Co-Managing Human–Wildlife Conflicts: A Review

Embed Size (px)

Text of Co-Managing Human–Wildlife Conflicts: A Review

  • This article was downloaded by: [Universite Laval]On: 03 July 2014, At: 23:43Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

    Human Dimensions of Wildlife: AnInternational JournalPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/uhdw20

    Co-Managing HumanWildlife Conflicts: AReviewAdrian Treves a , Robert B. Wallace b , Lisa Naughton-Treves c &Andrea Morales ba COEX: Sharing the Land With Wildlife, Inc. , Madison, Wisconsin,USAb Greater Madidi Landscape Conservation Program, WildlifeConservation Society , San Miguel, La Paz, Boliviac Department of Geography , University of WisconsinMadison ,Madison, Wisconsin, USAPublished online: 23 Feb 2007.

    To cite this article: Adrian Treves , Robert B. Wallace , Lisa Naughton-Treves & Andrea Morales (2006)Co-Managing HumanWildlife Conflicts: A Review, Human Dimensions of Wildlife: An InternationalJournal, 11:6, 383-396, DOI: 10.1080/10871200600984265

    To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10871200600984265

    PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

    Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (theContent) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

    This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &

    http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/uhdw20http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/10871200600984265http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10871200600984265

  • Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

    Dow

    nloa

    ded

    by [

    Uni

    vers

    ite L

    aval

    ] at

    23:

    43 0

    3 Ju

    ly 2

    014

    http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditionshttp://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

  • 383

    Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 11:383396, 2006Copyright Taylor & Francis Group, LLCISSN: 1087-1209 print / 1533-158X onlineDOI: 10.1080/10871200600984265

    UHDW1087-12091533-158XHuman Dimensions of Wildlife, Vol. 11, No. 6, November 2006: pp. 128Human Dimensions of Wildlife

    Peer-Reviewed Articles

    Co-Managing HumanWildlife Conflicts: A Review

    Co-Managing HumanWildlife ConflictsA. Treves et al. ADRIAN TREVES,1 ROBERT B. WALLACE,2 LISA NAUGHTON-TREVES,3 AND ANDREA MORALES2

    1COEX: Sharing the Land With Wildlife, Inc., Madison, Wisconsin, USA2Greater Madidi Landscape Conservation Program, Wildlife ConservationSociety, San Miguel, La Paz, Bolivia3Department of Geography, University of WisconsinMadison, Madison,Wisconsin, USA

    Conservationists recognize the need to work beyond protected areas if they are to sus-tain viable populations of wildlife. But ambitious plans to extend wildlife corridorsbeyond protected areas must consider the economic and political implications whenwildlife forage on crops, attack livestock, or otherwise threaten human security. Tradi-tionally, humans respond by killing problem wildlife and transforming wild habitatsto prevent further losses. This traditional response, however, is now illegal or sociallyunacceptable in many areas, changing a simple competitive relationship between peo-ple and wildlife into a political conflict. Here we draw from experience in Bolivia,Uganda, and Wisconsin to outline a strategy for mitigating humanwildlife conflictbased on participatory methods and co-management with twin objectives of wildlifeconservation and safeguarding human security. Incorporating local stakeholders aspartners in planning and implementation can help to win space for wildlife beyondprotected area boundaries. We also show why systematic study of local peoples per-ceptions of risk and participant planning of interventions are irreplaceable compo-nents of such projects.

    Keywords stakeholder participation, community-based conservation, interventions,monitoring, planning, crop damage, livestock loss

    Introduction

    Around the world and for millennia, humans have defended themselves and their propertyfrom wild animals. Wildlife can pose serious problems when their activities intersect withthose of humans. For example, the U.S. federal agency charged with controlling agricul-tural damages caused by wildlife spent over $60 million in control operations during 2001and estimated losses at nearly one billion dollars (National Agriculture Statistics Service,

    The authors thank David Wilkie, Humberto Gomez and two anonymous reviewers for usefulcomments on the text. Support during manuscript preparation was provided by the Wildlife Conser-vation Society and USAID GCP.

