INTRODUCTION

It has long been recognized that the costs of living with wildlife, particularly for poor, rural communities in the developing world, are rarely offset by any material benefits (Ghimire and Pimbert 1997). Whilst the economic benefits of wildlife and biodiversity are diffuse and accrue to society in general, and financial benefits generally accrue to governments and external entrepreneurs, many of the costs are acute and borne locally (Dixon and Sherman 1990; Wells 1992; Balmford and Whitten 2003). This does nothing to improve tolerance among local communities and, as a result, wildlife continues to decline through persecution and habitat destruction.

In recognition of this problem, conservationists have embraced local economic development as a strategy for wildlife conservation and conflict resolution (IUCN/UNEP/WWF 1980). The new era of ‘conservation with a human face’ (Bell 1987) eschewed earlier protectionist policies and adopted the mantra that wildlife should be conserved for the benefit of local communities who bear the costs of coexistence (Anderson and Grove 1987; Western and Pearl 1989). This paradigm shift has gained ground in successive global conferences and strategies (McNeely and Miller 1984; World Commission on the Environment and Development 1987; IUCN/UNEP/WWF 1991; McNeely 1993). Sustainable utilization and equitable benefit sharing are now enshrined within the Convention on Biological Diversity (2005) that was launched at the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio.