Protected area law enforcement 753


The Prey Lang Community Network is an example of community involvement in protected area law enforcement for which limited support is provided by external institu- tions. Although the Network has previously received grant funding for patrolling and worked with scientists to develop information and communication technology to collect data on rule-breaking behaviour (Brofeldt et al., 2018), it has recently been barred from entering Prey Lang Wildlife Sanctuary because of restrictions related to Covid-19 (Prey Lang Community Network, 2021). As a result, the Network has been collaborating with external stakeholders to analyse satellite data to monitor forest loss (Macinnes, 2020). Members of the Network are therefore operating from be- yond the boundaries of a protected area to bring national and international attention to illegal activities occurring within a protected area.


The Community of Arran Seabed Trust, Scotland


In 1995, residents on the Isle of Arran on the west coast of Scotland established the Community of Arran Seabed Trust to raise awareness of a degraded ecosystem and improve the marine environment (Stewart et al., 2020). Comprising vo- lunteers, the Trust, a community-led organization, cam- paigned for the creation of a no-take zone in Lamlash Bay to protect sensitive habitats and facilitate seabed regener- ation (Whiteside, 2018). The Lamlash Bay no-take zone was designated in 2008,


and further lobbying by the Community of Arran Seabed Trust resulted in the designation of the South Arran marine protected area in 2014 (Stewart et al., 2020). Encompassing the Lamlash Bay no-take zone, the South Arran marine protected area aims to protect species and habitats such as seagrass meadows and maerl beds, and, at the time of writing, it is multi-use, permitting creeling in certain areas (COAST, 2012; Stewart et al., 2020). It be- came fully regulated in 2016, withMarine Scotland, a gov- ernment directorate, responsible for enforcing legislation (COAST, 2022b). To assist Marine Scotland with enforce- ment, the Community of Arran Seabed Trust has devel- oped a guide to help local residents provide detailed information when reporting suspected infringements across the no-take zone and marine protected area. The guide helps users to familiarize themselves with the bound- ary of the marine protected area and the location and ac- tivities permitted in different zones, the type of information needed for vessel identification, the need for photographic information, accurate vessel coordinates, time and date information and the contact details of en- forcement authorities (COAST, 2022a). Providing tips on how to place a fishing vessel on a chart ormap and illustra- tions of different types of vessels, the guide aims to capture the level of information necessary for prosecution.


The Community of Arran Seabed Trust offers an ex-


ample of local residents making decisions and overseeing how actionable information can be best provided. The de- velopment of guidance helps to raise awareness of protected area rules and provides a framework for people living around Lamlash Bay and the wider marine protected area to report rule-breaking behaviour. Contributing to detec- tion voluntarily, local residents have initially reported the few infringements known to have taken place in the no- take zone and across the marine protected area (Stewart et al., 2020).


Comparing characteristics of different participatory approaches to protected area law enforcement


These three case studies highlight the diversity of ap- proaches for involving local communities in protected area law enforcement and illustrate how the framework can be used to facilitate the analysis and comparison of cases (Table 1). For example, although members of the Prey Lang Community Network and the Community of Arran Seabed Trust have decision-making capacity, com- munity wardens living and working in the Cardamom Mountains put decisions into effect by following specified terms of reference and make collective decisions on when to conduct patrols each month. Furthermore, the extent to which local participation is formalized varies. Community wardens, for example, are employed by Fauna & Flora and receive different types of external support for participating in detection efforts, whereas the Prey Lang Community Network continues to monitor rule-breaking behaviour des- pite being deemed an illegitimate organization by the state (Prey Lang Community Network, 2021). With regard to similarities, each case study includes some element of par- ticipation in detecting illegal activities.


Discussion


Each dimension of community involvement offered in this framework contains complexity. The dimensions should be re- finedand deepened basedonevidencegatheredfor aparticu- lar case study or context. We suggest this framework can be used as a basis for workshop discussions or for conducting a systematicmap of the literature to analyse and compare differ- ent approaches to involving local communities in protected area law enforcement. Categorizing cases of community involvement by applying this framework could be used to examine the prevalence and diversity of different arrange- ments for involving local residents in protected area law enforcement and could provide a foundation for a compara- tive analysis of the effectiveness of different enforcement approaches. In addition, the framework provides a useful structure for evaluating participatory approaches to protected


Oryx, 2024, 58(6), 746–758 © The Author(s), 2024. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Fauna & Flora International doi:10.1017/S0030605323001758


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