Wildlife Survey in MachazeAn assessment of the medium and large wildlife of the

northern sector of the Machaze district (Manica

province, Mozambique) and recommendations for its

managements.

Andrea GHIURGHI and Francisco PARIELA

Final report

Maputo, March 2007

2

Table of contents

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS........................................................................................................................................4

1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY................................................................................................................................5

1.1 BACKGROUND TO THE STUDY......................................................................................................................51.2 METHODOLOGY...........................................................................................................................................51.3 RESULTS......................................................................................................................................................51.4 CONCLUSIONS..............................................................................................................................................81.5 RECOMMENDATIONS....................................................................................................................................8

1.5.1 Land-use planning: Is the study area suitable for a hunting concession?.............................................91.5.2 Increasing the value of wildlife: the Chaba Ingwe hunting concession in Chimbia..............................91.5.3 Management of human-wildlife conflicts and actions for mitigation...................................................101.5.4 Monitoring of conflicts and wildlife populations status.......................................................................11

2 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................................................12

2.1 BACKGROUND TO THE STUDY AND OBJECTIVES........................................................................................12

3 STUDY AREA..................................................................................................................................................13

3.1 CLIMATE....................................................................................................................................................143.2 VEGETATION AND LAND COVER................................................................................................................143.3 HUMAN PRESENCE.....................................................................................................................................163.4 CHOICE OF THE STUDY AREA.....................................................................................................................17

4 METHODOLOGY...........................................................................................................................................21

4.1 AERIAL SURVEY........................................................................................................................................214.2 GROUND BASED SURVEYS.........................................................................................................................25

4.2.1 Interviews.............................................................................................................................................254.2.2 Car-based night surveys.......................................................................................................................274.2.3 Recce walks..........................................................................................................................................27

4.3 TARGET SPECIES SELECTION......................................................................................................................27

5 RESULTS..........................................................................................................................................................29

5.1 AERIAL COUNT..........................................................................................................................................295.2 INTERVIEWS...............................................................................................................................................295.3 NIGHT SURVEY..........................................................................................................................................30

6 DISCUSSION....................................................................................................................................................32

6.1 WILDLIFE DIVERSITY, DENSITIES AND DISTRIBUTION IN MACHAZE..........................................................326.1.1 Wildlife diversity...................................................................................................................................326.1.2 Wildlife density and distribution..........................................................................................................34

6.1.2.1 Densities......................................................................................................................................................346.1.2.2 Distribution of wildlife species....................................................................................................................35

6.1.3 Seasonal movements of wildlife............................................................................................................376.1.4 Elephant distribution and seasonal movements...................................................................................38

6.2 PEOPLE AND WILDLIFE...............................................................................................................................406.2.1 Wildlife as a resource...........................................................................................................................40

6.2.1.1 Hunting of wildlife......................................................................................................................................406.2.1.2 Bushmeat trade in the study area.................................................................................................................44

6.2.2 Conflicts with wildlife...........................................................................................................................456.2.2.1 Problem species...........................................................................................................................................456.2.2.2 Conflicts with elephant................................................................................................................................466.2.2.3 Conflicts with crocodile...............................................................................................................................476.2.2.4 Conflicts with hippopotamus.......................................................................................................................486.2.2.5 Solution proposed by villagers for solving human-wildlife conflicts in Machaze......................................50

7 RECOMMENDATIONS.................................................................................................................................52

7.1 LAND-USE PLANNING: IS THE STUDY AREA SUITABLE FOR A HUNTING CONCESSION?.............................527.2 INCREASING THE VALUE OF WILDLIFE: THE CHABA INGWE HUNTING CONCESSION IN CHIMBIA.............537.3 REDUCING CONFLICTS WITH WILDLIFE......................................................................................................54

7.3.1 Problem elephants................................................................................................................................54

7.3.2 Measures to reduce conflicts with crocodiles......................................................................................557.3.3 Measures to reduce conflicts with hippos............................................................................................557.3.4 Database on human-wildlife conflicts in Machaze..............................................................................55

REFERENCES...........................................................................................................................................................57

Acknowledgements......................................................................................................................................................58

4

List of abbreviations

DDA – Direcção Distrital da Agricultura (District Directorate of Agriculture)

DINATEF – Direcção Nacional de Terras e Florestas (National Directorate of Lands and Forest)

DNFFB – Direcção Nacional de Florestas e Fauna Bravia (Forestry and Wildlife National

DPA – Direcção Provincial da Agricultura (Provincial Directorate of Agriculture)

IAC – Instituto Agrário de Chimoio (Agrarian Institute of Chimoio)

IAMF –Integrated Assessment of Mozambican Forests Project

MINAG - Ministry of Agriculture

UIF – Unidade de Inventário Florestal (Forestry inventory unit)

5

1 Executive summary

1.1 Background to the study

A wildlife survey was carried out in the districts of Machaze and, marginally,

Mossurize Manica province, during September-October 2006. The study area

investigated lays for his majority in the northern sector of Machaze and

particularly in the localidade of Mutefo.

In the context of the AIFM (Integrated Assessment of Mozambican Forests)

project implemented by the Ministry of Agriculture (MINAG), the study was

solicited by the Provincial Services of Forestry and Wildlife of Manica to

explore the potentiality of some type of extractive use (particularly sport

hunting) of wildlife in a selected area. Specific objectives of the study were

to asses the status of larger and medium wildlife populations, to evaluate

the level of human wildlife conflicts and to give recommendations for the

management of wildlife population in the area.

1.2 Methodology

The methodology implemented to attain the objectives of the study included

both aerial and ground surveys. Sixteen transects for a total of 503

kilometres were flown at an average altitude of 100 metres above the

ground (355 feet) and at an average speed of 180 km/h covering an area of

700 km². Activities on the ground consisted in detailed interviews in all the

16 villages of the study area, night surveys along car tracks and

reconnaissance walks.

1.3 Results

Estimation of absolute densities of major species was not possible due to the

scarcity of observation during aerial survey. Nevertheless, data collected

during this study showed that the diversity of medium and large wildlife

species is still high, but at the same time that densities of most of the larger

species are quite low.

The table below summarize the information on species’ diversity and their

relative abundance in the study area.

Wildlife species recorded in Machaze

English name Scientific name Frequency Distribution

Vervet monkey Cercopithecus aethiops

Very common Widespread

Blue monkey Cercopithecus mitisModerately common

Localized: gallery forests of Mutefo river, Sitatonga Mt.

Chacma baboon Papio ursinus Common Widespread

Greater galago Otolemur crassicaudatus

Common Widespread

South African galago

Galago moholi Common Widespread

Buffalo Syncerus caffer Rare Localized: Zambira, Chimbia, Nhacuauane

Greater kudu Tragelaphus strepsiceros

Moderately common

Widespread

Bushbuck Tragelaphus scriptus Rare Localized: near Buzi and Mutefo Rivers

Nyala Tragelaphus angasii Rare Localized: Zambira, Nhadjenane

Steenbok Raphicerus campestris

Moderately common

Widespread

Sharpe’s grysbok Raphicerus sharpei Common Widespread

Blue duiker Cephalophus monticola

Rare Localized: north of Buzi River

Common duiker Sylvicapra grimmia Very common WidespreadSuni Neotragus moschatus Common Widespread

Klipspringer Oreotragus oreotragus

Moderately common

Localized: Sitatonga Mt.

Impala Aepyceros melampus Rare Widespread

Elephant Loxodonta africana Moderately common

Widespread

Hippopotamus Hippopotamus amphibius

Moderately common/rare

Buzi River

Zebra Equus burchelli Rare?Localized, south of Chimbia? (presence to be confirmed)

Bushpig Potamochoerus larvatus

Moderately common

Widespread

Common warthog Phacochoerus africanus

Moderately common

Widespread

Spotted hyena Crocuta crocuta RareLocalized: Chimbia, Dambalavo, Nhadjenane

African civet Civettictis civetta Moderately common

Patchy distribution

Blotched genet Genetta tigrina Common WidespreadWhite tailed mongoose

Ichneumia albicauda Common Widespread

Banded mongoose Mungos mungo Common WidespreadRed mongoose Galerella sanguinea Very common Widespread

Honey badger Mellivora capensis Moderately common

Localized: Zambira, Udjica, Chirimane

Lion Panthera leo Rare (occasional visitor)

Localized: Chimbia, Zambira, Dambalavo

Leopard Panthera pardus Rare Localized: Chimbia,

7

Zambira, Dambalavo

Serval Felis serval Rare Localized: Sitatonga Mt., Chimbia

Cape otter Aonyx capensis Rare Buzi River

Porcupine Hystrix africaeaustralis

Common Widespread

Greater cane rat Thryonomys swinderianus

Common Widespread

Scrub hare Lepus saxatilis Common Widespread

Rock hyrax Procavia capensis Common Localized: Sitatonga Mt.

Antbear (aardvark) Orycteropus afer Moderately common

Localized: Chimbia, Zambira, Chirimane

Ground pangolin Manis temminkii Rare Widespread

Nile crocodile Crocodylus niloticus Moderately common/ rare

Buzi River

Conflicts with wildlife occur frequently in the area. Major problem species

include elephant, crocodile and hippopotamus. Mortal accidents with

crocodile and, less frequently, elephant occur in the area. Due to their

scarcity in the area, large predators and buffaloes do not cause conflicts with

people.

Table of human wildlife conflict in Machaze

Problem species Type of conflictLevel of conflict(as perceived by

people)

ElephantDestruction of crops, fruit trees, houses, water pumps and barns; killing of people.

