Search Lion Landscapes Content

It is nice to look back and think that we got to where we are by design. Hindsight can polish dumb luck into a shining history of carefully considered and well thought through plans - ignoring major errors in judgement. The truth is, when we started out as field conservationists in our raggedy little tents and ignorant bliss, deciding what to do and why did seem simple. From a position of relative ignorance we identified the most obvious problem and worked to find a possible solution. But the more we learned, the more complex the challenges facing conservation revealed themselves to be, and so our simple projects adapted and grew into networks of interlocking programmes addressing a myriad of different obstacles to coexistence between people and carnivores. We maintained our core large carnivore research but branched inexpertly into healthcare, security, education… who knew that large carnivore conservation meant addressing so many human needs? We hired and partnered with people with more expertise than ourselves, and gradually accumulated a wealth of shared experience that better guided our decisions. However, we never stopped to consider the bigger picture, there never felt like time to stop and consider much at all. Instead we kept pushing forwards on gut instinct honed through a process of trial and error. Some things worked and many things failed. When things failed we learned, picked up the pieces and tried something different. Even the merger between Lion Landscapes (v1) and the Ruaha Carnivore Project, which probably should have been a moment to stop and carefully consider the future, felt instinctive – ‘looks like a good plan, let’s do it’ – and in the space of one conversation another huge decision was made. In retrospect, that was far less than ideal - as leaders of the two organisations, we discussed and decided that merging was a great idea, and announced it excitedly as a done deal. But we should have recognised that it had taken many people, over many years, to help our organisations succeed, and they needed to be as much a part of the decision-making as the two leaders were. Amy Dickman (left) and Alayne Cotterill (right): ‘Looks like a good plan, let’s do it.’ Nevertheless, in that moment, with their characteristic energy and optimism, our collective teams responded and pulled together. New people joined to help build the necessary systems, and onwards we all rolled. Without so much as a pause, the new Lion Landscapes was formed to span four big landscapes in three countries, with a team of over 100 passionate and dedicated people and almost as many partners. After a whirlwind year, it was finally time to stop, lift our collective heads, take a deep breath and look around us; Who are we? What are we trying to achieve? How are we best going to get there? And how do we make sure - belatedly - that this joint organisation is something that we all believe in and helped create, not just the leaders? With help from Maliasili, we have now finished a process of strategic planning to help us answer exactly these questions - our final 5-year Strategic Plan is shared with you here. At the core of this document is our Theory of Change – our unique pathway to achieving our shared vision and mission. Having dedicated most of our lives to large carnivore conservation, we all had our individual, internal missions but realised that often those missions did not align exactly with those of others in the team, and that we often failed to express them as clearly as we needed. The large carnivore species we study, captured on camera traps on village land Maliasili helped us to crystalise those individual goals into something clear and shared. We realised that everything we were doing was working to make large carnivore conservation valuable to local and global communities. At present, most of the value of that conservation is felt internationally, while it is local people who bear the costs of it. Our central goal is to rebalance that equation, making conservation fairer and more effective. The conservation of lions and wider biodiversity must have real, tangible, competitive value for the people sharing the landscape with it - otherwise they will do something else with their land - agriculture, infrastructure, anything that will allow them to improve the wellbeing of their families. This is what humans have done across the globe for millennia. Much of our work focuses on that local level, but maintaining and expanding global buy-in is also vital. Unless the international public, companies and decision-makers are willing to invest properly and equitably in conservation, including covering the real local costs of carnivore conservation and coexistence, it will fail. We can hardly expect the poorest communities in the world to bear that cost alone, which has often been the case up to now. Local people examine the footprint of a carnivore (left) which had killed livestock (right) Strong evidence for conservation action But how do we as Lion Landscapes achieve this mission? The foundation of our Theory of Change, the start of our pathway, is strong evidence for conservation action. This comes in many forms, from scientific data to locally contextualised knowledge built from living at the field sites, talking to local communities, building teams from within those communities, and immersing ourselves in each landscape. Additionally, our ongoing monitoring provides data that constantly evaluates the impacts of our programmes and the status of the challenges we are addressing. Our close affiliation with Oxford University ensures strong scientific studies underpin our local knowledge. Foreign students are paired with local students to ensure the most effective sharing of local knowledge and technical expertise. Overall, this helps us to fully understand the challenges faced, and have the ability to constantly assess how our actions impact those challenges. Communication for change Having good evidence for conservation action is only useful if it’s made available, understood and used by those making the conservation decisions, and so the next step in our pathway is communication for change. We must make sure that the information we spend so much time and energy collecting is used to inform effective conservation action by us, our partners and wider conservation decision makers. Lion Landscapes researchers communicating our findings to local stakeholders Stop the loss, reduce the cost, unlock the benefits For Lion Landscapes, our conservation actions all work towards at least one of our three goals; to stop the loss of large carnivores, their prey and habitat, to reduce the cost of conservation to local people and to unlock the benefits associated with conservation for both local and global populations. For example, we have multiple programmes which directly reduce threats like snaring and poisoning (stopping the loss) and work with people to prevent carnivore attacks (reducing the cost). But probably most importantly, every year we translate hundreds of thousands of donor and development dollars into local community benefits which are clearly and directly linked to wildlife presence, so the benefit of conservation is felt by those most affected. Throughout all of these actions, we build local capacity to increase the long-term impacts of our work. 1) Stop the loss of large carnivores 2) reduce the cost of living with wildlife 3) unlock the benefits Collaboration and Partnership Collaboration and partnership underpins our theory of change (see image below). We know that we will never achieve our mission alone, and so we collaborate or actively partner with many others, both within and beyond the landscapes we work in, so we can use our complimentary skills and resources to achieve shared goals. Our Theory of Change All elements work together to achieve the Lion Landscapes mission of making large carnivore conservation valuable to local people and global communities. Effectively translating the immense global value of large carnivore conservation to local communities would be transformative. It could reduce and even reverse the huge threats of human-wildlife conflict and habitat destruction, and make wildlife a vehicle for people being happier, wealthier and more fulfilled. Ultimately, it would enable the creation of healthy landscapes where people and wildlife, including the largest carnivores, can thrive together. This is our vision, we hope you share it! Interested to learn more? Register for our Behind the Scenes webinar 23 March, 5pm GMT Stay in touch Subscribe to our newsletter and keep up to date on our work and research in Africa and follow us on Facebook, Instagram, Twitter and LinkedIn for recent photos and stories from the field.

