Zambezia (2001), XXVIII (i).CONFLICT BETWEEN WILDLIFE AND PEOPLE INKARIBA TOWN, ZIMBABWE* *LINDAH MHLANGAUniversity Lake Kariba Research Station, University of ZimbabweAbstractThis article analyses the findings of a questionnaire survey that sought toestablish the relationship between wildlife and the people of Kariba and tomake some policy proposals. The survey showed that there are conflictsbetween wildlife and people in Kariba town. Elephants and buffaloes damageand destroy property and frighten or kill people. Baboons vandalise homes.Residents are not compensated for death, injury or property damaged byanimals. In response, people drive elephants away from residential areasusing stones and burning fire logs. They also kill or injure buffaloes usingsnares. There is conflict between residents and the Department of NationalParks and Wildlife Management officials over illegal procurement of resourcesfrom the national park. Despite the conflicts, over 80% of the residents arepositively inclined towards conservation since they indicated that poachersshould be arrested, it is necessary to conserve animals, there should be nofree access to the resources. Over 50% indicated that animals and peopleshould be isolated to alleviate the existing problems.It is proposed that a multi-action approach should be used to amelioratethe human-animal conflict in Kariba. This should include protection ofresidents from wildlife, extension of benefits to residents, involvement ofresidents in the management of the resource, setting-up a fund to assistand/or compensate victims of wildlife injuries or deaths, educating residentson how to coexist and reserving the game corridors for wildlife movement.This will help to foster and create more positive attitudes towards wildlifeconservation. Otherwise, human hostility will continue to pose a danger toanimals and national park resources in general.INTRODUCTIONPrior to colonialism, African communities were dependent on wild animalsand plant resources. Communities exercised collective access to theresources through complex sharing and rotation schemes. Resourceutilisation was controlled by local institutions and bound by tribal laws* * This study was undertaken with funds made available to Dr Conyers and Jimmiel Mandimaby the United Nations Centre for Regional Development (UNCRD) for research on thedevelopment on border areas to whom I am most grateful.39NonltLusakaZAMBIAKey| 1 Kariba Town BoundaryLAKE KARIBA3ac70m[Š'Oo>HO2OŁnRIBAHOoo-nr^Oenm^mmILDI1~nmj>zo"Dmo"Dr*mM KAR><J,»AOJNCDJ>CDL. MHLANGA 41and knowledge.1 Colonialism replaced the traditional wildlife managementsystems with European models in which large tracks of land were takenand designated as protected areas (National Parks and Safari areas). Theobjective was to isolate the animals in order to protect them from humanactivities considered destructive.2Local communities were packed into restricted land bases andprohibited from utilising the resources within protected areas. Thiscreated problems in the area of wildlife management.3 Wild animalsinflicted damage on people, their property, crops and livestock.Communities illegally harvested animals within the protected areas.Antagonism grew between local communities and wildlife. This is a majorsource of conflict in all sub-Saharan African countries. This conflict,especially the unauthorised harvesting of wildlife in protected areas, isthreatening the sustainability of the protected areas.4Many cases of conflict between wildlife and local communities livingadjacent to protected areas are documented.5 Despite law enforcement,local communities continue to kill wildlife, posing a threat to their survival.Wildlife managers have been unable to cope with the problem and, as aresult, pressure on the dwindling wildlife populations is increasing.6In order to resolve the wildlife problems, the concept of "communitybased, community-directed" wildlife management has been introduced inmost African countries. The objective is to manage wildlife in co-operationwith local people. The argument is that, unless local communities areable to benefit financially from neighbouring wildlife resources, poaching1 Patel, H. Sustainable Utilisation and African Wildlife Policy: The Case of Zimbabwe'sCommunal Areas Management Programme for Indigenous Resources (CAMPFIRE), Rhetoricor Reality? [Cambridge, Indigenous Environmental Policy Centre (IEPC), 1998].2 Takfforyan, A. 