HUMAN-WILDLIFE CONFLICT IN SENKELE SWAYNE S HARTEBEEST SANCTUARY, ETHIOPIA

Transcription

1 Journal of Experimental Biology and Agricultural Sciences, March ; Volume - 1 (1) Journal of Experimental Biology and Agricultural Sciences ISSN No HUMAN-WILDLIFE CONFLICT IN SENKELE SWAYNE S HARTEBEEST SANCTUARY, ETHIOPIA Tewodros Kumssa 1 *, Afework Bekele 2 1 Department of Biology, Madewalabu University, P.O.Box 256, Robe, Ethiopia 2 Department of Biology, Addis Ababa University, P.O. Box 1176, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia Received February 11, 2013; Revised February 25, 2013; Accepted March 10, 2013 Online available March 18, 2013 KEYWORDS Human-wildlife conflict, Respondents, Sanctuary, Swayne s hartebeest, Ethiopia ABSTRACT An investigation on human-wildlife conflict was carried out in Senkele Swayne s Hartebeest Sanctuary, Ethiopia from October, 2006 to April, 2007 in randomly selected four community associations consisting of 220 households. Overstocking rate of livestock, illegal resource exploitation, loss of wildlife habitat and increasing number of settlers were the major problems encountered resulting in conflict and wildlife depletion. Among the respondents, 58.18% faced crop damage at various levels. Swayne s hartebeests Alcelaphus buselaphus swaynei, vervet monkey Cercopithecus aethiops, warthog Phacocoerus aethiopicus and porcupine Hystrix cristata were blamed for the damage. However, warthog was considered as the notorious pest. The main cause of conflict between the local community and the Senkele Sanctuary staff was the demand to use resources from the Sanctuary. Most respondents had a negative attitude towards conservation measures. Lack of free access to grazing area and personal interest to occupy wildlife area were the main reasons for their negative attitude. The interaction of large number of people and their livestock will continue to have a negative effect on the Sanctuary. Unless urgent management action is taken to solve the problems, there is a real danger of devastation of wildlife in the area. * Corresponding author tewodroskk@gmail.com (Tewodros Kumssa) Peer review under responsibility of Journal of Experimental Biology and Agricultural Sciences. Production and Hosting by JEBAS ( All rights reserved.

2 33 Kumssa and Bekele 1. Introduction Human attitudes and values about wildlife vary both among and within different sectors of society (Messmer, 2000). Disputes on unwise land-use between the local people and conservation agencies are common in Africa (Nishizaki, 2004). The main source of conflict between wildlife conservation and other land-use practices in the Senkele plains is utilization of resources of the Sanctuary by both livestock and humans (Messana and Netsereab, 1994). Rural Africans generally do not want to see wildlife or have wildlife nearby due to fear of their costs and lack of benefits from the sector (Newmark et al., 1994). The concern of the local people around Senkele area is crop loss caused by wild animals, prohibited land access and personal safety (Tekle, 1996). In Senkele, great dependence of a large proportion of the human population for their survival on the land, coupled with the presence of large number of livestock resulted in conflict between people and wildlife (Messana and Nesereab, 1994). Problems of security and instability of governments can also have profound effects in maintaining and running of conservation areas (Kemf, 1993). A case in point in Ethiopia was the devastation caused during the transition of power from the military regime to the present government which brought a large-scale slaughter of hartebeests in the area by local communities (Tekle, 1996). (Casebeer and Koss, 1970). The problems facing the Swayne s hartebeests are not primarily due to their inability to utilize the habitat and resources but due to a reduction in the habitat and the consequent competition with man and his domestic animals (Tekle, 1996). The aims of the present study are to investigate factors leading to human-wildlife conflict in the area and to identify the impact of livestock and human on wildlife and vice versa along with to assess the attitude of the different stakeholders on how to manage the Sanctuary. 2. Materials and Methods Study area Senkele Swayne s Hartebeest Sanctuary (SSHS) is located 320 km south of Addis Ababa (Fig. 1). The 200 km 2 area occupied by the hartebeests in 1972 was reduced to about 58 km 2 in 1973 and forward for state farm (includes the now fallow land) in response to these reductions, in May 1974 the Ethiopian Wildlife Conservation Organization (EWCO) caught and translocated 210 hartebeest from Senkele. Ninety of these animals were taken to the Awash National Park and 120 to Nechisar National Park. Community perspective towards the parks stem from a variety of contributing factors such as loss of access to resources and income generated from the parks, and low levels of awareness about the value of wildlife conservation (Kiss, 1990). The relative impact of wildlife damage on farm products and household income varied greatly according to the size of land owned and economic dependence on rural activities (Messmer, 2000). Human-wildlife conflict is more intense in developing countries, where livestock holdings and agriculture are important components of the livelihood and income of the rural populations, such dependency makes them less tolerant the costs of wildlife (Boer and Baquete, 1998). Climate change is one of a range of factors causing natural resource scarcity; while natural resource scarcity is one