16
AWF Working Papers Human Wildlife Conflict: Lessons Learned From AWF's African Heartlands July 2005 Philip Muruthi, Ph.D.

AWF Human Wildlife Conflict paper.pmd

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: AWF Human Wildlife Conflict paper.pmd

AWF Working Papers

Human Wildlife Conflict: Lessons Learned FromAWF's African Heartlands

July 2005

Philip Muruthi, Ph.D.

Page 2: AWF Human Wildlife Conflict paper.pmd

The African Wildlife Foundation,

together with the people of Africa,

works to ensure the wildlife and

wild lands of Africa will

endure forever.

www.awf.org

Page 3: AWF Human Wildlife Conflict paper.pmd

Arusha Center (Tanzania)African Wildlife FoundationPlot 27, Old Moshi RoadP.O. Box 2658ARUSHA, TANZANIATel: +255 27 2509616Fax: +255 27 2544453email: [email protected]

Nairobi Center (Kenya)African Wildlife FoundationBritak CentreMara Ragati RoadP.O. Box 48177, 00100NAIROBI, KENYATel: +254 20 2710367Fax: +254 20 2710372email: [email protected]

Kampala Center (Uganda)African Wildlife FoundationRuth Towers15A Clement Hill RoadP.O. Box 28217KAMPALA, UGANDATel: +256 41 344 510Fax: +256 41 235 824email: [email protected]

Washington D.C. Center (U.S.A.)African Wildlife Foundation1400 Sixteenth Street, N.W.Suite 120WASHINGTON, D.C. 20036, U.S.A.Tel: +1 202 939 3333Fax: +1 202 939 3332email: [email protected]

White River Center (South Africa)African Wildlife FoundationP.O. Box 2977WHITE RIVER 1240,SOUTH AFRICATel: +27 13 751 2483Fax: +27 13 751 3258email: [email protected]

Zambezi Center (Zambia)African Wildlife Foundation50 Independence AvenueP.O. Box 50844RidgewayLUSAKA, ZAMBIATel: + 260 1 257074Fax: + 260 1 257098email: [email protected]

About This Paper Series

The AWF Working Paper Series has been designed to disseminate to partners and the conservation community,aspects of AWF current work from its flagship African Heartlands Program. This series aims to share currentwork so as to provoke discussions on whats working or not and how best conservation action can be undertakento ensure that Africas wildlife and wildlands are conserved forever.

About the Author: Dr. Philip Muruthi is the Director of Conservation Science in AWF based in Nairobi Kenya.

This paper was edited by an editorial team consisting of Dr. Helen Gichohi, Dr. Philip Muruthi, Prof. JamesKiyiapi, Dr. Patrick Bergin, Joanna Elliott and Daudi Sumba. Additional editorial support was provided byKeith Sones.The writer acknowledges the contributions of Heartland Coordinators - Fiesta Warinwa, Jef Dupain,Paul Ole Ntiati, Dr. Henry Mwima, Jimmiel Mandima, Dr. Simon Munthali, Dr. James Kahurananga, EugeneRutagarama and Adam Henson.

Copyright: This publication is copyrighted to AWF. It may be produced in whole or part and in any form foreducation and non-profit purposes without any special permission from the copyright holder provided that thesource is appropriately acknowledged. This publication should not be used for resale or commercial purposeswithout prior written permission of AWF. The views expressed in this publication are the authors and they donot necessarily reflect those of AWF or the sponsor of this publication (DGIS).

For more information, please contact Daudi Sumba, the coordinating editor at email [email protected] photo: Elephant speared by community members outside Amboseli National Park (credit SoilaSayialel, Amboseli Elephant Research Program).

Page 4: AWF Human Wildlife Conflict paper.pmd

AWF Working PapersJuly 2005

Human Wildlife Conflict: Lessons Learned from AWF’s African Heartlands

1

page 2

page 3

page 3

page 8

page 9

page 9

page 11

page 11

Table of Contents

Introduction

Human Wildlife Conflicts in AWF Heartlands

Approaches to Managing Human Wildlife Conflicts

Winning Hearts and Minds

The Need for Policy Harmonization

Lessons Learned and Way Forward for AWF

What Works Well to Alleviate Human Wildlife Conflicts

References

Page 5: AWF Human Wildlife Conflict paper.pmd

AWF Working PapersJuly 2005

Human Wildlife Conflict: Lessons Learned from AWF’s African Heartlands

2

Human Wildlife Conflict: Lessons from AWF’s African Heartlands

Introduction

In the developed world potentially dangerous megafaunahave largely been exterminated as a result of the spreadof agriculture, growth of human populations andincreased urbanisation – and often a deliberate attemptto do so. In much of Europe, for example, species suchas wolves that once roamed widely across the continenthave been eradicated along with the habitat in whichthey lived; tiny remnant populations cling on in a veryfew remote, sparsely populated areas. In Britain the lastwild wolf – the island’s only large carnivore – is believedto have been killed in 1743. And even in 2005, theNorwegian government approved the killing of five ofthe country’s twenty remaining wolves to protect sheep(Kirby, 2005).

In Africa large numbers of big mammals, includingseveral hundred thousand wild elephants and more than20,000 lions, still roam freely, particularly in rangelandareas. The pastoralist people who live in these regions,and the agropastoralists and other settled small and large-scale farmers and their families who live around theirperipheries, all have to cope with theconsequences: damage to and destructionof crops, livestock predation, competitionfor grazing and water, increased risk ofsome livestock diseases, variousinconveniences – such as loss of sleep dueto protecting crops at night – and evendirect threats to human life. As humanpopulations rapidly increase (thepopulation in African came close totripling in the four decades from 1960)and settled agriculture spreads to moremarginal rangelands, conflict betweenwildlife and people inevitably increases.