Why the House of Lords should carefully examine the evidence around trophy hunting On 7th July 2023, The Canary published an article by a British anthropologist, Sian Sullivan, fearing that malign forces – such as, apparently, conservation scientists and African representatives – were aiming to ‘thwart’ a proposed UK ban on the importation of hunting trophies, by providing an evidence-based report to the House of Lords. Trophy hunting is a contentious topic, but at Lion Landscapes we believe that evidence is vital for effective decision-making in conservation, and we have presented evidence on the risks of an import ban to the UK Government. Here, we outline why we feel Sullivan’s article was at best overblown, and at worst misleading and arrogant. Sullivan starts – perhaps unsurprisingly – with a mischaracterisation. She suggests the report pushes against the influence of the All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) to Ban Trophy Hunting simply because their Secretariat was a lobby group. That is untrue - lobbying is a valuable part of the political process. The issue comes (as highlighted by Parliament itself) when APPGs enable lobbyists to gain improper influence and access to parliamentarians. That is particularly concerning when lobbyists share demonstrable misinformation, as the campaign to ban trophy hunting imports has repeatedly done. Oddly, Sullivan seems to take particular offence that the report was supported by Resource Africa and Jamma International. Both organisations are clearly committed to community-based conservation, including sustainable use. Indeed, Resource Africa ‘promotes people-centred conservation for thriving, resilient livelihoods. We advocate for people’s rights to sustainably use their natural resources, respecting their cultures, worldviews, and knowledge systems. Our interventions are science-based.’ They have close links with the Community Leaders Network (CLN), which represents millions of people who would be directly affected by the UK’s proposed ban. Unsurprisingly, all these groups are against external, misinformed actions which would undermine community-based conservation, and have spoken out repeatedly against blanket trophy hunting bans. CLN’s website states: ‘We are the custodians of our natural resources and the key to its sustainability. Our voices matter’. It is unclear why Sullivan appears to disagree. After dismissing groups which advocate for community rights, Sullivan moves on to dismissing the weight of scientific evidence around trophy hunting. She worries that the fact that trophy hunting doesn’t threaten a single species is not evidenced in the report. She will doubtless have been relieved to see a pre-print of a scientific paper released in June 2023 (the same month as the report), providing just that evidence. She worries (rightly) that data are often incomplete and out of date. But most scientists are used to dealing with imperfect realities. From climate science to COVID, scientists make predictions based on the best evidence available to them. In this case, what is clear is that the major threats to biodiversity are habitat loss and poaching. Counter-intuitive as it might seem, trophy hunting revenue has supported the conservation of more wild habitat than National Parks, and helped combat poaching. It has also had demonstrably positive conservation benefits for several hunted species, including endangered ones such as the black rhino, as documented in a recent paper by leading rhino experts. Meanwhile, there is little or no evidence that the kind of ban sought by the UK would positively impact conservation or livelihoods. Since Kenya banned trophy hunting in 1977, its wildlife populations have crashed, with ‘policy, institutional and market failures’ identified as the fundamental cause. A trophy hunting ban in Botswana led to increased human-wildlife conflict and harmed local livelihoods. Import restrictions on polar bear trophy hunts harmed Inuit communities. Similar import restrictions have put pressure on Tanzanian hunting operators, leading to half the country’s hunting blocks being handed back to the Government. This has reduced active management, leading to increased illegal use and an emerging threat to wildlife, as no better alternatives are being implemented. While targeted, short-term restrictions can effectively tackle trophy hunting where it is unsustainable, blanket bans such as the one being proposed for the UK are likely to do more harm than good. Sullivan is either unaware of the lack of evidence supporting bans, or chooses to ignore that glaring omission. Sullivan then moves on to some confused assertions. She appears to think the risks to Namibian conservancies of removing trophy hunting have been overstated, just because it may not be their primary source of income. That doesn’t mean trophy hunting revenue is unimportant – the very report Sullivan cites shows that of NS$91 million of cash and benefits, over a third came from trophy hunting. That may not seem important to Sullivan, in the comfort of the UK’s leafy Bath, but is likely less easily dismissed by those receiving such benefits. She also then criticises Namibian conservancies for not reducing their hunting offtakes in a drought period – while sharing a table which appears to demonstrate that that’s precisely what they did. Perhaps the most worrying and demeaning part of Sullivan’s piece is her dismissal of how the UK ban is perceived by many as being neocolonial and insulting. To be clear, this is not a ‘cynical claim made in the document’, but the direct words of over 100 African representatives, including High Commissioners, who stated clearly ‘It is sad to mention that we feel this is another way of recolonising Africa’. Most people would think that Africans are better placed to judge what feels neocolonial to them, rather than any of us white Britons. There is no doubt that both trophy hunting and photo-tourism areas often have a dark colonial history. But that should be even more of a reason to actually listen to the people who have suffered from colonialism, and ensure we don’t undermine their rights and voices in the present day. Then Sullivan moves on to what she terms ‘meagre benefits’ from trophy hunting. However, it is unclear if he has actually read the paper she uses to evidence that claim, as it states: ‘Conservancies in the Zambezi region receive 13% of their direct income from joint venture [photo-tourism] lodges….while 81% is earned from hunting concessions.’ It also highlights that local operators capture 29% of the revenue from trophy hunting, but only 4% from photo-tourism, and concludes that ‘hunting tourism makes a considerable contribution to revenues in peripheral regions of southern Africa’. Even if Sullivan wishes to dismiss the income, jobs, meat and other benefits from trophy hunting as ‘meagre benefits’, her judgement should count far less than the views of affected community members, particularly in places like Namibia, Takijistan, Pakistan, Nepal and Turkey, where most of the benefit demonstrably goes to local communities. Sullivan then adds insult to injury, by ignoring well-founded fears of aid dependence, apparently because many communities using trophy hunting also receive aid money. It is baffling that an anthropologist needs this explaining, but here goes. Imagine a single parent, working two jobs to bring up their children. Occasionally, a distant, rich, overbearing uncle sends them $100 in an envelope. It would likely be gratefully received. Now imagine the rich overbearing uncle demands the parent give up their job and wait for the occasional envelope. That would suddenly be demeaning. It’s exactly the same here – aid may be valuable, but should not replace the sustainable use of a country’s own natural resources, especially at the whim of misinformed campaigners. Such campaigns are even more galling when the UK seems content with using extensive trophy hunting at home, and when affected countries have a far better conservation record than the UK does. The headline of Sullivan’s piece drums up fears of the Bill being ‘thwarted’. That is unfounded – the report she criticises clearly recommends a ‘smart ban’ approach with a conservation amendment, as supported by over 200 scientists and conservation experts. Given this Bill was purportedly about conservation, any such amendment would strengthen, not thwart, the conservation impacts of the legislation. Ultimately, and depressingly, Sullivan’s piece could be interpreted as a call to ‘ignore informed scientists, ignore the weight of conservation evidence, and ignore the voices of those most affected’. Unfortunately, it has been through exactly those tactics that the Bill has progressed so far. No wonder so many campaigners are fearful of the greater scrutiny that the Bill should receive in the Lords. It is also striking that nowhere in her article – and nowhere in the entire campaign to ban trophy imports – does it explain how blanket bans will improve outcomes for people or wildlife. That clear omission has a simple explanation – because they won’t. We, and many other conservation scientists and practitioners who understand the true risks of removing trophy hunting with no better options on the table, hope that peers will indeed weigh carefully the information laid before them. We urge them to consider where the true risks lie, and do their job of improving this Bill so that it delivers conservation gains without harming wildlife or disempowering vulnerable communities. Stay in touch You can visit our website and keep up to date on our work and research in Africa by subscribing to our general newsletter. Join us on Facebook, Instagram, Twitter and LinkedIn for recent photos and stories from the field.