'Towards local management of wildlife in Africa? The case of east Cameroon'in N. Christoffersen, B. Campbell and J. du Toit, (eds.) Communities and Sustainable Use:Pan-African Perspectives (IUCN, 1996), 146-157.3 Patel, Sustainable Utilisation and African Wildlife Policy.4 Newmark, W. D. and Leornard, N. L. 'The attitudes of local people toward KilimanjaroNational Park and Forest Reserve1 in W. D. Newmark, (ed.) Conservation of MountKilimanjaro (IUCN, Gland, 1991), 87-96; Taylor, R. From Liability to Asset: Wildlife in theOmay Communal Land of Zimbabwe [London, International Institute for Environment andDevelopment, Wildlife and Development Series (8), 1995], 1-16.5 Hawkes, R. K., "Crop and livestock losses to wild animals in the Bulilimamangwe NaturalResources Management Project Area" (Harare, University of Zimbabwe, Centre for AppliedSocial Sciences, 1991, Unpubl.); Murphree, M. "Communities as Resource ManagementInstitutions' (Harare, University of Zimbabwe, Centre for Applied Social Sciences, 1991,Unpubl.); Nepal, S. K. and Weber, K. E. 'Prospects for coexistence: Wildlife and localpeople', Ambio, (1995), 24 (4), 238-245; Taylor, From Liability to Asset.6 Patel, Sustainable Utilisation and African Wildlife Policy.42 CONFLICT BETWEEN WILDLIFE AND PEOPLE IN KARIBA TOWN, ZIMBABWEof wildlife will continue.7 Many projects of this type have been launchedthroughout Africa over the last ten years.8An example of a project that was developed to address the wildlifeproblem in Zimbabwe is the Communal Areas Management Programmefor Indigenous Resources (CAMPF1RE). The guiding philosophy ofCAMPFIRE is sustainable rural development that enables ruralcommunities to manage and benefit directly from indigenous resources.9Although extensively supported by most indigenous Zimbabweans,CAMPFIRE's approaches and implementation remain embedded in colonialideology.10 The programme is largely directed by external organisationsand the private safari operating industry and business and operationalagreements are mainly between Rural District Councils and the privatesafari industry.11 Genuine participation by rural communities in wildlifehas not been effectively addressed by CAMPFIRE. Human-animal conflictis still a major problem that has not been effectively resolved in Zimbabwe,as can be seen from the case of Kariba town, whose human-wildliferelationship will now be examined.Kariba town is situated in the Northern part of Zimbabwe on theborder between Zambia and Zimbabwe (see Figure 1). The town isbordered by Hurungwe Safari Area in the North, Charara Safari Area inthe East and by the lakeshore in the South and Southeast. It is situatedwithin a national park. The Department of National Parks and WildlifeManagement (DNPWM) manages wildlife resources within the nationalpark. The DNPWM allows game exploitation through safari hunting inCharara Safari Area. The majority of people employed in Kariba areengaged in natural resources and wildlife related activities such as7 Madzudzo, E. "Community based natural resource management in Zimbabwe-Opportunities and constraints' (Harare, University of Zimbabwe Centre lor AppliedSocial Sciences, 1998, Unpubl.); Martin, R. B. 'Communal area management plan forindigenous resources (CAMPFIRE)', in R. H. V. Bell and E. McShane-Caluzi (eds.)Conservation and Wildlife Management (Washington, US Peace Corps 1984) 221-231-Patel, Sustainable Utilisation and African Wildlife Policy.8 I1ED, Whose Eden? An Overview of Community Approaches to Wildlife Management (LondonInternational Institute of Environment and Development. 1994).9 Child, B. "The practice and principles of community-based wildlife management inZimbabwe: The CAMPFIRE programme" in Biodiversity and Conservation (1996), V, 369-398.10 Dzingirai, V. "Take back your CAMPFIRE': A study of local level perceptions to electricfencing in the framework of Binga's CAMPFIRE programme" (Harare, University ofZimbabwe, Centre for Applied Social Sciences, 1995, Unpubl); Murombedzi, J.Decentralising Common Property Resources Management: A Case Study of the NyaminyamiDistrict Council of Zimbabwe's Wildlife Management Programme (London, InternationalInstitute of Environment and Development Drylands Network Programme, Paper No. 301991); Patel, Sustainable Utilisation and African Wildlife Policy11 Murombedzi, Decentralising Common Property Resources Management, Dzingirai "Takeback your CAMPFIRE"; Patel, Sustainable Utilisation and African Wildlife PolicyL MHLANGA 43fisheries, hunting, tourism and crocodile farming.12 The fishing industryand tourism employs 43.1% of tho.