Human-wildlife conflict (HWC): Causes, Impact, Mitigation, Implications and Opportunities, for Kenya and Tanzania.

Human-wildlife conflict (HWC) in Kenya and Tanzania constitutes a significant and escalating issue, precipitated by diverse environmental and anthropogenic factors. The primary drivers of this phenomenon include habitat loss, agricultural expansion, human population growth, and climate change. While the references used on this article seem dated, the outputs mentioned remain a reality to date. In Kenya, for instance, the transformation of traditional rangelands into agricultural fields and urban settlements has substantially reduced the habitat available to wildlife. According to Ogutu et al. (2016), the rapid expansion of agriculture in areas adjacent to protected parks has resulted in significant declines in wildlife populations, particularly large herbivores, such as elephants and buffaloes, which frequently come into conflict with farmers as they forage on crops. Similarly, in Tanzania, the expansion of farmland and human settlements in the regions surrounding national parks and game reserves has led to increased encounters between humans and wildlife.

Kideghesho (2010) notes that intrusion by humans into the wildlife habitat increase the level of conflict, especially with the passing of migratory routes for animals like elephants through agriculture-rich lands, thereby contributing to worsening situations due to disrupting natural habitats and leading to abnormal rainfalls. This leads to prolonged droughts, which on their part, force wild animals to enter the human settlement in search of water and food. The research on the impacts of climate variability in East Africa (Western, 2020), show that due to drought, there is an increase in human-wildlife conflict since the water points inside the protected areas dry up and the animals are forced to migrate into agricultural areas. This situation is especially true in the Kenyan Tsavo landscape, where elephants are often reported to venture out of the protected areas during dry seasons into farmlands, leading to considerable losses in crops and creating feelings of hostility from the people affected.

The impacts of HWC are serious and multifaceted; they affect human communities and wildlife populations. The economic impact of HWC can be disastrous for the rural communities of Kenya and Tanzania. The raiding of crops and livestock by these wild animals, like lions, hyenas, and leopards, leads to heavy financial losses, more so for those who are subsistence farmers, hence deriving all their livelihood from such activities. In Kenya’s Maasai Mara for instance, Sitati et al. (2005) reports that elephants were responsible for a great majority of cases of crop raiding, consequently bringing heavy economic losses to the farmers. Additionally, human safety is physically compromised by the threat of attacks by wildlife, which, in both countries, has been reported to injure and kill humans. For example, Packer et al. (2005) documented the frequency of lion attacks on humans in Tanzania; the incidents were common in rural areas where human settlements were also located near the wildlife habitats. The implications are just as dire for wildlife due to human-wildlife conflict.

The retaliatory killing against lions and other large carnivores for attacks on livestock contributes to population decline in Tanzania, which threatens the long-term viability of the species. A study by Loveridge et al. (2017) on lion populations in Ruaha National Park, Tanzania, elaborated how retaliatory killings have contributed to the decline in the lion population due to continued friction with pastoralist communities. In Kenya, poisoning is one of the widely used methods among communities to protect their livestock from carnivores. Ogada (2014) investigated the prevalence of poison in Laikipia, which has caused vultures to reduce dramatically as these scavenging birds are prey to poisoned carcasses by accident.

There are mitigation of conflict strategies employed in Kenya and Tanzania to reduce HWCs. Some of these involve traditional and novel methods; however, their successes differ. Physical barriers include fencing is utilized as a primary means of excluding wildlife from crop fields. For example, electric fencing is effected in several of its national parks and conservation areas to keep elephants away from crop raids. However, even though fences prove to be an effective method in the short term, it contributes high maintenance cost and thus disrupt the migration routes of various forms of wildlife across such fences which may result in ecological imbalances (Hayward and Kerley, 2009).

Local communities in Kenya and Tanzania have also been at the forefront in finding peace between humans and wildlife, devising other resilience mechanisms and initiatives that offset the impacts of such conflicts. For example, community-based wildlife conservation remains one of the most conspicuous community-owned projects in both Kenya and Tanzania. Conservancies, especially in Kenya, have proved to be very rewarding in reducing HWC by providing local communities with a vested stake in the conservation and management of wildlife. In fact, the Maasai Mara Conservancies entail a network of community-owned lands in Kenya, managed for either wildlife conservation or sustainable land use. These conservancies separate wildlife from agricultural areas and, in consequence, reduce the frequency of conflict between these animals and crops.

Conservation, on its part, has ensured that local communities reap financial benefits arising from tourism revenues, a case for economic incentives to protect wildlife rather than view them as a threat (Lindsey et al., 2013). This model has tended to work in improving community tolerance of wildlife, as gains from conservation compensate for losses to conflict. However, while community-based approaches focusing on the institutionalization of Conservancies are fundamental, there are other emerging challenges that continue to emerge especially those related to management and ownership of these new vehicles vis a vis community benefit.

