Understanding Human-wildlife conflict and its impact on agroecology transition Bio Hub Trust; Vimbayi G. P. Chimonyo; Telma Sibanda; Dorcas Matangi November 2024 Agroecology Initiative Technical Report Contents Executive summary ........................................................................................ 3 Introduction ................................................................................................... 4 Methodological approach .............................................................................................. 5 Findings ............................................................................................................................ 6 Discussion ...................................................................................................................... 10 Conclusion ..................................................................................................................... 12 Policy recommendations .............................................................................................. 12 References........................................................................................................................ 0 Executive summary Human-wildlife conflict (HWC) presents a critical challenge to agroecological transitions in Mbire District, where communities depend heavily on agriculture and cultural traditions such as wild harvest. Situated in a region with a rich biodiversity that includes elephants, lions, baboons, and crocodiles among other animals, Mbire's rural population faces frequent and often dangerous interactions with wildlife. These encounters not only endanger human lives and livestock but also disrupt crop production, compromising food security and stability in an area where agriculture sustains livelihoods and cultural practices. Wildlife intrusions devastate crop fields and imperil livestock, leading communities to adopt various mitigation strategies that range from traditional deterrent methods to collaboration with government agencies. However, these strategies are often limited by external policies and insufficient resources, exacerbating local frustrations and hardships. This report, part of BIO-HUB TRUST contribution to the CGIAR Agroecology initiative, documents dialogues among community of elders and stakeholders, highlighting the integration of Indigenous Knowledge Systems (IKS) and the need for effective HWC solutions within agroecological transitions. The elders' dialogues, a central part of BIOHUB’s engagement, illustrate the community’s reliance on traditional spiritual practices to coexist with wildlife, drawing on rituals, ancestral guidance, and community-wide customs to maintain balance within their ecosystem. For instance, villagers employ traditional deterrents, such as burning elephant dung or constructing makeshift barriers, to minimize crop losses. These practices, however, are frequently insufficient in the face of increasing wildlife pressures, partly driven by land encroachment and ecological changes that disrupt natural wildlife habitats, compelling animals to venture closer to human settlements. The continuation of these traditional methods is hampered by legal and bureaucratic restrictions, as community members often lack authority to make immediate decisions about wildlife management. Government policies on wildlife conservation are perceived locally as favoring animal protection over human safety, thereby straining relations between conservation agencies and rural populations. These policies, which limit communities' capacity to manage wildlife, impede the development of local, context-specific solutions to HWC and hinder the progress of agroecological transitions. The report underscores that a successful agroecological transition in Mbire must address HWC by aligning national policy frameworks with community belief system, needs and fostering a collaborative approach that respects traditional knowledge. By integrating ecological stewardship with indigenous practices, the community dialogues reveal pathways towards more resilient agricultural systems that honor local cultural values, reduce wildlife conflicts, and support sustainable agricultural practices. This approach seeks to transform HWC from a source of division into a component of Mbire’s agroecological resilience, bolstering sustainable ecosystem and community cohesion. Agroecology Initiative Technical Report Introduction Human-wildlife conflict (HWC) represents a complex and pressing challenge in Zimbabwe, where communities situated near wildlife-rich areas frequently encounter interactions that lead to competition over resources, safety concerns, and threats to livelihoods(Utete, 2021, 2024). These conflicts often involve encounters with species such elephant (Loxodonta africana), African buffalo (Syncerus caffer), common hippopotamus (Hippopotamus amphibius), and the Nile crocodile (Crocodylus niloticus), which can destroy crops, prey on livestock, and sometimes endanger human lives (Jani et al., 2020; Zhou, 2024). Human wildlife conflict is common in areas like Mbire District, where the local economy and cultural practices are heavily dependent on agriculture and pastoralism. The drivers of HWC in Zimbabwe are multifaceted, often a product of both natural and human-induced factors. Climate change has intensified environmental stressors, with rising temperatures contributing to prolonged dry seasons, habitat degradation, and reduced availability of natural resources (Bola et al., 2014). These shifts push wildlife to roam beyond their traditional habitats in search of food and water, often into areas occupied by humans (Bola et al., 2014). Anthropogenic factors, including habitat loss due to agricultural expansion, infrastructure development, and livestock rearing, further exacerbate these conflicts. For instance, diminished natural grazing lands and water scarcity drive wildlife to seek resources within human settlements, leading to incidents that strain relationships between local communities and wildlife conservation authorities (Matema et al., 2022; Matema & Andersson, 2015). The increasing encroachment into wildlife habitats, driven by the expansion of human settlements and agricultural land, intensifies these conflicts, resulting in a disruption of ecological balance and an increased risk of negative interactions between humans and wildlife (Bola et al., 2014; Musiwa & Mhlanga, 2020). The impacts of HWC are far-reaching and affect several aspects of community life. Crop destruction is perhaps the most pervasive issue, threatening food security and undermining local economies (Baudron et al., 2022). In areas where communities depend largely on subsistence farming, crop raiding by elephants, baboons, and other herbivores can devastate livelihoods, leading to economic hardship and social instability. Livestock predation by large carnivores such as lions and hyenas also pose a significant threat, as livestock is a primary asset in rural economies. Additionally, these conflicts endanger human lives and property, with incidents of injury and even fatal encounters with wildlife occasionally reported in high-conflict zones. Addressing HWC requires multi-stakeholder collaboration and the integration of traditional knowledge with modern conservation practices. Community dialogues, like those documented in the Agroecology Initiative, highlight the role of local elders and traditional systems in conflict mitigation. By combining Indigenous Knowledge Systems (IKS) with formal conservation policies, stakeholders can develop more