Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Na.

Nature et faune : revue internationale pour la conservation de la nature en Afrique = Wildlife and nature : international journal on nature conservation in Africa (Volume 20) online

. (page 1 of 5)
Online LibraryFood and Agriculture Organization of the United NaNature et faune : revue internationale pour la conservation de la nature en Afrique = Wildlife and nature : international journal on nature conservation in Africa (Volume 20) → online text (page 1 of 5)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook


Nature et Faune
Wildlife and Nature



Revue

Internationale pour la
conservation de la
nature en Afrique





.>



N



fe:*''^*^



International journal
on nature
conservation
in Africa






Vol.20




^ix^^zy


Janvier - Dec. 2004


UNEP / PNUE


January - Dec. 2004








FAO Regional Office for Africa



bureau Regional de la F.A.O. pour I'Afrique - Accra (Ghana)



Nature et Faune

Vol. 20 Janvier - Decembre 2004
January - December 2004









La revue Nature et Faune est une publication Internationale
trinnestrielle destinee a permettre un echange d'information et
de connaissance scientifiques concernant la gestion de la
faune, Tamenagement des aires protegees et la conservation
des resources naturelles sur le continent africain.

"Nature et Faune" is a quarterly international publication
dedicated to the exchange of information and scientific data on
wildlife and protected areas management and conservation of
natural resources on the African continent.

Editeur- Editor: P.D. Kone

Ass. Editeur -Ass. Editor: J.Thompson

Conseillers -Advisers: A. Yapi, D. Williamson, L. Bakker



Nature et Faune depend de vos contributions benevoles et
volontaires sous forme d'artlcles ou d'annonces dans le
domaine de la conservation de la nature et de la faune sauvage
dans la Region. Pour la publication d'articles ou tout
renseignement complementaire, ecrire a I'adresse suivante:

"Nature et Faune" is dependent upon your free and voluntary
contributions in the form of articles and announcements in the
field of wildlife and nature conservation in the Region. For
publication of articles or any further information, please contact:

Revue NATURE ET FAUNE
FAO Regional Office for Africa
R O. Box 1628
Accra (Ghana)

Tel: (233-21) 675000/7010930

Fax: (233-21) 668427

Email: [email protected] / [email protected]



Contents - Sommaire



1. The Conflicts of Wildlife and Rural Communities around Serengeti National Park, Tanzania 1

2. L'Addax (Addax nasomaculutus) une espece en voie d'extinction 27

3. Directors of Forestry Services in Africa 41

4. First Announcement - West African Bushmeat Conference 47



Printed by the Advent Press,

P. O. Box OS0102, Osu-Accra

Tel.: (233)21-777861

Fax.: (233) 21-775327

Email: [email protected]



THE CONFLICTS OF WILDLIFE AND RURAL
COMMUNITIES AROUND SERENGETI NATIONAL

PARK, TANZANIA

M.M.W. Mangora* and S.L.S. Maganga"



ABSTRACT

A survey was conducted in eight randomly selected villages adjacent to Serengeti National Park in
Tanzania to determine the conflicts between wildlife and people in the villages. A total of 77 household
heads were interviewed using a questionnaire. In addition, there were informal interviews or
discussions with some district officials and opinion leaders in the villages. Of all the people
interviewed, 37.9% reported using some resources from the park. All (100%) reported on having
problems with wild animals. The reported problems included damaging of crops (all people
interviewed), killing of livestock (90.9%), injuring and killing humans (36.4%), spreading of diseases
(7.8%) and causing environmental degradation (3.9%). The most frequently reported problematic
wild animal species were wildebeest (68.8% of people interviewed), olive baboon (62.3%), vervet
monkey (58.4%), spotted hyena (54.4%) and lion (49.4%). The common problematic wildlife control
measures used by villagers were reporting the incidences to a wildlife officer, chasing and killing the
wild animals using local weapons, and posting guards. The effectiveness of the control measure
depended largely on the animal species. Despite these problems, 77.9% of all the people interviewed
were willing to continue living in villages adjacent to the park.