In many of AWF’s African Heartlands1 (seemap) much of the wildlife lives outsideprotected areas; for example, across thecontinent, 80% of the elephant’s range isoutside such areas. This raises afundamental question: is it reasonable toexpect people, many of them amongst thepoorest on the planet, to co-exist with

wild animals such as large predators, elephants andherds of antelope, to absorb the ensuing economic lossesand tolerate the inconveniences and threats to lives andlivelihoods that can result? Many conservationists wouldargue co-existence is possible, even desirable, and indeedthat if properly managed the presence of wildliferepresents an opportunity, a possible escape route frompoverty. But this puts the onus squarely on thoseresponsible for the management of wildlife to put inplace policies and measures that at least reduce thethreats posed by wildlife and preferably enable localpeople to reap benefits – such as revenues from wildlife-based tourism enterprises. Without such policies andmeasures in place, local people will, understandably,often take action to defend their interests – even theirlives - including harassing and killing wild animals. Someof these species are endangered, others keystone species,and so the repercussions of such local direct actionscan be felt at national and international levels.

Conf lict between people and wildlife todayundoubtedly ranks amongst the main threats toconservation in Africa - alongside habitat destruction

1 Current AWF Heartlands are Lopori Wamba,Kazungula, Kilimanjaro, Limpopo, Maasai Steppe,Samburu, Virunga and Zambezi

Page 6: AWF Human Wildlife Conflict paper.pmd

AWF Working PapersJuly 2005

3

Human Wildlife Conflict: Lessons Learned from AWF’s African Heartlands

and commercially motivated hunting of wildlife tosatisfy the demand for bush meat - and represents a realchallenge to local, national and regional governments,wildlife managers, conservation and developmentagencies and local communities (Kangwana 1993,Conover 2002, Treves and Karanth 2003).

The aim of this paper is to:• Stimulate reflection and discussion on the issues

surrounding human-wildlife conflict• Document human-wildlife conflict in AWF’s

Heartlands• Provide an overview of measures which have

been applied to mitigate conflicts betweenpeople and wildlife

• Provide references that can provide moredetailed information

• Summarize the lessons learnt• Suggest what AWF should be doing to address

human-wildlife conf lict in its AfricanHeartlands.

Human-Wildlife Conflict in AWF Heartlands

Conflicts between human and wildlife have beenextensively documented in the various AWF Heartlands,including: Samburu (carnivores: Ogada et al. 2003,Frank 1998; elephants: Thoules 1994, Thoules andSakwa 1995; and other animals: Ogada and Ogada2004), Kilimanjaro (elephants: Kangwana 1993, Kikoti2000; carnivores: Rainy and Worden 2003), MaasaiSteppe (elephants: Foley 2002, carnivores: Kissui 2004)and Virunga (mountain gorillas: Mcfie 2003, Woodfordet al. 2002; buffalo: MacFie 2003). In some areas cropdamage by wildlife is perceived as a major problem facingfarmers; it threatens to undermine conservation anddevelopment efforts in the northern districts ofZimbabwe (mid Zambezi Elephant Project 2002).Within the Zimbabwe portion of the ZambeziHeartland, elephants are estimated to be responsiblefor up to three-quarters of all crop damage caused bywildlife. An exception is the Limpopo Heartland wherelittle human-wildlife conflict has been reported butwhere most of the wildlife areas are fenced (Munthali,personal communication).

Human-wildlife conflicts can have adverse impacts onwildlife and humans alike. In Kilimanjaro Heartland,Muruthi et al. (2000) found that in 1996 and 1997 atleast 15 elephants, representing three-quarters of thelocal population’s mortality, had been killed in conflict

situations with local people. Between 1974 and 1990,one third of elephant mortalities (141 of 437 deaths) inthe Amboseli ecosystem were caused by people, forexample through spearing (Kangwana 1993). The mainproblems in the Kilimanjaro Heartland are crop damage,competition for water and grazing, killing of livestockand risk of disease transmission, and human fatalities.In semi-arid areas in general, where livestock productionconstitutes a major part of local livelihoods, high levelsof conflict can occur between livestock owners and wildcarnivores due to predation.

In Virunga Heartland, habitat destruction and humanpopulation growth mean that the mountain gorilla andother forest animals, such as elephant and buffalo, areincreasingly coming into contact with people, oftenleading to conflicts. The impact on local people, manyof whom are subsistence farmers, can include economicdevastation through destruction of crops, living in astate of fear, inconvenience, and danger to life and limb(Macfie 2003). For mountain gorillas, interactions withlocal people are a source of stress, can result in thetransmission of human diseases, and can lead to directphysical attacks, disabilities such as loss of limbs fromsnares, and even death: 18 mountain gorillas were killedbetween 1996 and 2003 in Virunga and Bwindi(Woodford et al. 2002).

Nearly all species of wild animals are capable of inflictingdamage, although large potentially dangerous species,those that gather in large groups, and those that aremost wide ranging are more likely to cause problemsthan smaller species with restricted ranges. In theSamburu Heartland, Ogada and Ogada (2004)documented the species of wildlife responsible for killinglivestock and reported that such deaths were due to:lions (35% of reported deaths), leopard (35%), hyena(18%), baboon (4%), elephants (3%), buffalo (2%), wilddog (2%) and cheetah (1%). Generally, detailedinformation on economic losses due to human-wildlifeconflicts is lacking for the AWF Heartlands.

Approaches to Managing Human-WildlifeConflicts

There are two basic approaches to managing human-wildlife conflicts: prevention and mitigation. A ratherdifferent approach is represented by changing attitudesto wildlife through education and by ensuring thataffected communities and individuals are activeparticipants in, and enjoy tangible benefits from, wildlifemanagement.

Page 7: AWF Human Wildlife Conflict paper.pmd

AWF Working PapersJuly 2005

Human Wildlife Conflict: Lessons Learned from AWF’s African Heartlands

4

Preventive Measures

Measures that can prevent or minimise the risk ofconflicts arising between people and animals includethe extreme one of completely removing either thepeople or the animals, physically separating the two bythe use of barriers, managing by a variety of means thenumbers of animals to reduce the risk of conflict, andemploying a variety of scaring and repelling tactics.

