E. 2012. Lessons from community-based payment for ecosystem service schemes: from forests to rangelands. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences, 367, 3178-3190.

DRESSLER, W., BÜSCHER, B., SCHOON, M., BROCKINGTON, D., HAYES, T., KULL, C. A., MCCARTHY, J. & SHRESTHA, K. 2010. From hope to crisis and back again? A critical history of the global CBNRM narrative. Environmental conservation, 37, 5-15.

DSI 2008. Review and synthesis of lessons learned concerning optimum forms of community management structurest in Zambia and southern and eastern Africa. Technical Report prepared by Development Services and Initiatives (DSI) for the Ministry of Tourism, Environment and Natural Resources, Zambia.

DUFFY, R. 2014. Waging a war to save biodiversity: the rise of militarized conservation. International Affairs, 90, 819-834.

DUFFY, R. 2016. War, by conservation. Geoforum, 69, 238-248.

DUFFY, R., ST JOHN, F. A., BÜSCHER, B. & BROCKINGTON, D. 2015. The militarization of anti-poaching: undermining long term goals? Environmental Conservation, 42, 345-348.

ELLIOT, J. & SUMBA, D. 2011. Conservation Enterprise: What Works, Where and for Whom? Gatekeeper No. 151. IIED, London, UK.

FABRICIUS, C. 2004. The fundamentals of community-based natural resource management. In: FABRICIUS, C., KOCH, E., TURNER, S. & MAGOME, H. (eds.) Rights resources and rural development: Community-based natural resource management in Southern Africa. Routledge, London, UK.

FABRICIUS, C., KOCH, E., MAGOME, H. & SISITAKA, L. 2004. Conclusions and recommendations: What we have learned from a decade of experimentation. In: FABRICIUS, C., K., K., MAGOME, H. A. & TURNER, S. (eds.) Rights Resources and Rural Development: Community Based Natural Resource Managememt in Southern Africa. Earthscan, London, UK.

FREESE, C. 2012. Wild species as commodities: managing markets and ecosystems for sustainability, Island Press, Washington, DC, US.

GOVAN H, TAWAKE A & K, T. 2006. Community-based marine resource management in the South Pacific. PARKS, 16, 63 - 67.

GROSS-CAMP, N. 2017. Tanzania’s community forests: their impact on human well-being and persistence in spite of the lack of benefit. Ecology and Society, 22. 74 WILD LIFE, WILD LIVELIHOODS 135, 1-10. 135, Management, & Coastal Ocean Kenya. from learnt Lessons areas: marine managed locally Developing W. G. 2017. & MAINA, C. ABUNGE, J., CHURCH, M., MURUNGA, A., M. SAMOILYS, J.A., KAWAKA, UK. London, Report. Research IIED Conservation. Just for Redress and Rights Responsiblities, of Analysis An Conservation: for Standards Rights J. 2015. Human D. & MAKAGON, ROE, H., JONAS, Development and Nature Namibia.Conservation, Rural Integrated Namibia. in Experience IRDNC’S field: the 2011. M. from Lessons JACOBSHN, 2015,February South GlenburnAfrica. Lodge, Muldersdrift, IIED, London, UK. 26-28 Report, Symposium crime. wildlife combating in use sustainable and incentives governance, communities, enforcement: 2015. Beyond O. & TRAFFIC. M. A. ENVIRONMENT, CEED, IIED, SULI, IUCN UK. London, IIED, Government. British the of Administration Development Overseas the to A report management. to wildlife approaches community of overview An Eden? Whose 1994. IIED UK. Suffolk, Brewer, and Boydell conservation, community of performance and promise the & livelihoods: wildlife African 2001. M. D. & MURPHREE, HULME, London, UK. IIED, Issues. Resources Natural Development. and Conservation Linking in Succeeded Have Africa East in Organisations Local Some Together. How It D. 2014. Getting D. & THOMAS, O., ROE, HUGHES, 376-385. 41, Oryx, to critics. answer practitioners’ conservation: & LYON, H. J. 2007. R. Community HORWICH, 211-260. 36, Kyoto University, Studies, Area African for Center The Monographs, Study African Botswana. Ngamiland, /Xai/Xai, in Management Resource Natural Community-based of Economics and W. Politics 2015. The & BABCHUK, M. MAIN, M., SAPIGNOLI, K., R. HITCHCOCK, 12, 545-553. Economics, and Policy Forest world. a REDD+ in management forest community Revisiting initiatives: forestry local 2010. Nesting L. T.HAYES, & PERSHA, Winchester, UK. College, 1997. 6-10 July Sparsholt Conference Advisors Resource Natural DFID the for prepared Paper practice. into theory turining management: wildlife 1997. N. Community D. & HUNTER, HARTLEY, UK. Leeds, of University 6. No. Series Note Briefing Institute Research Sustainability Zimbabwe. in Management Resource Natural Community-Based Progressing 2015. H. & NDLOVU, B. T., MASVIELE, NZUMA, E., V., GANDIWA, P., E. DZINGIRAI, HARRISON, Nature, 470, fisheries. successful 386-9. promote incentives and capital social O. 2011. & DEFEO, R. Leadership, HILBORN, L., N. GUTIERREZ, KELLERT, S. R., MEHTA, J. N., EBBIN, S. A. & LICHTENFELD, L. L. 2000. Community natural resource management: promise, rhetoric, and reality. Society & Natural Resources, 13, 705-715.

