Fases de un proceso de selección

Hypothesis: As Buffer Zone Management (Indicator: Rupees Channeled Back for Buffer Zone management from Revenue) Increases, Anti-poaching Operations (Indicator: Number of Rhinoceros Poachers Convicted) Increase

Buffer Zone institutions such as BZMC, BZUCs, BZCFs, and CBAPOs and local people provide financial, moral or other supports which contribute to convicting wildlife poachers, including rhinoceros poachers.

Figure 15: Rupees channelled back for buffer zone management and numbers of rhinoceros poachers convicted in CNP

28.0832 240.75096 272.71888 289.71578 371.514 209.43708 151.77606 240.75096 198.92 134.77071 176.09432 204.43217 0 0 161.66 231.88 0 2 3 6 4 19 8 29 26 101 29 98 17 26 57 49 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 Fiscal years

Revenue Channelled Back for Buffer Zone Management and Rhinoceros Poachers Convicted in CNP

Rupees channelled back for buffer zone (in ,00000)

Nos. of rhinoceros poachers convicted

The above figure shows that rupees channelled back for buffer zone management from revenue can have a very small influence on the conviction rate of rhinoceros poachers. Both indicators have continuously increased since FY 1996/97 till FY 1999/00, for instance. They again decreased from FY 2001/02 to 2002/03 and increased until FY 2003/04. However, during most of the time periods, the indicators do not point important relationships between the variables. For example, 17 and 26 rhinoceros poachers were convicted in FY 2008/09 and 2009/10 respectively, though the buffer zone did not get any money from revenue.

Statistical analysis

When correlations between pairs of variables were examined, R (Correlation

Coefficient) was 0.078 (p=0.774) and R2 (Coefficient of determination) was 0.006. This

means that only 0.6% of the total variation can be explained by the linear relationship between the two variables.

Statistical analysis shows that the relationship between the indicators is insignificant. Thus, the impact of buffer zone management on APOs is interpreted through the local wildlife tourism stakeholders as below.

Stakeholders’ understandings

According to the respondents, most of the money received by BZMC through revenue is used for conservation activities such as conservation education and income generation. All of these activities are primarily designed to save wildlife. A buffer zone

representative described:

“For instance, the buffer zone supports conservation education programs expecting that students’ awareness level and attitude towards wildlife will be increased. From this, they can inform the Park about suspicious activities and people such as rhinoceros poachers”.

The majority of the respondents appreciated BZMC for providing the most sustainable financial support to mobilise the informants’ network and convict rhinoceros poachers. The Park can get rupees from BZMC if it has any financial crisis to carry out APOs. A senior officer in the DNPWC stated:

“The government does not give a single rupee for APOs, mainly to mobilise informants’ network. Although WWF Nepal and NTNC make some contribution, it is not reliable and sustainable, but the Park needs not to be worried as it can get necessary rupees

In addition, a few respondents experienced that buffer zone communities sometimes provided information about rhinoceros poachers and gave moral support for convicting them. The buffer zone representative also noted:

“Local people themselves also arrest rhinoceros poachers from time to time and hand them over for the Park to take legal actions. Occasionally, the Park’s anti-poaching team gets moral support for arresting rhinoceros poachers in the village where buffer zone activities are effective”.

Various lobbying and campaigns carried out for anti-poaching by buffer zone communities such as BZUCs, BZCFs and CBAPOs importantly support

discouragement of wildlife poaching activities, mainly rhinoceros poaching, as claimed by the interviewees. A member from BZUC explained:

“As all of the members of BZMC are political figures, they sometimes coordinate with political parties and their leaders to generate support for APOs. They also help to launch campaigns against poaching”.

Discussion

Despite the statistical analysis, the graph shows a small impact of buffer zone

management on APOs. However, stakeholders state that such an impact is significant.

The indicators stated above are influenced by various factors. Money provided for APOs depends upon the factors which include Park’s requirement and demand,

availability of the resources and conviction rate of wildlife poachers. The effectiveness of APOs is determined by many elements such as the strength of the Park’s anti-

poaching team and resources availability, including money. Likewise, the conviction of poachers depends upon the money provided by BZMC for APOs, rather than rupees received by the buffer zone itself.

The record in CNP shows that BZMC has provided a significant amount of money for APOs resulting in the arrest of many rhinoceros poachers. For example, as rhinoceros poaching accelerated, BZMC allocated NRs. 8, 10,000 in FY 2003/04 for APOs. Due to this support and other efforts, 29 rhinoceros poachers were convicted this year.

Similarly, NRs. 250,000 and 100,000 were provided in FYs 2004/05 and 2007/08 for the operations respectively, particularly for the mobilisation of the informants’ network. This money, including other efforts such as the hard work of Park staff, resulted in the conviction of 26 rhinoceros poachers in FY 2004/05 and 98 in 2007/08. Also, large numbers of other illegal workers were brought to the court in these years. Moreover, members of BZMC sometimes lobby political leaders to generate their support for anti-

poaching activities. They even can occasionally influence their political representatives for strict policy and law enforcement against rhinoceros poachers.

In addition, most of the efforts made for APOs through the financial support of the buffer zone cannot be quantified and represented from the above graph. For instance, various campaigns and lobbying carried out by CBAPOs and nature guides are some examples. Information provided by villagers is mostly nominal, because villagers can be afraid of criminal-minded poachers. They do not want to make more opponents in their society.

From the information available, it can be concluded that rupees provided for buffer zone management from revenue has increased financial and moral support for APOs. It has generated the community’s backing for anti-poaching activities, mobilising its money. All of this support has resulted in the conviction of more rhinoceros poachers. This information proves that wildlife tourism increases the political pressure for

conservation, and strengthens a final component of Higginbottom and Tribe’s (2004) model of wildlife tourism, (Figure 3).