Lessons for the future of sustainable use of vicuña

Abstract

Community-based conservation through the sustainable use of wildlife has become one of the basic approaches to wildlife conservation (Convention on Biological Diversity, 2004). Community-based conservation seeks to involve local communities in nature conservation through providing benefits (primarily economic) from wildlife through sustainable use. While the paradigm is not new, it is growing in application due to the perceived success of programmes such as CAMPFIRE in Zimbabwe (Martin, 1986). This requires a holistic, integrated approach to wildlife management that includes research and development across a range of academic and applied research disciplines. However, with the recent debate (e.g. Martin, 1999; Attwell, 2000; Adams and Hulme, 2001) on the value of community-based conservation, the protagonists on both sides of the argument appear to forget that there are two beneficiaries of the community-based conservation paradigm people and wildlife. Generally the emphasis of community-based conservation is on the benefits for livelihoods of the communities/households involved and not the benefits for species conservation. This, in my view, reflects the hijacking of the philosophy of the community involvement in conservation by a socio-economist agenda, which is attempting to use the community conservation paradigm to devolve democracy away from central government by denationalizing wildlife management to the local level. Socio-economists have not been particularly interested in the wildlife conservation part of the relationship, which has provoked some recent debate on the relative benefits to biodiversity of traditional protectionist versus community-based approaches (Walker, 1999; Attwell and Cotterill, 2000; Wilshusen et al., 2002). Also socio-economic perspectives, at all levels, have not considered the impacts of global change and the increase in the demand for wildlife products that occurs with globalisation such as internet access to trophies, traditional medicine, bush meat etc. In the long run, which is what sustainable use is all about, we must develop a greater understanding of the impacts of community conservation, not only for the people, but also on the wildlife populations and the maintenance of the health of the ecosystems where wildlife lives. We should beware of viewing communitybased conservation as the panacea of future wildlife management. It is likely that, while the approach will benefit species which have economic value, such as the vicuña (Vicugna vicugna), other species (e.g. lions, Panthera leo , and wild dogs, Lycaon pictus) which major impact directly or indirectly on people, will not survive outside strictly protected areas. There is an even greater need now than ever for ecologists/wildlife biologists and socio-economists to effectively work together with local communities around the globe to develop truly sustainable approaches to wildlife management outside protected areas. My view is that the management of the vicuña, as outlined in this book, will provide a blueprint for the future management of wildlife for both community and wildlife species benefits. For example, the sustainable use of vicuña is advancing into a series of challenges well beyond other experiences of sustainable use. Consider the conservation, ethical and animal welfare issues associated with the live shearing and release of a wild animal; consider also the ongoing discussion about whether it is best to farm the species or to hybridising vicuña with alpaca which demonstrates the genetic, sociological and economic side of the sustainable use approach. These are challenges being faced now that are not unique to vicuña and will be played out in the global arena.