[ad_1]
Human-wildlife conflict is a complex issue worldwide. Whether it’s mountain gorillas stealing bananas from farmers on the edge of Bwindi National Park in Uganda, or a pack of gray wolves attacking a cattle pen in western Montana, thousands of people navigate alongside unwanted neighbors on a daily basis.
This forced coexistence creates friction as it often pits people’s livelihoods against the conservation of endangered species that are important for ecosystems and tourism.
For example, at the Kuku Group Ranch – an agricultural and animal ranch in Kenya – tourism generates around US $ 400,000 in income annually. But over a six-year span on the ranch, hyenas and spotted lions killed nearly 300 cows a year on average, leading to a conflict where local shepherds killed at least 51 lions. This is important because lions are one of the main flagship species of tourism in Africa.
Livestock losses are significant, given that 36% of Kenyans live below the poverty line (US $ 1.90 per day). Worse yet, these conflicts can sometimes lead to the loss of human life.
In an attempt to quell human-wildlife conflict, many conservation organizations and governments have turned to financial compensation. By paying the victims of the conflict, they aim to remove the incentive to kill or harm an animal when it kills livestock or damages crops.
In our new study, we looked at one of these compensation schemes in southwestern Uganda. The Mihingo Conservation and Community Development Fund project was established in 2007 on the edge of Lake Mburo National Park to prevent cattle and goat herders from killing spotted hyenas and leopards.
These species are important tourist assets in the region. In 2018 alone, 1,585 people purchased a night safari permit to watch the leopard in the park, which generated US $ 47,550 in tourism fees for the Uganda Wildlife Authority. But large predators can cause significant financial damage to breeders. Between 2003 and 2006, at least 19 leopards were killed at the park boundary due to cattle raids. Our data showed that hyenas and spotted leopards in this part of Uganda attacked at least 1,102 cattle, goats and sheep over a 10-year period.
But does compensation actually work to reduce conflict? The evidence is mixed.
Read also: COVID-19, Africa’s conservation and trophy hunting dilemma
Does compensation help?
Compensation for losses due to wildlife is an increasingly popular conservation intervention. In the 1980s, there was on average only one pay study per year. In 2014, there were 24. A recent review, however, cautions against its use as a conservation intervention.
In Kenya, for example, there is evidence that compensation payments helped reduce lion killings at the Kuku group ranch. There were six lions killed during the compensation period compared to 51 during the non-compensation period. Likewise, a wolf damage compensation program around Yellowstone National Park in the United States helped make ranchers’ attitudes more positive towards wolves and helped reintroduce wolves to the area.
In contrast, a study in Wisconsin found that ranchers compensated for livestock losses attributed to wolves did not tolerate wolves more than a sample of those who received no compensation.
Our own study in Uganda followed offsets over time. It was not compared to a control group, so effectiveness was not measured directly. But he showed that compensation payments for livestock attacks caused by leopards and hyenas quickly exceeded the funds available. The number of claims for loss of cattle, goats and sheep more than tripled between 2014 and 2018 compared to 2009-2013.
It was a challenge for the sustainability of the program. In our study, we also found that over 60% of all livestock losses occurred while the livestock were in protective pens or bomas. This suggests that current protective bomas and livestock management practices are not very effective in reducing conflict in the region.
Read also: get closer to a much better count of African lions
What are the alternatives?
Some community conservation groups in Africa are promoting the strengthening of livestock enclosures to protect livestock from predators like hyenas and leopards. The boma Living Walls program in the Maasai steppe of Tanzania, for example, has been 99% effective in preventing attacks by hyenas and lions on livestock for 10 years.
Another example is the attendance payment program in Sweden, which paid reindeer herders to tolerate wolverine breeding. Pastoralists would continue to receive payments regardless of livestock losses. This has led to a recovery of the wolverine population. In the Amboseli ecosystem in southern Kenya, there is a system where lion keepers are trained to mitigate conflict with wildlife and to alert farming communities when lions approach their cattle.
Such initiatives, especially when integrated with other non-cash programs that address priority issues for communities, such as improving livestock management, are receiving increased attention. There is an opportunity for future research to study programs that address a wider range of livelihoods and cultural needs to enable humans and wildlife to coexist sustainably.
Alexander Richard Braczkowski’s research has been supported by several sources of funding, including the University of Queensland International Postdoctoral Fellowship, a Small Rufford Grant for Nature Conservation, the National Geographic Society, the Scientific Exploration Society and the Siemiatkowski Foundation.
Duan Biggs receives funding from the Australian Research Council and the Luc Hoffmann Institute.
Martine Maron receives funding from various sources, including the Australian Research Council and the Australian Government’s National Environmental Science Program. She is Governor of WWF-Australia and President of BirdLife Australia.
Christopher O’Bryan and Julien Fattebert do not work, do not advise, do not own shares, do not receive funds from any organization that could benefit from this article, and have not declared any affiliation other than their academic position .
By Alexander Richard Braczkowski, scientist at Resilient Conservation Group, Griffith University and
Christopher O’Bryan, Postdoctoral Fellow, School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Queensland and
Duan Biggs, Principal Investigator in Socio-Ecological Systems and Resilience, Griffith University and
Julien Fattebert, Post-Doctoral Research Associate, University of Wyoming and
Martine Maron, Future Fellow of ARC and Professor of Environmental Management, University of Queensland
Source link