^e in formal employment.13 Thedevelopment of Kariba has been dominated by the construction of Karibadam in the late 1950s. This transformed an isolated, sparsely populatedarea into one of significant national importance for the purposes ofpower generation, fishing and tourism.14 While Lake Kariba was filling,animals were rescued from the flooding valley and moved to areas thatwere designated as national parks and safari areas. The transformation ofthe area created a number of conflicts on resource use between animalsand human beings.15 Large mammals, mainly elephants (Loxodontaafricana, Blumenbach) and buffaloes (Syncerus caffer, Sparman), movethrough human settlements, presumably following their traditional routes(game corridors) to the lakeshore. These movements are morepronounced during the dry season and are a response to seasonal changesin precipitation and food availability. As elephants and buffaloes passthrough residential areas o.n their way to the shore, they sometimesdestroy property and occasionally kill people.Owing to the increasing need for land, some of the game corridorshave been closed by urban development. Most of the shoreline area hasbeen developed into residential and commercial properties. This hasrestricted the animals' access to the lakeshore and has led to increasedcontact between animals and people. The result has been increasingconflict between people and animals, with people developing a hostileattitude towards wildlife and wildlife conservation authorities, since theyfeel that exclusive preference is being given to wildlife conservation.Wildlife is, thus, both a very important resource in Kariba and a source ofconflict. The question is: "Should there be wildlife in an urban area, and ifso, what steps can be taken to make it easier for people and wildlife tocoexist?"In the light of the above, this article seeks to analyse the conflictbetween wildlife and people in Kariba Town through examining (i)perceptions and attitudes of Kariba residents to wildlife and (ii) thesources and nature of problems and conflicts between animals, peopleand officials of the Department of National Parks and Wildlife Management.The focus in this article is conflict between wildlife and people in anurban area.12 Magadza, C. H. D. "Conflicts of resource use on the Lake Kariba environs", Nature andResources. (1986), 22, (4) 2-12.13 Mhlanga, L. "Information on employment, housing and education in Kariba Town,Zimbabwe" (Kariba, University Lake Kariba Research Station, Zimbabwe, Unpubl., 1996).14 Conyers, D. and Mlalazi, A., "Kariba: Whose town?" Proceedings of the University LakeKariba Research Station Seminar Series, Bulletin No. 2/96, (1995), 10-34.15 Magadza, "Conflicts of resource use".44 CONFLICT BETWEEN WILDLIFE AND PEOPLE IN KARIBA TOWN, ZIMBABWEMETHODS AND MATERIALSResearch findings presented in this article are based on a July 1995questionnaire survey and an open debate held at University Lake KaribaResearch Station in which people from various government departments,local researchers, and Kariba residents participated. Questionnaireinterviews were carried out with 414 households, randomly selected infour townships. A street map for each residential area was used to selecthouseholds. The sample size was estimated from the total number ofhouseholds and aimed to cover approximately 10% of the population.The interviews were carried out in Nyamhunga, Mahombekombe, and anunplanned settlement popularly known as "Baghdad", while questionnaireswere sent by post to "Heights".During household surveys people were asked to provide informationunder the following three subsections:(a) Conservation attitudes and perceptions regarding wildlife; problemscaused by animals, problems caused by people, problem animals,compensation for property damage or death, whether it is necessaryto conserve animals, whether people were coexisting happily withanimals, isolation of people from wildlife and main benefactors ofwildlife.