Essential considerations to manage human-wildlife conflicts, coexistence
TANZANIA: CONCERTED efforts are essential in reducing, if not putting to rest Human-Wildlife Conflicts (HWC) in the country so as to avoid adverse effects to both.
Each HWC is different from the next, and what may work in one case might not be transferrable to another, remarked Mr John Noronha, a HWC expert as he addressed journalists and other environment stakeholders who gathered at a Bagamoyo hotel last week for a two-day a tailor-made training classes.
At the training conducted by the Journalists’ Environmental Association of Tanzania (JET) and funded by the GIZ Mitigation of Human Wildlife Conflict Tanzania Project, Mr Noronha noted that effective and sustainable practical methods to mitigate damage and minimize retaliation are often difficult to implement.
“Even where they do exist, they are often not implemented in a socially and financially sustainable way. A seemingly straightforward issue of guarding a herd of cows or fencing a patch of crops can escalate into a deeply divided ongoing conflict about who is to blame, who should pay, who did what wrong in the past, to whom the wildlife belongs and who should be responsible for possible solutions,” said the expert.
Given different dimensions involved, there is a need for holistic, interdisciplinary approaches, which should consider carefully the following essential insights for human-wildlife conflict management.
He asserted that interventions that focus only on reducing damage are not transferable from one case to another, adding that interventions such as fencing, deterrents and compensation schemes are often urgently needed, especially when there is pressure on agencies, governments and conservation organizations to deliver solutions.
“In cases where there is no particular underlying social conflict, such damage reduction measures can work well if practically effective and economically viable. For most human-wildlife conflicts, developing an intervention to reduce damage by wildlife is best pursued as a process rather than a direct transfer of a pre-defined method from one site to another,” he argued.
Mr Noronha emphasized that each case of human-wildlife conflict has unique ecological, cultural, social, physical, economic and political characteristics, and each has different histories, attributes and opportunities.
He warned that poorly informed human-wildlife conflict mitigation attempts can make the situation worse.
“Attempts to manage conflicts rapidly and without consideration of underlying sociopolitical and biological elements can exacerbate pre-existing tensions and escalate human-wildlife conflicts into intractable conflicts in which parties become polarized.
“This can occur when a damage reduction method is copied from one context and transferred to another without following a process of engagement with stakeholders.
“A trial-and-error approach to human-wildlife conflicts is generally not recommended. While some experimentation with damage reduction measures may be needed, such trials should be evidence-based as far as possible, and must be carefully designed together with the affected parties, not imported ready-made by an external party,” he noted.
Speaking at the same occasion, JET Executive Director, Mr John Chikomo said in some places the conflicts had become worse, but stakeholders have done a lot to mitigate the same, adding that conflicts between farmers and herders had added salt to the wound but now with the association and journalists’ efforts the situation is being maintained.
He gave an example of cattle keepers in the southern regions taking their cattle in protected areas and cut trees so as to have a clear view of their cattle even when afar. He thanked tha stakeholders for efforts put in, and promised to work even harder in future.
