Provide Details of resource rights regime where relevant
In 1969, Peru and Bolivia agreed to ban all hunting and sale of vicuña for a period of ten years. Later they and other range states agreed the Convention for the Conservation and Management of Vicuna (the Vicuna Convention; 1979), which provides in Article I for use of the species “for the benefit of the Andean people”.
Local people (e.g., individuals, communities, co-operatives)
Is the use part of a strategy to generate conservation incentives, to finance conservation, or to improve tolerance/stewardship?
Yes
Is there evidence that the use is affecting the conservation status of the species? HIDE
Yes – use is improving the status (e.g., population is increasing or stabilising, extraction effort OR catch per unit effort is decreasing or stable)
Is there evidence that the use is affecting natural selection?
Unknown/not recorded
Is there evidence that the use is affecting poaching of illegal wildlife trade?
Yes, positive (use is helping combat poaching or illegal wildlife trade)
populations have increased dramatically since this approach was first initiated (Fig 1). At a finer scale, population surveys available for community- managed areas over the last decade indicates that in most, populations continue to increase, although populations have slightly declined over this period in several (see Fig 2), due possibly to poaching, climatic factors, or stochastic fluctuations in generally stable populations.
Vicuñas have become an economic asset to local communities, rather than only a competitor for pasture with their livestock, motivating communities to carry out anti-poaching and protection activities.
Is there any evidence that this use of the species is having a knock-on effect on the status of non-target species
Yes, it is having a positive effect (e.g., reduced competition, reduced risk of hybridization)
Yes, positive (e.g., it increases / retains land area for conservation)
Yes, considered sustainable
Additional Details (if available)
There are broader habitat conservation benefits (including for some sensitive habitats such a peatland), and benefits for other flora and fauna.
Additional Details (if available)
There are broader habitat conservation benefits (including for some sensitive habitats such a peatland), and benefits for other flora and fauna.
Details of assessment carried out
use is described as "sustainable" several times in the record.
Has a valuation of financial flows from this use at the site/national/international level been recorded
Yes
Contribution to GDP
No
If financial benefits accrue disproportionately toward some actors, please explain why
Income from sale of vicuña fibre is distributed according as follows:
8% royalty payment to the government;
3% payment of tax on profits;
3% operational costs of marketing to ACOFIVB;
85% to benefit families in the communities.
Taking part in management and sustainable use of vicuna has also led to revitalisation of ancient traditions and local knowledge.
While the government officially owns vicuña, local communities have been given the legal right to use wild vicuna for shearing the fibre.
Vicuñas have become an economic asset to local communities, rather than only a competitor for pasture with their livestock, motivating communities to carry out anti-poaching and protection activities.
Has any assessment of socio-economic sustainability been recorded
No assessment recorded
Has the use of the species been recorded as resulting in changes to human health in this record?
Unknown/not recorded
Has the species in use been noted as being of particular disease risk to humans?
Unknown/not recorded
Has the use of the species resulted in changes to animal welfare in this record?
Unknown/not recorded
Are there particular practices which have increased the risk to human or animal health or welfare in the use of this species?
Unknown/not recorded
Does the use of this species increase susceptibility to pathogen spread?
Unknown/not recorded
Unknown/not recorded
Strong community governance/institutions/rights for wildlife management
Present
Supportive policy and legislative framework
Present
Adequate capacity to implement and enforce governance arrangements
Present
Good alignment of legal protections with local cultural values and traditional
Present
Support from NGOs
Present
Support from Government
Present
High financial returns from use
Absent
Abundant population of target species
Absent
Biological characteristics of target species
Present
Capacity building of community
Present
Establishment and implementation of species and/or area management plan
Present
Effective private sector approach engagement through certification
Absent
Good benefit-sharing mechanism
Absent
Good Market Strategies
Absent
Other Factors
There is no processing capacity in Bolivia – fibre is exported either to Argentina for processing (and then to Italy) or directly to Italy. Development of local processing might increase the economic returns to local communities.
CITES (2009) CITES & Livelihoods Case Study 2019: Harvest and trade of Vicuña fibre in Bolivia.
Vicuña populations were decimated in the middle decades of the twentieth century, suffering uncontrolled and indiscriminate exploitation for trade in fibre. There were no clear user rights at this time, so the population was effectively treated as an open-access resource.
In 1969, Peru and Bolivia agreed to ban all hunting and sale of vicuña for a period of ten years. Later they and other range states agreed the Convention for the Conservation and Management of Vicuna (the Vicuna Convention; 1979), which provides in Article I for use of the species “for the benefit of the Andean people”.
How many people or households are involved in the use?