community-based wildlife management in southern africa stuart a. marks

COMMUNITY-BASED WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT IN SOUTHERN

AFRICA

Stuart A. Marks

Outline Place Two stories to illustrate process and

technical issues Significance of these stories Local wildlife trends (1989-2002) Some concluding remarks

PLACE- Central Luangwa Valley in Zambia

TWO LOCAL STORIES Calling The Shots-

on poaching an elephant

Illustrates some local political/social processes

Culling 50 Hippos- feeding the “community”

Illustrates some technical/mgmt. issues

On Poaching an Elephant (1)Background:Elements of story:

Elephant shot, dies close to village, butchered by nearby residents

On Poaching An Elephant(2) Chief and Wildlife Police Officers (WPO) not in

place Residents respond according to tradition (collect

meat for chief) and current rules (notify WPO) Returning WPO accuse most visible (‘acting

chief’ and Wildlife Sub-Authority leader) of killing elephant, torture, take to prison

At trial, case dismissed for lack of evidence

On Poaching An Elephant(3) Local WPO (“reformed poacher”) indicted,

serves prison term, re-employed as WPO Two years later, similar incident

Significance: Outsiders rarely aware of political/social

process within “communities” Multiple actors and interests over time/not

“communities” Actors influence decisions-made Lack of trust in motivations of others

A culling of HipposBackground:Elements of story:

Sell hippo meat, exchange for grains Negotiated with Catholic Mission for transport

both ways Appointed local committee with safe guards 12 hippos butchered; 3 trips to plateau to sell

meat and return with grains Potential revenue generating exercise, ended with

costing community money Outcome: profiteering and patronage

Significance: No rigorous methodology for setting quota Chief plays important role in Sub-

Authority Nature of real constraints in linking

wildlife conservation with local development

Who controls, who are main beneficiaries?

Local Wildlife Trends 1989-2002

Counts began in 1960s Based upon local knowledge and routines No straight lines (different assumptions) 1-3 local hunters 10-12 timed transects/month Range 5-10 hours each 6 months during dry season

Hunter Pursuit Time and Total Animals Seen per Pursuit Time Nabwalya Study Area, central Luangwa Valley, Zambia 1989 - 2002

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

0.4

1989 1990 1993 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

Year

An

imal

s p

er p

urs

uit

tim

e (#

/min

)

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

Tim

e (m

in.)

Anisrch 1 Anisrch 6 Time 6 Time 1

All Animals Seen per Pursuit Time (ANISRCH)Nabwalya Study Area, central Luangwa Valley, Zambia 1989 - 2002

y = -0.021x + 0.3756

R2 = 0.6689

y = -0.0174x + 0.2683

R2 = 0.632y = 0.0023x + 0.1138

R2 = 0.0199

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

0.4

1989 1990 1993 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

Month

An

imal

s se

en p

er p

urs

uit

tim

e (#

/min

.)

Hunter 1 Hunter 6 Hunter 35 Linear (Hunter 6) Linear (Hunter 1) Linear (Hunter 35)

Elephant Seen per Pursuit TimeNabwalya Study Area, central Luangwa Valley, Zambia 1989 - 2002

y = -0.0007x + 0.0111

R2 = 0.1409

y = -0.0008x + 0.0088

R2 = 0.0511

y = -1E-05x + 0.0003

R2 = 0.0278

-0.005

0

0.005

0.01

0.015

0.02

0.025

0.03

0.035

1989 1990 1993 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

Month

Ele

ph

ant

seen

per

pu

rsu

it t

ime

(#/m

in.)

Hunter 1 Hunter 6 Hunter 35 Linear (Hunter 6) Linear (Hunter 1) Linear (Hunter 35)

Some Conclusions Re-examine CBWM narrative Refocus on the ground and actors Reject universalistic claims either for or

against CBWM Understanding social differences, diverse

institutions, and environmental processes allows for more strategic specificity in interventions