Compensating for livestock killed by lions: payment for environmental services as a policy arrangement

Abstract

SUMMARYTo address human–wildlife conflicts and the related threat of extinction of the African lion, in 2003, the Maasailand Preservation Trust established a fund at the Mbirikani Group Ranch in southern Kenya to provide monetary compensation for livestock killed by wildlife. In this paper, the policy arrangement approach (PAA) is used to analyse this arrangement as a form of payment for environmental services (PES). Although there has been a considerable reduction in the number of lions killed, the analysis reveals several limitations of this arrangement, including three main side effects, namely it has initiated a process that is difficult to sustain or reverse, created a new cycle of dependence and widened the gap between different groups in the community. In conclusion, the drawbacks of this type of compensation fund must be addressed by combining such arrangements with other public and private policies and initiatives. Careful examination and comparison of different kinds of experiments with PES-like arrangements are required to further build understanding of the potential and different contributions of public and private, market-based initiatives in biodiversity governance.

Global patterns and trends in human–wildlife conflict compensation

“…This is important because compensation programs may have unintended consequences, such as increasing inequality and social tension (Anyango‐Van Zwieten et al. ). There are also theoretical arguments that compensation reduces wildlife populations by encouraging increased agricultural production and subsequent habitat loss (Rondeau & Bulte ).…”

“…Furthermore, some assessments focused on the role of people (both in terms of administrative efficiency as well as social outcomes), whereas others focused on outcomes for wildlife. This is important because compensation programs may have unintended consequences, such as increasing inequality and social tension (Anyango-Van Zwieten et al 2015). There are also theoretical arguments that compensation reduces wildlife populations by encouraging increased agricultural production and subsequent habitat loss (Rondeau & Bulte 2007).…”

Research‐implementation gap limits the actionability of human‐carnivore conflict studies in East Africa

“…Third, research‐implementation often suffers when projects fail to include local stakeholders in the research process (Knight et al ., ; Smith et al ., ), as these groups offer valuable knowledge of local systems and can improve the relevance of research to their communities (Reed, ; Kainer et al ., ; Phillipson et al ., ). Overall, actionable research frameworks provide guidance in understanding the complexity of HCC, improving connectivity between the research community and key decision‐makers and developing applicable solutions to mitigate HCC (Arts et al ., ; Anyango‐Van Zwieten, Van Der Duim & Visseren‐Hamakers, ).…”

Killing nature to save it? : an analysis of two sport hunting policy arrangements in Uganda

“…Market-based conservation is known for using economic instruments, referred to as marketbased-instruments (MBIs), to help raise money to advance conservation agendas (Anyango-Van Zwieten et al, 2015;McAfee, 1999;Perrings, 1995;Pirard, 2012) while stimulating development (Fletcher, 2010). One of the promoters of this approach, McAfee (1999), introduced the concept of 'green developmentalism' , which focuses on achieving development through environmentally sensitive approaches.…”

“…The sport hunting proponents argue that this revenue is used to protect the remaining animals from illegal hunters or poachers. Although MBIs (including sport hunting) have gained prominence in biodiversity conservation in Africa in the past decades (Anyango-Van Zwieten et al, 2015;Lindsey et al, 2007;McAfee, 1999;Pirard, 2012), other scholars are critical about its wide application. As argued by Pirard (2012:59), 'MBIs cannot be said to be cost-efficient […] or capable of revealing information to reach a social optimum and better environmental management'.…”