 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
| Innovating rural markets for a "greener", more food secure Africa | ||||
 |
Home | Visuals | About COMACO | Challenges | Solutions | Results | Products | News | How You Can Help | Partners | Contact Us |
 |
 |
 |
 |
| COMACO Newsletter | ||
|
|
||
 |
||
| Navigation | ||
|
||
|
||
|
Uncategorized
Can Wildlife and Agriculture Coexist Outside Protected Areas in Africa? A Hopeful Model and a Case Study in Zambia(Dale M. Lewis, September 2004) Introduction Rural poverty and hunger, prohibitive costs of wildlife law-enforcement and human-wildlife conflicts arising from land use practices severely limit wildlife conservation outside Africa's national parks. Developing conservation approaches that are culturally acceptable as well as financially and ecologically sustainable in response to these challenges would have enormous implications for maintaining viable large-mammal populations in Africa. In Eastern and Southern Africa, conservation efforts have placed much emphasis on tourism to link tourism revenues to conservation outside protected areas on community land. Except where human populations are small or revenues exceptionally high, tourism income on a per capita basis is generally too little to modify local land use practices on a scale needed to protect large-mammal species and their habitat. Zambia provides a valuable twenty-year history of research studying wildlife conservation needs outside protected areas on such a scale. What emerges from this work is the critical importance in building strong linkages between agriculture and rural markets with land use practices conducive to improved natural resource management. Recent studies in Luangwa Valley, Zambia, have demonstrated the rationale and methodologies for creating these linkages and how they help reduce important underlying threats to wildlife. These studies further suggest that staying overly focused on wildlife-based markets, which are often constrained by Government and private sector control, may impede innovations in wildlife management that could help build more effective synergies for conservation. This paper brings into focus the results of these studies and their potential relevance to natural resource conservation outside national parks in Africa. Background studies, toward developing a new approach for conservation 1. Food security and agricultural practices Food security surveys in five game management areas in Luangwa Valley, Zambia, showed that between 20 and 60% of the residents in these areas, who were largely subsistence farmers, failed to grow enough food to last to their next harvest. Poor farming practices, erratic rainfall, inadequate farming inputs, and crop damage by wild animals contributed to this variability. In many cases food impoverished households were forced to provide farm labor in exchange for food or spend time away from their fields catching fish, snaring wildlife or searching for honey as a means to barter for food produced by more successful farmers. In one of these game managements areas, Mwanya, food security was artificially improved by providing 120 bags of 90kg maize to 183 households living in Yakobe village, located in a relatively wildlife rich area and where lack of food security was a general household problem. This livelihood experiment sought to determine if farmers with sufficient food during their farming season would become more committed to producing a good crop and less dependent on wildlife to make up for food shortfalls. In addition to providing free maize, farmers were also taught ways to improve their yield by cultivating their fields with better ways to manage soil fertility and reduce the effects of draught. Food was provided just prior to the planting season in November 1998. Granaries were resampled in 2000 to compare with levels found in 1998 (see Table 1). Figure 1 shows the amount of food per person based on known food stocks in December projected to March when
farmers are most active with weeding and guarding their crops. Results showed a relatively food secure farming season in 2000 as compared to 1998.
The potential relationship between these results and use of snares to obtain game meat was analyzed from questionnaire data collected from safari clients who hunted in this same area from 1997 to 2000. Despite efforts from 1997 to 1999 to increase community support for wildlife conservation through wildlife revenue-supported projects and public awareness exercises 1, data suggested that the use of snares increased during this period (see Fig 2). In contrast and in the year following the intervention of maize support when food security levels dramatically improved in Mwanya area , the percentage of clients who complained about snares declined by over 50%.
Markets, household income and income sources Based on a sample of 1065 randomly selected households from 5 different game management areas in Luangwa Valley, the five most common sources of household income were poultry, rice, ground nuts, beer and fish as ranked against a total of 56 potential income sources. Individuals who owned or operated grinding mills or small shops earned the highest income, followed by cotton and private sector employment. In contrast, poultry ranked 34 in terms of income earned while rice, ground nuts, beer and fish ranked 19, 20, 23,10, respectively. On average, annual household income was about $80. Contributing factors to low income were lack on farm inputs, poor markets, low prices, and inadequate skills and technologies to increase production or diversify income sources. 1 The interventions were part of a community-based wildlife management programme called ADMADE that returned safari revenues to local communities whose areas produced wildlife utilized by safari hunting. Income received sustained the costs of village scouts to guard against poaching and to support community projects like schools and clinics. ADMADE-employed staff also facilitated community training to improve public understanding for conservation and legal use of wildlife.
