BINDURA UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE EDUCATION

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE

TROPHY HUNTING PATTERNS AND STAKEHOLDER PERCEPTIONS FOR ELEPHANT ( Loxodonta africana ) AND BUFFALO ( Syncerus caffer ) IN GOKWE SOUTH, ZIMBABWE

MARINDWA PAMHIDZAI PATIENCE

B1232733

A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE BACHELOR OF ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE HONOURS DEGREE IN NATURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT

December 2015

DEDICATION I dedicate this to my parents for all their support and care.

i

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to thank all those who worked extremely hard to ensure the success of this write up. First my thanks go to the entire staff at SWRA for allocating resources that contributed to this research, great appreciation goes to the principal ecologist at Sengwa Wildlife Research Area (SWRA) Mr G. H. Moyo, as well the endless support of the senior ranger scientific services Mr E Chinoitezvi. To the late W. J. Mavheneka for guidance I thank you all. Special thanks also go to my academic supervisor Mr W. Mhlanga, for all his time and assistance and Mr S. Wachenuka for liaising with RDC for my data collection. Not forgetting my fellow companions Shaddy, Bonnie and Fortue for helping me during the field work. I would also want to thank the area manager Central Region Mr A. Sibanda for all his help not forgetting the support of Mr K. Zhou. Lastly my gratitude is extended to my family members, mum, dad, Manyara, Simba and Shingie for all their support during the compilation of this write up. I thank God for the guidance and wisdom he has shown me though out this phase.

ii

ABSTRACT

Trophy quality patterns and hunting success rate for elephant Loxodonta africana and buffalo Syncerus caffer in Gokwe South were analysed from 2004-2014. Trophy quality data were obtained from hunting records and Hunting Return Forms. Stakeholder perceptions were determined through assessing, the Local Ecological Knowledge (LEK) on the trophy quality and hunting success rate in the district for elephant buffalo and lion. This was obtained through using thirty semi-structured questionnaires administered to seven different categories of stakeholders involved in hunting in the area. The questionnaires asked questions on socio-demographic aspects, trophy quality trends and hunting success rate and effort. A One Way ( Kruskal Wallis ) Anova test, of the trophy quality data showed that from 2004 to 2014, there were significant annual variations for elephant trophy quality (p < 0.05) and for buffalo, the variations were not significantly different (p > 0.05). Local Ecological Knowledge showed that there was low hunting success rate or buffalo (73.3%) while for elephant it was high (83.3%). The results revealed that trophy quality for elephant and buffalo was decreasing over the study period. The major contributors of this were reported to be anthropogenic factors like poaching. It is recommended that management considers further reduction of quotas and improvement of monitoring systems of the hunting industry in CAMPFIRE areas.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CONTENT PAGE DEDICATION ...... i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...... ii ABSTRACT ...... iii LIST OF FIGURES ...... vi LIST OF TABLES ...... vii ACRONYMS ...... viii CHAPTER ONE ...... 1 INTRODUCTION ...... 1 1.1 Background to the Study ...... 1 1.2 Problem Statement ...... 2 1.3 Justification ...... 2 1.4 Aim ...... 3 1.5 Objectives ...... 3 1.6 Hypotheses ...... 3 CHAPTER TWO ...... 4 LITERATURE REVIEW ...... 4 2.1 Trophy Hunting ...... 4 2.2 Trophy Hunting in Africa ...... 4 2.3 Hunting in Communal Areas ...... 4 2.4 Overview of Campfire Programme ...... 5 2.5 Conservation Role of Hunting ...... 6 2.6 Threats to Trophy Hunting in Communal Areas ...... 6 2.7 Effects of Trophy Hunting on Species ...... 8 2.8 Hunting Quota ...... 8 2.9 Hunting Success Rate ...... 9 CHAPTER THREE ...... 10 METHODOLOGY ...... 10

iv

3.1 Description of Study Area ...... 10 3.2 Research Design...... 11 3.3 Data Collection Methods ...... 11 3.4 Data Analysis ...... 12 CHAPTER FOUR ...... 14 RESULTS ...... 14 4.1: Trophy Size Trends For Elephant and Buffalo from 2004-2014 ...... 14 4.2: Hunting Success Rate For Elephant and Buffalo from 2004-2014 ...... 15 4.3: Stakeholders Perceptions on Trophy Hunting in the Area ...... 17 CHAPTER FIVE ...... 30 DISCUSSION ...... 30 5.1: Trophy Size Trends for Elephant and Buffalo from 2004 to 2014...... 30 5.2 Hunting Success Rate of Elephant and Buffalo from 2004-2014...... 31 5.3: Stakeholders Perceptions on Trophy Hunting Characteristics in Gokwe South District...... 31 CHAPTER SIX ...... 39 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 39 6.1 CONCLUSION ...... 39 6.2 RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 40 REFERENCES ...... 40 APPENDICES ...... 46 Appendix 1: Questionnaire ...... 46 Appendix 2: Data Sheet Showing Years, Mean Annual Trophy Size, Allocated Quota and Utilised Quota for Buffalo And Elephant in Gokwe South District From 2004 To 2014 ...... 49

v

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 3.1: Map showing Gokwe South district…………………………………………………15

Figure 4.1: Mean Annual Trophy Quality for Elephant ( Loxodonta africana ) in Gokwe South from (2004-2014)………………………………………………………………………………..16

Figure4. 2: Mean annual trophy quality for buffalo ( Syncerus caffer) from 2004-2014 in Gokwe South district……………………………………………………………………………………..17

Figure4. 3: Hunting success rate for Elephant ( Loxodonta africana ) from 2004-2014 in Gokwe South district……………………………………………………………………………………..18

Figure4. 4: Hunting success rate for buffalo ( Syncerus caffer) from 2007 -2014 in Gokwe South district……………………………………………………………………………………………18

Figure 4.5: Designation of respondents………………………………………………………....18

Figure 4.6: Respondents age groups………………………………………………………...... 19

Figure 4.7: Respondents perception on encounter rate………………………………………...21

Figure 4.8: Respondents perception on population status of key species………………………21

Figure 4.9: Perception on quota allocated to the RDC from (2004-2014)…………………...... 25

Figure 4.10: Respondents perceptions on whether or not PAC affects trophy quality………....25

Figure 4.11: species regarded as problem animals…………………………………………….27

Figure 4.12: percentage ‘yes’ responses of poaching in the area………………………………28

vi

LIST OF TABLES Table 4.1: Kruskal Wallis test on trophy size of elephant and buffalo from 2004 to 2014... ….. .16

Table 4.2: Focus group discussion findings……………………………………………………...19

Table 4.3: Designation of Respondents...... ………………………………………………...…20

Table 4.4: Respondents hunting time frame in Gokwe communal area………………………....20

Table 4.5: Respondents perceptions of trophy quality status…………………………………....22

Table 4.6: Areas where elephants are hunted………………………………………………...... 22

Table 4.7: Areas where buffaloes are hunted…………………………………………...... 23

Table 4.8: Areas where Lions are hunted …………………………………………………...23

Table 4.9: Days needed to kill an Elephant……………………………………………………..24

Table 4.10: Days needed to kill a Buffalo……………………………………………………....24

Table 4.11: Days needed to kill a Lion……………………………………………………...... 24

Table 4.12 : Respondents perceptions of hunting success rate in the district…………………..25

Table 4.13: Respondents perceptions on perceived factors contributing to decline in hunting success rate…………………………………………………………………………………….26

Table 4.14: Respondents perceptions on the types of poaching………………………………..28

Table4.15: Methods used for Elephant poaching………………………………………………29

Table 4.16: Methods used for Buffalo poaching………………………………………………..29

Table 4.17: Methods used for Lion poaching…………………………………………………..29

Table 4.18: Respondents perceptions on ways to improve trophy hunting……………………..30

vii

ACRONYMS AA Appropriate Authority

CAMPFIRE Communal Area Management Programme for Indigenous Resources

CBNRM Community Based Natural Resources Management

RDC Rural District Council

RW Rowland Ward

SCI Safari Club International

SWRA Sengwa Wildlife Research Area

SWRI Sengwa Wildlife Research Institute

TR2 Tourism Return Form 2

WWF World Wildlife Fund for Nature

WWMC Ward Wildlife Management Committee

viii

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background to the Study

Trophy hunting is defined as a specific and selective legal form of wildlife use that involves payment for a hunting experience and the acquisition of a trophy by the hunter (Lindsey 2006). Trophy hunting is self-regulating in the sense that low off-takes are required to ensure high trophy quality and marketability in future seasons (Peter and Lindsey 2008). Trophy hunting creates crucial financial incentives for the communities as most of Communal Area Management Programme for Indigenous Resources (CAMPFIRE) activities are anchored on sport hunting activities. Hunting of elephant, buffalos and lions provides the bulk of the revenue for CAMPFIRE since these are the three most valuable trophy animals in Zimbabwe (Gandiwa et al 2014). In fact, elephant hunting provides about 80% of CAMPFIRE revenue (Moyo 2010).

Even though on knowledge actual population numbers of wild animals is important in managing safari hunting, wildlife managers in Rural District Councils (RDCs), because of limited resources available for them to carry out ground counts, rely on trends in animal populations. The trend will show if the population is increasing, decreasing or staying the same so as to maintain sustainable offtakes. Furthermore, trophy quality is a direct indicator of sustainability of offtakes and quotas (Moyo 2010). In general, a decline in trophy quality points to an offtake regime that is too high. A quota is deemed to be unsustainable if its offtakes are above the rate at which the species population is able to increase naturally (intrinsic rate of increase) (Lindsey 2006)..

