|UFDC Home||myUFDC Home | Help|
This item has the following downloads:
1 LIVELIHOOD ACTIVITIES IN A WILDLIFE CONSERVANCY ON NAMIBIAS KWANDO RIVER By WILLIAM J. KANAPAUX III A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLOR IDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2009
2 2009 William J. Kanapaux III
3 To my wife, Regina, for her l ove, encouragement, and support
4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This research was part of a larger colla borative project funded by the National Science Foundation (NSF), the University of Florida and the Inte rnational Union of the Conservation of Nature. I received additional NSF funding thro ugh an Integrative Graduate Education and Research Traineesh ip (IGERT) Program at UF on the Adaptive Management of Water, Wetlands and Watersheds. The Caprivi-based Integrated Rural Developm ent and Nature Conservation, the Namibian Ministry of Environment and Tourism, and the management staff at Mashi Conservancy provided valuable assistance. In particular, I thank conservancy manager Joubert Muchaka, conservancy secretary Obey Li fumbela and Lucious Lunyandile for their assistance. My two research assistants, Elvis Wamui Diamani and Nori cah Likeleli, played key roles in making this study possible. The field study was conducted in collaborat ion with professors and fellow graduate students from the University of Florida: Gre nville Barnes, Michael Binford, Mark Brown, Brian Child, J.G. Collomb, Andrea Gaughan (with special thanks for help on the maps), Cerian Gibbes, Daniel Godwin, Patricia Mupeta, Narcisa Pricope, Luke Rostant, Jennie Saqui and Andrea Wolf. I also benefited from the knowledge, logistical help and comradery of Bennety Munyama, Adi Child, Graham Child, Chaka Chirozva, Rachel Demotts, Thatayaone Diane, Candace Diggle, Richard Diggle, Paul Leslie, Rodgers Lubil o, Johanna Mbandi, Shylock Muyengwa, Daisy Nheta, and Binah Seretse. Finally, I thank the staff and management of Namushasha Lodge for their accommodations and hospitality.
5 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ............................................................................................................... 4 LIST OF TABLES ...........................................................................................................................7 LIST OF FIGURES .........................................................................................................................8 ABSTRACT ...................................................................................................................... ...............9 CHAP TER 1 RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND HYPOTHESES ................................................................ 10 2 STUDY AREA .......................................................................................................................12 Physical Characteristics ..........................................................................................................13 Wildlife ...................................................................................................................... .............14 Human Population ..................................................................................................................16 Pre-Colonial History ...............................................................................................................17 Colonial Rule ..........................................................................................................................19 Conflict ...................................................................................................................... .............20 Economic Development .......................................................................................................... 22 Role of Conservancies ............................................................................................................23 Mashi Conservancy ................................................................................................................26 3 DATA AND METHODS ....................................................................................................... 29 Development of Instrument .................................................................................................... 29 Random Sampling ..................................................................................................................30 Application of Surveys ........................................................................................................ ...31 Statistical Analyses Used on Data .......................................................................................... 33 4 RESULTS ....................................................................................................................... ........35 Differences in Livelihood Activities: Riverside vs. Interior ..................................................35 Food Security: Rivers ide vs. Interior ......................................................................................37 Differences in Land Use .........................................................................................................38 5 DISCUSSION .................................................................................................................... .....47 Livelihood Activities ......................................................................................................... .....47 Food Security ..........................................................................................................................48 Differences in Land Use .........................................................................................................50
6 6 CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................... ...53 APPENDIX A HOUSEHOLD LIVELIHOOD SURVEY ............................................................................. 58 B FIELD SURVEY ....................................................................................................................69 LIST OF REFERENCES ...............................................................................................................74 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH .........................................................................................................79
7 LIST OF TABLES Table page 4-1 Demographic information for 60 households surveyed. ....................................................40 4-2 Percent of households growing crops in 2007. .................................................................. 40 4-3 Test for differences in number of livelihood activities per household. ............................. 40 4-4 Proportion tests for food securi ty: riverside vs. interior. ................................................... 40 4-5 Test for differences in h ousehold agricultural practices. ...................................................41 46 Proportion test for conservancy me mbership: riverside vs. interior. ................................. 41 6-1 Summary of key findings a nd m anagement implications. ................................................. 57
8 LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 2-1 Location of study region. ................................................................................................. ..27 2-2 Map showing conservancies in Eastern Caprivi. ............................................................... 27 2-3 Distribution of villages within Mash i Conservancy. ......................................................... 28 3-1 Location of surveyed ho useholds and soil types. ...............................................................34 4-1 Percent of Mashi households earning income from livelihood activ ities by location. ...... 42 4-2 Percent of Mashi households getting subsistence from livelihood activities. ................... 42 4-3 Percent of Mashi households growing enough food per year by location. ........................ 43 4-4 Percent of riverside households gr ow ing enough food per year by soil type. ...................43 4-5 Percent of Mashi households growing enough food by location and soil type. ................ 44 4-6 Percent of households reporting crop raiders by species. .................................................. 44 4-7 Percent of households growing crops by location. ............................................................ 45 4-8 Distance to field and fi eld size for 10 households. ............................................................ 46 5-1 Percent of Mashi households owning assets by location. ..................................................52 6-1 Average annual income of Mashi households (N$ 7 = US $ 1). ....................................... 56
9 Abstract of Thesis Presen ted to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science LIVELIHOOD ACTIVITIES IN A WILDLIFE CONSERVANCY ON NAMIBIAS KWANDO RIVER By William J. Kanapaux III May 2009 Chair: Brian Child Major: Geography We examined livelihood activities at the house hold level in a wildlif e conservancy along the Kwando River in the Caprivi region of Namibia. It analyzes data from surveys collected in Mashi Conservancy, a community-based natural resource management program bordered on two sides by national parks. The conservancy is remote, economically undeveloped, and has a recovering wildlife populat ion. Its people subsist primarily on rain-fed agriculture from sandy soils in a semi-arid, dro ught-prone environment. We asked how people in the conservancy make their livelihoods and what differences exist between the conservancys riverside and interior populations. The study fi nds that a population centered 20 km away from the river on slightly heavier soils engages in fewer livelihood activities and has greater food s ecurity than does the riverside population. It further establishes that differences between the two populations are significant enough to in dicate two distinct combinations of livelihood activity with different environmental interactions. Differences also exist among riverside households based on so il type. These findings suggest that any management action taken by the conservancy will affect household livelihoods differently based on location and that these differenc es must be considered as the conservancy makes the transition from a subsistence-based agricultural system to a wildlife-based economy.
10 CHAPTER 1 RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND HYPOTHESES We exa mined data from research conducte d along the Kwando River in Namibias Eastern Caprivi region in May to July 2007. It looks at local livelihoods in a community-based natural resource management (CBNRM) area known as Mashi Conservancy. The conservancy is remote, economically undeveloped, and has a wildlife popul ation that is recovering from years of poaching. Its people subsist primarily on rain-fed agriculture from sandy soils in a semi-arid, drought-prone environment. The Namibian government began establishing conservancies for CBNRM in 1996 so that financial benefits from tourism and safari hunt ing could be captured by local communities and distributed to their residents. These conserva ncies are viewed as a tool for simultaneously achieving biological conservation and economic development. Under these programs, management of wildlife and other natura l resources on communal lands becomes the responsibility of local communities. Mashi Conservancy was officially gazetted in 2003. It is bordered on two sides by national parks and has a growing population of elephants and other wildlife (IRDNC 2007). This increase in wildlife has also brought an increase in crop raiding by wildlife. The combination of crop raiding, poor soils, and variable rainfall makes food security a serious concern, especially for households closest to the river. How do these cha llenges determine the range and reliability of livelihood activities engaged in by households ? Do differences exist between the two populations households that need to be accounted for in natural resource management planning, such as the expansion of wild life corridors and determining income potential from wildlife? Adams and Hulme (2001a) define CBNRM as t hose principles and practices that argue that conservation goals should be pursued by strate gies that emphasize the role of local residents
11 in decision-making about natural resources. Opening access to financial benefits from tourism and wildlife to local people on communal land re presents a change in economic conditions that shifts the area from a subsistence-based agri cultural system to a wildlife-based economy. Lambin et. al. (2001) observe that changes in economic conditions mediated by institutional factors are the main drivers of la nd use change. Conservancies have emerged as an institutional presence that must interact with government, traditional authorities, and customary livelihood practices. Understanding how people within the conserva ncy make their livelihoods is a first step toward understanding how the conser vancy itself might shape livelihood strategies and land use decisions in the future. This paper asks the following questions: 1) How do people in Mashi Conservancy make their livelihoods, and how vari ed and reliable are those livelihoods? 2) How do livelihood activities differ between riverside and interior populations within th e conservancy? 3) Do important differences in liveli hood patterns exist that need to be considering when making decisions about land use and natural resource management? The examination of livelihood activities is based on 60 household interviews about income-producing and subsistence-based activities. The study hypothesizes that: H1 People living on heavier soils away from the river (interior populations) engage in fewer livelihood activ ities than do riverside populations. H2 Interior populations have greater food security than do riverside populations. H3 Differences between inte rior and riverside populati ons are significant enough to suggest two distinct center s of livelihood activ ities with different environmental interactions.
12 CHAPTER 2 STUDY AREA Mashi Conservancy is located in Eastern Caprivi, Na mibia (Figures 2-1 and 2-2). The conservancy is bordered on the west by th e Kwando River and Bwabwata National Park. Mudumu National Park lies directly south of the conservancy. Neighboring conservancies border Mashi to the north and east. The Mashi population is divide d roughly into two centers. About 431 households live in a cluster situated 14 km to 20 km east of the Kwand o River, just north of Mudumu National Park on an area of slightly heavie r soils. About 515 households ar e located along a regularly maintained graded road that runs parallel to the Kwando River. This graded road runs south from the Trans-Caprivi Highway at Kongola. The norther n sections of the road traverse relic sand dunes that rise about 50 m. These dunes flatte n out about one-third of the way into the conservancy. The road then enters a landscape th at shows characteristics of ancient flooding and water action, with heavier soils, grasslands and mopane woodlands. Caprivi covers 14,528 km2 and is one of 13 regions established by the Namibian government in 1991 (Zeller, 2000). The region is ge ographically removed from the rest of the country, jutting into the middle of southern Africa and bordere d by Angola, Zambia, Zimbabwe and Botswana. The study area is transnationa l in character and has experienced both tribal and international conflict. People and wildlife have historically crossed its political boundaries. At least five tribes make their home in the st udy area: Lozi, Mbukushu, Mafwe, Siyeyi, and KhoeSan. The Angolan and Zambian borders are about 55km to the north by road from the Mashi Conservancy office. The border with Botswana is less than 5 km due west, directly across the Kwando River.
