AND CONFERENCE PROCEEDINGS April 3 to 7, 2017 CONVENED BY: GLOBAL WILDLIFE PROGRAM (GWP) GABON’S NATIONAL PARK AGENCY (ANPN) REDUCING HUMAN-WILDLIFE CONFLICT AND ENHANCING COEXISTENCE ONFERENCE PROCEEDINGS April 3 to 7, 2017 CONVENED BY: GLOBAL WILDLIFE PROGRAM (GWP) GABON’S NATIONAL PARK AGENCY (ANPN) Contents I. Overview ............................................................................................................................. 1 II. Conference Participants ..................................................................................................... 3 III. Conference Format & Summary ......................................................................................... 5 Welcome, Introductions and Overview Presentations ........................................................ 5 Panel Session 1: Understanding Human-Wildlife Conflict .................................................. 6 Levels of Conflict ................................................................................................................ 7 Priorities of HWC Management .......................................................................................... 8 Panel Session 2- Understanding the multi-dimensional issues of human elephant conflict (HEC) .................................................................................................................................. 8 The six steps in developing community action plans for HWC management ................... 10 Panel Session 3: Leveraging decision support tools and techniques to assess HWC issues ............................................................................................................................... 10 Break-out Session 1 ......................................................................................................... 12 Panel Session 4 - Mitigation approaches to reduce HWC ................................................ 13 Panel Session 5: Financial instruments and livelihoods diversification options that promote co-existence ....................................................................................................... 14 Comparison of different financial mechanisms to reduce HWC ....................................... 16 Break-out Session 2 ......................................................................................................... 16 IV. Closing Ceremony ............................................................................................................ 18 V. Key Outcomes .................................................................................................................. 20 VI. Next Steps ........................................................................................................................ 20 Acknowledgements The Global Wildlife Program (GWP) would like to thank the Government of Gabon and the Agence Nationale des Parcs Nationaux (ANPN) for the strong collaboration in organizing the Reducing Human Wildlife Conflict and Enhancing Coexistence Conference held from April 3 to 7, 2017, in Libreville and Lopé, Gabon. We would like to acknowledge the excellent work of the conference organizing committee in Libreville led by Prof. Lee White, Executive Secretary of ANPN and supported by Stephanie Bourgeois, Roger Francois Azizet, Christian Tchemembela, Aimee Mekui Allogo, Augustin Mihindou, Lena Illama, Maurice Henri Tadjuidje, Jean Baptiste Mamang, Olivier Ondo Assame. We are very grateful to the members of the Kazamabika community for sharing their experiences on mitigating elephant conflicts. The conference succeeded at increasing the knowledge exchange, experiences and networking among all participants thanks to the dedicated attention and active involvement by government representatives, panelists and speakers, program steering committee members, representatives from non-governmental organizations and implementing agency staff members. Particular thanks are extended to Sebastien Le Bel for preparing the background paper and for summarizing the results of the conference so effectively. We also thank Nicole de Paula and Raul Abellan for capturing the conference through their creative lens. Finally, a big thank you to the World Bank team in Libreville and Washington D.C. The team included, Claudia Sobrevila, Salimata Follea, Elisson Wright, Romain Beville, Simon Robertson, Hasita Bhammar, Sunny Kaplan, Ana Maria Gonzalez Velosa, Aurore Simbananiye, Yesmeana Butler, Firmin Nkoghe, and Odilia Hebga. Photo credits Claudia Sobrevila/WB (Pages 1, 4, 9, 17), Elisson Wright/WB (page 2), and Kevin Ndong/WB (pages 5, 15, 19). I. Overview The Global Wildlife Program (GWP) is a seven-year Global Environment Facility (GEF)-funded program developed as a response to the growing crisis of illicit trafficking in wildlife. It consists of 20 national projects tailored to specific country needs and a global coordinating project. One of the key objectives of the GWP is to facilitate collaboration and the sharing of lessons learned, best practices, and use of innovative tools amongst the GWP countries. As a part of this objective, the GWP collaborated with the Government of Gabon’s National Park Agency (ANPN) to organize an international conference on Reducing Human Wildlife Conflict and Enhancing Coexistence. The Gabon conference was held in la Lope from April 3-6, 2017 and in Libreville on April 7, 2017. This topic is pertinent to many of the GWP countries, and is critical to the future of Gabon’s elephants and the local economy. It is the focus of Gabon’s US$ 9.05 million Wildlife and Human-Elephant Conflict Management Project funded by the GEF under the GWP. HWC is a serious threat to the survival of many endangered species and the security and sustainability of community livelihoods. Key drivers behind the escalation of HWC include human population growth, change in land use, habitat loss and fragmentation, weak governance of and increasing demand for natural resources, and in some cases due to increased conservation successes (i.e. increased wildlife population). This conference was designed to provide a better understanding of the drivers of conflict, different approaches and solutions to manage conflict, and help project teams design practical interventions to reduce HWC and promote coexistence. 