According to the ecosystem approach, management should be decentralized to the lowest appropriate level, because "the closer management is to the ecosystem, the greater the responsibility, ownership, accountability, participation and use of local knowledge."89 The key term is "appropriate",
which involves issues like capacity. It also involves thinking about the bounds of the ecosystem, which for some migratory species are quite large and may not coincide with political bounds. Also, the concept focuses on "management", not policymaking, which implies the need to respect higher level policies as embodied in law.
Applied to hunting and wildlife conservation, this principle would recognize that where a trophy animal occurs only in a given area, then the communities that live in and government agencies responsible for that region should be responsible for the management of that particular wildlife population (subject, of course, to any governing legislation at the national or sub- national level). The ecology of the resource often involves a specific area, and the economy of use is often local. This principle, therefore, on one side,
advocates for the decentralization and/or the delegation of some management responsibilities to local government entities. On the other hand, the principle recognizes that management of natural resources is strongest when both local communities and responsible government agencies are involved. While local communities are often in the best position to affect local management, they often lack fundamental capacities that can be improved with the help of responsible government agencies and through appropriately selected policies and actions. Government agencies acting alone have a strong tendency to manage the resource for interests that ignore the realities of local needs and uses. Such marginalized communities become competing users of the resource and declines in species populations are most often the result. Legal tools can address these challenges.
In Australia, competence for wildlife management planning is shared
between the federal and state and territory governments. The Natural
Resource Management Ministerial Council develops national approaches to natural resource management and ensures inter-governmental coordination. The relevant minister may, on behalf of the commonwealth, cooperate with, and give financial and other assistance to, any person for the purpose of identifying and monitoring biodiversity components. This is particularly significant as one obstacle to effective decentralized planning is lack of resources at the local level. The minister may prepare a bioregional plan for a bioregion that is within a commonwealth area, following public consultation on the draft in accordance with the regulations. In the plan's preparation, the minister may cooperate with a state or territory agency for a bioregion that is not wholly within a commonwealth area. A bioregional plan may include provisions about: the components of biodiversity, their distribution and conservation status; important economic and social values; mechanisms for community involvement in implementing the plan; and measures for monitoring and reviewing the plan (Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, sections 171–172). This is important to overcome shortcomings of local planning for issues that go beyond the geographic limitations of territorial units. The minister may make and implement a wildlife conservation plan for the purposes of the protection, conservation and management of a listed migratory species or a conservation dependent species, adopt the plan made by a state or a self-governing territory, or adopt joint wildlife conservation plans with states and territories. Public consultation and taking the advice of the scientific committee are also provided for. The plan must provide for the research and management actions necessary to support survival of the species concerned, seek to
minimize any significant adverse social and economic impacts, and have regard to the role and interests of indigenous peoples (Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, sections 289–290).
Laws may require site-specific management plans from operators of hunting ranches and captive breeding operations (Argentina, Brazil, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Guatemala and Mexico), and from managers of protected areas to develop a sustainable wildlife management plan before conducting certain activities. In Peru, the use of wildlife in communal lands for commercial or industrial purposes by indigenous and rural communities requires the approval of a management plan. These communities may request the assistance of authorities for the design of the plan (Wildlife and Forestry Law, article 15).
In Burkina Faso, the holders of concessions to utilize wildlife in partial wildlife reserves, local refuges and ranches are to develop wildlife management plans to be approved by the local wildlife administration (Forest Code, articles 153–157). Village hunting areas must have a "management plan" approved by the regional wildlife administration. "Hunting plans" within each area are also to be established by the central wildlife administration, upon proposal of the regional administration. In Viet nam, forest owners must develop management plans for protected animals in their area and issue internal protection rules (Decree No. 32/2006/ND-CP, article 12). In the Philippines, when community-based programmes are in place in protected areas, the people's organization prepares the management plan or an ancestral domain sustainable development and protection plan.