EradicationIn the past local people were removed from large tractsof land when these were formed into national parksand other protected areas. Eradication of animals suchas lions, leopards, elephants, buffalo, rhino and thelarger species of antelope has been undertaken in thepast over large areas of Africa, such as the former whitefarming areas in the Kenyan Highlands and large partsof South Africa. Today, wildlife managers, landownersand traditional land-users in Africa still sometimesdeliberately kill species that they consider represent athreat – ranging from elephants to quelea - with a viewto reducing the population, or even locallyexterminating that species. Methods used include varioustypes of traps and snares, hunting with dogs, shooting,roost sprays, poisons and the deliberate introductionof diseases – the latter tried, unsuccessfully, againstintroduced rabbits in Australia. In some instances,eradication of large carnivores has been linked to sportshunting and in others to systematic widespreadelimination by trained agents (Treves and Naughton-Treves 1999).

Today it is generally considered unjustified to attemptto eliminate entire populations of animals unless thosetargeted are an exotic alien species. Where eradicationis attempted, it is desirable to use properly trained staffto minimize impacts on non-target species and ensurethe process is humane. Illegal persecution of predators,including poisoning, shooting and trapping, is perhapsthe greatest threat to these species in AWF Heartlandstoday.

Although killing animals can reduce human-wildlifeconf lict, the relationship is rarely straightforward.Population reduction often results in an increase in birthrate, a decrease in other causes of mortality, and anincrease in immigration of naïve animals into the area.Managers must also be aware of, and mitigate against,the possible consequences of eradicating certain speciesfrom a locality. These include upsetting ecosystemfunction and dramatic changes in the populations of

other species. A phenomenon called ‘mesopredatorrelease’ can arise, for example, when small to medium-sized carnivores proliferate following removal of largecarnivores (Crook 2002). Similarly, profound changesto the local flora and landscape can occur as a result ofeliminating elephants. Consequently, eradicationattempts have a mixed record of success, in part due tolack of adequately understanding the species’interactions with its environment and the naturalresources valued by humans.

Managing the Size of PopulationsFalling short of total eradication, there are a number ofapproaches to managing the size of the population toreduce the risk of human-wildlife conflict arising. Theseinclude selectively killing animals as well as controllingtheir reproduction.

Regulated HarvestingIn many regions of the world, wildlife species and thedamage they can cause are managed by regulatedharvesting or cropping. A policy of sustainable harvestneeds to include some means of scientifically monitoringpopulations, using methods sensitive enough to detectsignificant declines. The programmes should haveprescribed, enforceable limits on the number and typeof animals that can be harvested, as well as on thetiming, location and methods of hunting, and allowfor the distribution of benefits, such as meat, tostakeholders. Regulated hunting placed in the hands oflocal people can increase tolerance for potentiallydangerous wild animals such as carnivores. Bycombining regulated hunting with preservation tactics,wildlife managers can optimize political, economic andecological priorities.

Regulated harvests of wildlife species occur in severalAWF Heartlands. To date, their impact on alleviatinghuman-wildlife conflict has not been documented byAWF but it would be desirable to assess the impact ofsuch measures.

Fertility ControlAs an alternative to killing animals, their fertility can becontrolled as a means of limiting their populations.Fertility control of wild animals can, at least in theory,be achieved by a variety of mechanical, surgical,endocrine disruptive or immunocontraceptive methods.One problem limiting many such methods is thedifficulty of administering drugs to or capturing free-ranging animals. Contraception as a wildlifemanagement tool is still largely at an experimental stage;

Page 8: AWF Human Wildlife Conflict paper.pmd

AWF Working PapersJuly 2005

5

Human Wildlife Conflict: Lessons Learned from AWF’s African Heartlands

attempts to utilise immunocontraceptive methods inelephants began in Kruger National Park in 1996 (Butler1998) but to date have met with little success. A similarproject attempted in the Samburu Heartland (KenyaWildlife Service unpublished report) was abandonedin its early stages following a change of seniormanagement at Kenya Wildlife Service and differencesin opinion as to the potential effectiveness of such anapproach.

Exclusion by Use of Physical BarriersExclusion of wild animals by use of physical barrierscan, in many situations, be an effective method ofsettling human-wildlife conflicts. If they are properlydesigned, constructed and maintained, fences can becompletely effective in preventing conflict betweenpeople and wild animals. The major factor limiting thewider use of wildlife fences is their cost. This will varydepending on many factors among them topography,type of fence and the species it is designed to contain;the 3.3 metre-tall, electrified fence currently beingconstructed around Aberdare National Park in Kenyacosts on average US$20 per metre.

Fences to exclude elephants and other wildlife fromhuman settlements, cultivated areas and livestock areasare in use in all Heartlands. Stone walls have been usedto exclude buffalo from invading cultivated areas inVirunga Heartland. Trenches and moats have been usedto keep elephants from cultivated areas withconsiderable success. The fencing-in of the cultivatedareas of Kimana and Namelok in Kilimanjaro Heartlandhas significantly reduced levels of crop damage (Musilaet al. in preparation). In Samburu Heartland, Ogada etal. 2003 reported that fences and modifications oftraditional stockades significantly reduced livestockpredation. However, predator-proof barriers requiremore maintenance than normal livestock-proof ones.Exclusionary devices are also used for stopping mammalsfrom destroying trees – for example to stop elephantsfrom destroying the few remaining acacia tress inSamburu National Reserve. Whatever their nature,exclusionary devices are most appropriate wheneffectiveness is more important than cost, and whenthe human-wildlife conflict is expected to persist forthe foreseeable future.

Fear-Provoking StimuliFear-provoking stimuli, be they visual (such asscarecrows), auditory (such as exploders, bangers, anddistress calls) or olfactory stimuli (used to repelpredators) have all been applied to resolve human-

wildlife conflicts. Though widely used, these methodsface a common problem because the animals soon learnthat they pose no real threat and then ignore them.Traditional methods such as chasing, lighting fires atthe edge of fields, beating drums and throwing objectsat animals also face the same problem of habituation.A method commonly used by wildlife authorities isdisturbance shooting, that is firing shots over the headsof crop raiding wild animals, but this too becomes lesseffective over time.

