Antipoaching standards in onshore hydrocarbon concessions drawn from a Central African case study

Abstract

Unsustainable hunting outside protected areas is threatening tropical biodiversity worldwide and requires conservationists to engage increasingly in antipoaching activities. Following the example of ecocertified logging companies, we argue that other extractive industries managing large concessions should engage in antipoaching activities as part of their environmental management plans. Onshore hydrocarbon concessions should also adopt antipoaching protocols as a standard because they represent a biodiversity threat comparable to logging. We examined the spatiotemporal patterns of small- and large-mammal poaching in an onshore oil concession in Gabon, Central Africa, with a Bayesian occupancy model based on signs of poaching collected from 2010 to 2015 on antipoaching patrols. Patrol locations were initially determined based on local intelligence and past patrol successes (adaptive management) and subsequently with a systematic sampling of the concession. We generated maps of poaching probability in the concession and determined the temporal trends of this threat over 5 years. The spatiotemporal patterns of large- and small-mammal poaching differed throughout the concession, and likely these groups will need different management strategies. By elucidating the relationship between site-specific sampling effort and detection probability, the Bayesian method allowed us to set goals for future antipoaching patrols. Our results indicate that a combination of systematic sampling and adaptive management data is necessary to infer spatiotemporal patterns with the statistical method we used. On the basis of our case study, we recommend hydrocarbon companies interested in implementing efficient antipoaching activities in their onshore concessions lay the foundation of long-needed industry standards by adequately measuring antipoaching effort; mixing adaptive management and balanced sampling; setting goals for antipoaching effort; pairing patrols with large-mammal monitoring; supporting antipoaching patrols across the landscape; restricting access to their concessions; performing random searches for bushmeat and mammal products at points of entry; controlling urban and agricultural expansion; supporting bushmeat alternatives; and supporting land-use planning. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.