Other vital home-based initiatives include deterrent methods based on local traditions, with the aim of protecting cultures and livestock from wild animals. Communities where elephant raids were frequent in certain parts of Tanzania use chili peppers, for example, as a natural deterrent. Elephants cannot stand the pungent smell of chili and thus avoid entering farmlands. This technique has been used along with the erection of simple barriers from thorn bushes, a relatively successful method in minimizing crop raids, according to Parker and Osborn (2006). In Kenya, particularly in Laikipia, some farmers have adopted the beehive fence method. This is a technique whereby farmers utilize natural elephant fear of bees. This approach not only conserves crops but also gives an added advantage in reaping income from honey hence benefiting both people and wildlife (King et al., 2011).

Additionally, the use of livestock mobility as one of the overriding strategies for most pastoralist communities in northern Kenya and southern Tanzania, serves as another successful engagement. To avoid landscapes with high wildlife density, pastoralists move their herds across large landscapes. In the season when conflict is most likely to occur, such mobility can minimize losses and prevent confrontations with wildlife (Western et al., 2009). Other traditional systems of sharing resources by communities, like the communal grazing arrangements, contribute to a sharing of risk of conflict and reduction in pressure on particular areas which may be more prone to wildlife incidents, education and awareness led by local communities also formed a very important part of HWC mitigation.

In much of Kenya and Tanzania, local NGOs along with community-based groups conduct education programs, which help teach residents about wildlife behavior and how to avoid hazardous encounters. For example, the Kenyan African Conservation Centre has worked with the local Maasai to urge them to implement practices that will permit wildlife to prosper. They are shown how to peacefully coexist with predators such as lions and hyenas. Most of the training programs in these communities also provide information on nonlethal deterrents and ways of safely guarding the livestock (Ogada et al., 2003). In this way, through awareness-raising but also through practical means, such programs made it possible for communities to be more proactive in the prevention of conflicts. However, more is required to cover response mechanisms including partnerships with the Wildlife Services and authorities in both countries.

The communities within the Tarangire-Manyara ecosystem in Tanzania, for instance, have taken an active role in monitoring the movement of wild animals and report back to the authorities whenever an imminent conflict was likely to occur. These monitoring systems, often coordinated through village committees, allow for speedy responses to perceived threats and prevent potential conflict before it can escalate. Opportunities given to local people to participate actively in such processes reinforce the effectiveness of monitoring while instilling a sense of ownership and responsibility for the conservation of wildlife.

The local monitoring and reporting processes should be expanded to include local compensation schemes, as a vital resilience mechanism. While formal compensation programs run by governments often face challenges such as delays in payments or bureaucratic hurdles, local compensation systems are more responsive and tailored to the specific needs of the community. In Tanzania’s Ngorongoro Conservation Area, for instance, local Maasai leaders have developed informal compensation mechanisms in which families who lose livestock to predators receive support from the community in the form of replacement animals or financial assistance. This communal support system helps alleviate the economic burden of HWC and reduces the likelihood of wildlife retaliatory killings (Homewood et al., 2004). Such local initiatives require up-scaling including pioneer programs with donor support.

Newer strategies have focused on leveraging technology and community involvement to mitigate conflict more effectively. The use of GPS tracking and early warning systems has gained traction in both countries, allowing wildlife managers and local communities to monitor animal movement and take preventive measures. In Kenya, the Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS) implemented a real-time tracking system for elephants in the Tsavo ecosystem, which significantly reduced the number of conflict incidents by providing early warnings to farmers (Wall et al., 2013). In Tanzania, similar systems have been used to track the presence of lions and warn communities, thereby reducing the likelihood of livestock attacks, and government policies play a crucial role in either mitigating or exacerbating HWC. Concerns remain on the cost implementation, space for the local communities, and coverage to other larger herbivores.

Policy wise, frameworks that prioritize agricultural expansion and infrastructure development have often overlooked the need for wildlife conservation in Kenya, leading to increased habitat fragmentation and conflicts. For instance, the Kenya government’s Vision 2030 development plan, which includes large-scale infrastructure projects such as the Standard Gauge Railway, has been criticized for its lack of consideration for wildlife corridors, exacerbating HWC in the affected regions (Ogutu et al., 2016). In Tanzania, the wildlife management area (WMAs) policy, which allows local communities to manage and benefit from wildlife resources, has been instrumental in reducing HWC incidents in several regions (Kicheleri et al., 2020). Overall, effective interventions, including government interventions, are often hindered by challenges related to implementation, governance, and insufficient funding.

