Introduction
The poaching of various high-value, and often endangered wildlife is an immense conservation challenge in the contemporary environment. Conservational efforts of many African megafaunas are further hindered by a variety of socio-economical issues, including political instability, economic strife, and a highly evolving and expanding international market for illicit wildlife products. This increase in poaching in recent years presents several severe and widespread adverse consequences.
African elephants and rhinos, which are both species that have epitomized relative success in conservation efforts, face a massive decline in number in the 21st Century due to poaching and illicit wildlife trade. Rizzolo et al. (2017) posit that a continent-wide survey of plains elephants returned that there was a significant 30% decline in population from 2007 to 2014, which was a loss of approximately 144,000 individuals. This corresponds to severe depletions of both white and black rhino subspecies, with the Northern White Rhino being declared functionally extinct (Kamminga et al., 2018). The last male Northern White Rhino, Sudan, died in captivity in 2018 (Peralta, 2018). The two species’ declines, of elephants and rhinos, are representative of the devastation to megafauna that poaching has.
Poaching often occurs within protected lands, despite the concerted efforts of governments and paramilitary poaching rangers. It is especially challenging to stop owing to a myriad of different reasons. However, among them is the fact that poachers often work in small teams, and being relatively local individuals, intimately know the landscape in which they are working (Rizzolo et al., 2017). This allows poachers to infiltrate protected areas without detection. Furthermore, most of the animal conservancies are relatively large, which means that any anti-poaching measures implemented should have the capacity to cover vast swathes of land, leading to gaps in protection. Finally, some animals, such as the male rhino, are often-solitary (Rizzolo et al., 2017). With the population so heavily dispersed, the simultaneous protection of each animal becomes extremely difficult.
Fortunately, however, new frontiers in technology provide novel ways to protect wildlife from the threat of poaching. Sensor data can be used to track animals within a protected conservancy, as well as monitor and provide real-time data on individuals who enter these locations while flagging suspicious activity (Chalmers et al., 2019). Furthermore, improved technology has significantly improved communication capacities, which allows rangers to sufficiently coordinate and execute protection protocols. However, perhaps the most effective approach against poaching would be the education of the populace on the adverse effects of the action (Holden et al., 2019; Gaodirelwe, Motsholapheko, & Masunga, 2020). This re-education, despite being a long-term strategy, eventually allows the general population to understand the ills of poaching, including subsistence poaching and will enable them to take proactive measures towards conservation efforts. Poaching is, inarguably, a very severe problem and there is the inherent need for the development of viable strategies to combat it for the sake of the planet.
Unmanned Systems
Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs)
Military technology has provided an unprecedented respite in the war against poaching. Chief among these technologies is the utilization of Unmanned Systems in the detection, deterrence, and response to poaching activities. Conservationists have passionately lobbied for the deployment of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) to combat the poaching crisis to enhance overall surveillance of protected areas, and the detection and pursuit of rhino and elephant poachers (Koster et al., 2016; Linchant et al., 2015). There is immense potential in the crucial roles that UAVs may have in the reduction of poaching activities.
Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs), colloquially referred to as drones, are aircraft systems that operate without the need of an onboard human pilot. They are a component of an Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS), which often consists of the UAV itself, a ground-based controller, and a series of communications between these two critical components (Bondi et al., 2018). UAVs may operate with varying degrees of autonomy, including semi-autonomous operation via remote control with a human operator, or autonomously by computer systems onboard the unit, or otherwise piloted by an autonomous robot (Bondi et al., 2018). Despite having initial military applications, UAVs have evolved to more commercial, scientific, agricultural, and recreational uses as well.
UAVs have specific inherent advantages and drawbacks in their application as an anti-poaching measure. There is widespread press coverage on the transformative nature of UAVs in the protection of wildlife resources. However, this information is often misleading, or thin on empirical evidence that the devices would function as required (Bondi et al., 2019). Understandably, UAVs are complicated, and reporters may not have sufficient technical competence to cover them. On the other hand, reports by manufacturers on the successful field implementation of UAVs are unsubstantiated with data, and the extent of this coverage rarely considers that the application of such a novel technology may be a stop-gap measure; that it is short-lived until such a time when the poachers realize the shortcomings of the UAS.