Very high

CrocodileKilling of people and domestic animals

Very high

Hippopotamus Destruction of cropsMedium, although perceived by villagers as High

BaboonDestruction of crops, fruit trees and killing of domestic animals

High

Vervet monkeyDestruction of crops and fruit trees

High

Cane rat Destruction of crops HighBush pig Destruction of crops MediumRed mongoose Killing of poultry MediumWhite tailed mongoose

Killing of poultry Medium

Porcupine Destruction of crops MediumBlue monkey Destruction of crops LowGenet Killing of poultry LowHoney badger Killing of poultry LowCommon duiker Destruction of crops Low

Spotted Hyena Killing of goatsVery low, occasional (and in only one village)

8

Cape otter Fish net destruction Very lowGreater Galago Killing of poultry Very low

Illegal hunting for meat consumption is widespread and wild meat of small

antelopes, monkeys and rodents represents an important (possibly the main)

source of animal proteins for local inhabitants.

1.4 Conclusions

The study area, located along the Rio Buzi, is economically important for his

potential of agricultural production, especially in the context of the Machaze

district were food security is a major concern for local population. Droughts

in the recent years have pushed numbers of people from the south of the

district to move northward near the Rio Buzi, making thus people wildlife co-

existence in that area more problematic.

The area selected by the Manica DPA is not suitable for sport hunting

activities because of:

i) high and increasing human density,

ii) the absence of large unoccupied expanses of land and,

iii) low densities of trophy species,

iv) intense hunting pressure,

v) high potential of this land for agricultural activities,

vi) the existence of the adjacent Chaba Ingwe hunting enclosure in

Chimbia that will start soon his activities of safari hunting.

The land along the Buzi river tract from Chivumo to Sitatonga villages (i.e.

most of the study area) is of great potential and agriculture activity (instead

of wildlife related activities) has to remain the preferred option.

Conflicts with elephants, crocodile and hippos are perceived as a serious

issue by local people and need to be tackled by local administration.

1.5 Recommendations

Management of wildlife in Machaze involves economic opportunities, food

security and reduction of the level of conflict with people. The general

9

strategy should be the one that population of large wildlife species are

managed so that benefits with wildlife are greater than without it. This can

be achieved through four types of actions:

1. Planning the use of the land;

2. Increasing the value of wildlife for rural population through planned

extractive use of wildlife in selected areas and on selected species;

3. Management of human-wildlife conflicts and actions for mitigation;

4. Monitoring of conflicts and wildlife populations status

1.5.1 Land-use planning: Is the study area suitable for a hunting concession?

It is NOT recommended to establish a hunting enclosure in the area

investigated by this study. This area being one of the most fertile and

productive of the entire district, a more sustainable option is to reserve this

land for agriculture activities.

1.5.2 Increasing the value of wildlife: the Chaba Ingwe hunting concession in

Chimbia

Sport hunting activities in the neighbouring hunting concession of the Chaba

Ingwe Safari Company are an opportunity to increase the value of wildlife

(particularly elephants) reducing at the same time people-wildlife conflicts.

The area selected for the Chaba Ingwe hunting enclosure is richer in wildlife

and suitable for this activity. It is little occupied by agriculture and

developing a wildlife related activity is the most sustainable option. In order

to reduce human-wildlife conflicts, the occupation of new land for agriculture

inside and around Chaba Ingwe limits, and particularly along the Chitobe-

Chimbia road and along the Buzi River tract between Sitatonga and Chimbia,

should be prevented.

The hunting concession will provide increased benefits to communities and

will help to reduce negative attitudes towards wildlife particularly if the

revenue for local communities from licenses sold for animals shot in Chaba

Ingwe will be raised from the 20% that it is at present, as suggest in the

10

“Strategies to mitigate human-wildlife conflict in Mozambique” elaborated by

the DNFFB of the Ministry of Agriculture.

Despite this, it is very unlikely that hunters from Chimbia and Zambira will

stop hunting inside limits of the enclosure. Meat from wild animals is of

prime importance for food security of local population. Extractive use of

small species (small antelopes, bush pig, monkeys …), although carried out

by villagers in an illegal way (i.e. without hunting licence, using illegal

methods etc.) is in practice tolerated; if the opening of the hunting

concession will correspond to the repression of subsistence hunting, attitude

towards Chaba Ingwe will presumably be bad.

A key issue is the setting of hunting quotas for trophy species. Density of

major trophy species – elephant, buffalo and kudu – are low and if a

sustainable extractive use of wildlife is the objective, then wildlife

populations’ densities need to be carefully assessed prior to set hunting

quotas and start any extractive activity.

1.5.3 Management of human-wildlife conflicts and actions for mitigation

Problem elephants outside Chaba Ingwe limits should be removed. The

option of relocating small breeding herds of elephants to Gorongosa National

Park, where they are well below their carrying capacity and where a long

term project of habitat restoration is being implemented, is an option that

has to be considered and seriously investigated by the administration of

Machaze and Gorongosa Park’s authority. If this option will be discarded,

problem elephants near villages have to be killed. Unfortunately, at present

in Mozambique it is difficult to sell licenses to sport hunters for shooting at

problem elephants outside Coutadas. The national quota set by CITES for

elephants is 40 animals and this quota are distributed each years among the

Coutadas. A problem elephant can then be sold only if the annual quota was

not reached at the end of the year. As a result, problem elephants are often

not sold but simply killed by community hunters (as it was the case in

Mutefo in 2005) and this represents a considerable loss of potential benefits

for local communities. Nevertheless, even in the absence of direct revenue

for villagers, shooting problem elephants will contribute to increase personal

and food security of local populations, ameliorating at the same time the

attitude toward wildlife and toward Government and local administration.

11

Conflicts with crocodile need to be reduced by means of:

- Educating villagers on security and if necessary supply villages with

wire netting to erect protective barriers in water collection points along

the Buzi river;

- Digging wells close to the Buzi River so that water can be collected

safely.

- Removing large crocodiles (of more than 2.5 meters) either by killing

them or catching them alive for crocodile farming. The potential of

involving the private sector in the activity of collection and incubation

of crocodile eggs for farming, as it is currently done in the Zambezi

river, should also be explored.

Conflicts with hippos in Machaze are not as severe as for elephants and

crocodiles. No fatal accidents have been reported and the economic losses

are modest. Nevertheless local people perceive their presence as dangerous

and local administration is asked to reduce their presence in the area. The

effective size of the hippo population should be investigated and its viability

evaluated. If that tract of the Buzi River between Chivumo and Chimbia can

support a viable hippo population, than benefits with hippos could be greater

than without hippos and a sustainable management strategy for providing

local community with animal protein needs to be planned. At the same time,

local people should be educated on how to protect their crop fields (creation

of barriers around fields).

1.5.4 Monitoring of conflicts and wildlife populations status

A database on human-wildlife conflicts needs to be implemented by the

administration of Machaze and conflicts monitored in a standardized

manner, so to catch long term trends, plan specific strategies of conflict

mitigation and evaluate the results of actions put in place.

Coutadas’ managers in Mozambique should carry out wildlife surveys in the

hunting concession (at least every 5 years), in order to evaluate trends of

12

trophy species; in practice, this is usually not done and data on wildlife

species’ status in those “conservation areas” are almost inexistent. Chaba

Ingwe Safari Company will have to monitor the status of large wildlife

populations inside the hunting enclosure including a 3 km buffer zone

around it. This will contribute to reach a sustainable extractive use of wildlife

in Machaze. Reliable and non-expensive survey techniques to count wildlife

from the ground (on foot or by bicycle) are available and could be carried

out employing residents of the surrounding villages.

13

2 Introduction

2.1 Background to the study and objectives

In the context of the IAMF (Integrated Assessment of Mozambican Forests)

project implemented by the National Directorate of Land and Forestry

(DINATEF) of the Ministry of Agriculture, the Provincial Services of Forestry

and Wildlife of Manica demanded a special study on the fauna of the

northern sector of the Machaze district.

Aim of this work was to give recommendations to the province

administration for the management of the fauna of Machaze and for the

mitigation of people-wildlife conflicts.

Specific objectives of the survey, as for the approved terms of references of

this work, were to:

• provide a list of all the medium and large-sized mammals present in

the study area;

• describe the distribution and movements of the main mammals

species;

• identify areas of particular interest for the wildlife (e.g. areas of high

species diversity or animal density, dry season refuges etc.);

• estimate the absolute densities of some target species, particularly

elephants;

• evaluate human impact on the wildlife;

• evaluate the level of human-wildlife conflicts;

Besides, information derived from this study were integrated with the faunal

data collected during the forest inventorying and ultimately organised in the

Geo-database set up by the project.

This study has been carried out during three separated field missions

between October 2005 and October 2006

14

3 Study Area

The study area is located between 20°17’10” and 20°27’26” of South

latitude and between 33°11’52” and 33°30’18” of East longitude. It covers a

total area of approximately 500 km² distributed across the districts of

Machaze (about 400 km², i.e. 80% of the total area) and Mossurize in the Manica

Province.

Figure 1. Location of the study area

The area lies in the flat plains surrounding the middle course of the Buzi river

and has a average altitude of 160 metres a.s.l.. The only permanent

watercourse of the area is the Buzi river that flows through the study area

following a SW-NE direction. The other river of the area, the Mutefo, dries up

15

during the late dry season, from July to December. Few permanent ponds

(locally known as lagoas) are found in natural ground depressions over

argillaceous soils and along the deeper tracts of the Mutefo watercourse and

its tributaries, especially where natural riparian vegetation and gallery forest

still occur. Far from the Buzi these pools represent, for people and wildlife,

the only available water during the late dry season.

3.1 Climate

The climate of Machaze is semi-arid and subtropical with a single rainy

season from November to March linked to the arrival, from the Mozambique

channel, of moist air carried by the monsoon. The mean annual rainfall is

1000mm and the average minimum and maximum temperatures are 15 °C

and 24 °C respectively.