of a range of factors causing conflict. The impact of climate change may result in people encroaching on protected areas in search for pasture, for crop production and livestock keeping. This creates not only conflict between the institutions that manage these protected areas and the encroachers, but also humanwildlife conflicts (Brown et al., 2008). Increasing densities in livestock populations can cause an overlap of diet and forage competition with wild herbivores (Mishra et al., 2003). Comparative studies have shown that cattle and Swayne s hartebeests may have similar diets, although Swayne s hartebeests tend to be more selective than cattle both on the level of grass species and grass parts Figure1. Map of the study area showing community associations. Area was subsequently loss due to human pressure the land declined to 36 km 2 (Messana and Nesereab, 1994). At present, less than 28 km 2 of the Sanctuary being remains unencroached for the hartebeest (Figure 2). East of the Sanctuary hold Tesisa, Borena and hills and the northern and southern parts of the Sanctuary harbour huts, expanded farmlands and fallow land. The fallowland used for grazing by livestock belonging to the Arsi people and Swayne's hartebeest during the dry seasons. Since 1991, prior to the previous state farm, the western parts of the Sanctuary, demarcated by huts, belonged to the Arsi people (Figure 2).

3 Human-Wildlife Conflict In Senkele Swayne s Hartebeest Sanctuary, Ethiopia. 34 and summarized using a text analysis method and is presented in a narrative fashion. The group size in each discussion was 20 people. Participants were selected based on their age and duration of residency in the area. Figure 2. Map showing the former and present boundaries of the Sanctuary. The vegetation community in the study area has been grouped as Pennisetum clandestinum, Pennisetum sephacelatum and mixed grassland (Tekle, 1996). The Senkele Swayne s Hartebeest Sanctuary also possesses other wild mammals including Bohor reedbuck Redunca redunca, oribi Ourebia ourebi, warthog Phacocoerus aethiopicus, Greater kudu Tragelaphus strepsiceros, spotted hyena Crocuta crocuta and common jackal Canis aureus. Methods The questionnaire survey The present study was carried out by means of a questionnaire and focus group discussion that were designed and tested in a village in and around the study area. The semi-structured questionnaire was administered to members of the household on a random manner based on first come first serve basis and alternating male and female respondent s as much as possible and different age groups. The survey was conducted in four villages using ten semistructured multiple-choice questions were delivered to ascertain demographic data (age, family size and level of education) (Q.1), the attitudes of local communities (Q.2 and Q.3), benefits of respondent from wildlife (Q.4), damages caused to crops (using categories ranging from no damage to much damage) (Q.5), the species of wildlife responsible and control measures (Q.6 and Q. 7), livestock type and number killed by predators (Q.8), support of new huts built in and around the Sanctuary (Q.9), relationship with conservationists (Q.10) and five pre-designed open-ended questions for group discussion (Table 1). Information collected from group discussions were used as a complement for the questionnaires Table 1 Questions asked of Senkele Sanctuary Zone villagers to examine their perceived conflict with wildlife. Focus group discussion questions Demographic data questions - Age _Sex_ Peasant association,family size,no of wives--, Educational status A. illiterate B. Read and write only C. Elementary D. High School. Do you like the existence of the Sanctuary nearby you Yes/ No If no, why? Do you believe wildlife is a useful resource to be conserved? yes/ no Do you think that the presence of the Sanctuary benefited the community? Yes/No How is the extent of crop damage by wildlife? A. very little B. much C. very much Rank wild animals that are responsible for crop damage from most to least What control measures have been taken to safeguard the crops? Have you faced livestock depredation by wild animals since the last 3 years? Yes / No New huts are built in and around the Sanctuary, do you support this condition? Yes/ No, if yes why? How could you describe your relationship with conservationists? A. Smooth B. medium c. Not good Do you think the presence of the Sanctuary close to your area benefited the community? In what way and what benefits have been realized up until now? Do you think that local people and livestock affect wildlife? How do local community and wildlife in the Sanctuary coexist in peace and harmoniously? The questionnaire survey was conducted within 0 to 4 km range from the Sanctuary in four community associations. The four communities were selected randomly based on the distance from the Sanctuary, accessibility, having farmland towards the sanctuary and frequent wildlife crop damage report which was based on results from the pilot study. Based on these, and were selected from the western part of the Sanctuary, Kite Tesisa to the north and to the south (Fig. 1). And the total number of households in the four communities (,, and Kite Tesisa) were 1200, 828, 764 and 624 respectively with average family size 5-6 per household. Among those, 220 households were selected for inclusion in the survey by stratified random sampling, using a list of each village s constituent households for interviews: 62 in, 55 in the, 53 in and 50 in Kite Tesisa. Four Sanctuary staff members and two countries

