Traitors Among Victims: The Case of Market-Community Wildlife Collaborative Management in Malawi’s Majete Wildlife Reserve

Sane Pashane Zuka; Brenda-Kanyika Zuka

doi:doi:10.11648/j.ash.20160205.11

| Peer-Reviewed

Traitors Among Victims: The Case of Market-Community Wildlife Collaborative Management in Malawi’s Majete Wildlife Reserve

Sane Pashane Zuka, Brenda-Kanyika Zuka

Published in Advances in Sciences and Humanities (Volume 2, Issue 5)

Received: 26 September 2016 Accepted: 28 October 2016 Published: 5 December 2016

Views: Downloads:

Download PDF

Share This Article

Twitter
Linked In
Facebook

Abstract

In line with political moves towards democratic governance, state-based management of wildlife is being replaced by community-market collaborative management approaches. In Malawi, community-market collaboration in wildlife management is particularly presented as a panacea to lack of community support for wildlife conservation due to their exclusion from enjoying the benefits ofits conservation. Community-market collaborative management, however, changes the rules and procedures in accessingthe benefits of wildlife conservation. Using MajeteWildlife Reserve, this study explores theextent to which the new approach addresses past unequal benefits from wildlife conservation, especially for the local communities. The study employed both qualitative (in-depth interviews, focus group discussions) and quantitative (desk study) methods. The findings from Majete Wildlife Reserve reveal that collaborative wildlifemanagement is predominantly a market oriented activity that reproduces newmodes of accessing benefits and new actors that sustains its inherent principles. Consequently, while a few victims of former state-based wildlife management approach are currently benefiting from and have become faithful advocates of the new regime, a number of vulnerable groups of people continue to suffer. At present, community-market collaborative management hastaken the form of patronage rather than partnership. Hence, the solution to inclusive and transparent wildlife management cannot be a matter of just fussing two management approaches.

Published in	Advances in Sciences and Humanities (Volume 2, Issue 5)
DOI	10.11648/j.ash.20160205.11
Page(s)	40-47
Creative Commons	This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright	Copyright © The Author(s), 2016. Published by Science Publishing Group

Keywords

Malawi, Community-Market Wildlife Management, Political Ecology, Market System, Collaborative Management

