HOW CAN WE WORK TOWARDS SUCCESSFUL COEXISTENCE?

Transcription

1 HOW CAN WE WORK TOWARDS SUCCESSFUL COEXISTENCE? Cheetah and African wild dog require large areas of land to sustain viable populations for the reasons explained in Module 1 (Conservation Biology of cheetah and African wild dog). Land use and management compatible In addition the two tend to avoid areas with high densities of lion and spotted hyaena because of the negative effects that these two larger s p e c i es ( k i l l i n g o ffs p r i n g a n d a p p ro p r i at i n g k i l l s ). The consequence of this behaviour is that cheetah and A f r i c a n w i l d d o g p o p u l a t i o n s ex t e n d b e y o n d t h e boundaries of government gazetted protected areas, and/or private wildlife areas, using land that is increasingly impacted by human communities. This creates a number of challenges for ensuring their survival and protection, as wildlife protection is often not the priority in these areas, with agriculture and/or mining and power generation taking precedence. However, coexistence is possible in such areas and this module explores the land use and land management that is compatible with cheetah and wild dog conservation in areas needed for agriculture and mining development. By working with all stakeholders to encourage such land use and management wherever possible, coexistence can be achieved and populations of the two species safeguarded. This module uses four different areas of East and Southern Africa to help explain and promote discussion about land use that is compatible with cheetah and wild dog conservation; Laikipia district in Kenya; the Masai Mara-Serengeti ecosystem between Kenya and Tanzania; the Lower Zambezi (Zambezi Heartland) area (Zambia, Mozambique and Z imbabwe) and the Ghanzi district in Botswana. These four areas p ro v i d e c a s e s t u d i e s o f t h e m a i n l a n d u s e a n d management systems where cheetah and wild dog are known to be resident, allowing for an assessment and discussion on what is compatible with the two species, and what is detrimental to their survival. This module describes each area and includes a table indicating what is compatible with cheetah and wild dog conservation and what is detrimental to their survival. This module then combines the analysis of the four case studies to compile a list of land use and management that enable successful coexistence, and those that prevent it. Notes: 1

2 4.1 An exploration of land use and management that are compatible with cheetah and wild dog conservation, and those that are detrimental Case Study 1: Laikipia district (Kenya) Laikipia district in Kenya is one of the seventy one districts of Kenya, located on the equator in the Rift Valley Provence of the country. The human population of the district is diverse with Kikuyu, Samburu, Meru, Borana, Kalenjin, Somali, European and Asian ethnic groups present. Economic activity is also diverse with a mixture of livestock and agrarian farming, both at the subsistence (including pastoral) and commercial level. Wildlife tourism is becoming an increasingly important economic activity and the district has an active forum to discuss conservation issues - the Laikipia Wildlife Forum. Approximately people reside in the area of Kenya and cattle rearing is still a major land use. Land use and management compatible Both cheetah and wild dog are present, with data indicating that the population of wild dogs is increasing. Data on cheetah is scant but the species is resident in the area. Conflict with cattle farmers is a threat to the survival of both species, but a number of wildlife conservation projects in the district are working with livestock producing communities to raise awareness of the value of the two species to wildlife tourism, and to introduce predator friendly livestock management. Incompatible land use and management Within the district there is still limited coordination of land use planning that has the potential to disrupt the connectivity currently present In many areas of the district cattle are kept at densities that are too high for the rangeland resulting in overstocking and a reduction in productivity Compatible land use and management Table 4.1 Current consumption of wildlife is low because of cultural and the increasing value of wildlife to the district for tourism The densities of humans in much of the district is low Notes: The district is also often used by livestock producers from other areas of Kenya (external producers) which exacerbates the existing overgrazing and conflict with predators Although wildlife management in the district has resulted in increased populations there is still an element of uninformed management taking place There are examples of unequitable sharing of benefits by government elites, community elites and foreign individuals/companies which exacerbate conflict with wildlife The area with wildlife is extensive (approximately 9700km 2 ) The Laikipia Wildlife Forum allows for effective communications with regard to conservation issues All stakeholders in the district are aware of the value of wildlife and how to conserve it All fences (barriers) within the district are permeable to cheetah and wild dog allowing for effective dispersal and use of the area The wildlife population in the district is high and increasing across all types of land use Overall there is equitable sharing of benefits from wildlife tourism. The Draft Wildlife Bill will address more effectively the issue of benefit sharing and allow for harmonising of benefit sharing across the country. Livestock is managed effectively in terms of reducing depredation by predators The district is connected to other areas in the country with cheetah and wild dog as illustrated by the recolonisation of the district by wild dogs in the 1990 s 2