(b)Management of national parks; awareness of conflict betweenresidents and game scouts, effectiveness of game scouts and poaching,(c) Constraints and hardships caused by the surrounding national parks;dependency on the national parks resources and perceptions on freeaccess to the national parks resources.Meanwhile, the debate at the University Lake Kariba Research Stationcovered a wide range of topics, including the resident's attitudes towardswildlife, law enforcement agencies, and conflict between wildlife andpeople.Although households to be sampled were randomly selected from amap, interviewees were selected based on chance encounters within thehouse by the interviewer. While this approach may have induced a limitedsampling bias in the results, its findings are consistent with a recentstudy on conservation versus development in Kariba and can, thus, beregarded as reflecting local opinions reasonably accurately.1616 Dunn, M. "Wildlife versus Development: The Story o( Kariba's Game Corridors" (UniversityLake Kariba Research Station, Seminar Series, 1999).L. MHLANGA 45RESULTSConflicts between wildlife and peopleOver 90% of the respondents indicated that the location of Kariba insidea national park was problematic, as, because of strict regulations, thereis very limited access by people to national parks resources, while animalsmove into residential areas freely. 40.1%, 36.2% and 23.7% of therespondents considered elephants, baboons, and buffaloes, respectively,to be the major sources of problems. Buffaloes and elephants aredangerous animals, which occasionally kill and maim people. A highproportion of the respondents considered elephants to be the mostthreatening animals, as they damage and destroy property. Buffaloes andelephants, occasionally, attack and kill people walking about at night,while baboons vandalise homes and are the most bothersome animalssince they virtually live in the townships.Over 70% of the respondents recognised that residents also causeproblems to animals despite being prohibited by law. Among the problemsidentified were: human encroachment into the national park to obtainfirewood, medicinal plants, thatching grass and manure; teasing anddriving animals, especially elephants, using stones and burning fire logs;and snaring animals.Over 60% of the respondents highlighted existing conflicts betweenresidents and DNPWM officials (Table 1). Conflicts occur when gamescouts employed by the DNPWM, whose responsibilities are to conserve,manage and safeguard natural resources, apprehend poachers. Residentsstrongly feel that they are unjustly denied access to the resources andexpressed strong bitterness over the fact that the game scouts arrestthem for collecting firewood and manure in the National Park. This conflictarises from the fact that, while the DNPWM believes that the collection ofwood is harmful to the ecosystem, the residents of Kariba feel stronglythat they should have access to this and other resources.The other cause of conflict is the residents' perception that authoritiesseem to be more concerned about protecting wildlife at the people'sexpense and do not seem to show any concern over loss of human lifeand destruction of property. This is evidenced by the fact that theDepartment does not provide any compensation for death and/or propertydamage caused by wildlife. People are also disgruntled over the largeamount of land reserved for the exclusive use of wildlife.Dependency on wildlife and national park resourcesForty-three percent of the respondents cited government, while 35% gavethe tourism industry as the main beneficiaries, respectively. This is so46 CONFLICT BETWEEN WILDLIFE AND PEOPLE IN KAR;<3A TOWN, ZIMBABWETable 1:RESPONSES TO THE ISSUES OF DEPENDENCE, BENEFITS, ACCESS TOPARK RESOURCES, CO-EXISTENCE, CONFLICT AND EXCLUSION OFWILD ANIMALS FROM RESIDENTIAL AREAS OF KARIBAPercentageQuestion "Yes" responseAre you dependent? 90.3Are you benefiting? 51.1Should there be free access to resources? 15 8Should people and wildlife co-exist? 55.1Are you aware of conflicts? 67.9Should animals be excluded from residential areas 52.7because the government receives foreign currency from tourists and thetourism industry thrives on wildlife that draws the tourists to the country.Seven percent considered the DNPWM, the institution that has a statutorymandate to conserve wildlife and sustainably manage the resource, asthe beneficiary, while 4.2%, 1.4%, 1.4% and 7.1% identified the wholecountry, poachers, residents and Kariba Town Council as beneficiaries.Slightly over half of the respondents indicated that they are benefiting,either through being employed in hotel and safari companies, or throughselling of curios and crotchet to tourists, game viewing and illegalprocurement of game meat, manure, and firewood. Slightly less than halfof the respondents felt that they are not having any direct benefit fromwildlife conservation in spite of having to coexist with animals.Over 