A selected sample of 88 individuals whose livelihood depended largely on illegal hunting showed income derived from illegal hunting averaged $320. Among these 88 hunters, 10 earned over $900 (see Figure 3). Removing these from the sample, average income from wildlife dropped to $190. Income derived from other sources, mostly agriculture, averaged $166. In many of these cases, illegal hunting income was used to finance farming inputs and farm labor to increase earnings further. Hunting was clearly a desirable livelihood option for those owning a gun and having the necessary skills to hunt successfully. From this sample, 32% had been previously arrested, some as many as four times, suggesting the threat of court convictions was not an effective deterrent.
Wildlife losses Based on interview data for the above 88 sampled hunters, annual number of animals killed per hunter averaged 29, suggesting that alternative markets to replace the incentive to hunt illegally would have to offer an annual income of about $200. Buffalo, impala, warthog and kudu were the four most popular species hunted, related either to their size or relative abundance. 22% had previously hunted elephants. Interview data from a randomly selected sample of 445 local farmers living in wildlife-rich areas revealed wildlife losses from snaring in Luangwa Valley were high. Results suggested that 57% of the households interviewed set snares 4.7 times each year and used on average 6 snares per setting. This contributed to an average of 5.8 animals snared annually per household. Ironically, wildlife in these same areas contributed to improved social needs such as schools and clinics through wildlife revenue-sharing programs meant to promote increased public support of conservation. This contradiction supported the hypothesis that lack of alternative, higher-paying markets and the prevalence of chronic food shortages, as documented in the livelihood surveys, contributed to these wildlife losses. A market-based model to reduce threats to wildlife These background studies in Luangwa Valley supported the following conclusions:
These conclusions provided the necessary building blocks to construct an alternative model for wildlife conservation in rural areas surrounding national parks. Referred to as Community Markets for Conservation or COMACO, the model forges practical links between agriculture and rural markets to promote increased community commitment to conservation. The diagram below illustrates the various components of the model, which relied on increased producer prices to encourage farmers to become better farmers, and thus more food secure. The model links these steps with conservation by requiring farmers to adopt land use practices conducive to wildlife production to be eligible to these increased producer prices.
Key to the COMACO process and the different interventions it supports is a regional trading centre, which operates as a limited company with community ownership but with business management run by qualified external personnel. Called the Conservation Farmer Wildlife Producer Trading Centre (CTC), the trading centre targets, at least initially, households most vulnerable to hunger and poverty and offers them extensions services for improving farming skills and improving access to markets, provided participating households form producer groups and pledge commitment to land use practices conducive to natural resource conservation. By carefully selecting households with livelihood needs that foster destructive land use practices, the CTC can leverage conservation compliance among literally thousands of residents living in wildlife sensitive areas. As illustrated below, the model associates producer groups with producer depots, where goods are bulked and traded through a network of trading hubs linked to the trading centre.
To test the COMACO model, wildlife production was correlated with increased food production and increased producer prices offered to participating households. An important source of help in implementing and testing the COMACO model was World Food Programme. Participating households received free maize from World Food Programme as an incentive to learn and adopt improved farming skills and form agricultural producer groups with by-laws stating their commitment to conservation and food security. This included the voluntary surrendering of 15 snares per group. These producer groups, in turn, became the future trading partners of the CTC. Results: COMACO Model Field Testing 1. Area of operations Field-testing the model extended from 2001 to 2004 and covered approximately 12,000 km2 of rural landscapes outside Luangwa Valley national parks where a trading centre in Lundazi and its associated trading depots were established (see Figure 4).
2. Food security COMACO initially targeted in 2001 about 2500 households selected as food-insecure or unable to grow enough food to complete a farming cycle. By 2004 COMACO had expanded to cover about 25,000 km 2 with over 16,000 participating households (see Figure 4). COMACO interventions of leveraging households to learn and adopt better farming practices with provisioning of maize-food support from World Food Programme to households who complied achieved significantly improved food security (see Table 2). Among the participating households, 67% achieved food security their first year.
3. Conservation commitments and land use plans COMACO's agreement with producer groups was that they comply with their conservation pledges and in exchange they would have access to improved livelihood skills and better paying markets through the CTC. By far, the most dramatic demonstration of community compliance to this agreement was the large number of snares and illegal firearms surrendered by producer group members, totalling 30,055 snares and 421 illegal firearms from 2001 to 2003 (see Table 3). These figures contrasted greatly with parallel efforts by wildlife law enforcement officers, whose approach included law enforcement patrols in wildlife areas, house searches, and road blocks. Total workforce by wildlife police officers in carrying out these operations in the project area averaged about 280,000 man-days per year and at an approximate cost of $2 per man-day (Regional Managers Office Data, 2004). From 2002 to 2003 these law enforcement operations recovered a total of 155 snares and 242 firearms.
