Julia Bolton (Student #10861459) Supervisor: mw. Prof. dr. Joyeeta Gupta Second Reader: mw. Dr. H.J.L.M. (Hebe) Verrest MSc Thesis, International Development Studies, Graduate School of Social Sciences Bolton.julia@gmail.com Date of submission: 18 April 2016 Word count: 22,741
The Conflict in Conservation
The Effect of Human‐Wildlife Conflict on Sustainable Livelihoods
A vulnerability analysis with a focus on rural households in rural TanzaniaCONTENTS
ABSTRACT ... 4 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ... 5 DEDICATION ... 6 QUOTE ... 7 LIST OF FIGURES, TABLES, GRAPHS ... 8 LIST OF ACRONYMS ... 10 1. THE IMPACT OF ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES ON HUMAN‐WILDLIFE CONFLICT AND HOUSEHOLD VULNERABILITY ... 11 1.1 Introduction ... 11 1.2 Problem Statement and Gap in Knowledge ... 11 1.3 Research Questions... 15 1.4 Objectives ... 16 1.5 Conceptual Framework ... 16 1.6 Thesis Outline ... 17 2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK FOR ANALYSIS ... 18 2.1 Introduction ... 18 2.2 Theoretical Framework ... 18 2.2.1 VULNERABILITY ... 18 2.2.2 SUSTAINABLE LIVELIHOOD APPROACH (SLA)... 22 2.3 Inferences... 24 3. LITERATURE REVIEW ... 26 3.1 Introduction ... 26 3.2 Sustainable Development Discourse ... 26 3.3 Environmental Crises: Climate Change and Biodiversity Loss ... 27 3.4 Natural Resource Management Strategies ... 28 3.5 Human‐Wildlife Conflict ... 30 3.6 Inferences... 32 4. METHODOLOGY ... 36 4.1 Introduction ... 36 4.2 Epistemology ... 36 4.3 Literature Review and Document Analysis ... 36 4.4 Case Study ... 37 4.4.1 INTRODUCTION ... 374.4.2 CONTEXT AND SCOPE ... 40 4.4.3 DATA COLLECTION ... 43 4.4.4 LIMITATIONS ... 44 4.5 Operationalization and Analysis ... 45 4.6 Ethical Considerations ... 47 4.6.1 TRUST ... 47 4.6.2 SENSITIVITY ... 48 4.6.3 AMBIGUOUS MOTIVATIONS ... 48 5. FINDINGS ... 49 5.1 Introduction ... 49 5.2 Background ... 49 5.3 Research Sub‐Question 1 ... 50 5.3.1 LIVESTOCK‐RELATED DAMAGES ... 50 5.3.2 CROP‐RELATED DAMAGE ... 51 5.3.3 CONCLUSION ... 51 5.4 Research Sub‐Question 2 ... 53 5.4.1 LIVESTOCK‐RELATED DAMAGE ... 55 5.4.2 CROP‐RELATED DAMAGE ... 58 5.4.3 CONCLUSION ... 60 5.5 Research Sub‐Question 3 ... 63 5.5.1 LIVESTOCK‐RELATED DAMAGE ... 65 5.5.2 CROP‐RELATED DAMAGE ... 66 5.5.3 CONCLUSION ... 68 5.6 Overall Conclusion ... 70 6. CONCLUSION ... 73 6.1 Introduction ... 73 6.2 Conclusions and Recommendations ... 73 6.2.1 CONCLUSION ... 73 6.2.2 RECOMMENDATIONS... 74 6.3 Reflection ... 77 6.3.1 METHODOLOGY ... 77 6.3.2 FINDINGS ... 79 6.4 Final Remarks ... 80 LITERATURE CITED ... 82
APPENDIX 1 – NRM Structures and Strategies ... 88 APPENDIX 2 – Research Participants ... 90 APPENDIX 3 – Household Survey ... 94
ABSTRACT
Ecosystem services provide critical benefits to the environment and global population. Where global human population growth is coupled with an increasing demand for resources, conflict between humans and wildlife has had negative impacts on indigenous households and species populations. Human‐wildlife conflict (HWC) can have negative impacts on the delivery of ecosystem services when not managed in a way that balances the needs of both people and the environment.
Against the backdrop of HWC, research explored the vulnerability of sustainable livelihood assets of agro‐pastoralists in northern Tanzania, where community based natural resource management (CBNRM) in the form of Wildlife Management Areas (WMAs) has been implemented to reduce this conflict and ensure that local communities benefit from natural resource (wildlife) conservation. Understanding the degree of vulnerability amongst communities living alongside wildlife in light of this conservation strategy aims to have relevance for the design of efficient, targeted sustainable development conservation initiatives that balance the needs of both people and place and ensure the delivery of critical ecosystem services. Thus, the research addresses the following question: Are the sustainable livelihoods of rural agro‐pastoralist households in northern Tanzania vulnerable to HWC?
Research was conducted over a period of three months in early 2015 in four of the 10 villages within Burunge Wildlife Management, a critical area of biodiversity conservation along the Tarangire‐ Manyara Kwakuchinja wildlife corridor between Tarangire and Lake Manyara National Parks. A survey of 142 households was conducted in Kakoi (n=46) Vilima Vitatu (n=35), Sangaiwe (n=31) and Olasiti (n=30). Using vulnerability theory, an index was constructed of 13 indicators to quantify vulnerability of survey participants along the composite dimensions of exposure, sensitivity, and adaptive capacity. Mean composite scores across all indicators were calculated for respondents, and ranged between 0.0 indicating minimum vulnerability and 1.0 indicating maximum vulnerability. A composite vulnerability score of greater than .5 classified a household as vulnerable. The findings of this data were triangulated by semi‐structured interviews with randomly selected survey participant households, as well as non‐participatory observation, and a review of relevant secondary literature. The findings indicate first, that households in the research site are vulnerable to HWC along all the three dimensions of exposure, sensitivity, and adaptive capacity. Based on the scoring methodology, it was determined that the sustainable livelihoods of 126 (or 89%) out of 142 survey participants are vulnerable to HWC at the research site. Further, the mean vulnerability score of 0.69 across all households indicates that not only are respondents highly likely to have negative impacts to livelihoods as a result of HWC, but that these impacts are likely to be moderate to severe in scale. Second, in light of this determination, the findings indicate that WMAs as Tanzania’s National Policy Framework for CBNRM have not successfully provided adequate benefits to participant households in order to offset costs of conflict associated with wildlife conservation.
