Photo credit: Benoit Morkel / Fauna & Flora
Written by Ranga Gworo, this blog explores the extent to which local communities in South Sudan value wildlife. It also discusses strategies that local communities use to protect wildlife. Finally, the blog shares some suggestions on how conservation interventions can apply conflict sensitive conservation approaches.
South Sudan is rich in biodiversity. Despite years of conflict that has led to the reduction of the number of Africa’s Big Five game animals, including elephant, lion, African buffalo, rhinoceros and leopard, the population of the white-eared kob, tiang and mangalla gazelles has continued to raise.[1] According to a recent wildlife census conducted by African Parks Network, the population of antelopes stands at more than 5.8 million.[2] Based on these numbers, South Sudan has reportedly been declared as the country with the highest land mammal migration in the World,[3] surpassing the earlier ranking by the United Nations Educational, Scientific, Cultural Organisation.[4] To conserve this national treasure, which will provide a revenue stream for the country in the future, the government has strengthened efforts to protect the remaining wildlife through partnership with conservation agencies that are now operating in some of the country’s six designated national parks and 12 game reserves.
South Sudan, previously part of Sudan, has a long history of conservation, which extends to the 1930s. However, the conservation activities were disrupted by two civil wars (1955-1972 and 1983-2005), and again in 2013 following the renewed outbreak of armed conflict. The prolonged years of conflict have had a devastating impact on wildlife population, with white rhinos becoming extinct and elephants and giraffes significantly reducing in numbers. Since 2011, conservation agencies have been operating in the country again, notably the Wildlife Conservation Society, Fauna & Flora, the Enjojo Foundation and the African Parks Network, along with a host of South Sudanese conservation agencies. These include the Agency for Conservation and Development and White-eared Kob Heritage Society, among others.
These conservation agencies have extensive experience in conservation across Africa. However, those that have started to operate in South Sudan more recently might lack the understanding of local context, including knowledge of existing community conservation methods and how deeply enshrined wildlife is in the socio-cultural and economic setting of South Sudanese communities. Learning more about local conservation practices will enable conservation agencies to not only recognise that local communities are themselves conservationists due to their co-existence with wildlife for generations, but also to integrate these community-based practices into their conservation interventions.
This blog attempts to argue that understanding local knowledge on wildlife and integrating local conservation practices will help promote conflict-sensitive and sustainable conservation. It particularly examines the importance of wildlife to local communities and discusses the practices and strategies used by local communities to conserve biodiversity, which constitute an important basis to build international conservation. Finally, the blog shares some recommendations on how conservation interventions can avoid exacerbating existing tensions or creating new conflicts with local communities who live in and around conservation areas.
Why does wildlife matter to local communities in South Sudan?
It may be true that wildlife is an important source of food and livelihoods in times of crises among communities in South Sudan,[5] and that the prevailing food insecurity and the proliferation of small arms has fueled more hunting and the trade of game meat in urban areas.[6] The truth of the matter is that most local communities regard the existence of wild animals as crucial for their survival due to their contribution to the ecosystem and for their socio-cultural value.
Aside from their side effect on environment, wildlife migration, especially by elephants, is credited for creating a wide path in thick forests that enable cattle herders to safely drive cattle along.[7] Also, just like other animals, the movement of elephants through streams or waterways are said to help deepen water ways, limiting concentration of water or flooding and allowing water to flow steadily downstream for both drinking and irrigation.[8] Lastly, the presence of wildlife provides local communities with clues about the impending dangers. For example, the sudden chattering and jumping by monkeys on trees can indicate a presence of a lion, which will help humans to protect themselves against it.[9]
Local communities, moreover, value wildlife as forms of identity expression. For example, some age sets or groups use the pictures of their favorable wild animals on their bodies,[10] and other age group members can interject in the name of their preferred animal when they are surprised. Also, some clans have totems that identify them with certain animals that are believed to protect the members of these clans against danger. These totem animals are considered as relatives and are not killed or eaten by members of the respective clans. In informal conservations, South Sudanese individuals narrated that if they see members of other clans killing their totem animals, it hurts them and that they try to prevent this from happening. Killing totem animals can lead to dispute between clans. Other practices related to totem animals are that some clans use the colours of their totem animals on their bodies during funeral dance,[11] while other clans name their cattle, or describe features of a human, after the colours or behaviour of wild animals.
