Bearing the costs of human–wildlife conflict: the challenges of compensation schemes

Abstract

As the cases in this volume vividly illustrate, human conflict with wildlife is a significant—and growing—conservation problem around the world. The risk of wildlife damage to crops, livestock, and human lives provides incentives for rural residents to kill wildlife and to reduce the quantity and quality of habitat on private and communal lands. Recognition among conservationists that the cost of conserving large and sometimes dangerous animals is often borne disproportionately by farmers and others living closest to wildlife has spawned strategies to reduce this imbalance. One popular response is to compensate rural residents for the costs of wildlife damage. By spreading the economic burden and moderating the financial risks to people who co-exist with wildlife, conservationists hope to reduce the negative consequences of human-wildlife conflict. Few systematic efforts have been made to evaluate the efficacy of these programs or the best way to implement and manage these schemes for endangered species (Sillero-Zubiri & Laurenson, 2001). In this chapter, we build on our recent study (Nyhus et al., 2003) that asked whether compensation programs really help endangered species in conflict with humans. We surveyed 23 international experts in large mammal conservation to learn about common pitfalls associated with running a compensation program and the resources managers need to succeed. Here, we also draw on additional published studies and reviews to explore the role of compensation in resolving conflicts between people and wildlife. We analyze the prospects and challenges of using these schemes in both developed and developing countries as part of a comprehensive suite of approaches to mitigate the effects of human-wildlife conflict on the longterm survival of endangered species. We also introduce the idea of performance payments and other alternatives to traditional compensation schemes.