Conduct regular anti-poaching patrols

Overall effectiveness category Likely to be beneficial
Number of studies: 5
Share Tweet Email

View assessment score

How is the evidence assessed?

Effectiveness

70%
Certainty

50%
Harms

0%

Calculating overall effectiveness category

Background information and definitions

Anti-poaching patrols typically consist of a team of people that regularly patrol a pre-defined area to stop or reduce hunting. During patrols, teams may record spatial data on hunting or poaching activities and primate occurrence. Some teams may also capture and arrest illegal hunters on site, seize bushmeat, and destroy hunting camps. Correlative studies have shown that in areas where anti-poaching patrols were conducted, primate densities were higher (Stokes et al. 2010) and at sites where law enforcement guards were present, the probability that gorilla Gorilla spp. and chimpanzee Pan troglodytes populations would persist in the long-term, was higher (Tranquilli et al. 2012). However, while anti-poaching patrols reduced illegal hunting in Garamba National Park, Democratic Republic of Congo, including of primate species, they were inadequate to cope with higher levels of poaching pressure during armed conflict (De Merode et al. 2007). Removing of snares by teams that may form part of anti-poaching patrols is discussed separately under ‘Regularly de-activate/remove ground snares’, and the training of-, and the providing of equipment to anti-poaching patrols is discussed under ‘Provide training to anti-poaching ranger patrols’, and ‘Provide better equipment (e.g. guns) to anti-poaching ranger patrols’. The use of monitoring surveillance strategies and/or monitoring data to improve effectiveness of wildlife law enforcement patrols is discussed under ‘Implement monitoring surveillance strategies (e.g. SMART) or use monitoring data to improve effectiveness of wildlife law enforcement patrols’.

De Merode, E., Smith, K. H., Homewood, K., Pettifor, R., Rowcliffe, M., & Cowlishaw, G. (2007). The impact of armed conflict on protected-area efficacy in Central Africa. Biology letters, 3(3), 299-301.

Stokes E.J., Strindberg S., Bakabana P.C., Elkan P.W., Iyenguet F.C., Madzoke B., Malanda G.A.F., Mowawa B.S., Moukoumbou C., Ouakabadio F.K. & Rainey H.J. (2010) Monitoring great ape and elephant abundance at large spatial scales: measuring effectiveness of a conservation landscape. PLoS ONE, 5, e10294.

Tranquilli S., Abedi-Lartey M., Amsini F., Arranz L., Asamoah A., Babafemi O., Barakabuye N., Campbell G., Chancellor R., Davenport T.R.B., Dunn A., Dupain J., Ellis C., Etoga G., Furuichi T., Gatti S., Ghiurghi A., Greengrass E., Hashimoto C., Hart J., Herbinger I., Hicks T.C., Holbech L.H., Huijbregts B., Imong I., Kumpel N., Maisels F., Marshall P., Nixon S., Normand E., Nziguyimpa L., Nzooh-Dogmo Z., Okon D.T., Plumptre A., Rundus A., Sunderland-Groves J., Todd A., Warren Y., Mundry R., Boesch C. & Kuehl H. (2012) Lack of conservation effort rapidly increases African great ape extinction risk. Conservation Letters, 5, 48–55.

Study locations

Key messages

Two studies in Rwanda found that gorilla populations increased after implementing regular anti-poaching patrols, alongside other interventions. One study in the Democratic Republic of Congo, Rwanda, and Uganda found that gorilla populations declined after conducting regular anti-poaching patrols.
A review on gorillas in Uganda found that no gorillas were killed over a 21 month period when the number of guards carrying out anti-poaching patrols increased, alongside other interventions.
One study in Ghana found a reduction in illegal primate hunting activities following conducting regular anti-poaching patrols, alongside other interventions.

About key messages

Key messages provide a descriptive index to studies we have found that test this intervention.

Studies are not directly comparable or of equal value. When making decisions based on this evidence, you should consider factors such as study size, study design, reported metrics and relevance of the study to your situation, rather than simply counting the number of studies that support a particular interpretation.

