Inclusive Anti-poaching? Exploring the Potential and Challenges of Community-based Anti-Poaching

Abstract

In acknowledgement that the largely (para)militarized approach to anti-poaching has its limitations, alternative approaches to conservation law enforcement are being sought. One alternative focuses on including people from local communities in anti-poaching, what we call inclusive anti-poaching. Using a case study of a community scout programme from southern Mozambique, located adjacent South Africa’s Kruger National Park, we examine the potential of a community scout initiative to move towards a more inclusive and sustainable approach to anti-poaching and conservation. While highlighting its challenges and potential drawbacks, we argue that including local people into conservation law enforcement efforts can help address poaching and problematic aspects of current anti-poaching measures. However, to be a genuine and sustainable alternative, community ranger programmes must be part of a broader shift towards developing local wildlife economies that benefits local communities as opposed to supporting pre-existing anti-poaching interventions.

Why we must question the militarisation of conservation

“…For example, militarised conservation tactics in specific contexts in South Africa often resemble apartheid-era counterinsurgency practices, where efforts to win the support of local people also coincide with tactics of intimidation and use of violence. These tactics also currently extend into Mozambique, and include: the development of informant networks, co-option and development of cultures of mistrust within communities ( Annecke and Masubele, 2016 ; Lunstrum, 2015 ; Massé et al, 2017a , Massé et al, 2017b ); raiding and invading people's homes in operations to uncover evidence of wildlife crimes ( Ramutsindela, 2016 ; Massé et al, 2017a ; Büscher, 2018 ); and active displacement of communities for conservation ( Massé and Lunstrum, 2016 ; Witter and Satterfield, 2018 ). More forceful approaches to conservation can also be accompanied by new incentive schemes, such as the provision of game meat to schools and water reticulation programmes.…”

“…The body of literature we build on is firmly anchored in qualitative social sciences, and often draws on extensive fieldwork in places such as Nigeria ( Asiyanbi, 2016 ), India ( Barbora, 2017 ), Laos ( Dwyer et al, 2015 ), Guatemala ( Devine, 2014 ; Ybarra, 2016 ), Colombia ( Bocarejo and Ojeda, 2016 ), Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) ( Marijnen and Verweijen, 2016 ), South Africa ( Büscher and Ramutsindela, 2016 ; Hübschle, 2017 ; Lunstrum, 2014 ), Mozambique ( Massé and Lunstrum, 2016 ; Massé et al, 2017b ; Witter and Satterfield, 2018 ), Tanzania ( Mabele, 2016 ) and Central African Republic (CAR) ( Lombard, 2016 ). Many of these studies are in-depth explorations of a single case, but there are few overviews ( Duffy et al, 2015 ; Duffy et al, 2016 ; Büscher and Fletcher, 2018 ) or comparative studies ( Lunstrum and Ybarra, 2018 ).…”

“…As Sandbrook et al (2013) point out, there is sometimes a false distinction drawn between those who work on and in conservation. Indeed, researchers often work closely with practitioners, and have provided an important alternative avenue for them to draw attention to and express their concerns, criticisms and frustrations ( Barbora, 2017 ; Bennett et al, 2016 ; Lunstrum, 2014 ; Massé et al, 2017a , Massé et al, 2017b . Critical engagement can facilitate a better understanding of militarised conservation, its short and long-term implications, why alternatives are needed and what these might look like.…”

Conservation and crime convergence? Situating the 2018 London Illegal Wildlife Trade Conference

“…Research suggests there are means by which communities can be involved in intelligence and anti-poaching that are non-exploitative. But these must be bottom-up, community-led interventions; not imposed by outsiders, especially foreign agencies, lest they risk failing and exacerbating tensions, violence, and destabilizing communities (Booker and Roe 2017;Massé et al 2017).…”

Linking green militarization and critical military studies

“…The reason is that Òthis intervention will strike at the heart of poaching areas firstÓ and suggests Òthe most direct and cost-efficient strategy for USAID activities may be to work with other existing donor programs on gearing the activities of its new program toward anti-poaching areasÓ (USAID 2016, 18). What we see here are recommendations to not only develop new interventions, but to gear, and perhaps even coopt, existing development and livelihood interventions towards the specific objective of combatting poaching (also see MassŽ et al 2017).…”