1.1. Studying more-than-human ecologies

Humans have played a key role in the management of African landscapes for more than two million years (Adams and McShane 1992²⁸). During this time local people have nurtured sophisticated relationships with wildlife and developed practices, techniques and belief systems built upon rich knowledge about the environments in which they live, in order to sustain rural livelihoods and maintain an ecological and spiritual balance with the natural world (Paré et al. 2010²⁹).

Studies which explore more-than-human ecologies are broad and encompass multiple and diverse disciplines and topics. They include the use and harvest of natural resources by humans and sympatric species (Duvall 2007³⁰; Humle and Matsuzawa 2004³¹; Pruetz et al. 2002³²); local cultural beliefs surrounding other-than-humans; conflict, coexistence and wildlife classification (Assogbadjo et al. 2008³³; Bowker and Star 2000³⁴; Ellen and Reason 1979³⁵; Friese 2010³⁶; Galhano Alves 2009³⁷; Hockings 2009³⁸; Hockings et al. 2010³⁹; Horton 1967⁴⁰; Larson et al. 2016⁴¹; Lee and Graham 2006⁴²); disease transmission (Funk et al. 2013⁴³; Subramanian 2012⁴⁴); hunting (Amador et al. 2014⁴⁵; Bowen-Jones et al. 2003⁴⁶); community conservation (Baran and Tous 2000⁴⁷; Conway et al. 2015⁴⁸; Nyanganji et al. 2011⁴⁹; Sousa et al. 2014⁵⁰); the impacts of global policy on conservation agendas (Adams and McShane 1992²⁸; Kiss 1990⁵¹; Oates 1999⁵²; Moyo 2009⁵³; Pearson et al. 1991⁵⁴); the effects of migration, media, religion, identity, education and tourism on local culture and ecologies (Bordonaro 2006⁵⁵; Lundy 2015⁵⁶, 2012⁵⁷); the role of humans, plants and animals in multispecies ‘life-worlds’ (Johnston 2008⁵⁸; Wilbert 2000⁵⁹; Wolch and Emel 1995⁶⁰); and the resilience of more-than-human communities in the face of ecological and cultural change (Frazão-Moreira 2016⁶¹; Hockings and Sousa 2011⁶²; Lundy 2015⁵⁶). In West Africa more-than-human relationships have been examined by anthropologists, interested in how environments are cultivated and managed by local people and the role of cultural and religious beliefs and practices on the local ecology (Bassett and Zuéli 2000⁶³; Duvall 2003⁶⁴; Houehanou et al. 2011⁶⁵; Kristensen and Lykke 2003⁶⁶; Norris et al. 2010⁶⁷;Paré et al. 2010²⁹, Tabuti and Mugula 2007⁶⁸; Temudo and Cabral 2017⁶⁹; Wilbanks and Kates 1999⁷⁰). This research is timely and important as it demonstrates the complexity of multispecies ecologies, contributing valuable data to conservation (e.g. Hockings et al. 2020⁷¹).

Understanding the impact of more-than-humans on landscapes, ecologies and communities is vital to minimising and responding to environmental changes and their social, political and economic impact. It draws attention to the diverse and conflicting goals of different interest groups and how these ideals play out; providing valuable information in terms of understanding complex multi-actor networks (specifically those involved in wildlife management and biological conservation). A prime example of this is the controversial debate over the bushmeat trade - which is recognised as a major contributor to the depletion of African forests (Bennett et al. 2007⁷²; Bowen-Jones and Pendry 1999⁷³; Lindsey et al 2013⁷⁴; Peterson 2003⁷⁵) but also as a major food source, a primary source of income and an important cultural practice for many rural African communities. Indepth socio-economic studies exploring bushmeat consumption in West Africa have identified this trade as a key contributor to the economy with rural people making rational choices about hunting based on the price of ammunition, the distance between villages, the size of the animal and the need for food and cash (Adams and McShane 1992²⁸ in Liberia; Bowen-Jones et al. 2003⁷⁶ in Gabon). However, on-going efforts to conserve wildlife and provide food security for local communities have seen the introduction of agricultural practices imposed by aid agencies which have repeatedly exacerbated forest decline and failed to produce sustainable results (Garrity et al. 2010⁷⁷). Anthropologists, on-the-other-hand, have examined the social and cultural significance of hunting practices and explored viable alternatives which would enable communities to continue to bring in an income whilst also meeting their nutritional needs (Adams and McShane 1992²⁸; Sá et al 2012⁷⁸).

