Executive Summary

Given their indispensable role in preserving the global biodiversity upon which human well-being and sustainable development gains will depend, one might rightly wonder at the near total absence of information pertaining to ranger work prior to the undertaking of this study. The limited materials that did exist rarely included any feedback from rangers themselves. Things are different in this report, where we hear directly from 7,110 public-sector patrol rangers, surveyed at hundreds of sites across 28 countries.

Although a wide diversity of topics were addressed across the 197 questions contained in each survey, an analysis of results point towards certain themes that require urgent action from the governments that employ these rangers.

For many rangers the problems start early, with approximately one-third indicating that the training they received was inadequate to prepare them for the realities of their job. These findings clearly call for a thorough review and possible modification of training curricula, many of which are likely outdated or otherwise inadequate for the challenges faced by today’s rangers.

Concerningly, a slight majority of rangers believe that existing medical treatment was not adequate. This shows that more must be done to hasten the delivery of rangers to qualified medical professionals when the need arises – something that is worth further exploration by responsible government authorities.

Infectious diseases were also revealed to be a serious threat to ranger well-being, with a surprising 31 per cent contracting malaria within the prior 12 months, and 22 per cent contracting another disease or infection that required treatment. The fact that

THE SINGLE MOST OBVIOUS THREAD THAT RUNS THROUGH THE SURVEY COMPLETED BY PATROL RANGERS AT NEARLY 500 SITES IN 28 COUNTRIES IS THAT RANGERS ARE FACING EXCESSIVE SAFETY AND HEALTH RISKS THAT COULD BE SIGNIFICANTLY REDUCED WITH THE APPROPRIATE INTERVENTIONS.

a majority of rangers indicated that their shelter is inadequate may partially explain this. Relatively lowcost improvements such as ensuring the availability of mosquito nets and clean drinking water at outposts would almost certainly lower infection rates.

Currently only 32 per of those surveyed ‘often’ or ‘always’ had access to mosquito nets at outposts. Clean drinking water access at these locations scored a dismal 51 per cent, and this number sinks even further during active patrolling (43 per cent).

Inadequacy or non-availability of key equipment is another issue that puts rangers at risk. About half of respondents believed that even their most basic equipment (uniform and boots) is insufficient for the job they do – shortcomings that would be magnified given the substantial patrolling distances usually required for the profession.

The fact that 32 per cent of rangers surveyed stated that they never have access to communication devices during patrol should both shock and surprise. The inability to communicate information in real time makes an already dangerous job far riskier.

Especially in light of the many shortcomings outlined above, it is alarming that a considerable majority or rangers have no insurance coverage for either serious injury or on-the-job death. This not only puts rangers at considerable risk, but their families as well. Given the inherent danger of ranger work, anything less than full coverage should be deemed a major failure on the part of government employers.

Major problems around remuneration also appear to exist in the ranger sector, with the majority of survey respondents believing they are not paid a fair wage, and about one-third claiming they were paid late on at least one occasion during the prior twelve-month period. Further research published here also shows the ranger wages (which were roughly 300 USD per month on average) are far below that of police officers, who are likely the most comparable public sector group.

A second set of highly important survey findings begin at page 89 of this publication. They show results from the separate survey of more than 3,000 local peoples living in close proximity to sites where rangers were also surveyed. Overall, their perceptions of rangers were positive, at least in the two countries surveyed (expanding to further countries will be a major priority). The community feedback also revealed an overwhelming preference the be directly included in conservation action and decision-making. These results beg the question as to whether governments are collaborating with these local stakeholders to the appropriate extent, or doing enough to bring rangers and communities together in ways that would reduce future potentials for conflict.

The last section of the publication, starting at page 103, is based on research and analysis rather than survey data, but does much to situate ranger work in the broader context. These pages cover a rather diverse selection of issues and will likely provide different highlights depending upon the reader’s interests.

To close, it is worth acknowledging that the problems communicated to us directly by rangers in this publication will in many cases point us towards the necessary solutions. However, implementing these solutions will require strong political will, financial investment and efficient collaboration with the many organizations that have a stake in rangers, or conservation more generally.

This study gives a strong voice to rangers, and shares with us many of their most pressing challenges and concerns. It now falls on governments and their partners to answer the call.