Two recommendations are made in light of the empirical findings. First, that the reduction of sustainable livelihood asset vulnerability to HWC among rural agro‐pastoralist households be prioritized at the case study site. Utilization of the vertical integration model (VIM) for long‐term HWC management with supplemental short‐term mitigation strategies that address immediate vulnerability can provide a comprehensive approach to this end. Second, that WMAs be re‐evaluated as Tanzania’s National Policy Framework for CBNRM in light of this determined vulnerability. Total devolvlement of revenue and management from central government to local WMAs may improve the participatory nature of this approach and also ecosystem service delivery at the local level. Keywords: Human‐Wildlife Conflict, Tanzania, Burunge, Wildlife Management Area, sustainable
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to express my deepest gratitude for the many people who assisted me in completing my field research and this thesis. First, to Dr. Joyeeta Gupta who, through her supervision during this challenging process, has forced me to hold myself to a high standard of academic excellence and has been a role model in pursuit of endless knowledge regarding environmental change. Second, to Dr. Hebe Verrest for her willingness to act as second reader and lend her expert knowledge on sustainable livelihoods to a critical review of this thesis. To the entire team of conservation and wildlife experts at Honeyguide Foundation in Arusha, Tanzania, who provided me with the unique opportunity to learn more about the conservation crisis and assisted me in better understanding the priorities of Tanzanians living alongside wildlife in Burunge Wildlife Management Area. To Jeremy Swanson and Damian Bell in particular, I am eternally grateful. Finally, to my friends and family who have provided endless support in this endeavor, I cannot thank you enough.DEDICATION
Throughout the globe, brave men and women are on the front lines of protecting both humans and wildlife, often away from their families for weeks on end, for little compensation or recognition, risking their lives every day. Across Africa more than 1,000 rangers have been killed in the line of duty preventing or mitigating human‐wildlife conflict, for the past 10 years: an average of two per week, every week, for a decade. To those in the selfless struggle, and to those who gave the ultimate sacrifice, this thesis is dedicated.
QUOTE
But yet, O man, rage not beyond thy need:Deem it no glory to swell in tyranny.
Thou art of blood; joy not to make things bleed:
Thou fearest death: think they are loth to die
A plaint of guiltless hurt doth pierce the sky.
And you poor beasts, in patience bide your hell.
Or know your strengths, and then you shall do well.
Selected Writings, Sir Philip Sidney, Richard Dutton
LIST OF FIGURES, TABLES, GRAPHS
Figure 1: Linkages between ecosystem services and human well‐being ... 12 Figure 2: MA conceptual framework of interactions between biodiversity, ecosystem services, human well‐being, and drivers of change... 13 Figure 3: Conceptual Framework ... 17 Figure 4: Vulnerability framework ... 19 Figure 5: Exposure, sensitivity, and resilience components of the vulnerability framework ... 20 Figure 6: Conceptual linkages between vulnerability, resilience, and adaptive capacity ... 21 Figure 7: Sustainable rural livelihoods: a framework for analysis ... 23 Figure 8: SLA Framework ... 24 Figure 9: Map of BWMA... 41 Figure 10: Map of Kwakuchinja Corridor ... 41 Figure 11: Tanzania's natural resource management institutional structure ... 88 Figure 12: Basic illustration of WMA logic model ... 89 Table 1: A spectrum of approaches to community involvement in natural resource management .... 28 Table 2: Strategies for human‐wildlife conflict management ... 32 Table 3: Score Methodology (Exposure) ... 50 Table 4: Q14. Have you experienced livestock‐related damage due to wildlife at any time in the past year? ... 51 Table 5: Q41. Have you experienced crop related damage at any time in the past year? ... 51 Table 6: Total Score – Exposure ... 52 Table 7: Score Methodology (Sensitivity) ... 54 Table 8: Q17. Have you or has anyone in your family living here had the following happen in the last year due to wildlife? ... 56 Table 9: Were 10% or more of total livestock holdings negatively impacted? ... 56 Table 10: Percentage range categories ... 57 Table 11: Q44. Have you or has anyone in your family living here had the following happen in the last year due to wildlife? ... 58 Table 12: Were 10% or more of total crop holdings negatively impacted? ... 58 Table 13: Percentage range categories ... 59 Table 14: Is the most valuable crop also the most damaged or destroyed? ... 60 Table 15: Total Score ‐ Sensitivity ... 61 Table 16: Score Methodology (Adaptive Capacity) ... 64 Table 17: Q22. Overall, how successful are the methods that you are currently using to protect your livestock? ... 65 Table 18: Q24. What are your impediments to effective livestock protection? ... 66 Table 19: Q25. Have you received assistance / support for livestock protection? ... 66 Table 20: Q49. Overall, how successful are the methods that you are currently using to protect your crops? ... 67 Table 21: Q51. What are your impediments to effective crop protection? ... 67 Table 22: Q52. Have you received assistance / support for crop protection? ... 68 Table 23: Total Score ‐ Adaptive Capacity ... 68Table 24: Vulnerability Statistics ... 71 Table 25: Vulnerability by Score Range ... 72 Table 26: Vulnerability Scores by Village ... 72 Graph 1: Vulnerability along the dimension of exposure……….. 52 Graph 2: Percentage of livestock injured or killed by wildlife………. 57 Graph 3: Percentage of crops damaged or destroyed by wildlife………. 59 Graph 4: Vulnerability along the dimension of sensitivity………. 62 Graph 5: Vulnerability along the dimension of adaptive capacity……… 69 Graph 6: Vulnerability……….. 71
LIST OF ACRONYMS
