Abstract 986 – State of Knowledge about Human-Andean Bear Conflicts: Gaps and Opportunities to Inform Conservation Actions

Roxana Rojas-VeraPinto, Rubén Bernardo-Madrid, Manuela González-Suárez

Crop damage and cattle predation by Andean bears may pose a threat to people’s livelihoods.
This leads to negative perceptions about bears, and consequent retaliatory killing, which
hinders the conservation of this threatened species. Here we examine the severity of this
problem by summarizing the current knowledge regarding human–bear conflicts in South
America, examining the magnitude and spatial trends in conflict reporting as well as the
mitigation actions proposed. This research highlights the “Assess” component of the Species
Conservation Cycle. A systematic review was conducted using Spanish and English keywords to
collect scientific publications and gray literature published since 1980. From each source, we
compiled information on the locations, methodology applied, and characteristics of conflict
events. We identified 84 references reporting more than 400 individual conflict events in over
300 locations; of these, 34 references focused on conflicts with Andean bears, most of which
were from Ecuador and Colombia. The most common method used to collect data on conflict
events was interviews with local people and authorities; only 9 studies included primary
sources with detailed field inspections. It is apparent from this review that documentation of
human–Andean bear conflict events is very limited and incomplete. To identify actions to
address conflicts, we reviewed available conservation plans and conflict manuals (n=22 and 6,
respectively). Most conservation plans were from Colombia (n=11). Most plans and manuals
recommended improving monitoring conflicts events, promoting compensation programs, and
supporting better agricultural practices. Manuals for the recording of predation events (mainly
on cattle) offer a good guide to verify bear damage, but the short-term recommended solutions
(generally deterrents) have not actually been tested. Our review underscores multiple gaps and
opportunities for improvement in reporting human–Andean bear conflicts. We urge more
efforts towards adopting standardized protocols for conflict reporting, which can be done in
collaboration with others working in Andean bear research and management.