INTERVENTION SUMMARY

Gun hunting in Korup National Park (KNP), Cameroon, threatened biodiversity and food security for nearby communities: illegal local hunters hunted wildlife for bushmeat using single-cartridge shotguns and other firearms. This case study examined the effectiveness of an approach that used passive acoustic sensors to detect gunshots. A total of 12 acoustic sensors were installed at key sites throughout the park over the course of three years to detect firearm poaching rates. Additionally, the intervention aimed to improve protected area management by generating high-resolution data on poaching, training local staff in its use, and evaluating whether increased patrol effort reduced gun hunting. Results showed that even a 400-500% increase in ranger patrol effort failed to reduce gun hunting, emphasizing that increased patrol effort alone is insufficient. The intervention was not effective because a number of alternative factors needed to be addressed before any impact from increased ranger patrol efforts could be seen, such as understanding the primary incentives for hunting amongst locals where the hunters originated from. Importantly, while local staff were trained and a monitoring protocol was institutionalized, the impact on wildlife populations and community-level behavior was not assessed.

INTERVENTION DETAILS

What was the problem?

Illegal hunting by local hunters in Korup National Park (KNP), in Cameroon’s southwest region, using single-cartridge shotguns and other firearms for wild meat consumption and sale locally, threatening biodiversity.

What was the Intervention and How was it Implemented?

The intervention focused on a multi-pronged approach that included increasing risk through the deployment of acoustic sensors to monitor gun hunting, and training staff in data analysis and monitoring.

Data Driven Patrol Planning: A network of deployed autonomous recording units (ARUs) across KNP helped detect gunshots, providing real-time data on illegal hunting activity. These data were used to understand the spatial patterns of hunting, guide patrol deployment, and evaluate patrol effectiveness. Patrol hours were increased to include night patrols, patrols during celebratory events and holidays, and when it was found that poaching increased. This increase in patrol effort was expected to deter poachers through direct harm mitigation, as well as fear of punishment. (Increase the Risks: strengthen formal surveillance).

Was the Intervention Effective, Ineffective, or Promising?

The intervention was ineffective in reducing the incidence of gun hunting in KNP. The number of hunting incidents measured through acoustic monitoring increased despite the park implementing a patrol strategy that saw ~400-500% increase in patrol effort (days + kilometers). This suggests that patrol visibility and presence alone were not sufficient to deter poachers. No direct measurement of wildlife population trends or recovery was conducted.

How do We Know?

The intervention was ineffective because increased patrol effort did not result in reduced hunting activity, suggesting that enforcement-only strategies are limited. Additionally, a number of alternative factors had to be addressed before any impact from increased ranger patrol efforts could be seen, such as shifting community reliance on bushmeat. The intervention also lacked complementary measures, such as creating livelihood alternatives to reduce the primary incentives for hunting. Without addressing social and economic drivers of poaching, long-term reduction in illegal hunting is difficult to achieve.

Were Conservation Outcomes Measured?

Not measured.

ASSESSMENT

The interventions did not cause the problem to decline. Even after a significant restructuring of the patrol protocol and an ~400-500% increase in patrol effort, poaching levels remained high and stable.

The strategy was based on the assumption that poachers would alter their behavior due to the increased presence and efficiency of patrols, therefore, working on multiple levels that included Increasing Risks by (a) increasing formal surveillance and (b) extending guardianship through training local staff on monitoring techniques and strategies.

The case study provided a detailed description of contextual factors influencing the intervention's mechanisms. The outbreak of the Ebola virus in West Africa and the closure of bushmeat markets in Nigeria significantly affected hunting intensity within Korup National Park. This external factor highlighted the interconnectedness of regional dynamics and their impact on local conservation efforts. Additionally, socioeconomic surveys revealed varying levels of reliance on hunting across different communities, highlighting the importance of understanding community-specific drivers of hunting when developing interventions. The case study discussed potential difficulties in applying this intervention in other contexts, as well as highlighted the complexity of poaching and the need to rethink traditional anti-poaching methods. Increasing patrol effort without addressing underlying issues like patrol quality, supervision, and enforcement strategies might not be effective, and this emphasizes the importance of adapting the intervention to local conditions, as well as suggests that similar interventions may face challenges in other protected areas.

The project ran from April 2013 to March 2016, with different interventions implemented over this period. The acoustic monitoring grid was set up in early June 2013. Bushmeat price and hunter surveys began in October 2013 and continued twice-monthly and monthly, respectively. Household surveys were conducted in January-February 2014, August-September 2014, January-February 2015, and August-September 2015. The pre-implementation analysis included baseline data collection through acoustic monitoring, which revealed spatio-temporal patterns of gun hunting in KNP. This data informed the design of the intervention, including the timing and placement of patrols to target periods of high poaching activity, particularly around the Christmas/New Year season, as well asl night and off-trail patrols. Training. The project implemented various training programs for local staff. KRCS members received training on acoustic grid deployment, maintenance, survey coordination, and data analysis in Year 1 and Year 2. KNP staff received training in December 2014 on maintaining the acoustic grid and analyzing acoustic data. Additional training on advanced data analysis techniques was provided to KRCS members in December 2015. Partnerships. The project worked with various partners, including The Ministry of Forest and Wildlife (MINFOF) and Korup National Park Management; local NGOs (namely Korup Rainforest Conservation Society (KRCS) and Coastal Forests Program of WWF-Cameroon (WWF-CFP); the International Development Programme for the Sustainable Management of Natural Resources-Southwest Region (PSMNR-SWR); and research institutions (Wildlife Conservation Research Unit - (WildCRU) at the University of Oxford; Cornell University, and Madison University), These partners collectively contributed resources for activities, such as village surveys, anti-poaching patrols, shipping costs, sensor batteries, equipment, and data storage. Several key challenges to implementation were identified, including: Patrol Efforts Alone Did Not Reduce Gun Hunting. Despite significantly increasing patrol efforts (a 400-500% increase), data indicated that the intervention did not result in the expected reduction in gun hunting activity. Moreover, ineffective supervision of rangers led to inconsistent patrol implementation, and external factors, like rainfall and moonlight, complicated the effectiveness of the patrols. To overcome these challenges, the project recommended improving the quality of patrols and rethinking enforcement strategies, and designing strategies for better supervision of game guards.

The cost for implementing the project was £240,024.00, with additional resources, such as the patrols and equipment (e.g., acoustic sensors), provided by the Programme for the Sustainable Management of Natural Resources - Southwest Region (PSMNR-SWR), and other in-kind contributions from other partners.

SCP COLUMNS

Strengthen formal surveillance

ADDITIONAL DETAILS

Citation

Astaras et al., (2016)

Year Range

2009-2013

Country

Cameroon

Landscape

Target Species

Multiple species

Problem type

Poaching

Source: Astaras C, Macdonald DW, Wrege P, Linder J. 2016. Improving anti-poaching patrol evaluation and design in African rainforests. Darwin Initiative Final Report 20-01. Astaras C et al. (2020) Boots on the ground: The role of passive acoustic monitoring in evaluating anti-poaching patrols. Environmental Conservation 47: 213–216. doi: 10.1017/S0376892920000193