scholarly journals Effects of integrated conservation–development projects on unauthorized resource use in Volcanoes National Park, Rwanda: a mixed-methods spatio-temporal approach

Oryx ◽  
2020 ◽  
pp. 1-12
Author(s):  
Katie P. Bernhard ◽  
Thomas E. L. Smith ◽  
Edwin Sabuhoro ◽  
Elias Nyandwi ◽  
Ian E. Munanura
Keyword(s):  
Resource Use ◽  
National Park ◽  
Revenue Sharing ◽  
Development Projects ◽  
Gis Analysis ◽  
Qualitative Gis ◽  
Spatio Temporal ◽  
Illegal Activities ◽  
Integrated Conservation ◽  
Tourism Revenue

Abstract This study supplements spatial panel econometrics techniques with qualitative GIS to analyse spatio-temporal changes in the distribution of integrated conservation–development projects relative to poaching activity and unauthorized resource use in Volcanoes National Park, Rwanda. Cluster and spatial regression analyses were performed on data from ranger monitoring containing > 35,000 combined observations of illegal activities in Volcanoes National Park, against tourism revenue sharing and conservation NGO funding data for 2006–2015. Results were enriched with qualitative GIS analysis from key informant interviews. We found a statistically significant negative linear effect of overall integrated conservation–development investments on unauthorized resource use in Volcanoes National Park. However, individually, funding from Rwanda's tourism revenue sharing policy did not have an effect in contrast to the significant negative effect of conservation NGO funding. In another contrast between NGO funding and tourism revenue sharing funding, spatial analysis revealed significant gaps in revenue sharing funding relative to the hotspots of illegal activities, but these gaps were not present for NGO funding. Insight from qualitative GIS analysis suggests that incongruity in prioritization by decision makers at least partly explains the differences between the effects of revenue sharing and conservation NGO investment. Although the overall results are encouraging for integrated conservation–development projects, we recommend increased spatial alignment of project funding with clusters of illegal activities, which can make investment decision-making more data-driven and projects more effective for conservation.

scholarly journals Comparing the community dependence on natural resources in Nyungwe National Park and the contribution of revenue sharing through integrated conservation and development projects

2019 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Ange Imanishimwe ◽  
Theophile Niyonzima ◽  
Donat Nsabimana
Keyword(s):  
Focus Group ◽  
Biodiversity Conservation ◽  
National Park ◽  
Revenue Sharing ◽  
Development Projects ◽  
Conservation And Development ◽  
Sharing Scheme ◽  
Integrated Conservation ◽  
Integrated Conservation And Development ◽  
Conservation And Development Projects

Rwanda Development Board (RDB) has recently established a tourism Revenue Sharing Scheme (RSS) to create a win-win approach in protected areas for effective biodiversity conservation and management. Through this scheme, around 1 billion Rwandan francs wereinvested to support around 152 Community Based Conservation Projects (CBCs), and integrated conservation and development projects (ICDPs). This paper assessed the contribution of CDCs projects around Nyungwe National Park (NNP) by evaluating their efficiency and effectiveness, and their socioeconomic impact to the local community development. Secondary data about the revenue sharing projects and the amount of money allocated to each project were collected from RDB office. Primary data were collected through the interview and focus group discussions. To verify the findings from RDB, interview and focus group discussion (FGD) were used. Interview was done with 500 households of local people around Nyungwe National Park and with community conservation wardens, while threats to NNP were verified by the consultation of reports from ranger based monitoring officers. The results showed that the value of resources collected by people from the park is higher than the revenue sharing support offered by RDB as (31.3 %) of respondents mentioned that exotic tree species were stolen and sold as poles where one pole was sold at around 6,800 Rwandan francs and 38.6 % of respondents proven that mining gave the much income. and consequently the revenue sharing scheme did not significantly reduce threats to biodiversity and its impact around NNP.A small percentage of people are happy because they were supported but a big number becomes unhappier and threaten the Park due to the gap in creating a win-win situation in biodiversity conservation. We recommend the revision of the whole revenue sharing scheme, taking into account the cost of livelihoods of community surrounding the park.Keywords: Efficiency, Effectiveness, Integrated Conservation, Development Projects, Revenue Sharing Scheme

Tourism revenue-sharing around national parks in Western Uganda: early efforts to identify and reward local communities

2001 ◽  
Vol 28 (2) ◽  
pp. 135-149 ◽  
Author(s):  
Karen Archabald ◽  
Lisa Naughton-Treves
Keyword(s):  
National Parks ◽  
Sustainable Use ◽  
Institutional Support ◽  
Forest Products ◽  
Revenue Sharing ◽  
Benefit Sharing ◽  
African Countries ◽  
Local Conditions ◽  
Western Uganda ◽  
Tourism Revenue

