International Journal of Environment, Agriculture and Biotechnology (IJEAB) Vol-2, Issue-4, July-Aug- 2017

http://dx.doi.org/10.22161/ijeab/2.4.40 ISSN: 2456-1878

Human Wildlife Conflicts to communities

surrounding Mikumi National Parks in Tanzania:
A case of selected villages
Gabriel Mayengo1*, Fadhili Bwagalilo2, Venance E. Kalumanga3
1
Department of Biological Sciences, University of Dodoma, P.O Box 259, Dodoma
2
Department of Geography, St Johns University of Tanzania (SJUT), P.O. Box 47, Dodoma, Tanzania
3
Department of Gender Studies, The Mwalimu Nyerere Memorial Academy-Zanzibar Campus, P.O. Box 307, Zanzibar

Abstract Human wildlife interaction is not a new performances of tourism industry in the country. Research
phenomenon, it has existed since the beginning of recommends that more efforts should be taken by the
humankind, it is evidenced by the fact that, many national government and other stakeholders to prevent conflicts
parks are surrounded by human residents. The interaction around all national parks so as to create good and
between human and wildlife is of different nature depending conducive environment for human being life and wildlife in
on the culture of the surrounding human as well as wildlife order to allow good performance of tourism industry for
community. For decades human wildlife conflicts has been economic development of the country.
a great conservation challenge due to increased human Keywords Human, Wildlife, Conflicts, National Park
population, international trade and change of policies. The and village.
challenge is more significant in a sense that it negatively
affects both human and wildlife sustainability. Therefore a I. INTRODUCTION
study was conducted to villages surrounding Mikumi Globally, resource Conflicts have been a major threats for
national Park to assess reasons for conflicts between sustainable management and conservation of biological
human and wildlife and account how communities prevent diversity sector since many years ago (Ruckstuhl, 2001).
wild animals to destructs their agriculture products. Three Currently it is recognized as one of critical and complex
villages were selected for study (Doma, Maharaka and problem areas that have implications on the conservation of
Mkata, all villages surrounds Mikumi National Park ecosystems in global environment and development
Ecosystems. Different methodology includes: - Field discourse (Collier et al, 2003). Increasing resource
observation, Household survey, Field interview, In-depth competition at the global environment brings about social
interview and Ethnography study were used. However disparity and conflicts, these types of conflicts greatly
descriptive analysis and non parametric test were impacted environmental quality, linked to human activities
performed by using SPSS 16 versions and Kruskal-wallis (Collier et al., 2005). In many African countries such as
test respectively to compute mean, standard error, Rwanda and DRC, Malawi and Tanzania which have many
percentages and differences of wildlife consumption. biodiversity species indicates that, resource conflicts are
Results suggests that, there is a gradual increase of human- caused by competition of scarcity of resources and human
wildlife conflicts which lead to loss of peoples lives, as well made disturbance of ecosystems (Pearce, 1994; Winter
as their livelihoods such as farms and farms product. 1997).
Statistically results depicted that the average size of the In East African the increasing of human-wildlife conflict
farm affected at Doma, Maharaka and Mkata villages are highly contributed by changing of land use in areas
were 3.8 0.1, 2.0 0.1 and 2.2 0.1 acres respectively, surrounding protected areas, which bring difficulties for
while at Mkata village 32 goats, 24 sheep and 76 cattle community based conservation to succeed (Fowler, 2001).
were reported to be killed by wild carnivores. In other way These areas experiencing expansion of small holder
conflicts may result to poaching activities which may cultivation in wildlife dispersal areas, the situation has been
threaten the existence of huge herbivores such as Elephants reported to reduce animal home ranges, leading to increase
and Rhinoceros. Apart from that, conflicts may lead to poor human wildlife interaction, which may degenerate into

www.ijeab.com Page | 1777

International Journal of Environment, Agriculture and Biotechnology (IJEAB) Vol-2, Issue-4, July-Aug- 2017
http://dx.doi.org/10.22161/ijeab/2.4.40 ISSN: 2456-1878
human wildlife conflict (Little, 1994). In Tanzania, human However, wildlife destroys crops and kills livestock and
problems constraining Wildlife Sector are responsible for sometime injures or kills people, livestock keepers and crop
increasing of resource conflicts (URT, 2012). Wildlife producers elsewhere in the country are fighting for grazing
Conservation Authority is accused for marginalizing people, land that actually are farms for crops (Geoffrey, 2005).