A variety of fear-provoking stimuli are applied in AWFHeartlands but their effectiveness has not beendocumented. Kangwana (1993 and 1995) observed thataround Amboseli National Park elephants tend to avoidMaasai people and their livestock when resources arenot scarce but that incidence of elephants being harassedand speared by people increased during the dry seasonas competition for water intensified.

Guarding Crops and LivestockWatchtowers that provide good vantage points, builtaround fields of crops, increase the farmers’ chances oftheir being alerted to the presence of potentially harmfulwildlife before damage has occurred. Simple alarmsystems, using string and cowbells or tins, can also beeffective and avoid the farmer having to be alert all nightlong. Dogs can be effective in protecting homesteadsand livestock from attack by predators. Donkeys havealso been used in many parts of the world, includingagainst cheetah in Namibia, to protect flocks of sheepand goats from predation.

Chemical RepellentsAnother way to alter animal behaviour with the goal ofresolving human-wildlife conflicts is the use of chemicalrepellents. Area repellents are designed to keep wildlifeout of an area, contact repellents are attached or sprayedto a food item and systemic repellents incorporatedwithin the food plant or item. Chemical repellents havebeen used in some of the AWF Heartlands includingpepper sprays to deter elephants in Zambezi Heartland(Osborn 2002). The experimental use of conditionedtaste aversion, however, at Loisaba Ranch in SamburuHeartland failed to reduce livestock predation(Forthman-Quick 1999). The Mid Zambezi ElephantProject has championed the use of grease and an extractof hot chillies mixed together and applied to string.The idea was that, when an elephant touches the string,the chilli extract caused irritation to the animal. Anothermethod used to deter elephants is to burn elephantdung mixed with ground chillies to produce a noxious

Page 9: AWF Human Wildlife Conflict paper.pmd

AWF Working PapersJuly 2005

Human Wildlife Conflict: Lessons Learned from AWF’s African Heartlands

6

smoke that can persist as a deterrent for up to fourhours.

While the use of chemical repellents to deter elephantshas shown some promise (www.africanow.org; Osborn2002), conditioned taste-aversion has not beensuccessful and is currently not being used in any of theHeartlands. There is a need to look for chemicalrepellents effective against African carnivores as lithiumchloride, though effective against coyotes in the USA,has not proven to be effective (Forthman-Quick et al.1985).

Use of DiversionA less commonly used approach is the use ofdiversionary tactics – providing an alternate source offood or water in an attempt to lessen competition withpeople for crops or water sources. Successful use ofdiversionary fields to reduce crop damage has beenreported in USA (Conover 2002). The main drawbackis that wildlife numbers can increase over time, due toimmigration, reproduction and enhanced survival, forexample when diversionary food is provided whennatural foods are scarce. Stopping a diversionprogramme might even result in higher levels of damagethan before. No examples of the provision of alternatefoods have been encountered in any of the AWFHeartlands.

Provision of alternative water sources to wildlife speciesto reduce conflict with people is practiced in a few AWFHeartlands. In Kilimanjaro Heartland, AWFrehabilitated the water supply at Imbaringoi in 2004to serve the livestock and people in the KitiruaConcession Area and prevent livestock from going tothe Amboseli National Park in search of water. This hashad the immediate effect of reducing encountersbetween livestock and wildlife in the Park andconsequently reduced the level of conflicts in the area.With AWF co-financing, a water project wasrehabilitated in the Archer’s Post – Kalama area ofSamburu Heartland in 2004 to supply water tocommunity areas, to create separate drinking points forwildlife and livestock, and to help boost the tourismpotential of the community areas. One of the projectaims is to reduce competition between livestock andthe endangered Grevy’s zebra (Equus grevyii) for whichthe Samburu Heartland is a stronghold.

Landscape Management and Land-Use ModificationHuman-wildlife conflicts can be reduced, perhaps insome cases totally prevented, by implementing changes

to the natural resource that causes the conflict or to itssurroundings. This can be achievable by altering theresource itself, the way it is managed, modifying theresource’s habitat, or making changes to the surroundinglandscape. This can include planting crops that are lesspalatable to wildlife, such as substituting chillies formaize (www.africanow.org), changing the timing whena crop is planted or harvested, altering animalhusbandry practices to reduce risk of predation anddesigning and building predator-proof livestock bomas(stockades). Damage by wildlife can be reduced bymaking changes near the resource so that the problemwildlife is more vulnerable to predation, easier to spotby people and dogs, and generally less at ease in thearea. For example, a livestock keeper can remove thickcover from near animal holding areas. Small islands ofcrops scattered across a wildlife inhabited landscape aremore vulnerable to destruction than those that areclustered together. A landscape approach to reducinghuman-wildlife conflicts might therefore involve growingcrops in large communal fields with straight edges, fencesor thorny or spiny hedges, and also removing nearbycover and habitat for wildlife.

The long-term solution to human-wildlife conflict willoften lie in better planning of land-use in problem areas.AWF has begun to address this issue through facilitationof landscape-level land-use planning. Participatory land-use planning and zoning exercises facilitated by AWFhave been undertaken in several Heartlands. InKilimanjaro Heartland, participatory natural resourcemanagement (NRM) planning has been undertaken forthe Elerai and Kitirua Community Conservation Areasin Kenya and the Enduimet Wildlife Management Areain Tanzania. The Kitendeni Wildlife MovementCorridor, between the plains and Kilimanjaro Forest,has been secured with AWF support (www.awf.org). InSamburu Heartland, NRM planning has beenundertaken for several community lands (see Kiyiapi2003) and implementation of these plans is nowprogressing. Maasai Steppe Heartland’s Manyara Ranchis a good example of AWF’s success at securing a crucialhabitat allowing wildlife to move between protectedareas and thereby reducing the human-wildlife interface.Additionally, AWF-supported research in Maasai SteppeHeartland has contributed significantly to conservationmeasures. As a result, approximately 6,000 hectares hasbeen zoned for conservation and the total conservationconcession is now 13,500 hectares representing asignificant portion of the elephant range in northernLolkisale Game Control Area (Foley 2002).