1 2 II. Conference Participants A total of 76 participants attended the conference in la Lope in Gabon. Participants represented national governments from GWP member countries, GEF implementing agency staff, technical experts and participants from Gabon who represented various local and regional organizations, the private sector, academic institutions, etc. As shown in adjacent chart, the representatives included 18 GWP national government partners (24%) who shared HWC experiences and knowledge from their respective projects and countries; twenty panelists/ speakers (26%) who presented in various panel sessions and facilitated working group sessions; ten World Bank and UNDP staff (13%) who partner with governments to implement the national projects and the global GWP project (including communication and media production team), and more than 40 representatives from local, national and regional organizations in Gabon. The 18 national government partners that attended the meeting included representatives from Afghanistan, Botswana, Cameroon, Republic of Congo (2), Ethiopia, Gabon, Indonesia, Kenya, Mali, Malawi, Mozambique, Philippines, South Africa, Tanzania, Vietnam, Zambia and Zimbabwe. 3 4 III. Conference Format & Summary The conference was divided into two parts, from April 3 – 6, 2017, the conference was held in la Lope National Park and included panel sessions, working group discussions, and a field visit. The second part of the conference was held on April 7, 2017 in the Ministry of Water and Forests Auditorium in Libreville. This closing session included a presentation that summarized the key conference activities and presented recommendations to the Government of Gabon. It also served as the official launch of the US$9.05 million, Wildlife and Human-Elephant Conflict Management Project, executed by ANPN with implementation support from the World Bank. GWP Conference in la Lope National Park (April 3 - 6, 2017): The four-day conference agenda in la Lope included presentations, interactive activities and technical working sessions as summarized below. Welcome, Introductions and Overview Presentations In the evening of the first day (Monday, April 3rd), participants were welcomed by Prof. Lee White, Executive Secretary of Gabon’s National Parks Agency, Dr. Claudia Sobrevila, Global Wildlife Program Manager, WBG, and Dr. Jaime Cavelier, Senior Biodiversity Specialist, Programs Unit, Global Environment Facility. Prof. White unequivocally expressed the importance of elephants in maintaining the ecological integrity of Gabon’s forests and showcased two videos that captured Gabon’s rich forested landscape, the history of Gabon’s protected areas, and the mission of ANPN. He also 5 introduced three special participants, local women from the Kazamabika community living around Lope National Park, who shared their concerns over elephant conflicts that were perceived to cause immense distress over livelihoods, safety, and security. The Kazamabika residents expressed their gratitude to ANPN and the Government of Gabon for installing an electric fence as a mitigation measure to reduce the conflict. Following this, Dr. Sobrevila provided an overview of the GWP and its objective. She also presented the different components of the program and the background behind partnering with ANPN to organize this conference. Following the introductions, Dr. Sebastien Le Bel, Senior Researcher at the Agricultural Research for Development (CIRAD) presented on the findings of a background research paper commissioned by the World Bank and ANPN on the Strategy and Innovative Solutions for Improving Human-Wildlife Coexistence. The paper will include approximately 20 case studies from Asia and Africa and 70 preventive approaches and mitigation solutions that have been adopted to reduce HWC. Dr. Sebastien’s presentation provided the participants a comprehensive view of HWC – the drivers, causes, direct and indirect impacts, as well as the need to understand the underlying context of HWC, collect and analyze relevant data, temporal and spatial dynamics, before considering mitigating solutions. Dr. Le Bel also emphasized the need to recognize the needs and expectations of stakeholders, and that it is important to also enhance the social carrying capacity for living with wildlife. Finally, Dr. Le Bel highlighted some potential avenues of innovation that stakeholders can explore to enhance the understanding of HWC, improve mitigations, and knowledge sharing. Panel Session 1: Understanding Human-Wildlife Conflict This session defined key human-wildlife conflict (HWC) concepts and provided an overview of the drivers leading to increased conflict. Presentations included lessons learned in managing HWC, examples from different species and countries, and the social dimension of the problem. The