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