The importance of grass Traditional pastoral families in East Africa depend on livestock for their basic needs and the loss of a herd often means a descent into abject poverty - not just no milk or meat, but no money for clothes, schools or medicines and other food. Also, livestock reflects status, meaning that its loss can have devastating mental health impacts. It is no surprise, therefore, that grass is the currency of life in pastoral societies, wars are fought over access to it. In East Africa more grass means more livestock, and more livestock means more wealth, status and power. Grasses are also important from a rangeland health perspective. They stabilise and protect soil, increase water absorption, add organic matter, sequester carbon and promote the growth of beneficial soil organisms. Bare earth is like a cancer on rangeland making it less able to trap and utilise the rain that does fall. Without grasses, rain water immediately runs-off the surface of the hard packed soil, washing it away into the gullies and rivers. Depleted soils can support less grass and less grass means less soil, and so the negative cycle continues. Without healthy grass cover, rangelands cease to function and pastoralist societies crumble. So why is this ‘bare earth’ cancer spreading in many of East Africa's rangelands? And what does the availability of grass have to do with lion conservation? Historically, East Africa's rangelands have supported teeming herds of wildlife alongside livestock and people on traditional pastoral lands. The most famous East African rangeland, the Masai Mara - Serengeti ecosystem, is synonymous with a sea of grass as far as the eye can see, supporting heaving masses of wildebeest and zebra, alongside livestock in many areas. Livestock production and wildlife conservation are not mutually exclusive, even when it comes to large carnivores. Under the right conditions of plentiful wild prey combined with well protected livestock, large carnivores mostly leave livestock alone. Even with less than optimal conditions, pastoral land is still home to important lion populations today. But the incredible productivity of East Africa’s rangelands depends on management practices that support the growth of grasses. Healthy rangeland can support masses of wildlife alongside livestock but the high productivity of East Africa’s rangeland is dependent on grass. Photo By Bruce Ludwig. Where has the grass gone? The depletion of grasses and creation of bare earth seems at first glance to be due to growing numbers of people and livestock, in combination with climate change resulting in less rainfall, less grass production and too many livestock dependent on it. Certainly climate change is exacerbating the situation, and ultimately there is a limit to the numbers of grazing animals that can be supported on any rangeland, but focusing entirely on numbers ignores an important part of the story; where this limit lies can be significantly influenced by the grazing management practices used. When grass is not given respite to develop a strong root system, it gets plucked out of the soil creating large areas of bare earth, which eventually washes away to expose the rock beneath. The management of grazing Grasses have evolved to cope with heavy grazing and trampling pressure but they need periods of time where they can grow enough leaves to photosynthesise and generate the energy they need to grow strong root systems, and to flower and seed. Grasses that are grazed continuously photosynthesise less, have shallow and weakened roots and are eventually plucked completely out of the soil by grazing herds. This means that the key factor determining grass production is not how great the maximum grazing pressure is (number of animals) but rather whether the grasses have the time they need free from grazing pressure to grow leaves and photosynthesise (distribution of animals). Traditional pastoralism was historically nomadic, with herds joining together to follow the rain. Grazing wildlife species do the same to a greater or lesser degree. Larger compact herds putting greater pressure on a smaller area for a shorter time appear to be optimal for grass production. Compacted herds can also have the added benefit of breaking up soil surfaces and providing valuable manure, increasing the organic content for soil animals, which in turn increase the aeration of the soil and improve conditions for grasses to grow. Livestock production done in the right way can play an important role in the maintenance of healthy rangeland systems, however, issues around land ownership and access to other key resources like medical care and schooling have made pastoralist people and their herds more sedentary over time, and the synergy between livestock production, rangeland grasses and wider biodiversity is breaking down. Large compacted herds graze, trample and fertilise grasslands intensively, leaving large areas of land to recover, unoccupied by livestock and accompanying people. The grass-lion link At Lion Landscapes, we are not rangeland management specialists but we do know what large carnivores need to persist into the future, and it is surprisingly similar to what grasses need too. Grazing systems that leave more of the rangeland free from livestock and accompanying people at any one time are also optimum for lions, and many other wildlife species. Lions are risk sensitive, and retaliatory or preventative killing by people protecting their livestock represents the biggest risk on the landscape. Human and livestock free areas that are being rested for grazing purposes therefore become an essential refuge for lions and other species that are sensitive to the presence of people, allowing them to rest, raise young, hunt and feed undisturbed, even during daylight hours. Additionally, larger compact herds are easier to guard from predation than livestock dotted about the landscape. Better protected livestock means less conflict between large carnivores and people over livestock predation, the biggest threat to the survival of large carnivore species in many areas. Lions will only feel comfortable resting in the open during the daylight in areas where the rangeland is not occupied by livestock and accompanying herders. Photo by Taro Croze. Lions and other large carnivores not only benefit from the spaces created between larger more compacted livestock herds, their presence also helps create them. The presence of large carnivores on the landscape significantly impacts space use by their prey and this extends to people and livestock too - where large carnivores are no longer a serious threat, herders can afford to be less vigilant, allow livestock to scatter and utilise with impunity habitats that would otherwise be viewed as having a higher predation risk. The presence of lions might even benefit grasses. It is obvious that large carnivores need prey to eat, and more biodiverse and productive rangelands mean more prey, however, to say healthy grassland equals healthy lions and vice versa would be dangerously simplistic, there are many other factors at play in this complex story. However, understanding how to regenerate healthy biodiverse grasses and soils is a critical part of the puzzle, even for carnivore conservationists. The biggest challenge to doing this today, with traditional nomadic pastoralists becoming more sedentary, is possibly not rainfall (although a lack of rainfall is a challenge) or even livestock numbers (although there are ultimately limits to the numbers of livestock possible) but rather enabling and incentivising the creation of dynamic livestock free space on the landscape, such that on any given day, grasses, lions and other species have the space and time they need for refuge, recovery and regeneration. Look out for our next blogs where we discuss the work being done to recreate the positive impacts of traditional pastoralism, and why Lion Friendly Livestock production is not just good for lions and other wildlife, but also grasses, soils, and ultimately livestock and people too. We would like to thank the following donors, who have enabled the development of the Lion Friendly Livestock programme: The Darwin Initiative, Lion Recovery Fund, Tusk Trust and The Nature Conservancy. We would also like to thank our partners in this programme, Loisaba Conservancy, Borana Conservancy, True Range and Kyran Kunkel. Stay in touch You can visit our website and keep up to date on our work and research in Africa by subscribing to our general newsletter. Join us on Facebook, Instagram, Twitter and LinkedIn for recent photos and stories from the field.

