Local engagement is vital to balancing wildlife protection and food security, study shows
Across Africa, the expansion of conservation areas often collides with the needs of a growing population and a developing economy. Because biodiversity loss and food insecurity are often addressed separately, policies that tackle one tend to undermine the other framing people and nature as competing, rather than interlinked entities.
Kasungu National Park in Malawi illustrates this tension. Set within a largely agricultural landscape, efforts to restore wildlife and protect ecosystems have introduced new pressures, including land-use restrictions and increased encounters with animals. The strain is greatest in unfenced areas, where translocated wildlife often brings conservation goals into direct conflict with farmers’ livelihoods.
So, is coexistence possible, and how?
Oxford University researcher Lessah Mandoloma, from Malawi, set out to explore how shifts in conservation and agricultural policies could impact both communities and biodiversity and what these dynamics could mean for the design of sustainable, equitable landscapes.
With support from the Center for International Forestry Research and World Agroforestry (CIFOR-ICRAF), the scientist conducted scenario-based interviews in communities around the park to gauge how various future pathways — including fertiliser subsidies, rising input costs, wildlife restoration and compensation schemes might shape outcomes for both people and nature.
The findings were clear: conservation can only succeed in the long term if policies are both integrated and participatory meaning they meaningfully engage local communities in navigating the trade-offs between food security and biodiversity conservation.
“In this landscape, conservation decisions often prioritize ecological outcomes,” said Mandoloma. “Often, they don’t fully account for local livelihoods, governance realities or social outcomes, even though these ultimately determine whether conservation succeeds or fails.”
Fair strategies
As part of her broader research on the conservation food security nexus, Mandoloma spent more than seven months working closely with communities around Kasungu National Park. Together, they developed future scenarios grounded in local realities.
Households were then asked how six potential changes to shape their lives and how they might respond; for example, by diversifying crops, expanding farmland, migrating or increasing reliance on forest resources.
The findings show that interventions perceived as supportive of livelihoods, such as subsidies or compensation, were more likely to improve both wellbeing and relations with conservation authorities. As one respondent noted: “Compensation will show that the government cares as much for us as for animals.”
By contrast, measures focused on ecological goals, such as buffer zone restoration or wildlife translocation without safeguards, were perceived as unfair and expected to worsen food security and fuel conflict.
“The perception of fairness matters,” Mandoloma said. “If an intervention is seen as unjust, people may cope in ways that undermine conservation goals, rather than support them”.
Anticipating rebound effects
While interventions seen as supportive of livelihoods were broadly welcomed, communities were also quick to anticipate unintended consequences.
For instance, some respondents warned that compensation for wildlife damage could create new incentives to keep farming near wildlife-prone areas. “If people know they will be paid, they will not stop farming near the park,” one said.
Similarly, others noted that improved access to fertilizer might encourage farm expansion rather than intensification, potentially placing additional pressure on natural habitats.
“Local communities often anticipate outcomes that policymakers may miss,” noted Mandoloma. “That’s why it’s crucial to involve them in designing interventions and building in safeguards; for example, by linking fertilizer subsidies to commitments not to expand existing farmland.”
Avoiding extremes
The research also highlights the risks of policy extremes. Approaches that lean too heavily toward either conservation or agriculture can produce unintended and often damaging outcomes.
Interventions focused solely on ecological restoration may deepen hardship for local communities, while those aimed solely at boosting production such as broad subsidies can accelerate environmental degradation.
In the study, even well-intentioned measures revealed sharp trade-offs when pushed too far, reinforcing the need for balanced approaches that consider both social and ecological impacts together.
Next steps
Mandoloma’s work was recently recognized by the Society of Conservation Biology’s Young Women in Conservation Science award for the Africa Region — an achievement she sees as both a personal milestone and a responsibility to help advance more inclusive approaches to protecting both people and nature.
Looking ahead, her research is shifting from insight to implementation.
Having shown that conservation and food security must be addressed together, she now aims to develop practical frameworks that can guide integrated interventions on the ground. This includes applying the scenario-based approach in other landscapes and exploring how social and ecological outcomes can be tracked side by side over time.
Ultimately, her goal is to show what locally grounded and adaptable solutions that recognize and address trade-offs look like in practice and that coexistence between people and wildlife is not only necessary, but very much possible.
