This module incorporates the Human Wildlife Conflict Toolkit developed by BioHub with sponsorship from the FAO SADC Subregional office. The module focuses on conflict between humans and cheetah and wild dog and what components of the Toolkit are relevant to understanding and mitigating this conflict. What is conflict? There are many definitions of human-wildlife conflict and this has become the new frontier of conservation for all large and/or wide ranging species of wildlife all over the world. As human populations increase more and more wildlife species are in contact (either directly or indirectly) with humans, and the result of this interaction is often conflict - where either the wild animal is harmed, or conversely a human, or animal/crop belonging to the human is harmed, or both are harmed. Hence conflict is damaging for both humans and for the wild animal involved. Hence mitigation of conflict - where the problem is solved - must be to the benefit of both the human and the wild animal. This is the challenge and what this module is about. Why should we work to mitigate conflict? As illustrated in the first two modules of this manual (Conservation biology and Threats) cheetah and wild dog populations will increasingly have to coexist with human communities, whether agrarian or livestock dominated. The vast areas of land that are required to maintain viable populations of the two species need that we work towards a reality where humans do not impact negatively on cheetah and wild dog populations and these two species do not impact on human livelihoods. Conflict is one component of this challenge, the other is appropriate land management which is discussed in detail in Module 4. The two are inherently interlinked but need to be addressed independently as human communities perceive them differently. Conflict is an emotive issue as people are often directly involved. The process of mitigating conflict: There are many types of conflict that can occur between humans, cheetahs and wild dogs and the HWC Toolkit addresses these in detail. The next section will refer in detail to the relevant sections of the Toolkit for mitigating conflict between cheetahs and wild dogs and humans. However, for successful conflict mitigation to take place it is necessary to remember three key steps: 1. It must be easy and quick for incidences of conflict to be reported and dealt with to prevent resentment and apathy. (FRONTLINE SMS a possibility?) 2. The human communities experiencing the conflict (whether real or perceived) must be listened to and allowed to explain their problem. Open and transparent discussion of the problem must be allowed to take place with all relevant stakeholders involved if possible. 3. Finding a solution should, if possible, be a participatory process using the HWC Toolkit as a guide. This way the final decision is approved by all involved. 4. Implementation must be seen to be collaborative and not the responsibility of one party or stakeholder, but where all contribute. Successful mitigation of conflict in the long term requires solid support from all levels of government and will ultimately rely on wildlife as a resource being fully incorporated into the economic base of the country. Clear policies and legal frameworks should be in place to assist with decision making and assigning responsibilities (refer to Module 5 - Policy and legislation). 1
Use of translocation: Removal of individual animals to reduce conflict is often suggested as a solution, especially when depredation is the issue. However, translocation should only be undertaken if it is perceived that there is no other option except lethal control, and discussion of other methods has been undertaken with the community and no other solution from the many included in the HWC Toolkit can be found. If translocation is to happen then in all cases the animals must be released into suitable habitat. Removal into captive centres is not suitable and consider a conservation intervention. Suitable habitat includes available prey and lack of conflict opportunities. It would not be recommended to remove an animal known to be preying on livestock to another area with high densities of livestock. Suitable habitat also implies that the animal will be able to establish a range, this is difficult if a) lions and hyeanas are present in large numbers and/or b) cheetahs and wild dogs are already present in high densities. Translocation should be to areas with low populations of the two species where augmentation would be beneficial. This requires a national assessment to take place, and decisions should be made at this level, and not the local level. Release of animals should be done using the soft release approach where they are kept in enclosures for a suitable length of time (usually 8 weeks) to erase their memory of their origin site. Hard releases are rarely successful as the individual animal tries to return to its original range. Lethal control: The lethal control of an individual cheetah and/or wild dog (or pack of wild dogs) is to be avoided if at all possible using the tools described in detail in the HWC Toolkit and explained below. However, it is acknowledged that it may be necessary in some circumstances to remove through lethal control a known problem cheetah and/or pack of wild dogs if there is no other option, mainly because this may be the only way to foster tolerance in the long term. In such circumstances all effort must be made to remove the particular problem animal/pack as otherwise the lethal control WILL NOT solve the problem. However, the reasons why a cheetah/wild dog pack have become problem animals needs to be explained in detail to the individual/community of farmers to try and prevent this behaviour in the future. Wild large carnivores tend to become problem animals, taking livestock, when wild prey populations have been depleted and/or when livestock is left unattended in areas close to wildlife areas. Use of the Human Wildlife Conflict Toolkit to mitigate conflict between cheetahs and wild dogs and humans The table below and following pages indicates which tools are relevant to mitigating conflict between cheetahs and wild dogs and humans, including additional useful information. Summary of tools included in the HWC Toolkit ( FAO) that can be used to successfully mitigate conflict between humans and cheetahs and wild dogs 2
1 There is need to ensure that people know how to correctly identify cheetah as confusion with leopard and serval is a problem. Livestock producers must also be encouraged to improve the conditions of their animals and assistance given wherever possible. Prevention of theft, often a problem deflected onto predators should be dealt with if possible.it must be noted that using dogs in situations where conflict with wild dogs needs to be reduced can cause disease problems. In such cases all guard dogs must be vaccinated. Herders should be encouraged to avoid thickets in areas where cheetah are resident as cheetah hunt using thickets as cover.more INFORMATION REQUESTED FROM PARTICIPANTS. Chili deterrents should not be used as they could harm cheetahs and wild dogs. 3
