There is a notable absence of analysis on the impact of different tiers of wildlife governance on elephant conservation in Africa and community participation, according to a new study by researchers from University of Johannesburg in South Africa.
While wildlife governance is a globally documented and acceptable concept, research on the impact of environmental multilateralism, especially the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), on African elephant conservation and community participation is very limited.
The study, published in Environmental Research Communications on February 12 this year, focused on the African savannah elephant. The aim was to determine how wildlife governance considers global multilateralism, particularly CITES decisions, and also their impact on elephant conservation and community participation.
A limited scholarly attention on the inferences of international-level wildlife governance on elephant conservation and local participation could mean that policy, decision making and interventions are not sufficiently informed for constructive impact, the study warned.
Existing studies mainly focus on approaches to elephant and broader wildlife conservation, protected area management, sustainable development, governance approaches, approaches to community participation, CITES, and wildlife trade.
There is an identified dearth in the available literature on how the participation of communities living with wildlife, in particular the African elephant, is affected by higher governance structures such as Multilateral Environmental Agreements (MEAs).
Ecologically sustainable and socially acceptable outcomes of multilateral wildlife governance would require careful attention to linkages between ecological processes and evolving transnational governance dynamics, the study said.
This form of study would help in examining how key CITES decisions on wildlife, especially the African elephant, have affected local-level wildlife governance frameworks and how these processes have in turn affected communities, elephant conservation, habitats, and illegal wildlife trade.
Further, such research would provide a foundation for reengineering local, regional, and international engagement processes to safeguard equity and stronger participation of the affected.
The authors (Tanyaradzwa Mundoga & et al) cited the example of the Community Areas Management Program for Indigenous Resources (CAMPFIRE) in Zimbabwe.
CAMPFIRE was built on the assumption that involving local people in economic benefits and management of wildlife will help ensure the long-term sustainability of the resource and its habitat, and enhance rural livelihoods and rural development.
However, like any other community-based natural resources management (CBNRM) initiative CAMPFIRE has been affected by wildlife governance structures above it. “Decisions about wildlife governance, interventions and policy are now increasingly being determined by Non-State Actors, Inter Governmental Organisations and governments.”
CBNRM is only a fashionable concept in practice and is no longer practically applicable in reality in many jurisdictions as more and more authority and decisions are top down. Local knowledge is discredited and livelihoods are marginalised.
The increased alienation of local communities and the imposition of regulations has fostered a phenomenon which is increasingly being called ‘bureaucratic violence’. It involves the implementation of mundane technical rules that hide local contestation, sideline criticism and deny justice.