Conservationists Need To Listen Before They Lead

For decades, African conservation has spoken about involving local communities in protecting wildlife. But despite growing recognition that many people living alongside wildlife hold valuable knowledge, too many decisions are still made without them.

That was the central message from the Tipping Points webinar hosted by Oppenheimer Generations Research and Conservation (OGRC). Titled “Whose conservation is it anyway”, the discussions ranged from human-wildlife conflict and wildlife economies to the role of indigenous knowledge and the need to rethink how conservation evidence is gathered and used. 

While each panellist approached the issue from a different perspective, all agreed that conservation must move beyond simply consulting communities towards treating them as genuine partners in shaping decisions.

The myth of “coexistence”

For Dr Lovemore Sibanda, Director of the Cheetah Conservation Project in Zimbabwe, one of conservation’s most widely used terms—”coexistence”—can mean very different things depending on who is asked.

Researchers and conservation organisations often use the term to describe people and wildlife living together in harmony. But for many rural communities, he argued, coexistence also means living with the daily risks of crop losses, livestock predation and even attacks on people.

Sibanda said these experiences are sometimes overlooked in wider conservation debates.

“When a human is killed by a lion, it often goes unaddressed,” he said. “But when a lion is killed by a community member, authorities arrive in helicopters and brand new 4×4 Land Cruisers.”

He argued that researchers often viewed communities as sources of information and not as equal partners whose experience and knowledge should shape conservation solutions.

One example came from his own work in north-western Zimbabwe, where local livestock owners  — not scientists— proposed using vuvuzelas to save livestock from prowling lions. The idea proved successful and demonstrated how practical innovations can emerge from communities themselves.

More than beneficiaries

Dr Sue Snyman of the African Leadership University School of Wildlife Conservation said genuinely inclusive wildlife economies require far more than creating jobs or generating tourism revenue.

Communities must participate in decision-making, receive predictable long-term benefits and have confidence that those benefits outweigh the costs of living alongside wildlife.

She argued that conservation success should be measured not only through economic indicators but also through improved livelihoods, fairness and in benefit-sharing and reduced vulnerability.

Conservation, she said, cannot expect people to continue carrying increasing wildlife-related costs while receiving uncertain or declining benefits.

Community knowledge 

Dr Darragh Hare, lead of the Morally Contested Conservation Project, explained that public opinion on controversial issues like trophy hunting or fortress conservation was rarely as “cut and dried” as global debates suggest. 

He pointed out the organised conservation enterprises were often imposed from the outside by well-educated professionals who believe they knew better. “They often arrive with the attitude of: ‘trust us, we’re the conservationists, we’re well-educated, we know better, and we’ll tell you what to do’.”

He said that conservation research needed to pay greater attention to what communities believe is right or wrong, acceptable or unacceptable.

Hare also highlighted the less visible costs of living with dangerous wildlife. Alongside livestock losses or damaged crops are less tangible impacts such as lost sleep, anxiety, food insecurity and children missing school to help protect livestock or fields.

But these experiences, he argued, rarely feature in conventional conservation assessments despite profoundly shaping how people experience wildlife.

He emphasized that ecological science must be complemented by an understanding of socio-political systems, summarising the industry’s flaw bluntly: “There’s a lot of talking and not enough listening”.

Rebooting conservation

Edwin Tambara, Director of Global Leadership at the African Wildlife Foundation, delivered a provocative warning that the underlying “operating system” of modern conservation is fundamentally broken. Using the analogy of a computer, he said that injecting conservation finance, fences and patrols was often like installing antivirus software on a broken computer.

Tambara called for a return to Ubuntu —the African philosophy of interdependency — as the foundation for conservation. He warned that without repairing the social fabric that connects people and nature, the cost of conservation will skyrocket, requiring more guns and militarized approaches to conservation.

To highlight the stark economic realities of living on the frontlines, he provided a blunt illustration: “If a chicken continues to be more valuable than an elephant for a community member who lives next to a national park, things are not gonna change.”

Tambara noted that true inclusivity requires a genuine shift in power dynamics: “People protect what they have power to shape, and must have the right to benefit from they call their own, and the ability to say no”.

A shared conclusion

Although the panellists approached the discussion from different disciplines, they reached a common conclusion: conservation will only succeed in the long term if communities are recognised not merely as potential beneficiaries of conservation, but as knowledge holders, innovators and decision-makers.

As debates continue over how Africa should conserve its biodiversity while supporting rural livelihoods, the webinar suggested that one principle is becoming increasingly difficult to ignore.

As Snyman concluded: “Nothing about communities without communities.”

• This story was produced with support from the science communication engagement agency, Jive Media Africa.