3.2 Vegetation and land cover

Machaze lies within White’s Zambezian regional centre of endemism and

across two distinct ecoregions: the Southern miombo woodland, north of the

Buzi River, and the Mopane woodland, south of the Buzi. The 1:250.000 land

cover map produced by the AIFM project, describe the area as a mosaic of

the following classes: open miombo, wooded grassland (the two most

common type of vegetation), shrub grassland, deciduous thicket, open

mopane woodland, deciduous dense forest, large patches made by a mix of

forest and agriculture and, along the Buzi and Mutefo watercourses

respectively, inundated grassland and gallery forest. As elsewhere in

Mozambique and Africa, a vast part of this region is regularly burned every

year: at the time of our study (end of 2006 dry seasons) the great majority

of the area, when observed from the aircraft, appeared to be burned. Most of

these fires occur during the late dry season and, as a result, are probably

quite destructive for the forest cover of the region.

16

Figure 2. Villages surveyed during this study and aerial survey area limits

3.3 Human presence

The district of Machaze is divided in two “Postos Administrativos” and 9

“localidades”. The majority of the study area lies inside the Localidade of

Mutefo and across the Regulados of Mutefo, Chimbia and Gunhi. Detailed

and updated demographic data are available only for the Regulado of

Mutefo, where the local administration in September 2006 just ended the

census of the human population in view of the 2007 nationwide demographic

census (see table 1).

Table 1. Human population of Mutefo in 2006

VillagePopulation (2006

district census data)

Ripango 312Chivumo 355Udjica 432Macuiane 639Mathunhane 347Chiremane 191Machiquiri 174Nhadjenane 333Zambira 225Nhacuauane 144Dambalavo 375TOTAL 3527

In Mutefo live at present a total of 3527 people divided in 566 family groups.

It is estimated that about 1000 people more live in the villages of Gunhi on

the north bank of the Buzi (Miose, Magua, Sitatonga), giving thus a total

human density inside the study area of about 7.6 hab./km².

It is important to note that the number of inhabitants of Mutefo passed from

1090 in 1997 to 3527 in 2005. This three-fold increase in just 7 years is

mostly due to a massive immigration of people in search of land for

agriculture from the south of the district. This immigration will probably

continue in the future further encouraged by the recent construction of the

new road linking the provincial road Chitobe-Muchungue to Nhadjenane, the

main village of Mutefo.

The great majority of the population in the area belongs to the Ndau ethnic

group; they speak the Ndau language (or Chindau), a Zimbabwean language

of the Shona family. Main economic activities are agriculture (mostly maize,

millet, beans and manioc) and small scale breeding of goats and poultry.

Cattle are rare in this sector of the district, while they are frequent in the

south, along the Save river. Fishing is an important subsistence activity for

all the villages located along the course of the Buzi. Hunting is widespread

and bushmeat, along with fish, is probably the major source of protein for

local dwellers.

In 2005 a project for wildlife and hunting tourism in Machaze has been

proposed to the local Administration by the “Chaba Ingwe” safari company

and is waiting to be approved by the Minister of Agricultture. This South

African based company intends to establish in the next future a game farm

in Chimbia with the prime objective of selling sport hunting to international

hunters.

3.4 Choice of the study area

The choice of the exact boundaries of the study area was done before the

start of the project by the Manica Provincial Directorate of the MINAG. We

were not able to know the criterion for such a choice since the technician

charged of wildlife for the Manica Directorate who traced the original

boundaries of the area was replaced before the beginning of the study.

Those limits were in fact of little practical sense, since they stretch across

three different districts and two provinces, without following any natural or

administrative boundary. In accordance with the Provincial Director in

Manica we extended the boundaries so to include a larger area for both the

aerial and ground surveys. As a result the whole regulado of Mutefo was

included, as well as part of the regulados of Chimbia and Gunhi (in this latter

in Mossurize district); the study area was considered to end at the Manica

provincial boundary (figure 2).

19

The little town of Chitobe, Machaze District main urban centre

The Buzi River is the only permanent water course of the area

Sitatonga Mountain seen from the south: note the clearing of forest and field crops along the Buzi River

The study area is flat and mostly covered by open miombo woodland. Note the machamba (cultivated area) on the left

21

Lagoa of Massalogua. Permanent water ponds like the one above are critical for the presence of many wildlife species in areas far from permanent rivers. Numerous tracks of elephant and buffalo (among others) were observed here. Of course lagoas are also favourite hunters’ spots: two hunters with dogs were encountered in the lagoa of Michalo during our recce survey in that area.

22

4 Methodology

A preliminary 7-day survey has been carried out in October 2005. Contacts

with local administrative and traditional authorities have been established in

order to introduce our presence in the area and to present the objectives of

the study. Several informal interviews on the presence of wildlife have been

carried out in the villages visited. Conditions of the road system of Machaze

have been inspected, as well as the state of the nearest airstrip (the one in

Chitobe, the district’s main village).

Once the preliminary survey completed, the following methodology has

eventually been followed to achieve the objectives stated in the terms of

references:

- Firstly an aerial sample survey was carried out during the last week of

September 2006 to evaluate the presence and distribution of larger wildlife

species, to estimate the absolute density of elephants and other big-sized

mammals, to gather data on human presence and to take record of the

existence of dry season surface water;

- Secondly, a ground based survey that included structured interviews,

spot light sessions by car at night and few additional recce walks was

completed during October 2006.

4.1 Aerial Survey

A Cessna 182 equipped with radar altimeter, GPS and two high definition

video cameras connected to a Spatial Digital Video Recorder was used for

the survey. The aerial survey activity covered two days (25 and 26 of

September 2006).

The first day we flew along a 1.5-hour recce flight in order to have a general

overview of the area, to test the on-board equipment (particularly the

Geovideo) and to get used to the flying and visibility conditions at that

period of the year.

The sampling rate of the aerial count was set at 20%, with a 300-meter strip

width (150m per side). The layout of the transects was designed on a PC

using ArcGis and the shapefile so produced was uploaded in the aircraft’s

GPS before the survey.

On the second day the transect strip width was calibrated following Northon-

Griffith procedure (Northon-Griffith, 1975).

Finally, 16 transects of variable length (min. 29,5 km , max 34,8 km) for a

total of 503 km, were flown at an average altitude of 100 metres above the

ground (355 feet) and at an average speed of 180 km/h covering an area of

700 km². The search rate of the survey was 0.85 km²/minute (51 km²/hour).

Considering the objective of the study, it was decided to take record of the

following observations:

- all wildlife, including crocodiles

- houses and huts

- all visible signs of human activity, particularly hunting and

logging

- domestic animals

- water points (swamps, streams etc.)

GeoVideo

An external hard disk was connected during all the flights to the aircraft GPS

and to two video cameras mounted on each side window. At the end of the

survey, the video data were downloaded from the hard disk as a series of

files in *.mpg format, each one associated with a *.xml file, and then

imported in ArcGis using the GeoVideo software. As a result two geo-

referenced videos (one per side) associated at the itinerary made by the

aircraft during the survey flight were produced. It was decided to use

GeoVideo for the aerial survey also in order to experiment the potentials of

this technology in view of the nationwide wildlife survey that the Minister of

Agriculture is going to undertake in 2007.

24

Calibration of the strip width for aerial survey

Interview in Chivumo

During interviews people were asked to show evidence of animals they described (here two hides of impala and common duiker).

Common duiker observed during night survey near Zambira

26

4.2 Ground based surveys

The ground activities were carried out between the 2nd and the 26th of

October 2006.

4.2.1 Interviews

18 interviews were conducted in all the 16 villages of the study area. Aim of

this exercise was to compile a detailed list of mammal species present in the

area and to understand people’s interaction with, and use of, wildlife in

Machaze.

Table 2. Place and number of interviews

“Regulado”

Village

Coordinates (UTM)

N. of interviews

N. of people interviewedS E

Mpombo

Nhadjenane (Mutefo-sede)

0543931

7743011

1 6

Udjica

05274440527628

77475807748336

11

11

Mathunhane0527333

7745973

1 12

Macuiane0539989

7747152

1 3

Ripango0530532

7752812

1 4

Chivumo0535000

7750063

1 5

Nhacuauane0541100

7734348

1 4

Chiremane0543917

7743030

1 6

Dambalavo0543935

7732690

1 5

ChimbiaZambira

05311170528298

77378267735910

11

25

Chimbia0513349

7729446

1 9

Hangaricanhe

0519473

7718683

1 1

Machiquire0524084

7743003

1 3

Gunhi

Maguha0525995

7744607

1 2

Myose0527984

7751251

1 11

Sitatonga0521654

7740884

1 5

TOTAL 18 84

Interviews were in the form of questionnaires containing both open-ended

and close-ended questions. They were done with village’s chiefs and known

local hunters; between 1 and 12 persons were present at each interview. All

interviews were carried out in local language (Ndau) with the help of an

interpreter previously trained on the methodology and objectives of the

work. The average duration of an interview was of 2:10 minutes (min. 1:35

max. 5:10). Each interview was divided in three parts (a copy of the

interview datasheet used for this work is given in annexe).

Each interview began by asking the audience to give us the list of mammals

species present in the village area. Only local (i.e. Ndau) names of animals

were used to record the species as Portuguese common names are often

neither precise nor univocal, thus generating confusion especially when

dealing with species of similar aspect (particularly antelopes and small

carnivores). As villagers’ knowledge of animals is a direct one and they are

usually not used to look at pictures of animals, illustrated books are often

confusing when used to identify species. Consequently, photos and drawings

of animals were not shown to the audience until the researchers was

confident to have identified the species from descriptions given by villagers

and only after many questions on the appearance and behaviour of the

species were asked. As all villages share the same language and are quite

close one to each other, it was necessary to carry out the (time consuming)

exercise of associating to each local name a scientific name only in the first

interview in Udjica. For few species though (particularly for suni, blue duiker,

grysbok and steenbok) the identification was not certain after the first

interview so this work was repeated in other villages until the association

local name/scientific name was certain for all species.