Throughout much of the tropics, human-wildlife conflict impedes local support for national parks. By channelling tourism revenue to local residents, conservationists hope to offset wildlife costs and improve local attitudes toward conservation. To date tourism revenue-sharing (TRS) programmes have met mixed success. Local conditions and national policies that shape the success of TRS programmes were identified by comparing the experiences of both implementers and beneficiaries of pilot TRS programmes at three parks in western Uganda. Between 1995 and 1998, communities around these parks used a total of US $83 000 of tourism revenue to build 21 schools, four clinics, one bridge, and one road. In 1996, the Ugandan parliament passed legislation that changed both the amount of money available for TRS and the institutions responsible for sharing the money. The programme was suspended at all three parks while the implementing agency (Uganda Wildlife Authority) struggled to design a programme that complied with the new legislation. TRS funds collected before 1996 were shared through 1998, but since then no revenue has been shared. However, a revised TRS programme is expected to resume in 2001. In semi-structured interviews, both implementers and beneficiaries evaluated local TRS programmes and compared them to other benefit-sharing projects, particularly those promoting sustainable use of non-timber products within park boundaries (n = 44). Both groups of respondents listed revenue-sharing as the most important advantage of living next to a national park. Seventy-two per cent of respondents indicated that they thought TRS had improved attitudes towards the protected areas, and 53% thought TRS was more important then sustainable use of non-timber forest products. Although respondents were generally positive about TRS, in informal discussions respondents repeatedly mentioned four potential obstacles to TRS success, namely poorly defined TRS policies and unsteady implementing institutions, corruption, inadequate funds, and numerous stakeholders with differing priorities. From this survey and literature from experiences in other African countries, there are four key components of successful revenue-sharing programmes: long-term institutional support, appropriate identification of the target community and project type, transparency and accountability, and adequate funding. With firm institutional support and realistic expectations, TRS can play an important role in improving local attitudes towards conservation.

The Opportunities and Limitations of Tribal Consultation in Studies Conducted Under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act

1998 ◽  
Vol 20 (3) ◽  
pp. 5-8
Author(s):  
Gail Thompson
Keyword(s):  
Historic Preservation ◽  
Decision Maker ◽  
National Park ◽  
National Park Service ◽  
Development Projects ◽  
Cultural Resources ◽  
Cultural Properties ◽  
Park Service ◽  
Traditional Cultural Properties ◽  
National Historic Preservation Act

Proposed construction and development projects that require Federal permits are subject to review under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, which requires that the Federal decision-maker take into account the project's potential effects on cultural resources listed or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. Over the years and especially after 1990 when the National Park Service released Bulletin 38, Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting Traditional Cultural Properties (TCPs), Section 106 review has increased the consideration of designating TCPs and consultation with the Indian tribal organizations that value them. Bulletin 38 defines TCPs as places that have been historically important in maintaining the cultural identify of a community.

Constraints on socio-buffering around the Mantadia National Park in Madagascar

1996 ◽  
Vol 23 (1) ◽  
pp. 67-73 ◽  
Author(s):  
Priya Shyamsundar
Keyword(s):  
Land Use ◽  
National Park ◽  
Economic Viability ◽  
Buffer Zones ◽  
Stake Holder ◽  
Local Residents ◽  
Integrated Conservation ◽  
Integrated Conservation And Development ◽  
Conservation And Development Projects

SummaryIntegrated conservation and development projects (ICDPs) involve the establishment of parks and reserves with protective or buffer zones around them. Socio-buffering provides local residents with alternatives to traditional land-use activities, but the actual implementation of socio-buffering programmes is difficult.Socio-economic requirements and constraints to socio-buffering were assessed for the Mantadia National Park in eastern Madagascar based on five criteria. Previously unused lands for compensating people for loss of access to areas within the park were found to be insufficient. While there existed institutions and programmes for developing substitute land-use activities, successful adoption of these activities was crucially dependent on their economic viability. Socio-buffering activities need to not only provide goods that are substitutes for goods that are traditionally consumed, but they also need to be at least as profitable as traditional economic efforts. Also, if land and labour are not a constraint to agricultural expansion, socio-buffering activities can themselves result in increased deforestation. Finally, the long-term effectiveness of socio-buffering was likely to be dependent on the satisfaction of a number of stake-holder interests, and on explicit linkages developed between socio-buffering activities and conservation.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document