Community-based Wildlife Monitoring In Selected Concessions of Chobe and the Okavango Delta, 2013 - 2015 A Partnership between Round River Conservation Studies and the Okavango Research Institute April, 2016 Heinemeyer et al. Community-based Wildlife Monitoring in Selected Concessions of Chobe and the Okavango Delta, 2013 - 2015 Acknowledgements A Partnership between Round River Conservation Studies and the Okavango Research Institute We would like to thank warmly the following individuals for their contributions to and assistance with the project: K. Heinemeyer1, G.S. Masunga2, K. Orrick1, J. Smith1, M. Sinvula3, S. Dain-Owens3 Trust managers and chairpersons: Mr. Galesenngwe Haku (Sankuyo), 1 Round River Conservation Studies, 104 East Main St #302, Bozeman, Montana, USA; corresponding author: [email protected] Mr. Jack Siku (Sankuyo), Mr. Kamwi Masule (CECT), Kenny Mmo- 2 Okavango Research Institute, University of Botswana, Private Bag 285, Maun, Botswana lainyana(Mababe), Mr. Tshiamo (Mababe) and Mr. Nelson G. Perez 3 Round River Conservation Studies, 925 East 900 South; Suite 207, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA (Khwai). Community trusts and their citizens: Sankuyo Tshwaragano Man- agement Trust, Mababe Zokotsama Community Development Trust, Executive Summary 1) Implement statistically robust ways of monitoring wildlife population trends using ground-based ap- Khwai “Zou” Development Trust, and the Chobe Enclave Community As a United Nations World Heritage Site, designated in Trust. proaches as outlined and recommended by Bourquin 2014, the Okavango Delta region supports the richest and Brooks (2013), and Community Escort Guides: Mokango Dikeledi, Tumalano Hako, Go- biodiversity of southern Africa and its wildlife is highly thusitswemang Tando, Maranyane Ntongwane, Oneilwemang Sa- valued globally, nationally and locally. The Department 2) Build technical skills and capacity within conces- koi, Baefesia Tando, Keoagile Gaolathe, Tshotlego Masheto, Monageng of Wildlife and National Parks (DWNP) is primarily re- - Chetiso, Batwaetse Tshiamo Kebuelemang, Gontshitswe Gakena, sponsible for wildlife management and conservation agement that will allow concessions to eventually as- sumesions forimplement survey design, the surveys. field data collection and man Kago Obiditswe, Reetsang Gakena, Onalethata Ruthano, Mmoloki and management steps to ensure the long-term con- This report summarizes progress towards these goals, in the country and has undertaken significant policy Ditirwa,Warona Mogapi,Barutegi Tiny Xhawe, Kebuelemang, Tuelo Kebuelemang, Baleofi Mogodu, Mmapula Jane Bahenyi,Tumelo, servation of wildlife throughout Botswana. In 2011, focusing on in-depth assessment of the DADS meth- Oagile Banda, Ditshebo Mojeremane, Johnson Sasaya, Oatshela Ik- aerial surveys conducted by Elephant Without Borders ods, data and analyses options and also presenting the ageng, Gaborongwe Joseph, Mothala Amos, Seteng Sasaya, Thato (EWB) indicated possible widespread declines in sev- community training efforts and the bird survey devel- Amos, Onkgopotse July, Isaac Duma, Bankeme Gaarekwe, Bokhut- eral herbivore species across the region (Chase 2011). opment. This report has the following objectives: lo Sauta, Bolfang Nkape, Lindy Jack, “B”, Simeon. In 2012, the DWNP and the Southern Africa Regional Environmental Program (SAREP) co-hosted a work- 1) Summarize wildlife survey efforts undertaken Project partners: Department of Wildlife and National Parks, Dr. Mi- shop (DWNP 2012) in Maun that brought together through the partnership of RRCS, concessions and ORI chael Flyman; Okavango Research Institute, Dr. Richard Fynn; South government, academic, regional and local wildlife ex- over the last three years; African Regional Environmental Programme, Dr. Sven Bourquin, Dr. perts to discuss ways to improve monitoring and man- 2) Present the survey data and identify its strengths Chris Brooks. agement of the natural values of the Okavango region. and weaknesses; Round River staff: Mateo Pomilia, Genifer Lara, Mike Selckmann, Recommendations from this workshop included im- 3) Explore robust options for analyzing the data to ob- Rebekah Karimi, Vehihama Kasupi, Ben Heermans, Doug Milek proving the understanding of wildlife population dy- tain information on density and demography of select- and Dennis Sizemore. namics and the regulating or driving factors of popu- ed wildlife species; Round River Volunteer Field Assistants: Tom Jones, Wyatt Mayo. lation trends. Herbivore, carnivore and bird species of concern were some of the targets recommended for 4) Based on the above, present recommendations for Round River Students: Phoebe Howe, Sarah Kechejian, Samantha increased monitoring, with monitoring approaches ways to improve the