Revise Contracts with Community Input (Adaptive Management)
Every year since the project started meetings have been conducted in each partner community to summarize annual benefits and infractions and discuss issues. These meetings have resulted in changes and improvements to the benefit sharing contract. It is very important to allow contracts to be adapted, changed and improved, as all issues cannot be foreseen from the start. It is also important that changes be made by villagers themselves in order to engender ownership. Here are some examples of changes that were made over the first four years of operation: • Increased penalty for killing of Class I (protected) species such as a tiger, leopard or bear to a 100% loss of a village’s fund. • Increased number of participating villages from 9 to 14 to further reduce threats in the tour area. • Sharing benefits by family rather than by village in order to give equal responsibility to families for protecting wildlife. • Providing incentives to report on wildlife crimes in one’s own village by making a rule of no reduction in a village fund for cases where information is provided by the village itself.
Regular annual meetings facilitated adaptive management. The meeting format allowed villagers to feel comfortable to speak up and make suggestions. Extra budget from donors also allowed this to happen, since annual meetings do incur an extra cost above what tourism revenue alone can contribute with low tourist numbers at the start. A private business would likely not be able spend money on such meetings, which require a meeting in every community.
There have been issues with process of amending contracts. Contract changes were not planned for, and as result voting procedures were absent in the beginning. It is also important to note the difficultly posed by the large time and resource cost of having follow up meetings in each community to vote on amendments. Furthermore, increased amendments to the contracts have made them more difficult for local people to read, remember and understand, reducing their effectiveness. Proposed changes have also been influenced by non-community members, both from government and non-government sides, weakening community ownership.