denying people access to traditional and legitimate rights, Areas around Mikumi National Park experience similar
property damage and risk to human life through attack by problems; crop damage by elephants and other herbivores,
wild animals and disease transmission (UNEP, 1995). In livestock depredation by wild carnivores, bush meat hunting
broad sense, the primary causes of resource conflict are by human, human injury caused by wildlife and conflict
demographic, economic, institutional and technological between crop producers and livestock keepers (Emanuel,
(UNEP, 1995), however (WRI, 1995) reported that the 2004). Despite the fact that all events are vivid and known
habitat loss in Tanzania was a serious problem for different by conservationists and politicians, the level and extent of
ecosystems (WRI, 1995). such conflict along the gradient from the park is not known,
Conover (2002) explained Human-wildlife conflict as any thus this study was conducted to the selected villages
action by human or wildlife that has adverse impact on each surrounding to Mikumi National Park to determine the level
other whereas (Foreman, 1992 and Gittleman et al. 2001), and extend of these natural resources conflict and its
defined Human-wildlife conflict as an issue of increasing impacts to the communities surrounding Mikumi national
conservation concern, particularly as burgeoning human park.
populations move over further into wilderness areas. The
negative impacts of wildlife on people may include crop 1.2 Global Impacts of Wildlife to human livelihood
damage, attacking and killing livestock and people, The communities affected by carnivores must also bear the
competing for game species or acting as disease reservoirs indirect costs of preventing attacks to livestocks and people
(Nyahongo, 2007). People may affect the wildlife through a live in constant fear of their lives (Roskaft et al. 2003; Loe
wide range of lethal methods, such as shooting, poisoning, and Roskaft 2004). Within the immediate buffer zones of
trapping or snaring, and habitat modification, encroachment the Selous Game Reserve or other protected areas, crop
or disease exchange between wildlife and livestock raiding by elephants, bush pigs (Potamochoerus larvatus)
(Nyahongo, 2007). Although a remarkable variety of and other mammals is persistent problem that constitutes,
species cause conflicts with people, from rodents such as like in most other regions, a major form of human-wildlife
prairie dogs to mega-herbivores like African elephants conflict (Ikanda, 2010). Each year, hundreds of acres are
(Loxodonta africana) (Hoare, 1999). Large carnivores are destroyed by crop-raiding elephants, hippopotami
of particular interest in this conflict, where by their behavior (Hippopotamus amphibious), bush pigs and vermin
put them in a direct competition with people for both primates like baboons (Papiocynocephalus anubis) and
livestock and wild game species or their ability to kill monkeys (Chlorocebus pygerythrus) (Ikanda, 2010). In
people (Baldus, 2004; Loe and Roskaft 2004; Packer et al, Alberta Canada, over a period of 14 years (1982-1996)
2005; Silero-Zubiri and Laurenson, 2001). Carnivores wolves (Canis lupus) caused 2,086 deaths among domestic
attack is a problem, and is reported in different parts; claim animals, mainly cattle and to a lesser extent dogs, horses
hundreds of lives each year globally, although no figures (Equus ferus caballus), sheep (Ovis canadensis), chickens
are available to prove it (Loe and Roskaft 2004). (Gallus gallus domesticus), bison (Bos bison), goats (Capra
To date, Human-Wildlife Conflict is a serious problem in hircus), geese (Branta canadensis) and turkeys (Meleagris
different parts of the world (Bradshaw, 2007).This is simply gallopavo) (Musiani et al. 2003). In Peru, in the Amazon
because the human population increases but the resources Province of Tambopata, a population of 3200 people live
available are fixed, also conflicts occur because every inside the northern border of the 1.5 million ha protected
individual in those areas aims at fulfilling basic needs using area of the Tambopata Candamo Reserve claim that the
the resources without caring for others and sometimes not ocelot (Leopardus pardalis), hawks (Accipiter spp.,
caring even for the future generations (Damania, 2008). Leucopternis spp.), jaguars (Panthera onca) and pumas
Close to the protected areas, the problem is very serious (Puma concolor) were blamed for causing most of the
because the local communities interaction with wildlife depredation (Naughton-Treves et al. 2003).
creates negative impacts to both sides often local In Zimbabwe, many areas of traditional agro-pastoralist
communities kill wildlife to obtain bush meat for household bordering protected areas suffer from livestock depredation.
