Journal of
Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | 26 July 2018 | 10(8): 12073–12081
Taking the first steps: Initial mapping of the human-wildlife
interaction of the Mauritius Fruit Bat Pteropus
niger (Mammalia: Chiroptera: Pteropodidae)
in Mauritius by conservation organizations
Brandon P. Anthony 1, Vikash Tatayah 2 & Deborah de Chazal
3
1 Department of Environmental Sciences and
Policy, Central European University, Nádor utca 9, Budapest 1051, Hungary
2,3 Mauritian Wildlife Foundation, Grannum Rd., Vacoas, Mauritius
1 anthonyb@ceu.edu (corresponding author), 2
vtatayah@mauritian-wildlife.org, 3 deborah@chazal.co.uk
Abstract: Interactions between people and wildlife
have both positive and negative aspects.
Negative interactions, commonly termed human-wildlife conflict (HWC),
have increased in recent decades due to a number of factors including
difficulties in identifying and communicating the complexities of stakeholder
values and positions over wildlife and its management. Here, we present the perceptions of two
conservation organizations on the landscape of HWC involving the threatened
Mauritius Fruit Bat Pteropus niger, Kerr 1792 in Mauritius,
including damage to fruit crops and controversial government culls in 2015 and
2016. Participants identified 18
stakeholders in the conflict varying in importance and influence, examined
where and how hostility is manifested, and delineated both perceived and real
costs of the conflict. Additionally, 13
environmental and 17 social risk factors associated with the conflict were
categorized, along with potential policy and management options for mitigation. We argue that initial in-house workshops are
advantageous in understanding conservation conflicts before extending dialogue
with other stakeholders.
Keywords: Conflict mitigation, fruit bat,
human-wildlife conflict, Mauritius, Pteropus
niger, stakeholder
engagement.
doi: http://doi.org/10.11609/jott.4063.10.8.12073–12081
Editor: Anonymity requested. Date
of publication: 26 July 2018 (online & print)
Manuscript details: Ms # 4063 |
Received 08 February 2018 | Final received 30 March 2018 | Finally accepted 15
June 2018
Citation: Anthony, B.P., V. Tatayah & D. de Chazal (2018). Taking
the first steps: Initial mapping of the human-wildlife interaction of the
Mauritius Fruit Bat Pteropus niger (Mammalia: Chiroptera: Pteropodidae) in
Mauritius by conservation organizations. Journal of Threatened Taxa 10(8): 12073–12081; http://doi.org/10.11609/jott.4063.10.8.12073-12081
Copyright: © Anthony et al. 2018. Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. JoTT allows unrestricted use of this article in any medium,
reproduction and distribution by providing adequate credit to the authors and
the source of publication.
Funding: This work was supported by Central European University
Foundation of Budapest Academic Travel Grant BPF/11783.
Competing interests: The authors declare no competing interests.
Author Details: Dr. Brandon P. Anthony is an Associate Professor in the Environmental Sciences and Policy
Department at the Central European University (CEU) in Budapest, Hungary. Prior
to joining CEU, he served as advisor to the Hungarian Nature Conservation
Institute, and as a park supervisor and agricultural habitat biologist in
Canada. He has conducted research in North America, Africa, and Eurasia on a
diverse range of fields including nature conservation, human-wildlife conflict,
protected area management, community livelihoods, and amphibian ecology. Dr. Vikash Tatayah is the Conservation Director of the
Mauritian Wildlife Foundation. He has
been active in conservation for over 20 years. He manages conservation programmes on Mauritius, Rodrigues and outer islands that
have allowed the recovery of a long list of threatened plants and animals. He participates in fund-raising
for projects and public relations initiatives, is a link with the Government of
Mauritius and represents the Mauritian Wildlife Foundation on national
conservation and environment consultations.
He also represents the organization with several key international
conservation organisations and universities. He has
been a leading advocate for protection of bats. Deborah
de Chazal is the Executive Director of the
Mauritian Wildlife Foundation. She has been
active in the organisation for over 15 years. She has overall responsibility for all
operations and directly manages the education, ecotourism, fundraising,
financial and administrative activities with an oversight on the conservation programmes ensuring coordination between the
functions. She has been actively
involved in seeking and implementing solutions to protect bats.
Author Contribution: Designed study (BPA); data collection (BPA, VT); data analysis (BPA); write up (BPA, VT, DDC).
Acknowledgements:
We thank MWF for logistical support, all workshop
participants for their involvement, and Viktor Lagutov
for Figure 1.
Introduction
Human-wildlife conflict (HWC) traditionally arises
from a rivalry or antagonism between humans and wildlife (Woodroffe
et al. 2005), or between people over wildlife and/or its management (Madden
2004; Redpath et al. 2013). The former typically emerge from territorial
proximity between humans and wildlife, conflict over the same resource or even
a direct threat to human wellbeing.