AA ‐ Authorized Association BWMA ‐ Burunge Wildlife Management Area CBD ‐ Convention on Biological Diversity CBNRM ‐ Community Based Natural Resource Management COP – Conference of the Parties CWM ‐ Community‐Based Wildlife Management DFID – Department for International Development EIA ‐ Environmental Investigation Agency GDP ‐ Gross Domestic Product GOT – Government of Tanzania HEC ‐ Human‐Elephant Conflict HWC ‐ Human‐Wildlife Conflict HGF ‐ Honeyguide Foundation IUCN ‐ International Union for Conservation of Nature LDC ‐ Least Developed Country MA – Millennium Ecosystem Assessment MDG ‐ Millennium Development Goal MNRT ‐ Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism NGO – Non‐governmental Organization NP – National Park NPA ‐ National Parks Act NSGRP ‐ National Strategy for Growth and Reduction of Poverty PA ‐ Protected Area SDG ‐ Sustainable Development Goal SLA ‐ Sustainable Livelihoods Approach SPSS ‐ Statistical Package for the Social Sciences TANAPA ‐ Tanzania National Parks Authority TAWIRI ‐ Tanzania Wildlife Research Institute TNRF ‐ Tanzania Natural Resources Forum UN ‐ United Nations USAID ‐ United States Agency for International Development WCPA – World Commission on Protected Areas WCA ‐ Wildlife Conservation Act WCED – World Commission on Environment and Development VGS ‐ Village Game Scouts VIM – Vertical Integration Model WMA ‐ Wildlife Management Area WCPA ‐ World Commission on Protected Areas WWF – World Wildlife Fund
1. THE IMPACT OF ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES ON
HUMAN‐WILDLIFE CONFLICT AND HOUSEHOLD VULNERABILITY
1.1 Introduction
Access to assets in the pursuit of sustainable livelihood strategies is a crucial component for poverty alleviation at multiple scales. Integrated ecosystem management is designed to ensure the efficient and sustainable management of natural resources so that both environment and human needs are met. However, when conservation and economic development are not balanced to prioritize the needs of both wildlife and human communities alike at the individual, household, and community levels, ecosystem management strategies may conversely contribute to human‐wildlife conflict (HWC). HWC is defined as “conflict occurring when an action by either humans or wildlife has an adverse effect on the other” (Redpath et al., 2013: 100). HWC may leave rural households susceptible to poverty traps (see 2.2.2) if livelihood strategies (see 2.2.2) are negatively impacted by such conflict and the resources for enhancing resilience (see 2.2.1) are not available. This vulnerability (see 2.2.1) may also undermine conservation efforts by alienating local communities who feel that the conservation of wildlife is prioritized over their poverty alleviation, and this in turn may lead to further conflict in the retaliation against wildlife (see 3.6). Thus the negative effects of HWC and vulnerability can be cyclical.
This research investigates and determines whether rural the sustainable livelihoods of rural households are measurably vulnerable to HWC at the case study site in northern Tanzania (see 4.5.2). Vulnerability is assessed through the collection of empirical data (see 4.5.3) and measured using a constructed HWC vulnerability index (see 4.6). This builds upon a broader literature examination of how HWC and vulnerability relate to sustainable livelihood insecurity, poverty traps, and sustainable development barriers. This chapter introduces the topics of this thesis, both broad and specific, and the real‐world problem to be identified and addressed (1.2). The research questions are presented (1.3), along with the objectives for achievement based on the development of answers to these questions (1.4). The analytical framework within which the research will be conducted is also presented (1.5), and the thesis outline is detailed (1.6).
The relationship between humans and ecosystems is dynamic, interactive, and mutually beneficial (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA), 2005). Ecosystems are essential for the protection of natural spaces and the biological diversity of wildlife species, but also for human well‐being in various provisioning, regulating, cultural, and supporting services (ibid). Figure 1 represents the strengths of these linkages or services and their contributions to human well‐being and development: Figure 1: Linkages between ecosystem services and human well‐being Source: MA (2005: vi)
Growth in global human population, coupled with land degradation and climate change, is having significant negative planetary impacts (UN, 2015). The unsustainable rate of natural resource extraction and degradation of the earth’s environment has tipped the planet into an Anthropocene (Waters et. al, 2016) and caused an escalation in species extinction rates (see 3.3). The exploitation of natural resources and increasing pressure on ecosystems has negative implications for both human well‐being and environments alike at the local, regional, and global levels (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005). These relationships and their implications can be seen in Figure 2:
Figure 2: MA conceptual framework of interactions between biodiversity, ecosystem services, human well‐being, and drivers of change
Source: MA (2005: vii)
Determining which strategies for managing global resources are most mutually beneficial for meeting the needs of more than 7.4 billion people globally and utilizing resources in an efficient manner that minimizes irreparable planetary damage is an urgent need (UN, 2015). In 1960 the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) developed the World Commission on Protected Areas (WCPA) to address the need for protecting ecosystems and the services they deliver. A protected area (PA) is “a clearly defined geographical space, recognized, dedicated and managed, through legal or other effective means, to achieve the long term conservation of nature with associated ecosystem services and cultural values” (IUCN, 2015: website). There are six different classifications of PAs distinguished by rules and policies governing human accessibility (see 3.1). More than 209,000 PAs now cover approximately 19% (or 33 million square kilometers) of marine
and terrestrial area globally (IUCN, 2015: website), and are the leading conservation strategy for the sustainable use of resources and protection of biodiversity (Khumalo and Yung, 2015). Despite the environmental benefits of PAs, the formalization of natural space has had mixed results on indigenous populations, in some cases hampering sustainable development aims (see 3.5).
These mixed results have been recorded in places like Tanzania, where 50% of terrestrial and marine area is located within the parameters of 626 PAs (Protected Planet, 2016: website)1. Rural populations living in biodiversity hotspots in Tanzania have experienced forced relocations to enable PA creation as well as conflict with wildlife over natural resources (Goldman, 2009). This land use change, in addition to high levels of agriculture‐sector dependence, poverty, and illegal natural resource extraction, have made the achievement of sustainable development challenging (see 4.5.1 and 4.5.2).