African Rangelands Today Rangelands covers 43% of the African continent and are a vitally important biome for people, livestock and wildlife. This is particularly the case in East Africa, where traditional pastoralism has historically allowed a large number of wildlife species to inhabit rangeland alongside livestock - images of elegant pastoralist people accompanying herds of livestock grazing across wide grassland savannah, among herds of zebra and other wildlife species, are synonymous with east Africa. Taking Kenya as an example, approximately 75% of wildlife depends on land shared with people and livestock. However, many of East Africa’s rangelands are suffering serious degradation. Changes in land ownership and more sedentary livestock herds are resulting in weaker grass growth, bare earth, soil erosion and a breakdown in ecosystem functions, threatening livelihoods for pastoralist people and exacerbating their vulnerability to climate change (see our first Lion Friendly Livestock blog). Increasing shortages of grass and water is not just bad for people and livestock. A sense of resource scarcity can make people, understandably, less tolerant of sharing them with wildlife and lead to increased human-wildlife conflict. Livestock husbandry practices that help to regenerate rangeland functions are therefore not just good for livestock and people, but also biodiversity conservation too. Lions as a Symbol of Healthy Rangelands Lions may appear an unlikely symbol for healthy biodiverse rangelands, but as a livestock producer, living with lions is the highest bar when it comes to commitment to wildlife conservation. If you can coexist with lions, you can coexist with all large carnivores and other wildlife. In fact you probably already do - lion populations won't thrive without healthy prey, which won't thrive without healthy habitat, which in turn needs good soil. The presence of lions symbolises that there is enough grass and water to share, and a willingness to share it with lion prey, but it also symbolises a willingness to manage the inherent risks associated with the presence of wildlife. Lions are the hardest species for livestock producers to coexist with - they are big, come in groups, predate on the largest and most valuable livestock and can threaten human life. Where lions are a significant cost to people, people will normally kill lions. The presence of a healthy population of lions, therefore, indicates that livestock predation, and the retaliatory killing of lions in response, is being minimised, which is good for people and lions. Husbandry practices that stop lion predation will mostly do the same for other large carnivore species, so lions can act as an umbrella species for well managed conflict between people and other carnivores too. Overall, a healthy population of an apex carnivore like the African lion coexisting with a thriving livestock economy is a symbol of the very highest level of conservation success, and a healthy rangeland capable of supporting people, livestock and wildlife into the future. Lion Friendly Livestock Certification adds Value to Wildlife Presence Even when livestock predation is minimised, it can rarely be reduced to zero, and finding ways to make the conservation of lions and other wildlife valuable to pastoralist people is crucial to their survival on land shared with people and livestock. Conservation certification for agricultural products is one way of making wildlife presence, and wildlife friendly practices, more valuable. Goods produced in a way that promotes wildlife presence can command premium prices, or gain a competitive advantage over goods produced in a way that damages nature. Bird Friendly Coffee and Elephant Friendly Tea are two better known examples. There are also a growing number of more generic ‘conservation’ standards. All of these are a step in the right direction - they demonstrate that conservation practices can be more profitable than practices that damage nature. However, they can also be confusing, and greenwashing is an ever present concern for buyers. Transparency is therefore important in showing what a given certification means for nature, producers and buyers. Here we want to introduce the concept of Lion Friendly Livestock. This is a certification that uses lions, the apex carnivore, as a flagship species for livestock production on healthy, biodiverse African rangelands. To reach Lion Friendly standards, a livestock producer must support healthy rangeland from the soil all the way up to the biggest and most voracious carnivore species. Being Lion Friendly certified is not easy but doing what it takes to make sure lions can thrive alongside livestock can be what is best for grass production in African rangelands, and therefore what is best for livestock producers too. Lion Friendly Livestock Criteria Lion Friendly Livestock criteria are designed to be scaled across different rangelands with different human and environmental characteristics. Best practices used may vary from one habitat type to another or from one region to another, and can reflect local traditional practices. They may also vary over time as knowledge grows or as properties reach different stages of regeneration. The Lion Friendly Livestock programme is therefore not prescriptive over rangeland management and predator proofing practices, but rather helps land owners and managers to measure the outcomes of the practices used, informing a process of adaptive management. Although not prescriptive, the Lion Friendly Livestock programme works in partnership with specialists who can provide guidance on current best practices, giving livestock owners the critical tools and knowledge they need to affect a profound and long-lasting improvement in the ability of their rangeland to support livestock, people and wider biodiversity. Lion Friendly Livestock criteria fall into 6 simple groups or subsets, which we broadly describe below. The criteria underpinning these are designed to stand alone or be bolted on as the wildlife conservation part of an Ecological Outcomes Verification (EOV) framework, where land managers have the capacity to measure soil health, biodiversity and ecosystem function. Livestock and people distribution on the landscape (Space) In our first Lion Friendly Livestock blog we described how holistic grazing practices that concentrate livestock activity, and ensure that large areas of rangeland are allowed to rest from the presence of livestock herds and accompanying people, optimise grass production, healthy soils and overall rangeland health. Such practices also allow lions and other species that are sensitive to human presence the space they need to forage, rest and raise young without disturbance. The first subsection of criteria for being Lion Friendly therefore measures and tracks the percentage of the rangeland that is used by livestock herds on any given day, and as a result, the percentage left undisturbed. Standards are set at levels that are not only best for grass, but large carnivores and other species too. Prey abundance, distribution and richness (Prey) Another key factor for large carnivore survival, and biodiversity conservation in general, is the number of different species (richness) and the number of animals of each wildlife species (abundance) on the landscape. It is also important how much of the landscape is used by any particular species (distribution). Having plenty of wild prey available for large carnivores to eat is a key part of stopping them predating on livestock. To be Lion Friendly the majority of the property must be utilised by wildlife. In the second subsection of Lion Friendly criteria, abundance, distribution and richness of herbivore species is measured absolutely and as a trend over time. Absolute numbers may vary with natural events beyond the control of land managers e.g. drought, but trends over time will reveal whether the practices in use are having positive or negative impacts on biodiversity conservation. In order to allow for spatial and temporal differences in rangeland productivity, the percentage of the overall weight of animals (biomass) comprised of wildlife species is also reported compared to that of livestock. A drop in wildlife biomass and a corresponding increase in livestock biomass would indicate practices that are unsustainable in terms of biodiversity, whereas an increase in both wildlife and livestock biomass might indicate an improvement in overall rangeland productivity. Carnivore abundance, distribution and richness (Presence) In order to be Lion Friendly, a property must form part of the contiguous range of a viable population of wild lions preventing properties claiming to be Lion Friendly but artificially ‘farming’ lions that are not part of the wild population. As with the herbivore species above, the abundance, distribution and richness of large carnivore species are measured and reported as absolute numbers and as trends built over time, as indicators of how the livestock husbandry practices in use are impacting carnivore conservation. As with herbivore species, the standards are set so that the majority of the property must be available for use by large carnivores, preventing properties claiming to be Lion Friendly but only having lions in a small area. Additionally, large carnivore populations must be stable or increasing over time. Sustainable management of human-carnivore conflict (Tolerance) Large carnivores can only coexist alongside viable livestock production if the losses of livestock to predation, and the retaliatory killing of large carnivores as a result, are sustainable. Some livestock will be killed by large carnivores, and the occasional removal of a large carnivore may be necessary but must follow best practices for the region in order to meet Lion Friendly standards. Standards are set such that the losses of livestock to predation are financially sustainable for the producer, and any lethal control of large carnivores as a result does not have a negative impact on large carnivore numbers and distribution. Livestock practices that prevent predation i.e. keeping livestock in guarded bomas at night and tightly herded during the day, can also promote grass growth and soil health when properly moved around the landscape as part of a holistic grazing programme. Habitat refugia (Refuge) When sharing the landscape with people and livestock, lions and most other large carnivores need areas of refuge habitat i.e. patches of habitat that people and livestock are unlikely to enter due to the terrain being too rough or the vegetation being too thick. These patches of refugia are crucial in allowing lions to remain hidden and undisturbed when people and livestock are active in the area. This is particularly important for carnivores that have young cubs or pups but the habitat refugia, and heterogeneity in habitat it creates, is also beneficial to many other species. Lion Friendly properties must therefore have sufficient amounts of habitat refugia. Landscape connectivity (Scale) Lions are a wide ranging species, requiring large contiguous areas of land to support viable populations in the wild. A Lion Friendly Livestock producer must be connected to other areas of land that are suitable for lion in order to provide the area needed. Fences between suitable wildlife land must be permeable to lions and other wildlife. Encouraging neighbours to work together to manage the rangeland ecosystem as a wider whole, reduces the risk of the landscape becoming fragmented and is again better for wildlife and for people and livestock. Overall, giving lions the space, prey, tolerance, refuge and connectivity they need to persist will support wider biodiversity conservation and incentivise healthy rangeland practices that improve grass growth and soil health. Healthy functioning rangelands also sequester more carbon, and better provide clean water. Lion Friendly is therefore also biodiversity friendly, soil friendly and climate friendly. This should make Lion Friendly Livestock ultimately better for people too. Note. The Lion Friendly criteria and standards are co-developed with local livestock producers in Laikipia, Kenya. They will be tested over the following 12 months on properties that are known to have healthy populations of lions and other large carnivores in order to fine tune where the standards should lie in order to ensure rangeland management that supports people, livestock, lions and wider biodiversity conservation. We will publish the detailed criteria and standards as soon as they are fully tested. We would like to thank the following donors, who have enabled the development of the Lion Friendly Livestock programme: The Darwin Initiative, Lion Recovery Fund, Tusk Trust and The Nature Conservancy. We would also like to thank our partners in this programme, Loisaba Conservancy, Borana Conservancy, True Range and Kyran Kunkel.

