What if the theoretical framework for poaching analysis could transform conservation strategies? This study reveals alarming trends in illegal activities at Kahuzi-Biega National Park from 2014 to 2018, exposing the critical link between socioeconomic factors and biodiversity loss, with vital recommendations for effective intervention.
Related studies
According to Henry Mmaduabuchi Ijeomah (University of Port Harcourt), Augustine Ogogo (University of Calabar) and Daminola Ogbara (University of Port Harcourt) October 2012, who conducted a study entitled « Analysis of Poaching Activities in Lake Kainji National Park at Nigeria, » their results show that forms of poaching such as grazing, hunting, farming and fishing are high when compared with illegal entry which could be for roaming, relaxation, site seeing and other reasons not connected with income generation.
This can be attributed to the fact that wildlife resources are vital means of survival for households adjoining the park. Analysis of forms of poaching for a period of nine years using arrest as an indicator revealed that grazing has the highest occurrence followed by hunting while fuel wood/charcoal gathering and conspiracy had the lowest.
In reality, poaching of game animals occurs most in the park. Though encroachment in the form of grazing is equally very high and the impact is quite much, the result from the arrest record cannot be unconnected with the fact that apprehension of persons involved in poaching activity such as grazing is the simplest (rangers, personal communication).
This is due to the fact that the act of grazing leaves anti poaching patrol team a “lead or trace” that enables them to apprehend poachers. Examples of these ‘leads’ always observed are foot prints of their herds as well as deformation of pastures.
In the same research, they said that it is easier to observe these leads or indicators than the ones indicating encroachment by hunting. A hunter may successfully hide in the bush on detecting the presence of anti poaching patrol whereas if herdsmen hide, their herds would be seen and seized.
Interactions with park officials have revealed that sometimes the herdsmen use charms to hide without being easily seen by anti poaching patrol teams. However, their herds are arrested. After waiting for a while, they report to claim their herds and will be arrested. This increases the record of poachers arrested for grazing. In the case of hunting, the poachers can use charms “African technology” to confuse the rangers and escape without leaving anything behind to trace them or bring them back.
Hunting is more prevalent but encroachments in form of grazing are most arrested. Over the nine years of study, record of poaching arrest revealed that almost half (49%) of the culprits encroached into the park for grazing of cattle. Hunting is high because communities living around the protected area poach to supplement their starch based diet with protein.
Encroachment for grazing and that of charcoal or fuel wood gathering differs greatly because alternative cooking fuel such as kerosene can be provided and used in place of charcoal/fuelwood unlike grazing that can hardly be substituted. Cattle rearers can hardly find other suitable, readily available and culturally free resource to serve as a substitute for vegetation.
Moving herds from one location to another requires food and water and as such cannot be easily controlled. In a situation where herds are to be moved from one point to another, it becomes difficult to stop them from grazing since they require food and water to live.
In 2016, Richard Obour, Richard Asare, Paul Ankomah and Trent Larson made a research in Ghana and talked about “Poaching and its Potential to Impact Wildlife Tourism: An Assessment of Poaching Trends in the Mole National Park in Ghana.” The result of their research have shown that three primary theoretical approaches have been advanced to explain poaching behavior.
The first is differential association theory (Sutherland, 1974) which proposes that people make decisions about their behavior based on the influences of individuals (family, friends, peers) in their environment. For instance, people living in a community or with a family member or friends that engage in poaching activities are more likely to also participate in these same activities.
Through the interactions with others, individuals learn poaching skills/techniques and develop a favorable mindset (motives, attitudes, justifications) towards poaching wildlife.
Another closely-related approach as developed by Sykes and Matza in 1975 is the neutralization theory. This theory provides rationalizations or neutralizations individuals might give for their poaching behavior and include the following practices: denial of responsibility, denial of injury, denial of victim, condemnation of condemners and appeal to higher authority (Sykes and Matza, 1957).
Denying responsibility for killing/taking wildlife means that a poacher blames elements of the community environment (e.g. family, friends engaged in poaching activities) as the proximate cause of their illegal behavior to deflect criticism from accusers. In the case of denying injury from poaching behavior, the perpetrator seeks to minimize the seriousness of the offense by comparing it to other illegal activities more egregious in nature.
