Status of Terrestrial Mammals at the Kafue–Zambezi Interface: Implications for Transboundary Connectivity

Status of terrestrial mammals at the Kafue–Zambezi interface: implications for transboundary connectivity

R OBIN L INES,JOSEPH T ZANOPOULOS and D OUGLAS M ACM ILLAN

Abstract The Kavango–Zambezi Transfrontier Conservation Introduction Area Programme promotes landscape-level connectivity between clusters of wildlife management areas in five neigh- ildlife management areas are frequently clustered bouring countries. However, declining regional biodiversity Walong international borders, with ecosystems divided  can undermine efforts to maintain, expand and link wildlife by arbitrarily drawn political boundaries (Zbicz, ;  populations. Narratives promoting species connectivity Hanks, ). Where fences and physical barriers are com- should thus be founded on studies of system and state bined with expanding human settlements and intensifying changes in key resources. By integrating and augmenting agro-pastoralist activities, overexploitation and decline of  multiple data sources throughout eight wildlife management wildlife populations can occur (Ogutu et al., ). areas, covering . million ha, we report changes during Additionally, invasion, disease, pollution and climate   – in the occurrence and distribution of  mammal change (Pachauri et al., ; Maxwell et al., ) interact  species throughout a landscape linking the Greater Kafue with intrinsic species traits (Cardillo et al., ) to inhibit System to adjacent wildlife management areas in Namibia or sever wildlife movement patterns, isolating core wildlife  and Botswana. Results indicate species diversity is largely un- management areas (Margules & Pressey, ; Newmark,  changed in Kafue National Park and Mulobezi and Sichifulo ). Together these drivers are exposing wildlife popula- Game Management Areas. However, % of large carnivore tions to escalating edge-effects and ecological traps, threa- and % of prey diversity have been lost in the Simalaha tening species persistence within and outside protected   areas, and there is no evidence of migrational behaviour or areas (Woodroffe & Ginsberg, ; Battin, ). species recolonization from adjacent wildlife areas. Conversely, intact species assemblages have wide-ranging Although temporal sampling scales influence the definition implications for sustainable and resilient social-ecological  of species occupancy and distribution, and data cannot elu- systems (Cumming, ). Heterogeneity and functional ’ cidate population size or trends, our findings indicate an diversity drive productivity and a system s capacity to ab- emerging connectivity bottleneck within Simalaha. sorb, resist and respond to shocks, perturbations and other Evidence suggests that at current disturbance levels the stressors that negatively affect its structure and function  Greater Kafue System, Zambia’s majority component in (Fischer et al., ). Cumulatively, threats to species per- the Kavango–Zambezi Transfrontier Conservation Area, is sistence undermine habitat integrity, ecosystem services, becoming increasingly isolated at the trophic scale of large food security, the development of sustainable wildlife-based mammals. Further investigations of the site-specific, inter- land uses and human well-being (Millennium Ecosystem   acting drivers influencing wildlife distribution and occur- Assessment, ; Lindsey et al., b). rence are required to inform appropriate conservation Acknowledging the limitations imposed by these con- interventions for wildlife recovery in key areas identified to straints, stakeholders in southern Africa are increasingly promote transboundary connectivity in the Kavango– embracing Transfrontier Conservation Areas as a new con-  Zambezi Transfrontier Conservation Area. servation paradigm (Hanks, ), considered to be an evolution of previous community-based natural resource Keywords Connectivity, Kafue, Kavango–Zambezi Transfron- management approaches that yielded mixed results tier Area, mammal loss, transboundary conservation, wildlife (Andersson, ). Enticing narratives include the integra- management area tion of biodiversity conservation with the promotion of sustainable socio-economic development and a culture of peace and cooperation at the ecosystem level, linked to the re- moval of fences and other barriers inhibiting the free movement of wildlife across vast interconnected landscapes (van ROBIN LINES (Corresponding author), JOSEPH TZANOPOULOS and DOUGLAS der Linde et al., ; Hanks, ). MACMILLAN Durrell Institute of Conservation and Ecology, Marlow Building, The Kavango–Zambezi Transfrontier Conservation Area The University of Kent, Canterbury, Kent, CT2 7NR, UK ’ E-mail [email protected] is intended to capitalize on the region s unique diversity and Received  February . Revision requested  June . distribution of wildlife assets by advocating shared natural Accepted  October . First published online  May . resource management and development goals across a

Oryx, 2019, 53(4), 764–773 © 2018 Fauna & Flora International doi:10.1017/S0030605317001594 Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 170.106.40.40, on 29 Sep 2021 at 23:55:47, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0030605317001594 The Kafue–Zambezi interface 765

