Abstract: We examined predation activity throughout Bhutan by tiger (Panthera tigris), common leopard (Panthera pardus), snow leopard (Uncia uncia) and Himalayan black bear (Ursus thibetanus) on a variety of livestock types using data gathered over the first two years (2003-2005) of a compensation scheme for livestock losses. One thousand three hundred and seventy five kills were documented, with leopards killing significantly more livestock (70% of all kills),
than tigers (19%), bears (8%) and snow leopards (2%). About 50% of livestock killing were of cattle, and about 33% were of horses, with tigers, leopards and snow leopards killing a significantly greater proportion of horses than predicted from availability. Examination of cattle kills showed that leopards killed a significantly greater proportion of smaller prey (e.g., calves), whereas tigers killed a significantly greater proportion of larger prey (e.g., bulls). Overall, livestock predation was greatest in summer and autumn which corresponded with a peak in cropping agriculture; livestock are turned out to pasture and forest during the cropping season, and subsequently, are less well guarded than at other times. Across Bhutan, high horse density and low cattle and yak density were associated with high rates of livestock attack, but no relationship was found with forest cover or human population density. Several northern districts were identified as 'predation hotspots', where proportions of livestock lost to predation were considerable, and the ratio of reported kills to relative abundance of livestock was high. Implications of our findings for mitigating livestock losses and for conserving large carnivores in Bhutan are discussed.

Abstract: One of the greatest challenges in biodiversity conservation today is how to facilitate protection of species that are highly valued at a global scale but have little or even negative value at a local scale. Imperiled species such as large predators can impose significant economic costs at a local level, often in poverty-stricken rural areas where households are least able to tolerate such costs, and impede efforts of local people, especially traditional pastoralists, to escape from poverty. Furthermore, the costs and benefits involved in predator conservation often include diverse dimensions, which are hard to quantify and nearly impossible to reconcile with one another. The best chance of effective conservation relies upon translating the global value of carnivores into tangible local benefits large enough to drive conservation “on the ground.” Although human–carnivore coexistence involves significant noneconomic values, providing financial incentives to those affected negatively by carnivore presence is a common strategy for encouraging such coexistence, and this can also have important benefits in terms of reducing poverty. Here, we provide a critical overview of such financial instruments, which we term “payments to encourage coexistence”; assess the pitfalls and potentials of these methods, particularly compensation and insurance, revenuesharing, and conservation payments; and discuss how existing strategies of payment to encourage coexistence could be combined to facilitate carnivore conservation and alleviate local poverty.