Human-Wildlife Coexistence in Kenya: Strategies, Strengths, and Weaknesses

Introduction

Across the world, humans coexist with a multitude of animal species. Interactions between communities and animals can be positive or negative; commonly, where settlements and wildlife habitats overlap, there are significant challenges that arise, creating conflict (Nyhus, 2016). This human-wildlife conflict affects both biodiversity and the livelihoods of local communities (Reid et al., 2016, Salerno et al., 2016). In Kenya, this is a persistent issue with the increasing urbanisation (Bhatta and Bhatta, 2010). The growing human populations are encroaching on natural habitats; this can cause negative outcomes for not only the conservation of flora and fauna but also for humans’ social, economic, and cultural interests. It poses a growing problem across much of the world (Cai et al., 2013, Walker, 2001) whilst human settlements are expanding into previously wild areas. This urban sprawl can be initiated by population growth, agricultural expansion, and infrastructure development (Bengston et al., 2004). We exhibit conflicts in various ways, including: killing of livestock by natural predators, like lions, leopards, and wolves (Salerno et al., 2016); crop raiding by herbivores (Gadd, 2005); and property destruction. Conflicts could have severe consequences. Some economic losses and retaliation can be seen to develop negative perceptions within communities and hinder conservation efforts aimed at protecting endangered species (Long et al., 2020). This issue requires an intertwined understanding of multiple fields; it involves ecological dynamics such as predator-prey relationships, changes in land use, wildlife behaviour adaptations, and broader socio-economic trends such as poverty, governance, and human displacement (Beale et al., 2013, Reid et al., 2016, Dickman, 2010). Therefore, addressing human-wildlife conflict requires a multi-disciplinary approach balancing human needs with wildlife conservation. This paper discusses various methods utilised in Kenya to manage human-wildlife conflicts, including their strengths and weaknesses. It will first focus on the animal-based strategies, such as predator deterrents and relocation; then, the human-based strategies, including community engagement and compensation schemes. Prior research has highlighted the mixed success of mitigating conflict across different contexts within Kenya (Makini, 2018). Studies have shown that human-wildlife conflict is heightened in areas bordering national parks and wildlife reserves, such as Tsavo, Maasai Mara, and Amboseli (Beale et al., 2013, Okello et al., 2014). 

Animal-Based Mitigation Strategies

Animal-focused strategies, to mitigate human-wildlife conflict in Kenya primarily aim to directly modify the habitat or influence the behaviour of wildlife. One of the main attempts to alleviate conflict across settlements in Kenya is the use of predator deterrents. This encompasses a range of devices and methods designed to prevent wildlife from entering bomas (an East African livestock enclosure and homestead) or agricultural land. Some examples are flashing light systems, acoustic devices, and predator-proof fencing (Makini, 2018). ‘Lion lights’ are an effective method which deters predators, especially lions, from preying on livestock. It uses a series of flashing LED lights around the perimeter of the boma (Figure 1); the idea is that they mimic human movement with a flashlight, creating an illusion that there is activity within the boma. 

This has been seen in the agricultural areas around Tsavo National Park, where elephants are taken to protected areas to avoid conflict arising due to crop raiding (Pinter-Wollman, 2012, Tiller et al., 2022). Relocation can reduce immediate conflicts but may not be viable long-term. Evaluating the strengths and weaknesses of these strategies is essential to understanding their effectiveness. For these methods to work, we must know their limitations and whether they are sustainable or not. These strategies are immediately effective, but do they provide long-term solutions? There is a risk with all types of predator deterrents that animals will habituate and they will no longer stop livestock depredation; so alongside this, bomas would need habitat protection anyway as a fail-safe (Khorozyan and Waltert, 2019). Additionally, elephants exhibit homing behaviour. They will continually attempt to return to where they were removed from after some period of time (Fernando et al., 2012, Pinter-Wollman, 2009). Both of these strategies are costly, and in a country with poverty as a major concern, these methods may not be a realistic goal for much of the population. Animal-based mitigation of human-wildlife conflict is not effective alone; it needs to be a part of an integrated approach that considers economic sustainability and animal behaviour.

Human-Based Mitigation Strategies

Human-wildlife conflict does not just concern the animals, but the human side of the issue too. Instead of eradicating wildlife from the equation, there should be an aim to reach human-wildlife coexistence. So, addressing human behaviours and attitudes in combination with community resilience should be vital components of mitigating conflict across Kenya. Community engagement programs, involving local populations in wildlife conservation efforts, are important in enhancing the effectiveness of wildlife management (Ostrom, 2009, Van Wijk et al., 2015). We should be aiming to invoke a sense of stewardship, responsibility, and a collaborative approach across settlements. Community engagement programs aim to build partnerships between conservationists and locals to create support for wildlife protection. The Kenya Wildlife Service (KWS) run a Conservation Education Program which increases awareness and the need for wildlife protection (Abudulghafur, 2013). There is also an importance in involving communities in the planning of urban development. This can ensure the needs and values of local populations are met whilst promoting sustainability, especially in a developing and diverse nation like Kenya (Bhatta and Bhatta, 2010). More examples come from Laikipia, where studies have further shown the importance of local engagement to mitigate human-wildlife conflict (Gadd, 2005). Whilst educated communities are more likely to support conservation, this does not compensate for their suffering experienced during conflict. Government-run compensation schemes have been developed in Kenya. They are part of legislation aimed at offering financial reimbursement to individuals affected by matters such as livestock predation, crop raiding, and damage to property. They aim to provide a buffer to retaliation against animals (Kabiri, 2010). Wildlife compensation schemes in Kenya mainly compensate for livestock predation and crop damage (Mukeka et al., 2019). Various analyses of policy impacts suggest supportive legal framework is a key factor in effective conflict mitigation (Western, 2005, Manoa et al., 2021). Kenya’s Wildlife Conservation and Management Act 2013 (Figure 2), for example, includes compensation and community participation in wildlife management, providing a legal basis for addressing human-wildlife conflicts (Pabari et al., 2020). 

on farmland, destroying crops, and preying on livestock are met with minimal support from authorities (Kabiri, 2010). Human-based mitigation strategies have potential for sustainable conflict management but require consistent funding and trust from Kenyan communities.

Conclusion

This essay has looked at some strategies to mitigate human-wildlife conflict in Kenya, highlighting the strengths and weaknesses they bring. Strategies focused on both humans and animals are necessary; however, each comes with their own challenges. Sustainable conflict management requires a balanced approach considering ecological, economic, and social aspects of conservation. We are seeing an increasing trend of economic sustainability and community engagement being important in current conservation approaches (Van Wijk et al., 2015). The best results of mitigating human-wildlife conflict should enhance and protect biodiversity as well as support community well-being and livelihoods. Future research is needed to focus on new technologies that could be utilised. One example of a new strategy could be the use of drones. Drone patrols could not only deter poachers but also provide adequate evidence to enforce legal action (Bergenas et al., 2013). Another example comes with Kenya’s improving mobile service coverage. With improved mobile technology, rapid alert or response systems could be put in place to reduce conflict severity. Studies that compare different approaches to human-wildlife conflict have found that integrated, multi-faceted approaches are more effective (Nyhus, 2016, Dickman, 2010, Makini, 2018). The success of conservation in Kenya relies on the adaptability and willingness of the local communities as well as the involvement of stakeholders for funding, planning, and implementation of effective strategies.

References