inclusive and effective HWC strategies. Engaging communities through training, alternative livelihood programs, and participatory land-use planning are critical steps in fostering coexistence (Zhou, 2024). Collaborative approaches that empower local communities, support sustainable livelihood options, and enhance HWC management capabilities can help shift the paradigm from conflict towards coexistence (Gandiwa et al., 2013). For instance, CAMPFIRE (Communal Areas Management Programme for Indigenous Resources) in Zimbabwe (Gandiwa et al., 2013) encouraged community-based wildlife management to foster coexistence between people and wildlife. The program empowered communities and fostered sustainable livelihood options that tried to strengthen local capacities for managing HWC (Baudron et al., 2022; Gandiwa et al., 2013). Such collaborative approach aimed at reducing conflict, promoting tolerance, and shifting from adversarial interactions towards coexistence, benefiting both community welfare and biodiversity. This approach was not only meant to reduces the immediate impacts of HWC but also promote long-term resilience and ecological stability, enabling a harmonious coexistence between communities and wildlife. However, communities often failed to fully support CAMPFIRE not only because of the ownership question but also due to the nagging control question. Furthermore, Zimbabwe does not have a policy to guide HWC. Zimbabwe’s regulatory frameworks provides a foundation for such collaborative approaches, incorporating a mix of legal and institutional measures that seek to balance conservation with sustainable community practices. Key legislation, including the Environmental Management Act (2002), the Water Act (2002), the Communal Forest Produce Act (1988), the Rural District Councils Act (1988), and the Traditional Leaders Act (2000)—sets parameters for managing wetland areas. These laws restrict activities such as cultivation within 30 meters of riverbanks, tree cutting, human settlement, gardening, and livestock grazing in sensitive riverine zones. Regulation is enforced by a combination of traditional leaders, such as chiefs, headmen, and village heads—and statutory bodies, including the Environmental Management Agency, the Forestry Commission, and various land and water authorities under the Ministry related to land and water. Additionally, ancestral spirit guardians, or mhondoro, through their mediums, play a spiritual role as custodians of natural resources. These guardians are traditionally believed to have influence over environmental factors like rainfall and may cause wetlands to dry if displeased by human actions ((Mbereko et al., 2018). Rural District Councils (RDCs) also play a role in land-use planning and enforcing environmental regulations, as stipulated in the Rural District Councils Act (Chirisa & Nel, 2022; Musiwa & Mhlanga, 2020). Given all these regulatory measures, HWC is still a significant challenge in Mbire and can potentially affect the success of agroecology transitions. Understanding the pain points of human-wildlife conflict (HWC) is essential for several reasons. First, HWC directly affects the livelihoods and well-being of communities that rely on agriculture, often creating tension between conservation goals and community needs. Without addressing these underlying issues, efforts to implement agroecological transitions may be met with resistance, as communities struggling with HWC are less likely to prioritize sustainable practices when their immediate survival is at stake. Moreover, HWC exacerbates social divides by creating conflict not only between humans and wildlife but also within communities. Frustrations have arisen over land use, conservation policies, and the distribution of resources, impacting social cohesion and undermining collaborative conservation efforts (Baudron, 2011; Baudron et al., 2011, 2022). Social cohesion is fundamental to agroecology, as it depends on shared goals, cooperation, and collective action to maintain resilient farming systems and healthy ecosystems (Kansanga et al., 2020; Maleksaeidi & Karami, 2013). By understanding and addressing the pain points of HWC, stakeholders can foster greater trust and alignment within communities, laying a foundation for agroecological transitions that are not only ecologically sustainable but also socially equitable and culturally relevant. This holistic approach, which considers both environmental and social dimensions, is crucial for creating enduring solutions that support both biodiversity and community well-being. The purpose of this report is to explore and address the pressing issue of Human-Wildlife Conflict (HWC) in Mbire District, particularly in Wards 2 and 3, where HWC poses a significant threat to food security and community stability. Previous engagements with Agroecological Learning Landscapes (ALLs) in these wards revealed that crop destruction and livestock losses from wildlife encounters are primary concerns among local communities. Recognizing the urgent need to address these challenges, a series of meetings were organized to foster open dialogues about the impact of HWC on food security and subsequent response strategies. Methodological approach Key informant interviews and focused discussions using guiding questions were conducted to understand the socio-political dynamics of HWC within Wards 2 and 3 of Mbire District,. Participants in focus group discussions were selected based on gender, age, social position (e.g. sabhuku and ward councillor) and livestock ownership (owners/non-owners). Participants in the focused discussions and key informants interviewed included chiefs, headmen, Mbire RDC officials, ward councillors), officials from the ZimParks), Department of Veterinary Services and the ARDAS (AGRITEX) and members of the CGIAR Agroecology initiative Living landscapes (ALLs), to give the official version of use of riverine wetlands and HWC. The participants formed three key groups: stakeholders, the Community Dialogue of Elders, and a broader group of ALL participants. Stakeholders, driven by practical concerns, shared their specific needs and perspectives regarding HWC. The Elders, rooted in Indigenous Knowledge Systems (IKS), contributed cultural insights and long-standing strategies. ALL members, representing diverse community perspectives, enriched the dialogue with varied viewpoints. Together, these groups engaged in a structured discussion, collaboratively exploring the impact of HWC on food security and community cohesion. The three groups freely engaged in discussions, offering perspectives from their various community groups and stakeholders. Each group comprised of men and women and took between 3 and 4 hours. The research group members asked questions and probed while a research assistant acted as note taker and made sure all questions were asked and answered. Each discussion started with an outline of the purpose of the study, followed by in-depth exploration of sub-topics (human–wildlife interactions regulatory process to minimize HWC and policy frameworks). Key informants were selected based on their social and professional positions and their knowledge in relation to the research topic. Together, these factions tackled the presented inquiries, each from their unique perspective, cultivating a lively interchange of ideas and resolutions. The queries encompassed the subsequent aspects:- 1. What is our interaction with wild animals? 2. How did we actively preserve our culture in relation to coexisting with and managing wildlife? 