Wildlife, livestock and food security in the South East Lowveld of

David Cumming

Tropical Resource Ecology Programme, University of Zimbabwe Key issues/questions: 1. For subsistence farmers in arid areas livestock are a dominant component of their livelihood strategies • Wildlife diseases issues (FMD/BTB/Tryps) • Predators & competition for grazing

2. For commercial farmers wildlife/tourism is an increasingly attractive option • Politically it is poorly supported • Perceived as a threat to food security

3. For state and private enterprise TFCAs are a key to the development of peripheral marginal lands • Subsistence farmers feel threatened • Commercial farmers welcome the development At the center of the debate are the issues of: • Food security for subsistence farmers • Distribution of benefits from wildlife as a land use

Three questions:

• How important is livestock to food security in the South East Lowveld? • Can wildlife production systems meet livelihood needs more efficiently than livestock? • If not what are the alternatives Area: c. 50,000 km2

Altitude: 300-600m

Rainfall: SVC <400mm, CV >35%

0m 60 Temp: 25-27.5º C GNP Bw Mz Growing season:

SA c. 90 days

South East Lowveld of Zimbabwe

Satellite Image from S. Prince – University of Maryland, 2000 Land tenure in SE Lowveld - 57,000 km2 Land category % of Area People/km2 Communal Land 44.2 11 - 52 Large-scale C. Farms - irrigation <0.01 ? Cattle ranches 16 ? < 3 Wildlife + cattle 9 < 3 Conservancies 13 < 3 Small-scale Commercial Farms 0.5 <10 Resettlement land 5.6 ? Parks &Wildlife Estate 11.1 <1

Î Wildlife use on c. 35%+ of the SEL Communal Lands – subsistence & vulnerability

Cereal Production 350 All well below the 300 security threshold of Threshold = 250 kg.capita. yr

on 250

s 250kg/person/year r 200 pe r 150 pe

g 100 K 50 0 Machuchuta Marimani Masera

Communal Land

Cereal Production in 3 Communal Lands in District 15 year average Communal Lands – subsistence & vulnerability

20

18

16 H

H 14 s/ t i 12 n 10

ock U 8

6 vest

Li 4

2

- Machuchuta Marimani Masera Communal Land

Maize equivalent income from livestock 1998/1999 above 250 Kg threshold Masera 1,433 kg/capita 290 kg/capita Communal Lands – subsistence & vulnerability

Fluctuations in livestock holdings – Matibi II Communal Land

60,000 No. Cattle Drought War & 50,000 No. People Disease e l

t 40,000 t a C

or 30,000 ople e . P

o 20,000 N

10,000

- 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1976 1980 1990 1992 2000

YEAR Communal Lands – farm size e.g. Matibi II

60000 700 Population 50000 Ha/HH 600

500 40000 Threshold = 400 ha/HH ? hold

ople 400 30000 ouse

300 r H of Pe o pe

N 20000 200 a H

10000 100

0 0 1920 1940 1960 1980 2000 YEAR Land required per HH with minimum external inputs: • Access to 20 ha arable (5 year rotation of 4ha) • c. 400 ha of grazing land to maintain a herd of 25 cattle and 35 goats Î By 1940 land available per HH was less than required Communal Lands – Returns from wildlife

What wildlife returns are required to move HH above the subsistence level?

Beitbridge District: Campfire Revenues 80000 US$ 30,000 70000 60000 = c.100,000 kg maize meal 50000 = food for 400 people $ 40000 US 30000 20000 Population of Marimani 10000 Communal Land = 4,200 0 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 Year

Î Negligible contribution to food security Commercial Ranches – Returns from wildlife Wildlife based economy and food security?

Returns from commercial wildlife (US$): Gross revenue $6 - 8 ha 50% profit $3 - 4 ha

Maize Equivalent Income from profits: = c. 10kg maize meal per ha or 3- 4 people per km2 or 1 HH to 200 ha

Î At current human densities of 1 HH to <50ha the wildlife option is also not a viable food security option

“The problem is that cattle are mine but wildlife is ours” Solutions?

1. Put a premium on, and invest in, higher valued land uses, diversification and intensification • Irrigation + markets at scales from HH gardens to major schemes • Wildlife and cultural tourism 2. Decouple wealth creation from NPP 3. Match land use and ecological process scales 4. Develop policy and supporting legal frameworks that enable, rather than stifle, innovation and adaptability in resource access rights