 network of protected areas spanning . , km at the the Zambezi River. This landscape is promoted as a key link- interface of Angola, Botswana, Namibia, Zambia and age to the central cluster of wildlife management areas in Zimbabwe (KAZA TFCA Secretariat, b; Hanks & Namibia and Botswana, at the heart of the Kavango– Myburgh, ). Stated objectives to integrate conservation Zambezi Transfrontier Conservation Area (KAZA TFCA and development, promote peace and cooperation, and fa- Secretariat, ). Through integration, harmonization cilitate connectivity of wildlife populations between clusters and triangulation of data we were able to determine changes of wildlife management areas have become popular and in species occurrence and distribution by wildlife manage- compelling programme narratives driving north–south fi- ment area and designation. nance initiatives, NGO engagement, and state buy-in (PPF, ; KAZA TFCA Secretariat, a; WWF, ). Notwithstanding evolving conservation and develop- Study area ment narratives, the success of the Kavango–Zambezi Transfrontier Conservation Area Programme is constrained The boundaries of the Kavango–Zambezi Transfrontier by many existing and emerging challenges. Mounting Conservation Area are imprecise (Andersson, ) but anthropogenic pressures combined with poor land-use Cumming () characterized the area as comprising a planning, institutional conflicts and stakeholder disenfran- matrix of .  wildlife management areas, from National chisement (Andersson, ) are driving encroachment into Parks under strict state control to multiple-use areas wildlife areas, habitat loss and fragmentation (Newmark, under community management. These wildlife manage- ; Simukonda, ; Watson et al., ), and unsustain- ment areas are grouped into three major clusters and five able harvesting of wildlife, threatening many of the periphery sub-clusters, with Kafue National Park and sur- Conservation Area’s iconic natural assets (Lindsey et al., rounding wildlife management areas constituting the a). With the region’s human population expected to major northern cluster (Fig. ).  double by  (United Nations, Department of Kafue National Park (, km )isZambia’s oldest and Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division, ) largest protected area, the largest National Park in the and likely impacts of climate change exacerbating challenges Kavango–Zambezi Transfrontier Conservation Area and the to socio-economic development (Bellard et al., ; second largest National Park in Africa (UNEP/WCMC, ). Pachauri et al., ), even moderately optimistic scenarios Together with nine surrounding IUCN category VI Game imply regional biodiversity loss will accelerate significantly Management Areas and multiple Forest Reserves, the effective this century (Biggs et al., ). unfenced wildlife management area, referred to as the Greater  Collectively these challenges raise important questions Kafue Landscape or System, covers , km and includes about the scope, scale and ambition of narratives promoting % of Zambia’slandmassand. % of the Kavango– landscape-level linkages, the interventions required to Zambezi Transfrontier Conservation Area estate (Moss, ). maintain or expand connectivity, and the purposes these Most of the Greater Kafue System lies at –, m proposed linkages may serve in the long term (Cumming, altitude. Mean annual rainfall is  mm in the south and ). There is thus a clear imperative to promote evidence- , mm in the north, falling predominantly during based socio-economic and environmental policies and in- November–April. Vegetation is characterized by the terventions built around the application of conservation sci- Zambezian Miombo Woodland ecoregion, typical of large ence (Sutherland et al., ), including research and areas throughout southern and eastern Africa, dominated monitoring of changes in the state of sites and systems, by Brachystegia spp., Combretum spp., Mopane spp., and their response to factors driving connectivity at the Terminalia spp. and Baikaea spp. Woodlands are inter- scale of interest. The process of informed decision-making spersed with open floodplain grasslands and dambos is data hungry, and local, regional and transboundary data (ZAWA, ). Species records include  mammals,  sources are disparate and inconsistent, undermining attempts birds,  reptiles,  amphibians and  fish, with the great- to understand complex social-ecological systems such as the est diversity of antelopes in Africa ( species), an intact car- Kavango–Zambezi Transfrontier Conservation Area. Data nivore guild and a full complement of Zambia’s large deficiencies ultimately constrain effective decision-making mammals, with the exception of the giraffe Giraffa giraffa, and appropriate interventions to promote biodiversity con- black rhinoceros Diceros bicornis and tsessebe Damaliscus servation and development. lunatus (Moss, ). Here we interrogate and synthesize existing data sources, TheGreaterKafueSystemisZambia’s majority component and supplement them with additional research to document within the Kavango–Zambezi Transfrontier Conservation the historical and contemporary status of the African ele- Area (KAZA TFCA Secretariat, ), with connectivity to phant Loxodonta africana, five large carnivores, one meso- the broader Kavango–Zambezi landscape contingent on the predator and  prey species throughout eight wildlife maintenance of a landscape-level linkage routing south–south- management areas between the Greater Kafue System and west through a mosaic of nominally, potentially and possibly

FIG. 1 Clusters of wildlife management areas in the Kavango–Zambezi Transfrontier Conservation Area landscape in southern Africa (adapted from KAZA TFCA Secretariat, ; PPF, ).

protected wildlife management areas, including Mulobezi and indicate that Kafue National Park (operating with only Sichifulo Game Management Areas, Nachitwe, Martin and –% of recommended protected area budgets) has re- Machili Forest Reserves, the Nyawa communal areas, and the ceived the greatest level of long-term support for biodiver- Simalaha Communal Conservancy, proclaimed in  (Fig. ). sity conservation throughout the study area, followed by Together these wildlife management areas extend the Greater Mulobezi and then Sichifulo Game Management Areas, Kafue System to c. . million ha. which receive minor budget allocations from the State A secondary (south-westerly) linkage passing through Wildlife Authority, augmented by finance and in-kind op- Mulobezi to Sioma National Park (bordering Namibia and erational support from resident safari hunting operators and Angola) has been proposed, although our focus is on the conservation NGOs. Nachitwe, Martin and Machili Forest linkage that broadly follows the Machili stream catchment Reserves have received minor budgets intermittently from basin from the border of Kafue National Park to the northern the State Wildlife Authority and Forestry Department bank of the Zambezi River, adjacent to Kasika and Salambala (ZAWA, ; C. Chifunte, pers. comm. .). The Communal Conservancies of the eastern Zambezi region in Simalaha Communal Conservancy started receiving formal Namibia, and through to Chobe National Park in Botswana. wildlife resource protection as recently as , having had The proposed landscape linkage is – km. The no formal biodiversity conservation budgets since before human population is c. , and increasing by .% an-  (HRH Chief Inyambo Yeta, pers. comm. ). We  nually, with a population density of c.  people per km were unable to ascertain if the Nyawa communal areas receive (CSO, ). Communities are centred on a few larger set- any formal wildlife management budget. In addition, a tlements of ,–, residents, and otherwise in clus- , ha fenced Wildlife Recovery Sanctuary to the south ters of scattered villages typically concentrated along water of Simalaha, with an extensive open border along the courses, seasonal waterholes and a few pumped ground- Zambezi River, has received .  head of game of eight spe- water supplies. Subsistence agro-pastoralists dominate this cies since : a significant investment promoted as a justifi- landscape, with residents largely dependent on exploiting cation for restocking the broader Simalaha Communal a wide range of natural resources to meet their basic liveli- Conservancy (PPF, ). hood needs (Musgrave, ). Formal employment oppor- tunities beyond a few distant urban settlements are negligible. Customary law within the Lozi, Nkoya and Methods Tonga ethnolinguistic groups constitutes the de facto regional governance system (Brelsford, ; Musgrave, ). Data sources Biodiversity conservation budgets have varied significantly throughout this landscape, both spatially and tem- The earliest records of occurrence and distribution of porally. Although precise figures are unavailable, sources terrestrial mammals in the vicinity of the proposed

FIG. 3 Boundaries of contemporary wildlife management areas (in white) and the study area (dotted line) projected onto Ansell’s() map of the known (filled squares), possible (half-filled squares) and former range (unfilled squares) of the blue wildebeest Connochaetes taurinus. FIG. 2 Wildlife management areas within the study area.

Kafue–Zambezi linkage are limited to disparate notes and Ansell () reported on  terrestrial mammals .  kg reports in the grey literature from early explorers, hunters, in weight, from  families, but we restricted the contempor- traders and missionaries, dating back to the late th century ary list to  readily detected species from nine families, omit- (e.g. Sampson, ; Holub, ), with approximate ting seven species considered to be at the edge of their known location data variously reported in relation to key landscape range and/or habitat specialists requiring species-specific features. The first published checklists for Zambia (Pitman, survey techniques beyond the scope of this study. ; Lancaster, ; Ansell, , , ) indicate there Boundaries of contemporary land-use classifications were no changes to the assemblage of large mammals in and (UNEP-WCMC, ) were projected over Ansell’s() around Kafue National Park prior to the extirpation of the maps using QGIS (QGIS Development Team, ; Fig. ), black rhinoceros in the mid s, although there are unre- to facilitate extraction of historical species distribution data solved questions regarding anecdotal records of a relic gir- at comparable spatial scales, for Kafue National Park affe population (P. Moss, pers. comm. ). Data for these (Kaunga and Nanzhila management blocks, , ha), checklists were collected ostensibly through ad hoc and op- Mulobezi Game Management Area (hereafter Mulobezi, portunistic sightings by government staff and expert obser- , ha), Sichifulo Game Management Area, including vers reporting from their travels throughout the country, Nachitwe, Martin and Machili Forest Reserves (hereafter augmented by trading records and hunting ledgers kept Sichifulo, , ha), and the Nyawa/Simalaha areas by District Commissioners. (c. , ha). The first systematic collation of species occurrence and dis- In compiling contemporary data sets (Fig. ) we contribution data was published by Ansell (), superseding strained data gathering to three broadly comparable previous literature. Amalgamated checklist data were mapped ground-based survey approaches. We omitted aerial survey within quarter-degree grid squares, based on  : , data (e.g. DNPW, ) because of limitations to detection Ordnance Survey map sheets. Given the absence of reports rates for many species of primary interest in forested areas from many inaccessible and largely unmapped periphery (Jachmann, ). areas, the data reflect minimum regional species ranges; none- Firstly, the resident safari hunting operator, operational theless, much of the study area can be considered to be well throughout Mulobezi and Sichifulo during the preceding mapped because of the established network of access routes decade, was asked to provide sighting reports for  terres- developed alongside the nascent teak logging and safari hunt- trial mammals of interest through a questionnaire survey ing industries (Musgrave, ). following the  hunting season. Multiple groups of

three times by RL and two experienced local trackers from the safari hunting industry, amounting to , km of spoor transects during the dry season of May–October .

