INTERVENTION SUMMARY

Poaching and other illegal activities, such as fish poisoning and timber theft, have posed threats to wildlife in Nepal’s protected areas, including Shuklaphanta Wildlife Reserve (SWR). Such species as rhinos, tigers, musk deer, and pangolins were vulnerable to international trafficking, which was driven by financial incentives and the lack of knowledge about conservation laws. This anti-poaching intervention, which was implemented between 2010 and 2015, focused on community-based initiatives that involved volunteer groups of local youths in and around community forests and national parks/wildlife reserves. Their roles included supporting park authorities through intelligence gathering and monitoring, as well as directly engaging with the community to raise awareness about conservation laws, and provide skill-development and income-generating training. The results suggest that the intervention was promising: poaching declined from three incidents in 2010/2012 to zero in 2013/2014; the number of actionable intelligence reports submitted to community-based anti-poaching units (CBAPUs) increased (e.g. from one report in 2010/2011 to ten by 2013/2014), indicating rising community engagement. However, these outcomes were largely descriptive, and it was not possible to assess the intervention’s direct and long-term impacts.

INTERVENTION DETAILS

What was the problem?

Poaching of endangered species (such as rhinos, tigers, musk deer, pangolin), and other illegal activities, such as timber theft and fish poisoning in Nepal's protected areas, especially Shuklaphanta Wildlife Reserve (SWR), driven by economic incentives and the lack of community awareness.

What was the Intervention and How was it Implemented?

Community-Based Anti-Poaching Units (CBAPUs): This intervention focused on establishing community-based initiatives that involved local volunteer youths in and around community forests and national parks/wildlife reserves. These groups supported park authorities by gathering intelligence, monitoring activities, and directly engaging with the community through activities that focused on raising awareness about conservation laws. The intervention also provided skill development and income-generating activities. These community-based anti-poaching units (CBAPUs) sought to not only provide additional surveillance and monitoring, but also dissuade would-be poachers by providing alternatives. (Increase the Risks - extend guardianship; Reduce Provocations - reduce frustrations and stress; Remove Excuses - alert conscience).

Was the Intervention Effective, Ineffective, or Promising?

The intervention was promising in reducing poaching in SWR, but the lack of causal evaluation limits confidence in attributing these changes solely to the intervention. According to the information collected through interviews and group discussions, the CBAPUs effectively raised awareness in local communities on the impact of poaching, trained communities in skill development programs aimed at creating financial opportunities, and assisted in monitoring poaching activities. Additionally, the project reports increased in effectiveness in transmitting information to park staff about poaching encroachments. However, wildlife population impacts were not directly assessed.

How do We Know?

The intervention was promising because it worked with the local communities to tackle the root causes of poaching, which were financially driven and due to the lack of awareness about conservation laws. By targeting these root causes, the intervention not only contributed to poaching declines, but it also simultaneously provided skill development and income support by leveraging a cost-effective youth volunteer labor.

Were Conservation Outcomes Measured?

Not measured.

ASSESSMENT

The case study found that the implementation of CBAPUs has led to a decrease in poaching incidents from 2010 to 2015, with reports of zero poaching incidents in some areas.

The case study suggested that establishing CBAPUs was a way to involve local people in managing their own natural resources, and help reduce the economic incentives that lead to poaching by providing alternative livelihood opportunities. The presence of CBAPO units, particularly the inclusion of former poachers, can discourage poaching by increasing the perceived risk of getting caught and shifting social norms against the practice. The mechanism of change can be inferred from the text. CBAPUs operate through: Increasing the Risk - Increased patrolling and surveillance, along with information sharing with park authorities, aimed to deter poaching by increasing the perceived likelihood of apprehension. Reduce Provocations - CBAPUs organized skill development training and income-generating activities to provide community members with alternative sources of income, and reduce their reliance on poaching, thus reducing provocations for poaching. The involvement of local people, including former poachers, in CBAPO worked to shift social norms against poaching. Remove Excuses - CBAPUs led awareness programs that focused on educating communities about the importance of wildlife conservation and the negative impacts of poaching. Evidence on the outcomes was primarily gathered through interviews with 94 members of the CBAPU, key informant interviews (21), and focus group discussions with community members. The results indicated reduced poaching incidents in Shuklaphanta Wildlife Reserve (SWR) after the implementation of CBAPUS. Nepal achieving 365 days of zero poaching for rhinos in 2011, and for rhinos, tigers, and elephants for 12 months ending February 2014, is attributed in part to CBAPO efforts. The results also suggested increased awareness and knowledge about wildlife conservation laws among local communities.

The case study highlighted the context of poaching in Nepal, including factors like poverty, unemployment, and lack of awareness, as the impetus for establishing CBAPUs. The selection of study sites for evaluating the intervention was based on their vulnerability to poaching and illegal activities, and their proximity to the core area of the reserve and the Indian border. This suggests that understanding the local context informed the intervention. Additionally, the case study described how open borders with India posed a significant challenge to controlling illegal wildlife trade, particularly in the SWR.

CBAPU's activities included patrolling (using tools like GPS and MIST (Management Information System), surveillance, information gathering, animal rescue, and skill development trainings. Various stakeholders, including park staff, security personnel, local communities, and NGOs, were involved. Key success factors included: Community participation: Active involvement of local communities, including former poachers. Support from park authorities and other agencies: Collaboration and support from park staff, security personnel, and NGOs. The primary challenge was the lack of financial resources for CBAPUs, even though the study provided no information on the financial costs associated with the implementation of the current intervention strategies.

The case study did not provide specific financial costs associated with the implementation of CBAPUs, neither did it provide a cost/benefit analysis.

SCP COLUMNS

Extend guardianship
Reduce frustrations and stress
Alert conscience

ADDITIONAL DETAILS

Citation

Bhatta et al. (2018)

Year Range

2010-2015

Country

Nepal

Landscape

Woodland,Grassland

Target Species

Multiple species

Problem type

Source: Bhatta, K. P., Bhattarai, S., & Aryal, A. (2018). Community based anti-poaching operation: Effective model for wildlife conservation in Nepal. Poultry, Fisheries, & Wildlife Sciences, 6(2).