    Address correspondence to Adrian Treves, COEX: Sharing the Land with Wildlife, Inc., 6010South Hill Drive, Madison, WI 53705-4450, USA. E-mail: adriantreves@coex-wildlife.org

    Dow

    nloa

    ded

    by [

    Uni

    vers

    ite L

    aval

    ] at

    23:

    43 0

    3 Ju

    ly 2

    014

  • 384 A. Treves et al.

    2002). In addition to property losses, the occasional threats to human safety compound thevulnerability of rural communities. For example, between 1980 and 2003, more than1,150 humans and 370 elephants died as a result of conflicts in NE India (Choudhury,2004). Traditionally, the human response has been to kill the suspected wildlife and trans-form wild habitats to prevent further losses (Jorgensen, Conley, Hamilton, & Sanders,1978; Karanth & Madhusudan, 2002; Koch, 1968). With rising concern for wild animalsand their conservation status, however, traditional lethal retaliation against wildlife is nowillegal in some areas or socially unacceptable in others (Breitenmoser, 1998; Knight,2003; Treves & Naughton-Treves, 2005). Enforcement of environmental protections andnon-utilitarian views of wildlife have changed what was once a simple competitive rela-tionship between people and wildlife into a political conflict between people and betweeninstitutions (Hill, 2004; Knight, 2000).

    At several sites, local resentment over property losses to wildlife precludes discussionof other environmental issues. For example, in Apolobamba, Bolivia, crop and livestocklosses to wildlife draw more public debate in scheduled meetings than soil erosion, pollu-tion, and watershed management. Research from both developing and industrial countriesreveals humanwildlife conflicts (HWC) can make affected communities hostile to wild-life conservation initiatives and aggressive toward staff of protected areas (Bangs et al.,1998; Kangwana, 1995; Western, 1997). HWC derives yet greater importance because thefate of many wildlife populations depends on their capacity to coexist with humans. ThusHWC is now seen as a major challenge for conservation, as reflected in the burgeoningliterature and meetings on the topic (Fascione, Delach, & Smith, 2004; Manfredo &Dayer, 2004; Woodroffe, Thirgood, & Rabinowitz, 2005).

    Because the sociopolitical setting is as influential as the biophysical one for the effec-tive management of humanwildlife interactions (Heberlein, 2004; Hill, 2004; Knight,2003; Mascia et al., 2003; Treves & Karanth, 2003), one theme of this article is that HWCmanagement teams must build their capacity for transparent, democratic, and participatorymethods of planning and implementing projects. In addition, HWC exemplifies a funda-mental challenge for biodiversity conservation: reconciling local concerns for security andeconomic growth with international concerns for saving threatened species. We empha-size how most sustainable solutions to HWC must protect or improve the welfare of ruralcommunities, as well as the status of conservation targets. HWC management calls forinterdisciplinary collaborations. Yet currently, most managers of HWC are trained in eco-logical sciences. To adapt social science methods effectively, these managers learn on thejob in a trial-and-error process. We anticipate greater efficiency if lessons from around theworld are analyzed in a structured manner and applied strategically. We present a step-by-step procedure for navigating the political, social, and strategic aspects of HWC manage-ment. Table 1 summarizes the steps, objectives of each and the critical componentsneeded to attain the objectives.

    Definitions

    We define several elements and restrict our scope, both steps taken to permit a deeperanalysis of HWC co-management. We refer to local stakeholders onlyaffected commu-nities and the nationally appointed, local authorities charged with wildlife management(together local stakeholders hereafter). We acknowledge the challenges of identifying theappropriate unit of social organization to manage collectively (reviewed in Gillingham,2001), but also note the natural and obvious unit composed of the set of individuals/house-holds affected by HWC in a given