Human–Wildlife Conflict in Zambia: Conservation in 2026

Last reviewed August 2026. Conservation data changes — see the cited sources for the latest figures.

Why human–wildlife conflict matters in Zambia

Zambia contains large, connected landscapes where people and wildlife continue to share rivers, woodland, farmland and protected-area boundaries. In South Luangwa, population growth, inadequate land-use planning and new settlements have increased farming in areas that were previously less occupied. Elephants regularly cross the Luangwa River beyond the national park and enter villages and fields, where crop and property damage can threaten both household income and human safety .

For many rural households, subsistence farming is the main source of income, while formal employment can be limited outside tourism and conservation. A damaged field is therefore not only a financial inconvenience: it can affect food supplies, school costs and the household’s ability to recover after a poor season . Wildlife also pays a price. Conflict can lead to retaliatory killing, including the killing of elephants that raid crops during periods of drought .

The issue extends beyond elephants. In the Silowana Complex of Western Province, respondents identified African elephants as the most common conflict species, followed by common hippopotamuses and Nile crocodiles. Buffalo, wildebeest, spotted hyenas, lions and duikers were also recorded in the study’s list of conflict species . The pattern reflects different kinds of risk: elephants and herbivores can destroy crops, hippos and crocodiles can threaten people using rivers, and carnivores can attack livestock or, in some cases, people.

Human–wildlife conflict is also a conservation issue because repeated losses can reduce people’s tolerance of wildlife. The World Wide Fund for Nature describes conflict as including damage to property and livelihoods, perceived or real threats to safety, reduced wellbeing and loss of life; retaliation can then add to pressure on already threatened species . In Zambia, successful conservation therefore depends on making protected areas and wildlife corridors safer and more beneficial for neighbouring communities, not only on strengthening law enforcement inside parks.

The main threats: conflict, habitat loss, poaching and climate pressure

Crop damage and competition for land

Expanding settlements and farming can bring people closer to animal movement routes. In South Luangwa, elephants moving between the park and surrounding areas cross directly into agricultural land, creating repeated encounters with farmers . In Luambe National Park and its buffer Game Management Areas, the Department of National Parks and Wildlife and IFAW describe population growth and demand for natural resources as factors increasing the frequency and intensity of conflict, alongside habitat loss and degradation .

Land-use planning is therefore a preventive conservation tool. The broader evidence cited by WWF includes an example in which 160,000 acres of productive farmland were designated for agriculture and 84,000 acres for settlement expansion away from elephant corridors; the same approach combined corridor avoidance with electric fencing, chilli deterrents and conservation farming . This example is not a national Zambia-wide result, but it illustrates why landscape planning can be more durable than trying to chase animals away from every field.

Danger around rivers and water

Rivers and wetlands are essential to both people and wildlife, but they can become high-risk contact zones. In the Silowana Complex study, 38% of recorded human attacks were linked to fishing in the Zambezi and Kwando rivers, while other attacks occurred when people crossed rivers to reach school or walked between villages at night . The same research found that 57% of the reported human casualties were injuries and 43% were deaths. Hippos accounted for 38% of the cases, crocodiles 30%, elephants 27% and buffalo 5% .

These figures come from a specific study area and should not be treated as a national casualty rate. They do, however, show why conflict planning must include river access, school routes, fishing practices and night-time movement—not just crop protection.

Predators and livestock losses

Lions, hyenas and other carnivores can come into conflict with livestock owners, particularly where traditional livestock enclosures are inadequate. In Kafue National Park’s surrounding landscape, Game Rangers International implemented a Human-Carnivore Conflict Resolution and Management Program in Nkala Game Management Area. The programme used mobile and communal bomas, solar-powered motion-sensor lights, community education and live radio broadcasts to improve livestock security .

Conflict involving predators can be especially difficult because a single livestock loss may provoke demands for the removal of a carnivore. Mitigation must therefore protect animals while recognising the real economic cost to livestock keepers. Preventive bomas and rapid reporting are preferable to relying only on lethal responses after an attack.

Poaching, illegal killing and climate stress

Human–wildlife conflict and wildlife crime can reinforce each other. IFAW reports that conflict around Luambe National Park can result in illegal wildlife killing and trade, while habitat fragmentation and competition for resources increase pressure on both people and animals . The David Shepherd Wildlife Foundation also reports that drought can intensify competition for territory and resources, increasing the likelihood of crop-raiding incidents and retaliatory killings .

Anti-poaching work remains relevant to coexistence because communities are more likely to support wildlife when protection is visible, lawful and connected to local safety. In the 2026 Wild Africa–IFAW survey, 79% of respondents viewed Zambia’s wildlife as national heritage worth protecting and 92% recognised its economic importance . These attitudes do not remove the need for practical support: survey respondents in affected areas specifically expressed interest in preventive measures and conservation careers .