consumption, and for income generation (Kombo, 2010). In particular, in the Gokwe communal land, neighboring the
www.ijeab.com Page | 1778
International Journal of Environment, Agriculture and Biotechnology (IJEAB) Vol-2, Issue-4, July-Aug- 2017
http://dx.doi.org/10.22161/ijeab/2.4.40 ISSN: 2456-1878
Sengwa Wildlife Research Area, rural villagers experience assumption that the interaction (Conflicts) has to certain
a negative impact from the close proximity to the reserve, extent contributed to decline of elephants population.
wild carnivores attack domestic livestock and the conflict is
severe (Butler, 2000).It was reported that, between January II. METHODS
1993 and June 1996, 241 livestock were killed by baboons, 2.1 Description of study area
lions (Panthera leo) and leopards (Panthera pardus), which This paper studied three villages surrounding to Mikumi
contributed respectively to 52%, 34% and 12% of the kills national park, the villages are Doma, Mkata and Maharaka,
(Butler, 2000). each village studied separately, Mikumi National Park is
described as a single ecosystem accommodating the three
In Kenya, Patterson et al. (2004) evaluate the level of selected villages.
impact of carnivore attacks on two private cattle ranches Mikumi National Park was gazetted as a national park in
that lie adjacent to boundary of the Tsavo East National August 1964 and its boundaries extended in 1975. It is the
Park, the carnivores responsible were lion, spotted hyena fourth largest park in Tanzania covering 3,230 km2 (1,250
and cheetah, they consumed cows, bulls and young cattles. square miles). The park is located in eastern Tanzania
In a four-year study the ranches have lost an average of between 700' and 750'S, and between 3700' and 3730'E.
2.4% of the total herd per annum, which represented 2.6% The park is located in Morogoro Region, 283 km (175
of their economic value and amounted to US$ 8,749. miles) to the west of Dar es Salaam. It shares its boundary
In Zanzibar, the villagers in southern border of the Jozani in the extreme south with the Selous Game Reserve a
Forest Reserve claimed that the red colobus (Procolocus world heritage site. Mikumi and Selous make one
kirkii) to consume their coconut (Cocos nucifera) (Siex et ecosystem where animals like elephant, buffalo and zebra
al. 1999). They consider red colobus as the third most normally migrate between each to the northern part of the
serious vertebrate pest. However the red colobus is one of Selous and Mikumi National Park (TANAPA 2004).
the most endangered primates in Africa and in Zanzibar
(Siex et al. 1999). The explained manifestation of human 2.1.1 Biodiversity
wildlife conflict raises a concern to review human wildlife Mikumi National Park has a unique combination of flora
interaction and find a modality to suitably improve and fauna. It supports a wide range of large mammals,
livelihoods and wildlife sustenance. Currently in Tanzania including elephants, lions, giraffe, zebra and buffalo and
for example the population of elephants is going down more than 300 species of birds (Mercer, 1983; Hawkins and
rapidly more than ever, poaching triggered by increased Norton, 1998). The bird life is intermediary between north
international trade and demand for ivory is said to be the and south. . The park is located in an area where four
main reason. However, conflicts between wildlife and vegetation zones intersect making it a diverse ecotone. The
human are also adding fuel to the elephants extinction fire. four vegetation types are miombo woodland in the south,
A census report by the government of Tanzania (2013) arid bush land in the north, coastal zone in the east and
conducted in (Selous-Mikumi and Ruaha Rungwa) shows mountain climate in the east and west (Hawkins and
the elephants population in the two ecosystems are 13,084 Norton, 1998) .The miombo woodland consists of mainly
and 20,090 respectively, the figures indicates a notable Brachystegia spp, while Combretum-Terminalia woodland
decline in elephants population in these ecosysterms dominates between hill areas and in floodplain (Mercer,
compared to previous census. For instances in 1976, the 1983). The park is also dominated by other species like
Selous-Mikumi had 109,419 elephants, the dropped Sclerocarya caffra, Cassia abbreviata, Borassus flabellifer
dramatically to 22,208 in 1991. Although it rose again to and Hyphaene ventricosa palms. Balanites aegyptiaca and
70,406 in 2006, the population has dropped again in the Ficus spp. Mikumi National Park show seasonally local
recent years; in 2009 the number stood to 38975 while right floods in Mkata floodplain. The floodplain and waterholes
now the number dropped to 13,084. Similar situation become a habitat for fish, freshwater crabs, and other
appears in Ruaha-Rungwa ecosystem where the 1990 aquatic wildlife in the wet season. There are also permanent
census recorded 11,712 elephants. This number rose to waterholes with hippos in the center of the park.