90% indicated that they are directly dependent on resourcesfrom the national park (Table 1) through their access to firewood, manure,game meat, fish, water, electricity, wild fruits, mice, grass, and medicinalplants. Of these, however, only water and electricity and, probably, fishare obtained legally. Over 80% of the respondents indicated that thereshould be no free access to national park resources. Respondentssuggested that there should be legalised controlled access; otherwise theresources will be exhausted due to over-exploitation. An arrangementunder which residents were given "controlled allocations" of firewoodand game meat was considered most welcome. Most respondents saidthat they were willing to pay a reasonable fee for these resources. Otherthan benefiting directly, respondents also suggested that the Kariba TownCouncil should receive a percentage of money generated from wildlifeconservation activities. This revenue would be then used to develop thetown's facilities for the benefit of the residents.L MHLANGA 47Conservation attitudesDespite the conflicts and problems encountered, most respondents arepositively inclined towards conservation. Conservation attitudes wereassessed by asking whether respondents are agreeable to completeisolation from animals, arresting of poachers, free access of people to theresources and whether it is good to conserve animals in the currentsituation. Fifty-two percent suggested that there should be isolation.Ninety percent, 80%, and 84%, respectively, indicated that poachers shouldbe arrested, that it is necessary to conserve animals, and that thereshould be no free access. The majority suggested, however, that measuresshould be taken to alleviate their problems through compensation toproperty damage, death, or injury.All the respondents acknowledge that poaching is rife in Kariba andattributed this to the economic hardships faced by the residents. Theynoted that illegal hunting of wild animals was increasing and that only asmall percentage of the poachers were caught. This, they thought, mightexplain the observed gradual decrease of animals, particularly smallanimals, over the years.DISCUSSIONKariba residents appreciate the fact that wildlife in Kariba is there to stayand the development of the town is dependent on it. They realise theirheavy dependency on both wildlife resources and national park resourcesin general and appreciate that it is essential to conserve resourcessurrounding them. This is not surprising given the fact that over 50% ofthem are engaged in wildlife related jobs.The positive attitudes towards conservation of adjacent protectedareas and resources are consistent with findings in Tanzania and otherAfrican countries. Studies of Tanzania's experience showed that over71% of the 1 190 people living within 12 kms of a park in Tanzania werestrongly opposed to the abolition of adjacent protected areas,17 while84% of the 206 people living adjacent to Kilimanjaro National Park whowere surveyed were also opposed to its abolition.18 Similarly, only 6% of182 people living adjacent to a conservation area in Natal, South Africa,indicated that it was unimportant to retain it.19 Also notable is the fact17 Newmark, W. D., Leonard, N. L., Sariko, H. I., and Gamassa, D. M. "Conservation attitudesof local people living adjacent to five protected areas in Tanzania', Biological Conservation,63(1993), 177-183.18 Newmark, W. D. and Leonard, N. L. "The attitudes of local people toward KilimanjaroNational Park and Forest Reserve", 87-96.19 Infield, M. "Attitudes of a rural community towards conservation and a local conservationarea in Natal, South Africa", Biological Conservation, 45 (1988), 21-46.48 CONFLICT BETWEEN WILDLIFE AND PEOPLE IN KARIBA TOWN, ZIMBABWEthat suggestions to convert a National Park into agricultural land werestrongly opposed in Arusha and Morogoro regions of Tanzania20 and inRwanda.21The reason for supporting the preservation of National Parks by localcommunities is that it generates revenue and foreign exchange throughtourism. This is particularly important for Kariba where the tourismindustry relies to a considerable extent on wild animals within the park.Tourism is a major economic activity and employs 28% of the people informal employment.22 There are also many tourist-oriented smallbusinesses, such as curio shops and small-scale crocheting businesses.Studies elsewhere have shown that people perceive the values ofconservation areas in terms of generating revenue