4 35 Kumssa and Bekele Agricultural Officers were also incorporated to provide information on the impact of the local people on the protected area. Crop-damage monitoring Crop raiding patterns were confirmed by monitoring through questionnaire and by direct assessment of the path of the group were traced into cultivated land and all the affected fields. The date of the raiding event, name of the village, number of fields raided, distance of each field from the Park boundary, proportion of field with damage, identification of the species causing the damage (by using signs left behind such as footprints, teeth impressions, dung, hairs) crops damaged made by a visual estimate from paths in and out of the fields. Statistical package (software) used to analyze the data was SPSS version14. Each question was coded to run SPSS. Descriptive statistics was carried out to calculate frequencies, and to allow cross-tabulations. Chi-square tests for selected variables at p < 0.05 significance level were used to determine the degree of dependence between independent variables and attitudes towards the wildlife and Sanctuary in general. 3. Results and Discussion More than half of the respondents were in the age class age group and relatively few persons were younger than 31years or older than 60 years. Among the respondents 45% had a family size of between individuals. The degree of relationship between family size and dependency on the Sanctuary was positive and the value of correlation coefficient (r) was and 84.1%, who illegally depended on the Sanctuary for their subsistence livelihood, 68.18% had family size eleven and above. The household varied also on their level of education. Some 67.73% of the respondents were illiterate (Table 2). Table 2. The level of education of the respondents in the household survey. Out of the 220 respondents, 86.4% opposed the existing wildlife conservation efforts while 9.5% supported the conservation effort and 4.1% were neutral on their attitude (Table 3). However, there was no significant difference in the attitude towards the conservation area among village residents (χ 2 = 4.3, df=6, P>0.05). The majority of respondents, 83.2% believed that they did not receive any benefit from the existence of the Sanctuary. The expected benefits were opportunities for jobs, social services such as clinics, schools and resources (firewood, free grazing and grass for own use and for sale to generate income. Few of the respondents (16.8%) noted that they have received benefits from the protected area. There was no difference in the views of benefit (χ 2 = 0.876, df=3, P> 0.05) between respondents among the study sites. Similarly most respondents, 40.91% stated that wildlife is not important and the continued existence of wildlife had a negative impact on their livelihood, while 30.45% had no idea on the matter. However, 28.64% considered wildlife as important in attracting tourists, hunting during drought and for recreation. The views on wildlife did not differ significantly (χ 2 = 1.3, df=6, P>0.05) among respondents. Table 3. Percentage response frequencies to fixed-response attitude statements concerning the perceived need for wildlife conservation measures. Response category Villages Kite Tesis a Total % Positive Negative Neutral n Education level N* % of total Illiterate Read and write only Primary Secondary Total (149/220) (46/220) 9.09 (20/220) 2.27 (5/220) 100 N= number of respondents. (n= sample size) A clear majority of the respondents (45%) in the study area reported that wildlife caused very little damage to their crop. The level of damage showed a significant variation among villages (χ 2 = 26.17, df=6, P<0.05). More people from (41.38%) and Kite Tesisa (34.48%) faced more damage than the other two villages. In contrast, respondents form (40.22%) and (30.43%) faced no crop damage at all (Table 4).

5 Human-Wildlife Conflict In Senkele Swayne s Hartebeest Sanctuary, Ethiopia. 36 Table 4. villages Damage Category No damage Little damage Much damage The extent of crop damage by wildlife among Extent of damage (%) among villages Kite Tesisa % refers level of crop damage. In addition, the level of damage differed (χ 2 = 45.43, df=2, P<0.05) in relation to distance from their respective areas. People who live inside the Sanctuary area generally faced more problems than those living within 4 km vicinity of the Sanctuary (Fig. 3). Table 5. Rank of crop raiding species from the highest (Rank 1) to the lowest (Rank 3) among the various villages. Village Rank 1 Rank 2 Rank 3 Kite Tesisa Warthog (60%) Warthog (70%) Warthog (45%) Warthog (40%) Swayne s hartebeest (40%) Swayne s hartebeest (30%) Vervet monkey (30%) Porcupine (35%) - - Swayne s hartebeest (25%) Vervet monkey (25%) Compared to the reported crop damage, all households experienced minimal loss of livestock during the last three years. It was due to the low number carnivores in the Sanctuary that attack livestock and there were no statistically significant differences in average reported number of livestock loss among villages (Table 6). Table 6. Livestock loss by predators from 2006 to Type of Villages Figure 3. Views of respondents on wildlife damage in relation to distance from the settlements. livestock lost Kite Tesisa Four animal species were responsible for the level of crop damage (Table 5). Warthog ranked highest among them. Respondents indicated that self-defence against crop damage by wild animals largely depended on scaring the animals and guarding. Goat Cattle Sheep Donkey Total(n) n= number of livestock loss.