To meet sustainable development aims in a participatory and inclusive way, community based natural resource management (CBNRM)2 strategies (see 3.4) have been implemented in some PAs as a complement to national or federal natural resource management (namely National Parks (NPs)). The objective of CBNRM is to “create, through the bottom‐up participatory approach, conditions whereby a maximum number of community members stand to benefit from sustainable management and utilization of wildlife” (Songorwa, 1999: 261). In Tanzania, Wildlife Management Areas (WMAs) (see 4.5.1) were developed in 19983 as the national policy framework for CBNRM. The creation of these buffer zones on land adjacent to NPs was intended to minimize instances of HWC through the provision of additional dispersal land for migratory wildlife. Success in this CBNRM strategy should thus a) minimize HWC, b) halt or reverse biodiversity loss and, c) improve sustainable livelihoods of households living in WMAs by providing income‐generating opportunities through agreements with businesses operating within the WMA (World Wildlife Fund (WWF), 2012). These achievements would thus serve the overarching goal to better balance human and environmental needs in conservation initiatives.
However, 10 years after pilot inception, little data is available to determine whether the negative impacts from wildlife still make households vulnerable to HWC. Damage or destruction by wildlife to property relating to agro‐pastoral activities may decrease household willingness to participate in 1 32% of land area is protected; 18% of marine area is protected: http://www.protectedplanet.net/country/TZ] 2 Also known as Community‐based Wildlife Management (CWM) or Community‐Based Conservation (CBC) (Songorwa,1999) 3 Funded by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID)
conservation efforts, and may even lead to their participation in activities that are harmful to wildlife and the ecosystem when the perceived costs of these schemes outweigh the benefits (Davis, 2011).
The northern Tanzanian research location provides a challenging but urgent and relevant context for evaluating vulnerability to HWC for the following reasons:
i) Human and livestock populations in this agro‐pastoralist community have both grown significantly, with land‐use changes impeding wildlife species movement along an important migratory corridor between two PAs (Igoe and Croucher, 2007);
ii) Degradation of the ecosystem has forced wildlife and humans to compete for scarce natural resources (DeGeorges & Reilly, 2009);
iii) Complex and competing interests exist between institutions (both formal and informal), community traditions, governmental policies, conservation organization efforts, the tourism industry, and the rampant illegal wildlife poaching and trafficking industry (Duffy & St John, 2013);
iv) The impacts of this CBNRM scheme on constituent villages along socio‐economic indicators has not been measured (USAID, 2013).
1.3 Research Questions
While relevant literature is extensive (see 3.1), and indexes have been created to separately measure environmental and social vulnerability (see 4.6), no index or standardized measurement for assessing vulnerability to HWC, particularly in relation to natural resource management strategies, has been created. Utilizing vulnerability theory (see 2.2.1) and the Sustainable Livelihood Approach (SLA) (see 2.2.2), an assessment of HWC and its impacts at the household level may thus provide an important indicator for the success of both local and global (glocal) conservation strategies aimed at providing essential ecosystem services for both the environment and human populations. This assessment aims to answer the main research question:
Are the sustainable livelihoods of rural agro‐pastoralist households in northern Tanzania vulnerable to HWC?
Answering the main research question will be achieved through the answering of the following three sub‐research questions:
1.
Are sustainable livelihoods of agro‐pastoralists vulnerable to human‐wildlife conflict along the dimension of exposure?2.
Are sustainable livelihoods of agro‐pastoralists vulnerable to human‐wildlife conflict along the dimension of sensitivity?3.
Are sustainable livelihoods of agro‐pastoralists vulnerable to human‐wildlife conflict along the dimension of adaptive capacity?
An examination of how vulnerable sustainable livelihoods of rural households are to HWC is an indication of how successful conservation strategies are at the research site. This determination can be used to guide glocal engagement in initiatives to address HWC in a more efficient and effective way. In turn it is hoped that this will provide a better idea of how to direct energies to decrease vulnerabilities for both human populations and wildlife alike.
Results from this research therefore have the potential to be used by stakeholders engaged in efforts geared toward the achievement of multiple Sustainable Development Goals (SDG), but particularly SDG 15 to “Protect, restore and promote sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems, sustainably manage forests, combat desertification, and halt and reverse land degradation and halt biodiversity loss”(UN, 2015: website).
1.4 Objectives
Answering the research questions will enable the following objectives to be achieved: Determine whether the sustainable livelihoods of households in the case study area are vulnerable to loss stemming from incidents of human‐wildlife conflict; Understand along what dimensions these households are vulnerable (if at all); Make recommendations for the reduction of household vulnerability to HWC in the case study are (if appropriate).1.5 Conceptual Framework
Determination of vulnerability in the case study site will be evaluated using a combined theoretical framework of both vulnerability theory (see 2.2.1) and the Sustainable Livelihood Approach (SLA) (see 2.2.2). The basic core concepts of this research and the relationships between them are identified in Figure 3. The creation of an index measuring the sustainable livelihood vulnerability of rural households in the context of HWC along the components of exposure, sensitivity, and adaptive capacity can serve to identify whether natural resource management strategies, implemented to reduce this vulnerability, have been successful.Figure 3: Conceptual Framework
1.6 Thesis Outline
This thesis is organized into six chapters. The first introduces the main research concepts and briefly details the justification for the research analyzed herein. Chapter two provides the theoretical framework, an identification and discussion of the main theories that ground the research. The third chapter provides context of the research through an examination of the current body of literature addressing the main thematic considerations of the thesis. This literature review will identify gaps in existing literature, and also address the disagreements around the main concepts. This will further the justification for this research, particularly within the context of the theories discussed in Chapter two, and is important for the understanding of empirical findings. Chapter four elaborates on the case study specifics as well as the methodology used to conduct the research, including the operationalization, ethical considerations. The limitations and ethical considerations of this research are also elaborated upon within this chapter. Chapter five details and analyzes the empirical data for each of the three research sub‐questions. The final sixth chapter will provide a final answer to the main research question, discussed in relation to the empirical quantitative findings, supporting qualitative data, and within the context of the existing literature. A reflection on methods will also accompany the overarching conclusions and recommendations.
