Download PDF - Percy FitzPatrick Institute of African Ornithology ...

Large Scale ConservationPlanning and Prioritiesfor theKavango-ZambeziTransfrontier Conservation AreaA report prepared forConservation InternationalbyDavid H. M. CummingAugust 2008Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this report are those of the author, exceptwhere otherwise referenced or accredited, and do not necessarily represent the views andopinions of Conservation International

Large scale conservation planning - KAZA TFCAiEXECUTIVE SUMMARYThe Kavango-Zambezi Transfrontier Conservation Area (KAZA TFCA) in southern centralAfrica covers an area of c. 400,000 1 km 2 – an area slightly larger than that of Zimbabwe, and1.6 times the size of Great Britain. The Victoria Falls forms a well known central point in theTFCA and is near the meeting point of four of the five participating countries (Angola,Botswana, Namibia, Zambia, and Zimbabwe). Two major river basins, the Zambezi and theOkavango contribute major wetlands, including the Okavango Swamps, to the generally flatto gently undulating KAZA-TFCA landscapes. In palaeo-evolutionary terms the two basinsare closely interlinked – a feature that has influenced the biodiversity of the area and whichhas important implications for wetland species and their conservation.KAZA encompasses globally significant wetlands and includes large areas of the Miombo-Mopane and the Kalahari-Namib Wilderness Areas. The region carries impressivepopulations of large mammals and birds, the largest elephant population in the world, twoglobally threatened large mammals (black rhinoceros and wild dog), several endemic speciesof plants, reptiles and amphibians, one endemic mammal and one endemic bird species. TheTFCA includes a human population in the region 1.5 million people but large areas carrypopulation densities of less than 5 people per km 2 .The mission of the participating countries, expressed in their December 2006 MOU, is:“To establish a world-class transfrontier conservation area and tourism destinationin the Okavango and Zambezi river basin regions of Angola, Botswana, Namibia,Zambia and Zimbabwe within the context of sustainable development.”and the primary objectives are to:a. “Foster trans-national collaboration and co-operation in implementing ecosystemsand cultural resource management;b. Promote alliances in the management of biological and cultural resources andencourage social, economic and other partnerships among their Governmentsand stakeholders;c. Enhance ecosystem integrity and natural ecological processes by harmonizingnatural resources management approaches and tourism development acrossinternational boundaries;d. Develop mechanisms and strategies for local communities to participatemeaningfully in, and tangibly benefit from, the TFCA; ande. Promote cross-border tourism as a means of fostering regional socio-economicdevelopment.”1 The boundary of the TFCA has not yet been set and quoted figures for the area of the TFCA vary considerably.The figure of 400,000 km 2 is the approximate area of the TFCA covered by this report.

Large scale conservation planning - KAZA TFCAiiThis desk study 1 examined large scale conservation planning priorities with an emphasis onresilience of the KAZA TFCA system to climate change and threats to wetlands, ecosystemsand conservation areas. Major current and likely future influences and disturbances relatingto the TFCA and its components were examined at large, intermediate and local scales with aview to drawing out key vulnerabilities and large scale issues and priorities for theconservation and development of the KAZA TFCA.Climate changePresent climate change predictions are that the KAZA region will become warmer and drierduring the next 50 to 100 years. Human populations are likely to increase at the same timewith the result that increased pressure will be placed on water and renewable naturalresources. Climatic variability can also be expected to increase and the livelihoods ofsubsistence farmers will be seriously compromised by declining and erratic productivity. Theimportance of giving early consideration to adaptive strategies in the development of theKAZA TFCA, its people, and the conservation of its biodiversity cannot be overemphasized.Large scale driversMajor global drivers that will influence the development of the KAZA TFCA, apart fromclimate change, include the global economy, international conventions, conservation anddevelopment values (which influence tourists and their choice of destinations) and animaldiseases and access to export markets. The regional scale economy, SADC protocols,disease issues, and national legislation relating to natural resource management, will clearlydrive aspects of TFCA development. However, two additional crucial drivers are theinherent ecological constraints that the region faces and water flows into the major wetlandswithin KAZA. Most of KAZA is underlain by Kalahari sands which are inherently infertileso that intensification of agricultural production (e.g. through irrigation) is unlikely, even inareas of higher rainfall. More importantly the TFCA wetlands depend on water flows fromdistant highlands Angola, Zambia and the Congo. More than 70% of the water flowing intothe Okavango Delta is derived from the Angolan highlands and landuse practices and waterwithdrawals in the upper catchment of the Okavango Basin will have an important bearing onthe future of the KAZA TFCA and its wetlands.Current and future trends and prospects for the growth of global and regional tourism areclearly an important factor in the development of the KAZA TFCA because much of itsdevelopment has been predicated on revenue generated from tourism. The central attractionsof KAZA revolve around its wetlands but unfortunately these are the features mostvulnerable to climate change. As a result there will be a need to diversify both the range oftourism products within KAZA, and their spatial distribution, in order to ameliorate theimpacts of projected declines in rainfall and wetlands in the KAZA area.Harmonizing natural resource management across national boundaries in the TFCA is anexplicit objective of the MOU underpinning the development of KAZA. Achieving this willrequire attention to national legislation and policies in so far as they affect the TFCA.Differences in policy and legislation between the states are probably greatest in relation to themanagement, use and benefits that may be derived from wildlife by those living on the land1 The primary audience for this study is those non-governmental agencies assisting in the conservation anddevelopment of the KAZA TFCA.

Large scale conservation planning - KAZA TFCAiiioutside protected areas, i.e. by those who bear the costs of conserving wildlife but realizelittle of its benefits. I flag this as one of the major issues requiring attention in the context ofbuilding adaptive capacity in the face of climate change and sustaining the futuredevelopment of the KAZA TFCA.Disease control strategies for subsidized livestock industries have had major impacts onlanduse and conservation in southern Africa and in the five KAZA countries during the lastcentury. Much of the impact has resulted from the erection of disease control game fencesacross vast swathes of country in Namibia, Botswana and Zimbabwe. Game elimination wasused to control tsetse fly in northwestern Zimbabwe from 1919 to mid-1970s. There areabout 15 wildlife-livestock diseases of concern in the KAZA TFCA region, of which half aretransmissible to humans. An important emerging issue is the extent to which climate changewill alter the patterns and distribution of diseases across the sub-region and influencezoonotic diseases and the emergence of new human and animal diseases. The interactionsbetween climate change, patterns of land and resource use, and diseases are likely to becomplex and form major drivers in the future development and sustainability of the KAZATFCA.Intermediate scale driversWithin the KAZA TFCA region a clear southwest-northeast gradient in annual rainfall from alow of c. 100mm in the south to 1100mm in the north gives rise to a corresponding gradientin large mammal and tree species diversity, with the highest numbers of species occurring inthe northeast and east. The associated gradient in vegetation structure, from desert shrubs inthe south to forest in the north, provides an indication of the shift in habitats that may occurwith a northward shift in rainfall isohyets under climate change, or through desertificationresulting from inappropriate landuse.The KAZA TFCA is characterized by three centrally located clusters of protected areas,namely, (a) Chobe, Moremi, Babwata Luiana, Sioma-Ngwezi and the Caprivi, (b) Hwange-Matetsi-Zambezi, (c) Kafue and surrounding Game Management Areas. Three furtheroutlying clusters include the Khaudom area in the west, Lake Kariba and the Sebungwe in theeast and the Mavinga and Liuwa Plains areas in the north. The intervening matrix ischaracterized by land under communal or traditional tenure by small-scale subsistencefarmers with populations that are growing at c. 2 – 3% per year. Demographic changes andincreasing human population thus form a potentially important driver of change within theTFCA. In some parts of the KAZA TFCA region land use has moved increasingly towardswildlife and tourism. However, population growth and development of infrastructure canresult in rapid changes in land use, as was experienced in the Sebungwe region of Zimbabwe.Here, the human population increased between 1973 and 1993 by between 85% and 182% inthe three districts comprising the Sebungwe, with a corresponding increase in the area clearedfor cultivation and settlement; the provision of access roads and the eradication of tsetse flyfacilitated resettlement from overcrowded areas elsewhere in the country. This analysisemphasizes the importance of establishing appropriate incentives and benefits for localcommunities from wildlife based land uses if protected areas in the KAZA TFCA are toavoid becoming isolated ecological islands. The importance of developing adaptive comanagementarrangements between protected areas and neighbouring areas and communitiesis also stressed.

Large scale conservation planning - KAZA TFCAivBiodiversity and the KAZA conservation area networkSeveral features of the biodiversity of the KAZA TFCA are summarized in the report.Summaries include: overall and national numbers of species of plants, vertebrates andbutterflies, lists of endemic and threatened species, important bird areas and areas of concernfor plant conservation. Key Biodiversity Areas have not been identified in the KAZA TFCAalthough several areas that carry globally threatened species such as the black rhinoceros andwild dog would qualify as such.The conservation area network is made up of eleven categories of conservation area whichrange from state protected areas (e.g. national parks and forest areas with no humansettlement) through various categories of designated hunting areas (some of which come areunsettled and others which are under communal tenure and subsistence agriculture), tocommunity conservancies. Some 76% of the overall KAZA TFCA area (~ 400,000 km 2 ) isunder some form of conservation area. Of the total KAZA area 22 % is within protectedareas in which there is no human settlement 1 , 54% is covered by settled hunting areas andcommunity conservancies, and the remaining 34% is covered by communal areas, includingsmall portions of urban and peri-urban development.Criteria were developed for ranking conservation areas on the basis of their biodiversity andconservation value, their conservation effectiveness, and threats from population growth andagricultural development. The following categories of criteria were used to rank 69conservation areas within the KAZA TFCA:Biological Value1. Size of area2. Large scale habitat diversity3. Types of wetland4. Endemic and threatened plants5. Endemic and threatened vertebrates6. Key ecosystem processesConservation effectiveness1. Legal status (official legal security of the area)2. Historical and traditional status3. Resources available for protection and conservation action4. Level of development and implementation of protected area plans5. Research and monitoringThreats1. Land pressures2. Land capability (potential development pressures)The scores for each area and the rankings resulting from the additive score of biologicalvalue and conservation status provided a preliminary but plausible ranking of conservationareas within the KAZA TFCA. Those conservation areas falling in the top ten were allnational parks, apart from the Moremi Game Reserve in Botswana and the Western GMA inZambia. The priority areas are also, for the most part, clustered in the central area of the1 Babwata National Park has a resident San population and its area is not included in this figure.

Large scale conservation planning - KAZA TFCAvTFCA. The high rank of the Western GMA suggests that this area merits attention in termsof its biodiversity, wetlands, and potential to form an important corridor area. The highranking of the Makgadikgadi Pan NP also suggests that this park, and its linkages to the restof the TFCA, merits greater attention.Conservation effectiveness of protected areas throughout the TFCA is weak, with the highestscore being that for Hwange National Park, returning a score of 14 out of a maximumpossible score of 20. This exercise also highlighted the urgent need for greatly improved, upto-dateinformation on the distribution and status of biodiversity in the TFCA, as well as theneed for improved and accessible information on the effectiveness of conservation activitiesin the protected areas of the KAZA TFCA. The low level of funding available to all of theprotected areas in the KAZA TFCA is a matter of concern. An analysis of funding for fivemajor protected areas in the KAZA TFCA from three countries revealed that all werereceiving less than 50% of the budgets required for their effective operation with budgetdeficits ranging between 61% and 91%.Ecosystem servicesThe results of valuations of ecosystem services in the KAZA region are available forwetlands in the Barotse Flood Plan, eastern Caprivi and the Okavango Delta, for the relativevalues of livestock and wildlife-based tourism in Ngamiland, and for safari hunting in theMadumu Complex in the Caprivi. The wetland studies indicate that cattle stocking rates inthese areas are about twice as high as they would be in adjacent dry land areas and thatwetland services (e.g. fish, reeds, palm leaves, food plants) contribute about 40-50% of nethousehold financial returns. The status (high, medium, low) of wetlands, forests, grazing andrecreational services, and of ecosystem intactness was estimated for each conservation area(Appendix1). This crude assessment suggests that the state of these key ecosystem servicesin the KAZA region is generally depressed. However, the current state of knowledge ofecosystem services in the KAZA TFCA, and indeed in partner countries, is not sufficientlywell developed to allow an effective evaluation and ranking of the protected areas withinKAZA on the basis of their contribution to ecosystem services in the TFCA and its people.Similar considerations apply to the question of the contribution that wildlife corridors maymake to the provision of ecosystem services and to the long term sustainability of the KAZATFCA. It is suggested that the assessment of ecosystem services in the KAZA TFCA wouldbe more meaningful were it linked to a sustainable livelihoods framework.Conservation outside protected areasAlthough designated conservation areas of one form or another cover an impressive ~76% ofthe area of the KAZA TFCA the reality is that most of this land is occupied under communalsystems of tenure. Only 22.5% of the TFCA falls within unsettled protected areas. A majorchallenge facing the TFCA is therefore the development of appropriate incentives for ruralcommunities to conserve and protect biological diversity in the matrix between protectedareas. Given that resources for state protected areas are inadequate, it is clear that states willnot have the resources to protect wildlife in the wider matrix. The devolution of resourceaccess rights and resource management is examined within the framework of scalemismatches between social and ecological scales. Present national policies, with the possibleexception of Namibia, effectively tax community wildlife resources and so greatly reduce thepotential benefits rural communities might gain from their wildlife. It is concluded that

Large scale conservation planning - KAZA TFCAviunless those living on the land with wildlife derive the full and appropriate benefits fromwildlife-based land uses they will increasingly transform land towards agriculturalproduction. The end result would see protected areas as isolated ecological islands in a sea oftransformed agricultural land and a failure of the KAZA TFCA as a conservation anddevelopment initiative.Linkages and wildlife corridorsThe separation of clusters of conservation areas in the KAZA TFCA raises the question ofpotential linkages between conservation areas and what purpose these may serve. Thefollowing functions may be important in terms of the KAZA TFCA and its sustainability inthe face of climate change:a. Migration corridors that serve to maintain regular seasonal movements of animalsbetween alternative areas or habitats.b. Dispersal corridors that serve to allow the dispersing component of particularspecies populations to move to other suitable areas or habitats.c. Adaptive response corridors that provide for both fauna and flora to shift, ordisperse, along ecological gradients in response to changing climatic conditions.Migrations: There is presently no evidence of transboundary migrations of large mammals inthe KAZA TFCA. However, regular internal migrations of wildebeest and zebra occur (oroccurred) in two areas of Botswana, namely, between the Linyanti and Savuti, and in theMakgadikgadi area. A regular wildebeest migration occurs to the north of the TFCA acrossthe Liuwa Plains.Dispersal corridors: Attention has so far focused on providing corridors for elephants todisperse from high density areas. However, there are dangers in spreading elephant impactsinto sensitive habitats that are still intact – particularly riparian fringes that provide importanthabitat and corridors for a wide range of species in the system. The role of wildlife corridorsin the dispersal of predators within the KAZA TFCA has received little if any attention.Adaptive response corridors will be needed as climate change alters the distribution and plantspecies and habitat structure. However, given that a vast number of species are involved andthat their likely responses to climate change are largely unpredictable, the only fail-safestrategy that can be applied under present circumstances is to avoid, as far as possible,foreclosing options on potential linkages along the north-east and easterly gradientssuggested earlier.Options and priorities for establishing wildlife corridors in the KAZA TFCA were examinedand nine potentially important corridors were identified. Potential impediments or barriers totheir establishment (e.g. fences, dense human settlement, highways, conduits for disease orthe spread of alien species) were tabulated. Three priority corridors are considered to bethose linking: (a) Chobe NP – Babwata NP – Liuana – Sioma-Ngwezi, (b) Chobe NP –Zambezi NP-Matetsi-Hwange NP complex, (c) Caprivi-Zambezi NP – Kafue NP. Otherimportant corridors are the link in the west between Babwata and Khaudom national parks, inthe south between Chobe, Nxai Pan and Makgadikgadi national parks, and between Hwangeand Makgadikgadi national parks. In the north the possible links between Mavinga andLiuwa plains and their links to the south will merit examination.

Large scale conservation planning - KAZA TFCAviiResilience, adaptability and sustainabilityConcepts of resilience, adaptability and sustainability were briefly outlined before examiningthe evolutionary history of drainage basins in south central Africa. There have been majorchanges in river flows during the last three million years that have a direct bearing on thebiodiversity of the KAZA region and that have implications for maintaining linkages betweenwetlands within the region in relation to climate change. A summary is provided of timelines for major shocks, disturbances and drivers that impacted on the KAZA TFCA regionover the last 2,000 years. These underscore the major current vulnerabilities facing theKAZA TFCA at the large, intermediate and local scales that were identified in earliersections. In summary these were as follows:Large scale, external drivers:• the state of the global economy• international conventions• conservation and development values• issues relating to disease and international marketsDrivers external to the TFCA, but within the region:• water flows• disease• national legislation relating to conservation and natural resource management inparticular• SADC protocols• national and regional economiesThe major drivers within the TFCA itself are those relating to:• land use and tenure• human population growth and increasing pressures on natural resources andecosystem services• governance and access rights to natural resources and benefits from wildlife• insufficient investment in the protected areas systemAll of these factors, across the full range of scales, are likely to be impacted by climatechange which is predicted to result in a warmer and drier KAZA TFCA.Attention is drawn to the persistent failure of large, top-down, sectoral driven developmentprojects and the need to engage with emerging development models, particularly thoserelating to natural resources that focus on processes with the following characteristics:a) place a premium on, and invest in higher valued land uses, diversification, andintensification (e.g. irrigation, cash cropping, high value tourism whereappropriate and sustainable)b) decouple wealth creation from primary productionc) match land use and ecological process scalesd) develop policy and supporting legal frameworks that enable, rather than stifle,innovation, experimentation and adaptability at local and regional scalesThese approaches require information, learning, strong feedback, and the freedom to adapt(i.e. to use experiments, learning and experience) at several levels. In considering

Large scale conservation planning - KAZA TFCAviiiconservation action in relation to climate change McClanahan et al 1 provide a helpfulframework that scales environmental susceptibility against social adaptive capacity as a basison which to assess and guide needed action. Finally Levin’s 2 eight commandments forsustainability are briefly introduced. These are: 1. Reduce uncertainty, 2. Expect surprise. 3.Maintain heterogeneity, 4. Sustain modularity, 5. Preserve redundancy, 6. Tighten feed-backloops, 7. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.Priorities and recommendationsThe following major priority areas emerge from this short study:1. Water flows and wetlands2. Natural resource governance and benefits to rural communities. A release fromcentral command and control approaches to natural resource management andconservation is needed3. Diversification and adaptive co-management4. Biodiversity linkages and conservation planning5. Improved basic inventories of biophysical and social components of the system,monitoring, and participatory scienceEach of these is enlarged upon briefly below:1. Water flows and wetlands.The centre piece of the KAZA TFCA is its wetlands. These are focal areas for a large part ofthe human population residing in the TFCA. They support a wide range of important wetlanddependent species and play a key role in the region’s tourism development. But the wetlandswithin KAZA are vulnerable not only because of impending climate change but also becausethey depend on water derived from distant highlands. As a result it will be vital for theTFCA to:• Promote integrated catchment management and support and influence the work ofcatchment management authorities.• Pay early attention to land use changes in the high water-yielding upper reaches ofthe major rivers flowing into the TFCA and explore ways of providing incentives tothose in the upper catchments to maintain equitable water flows (e.g. payments forecosystem services) into the future.• Minimize land use practices that degrade wetlands within the TFCA. Thisrequirement will depend very largely on resolving a range of natural resourcegovernance and related livelihood issues.These are large-scale, multi-faceted and complex issues that will require investment inongoing information gathering, monitoring, and capacity building at the interface betweenbiophysical and social sciences and policy. And, because policy change and needed societal1 McClanahan, et al (2008) Conservation action in a changing climate. Conservation Letters, 1, 53-59.2 Levin, S. (1999) Fragile dominion: complexity and the commons. Perseus Publishing, Cambridge,Massachusetts.

Large scale conservation planning - KAZA TFCAixchange can be slow, both immediate and long term commitment by governments, NGOs andcivil society will be needed.2. Natural resource governanceThe dominant form of land use in the KAZA TFCA is subsistence agriculture undercommunal tenure in nutrient poor, mostly semi-arid systems. The potentially richbiodiversity of the area and its wetlands are undervalued, mostly because those living on theland are unable to realize the full value and benefits of this rich heritage. This is very largelya result of inappropriate institutions governing resource access rights and benefits streams,and associated mismatches between social and ecological scales. The success of the KAZATFCA as a conservation and development initiative rests squarely on the extent to which ruralcommunities will benefit from wildlife-based land uses. Reforms in tenure and resourceaccess rights will be crucial to the sustainability of the KAZA TFCA and a criticalcomparative analysis of the trade offs of alternative policies and of scenarios for futuredevelopment is an immediate priority.3. Diversification and adaptive co-managementThe maintenance and generation of diversity is accepted as a fundamental characteristic ofresilient systems. This is true whether it be species, ecological communities, or socialsystems. The more homogenous systems become, the more susceptible they are to shocksand surprises. The important issue for KAZA is – how can these principles be translated intoconservation action?On the ecological front, the major disturbances that are likely to generate homogeneity in thesystem are human land use practices, elephants and fire. The replacement of multispeciessystems of large wild mammalian herbivores with single-species livestock systems, togetherwith fences across much of the landscape, is a case in point. The ‘homogenizing’ impacts ofhigh elephant densities and fires on woodland and forest resources in the region are wellestablished and require attention.Similar concerns apply to the social systems in terms of their development within the region.The recently proposed ban on safari hunting in much of Ngamiland and Chobe Districts inBotswana will immediately curtail diversity in the tourism industry. Very constrainedmodels of community based conservation throughout the region will also do so.Tackling these linked social-ecological issues will require influencing policy and practice innatural resource management from national to local levels. This will need greatly improvedinformation on the current status and trends in landuse and land cover change, onbiodiversity, livelihoods and natural resource use, demographics and disease, the tourismindustry, and so on. As noted in the previous section, reducing uncertainty is a primaryconsideration in developing system sustainability.Associated with the importance of maintaining and generating diversity is the need todevelop policy frameworks within KAZA that encourage experimentation and diversificationin all fields, and that foster the development of adaptive capacity.4. Biodiversity linkages and conservation planningThe broad-scale southwest-northeast rainfall and biodiversity gradients in the KAZA regionindicate how habitats may change along these gradients under climate change. Associatedwith these projected changes will be the need to maintain ‘adaptive response corridors’ along

Large scale conservation planning - KAZA TFCAxthese biodiversity gradients. Counterbalancing the creation of wildlife corridors andlinkages, however, will be the need to maintain a measure of modularity within the largerlandscape of the KAZA TFCA. We currently lack the information needed to make wellinformed specific recommendations in this regard.There is, as yet, little evidence of investment in systematic conservation assessment andplanning. Planning for pattern and persistence and ecosystem processes in the developmentand management of the KAZA TFCA also appears to be lacking. New and powerfulapproaches have been developed to tackle these problems in the last two decades and surelymerit investment in, and application to, the development of conservation planning in KAZA 1 .5 Information and participatory scienceAn overriding impression in conducting this study has been how little current, soundinformation is available and accessible on a wide range of topics for the KAZA TFCA.Major gaps that need to be filled include the current distribution and status of plant andvertebrate taxa throughout the TFCA, but particularly in Angola and Zambia. The status ofthe few endemics, particularly the herpetofauna, urgently needs to be assessed. Some ofthese species and areas would almost certainly merit Alliance for Zero Extinction (ACE)ranking.Information on protected areas (check lists, numbers or status, distribution, habitats, budgets,staff levels, etc.) and on their performance is not generally available. The setting up of anopen web-based but quality controlled “Wiki” directory on the protected areas in the KAZAregion may assist in filling many of the gaps.Similar gaps exist in the information base on forest areas and on ecosystem servicesthroughout the KAZA region.The region has universities and research departments in its conservation agencies that, withappropriate support, could readily be enlisted in contributing towards an improved knowledgebase for the KAZA TFCA.The development of a more participatory culture between governments (both central andlocal), NGOs, the private sector, and the range of stakeholders living within the TFCA, interms of research and information sharing, is also urgently needed.6 Specific prioritiesIn addition to the large scale priorities which apply across the KAZA TFCA the followingspecific priorities merit attention and action by government and non-governmentalconservation agencies.1. Harmonising conservation legislation and developing policies for transboundarynatural resource management. This was listed as an objective by the parties to theTFCA MOU.1 Here I refer particularly to the work of Richard Cowling and Andrew Knight and their colleagues in SouthAfrica in the Cape, the Valley Bushveld and the Cederberg, and the recent work of Smith et al in theMaputaland TFCA

Large scale conservation planning - KAZA TFCAxi2. A re-examination of the role of veterinary control fences in the control of animaldiseases over large landscapes and exploring the social, economic and environmentalcosts of alternative disease management strategies.3. A critical examination of polices and incentive structures relating to wildlife as alanduse – particularly as these relate to conservation and wildlife outside stateprotected areas.4. A detailed examination (including ground surveys and mapping) of the basis for, andthe feasibility of, establishing the priority wildlife corridors of (a) Chobe – Luiana –Sioma-Ngwezi, (b) Chobe – Hwange, and (c) Sioma-Ngwezi – Kafue – ZambeziNP.5. Developing more sustainable and adequate funding streams for the effectivemanagement of protected areas in the TFCA, possibly through public-privatecommunitypartnerships.For each of the above priorities there is scope for conservation NGOs, aid agencies and theprivate sector to engage with governments to effect progress and improved conservation andlivelihoods in the KAZA TFCA.The signing of an MOU by five participating countries to establish a TFCA of nearly 400,000km 2 provides a unique window of opportunity through which to explore and developinnovative approaches to conservation in large landscapes in the region – it is an opportunitythat needs to be seized by all involved.

Large scale conservation planning - KAZA TFCAxiiTABLE OF CONTENTS1. Introduction2. Climate Change3. Large Scale: Regional Context and External Drivers3.1 Ecological constraints and opportunities for wildlife-based land use3.2 Water and wetlands3.3 International and regional conventions, protocols and agreements3.4 Tourism and global and national economies3.5 National conservation legislation3.6 Animal disease management policies and practice4. Intermediate Scale: Components and Drivers within KAZA4.1 Gradients of biodiversity4.2 Conservation area clusters and the KAZA TFCA mosaic4.3 Human population growth and drivers of land use change5. Local Scale: Biodiversity and the Conservation Area Network5.1 Biodiversity in the KAZA TFCA5.1.1 Species numbers5.1.2 Endemic and threatened species1. Plants2. Mammals3. Birds4. Herpetofauna5 Fishes6. Invertebrates5.2 The Conservation Area Network within KAZA TFCA5.2.1 Categories of protected areas5.2.2 Inventory and characterization of protected areas in KAZA TFCA5.2.3 Ranking and prioritizing protected areas5.2.4 Explanatory notes on ranking criteria1. Conservation value2. Conservation effectiveness and threats (conservation status)5.2.5 Results and conclusions6. Ecosystem Services

Large scale conservation planning - KAZA TFCAxiii7. State Protected Areas and Conservation in the SurroundingMatrix7.1 Conservation in a mosaic of protected and non-protected areas7.2 Social – Ecological scale mismatches7.3 Policies and incentives8. Linkages, wildlife corridors and shortfalls8.1 Corridors for what?8.2 Wildlife corridor options and priorities8.3 Shortfalls9. Resilience, adaptability and sustainability9.1 Change, resilience, adaptability and sustainability9.2 Key vulnerabilities9.3 Adaptive strategies10. Priorities and recommendations10.1 Water flows and wetlands10.2 Natural resource governance10.3 Diversification and adaptive co-management10.4 Biodiversity linkages and conservation planning10.5 Information and participatory science10.6 Specific priorities11. References and AppendicesReferencesAnnex 1. Summary characterization of conservation areas in the KAZA TFCAAnnex 2. Terms of reference

Large scale conservation planning - KAZA TFCAxivList of tablesTable 2.1Table 3.1Table 3.2Table 3.3Table 3.4Table 3.5Table 4.1Table 5.1Table 5.2Table 5.3Table 5.4Table 5.5Table 5.6Table 5.7Summary of the direction and possible magnitude of changes for environmentalparameters and ecosystem services in the KAZA TFCA area based on theregional assessment of ecosystem services in southern Africa conducted as partof the Millennium Assessment.Catchment areas, mean annual rainfall and the contribution of water flows anddirect rainfall to the Okavango Delta.Estimated water demands by different sectors in Angola, Botswana and Namibia.Projected growth in consumptive water demand in the Okavango basin undertwo scenarios: A. Existing patterns of demand prevail with no newdevelopments, and B. Existing demand patterns with new developments in watertransfer and irrigation.Conventions and protocols to which member states of the KAZA TFCAinitiative are signatories.Animal diseases of concern in the KAZA TFCA. The origin of diseases isindicated as either indigenous (indig.) or introduced (alien).Changes in human population density between 1982 and 1992 in five districtswhere a large part of the district falls within the mid-Zambezi Valley study area.The numbers of species recorded in the 4-Corners area.Important Bird Areas (IBAs) in the KAZA TFCA area.Bird species of conservation concern to at least three countries in the KAZATFCA area.Endemic and near endemic species of herpetofauna in the KAZA TFCA area andtheir distribution.The numbers and areas of different categories of conservation area in the KAZATFCA.List of conservation areas within the KAZA TFCA with the national category,area (km 2 ) and scores assigned under each criterion.Rank order of conservation areas based on the sum of the scores for biologicaland conservation value and conservation effectiveness.Table 6.1 Value of a range of ecosystem goods derived from, or depending largely on, theeastern Caprivi wetlands and the Barotse flood plain.Table 7.1 Required operational budgets compared with existing budgets (US $/km 2 ) in fiveselected major national parks within the KAZA TFCA.Table 8.1 Major potential corridor areas in KAZA TFCA and factors likely to impedeanimal movement or linkages between protected areas. (The location of eachpotential corridor is shown in Fig. 8.1.)Table 9.1An outline of past major shocks and disturbances experienced by the socialecologicalsystems of the area in which the KAZA TFCA is situated.

Large scale conservation planning - KAZA TFCAxvList of figuresFig. 1.1 General map of the KAZA TFCA region and the proposed TFCA area (crosshatched).Fig. 2.1 Predicted changes in temperature and rainfall in southern AfricaFig. 2.2Victoria Falls rainfall. Deviation of the 8-year running mean rainfall from themean annual rainfall for the period 1905 to 2003.Fig. 3.1 A conceptual diagram of the major large-scale, external drivers influencing theconservation and development of the KAZA TFCA.Fig. 3.2A digital elevation model of the KAZA region showing the major wetlands in theregion.Fig. 3.3 Conceptual diagram of a range of drivers impacting on the Okavango basin and itsconservation and management.Fig. 3.4Fig. 3.5Conceptual diagram of the linkages between wildlife, livestock and humandiseases, and the potential implications of disease control strategies for livelihoodsand conservation.Distribution of tsetse fly, centers of contagious bovine pleuropneumonia infection,and distribution of game fences in the region of the KAZA TFCAFig. 4.1 Distribution of species diversity of trees and mammals across the TFCA region.Each ~ 25,000 km 2 grid square shows the occurrence of the number of tree species(red figures) and the number of mammal species in that square.Fig. 4.2 Relationship between the number of tree species and the number of mammalspecies in the general KAZA TFCA area as reflected in the number of speciesoccurring in equal area grid squares of ~ 125,000 km 2 .Fig. 4.3 Vegetation gradient along the Kalahari Transect.Fig. 4.4 Clusters of conservation areas in the KAZA TFCA with three central clusters (redoutline) and five ‘outliers’ (green outline) and arrows indicating linkages/corridorsthat remain to be established.Fig. 4.5 Narrative summary of the alternative scenarios for Hwange NP and NWMatabeleland (Source: Cumming, 2006).Fig. 4.6 Changes in the Sebungwe region of Zimbabwe in the area settled between 1973and 1993. Lake Kariba lies to the north of the area.Fig. 5.1Fig. 5.2Areas of concern for the conservation of plants in the 4-Corners area.Plot of biological value and conservation status scores from Table 5.7. The plotsfall into four quadrants four with scores above or below the 50% scores on eachaxis. An indicative conservation strategy is to invest in improving the conservationstatus of those areas of high biological value, i.e. those areas with a biological valuescore above a score of 15 or more.

Large scale conservation planning - KAZA TFCAxviFig. 6.1Fig. 6.2Fig. 6.3Links between ecosystem services, human well-being, and direct and indirectdrivers, based on the Millennium Assessment conceptual framework.A framework outlining the assessment and valuation of ecosystems, and ecosystemgoods and services, with dashed lines indicating major feedback loops.A range of ecosystem goods and services of importance in the KAZA TFCA(arranged in the MA framework). The provisioning services would be those ofmost direct concern to rural subsistence farmers within KAZA while thoseconcerning amenity value and recreation (biodiversity, wilderness, presence ofwildlife) would be of greatest interest to tourists and the tourism industry)Fig. 6.4 Sustainable livelihoods framework with an emphasis on policy and institutions andprotected area management for improved livelihoods of neighbouring communitiesFig. 7.1 The number of conservation areas in the KAZA TFCA within different size classesranging from areas of less than 100 km 2 to areas of greater than 10,000 km 2 inextent.Fig. 8.1 Potential corridor areas (1- 9) within the KAZA TFCA.Fig. 9.1 Holling’s adaptive cycle (left) using policy development as an example and (right) aseries of adaptive cycles at differing spatial and temporal scales and the potentialcross-scale connections shown by large arrows.Fig. 9.2 Diagrammatic summary of the major changes during the Pleistocene in drainagepatterns in the Zambezi-Okavango basin that have impacted on the KAZA area andits wetlands. (Adapted and simplified from Cotterill 2006.)Abbreviations and AcronymsACEADMADEAHEADAngAWFBTBBwCAMPFIRECBNRMCBPPCCCHACITESFAOFEWSFMD`FRGDPGISGLTFCAGMAGRIBAIGBPAlliance for Zero ExtinctionAdministrative Management Design for wildlifeAnimal Health for Environment and DevelopmentAngolaAfrican Wildlife FoundationBovine tuberculosisBotswanaCommunal Areas Management Programme for Indigenous ResourcesCommunity based natural resource managementContagious bovine pleuropneumoniaCommunity ConservancyControlled Hunting AreaInternational Convention on Trade in Endangered SpeciesUnited Nations Food and Agriculture OrganisationFamine early warning systemFoot and Mouth DiseaseForest ReserveGross domestic productGeographical information systemGreat Limpopo Transfrontier Conservation AreaGame Management AreaGame ReserveImportant Bird AreaInternational Geosphere-Biosphere Program

Large scale conservation planning - KAZA TFCAxviiIPCCIUCNKAZAKBALIRDPMANaNACSONPOKACOMOUZITPRRPRAMSARSABONETSASADCSESWCMCWMAWWFTFCAZACPLANZAWAZmZwInternational Panel on Climate ChangeInternational Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural ResourcesKavango-ZambeziKey Biodiversity AreaLuangwa Integrated Rural Development ProjectMillennium Ecosystem AssessmentNamibiaNamibian Association of CBNRM Support OrganisationsNational ParkThe Permanent Okavango River Water CommissionOkavango Upper Zambezi International Tourism InitiativePartial ReserveRecreational ParkRAMSAR Convention on Wetlands of International ImportanceSouthern Africa Botanical Diversity NetworkSafari AreaSouthern Africa Development CooperationSocial-ecological systemWorld Conservation Monitoring CenterWildlife Management AreaWorld Wide Fund for NatureTransfrontier Conservation AreaZambezi River System Action PlanZambia Wildlife AuthorityZambiaZimbabweAcknowledgementsLeo Braack of Conservation International managed this project and I am particularly gratefulto him for his understanding of the delays I encountered in completing this work – some ofwhich were my own doing and others of which were a result of long periods of power andtelephone failures in Harare. I also appreciated his guidance along the way.I thank Meg Cumming for reading and commenting on earlier drafts of this report and manyhelpful discussions. Keith Lawrence of Conservation International read through both apreliminary and final version of this report and provided critical and constructive commentand suggestions for which I am very grateful.This report has benefited greatly from ongoing discussions with Rowan Martin on mattersrelating to conservation and sustainable use, and from his generous sharing of his knowledge,reports and literature relating to the work he has carried out in Botswana, the Caprivi, andZambia.Helpful discussions were held with John Hanks at the start of this study and he passed oncopies of the KAZA TFCA pre-feasibility reports to me. Chris Weaver and Richard Digglehelped with information on community conservancies in Namibia, and Brian Jones kindlyprovided a draft copy of his review of national conservation legislation in relation KAZATFCA. I also thank Woody Cotterill for a copy of his remarkable doctoral thesis on thegeomorphological history of the KAZA region and its wetlands and the associated evolutionof the Kobus leche group of species.

