Browsing by Author "Sulle, Emmanuel"

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Partnerships for wildlife protection and their sustainability outcomes: A literature review
    (NEPSUS, 2017) Noe, Christine; Budeanu, Adriana; Sulle, Emmanuel; Fog Olwig, Mette; Brockington, Dan; John, Ruth
    The rhetoric of a ‘win-win-win’ situation – which represents simultaneous achievement of economic growth, environmental protection and social development – is central to the emergence of community-based wildlife protection efforts that involve new partnerships between actors such as local communities, businesses and government agencies. The win-win rhetoric furthers the logic that the more partners, the more wins – yet the current knowledge base lacks clear criteria for evaluating partnerships. This working paper uses political ecology as a conceptual lens to propose such criteria. We suggest examining partnerships not only based on their complexity, but also how they are formed and gain legitimacy in different contexts and how various partnership configurations engender particular kinds of ecological and socio-economic outcomes. Based on a review of the literature about partnerships and their impacts, and drawing on insights from Tanzania’s wildlife sector, we establish three groups of literature that emphasize the benefits of partnerships: one focusing on landscape conservation, another on governance reforms and the last on tourism related businesses. In these three groups of literature, partnerships are claimed to improve the effectiveness of biodiversity governance by securing land, facilitating local developments and by creating business links. Building on critiques from political ecology we conclude by questioning this win-win-win rhetoric arguing that partnerships only lead to wins for specific actors thereby indirectly aggravating local power struggles. They do so by supporting rent seeking and the rise of local elites while simultaneously concealing the marginalization of other actors and thereby effectively contributing to the continued loss of local land rights.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Tanzania’s partnership landscape: Convergence and divergence in the wildlife sector
    (NEPSUS, 2017-03) Noe, Christine; Sulle, Emmanuel; Brockington, Dan
    Tanzania’s endowment of diverse biodiversity, wildlife resources and prime natural attraction sites put the country at the center of many debates about conservation, human welfare and development. As approaches for wildlife protection have evolved over time, so has the need for redressing the gap between nature and people through different kinds of partnerships. Based on are view of the existing literature, we examine the context in which partnerships have emerged in the wildlife sector in Tanzania, the processes that support acquisition and maintenance of legitimacy, as well as the sustainability outcomes of these partnerships. Specifically, the paper examines the historical trajectory of these partnerships and the influence that different actors have historically maintained hence determining how the public and private sector engagements evolved over time. We draw insights from the Selous game reserve with specific attention to the role of Wildlife Management Areas (WMAs) as a converging point for many actors. The paper suggests that partnerships for wildlife protection have increased in number and scope. However, the assessment of their impacts has mainly focused on how much land has been secured for the protection of wildlife. Livelihood impacts of these partnerships have been largely assessed against the background of unequal terms of local community engagement with private investors, recentralization, the rise of local elites, corruption and the limitations that they place on local land use. We suggest that documenting how partnerships are formed, their different configurations and impacts should be an important step towards the analysis of the relations of power among different actors and with local communities, as well as a nuanced understanding of their ecological and livelihood outcomes.