534 A. Uduman et al. Barriers to cattle rearing
Our interviews highlighted differences in key constraints and issues faced by cattle owners in both study sites (Supplementary Table 3). The most frequently raised issue in Palatupana was the inability to lease or develop land for cattle husbandry, with 93% of cattle owners desiring some form of land or building rights for protective structures. All cattle owners agreed that the steel enclosures provided by the hotel’s corporate social responsibility programme reduce depredation risk more effectively than the standard pens made from thorny bushes and barbed wire. However, local cattle owners cannot afford to purchase these pens, and those who did not receive one as a donation reported hardship. The majority of respondents (72%) indicated that in-
creased development has reduced available land, leading to overgrazing and reduced cattle productivity. Before the end of the civil war (1983–2009), therewas less development and fewer vehicles, and cattle owners could camp by their cattle pens overnight for increased protection, which is now banned. The combined effects of not performing night- time patrols and the inability to erect semi-permanent struc- tures were common themes of frustration. Our interviews illuminated a common distrust of cattle
owners in Palatupana towards the Sri Lankan government’s Department of Wildlife Conservation, which has jurisdic- tion over the buffer zone adjacent to Yala National Park. Historical unrest and distrust continue to exist between these two groups, as cattle rearing in this landscape persists but its legality is not well defined. Our surveys revealed that only 9.84% of respondents reported incidents of livestock depredation to the Department for verification. In contrast, in Maskeliya the most frequently raised issue
was the need for improved infrastructure, indicated by 90% of cattle owners. Specifically, improvements were desired for cattle sheds and for the roads leading to the tea estates, which are unpaved and uneven. Poor roads restrict veteri- nary access, a serious issue for cattle owners, who reported a high rate of miscarriages, infections and hypothermia in their cattle. The poor condition of roads also hinders milk collection services, forcing many cattle owners to travel long distances on foot. The inability to own or lease land on the tea estates was another recurring issue in Maskeliya, where 84% of cattle owners expressed difficulty in acquiring the funds necessary (LKR 200,000–300,000;USD 1,100– 1,650) to construct cattle sheds and were keen for a gov- ernment-run loan programme to be initiated.
Potential strategies for human–leopard coexistence
Our findings from Palatupana indicate that being unable to own or develop land, along with lack of trust in the Department of Wildlife Conservation, were the main
barriers to human–leopard coexistence. Improving commu- nication between cattle owners and the Department, and developing a depredation reporting programme, could fa- cilitate positive relationships. However, this is contingent on sufficient operational capacity of the Department, which may lack funding and staff. We recommend that prior to considering any land-use agreements, official buffer zone demarcations are first clarified and relevant jurisdic- tions of the Department of Wildlife Conservation and the Forest Department delineated. Communal land ownership, whereby community mem-
bers share the risk of livestock loss,may be an option to ad- dress constraints in land ownership. This approach has been shown to facilitate human–wildlife coexistence in Peru and central Kenya (Naughton-Treves et al., 2003; Romañach et al., 2007). However, the potential impacts of granting restricted land ownership in ecologically sensitive regions (such as buffer zones of protected areas) need to be carefully considered. In Palatupana this could involve enforcing min- imum distances away from the boundaries of Yala National Park, and limiting herd sizes to reduce grazing pressure and avoid overgrazing. Cattle owners in Palatupana are affected by negative
interactions with leopards but do not profit from leopard- related tourism, despite being aware of the regional econom- ic benefits of this industry. A more equitable distribution of benefits is a fundamental goal of community-based natural resource management and integrated conservation and de- velopment projects, which have been successful in recover- ing wildlife populations and increasing community revenue and interest in conservation in Namibia and Nepal (Baral et al., 2007; Naidoo et al., 2016). However, using wildlife tourism to generate revenue for communities is a newer concept in South Asia, and any developments in this area need to consider local capacity (Sekhar, 2003). Compensation schemes are another method used to alle-
viate loss of income caused by livestock depredation. In our study, 34% of respondents expressed an interest in receiving such compensation, and estimated a payment of c. LKR 100,000 (USD 550) per cattle lost to depredation to be ad- equate, based on the profit per litre of milk produced. However, compensation schemes may be prone to ‘prob- lems of perverse incentives’ (Dickman et al., 2011, p. 13943), and a community-based livestock insurance pro- gramme (Mishra et al., 2003) may be a more suitable alter- native. Initially, these programmes require incentives, start-up funds and monitoring, providing an opportunity for future tourism sector corporate social responsibility programmes. Depredation was not reported in Maskeliya, and atti-
tudes towards leopards were related to a desire for increased government involvement, presenting an opportunity to proactively mitigate conflict. The government is promoting domestic dairy production, and efforts to alleviate some key
Oryx, 2022, 56(4), 528–536 © The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Fauna & Flora International doi:10.1017/S0030605321000247
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140 |
Page 141 |
Page 142 |
Page 143 |
Page 144 |
Page 145 |
Page 146 |
Page 147 |
Page 148 |
Page 149 |
Page 150 |
Page 151 |
Page 152 |
Page 153 |
Page 154 |
Page 155 |
Page 156 |
Page 157 |
Page 158 |
Page 159 |
Page 160 |
Page 161 |
Page 162 |
Page 163 |
Page 164