KISS, A. 1990. Living with wildlife: Wildlife Resource Management with Local Participation in Africa. Technical Paper Number 130. World Bank, Washington, DC, US.

KISS, A. 2004. Making Biodiversity Conservation a Land-Use Priority. In: MCSHANE, T. O. W., M. P. (ed.) Getting Biodiversity Projects to Work: Towards More Effective Conservation and Development. Colombia University Press, US.

KOCH, E. 2004. Political economy, governance and community-based natural resource management. In: FABRICIUS, C., KOCH, E., WITH, TURNER, S. & MAGOME, H. (EDS.) RIGHTS RESOURCES AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT: COMMUNITY-BASED NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT IN SOUTHERN AFRICA. (ed.). Routledge, London, UK.

KOTHARI, A., CAMILL, P. & BROWN, J. 2013. Conservation as if People Also Mattered: Policy and Practice of Community-based Conservation. Conservation and Society, 11, 1.

KÜHL, A. & MREMA, E. 2011. Creating incentives for community-based management of migratory species: The case study of the saiga antelope and the wider policy perspective. In: ABENSPERG- TRAUN, M., ROE, D. & O’CRIODAN, C. (eds.) CITES and CBNRM: Proceedings of an international symposium on “The relevance of CBNRM to the conservation and sustainable use of CITES-listed species in exporting countries”. Occasional Paper of the IUCN Species Survival Commission No. 48. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland.

LAWRY, S. & MCLAIN, R. 2012. Devolution of forest rights and sustainable forest management: Learning from two decades of implementation. Presentation for the Annual World Bank Conference on Land and Poverty. Washington, DC, US.

LOKINA, R. B. & ROBINSON, E. J. 2008. Determinants of Successful Participatory Forest Management in Tanzania. The Environment for Development Initiative, Tanzania.

LUNSTRUM, E. 2014. Green militarization: anti-poaching efforts and the spatial contours of Kruger National Park. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 104, 816-832.

LYVER, P., PEREZ, E., CARNERIO DA CUNHA, M. & ROUÉ, M. 2015. Indigenous and Local Knowledge about Pollination and Pollinators associated with Food Production: Outcomes from the Global Dialogue Workshop. Workshop Report, Panama 1-5 December 2014. UNESCO, Paris, France.

MAKAGON, J., JONAS, H. & ROE, D. 2014. Human Rights Standards for Conservation, Part I: To Which Conservation Actors do International Standards Apply? IIED Discussion Paper. London, UK.

