Top predator conservation is nowadays one of the most challenging global conservation issues. Although these species play critical roles in the ecosystem, thus benefiting society (Gilbert et al., 2021), when their behaviour poses a perceived or real threat to people or animal species associated with humans, conflicts arise and predators are usually persecuted (Conover, 2001; Inskip and Zimmermann, 2009; IUCN, 2020). To protect top predators and biodiversity in general, two non-mutually exclusive forms of environmental governance have been mainly used: the bottom-up and the top-down approaches (Bennett and Satterfield, 2018; Redpath et al., 2017; Treves et al., 2017). Historically several human cultures around the world have used the bottom-up approach to restrict or regulate access to natural resources, although in the last half-century a government-managed, top-down approach, has predominated (Koprowski et al., 2019; Rodrigues and Micael, 2021). However, neither approach is a panacea in itself as both can have advantages and disadvantages depending on the geographic scale or the particular context in which they are applied (Koprowski et al., 2019; Western and Wright, 1994). Thus, a co-management among stakeholders (e.g. through a simultaneous application of bottom-up and top-down measures) has been taking force in the last years as the most effective way to manage human‒top predator conflicts worldwide (Killion et al., 2021; Redpath et al., 2017; Salvatori et al., 2021, 2020).

The management of human‒top predator interactions in developing countries usually poses additional challenges to those occurring in developed countries, such as limited funding, low institutional presence, and poor governance (Fletcher and Toncheva, 2021; Gaynor et al., 2016; Santangeli et al., 2019). Governance is a system composed of institutions, structures, and processes that determine who takes decisions, how and for whom decisions are taken, as well as what actions are taken, by whom, how and to what effect (Bennett and Satterfield, 2018). Poor governance at the country level, for instance, may lead to an increase in illegal use of firearms or poison to control predators or to an uncontrolled extraction of wildlife and other natural resources that could also affect top predators, including large raptors (Santangeli et al., 2019). Although the Global South supports a large diversity of top predators (McClure et al., 2018; Miranda, 2017; Ripple et al., 2014), unfortunately it also includes some of the areas most affected by poor governance (Gaynor et al., 2016). The Neotropical Region is the most biodiverse in the world but it is also the region with the largest number of threatened species (Allan et al., 2019; Gaynor et al., 2016). In this region, systems of environmental governance are more based on the top-down approach (Bennett and Satterfield, 2018; Redpath et al., 2017; Treves et al., 2017) than the bottom-up approach (e.g. Constantino, 2016; Schleicher et al., 2017). As such, access to natural resources by rural people is usually controlled by the government’s environmental authorities, sometimes with low social legitimacy, through regulations and top-down imposed laws. These laws, however, are poorly enforced due to a lack of environmental police officers and rangers, and by an inefficient judicial system, and thus are usually not effective in controlling human persecution of legally protected top predators (Barbar et al., 2016; Engel et al., 2016; Giraldo-Amaya et al., 2021; Morcatty et al., 2020; Restrepo-Cardona et al., 2020; Zuluaga et al., 2021).

To effectively manage human‒top predator conflicts in the Neotropics in the long-term, we need to consider the additional challenges of environmental systems with poor governance. The particular goal of environmental governance is to manage individual behaviours and collective actions in compliance with public environmental goods and related social outcomes through environmental management (i.e. the resources, plans, and actions that result from the functioning of governance; see Bennett and Satterfield, 2018). Some recent indirect evidence suggests the existence of a negative influence of poor governance at national and local levels on several human‒felid, human‒raptor, and human‒reptile conflicts in the Neotropics (Barbar et al., 2016; Estrada-Pacheco et al., 2020; Giraldo-Amaya et al., 2021; Miranda et al., 2016; Morcatty et al., 2020; Plaza and Lambertucci, 2020; Restrepo-Cardona et al., 2020; Zimmermann et al., 2021). Thus, to ensure persistence of top predator populations in Neotropical countries, we need to have more evidence about how poor governance is influencing human‒top predator conflicts across the region. This knowledge could be useful for governments and environmental agencies to improve top predator conservation and environmental governance (e.g. through a co-management with stakeholders; Redpath et al., 2017), and for local non-governmental organizations (NGOs) as well as the private sector (e.g. tourism agencies, productive associations, and others) to help with this process (Carter and Linnell, 2016; Redpath et al., 2013; Santangeli et al., 2019).