In this blog post I will provide an insight into how we conducted one of the world's first, large-scale, joint acoustic and camera trap survey, and how the acoustic data is helping to unearth a secretive side of large carnivores. Entering the hidden world of large carnivore vocalisations Good conservation is rooted in evidence-based decision-making. For conservation practitioners, one key bit of evidence is the knowledge of where and how many individuals of a species exist in a landscape. Conservation technologies such as camera traps (cameras which are triggered by movement), GPS collars, or autonomous recording units (microphones which record sounds) can help. These record data which can be used to calculate population sizes, determine where a species occurs across a landscape, or understand how a species might be impacted by human-wildlife conflict issues. However, biodiversity monitoring surveys rarely integrate different types of technology and autonomous recording units have never been used to study the occurrence of large African carnivores across a landscape. So, in August 2023 we set out to change this. In Nyerere National Park, Tanzania, an area with globally important populations of lion, leopard, and spotted hyaena, we conducted the first large-scale acoustic monitoring survey - 50 devices across 300km2 - for African carnivores alongside a camera trap survey and the collaring of 4 lions, with the goal of recording what lions sound and look like. This picture is formed from 2 separate camera trap images fused together to demonstrate the technology which we deployed in Nyerere National Park. Nb this lioness was collared by the Tanzanian Wildlife Institute for Research (TAWIRI), not Lion Landscapes. What are autonomous recording units/acoustic devices? Autonomous recording units, which is just a fancy way of describing a series of microphones encased within a plastic enclosure, record both ambient sounds and those originating several kilometres away. As an interesting side note, and as a general rule of thumb, acoustic devices have a similar ability to ‘hear’ sounds as humans do. On the left: an autonomous recording unit, named CARACAL. Each unit contains a circuit board with 4 microphones and a GPS unit. Cockroaches are generally not included. On the right: an example of the installation process of a CARACAL. Usually, in terrestrial habitats, these devices are installed several metres high onto a solid substrate (e.g., a tree), are powered by a battery source, and record acoustic data onto an SD card. Our devices were powered by 6 D-cell batteries and recorded acoustic data onto a 256 GB microSD card. This enabled us to continuously record the highly diverse sounds of the African bush for three weeks, before the card became full and the batteries died. Because data were recorded continuously, in addition to large carnivore vocalisations, we also captured brand-new sounds emitted from birds, insects, and other mammals. In total, the acoustic survey ran for 60 days (this required a set-up, two checks and a takedown - these efforts were supported by the Frankfurt Zoological Society, Lion Landscapes, TAWIRI and the Tanzania National Parks Authority - TANAPA - for which I am immensely grateful) and racked up a massive 75,000 hours of acoustic data. So now that I’ve recorded lions, what exactly am I going to do with the data? What do you mean - ‘lions have unique roars?’ A little-known fact is that lions have unique roars. A lion’s roaring bout is actually made up of 4 different stages and their unique full-throated roar is only one section of this full bout. We can use computational software to see how a lion's full-throated roar differs per individual. But admittedly, this is a weird concept - how can we see sound? We can view sound using something called a spectrogram. A spectrogram is a visual representation of frequencies within an audio signal as it varies with time. Below we can see the roaring bout of a lion. A lion's roaring bout can be separated into four distinct stages. Initial soft moans develop into full-throated roars which then switch to intermediary roars before the bout is finished off by a series of grunts. We can see that actually the majority of a roaring bout is made up of grunts and that the full-throated roars (which are the really important section because these roars are unique per individual) are usually restricted to 2-4 per bout. This is a spectrogram of a lion’s roaring bout. Black lines indicate the different vocalisations within the 4 different stages of a bout. A bout can be broken down into four stages. A) moans B) full-throated roar C) intermediary roar D) grunts. The full-throated roar of three different lions. We can see how the contour varies per individual. One focus of my PhD is to use the fact that a lion's full-throated roar varies per individual to produce a density estimate by looking at the number of unique roars across the landscape. The idea being that the number of unique roars is related to the number of vocalising individuals in Nyerere National Park. Any estimate that we calculate can then be compared to the results from the camera trap survey - a more standard and proven method of estimating the size of lion populations - to determine the usefulness of acoustic data in estimating the density of lions. But what about other species? Surely spotted hyaenas and leopards make cool noises too? Whilst this blog has specifically looked at lion vocalisations, my research will also hopefully incorporate the fascinating noises produced by spotted hyaena and leopard too. Via research or anecdotal/heuristic knowledge these species are also thought to produce vocalisations which are unique to an individual. But these have their own challenges. Spotties (spotted hyaena) have incredibly complex vocal repertoires. This is really cool, but from an analytical point of view, a nightmare. So, what this means is that for any analysis which attempts to differentiate between individuals I will need to select one very specific type of vocalisation. Even across a spottie’s whooping bout there are several variations of a whoop. Research has suggested that using the symmetric whoops are the best way of differentiating between individuals. This means though that there are many other very cool and interesting vocalisations that I will not use for this study e.g., hyaena laughter or predator-prey vocal interactions. Different vocalisations within a hyaenas whooping bout. Black lines indicate the different vocalisations within each stage. A bout can be broken down into 4 stages. A) preliminary whoop B) symmetric whoop C) asymmetric whoop D) terminal whoop. Leopards produce incredibly distinctive ‘sawing’ roars. If this statement leaves you confused, check out this link - and be ready to discover nature’s own chainsaw. Currently, there is no baseline study which proves that leopard roars differ per individual. This makes it difficult to conduct an acoustic density survey. However, given the volume of data that we have collected we are hopeful that these more basic questions can perhaps now be answered, and therefore lay the groundwork for future acoustic surveys of large carnivores. When applying the notion that an animal's vocalisations are unique to themselves, an important caveat and absolute necessity is that there is greater interindividual vocalisation variability than intraindividual. I.e., there is more variation between the vocalisations of different individuals than the natural variation that occurs from the same individual. The discovery of carnivore vocalisations Something which I find incredibly exciting is that large carnivore vocalisations (including the globally recognisable lion roar) are very much an under-researched field. But we are entering the gold-rush phase of acoustic monitoring; by combining large-scale passive surveys with newly acquired AI tools which allow us to process data more quickly, we will start to break into and discover a world that in the past we have only been a listener to. Combining audio data from the acoustic devices, visual data from the cameras and GPS from the collars will surely only be a good thing if we want to succeed in our goal to develop a more holistic understanding of large carnivores across a landscape. About the author: Jonathan Growcott is a PhD student working with Lion Landscapes. He is integrating tech, AI, and on-the-ground fieldwork to improve the monitoring of large African carnivores with a particular focus on lions. You can follow his work on Twitter/X.