References

[1]	Abdellatif, M. A., (2003). Good Governance and its relationship to Democracy and economic Development in Governance, Democracy and Economic Development. A Report from the Global Forum III on Fighting Corruption and Safeguarding Integrity, 20-31 May 2003, Seoul.
[2]	Adams, J. S. and McShane, T. S., (1992). The Myth of Wild Africa. New York: Norton.
[3]	Adams W., and D., Hulme (2001). Community Conservation: Changing Narratives, Policies and Practices in African Conservation, in David Hulme and Marshall Murphree (eds.) African Wildlife and Livelihoods: The Promise and Performance of CommunityConservation. Oxford: James Currey.
[4]	African Parks Network (2010). Annual Report, Johannesburg.
[5]	Blaikie, P. (2006). Is Small Really Beautiful? Community-based Natural Resources Management in Malawi and Botswana inWorld Development, 34(11) 1942-1957.
[6]	Borrini-Feyerabend (1996). Collaborative Management of Protected Areas: Tailoring theApproach to the Context, Issues in Social Policy, IUCN, Gland Switzerland.
[7]	Brockington, D., (2002). Fortress Conservation: The Preservation of Mkomazi Game Reserve in Tanzania (Blooming: Indiana University Press, 2002).
[8]	Brockington, D., (1999). Conservation, Displacement and Livelihoods: the consequences of the evictionfor pastoralists moved from Mkomazi Game Reserve in Tanzania, in Nomadic Peoples NS Volume Number 3, Issue 2 1999.
[9]	Elahi, K., and Danapoulos, C. P., (2004). Democracy, Capitalism and Development in Journal of Security Sector Management, Vol. 2 No.
[10]	Escobar A., (1998). Whose Knowledge, Whose Nature? Biodiversity Conservation and PoliticalEcology of Social Movements, in Journal of Political Ecology Vol.
[11]	Escobar A., (2006). “Difference and Struggle over Natural Resources A Political ecology framework”, inDevelopment (2006) 49(3), 6–13.
[12]	Fairhead, J., and Leach, M. (1995). False Forest History, Complicit Social Analysis: Rethinking Some West African Environmental Narratives in World Development Vol. 23, No. 6 pp 1023-1035.
[13]	Grindle, M. S., (2004), 'Good Enough Governance: Poverty Reduction and Reform inDeveloping Countries', Governance: An International Journal of Policy, Administration, and Institutions, vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 525-48.
[14]	Government of Malawi (GoM, 2005). Wildlife Policy, Department of National Parks and Wildlife, Lilongwe: Ministry of Tourism and National Parks.
[15]	Hayes, G. D. (1977). Guide to Malawi’s National Parks and Game Reserves (Nyasaland FaunaPreservation Society.
[16]	Hayes, G. D., (1972) Wildlife Conservation in Malawi in Society of Malawi. Journal. 25(2), pp.22-31.
[17]	Hayes, G. D., (1957). Mijeti, in Oryx, Vol. 2, No. 5 pp 294-298.
[18]	Hulme D., and Murphree M., (1999). Policy Arena: Communities, Wildlife and the New Conservation in Africa, Journal of International Development, 11, (1999) pp. 277-285.
[19]	Hunter, N. D., “G. D Hayes and the N.F.P.S”, in C., Dudley (1978). Nyala Vol. 5, No. 2, December 1978, Nyasaland Fauna Preservation Society pp. 67-75.
[20]	Kjekshus, H., (1977). Ecology Control and Economic Development in East African History; The Case of Tanganyika 1850-1950 (London: Heinemann pp126-160.
[21]	Kideghesho, J. R., (2006). Wildlife Conservation and Local Land Use Conflicts in Western Serengeti, Tanzania, (Norway: NTNU.
[22]	Kideghesho J. R., (2008). Who Pays for Wildlife Conservation in Tanzania and Who Benefits? Tanzania: Sokoine University of Agriculture.
[23]	Merry, S. E. (1988). Legal Pluralism in Law and Society Review, 22(5).
[24]	Ostrom, E. (2000). Private and Common Property Rights. Indiana University, Center forthe study of Institutions, Population and Environmental Change, Indiana.
[25]	Quazi, S. A, Bushley B. R., and Miles W. B., (2002). Connecting Communities and Conservation: Collaborative Management of Protected Areas in Bangladesh.
[26]	Sharma, S., (2007) Democracy, Good Governance, and Economic Development in Taiwan Journal of Democracy, Volume 3, No. 1: 29-62.
[27]	Sherry, B. Y., (1995). The Demise of Elephants of the Middle Shire Valley, Southern Malawi Project No. 94/30/9 of the Fauna and Flora Preservation Society of the United Kingdom. Study carried out in collaboration with the Wildlife Society of Malawi, and the Department of National Parks and Wildlife, Lilongwe.
[28]	Sullivan, S., (2012). Conservation is sexy! What makes this so, and what does this make? AnEngagement with Celebrity and the Environment, in Conservation and Society.
[29]	Vaccaro, I., Beltran. O, and Paquet P. A., (2013). Political Ecology and Conservation Policies: some theoretical genealogies”, in Journal of Political Ecology, (2013 Vol. 20), pp. 256-277.
[30]	Waheduzzaman, (2010). People’s Participation for Good Governance: A Study of Rural Development Programs in Bangladesh, PhD Thesis. Victoria University, School of Management and Information Systems, Faculty of Business and Law.
[31]	Zuka, S., (2013). Myths and realities in community management of common pool resources in Malawi:social stratiﬁcation as a negative side-effect of social capital. Journal of Natural Resources Policy Research.

Cite This Article

Plain Text BibTeX RIS

APA Style

Sane Pashane Zuka, Brenda-Kanyika Zuka. (2016). Traitors Among Victims: The Case of Market-Community Wildlife Collaborative Management in Malawi’s Majete Wildlife Reserve. Advances in Sciences and Humanities, 2(5), 40-47. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ash.20160205.11

Copy | Download

ACS Style

Sane Pashane Zuka; Brenda-Kanyika Zuka. Traitors Among Victims: The Case of Market-Community Wildlife Collaborative Management in Malawi’s Majete Wildlife Reserve. Adv. Sci. Humanit. 2016, 2(5), 40-47. doi: 10.11648/j.ash.20160205.11

