Delegated protected area management 915
protected area management, and avoid forcing delegated management partnerships into a project implementation body that masks the core tasks of protected area manage- ment; (2) keeping the core function of protected area man- agement separate from project implementation, especially with regard to management and financial administration; (3) striving to outsource parts of non-core protected area management tasks, such as tourist guiding and reception, community development, medical services and research, to specialized, preferably local, based individuals and orga- nizations, for efficiency, diversification and sustainability.
Discussion
Comparing the Garamba (DRC, African Parks) contract from 2005, the first in West and Central Africa, with the contract for Odzala-Kokoua (Republic of the Congo, African Parks) from 2020, one notices the learning that de- legated management in West and Central Africa has under- gone (Table 1). Most of this learning has, however, been on the side of the private partner, in particular African Parks, and masks the lagging behind of the development of dele- gated management partnerships from a governmental per- spective. After 15 years, one should expect from the public side more direction, a clearer expression of expectations, as well as more coherence, not to aim at homogeneous part- nerships but for increased effectiveness, sustainability and ownership beyond the authorities in charge of protected areas (Scholte et al., 2018; Table 1). In addition to this asymmetric learning, discussions to
improve delegated management have generally centred on the role of the private partners. This holds especially with respect to the need for capacity building, of which the underperformance has been attributed mainly to the lack of initiatives by the private partner (Baghai et al., 2018; Scholte et al., 2018). Attention is needed to the neglected role of the public partners in this and other domains, with- out which governmental agencies will, consciously or un- consciously, continue playing a passive role without the necessary constructive pressure on private partners (but note the best practices of COMIFAC, 2018). Institutional donors have played a role in these discus-
sions often without realizing that with high expectations from funding delegated management partnerships, they overload them with non-core conservation tasks, poten- tially hindering any future handing-over to national staff. Although delegated management started in Southern Africa with degraded game reserves, it has so far mostly dealt with prestigious World Heritage Sites in West and Central Africa (Scholte et al., 2018; Table 1). Undoubtedly the lure of institutional funding, in particular from the EU, has played a role in this (Scholte et al., 2018). More mature delegated management should play a role in other
categories of protected areas as well, including those under the responsibility of decentralized entities such as dis- tricts and provinces (Scholte et al., 2021a). I also see potential for the involvement of national private partners and NGOs. Finally, one may expect delegated management to play an increasing role in other regions in Africa, and elsewhere, for which, especially in the aftermath of theCOVID-19 pan- demic, experiences from West and Central Africa, with its low frequency of tourism, have become increasingly relevant (Bauer et al., 2021).
Acknowledgements This article took shape through stimulating feedback from Djafarou Tiomoko, Bertrand Chardonnet, Jean-Pierre d’Huart, Arnaud Greth, David Brugière, two reviewers and the Editor. I thank the hospitality and shared insights on delegated man- agement from the staff of Pendjari (Benin), Dzanga-Sangha (Central African Republic), Nouabalé-Ndoki (Republic of the Congo), Zakouma (Chad), Garamba, Virunga (Democratic Republic of the Congo) and Akagera (Rwanda). Serge Kamgang prepared Fig. 3. The opinions expressed in this paper are solely those of the author.
Conflicts of interest None.
Ethical standards The research abides the Oryx guidelines on ethi- cal standards.
References
AFRICAN PARKS (2011) Annual Report 2011.
africanparks.org/sites/ default/files/uploads/resources/2017-05/APN_AnnualReport_2011. pdf [accessed 10 August 2020].
AFRICAN PARKS (2020) African Parks’ Right of Reply to Le Monde. Press Release, 15 May 2020.
africanparks.org/sites/default/files/ uploads/newsroom_file_upload/2020-05/African%20Parks%27% 20Right%20of%20Reply%20to%20Le%20Monde_Eng.pdf [accessed 20 November 2020].
ANON.(2020) African governments are outsourcing their natural areas. The Economist, 24 October 2020.
economist.com/middle- east-and-africa/2020/10/22/african-governments-are-outsourcing- their-natural-areas [accessed 20 November 2020].
BAGHAI, M., MILLER, J.R.B., BLANKEN, L.J., DUBLIN, H.T., FITZGERALD, K.H., GANDIWAG,
P.et al. (2018) Models for the collaborative management of Africa’s protected areas. Biological Conservation, 218, 73–82.
BALMFORD, A., GASTON, K.J., BLYTH, S., JAMES,A. & KAPOS,V. (2003) Global variation in terrestrial conservation costs, conservation benefits and unmet conservation needs. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 100, 1046–1050.
BAUER, H., CHARDONNET, B., SCHOLTE, P., KAMGANG, S., TIOMOKO, D., TEHOU, A. et al. (2021) Consider divergent regional perspectives to enhance wildlife conservation across Africa. Nature Ecology & Evolution, 5, 149–152.
BRUGIÈRE D. (2020) Public–private partnership for protected areas: current situation and prospects in French-speaking Africa. papaco. org/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/etudesAP_PPP_EN_v2.pdf [accessed 8 February 2021].
BUZZFEED (2019–2020) WWF Secret War.
buzzfeednews.com/ collection/wwfsecretwar [accessed 20 November 2020].
COMIFAC (2018) Guide Sous-Regional de Bonnes Pratiques pour la Gestion des Aires Protégées en Mode Partenariat Public-Privé en
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
