Copyright © 2021 by the author(s). Published here under license by the Resilience Alliance. Ntuli, H., A. Sundström, M. Sjöstedt, E. Muchapondwa, S. C. Jagers, and A. Linell. 2021 Understanding the drivers of subsistence poaching in the Great Limpopo Transfrontier Conservation Area: What matters for community wildlife conservation? Ecology and Society 26(1):18. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-12201-260118 Research Understanding the drivers of subsistence poaching in the Great Limpopo Transfrontier Conservation Area: What matters for community wildlife conservation? Herbert Ntuli 1,2, Aksel Sundström 3, Martin Sjöstedt 3, Edwin Muchapondwa 1,4, Sverker C. Jagers 3 and Amanda Linell 3 ABSTRACT. Although subsistence poaching is a large threat to wildlife conservation in Southern Africa, this behavior is seldom researched. Our understanding of individual and community level factors that drive such behavior is limited because of both lack of data and the literature’s predominant focus on commercial poaching. The main objective of this study is to contribute to this scanty literature by examining the factors that are correlated to subsistence poaching in the Great Limpopo, a transfrontier reserve spanning across Mozambique, South Africa, and Zimbabwe. We use collected primary data from a sample of 2282 respondents and 85 villages that are part of the transfrontier conservation area. We focus on two features, reported subsistence poaching incidences in the community and the previous hunting of individuals, a behavior that is now forbidden in this area. We find through multivariate regression analysis that the likelihood for reported poaching incidences was higher in communities with a larger proportion of young men, plenty of wildlife, and experiencing wildlife conflict. In addition, our survey results illustrate that there is less poaching in communities where local people trust each other, respect institutions, perceive that the management of the park is good, and view wildlife as an asset. Some of these variables can be influenced by appropriate interventions; our findings suggest that capacity building in local institutions, use of community-based crime prevention approaches, training related to wildlife management, and public awareness campaigns could be used by policy makers to affect individuals’ perceptions and behaviors in this context. Key Words: common pool resources; community institutions; Mozambique; South Africa; subsistence poaching; wildlife conservation; Zimbabwe INTRODUCTION There are two types of poaching: subsistence and commercial. In Poaching of plants and wild animals in general constitutes a severe the literature, subsistence poaching is thought to be conducted by threat to biodiversity and to the livelihoods of poor communities local poor households, whereas commercial poaching is done by around the world. From the literature addressing wildlife crime, wealthy people working in collaboration with local communities poaching is generally viewed as the illegal practice of entering (Muchapondwa and Stage 2015, Ntuli and Muchapondwa 2018). another’s property to hunt or steal game without permission Unlike commercial poaching, which occurs mainly inside (Kahler and Gore 2012, Kahler et al. 2013, Harrison et al. 2015). protected areas, subsistence poaching is mostly conducted when As shown by Kahler and Gore (2012), plants and wildlife wildlife is roaming in the buffer zones and on communal land. subjected to poaching often experience decreases in abundance, However, as the wildlife population roaming outside protected range collapse, and extinction, which in turn pose severe areas gets depleted, subsistence poaching tends to occur also challenges to ecosystem functions. The consequent loss of inside the protected areas (e.g., Lindsey et al. 2013, Obour et al. biodiversity may also jeopardize livelihoods by affecting food 2016). security and the security of rural and peri-urban economies Although commercial poaching is a serious problem, as reflected dependent on wildlife tourism (Kahler and Gore 2012, Mabele in national and global biodiversity statistics, subsistence poaching 2017). may—in the absence of proper institutions to control illegal Poaching is, however, a multifaceted phenomenon with many behavior—also result in equally disastrous outcomes for localized potential drivers, ranging from the subsistence requirements of species and SESs (Lindsey et al. 2013, Ntuli and Muchapondwa individual poachers to availability of opportunities in 2018). Estimates hold that the value of bushmeat sold on the local international markets for commercial poachers and crime market in Africa, as a safety net to smoothen drops in household syndicates selling illegal wildlife trophies (Hübschle 2017, income or consumption (e.g., Kiffner