1

THE UNIVERSITY OF DAR-ES-SALAAM

COLLEGE OF NATURAL AND APPLIED SCIENCEDEPERTMENT OF ZOOLOGY AND WILDLIFE CONSERVATION

TITTLE: THE IMPACTS OF HUMAN WILDLIFE INTERACTION TO LIVELIHOOD AND WILDLIFE CONSERVATION AT SAADANI NATIONAL PARK.

NAME: ASSEY, BRUNO FELIX.REG #: 2013-04-02888Supervisor: Shilereyo, M

2

INTRODUCTION

• Human and wildlife interaction occur when wildlife, habitat and people overlap

• These interactions often result into conflicts• The wildlife problem is universal because it occurs

in both developed and developing countries but it varies in magnitude and kinds

• ITALY , AUSTRALIA, USA, KENYA, UGANDA - predation of livestock, crop damage, loss of lives

Human Wildlife problem- social and economic impact on communities living at the edge of Protected Areas and it is inevitable

3

4

ANIMAL PROBLEM AT SANAPA – SAADANI VILLAGESource bruno 2015

5

STATEMENT OF RESEARCH PROBLEM• Human-wildlife conflicts occurs throughout

Tanzania on community living near protected areas . Mikumi, Tarangire and Serengeti national parks, Ngorongoro conservation area Jukumu wildlife management area.

• In Saadan National Park, little is documented on impacts on HUMAN WILDLIFE CONFLICTS on conservation and livelihoods hence the need of this study

6

To asses the impacts of human wildlife interaction to livelihood and wildlife conservation at Saadani National Park

Specific objectives To analyze the impacts of

wild animals to crops and livestock

To asses benefits accrued by community from Saadani National Park

To analyze perception and attitudes of local people towards conservation`

hypothesesLocal people pay the cost

and damage by wildlifeWildlife conservation is a

valuable tool for rural development

Loss of local land and resource access has caused rural conflicts and resistance against protected areas

GENERAL OBJECTIVE

7

SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY • Community

providing information on -quality of life and social well being -mitigation measures

• Government-guidance of decision making processes -implementation of conservation practices

• To other researchers provide information for -comparison purpose-a case study

8

METHODOLOGY

9

10

Study sites

11

EQUATION

P(A)= P((AnB)u(AnC)u(AnD))+((AnB)u(AnC)u(AnD)’)

WHEREA-SaadaniB-Buyuni-KitopeniC-Saadani villageD-Matipwili

12

METHODS

• Standard semi-structured interview questionnaires – Village leaders – TANAPA conservation authorities – Head of households

• Focus group discussion– Above 18 years (3-8 per group)

13

DATA ANALYSIS

• Both descriptive and analytic procedures Analysis was done by IBM Statistical Package for social science (SPSS) Statistics version 23– to determine relationship between objectives

variables and asses their relationship in causing conflicts

• CHI-SQUARE TEST

14

GENERAL RESULTS• Total of 65 respondents were interviewed

– 25 in Matipwili– 23 in Saadani– 17 in Buyuni-Kitopeni

• Gender– 26 females and 39 males

• Threats facing the local people. – Brutal punishment 1%

• Ony in buyuni-kitopeni 1 respondent only– Pastoralist invasion which was 7%

• only in Matipwili village 6 respondents– animal problem 43%

• 18 respondents in Saadani and • 17 respondents in both Matipwili and Buyuni-Kitopeni

– boundary conflict which was 49% • High in Matipwili and Saadani village with 18 and 20 respondents respectively• Low in Buyuni-Kitopeni 2 respondents only.

15

16

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES, HYPOTHESIS, RESULT AND DISCUSSION

17

Objective 1To analyze the impacts of wild animals to crops and livestockHypothesis

Local people pay the cost and damage by wildlife

18

RESULT AND DISCUSSION

Animal Problem90%

Pastoralist invasion10%

FIGURE 2: THREATS FACING FARMERS

19

• animal problem– to local people –livestock depredation by wild carnivore causes

both economic and social costs– to crop dwellers -that poverty will remain to be a prevalent

phenomenon in members adjacent the park – as it is accelerated– Substantial economic losses, reduce local people efforts

in alleviating poverty. – Similar results also found in villages bordering Arusha

National park (Saru 1997) and Manyara National Park (Newmark et al., 1993).

• pastoralist invasion– Maasai and Mang’ati• This could lead into destruction of properties, injuries and

loss of life from both farmers and pastoralist

20

Objective 2 To asses benefits accrued by community from

Saadani National ParkHypothesis Wildlife conservation is a valuable tool for rural

development.