What is being done to reduce conflict?

Rapid response in South Luangwa

Conservation South Luangwa launched Zambia’s first human–wildlife conflict Rapid Response Unit in October 2021. The unit operates around the clock to de-escalate severe incidents, assist people injured by wildlife and transport them to hospital for medical care . Conservation South Luangwa says the number of elephants legally killed by wildlife authorities halved in 2023 and that human fatalities from elephant conflict fell in 2024 as a result of its work . These are organisation-reported programme results, and the wider conflict problem remains ongoing.

The unit works within a broader Human-Wildlife Coexistence programme supporting communities in seven chiefdoms in Mambwe District. Its value lies not only in responding after an incident, but also in creating a channel through which communities can report dangerous animals and receive assistance before conflict escalates .

Early warning, radio and satellite technology

In Eastern Province, community radio is being used to share information about coping with conflict in a transfrontier landscape connected to Malawi. Mongabay reported that Chikaya FM hosted programmes involving Zambia’s Department of National Parks and Wildlife officials Mwizaso Chipeta and Mathews Mumbi, alongside IFAW community engagement manager Alstone Mwanza . Residents discussed attacks by hyenas, including officials’ report that four children had recently been killed, while satellite technology provided farmers with early warning of approaching elephant herds .

Early warning cannot prevent every encounter, but it can give farmers time to leave fields, secure people and livestock, and alert local responders. Radio also makes guidance available in places where internet access, smartphones or formal extension services may be limited.

Fencing and non-lethal deterrents

Polywire fencing was the preferred response to human–elephant conflict for 83% of all respondents and 94% of rural respondents in the 2026 survey . This preference matters because it identifies a community-backed intervention rather than imposing a solution without local consultation. Fences, however, require appropriate siting, maintenance and monitoring; they should be planned around animal movement and community land use rather than treated as a universal barrier.

Other measures in the research include chilli deterrents, electric fencing, wildlife-safe livestock enclosures, solar-powered motion lights and conservation farming . Their effectiveness depends on local conditions, species behaviour, maintenance and whether households can afford to keep using them. A mitigation package that combines prevention, rapid response, land-use planning and compensation or livelihood support is more credible than a single deterrent presented as a complete answer.

Protected-area partnerships and ranger support

Conflict reduction is linked to wider protected-area management. Conservation Lower Zambezi supports Zambia’s Department of National Parks and Wildlife through wildlife protection, environmental education, community empowerment and applied research . In South Luangwa, Conservation South Luangwa has worked with the department since 2003 on wildlife protection and human–wildlife conflict mitigation .

In Kafue National Park, a partnership involving DNPW, Game Rangers International, Musekese Conservation, Panthera, Wildlife Crime Prevention, the Zambian Carnivore Programme and African Parks coordinated protection and research from 2018 to mid-2022 . Panthera’s case study records approximately 240 wildlife police officers and related scouts in 2021 across the wider Kafue Greater Ecosystem, with peak annual funding of approximately US$4.73 million in 2021 . Funding and staffing figures are programme-specific and do not represent Zambia’s entire conservation budget.

Community participation and tourism’s role

The strongest evidence from 2026 points to a public willing to participate in conservation when practical solutions are available. Ninety percent of survey respondents expressed interest in a conservation career, rising to 95% in rural areas . The survey also found that 80% of rural respondents would report poaching or wildlife smuggling despite their direct experience of conflict . These findings challenge the assumption that communities living with wildlife are automatically anti-conservation.

Community participation should mean more than attending a consultation. It can include local reporting networks, radio programmes, employment, land-use decisions, fencing maintenance, wildlife monitoring and community-based natural-resource management. IFAW’s Room to Roam initiative includes a working partnership with communities in Eastern Province near Lukusuzi National Park, but reporting on the initiative stresses that engagement must not become tokenistic .

Responsible tourism can contribute through park fees, lodge employment, conservation partnerships, guiding, ranger support and locally owned enterprises, although the exact financial benefit varies by destination and operator. Visitors choosing a community conservancy in Zambia should ask how revenue reaches local residents and how the operator supports wildlife management. Travellers can book conservation-supporting safaris on SafariFind while checking each operator’s evidence rather than assuming that every wildlife safari produces the same local benefit.

A safari is not a substitute for public funding or government responsibility. Tourism revenue can be seasonal and unevenly distributed, and communities living outside major tourism routes may receive little direct income. Conservation claims should therefore be assessed by asking who is employed, who receives revenue, which organisation manages the funds and what measurable mitigation work is being delivered.