Large scale conservation planning - KAZA TFCA 11.INTRODUCTIONThe Kavango- Zambezi Transfrontier Conservation Area (KAZA TFCA) is situated insouthern central Africa (Fig. 1.1) and covers an area of about 400,000 1 km 2 , i.e. an areaslightly greater than that of Zimbabwe and nearly four times the size of Malawi. It iscentered on an area near the Victoria Falls where the boundaries of four out of the fiveparticipating countries meet. The countries concerned are Angola, Botswana, Namibia,Zambia, and Zimbabwe. The area also sits astride two major catchments. The Zambezicatchment, to the north and east, drains into the Indian Ocean while the western and southernpart of the TFCA falls within the endoreic Okavango basin within which the Okavangoswamps, in northern Botswana, form an outstanding feature. In palaeo-evolutionary termsthe two basins are closely interlinked; a feature that has influenced the biodiversity of thearea and which has important implications for wetland species and their conservation.KAZA encompasses globally significant wetlands and wilderness areas. The Okavangoswamps are registered as a major wetland site under the 1971 RAMSAR Convention onWetlands of International Importance, and a large part of the TFCA falls with two of the 24major terrestrial wilderness areas remaining on earth (Mittermeier et al 2003). The WorldWide Fund for Nature (WWF) have identified it as a key area within the Miombo ecoregion,itself a global priority, and it is one of the African Wildlife Foundation’s (AWF) priorityheartlands. Mittermeier et al (2003) classified globally important wilderness areas as thoseareas greater than 10,000 km2, in which more than 70% of the habitat was intact and whererural human population densities were less than 5 people per km 2 . The KAZA TFCAincludes areas of the Miombo-Mopane (3.2 people/km 2 ) and the Kalahari-Namib (0.62people/km 2 ) Wilderness Areas. Several plant, reptile and amphibian species, one mammaland one bird species are endemic to the KAZA area.An early mission statement for the TFCA adopted by a ministerial meeting of the fiveparticipating countries (Transfrontier Conservation Consortium, Final Report: Pre-feasibilityStudy 2006a) was as follows:“To establish a world-class transfrontier conservation area and tourism destinationin the Okavango and Zambezi river basin regions of Angola, Botswana, Namibia,Zambia and Zimbabwe within the context of sustainable development.”The primary objectives of the KAZA TFCA, as expressed in an MOU between the signatorycountries on the 6 December 2006 (Transfrontier Conservation Consortium 2006a) were asfollows:f. “Foster trans-national collaboration and co-operation in implementing ecosystemsand cultural resource management;1 The boundary of the TFCA has not yet been set and quoted figures for the area of the TFCA vary considerably.The figure of 400,000 km 2 is the approximate area of the TFCA covered by this report.

Large scale conservation planning - KAZA TFCA 2g. Promote alliances in the management of biological and cultural resources andencourage social, economic and other partnerships among their Governmentsand stakeholders;h. Enhance ecosystem integrity and natural ecological processes by harmonizingnatural resources management approaches and tourism development acrossinternational boundaries;i. Develop mechanisms and strategies for local communities to participatemeaningfully in, and tangibly benefit from, the TFCA; andj. Promote cross-border tourism as a means of fostering regional socio-economicdevelopment.In the period leading up to the signing of a treaty that will formally establish theKAZA TFCA, the partner countries will refine these objectives to make them specificto the KAZA region. These refined objectives will form part of the treaty.”Fig. 1.1 General map of the KAZA TFCA region and the proposed TFCA area (crosshatched) (Map adapted from Transfrontier Conservation Consortium 2006 Final Report: PrefeasibilityStudy of the proposed KAZA TFCA)Although enhancing ecosystem integrity and ecological processes are included in theobjectives, it is noteworthy that there is apparently no mention of conservation, biodiversityor sustainability in the MOU. However, each participating country includes conservationaims and objectives within its national legislation, as does the SADC protocol on WildlifeConservation and Law Enforcement in Southern Africa (SADC 1999, Jones 2008). Theprotocol encourages the conservation and sustainable use of wildlife resources in each

Large scale conservation planning - KAZA TFCA 3country and specifically endorses the establishment of TFCAs in Article 5, paragraph (f) asfollows:"f) promote the conservation of shared wildlife resources through the establishmentof transfrontier conservation areas;”A key objective of the Zambian integrated development plan for their component of theKAZA TFCA is explicit on the point, namely, “to join fragmented wildlife habitats into aninterconnected mosaic of protected areas and transboundary wildlife corridors, which willfacilitate and enhance the free movement of animals across international boundaries.”(Zambia Wildlife Management Authority 2008, page 3)An initial impetus for the development of the TFCA arose from regional spatial developmentplans (Okavango Upper Zambezi International Tourism Initiative – OUZIT) that identifiedthe Victoria Falls as an important, if not outstanding, tourism hub in southern Africa. Thehub included ready access to major protected areas (e.g. Chobe, Kafue and Hwange NationalParks, as well as the Moremi Game Reserve, the Okavango Swamps and Lake Kariba). Inaddition there are many smaller national parks, forest reserves, and an increasing number ofcommunity conservancies within the nominal boundaries of KAZA. The area is covered by awide range of approximately 70 conservation areas that cover more than 300,000 km 2 , orthree-quarters of the overall KAZA area 1 . Nearly 22% (~ 92,000 km 2 ) of the KAZA TFCAarea is covered by state protected areas that exclude human settlement.The KAZA TFCA includes components of five partner countries, people of many culturesand languages and governance systems, a multitude of ecosystems, land uses, protected areas,and plant and animal species. The human population of KAZA is approximately 2 million.Population density is generally low at less than 5 people per km 2 . Areas with higherpopulation densities (5 to 25 people per km 2 ) include the Caprivi, the Barotse flood plainareas upstream of Mongu in Zambia, the communal lands of the Sebungwe region to thesouth of Lake Kariba in Zimbabwe, and the area around Maun in Botswana. The regionencompassed by the TFCA is in effect a complex, linked social-ecological system (SES) thatis continually changing an adapting.The KAZA TFCA Pre-feasibility Study (Transfrontier Conservation Consortium 2006a &2006b) identified the following as contemporary threats to the development of KAZA:• Seasonality of tourism• Vulnerability of tourism to international terrorism• Competition from Africa’s established regional tourist destinations• Global recession• Other regions competing for investment• Inconsistencies in economic policies of partner countries• Global warming• Poverty• External ecological impacts• Crime, conflict and corruptionThe southern African component of the Millennium Assessment (Biggs et al 2004, Scholesand Biggs 2004) examined the current state of ecosystems and the goods and services they1 This study suggests that the area is closer to 400,000 km 2 instead of the usually quoted figure of 300,000 km 2 .

Large scale conservation planning - KAZA TFCA 4provide. These studies also explored alternative scenarios on how the above may fare in theface of increasing populations, land use change and climate change. Water, in all its uses(potable, agricultural, industrial, maintaining natural river processes, wetlands and dependantspecies) emerged as a major concern.A key developmental issue for KAZA is the sustainability of its conservation values and theecosystem goods and services it can provide to an expanding human population and agrowing tourism industry, especially in the face of looming climate change. So, how resilientis the KAZA TFCA likely to be in the face of global and local climate change and the host ofrelated shocks and surprises that are sure to accompany it? How can adaptive capacity bedeveloped within the KAZA SES system? Can large scale planning at this early stage bedeveloped to build adaptive capacity and resilience to mitigate the effects of climate change?This report first outlines the current climate change predictions for the region that include theKAZA TFCA (Section 2), with a focus on temperature and precipitation and the likelyimpacts, in broad terms, on landuse, livelihoods and conservation in the TFCA. Thefollowing three sections then examine key factors, drivers and issues likely to impact thedevelopment of KAZA TFCA from differing scales, namely, from the perspective of thesouthern African region, from an intermediate scale and perspective within KAZA, and at thelocal scale of individual protected areas within KAZA. Larger scale external influences onKAZA, including ecological constraints to productivity in the region, are examined in Section3 and include KAZA’s dependence on water derived from catchments outside its boundariesand wider economic, governance and political influences, and disease issues.An intermediate scale perspective of KAZA is adopted in Section 4 where the larger clustersof conservation areas are examined together with gradients in biodiversity across the regionand issues of human population growth and drivers of landuse change within the KAZATFCA area. Section 5 then takes a ‘smaller-scale’ look at the biological diversity within andthe conservation area network of the KAZA TFCA. It deals with species numbers, endemicsand threatened species of plants and vertebrates, and categories of protected areas. Criteriafor ranking individual conservation areas in terms of their biological value and conservationstatus are developed and applied to an inventory of more than 70 protected areas in theTFCA. The value and ranking of conservation areas is linked to a summary characterizationof the full range of these which is contained in Appendix 1.Ecosystem goods and services in the TFCA, particularly for wetlands, are reviewed inSection 6. The paucity of information on the current status of ecosystems and ecosystemservices in KAZA is such that a comparative evaluation of the contribution of particularconservation areas to ecosystem services, apart perhaps from the major wetlands, is notfeasible at this stage.A key to the development of the KAZA TFCA is what happens in the matrix between thelargely disconnected state protected areas that form the core of the TFCA and Section 7briefly examines some critical policy issues relating to conservation outside the boundaries ofstate protected areas.The examination of conservation areas, ecosystem services, and the insights derived from aconsideration of scale issues, are then brought to bear on questions of wildlife corridors,linkages and connectivity across the five participating countries (Section 8), buildingresilience and adaptive capacity (Section 9), and, finally, outlining priorities for thedevelopment and sustainability of the TFCA (Section 10). A characterization of eachprotected area in the TFCA is provided in Appendix 1.

Large scale conservation planning - KAZA TFCA 52.CLIMATE CHANGEKAZA falls within the zone in southern Africa that has experienced 1 - 2°C rise intemperature over the period 1970-2004 while the projected increase through to 2100 is alikely further 2-3°C (IPCC 2007a). The IPCC 2007 broad scale scenarios for Africa indicatea major drying out over the western half of southern Africa that is centered on the Caprivi –Okavango area. This will be further reflected in a 20% reduction in the growing season by2050 in much of the area covered by KAZA, and some countries in the region could be facinga reduction in yields from rainfed agriculture of up to 50% by 2020. These changes willclearly have implications for habitats and their productivity as well as for human welfare andfood security in the region and in the KAZA TFCA in particular.Several regional assessments predict emerging changes in the hydrology of major watersystems in the region and notably in the Okavango basin. These are likely to be due to bothclimate change and direct anthropogenic effects through landuse and land cover change (e.g.Biggs et al 2004, Anderssen et al 2006, Boko et al 2007, and Figs. 2.1 and 2.2).Fig. 2.1 Predicted changes in (a) temperature and (b) rainfall in southern Africa(Source: Scholes and Biggs 2004) (HADCM3 climate model projections in a) temperature, b)precipitation for 2050 relative to mean conditions over southern Africa 1961-1990 under the ICC SRES A2(high emissions scenario).

Large scale conservation planning - KAZA TFCA 6On an Africa-wide scale the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report for2007 report suggests that:“Agricultural production, including access to food, in many African countries andregions is projected to be severely compromised by climate variability and change. Thearea suitable for agriculture, the length of growing seasons and yield potential,particularly along the margins of semi-arid and arid areas, are expected to decrease.This would further adversely affect food security and exacerbate malnutrition in thecontinent. Local food supplies are projected to be negatively affected by decreasingfisheries resources in large lakes due to rising water temperatures, which may beexacerbated by continued over-fishing.” (IPCC 2007b)Thus, not only is the KAZA TFCA likely to be directly affected by rising temperature andincreased aridity but climate change will also have multiple impacts on the countries in theregion, with knock-on effects on the development and sustainability of this and other TFCAs.300Rainfall Mean Deviation (mm)2001000-1008-yr Running Mean-2001900 1920 1940 1960 1980 2000 2020YearFig. 2.2 Victoria Falls rainfall. Deviation of the 8-year running mean rainfall from themean annual rainfall for the period 1905 to 2003. (Based on annual rainfall recordsfrom Department of Meteorological Services, Harare, Zimbabwe)The importance of giving early consideration to adaptive strategies in the development of theKAZA TFCA and the conservation of its biodiversity cannot be overemphasized.The southern African Millennium Ecosystem Regional Assessment (Biggs et al 2004,Scholes and Biggs 2004) examined the current state of a range of ecosystem goods andservices for the mainland SADC countries (i.e. from the Congo and Tanzania southwards).The assessment also explored likely trends in ecosystem services based on future climatechange and four alternative development scenarios. The mapping of many of these at aregional scale provides an indication of potential changes and trends in the area that iscovered by the KAZA TFCA and these indicative trends or changes are summarised in Table2.1.Studies of likely changes in large mammal faunas as a result of climate change and landtransformation suggest that arid areas, such as the Kalahari, may experience a significant

Large scale conservation planning - KAZA TFCA 7decline in species richness while impacts on species richness and species survival will be lessmarked in moister savanna regions (Erasmus et al 2002, Thuiller et al 2006). However,several large mammal species of particular concern in the KAZA TFCA area are wetlanddependent species and the risk of their loss from the system may be greater than predicted bymore generalized predictions.Table 2.1Summary of the direction and possible magnitude of changes forenvironmental parameters and ecosystem services in the KAZA TFCA areabased on the regional assessment of ecosystem services in southern Africaconducted as part of the Millenium Assessment (Data from Scholes and Biggs2004)Parameter/CharacteristicExpected or predicted change1 TemperatureMuch warmer by 2050 (IPCC predictions indicate a 1-2°C rise in meanannual temperature in southern Africa)2 Precipitation Drier3 Population growth The average for the 5 countries = 2.06 % per annum4 Urban population (%) 2030 55.4% of total population5Trends in scenarios (a)a) African PatchworkBiodiversity, food security, fresh water, biomass fuel, air quality – allshow downward trend, nature tourism – upward trendb) PartnershipBiodiversity – initial decline then stable, food security – improves,freshwater and biomass fuel - initial decline then stable, Air quality –decline followed by improvement, nature tourism – upward trend.6 Map – deforestation No deforestation in KAZA area (but elephant impacts not included)7 Projected land cover changeSE Angola, Western Zambia and parts of NW Zimbabwe converted toagriculture or extensive grassland8 Livestock grazing pressure Overgrazing in Barotseland and Caprivi9Vulnerable areas tobiodiversity loss10 CerealsMuch of the KAZA area. However, the remaining wild areas insouthern Africa, and “seed areas” (i.e. refugia) for southern Africa occurin the KAZA area particularly in southeastern Angola.Productivity meets demand in KAZA area (but FEWS assessmentsindicate that production does not meet demand)11 Distribution of cattle High densities in Caprivi and Barotseland12 Water supplyAdequate for KAZA area even during the driest months of the yearexcept in Hwange and south to the Makgadikgadi region13 Ground waterVaries between low-high and moderate-high availability for the KAZAarea14 Water demand Drier conditions exacerbate demand15 Woodfuel demandAdequate supplies in the north but not in the southern part of KAZA norin parts of Barotseland16 Acid depositionNorthern parts of Kafue Area show some degree of sensitivity to aciddeposition (probably as a result of emissions from copper mines?)(a) Trends in scenarios. These were two scenarios developed by the Southern Africa MilleniumAssessment in which characteristic features of the Patchwork Scenario were: ineffective governancein most countries, regional fragmentation, informal sector dominates, little investment in health andeducation, ongoing localized military conflicts. Features for the Partnership Scenario were: strong,effective central government, regional cooperation and integration, strong formal economic sector,technological development and modernization, significant reduction in poverty, significant investmentin health and education.

Large scale conservation planning - KAZA TFCA 8Overall, the results of the Southern African Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (Biggs et a.2004, Scholes and Biggs 2004) imply increased pressure on natural resources throughoutmost of the sub-region with particularly high pressures on freshwater resources and wetlands.

Large scale conservation planning - KAZA TFCA 93LARGE SCALE:REGIONAL CONTEXT AND EXTERNAL DRIVERSThe KAZA TFCA is obviously embedded in a wider regional context within which a range offactors and drivers external to the TFCA will affect and influence its development and theachievement of its objectives. These factors may be global, regional or national and thissection will examine those considered to be important in any plans to increase resilience andadaptability of the KAZA social-ecological system. Because so much of the southern Africaneconomy is agrarian in nature and based on renewable natural resources it is important to beaware of the basic ecological constraints the region faces and this subject forms the startingpoint for this section. The more important external factors that impinge on the KAZA TFCA,and that are considered here, include transboundary water issues, potential external influenceson tourism, a range of international treaties and agreements, and national legislativeframeworks governing natural resource management (Fig. 3.1)Fig. 3.1 A conceptual diagram of the major large-scale, external drivers influencingthe conservation and development of the KAZA TFCA

Large scale conservation planning - KAZA TFCA 103.1 Ecological constraints and opportunities for wildlife based land useThere are several important ecological constraints to the development of southern Africa 1 thatare generally ignored in the development discourse relating to the region, but they have animportant bearing on the role of conservation and TFCAs as a form of land use in the region.In summary the key features of the region (Cumming 1999) are as follows:1. The region is predominantly arid or semi arid with uncertain rainfall. It ischaracterized by high spatial variability within seasons, high variability betweenyears, recurrent but unpredictable drought over the last few decades, andincreasing temperature which exacerbates the problems relating to aridity.2. The soils are mostly derived from an ancient basement complex and are mostlyinfertile – a characteristic particularly applicable to the KAZA area. The soils inhigh rainfall areas are leached and low in nutrients (which results in unpalatableplants) while the soils in arid areas are richer but plant growth is constrained bylow moisture levels.3. Range animal production is limited by rainfall in arid areas and by nutrients inmoist areas. Furthermore, livestock numbers in the region are approaching, orhave reached, a ceiling. There are now more humans than there are livestock unitsin the region as a whole and production levels per animal and per person are about1/20 th of those realized in Europe, for example.4. Per capita production of staple foods and animal products has declined by morethan 25% since 1980. Sustainably arable land covers only about 7% of southernAfrica and irrigable land < 1%. Currently about 5-6% is cultivated and 0.28% isirrigated. Much non-arable land is cultivated. Given these data we have toquestion the extent to which continuing cultivation in marginal lands issustainable. The high level of nutrient mining in sub-Saharan Africa (Drechsel etal 2001) adds further weight to these concerns.The relevance of these features of southern Africa to the development of TFCAs andmarginal lands is that wildlife based tourism can provide viable alternative developmentpaths and opportunities. Particular attention needs to be given to decoupling the generationof wealth from a direct dependence on primary production. Because the major earnings fromwildlife based land uses do not depend on the production of meat and fibre, but on servicessurrounding wildlife and wild places, they are less dependent on rainfall and forageproduction than is agriculture.3.2 Water and wetlandsDespite the predominance of arid land in southern Africa an outstanding feature of the KAZAarea is its extensive wetlands that support a rich flora and fauna and that provide an essentialcomponent to the livelihoods of a very high proportion of the people living within the TFCA.They also support a growing and internationally attractive tourism industry. These wetlandsare, however, fed from high rainfall catchments lying outside the boundaries of the TFCA.Runoff from precipitation within KAZA is low as a result of the mostly extremely flat terrainand porous nature of the sands and sandy soils that predominate in the area. The status and1 In this report ‘southern Africa’ covers Angola, Botswana, Lesotho, Malawi, Mozambique, Namibia,Swaziland, South Africa, Zambia and Zimbabwe.

Large scale conservation planning - KAZA TFCA 11long term sustainability of KAZA’s wetlands will therefore depend greatly on land use andthe management of water yields and offtake in the upper catchments of the Okavango andZambezi basins.The KAZA TFCA sits astride two large river basins, one being the Zambezi and the other theOkavango Basin. The only other endoreic basin in southern Africa is the smaller EtoshaBasin which lies to the west of the Okavango basin.The Zambezi River basin has eight riparian states and the Okavango has four, if Zimbabwe,with the Nata River that flows into Lake Makgadikgadi, is included. Angola, Botswana andNamibia have established a river basin commission (OKACOM – Permanent OkavangoRiver Basin Water Commission) to coordinate water resource management and examineriparian conflicts. By contrast the Zambezi Basin has only a single water authority, namely,the Zambezi River Authority formed by Zambia and Zimbabwe. The development of a widercommission through ZACPLAN (originally Zambezi basin action plan) has so far beenineffective (Nakayama 1999, Shela 2000). With the expected increase in demand for waterand declining precipitation in the region of the upper catchments of these two basins, thedevelopment and implementation of effective integrated river basin management isbecoming increasingly urgent.The need to develop effective water management and conflict resolution strategies betweenriparian states is highlighted by the endoreic drainage basin of the Okavango. The Okavangosystem has two largely arid states that ‘produce’ very little water and a single state, Angola,which provides about three-quarters of the flow into the Caprivi and the Okavango delta(Ashton 2003, Table 3.1). The upper Zambezi wetlands are supplied primarily from Angolaand Zambia but the system has not attracted the same attention as the Okavango and I havenot found comparable data on water flows and use for the upper Zambezi, i.e. the catchmentsabove the Victoria Falls.Current water use in the Okavango basin by a full range of users (Table 3.2) is low and wasestimated to be ~ 24 Mm 3 .yr -1 in 2000 by Ashton and Neal (2003), i.e. less than 1% of theaverage water flow. However, water extraction can be expected to increase dramatically(Table 3.3) with the resumption of agricultural development in the Angolan headwaters ofthe Cuando and Cuito Rivers. Ashton and Neal (2003) estimated that extraction wouldincrease to about 300 Mm 3 .yr -1 by 2020 with the full range of expected developments inAngola and further extraction by Namibia. The figure is still low at < 3% of currentestimated water flows.However, these figures and projections do not include the potential effects of climate changeon basin dynamics in terms of runoff, river flows and water use demands. Anderssen et al(2006), using the Pitman hydrological model, predicted that no more than 5% of river flow atlow months would be extracted for domestic and livestock use, as well as informal and allplanned formal irrigation schemes. The Anderssen et al (2006) models set the maximumeffect of irrigation at a reduction of 17% of the minimum monthly flow, or 8% of the annualflow. The situation would change markedly during wet years if all of the potential hydropowerschemes were developed, while global climate change models used in theirsimulations indicated a reduction in flow as high as 26%. They note that the effect onminimum flow (i.e. during the driest months) is proportionally higher than on annual flows.

Large scale conservation planning - KAZA TFCA 12Fig. 3.2 A digital elevation model of the KAZA region showing national boundariesand the major wetlands in the region. (Ban – Bangweulu, Bar – Barotse FloodPlain, Kar – Lake Kariba, Mkg – Makgadikgadi Pan, Oka – Okavango Delta)Table 3.1. Catchment areas, mean annual rainfall and the contribution of water flowsand direct rainfall to the Okavango Delta. (Compiled from Ashton 2003)CountryCountryCatchmentArea (km 2 )MeanRainfall(m.yr -1 )Annualcontribution toDelta flowsMm 3 %Inputs to TotalDelta WaterBalance (%)Angola 151,200 873 9,572 94.45 71.76Botswana:- Rivers only 58,350 480 265 2.62 1.99- Direct rainfall ontoDelta only 15,844 486 3,205 - 24.03Namibia 123,560 427 297 2.93 2.22Totals – Basin only 333,110 639 10,134 100 -Basin + Delta 348,954 632 13,340 - 100.00

Large scale conservation planning - KAZA TFCA 13Table 3.2 Estimated water demands by different sectors in Angola, Botswana andNamibia (Source: Ashton 2003)Water use Sector Angola Botswana Namibia Total %Rural subsistence use 5.65 1.48 1.27 8.40 36.0Urban domestic use 7.44 0.70 0.81 8.95 38.4Stock watering 0.25 0.27 0.15 0.67 2.9Industrial activities 0.00 0.25 0.06 0.31 1.3Agricultural activities 0.50 1.22 2.83 4.55 19.5Tourism 0.00 0.42 0.10 0.43 1.8Totals 13.84 4..34 5.22 23.31 100Table 3.3Projected growth in consumptive water demand in the Okavango basinunder two scenarios: A, existing patterns of demand prevail with no newdevelopments, and B, existing demand patterns plus new developments inwater transfer and irrigation. (Source: Ashton 2003)Basin Country Total Consumptive Demand (Mm 3 .yr -1 )2000 2010 2020A. .Existing demand with no new developmentsAngola 13.84 17.35 21.75Botswana 4.11 3.98 4.32Namibia 5.21 6.13 7.21Basin Total 23.17 27.47 33.284B. Existing demand patterns plus potential new transfers and irrigationAngola 13.84 67.35 121.750Botswana 4.11 28.98 54.32Namibia 5.21 66.13 127.21Basin Total 23.17 162.47 303.28The potential reductions in river flows within the Okavango basin suggested by the abovestudies are long term and reflect likely average conditions. It is important to bear in mindthat while there is considerable uncertainty surrounding the predicted changes there is a highlevel of agreement that climatic variability and the frequency of extreme conditions is likelyto increase. The peaks and troughs of the roughly eighteen year cycle of wet and dry periodsand the prolonged dry years of the 1990s are thus likely to be exacerbated.Ashton and Neal (2003) developed a useful conceptual diagram summarizing the manyfactors influencing decision-making in relation to water in the Okavango Basin and the delta(See Fig. 3.3)The likely impacts of changes in river flows and increasing aridity are taken up again inSection 7, Ecosystem Services.

Large scale conservation planning - KAZA TFCA 14Fig. 3.3 Conceptual diagram of a range of drivers impacting on the Okavango basinand its conservation and management. (Adapted from Ashton and Neal 2003)3.3 International and regional conventions, protocols and agreementsThere are several international and regional conventions and protocols that influence naturalresource management policy and practice in the region and that relate to the KAZA TFCA.The more directly relevant international conventions to which KAZA member states aresignatories (Table 3.4) are those that deal directly with the conservation of biodiversity, tradein endangered species, conservation of wetlands and the management of water resources.Regional protocols of importance include the SADC protocols on wildlife conservation andlaw enforcement, forestry, fisheries, and shared water courses.In addition to the formal international conventions and protocols a wide range of civil societyand non-governmental organisations contribute to and influence development andconservation in KAZA and the five countries of the TFCA.

Large scale conservation planning - KAZA TFCA 15Table 3.4 Conventions and protocols to which member states of the KAZA TFCAinitiative are signatories. (S – signed, R – ratified, A – acceded)Convention/ProtocolCountryAn Bw Na Zm ZwCBD - Convention on Biological Diversity 1992 R R R R RRAMSAR – Ramsar Convention on Wetlands of International Importance 1971 - R R R -UNCCD – UN Convention to Combat Desertification 1994 R R R R RCITES – Convention on Trade in Endangered Species - A A A AWHC – World Heritage Convention 1972 R A A R RConvention on the Law of the Non-Navigational Uses of InternationalWatercourses R R R - -UN Framework Convention on Climate Change R R R R RUNCED WCED (World Commission on Environment and Development).SADC Protocols: Wildlife Conservation and Law Enforcement, Fisheries, S S S S SForestry, Shared Water Courses, Development of TourismOKACOM – Okavango River Basin Commission S S S - -Zambezi River Authority - - - S SZAMCOM - Zambezi Water Course Commission 2004 S S S - S3.4 Tourism and global and national economiesTourism is considered to be one of the world’s fastest growing economic sectors but it isvulnerable to uncertainties in global financial markets, the price of oil and travel, and topolitical instability. It is also vulnerable to changes in tastes and fashions, marketing andinfrastructure. Over the last few years there have been consistent expectations of 5% perannum growth in the tourism sector in southern Africa. While this has applied to somecountries such as South Africa, Botswana and Zambia, it has not applied to Zimbabwe wheretourism over the past eight years has shown a marked decline. The civil war in Angola alsoaffected tourism in the Caprivi and, of course, within Angola.Current and future trends and prospects for the growth of global and regional tourism areclearly an important factor in the development of the KAZA TFCA because much of itsdevelopment has been predicated on revenue generated from tourism. The central attractionof KAZA is its wetlands but unfortunately these are the features most vulnerable to climatechange. As a result there will be a need to diversify both the range of tourism productswithin KAZA, and their spatial distribution, in order to ameliorate the impacts of projecteddeclines in rainfall and wetlands in the KAZA area. This issue is pursued further in Section10 on Resilience and Adaptability.3.5 National conservation legislationThe laws, policies and values relating to conservation and natural resource management inthe five countries involved in the KAZA TFCA make provision for the protection andconservation of the fauna and flora of each state, for the establishment of protected areas, andthe promulgation of regulations governing the use of, and trade in, wild plants and animals.However, while legislative intentions may be appropriate the trends in landuse and large wildmammal populations suggest that existing policies and regulations, and the resources made

Large scale conservation planning - KAZA TFCA 16available to wildlife conservation agencies, are inadequate and that conservation is notsucceeding, other than perhaps in Namibia (Cumming 2004). In Namibia most largemammalian herbivore species are either increasing or stable; in the remaining countriesbetween 26% and 64% of large mammal species are declining (Cumming 1999, 2004). Theextremely low operating budgets (e.g. < US$10 per km 2 in Zambia and Zimbabwe) forconservation agencies make it impossible to meet their mandates nationally let alone inambitious developments such as the KAZA TFCA.Some of the national provisions on trade in wild species and their products are constrained byinternational conventions such as CITES. This constraint is most apparent, and has thegreatest effect, in relation to the trade in elephant products.Differences in policy and legislation between the states are probably greatest in relation to themanagement, use and benefits that may be derived from wildlife by those living on landoutside protected areas; i.e. by those who bear the costs of conserving wildlife but realizelittle of its benefits. I flag this as one of the major issues requiring attention in the context ofbuilding adaptive capacity in the face of climate change and sustaining the futuredevelopment of the KAZA TFCA. The issue is taken up more fully in Section 7:Conservation beyond state protected areas.3.6 Animal Disease Management Policies and Practice.A wide range of complex interactions involving the intersection of domestic animals, wildlifeand human diseases can cascade down to affect the development of large transfrontierconservation areas (Cumming 2004a , Cumming 2007, Cumming et al 2007, Osofsky et al2008) (Fig 3.4). Disease control strategies for livestock have had major impacts on landuseand conservation in southern Africa and in the five KAZA countries during the last century.The livestock sector has been heavily subsidized in the provision of support services and inmarketing and pricing structures. For those countries that have had access to export marketsto Europe (Botswana, Namibia and Zimbabwe) there have been further subsidies in terms ofmarket prices for beef and aid in the provision of veterinary and other services to the beefindustry. These perverse incentives at national and international levels have resulted in landuses being distorted in favour of beef production (Arntzen, 1998, Barnes, et al 1992, 2001).By the same token wildlife has been viewed as the primary reservoir of several, if not most,of the important livestock diseases, with the result that, until recently, the view that “onecannot farm in a zoo” prevailed. Only in recent years has wildlife been seen as a legitimateform of landuse.The earlier belief that livestock production and particularly export markets were threatenedby the presence of wildlife resulted in long term game elimination programmes, particularlyin relation to the elimination of tsetse fly. For example, game elimination programmesstarted in the Sebungwe region in Zimbabwe as early as 1919 and continued through to the1970s (Child and Riney 1987, personal observations) when they were replaced by insecticidespraying programmes and later by the use of odour baited traps or “targets” (Vale et al 1988).The tsetse fly (Glossina morsitans centralis) is distributed over a large area in westernZambia, including all of the Kafue NP, and spreads into the Luiana Reserve, the Linyanti inthe Caprivi and until recently into the Okavango Delta (Fig. 3.5).

Large scale conservation planning - KAZA TFCA 17DomesticAnimalsHumansZoonoticPoolIncreasing contactHu – DA – WAWildAnimalsAnimalProductionWildlifeProductionEndangeredSpeciesLivelihoodsof farmersDisease ControlStrategiesTourismLocal, Regional &NationalEconomiesFig. 3.4 Conceptual diagram of the linkages between wildlife, livestock and humandiseases, and the potential implications of disease control strategies forlivelihoods and conservation. (From Cumming et al 2007)In Botswana, large swathes of the country were partitioned by game fences (Fig. 3.5) tocontrol Foot and Mouth Disease (FMD) and protect beef export markets. The fencesinterrupted large mammal migration routes and contributed to major declines in migratoryspecies such as wildebeest, zebra and hartebeest. Namibia maintains a cordon fence that runsfrom the eastern boundary with Botswana to the coast. Game fences have also isolated theHwange-Matetsi complex and from the mid 1960s an approximately 15 km wide fenced,selective game elimination corridor surrounded the Sebungwe area. Patterns of fencing,established to control diseases in livestock populations that are not associated in any directway with the KAZA TFCA, will likely continue to impact on KAZA in the future and willalmost certainly have implications for corridors, adaptive strategies in the face of climatechange and in establishing linkages between the centre and outlying components of theTFCA.The recent interest and developments in commodity based trade that could allow the export ofappropriately prepared animal products (e.g. de-boned beef from within FMD zones) holdssome hope for opening higher valued markets to peasant farmers (Thomson 2008) and for thedevelopment of multispecies production systems that involve both wildlife and livestock.There is also an encouraging paradigm shift taking place towards a “One Health” approachthat includes considerations of ecosystem health and eschews the narrow single sector andsingle disease management approach that has prevailed (e.g. Wilcox and Colwell 2005,Osofsky et al 2008).

Large scale conservation planning - KAZA TFCA 18Nevertheless, there remain a range of animal diseases that affect both domestic and wildanimals in the KAZA region (Table 3.4) and which also include zoonoses of importance tohumans, such as bovine tuberculosis, rift valley fever, trypanosomiasis, rabies,echinococcosis, and cystercercosis. Contagious bovine pleuropneumonia, an introduceddisease that is now endemic in Angola, is also particularly important (Fig.3.5) (e.g. Mangani,2007, Musisi et al 2007, Windsor and Wood 1998).Fig. 3.5 Distribution of tsetse fly, a center of contagious bovine pleuropneumoniainfection in Angola, and distribution of major game fences in the region.

Large scale conservation planning - KAZA TFCA 19Table 3.5 Animal diseases of concern in the KAZA TFCA. The origin of diseases isindicated as either indigenous (indig.) or introduced (alien).Mode ofTransmission Disease Origin WildlifeDomesticAnimal Human CommentsContagious Rinderpest Alien + + - Last Outbreak in 1896Bovine pleuropneumonia Alien + IntroducedFoot and Mouth Disease Alien + + -Carried by buffalo throughthe KAZA regionMalignant catarrhal fever Indig. + + - Wildebeest the primary hostBrucellosis Alien + + +Bovine tuberculosis Alien + + +Anthrax Indig. + + +Rabies Indig + + +European street virusintroduced to SA in 1892Canine distemper Alien + + -Toxoplasmosis Indig. + + +Sarcoptic mange Indig. + + +Vector borne Trypanosomiasis Indig + + -Cases of human sleepingsickness in Caprivi andmiddle Zambezi ValleyAfrican Swine fever Indig. + + -East Coast Fever(Theileriosis) Alien + + -Heartwater (Cowdriosis) Indig. + + -Endoparasite Echinococcosis Indig + + +Cystercercosis Indig. + + +An important emerging issue is the extent to which climate change will alter the patterns anddistribution of human and animal diseases across the sub-region and influence zoonoticdiseases and the emergence of new diseases. The interactions between climate change,patterns of land and resource use and diseases are likely to be complex and are potentiallymajor drivers in the development and sustainability of the KAZA TFCA. As the PrefeasibilityStudy for the KAZA TFCA noted, the approach being adopted in the AHEAD-GLTFCA programme (e.g. Cumming 2004, Cumming et al 2007) is also relevant to theKAZA TFCA.

