Community‐based conservation and chimpanzee research in Gishwati forest, Rwanda

Abstract

As great ape populations around the world continue to decline, largely due to anthropogenic activities, conservation programs aimed at supporting these efforts have had mixed success. Here, we evaluate our community‐based conservation program in Gishwati forest, Rwanda, aimed at helping to restore biodiversity and ecosystem services using chimpanzees as a flagship species. We examine the effectiveness of this program on reducing one of the ongoing threats to Gishwati's population of chimpanzees, illegal cattle grazing as well as the program's influence on the size of the chimpanzee population. We monitored illegal cattle grazing during several study periods between 2009 and 2019 in Gishwati forest following the implementation of our conservation program in 2008 that included law enforcement, community engagement, and research components. We found that when our conservation program was active, illegal cattle grazing was reduced to low levels. We also observed an increase in the chimpanzee population size during the 11 years since we started our conservation program. We examine how this reduction in cattle grazing and increase in chimpanzee population size may have been influenced by our community‐centered approach and discuss the future of our conservation work in Gishwati.

Human engagement and great ape conservation in Africa

“…We chose to let the projects themselves describe the approach they are taking in working with local communities to address conservation issues specific to their location (Boesch et al, 2020 compares approaches used at three different sites). While some activities described followed the traditional conservation education path (Boesch et al, this issue; Bowie et al, in press; Breuer et al, 2020), others focused on behavior change (Kahlenberg et al, in press; Kendall et al, 2020), public awareness campaigns (Cox et al, 2020), staff training (Robbins, 2020), building capacity of future conservationist (Eckardt et al, 2020) and alternative livelihoods and community protection (Boesch et al, this issue; Chancellor et al 2020; Chesney et al, in press). While many other activities were described, the papers featured in this special edition all included some level of evaluation to guide their actions.…”

Best practices are never best: Evaluating primate conservation education programs (PCEPs) with a decolonial perspective

“…Successful longer‐term PCEPs have involved local citizens in all planning stages, further allowing the building or sharing of capacity in the area (Chancellor et al, 2021; Dolins et al, 2010; Feilen et al, 2018; Savage et al, 2010; Wright et al, 2017). Building capacity means: “…the interaction of human capital, organizational resources, and social capital existing within a given community that can be leveraged to solve collective problems and improve or maintain the well‐being of a given community” (Chaskin, 2001, p. 295) (also see definition in Table 1).…”

“…Building capacity means: “…the interaction of human capital, organizational resources, and social capital existing within a given community that can be leveraged to solve collective problems and improve or maintain the well‐being of a given community” (Chaskin, 2001, p. 295) (also see definition in Table 1). PCEPs and conservation initiatives often have major goals of building natural capital (biodiversity), social capital (e.g., values, sense of place), human capital (knowledge, skills), and economic capital (financial) (Balestri et al, 2017; Chancellor et al, 2021; Moore et al, 2006), rather than simply aiming to change behavior. It is evident that many PCEPs incentivize learners by providing technologies (e.g., fuel‐efficient stoves), teaching/learning materials, employment opportunities, artisan opportunities, etc., but few publications provided details about costs, longevity, or challenges with providing incentives (Dolins et al, 2010; Kahlenberg et al, 2021; Kendall et al, 2021; Patel et al, 2005).…”