INTERVENTION SUMMARY

This case study evaluated two lion conservation interventions in Maasailand, Kenya: The Predator Compensation Fund (PCF), and the Lion Guardians (LG) program. Both aimed to reduce retaliatory and cultural lion killings by Maasai pastoralists. The PCF compensated livestock owners for losses caused by lions, aiming to reduce the financial motivation for retaliation. Verification procedures ensured legitimacy, and penalties were imposed on communities if a lion was killed, creating social pressure against killing. The LG program employed respected Maasai warriors (ilmurran) to prevent lion killings. Guardians used their cultural standing to intervene in planned hunts, reinforce livestock enclosures, warn communities of lion presence, and educate locals on lion conservation. Both programs operated together in some areas and independently in others, allowing comparison of their effects.

INTERVENTION DETAILS

What was the problem?

Lion populations in southern Kenya were declining rapidly due to high levels of retaliatory and symbolic killings by Maasai pastoralists in response to livestock depredation and cultural practices. The lack of direct community benefits from lion conservation and the economic losses from predation created strong incentives for lion killing, threatening the local lion population with near-term extinction.

What was the Intervention and How was it Implemented?

Predator Compensation Fund (PCF): This intervention aimed to establish a financial compensation fund for local people whose livestock are depredated by lions to reduce the motivation for retaliatory killings. The program, funded by private sources and group ranches, pays the local market price for livestock carcasses to the owner if found within 1.5 km of the individual's ranch and reported within 24 hours. All evidence is collected and verified by PCF officials, with approval from local community elders who advise the program, swiftly verify the carcass, and pay the livestock owner. If negligence is evident, the payment decreases, and penalties are imposed if a lion is killed. The intervention premise was that when local people are compensated for wildlife-related losses, they are less likely to kill lions. (Remove Excuses- set rules; Reduce Provocations - reduce frustrations and stress)

Lion Guardians (LG): This intervention focused on creating a respected, monitoring unit from within the community to deter lion killing. Selected from ilmurran, or respected warriors/former lion-hunters who defend the community from cattle raiders and wildlife, who are paid $100/month, LGs employ conflict mitigation techniques and use their leadership roles within the community to prevent lion killings. They intercede when made aware of planned lion hunts and work to change the traditional lion-hunting practice by showing a new way to embody strength while preventing lion killings. Additionally, they dissuade peers by stressing the costs of lion hunting (tourism and ecosystem value of lions, threat of arrest, loss of their own income as LGs), or the risk of losing PCF payments to the communities that killing lions would results in. They also play a constructive role in maintaining livestock corrals, assist in the retrieval of lost livestock, and monitor, track, and inform both communities and researchers of carnivore movements, providing a sense of community ownership of lions. (Increase the Risks -strengthen formal surveillance; Reduce Provocations - reduce frustrations and stress, Remove Excuses - set rules)

Was the Intervention Effective, Ineffective, or Promising?

The interventions were effective, as both significantly reduced lion killings. PCF reduced killings by 87-91%, and LG (alone or combined) reduced killings by 99%. Evidence included 8 years of mortality data, triangulated reports of killings, and before-after comparisons across different sites.

How do We Know?

The interventions were effective through a combination of economic incentives, cultural relevance, community engagement, social pressure, and ongoing monitoring and verification. LG's culturally embedded design and PCF's financial incentives worked synergistically to change behavior and reduce lion mortality.

Were Conservation Outcomes Measured?

Yes, the primary conservation outcome measured was the reduction in lion killings, which serves as a direct threat reduction indicator for lion population viability.

ASSESSMENT

Both the Predator Compensation Fund (PCF) and Lion Guardians (LG) programs led to significant drops in lion killings. PCF alone caused an estimated 90% reduction in lion killings.

The two programs operated through different mechanisms:

PCF (Predator Compensation Fund): This program aimed to reduce the motivation for retaliatory killings by compensating for livestock losses. Additionally, community-wide penalties for killing lions created social pressure to encourage conservation.

LG (Lion Guardians): This initiative sought to reduce lion killings by utilizing respected Maasai warriors (ilmurran) as leaders in community conservation. They intervened directly to prevent planned hunts, reinforced livestock enclosures, alerted herders to the presence of lions, and promoted non-lethal responses. Furthermore, they fostered a sense of community ownership and responsibility for lion conservation by integrating conservation efforts with traditional values and offering employment and training opportunities.

Effectiveness varied across locations and time. Key moderators included: 

  • Local governance and leadership support 
  • Community attitudes and historical conflict levels 
  • Program rollout timing relative to drought and livestock loss events 
  • Cultural acceptance of Lion Guardians program (capitalizing on Maasai warrior traditions) Notably, areas without LGs showed poorer outcomes, and periods of drought and social tension moderated program effectiveness (e.g., spike in killings in S. Olgulului before LG introduction).

Both programs were carefully designed but faced practical challenges:

PCF: Faced issues with sustainability, administrative burden, and risks of moral hazard (people reducing livestock protection or misreporting losses).

LG: Was embedded within communities and culturally tailored. Challenges included reliance on sustained donor funding, and the need for continual guardian training, support, and monitoring. Both interventions required careful community engagement, monitoring, and adaptation to local social and political dynamics.

The study provided clear comparative cost data:

PCF: Approximately $250,000 per year, covering ~1700 livestock claims annually (around $92/km²/year).

LG: Approximately $140,000 per year, employing more staff over a larger area ($40/km²/year). The LG program was considered more cost-effective, with greater reductions in lion killings for lower cost per area covered. However, both programs faced sustainability challenges if external funding decreased.

SCP COLUMNS

ADDITIONAL DETAILS

Citation

Hazzah et al. (2014)

Year Range

2003-2011

Country

Kenya

Landscape

Target Species

Lion

Problem type

Hunting

Source: Hazzah, L., Dolrenry, S., Naughton, L., Edwards, C. T., Mwebi, O., Kearney, F., & Frank, L. (2014). Efficacy of two lion conservation programs in Maasailand, Kenya. Conservation Biology, 28(3), 851-860.