* Faculty of Forestry and Nature Conservation, Sokoine University of Agriculture
P.O. Box 3009, Morogoro, Tanzania

** Department of Forest Biology, Faculty of Forestry and Nature Conservation,
Sokoine University of Agriculture, P.O. Box 3010, Morogoro, Tanzania



INTRODUCTION

The coexistence between wildlife and rural people adjacent to protected areas has been of much
concern (Nepal and Weber, 1995) due to the conflicts that exist between the wildlife and people. The
conflicts have been exacerbated by the protection of wildlife which has resulted in an increase in
wildlife populations. In addition, as human populations increase, the demand for resources grows,
increasing the frequency and intensity of conflicts between protected areas and rural people
(Newmark et al., 1 993). There is more demand of land for human settlement, agriculture, forestry and
mining (Osborne, 1995). Conflicts between rural communities and wildlife may have ecological,
social and economic consequences or implications. Wildlife damage property especially crops, and
attack livestock and people causing injury or loss of life. Also wild animals may spread diseases to
both livestock and human beings. On the other hand, people hunt or poach wild animals in the
protected areas.

This situation has in turn placed a heavier burden on the poor rural communities who live in areas
surrounding protected areas (Nepal and Weber, 1995). These are the people who suffer from wildhfe
damage but are generally ineffective in controlling the wildlife. Consequently, people complain that
their rights, interests and values are neglected in preference to wildlife protection. This has, therefore,
created negative attitudes towards the general concept of wildlife conservation among the people.
They also have negative or neutral attitudes towards employees of protected areas (Newmark et al.,
1993).

Tanzania has 1 2 national parks, some of which have sharp boundaries with the rural communities. As a
result conflicts between wildlife and people living contiguous to the parks are common. A few studies
(e.g. Newmark et al., 1994) have been conducted on determining the relationship and the attitudes of
the rural people towards protected areas. This study investigated the nature of the conflicts between
wildlife and the rural communities in some villages of Serengeti district living adjacent to Serengeti
National Park in Tanzania.

The specific objectives were to determine the nature of conflicts, the extent and seasons of the
conflicts, the types of wild animals involved, the impacts of the conflicts and to assess measures used
in controlling problematic animals. Furthermore, the attitudes of the people towards the park, and the
utilization of resources from the park by people were surveyed.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Study area

Serengeti district is one of the five administrative districts of Mara region in northern Tanzania. It
extends from 1E30' to 2E35' south and 34E20' to 35E00' east and lies at altitudes ranging from about
305 m in the west to 1 850 m in the east (Bartholomew, 1 990). The district has an area of 1 0,373 km^ out
of which about 7000 km^ are within the Serengeti National Park (SNP).

The district has a bimodal rain pattern receiving short rains from September to December and long
rains from March to May. The average annual rainfall varies from 500 mm to 1 200 mm and the annual
temperature averages 21.7°C. Vegetation also varies from open grasslands to open woodlands
(TWCM, 1991).

According to the 1993 District Council's estimates, there were 61 registered villages out of which 20
villages bordering the SNP on its western boundary. These 20 villages have an estimated total of 6767
households with an estimated population of 42,801 people. The major activities of the people are
subsistence agriculture and livestock keeping.



Data collection and analysis

The study was conducted in March 1996, by collecting both primary and secondary data. A random
sample of eight out of the 20 villages within 15 km from the park boundary were selected for study.
These villages were Bwitengi, Iharara, Koreri, Machochwe, Nyamburi, Nyiberekera, Rwamchanga
and Singisi.

The three methods used in collecting data were interviews of household heads, informal interviews or
discussions, and obtaining information from records kept in various offices. Because of the
difficulties of transport and the limited time, a total of 77 heads of households in the eight villages were
randomly selected and interviewed using a questionnaire with open-ended questions. The questions
were translated into Kiswahih and in critical cases the vernacular language was used. At the same time
while in the villages, various observations on wildlife utilization by the people and destruction caused
by wildlife were noted.

Informal interviews or discussions were conducted with district officials including the District
Commissioner, District Executive Director and District Wildlife Officer. Furthermore, there were
informal interviews or discussions with village government leaders and other opinion individuals in
the village. Secondary data or information was also collected from the records in the district offices.
This information included the area of the district, human population and incidences of human-wildlife
conflicts.