2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK FOR ANALYSIS
2.1 Introduction
The justification for the research of this thesis derives from theories and frameworks used widely in the social science discipline. Vulnerability theory (2.2.1) examines the susceptibility of population systems to negative effects from both social and environmental causes. The Sustainable Livelihood Approach (SLA) (2.2.2) provides a background for how the assets of population systems are enhanced or negated by various external influences. These theories are interrelated in their influencing factors on the escape or entrenchment of poverty traps. With this background, this chapter will examine the relevant theories upon which this research is based, and ultimately aims to answer the following question: how do vulnerability theory and the SLA relate to each other, and influence human‐wildlife conflict? This question will be answered in the final section (2.3)
2.2 Theoretical Framework
2.2.1 VULNERABILITYHuman population systems across the globe face risks associated with environmental change, and the ability to absorb these risks is related to resource access. Risk is defined as “uncertain events that can damage well‐being […] The uncertainty that can pertain to the timing or the magnitude of the event (World Bank, 2001: 139) and also as “the likelihood and potential severity of occurrence of a particular and potentially adverse shock or stress” (OECD, 2006: 21). While risk is typically associated with environmental change that is sudden or drastic in nature, environmental change faced by poor populations can also be seen through idiosyncratic shocks or stresses that result from changes to ecosystem management.
Resource‐poor populations are more likely to experience negative consequences of environmental change because their access to assets needed for coping with risk is more limited (Ludi and Bird, 2007). As a result, poor people are more likely to face vulnerability, “the likelihood that a shock will result in a decline in well‐being. […] Vulnerability is primarily a function of a household’s asset endowments and insurance mechanisms ‐ and of the characteristics of the shock” (World Bank, 2001: 139). It is also defined as “the degree of exposure of households or individuals to shocks and stresses, and their availability to prevent, mitigate, or cope with the event” (Farrington, 2004 found in Ludi and Bird, 2007: 1).
Vulnerability refers to the propensity of exposed elements (such as human beings, their livelihoods, and assets) to suffer adverse effects when impacted by hazard events (Cardona et al., 2012). Vulnerability in the context of environmental change is also defined as “the degree to which a system, subsystem, or system component is likely to experience harm due to exposure to a hazard, a perturbation or stress / stressor” (Turner et al., 2003; 8074) and further as the exposure to risk coupled with the inability to cope (ibid). The framework for this theory is found in Figure 4. Figure 4: Vulnerability framework Source: Turner et al. (2003: 8076) Further, the authors argue that “vulnerability is registered not by exposure to hazards (perturbations and stresses) alone, but also resides in the sensitivity and resilience of the system experiencing such hazards” (Turner et al., 2003: 8074). In other words, vulnerability is seen as an internal property of the system, which only becomes expressed or revealed when it is exposed to a disturbance or hazard. The vulnerability of a human system to the disturbance or hazard (perturbations, stresses, stressors) influences how that system will be impacted and respond; if the system has the ability to adjust or adapt to the hazards then the potential for vulnerability is minimized, but if the system does not have these capabilities then the potential for vulnerability increases. Thus the vulnerability of a system is not determined by a single factor, but arguably by a combination of three factors: exposure, sensitivity, and resilience or adaptive capacity.
Figure 5: Exposure, sensitivity, and resilience components of the vulnerability framework
Source: Turner et al. (2003: 8077)
Exposure is considered the actual occurrence of a disturbance or hazard on the system, while sensitivity is seen as the change in functioning or structure to the composition of the system in question as a result of the disturbance or hazard (IPCC, 2001). Brown and Westaway (2011) define adaptive capacity, or adaptability, as “the capacity of any human system from the individual to humankind to increase (or at least maintain) the quality of life of its individual members in a given environment or range of environments” (p.323). Adaptive capacity is dependent in part on access to assets, ranging from tangible (natural resources, financial resources) to less tangible (social resources), that are essential for maintenance or improvements to well‐being through livelihood strategies achieved by way of formal and informal institutions and infrastructure. Further, human systems, whether communities, households, or individuals for whom assets or access to assets are limited – and thus have reduced resilience within the adaptive capacity context – are also conversely more likely to be vulnerable to the hazards associated with environmental change (Brown and Westaway, 2011). Resilience to environmental change suggests that individuals have the capability to cope with traumas, or potential traumas, in situations of environmental change. It is defined in literature on human development as the “dynamic process wherein individuals display positive adaptation despite experiences of significant adversity or trauma” (Brown and Westaway, 2011; 326).
There are different interpretations in the vulnerability literature with regard to the concepts of resilience and adaptive capacity. The vulnerability framework created by Turner et al (2003) considers resilience to be the third component of vulnerability. Some authors suggest that (social) resilience can be equated with adaptive capacity (Gallopín, 2006), others argue that changes in resilience influence adaptive capacity (Cutter et al., 2008), and still others view adaptive capacity as merely a component of resilience (Brown and Westaway, 2011). The different views on the relationship between these concepts can be seen in Figure 6: Figure 6: Conceptual linkages between vulnerability, resilience, and adaptive capacity Source: Cutter et al. (2008: 600) For the purpose of the research presented in this thesis, the conceptualization of vulnerability will be guided by the IPCC (2001) definition with regard to climate change, which defines vulnerability as a sum of exposure, sensitivity, and adaptive capacity represented in the following equation: Vulnerability = Exposure + Sensitivity + Adaptive Capacity
Developing a standard measurement of vulnerability in coupled social‐environmental systems has been difficult because of the aforementioned disagreements over conceptual structure, and because there are no universal requirements for quantification and measurement of these factors. The latter is true in part because vulnerability is subjective or based on a local definition; some communities
will define certain characteristics as vulnerabilities while other communities will identify different vulnerability dimensions or priorities. However, according to the UN, vulnerability tends to be higher in households where the source, or sources, of consumption and income are risky, and the households that are the most vulnerable include those that are “under the threat of conflict, drought and other risks, particularly poor families which lack a diversified income and asset base” (UN, 2016: website). Further, contributions to poverty reduction are directly related to interventions that reduce risk exposure (Ludi and Bird, 2007).