The documentation of multispecies relationships generates a narrative which describes ambiguous species and social boundaries and nurtures a holistic ecological research approach. These ideas often reflect the worldview of communities living in proximity to nature (Descola 1994⁷⁹; Ingold 2013⁸⁰; Kohn 2013⁸¹; Corrigan et al. 2018⁸²)and therefore provide a means through which to implement conservation from a grounded localised starting point (Parathian et al. 2018⁸³). In reality, however, local people are informed by a combination of beliefs and practices derived from traditional and contemporary ontologies in order to meet their everyday needs. Take for example the Nalú people in rural Guinea-Bissau, who establish practices of “resilience rather than rupture” by merging pre-Islamic and Islamic beliefs in their everyday lives and healing practices (Frazão-Moreira 2016⁶¹). Similarly, the Bijagós people living in coastal Guinea-Bissau demonstrate high levels of resilience through “a complex web of multiethnic alliances, social linkages and political ties” (Forrest 2003:28, in Lundy 2015⁵⁶). Research suggests that these communities are continually seeking a balance between maintaining a sense of self and cultural cohesion, whilst existing within the constant flux and negotiation of a changing environment (Lundy 2015⁵⁶).

Today's era of globalisation is characterised by intensified interspecies encounters and growing concerns over ecological and species health (Rock et al. 2009⁸⁴; Wolf 2015⁸⁵). The uncertain futures of more-than-humans are entwined within complex socio-political hierarchies, large-scale habitat destruction and exposure to increasingly aggressive infectious disease. Contemporary human-animal relationships have been described as being “complex and profound”, ranging from the exploitation of livestock for food; the anthropomorphisation of animals as pets; live ‘wet markets’; and international trade in animal species, offering multiple opportunities for zoonoses to spread (Zinsstag et al. 2012:107⁸⁶). There is mounting evidence to suggest that environmental degradation increases immunosuppression and susceptibility to disease, and that community health and wellbeing are inextricably linked to the health and balance of nature (The One Health Concept, Conti & Rabinowitz 2011⁸⁷). For example, biodiversity in West Africa is threatened by significant landscape changes due to agricultural expansion (with subsequent human migration), logging, mining and the trade in bushmeat and wild animals. These growing rates of deforestation and road construction facilitate accessibility to wildlife and an increased interface between human and animal populations which increases interspecies zoonotic disease transmission and facilitates the spread of sometimes deadly, novel viruses (Hughes et al. 2010⁸⁸; Subramanian 2012⁸⁹). Indeed, the current global (SARS-cov2) pandemic has led to global interest in understanding interspecies relationships and their emerging impact on ecological and community health (Zinsstag et al. 2020⁹⁰).

