Article Index


Equally a List of key Beneficiaries for the effective management of PAs within the BBML have been identified and classified at three levels:

  1. People involved in activities to produce outputs (they include PAs, TOU Service, GIS Unit at RDFOF-SW, sectorial ministries that are statutory members of TOU technical and management committees, conservation and development NGOs/CSOs, CIGs, traditional rulers, and VFMCs)
  2. Those benefiting from development outcome – (cash crop and subsistence farmers, NTFP collectors, hunters, councils, and schools)
  3. Those who will benefit from potential impact – (PAs and farmers).

Stakeholders activities related to forest management currently going on in and out of the PAs within the BBML have been identified as well as their priority need areas (capacity building, supplementary funds, equipment and infrastructure, information needs and human resource)

Review of the PSMNR approach to collaborative management and conservation incentives identified certain strengths on which SUFACHAC could build on such as the interactions with higher level stakeholders; information exchange and some capacity building; opportunities for relationships with different community social groups, and some direct benefits from conservation measures.

Opportunities for best practices were also recommended that SUFACHAC can explore to improve on the process as can be seen from the points below;

  • Formalization of the process to creates excellent basis for broadening the stakeholder base to reflect a landscape approach.
  • To soften the collaborative relationship between the core conservation zones (Park Services) and different communities and stakeholder SUFACHAC need to incorporate gender differentiation through approaches which will reflect the diversity of a multifunctional landscapes.
  • Stakeholders concede that combining formal structures into a more flexible and adaptive negotiation processes will dampen the one size fits all perception of agreements and facilitate comparisons between sites as well as enhancing specificities within sites.
  • Opportunities also exist at landscape level to build incentive systems into broader community development initiatives and diminish the potential for community resentments against paid Facilitators.
  • Opportunities also exist at landscape scale to tap into community traditions, knowledge systems about natural resources; even cultural practices to conceive of more diversified and innovative incentives schemes leading to more appropriate valuing and perception of biological resources.
  • Stakeholders argue that within a landscape context, Adaptive Co-Management - ACM (instead of Co-Management) may be more appropriate in assisting communities to effectively “do their own thing, in their own ways” as long as common assessments do not prove such local initiatives to be deleterious to natural resources management.
  • Stakeholders further argue for additional experts to be explicitly brought into the CDA negotiations process to not only reflect the fullest range of ecosystem services occurring within a landscape, but to enrich the process, especially during negotiations involving technical issues beyond the reach of local communities.
  • Stakeholders argue that whereas for statutory reasons, zoning has produced positive results, in terms of management, with the exception of core areas, there is a need to shift from a “territorial” to a “landscape” approach; of managing ecosystem services and monitoring outcomes rather than focusing on individual actions of command and control.

Comments powered by CComment

FaLang translation system by Faboba