13 Physical Characteristics Caprivi is part of the Kalahari Basin and at one tim e was part of the Kalahari Desert. It now lies in a transitional zone between the desert and the Angolan high lands (Zeller, 2000). Caprivi has little variation in surface relief and a slight slope of 1110 m to 930 m, running west to east. The regions Kalahari sa nds are low in organic materials and nutrients, resulting in low productivity for agriculture. The soils are also vulnerable to wind and water erosion (Zeller, 2000). Floodplains along the Kwa ndo and Chobe Rivers hold more fertile soils, as do fossil drainage lines in other parts of the region (Zeller, 2000). Mashis interior is one such area with more fertile soils. The Kwando River is one of 10 major freshwat er wetlands in the Zambezi Basin and the only perennial river between the Kavango River, which is about 200 km to the west, and the Chobe/Zambezi river system, about 140 km to the eas t. Threats in this basin include overuse of river resources and reduced water flows cause d by drought and water abstractions (Schuyt, 2005). The Kwando River, however, has been larg ely protected by war in Angola, which has inhibited population growth in the Angolan upla nds that hold the rivers headwaters. Wetlands are important for producing a number of products that have social and economic value to rural communities (Dixon and Wood, 2003). Wetlands se rve as multi-functional reservoirs of productivity and provide hydrological be nefits that communities depend on. Average daily temperatures range from 5 C in the winter to 33 C in the summer (Naeraa et. al., 1993). Namibias rainy season runs from Octobe r through April. Capriv i averages 600 to 700 mm of rainfall annually, producing seasonal floo dplains (Devereux and Naeraa, 1996). Rainfall is highly erratic and drought occurs regularly (Jones and Murphree, 2001). Because the study area receives most of its rainfall during the summer, one failed wet season can mean drought conditions for more than a year (Brown and Lall, 2006).
14 Wildlife The Kwando River serves as an im portant w ildlife corridor for elephants and other game species that migrate north from Botswana, and to a lesser extent south from Angola and Zambia. The area spanning Namibias Caprivi region, northern Botswana, and western Zimbabwe contains Africas largest populat ion of elephants and one of the largest stretches of known elephant range on the continent (S karpe et. al., 2004; Blanc et. al 2007). The tota l population is estimated at about 180,000 elephant s and appears to be growing at 5.4% annually (Blanc et. al., 2005). The estimated number of elephants living in Caprivi nearly doub led between 1996 and 2004 to 8,700. Increased migration from Botswana is believed to be the cause (Blanc et. al., 2007). Some elephants form resident groups clos e to permanent water sources such as the Kwando River, while other elephants migrate up to 200 km to reach water in the dry season (Verlinden and Gavor, 1998). Large-scale hunting during the colonial period decimated game populations in Caprivi (National Planning Commission, 2004). From 1895 to about 1910, white criminals and poachers used Eastern Caprivi as a haven. English and Bo ers were known to illega lly hunt big game there for sport (Fisch, 1999b). Most of these hunters ca me during the dry season (May to October), when malaria was less of a threat and game was concentrated near water sources. Game species in Caprivi were abundant pr ior to 1895. The Chobe Valley had been the private hunting reserve of the Lozis Paramount Chief Lewanika. Many of the game species found in Caprivi had already been hunted out or we re protected in neighboring Rhodesia, such as giraffe and eland. Within a decade, these large ga me populations had been drastically reduced in Caprivi, with some species hunted to the point of near extinction (F isch, 1999b). Eyewitness accounts from the period describe hunters killi ng between 120 and 140 head of game on a single expedition. Native residents of Caprivi bene fited from these hunting operations through
15 employment and distribution of game meat. They al so sold goods such as maize and hides to the white hunters. Rampant poaching in Caprivi ended with the establishment of German administration in 1908. Wildlife populations recovered in the follo wing decades, with the exception of the disappearance of black and white rhino (Rice, 1997). But during th e armed conflicts of the 1970s and 80s, unlicensed hunting by South African Defe nse Force (SADF) personnel, civil servants and entrepreneurs again decimated much of the wildlife in Capriv i (Zeller, 2000). Law enforcement officials were reported to have al so taken part. Animals were killed by machine gun from low flying helicopters or captured to sell to South African game parks (Zeller, 2000). Local people also took part as firearms became readily available (Rice, 1997). By Namibian independence in 1990, several mammal species were completely extirpated from Caprivi and many others had been severely decimated. Eland, waterbuck, wildebeest, and giraffe disappeared from East Caprivi, while roan, sable antelope, tsessebbe, and zebra populations became critically low (Rice, 1997). Red lechwe in East Capr ivi, which had numbered more than 70,000 in 1973, had been reduced to a population of about 1,000 (Rice, 1997). West Caprivi was the exception. The S ADFs Colonel Breytenbach, 32nd Battalion, strictly enforced conservation re gulations that helped maintain healthy populations there (Rice, 1997). West Caprivis Bwabwata National Par k, just across the Kwando River from Mashi Conservancy, had been established in 1968 as Ca privi Game Park and was controlled by SADF until Namibia`s independence in 1990. The park, which has an area of 5,715 km2, covers the entire western portion of the Caprivi Strip between the Okavango and Kwando Rivers. Mudumu National Park, across the Kwando in East Caprivi, was proclaimed in 1990 and has an area of 1,010 km2 (Ministry of Environment and Tourism, 2005).
16 Human Population Mashi Conservancy has a population of about 4,000 residents living in m ore than 100 villages (Figure 2-3). The conservancys two po pulation areas are distributed along two roads. The riverside population is found al ong a graded road that runs from the village of Kongola, located about 20 km to the north, to Mudumu Nati onal Park and other settlements to the south (Figure 2-2). Villages and settlements are clustered along the graded road, which roughly parallels the Kwando River and is a throughway fo r tourists. Kongola is situated on the TransCaprivi Highway, the major artery to Caprivis administrative capital and main market, Katima Mulilo, about 120 km to the east. Mashis interior population is connected to the river road by a 20 km 4x4 track through fields and bush. These settlements are situated on more fertile soils that have a higher content of clay. The interior population is more densely clustered than th e riverside population and has larger agricultural fields, some exceeding 100 ha. The remainder of the conservancy is largely unsettled and consists of shrub, forest and grassl and. Some cattle owners from the interior drive their herds through this area to the Kwando River during the dry season for water. A couple of cattle posts, temporary dwellings for the men who tend cattle herds, can be found in the section between the two populations with boreholes nearby. In 1909, the German colonial administrati on estimated Caprivis population at 11,300 people (Fisch, 1999b). According to Namibias Cent ral Bureau of Statistics, about 86,000 people now live in Eastern Caprivi (National Pl anning Commission, 2004). The 2001 Census lists Caprivis overall growth rate at 1.8%. Seventy-two percent of Capr ivians live in rural areas, and population density is 5.5 persons per km2 (Namibia Population and Housing Census, 2001). According to Mendelsohn and Roberts (1997), 61 % of the total area of Eastern Caprivi has less than 1 person per km2. As of 1997, Mashis inte rior area of Sachona a nd its riverside area of
17 Lizauli both had population densit ies of 20 to 50 people per km2. By contrast, the area in between the two centers has a density of 1 person per km2. As a whole, Eastern Caprivi experienced an annu al growth rate of greater than 4% between 1966 and 1996 (Mendelsohn and Roberts, 1997). The initial population bo ost came from armed conflict along the border with Angola. Continued warfare in Angola after Namibias independence and a poor economy in Zambia have dr iven people to seek better opportunities in East Caprivi, made easier by completion of the Trans-Caprivi Highway in the mid-1990s. This has resulted in increased competition for land, wo rsening conditions for agriculture and overall environmental degradation (Zeller, 2000). E xpansion of settlements, more cultivation, widespread use of fire and greater pressure on grazing lands have increa sed soil erosion and bush encroachment, in some cases severely disturbing local ecosystems (Zeller, 2000). In 1996, Eastern Caprivi had 124,000 head of cat tle (Mendelsohn and Roberts, 1997). The cattle population saw a dramatic increase be tween 1976 and 1996 as vaccinations reduced livestock diseases and lower river levels and less flooding along Caprivis southern border opened up more land for grazing. Consequently grazing pressure doubled between 1985 and 1996 (Mendelsohn and Roberts, 1997). In 1997, the in terior area of Sachona had 10-25 cattle per km2, while the riverside area of Lizauli had 1-5 cattle per km2. Mashis interior area has moderate grazing potential, while most of its riverside has poor grazing potential Pre-Colonial History Khoe-San (bushm en) tribes historically used the Caprivi region for hunting and gathering, primarily inhabiting western Capriv i. In the 17th or 18th centur y, modern day Caprivians began moving into the area. Caprivi re sidents historically referred to the Kwando River as the Mashi (Fisch, 1999a).
18 By the 1830s, the Barotse Empire (the Lozi ) controlled eastern Caprivi. The empire centered on the upper Zambezi floodplai n and extended to Victoria Fa lls. The Lozi ruled over the Subiya, Fwe, Yeyi and Mbukushu tribes (Zeller, 2000). The Lozi placed th e ethnic tribes they conquered under a tenure system similar to Europes feudal system. Pure blooded Lozi were made chiefs, and everyone else was essentially en slaved to the chief. Pr otection and the right to exist on the land were paid for in -kind or through personal servi ce. This state of dependency existed in Caprivi for generations. Conquered ethni c groups were required to pay tribute in the form of maize, hides, ivory and goats (Fisch, 1999b). The Lozi also had a tradition of taking one or two wives from the conquered tribes. This strengthened loyalty toward the Lozi and resulted in a strong mixing of tr ibal heritage to the point that an individuals tribal membership could be determin ed only by paternal line of descent (Fisch, 1999b). Caprivi continues to be characterized by close family ties with people from Botswana, Zambia and Zimbabwe. Over time, th is has led to strong personal and economic exchange between thes e areas (Zeller, 2000). The Lozis political structure has persisted through today. Paramount Chief Lewanika, who ruled from 1878 to 1916, divided his territory in to provinces that were governed by close relatives. Each province had severa l districts, and each of these districts was run by an induna, or headman. The induna collected taxes, recruited so ldiers and maintained political order. In addition to this district headman were minor indunas. These village headmen served as intermediaries between their people and the Lozi leaders (Fisch, 1999b). The traditional title for the headman of th e area along the Mashi River was Siluka. His headquarters were located near the confluence of the Mashi and Luyana Rivers, just north of Caprivi in modern-day Zambia. A minor induna named Mayuni had his headquarters along the
19 Mashi River in what is now known as Mayuni Conservancy, direc tly north of Mashi Conservancy. Mayunis mother was Yeyi, his father was Lozi, and his first wife was Fwe (Fisch, 1999b). Pre-colonial livelihoods in Ca privi involved fishing, hunting a nd gathering, agriculture and pastoralism. Plowing with oxen and other agricu ltural techniques werent practiced until the 1920s, when they were introduced by Eu ropean missionaries (Zeller, 2000). Colonial Rule In 1890, the British agreed to give th e German government a strip of land that would connect German South West Africa (modern day Namibia) to the Zambezi River. The Germans hoped that the Zambezi would provide access to th eir colonies in East Africa. But the river proved unnavigable, and German of ficials soon lost interest in developing the remote region, which became known as the Caprivi Zipfel, know n as the Caprivi Strip in English (Fisch, 1999a). It would be another 18 years before the Germans actually arrived to claim the territory (Bruchmann, 2000). Prior to 1908, few Germans vent ured into Caprivi. The route was difficult and dangerous, especially along the marshes of the Mashi (Kwando) River (Zeller, 2000). Despite its inaccessibility from the west, Caprivi had thriving settlements, especially along the Zambezi River. One German visitor to the re gion in 1904 estimated that 40,000 head of cattle grazed in Eastern Caprivi on the Zambezi floodplains. Capt. Kurt Streitwolf, the first official Ge rman resident of Caprivi, introduced an administrative structure based on traditional auth ority that lasted from 1909 to 1972. He sought to gain the cooperation of traditional leaders by adopting a simplified version of the Lozi tribal system. Native inhabitants were allowed to retain ownership of inherited land and have use of it.