moderator for this session was Dr. Alexandra Zimmermann, Chair of IUCN Species Survival Commission Task Force on Human Wildlife Conflict, who opened the session with a presentation to set the stage for the discussion. Session 1 panelists included:  Dr. Amy Dickman, Research Fellow, WildCRU  Mr. Omer Ntougou, Executive Secretary, RAPAC  Dr. Solomon Mombeshora, Senior Lecturer in Development Studies, Women’s University in Africa The panelists emphasized that HWC is:  Highly complex: Underlying causes of HWC are often embedded in wider issues of social change, including resource conflicts, culture, identity, etc. 6  Driven by political and socio-cultural factors: Key HWC drivers include access to and ownership of land, crossing of nature and cultural boundaries, habitat loss, poverty, poor environmental governance and climate change.  Multi-leveled: 1) dispute (an obvious loss; 2) underlying level of conflict (losses + it’s a recurring issue); and 3) deep-rooted conflict (loss + a recurring issue + social identity or value is threatened.  Manageable: Conflict can be managed if communities are engaged and can influence the process of implementation of solutions. In addition, effective landscape spatial planning is essential to maintaining a minimum wildlife habitat and the use of a combination of tools and techniques can help anticipate and prevent emerging conflict. Levels of Conflict Source: Canadian Institute for Conflict Resolution, CICR (2002); Zimmermann, McQuinn & Macdonald (2014); Madden & McQuinn (2014) Before designing solutions, it is important to determine which of the three levels of conflict is present. Successful HWC solutions should be based on: 1) practical/feasible interventions at the site where conflict occurs; 2) a thorough understanding of the underlying culture and context; and 3) a participatory approach that gets communities to internalize and adopt the strategy. Further, communities that have influence in and ownership of wildlife management have a greater carrying capacity, tolerance levels, and ability to cope with wildlife conflicts. Engagement of regional partners can facilitate the exchange of lessons learned and best practices and enhance technical capabilities of various stakeholders. 7 Priorities of HWC Management Understand Develop the socio- landscape- political level solutions context Adopt Anticipate and participatory prevent approaches to emerging community conflict management Preserve a minimum of habitat Panel Session 2: Understanding the multi-dimensional issues of human elephant conflict (HEC) This session focused on HWC land use strategies and policies specific to elephants, and provided an overview of the root causes of HEC incidents. Dr. Sumith Pilaptiya, Ph.D, Federation of Environmental Organizations, Sri Lanka, moderated the session and opened with a brief presentation. Panelists included:  Dr. Alexandra Zimmermann, Chair, IUCN Species Survival Commission Task Force on HWC  Dr. Martin Tchamba, General Engineer of Water, Forests and Hunting Head of Department of Forestry, Cameroon  Mr. Mihindou Mbina Augustin, DGFC / DGFP Focal Point, Ministry of Forests (jointly with Ms. Aimee Mekui, DGA FAP). 8 Key points from this session related to:  Strategic framework: o Elephant management must be an integral part of the project planning process (prior to environmental impact assessments) and internalized into development projects. Elephant habitat types, carrying capacities, conflict zones (hotspots), and land uses must be well understood before planning for development projects to proactively manage HEC. o Sustainable wildlife corridor management is essential to support protected area networks  Tactical approaches: o Identification of the root-cause of what is attracting the elephant(s) to a certain area is critical, as it allows for management of the source rather than translocating problem elephants. The Sri Lanka example showed relocation does not work in the medium to long term as elephants find their way back to the source region o Instead of fencing protected areas (PAs) and overcrowding it, fence the area where the problem is likely to occur (in Sri Lanka – 70% of elephants range outside PAs). o Community involvement and investments in community livelihoods derived from wildlife is critical to the success of HWC mitigation approaches. 9 The six steps in developing community action plans for HWC management Panel Session 3: Leveraging decision support tools and techniques to assess HWC issues This session continued on the themes introduced in Panel Session 2 and highlighted tools and techniques that are used to assess HWC issues. The session provided an overview of the Food 10 and Agriculture Organization (FAO) HWC toolkit and long range planning resources used to facilitate national and regional planning that can minimize potential for HWC. The moderator for the session was Mr. Jean Claude Nguinguiri, Community forestry expert, Roma, FAO. The panelists included:  Ms. Ilama Lena, Responsible for Forests, FAO  Ms. Martha Bechem, CITES MIKE Sub Regional Support Officer for Central and West Africa  Mr. Rob Ament, Senior Conservationist at The Center for Large Landscape Conservation; Road Ecology Program Manager at Montana State University. Key considerations from this panel included:  Leverage available tools: Various tools and innovative technologies (i.e. FAO HWC Toolkit, KoBoCollect, SMART, ranger-based monitoring systems, etc.) exist and can help assess HWC related issues and potential mitigations  Analyze various social-economic factors: Poaching is directly correlated to site level factors such as poverty, human infant mortality, and food security. These factors should be considered in decision making. In addition, factors outside of the impacted geographical area such as increased demand for wildlife and wildlife products also influence poaching.  