The conservation role of hunting is limited by a series of problems which include unsustainable quota offtakes and lack of sound population monitoring techniques (Lindsey 2006). As such ecological research and monitoring of aspects like that of trophy quality are considered a vital part of the management programme (WWF 1997). In addition sustainable utilization is an integral part of the adaptive management plan UICN (2009), which aims is to provide a quality hunting experience to tourists so as to generate a thriving local economy to finance CAMPFIRE activities. Monitoring of trophy quality, hunting effort as well as hunting success rate provides an indirect,

1 relatively inexpensive means of determining whether current quota size and off-take are sustainable in the long run (Collen and Begg 2007).

One can argue and say that the conservation effectiveness of sport hunting can be viewed in terms of maximizing trophy quality and economic returns while maintaining the viability and growth of wildlife populations through ecologically sustainable hunting practices (Collen and Begg 2007).

In the context of sport hunting sustainability means that the quality of trophies will be maintained year after year (WWF 1997). Thus trophy quality has a bearing on the wildlife populations in the wild as well as revenue realized from the utilisation of wildlife. It is important to establish trends in sport hunting offtakes mainly focusing on trophy quality trends as well as looking into the hunting success rates (Taylor 2007). This information is vital in the sense that it helps in determining the ecological sustainability of consumptive use of wildlife resources, Gandiwa et al (2014) in an area which in Gokwe South is the major source of income for the CAMPFIRE programme.

1.2 Problem Statement

There is generally an over reliance on sport hunting by the CAMPFIRE programme for revenue generation and this has resulted in increased pressure on some species populations, especially elephants, buffalo and lions. Although quotas are issued annually to ensure hunting remains sustainable, more often than not they are set without reference to objective ecological and population monitoring data. Quotas are driven by economic needs rather than biological considerations. This has rendered the program extremely susceptible to diminishing trophy quality and shrinkage of sustainable harvests. This study is intended to determine current and past hunting offtakes of elephant, lion and buffalo in Gokwe South District as well as the trends in trophy quality of the three species from 2004-2014.

1.3 Justification

Knowledge on trophy quality, as well as hunting success rate provides an indirect and relatively inexpensive means of determining whether current quota size and off-take are sustainable in the long run (Collen and Begg 2007). Considering that RDCs have limited resources to carry out

2 ground counts, trend indicators on trophy quality and hunting success rate will be useful to the RDC by providing current data which they can in the triangulation process in quota setting workshops for which future quotas can be based. Trophy quality has a bearing on the wildlife populations in the wild as well as revenue realized from the utilisation of wildlife as such it is important to establish trends as well as hunting success rate. This information is vital in the sense that it helps in determining the ecological sustainability of consumptive use of wildlife resources in an area.

1.4 Aim

The aim of this research was to determine trophy hunting patterns and stakeholders perceptions for elephant, lion and buffalo in Gokwe South District, using trends in trophy quality of the three species from 2004-2014.

1.5 Objectives

To determine the trends in trophy quality for elephant and buffalo from 2004-2014.
To assess the hunting success rate with respect to percentage quota utilisation for buffalo and elephant from 2004-2014.
To determine stakeholder perceptions on trophy hunting

1.6 Hypotheses

H0 : There is no significant difference in mean trophy quality of elephant from 2004 to 2014

H0 : There is no significant difference in mean trophy quality of buffalo from 2004 to 2014

H1 :There is a significant difference in mean trophy quality of elephant from 2004 to 2014

H1 :There is a significant difference in mean trophy quality of buffalo from 2004 to 2014

3

CHAPTER TWO

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Trophy Hunting Trophy hunting is defined as a specific and selective legal form of wildlife use that involves payment for a hunting experience and the acquisition of a trophy by the hunter (Save the Rhino 2012). According to the Parks and Wildlife Act (Chapter 20: 14, of 2002) a trophy means any horn, ivory, tooth, tusk and skull of an animal whether processed or not. Quality is the attribute that makes the trophy different from others. From the above definitions, trophy quality means the exceptions of the tusk weigh, for elephants, length for buffalos as well as the length of the skull in lions. Sport hunting can generate substantial revenue for conservation of species (Loveridge 2006). Hunting is a selective force (Loveridge 2006) hence low offtakes are required, mainly targeting high level of males that are surplus to the breeding requirements of the population (Chimuti et al , 2000). In general, potential hunting clients select hunting destinations based on the diversity and quality of trophies on offer (Lindsey et al 2006).

2.2 Trophy Hunting in Africa Trophy hunting is permitted in 23 countries in Africa, with the largest industries occurring in Southern Africa and Tanzania, where the industry is expanding (Chimuti et al ., 2000). Approximately about 1.4 million km² is used for trophy hunting in sub-Saharan Africa, which exceeds the area encompassed by national parks (UICN/PACO 2009). In Southern Africa, trophy hunting represents an important industry that significantly contributes not only to national economies but also to maintaining the livelihoods of many rural communities through employment creation and revenue generation (Chimuti et al ., 2000). The significance of trophy hunting in Africa is well documented (Muposhi et al 2015).

2.3 Hunting in Communal Areas There is an increasing realization that Africa’s parks network does not adequately conserve biodiversity, and that there is a need to conserve wildlife outside of protected areas (Fjeldsa et al ., 2004). Only 5.5 percent of the land in Southern Africa is arable, so a large number of people are

4 living in areas of marginal agricultural value for example the communities in Gokwe South (Moyo 2010). These are regions that generally offer limited local economic opportunities beyond small- scale agriculture and animal husbandry. As such it is imperative for conservationists to involve local people, residing in buffer zones whose livelihoods may be compromised by conservation actions (Adams and Hulme 2001, Hulme and Murphree 2001).

Local communities are increasingly playing a part in the sport hunting industry. Approximately 30% of sport hunting occurs in communal lands, 30% in private lands and 40% is safari areas (Bond 1997). Consumptive (sport hunting) and non-consumptive (ecotourism) rights to wildlife and wild land are leased to the private sector operators by the RDC. The RDC is primarily responsible for determining the conditions of such leases, such as financial structure, duration and location (Bond 1997). Most of the primary wildlife producing districts, however, have chosen to lease internationally marketed sport hunting rights to private sector partners because this has been the highest valued use to date (Cumming 1989, Bond 2000, Taylor 1994). The gross wildlife revenue earned is allocated to district council levies, district wildlife management activities and to wildlife producer communities as represented by wards (Bond 2001). It is that revenue allocated to communities through Ward Wildlife Management Committees (WWMC) which is intended to provide the financial incentive for households to participate in the collective management of wildlife (Bond 2001).

2.4 Overview of Campfire Programme The concept of Community Based Natural Resources Management is based on the common property theory which involves a collaborative management between local people and conservation authorities. The Communal Area Management Programme for Indigenous Resources (CAMPFIRE) is a major CBNRM programme, which was developed in response to the realization that unless communities living adjacent to national parks can obtain direct value from wildlife, they will not protect the wildlife (Murphree, 1993; Jones and Murphree, 2001). The 1982 amendment of the 1975 Parks and Wildlife Act resulted in the legalised devolution of authority, known as Appropriate Authority (AA) status to Rural District Councils (RDCs) the administrative board for communal areas. Theoretically the focus of CAMPFIRE is on all natural resources including, wildlife, woodlands, water, grazing resources, and grasslands however the mainly focus has been on managing wildlife because of the direct monetary benefits which this resource offered

5 to producer communities (Bond 2001). To date land under CAMPFIRE constitutes 50,000 km2, the average size of wild land 3,300 km 2. The number of CAMPFIRE Districts amounts to 58 where 28 Safari operators are operational (Gandiwa et al 2014).

2.5 Conservation Role of Hunting There have been debates on the role of trophy hunting in wildlife conservation by scientists for decades (Dickson et al 2009). It is difficult to reach a consensus on the role of hunting in wildlife conservation (Crossmary et al 2015). The sustainability of trophy hunting as a conservation tool lies in the long term monitoring of harvested populations (Dunham et al 2008).

Conserving wildlife in Africa is often difficult as it conflicts with humans and their activities. The sustainable harvesting and hunting of animals has often turned out to be a highly effective conservation measure (Taylor, 2007). Hunting is an important tool in conservation although it must not be seen as conservation in itself (Dunham 2008). Trophy hunting is thus of major importance to conservation in Africa by creating economic incentives for conservation over vast areas, including areas which may be unsuitable for alternative wildlife-based land uses such as ecotourism (Lindsey et al 2006). Low off-takes and high prices mean that trophy hunting can play a role in creating incentives for the conservation of threatened and endangered species (Leader- Williams et al 2005) as is the case with South African rhinos.