20 He restricted the rights of chiefs as little as possible while controlli ng the activities of white traders and settlers (Fisch, 1999b). Streitwolf considered Caprivis game and woodl ands as its most valuable assets (Fisch, 1999b). He proposed that hunting licenses be sold to British game hunters at a premium price in order to fund operations at Caprivis administrative headquarters, but the idea was rejected by his superiors in Windhoek. The local people of Caprivi were subject to frequent administrative changes and consequently didnt develop strong loyalt ies toward the government in Windhoek. British officials occupied Caprivi at the st art of World War I, in September 1914, in a bloodless surrender by the Germans. In 1920, the League of Nations assigned South West Africa, including the Caprivi Strip, to the Union of South Africa, which devolved authority for the region to the Bechuanaland Protectorate (now Botswana). From 1929 to 1939, administrative control came from Windhoek. In 1939, control of East Caprivi was granted to the Department of Native Affairs in Pretoria, South Africa. From 1940 to 1980, Caprivi was administered as a Bantustan, otherwise known as a Native Reserve, by South Africas apartheid government in Pretoria (Tvedten, 2002). South Africa established a transitional government in Namibia in 1985. Namibia achieved independence in 1990. Conflict A history of arm ed conflict in Caprivi ha s hurt the regions st anding as a tourist destination. Beginning in the 1970s, the South African De fense Force fought along the border of the Caprivi Strip against the Movimento Popular da Libertao de Angola, the South West African Peoples Organization (SWAPO), Cubans, Russians and other eastern bloc nations. The conflict
21 resulted in a quick build-up of infrastructure in the area, including airports roads, electricity and bridges. West Caprivi, from the Kwando River to the Kavango River, was heavily fortified until the end of the war for inde pendence in 1989 (Fisch, 1999a). Prior to that, in 1964, the Caprivi Afri can National Union (CANU) demanded the liberation of Caprivi from South African occu pation. Many members fled to Zambia after the arrest of CANUs president. Young Caprivians began joining the military wing of SWAPO. SWAPO and CANU members coll aborated on sabotage and terro rism against South African forces in Caprivi (Fisch, 1999a). SWAPO u ltimately became Namibias ruling party at independence in 1990. By then, the party had br oken all ties with CANU, and East Caprivi became known as an area of political opposition. Mishake Muyongo, CANUs second president, wanted Caprivi to become a semiautonomous province of Zambia. Caprivi secessi onists had been sent to Angola for military training and returned to Caprivi in October 1998. They gathered in Mudumu National Park and were supplied food by the local popu lation in Mashis interior (Fisch, 1999a). Caprivi police were alerted to the situation, resulting in seve ral arrests and the exodus of about 2,000 activists into Botswana by the end of the year. Muyongo and Chief Bwima Mamili, the seventh of the Mamili chiefs, were granted asylum in Denmar k in 1998 for their roles in the secessionist Caprivi Freedom Movement (Fisch, 1999a). But the secessionist movement persisted. An armed uprising took place in Katima Mulilo in August 1999, with most of the armed rebels coming from Linyanti, home of Chief Mamili. The attack on the airport and government instal lations came as a surprise but was short-lived (Zeller, 2000).
22 In January 2000, three French children were kill ed and their parents cr itically wounded in a West Caprivi attack by uniformed men who were id entified as UNITA rebels from Angola. That same day two people were wounded in an attack on a Danish aid agency tr uck in the same area (BBC News, 2000). At least 18 people died in 2000 as a result of the violence (Bruchmann, 2000). As a result, tourism came to a stands till, resulting in widespread unemployment. The conflict set back effort s by the government and NGOs to promote socio-economic development in the region (Zeller, 2000). Economic Development As in m uch of southern Africa, livestock production and marginal, dryland crop production are the predominant land uses in Caprivi (Walker, 1999). Caprivi currently ranks at the bottom of Namibias thirteen ad ministrative districts in terms of the U.N.s human development index (Zelle r, 2000). Reaching Katima Mulilo by road from Windhoek was nearly impossible until the 1950s, when 4x4s became available and a primitive bridge was built across the Kwando River (Fisch, 1999a). This lack of development began to change when armed conflict erupted during the 1960s against the Peoples Liberation Army of Namibia. South Africans developed water supply, ag ricultural extension, h ealth care facilities, schools and housing projects (Zeller, 2000). During the 1960s and early 1970s, Katima Mulilo saw rapid expansion a nd population increases. From 1966 until Namibias independence in 1990, pro-government military operations fueled trade and business in Katima Mulilo. Th e rural economy, however, suffered. Caprivi had been self-sufficient in its production of maize in the 1960s but produced only 35 to 45% of its needs by the early 1980s (Tvedten, 2002). Follo wing independence, unemployment and poverty became a larger problem for Caprivi residents (Fisch, 1999a).
23 Following independence, Namibia built the Tran s Caprivi Highway to establish a trade corridor with Zambia and other southern African countries while also promoting tourism in the Zambezi River basin. Construction of the highw ay began in the mid-1990s and was completed in 2005 (New Era, 2007). The creation of the tar ro ad has opened up regional trade, allowing for the transport of goods loaded off container ship s at Walvis Bay, on Namibias coast, to the interior of southern Africa. It has given Capr ivi residents greater access to local markets and cities such as Katima Mulilo, Rundu, and Windhoek. It has also opened up Caprivi to tourists en route from popular destinations such as Namibias Etosha Pan, Zimbabwes Victoria Falls, and Botswanas Chobe National Park. Role of Conservancies Prior to colo nial rule, traditional authorities in eastern Caprivi had a number of restrictions regulating the use of natu ral resources. Lozi authorities establ ished forest reserves and protected certain tree species and individual trees (Zeller, 2000). Chiefs controlled the hunting of royal game and establishing hunting seasons for pa rticular species. The hunting of unprotected species required permission from the induna. Th e unlawful harvesting of natural resources, hunting or fishing could result in fines that were usually paid in livestock. This is not to suggest that land use problems didnt exist in Caprivi. German administrator Viktor von Frankenberg observed during hi s residence between 1911 and 1914 that many Caprivians burned and cleared new fields after only a few seasons of cultivation. He had begun making plans to promote afforestation and better land use practices prior to his surrender to the British at the start of World War I (Fisch, 1999b). The Nature Conservation Amendment Act of 1996 paved the way for Namibias presentday CBNRM program. The Act called for the colle ctive management of wildlife and tourism through a common property resource management institution known as a conservancy. Rural
24 communities were given the same rights as white freeholders to use and benefit from wildlife and to receive tourism concessions as an incen tive for conserving wildlife (Jones and Murphree, 2001). The CBNRM program gives local people a stak e in wildlife management that includes authority over management decisions. This repr esents an important change as people living in East Caprivi were hostile toward early conserva tion actions by the government. Initial efforts to curb illegal hunting along the Kwa ndo in the 1980s by the newly created Department of Nature Conservation focused on anti-poach ing activities that included little or no community interaction. Consequently, local people became hostile toward park staff. At one point, a government employee was shot and injured after being mistaken for a park ranger (Rice, 1997). In 1993, the government appointed community ga me guards in communities that requested them. This initiative, which preceded efforts to establish CBNRM programs, sought to establish a mechanism for engaging local communities in wildlife conservation. The community game guards conducted wildlife patrols and monitoring and assisted communities with wildlife-related issues such as problem-animal control (Rice, 1997). Several communities that are now part of Mashi Conservancy took part in the initial program: Ngonga, Namushasha, and Lizauli. These initial efforts, however, revealed a lack of commitment to wildlife conservation within these communities. The first four years of the pr ogram (1993-1997) resulted in dismissals and replacements of game guards. Most notably, a Lizauli game guard was arrested for possession of ivory (Rice, 1997). Since then, CBNRM has brought potential for significant changes to rural livelihoods in the Kwando region. Seeking to provide incentives fo r local people to better manage wildlife
25 populations, the program operates on the premise that if communities are given sufficient authority and control over wildlife, the benef its will outweigh the costs (Jones et. al., 2002). Poor people do not have the means to grow or buy enough food in a system that relies on marginal agriculture (Walker, 1999). Such is the case along the Kwando River. One of CBNRMs goals is to improve the economic we lfare of local people by moving away from marginal forms of agriculture and instead focusing on less extractive land uses that benefit from the regions biological resources (Walker, 1999) Community conservation is seen as an insurance policy agains t drought by spreading risk across mo re livelihood options (Jones and Murphree, 2001). The hunting and viewing of game animals in the wild plays an important economic role in southern Africas semi-arid regions (Barne s, 1999). For communal areas, linking wildlife systems to tourism can generate wealth without the biological limits of pastoral and ranching systems (Cumming, 1999). However, there is no guarantee that benefits will be distributed equally within a conservancy (Baker, 1997). The number of people who cannot secure tourism jobs or benefits from tourism could be significa ntly larger than the number who can, creating the potential for resentment and consumptiv e land use practices (Vanderpost, 2006). Wildlife in southern Africa has economic value (Barnes, 2001; Humavindu and Barnes 2003). In 2000, nearly one-quarter of income from safari hunters in Namibia accrued to the rural poor, making the industry important for economic de velopment. Barnes et. al. (2002) report that Namibias conservancies are economically e fficient and have a high likelihood of being sustainable. However, Adams and Hulme (2001b) point out that trade-offs between economic development and conservation can be substantial ex cept in rare situations that involve high-value
26 tourism and safari hunting on agriculturally marginal lands with low human populations and where human activity has a low impact on the rate of environmental change. Mashi Conservancy Mashi Conservancy was officially gazetted in 2003 and had 1,097 m embers as of July 2007. Overall, the conservancy comprises a growing population of more than 4,000 people. At the time of the study, conservancy management was in the process of finalizing contracts with the two tourism lodges within its boundaries : Namushasha Lodge and Camp Kwando. The conservancy earned hunting revenues in US dollars of roughly $27,143 in 2003; $22,143 in 2004; $19,143 in 2005; and $30,829 in 2006 ($1 US = $7 Namibian). The conservancy also earned $2,714 in 2006 from an agreement with Namushasha Lodge. In 2007, the conservancy employed 16 full-time staff at a rate of $86 a month and 12 parttime staff at $43 per month. This totals $22,704 in annual salary, accounting for the majority of its revenues (68% in 2006). The two lodges within Mashi Conservancy sh owed in 2007 that they employed a total of 65 local people, most of whom came from within the conservancy. A lodge directly south of the conservancy, in Mudumu National Park, also em ploys people who live with in the conservancy.
27 Figure 2-1. Location of study region. The Caprivi region of Namibia juts across southern Africa, bordering Angola, Zambia, Zimbabwe, and Botswana. Figure 2-2. Map showing conservancies in East ern Caprivi. Mashi C onservancy sits above Mudumu National Park, to the west along the Kwando River. The conservancy has since been extended all the way to the border with the national park.