As a result of the inflated press coverage on the efficacy of UAVs in poaching deterrence, there may be confusion and development of unrealistic objectives on the field. In reality, many of the current UAV systems neither have the endurance to reliably monitor large swathes of land, nor the equipment to implement viable deterrents (Gonzalez et al., 2016). However, this is not mean that their potential and functionality are limited. One of the most significant benefits of the UAV is its ability to carry a wide range of modular payloads. Their modularity means that they are easily interchangeable to cope with a variety of operational conditions and requirements. For instance, infrared sensors can be used to detect human and animal signatures at night, magnetic sensors may detect the presence of weapons, strobes can illuminate poachers, and auditory sensors can detect gunfire, ascertain its origin, and determine weapon profiles (Hambrecht et al., 2019; Kamminga et al., 2018). This breadth of information can then be relayed to relevant authorities, and on-site rangers to deter poaching activities effectively. Overall, UAV technology is very promising in combating conservation crimes, but the expectations of such interventions should be firmly grounded in reality.
There are several highly promising implementations of UAV technology to combat poaching efforts. The most notable contemporary application is with AirShepherd, a conservation organization that has implemented drone technology in South Africa, Zimbabwe, Malawi, and Botswana to combat poaching. The company’s UAVs fly exclusively at night, featuring infrared payloads, and have achieved over 6000 flight hours interspersed over 4000 missions (Worland, 2018). AirShepherd drones employ Artificial Intelligence (AI) and have the revolutionary feature of flying for up to five hours and past the line of sight of its operator (Worland, 2018). The program has also posted relative success, with a marked decrease in poaching activity within the countries of operation.
Another promising implementation is the WWF Crime Technology Project. This is an undertaking funded by a USD 5 Million Google Global Impact Award that ultimately aims to implement technological innovations to halt conservation crimes (World Wildlife Fund, 2017). This multi-faceted program employs a suite of technologies that are used to primarily combat poaching, including UAVs, infrared ground sensors, virtual radar fences, and a ranger patrol analysis software program called SMART (World Wildlife Fund, 2017). These ventures are pioneering efforts into the potential widespread implementation of UAV technology in the war against conservation crime.
Unmanned Ground Vehicles (UGVs)
Further, there has been extensive interest in the applicability of Unmanned Ground Vehicles (UGVs) in the deterrence of poaching activities. An Unmanned Ground Vehicle (UGV) is defined as a vehicle that operates in contact with the ground, but without a human on board. They can, therefore, be used in many applications that would be inconvenient, impossible, or dangerous to have a human operator onboard (Chalmers et al., 2019). Often, the vehicle would have a suite of sensors that capture information about its operating environment and either allow the vehicle to autonomously make decisions influencing its behavior, or pass on this information to a human operator piloting it through teleoperation. A UGV is essentially a land-based counterpart of a UAV and is being developed for a range of military and civilian operations.
While the functionality of a UGV in poaching-deterrent operations may be severely compromised relative to UAVs due to their mode of operation, and the terrain on which they would be operating, they can play an essential part in conservation efforts. The primary advantage of a UGV is realized in the description of the ideal functionality of the technology. A UGV is employed in environments characterized by three D’s; dull, dangerous, and dirty (Chalmers et al., 2019). These environments are consistent with potential poaching grounds. They would not be ideal for a human operator but instead provide ample opportunity for the implementation of a semi-autonomous or autonomous UGV. Further, UGVs can be built as smaller, more inconspicuous models compared to vehicles that need to include crew compartments (Chalmers et al., 2019). This particular latitude allows them to be stealthier, and go places that human-crewed vehicles may not reach. Consequently, they can monitor poachers undetected, hide in smaller crevices, and be hander to identify and hit in the case of an altercation.
Furthermore, UGVs are generally capable of operating for much more extended periods than human beings or crewed systems can. For instance, for an autonomous UGV performing the role of a sentry, its endurance can be measured in days or even weeks, rather than hours (Chalmers et al., 2019). However, the UGV technology has several significant drawbacks in its implementation as well. Currently, UGV technology has not proliferated as much as UAVs, and hence the development and acquisition of such technology are still relatively expensive.
Finally, a semi-autonomous UGV bouncing over rough terrain gives data from its onboard sensors that are very hard to follow and may compromise its efficacy. Therefore, a completely autonomous implementation may be more suitable, but the integration with AI is much more costly. Given these significant drawbacks, there is a wider implementation of UAV technology with supplementary ground-based static sensors in many conservation efforts (Chalmers et al., 2019). As such, there is also a significant dearth of information regarding the field application of UGVs. However, it would reasonably follow that a UGV can carry very similar payloads as UAVs, including infrared sensors, a radar system, and auditory sensors. As a result, the functionality of UGVs would be highly similar to that of UAVs.