28

Once the list of the species present in the village was completed, three sets of questions were

asked on each species:

Questions on species’ presence:

- species distribution and movement in the village territory

- relative abundance of the species- changes in species abundance- seasonal changes of the species

distributionQuestions on species’ use: - if the species is of any use for the

community- methods used to hunt that species- hunting period for that species- details on the commerce of the species

(not sold, locally sold, sold outside the village area)

- price of the meatQuestions on conflicts: - if the species causes conflicts with people

- type of conflict with that species- methods currently employed to alleviate

the conflict- proposals for conflict solutions

Finally, during the third part of the interview, questions were asked about

the existence in the village of traditional wildlife management strategies,

authorities responsible for the management of wildlife and about the

existence of traditional authorities responsible for the management of

human-wildlife conflicts.

Informal talks on prices of bushmeat were also carried out with 7 people in

Mutefo and Chitobe in order to have a base on which to compare the cost of

domestic and wild meat.

4.2.2 Car-based night surveys

Night surveys by car were performed along a total of 29 kilometres on major

tracks between villages. Two persons were standing on the back of a pickup

searching both sides of the tracks with two spot lights. The car was driven at

a speed of 10-15 km/h. All observations of mammals were noted in a

datasheet and the geographic coordinates recorded with a GPS.

Road systems are usually built along rather than across landscape contours

and therefore are often not representative of an area (Norton-Griffiths 1978).

As a result it is not safe to estimate absolute densities using road counts.

Thus, aim of this exercise was mainly to record the presence of nocturnal

29

and smaller/rarer species so to complete the qualitative information already

gathered with the aerial survey and the interviews.

4.2.3 Recce walks

In 3 occasions some villagers were asked to take us to visit the surroundings

of their village territory. During these recce walks, geo-referenced notations

were taken at each direct observation of mammals, at observations of

mammals’ tracks and at signs of human presence (footpaths, traps, etc).

Geographic coordinates of existing water points observed were also taken.

4.3 Target species selection

Target species selection was mainly done according to the criterion of the

size. The size of a rabbit was taken as a generic lower threshold, with the

exception of the two nocturnal primates’ species. As a consequence three

orders were excluded from the survey: Insectivora (Golden Moles,

Hedgehogs, Elephant-shrews and Shrews) and Chiroptera (Bats) and

Lagomorpha (Hares and Rabbits). Among Rodentia only the Hystricidae and

Thryonomyidae families were retained, thus excluding Squirrels, Dormice,

Springhare, Molerats, Rats and Mice.

The rationale of this selection was dictated by the overall scope of this work,

which was not an academic exercise of zoology, but rather to give practical

recommendations for the management of wildlife and to propose solutions

for the mitigation of people-wildlife conflicts in Machaze. As a result only

those species generally considered as a potential resource or problem for

people were investigated.

30

5 Results

5.1 Aerial count

Despite good visibility conditions from the aircraft at the time of the survey

(at the end of the dry season most of the trees have lost their leaves and the

grasses are burned), the number of wildlife observed during the aerial count

was extremely low (table 3). In particular no elephants and none of the other

larger species (hippo, buffalo, sable antelope etc.) were observed.

Table 3. Aerial survey observations

ObservationTotal number

observed

Impala (Aepyceros melampus) 4*

Common duiker (Sylvicapra grimmia) 2

Steenbok (Raphicerus campestris) 1

Nile crocodile (Crocodilus niloticus) 1

Elephants track 1

Goat 319

Hut 293

Cattle 7

Tree felling 3(*This observation it’s uncertain, although the presence of impala in the area is certain)

5.2 Interviews

Table 4 summarizes some of the results obtained with the interviews. For

each village the number of wildlife species listed during the interview and

problem species.

Table 4. Number of species and problem species recorded in each village

VillageNumber of

wildlife species recorded

Number of problem species

recordedChimbia 32 10Chiremane 17 7Chivumo 27 6Dambalavo 20 9Hangaricanhe 16 3Machiquire 19 10Macuiane 23 12

31

Maguha 15 5Mathunhane 21 10Myose 7 6Nhacuauane 20 9Nhadjenane 26 10Ripango 8 7Sitatonga 23 7Udjica (2 interviews) 17 6Zambira (2 interviews) 25

4

5.3 Night survey

A total of 20 observations of 6 different species were made during night

surveys (table 5). The species most frequently observed were Galago moholi

and Otolemur crassicaudatus with a total of 12 observations (in 4 cases the

species was not recognizable) followed by Sylvicapra grimmia (5

observations, 6 individuals).

The global encounter rate for all species is 0.69 observation/km (one

observation every 1.45 km). Excluding the observations of small nocturnal

primates (the two species of galagos), the encounter rate for the other

wildlife species altogether is 0.27 obs./km (one observation every 3.6 km).

Table 5. Wildlife observed during night surveys

TrackTotal distance(km)

Duration Species observedIndividuals observed

1/Udjica-Mutefo 9 1h25m Greater galago (Otolemur crassicaudatus)

1

South African galago (Galago moholi)

1

South African galago 1South African galago/Greater galago

1

Greater galago 1Greater galago 1South African galago/Greater galago

1

South African galago/Greater galago

1

South African galago/Greater galago

1

Blotched genet (Genetta tigrina)

1

32

Scrub hare (Lepus saxatilis)

1

Common duiker (Sylvicapra grimmia)

1

2/Zambira-Mutefo

12 1h45m

Common duiker 1Common duiker 1Suni (Neotragus moschatus)

1

Common duiker 1

3/Mutefo-Chivumo

8 1h40m

Common duiker 2South African galago 1Greater galago 1Greater galago 1

33

6 Discussion

6.1 Wildlife diversity, densities and distribution in Machaze

In this chapter a discussion on the species diversity, density and distribution

is given. An overview of the nature of people-wildlife conflicts in Machaze

and on the use made of wildlife by local people is also discussed. More in-

depth data on the presence of elephant, hippo and crocodile, along with a

description of the conflicts caused by these species, are given in a separate

chapter because of the relevance of these species in terms of management.

6.1.1 Wildlife diversity

A total of 39 species of medium and large mammals belonging to 10 orders

and 19 families were recorded in the surveyed area during the present

study. The Nile crocodile, because of its relevance in terms of management

and conflicts with people, is also included in the list.

Among the 40 species, 13 were observed directly during this survey while

the presence of 12 species was confirmed by the observation of tracks,

droppings or remains. All the species listed below were described by

villagers during the interviews.

Table 6. Species observed in study areaSpecies Local name Scientific name Type of observation

Vervet monkey Choco Cercopithecus aethiops

Direct

Blue monkey Dongonda/Ndjanjamu

Cercopithecus mitis Interview

Chacma baboon Dede/Zindede Papio ursinus Direct

Greater galago Gwè Otolemur crassicaudatus

Direct

South African galago

Gwé Galago moholi Direct

Buffalo Nhati Syncerus caffer Droppings

Greater kudu Chavaiaia Tragelaphus strepsiceros

Tracks

Bushbuck Choma Tragelaphus scriptus InterviewNyala Ndumbua Tragelaphus angasii Interview

Steenbok Chuiti Raphicerus campestris

Direct

Sharpe’s grysbok Deque Raphicerus sharpei SkinBlue duiker Chigué Cephalophus Interview

34

monticolaCommon duiker Mpembwe Sylvicapra grimmia Direct

Suni Sessi Neotragus moschatus

Direct

Klipspringer Chingoto Oreotragus oreotragus

Interview

Impala Mbahala Aepyceros melampus SkinElephant Njou Loxodonta africana Tracks, droppings

Hippopotamus Nvu Hippopotamus amphibius

Tracks, droppings

Zebra Duwa Equus burchelli

Interview (?); presence of this species in the area needs to be confirmed, possibly south of Chimbia

Bushpig Nguluwe Potamochoerus larvatus

Tracks, droppings

Common warthog Dawana Phacochoerus africanus

Tracks

Spotted hyena Bongo Crocuta crocuta InterviewAfrican civet Vungo Civettictis civetta InterviewBlotched genet Simba Genetta tigrina DirectWhite tailed mongoose

Muchangaia Ichneumia albicauda Interview

Banded mongoose Dembo Mungos mungo DirectRed mongoose Chiricovo Galerella sanguinea DirectMarsh mongoose ? Ndjangua Atilax paludinousus ? InterviewHoney badger Chichere Mellivora capensis SkinLion Mbondolo Panthera leo InterviewLeopard Camba Panthera pardus InterviewServal Nchudji Felis serval DroppingsCape otter Tini Aonyx capensis Interview

Porcupine Chinungo Hystrix africaeaustralis

Quills

Greater cane rat Vondo Thryonomys swinderianus

Direct

Scrub hare Chichulo Lepus saxatilis DirectRock hyrax Chimbira Procavia capensis InterviewAntbear (aardvark) Djale Orycteropus afer TracksGround pangolin Alacavuma Manis temminkii InterviewNile crocodile Nguena Crocodylus niloticus Direct

The presence of the Zebra in the area should be confirmed. The species was

reported in the village of Chimbia during an interview conducted by Natercio

Nazario, where both of us were not present. Even though a specific

vernacular name was given (that also correspond to the zebra in Xitsonga

language), indicating that not confusion was made with another species

(local people may sometimes refer to “zebra” talking of other striped

animals such as Kudu, Bushbuck etc.), no other village mentioned it. It is

then possible that zebras were only once present in the region but are not

locally extinct or they just occur quite far from the study area, possibly south

35

of Chimbia, towards the Zimbabwean border. Chapman’s zebra was once

present in this area (Smithers and Lobão Tello, 1976) but it is now

considered extinct from most of Mozambique, including Machaze

(Moehlman, 2002. Equids: Zebras, Asses and Horses. Status Survey and

Conservation Action Plan) ; nevertheless, the possibility that few individuals

of zebra still survive in the region has to be considered as possible.

