The enforcement of environmental protection and no utilitarian views of wildlife have changed what was once a simple competitive relationship between people and wildlife into a political conflict between people and institutions (Hill, 2004). In human–wildlife coexisting communities, some people are likely to be happy living aside wild animals, while others are not. Antagonism towards wildlife can also be rooted within societal tensions (Esmail, 2014). The above is reflected in the fact that people are sometimes not only hostile towards the damage-causing species, but also towards other groups of people who are involved in the HWCs, especially the wildlife protectionists or authorities (Dickman, 2010). From a conservationist’s point of view, the seemingly self-destructive behaviour of communities that do not take action to help themselves alleviate wildlife damage to their property is frustrating and disheartening (Madden & McQuinn, 2014). The above could be the reason for the divisions occurring among several communities, thus hampering development. It is the role of nationally elected, local authorities to moderate the human–wildlife tension, and to promote peaceful coexistence (Madden, 2004). According to the FAO (2005), the local authorities suffer twice in terms of the consequences of HWCs, by both being residents and by being in authority. For instance, in India, the range of conflicts between wildlife and humans is wide and complex (Distefano, 2005). The above could simply mean that the authorities’ duties in dealing with the complications concerned are also wide and complex. Furthermore, communal area residents, time and again, observe wildlife as state-owned. In terms of such a perspective, the public organizations that loom after, and administrate the PAs are supposed to bear the responsibility of confining the wildlife concerned, barring them from areas occupied by human settlements (Hall, 2010; Mbaiwa, 2008). The operations of the authorities in terms of protecting and conserving wildlife are sometimes found to be inadequate, as most of the bodies have been neglected by the national governments (MET, 2003). From a human perspective, HWC carries a disputable political dimension, with the local residents and the local authorities being in direct conflict over the livelihood of the wildlife concerned. Gandiwa et al. (2013) proclaim that the above, in turn, creates friction between the managers (i.e. the authorities) in the PAs and the local communities living on the
50
periphery of the PAs, with, consequently, the HWCs undermining local support for conservation.
3.11.1 Risk-bearing by the local authorities
The local authorities literally bear the risk of conflict being instigated by wildlife against the fellow local residents. Conflict frequently demonstrates or expresses itself in “expressed disagreements among people who see incompatible goals and potential interference in achieving these goals” (Peterson, Peterson, Peterson & Leong, 2013:94). Yet, the conveyed divergences and the imaginary mismatch might become more deeply embedded than before, as a result of a more extremely deep-rooted community conflict that might have little to do with the expressed disagreements (Coleman, 2011). When such conflicts being existent, the discourse and processes of decision making need to explain the parties concerned to develop mutually supported, and sustainable solutions (Lederach, 2003). Therefore, the likely obligatory responsibility of the local authorities is to expedite the HWC thereby assisting the host communities at losses through applying management practices which are best suited for the situation (Baillie et al., 2004). Diverse conditions and situations, opinions, and morals have to be taken into consideration when appraising which methodologies are best to solve the conflict (Barua et al., 2013). The situation is even worse in communities like those in Zimbabwe (Gandiwa, 2012) and Uganda (Madden, 2008), where the national governments tend to isolate and neglect the local authorities from the fundamental dynamics of the situation, such as from the provision of financial support to support issues related to coexistence.
Campbell et al. (2003) and Gandiwa (2012) assert that laws in Uganda and Zimbabwe prohibit the governments from providing compensation for damage committed due to wild game, but they assist with no expertise for substitute procedures to deal with the cost implications of the local people living alongside wildlife, and near the PAs. The above- mentioned situation increases what should be the unnecessary responsibility for the situation among the authorities. Mudumba (2011) and Dricuru (2000) indicate that, in Uganda, the managers felt obliged to deliver financial coverages of the medical bills linked to the attacks. As a result of ‘no compensation’ rule that had materialised for some time, their activities were somewhat secret, and the sum and form of reparation was different. Supplementary aid, in form of the food donations for those at losses or their families, or other facilities and amenities, might or might not be provided, at the preference of the individual management
51
principles (Dricuru, 2000). The local people have been known to come to resent such inconsistency and inequity, and, from their point of view, unpredictable treatment by those in authority (Dricuru, 2000). Mackenzie (2012) holds the above-mentioned issues to be potential sources of conflict between the local residents and the local authorities.
Reciprocally supportive relations between the host communities and the PAs in proximity are crucial to the long-term accomplishment of management and conservation efforts. However, the literature has demonstrated that HWCs have destroyed the global ecology, disintegrated societies, divided community members and interest groups on varying interests and priorities in relation to conservation, resulted in the extinction of certain species, and, most importantly, separated people and wildlife from sharing their traditional habitat. Tessema, Ashenafi, Lilieholm and Leader-Williams (2007) and Hill (2004) maintain that, in contemporary ages, successful conservation agencies have singled out HWCs as a substantial danger to the realization of African conservation initiatives (ACIs). Understandably, where wildlife is seen as a threat not only to livelihoods, but also to life and limb, the local communities may be hostile towards conservation, complicating the situation for the authorities (Tessema et al., 2007). Incidents occur in such shared communities, with the outcomes being fatal to the local residents, wildlife, and authorities (Sakurai & Jacobson, 2011), catalysing hot debates on the issue of coexistence. In Mozambique and Burkina Faso, HWCs are one of the maximum repeatedly spoken issue when the country’s President goes into the communities for an encounter with the rural masses, which highlights that HWC has become a subject which gets nationwide consideration and attention (Conover, 2002). Such problems of HWC give an impression of the urgent need for measures to be undertaken to manage the ongoing crisis that takes the form of HWCs.