The trade in wild animals for medicinal and nutritional needs has been identified as a high-risk activity, likely to increase zoonotic disease transmission between humans and wildlife, whilst also highlighting the impact of socio-cultural variables on wildlife management (Alves et al. 2010⁹¹). Therefore, adopting an interdisciplinary approach which delves into the social and cultural aspects of more-than-human interactions can generate vital information on existing knowledge structures which have evolved in-situ, underscoring the valuable contribution of ethnographic research to conservation planning and the consequential shortfalls of not considering local knowledge and perceptions when designing such programmes (ibid. 2010⁹¹). Talking to local people and incorporating existing local strategies into wildlife management planning can provide insightful information about interspecies disease transmission, which saves time and resources and achieves far better long-term outcomes for people and wildlife. For example, during the introduction of Protected Areas (PAs) on the African continent in 1900s, some farmers and scientists objected, fearful the large numbers of wild animals would lead to the increased spread of disease through the high numbers of tsetse flies (Adams and McShane 1992⁹²). However, since well before the “official” launch of this scheme, local people had managed their landscapes, adopting practices based on indepth local knowledge and an understanding of the interplay between species, including zoonotic disease transmission. When the PA strategy was implemented local people adapted their own practices to ensure disease risk was minimised. They avoided areas known to be focal points of tsetse infection and made sure cattle ate young sprouts which prevented scrub growth and meant tsetse fly numbers remained low. Local hunting practices also helped reduce the spread of tsetse by regulating wildlife populations that could act as hosts for the flies. Profound local knowledge about these between-speciesinteractions meant local people implemented a sustainable mitigation strategy which supported “a mobile ecological equilibrium” to protect people and wildlife (ibid. 1992:48-49⁹²).

---

84. Rock, M., Buntain, B. J., Hatfield, J. M., & Hallgrímsson, B. (2009). Animal–human connections,“one health,” and the syndemic approach to prevention. Social science & medicine, 68(6), 991-995.
https://www.academia.edu/en/12732482/Animal_human_connections_one_health_and_the_syndemic_approach_to_prevention

85. Wolf, M. (2015). Is there really such a thing as “One Health”? Thinking about a more than human world from the perspective of cultural anthropology. Social Science & Medicine 129, 5-11.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24961737/

86. Zinsstag, J. (2012). Convergence of ecohealth and one health, 371-373.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3627853/

87. Conti & Rabinowitz 2011. One health initiative. Infektološki glasnik 31(4):176-178.
https://hrcak.srce.hr/clanak/127454

88. Hughes, J.M., Wilson, M.E., Pike, B.L., Saylors, K.E., Fair, J.N., LeBreton, M., Tamoufe, U., Djoko, C.F., Rimoin, A.W. & Wolfe, N.D. (2010). The origin and prevention of pandemics. Clinical Infectious Diseases 50(12),1636-1640.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2874076/

89. Subramanian, M. (2012). Zoonotic disease risk and the bushmeat trade: assessing awareness among hunters and traders in Sierra Leone. EcoHealth 9(4), 471-482.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10393-012-0807-1

90. Zinsstag, J., Schelling, E., Crump, L., Whittaker, M., Tanner, M., & Stephen, C. (Eds.). (2020). One Health: the theory and practice of integrated health approaches, 2nd edition. Boston, Oxford: CABI.
https://cabidigitallibrary.org/doi/book/10.1079/9781789242577.0000

91. Alves, R., Souto, W., & Barboza, R. (2010). Primates in traditional folk medicine: a world overview. Mammal Review 40(2), 155-180.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1365-2907.2010.00158.x
92. Adams, J. S., & McShane, T. O. (1992). The myth of wild Africa: conservation without illusion. University of California Press.

3. “Majidura” (prohibition, affected by magical-religious powers) signalling forbidden forest at the time of rite of passage for male age group. Bijagó, Guinea-Bissau. Photo: Amélia Frazão-Moreira.

Knowledge based upon experience gathered over generations and shaped by a combination of religious and cultural views means many local communities impose ecological checks and balances which guide local resource use and the maintenance of wild animal and plant species. Cultural mechanisms in African societies have proven effective in regulating wildlife abundance for over hundreds of years. These include taboos, sacred sites, traditional farming and medicinal practices, and values based on gender and status often relayed through folkstories from one generation to the next (Adams and McShane 1992⁹³; Baker et al. 2009⁹⁴; 2018⁹⁵; Decher 1997⁹⁶). Indeed, local resource use and wildlife management has emerged as a priority area of research for conservation and anthropology (Houehanou et al. 2011⁹⁷; Tabuti and Mugula 2007⁹⁸). For example, data on the utilisation of tree species by local people and local perceptions of forest change, have proven essential in developing effective sustainable management strategies in Central and Western Africa (Bassett and Zuéli 2000⁹⁹ in Côte d’Ivoire; Paré et al. 2010¹⁰⁰ in Burkina Faso; Sousa et al. 2014¹⁰¹ in Guinea Bissau). This awareness is also at the root of successful local adaptation processes which have sustained interspecies relationships in the face of ecological, social and political change (Assogbadjo et al. 2008¹⁰²; Baker et al. 2013¹⁰³).

