Human-Wildlife Conflict: Are people justified in their attitudes towards wildlife?
On Wednesday we had yet another field exercise, except this time, it involved interviewing families living in Upper Kitete village to find out about local conflicts with wildlife. This village is located about an hour and a half away from camp down a long makeshift dirt road adjacent to the Ngorogoro Conservation Area. Due to the fact that the people live so close to protected land, the people interact with the local wildlife much more than they care for. If you asked me when back in the states if I would want to live next to a wildlife protected area in Tanzania, I would have said pack my bags and take me there. I mean, who wouldn’t want elephants in your backyard? It turns out this is just about the most naïve position I could take on the matter.
In Tanzania, human-wildlife conflict drives conservation and wildlife management efforts. Since being here I have quickly realized that I have been biased this whole time. There are two key players involved: people and wildlife. Naturally, as an aspiring conservationist and wildlife lover, I see human-wildlife conflict and I think: how can I make things better for the animals? I have forgotten about the people and that in many cases, they are the true victims of the conflict. No matter how much we love elephants, lions, and all the other beloved African mammals, they can be a real pain in the ass sometimes and can’t always be viewed as precious creatures of the earth that do no harm. A smart conservationist will first help the people resolve their conflicts if they really want to defend and make a difference in the well being of wildlife.
Human-wildlife conflict plays such a role in Tanzania because of increased population growth, lack of urban areas, dependence on agriculture and pastoralism, and the mere fact that 30-40% of the country is protected land in the form of national parks and game reserves. Wildlife obviously doesn’t see the political boundaries we draw out for nice little patches of land for them to live (if we could just tell them, wouldn’t that make life so much easier?) and so they don’t always stay in park boundaries. With the changing seasons some species have annual migrations and others just expand their home ranges to outside park boundaries. This is what our center director has discovered with lions during the wet season in Tarangire National Park (read more in my lion conservation post). Meanwhile, people establish their settlements and farms right up to the very edges of protected area boundaries. Naturally, once animals start moving out, they end up right smack dab in the middle of farms with some delicious new food sources whether it’s pigeon peas, maize, a goat or some sheep.
Some may ask so what? What’s the big deal? In America avid gardeners know all too well the frustration when trying to keep deer, rabbits, and other opportunistic critters away. However, here, its not a matter of losing some crop here or there, its losing a year’s worth of income, their livelihood, and food on the table until the next growing season. Rural families (which make up 75% of the population) generally have two ways of surviving: agriculture and raising livestock. Generally, agriculture is so unreliable anyways that raising livestock is a necessary supplemental income. Most people have very limited access to water, meaning they have enough for household use but not nearly enough for irrigating crops. This means all crops are grown in the wet season where there is a reliable source of rainfall. But guess what? The wet season is when a lot of these animals start moving out of park boundaries. Nobody can win if both wildlife and people follow the same annual schedule. Of course the wildlife are going to eat the crops when they start wandering about. They just see an available food source and have no concept of the fact that even the loss of one pigeon pea plant is a huge detriment to a family’s crop yield. Clearly the dynamics of human-wildlife interactions near protected area boundaries are not working and something needs to be done.
My group interviewed five families that bordered both the Ngorogoro Conservation Area and the only wildlife corridor that exists connecting the NCA to Lake Manyara National Park. When I say that they bordered, I mean the family homes backed right up to the edge of the corridor. We had a translator with us and we asked them various questions about what kinds of animals affect them and how. Between the families, all of their crops were affected in some way shape or form by elephants, buffaloes, baboons, and forest pigs. The elephants eat the pigeon peas and the others feed mostly on maize. Most people reported that the wildlife is worse in the wet season, sometimes coming daily, but sometimes they come year round. One woman didn’t even bother to grow pigeon peas because she loses too much from the elephants. When asked, almost nobody could quantify the amount of crops they lost, except one man who lost two acres of maize to buffaloes. We didn’t need a number from most families to understand that they were exhausted and frustrated.
