Solutions to Human-Wildlife conflict must be based on a nuanced understanding of the complexity of the issues, rather than a simple reduction of the problem to its basic parts. In reality, the underlying drivers of conflict... [ view full abstract ]
Solutions to Human-Wildlife conflict must be based on a nuanced understanding of the complexity of the issues, rather than a simple reduction of the problem to its basic parts. In reality, the underlying drivers of conflict are often deeply embedded in cultural, historical, political and sociological factors. In Central Chile the last decade, conflict between guanaco (Lama guanicoe) and livestock farmers has intensified dramatically, as demonstrated by increases in the number of complaints by stock breeders that guanacos negatively impact their herds. This conflict is based on a perception that guanacos are competing with livestock for summer grazing resources. The solutions proposed by government institutions do not meet livestock farmers’ needs. In addition, a lack of true dialogue and understanding on both sides has resulted in conflict resolution efforts stagnating. This study examined conservation conflict involving livestock farmers and the guanaco in Central Chile, applying a novel approach that engages with farmers’ subjective theories to better understand the origins of conflict, and identify, from their explanations, effective conservation measures. Subjective theories are beliefs that function as personal ideologies guiding people’s actions; this concept has proven useful in the fields of education, learning, health and instruction, and ecological projects, but to the best of our knowledge, there has been no research exploring its application in the context of conservation conflict. Understanding how livestock farmers turn to personal beliefs to explain conflict can be key to identifying better conflict mitigation measures. Sixteen semi-structured interviews were conducted with farmers in Petorca Province, in Chile’s Valparaíso Region. The interviews were codified according to some of the grounded theory procedures and specific analyses for Subjective Theories. Our results indicate that farmers understand the origin of the current problem to be linked to a “change in climate towards increasingly arid conditions”. Two problems associated with climate were observed, 1) decreases in rainfall negatively impact forage availability, and 2) decreases in snow intensity (a natural population control factor) lead to increases in the growth rate of the guanaco population. This provides a more complete understanding of ecological relations than previous reports, which identify only the abundance of guanaco as the source of the conflict with livestock farmers. Additionally, given that they see the origin of the problem as an "external" cause (change in climate), farmers claim to be more vulnerable, and argue that State intervention is needed to achieve a real solution. Economic compensation is the most commonly requested form of intervention. Results also suggest that, in this context, conflict is not only an ecological issue linked to resource competition, but also a symbol to communicate difficulties and negotiate with governmental institutions. With improved understanding of the drivers of conflict, future research should focus on identifying solutions that enhance the sustainability of guanaco/livestock coexistence.
Topics: Management of Human-Wildlife Conflicts: “Other” Species in Europe
