102 K. M. Hariohay et al.
et al., 2017), and some retaliatory approaches, such as poisons and snares, are non-selective and can kill non-target animals (Fay, 2022). Human–African buffalo conflict is exacerbated by en-
croachment of agricultural activities and livestock into protected areas, resulting in reduced quantity and quality of natural habitat for buffalo populations (Ntongani et al., 2010). The expansion of human activities in critical wildlife movement corridors both limits use of space by wildlife and increases interactions between wildlife and people, height- ening overall human–wildlife conflict. Where protected areas are not fenced, animals can freely move in and out (Okello et al., 2015; Acharya et al., 2016). Conflict often arises where animals move outside protected areas into human- dominated landscapes (Beck et al., 2019; Shaffer et al., 2019; Sibanda et al., 2022). For example, African buffaloes that leave protected areas have been found to feed on crops, resulting in costly damages to farmers’ livelihoods (Sawyer et al., 2011). Furthermore, direct interactions be- tween people and buffaloes roaming outside protected areas can result in human injuries and even deaths (Dunham et al., 2010; Hariohay et al., 2017). These in turn can lead to retaliatory killings of buffaloes (Kaswamila, 2009). Resolving human–wildlife conflict and achieving peace-
ful human–wildlife coexistence is a complex endeavour because conflicts vary with spatial and cultural dynamics. Various approaches have been recommended for mitigat- ing such conflict, involving both long- and short-term pre- ventative strategies (Distefano, 2005; Osipova et al., 2018; MNRT, 2020). However, these are often difficult to realize, especially if the conflict is not well understood (O’Brien et al., 2018). Here we investigate human–African buffalo conflict in villages adjacent to a protected area in northern Tanzania, to establish the causes of this conflict, determine the extent of damage caused by buffaloes and examine the mitigation measures used by farmers. We tested two hypotheses: (1) because crops are more accessible close to protected area boundaries, the impact of human–African buffalo conflict will be greater on farms ,1 km from pro- tected area boundaries than on farms further away from these boundaries, and (2) because crops are cultivated in the wet season (January–June), there will be a higher frequency of crop damage incidents in this season than in the dry season (crops such as maize and pigeon peas de- velop energy-rich seeds at the end of the wet season). A detailed understanding of conflict dynamics would
enable management authorities to tailor their interventions to specific areas and demographics. This could involve targeted education and awareness programmes (i.e. equip- ping communities with knowledge about buffalo ecology, coexistence practices and conflict prevention strategies), implementing buffer zones and wildlife corridors (to reduce
direct interactions between people and buffaloes) and pro- viding livelihood support or compensation schemes (to mitigate the negative economic impacts of such conflict and foster coexistence). Furthermore, the findings from this study could inform policy decisions at the local and national level, such as those regarding the development of land-use policies (i.e. ensuring peaceful coexistence by balancing conservation needs with human development aspirations), the allocation of resources for conflict mitiga- tion (i.e. prioritizing areas with the highest levels of conflict and the most vulnerable communities) and support for community-based conservation initiatives (i.e. empowering local communities to participate in finding solutions and managing conflict effectively).
Study area and species
We conducted this study in the villages of Oldeani, Tloma and Kambi ya Simba in the Karatu district adjacent to the southern border of Ngorongoro Conservation Area (Fig. 1). Karatu is the fourth largest district in the Arusha region, covering c. 2,300 km2, and is home to various ethnic groups, including the Iraqw, who are agro- pastoralists, the Hadzabe and Datooga, who are hunter- gatherers, and nomadic pastoralists. Karatu district is characterized by bimodal seasonal rainfall (TMA, 2022). During October–December there is a short rainy season fol- lowed by a short dry season, and during March–May there is a long rainy season (Seregina et al., 2019;TMA, 2022). Consequently, there are harvest periods in Febru- ary and July following the short and long rainy seasons, respectively (Mwabumba et al., 2022). The African buffalo is present in most Sub-Saharan
African countries (Caron et al., 2023). Its morphology and diet resemble those of domesticated cattle. It is categorized as Near Threatened on the IUCN Red List, with a declining population (IUCN SSC Antelope Specialist Group, 2019; IUCN, 2023). The global estimate of the buffalo population is 569,000–573,000 (398,000–401,000 mature individuals), with a decline of 18% during 1999–2014 (IUCN, 2019). The African buffalo is one of the largest mammal species involved in human–wildlife conflict (Mahaney, 1987). This conflict is a result of the increased human population, loss of wildlife habitat and land-use change, which can lead to crop damage by buffaloes and subsequent confronta- tions with people (Butynski et al., 1997; Kagoro-Rugunda, 2004), and poaching (Macandza et al., 2004;Kahler & Gore, 2015; Erena et al., 2019; Moreto, 2019). These interactions result in an estimated 200 human deaths annually (Mukamuri et al., 2023), highlighting the need to study human–African buffalo interactions, especially in densely populated ecosystems.
Oryx, 2025, 59(1), 101–108 © Crown Copyright - College of African Wildlife Management, Mweka, 2024. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Fauna & Flora International doi:10.1017/S0030605324000784
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140