Most of the husbands stay up all night to guard the crops. They only have traditional weapons at their disposal, such as spears, use fires, or make noise to scare the animals. These are all ineffective methods and highly dangerous work. Buffaloes and elephants can be some of the most dangerous animals. Since 1997, three people have been killed in the community by defending their crops, and many more have been injured. However, none of the people we interviewed had ever been injured or knew anybody directly that had been injured. It was still clear that these people are risking their lives every night to defend their livelihood. Could you even imagine having to work all day and then stay up all night to fight off dangerous animals holding only a spear? How about doing it every night and despite all your efforts, watch your income be swallowed up by something else?
We asked the people if there was any government programs helping them or if the Ngorogoro Conservation Area Authority (NCAA) did anything to help stop the damage being done? They all replied simply with no. They all call the NCAA when the elephants are in their farms but they wither arrive too late every time or simple don’t show up at all. They are not compensated for lost crops, something that many of them felt they should receive. The people believe wholeheartedly that it is not their responsibility to defend their crops. They feel that the government and NCAA should be actively taking action so that they don’t have to. A much older woman reminded us of the socialism era in Tanzania’s history, when the government had a much more active role in the people’s daily lives. This era came to an end because it didn’t end up being helpful to Tanzania’s growth as a nation. However, this woman wished to return to it because she claimed the government would have actually helped her protect her crops. I found this comment to be very interesting.
Unfortunately, I just don’t think this attitude of the government being solely responsible is going to work. The government and NCAA should absolutely be doing more to help these people protect their crops. However, I just don’t think it is feasible that they take on the entire responsibility, because realistically it just isn’t going to happen due to lack of resources. I think that these people need to be given new methods that are actually successful at deterring the wildlife. I think that a joint effort between the government, NCAA, and NGO’s can easily make this happen. However, these families will need help covering the start up costs of building fences or establishing other deterrents. This is where a joint effort especially needs to be made.
Also, throughout this entire exercise I was troubled by the lack of quantitative information we received. I want to see some numbers on this issue and I think the NCAA should be getting those numbers. A program should be started up where the families who report wildlife conflict are taught how to record the frequency of wildlife visits, how many/what animals come, timing of visits, how much crop is lost, and the wildlife’s response to being deterred (such as charging or actually leaving the area). Then somebody might actually be able to access the problem and get somebody to do something about it. They can have different families try out new innovative methods of crop protection and they can be compensated in return for damages. Who knows if this is the best approach, but it was something that I was thinking about throughout the whole exercise. I also felt the urge to talk to the NCAA to see what the heck they were doing all day and find out why there is such a disconnect between them and the community with human-wildlife conflict.
So, to go back to my original question: are people justified in their attitudes towards wildlife? Well first of all, they tend to not be huge fans. Most people laughed at us when we asked what their attitude towards wildlife was, as if they were thinking: did they not just listen to me talk about all the hardships they cause me? One woman said she could only come up with one reason why the wildlife should be around and that is because of the income they bring into the community from eco-tourism. One woman did say she loved wildlife, but obviously not when they were ruining her crops or eating her livestock. Overall, this negative attitude towards wildlife is their biggest threat. If people despise them, they don’t associate any value with them. They don’t care if their numbers are declining, see any reason to stop overhunting, or care if it’s a species that is on its way to extinction (somebody might want to tell an elephant that it is not in their best interest to piss off some farmers). They also don’t understand why conservationists and other people in authority care so much about the well being of the wildlife and their access to resources when the people are barely taken care first. Can I blame them? Absolutely not! Of course these people are justified in their attitudes. This goes back to the statement I made earlier: a smart conservationist will first help the people resolve their conflicts if they really want to defend wildlife. If the people in rural communities of Tanzania can find peace and resolution with their struggle for access to resources and ability to support themselves, attitudes towards wildlife will drastically improve. People might be able to see the values of wildlife and be willing to be more active in their well-being. Harmony between humans and wildlife may actually be achieved. Of course, this is all easier said than done and years of effort away, but having this thought process is the first step in the right direction to more successful management strategies.
I had some pictures of tusk evidence on trees of their property and trampling damage from elephants, but unfortunately I somehow stupidly deleted them off my camera before they got uploaded so I no longer have them. Better luck next time right?
