KAVANGO ZAMBEZI TRANSFRONTIER CONSERVATION AREA (KAZA TFCA) ASSESSMENT OF THE HUMAN WILDLIFE CONFLICT MITIGATION MEASURES BEING IMPLEMENTED BY THE Kavango-ZAMBEZI TRANSFRONTIER CONSERvaTION AREA (KAZA TFCA) PaRTNER COUNTRIES ZAMBIA ANGOLA ZIMBABWE NAMIBIA BOTSWANA KAZA ANGOLA 9 062 167 ha 17% KAZA BOTSWANA 15 366 272 ha 30% KAZA NAMIBIA 7 151 643 ha 14% KAZA ZAMBIA 13 263 080 ha 25% KAZA ZIMBABWE 7 147 998 ha 14% A unique conservation, tourism and sustainable development partnership. KAZA TFCA –– Human wildlife conflict mitigation measures KAVANGO ZAMBEZI Acknowledgements TRANSFRONTIER CONSERVATION AREA (KAZA TFCA) The compilation of this report stems from the initiatives of the five partner countries that form the Kavango-Zambezi Transfrontier Conservation Area ASSESSMENT OF THE (KAZA TFCA). The authors would like to thank the partner countries, KAZA TFCA Secretariat and the German Development Bank for funding and HUMAN WILDLIFE CONFLICT supporting this initiative. We would also want to extend our thanks to Peace MITIGATION MEASURES Parks Foundation who are the contracting party and for providing all the BEING IMPLEMENTED BY THE Kavango-ZAMBEZI TRANSFRONTIER maps used in this document. Many thanks to the participants of the several meetings, tele-conferences, e-mails and workshops whose efforts provided a CONSERvaTION AREA (KAZA TFCA) PaRTNER COUNTRIES framework for this document. In addition, we thank the many experts, practitioners and communities within the KAZA network and beyond, who have contributed vital information and insight in the production of this report. KAZA TFCA 2016 KAZA WITH WORKING PEOPLE CONNECTED CONSERVATION 758 Aerodrome P.O. Box 37, Victoria Falls, Zimbabwe Tel. +263 13 46672 www.connectedconservation.com Cite as: KAZA-TFCA (2016) Assessment of the human wildlife conflict mitigation measures being implemented by the Kavango-Zambezi Transfrontier Conservation Area (KAZA TFCA) partner countries. Report to the KAZA TFCA Secretariat (BMZ No.: 2009 66 788 and BMZ No.: 2006 65 646). KAZA Website: www.kavangozambezi.org PPF: www.peaceparks.co.za Connected Conservation: www.connectedconservation.com Hamilton-Fynch: www.hamiltonfynch.com Hamilton-Fynch: Layout and design. © P Sutera A unique conservation, tourism and sustainable development partnership. A unique conservation, tourism and sustainable development partnership. iii KAZA TFCA –– Human wildlife conflict mitigation measures KAZA TFCA –– Human wildlife conflict mitigation measures Executive Summary Recommendations standardized reporting format (see suggested synthesis of < Aim to reduce HWC and not solving it completely through various methods currently in use). Introduction a number of suggested tools specific for each problem < Policy harmonization is vital particularly where shared natural resources are in use. Human wildlife conflict (HWC) is arguably one of the most on the ground. The consultant verified these hotspots using animal species and directed at positive incentives for people. < Need to develop a KAZA region HWC mitigation strategy pressing conservation issues across the Kavango-Zambezi available Problem Animal Control (PAC) data at local, national < Compliment current mitigation tools by adapting some of that aims at reducing conflict and improving people’s Transfrontier Conservation Area (KAZA TFCA) where a or regional offices using triangulation and cross validation the suggested measures. livelihoods. significant number of people live in areas that abut wildlife methods. < Need to capacitate communities and resource persons < Communities facing crop and livestock damage from range. If KAZA TFCA is to be successful, accepted and who work directly on mitigating the conflict. wildlife need alternative ways to cushion themselves from adopted by stakeholders, particularly communities We assessed the self-reliance scheme for loss of property < Improve the efficacy, sustainability and cost effectiveness the vagaries of HWC. throughout the TFCA, finding ways to reduce HWC and (crops and livestock) due to wildlife depredation such as the of mitigation tools by constant improvement, promote human-wildlife coexistence is a prerequisite. Human Wildlife Self-Reliance Scheme (HWSRS) in Namibia innovation and changing of the tools to discourage We hope that this report will be useful to the governments of Managers and or communities attempting to reduce crop and by evaluating the system through a Strengths Weaknesses habituation by wildlife and adapt them to suit local the five partner countries and particularly wildlife livestock damage by wildlife encounter a range of complex Opportunities Threats (SWOT) analysis. We evaluated all the conditions. departments. We hope it will help them to develop a regional < Partner countries should