Poaching Prevention
Ultimately, modern technologies, including UAV and UGV systems, have enormous potential in combating conservation crimes such as poaching. However, the applicability and eventual functionality of such implementation may be ineffective in the long run, and the prevention of the problem in the first place. The Unmanned System, including the aerial or ground vehicle, the accompanying payload, essential ground equipment for launching and landing, communication systems, spare parts, and replacement batteries, and even personnel training, is just one minor component of a comprehensive anti-poaching strategy (Olivares-Mendez et al., 2015). Therefore, an Unmanned Aerial or Ground System (UAS/UGS) alone cannot stop poaching.
To adequately assess the efficacy and viability of a UAS or UGS in hindering poaching activity, it is essential to review the critical mission requirements for the implementation of such systems. This essentially asks what is being projected to be accomplished by deploying the UAS or UGS. Based on this mission, a decision framework can then be implemented to define the realistic specifications that the employed system should deliver on. There are three primary requirements of any UAS and/or UGS application for conservation reasons. These are for deterrence of poachers entering the protected regions, detecting poachers before, or during entry into the park, and finally to respond accordingly to poaching events and aid in the apprehension of the suspects (O’Donoghue & Rutz, 2016; Pajares, 2015). However, UAVs and UGVs address each of the concerns in an imperfect manner.
The utilization of UAVs and UGVs as part of an integrated platform to combat poaching has mixed results. Such an application may initially discourage perpetrators from entering the park under the illusion that the UAS or UGS has a high likelihood of detecting their ingress (Holden et al., 2019). However, unless the system significantly improves the possibility of their subsequent apprehension, the deterrence results will only be temporary. Furthermore, in instances where there are assertions that UAS and UGS have deterred poaching, it is essential to consider if this poaching cessation was due to apprehensions. If not, then this ideal scenario may not last. The efficacy of UAS or UGS in deterring poaching may only be assessed if there are recognizable results, such as successful detections or apprehensions.
A more viable, relatively inexpensive, and appropriate strategy would be the education of individuals on the adverse effects of poaching on conservation and subsistence efforts. There is a lot of misinformation, superstition, and maligned beliefs that consistently promote and sustain poaching activities. For instance, there is the widespread notion that powdered rhino horn has mystical healing properties and promotes sexual desire. Furthermore, elephant tusks provide ivory, which is carved for aesthetic purposes globally, despite its use and importation being banned in many nations. Finally, there is the widespread belief that lion claws, teeth, and vulture bones possess mystical qualities that are essential for many ancient rituals (Kamminga et al., 2018). As a result, most of the poaching carnage eventually heads to Asian countries, including China and Vietnam, and many western nations as well.
Many poachers, especially those in developing African countries, perform poaching activities as a form of subsistence. There are overarching syndicates that provide individual poachers with monetary compensation to perpetrate these acts against nature. As a result, many poor local individuals will conduct poaching to feed their families. As such, forceful deterrents would ruin the overall perception of conservation efforts in the local communities, and not provide any long-term reprieve against poaching. The desperation of many local poachers, who may be starving, also leads them to have little to lose. As a result, they care little about the dangers associated with poaching, and entire communities may be turned against conservation under the notion that conservationists care more about animals than people.
Therefore, non-violent educative interventions are ideal for the long-run eradication of poaching. High-value quarries like elephants, lions, and rhinos are big business, especially for economically deprived local populations with dire access to clean water and electricity and very little understanding and appreciation of wildlife. Such communities also have little capacity to leverage tourism-related employment, and therefore, the local wildlife is more valued dead than it is worth alive (Kamminga et al., 2018). The change of this perception is critical to ensuring that conservation efforts are sustained for the long term.
An essential prerequisite to educating these local populations is promoting the prioritization of conservation efforts. As earlier stated, economic deprivation means that priorities are on subsistence, rather than conservation. Individuals need land for their livestock and crops, which is also a crucial habitat required for wildlife to hunt and forage. As a result, wildlife may be seen as a hindrance to prosperity, and any efforts to cull them are appreciated rather than condemned by the local populace. Non-governmental organizations, statutory bodies, and local organizations should work to change these problematic dynamics. Conservation literature can be introduced in schools to foster wildlife appreciation in school-going children. At the same time, anti-poaching activism can be funded and otherwise supported by governments and institutional bodies, regardless of their respective fields. Educating the general populace to appreciate and conserve their local wildlife resources would generally work better to change ingrained perceptions than paramilitary responses.
