With no end in sight to human-baboon conflict in parts of Cape Town, there are signs that humans might one day stop bickering about the wily creatures.
A scientific study, published in conservation biology journal Conservation Science and Practice, has found significant overlap between two dominant human perspectives in seven areas of the city frequented by baboons.
The “live with baboons” perspective and “control and manage baboons” emerged as two distinct narratives in interviews with residents. Though each narrative was underpinned by different values, some values were shared, such as the importance of collaboration in solving the baboon management crisis.
“Both factors [groups] see the development of collaborative processes for conflict resolution as important; however, what this should entail and who should be involved is harder to agree on,” said study co-authors Kinga Psiuk and Johan Enqvist, from Stellenbosch University and the University of Cape Town respectively.
“Participants also emphasised the need for a constructive process with collaboration from municipal, provincial and national authorities. Unclear roles and responsibilities were seen as a barrier and participants associated with both views called for authorities to take responsibility, start enforcing laws, and engage in dialogue with communities,” the authors said.
The study stems partly from the sometimes fractious debate around baboon management, with many residents feeling aggrieved about perceived government inaction, particularly in areas raided daily by baboon troops, notably Kommetjie on the southern peninsula.
Our family is so stressed by the regular baboon raids of our property that we are all on heavy tranquillisers and antidepressants. We never eat out in Kommetjie any more because of the risk of a baboon attack.”
— Kommetjie resident
Earlier this month Kommetjie residents — broadly fitting the “live with baboons” and “control and manage baboons” viewpoints — came to blows, prompting charges of assault against three locals.
“Encounters with foraging baboons are common and a heated public debate is taking place regarding the overlaps between human settlements and baboon troops' home ranges,” the co-authors said.
The study identified two clusters of shared perspectives, called factors, which diverged from each other largely around the issue of power and security, with the “live with baboons” view generally opposed to efforts engineered to make baboons more afraid of humans. Routinely reporting on damage caused by baboons was not a solution to resolving the conflict, this group felt. Baboons had “a right to live without excessive human interference”.
Conversely the “control and manage baboons” factor favoured baboons and humans living apart, for the mutual benefit of both species, guided by evidence-based baboon management. “Factor two participants [control and manage] expressed that baboons need to fear humans, asserting dominance and human superiority over nature”.
Factor one participants were opposed to strategies restricting baboons' freedom.
“Some view emotions such as compassion and empathy as biased and unreliable basis for decision-making, others argue that they are essential in conservation that aims to safeguard nature,” the authors said.
However, there was enough overlap to suggest humans may ultimately bridge the divide in their thinking to come up with a workable solution.
“Both factors agree that speaking of baboons as pests and vermin is counterproductive. Participants from both sides recognised such negative framings as a way to distance oneself from baboons so that moral values and rules no longer apply, increasing the risk of residents killing baboons which most condemn.”
“Conflicts rooted in fundamental value differences are often very difficult to resolve, as a plurality of lived realities can make it difficult to agree on an objective ‘'truth’.”
The findings suggest that future discussion should acknowledge conflicting values as a means of “opening the space for solution”, the authors said.
Meanwhile, baboons kept up their raiding behaviour this week in Kommetjie where a group of residents have compiled an incident list based on a survey about human-baboon encounters.
“We have to live with all doors and windows closed and locked,” said one respondent. “We relocated our chickens so that they did not get killed and eaten by baboons. Our family is so stressed by the regular baboon raids of our property that we are all on heavy tranquillisers and antidepressants. We never eat out in Kommetjie any more because of the risk of a baboon attack.”
Another resident echoed a regular sentiment around town, that he and his family felt under siege.
“We feel like we are living in a prison in our own home and are concerned for our safety especially after two aggressive movements towards my wife at dustbins.”
Baboon conservation group The Baboon Matters Trust this week appealed for bickering Kommetjie residents to find common ground.
In an open letter to residents the organisation said: “As frustrating as things may be in Kommetjie right now I would have hoped that as residents we all agree that the best place for baboons to live their best lives is on the mountains and natural areas and not in the village. I would hope that we could all agree that it does not matter who got here first or last, but matters how we manage ourselves and our space and that we manage our village and interactions so that there will be baboons on the mountains but not in our homes.”
