Wildlife conservation trends: toward establishing a COMACO impact

COMACO attempts to link markets with improvements in the food security of rural people most in need and thus most likely to adopt coping practices that might reduce wildlife numbers and habitat.? If these interventions truly diminish potential threats to wildlife resources through reduction of numbers of active illegal hunters or actively used snares, wildlife numbers should show signs of increase or at the very least show less decline than areas where COMACO is not operating.? Both of these predictions are examined below:

a. Wildlife trends in the COMACO core area

Aerial transects were flown in 1999, 2002 and 2006 to evaluate population trends for 10 wildlife species for the COMACO core area [Chikwa, Chifunda, Chanjuzi (Kazembe and Chitungulu combined) and Mwanya, see Figure 11].? Munyamadzi Game Management Area was included in the sample because of comparable food security efforts undertaken throughout the same period as the core area, although COMACO market support was not in place in that area.? Fixed, parallel aerial transects were flown with sampling intensities varying from 10.2% to 19.8%.? Selection of the species censused was based on several criteria, including large body size and vulnerability to snaring because of frequent use of waterholes during the dry season.? Use of snares around waterholes is a common practice to take advantage of predictable animal movements.? Those species judged to be most at risk to poaching, at both population and individual levels, because of low local density and meeting these criteria included wildebeest, waterbuck, eland, hartebeest, roan and kudu.? For purpose of this report, we term these the ?poaching susceptible species.?? Elephants were included in our census because of their conservation value.? Buffalo were initially included because of their status as the preferred target of illegal gun hunters (data not shown), but accurate estimation of their populations is proving difficult due to their heterogeneous distribution (i.e. ?clumping?), which leads to extremely high variation.? Puku were included to represent one of the small-bodied species with a relatively high reproductive rate.

In addition to a species-by-species analysis of the combined area, the study also looked at population trends within each area surveyed to determine if there were local differences in response.? Because of their high variance and small sample size within the individual surveyed areas, data from the poaching susceptible species excepting wildebeest were combined for some analyses.? Wildebeest had relatively large group size variation as compared to the other species, which generally occurred in smaller size groups of 5 to 12.? Therefore, inclusion of this species with the other poaching susceptible species would have skewed the data.

Tables 11 and 12 show the combined surveyed area data and the combined population trends for the high-risk, low-density species group, respectively.? For the combined surveyed area data, only hartebeest showed a significant increase from 2002 to 2006.? Most species showed positive, upward trends, but these were statistically insignificant.? Wildebeest and eland numbers showed negative, downward trends, which again were insignificant.? Buffalo were excluded from analysis because of heterogeneity.? In the analysis of population trends for individual surveyed areas for the combined poaching-susceptible species, two of the four areas from the COMACO core areas, Chanjuzi and Chikwa, showed significant increases (p < .05 ) from 1999 to 2002 and from 2002 to 2006.? All the other areas showed positive but statistically insignificant trends, with the exception of Mwanya, which showed a negative but statistically insignificant change.

In summary, population estimates from the 2006 survey allowed a preliminary indication of population change for selected species relative to population sizes prior to COMACO (1999) and at the beginning of the COMACO intervention (2002).?? No significant decreases were found for any of the analyses and significant increases were found for hartebeest for the combined surveyed area sample and for two of the four COMACO core areas for the high-risk, low-density species group.? Of interest, almost every species showed a downward trend from 1999 to 2002, suggesting that populations were in decline at the beginning of the COMACO program.? Across the board increases in populations would be unlikely within 4 years, given a need to first stabilize these populations, and then allow them to recover.

Table 11. Trends for total COMACO area. D-test comparing 2006 to 1999 and 2002 shown, with significant values shaded (p<0.05, ~25 df).

?

Table 12: Data combined for the poaching-susceptible species, excepting wildebeest. Comparisons between 1999 and 2006, and 2002 and 2006 are shown, with significant values shaded (p<0.05, ~25 df)

Figure 11

b.????? Comparison with non-COMACO areas

Other regions of the Luangwa Valley were not included in the original aerial censuses because focus was on alleviating the heavy poaching pressure around the two most significant national parks, the South and the North Luangwa National Parks.? COMACO?s focus is on the human populations in the game management areas, which serve as buffer zones around these precious resources.? However, from a scientific perspective, comparing population trends between areas experiencing the COMACO intervention with areas outside of COMACO?s activities would more accurately establish the extent of COMACO?s effects on wildlife populations.? In 2006, three different control areas where COMACO is either not active, or does not have a strong presence, were censused and results were compared with those from the COMACO core area.??

Table 13

? ?

As can be seen from this table, the COMACO core area has much higher wildlife populations than any of the other areas.? Perhaps most disturbing of these findings is that the Lukusuzi National Park had so few animals, and such limited species represented.? Clearly, these studies need to be repeated at different times of year to factor out potential effects of seasonal animal movement.? However, several other possible explanations exist in addition to animal movements.? These areas might never have had significant wildlife populations because of differences in habitat or human populations, and might therefore not be similar enough to function as acceptable controls.? Arguing against that possibility is the fact that the three control regions are geographically separated and are found to the north, south, and east of the core.? Regarding habitat and access to water, they include the same mixed mopane woodlands and two border or include the Luangwa River.? In addition, the third control is a protected National Park, without human dwellings within it.? The remaining explanation is that the downward trend from 1999 to 2002 seen in the core area was also found in these regions, but in the absence of COMACO, there was a widespread crash of animal populations sometime before or during the COMACO pilot project.? In light of Lukusuzi?s proximity to so many individuals practicing outgrower agriculture (Figure 2), which would supply a large and relatively wealthy but food insecure population as a market, one can understand why a good number of the individuals who hunted illegally as a profession reside immediately around this park (Figure 9).? More research must be done not only to evaluate the effects of COMACO on wildlife populations, but also to identify newly emerging threats to wildlife populations throughout the Valley as part of broader ecosystem-scale management planning.

Previous