Large scale conservation planning - KAZA TFCA 204INTERMEDIATE SCALE:COMPONENTS AND DRIVERS WITHIN KAZA4.1 Gradients of BiodiversityThe distribution of species richness within the broad area encompassing KAZA TFCA isparticularly important in relation to impending climate and land use / land cover change. Akey question is whether KAZA is large enough to continue to provide refugia for the presentrange of species within its boundaries. In the likely event that it will not be able to do so it isimportant that the TFCA is structured and managed in ways that will maintain links beyondits boundaries. Such a strategy will be particularly important for wetland dependent species.Some guidance as to the direction of where those links should lie is provided by, (a) thepatterns of wetland distribution and their palaeontological linkages outlined in Fig. 9.2, and(b) the gradients in diversity across the TFCA region (e.g. Fig. 4.1). There is a closerelationship between the distribution of species richness of trees and mammals in southernAfrica (Andrews and O’Brien 2000) and this holds true for the KAZA area (Fig. 4.2).Important in the context of regional linkages is the existence of gradients in species richnessacross the region from low levels of diversity of trees and mammals in the south-west withincreasing diversity to the north-east and east (Fig. 4.2). These gradients indicate that, in theface of increasing aridity, it will be important to maintain conservation corridors and links tothose parts of the sub-region that are likely to experience less drastic changes in temperatureand precipitation – these areas lie to the north east and the east of KAZA. Diversity gradientscoincide with the long-standing links to wetland areas in the north-east drawn out byCotterill’s (2006) work.The Kalahari sand sheet that covers some 2.5 million km 2 and stretches from the NorthernCape to the Congo, a distance of nearly 3,000 km, with a rainfall gradient ranging from 45 to1,800 mm.yr -1 , provides an ideal transect and gradient in which to examine soil-moistureplantrelationships. Results from the Kalahari Transect study undertaken by Scholes et al(1997) and the International Geosphere-Biosphere Programme (IGBP) provide a basis onwhich to predict the sorts of changes that are likely to occur within the KAZA area inresponse to a northward, or northeastwards shift in rainfall isohyets under climate change.The likely changes in vegetation structure are most clearly illustrated by the changes foundalong the rainfall gradient of the Kalahari transect between Upington in the northern Capeand Mongu in the Western Province of Zambia and illustrated in Fig. 4.3

Large scale conservation planning - KAZA TFCA 21Fig. 4.1 Distribution of species diversity of trees and mammals across the TFCAregion. Each ~ 25,000 km 2 grid square shows the occurrence of the number oftree species (red figures) and the number of mammal species in that square.The grid overlies national boundaries and the boundaries of several protected areas. The parts of thecountries covered are indicated by their abbreviations, namely, An, Angola; Bw, Botswana; SA,South Africa; Zm, Zambia; Zw, Zimbabwe. ● indicates the position of the Victoria Falls. (Data onnumbers of species per grid square derived from O’Brien 1993 and Andrews and O’Brien 2000)No. Mammal species1201008060402000 100 200 300 400No. Tree speciesFig. 4.2Relationship between the number of tree species and the number of mammalspecies in the general KAZA TFCA area as reflected in the number of speciesoccurring in equal area grid squares of ~ 25,000 km 2 . (Data from Fig. 4.1)

Large scale conservation planning - KAZA TFCA 22Porporato et al (2003) found that the soil moisture gradient between 300mm and 950mmalong the Kalahari transect was mainly due to storm frequency rather than storm depth, whichserves to highlight the importance of rainfall frequency and interval to rainfed cropproduction.Fig. 4.3Vegetation gradient along the Kalahari Transect (Redrawn from Scholes et al1997)The key point here is that rainfall, and to some extent soil nutrients, are the driving variablesin terms of productivity and biodiversity gradients across the region – a factor that has majorimplications in the face of climate change.4.2 Conservation area clusters and the KAZA TFCA mosaicTransfrontier conservation areas are usually associated with contiguous national parks thatshare an international boundary, e.g. the Great Limpopo Transfrontier National Park. In theKAZA TFCA this situation may obtain if the Luiana Partial Reserve in south east Angola isgazetted as a national park to provide a common international boundary with Sioma-NgweziNational Park in Zambia and Babwata National Park in Namibia. Apart from thisopportunity there are presently no internationally shared boundaries between protected areasof the partner countries within the KAZA TFCA. The fragmented, or mosaic nature, of landtenure and land use within the KAZA TFCA creates a range of challenges in terms ofconnectivity for conservation and tourism, disease control strategies, security, and forcontaining conflict between differing land uses.The different categories of conservation areas within the KAZA TFCA are covered in thenext Section (Section 6). The state designated areas are as follows: National parks (NP),Game Reserves (GR), Partial Reserves (PR), Safari Areas (SA), Game Management Areas(GMA), Wildlife Management Areas (WMA), Forest Reserves (FR) and Recreational Parks(RP).

Large scale conservation planning - KAZA TFCA 23At a large scale there are six clusters of protected areas within the TFCA (Fig. 3.4). Fromeast to west these are:1) Khaudom NP and Nyae-Nyae Conservancy (and possibly Tsunkwe Conservancy),2) Chobe National Park with Moremi Game Reserve, the Caprivi, Okavango Delta,and the Luiana area in Angola,3) Nxai Pan and Makgadikgadi,4) Kafue National Park and its surrounding GMAs,5) Hwange NP and associated safari areas, forest reserves, CAMPFIRE areas and aconservancy on commercial farming land.6) Lake Kariba Recreational Park, Matusadona and Chizarira National Parks, and thesafari areas, forest reserves and CAMPFIRE areas to the south of Lake Kariba inthe Sebungwe region.Outliers include the hunting areas (Mucusso, Luengue, Mavinga and Luiana Coutadas) to thenorth and west of the Luiana Provisional Reserve, the Mavinga Partial Reserve, the northernextent of the Western Game Management Area in Zambia, i.e. the area to the north of theSouthern Lueti River, and the Luiwa Plains NP (Fig. 4.4).Fig. 4.4Clusters of conservation areas in the KAZA TFCA with three centralclusters (red outline) and five ‘outliers’ (green outline) and arrows indicatinglinkages/corridors that remain to be establishedOf the six clusters, the greatest connectivity, both within the clusters and between them,occurs in the Kafue NP area, the Hwange NP – Matetsi SA and the area centered on ChobeNP. The core of the TFCA is probably the cluster centered on the Chobe NP with a possibleextension through to the Zambezi NP and the Victoria Falls. The core cluster covers an areaof about 40,000 km 2 and includes five national parks (Chobe, Babwata, Mamili, Mudumu,Sioma-Ngwezi), Moremi Game Reserve, the Okavango Delta, the Luiana Partial Reserve,and several forest reserves. The only dense rural settlements within the core area are

Large scale conservation planning - KAZA TFCA 24confined to the Chobe Enclave and parts of the eastern Caprivi. The increasing number ofcommunity conservancies being established in Caprivi further serves to strengthen andconsolidate this core component of the TFCA. The area also includes what are arguably themost important wetlands within the TFCA, namely, the Okavango Delta, the Linyantiswamps, and the Zambezi-Chobe wetlands in eastern Caprivi.The largest contiguous area nominally assigned to wildlife conservation is the Kafue NP andits surrounding GMAs. This area now covers 67,120 km 2 . However, large mammalpopulations are seriously depleted in the GMAs and also in parts of the Kafue NP (Martin2008). Important wetlands in this complex include the Busango swamps and floodplain inthe north of the area and the flood plains associated with the Kafue River above the Itesheteshidam and the Kafue Flats to the east of the park. The GMAs have been designated asareas in which the sustainable use of wildlife resources is intended to be a primary landuse.This has not transpired and a once rich wildlife resource has been greatly depleted throughover-hunting and illegal harvesting. As Martin (2008a) has shown in some detail, the keyissue is that the meagre returns to villagers from wildlife are such as to act as a disincentiverather than an incentive to retain and manage wildlife on their land. The situation couldreadily be reversed through the introduction of appropriate policies that allow realistic returnsto be retained by villagers rather than government agencies – a topic that is examined in moredetail in Section 7.The second large area of contiguous conservation areas within the TFCA is the Hwange-Matetsi-Victoria Falls complex which is made up almost entirely of unsettled state landprotected areas comprising four national parks (15,547 km 2 ), two safari areas (3,430 km 2 ) andfour forest reserves (3,010 km 2 ), resulting in an a area of state protected land of 21,987 km 2 .Parts of the Tsholotsho Communal Area that lie adjacent to southern boundary of HwangeNP could also be included, as could the Gwayi Conservancy to the east of Hwange NP, whichwould bring the total wildlife area to about 25,000 km 2 .It is instructive to examine the changes in land use that have occurred in this area of northwesternZimbabwe over the last century. During the early 1900s the eastern parts of the areawere thinly settled by Matabele people to the south and Tonga in the north. The arid westernareas were inhabited at very low densities by San hunter-gatherers. By the 1920s large areashad been designated for agriculture which was largely unsuccessful. In 1928 the HwangeGame Reserve was proclaimed and the Zambezi National Park (initially Victoria Falls GameReserve) was also established in 1928. The Matetsi area to the north of Hwange remained acommercial cattle farming area until 1972, when it was expropriated and turned into a safariarea. At that time many of the ranches had already turned to safari hunting as a moreprofitable form of land use (Johnstone 1975). The Ngamo Forest Reserve was established asearly as 1925 while the remaining four more northerly forest reserves adjacent to HwangeNational Park and the Matetsi Safari Area were established during the 1960s. In addition toharvesting indigenous hardwoods, these forest areas were run as safari hunting concessions.Commercial farms under free hold title in the Matetsi and Gwayi farming areas also switchedto wildlife as a land use. The northern-western part of the Tsholotsho Communal Land waslikewise leased as a safari concession under the CAMPFIRE programme.

Large scale conservation planning - KAZA TFCA 25The key feature of these changes over nearly a century is that the Kalahari sands and shallowbasalt soils of the area combined with low and uncertain rainfall were just not viable forrainfed cropping or livestock production with the result that as policy changes allowed,landowners and occupiers (including the state) shifted to wildlife-based land uses.A promising recent development is the move on the part of the Zimbabwe Parks and WildlifeAuthority towards an adaptive co-management approach that aims to involve the full range ofstakeholders and landowners involved in the wildlife industry in northwestern Zimbabwe(Cumming 2006). The results of a scenario planning workshop are instructive (Fig. 4.5) andprovide a potential exploratory model for the TFCA. It was generally agreed by participantsin the workshop that the ‘lose-lose’ scenario depicted the state of affairs in northwesternMatabeleland in 2006. Implementation of the ideas and plans developed at that workshop hassince been constrained by a lack of resources.The north-western Zimbabwe example of evolving land uses across differing tenure regimesand the intended shift towards an adaptive co-management regime for a large landscapeencompassing a full range of tenure regimes and stakeholders has clear implications for theKAZA TFCA. It is particularly relevant to establishing corridors between the disparate stateprotected areas in the region and to dealing with the looming elephant problem.False Start?HighWin-WinLow• Initial euphoria as co-managementinstitutions established but resources overexploited• Resources and economic benefits andreturns decline and investments dry up• Inequities develop between partners and comanagementinstitutions break down• Collapses into lose-lose scenarioLose-Lose• Low or non-existent adaptive co-managementwith declining livelihoods, development andbiodiversity• High human-wildlife conflict with low communitytolerance of elephant• Low benefits and reduced income to the regionand communities with low investment• Unsuitable landuse and natural resourcepractices increase, game water supplies areunsustainable• Poaching and uncontrolled burning escalateand poachers benefit at community expenseLevel of Adaptive Co-management• Stakeholder support with strong incentives, senseof ownership and benefit sharing, equity andimproved services and livelihoods in all sectors• Integrated and long-term approach to wildliferesources management, with agreed conflictresolution measures leading to preferred elephantdensities across the NW Mat. Landscape• Healthy ecosystems and biodiversity maintainedwith research, monitoring and feedbacks foradaptive management in placeEconomic Development and Livelihoods HighWin-Lose(Fortress Conservation)• Elephant densities in park increase with happytourists and tour-operators• Co-management non-existent with unhappyneighbours and increasing conflict• Stressed elephants and habitats in HwangeNP with declining biodiversity and risk ofsystem collapseLowFig. 4.5Narrative summary of the alternative scenarios for Hwange NP and NWMatebeleland. (From Cumming 2006)

Large scale conservation planning - KAZA TFCA 26Shifts to wildlife-based land uses outside of protected areas are occurring in the Caprivi and,as Barnes et al (2001) noted in their study of returns to different land uses in Ngamiland,there is likely to be an increasing shift towards wildlife based tourism in northern Botswana.It is tempting to conclude that these trends will continue well into the future or at least thatexisting areas under wildlife conservation will be sustained. There are, however, seriouspolicy and legal constraints working against the trend continuing, particularly in thecommunity occupied lands in Botswana, Zambia and Zimbabwe and I examine these inSection 7.4.3 Human population growth and drivers of land use changeThe growth of human populations in formerly sparsely inhabited areas is an ongoingphenomenon in Africa and despite increasing urbanization is likely to continue for theforeseeable future. Rural population growth invariably results in increasing landtransformation whether for livestock or crop production and it is clearly a matter that willneed to be included in the longer term planning of the development of the KAZA TFCA.Apart from growth of existing settlements there is the potential for an influx of people withthe generation of increasing wealth (a honey-pot effect) and in Angola there is the likelyreturn of refugees and the potential from migration from elsewhere within Angola to thepresently lightly settled areas of the south east and within the KAZA TFCA.Annual human population growth in the centre of the KAZA TFCA in the Caprivi between1921 and 1996, based on graphs in Mendelsohn and Roberts (1997), averaged 3.6 %. Growthin the number of households between 1943 and 1996 in four selected areas in eastern Caprivivaried between 2.9 and 3.4 %, while in Mukwe, in the west on the Kavango River, the growthrate in the number of households during the same period was 6.2 %. Within Babwata NPthere has been a marked influx of people as benefits from wildlife have increased for thosewho have long inhabited the area (Julie Taylor, personal communication, 2008). Turpie et al(1999) used a population growth rate of 2.8 % per annum for the Barotse Flood Plain.The eastern outlier to the TFCA in the form of Lake Kariba and the Sebungwe 1 provides agood example of the rapid and unexpected changes in land use that can occur when areas arecleared of tsetse fly and infrastructure in the form of roads is developed (in this case initiallyto control tsetse fly). The Sebungwe is still shown in many maps as being primarily awildlife area but this is far from a true reflection of the reality on the ground. The primaryprotected areas in the Sebungwe (Chizarira and Matusadona NPs, Chirisa and Chete SafariAreas) are, however, increasingly becoming isolated ecological islands and the landusechanges and influx of subsistence farmers (Fig. 4.7 and Table 4.1) that occurred, particularlyduring the 1980s reflect a policy failure in respect of returning the full value of wildlifebenefits to the autochthonous inhabitants of the Sebungwe region.In 1980 the Sebungwe region still retained large areas of wild land and was rich in wildliferesources that supported a number of hunting concessions. The CAMPFIRE programme wasconceived in the early 1980s (Martin 1984) but was not officially implemented until 1989. Inthe intervening period returns from wildlife safaris in the Sebungwe were collected by1 Sebungwe is the name of the former district that covered the region lying south of Lake Kariba. It includesmuch of the present day districts of Binga, Gokwe and Kariba.

Large scale conservation planning - KAZA TFCA 27government and after lengthy delays retuned, in part, to the three Rural District Councilsinvolved.Fig. 4.6 Changes in the Sebungwe region of Zimbabwe in the area settled between 1973and 1993. Lake Kariba lies to the north of the area. (Source: Cumming andLynam 1987)The District Councils passed very little back to the communities in whose areas the huntinghad taken place with the result that wildlife and wild land held little value to them. The endresult was rapid land transformation and the loss of a valuable resource that, givenappropriate policies, would have provided better returns to communities and households thanlivestock (Murindagomo 1997). Although no post 1993 aerial photography is available forthe Sebungwe it is clear, from several personal visits to the area since the mid-1990s, that theearlier trends of increasing human populations and land clearance have continued. By way ofcontrast, private landholders, leaseholders and state forest reserves in the northwest of thecountry were, in terms of wildlife legislation, able to realize the full benefits from wildlifeand conserved and managed it accordingly.Thus the interaction of legal and policy changes, human population growth, disease controland infrastructure can have unexpected results in terms of land transformation and these typesof complex interactions are likely to come to the fore with marked shifts in climate within theKAZA region.Table 4.1 Changes in human population density between 1973 and 1993 in threedistricts where a large part of the district falls within the Sebungwe. (Datafrom Cumming and Lynam 1997)DistrictHuman Populationdensity (people.km -2 )1982Human Populationdensity (people.km -2 )1993PercentagechangeBinga 6.11 11.3 + 84.9%Gokwe 18.15 29.7 + 63.6%Kariba 2.7 7.6 + 182.0%

Large scale conservation planning - KAZA TFCA 285LOCAL SCALE:BIODIVERSITY AND THE CONSERVATION AREA NETWORKLanduse change in the region is being driven by expanding human populations, of which ahigh proportion are marginalized rural people that depend directly on natural resources. Inthe context of KAZA a promising potential and sustainable route out of the poverty trap is fordisadvantaged communities to realize the full benefits of biodiversity on their land. Therealization of this goal will, however, depend to a large extent on the presence of intact andattractive wild landscapes and large charismatic species of mammals, as well as rare speciesand a range of other taxa that will attract tourists. These considerations raise threecomplementary questions:1. What are the endemic, near endemic and limited distribution species within KAZA,where are they and what are the threats to their survival?2. Which globally or regionally threatened species occur in KAZA that require specialconservation attention and action?3. Which are the key species in terms of generating revenue and income for the TFCAand its inhabitants? This may include charismatic mammals and birds, habitats andlandscapes, timber resources, medicinal plants and certain ecosystem services.Answers to these questions are needed to guide the setting of local scale conservationpriorities and an overview of species diversity in the KAZA TFCA area is provided in thissection followed by an examination and ranking of the individual conservation areas withinthe KAZA TFCA.So far as I am aware, no Key Biodiversity Areas (KBAs) (Eking et al 2004, Langhammer etal 2007, Knight et al 2007a) have been identified the KAZA TFCA area although severalprotected areas that include black rhinoceros (Diceros bicornis) and the wild dog (Lycaonpicus) would qualify, as would areas containing very limited distribution endemicherpetofauna (e.g. Sioma-Ngwezi NP) and endemic plants species such as occur in theBatoka Gorge. In addition, no Alliance for Zero Extinction (ACE) sites have been identifiedin the KAZA TFCA. The formal identification of KBAs (e.g. Langhammer et al 2007)requires, inter alia, conservation assessments at national levels, gap analyses and the fullparticipation of local stakeholders in the process – clearly beyond the scope of a desk study.As a result a different approach to ranking protected areas was adopted here (Section 5.2.3).The approach is based on earlier work on identifying conservation priorities in the region(e.g. Cumming and Jackson 1984, Cumming 1984 and 1999, Bell and Martin 1984) anddeals, in part, with the questions posed above.

Large scale conservation planning - KAZA TFCA 295.1 Biodiversity in the KAZA TFCA5.1.1 Species numbersSpecies lists for plants, mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, fishes, and butterflies wereproduced in the 4-Corners study of biodiversity (Timberlake and Childes 2004) The numberof species within each major taxon and the overall number of species for the 4-Corners area(Table 5.1) probably represent a reasonable approximation of the overall number of speciesoccurring in the KAZA TFCA (with the exception of Angola which has been poorlycollected). Additional areas that are now included in the KAZA TFCA but which were not inthe 4-Corners area, such as the Sebungwe in Zimbabwe, would undoubtedly extend thespecies lists.It draws heavily on the study and compilation on biodiversity in the 4-Corners area (i.e. theKAZA region less Lake Kariba and the Sebungwe region of Zimbabwe) by the BiodiversityFoundation for Africa (Timberlake and Childes 2004). I have not attempted to add speciesfrom Kariba or the Sebungwe that might have been omitted from the studies included in the4-Corners study.Table 5.1The numbers of species recorded in the 4-Corners area(Source: Timberlake and Childes 2004)Taxon Overall Angola Botswana Namibia Zambia ZimbabwePlants 2,645 - 1442 635 1,662 1,334Mammals 197 91 149 118 162 150Birds 601 211 502 462 542 504Herpetofauna 178 106 135 122 135 133Fishes* 109 - - - - -Butterflies 295 140 237 160 268 274* Because the major rivers form country boundaries within KAZA assigning fish species to countries isinappropriate and for this reason only a total figure for KAZA is given.5.1.2 Endemic and threatened species1. PlantsAs noted by Timberlake (2004) “The four-corners area is the meeting place of the Zambezianand Kalahari floras and is a transition zone for both flora and vegetation. It is not an area ofendemism. It is also heavily dissected by wetlands and floodplains which act as dispersalcorridors and encourage the wide distribution of species. As the area has beenenvironmentally unstable for the last million or so years it is unlikely to support many speciesthat are only found in that area.” Despite not being considered a centre of plant endemismthere are nevertheless fifteen species that are presently considered endemic to the area.a) Endemic species. There are 15 endemic/near endemic plants in the KAZA TFCAarea (Timberlake 2004). They comprise one species of sedge, four grass species, one lily,and nine dicotyledonous species, of which five are small trees or shrubs, three are herbs andone is a succulent. For most, if not all of the species, the major threat to their survival islikely to be loss of suitable habitat. Four of these endemic species are confined to the rockybasalt gorges below the Victoria Falls. These species are Aristida brainii, Danthoniopsispetiolata, Euphorbia fortissima,and Jamesbrittenia zambeziaca.

Large scale conservation planning - KAZA TFCA 30b) Threatened species. The SABONET (Southern African Botanical DiversityNetwork) project catalogued nationally, but not necessarily regionally, threatened plantspecies (Golding 2002). Of the 18 species of nationally threatened plant species that occurwithin the KAZA area, none are listed in the IUCN Red Data List as being globallythreatened (Timberlake 2004). Some of the species are also widely distributed and occurelsewhere in Africa. For example, the orchid Eulophia latilabris although endangered inBotswana and Zimbabwe occurs in Angola and Uganda.Timberlake (2004) identified eight sites of conservation concern for plants within the 4-Corners area that carried high plant diversity, or included species of restricted distribution.The selection was biased towards areas for which satellite imagery was available. Of theeight areas identified, five straddle international borders (Fig. 5.1)Fig. 5.1 Areas of concern for the conservation of plants in the 4-Corners area (Source:Timberlake 2004). (a) Okavango Swamps, (b) Kavango/Okavango river fringes, (c) MakgadikgadiPans and Nata River Delta, (d) Zambezi riparian woodland (below Senanga), (e) Zambezi riparianwoodland (between Kazungula and Victoria Falls), (f) Victoria Falls and Batoka Gorge, (g) KazumaPan, (h) Southern Hwange dunes and Nata mudflats. (Base map from Transfrontier ConservationConsortium 2006a).2. Mammals.There is one species of endemic/near endemic mammal in the KAZA TFCA, namely,Woosnam’s desert mouse (Zolotomys woosnami) the distribution of which is centered onBabwata NP in the Caprivi. Cotterill (2004) listed 31 species of conservation concern in the4-Corners area of which six species are listed in the IUCN Red Data List as vulnerable (lion,

Large scale conservation planning - KAZA TFCA 31cheetah, spotted-necked otter, honey badger, Kafue lechwe and Anchiete’s pipistrelle bat),and two are listed as critically endangered (black rhinoceros and African wild dog).Of the larger mammals Cotterill (2004) considered the following species to be vulnerablewithin the 4-Corners area, although they are not listed as such in the IUCN Red Data List:leopard, hippopotamus, sitatunga, Penric’s waterbuck, red lechwe, puku, roan antelope,tsessebe, klipspringer, oribi and pangolin.The wetland dependent species (sitatunga, lechwe, puku, reedbuck and waterbuck) may beparticularly vulnerable because wetlands are also areas in which humans and livestockconcentrate and compete with wild herbivores (Martin 2004).Key mammal species for KAZA may be defined as those that are (a) globally endangered andthreatened, (b) the additional large mammal species that are considered vulnerable withinKAZA, and (c) species that are economically important (See Box 5.1)Box 5.1 Key large mammal species in KAZAGlobally Endangered species:Black rhinoceros, African wild dogGlobally Vulnerable species:Lion, cheetah, spotted necked otter, honey badger, Kafue lechweSpecies vulnerable in Kaza:leopard, hippopotamus, sitatunga, Penric’s waterbuck, red lechwe, puku, roanantelope, tsessebe, klipspringer, oribi and pangolinAdditional economically important speciesElephant*, sable, buffalo, crocodile* IUCN Red Data Lists include elephant as an endangered species, however, KAZA has the largestelephant population in the world at >250, 000 animals3. BirdsBird Life International recognizes 12 Important Bird Areas (IBAs) within the KAZA area(Fishpool and Evans 2001, Table 5.2).Mundy (2004) recorded 17 globally threatened and near threatened bird species that occur inthe 4-Corners area. Of these the blue crane is a vagrant, three species are palaearcticmigrants (lesser kestrel, pallid harrier and blackwinged pratincole), and one, the Africaskimmer, is an Afrotropical migrant. The globally vulnerable species that are resident withinKAZA are the salty egret, lappet faced vulture, cape griffon, wattled crane, and blackcheeked lovebird. The near threatened resident species are the shoebill stork, lesser flamingo,taita falcon, Stanley’s bustard, and Chaplin’s barbet.The only KAZA endemic bird species is the black cheeked lovebird.Mundy (2004) provided a list of 12 bird species that were of concern to at least three of thecountries participating in the KAZA TFCA (Table 5.3)

Large scale conservation planning - KAZA TFCA 32Table 5.2 Important Bird Areas (IBAs) in the KAZA TFCA area (Data from Fishpooland Evans 2001) (The number of species occurring at a site out of the number of specieswhose distributions are largely limited to that biome are indicated where appropriate, e.g. 12species of 17 Zambezian biome species occur in BW001. The numbers BW001, NA002, etc., arethe Birdlife International identifying numbers for IBAs).Important Bird AreaBotswanaChobe National Park andMoremi Game Reserve(BW001)Area(km2)10,680Linyanti Swamp (BW0002) 200Okavango Delta (BW003) 18,000Lake Ngami (BW0004) 250Makgadikgadi Pans (BW005) 12,000NamibiaEastern Caprivi Wetlands(NA002)Mahango Game Reserve andKavango River (NA003)Bushmanland (Tsumkwe)Pan System (NA006)ZambiaLiuwa Plain National Park(ZM005)4,680Key bird speciesMarabou stork (Leptoptilis crumeniferus), Woolynecked stork (Ciconiaepiscopus), Lesser moorhen (Gallinula angulata) Zambesian biome – 12 of 17species, Kalahari-Highveld biome – 4 of 6 speciesSlaty egret (Egretta viaciegula), Wattled crane (Grus curunculatus), Blackwingedpratincole (Glareola nordmanni), Rufousbellied Heron (Ardeola rufiventris), Africanopenbilled stork ( Anastomus lamelligerus), African spoonbill (Platella alba)Slaty egret (Egretta viaciegula), Wattled crane (Grus curunculatus),Blackwinged pratincole (Glareola nordmanni), Lesser kestrel (Falconuamanni), Corncrake (Crex crex)Lesser kestrel (Falco nuamanni), Blackwinged pratincole (Glareolanordmanni), Breeding site for African spoonbill, Eastern white pelican andducks, > 20,000 water birds at timesWattled crane (Grus curunculatus), Lesser flamingo (Phoenicopterus minor),Blackwinged pratincole (Glareola nordmanni),Slaty egret (Egretta viaciegula), Wattled crane (Grus curunculatus)Blackwinged pratincole (Glareola nordmanni)245 Slaty egret (Egretta viaciegula), Wattled crane (Grus curunculatus)1,2003,660Barotse Flood Plain (ZM006) 6,000Sioma Ngwezi National Park(ZM007)Machile (ZM008) 3,000Mosi-oa-Tunya NP &Batoka Gorge (ZM009)Kafue National Park(ZM0012)ZimbabweHwange National Park(ZW009)Chizarira National Park(ZW0010)Slaty egret (Egretta viaciegula), Wattled crane (Grus curunculatus),Blackwinged pratincole (Glareola nordmanni), Lesser flamingo(Phoenicopterus minor), Pallid Harrier (Circus macrourus), Great snipe(Gallinego media)Slaty egret (Egretta viaciegula), Wattled crane (Grus curunculatus) breeds,Blackwinged pratincole (Glareola nordmanni) breeds, Lesser kestrel (Falconuamanni), ?? plover (Charadrishybridu) breeds, Caspian plover (Charadrisasiaticus)As for Liuwa Plain + several additional species breeding, e.g. Africanspoonbill, African open billed stork5,276 15 of the 56 Zambezian biome species that occur in ZM recorded10022,40014, 4601,910Lesser kestrel (Falco nuamanni), Wattled crane (Grus curunculatus), Blackcheekedlovebird (Agapornis nigrigenus),9 of 56 Zambezian biome species recordedTaita falcon (Falco fasciinucha), Black-cheeked lovebird (Agapornisnigrigenus), Rock pratincole (Glareola nuchalis)8 of 56 Zambezian biome species recordedSlaty egret (Egretta viaciegula), Wattled crane (Grus curunculatus), PallidHarrier (Circus macrourus), Lesser kestrel (Falco nuamanni), Corncrake (Crexcrex), Great snipe (Gallinego media), Chaplin’s barbet (Lybius chaplini)12 of the 23 Zambezian biome species recorded and 3 of the 6 KalahariHighveld species from Zw recordedTaita falcon (Falco fasciinucha)13 of 23 Zambesian biome species recordedBatoka Gorge (ZW0011) 120 Taita falcon (Falco fasciinucha)

Large scale conservation planning - KAZA TFCA 33Table 5.3 Bird species of conservation concern to at least three countries in the KAZATFCA area. (After Mundy 2004) (Angola does not appear to have developed a list)Species Bw Na Zm ZwGreat crested grebe White pelican Pin-backed pelican White backed night heron Bittern Greater flamingo Hooded vulture White backed vulture Bateleur eagle Crowned crane Rock Pratincole Ground hornbill Yellow-billed oxpeckers 4. HerpetofaunaBroadley (2004) provided an annotated list of 178 species of turtles, snakes, lizards and frogsfor the 4-Corners area. The area carries five strict endemics, namely, two lizards, oneamphisbaenian and two frogs (Broadley 2004 and Table 5.3). Near-endemics include aterrapin, a semi-aquatic snake and two frogs (Table 5.3). Of the nine endemics and nearendemic species, six are wetland species.Table 5.4 Endemic and near-endemic species of herpetofauna in the KAZA TFCA areaand their distribution (Data from Broadley 2004)SpeciesEndemicsTsodilo thick-toed gecko – PachydactylustsodiliensisMakgadikgadi spiny agama – Agama makarikariaLong-tailed pestle-tailed Worm-lizard – Dolophialongicauda (Amphisbaenia)Matetsi reed frog - Hyperolius rhodesiensisKafue reed frog – Hyperolius pyrhiodictyonNear-endemicsTerrapin – Pelosios bechuanicusSemi-aquatic snake – Crotaphopeltis barotseensisKafue round-snouted worm lizard – Zygaspiskafuensis (Amphisbaenia)Mapacha Grass Frog – Ptychadena mapachaAposematic reed Frog – Hyperolius aposematicusDistributionTsodilo Hills (Bw)Northern edge of Makgadikgadi Pans (Bw)Caprivi and Hwange District confined to Baikiaeawoodlands (Na and Zw)Matetsi River (Zw)Kafue flats (Zm)Upper Zambezi River, Zambezi River above VictoriaFalls, Caprivi and the Okavango DeltaSelinda spillway, Okavango Delta, Kolobo on BarotseFlood Plain – eats frogs (Bw, Na, Zm)Kafue flats on the eastern boundary of Kafue NationalPark (Zm)East Caprivi, Ojmatako River (likely in Ang. Zm & Zw)From Lealu on Upper Zambezi to Victoria Falls andLake Liambezi (Zm, Na)

Large scale conservation planning - KAZA TFCA 345. FishesThe total number of indigenous fish species recorded from the 4-Corners area is 109 (Billsand Marshall 2004). They occur in four major river systems, the Okavango with 82 species,upper Zambezi (i.e. above the Victoria Falls) with 71 species, Kafue with 62 species, and themiddle Zambezi (i.e. below the Victoria Falls) with 45 species. Apart from a stillundescribed killifish in the Caprivi there are no fish species endemic to the KAZA area andnone are listed on the IUCN Red Data List. Bills and Marshall (2004) list four rare speciesthat warrant attention. These are Neolebias lozii know only from the Barotse flood plain,Nothobranchius kafuensis from the Kafue flats, Nothobranchius sp. found only in two pans inthe Caprivi, and Chiloglanis emarginatus from a tributary of the Gwayi River in Zimbabweand outside the KAZA TFCA area.The introduction of exotic species is a matter of considerable concern, particularly theintroduction of the Nile tilapia Oreochromus nilotica which is apparently displacing themiddle Zambezi endemic Oreochromus mortimeri (Bills and Marshall 2004).The major threats to fish fauna of the TFCA are the abstraction of water, the building ofdams, over-fishing, and the introduction of exotic species often from aquaculturedevelopment projects. For example, no less than 25 species (exotics and indigenous species)from elsewhere in Zambia have been introduced to the lower end of the Kafue flats (Bills andMarshall 2004, from van den Audenaerde 1994).6. InvertebratesApart from butterflies, dragonflies, and aquatic molluscs very little is known aboutinvertebrate diversity in the KAZA TFCA Area. Gardiner (2004) listed 295 species ofbutterfly for the 4-Corners area with a single endemic, Erkssonia alaponoxa, from Katabathat is restricted to Brachystegia woodlands on Kalahari sands. A second near endemic,Acraea anemosa f. alboradiata, is restricted to the riparian fringe on the Zambezi betweenthe Victoria Falls and Katimo Mulilo. Other forms of the species occur further afield in EastAfrica. There are several butterfly species that are restricted to wetlands and these woulddisappear were the wetlands to dry out. The Victoria Falls area, and the rainforest inparticular, is characterized by unusually high butterfly diversity within the TFCA area(Gardiner 2004).Two species of butterfly produce large numbers of edible caterpillars, generally known as“mopane worms”. One species, Imbrazia belina feeds on the leaves Colophospermummopane trees and shrubs in the southern parts of the KAZA TFCA, while the other, Cirinaforda, feeds on Burkea africana. Pupae of the moth Gonometa rufobrunnea produce a highquality silk and sporadically occur in very high numbers in mopane woodland and scrub areasin the southern parts of the KAZA area in Botswana and Zimbabwe. These species are nowcommercially exploited.Ramberg et al (2006), in their review of the biodiversity of the Okavango Delta, note thatduring the 1960s and 1970s Pinhey collected 92 species of dragonflies and damselflies in theDelta and that more recently Kipping added two further species bring the total to 94.However, of the 92 species found by Pinhey in the 1970s only 70 were found by Kipping 25years later and of the missing species 12 had been found by Pinhey in three or more localities

Large scale conservation planning - KAZA TFCA 35(Ramberg et al 2006). Ramberg et al (2006) suggest that two factors may have beenresponsible for the apparent loss of species, one being the extended dry period during the1980s and 1990s and the other being the blanket spraying with deltamethrin during 2001-2002 to control tsetse fly.Dangerfield (2004) drew attention to the generally high diversity of soil invertebrates and theextent to which they have been neglected. He emphasized the important role that termitesplay as ecosystem engineers in the system through the large mounds they build. Recentstudies of large termitaria in the Chizarira National Park (Humphrey 2008, Joseph 2008)highlight their importance in enhancing plant species diversity and their role as refugia largetrees and hole nesting birds in an area where elephants have converted woodland toshrubland.The freshwater invertebrate fauna of the region has been similarly neglected. Marshall(2004) reviewed the available literature and reported 28 species of aquatic molluscs from 12families. Of particular interest is the rich invertebrate fauna in ephemeral pans in areas suchareas as Hwange NP and the extreme effects that introduced catfish (Clarias sp.) can have oninvertebrates populations and species diversity in these pans.5.2 The Conservation Area Network within KAZA TFCAThere are more than 70 protected areas within the KAZA TFCA that range in size from22,000 km 2 (Kafue National Park) to 19 km 2 (Victoria Falls National Park). These protectedareas cover a range of types and purposes from strict national parks under state control tomultiple use areas under community management (See following section). Small sacredgroves that undoubtedly occur within the region have not been included in this review. Thematrix, that area within which protected areas are embedded, covers 100,000 km 2 and isalmost entirely land under traditional communal tenure or is state land. Small areas of land inZimbabwe (in the Hwange- Matetsi area) that were formerly under freehold title weretransferred, through a change in the constitution, to state land or leasehold land in 2006.5.2.1 Categories of protected areasA wide range of protected areas occurs within the TFCA and there is some measure ofconfusion or mismatch in attempts so far to find a common classification across the fivenations involved. This is particularly apparent in mapping and map legends. The followingclassification follows national designations of the various forms of conservation area andeach is defined. The numbers and areas covered by the different categories of conservationarea within KAZA in each of the countries are summarized in Table 5.5 below.1. National Parks in all countries are areas that do not have people, other than staff,settled within their borders 1 . Fauna and flora are protected and resource extraction is notlegally practiced. Development other than by the park authorities is not allowed, i.e. hotelsand similar permanent structures constructed and owned by the private sector are generallynot permitted within the park. This practice has been followed in Botswana, Namibia,1 Two exceptions are the Kalahari National Park in central Botswana and the Babwata National Park in westernCaprivi in Namibia, both of which have resident San or Kwe people living within their boundaries.