Why do we identify lions? Identifying lions allows us to build an ID database so everyone can recognise the wild individuals in the field. Recognising individuals helps us understand: Where and how far they roam / how they disperse The degree of connectivity between groups Where conflict may occur All of this information can be used to better understand lion behaviour and manage potential conflict, working with multiple stake-holders to help develop successful conservation initiatives. How do we identify lions? There are a variety of features we use to help us ID lions, ranging from whisker spots to ear tears, scars or missing teeth and tail tips. As new lions are being born, and acquiring new distinctive features throughout their lives (e.g. ear tears, scars or missing teeth or tail tips), we need to constantly keep our database updated. There is however, one unique feature that doesn’t change throughout a lion’s life. Whisker Spots: The Lion Fingerprint! Did you know that the whisker spots of a lion are as unique as the human fingerprint? They are one of the only characteristics that don’t change throughout a lions life, which makes them ideal for identifying individuals as long as we have clear photos for the left and right side - check out the example below! Traditionally, the whisker spots are classified manually by counting the number and recording the position. Lion Ranger Wilson Sambaine, took this picture of this Borana female lion. For the left side, she has eight spots on her second line, and two on the top. These two ‘reference spots’ lie between spot 3 and 4, and 4 and 5. Along with clear photos of her other side (right), this unique patterning allows us to successfully ID this female if we come across her again in the field. If the whisker spot photos aren’t completely clear, we can use other features to support our identification, like the ears, nose, eyes, teeth and even scars!⁠ Left Side Reference Whisker Spots of Borana Female . Reference spot 1 lies in between spot 3 and 4. Reference spot 2 lies in between spot 4 and 5. Along with clear photos of the right side, this unique patterning allows us to successfully ID this female if we come across her again in the field. Lion Landscapes ID catalogues Once we have clear photographs of lion features, we can add individuals to our running catalogue. This can be used by Rangers and Researchers to quickly identify lions in the field from their facial structure, whisker spots, and any distinguishing features on their ears, nose and eyes. See the example catalogue pages for Bradymark, a female lion residing on @boranaconservancy, below! ID Catalogue for Bradymark, a female lion on Borana. Whisker spots, along with other distinguishing features, are collected to create an ID sheet for each lion. The Lion Identification Network of Collaborators (LINC) Lion Landscapes is part of a community of conservationists, that currently span Kenya and Northern Tanzania, in using LINC to upload and share our Lion ID’s. LINC is an open source platform that uses Artificial Intelligence (AI) to help identify recorded lions if they are uploaded to the system. This app uses facial and whisker recognition algorithms to allow users to compare photographs of unknown lions to an expansive database of individuals, helping to identify lions who move beyond an organisation's study areas. Since its launch in 2015, over 450 individual lions have been identified on LINC. You can help If you are visiting Laikipia, you can always contribute to our conservation efforts by sharing your photos of the lions you have seen on your safari. Follow the attached guidelines on how to take your photographs. If you have visited Laikipia in the past and have photographs of lions, we are still very interested to receive these images, even if they aren’t taken according to these guidelines. Please contact us at info@lionlandscapes if you have photos to share and we’ll invite you to a web folder where you can upload the files. Your sightings will be added to the LINC system, and LINC’s AI recognition tool will identify each individual that you’ve seen. By doing this, you will be contributing to the long-term dataset on the lions in this ecosystem, and helping to inform actions to protect them. Volunteer and help from home! Our small volunteer network has been vital in helping us build ID databases for Laikipia’s lions. We are always on the lookout for new volunteers to help us with lion ID by cropping key features from survey images. If you are interested, please contact us for more information. Hear from one of our volunteers Menina below: “My name is Menina and I have been IDing lions for Lion Landscapes for the last 10 months. The ID process comes with great amusement and reward. With each crop I take and every ID that I make, I get to know the unique personalities of Laikipia’s lions. It’s a really inspiring job that makes my day, everyday! The identification of lions is such a critical part of our conservation program and knowing that I am contributing to saving a species that I have got to know and love is a totally unparalleled feeling. If you are interested in conservation or helping to save a species, I cannot urge you enough to get in contact with Lion Landscapes - you won’t regret it!” If you would like to keep up to date on the lion research & conservation efforts of the Coexistence Co-op in Laikipia, please subscribe to the Lion Landscapes newsletter.

Last chance to donate to the Wildlife Ranger Challenge 2021 The Wildlife Ranger Challenge organised by Trust Trust took place last Saturday. It was a competitive race with over 150 teams from across Africa. The fantastic teams of Laikipia Lion Rangers held their own and came in with some really great times. As Lion Landscapes we are so proud of all the Laikipia Lion Ranger teams and grateful to the ranches and conservancies they represent. This was the second year of the Wildlife Ranger Challenge, which is organised by Tusk Trust to support Africa's rangers, allowing them to continue the vital work they do to protect wildlife, people and the precious natural landscapes of Africa. Meet some of the Laikipia Lion Ranger teams who took part in this gruelling 21km race below. Not only did they carry 22 kg backpacks while running this distance, they were running through incredibly tough terrain on the conservancies and ranches they work on. Traversing this kind of terrain is all part and parcel of their daily lives but not at a run. The Lion Rangers all trained hard for this race, showing impressive dedication on top of their daily work . Lion Landscapes is so thankful for the donations received so far that will support our work, and particularly these Lion Rangers. There is still time to show your support for their incredible efforts. Thank You! Sosian Lion Rangers - the fastest Laikipia Lion Ranger team Ol Maisor Lion Rangers - coming in 12th overall "The race was very tough and tiring.... we tried our level best and we enjoyed the race even though one of us was injured by thorn but we made it. We thank our management for their support for being with us at the ground from the start to the end and we thank Lion Landscape as well." Nicholas of Ol Maisor Mugie Lion Rangers "The race was tough especially due to the terrain and mud. We would wish to encourage other rangers to partake on the Challenge next time. Looking forward to next years Challenge" Samuel Losike of Mugie Borana Lion Rangers Karisia Lion Rangers Mpala Lion Rangers "The rangers were very enthusiastic about the run. We started with the full team hoping that if someone would drop along the way during the practice, we still had the minimum of four rangers, but all six managed to go to the end." Mpala Ranch For the full results of the Wildlife Ranger Challenge 2021 check the website . Stay in touch You can visit our website and keep up to date on our work and research in Africa by subscribing to our general newsletter. Join us on Facebook , Instagram , Twitter and LinkedIn for recent photos and stories from the field.

