Article 7 of the directive allows hunting for species that are listed in Annex II, subject to limitations to ensure the viability of the species through a
2. METHODOLOGICAL ISSUES
2.1 Developing a wildlife policy or strategy
Wildlife law reforms should reflect the vision and the programme of the government. That vision should address the sector's environmental and social needs, including the needs of the poor. Where, for example, there is need for subsistence hunting, the government must address the issue and accommodate sustainable subsistence uses. Where there is potential for sustainable tourism development, the government should provide for viable arrangements that are open to marginalized groups and local communities. Overlooking (or over-regulating) some aspects, such as traditional hunting and wildlife-watching tourism, may exclude disadvantaged people from legal processes altogether.
A constructive way to identify issues and determine the scope of legal reforms is to develop a written wildlife policy. A policy (or strategy) provides principles and plans to guide future actions. A well crafted policy balances social, economic and environmental considerations. It specifically provides guidance for planning, resource allocation as well as legal reforms. It considers the country's international obligations (discussed above in chapter 1) and it fits with existing domestic laws, institutions and policies (discussed below in this chapter).
The national wildlife authority will most likely lead the process of policy development. The process will start with the identification of the relevant stakeholders, and of existing constraints and prospects for the development of the wildlife sector, including legal bottlenecks and opportunities. On the basis of the problems identified, the policymakers will identify possible solutions to discuss with stakeholders having an interest in wildlife management.
A top-level policy should define the goals of wildlife management for a medium- to long-term period, looking far enough ahead to assure sustainability. For each goal, it should identify implementation tools, including capacity building and training, public education and awareness- raising, technical work, and revision of legislation and of the institutional set- up. Finally, it should set out responsibilities, time frames and resources necessary for policy implementation.
Ideally, the policy will represent a consensus among all relevant stakeholders. At the least, the policy should represent the official position of the government.
A good policy becomes the guiding document for legislative reform. It will be more than a legislative guide, however. It will describe an overall, coordinated, multifaceted approach to wildlife issues. It may call for legislative reform, but it may also call for agency actions within existing legal authority and cooperative support outside the government.61
The policy may also discuss how the government will revise the policy, and legislation may ultimately set out requirements for future policymaking. In Burkina Faso, for instance, the Forest Code requires that the national forestry policy includes management of fauna, and should be based on the actual involvement of stakeholders and decentralized management (Forest Code, articles 6–7). Similarly, in Georgia, legislation calls for a national policy on wildlife management (Law on Wildlife, article 10), and in Kazakhstan the government is to develop wildlife policy and programmes according to the Law on Wildlife (article 8).
Developing wildlife policies can introduce and elicit support for innovative
approaches to wildlife management, particularly for the empowerment of
the poor. In India, for instance, the National Wildlife Action Plan 2002–2016 recognizes among its policy imperatives the need to build peoples' support for wildlife through conservation programmes, to reconcile livelihood security with wildlife protection and to address human-wildlife conflicts as a crucial management issue through innovative approaches. Along similar lines, Lao PDR 2004 National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan have the stated goal to maintain biodiversity as a key to poverty alleviation and to
61 This section draws, mutatis mutandis, from Vapnek, J. and Spreij, M. 2005, Perspectives and
protect the current asset base of the poor. In the same vein, one of the objectives of Viet nam's 2003 Strategy on Management of the System of Nature Conservation Zones till 2010 is the combination of conservation and development activities, so that the nature conservation zones contribute to comprehensive growth, hunger elimination and poverty alleviation. The policy statement of Malaysia's 1998 National Biodiversity Policy is "to conserve Malaysia's biological diversity and to ensure that its components are utilized in a sustainable manner for the continued progress and socio- economic development of the nation." Its principles include that the sustainable management of biological diversity is the responsibility of all sectors of society; it is the duty of government to formulate and implement the policy framework for sustainable management and utilization of biological diversity in close cooperation with scientists, the business community and the public; and the role of local communities must be recognized and their rightful share of benefits ensured. Its objectives include optimizing economic benefits from sustainable use and ensuring long-term food security.
In some instances, broader biodiversity policy documents may include policy guidance specific or related to wildlife. In the Philippines, the 2006 National Biodiversity Strategy establishes the National Policy of Biological Diversity, which recognizes that the protection, conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity are a shared responsibility among all sectors. It therefore calls for collaboration among all concerned government offices with the private sector, civil society and local communities "so that biological diversity goals are incorporated in their respective programs and activities, including institutionalizing biodiversity conservation as a principal corporate environmental responsibility. Public participation in protection, conservation and sustainable use activities, especially at the local level, shall be encouraged to maximize conservation and community benefits" (2006 Executive Order No. 578, section 2). Clearly such policy should then be reflected in wildlife legislation.
Wildlife policies may also be effectively integrated in the wildlife
management planning process (see chapter 3 below), in which case legal
guarantees for public participation are particularly important. This is, for instance, the case in New Zealand, where the Director-General of the Conservation Department drafts statements of general policy, which become the basis for conservation management strategies and plans. After consultation with the New Zealand Fish and Game Council in the case of
sports fish and game policy, or the Conservation Authority in any other case, the government makes draft statements available for public inspection and invites comments by interested persons and organizations and regional councils, before the relevant minister adopts the final draft (Conservation Act, section 17).
Box 2-1: Options for legal provisions on wildlife policy
x Enact provisions calling for the periodic development of wildlife policies or strategies, possibly specifying certain issues to be addressed or principles to be respected (such as environmental sustainability, poverty reduction, the role of non-governmental stakeholders in decision-making and management, etc.);
x require a participatory process in wildlife policy making, possibly including steps such as:
o identifying concerned stakeholders,
o giving advanced notice to stakeholders and the public of the policymaking process,
o publishing drafts of the proposed policy, before it becomes final, for public comment,
o publishing expert analyses comparing the proposed policy to alternatives, taking into account public comment on proposals and perhaps also comment from a designated advisory body representing a cross-section of stakeholders,
o holding public hearings or consensus-building workshops, and
o publishing a reasoned summary of public comments with the final document;