In the works: Panthera paper on livestock compensation

This August, I began working on a paper for Panthera, an organization that is one of the biggest players in wild cat conservation. I am honored to have Panthera's Executive Director, Luke Hunter, as my mentor in this project. Working with Dr. Hunter is a wonderful learning experience. I also recently had the pleasure of meeting CEO Dr. Alan Rabinowitz, another legend in the world of big cat conservation. What a lovely summer treat!

During my time at Panthera's headquarters in Manhattan, I began a literature review of livestock compensation programs. I completed and submitted my first draft of the review last week. When it's polished, the document will form a foundation for Panthera's intra-office policy on livestock compensation. (Photo at left by Thomas D. Mangelsen; photograph rights are not owned by or affiliated with Panthera.) So, what are livestock compensation programs, and what problem do they attempt to solve? Read on to learn more.

The root of the problem: In areas where predators reside, habitat fragmentation and loss often means that there are fewer prey animals to feed on in the wild. Carnivores are often forced to encroach on neighboring human communities, picking off the livestock that have lost many anti-predator defense mechanisms in the domestication process. Community members are understandably upset by these attacks, and often retaliate with acts of violence against predators. This results in the further decline of predator populations that are already in danger of vanishing.



Here's where conservation efforts come into play. In order to stop community violence against predators, conservationists must assign some sort of financial value to the predator population. In other words, community members must see some economic value in having the predators stick around. There are a number of proposed solutions to do this, and livestock compensation is one of them. The concept is simple: When one of the community's goats, cattle, sheep, etc. is picked off by a carnivore, the compensation program hands over some money or a replacement animal. There are so many ways to modify and alter these programs to fit community needs and preferences. However, these programs have come under close scrutiny in the world of conservation, and their efficacy is largely variable. Also, the concept itself has some major flaws. These programs:

• aren't economically self-sustaining
• don't try to solve the problem -- simply throw some money at it
• may encourage the community not to protect livestock from predators (i.e. The less you protect your animals, the more of them the predator eats and the more money you get... It's like siphoning an indefinite amount of conservation funds into a bottomless pit.)
  
• may encourage increases in human and livestock populations, leading to increased habitat loss
• don't provide universal benefits to the community -- only those who lose livestock to predators receive any economic incentive
• don't create a positive image of carnivores/ conservation (i.e. One alterntative to livestock compensation involves rewarding communities who tolerate the presence of predators on their land, giving extra bonuses for special circumstances -- such as sightings of youngsters. That type of program creates a direct link between conservation and economic value.)

To make a long story short, my research has shown that livestock compensation programs are very difficult to operate successfully. There are alternatives that have worked beautifully, and I hope to explore them further in a future paper.

Working on this paper has certainly taught me a great deal about conservation and the work that goes into planning and orchestration. I'm also very lucky and honored to be working with Panthera, a greatly respected organization that is doing phenomenal things for wild cat conservation.

As always, more to come about big cat conservation in the future.