and foreign currencythrough tourism.23 Communities also appreciated the need to conservewildlife for future generations.Residents are, however, becoming intolerant to the damage inflictedon them and their properties by elephants and buffaloes. It is clear that,while residents are generally positively inclined towards conservation,this attitude can gradually become eroded unless they are protectedfrom animals and their needs are addressed. As it is, currently, in KaribaTown, people and animals can barely coexist and it is evident that policychanges are necessary to ensure that the residents' positive attitudestowards conservation do not eventually fizzle out. On this point, mostrespondents suggested that one of the necessary changes is to ensurethat there was minimal human/animal interaction and contact. Theysuggested, for instance, the erection of a perimeter electric fence aroundthe two main high-density suburbs, Nyamhunga and Mahombekombe, ashas been done elsewhere under the CAMPFIRE programme.Electric fences have been constructed under the CAMPFIREprogramme as a way of dealing with problem animals.24 However, local20 Pennington, H. "A living trust: Tanzanian attitudes toward wildlife and conservation",(MSc. Thesis, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, 1983).21 Harcourt, A. H., Pennington, H. and Weber, A. W. "Public attitudes to wildlife andconservation in the Third World", Oryx, 20, (1986),152-154.22 Mhlanga, L. "Information on employment, housing and education in Kariba Town,Zimbabwe" (Kariba, University Lake Kariba Research Station, Zimbabwe, 1986).23 Weber, A. W. "Socioecologic factors in the conservation of the Afromontane forestreserves", in J. S. Gartlan, C.W. Marsh and R. A. Mittermeier (eds.) Primate Conservationin the Tropical Rain Forest (New York, Alan R. Liss, 1987), 205-29; Pennington, "A livingtrust".24 Dzingirai, V. "Electric fencing: Why people in Bmga oppose even the Idea: A challenge forcouncil and CAMPFIRE trainers' (Harare, University of Zimbabwe, Centre for AppliedSocial Sciences, 1993, Unpubl.); Dzlnglral, "Take back your CAMPFIRE"; Hoare, R. E. andMackie, C. S. "Problem animal assessment and the use of fences to manage wildlife In thecommunal lands of Zimbabwe" (Harare, World Wide Fund lor Nature, Zimbabwe, 1993).L MHLANGA 49people objected strongly as they were reluctant to be restricted byfences since this, sometimes, led to loss of land on the other side of thefence, limited future expansion, and excluded natural resources fromthem.25 Before fencing can be used as an option, therefore, a thoroughinvestigation of people's opinions on the matter needs to be undertakenand the decision to proceed with fencing has to involve the participationof the people in order for them to have a sense of ownership of andresponsibility for the project.26 Where fences were put up withoutconsultations with the local people, they have been pulled down. Forinstance, an electric fence installed around Liwonde National Park inMalawi was stripped as local people used the fence wire to producesnares, while poaching for game meat inside the Conservation Parkincreased dramatically.27 It is thus necessary to address the problemsthat Kariba residents are experiencing and to encourage them toparticipate actively in the management and conservation of the resourcesaround them. It is now well accepted that, to reduce Africa's wildlifesurvival crisis, local people should participate fully in their managementand conservation.It is being suggested here that the solution to Kariba's problemsrequires an integrated problem solving approach in the short and longrun. Possible solutions are discussed below. For example, extension ofbenefits to residents can help to ameliorate human-wildlife conflict inKariba. At present, residents perceive that they are benefiting from theresource indirectly through their involvement in the tourism industry.Since this is already perceived as a tangible benefit, educating the rest ofthe residents that benefits of employment and the generation of revenueand foreign exchange by protecting wildlife are important can foster thisattitude. There is also need to increase the participation of locals in thetourism industry in the form of either new business ventures or co-operatives. Efforts should also be made to encourage the local people toengage in small-scale tourist facilities such as small restaurants, markets,craft centres and bed and breakfast facilities.In addition, regardless of Kariba's urban setting, it is important toensure that residents have a meaningful level of control over, or ownershipof, the wildlife with which they share the land and to educate them aboutthe fact that, by managing the wildlife wisely, they can benefit from it.With an estimated population of 28 000 people and an "annual population25 Dzlnyiral, "Electric fencing".26 World Wide Fund For Nature, "Conserving Africa's Elephant" (World Wide Fund ForNature. 