et al. 2015), could be worth Lunstrum and Givá 2020). There are several theoretical several millions of U.S. dollars, with the bulk of this trade taking frameworks that add value to the conceptualization of place in West African countries (Schulte-Herbrüggen et al. 2013). environmental crime in general, and in particular to poaching, These statistics provide a good indication of how serious such as the social exchange theory, environmental criminology subsistence poaching is in Africa. theories (e.g., rational crime theory and routine crime theories), We lack knowledge of the who and why, related to subsistence behavioral economics, and various social-ecological systems poaching because of limited availability of data and empirical (SESs) frameworks. Although these theories overlap, they bring work.[1] The characteristics of subsistence poachers are not in different flavors to the literature and thus deserve to be looked known; e.g., are poor people more inclined to poach compared at in detail. to wealthier people? Furthermore, it is not well understood what 1School of Economics, University of Cape Town, South Africa, 2WWF South Africa, 3Department of Political Science, University of Gothenburg, Sweden, 4Department of Business Administration, Technology and Social Sciences, Luleå University of Technology, Sweden Ecology and Society 26(1): 18 https://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol26/iss1/art18/ motivates poachers to poach; e.g. is it the presence of poor THEORY AND CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK institutions and corrupt park officials (H. Ntuli, E. Illegal harvesting of wildlife resources, that is, harvesting in Muchapondwa, N. Banasiak, et al. 2019, unpublished manuscript) violation of laws or formal rules, is by many researchers viewed or their marginalization by the system (Hübschle 2016, 2017)? As as the biggest challenge threatening conservation efforts in a result, the weight that should be given to ecological, developing countries (Keane et al. 2008, Gandiwa et al. 2013, socioeconomic, community, and institutional variables as drivers Tranquilli et al. 2014, Kiffner et al. 2015). Although the literature or possible solutions of subsistence poaching is unknown (Ntuli seems to suggest that the drivers of commercial and subsistence and Muchapondwa 2018). poaching sometimes overlap, we acknowledge the limitation in extrapolating or relying on the work of previous studies, whose Taking the resulting loss of biodiversity, “eroding our own life focus is on commercial poaching, because the motives behind support system from under our feet” (see Steffen 2012, Ayling these activities are different (e.g., Hübschle 2017, Lunstrum and 2013), as our starting point, we set out to empirically investigate Givá 2020). In general, poaching is deeply embedded in culture the underlying drivers of subsistence poaching identified from the as an activity that has been passed on from generation to literature. We use unique survey data collected from the Great generation (Hübschle 2016, ‘t Sas-Rolfes et al. 2019). Subsistence Limpopo Transfrontier Conservation Area (GLTCA), which poaching may also stem from human-wildlife conflicts where crop includes three national parks in Mozambique, South Africa, and damage or livestock depredation motivate retaliatory or Zimbabwe, and focus on a research gap associated with preventive poaching (Givá and Raitio 2017). According to individual- and community-level drivers of subsistence poaching. Hübschle (2017), commercial poaching can also manifest itself More specifically, we address three important issues in the as an act of social defiance, symbolic protest of local management common pool resource (CPR) literature and pose the following practices, or as an act of rebellion toward specific laws or state questions: authority in general, which she refers to as “contested legality.” 1. What are the factors driving subsistence poaching behavior It also happens because of the need for households to cushion in local communities around the GLTFCA? themselves against poverty and shocks, for income generation, to supplement household nutrition, or because of cultural or 2. What are the characteristics of individuals who are likely to traditional beliefs. Theoretically, these diverse motivations may violate hunting rules? coincide, resulting in negative or positive feedbacks, but the 3. What measures can be instituted to counter the drivers of underlying drivers have rarely been evaluated in empirical subsistence poaching? research. This research gap is especially true with regard to the type of behavior in focus in this article, subsistence poaching, Using an original survey of over 2200 respondents from the which we see as the illegal harvesting of wildlife resources GLTFCA, our findings indicate