Do armed field-rangers deter rhino poachers? An empirical analysis

Barichievy, Chris; Munro, Lawrence; Clinning, Geoffrey; Whittington-Jones, Brendan; Masterson, Gavin

doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2017.03.017

Cited by 45 publications

(25 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This practice is found in ranger training and CLE manuals worldwide, in addition to literature on conservation crime science (see, e.g., Barichievy et al 2017). The hope is that surveillance and the visible presence of rangers deters poachers from entering a protected area, continuing their journey, or taking a shot based on the fear of getting caught.…”

Section: Punishing and Deterring Poachersmentioning

confidence: 99%

Conservation Law Enforcement: Policing Protected Areas

Massé

2019

Annals of the American Association of Geographers

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article examines how recent increases in commercial poaching of wildlife intensify the dictates that underpin conservation law and its enforcement; namely, the securing of space, punishing of transgressors, and protecting of nonhuman life. Drawing on ethnographic research with antipoaching personnel in Mozambique, I examine how rangers translate these legal and normative manifestations of conservation law enforcement on the ground and in their daily practices to police protected areas and the wildlife within them. This article makes two contributions. First, drawing on insights from the political geography and ecology of conservation with the political geography of policing, I demonstrate how territorial, sovereign, and biopolitical practices and logics coalesce to secure the spaces and the lives of the nonhuman from ostensible human threats. Second, it is rangers who are deployed as petty environmental sovereigns to achieve these objectives through often violent practices. Although many rangers might feel uncomfortable with the use of violence, their agency to commit or resist using violence is authorized, enabled, and constrained by the normative and legal structures of conservation law enforcement within which they operate. The social differentiation among rangers also means that some have more agency to navigate these structures than others. These insights help understand the actually existing operationalization of delegated and performative power over bodies, space, and the use of direct violence. I suggest that critiques of conservation violence, and the use of violence by those acting as petty sovereigns more broadly, should be primarily oriented at the broader structures within which they operate.

show abstract

Section: Punishing and Deterring Poachersmentioning

confidence: 99%

Conservation Law Enforcement: Policing Protected Areas

Massé

2019

Annals of the American Association of Geographers

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This Perspective piece draws on research that critically engages with militarised conservation published in books, reports, and over 29 distinct journals that span a range of disciplines from geography, sociology, criminology, anthropology, political science, political ecology, conservation biology, amongst others. In addition, conservation social scientists, conservation and enforcement practitioners themselves have also pointed to the limitations of a top-down and violent approach to anti-poaching ( Barichievy et al, 2017 ; Bennett, 2011 ), especially if not combined with efforts to address local socio-economic inequalities and injustices ( Annecke and Masubele, 2016 ; Cooney et al, 2017 ; Haas and Ferreira, 2018 ). Indeed,even those who argue that militaries, such as the Botswana Defence Force (BDF), have been successful in leading anti-poaching in the country, caution against the use of military approaches in conservation ( Henk, 2005 , Henk, 2006 ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Why we must question the militarisation of conservation

Duffy

Massé

Smidt

et al. 2019

Biological Conservation

271

167

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Concerns about poaching and trafficking have led conservationists to seek urgent responses to tackle the impact on wildlife. One possible solution is the militarisation of conservation, which holds potentially far-reaching consequences. It is important to engage critically with the militarisation of conservation, including identifying and reflecting on the problems it produces for wildlife, for people living with wildlife and for those tasked with implementing militarised strategies. This Perspectives piece is a first step towards synthesising the main themes in emerging critiques of militarised conservation. We identify five major themes: first, the importance of understanding how poaching is defined; second, understanding the ways that local communities experience militarised conservation; third, the experiences of rangers; fourth, how the militarisation of conservation can contribute to violence where conservation operates in the context of armed conflict; and finally how it fits in with and reflects wider political economic dynamics. Ultimately, we suggest that failure to engage more critically with militarisation risks making things worse for the people involved and lead to poor conservation outcomes in the long run.

show abstract

“…Ranger patrols are currently considered to be one of the most effective 'on the ground' methods for poaching deterrence and detection (Hilborn et al 2006;Kurland et al 2017;Linkie et al 2015). It has been argued, however, that they cannot be considered a perfect solution to the poaching problem (Barichievy et al 2017). In a recent article, Duffy et al (2019) also question what they call the militarisation of conservation, referring to the 'military origins and models that inform and guide (emerging anti-poaching) interventions' .…”

Section: Snare Poachingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Experimental assessment of the viability of using ground penetrating radar for metal wire-snare detection

Borrion¹,

Amiri²,

Delpech³

et al. 2019

Crime Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Wildlife crime is an international issue with the illicit trade of flora and fauna estimated to be worth several billion dollars. In national parks, the problem can often be summarised as an arms race, with poachers trying to remain undetected by park rangers and other security personnel that are trying to protect the natural habitat and species from exploitation. Within this context, the detection of wire snares is a critical step. Not only can it reduce the number of animals caught by poachers but it can also help rangers develop better situation awareness and, in turn, improve patrolling strategies. To address the practical challenge of wire-snare detection across wide areas, this article examines the capacity of ground penetrating radar (GPR). Using two snares of small and medium sizes, the experiment confirmed the promising role of this technology, even if poachers attempt to conceal the snares underneath small tree branches and roots.

show abstract

Do armed field-rangers deter rhino poachers? An empirical analysis

Cited by 45 publications

References 21 publications

Conservation Law Enforcement: Policing Protected Areas

Conservation Law Enforcement: Policing Protected Areas

Why we must question the militarisation of conservation

Experimental assessment of the viability of using ground penetrating radar for metal wire-snare detection

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About