3 Case Study 2: Ghanzi district (Botswana) This area of Botswana is part of the semi-arid rangelands of Southern Africa where agrarian agriculture is not possible, with only livestock and wildlife ranching are viable economic activities. Part of the district is made up of the Central Kalahari Game Reserve. The district is bordered by Namibia in the east. It is characterised by low tree and shrub savanna vegetation and bush encroachment is an increasing problem due mainly to overgrazing (as a result of overstocking) by livestock farmers. Land use and management compatible Both cheetah and wild dog are present but there is limited data on the status of the two species and whether their populations are stable, increasing or in decline. Conflict with livestock owners is high and retaliatory killings only small, due to the limited capacity of the farmers in the district to carry out such killings as tolerance levels are very low. A cheetah conservation project (Cheetah Conservation Botswana) has been working in the district for a number of years to try and improve livestock husbandry and increase tolerance and recently the Botswana government has identified this area as a focal area to reduce human-wildlife conflict. Incompatible land use and management Throughout the district there is poor livestock husbandry with regard to reducing depredation and increasing productivity of herds Traditional herding have been lost further reducing productivity and increasing depredation by large predators. Combined with the provision of artificial water sources, patterns of grazing have changed decreasing productivity and increasing vulnerability The extensive ranching system used by the farmers in this district where cattle are left to graze freely for large periods of time creates conflict as these herds are vulnerable to depredation There is limited understanding by the farmers of the district as to the causes of depredation Although wildlife management in the district has resulted in increased populations there is still an element of uninformed management taking place. This is exacerbated by the lack of resources to conduct appropriate research. Overgrazing has a result in bush encroachment, which reduces productivity and exacerbates conflict with predators as wild prey populations are also affected The lack of ownership of the depredation problem by farmers makes it difficult to encourage improved livestock husbandry Wildlife populations are under threat from blocked migration pathways, reducing the wild prey available to cheetah and wild dog There is weak communication between stakeholders, a lack of enforcement and no coordination of problem animal control, all of which exacerbate conflict with predators Many cattle owners are absentees, with most herds being looked after by employees. This decreases the sense of responsibility of livestock herds and exacerbates conflict Artificial water points with the Central Kalahari Game Reserve keep wildlife within boundaries, disrupting migration patterns and natural distribution of prey, creating situation where predators prey on livestock. At present farmers in the district do not perceive or realise much benefit from wildlife Related to the point above, land use review taking place in the country and some Wildlife Management Areas may be converted to cattle farming areas as revenue from wildlife not enough Compatible land use and management Table 4.2 This district has a very low human population density - around people in km 2 There are very few fences and those that are present are permeable to cheetah and wild dog allowing for effective dispersal and use of the area There are no large agricultural projects fragmenting the landscape Wildlife populations are sufficient for cheetah and wild dog at present This area where cheetah and wild dog can exist outside the Central Kalahari Game Reserve is extensive, approx km 2, although the system is semi arid so densities of wild prey are relatively low This area is connected to other places where cheetah and wild dog are resident (e.g. Okavango Delta; Namibian farmlands) Within the district are different types of protected areas ranging from national park (IUCN Category II) to game management areas (IUCN Category VI) providing good habitat for cheetah and wild dog and their prey At present there is limited capacity within the district to carry out successful retaliatory killings, reducing the impact of humans on cheetah and wild dog. However, this may change over time 3