Large scale conservation planning - KAZA TFCA 36Zambia and Zimbabwe – the policy in Angola in this regard is not clear. Generally, nationalparks in the KAZA TFCA equate to Category II of the IUCN classification. Althoughcompletely undeveloped areas within some of the larger parks could be considered wildernessareas and thus be classified as strictly protected areas, i.e. IUCN Category I. Most nationalparks have “park plans” and some measure of zonation. Use is confined to game viewing,photographic tourism, wilderness trails, etc, and is non-consumptive apart from fishing insome areas.2. Safari Areas (Zimbabwe). As in national parks these fully protected areas are notsettled but sport hunting is permitted under set quotas and mostly through professionallyguided hunts. They were initially established as controlled hunting for sport hunting.Infrastructure development is minimal with dirt roads and temporary rustic camps althoughthe Matetsi SA, a former farming area, has permanent brick houses. These areas are notequivalent to the Game Management Areas, Wildlife Management Areas, or Coutadas, ofZambia, Botswana and Angola, respectively, in which people are settled.3. Game Reserves (Botswana) and Partial Reserves (Angola). The Moremi GameReserve in Botswana is presently the only game reserve within the KAZA TFCA and has aspecial status as it is within tribal land and was initially set aside by the Chief of the area.There are two “Partial Reserves” in South East Angola and their legal status is defined as“An area where it is forbidden to hunt, kill or capture animals, or to collect plants, other thanfor authorized scientific or management purposes” (Jones 2008), which places them in asimilar category to national parks.4. Recreational Parks. This is a category peculiar to Zimbabwe in whichrecreational pursuits such as boating, yachting, fishing and the construction of recreationalcentres is permitted. The only recreational park within KAZA is Lake Kariba.5. State Forest Reserves occur within KAZA in each country except Angola. Theyare under state control where indigenous forests and woodlands are managed for theproduction of timber usually through leases to commercial logging companies. In Botswanaand Zimbabwe controlled sport hunting also takes place in state forests.6. Game Management Areas (GMAs – Zambia). Wildlife designated land undercommunal tenure, usually acting as buffer zones to national parks. Wildlife is controlled andmanaged by the state with community involvement and benefits through the ADMADEprogramme.7. Wildlife Management Areas (WMAs – Botswana). These are areas in whichwildlife utilisation is intended to be the major landuse. People live within these areas andgrow crops, gather wild foods and hunt under quotas or permits. Overlying the boundaries ofWMAs are the country’s hunting blocks which may be designated for specific uses such asphotographic tourism, community leases, private sector leases etc. (see further details below).8. Coutadas (Angola). This category is not mentioned by Jones (2008) in his reviewof conservation legislation for the KAZA TFCA and the status of the five “coutadas” in southeast Angola is not clear. In Mozambique coutadas are effectively controlled hunting areas inwhich people are settled and in which hunting rights are leased to safari companies. This isthe sense in which the five Angolan coutadas are regarded in this report.

Large scale conservation planning - KAZA TFCA 379. Community Conservancies (Namibia). Conservancies “are the legal instrumentsthrough which rural communities gain rights to use, manage and benefit from wildlife”(NACSO 2004). Communities develop management institutions that cover geographicallydefined areas and can include natural resources besides wildlife, such as rangelands andwater. The important point is that full benefits from the utilization of wildlife and fromtourism can be returned to communities. The result has been a marked improvement of largemammal populations within community conservancies (Weaver and Skyer 2005).10. CAMPFIRE Areas (Zimbabwe). In terms of Zimbabwe’s wildlife legislation theland owner or occupier is the Appropriate Authority for wildlife which confers on them theright and responsibility to manage, use and benefit from wildlife on their land. In the case ofCommunal Lands the minister can confer Appropriate Authority on the District Council butnot to wards or resource management units at lower administrative levels. This has resultedin participating communities deriving less than the full benefits from wildlife and in a steadyerosion of wildlife populations within most districts involved in the programme. Themapping of entire districts or even of wards, in Zimbabwe, as wildlife conservation areas istherefore inappropriate.11. Community Forest Reserves (Zambia). Several community forestry reservesprobably occur in the area to the south of the Kafue NP but no information has been found onthem.5.2.2 Inventory and characterization of protected areas in KAZA TFCAA full listing and brief characterization of each protected area is provided in Appendix 1.For each area I have attempted to provide the following information: area in squarekilometers, date designated or date established, broad landscape and habitat (vegetation)features of the area, key large mammal and bird species of conservation and economicinterest, endemic species, noteworthy ecological processes or services, and key issues relatingto the conservation status of the area. For several areas no data were located within the timeavailable. Descriptions and reliable inventories of biological resources for a large number ofthe conservation areas within KAZA were not available in the published literature or evenfrom sources within countries. The IUCN and WCMC database on protected areas wasparticularly weak and even a well established national Park such as Chobe had little moreavailable in the database than a map showing its location. A key resource was theIUCN/UNEP (1987) Directory of Afrotropical Protected Areas. The inventory in Appendix1 provided a partial basis for scoring particular protected areas using the ranking systemdescribed in the following section.

Large scale conservation planning - KAZA TFCA 38Table 5.5 The numbers and areas of different categories of conservation area in the KAZA TFCA.Type of conservation AreaCountryTotals% of TotalAngola Botswana Namibia Zambia ZimbabweKAZA TFCANo Area No Area No Area No Area No Area No Area % Area**National Park - - 3 9,210 4 10,884 6 31,402 6 18,827 17 70,324 22.8 17.6Game Reserve - - 1 1,8000 - - - - 1 1,800 0.6 0.5Safari Area - - - - - - - - 4 6,224 4 6,224 2.0 1.5Recreational park - - - - - - - - 1 2,830 1 2,830 0.9 0.7State Forest Reserve - - 5 6,190 1 1,200 8 7,005 14 14,395 4.7 3.6Partial Reserve 2 14,350 - - - - - - - - 2 14,350 4.7 3.6Game Management Area - - - - - - 10 82,790 - - 10 82,790 26.9 20.7Wildlife Management Area - - 4 47,492 - - - - - - 4 47,492 15.4 11.9Community Conservancy - - - - 10 4,055 - - - - 10 4,055 1.3 1.0Campfire Wildlife Area - - - - - - - - 7 2,100 7 2,100 0.7 0.5Hunting Block (Community)* - - 15 - - - - - - - - 0Hunting Block (Commercial)* - - 11 - - - - - - - - 0Coutadas 4 61,700 - - - - - - - - 4 61,700 20.0 14.4Totals 6 76,050 39 64,692 15 16,140 14 114,192 26 36,986 100 308,070 100 76.0* The areas for these hunting blocks in Botswana are included in the areas of the Wildlife Management Areas and areas are therefore not tabled.** Total area taken as 400,000 km 2 .

Large scale conservation planning - KAZA TFCA 395.2.3 Ranking and prioritizing protected areasIdeally, a formal conservation assessment of the entire KAZA TFCA needs to be carried outusing the full range of data on species distributions, habitats, risks assessments and so on (e.g.Margules and Pressey 2000, Freitag et al, 1997, Kremen et al 2008). However, such ananalysis requires several months of work by a team of scientists and ideally should involvethe full participation of governments, resource managers, stakeholders and scientists workingwithin KAZA. The work carried out in South Africa for the fynbos, valley bushveld andCederburg provides an excellent set of models (Cowling et al 1999, Cowling et al 2003,Knight et al 2006a, 2006b). Desirable as this approach is, it is clearly beyond the scope of ashort term desk study.For the KAZA TFCA large gaps in information are apparent and the data from the differentcountries concerned are at differing scales, resolution, quality and times. This all suggeststhat a priority for KAZA is a full ecological survey and data synthesis using a standardformat and methodology across the entire area of the TFCA, e.g. using ¼ -degree gridsquares to plot historical and current species distributions for as many taxa as possible.Published data in this format are available for the distribution of mammals in Botswana(Smithers 1971) and Zimbabwe (Wilson 1975), for birds in Botswana (1 degree grid squares)and Zimbabwe (Zimbabwe Bird Atlas database for ¼ degree grid squares), for amphibians inparts of Angola, and for Botswana, Namibia, Zambia and Zimbabwe (Poynton and Broadley,1985a, 1985b, 1987, 1988, 1991). O’Brien (1993) and Andrews and O’Brien (2000)compiled data for trees and mammals in southern Africa (south of the Kunene-ZambeziRivers) using equal area blocks of 20,000 and 25,000 km 2 respectively.In the absence of data and resources to carry out a formal analytical assessment ofconservation priorities the biological value for each conservation area within KAZA wasassessed and scored using the following sets of criteria:1. Size of area2. Large scale habitat diversity3. Types of wetland4. Endemic and threatened plants5. Endemic and threatened vertebrates6. Key ecosystem processesThe conservation effectiveness (conservation status) of each area was assessed and scoredusing the following seven criteria:6. Legal status (official legal security of the area)7. Historical and traditional status8. Resources available for protection and conservation action9. Level of development and implementation of protected area plans10. Research and monitoringThe treats posed by population growth and land and development pressures were assess andscored on the basis of the following two criteria.3. Land pressures4. Land capability (potential development pressures)

Large scale conservation planning - KAZA TFCA 40The ranking criteria outlined and used here are based on several assumptions about their usein assigning priorities to particular areas within KAZA TFCA. The more important of theseare:a) Conservation effort and resources should be invested in those areas of highest diversity asreflected by diversity of major vegetation or community types, the presence of endemicand endangered species, and the presence of charismatic species of mammals and birdsthat are also of economic importance to the area.b) The conservation of wetlands is particularly important to the KAZA TFCA because theyare both a major draw-card for tourists and because nowhere else in the region arewetlands so well represented within a large conservation area.c) In addition to the biological value of an area there is a need to gauge its suitability for theinvestment of resources and funds. Areas of low biological value that are poorlyprotected and likely to be threatened by local resource claims are clearly less attractive assites for investment in conservation than those of higher biological or conservation valuethat have the potential to be effectively protected in the long term. Given the scarcity ofprime agricultural land and high levels of poverty in southern Africa the reality is thatsuch land will face increasing pressures for agricultural development.Finally, it is important to note for many areas little current information was available on boththeir biological value and conservation effectiveness and the scores assigned to them aretherefore open to correction and revision. Ideally the criteria adopted and the scoring systemand scores used should be developed through a consensus of stakeholders in a workshopsetting (e.g. Cumming and Jackson 1984, Bell and Martin 1984). As result the criteria, scoresand ranking presented here are essentially a “straw dog” to provoke discussion and criticalexamination of conservation priorities across the TFCA and to stimulate the implementationof a full conservation assessment using current methods.The set of criteria and scores used were as follows:1. Biological and conservation values1. Size of area1 – Less than 100 km 22 – 100 – 1,000 km 23 – 1,000 – 5,000 km 24 – 5,000 – 10,000 km 25 – >10,000 km 22. Habitat Diversity (Numbers in parenthesis refer to White’s (1983) vegetation types)1 – Mopane (28)2 – Wet miombo (25)3 – Dry miombo (26)4 – Transitional woodland (35a)5 – Baikiaea woodland (22a)6 – Brachystegia bakerana (47)7 – Grassland on Kalahari sand (60)8 – Herbaceous swamp (75)9 – Edaphic grassland (64)10 – Halophytic grassland (76)11 – Crytosepalum forest (6)

Large scale conservation planning - KAZA TFCA 413. Wetlands (applicable only to dryland habitats 1-5 above)0 – No wetlands1 – Ephemeral wet season pans / dambos or vleis (no rivers)2 – Seasonal river(s) with permanent pools3 – Perennial rivers with well developed riparian fringe4. Endemic and threatened plant species0 – No endemic or threatened species1 – One or more threatened species2 – At least one endemic species3 – Two or more endemics4 – Key population of a critically endangered species5. Endemic and threatened vertebrate species0 – No endemic or threatened species1 – One or more threatened species2 – At least one endemic species3 – Two or more endemic species4 – Key population of a critically endangered species6. Ecosystem processes0 – no unusual process / not a key resource area for large mammals or birds1 – Supports large mammal migration / important bird area2 – Key corridor or potential corridor area3 – Important protected watershed2. Conservation effectiveness and threats1. Legal status (official security of the area)0 – No legally protected status1 – Private or community designation as protected area2 – Local authority regulations3 – Ministerial authority (i.e. Minister responsible can change status)4 – Subject to change of status only by Act of Parliament2. Historical and traditional status0 – Not presently settled and not settled in recent times1 – Previously settled and still regarded as home by those displaced2 – Not settled, no deep rooted cultural claims evident3 – Not settled, with traditional support for conservation status of the area4 – Traditionally a sacred and protected area3. Resources for protection and conservation action0 – No employed staff, infrastructure or equipment – paper park1 – Staffed and equipped on a minimal basis2 – Moderately staffed and equipped but below capacity required for effective protection3 – Under effective community / private protection4 – Full complement of trained and equipped staff

Large scale conservation planning - KAZA TFCA 424. Development and planning0 – Undeveloped, no access or base station, no plan1 – Limited seasonal access, rudimentary plans2 – All-weather access with some implementation of protected area plan3 – Infrastructure developed but area plans not fully implemented4 – Full infrastructure development and implementation of area plans5. Research and monitoring0 – No research or monitoring input1 – Preliminary ecological surveys2 – Continuing ecological survey and basic monitoring3 – Resident research unit4 – Well developed research and monitoring programme3. Population and landuse threats1. Land pressures4 – Rapidly expanding rural population on boundary and density > 10 people/km 23 – Expanding rural population, 5-10 people/km 22 – Slowly expanding population, 1- 5 people/km 21 – Sparse, stable or declining rural population, < 2 people/km 20 – Land unsuitable fore settlement – no foreseeable land pressure2. Land capability (Development pressures)4 – Prime agricultural land with irrigation potential or mineral-rich mining deposits3 – More than 10% of area suitable for productive dry land cropping2 – Limited cropping potential (

Large scale conservation planning - KAZA TFCA 43assigned to those covering smaller areas and those with wetlands. If more than onevegetation type occurred within a protected area the scores were added and divided by 2 toavoid undue weighting in the overall score due to habitat type and diversity. Nevertheless thescoring system is heavily weighted to broad scale habitat diversity as the most appropriatesurrogate for biodiversity given our current state of knowledge of the KAZA TFCA.It is also important to note that there is some measure of co-variance between area and habitatranking scores since, at the scales used, larger conservation areas will generally also containmore than one habitat type.3. Wetlands - presence and type. Major wetlands are scored under habitat diversity (withhigh scores being accorded to wetland vegetation types). An additional score is added herefor dryland areas (habitat types 1-5 that doe not include major wetlands) that may containephemeral wetlands and rivers with riparian fringes that would not be mapped at the scaleused for vegetation types. The scores range from 0 for areas with no wetlands to 3 for areaswith perennial rivers and marked riparian fringes. The latter are important, for example, ascorridors for many bird species and for butterflies. Some areas without rivers but rich inephemeral pans are included and assigned a score of 1.4 & 5. Endemic and threatened species of plants and vertebrates The scoring is similar forplants and vertebrates and ranking is on the basis of the presence of threatened species usingthe IUCN red data listings and species that are endemic, or near-endemic, to the KAZATFCA (See section 5.1.2). The highest rank is assigned to areas holding key populations ofcritically endangered species. In our present state of knowledge this may only apply to thewild dog, Lycaon pictus and the black rhinoceros Diceros bicornis.6. Ecosystem processes. In the context of the KAZA TFCA it is important to maintainexisting migratory phenomena and to establish corridors that may sustain migrations anddispersal between major protected areas. Although threatened species are covered undercriteria 4 & 5 above, areas that sustain a key population of a threatened species are catered forhere, as are areas that may protect an important watershed such as the Kafue NP.2. Conservation effectiveness (conservation status)The ranking criteria and scores are based on five features that contribute to, or are necessaryfor, effective protection and conservation of an area. Two very important criteria aremissing, annual operational budgets and the number of field staff. These have not beenincluded because the data are not readily available.1. Legal status (official security of the area). The ranking scores suggested here reflectincreasing legal security of the protected area on the assumption that it is easier, for example,for the status of a private property or community reserve to be changed than it is for the statusof a protected area to be changed. Usually a change in the status of a national park requiresparliamentary approval.2. Historical and traditional status. As has become clear from the land claims in respect ofnational parks in South Africa, historical and cultural attitudes regarding land occupied by aprotected area can be very important to determining its long term future and sustainability.The highest score is assigned to areas that would have the greatest support of localinhabitants.

Large scale conservation planning - KAZA TFCA 443. Resources available for protection and conservation action. The resources available toprotect and manage a protected area are clearly important and the ranking here assists inidentifying shortfalls in the protection of areas that may be of high conservation value but arenot being adequately protected. For many areas data were not available and the scoresassigned were suppositions on my part – these are indicated in red font.4. Development and planning. Again, access, infrastructure and planning are importantcomponents of effective protection, resource management and conservation. The scoresrange from no development to a well developed and managed park. None of the protectedareas within the KAZA TFCA fall into this latter category.5. Research and monitoring. For conservation to be effective it needs to be based on up-todateand reliable information on the status and trends of the habitats, plants and animals beingconserved. The effort being invested in research and monitoring provides a useful index tothe state of conservation in an area. The investment or lack of it in research is also a usefulindicator of national commitment to the core business of conservation.3. Population and landuse threats1. Land pressures. Population pressures and the growing needs of resource poor ruralpopulations provide an index of the potential threats likely to be faced by a protected area.2. Land capability (development pressures). The criteria and ranking here is based on theassumption that a protected area on prime agricultural land is more likely to face pressuresfrom governments and farmers than is land of low agricultural potential. That is, primeagricultural land faces a greater conservation threat than land of limited agricultural potential.Several additional threats could be considered such as poaching, the construction of dams andhighways, civil unrest, political support for conservation, etc. but the scoring of these wouldrequire input from people within each country in order to reach any sort of consensus onsome of the more potentially contentious issues.5.2.5 Results and DiscussionThe scores for each area and the rankings resulting from the additive score of biological valueand conservation status are shown in Tables 5.6 and 5.7 and plotted in Fig. 5.2. The scoresfor threats are also shown but were not used in the ranking. Those conservation areas fallingin the top ten are all national parks, apart from the Moremi Game Reserve and the WesternGMA. They are also, for the most part, clustered in the central area of the TFCA. The highrank of the Western GMA suggests that this area may merit much closer attention in terms ofits biodiversity, wetlands, and potential to form an important corridor area. The high rankingof the Makgadikgadi Pan NP (#12 Table 5.7) also suggests that this park, and its linkages tothe rest of the TFCA (see Section 8 on wildlife corridors), merit greater attention.Many of the small community conservancies in the Caprivi have a higher than expectedranking and this is a result of their importance as potential corridor areas, the wetland habitatsfalling within them and the high scores assigned to areas where there was strong communitysupport for conservation. Their overall value may thus have been somewhat inflated.Conservation effectiveness of areas throughout the TFCA is weak, with the highest scorebeing that for Hwange National Park returning a score of 14 out of maximum possible score

Large scale conservation planning - KAZA TFCA 45of 20. As discussed in Section 7 below, the low level of funding and resources in all of theprotected areas in the KAZA TFCA is a matter of considerable concern.Fig. 5.2Plot of biological value and conservation status scores from Table 5.7. Theplots fall into four quadrants four with scores above or below the 50% scoreson each axis. An indicative conservation strategy is to invest in improving theconservation status of those areas of high biological value, i.e. those areas witha biological value score above a score of 15 or more. (Ba NP – Babwata NP; Ch NP& Ma SA – Chobe NP and Matetsi SA; Fu FR – Fuller FR; Ka NP – Kafue NP; LU ha – LuianaHA; Lu PR – Luiana PR; Nga wma – Ngamiland WMA; S-NG NP – Sioma-Ngwezi NP; WZ gma– West Zambezi GMA.)At the lower end of the rankings are a set of Forest Reserves and Game Management Areas.The forest reserves in the Sebungwe are poorly protected and managed and have beenimpacted by people and livestock. Chizarira National Park and Chirisa Safari Area both havehigh potential but have been heavily impacted by elephants and fire and are presently poorlyprotected.While this exercise has provided a plausible ranking of conservation areas within the KAZATFCA and should provide a useful starting point for discussing priority areas, its limitationsneed to be recognized. It also highlights the urgent need for greatly improved, up to dateinformation on the distribution and status of biodiversity in the TFCA, as well as the need forimproved and accessible information on the effectiveness of conservation activities in the

Large scale conservation planning - KAZA TFCA 46protected areas of the KAZA TFCA. The almost complete absence of effective monitoring ofprotected area performance and lack of transparency 1 is not limited to the KAZA TFCA (e.g.Cumming 2004b) and remains a cause for concern throughout the region.The possibility of including additional factors such as ecosystem services and the status ofkey resources (as characterized in Appendix 1) was examined. A logical difficulty arises in‘valuing’ ecosystem services, such as provisioning services of food and fibre, in areas wherepeople cannot legally use them, which is the case in fully protected areas. Most regulatingservices (e.g. flood mitigation, silt trapping, disease regulation) were either captured underthe scores for wetlands or were unknown. Carbon sequestration likewise could not sensiblybe scored for particular conservation areas consistently across the region without appropriateland cover information. Cultural services (landscapes, vistas, recreational amenity values andspiritual aesthetic values) could have been scored but require the input of people who haveexperience of the areas in question.Threats from human population growth and land pressure were initially included within thescores on conservation status, but because they can be scored as being additive (the morethreatened an area the more important it is) or subtractive (the more threatened an area thelower its investment value, and often its conservation status) they were scored as a separatecategory (Tables 5.6 and 5.7).1 Conservation agencies in the region tend to be remarkably reluctant to release, or make available, data on theirbudgets and levels of operation.

Large scale conservation planning - KAZA TFCA 47Table 5.6 List of conservation areas within the KAZA TFCA with the national category, area (km2) and scores assigned under eachcriterion. Under ‘Category’, ‘National’ shows the conservation abbreviations, e.g. NP = National Park, and ‘Areas’ indicates the sub total in area for thatcategory of conservation area. Area km 2 = area of the particular conservation area. (See section 5.2.3 above for criteria and scores used).NP = National Park, GR = Game Reserve, PR = Partial Reserve, SA = Safari Area, GMA = Game Management Area, WMA = Wildlife Management AreaFR = Forest Reserve, HA = Hunting Area (Coutada), CC = Community Conservancy, ECC = Emerging Community Conservancy. Red font = estimatesCountry/PAAngolaNationalCategoryArea Biological Value (a) Conservation status (b) Threat (c ) Total ScoreArea Km2(sub-total) Km2 1 2 3 4 5 6 Score 1 2 3 4 5 Score 1 2 Score (a+b-c) (a+b+c)Luiana PR 8,400 4 11 0 1 1 2 19 3 1 0 0 0 4 2 2 4 19 27Mavinga PR 14,350 5,950 4 5.5 0 0 1 2 12.5 1 0 0 0 0 1 2 2 4 9.5 17.5Longa-Mavinga HA 10,000 4 5.5 0 0 1 0 10.5 1 0 0 0 0 1 2 2 4 7.5 15.5Mucusso HA 25,000 5 2.5 0 0 1 0 8.5 1 0 0 0 0 1 2 2 4 5.5 13.5Luengue HA 16,700 5 5.5 0 0 1 2 13.5 1 0 0 0 0 1 2 2 4 10.5 18.5Luiana HA 61,700 10,000 4 11 0 0 1 2 18 1 0 0 0 0 1 2 2 4 15 23National sub-total 76,050BotswanaChobe NP NP 9,980 3 9 0 1 2 1 16 4 2 2 2 3 13 2 2 4 25 33Nxai Pan NP 2,590 3 2 1 1 2 1 10 4 2 2 1 2 11 3 2 5 16 26Makgadikgadi NP 16,710 4,140 3 7.5 0 1 2 1 14.5 4 2 2 1 2 11 3 0 3 22.5 28.5Moremi GR 1,800 3 4.5 0 1 2 1 11.5 2 2 3 3 2 12 2 2 4 19.5 27.5Chobe FR FR 2,400 3 3 0 1 2 2 11 4 2 1 1 2 10 2 1 3 18 24Kazuma FR 1,280 3 2.5 1 1 2 2 11.5 4 2 1 1 2 10 3 1 4 17.5 25.5Kasane FR 1,200 3 2.5 1 1 2 2 11.5 4 2 1 1 2 10 2 3 5 16.5 26.5Sibuyu FR 1,010 3 3 1 1 2 0 10 4 2 1 1 2 10 3 1 4 16 24Maikaelolo FR 6,190 300 2 2 1 1 2 0 8 4 2 1 1 2 10 3 1 4 14 22Ngamiland (N of fence) WMA 21,937 4 6.5 1 1 2 2 16.5 1 0 0 0 2 3 2 2 4 15.5 23.5Ngamiland (S of fence) WMA 3,870 0Chobe WMA WMA 2,430 3 3 1 1 2 0 10 1 0 0 0 2 3 2 2 4 9 17OkavangoDelta 4 5 0 1 2 1 13 1 0 0 0 4 5 2 2 4 14 22Makgadikgadi WMA 8,275Central GMA (Nata) WMA 47,492 10,980National sub-total 70,392

Large scale conservation planning - KAZA TFCA 48Country/PANationalCategoryArea Biological Value (a) Conservation status (b) Threat (c ) Total ScoreArea Km2(sub-total) Km2 1 2 3 4 5 6 Score 1 2 3 4 5 Score 1 2 Score (a+b-c) (a+b+c)NamibiaBwabwata NP 5,715 4 7.5 0 1 3 2 17.5 4 1 3 2 1 11 2 1 3 25.5 31.5Mudumu NP 1,010 3 7.5 0 1 2 2 15.5 4 1 3 2 1 11 3 3 6 20.5 32.5Mamili NP 319 2 7.5 0 1 3 2 15.5 4 1 3 2 1 11 3 3 6 20.5 32.5Khaudom NP 10,885 3,841 3 2 1 0 2 0 8 4 1 2 2 1 10 2 1 3 15 21Caprivi Forest FR 1,200 2 2.5 1 0 1 2 8.5 1 1 1 2 1 6 3 2 5 9.5 19.5Kwandu CC 190 2 2.5 0 2 1 2 9.5 1 3 3 2 2 11 4 2 6 14.5 26.5Mayuni CC 151 2 6.5 0 2 1 2 13.5 1 3 3 2 2 11 4 2 6 18.5 30.5Mashi (+extension) CC 330 2 6.5 0 2 1 2 13.5 1 3 3 2 2 11 4 2 6 18.5 30.5Balyerwa ECC 250 2 7.5 0 2 1 2 14.5 0 3 3 1 2 9 4 2 6 17.5 29.5Wuparo CC 148 2 7.5 0 2 1 2 14.5 1 3 3 2 2 11 4 2 6 19.5 31.5Malengalenga ECC 250 2 6.5 0 2 1 2 13.5 0 3 3 1 2 9 4 2 6 16.5 28.5Salambala CC 930 2 3 0 2 3 2 12 1 3 3 2 2 11 3 2 5 18 28Impalila CC 250 2 7.5 0 2 1 2 14.5 1 3 3 1 2 10 4 2 6 18.5 30.5Bamumu ECC 250 2 3 0 2 1 2 10 0 3 3 1 2 9 4 2 6 13 25Lusese ECC 250 2 3 0 2 1 2 10 1 3 3 1 2 10 4 2 6 14 26Nakabolewa ECC 250 2 3 0 2 1 2 10 1 3 3 1 2 10 4 2 6 14 26Masida ECC 380 2 3 1 1 1 2 10 1 3 3 1 2 10 4 2 6 14 26Butabaja/Kapani ECC 4,055 400 2 3 1 1 1 2 10 1 3 3 1 2 10 4 2 6 14 26National sub-total 14,940ZambiaKafue NP 22,400 5 5.5 3 0 1 3 17.5 4 2 2 1 1 10 3 1 4 23.5 31.5Sioma-Ngwezi NP 5,276 4 6.5 3 2 3 2 20.5 4 2 1 1 0 8 3 1 4 24.5 32.5Liuwa Plain NP 3,660 3 8 0 2 1 1 15 4 2 1 1 0 8 3 1 4 19 27Mosi-oa-Tunya NP 31,402 66 1 1 2 1 0 0 5 4 2 2 1 1 10 3 3 6 9 21Mulobezi GMA 3,420 3 1.5 2 0 0 1 7.5 1 0 1 1 1 4 3 2 5 6.5 16.5Sichifula GMA 3,600 3 4 2 0 0 0 9 1 0 1 1 1 4 3 2 5 8 18Bilili Springs GMA 3,080 3 8 2 0 0 0 13 1 0 1 1 1 4 3 2 5 12 22Namwala GMA 3,600 3 7.5 0 0 0 0 10.5 1 0 1 1 1 4 3 2 5 9.5 19.5Mumbwa GMA 3,370 3 3 2 0 0 0 8 1 0 1 1 1 4 3 2 5 7 17Lunga-Luswishwi GMA 13,340 5 5.5 0 0 0 0 10.5 1 0 1 1 1 4 3 2 5 9.5 19.5Machiya-Fungulwe GGMA 1,530 3 5.5 0 0 0 0 8.5 1 0 1 1 1 4 3 2 5 7.5 17.5

Large scale conservation planning - KAZA TFCA 49Country/PAZambia (cont.)NationalCategoryArea Biological Value (a) Conservation status (b) Threat (c ) Total ScoreArea Km2(sub-total) Km2 1 2 3 4 5 6 Score 1 2 3 4 5 Score 1 2 Score (a+b-c) (a+b+c)Kasonso-Busanga GMA 7,780 4 5.5 0 0 0 0 9.5 1 0 1 1 1 4 3 2 5 8.5 18.5Mufunta GMA 5,000 4 6.5 3 1 0 0 14.5 1 0 1 1 1 4 3 2 5 13.5 23.5West Zambezi (part) GMA 82,790 38,070 5 11 0 2 3 2 22.5 1 0 1 1 1 4 3 3 6 20.5 32.5Forest Areas ??National sub-total 114,192ZimbabweHwangeNP14,651 5 3 1 0 2 3 14 4 2 2 3 3 14 1 1 2 26 30Zambezi NP 564 2 3 3 2 3 0 13 4 2 2 3 1 12 1 1 2 23 27Victoria Falls NP 19 1 2 3 3 1 3 13 4 2 2 3 1 12 4 2 6 19 31Kazuma Pan NP 313 2 3 1 0 1 0 7 4 2 1 1 0 8 1 2 3 12 18Chizarira NP 1,910 3 2 0 0 1 0 6 4 2 1 1 1 9 4 1 5 10 20Matusadona NP 18,827 1,370 3 2 3 0 1 0 9 4 2 2 3 1 12 2 1 3 18 24Matetsi Safari Area SA 2,920 3 3 2 3 3 2 16 3 2 2 3 3 13 1 1 2 27 31Deka SA 510 2 1 0 1 1 0 5 3 2 2 2 0 9 1 1 2 12 16Chirisa SA 1,713 3 2 0 0 1 0 6 3 2 1 3 1 10 4 2 6 10 22Chete SA 6,224 1,081 3 1 3 0 1 0 8 3 2 1 1 0 7 0 0 0 15 15Lake Kariba RP 2,830 3 1 3 0 0 2 9 3 2 2 2 3 12 3 0 3 18 24Sijarira FR 256 2 1 3 0 0 2 8 3 2 1 0 0 6 3 1 4 10 18Kavira FR 282 2 1 3 0 0 2 8 3 2 1 0 0 6 3 1 4 10 18Mzola FR 627 2 3 0 0 0 0 5 3 2 0 0 0 5 4 2 6 4 16Ngamo FR 1,029 3 2.5 1 2 1 3 12.5 3 2 1 0 0 6 3 2 5 13.5 23.5Sikumi FR 1,173 3 4 0 0 1 3 11 3 2 1 0 0 6 3 2 5 12 22Fuller FR 233 1 2.5 0 0 0 0 3.5 3 2 1 0 0 6 4 2 6 3.5 15.5Kazuma FR 240 1 2.5 1 0 1 0 5.5 3 2 1 0 0 6 3 2 5 6.5 16.5Panda Masuie FR 7,005 335 1 2.5 0 0 0 0 3.5 3 2 1 0 0 6 4 2 6 3.5 15.5National sub-total 32,056Overall Total Area (km2) 310,604

Large scale conservation planning - KAZA TFCA 50Table 5.7 Rank order of conservation areas based on sum of the scores for biologicaland conservation value and conservation effectiveness. (See Table 6.2 forscores for each criterion used. Every tenth area is more boldly underlined)No. Conservation Area StateConservationEffectivenessBiological &Conservation Value Total1 Chobe NP Bw 13 16.0 29.02 Matetsi Safari Area Zw 13 16.0 29.03 Bwabwata NP Na 11 17.5 28.54 Sioma-Ngwezi NP Zm 8 20.5 28.55 Hwange NP Zw 14 14.0 28.06 Kafue NP Zm 10 17.5 27.57 Mudumu NP Na 11 15.5 26.58 Mamili NP Na 11 15.5 26.59 West Zambezi (part) GMA Zm 4 22.5 26.510 Makgadikgadi NP Bw 11 14.5 25.511 Wuparo CC Na 11 14.5 25.512 Zambezi NP Zw 12 13.0 25.013 Victoria Falls NP Zw 12 13.0 25.014 Mayuni CC Na 11 13.5 24.515 Mashi CC Na 11 13.5 24.516 Impalila CC Na 10 14.5 24.517 Moremi GR Bw 12 11.5 23.518 Balyerwa CC Na 9 14.5 23.519 Luiana PR An 4 19.0 23.020 Salambala CC Na 11 12.0 23.021 Liuwa Plain NP Zm 8 15.0 23.022 Malengalenga CC Na 9 13.5 22.523 Kazuma FR Bw 10 11.5 21.524 Kasane FR Bw 10 11.5 21.525 Nxai Pan NP Bw 11 10.0 21.026 Chobe FR Bw 10 11.0 21.027 Matusadona NP Zw 12 9.0 21.028 Lake Kariba RP Zw/Zm 12 9.0 21.029 Kwandu CC Na 11 9.5 20.530 Sibuyu FR Bw 10 10.0 20.031 Lusese CC Na 10 10.0 20.032 Nakabolewa CC Na 10 10.0 20.033 Ngamiland WMA Bw 3 16.5 19.534 Bamumu CC Na 9 10.0 19.035 Mafunta GMA Zm 4 14.5 18.536 Ngamo FR Zw 6 12.5 18.537 Luiana HA An 0 18.0 18.038 Maikaelolo FR Bw 10 8.0 18.039 Okavango Delta Bw 5 13.0 18.040 Khaudom NP Na 10 8.0 18.041 Bilili Springs GMA Zm 4 13.0 17.042 Sikumi FR Zw 6 11.0 17.043 Chirisa SA Zw 10 6.0 16.044 Mosi-oa-Tunya NP Zm 10 5.0 15.045 Kazuma Pan NP Zw 8 7.0 15.046 Chizarira NP Zw 9 6.0 15.047 Chete SA Zw 7 8.0 15.0

