Published on Conservation, Crime and Communities (https://communitiesforwildlife.iied.org) Home > Collaborating to Conserve Large Mammals in South East Asia Collaborating to Conserve Large Mammals in South East Asia Project background Species of focus: Tiger, Gaur, Sambar Country/Countries: Thailand Site(s): Thung Yai Naresuan Wildlife Sanctuary GPS coordinates: Project web site: Summary description: Rather than introducing a pre-planned scheme of collaborative management between Thung Yai government officials and Karen villagers (whose relationship is one of distrust), this project initiated a learning process directed toward incremental improvement of the status of wildlife - in particularly mammals that are poached for commercial trade (tiger and baur) and subsistence use (porcupines and civets). Collaborative workshops were organized with the intention of: (1) combining the knowledge of local woodsmen into an information base about the conservation status of mammals; (2) developing a shared understanding of conservation problems; and (3) identifying opportunities for collaborative action. These events became known locally as wildlife workshops. Workshops consisted of three parts: wildlife status assessment, impact assessment, and conservation planning. Two workshops were conducted, each requiring 2 days. Five villages participated overall. For each workshop, 5 10 elders and hunters from two to three villages were invited as chief participants. Village headmen also participated, and young people were encouraged to come as observers. Two to three rangers from nearby ranger stations and officers from Thung Yai headquarters attended. 1
The final part of each workshop was a collaborative planning exercise, without being proclaimed as such. In this case, Karen participants and Thung Yai officials agreed that: 1. They share similar concerns about the declining status of wildlife, wish to face the problem, and recognize the need to work together; 2. Commercial poaching has had the biggest impact historically and is the most pressing current threat; 3. Subsistence hunting is unsustainable for some species (muntjacs, sambar), especially where it overlaps with areas of heavier mortality caused by commercial poaching; 4. Villages should form conservation committees (of elders, active woodsmen, and young people) to participate in future activities and communicate with outsiders; 5. Conservation problems must be addressed on both local and regional scales (inside Thung Yai Wildlife Sanctuary, managers and local Karen agree that joint patrols be initiated and targeted at poaching hotspots identified in the workshops); 6. Villagers should designate wildlife recovery zones as a form of spatial harvest management 7. A joint monitoring system to track the distribution and relative abundance of 11 focal species should be established for locally threatened species These ideas were subsequently written into Thung Yai s first collaborative management plan. In the 3 years since wildlife workshops were held, each component has been implemented. Most villages now have officially recognised conservation committees. Two joint monitoring teams have been trained and equipped. They have conducted 12 sign surveys along 250 km of trails, generating information on the status of large carnivores and ungulates, the distribution of poaching activity, and recolonization of one area by elephants. One wildlife recovery zone (30 km2) has been established and another surveyed. The zone has received increased publicity, management attention, and patrols, and there are fewer reports of either subsistence or commercial hunting in the area. Communication has increased, mostly through quarterly village meetings that protected-area officials now frequently attend. Land management type: State managed protected area Product(s) in trade: Bones, Horn, Meat Product value at site level: Types of poachers: Individuals from outside 2
Details of 'other' poacher type: Project implementation Is the project implemented by an external party? Implementing organisation: WWF Thailand. Name of funding organisation(s): WWF UK. Community organisation(s) involved: Thung Yai has been inhabited by an indigenous minority known as the Karen for over 200 years. Twelve villages are located within the Sanctuary, accessible by foot and requiring 2 hours to 3 days. Some 30 Karen villagers were involved in the wildlife workshops learning process. Was the project established specifically to engage communities in combatting IWT? Year the IWT project or component started: 2000 Project status is currently: No longer operating Case study information is up to date as of: 2006 Community engagement Approach taken to community engagement and its 3
Approach taken to community engagement and its rationale: Community members benefit from resource harvesting (e.g., small scale hunting; grazing; thatching grass) as conservation incentive Details of 'other' community involvement approach type: Financial: Not specified. Non-financial: Not specified. The community engagement project is Stand alone initiative Details of wider response: Do community guards carry firearms? Do community guards conduct joint patrols with formal guards? Are community guards unarmed, without armed backup? No Do community guards have rights of arrest? No 4
Do community guards have specialist training Are community guards covered by military law in the case of someone being killed or wounded? No The community has traditional authority to sanction poachers from within their community? What rules of engagement for working with communities does the case study address? Advance and recognize and respect the rights of local people to manage and benefit from wildlife Build the capacity of local people to manage and benefit from wildlife Strengthen the voice of local people in conservation/iwt debate and dialogue Include local people in wildlife monitoring and enforcement networks Build capacity of local people to tackle IWT Recognise and strengthen the legitimacy of local communities as critical partners Other key principles for engaging communities emerging from this case study: What has been the impact on poaching/iwt? Don t know/case study/project has not assessed impact on poaching What has been the impact on wildlife populations? Not known/not documented Further detail about the impact on poaching: What worked and why?; What didn t work and 5
why? What worked about the community engagement approach and why? Ingredients for the success of this leaning process included: Treating local people as potential allies and asking for their help to recover wildlife. The Karen villagers are accustomed to being accused of causing problems, but not being invited to define or solve them. When this imbalance shifted through the learning process, many came forward to participate in an opportunity they believed they deserved all along. Many Karen villagers resent (what they consider) the intrusion of outside poachers, and are concerned about localised effects of their own subsistence hunting, but feel powerless to address these issues. At the same time, Thung Yai staff are sometimes discouraged because the magnitude of problems seem to overwhelm their capacity. Prior to the wildlife workshops, WWF Thailand sponsored four Karen-ranger expeditions to break the inertia resulting from the situation and develop a history of joint fact-finding. Confidence to come together more formally in workshops may have grown through these activities. The strongest demonstrations of success have been the outcomes of wildlife workshops themselves. The initiation of joint patrolling, for example, has inspired two additional villages to request assistance to start similar activities. Also, concern has grown among previously indifferent or antagonistic village headmen, who now take time to discuss species population changes even though it is not their first priority. The involvement, persistence, and 6-year time commitment of a third party (in this case, a nongovernmental organization) was instrumental. Not relying on financial incentives for motivation. Years after this project has ended, and with zero financial support local groups still occasionally patrol the sanctuary borders and continue to maintain local recovery and non-hunting zones. What did not work and why?: Further comments or additional information about community engagement: Wildlife workshops are likely to be most successful where local people have a long history in the area and a strong stake in the shape of their relationship with protected-area authorities. The approach may be least successful where local people have recently migrated to an area because they are likely to have only a vague understanding of historical trends. Bibliographic information 6
Main source(s) of information: Published documentation Title: Author(s): Year of publication: Collaborating to Conserve Large Mammals in South East Asia Steinmetz R, Wanlop C, Seuaturien N 2006 Conservation Journal/Book/Series Biology details: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2006.00505 [1] Download/Access URL: Additional source(s) of information: Case study entry information This case study entry compiled by: Francesca Booker Date of case study entry: Friday, 19 August, 2016 Source URL: https://communitiesforwildlife.iied.org/collaborating-conserve-large-mammals-south-east-asia Links [1] http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2006.00505 7