2.2.2 SUSTAINABLE LIVELIHOOD APPROACH (SLA)
Understanding how stakeholders access livelihood assets informs a more holistic understanding of why particular human systems are more vulnerable to negative impacts from hazards. Chambers & Conway (1992) first developed the concept of sustainable livelihoods as a connection of interrelated inputs, outputs, and outcomes, and defined it in the following manner:
A livelihood comprises the capabilities, assets (stores, resources, claims and access), and activities required for a means of living: a livelihood is sustainable which can cope with and recover from stress and shocks, maintain or enhance its capabilities and assets, and provide sustainable livelihood opportunities for the next generation; and which contributes net benefits to other livelihoods at the local and global levels and in the short and long term (Chambers & Conway, 1992: 7).
This definition later evolved into the sustainable rural livelihoods approach (SLA) by Scoones (1998) and has been used by numerous multilateral institutions as a cornerstone of poverty alleviation strategies. Access to capital or assets (categorized as financial, social, natural, physical, and human) 4needed for sustainable livelihood achievement mediates the relationship between ecosystem services and human well‐being (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005). The SLA presents the relationships between these elements and aims to provide an explanation for how stakeholder livelihood resources are affected by these relationships; the framework for the SLA is seen in Figures 7 and 8. 4 SLA guidance sheets provide more detailed information about capital and asset classification: http://www.eldis.org/vfile/upload/1/document/0901/section2.pdf
Figure 7: Sustainable rural livelihoods: a framework for analysis
Source: Scoones (1998: 4)
The SLA is intended to provide insight into how and why development occurs by suggesting that the ability for stakeholders to move out, and stay out, of poverty is largely dependent on access to livelihood assets and the extent of influence over structures and processes within the context of vulnerability (Scoones, 1998). In other words, stakeholders who have the least influence over and access to livelihood assets through both formal and informal structures and processes, are not as able to employ livelihood strategies and thus achieve livelihood outcomes when faced with vulnerability. They are the population systems least resilient to change (in the form of shocks, trends, or seasonality) and the most susceptible to poverty traps, where capital is low and falls per person in ratio with each generation (Sachs, 2006). Further, “Assets gain weight and value through the prevailing social, institutional and organizational environment (policies, institutions and processes). This context decisively shapes the livelihood strategies that are open to people in pursuit of their self‐defined beneficial livelihood outcomes” (Kollmair et al., 2002: 10).
Figure 8: SLA Framework
Source: DFID (1999)
The objective of the SLA is to develop a holistic understanding of the changing context within which stakeholders find themselves poor and, by doing so, to provide insight and guidance for the alleviation of that poverty in a sustainable way (Department for International Development (DFID), 1999). Institutions and organizations have an integral role to play in sustainable livelihood achievement and poverty alleviation. It is evident in the SLA framework that the processes and structures associated with institutions and organizations can have significant influence on whether people are able to actually utilize livelihood assets in the application of livelihood strategies; they represent a theoretical “middle man” between resource access on one side and the utilization of these resources for livelihood outcomes on the other.
If institutions and organizations restrict access to assets or livelihood strategies, the agency of those population systems affected by the restriction is also impacted. Agency is thus a key component in restricting or enabling the capabilities of humans to cope with the stress of environmental change. Brown and Westaway (2011) have identified human agency as the collective or independent ability or capacity of actors to make independent choices and suggested that it is a key factor in the determination of response to environmental change at both the societal and individual levels. The agency concept “links a number of different fields: social‐ecological systems, sustainability sciences, hazards and disasters, vulnerability, and resilience. Adaptive capacity provides a bridge between adaptation literature on environmental change and climate change and that concerned more centrally with human motivation, behavior, and responses”(Brown and Westaway, 2011: 323).
Human systems at multiple scales (individuals, households, communities) are vulnerable to changes in pursuit of sustainability, such as in loss of access to important resources and marginalization of input as to how resources are managed. These population systems must adapt in pursuit of larger sustainable development goals, but at the same time a scarce resource base may cause insecurity if they are not adequately prepared or supported.
Vulnerability theory (see 2.2.1) and SLA (see 2.2.2) are interrelated in the identification of risks for population systems with regard to how they access livelihood assets and are susceptible to poverty traps (see 2.2.2) if not equipped with the appropriate resources to respond when faced with an environmental change. Of these vulnerabilities, it can be argued that HWC is a shock with the potential to significantly impact livelihoods; for example, loss or damage to livestock and crops, can have a significant negative impact on an individual’s ability to achieve livelihood outcomes. On the other hand, the commodification of wildlife can have the potential to positively impact livelihood assets; wildlife often has an important contribution to the tourism industry and thus the economy of communities who live in proximity to PAs. The basis of livelihoods are assets, and as such can be influenced by PAs in two ways: “First, the policies, institutions and processes of the [PAs] directly influence access to assets, and second, livelihood outcomes could further support or undermine future access to assets” (Bennett and Dearden, 2014: 112).
Vulnerability in the context of the aforementioned literature is related specifically to the effects of environmental change. Risks can be distinguished as either collective (covariant), large in scale and thus also affecting large population systems such as communities, regions, or nations, or idiosyncratic, smaller in nature and affecting smaller population systems, such as individuals or households. The restriction of local or indigenous household access to resources needed for the pursuit of wellbeing, coupled with the increased protection of wildlife biodiversity in the PA conservation model, resulting in HWC, can and should be considered an environmental risk with the associated vulnerabilities often characterizing sudden or drastic landscape changes. In the context of this research, damages to assets resulting from HWC are examined on a household level and are thus viewed as idiosyncratic (Ludi and Bird, 2007). However, human‐wildlife conflict is a risk that has the potential for negative impacts on entire communities, regions, or nations due to its human development reduction capacity at multiple scales.