Large scale conservation planning - KAZA TFCA 5148 Caprivi Forest FR Na 6 8.5 14.549 Namwala GMA Zm 4 10.5 14.550 Lunga-Luswishwi GMA Zm 4 10.5 14.551 Deka SA Zw 9 5.0 14.052 Sijarira FR Zw 6 8.0 14.053 Kavira FR Zw 6 8.0 14.054 Mavinga HA An 1 12.5 13.555 Luengue HA An 0 13.5 13.556 Kasonso-Busanga GMA Zm 4 9.5 13.557 Chobe WMA Bw 3 10.0 13.058 Sichifula GMA Zm 4 9.0 13.059 Machiya-Fungulwe GMA Zm 4 8.5 12.560 Mumbwa GMA Zm 4 8.0 12.061 Longa-Mavinga An 1 10.5 11.562 Mulobezi GMA Zm 4 7.5 11.563 Kazuma FR Zw 6 5.5 11.564 Mzola FR Zw 5 5.0 10.065 Mukosso HA An 1 8.5 9.566 Fuller FR Zw 6 3.5 9.567 Panda Masuie FR Zw 6 3.5 9.5

Large scale conservation planning - KAZA TFCA 526.ECOSYSTEM SERVICESGretchen Daily (1997) in a landmark book on the subject described ecosystem services as“the conditions and processes through which natural ecosystems and the species that makethem up, sustain and fulfill human life.” The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA)(2005a) was primarily concerned with making the link between ecosystem services andhuman wellbeing explicit. The classification system developed by the MA characterizedecosystem services as supporting services, regulating services, provisioning services andcultural services. This classification served their purpose within a conceptual framework thatlinked ecosystem services to human well being through direct and indirect drivers ofecosystem change (Fig. 6.1).Fig. 6.1Links between ecosystem services, human well-being, and direct and indirectdrivers, based on MA conceptual framework. (Redrawn from Scholes andBiggs 2004)Describing and commenting on ecosystem services is reasonably straightforward butassigning values to them and ranking them and conservation areas in relation to theircontribution to ecosystem services raises several theoretical and practical problems. Thevaluation of goods, whether manufactured or harvested from ecosystems, is based on marketprices and the values of bundles of goods can be aggregated to produce indices of value suchas the cost of living index and GDP. The economic valuation of services has long been thesubject of controversy and remains problematic in the valuation of ecosystem services (e.g.Boyd and Banzhaf 2006, 2007). Part of the problem centers around precisely how ecosystem

Large scale conservation planning - KAZA TFCA 53services are defined and valued, what the objectives of the valuation exercise are, and whosevalues should prevail (e.g. Farber et al 2002). The result is that the definition andclassification of ecosystem services is currently under scrutiny and debate (e.g. Boyd andBanzhaf 2006, Wallace 2007, 2008, Costanza 2008, Fisher and Turner 2008) and theadequacy of the MA goods and services framework is being questioned. This is mainly onthe grounds that it confuses means and ends and the valuation of ‘cultural services’ isproblematic (Wallace 2007). Terms such as “ecosystem function” are also problematic andthere remain major shortcomings and gaps in the theory and data needed to link ecologicaldiversity to ecosystem dynamics and, in turn, to ecosystem services and human wellbeing(Carpenter et al 2006).Fig. 6.2 A framework outlining the assessment and valuation of ecosystems, andecosystem goods and services, with dashed lines indicating major feedbackloops. (Adapted from de Groot et al 2002)Which ecosystem services are key ecosystem services for the KAZA TFCA and how theirvalues should be ranked, will depend not only on the values of those using or benefiting fromthe services but also on the values of a wide range of stakeholders from local to internationallevels (Fig. 6.2). For example, while the presence of large numbers of elephants may beimportant to a foreign tourist and the tourism industry the same experience (or ecosystemservice provided by the presence of elephants) may not be valued by a local farmer who ismore likely to see the presence of elephants as a threat to his crops and livelihood, or even hislife. To the peasant farmer who may derive no benefits from elephants they will rank as adisservice. Clearly, which ecosystem services are important within the context of KAZA(Fig. 6.3) will differ depending on the stakeholders involved. The perception of their valuewill also be scale dependent. For example, water and wetlands are arguably the most

Large scale conservation planning - KAZA TFCA 54important resources in the KAZA TFCA and differing services can be identified and valuedat regional (effects on climate), national (irrigation and food security, flood control) and localscales (fisheries and household use). Similarly the value of ecosystem services provided bylarge wilderness areas needs critical evaluation, both from the perspective of how thesevalues may link to the conservation of biodiversity, and from the perspectives of humanwellbeing, and maintaining the resilience and adaptive capacity of the KAZA TFCA and thewider region.Fig. 6.3 A range of ecosystem goods and services of importance in the KAZA TFCA(arranged in the MA framework). The provisioning services would be those ofmost direct concern to rural subsistence farmers within KAZA while thoseconcerning amenity value and recreation (biodiversity, wilderness, presence ofwildlife) would be of greatest interest to tourists and the tourism industry)Substantial work has been carried out on valuing wetlands of the Zambezi Basin (Turpie et al1999) and the Okavango Delta (Turpie et al 2006). Economic returns from alternative landuses in Ngamiland in Botswana have been examined by Barnes et al (2001), and Barnes(1998) conducted a major study of the direct use values of Botswana’s wildlife sector. Afirm basis for valuing and ranking the range of protected areas within KAZA on the basis oftheir ecosystem services is not feasible given the current gaps and state of knowledge on thetopic. However, in very general terms the biological value scores assigned to conservationareas in the previous section (Tables 5.6 and 5.7) captured some aspects of ecosystemservices in the scores assigned to eleven different vegetation types. In these, wetlands scoredhigher, for example, than mopane woodlands. An additional set of scores was assigned forthe presence of different categories of wetland and for specific ecosystem processes such ascorridors and existing migrations.

Large scale conservation planning - KAZA TFCA 55The economic valuation studies by Barnes (1998), Barnes et al (2001) and Turpie et al (1999,2006) reveal the value of wetlands and wildlife in the KAZA region and the extent to whichthe goods and services these provide are generally undervalued by policy instruments andincentive structures, and consequently by the communities using them.In their economic analysis of primary land uses in Ngamiland, Barnes et al (2001) consideredthat crop production, the small scale use of non-timber forest products and wildlife, and gamefarming were of low economic potential. They conducted a detailed analysis of variouslivestock and wildlife models and concluded, inter alia, that capital intensive livestockranching was inefficient in Ngamiland and that the expansion of Botswana’s Foot and MouthDisease (FMD) free zone into Ngamiland was unlikely to be economically efficient. Theirfindings confirmed that: “…. economically efficient allocation of land in Ngamiland willrevolve around the expansion of two main forms of land use: (1) small- to large-scaletraditional livestock production, and (2) wildlife based tourism development. Bothtraditional livestock and wildlife-based tourism have real comparative advantage and asgenerators of livelihood, they tend to be complementary. There are indications that livestockvalues will drop in the long term and that livestock may lose its comparative advantage.Wildlife values, on the other hand are likely to increase in the long term, increasing thecomparative advantage of wildlife-based land uses.”Barnes et al (2001) also note that small-scale livestock production, although providingsignificant household income, tends to be economically inefficient due to significantsubsidies and open access grazing which results in low herd productivity. The effects ofdeclining rainfall as a result of climate change on primary production and extensive livestockgrazing systems are also likely to favour wildlife-based land uses. Wildlife-based tourism inthe Okavango delta was found to be extremely efficient economically and the landuse ofchoice where suitable conditions involving wildlife and wetlands occurred.In their study of the economic value of Zambezi basin wetlands Turpie et al (1999) examinedfour wetland areas of which one, the eastern Caprivi wetlands, fall within the KAZA TFCA,and another, the Barotse flood plain and wetlands, is immediately adjacent to the presentlydemarcated KAZA area. The other wetlands they examined were the Shire River and theZambezi delta. The authors examined regional capacity to conduct evaluations of ecosystemgoods and services, which was very low. They outlined the methods they used in some detailand noted that not all of the methods that had been developed for valuing ecosystem serviceswere suitable for use in developing countries. A summary of their results for householdreturns from a range of ecosystem goods is provided in Table 6.1.The peak stocking rates reported by Turpie et al (1999) are about twice the levels expectedunder dry land conditions and reflect advantages conferred by high moisture and partialtranshumance on the numbers of livestock that households can carry given access toseasonally flooded grasslands. Interestingly, of the total net financial returns to householdsfrom livestock, crops and harvested natural resources, the latter amounted to between 40 and50% of the total (Table 6.1)Wooden poles for housing, fuel wood, and other non-timber forest products harvested fromneighbouring woodlands, were not included in the Zambezi wetlands study. Neither was adistinction drawn between the value of grazing that livestock derived from wetlands and theadjacent dry lands. There is clearly a need for comparable data from dry lands in order toassess the comparative advantage of wetland resources for the dominant production systems

Large scale conservation planning - KAZA TFCA 56of livestock and crops in these areas. Because the values of wetlands to households orcommunities living in or adjacent to wetlands will differ from one wetland to the next and,because the data are not available, it is not yet possible to rank the various wetlands in theKAZA TFCA. And given the lack of comparable dry land studies of the value of ecosystemgoods and services it is also not yet possible, except possibly in the broadest and somewhatunsatisfactory terms, to rank conservation areas in terms of their contribution to ecosystemservices within the KAZA TFCA.Table 6.1Value of a range of ecosystem goods derived from, or depending largely on,the eastern Caprivi wetlands and the Barotse flood plain. (Summarised fromTurpie et al 1999)Item and (units)CapriviWetlandsBarotseFlood PlainStudy area (km 2 ) 3,040 6.600Wetland area (km 2 ) 5,500 2,200Rural population density (people.km -2 ) 9.9 33.9Peak cattle density (cattle.km -2 ) 39.3 79.1Area under subsistence crops (km 2 ) 276 237Livestock:Annual net financial returns per household 422 120Crops:Annual net financial returns per household 208 84Harvest of natural resources per household:Fish (kg) 278 382Other wild animals (kg) 36.7 -Palm leaves (bundles) 8.4 0.2Reeds and papyrus (bundles) 36.9 16.7Grass (bundles) 33.8 13.7Food plants (kg) 32.1 -Annual net financial returns (US$) per household from:Fish 224 174Other wild animals 48 0.4Palm leaves 3 0.3Reeds and papyrus 87 11Grass bundles 28 8Food plants 11 -Total net financial returns (US$) per household fromharvested natural resources 401 194% of net financial returns to households from agriculturevs. harvested natural resources 61% : 39% 51% : 49%In a recent comprehensive study of wildlife management options for Madumu NorthComplex in the Caprivi, Martin ( 2007) found that the net return to land from safari huntingwas approximately US$ 5 per ha. Martin (2007) further examined the likely returns fromspecies in relation to their metabolic mass (a comparative measure of the energy consumptionand thus of resource use between species) and found that the most valuable species, in termsof value per unit of resource use, was not elephant but sitatunga. In terms of returns to astandard hunting quota the returns from buffalo were about six times higher than those from

Large scale conservation planning - KAZA TFCA 57elephant (Martin 2007, Table 13) when balanced against resource use. In other wordselephants consumed relatively far more for their value to a hunting safari than did buffalo.Although Turpie et al (1999 and 2006) do discuss the policy implications of their work this isdirected at a national level to place greater value on wetlands. The examples of values andvaluations of ecosystem goods and services dealt with above are not clearly or explicitlylinked to livelihood strategies and decision making at local levels. The cross-scaleconnection needs to be made because it is the subsistence farmers that make the day to daydecisions on resource use. The “sustainable livelihoods framework” (Ashley and Carney1999) provides a useful alternative framework that can embed ecosystem goods and serviceswithin the wider framework of capitals that need to be examined when consideringsustainable livelihoods, namely, natural, social, human, financial, physical, and humancapitals. The development of these capitals depends greatly on ecosystem goods and servicesand their sustainability. The livelihoods framework is also readily linked to institutional andpolicy issues and to biodiversity outcomes as indicated in Fig. 7.4.Fig. 6.4Sustainable livelihoods framework with an emphasis on policy and institutionsand protected area management for improved livelihoods of neighbouringcommunities. (Adapted from Campbell and Luckert 2002)The current state of knowledge of ecosystem services in the KAZA TFCA, and indeed inpartner countries, does not appear to be sufficiently well developed to allow an effectiveevaluation and ranking of the protected areas within KAZA on the basis of their contributionto ecosystem services to the TFCA and its people. Similar considerations apply to thequestion of the contribution that wildlife corridors may make to the provision of ecosystemservices and to the long term sustainability of the KAZA TFCA.

Large scale conservation planning - KAZA TFCA 587STATE PROTECTED AREAS AND CONSERVATION IN THESURROUNDING MATRIX.7.1 Conservation in a mosaic of protected and non-protected areasThe present configuration of the KAZA TFCA consists of six, possibly seven, separate largescaleclusters of conservation areas, each comprising one or more protected areas embeddedin a matrix of land under communal tenure.National parks form only 17.6% of the overall area (Table 5.5). Two of these national parksare larger than 10,000 km 2 , three are between 5,000 and 10,000 km2, and the remaining parksare less than 5,000 km 2 in extent. If the two Partial Reserves in Angola are included asnational parks (as in Fig. 7.1) then the number of parks between five and ten thousand km 2 isincreased to five and the overall area to 25% of the KAZA TFCA.The total area of the KAZA TFCA covered by state protected areas in which humansettlement is not permitted (National Parks, Safari Areas, Forest Reserves and GameReserves) amounts to 89,858 km 2 , or 22.5% of the TFCA.3025No of Areas2015105CCCHASPA0 10,000Fig. 7.1 The number of conservation areas in the KAZA TFCA within different sizeclasses ranging from areas of less than 100 km 2 to areas of greater than 10,000km 2 in extent. (SPA = State protected area, CHA = Controlled hunting areas, CC= Community conservancies)Nearly half of the KAZA TFCA (48%, Table 6.1) is covered by designated controlledhunting areas (GMAs, WMAs and Coutadas) in which there are people living undertraditional systems of communal tenure. The community conservancies in Namibia and theCAMPFIRE area in Zimbabwe (a further 6,300 km 2 or 1.6%) would also fall within thiscategory. Land presently not designated under any form of conservation within the TFCA

Large scale conservation planning - KAZA TFCA 59(i.e. land in addition to that listed in Table 6.1) covers about 92,000 km 2 or nearly 23% of thetotal area. This is a rough estimate and clearly depends on precisely where the boundaries ofthe TFCA will eventually fall.The purpose of drawing attention to these figures is to emphasize that the greater proportionof the KAZA TFCA is made up of land under traditional communal tenure. Each of thecountries, except Angola, has developed community based natural resource management(CBNRM) programmes that aim to provide benefits to local communities by conservingnatural resources and large mammals in particular. Wildlife populations in Namibia haveshown a remarkable recovery in community conservancies (Weaver and Skyer 2005).However, in Botswana, Zambia and Zimbabwe there has been a steady attrition of largemammal populations over the last 20 to 30 years (East 1998, Cumming 1999, 2004b).CBNRM in these countries is clearly not providing communities with sufficient benefits toencourage investment in conservation and to allow for the recovery and growth of wildlifepopulations.Not only is conservation in the matrix of controlled hunting areas and communal farminglands presently insecure, but the state protected areas within KAZA are also in a parlousstate. Budgets for all protected areas in the region are too low for them to fully protect thewildlife resources within them, even at moderate levels of poaching threat. Budgets are alsotoo low to provide the administrative framework and infrastructure needed to operate atprofitable levels that could provide for adequate investment in their core business ofconservation (Cumming, 2004b, Martin 2008a, 2008b, Table 7.1). As a general rule ofthumb a budget of at least US $200 per km 2 is required to effectively protect a national park(Cumming et al 1990). On the basis of studies on staffing and operating costs for stateprotected areas in South Africa, Namibia and Mozambique, Martin (2008a, 2008b) derivedthe following relationship for estimating the required budget to effectively manage parks insouthern Africa.Total Cost = US$ A . (Illegal Hunting Challenge) . (Annual Scout Salary) .√(Area)Where: A is a constant which has the value 4 for savanna parks or 2 for desert parks;Illegal Hunting Challenge is a constant taking the values of 1 – Low, 2 – Moderate, 3 – High, 4 –Severe; the Annual Scout Salary is expressed in US$; the Area of the park is expressed in squarekilometers.Table 7.1 Required operational budgets compared with existing budgets (US $/km 2 ) infive selected major national parks within the KAZA TFCA.Protected Area Required Existing Deficit % DeficitHwange NP 120

Large scale conservation planning - KAZA TFCA 60When resources to manage protected areas are inadequate several problems arise, includingan inability to fully protect valuable species such as black rhino and a lack of capacity to dealwith human-wildlife conflict. Much of the KAZA TFCA is highly fragmented with regard tothe juxtaposition of protected areas and intervening land with human settlement. Pressreports over the last year, for example, indicate high levels of conflict between people andelephants in the Caprivi, even to the extent of the authorities suggesting that residents observea dusk to dawn curfew in places. Again, a key question is, “What returns to households arerequired to offset the costs of living with wildlife?” If these returns are great enough andcommunities are empowered to manage the wildlife on their land it is likely that a highproportion of human-wildlife conflict issues would evaporate.A classic example is that of the Masoka community in north eastern Zimbabwe where theward of 371 km 2 is wedged between the Chewore and Doma Safari Areas in north-easternZimbabwe. In the early 1990s the community chose to constrain their settlement and cropswithin an electrified game-fenced area of 18 km 2 and to retain the rest of their ward as ahunting concession. The number of households has since grown six-fold but they still remainwithin the fenced enclosure and a small extension. The revenue from wildlife has been usedto build and run a primary school, a secondary school, and purchase and maintain a tractor forploughing fields in the absence of cattle. The community regards the wildlife as their ‘cattle’.Although the area was cleared of tsetse fly for a while in the 1990s they chose the wildliferoute and tsetse have since re-invaded the area. A detailed assessment of the MasokaCBNRM experience was recently produced by Taylor and Murphree (2007).The existing budget allocations for effectively managing state protected areas within theKAZA TFCA are clearly inadequate. State resources required to protect wildlife in thesurrounding matrix are even more inadequate and in the long run unattainable (e.g. Martin2008a). This situation re-enforces the need to review policy relating to the devolution ofresource access rights to local communities. However, such institutional devolution needs tobe implemented at appropriate scales.7.2 Social-ecological scale mismatchesThe previous section outlined several problems related to conservation of both state protectedareas, such as national parks and forest reserves, and conservation in the surrounding matrixof communal lands. While budgets and incentives clearly play an important role in achievingconservation the degree to which there is a match, or mismatch, between social institutionsand the natural resources they are intended to manage and conserve (Cumming, et al 2006) isperhaps even more important.In each partner country national policy and legislation is the dominant institution governingconservation and the use of wildlife use. For many natural resources local traditions andcultural practices governing resource use (i.e. local institutions) may take precedence over, orsupersede formal national legislation so that de jure and de facto institutions governingresource use at the local level may not always coincide or match. The legal status of wildlifeis generally considered to be res nullius, i.e. it belongs to no one until it is subdued andbrought under control, either through being captured or being killed. Colonial states thusassumed ownership of wildlife and assumed (or arrogated to the state) the responsibility tocontrol, manage and protect it. In terms of conservation this arrangement worked to some

Large scale conservation planning - KAZA TFCA 61extent during an initial period when human populations were very low and resources for legalenforcement were available. The negative result was that it disempowered rural people oftheir rights to use wildlife. Increasingly, however, the command and control paradigm(Holling and Meffe 1996) that centralized state control engendered has failed as a result ofthe mismatch between state institutions and their ability to manage the resource at locallevels. A major factor in the breakdown of centralized control systems is weak feedbackloops between the state of the resource and decision makers responsible for wildlifeconservation who are far removed from realities on the ground.In recent years there have been attempts to address these scale mismatches by devolving theresponsibility for resource management to more appropriate levels where there is thepotential for tighter feedback loops between resources, managers and benefits. During the1960s and 1970s Namibia, South Africa and Zimbabwe introduced policies and enablinglegislation that increasingly gave farmers on freehold land the rights to use and benefit fromwildlife on their land. The greatest freedom (i.e. Appropriate Authority) was devolved tocommercial farmers in Zimbabwe under the Parks & Wild Life Act of 1975 with the resultthat wildlife as a landuse made remarkably rapid progress in commercial farming areas (e.g.Cumming 1991) until 1997, after which increasing recentralization of control began toreverse earlier gains (Bond and Cumming 2006). The growth of wildlife ranching andwildlife-based tourism in South Africa and Namibia on private land has also been remarkableover the last three decades, suggesting that the institutional and resource management scalesare, in general, reasonably well matched – at least for commercial ranching enterprises.The development of conservancies on freehold land (e.g. the Savé Valley Conservancy, duToit 1992) where farmers have joined properties by removing internal fences to create awildlife preserve over an area of 3,000 km 2 , is a good example of the development of comanagementarrangements to realise a more appropriate fit between institutions (in this casean agreed constitution to govern the management of the conservancy), land and wildliferesources (larger areas, more flexible access to key seasonal resources by large mammals)and benefits to landowners.So, what is the appropriate scale for managing wildlife on land under communal tenure?Where have common property regimes worked and under what conditions? In ZimbabweAppropriate Authority was granted to Rural District Councils with a resulting scale mismatchas evidenced in the Sebungwe (see section 4.3 above). In Zambia there was a partialdevolution through the ADMADE (Administrative Management Design for wildlife)programme but that only worked for a while in the Luangwa valley where full authority wasdevolved to the Luangwa Integrated Rural Development Project (LIRDP) operating under amajor injection of foreign aid. In the GMAs surrounding the Kafue National Park wildlifepopulations are well below carrying capacity and the returns from consumptive and nonconsumptivetourism are a fraction of their potential (Martin 2008b). This is almost certainlylargely because control and management of monitoring, leases, quotas and revenue returnsrests with a national authority based in Lusaka, with the consequent disempowerment ofpotential local level institutions.

Large scale conservation planning - KAZA TFCA 62As Metcalfe (2006) points out:“Although Zambian maps present GMAs as protected areas, they are settledcustomary lands. GMAs act as extensive buffer zones around National Parks with theZambian Wildlife Authority (ZAWA) [retaining] statutory control mainly to set trophyquotas (wildlife populations’ permitting), marketing the hunts, collecting the revenueand then sharing it with the communities through Community Resource Boards(CRBs) established by its community conservation programme (GRZ, 1998). Thefunds raised from GMAs provide a substantial part of ZAWA’s revenue base atpresent.” (Metcalfe 2006, page 10).The state thus effectively exacts a major tax on the wildlife resources in these communallands and further:“The tenurial structure in the GMAs is sub-optimal because the unit of managementand the unit of control are overlapping and contested” (Metcalfe 2006, page 11).Metcalfe’s (2006) thesis provides a detailed and insightful analysis of the overlapping socialstructures and their related social-ecological mismatches in the proposed corridor areabetween the Kafue NP and the Caprivi and Zimbabwe wildlife areas.In Botswana the extent of resource management devolution to community basedorganizations is severely constrained by centralized state and district controls and as Martin(2008a) related in a recent presentation to the Government of Botswana:“What cattle farmer would accept having to:1. Obtain a 15 year lease to use the natural resources on which cattle depend?2. Submit a Land Use and Management Plan to be approved before such a lease will begranted?3. Pay an annual land rental to the Land Authority?4. Pay a “Resource Utilization Royalty” to the Ministry of Agriculture?5. Pay 65% of his income to a National Environmental Fund over whose expenditure hehas no control?6. Provide regular reports on the use of the remainder of his income (35%) to a FundSecretariat?7. Obtain permission from the Land Authority to enter into a ‘Joint VenturePartnership’ with another person?8. Have a Technical Advisory Committee decide who his joint partners must be?9. Have quotas set for cattle utilization by a remote agency according the ‘best scientificprinciples?10. Participate in monitoring natural resources and collecting socio-economic data?”As Martin convincingly argues, no cattle farmer would accept these conditions and he goeson to ask if wildlife managers (whether individuals or communities) can seriously be asked toaccept the same impositions.

Large scale conservation planning - KAZA TFCA 63As a perceptive Zimbabwean district official once remarked to me in relation to wildlife inthat country “The problem is that cattle are mine but wildlife is ours” – thus emphasizing themismatch between tenure and resource access rights in relation to wildlife resources.7.3 Policies and incentivesThe previous two sections provide a basis for identifying at least three major problemsconfronting conservation in the KAZA TFCA, and indeed in the region, namely:• Inadequate returns from wildlife to the de facto resource managers, i.e. those livingon the land and bearing the costs of living with wildlife in the Communal Landswhich cover approximately 70% of the TFCA• Inadequate investments and/or returns to state protected areas to enable them to meettheir conservation mandate or their mandate to provide the means (infrastructure,facilities, access fees, etc.) for their citizens to be able to enjoy nature-relatedrecreational pursuits.• Mismatches between social and ecological scales, particularly in relation to theinstitutions governing wildlife resource access rights and the distribution ofassociated benefits.An additional concern and constraint facing community based natural resource managementand conservation is the sectoral separation of fisheries, forestry and wildlife, which in most ofthe countries involved are subject to separate parliamentary Acts administered by differentdepartments and, in some cases, differing line ministries. The result is differing resourceaccess rights and controls relating to timber, large mammals and fish, and to non-timberforest products. Metcalfe’s (2006) study, although carried out in Zambia, throwsconsiderable light on these difficulties in the region as indicated in the following twoparagraphs.“The protected local and national forests are surrounded by communal land andprovide valuable wildlife habitat, but no policy integrates land, forest and wildlifetenure or management. Communities depend on their traditional authorities forcommunal land management issues and on the forest and wildlife authorities for anunequal co-management relationship. Three separate legal, policy and institutionalenvironments pertain and the common property design flaws in this arrangementmean high transaction costs, overlapping jurisdictions, and assure a ‘tragedy of thecommons’ on the ground (Hardin, 1968).” (Metcalfe 2006, page 12).“Southern Africa’s CBNRM programmes are flawed by their dependency onempowerment through a single resource (wildlife) that so far has not leveragedtenure of other resources. The Zambian communities presented here are engaged inan internal negotiation process with their customary authorities that seeks toreorganize communal tenure in terms of their equity and control of privatecommercial access. Pessimistic assessment about the future of community rights toland and natural resources in the face of bioregional approaches, neo-colonialconservation agencies, centrist governments and avaricious capitalists, isunderstandable, but in this case the outcome is not a forgone conclusion. Provided

Large scale conservation planning - KAZA TFCA 64with legal, enterprise and organization support local communities may just becapable of creating upward pressure to secure their rights. This would seem a morepromising approach than waiting patiently for rights to be given. Optimistically,transfrontier initiatives may provide a new policy forum to make their ‘voices’heard.” (Metcalfe 2006, page 70 – I have added the emphasis on the last sentence).A key problem is the excessive taxes imposed on wildlife as a landuse option on land undercommunal tenure. These taxes provide a strong disincentive to wildlife-based land use andpromote the conversion of wild land to agricultural production. Given the fragmented natureof the protected area network in the KAZA TFCA a resolution of these policy andinstitutional issues must rank as a very high priority.Possible solutions may lie in the exploration of public-private partnerships that could also beextended to communities in public-private-community partnerships. Potentially workableand financially viable models have been outlined for Kafue and the surrounding GMAs(Martin 2008b), and for Botswana and its WMAs (Martin 2008a). The adaptive comanagementframework being considered by Zimbabwe for the Hwange-Matetsi complex, ifcombined with effective business models, could also provide a way out of the currentpenurious state.The subject of resource governance and devolution of resource access rights in relation towildlife and other natural resources is complex and much debated. However, the importantissue in relation to the KAZA TFCA is that unless those living on the land with wildlifederive the full and appropriate benefits from wildlife-based land uses and the ecosystemservices their land can provide 1 they will increasingly transform the land to small scale,largely subsistence, agricultural production. The end result would be isolated ecologicalislands in a sea of transformed agricultural land and a failure of the KAZA TFCA as aconservation and development initiative.1 The potential returns from payments to communities for ecosystem services (e.g. water, carbon sequestration,flood mitigation) and the adoption, or development, of appropriate joint ventures in tourism clearly requirefurther exploration.

Large scale conservation planning - KAZA TFCA 658.LINKAGES, WILDLIFE CORRIDORS AND SHORTFALLS“Most evidence for the use of corridors for movement comes from studies involving relatively fewobservations of relatively small numbers of individuals of relatively few species” Hobbs (1992)The need to establish wildlife corridors has become an accepted dogma in the development oftransfrontier conservation areas in southern Africa. In the case of the KAZA TFCA the wideseparation of major protected areas, or clusters of protected areas (see Section 4.2), hasprompted the belief that these need to be connected by wildlife corridors. In this contextwildlife corridors are features that serve to link isolated habitat patches, or isolated areas, byproviding suitable terrain or habitat through which animals can move between patches orareas. 1The ‘Pre-feasibility Study’ (Transfrontier Conservation Consortium 2006a) for the KAZATFCA made the following recommendation with regard to wildlife corridors:“Identification and consolidation of transfrontier wildlife corridors. The followingpotential corridors will receive priority attention in the Feasibility Phase:• The links between the south of the Kafue National Park and the remainder of theKAZA TFCA, part of which could be one or more wildlife corridors from northernBotswana through East Caprivi, or a link with Sioma Ngwezi National Park or toZimbabwe.• The link between Botswana through West Caprivi to south-eastern Angola. Thisvery important corridor will form a major dispersal route for elephants betweenBotswana and Angola.• The need for a corridor to link the north of Khaudom Game Park to WesternCaprivi and south-eastern Angola.• The link between the protected areas south of Lake Kariba (Hwange) and theremainder of the KAZA TFCA to the west (Chobe)”.These corridors were, understandably, only broadly indicated by arrows on a map and thepurpose of one of them was defined in terms of a dispersal route for elephant betweenBotswana and Angola. Given the lack of evidence of any transboundary migrations of largemammals occurring in the KAZA area (Cumming 2004a), and the general paucity ofevidence that corridors are used by animals (e.g. Beier and Noss 1998), there is a need toexamine more closely what purpose wildlife corridors may serve in the TFCA since this mayinfluence their siting and design.1 The term ‘biodiversity conservation corridor’ or ‘conservation corridor’ has recently been coined to refer to alarge landscape which is a “ biologically and strategically defined sub-regional space, selected as a unit forlarge-scale conservation planning and implementation purposes” (Sanderson et al 2003). In this sense theentire KAZA TFCA might be regarded as a conservation corridor. UNEP’s Biosphere Reserves were an earliermodel for conserving biological diversity over large landscapes and recent work in South Africa has focused onlarge landscapes and ‘mega-conservancy networks’ (e.g. Knight et al 2006a, 2006b and 2007)

Large scale conservation planning - KAZA TFCA 668.1 Corridors for what?The need for wildlife corridors arises in situations where the intervening habitat has beentransformed in such a way that animals are prevented, or at least inhibited, from movingbetween the isolated areas or patches in question, such as in agriculturally transformedlandscapes. These considerations immediately raise questions relating to the extent to whichhabitat fragmentation has taken place in the KAZA TFCA. To what extent has the landscapebeen transformed? Are protected areas in the KAZA TFCA isolated by intervening areas oftransformed habitat and landscapes? To what extent has such transformation as may haveoccurred acted as a barrier to animal movement or interrupted past patterns of animalmovement? Which species are involved? And so on.These questions need to be answered in order to decide where, if at all, wildlife corridors maybe needed and if so, how they may be created. There is also the need to consider thefunctions that such corridors may be required to perform and the following may be importantin terms of the KAZA TFCA and its sustainability in the face of climate change:a. Migration corridors that serve to maintain regular seasonal movements of animalsbetween alternative areas or habitats.b. Dispersal corridors that serve to allow the dispersing component of particularspecies populations to move to other suitable areas or habitats.c. Adaptive response corridors that provide for both fauna and flora to shift, ordisperse, along ecological gradients in response to changing climatic conditions.Answers relating to questions about habitat fragmentation, and the functions that wildlifecorridors may be required to perform, are spatially and temporally scale dependent and willalso be influenced by the body size and natural history of the species concerned. Clearly,corridor requirements for dispersing elephants and corridors for Woosnam’s rat to shift itsdistribution in response to climate change will differ, as will the corridor requirements forpredators such as the wild dog.Habitat fragmentation in the KAZA TFCAHabitat transformation as a result of agricultural development in the KAZA TFCA isrestricted to small pockets and probably covers no more than 5% of its overall area. Howeverits spatial distribution may be such that in some areas it will obstruct the connectivitybetween the large scale clusters within the TFCA or between specific protected areas. Theseareas need to be identified and mapped.In other areas habitat transformation may be the result of elephant impacts on woodlands andthis is likely to be particularly marked in riparian fringes in protected areas carrying highdensities of elephants. Riparian fringes are in themselves important habitats and corridors fora wide range of species.Fragmentation is, however, not limited to changes in habitat such as occur under cultivation,overgrazing, bush encroachment, and deforestation by people or elephants. Fragmentationcan also be caused by the construction of infrastructure such as roads and fences. It can alsobe established by over-hunting and disturbance resulting in areas that large mammals, atleast, will avoid. Areas without surface water, or with deep rivers, can also act as barriers toanimal movement and dispersal.

Large scale conservation planning - KAZA TFCA 67Areas in which habitat fragmentation of various kinds is likely to be an obstacle to animalmovements can be identified at a very broad scale (Fig. 8.1) but these need to be explored ingreater detail and at appropriate scales. It is worth noting that the effective development ofwildlife-based landuse in many of the intervening areas of the matrix would do away with theneed to establish formal corridors.MigrationsMuch of the popular literature on TFCAs has focused on creating corridors to re-establishmythical migration routes. As Cumming (2004b) found, there was no evidence oftransboundary migrations of large mammals in the 4-Corners area. Regular migrations ofwildebeest and zebra occurred in two areas within Botswana, namely, between the Linyantiand Savuti, and in the Makgadikgadi area. A regular wildebeest migration occurs to the northof the TFCA across the Liuwa Plains.Wildlife dispersal corridorsMuch discussion, and some research, has focused on creating corridors for the dispersal ofelephants from areas of high density centered on the Chobe NP. The idea that corridorslinking major protected areas will result in effective natural regulation of elephantpopulations and a reduction of elephant impacts on habitats in protected areas has beenespoused by van Aarde (e.g. van Aarde and Jackson 2007) and his research group at theUniversity of Pretoria. A critical assessment of this approach was offered by Cumming andJones (2005) who pointed out that should the elephant population continue to grow at about5% per annum it would double in 12-15 years and there just was not the land available toabsorb the increase. Further, most of the land supposedly available to absorb dispersingelephants was communal land, and inhabitants would not accept high densities of elephantswithout commensurate returns and benefits. In other words consumptive use of elephantswould eventually be necessary and the establishment of source-sinks dynamics would berequired to regulate elephant populations in the KAZA TFCA region. To some extent thisscenario has already developed in the Sebungwe area of Zimbabwe where the elephantpopulation is being stabilised by illegal offtakes (Dunham 2008) but pressure on habitatswithin the protected area has not yet been relieved (Cumming, personal observations). Thereis also the risk that creating dispersal corridors for elephant will merely serve to export theelephant overpopulation problem to new areas.The potential role of wildlife corridors for the dispersal of other large mammal species hasreceived little if any attention. Cumming (1999, Table 11, page 31) outlined the specieslikely to benefit from the removal of fences and the establishment of transboundary corridors.Links between the Caprivi, Luiana and Sioma-Ngwezi could potentially benefit nine species,links between Chobe and Hwange NP 14 species, and between Khaudom and the Caprivi 13species of large herbivores.Historically, periodic dispersals of wildebeest occurred from the Makgadikgadi area toHwange NP along the Nata River and associated drainages (Cumming 2004a). This route ispresently closed by fences and settlement.Little is presently known about the dispersal of predators in the KAZA region but wild dogpopulations are likely to benefit from appropriately aligned linkages that provide a “safepassage” between the large protected areas within KAZA.

