Inherent Dilemma: Balancing conservation efficiency and social equity in natural resource governance.

• I examine the impacts of policies that strive to maximize conservation targets. • My analysis relies on fieldwork in Ugandan communities to study the impacts of fisheries policy. • I find that the attainment of conservation efficiency comes at the cost of reduced social equity. • I find that long-term sustainability is compromised when a policy prioritizes conservation efficiency while disregarding social equity. • I suggest that the "win–win assumption" be replaced by the acknowledgement of necessary trade-offs. Natural resource governance often grapples with the challenge of balancing conservation efficiency and social equity. While both objectives are essential, their persistent collision exposes an inherent dilemma. Suggesting that existing studies fail to grasp the depth of such dilemmas adequately, this paper examines the comprehensive impacts of natural resource policies that strive to maximize conservation targets. I hypothesize that (1) the attainment of conservation efficiency comes at the cost of reduced social equity and (2) the long-term sustainability of natural resource policy is compromised when it prioritizes conservation efficiency while disregarding social equity concerns. The empirical analysis draws on fieldwork in Ugandan communities to consider the impacts of a fisheries policy initiated by the government in 2015. A survey of 319 fishermen and unstructured interviews with eighteen elders on Buvuma Island in Lake Victoria reveal that while the new policy has considerably enhanced resource conservation, it has also intensified social inequities, and there are valid concerns about its long-term sustainability. Additionally, despite the new policy encountering substantial local opposition, a seemingly paradoxical consensus asserts that conservation success is only attainable with the same policy's implementation. In the conclusion section, this paper suggests that the common "win–win assumption," which implies misleadingly that conservation efficiency and social equity can always be simultaneously attained, should be replaced with the acknowledgment that trade-offs between the two objectives are often necessary. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]