Page 10: AWF Human Wildlife Conflict paper.pmd

AWF Working PapersJuly 2005

7

Human Wildlife Conflict: Lessons Learned from AWF’s African Heartlands

AWF has declared securing such land for conservationas a primary focus of its conservation interventions inall Heartlands and implementation of this policy willhelp alleviate human-wildlife conflict. AWF is currentlysecuring land for conservation through variousmechanisms including formation of trusts, easementsand direct purchases. In Kazungula Heartland, Zambia,AWF facilitated the development of community landtrusts which will manage community lands in additionto mitigating human-wildlife conflicts.

Mitigation Approaches

Although prevention is clearly the best option, at timesreactive approaches are required after human-wildlifeconflicts have occurred. The main approach under thisheading is Problem Animal Control (PAC), most oftenundertaken by the national wildlife authority. The‘problem animal’ can either be killed or captured fortranslocation.

Lethal PACIn lethal control it is obviously desirable to focus onthose individuals actually causing the problem (theculprits) or at least to target the group of animals whosehome range includes the site where the problem isoccurring. In reality, often the problem animal is notidentified, but rather any individual is killed to satisfythe demand for action and revenge by the aggrievedcommunity – especially in the case of loss of human lifeor the killing of livestock. In such a situation the actionby the wildlife authority rangers may have publicrelations value but in all probability the culprit willsurvive and continue to inflict damage. The author isaware of some initial attempts to identify ‘problem-elephants’ in Kilimanjaro Heartland during the 1997dry season in a collaborative effort between AWF, KenyaWildlife Service and the Amboseli Elephant ResearchProject. However the success of the programme was notassessed and elephants killed during PAC interventionsmay or may not have been the culprits. Generally,shooting a problem animal is believed to be the bestway to show the others to stay away, but it is oftendifficult for wildlife managers to obtain permission toshoot an animal quickly, thus making killing the culpritvirtually impossible. Problem Animal Control isespecially difficult when endangered species areimplicated – in that case translocation may be apreferable option.lyal. method used in PAC isdisturbance shooting (firing shots over raiding wildlifespecies) but this becomes ineffective

TranslocationTranslocation has been used to remove individual animalsresponsible for depredations and also, in some cases, toreduce populations in specific areas by removingrelatively large numbers of animals. Translocation canbe an appealing method to the general public, especiallythose who are particularly concerned about animalwelfare, as they perceive that it gives the affected animala second chance at a new site. Unfortunately the realityis often not so positive and translocation can be acontroversial means of resolving human-wildlifeconflicts, associated with a number of problems (forexamples see Conover 2002). It is quite common fortranslocated animals to return to the site from wherethey were originally captured. In Kilimanjaro Heartland,a leopard was trapped and moved several times intoAmboseli National Park before finally being shot by theauthorities after it became a habitual livestock killer inthe nearby Kimana area (personalobservation).Following translocation, immigration ofnew animals may occur to take advantage of emptyterritories, so that the problem can persist. Thetranslocated animals can also recreate the same problemat their release site. Translocation is also a riskyprocedure and it is normal for a proportion oftranslocated animals to die either due to the stress ofcapture, or soon after release. Translocated individualscan also endanger a resident population throughintroduction of disease or they may destabilise apopulation through increased competition for territoryor food. Translocated animals have also been shown tohave lower than usual reproductive and survival rates(Conover 2002).

For species such as large carnivores and elephants thereneeds to be a large area, up to hundreds or thousandsof square kilometres, without potential for conflict withpeople, where the individuals can be released for thestrategy to work (Stander 1990). If no such areas exist,management efforts should concentrate on reducingpotential conflict, and if this is not practical, the onlyoption left is lethal control for repeat offenders. Thecost-effectiveness of translocation has also beenquestioned but this option is probably warranted if thespecies concerned has a high conservation value, itcontributes towards the success of a re-introductionprogramme, or if public concerns outweigh otherconsiderations.

Wildlife translocation to resolve conflicts has beenpracticed in AWF Heartlands to varying extents butthere is very little documentation of whether or not

Page 11: AWF Human Wildlife Conflict paper.pmd

AWF Working PapersJuly 2005

Human Wildlife Conflict: Lessons Learned from AWF’s African Heartlands

8

conflict was reduced and conservation goals achieved,and the fate of translocated individuals is oftenunknown. Several elephants were moved fromSweetwaters Sanctuary in the Samburu Heartland toMeru National Park following increased levels of conflictwith neighbouring farmers in the late 1990s. While theconflicts were presumably reduced, the translocatedelephants did not do well at first and, unfortunately,monitoring was terminated after only one year for lackof resources and so the ultimate fate of the animals isunknown.

Winning Hearts and Minds

The third approach to dealing with human-wildlifeconf lict involves changing the attitude of affectedcommunities through education, consolation paymentsand broader sharing of benefits associated with thepresence of wildlife.

Compensation and Benefit SharingAn approach popular with communities adverselyaffected by wild animals is payment of compensation inthe event of loss. This approach is usually confined to aspecific class of loss, for example livestock killed byelephants or predators. The schemes are often fundedby a conservation organisation, although governmentschemes also exist. All are designed to prevent theaffected communities taking direct action themselves,which would have usually involved hunting down andkilling the individual elephants, lions or other speciesinvolved. Although compensation schemes meet thedemand of local people to be financially compensatedfor the loss, they have their own problems. They aredifficult to manage, requiring for example reliable andmobile personnel on the ground to verify claims. Theycan also be expensive. In the case of a pilot compensationscheme introduced by a voluntary conservation group,Friends of Nairobi National Park, to compensate Maasailivestock owners in the event of predation by the Park’slions, leopards or cheetah, the scheme proved tooexpensive to continue. A similar privately fundedscheme operating in Amboseli National Park tocompensate Maasai herders in the event that elephantkill livestock, for example at water holes during the dryseason, has proved to be more affordable and sustainablebecause such occurrences are relatively rare.