Large scale conservation planning - KAZA TFCA 68Adaptive response corridorsAs climate change results in changes in the distribution of plant species and the structure andcomposition of dominant habitats (See Section 4 and Fig. 4.3) the species composition ofvertebrate and invertebrate communities will also change. Many species will face localextinctions unless they can shift their distribution or range along appropriate corridors. Thecurrent climate change predictions and the distribution of species richness (Sections 2 and4.1) suggest that it will be important to maintain broad scale linkages along a south-east tonorth gradient, and possibly also along a west-east gradient.It is this context that the larger conservation planning initiatives, such as envisaged inbiodiversity conservation corridors (Sanderson et al 2003), biosphere reserves and megaconservancynetworks would be particularly appropriate. Working at these scales couldprovide opportunities to proactively address biodiversity loss threatened by climate change,provide increased flexibility to consider human development needs and ecosystem services,and provide options to strengthen resilience and adaptability in linked social-ecologicalsystems (K. Lawrence, personal communication 2008).Given that a vast number of species are involved and that their likely responses to climatechange are mostly unpredictable the only fail-safe strategy that can be applied under presentcircumstances is to avoid, as far as possible, foreclosing options on potential linkages alongthe gradients suggested above.Maintaining corridors for some specialist species and localized endemics such as plantspecies confined to Batoka Gorge or to similar widely spaced specific rocky habitats isclearly not possible. Several notable rocky gorges occur in the Sebungwe region ofZimbabwe that could hold some of the Batoka Gorge endemics but targeted plant collectionsin these areas do not appear to have been made.Risks associated with corridorsCorridors do not necessarily lead to improved conservation. Greater connectivity betweenprotected areas can facilitate the transfer of invasive species and particularly diseases. Withinthe KAZA TFCA the movement of tsetse fly from the Sebungwe through to the Hwange-Matetsi would be a particular risk. Tseste fly occurred in the Matetsi area before therinderpest pandemic of 1896. Similar risks might be incurred in establishing a corridorbetween the Caprivi and Kafue NP.Several Palaearctic and Afrotropical bird migrants depend on specific habitats such aswetlands, pans and acacia riparian woodlands. Pans and riparian woodlands are degraded byhigh densities of elephants which may thus adversely influence populations of migrantspecies that depend on these habitats.Other types of corridors such as tourist and trade corridors with their associated infrastructuremay exacerbate the transfer of alien invasive species and diseases.8.2 Wildlife corridor options and prioritiesThere are nine major potential corridor areas (Fig. 8.1) each of which has differentcharacteristics and impediments to the establishment of effective linkages (Table 8.1).Human settlement and areas of cultivation are common to all of the potential corridor areas

Large scale conservation planning - KAZA TFCA 69but appropriate changes in policies, and laws and incentives, could, as argued in Section 7above, greatly improve the suitability of these areas for wildlife. Infrastructure developmentin the form of major highways does present a problem in that it can inhibit free movement ofwildlife, result in mortality of both travellers and wildlife and provide a conduit for invasivespecies and diseases.Disease control fences in Namibia, Botswana and Zimbabwe present a particular problembecause of entrenched veterinary control practices and strong vested interests in beef exportmarkets. Recent moves to introduce commodity based trade arrangements and agreementsmay serve to alleviate these issues in some areas. For example, the introduction ofcommodity based trade in north-western Ngamiland could allow for export trade in beefalongside wildlife-based land uses where FMD may be endemic. The risk of bovinepleuropneumonia in this area would nevertheless remain and may require more effectivecontrol, if not eradication, of the disease in core infective areas within Angola (Fig. 3.5). Insome areas, such as between Hwange and Chobe National Parks the distribution of dryseason surface water presents a problem for the dispersal or movement of water dependentspecies.Fig. 8.1 Potential wildlife corridor areas (1- 9) within the KAZA TFCA. (See Table 8.1for further details. The numbering can be considered as an order of priority).Not all barriers to dispersal and movement are due to human influences. In some potentialcorridors, barriers may be the result of natural changes in vegetation types, in habitatstructure (e.g. large expanses of grassland separating dense woodland habitats), or largerivers. Clearly, species responses to habitat changes and heterogeneity will differ and a more

Large scale conservation planning - KAZA TFCA 70detailed appraisal of habitat connectivity, and land cover changes and trends in each of thebroad corridors areas in relation to dispersal or movement of specific species is needed.In terms of action on wildlife corridors the three central corridors (i.e. numbers 1, 2, and 3 inFig. 8.1) stand out as clear priorities. The development of community conservancies in theMudumu complex and along the Kwando River suggest that key components of the corridorlinking Chobe NP and Babwata, Luiana and Sioma-Ngwezi are well advanced. Theestablishment of a wildlife corridor, or wildlife corridors, between Chobe NP and theHwange-Matetsi complex appears to have received little attention. Given the short distancesinvolved, and the favourable intervening land uses of forestry and hunting leases, thiscorridor should be easily established. However, the question of what would prompt speciesto make use of the corridor needs to be examined.Table 8.1Major potential wildlife corridor areas in Kaza TFCA and factors likely toimpede animal movement or linkages between protected areas. The locationof each potential corridor is shown in Fig. 8.1. (x indicates level of impedanceon a scale of 1-3, and a dash indicates that the factor is probably not significant)Corridor AreaImpediments to wildlife movement / dispersalSettled Roads Fences Landuse Disease Water1. Chobe / Liuana / Sioma-Ngwezi xx xx xx xx - -2. Chobe / Hwange-Matetsi xx x xx - xx xxx3. Caprivi / Zambezi / Kafue xxx xx - xxx x -4. Khaudom / Babwata / Ngamiland xx x xxx xx xxx x5. Chobe / Nxai Pan / Makgadikgadi xx xx xxx xx xxx x6. Makgadikgadi / Hwange xxx xx xxx xx xxx xx7. Hwange-Matetsi / Sebungwe xxx xxx xx xxx xxx -8. Luiana / Mavinga x x - - - -9. Mavinga / Liuwa Plain x x - - xx? -8.3 ShortfallsThe central focus of KAZA TFCA is its wetlands and associated wetland species of faunaand flora. Very little attention appears to have been given to maintaining or establishingconnectivity between wetlands. A measure of connectivity, particularly upstreamconnectivity, may be particularly important during the next 30-50 years if increasing aridity isexperienced in the region. In this regard the connections between the Zambezi and the Kafuevia the ancient drainage link through Machili (See Fig. 9.2) to the Kafue flats could beparticularly important. The links from Sioma-Ngwezi through the Western GMA to LiuwaPlain have also been neglected and, given the high ranking of the Western GMA and theimportance of maintaining upstream connectivity, this linkage deserves closer investigation.It is also important to bear in mind that the relationships between high biological diversityand valued ecosystem services are likely to be complex and that they may not be spatiallyaligned (e.g. Chan et al 2006).

Large scale conservation planning - KAZA TFCA 719RESILIENCE, ADAPTABILITY AND SUSTAINABILITY“Surprise and structural change are inevitable in systems of people and nature.”“Sustainability is the capacity to create, test, and maintain adaptive capability. Development is the processof creating, testing, and maintaining opportunity. The phrase that combines the two, “sustainable development,”thus refers to the goal of fostering adaptive capabilities and creating opportunities.”Holling (2001)The ability of a population of wild dogs, or a wetland, or a rural community to withstandshocks and surprises depends very largely on its capacity to absorb such disturbances and stillretain its identity, i.e. its resilience. Closely allied to the resilience of a system, be it apopulation, a landscape or a community, is its capacity to adapt in the face of majordisturbances or changing circumstances. As was noted in the introduction and elsewhere inthis report the KAZA TFCA is a linked social-ecological system operating at many scalesand, in more general terms, is essentially a complex adaptive system that is continuallychanging and adapting. This section briefly introduces concepts of resilience, adaptabilityand sustainability, examines key drivers and vulnerabilities in the KAZA TFCA and outlinessome adaptive strategies that may contribute to the sustainability of the KAZA socialecologicalsystem as a large, biologically rich and intact landscape providing securelivelihoods for those residing in it.A central issue in the development of the KAZA TFCA is, and increasingly will be, itssustainability in the face of climate change and the question of “sustainability of what and forwhom?”9.1 Change, resilience, adaptability and sustainabilityThe predominant world view that nature is in a state of balance or equilibrium that can bemaintained through appropriate management, or by leaving nature to take its course, is nowgiving way to a more dynamic view of a world where constant change and flux is recognizedand embraced. Increasingly, the non-linear nature of change, and accompanying thresholds,in both slow variables (e.g. carbon accumulation in the atmosphere) and fast variables (e.g.fluctuating patterns of rainfall and cereal production) is being appreciated and studied. And,with changing world views and increasing understanding of the dynamic and largelyunpredictable nature of linked social-ecological systems the statement that “the future is nolonger what it was” (Allen 1990) is indeed true. As Levin (1999) has stated, “If there is abalance in nature it is to be found only at the broadest scales of space, time and organizationalcomplexity.”In many natural and social systems, for example the growth and decay of a tree or a forest, ora business or corporation, or even a nation state (e.g. Soviet Russia), there are recognizablepatterns of growth, consolidation, release or decay, and collapse, followed by rejuvenation orre-organisation. These changes, i.e. adaptive cycles of exploitation, conservation, release,and reorganisation (Holling 2001, Fig. 1.2), are occurring at several spatial and temporalscales with numerous cross scale interactions (an example is international trade and pricingagreements which result in cascading effects on subsistence farmers). A nested set of

Large scale conservation planning - KAZA TFCA 72adaptive cycles with cross-scale connections and influences has been referred to as a“panarchy” by Gunderson and Holling (2002).Fig. 9.1 Holling’s adaptive cycle (left) illustrated by using policy development as anexample and (right) a series of adaptive cycles at differing spatial andtemporal scales, with the potential cross-scale connections shown by largearrows (i.e. a “panarchy”, Gunderson and Holling 2002)Two definitions of resilience in natural systems appear in the literature. The first uses theengineering definition of resilience which measures the time it takes for a system to return toits equilibrium state following a disturbance. More resilient systems recover more rapidly.This sense of resilience is, for instance, captured in common parlance when referring to aperson “bouncing back” after a mishap. Another simple example would be the time its takesfor a tuning fork to reach stability after it has been tweaked. The second definition, which isthe one used here, is where “resilience is defined as the capacity of a system to absorbdisturbance; to undergo change and still retain essentially the same function, structure andfeedbacks. In other words, it’s the capacity to undergo some change without crossing athreshold to a different system regime – a system with a differing identity.” (Walker and Salt,2006).Within this framework adaptability is “The capacity of actors in a system (people) to manageresilience. This might be to avoid crossing into an undesirable system regime, or to succeedin crossing into a desirable one.” (Walker and Salt 2006).In evolutionary terms the wetland ecosystem of southern central Africa, together with itsfauna and flora, appears to have been remarkably resilient. The system has, in palaeoevolutionaryterms, experienced major changes in river flows and drainage patterns duringthe period starting with the break up of Gondwanaland, and the formation of the Indian andAtlantic oceans 160-120 million years ago (Mya), to the Holocene and Recent periods(Cotterill 2006, Moore 2004, Stokes et al 1997, Thomas et al 2000). Cotterill (2006) in arecent study of the evolution of drainage patterns in southern central Africa in relation to thespeciation of wetland dependent antelope (particularly Kobus leche) provides acomprehensive and authoritative account of the palaeo-dynamics of drainage patterns in theregion. A simplified summary of more recent changes is provided in Fig. 9.2.The Kalahari sands form the largest “sand sea” in the World and parts of the area that fallwithin KAZA have experienced active dune movement as recently as four thousand years agoduring periods of extreme aridity (O’Connor and Thomas 1999). Palaeo-climatic andtectonic shifts, and erosion cycles and river capture, have resulted in levels of instability thathave been a major determinant of the biodiversity of the KAZA region.

Large scale conservation planning - KAZA TFCA 73Fig. 1.3Diagrammatic summary of the major changes during the Pleistocene indrainage patterns in the Zambezi-Okavango basin that have impacted on theKAZA area and its wetlands. (Adapted and simplified from Cotterill 2006)(A) Late Pliocene-early Pleistocene (before c. 1,600 Kya) with the Upper-Zambezi (UZa) connected throughBatoka Gorge (VF) to the Middle (MZa) and Lower Zambezi (LZa), and the Palaeo-Chambeshi (P-Cha) flowinginto the Zambezi above Batoka Gorge.(B) Early Pleistocene (c. 1,600 Kya) – an uplifting (dashed line) above Batoka Gorge severed the link betweenthe Upper and Middle-Zambezi, diverting flow into Palaeo-Lake Makgadikgadi which may have covered>60,000 km 2 and lasted until between 970-780 Kya. Note also the scission of the upper Chambeshi with theestablishment of the Palaeo-Kafue River (P-Ka). This was followed by a breach, between c. 970-780Kya, of theuplifted zone in the region of Katambora and Mambova rapids above the Victoria falls (and Batoka Gorge),resulting in a reconnection between the Upper and Middle Zambezi River which lasted between about 740 and600 Kya. This change in flow resulted in a drying out of Palaeo-Lake Makgadikgadi during this period althoughthe Cubango (Cub) continued to feed what is now the Okavango Delta.(C) Middle Pleistocene - a second uplifting (c. 500 Kya) across the Zambezi River above Batoka Gorge (VF)again resulted in the diversion of river flows into a series of endoreic lakes (Okavango, Mababe and Palaeo-Lake Thamalakhane) with the Upper Kafue River supplying the Palaeo-Lake Patrick, and the incipient lowerKafue incising northwards from the Middle Zambezi towards Lake Patrick. These lakes together with Palaeo-Lake Bulozi above the Ngonye Falls spanned the period from about 500 – 300 Kkya.D) Late Pleistocene – the Upper Zambezi is reconnected to the Middle Zambezi (c. 300Kya) and the currentdrainage is established. The lower Kafue has connected to Palaeo-Lake Patrick and drained it to form the KafueFlats. The Linyanti swamps are formed at the link between the Cuando and the Zambezi along the Chobe River.The Upper Chambeshi (U-Cha) drains into the Bangweulu Basin (L Ba). (Cub = Cubango River, Cua = CuandoRiver, Lua = Luangwa River, Lin = Linyanti Swamps.)More recent shocks and disturbances take the form of human movements, invasive humanand animal diseases, increasing climate variability, and political and economic dynamicswithin the region (Table 9.1).

Large scale conservation planning - KAZA TFCA 74Table 9.1 Time lines of major shocks and drivers of change in social-ecologicalsystems (SES) in the Kavango-Zambezi Transfrontier Conservation Areaand partner countries.Time Period Events and Disturbances to linked SES Key Drivers/ChangesPleistocene 2 mya to300 kyaPleistocene-Holocene-RecentBC 300 to AD 500AD 1100 – 17001800 – 19001900 – 19451945 – 19901990 – 2008• Major changes in drainage patterns and basins See Fig. 1.2.• Area continuously occupied by Stone Age hunter-gatherers• Use of fire from about 250 kya• Invasion of domestic livestock, southward migration ofBantu speaking peoples and onset of San displacement intoregions of Zimbabwe, Botswana, and Namibia.• Rise and fall of empires - Mapungubwe, Great Zimbabwe• First Lozi Empire in Western Zambia and Caprivi• Portuguese explorers/traders on Angolan and SouthernAfrican Coasts• Colonisation of the sub-continent and partition byEuropean powers in 1884 – Berlin Conference• Introduction of alien diseases after about 1830 (Human andBovine Tuberculosis, Measles, Smallpox, Brucellosis,Contagious Bovine Pleuropneumonia)• 1830s Mfecane dispersal into Matebeleland andBarotseland (Makalolo Empire 1830-1864)• Over-exploitation of wildlife and collapse of the ivorytrade (and elephant populations) by 1890• 1894-96 Rinderpest pandemic and the collapse of livestockand wild bovid populations (and tsetse fly) across theregion• Matabele wars 1893-96• Etosha National Park declared in 1907• 1 st World War 1914-18; Caprivi placed under Britishmilitary rule• 1920 start of tsetse control hunting in Zimbabwe• 1921-29 the Caprivi was part of Bechuanaland Protectorateafter which it was placed under South West Africa from1929-39, and then under South Africa from 1940-81.• 1929-30 Great Depression• 1928 Hwange and Victoria Falls game reserves gazetted• Rapid demographic changes (linked to malaria control)• Pole tax, labour laws and migrant labour to mines in SA• 2 nd World War• Atlantic Charter, decolonisation and independence• Trade-driven animal disease controls and fences –Botswana, Namibia and Zimbabwe• Further advances in veterinary services and growth oflivestock herds• Rapid growth in protected areas• Role of buffalo in FMD established• Artificial water supplies for game in Hwange NP expanded• Elephant culls in Zw, Na.• 1989 CITES ban on ivory trade• 1970s Liberation and civil wars in Angola and Zimbabweand collapse of wildlife conservation in Angola• Settlement of areas cleared of tsetse fly (Zw)• CBNRM programs initiated in Zimbabwe, Botswana,Namibia and Zambia• 1997 Zw dollar loses < 60% of its value in one day andcontinues to decline with inflation exceeding 2 million %in June 2008.• 2000 onset of rapid decline of tourism in Zw• End of civil war in Angola• Increasing human-elephant conflict• Extended dry period 1980 – 1998• Tectonics – rifts, uplifting, erosionand river captures and scissions• Evolution of hominids as keystonepredators,• Use of stone tools, fire, poison onspears and arrows• Migrations and invasions• Livestock-habitat interactions anddiseases• Social turmoil and rise and collapseof dynasties• War and major movements of people• Introduced (alien) human and animaldiseases• Colonisation• Collapse of wildlife and livestockpopulations• Severe droughts in 1830s and 1890s• Earlier collapse of game populationsstimulates conservation action andthe establishment of reserves• Start of veterinary research, dips,vaccines and wildlife controlresulting in rapid growth of livestockpopulations• Improved health services and rapidhuman population growth• Human population growth• Growth in tourism and travel from1950s• Droughts and impacts of El Nino• Fuel prices increased greatly, 1974• Political instability and diseaseoutbreaks (e.g. CBPP)• Ongoing civil war in Angola• Rapid spread of HIV/AIDS• Changing conservation paradigms• Green activist movements and effectson elephant management• Global climate change

Large scale conservation planning - KAZA TFCA 759.2 Key vulnerabilitiesThe Pre-feasibility Study of the KAZA TFCA (Transfrontier Conservation Consortium2006a) identified ten threats to the development of the TFCA (see page 3). Three of thesedealt with impacts on tourism (seasonality, competition, and terrorism), three with economics(global recession, competing investments, and participating country policies). The remainingfour threats dealt with crime and corruption, external ecological impacts, poverty, and globalwarming. Apart from poverty, the threats listed are essentially external threats. Bothpoverty, which is closely linked to population growth, and global warming would fall into thecategory of slow variables, i.e. changes occurring over longer time periods as opposed tothose that may have immediate effects such as terror attacks, floods or serious drought. Animportant reason for drawing attention to fast and slow variables is that slow (or ´deep’)variables are often ignored and the intersection of fast and slow variables can result inthresholds being surpassed, resulting in rapid regime change – “big effects from smallcauses” (Carpenter and Turner 2001).This study has examined factors influencing or affecting the development of the KAZATFCA at three scales. Large scale, external drivers (Fig. 3.1) included:• the state of the global economy• international conventions• conservation and development values• issues relating to disease and international marketsDrivers external to the TFCA, but within the region, included:• water flows• disease• national legislation relating to conservation and natural resource management inparticular• SADC protocols• national and regional economiesThe major drivers within the TFCA itself are those relating to:• land use and tenure• human population growth and increasing pressures on natural resources andecosystem services• governance and access rights to natural resources and benefits from wildlife• insufficient investment in the protected areas systemAll of these factors, across the full range of scales, are likely to be impacted by climatechange which is predicted to result in a warmer and drier KAZA TFCA.The summary of shocks, surprises and major disturbances that the KAZA system has facedover time (Table 9.1, Fig. 9.1) reflect a similar set of drivers to those operating at themoment. Tectonic changes have, in geological time scales, resulted in major changes to thedistribution of wetlands and, because the area is so flat very minor changes in tilt or warpingof the landscape could significantly alter water flows, e.g. in the Silinda spillway and theLinyanti-Chobe system (Moore 2004). Marked changes in climate have occurred even in therecent past, and while ecosystems may have been resilient at lower human densities, the samemay not apply with the current high and growing human population densities, i.e. unless

Large scale conservation planning - KAZA TFCA 76efforts are made to build appropriate adaptive capacity within the KAZA TFCA and its linkedsocial-ecological systems (SES) 1 .9.3 Adaptive strategiesCentrally driven, prescriptive blueprints for building adaptive capacity in relation to humanlivelihoods and conservation in the KAZA TFCA in the face of changing climatic regimes areunlikely to be successful. Such command and control approaches neglect the complexity anddiversity of the SES involved and seldom make room for learning and adaptation as anessential part of the process of development. Large-scale development projects often reflectthe following characteristics:a) they are usually sector-based “master plans”b) require a large injection of capital of which much is wastedc) are mostly top-down with a “command and control” management approachd) include little local capacity buildinge) tend to collapse when the project or funding endsIn short they are seldom sustainable and do little to develop resilience and organizationalcapacity of the intended beneficiariesOn the other hand emerging development models, particularly those relating to naturalresources tend to focus on processes with the following characteristics:a) those that place a premium on, and invest in higher valued land uses,diversification, and intensification (e.g. irrigation, cash cropping, high valuetourism, where appropriate and sustainable)b) decouple wealth creation from primary productionc) match land use and ecological process scalesd) develop policy and supporting legal frameworks that enable, rather than stifle,innovation and adaptability at local and regional scalesSuch an approach requires information, learning, strong feedback, and the freedom to adapt(i.e. to use learning and experience) at several levels. Polycentric (multi-tiered) governance(e.g. Ostrom and Janssen 2002) and appropriate devolution of resource access rights andmanagement are more likely to work for conservation in the KAZA TFCA under climatechange than is continuing central command and control (see Holling and Meffe 1996)approaches. However, as Ostrom (2007) has recently argued, there is a need to move beyondsimple panaceas to the problems of resource degradation and loss of biodiversity in linkedsocial ecological systems – and this “requires serious study of complex, multivariate, nonlinear,cross-scale, and changing systems”.1 Walker and Salt (2006) define social-ecological systems simply as “linked systems of people and nature”. Theuse of the term ‘social-ecological system’ here serves to draw attention to the often inappropriate separation ofhuman and ecological (“natural”) systems.

Large scale conservation planning - KAZA TFCA 77In discussing conservation action in relation to climate change McClanahan et al (2008)suggest four actions, or combinations of these, that would be appropriate, namely,a) Large scale protection of ecosystemsb) Actively transforming and adapting social-ecological systemsc) Building the capacity of communities to cope with changed) Government assistance focused on decoupling the dependence of communities onnatural resourcesThe authors provide a helpful framework that scales environmental susceptibility againstsocial adaptive capacity to provide four quadrants against which to assess and guide neededaction. They go on to provide results from case studies in which predicted susceptibility ofcoral reefs to bleaching and social adaptive capacity were quantified using a range ofindicators. The approach could probably be readily adapted to the KAZA TFCA, althoughthe key issues of governance in relation to natural resources will need much greater attention.Government assistance in building social capital may not be forthcoming.At a more encompassing level, Simon Levin (1999) in his book, “Fragile Dominion:Complexity and the Commons” concluded with eight commandments of environmentalmanagement. These have a great deal to do with building adaptive capacity and resilienceand contain important prescriptions for the development of the KAZA TFCZA. The eightcommandments (with some points from Levin relating to each) are:1. Reduce uncertainty ((i) knowing what is present is only the first step inunderstanding how ecosystems function, (ii) monitoring and research provide thecore and inform policy debates, (iii) spread risk by broadening the scales on whichwe rely on ecosystem services, (iv) diversification is imperative] .2. Expect surprise ((i) adaptive management is maintaining flexibility inmanagement structures and adjusting rules on the basis of monitoring and newinformation, (ii) adaptive probing is a continual exploration of alternativestrategies even current strategies are working, (iii) build flexible responsesystems)3. Maintain heterogeneity ((i) the resilience of any complex adaptive system isembodied in its diversity and in its capacity for adaptive change amongcomponent systems, (ii) management efforts to weaken reduce diversity anddisturbance weaken the capacity of the system to respond)4. Sustain modularity ((i) in modular structures there is buffering against cascadesand disaster, (ii) the emergence of global pandemics of disease is a reflection ofincrease connectedness and a breakdown in modularity – which has implicationsfor corridors)5. Preserve redundancy (maintaining heterogeneity and modularity contribute tomaintaining redundancy – the key feature being the maintenance ofsubstitutability, e.g. of species, or products, or economic substitutability)6. Tighten feedback loops (tight reward and punishment loops are essential toeffective adaptive management and lead to empowerment)

Large scale conservation planning - KAZA TFCA 787. Build trust ((i) evolution works most effectively when individuals interact mostwith their near neighbours, (ii) repeated interaction can allow trust and reciprocalaltruism to develop)8. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.“Building trust and environmental security is not an easy task, but it provides the only path tosustaining our fragile dominion over the Earth’s resources” (Levin 1999).

Large scale conservation planning - KAZA TFCA 7910.PRIORITIES AND RECOMMENDATIONS“It is inappropriate to be concerned with micewhen there are tigers abroad”G. Box (1976)This report has examined factors affecting the KAZA TFCA at differing scales, namely,large-scale external factors such as climate change and global economies and nationallegislation, intermediate scale factors such as gradients in biodiversity and the broaddistribution of protected areas and land tenure within KAZA. At the local scale, features ofeach conservation area such as the habitat, key species and threats were catalogued and aranking system based on biological value and conservation status was developed.Information on ecosystem services has been reviewed and governance issues affectingresource management outside protected areas, corridors, and some aspects of resilience andadaptability in the KAZA TFCA have been discussed.As the title to this study indicates, a primary aim was identify priority issues and actions forthe KAZA TFCA in relation to (a) climate change, and (b) building adaptive capacity andresilience. I will argue that the following major priority areas that emerge from this shortdesk study – these are the ‘tigers abroad’ that stem very largely from the overarching threat(tiger?) of climate change:1. Water flows and wetlands2. Natural resource governance and benefits to rural communities. A release fromcentral command-and-control approaches to natural resource management andconservation is needed3. Diversification and adaptive co-management4. Biodiversity linkages and conservation planning5. Improved basic inventories of biophysical and social components of the system,monitoring, and participatory science10.1 Water flows and wetlandsThe centre piece of the KAZA TFCA is its wetlands. These are focal areas for a large part ofthe human population residing in the TFCA. They support a wide range of important wetlanddependent species and play a key role in the region’s tourism development. But the wetlandswithin KAZA are vulnerable not only because of impending climate change but also becausethey depend on water derived from distant highlands. As a result it will be vital for theTFCA to:• Promote integrated catchment management and support and influence the work ofcatchment management authorities.

Large scale conservation planning - KAZA TFCA 80• Pay early attention to land use changes in the high water-yielding upper reaches ofthe major rivers flowing into the TFCA and explore ways of providing incentives tothose in the upper catchments to maintain equitable water flows (e.g. payments forecosystem services) into the future.• Minimize land use practices that degrade wetlands within the TFCA. Thisrequirement will depend very largely on resolving a range of natural resourcegovernance and related livelihood issues.These are large-scale, multi-faceted and complex issues that will require investment inongoing information gathering, monitoring, and capacity building at the interface betweenbiophysical and social sciences and policy. And, because policy change and needed societalchange can be slow, both immediate and long term commitment by governments, NGOs andcivil society will be needed.In addition there is the need examine the connectivity and dynamics of these wetland systemtogether with a finer scale and more critical examination of climate change projections for theKAZA area.10.2 Natural resource governanceThe dominant form of land use in the KAZA TFCA is subsistence agriculture undercommunal tenure in nutrient poor, mostly semi-arid systems. The potentially richbiodiversity of the area and its wetlands are undervalued, very largely because those living onthe land are unable to realize the value and benefits of this rich heritage. This is largely aresult of inappropriate institutions governing resource access rights and benefits streams, andassociated mismatches between social and ecological scales. The success of the KAZATFCA as a conservation and development initiative rests squarely on the extent to which ruralcommunities will benefit from wildlife-based land uses. Reforms in tenure and resourceaccess rights will be crucial to the sustainability of the KAZA TFCA, and a criticalcomparative analysis of the trade offs of alternative policies, and of scenarios for futuredevelopment, is an immediate priority.Namibia has taken the lead in developing community conservancies that serve to enhancelivelihoods and contribute to conservation objectives but there remains a great deal to be donetowards harmonizing natural resource management approaches across the participatingcountries, as well as between sectors (fisheries, forestry and wildlife, and agriculture) withincountries, if one of the primary objectives of the TFCA is to be met. The pace of devolvingnatural resource management rights and responsibilities from central to local levels has beenremarkably slow in the region. For example, it is nearly 30 years since CAMPFIRE wasconceived and presented to the Zimbabwe Government but its primary objective of achievingwildlife management at the village level has still to be realised. The point is that policychange can be very slow and no time should be lost in vigorously addressing the issue.10.3 Diversification and adaptive co-managementThe maintenance and generation of diversity is accepted as a fundamental characteristic ofresilient systems. This is true whether it be species, ecological communities, or socialsystems. The more homogenous systems become, the more susceptible they are to shocks

Large scale conservation planning - KAZA TFCA 81and surprises. The important issue for KAZA is – how can these principles be translated intoconservation action?On the ecological front, the major disturbances that are likely to generate homogeneity in thesystem are human land use practices, elephants and fire. The replacement of multispeciessystems of large wild mammalian herbivores with single-species livestock systems, togetherwith fences across much of the landscape, is a case in point. The extent to which cultivationmay be impacting on landscapes and land cover change does not appear to have beenexamined. In the past, shifting cultivation combined with low human populations may havecontributed to generating heterogeneity, but higher densities of farmers with fewer options tomove may have the opposite effect. Similar considerations apply to the burgeoning elephantpopulation and increasing frequency of uncontrolled fires. The ‘homogenizing’ impacts ofhigh elephant densities and fires on woodland forest resources in the region are wellestablished (e.g. Ben Shahar 1993, 1998, Conybeare 2004, Cumming et al 1997, Cummingand Jones 2005).Similar concerns apply to the social systems in terms of their development within the region.The recently proposed ban on safari hunting in much of Ngamiland and Chobe Districts inBotswana will immediately curtail diversity in the tourism industry. Very constrainedmodels of community based conservation throughout the region will also do so.Tackling these linked social-ecological issues will require influencing policy and practice innatural resource management from national to local levels. This will need greatly improvedinformation on the current status and trends in landuse and land cover change, onbiodiversity, livelihoods and natural resource use, demographics and disease, the tourismindustry, and so on. As noted in the previous section (9.3), reducing uncertainty is a primaryconsideration in developing system sustainability.Associated with the importance of maintaining and generating diversity is the need todevelop policy frameworks within KAZA that encourage experimentation and diversificationin all fields, and that foster the development of adaptive capacity. To take the tourismindustry as an example;• what is the range and nature of tourism enterprises operating in the TFCA,• how diverse are they and how might they diversify?• have private-public-community partnerships been introduced and effectivelyexplored?• What opportunities are there for joint ventures between established, well resourcedtourism companies and local communities that provide for capacity building andeventual capture by local communities?Establishing the conditions (policy frameworks?) that would allow adaptive co-managementsystems to emerge (see Ruitenbeek and Cartier 2001) even at a pilot project scale within theKAZA TFCA should be a priority (see also section 4.2 and tentative plans for Hwange NPand its neighbours).

Large scale conservation planning - KAZA TFCA 8210.4 Biodiversity linkages and conservation planningEarlier in this report (Section 4) I drew attention to broad-scale southwest-northeastbiodiversity gradients in the KAZA region and how habitats may change along thesegradients under climate change and increasing aridity. Associated with these projectedchanges will be the need to maintain what I referred to as ‘adaptive dispersal corridors’ alongthese biodiversity gradients. Counterbalancing the creation of corridors and linkages,however, will be the need to maintain a measure of modularity (Section 8) within the largerlandscape of the KAZA TFCA. At this stage we lack information needed to make reasonablywell informed specific recommendations in this regard.There is, as yet, little evidence of investment in systematic conservation assessment andplanning. Planning for pattern and persistence and ecosystem processes (e.g. Cowling et al1999, Rouget et al 2006) in development and management of the KAZA TFCA also appearsto be lacking. New and powerful approaches have been developed to tackle these problemsin the last two decades and surely merit investment in, and application to, the development ofconservation planning in KAZA 1 . The recent study by Smith et al (2008) on designing atransfrontier landscape in Maputoland that takes into account the economic value of land andbiodiversity threats also provides a good example of the kind of work that is urgently neededfor the KAZA TFCA.10.5 Information and participatory scienceOne of my overriding impressions in conducting this study has been how little sound, currentinformation is available and accessible on a wide range of topics for the KAZA TFCA.Major gaps that need to be filled include the current distribution and status of plant andvertebrate taxa throughout the TFCA, but particularly in Angola and Zambia. The status ofthe few endemics, particularly the herpetofauna, urgently needs to be assessed. Some ofthese species and areas would almost certainly merit Alliance for Zero Extinction (ACE)ranking.Information on protected areas (check lists, numbers or status, distribution, habitats, budgets,staff levels, etc.) and on their performance is not generally available. The WCMC databaseon protected areas, for example, carries no more than a simple map of Chobe National Parkwithout even a list of the large mammals occurring in the park. This, despite morecomprehensive, but possibly outdated, information being available in the IUCN Directory ofAfrotropical Protected Areas published in 1987. The setting up of an open but qualitycontrolled “Wiki” directory on the protected areas in the KAZA region may assist in fillingmany of the gaps.Similar gaps exist in the information base on forest areas and on ecosystem servicesthroughout the KAZA region.The region has universities and research departments in its conservation agencies that, withappropriate support, could readily be enlisted in contributing towards an improved knowledgebase for the KAZA TFCA.1 Here I refer particularly to the work of Richard Cowling and Andrew Knight and their colleagues in SouthAfrica in the Cape, the Valley Bushveld and the Cederberg.

Large scale conservation planning - KAZA TFCA 83The development of a more participatory culture between governments (both central andlocal), NGOs, the private sector, and the range of stakeholders living within the TFCA, interms of research and information sharing, is also urgently needed.10.6 Specific prioritiesIn addition to the large scale priorities which apply across the KAZA TFCA the followingspecific priorities merit attention and action by government and non-governmentalconservation agencies.1. Harmonising conservation legislation and developing policies for transboundarynatural resource management. This was listed as an objective by the parties to theTFCA MOU (see page 2).2. A re-examination of the role of veterinary control fences in the control of animaldiseases over large landscapes and exploring the social, economic andenvironmental costs of alternative disease management strategies.3. A critical examination of polices and incentive structures relating to wildlife as alanduse – particularly as these relate to conservation and wildlife outside stateprotected areas.4. Identifying Key Biodiversity Area and Areas of Zero Extinction within KAZA.5. A detailed examination (including ground surveys and mapping) of the basis for,and the feasibility of, establishing the priority wildlife corridors of (a) Chobe –Luiana – Sioma-Ngwezi, (b) Chobe – Hwange, and (c) Sioma-Ngwezi – Kafue –Zambezi NP. Closely linked to the design of corridors is the need for research onhabitat fragmentation and trends in land cover within the overall KAZA TFCAarea.6. Developing more sustainable and adequate funding streams for the effectivemanagement of protected areas in the TFCA, possibly through public-privatecommunitypartnerships.For each of the above priorities there is scope for conservation NGOs, aid agencies and theprivate sector to engage with governments to effect progress and improved conservation andlivelihoods in the KAZA TFCA.The signing of an MOU by five participating countries to establish a TFCA of nearly 400,000km 2 provides a unique window of opportunity through which to explore and developinnovative approaches to conservation in large landscapes in the region – it is an opportunitythat needs to be seized by all involved.