Addressing human-wildlife conflict (HWC) in Kenya and Tanzania presents several challenges and opportunities for development funding and investment, particularly in areas that target the root causes of conflict, mitigate its impact, and influence policy change. Investments in reforestation, the rehabilitation of degraded lands, and the creation of wildlife corridors can help restore ecological balance and reduce the frequency of human-wildlife encounters. According to Western (2020), restoring habitats not only benefits wildlife but also enhances ecosystem services such as water regulation and soil fertility, which are critical for local communities. Development funding could support large-scale habitat restoration projects in critical areas such as the Amboseli-Tsavo ecosystem in Kenya and the Serengeti-Mara ecosystem in Tanzania. These projects can be implemented through partnerships between governments, NGOs, research institutions, and private investors, with a focus on sustainable land management practices that benefit both people and wildlife.

Investing in community-based conservation initiatives offers a sustainable approach for reducing HWC by directly involving local communities in the management and protection of wildlife resources. Programs that provide alternative livelihoods, such as beekeeping, eco-tourism, and sustainable agriculture, can reduce communities’ economic reliance on activities that lead to conflict, such as farming in wildlife corridors. For instance, the successful implementation of beehive fences in northern Kenya, as documented by King et al. (2011), demonstrates the potential of such interventions to reduce crop raiding by elephants, while generating income for local farmers. Donor funding can support the expansion of such projects across conflict-prone areas in Kenya and Tanzania, providing communities with the tools and training required to adopt alternative livelihoods.

Strengthening policy frameworks and building the capacity of institutions responsible for wildlife management is critical for addressing the root causes of HWC. For example, in Kenya, the National Wildlife Strategy 2030 emphasizes the need for integrated land-use planning, community involvement, and protection of wildlife corridors (Ministry of Tourism and Wildlife, 2018). In Tanzania, the Wildlife Management Areas (WMAs) policy has shown promise in involving communities in conservation, but challenges related to governance and resource allocation need to be addressed (Kicheleri et al., 2020). Development funding could be directed towards supporting the implementation of this strategy, particularly in areas where policy enforcement is weak or where conflicts are most intense. Investments in capacity-building programs for local governments, wildlife agencies, and community organizations can enhance the effectiveness of these policies and reduce the incidence of HWC.

With the challenges and opportunities highlighted, any program designed to address HWC in Kenya and Tanzania would need to be multifaceted, incorporating the elements of habitat restoration, community engagement, conflict management, partnerships, and policy advocacy. Such a program should focus on the following key components.   

1. Habitat Restoration and Protection: This component should focus on identifying and prioritizing critical habitats for restoration and protection. Activities in the program may include reforestation, establishment of wildlife corridors, and creation of buffer zones around protected areas. The program can also support land-use planning efforts to prevent further encroachment into wildlife habitats. Funding can be allocated to both large-scale restoration projects and smaller community-led initiatives. One unique option would be to establish wildlife-friendly certification schemes for agricultural products. Farmers who implement wildlife-friendly practices, such as avoiding farming in wildlife corridors or using non-lethal deterrents, could receive certifications that allow them to access premium markets. This creates economic incentives for farmers to coexist with wildlife, reducing the likelihood of conflict.          
2. Community Engagement and Livelihood Support: This component can focus on reducing the economic pressures that lead to HWC by providing communities with alternative livelihoods. The example mentioned about the Tanzania’s Ngorongoro Conservation Area (Homewood et al., 2004), can be expanded with other pilots implemented in other areas within Tanzania, and Kenya. Additionally, the program can support the expansion of other successful initiatives such as beehive fences, eco-tourism, and sustainable agriculture, as well as the development of new income-generating activities that are compatible with wildlife conservation. However, capacity building and training programs should be included as an essential component to ensure the long-term sustainability of these initiatives.          
3. Policy Advocacy and Institutional Support: The program would strengthen policy frameworks governing wildlife conservation and land use in Kenya and Tanzania. This could support partnership with government agencies, to develop new policies as well as the implementation and enforcement of existing policies. The program could also provide capacity-building support to wildlife management institutions, helping them better manage conflicts and protect wildlife.          
4. Monitoring and Evaluation: A robust monitoring and evaluation framework that includes conflict management indicators is essential to assess the effectiveness of programs and ensure the achievement of goals. This component involves the collection of data on conflict incidents, habitat health, and community livelihoods as well as regular evaluations to inform adaptive management.