The analysis of data was computed mainly to obtain frequencies and percentages. The responses to the
questions were tallied into frequencies that were then expressed as percentages of the total number of
people interviewed. However, for multiple answers of a particular question, frequencies and
percentages were based upon total number of responses.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Nature of conflicts

All people interviewed reported having problems with wildlife. Wildlife problems reported were
destruction of crops, injury and killing of Uvestock or human beings, spread of livestock diseases and
environmental degradation, mainly soil trampling and erosion, and destruction of vegetation cover.
All the respondents (100%) reported wild animals destroying crops, 90.9% injuring and killing of
livestock and 36.4% injuring and killing of humans, whereas spreading of diseases to livestock and
environmental degradation were reported by 7.8% and 3.9% of the people interviewed, respectively
(Figure 1). Records from the Serengeti District Wildlife Officer on incidences of wild animals
damaging crops, killing livestock, injuring and killing humans reported by the villagers had a similar
trend as that obtained in the household survey (Figures 2 and 3).

These results are similar to those of Newmark et al. (1994) who reported that 86% of the people
interviewed in communities living contiguous to six protected wildlife areas in Tanzania reported on
wild animals damaging crops while 1 0%) reported on animals killing livestock. Newmark et al. ( 1 994)
further pointed out that where the predominant form of land use was agriculture, there was a higher
than expected frequency of reported problems of wildlife. On the other hand, where the predominant
form of land use was a combination of agriculture and pastoralism, there was a lower than expected
frequency of wildlife problems. This trend is also due to the fact that crop farms are more close to the
park boundary than human settlements, creating easy access of crop damaging wildlife into the farms.
On the other hand livestock arc usually under very close guard when they are in the homesteads or
grazing which reduces the incidence of attack by wild animals.

The loss of human life occurs when people arc defending their crops and livestock from being
damaged or attacked by wild animals because of tlic settlements being in close proximity to the park.



In addition, wild animals and livestock using the same grazing grounds compete for forage and also
spread diseases. When large herds of migratory animal species pass through human settlements and
crop fields they eat and trample the vegetation exposing the soil to erosion.

The damage of crops by wildlife is prominent mainly during the rainy season especially at pre-
harvesting time. The attacks of livestock and humans by wild animals usually have no specific season.
Damage to the environment occurs particularly when migratory species come out of the park in dry
season seeking for food and water. Newmark et al. (1994) claimed that while precipitation, land use
and human density are obviously interrelated, human density appears to be the best single predictor of
the intensity and nature of the conflict between wildlife and people living adjacent to protected areas
in Tanzania.

Problematic wild animals

Quite a number of wild animal species were reported to cause problems in the villages. The most
fi-equently reported animals were wildebeest (68.8% of all people interviewed), olive baboon
(62.3%), vervet monkey (58.4%), spotted hyena (54.5%), lion (49.4%), bushpig (42.9%), elephant
(37.7%), buffalo (31.5%), leopard (32.5%) and hippopotamus (10.4%) (Figure 4). A Hst of wildhfe
species reported and the respective problems caused are indicated in Table 1 in which a total of 1 1
species were reported to be the major species causing problems. Out of these, eight species (72.7%)
damaged crops, three species (27.3%) of carnivores killed livestock and four species (36.7%) killed
humans. Only two species (buffalo and wildebeest) were alleged to spread diseases to Hvestock and
two species (elephant and wildebeest) also were alleged to cause environmental damage.



100



S 60




Wildlife Problems



Figure 1: Frequency of wildlife problems reported by local people living adjacent to
Serengeti National Park in Serengeti district, Tanzania (dc = damaging crops, kl = killing
livestock, ikh = injuring and killing humans, sd = spreading diseases and se = soil erosion;

N = 77).

Note: Totals cannot add to up 1 00% because of multiple answers.




kl kh

Wildlife problems



Figure 2: Frequency of incidences of wildlife problems from January 1989 to February 1996
reported to the Serengeti District Wildlife Office by communities living adjacent to Serengeti
National Park, Tanzania (dc = damaging crops, kl = killing livestock, kh = killing humans, ih
= injuring humans; N= 10).



5 1



4-



^3 1

c
o

3



1 -




I



1989 1990 1991



1992

Year



r

1993 1994



1995



crop damage



livestock killing



human killing



Figure 3: Yearly (1989 -1995) frequency of wildlife problems reported to the Serengeti
District Wildlife Office by communities bordering Serengeti National Park District,
Tanzania.



Elephant




30 40 50

Frequency in percent



60



70



Figure 4: Frequency of the most common problematic wildlife species reported by
communities in Serengeti District living adjacent to Serengeti National Park, Tanzania; N =
77).