2.6 Threats to Trophy Hunting in Communal Areas 2.6.1 Lack of Devolution of Wildlife Management

Nowhere in CAMPFIRE has wildlife presented a viable mechanism for household accumulation though it is seen as beneficial to the extent that it subsidies local authorities (Murombedzi 2009). For conservation outside of parks to be successful, sufficient revenue must be generated from wildlife to offset opportunity costs associated with protecting wildlife and habitats. The biggest challenge remains on how to quickly increase the level of revenues for the communities and to devolve the level of ownership rights (Appropriate Authority) down to the ward or village level (Lindsey et al 2006). Failure of governments to devolve ownership of wildlife to communities or to develop skills among communities that would enable greater participation in the hunting

6 industry (Lewis and Alpert 1997; Mayaka et al 2004; Child 2005; Lindsey et al 2007) is a cause for concern .

2.6.2 Lack of development of local communities

The greatest threat to the sustainability of trophy hunting in communal areas is the failure of governments and hunting operators to devolve adequate benefits to local communities (Lindsey et al 2007), which reduces incentives for rural people to conserve wildlife. Inequitable distribution of hunting revenue is caused by inadequate legislation to enforce community benefits. Thus the current top down approach is clearly not working and promotes bad governance of natural resources (Moyo 2010). Participation can be in the form of involvement in hunting decision, taking part in quota setting workshops and knowledge of how hunting is being conducted (Child 2005).

2.6.3 Lack of reinvestment in conservation

Lindsey, et al (2007) argues that poor management in the form of lack of re investment into conservation efforts may undermine the sustainability of trophy hunting and jeopardize the persistence of harvested species. Although sport hunting has established high economic values, this revenue is primarily realised by government and sport hunting tour operators less is channeled for ecological and conservation efforts for example the case of Tanzania (Edwards and Allen 1992).

2.6.4 Poaching

Generally there is lack of systematic information on contribution of CBNRM to hunting. According to Siamwanza (2003) there is evidence to show that half of populations have declined due to poaching in Game Management Areas in Zambia. Dunham (2008) is of the view that poaching in the Sebungwe region has increased. This induces over harvesting of species in an area resulting in unsustainable offtakes which exceed the recommended offtake rates per species.

2.6.5 Human Population increase

Human population increase in rural areas is an issue of major concern. Increase in population destroys once maintained buffer zones leading to loss of habitats and increased incidents of Human

7 and Wildlife Conflicts (Mayaka et al 2004). Jones (2012) is of the view that increased settlements have led to decline in species populations.

2.7 Effects of Trophy Hunting on Species Trophy hunting can cause undesirable, detrimental effects if unmonitored (Lindsey et al . 2012). Historically trophy hunting has been linked to extinction and population decline of species (Roth and Merz 1996). In the 1980s, hunting contributed to drastic reductions in populations of the dorcas gazelle ( Gazella dorcas ) and to extermination of the Nubian bustard ( Neotisnuba species) from Sahelian Africa (Newby 1990). Hunting is a selective force (Loveridge 2006) and must have consequences for demography and population genetics. Trophy hunting can induce undesirable evolutionary consequences (Coltman et al , 2003), in Africa the number of tuskless elephants has increased most likely as a consequence of ivory hunting (Coltman et al 2014). Trophy hunting may decrease the proportion of large adult males and modify the social organization of hunted species, (Fergusson 1990). In line with this , Macdonald (2001) found that sport hunting in safari concessions surrounding Hwange National Park, Zimbabwe, removed around 67% of mature male lions from a study population and reduced the proportion of males in the adult population from around 30% to 13% there by modifying social organisation of species.. Sport hunting can have an impact on movement behavior Loveridge (2006) where animals can move from areas of disturbance to safer areas like national parks. Ruth et al (2003) showed that in hunting areas adjacent to Yellowstone National Park, cougars ( Puma concolor ) and elk (Cervus elaphus ) avoided areas where hunting occurred.

2.8 Hunting Quota A wildlife quota represents the number of animals that can be safely harvested from a population each year without biologically damaging that population (WWF 1997). In Zimbabwe determination and implementation of hunting quotas goes through a rigorous quota setting methodology that entails factoring population sizes, area sizes, habitats, national policies among other parameters (Nyaguse 2014). A scientific basis for setting quotas is important in ensuring a sustained and enhanced biological functionality of a population. Triangulation (use of different methods for one outcome) of methods to remove elements of bias, reduce errors and enhance reliability is applied. For the RDC a wildlife quota can be used in different ways for example sport hunting, culling, problem animal control, translocation/live sales as well as cropping (WWF 1997).

8

Setting quotas ensures that wildlife populations maintain themselves and continue to survive biologically into the future. Quota setting is an effective means of linking benefit to investment in management. Wildlife moves over wide distances unpredictably and thus is best managed under a common property regime with participatory management (Taylor and Bond 2000).

2.9 Hunting Success Rate Hunting success rate is defined as the percentage of the allocated quota taken over a season (WWF 1997). The rates at which animals on the quota are harvested, is called the percentage offtake rate (WWF 1997). Offtake rates are used to calculate the hunting success rate due to the realization that there is little connection between the amount of days taken to kill an animal, with the availability of desirable trophies of that species in the wild (Moyo 2010). Thus calculating hunting success rate using percentage utilization is a more accurate way within a given population. Offtake trends, (exhaustion or non-exhaustion of quotas) are reflective of availability of animals on a property (Nyaguse 2014). It is therefore important that quotas allocated to a property are analysed to reveal the level of utilisation of the quota. Hunting returns also indicate the effort expended in acquiring a specified trophy animal. In this context it is safe to conclude that increased hunting effort, especially if it is in combination with low success rates points to poor presence of trophy animals on a property Nyaguse (2014).

2.8.1 Factors Affecting Hunting Success Rate There are several reasons why a quota may not be fully utilised. Among these are poor marketing of the quota, failure to find suitable trophies this is caused by decreased trophy quality trends in the country of late (WWF 1997). Wrong timing of hunts in the case of migratory herds’ negatively affects hunting success rate, as well as spatial distribution patterns and demographics (Loveridge 2006). In CAMPFIRE areas hunting is often opportunistic in nature, since most species especially elephants and buffalo that are hunted are migratory, moving between the communal areas and state protected areas (Gandiwa et al 2014). One key issue which affects hunting success rate is of habitat loss through settlement (Dunham and Mackie 2002). Furthermore, habitat fragmentation caused by high population levels of humans in communal areas leads to decreased hunting success rate on property. (Dunham and Mackie 2002).

9

CHAPTER THREE

METHODOLOGY

3.1 Description of Study Area

Gokwe South district is located in the Midlands province. To its north lies Gokwe North district, to the West there is Binga communal lands and to the east there is Zhombe district. Clay but alkaline soils are evident while the sandy soils vary with vegetation types found in the area with, Jesse/Thickets having sandy soils and scrub Mopane having shallow coarse grained sand which are easily eroded .The district is in agro ecological region three. The main activity in the area is subsistence agriculture. Main crops grown include maize, sorghum millet and groundnuts (Moyo 2013). Semi subsistence agriculture also takes place with cotton being the cash crop grown. Gokwe South district has eight wards namely Nemangwe 5, Masuka, Huchu, Sai 2, 3, 4, Jiri and Jahana (RDC report 1994).

Figure 3.1: Map showing Gokwe South district: Adapted from (Mapedza 2008).

10

3.2 Research Design

Purposive random design was used in the study where people who participate in hunting such as trackers, professional hunters, wildlife officers and skinners were the target population. This type of research design was used because the questions targeted were technical thus requiring an audience with enough expertise and know how in the hunting industry. The animal species selected (elephant and buffalo) were selected considering the high prices obtained for their trophies in hunting and due to their iconic status as members of the ‘big-five ’.

3.3 Data Collection Methods The study looked at two data collection methods that is qualitative primary data (use of a questionnaire and focus group discussion) and quantitative secondary data (on trophy quality and hunting success). This multi method approach to data collection increased the strength and the reliability of evaluation data (Altshuld and Witkin 2000).

3.3.1 Qualitative Data (stakeholder perceptions)

Questionnaire

Semi-structured questionnaires were self-administered through face to face interviews with thirty respondents selected based upon their knowledge, involvement and participation in hunting in the area. Due to the fact that there is only one concession operating in Gokwe South the target population was very small constituting of thirty employees directly involved in hunting in the district. The sample was grouped into seven categories as follows professional hunters, wildlife officers, trackers, skinners, RDC staff, RDC escorts, parks staff. The study sought to elicit information on trends in trophy quality and hunting success rates. Questionnaires were administered during the month of May 2014 when the hunting season was in progress and key stakeholders were available for interviews.

Focus Group Discussion

Data on hunting characteristics and performance of CAMPFIRE program was further gathered through Focus Group Discussions that followed standard procedures (Krueger and Casey 2000).

11

Discussants were purposefully chosen from the current CAMPFIRE committee members and random sampling was done at SWRA to choose those who would represent participants from national parks. Issues discussed included how sport hunting has benefited the communities, Problem Animal Control and the need for community participation and working with parks to curb poaching.

3.3.2 Trophy Quality

Secondary sources of data were used to gather information on trophy quality in the area. Information on trophy sizes from (2004-2014) is properly recorded and documented at the districts’ offices. Data on trophy size were collected from the hunting records using the Tourism Return Form (TR2). Data collected for this study on trophy quality were based on tusk weight for elephant and horn length for buffalo. Trophy size measurements were recorded using the Safari Club International (SCI) method for elephant and Rowland ward for buffalo. It is important to highlight that secondary data on lion hunts in the area were not available. Measurements were taken in pounds for elephant and inches for buffalo. Trophy sizes were recorded per year for each species. Data were validated by cross checking the information supplied by the land owner and that of the Safari operator.