3. What cultural practices do we employ to safeguard wildlife in the Mbire District? 4. How are we mitigating the impact of wildlife at our crop and livestock farming? 5. Are there any policies that restrict or endanger our ability to manage our animals as we wish? 6. How can these policies, mentioned in 5 above, be amended? Findings Question 1: What is our interaction with wild animals? The communities in Wards 2 and 3 of Mbire District experience frequent, challenging interactions with wildlife that significantly affect their daily lives and agricultural productivity. Elephants are a primary source of concern due to their destructive impact on crops, which leads to substantial economic losses and heightens food insecurity. Many farmers report a constant need to guard their fields, often spending nights outside to deter these animals. This need for vigilance disrupts family life, reduces sleep, and contributes to a pervasive sense of vulnerability among residents. One ALLs member shared, "I can't count the number of nights I've spent sleeping in my fields, trying to keep my crops safe from those pesky wildlife creatures. It's a never-ending battle, and one that's taking a toll on my body and mind... But what choice do I have? If I don't protect my crops, I'll lose everything I've worked for." Lions and hyenas also pose severe risks, particularly through predation on livestock and, in some cases, direct threats to human safety. Reports indicate that lions have become more brazen, occasionally venturing close to human settlements, while hyenas are known to target livestock, often under the cover of darkness. Crocodiles further exacerbate the danger, particularly around water sources where they pose a lethal threat to both people and animals, impacting livelihoods and limiting safe access to water resources. Smaller animals, such as baboons, monkeys, and birds, although less physically threatening, contribute to significant crop losses. Baboons and monkeys raid crops and occasionally target livestock, such as chickens, while birds feed on grain supplies, compounding the challenges to food security. As one elder noted, “Our harvests are taken before we can even enjoy the fruits of our labor,” underscoring the severity of these interactions and the associated frustration within the community. These negative interactions with wildlife highlight the critical need for strategies to mitigate human-wildlife conflict and underscore the multifaceted impacts on food security, safety, and overall quality of life in Mbire. Question 2: How did we actively preserve our culture in relation to coexisting with and managing wildlife? In Mbire District, cultural practices historically played a vital role in fostering coexistence with wildlife, enabling communities to manage their interactions with animals in ways aligned with local beliefs and traditions. Elders recall a time when spiritual leaders were central to managing human-wildlife relations, often called upon to interpret and mitigate wildlife behaviors perceived as omens or disruptions to the community. For instance, if elephants were encroaching on farmlands, villagers would gather elephant dung and take it to a spiritual leader, who would conduct rituals aimed at preventing the animals from returning to their fields for the whole season. Similarly, when lions ventured too close to settlements, spirit mediums would guide communities to seek out and correct any social or spiritual imbalances believed to have drawn the animals near. In the past, various practices addressed specific wildlife encounters, underscoring a deep respect for animals and natural balance. Spiritual leaders were consulted to capture or relocate crocodiles deemed unusually aggressive or to summon a particular baboon, "Kamukucha," believed to be able to control the behavior of its troop and lead them away from farming areas. This practice of appeasing and guiding animals symbolized a harmonious relationship between the community and wildlife, guided by both reverence and a deep understanding of animal behavior within the cultural framework. Other traditions included ceremonies and offerings to promote safety and balance. For example, during critical farming periods, the community would brew a special beer known as "Huruva" or "Mbudzirume" to invoke ancestral protection over their fields. This ritual sought blessings for a successful harvest and protection against wildlife encroachment. As one elder explained, “With the beer's potency believed to repel marauding animals, the farmers could tend to their fields with peace of mind.” However, the community expressed concern that many of these traditions are no longer regularly observed, a shift they attribute to external influences and changing societal values. As traditions fade, so does the sense of cultural connection and the ability to manage wildlife interactions effectively within a cultural framework. This disconnect, according to several elders, has diminished the community’s resilience and ability to engage in meaningful coexistence with wildlife, highlighting the need for revival of these practices to address modern challenges in human-wildlife conflict. Question 3: What cultural practices do we employ to safeguard wildlife in the Mbire District? In Mbire District, traditional practices historically emphasized safeguarding wildlife alongside human interests, rooted in a mutual respect for nature. Elders and community members practiced conservation rituals and customs aimed at maintaining ecological balance, which, in turn, helped mitigate conflicts with wildlife. These practices were not only ecological measures but also expressions of cultural values that preserved the community’s harmonious relationship with their environment. One significant practice was the brewing of ritualistic beers, "Huruva" or "Mbudzirume," at the beginning of the farming season. This ceremony was performed to invoke ancestral blessings for a bountiful harvest while requesting protection for their crops from wildlife. The potent brew was believed to serve as a spiritual deterrent for animals that might otherwise encroach on the fields. Later in the season, a similar brew, "Chokwa," was prepared to protect the crops as they ripened, fortifying the community’s bond with nature and their ancestral spirits. These practices reinforced the community’s collective responsibility to respect and coexist with wildlife. Additional protective customs included honoring sacred sites and enforcing restrictions on resource extraction from these areas. For instance, there were prohibitions against cutting down certain trees, burning forests, and using traps in specified locations. The community respected these areas, which were believed to be sanctuaries for both wildlife and ancestral spirits, thereby creating informal conservation zones that protected habitats crucial for local wildlife. Community leaders enforced these rules, with penalties for violations, reinforcing a sense of responsibility and stewardship over natural resources. Wildlife was also safeguarded through customs like limiting fishing to traditional nets to avoid overharvesting and refraining from the use of harmful chemicals in water bodies to protect aquatic life. One elder recounted, “Our forests and rivers were respected; they were places where we honored life, not just for our needs but for the animals that share this land with us.” This respect for resources provided a framework for sustainable practices that minimized environmental degradation and wildlife disturbance. In the face of modern challenges, community members noted that many of these