Home       About us   Issues     Search     Submission Subscribe   Contact    Login 
Conservation and Society
An interdisciplinary journal exploring linkages between society, environment and development
Conservation and Society
Users Online: 590 Home Print this page Email this page Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size

ARTICLE
Year : 2016  |  Volume : 14  |  Issue : 3  |  Page : 183-194

The Political Economy of Conservation at Mount Elgon, Uganda: Between Local Deprivation, Regional Sustainability, and Global Public Goods


1 Department of Internal Environment and Development Studies, Noragric, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Ås, Norway
2 Department of Internal Environment and Development Studies, Noragric, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Ås, Norway; World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF), Nairobi, Kenya
3 Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Faculty of Social and Human Sciences, University of Iceland, Reykjavik, Iceland

Correspondence Address:
Paul Vedeld
Department of Internal Environment and Development Studies, Noragric, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Ås
Norway
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/0972-4923.191155

Rights and Permissions

This paper presents a case study from Mount Elgon National Park, Uganda, examining and deepening an understanding of direct incomes and costs of conservation for local people close to protected areas. In the early 1990s, collaborative arrangements were introduced to Mount Elgon National Park to improve people-park relations and enhance rural livelihoods after a period of violent evictions and severe resource access restrictions. In areas with such arrangements – including resource access agreements, Taungya farming, and beekeeping schemes – we observe a marginal increase in annual incomes for involved households. Other incomes accrue from tourism revenue sharing schemes, a community revolving fund, and payments for carbon sequestration. However, these incomes are economically marginal (1.2% of household income), unevenly distributed and instrumentally used to reward compliance with park regulations. They do not necessarily accrue to those incurring costs due to eviction and exclusion, crop raiding, resource access restrictions and conflicts. By contrast, costs constitute at least 20.5 % of total household incomes, making it difficult to see how conservation, poverty alleviation and development can be locally reconciled if local populations continue to bear the economic brunt of conservation. We recommend a shift in policy towards donor and state responsibility for compensating costs on a relevant scale. Such a shift would be an important step towards a more substantive rights-based model of conservation, and would enhance the legitimacy of protected area management in the context of both extreme poverty and natural resource dependence.


[FULL TEXT] [PDF]*
Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)
 

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed4258    
    Printed34    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded2526    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal