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 evo- lution 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

Load more