Data analysis

A confirmed sighting from any of the three selected expert contemporary sources was considered to be sufficient to detect species presence at the scale of interest. Given the atyp- ical nature of ongoing ungulate reintroductions and management in the fenced Simalaha Wildlife Sanctuary, we restrict reporting to the detection of the carnivore guild for this subset of the Simalaha Communal Conservancy. Data for each of the four composite wildlife management area blocks, from the three data sources, were compiled against historical data to determine if any changes in species occurrence and distribution had occurred. Outputs reflected species persistence, loss or colonization at the composite wildlife management area scale. As survey methods were optimized for resident large carnivores and their principal prey species, the risk of non- detection was elevated for species that exhibited significant

FIG. 4 Sources of data within the study area for contemporary seasonal (migration) or non-resident (emigration and im- analyses of terrestrial mammals at the Kafue–Zambezi interface migration) movement patterns, or where surveys did not (Fig. ). cover the restricted ranges of habitat specialists. These constraints are acknowledged in Table  and subsequent analyses. guides, hunters and skilled trackers traverse both Mulobezi An amalgamated distribution map was generated for the and Sichifulo on and off road, covering . , km each five extant large carnivores, indicating their historical range dry season (R. Kraljic, pers. comm. ). This was consid- within the survey area, and current known range within ered to amount to sufficient survey effort and expertise to studied wildlife management areas. detect target species. Secondly we collected patrol data from the local State and Community Wildlife Police Officers responsible for wildlife Results protection in southern Kafue National Park, Mulobezi and Sichifulo. We amalgamated data for the Kafue patrol blocks Table  indicates few non-detections recorded against any adjacent to Mulobezi and Sichifulo to cover a single area in- data sources since  throughout southern Kafue cluding the border area north of both Mulobezi and National Park, Mulobezi or Sichifulo. However, the hippo- Sichifulo Game Management Areas. These data comprised potamus Hippopotamus amphibius appears to be no longer , georeferenced wildlife sightings from , man-days resident in any of the waterways along the Machili stream of foot patrols during – (ZAWA, unpubl. data). and catchment area, and the klipspringer Oreotragus oreo- In  we undertook a systematic randomized spoor and tragus appears to be absent from Mulobezi, although core sightings survey of large carnivores and their principal prey habitat for this species went unsurveyed. The steenbok  throughout  -km survey blocks in Mulobezi, Sichifulo Raphicerus campestris is considered to be at the extent of and the Nyawa/Simalaha areas. Detection probability and its north-east range approaching Kafue National Park, survey effort were optimized for large carnivores following with a single sighting recorded in Mulobezi. Funston et al. () and Thorn et al. (). In addition, a The absence of confirmed sightings of the caracal site-specific calibration process was undertaken during Caracal caracal and serval Leptailurus serval by Wildlife July–September , conducted at various spatio-temporal Police Officer patrols in southern Kafue National Park ap- scales, to establish the survey effort required to detect large pear to be an anomaly, given detections of the species in ad- carnivores and sample the landscape in a single season jacent Game Management Areas. Although it is likely this (MacKenzie & Royle, ; D.I. MacKenzie, pers. comm. anomaly represents non-detection error versus absence, ). In total,  -km transects were surveyed on foot we discarded these species from the final checklist.

TABLE 1 Species detected in various studies conducted in wildlife management areas at the Kafue–Zambezi interface (Fig. ), their IUCN Red List status, and whether or not there was a change Oryx in distribution between  and –. 09 34,764 53(4), 2019, ,

https://www.cambridge.org/core R. Kraljik (unpubl. Zambia Wildlife Authority Ansell (1978) data, 2013/2014) (unpubl. data, 2014/2015) This study (2014/2015) Distribution change 1978–2014/2015 Red List Kafue NP/ Kafue NP/ Kafue NP/ Species status1 South Mulobezi Sichifulo Simalaha Mulobezi Sichifulo South Mulobezi Sichifulo Mulobezi Sichifulo Simalaha South Mulobezi Sichifulo Simalaha – 773 Cheetah Acinonyx VU ✓✓✓✓✓✓✓ ✓✓ No No No Yes ©

. jubatus https://doi.org/10.1017/S0030605317001594 2 08Fua&FoaItrainldoi:10.1017/S0030605317001594 International Flora & Fauna 2018 Lion Panthera leo VU ✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓ No No No Yes Leopard Panthera VU ✓ ✓ ✓✓ ✓ ✓✓ ✓ ✓✓ ✓✓ No No No Yes2 pardus 2 . IPaddress: Spotted hyaena LC ✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓ No No No Yes Crocuta crocuta Side-striped jackal LC ✓✓✓✓✓✓✓ ✓✓✓No No No No Canis adustus

170.106.40.40 African wild dog EN ✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓ No No No Yes Lycaon pictus African elephant VU ✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓ No No No Yes2 Loxodonta africana ’ ✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓ 3 , on Burchell s zebra NT No No No Yes Equus quagga 29 Sep2021 at23:55:47 Warthog Phacochoerus LC ✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓ No No No Yes africanus Bushpig Potamochoerus LC ✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓ No No No Yes larvatus Hippopotamus VU ✓✓✓✓ ✓ No Yes2 Yes2 Yes2 Hippopotamus amphibius , subjectto theCambridgeCore termsofuse,available at Hartebeest Alcelaphus LC ✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓ No No No Yes lichtensteinii Blue wildebeest LC ✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓ No No No Yes3 Connochaetes taurinus Klipspringer Oreotragus LC ✓✓✓✓✓ No No No No oreotragus Oribi Ourebia ourebi LC ✓ ✓ ✓✓ ✓ ✓✓ ✓ ✓✓ ✓✓ No No No No Steenbok Raphicerus LC ✓✓✓✓ ✓ UK4 No Yes Yes campestris Sharpe’s grysbok LC ✓ ✓ ✓✓ ✓ ✓✓ ✓ ✓✓ ✓✓ No No No No Raphicerus sharpei African buffalo LC ✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓ No No No Yes

