Problem Animal Control (PAC) Strategies:

Human/Elephant Conflicts in Dande Communal Area, Zimbabwe

Presented byTendai Nancy Nyabadza

1.0 Introduction

• Study Background

– Zambezi Valley: historical background and challenges

– Mid-Zambezi Elephant Project/Zimbabwe Trust Project funded by CIDA

Challenges

What are the main points of conflict between humans and elephants?

New Problem Animal Control Strategies being used in combination with traditional methods

Are the new PAC strategies effective for the communal farmer in the valley?

What has been the overall impact of the project on the community?

Objectives

Identify main points of conflict (“hotspots”) between elephants and the Dande community

Determine impact of MZEP/ZimTrust project on the target community in controlling problem elephants.

Project Area: Guruve & Muzarabani, Zimbabwe

Source: Elephant Pepper Development Trust (EPDT). (2004).

3.0 Materials and Methods

Primary Data CollectionQuestionnaire InterviewsFocus Group Discussions

Secondary data collection– Libraries used; ART, CIRAD, SARDC,

ZimTrust, EPDT, IUCN.

Data Analysis– Use of Statistical Package for Social

Scientists (SPSS)

4.0 Results

0

10

20

30

40

50

Frequency

problem animal

Figure 1: Problem Animal

elephant

baboon

bush pig

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Fre

qu

en

cy

%

Bwazi

Chado

peM

user

uka

Chika

faChi

washi

ra

Mas

awi

Village

Fig. 2: Human-elephant Conflict Zones by Village

Fields Gardens Homestead

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Are

a (a

cres

)

Village

Fig. 3: Average Cropping Area Damaged by Elephants

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003

Problem Animal Methods Rankings

Table 1: PAC Methods in use Type of PAC Method

Category of method

PAC Method Freq Rank by use

Traditional methods

Active Noise making¹ 76 % 1

Passive Lighting a fire 36 % 2

Active Throwing fire 35 % 3

Active Fertilizer bombs/gun imitations

18 % 7

Active Catapult 7 % 10

Active Burning tyres 5 % 9

Active Throwing stones 4 % 11

Passive Use of dogs 2 % 12

Modern methods

Active/Passive Burning chilies in dung/chili bombs

35 % 3

Vigilance Clearing buffer zones around fields

27% 5

Active Using bangers 20 % 6

Active Pepper spray 16 % 8

Passive Use of Sisol 2 % 12

Vigilance Fencing around the fields

2 % 12

¹noise making includes beating drums, tins, shouting, and beating on metal objects.

Lessons Learned

Fig. 4: Main Lessons from the Project

PAC methods

51%

Nothing*32%

Growing chilli8%

Gardening7%

Community/ farmer

cooperation2%

* “Nothing” here is constituted 84 % by farmers from the control villages Chikafa and Masawi, who were not in the project at all and 3 farmers who were in the project.

5.0 Conclusions and Recommendations PAC methods using chilli pepper ranked

higher on efficiency than traditional methods but they continue to be used together

Encourage the growing of a Buffer cash crop

Consider compensation for crops or assets lost to elephant crop raiding

Enhance other community benefits from wildlife in areas where HEC is high e.g. CAMPFIRE. This will influence levels of poaching in these areas.

Identify if long term biological or physiological effects of using chilli based repellents on elephants exist

6.0 African Wildlife Foundation (AWF) work on Human Elephant Conflict• Introduced in December 2006 at a training

held at Conservation Lower Zambezi, in Lower Zambezi National Park, Zambia.

• This training was done from the 10th to

the 15th of December 2006.

• Representatives of rural farming communities from Rufunsa And Chiawa GMA’s in Zambia and Magoe And Zumbo in Mozambique.

• Game scouts from Tchuma Tchatu and

Zambia Wildlife Authority (ZAWA) were also trained.

AWF Zambezi Heartland HEC work

Left: A ZAWA officer, Mr. Jones Katiyo, demonstrating the mixing of chilli with elephant dung

Right: Participants of the PEC training setting up a pilot site in Mugurameno village, Lower Zambezi, Zambia.

The work done has set a precedence in Problem Elephant Control (PEC).

Now used in Zambia and Mozambique by AWF in its core operations landscape, Zambezi Heartland.

Effective mitigation methods will be disseminated to willing farmers in areas where the pilot has proved effective.

With the high level of commitment from the communal farmers, we are optimistic that the intervention will be a success!

7.0 Closing Remarks Based on this project, a paper was published in 2006

www.jsd-africa.com/Jsda/Spring2006PDF

My co-authors were Prof. J. F. Mupangwa (Rwanda), Dr. I. Mberengwa (Ethiopia), and Mr. I. Chaipa (Zimbabwe).

African Wildlife Foundation (AWF) work www.awf.org

Elephant Pepper Development Trust www.elephantpepper.org

Thank You All For Listening