conservation-oriented traditions are at risk of being forgotten. The elders expressed a desire to revive these practices, recognizing them as integral not only to cultural heritage but also to sustainable coexistence with wildlife. The loss of these customs, they observed, has correlated with increased human-wildlife conflict, underscoring the need to re- establish these practices to enhance environmental stewardship and community resilience. Question 4: How are we mitigating the impact of wildlife in our crop and livestock farming? To mitigate the impact of wildlife on crops and livestock, the communities in Mbire District employ a range of strategies combining traditional knowledge and practical deterrents. Given the frequent threats posed by elephants, lions, hyenas, and other wildlife, these measures are crucial to protecting both livelihoods and food security. One commonly used method is the construction of barriers around crop fields and livestock enclosures. These barriers range from thorny bush fences to more modern solutions like stringing chili-coated ropes or placing chili “bricks” made from a mixture of chili, oil, and dung around the perimeter of fields. The pungent chili acts as a natural deterrent to elephants, who avoid it due to its strong odor. Other measures include scarecrows and noise-making devices, such as drums and bells, which are strategically placed to startle animals approaching crops. To protect livestock, many farmers construct sturdy kraals (enclosures) and implement rotational guarding practices, ensuring that animals are safely herded back to enclosures before nightfall. Some farmers also rely on guard animals, such as dogs, to help deter predators like lions and hyenas. In areas with high predator activity, communities have started to construct “mobile bomas” or portable enclosures that can be moved with herds, providing flexible protection. Another method involves traditional deterrents, such as burning elephant dung around the perimeter of fields, which is believed to ward off animals from entering crop areas. Crop rotation and intercropping are also practiced as a way to reduce wildlife attraction to fields, while certain crops, like chili and garlic, are planted specifically because they repel certain animals. Despite these efforts, community members expressed that these methods are often labor-intensive and not always fully effective. As one ALLs member noted, “We spend countless hours guarding our fields, sometimes with little sleep, and yet the animals still find ways in.” This highlights the ongoing challenge of human-wildlife conflict and the community’s resilience in trying to adapt to the recurring threats. In addition to physical deterrents, the communities collaborate with local leaders and conservation organizations to explore sustainable solutions. Educating residents about wildlife behaviors and coexistence, for example, has helped reduce accidental confrontations. However, community members expressed that government support in the form of compensation schemes and resources for advanced deterrent systems could significantly enhance their ability to protect their livelihoods from wildlife impact. These mitigation strategies reflect a blend of innovation, tradition, and communal effort, showing the community’s commitment to coexist with wildlife while securing their agricultural productivity and food security. Question 5: Are there any policies that restrict or endanger our ability to manage our animals as we wish? Community members in Mbire District report that existing wildlife conservation policies restrict their ability to manage and protect their animals effectively, often prioritizing wildlife protection over human safety and livelihood security. Under Zimbabwe’s strict wildlife laws, it is illegal to kill protected animals, such as elephants, even when they pose direct threats to crops or livestock. Violations can lead to severe penalties, including imprisonment, a policy the community views as one-sided, with insufficient consideration for human welfare. A key frustration lies in the lack of compensation for losses suffered due to wildlife encounters. If a person is injured or killed by wildlife, there is no compensation provided to the family. In contrast, killing a protected animal can result in fines or jail time, which community members feel demonstrates a disproportionate emphasis on animal protection. One elder expressed this sentiment, saying, “If an elephant destroys our crops or kills our livestock, we bear the loss alone. But if we harm the animal in self- defense, we face punishment.” This perceived inequity fosters resentment and hinders community support for conservation laws. Additionally, restrictions on cutting down trees for building strong livestock enclosures, as well as limitations on using certain deterrent methods, leave farmers feeling unprotected against wildlife threats. The prohibition against trapping or using certain traditional defensive practices is viewed as further limiting community autonomy over resource management. Another major concern is the exclusion of local communities from wildlife management decision-making processes. Community members expressed frustration over the lack of participation in policy development or quota setting, particularly with programs like CAMPFIRE (Communal Areas Management Programme for Indigenous Resources), which are intended to provide benefits from wildlife conservation. However, these benefits are seen as disproportionately allocated, often failing to reach the majority of affected residents. The cumulative effect of these policies has led to a perception that human lives and livelihoods are undervalued compared to wildlife preservation. Community members are calling for a more balanced approach that includes compensation for losses and greater involvement in policy decisions, enabling them to address human-wildlife conflict in a way that respects both conservation and community welfare. Question 6: How can these policies be amended? To address the challenges posed by current wildlife policies, community members in Mbire District proposed a series of amendments aimed at achieving a more balanced and inclusive approach to human-wildlife conflict management. At the forefront of these recommendations is the establishment of a structured compensation system. This system would provide financial restitution to families who suffer losses from wildlife interactions, including injuries, fatalities, livestock predation, and crop destruction. Such compensation would alleviate the economic burdens on affected households, thereby increasing support for wildlife conservation efforts among local residents who currently bear the brunt of these conflicts without recourse. A key amendment involves enhancing community representation in wildlife policy-making. Community members emphasize that effective wildlife management requires incorporating local perspectives, particularly from those with direct, daily interactions with wildlife. They advocate for an inclusive decision-making process that involves local leaders, such as headman, village heads, spiritual leaders, and representatives from the ALLs. By allowing these representatives to participate in decision-making forums and programs like CAMPFIRE, policies could better reflect the priorities, experiences, and cultural values of the Mbire community. This inclusion would also foster transparency and build trust in conservation programs, ensuring that benefits are equitably distributed and that local people see tangible advantages from wildlife