Wednesday, 16 March 2011

BESIDES ENGANGING THE LOCAL COMMUNITIES IN CONSERVATION RELATED ACTIVITIES IN PROTECTED AREAS. SHOULD THE SAME GESTURE BE EXTENDED IN REVENUE SHARING?

In many protected areas around the world, the local communities living around them are urged to participate in the management of this areas, but when it comes to sharing the revenue generated they become excluded. Yet management expects them to flush out poachers among activities. What is the way forwad to ensure equity and justice is achieved?
Posted by at

9 comments:

  1. Sam Dindi16 March 2011 at 03:05

    local communities living around this protected areas are normally very poor,the so called revenue sharing is a big joke, i think it will be very wise to share some of the revenue generated with the local communities atleast to make them appreciate conservation.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Unknown16 March 2011 at 05:46

    Protection of protected ares should by no means be left for the local communities. Instead local communities folks should be tought how to regenerate the ares in their vicinity and manage them for their sustainable use. This will not only increase the areas under optimal sustainable use but also rejuvenation of our Resource use capacity.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Ed Huydic16 March 2011 at 07:29

    revenue sharing, I believe is working in some areas of conservation...perhaps in RSA? Not sure at the moment, nevertheless, the concept is appropriate and be evaluated by all regional governments looking to expand education and conservation while 'bringing in' the locals!

    ReplyDelete
  4. Unknown18 March 2011 at 00:58

    conservation and management of natural resources should always adopt the fundamentall principle of co-management. As such the communities along the conservation areas should not only participate by observing the policies they do not really and practically understand but also be enageged in the entire cycle of management to the sharing of such revenue and other benefits acrued out of such conservation programmaes.

    ReplyDelete
  5. lloyd18 March 2011 at 05:06

    Revenue sharing should be extended to communities living to protected areas.it can be done by allowing the locals to carry their economic activities within the protected areas.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Anonymous20 March 2011 at 04:39

    I think they should petition their issue through a sure channel coz at times all those who are supposed to handle the situation in government either aren't aware or have other interests to gain as a result that is why they exclude the communities in revenue sharing.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Unknown20 March 2011 at 04:52

    The communities need to empower themselves, they should use the available resources and manpower to fight such kind of hypocricy, mechanisms have and are set in place to cater for the communities benefit by the government, its the lack of information that is among many that needs to be eradicated

    ReplyDelete
  8. Anonymous20 March 2011 at 05:04

    Yes Lloyd Reveunue should be actually shared with the community involved to better their economic activities as long as proper channels are in place to ensure proper planning and equity in distribution of resouces.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Sam Dindi21 March 2011 at 08:21

    the question of revenue sharing should never be a debate. A man eateth where a man worketh

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)