Alternative dispute resolution methods and the management of Human-Wildlife Conflict: the case of Arabukosokoke Forest Kenya

Abstract

The study dealt with alternative dispute resolution methods in managing Human Wildlife Conflicts: The case of Arabuko Sokoke Forest Kenya.The area has had frequent human-wildlife conflicts which have led to destruction of property, infrastructure, crops, livestock and death for both humans and wildlife. The overall objective of the study was to investigate alternative dispute resolution methods in managing human-wildlife conflicts.The specific objectives were to examine the root causes of human wildlife conflicts, to examine the impact created by the resolution methods of managing human wildlife conflicts and to explore the actors in the management of human wildlife conflicts. Globally, most sovereign states have not documented policies on human – wildlife conflict resolution methods. Most studies on conflict resolution; Transformation, management and reconciliation have been based on human-human basis. No much research has been carried out on the impact of alternative dispute resolution methods in managing human –wildlife conflict for sustainable development. Since attaining independence, Kenya had not documented its policy on the said thematic area until 2005 when it promulgated its Kenya forest services Act. The same was followed up by the Wildlife Conservation and Management Act (2013) and the National Environmental Act (2013). However, these enactments are general and do not postulate specific policies on human – wildlife conflict resolution aspects. The matter has been left to legal mechanisms which include litigation involving courts. Such mechanisms have not helped resolving conflicts between humans and wildlife as cases continue to accelerate resulting into loss of humans, wildlife and property.The study was envisaged to answer the following research questions: What are the root causes of Human-Wildlife conflicts?What are the impacts resulting from the resolution methods? Who are the actors in the management of human-wildlife Conflicts? The study adopts Natural Law and environmental democracy theory as promulgated by Finnis (2002) and Hazen (2009). The study postulated litigation methods were most suitable for the resolution of Human-wildlife conflicts: That inadequate Human- wildlife resolution methods are responsible for escalation of the conflicts and that Community Based Natural Resource Management Mechanisms (CBNRM) offer the most suitable ADR method for human- wildlife conflict resolution.The study employed the mixed method approach. Both primary and secondary data was collected and analyzed. Multistage sampling was used in the study. Data was collected based on 400 households, through questionnaires, Key informants, interviews, Focus Group Discussions (FDGs) and researcher field observations. The study disagreed with the postulation that litigation offers the most suitable method for managing human wildlife conflicts. The study concluded the presence of Human-wildlife conflict in the area and that baboons are the most notorious in this regard. It also established that the main cause of human wildlife conflict is hunger from both humans and wildlife. On the theme and main objective of the study it concluded that community based natural resources management mechanisms (CBNRM) offers the most suitable method for managing the human wildlife conflict menace but needs to be synchronized with other methods and finally the study concluded that a collaborative management will boost local communities livelihood and reduce the menace to spur sustainable development. The study recommends intensive local residents‘participation in human-wildlife conflict management. It further recommends use of non-destructive methods in managing the forest resource and equitable benefit sharing and compensation schemes to the local populations in a bid to enlist their support for conservation efforts.