preservation efforts. In addition, community members suggest amending policies to allow for self-defense measures when wildlife poses an immediate threat to human lives, livestock, or crops. Under current laws, killing or harming protected animals, even in cases of imminent danger, is punishable by significant fines or imprisonment. Community members propose a more flexible legal framework that recognizes self-defense actions in specific circumstances, where animals have repeatedly caused harm or pose a clear and present danger. This amendment would provide communities with a sense of security and autonomy over their safety and resources, which they feel is presently compromised by rigid wildlife protection laws. Further, community members seek recognition and permission to practice certain cultural and spiritual traditions related to wildlife management, which are currently restricted under existing policies. For example, a traditional practice involves taking elephant horns to spiritual leaders as part of rain-seeking rituals. This practice is significant for both ecological and spiritual reasons, as it promotes the reverence of wildlife within a cultural framework while seeking ancestral guidance for agricultural success. Enabling culturally significant practices within conservation policy could help align local values with broader conservation goals, bridging the gap between policy and tradition and fostering a cooperative approach to wildlife management. Another priority amendment is improving the responsiveness of authorities, such as ZimParks, to incidents of human-wildlife conflict. Community members report that while authorities are swift in enforcing penalties, they often delay responding to calls for assistance when wildlife threatens human safety or property. A more responsive, community-focused approach, including regular communication and coordination with local leaders, would allow for faster, more proactive interventions. Community members suggest establishing a designated liaison within ZimParks to coordinate with village heads and ALL representatives, ensuring efficient communication and timely support in managing wildlife incidents. In conclusion, these proposed amendments reflect a desire for a more balanced, culturally respectful, and community-driven approach to wildlife management within the framework of citizen science. By implementing a compensation system, enhancing community involvement in decision-making, allowing culturally relevant practices, creating exceptions for self-defense, and improving responsiveness, these policy changes could facilitate coexistence between humans and wildlife in a way that respects both ecological conservation and the livelihoods of Mbire’s communities. These amendments would not only enhance community resilience but also foster long-term support for conservation initiatives by aligning them more closely with the needs and values of the local population. Discussion The findings from this report provides insights into the challenges of implementing agroecological transitions in areas where communities live alongside protected wildlife. Regular encounters with species such as elephants, lions, and hyenas directly impact agricultural productivity and threaten local food security. These conflicts not only undermine livelihoods but also disrupt agroecological principles essential for sustainable agricultural transitions, such as resilience, ecological balance, and community empowerment. The barriers imposed by the Parks and Wildlife Act in Zimbabwe create significant constraints for communities seeking to protect their crops and livestock against wildlife incursions. According to the Act, the killing of wildlife is only permissible in cases of immediate threat to human life, and even then, a self-defense action must be reported and justified to authorities within a strict timeframe. Species of global conservation importance, including the endangered African savannah elephant (Loxodonta africana), the near-threatened African buffalo (Syncerus caffer), the vulnerable common hippopotamus (Hippopotamus amphibius), and the Nile crocodile (Crocodylus niloticus) , rely on riverine wetlands for essential resources such as habitat, food, and water (Fritz et al., 2003). While the Nile crocodile is classified as of Least Concern by the IUCN (2015), in Zimbabwe it faces pressures from human activities, particularly in riverine areas, which render it near threatened or vulnerable in parts of its range (Utete, 2021, 2024). Since the legislation prioritizes wildlife preservation over local livelihood protection, it restricts the community's ability to make autonomous decisions about their safety and resources. Such restrictions limit local capacity to implement context-specific HWC management strategies, thereby complicating efforts to sustain agroecological practices. The lack of community control over land use decisions further marginalizes rural populations from engaging effectively in agroecology, as they are often excluded from meaningful decision-making processes surrounding land and resource use. The restrictive policy framework also limits the use of IKS, which are vital for agroecology transitions that rely on local knowledge and cultural practices. Traditionally, Mbire’s communities have employed various cultural practices to coexist with wildlife, such as conducting ritual ceremonies to repel wildlife and designating sacred sites as conservation areas. These practices contribute to a balanced ecosystem by fostering a harmonious relationship between humans and wildlife, aligning with agroecological goals. However, the prohibition of certain traditional practices, such as capturing or relocating wildlife without official permission, reduces the effectiveness of these cultural methods and disrupts local systems of environmental stewardship. Revitalizing agroecological systems in Mbire therefore requires a supportive legal environment that respects and integrates indigenous practices as part of sustainable wildlife and resource management. Moreover, the report’s findings indicate that food security is severely impacted by crop destruction and livestock predation, issues central to agroecological sustainability. As agroecology emphasizes resilience through biodiversity and crop diversification, persistent HWC places added strain on these principles by forcing farmers to prioritize defensive practices over sustainable cultivation. Most community-based wildlife management (CBWM) areas in southern Africa — where local people benefit from safari hunting and tourism on their land — are located in drylands (Andersson & Cumming, 2013). Here, agropastoralists depend on rain- fed agriculture and exploitation of natural resources for food and feed. However, agriculture-based livelihoods strategies are generally limited by low and erratic rainfall and poor soil fertility, causing frequent food shortages between harvests (Baudron et al., 2011, 2022). In Mbire, the fields for both cash and food crops tend to be situated in areas with deep fertile soils while vegetable gardens tend to be close to the riverine. As reported, farmers spend substantial time guarding fields, which disrupts their ability to allocate labor for other farming activities thus reducing labor efficiency and impacts physical and mental health. This challenge underscores the need for HWC mitigation strategies that can coexist with agroecological practices without depleting labor resources or encouraging ecologically detrimental responses. Several authors have noted that HWC have economic and social impacts that