People-people conflicts on the other hand, characteristically emerge
when disparate values clash in the face of management decisions (Nyhus 2016).
While humans and wildlife have a long history of
interaction, the frequency and complexity of conflicts has grown in recent
decades, mainly because of the exponential increase in human populations and
concomitant human footprint, expansion of some wildlife distributions (Chapron et al. 2014), as well as a frequent inability of
institutions that are meant to mediate such conflicts to respond effectively
(Anthony et al. 2010). HWC often pits
disparate values against one another (Tajfel 1981; Kellert 1993; Young et al. 2010) and demands attention from
economic, legal, social and environmental policy makers (Knight 2000; White et
al. 2009; Nyhus 2016). Moreover, these values influence people’s
behaviour towards wildlife and institutions responsible for conservation (Manfredo & Dayer 2004; Manfredo 2008; Dickman et al.
2013). Therefore, HWCs are best managed
through a shared understanding of the broader context of the situation,
necessitating both natural and social science approaches (Dickman
2010; Redpath et al. 2013), and often
utilizing workshops (Madden 2004; Reed et al. 2009; WWF 2015). This shared understanding is of key
importance to finding long-lasting solutions to such conflicts, and to avoid
potential escalation (Treves et al. 2009; Anthony et al. 2010).
The identification, differentiation and meaningful
involvement of all affected stakeholders and the mapping of their goals and
opinions on the resource(s) in question and potential mitigation strategies are
crucial before crafting or implementing management decisions (Reed 2008; Reed
et al. 2009; White et al. 2009; Redpath et al.
2013). Recent cases where stakeholder
analysis and participatory strategies have been applied with the aim of
conflict resolution range from conflicts concerning Hen Harriers Circus cyaneus in Scotland (White et al. 2009), Eastern
Imperial Eagles Aquila heliaca in Hungary (Kovács et al. 2016), to
livestock depredation by large carnivores in South Africa (Anthony & Swemmer 2015).
Before engaging with wider actors, however, it has been suggested that
organizations first develop a coherent understanding of the issue within their
own institution and/or with institutions that share common values, serving to
enhance channels of communication and catering to a unified backing of wider
stakeholder engagement (FAO 2002), particularly in contexts where complex
multi-actor governance models exist (Funtowicz et al.
1999). Thus, there has been greater
realization by management authorities that focusing on both wildlife and human
dimensions together is critical, as opposed to treating them separately, even
within organizations (Clark et al. 1996; Baruch-Mordo
et al. 2009; Treves et al. 2009).
Mauritius Fruit Bats
Bats are the only mammals native to the Mascarene
Islands, consisting of Mauritius, Réunion and
Rodrigues (Fig. 1). Historically, three
fruit bat species occupied these islands: one is now extinct (Pteropus subniger),
leaving one species each on Mauritius (P. niger, Kerr
1792) and Rodrigues (P. rodricensis). Once widespread over Mauritius, the Mauritius
Fruit Bat population decreased considerably from its original population due to
habitat loss and degradation, cyclones, invasive alien species, climate change
and illegal hunting (Hutson & Racey
2013; Vincenot et al. 2017). Due to lack of major cyclones for well over a
decade, however, the population has increased, thus shifting its IUCN Red List
status from Endangered (2008) to Vulnerable (in 2013), which was also based on
an assurance that culling would not be considered (Hutson
& Racey 2013).
Assessing the status of this bat species has been complicated by
discrepancies in population estimates yielded by different census techniques,
ranging in 2015 from ~50,000 by the Mauritian Wildlife Foundation (MWF), to
~90,000 by the National Parks and Conservation Service (NPCS) (Hansard 2016). In
October 2016 a population estimate was undertaken by the NPCS in collaboration
with the Forestry Service and MWF, using both evening dispersal counts and
direct counts, which are believed to be more accurate (Kunz 2003), yielding an
estimate of ~62,000 individuals.
Mauritius Fruit
Bats are considered keystone species as they provide critical pollinating and
disseminating services (Vincenot et al. 2017). They are mainly nocturnal or crepuscular, and
roost chiefly in primary forests or areas containing a mixture of native and
introduced plant species. Bats may travel
long distances to visit orchards and garden fruit trees for exotic fruits when their natural food supplies are limited (Aziz et al.
2016). The reported level of fruit
damage by bats has ranged from 9.3% and 11.4% on Lychee Litchi chinensis and Large Mango Mangifera
indica trees, respectively (Oleksy
2015), to over 50% of Lychee trees (Hansard
2016). Despite a subsidized tree netting
scheme, and due in part to alleged significant increases in fruit damage by
bats and the lobbying of fruit growers for its lethal control, the government
passed the Native Terrestrial Biodiversity and National Parks Act in November
2015, legalizing the culling of any wildlife that has attained ‘pest’
status. Consequently, a highly
controversial government sanctioned cull was conducted in November-December
2015, with a reported 30,938 bats culled (Hansard
2016). A second official cull was
conducted in December 2016 in which 7,380 bats were killed (Hansard
2017). This culling largely
contributed to a subsequent uplisting
of the species from Vulnerable to Endangered by the IUCN in 2018 (Kingston et
al. 2018).