Note: Totals cannot add up to 1 00% because of multiple answers.



Table 1 : Different species of wild animals and types of damage or problem caused reported by people
in surveyed villages bordering Serengeti National Park, Tanzania.



Animal species*


Damage or problem caused














Damaging crops


Killing livestock


Killing people


Spreading
diseases


Environmental
damage


Olive baboon


+










Buffalo


+










Bush pig

Elephant

Hippopotamus

Hyena

Leopard

Lion


+
+
+


+
+


+
+

+ ■

+


+


+


Velvet monkey
Porcupine
Wild beast


+

+


+




+


+



For animals species' scientific names see Appendix.



Table 2 shows the incidences of wildlife problems reported to the Serengeti District Wildlife office
from 1 989 to early 1 996. It may seem that only few incidences occurred during the period but actually
the villagers were not reporting all the problems caused by wildlife mainly because of the distances
from villages to the District offices.

The results do not clearly show which group of animals, that is herbivores, carnivores or primates, are
more problematic than other groups. In contrast, Newmark et al. (1994) pointed out that in the other
six protected areas in Tanzania primates were reported to be most problematic species (51.7% of all
responses) followed by bushpig (13.3%) and rodents (10.6%).

With regard to animal body size and distance from the park boundary to settlements, the large-bodied
species caused problems in settlements including those located far from the park border, while small-
bodied species were limited to villages close to the park boundary. Large-bodied species especially
elephant, lion, buffalo and wildebeest that move and cover a wide range of distance into villages are
more likely to cause problems than the smaller species. However, elephant, lion, leopard and
hippopotamus were more frequently reported in the northern parts of the study area (93.1%, 68.3%,
72% and 87.5% of all responses, respi^ctively) than the south and south western parts where buffalo
was the most frequently reported species (60% of all responses).

This difference in the problematic animal species is due to differences in habitats. The vegetation in
northern parts of the study area is mainly thorn-tree and open deciduous woodlands with relict patches
of evergreen forests, semi-evergreen bush thickets and riverine forest (Sinclair, 1979). This kind of
vegetation favours elephants, lions and the leopard which prefer more or less closed habitats. In
addition, the Mara River and its tributaries with riverine forest favour hippopotamus, elephants and
leopards, contrary to the southern parts of the study area which is mainly open grassland with few
scattered trees favouring buffaloes and other open plains grazers. The wildebeest was reported as a
problematic species in ahnost in all villages adjacent to the park because of its migratory habit. In dry
season wildebeests flow into villages as they migrate from the plains northwards searching for grazing
grounds and drinking water. In the process they damage crops, spread diseases and trample the soil.



Table 2. Record of wildlife problems reported to the Serengeti District Wildlife Officer from
January 1989 to February 1996.



Year


Village


Species involved


Damage caused


1989


Nyamakendo


Lion


Killing livestock


1992


Bwitengi


Olive baboon
Velvet monkey


Damaging crops




Makundusi


Olive baboon
Velvet monkey
Bush pig
Porcupine


Damaging crops




Miseke


Lion


Killing livestock




Motukeri


Olive baboon
Velvet monkey
Bush pig
Porcupine


Damaging crops




Robanda


Buffalo


Damaging crops




Rwamchanga


Lion


Killing livestock


1993


Nyamburi


Buffalo


Damaging crops




Robanda


Buffalo


Injuring two people




Robanda


Buffalo


Killing a person


1994


Kisangura


Lion


Killing livestock




Nattabigo


Buffalo


Damaging crops




Nyamburi


Lion


BCilling livestock


1995


Mbalbali


Elephant


Damaging crops


1996


Machochwe


Elephant


Damaging crops




Mbalibali


Elephant


Damaging crops




Nyamburi


Elephant


Damaging crops



Source: Serengeti District Wildlife Office.



Note: Not all problems were reported.

* For scientific names of animals see Appendix.



Wildlife control measures

People reported three common measures used in controlling problematic animals. These were
reporting problematic animals to a wildlife officer (57.1% of all people interviewed), posting guards
in the crop fields (40.3%), and chasing and killing the animals using traditional weapons mainly
spears, bow and arrows (20.8%) (Figure 5a). The relative effectiveness of these measures depended on
the nature of the method employed and animal species involved. Among those who reported posting
guards as a control measure, 64.5% considered it as effective (Figure 5b). On the other hand, only 50%
and 40.9% of those who reported chasing and killing problematic animals using traditional weapons
and reporting to a wildlife officer considered the methods to be effective, respectively. Reporting to a
wildhfe officer could be expected to be the most effective but it was ranked as the least effective
among the three methods.