hinder the agroecological transition, particularly through loss of livestock, a critical economic asset. Livestock contributes to agroecological resilience by providing manure for soil fertility, supporting mixed farming systems, and buffering against crop failure. The predation of livestock by lions and hyenas, exacerbated by inadequate protective measures, undermines these functions, further stressing community economies and reducing the viability of agroecological practices. This situation is compounded by the absence of compensation schemes for HWC-related losses, which limits community investment capacity in sustainable agricultural practices. Without financial support, communities are less able to afford agroecological innovations or participate in resilience-building programs that would improve their economic and ecological outcomes. The report’s findings also emphasize the need for institutional reforms to support agroecological transitions by enhancing community participation in HWC management. Current policies largely exclude communities from active participation in wildlife management, leading to frustration and disillusionment with conservation efforts. Introducing a decentralized governance structure, where communities work alongside authorities like ZimParks and the Rural District Councils (RDCs), could foster greater local involvement in HWC management, as recommended by various stakeholders. Enhanced participation would align with agroecological principles by empowering communities to engage directly in sustainable land-use planning and HWC management, fostering a holistic approach to ecosystem management and social cohesion. A collaborative framework could facilitate the integration of traditional and scientific knowledge, thereby creating an inclusive environment for agroecology to flourish while mitigating HWC. The findings of the activities underscore that the agroecological transition in Mbire hinges on a supportive policy framework that acknowledges local needs and indigenous knowledge in managing HWC. Effective strategies should include compensation schemes, flexible policies allowing self-defense of property, and enhanced community involvement in wildlife management. Addressing these issues would create an enabling environment for agroecology to thrive by reducing HWC impacts, promoting ecosystem resilience, and building community capacity for sustainable agricultural practices Conclusion Agroecology, as a framework, offers valuable tools for addressing HWC by fostering holistic approaches to sustainable farming and wildlife management. One critical aspect of agroecology is the focus on mapping HWC hotspots and understanding the spatial distribution of conflict (Zvidzai et al., 2023). By using geospatial tools and participatory mapping, communities can identify high-risk zones where wildlife interactions with crops and livestock are most prevalent (Zvidzai et al., 2023). This mapping facilitates targeted interventions, ensuring that resources are focused on areas with the greatest need, thus minimizing unnecessary land and resource usage that could otherwise provoke further conflicts. Implementing measures like wildlife corridors or designated buffer zones to reduce HWC risk may restrict certain agricultural activities or require the relocation of farmland, impacting local food production and economic security. While these spatial strategies align with long-term sustainability and biodiversity conservation, they may limit short-term agricultural expansion opportunities, potentially intensifying economic vulnerability in rural communities. Effective HWC mitigation within agroecology also hinges on inclusive stakeholder mapping. By involving community leaders, local farmers, conservationists, and governmental bodies, agroecology promotes a collaborative model where each stakeholder’s role is recognized and integrated into conflict management strategies. This inclusive approach acknowledges the insights and needs of IKS fostering strategies that align with cultural practices and local ecological knowledge, which are essential in designing long-lasting solutions. By formalizing these networks, agroecology can enhance coordination, reduce duplicative efforts, and strengthen community resilience. As such, social cohesion and trust are also fundamental to agroecological approaches in managing HWC (Sharma et al., 2020). Agroecology encourages the formation of social networks where community members collaborate, share experiences, and support each other. This cohesion builds a shared understanding of conflict, transforming HWC from a divisive issue into a collective challenge that unites communities in search of solutions. Such networks facilitate knowledge-sharing on effective deterrents and conflict prevention, as well as emotional support, enhancing resilience. Finally, co-designing solutions with communities allows for adaptive, context-specific HWC strategies that can evolve with changing environmental and social conditions. Co-design workshops encourage local participation, enabling residents to take ownership of solutions that work best in their unique contexts. This adaptability ensures that HWC interventions remain relevant, sustainable, and rooted in agroecological principles of environmental harmony, community empowerment, and socio-ecological resilience. A notable trade-off in applying agroecological approaches to HWC lies in balancing wildlife conservation goals with the immediate livelihood needs of local communities. Agroecology promotes biodiversity, including wildlife, as an essential component of healthy ecosystems, yet communities often bear the costs of coexisting with large animals that threaten crops, livestock, and personal safety. Additionally, agroecological practices encourage non-lethal wildlife deterrents and protection measures that can be labor-intensive and costly for small-scale farmers to maintain, thus requiring sustained financial and logistical support to avoid backlash against conservation efforts. This tradeoff underscores the need for policy frameworks that balance conservation with the provision of compensatory resources and livelihood diversification, ensuring agroecological solutions are both ecologically sustainable and economically viable for communities affected by HWC. Policy recommendations To enhance human-wildlife coexistence and mitigate the impacts of human-wildlife conflict (HWC), several policy recommendations are proposed. Firstly, implementing a structured compensation scheme for HWC losses addresses economic challenges faced by communities, preventing retaliatory actions and fostering positive conservation attitudes. Government, NGO, or private funding could provide essential financial support for crop, livestock, and safety losses. Strengthening the inclusion of communities in wildlife management through local committees would leverage Indigenous Knowledge Systems (IKS) and improve policy relevance by involving village heads, spiritual leaders, and community representatives. Revisions in the Parks and Wildlife Act are needed to permit self-defense in specific contexts, enabling communities to protect essential resources without risking punitive measures. Mainstreaming IKS, including cultural practices for wildlife deterrence, could foster local engagement and respect for biodiversity. Enhanced, agile response systems within Zimbabwe Parks and Wildlife Management Authority (ZimParks) or Rural District Councils (RDCs) could significantly improve incident handling, reduce loss, and build community trust. A dedicated HWC fund within CAMPFIRE could support households impacted by HWC directly, improving resilience and encouraging participation in conservation efforts. Further, agroecological land-use planning and national HWC data systems can aid in managing wildlife corridors and provide data-driven insights for adaptive policy. Other policy recommendations are outlined in Table 1 below. Table 1: Policy recommendations for managing HWC Policy Recommendation Rationale Specific Recommendation 1. Introduction of a Compensation Scheme for HWC Losses Communities currently face significant economic losses due to crop damage, livestock predation, and, in some cases, threats to human safety. A compensation scheme could alleviate financial strain, reduce retaliatory actions against wildlife, and build local support for conservation initiatives. Develop a formal compensation framework funded by the government, private sector, or NGOs, covering losses from crop damage, livestock loss, and injury or fatality, helping communities maintain economic stability and reducing negative attitudes toward wildlife. 