4 Case Study 3: Lower Zambezi heartland (Mozambique, Zambia and Zimbabwe) Land use and management compatible This area of Southern Africa is contiguous for wildlife but three different countries share the resource. The area is characterised by a mixture of protected areas (ranging from IUCN Category II to Category VI) with different densities of humans living within them and in the surrounding areas. Agrarian potential is high and human populations are increasing as a result, although agriculture is predominantly subsistence crop growing. The presence of tsetse fly limits livestock production and as a result livestock densities are low and conflict with predators limited. The main source of human-wildlife conflict in this area is with elephant and their impact on crops. Wildlife provides benefits to local communities through photographic and hunting tourism. However, bush meat hunting is common and increasing, threatening the viability of the wildlife populations in the area. Cheetah and wild dog are both resident in this heartland, with the population of wild dogs in Zimbabwe being the largest in the country. Wild dogs appear to be abundant in the Mozambique component of this area, but accurate data is not yet available. In Zambia the wild dog population has declined mainly as a result of snaring. Cheetah are resident at low densities in the Zimbabwe component but the population appears stable, the low density apparently a natural phenomenon. Cheetah are absent from the Zambia component of the heartland and anecdotal evidence suggests that they are essentially absent from the Mozambique component except for the infrequent unverified sighting. Incompatible land use and management Table 4.3 Compatible land use and management Illegal bush meat hunting (snaring, shooting and trapping) negatively impacting on wild dog (and possibly cheetah) and reducing wildlife populations in some parts of the heartland An increasing human population, with no clear land use plans in place is increasing fragmentation and illegal offtake of bush meat Much of the agricultural in the area are inappropriate and damaging to the long term sustainability of the agriculture system, encouraging the extension of agriculture into wildlife areas. These include stream bank cultivation, slash and burn agriculture Insecure land tenure encourages management that maximise short term gain over long term sustainability - land could be taken away by central government for other uses The communities present in these areas have limited political voice which encourages that maximise short term gain over long term sustainability - land could be taken away by central government for other uses Although benefit sharing does take place much is inequitable sharing of benefits with government and community elites retaining large proportions Uncontrolled immigration is increasing into the areas as land is productive and local community leaders desire to increase their political voice through large constituencies. This results in ethnic tensions and increasing pressure on the land. Benefits from wildlife shared with an increasing population result in lower dividends per individual Increased large scale commercial agriculture - plantations which increase fragmentation and encourage immigration of communities with little long term interest in the area An increased threat from mining activities in all three countries. Mines attract immigrants with no sense of ownership or belonging, and do not partake in benefit sharing. This often results in such worker s communities illegally harvesting wildlife. No direct conflict with cheetah and wild dog as livestock numbers limited and dependence is on crop farming. As cheetah and wild dog are not a threat to human retaliatory killing There are no fences that have any impact on cheetah and wild dog movement (elephant exclusion fences are present but these do not impede movement Wildlife populations are abundant given the number of protected areas There is connectivity through to other areas with cheetah and/or wild dog (eg. Luangwa in the north of Zambia; Matusadona and Hwange/Matetsi to the east in Zimbabwe) Fragmentation of habitat limited at present as subsistence small scale agriculture the dominant land use. Corridors are present between human settlements The area encompasses two transfrontier conservation areas (the ZiMoZa TFCA and the Lower Zambezi-Mana TFCA) and wildlife corridors have been identified and efforts are in place to protect them Farming communities receive benefits from wildlife, although amounts and revenue sharing systems vary in effectiveness Conservation agriculture, enabling more yield per unit are being actively encouraged There is an opportunity to safeguard the wildlife resources in the Mozambique component of this area through the new Conservation law, which allows for designation of community wildlife areas (eg. Tchuma Tchato) - however this will require appropriate land use planning. 4