The Mauritian Fruit Bat cull has pitted a number of
stakeholders and their values against one another (MWF 2016). This sensitive situation, involving disputed
bat population and fruit damage estimates, and the role of culling to alleviate
fruit damage, requires joint actions from fruit growers, local organizations
and governmental bodies, and also calls for a deeper understanding of the
conflict by conservation organizations to provide a basis for developing
effective management strategies. In
order to improve this understanding, we utilized a workshop targeted
specifically to conservation organizations to map how they perceive the
conflict landscape by identifying the scope and scale of human-bat interaction
issues associated with relevant actors in Mauritius, and to propose strategies
to navigate forward. It specifically
aimed to explore intra-stakeholder complexities involved in preventing and
resolving conflicts and fostering coexistence between people and bats,
acknowledging data deficiencies along the way.
Methods
As an overarching framework, but restricted to
organizations with similar values, we utilized Lasswell’s
(1971) general strategy for problem solving that undertakes five ‘intellectual
tasks’:
clarify the goals of people
involved or affected by the problem and its solution.
describe the history and
trends of the problem (including empirical data on the biophysical and cultural
context of the problem and relevant processes such as decision making).
understand the relationships
of all factors that have influenced, affected, or caused the problem.
project the trajectory,
severity, and consequences of future developments.
invent, appraise, and
select alternatives.
In addition, we incorporated a number of relevant sub-frameworks
drawing from examples from the literature on the targeted theme.
To implement this framework, we convened a one-day
workshop for MWF and NPCS staff in May 2017.
All staff who were directly or indirectly
engaged with the fruit bat conflict were invited, and included organization
directors, project managers, and field-level officers. Participants were provided with a
pre-workshop package consisting of a schedule, and group member allocation
along with assigned readings and tasks.
The workshop consisted of introductory sessions on the background of
human-wildlife conflict and its mitigation, the Mauritius Fruit Bat, and an
outline for group exercises (see Appendix 1).
These were followed by three parallel group sessions, the composition of
which was based on maintaining equally sized groups and personnel expertise and
awareness. Each group had a number of
iterative tasks to complete including an ongoing
assessment of knowledge gaps and/or research needs (Table 1). A group-appointed rapporteur recorded notes
on both a flip chart and notebook, then communicated
findings back to all workshop participants at the end of the day. Notes for each group were subsequently
compiled and categorized according to pre-defined conceptual codes according to
the sub-frameworks used, and were largely descriptive in nature.
Secondly, in June 2017, we administered a follow-up
questionnaire to all workshop participants consisting of two parts. First, we captured information on length of
involvement in their organization, and perceived knowledge of the fruit bat
conflict prior to the workshop. Second,
we requested their opinion as to (i) whether the
workshop met their expectations, (ii) assisted them to see and appreciate the
wider conflict landscape, (iii) what was particularly useful with the workshop,
and (iv) how it could be improved. Univariate statistics were computed using SPSS ver. 22 (IBM
Corp 2013). Qualitative responses to
questionnaire items were analysed using emergent content coding (Stemler 2001).
Results
A total of 20 participants representing staff from MWF
(18) and NPCS (2) attended the workshop, and contributed to its results. Below, we present findings from the group
exercises, including coded indications of knowledge level of the respective
concept/stakeholder by workshop participants (bold = well known; normal font =
somewhat known; italics = unknown).
Group A
Group A participants identified 18 stakeholders involved
in human-bat interaction, ranging from highly influential and important
fruit-growers, to leisure parks holding relatively little influence and power
in the conflict. In addition, there were
a number of ‘unknown’ actors of varied influence and importance, including the
role of religious organizations (Table 2).
Group A also explicated a number of current interactions between
stakeholder groups, outlining the perceived level of hostility, stakeholder
activity, and current expressions of the conflict. These interactions represented public,
government, and NGO sectors (Appendix 2), ranging from varied responses to
media campaigns, frustration with current mitigation strategies (tree netting),
and conflicting government mandates across ministries.
Group B
Group B participants identified 13
environmental and 17 social risk factors associated with the human-bat
interaction, along with knowledge gaps (Appendix 4), which would necessitate
targeted investigation before and during extended dialogue with other
stakeholders. Environmental risk factors
included the influence that climatic conditions (e.g., cyclones), forest health
and composition, fruiting season, fruit tree pruning and protection, and bat
behaviour have on the conflict. Social
risk factors were also varied, ranging from market disparities, powerful
lobbying interests, media influence, distrust, and folklore.
Further, Group B participants assessed both the
perceived and real costs of conflict, with an indication of level of knowledge
concerning these factors (Appendix 3).