21

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Benefited17%

Not benefited83%

FIGURE 5: BENEFIT SHARING AT SAADANI NATIONAL PARK

22

FIGURE 6: RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN BENEFITED AND NON-BENEFITED PEOPLE AT SANAPA

0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.50

5

10

15

20

25

BenefitedLinear (Benefited)Not benefitedLinear (Not benefited)

number of people/count benefited

num

ber o

f peo

ple/

coun

t not

ben

efite

d

23

• majority of local people do not benefit – community conservation service is ineffective in implementing

its initiatives• TANAPA Income Generating Projects (TGIPs)- empoyment• Support for Community Initiated Projects (SCIP)• Village Community Banks (VICOBA) • Community Conservation Banks (COCOBA) » are still under development in SANAPA and do not

contribute effectively in poverty alleviation in return for gaining support for conservation.

• (village*benefits X2=2.323 likelihood ratio=2.533 df=2 significance YES ) – different utilization of resources among villages• Land- prone to compensation• Ocean- no any compensation

24

Objective 3 To analyze perception and attitudes of local people

towards conservation`HypothesisLoss of local land and resource access has caused rural

conflicts and resistance against protected areas

25

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

26

• there is great disagreement from local people towards park management.

• gender*perception X2=0.793 likelihood ratio=0.808 df =1 significance Yes

different from Kideghesho et al., 2007 – western Serengeti reported gender has no effect on Community perception on conservation

– there is unequal enjoyment of benefits from wildlife resources, both men and women suffer from different cost from wildlife

• education*perception X2=13.114 likelihood ratio=13.354 df=3 significance Yes– members with higher level of education have greater access to

better employment opportunities at the park it provides alternatively livelihood strategy that reduces dependency on resources from protected areas

– Similar to my study Kaltenborn et al 1999 and Kideghesho et al, 2007

27

• perception*awareness X2=7.490 likelihood ratio= 7.028 df =1 significance No

perception*benefits X2=1.685 likelihood ratio =1.582 df =1 significance No– community generally does not understand the importance of

conservation due to less conservation education• perception*threats X2=6.455 likelihood ratio = 8.698 df = 8

significance Yes– human-wildlife interaction to livelihood and wildlife conservation

often results to negative perception-animal problem• occupation*perception X2=19.926 likelihood ratio= 24.062df = 17

significance Yes – most of villagers activities are hindered by wild animals causing

great damage and fear -business were closed early, children were missing school classes

28

29

• most of local people living adjacent to the park have positive attitudes towards conservation Similar found by Infield (1988) Natal South Africa– Recognize the intrinsic value of wildlife

• village*attitudes X2=5.191 likelihood ratio=5.238 df=2 significance Yes– Some villages have no important contribution to benefit gain to

the park thus little attention is given to them by the park in benefit sharing.

– unequal implementation of community conservation service initiatives among villages

• attitude*awareness X2=6.044 likelihood ratio=6.815 df=1 significance Yes– adequate awareness of conservation make local people realize

the intrinsic value of protected areas

30

• attitude*benefits X2=0.274 likelihood ratio=0.271 df=1 significance No gender*attitudes X2=0.000 likelihood ratio=0 df=1 significance Noboth gender enjoy the same benefits and suffers same costs from wildlife• attitudes*threats X2=12.014 likelihood ratio=15.388 df=8 significance

Yes– reducing multiple threats facing local people will result to increasing

positive attitudes towards conservation there fore people embrace the presence of protected areas around their livelihood

• resource*attitude X2=13.948 likelihood ratio=16.989 df=11 significance Yes– ocean-negative attitude

• since they give less contribution to the park and don’t enjoy benefits from the park

– land-positive attitude• they enjoy benefits from the park through compensation from

damage caused by wildlife in their land activities such as agricultural activities.

31

CONCLUSION

• √Support the first hypothesis-local people pay cost and damage by wildlife.

• √ supports the second hypothesis-loss of land and resource access has caused rural conflicts and resistance against protected areas

• ×reject the third hypothesis-wildlife conservation is a valuable tool for rural development

32

REMEDIES TO WILDLIFE CONFLICTS AT SANAPA

• Provision of education on ways to control animal problems before and after entering the farm

• Compensation/kifuta jasho for damage properties, livestock and human injuries

• Provision of reliable vehicle transport inside and outside the park

• Fast response by park management during emergency • More support community development projects such as

building schools, hospital, electricity, safe water facilities and infrastructure.

33

STRENGTH AND LIMITATION OF THE STUDY

• interesting findings presented and discussed above• study lacked focus group discussion -to strong

negative attitude and perception at the site• Respondents are mostly concern in benefits of the

particular research• RecommendationUniversity of Dar-es-salaam– change the field study site for their practical training to

avoid biased community based research by other researchers

– Give feedback about their community conservation field studies which they conduct each year to the villagers

34

THANK YOU