3. LITERATURE REVIEW
3.1 Introduction
The following literature review serves to identify how the implementation of conservation and biodiversity initiatives, against the backdrop of broad sustainable development objectives, has impacted local or rural populations within the African context. As sustainable development is meant to balance the needs of people and the environment, what are the impacts of the implementation of these initiatives for both? This chapter will include a brief overview of the sustainable development discourse (see 3.2) and the importance of these considerations in the current environmental crises of climate change and biodiversity loss (see 3.3). It will then include a brief description of the natural resource management strategies used to address these issues (see 3.4), and the human‐wildlife conflict that often results (see 3.5). The inferences (see 3.6) derived from these topics and their authorities, along with identified gaps in the literature, will inform the justification for research presented herein.
3.2 Sustainable Development Discourse
Wildlife conservation began as “the protection (preservation) and careful use of wild animals and plants (usually termed “wildlife” or “natural resources”) and the environments in which they live” (Lavigne, 2006: 2). However, this early definition of the term did not reflect the argument that human population needs should also be considered in wildlife conservation aims. An evolved definition of the term, “the restoration, protection, and prudent use of natural resources to provide the greatest aesthetic, social, ecosystem and economic benefits for present and future generations” (Lavigne, 2006: 2) refocuses this concept to provide a balance between preserving wildlife and meeting human demands.
The modern concept of conservation represents a marriage between the development (use) and preservation (un‐use) of natural resources, which has evolved into the term sustainability (Lavigne, 2006). Sustainability implies exerting some degree of conservation to ensure that natural resources are not developed or used at a greater rate than they can reproduce or increase. Therefore the resources are utilized efficiently to minimize waste, and are sustained or maintained for future generations (Lavigne, 2006).
This consideration for how resources should be used in light of the needs of future human population systems is an early indication of the sustainable development concept, which seeks to “’[meet] the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs’”(World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED), 1987: 8). Sustainable development focuses on the duality required in policy and practice to meet the resource demands of a growing, evolving human population while also ensuring that these same resources are managed in a conscious, efficient way to meet both present and future needs. Further, it involves ensuring the protection of biological diversity and ecosystems while promoting opportunities for individuals and communities, particularly the poor and under‐resourced, to improve their lives and livelihoods. However, the concept of sustainable development is a paradox: it implies human development can and must continue while without compromising the availability of natural resources (which have been depleted and/or degraded in the pursuit of this same development).
The pursuit of sustainability often results in trade‐offs between human and environmental priorities (see 3.5). The United Nations (UN) created the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) in 2000 and the subsequent SDGs in 2015 in order to address the major issues surrounding this paradox of sustainable development, including how best to eradicate hunger and poverty while ensuring environmental protection and social development, along with inclusive growth (UN, 2015).
3.3 Environmental Crises: Climate Change and Biodiversity Loss
It is apparent, however, that man‐made impacts on earth’s ecosystems and the new Anthropocene have had significant negative effects on the biodiversity of the planet’s flora and fauna (Hooper et al., 2012). The current extinction and biodiversity loss rate is 1,000 to 10,000 higher than the natural extinction rate (WWF website, 2016), and is largely attributed to human activity; greater than 86% of all bird, mammal, and amphibian species are threatened by habitat degradation and loss (IUCN website, 2016). Further, climate change has a significant and negative impact on biodiversity: the expected global temperature rise of two degrees Celsius could cause the biodiversity extinction risk to double, and a four degrees Celsius rise ‐ not far from the realm of possibility ‐ would put 16%, or one in six, species at risk for extinction (Urban 2015). Experts suggest that earth has now entered a sixth extinction event (Ceballos et al., 2015). The risk of biodiversity loss in the global context is particularly concerning on the continent of Africa, home to eight of the 34 biodiversity hotspots worldwide, as well as 20 percent of all bird species and25 percent of all mammal species. In addition to Africa’s vulnerability with regard to biodiversity, the continent is also particularly vulnerable to the impacts of climate change (PEW, 2015). High rates of poverty, low adaptive capacity, a heavy reliance on rain‐fed agriculture, and financial and technological resource constraints are the principle contributions to this vulnerability (Adger et al., 2003). Rising global temperature and changes in ocean circulation have the potential to make certain areas of the continent more prone to a hot and dry climate, whereas other areas will be at greater risk for sporadic rains and flooding. These dangers of an increase in the potential for both droughts and floods are particularly risky for a continent where 63 percent of the poorest populations live in rural settings and rely heavily on the agricultural sector (World Bank, 2015). These disadvantaged populations are the most affected by negative environmental changes through increased risks for food insecurity, land degradation, and poverty (Maharjan, et al., 2014).
3.4 Natural Resource Management Strategies
Three major approaches to natural resource management are utilized in the pursuit of sustainable development to stem these environmental crises: PAs, joint or co‐management, and CBNRM. A comparison of these strategies and their differences can be seen in Table 1:
Table 1: A spectrum of approaches to community involvement in natural resource management
Resource proprietor Community role Level of local
participation PA outreach and benefit‐sharing State Receive benefits from PA managers; cooperate with PA managers in protecting PA resources Weak; participation limited to largely passive actions Co‐management (or joint management) State but may be decentralized or deconcentrated Cooperate with state authorities in management of the PA or resource in question Medium; depends on the rights and responsibilities granted to local communities in a given situation CBNRM Local communities through collective representative body Resource managers through either delegated usufruct rights (user rights) or outright proprietorship High; communities as main proprietors, decision‐makers, and beneficiaries. Source: Roe et al. (2009: 15)
PAs have become the leading conservation strategy in the preservation of ecosystems and biodiversity (Adams et al., 2004). The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) states that PAs:
Constitute an important stock of natural, cultural and social capital, yielding flows of economically valuable goods and services that benefit society, secure livelihoods, and contribute to the achievement of Millennium Development Goals. Moreover, protected areas are key to buffering unpredictable impacts of impending climate change. The CBD Programme of Work on Protected Areas provides a globally accepted framework for creating comprehensive, effectively managed and sustainably funded national and regional protected area systems around the globe (CBD: website 2015).