28 Figure 2-3. Distribution of villages within Mashi Conservancy. This map is based on a village census undertaken by the author and a loca l research assistant in June 2007. The villages are clustered in two locations: 1) al ong a graded road that runs parallel to the Kwando River and 2) within the interior A narrow 4X4 track connects the two locations and ultimately leads to the Tran sCaprivi Highway. This map also shows agricultural fields in rela tion to the villages, based on data from the year 2000.
29 CHAPTER 3 DATA AND METHODS Mashi Conservancy comprises two spatially di stinct populations: 1) riverside villages and 2) interior villages. Interior vi llages are located 14 km to 20 km from the river along a 4x4 track that cuts through a wide swath of bush. These interior villages, how ever, are closer to the TransCaprivi Highway and Katima Mulilo. The riverside population can be divided by soil type (Dijkshoorn, 2003). The northern section of the riverside is ch aracterized by eutric arenosols (more than 50% sand with little organic matter). The southern portion contains eu tric fluvisols (a sandy clay soil associated with floodplains and former river channe ls). Eutric fluvisols are also found in the interior. Of the 30 households surveyed along the riverside, 14 we re located on the sandy soils and 16 on the more fertile soils to the south (Figure 3-1). This study hypothesizes that: H1 Interior populations engage in fewer livelihood activ ities than do riverside populations. H2 Interior populations have greater food security than do riverside populations. H3 Differences between inte rior and riverside populati ons are significant enough to suggest two distinct center s of livelihood activ ities with different environmental interactions. Development of Instrument This study relies prim arily on a household liveli hoods survey that collected information on demographics, household size and structure; nu mber and kinds of assets; income-producing activities; subsistence activities; livestock ownership; crop production; food security; and human-wildlife conflict. The survey was modified in the field based in part on a series of meetings with community members, conservancy leaders, NGO representati ves, and government officials in Caprivi in
30 May and June 2007. An interdisciplinary team of re searchers from the University of Florida, the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill, and the University of Botswanas Harry Oppenheimer Okavango Research Center took part in developing and tes ting the survey with local community members. The process also included community-oriented researchers affiliated with the University of Namibia, the University of Botswana, and the University of Zimbabwe. This survey was part of an in terdisciplinary research project that included studies on governance of CBNRM programs; attitudes and perceptions towa rd national parks; ecological transects; and the collection of training samples for remote sensing analysis. Random Sampling Sampling Frame Mashi Conservancy comprises about 1,000 households in an area of 441 km2. In order to conduct a random sample, a sampling frame had to be created. The author and a local research assistant conducted a village a nd household census on the entire c onservancy, with the exception of a handful of villages in a distant section bordering the Trans-Caprivi Highway. At each village, the headman or his representative was asked permission to include the name of the village, count the number of households and ta ke a GPS waypoint of its location. Only three villages refused to comply. The sampling frame comprised 103 villages, ranging in size from two to more than 50 households. Spatial Clusters Once the census was completed, villages were cat egorized into spatial clusters for each of the two population areas. The riverside had 63 vi llages with 517 households and was divided into three spatial clusters. The interior had 40 villag es with 444 households and was divided into two clusters. These clusters were determined by si ght, informed largely by observations of spatial variation and clear spatial boundaries.
31 Weighted Stratification Each village cluster was given a weight ba sed on its proportion of all villages in the population area. This weight determined the numbe r of surveys to be conducted within that spatial cluster. Individual villages, however, were not weighted by number of households. Each village within a cluster had the same chance of being selected for a survey, independent of its population. This was done to avoid sampli ng bias toward the largest villages. Selecting Villages and Households Villages were selected through a random numb er generator, as were households within selected villages. Duplicate selections of a v illage were allowed. Alternate villages in each spatial cluster were also randomly selected. Thre e households were selected for each survey: one primary and two alternates. These households were identified by number, counting clockwise from the left at the entrance in to the village. If all three households were vacant, opportunistic sampling was permitted. If the village was vacan t of appropriate respondents, the nearest alternate village was selected. This process wa s strictly followed in order to maintain the integrity of the random sample. Application of Surveys Household Livelihood Survey We conducted 60 household surveys, 30 in each of the two population areas, in June and July 2007. The survey comprised 50 questions th at took about 45 m inutes to complete. GPS coordinates were taken for each survey. Household demographic information Age, gender, education, employment, and conservancy membership for all people living in the household at least nine months a year. Also household trib al affiliation. Infrastructure Type of home; energy sources for cooking and lighting; assets owned; access to transportation and cell phones.
32 Livelihoods Activities for producing income or in-kind payments (goods or services in lieu of cash); activities for providing househol d subsistence; formal employment; crops grown and harvested; size of fields; agricultural practices; livestock owned. Expenses List of all expens es over a years time. Food security Ability to grow enough food for fam ily over past five years; access to water for household and livestock. Human-wildlife conflict Crop raiders; methods for prot ecting crops; livestock predators; methods for protecting livestock; attacks on household members. Risk perception List of problems and concerns for household members; responses to unfavorable events. See Appendix A for copy of the household liveli hoods survey and notes about its use in the field. Field Survey A follow-up field survey was administered to 10 of the 60 household livelihood survey respondents. These 10 respondents were randomly selected, five each from the riverside and interior locations. The survey i nvolved GPS tracking from the house hold to the field in order to accurately measure distanceto-field. The fields perimeter was al so measured to get an accurate measurement of field size. The field survey covered: Plot characteristics Topography, slope, soil, vegetation, characteristic s of surrounding area. Practices over last five years Crop yields; time and money spent on field labor; fertilizer use. Drought and wildlife Crop irrigation; crop raidi ng; crop losses from drought. Soil description Perceptions of soil quality; ch anges to soil quality; erosion. Zonation Willingness to move field for irrigation and protection from wildlife; willingness to have certain parts of conservancy zoned for different land uses.
33 Because of the small sample size, little sta tistical data analysis was done on the field survey. However, its data helped inform a nd confirm results from the household livelihoods survey. Statistical Analyses Used on Data Data from the household and field surveys were entered into Excel spreadsheets and then imported into NCSS databases for descriptive and st atistical analyses. The data presented several challenges for conducting statistical tests: 1. A relatively small sample size of n=60 overall and n=30 for each of the locations. 2. Non-normal distributions 3. Discrete random variables with frequent ties (e.g., number of livelihood activities) Most of the variables for H1 and H3 were an alyzed using two-sample t-tests with location as the grouping variable. This study uses Z-Valu es from the Mann-Whitney U test to determine whether to reject the null hypot hesis (Burt and Barber, 1996). However, this violates the assumption that the variable is continuous rather than discrete (NCSS Users Guide, 2007). The other option would be the Kolmogorov-Smirnoff test, which gives approximate results for discrete random variables (Burt and Barber, 1996). Results from Kolmogorov-Smirnoff showed an inclination toward Type II errors in cases wh ere rejection of the null hypothesis appeared to be highly likely (99% conf idence under Mann-Whitney). The remaining variables, food security (H2) and conservancy membership (H3), were evaluated using proportions tests, specifically two-sided tests of zer o difference. Variables with n 50 used the Chi-square test. Variables with n < 50 used Fishers Exact test.
34 Figure 3-1. Location of surveyed households and soil types. This map shows the spat ial distribution of household livelihood sur veys in Mashi Conservancy. This study surveyed 60 randomly selected households from the riverside and interior (n=30 for each location). The two primary soil types ar e eutric arenosols (more than 50% sand with little organic matter) and eutric fluvisols (a sandy clay soil associated with floodplains and former river channe ls). Map by Andrea Gaughan.
35 CHAPTER 4 RESULTS A total of 60 respondents were interviewed (T able 4-1). Respondents ranged in age from 20 to 75. The majority were affiliated with two tribes: Mbukushu (47%) and Mafwe (43%). Households affiliated with the two tribes are evenly distribu ted among the two main population areas. Respondents were 60% male (50% riverside, 70% interior). Head of household is defined as the husband unless the respondent was a single female. Nearly all respondents (93%) gr ew crops in 2007, primarily ma ize, sorghum, melons, and millet (Table 4-2). Farmers practice rain-fed agriculture with little fertilizer use. Only two respondents who farmed in 2007 (3%) reported usi ng commercial fertilizer. Five farmers, all from the interior, reported usi ng cattle manure as fertilizer (8% of all resp ondents, 17% of interior respondents), The passive use of manure as fertilizer is likely to be more widespread than found in the survey, especially in the interior as cattle are allowed to graze in fields after harvest. Differences in Livelihood Activi ties : Riverside vs. Interior Household livelihood activities differed significantly between rive rside and interior populations by number and type. Riverside households reported a mean of 3.4 income-producing activities during the prev ious 12 months (s.d. = 1.5, median = 3.5). Interior households reported a mean of 2.4 activities (s .d. = 1.1, median = 3). For the number of subsistence-based activities duri ng the previous 12 months, riverside households reported a mean of 5.3 activities (s.d. = 1.5, median = 5.5). Interior households reported 3.3 activities (s.d. = 1.1, median = 3.0). Mann-Whitney U tests showed a significant di fference in the number of income-producing activities and subsistencebased activities between riverside a nd interior households (Table 4-3).
36 The null hypotheses that the number of inco me-producing activities and the number of subsistence-based activities are not significantly different between riverside and interior households can be rejected at the 99% confid ence level. These differences are evident in graphic form Riverside households report earning income or in-kind payments from a greater number of liveli hood activities (Figure 4-1). For riverside households, harvesting of thatching grass (77%), river reeds (73%), and firewood (47%) were the most commonly reported income-producing activ ities. In the interior, the top two incomeearning activities were the collect ion of pensions (67%) and cash crops (40%). Farm labor was the fourth most frequent rivers ide activity and third most frequent interior activity, at 43% and 30% respectively. Interior households reported si gnificantly higher levels of income. Median annual income for riverside households was $89 (N$ 625), with a 95% confidence interval of $37 (N$ 260) to $171 (N$ 1200). Median annual inco me for interior households was $634 (N$ 4,440 equal to the annual pension payment per individual), with a 95% confidence inte rval of $14 (N$100) to $650 (N$ 4,550). The coefficient of variation for household income was high in both locations, 1.33 for riverside households and 0.96 for interi or households. Using the Mann-Whitney U test, this difference in median incomes is significant at the 95% confidence level. Subsistence-based activities also showed diffe rences based on locati on, with the exception of collecting firewood and growing crops (Fi gure 4-2). The kind of activities reported by riverside households indicate their proximity to wetland resources such as river reeds and papyrus. Interior households were far more likely to report owning cattle and to own more cattle than their riverside counterparts Half of interior households surveyed (50%) reported owning
37 cattle, with a mean of 15.9 heads of cattle per household. By contra st, 27% of riverside households reported owning cattle, with a mean of 2.5 heads of cattle per household. Food Security: Riverside vs. Interior Interior households dem onstrate greater food security than do riverside households. Respondents were asked whether the household had grown enough food to feed the family for each of five years from 2007 to 2003. Replies for 2007 were overwhelmingly negative in both riverside and interior populations (0% and 7% respectively) indicating the presence of drought in that year. Three of the previous four years show significant differences between the two main population areas (Table 44 and Figure 4-3). The majority of interior households reported growing enough food for their families in each of the other four years: 87% in 2006, 63% in 2005, and 55% in both 2004 and 2003. Riverside households, on the other hand, repor ted growing enough food for their families less than half the time in all years: 40% in 2006, 33% in 2005, 25% in 2004, and 46% in 2003. Dividing riverside households by soil type (F igure 4-4) shows a steady decline in food security for households located on sandy rive rside soils from 2003 to 2007 (57%, 36%, 29%, 21%, 0%). Riverside households located on soils containing more clay showed more of an upward trend from 2003 to 2006, followed by th e drought year of 2007 (36%, 14%, 38%, 56%, 0%). Figure 4-5 juxtaposes food security for all in terior households with food security by soil type for riverside households. For three of the five years, the Ch i-Square Test rejected the null hypothesis of zero difference in the proportion of food secure hous eholds based on location with a confidence level of at least 95% (Table 4-4). However, the Fisher s Exact test (n > 50) did not reject the null hypothesis for rivers ide households based on soil type. This could be the result of small sample size.