3.3.3 Hunting Success Rate

Secondary data on annual offtakes for the two species (buffalo and elephant) for the period 2004- 2014 was retrieved from National Parks (NP 10) forms kept at the RDC’s office. This data was used to calculate hunting success rate, which was considered to be off-take for a particular year divided by the corresponding allocated quota expressed as a percentage. This information was entered into Microsoft excel.

3.4 Data Analysis

Trophy quality data for elephant and buffalo were captured on computer using Microsoft Office Excel 2013 package and later exported to Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) version 22.0, (IBM, 2014) where it was analyzed. The data for the two species was not normally distributed

12 as such a one Way ( Kruskal Wallis) Anova test was used to test for significant differences in mean trophy sizes across the years from 2004 to 2014. The Kruskal Wallis test was chosen specifically because it is a non-parametric test that can analyze data that is not normally distributed.

13

CHAPTER FOUR

RESULTS

4.1: Trophy Size Trends For Elephant and Buffalo from 2004-2014 Table 4.1: Kruskal Wallis test on trophy size of elephant and buffalo from 2004 to 2014 .

Animals d.f. Sig/P value African elephant 10 0.026 Cape Buffalo 10 0.378

The Kruskal Wallis test revealed that from 2004 to 2014, there were significant annual variations in mean trophy sizes for elephant, while for buffalo the variations were not significantly different (p > 0.05).

ELEPHANT

There was a slight decrease in trophy quality (Figure 4.1) of elephant. The mean trophy quality for the study period was 31.3 pounds. The year 2011 recorded no hunts.

40 35 30 25 20 15

trophysize(pounds) 10 5 0 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Year

Figure 4.1: Mean Annual Trophy Quality for Elephant ( Loxodonta africana ) in Gokwe South from (2004-2014).

14

BUFFALO

Trophy quality trend for buffalo was decreasing (Figure 2). The years 2009, 2011 and 2013 had no hunts.

44

42

40

38

36

34

meantrophy size (inches) 32

30 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Year

Figure 4.2: Mean annual trophy quality for buffalo ( Syncerus caffer) from 2004-2014 in Gokwe South district

4.2: Hunting Success Rate For Elephant and Buffalo from 2004-2014 The hunting success rate for elephant ranged from 16.7% to 100% (Figure 3). The average hunting success rate for the study period was 55.1% .

15

120

100

80

60

40 %of huntingsucess 20

0 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 year

Figure 4.3: Hunting success rate for Elephant ( Loxodonta africana ) from 2004-2014 in Gokwe South district.

Data included on hunting success rate for buffalo started from 2007 (Figure 4) not 2004 due to the fact that from 2004- 2006 the area received an open quota (there was no limit to the number of buffaloes they could kill). Hunting success rate was declining in the area (Figure 4).

120

100

80

60

40 %hunting sucessrate 20

0 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Year

Figure 4.4: Hunting success rate for buffalo ( Syncerus caffer) from 2007 -2014 in Gokwe South district.

16

4.3: Stakeholders Perceptions on Trophy Hunting in the Area Focus Group Discussion

Table 4.2: Focus Group Discussion Findings

An average of US$500 was irregularly paid to communities per hunting season.
There is no transparency in revenue distribution (paid back to) communities by the RDC.
The CAMPFIRE committee is not involved in any decision making regarding sport hunting in the area.
Since 2008 no tangible development has come as a result of sport hunting in the district.
Communities were not involved in participatory quota setting (they did not know about this).

Questionnaire Results

4.3 Designation.

Interviewed respondents, (n=30) comprised of seven categories (table 4.1).

Table 4.3: Designation of respondents.

designation % PH 20 Parks escourts 16.7 RDC escourts 13.3 RDC staff 13.3 Scouts 10 Skinner 13.3 Tracker 6.7 Wildlife officer 6.7

4.4 Age groups and Gender.

17

The age of respondents ranged from 21-60 years (Figure 4.1.2). All respondents (n=30) were males

35 30 30 26.7 25 23.3

20

15 frequency 10 10 10

5

0 21-30 31-40 41-50 51-60 60+ Age group

Figure 4.5: Respondents age groups.

Years in the hunting industry

The years in which the respondents had spent hunting in the area were categorised (Table 4.2).

Table 4.4: Respondents hunting time frame in Gokwe communal area.

Category(years) % 3-8 36.7 9-13 36.7 15-25 26.7

4.6. Animals frequently encountered

A total of eleven different species (Figure 4.6) were reported to be seen in communal areas.

18

35 30 25 20 15 10 5 frequencyof respondents 0

Species

Figure 4.6: Respondents perception on encounter rate.

4.4: Perception on population status

Elephant, buffalo and lion populations are perceived to be declining (Figure 4.8) in the communal areas.

120

100

80

60 increasing decreasing

%proportion 40 constant 20

0 elephant buffalo lion Species

Figure 4.7: Respondents perception on population status of key species.

19

4.5: Changes in trophy quality in the area.

All respondents (n=30) shared the view that they had noticed changes in trophy quality.

Trend in trophy quality status

Respondents were of the view that trophy quality for elephant (83.3%), buffalo (60%) and lion (63.3%) was declining (Table 4.5).

Table 4.5: Respondents perceptions of trophy quality status

Response Elephant Buffalo Lion Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage (%) (%) (%) Decline 25 83.3 18 60 19 63.3 Increase - - 4 13.3 - - Constant 5 16.7 8 26.7 3 10 No idea - - - - 8 26.7

2

4.6 Population census done in the area.

For the study period, all respondents (n =30) shared the view that no population censuses were conducted in the area.

4.6.1 Areas where animals are hunted.

Elephants are mostly hunted in Manyoni (N=22) and Lutope areas (N=16).

20

Table 4.6: Areas where elephants are hunted.

Area Frequency of responses Jiri 4 Manyoni 22 Masuka 1 Lutope 16 Sai 1 Sengwa 1 Rongaronga 2 ma lundu 1

Table 4.7: Areas where buffaloes are hunted.

Buffaloes are dominantly hunted in the Sengwa area (N=20) as shown below.

Area frequency of responses Machokoto 2 Sengwa 20 Lutope 5 Manyoni 5 (n=30)

Table 4.8 : Areas where Lions are hunted.

The majority (N=27) had no idea on lion hunting areas.

Area frequency of responses No idea 27 Sengwa gorge 3 (n=30)

Most responses (73%) indicated that more than 7 days were required to hunt an elephant in the area (table 4.7).

21

Table 4.9: Days needed to kill an elephant.

Number of days frequency of responses Below 7 8 Above 7 22 (n=30)

Buffalo

The majority of respondents (73%) noted that buffalo hunts took between 7-10 days (Table 4.9)

Table 4.10: Days needed to kill a buffalo.

Number of days frequency of responses 3 - 6 8 7 - 10 22 (n=30)

Sixteen respondents had no idea on the number of days taken to kill a lion in the district, while 4 of the respondents had the perception that 14 days are needed to accomplish a lion hunt

Table 4.11: Days needed to kill a Lion

Number of days frequency 10 1 12 2 14 4 15 1 21 1 2 2 No idea 16 (n=30)

4.8 Hunting success

22

Hunting success rate in the district was low for buffaloes and lion, while for elephants there was a high success rate (Table 4.11).

Table 4.12: Respondents’ perceptions of hunting success rate in the district.

Response Elephant Buffalo Lion Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage (%) (%) (%) Successful 25 83.3 8 26.7 - - hunts Un 5 16.7 22 73.3 28 93.3 successful hunts Not aware - - - - 2 6.7

4.8.1: Status of the quota allocated to the RDC

The quota allocated to the RDC over the past years is perceived to be decreasing (Figure 4.9).

100 90% 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 6.7% 10 3.3% 0 constant decreased fluctuate

Figure 4.8: Perception on quota allocated to the RDC from (2004-2014)

23

Full utilisation of the quota

All respondents (N=30) agreed that the quota was not being fully utilised

Reasons for decline in hunting success rate

Table 4.13: Respondents perceptions on perceived factors contributing to decline in hunting success rate

Reason % proportion

Poaching 30 Population decline 46.7 Decline in trophy quality 26.7 Contractual issues 10 Over hunting in Sengwa 6.7 Increase in human population 3.3

4.9 Problem Animal Control and its influence on trophy quality

The majority of respondents (80%) perceived PAC not to be a factor affecting trophy quality in the area (Figure 4.10)

90 80 70 60 50 40 yes

percentage 30 no 20 10 0 elephant buffalo lion species

24

Figure 4.10: Respondents perceptions on whether or not PAC affected trophy quality.

Presence of Human and Wildlife Conflict in the District

All respondents (n=30) agreed that there was human and wildlife conflict in the district.

Species regarded as problem animals

All three species were regarded as problem animals in the area (Figure 4.11)

120

100

80

60

40

Percentage of respondents 20

0 elephant buffalo lion species

Figure 4.11: Species regarded as problem animals.