ground-based wildlife surveys in detailed in Bourquin and Brooks (2013). Since 2013, the Okavango region or meet the goals outlined in the Jonathan Piazza, Anna Nisi, Emalia Mayo, Adelie Carsten, Eda Reed, Round River has incorporated small groups of ad- original workshop (DWNP 2012) and in Bourquin and Smith, Susanna Howe, Jackson Massey, Ben Daggett, Amelia Pfeifle,- vanced university students, community members and Brooks (2013). quline Tauberman, Forrest Rosenbower, Amanda Ramsing-Lund, local experts to implement the recommended herbi- A major component of the work undertaken focused SierraLindsay Moen, Cotnoir, Lauren Hailey Sadowski, Everett, Louise Emma Bishop, Rosenfield, Drew Maya Stazesky, Agata, Anne Jac vore density and demography surveys (DADS), the on herbivore surveys using line transect methodology Foxen, James Bowen, Benjamin Szydlowski, Kiley Haberman, Siri bird surveys, and to provide training to escort guides and nicknamed “Density and Demography Surveys” Vlasic, Gabriel Feinman-Riordan, and Laurel Martinez. or “DADS”. These surveys were designed to comple- Additional supporters: Botswana Predator Conservation Trust, Dr. This effort has been a partnership with the Okavan- ment the ongoing Management Orientated Monitoring on the field and data management of these surveys. Krystyna Jordan, Dr. Neil Jordan, Dr. J.W. ‘Tico’ McNutt; Dr. Susan go Research Institute (ORI), beginning with Sankuyo, Systems (MOMS) monitoring efforts undertaken by Ringrose; Wilderness Safaris, Bonty Botumile; the staff at Banoka Mababe and Khwai Trusts. Through 2015 this work concessions. The DADS and bird point count surveys Bush Camp and Santawani Lodge; Elephants Without Borders, Kelly has included up to 7 concessions in Chobe (CH 1 and occurred during wet (February-March) and dry (Octo- Landen; and Rodney Fuhr and Dipuo Olerato. CH 2) and the Okavango Delta (NG 18, NG 19, NG 33, NG 34, NG 41). The goals of survey efforts include: withinber-November) Ngamiland, seasons Botswana” with field(Bourquin methods and outlined Brooks in the “Protocol for the monitoring of fauna and flora I Community-based Wildlife Monitoring in Selected Concessions of Chobe and the Okavango Delta, 2013 - 2015 Heinemeyer et al. 2013). Surveys were completed in the dry seasons of vide important ecological information on the health of to underestimate large mammal populations (Bouché et Burchell’s starling and Red-billed spurfowl. Diversity 2013, 2015 and the wet seasons of 2014, 2015. The populations that can complement information on the al. 2012, Caro et al. 2000; Stoner et al. 2006). The differ- indexes show that there is higher diversity of birds in concessions included in each seasonal survey varied, trends in density or population abundance. We had ences in the estimated densities may be partially due to - but surveys were completed for all or most seasons differences in sightability between the two types of sur- forts are on-going and developing, and we recommend for the Okavango concessions ((NG 18, NG 19, NG 33, ratio information from the seasonal survey efforts for vey approaches. thatriverine the ormethods wetland be influenced standardized habitats. to allow Bird consistent survey ef NG 34, NG 41) and only for 1-2 seasons in 2015 for the eachsufficient concession demographic for giraffe, information impala, kudu to provide and steenbok. initial Despite the differences in density, multiple approach- data that are comparable through time to meaningfully Chobe concessions (CH 1, CH 2). Over the four survey When available, we present the strip width and dis- es to monitoring wildlife is desired and recommended contribute to monitoring. periods, more than 4,000km of transects were com- tance based results together for comparison. In most (Caro et al 2008) as they provide different resolutions A very important aspect of implementing a standard- pleted in approximately 436 hours of survey time. cases, the strip width estimate is lower than the dis- of temporal and spatial scales, unique insights into the ized wildlife monitoring protocol in communal conces- There were 37 different species of wildlife recorded dynamics of the wildlife populations and each boasts its sions is capacity building within the local community. with impala, elephant and Burchell’s zebra being the own suite of methodological strengths and weakness- Between 2013-2015, a total of 38 community guides most widespread and common. two.tance It analysis is expected estimate that strip but widthwide confidence densities would intervals un- es. Careful development, implementation and on-going from three community trusts participated in the sur- Exploratory analyses of the herbivore survey data derestimateindicate lack true of densitysignificant even differences though we betweenattempted