MAKOYE, K. 2014. Anti-Poaching Operation Spreads Terror in Tanzania. Inter Press Service News Agency. Access online: http://www.ipsnews.net/2014/01/anti-poaching-operation-spread-terror- tanzania/. 76 WILD LIFE, WILD LIVELIHOODS Biological Conservation, 200, 93-103. 200, Biological Conservation, synthesis. Arealist behaviour? human change countries developing in programs conservation community-based 2016. do How A. C. & MCALPINE, J.R. BUTLER, G., D., BAXTER, NILSSON, the tide. IIED Briefing. London, UK. turn help can society civil how wildlife: vanishing Africa’s D. 2016. Saving & ROE, E. F., SULLE, NELSON, governance in Africa, London, Routledge. resource natural of politics The land: contested and conservation rights, F. 2010. Community NELSON, UK. London, IIED, 146. No. Paper Issue Tanzania. in management wildlife Community illusory? or F. 2007. Emergent NELSON, 1 -66. Africa. Southern in (CBNRM) management resource natural community-based of 1998. B. Assessment & JONES, C. KIKER, A., HANSEN, G., NAUGHTON, Biology,Conservation 30, 628-638. Namibia. in conservancies to communal hunting and tourism of benefits 2016. Complementary C. & THOULESS, G. STUART‐HILL, G., W., MATONGO, R. DIGGLE, C., L. WEAVER, R., NAIDOO, 1-16. Journal, African Geographical South meta-analysis. aqualitative communities: rural African Sub-Saharan in resources natural of management collaborative in capital social of D. 2016. Significance & SIMATELE, R. MUSAVENGANE, UK. Manchester, of University Management, and Policy Development for Institute Compatibility, to Conflict Global Local From Incentives: Conservation 1998. Synergizing M. MURPHREE, 11 2017. May Version, Online View Early Ecology, Applied of Journal mountains. Asian from lessons conservation: biodiversity for communities with partnerships Building 2017. M. & HAYWARD, M. S. REDPATH, B., RUTHERFORD, M., FIECHTER, J.C., YOUNG, C., MISHRA, Conservation and Development, Columbia University Press, US. Effective Towards More to Work: Projects Biodiversity P. Getting M. T. 2004. O. & WELLS, MCSHANE, US. DC, Washington, USAID, Profile. Zimbabwe Assessment: Stocktaking Management Resource Natural Based P. 2010. Community D. & DEMBETEMBE, MAZAMBANI, US. DC, Washington, USAID, Profile. Malawi Assessment: Stocktaking Management, Resource Natural Based P. R. 2010. G. Community D. D. & KAFAKOMA, C. MAUAMBETA, 19-27. Quarterly, Crime SA anti-poaching. community-based of challenges and potential the Exploring 2017. N. anti-poaching? M. Inclusive & THEMBA, R. LUBILO, A., F., GARDINER, MASSÉ, Press, US. California of University wildlife, Africa’s of fate the and rights animal changer: 2012. G. Game MARTIN, NORTON-GRIFFITHS, M. 2007. How many wildebeest do you need? World Economics – Henley on Thames, 8, 41.

NUNAN, F. 2016. Governance of Natural Resources. Topic Guide, Evidence on Demand, UK.

NUULIMBA, K. & TAYLOR, J. J. 2015. 25 years of CBNRM in Namibia: A retrospective on accomplishments, contestation and contemporary challenges. Journal of Namibian Studies: History Politics Culture, 18, 89-110.

O’CRIODAIN, C. 2011. CITES and community-based conservation: Where we go from here. In: ABENSPERG-TRAUN, M., ROE, D. & O’CRIODAN, C. (eds.) CITES and CBNRM: Proceedings of an international symposium on “The relevance of CBNRM to the conservation and sustainable use of CITES-listed species in exporting countries”. Occasional Paper of the IUCN Species Survival Commission No. 48. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland.

OGUTU, J. O., KULOBA, B., PIEPHO, H.-P. & KANGA, E. 2017. Wildlife Population Dynamics in Human- Dominated Landscapes under Community-Based Conservation: The Example of Nakuru Wildlife Conservancy, Kenya. PloS one, 12.

OLDEKOP, J. A., BEBBINGTON, A. J., BROCKINGTON, D. & PREZIOSI, R. F. 2010. Understanding the lessons and limitations of conservation and development. Conservation Biology, 24, 461-469.

OSTROM, E. 1990. Governing the Commons: The evolution of collective institutions for collective action, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.

PAGDEE, A., KIM, Y.-S. & DAUGHERTY, P. J. 2006. What Makes Community Forest Management Successful: A Meta-Study From Community Forests Throughout the World. Society & Natural Resources, 19, 33-52.

PATHAK, N. 2006. Community conserved areas in South Asia. PARKS, 16, 56 - 62.

PERSHA, L., AGRAWAL, A. & CHHATRE, A. 2011. Social and ecological synergy: local rulemaking, forest livelihoods, and biodiversity conservation. Science, 331, 1606-8.

PILGRIM, J. D., EBERHARDT, K., EAMES, J. C., VORSAK, B. & ANH, P. T. 2011. A review of lessons learned from a Local Conservation Group approach in Indochina. Oryx, 45, 381-390.