4.9.4: Poaching in the area

All respondents (n=30) agreed that poaching was a problem in the area

Respondents’ perceived percentage of poaching in the district

There is high poaching of elephants and buffalo as opposed to lions (Figure 4.12)

25

100 90 80 70 60 50 40

% 'yes' % response 'yes' 30 20 10 0 elephant buffalo lion species

Figure 4.12: Percentage ‘yes’ responses of poaching in the area

Type of poaching

All respondents ( n=30) shared the view that for elephants poaching was for commercial reasons, for buffaloes it was subsistence while for lions poaching was neither done for commercial nor subsistence reasons hence (table 4.9.6) indicates ‘not applicable’.

Table 4.14: Respondents perceptions on the types of poaching

Response Elephant Buffalo Lion Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage (%) (%) (%) Commercial 30 100 - - - -

Subsistence - - 30 100 - -

Neither - - - - 30 100 commercial nor subsistence

26

METHODS USED FOR POACHING

The sample size used was 30 respondents, however this was an open ended question hence respondents had the chance to cite different methods for a particular species.

Elephant

Rifles were cited as the common method used in poaching (Table4.9.7).

Table 4.15: Methods used for Elephant poaching

method frequency of responses rifles 30 poisoning 1

Buffalo

Respondents perceived that poachers mostly use snaring, dogs and spears (table 4.9.7.1)

Table 4.16: Methods used for Buffalo poaching

method frequency of responses snaring 26 dogs 15 spears 11

27

Lion

For lions poisoning was identified as the main method used in lion poaching (table 4.9.7.2)

Table 4.17: Methods used for Lion poaching

method frequency of responses No idea 3 poisoning 27

Involvement of respondents’ in anti-poaching activities

All respondents shared the view that there were involved in anti- poaching activities.

Methods / strategies used in anti- poaching activities.

Patrolling the area (n=30).

Is there need to improve trophy hunting in the area?

All respondents agreed that there was need to improve trophy hunting.

Ways to improve trophy hunting in the district.

From (Table 4.18) below most respondents were of the view that there was need to improve on anti- poaching (N=28%), in order to improve trophy hunting in the area. Other strategies suggested included maintaining buffer zones, easing hunting pressure as well as giving time to species to fully mature into trophy species.( This was an open ended question hence respondents had a chance to give more than one strategy.)

28

Table 4.18: Respondents perception on what can be done to improve trophy hunting

Response Frequency of responses Maintain buffer zones 12 Improve anti-poaching strategies 28 Ease hunting pressure 12 Give species enough time to mature into trophy animals 12 Awareness Campaigns 15 Stiff penalties to environmental offenders 12 Reconstruct water holes 3 Introduce vegetation surveys 3

29

CHAPTER FIVE

DISCUSSION

5.1: Trophy Size Trends for Elephant and Buffalo from 2004 to 2014. The Kruskal Wallis test revealed that, there were significant annual variations for elephant, while variations for buffalo were not significantly different (Table 4.1). Similarly Kuvawoga et al (2015) observed significant differences in elephant trophy quality in Hurungwe Safari area. Muboko et al (2015) also observed significant difference for elephant and for buffalo his findings were the same as of this research in Chewore South Safari Area. The significant difference in trophy quality can be attributed to strong hunting selection pressure of certain qualities or morphological traits exhibited by the wild game animals (Loveridge 2006).

The fluctuations observed from (2004-2010) in trophy quality for elephant (Figure 4.1) can be attributed to hunting pressure in the Sengwa-Chirisa complex. A similar survey conducted on trophy quality of elephants in the adjacent Sengwa Wildlife Research Institute (SWRI) revealed a declining trend in quality (Ngorima et al 2014). The fact that in Chirisa Safari Area trophy hunting has been temporarily stopped as a result of unavailability of huntable trophies (Matipano 2015) helps to show that hunting as a disturbance factor has led to over harvesting and subsequent creation of hunting pressure in the area. However, trophy size for elephants were below the minimum score range of the Safari Club International of 90 pound (Matipano 2014). Therefore it can be argued that hunting in the district is not sustainable in the long run.

Poor quality trophies hunted over time, observed in Gokwe South are influenced by any disturbance which occurs to populations in protected areas adjacent to it as communal hunting blocks mainly rely on off spills from protected areas, (Learder-William, et al 1996) due to absence of resident game in communities. Trophy quality for elephants was also reported to be on the decline in Hurungwe Safari area (Kuvawoga et al 2015). In Chewore South Safari area a decline in trophy quality for elephants was also noted for (Muboko et al 2015). Thus one can conclude that the decline in trophy quality in various areas needs urgent attention. However, from (2012- 2014) trophy quality was increasing (Figure1) in the district. This was in line with the hunting

30 analysis conducted at national level from 2010-2014 which showed a general increase in elephant trophy quality, (Matipano 2014).

The observed decline in buffalo trophy quality (Figure 4.2), is similar to the findings observed in SWRA by (Ngorima et al 2014). The decline in trophy quality in two adjacent areas suggests that offtakes set may be too high which may then influence unstable population dynamics, resulting in diminished gene pools that may cause loss of species from an area Taylor (2007) in the long run.

It can be deduced that species hunted in the year 2008 matched the minimum Rowland ward score of 42 inches (Bull’s eye taxidermy 2014). The rest of the hunted buffaloes fell below the minimum required trophies. The minimum score represents trophies that are mature on average being 7-12 years old, Bull’s eye taxidermy (2014), to ensure sustainability of trophy hunting in an area, however while the rest did not meet the requirements (Figure 4.2). This may be attributed to hunting pressure in the Sengwa-Chirisa complex (Matipano 2014).

5.2 Hunting Success Rate of Elephant and Buffalo from 2004-2014. The increase in hunting success rate (Figure 4.3) observed from (2004-2006), can be attributed to high availability of huntable trophies influenced by high populations in an area (personal communication with respondents) . With the exception of 2009 and 2012 (Figure 3) the area was characterized by low hunting success rate. The same trend was observed for all CAMPFIRE areas where the levels of elephant quota offtake have been low with less than 60 % of approved quotas being utilised from (2009-2014), (Gandiwa et al 2014). In Chewore South Safari area hunting effort was reported to be increasing (Muboko et al 2015) pointing to an offtake regime which is unsustainable.

Hunting success rate was constantly high from (2007-2010) (Figure 4.4) for buffalo. Generally high hunting success rate points to availability of species in an area (Nyaguse 2014). From 2010 onwards hunting success rate was declining (Figure 4.4). A decline in hunting success rate in an area is an indicator of decreased populations (Nyaguse 2014). Similarly national offtakes in the same years have been observed also to be declining (Matipano 2014).

5.3: Stakeholders Perceptions on Trophy Hunting Characteristics in Gokwe South District.

Focus Group Discussion

31

Despite being given a quota of up to four elephant bulls per hunting season from the time they received their AA status, local people are not benefiting from sport hunting in the area (Table 4.2 point 1). The benefits accrued provide a means of assessing the positive influence sustainable uses may have on rural people associated with a resource (Edwards and Allen1992). As is the case in Gokwe South, rural communities in Tanzania are said to be benefitting nothing from sport hunting (Stuart and Adams 1990). As a result it can be argued that economic results of big game hunting are very low at community level posing the greatest threat to sustainability of hunting programmes in communal areas (Lindsey et al 2006). As such the low returns for local people even when an area is managed for CBNRM projects is not enough to prompt change in behavior in poaching and habitat fragmentation.

For any CBNRRM programme to meets its objectives and be seen as realistic way to raise local people’s livelihoods there has to be transparency (Table 4.2 point 2) in the manner in which the programme is run. In this case lack of transparency in revenue disbursements from trophy hunting that occurs leaves a lot to be desired. Thus it can be noted that real devolution of power to communities is still an issue which needs serious attention (Murombedzi, 1999) if hunting in CAMPFIRE areas such as Gokwe South is to become sustainable in the long run.

For any programme in which local communities are involved to be a success there is need for participation and involvement of communities in decision making (Table 4.2 point3). If communities are given a chance to decide on how natural resources should benefit them they can manage the resource sustainably for example the Masai Mara who retain ‘all access’ fees from sport hunting in the Ngongoro conservation area in Tanzania (Stuart and Adams 1990). CAMPFIRE largely depends on sport hunting activities ((Bond 1994; 2001 and WWF 2003) thus there is need for effective governance where local communities are not seen as passive participants rather they should be integrated in matters that affect them. Only then can issues of poaching and massive land clearances become reduced for the protection of ecosystems and create safe wildlife habitats and corridors where animals can move around without the threat of being poached.

The government through the RDC as the landowner in communal areas is responsible for administering and monitoring how hunting is performing on behalf of the communities. Despite being given wildlife quotas every year it should be noted that no tangible benefits (Table 4.2 point 4) have been seen in the district which under normal circumstances should not be happening as

32 communities have to derive some sort of benefit in order for them to foster good attitudes towards wildlife in their areas. In order to protect wildlife habitats outside protected areas there is need to seriously involve communities as major stake holders for the future of hunting in the district is depended upon.

ZPWMA together with other stakeholders like WWF are working tirelessly so that communities are further empowered to manage their resources in a bid to decentralize the CAMPFIRE operations. As such lack of knowledge on and not being involved in participatory quota setting workshops (Table 4.2 point 5) shows that hunting in the district has a lot to improve on. Participatory quota workshops equip people with knowledge on how the status and health of a hunted population which helps to keep hunting within sustainable limits. Failure to do this conforms to the notions that in developing countries quotas are based on in appropriate estimates and therefore are not sustainable in the long run, (Fa and Brown 2009). This can create over harvesting of species which may lead to reduced trophy quality and locally force some species to go into extinction.