Rather than relying on funding from voluntaryorganisations, an alternative approach to financingcompensation schemes is through insurance policies,

where farmers pay a premium for cover against a definedrisk, such as predation of livestock. The premium couldbe set at the true market rate or be subject to subsidyprovided by conservation organisations. This is theapproach currently being explored in the case of livestockpredation adjacent to Nairobi National Park, and inprinciple insurance policies could be developed to covera wide range of wildlife-related risks.

Compensation schemes provide redress followingdamage inflicted on local communities by wild animals,but a broader approach entails providing tangiblebenefits to land owners in recognition of the role theyplay in, and costs associated with, hosting wildlife ontheir land. A pilot programme has been operating forsome years for landowners adjacent to Nairobi NationalPark and has proved popular with landowners. However,the approach is expensive and requires funds to be madeavailable year after year. The intention in the NairobiNational Park pilot was to raise funds to establish anendowment which could then sustain the programme,but to date the necessary funds have not been secured.

The Kenya Wildlife Service has a programme of sharingrevenue generated from national parks withneighbouring communities. The funds provided aredirected at community level benefits, such as class roomsfor schools and cattle dips. Although such amenitiesare appreciated by the communities concerned,community level benefits do not compensate forindividual losses, such as predation of livestock ordestruction of crops. It is open to question whethersuch revenue sharing programmes affect attitudes ofaffected communities to co-existence with wildlife. Moregenerally, key questions asked about compensationschemes include whether or not they: help wildlifespecies in conflict with humans, are based on concreteinformation to be applied effectively, pay theappropriate amount of compensation, target the rightculprits, and are fair, timely, transparent and sustainable.The cost of running a compensation scheme varies widely(Nyhus et al. 2003).

AWF has been instrumental in helping communities inkey wildlife habitats to acquire donor funding to financethe development of eco-lodges on their land. The ideais that this diversifies their livelihood base and providesa direct benefit linked to the presence of wildlife ontheir land. Such an eco-lodge is close to completion atElerai in the Kilimanjaro Heartland.

Page 12: AWF Human Wildlife Conflict paper.pmd

AWF Working PapersJuly 2005

9

Human Wildlife Conflict: Lessons Learned from AWF’s African Heartlands

The Need for Policy Harmonisation

In many cases critical wildlife ecosystems straddlenational boundaries and where policies and approachesto dealing with human-wildlife conflict vary on eitherside of the border this can present a problem. Forinstance, in the Chobe-Caprivi corridor areacommunities are largely subsistence farmers and livestockkeepers with approximately 20,000 people on theBotswana side and 120,000 on the Namibian side.Occurrence of human-wildlife conflict, especially dueto lions and elephants is high. Botswana offerscompensation for crop and livestock damage butNamibia does not and Namibia has a system of usingcommunity game guards for conflict mitigation whileBotswana relies on protected area authorities.

As part of the Four-Corners Transboundary NaturalResource Management Project, AWF awarded a sub-grant to CARACAL, a Botswana based NGO, toinvestigate Botswana-Namibia transboundary wildlifemovements and human-wildlife conflicts in the Chobe-Caprivi corridor and to develop managementpartnerships to work towards securing and managementof the Chobe-Caprivi corridor. CARACAL conductedsocio-economic surveys in order to understand thenature of the problem and identify which strategieswould be useful for mitigation. Results showed thatthere is gender disparity in how people are affected bywildlife conflict and this is linked to ownership ofresources. Men tend to view the lion as the mostproblematic animal because men mostly own livestock,which are prime targets for the lions. Livestock alsoreceives the highest compensation in Botswana. On theother hand women, who are mostly agriculturalists, rankthe elephant as the most problematic animal becauseof crop raiding. Female-headed households are mostaffected by wildlife conflict with over 85% reportingdamage to crops and 95% impacts on livestock. This isbecause in most cases such households are relativelypoor and unable to invest in mitigation measures suchas building strong fences and animal kraals.

These results have provided a good understanding ofthe traditional patterns of conflict, the key problemsinvolved and how they are affecting livelihoods, especiallyof the most vulnerable in society. At the close of theproject, CARACAL was working with the communitiesto develop gender based mitigation options forimplementation using an innovative method employingparticipatory Geographic Information Systems. Mapshave been developed using local landmarks and features

and these are being used to delineate the migrationcorridor used by wildlife and to develop options withcommunities for wildlife conflict mitigation. One ofthe key options under discussion was securing theChobe-Caprivi corridor for movement of wildlife so thatproblem animals do not affect communities as theymove across the landscape. CARACAL and AWF alsoplan to organize a workshop to present the findings andpropose harmonization of policy on human-wildlifeconflict to the governments of Botswana and Namibia.

Lessons Learnt and Ways Forward for AWF

The goal of human-wildlife conflict alleviation is to createlandscapes (Heartlands) where people and wildlife canco-exist and have as little negative impact on each otheras possible. Although each human-wildlife conflictsituation is unique, some general lessons can be learnedfor the Heartlands:

Integrate Human-Wildlife Conflict Management into WiderConservation ObjectivesManaging human-wildlife conflict should be part of thelarger conservation and development objectives forspecies’ wellbeing and peoples’ livelihoods. It shouldbe integrated within the management objectives ofdifferent wildlife management strategies such as lawenforcement, effects on habitats and biodiversity, andbenefits accruing from wildlife use. An important areaof human-wildlife conflict that AWF has little beeninvolved in is the social-economic dimension. A goodunderstanding of the economic and social costs (andopportunities) of living with wildlife will go a long waytowards alleviating the problem.

Understand, Monitor and Evaluate the ProblemA key step in enhancing AWF’s ability to mitigatehuman-wildlife conflict is for the respective AWF teamsto gain better understanding of the problem in theirrespective Heartlands. It is essential to have accurateinformation about when and where the conflict isoccurring. This understanding, concurrent withimplementation of appropriate measures, should leadto a better focus on target areas and the most relevantspecies within a Heartland. Simple monitoring andevaluation schemes exist which can be adapted to localcircumstances and information gathered can be used todraw up a strategy to combat the problem. Preventivemeasures will be most effective in the long-term.

