 |  | | Our goal is to provide an information and communication forum for P&W issues and present innovative approaches to resolve conflicts |
|
| Database of P&W Projects and Practitioners |
| Block 1 - Project Details |
Project Title:
Control of damage-causing animals along Kruger National Park | | | | Project Type | | Research: | | | Mitigation: | | | Increase Tolerance: | | | | | Description: | Within a governance framework, we detail institutional roles and the effectiveness of policies and practices of controlling damage-causing animals (DCAs) at Kruger National Park (KNP) and Limpopo Province along KNP’s western border. Most DCAs originate from the park, significantly affecting its long-term legitimacy among local
communities. Between 2002 and 2004, over 12% of households within 15 km of the park experienced DCA damage, with incidents significantly correlated with being located closer to KNP and having higher numbers of mammalian livestock. These incidents are affecting opinions concerning KNP, as those who experienced damage were less likely to believe that the park would ever help their household economically. According to 482 DCA incident records from 1998 to 2004, the most problematic species are buffalo, lion, elephant, hippo and crocodile. Limpopo Province utilised professional hunters in DCA control, however, widespread abuses including the direct
luring of lion led to a national moratorium on specific hunting practices. DCA procedures are highly flawed due to ambiguity concerning species and movement of DCAs, poor reporting, inadequate response times, overlapping responsibilities, and corruption. These are exacerbated by weak and, in some cases, competing institutions. Further, the controversial issue of undelivered compensation is determining negative attitudes by communities towards institutions who have historically promised it. Drawing on good governance principles, we offer recommendations on alleviating DCA conflicts in such contexts. | | Further Details: | Anthony, Brandon. 2007. The dual nature of parks: attitudes of neighbouring communities towards Kruger National Park, South Africa. Environmental Conservation 34(3):236-245.
Anthony, B., Scott, P. and Antypas, A. 2010. Sitting on the fence? Policies and practices in managing human-wildlife conflict in Limpopo Province, South Africa. Conservation & Society 8(3):225-240. | | | | Start Year: | 2004 | End Year: | 2006 | | Date Entered: | 2011.07.04 | Last Modified: | 2011.07.04 | | Source of Data: | Reported by project leader | | Affiliation and funds | Lead organization: | Central European University | | | Collaborating Organisations: | Kruger National Park, Limpopo Province | | | Main sponsor: | | | | Annual budget: | |
| Block 2 - Environmental setting |
| Location: | Continent: | | Region: | | | | Country: | | Location: | Limpopo Province | | Biome: | Tropical Savanna | | Main habitat type: | | | Size of study area: | 850 km2 | | Protection Status: | Communal | | Type of land use: | Subsistence agriculture |
Wildlife species targeted (or concerned)
| Common name: | lion, elephant, Cape buffalo, spotted hyena, hippo, crocodile | | Order: | | Family: | | Species binomial: | | | Economic costs of the project | | Evaulated: NO | By this project: NO | Annual value: 0 (US$) | | Details: | | | Perceived threats from wildlife in the area | | | Other: | | | Perceived benefits from wildlife | |
Actions to mitigate conflict or improve tolerance | Compensation schemes: | | | Success score: | NA | | Economic incentives: | | | Success score: | NA | | Area protection: | Protected area support | | Success score: | No apparent effect | | Lethal control: | Killing of problematic animals | | Success score: | Positive/satisfactory effect; apparent or proven | | Non-lethal control: | Live trapping and removal (e.g. translocations) | | Success score: | No apparent effect | | Exclusion (e.g. barriers): | Electric fences | | Success score: | No apparent effect | | Reducing livestock losses: | | | Success score: | NA | | Frightening agents: | | | Success score: | NA | | Repellents/adversives: | | | Success score: | NA | | Habitat change: | | | Success score: | NA | | Community education: | Conservation education (village level) | | Success score: | No apparent effect | | Increasing awareness: | Local authorities | | Success score: | No apparent effect | Any real economic benefits as a result of this project? | Evaluated: NO | By this project: NO | Annual Value: 0 US$ |
|
