Human Wildlife Conflict Collaboration
Human Wildlife Conflict Collaboration
Madden F.,Human Wildlife Conflict Collaboration |
McQuinn B.,Human Wildlife Conflict Collaboration |
McQuinn B.,University of Oxford
Biological Conservation | Year: 2014
Unaddressed or poorly addressed conflicts present increasingly difficult obstacles to effective conservation and management of many wildlife species around the world. The material, visible manifestations of such conflicts are often rooted in less visible, more complex social conflicts between people and groups. Current efforts to incorporate stakeholder engagement typically do not fully acknowledge or address the social conflicts that lie beneath the surface of conservation issues, nor do they consistently create the necessary conditions for productive transformation of the root causes of conflict. Yet, the ultimate level of social carrying capacity for many species will depend on the extent to which conservation can reconcile these social conflicts, thereby increasing social receptivity to conservation goals. To this end, conservation conflict transformation (CCT) offers a new perspective on, and approach to, how conservationists identify, understand, prevent, and reconcile conflict. Principles and processes from the peacebuilding field inform CCT and offer useful guidance for revealing and addressing social conflicts to improve the effectiveness of conservation efforts. The Human-Wildlife Conflict Collaboration (HWCC) has adapted and demonstrated these principles for application in conservation through capacity building and conflict interventions, transforming how many practitioners in the conservation field address conflict. In this article, we discuss current limitations of practice when addressing conflict in conservation, define conflict transformation, illustrate two analytical models to orient the reader to the benefits of CCT, and present two case studies where CCT was applied usefully to a conservation-related conflict. © 2014 The Authors.
Campbell K.J.,Island Conservation |
Campbell K.J.,University of Queensland |
Beek J.,Island Conservation |
Eason C.T.,Cawthron Institute |
And 11 more authors.
Biological Conservation | Year: 2015
Rodents remain one of the most widespread and damaging invasive alien species on islands globally. The current toolbox for insular rodent eradications is reliant on the application of sufficient anticoagulant toxicant into every potential rodent territory across an island. Despite significant advances in the use of these toxicants over recent decades, numerous situations remain where eradication is challenging or not yet feasible. These include islands with significant human populations, unreceptive stakeholder communities, co-occurrence of livestock and domestic animals, or vulnerability of native species. Developments in diverse branches of science, particularly the medical, pharmaceutical, invertebrate pest control, social science, technology and defense fields offer potential insights into the next generation of tools to eradicate rodents from islands. Horizon scanning is a structured process whereby current problems are assessed against potential future solutions. We undertook such an exercise to identify the most promising technologies, techniques and approaches that might be applied to rodent eradications from islands. We highlight a Rattus-specific toxicant, RNA interference as species-specific toxicants, rodenticide research, crab deterrent in baits, prophylactic treatment for protection of non-target species, transgenic rodents, virus vectored immunocontraception, drones, self-resetting traps and toxicant applicators, detection probability models and improved stakeholder community engagement methods. We present a brief description of each method, and discuss its application to rodent eradication on islands, knowledge gaps, challenges, whether it is incremental or transformative in nature and provide a potential timeline for availability. We outline how a combination of new tools may render previously intractable rodent eradication problems feasible. © 2014 Elsevier Ltd.