35,416 in 2006 but as for now only 20090 was estimated.
The figure shows a decline of 66% and 36.5% respectively 2.2 Data Collection and Analysis
from 2009 to present. This paper therefore is aiming at The data collection methods included field observation,
assessing the human interaction with wildlife with the household survey, field interviews and in-depth interviews.
www.ijeab.com Page | 1779
International Journal of Environment, Agriculture and Biotechnology (IJEAB) Vol-2, Issue-4, July-Aug- 2017
http://dx.doi.org/10.22161/ijeab/2.4.40 ISSN: 2456-1878
Field observation was important because it enabled the windows. Differences between the extents of elephants
observation of a real situation of what is going on in three consumption from 2008 to 2012 in each village were tested
villages concerning the human elephant conflicts, human using non-parametric tests, Kruskal-Wallis tests and Mann-
carnivore conflict and the agricultural (farmer) and Whitney test were used to test non normality which highly
pastoralist conflicts. Household survey was carried out in existed. Summary statistics were quoted in tables to
selected villages for the study basing on the research illustrate the distribution of data in respect to different
objectives. It was conducted through open ended questions parameters. Mean were reputed as Means Standard error.
and closed ended questions where a total of 156 households For all statistics, p < 0.05 were considered significant.
in three villages were involved. The data collected from
household survey mainly focused on the socio-demographic III. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
characteristics of the respondents, implication of human- 3.1 Human carnivore conflict
carnivore conflict, major carnivore causing conflict in the Majority of the Respondents from the selected villages
area, mitigation of human-carnivore conflict in the area, conduct agriculture as the main stay of their economies,
implication of Human-Elephant conflict on household agriculture activities are conducted around Mikumi
income, effect(s) caused by elephant in the area, mitigation National park where there is high interaction with wild
of human-elephant conflict in the area, possession of land, animals like elephant, zebra etc, interaction creates conflicts
source of conflict between pastoralist and agriculturalist and between human being and wild animal, this always happen
what can be done to solve the conflict between pastoralist when wild animals destroys agriculture crops. In other way
and agriculturalist. The household survey covered most of results depicts that wild animal specific carnivores kills and
the field research time as it was one of the main data eat goats and cattle, for instance in Mkata village, results
collection method. An In-depth interview was carried out; it shows that, 5% (n=32) of the goats were killed by
was purposively directed to the village executive officers carnivores from January to June 2012, and 6% (n=24) of the
and also to pastoralist and some farmers, with the main sheep were also killed in that period of time and 4% (n=76)
issue to understand the behavior of elephants and how do of the cattle were killed during the same period (January-
they behave once they come in the villages, not only that June 2013). This situation raise conflicts between human
but also, the behavior of different carnivores causing and wild animals. It should be noted that, human being
problems of killing livestock around the village. apart from agriculture also depends on animals like goats,
Furthermore the intention of doing in-depth interviews was cattle, etc (husbandry) they depends on them as
to know what initiatives to solve those natural resources commodities as they can sell whenever they face economic
conflicts in their villages. crises.
Descriptive analysis to compute mean and standard error (Table 1) A total number of goat, sheep and cattle killed by
and percentages were performed using SPSS 16 version for wild animals in 2012-2013

Table.1: Livestock loss due to carnivores at Mkata village from January to June 2013
TYPE OF LIVESTOCK NUMBER OF LIVESTOCK KILLED BY TOTAL NUMBER OF
CARNIVORE LIVESTOCK
FREQUENCY (%) N=1900
GOATS 32 4.6 700
SHEEP 24 6 400
CATTLE 10 1.25 800

Among the three villages selected, which are Doma, herbivores concentrate within protected areas around
Maharaka and Mkata, only Mkata village that is having permanent water sources whereas in wet season herbivores
livestock depredation by wild carnivores. This is simply evenly spread around the area where situation makes
because it is the only village keeping livestock. Other local hunting for carnivores more difficult enabling carnivores to
communities in the other two villages do not keep livestock. hunt over larger areas. Similar observation was reported by
Depredation cases found to occur in wet season involving Nyahongo (2004) and Bygott and Bygott (1975).
