More than $1 billion needed annually to secure Africa’s protected areas with lions

Abstract

Protected areas (PAs) play an important role in conserving biodiversity and providing ecosystem services, yet their effectiveness is undermined by funding shortfalls. Using lions (Panthera leo) as a proxy for PA health, we assessed available funding relative to budget requirements for PAs in Africa’s savannahs. We compiled a dataset of 2015 funding for 282 state-owned PAs with lions. We applied three methods to estimate the minimum funding required for effective conservation of lions, and calculated deficits. We estimated minimum required funding as $978/km2per year based on the cost of effectively managing lions in nine reserves by the African Parks Network; $1,271/km2based on modeled costs of managing lions at ≥50% carrying capacity across diverse conditions in 115 PAs; and $2,030/km2based on Packer et al.’s [Packer et al. (2013)Ecol Lett16:635–641] cost of managing lions in 22 unfenced PAs. PAs with lions require a total of $1.2 to $2.4 billion annually, or ∼$1,000 to 2,000/km2, yet received only $381 million annually, or a median of $200/km2. Ninety-six percent of range countries had funding deficits in at least one PA, with 88 to 94% of PAs with lions funded insufficiently. In funding-deficit PAs, available funding satisfied just 10 to 20% of PA requirements on average, and deficits total $0.9 to $2.1 billion. African governments and the international community need to increase the funding available for management by three to six times if PAs are to effectively conserve lions and other species and provide vital ecological and economic benefits to neighboring communities.

Determinants of elephant foraging behaviour in a coupled human‐natural system: Is brown the new green?

“…For example, the models we developed could be used to prioritize mitigation actions (e.g., the placement of beehive or chilli‐pepper fences; King, Lawrence, Douglas‐Hamilton, & Vollrath, ; King et al., ; Wiafe & Sam, ) in time and space by forecasting hotspots of elephant crop raiding as a function of NDVI, precipitation and crop availability. Such targeted efforts are critical for effectively and efficiently managing human–wildlife conflict along the boundaries of protected areas, most of which are subject to gross funding shortfalls (Lindsey et al., ). Within the constraints imposed by seasonal climatic variation and livelihood requirements, our models could also be used to inform the timing of planting by subsistence‐farming communities.…”

An experimental test of community‐based strategies for mitigating human–wildlife conflict around protected areas

“…Protected areas form the cornerstone of efforts to conserve biodiversity worldwide (Bruner et al, ; Hilborn et al., ). Crop raiding by wildlife undermines the effectiveness of protected areas—which is already tenuous owing to funding shortfalls (Lindsey et al., )—by bringing wildlife into direct conflict with human populations. The future sustainability of many protected areas will depend in part on developing strategies for mitigating human–wildlife conflict that: (1) are affordable to implement; (2) can be maintained by local communities; (3) incentivize communities by providing avenues of economic gain (e.g., reduced crop losses coupled with revenue from honey production); and (4) help to alter perceptions of wildlife among community members (Shaffer et al, ).…”

“…Protected areas form the cornerstone of efforts to conserve biodiversity worldwide (Bruner et al, 2001;Hilborn et al, 2006). Crop raiding by wildlife undermines the effectiveness of protected areas-which is already tenuous owing to funding shortfalls (Lindsey et al, 2018)-by bringing wildlife into direct conflict with human populations. The future sustainability of many protected areas will depend in part on developing strategies for mitigating human-wildlife conflict that:…”

Conservation beyond protected areas: Using vertebrate species ranges and biodiversity importance scores to inform policy for an east African country in transition

“…Second, the charismatic nature of Africa's megafauna also attracts international donor funding and associated political pressure, which strongly influences national policy (Muchapondwa & Stage, ). Third, and more recently, megafaunal assemblages are considered to include umbrella and keystone species, so their protection should provide wider benefits for biodiversity and ecosystem services (Lindsey et al, ). Finally, with all conservation efforts in Africa being chronically underfunded, choices inevitably have to be made, and so there is little left for conserving the rest of biodiversity, especially outside of PAs (Lindsey et al, ).…”

“…Despite the establishment of PAs and the exclusion of people, many of these PAs have failed to adequately conserve megafauna (Craigie et al, 2010;Western, Russell, & Cuthil, 2009) and few achieve their broader goals such as conserving regional biodiversity and ecosystem functionality, improving community livelihoods, or contributing toward national economic growth (Geldmann et al, 2013;Lindsey et al, 2014;Watson et al, 2014). These failures are attributable to several reasons, among which financial limitation is paramount, with underfunding and inadequate management of many PAs (Lindsey et al, 2018). Also, although PAs often have higher local species richness and abundance than adjacent unprotected areas (Gray et al, 2016), they are generally not big enough nor in the best places to independently conserve biodiversity and ecosystem services (Larsen, Turner, & Mittermeier, 2018;Venter et al, 2017), and they are seldom designed to protect ecosystem heterogeneity on a scale required by megafauna (Fynn & Bonyongo, 2010;Western & Gichohi, 1993).…”