Large scale conservation planning - KAZA TFCA 84References11.REFERENCES AND APPENDICESNote: The following list includes literature cited and reference consultedAdger, N., Brooks, N., Kelly, M., Bentham, G., Agnew, M., and Eriksen, S. (2004) New indicators ofvulnerability and adaptive capacity. Technical Report 7, 128p. Centre for Climate Change Research,University of East Anglia, Norwich.Allen, P. M. (1990) Why the future is not what it was. Futures, 555-570.Anderssen, L., Wilk, J., Todd, M. C., Hughes, D. A., Earle, A., Kniveton, D., Layberry, R. & Savenije, H. H. G.(2006) Impact of climate change and development scenarios on flow patterns in the Okavango River.Journal of Hydrology, 331, 43-57.Andrews, P. & O'Brien, E. M. (2000) Climate, vegetation, and predictable gradients in mammal species richnessin southern Africa. Journal of Zoology, London, 251, 205-231.Arntzen, J. (1998) Economic valuation of rangelands in Botswana: a case study. CREED Working Paper SeriesNo. 17, 62pp. IIED, London.Ashley, C. and Carney, D. (1999) Sustainable livelihoods: lessons from early experience. 64pp. DFID,Department for International Development, London.Ashton, P. J. (2002) Avoiding conflicts over Africa’s water resources. Ambio, 31, 236-242.Ashton, P. J. (2003) The search for an equitable basis for water sharing in the Okavango River Basin.International Waters in Southern Africa. (ed M. Nakamura), pp. 164-188.United Nations UniversityPress, Tokyo.Ashton, P. J. & Manley, R. E (1999) Potential hydrological implications of water abstraction from theOkavango River in Namibia. Proceedings of the Ninth South African Hydrological Symposium, 29-30November 1999, University of the Western Cape, Bellville, South Africa.Ashton, P. J. & Neal, M. (2003) An overview of key strategic issues in the Okavango River Basin.Transboundary Rivers, Sovereignty and Development: Hydropolitical Drivers in the Okavango RiverBasin. (eds A. R. Turton, P. J. Ashton & T. E. Cloete), pp. 31-63.Green Cross International Geneva.Baars, R. M. (2002) Rangeland utilisation assessment and modelling for grazing and fire management. Journalof Enviornmental Management, 64, 377-86.Baars, R. M. T. and Mumbuna, M. M. (1991) Grazing management systems. Supplement to "Farming inWestern Province", ARPT, 1988. Mongu, Zambia.Barnes, J. I. ( 1998) Wildlife Economics: a study of direct use values in Botswana's wildlife sector. PhD Thesis.University of London, University College London.Barnes, J., Burgess, J. & Pearce, D. (1992) Wildlife Tourism. Economics for the wilds. (eds T. M. Swanson &E. B. Barbier), pp. 136-151. Earthscan, London.Barnes, J., Cannon, J., and Morrison, K. (2001) Economic returns to selected landuses in Ngamiland,Botswana. 59 pp + Appendices. Conservation International, Cape Town.Beier, P. & Noss, R. F. (1998) Do habitat corridors provide connectivity? Conservation Biology, 12, 1241-1252.Bell, R. H. V. and Martin, R. B. (1984) Identification of conservation priority. Conservation and WildlifeManagement in Africa. (eds. Bell, R. H. V.//McShane -Caluzi, E.) pp. 43-75. Office of Training andProgram Support, Forestry and Natural Resources Sector, U. S. Peace Corps. Washington, D.C.Ben-Shahar, R. (1993) Woodland dynamics under the influence of elephants and fire in northern Botswana.Vegetatio, 65, 157-163.Ben-Shahar, R. (1998) Changes in the structure of savanna woodlands in northern Botswana, following theimpacts of elephants and fire. Plant Ecology, 136, 189-194.

Large scale conservation planning - KAZA TFCA 85Bernard, T. & Moetapele, N. (2005) Desiccation of the Gomoti River: Biophysical process and indigenousresource management in Northern Botswana. Journal of Arid Environments, 63, 256-283.Biggs, R., Bohensky, E., Desanker, P. V., Fabricius, C., Lynam, T., Misselhorn, A. A., Musvoto, C., Mutale,M., Reyers, B., Scholes, R. J., Shikongo, S. & van Jaarsveld, A. S. (2004) Nature supporting people:the southern African Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Council for Scientific and Industrial Research,Pretoria, South Africa.Bills, R. & Marshall, B. (2004) Chapter 9. Fishes of the Four Corners area. Biodiversity of the Four CornersArea: Technical Reviews, Volume Two (Chapters 5-15). (eds J. R. Timberlake & S. L. Childes), pp.353-380. Biodiversity Foundation for Africa Bulawayo.Boko, M., Niang, 1., Nyong, A., Vogel, C., Githeko, A., Medany, M., Osman-Elasha, B., Tabo, R. & Yanda, P.(2007) Africa. Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of WorkingGroup II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (eds M.L. Parry, O. F. Canziani, J. P. Palutikof, van der Linden P. J. & C. E. Hanson), pp. 433-467.Cambridge University Press, Cambridge UK.Bond, I. & Cumming, D. H. M. (2006) Wildlife research and development. Zimbabwe's agricultural revolutionrevisited, 2nd Edition. (eds. M. Rukuni, P. Tawonezi, C. Eicher, M. Munyuki-Hungwe & P. Matondi),pp. 476-497.University of Zimbabwe Publications Harare.Bonyongo, M. C. & Harris, S. (2007) Grazers species-packing in the Okavango Delta, Botswana. AfricanJournal of Ecology, 45, 527-534.Boon, P. J. (2000) The development of integrated methods for assessing river conservation value.Hydrobiologia, 422-423, 413-428.Box, G. (1976) Science and statistics. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 71, 791-799.Boyd, J. & Banzhaf, S. (2006) What are ecosystem services? The need for standardized environmentalaccounting units. Resources for the Future, Discussion Paper , RFF DP 06-02, 1-26.Boyd, J. & Banzhaf, S. (2007) What are ecosystem services? The need for standardized environmentalaccounting units. Ecological Economics, 63 , 616-626.Broadley, D. G. (2004) Chapter 8. Herpetofauna of the Four Corners area. Biodiversity of the Four CornersArea: Technical Reviews, Volume Two (Chapters 5-15). (eds. J. R. Timberlake & S. L. Childes), pp.313-350. Biodiversity Foundation for Africa, Bulawayo.Burgess, N., D'Amico Hales, J., Underwood, E., Dinerstein, E., Olson, D., Itoua, I., Scheipper, J., Ricketts, T. &Newman, K. (2004) Terrestrial ecoregions of Africa and Madagascar: a conservation assessment.Island Press, Washington, DC.Cahoon, D. R., Stocks, B. J., Levine, J. S., Cofer III, W. R. & O'Neill, K. P. (1992) Seasonal distribution ofAfrican savanna fires. Nature , 359, 812-815.Campbell, B. M. & Luckert, M. (2002) Uncovering the Hidden Harvest. Eathscan, London.Carpenter, S. R., DeFries, R., Dietz, T., Mooney, H. A., Polasky, S., Reid, W. V. & Scholes, R. J. (2006)Millennium ecosystem assessment: research needs. Science, 314, 257-256.Carpenter, S. R. & Turner, M. G. (2001) Hares and tortoises: interactions of fast and slow variables inecosystems. Ecosystems, 3, 495-497.Chafota, J. ( 2007) Factors governing selective impacts of elephant on woody vegetation. University of theWitwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa.Chan, K. M. A., Shaw, M. R., Cameron, D. R., Underwood, E. C. & Daily, G. C. (2006) Conservation Planningfor Ecosystem Services. PLoS Biology, 4, e379. Chapin, F. S., Zavaleta, E. S., Eviner, V. T., Naylor, R. L., Vitousek, P. M., Reynolds, H. L., Hooper, D. U.,Lavorel, S., Sala, O. E., Hobbie, S. E., Mack, M. C. & Diaz, S. (2000) Consequences of changingbiodiversity. Nature, 405, 234-242.Child, G. F. T. & Riney, T. (1987) Tsetse control hunting in Zimbabwe, 1919-1958. Zambezia, 14, 11-71.

Large scale conservation planning - KAZA TFCA 86Conybeare, A. M. (2004) Elephant impacts on vegetation and other biodiversity in the broadleaved woodlandsof S-Central Africa. Biodiversity of the Four Corners Area: Technical Reviews Volume Two(Chapters 5-15). (eds J. R. Timberlake & Childes S. L.), pp. 477-508.Biodiversity Foundation forAfrica and Zambezi Society, Bulawayo and Harare.Cosivi, O., Grange, J. M., Daborn, C. J., Raviglione, M. C., Fujikura, T., Cousins, D., Robinson, R. A.,Huchzermeyer, H. F. A. K., de Kantor, I. & Meslin, F. X. (1998) Zoonotic tuberculosis due toMycobacterium bovis in developing countries. Emerging Infectious Diseases, 4, 59-70.Costanza, R. (2008) Ecological services: multiple classification systems are needed. Biological Conservation.,141, 350-352.Cotterill, F. P. D. (2004) Chapter 6. Mammals of the Four Corners area. Biodiversity of the Four CornersArea: Technical Reviews, Volume Two (Chapters 5-15). (eds. J. R. Timberlake & S. L. Childes), pp.231-266.Biodiversity Foundation for Africa Bulawayo.Cotterill, F. P. D. ( 2006) The evolutionary history and taxonomy of the Kobus leche species complex of South-Central Africa in the context of palaeo-drainage dynamics. PhD Thesis. University of Stellenbosch,Stellenbosch, South Africa.Cowling R.M., Lombard A.T., Rouget M., Kerley G.I.H., Wolf T., Sims-Castley R., Knight, A., Vlok J.H.J.,Pierce S.M., Boshoff A.F., & Wilson, S. L. (2003) A conservation assessment for the SubtropicalThicket Biome. No. 43, 112pp + appendices. Terrestrial Ecology Research Unit (TERU), PortElizabeth.Cowling, R. M., Pressey, R. L., Lombard, A. T., Desmet, P. G. & Ellis, A. G. (1999) From representation topersistence: requirements for a sustainable system of conservation areas in the species-richMediterranean-climate desert of southern Africa. Diversity and Distributions, 5, 51-71.Cumming, D., Biggs, H., Kock, M., Shongwe, N., and Osofsky, S. (2007) The AHEAD (Animal Health forEnvironment And Development) - Great Limpopo Transfrontier Conservation Area (GLTFCA)Programme: Key questions and conceptual framework revisited. 14pp. Wildlife Conservation Society,http://wcs-ahead.org/workinggrps_limpopo.html.Cumming, D. and Jones, B. (2005) Elephants in southern Africa: management issues and options. WWF-SARPO Occasional Paper Series No. 11, 98pp. WWF Southern Africa Regional Programme Office,Harare, Zimbabwe.Cumming, D. H. M. (1984) Establishing priorities for funding and other international support for protected areasin Africa. pp 108-113, In. Proceedings of the 22nd Working Session Committee on National Parks andProtected Areas. 22-27 May, 1983, Victoria Falls, Zimbabwe. IUCN, Gland.Cumming, D. H. M. (1991) Wildlife products and the market place: A view from southern Africa. WildlifeProduction: Conservation and Sustainable Development. (eds. L. A. Renecker & R. J. Hudson), pp.11-30.University of Alaska, Fairbanks. Fairbanks, Alaska.Cumming, D. H. M. (1999) Study on the Development of Transboundary Natural Resource Management Areasin Southern Africa, Environmental Context: Natural Resources, Land Use, and Conservation.Biodiversity Support Program, Washington, DC, USA. (66 pp. + 44 Figs.).Cumming, D. H. M. (2004a) Sustaining animal health and ecosystem services in large landscapes-2nd draft-Concept for a programme to address wildlife, livestock and related human and ecosystem health issuesin the Greater Limpopo Trans-frontier Conservation Area. 24pp. Wildlife Conservation Society,Cumming, D. H. M. (2004b) Chapter 13. Movements and migrations of large mammals in the Four Cornersarea. Biodiversity of the Four Corners Area: Technical Reviews, Volume Two (Chapters 5-15). (eds J.R. Timberlake & S. L. Childes), pp. 447-460. Biodiversity Foundation for Africa, Bulawayo.Cumming, D. H. M. (2004c) Park Performance in a Century of Change. Parks in Transition: Biodiversity,Rural Development and the Bottom Line. (ed. B. Child), pp. 105-124.Earthscan, London.Cumming, D. H. M. (2005) Wildlife, livestock and food security in the South East Lowveld of Zimbabwe.Conservation and development interventions at the wildlife/livestock interface: implications forwildlife, livestock and human health. (eds S. A. Osofsky, S. Cleaveland, W. B. Karesh, M. D. Kock, P.J. Nyhus, L. Starr & A. Yang), pp. 41-48, .IUCN - The World Conservation Union. Gland,Switzerland and Cambridge, UK.

Large scale conservation planning - KAZA TFCA 87Cumming, D. H. M (2006) Stakeholder Workshop to Explore Options for the Management of Elephant, andother Wildlife Resources, in Hwange National Park and Surrounding Areas. Workshop Report. 37pp.National Parks & Wildlife Management Authority, Harare.Cumming, D. H. M. (2007) Transfrontier conservation areas, animal diseases, and human livelihoods: issues ofsystem health and sustainability. Protected areas and human livelihoods. (eds K. H. Redford & E.Fearn), pp. 160-170. Wildlife Conservation Society, New York.Cumming, D. H. M., du Toit, R. F. & Stuart, S. N. (1990) African elephants and rhinos: Status survey andconservation action plan. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland.Cumming D H M, Fenton M B, Rautenbach I L, Taylor R D, Cumming G S, Cumming M S, Dunlop J M, FordG A, Hovorka M D, Jonston D S, Kalcounis M, Mahlangu Z & Portfors C V R (1997) Elephants,Woodlands and Biodiversity in Southern Africa. South African Journal of Science., 93, 231-236.Cumming, D. H. M., Guveya, E., and Matose, F. (2002) A Framework for Examining Social-ecologicalLinkages in the Conservation of the Miombo Ecoregion. 45pp. WWF Southern Africa RegionalProgramme Office, Harare.Cumming, D. H. M. and Jackson, P. (1984) Proceedings of the IUCN/SSC African Elephant Specialist Groupand African Rhino Specialist Group Joint Meeting , Wankie Safari Lodge, Zimbabwe. ( Ed. IUCN,Gland.Cumming, D. H. M. and Lynam, T. J. P. (1997) Land use changes, wildlife conservation and utilisation, andthe sustainability of agro-ecosystems in the Zambezi Valley: Final Technical Report - Volume 1.European Union Contract B7-5040/93/06. 138pp. WWF Programme Office, Harare, Zimbabwe.Cumming, G. S., Cumming , D. H. M. & Redman, C. (2006) Scale mismatches in social-ecological systems:causes, consequences and solutions. Ecology and Society, 11, 14. [online] URL:http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/iss1/art14/.Daily, G. C. (1997) Introduction: what are ecosystem services? Nature's services: societal dependence onnatural ecosystems. (ed G. C. Daily), pp. 1-10. Island Press Washington, DC.Damschen, E. A., Haddad, N. M., Orrock, J. L., Tewksbury, J. J. & Levey, D. J. (2006) Corridors Increase PlantSpecies Richness at Large Scales. Science, 313, 1284-1286.Dangerfield, J. M. (2004) Chapter 11. Soil fauna of the Four Corners area. Biodiversity of the Four CornersArea: Technical Reviews, Volume Two (Chapters 5-15). (eds J. R. Timberlake & S. L. Childes), pp.411-426. Biodiversity Foundation for Africa, Bulawayo.de Groot, R. S., Wilson, M. A. & Boumans, R. M. J. (2002) A typology for the classification, description andvaluation of ecosystem functions, goods and services. Ecological Economics, 41, 393-408.Drechsel, P., Gyiele, L., Kunze, D. & Cofie, O. (2001) Population density, soil nutrient depletion, and economicgrowth in sub-Saharan Africa. Ecological Economics, 38, 251-258.du Toit, R. F. (1992) Large-Scale Wildlife Conservancies in Zimbabwe: Opportunities for CommercialConservation of Endangered Species. Wildlife Ranching. A Celebration of Diversity. (eds. van Hoven,W., Ebedes, H., and Conroy, A.), South African Game Organization, Pretoria.,Dunham, K. M. (2008) Detection of anthropogenic mortality in elephant Loxodonta africana populations: along-term case study from the Sebungwe region of Zimbabwe. Oryx, 42, 36-48.East, R. (1998) African antelope database 1998. 434pp. IUCN Species Survival Commission, AntelopeSpecialist Group, Gland.Eken, G., Bennun, L., Brooks, T. M., Darwall, W., Fishpool, L. D. C., Foster, M., Knox, D., Langhammer, P.,Matiku, P., Radford, E., Salaman, P., Sechrest, W., Smith, M. L., Spector, S. & Tordoff, A. (2004) Keybiodiversity areas as site conservation targets. BioScience, 54, 1110-1118.Emerton, L. (2001) Economic Measures for Biodiversity Planning: An Annotated Bibliography of Methods,Experiences and Cases. IUCN – The World Conservation Union, Eastern Africa Regional Office,Nairobi.Emerton, L. (2005) Values and Rewards: Counting and Capturing Ecosystem Water Services for SustainableDevelopment. IUCN Water, Nature and Economics Technical Paper No. 1. Gland, IUCN - The WorldConservation Union, Ecosystems and Livelihoods Group Asia.Erasmus, B. F. N., Van Jaarsveld, A. S. & Chown, S. L. (2002) Vulnerability of South African animal taxa toclimate change. Global Climate Change Biology, 8, 679-693.

Large scale conservation planning - KAZA TFCA 88Farber, S. C., Costanza, R. & Wilson, M. A. (2002) Economic and ecological concepts for valuing ecosystemservices. Ecological Economics, 41, 375-372.Fischer, B. & Turner, R. K. (2008) Ecosystem services: classification for valuation. Biological Conservation, InPress, 1-3.Fishpool, L. D. C. & Evans, M. I. (Eds.) (2001) Important bird areas in Africa and associated islands. Priorityareas for conservation. Birdlife International & Pisces Publications, Cambridge.Fleishman, E., Blair, R. B. & Murphy, D. D. (2001) Empirical validation of a method for umbrella speciesselection. Ecological Applications, 11, 1489-1501.Freitag, S., van Jaarsveld, A. S. & Biggs, H. C. (1997) Ranking priority biodiversity areas: an iterativeconservation value-based approach. Biological Conservation, 82, 263-272.Frost, P. G. H. (199?) Community-based management of fire: lessons from the Western Province in Zambia.Report on public policies affecting forest fires. Unpublished Report. Lusaka, Government of Zambia.Gardiner, A. (2004) Chapter 10. Butterflies of the Four Corners area. Biodiversity of the Four Corners Area:Technical Reviews, Volume Two (Chapters 5-15). (eds J. R. Timberlake & S. L. Childes), pp. 383-408. Biodiversity Foundation for Africa, Bulawayo.Garner, A., Rachlow, J. L. & Hicks, J. F. (2005) Patterns of genetic diversity and its loss in mammalianpopulations. Conservation Biology, 19, 1215-1221.Golding, J. S. ed. (2002) Southern Africa Plant Red Data Lists. Southern African Botanical Diversity NetworkReport No. 14, SABONET, Pretoria .Government of Botswana (2007) Government Policy Paper No. 2 of 2007. Community based natural resourcesmanagement policy. Government Printer, Gaborone.Griffin, M. & Grobler, H. J. W. (1991) Wetland-associated mammals of Namibia - a national review. Madoqua,17, 233-237.Gunderson, L. H. & Holling, C. S. (2002) Panarchy: understanding transformations in human and naturalsystems. Island Press, Washington, D.C.Hannah, L., Wetterberg, G., and Duvall, L. (1988) Botswana biological diversity assessment. 77pp +appendices. USAID, Bureau for Africa, Office of Technical Resources, Natural Resources Branch,Washington, DC.Hansen, A. (1994) The illusion of local sustainability and self sufficiency: famine in a border area ofnorthwestern Zambia. Human Organisation , 53, 11-20.Herremans, M. (1999) Waterbird diversity, densities, communities and seasonality in the Kalahari Basin,Botswana. Journal of Arid Environments, 43, 319-350.Higgins, J. V., Bryer, T., Khoury, M. L. & Fitzhugh, T. W. (2005) A freshwater classification approach forbiodiversity conservation planning. Conservation Biology, 19, 432-445.Hobbs, R. J. (1992) The role of corridors in conservation: solution or bandwagon. TREE, 7, 389-392.Holling, C. S. (2001) Understanding the complexity of economic, ecological, and social systems. Ecosystems ,4, 390-405.Holling C. S. & Meffe, G. K. (1996) Command and control and the pathology of natural resource management.Conservation Biology, 10, 328-337.Huebschle, O. B. J., Bamhare, O. & Tjipura-Zaire, G. (2007) The situation of CBPP in Namibia in view of anew outbreak in the Caprivi region. Accessed June 2008.Hughes, D. A., Anderssen, L. W. J. & Savenije, H. H. G. (2006) Regional calibration of the Pitman model forthe Okavango River. Journal of Hydrology, 331, 30-42.Hulme, M. (1996) Climate Change and Southern Africa: an exploration of some potential impacts andimplications in the SADC region. Climate Research Unit, University of East Anglia, Norwich, U.K.Humphrey, G. J. ( 2008) Influence of large termitaria on species composition and tree height structure in amodified Brachystegia/Julbernardia miombo woodland in Chizarira National Park, Zimbabwe. M.Sc.Thesis, Percy FitzPatrick Institute of African Ornithology. University of Cape Town, Cape Town,South Africa.

Large scale conservation planning - KAZA TFCA 89Huntley, B. J. (1974) Outlines of conservation in Angola. Journal of the Southern Africa Wildlife ManagementAssociation, 4, 157-166.IPCC (2007a) Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report. Summary for Policy Makers. An assessment of theIntergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 22pp.IPCC (2007b) Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working GroupII to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. M.L. Parry,O.F. Canziani, J.P. Palutikof, P.J. van der Linden, C.E. Hanson, Eds.. Cambridge University Press,Cambridge, UK, 976pp.IUCN/UNEP (1987) The IUCN Directory of Afrotropical Protected Areas. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland andCambridge, UK xix +1034pp.Johnstone, P. A. (1975) Evaluation of a Rhodesian game ranch. Journal of the Southern African WildlifeManagement Association, 5, 43-51.Jones, B. T. B. (2008) Legislation and Policies relating to Protected Areas, Wildlife Conservation, andCommunity Rights to Natural Resources in countries being partner in the Kavango ZambeziTransfrontier Conservation Area. First Draft. 75pp. Windhoek.Joseph, G. J. ( 2008) Large termitaria provide refugia for cavity-using birds in a modified miombo woodlandsystem. M. Sc. Thesis, Percy Fitzpatrick Institute of African Ornithology. University of Cape Town,Cape Town.Justus, J. S. S. (2002) The principle of complementarity in the design of reserve networks to conservebiodiversity: a preliminary history. Journal of Bioscience, 27, 421-435.Katerere, Y., Hill, R., and Moyo, S. A. (2001) Critique of Transboundary Natural Resource Management inSouthern Africa. Paper no.1, IUCN-ROSA Series on Transboundary Natural Resource Management,36. Harare, IUCN-ROSA.Knight, A. T. & Cowling, R. M. (2007) Embracing opportunism in the selection of conservation areas.Conservation Biology, 21, 1124-1126.Knight, A. T., Cowling, R. M. & Campbell, B. M. (2006a) An operational model for implementingconservation. Conservation Biology, 20, 408-419.Knight, A. T., Driver, A., Cowling, R. M., Maze, K., Desmet, P. G., Lombard, A. T., Rouget, M., Botha, M. A.,Boshoff, A. F., Castley, J. G., Goodman, P. S., Mackinnon, K., Pierce, S. M., Sims-Castley, R.,Stewart, W. I. & von Hase, A. (2006b) Designing systematic conservation assessments that promoteeffective implementation: best practice from South Africa. Conservation Biology, 20, 739-750.Knight, A. T., Smith, R. J., Cowling, R. M., Desmet, P. G., Faith, D. R., Ferrier, S., Gelderblom, C. M., Hedley,G., Lombard, A. T., Maze, C., Nel, J. L., Parrish, J. D., Pence, G. Q. K., Possingham, H. R., Reyers, B.,Rouget, M., Roux, D. & Wilson, K. E. (2007a) Improving the key biodiversity areas approach foreffective conservation planning. BioScience, 57, 256-261.Koch, E., de Beer, G. & Elliffe, S. e. al. (1998) International perspectives on tourism-led development: somelessons for the SDIs. Development Southern Africa, 15, 907-914.Kremen, C., Cameron, A., Moilanen, A., Phillips, S. J., Thomas, C. D., Beentje, H., Dransfield, J., Fisher, B. L.,Glaw, F., Good, T. C., Harper, G. J., Hijmans, R. J., Lees, D. C., Louis, Jr. E., Nussbaum, R. A.,Raxworthy, C. J., Razafimpahanana, A., Schatz, G. E., Vences, M., Vieites, D. R., Wright, P. C. &Zjhra, M. L. (2008) Aligning conservation priorities across taxa in Madagascar with high-resolutionplanning tools. Science, 320, 222-226.Langhammer, P. F., Bakarr, M. I., Bennun, L. A., Brooks, T. M., Clay, R. P., Darwall, W., De Silva, N., Edgar,G. J., Eken, G., Fishpool, L. D. C., Fonseca, G. A. B. d., Foster, M. N., Knox, D. H., Matiku, P.,Radford, E. A. , Rodrigues, A. S. L., Salaman, P., Sechrest, W. & Tordoff, A. W. (2007) Identificationand Gap Analysis of Key Biodiversity Areas: Targets for Comprehensive Protected Area Systems.IUCN, Gland, Switzerland.Larsen, F. W., Bladt, J. & Rhabek, C. (2007) Improving the performance of indicator groups for theidentification of important areas for species conservation. Conservation Biology, 21, 731-740.Lent, P. C. (1969) A preliminary study of the Okavango lechwe (Kobus leche leche Gray). East African WildlifeJournal, 7, 147-157.

Large scale conservation planning - KAZA TFCA 90Levin, S. (1999) Fragile dominion: complexity and the commons. Perseus Publishing, Cambridge,Massachusetts.Luck, G. W., Daily, G. C. & Ehrlich, P. R. (2003) Population diversity and ecosystem services. Trends inEcology and Evolution, 18, 331-336.Mangani, M. P. C. (2007) Contagious bovine pleuropneumonia in Zambia. Accessed June, 2008..Margules, C. R. & Pressey, R. L. (2000) Systematic conservation planning. Nature, 405, 243-253.Marshall, B. (2004) Chapter 12. Aquatic invertebrates of the Four Corners area. Biodiversity of the FourCorners Area: Technical Reviews, Volume Two (Chapters 5-15). (eds. J. R. Timberlake & S. L.Childes), pp. 427-446. Biodiversity Foundation for Africa, Bulawayo.Martin, R. B. (1984) Communal Areas Management Programme for Indigenous Resources (CAMPFIRE).110pp. Branch of Terrestrial Ecology, Department of National Parks and Wild Life Management,Harare, Zimbabwe.Martin, R. B. (2004) Species Report for Reedbuck, Waterbuck, Lechwe and Puku. 78pp. Study conducted insupport of The Transboundary Mammal Project of the Ministry of Environment and Tourism, Namibiafacilitated by the Namibia Nature Foundation and the World Wildlife Fund LIFE Programme.,Windhoek, Namibia.Martin, R. B. (2007) Wildlife Management in the Kwando area of the Caprivi: The Mudumu North Complex.115pp. Ministry of Environment and Tourism , Windhoek, Namibia.Martin, R. B. (2008a) Development of Strategic Options to Improve the Performance of The BotswanaDepartment of Wildlife and National Parks. Final Report. 58pp. Atos Origin, Belgium, & Departmentof Wildlife and National Parks, Ministry of Environment Wildlife & Tourism, Botswana,Martin, R. B. (2008b) Potential of tourism-based business of Kafue National Park and associated GMAs. 58pp.Unpublished Consultant's Report,Mbaiwa, J. E. (2003) The socio-economic and environmental impacts of tourism development on the OkavangoDelta, north-western Botswana. Journal of Arid Environments, 54, 447-457.Mbaiwa, J. E. (2005) Wildlife resource utilisation at Moremi Game Reserve and Khwai community area in theOkavango Delta, Botswana. Journal of Environmental Management, 77, 144-156.McClanahan, T. R., Cinner, J. E., Maina, J., Graham, N. A. J., Daw, T. M., Stead, S. M., Wamukota, A., Brown,K., Ateweberhan, M., Venus, V. & Polunin, N. V. C. (2008) Conservation action in a changing climate.Conservation Letters, 1, 53-59.Mendelsohn, J. & el Obied, S. (2003) Sand and water: a profile of the Kavango region. Struik Publishers, CapeTown.Mendelsohn, J. & el Obied, S. (2004) Okavango River: The flow of a lifeline. Struik Publishers, Cape Town.Mendelsohn, J. & Roberts, C. (1997) An environmental profile and atlas of Caprivi. Directorate ofEnvironmental Affairs, Windhoek, Namibia.Metcalfe, S. C. ( 2006) Communal Land reform in Zambia: governance, livelihood and conservation. M.Phil.Programme for Land and Agrarian Studies (PLAAS), Faculty of Economic and Management Sciences,University of the Western Cape., Cape Town.Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) Chapter 1, MA Conceptual Framework. Millennium EcosystemAssessment, 2005. pp. 22-33. World Resources Institute Washington, DC.Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2. (2005) Ecosystems and human well-being: wetlands and water synthesis.World Resources Institute, Washington, DC.Mittermeier, R. A., Mittermeier, C. G., Brooks, T. M. P. J. D., Konstant, W. R., da Fonseca, G. A. B. &Kormos, C. (2003) Wilderness and biodiversity conservation. Proceedings National Academy ofSciences, 100, 10309-10313.Moore, A. (2004) Chapter 2. The geomorphology of the Four Corners area. Biodiversity of the Four CornersArea: Technical Reviews, Volume One (Chapters 1-4). (eds J. R. Timberlake & S. L. Childes), pp. 27-66. Biodiversity Foundation for Africa, Bulawayo, Zimbabwe.

Large scale conservation planning - KAZA TFCA 91Mundy, P. (2004) Chapter 7. Birds of the Four Corners area. Biodiversity of the Four Corners Area: TechnicalReviews, Volume Two (Chapters 5-15). (eds. J. R. Timberlake & S. L. Childes), pp. 269-312.Biodiversity Foundation for Africa, Bulawayo.Murindagomo, F. ( 1997) Wildlife, cattle and comparative advantage in semi-arid communal lands andimplications for agropastoral options and government policy: a case study in the Sebungwe region,Zimbabwe. D. Phil Thesis. Department of Agricultural Economics and Extension, University ofZimbabwe, Harare.Musisi, F. L., Dungu, B., Thwala, R., Mogajane, M. E. & Mtei, B. J (2007) The threat of contagious bovinepleuropneumonia and challenges for its control in the SADC region. Accessed June 2008,.NACSO (2004) Namibia's communal conservancies: a review of progress and challenges. NACSO,Windhoek.Nakayama, M. (1998) Politics behind Zambezi Action Plan. Water Policy, 1, 397-401.Norberg, J. (1999) Linking Nature's services to ecosystems: some general ecological concepts. EcologicalEconomics, 29, 183-202.Northon-Griffiths, M. (2007) How many wildebeest do you need? World Economics, 8, 41-64.O'Brien, E. M. (1993) Climatic gradients in woody plant species richness: towards an explanation based on ananalysis of southern Africa's woody flora. Journal of Biogeography, 20, 181-198.O'Brien, E. M., Whittaker, R. J. & Field, R. (1998) Climate and woody plant diversity in southern Africa:relationships at species, genus and family levels. Ecography, 21, 495-509.O'Connor, P. W. & Thomas, D. S. G. (1999) The timing and environmental significance of late Quaternarylinear dune development in Western Zambia. Quaternary Research , 52, 44-55.Osofsky, S. A., Cumming, D. H. M. & Kock, M. D. (2008) Transboundary Management of Natural Resourcesand the Importance of a “One Health” Approach: Perspectives on Southern Africa. State of the wild: aglobal portrait of wildlife, wildlands, and oceans. (eds. E. Fearn & K. H. Redford), pp. 89-98, .IslandPress Washington.Ostrom, E. (2007) A diagnostic approach for going beyond panaceas. Proceedings of the National Academy ofSciences, 104, 15181-15187.Ostrom, E. and Janssen, M. A. (2002) Beliefs, multi-level governance, and development. Workshop in politicaltheory and policy analysis. Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association.Bloomington.Parker, I. S. C. (1984) Conservation of the African elephant. Proceedings of IUCN/SSC African ElephantSpecialist Group and African Rhino Specialist Group Joint Meeting . (eds. Cumming, D. H. M. andJackson, P. ), IUCN, Gland, Switzerland.Patz, J. A., Daszak, P., Tabor, G. M., Aguirre, A. A., Pearl, M., Epstein, J., Wolfe, N. D., Kilpatrick, A. M.,Foufopoulos, J., Molyneuz, D., Bradley, D. J. & Members of the Working Group and Land UseChange and Disease Emergence. (2004) Unhealthy landscapes: policy recommendations on land usechanges and infectious diseases emergence. Environmental Health Perspectives, 112, 995-997.Perkins, J. S. (2005) Status and perspectives of regional tourism in the context of the KAZA-TFCA initiative.79 pp. In: WEnt Internationale Weiterbildung und Entwicklung gGmbH, Transnet Programme andBiotrack Botswana (Pty) Ltd, Gaborone ,Poiani, K. A., Richter, B. D., Anderson, M. G. & Richter, H. E. (2000) Biodiversity conservation at multiplescales: Functional sites, landscapes, and networks. Bioscience, 50, 133-146.Porporato, A., Laio, F., Ridolfi, L., Caylor, K. K. & Rodriguez-Iturbe, I. (2003) Soil moisture and plant stressdynamics along the Kalahari precipitation gradient. Journal of Geophysical Research, 108.Poynton, J. C. & Broadley, D. G. (1985a) Amphibia Zambeziaca 1: Scolecomorphidae, Pipidae, Microhylidae,Hemisidae, Arthroleptidae. Annals Natal Museum, 26, 503-553.Poynton, J. C. & Broadley, D. G. (1985b) Amphibia Zambeziaca 2: Ranidae. Annals Natal Museum, 27, 115-181.Poynton, J. C. & Broadley, D. G. (1987) Amphibia Zambeziaca 3: Rhacophoridae and Hyperolidae. AnnalsNatal Museum, 28, 161-229.