38 In addition to drought, crop raiding by wildlif e also poses a threat to food security. Respondents in both areas expres sed concerns about growing w ildlife numbers and increased incidents of crop raiding. Ninety-five percent of househol ds growing crops in 2007 reported crop raiding by wildlife (Figure 4-6). More than threefourths of households reported crop raiding by elephants (79% riverside, 76% interior). Other top raiders incl uded wild pigs (35% rive rside, 59% interior), porcupine (31% riverside, 35% inte rior) and hippos (52% riverside). Differences in Land Use This study finds additional differences betw een riverside and interior households. These differences involve number of crops grown; years of field ownership; distance to field; size of field; and conservancy m embership (Tables 4-5 a nd 4-6). Interior households grew more crops in 2007 than did riverside households (Figure 4-7). Riverside households gr ew an average of 2.5 crops (s.d. = 1.4, median = 2). Interior househol ds grew an average of 3.5 crops (s.d. = 1.9, median = 3). Nearly all households in both location grew maize (87% riverside, 93% interior) (Table 42). Fewer riverside households grew millet, a dr ought-resistant crop, than did interior households (23% vs. 40%). Years of field ownership vari ed significantly between riverside households (mean= 5.2 years, s.d. = 4.6, median = 4) and in terior households (mean = 9.4 years, s.d. = 7.5, median = 6). Further significant differences we re found between riverside households on sandy soils (mean = 3.4 years, s.d. = 1.7, median = 3) a nd riverside households on soils containing clay (mean = 6.7 years, s.d. = 5.7, median = 4.5). GPS measurements taken during the 10 field surveys found differences between riverside and interior locations in distance to field and size of field (Tab le 4-5 and Figure 4-8). Riverside households had a mean distance of 0.5 km to th e field (s.d. = 0.5, median = 0.4) and an average
39 field size of 2.5 ha (s.d. = 1.2, median = 2). Interi or households had a mean distance of 3.2 km to the field (s.d. = 0.7, median = 3.1) and an averag e field size of 5.3 ha (s.d. = 2.3, median = 5.7). In total, 43% of household heads claimed me mbership in the conservancy. Membership rates were higher for riverside households than for interior hou seholds (57% vs. 30%). The ChiSquare Test rejected the null hypothesis of zero difference in the proportion of conservancy membership based on location at a c onfidence level of 95% (Table 4-6).
40 Table 4-1. Demographic information for 60 households surveyed Household Characteristics River Interior All Avg. age of head of household 40.1 49.9 45 Avg. years of education for head of household 4.8 2.1 3.5 Avg. number of household members 4 3.8 3.9 Avg. number of children under 15 per household 1.7 1.2 1.5 % of male-run households 73% 87% 80% % of conservancy membership for head of household 57% 30% 43% % married, head of household 60% 70% 65% Table 4-2. Percent of households growing crops in 2007 Crop River Interior All Maize 87% 93% 90% Sorghum 47% 53% 50% Melons 33% 50% 42% Millet 23% 57% 40% Beans 23% 43% 33% Pumpkins 17% 33% 25% Table 4-3. Test for differences in numb er of livelihood activ ities per household Mann-Whitney U Test: Riverside vs. Interior (Ha: Diff > 0) Variable Riverside mean Riverside std. error Interior mean Interior std. error TValue Prob Number of income activities 3.4 0.28 2.4 0.20 2.72 0.003** Number of subsistence activities 5.3 0.28 3.3 0.20 5.93 0.000** ** Significant at 99% confidence level Table 4-4. Proportion tests for food s ecurity: riverside vs. interior Year Riverside Interior Test Statistic Prob 2007 0% 7% 2.069 0.15 2006 40% 87% 14.067 0.00** 2005 33% 63% 5.41 0.02* 2004 25% 55% 5.39 0.02* 2003 46% 55% 0.436 0.51 ** Significant at 99%, Significant at 95%
41 Table 4-5. Test for differences in household agricultural practices Mann-Whitney & Test: Riverside vs. Interior (Ha: Diff > 0) Variable Riverside mean Riverside std. error Interior mean Interior std. error Z Score Prob Number of Crops Grown 2.5 0.25 3.5 0.34 -2.23 0.01** Years Owned Field River vs. Interior 5.2 yrs 0.84 9.4 yrs 1.39 2.36 0.01** Years Owned Field RivSand vs. RivClay 3.4 yrs (RivSand) 0.45 6.7 yrs (RivClay) 1.43 -1.85 0.03* Distance to Field River vs. Interior (n = 10, actual measurement) 0.5 km 0.24 3.2 km 0.32 -2.62 0.00** Field Area River vs. Interior (n = 10, actual measurement) 2.5 ha 0.54 5.3 ha 1.03 -1.89 0.04* ** Significant at 99%, Significant at 95% Table 46. Proportion test for conservancy membership : riverside vs. interior Conservancy Membership: Riverside vs. Interior, p1<> P2 (Chi Square) Variable Riverside Interior Test Statistic Prob Household Member 57% 30% 4.34 0.04* Significant at 95%
42 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%Thatching Grass R i ve r Re eds Fire woo d Fa rm Labor Craft Sa l es Cons t ructi o n W ork Poles f o r Cons t ruction Cas h Cr o ps Pe ns i on s Riverside Interior Figure 4-1. Percent of Mashi house holds earning income from livelihood activitie s by location 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%Firewo od Food Crops Thatching Grass River Reeds Construction materials Papyrus Fishing Palm Leav es Livestock Riverside Interior Figure 4-2. Percent of Mashi households getting subsistence from livelihood activities
43 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Riverside Interior Figure 4-3. Percent of Mashi households growing enough food per year by location 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 20032004200520062007 Riverside Sandy Riverside Clay Figure 4-4. Percent of riverside households growing enough food per year by soil type
44 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 20032004200520062007 Riverside Sandy Riverside Clay Interior Clay Figure 4-5. Percent of Mashi households gr owing enough food by location and soil type 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% ElephantHippoWild PigPorcupineBaboonKuduReedbuck Riverside Interior Figure 4-6. Percent of households reporting crop raiders by species
45 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% MaizeSorghumMelonsMilletBeansPumpkins Riverside Interior Figure 4-7. Percent of househol ds growing crops by location
46 Figure 4-8. Distance to field a nd field size for 10 households. This map shows field size and location for 10 households randomly select ed from livelihood-survey respondents. The fields, which were measured using G PS tracking, suggest an expansion of lands used for agriculture since 2000.
47 CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION Differences between the two populations show that households located along the river interact in fundam entally different ways with their environment than do households located within the interior. Each population exhibits a distinct set of livelihood activities. This suggests that any management action taken by the c onservancy will affect household livelihoods differently based on location. This applies not only to riverside vs. interior households but to riverside households on sandy soil vs. riversid e households on soil cont aining sand and clay. Livelihood Activities Differences in livelihood activ ities suggest that households in the two populations areas will respond differently to stressors and shocks such as drought, flooding, human-wildlife conflict, and competition for land brought on by population growth. The interior population show s a reliance on government pensions and cash crops, suggesting stability through connections with go vernment agencies and regional markets. The riverside population, on the other hand, relies on a broader range of livelihood activities based on resource extraction. Ten percent of riverside respondents reported havi ng a household member employed by one of the three tour ism lodges in the area (two within the conservancy and one in neighboring Mudumu National Park). The survey also found four households with conservancy employees: two each in both the in terior and riverside locations. The more diverse set of livelihood activities for riverside households provides a buffer from environmental shocks such as drought and re flect the need for a grea ter range of activities given the poor soils for producing crops. It also suggests that the rivers ide population is better positioned to take advantage of the economic benefits from tourism along the river and in the national parks. This would occur not only throu gh employment opportunities at riverside lodges
48 but also through increased dema nd for firewood and construction materials such as thatching grass and river reeds. The graded road leading to the lodges and nationa l parks offers greater potential for livelihoods than do the agricultural fields found near the villages. However, if population growth along the river were to exce ed economic opportunities provided by tourism, then greater pressure would be pl aced on existing natural resources. Self-reported income levels show large confidence intervals. Th is could indicate that the data are suspect owing to reluctance to be fo rthcoming about income earned or inability to accurately recall income over time. Consequentl y, no inferences are drawn from this data. Food Security Results regarding food security raise questi ons about the strategies households use to survive in years with inadequate harvests. The problem seems especially difficult along the riverside, where both crop producti on and income are lower. A 50-kg bag of maize cost about $14 (N$ 100) at the time of the survey. Respondents who were asked how long 50 kg of maize lasted thei r households reported an average of 12.6 days (n=18; average household size = 4.2). That transl ates to 29 50-kg bags required to feed the average household over the course of a year, or about $410 (N$ 2,900) in annual food costs for grain alone. Given the low cash incomes reported by residents in both parts of the conservancy, it becomes clear that methods other than purchasin g grains and other food items are necessary for maintaining sustenance within the househol d. This shortfall could be overcome through a combination of in-kind payments, assistance from relatives, greater reliance on veld products and fishing, and illegal hunting. These kinds of re sponses in years with low crop production can have a major impact on land and resource use.