The black-and-chestnut eagle (Spizaetus isidori) is one of the most endangered top predators in the Neotropical region, requiring urgent conservation actions to mitigate the rampant human‒top predator conflict in which it is involved (BirdLife International, 2021; Buechley et al., 2019). A loss of this species would imply the loss of relevant and irreplaceable benefits that this bird of prey provides to the tropical Andean montane ecosystems and ultimately to society (Sekercioglu, 2006). With an estimated population size of less than 1000 mature individuals, this large raptor is globally listed as Endangered and therefore requires urgent conservation actions (BirdLife International, 2021). The species is threatened by habitat loss and particularly by human persecution in retaliation for domestic fowl predation (BirdLife International, 2021; Echeverry-Galvis et al., 2014; Lehmann, 1959; Restrepo-Cardona et al., 2020; Zuluaga et al., 2020a, 2020b). Socio-demographic variables, on their own, do not have an important contribution to explain tolerance towards this top predator (Zuluaga et al., 2021). However, poor governance, likely due to top-down coercive policies, also could be triggering discontent and environmental conflicts among stakeholders (i.e. human‒human conflicts) and thus worsening this human‒top predator conflict (Zuluaga et al., 2021).

Top predator detriments or benefits to people (perceived or actual) have already been extensively considered as important drivers of human tolerance in the human‒top predator conflict-to-coexistence continuum (Bruskotter and Wilson, 2014; Frank et al., 2019; Kansky et al., 2016; Restrepo-Cardona et al., 2020; Zuluaga et al., 2021). Despite that, to our knowledge, perceived top predator detriments or benefits (hereafter perceived contributions), actual top predator detriments (hereafter actual detriments), the top-down local management, and governance at the country level (hereafter country governance) have never been integrated into an empirical study of human‒top predator conflict. Here, we aim to understand how black-and-chestnut eagle’s perceived contributions, actual detriments, top-down local management and country governance affect the rampant human‒top predator conflict with this top predator in the Neotropics, in order to assess opportunities to advance towards top predator conservation. Our hypothesis is that people’s tolerance towards the black-and-chestnut eagle will vary with the species’ perceived contribution to people, species’ actual detriments, people’s support of the top-down local management, and the country governance. Based on corresponding earlier works, we tested the following predictions:

• 1

  Perceived contributions. Perceived top predator detriments or benefits to people have already been extensively considered as important drivers of human tolerance towards top predators (Kansky et al., 2016; Kansky and Knight, 2014). People perceiving only detriments of top predators (e.g. the black-and-chestnut eagle) will be less tolerant towards this top predator than those perceiving only benefits, detriments but also benefits, or neither detriments or benefits (Broekhuis et al., 2020; Struebig et al., 2018).

• 2

  Actual detriments. Livestock loss by predation of top predators has been regarded as one of the main drivers of low tolerance in human‒top predator conflicts (Inskip and Zimmermann, 2009; Zimmermann et al., 2010). People suffering losses of domestic fowl by the black-and-chestnut eagle will be less tolerant towards this top predator than those not suffering losses.

• 3

  Top-down local management. People disapproving of the local management of the government environmental authority (i.e. the functioning of the top-down local governance; Bennett and Satterfield, 2018) are usually more prone to be less tolerant towards top predators (Engel et al., 2016; Redpath et al., 2017; Struebig et al., 2018). While, when people approve of the local management of the government environmental authority, they will be more prone to tolerate top predators.

• 4

  Country governance. Human tolerance towards top predators is potentially influenced by country governance (Santangeli et al., 2019). Although Ecuador and Colombia are considered two countries with poor governance, Ecuador is ranked worse than Colombia (Kaufmann and Kraay, 2020). Therefore, we predicted that in Ecuador people will be less tolerant towards the black-and-chestnut eagle than in Colombia.