3 Although kraal is mentioned, this includes all cattle enclosures (eg. bomas, camps). Herding should be done by adults if possible as young boys are not as much a deterrent to large predators. 4
6 Boma capture should only take place with an experienced game capture unit and entire packs need to be removed to reduce conflict 5
7 Bamboo is not a sufficient barrier for cheetah This method tends to only catch male cheetahs. Traps needs special adaptations with two openings and holding pens must be made to special requirements. This improves the ability of the community to know which predator has been present in an area, if at all and prevents confusion. 6
9 Hunting as a management solution should be long term and not incident based, otherwise there is a danger that it becomes a perverse incentive. 7
10 It is important that all stakeholders understand the behaviour of cheetah and wild dogs when trying to use compensation/insurance schemes to mitigate conflict. 8
11 Key behaviours of wild dogs and cheetahs must be understood to mitigate conflict. 9
12 No capture of any animal should take place without the approval of the relevant wildlife authority and should only be done if no other alternative is available. 10
16 The use of bio-fences, where scent is used to contain packs of wild dogs, is potentially a powerful mitigation tool. May be some use in using lion scent to deter cheetah as well. 11
22 It must be stressed that removal of cheetah from wild areas to captive centres should under no circumstances be carried out as part of conflict mitigation. Removing individuals from the wild with no change of release is a major drain, impacting on the viability of wild populations. It can also become a perverse incentive. There are many options to engage communities in monitoring wild dog movement as easily identified. Limited opportunities for cheetah as solitary and more difficult to individually identify. 12
Exploring conflict in an area Direct and indirect conflict between cheetahs and wild dogs and people are described by the wildlife managers who attended the first training course in Lilongwe, Malawi. we encourage you to draw up a similar table to explore types of conflict, causes and possible mitigation options. ZAMBIA - there is minimum conflict reported with either cheetahs or wild dogs. However increasingly people are moving closer to wildlife area increasing the risk of conflict, especially with the wild dog as it is more conspicuous. - Land use plans in place but poorly implemented as large area to monitor - improved protection of wildlife leads to increasing populations. - use of noise to scare away cheetah and wild dog. - road kills are a problem esp. Cheetah. Accidental snaring of both species reported in many areas that they occur in the country. - main road through park - illegal harvesting of bushmeat. - speed humps introduced at targeting crossing points - reduce illegal harvesting through increased antipoaching patrols and increase benefits from presence of wildlife. SOUTH SUDAN - killing of cheetah for skins. - widespread ownership of firearms due to previous war. - National Action Plan developed, however lack of resources to implement, therefore difficult to assess extent of conflict. - excessive hunting of prey species. - as above - increase other sources of meat. Increase benefits from wildlife. Encourage handing in of firearms. BOTSWANA - cheetah preying on small game. - wildlife areas are being reduced. - human settlement in WMA lead to increased conflicts. - cheetah learn to use fences to help them hunt. - cattle industry increasing - poor government support for wildlife. - cattle are in the corridors between protected areas or surrounding them. - better understanding of cheetah habits through use of collars & camera traps. - possible use of livestock guarding dogs. - education campaigns (CCB/KCS). - translocate problem animals to protected area could transfer problem. - more research. 13
UGANDA - no conflict experienced yet. - possible poaching taking place. - wild dogs moving out of park into cattle areas. - low populations of both species. - depletion of prey species. - wild dogs also moving in from South Sudan. - increased awareness of importance of these species. - improved livestock husbandry for protection against predators. MOZAMBIQUE - no conflict with cheetah reported yet. - even in areas with increasing wild dog no conflicts reported yet. - lack of data available? - good prey populations available and low livestock numbers? - lack of understanding & information by field staff. - as above - National Action Plan developed, helping to increase awareness. MALAWI - no cheetah - wild dog present but no conflict recorded. - low population. TANZANIA - no critical conflict with - large area available; not a cheetah. problem even outside designated areas. - wild dog problem in Mkomzi area. - degraded land reduces available wild prey & suitable habitat. - translocation. - raise status of area to national park. - educate people & raise awareness through community projects. 14
KENYA - in national parks tourists disturb activities of cheetah. - unable to monitor movements of all tour operators; lack of respect for parks laws. - depredation by snaring for predators; indiscriminate poisoning. -land fragmentation. - National Action Plan for 2009 to 2014. - greater enforcement of tourism rules. - sensitization/awareness campaigns. - predator proof bomas for livestock. - increased government commitment to conserving wildlife. NAMIBIA - increasing conflict with cheetah. - population of cheetah increasing; no other predators to keep cheetah in check. - education campaigns. - translocations. - road kills of both species. - upgrading roads increases speed of vehicles. -disease. - indiscriminate trapping of cheetah; poisoning of wild dog; snaring. - large interface with domestic dogs. - livestock not herded or guarded. - speed humps? Warning signs? - vaccination campaigns? - education on preventative methods; donkeys, making fences permeable, lion faeces as deterrent. ETHIOPIA - lack of understanding of - lack of information for - increase investment & climate change. general public. protection of wildlife. - degredation of habitat. - salt mining concessions given in areas with cheetah. - agricultural expansion. - lack of government commitment to wildlife. - use wildlife as sources of revenue for communities: eg. controlled hunting of gazelle. - poaching. - mainly for trade in skins. - increased anti-poaching. ZIMBABWE - more conflicts with wild dogs than cheetahs. - lack of understanding of wild dog biology; historical preceptions of the species as cruel and damaging. - awareness campaign. - accidental snaring. - illegal bushmeat harvesting. - lack of protein? - need for extra income? - disease. -lack of vaccination of domestic dogs. - increased anti-poaching. - increased availability or other sources of protein? - income generating projects. 15