Syncerus caffer Kafue The Common eland LC ✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓ No No No Yes Tragelaphus oryx Bushbuck Tragelaphus LC ✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓ No No No Yes

scriptus – Sitatunga Tragelaphus LC ✓ Yes No No No 769 interface Zambezi spekii Greater kudu LC ✓ ✓ ✓✓ ✓ ✓✓ ✓ ✓✓ ✓✓ No No No No Tragelaphus strepsiceros Common duiker LC ✓ ✓ ✓✓ ✓ ✓✓ ✓ ✓✓ ✓✓ No No No No Sylvicapra grimmia 770 R. Lines et al.

Significant losses have occurred in the Simalaha 3 3 3 3 Communal Conservancy, where  of  terrestrial mammals were undetected (Fig. ) and the side-striped jackal Canis adu- 2014/2015

– stus was the only widespread carnivore detected. The spotted hyaena Crocuta crocuta and the leopard Panthera pardus were the only large carnivores detected within  km of the Zambezi River in the Nyawa communal areas (Fig. ). The re-

Mulobezi Sichifulo Simalaha mainder of the large carnivore guild appears to be extirpated from the Simalaha/Nyawa area, along with all ungulates .  kg except the southern reedbuck Redunca arundinum No No No Yes No No No Yes No No No Yes South NoNo NoNo NoNo No No Yes No No No No No No No No No No Yes and the greater kudu Tragelaphus strepsiceros. Kudu were also the only herding ungulate to be detected in Simalaha, although no aggregations of more than three individuals were detected. Neither the warthog Phacochoerus africanus nor the bushpig Potamochoerus larvatus,bothhabitatandfeeding generalists with high reproductive rates, were detected in Simalaha. Although .  head of game, comprising seven species, have been introduced into the , ha Simalaha Wildlife Recovery Sanctuary since , only the side-striped jackal was detected inside the (non-predator-proof) area. There was no evidence of any species range extension or recolonization throughout any of the sampled areas. Although no long-term or landscape-level survey programme is in place for systematic monitoring of changes Mulobezi Sichifulo Mulobezi Sichifulo Simalaha Kafue NP/ in species occurrence, distribution or abundance, much existing expertise and anecdotal evidence implies there have (unpubl. data, 2014/2015) This study (2014/2015) Distribution change 1978 Zambia Wildlife Authority been large-scale population declines throughout the South Greater Kafue System and beyond since  (C. Chifunte, L. Daka, J. Hanks, HRH Chief Moomba, P. Moss & HRH Chief Inyambo Yeta, pers. comms). Contemporary data indicate Kafue National Park, the region’s prime wildlife area, is maintaining the majority of terrestrial mammals at sig- data, 2013/2014) R. Kraljik (unpubl. nificantly below carrying capacity (Simukonda, ). Nonetheless, with few historical survey data available for direct comparison, we restricted our analyses to species di- ✓ versity at the scale of interest, versus any interpretation of spatio-temporal changes to community structure and abun-

 dance, which is beyond the scope of this article. –  Discussion ) Mulobezi Sichifulo Simalaha Mulobezi Sichifulo Kafue NP/

1978 Formal historical records accounting for species loss in the Simalaha and Nyawa areas are unavailable, although local ✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓ Kafue NP/ South Ansell ( ✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓ ✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓ ✓✓ ✓ ✓ ✓✓ ✓ ✓✓ ✓ ✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓ ✓✓ ✓✓✓ ✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓ Traditional Authorities (HRH Chief Inyambo Yeta & 

1 HRH Chief Moomba, pers. comms ) emphasized the

ha breeding camp during impact of the Angolan Bush War (–) as a key dri- LC LC Red List status LC LC NT LC LC LC

 ver, describing encampments of foreign combatants in ,

 Simalaha being used as a base to exploit the area’s wildlife for rations and profit. Following the cessation of hostilities Hystrix

.) there was a proliferation of small firearms in the area, and in Hippotragus conjunction with an increasing human population and lim- Cont Kobus leche Aepyceros ited funding for law enforcement and natural resource man- Kobus vardonii agement, unsustainable harvesting of wildlife continued. melampus niger africaeaustralis Kobus defassa Redunca arundinum Hippotragus equinus Extent of known range Non-resident individuals moving through the area, reported periodically by local people Reintroduced in fenced LC, Least Concern; NT, Near Threatened; VU, Vulnerable; EN, Endangered Impala Cape porcupine Table 1 ( Species Defassa waterbuck Lechwe Puku Southern reedbuck     Roan antelope Sable antelope Given these circumstances we hypothesize that wildlife

FIG. 5 Changes in carnivore and herbivore diversity in wildlife management areas at the Kafue–Zambezi interface (Fig. ) during –.