PAs are separated into one of seven classifications to establish uniform objectives with regard to conservation planning and management. Internationally recognized by the United Nations (UN) and national governments, these classifications range from areas that are intended to be completely preserved with extremely limited human intervention (Ia) to those where the sustainable use of natural resources by human population systems takes place (VI) (IUCN: website 2015). Further, PAs “serve as indicators of achievement of the Millennium Development Goals” (Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, 2008: 1).
The conservation and community benefits of well‐managed PAs can be two‐fold. First, through the protection of ecosystems, species, and their habitats. The environmental benefits derived from PAs can include the stability or increase of species populations, forest conservation, and land‐use change amelioration (Hall et al., 2014). Second, through positive impact on human development at multiple scales. Locally, they can provide livelihood opportunities through tourism, while also having health benefits attributed to cleaner natural resources. At a wider scale, they can have positive impacts on the mitigation of climatic and environmental events (CBD: website 2015; Bennett and Dearden, 2013). There is evidence that PAs are successful for habitat and species protection (Hall et al., 2014). An analysis of 16 PAs across 11 countries in Africa showed that the PA strategy was more successful than any alternative land use in rain forest biodiversity conservation (Struhsaker, Struhsaker, and Siex, 2005).
However, the impact on local communities of conservation initiatives such as PAs can be negative politically, economically, culturally, and socially (Bennett and Dearden, 2013). In many places the creation of PAs has come at a cost for local, poor, rural, and marginalized populations who depend on natural resources needed for basic livelihood strategies; displacement and restriction to these resources has resulted in marginalization and impoverishment (Hall et al., 2014; Brockington & Igoe,
2006) and compromised the credibility of biodiversity conservation strategies (Cernea & Schmidt‐ Soltau, 2006). The 2001 World Bank Resettlement Safeguards Policy was created to ensure that no harm is done to local communities and a balance was created between conservation and livelihood outcomes (World Bank, 2001). Further, in 2003 at the IUCN World Parks Congress and later in 2008 at the Convention of Biological Diversity Conference of the Parties (CBD COP9), it was acknowledge that PAs have the potentially to negatively affect local communities, and as a result guidelines were created “to ensure that conservation and development activities in the context of protected areas contribute to the eradication of poverty and sustainable development” and that the benefits “from the establishment and management of protected areas are fairly and equitably shared” (CBD, 2008: 5).
Still, PAs are marred by a variety of issues that reduce their success as a conservation strategy, including: poor management; lack of available and consistent funding; human migration and encroachment; poor representation of habitat diversity; lack of connectivity between protected areas (Goldman, 2009; Struhsaker, Struhsaker, and Siex, 2005). The negative impacts can be significant, including: “evictions, removal and resettlements, exclusion for resource access and use, costs accrued from damage by wildlife on crops and livestock, threats to human life, health and property, insufficient share of park generated incomes, distribution of what is allocated and the disparity between costs and benefits accrued to different groups (Vedeld et al., 2012:22). The biological needs of large mammalian species often require wide expanses of migratory territory for food and calving purposes that extend beyond the official boundaries of a PA (Kansky et al., 2014). Laws prohibit community utilization of resources in PAs such as NPs, but wildlife is free to roam outside NP boundaries into community territories (Treves et al., 2006). This results in competition for natural resources can increase the likelihood of conflict between humans and wildlife (Schwerdtner & Gruber, 2007).
3.5 Human‐Wildlife Conflict
Despite a long history of HWC on the African continent, modern issues of climate change and human population growth have created conditions for heightened conflict (Lee & Graham, 2006). Wildlife must maneuver through an increasingly divided landscape where resource‐demand continues to grow for the achievement of livelihood outcomes and poverty alleviation in developing countries (Western, 2006). The changing climate exacerbates these issues: wildlife must search for natural resources such as water and nutritionally‐sufficient food that are increasingly scarce as land is
cultivated for pasture and farms. It is evident that during times of seasonal declines in this food availability as well as droughts there is an increased likelihood for HWC incidents (Lee & Graham, 2006).
Instances of HWC can have serious implications for the wellbeing of a species, especially when part of a larger, more chronic issue of conflict, and can be particularly dire when the species is threatened. While the loss of any species has negative impacts to its natural habitat, the loss of keystone species, critical to maintaining the health of ecosystems, is particularly devastating ((Bond, W. J., 1994). Keystone species act as landscape architects, and when they are extirpated the result is often the disappearance of other species of animals and plants, which can potentially result in the introduction of non‐native species of animals and plants. Moreover, the disappearance of these species can result in ecosystems that cease to function in a balanced way or that may collapse altogether (ibid). Additionally, wildlife plays a significant role in bolstering the multimillion‐dollar tourism industry generated by visitors to PAs and the surrounding communities across East Africa. This has the potential to contribute significantly to the economic health of communities living in proximity to wildlife if they have the agency (see 2.2.2) to manage these resources.
The cost burden of predation and damage caused by these migratory species typically falls on those who use land overlaps with the territory of wildlife. For pastoralists, an attack from a predator on the herd can cause significant losses when animals are killed or injured. For agriculturalists, the trampling or consumption of crops can also have significant impacts when the food is grown for subsistence and income‐generation. This results in a more negative attitude towards species among these groups than with the general population. It is a fundamental reason for further conflicts between wildlife and humans (Schwerdtner, & Gruber, 2007). When the livelihood capabilities (see
2.2.2) of households are threatened, killing animals in self‐defense does occur. Additionally, some feel justified taking matters into their own hands by killing animals to prevent loss, or killing animals in response to loss out of feelings of frustration or anger (Goss, 2015; Parker G.E. et al., 2007). Enforcement of environmental protections and non‐utilitarian views of wildlife have changed what was once a simple competitive relationship between people and wildlife into a political conflict between people and between institutions (Treves et al., 2006). Traditionally, the human response [to wildlife‐caused property losses and threats to human safety] in rural settings was to kill a problem animal to prevent further losses. However, increased efforts to protect biodiversity have made lethal retaliation against wildlife illegal in some areas or socially unacceptable in others (ibid), particularly when natural resource management is controlled by the state (see 3.4). Culling of