implement both short and technical and social issues. This draft report to the KAZA frameworks and processes of the system to provide HWC mitigation strategy, which is important for long-term long-term management strategies that address the causes TFCA Secretariat details an assessment of the HWC mitigation recommendations for replication or adaptation of the scheme success in the conservation and management of wildlife, of HWC in order to ameliorate conflict. natural resources and uplifting the livelihoods of people living tools in use across the KAZA TFCA. to other partner countries. An evaluation of Botswana’s < Partner countries should improve the collection; collation side by side with wildlife in this region. compensation scheme using the same methodological and reporting of conflict data by implementing a The objective of this consultancy was to review and approach completed the task. recommend the most effective, efficient and sustainable HWC mitigation measures for adoption within the KAZA Findings TFCA by the partner countries. We suggest partner countries < HWC is likely to increase in all the partner countries. focus HWC efforts in and around the five-wildlife dispersal < Most common types of conflict across the KAZA land- areas (WDAs) that KAZA are promoting. While some hotspots scape are crop and property damage by wildlife, and will fall outside these areas, they will nevertheless be useful human and wildlife death, or injury. 1 for countries to prioritise efforts in the context of KAZA. This < Traditional methods of deterring wildlife are the most common ways of mitigating conflict. review also included the partner countries’ HWC policies, < Lack of capacity (knowledge and resources) to mitigate which need standardising for effective and sustainable HWC the conflict that is prevalent across all the partner mitigation within the KAZA TFCA. countries. < Most problematic wildlife identified were elephant, lion Methodological approaches used include interviews with and hyena followed by crocodile and hippo. several local and traditional authorities, the KAZA Liaison < Most current mitigation methods are not sustainable, have Officers (KLOs) as well as other stakeholders. The consultant less efficacy and are not cost effective explored these at community, district, provincial and national < The HWCSRS is an effective insurance scheme model that levels to determine the methods in use and their effectiveness needs adoption elsewhere as a strategy to help address HWC. in key HWC hotspots. Furthermore, this enabled an < It is not easy to replicate the HWCSRS in other partner understanding of constraints and concerns at the various countries unless several fundamental conditions, levels concerning implementation of the methods. Expert principles and policies are prevailing in these countries. review of the available HWC literature and related reports < In most of the partner countries, monitoring and from various practitioners in the region and beyond was a evaluation systems of HWC do not exist and where they vital tool in coming up with the current thinking in HWC are available, they need robust upgrading. management. The consultant also identified conflict hot spots, < There is no absolute or single solution to HWC. Reducing possible movement corridors of wildlife and investigated the intensity of this conflict is vital-, i.e. the aim should be the spatial patterns of conflict using Geographic Information mitigation and management not elimination. A holistic approach that addresses root causes over the long term as System (GIS) techniques and most importantly by reviewing well as short-term mitigation. available literature on these aspects. Using ranking and < Controls directed against animals (e.g. disturbance, killing, scoring techniques, the consultant evaluated the effectiveness translocation, species culls and long game-proof fences) of the conflict mitigation methods and the rate of adoption or are far less successful than more positive measures uptake of current methods giving an indication of the directed at people (e.g. Community Based Natural sustainability of some of these measures. However, in the Resources Management (CBNRM) programmes, land use absence of a consolidated HWC database in an electronic planning and zoning, and promoting community format across the partner countries, we relied on a more awareness). subjective identification of hot spots through consultation with management authorities and stakeholders operating 1 ‘Traditional’ deterrents are those that have been devised and carried out by rural communities living alongside wildlife. They generally utilise low-tech materials that are widely available. viii A unique conservation, tourism and sustainable development partnership.