spotted hyena, lion and wild dogs. During the dry season,

www.ijeab.com Page | 1780

International Journal of Environment, Agriculture and Biotechnology (IJEAB) Vol-2, Issue-4, July-Aug- 2017
http://dx.doi.org/10.22161/ijeab/2.4.40 ISSN: 2456-1878
Livestock grazing task in the field is usually attended by same in all three villages including maize (Zea mays),
young individuals who might fall asleep or playing and not tomatoes (Solanum lycopersicum), millet (Panicum
care for livestock. Thus makes easier for livestock to be milieaceum), paddy (Oryza sativa), water melon (Citrullus
killed by wild carnivores. In such cases, the animal may be lanatus), oil seed and also different vegetables. They
attacked and killed without the knowledge of the herdsmen cultivate the crops throughout the year through irrigation
especially at night when most carnivores are active. Similar scheme.
observation was reported elsewhere (Nyahongo 2004).
3.2 Human-elephant conflict at Doma village 3.2.2 Effect caused by elephant in the area
Elephants are the animal species that had been claimed by The effect caused by elephant in all the three villages is
majority to destroy crops in all villages, where at Doma an very high each year. At Doma, Maharaka and Mkata the
average of 3.80.1 acres of crops had been reported to be average size of the farm affected was 3.8 0.1, 2.0 0.1
destroyed by elephants in 2012-2013. When comparing the and 2.2 0.1 acres respectively. In various areas throughout
mean values of each year, crop damage varied among years Africa, elephants have destroyed more than 60% of crops in
(Kruskal-Wallis test, x2 = 9.424, df = 3, p = 0.0240). When communal areas adjoining conservation areas (Anon, 2003).
data were splinted into two years period starting with 2008- This situation might be due to global climatic change
2009 and 2009-2010 results suggest no statistical difference worldwide which leads to water shortage inside the park
(Mann-Whitney test, U = 1.76, p = 0.230) again when whereby elephants move outside the park to the nearby
comparing the next two years, 2010-2011 and 2011-2012 villages in search of food and water. .
result suggests no statistical difference as well (Mann-
Whitney test, U = 1.83, p = 0.425). Ways to Prevent Wild animals
Farmers in Maharaka were introduced to the new method of
3.2.1 Human-elephant conflict preventing themselves from elephant problems through the
Furthermore, at Maharaka village the problem of elephant use of string, oil and paper, they were taught to surround
consuming crops had been claimed by majority of farmers their farms with string having oil and paper, so once
where by an average of 2.00.1 acres of crops had been elephant come across with that string they cough and then
reported to be destroyed by elephants. The extent of crop run away, this method was useful to them for a quite some
damage varied among years (Kruskal-Wallis test, x2 = time and it helped them a lot to prevent elephants from
20.347, df =3, p = 0.000). When data were splitted into two consuming crops, but from 2012 till now they claim that
years period and compared between two years period elephant no longer enter their farm using their front part,
starting with 2008-2009 and 2009-2010 results suggest no instead they enter the farm using their back part, and after
statistical difference (Mann-Whitney test, U = 312.000, p = cutting down the string having oil and paper, they start
0.153) again when comparing the next two years, 2010- eating crops. So this technique used by elephant might be
2011 and 2011-2012 result suggests no statistical difference acquired by young elephant and it means after sometime
as well (Mann-Whitney test, U = 277.000, p = 0.027). this method of protecting the farms from being consumed
Human-elephant conflict at Maharaka village was reported by elephant will no longer be useful, so villagers claimed
to be in extent where an average of 2.20.1 acres of crops that their crops will continue being destructed by elephant
had been reported to be destroyed by elephants. Meanwhile, as they used to destruct before the establishment of the
the crop damage varied among years in the village technique.
(Kruskal-Wallis test, x2 = 60.974, df = 3, p = 0.000). Apart Farmers in Mkata used pepper, oil and string to protect their
from that, when data were compared between two years crops from being destroyed by elephants. Soon after too
period starting with 2008-2009 and 2009-2010 results much application of it the elephants adapted, they also enter
suggest no statistical difference (Mann-Whitney test, U = the farm using their back and sometimes raise their head
624.000, p = 0.00) again when comparing the next two then after entering the farm they start eating the crops. This
years, 2010-2011 and 2011-2012 result suggests no method is no longer suitable because it does not solving the
statistical difference as well (Mann-Whitney test, U = problem. In Caprivi region in Namibia, fences lined with a
655.00, p = 0.001). Conflict exists in all the three villages in mixture of grease and chili peppers are still being
Doma ward which are Doma, Maharaka and Mkata because experimented (Brian and Barnes 2006).
