Media Framing of Financial Mechanisms for Resolving Human–Predator Conflict in Namibia

The decline in carnivore populations is largely exacerbated by lethal methods used to reduce livestock depredation. Financial mechanisms are designed to limit lethal control by reducing the cost of depredation. The media can affect how the general public feel about issues like financial mechanisms but no study has been undertaken to understand the framing of this topic. This article filled this gap by using content analysis of newspapers to analyze economic incentives designed to mitigate human–carnivore conflict in Namibia. Forty-six percent of the articles were framed positively toward incentives, 24% ambivalently, 19% negatively, and 11% neutrally. Compensation was commonly framed positively whereas community-based conservation, trophy hunting, and tourism were framed ambivalently. Incentives were framed more negatively where perceived costs outweighed benefits. These results can help conservationists plan more effective communication interventions and anticipate issues that can affect the success of mitigation strategies

Understanding the human dimensions of coexistence between carnivores and people: A case study in Namibia

Many carnivore populations were in decline throughout much of the 20th century, but due to recent conservation policies, their numbers are stabilising or even increasing in some areas of the world. This, compounded with human population growth, has caused increased livestock depredation by carnivores, which threatens farmer livelihoods, particularly those in developing countries such as Namibia. How to resolve this so-called “conflict” between carnivores and livestock farmers remains challenging, in part because some mitigation strategies have proven somewhat ineffective or unacceptable. By using a case-study approach on the commercial farmlands of northcentral Namibia, I aimed to understand the complexity of the human dimensions affecting coexistence between carnivores and people in an unprotected working landscape. Specifically, my objectives were to 1) develop a participatory decisionmaking exercise to analyse the views of stakeholders on how they would like carnivores to be managed in unprotected lands, 2) understand how the media framed financial incentives to improve human-carnivore coexistence, and 3) determine if there were any underlying social, economic or political causes of negative human-carnivore interactions on commercial livestock farms. To answer objective 1, I developed a new decision-making exercise that combined Q-methodology and the Delphi technique to determine whether a diverse group of stakeholders could agree on how to manage carnivores on commercial farmland. A strong agreement was reached by participants: providing conservation education and training on livestock husbandry were acceptable and effective ways to improve coexistence with carnivores. This new also method highlighted areas of disagreement between stakeholders and showed that there were two different narratives on how carnivores should be managed. This method could be used by policy makers to help with participatory decision-making for resolving other conservation conflicts. To answer objective 2, I undertook content analysis of national newspapers to determine how the media framed articles on financial incentives to mitigate this conservation conflict. The most common (30%) financial incentive discussed was compensation - many (61%) of these articles framed compensation positively. However, upon categorising these articles into those where respondents were enrolled in compensation schemes compared with those who were not, a clear pattern emerged: articles were more likely (89%) to be framed ambivalently or negatively when respondents had experience of this financial incentive compared with respondents that did not. These results can help conservationists plan more effective communication interventions and anticipate issues that can affect the success of mitigation strategies. To answer objective 3, I undertook eight months of participant observation on livestock farms and interviewed 69 respondents and found that reported livestock depredation was associated with increased instances of poaching of wildlife and stealing of livestock. This association appeared to be partly due to farmer-worker relations: when employees felt happy, respected and were paid a liveable wage, they were incentivised to perform well in their job. This resulted in livestock that were managed more effectively and therefore less likely to be killed by predators. Furthermore, these well-paid employees were not incentivised to steal or poach to supplement their income, which limited the extent of game poaching and livestock theft on the farm. These findings underline the fact that this conservation conflict is extremely complicated, driven by many social, economic and political factors that may not be apparent initially. In conclusion, this thesis has found that the conflict between carnivores and livestock farmers is a truly wicked problem, affected by a multitude of complex layers. Only by exploring the entangled web of drivers will we ever begin to create positive, lasting change for both people and predators. Niki Rust © 201

Understanding, quantifying and mapping the use of poison by commercial farmers in Namibia - Implications for scavengers' conservation and ecosystem health

Effective nature conservation in human-dominated landscapes requires a deep understanding of human behaviors, perceptions and values. Human-wildlife conflicts represent relatively well-studied, global-scale conservation challenges. In Africa, vulture populations are collapsing as they fall victim to poison used by livestock farmers to kill predators, but our understanding of the prevalence of this practice is still very poor. We gathered data on the prevalence of poison use in Namibia by means of questionnaires completed by commercial farmers. The data were collected and analyzed with ad-hoc quantitative methods. We quantified prevalence of poison use, determined factors associated with this practice and derived a map of its prevalence. We found that 20% of commercial farmers in Namibia used poison; farmers that owned high numbers of small stock and on large farms, and those who had suffered high livestock losses to predators, were most likely to admit to using poison. We pinpoint areas of high prevalence of reported poison use, which are largely concentrated in the south of the country. Furthermore, we report a generally positive perception of commercial farmers towards vultures, which may indicate future potential to implement bottom-up approaches for vulture conservation. Overall, the findings have important implications for prioritizing efforts to effectively tackle the African vulture crisis and preserve healthy ecosystems for the wellbeing of humans and wildlife. (C) 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.Peer reviewe

call for conservation scientists to empirically study the effects of human population policies on biodiversity loss

