INTERVENTION SUMMARY

This case study evaluated the effectiveness of ranger counter-poaching tactics in tackling tiger poaching by Vietnamese, Thai, and Cambodian hunting groups in the Kenyir State Park in Taman Negara, Malaysia. The intervention aimed to improve ranger patrol efforts by enhancing data collection, spatial monitoring, and adaptive patrol deployment. Rangers were trained to gather standardized patrol data using SMART, including effort metrics (like distance covered and time spent), locations of poaching signs, and wildlife sightings. The program also introduced quarterly patrol reviews, where patrol data was examined and used to refine patrol strategies. This adaptive management approach was designed to increase patrol coverage and efficiency over time. The core idea was that a higher, unpredictable patrol presence would discourage poachers, disrupt illegal hunting patterns, and, ultimately, decrease poaching threats to tiger populations. The intervention was promising because it reduced poaching incursion frequency in some of the most crucial tiger habitats in Kenyir by 40%, as well as increasing snare detection by 400%. However, the intervention did not improve tiger population density.

INTERVENTION DETAILS

What was the problem?

Tiger populations in Kenyir State Park in Taman Negara, Malaysia, were severely declining due to targeted poaching by Vietnamese, Thai, and Cambodian hunting groups.

What was the Intervention and How was it Implemented?

Improve Patrol Methods: The intervention focused on improving patrol effectiveness by applying multiple sources of information, such as passive camera trap survey data, SMART data analysis, and by responding to intelligence on active incursions. The intervention included the creation of specialized patrol teams, including civilian scout teams for detecting poaching incursions, ranger teams for detecting and arresting poachers, and a deep forest counter-poaching unit to track and disrupt active poaching incursions. Patrols that caught poachers would then repatriate them, increasing the cost and effort for attempted reoffending (Increase the Risks - extend guardianship, strengthen formal surveillance).

Was the Intervention Effective, Ineffective, or Promising?

The intervention was effective. It reduced poaching incursion frequency in some of the most crucial tiger habitats in Kenyir by 40% (n=34, from baseline years), as well as increased snare detection by 400%. There was also a 300% increase in the detection of active poaching incursions, and the proportion of wire snares disarmed before these could reach full kill potential increased fourfold, with 10% of these snares seized before deployment. However, the intervention did not sufficiently increase tiger population density. While some key female tigers survived and were observed breeding, tiger population in Kenyir did not reach the targeted recovery range of population density, nor was there a significant increase in tiger prey populations.

How do We Know?

The intervention was effective because it showed a reduction in incursions, however tiger and prey poaching populations failed to increase over the study period. There were some benefits showcased, such as the targeted strategies that addressed specific behaviors and methods of poaching groups, as well as adaptive management and enforcement capabilities that assisted in reducing incursions and detecting snares.

Some of the major challenges that prevented this intervention from succeeding included:

1) limited deterrence of other poachers because of staff and resource shortages, as well as limited funding to expand interventions to nearby communities,

2) not sufficiently tackling the economic incentive and root causes of poaching, and

3) improper analysis of data and patrol strategies and ad hoc leadership/logistical challenges.

Were Conservation Outcomes Measured?

Yes. Tiger populations did not increase.

ASSESSMENT

The intervention led to a measurable increase in patrol effort and spatial coverage over the study period. The overall poaching incursion frequency decreased significantly.

The primary mechanism of change was to increase the risk and effort of poaching by improving the effectiveness of patrol effort. The adaptive deployment of patrols, based on analysis of threat patterns and patrol feedback loops, reinforced these mechanisms. Rangers increased presence and their ability to detect and intervene in illegal activities were key components.

Effectiveness was influenced by multiple contextual factors, including:

  • Topography and access (dense rainforest terrain limited patrol mobility).
  • Ranger team capacity and motivation (staffing levels, training, and morale affected patrol performance).
  • Weather and seasonal variation (flooding during wet seasons limited patrol reach).
  • Community proximity and poaching pressure (areas closer to villages or known entry points showed higher poaching risk).

The intervention involved deploying SMART-based patrol monitoring, training rangers on data collection and reporting, and using data to adapt patrol planning. Patrol leaders participated in quarterly review sessions to assess patrol performance and threats, guiding future deployments. Challenges included the complexity of deep-forest operations and the need for specialized training, especially when arresting active poachers, such as with easy escape routes and armed offenders. These challenges were addressed through specific improvements, such as modifying intersection timing, enhancing reconnaissance, and refining raid planning. Additionally, considerations included the impact of the 2019 COVID-19 pandemic on poaching.

The study did not provide a detailed cost-effectiveness analysis, but it outlined the resources needed to implement the SMART program. These resources included training, equipment (such as GPS devices and radios), fuel, ranger salaries, and logistical support for patrol teams. The study reported general costs, including $180,000 annually to maintain a 21-person team, which comprised scouts, analysts, community liaison staff, a patrol captain, a project coordinator, as well as all optional expenses. The estimated cost for a typical five-day patrol with four personnel deployed by vehicle was $180, while the cost for a similar patrol conducted by boat was $453. Although there was no formal cost-benefit analysis, the paper emphasized the importance of sustained funding for maintaining patrol coverage and data management. It also suggested that future research should assess the cost-benefit aspects of the intervention.

SCP COLUMNS

Strengthen formal surveillance Extend guardianship

ADDITIONAL DETAILS

Citation

Lam et al. (2023)

Year Range

2015-2023

Country

Malaysia

Landscape

Lowland,Rainforest,Forest

Target Species

Tiger

Problem type

Poaching; Snaring

Source: Lam, W. Y., Phung, C. C., Mat, Z. A., Jamaluddin, H., Sivayogam, C. P., Zainal Abidin, F. A., ... & Pickles, R. S. A. (2023). Using a crime prevention framework to evaluate tiger counter-poaching in a Southeast Asian rainforest. Frontiers in Conservation Science, 4, 1213552.