Large scale conservation planning - KAZA TFCA 92Poynton, J. C. & Broadley, D. G. (1988) Amphibia Zambeziaca 4: Bufonidae. Annals Natal Museum, 29, 447-490.Poynton, J. C. & Broadley, D. G. (1991) Amphibia Zambeziaca 5: Zoogeography. Annals Natal Museum, 32,221-277.Pressey, R. L. & Cowling, R. M. (2001) Reserve selection algorithms and the real world. Conservation Biology,15, 275-277.Pressey, R. L. & Logan, V. S. (1995) Reserve coverage and requirements in relation to partitioning andgeneralization of land classes: analyses for Western New South Wales. Conservation Biology, 9, 1506-1517.Ramberg, L., Hancock, P., Lindholm, M., Meyer, T., Ringrose, S., Sliva, J., Van As, J. & VanderPost, C. (2006)Species diversity of the Okavango Delta, Botswana. Aquatic Science , 68, 310-337.Ringrose, S., VanderPost, C. & Matheson, W. (1997) Use of image processing and GIS techniques to determinethe extent and possible causes of land management/fenceline induced degradation problems in theOkavango area, northern Botswana. International Journal of Remote Sensing, 18, 2337-2364.Rondinini, C. & Boitani, L. (2007) Systematic conservation planning and the cost of tackling conservationconflicts with large carnivores in Italy. Conservation Biology, 21, 1455-1462.Rondinini, C., Stuart, S. & Boitani, L. (2005) Habitat suitability models and the shortfall in conservationplanning for African vertebrates. Conservation Biology, 19, 1488-1497.Root, K. V., Akcakaya, R. & Ginsburg, L. (2003) A multispecies approach to ecological evaluation andconservation. Conservation Biology, 17, 196-206.Rouget, M., Cowling, R. M., Lombard, A. T., Knight, A. T. & Kerley, G. I. H. (2006) Designing large-scaleconservation corridors for pattern and process. Conservation Biology, 20, 549-561.Ruitenbeek, J. and Cartier, C. (2001) The invisible wand: adaptive co-management as an emergent strategy incomplex bio-economic systems. Occasional Paper 34, 47pp. CIFOR , Bogor.SADC (1999) . Protocol on Wildlife Conservation and Law Enforcement. Accessed June 2008

Large scale conservation planning - KAZA TFCA 93Smith, R. J., Easton, J., Nhancalea, B. A., Armstrong, A. J., Culverwell, J., Dlamini, S. D., Goodman, P. S.,Loffler, L., Matthews, W. S., Monadjem, A., Mulqueeny, C. M., Ngwenya, P., Ntumi, C. P., Soto, B. &Leader-Williams, N. (2008) Designing a transfrontier conservation landscape for the Maputalandcentre of endemism using biodiversity, economic and threat data. Biological Conservation, In Press(URL: doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2008.06.010).Smithers, R. H. N. (1971) The mammals of Botswana. Memoirs of the National Museums and Monuments ofRhodesia, 4, 1-340.Stokes, S., Haynes, G., Thomas, D. S. G., Horrocks, J. L., Higginson, M. & Malifa, M. (1998) Punctuatedaridity in southern Africa during the last glacial cycle: The chronology of linear dune construction inthe northeastern Kalahari. PALAEO (Geography, Climatology, Ecology), 137, 305-322.Stokes, S., Thomas, D. S. G. & Washington, R. (1997) Multiple episodes of aridity in southern Africa since thelast interglacial period. Nature, 388, 154-158.Swallow, B., Kallesoe, M., Iftikhar, U., van Noordwijk, M., Bracer, C., Scherr, S., Raju, K. V., Poats, S.,Duraiappah, A., Ochieng, B., Mallee, H., and Rumley, R. (2007) Compensation and Rewards forEnvironmental Services in the Developing World: Framing Pan-Tropical Analysis and Comparison.ICRAF Working Paper No. 32, World Agroforestry Centre., Nairobi.Taylor, R. D. and Murphree, M. W. (2007) Successful southern Africa NRM projects and their effect onpoverty and governance. Zimbabwe: Masoka and Gairezi. 92pp. IUCN South Africa Country Office ,Pretoria, South Africa .Taylor, R. D. & Martin R. B. (1987) Effects of veterinary fences on wildlife conservation in Zimbabwe.Environmental Management, 11, 327-334.Thomas, D. S. G., Knight, M. & Wiggs, G. F. S. (2005) Remobilization of southern Africa desert dune systemsby twenty-first century global warming. Nature, 435, 1218-1221.Thomas, D. S. G., O'Connor, P. W., Bateman, M. D., Shaw, S., Stokes, S. & Nash. D. J. (2000) Dune activity asa record of late Quaternary aridity in the Northern Kalahari: new evidence for Northern Namibiainterpreted in the context of regional arid and humid chronologies. Palaeogeography,Palaeoclimateology, Palaeoecology, 156, 243-259.Thomas, D. S. G. & Twyman, C. (2005) Equity and justice in climate change adaptation amongst naturalresource-dependentsocieties. Global Environmental Change, 15, 115-124.Thomson, G. (2008) A short overview of regional positions on foot-and-mouth disease control in southernAfrica. Transboundary animal disease and market access: future options for the beef industry insouthern Africa. Working Paper 2, Institute of Development Studies, Brighton.Thuiller, W., Broennimann, O., Hughes, G., Alkemade, J. R. M., Midgley, G. F. & Corsi, F. (2006)Vulnerability of African mammals to anthropogenic climate change under conservative landtransformation assumptions. Global Change Biology, 12, 424-440.Timberlake, J. (1998) Biodiversity of the Zambezi Basin Wetlands: Review and preliminary assessment ofavailable information. Phase 1. Final Report. 232pp. Biodiversity Foundation for Africa, Bulawayo .Timberlake, J. R. (2004) Chapter 5. Plants of the Four Corners area. Biodiversity of the Four Corners Area:Technical Reviews, Volume Two (Chapters 5-15). (eds J. R. Timberlake & S. L. Childes), pp. 155-228. Biodiversty Foundation for Africa Bulawayo, Zimbabwe.Timberlake, J. R. & Childes, S. L. (eds.) (2004) Biodiversity of the Four Corners Area. BiodiversityFoundation for Africa, Bulawayo, Zimbabwe.Tipping, R., Buchanan, J., Davies, A. & Tisdall, E. (1999) Woodland biodiversity, palaeo-human ecology andsome implications for conservation management. Journal of Biogeography, 26, 33-43.Transfrontier Conservation Consortium (2006a) Final Report: Pre-feasibility study of the proposed Kavango-Zambezi transfrontier Conservation Area. Volume 1. 109pp. Peace Parks Foundation , Stellenbosch,South Africa.Transfrontier Conservation Consortium (2006b) Final Report: Pre-feasibility study of the proposed Kavango-Zambezi transfrontier Conservation Area. Volume 2. Annexes. 18pp. Peace Parks Foundation ,Stellenbosch, South Africa.

Large scale conservation planning - KAZA TFCA 94Turpie, J., Barnes, J., Arntzen, J., Nherera, B., Lange, G-M, and Buzwani, B. (2006) Economic value of theOkavango Delta, Botswana, and its implications for management. 139pp. IUCN-Regional Office forSouthern Africa, Harare.Turpie, J., Smith, B., Emerton, L., and Barnes, J. (1999) Economic value of the Zambezi Basin wetlands.346pp. IUCN-Regional Office for Southern Africa, Harare.Turton, A., Ashton, P. & and Cloete, E. (2003) An Introduction to the Hydropolitical Drivers in the OkavangoRiver Basin. Transboundary Rivers, Sovereignty and Development: Hydropolitical Drivers in theOkavango River Basin. (ed A. A. P. &. C. E. Turton), pp. 9-30.African Water Issues Research Unitand Green Cross International, University Pretoria, Pretoria.Vale, G. A., Lovemore, D. F., Flint, S. & Cockbill, G. F. (1988) Odour-baited targets to control tsetse flies,Glossina spp., in Zimbabwe. Bulletin of Entomological Research , 78, 31-49.van Aarde, R. J. & Jackson, T. P. (2007) Megaparks for metapopulations: addressing the causes of locally highelephant numbers in southern Africa. Biological Conservation, 134, 289-297.Walker, B. & Salt, D. (2006) Resilience thinking; sustaining ecosystems and people in a changing world. IslandPress, Washington, D.C..Wallace, K. J. (2007) Classification of ecosystem services: problems and solutions. Biological Conservation ,139, 235-246.Wallace, K. J. (2008) Ecosystem services: multiple classifications or confusion? Biological Conservation , 141,353-354.Weaver, L. C. & Skyer, P. (2005) Conservancies: Integrating wildlife land-use options into the livelihood,development and conservation strategies of Namibian communities. Conservation and developmentinterventions at the wildlife/livestock interface: implications for wildlife, livestock and human health.(eds S. A. Osofsky, S. Cleaveland, W. B. Karesh, M. D. Kock, P. J. Nyhus, L. Starr & A. Yang), pp.89-104 .IUCN - The World Conservation Union. Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK.White, F. (1983) The vegetation of Africa. UNESCO, Paris.Wilcox, B. A. & Colwell, R. R. (2005) Emerging and reemerging infectious diseases: biocomplexity as aninterdisciplinary paradigm. EcoHealth, 2, 244-257.Wild, H. & Grandvaux Barbosa, L. A. (1967) Vegetation Map of the Flora Zambesiaca area. GovernmentPrinter, Salisbury, Rhodesia.Williamson, D. T. (1986) Notes on the sitatunga in the Linyanti Swamp, Botswana. African Journal of Ecology,24, 293-297.Williamson, D. T. (1990) Habitat selection by red lechwe (Kobus leche leche Gray, 1950). African Journal ofEcology, 28, 89-101.Wilson, M. A. & Howarth, R. B. (2002) Discourse-based valuation of ecosystem services: establishing fairoutcomes through group deliberation. Ecological Economics, 41, 431-442.Wilson, V. J. (1975) The mammals of Wankie National Park, Rhodesia. Memoirs of the National Museums andMonuments of Rhodesia, 5, 1-147.Windsor, R. S. & Wood, A. (1998) Contagious Bovine Pleuropneumonia: The Costs of Control inCentral/Southern Africa. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 849, 299-306.Winston, M. R. & Angermeier, P. L. (1995) Assessing conservation value using centers of population density.Conservation Biology, 9, 1518-1527.Zambia Wildlife Management Authority (2008) Integrated Development Plan for the Zambian component ofthe Kavango-Zambezi Transfrontier Conservation Area. 146pp. Zambia Wildlife ManagementAuthority, Chilanga, Zambia.

Large scale conservation planning - KAZA TFCA 95Annex 1. Summary characterization of conservation areas in the KAZA TFCA (Levels of ecosystem service provision are indicated for Wetlands (Wet),Forest and woodlands (For), Grazing and forage (Graz), Recreation (Rec) at High (H), Medium (M) and Low (L) levels and an estimate of intactness (Int) is imndicated on ascale of 1- 5)Area Landscapes & habitats Key mammal and bird species /Ecosystem servicespopulations and endemics Wet For Graz Recr IntANGOLALuiana Partial Extensive plains drained by • Lion, cheetah, wild dog, leopard, hyaenaReserveKwando and Luiana rivers with • Red lechwe, puku, hippo sitatunga, elephant,8,400 km2marshes on main rivers. Burkea, buffalo, oribi, sable, roan, wildebeestM L ? ? 51966Baikiaea and mopane woodlands • Wattled crane, slaty egret (?)1Kalahari dune systemMavinga PartialReserve5,950 km21966Undulating plains with marshes onrivers, Brachystegia bakeranathickets, Baikiaea-Burkeawoodlands and Kalahari dunes• Lion, cheetah, wild dog, leopard, hyaena• Red lechwe, puku, hippo sitatunga, elephant,buffalo, oribi, sable, roan, wildebeest• Wattled crane, slaty egret (?)H L ? ? 5Key conservation issues &conservation statusCivil war zone - mine fieldsUndeveloped, little recent data on statusRefugees will return when minefieldsclearedCivil war zone - mine fieldsUndeveloped, little recent data on statusRefugees will return when minefieldsclearedLonga-Mavinga No data – probably as above • No data – probably as aboveCoutadaMucosso Coutada No data – probably as above • No data – probably as above25,000 km 2Luengue Coutada No data – probably as above • No data – probably as above16,700 km2Luiana CoutadaXxxx km 2 No data – probably as above • No data – probably as aboveBOTSWANAChobe National Park9,980 km 2GR in 1961 NP in1968Makgadikgadi PanNP4,140 km 2GR in 1970NP in ???Nxai Pan NP2,590 km 2 kChobe River Acacia riparian,Mababe depression and pans alongfossil rivers, Savuti Marsh,Baikiaea and C. mopanewoodlandsLarge salt pan with halophyticgrassy plains and palm trees (H.vetnricosa)Fossil lake bed with 2 pans,halophytic grasslands andscattered islands of trees, withHyphaene ventricosa• Highest density of elephants in Africa• Annual wildebeest-zebra migration• Lion, leopard, hyaena, wild dog, cheetah• Puku, red lechwe, sitatunga, buffalo• Slaty egret• Key breeding area for flamingoes and pelicans• Migration area for wildebeest and zebra• Lion, cheetah• Springbok, gemsbok• Palm nut vulture• Migratory area for wildebeest and zebra• Lion, cheetah, aardwolf• GiraffeM M M H 3H - - L 2M - L L 2High elephant density and loss of riparianhabitat along the Chobe RiverHigh elephant and fire impacts in drywoodlandsOnly western part of the pan in NPFences restricting movement of zebra andwildebeestLions and Human-Wildlife (H-WC)ConflictFences constraining migrationsMian road Francistown to Maun (?fencing)

Large scale conservation planning - KAZA TFCA 96Area Landscapes & habitats Key mammal and bird species /Ecosystem servicespopulations and endemics Wet For Graz Recr IntMoremi Game Part of Okavango delta with • Red lechwe, sitatunga, hippoReserveswamps and seasonal flood plains, • Lion, leopard, hyaena, cheetah, wild dog1,800 km 2mopane woodland on Chief’s • Slaty egret, wattled crane, Pel’s fishing owl H M M H 3Tribal GR declared Island, Acacia, Combretum and1962 Gazetted 1965 Terminalia woodlandsChobe ForestReserve2,400 km 21976Swamps and flood plains along theLinyanti, Baikiaea woodlands• Sable, hippo, buffalo• Lion, wild dog• White pelicanKazuma FR128 km 2 Baikiaea /Burkea woodlands No data not leasedKasane FRBaikiaea /Burkea woodlands No data not leased1,200 km 2Sibuyu FRBaikiaea /Burkea woodlands No data – not leased in 20081,010 km 2Maikaelolo FR Baikiaea /Burkea woodlands No data - commercial non-hunting lease300 km 2Okavango Delta~ 13,800 km 2 Full range of wetland habitats withmopane woodlands on sandveldtongues projecting into the deltaChobe WMA Situated south-east of Chobe NP2,436 km 2 and a link between the NP andSibuyu FRDivided into three separate areas:a) the Swamps, b) the northernsector to Linyanti with mopaneNgamiland WMA25,800 km 2 woodland and flooded grasslandsand swamps on the Linyanti, c) theeastern sector , east of Moremi andnorth west of Nxai Pan NP ofTerminalia savannaM H L L 3- H? L L 3?- H? L L 3?- H? L L 3?- H? L L 3?• Red lechwe, sitatunga, hippo• Lion, leopard, hyaena, cheetah, wild dog• Slaty egret, wattled crane, Pel’s fishing owlImportant Bird Area H L M H 4No data – leased to commercial huntingconcessionSwamps: as indicated above under the OkavangoDeltaNorthern sector: No data, probably as for the deltaEastern sector: no dataH L M H 4Key conservation issues &conservation statusHigh tourism pressureElephant impacts on woodlandsFire and elephants, timber leasesNo tourist facilities?? hunting blocks and quotasNo dataNo dataNo dataNo dataPossibility of over-development of tourismand resulting environmental impactsNote: it is difficult to separate the Deltafrom the Ngamiland WMA (see below)which is divided into some 43 blocks undera range of lease hold arrangements ( SeeFig. Xx)No dataThe WMA is divided into some 43 blocksthat are leased out under a variety of leasearrangements (see also above underOkavango Delta

Large scale conservation planning - KAZA TFCA 97Area Landscapes & habitats Key mammal and bird species /Ecosystem servicespopulations and endemics Wet For Graz Recr IntSituated south of Chobe District No data, 3 blocks leased to commercial huntingCentral WMA and between Ngamiland and the (?) concessions.10,890Zw borderTerminalia savanna with Baikiaeawoodlands in the eastMakgadikgadi WMA Covers much of Ntetwa and Sowa No data8,257 km 2 PansH - L L ?NAMIBIABwabwata NP5,715 km 21963 Caprivi GR200? NPHalophytic plains and palm treesKalahari sands and ancient ergs(dunes) with Baikiaea – Burkeawoodlands and shrublands andOkavango and Kwando Riverswith flood plains and aluvalriparian woodlands on western andeastern boundaries respectively• Red lechwe, hippo, sable, elephant• Includes an Important Bird AreaM H M ? 4Mudumu NP Mainly C. mopane – Burkea1010 km 2 woodland L L M ? 3Mamili NPMainly dry grasslands of the319 km 2 Kwando-LinyantiKhaudom NP3,841 km 2Key conservation issues &conservation statusNo dataCommercial salt extraction on Sowa pan?History of political unrest associated withAngolan civil warFormer San homelandDense settlement on eastern and westernriver boundariesNo dataNo dataNo dataCaprivi Forest Baikiaea - Burkea woodlands with?? km 2 sparse grass coverKwanduEffective wildlife area = 46%190 km 2 Grasslands along the Kwando withAcacia riparian woodlands onalluvial terraces and Baikiaeawoodlands away from the riverMayuniEffective wildlife area = 46%151 km 2 Habitats as for KwanduMashi CC and Effective wildlife area = 64%extensionHabitats as for Kwandu but297 km 2including mopane and Burkea+ 131 km 2 woodlands- L L ? 2Badly degraded woodlands as result of pastlogging and firesNo dataNo dataNo data

Large scale conservation planning - KAZA TFCA 98Area Landscapes & habitats Key mammal and bird species /Ecosystem servicespopulations and endemics Wet For Graz Recr IntMasida ECEffective wildlife area = 65%380 km2 (from Mopane – Burkea- Terminalia- M M L 2RBM)woodlandsBalyerwa ECC Dry grasslands and mopane?? km 2 woodlandsWuparo CCDry grasslands and mopane No data148 km 2 woodlandsMalengalenga Dry grasslands and mopane No data?? km 2 woodlands930 km 2ImpalilaNo data No dataSalambalaNo data No data?? km 2BamumuNo data No data?? km 2LuseseNo data No data?? km 2NakabolewaNo data No data?? km 2Butabaja/KapaniNo dataNo data400 km2ZAMBIAKafue NP22,400 km 21951 GR1972 NPSioma-Ngwezi NP5,276 km 2GR managed by LoziChief1972 NPUndulating plateau area with somehills, perennial swamp in NW, andfloodplain areas along KafueRiver. Mainly Miombo woodlandwith patches of CryptosepalumforestMosaic of woodlands and sandyplains – arid with few isolatedwaterholes. Baikiaea, Burkea,mopane woodlands• Wild dog, lion, leopard, hyaena• Red lechwe, elephant, buffalo, (black rhino),yellow-backed duiker, Crayshaw’s waterbuck• Wattled crane• Lion, cheetah, wild dog?• Sable, buffalo, giraffe, tsessebe,M H L M 4M M L L 2Key conservation issues &conservation statusNo dataNo dataNo dataNo dataUnder resourced park managementItshe-teshe dam on the Kafue floodedabout 300km 2 of the parkLusaka – Mongu main road bisects theparkWildlife populations low – poaching?Settlement, refugees, poaching, bushfires, teak extractionMinimal development but depeletedwildlife populations

Large scale conservation planning - KAZA TFCA 99Area Landscapes & habitats Key mammal and bird species /Ecosystem servicespopulations and endemics Wet For Graz Recr IntLiuwa Plain NP• Large seasonal wildebeest migration3,660 km 2• Red lechwe, buffalo, Lichtenstein’sGR managed by Lozihartebeest, tsessebeH L H ? 3Chief• Wattled crane, slaty egret1972 NPMosi-oa-Tunya NP66 km 21972 NPVery flat, sandy, short grass plainswith seasonally inundated areasand flood plain grasslands alongrivers. Some Baikiaea andBurkea-mopane woodlands onedgesMiombo woodland and riparianfringe to Zambezi RiverMoist Miombo woodlands withMulobezi GMA3,420 km 2 Miombo woodlandsSichifula GMA3,600 km 2 Miombo woodlandsBilili Springs GMA3,080 km 2 Miombo woodlandsNamwala GMA3,600 km 2 Miombo woodlandsMumbwa GMA3,370 km 2 Miombo woodlandsLunga-Luswishwi13.340 km 2 extensive wetlandsMachiya-Fungulwe1,530 km 2 Moist Miombo woodlands withextensive wetlands• Elephant, warthog, buffalo, zebra, roan,sable, Lichtenstein’s hartebeest,• Leopard (White rhino)No dataNo dataNo dataNo dataNo dataNo dataNo data- M M H 2H M L ? 3?Key conservation issues &conservation statusUncontrolled fires, illegal fishinggrazing of livestock, settlementswithin parkNo visitor facilitiesProtection? Only 10 km2 totallyprotected (IUCN 1987 – 947)No dataNo dataNo dataNo dataNo dataNo dataNo dataKasonso-Busanga7,780 km 2 Moist Miombo woodlands withextensive wetlandsNo dataNo dataMufunta GMAXxx km2Miombo woodlandsNo dataA newly designated GMA on thewestern boundary of Kafue NPWest Zambezi (part) Extensive wetlands, Baikiaea and38,000 km 2 miombo woodlandsForest Areas?No dataNo data

Large scale conservation planning - KAZA TFCA 100Area Landscapes & habitats Key mammal and bird species /Ecosystem servicespopulations and endemics Wet For Graz Recr IntZIMBABWEHwangeKalahari sands and dune fields in • Black and white rhino, wild dog14,651 km 2the southern and western 2/3 rds of • Lion, leopard, cheetah, hyaena,1928 GRthe park ( Baikiaea, Terminalia • Large elephant populationwoodlands) and basalts with • Roan, sable, buffalo, giraffe1949 NPmopane woodlands in the NE.Southern sector drains into theMakgadikgadi basin, the north intothe ZambeziZambezi564 km 21931 NPVictoria Falls19 km 21931 NPKazuma Pan313 km 21949 NPChizarira NP1,910 km 21963 Game Reserve1975 NPMatusadona NP1,370 km 2Non-hunting reservein 1958NP 1975Undulating Kalahari sands andBaikiaea woodlands with vleis,exposed basalt with mopanewoodlands and riparian fringealong the Zambezi River – about50 km of river front.Includes the Victoria Falls andZambezi River above the falls andthe deep gorges below the falls.Small patch of rainforestFlat grassland plains on basaltclays with large seasonallyinundated pans in the SW. Plainssurrounded by mopane andmiombo woodlandsHighly dissected plateau andescarpment overlooking theZambezi Valley. Mainly miombowoodland with some mopanewoodland and Combretum thicketsin the Buzi valleyOn Kariba lake shore. Lowlandarea of mopane woodland andescarpment/highlands of miombo• Elephant hippo, buffalo, sable, roan (whiterhino)• Lion, leopard, cheetah, hyaena, wild dog?• Taita falcon• Oribi, gemsbok, roan, tsessebe• Cheetah• (black rhino), elephant, buffalo, sable, Oribi?• Lion, leopard, hyaena, cheetah? Wild dog?• Depleted black rhino population• Lion, leopard, cheetah, hyaena, wild dog• Hippo,Key conservation issues &conservation statusArtificial waterholesWild firesPoaching of black rhino (EPZ)Past logging, elephant impactsRiparian fringe on the Zambezi Riverheavily impacted by elephantsVisitor pressureTown planning and development in aWorld heritage site shared with ZambiaFires?Heavily impacted by elephant and firePoachingOffshore commercial fishingRhino poachingElephant impacts and fire

Large scale conservation planning - KAZA TFCA 101Area Landscapes & habitats Key mammal and bird species /Ecosystem servicespopulations and endemics Wet For Graz Recr IntC mopane, Combretum on basalt • Sable, buffalo, elephant,soils and Baikiaea woodlands on • Lion, leopard, cheetah, hyaena, wild dogareas of Kalahari sand• Endemic frog and grass speciesMatetsi Safari Area2,930 km 2Previous ranchingarea purchased byGovt. 19731975 SADeka SA510 km 21963 CHA1975 SAChirisa SA1,713 km 21968 - Game Reservein Communal Lands1975 SAMainly mopane woodlands onbroken basalt terrain withCommiphora-Combretum thicketsor Terminalia woodlands on sandyridges.Karroo forest sandstones andmudstones with miombo andmopane woodlands bisected bySengwa river and with welldeveloped alluvial communities atSengwa-Lutope River junction.Chete SA1,081 km 2 Shallow soils on rugged Karroosandstones of Zambezi escarpment– mainly stunted mopane andmiombo woodlands. On LakeKariba shore.Charara SA1,700 km2Steep escarpment slopes withMiombo woodland that grade intomopane woodlands andCombretum thickets in the valleys.Adjoins Lake KaribaLake Kariba RP Artificial impoundment2,830 km 2 established in 1961Sijarira Forest Area Adjacent to lake Kariba and Chete256 km 2 Safari Area on very rugged andbroken terrain – stunted mopaneand miombo woodlandsKavira FROn western end of Lake Kariba,282 km 2 limited indigenous timberresources on very rugged anbroken terrainL M M M 3Situated between Hwange NP and Matetsi SAand will include the range of species for these twoareas L M M L 3• Elephant, buffalo, sable, (black rhino)• Lion, leopard, cheetah, hyaena, (wild dog)L MKey conservation issues &conservation statusSouthern section of 374 km2 is the SengwaWildlife Research Area (1964) reserved forresearch until recently. Presently leased toa safari operatorIntrusion of livestockPoaching and wild fires, HECVery limited potential for timberproductionUsed mainly for safari hunting, anglingand tourism by state forestry department

Large scale conservation planning - KAZA TFCA 102Area Landscapes & habitats Key mammal and bird species /Ecosystem servicespopulations and endemics Wet For Graz Recr IntMzola FRMiombo woodlands on deep sands No data627 km 2 - L L L 1Ngamo FRKalahari sands and Baikiaea,1,029 km 2 Guibourtia, Pterocarpuswoodlands, vleisSikumi FRKalahari sands and Baikiaea,1,173 km 2 Guibourtia, Pterocarpuswoodlands with areas of miombowoodlandsPand-Masuie FR Kalahari sands and Baikiaea,335 km 2 Guibourtia, Pterocarpuswoodlands with areas of miombowoodlands• Elephant, sable, roan, buffalo• Lion, leopard, hyaena, wild dog - M L L 3• Elephant, sable, roan, buffalo• Lion, leopard, hyaena, wild dog - M L L 3As for Sikumi FR- M L L 2Key conservation issues &conservation statusWildlife eliminated during tsetsecontrol operationsUncontrolled grazing and fuel woodharvestingWildlife resources managed within theMatetsi SA complexKalahari sands and Baikiaea,Kalahari sands and Baikiaea,Kalahari sands and Baikiaea,Area has been resettled and currentFuller FRAs for Sikumi FR233 km 2 Guibourtia, Pterocarpuswoodlands with areas of miombo- M L L 2woodlandsKazuma FRAs for Sikumi FR240 km 2 Guibourtia, Pterocarpuswoodlands with areas of miombo- M L L 2woodlandsPanda Masuie FRAs for Sikumi FR335 km 2 Guibourtia, Pterocarpus,- M L L 2Ricinodendron woodlandsGwaai Conservancy No data??? km 2 status of habitat and wildlife not clearCampfire Areas in ZimbabweHwange CL3,975 km2Binga DistrictSiabuwa CLMainly rugged terrain withmopane woodland2,126 km2Manjolo CL5,098 km2

Large scale conservation planning - KAZA TFCA 103Area Landscapes & habitats Key mammal and bird species /Ecosystem servicespopulations and endemics Wet For Graz Recr IntBusi CLAcacia riparian woodlands on the546 km2Busi River, Combretum thicketsand grasslands on black cottonsoilsKariba DistrictOmay CL2,866 km2Gatshe-Gatshe CL140 km2Kanyati CL625 km2Gokwe N DistrictGokwe North CL2,669 km2Key conservation issues &conservation status

Large scale conservation planning - KAZA TFCA 104Appendix 2. Terms of ReferenceLarge-scale conservation planning for resilience to Climate Change, threatsto Wetlands and Ecosystem Services: Ranking of conservation priorities inthe general Kavango-Zambezi Transfrontier Conservation AreaLocationThe Kavango-Zambezi Transfrontier Conservation Area (KAZA TFCA) is a five-nationconservation and development initiative committed to by Angola, Botswana, Namibia,Zambia and Zimbabwe, by way of a formal Memorandum of Understanding signed by theMinisters of Environment and Tourism of the five countries in December 2006. The TFCA islocated in the general border areas of the five countries but reaching deep into adjoiningareas.Project ScaleThe Kaza TFCA currently embraces 278,000km 2 but government officials associated with theproject anticipate it to be expanded to 300,000km 2 . The TFCA embraces about 36 currentprotected areas of various IUCN categories, connected by intervening pieces of other landuses. It includes the Okavango Delta and major parts of a number of important rivers such asthe Kavango, Quito, Kwando, Linyanti, Chobe and Zambezi, which are critical for sustainingboth wildlife and people; the portions of these rivers included in the TFCA are all in theupper (although in some cases not upmost) catchment areas…therefore critically important.Contact PersonDr Leo Braack, Director Southern Africa Wilderness Programme, Conservation International,Centre for Biodiversity Conservation, Private Bag X7, Claremont 7735, South Africa.L.Braack@conservation.org. + 27 21 799 8896 or + 27 82 808 9659.Context of projectProtected Areas, in particular those making up Categories 1-6 of the IUCN classification,have historically been the most powerful tool available to conservationists for conservingbiodiversity. However, Climate Change and other emerging threats have the very realpotential to significantly transform such traditional ‘island’ pockets of land set aside in asurrounding mosaic of competing land uses, mostly agricultural land for food production fora human population expected to continue increasing to a peak around 2050.New, larger scale approaches, as well as social initiatives, are therefore required to promoteresilience in wildlife populations & communities facing the uncertain consequences ofClimate Change. Most effective of these is likely to be the ‘meta-habitat’ approach, similar toconserving a network of low-density endangered species such as rhino, wild dogs and othersby way of the ‘meta-population’ approach, done in a manner which integrates socialimperatives.The easiest and most immediate opportunities to conserve ecosystem resilience reside incurrent large scale Wilderness Areas, where viable habitat still exists for having a network ofkey areas which are linked by corridors, thus creating refuges and pathways whereby speciesand species-assemblages can disperse, survive and re-colonize in the event of catastrophicepisodes such as mega-fires, disease epidemics, and the effects of war and plunder.Overview of Proposed Study Area

Large scale conservation planning - KAZA TFCA 105At least 50% of the KAZA TFCA – mostly in Angola, Zambia and portions of Zimbabwe –overlaps with Miombo-Mopane High Biodiversity Wilderness Area. It embraces habitat formultiple species included in the IUCN Red Lists, such as black and white rhino, wild dog,sitatunga and various other antelopes, several cranes and other birds, and several amphibianand fish species which have distributions limited to the KAZA TFCA region. All thesespecies have been impacted to varying degrees by an estimated 2 million rural people, mostof whom practice subsistence livelihoods within the KAZA TFCA, and compete with wildlifefor space and resources. Despite the often negative effects of this competitive interface, theTFCA hosts an extraordinary abundance and richness of biodiversity, as evidenced by theworlds largest single population of elephants anywhere in the world, estimated at around250,000 (which brings its own problems and challenges due to grossly distorteddistributions). It includes well-established and well visited tourism areas such as theOkavango Delta and Victoria Falls, as well as well-stocked and well-managed conservationareas such as Chobe National Park and Moremi Game Reserve.However, the KAZA TFCA is not a homogeneous block of land, not in the distribution ofwildlife, nor in wildlife management capacity, general governance capacity, legislation andpolicies, distribution of people, poverty, pressure on natural resources, water and otherresource availability, and especially forms of land use. In particular, the designation ofborders of the KAZA TFCA did not follow a rigorous scientific process of evaluating whichareas should be included in the KAZA TFCA, and conservation prioritization. Instead it wasa process of drawing a line which would capture the bulk of the key existing protected areasnear the border areas of the five countries, thus producing a polygon with deep dips and arcsbased on boundaries of current land use. This should therefore be viewed as a preliminaryapproximation of the core area of KAZA TFCA, but unless taken further it would precludevaluable opportunity to identify important buffer zones, catchment areas requiring protection,and key linkage opportunities. Governments are willing to undergo such a process ofrefinement, as evidenced not only by a recommendation in the “KAZA TFCA Pre-feasibilityStudy” wherein it is stated that prioritization and characterization of key areas would need tobe done at a later stage, but also the current estimate that the KAZA TFCA is likely to expandfrom its present 278,000km 2 to around 300,000km 2 .Project Purpose and ObjectiveThe KAZA TFCA currently comprises a mosaic of protected areas and intervening land ofmultiple use. These protected areas vary from big to small, from well-managed to completelyunmanaged, from well-stocked to completely over-poached, from wetlands to grasslands toforests, from well-visited to completely unvisited, from having formal management plans tobeing mere paper parks with no management guidance, and the only common factor is thatnone of them have been prioritized in terms of their value and importance regarding keyspecies, key habitats, key services, and key resources for human sustenance.The Purpose of this project will therefore be to determine the relative importance of theexisting protected areas in KAZA TFCA (and they may differ in terms of what they areimportant for…some will be for conserving globally threatened species, some for conservingkey water-provisioning and other ecosystem services, some as key reservoirs for limitednatural resources such as over-utilized hardwood timbers, and so on), and to identifyshortfalls in the existing network of protected areas, and to define key corridors that will beessential to provide resilience and viability of populations and communities in the face ofchanging and often unpredictable pressures, to enable connections and linkages that willenable species to seek alternative rangelands and foraging areas in times of need, and in

Large scale conservation planning - KAZA TFCA 106which nuclei of populations can persist to re-colonize other areas again in the event ofcatastrophic events.The Objective of the study will be to provide conservation institutions with a scientificallybasedguide to the key areas and corridors which require priority allocation of resources andmanagement effort. At an anticipated 300,000km 2 , and given the African priorities of povertyalleviation, HIV/AIDS and multiple other conflicting demands for limited resources, nogovernment or NGO has the capacity to uniformly allocate time and funds and humanresources to such a massive area…it is therefore important to identify where resources shouldbe directed in a prioritized way.Importantly, it will enable CI and other NGOs to determine where priority attention andinterventions are required, and therefore provide the basis for establishing conservationpartnerships to address these priorities and supplement resources.Proposed Technical ApproachThe proposed approach is to appoint an expert consultant to undertake, in sequence:a. A desk-top study to characterize (size, biodiversity range and value, threatenedspecies, scale of current and potential future threats, freshwater resources andrelative importance, other ecosystem services and relative value, other keyattributes) each of the protected areas throughout the KAZA TFCA,b. To identify possible shortfalls in the protected area network in KAZA TFCAbased on the need to effectively protect threatened species and natural resources orecosystem services,c. To develop an initial value ranking of the various protected areas in KAZATFCA,d. To identify logical and key corridors necessary to ensure long-term sustainabilityand viability of key biodiversity and ecosystem services areas,e. To consult with appropriate persons knowledgeable on the subject and gain theirinput for the purpose of refining the ranking of key areas,f. If requested to do so, to participate in a regional workshop to present the draftfindings of the consultancy, for the purpose of final refinement of priority areasand to achieve common regional understanding of the “Big Picture” priorities inKAZA TFCA,g. To produce full and effective documentation which will provide stakeholders withthe necessary guidance and recommendations to implement a prioritizedallocation of resources and attention.CI will supervise this consultancy.Expected DeliverablesA document which will provide key biodiversity attributes as well as freshwater and otherecosystem products and services for each of the key biodiversity areas in the general KAZATFCA region, also identifying shortfalls in the protected area network, prioritizing such keybiodiversity areas in terms of value and importance, and identifying key corridors for longtermmaintenance of biodiversity and also ecosystem functioning, and makingrecommendations for prioritizing of resource allocation to ensure adequate protection of keypriority habitats, resources and services, designed and presented in a way that will be usableby governments and NGOs.

Download PDF - Percy FitzPatrick Institute of African Ornithology ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?