By Tiago J.B. Paqueliua
“There can be no ecology without an adequate anthropology.”
— Laudato Si’, no. 118
Abstract
The growing conflict between human communities and wildlife in Mozambique—exemplified by the recent destruction of over 1,500 hectares of farmland by elephants and hippos in Machanga, Sofala Province—reveals a disturbing reality: the subjugation of human life in the name of a dehumanized environmental conservation. This article argues for an ethical and legal reorientation of environmental policy, grounded in the canonical right to life, human rights, and sustainable practices that place the human being at the center of creation.
Context and Problem
On July 15, 2025, the District Services for Economic Activities of Machanga publicly announced that elephants and hippos had destroyed over 1,500 hectares of food crops, severely undermining the food security of hundreds of farming families. While local authorities acknowledge the severity of the situation, they hesitate to adopt measures that may contradict international wildlife protection protocols.
This episode is not an isolated one. Mozambique, like many countries in the Global South, operates under a model of environmental conservation imposed by agencies and funds from the Global North, where animal habitats are often more protected than human living spaces. The result has been forced resettlements, the erasure of rural poverty, the criminalization of peasant survival, and the denial of the human being’s centrality in the order of creation.
A Theological and Legal-Humanist Reading of Nature
The doctrine of stewardship of creation, present in Canon Law and the Judeo-Christian tradition, affirms that humankind is the guardian of the Earth—not its owner, nor its enemy. This implies an ethical commitment to nature without denying that human life is the supreme reference of ontological value. As Pope Francis emphasized in Laudato Si’, integral ecology is neither ecocentric nor anthropocentric, but relational and humanizing.
Therefore, placing elephants and hippos above the basic survival needs of local populations constitutes a moral, legal, and civilizational inversion that must be urgently corrected.
From Elitist Conservation to Inclusive Environmental Justice
The dominant model of environmental preservation in Mozambique relies on a logic of “sanctuarization” of nature, inherited from colonialism and reinforced by tourism and extractivist interests. National parks, game reserves, and buffer zones are frequently created without consultation with local populations, pushing them to peripheral areas devoid of resources, services, or dignity.
In the Quirimbas National Park, for instance, there are reports of the silent expulsion of entire communities, justified in the name of conservation. In many cases, these populations are advised to “avoid procreation” or to “live sustainably” in an environment that provides them with nothing to do so—representing a veiled form of environmental neo-Malthusianism.
This is where the concept of ecological racism arises, a term used to describe environmental policies that disproportionately penalize communities of the Global South in the name of preserving a nature from which they are excluded. Animals are protected; the poor are expelled.
Relevant Experiences and Replicable Solutions
Fortunately, there are alternative approaches being successfully implemented in other African and Asian countries that reconcile ecology with human dignity:
1. Beehives as living barriers (Kenya, Tanzania):
Installing beehives along farmland has proven effective in deterring elephants, which fear bees. This method reduces conflict, produces honey, and engages local communities.
2. Rapid compensation for agricultural losses (Namibia):
National legislation ensures swift compensation for farmers affected by wildlife, reducing resentment and promoting peaceful coexistence.
3. Participatory wildlife management (Botswana):
Co-management programs between the state and local communities promote wildlife protection and generate economic benefits through community-based tourism.
4. Drone surveillance (India):
Technology is used to monitor the movement of large animals, enabling early warnings and preventive strategies.
These approaches share a core principle: human life is not disposable and must be protected with the same commitment applied to biodiversity.
Conclusion: Man Must Not Be Exiled from Creation
Mozambique urgently needs an ecological reform with a human face. This requires:
Prioritizing human life and safety in environmental policies;
Guaranteeing access to land, food, and water for local populations;
Combating ecological racism and authoritarian conservationism;
Recognizing the dignity of peasant agriculture as the foundation of food sovereignty.
Human-animal conflicts are not natural—they are fabricated by management systems that forget that no viable ecosystem can exist where the human being is treated as an intruder.
May the Office of the Attorney General, the National Human Rights Commission, the Legal Aid Institute (IPAJ), the Bar Association, and other stakeholders act promptly whenever situations like that in Machanga arise.
May this episode serve as a warning to redefine the paradigm: from exclusion to coexistence, from imposition to participation, from external tutelage to national ecological sovereignty.
Additional References
1. Pope Francis. Laudato Si’: On Care for Our Common Home, 2015.
2. African Wildlife Foundation. Human-Wildlife Conflict in Africa, 2022.
3. Sachedina, H. & Nelson, F. Protected Areas and Community Incentives, Conservation Biology, 2010.
4. Silva, J. M. Environmentalism Without People: A Critique of Ecology Without Social Ethics, UEM Journal, 2019.
5. Mbembe, A. Politics of Enmity. Lisbon: Antígona, 2016.
6. Shiva, V. Who Really Feeds the World?. São Paulo: Elefante, 2019.