management areas closer to Kafue National Park were spared much of this pressure, having also received more political and revenue support for wildlife management in the long term (L. Daka, pers. comm. ). Surveys at the Kafue–Zambezi interface have employed a range of ad hoc methodological approaches that failed to detect the majority of resident species throughout this landscape. The absence of a reliable baseline undermines efforts to evaluate the effectiveness of large-scale conservation interventions required to deliver key programme objectives within and between clusters of wildlife management areas. FIG. 6 Distribution of the spotted hyaena Crocuta crocuta, cheetah Acinonyx jubatus, African wild dog Lycaon pictus, lion Acknowledging non-detection error, we confirm that the – .  Panthera leo and leopard Panthera pardus at the Kafue Zambezi diversity of terrestrial mammals ( kg) in southern Kafue interface (Fig. )in–. National Park remains unchanged since . Mulobezi and Sichifulo retain largely intact mammalian diversity, with the of wildlife occurrence and distribution south of the Zambezi notable exception of the hippopotamus. No new data could River throughout the wildlife management areas of the east- be provided for the presence of free-ranging giraffes in any ern Zambezi region in Namibia, and the potential effects of of these wildlife management areas. ecological traps/attractive sinks at transboundary scales on A single-season survey design increases non-detection wildlife management interventions in Simalaha and other error associated with species dispersal or seasonal wildlife neighbouring wildlife management areas of Zambia. movement patterns; nonetheless, widespread losses, includ- Broader scale implications of species loss and ecological ing three of six carnivore species and  of  prey species, traps within the Kavango–Zambezi Transfrontier Conser- were detected in the Simalaha Communal Conservancy/ vation Area relate to dominant narratives about the Nyawa areas, which link wildlife management areas at the connectivity of wildlife management areas. The extent to interface of the Greater Kafue System and adjacent wildlife which existing and emerging drivers of species loss are management areas in Namibia and Botswana. severing biological linkages between the Greater Kafue These data emphasize the challenges associated with the System and adjacent wildlife management areas remain scope and scale of conservation interventions required to unquantified and subject to speculation. However, data sug- limit factors driving species loss from seven of nine taxo- gest there is a connectivity bottleneck for large mammals in nomic families, representing a wide range of species traits. the Simalaha Communal Conservancy, with only  of  If drivers of species loss continue to limit population recov- species known from historical records detected throughout ery in the Simalaha/Nyawa areas then source–sink dynam- this area in –. ics and edge effects can have a negative impact on the The long-distance dispersal capabilities of large carni- population viability of vulnerable species in peripheral wild- vores imply scope for gene flow between the Greater life management areas at local and transboundary scales. Kafue System and adjacent wildlife management areas in Wide-ranging species are particularly susceptible to the Kavango–Zambezi Transfrontier Conservation Area, source–sink dynamics and edge effects, and therefore the and therefore the extent to which connectivity bottlenecks absence of large carnivores from the Simalaha and the impact processes of immigration and emigration in highly Simalaha Wildlife Recovery Sanctuary indicates the need mobile species is a priority area of research for regional con- for additional research to understand the status and drivers nectivity conservation management.