With the presence of 38 species of medium and large mammals, the fauna of

Machaze still looks quite rich in terms of diversity:

- all the 5 species of primates occurring in central Mozambique are

here present;

- the largest herbivores - elephant, hippopotamus and buffalo, are

represented, as well as the largest carnivores - lion, leopard and hyena;

- all the medium and small antelopes expected to be found in the

region are found in Machaze, such as the common duiker, blue duiker,

suni, steenbok, grysbok and klipspringer.

- some of the larger ungulates historically recorded in the region are

still present: kudu, impala, bushbuck, warthog, bush pig …

It has to be underlined that some of the species mentioned above are

probably only occasional visitors (such as lion).

6.1.2 Wildlife density and distribution

6.1.2.1 Densities

The aerial survey activity carried out during this study was expected to

provide quantitative data for at least some species but ended with the

observation of just 8 individuals of 4 different species (impala, common

duiker, steenbok and crocodile). Any estimation of density, even for the

species observed, is obviously impossible. Nevertheless some considerations

concerning the relative abundance of wildlife in Machaze can be done.

Aerial counts are known generate considerable underestimates of wildlife

and are therefore not reliable for estimating densities of some species,

particularly kudu, bushbuck, duikers, steenbok, warthog and the carnivores

(Jachmann 2001, 2002) because of the difficulty of detecting these species

36

from the air. In addition the scarcity of water and the high day-temperatures

typical of the end of the dry season induce wildlife to spend day-time hours

in areas of denser vegetation, particularly under gallery forests to move out

at night in search of water and food. Notwithstanding these difficulties, aerial

surveys have been safely used for decades in savannah habitats for counting

elephant, buffalo, waterbuck, roan antelope and hippo, among others

(Jachmann, 2002). The total absence of observations of even the larger

species probably reflects a true scarcity of large wildlife in the study area,

meaning that some of the larger species (hippos, buffalo, impala, warthog

…) in Machaze live at quite low density (table 7). Besides, this conclusion is

coherent with the absence of any direct observations of wildlife, other than

the common duiker, suni and primates, during all night surveys, car drives

and recce walks in the study area.

Civil war in Mozambique has devastated wildlife populations; during the

1980s Machaze was a stronghold of the Renamo army and indiscriminate

hunting and use of war weapons (and land mines) has certainly had severe

consequences on wildlife. Eland, sable antelope, waterbuck and possibly

zebra, were eradicated from the region during those years and populations

of all remaining large species have collapsed during the same period.

On the other hand, smaller species - common duiker, suni, grysbok, vervet

monkey, baboon, porcupine, greater cane rat and the small carnivores are

fairly common. We observed common duikers and vervet monkeys

repeatedly, sometimes not more than 100-200 metres from human

habitations.

6.1.2.2 Distribution of wildlife species

According to local dwellers, not all the species listed above have a uniform

and continuous distribution in the area. Some species are probably only

found in the periphery of the study area while others are seen just

occasionally.

Some of the larger species - buffalo, impala, worthog, bushpig, steenbok (but

not the largest species i.e. elephant and hippo), have been reported to live

37

nowadays only far from human settlements, in remote areas of denser forest

and lower human density.

The Blue monkey, a species tied to dense forest habitat, is reported to be

present only in the territories of the villages of Zambira, Nhadjenane,

Macuiane and Sitatonga, along the gallery forests of the Mutefo River and in

the forested areas on the Sitatonga Mountain. The other primates instead,

are widespread and baboons and vervet monkeys are observed (and hunted)

by villagers relatively near human settlements.

The presence of the kudu was also recorded in most of the interviews and

respondents said the species can also be observed not too far from villages;

we observed kudu tracks 4 km away from the villages of Chivumo and

Macuiane.

Large carnivores - hyena, leopard, lion - are probably only sporadically

present in the less populated sector of the area, between the villages of

Chimbia, Zambira and Dambalavo.

Along with the human factor, landscape features plat a role on the presence

of some species in Machaze. An important frontier for mammals’ distribution

in the study area is the Buzi River, a permanent watercourse that (also

because of the intense human presence along most of its course) represents

a barrier that slow down the dispersion of some species. The blue duiker was

only recorded north of the Buzi River, confirming the distribution of this

species in Mozambique proposed by Smithers and Lobão Tello, (1976) that

set the Buzi River as the blue duiker’s southern distribution limit. Impala,

warthog, buffalo, and the three major carnivores - lion, leopard and spotted

hyena – have only been reported south of the Buzi, particularly in the area of

Chimbia.

Another geographical feature with an impact on the distribution of the fauna

is the mountain of Sitatonga. Located along the western limit of the study

area, this mountain is home of two species not found in the plain of

Machaze: the klipspringer and the rock hyrax. This rocky region is almost

free from human occupation and it is thus still little touched by the clearing

of the forest for farming and by uncontrolled bushfires.

38

Consequently, Sitatonga mountain is still covered for a large extent by dense

evergreen forest (AIFM, 2005), making it an area of major interest for wildlife

protection.

Estimate of the relative density and the distribution of wildlife, based on both

the interviews with villagers and on our own judgment, is given in the

following table:

39

Table 7. Relative frequency and distribution of wildlife Species Frequency DistributionVervet monkey Very common Widespread

Blue monkey Moderately common Localized: gallery forests of Mutefo River, Sitatonga Mt.

Chacma baboon Common WidespreadGreater galago Common WidespreadSouth African galago Common Widespread

Buffalo Rare Localized: Zambira, Chimbia, Nhacuauane

Greater kudu Moderately common WidespreadBushbuck Rare Localized: near Buzi and Mutefo RiversNyala Rare Localized: Zambira, NhadjenaneSteenbok Moderately common WidespreadSharpe’s grysbok Common WidespreadBlue duiker Rare Localized: north of Buzi RiverCommon duiker Very common WidespreadSuni Common WidespreadKlipspringer Moderately common Localized: Sitatonga Mt.Impala Rare Widespread Elephant Moderately common Widespread

Hippopotamus Moderately common/rare

Buzi River

Zebra Rare? Localized, Chimbia?Bushpig Moderately common WidespreadCommon warthog Moderately common Widespread

Spotted hyena Rare Localized: Chimbia, Dambalavo, Nhadjenane

African civet Moderately common Patchy distributionBlotched genet Common WidespreadWhite tailed mongoose

Common Widespread

Banded mongoose Common WidespreadRed mongoose Very common WidespreadHoney badger Moderately common Localized: Zambira, Udjica, Chirimane

Lion Rare Localized: Chimbia, Zambira, Dambalavo

Leopard Rare Localized: Chimbia, Zambira, Dambalavo

Serval Rare Localized: Sitatonga Mt., ChimbiaCape otter Rare Buzi RiverPorcupine Common WidespreadGreater cane rat Common WidespreadScrub hare Common WidespreadRock hyrax Common Localized: Sitatonga Mt.

Antbear (aardvark) Moderately common Localized: Chimbia, Zambira, Chirimane

Ground pangolin Rare Widespread

Nile crocodile Moderately common/rare

Buzi River

6.1.3 Seasonal movements of wildlife

Seasonal movements of some wildlife species have been reported by

villagers.

40

In Zambira and Nhacuauane, two adjoining villages located south of the

study area, interviewed persons said that lions are occasionally observed in

that region but only during the rainy season.

Buffalo are said to be present in the village of Chiremane only in the rainy

season, while in Zambira and Chimbia people buffalo can be observed in

every month of the year. This is consistent with our observation of buffalo

droppings in a lagoa, between Zambira and Chimbia and with the fact that in

Chimbia and Zambira exist permanent wet areas while in the eastern sector

of the study area (where Chiremane is) there is no surface water during the

dry season.

Dry season movements of elephants toward the Buzi River have been

reported by most of the villages. Distribution and movements around the

study area of this species are discussed in the following chapter.

6.1.4 Elephant distribution and seasonal movements

Tracks and signs of elephants have been observed around Chimbia,

Zambira, Chitobe and along the road from Chitobe to Espungabera (figure

3). The staff of the provincial Direction of Agriculture in Chimoio also

reported of observations of elephant droppingss, in September 2006, along

the road Chitobe-Espungabera not far from the Zimbabwean border.

Elephants are not just occasional visitors of the area; they are permanently

present in the area between Chimbia and Nhadjenane (in the area where the

hunting enclosure should be opened) and only dry season visitors of the

lower course of the Buzi. In general terms, a south-north decreasing gradient

of density of (and, consequently, conflicts with) elephant is observed in the

area.

41

Figure 3. Elephant tracks and signs observed during this study

Figure 4. Elephant distribution and movements in the study area

42

6.2 People and wildlife

People’s perception of different wildlife species in Machaze is basically of two

types: animals are either a resource (i.e. they are hunted for consumption or

commerce) or a problem. In many cases they are both of them.

Although hunting, the way it is carried out at present, is illegal, it is regularly

practiced by villagers. At present there isn’t any “customary” form of wildlife

management by traditional authorities, village chiefs and Regulos; wildlife is

perceived as an open resource and hunting is practised freely. Conflicts with

wildlife are not managed at present; traditional authorities are unable to

undertake any concrete action to solve or mitigate conflicts and

administration is not facing the issue.

6.2.1 Wildlife as a resource

6.2.1.1 Hunting of wildlife

Virtually any wildlife species is a potential prey for hunters and trappers of

Machaze. All mammals and large reptiles (snakes, monitor lizards, tortoises)

are consumed by local people if they have the occasion to do it, with few

individual exceptions. For only two species it was expressed a partial dislike:

blue monkey was reported as being not a favourite food in two villages and

vervet monkey in one.

Hunting and trapping is almost exclusively an illegal activity in Machaze:

hunters do not have a licence, hunting period is not respected, traps and

snares (prohibited) are largely employed and hunting near drinking spot of

wildlife (which is prohibited) is common. Despite this, hunting is tolerated by

authorities and villagers of Mutefo, Chimbia and Gunhi, hunt regularly,

without hiding it too much.