5 Land use and management compatible The Serengeti- Masai Mara ecosystem is arguably the most documented in the popular media of all the areas in Africa where cheetah and wild dog exist. It is an extremely extensive area where wildlife is present, encompassing a number of government and community protected areas. The total area of the Serengeti ecosystem, encompassing the national park, the Masai Mara and the Ngorogoro conservation area is approximately km2. Until relatively recently, the predominant form of agriculture was pastoralism, and this remains the case on the eastern boundaries where wildlife populations are also still high. However, the western boundary, sedentary livestock farming and agrarian a g r i c u l t u re h ave i n c reas ed, a l o n g w i t h h u m a n population densities as this area of the system receives higher rainfall (up to 1200mm/yr close to Lake V ictoria) and wildlife populations have dramatically declined along with cheetah and wild dog. Cheetah occur throughout the protected area system, and in the areas to the east, whereas wild dog are not present in the Serengeti National Park or the Masai Mara, but occur in the areas adjacent to these two protected areas in the east and north and populations are documented to be increasing in the area adjacent to the Masai Mara. Case Study 4: Masai-Mara (Kenya)/ Serengeti and Ngorogoro (Tanzania) Table 4.4 Incompatible land use and management Compatible land use and management There is a hard edge on the western boundary of the system where agrarian and sedentary livestock producing communities border the park Through the area there is increasing pressure from tourism activities, much of it unplanned and some of which adversely affect cheetah, and reduce the productivity of the system The Serengeti ecosystem incorporates large connected protected areas On the eastern and northern boundaries of the protected areas the land use is highly compatible with cheetah and wild dog conservation as it is predominantly pastoralist with low human densities and no fences The management of Masai Mara has improved with a strong management plan now in place facilitating more effective conservation and land use planning. This area of the country provides relatively high revenue to the GDP of both Kenya and Tanzania and so there are incentives to protect wildlife at the national park There has been some progress made towards reducing the pressure from tourism activities through the development and implementation of a management plan in the Masai Mara. The increasing practice of snaring along the western boundary has the potential to reduce available wildlife populations The large size of the area and the fact that it spans two countries makes management and security complicated (e.g. anti-poaching, encroachment, grazing with park boundaries, retaliatory killing) The increasing trend to sedentary farming from pastoralism increases the potential for conflict and habitat fragmentation There is a lack of communication between stakeholders resulting in conflict and inappropriate decisions Much of the infrastructure is poorly planned and formal land use planning is lacking In many areas there is inequitable sharing of benefits, real and perceived, with government, community and private elites retaining the majority share. This exacerbates conflicts and increases the proportion of incompatible land uses Wildlife, and therefore wild prey are abundant and thus reducing depredation The Serengeti National Park is well managed by the Tanzania National Parks with good monitoring and protection systems to conserve all wildlife species The area has a high global (international) profile increasing opportunities to conserve wildlife present There is a cultural history of coexistence between humans and wildlife in many parts of the system There is a national govt. level anti-poaching forum that meets once a year, and this agreement allows for Parks official to cross national boundaries when dealing with illegal activity. It also fosters good communication between country wildlife authorities. The forum above also allows for sharing of research information and facilitates the movement of researchers within the natural ecosystem across national boundaries. 5

6 4.2 A summery of land use and land management that are compatible with, and those that are detrimental to, the survival of cheetah and wild dog populations Land use and management compatible The above exercise of critically assessing the land use and management in four representative areas of East and Southern Africa where cheetah and wild dog exist enables recommendations to be made as to what conservation managers should strive to achieve to ensure the survival of the two species. The table below summarises the outputs of the exercise in Section 4.1, explaining land use and management that have been shown to be compatible with cheetah and wild dog conservation, why is this the case and how such can be encouraged, including suggested partner institutions. What must also be recognised is that while these land uses and management have been broken down into separate entities, many of them interact and improving on one will assist in improving others - for example, by developing forums to allow for open and productive dialogues between all stakeholders it becomes easier to advocate for improved livestock husbandry or conservation agriculture techniques or sharing the cost of anti-poaching. Table 4.5 Land use and management that are compatible with cheetah and wild dog conservation and recommendations to conservation managers 1. Land use and management practice Low human population densities Recommendations to managers This is often perceived to be beyond the control of managers. However it is possible to advocate for land use planning to create zones where human population densities remain low, especially if carried out in using participatory processes and where benefits from wildlife can be realised. Even in the absence of benefits, governments can be persuaded as to the importance of areas to the protection of wildlife and to make provisions for such areas to be set and/or human densities kept at an appropriate level. Potential partner institutions Community leaders; Local government authorities; Conservation NGO s; private sector 2. Strong outreach Increased awareness between stakeholders as Community leaders; programmes the needs of both the human communities and conservation NGO s; and good the wildlife communities has been shown to government departments communication reduce the human impact on wildlife populations, and agencies working in between as well as opening up opportunities to share and around the area; stakeholders costs and benefits of living with wildlife. private sector Managers are well placed to organise for forums to be developed in their areas, including all stakeholders and meeting on a regular basis. 3. Fencing that does The restriction of movement of either predators Veterinary authorities; not restrict and/or their prey greatly increases the potential farmers and movement of either for conflict as systems are disrupted and community leaders; predators or predators look for other sources of prey such as conservation NGO s wild prey livestock. Managers should look to engage with farmers and veterinary staff wherever possible to advocate for permeable fences, primarily for predators but preferably for wild prey as well. The prey of cheetah and wild dog (impala and similar sized species) do not pose significant threats to human communities and so there is potential to argue for increased permeability to such species. 4. Wild prey Managers are well placed to explain to human populations are communities that live with cheetah and wild abundant and dogs that the presence of wild prey populations protected greatly reduces depredation events. There is also the additional benefits of abundant wildlifetourism, meat production and improved range land for grazing cattle. Managers should look for opportunities to reduce illegal harvesting of wild species, increase legal harvesting and promote tourism. Community leaders; Farmers Associations; veterinary authorities (legal meat production); agricultural extension officers; private sector (tourism) 6