Most discrepancies between perceived and real costs of the conflict were
economical in nature, including those relating to fruit tree maintenance, the
price of fruit, and the potential impact on tourism if Mauritius’ world renowned
reputation in conservation is seen as eroding.
Group C
Group C was assigned to outline what policy and
management measures are, and potentially could be, leveraged to mitigate
conflict between fruit bats and the various stakeholders. Results are outlined in Appendix 5,
conforming to the same scheme of level of knowledge about the effectiveness of
policy and management options. Measures
identified by workshop participants included extended tree netting and pruning
service to fruit growers (both backyard and larger orchards), initiating decoy
crops, increased bat awareness campaigns, stricter control on fruit prices, and
expanded research on bat ecology.
Workshop Assessment
Fifteen (75%) workshop participants completed and
returned the questionnaire, representing both the MWF (13), and the NPCS
(combined response from 2 participants).
Length of time employed in their respective organizations ranged from
0.5-20 years (x̅ = 7.9, sd = 5.63). On a 10 point scale
(1=very low to 10=very high), prior knowledge regarding the fruit bat conflict
ranged from 5 to 9 (x̅ = 7.4, sd=1.39), and was
greater among those who held higher positions within their organization and/or
those who worked directly with the bat issue.
On a scale of 1 to 10 (1=not at all to 10=completely),
participants rated whether the workshop met their expectations, and opportunity
was granted to explain their response.
Scores ranged from 3 to 8 (x̅ = 6.0, sd
=1.65). Those with higher scores noted
that the workshop helped to (i) increase appreciation
of the wider legal, social, and institutional aspects of the conflict, (ii)
provide intra-agency exposure and awareness of the conflict complexity, and
(iii) provide a much-needed platform to hear other agency views (and
challenges) associated with the conflict.
Workshop participants were asked more specifically to
rate how well the workshop helped them to see the wider social and management
aspects of the issue both within their own organization and with another
conservation organization. Scores ranged
widely (x̅ = 6.1, sd = 2.53), with those with higher
scores noting how well the workshop helped them to understand the breadth of
stakeholders directly or indirectly involved in the conflict, to see underlying
issues, and recognize political dimensions of conservation conflicts (including
public and political resistance). Others
commented on how well the workshop disclosed how even two pro-conservation
organizations can have disparate opinions on how to manage such conflicts. For those who perceived themselves to have
moderate experience in conflict management and resolution, the workshop did not
add much to their understanding of the breadth of social and management facets
of this particular conflict. Participants believed the workshop was particularly
useful in that, before extending dialogue with other stakeholders, it:
• involved group sessions within conservation-oriented
stakeholders in which issues could be openly discussed and debated;
• encouraged wider understanding of models by which conservation
conflicts can be framed; and
• provided pre-workshop readings and introductory sessions
which facilitated improved framing of workshop tasks.
Finally, ideas on improving such workshops included
eventually expanding stakeholder representation, extending its duration to 3–4
days, developing a common strategy to move forward, providing a broader array
of theories, case studies, and bat research, and allowing for prolonged
inter-group discussions on findings.
Table 1. Workshop outline and group
tasks for participants
|
Objectives |
Task(s) |
Supporting reference(s) |
|
Group A |
||
|
Stakeholder identification |
identify relevant stakeholders in conflict rank
stakeholders according to importance & influence using stakeholder matrix assess what is/isn’t known about stakeholder(s) |
Messmer 2000; IFC 2007 |
|
Identify responses and consequences due
to conflict |
identify direct and indirect responses and consequences of conflict by
stakeholders estimate level of hostility assess what is/isn’t known about responses and consequences |
Dickman 2010 |
|
Group B |
||
|
Identify environmental and social risk
factors associated with conflict |
identify environmental risk factors associated with conflict: environmental
characteristics; land use & management; human behavior
(e.g. protection & management); species’ behavior identify social risk factors associated with conflict: inequality & power;
distrust & animosity; vulnerability & wealth; beliefs & values assess what is/isn’t known about risk factors |
Clark et al. 1996; Treves
et al. 2009; Dickman 2010 |
|
Identify perceived and real costs of
conflict |
identify type and variation in perceived costs of conflict identify type and variation in real costs of conflict assess what is/isn’t known about perceived and real costs |
Inskip & Zimmermann 2009; Anthony & Szabo 2011; Barua et al. 2013 |
|
Group C |
||
|
Identify and assess policy and
management options for conflict |
explore and identify relevant and feasible policy and management options to
minimize/mitigate conflict assess options according to efficiency, costs, and durability assess what is/isn’t known about policy and management options |
Morrison et al. 2009; Chardonnet et al.