Another key source of understanding local ecological knowledge comes from the study of West African folkstories. These stories often communicate complex information about symbolic animals and between-species relationships. For example, The West African Story of ‘Anasi the Spider’ exists in various versions among the Dagaare-speaking people of north west Ghana. Linguists have discovered that each version has its own subtle lexical variations which set up specific systems of relationships between the words. This changes the storyteller’s connection to referents and ultimately conveys different messages to the listener (Dakubu 1990¹⁰⁴). Understanding the true depth of material conveyed through traditional oral practices requires detailed analyses and can reveal important socio-ecological information and the value of local knowledge and the complexity of beliefs surrounding wildlife is increasingly becoming recognised (Assogbadjo et al. 2008¹⁰²; Dakubu 1990¹⁰⁴). This research is fast becoming an invaluable component of biodiversity conservation (Baran and Tous 2000¹⁰⁵; Conway et al. 2015¹⁰⁶), proving especially important in terms of working out how local strategies and adaptations can be adopted and applied on a global scale (Wilbanks and Kates 1999¹⁰⁷).

4. Goat eating palm nuts drying out in the sun, Guinea-Bissau. Photo: Hannah Parathian.

For non-human species, survival in the so-called “Anthropocene” has meant adapting to changes brought about by large-scale human activity. Subsequently, there has been a gradual shift towards research which focuses on the impact of human actions in the natural world and the political arena of conservation biology, where plants and animals are treated as “resources” or “commodities” (Schmidt et al. 2016¹⁰⁸; Sullivan 2013¹⁰⁹; Wenzel 1991¹¹⁰), and integrated assessments of multispecies ecologies (recording climate, culture, populations, economies, governments, institutions and societal behaviour) inform our understanding of the implications of environmental change (Bassett and Zuéli 2000¹¹¹; Paré et al. 2010¹¹²). In certain situations, plants and animals demonstrate incredible abilities to adapt and survive change, with humans and wildlife coexisting in relative harmony (Hockings et al. 2012¹¹³, 2015¹¹⁴ for apes; Humle and Matzuzawa 2004¹¹⁵ for chimpanzees in Bossou and Nimba; Padonou et al. 2015¹¹⁶ for plants in Guinea). Human-wildlife conflict or between-species aggression typically surfaces as a result of heightened competition over limited resources including food, space and water, or where outside intervention (such as development, tourism and conservation initiatives) does not take into account the needs of people and wildlife (Galhano Alves 2009¹¹⁷; Hockings et al. 2010¹¹⁸; Klailova et al. 2010¹¹⁹; Pruetz et al. 2002¹²⁰). Hockings and colleagues (2010)¹¹⁸ have shown that chimpanzee attacks in Bossou, Guinea, mainly occurred during months of low wild fruit availability, where chimpanzees used narrow roads to access cultivated areas when seeking out alternative high-quality foods. Similarly, Zehnle (2015)¹²¹ reported exacerbated tensions between humans and leopards in the tropical forests of colonial Africa (Sierra Leone, Liberia, Ivory Coast, Nigeria, Gabun and the Congo). Leopards, colonials, locals and other animals contended for space and bushmeat following a number political and environmental emergencies. Human attacks by leopards began to occur frequently, which led to leopard killings by people in order to protect themselves. Research suggests long-term interspecies relationships tend to exist where people tolerate wildlife because of cultural beliefs supporting their preservation (this is especially true for nonhuman primates in West Africa), such as the notion that chimpanzees are the ancestors of forest human communities and the forbidden killing of ‘sacred’ guenon species in Nigeria (Baker et al. 2013¹²²; Hockings and Sousa 2012¹²³; Sousa and Frazão-Moreira 2010¹²⁴; Sousa et al. 2017¹²⁵).