PULHIN, J. M., INOUE, M. & ENTERS, T. 2007. Three decades of community-based forest management in the Philippines: emerging lessons for sustainable and equitable forest management. International Forestry Review, 9, 865-883.

QIN, H., FAN, Y., TAPPMEYER, A., FREEMAN, K., PRENTICE, E. & GAO, X. 2017. Capturing community context through qualitative comparative analysis of case studies. Human Ecology, 45, 103-109. 78 WILD LIFE, WILD LIVELIHOODS review of some key issues and suggestions for improvements. Environmental Management, 37, 1-14. Management, Environmental improvements. for suggestions and key issues some of review a countries: developing in programs conservation Incentive-based 2006. K. S. & NEPALZ, A. SPITERI, 37, 1-4. Conservation, Environmental management. resources natural community-based for models of generation next the on 2010. Reflecting N. & POLUNIN, K. T. BROWN, J., WILLIS, C., SHACKLETON, WCMC. UNEP the and Copenhagen of University the with cooperation in Bayreuth of University by published Thesis Masters Africa. in CBFMA of effectiveness ecological the on settings legal and institutional and regimes tenure of impact the of meta-analysis A work? (CBFMA) Areas Managed Forest Community-Based makes 2015. S. What SCHNICHELS, Biodiversity Conservation.for Conservation Biology, Community-Based 15, 1585-1595. Strategy Test Enterprise an of A Systematic 2001. R. D. & MARGOLUIS, RUSSELL, C., ENCARNACION, BHATT, S., C., MARGOLUIS, J., PARKS, B., CORDES, B., BALACHANDER, G., CAULEY, N., SALAFSKY, online: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-south-asia-38909512. Access News. BBC rhinos. to protect people shoots that park J.2017. The ROWLATT, Kaziranga: UK. London, 18. No. IIED, Issues Resource Natural directions. future and experiences Impacts, Africa: in resources natural of management Community 2009. E. C. F. & SANDBROOK, D., NELSON, ROE, UK. London, IIED, Overview. Series Eden Evaluating management. wildlife based community of realities and myths the – exploring Eden Evaluating 2000. R. & HUGHES, C. FABRICIUS, A., KOTHARI, M., GRIEG-GRAN, J., D., MAYERS, ROE, Series. Environment for Development Initiative, Tanzania. Paper Discussion Development for Environment Tanzania. from Lessons Management: Forest Based Community- through REDD 2013. Implementing R. & LOKINA, C. MESHACK, H., ALBERS, E., ROBINSON, Cape. Western the of University Government of School Studies, Agrarian and Land for Programme and Zimbabwe of University Sciences, Social Applied No.18. for series Centre paper occasional Africa southern Commons Zimbabwe. and Botswana in processes policy CBNRM of analysis A comparative Africa: southern in management resource natural of democratisation and 2007. B. Devolution & MAGURANYANGA, RIHOY, E. participation. World Resources Institute, Washington, DC, US. popular Institutionalizing resources: natural of decentralization Democratic J.2002. RIBOT, Foundation, US. Moore Betty and Gordon The Sustainable? and Efficient, Effective, More it – Is Conservation based Community- & TAYLOR, B. P., J. 2008. LEON, HOON, DE J., TAYLOR, D., LICHATOWICH, M., RECHLIN, stopped-poaching-tomorrow-elephants-would-still-be-in-big-trouble. Access online:Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jun/14/if-we- UK. London, The trouble’. big in be still would elephants tomorrow, poaching J.2017. stopped we ‘If RANDERSON, STANDLEY, S. & EMSLIE, R. 2013. Population and poaching of African rhinos across African range states. Evidence on Demand, UK.

STEINER, A. & RIHOY, E. 1995. The Commons Without the Tragedy? USAID background paper for the 1995 Annual Regional Conference of the Natural Resources Management Programme.

STERLING, E. J., BETLEY, E., SIGOUIN, A., GOMEZ, A., TOOMEY, A., CULLMAN, G., MALONE, C., PEKOR, A., ARENGO, F., BLAIR, M., FILARDI, C., LANDRIGAN, K. & PORZECANSKI, A. L. 2016. Stakeholder engagement for biodiversity conservation goals. Biodiversity Technical Brief. USAID, Washington, DC, US.

STERLING, E. J., BETLEY, E., SIGOUIN, A., GOMEZ, A., TOOMEY, A., CULLMAN, G., MALONE, C., PEKOR, A., ARENGO, F., BLAIR, M., FILARDI, C., LANDRIGAN, K. & PORZECANSKI, A. L. 2017. Assessing the evidence for stakeholder engagement in biodiversity conservation. Biological Conservation, 209, 159- 171.