Implement a landscape approach o Integration of a system of protected areas into the wider landscape creates room for corridors and buffer areas and increases the availability of resources for sustainable land management. o Project planning should start with the principle of avoiding development in known habitats. If this is impossible, then decision makers should consider options that minimize the potential for conflict, mitigate the conflict and finally, compensate for any loss. o Land-use planning with the input from farmers offers the best chance of overall, long- term success of HWC management.  Adaptive management: o Adaptive management allows for evaluation of needs, performance, and introduction of new tools and techniques that are best suited for the local situation o Diversification of mitigation interventions enables communities to effectively address root causes of HWC and proactively protect assets. 11 Break-out Session 1 One of the key objectives of the GWP is to promote knowledge exchange between experts and national project representatives. The objective of this session was to explore panel sessions 1-3 in more detail and engage directly with technical experts and colleagues to discuss potential approaches and techniques to integrate what was presented into national projects. The working groups allowed the GWP national project representatives to discuss the HWC challenges they face, how they are addressing them through their GWP project interventions or related efforts, and seek input from experts and colleagues to help them develop optimal interventions or otherwise enhance ongoing activities. The GWP representatives received some real time feedback and shared general lessons learned. A summary of the key points presented at the end of the working session included:  Stakeholder engagement: o Engage stakeholders at all levels and follow a multi-stakeholder approach to assessing and solving HWC o Successful HWC mitigation measures requires capacity at the community level to facilitate effective natural resource management  Mitigation: o Several countries are considering the establishment of compensation funds. o The importance of environmental education, advocacy and training was unanimously agreed to be an importance cross-cutting theme across all mitigation strategies o In some cases, it is important to establish a national working group/task force. o Creative solutions and participatory methods that align incentives with wildlife conservation performance (i.e. camera trapping carried out by communities)  Prevention: o Legislation and enhanced land use planning at the local and national level are critical to avoiding HWC. ♦ Policy changes must look at wildlife ownership; community level governance; incorporate community needs (costs and benefit sharing) as well as ensure quality data and mapping. ♦ Integrate HWC strategies into national/provincial comprehensive plans (i.e. include HWC strategic framework in zoning and local governance/comprehensive national plans)  Leverage decision-making tools to communicate/report on HWC data collected - Data collection (both on HWC issues as well as ecological issues) is critical to ensure 12 interventions are informed by research, and working together with research institutions to find hotspots. Countries showed interest in leveraging the FAO toolbox and other technologies  Interest in learning from other countries (e.g. Congo could learn from successes and failures of Gabon)  Promote community based natural resource management to engage and empower communities. Country-specific issues, tools currently used, and interventions were discussed and used as a reference for general recommendations. Panel Session 4: Mitigation approaches to reduce HWC This session focused on the various preventive and mitigation techniques used worldwide to reduce HWC. The panelists for this session included:  Dr. Richard Hoare, Co-chair of IUCN AfESG/HECWG  Mr. Steeve Ngama, Research Associate, IRAF  Mr. Martin Hega, WCS Gabon  Mrs. Lea Larissa Moukagni, ANPN  Mr. Roger Azizet, Head of Service Peripheral Zones, ANPN, Government of Gabon.  Key considerations presented in this panel session included:  HWC management strategies are more successful when they engage communities and link wildlife benefits and problems into one program (i.e. community based natural resource management (CBNRM))  Key principles to mitigate HWC: o Instead of killing problem animals, it’ s important to stop them from reaching their targets o Less elephants do not equal less HEC: ♦ Killing problem elephants does not solve the core issue of why the problem exists in the first place. It might help community members feel secure but only until the problem arises again. ♦ It has no effect on other elephants’ behavior. ♦ Problem elephants eventually habituate to mitigation measures and avoid them ♦ Translocation is expensive and it does not solve the problem, it merely moves it to another area or region. 13 o HWC cannot be eliminated, it can only be reduced thus, it is important to prioritize measures aimed at people since they understand the problem. Measures that focus on the problem animal will not change HEC incidences from occurring. o The perception and attitude of local community is important since opportunity costs are difficult to measure. Sometimes, the perception of the problem is the actual problem. o The "cost" of HWC is borne by individuals or households but the benefits from CBNRM accrue communally.  