We focused on ascertaining changes to the occurrence and ANSELL, W.F.H. () Some mammals from Northern Rhodesia. distribution of  terrestrial mammals .  kg known from Journal of Natural History, , –.  four composite wildlife management areas between the ANSELL, W.F.H. ( ) Further data on Northern Rhodesian ungulates. Mammalia, , –. Greater Kafue System and a central cluster of wildlife manage- ANSELL, W.F.H. () Mammals of Northern Rhodesia. The ment areas in the Kavango–Zambezi Transfrontier Government Printer, Lusaka, Northern Rhodesia. Conservation Area, and the methodological approach was ANSELL, W.F.H. () The Mammals of Zambia. National Parks & successful for  species at the scale of interest. These data can- Wildlife Service. The Government Printer, Lusaka, Zambia.  not elucidate population numbers and trends, but it is appar- BATTIN,J.( ) When good animals love bad habitats: ecological traps and the conservation of animal populations. Conservation ent that ongoing attempts to maintain population viability of Biology, , –. vulnerable species and wildlife connectivity between clusters BELLARD, C., BERTELSMEIER, C., LEADLEY, P., THUILLER,W.& of wildlife management areas, and the promotion of wildlife- COURCHAMP,F.() Impacts of climate change on the future of based land uses, will depend on diagnosing and treating the biodiversity. Ecology Letters, , –. interacting ecological, socio-economic and political drivers BIGGS, R., SIMONS, H., BAKKENES, M., SCHOLES, R.J., EICKHOUT, B., VAN VUUREN,D.&ALKEMADE,R.() Scenarios of biodiversity of species loss within and between clusters of wildlife manage- loss in southern Africa in the st century. Global Environmental ment areas, utilizing comparative studies at appropriate tem- Change, , –. poral and spatial scales. The limits to which sufficient political BRELSFORD,W.V.() The Tribes of Zambia. The Government and economic capital can be leveraged to bridge these knowl- Printer, Lusaka, Zambia. edge gaps, act accordingly on the findings, and implement CARDILLO, M., MACE, G.M., GITTLEMAN, J.L., JONES, K.E., BIELBY,J. &PURVIS,A.() The predictability of extinction: biological and monitoring, evaluation and feedback are likely to determine ’ external correlates of decline in mammals. Proceedings of the Royal future connectivity for Zambia s majority component within Society B: Biological Sciences, , –. the Kavango–Zambezi Transfrontier Conservation Area. CSO (CENTRAL STATISTICS OFFICE OF ZAMBIA)() Http://www. zamstats.gov.zm/ [accessed  June ]. CUMMING, D.H.M. () Large Scale Conservation Planning and Acknowledgements Priorities for the Kavango–Zambezi Transfrontier Conservation Area. A report for Conservation International, Arlington, USA. We thank A. Nambota for assistance with study development; CUMMING, G.S. () Spatial Resilience in Social-ecological Systems. D. MacKenzie and P. Henschel for assistance with study de- Springer Science & Business Media, Dordrecht, Netherlands. DNPW (DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL PARKS AND WILDLIFE)() sign; P. Moss, J. Hanks and M. Musgrave for insights into Report on the  Aerial Census of Elephants and Other Large Kafue National Park and surrounding Game Management Mammals in Zambia: Volume II, Population Estimates for Other Areas; the Chilanga, Ngoma, Mulobezi and Mulanga offices Large Mammals and Birds. Department of National Parks and of the Department of Parks and Wildlife Management (for- Wildlife, Chilanga, Zambia.  merly the Zambia Wildlife Authority) for permissions and FISCHER, J., LINDENMAYER, D.B. & MANNING, A.D. ( ) Biodiversity, ecosystem function, and resilience: ten guiding field support; P. Matape, M. Samuntafu, E. Kashaye, principles for commodity production landscapes. Frontiers in D. Mundia, G. Kambole and R. Kraljic for field support; and Ecology and the Environment, , –. HRH Chief Inyambo Yeta of the Lozi and the late HRH Chief FUNSTON, P.J., FRANK, L., STEPHENS, T., DAVIDSON, Z., LOVERIDGE, Moomba of the Nkoya, for granting smooth passage through A., MACDONALD, D.M. et al. () Substrate and species their Chiefdoms. Funding was provided by Humane Society constraints on the use of track incidences to estimate African large carnivore abundance. Journal of Zoology, , –. Australia, WWF Namibia, MergerMarket Group and HANKS,J.() The role of Transfrontier Conservation Areas in Westwood, with grant management through TUSK Trust southern Africa in the conservation of mammalian biodiversity. In UK and the Namibia Nature Foundation. RL’s PhD is sup- Priorities for the Conservation of Mammalian Diversity. Has the ported by a University of Kent at Canterbury th Panda had its Day? (eds A. Entwistle & N. Dunstone), pp. –. Anniversary Graduate Teaching Scholarship. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. HANKS,J.() Transfrontier Conservation Areas (TFCAs) in southern Africa: their role in conserving biodiversity, socioeconomic development and promoting a culture of peace. Author contributions Journal of Sustainable Forestry, , –. HANKS,J.&MYBURGH,W.() The evolution and progression of RL designed and undertook fieldwork and wrote the article, Transfrontier Conservation Areas in the southern African with input from JT and DM on structure and analysis. development community. In Institutional Arrangements for Conservation, Development and Tourism in Eastern and Southern Africa (eds R. van der Duim, M. Lamers & J. van Wijk), pp. –. References Springer, Dordrecht, Netherlands. HOLUB,E.() Emil Holub’s Travels North of the Zambezi, –. ANDERSSON, J., DE GARINE-WICHATITSKY, M., CUMMING, D., Manchester University Press, Manchester, UK.  DZINGIRAI,V.&GILLER, K. (eds) () Transfrontier JACHMANN,H.( ) Comparison of aerial counts with ground Conservation Areas: People Living on the Edge. Routledge, counts for large African herbivores. Journal of Applied Ecology, , Abingdon, UK. –.