2010; Dickman 2010; Redpath
et al. 2013 |
Table 2. Stakeholder matrix based on
influence and importance of stakeholder (bold = well known; normal font =
somewhat known; italics = unknown)
|
|
|
Importance |
|||
|
|
|
Unknown |
Little/No importance |
Some importance |
Significant importance |
|
Influence |
Significant influence |
|
|
government (Cabinet) |
fruit growers (commercial + backyard) |
|
Somewhat influential |
movies |
public press |
fruit sellers/traders private companies NPCS |
FAREI funders |
|
|
Little/No influence |
hunters |
leisure parks |
tourists |
conservationists (MWF) |
|
|
Unknown |
Religious organizations |
nature-lovers (IUCN; NGOs; individuals) |
|
net sellers |
|
FAREI =
Food and Agricultural Research & Extension Institute; IUCN = International
Union for Conservation of Nature; MWF = Mauritian Wildlife Foundation; NGO =
Non-government organization; NPCS = National Parks and Conservation Service
Discussion
Our initial findings demonstrate that inter- and
intra-organizational workshops designed to map conservation conflict
landscapes, before extending dialogue with a wider spectrum of stakeholders,
can be of immense value in a number of ways.
First, a broader array of stakeholders can be acknowledged at the onset,
each with varying degrees of influence and importance which,
in turn, allows for more strategic and prioritized engagement (IFC 2007). Second, conflict nodes between stakeholders
and their intensity can be identified, facilitating more nuanced strategies for
addressing particular conflict dimensions, and allowing for a more appreciative
inquiry of the conflict typology that currently exists, or may develop in the
future. Third, delineating environmental
and social risk factors including both perceived and real conflict costs can
assist the designing of more complex mitigation strategies including more
focused awareness raising campaigns, as well as leveraging existing and
potential policy and management options (Dickman
2010). Finally, by recognizing where
knowledge gaps exist, conservation organizations can channel appropriate
resources towards research needs and/or solicit support from other stakeholders
for both research and appropriate monitoring.
We believe initial conflict mapping workshops of this
nature can elevate pan-organizational understanding of conservation conflicts
and build consensus by identifying, appreciating, and eventually communicating
the positions and values of stakeholders, and their justification. Of course, this is only the first step in
realizing true resolution, as other stakeholders may have vastly different or
contrasting opinions, attitudes and values concerning the conflict (White et
al. 2009). Moreover, we recognize that
in-house workshops represent only one of many options for participatory and
non-participatory processes which can be used to
address conservation conflicts (Reed et al. 2009). Nevertheless, our assessment demonstrates
that organizations would benefit from in-house workshops in order to develop an
inclusive and coherent approach to engage other stakeholders before taking that
next step.
Our findings also suggest that such workshops should
extend to a minimum of three days, eventually involve more stakeholders, and
generate more tangible outcomes in terms of mitigation strategies. We recommend, however, that such preliminary
workshops be restricted to a limited number of stakeholders sharing similar
values, involving relevant personnel who interact both directly or indirectly
with other stakeholders (including the general public) in HWC issues. Doing so prompts a more collective and
nuanced strategy for navigating forward as an organization, and for reducing the
risk of conflict escalation. In our case,
the fate of an entire species, and the services it provides, may depend on it.
References
Anthony, B.P., P.
Scott & A. Antypas (2010). Sitting on the
fence? Policies and practices in managing human-wildlife conflict in Limpopo
Province, South Africa. Conservation & Society
8(3): 225–240.
Anthony, B.P. &
L. Swemmer (2015). Co-defining program
success: Identifying objectives and indicators for a livestock damage
compensation scheme at Kruger National Park, South Africa. Journal
for Nature Conservation 26: 65–77.
Anthony, B.P. &
A. Szabo (2011). Protected areas:
conservation cornerstones or paradoxes? Insights from Human-Wildlife Conflicts
in Africa and Southeastern Europe, pp. 255–282. In:
López-Pujol, J. (ed.). The Importance
of Biological Interactions in the Study of Biodiversity. InTech
Publishers, Rijeka, Croatia, 402pp.
Aziz, S.A., K.J. Olival, S. Bumrungsri, G.C.
Richards & P.A. Racey (2016). The conflict
between Pteropodid bats and fruit growers: species,
legislation and mitigation, pp. 377-426. In: Voigt, C.C. & T. Kingston
(eds.). Bats in the Anthropocene: Conservation of
Bats in a Changing World. Springer, Heidelberg, i–ix, 606pp.
Barua, M., Bhagwat, S.A. & S. Jadhav
(2013). The hidden dimensions of human-wildlife conflict:
Health impacts, opportunity and transaction costs. Biological
Conservation 157: 309–316.
Baruch-Mordo, S., S.W. Breck, K.R.
Wilson & J. Broderick (2009). A tool box half
full: How social science can help solve human-wildlife conflict. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 14(3): 219–223.
Chapron, G., P. Kaczensky, J.D.C. Linnell, M. von
Arx, D. Huber, H. Andrén
& J.V. López-Bao
(2014). Recovery of large carnivores in
Europe’s modern human-dominated landscapes. Science
346(6216): 1517–1519.
