When conservation becomes a threat to human life

When conservation becomes a threat to human life

Editorial Comment

THE recent relocation of 263 elephants and over 80 buffaloes into Kasungu National Park in Malawi, which borders Zambia’s Eastern Province has exposed a troubling disparity in the delicate balance between wildlife conservation and human safety.

Communities in Lumezi and Lundazi districts are now grappling with the consequences of this large-scale translocation, as human-animal conflict escalates, crops are destroyed, property is damaged and, tragically, over 30 people have reportedly lost their lives in the affected areas.

According to Warm Heart Initiative (WHI) director Mike Labuschagne, this crisis is avoidable and underscores the urgent need for accountability from the governments of Malawi and Zambia, as well as the multinational corporation allegedly behind the relocation.

The stated goals of wildlife translocation often include population management, habitat restoration, or conservation of endangered species. However, Labuschagne’s letter to Chipata Diocese Bishop George Lungu suggests that in this instance, the project may have been driven primarily by corporate profit, with insufficient consideration for human safety and local livelihoods.

He said the company involved has an annual turnover of US$100 million, yet failed to implement even basic safety measures such as secure fencing or monitoring systems to prevent the animals from straying into human settlements. If true, this represents a profound failure in both corporate social responsibility and governmental oversight.

The consequences of such mismanagement are painfully tangible. Farmers in the affected districts are reporting destroyed fields, disrupted livelihoods and a prevalent fear of entering their own farms. Villagers live in constant anxiety, aware that encounters with displaced elephants and buffaloes can be life-threatening. These are not isolated incidents but the result of a large-scale intervention executed without adequate risk mitigation. As Labuschagne points out, the suffering caused is not some unforeseen occurrence. It was predictable and preventable.

This unfolding tragedy also highlights the complexities of transboundary wildlife management. Kasungu National Park straddles sensitive ecological and human landscapes along the Zambia-Malawi corridor, where communities have long lived alongside wildlife. Translocation on this scale demands thorough environmental assessments, risk analyses and robust community consultation, none of which, according to the WHI, were sufficiently carried out. When human safety is compromised, conservation goals themselves become unsustainable and communities may grow hostile toward wildlife, undermine protective measures, or resist future conservation initiatives.

Labuschagne’s appeal to the Catholic Church and civil society underlines the importance of moral oversight and advocacy in situations where powerful actors hold disproportionate influence. His invocation of the principle that justice delayed is justice denied resonates strongly in this context. Without timely intervention and public accountability, affected communities may continue to suffer while those responsible evade scrutiny. The call for truth, transparency, and immediate remedial action is not just a matter of justice, it is a matter of human rights and dignity.

It is imperative that authorities in both Zambia and Malawi take urgent action to mitigate human-animal conflict, including installing barriers, deploying monitoring teams, and providing emergency support to affected communities. Moreover, governments and corporations must reassess protocols for translocation projects to ensure they are ethically sound, scientifically informed, and community-centered. Conservation should not come at the expense of human life; protecting endangered species and protecting people are inseparable responsibilities.

The Kasungu crisis is a cautionary tale for Africa and the world. It demonstrates that conservation projects must balance ecological goals with the safety and rights of human populations. Wildlife belongs to all of us, but when conservation practices threaten lives, it is not only ethical but necessary for authorities and stakeholders to act decisively. The challenge is clear. There is need to develop a framework where humans and wildlife can coexist safely, transparently, and sustainably. Only then can conservation truly serve the common good.