QUESTIONNAIRE RESULTS

Designation

Professional hunters dominated the categories of interviewed respondents 20% (Table 4.3). They also constituted a crucial proportion in Ngorima et al (2014)’s survey carried out in SWRA. This is due to the fact that they have prior knowledge required in hunting issues thus their contributions were highly sought after. Mostly people who are always in the field such as trackers (6.2%), skinners (13.3%) and escorts (13.3%). This was done because this is their area of expertise and they are well informed in how hunting is performing in the area. Thus integrating views from field workers as well as the hunting administrators in the district helped to come up with a solid view on trophy hunting characteristics.

Age group and gender

The nature of the hunting industry requires strong and energetic people to carry out a hunt hence most people interviewed were in the 31-40 age groups (Figure 4.6). Most field workers such as skinners, trackers and escorts were under this. Experience mostly helps when hunting in an area

33 thus under the 41-50 age group 26.7% of respondents were recorded. This is due to hunting experience they have acquired while hunting in the district. Hunting administration is mostly conducted by a few people whose ages ranged in the late 50s and 60s. Hunting is biased towards men in the district; Ngorima et al (2014) also interviewed a majority of males in his study. This is due to the nature of the job.

Years in the hunting industry

An analysis of respondents’ experience in the hunting industry revealed that many respondents’ experiences ranged from 3-14 years, (Table 4.2) indicating a variety of opinions as well as the widest possible views captured from the respondents. Few respondents had spent more than fifteen years hunting in Gokwe south. The reasons can be that after repeatedly hunting in the area they relocated to hunt in more favorable concessions where there are richer biodiversity levels than the Sebungwe region like the Western region( personal communications with Professional Hunters).

Perception on encounter rate

The high encounter rate (Figure 4.7) for elephant and buffaloes can be attributed to the fact that these species have large home ranges which usually exceed the boundaries of protected areas. Again a low encounter rate was perceived for lion, hyena and leopards. This is because of their nocturnal and evasive nature (Moyo 2010).

Population status of buffalo elephant and lion

With regards to population status of key species, buffalo, elephant and lion the populations were perceived to be declining (Figure 4.8). However, in Gokwe North district population status for elephant was reported to be stable, (Gandiwa et al 2014). The decline in populations for these species in particular may be attributed to high levels of poaching (Dunham 2008) especially intensified commercial poaching for elephants in the communal area hunting block as well as in protected areas. The decline in populations affects hunting success rate as many days will be spent looking for species without finding them thereby giving a temptation to shoot which ever animal a hunter comes across without considering its trophy quality which is un sustainable.

Changes in trophy quality

34

Changes in trophy quality have not only been observed in this district alone but also in SWRA, Ngorima et al 2014, in Gokwe North, Gandiwa et al (2014) as well as in Chirisa Safari Area (Matipano 2015)

Trophy quality status

Trophy quality for elephant, buffalo, and lion were perceived to be decreasing (Table 4.5). Not only was there an indication of declining trophy quality in this district alone but a similar survey by Gandiwa et al (2014) also indicated a declining trend in trophy quality especially of elephants in the Gokwe North district a number of factors can be argued as contributing to decreased trophy quality. The correct levels of allocated quotas are the basis for sustainability and ensure quality trophies; as such there is need for revision of all quotas in the Sengwa-Chirisa complex. Baker (1997) noted that, establishment of quotas which are not sustainable and accurate can contribute negatively on trophy quality and population decline hence affecting the trophy quality trend of big game animals.

Population censuses conducted

All respondents agreed that for the study period no population census has been conducted in the area (item 4.6). This is influenced by lack of resources to carry out ground counts, thus leading to establishment of quotas based on guess work (Barker 1997). Therefore, indirect methods for population monitoring should be established to ensure that quotas are not set too high in such a way as to promote over hunting.

Producer communities

As indicated by (Table 4.6) Manyoni and Lutope were reported as the areas where elephants are mostly hunted. For buffaloes Sengwa area was cited (Table 4.6) as the most common place where hunts are conducted. However for lion respondents had no idea, (Table 4.7) on the areas where they can say hunts usually occur.

Areas around Manyoni, Lutope and Sengwa areas were cited as the major areas where the target species were being hunted. The reason for this is that these areas are associated with the major rivers which support wildlife in the district (Tafangenyasha 2000). These areas are rich in

35 biodiversity therefore influencing the congregation of wildlife species along them (Tafangenyasha, 2000). The perception on lion hunts was influenced by the infrequent hunts of this species before it was later removed on their wildlife quota in 2012 (personal communication with RDC Safari operator)

Hunting days

Most respondents were of the view that more than 7 days are needed to kill an elephant (Table 4.8) while the perception for buffalo ranged from 7-10 days (Table 4.10). For lions the majority showed that they had no idea (Table 4.11) on the number of days taken.

Hunting in Zimbabwe stipulates that for an elephant bull a maximum of 14 days are given to a client while for buffalo 10 days are given (Matipano 2014). Increased hunting effort coupled with low success rate points to poor availability of huntable trophies in an area (Nyaguse 2014). High hunting effort may also be attributed to absence of resident game thus wildlife passes en route to more suitable habitats, (Mapedza 2008).

Hunting success rate

The majority indicated a high hunting success rate for elephant while for buffalo and lion, the success rate was perceived to be low (Table 4.11). Although national offtakes for elephant were observed to be increasing Matipano (2014), this was not the case for Gokwe South. In comparison with SWRA hunting success rate is high with up to 90%, 91% and 45% hunting success for elephant buffalo and lion respectively (Ngorima et al 2014). Low hunting success rates for elephant and buffalo in communal areas can be due to habitat fragmentation caused by high population levels of humans in communal areas. Population densities in Gokwe North and South were reported to be approximately 30 people per km 2 (Mapedza 2008). Habitat loss through settlements is cited as a major contributor to low hunting success rate (Dunham and Mackie 2002). Scientifically the threshold human densities at which elephants in particular disappear in settled areas is 15 people per km 2, (Hoore and du Toit 1999). Low hunting success for lion in both the communal areas and SWRA may be due to their nocturnal and evasive nature thus they are expected to have low utilisation rates.

Quota allocated

36

The decrease in allocated quota granted to the RDC over the past ten years is justified (Figure 4.9). This is so taking into consideration the low hunting success rate of elephant and buffalo (Table 4.11). It is important to analyse previous quotas allocated to a property in order to reveal the level of utilisation. Where the quotas are repeatedly not utilised a consideration has to be made to reduce the allocation (Nyaguse 2014).

Reasons

Major reasons cited as contributors to low hunting success rate and decrease in allocated quota were population decline, poaching and decline in trophy quality (table 6). Gandiwa et al (2014) also attributed low hunting success rate in Binga district, to poor availability of huntable trophies.

PAC and Trophy Quality

The respondents are of the view that problem animal control does not affect trophy quality in the district (Figure 4.10). However, in literature, PAC is often cited as a contributor to decline in trophy quality (Disteguno, 2004). This can be influenced by the fact that most responses were from professional hunters (Figure 4.11), who are supposed to find the best trophy species to satisfy a client and boost their businesses. It can also be argued that as sport hunting is done for economic reasons, the inclusion of PAC as a way in which a quota is used up (WWF 2003) influences the type of animals killed. Generally PAC levels for all species have been seen to be decreasing in communal areas (Gandiwa et al 2014).

Presence of HWC

All respondents agreed that there is human and wildlife conflict in the district (Figure 4.10).Just like any other community adjacent to protected areas conflict with wild animals is inherent that is why most respondents acknowledged presence of human and wildlife conflict.

Species regarded as problem animals

Elephants and buffalo were regarded as the main problem animals, (Figure 4.11). In other communal areas around Gonarezhou National Park, villagers were also of the view that these two species were the main problem animals (Gandiwa 2013). Lions generally do not pose as a threat

37 to villagers in Gokwe south compared to buffalo and elephant due to the fact that the lion population in the area is declining (Moyo 2010).

Types of poaching

All respondents shared the view that elephant poaching was commercial, for buffalo it was subsistence (Table 4.14). For lions it is not poaching rather it is retaliatory killing after livestock predation cases (personal communication with experienced professional hunters in the area).

The size and huge incentive associated with an elephant tusk influences the type of poaching for elephants (Mapedza 2008), it was identified that poaching was mainly for commercial reasons. A similar study carried out by Ngorima et al (2014) also revealed that in the SWRA elephant poaching is done on commercial basis, furthermore, Mapedza (2007) who attributed that elephant poaching in Nenyunga village in Gokwe North was reported to be increasingly driven by commercial reasons.

For buffalo however despite its aggressiveness it is an easy target for poachers in communal areas. In line with the findings of this research that buffalo poaching is for subsistence reasons, Gandiwa (2013) had similar findings where 69% of the interviewed respondents attributed poaching for buffalo, impala, kudu to be due to the need for bush meat and family consumption not for any other reason in communal areas bordering Northern Gonarezhou National Park.

Methods used by poachers

Respondents indicated use of rifles for elephant (Table 4.17), snaring (Table 4.17) for buffalo and poisoning for lion (table 4.9.7.3) as the major methods used by poachers in the area.