KAZA TFCA SECRETARIAT (a) Treaty Between the Governments QGIS DEVELOPMENT TEAM () Quantum GIS Geographic of Angola, Botswana, Namibia, Zambia and Zimbabwe on the Information System. Open Source Geospatial Foundation Project. Establishment of the Kavango–Zambezi Transfrontier Conservation Https://www.osgeo.org/projects/qgis/. Area. Kavango–Zambezi TFCA Secretariat, Kasane, Botswana. SAMPSON,R.() The Man with a Toothbrush in His Hat: The Story KAZA TFCA SECRETARIAT (b) Strategic Action Plan. Kavango– and Times of George Copp Westbeech in Central Africa. Multimedia Zambezi TFCA Secretariat, Kasane, Botswana. Publications, Lusaka, Zambia. KAZA TFCA Secretariat () Master Integrated Development Plan. SIMUKONDA,C.() A Countrywide Survey of Large Mammals, Kavango–Zambezi TFCA Secretariat, Victoria Falls, Zambia. Zambia. Zambia Wildlife Authority, Lusaka, Zambia. LANCASTER, D.G. () A Check List of the Mammals of Northern SUTHERLAND, W.J., PULLIN, A.S., DOLMAN, P.M. & KNIGHT, T.M. Rhodesia. The Government Printer, Lusaka, Northern Rhodesia. () The need for evidence-based conservation. Trends in Ecology LINDSEY, P., BALME, G., BECKER, M., BEGG, C., BENTO, C., & Evolution, , –. BOCCHINO, C. et al. (a) Illegal hunting and the bush-meat trade THORN, M., GREEN, M., BATEMAN, P.W., CAMERON, E.Z., YARNELL, in savanna Africa: drivers, impacts and solutions to address the R.W. & SCOTT, D.M. () Comparative efficacy of sign surveys, problem. FAO, Panthera/Zoological Society of London/Wildlife spotlighting and audio playbacks in a landscape-scale carnivore Conservation Society report, New York, USA. survey. South African Journal of Wildlife Research, , –. LINDSEY, P.A., HAVEMANN, C.P., LINES, R.M., PRICE, A.E., RETIEF,T. UNEP-WCMC (UNITED NATIONS ENVIRONMENT PROGRAMME A., RHEBERGEN,T.etal.(b) Benefits of wildlife-based land uses WORLD CONSERVATION MONITORING CENTRE)(). Protected Planet on private lands in Namibia and limitations affecting their Database. Http://www.protectedplanet.net [accessed  May ]. development. Oryx, , –. UNITED NATIONS,DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL MACKENZIE, D.I. & ROYLE, J.A. () Designing occupancy studies: AFFAIRS,POPULATION DIVISION () World Population general advice and allocating survey effort. Journal of Applied Prospects: The  Revision. Key Findings and Advance Tables. Ecology, , –. Working Paper No. ESA/P/WP.. MARGULES, C.R. & PRESSEY, R.L. () Systematic conservation VAN DER LINDE, H., OGLETHORPE, J., SANDWITH, T., SNELSON, D., planning. Nature, , –. TESSEMA, Y., TIÉGA,A.&PRICE,T.() Beyond Boundaries: MAXWELL, S.L., FULLER, R.A., BROOKS, T.M. & WATSON, J.E.M. Transboundary Natural Resource Management in Sub-Saharan () Biodiversity: the ravages of guns, nets and bulldozers. Nature, Africa. Biodiversity Support Program, Washington, DC, USA. , –. WATSON, F.G.R., BECKER, M.S., MILANZI,J.&NYIRENDA,M.() MILLENNIUM ECOSYSTEM ASSESSMENT () Ecosystems and Human encroachment into protected area networks in Zambia: Human Well-being: Synthesis. Island Press, Washington, DC, USA. implications for large carnivore conservation. Regional MOSS,P.() Handbook to Kafue National Park. Future Publishing Environmental Change, , –. (PTY) Ltd., Johannesburg, South Africa. WOODROFFE,R.&GINSBERG, J.R. () Edge effects and the MUSGRAVE,M.() Scale, Governance and Change in Zambezi Teak extinction of populations inside protected areas. Science, , Forests: Sustainable Development for Commodity and Community. –. Cambridge Scholars Publishing, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK. WWF () A brighter future for communities and wildlife. Http:// NEWMARK, W.D. () Isolation of African protected areas. Frontiers www.worldwildlife.org/stories/a-brighter-future-for-communities- in Ecology and the Environment, , –. and-wildlife [accessed  February ]. OGUTU, J.O., PIEPHO, H.P., SAID, M.Y., OJWANG, G.O., NJINO, L.W., ZAWA (ZAMBIA WILDLIFE AUTHORITY)() General Management Plan KIFUGO, S.C. & WARGUTE,P.W.() Extreme wildlife declines for Kafue National Park. ZAWA, Chilanga, Zambia. and concurrent increase in livestock numbers in Kenya: what are the ZBICZ,D.() Transboundary cooperation between internationally causes? PLoS ONE, (), e. adjoining protected areas. In On the Frontiers of Conservation: PACHAURI, R.K., ALLEN, M.R., BARROS, V.R., BROOME, J., CRAMER, Proceedings of the th Conference on Research and Resource W., C HRIST, R. et al. () Climate Change : Synthesis Report. Management in Parks and on Public Lands. The George Wright Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment Society, Hancock, USA. Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Geneva, Switzerland. Biographical sketches PITMAN,C.() A Report on a Faunal Survey of Northern Rhodesia. Government Printer, Livingstone, Northern Rhodesia. R OBIN L INES is a conservation biologist working on large carnivore con- PPF (PEACE PARKS FOUNDATION)() Integrated Development servation, human–wildlife interactions, community conservation and the Plan for the Zambian Component of the Kavango–Zambezi promotion of wildlife-based land uses. J OSEPH T ZANOPOULOS is inter- Transfrontier Conservation Area. Peace Parks Foundation, ested in geographical informationsystems, nature conservationpolicyand Stellenbosch, South Africa. governance, and impact assessment of land-use changes. D OUGLAS PPF (PEACE PARKS FOUNDATION)() Restocking Simalaha M ACM ILLAN is interested in the economics of wildlife conservation, Community Conservancy. Http://www.peaceparks.org/news.php? wildlife trade and poaching, human–wildlife interactions, and land-use pid=&mid=&lid= [accessed  July ]. change.