The multifaceted relationships of more-than-humans alongside indepth knowledge about wildlife among people living in proximity to nature demonstrates the significant role of wildlife in people’s lives (Mullin 2002¹²⁶; Nance and Colby 2015¹²⁷; Trautmann 2015¹²⁸). Recognising this, researchers are increasingly exploring the more-than-human dimensions of social life, landscape history and animal geographies (Cohen and Odhiambo 19891²⁹; Haraway 2008¹³⁰; Johnston 2008¹³¹) and the study of multispecies relationships is becoming a fast-growing and exciting area of contemporary research (Wolch and Emel 1995¹³²). In her ground-breaking essay on fungi Tsing (2012¹³³) describes the intimate and intriguing interspecies companionship between fungi, humans, dead and live animals and plants. She suggests that the creation of plantations (which thrived as a result of forced control, slavery and conquest) shaped how contemporary agribusiness is organised including racial separation and the separation of people from their crops, the land and nature in general. Humans are a part of the entangled webs of nature (such as those formed by fungi and rhizomes) and yet human exceptionalism has blinded us from the fact that Human nature itself is an interspecies relationship. Tsing encourages us to move away from human-centric thinking and towards an Anthropology which places more-than-humans in the centre.

---

108. Schmidt, S., Manceur, A. M. & Seppelt, R. (2016). Uncertainty of Monetary Valued Ecosystem Services - Value Transfer Functions for Global Mapping. PLOS ONE 11(3):e0148524.
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0148524

109. Sullivan, S. 2013. Banking nature? The spectacular financialisation of environmental conservation. Antipode 45(1):198-217.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1467-8330.2012.00989.x

110. Wenzel, G. (1991). Animal Rights. Human Rights: Ecology, Economy and Ideology in the Canadian Arctic. University of Toronto Press.

111. Bassett, T. J., & Zuéli, K. B. (2000). Environmental discourses and the Ivorian savanna. Annals of the Association of American Geographers90(1), 67-95.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/0004-5608.00184

112. Paré, S., Savadogo, P., Tigabu, M., Ouadba, J. M. & Odén, P. C. (2010). Consumptive values and local perception of dry forest decline in Burkina Faso, West Africa.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10668-009-9194-3

113. Hockings, K.J., Anderson, J.R. & Matsuzawa, T. (2012). Socioecological adaptations by chimpanzees, Pan troglodytes verus, inhabiting an anthropogenically impacted habitat. Animal Behaviour 83(3), 801-810.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0003347212000036

114. Hockings, K.J., McLennan, M.R., Carvalho, S., Ancrenaz, M., Bobe, R., Byrne, R.W., Dunbar, R.I., Matsuzawa, T., McGrew, W.C., Williamson, E.A. & Wilson, M.L. (2015). Apes in the Anthropocene: flexibility and survival. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 30(4), 215-222.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0169534715000397

115. Humle, T., & Matsuzawa, T. (2004). Oil palm use by adjacent communities of chimpanzees at Bossou and Nimba mountains, West Africa. International Journal of Primatology 25, 551–581.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/B:IJOP.0000023575.93644.f4

116. Padonou, E. A., Teka, O., Bachmann, Y.  Schmidt, M., Mette Lykke, A. & Sinsin, B. (2015). Using species distribution models to select species resistant to climate change for ecological restoration of bowé in West Africa. African Journal of Ecology 53:10.1111/aje.2015.53.issue-1, 83-92.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/aje.12205

117. Galhano Alves, J.P. (2009). Viver com leões. A coexistência entre humanos e biodiversidade no W do Níger. Os Gourmantché, Trabalhos de Antropologia e Etnologia, Sociedade Portuguesa de Antropologia e de Etnologia 49(1-4), 57-77.
https://revistataeonline.weebly.com/uploads/2/2/0/2/22023964/viver_joaoalves_tae49.pdf