It can be argued that the method used by poachers reflected their purpose, subsistence poaching requires a low budget, easy materials that can be locally available such as snaring cited for buffalo poaching. In Gandiwa (2013)’s study on illegal activities snaring was also cited as mainly used by subsistence poachers. Rifles were used to ensure a kill while safeguarding a poacher’s life, points to organized commercial poaching which is the case for elephants. Most respondents(N=27) table (9.9.7.2) indicated that lion were poached using poisoning. From this it can be deduced that, lions are killed as retaliation by farmers when they prey upon livestock.

38

Ways of improving sport hunting

Table (4.18) showed that most respondents attributed improving anti-poaching strategies as a way to improve sport hunting in the area. Improving anti-poaching has been shown to decrease illegal activities (Gandiwa 2013) for example poaching highlighted above as a major threat leading to decreased low hunting success rate in the area.

CHAPTER SIX

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

6.1 CONCLUSION The results of the study revealed a significant difference in mean elephant trophy quality and for buffalo the variations were not significantly different. Therefore, the hypotheses that there is no significant difference in mean trophy quality of elephant 2004 to 2014 in Gokwe South district is

39 therefore rejected and accept the alternative hypothesis. For buffalo the null hypothesis is accepted. Local Ecological Knowledge (LEK) on the trophy quality and hunting success rate supplemented secondary sources of data as it tallied with the observed changes in trophy quality and hunting success rate. The respondents attributed the decline in trophy quality and hunting success rate chiefly to anthropogenic factors mainly poaching and increased human population in the area. The study showed that experienced stakeholders can provide useful insights on trophy quality trends, as this was corroborated by scientific data obtained from the records in Gokwe South.

6.2 RECOMMENDATIONS There is need for an online national TR2 database for CAMPFIRE districts where they can constantly update their information for easy monitoring of hunts. There is need for strict monitoring of hunts by ZPWMA in the area; the RDC should submit their TR2 copies to either Chirisa Safari Area or SWRA for monitoring purposes. Due to decreased trophy quality in key species in the Chirisa-Sengwa complex there is need to revise the current quota systems in both the protected areas and the district. A reduction of current quotas to sustainable levels ensures that quotas are realistic and based on robust population estimates is a positive step to promote sustainable trophy hunting of key wildlife species in the area.

REFERENCES

Adams, W., Hulme, D. (2001) Conservation and community. Changing narratives, policies and practices in African conservation. In African Wildlife and Livelihoods. The Promise and Performance of Community Conservation (Eds D. Hulme and M. Murphree), pp. 9–21. James Currey, Oxford.

Allen, C. M., Edwards, S. R. (1992) Sustainable Use of Wildlife Programme , c/o IUCN-US 1400 Washington DC

40

Altshuld, J. Witkin, B.R. (2000). Transferring Needs into Solution Strategies . Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Baker, J.E. (1997) Trophy hunting as a sustainable use of wildlife resources in southern and eastern Africa. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 5, 306

Baldus, R. D., Damm, G. R. and Wollscheid, K., editors. 5-11. Hungary: International Council for Game and Wildlife Conservation.

Bond, I. (2001) CAMPFIRE and the incentives for institutional change. In African Wildlife and Livelihoods. The Promise and Performance of Community Conservation (Eds D. Hulme & M. Murphree), pp. 227–43. James Currey, Oxford.

Bond, I (2000) CAMPFIRE as a vehicle for sustainable rural development in the semi-arid communal lands of Zimbabwe: incentives for institutional change. D. Phil. Thesis, University of Zimbabwe.

Child, G (2005) Wildlife and people: The Zimbabwean Success. Wisdom Foundation, New York.

Chimuti, T. Machena, C. and Heath, D. (2000). The Benefits of Safari Hunting to Conservation and Poverty Alleviation in Rural Areas of Zimbabwe. Africa Resources Trust, Harare, Zimbabwe. 24pp.

Coltman, D.W., O’Donoghue, P., Jorgenson, J.T., Hogg, J.T., Strobeck, C. and Festa-Bianchet, M. (2003) Undesirable evolutionary consequences of trophy hunting . Nature 426, 655–658.

Colleen & Keith Begg (2007). Trophy Monitoring in Niassa National Reserve, Mozambique: Lion, Leopard, Buffalo, Hippo and Crocodile. Maputo.

Crosmary, W. G., Côté, S. and Fritz, H. (2015). The assessment of the role of trophy hunting in wildlife conservation. Animal Conservation 18: 136-137.

41

Damm, G. R. (2008): Recreational Trophy Hunting: “What do we know and what should we do?” – In: Baldus, R. D.; Damm, G. R. andWollscheid, K. (eds.): Best Practices in Sustainable Hunting – A Guide to Best Practices from Around theWorld, pp. 5–11.

Dickson, B., Hutton, J. & Adams, W.M. (2009). Recreational hunting, conservation and rural livelihoods: science and practice. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.

Disteguno, E. (2004). Human and Wildlife Conflict Worldwide collection of case studies, analysis of management strategies and good practices.

Dunham, KM and C.S. Mackie (2002) National Summary of Aerial Census Results for

Elephant in Zimbabwe: 2001 . Harare: WWF-SARPO.

Fjeldsa, J., Burgess, N.D., Blyth, S. and de Klerk, H.M. (2004). Where are the major gaps in the reserve network for Africa’s mammals? Oryx 38, 17–25.

Gandiwa, E., Jonga, C. and Mufute, O. (editors),( 2014). Proceedings of the CAMPFIRE stakeholders’ workshop: Towards the development of a new Elephant Management Plan and Policy. Harare, Zimbabwe, 17–18 November 2014.

Gandiwa, E.,. Heitkönig, A. M. Lokhorst, H. H. T. and Leeuwis.(2013). CAMPFIRE and Human- Wildlife Conflicts in Local Communities Bordering Northern Gonarezhou National Park, Zimbabwe. Ecology and Society 18(4): 7. https://www.savetherhino.org/assets/0001/7279/What_is_trophy_hunting.pdf.

Hulme, D. & Murphree, M. (2001) Community conservation in Africa. An introduction. In African Wildlife and Livelihoods. The Promise and Performance of Community Conservation (Eds D. Hulme & M. Murphree), pp. 1–8. James Currey, Oxford

Jones, B.T. (2012) Development and Strengthening of large Landscape conservation complexes in Namibia: Reporton Corridor development in the Mudumbu Norton complex WWF Windhoek

42

Jones, B., Murphree, M. (2001) ‘The evolution of policy on community conservation in Namibia and Zimbabwe’, in Hulme, D. and Murphree, M. (eds) African Wildlife and Livelihoods: The Promise and Performance of Community Conservation, James Currey, Oxford

Krueger, R. and Casey, M. (2000). Focus groups: a practical guide for applied research. Sage, London, UK.

Kuvawoga, P.T., Mabika, C.T. Sebele L. and Chipere, R. (2015) Elephant Sport Hunting in Hurungwe safari area, Zambezi Valley , Book of Abstracts, 2nd Chinhoyi University of Technology International Research Conference 20 -21 July 2015

Lewis, D.M., Alpert, P. (1997). Trophy Hunting and Wildlife Conservation in Zambia. Conservation Biology Volume 11

Leader-Williams, N., Kayera, J. A. and Overton, G. L. (Eds.) (1996). Tourist Hunting in Tanzania. IUCN Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, United Kingdom. viii 138pp.

Lindsey, P. A., Alexander, R., Frank, L. G., Mathieson, A. and Romanach, S. S. (2006). Potential of trophy hunting to create incentives for wildlife conservation in Africa where alternative wildlife- based land uses may not be viable. Animal Conservation 9: 283-291.

Lindsey PA, Balme GA, Funston P, Henschel P, Hunter L, et al. (2013) The Trophy Hunting of African Lions: Scale, Current Management Practices and Factors Undermining Sustainability. PLoS ONE 8(9): e73808. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0073808

Lindsey, P.A.; Roulet, P.A. and Romañach, S.S. (2007): Economic and conservation significance of the trophy hunting industry in sub-Saharan Africa. Biological Conservation 134: 455-469

Loveridge, A.J. and Macdonald, D.W. (2001) Impact of trophy hunting in Zimbabwe. In Lion Conservation Research. Workshop 2: Modelling Conflict (Eds A.J. Loveridge, T. Lynam and D.W. Macdonald), pp. 18– 19. October, Okavango Delta, Botswana.

Loveridge A J, Jonathan C. Reynolds and E. J. Milner-Gulland (2006) Does sport hunting benefit conservation? Macdonald/Key Topics in Conservation Biology page 224.

43

Loveridge, A., Reynolds, J., Milner-Gulland, E. (2006) Does sport hunting benefit conservation? In: Macdonald, D., Service, K. (Eds.), Key topics in Conservation Biology. Blackwell Publishing, Oxford, London.

Mapedza, E. (2008) Decentralization outcomes in the context of political uncertainty in Zimbabwe: A comparative assessment from co-management and CAMPFIRE and implications for policy. Workshop on forest governance and decentralization in Africa 8-11 April 2008, Durban, South Africa

Matipano (2014) Monitoring Sport Hunting in Zimbabwe: An Analysis of Tr2 Forms with Reference to the Key Species (Elephant, Buffalo, Lion Leopard, and Crocodile). Zimbabwe Parks and Wildlife Management Authority Report (Unpublished).

