Costs and benefits of the presence of leopards to the sport-hunting industry and local communities in Niassa national reserve, mozambique

Sport hunting is often proposed as a tool to support the conservation of large carnivores. However, it is challenging to provide tangible economic benefits from this activity as an incentive for local people to conserve carnivores. We assessed economic gains from sport hunting and poaching of leopards (Panthera pardus), costs of leopard depredation of livestock, and attitudes of people toward leopards in Niassa National Reserve, Mozambique. We sent questionnaires to hunting concessionaires (n = 8) to investigate the economic value of and the relative importance of leopards relative to other key trophy-hunted species. We asked villagers (n = 158) the number of and prices for leopards poached in the reserve and the number of goats depredated by leopard. Leopards were the mainstay of the hunting industry; a single animal was worth approximately U.S.$24,000. Most safari revenues are retained at national and international levels, but poached leopard are illegally traded locally for small amounts ($83). Leopards depredated 11 goats over 2 years in 2 of 4 surveyed villages resulting in losses of $440 to 6 households. People in these households had negative attitudes toward leopards. Although leopard sport hunting generates larger gross revenues than poaching, illegal hunting provides higher economic benefits for households involved in the activity. Sport-hunting revenues did not compensate for the economic losses of livestock at the household level. On the basis of our results, we propose that poaching be reduced by increasing the costs of apprehension and that the economic benefits from leopard sport hunting be used to improve community livelihoods and provide incentives not to poach.

Economic tradeoffs in mitigation, due to different atmospheric lifetimes of CO2 and black carbon

Tradeoffs are examined between mitigating black carbon (BC) and carbon dioxide (CO2) for limiting peak global mean warming, using the following set of methods. A two-box climate model is used to simulate temperatures of the atmosphere and ocean for different rates of mitigation. Mitigation rates for BC and CO2 are characterized by respective timescales for e-folding reduction in emissions intensity of gross global product. There are respective emissions models that force the box model. Lastly there is a simple economics model, with cost of mitigation varying inversely with emission intensity. Constant mitigation timescale corresponds to mitigation at a constant annual rate, for example an e-folding timescale of 40 years corresponds to 2.5% reduction each year. Discounted present cost depends only on respective mitigation timescale and respective mitigation cost at present levels of emission intensity. Least-cost mitigation is posed as choosing respective e-folding timescales, to minimize total mitigation cost under a temperature constraint (e.g. within 2 degrees C above preindustrial). Peak warming is more sensitive to mitigation timescale for CO2 than for BC. Therefore rapid mitigation of CO2 emission intensity is essential to limiting peak warming, but simultaneous mitigation of BC can reduce total mitigation expenditure. (c) 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.