118. Hockings, K. J., Yamakoshi, G., Kabasawa, A., & Matsuzawa, T. (2010). Attacks on local persons by chimpanzees in Bossou, Republic of Guinea: long‐term perspectives. American Journal of Primatology 72(10), 887-896.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ajp.20784

119. Klailova, M., Hodgkinson, C., & Lee, P. C. (2010). Behavioral responses of one western lowland gorilla (Gorilla gorilla gorilla) group at Bai Hokou, Central African Republic, to tourists, researchers and trackers. American Journal of Primatology, 72(10), 897-906.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/ajp.20829

120. Pruetz, J. D., Marchant, L. F., Arno, J., & McGrew, W. C. (2002). Survey of savanna chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes verus) in southeastern Senegal. American Journal of Primatology: Official Journal of the American Society of Primatologists, 58(1), 35-43.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/ajp.10035

121. Zehnle, S. (2015). Of Leopards and Lesser Animals: Trials and Tribulations of the “Human-Leopard Murders” in Colonial Africa. In: S. Nance & J. Colby (eds). The Historical Animal. New York: Syracuse University Press. Pp. 221.

122. Baker, L. R., Tanimola, A. A., Olubode, O. S. & Garshelis, D. L. (2013). Links between Local Folklore and the Conservation of Sclater's Monkey (Cercopithecus sclateri) in Nigeria. African Primates 8, 17-24.
http://static1.1.sqspcdn.com/static/f/1200343/24024157/1386366906917/African+Primates+8+Baker.pdf?token=qsQPWiQU2fH5uBv4OQAREwRKRJc%3D

123. Hockings, K. J., & Sousa, C. (2012). Differential utilization of cashew—a low-conflict crop—by sympatric humans and chimpanzees. Oryx 46(3), 375-381.
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/oryx/article/differential-utilization-of-cashewa-lowconflict-cropby-sympatric-humans-and-chimpanzees/D430B80618B4927259DEB1FE4A02C72C

124. Sousa, C., & Frazão-Moreira, A. (2010). Etnoprimatologia ao serviço da conservação na Guiné-Bissau: o chimpanzé como exemplo. In Alves, A., Souto, F. & N. Peroni (eds.) Etnoecologia em perspectiva: natureza, cultura e conservação, Recife: NUPEEA, 187-200.
https://run.unl.pt/bitstream/10362/10618/1/sousa_frazao-moreira_2010.pdf

125. Sousa, J., Hill, C. M. & Ainslie. A. (2017). Chimpanzees, sorcery and contestation in a protected area in Guinea‐Bissau. Social Anthropology 25(3), 364-379.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/1469-8676.12418

126. Mullin, M. 2002. Animals and anthropology. Society and Animals 10(4):387-394.
https://www.animalsandsociety.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/mullin.pdf

127. Nance, S. and Colby, J. (2015). The Historical Animal. New York: Syracuse University Press.

128. Trautmann, T. R. 2015. Elephants and Kings: An Environmental History. University of Chicago Press.

129. Cohen, D. W., & Odhiambo, E. A. (1989). Siaya: the historical anthropology of an African landscape. East African Publishers.

130. Haraway, D. J. (2008). When species meet, 224. University of Minnesota Press.
http://xenopraxis.net/readings/haraway_species.pdf

131. Johnston, C. (2008). Beyond the clearing: towards a dwelt animal geography. Progress in human geography 32(5), 633-649.
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0309132508089825

132. Wolch, J. & Emel, J. (1995). Bringing the animals back in. Environment and Planning D: Society & Space 13(6), 632–6.
https://journals.sagepub.com/toc/epd/13/6

133. Tsing, A. (2012). Unruly Edges: Mushrooms as Companion Species: For Donna Haraway. Environmental humanities 1.1: 141-154.
https://read.dukeupress.edu/environmental-humanities/article/1/1/141/8082/Unruly-Edges-Mushrooms-as-Companion-SpeciesFor