1997).27 Ibid.50 CONFLICT BETWEEN WILDLIFE AND PEOPLE IN KARIBA TOWN, ZIMBABWEgrowth rate of 5.5%,28 it may not be possible for each household to derivedirect benefits. Benefits may be non-consumptive, for example, throughinvolvement in the tourism industry. A fund can also be set up wherecontributions are drawn from all stakeholders in Kariba and the DNPWLM,who derive benefits from maintaining wildlife in the urban area. This fundwould be used to assist and/or compensate victims of wildlife injuriesand/or deaths and to fund improvements in the town's socialinfrastructure. A participatory process should be used to determine theextent and nature of benefits that the residents require.As a long-term solution, there is need to educate the communityabout wildlife conservation and how to coexist with animals. This is veryimportant and has potential to alleviate some of the existing problems.Education programmes will create more positive attitudes towards wildlifeconservation in future. This has already been enacted as Policy C5 (iii) inthe Kariba Lakeshore Combination Master Plan stating that "council shouldeducate local residents on the value of wildlife and on the ways to live withwild animals".29Town planning and development has a significant bearing, both inthe present and in the future, on the present problems. If game corridorsare not protected from property developers, the problems of human/animal interference will persist and worsen in future. It is necessary thattown planners reserve the corridors for wildlife movement in order topermit the movement of animals from inland to the lakeshore. Land-useplanners have to realise that reducing encounters between people andanimals can minimise conflict situations. As part of the Parks PlanningProgramme, the DNPWLM should consider the creation of a buffer zonebetween Kariba town and the National Parks. Limited usage of the bufferzone by residents for natural resources such as fuel wood and medicinalplants can ultimately reduce the conflict.Furthermore, there is need for conservation authorities to carry outperiodic inventories of animals in Kariba's surroundings so that they arealways aware of the ratios of animals to people and plan accordingly. Asit is, it is possible that the population of some animals, especially baboons,has increased beyond the carrying capacity and need to be culled. Anotherfactor that has to be considered is possible animal behavioural changedue to hunting pressure, over exposure to tourists, and humanencroachment. For example, elephants seem to move from hunting areastowards Kariba town in order to escape threats from poachers. It would28 Conyers and Mlalazi, "Kariba: Whose town?", 10-34.29 Combination Authority, Kariba Lakeshore Combination Master Plan. Written Statement(Harare, Ministry of Physical Planning and National Housing, Department of PhysicalPlanning, Zimbabwe, 1998).L MHLANGA 51also appear as if the increase in human-elephant conflicts is due to thefact that elephants are becoming more aggressive and are going out oftheir way to attack people.30 More baboons are now invading homes insearch of food. It is therefore necessary to understand these variousissues before policies such as culling, are implemented, especially giventhe fact that some animal species, such as elephants, are protected underCITES (Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species).Sustainability of national park resources surrounding Kariba town isdependent on attitudes of the residents. The existing conflicts have to beaddressed in order to ensure that positive attitudes towards wildlife aremaintained. Although Kariba residents resent the problems caused byanimals, a high proportion of them still have a positive attitude towardswildlife conservation. In order to foster this attitude, it is necessary toresolve the existing conflicts. The survival of wildlife in national parkssurrounding Kariba will ultimately depend on changing the perceptionsof the people.30 Conyers and Mlalazi, "Kariba: Whose Town?", 10-34.