Wildlife Protection, Community Participation in Conservation, and (Dis) Empowerment in Southern Tanzania

Noe, Christine; Kangalawe, Richard Y. M.

doi:10.4103/0972-4923.170396

Cited by 49 publications

(34 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The interpretation is supported with qualitative and quantitative data about governance and participation, livelihoods, and access to/conflict over land and resources collected during this study and prior research e.g. [30][31][32][33][34][35] .…”

Section: Overview Of Methods and Study Areasmentioning

confidence: 52%

Impact of Tanzania’s Wildlife Management Areas on household wealth

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Large-scale area-based conservation measures affect millions of people globally. Understanding their social impacts is necessary to improve effectiveness and minimise negative consequences. However, quantifying the impacts of conservation measures that affect large geographic areas and diverse peoples is expensive and methodologically challenging, particularly because such evaluations should capture locally-defined conceptions of wellbeing while permitting policy-relevant comparisons. We measure the impact of Tanzania's Wildlife Management Areas (WMAs), a national community-based conservation and poverty reduction initiative. We used a novel, cost-effective impact evaluation method based on participatory wealth-ranking and Bayesian multilevel modelling. We find that from 2007-2015 the impacts of WMAs on wealth were small and variable, with no clear evidence of widespread poverty reduction. Accompanying qualitative data suggest that apparently positive effects in one WMA cannot be directly attributed to WMA activities. Our results suggest that current WMA policy needs to be revisited if it is to promote positive economic development. WMA name Region (Study Area) Year initiated Year gazetted Level of restrictions Generation of revenues

show abstract

Section: Overview Of Methods and Study Areasmentioning

confidence: 52%

Impact of Tanzania’s Wildlife Management Areas on household wealth

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In Mbarang'andu WMA, uranium mining triggered cancellation of tourism contracts. Local people nominally own the WMA, but lack either wildlife or mineral rights, and received neither compensation nor concession fees, unlike tour operators and state departments (Noe 2013, Noe andKangalawe 2015). As a token gesture, wildlife NGOs, tour operators and mining contractors established a small community fund.…”

Section: Remittances and Aidmentioning

confidence: 99%

Women, wellbeing and Wildlife Management Areas in Tanzania

Homewood

Nielsen

Keane

2020

The Journal of Peasant Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Community-based wildlife management claims pro-poor, gender-sensitive outcomes. However, intersectional political ecology predicts adverse impacts on marginalised people. Our large-scale quantitative approach draws out common patterns and differentiated ways women are affected by Tanzania's Wildlife Management Areas (WMAs). This first largescale, rigorous evaluation studies WMA impacts on livelihoods and wellbeing of 937 married women in 42 villages across six WMAs and matched controls in Northern and Southern Tanzania. While WMAs bring community infrastructure benefits, most women have limited political participation, and experience resource use restrictions and fear of wildlife attacks. Wealth and region are important determinants, with the poorest worst impacted.

show abstract

“…However, the state owns any wildlife on that land; and also owns any minerals under that land; at the same time villagers who are resident "owners" are excluded from using the resource they "own" (for instance, pastoralists are banned from grazing the set-aside area). The income generated from game hunting and mining mostly flows direct to state and bypasses land 'owners' (Homewood et al, 2013;Noe, 2013;Noe and Kangalawe, 2015). Hence, although villages in principle own the land, they officially do not have rights over specific lucrative property layers.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Sustainability and Land tenure: Who owns the floodplain in the Pantanal, Brazil?

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In seeking to achieve poverty alleviation and environmental conservation, public policy has often centred on guaranteeing land titles to local peoples. However, such approaches have brought unintended outcomes, replacing small-scale economies and natural areas by intensive exploitation of resources with no clear improvement in local people's wellbeing. To understand this, we go beyond a general political ecology framing to consider relations between sustainability and land tenure, focusing on the intersection of economics, ecology and anthropology to understand how land tenure, property and use play out on the ground. We draw together different concepts including bundle of rights, de facto and de jure resource use, property regimes, density-dependence and non-equilibrium theory. The significance of this threediscipline view is illustrated through a case study of the Pantanal wetland, Brazil, where conservationists, the government and the local population contest ownership of the Paraguay River floodplain. Government sought to address conflicts around tenure and access through a narrow view of property, which failed to encompass the overlapping layers of land tenure, property and use on the ground and only served to create further legal battles. This article concludes that a more complex view combining the three perspectives is needed in the case of the Pantanal, and in other cases of contested property rights, in order to resolve conflicting claims and foster sustainability. We dissect both the power plays involved between different groups competing for control of a valuable resource, and the legal frameworks which can and should provide checks and balances in the system. The more nuanced grasp that emerges of local systems of tenure and access, of how these diverge from western property concepts, and of their environmental implications favours a better understanding of local realities, allowing for better management policy and consequently contributing more effectively towards poverty alleviation and environmental protection.Keywords: sustainability, land tenure, property, resource use, the Pantanal Highlights Conventional property systems do not map well onto unpredictable, dynamic ecosystems  Resource access and use in wetlands and semi-arid rangelands are customarily mobile  Locally-adapted resource use, not specific property regime, dictates sustainability  Economics, anthropology and ecology help address land conflict in Brazil's Pantanal

show abstract

Wildlife Protection, Community Participation in Conservation, and (Dis) Empowerment in Southern Tanzania

Cited by 49 publications

References 18 publications

Impact of Tanzania’s Wildlife Management Areas on household wealth

Impact of Tanzania’s Wildlife Management Areas on household wealth

Women, wellbeing and Wildlife Management Areas in Tanzania

Sustainability and Land tenure: Who owns the floodplain in the Pantanal, Brazil?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About