People’s tolerance towards the black-and-chestnut eagle was lower when they perceived the species as detrimental, received detriments, and when they disapproved of the top-down local management, however, each variable influenced human tolerance independently of each other as reflected by the additive structure of the best supported model. The best model consistently informed the people’s tolerance towards the species. More than a half of the people approved of the top-down local management, 7.5% did not have an opinion, and the rest disapproved of it. We recorded eagle poaching in most sampled nests, and across all the eight geographical jurisdictions of government authorities. Both the percentage of people perceiving only detriments and actual detriments generated by the black-and-chestnut eagle were higher in Ecuador than in Colombia.

Country governance was not retained in the best model (according to the model selection) although people in both countries had slight differences in their mean tolerance (Fig. 2). This lack of clear differences may be explained by the fact that both countries have poor governance with minimal distinctions between them (see Kaufmann and Kraay, 2020). They both also have similar disapproval of the top-down management at the local level, namely the environmental authorities with which farmers have to deal directly. Therefore, disapproval of predominant top-down local management may be influencing people’s low tolerance towards eagles and, consequently, affecting in the same way the high human persecution of this top predator in both countries. In fact, at least 30% of the local people in both countries disapproved of the top-down local management across all the governmental environmental authorities in which we conducted interviews. Furthermore, in one region in Ecuador the disapproval rate increased to 59% while in one in Colombia it increased to 100%. Because higher disapproval of top-down local management also means lower tolerance towards eagles and thus persecution, it is not surprising that black-and-chestnut eagles were extensively hunted in all the geographical jurisdictions studied in both countries.

Recent emerging evidence on human‒top predator conflicts suggests cautionary insights about generalisations of results and conservation measures (Dickman, 2010; Frank et al., 2019; IUCN, 2020). For instance, a recent study on the socio-economic drivers of human‒jaguar conflict across the Neotropics showed that each conflict case is probably unique and thus each requires particular solutions (Zimmermann et al., 2021). However, our study was not aimed at only considering socio-economic predictors (like Zimmermann et al., 2021) but also at evaluating the effect of broader policies shaping human‒top predator interactions (i.e. top-down local management and national governance; see Bennett and Satterfield, 2018; Lischka et al., 2018). Therefore, here we provide evidence about how the influence of perceived contributions, actual detriments, and disapproval of top-down local management on human‒top predator conflicts can be generalized at least to the studied populations of black-and-chestnut eagle of Colombia and Ecuador. We think, though, that each local socio-ecological context of the human‒black-and-chestnut eagle conflicts should be considered, to inform specific technical and cognitive conservation measures (e.g. Zuluaga et al., 2021).

As shown in several studies, in large areas of its northern distribution, the black-and-chestnut eagle suffers widespread persecution requiring urgent conservation and conflict mitigation actions (BirdLife International, 2021; Restrepo-Cardona et al., 2020; Zuluaga et al., 2021). People’s perceptions about the black-and-chestnut eagle as a potential poultry predator were higher than the actual harm the eagle caused through predation, suggesting that some underlying issues related to a human‒top predator conflict are present (i.e. perceived behavioural control, perceived risks, social norms; Dickman, 2010; Lischka et al., 2020; Thondhlana et al., 2020). As frequently suggested in recent times, it is clear that the use of tools from social and human behavioural sciences (e.g. conservation psychology and conservation marketing; Grande et al., 2018; Zuluaga et al., 2020b, 2020a) will be needed to change this disproportionate perception of predatory risk (Bruskotter and Wilson, 2014; Dickman, 2010). In addition, to tackling the conflict by working to analyse and discuss the gap between perceived and actual detriments, specific measures to reduce predation of poultry (actual detriments) will be needed. Among those, some suggested options include measures to increase poultry protection in the vicinity of rural houses such as through the construction of pens, fences or natural refuges that could facilitate the escape or refuge of poultry from flying predators, as well as the promotion of agroecological production (e.g. shade coffee, blackberry, sweet granadilla, fruit trees, alternative crops, etc.) that could diversify resources for farmers as well as to facilitate the escape or refuge of poultry (Restrepo-Cardona et al., 2020, 2019; Zuluaga et al., 2021). However, changing the species’ current situation should not only depend on local technical or cognitive interventions to mitigate the human‒eagle conflict (see Baynham-Herd et al., 2018) as has been suggested before (Restrepo-Cardona et al., 2020, 2019; Zuluaga et al., 2021). Our results indicate that we also need structural interventions to change the context to make the current governance systems more collaborative and inclusive (Baynham-Herd et al., 2018; Redpath et al., 2017). This structural intervention could be reached by changing conservation policy and practices towards more participative governance (i.e. bottom-up and co-management) where the application of measures from bottom-up and top-down can be better integrated depending on the local socio-ecological context (Redpath et al., 2017; Salvatori et al., 2021, 2020). This strategy has already proven effective in preventing deforestation and overhunting in the Neotropics (Constantino, 2016; Schleicher et al., 2017) and could also be useful in addressing the conservation of top predators in the region.