Wildlife is also considered as a gift from God by some local communities, with some people preserving them in the same way as their cattle.[12] Some communities regard wild animals as humans, for example, by using proverbs that indicate that they are indeed humans.[13] Local communities have also folk stories and fables that narrate stories of humans co-existing with animals. Lastly, the killing of a fierce animal, such as a lion, a leopard, a buffalo and an elephant, is equated with the killing of a human. As such, the successful hunter is expected to perform a funeral for the killed game for fear that its blood will bring bad luck on the hunter.[14]
Finally, local communities value hunting wildlife as a form of sport and prestige and a rite of passage.[15] In some communities, children are taught to hunt from the age of 10 . The killing of wildlife is portrayed as a means to prove their manhood. As a result, young men compete among themselves over the type and the number of wildlife they kill. Whoever kills more is given a trophy in the form of the ear or the head of an animal and is crowned with the title of a great hunter. Although this practice leads to animals just being killed for sport, not for subsistence, some members of local communities particularly youth highly value this type of cultural practice. However, the killing of large number of animals for the sake of prestige creates friction within the community. Those who are opposed to this practice regard it as a waste of food or an attempt to wipe out animals. In addition, individuals and groups can resent particularly the killing of their totem animals because they consider the killed animals as their closest relatives.
These examples clearly show that local communities value wild animals, not just for subsistence but also for identity, prestige and beliefs and that wild animals are socio-culturally important creatures.
What are some conservation methods that are used by South Sudanese communities?
Within communities in South Sudan, there exist local institutions that are responsible for protecting wildlife. These institutions are believed to possess powers to safely manage wildlife-human conflict. For example, to safely drive away wild animals, such as lions, that have encroached into human settlements or farms, members of clans and families with specific animals as totems are contacted. For example, those who belong to the bird chieftaincy clan are approached to safely chase weaver birds that are destroying crops in return for gifts, such as sorghum and cattle. Lastly, members of specific clans are designated as hereditary hunting ground owners who can determine if wild animals should be hunted or not based on the animals’ availability. These examples clearly demonstrate the importance of these institutions in protecting wildlife and managing human-animal conflicts. Despite their importance these institutions have recently been undermined and sidelined due to the gradual erosion of norms, especially by young generations.
Local communities have well-developed rules governing the protection of wildlife. For instance, local communities are prohibited from hunting during rainy season as it is believed that doing so can lead to failed crops. As a result, hunting is only done in dry seasons, and between January and March each year, and is primarily carried out when wildlife begins to encroach into human settlements and farms. Furthermore, local communities are also taught to spare female and young animals during hunting. Those who violate the rules are held accountable through public criticism, fines or curses. In addition, many local communities customarily hunt in a group, and they use traditional tools, such as spears, nets, holes and fires. As these examples have illustrated, the community-based rules governing the protection of wildlife help in minimising the harm to wildlife. However, these measures have been undermined by the prevalence of firearms, which has encouraged people to hunt individually and to indiscriminately kill wildlife, regardless of sex, age or size of a wild animal. As raised above, the erosion of norms is also a contributing factor.
Yet another strategy that local communities use to protect wildlife includes the protection of the environment in which wildlife lives as it is also considered vital for humans. Tasked with the responsibility of fetching firewood, women traditionally collect already dead or dried wood though their male counterparts tend to go for fresh trees for timbers and poles. In other words, women are not involved in the destruction of environment where wildlife life and are not directly involved in hunting though they help fetch game meat. In addition, local communities tend to avoid tempering with or encroaching into far-away wildlife sanctuaries even during hunger. Local communities also limit their use of certain water points during animal migration to avoid human-animal conflicts. Although local communities are protective of the environment, their use of fire as a hunting method results in the destruction of large swaths of forests, including wildlife. Besides that, the illegal logging of trees and charcoal production leads to the destruction of wildlife ecosystems.