In Mexico registration of wildlife management units (so-called UMAs) requires a management plan designed by a registered technician. Management plans must include specific objectives and indicators for success, methods for collecting information, a calendar of activities, and measures to manage habitat, population and specimens, as well as control and contingency measures. Specific population studies are not required, and technicians may present management plans based on different approaches and methods (Wildlife Law, articles 39–41). This has allowed the development of Mexico's Borrego Cimarron project, which is based on the issuance of a handful of hunting permits to benefit conservation research and sustain the livelihood of a local community through the registration of their land as an UMA and the issuance of permits for recreational hunting of borrego cimarron
(bighorn sheep) that are then sold by communities to foreigners every year (Aguilar and Morgera, 2009).
Similarly, regulatory regimes may request species-specific management plans directly from users. In Guatemala the commercial use of species in categories II-III of its List of Endangered Species is subject to the approval by authorities of management plans developed by users, to guarantee sustainable use. In addition, plans are also sometimes requested for community-based wildlife management. In Bolivia, communities devise plans for the management of vicuñas or reptiles, usually funded and aided by either NGOs or universities, and present the plans to the national authorities. Plans are then evaluated, and if adopted, authorities issue a biannual quota to a community to use particular wildlife species in a particular area. Brazil requires a wildlife management plan for captive breeding operations leading to exporting CITES-listed species (Aguilar and Morgera, 2009).
In the US, habitat conservation plans are required for those seeking permits to provide protection from violating the Endangered Species Act. Private
landowners, corporations, state or local agencies or Native American tribes who are planning on conducting activities that may incidentally harm
(which is defined as a prohibited "taking" under the act) endangered or threatened wildlife are required to obtain an incidental take permit from the Fish and Wildlife Service. The Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) is then to be designed to offset any harmful effects the proposed activity might have on the species90. These plans have become more commonplace, as they permit private landowners to conduct development projects on non-federal lands that otherwise would have been prohibited if the project was likely to cause the taking of an endangered or threatened species (Hulick 2006). This is thus arguably a way to get local people (private land developers, often) to propose and follow management plans. The government retains, however, a significant degree of power: it can deny a HCP if the plan seems insufficiently justified or inadequate; or it can insist on any additions to the proposed HCP that seem scientifically justified.
If appropriately designed, legal frameworks allowing the sharing of management planning responsibilities may contribute to create partnerships between the authority and users, make local government and users more
accountable, and take into account more effectively local concerns, thus contributing to empowering the poor.
Box 4-6: Legal options for sharing wildlife management responsibility
x Where wildlife management decisions concern a specific area, entrust qualified local government with (part of) management responsibilities; x where wildlife occurs in several areas or migrates between political
borders within the country, involve regional and local authorities in the coordination of management;
x allow local authorities to legislate on certain aspects of wildlife management (regulation of local initiatives), within limits set by national legislation;
x empower protected areas management entities to determine applicable rules within their areas, within limits set by national legislation;
x create the possibility for the central government to conclude "agreements" with local governments to specify which wildlife management responsibilities can be exercised at the local level;
x in all the above-listed cases, ensure communication and information sharing among the different levels of management;
x create joint decision-making requirements, supported by the provision of all information available both to local communities and government managers;
x allow for sharing wildlife monitoring responsibilities with local communities; x allow for the delegation of enforcement authority to local communities,
within limits set by national legislation;
x establish a negotiated process, where feasible, that allows for: (1) the use of different instruments, including contracts, memoranda of understanding, collaborative management agreements, etc., to formally recognize the kind of sharing that will occur, and (2) the changing of responsibilities as experience dictates without requiring a change in the law;
x provide adequate channels of negotiations and conflict prevention/resolution that is appropriate, understandable and easily accessible by local communities.
Source: partly inspired by Addis Ababa Principles and Guidelines, particularly principle 9, seventh operational guideline
4.4 Providing for international cooperation where multinational