Preventive and mitigation approaches that serve dual purposes of keeping the conflict animal away from an area as well as providing supplementary monetary benefits to local people such as apiculture have proven to be successful in regions across Gabon and could be replicated in other parts of the world  There are many potential solutions and mechanisms available to consider to address HWC, which vary in terms of costs (i.e. bee hive fence vs. electric fence) and effectiveness. Be site specific.  Monetary compensation is difficult and costly to administer and sometimes, prone to corruption Panel Session 5: Financial instruments and livelihoods diversification options that promote co-existence This session provided an overview of the different principles, guidelines and features of funding, insurance, compensation schemes, and incentive programs targeting communities that are affected by HWC. The moderator for this panel session was Mr. Paul Harrison, UNDP GWP Focal Point and the panelists included:  Dr. Amy Dickman, Research Fellow, WildCRU  Dr. Shafqat Hussain, Founder, Project Snow Leopard. Key considerations presented in this panel included:  “No silver bullet”: o Compensation seems like an easy fix but it does not solve the core of problem of the conflict. Insurance and revenue sharing schemes are also not ideal, although there are examples such as the compensation based on insurance worked in the Project Snow Leopard in Pakistan, as it was designed and managed locally by a small and tightly-knit community. 14 o A hybrid approach that combines various mechanisms through payment to encourage coexistence (PEC) may help to overcome some of the limitations of more traditional compensation schemes. o Implementation of some financial schemes may face challenges that include fraudulent claims and elite capture. In addition, it may not increase tolerance or have a direct conservation impact, etc. Thus in considering financial schemes, it is important to consider all these factors and explore how best to help communities economically, and link payments to conservation outcomes.  Differences in distribution of costs and benefits of wildlife o Local costs are incurred to general global benefits: Local communities are subsidizing the cost of wildlife while the benefits go to the global community. o For any scheme to be sustainable, financing from those that benefit from wildlife (the international community) must be continuous and sufficient to offset local costs imposed by wildlife, and seen as fair and just by local people o Poor local communities should not be expected to pay for living with wildlife o Providing other services such as healthcare, education, etc. can help motivate communities to maintain mitigation approaches for long term sustainability.  Education, awareness, and analysis - communications and capacity building helps to build understanding and tolerance, and integration of social sciences can also help to identify root causes of issues. Greater understanding of the food habits of carnivores (i.e. domestic livestock) can help to identify likely causes of conflict with local inhabitants and targeted solutions to minimize losses. 15 Comparison of different financial mechanisms to reduce HWC Compensation Revenue Conservation Combined Insurance Sharing Payments PEC scheme     Targets specific individuals most affected Reduces direct costs of wildlife presence         Provides additional local revenue linked to wildlife     Avoids moral hazard and perverse incentives *    Not reliant upon significant additional external funding  **   Payments specifically linked to conservation outcomes     Likely to have a positive impact on human poverty * Community insurance schemes usually require less external funding than pure compensation ** Involves some link to conservation, as they need to maintain revenue-generating populations, but payments are usually not specifically linked to conservation outcomes. Break-out Session 2 The objective of this session was to explore panel sessions 4 and 5 in more detail and engage directly with technical experts and colleagues to discuss potential approaches and techniques to integrate into national projects. The participants were divided into five groups. The question posed to the group was “What insights did you learn today that you can take back to your project teams?” and “What are your future knowledge needs within the HWC topic?” For the first question, participants understood and discussed:  Each country has unique issues and within a country there are regional differences. Thus, HWC strategies will need to be different.  