all people in these villages are practicing subsistence However, farmers in Mkata are now using strong perfume
farming. Farmers cultivate different crops which are the to prevent elephants from entering to their farm and destroy
www.ijeab.com Page | 1781
International Journal of Environment, Agriculture and Biotechnology (IJEAB) Vol-2, Issue-4, July-Aug- 2017
http://dx.doi.org/10.22161/ijeab/2.4.40 ISSN: 2456-1878
the crops. They use perfume with strong smell like the and Maharaka. Regardless of the local methods that have
perfume called Kuluthum. They surround their farm with been used by the villagers the problem keeps on increasing
string and attach to the string pieces of cloth then they spray year after year. Losses accounted by the villagers are very
the perfume on the pieces of cloth, so once the elephant high from 2008 to 2012. Conflicts between livestock
reach near the string having that piece of cloth with keepers and crop producers are only pronounced at Mkata
perfume, they go back because they dislike the sensation of village. It has been increasing year after year. The reason
strong smell. This method is used by most of farmers in for the conflict is that the livestock keepers and crop
Mkata and elephants are not entering to their farm once they producers coexist in the same area. The number of cases
come across with that smell. The problem a rise when reported about the conflicts to the Village Executive Officer
farmers fail to buy that perfume because they cannot afford increases each year from 2008 to 2012.
its price, one bottle is about 10US $ in the year 2012, so In many situations, strategies or methods for addressing the
some farmers fail to prevent their farm since it is expensive. human wildlife conflict issue are often constrained by local,
Also one among the reasons put forward by farmers in national or international regulations, laws or treaties (Fall
Mkata is that the elephants move out of the park in search and Jackson, 2002). The ineffectiveness of some of the
of fruits known as ngongo thus farmers suggested those management practices is directly dependent on the
tree to be planted inside the park so as to prevent the establishment and application of policies and guidelines on
elephants from moving outside the park, this is not a wide range of human activities. In various countries,
appropriate because planting the particular tree inside the existing wildlife policies are outdated, contradictory and
park which is not there is like introducing invasive species require clarification, in particular those regarding land
inside the park. Exotic plants threaten the integrity of development planning and its impact on wildlife habitats.
agricultural and natural systems throughout the world. Policies on land tenure, controlled utilization of wildlife
Many invasive species are not dominant competitors in their through hunting and trade of wildlife products, game
natural systems, but competitively eradicate their new farming, tourism development and compensation schemes
neighbors (Callaway and Aschehoug, 2000). should be strengthened and made to conform to the present
Most of the farmers in Mkata shift from agricultural national state of affairs and population requirements (Kenya
activities to charcoal production activities; this is because of wildlife Service, 1996).
accumulation of farmers and pastoralist conflict and also the
problem of elephant to consume crops. Most people now V. GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS
produce charcoal and Mkata area is now a famous place for There is a need of trying to solve the conflict existing of
producing charcoal. This is dangerous to the biodiversity natural resources in different places in our societies. This
found in the area and the survival of Mikumi National Park can be done by sometime using the bottom-top approach
because too many trees are destroyed due to charcoal where by the solution for those problem should be initiated
production hence disturbing the climatic condition of the by the local people in the respective area. What can be done
area. Mkata was also among the villages which received is to modify the idea brought by the local people. Apart
food assistance from the government in the year 2013 from that the farmers should be introduced to other sources
because of being insecured. Although the area is having of income like bee keeping and also involving in
good and fertile soil, water is available in the area entrepreneurship activities of which will raise their income.