Under the current context of top-down local governance, the government-based conservation strategies attempting to persuade people to coexist with wildlife including top predators (i.e. environmental laws and workshops) are not sufficiently effective (see Barbar et al., 2016; Giraldo-Amaya et al., 2021; Morcatty et al., 2020; Restrepo-Cardona et al., 2020; Zuluaga et al., 2021). A strategy with bottom-up conservation and co-management would likely achieve better results. For instance, people in both countries had participated in a similar number of environmental workshops, however, our results indicate that participation in workshops does not affect the tolerance towards top predators or at least does not change the context of widespread hunting of top predators. Probably because these workshops are not effective in addressing all the factors that, independently, drive human‒top predator conflict. Therefore, by shifting the current context towards a governance system with more community-based conservation strategies (e.g. citizen science, participative conservation, wildlife friendly products, ecotourism), a better balance between the top-down and bottom-up local governance could be achieved, and environmental workshops could emphasize cooperation, negotiation, and dialogue (e.g. through knowledge dialogue, knowledge co-production, participative planning, among others). In this way, we could improve the trust and communication among stakeholders, and thus influence the local governance system to make it more effective in fostering human communities to coexist with top predators (e.g. Killion et al., 2021; Koprowski et al., 2019; Martin, 2020; Young et al., 2021). An important step in this direction is the Regional Agreement on Access to Information, Public Participation and Justice in Environmental Matters in Latin America and the Caribbean (i.e. the Escazú Agreement), however, despite entering into force on 22 April 2021 at least a half of the countries have not ratified it (CEPAL, 2021).

Surveying and modelling illegal human behaviors such as poaching of top predators is a challenging task due to the multiple factors involved (see Milner-Gulland et al., 2020; Nilsson et al., 2020). When dealing with interviews, there is always the risk that some interviewees will not answer truthfully, especially when talking about sensitive issues such as illegal killing of predators. We obtained evidence of black-and-chestnut eagle poaching in 59% of the sampled nests and in all the geographical jurisdictions assessed, both directly from poachers and indirectly (by triangulation among interviewees). However, we believe that this did not undermine our results because before to the interview we informed respondents that we would ensure their anonymity. Therefore, even if our data could underrepresent the true poaching pressure, our results are sufficiently worrysome (see above) to consider taking urgent actions in the study areas. Nevertheless, our data on the prevalence of poaching are limited to small areas around nesting sites on a long temporal scale (i.e. historical and current records of poached eagles), thus, comparisons with data obtained by other methods, on shorter temporal scales and/or on broader geographical scales must be made with caution (e.g. Zuluaga et al., 2021). On the other hand, in order to improve modelling reliability, we compared our mathematical hypothetical model with simpler models and more complex models considering interactions among variables. This allowed us to understand that the predictive variables consistently influence tolerance, and most likely poaching, independently of each other.

Low tolerance towards the black-and-chestnut eagle and high prevalence of human persecution will most likely happen when people perceive the eagle as detrimental, experience detriments caused by the eagle, and disapprove of the top-down local management, although these variables influence tolerance independently of each other. Thus, the widespread human persecution of this top predator in the context of disapproval of top-down local management, independently of the detriments perceived or received by rural settlers, suggests that negative effects of poor governance at the local and national level could also affect other human‒top predator conflicts in the region. Most Neotropical countries have similar poor governance with minimal differences among them (see Kaufmann and Kraay, 2020). In general, these countries have conservation strategies based on laws limiting the use of natural resources and protecting wildlife (including top predators), that are imposed by the government from a top-down approach (Dickman, 2010; Redpath et al., 2017) with poor or no contribution from the people actually living in close proximity to wildlife (i.e. with few or no contribution from bottom-up governance; but see Constantino, 2016; Schleicher et al., 2017). However, in most countries the proliferation of illegal firearms, poor presence of the authorities, and corruption precludes the effective application of top-down governance (Santangeli et al., 2019). Therefore, widespread human persecution to other Neotropical top predators such as the jaguar (Panthera onca), the cougar (Puma concolor), and the harpy eagle (Harpia harpyja), and scavengers like the Andean condor (Vultur gryphus) is also probably influenced by poor governance on the local, national, and regional scales independently of the perceived contributions of these species to people and the actual detriments received from them (e.g. Engel et al., 2016; Estrada-Pacheco et al., 2020; Giraldo-Amaya et al., 2021; Knox et al., 2019; Morcatty et al., 2020; Plaza and Lambertucci, 2020; Zimmermann et al., 2021; Zuluaga et al., 2021).