Supporting evidence from individual studies

A before-and-after trial in 1984-1987 in tropical montane forest in the Virunga ecosystem in Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of Congo found that mountain gorillas Gorilla beringei beringei that were protected by regular anti-poaching patrols along with other interventions, increased from 242 to 279 (15% increase) individuals in 1981-1986. Average group size increased from 8.5 to 9.2 individuals (17% increase) and proportion immatures increased from 39.7 to 48.1 individuals (8% increase) over the same period. Regular total counts of this population were conducted since 1973 by research staff. Anti-poaching guards regularly removed snares. Guards were provided with cars, radio communication equipment, uniforms, more rations and other equipment, which allowed them to increase patrol frequency and effectiveness. In 1979, a multi-organisation funded conservation project was initiated. A gorilla viewing tourism programme started in 1985, during which three gorilla groups were habituated for tourist viewing. The study does not distinguish between the effects of the different interventions mentioned above.
Study and other actions tested
Referenced paper
Aveling R. & Aveling C. (1987) Report from the Zaire Gorilla Conservation Project. Primate Conservation, 8, 162-164.
A review on the status of mountain gorillas Gorilla beringei beringei in 1972-1989 in tropical montane forest in Eastern Virungas Conservation Area, Uganda found that no gorillas were killed in 1989-1990 when the game guard force was increased from three to 13 men along with other interventions. Game guards were also provided with better equipment, and trained and supervised by researchers, who started working in the area in 1989 when a permanent research project was established. Human settlers were relocated from an area (3 km²) that represented the most important gorilla habitat within the Gorilla Game Reserve, within the Eastern Virungas Conservation Area. The study does not distinguish between the effects of the different interventions mentioned above.
Study and other actions tested
Referenced paper
Butynski T.M., Werikhe S.E. & Kalina J. (1990) Status, distribution and conservation of the mountain gorilla in the Gorilla Game Reserve, Uganda. Primate Conservation, 11, 31-41.
A before-and-after trial and site comparison in 1976-1988 in tropical forest in Volcanoes National Park, Rwanda (3) found that the number of immature mountain gorillas Gorilla beringei beringei on the Rwandan side of the park increased and snares decreased after the implementation of regular anti-poaching patrols along with other interventions. Two years after the implementation of regular anti-poaching patrols, 30% of sampled quadrats on the Rwandan side of the park contained snares, compared to 70% of the sampled quadrats on the Ugandan and Congolese side. Numbers of immature individuals increased by 22% in Rwanda, but declined by 30% in the other two countries. No statistical tests were carried out to determine whether these differences were significant. Patrols were initiated in 1979, however, the study did not report on further details relating to the methods used to implement the anti-poaching patrols. Funds provided by the income of a tourist programme enabled the training, equipping and management of the anti-poaching patrols. In 1976, all cattle were removed from the park in Rwanda. A conservation education programme was also implemented, but no further details were reported. The study does not distinguish between the effects of the different interventions mentioned above.
Study and other actions tested
Referenced paper
Harcourt A.H. (2001) The benefits of mountain gorilla tourism. Gorilla Journal, 22, 36-37.
A before-and-after study in 1967-2008 in tropical montane forest in Volcanoes-, Mgahinga-, and Virunga National Parks located in Rwanda, Uganda, and the Democratic Republic of Congo, respectively, found that despite regular anti-poaching patrols along with other interventions, the mountain gorilla Gorilla beringei beringei population decreased over time. Annual population decline was 0.7%, resulting in an overall population decrease of 28.7% over the entire study period. No statistical tests were carried out to determine whether this decrease was significant. Anti-poaching patrols were carried out throughout the entire study area. Rangers mostly used established trails, but made their own trails if signs of poaching were observed and followed these signs until they located the illegal activity. Patrol teams also regularly removed snares and herded live-stock out of the park. Additional interventions included local conservation education and community development projects. The study does not distinguish between the effects of the different interventions mentioned above.
Study and other actions tested
Referenced paper
Robbins M.M., Gray M., Fawcett K.A., Nutter F.B., Uwingeli P., Mburanumwe I., Kagoda E., Basabose A., Stoinski T.S., Cranfield M.R. & Byamukama J. (2011) Extreme conservation leads to recovery of the Virunga mountain gorillas. PLoS ONE, 6.
A before-and-after trial in 2007-2009 in tropical forest in Kakum Conservation Area, Ghana (5) found that regular anti-poaching patrols along with other interventions, led to a decrease in illegal hunting activities for six primate species (bush baby Galagoides demidoff, Bossmann potto Perodicticus potto, Lowe’s monkey Cercopithecus campbelli lowei, spot-nose monkey Cercopithecus petaurista petaurista, olive colobus Procolobus verus and Geoffroy’s pied colobus Colobus vellerosus). In 2008-2009, the number of illegal hunting activities and hunting attempts decreased from 1182 to 874 (26% decrease). Monitoring consisted of foot patrols with randomized movements. Monitored illegal activities included the number of poachers arrested and escaped, gunshots heard, firearms confiscated, skins confiscated, poacher’s camps, animals killed, snares found, empty cartridges found and human footprints. Teams also regularly de-activated or removed ground snares. The study does not distinguish between the effects of the different interventions mentioned above.
Study and other actions tested
Referenced paper
Wiafe E.D. & Amoah M. (2012) The use of field patrol in monitoring of forest primates and illegal hunting activities in Kakum Conservation Area, Ghana. African Primates, 7, 238-245.

Please cite as:

Junker, J., Kühl, H.S., Orth, L., Smith, R.K., Petrovan, S.O. & Sutherland, W.J. (2020) Primate Conservation. Pages 431-482 in: W.J. Sutherland, L.V. Dicks, S.O. Petrovan & R.K. Smith (eds) What Works in Conservation 2020. Open Book Publishers, Cambridge, UK.

Where has this evidence come from?

List of journals searched by synopsis

All the journals searched for all synopses

This Action forms part of the Action Synopsis:

Primate Conservation

Related Actions

Actions	Effectiveness	Studies	Category
Inform hunters of the dangers (e.g., disease transmission) of wild primate meat Action Link	No evidence found (no assessment)	0	Synopsis Link
Provide better equipment (e.g. guns) to anti-poaching ranger patrols Action Link	Likely to be beneficial	3	Synopsis Link
Inspect bushmeat markets for illegal primate species Action Link	No evidence found (no assessment)	0	Synopsis Link