2. Greater Community Involvement in Wildlife Management and Policy Decisions Local communities are often excluded from decision- making processes that impact their daily lives and livelihoods. Increased involvement would ensure that policies reflect the on-the-ground realities and leverage Indigenous Knowledge Systems (IKS) in HWC management. Establish community-inclusive wildlife management committees that include village heads, spiritual leaders, and ALLs representatives. These committees could participate in setting HWC mitigation strategies and quota decisions, especially within frameworks like CAMPFIRE . 3. Amendment of Self-Defense Provisions in Wildlife Laws Current laws only permit the killing of wildlife in direct self- defense, with stringent reporting requirements that often leave communities vulnerable. This policy limits the ability of communities to protect their crops, livestock, and families from recurrent wildlife threats. Amend the Parks and Wildlife Act to allow limited, regulated self-defense measures to protect property (e.g., crops and livestock) without severe penalties. These regulations should be clear, providing communities with legal means to address immediate threats while preserving wildlife populations. 4. Legal Support for Indigenous Knowledge Systems (IKS) and Cultural Practices in HWC Management Traditional practices, such as community rituals and use of culturally significant deterrents, play a vital role in managing HWC. However, restrictive policies often limit the use of these culturally rooted practices. Recognize and integrate IKS in HWC policy by allowing culturally significant practices, such as ceremonial rituals for deterring wildlife. This integration would reinforce local conservation ethics, enhance community engagement, and respect cultural values that are consistent with sustainable wildlife management. 5. Streamlining and Strengthening the Response System of Wildlife Management Authorities Delays in response from authorities like ZimParks have led to frustration among community members, who feel inadequately supported in dealing with HWC incidents. Establish a dedicated response unit within ZimParks or RDCs that coordinates closely with community leaders and local representatives. This unit would ensure timely responses to An effective response system could prevent further losses and build trust in wildlife authorities. HWC incidents, prioritize areas of high conflict, and work with communities to implement preventive measures. 6. Development of an HWC-Specific Fund within the CAMPFIRE Program While CAMPFIRE revenues contribute to community development, they often do not directly address the costs of HWC borne by individuals. A dedicated fund could address this gap, ensuring that resources from wildlife- related revenue support households directly affected by HWC. Allocate a portion of CAMPFIRE revenues to create an HWC- specific fund for affected households. This fund could assist with the repair of damaged property, construction of wildlife-proof barriers, or acquisition of alternative livelihoods, thus directly supporting individuals impacted by HWC. 7. Enhanced Support for Agroecological Land-Use Planning The expansion of agricultural and settlement areas into wildlife corridors has increased HWC. Agroecological land-use planning can help separate wildlife habitats from community agricultural areas, reducing the frequency of conflicts. Implement integrated land-use planning that designates specific areas for agriculture, grazing, and wildlife corridors. Land-use plans should be developed in collaboration with local communities and consider the ecological requirements of both human and wildlife populations to foster coexistence. 8. Establishment of a National HWC Management and Data Monitoring System Effective HWC management requires comprehensive data on conflict incidents, trends, and outcomes. A monitoring system would facilitate informed policy decisions and track the effectiveness of HWC interventions. Develop a national HWC database and monitoring system that records all incidents, mitigation strategies used, and outcomes. This system could support adaptive management practices, enabling authorities to refine policies based on real-time data and emerging trends. 9. Incentives for Non-Lethal Wildlife Deterrents and Community-Based Conflict Mitigation Non-lethal deterrents such as chili fences and beehive barriers can effectively mitigate HWC, but communities often lack resources to implement them. Provide subsidies or grants for non-lethal deterrent measures to encourage sustainable conflict mitigation. Programs could include training for communities on the use of innovative, eco- friendly methods like mobile predator-proof kraals, chili-based deterrents, or planting of wildlife-resistant crops. 10. Policy Support for Alternative Livelihoods to Reduce Dependence on Conflict-Prone Agriculture Communities reliant on crop farming in wildlife areas are more vulnerable to HWC. Alternative livelihood options could reduce this dependence, enabling communities to adapt to HWC challenges. Encourage alternative income sources through support for eco- tourism, beekeeping, fish farming, and crafts. Such programs should receive policy backing to ensure sustainable development and reduce direct conflict with wildlife while promoting biodiversity. November 24 | Understanding Human-wildlife conflict and its impact on agroecology transition 0 References Baudron, F. (2011). Tradeoffs in the use of residue in Sub-Saharan Africa: Mulch vs. feed. Conservation Agriculture Course 2011, 40. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.1017.5875&rep=rep1&type=pdf#page=48 Baudron, F., Corbeels, M., Andersson, J. A., Sibanda, M., & Giller, K. E. (2011). Delineating the drivers of waning wildlife habitat: The predominance of cotton farming on the fringe of protected areas in the Mid-Zambezi Valley, Zimbabwe. Biological Conservation, 144(5), 1481–1493. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2011.01.017 Baudron, F., Guerrini, L., Chimimba, E., Chimusimbe, E., & Giller, K. E. (2022). Commodity crops in biodiversity-rich production landscapes: Friends or foes? The example of cotton in the Mid Zambezi Valley, Zimbabwe. Biological Conservation, 267. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2022.109496 Bola, G., Mabiza, C., Goldin, J., Kujinga, K., Nhapi, I., Makurira, H., & Mashauri, D. (2014). Coping with droughts and floods: A Case study of Kanyemba, Mbire District, Zimbabwe. Physics and Chemistry of the Earth, 67–69, 180–186. