Performing multispecies studies in Southern Africa: historical legacies, marginalised subjects, reflexive positionalities

Multispecies studies are known for tackling human exceptionalism. Whilst the field has seen a remarkable increase in popularity amongst scholars in the humanities and social sciences, critiques argue that it neglects inequalities and consequential differences amongst humans and between humans and other-than-humans. These critiques are especially relevant in the context of Southern Africa, where extreme inequalities amongst humans persist whilst wildlife is often perceived to enjoy a favoured position in the region's prominent conservation industries. As four researchers working in a multispecies study project focusing on the Kavango-Zambezi Transfrontier Conservation Area in Southern Africa, we pose the question of what a politicised multispecies studies might look like. In this article, we share our thoughts and reflections on working in this complex political landscape. Using insights from our own fields, we share some of the persistent concerns encountered during fieldwork and discuss and contextualise these by drawing on multispecies literature that deals with similar concerns. We identify three salient themes that should inform and politicise multispecies work in postcolonial conservation landscapes: historical legacies, reflexive positionalities and marginalised subjects.

Crop diversity and susceptibility of crop fields to elephant raids in eastern Okavango Panhandle, northern Botswana

Elephants frequently raid crops within their ranges in Africa and Asia. These raids can greatly impact agricultural productivity and food security for farmers. Therefore, there is a need to explore cost-effective measures that would reduce the susceptibility of crops and agricultural fields to elephant raiding, and further promote sustainable human-elephant coexistence. Previous studies have examined the susceptibility of crop fields to elephant raids using field characteristics such as field size and proximity to water sources. However, there are limited studies investigating how different crop types, individually and in their combinations, influence crop susceptibility to elephant raiding. This study utilized data collected from crop fields raided by the African savanna elephant (Loxodonta africana) between 2008 and 2018 in the eastern Okavango Panhandle, northern Botswana. Data on crops grown, number of crop-raiding incidences for each crop, and elephant raiding incidences were recorded for each field assessed. Incidence risks (IR) and field risk value (RV) were computed using an adaptive epidemiological approach. The results showed that elephant raiding incidents varied significantly amongst crop types over space and time (p < .0001). Cereal crops (millet: Eleusine conaracana, maize: Zea mays) incurred a higher number of crop-raiding incidents compared with leguminous crops (cowpea: Vigna unguiculata; groundnut: Arachis hypogea). Field RVs significantly varied depending on which crop was present in the field. There was a significant negative correlation between the number of crop types and the susceptibility of the field to raiding (r = -0.680, p < .0001). Our results suggest that the susceptibility of the fields to elephant raids could be minimized by selecting crop types and combinations less susceptible to elephant damage, thus enhancing food security for local subsistence farmers.

Exploring Routes to Coexistence: Developing and Testing a Human–Elephant Conflict-Management Framework for African Elephant-Range Countries

Creating a future for elephants and people is a highly complex and dynamic challenge, involving social, behavioral, and ecological dimensions as well as multiple actors with various interests. To foster learning from human–elephant conflict (HEC) management projects and share best practices, a study was conducted to review the management of conflicts between elephants and humans in 12 African countries by qualitative expert interviews. Based on this information, a HEC management framework was developed in a two-tiered process. In the first phase, the theory of the framework was developed. In a second phase, the theoretical framework was validated and adjusted through stakeholder participation in two southern African projects (in Mozambique and Malawi). This holistic approach considers environmental as well as social, political, cultural, and economic factors directly or indirectly affecting interactions between people and wildlife. The framework integrates six interlinked strategies to guide managers and conservation practitioners to address HWC drivers and mitigate their impact. A legal environment and spatial planning form the basis of the framework. Social strategies, including meaningful stakeholder engagement and design of appropriate institutional structures and processes are considered the heart of the framework. Technical and financial strategies represent its arms and hands. At the top, monitoring steers all processes, provides feedback for adjustment, and informs decisions. The integration and coordination of these six strategies has great potential as a guiding route to human–wildlife coexistence in Africa and elsewhere.