Chardonnet, P., B. Soto, H.
Fritz, W. Crosmary, N. Drouet-Hoguet,
P. Mesochina, M. Pellerin,
D. Mallon, L. Bakker, H. Boulet & F. Lamarque (2010). Managing the
Conflicts between People and Lion: Review and Insights from the Literature and
Field Experience. Wildlife Management Working Paper
13. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United
Nations, Rome, 66pp.
Clark, T.W., A.P. Curlee & R.P. Reading (1996). Crafting effective
solutions to the large carnivore conservation problem. Conservation
Biology 10(4): 940–948.
Dickman, A.J. (2010). Complexities of
conflict: the importance of considering social factors for effectively
resolving human-wildlife conflict. Animal Conservation
13(5): 458–466.
Dickman, A., S. Marchini & M. Manfredo
(2013). The human dimension in addressing conflict with large
carnivores. Key Topics in Conservation Biology 2: 110–126.
FAO (2002). Methodological
Guide for Designing and Implementing a Multimedia Communication Strategy.
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations,
Rome, 44pp.
Funtowicz, S.O., J. Martinez-Alier, G. Munda & J.R. Ravetz (1999). Information
Tools for Environmental Policy under Conditions of Complexity. Environmental
Issues Series No. 9, European Environment Agency, Copenhagen, 34pp.
Hansard (2016). Debate
No. 08 of 2016, Tuesday 24 May 2016, Republic of Mauritius, Sixth National
Assembly, First Session.
http://mauritiusassembly.govmu.org/English/hansard/Documents/2016/hansard0816.pdf
Hansard (2017). Debate No. 23 of 2017, Tuesday 31 October 2017, Republic of Mauritius,
Sixth National Assembly, First Session.
Hutson, A.M. & P.A. Racey (2013). Pteropus
niger. The IUCN Red List
of Threatened Species 2013: e.T18743A22084054. http://doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2013-2.RLTS.T18743A22084054.en Downloaded on 02
July 2018.
IBM Corp. (2013). IBM SPSS Statistics
for Windows, Version 22.0. Armonk, NY: IBM Corp.
Inskip, C. & A.
Zimmermann (2009). Human-felid conflict: a review of patterns and
priorities worldwide. Oryx 43(1): 18–34.
International
Finance Corporation (IFC) (2007). Stakeholder Engagement: A Good Practice
Handbook for Companies Doing Business in Emerging Markets. IFC, Washington, DC, 201pp.
Kellert, S.R. (1993). The
biological basis for human values of nature, pp. 42–72. In: Kellert, S.R. & E.O. Wilson (eds.). The Biophilia Hypothesis. Island Press, Washington, DC,
496pp.
Kingston, T., V. Florens, R. Oleksy, K. Ruhomaun & V. Tatayah (2018).
Pteropus niger. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2018:
e.T18743A86475525. Downloaded on 07 July 2018.
Knight, J. (ed.)
(2000). Natural Enemies: People-wildlife Conflicts in
Anthropological Perspective. Routledge, New York, 254pp.
Kovács, E., V. Fabók, A. Kalóczkai & H.P.
Hansen (2016). Towards understanding and resolving the conflict
related to the Eastern Imperial Eagle (Aquila heliaca)
conservation with participatory management planning. Land Use Policy 54:
158–168.
Kunz, T.H. (2003). Censusing
bats: Challenges, solutions, and sampling biases, pp. 9–19. In: O’Shea, T.J.
& M.A. Bogan (eds.). Monitoring Trends
in Bat Populations of the United States and Territories: Problems and Prospects.
U.S. Geological Survey, Biological Resources Discipline,
Information and Technology Report, USGS/BRD/ITR--2003–0003, Springfield VA,
274pp.
Lasswell, H.D. (1971). A
Pre-view of the Policy Sciences. Elsevier, New
York, 173pp.
Madden, F. (2004). Creating
coexistence between humans and wildlife: global perspectives on local efforts
to address human-wildlife conflict. Human Dimensions of
Wildlife 9(4): 247–258.
Manfredo, M.J. (2008). Who Cares about
Wildlife? Social Science Concepts for Exploring
Human-Wildlife Relationships and Conservation Issues. Springer, New York, 228pp.
Manfredo, M.J. & A.A. Dayer (2004). Concepts
for exploring the social aspects of human-wildlife conflict in a global
context. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 9: 1–20.
Messmer, T.A. (2000). The emergence of
human-wildlife conflict management: turning challenges into opportunities. International Biodeterioration and
Biodegradation 45: 97–102.
Morrison, K., R. Victurine & C. Mishra (2009). Lessons Learned,
Opportunities and Innovations in Human Wildlife Conflict Compensation and
Insurance Schemes. WCS TransLinks
Program, Bronx, NY, 24pp.
