The battle over the benefits: analysing two sport hunting policy arrangements in Uganda

Abstract

In 2001 sport hunting was reintroduced in Uganda around Lake Mburo National Park, and in 2008 at Kabwoya and Kaiso-Tonya Game Management Area, to derive economic benefits for communities and thus reduce human–wildlife conflict and change communities’ attitudes towards wildlife. We used the policy arrangement approach to analyse and compare the development of the two sport hunting policy arrangements. Through interviews and document review we learned that the arrangement at Lake Mburo changed considerably over time, whereas that at Kabwoya remained relatively stable. The two policy arrangements started with small constellations of actors but turned out to be complex arenas, mainly involving disagreement regarding the benefits. Land ownership proved to be a crucial factor in explaining the differences between the arrangements. Our results also show that benefits do not change communities’ attitudes towards conservation, thus questioning incentive-based policies for conservation. We argue for a careful analysis of the complex social, cultural and political contexts in which conservation and development policies are implemented, to better understand their outcomes.

Positioning human heritage at the center of conservation practice

“…It is in the Global South, which possess an estimated 40% of the world's remaining biodiversity, that value systems relating to conservation and human livelihood often conflict (Ochieng et al. 2018). Indigenous peoples “often face the negative impacts of conservation programs, which have often been based on the concept of protecting biological resources and land and seascapes, while excluding human beings from these areas” (UN 2019:1–2).…”

“…Participants discussed the value of land and the underlying natural resources that spatially correlate with the distribution of indigenous peoples in the Global South (i.e., countries in South America, Central America, Africa, and Asia that are low and middle income relative to countries in the Global North). It is in the Global South, which possess an estimated 40% of the world's remaining biodiversity, that value systems relating to conservation and human livelihood often conflict (Ochieng et al 2018). Indigenous peoples "often face the negative impacts of conservation programs, which have often been based on the concept of protecting biological resources and land and seascapes, while excluding human beings from these areas" (UN 2019:1-2).…”

Post-apartheid local sustainable development through tourism: an analysis of policy perceptions among ‘responsible’ tourism stakeholders around Pilanesberg National Park, South Africa

“…Tourism-induced regional development can be structurally hampered, both in cases of organizational "over-mobilization" and in cases of organizational "undermobilization" (Stoffelen & Vanneste, 2017). The essence is how the policy content is incorporated across policy levels and how it is lived and collectively enacted by the involved actorsin other words how it is congruent (Ochieng, Visseren-Hamakers, & Van der Duim, 2017) and institutionalized (Stoffelen & Vanneste, 2016). To mobilize collective action, bridging actors or policy partnerships need to align perceptions, competences and sometimes contrasting interests in an adaptive empowering process that institutionalizes the social sustainability dimensions outlined above (see Murphy, 2012).…”

Governing landscapes through partnerships : Lessons from Amboseli, Kenya

“…This research highlights the existence of significant trade-offs between biodiversity conservation and development (Ochieng, Visseren-Hamakers & Van der Duim, 2018).…”

“…However, it is also argued that the benefits for communities are insufficient in comparison to the costs they incur (Okello, 2005a;Osipova et al, 2018), and there is a general lack of proper benefit-sharing plans (Stone & Stone, 2020). Furthermore, Ochieng et al (2018) The difficulty in implementing the AEMP's land-use zonation plan also demonstrates that there are conflicting interests, especially among the community partners, which remains largely unresolved and leads to negative implications for both biodiversity conservation and livelihoods.…”