The ineffectiveness of reporting to a wildlife officer is mainly because of long distances between the
villages and nearest wildlife officer. Most villages are in remote areas with difficult transport and
communication means causing delays in sending information about the wildlife problem.
Furthermore, the district wildlife officers do not have easy access to transportation and therefore can
not respond quickly and in time. By the time wildlife officers turn up, the crops, livestock and even
human life will have already been claimed by wild animals. Newmark et al. (1994) stated that
reporting to a wildlife officer was among the less common measures taken to control wildlife (7.5% of
all responses). Shooting is the most common method used by wildlife officers and it was reported to be
efifective. On the contrary, Mkanda (1994) rep>orted that shooting was not an effective method to
control crop raiding by hippopotamus in Malawi.

Posting guards to watch wild animals, and chasing and killing problematic animals using traditional
weapons were comparatively effective. The chasing and killing of the animals involves people
practically tackling, though with less effective tools, problematic animals. One of the most common
measures to control wildlife in the other six protected areas in Tanzania reported by Newmark et al.
(1994) was posting of guards (36.9% of all responses). Similarly, Nepal and Weber (1995) pointed out
that building elevated platforms and posting guards in the crop fields was the most common control
method around Royal Chitwan National Park in Nepal. This method was very effective although often
quite dangerous.

The animal species greatly influence the effectiveness of controlling problematic animals. When large
animal species like elephants invade villages they are relatively difficult to control by villagers unless
a wildhfe officer is called to shoot the animal. The small-bodied species especially baboons, monkeys
and bushpigs could easily be controlled by posting guards, and chasing and killing the animals by
traditional weapons.

Implications of the conflicts

All people interviewed (100%) indicated experiencing economic losses from the problems caused by
wildlife. The loss was caused by wild animals damaging crops and killing livestock without any form
of compensation. When asked to estimate the losses, they failed to give even average estimates of the
losses in terms of money on a yearly basis. This is because of the lack of wildlife damage records
which the villagers do not normally keep. Apart from the economic cost, the people experience social
losses when human beings are killed by wild animals. Because of the economic losses they experience
from wildlife, the people demanded that the park authority should take the responsibility of financing
development projects and services like building of schools, dispensaries and water supply in their
villages as some form of compensation.

On the other hand, the park officials interviewed claimed that populations of problematic animals
were declining as they were killed either by rural people or wildlife officers in the course of defending
people's properties and life. Nevertheless, they did not give any estimates of the average number of




rwo cktw

Wildlife control measures



pg



Figure 5a: Frequency in percent of common wildlife control measures as reported by local
people living adjacent to Serengeti National Park in Serengeti District, Tanzania (rwo =
reporting to wildlife officer, cktw = chasing and killing by traditional weapons, pg = posting
guard; N ■= 77).

Note: Totals cannot add up to 100% because of multiple answers.




cktw
Wildlife control measures



pg



effective



Ineffective



Figure 5b: Frequency of effectiveness and ineffectiveness of wildlife control measures
reported by local people living adjacent to Serengeti National Park in Serengeti District,
Tanzania (rwo = reporting to wildlife officer, cktw = chasing and killing by traditional
weapons, pg = posting guards).

Note: Totals cannot add up to 1 00% because of multiple answers.



10



control by villagers unless a wildlife officer is called to shoot the animal. The small-bodied species
especially baboons, monkeys and bush pigs could easily be controlled by posting guards, and chasing
and killing the animals by traditional weapons.

Implications of the conflicts

All people interviewed (100%) indicated experiencing economic losses from the problems caused by
wildlife. The loss was caused by wild animals damaging crops and killing livestock without any form
of compensation. When asked to estimate the losses, they failed to give even average estimates of the
losses in terms of money on a yearly basis. This is because of the lack of wildlife damage records


1 3 4 5

Online LibraryFood and Agriculture Organization of the United NaNature et faune : revue internationale pour la conservation de la nature en Afrique = Wildlife and nature : international journal on nature conservation in Africa (Volume 20) → online text (page 1 of 5)