Page 13: AWF Human Wildlife Conflict paper.pmd

AWF Working PapersJuly 2005

Human Wildlife Conflict: Lessons Learned from AWF’s African Heartlands

10

The results of each wildlife problem managementinitiative should be monitored to determine howeffective it is for the people and wildlife concerned. It isalso important to understand what undesired impactsmight arise from any mitigation measures. For example,while fences can effectively resolve human-wildlifeconf lict, are they also a threat to conservation byimpeding movement and access to resources by wildlifein the Heartlands? It should be possible to find optimalways of using barriers to achieve both the objectives ofconflict mitigation and landscape-scale conservation.

Research PrioritizationPriority areas for human-wildlife conflict include focuson community-level response to collective managementof risk, and how benefits from conservation can belinked to conflict mitigation measures. Research onhuman-wildlife conflicts should address the questionof what mitigation measures work and under whatcircumstances. Methods that can be replicated acrossHeartlands and sites will be useful to develop.

Sharing InformationResults of past research (Sitati et al. 2003) suggest thatspatial correlates of conflict can be identified, and areasof vulnerability mapped, to enable the development anddeployment of appropriate conflict mitigation measures.AWF has the capacity to use spatially explicit GISanalyses and maps to document distribution and typeof conflict, species involved, severity, causal factors ofconflict and to produce predictor variables for conflict.Such information will be useful to local farmers, whooften feel powerless to combat the problem, and alsothe authorities who want to help but have inadequateinformation to inform targeted prompt action.

Work with the Affected Local CommunityWildlife damage management is a human managementissue. There is need for local solutions to these localproblems in which risk is individualized. In KilimanjaroHeartland, the AWF-facilitated Conflict ResolutionCommittee comprising representatives of governmentdepartments, local communities and the private sectoris helping alleviate conflict. A consolation scheme wasconsidered necessary due to the high incidence ofspearing by local Maasai and its aim is to prevent thekilling of elephants. It was successful because landownerswere an essential element in its planning andimplementation. Communities must be activeparticipants in any conflict mitigation measure designedto help them. Flaws in sustainable use of exclusionary

wildlife barriers emanate from lack of maintenance andproblems with communal ownership, valuable materialsbeing stolen or used for snaring, and most farmers beingunable to afford such wildlife barriers.

Wildlife species generally attack livestock and crops thatare poorly defended; wildlife damage is closely correlatedto the effectiveness of the defences. Being aware of thepresence of wildlife through vigilance and cooperationbetween landowners is a key component towardimproving the effectiveness of control measures.

Land-use plans are rarely implemented at large-scales inAfrica, but the local level can be useful to develop andimplement land-use plans to reduce losses to wildlife.On the micro-scale, for instance, the positioning of fieldsin relation to elephant movements may be easier toimplement than district wide schemes.

Build upon Existing InitiativesIt is recommended that AWF prioritizes researchingsolutions above researching the human-wildlife problemper se. Current initiatives should build upon past effortslike the Human-Elephant Conflict Decision SupportSystem protocol developed by African ElephantSpecialist Group (Hoare 2002) and several effortsdeveloped for predators (see Conservation Biology,December 2003).

Draw up a StrategyIt is suggested that a long-term strategy to mitigatehuman-wildlife conflict is developed for each AWFHeartland as the problem is likely to be recurrent. Thereis need to build capacity targeted to this issue. Progresswas being made in Kilimanjaro and Samburu Heartlandswhere KWS helped set up several wildlife fences withthe help of donors. These barriers face the problem ofmaintenance once donor funds have gone, an issue thatAWF is being called upon to assist with, e.g. in the caseof the Kimana fence built with World Bank funds. Astrategy to alleviate human-wildlife conflict in an AWFHeartland should, of necessity, be multidisciplinary anddeveloped with the full participation of key stakeholders.

Strengthen Local and National InstitutionsThere is need to strengthen both national and localwildlife authorities in the manner in which they dealwith human-wildlife conflict. In Kenya, the wildlifeauthority’s main way of resolving conflicts is throughProblem Animal Control – basically a reactive wayinvolving killing one or more individuals of the speciesduring times of crisis.

Page 14: AWF Human Wildlife Conflict paper.pmd

AWF Working PapersJuly 2005

11

Human Wildlife Conflict: Lessons Learned from AWF’s African Heartlands

Where the government authorities are relatively weakin managing human-wildlife conflict, NGOs are oftenperceived to be de facto the management authority. ButAWF should be wary of taking on too muchresponsibility in human-wildlife conflict mitigation.

Develop Clear Policies to Enhance Human-Wildlife ConflictMitigationIn several countries where AWF works, the policiesregarding wildlife management and conservation areunclear regarding the management of human-wildlifeconflicts; some countries have no official policies in thisarea. Regarding elephants, Hoare (2000) noted that thistranslates into lack of pro-active policy on tackling thematter and budgeting for its costs in six out of sevencountries studied.

Engage TBNRM Approach as AppropriateSeveral AWF Heartlands extend across nationalboundaries and human-wildlife conflict mitigationmeasures need to be managed within a transboundarynatural resource management framework. AWF has thepotential to improve upon development of joint wildlifeproblem management in its transboundary Heartlands.In Kazungula Heartland, Botswana has a compensationpolicy but not Namibia, yet elephants and carnivorescause problems on both sides of the border.

What Works Well to Alleviate Human-WildlifeConflicts?

There are no panaceas in the management of wildlifedamage. But well-designed human-wildlife conf lictmanagement plans which integrate different techniquesand are adjusted based on the nature of the problemcan boost co-existence. It is prudent to practice the long-term policy options of managing the problem animalelement of a population in situ. It is recommended thatAWF elevates its actions toward human-wildlife conflictmitigation in the Heartlands. Potential solutions shouldbe considered and selected based on their effectiveness,cost and human and social acceptability. Reducingconflicts between wildlife and people is likely to reducethe negative attitudes that many communities havetowards wildlife and conservation. Improving foodsecurity by reducing wildlife related impacts on cropsand livestock will also reduce the need to seek alternativesources of food, such as hunting of wildlife. Finally, itis apparent that mitigation measures used in eastern andcentral Africa often differ significantly from thosepracticed in southern Africa.