Conclusion
In conclusion, as poaching is a multi-faceted operation, driven by socioeconomic factors, it is essential to employ a similar multi-faceted intervention strategy. UAVs and UGVs are very promising technologies that could be implemented to deter poaching activities. There are several contemporary scenarios where the application of these systems has resulted in anecdotal improvements in conservation efforts, such as the AirShepherd program. However, there is little quantifiable and empirical evidence to suggest that the cessation of poaching is directly attributable to the actual implementation of UAVs and UGVs, or rather the notion that such technologies would increase detection and subsequent apprehension. As a result, it is essential that any unmanned systems employed can significantly help with the apprehension of poachers if such a system is to be effective in the long run.
On the other hand, education interventions may have significant positive repercussions to the eradication of poaching and the promotion of conservation efforts in the long term. Such educational intervention would work to change the overall perception of conservation for entire communities by asserting that the value of wildlife is greater with living animals, rather than with dead ones. Further, this education would address the misinformation and maligned superstitions and beliefs that fuel the global illicit wildlife trade, which is a significant contributor to poaching. It, therefore, follows that the critical issue of poaching requires the implementation of both modern technologies such as UAVs and UGVs, and broad preventative approaches such as education to adequately eliminate it.
References
Rizzolo, J. B., Gore, M. L., Ratsimbazafy, J. H., & Rajaonson, A. (2017). Cultural influences on attitudes about the causes and consequences of wildlife poaching. Crime, Law and Social Change, 67(4), 415-437.
Holden, M. H., Biggs, D., Brink, H., Bal, P., Rhodes, J., & McDonald‐Madden, E. (2019). Increase anti‐poaching law enforcement or reduce demand for wildlife products? A framework to guide strategic conservation investments. Conservation Letters, 12(3), e12618.
Chalmers, C., Fergus, P., Wich, S., & Montanez, A. C. (2019). Conservation AI: Live Stream Analysis for the Detection of Endangered Species Using Convolutional Neural Networks and Drone Technology. arXiv preprint arXiv:1910.07360.
Olivares-Mendez, M., Fu, C., Ludivig, P., Bissyandé, T., Kannan, S., Zurad, M., … Campoy, P. (2015). Towards an autonomous vision-based unmanned aerial system against wildlife poachers. Sensors, 15(12), 31362-31391.
Pajares, G. (2015). Overview and current status of remote sensing applications based on unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs). Photogrammetric Engineering & Remote Sensing, 81(4), 281-330.
O’Donoghue, P., & Rutz, C. (2016). Real-time anti-poaching tags could help prevent imminent species extinctions. The Journal of applied ecology, 53(1), 5–10.
Linchant, J., Lisein, J., Semeki, J., Lejeune, P., & Vermeulen, C. (2015). Are unmanned aircraft systems (UASs) the future of wildlife monitoring? A review of accomplishments and challenges. Mammal Review, 45(4), 239-252.
Koster, J. N., Buysse, A., Smith, L., Huyssen, J., Hotchkiss, J., Malangoni, J., & Schneider, J. (2016). AREND: A sensor aircraft to support wildlife rangers. 57th AIAA/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural Dynamics, and Materials Conference, 1-21.
Kamminga, J., Ayele, E., Meratnia, N., & Havinga, P. (2018). Poaching detection technologies – A survey. Sensors, 18(5), 1474-1501.
Hambrecht, L., Brown, R. P., Piel, A. K., & Wich, S. A. (2019). Detecting “poachers” with drones: Factors influencing the probability of detection with TIR and RGB imaging in miombo woodlands, Tanzania. Biological Conservation, 233, 109-117.
Gonzalez, L., Montes, G., Puig, E., Johnson, S., Mengersen, K., & Gaston, K. (2016). Unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) and artificial intelligence revolutionizing wildlife monitoring and conservation. Sensors, 16(1), 97-115.
Bondi, E., Oh, H., Xu, H., Fang, F., Dilkina, B., & Tambe, M. (2019). Broken signals in security games: Coordinating patrollers and sensors in the real world. AAMAS, 1-3.
Bondi, E., Kapoor, A., Dey, D., Piavis, J., Shah, S., Hannaford, R., … Tambe, M. (2018). Near real-time detection of poachers from drones in AirSim. IJCAI, 5814-5816.
World Wildlife Fund (2017). Wildlife crime technology project. WWF. Web.
Peralta, E. (2018). Sudan, the world’s last male northern white rhino, dies. National Public Radio Inc. Web.
Worland, J. (2018). Drones are helping catch poachers operating under the cover of darkness. Time. Web.