The WhatsApp message "Do you know these lions?" accompanied by a photo, is not an unusual question. What is unusual is to recognise a lion instantly, and without doubt, by his face. Normally it takes a process of checking and double checking whisker spot patterns, and any other distinguishing marks, before a positive ID is confirmed. But Mini's, which mean 'short ear' in the Maa language, is different. He has a strange and unique face with particularly small ears, and when our partners at Ewaso Lions sent through his photo in July this year, we recognised him instantly. With that recognition, Mini's and his 2 brothers were confirmed to have arrived in Westgate (in Samburu) having left Loisaba Conservancy (in Laikipia) over a year before. The excitement over this news was palpable. As the crow flies, it is not an extraordinary distance - 80 km - a lion could cover that in a few nights. The arrival of these 3 young male lions in Samburu was exciting because it meant that such a journey is still possible - lions can still move between Laikipia conservancies, which support abundant lions, and the community conservancies in Samburu. This 'connectivity' is important for the genetic health of both populations, and for the persistence of lions in community conservancies. Maintaining connectivity in the Ewaso ecosystem is a goal Ewaso Lions and Lion Landscapes share. Growing villages, increasing infrastructure and livestock densities all make dispersal for young lions seeking new territories increasingly difficult. Collar data from lions navigating this landscape help us to identify where passable routes still exist, and target our conservation programmes that facilitate coexistence between people and lions in these areas. Mini's is an unlikely hero. While his two brothers accompanying him are typically big, powerful Laikipia lions, Mini's is smaller than most, and his tiny ears and slightly shorter legs make him look distinctive different. When he was a cub we worried that he might not survive because he looked so small and disadvantaged. We rooted for him but tried not to get too attached, expecting to hear that he had died or been killed by another lion, but instead he survived to make an inspiring journey. Life ahead for these 3 lions will be full of challenges - a coalition of 3 adult male lions is not easy for a pastoral community to coexist with - but right now they are a beacon of hope for lion conservation in the Ewaso ecosystem. Read Ewaso Lions account of this story here . Mini's (left) and one of his two brothers (right) after arriving in Samburu from Laikipia's Loisaba Conservancy. By Ewaso Lions. Stay in touch You can visit our website and keep up to date on our work and research in Africa by subscribing to our general newsletter. Join us on Facebook , Instagram , Twitter and LinkedIn for recent photos and stories from the field.

Long term research in Laikipia has shown us that conflict between lions and people can be effectively managed by collaring and monitoring lion movements, and giving livestock owners access to real time lion movement data. This allows livestock owners to be proactive and keep their livestock away from lions, or increase their protection of livestock when close to lions. In January 2020 we decided to collar Felix, one of 5 young males, because we feared that such a big group of young nomadic males would kill livestock in neighbouring communities. Felix with his first collar and with his brother in January 2020, by Boniface Lowoi. However, as illustrated by a random selection of Felix’s movement maps over the last year, Felix and his brothers spend the majority of their time on Loisaba. The rest of the time he stays on other conservancies/wildlife ranches like Kamogi, Suyian, Ol Malo and Tango Maos Ranch. He only occasionally visits neighbouring Morijo, NYS and P&D communities, and there have been no reports of livestock killed during his visits. For a coalition of five adult male lions, Felix and his brothers have caused little trouble! On the early morning of the 22nd Nov 2020 Felix was re-collared as his previous collar stopped working. Heavy fog made the operation more 'atmospheric' than normal, as the team had to be extra alert to the presence of Felix's brothers. When recaptured the old collar showed some damage, which we suspect was caused by another lion. Data from the new collar has allowed our team and the Lion Rangers to monitor Felix and his brothers, checking for unusual movements that may indicate a problem. On the 14th March 2021, Felix's collar showed much less movement than normal and when the Loisaba Lion Rangers checked on him, he was found to be fairly badly injured. Felix’s coalition had been in a territorial dispute with an unknown pride. One of his brothers was also quite badly hurt. Collaring male lions has revealed that they are killed in fights with other male lions more often than we had thought. Felix and his brothers, however, survived to continue ruling their territory. On October the 5th, Felix was checked on by one of the Loisaba Lion Rangers after again receiving warnings from his collar that he was moving more slowly than normal. This time the news was brighter, Felix was mating with a female! Felix's collar has revealed him and his brothers to have settled into being highly functional pride males, defending a large territory, breeding and selecting wild prey over livestock. The map below shows the distinct ranges of current collared lions in Laikipia. Not all prides are collared and so other prides fill the 'gaps'. Five new collars are currently being shipped to Kenya and more collarings scheduled for November. Maps of Felix’s movements since recollaring Stay in touch You can visit our website and keep up to date on our work and research in Africa by subscribing to our general newsletter. Join us on Facebook , Instagram , Twitter and LinkedIn for recent photos and stories from the field.

World Lion Day is a moment for reflecting on lion conservation, which can be sobering. This most iconic species is undergoing decline at an alarming rate. Between 1993 and 2014, monitored lion populations dropped by over 40% with the main threats being habitat loss, prey loss and conflict with local people. Lions have disappeared from over 90% of the areas they used to occur in. Most remaining lion populations are small and isolated, with only six having more than 1000 lions. These challenges should not be underestimated: conserving wide-ranging, dangerous animals is extremely complicated. But there is also much reason for hope. Over this past year, the Ruaha Carnivore Project and Lion Landscapes decided to formally join forces and achieve more successful conservation through collaboration. We are now working together under a new Lion Landscapes organisation that benefits from the collective knowledge and experience of all our teams. Today we unveil our new, blended logo, which reflects the fact that both lions and people, walking together in shared landscapes, are at the heart of everything we do. But our organisation is about far more than just lions, or carnivores – it is about big, amazing, wonderful landscapes which sustain immense biodiversity as well as supporting people. Working across some of the most important remaining lion populations, our Lion Landscapes teams in Tanzania, Kenya and Zambia have developed effective, locally-informed approaches to help tackle major threats to wildlife. ‘ Lion Carbon ’, which we co-developed with BioCarbon Partners , helps incentivise habitat and wildlife conservation while tackling climate change. Our ‘community camera-trapping’ provides meaningful benefits to communities as a direct result of tolerating wildlife. Our ‘Coexistence Co-op’, which we run with The Peregrine Fund , empower communities to better live alongside dangerous wildlife. Local warriors, employed as Lion Defenders, safeguard people and livestock and deter illegal lion hunts. Meanwhile, on the Kenyan conservancies we partner with, Lion Rangers play a vital role in tackling conflict and poaching. Where do we work? Map displaying our locations. Those are just some elements of our collective work, which is showcased in this flyer . We have three 3 core pillars: stopping the loss of wildlife, reducing its local costs, and unlocking the value of conservation. Those pillars are on a foundation of local engagement and strong science, so we can make the best and most appropriate choices. We have seen real success: our work has reduced wildlife killings, helped local people and improved coexistence. And while it takes a large team on the ground, it would be impossible without the support of so many dedicated supporters around the world. So today we want to celebrate working together, thank you all for everything you have helped us achieve and look forward with positivity. Through passion, dedication, collaboration and partnership, we can and will build a better future for lions and for people. Please do take this moment to learn more about what we do , and to support it if you can. Thank you all very much!