The world is changing more quickly now than it ever has before, predominantly due to our large consumption rates and population size. Despite this epoch being well-accepted as the 'Anthropocene', it is surprising that there is still a lack of willingness by many conservation scientists to engage with the consequences of human population dynamics on biodiversity. We highlight the importance of addressing the effects of our population abundance, density and growth rate on conservation and note that environmental organisations are beginning to embrace this problem but the take-up amongst conservation researchers to empirically study their effect on biodiversity is slow. We argue that the lack of published research may partly be because the topic is still considered taboo. We therefore urge conservation scientists to direct more of their research efforts on this issue, particularly to examples that highlight the effects of Population, Health and Environment (PHE) projects and female education initiatives on biodiversity

Framing of sustainable agricultural practices by the farming press and its effect on adoption

There is growing political pressure for farmers to use more sustainable agricultural practices to protect people and the planet. The farming press could encourage farmers to adopt sustainable practices through its ability to manipulate discourse and spread awareness by changing the salience of issues or framing topics in specific ways. We sought to understand how the UK farming press framed sustainable agricultural practices and how the salience of these practices changed over time. We combined a media content analysis of the farming press alongside 60 qualitative interviews with farmers and agricultural advisors to understand whether the farming press influenced farmers to try more sustainable practices. Salience of sustainable agricultural practices grew between 2009 and 2020. Many of the practices studied were framed by the press around economic and agronomic aspects, and farmer respondents said the most common reasons for trying sustainable agricultural practices were for economic and agronomic reasons. The farming press tended to use more positive rather than negative tones when covering sustainable agricultural practices. Respondents used the farming press as a source of information, though many did not fully trust these outlets as they believed the farming press were mouthpieces for agribusinesses. Whilst a minority of farmers stated they were motivated to try a new sustainable agricultural practice after learning about it in the farming press, this was rare. Instead, the farming press was used by respondents to raise their awareness about wider agricultural topics. We reflect on the role and power given to agribusinesses by the farming press and what this means for agricultural sustainability.</p

Why Has Human–Carnivore Conflict Not Been Resolved in Namibia?

Human–wildlife conflict has historically been portrayed as a management problem where solutions lie in technical changes or financial incentives. However, recent research shows many conflicts stem from social, economic, and political drivers. We undertook qualitative data collection on livestock farms to determine whether relationships between farmers and their workers affected frequency of reported livestock depredation in Namibia. We found that the conflict was affected by social and economic inequalities embedded in the previous apartheid regime. Macro- and microlevel socioeconomic problems created an environment where livestock depredation was exacerbated by unmotivated farm workers. Poor treatment of workers by farmers resulted in vengeful behaviors, such as livestock theft and wildlife poaching. Successfully addressing this situation therefore requires recognition and understanding of its complexity, rather than reducing it to its most simplistic part

Can stakeholders agree on how to reduce human – carnivore conflict on Namibian livestock farms? A novel Q-methodology and Delphi exercise

Conflict between carnivores and livestock farmers affects human livelihoods and predator populations. Historically, successful mitigation of this conflict has been limited, sometimes because of a lack of participation among stakeholders to create and implement agreeable and effective solutions. Finding common ground between stakeholders can, however, be difficult, partly because of the range and intensity of values held. Using a novel combination of Q-methodology and the Delphi technique, I investigated whether a diverse range of stakeholders could agree on how to mitigate conflict between carnivores and livestock farmers in Namibia. A strong consensus was reached on using conservation education and husbandry training to reduce livestock depredation. Two narratives emerged: one group preferred non-lethal methods to manage the conflict, whereas a smaller group preferred lethal measures. This new decision-making exercise has potential to be applied to other conservation conflicts to assist with participatory decision making

Proceedings of the Second SolACE Stakeholder Event

The Second Stakeholder Event of the project SolACE - Solutions for improving Agroecosystem and Crop Efficiency for water and nutrient use - took place on May 16, 2018 in Foggia, Italy. During the second SolACE stakeholder event, SolACE project partners presented innovations that are being tested in the project with the aim to receive feedback and comments

Nature documentaries and saving nature: Reflections on the new Netflix series Our Planet

Netflix recently launched its high‐profile nature documentary Our Planet. Voiced by Sir David Attenborough in English (with Salma Hayek, Penelope Cruz and other Hollywood actors voicing versions simultaneously released in 10 other languages), Netflix are making a clear play for core BBC territory. However, they claim that this is a nature documentary with a difference as it puts the threats facing nature front and center to the narrative. We coded the scripts of Our Planet, and those of three recent Attenborough‐voiced BBC documentaries, to explore the extent to which threats (and conservation action and success) are discussed. The only other series which comes close to the frequency with which these issues are discussed is Blue Planet II, but Our Planet is unique in weaving discussion of these issues throughout all episodes rather than keeping them to a dedicated final episode. However, although Our Planet sounds different to other documentaries, the visuals are very similar. Nature is still mostly shown as pristine, and the presence or impacts of people on the natural world very seldom appear. We discuss the potential consequences of nature documentaries erasing humans from the land/seascape. We also discuss the mechanisms by which nature documentaries may have a positive impact on conservation. Despite links between information provision and behaviour change being complex and uncertain, nature documentaries may, at least in theory, elicit change in a number of ways. They may increase willingness amongst viewers to make personal lifestyle changes, increase support for conservation organizations, and generate positive public attitudes and subsequently social norms towards an issue, making policy change more likely. Netflix is certainly bringing biodiversity and the threats it faces into the mainstream, but the mechanisms by which viewing these representations translates to concrete behaviour change are poorly understood. Increasing interest in robust impact evaluation, integrating qualitative and quantitative methods, means the time is right to explore how both showing nature on screens and talking about the threats it faces, affects people in ways which might, ultimately, contribute to saving it