Human–Wildlife Conflict 10 Years Later: Lessons Learned and Their Application to Cheetah Conservation

Abstract

Cheetah (Acinonyx jubatus) conservation is interconnected to social, economic, and environmental factors. Since the 2003 World Parks Congress, cheetah conservation practitioners have been applying human -wildlife conflict resolution strategies throughout Sub-Saharan Africa. Future Farmers of Africa training has taught farm management skills to over 3,000 rural Namibian farmers and is being used in other range countries. Capacity building for conservation scientists and extension officers has been conducted using a "train the trainer" approach. The use of livestock-guarding dogs has expanded and eco-labels have been established to assist communities to coexist with cheetahs. Awareness building and government "buy-in" has occurred in many of the cheetah range countries. The conservancy program of Namibia is spreading into other areas of Africa, providing a basis for developing large-scale, transboundary land management plans. However, the continuation and development of such programs is ongoing, and no single program is likely to reduce human -cheetah conflict alone.

An interdisciplinary review of current and future approaches to improving human–predator relations

“…Attempts to understand the behavior of damage-causing predators determine the most effective methods for reducing attacks (such as guarding livestock or providing safe water-collection points to avoid crocodile attacks), and educate local communities about employing methods to reduce their vulnerability have had some success (e.g., Balme et al 2009;Marker & Boast 2015). However, such interventions have also foundered in many places for a range of reasons, including failure to involve local people, high opportunity costs of effective livestock protection methods, and resistance to perceived infringements on freedom of behavior (Barua et al 2013), or as a result of epistemological disagreements over what causes predator attacks (Wallace et al 2011;Pooley 2016).…”

Understanding the human dimensions of coexistence between carnivores and people: A case study in Namibia

“…Some of these incentives are employed in Namibia (Marker & Boast, 2015), but it is not clear what the public attitudes are towards these incentives. The second objective determined how financial incentives for carnivore conservation were framed in the national media.…”

“…Financial mechanisms, such as compensation or income from tourism, have been suggested as a way to improve tolerance towards carnivores (Marker & Boast, 2015;Nelson et al, 2010;Stein et al, 2010) but some research has suggested that these methods are fraught with challenges, as the costs of wildlife presence still sometimes outweigh benefits, payments can be delayed (Kasaona, 2006) and the schemes can suffer from unequal benefit distribution (Rust & Marker, 2014) 6 . It therefore remains unknown as to what techniques are most effective and acceptable for improving carnivore coexistence on Namibian farms.…”

“…Solutions currently used to resolve this challenge include education into predator ecology and livestock management (Marker, Mills, & Macdonald, 2003), translocating problem animals (Weise, Stratford, & van Vuuren, 2014), changing husbandry practices (Stein, Fuller, Damery, Sievert, & Marker, 2010), limiting carnivore immigration into farms via fences (Rust, Nghikembua, Kasser, & Marker, 2015;Weise, Wessels, Munro, & Solberg, 2014), using guarding dogs to protect livestock (Marker, Dickman, & Macdonald, 2005;Potgieter, Marker, Avenant, & Kerley, 2013) and cooperatively managing carnivores consumptively and non-consumptively (Marker & Boast, 2015). However, livestock depredation is still increasing nationally (NACSO, 2013), which indicates that either these methods have not been widely adopted and/or may not have proven effective in some circumstances.…”

“…Conservancy members also receive compensation payments for damage caused by wildlife (Kasaona, 2006). Although conservancies have been successful at providing benefits to local communities (Marker & Boast, 2015), these benefits are sometimes not distributed equitably (Rust & Marker, 2013). Eco-labels Farmers receive a price premium on meat that is farmed in a predator-friendly manner (Marker et al, 2003) Insurance Small premiums are paid by farmers to insure their livestock against depredation; if depredation occurs, full payment will be given on the condition that measures were taken to reduce chance of depredation (Kasaona, 2006) Tourism Income received from tourists who pay to view carnivores (Stander et al, 1997) Trophy hunting Income received from trophy hunters who kill carnivores (Marker et al, 2003) Other financial incentives Grants and loans are provided to farmers to offset the costs of farming in a landscape shared with carnivores…”