After several gruelling days in the field, we are delighted to announce that 104 camera traps across 52 stations have been successfully deployed across the Zambia project areas for a brand new 2021 survey. The project spans Rufunsa Conservancy in the Lower Zambezi REDD+ Project area, and Munyamadzi Game Reserve & Kazumba Game Ranch in the Lower Luangwa Valley. View of the survey areas. Most of the lower Luangwa survey areas and all of Rufunsa are covered with Miombo woodland in hilly terrain. Reaching the sites Rufunsa has 28 stations of two cameras each, taking at least five long days in the field to set up. Many camera stations are over 2km from the nearest road, located in steep terrain. The most gruelling day working in Rufunsa includes a four-hour one-way drive to the western side of the Conservancy, where just two camera stations are deployed. The LLZ field vehicle next to some of the tall grass we have to walk through to access camera survey stations. In the Lower Luangwa Valley, sites are slightly easier to reach, albeit involving 4km treks from the nearest accessible road through 3m tall grass and in some places, deep mud. One camera station needed four hours driving followed by a four-hour walk where we came across a 3m cobra on the path! Deploying cameras at Kazumba requires a 90-minute one-way drive from the Munyamadzi camp, with collection and drop-off of a Kazumba private scout required. Some roads are too rough to navigate, with sticky mud and deep elephant foot holes. The field ecologist Nicky would most days leave camp at 5am to return at 8pm during the 7-day deployment schedule. Thanks to the hard and dedicated work of the field teams, all traps were successfully deployed to schedule ready to collect data! Right to left: Scout Brighton (LZRp training exchange), Nicky and Boniface (Munyamadzi Game Reserve) finishing recording camera station metadata before concluding deployment at this station. Results so far! The first card checks include the first record of wild dogs during the survey, all with full bellies! The female photographed below may be pregnant or have pups at a nearby den, a theory supported by frequent sightings of the pack in the same area over the past few months. Female mentioned in paragraph above; the group are other individuals in same pack. Transect sampling The early dry season distance sampling transects at Munyamadzi took place in the beginning of June a few days after the cameras were deployed. This involved refresher training for seven of the privately employed anti-poaching scouts and initial training for two women who did not make the cut for formal scout training in May. An additional four women were recruited into the teams to help carry equipment and water, all of whom were employed by Munyamadzi to cut grass for the camp roof thatching and were excited to be involved in the biodiversity monitoring activity. One grid cell was not able to be sampled – a first for Munyamadzi – due to closure of the only access road. Despite several dangerous encounters with elephants by the transect teams and deployment vehicles, everyone remained safe and very pleased with their accomplishments. Why do we sample these sites? The goal of the project is to develop a robust biodiversity monitoring system for the Lower Zambezi REDD+ Project area (LZRP) and LCFP, which supports BioCarbon Partner (BCP)’s objective of demonstrating enhanced biodiversity conservation. The camera traps allow us to monitor changes in population densities of key large herbivores, carnivores and Southern Ground Hornbill and to detect changes in population densities for these species within a realistic time frame.

We are delighted to share that two lions, Ronnie and Ian, have successfully been collared on Mpala and Sosian. Prior to collaring, they had attacked and killed numerous livestock on both ranches and local communities, resulting in building anger towards lions in general. Collaring a lion is no easy feat and so this is an incredibly exciting update; we have been playing hide and seek with the elusive Ian for over a year! Read on to discover the field stories from the day and the positive impacts their collarings are already having. The Collaring of Ronnie on Mpala The coalition of Ronnie and his brother Reggie has been hassling the livestock on Mpala and the surrounding communities for a long time. Since September 2020, we know of at least 12 cattle and calves (including a breeding bull) and 4 sheep who were killed by them. It is possible they were also the cause of the incident last August when a lion became trapped in a boma (livestock enclosure) and killed 34 sheep. There are likely more livestock killed by these lions that have not been reported; the loss has already cost thousands of US dollars and is a significant amount for livestock owners in Kenya to bare. To prevent further human-wildlife conflict (HWC) and safeguard the lions from retaliatory killing, Mpala were granted permission by Kenya Wildlife Service (KWS) to dart and collar, with the collar provided by Lion Landscapes. After waiting for the perfect moment for weeks, on the 3rd of May, they struck again on Mpala and killed a community member's camel. As a dead camel meant the lions might stay in one place long enough to get the teams together, this was our perfect opportunity to get the collaring done! Out of the two males, we chose to dart and collar Ronnie as he had a slight injury on one of his legs, so we could check the injury and collar him at the same time (although no intervention was required as it was just a sprain). Thanks to the excellent collaboration with Kenya Wildlife Service and Mpala, it was an extremely easy and successful collaring. Dr. Dominic Mijele and his team from KWS first darted Ronnie with a perfect shot. Lion Landscapes worked alongside Mpala and their excellent research team at the scene to coordinate the capture. After recording his details and weight, Mpala were able to keep an eye on Ronnie post collating to make sure he was protected until he had completely recovered from the drugs. The Collaring of Ronnie. Photo by Tim Collins. Since the collaring, Mpala Research Centre and Wildlife Foundation have been continually monitoring Ronnie, using the mobile tracking app, and the two brothers have been doing very well. In the 2-weeks since Ronnie’s collaring, two potential HWC incidents have been averted using the GPS movement data. Last Sunday, the pair moved into a point that intersected with the route cattle use to go to a dam to drink. With that information, Mpala were able to warn the herders and have vehicles move through the area to chase the lions away before cattle arrived. Without the collar, the lions would have almost certainly attempted to attack one of the herds, as ambushing animals as they come to drink is a classic lion hunting strategy. Saving just 1 adult cow has huge impacts, with a cash value of ksh 60,000 ($550) each. Ronnie waking up after the collaring. Photo by Tim Collins. Map showing Ronnie's most recent movements. The Collaring of Ian on Sosian In memory of conservation hero Ian Lemayan. Ian and Jasiri are another coalition of notorious livestock killers living in close proximity to people on ranches and within communities. The pair are true escape artists; slightly aggressive, extremely shy and very cunning. Over the course of the year, we have found them many times and been prepared to collar, only for them to disappear before a vet could be mobilised. There has been a lot of effort and resources used to collar one of these males. Besides Kenya Wildlife Service who is responsible for the collaring, it has taken two Lion Ranger teams (Sosian and Ol Maisor), plus Lion Landscapes’ Thomas Mojong working together to achieve this. The teams searching for Ian and Jasiri. Photo by Tim Collins. For once, all the stars aligned. After a 13 hour day, traversing through extremely tricky terrain of thick bush and rocks, and moving from one ranch to another, we finally managed to catch and collar one of the two males. He has since been named by Sosian’s donor as ‘Ian’ in memory of the late conservation hero Ian Lemayan. Captain Ian Lemaiyan sadly passed away in February after the aircraft he was piloting crashed in Nanyuki. Lion Ian before collaring. Photo by Tim Collins Collaring Ian would have not been possible without the true determination displayed by Dr Michael Njoroge and his team, who travelled from Samuru to Sosian at 4am after working late the previous day to save an elephant. They spent the whole day trying to dart Ian, eventually managing to dart him at 6:46pm, and moved on the next morning to help rescue a grevy’s zebra. We are incredibly thankful for all the dedication and continued hard work from KWS, Sosian, Mpala and all of our partners on the ground. Ian's recent movements on Ol Maisor Understanding the behavioural ecology and demography of lions Collaring lions is important for protecting livestock from lions, and preventing the retaliatory killing of lions. It is also important because it helps us to try and understand the behavioural ecology and demography of lions in the area. Collaring is not a solution on its own, however. Our teams continue to work hard on a daily basis to monitor lions using the collars, better protect livestock and mitigate conflict. To learn more about our research projects on young adult dispersal and energetics living in human-dominated landscapes, visit our Research page. Lion Landscapes. Stop the Loss. Reduce the Cost. Unlock the Value.