On the African continent, a conservation experiment is now underway. In response to mounting threats to biodiversity, national budgets, and political instability, several governments are delegating the responsibility of overseeing protected areas to non-profits.
Everything points to this tactic being successful. Big donors like the EU and World Bank are drawn to NGOs because of their ability to handle corruption better. Their capital can finance personnel, research, and technology to better maintain protected regions and species. Despite anecdotal evidence to the contrary, very few studies have thoroughly examined the effects of these management changes.
A group of academics from places like UC Santa Barbara set out to determine the effects of this tendency on both humans and other animals. By comparing parks run by private companies with those run by governments, they found that parks overseen by NGOs had better animal protections (such as less elephant poaching) and more visitors. When NGOs are in charge, management gets better all around. Nevertheless, it was also shown that in war zones, the risk of armed groups targeting civilians in and surrounding protected areas increases when park management is outsourced. The group shared their findings in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences publication.
Sean Denny, a doctorate candidate at UC Santa Barbara’s Bren School of Environmental Science & Management, stated that humans are an integral part of protected areas and conservation in general. Ultimately, conservation is all about people; it’s about figuring out how different species may live in harmony with one another. Preventing extinctions brought about by hunting and deforestation falls under this category. Thus, conservation frequently has consequences that affect people’s lives and means of subsistence, which must be considered.
The African Parks System as an Example
Denny and his co-authors zeroed in on African Parks (AP) in their case study. Protected African areas are administered by the most prominent NGO (NGO), AP. The South African non-profit controls the parks’ administration, personnel, and finances.
Protected areas in Africa are a top priority for AP. Still, the organisation also aims to bring in tourists and fund community development initiatives like new schools and hospitals so that locals may reap the benefits of these ecosystems. As part of their restoration efforts, they occasionally go to regions that are war zones, where animals are particularly vulnerable to overhunting and other forms of persecution. However, strict enforcement and security measures to safeguard wildlife in these areas may have unforeseen consequences for humans, forcing them to choose between the well-being of animals and their safety. Since AP works in areas prone to conflict, the authors reasoned that the organisation’s operations could provide light on these trade-offs.
However, navigating such a massive study was not without its difficulties. The writers were compelled to contrast results in regions overseen by AP with those that would have occurred had AP never been granted control. They accomplished this by conducting a quasi-experiment in which researchers established treatment and control groups based on actual occurrences in the real world. As a precaution against attributing results solely to baseline differences, researchers in controlled trials randomly place participants in one of these groups. There were other options for Denny and his associates.
Thankfully, AP has released a map of African protected areas that they feel are crucial to preserving the continent’s biodiversity and will, in the end, satisfy their standards for future administration. Some commonalities among these so-called “anchor sites” are their vast size, solid legal standing, low levels of agricultural activity, and the possibility of supporting substantial animal populations. Governments and, in a small number of instances, other non-governmental organisations (NGOs) oversee the remaining anchor sites, whereas AP already oversees twenty-two of them.
The research team established a treatment group using anchor sites that AP administers. Anchor sites that were not under the management of AP or any other NGO made up their control group. “African Parks essentially created our control group for us,” remarked Denny.
Deciding what to look for
The Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool highlighted the processes that led to these results. While many national governments struggle due to a lack of funding, African Parks is a behemoth. The METT found that AP improved design and planning and increased capacity and resources (budget and personnel). “In some management criteria, they seem to manage more effectively,” observed Denny.
Under AP, the writers also noticed increased park surveillance and enforcement. The organisation employs high-tech tools such as aircraft, drones, and remote sensing to monitor unlawful activities and ensure the safety of its parks’ species. This likely causes the increased risk that armed groups may target citizens and the positive effects of AP control on animals.
Among the four dimensions assessed by the METT, decision-making inclusivity was the sole one that pertained to private park administration. Denny and his colleagues were not surprised by the modest decrease in this category because AP is meticulous with its work. But it does show that there’s room for development.
Managing more effectively
Animals in Africa are in danger, and non-governmental organisations (NGOs) are proposing a way out. However, to comprehend the merits, shortcomings, and potential for enhancement of private conservation management, it is essential to examine its effects. While it may seem like outsourcing conservation is the way to go for wildlife protection, the enhanced enforcement that comes with it might cause issues for humans.
Researchers found that including local populations in protected area management was one approach to make sure the sites were helpful to people. According to Denny, ethical conservation necessitates including and paying local communities for the expenditures they incur.
“If, in conflict regions, civilians are bearing some unexpected costs of private protected area management, then it is essential that they are involved in decision making,” according to him. Another option is for governments, park managers, and environmentalists to keep an eye on how private management affects people and animals and make adjustments as needed.
In addition, the colonial powers that established many African national parks left them with extensive colonial legacies and histories. Denny and his colleagues are keen to collaborate with African scholars to delve into how locals’ views of parks are influenced by their history, preferences about park management, and who should exercise authority over them. “By elevating local voices, perspectives, and experiences, we can develop more meaningful research and support management practices that benefit both wildlife and local communities,” according to him.
