Paying farmers for predation losses is not the magic bullet for conservation

As long as humans have practised agriculture, they have experienced conflict with wildlife. This rivalry leads not only to the loss of livestock to predation, but also the killing of wild animals in retaliation for the threat to livelihoods. An international group of scientists questions whether financial compensation can solve this issue.

FAST FACTS

Maintaining a balance between wildlife conservation (with its tourist earnings) and livestock production is a delicate task.

Tourist drawcard species such as lions, leopards and hyenas are responsible for most human-wildlife conflicts.

Financial compensation, a popular tool amongst conservationists, has shown mixed results.

Human-wildlife conflict is a complex issue globally. Whether it is mountain gorillas stealing bananas from farmers on the edge of Bwindi National Park in Uganda, or a pack of grey wolves raiding a cattle pen in western Montana in the US, thousands of people navigate their lives alongside unwanted neighbours daily.

This forced coexistence creates friction, as it often pits people’s livelihoods against the conservation of threatened species that are important to ecosystems and tourism.

For example, on the Kuku Group Ranch, a farming and wildlife ranch in Kenya, tourism brings in about US$400 000 (about R6 million) in revenue annually.

But over a six-year period on the ranch, spotted hyenas and lions killed nearly 300 cows a year on average, leading to a conflict where local herders killed at least 51 lions.

This is important, as lions are a flagship species for tourism in Africa.

Livestock losses like these are significant, considering that 36% of Kenyans live under the poverty line (US$1,90 [R30] a day). Even worse, these conflicts sometimes lead to loss of human life.

PAYING OFF THE PROBLEM