Bonobo (Pan paniscus) Conservation Strategy 2012–2022
Yüklə 0,59 Mb. Pdf görüntüsü
|
- Bu səhifədəki naviqasiya:
- Indicator Type (performance, progress, impact) Method Existing data Organisation
- By 2022, sustainable sources of funding for bonobo conservation effectively support PA management and other programmes and initiatives securing bonobo conservation.
- One NGO is chosen to represent the others
- A small secretariat is created to represent the wider group members
- An independent facilitator is engaged to represent the NGO group.
Strategy 5: Sustainable funding Indicator Type (performance, progress, impact) Method Existing data Organisation responsible Date or frequency Where Cost (low, medium, high) S5/O1 By 2022, sustainable sources of funding for bonobo conservation effectively support PA management and other programmes and initiatives securing bonobo conservation. At least one trust fund created and supporting bonobo conservation activities Performance Trust Fund None
ICCN and partners Continuous All sites Medium Total annual expenditure on bonobo conservation Performance Financial reports Partial
ICCN and partners Continuous All sites Low
52 4.7 Implementation of the Conservation Strategy Several of the interventions proposed in this conservation strategy are already being carried out, particularly those which support the management of existing PAs. Other initiatives should begin as soon as possible, particularly the updating of information on the status of bonobos in areas that have not been surveyed recently – this is particularly urgent as planning decisions taken within the framework of post-war reconstruction are likely to impact bonobos. The attribution of com- mercial logging concessions and rehabilitation of the road network are particularly important in this respect. Expert assessment of critical habitat for bonobos within logging or other extractive indus- try concessions must be carried out in compliance with international standards, and strict protec- tion measures must be guaranteed. Conservationists must also engage with logging companies with respect to management of hunting and the bushmeat trade in their concessions (see Morgan & Sanz 2007; Morgan et al. 2013). Since poaching and weak law enforcement have been identified as the most important threats to the bonobo’s survival, projects that directly address these issues should be given priority. A particular feature of bonobo conservation is the relatively high number of conservation and research organizations operating in the bonobo’s range. This situation has advantages and disad- vantages. On the one hand, a large number of actors means that many sites can be targeted and a wide range of expertise mobilized. On the other hand, a multiplicity of actors can create competi- tion for limited financial resources and, in the absence of sound coordination, can compromise the efficiency and effectiveness of interventions. This plan has been produced in a fully participatory manner and provides the general framework within which conservation actors and funding agen- cies can plan their interventions in a coherent, transparent and efficient manner. Furthermore, joint implementation of specific projects will help to strengthen the cohesion and relevance of field interventions. In view of this large number of actors, a coordination mechanism for implementing this conserva- tion strategy is considered desirable. Workshop participants agreed that this should be a light structure, to ensure that everyone participates and that limited financial resources are not wasted. The coordination mechanism should reinforce coordination not only between conservation NGOs and the government, but also between the NGOs themselves. This will help to ensure that by speaking with a common voice the impact of their messages and their actions on the ground are strengthened. Finally, the bonobo conservation coordination mechanism should complement existing structures within ICCN – CoCoCongo at the national level; CoCoSi at the site level – which were created to strengthen coordination of all conservation activities for which ICCN is responsible. Three options for a coordination mechanism have been proposed (Blomley 2011): 1.
ing with a range of external stakeholders, including government and the private sector, and ideally already be engaged in external networking and communication. It should have a strong field presence, but also a presence in Kinshasa that allows it to identify with national as well as local issues. The NGO should have the confidence of other bonobo groups, and therefore feel confident that common interests would be represented, rather than those of the individual NGO. Meetings held on a semi-annual basis would allow for planning and reporting between the lead NGO and the wider group. 2.
subgroup of the wider bonobo NGO community. It could include one or two international NGO and one or two national NGO representatives. One of the NGO representatives would be tasked as the lead and the others would take on specific roles. 3.
NGOs are unable to agree a primary ‘lead’ NGO or small group of lead NGOs (options 1 and 2) and an external, independent coordinator of the bonobo network is therefore needed, who could potentially be housed and supported by an individual NGO member. This is not an ideal solution but could be considered if there is distrust between NGOs. This option would require a plan to transition to a more permanent model (1 or 2 above). Yüklə 0,59 Mb. Dostları ilə paylaş:
|