The question on ‘who pays for wildlife conservation and who benefits’ is insufficiently
addressed. The contribution of the people sharing the land with wildlife is often overlooked.
The opportunity costs they bear for the sake of conservation and the economic losses they
incur as a result of property damage are barely regarded as contribution to conservation.
In this paper I argue that, local people pay for wildlife conservation through the wildlifeinduced
costs. Yet the benefits they receive are very minimal as they barely offset the
direct wildlife-induced costs or compete with returns from alternative land uses which are
ecologically destructive. The huge benefits of conservation are realised by other
stakeholders who do not necessarily bear the costs. This paper commences by giving a
brief historical review of wildlife conservation in the country before showing how local
people are involuntarily forced to pay for the resource. Further to this, the categories of
stakeholders in the sector who reap the benefits from the resource are identified. The
paper also analyses the current efforts by wildlife agencies to reduce the costs of living
with wildlife. Flaws encountered in these efforts are presented. In conclusion, development
of appropriate mechanisms is recommended in order to balance the benefits and costs
with a view of justifying the existence of the resource and hence ensuring its sustainability.