What are some conflict sensitivity considerations for conservation agencies?
As the values attached to wildlife and local conservation methods may be unknown, conservation interventions need to prioritise community engagement with the aim of documenting and sharing knowledge and experiences on how communities live with wildlife and why animals matter to them, and how they sustainably manage wildlife. This will enable conservation interventions to cherish the culture, history and heritage of local communities and to promote and conserve them for future generations.
As community-based institutions and rules governing the protection of wildlife exist, conservation-based interventions need to strengthen them, including their local accountability mechanisms to ensure that they become more effective. This will enable conservation agencies to get the buy-in from local communities and will reduce potential conflict resulting from ignoring local conservation methods. Thus, conservation interventions need to consider integrating local conservation strategies into their own conservation interventions.
If conservation agencies better understand the values that communities attach to wildlife and the various motives that drive hunting, they can avoid misconceiving that wildlife is only hunted for meat, horns or skins. Indeed, hunting serves as a source of food and livelihoods, which has recently been intensified due to the current food insecurity. Apart from being a means for subsistence, hunting is also done to affirm identity, status, and prestige. This means that any attempt to use force to stop hunting in the light of the existing food insecurity will likely backfire. Thus, conservation agencies need to distinguish between poaching and hunting and understand the opportunities and risks of conservation for communities. This can be done by grounding their conservation practices on a nuanced understanding of the economic and socio-cultural values of wildlife.
Studies show that conservation interventions can become more sustainable if they allow local communities to play a key role in decision making in conservation related activities. Accordingly, involving local communities in conservation efforts creates a sense of ownership and enables them to sustain wildlife beyond the lifespan of conservation projects. To better foresee and mitigate potential conflicts with communities, conservation interventions should consider integrating conservation into humanitarian, development and peacebuilding (HDP) efforts in conservation areas.
Conservation agencies that work with community members who are protective of wildlife, such as their totem families as well as environmental protectors, such as women, are likely to be more successful and efficient in conservation as they are less likely to kill wildlife or destroy the environment. The cooperation with these individuals who protect wildlife and the environment based on traditional values enables conservation interventions to effectively advocate for the reduction of human-animal conflicts, but also for the protection of the environment that sustains wild animals.
Conservation interventions should consider approaches that strengthen greater co-existence between humans and wildlife through avoiding the use of militarised methods of conservation. Learning from some contexts within the region, the use of militarised conservation will likely cause violence and deepen human trauma given the widespread availability of guns in the hands of civilians, who have experienced long-term effects of conflicts. A better approach should include involving local communities in the conservation activities.
[1] UNEP (2018), ‘the State of Environment Report, South Sudan’, June
[2] African Parks Network (2024), ‘The world largest land mammal migration confirmed in South Sudan’, June
[3] Ibid.
[4] UNESCO (2017), ‘Boma-Badingilo migratory landscape’, October
[5] Philip Winter & CSRF (2024), ‘conflict and conservation in South Sudan’, Feb
[6] Social Science in Humanitarian Action Platform (2019), ‘Key considerations: Bushmeat in the border area of South Sudan and DRC’, Feb
[7] Rift Valley Institute (2024),’ Elephants are stories now: Understanding the loss of elephants in South Sudan’
[8] Interview with a man in Kaduro residence, Juba
[9] Interview with a man in Hai Game residence,
[10] Rife Valley Institute (2024), op. cit.
[11] Interview with a middle-aged man in Hai Game, Juba, 8 June 2024
[12] Interview with an elderly man in Lologo, Juba, 6 June 2024
[13] Rift Valley Institute (2024)
[14] Interview with an elderly man in Hai Game, Juba, 8 June 2024
[15] Rift Valley Institute (2024), op. cit.