49 This situation is especially problematic fo r riverside households on sandy soils, where food security is lowest. The steady decline in food security in that particular area over the last five years suggests that crop yields there are being affected by more th an variations in rainfall and that soils in the area may ha ve lost their ability to support the population through crop production. While differences in th e proportion of food-secure rivers ide households based on soil did not show a statistical difference, this is likely the result of small sample size (n=16 on claycontaining riverside soils, n= 14 on sandy riverside soils). Across the conservancy, increased crop raidi ng by wildlife also must be considered. Caprivi residents perceive that human-wildlife conflicts, mostly in the form of crop raiding, have increased since CBNRM began (Mulonga et. al ., 2003). Game species are rebounding in areas where they havent been seen for years, and elephants are repopulating areas where they were historically distributed. Accordi ng to Mulonga et. al. (2003), ele phants are responsible for threequarters of reported crop damage in Caprivi, a fi nding that is consistent with data contained in this study. Human-wildlife conflicts deepen poverty by reducing both f ood supplies and options for earning cash. The problem worsens as wildlife becomes habituated to deterrent strategies such as drum beating and fire (O-Connell-Rodwe ll et. al., 2000). Survey re spondents report that elephants have become aggressive toward farm ers who try to keep them out of fields. OConnell-Rodwell et. al. (2000) conclude th at because conflicts with elephants will continue as long as rural people practice agricultu re, either elephants or humans have to be contained in order to resolve conflicts. Propos als to create a zonation scheme that would consolidate agricultural fields in conservancies along the Kwando River are being discussed within government agencies and NGOs but are lik ely to encounter resist ance from farmers who are reluctant to abandon the fields they now cla im. When asked about zonation, nine of 10 field-
50 survey respondents said they would be unwilling to move their fields. The remaining respondent said she would move her field only if the new location were nearby, an unlikely scenario given that she lived on Mashis least fertile soils. Household survey respondents spoke of the presence of elephants in places where none had been found in recent years, suggesting that crop raiding pressures ma y increase. This could pose a serious problem since the interior lacks the diversity of resources found along the river. On the other hand, people in the interior appe ar to have more cash and assets, indicating economic linkages that provide resilience in the face of declining harvests from crop raids and drought. Differences in Land Use The differences found between riverside and in terior households point to different humanenvironm ent interactions with differe nt consequences for each location. Riverside households occupy fields for fewer years than do interior households and have smaller fields closer to their villages. This suggests a quick turnover of land used for crop production as nutrients in the soil are exhausted. This practice could result in negative effects such as bush encroachment as fields are ab andoned and taken over by secondary growth. At lower population levels, this strate gy might prove effective in deali ng with infertile soils, but at higher population levels it could m ean that land gets exhausted more quickly as abandoned fields are put into use at a faster rate. If conservancy efforts to st rengthen community benefits from wildlife are successful, riverside populations might turn away from cr op production when possible to focus on economic opportunities from tourism and safari hunting. Th is too could attract population growth and a larger presence of cattle as personal wealth in creased, adding to exis ting land use pressures.
51 Interior households have larger agricultural fields farther from the village that they've owned for a longer time. This suggests that thes e fields are productive enough to outweigh the additional costs of travel time and effort to plow plant, guard, and harves t. The higher number of crops grown in interior fields reinforces the finding that cash crops are a viable livelihood activity there. However, the combination of increased crop raidi ng by wildlife and human population pressure could change that. The difference in rates of conservancy membersh ip between the two locations is consistent with these agricultural differences. Interior farm ers stand to lose more from crop raiding than they gain from direct financia l benefits that the conservancy brings. Riverside households, on the other hand, gain from a number of opportunities created by t ourism and safari hunting. The conservancy office, not coincident ally, is located along the river. This also means that Namibian wildlife officers and NGO staff members are more accessible to people liv ing along the river, and this could create a more favorab le view of conservancy efforts. As it stands now, interior households have th e stronger economic hand overall. Wealth in Mashi conservancy is relative, but a compar ison of the most common assets found at the household level shows that riverside households la g in terms of what they own (Figure 5-1).
52 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% RadioPloughSledgeCell Phone Riverside Interior Figure 5-1. Percent of Mashi house holds owning assets by location
53 CHAPTER 6 CONCLUSION As stated previously, the establishm ent of th e conservancy signals a potential shift from a subsistence-based agricultural system to a wild life-based economy. For some households, this shift represents a boost in income. Conservancy and tourism jobs on average pay better than all other reported income with the exception of pens ions (Figure 6-1). The conservancy is also likely to bring other benefits that are difficult to measure at the household level, such as an increase in development projects. However, Mashi comprises two populations with distinct combinations of livelihood activ ities, and these differences mu st be taken into account by conservancy management (Table 6-1). As conservancies succeed at managing for w ildlife, they must contend with increasing conflicts between wildlife and humans, most notably crop raiding by elephants (Osborn and Parker, 2003). Most methods to reduce these conflicts have proven to be either too expensive or ineffective and require integrated management solu tions that involve local farmers in arriving at effective, low-tech solutions. Only four years into its existence at the time of the survey, Mashi Conservancy had yet to develop an institutionalized approach to reducing these conflicts. Small-scale community-based conservation programs could ultimately prove to be important for poverty alleviation (Sanderson and Redford, 2003), and a reduction in poverty should help alleviate adverse eff ects on the environment from live lihood pressures (Kgathi et. al., 2006). But even in cases where tourism and sa fari hunting provide sufficient incomes for survival, households are likely to continue i nvesting time and effort in diverse livelihood activities for protection against the risk of job loss Cattle raising in particular is often seen as insurance against unemployment (Berzborn, 2007 ), as cattle provide plowing, manure for fertilizer, and meat and milk (Barrett, 1991). Cattle grazing occurs on communal land, reducing
54 costs associated with owning livestock. An in crease in cattle producti on would decrease the amount of land used for wildlife and likely incr ease the risk of human-wildlife conflicts. It should be noted that a nu mber of survey respondents in both locations expressed concerns about restrictions the conservancy might impose on harvesting of thatching grass, river reeds, and timber products. The conservanc y is perceived by many respondents as the responsible entity for all restri ctions and problems that they ma y encounter. However, increases in wildlife numbers would occur regardless of wh ether the conservancy existed, as would lack of access to the national parks and restrictions on hunting within the conser vancy area. Ninety-five percent of all respondents reporte d that crop raiding by wildlife is increasing, and 43% of them specifically singled out the conservancy wh en asked why crop raiding had increased. Weak local opposition to wildlife conservation gets expressed in the illegal use of protected resources (Brockingt on, 2005). Elephants in particular pose a serious risk to subsistence and cash crops. A majority of res pondents in both populatio ns reported crop raiding by elephants. This suggests that distance from the areas only permanent water source, the Kwando River, does not reduce the thr eat of elephant damage. Most likely this results from the conservancys location on an elephant migrati on corridor. But as noted previously, survey respondents who were asked about the zonation proposal expressed a strong reluctance to abandon the fields they currently own even if the new system were to guarantee water for irrigation and protection against elephants and other crop raiders. This could be the result of lingering distrust of government interventions fr om previous decades, which included the forced relocation of villages (Rice, 1997), and from ear ly conservation efforts that failed to engage communities and focused instead on anti-poaching measures.
55 Research is needed to understand shifts in rural livelihood strategies in Africa and to evaluate how resource-use policies and prac tices affect livelihoods (Homewood, 2005). Doubts have been raised about CBNRMs ability to achieve the dual objectives of biological conservation and economic development (Hackel, 1998; Agrawal and Gibson, 1999; Kiss, 2004). Consequently, more studies are needed to evaluate CBNRM outc omes (Blaikie, 2006). Previous studies have found that CBNRM pr ograms have had difficulty improving the livelihoods of local people while also conserving wildlife (e.g., Mur phree, 2004). In cases where a CBNRM program does distribute cash benefits to households, some be neficiaries may then inve st in land uses that conflict with wildlife, such as field expansion and livestock (Murombedzi, 1999). Adams and Hulme (2001b) ask how tradeoffs be tween biodiversity conservation and local livelihoods should be negotiated among the dive rse objectives of different stakeholders. CBNRMs benefits at the household level need to be strong enough to keep local people from seeking economic alternatives and land use optio ns that hurt conservation (Hackel, 1998; Du Toit, 2002). A fundamental problem for people within the st udy are is the question of survival. How do people with limited opportunities for generating cash survive when wildlif e and drought destroy their crops? Who wins and who loses as thin gs now stand? Relevant social-ecological information and decision-support tools improve the chances of success for community-based conservation programs in managing wildlife sustai nably (Du Toit, 2002). As part of the largest elephant range in southern Africa, Mashi C onservancy offers a valuable case study in understanding these competing needs.
56 7,200 4,440 4,105 3,600 3,554 1,150 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 Conservancy Full-time PensionTourist LodgeConservancy Part-time Interior Households Riverside Households ` Figure 6-1. Average annual income (N$) of Mashi households (N$ 7 = US $ 1)
57 Table 6-1. Summary of key findings and management implications. Variable Riverside Interior Implications % conservancy membership 57% 30% Conservancy support is strongest along the riverside, where people stand to gain the most from a wildlife-based economy. Avg. number of income activities 3.4 2.4 Income-producing and subsistence-based livelihood activities are more diverse along the river and rely more upon the area's natural resources. Avg. number of subsistence activities 5.3 3.3 % owning plough 13% 67% Interior households are generally wealthier than riverside households and are better equipped for crop production. % owning cattle 27% 50% % food secure in 2007 0% 7% Interior households are better able to grow enough food for their families, a situation that could be threatened by growing wildlife numbers. Poorer soils in riverside areas indicate the need to find alte rnative means of earning livelihoods. Drought in 2007 had a severe impact on both areas. % food secure in 2006 40% 87% % food secure in 2005 33% 63% % food secure in 2004 25% 55% % food secure in 2003 46% 55% % reporting crop raiding by elephants 79% 76% Both areas reported an increase in crop raiding by wildlife. Distance from the river does not reduce the threat of crop raiding by elephants. As Caprivi's elephant population grows, crop raiding will continue to increase in both areas. % reporting crop raiding by any wildlife 97% 93% % reporting increase in crop raiding 96% 93% % growing maize 87% 93% Maize, a po tential cash crop, is popular in both areas despite its sensitivity to drought. Millet, which is droughtresistant, was planted more frequently in the interior. % growing millet 23% 40% Avg. number of crops grown 2.5 3.5 Avg. field size (actual, n=10) 2.5 ha 5.3 ha Values for field size, distance to field and number of years owned were all greater in the interior, confirming that crop production is more valuable there and worth more time and effort. Avg. distance to field (actual, n=10) 0.5 km 3.2 km Avg. years owned field 5.2 yrs 9.4 yrs
58 APPENDIX A HOUSEHOLD LIVELIHOOD SURVEY The survey found on the following pages is th e final revision of the household livelihood survey as adm inistered in the field in June a nd July 2007. During the course of administering the survey, several questions were dropped in order to streamline th e interview process and others refined to capture important information that wa snt anticipated during th e creation of the first field version. The data analysis included onl y information consistently collected for all 60 households. One question in particular would benefit from further revision: 2) Have you always lived here? If no, when did you move here? Respondents consistently gave an affirmative response, even in situations when it later became evident that they had moved to the villag e at some point in the recent past. In other cases, the village itself had moved, and the surv ey lacked a formal method for capturing that information. A better set of questions might be: How long have you lived in this village? Has this village ever moved? If yes: o When did it move? o Why did it move? o Did you live in the village before it moved? Were you born in this village? o If no: When did you move to this village? While this set of questions may seem redundant and would likely be refined, it would help get past resistance to this question. It appears that many respondents have concerns that they might be subjected to additional moves ordered by the government or traditional authorities. They also may be concerned that they will miss out on the possibility of future benefits if they self-report as not being a lifetime member of a particular village.
59 Getting past that obstacle would be beneficial for collecting im portant data concerning the movement of people into a nd within the conservancy.
60 INTERVIEW NUMBER ____ DATE: TIME: GPS COORDINATES NORTHING ________________________ EASTING _______________________ NAME OF INTERVIEWER _________________________________ NAME OF INTERPRETER __________________________________ CONSERVANCY _______________________________________ KHUTA ______________________________________________ VILLAGE _____________________________________________ 1. GIVE BASIC IRB INFORMED CONSENT a. This survey should take about one hour. b. You do not have to answer any ques tion you do not feel comfortable with. c. All Information is confidential and anonymous d. You can stop the interv iew process at any time e. You can ask for clarifica tion on any question at any time 2. POINT OUT THAT THIS QUESTIONNAIRE IS ABOUT THE INDIVIDUAL AND THE INDIVIDUALS HOUSEHOLD, AND NOT THE COMMUNITY.