Poor governance and widespread hunting of top predators in the Neotropics will be difficult to change if all stakeholders are not willing to actively and collaboratively participate in wildlife conservation and implementation of effective management of conservation conflicts (Carter and Linnell, 2016). Thus, all stakeholders, at the local and national levels, need to work together to achieve long-term conservation goals of top predators in the Neotropics (e.g. Martin, 2020). For instance, environmental management agencies should encourage stakeholders to actively participate in community-based conservation across bottom-up collaborative initiatives (e.g. citizen science, participative conservation, wildlife friendly brands, ecotourism; Amit and Jacobson, 2018; Broekhuis et al., 2020; Huang et al., 2018; Koprowski et al., 2019; Ostermann-Miyashita et al., 2021; Panopio et al., 2021; Zuluaga and Echeverry-galvis, 2016). Additionally, NGOs must become catalysers of stakeholders’ active participation and promote changes towards more bottom-up collaborative governance structures to improve top predator conservation (see Redpath et al., 2017). Following this line of thought, the private sector can contribute with the introduction of tourism programs and innovative productive systems (e.g. agroecological farming and wildlife friendly brands; Crespin and Simonetti, 2021; Koprowski et al., 2019) which could diversify income sources, reducing the economic dependence on livestock (Fletcher and Toncheva, 2021). Scientific research institutes should conduct research and collect field data along with local people with the aim of catalysing participatory conservation planning (Panopio et al., 2021). These recommendations could make a significant structural change in the environmental governance systems and at the same time reduce detriments to people and improve people’s perception of benefits received from predators, thus, helping to more effectively conserve top predators in the vast wilderness landscapes of the Neotropics.

This study allowed us to understand how perceived contributions, actual detriments, and disapproval of top-down local management negatively affect a rampant human‒top predator conflict across two countries in the Neotropics. While social and human behavioural sciences will be needed to implement technical or cognitive interventions to change the disproportionate perception of predatory risk on livestock by top predators, structural changes in the governance systems (i.e. making it more participatory, reliable and transparent) will also be needed for improving the current context for top predator conservation in Neotropical countries. Our study is the first to provide direct evidence of the need for structural changes in the governance systems of the Neotropical Region, particularly at the local and country levels, to effectively save top predators. Given the similar poor governance among countries in the Neotropics, it is also likely that poor governance throughout the region is negatively affecting other human‒top predator conflicts independently of perceived or real detriments to humans. Several human‒top predator conflicts in the Neotropics are driving some species to the brink of extinction. Therefore, actions to save top predators in the Neotropics will be more effective if governance systems could be improved with a better balance between bottom-up (e.g. citizen science, knowledge dialogue, participative conservation, ecotourism) and the top-down (e.g. institutional presence, laws, control, sanctions) approaches. Otherwise, the direct persecution influenced by the widespread low tolerance of rural settlers towards top predators such as the black-and-chestnut eagle may wipe out top predators from vast extensions.

The authors have no financial or non-financial competing interests to declare.

Santiago Zuluaga: Conceptualization, Methodology, Software, Validation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Resources, Data curation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing, Visualization, Project administration. F. Hernán Vargas: Conceptualization, Writing – review & editing, Supervision, Funding acquisition. Sebastián Kohn: Conceptualization, Investigation, Writing – review & editing, Project administration, Funding acquisition. Juan M. Grande: Conceptualization, Writing – review & editing, Supervision, Project administration, Funding acquisition.