References

Butler, V. 1998. Elephants: trimming the herd.Bioscience 48: 76-81.

Conover, M. 2002. Resolving human-wildlife conflicts:the science of wildlife damage management.Lewis Publishers, New York.

Crooks, K. R. 2002. Relative sensitivities of mammaliancarnivores to habitat fragmentation.Conservation Biology 16: 488-502.

Du Toit, J. T. 2002. Wildlife harvesting guidelines forcommunity-based wildlife management: asouthern African perspective. Biodiversity andConservation 11:1403-1406.

Folley, C. 2002. Tarangire Elephant Project.Unpublished Report available at AWF.

Forthman-Quick, D. 1999. Unpublished report toAWF. Available at AWF Nairobi office.

Forthman Quick DL, Gustavson CR & Rusiniak KW(1985): Coyote control and taste aversion.Appetite 6:253-264.

Frank, L. G. 1998. Living with lions: carnivoreconservation and livestock in Laikipia District,Kenya. Development Alternatives, Bethesda,Maryland.

Hoare, R. 2000. Projects of the Human-ElephantConflict Task Force (HETF) – Results andRecommendations.

Kangwana, K. 1993. Elephants and Maasai: Conflictand Conservation in Amboseli, Kenya. Ph.D.Thesis, University of Cambridge, UK.

Kangwana, K. 1995. Human-wildlife conf lict: thechallenge ahead. Pachyderm 19:11-14.

Kikoti, A. 2000. Opportunities and constraints ofconserving elephants in Kilimanjaro Heartland.MSc. Thesis. University of Greenwich, UK.

Kirby, A. 2005. Norway to kill 25% of its wolves. BBCNews Website. 21 January 2005.www.bbc.co.uk

Kissui, B. 2004. Tarngire Lion Project. Unpublishedreport to AWF. AWF, Nairobi.

Kiyiapi, J. L. 2003. Koija, Tiemamut and Kijabe GroupRanches: AWF Supported Community BasedNRM Planning Process. Unpublished Reportto AWF. Available in AWF Nairobi office.

Linnell, J. D., R. Aannes, J. E., Swenson, J. Odden, M.E. Smith. 1997. Translocation of carnivores asa method for managing problem animals: areview. Biodiversity and Conservation 6: 1245-1257.

Page 15: AWF Human Wildlife Conflict paper.pmd

AWF Working PapersJuly 2005

Human Wildlife Conflict: Lessons Learned from AWF’s African Heartlands

12

MacFie, E. 2003. Human-Gorilla conflict resolution:recommendations for component within IGCPUganda Programming. International GorillaConservation Program, Nairobi.

Muruthi P, Stanley Price M, Soorae P, Moss C, andLanjouw A (2000) Conservation of largemammals in Africa: What lessons and challengefor the future? In Entwistle, A. and Dunstone,N. (eds), Priorities for the conservation ofmammalian biodiversity: has the panda had itsday?, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,England.

Musila, K., P. Muruthi, P. Omondi. In prep. Experienceon a communal elephant fencing project inAmboseli area, South western Kenya

Nyhus, P., H. Fischer, F. Madden. 2003. Taking thebite out of wildlife damage. The challenges ofwildlife compensation schemes. ConservationIn Practice. Volume 4(2).

Ogada, O. O., R. Woodroffe, N. O. Oguge, L. G. Frank.2003. Limiting depredation by Africancarnivores: the role of livestock husbandry.Conservation Biology 17(6): 1521-1530.

Ogada, O.O., D.L. Ogada. 2004. Factors influencinglevels of carnivore-livestock conf licts inSamburu Heartland and proposed mitigationmeasures. Unpublished consultancy report toAfrican Wildlife

Osborn, F.V. 2002. Capsicum oleoresin as an elephantrepellent: field trials in communal lands ofZimbabwe. Journal of Wildlife Management66:674-677.

Rainy, M. and J. Worden. 2003. A survey of predatorsin southern Kenya and northern Tanzania:threats, conflicts and conservation potential.Unpublished report to AWF. AWF, Nairobi.

Sitati, N.‘W., M. J. Walpole, R. J. Smith and N. Leader-Williams. 2003. Predicting spatial aspects ofhuman-elephant conflict. Journal of AppliedEcology 40:667-677.

Stander PE (1990) A suggested management strategy forstock-raiding lions in Namibia. S. Afr. J. Wildl.Res. 20: 37-43.

Thoules, C. 1994. Conflicts between humans andelephants in northern Kenya. Oryx 28:119-127.

Thoules, C. R. and Sakwa, J. 1995. Shocking elephants:Fences and crop raiders in Laikipia District,Kenya. Biological Conservation 72:99-107.

Treves, A. and L. Naughton-Treves. 1999. Risk andopportunity for humans coexisting with large

carnivores. Journal of Human Evolution36:275-282.

Treves, A. and K. U. Karanth. 2003. Human-carnivoreconf lict and perspectives on carnivoremanagement worldwide. Conservation Biology17(6): 1491-1499.

Woodford, M. H., T. M. Butynski, and W. B. Karesh.2002. Habituating the Great Apes: the DiseaseRisks. Oryx 36(2): 153-160.

www.africanow.org. Project concept: Chilli productionand elephant conservation. Mid-Zambezi Valley,Zimbabwe.

Page 16: AWF Human Wildlife Conflict paper.pmd

This Pub-licationis fundedby theNether-landsMinistryof For-eign Af-fairs/Di-rectorateGeneralfor Inter-nationalCoopera-tion(DGIS).

This Pub-licationis fundedby theNether-landsMinistryof For-eign Af-fairs/Di-rectorateGeneralfor Inter-nationalCoopera-tion(DGIS).

This Publication is funded by the NetherlandsMinistry of Foreign Affairs/Directorate Generalfor International Cooperation (DGIS).

www.awf.org

© 2005 African Wildlife Foundation

This document was produced by AWF’s Program teamwith assistance from DGIS

For more information, please contact [email protected]