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pce.2013.09.019 Chirisa, I., & Nel, V. (2022). Socio-ecological Dynamics Within Rural Settlements: Evidence from Mbire District in Zimbabwe. Journal of Land and Rural Studies, 10(2), 220–239. https://doi.org/10.1177/23210249221090003 Fritz, H., Saïd, S., Renaud, P. C., Mutake, S., Coid, C., & Monicat, F. (2003). The effects of agricultural fields and human settlements on the use of rivers by wildlife in the mid-Zambezi valley, Zimbabwe. Landscape Ecology, 18(3), 293–302. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024411711670 Gandiwa, E., Heitkönig, I. M. A., Lokhorst, A. M., Prins, H. H. T., & Leeuwis, C. (2013). CAMPFIRE and human-wildlife conflicts in local communities bordering northern Gonarezhou National Park, Zimbabwe. Ecology and Society, 18(4). https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-05817-180407 Jani, V., De Wit, A. H., & Webb, N. L. (2020). Disputes, relationships, and identity: a ‘levels of conflict’ analysis of human-wildlife conflict as human-human conflict in the mid-Zambezi valley, Northern Zimbabwe. South African Geographical Journal, 102(1), 59–76. https://doi.org/10.1080/03736245.2019.1628807 Kansanga, M. M., Luginaah, I., Bezner Kerr, R., Lupafya, E., & Dakishoni, L. (2020). Beyond ecological synergies: examining the impact of participatory agroecology on social capital in smallholder farming communities. International Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology, 27(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504509.2019.1655811 Maleksaeidi, H., & Karami, E. (2013). Social-Ecological Resilience and Sustainable Agriculture Under Water Scarcity. Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems, 37(3), 262–290. https://doi.org/10.1080/10440046.2012.746767 Matema, S., & Andersson, J. A. (2015). Why are lions killing us? Human-wildlife conflict and social discontent in Mbire District, northern Zimbabwe. Journal of Modern African Studies, 53(1), 93–120. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022278X14000664 Matema, S., Eilers, C. H. A. M., van der Zijpp, A. J., & Giller, K. E. (2022). Wetlands in drylands: Use and conflict dynamics at the human–wildlife interface in Mbire District, Zimbabwe. African Journal of Ecology, 60(4), 1184–1200. https://doi.org/10.1111/aje.13043 Mbereko, A., Chimbari, M. J., & Mukaratirwa, S. (2018). The political ecology of stakeholder-driven climate change adaptation: Case study from Ntalale ward, Gwanda district, in Zimbabwe. Jamba: Journal of Disaster Risk Studies, 10(1). https://doi.org/10.4102/jamba.v10i1.419 Musiwa, A. R., & Mhlanga, W. (2020). Human–wildlife conflict in Mhokwe Ward, Mbire District, North-East Zimbabwe. African Journal of Ecology, 58(4), 786–795. https://doi.org/10.1111/aje.12774 Sharma, P., Chettri, N., Uddin, K., Wangchuk, K., Joshi, R., Tandin, T., Pandey, A., Gaira, K. S., Basnet, K., Wangdi, S., Dorji, T., Wangchuk, N., Chitale, V. S., Uprety, Y., & Sharma, E. (2020). Mapping human‒wildlife conflict hotspots in a transboundary landscape, Eastern Himalaya. Global Ecology and Conservation, 24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.2020.e01284 Utete, B. (2021). A review of the conservation status of the Nile crocodile (Crocodylus niloticus Laurenti, 1768) in aquatic systems of Zimbabwe. Global Ecology and Conservation, 29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.2021.e01743 November 24 | Understanding Human-wildlife conflict and its impact on agroecology transition 1 Utete, B. (2024). Human-Wildlife-Water Conflicts (HWWC) Inside and Outside of Protected Areas in Zimbabwe. Living with Wildlife in Zimbabwe, 173–195. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-66060-3_11 Zhou, Z. (2024). Wildlife Tourism and Human-Wildlife Conflicts in Zimbabwe: Causes, Compensation, and Community Perceptions. Geographies of Tourism and Global Change , Part F2881, 15–29. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-57252-4_2 Zvidzai, M., Mawere, K. K., N’andu, R. J., Ndaimani, H., Zanamwe, C., & Zengeya, F. M. (2023). Application of maximum entropy (MaxEnt) to understand the spatial dimension of human–wildlife conflict (HWC) risk in areas adjacent to Gonarezhou National Park of Zimbabwe. Ecology and Society, 28(3). https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-14420-280318 Photo by Fali Poncha: https://www.pexels.com/photo/elephant-in-nature-18550983/ https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-14420-280318 https://www.pexels.com/photo/elephant-in-nature-18550983/ November 24 | Understanding Human-wildlife conflict and its impact on agroecology transition 2 Vimbayi Chimonyo, Scientist, v.chimonyo@cgiar.org Chris Gadzirayi, Consultant, gadzirayichris@gmail.com CGIAR is a global research partnership for a food-secure future. CGIAR science is dedicated to transforming food, land, and water systems in a climate crisis. Its research is carried out by 13 CGIAR Centers/Alliances in close collaboration with hundreds of partners, including national and regional research institutes, civil society organizations, academia, development organizations and the private sector. www.cgiar.org We would like to thank all funders who support this research through their contributions to the CGIAR Trust Fund: www.cgiar.org/funders. To learn more about this Initiative, please visit this webpage. To learn more about this and other Initiatives in the CGIAR Research Portfolio, please visit www.cgiar.org/cgiar-portfolio © 2023 CGIAR System Organization. Some rights reserved. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 4.0 International Licence (CC BYNC 4.0). | | | mailto:v.chimonyo@cgiar.org mailto:gadzirayichris@gmail.com http://www.cgiar.org/funders https://www.cgiar.org/initiative/agroecology/ http://www.cgiar.org/cgiar-portfolio https://twitter.com/CGIAR?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor https://www.facebook.com/onecgiar/ https://www.linkedin.com/company/cgiar https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCYuSEwWKAsoNwg6MJEI-qeA November 24 | Understanding Human-wildlife conflict and its impact on agroecology transition 3 Vimbayi Chimonyo, Scientist, v.chimonyo@cgiar.org Chris Gadzirayi, Consultant, gadzirayichris@gmail.com CGIAR is a global research partnership for a food-secure future. CGIAR science is dedicated to transforming food, land, and water systems in a climate crisis. Its research is carried out by 13 CGIAR Centers/Alliances in close collaboration with hundreds of partners, including national and regional research institutes, civil society organizations, academia, development organizations and the private sector. www.cgiar.org We would like to thank all funders who support this research through their contributions to the CGIAR Trust Fund: www.cgiar.org/funders. To learn more about this Initiative, please visit this webpage. To learn more about this and other Initiatives in the CGIAR Research Portfolio, please visit www.cgiar.org/cgiar-portfolio © 2023 CGIAR System Organization. Some rights reserved. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 4.0 International Licence (CC BYNC 4.0). | | | mailto:v.chimonyo@cgiar.org mailto:gadzirayichris@gmail.com http://www.cgiar.org/funders https://www.cgiar.org/initiative/agroecology/ http://www.cgiar.org/cgiar-portfolio https://twitter.com/CGIAR?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor https://www.facebook.com/onecgiar/ https://www.linkedin.com/company/cgiar https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCYuSEwWKAsoNwg6MJEI-qeA