throughout the year due to presence of river Mkata, but still Also for the pastoralist, they should be provided with
they asked food from the Government due to shortage of permanent areas where they will keep their livestock and
food security contributed by destruction of wild animals also water sources for the livestock should be constructed in
(Naughton-Treves and Treves, 2005). those areas. Nomadic pastoralism should be discouraged
because it is environmental unfriendly. Additionally, the
IV. CONCLUSIONS pastoralist should be provided with education about the
The problem of human-wildlife conflict increases each year minimization of the number of livestock they are having
and the loss that livestock keepers acquire due to together with the ways of constructing strong bomas for
depredation are very high if computed. Among the causes keeping their livestock to prevent them from being
of the problem is poor construction of bomas for keeping consumed by the carnivores, example at Amboseli-Tsavo
the livestock in the area. Elephants destroy large area of region in Kenya, where conflict between pastoralists and
crop field in all the three villages which are Doma, Mkata lions is a significant and growing conservation issue, a
www.ijeab.com Page | 1782
International Journal of Environment, Agriculture and Biotechnology (IJEAB) Vol-2, Issue-4, July-Aug- 2017
http://dx.doi.org/10.22161/ijeab/2.4.40 ISSN: 2456-1878
scheme called Lion Guardians was established, where [10] Hoare, R.E. (1999), A Standardized Data Collection
young Maasai men were trained to track lions, provide and Analysis Protocol for Human-Elephant Conflict
advice to villagers in terms of where the tracked lions are, Situation in Africa, IUCN/SSC African Elephant
provide practical help in strengthening bomas, and talk to Specialist Group, Nairobi, Kenya.
people about their problems and issues with large [11] Ikanda, D., Kushnir, H., Leitner, H., and Packer, C.
carnivores (Hazzah and Dolrenry 2007). (2010), Human and ecological risk factors for
The bee keeping projects should be established on the unprovoked lion attacks on humans in Southeastern
buffer zone to minimize the extent of elephants from Tanzania, Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 15(5).
entering in the villages and consume the crops; this will also [12] Jachmann, H., and R.H.V. Bell. (1985), Utilization of
act as the source of income to local people. Placement of Brachystegia woodlands of the Kasungu National
bee hives in strategic trees can be used to prevent the Park, Malawi. Afr. J. Ecol. 23: 245-58.
destruction caused by elephants as they are sensitive to the [13] Karidozo, M and F.V. Osborn. (2005), Can bees deter
sound and sting of bees (Karidozo and Osborn 2005; elephants from raiding crops?, An experiment in the
Vollrath and Hamilton 2005). Elephants also have excellent communal lands of Zimbabwe. Pachyderm 39: 26-32.
hearing and the buzz from an active hive could also [14] Kenya Wildlife Service- Wildlife-human conflicts,
stimulate hive avoidance (OBrien, 2002). Sources, solutions and issues cited on
http:www.safariweb.com/kwild/wildlife.html cited on
REFERENCE 12 May 2013.
[1] Baldus, R.D. (2004), Lion Conservation in Tanzania [15] Lamarque, F., Anderson, J., Chardonnet, P.,
Leads to Serious Human-lion Conflicts: with a Case Fergusson, R., Lagrange, M., Osei-Owusu, Y.,Bakker,
study of a man-eating Lion Killing 35 people, GTZ L., Belemsobgo, U., Beytell, B., Boulet, H., Soto, B.
Wildlife Programme in Tanzania, Wildlife and Tabi Tako-Eta, P.(2008), Human-wildlife conflict
Division,Dar es Salaam-Tanzania. in Africa: An overview of causes, consequences and
[2] Butler, J. (2000), The economic cost of wild life management strategies. Paper work.
predation on livestock in Gokwe communal land, [16] Loe,J., and E.Roskaft.(2004), Large Carnivores and
Zimbabwe, African Journal of ecology 38(1):23-30. Human Safety,A Review.Ambio 33:283-288.
[3] Bygott, J., D and Bygott, H. J. P. (1975), Lion study, [17] Martin, R.B. G.C. Craig, and
Serengeti Research Institute. Annual Report 1974-75. V.R.Booth.(1996),Elephant management in
[4] Conover, M. (2002), Resolving Human-Wildlife Zimbabwe, Department of National Parks and
Conflicts: The Science of Wildlife Damage Wildlife Management, Harare, Zimbabwe, Third
Management, CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida, USA. edition.
[5] Diggle, R., Munali, B. and Owen-Smith, G. (2006). [18] Musiani, M., Mamo, C., Boitani, L., Callaghan, C.,
Towards Rationalizing Transboundary Elephant Gates, C., Mattei, L., Visalberghi, E., Naughton-
Management and Human Needs in the Kavango / mid Treves, L., Mena, L., Treves, A., Alvarez, N. and
- Zambezi Region, Paper presented at a workshop Radeloff, C. (2003), Wildlife survival beyond park
May 2006, Gaborone, Botswana. boundaries: The impact of slash-and-burn agriculture
[6] Fall, M.W. and Jackson, W.B. (2002), The tools and and hunting on mammals in Tambopata,
techniques of wildlife damage management-changing Peru, Conservation Biology 17(4):1106-1117
needs; an introduction, International Biodeterioration [19] Naughton-Treves and Treves, A . (2005),
and Biodegradation, 49(2-3):87-91. Socioecological factors shaping local tolerance of
[7] Foreman, D., and J. Davis. (1992), The Wild lands crop loss to assessment of local perceptions on the
Project mission statement, Wild Earth, Special Issue Annapuma Conservation Area, Nepal, Biological
No.1, 26-29. Conservation 68:63-8.
