The conservation of tigers and other wildlife in oil palm plantations

survival (Western, 1989). Consequently, various priority setting exercises and
conservation predictions are based upon the assumption that most species only
survive in ‘good’ habitat – areas with low or no human presence or high forest cover
for example. However, in reality, the distribution of species between wilderness areas
and human-dominated landscapes is not clearly defined. Primary rainforest, for
example, often does not hold the highest densities of terrestrial species since most of
the biomass is found in the canopy. Many species may prefer protected and therefore
non-degraded habitat, but if necessary prove to be highly adaptable at surviving in
sub-optimal habitats outside protected areas. Evidence of survival is scarce, possibly
because species coexisting with humans or under increased threat are far more
secretive and therefore more difficult to detect (Maddox 2002), or simply because
most research is focussed in areas where species survival is more obvious. However,
persistent coexistence has been demonstrated between man and even the most
unlikely of species outside protected areas (Maddox, 2002) and for some species,
survival rates can even be better in unprotected areas. This can be true for smaller and
medium carnivores, for example wild dogs (Woodroffe, Ginsberg and Macdonald,
1997) and cheetahs (Marker-Kraus and Kraus, 1994) which survive better outside coreprotected
areas by avoiding high densities of their predators (Creel, 1996). Other
species, such as large, wide ranging carnivores, may survive better in protected areas
but due to the limitations on protected area size, existing protected areas are simply
too small to encompass viable populations. For example, a conservation plan for
grizzly bears in the state of Idaho in the United States showed that 34% of the state
was required for a viable population (Shaffer, 1992, quoted in (Noss et al., 1996). Such
a large proportion of land could never be dedicated solely to conservation, thereby
necessitating work outside protected areas to allow species survival.
The importance of industrial landscapes
Whilst the importance of local communities and
their land in conservation is well established in
conservation theory, the importance of industrial
landscapes is often overlooked, beyond their role
in environmental damage. However, these
landscapes must be considered for several
important reasons. Firstly, the very fact that
industrial concessions can be a source of
environmental damage is reason in itself for
engagement, in an effort to reduce it. This
damage can either be direct, a consequence of
activities carried out on site e.g. pollution or
hunting; or indirect e.g. due to habitat loss or
disturbance. The indirect effects in particular are
thought to be key factors in the decline of various
species. Second, industrial land is usually located
in the most productive areas, for example most
industrial land in Sumatra is in areas that are or
were lowland tropical forest, which increases the
negative impacts and hence also increases the
importance of addressing these impacts. Thirdly,
areas under industrial management are often
under the control of a small number of people. This has the crucial advantage that if a
decision is made, change can be implemented relatively quickly, easily and in an
enforceable manner, in contrast to communal lands that require a consensus to reach
a decision and often lack the resources to enforce it once made. Fourthly, pressure is
increasing on companies to implement change as consumers around the world
become more and more aware of the importance of environmental problems and their
own ability to change things. Environmental issues, such as global warming, have
rapidly moved from a marginal position to central determinants of company policy,
and biodiversity conservation issues are moving the same way (F&C Asset
Management Ltd, 2004). Movements within the forestry sector towards sustainable
10 Wildlife conservation in oil palm plantations