6 37 Kumssa and Bekele Household census in and around the immediate border of the Sanctuary showed 229 huts. Most huts were constructed at the time of unstable political conditions in the country. Among the huts, 112 were newly built ones during the time of 2005 election period. There were 1767 huts on the periphery of the Sanctuary. 60% of all respondents supported the construction of new huts in and around the Sanctuary. However, there was a significant difference between villages (χ 2 = 9.18, df=3, P<0.05) in this viewpoint. Most respondents from (79.24%) and Kite Tesisa (76%) supported the construction of new huts. However, respondents from (58.18%) and (53.23%) opposed construction of new huts in and around the Sanctuary. There was no significant difference (χ 2 = 1.7, df=6, P> 0.05) among the studied villages in their relation with the Sanctuary staff members. Among the respondents, 57.3% did not have good relationship nor had conflict with the Sanctuary staff. However, 15.9% of the respondents had good relationship with the Park staff members and 26.8% had neutral relationships. The nature of the study required information from the most responsible members of each household. Therefore, the samples consist adult age class ( 31) accounting 89.1% of the total respondents. Such age group was important in identifying the detailed information of human-wildlife conflict in the area. The people around Senkele had a polygamy style of marriage. This is likely to increase the population size in the area. A questionnaire survey identified men who have 32 children from five wives. Such large family size with small landholdings will increase the demand for more resources and imposing maximum pressure on the conservation site. Education is an important factor in understanding the role of protected areas and conservation in general. The educated respondents strongly supported protected areas. However, most respondents had no formal education or are illiterate. Conservation may be quite difficult in the future in areas like Senkele with poor education. The findings showed that most of the local people are antagonistic to wildlife conservation and it might be as a result of low level of education and high family size. Support for conservation was positively correlated with the level of education attainment of the respondents. Heinen (1993) observed a similar situation in a study of people s attitudes towards the wildlife in Kosi Tappu Wildlife Reserve in Nepal. The study revealed that those respondents with higher household literacy rates had positive attitude about wildlife in the reserve. Hence, education is considered an initial step in improving the people s attitude towards conservation. The majority respondent (86.4%) opposed the existing wildlife conservation effort due to fear of displacement, problems with wildlife such as loss of crops and livestock and lack of free access to grazing need to use the conservation area for farming and restricted their interest to settle in the sanctuary. While 9.5% supported the conservation effort due to the benefits, awareness they have, cultural value, job opportunity, aesthetic value of the Sanctuary and tourism potential of the area due to the benefits, awareness they have, cultural value, job opportunity, aesthetic value of the Sanctuary and tourism potential of the area. young generation age class (16-28) showed more significantly positive attitude for conservation than older age groups. These were due to adoption of life styles and practices that are incompatible with the traditional conservation system of wildlife by younger generation. They have awareness and education about the usefulness of protected area from different sources to make them interested to see wildlife in their nearby area. Most discussants were also dissatisfied with the existence of the Sanctuary. They considered the Sanctuary as a limiting factor not to improve their livelihood. Discussants signify the Sanctuary as restricted access to resources, a cause of forced relocation and a means of income generating for non-local people. Additionally they believe that Sanctuary had conserved large area beyond its need. They feel that small area is enough for the existing wildlife and some part of conservation area should be returned for them. Most respondents did not know the prime objectives of the Sanctuary. Lack of awareness and benefits on the objective of the Sanctuary may be the reasons for the hostile attitude of the local communities towards conservation of wildlife in the area. The animals involved in crop raiding in Senkele area varied but the most commonly cited pest was warthog and the damage results not only from the animals feeding on crop but also from trampling. In communities with a subsistence economy, even small losses can be an economic importance and can generate negative attitude towards wildlife and conservation in general. Such damage influences staple food grain maize (Zea mays) and non-grain food crop potato (Solanum tuberosum) that are planted for subsistence. The relative impact of wildlife damage on farm production and household income