61 HOUSEHOLD DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION 1. For each household member, please tell us the following: Relationship with head of household Age or date of birth Male/Female Education Level Salaried Employment Is person living in household for at least 9 months a year? If 18, is person a registered member of conservancy? HEAD 2. When did you move to this village? 3. Has this village ever moved? If yes When? Why? 4. What is your tribe? ___ Mayeyi ___ Mafwe ___ Other _____________________ ___ Mbukushu ___ Khwoe ___ Totela ___ Mbalangwe INFRASTRUCTURE 5. House: ___ Traditional Mud ___ Traditional Reed ___ Cement block ___ Other _______________________ 6. Roof: ___ Thatch ___ Other _______________________ ___ Reed ___ Tin 7. Courtyard: ___ Yes ____ No 8. Main source of lighting in household (tick one): ___ Electric power line ___ Firewood ___ Paraffin ___ Generator ___ Gas ___ Solar ___ Candles ___ Other (specify) _______________________
62 9. Main source of cooking in household (tick one): ___ Electric power line ___ Cow dung ___ Paraffin ___ Generator ___ Gas ___ Solar ___ Firewood / charcoal ___ Other (specify) _______________________ 10. Tick the following assets your household owns: Asset Tick if own Asset Tick if own Car Water Storage Tank Bicycle Pit Latrine Canoe Radio Donkey Cart Television Sledge Cell Phone Plough Generator Tractor Fishing Net and Hooks Hunting Gear Other specify 11. If you dont own a car and need transp ort, how would you get to Kongola? 12. How would you get to the hospital? 13. If you dont own a cell phone and need to contact someone, how easy is it for you to get access to one?
63 LIVELIHOOD STRATEGIES 14. What are the things that you and other memb ers of your household do to make money or receive in-kind serv ices? Please list all activities and what you earn fr om each in a years time. Also, please rank their importance to your household, with being most important. Activities or Sources of Income or In-kind Services Tick if household activity or source Income (in $N or type of in-kind service) Rank of Importance Cash Crops Livestock Sales Fishing Formal Employment Pensions Remittances Farm Labour Craft Sales Firewood Poles for Construction River reeds Papyrus Thatching Grass Palm Leaves Water Lillies Nuts and Berries Other: Other: Fill in additional items on the back of this page 15 Has the ranking of these activities changed sin ce the creation of the conservancy? If so, how? 16. Aside from earning money, what are the things th at you and your household do to provide for yourselves? Activities or Sources for Household Use Tick if household activity or source Food Crops Livestock Fishing Firewood Poles for construction Reeds Papyrus Thatching Grass Palm Leaves Medicinal Plants Edible Plants
64 17. Have the things that you do for your hous ehold changed since the creation of the conservancy? If yes how? 18. Was anyone in your household employed last year by a tourist lodge, t our operator, safari hunter, conservancy, or national park? If so: Member of household Employer How many months last year? Salary 19. Did anyone in your household earn other types of income last year from tourists, lodges, tour operators, safari hunters, conserva ncies or national parks? If so: Member of household Product sold or type of work How many months last year? Cash earned 20. Please list the crops that you planted and the amount you harv ested in the last growing season. How much of each crop do you use for food and how much do you sell? For sales, please include $N per unit. Crop Unit (e.g. number of 50kilogram bags) Amount used for food Amount sold for cash Price in $N per unit sold Where sold? (local, in town, or both) Maize Sorghum Millet Pumpkins Beans Melons Ground Nuts Additional items on back of page.
65 21. Field Information: How many fields do you own? _____ How large are your fields? ________________________ How long have you owned these fields? _______________________________ How far away are your fields? _______________________________________ 22. How much of your field(s) did you plough last season? 23. How many years do you plough the same field before letting it rest? 24. Do you use any fertilizers? If s o, which kind? How much does it cost? 25. How did you get the rights to land for cultivation? 26. Do you have any written records that describe your land or resource rights? If yes, what is it? 27. Who will inherit your field(s)? 28. Please indicate the nu mber of livestock your household owns: Livestock species Number Cattle Goats Chickens Others 29. Where do you graze your cattle? How does this vary at different times of the year? 30. Has the quality of grazing land changed? If yes how? EXPENSES INFORMATION 33. Please list all your expenses for a years time. How much do you spend on each expense? Example: $N 200 per year or $N 30 per month. Expense category Approximate amount (cash or in kind) Time frame (per year, per month, etc.) Food School Transport Medical Care Clothes Labor Building Materials Household electronics (radio, TV, cell phone) Other
66 FOOD SECURITY 34. Year Did you grow enough food for your family? (yes or no) Did you get food aid? (yes or no) If yes, who gave you the food aid? 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 RESOURCE USE AND AVAILABILITY 35. What is your drinking wate r source in the dry season? 36. Where is it located? How long does it take to get there? 37. Has your source of drinking water changed? If yes, when? What was your source before? 38. Where is your water source for livestock in the dry season? HUMAN-WILDLIFE CONFLICTS 39. Did you have any problems with crop raiding this season? Animal Crops raided Number of raids Amount of damage Did you report this? To whom? 40. Do you guard your fields? If yes, how do you guard them? 41. For how long do you guard them? 42. Has crop raiding by wild life increased or decreased or remained the same since as far back as you can remember? 43. If yes, how has it changed? Why?
67 44. Did you have any problems with predat ors attacking livestock this year? Predator Livestock species Nu mber of kills Number of injuries Did you report this? To whom? 45. How do you protect your livestock? 46. Have predator attacks on livesto ck increased or decreased or remained the same since as far back as you can remember? 47. If yes, how has it changed? Why? 48. Were any household members injured or killed by wildlife this year? If so, what animals were involved? RISK PERCEPTION In some places, people face many problems, including things that are uncertain and hard to predict. For example, in some places people ar e worried about drought, some people are worried about livestock diseases, and some are worried th at other people might take their land. Now we would like to ask you about the things that you are worried about what things might be a problem for you or your family? 49) First, list these probl ems in the table below. 50) Then, rank these problems: Which is the bigg est problem or the most serious? Which is the next most serious, etc.? Problem/concern/worry Rank
68 Response to unfavorable events: Now we would like to talk with you about your experience with the worries that you have identified. For each of the problems you listed: 51) Who do you know that has experienced this problem or event? (You or someone in your household? Someone in your village? Someone in your cons ervancy? Someone further away?) If so, what happened? When? Rank Risk/concern Who experienced this? When? What happened? Someone in household Someone in village Others in conservancy Someone further away 1 2 3 4 5 52. Name of Interviewee (Optional) 53. Would it be OK to contact you again in coming weeks or next year?
69 APPENDIX B FIELD SURVEY FIELD SURVEY NUM BER ____ LIVELIHOOD SURVEY NUMBER ____ DATE: TIME: TICK AFTER TRACKING FR OM HH TO FIELD _____ TICK AFTER TRACKING FIELD _____ GPS COORDINATES for center of field NORTHING ________________________ EASTING _______________________ NAME OF INTERVIEWER _________________________________ NAME OF INTERPRETER __________________________________ CONSERVANCY _______________________________________ KHUTA ______________________________________________ VILLAGE _____________________________________________ 1. GIVE BASIC IRB IN FORMED CONSENT a.. This survey should take about one hour. b. You do not have to answer any ques tion you do not feel comfortable with. c. All Information is confidential and anonymous d. You can stop the interv iew process at any time e. You can ask for clarifica tion on any question at any time 2. POINT OUT THAT THIS QUESTIONNAI RE IS ABOUT THE INDIVIDUAL AND THE INDIVIDUALS HOUSEHOLD, AND NOT THE COMMUNITY.
70 I. Plot Characteristics Enumerator Observations 1. What is the topographi c position of the plot? ___ Flat upland ___ Flat valley ___ Slope ___ Other 2. How is the plot sloped? Scale of 1 to 5: Highly sloped = 1, Medium sloped = 3, Flat = 5 3. What kind of water bodies do you see near the plot? Describe. 4. What color is the soil of this plot? ___ Yellow ___ Gray ___ Brown ___ Red ___ Black ___ Other 5. What is the texture of the soil of this plot? ___ Sandy ___ Silt ___ Gravelly ___ Clay ___ Rocky 6a. Is the plot surrounded by similar plots in terms of the characteris tics described above? ___ Yes ___ No 6b. If no, briefly describe the differences. 7. What is the vege tation on this plot? ___ No vegetation, bare soil ___ Field Crop (specify) _____________________ ___ Fallow mostly grass, forbs ___ Vegetable (specify) ______________________ ___ Fallow mostly bush ___ Tree Crop (specify) ______________________ ___ Fallow mostly trees 8. Is most of the surrounding land forested? ___ Yes ___ No 9a. Are village houses present on the perimeter of the plot? ___ Yes ___ No 9b. If yes, how many? ____ II. Changes over Last Five Years Ask Informant 1. In what year was this plot cleared for agriculture?
71 2. What crops have you been growing on this plot during the last five years? How many kilograms, bags, etc., have you harvested from this plot? Year Crops (include bush and fallow when appropriate Units of harvest N$ from crop sales 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 3. What is the total number of hectar es for this plot? For all plots? 4. How much N$ did you spend on your crops? Year N$ Labor Your Time Labor N$ for guarding field Time spent guarding field N$ for harvest Time for harvest 2007 2006 2005 5. Do you apply manure to this plot? ___ Yes ___ No 6. In the last five years, have you ever a pplied chemical fertilizer to this plot? ___ Yes ___ No 7. If yes: Year Type (N-P-K number) Amount (bags, kg., or other unit) Number of applications 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003
72 III. Access to Water Source 1. How do you water this plot? 2a. Has that changed duri ng the last five years? ___ Yes ___ No 2b. If yes, How? 3a. In each of the last five years, how much of your crops have you lost to crop raiding by wildlife? 3b. For the crops that remained, how much have you lost to flood? 3c. For the crops that remained, how much have you lost to drought? Year % lost to wildlife % lost to flood % lost to drought 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 IV. Soil Description 1. How would you describe the soil on this plot? 2. How fertile do you think this plot is? ___ Very fertile ___ Poor ___ Fertile ___ Very poor 3a. Has the fertility of the soil change d since you started farming this plot? ___ Yes ___ No 3b. If yes, how has it changed? Why? 4. Is soil loss considered to be a significant problem for this plot? ___ Yes ___ No 5. In which of the last five years did this plot lose a significant amount of soil? What was the cause (wind, rain, other)? Year Tick if soil loss If yes 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003
73 V. Zonation 1a. Would you be willing to move to a new fi eld if it meant that your crops had greater protection from wildlife and water on site? ___ Yes ___ No ___ Dont Know 1b. If yes, how far (in distance or time) would y ou be willing to travel to plough and harvest your crops if it meant that they ha d greater protection from wildlife? 1c. If no, why would you be unwilling to relocate? 2a. Do you think that it would be a good idea to a llocate certain parts of this conservancy as wildlife only and other parts as agriculture only and grazing only? ___ Yes ___ No 2b. Why?
74 LIST OF REFERENCES Ada ms W., Hulme, D., 2001a. Conservation and Community: Changing Narratives, Policies and Practices in African Conservation. In : Hulme, D., Murphree, M. (Eds.), African Wildlife and Livelihoods: The Promise and Perfor mance of Community Conservation James Currey Ltd., Oxford, U.K. Chapter 1. Adams, W., Hulme, D., 2001b. If community conserva tion is the answer in Africa, what is the question? Oryx, 35(3): 193. Agrawal, A., Gibson, C.C., 1999. Enchantment and Disenchantment: The Role of Community in Natural Resource Conservation. World Development 27(4): 629. Baker, J.E., 1997. Trophy Hunting as a Sustainable Use of Wildlife Resources in Southern and Eastern Africa. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 5(4): 306. Barnes, J.I., MacGregor, J., Weaver, C.L., 2002. Ec onomic Efficiency and Incentives for Change within Namibias Community Wildlife Use Initiatives. World Development 30(4): 667 681. Barnes, J.I., 2001. Economic returns and allocati on of resources in th e wildlife sector of Botswana. South African Journal of Wildlife Research 31(3-4): 141. Barnes, J.I., 1999. Economic potential for biodive rsity use in southern Africa: empirical evidence. Environment and Development Economics 4: 215. Barrett, J.C., 1991. The Economic Role of Cattle in Communal Farming Systems in Zimbabwe. Pastoral Development Network paper No. 32b. Overseas Development Institute. London. BBC News, 2000. Namibia vows to cat ch tourist killers. 5 January. Accessed 18 November 2008. Available online at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/591601.stm Berzborn, S., 2007. The household econom y of pa storalists and wage-labourers in the Richtersveld, South Africa. Journal of Arid Environments 70(4): 672. Blaikie, P., 2006. Is Small Rea lly Beautiful? Community-based Natural Resource Management in Malawi and Botswana. World Development 34(11): 1942. Blanc, J.J., Barnes, R.F.W., Craig, G.C., D ouglas-Hamilton, I., Dublin, H.T., Hart, J.A., Thouless, C.R., 2005. Changes in elephant num bers in major savanna populations in eastern and southern Africa. Pachyderm 38: 19. Blanc, J.J., Barnes, R.F.W., Craig, G.C., Dub lin, H.T., Thouless, C.R., Douglas-Hamilton, I., Hart, J.A., 2007. African Elephant Status Report 2007: An update from the African Elephant Database. Occasional Paper Series of the IUCN Species Survival Commission No. 33. IUCN. Gland, Switzerland.
75 Brockington, D., 2005. The Contingency of Comm unity Conservation. In: Homewood, K. (Ed.), Rural Resources and Local Livelihoods in Africa James Curry, Oxford, U.K. Chapter 5. Brown, C., and Lall, U., 2006. Water and economic development: The role of variability and a framework for resilience. Natural Resources Forum 30(4): 306. Bruchmann, R.D.K., 2000. Caprivi: An African Flashpoint. Published by author. Northcliff, South Africa. Burt, J.E. and Barber, G.M., 1996. Elementary statistics for geographers 2nd edition Guilford Publications, New York. Cumming, D.H.M., 1999. Li ving off biodiversity: whose la nd, whose resources and where? Environment and Development Economics 4: 220. Devereux; S. Naeraa, T., 1996. Drought and Survival in Rural Namibia. Journal of Southern African Studies 22(3): 421. Dijkshoorn, J.A., 2003. SOTER Database for Southern Africa: Technical Report International Soil Reference and Information Centre, Wageningen University, The Netherlands. Dixon, A.B., Wood, A.P., 2003. Wetla nd cultivation and hydrological management in eastern Africa: Matching community and hydrological needs through sustainable wetland use. Natural Resources Forum 27(2): 117. Du Toit, J.T. 2002. Wildlife harvesting guideline s for community-based wildlife management: a southern African perspective. Biodiversity and Conservation 11(8): 1403. Fisch, M., 1999a. The secessionist movement in the C aprivi: A historical perspective Namibian Scientific Society, Windhoek, Namibia. Fisch, M., 1999b. The Caprivi Strip during the Germ an colonial period: 1890 to 1914. Out of Africa Publishers, Windhoek, Namibia. Hackel, J.D., 1998. Community Conservation and the Future of Africas Wildlife. Conservation Biology, 13(4): 726. Homewood, K., 2005. Rural Resource Use and Lo cal Livelihoods in SubSaharan Africa. In: Homewood, K. (Ed.), Rural Resources and Local Livelihoods in Africa James Currey, Oxford, UK. Chapter 1. Humavindu, M.N., Barnes, J.I., 2003. Trophy hunting in the Namibian economy: an assessment. South African Journal of Wildlife Research 33(2): 65. Integrated Rural Development and Nature Conservation (IRDNC), 2007. WWF/SDC Project Technical Progress Report Caprivi. Katima Mulilo, Namibia.
76 Jones, B., Long, S.A., Murphy, C., Vaughan, K., Mulonga, S., Katjiua, J., 2002.Wildlife, Tourism and Livelihoods in Namibia: A Su mmary of Preliminary Findings. Wildlife Integration for Livelihood Dive rsification (WILD) Project Wo rking Paper 20. Ministry of Environment and Tourism, Windhoek, Namibia. Jones, B., Murphree, M., 2001. The Evolution of Policy on Community Conservation in Namibia and Zimbabwe. In: Hulme, D., Murphree, M. (Eds.), African Wildlife and Livelihoods: The Promise and Performance of Community Conservation James Currey Ltd., Oxford, U.K. Chapter 4. Kgathi, D.L., Kniveton, D., Ringrose, S., Tu rton, A.R., Vanderpost, C.H.M., Lundqvist, J., Seely, M., 2006. The Okavango; a river suppor ting its people, environment and economic development. Journal of Hydrology 331(1-2): 3. Kiss, A., 2004. Is community-based ecotourism a good use of biodiversity conservation funds? Trends in Ecology and Evolution 19(5): 232. Lambin, E.F., Turner, B.L., Geist, H.J., Agbola, S.B., Angelsen, A., Bruce, J.W., Coomes, O.T., Dirzo, R., Fischer, G., Folke, C., George, P.S., Homewood, K., Imbernon, J., Leemans, R., Li, X., Moran, E.F., Mortimore, M., Rama krishnan, P.S., Richards, J.F., Skanes, H., Steffen, W., Stone, G.D., Svedin, U., Veldkamp, T.A., Vogel, C., Xu, J., 2001. The causes of land-use and land-cover change: moving beyond the myths. Global Environmental Change 11(4): 261. Mendelsohn, J., Roberts, C., 1997. An Environmental Profile and Atlas of Caprivi Ministry of Environment and Tourism, Windhoek, Namibia. Ministry of Environment and Tourism, 2005. Pr otected Areas of Namibia. Government of Namibia, Windhoek, Namibia. Accessed 18 September 2008. Available online at http://www.met.gov.na/maps/Attractions.htm Mulonga S ., Suich, H., Murphy, C., 2003. The conf lict continues: Human wildlife conflict and livelihoods in Caprivi. DEA Research Discu ssion Paper 59. Ministry of Environment and Tourism, Windhoek, Namibia. Murombedzi, J.C., 1999. Devolution and Stewards hip in Zimbabwes CAMPFIRE Programme. Journal of International Development 11(2): 287. Murphree, M.W., 2004. Co mmunal Approaches to Natural Re source Management in Africa: From Whence and to Where? Keynote Addre ss for the 2004 Breslauer Graduate Student Symposium. Berkeley, California, 5 March. Namibia Population and Housing Census, 2001. Caprivi Region Census Indicators, 2001. National Planning Commission, Windhoek, Na mibia. Accessed 22 September 2008. Available online at http://www.npc.gov.na/census/index.htm.
77 Naeraa, T., Devereux, S., Frayne, B., Harnett, P., 1993. Coping with Drought in Namibia: Informal Social Security Systems in Caprivi and Erongo, 1992 Namibian Institute for Social and Economic Research, Un iversity of Namibia, Windhoek. National Planning Commission, 2004. Namibia Vi sion 2030: Policy Framework for Long-Term National Development. Office of the President, Windhoek, Namibia. NCSS Users Guide. 2007. Jerry L. Hintze, Kaysville, Utah, USA. New Era, 2007. Zambezi River Bridge at Caprivi. Windhoek, Namibia, 26 January. OConnell-Rodwell, C.E., Rodwell, T., Rice, M, Hart, L.A., 2000. Living with the modern conservation paradigm: can agricultural communities co-exist with elephants? A fiveyear case study in East Caprivi, Namibia. Biological Conservation 93(3): 381. Osborn, F.V., Parker, G.E., 2003. Towards an inte grated approach for reducing the conflict between elephants and people: a review of current research. Oryx 37(1): 80. Rice, M.R., 1997. Integrated Rural Development and Natu re Conservation: Community-Based Natural Resource Management Project in th e Caprivi Region of Namibia, December 1990 July 1997 Unpublished manuscript, Cape Town, South Africa. Sanderson, S.E., Redford, K.H., 2003. Contested re lationships between biodiversity conservation and poverty alleviation. Oryx 37(4): 389. Schuyt, K.D., 2005. Economic consequences of we tland degradation for local populations in Africa. Ecological Economics 53(2): 177. Skarpe, C., Aarrestad, P.A., Andreassen, H.P., Dhillion, S.S., Dimakatso, T., du Toit, J.T., Halley, D.J., Hytteborn, H., Makhabu, S. Ma ri, M., Marokane, W., Mashunga, G., Modise, D., Moe, S.R., Mojaphoko, R., Mos ugelo, D., Motsumi, S., Neo-Mahupeleng, G., Ramotadima, M., Rutina, L. Sechele, L., Sejoe, T.B., Stokke, S., Swenson, J.E., Taolo, C., Vandewalle, M., Wegge, P., 2004. The Return of the Giants: Ecological Effects of an Increasi ng Elephant Population. Ambio, 33(6): 276. Tvedten, I., 2002. If You Dont Fi sh, You Are Not a Caprivian : Freshwater Fisheries in Caprivi, Namibia. Journal of Southern African Studies, 28(2): 421. Vanderpost, C., 2006. Pathways of Human Sprawl in Wilderness Buffer Zones. Population and Environment 27(3): 285. Verlinden, A., Gavor, K.N., 1998. Satellite trac king of elephants in northern Botswana. African Journal of Ecology 36(2): 105. Walker, B., 1999. Maximising net benefits thro ugh biodiversity as a primary land use. Environment and Development Economics 4(2): 203.
78 Zeller, W., 2000. Interests and socio-economic development in the Caprivi Region from a historical perspective. NEPRU Occasional Paper No. 19. The Namibian Economic Policy Research Unit, Windhoek, Namibia.
79 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH W illiam Kanapaux is a fellow with the National Science Foundations Integrative Graduate Education and Research Traineeship (IGERT) program, focusing on the Adaptive Management of Water, Wetlands and Watersheds. He has a B.A. from the College of Charleston and an M.F.A. from the University of Michigan. He is currently a Ph.D. student in the School of Natural Resources and the Environment. Be fore enrolling at the University of Florida, he worked as a professional journalist for 12 years.