Results and setbacks: what the evidence shows

Area or intervention	Reported result or evidence	Important limitation
National survey, Lusaka and Eastern Province	85% of rural respondents had experienced conflict; 80% would still report poaching or smuggling; 94% of rural respondents preferred polywire fencing .	The survey covered 800 face-to-face interviews in Lusaka and Eastern Province, not every Zambian province .
South Luangwa Rapid Response Unit	Conservation South Luangwa reports that legally killed elephants halved in 2023 and elephant-conflict fatalities fell in 2024 .	These are programme-reported results; conflict remains complex and ongoing .
Eastern Province early warning	Community radio and satellite alerts are being used to share guidance and warn farmers about elephant movements .	Early warning reduces risk but cannot remove the underlying overlap between people and wildlife.
Kafue carnivore mitigation	Mobile and communal bomas, motion-sensor lights and radio advice were implemented for livestock farmers .	Measures require maintenance, local uptake and continued programme support.

The overall picture is neither a simple success story nor a conservation failure. Zambia has credible local programmes, strong public support and reported reductions in some South Luangwa outcomes. At the same time, crop losses, dangerous river encounters, predator attacks, drought, settlement expansion and habitat degradation continue to create conditions for conflict . Long-term progress will depend on whether mitigation reaches the households bearing the greatest costs.

How travellers can help responsibly

• Choose transparent operators. Ask whether a lodge or safari company employs local residents, supports community projects and identifies its conservation partners.
• Support the right places. Protected landscapes such as South Luangwa, Kafue and Lower Zambezi are supported by partnerships involving DNPW and conservation organisations . Direct contributions should go to established organisations with clear reporting.
• Respect wildlife space. Follow guide instructions, keep away from animals, never encourage close approaches and do not pressure guides to create unsafe encounters.
• Do not share sensitive wildlife information. Avoid posting precise locations of vulnerable animals or ranger operations, since public location data can create risks for wildlife.
• Value local expertise. Use local guides and community-owned services where possible, and recognise that residents may experience wildlife very differently from short-term visitors.
• Ask for evidence. Look for specific information about employment, revenue sharing, conflict mitigation, education, ranger welfare and monitoring rather than relying only on conservation branding.

Zambia’s human–wildlife conflict challenge will not be solved by fencing, tourism or law enforcement alone. The most defensible approach combines safe land-use planning, locally preferred prevention, rapid medical and wildlife response, strong protected-area management, climate-aware planning and meaningful community power in conservation decisions . For travellers, the responsible choice is to support programmes that treat people as conservation partners and report both their achievements and their limitations.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the main cause of human–wildlife conflict in Zambia?

The main cause is overlap between human settlements or farms and wildlife habitat and movement routes. In South Luangwa, population growth, inadequate land-use planning and farming near elephant routes have increased encounters .

Which animal causes the most human–wildlife conflict in Zambia?

Elephants were the most frequently reported conflict species in the Silowana Complex study, accounting for 47% of reported conflict species there. Hippos and crocodiles were also major threats to human safety .

Are elephants dangerous to communities in Zambia?

Yes. Elephants can damage crops and property and threaten people when they enter farms or villages. In the Silowana Complex study, elephants accounted for 27% of reported human injury and death cases .

How is Zambia reducing human–elephant conflict?

Measures include polywire fencing, early-warning systems, satellite alerts, community radio, rapid response teams, land-use planning and non-lethal deterrents such as chilli and electric fencing .

What is Zambia’s Rapid Response Unit?

Conservation South Luangwa’s Rapid Response Unit, launched in October 2021, operates 24/7 to de-escalate severe incidents, assist injured people and transport them to hospital .

Does tourism help reduce human–wildlife conflict in Zambia?

Tourism can support conservation through park fees, local employment, guiding, lodge partnerships and community enterprises, but benefits vary. Travellers should ask operators how revenue and conservation funding are distributed.

How many Zambians support wildlife conservation?

A 2026 survey found that 79% of respondents viewed Zambia’s wildlife as national heritage worth protecting and 92% recognised its economic importance. The study involved 800 face-to-face interviews in Lusaka and Eastern Province .

Do communities in Zambia support conservation despite conflict?

The available 2026 survey evidence indicates strong support. Although 85% of rural respondents reported personal experience of conflict, 80% said they would still report poaching or wildlife smuggling .

What can visitors do to support conservation in Zambia?

Visitors can choose transparent operators, use local guides and services, follow wildlife-safety rules, avoid sharing sensitive animal locations and support established conservation organisations with clear reporting.

What are the biggest ongoing challenges for coexistence in Zambia?

Ongoing challenges include crop and property damage, dangerous encounters near rivers, predator attacks on livestock, settlement expansion, habitat degradation, drought and the risk of retaliatory or illegal wildlife killing .