varies greatly according to the amount of land owned and peoples economic dependency on land activities. In Ethiopia until recently little attention was given to vertebrate species that damage crops with the exception of elephants and rodents. These finding shows as others animals caught up in the conflict in our reserve area. Based on the questionnaire survey, all pastoralists and agropastoralists have migrated to the Sanctuary in 1991 and this further increased through time to get alternative land for settlement, crop production and grazing. Such continued movement of locals into the Sanctuary has led to the deterioration of the wildlife habitat making the Sanctuary unsafe place for the normal activity of wildlife. The questionnaire survey also showed farmers residing up to 2 km were affected by wildlife crop damage. Most crop damage

7 Human-Wildlife Conflict In Senkele Swayne s Hartebeest Sanctuary, Ethiopia. 38 (97.7%) occurred within 0-2 km radius from the Sanctuary. Only 2.3% damage was reported from more than 2 km away. Other studies also showed that those people closest to protected area boundaries faced more crop damage than those who are away from the protected area (Naughton-Treves, 1996). The gap between the Sanctuary authority and local people was because of opposing views on protected area. And the main cause of conflict between the local community and the Senkele Sanctuary staff was the demand to use grass from the Sanctuary. The demand of the local people on the Sanctuary grass is a function of many factors and this can be shown as human population growth (P), lack of awareness (A), enormous livestock number (L), lack of alternative animal forage (F) and low-income source (I). These factors (P+A+L+F+I) sum up to make the conflict in the Sanctuary even worse than others. Conclusion To bring sustainable wildlife management and rural community development at Senkele requires reconciling the interest of stakeholders. These will be achieved only when their interest becomes balanced. It requires solving the conflict between the interest of the community, managers and the conservationists. Some of the measures to reduce the problems are introducing family planning, reducing the livestock number emphasizing on quality, introduction of animal forage extension, making the people aware of the need for community conservation, solving their problem of grazing land shortage and increasing the productivity of the land, introducing other community services and practicing community participation conservation system like sharing directly or indirectly the benefits what the Sanctuary gets from tourists besides on making decision in conservation issue of the sanctuary. Moreover this designed national police on human-wildlife conflict and providing alternative land and incentives for relocation of local communities to areas offering better access of natural resource and socioeconomic opportunity is mandatory. However, uunless urgent action is taken to solve these problems, the Sanctuary will no longer act as a conservation area for the hartebeests. Acknowledgements We thank Addis Ababa University for the financial support and the Ethiopian Wildlife Conservation Department for the permit. We are also grateful to the local people and the staff of the Sanctuary for the cooperation and help they have rendered during the period of field work. References Boer WF, Baquete DS (1998) Natural resource use, crop damage and attitudes of rural people in the vicinity of the Maputo Elephant Reserve, Mozambique. Environmental Conservation 25: Brown O, Hammill A, McLeman R (2008) Climate change as the new security threat: implications for Africa. International Affairs 83: Casebeer RL, Koss GG (1970) Food habits of wildebeest, zebra, hartebeest and cattle in Kenya Masailand. East African Wildlife Journal 8: Tekle F (1996) Community-based Conservation of Senkele Swayne s Hartebeest Sanctuary. M.Sc. thesis. University College of Wales, Canterbury, pp: Kemf E (1993) In search of a home. In: Kemf E, (Ed). People living in or near protected areas. Sierra Club Books, San Francisco, pp Kiss A (1990) Living with Wildlife. Wildlife Resource Management with Local Participation in Africa. Africa Technical Department series. World Bank Technical Paper 130. Washington D. C, pp: Messana GM, Netsereab B (1994) The Senkele Swayne s Hartebeest Sanctuary Management Plan. Ethiopian Wildlife Conservation Organization, Addis Ababa, pp: Messmer TA (2000) The emergence of human-wildlife conflict management: turning challenges into opportunities, International Biodeterioration and Biodegradation Journal 49: Mishra C, Allen P, McCarthy T, Madhusadan M, Bayarjargal A, Prins H (2003) The role of incentive programs in conserving the snow leopard. Conservation Biology 17: Newmark WD, Manyanza DN, Gamassa DM, Sariko HI (1994) The conflict between wildlife and local people living adjacent to protected areas in Tanzania: human density as a predictor. Conservation Biology 8: Nishizaki N (2004) Resisting imposed wildlife conservation: Arsi Oromo and the Senkele Swayne s Hartebeest Sanctuary. African Study Monograph 25: