Fencing Africa's protected areas: Costs, benefits, and management issues

Abstract

The fencing of protected areas (PAs) is highly controversial, and much remains unknown about the associated financial, ecological, and social impacts. We surveyed experts on 63 fenced and 121 unfenced PAs across 23 African countries to assess the advantages and drawbacks of fencing. Where fences exist, they are largely supported and widely viewed as effective at demarcating PA boundaries and mitigating human-wildlife conflicts. However, most fences were insufficiently funded, which limited their ability to contain conflict-prone species like elephants and lions. Fences were also frequently vandalised and caused numerous conflicts with local communities. We documented for the first time the distribution of and support for fencing in PAs 2 across Africa. While fencing is largely limited to Southern Africa and East Africa, support for fencing is greatest in West Africa and is associated with high human and livestock densities, and high threats from bushmeat harvesting, livestock encroachment, and logging.

Rethinking assessment of success of mitigation strategies for elephant‐induced crop damage

“…A recent survey of fenced protected areas in Africa illustrates that electric fences that are frequently inspected and well‐funded effectively prevent elephants from moving into settlements (<1 estimated breach per month) (Pekor et al. ).…”

“…However, even in cases where local communities overwhelmingly support fencing, it may raise expectations regarding the extent to which it may resolve crop damage and shift the perceived responsibility for losses on the stakeholder erecting the fence (Pekor et al. ). We have observed similar shifts in responsibility with the use of vehicle‐response teams and drones in the western Serengeti.…”

“…The construction of physical barriers, such as electrified fences, can be extremely costly, making them unlikely to be initiated by those communities incurring the costs of living in close proximity to elephants and requiring initiation by protected areas themselves (Pekor et al. ). Electric fencing can be highly effective, but only if rigorously maintained, which requires high financial inputs in perpetuity (Pekor et al.…”

Perceived Effects of Elephants (Loxodonta africana Cuvier) Presence and Impacts on Ecosystem Services Supply in the Pendjari Biosphere Reserve, West Africa

“…Due to the spatial context (proximity with agricultural fields) leading to increased negative elephants' impacts, we suggest that remote or distant farms that are often exposed to elephant activities be protected or fenced with metallic barriers. However, because fencing agricultural fields that are too close to protected areas can be viewed as controversial practices in management of wildlife and human coexistence (Vanak, Thaker, & Slotow, 2010;Pekor et al, 2019), we suggest promotion of beekeeping and chili production activities on these farms. Keeping bees has been proven effective against crops raiding by elephants in Kenya (King, Lawrence, Douglas-Hamilton, & Vollrath, 2016).…”

Single-Stream Recycling Inspires Selective Fish Passage Solutions for the Connectivity Conundrum in Aquatic Ecosystems

“…Nearly 60% of all global rivers (1293 river basins) contain at least one large dam (Grill et al 2015 ). Fragmentation impairs animal movements and ecosystem processes that society depends on for many forms of economic activity (Foley et al 2005 , Shepard et al 2008 , McRae et al 2012 , Woodroffe et al 2014 , Jakes et al 2018 , Pekor et al 2019 ). Barrier removal is the most recognizable solution for reversing the fragmentation of aquatic ecosystems (McRae et al 2012 ), but restoring connectivity is not always straightforward.…”