COMACO also required producer groups to comply with a land use plan developed by their community leaders through a consultative process with broad community participation to adopt specific steps the community could take to reduce potential conflicts with their natural resources. Compliance with these land use decisions was also a condition to gain access to CTC trade benefits and to have access to the various extension support services provided by the CTC. In 2003 participating communities developed these plans in both map and local language text form and in 2004 local District Council authorities held full council meetings and adopted these land use plans as an approved instrument of local Government to promote better land use management. They have become an important basis for community leaders to use market incentives to influence their constituency to resist destructive land use practices and assist in the production of wildlife for added economic benefits through legal markets. 4. CTC market development, price incentives and crop diversification
Establishment of the CTC and its network of producer depots, trading hubs, and associated staff required an initial preparatory phase of infrastructure development, staff training, and community orientation and involvement. By 2003, the CTC launched a full season of buying and selling rice, village chickens, honey and groundnuts, which represented commodities the majority of households could produce. The 2003 marketing season provided the necessary information and experience to improve the CTC's capacity to process commodities into packaged, higher paying products and to expand trade links for improving producer prices. By 2004 producer prices for these commodities had increased over a range of 37% to 108% (see Table 5). Although cotton was a common cash crop in the project area, the CTC did not market or promote this crop because of its adverse effects on soil nutrient depletion and wildlife habitat. To maximize earnings, cotton farmers tended to grow large fields, and because cotton is a labor-intensive crop, farmers with large cotton fields had less time to grow a food crop. Preliminary data from two villages, Zokwe and Chabesha, suggested that cotton farmers had less food security than those who did not grow cotton. Generally, after three years of growing cotton, farmers who lacked fertilizer were forced to clear new land to sustain high cotton production. Except where rice farming was possible, most farmers complained about the lack of an alternative cash crop. Rice requires about 20% of the effort to grow an equivalent yield of cotton and has minimal impact on wildlife habitat. For these reasons, COMACO regarded rice as a "wildlife-friendly" cash crop. To provide a more complete coverage of a second "wildlife-friendly" cash crop, the CTC introduced soybeans in 2003 and has expanded these efforts for the 2004 planting season. Soybean fixes nitrogen in the soil, as do groundnuts, and is a desirable cash crop for rotating with maize to help maintain soil fertility and increased food security. Table 5. CTC prices for commodities purchased from COMACO producer groups
5. Wildlife production and threat reduction Aerial wildlife census surveys were flown in 1999, 2002 and 2004 over 7 sampling blocks, covering approximately 4500 km2 of the project area along fixed transects at a sampling intensity of 19%. Species counted for assessing wildlife production were elephant, buffalo, kudu, zebra, eland, wildebeest, waterbuck, puku, hartebeest and roan. Survey results (Table 4 and Figures 5,6) showed an overall trend of population increase for 9 of the 10 species. Kudu, puku, elephant, zebra and buffalo had a more widespread increase across the project area with significant increases for more than half 7 sampling blocks sampled. Population increases in roan, hartebeest and eland were least representative of the area surveyed. The frequency of
population increase for each sampling block, as measured for each species by a greater than a 20% increase in population estimate from 1999 to 2004, outnumbered population decline by a factor of 1.55. For species considered most abundant in 1999 and least sensitive to sampling area, occurrences of population increases outnumbered population decreases by a factor of 3 to 1.
Assuming this increase in wildlife production is related to the large number of snares farmers surrendered in compliance with the conditions of the COMACO model, it is important to assess whether these farmers replaced these snares and persisted in their use as a substitute for farming. Evidence for non-replacement would suggest the COMACO model had achieved a significant link between better farming practices and improved markets with improved conservation results. A questionnaire that safari clients completed after each safari hunt to assess land use disturbances that affected their hunting success, which included the incidence of snares they encountered while hunting, was the basis for making this determination. These data were collected in 2000 and 2003. A ban on safari hunting during 2001 and 2002 precluded data collection for these years. Table 6 shows the percentage of clients from four concession areas in the project area, averaging about 12 per season, who complained about encountering snares while hunting. The dramatic reduction in 2003 suggested that snare replacement, if occurring, was at a slow, almost negligible rate.