STRUMM, S. 1994. Lessons Learned. In: WESTERN, D. & WRIGHT, M. (eds.) Natural Connections: Perspectives In Community-Based Conservation. Island Press, US.

SUKIN, J. 2011. Natural Resource Governance, Empowerment and Poverty Reduction: Learning from practice. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland.

SURVIVAL INTERNATIONAL 2014. Hunters or poachers? Survival, the Baka and WWF. Access online: http://www.survivalinternational.org/campaigns/wwf.

SUTHERLAND, W. J., AVELING, R., BROOKS, T. M., CLOUT, M., DICKS, L. V., FELLMAN, L., FLEISHMAN, E., GIBBONS, D. W., KEIM, B., LICKORISH, F., MONK, K. A., MORTIMER, D., PECK, L. S., PRETTY, J., ROCKSTRÖM, J., RODRÍGUEZ, J. P., SMITH, R. K., SPALDING, M. D., TONNEIJCK, F. H. & WATKINSON, A. R. 2014. A horizon scan of global conservation issues for 2014. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 29, 15-22.

TAYLOR, R. & MURPHREE, M. 2007. Case Studies on Successful Southern African NRM INitiatives and their Impacts on Poverty and Governance – Zimbabwe: Maskoa and Gairezi. Report by USAID, IUCN and the International Resources Group. USAID, Washington, DC, US.

THAKADU, O. 2005. Success factors in community based natural resources management in northern Botswana: Lessons from practice. Natural Resources Forum, 29, 119 - 212.

TOLE, L. 2010. Reforms from the ground up: a review of community-based forest management in tropical developing countries. Environmental Management, 45, 1312-31.

UNDP 2012a. 20 Years of Community Action for the Global Environment. UNDP GEF Small Grants Programme.

UNDP 2012b. The Power of Local Action for Sustainable Development: Lessons from 10 Years of the Equator Prize. New York, US: Equator Prize. 80 WILD LIFE, WILD LIVELIHOODS 12, 193-212. 12, Studies, Development in Progress ahead. looking and years sixteen first The Malawi: in management resources natural community-based and decentralization 2012. C. Neoliberalization, L. ZULU, 15, 157. Society, and Conservation Conservation. Decentralised of Politics and V. Contradictions WRIGHT, 2017. C. The Terrains: Turbulent US. DC, Washington, Group, Bank World trade. wildlife illegal to tackle funding international of 2016. Analysis A. & GONZÁLEZ-VELOSA, H. BHAMMAR, E., WRIGHT, Norway. Bergen, Institute, Chr. Michelsen 2016:2. Issue U4 crime. wildlife in corruption addressing for Entry-points back: bites D.resource 2016. The & ROE, R. PARRY-JONES, A., WILLIAMS, DC, US. Washington, USAID, Paper. Research Biodiversity anti-trafficking. and anti-poaching in engagement community with associated risks and 2016. Rewards A. & JACOB, M. D., PAINTER, WILKIE, Switzerland. Gland, IUCN, and Oxford of University ECI, Africa. Central in projects livelihood alternative of a review lessons: our 2015. Learning L. & COAD, S. WICANDER, Hungary. Budapest, CIC. FAO of and publication Joint Learnt? Lessons the are What Africa, in Conservation Wildlife Community-based of Decades Three after Experiences of Summary D. (ed.) R. APractical BALDUS, In: Conservancies. Area Communal Namibia’s in use wildlife of decade a from Learned Lessons Practical and Achievements T. 2009. G. & MATONG, PETERSEN, C., WEAVER, 1-36. Evidence, Environmental outcomes. behavioural and attitudinal economic, ecological, Evaluating interventions: conservation community-based on context cultural local of effect The J. 2010b. E. J. & MILNER-GULLAND, S. P. THIRGOOD, MCGOWAN, J. K., A., FISCHER, A., K. WAYLEN, 1119-29. 24, Biology, Conservation interventions. conservation community-based of success the on context cultural local of Effect J. 2010a. E. J.& MILNER-GULLAND, S. P. THIRGOOD, MCGOWAN, J., A., FISCHER, A., K. WAYLEN,

WILD LIFE, WILD LIVELIHOODS

Contact Julian Blanc Ecosystems Division UN Environment [email protected] unenvironment.org