7 5. Improved and predator friendly livestock husbandry There is a weath of knowledge available in East and Southern Africa as to livestock husbandry techniques that are known to reduce depredation many of which increase the productivity of the herd. Managers should be well versed in these techniques and encourage their use wherever possible. Land use and management compatible Farmers Associations; agricultural extension officers; conservation NGO s; community leaders 6. Commercial In areas where agrarian systems are dominant, Community leaders; small scale managers should advocate for communities to private sector (tourism conservation develop commercial but small scale conservation and retail); agricultural agriculture agriculture systems. These provide high yield per extension officers; unit area, a monetary income thourgh the selling conservation NGO s of produce in markets (reducing dependency on illegal meat harvesting) but allowing for the connectivity in an area for wildlife to be maintained. 7. Effective and Wherever possible managers should monitor the Community leaders; equitable sharing sharing of benefits of wildlife between all private sector; of benefits from stakeholders, especially communities living with government legal bodies; wildlife with wildlife and bearing the costs, and work towards conservation NGO s communities living ensuring that there is equity within the system. with and bearing Managers can also advocate through their the cost of cheetah institutions for enabling legislation to facilitate and wild dog such sharing of benefits. Managers are also in the position to make known to the general public and/or international media when elites are preventing effective sharing of benefits. 8. Well managed, With increasing human populations and pressure Other wildlife managers; large and/or to produce food also increasing, maintaining local government connected large connected areas is becoming more authorities; private sector; protected areas difficult, but it is critical to the survival of wide mining and power ranging species such as cheetah and wild dog. generation authorities and Managers need to work with other managers companies; community from connected wildlife areas as well as with leaders; conservation other sectors (eg. mining, power generation) to NGO s ensure that critical corridors for wildlife movement are identified and conservation efforts focussed in such areas, allowing for other areas to be used for agriculture and/or other uses (eg. mining, power generation). Such cross boundary collaboration may involve crossing national boundaries and managers need to embrace this potential. Many mining and power generation companies are increasing and bound to show their responsibility to the environment and so opportunites to engage are increasing all the time. 9. Areas recognised It has been realised that the more a wildlife area as nationality and captures the attention and support of the globally important international community, the greater the chance it will remain protected and be given the resources it needs to conserve wildlife. Managers need to be more proactive in this regard looking for opportunities to get their wildlife area into the national and international press, explaining its contribution to the economy and its importance. Involving local communities in such campaigns also helps to give them a sense of pride and worth and increases the value of wildlife to them. Notes: Local and national media (newspapers, radio and TV; internet blogs); conservation NGO s; private sector (especially tourism); airlines 7

8 10. Non invasive tourism and appropriate tourism development Wildlife tourism is a double edged sword when it comes to conservation. Revenue and jobs from tourism increases the value of wildlife to all stakeholders, and increases the exposure of the wildlife area (see point 9 previous page). However, invasive tourism, where wild animals are closely watched and given little space to act naturally, can be hugely detrimental to their survival - this is especially the case with cheetah. Additionally, poorly planned and high levels of tourist infrastructure (hotels, lodges, roads) can also negatively impact on the environment. Managers should actively engage with the tourist sector to ensure that all are aware of behaviour that impacts negatively on wildlife species as well as work with to encourage appropriate tourism development within wildlife areas. 11. Appropriate, A major obstacle to effective wildlife effective and management is the absence of government enforced land use approved and enforced land use plans in areas plans where wildlife exists. However, many countries have legal instruments that facilitate the development of such plans, and the means to make them legal documents and managers are encouraged to explore such opportunites and work with all stakeholders to develop appropriate plans for cheetah and wild dog conservation, using a fully participatory approach. Land use plans that are appropriate for cheetah and wild dog are likely to result in the conservation of many other wildlife species. Land use and management compatible Private and government tourist sector; government planning bodies; international tourist agencies; tourist associations Government planning authorities; conservation NGO s; mining and power generation companies (corporate responsibility) Notes: 8