Discussion Poor, unsuccessful farmers living on land outside Luangwa Valley's national parks typically rely on land use practices that contribute to lowered wildlife production. The case study presented in this paper tested the converse relationship, that food secure farmers who earn income from crops not in direct conflict with wildlife can support land use practices more conducive to wildlife production. The particular model used to test this hypothesis, COMACO, linked market and food security incentives to household compliance to conservation. In terms of its capacity to impact on rural communities across large geographic areas, COMACO offers an extremely relevant case study for examining a model that builds synergy between agriculture, rural markets and conservation. Specifically, the COMACO model influences land use practices outside protected wildlife areas by offering better paying farm-based markets, as well as improved crop production skills, to farmers who support natural resource conservation. The latter is achieved under the guidance and compliance of producer group by-laws and community land use decisions. The process targets poor, unskilled farmers initially, because hunger and poverty are the underlying reasons why many households in Luangwa Valley illegally kill wildlife or unnecessarily degrade wildlife habitat. Key to the model's long-term success is its capacity to self-finance its interventions while attracting an increasing proportion of the community to access trading benefits through a profitably-run trading centre in exchange for conservation compliance. Data presented in this case study suggested the model is not only viable but is a cost-effective and socially acceptable way to achieve conservation. This was demonstrated by the increase in wildlife production that correlated with the surrendering of thousands of snares and hundreds of firearms in compliance to conditions for receiving food security support and accessing better- paying markets through the CTC. These data contrasted greatly with the relatively smaller number of snares and firearms recovered from much higher cost law enforcement operations. Direct maize support from World Food Program was an important basis for initiating farmers to learn and practice better farming practices and become future producer groups for the CTC.
Participants received free food for only one year as a way to increase their farming effort and gain greater self-reliance in food crop production. World Food Program support declined as households became food secure. In 2004, for example, annual food relief from World Food Program in the project area declined by about 40% from the previous year. In addition to providing increased producer prices as a way of encouraging farmers to use their improved farming skills, the CTC also used differential pricing to reward producers who achieved specific conservation targets. For example, producer groups who maintained over 15 bee hives receive a higher producer price for honey, and farmers who remain compliant to composting, non- burning of crop residues and conservation farming while also adopting bee-keeping received a higher producer price for rice or soybean. Based on survey data collected prior to COMACO interventions, it was clear farming was the most common livelihood, practiced by nearly every resident, but with low levels of success for a significant percentage in terms of self-reliance in food-production or household income. Farmers had little incentive to modify farming activities in ways more compatible to wildlife production. Rather, for many, wildlife was a convenient way to mitigate hunger or poverty by using game meat as a way of bartering for farm food or supplementing household income. Incentives by the private sector to encourage farmers to grow a cash crop may have exacerbated the problem by giving little consideration to the long-term impact on soil and watershed or to the potential conflict and social consequences caused by certain labor-intensive cash crops. Under this background, studies suggested poor, food insecure farmers were taking a heavy toll on wildlife numbers and efforts to contain this problem by conventional law enforcement measures were largely ineffective. It is thus argued that the economic incentives and services provided by the CTC under the COMACO model reduces the need for higher cost interventions to police natural resources, respond to famine needs, or maintain costly rural welfare programs. During its relatively short period of interventions, COMACO has had a profound impact on snare and illegal firearm removal from large areas surrounding some of Zambia's most prestigious national parks and has provided incentives for households to adopt farming practices more conducive to both wildlife production and increased food security. COMACO's economic sustainability remains untested, however. The viability of the model depends on the self-financing capacity of the CTC to provide marketing and livelihood support services indefinitely. It also requires that the total commercial benefits returned to local communities under COMACO and through the efforts of the CTC be greater than commercial benefits provided by competing markets. Otherwise, low-income household commitment to their conservation pledges will likely diminish as well as their loyalty to produce commodities for the economic viability of the CTC. This was a problem in 2004 when the CTC encountered difficulties in maintaining payment schedules to producer groups and households changed their loyalty to other traders, even though prices were lower than those offered by the CTC. Given the free-market environment that Zambia has embraced, the CTC has a major challenge in remaining solvent and competitive, especially since much of its profit goes toward sustaining farmer commitment to food self-reliance and conservation. If it were to fail because of these environmental and social service objectives, wildlife-based revenues from tourism would gradually decline, resource protection costs would increase, land management would suffer, and the cost and need for Government-level programs to support farmers would rise. For these reasons, the Zambian Government not only has a stake in COMACO's success but it could also play a decisive role in its future by helping integrate COMACO into a national strategy for rural development and natural resource management.
Recommendations Having demonstrated COMACO's initial success, the following recommendations could help guide the Zambian Government's efforts to expand and sustain COMACO's support services for rural communities who share their lands with key natural resources of national importance:
Acknowledgements This paper is a result of enormous dedication and hard work by Wildlife Conservation Society staff, particularly Nemiah Tembo, Fanwell Hamusonde, Charles Ngoma, Willy Banda, and Golden Nyirenda, and collaborating colleagues from Community Resources Board, Lundazi and Chama District Councils and the Zambia Wildlife Authority. Wildlife Conservation Society especially thanks the major supporters of the COMACO experiment, namely World Food Programme, William Lloyd, Whitley Laing Foundation, Liz Claibourne Art Ortenberg Foundation, Canadian and German Embassy Small Grants Program, Program Against Malnutrition, US Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Food and Agricultural Organization. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
 |
 |
| Copyright 2006, COMACO. All rights reserved. Website design by CMS Website Services,LLC. |