The world’s population is rapidly approaching eight million. This growth leads to increases in food production, resources extraction, and overall consumer consumption. This puts a strain upon wildlife habitat. Many times, our most precious refuges for biodiversity are left to be protected by poorer local communities.It raises the question: Who should carry the burden of conservation efforts? Who should reap the conservation benefits: the locals, or the predominantly western conservationists
Poaching is an example of the conflict between concerned conservationists and struggling local populations.Modern poaching takes place in countries that are experiencing poverty, where poaching is the easiest way to generate income for local people. One rhino horn in South Africa is worth 150,000 rand. This is approximately five years salary for a single day’s work.This kind of incentive and the absence of other viable options is what makes poaching so attractive. Many locals are denied access to traditional food sources and have to be relocated to make way for national parks. This reduces their ability to adapt to climate change and decreases their chances of surviving drought.
Why should local people care about protecting wildlife areas if the main economic and socio-economic benefactors of conservation is foreign elites? In areas around national parks and game reserves, conservation and tourism are increasingly causing class conflict. A Kenyan politician threatened that we would start killing and feeding off the locals. [wildlife]If tourism and conservation profits were not shared with local populations, then the fruits of tourism and conservation would be edible. There is a cost to wildlife conservation, and those who do not receive the benefits are being encouraged to support it.
Furthermore, Locals must deal with the consequences of wild animals conflict, including crop destruction, livestock slaughtered by wild predators and disease spread from wildlife to livestock. Many people living near national parks are quick to kill wildlife as a way to protect their property, as well as to retaliate after previous destruction.
This is what I witnessed firsthand when I was volunteering with Elephant-Human Relations Aid in Namibia. There, I was responsible for building stone walls around water tanks to keep desert elephants away from the tanks. The area was extremely dry, so the locals depended on the stored water to survive. This increased the conflict and led to many elephant deaths. A viable solution must include both acknowledging the rights to locals to live in security and protecting endangered species.
The best way to resolve the conflict would be to give local communities control over the operations and profits of conservation efforts as well as tourism establishments. Poaching will decline if local residents are given incentives to protect wildlife, such as the opportunity to create viable livelihoods in national parks and game reserves. Protecting endangered species should be a top priority for conservationists in this century. It is vital that local populations are included.