Hunting is carried out both individually and in groups of 2-8 people, mostly

with dogs, spears, bow and arrows. Guns, although certainly present, are not

common and probably used only occasionally for night hunts. Unselective

foot-traps and snares are set in large numbers both around fields and in

more remote areas up to 3/4 hours of walk from human settlements.

Traditionally, when an animal is killed, particularly the larger ungulates -

kudu, bush pig, common duiker - a part of the animal should be given to the

43

local Regulo (the traditional authority) while the rest of the animal is divided

among the men who participated in the hunt. Ground pangolin is considered

a “spiritual” animal and if caught is offered to the Regulo, who perform a

sort of a dance with the animal…before eventually eating it.

44

Dogs, bow and arrows are the most common hunting technique in Machaze

Trapping with the double purpose of crop protection and food is widespread. This one was set to trap baboons near a maize field.

Rodents (here a cane rat, top picture), along with primates (baboon head, centre) and small antelopes (hides of suni, grysbok, common duiker and steenbok, bottom picture), are regularly hunted in Machaze and represent an important source of animal proteins for rural population

46

Big snares and large pit-traps for hippos and crocodiles have been observed

on the Buzi River banks. If one of this larger species is trapped the

administrative authorities are normally informed.

Other large mammals such as elephant and buffalo are certainly hunted in

the region, but probably only occasionally; of course we were not able to get

much information on this delicate subject. In 2005 local poachers tried to

shot an elephant using local weapons but ended in just wounding it; the

animal remained in the area and was eventually declared a problem

elephant and shot by the community hunter of Mutefo near Chimbia. Local

people had at least the chance to benefit from that killing. In fact it was

decided to shot the animal right the day before the ceremony held for the

arrival of the new Regulo of Chimbia so that, finally, elephant meat was the

main dish of the party.

6.2.1.2 Bushmeat trade in the study area

All animals killed in the study area are entirely consumed and sold (or

exchanged) locally and no attempt is made to export the meat to the market

of Chitobe. The availability of wild meat in Mutefo is probably just enough to

satisfy local demand; besides the only concrete restriction on the hunting

activity imposed by the administration of Chitobe seems to be on the

commerce of wild meat.

People in the villages surveyed expressed a preference for wild meat if

compared to the taste of meat from domestic animals and fish. In fact

hunting is an important activity in Mutefo, Chimbia and Gunhi and wild meat

is, along with fish, the most important (and cheap) source of animal proteins

for local dwellers (see table below).

Table 8. Prices of domestic and wild meat in Chitobe and MutefoPrice

Mutefo ChitobeDomestic meat

Chicken 20-35 Mtn/animal 30-60 Mtn/animalGoat Not sold 30-40 Mtn/kg

Wild meat

Small/medium species (duikers, rodents)

10-15 Mtn/kg Not sold

Larger species (Kudu ...) 15-20 Mtn/kg) Not sold

Although goats and fowls are abundant, goat meat is not sold locally; hens

and ducks are consumed only in special occasions or mostly sold in Chitobe

where their price is almost the double. As in most of rural Africa, domestic

animals represent a capital for families and they are sold or bartered only in

case of need and almost never eaten. For example, every family in the area

has at least one familiar (and often more) who works in the mines or farms

of South Africa and alive goats are the “currency” utilized by villagers to pay

the bus drivers for their journey abroad.

6.2.2 Conflicts with wildlife

6.2.2.1 Problem species

In the following table are listed the species described as problematic by

villagers, with the type and level of conflict (as this is perceived by local

people):

Table 9. Problem species and type of conflict

Problem species Type of conflict Level of conflict

ElephantDestruction of crops, fruit trees, houses, water pumps and barns; killing of people.

Very high

Crocodile Killing of people and domestic animals

Very high

Hippopotamus Destruction of crops High

Baboon Destruction of crops, fruit trees and killing of domestic animals

High

Vervet monkey Destruction of crops and fruit trees HighCane rat Destruction of crops HighBush pig Destruction of crops MediumRed mongoose Killing of poultry MediumWhite tailed mongoose

Killing of poultry Medium

Porcupine Destruction of crops MediumBlue monkey Destruction of crops LowGenet Killing of poultry LowHoney badger Killing of poultry LowCommon duiker Destruction of crops Low

Spotted Hyena Killing of goats Very low (and in only one village)

Cape otter Fish net destruction Very lowGreater Galago Killing of poultry Very low

48

Even though much more human fatalities in Machaze are caused by

crocodiles than elephants, in all villages where elephant is present this

species is perceived as the most problematic. The explanation is that

crocodiles mostly attack women who spend more time near the river to

collect water and wash, while all the interviews were carried out with men.

Besides, if crocodiles are only seen in water, on the bother hand people can

meet elephants virtually everywhere even inside villages at night; elephant

presence make villagers feel insecure everywhere, even at their homes.

Also hippo, although their numbers are quite modest and accidents with

people absent and damages to crops limited, is considered a species whose

existence is not compatible with human presence.

Primates and rodents have, altogether, a significant impact on crop

production in Machaze, certainly greater than that of hippo (and possibly of

elephant too), and are therefore seen as pests. Despite this, baboons,

vervets and cane rats are better tolerated by farmers, also because hunting

and trapping of these species around human settlements is widespread and

the damages they cause are counterbalanced by the fact that they are an

important source of animal proteins for local people.

Small carnivores, particularly red mongoose and white tailed mongoose,

cause minor damages by occasionally killing hens and ducks.

Large carnivores – lion, leopard and hyena - and buffalo do not cause

conflicts with people in Machaze because their density is very low and their

presence in the area often sporadic.

6.2.2.2 Conflicts with elephant

Conflicts with elephant are a serious issue in Machaze, particularly during

the dry season. We have personally observed numerous fields of maize,

granaries and fruit trees damaged by elephant in various villages. Apart from

the cost of damaged properties, people in Machaze fear elephants having

witnessed several fatal accidents in the recent past. During our stay in the

49

area, in September 2005, a boy was killed by an elephant in Nhacuauane

and another person was killed the year before in Zambira. Villagers do not

put in practice any mean to solve or even mitigate the problem, they only

ask the administration to shoot at elephants, and this rarely happens (the

last elephant killed by community hunter was in 2005). But a general policy

for dealing with problem elephants doesn’t exist at present and in practice

little is done to mitigate conflicts with this species. The idea of having a

safari hunting concession in between Zambira and Chimbia, right in the area

of highest elephant density, is certainly seen by local people as an

opportunity to reduce conflicts and improving their personal and food

security.

This elephant was wounded by poachers and eventually shot near Chimbia in 2005 by the community hunter of Mutefo

6.2.2.3 Conflicts with crocodile

The Buzi River is still home of large crocodiles. A large individual of about 2.5

metres was observed during the aerial survey just few hundreds of meters

from the closest human settlements. A 2.8 meter problem crocodile that

attacked several goats in Chimbia was eventually trapped and killed by

50

villagers in September 2006. In two villages people have build barriers made

of logs in the water, to protect women when they collect water.

Crocodiles larger than 2.5 metres feed largely on large terrestrial mammals.

Where natural preys are scarce and rivers are heavily fished (as is the case

for the Buzi River) large crocodiles are obliged to prey upon domestic

animals and humans.

Official record of crocodile attacks on people were not available in Machaze

but villagers reported of 1 person killed in Chimbia, 6 in Chivumo (all were

women) and 2 in Sitatonga in the last 3 years, plus an undefined number of

domestic animals.

Persisting of large crocodiles in a context of increasing human population will

certainly result in an increasing number of accidents with this species.

6.2.2.4 Conflicts with hippopotamus

In Machaze and there is no record of persons killed or injured by hippos and

all villagers interviewed were unanimous in affirming that hippos never

caused accident with people. We were not able to see any damage to crops

caused by hippos during the survey. The level of conflict with hippos in

Machaze is quite low, but it is perceived as important by villagers. Villagers

in fact fear hippos and most of them would like to see them eradicated from

the Buzi.

51

This barn (containing millet) and the mango tree were destroyed by a group of three elephants that passed here the night before our survey in Macuiane

An abandoned crocodile protection in the Buzi River at Mathunhane

6.2.2.5 Solution proposed by villagers for solving human-wildlife conflicts in Machaze

During interviews people were asked to tell what are the solutions presently put into effect to

mitigate conflicts with wildlife, and to suggest new actions they would like to undertake in the

future to solve the problem. Answers are summarized in the following table:

Problem species

Methods put into effect at present to mitigate the problem

Proposed actions to solve the problem in the future

ElephantGuarding of fields by making noise and lighting fires (but damages are still increasing)

- Eradicate the species (killing or relocating the animals) from the area- reduce the number of elephant in the area

Crocodile

- No solution (7 villages);- Construction of barriers in the water where people enter the river (2 villages);- Trapping (1 village)

- Eradicate the species (killing or relocating the animals) from the area- Cull only large animals- Built water pumps in villages

Hippopotamus

Building of fences with hanging cans and vegetation around fields to scare hippos, lighting fires near fields, trapping. Since hippos feed at night, guarding of fields is difficult and dangerous

- Eradicate the species from the area - Reduce the number of hippos - Kill one animal to make the others flee from the area

BaboonGuarding of cultivated fields (especially by young boys), trapping, hunting

- No new solutions, but administration should legalize hunting of this species (at present hunting, though extensively practiced, is officially prohibited)- Relocate the animals in a reserve

Vervet monkey

Trapping, hunting, guarding of cultivated field with boys and dogs

Same as for baboon

Cane rat Trapping, burning/clearing of the vegetation around fields

No new solutions to the problem, administration should authorize trapping of this species for field protection

Bush pigGuarding of cultivated fields, trapping, hunting, burning of old tyres near fields

- Administration should authorize trapping of this species for field protection- Relocate the animals in a reserve

Red mongoose Trapping, hunting, construction of stronger hen houses

Eradicate the species from the area

White tailed mongoose

Trapping, hunting, construction of stronger hen houses

- Authorize trapping and hunting of the species, - Eradicate the species

Porcupine Trapping, burning/slashing of the vegetation around fields

No new solutions to the problem, administration should authorize trapping of this species for field protection

Blue monkey Guarding of cultivated fields Relocate the animalsGenet Trapping, hunting with dogs No new solutions, administration

should authorize trapping and

hunting of the species Honey badger Trapping, hunting with dogs Same as for genetCommon duiker

Guarding of cultivated fields No action, problem is of minor importance

Spotted Hyena Scaring animals with fire Relocate the animals in a reserve

Cape otter No methods No action, problem is of minor importance

Greater Galago

No methods No action, problem is of minor importance

It is evident that villagers in Machaze are not willing to live at the side of

potentially dangerous animals. They perceive their territory as a place where

to carry out agriculture and other economic activities, and where large wild

animals are nowadays just a danger for their lives and properties. In their

opinion, elephants, crocodiles and hippos simply should be eradicated from

the area, by killing or relocating them in a reserve far from their land.