To build national policy, the lead agency dealing with HWC should bring together different ministries, and sectors  Communities that are victims of HWC don’t choose to take these risks. If a person is taking a risk voluntarily, they accept the consequence more willingly 16  In many countries, significant amount of tourism fees was being used for community development projects  Compensation schemes should be looked at more cautiously  Conduct feasibility studies (i.e. translocation options for problem elephants and/or impacted villagers) and assessing local level mechanisms before implementing HWC strategies  Relieve pressure on high pastures by reducing number of livestock by increasing awareness through education through team volunteers (public awareness in schools and local villages)  Assess local level mechanism options to support HWC reduction efforts in hotspots. Regarding future knowledge event topics within HWC, representatives mentioned:  Spatial and land use planning  Cross-border management  Options for enhancing social carrying capacity  Development of case studies, scientific research on ecology in order to understand the problem and understand wildlife behavior  International conventions and treaties  Entrepreneurship training and alternative livelihoods creation  How to maintain databases with the possibility of processing and analysis data  Creation of an online forum to continue the discussions  Field visits to learn from approaches that are reducing HWC incidents. 17 IV. Closing Ceremony The outcomes of the conference were presented by Dr. Claudia Sobrevila and Dr. Sebastien Le Bel at the Ministry of Water and Forests in Libreville where other ministers, government officials, donors and the press were invited. The following key points were summarized:  Complexity of Human-Wild Conflicts: it is important to understand what is happening and recognize that there is no simple solution. In most places, it is an evolving phenomenon that has complex social, temporal and spatial dynamics as well as a historical dimension. One has to look at the underlying root causes (human-man conflicts) and the needs and expectations of wildlife, zones of conflict at risk and seasons and human community conditions.  Spatial Dimension: It is important to zone the major risk areas (mapping social and environmental constraints), support land use plans as a mitigation strategy, allow scale change (from pilot to landscape scale) and the maintenance of corridor connectivity.  Social Dimension: Recognize that community involvement takes time, commitment and real involvement is essential, clear necessity to apply a positive framework (i.e. tenure, legal framework, governance, adapted techniques, tangible benefits, administrative support), promote co-management for the reporting of HWC and for the implementation of mitigation strategies and; help control problem animals.  Overall steps to improving HWC: o Improving understanding of HWC ♦ Map hotspots ♦ Propose a common set of indicators ♦ Facilitate the collection and transfer of information (mobile phone) o Improving mitigation at the local level (Local ↔ Global) ♦ Clarify what is permitted by law ♦ Distribute affordable tools (E-Toolkit) ♦ Assess the effectiveness and sustainability of tools (R & D) ♦ Link action to observation (feedback) o Improving training ♦ Promote demonstration sites in hot spots 18 ♦ Strengthen teaching structures (SA Wildlife College (RSA), Garoua Wildlife School (CAM), Mweka (TZ), Wildlife Institute of India ...) ♦ Expand E-learning // MOOC (IUCN - PAPACO) / / Pachyderm o Improve communication and knowledge sharing ♦ Disseminate information through knowledge sharing platforms ♦ Organize awareness-raising campaigns Final Recommendations:  No miracle solution: recognize the importance of combining solutions and engaging stakeholders  Need to address the problem globally and at various levels (vertical and horizontal)  Importance of a detailed analysis of the causes of the conflict, importance of the social dimension of HWC,  For long-term management of HWC we need: o Government support (national - local). o Clear rights and uses (at local, regional and national level. o Strong community involvement. o Consideration of wildlife resources in land use planning The Minister of Water and Forests, the honorable Ms. Estelle Ondo formally launched the US$ 9.05 million “Wildlife and Human-Elephant Conflict Management Project “, that is part of the GWP program. Ms. Salimata Follea (WBG) and Mr. Olivier Ondo (WHEC Project Coordinator) also presented on the importance of this project and highlighted the key project components. 19 V. Key Outcomes The key outcomes of the La Lope Conference  Official launch of Wildlife and Human-Elephant Conflict Management Project (US $9.05 million)  Dr. Sebastien Le Bel, CIRAD, presented HWC paper findings, which include lessons learned from approximately 20 HWC national case studies  GWP identified the need and initiated discussions on potential ways to explore: o Collaboration with IUCN HWC Task Force to promote exchange of knowledge and experiences o Support to conduct study tours (Kenya-India on compensation and insurance; Gabon – Sri Lanka on elephant corridors and landscape planning)  Enhanced participant understanding of the complexity and multi-sectoral issues related to HWC. Details will be shared through conference proceedings and related knowledge products VI. Next Steps The GWP will distribute the conference videos captured in Gabon. In addition, GWP will publish and disseminate the HWC background paper upon completion of the peer review process. The GWP will support conference participants in their efforts to debrief on the resources and results of the conference with colleagues in their countries. The GWP team will also explore the potential to continue the knowledge exchange started in Gabon through development of a virtual a knowledge exchange platform. The GWP will share information and lessons learned through Box and explore additional opportunities to collectively meet in person, virtually, and to conduct field visits. 20 A GLOBAL PARTNERSHIP ON WILDLIFE CONSERVATION & CRIME PREVENTION FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT www.worldbank.org/global-wildlife-program Contact: gwp-info@worldbank.org