912 P. Scholte In this review, I take a constructive position to guide
moremature delegated management practices. Firstly, I pre- sent insights from recent studies that show how delegated management, although not a perfect solution, has been able to improve the day-to-day management of several West and Central African protected areas (Scholte et al., 2021a). Secondly, I describe the main challenges that need to be addressed for delegated management to become more successful. Thirdly, I make recommendations for the development of partnership models, addressing each of the main partners (i.e. governments, private partners and funding agencies).
Information sources
I cover francophone West and Central Africa, comprising countries with a common history and similar legal–political frameworks in which the state generally plays a dominant role beyond day-to-day management of public services (Brugière, 2020). I am not aware of delegated management partnerships in other West and Central African nations, but see Table 1. Here I draw on recent reviews of delegated partnerships
that have used SWOT (Strengths,Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats) analysis to capture opinions on delegated manage- ment partnerships (Scholte et al., 2018, 2021a). This includes a SWOT analysis developed by the directors in charge of protected areas of 10 Central African countries for best practice guidelines on delegated management (COMIFAC, 2018; Scholte et al., 2018). This public–partner perspective has been further developed by integrating the results of ex- ternal evaluations of delegated management partnerships (Scholte et al., 2021a). Below, I reformulate these identified strengths as the successes of delegated protected area man- agement partnerships and subsequently regroup identified weaknesses and threats and present them as challenges (Baghai et al., 2018; Scholte et al., 2018, 2021a). I address these challenges through five recommendations that also in- tegrate the opportunities reported by Scholte et al. (2021a).
Delegated management successes
The successes of delegated management partnerships can be summarized as (1) increased effectiveness of protected area management through improved use of funds and equip- ment and accountability in their use; (2) an increased ability to raise and administer short- and medium-term funding, allowing upscaling of infrastructures and equipment as well as their maintenance, recruitment of qualified staff, and related matters; (3) strengthened conservation status and promotion of a protected area for tourism and other economic uses; and (4) enhanced development of a pro- tected area’s surroundings by securing employment and
implementing social infrastructure such as clinics and water points (Baghai et al., 2018; Scholte et al., 2018, 2021a; Brugière, 2020). These successes are remarkable given the generally poor governance, and operational difficulties, in most West and Central African countries, further exacer- bated by the remoteness in which delegated management operates (Bauer et al., 2021).
Challenges of delegated protected area management partnerships
These successes notwithstanding, various challenges have been identified (Scholte et al., 2018, 2021a). These include the legal and procedural environment in which delegated management operates, the contribution of delegated man- agement in assuring funding, and the role of capacity devel- opment, confidence building and communication, as well as concerns about perceived green militarization. Below, I dis- cuss the main insights related to these challenges, on which I then base my recommendations.
Legal and procedural environment
Governmental agency personnel have frequently empha- sized how a lack of legal provisions can block delegated management partnerships in some countries and limit their wider use in others (COMIFAC, 2018). Surprisingly, countries such as Cameroon, with a history of leasing trophy hunting zones to private partners, have not used that ex- perience and have remained reluctant to move towards delegated management. The DRC (RDC, 2014)and Rwanda (Government of Rwanda, 2016) are the only countries that have legislation that caters for delegated management. However, both countries dealt with delegated management before having this legislation in place (Fig. 1). For a long time, law enforcement, considered the exclusive responsibil- ity of the state, was seen as incompatible with delegated management in West and Central Africa. Recently, there have been efforts to bridge this impasse by having staff with governmental contracts within the organization of pro- tected areas. This allows them to bear arms and arrest sus- pects while remaining under the management of the private partner (Scholte et al., 2021a). Several partnerships, such as those in Zakouma National
Park (Chad) and Odzala-Kokoua National Park (Republic of the Congo), have struggled to identify an appropriate model that would allow a nationally registered entity to act as a management body. Examples do, however, exist, such as the trusts common in Anglo-Saxon countries, foundations and non-profit bodies such as the Akagera Management Company in Rwanda. All delegated management contracts inWest and Central Africa are between central governments and international
Oryx, 2022, 56(6), 908–916 © The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Fauna & Flora International doi:10.1017/S0030605321000752
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140 |
Page 141 |
Page 142 |
Page 143 |
Page 144 |
Page 145 |
Page 146 |
Page 147 |
Page 148 |
Page 149 |
Page 150 |
Page 151 |
Page 152 |
Page 153 |
Page 154 |
Page 155 |
Page 156 |
Page 157 |
Page 158 |
Page 159 |
Page 160 |
Page 161 |
Page 162 |
Page 163 |
Page 164