Smaller species, on the other hand, are perceived as pests and actively

fought, but at the same time they represent a resource as well. People do

not fear them, and hunters never proposed to eradicate one of these species

from their territory.

54

7 Recommendations

Management of wildlife in Machaze involves economic opportunities, food

security and reduction of the level of conflict with people. The general

strategy should be the one that population of large wildlife species are

managed so that benefits with wildlife are greater than without it. This can

be achieved through four types of actions:

1. Planning the use of the land;

2. Increasing the value of wildlife for rural population through

planned extractive use of wildlife in selected areas and on

selected species;

3. Management of human-wildlife conflicts and actions for

mitigation;

4. Monitoring of conflicts and wildlife populations status.

7.1 Land-use planning: Is the study area suitable for a hunting

concession?

The study was demanded to evaluate the potential of some type of

extractive use of wildlife in the area (in particular sport hunting) in order to

generate income for the local communities and administrations, and to

mitigate human-wildlife conflicts.

From this study it is clear that the area selected by the province is NOT

suitable for sport hunting. This is for several reasons:

1. The land along the Buzi River is the most fertile of the region and is

the major centre for agricultural production. As a consequence human

density is relatively high and will most likely further increase in the

future because of intensive human immigration from the southern

sector of the district.

2. The non-intensive agriculture traditionally practised it has like result

that villages are very dispersed, not leaving large portions of

unoccupied land.

3. Subsistence hunting is intensively practised.

55

4. Densities of trophy species are low.

5. Chaba Ingwe Safari Company is starting his activities of sport hunting

in an area of 19.000 hectares contiguous to the area selected for this

study; low densities observed for most of the larger species do not

justify the presence of two adjoining hunting concessions in Machaze.

It is then NOT recommended to establish a hunting enclosure in the area

investigated by this study. The most sustainable option is to reserve this

land for the agriculture industry. The land along the Buzi river tract from

Chivumo to Sitatonga villages (i.e. most of the study area) is of great

potential and agriculture activity (instead of wildlife related activities) is the

preferred option.

On the contrary, the area selected for the Chaba Ingwe hunting enclosure is

richer in wildlife and suitable for this activity. It is little occupied by

agriculture and developing a wildlife related activity is the more sustainable

option. To this end and in order to reduce human-wildlife conflicts, the

occupation of new land for agriculture inside and around Chaba Ingwe limits,

and particularly along the Chitobe-Chimbia road and along the Buzi River

tract between Sitatonga and Chimbia, should be prevented.

7.2 Increasing the value of wildlife: the Chaba Ingwe hunting

concession in Chimbia

Sport hunting activities in the neighbouring hunting concession of the Chaba

Ingwe Safari Company are an opportunity to increase the value of wildlife

(particularly elephants) reducing at the same time people-wildlife conflicts.

The area is at present little used for agriculture and wildlife is the more

sustainable option. The hunting concession will provide increased benefits to

communities and will help to reduce negative attitudes towards wildlife

particularly if, as suggest in the “Strategies to mitigate human-wildlife

conflict in Mozambique” elaborated by the DNFFB of the Ministry of

Agriculture, the revenue for local communities from licenses sold for animals

shot in Chaba Ingwe will be raised from the 20% that it is at present.

Despite this, it is very unlikely that hunters from Chimbia and Zambira will

stop hunting inside the limits of the enclosure. Meat from wild animals is of

56

prime importance for food security of local population and hunting is a daily

activity for most adult men. If the opening of the hunting concession will

correspond to the repression of subsistence hunting, attitude towards Chaba

Ingwe and administration will presumably be bad.

A key issue is the setting of hunting quotas for trophy species. Density of

major trophy species – elephant, buffalo and kudu – are low and if a

sustainable extractive use of wildlife is the objective, then wildlife

populations’ densities need to be carefully assessed prior to set hunting

quotas and start any extractive activity.

7.3 Reducing conflicts with wildlife

7.3.1 Problem elephants

Problem elephants outside Chaba Ingwe limits should be removed. The

option of relocating small breeding herds of elephants to Gorongosa National

Park, where they are well below their carrying capacity and where a long

term project of habitat restoration is being implemented, is an option that

has to be considered and seriously investigated by the administration and

Park’s authority. If this option is not selected, problem elephants near

villages have to be killed. Unfortunately at present in Mozambique it is

difficult to sell licenses to sport hunters for shooting at problem elephants

outside Coutadas. The national quota set by CITES for elephants is 40

animals and this quota are distributed each year among the Coutadas. A

problem elephant can then be sold only if the annual quota was not reached

at the end of the year. As a result, problem elephants are often not sold but

simply killed by community hunters (as it was the case in Mutefo in 2005)

and this represents a considerable loss of potential benefits for local

communities. Nevertheless, even in the absence of direct revenue for

villagers, shooting problem elephants will contribute to increase personal

and food security of local populations, ameliorating at the same time the

attitude toward wildlife and toward Government and local administration.

It is still not clear if Chaba Ingwe Safaris is planning the construction of water

points to attract game in their enclosure. Elephants at present move toward

the Buzi River during the dry season because of the water and the crops

57

they find there. The construction of water point could have as a result that

elephants will need to move less during the dry season. This could end in a

reduction of conflicts with people living in those villages at the north of the

study area (Udjica, Chivumo, Methunhane, Macuiane etc). To assess the long

term consequences of this intervention, a programme of conflicts monitoring

in Machaze should be put in place as soon as possible (see chapter 7.3.4).

7.3.2 Measures to reduce conflicts with crocodiles

Conflicts with crocodiles are serious in Machaze, causing human fatalities

along with damages to properties. Conflicts with crocodile need to be

reduced by means of:

- Educating villagers on security and if necessary supply villages with

wire netting to erect protective barriers in water collection points along

the Buzi river;

- Digging wells close to the Buzi River so that water can be collected

safely.

- Removing large crocodiles (more than 2.5 meters) either by killing

them or catching them alive for crocodile farming.

7.3.3 Measures to reduce conflicts with hippos

Conflicts with hippos in Machaze are not as severe as for elephants and

crocodiles. No fatal accidents have been reported and the economic losses

are modest. Nevertheless local people perceive their presence as dangerous

and local administration is asked to reduce their presence in the area. The

effective size of the hippo population should be investigated and its viability

evaluated. If that tract of the Buzi River between Chivumo and Chimbia can

support a viable hippo population, than benefits with hippos could be greater

than without hippos and a sustainable management strategy for providing

local community with animal protein needs to be planned. At the same time,

local people should be educated on how to protect their crop, by creating

simple but effective barriers around fields.

7.3.4 Database on human-wildlife conflicts in Machaze

A District data base of human- wildlife conflicts needs to be implemented by

the administration of Machaze and conflicts monitored in a standardized

58

manner, so to catch long term trends and evaluate the results of actions put

in place for mitigation. Other Districts have already started to collect data on

human-wildlife conflicts. An example of form that could be used in Machaze

to collect data is given in annex.

Coutadas’ managers in Mozambique should carry out wildlife surveys in the

hunting concession (at least every 5 years), in order to evaluate trends of

trophy species; in practice, this is usually not done and data on wildlife

species’ status in those “conservation areas” are almost inexistent.

Chaba Ingwe Safari Company will have to monitor the status of large wildlife

populations inside the hunting enclosure including a 3 km buffer zone

around it. This will contribute to reach a sustainable extractive use of wildlife

in Machaze. Reliable and non-expensive survey techniques to count wildlife

from the ground (on foot or by bicycle) are available and could be carried

out employing residents of the surrounding villages.

59

REFERENCES

Anderson J. and Pariela F. A., 2005. “Strategies to mitigate human-wildlife conflict in Mozambique”. Report for the DNFFB of the Ministry of Agriculture, Maputo.

Jachmann, H., 2001. Estimating Abundance of African Wildlife: An Aid to Adaptive Management. Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Jachmann, H., 2002. “Comparison of aerial counts with ground counts for large African herbivores”. Journal of Applied Ecology 39 (5), 841–852.

Moehlman P.D. & IUCN/SSC Equid Specialist Group (Ed.), 2002. “Equids: Zebras, Asses and Horses. Status Survey and Conservation Action Plan”. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland.

Norton-Griffith, M. 1978. Counting animals. Nairobi, African Wildlife Foundation.

Republic of Mozambique. Forest and Wildlife Act (Lei n° 10/99) and Forest and Wildlife Rules (Decreto n° 12/2002).

Smithers, R.H.N. & Lobão Tello, J.L.P., 1976. “Check list and atlas of the mammals of Moçambique”. Museum Memoir Number 8: Salisbury, Rhodesia.