[8] Gittleman, J.L.,S.M. Funk. McDonald, D.W. and R.K. [20] Naughton-Treves, L., Mena, L., Treves, A., Alvarez,
Wayne (2001), Carnivore Conservation, Cambridge N. and Radeloff, C. (2003), Wildlife survival beyond
University Press, Cambridge, UK park boundaries: The impact of slash-and-burn
[9] Hazzah, L., and S. Dolrenry. (2007), Coexisting with agriculture and hunting on mammals in
predators, Seminar 577:21-27 Tambopata, Peru.,Conservation Biology 17(4):1106-
1117.
www.ijeab.com Page | 1783
International Journal of Environment, Agriculture and Biotechnology (IJEAB) Vol-2, Issue-4, July-Aug- 2017
http://dx.doi.org/10.22161/ijeab/2.4.40 ISSN: 2456-1878
[21] Nyahongo, J. W. (2004), Impact of Human Activities African wild dog: status survey and conservation
on the Carnivore Populations in the Western Corridor action plan, Gland, Switzerland: IUCN.
of Serengeti Ecosystem, MSc thesis, University of [32] Yadav, B.R. (2004), Human-elephant relationships
Dar Es Salaam, Tanzania. and conflicts in eastern Nepal. In: Endangered
[22] Nyahongo, J.W. (2007), Depredation of Livestock by Elephants: Past, Present and Future. Jayewardene, J.
Wild Carnivores and Illegal Utilization of Natural (ed.) Biodiversity and Elephant Conservation Trust,
Resources by Humans in the Western Serengeti, Colombo, Sri Lanka.
Tanzania: Thesis for the degree philosophiae [33] Zhang, L. (2007), Current conservation status and
doctor Trondheim, Norwegian University of Science research progress on Asian elephants in China, Gajah
and Technology Faculty of Natural Sciences and 27: 35-41
Technology Department of Biology
[23] OConnell. C. (1995), Elephant/human conflicts,
Final Technical Report: East/West Caprivi Natural
Resource Monitoring Project: Ministry of
Environment and Tourism/USAID/WWF. Windhoek.
[24] OBrien, C. (2002), Bees buzz elephants, New
Scientist 176, 8
[25] Osborn, F.V. and Anstey, S. (2007), Elephant/
Human Confl ict and Community Development
around the Niassa Reserve, Mozambique, WWF
Southern African Regional Programme cited
in www. e l e p h a n t p e p p e r. o rg/downloads/
Niassa%20ele%20report.pdf.
[26] Packer, C., D. Ikanda, B. Kissui, and H. Kushnir.
(2005), Lion Attacks on Humans in Tanzania-
Understanding the Timing and Distribution of Attacks
on Rural Communities will Help to Prevent
Them, Nature, London 436:927-928.
[27] Siex, K.S. and Struhsaker,T.T. (1999), Colobus
monkeys and coconuts, a study of perceived human
wildlife conflicts. Journal of Applied Ecology
36(6):1009-1020.
[28] Sillero-Zubiri, C., and M. K. Laurenson. (2001),
Interactions Between Carnivores and Local
Communities: Conflict or Coexistence?, In J.L
Gittleman, S.M. Funk, D.W MacDonald, and R.K.
Wayne, editors. Carnivore Conservation, Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, UK.
[29] Vollrath, F. and Douglas-Hamilton I. (2005),
African bees to control African
elephants,Naturwissenschaften 92 (11): 508-511.
[30] Warner, M. (2000), Conflict Management in
Community-Based Natural Resource
Projects,Experiences from Fiji and Papua New
Guinea ,Overseas Development Institute, London
SW1E 5DP UK. Working Paper 135.
[31] Woodroffe, R., Ginsberg, J. R., Macdonald, D. W. and
the IUCN/SSC Canid Specialist Group (1997), The

www.ijeab.com Page | 1784