MWF (2016). Fruit damage claims
do not justify a cull of the Mauritius Fruit Bat. Statement issued 9 December
2016, Mauritian Wildlife Foundation
http://www.mauritian-wildlife.org/application/index.php?tpid=30&tcid=81
Nyhus, P.J. (2016). Human-wildlife
conflict and coexistence. Annual Review of Environment
and Resources 41(1): 143–171.
Oleksy, R. (2015). The
impact of the Mauritius Fruit Bat (Pteropus
niger) on commercial fruit farms and possible
mitigation measures. Report to The Rufford
Foundation; http://www.rufford.org/projects/ryszard_oleksy
Redpath, S.M., J. Young, A.
Evely, W.M. Adams, W.J. Sutherland, A.A. Whitehouse,
R.A. Lambert, J.D.C. Linnell, A. Watt & R.J.
Gutiérrez (2013). Understanding and managing
conservation conflicts. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 28(2):
100–109; http://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2012.08.021
Reed, M.S. (2008). Stakeholder
participation for environmental management: a literature review. Biological Conservation 141: 2417–2431.
Reed, M.R., A.
Graves, N. Dandy, H. Posthumus, K. Hubacek, J. Morris, C. Prell,
C.H. Quinn & L.C. Stringer (2009). Who’s in and why? A typology of stakeholder analysis methods for natural resource
management. Journal of Environmental Management
90(5): 1933–1949.
Stemler, S. (2001). An overview of content analysis. Practical
Assessment, Research & Evaluation 7(17): 1–6;
http://PAREonline.net/getvn.asp?v=7&n=17
Tajfel, H. (1981). Human Groups and
Social Categories: Studies in Social Psychology. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, UK, 384pp.
Treves, A., R.B.
Wallace & S. White (2009). Participatory planning of
interventions to mitigate human–wildlife conflicts. Conservation
Biology 23(6): 1577–1587.
Vincenot, C.E., F.B.V. Florens & T. Kingston (2017). Can we protect
island flying foxes? Science 355(6332): 1368–1370.
White, R.M., A.
Fischer, K. Marshall, J.M.J. Travis, T.J. Webb, S. di Falco, Salvatore, S.M. Redpath, & R. van der Wal
(2009). Developing an integrated conceptual framework to understand biodiversity
conflicts. Land Use Policy 26(2): 242–253.
Woodroffe, R., S. Thirgood & A. Rabinowitz
(eds.) (2005). People and Wildlife: Conflict or Co-existence
(No. 9). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 497pp.
WWF (2015). Human
Tiger Conflict Workshop Report. World Wide Fund for Nature, Kuala
Lumpur, Malaysia, 21pp.
Young, J.C., M. Marzano, R.M. White, D.L. McCracken, S.M. Redpath, D.N. Carss, C.P. Quine & A.D. Watt (2010). The emergence of
biodiversity conflicts from biodiversity impacts: characteristics and
management strategies. Biodiversity and Conservation 19(14): 3973–3990.
Appendix 1. Human-Wildlife Conflict
Workshop- Schedule
|
Time |
Activity |
|
08:30-09:00 |
Welcome & Intro to HWC |
|
09:00-09:30 |
Fruit bat case study - overview |
|
09:30-10:00 |
Intro to workshop sessions |
|
10:00-10:30 |
Tea/Coffee break |
|
10:30-12:00 |
Group Work I: groups (A/B/C) |
|
12:00-13:00 |
Lunch |
|
13:00-15:00 |
Group Work II: groups (A/B/C) +
finalizing presentation |
|
15:00-16:00 |
Working groups report findings
(knowledge gaps & research needs) [20’ per group] |
|
16:00-16:20 |
Closing remarks + tea/coffee |
Appendix 2. Outline of selected
stakeholder interactions leading to particular responses and consequences
|
Stakeholders |
Level of Hostility |
Activity |
Current Response/Consequences |
|
MWF x Public |
High |
MWF educates and raises public awareness
on bat conservation to improve attitudes towards bats and their conservation |
little/no change in attitude people still unaware of importance of bats some
public participate in saving injured bats, but majority do not. |
|
Fruit growers x MWF |
High |
MWF: Provide info to farmers (netting /
pruning) but with mixed results |
Fruit
growers believe MWF ‘do not understand their problems’ because MWF has low influence, the opinion of growers is strongly influencing
government decision damage level not based on scientific results |
|
Government x Civil society |
High |
Government mandated to both protect wildlife and farmer interests, and
wants to appease voters through approving bat culls |
Ministry
of Agro-Industry and Food Security has conflicting mandates (wildlife
protection and food production) Conservation
and animal welfare NGOs lobby for bat protection |
|
Press x Public |
Minimal |
Press reporting on bat issue to public |
Press
provide media coverage (good info) Press
communicate wrong or distorted info, leading to negative public opinion Press
has been ambivalent: strongly encourage culling before cull, and after cull
was more nuanced Public:
blame MWF for high population of bats Encourages
illegal culling |
Appendix 3. Perceived and real cost
factors identified by workshop participants
Note: bold = well known; normal font = somewhat known; italics
= unknown
|
Perceived Costs of Conflict |
Real Costs of Conflict |
|