Another rationalizing strategy (denial of victim) for poachers to employ would be that extenuating circumstances of the environment (indigence, deprivation, influence of terrorists, etc.) lead to their unlawful behavior. Sometimes poachers resort to attacking the character of condemners by searching for former negligent behaviors and ulterior motives the condemners might be harboring.
A third theory that forms a theoretical framework for poaching is the routine activities theory (Cohen and Felson, 1979; Vold et al., 2002). This theory is based on three key elements that influence deviant behavior: the presence of motivated offenders willing to commit an illegal act, suitable targets accessible to the offender, and the lack of capable guardians protecting the targets.
Motivations for poaching have been studied from many angles. In a study of poachers and game wardens, motivations for illegal hunting consisted of four main categories: food (sustenance and goods for members of the household/close friends), money (selling illegally taken meat to generate funds for family, business needs or extra personal income), tradition (participating in hunting activities as a means of preserving personal and cultural history), and exhilaration (excitement experienced by eluding capture by game wardens) (Forsyth, et al., 1998).
Muth and Bowe (1998) created a typology of 10 motives for poaching behaviors. These motives include commercial gain, household consumption, recreational satisfactions, trophy poaching, thrill killing, protection of self and property, poaching expressed as a type of rebellion, poaching as a traditional right of residents, disagreement with specific regulations of hunting laws and gamesmanship.
In this analysis, there is a reality that bushmeat constitutes a legitimate and crucial part of the economy and diet for rural dwellers. This reality conflicts with the ultimate goal of wildlife conservation which is sustainable use. Since demand for bushmeat is high, there is great potential for the illegal trade in large wild animals to increase as other bushmeats such as grass cutter and other wild animals become scarcer due to over exploitation propelled by uncontrolled human population growth and lack of economic alternatives to sustain this population.
Table 1. The trend of illegal activities in KBNP from 2014 to 2018
| Table 1. The trend of illegal activities in KBNP from 2014 to 2018 | |
|---|---|
| Parameter/Criteria | Description/Value |
| Illegal Activities | Observed in Kahuzi-Biega National Park over a period of 5 years from 2014 to 2018 |
| Major Activity | Sawing wood for planks observed at 185 cases during the year 2018 |
Source: KBNP, annual reports 2014, 2015, 2017 and 2018
The table above illustrates the illegal activities that have been observed in the Kahuzi-Biega National Park over a period of 5 years from 2014 to 2018. These data are the results of the field observations during the inventories, tents in the tent and routine, tracking and habituation of gorillas etc. These activities increase and decrease from one year to another depending on the results of the land. In this table, you will find that the majority of illegal activities observed are seen upward than downward, especially sawing wood for planks which has been observed at 185 cases during the year 2018, and yet in 2019, it is catastrophic with the conflict between the park and the pygmies and most, are observed in the high altitude part of the park, being still the most important part.
Table 2. Arrested poachers from 2014 to 2018
| Table 2. Arrested poachers from 2014 to 2018 | |
|---|---|
| Parameter/Criteria | Description/Value |
| Arrested Poachers | Number of poachers arrested in 5 years, by year and by gender |
| Majority Gender | Men; exceptional case in 2015 with many women recorded |
Source: KBNP, annual reports 2014-2018
The table above shows the number of poachers who were arrested in 5 years, by year and by gender. Through this table, you will find that the majority of poachers who were arrested are men; the exceptional case is that of the year 2015, year in which many women were recorded as men.
Frequently Asked Questions
What are the main causes of poaching in Kahuzi-Biega National Park?
The main causes of poaching in Kahuzi-Biega National Park include poverty, ignorance, and armed conflict.
How does grazing compare to hunting in terms of poaching activities?
Grazing has the highest occurrence of poaching arrests, while hunting is more prevalent but harder to trace, as hunters can hide more effectively than herdsmen.
What recommendations are made to combat poaching in Kahuzi-Biega National Park?
Recommendations include enhancing law enforcement and community engagement to promote conservation efforts.