Conditions of Conflict: Exploring Pastoralist Resettlement in Relation to African Lion Conservation

AbstractThe resettlement of pastoralists across Tanzania has been driven by socio-economic development goals and resource scarcity, as well as conservation agendas. Lion conflict with pastoralists has been reported in different parts of Tanzania, yet the impacts of pastoralist resettlement on lion conservation have not been well documented in Tanzania. We explore how resettlement experienced by pastoralists has affected pastoralist-lion relations and conservation efforts in the Ruaha landscape. We learned that despite efforts by the Ruaha Carnivore Project to provide pastoralist benefits, ongoing lion conflicts and lion killing was reported. We also learned that pastoralists experience conflict with crop farmers over resource access and use (i.e., pasture, water), biased treatment from government officials, and lack of meaningful participation in decision-making processes. We discuss how resettlement to a landscape known for lion conservation has affected conflict and conservation outcomes, and offer suggestions for future effective and equitable action.Keywords: African lionconflictconservationpastoralistresettlementruahasocio-culturalTanzania NoteIf a lion is reported to the RCP Lion Defenders, who are often the first contact by pastoralists in lion conflict situations, the Lion Defenders will relay the message to RCP headquarters who then may sometimes drive to the area to chase the lion away after informing District Office or TANAPA office. In some instances, i.e., if it is difficult to chase (i.e., haze) the lion away, then RCP informs government officials to assist, and in most cases, they will then try to scare off the lion. If the lion is injured, the animal will be darted and wounds will be treated, and it will be taken back to the park if necessary. If a human is killed then the lion will likely be killed by rangers. If the lion is killed by community people, RCP will record the data and carry out its independent investigation, and the government officials will carry out their own investigation. However, data sharing between RCP and government officials is uncertain.AcknowledgementsThe authors thank the Rufford Small Grant Foundation for funding this project. The authors also thank Dr Amy Dickman, Dr Agnes Sirima, and Mr Patroba Matiku for their recommendations to the Rufford Small Grant Foundation during the proposal submission stage, and for supporting this research. The authors are grateful to Hillary Mrosso, Fenrick Msigwa, and Joflet Lyakurwa for their assistance during fieldwork activities. The authors also thank Dr Kate Hill for her valuable insight and advice in the early stages of this work. We would also like to express our gratitude to all the study participants. Finally, the authors thank the reviewers for their thoughtful guidance and advice to improve the manuscript.Ethical approvalWe conducted this study independently of an academic institution; however, we followed national and international protocols for studies involving human subjects (Open University of Tanzania Research Ethics Guidelines, Declaration of Helsinki), as well as guidance from Conservation International and Brittain et al. (Citation2020) specific to conservation-related research with human subjects. We only interviewed participants that verbally gave prior, free and informed consent (Ibbett and Brittain et al. Citation2020), and we made all attempts to ensure their anonymity and confidentiality throughout the research process by using codes instead of names and securely storing all audio files and hard copy notes on the PI’s password-protected laptop. Participants could deny participation or withdraw from the study at any time, or choose not to answer any given question. Anonymized interview data may be made available upon request, however, this is at the discretion of M.K., including a statement of how data will be used, to ensure the safety and security of participants.Author ContributionsM.K. designed the study, collected and transcribed data, and led data analysis. C.H. provided guidance and assistance in the study design, conducting the study and data analysis. Both authors contributed to writing and revising the manuscript equally, and both authors approve the publication of this manuscript.Additional informationFundingThis study was approved and funded by the Rufford Small Grant Foundation, under grant number 27156-1. The donor had no role in the publication of this article.