cleaning under fruit trees removal of fruit trees leads to less fruit ▲ price of fruit availability of fruits: less
fruit on backyard tree to eat or give to neighbours; market fruit usually
available, just expensive bat extinction will deprive future
generations of wildlife less fruit
leads to ▼ revenue sleep disturbance affects tourist industry negatively if bats culled Mauritius
international reputation as biodiversity champion tarnished ▼ bats leads to ▼ forest regeneration psychological impact of culling physical injury from installation/ removal of
netting boycott in export of Mauritian fruits if bats
culled |
subsidy of netting cost of culling cost of surveys (bat population and
questionnaire) cost of
nets and installation and removal cost of
pruning cleaning under trees other methods to keep bats away (guarding, lights, fire crackers, shooting) |
Appendix 4. Environmental and social
risk factors identified by workshop participants
Note: bold = well known; normal font = somewhat known; italics
= unknown; arrows indicate effect between variables
|
Environmental Risk Factors |
Social Risk Factors |
|
Environmental
characteristics/land use and management • ▼native forest extent leads to▲ bats’ reliance on exotic fruits • ▼forest quality leads to ▲ bats’ reliance on exotic fruits • ▲ urbanisation leads to ▼tree abundance/density • ▼cyclones leads to ▲ bat population • lychee
season leads to less native food source for bats • ▲ commercial fruit growers leads to ▲
fruit which, in turn, leads to ▲ bats |
Inequality and power • lobbying by influential groups (fruit exporters,
NGOs) • political
decision based on popularity (backyard growers as large voting base) • press
influence (affects public perception) • lack of education leads to less informed
judgement • control of fruit price (for economic gain)
and/or unfair trade practices (limiting supply) can lead to and maintain
inflated fruit prices |
|
Human
Behaviour • ▲ pruning and netting
effectiveness leads to ▼bat damage to fruits • ▲ capacity/willingness to utilize netting leads to ▼ bat damage to fruits • ▲ bat culling leads to ▲
illegal killing of bats by public • orchard
owners: ▲ resources for tree protection leads to ▲ tree protection • backyard
growers: ▼ resources for tree protection leads to ▲ bats feeding in backyards |
Vulnerability
and Wealth • Backyard growers and small scale planters
cannot afford netting nor installation which leads to inability to reduce
damage by bats and birds • Returns from harvest significant percentage
of annual revenue for orchard owners • Physical incapacity to install nets may
deter use |
|
Behaviour
and management of conflict-causing species • bats
non-territorial, thus damage by bats widespread • ▲ protection by law leads to ▲ bat population |
Distrust
and animosity • people
upset because of fruit predated by bats, noise and faeces/residue • annoyance
over legal protection of bats leads many Mauritians to consider bats as
‘pests’ • Distrust towards
conservationists (‘do not understand farmers losing fruits’; ‘all they want
to do is to protect bats’) |
|
|
Beliefs
and Values • as bats
are believed to be nocturnal, their habits are unknown • hunting
is considered normal (acceptable) killing • perceptions of
bats due to folklore (‘evil creatures’) • bats are
considered by some to be edible, thus it is more acceptable to kill them
(cultural for some sections of the population) • religions
do not promote killing • superstitions
(bats ‘dark and evil’, ‘vampires’, ‘get entangled in people’s hair’) |
Appendix
5. Existing and potential policy options identified by participants, and level
of knowledge regarding these options
Note: bold = well known; normal
font = somewhat known; italics = unknown
|
Existing Policy/Management |
Proposed Policy/Management |
Relevant Considerations |
|
Netting subsidy (75%) scheme |
Full canopy netting |
extend netting scheme to more than (current)
half of all trees in orchards <2 acres, and 5 for backyard growers. service provider to train (i)
teams in community allowing free net installation for backyard growers, and
(ii) orchard staff which would increase uptake and effectiveness in orchards |
|
Tree pruning |
Tree pruning and compensation against losses |
identify team of wood cutters |
|
Sacrificial (decoy) crops |
Provide incentive in private sector to plant sacrificial crop |
free of charge to farmers |
|
Culling (as and when required) |
Controlled hunting |
find appropriate hunting season and target
number of bats seen as last option |
|
|
More
study on bat ecology |
Investigate local knowledge (e.g. use of smoke as deterrent) |
|
|
Pick your own |
Pick your own scheme to lower price |
|
|
Price control of fruit |
Government to implement measures to ensure free market without price
fixing |
|
|
Awareness campaign |
identify target group and effective
communication method leisure parks: interaction with bats |