Copy | Download

AMA Style

Sane Pashane Zuka, Brenda-Kanyika Zuka. Traitors Among Victims: The Case of Market-Community Wildlife Collaborative Management in Malawi’s Majete Wildlife Reserve. Adv Sci Humanit. 2016;2(5):40-47. doi: 10.11648/j.ash.20160205.11

Copy | Download

@article{10.11648/j.ash.20160205.11,
  author = {Sane Pashane Zuka and Brenda-Kanyika Zuka},
  title = {Traitors Among Victims: The Case of Market-Community Wildlife Collaborative Management in Malawi’s Majete Wildlife Reserve},
  journal = {Advances in Sciences and Humanities},
  volume = {2},
  number = {5},
  pages = {40-47},
  doi = {10.11648/j.ash.20160205.11},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ash.20160205.11},
  eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.ash.20160205.11},
  abstract = {In line with political moves towards democratic governance, state-based management of wildlife is being replaced by community-market collaborative management approaches. In Malawi, community-market collaboration in wildlife management is particularly presented as a panacea to lack of community support for wildlife conservation due to their exclusion from enjoying the benefits ofits conservation. Community-market collaborative management, however, changes the rules and procedures in accessingthe benefits of wildlife conservation. Using MajeteWildlife Reserve, this study explores theextent to which the new approach addresses past unequal benefits from wildlife conservation, especially for the local communities. The study employed both qualitative (in-depth interviews, focus group discussions) and quantitative (desk study) methods. The findings from Majete Wildlife Reserve reveal that collaborative wildlifemanagement is predominantly a market oriented activity that reproduces newmodes of accessing benefits and new actors that sustains its inherent principles. Consequently, while a few victims of former state-based wildlife management approach are currently benefiting from and have become faithful advocates of the new regime, a number of vulnerable groups of people continue to suffer. At present, community-market collaborative management hastaken the form of patronage rather than partnership. Hence, the solution to inclusive and transparent wildlife management cannot be a matter of just fussing two management approaches.},
 year = {2016}
}

Copy | Download

TY  - JOUR
T1  - Traitors Among Victims: The Case of Market-Community Wildlife Collaborative Management in Malawi’s Majete Wildlife Reserve
AU  - Sane Pashane Zuka
AU  - Brenda-Kanyika Zuka
Y1  - 2016/12/05
PY  - 2016
N1  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ash.20160205.11
DO  - 10.11648/j.ash.20160205.11
T2  - Advances in Sciences and Humanities
JF  - Advances in Sciences and Humanities
JO  - Advances in Sciences and Humanities
SP  - 40
EP  - 47
PB  - Science Publishing Group
SN  - 2472-0984
UR  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ash.20160205.11
AB  - In line with political moves towards democratic governance, state-based management of wildlife is being replaced by community-market collaborative management approaches. In Malawi, community-market collaboration in wildlife management is particularly presented as a panacea to lack of community support for wildlife conservation due to their exclusion from enjoying the benefits ofits conservation. Community-market collaborative management, however, changes the rules and procedures in accessingthe benefits of wildlife conservation. Using MajeteWildlife Reserve, this study explores theextent to which the new approach addresses past unequal benefits from wildlife conservation, especially for the local communities. The study employed both qualitative (in-depth interviews, focus group discussions) and quantitative (desk study) methods. The findings from Majete Wildlife Reserve reveal that collaborative wildlifemanagement is predominantly a market oriented activity that reproduces newmodes of accessing benefits and new actors that sustains its inherent principles. Consequently, while a few victims of former state-based wildlife management approach are currently benefiting from and have become faithful advocates of the new regime, a number of vulnerable groups of people continue to suffer. At present, community-market collaborative management hastaken the form of patronage rather than partnership. Hence, the solution to inclusive and transparent wildlife management cannot be a matter of just fussing two management approaches.
VL  - 2
IS  - 5
ER  -

Copy | Download

Author Information

Sane Pashane Zuka

Department of Land Economy, University of Malawi, Blantyre, Malawi
Brenda-Kanyika Zuka

Department of History, Catholic University of Malawi, Blantyre, Malawi

Download PDF

Sections

Plain Text BibTeX RIS

APA Style

Sane Pashane Zuka, Brenda-Kanyika Zuka. (2016). Traitors Among Victims: The Case of Market-Community Wildlife Collaborative Management in Malawi’s Majete Wildlife Reserve. Advances in Sciences and Humanities, 2(5), 40-47. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ash.20160205.11

