Assessing the failure of a community-based human-wildlife conflict mitigation project in Budongo Forest Reserve, Uganda

A.D. Webber, C.M. Hill and V. ReynoldsAbstract Primate crop raiding is a major cause ofhuman-wildlife conflict around the forests of westernUganda. In an attempt to ameliorate the situation aconflict mitigation strategy was established in villagesaround the Budongo Forest Reserve in 2001. Live-trapswere constructed that allowed the identification of cropraiding animals; pest species could be disposed of andthreatened species released unharmed. However, by2004 none of the traps in the study area werefunctioning and interviews were conducted to assessthe reasons for their decline and local people’s accep-tance of the intervention. Forty-one percent of respon-dents did not believe the strategy was effective and themajority of local farmers did not accept responsibilityfor the traps. This was because of operational failures infour areas: (1) the identification of key stakeholders, (2)objective evaluation to assess the efficacy and benefit ofthe intervention, (3) participatory monitoring andevaluation, and (4) long-term funding commitment byconservation agencies. We examine the impact of thesefour elements upon the sustainability of the live-trapprogramme and stress the importance of recognizingand reporting failures to develop effective and accep-table mitigation strategies.Keywords Budongo Forest Reserve, crop protection,human-wildlife conflict, primates, Uganda.IntroductionHuman-wildlife conflict is recognized as a significantthreat to the success of conservation initiatives (Strum,1994; Environmental Leaders Forum, 1998;Madhusudan, 2003; Osborn & Hill, 2005) and in 2003the World Parks Congress addressed this issue (IUCN,2003). A common, ancient and global example ofhuman-wildlife conflict is crop raiding (Hill, 1997;Naughton-Treves, 2001; Osborn & Hill, 2005) wherebya range of mammals, birds and insects utilize cultivatedcrops as food resources. Although conflict is regarded asalmost inevitable, failure to recognize its significancecan result in local resistance to an environmentalinitiative (e.g. trespassing, poaching, trapping; Little,1994; Knight, 2000), and a negative attitude to wildlifeand reduced support for conservation (Newmark et al.,1993; De Boer & Baquete, 1998; Naughton-Treves, 2001;Madhusudan, 2003). These problems can have a detri-mental effect on the long-term success of conservationprogrammes and are especially significant where rurallivelihoods are dependent on agriculture.Primates are particularly effective crop raiders due, atleast in part, to their intelligent, adaptable and some-times intimidating behaviour (Else, 1991; Strum, 1994;Hill, 2000). In addition, they are frequently the focus ofconservation legislation, which can aggravate, and evengenerate, conflict (Knight, 2000) by protecting speciesand restricting traditional crop protection methods (Hill,1991; Naughton-Treves, 2001; Osborn & Hill, 2005). It istherefore important to conduct research that examinesconflict mitigation strategies for primates, making ruralfarmers less vulnerable to crop loss while protectingimportant wildlife species.Despite a growing body of literature examiningconflict mitigation (Woodroffe et al., 2005), much dataconcerning traditional crop protection methods, andconservation practice generally, is anecdotal (Sutherlandet al., 2004; Osborn & Hill, 2005). Recent managementstrategies for primates and other species (e.g. electricfences, taste aversion, sterilization, compensation) haveshown potential but are only temporarily effective, andexpensive, invasive, labour intensive and unnecessarilybureaucratic, and thus neither sustainable nor suitablefor many human-wildlife conflict situations (Biquandet al., 1994; Strum, 1994; Naughton-Treves, 2001;Madhusudan, 2003; Mishra et al., 2003; Forthman et al.,2005; Miquelle et al., 2005). In addition, research hasseldom examined the perceptions of local people