Local women seen carrying fuelwood in Malawi. Photo by CIFOR-ICRAF

Conservation policies that restrict access to natural resources in protected areas risk alienating local communities, leading to negative perceptions and non-compliance among their most vulnerable members, according to a recent study. 

To achieve sustainable conservation and livelihoods, policies must adopt approaches that include local communities in decision making and acknowledge the essential contributions of nature to their daily lives. 

These were among the findings of a group of scientists examining the implications of human‐nature interactions for livelihoods and conservation in Kasungu, a biodiversity-rich district of central Malawi that includes a legally protected national park. 

Published in People and Nature, a quarterly journal of the British Ecological Society, the study focused on how ongoing biodiversity decline affects the complex relationships between people and nature, with major impacts on conservation and livelihoods.  

“As many communities in Malawi and other African countries rely on natural resources to sustain their livelihoods, lessons can be shared on sustainable use and community engagement when developing conservation initiatives,” says Lessah Mandoloma, the study’s lead author and a graduate student in the Department of Biology at the University of Oxford. 

“Our study offers valuable insights for other conservation areas where human-wildlife conflict issues – such as poaching or crop raiding by animals – are common.” 

Laws versus livelihoods

In line with the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), a multilateral environmental agreement, Malawi has mainstreamed biodiversity into policies, strategies and plans with the aim of enhancing its conservation, sustainable use and benefit sharing, according to the CBD website. 

Yet these conservation efforts are sometimes at odds with people’s livelihoods in the same district or region. 

Kasungu National Park plays a vital role in providing resources alongside neighbouring farms and community forests for the purposes of subsistence, rather than for income generation or commercial benefit. Though harvesting in the park is illegal, resource-dependent people continue this practice at the risk of harsh penalties.  

“Nowadays, when you are caught harvesting bushmeat, you either pay 12 million kwacha [about USD 6,850] or spend 36 years in jail,” a male respondent living in a fenced buffer zone said in the study. “Imagine, for example, if I harvest an animal as small as a pangolin that will take me less than a week to finish, then I have to spend 30 years in jail.” 

Therefore, it is important that government policies consider conserving wildlife while supporting nature’s contributions to people’s livelihoods, the authors concluded. 

Park or poverty

More than 90 percent of the study’s participants reported collecting resources – such as fuelwood, grass, medicinal plants and fruits – to support their livelihoods. Households near the park; women; people of lower economic status; and those who had experienced crop and livestock losses were more likely to collect resources in the park, according to the study. 

Participants generally expressed positive attitudes towards wildlife and conservation. However, women respondents expressed some negative attitudes, while those participants most affected by factors such as food insecurity, proximity to the park, as well as crop and livestock loss were also associated with unfavourable views, the authors wrote.  

Women, for example, are in constant contact with the environment, which increases the risk of encountering dangerous animals in the landscape. 

“I am not sure if I want the animals to increase in their numbers because, as it is, we only harvest what is left after the elephants, bush pigs and monkeys have taken what they can,” a female respondent living in an unfenced buffer zone said in the study. 

Local engagement

Effective engagement with local communities is crucial to leveraging their positive attitudes and fostering locally led conservation initiatives. Fences or punitive measures against resource harvesting may provide short-term relief but are unlikely to promote long-term stewardship of natural resources, the authors concluded. 

Programmes that integrate poverty alleviation and economic incentives are needed to address the socioeconomic factors that strongly influence both resource use and attitudes towards conservation, according to the study. 

“The next step is to share our findings with relevant ministries to inform policy decisions; with NGOs working in conservation and community development; and with local communities to discuss practical applications of the study’s recommendations,” Mandoloma says. 

The Center for International Forestry Research and World Agroforestry (CIFOR-ICRAF) – which provided funding for the study – recognizes that the rational use of wildlife resources for food is fundamental to ensuring healthy ecosystems while enabling the food security and livelihoods of human populations that depend on wildlife. 

The Transformative Partnership Platform (TPP) on Sustainable Use of Wild Species generates research, tools and evidence to ensure that the use, harvesting and trade of wild species is sustainable, safe and legal, in accordance with Target 5 of the Global Biodiversity Framework. 

Acknowledgement

The study was funded by the Government of Malawi, the Lilongwe University of Agriculture and Natural Resources (LUANAR), and the Department of Biology, University of Oxford.