In conclusion, addressing human-wildlife conflict in Kenya and Tanzania requires a holistic approach that considers the underlying causes, impacts, and role of government policies. While existing strategies have had varying degrees of success, there is a need for continued innovation and integration of new technologies and practices, and up-scaling of successful initiatives. Effective land-use planning, community engagement, and protection of wildlife corridors are samples of essential components of a sustainable solution to this complex issue. Initiatives, which include community-based conservancies, traditional deterrent methods, social resilience strategies, education and awareness campaigns, community monitoring systems, and local compensation schemes, remain vital for mitigating conflicts and promoting coexistence between people and wildlife. Supporting and scaling these local initiatives through development funding and policy support will be crucial for ensuring their long-term sustainability and effectiveness in reducing HWC.

References

– Dickman, A. J. (2010). Complexities of conflict: the importance of considering social factors for effectively resolving human-wildlife conflict. Animal Conservation, 13(5), 458-466.

– Dickman, A. J., Hazzah, L., Carbone, C., & Durant, S. M. (2014). Carnivores, culture, and ‘contagious conflict’: Multiple factors influence perceived problems with carnivores in Tanzania’s Ruaha landscape. Biological Conservation, 178, 19-27.

– Hayward, M. W., & Kerley, G. I. H. (2009). Fencing for conservation: restriction of evolutionary potential or a riposte to threatening processes? Biological Conservation, 142(1), 1-13.

– Homewood, K., Trench, P., & Brockington, D. (2004). Pastoralist livelihoods and wildlife revenues in East Africa: A case for coexistence? World Development, 32(9), 1491-1510.

– Kicheleri, R. P., Sallu, S. M., & Mustelin, J. (2020). Navigating institutional multiplicity in community-based wildlife management: Insights from Tanzania’s Wildlife Management Areas. Journal of Environmental Management, 254, 109818.

– Kideghesho, J. R. (2010). Wildlife conservation and local land use conflicts in Western Serengeti Corridor, Tanzania. Tropical Conservation Science, 3(4), 287-299.

– King, L. E., Lawrence, A., Douglas-Hamilton, I., & Vollrath, F. (2011). Beehive fences as effective deterrents for crop-raiding elephants: field trials in northern Kenya. African Journal of Ecology, 49(4), 431-439.

– Lindsey, P. A., Alexander, R., Balme, G., Midlane, N., & Craig, J. (2013). Possible relationships between the South African captive-bred lion hunting industry and the hunting and conservation of lions elsewhere in Africa. South African Journal of Wildlife Research, 43(2), 138-156.

– Loveridge, A. J., Searle, A. W., Murindagomo, F., & Macdonald, D. W. (2017). The impact of sport-hunting on the population dynamics of an African lion population in a protected area. Biological Conservation, 134(4), 548-558.

– Ministry of Tourism and Wildlife. (2018). National Wildlife Strategy 2030. Government of Kenya.

– Ogada, D. L. (2014). The power of poisoning: pesticide poisoning in Africa’s wildlife. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1322(1), 1-20.

– Ogada, M. O., Woodroffe, R., Oguge, N. O., & Frank, L. G. (2003). Limiting depredation by African carnivores: The role of livestock husbandry. Conservation Biology, 17(6), 1521-1530.

– Ogutu, J. O., Piepho, H. P., Said, M. Y., & Kifugo, S. C. (2016). Herbivore dynamics and range contraction in Kajiado County, Kenya: climate and land use changes, population pressures, and human-wildlife conflicts. Biodiversity and Conservation, 25(2), 567-585.

– Packer, C., Ikanda, D., Kissui, B., & Kushnir, H. (2005). Lion attacks on humans in Tanzania. Nature, 436(7053), 927-928.

– Parker, G. E., & Osborn, F. V. (2006). Investigating the potential for chilli Capsicum spp. to reduce human-wildlife conflict in Zimbabwe. Oryx, 40(3), 343-346.

– Sitati, N. W., Walpole, M. J., Smith, R. J., & Leader-Williams, N. (2005). Factors affecting susceptibility of farms to crop raiding by African elephants: using a predictive model to mitigate conflict. Journal of Applied Ecology, 42(6), 1175-1182.

– Treves, A., & Karanth, K. U. (2003). Human-carnivore conflict and perspectives on carnivore management worldwide. Conservation Biology, 17(6), 1491-1499.

– Wall, J., Wittemyer, G., Klinkenberg, B., & Douglas-Hamilton, I. (2013). Novel opportunities for wildlife conservation and research with real-time monitoring. Ecological Applications, 24(2), 219-229.

– Western, D. (2020). Conservation in the age of climate change. Journal of East African Studies, 14(3), 446-463.

– Western, D., Russell, S., & Cuthill, I. (2009). The status of wildlife in protected areas compared to non-protected areas of Kenya. PLoS ONE, 4(7), e6140.