Copy | Download

ACS Style

Sane Pashane Zuka; Brenda-Kanyika Zuka. Traitors Among Victims: The Case of Market-Community Wildlife Collaborative Management in Malawi’s Majete Wildlife Reserve. Adv. Sci. Humanit. 2016, 2(5), 40-47. doi: 10.11648/j.ash.20160205.11

Copy | Download

AMA Style

Sane Pashane Zuka, Brenda-Kanyika Zuka. Traitors Among Victims: The Case of Market-Community Wildlife Collaborative Management in Malawi’s Majete Wildlife Reserve. Adv Sci Humanit. 2016;2(5):40-47. doi: 10.11648/j.ash.20160205.11

Copy | Download

@article{10.11648/j.ash.20160205.11,
  author = {Sane Pashane Zuka and Brenda-Kanyika Zuka},
  title = {Traitors Among Victims: The Case of Market-Community Wildlife Collaborative Management in Malawi’s Majete Wildlife Reserve},
  journal = {Advances in Sciences and Humanities},
  volume = {2},
  number = {5},
  pages = {40-47},
  doi = {10.11648/j.ash.20160205.11},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ash.20160205.11},
  eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.ash.20160205.11},
  abstract = {In line with political moves towards democratic governance, state-based management of wildlife is being replaced by community-market collaborative management approaches. In Malawi, community-market collaboration in wildlife management is particularly presented as a panacea to lack of community support for wildlife conservation due to their exclusion from enjoying the benefits ofits conservation. Community-market collaborative management, however, changes the rules and procedures in accessingthe benefits of wildlife conservation. Using MajeteWildlife Reserve, this study explores theextent to which the new approach addresses past unequal benefits from wildlife conservation, especially for the local communities. The study employed both qualitative (in-depth interviews, focus group discussions) and quantitative (desk study) methods. The findings from Majete Wildlife Reserve reveal that collaborative wildlifemanagement is predominantly a market oriented activity that reproduces newmodes of accessing benefits and new actors that sustains its inherent principles. Consequently, while a few victims of former state-based wildlife management approach are currently benefiting from and have become faithful advocates of the new regime, a number of vulnerable groups of people continue to suffer. At present, community-market collaborative management hastaken the form of patronage rather than partnership. Hence, the solution to inclusive and transparent wildlife management cannot be a matter of just fussing two management approaches.},
 year = {2016}
}

Copy | Download

TY  - JOUR
T1  - Traitors Among Victims: The Case of Market-Community Wildlife Collaborative Management in Malawi’s Majete Wildlife Reserve
AU  - Sane Pashane Zuka
AU  - Brenda-Kanyika Zuka
Y1  - 2016/12/05
PY  - 2016
N1  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ash.20160205.11
DO  - 10.11648/j.ash.20160205.11
T2  - Advances in Sciences and Humanities
JF  - Advances in Sciences and Humanities
JO  - Advances in Sciences and Humanities
SP  - 40
EP  - 47
PB  - Science Publishing Group
SN  - 2472-0984
UR  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ash.20160205.11
AB  - In line with political moves towards democratic governance, state-based management of wildlife is being replaced by community-market collaborative management approaches. In Malawi, community-market collaboration in wildlife management is particularly presented as a panacea to lack of community support for wildlife conservation due to their exclusion from enjoying the benefits ofits conservation. Community-market collaborative management, however, changes the rules and procedures in accessingthe benefits of wildlife conservation. Using MajeteWildlife Reserve, this study explores theextent to which the new approach addresses past unequal benefits from wildlife conservation, especially for the local communities. The study employed both qualitative (in-depth interviews, focus group discussions) and quantitative (desk study) methods. The findings from Majete Wildlife Reserve reveal that collaborative wildlifemanagement is predominantly a market oriented activity that reproduces newmodes of accessing benefits and new actors that sustains its inherent principles. Consequently, while a few victims of former state-based wildlife management approach are currently benefiting from and have become faithful advocates of the new regime, a number of vulnerable groups of people continue to suffer. At present, community-market collaborative management hastaken the form of patronage rather than partnership. Hence, the solution to inclusive and transparent wildlife management cannot be a matter of just fussing two management approaches.
VL  - 2
IS  - 5
ER  -

Copy | Download