PRESENTATION ON COMMUNITY BASED WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT

1. PRESENTATION ON COMMUNITY BASED WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT GROUP FIVE

2. What is CBWM? We interpret community-based wildlife management (CBWM) as the regulated use of wildlife populations and ecosystems by local ‘stakeholders’. Local stakeholders may be a village, or group of villages; an individual, or group of individuals with a shared interest in the resource. The important factor is not how the community is defined, but the fact that stewardship over wildlife resides at the local rather than the state level. CBWM occurs within and around protected areas and on communal or private land outside of protected areas. It can be consumptive (eg. trophy hunting) or non-consumptive (eg. photo-tourism), subsistence (eg. non-timber forest product collection) or commercial (eg. trade in wildlife or wildlife products), traditional (eg. protection of sacred landscapes) or non-traditional (eg. game ranching)

3. GENERAL CONCEPT Increasing poaching pressure and shrinking habitats and economies in African countries have led to a growing consensus among conservationists and international conservation organizations that the American National Park model, commonly referred to as the fences-and-fines approach, has failed to protect wildlife on the African continent (Matzke and Nabane, 1996). As a result the conservationists have, since the late 1970s and early 1980s, been searching for viable and sustainable alternatives or a ``lasting solution'' (Siachoono, 1995, p. 246). The most appealing alternative approach was for the conservationists to retrace their own footsteps to go to rural communities (their perceived ``enemies''), ask for forgiveness and promise cooperation, partnership and equitable distribution of wildlife costs and benefits (Freeman, 1989; IIED, 1994). They named the new approach Community-based Wildlife Management (CBWM). The underlying theory is that the rural communities have been alienated from a resource they should rightfully control, manage and benefit from

4. OBJECTIVES The main objective for CBWM is to create, through the bottom-up, participatory approach, conditions whereby a maximum number of community members stand to benefit from a sustainable management and utilization of wildlife. The approach intends to change rural people's behaviors and practices (Gibson and Marks, 1995) and use those people and their new behaviors as a vehicle for achieving a conservation goal (Metcalfe, 1994; Murphree, 1994). But the approach is based on the idea that the communities will protect and conserve wildlife only if it is in their own (economic) interest to do so (Liebenberg and Grossman, 1994). It is suspected, however, that CBWM programs based on buffer zones around protected areas are designed not to offer sustainable livelihood alternatives to the local communities but to reduce their opposition to those protected areas.

5. MODE OF OPERATION CBWM operates within the biodiversity and wildlife laws of a particular country it operates, in this management strategy the local communities are fully responsible of the management and day to day operation of the area but some times get assistance from conservation authorities or can seek for their support. FUNCTIONS The purpose of this management strategy is to provide education , conserved the natural resources ,promote equitable benefit sharing, as well as creating employment for the local people in order to enhance a better living standard. Enhance local communities on decision making on conservation roles.

6. SUCCESSES Since the establishment of this management system in Africa there is an increase in the resources due to increase in awareness, the people who are utilizing the resources are directly managing it and since people felt ownership this really reduces the level of tension cause by the American protected area model (fences and fines approach). Local communities who were marginalize were give the stewardship to manage, monitor and control the resources they were once deprive from, which facilitate easy benefit sharing as well as create employment for the local people therefore improved their livelihood. Reduction of conservation costs and wasted efforts by involving the local communities .

7. CHALLENGES The lack of benefits from wildlife management, and thus financial sustainability, has been a key issue in developing sustainable wildlife management systems. In most scenarios the cost of management far outweighs the financial benefits that arise from it (Akumsi, 2003). The potential economic viability of CBWM in high potential areas has been clearly proven, but concerns have been expressed about the actual viability of projects (Rozemeijer, 2003 in Centre for Applied Research, 2003). Especially at the outset of projects there is high uncertainty regarding revenue streams. This is exacerbated by the fact that revenue can be highly dependant on development variables, such as rights, capacity and governance (Balint, 2006). The picture is further clouded by government subsidies, donor grants and other support measures that CBWM projects may not receive in future (Arntzen, 2003 in Centre for Applied Research, 2003).

8. CONCLUSION We concluded that this management approach should be encourage and supported to enhance effective management of the natural resources as well as ensure full community participation and benefit sharing. REFERENCE 1. IIED(1994) whose Eden ?An overview of community approaches to wildlife management. IIED,London 2.Hulme ,D.& Murphree,M.(eds.)(2001) African Wildlife & livelihoods: The promise & performance of community conservation james currey Ltd.