Mayaka, T.B., Hendriks, T., Wesseler, J and Prins, H.T. (2004). Improving the benefits of wildlife harvesting in northern Cameroon: a co-management perspective. Ecological Economics 54, 67– 80.

Moyo, G.H. (2010) Monitoring Safari Hunting In Sengwa Wildlife Research Area: An Analysis of TR 2 Forms (unpublished)

Moyo G.H, (2013). Fire Management Plan, Sengwa Wildlife Research Area. Zimbabwe Parks and Wildlife Management Authority, Progress Report (Unpublished).

Murombedzi, J. (1999). ‘Devolution and Stewardship in Zimbabwe’s CAMPFIRE Programme’. Journal of International Development 11(2):287-293.

Muboko, N., Dube, P., Gandiwa, E., Muposhi, V., Kupika, O. L., Tarakini, T. and Mashapa, C.(2015). Trophy quality patterns and hunting effort for the selected four of the big five in Chewore South Safari Area (2009-2012), Zimbabwe, Book of Abstracts, 2nd Chinhoyi University of Technology International Research Conference 20 -21 July 2015

Muposhi, V. K., Gandiwa, E., Makuza, S. M. and Bartels, P. (2015). Population and trophy quality trends of three gregarious herbivores in an insulated semi-arid savannah ecosystem (Cawston Ranch, Zimbabwe), 1997-2014. Tropical Conservation Science Vol.8 (2): 424-438.

44

Murphree, M.W (1993) Decentralising the proprietorship of Wildlife in Zimbabwe’s Communal lands. In Lewis D and Carter N. eds. Voices from Africa: Local Perspectives on Conservation. Washington D.C. World Wide Fund for Nature.

Murphree, M. W. (2001). Community, council and client: a case study in ecotourism development from Mahenye, Zimbabwe. Pages 177–194 in D. Hume and M. W. Murphree, editors. African wildlife and livelihoods. The promise and performance of community conservation. James Currey, London, UK.

Nyaguse,G.H., (2014) Justification and criterion for setting of hunting quotas for Zimbabwe 2016 (unpublished).

Ngorima, P., Mhlanga, W. and Tafangenyasha, C., (2014) Analysis of trends on trophy quality of African elephant, lion, buffalo and stakeholders perceptions in Sengwa Wildlife Research Area, Zimbabwe from 2003 to 2013. Research Council of Zimbabwe conference proceedings.

Peter A. Lindsey (2008) trophy hunting in sub Saharan Africa: economic scale and conservation significance.

Roth, H.H. and Merz, G. (Eds) (1996) Wildlife Resources. A Global Account of Economic Use . Springer-Verlag, New York, 402 pp.

Ruth, T.K., Smith, D.W., Haroldson, M.A., et al. (2003) Large-carnivore response to recreational big-game hunting along the Yellowstone National Park and Absaroka–Beartooth Wilderness boundary. Wildlife Society Bulletin 31: 1150–61.

Siamwanza, H.L (2003) Aerial survey of large hebivores in Nsumbu, Mweru wa Ntipa and Lusenga Plains National and Kaputa Game Management Areas: November 2003: A report submitted to Zambia’s Wildlife Management and UN development.

Tafangenyasha, C. (2000) Sengwa Wildlife Research Area Millennium Vision. Department of National Parks and Wildlife Management. Harare.

45

Taylor, R.D. and Murphree, M.W. (2007). ‘Case studies on successful southern African NRM initiatives and their impacts on poverty and govervance , Zimbabwe.

Taylor, R.D. (1994). ‘Wildlife management and utilisation in a Zimbabwean communal land: A preliminary evaluation in Nyaminyami District, Kariba’, in van Hoven, W., Edebes, H. and Conroy, A. (eds) Wildlife Rranching: A Celebration of Diversity, Promedia, Pretoria.

Taylor, R. D. (2000) [In press]. Participatory natural resource management: implications for conservation. Paper prepared for Community Conservation Research in Africa: principles and comparative practice. Manchester, England: Institute for Development Policy and Management, University of Manchester.

UICN/PACO (2009). La grande chasse en Afrique de l.’Ouest: quelle contribution à la conservation ? Big Game Hunting in West Africa. What is its contribution to conservation?

WWF SARPO (2003) CAMPFIRE Monitoring and Evaluation Data 2001. Unpublished report compiled by MA Khumalo. WWF SARPO, Harare.

WWF. (1997). Marketing Wildlife Leases. Wildlife Management Series. World Wide Fund for Nature Programme Office, Harare, Zimbabwe. 40pp.

APPENDICES

Appendix 1: Questionnaire

A SURVEY ON TROPHY HUNTING PATTERNS AND STAKEHOLDER PERCEPTIONS IN GOKWE SOUTH DISTRICT, ZIMBABWE.

My name is MARINDWA PAMHIDZAI P a student from Bindura University of Science Education. I am studying for the Bachelor of Environmental Science, Natural Resources Management degree. As part of my research project, I am carrying out a survey on trophy quality monitoring in communal areas with a focus on Gokwe South District. The results obtained from this study will be used only for academic purposes. Your co- operation will be greatly appreciated.

46

1 GENERAL INFORMATION

Questionnaire No…………. Date ………………………. Enumerators name………………

2 RESPONDENTS DETAILS

Designation (eg PH, guide/tracker, other-specify)…………………………… Sex……………………………… Age Group (Tick where applicable) Below 20 21-30 31-40 41-50 51-60 above 60

1) How long have you been involved in hunting in Gokwe South communal areas? ………………………………….years

2) What are the animals that you frequently encounter in communal areas? …………………………………………………………………….. …………………………………………………………………….. …………………………………………………………………….. 3) What do you think is the population status of the following species? (Tick where applicable) a. Elephant Population – Increasing / Decreasing/Constant b. Lion Population – Increasing / Decreasing /Constant c. Buffalo Population – Increasing/ Decreasing/ Constant

4) Have you noted any changes in trophy quality in communal areas? Yes/No (Tick where applicable) a. Elephant Trophy Quality – Increasing / Decreasing / Constant b. Lion Trophy Quality – Increasing / Decreasing / Constant c. Buffalo Trophy Quality – Increasing / Decreasing / Constant

5 a) Do you conduct population censuses? YES/ NO

b) What methods do you use for population censuses? ………………………………………………………. ………………………………………………………. ……………………………………………………….

6) In which areas are elephants, lion and buffalo mostly being shot?

47

…………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………. ……………………………………………………………. 7) On average how many days do you spend in hunting? a. Elephant……………. b. Lion…………….. c. Buffalo……………………

8) Is hunting mostly a success for a. Elephant YES/NO b. Lion YES/NO c. Buffalo YES/NO

9) Has the quota allocated to the RDC over the past ten years? (Tick where applicable) Increased / Decreased / Constant

10) What is the reason for this …………………………………………..

11) Is the quota fully being utilized (Tick where applicable) YES/ NO

12) What is the reason for your response? ……………………………………………. 13) Do you think problem animal control is an issue affecting trophy quality? a. Elephant – Yes/No b. Lion – Yes/No c. Buffalo – Yes/No

14) Is human and wildlife conflict an issue in Gokwe South YES/ NO

15) If YES are the following animals classified as problem animals? a. Elephant – Yes/No b. Lion – Yes/No c. Buffalo – Yes/No

16) Is poaching a problem in the area? a. Elephant poaching. Yes/No b. Buffalo poaching. Yes/No c. Lion poaching. Yes/No

17) For the following species, specify the type of poaching a. Elephant poaching (Commercial/Subsistence/Not Applicable) b. Buffalo poaching (Commercial/Subsistence/Not Applicable)

48 c. Lion poaching (Commercial/Subsistence/Not Applicable)

18) What method(s) do poachers use to kill the animals? a. Elephant: rifles, snaring, poisoning, Others (specify)……………………. b. Buffalo: rifles, snaring, poisoning, Others (specify)……………………. c. Lion: rifles, snaring, poisoning, Others (specify)…………………….

19) Are you involved in anti-poaching? YES/NO

20) If YES specify the strategies used ………………………

21) If NO what is the reason for this………………………

22) Do you think there is need to improve trophy hunting in the area? (Tick where applicable) Yes/NO

23) If YES what do you think can be done to improve trophy hunting in the area?

……………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………… 24) Any other comments ………………………………………………………………………………

Appendix 2: Data Sheet Showing Years, Mean Annual Trophy Size, Allocated Quota and Utilised Quota for Buffalo And Elephant in Gokwe South District From 2004 To 2014

49

ELEPHANT buffalo year Mean trophyallocated size quaotautilised quota year Mean trophyallocated size quaotautilised quota 2004 33.6 6 3 2004 39.3 open 2 2005 33.8 6 4 2005 38.5 open 2 2006 32.3 6 6 2006 40 open 1 2007 33.6 6 5 2007 36 1 1 2008 30 6 1 2008 42 1 1 2009 31.6 3 3 2009 no hunt 1 0 2010 30 5 2 2010 35 1 1 2011no hunt 5 0 2011no hunt 1 0 2012 25.2 5 5 2012 37 2 1 2013 30 4 1 2013 no hunt 2 0 2014 30 4 1 2014 35 2 1

Trophy size measurements were recorded in pounds for elephant using SCI method, while for buffalo the measurements were taken using the Rowland Ward system in inches.

50