60

Acknowledgements

This work was first of all possible thanks to the assistance and support of the

IAMF project leader in Maputo, Mr. Walter Antonio Marzoli. We are very

grateful to him for the friendly help he has given us.

We would also like to thank all the personnel of the UIF bureau in Maputo

and particularly Mrs. Regina Cruz for her kind assistance.

We are grateful to the Provincial Services of Forestry and Wildlife of Manica

(Ministry of Agriculture) and especially to Mr. Cremildo Rungo and Mr. Argola

as well as to the Staff of Agriculture Directorate of Machaze District and to

the local Administrator, Mrs. Alice Pedroso Gimo Tamele, who received us in

Chitobe.

The aerial survey was possible thanks to Conservation Air Patrol in the

persons of Darren Potgieter, Peter Ragg and Petri Viljoen. We have really

appreciated their dedication to their work.

Interviews were carried out with the assistance of Natercio Nazario, of the

IAC institute of Chimoio who has produced his own report about this study;

we would like to thank him for having shared this experience with us.

Finally, most of the information on the wildlife of Machaze presented in this

report was collected thanks to the cooperation and patience of the people

who live inside and around the study area. We are very grateful to all the

inhabitants and traditional authorities of the villages of Nhadjenane, Udjica,

Machiquiri, Ripango, Chivumo, Macuiane, Chiremane, Zambira, Matunhane,

Nhacuauane, Dambalavo, Chimbia, Hangaracanhe, Sitatonga, Magua and

Miose, and particularly to their villages’ chiefs, the “Regulos” of Mutefo and

Chimbia, Mr. Jahane Razão and Filipe Chamusse, the administrator of the

Mutefo locality, Mr. Maximiano Mucapana, the director of the school in

Mutefo Mr. Joaquin Antonio Doreobi, Mr. Manuel Narcisio and father Alois

Graf and all the Sisters of the catholic mission who have built a splendid

place of peace and friendship in Chitobe.

They all received us in the friendliest way, making this work possible and our

stay in Machaze a beautiful experience.

61

62

Annexe 1: Forms used for interviews

Povoado:

Regulado:

GPS Latitude:S-

GPS Longitude :E-

Data:

Hora:

Língua local:

Entrevistador (nome): Numero de casas Numero de entrevistados

EXISTEM UMA AUTORIDADE TRADICIONAL DE GESTÃO DA FAUNA ? (se “SIM”, especifique)

EXISTEM MÉTODOS TRADICIONAIS DE GESTÃO DA FAUNA (APROVEITAMENTO E CONSERVAÇÃO)? (se “SIM”, especifique)

HÁ PRESENÇA DE CAÇADORES ESTRANGEIROS NA ÁREA? (se “SIM”, especifique a proveniência)

O GESTÃO DO CONFLITOS COM ANIMAIS ESTA SENDO FEITA POR UMA AUTORIDADE ADMINISTRATIVA OU TRADICIONAL?

COMENTÁRIOS

Povoado: GPS Latitude: S- GPS Longitude : E- Data: Língua local:

ESPÉCIE Onde é possível observar a espécie

Fre

qu

ênc

ia 1

-5

Ultima vez que a espécie foi vista e tipo de observação

Variações de frequência ao longo do tempo e razoes de variação de frequênciaNome local Nome cientifico

Sazonalidade da presencia (indique “todo ano” ou o período do ano)

Tipo de utilização: espécie recurso, problemática, tabu

TIPO DE CAÇAIndividual, ColectivaRitual

Local da caça Período de caça (indicar a estação e se é de noite ou de dia)

TIPO de instrumentos de caça usados (modernos e/ou tradicionais)

Auto-consumo e/ou venda? Indique o destino da carne comercializada

Quantidade de carne comercializada(por mes, por ano...)

Preço da carne Repartição de fundos provenientes da venda colectiva ou de gestão por parte de um comité, de gestão etc.

TIPO DE CONFLITO e localização (floresta, pontos de agua, machambas, aldeia etc.)

Métodos aplicados actualmente para solução do conflito com esta espécie

Propostas de novas soluções do conflito com esta espécie

ESPÉCIE Onde é possível observar a espécie

Fre

qu

ênc

ia 1

-5

Ultima vez que a espécie foi vista e tipo de observação

Variações de frequência ao longo do tempo e razoes de variação de frequênciaNome local Nome cientifico

Sazonalidade da presencia (indique “todo ano” ou o período do ano)

Tipo de utilização: espécie recurso, problemática, tabu

TIPO DE CAÇAIndividual, ColectivaRitual

Local da caça Período de caça (indicar a estação e se é de noite ou de dia)

TIPO de instrumentos de caça usados (modernos e/ou tradicionais)

Auto-consumo e/ou venda? Indique o destino da carne comercializada

Quantidade de carne comercializada(por mes, por ano...)

Preço da carne Repartição de fundos provenientes da venda colectiva ou de gestão por parte de um comité, de gestão etc.

TIPO DE CONFLITO e localização (floresta, pontos de agua, machambas, aldeia etc.)

Métodos aplicados actualmente para solução do conflito com esta espécie

Propostas de novas soluções do conflito com esta espécie

64

Annexe 2: Forms for collection of data in Machaze on human-

wildlife conflicts

ELEFANTE

HORA DA OCORRÊNCIA: __: __

POSTO________________________

ALDEIA_______________________ LAT....……....…...….......… LONG……..………..........…….

NOME DO ENUMERADOR__________________________ DATA DO INCIDENTE ...…./....…/..….

NOMES DOS QUEIXOSOS DATA DA QUEIXA ..….. /.…... /….....

_________________________

_________________________

_________________________

_________________________

1) DISTANCIA DO INCIDENTE DAS HABITAÇÕES MAS PRÓXIMAS (Passos) ____________

2) DISTANCIA DO INCIDENTE AO PONTO DE AGUA MAS PRÓXIMO, RIO, LAGOA, BOMBA DE AGUA, (Passos) ____________

3) EXISTE ALGUM TIPO DE MÉTODO PARA MITIGAR O CONFLITOS COM OS ELEFANTES NA ALDEIA? SIM [ ] NÃO [ ] Se SIM especifique aqui o tipo:

Barulho [ ]

Fogo [ ]

Armadilhas [ ]

Caça [ ]

Outros (especificar) .................................................................................................................................

...................................................................................................................................................................

IDADE DA CULTURA

4) CULTURA ATACADA MUDA MEDIA MADURA

______________ [ ] [ ] [ ]

______________ [ ] [ ] [ ]

______________ [ ] [ ] [ ]

______________ [ ] [ ] [ ]

______________ [ ] [ ] [ ]

5) DIMENSÕES (Passos) TOTAIS DO CAMPO ONDE OCORRERAM OS DANOS

COMPRIMENTO _____ PASSOS

LARGURA _____ PASSOS

6) DIMENSÕES (Passos) DA ÁREA DANIFICADA

COMPRIMENTO _____ PASSOS

LARGURA _____ PASSOS

(Em caso de árvores de fruta)TIPO DE ARVORE .................................NUMERO DE PLANTAS .................................

7) OUTRO DANO

CELEIRO [ ] numero de celeiros ......... produto no celeiro..........................

ABASTECIMENTO DE ÁGUA [ ]

AMEAÇA À VIDA [ ] numero de pessoas.........

FERIDA HUMANA [ ] numero de pessoas.........

MORTE HUMANA [ ] numero de pessoas.........

DANOS A INFRA-ESTRUTURAS [ ] tipo..................................................

OUTRO (ESPECIFIQUE)

8) TAMANHO DO GRUPO DE ELEFANTES

Numero total _____

Machos adultos (caso se conheça) _____

Fêmeas adultas (caso se conheça) _____

Animais imaturos (caso se conheça) _____

COMENTÁRIOS

.........................................................................................................................................................................

.

.........................................................................................................................................................................

.

.........................................................................................................................................................................

.

.........................................................................................................................................................................

.

.........................................................................................................................................................................

.

66

Ficha de campo para levantamento de dados sobre conflitos homem-animal

CROCODILO

POSTO________________________ALDEIA_______________________ LAT.....……....…….....… LONG……………..........…….NOME DO ENUMERADOR___________________________ DATA DO INCIDENTE ..…./...…/..….NOMES DOS QUEIXOSOS DATA DA QUEIXA …... /.…. /…...._________________________ _________________________ _________________________

4) NOME DO RIO/LAGOA ..............................................

5) DISTANCIA DO INCIDENTE DAS HABITAÇÕES MAS PRÓXIMAS (Passos) .................

6) EXISTE ALGUM TIPO DE MÉTODO PARA MITIGAR O CONFLITOS COM OS CROCODILOS NA ALDEIA? SIM [ ] NÃO [ ] Se sim especifique aqui o tipo:

Barreiras na agua [ ]Armadilhas [ ]Caça [ ]Outros

(especificar)...............................................................................................................................................

...................................................................................................................................................................

...................................................................................................................................................................

7) ORA DO ATAQUE DO CROCODILO ...................

8) TAMANHO DO CROCODILO (caso se conheça) ...........................

5) DANOS CAUSADOS A PESSOAS

Idade da pessoa atacada_________ Sexo da pessoa atacada M [ ] F [ ]

[ ] A pessoa morreu durante o ataque

[ ] A pessoa sobrevivi ao ataque mas logo morreu

[ ] A pessoa sobrevivi com feridas

ACTIVIDADE DA PESSOA ATACADA[ ] LAVAR ROUPA[ ] TIRAR ÁGUA[ ] TOMAR BANHO[ ] PESCAR NA MARGEM[ ] PESCAR DE CANOA/BARCO[ ] OUTRO (especifique)

6)O CROCODILO FOI MATADO DEPOIS DO ATAQUE? Sim [ ] Por quem?......................................

No [ ]

67

4) DANOS CAUSADOS A ANIMAIS DOMÉSTICOS

[ ] GADO BOVINOFERIMENTO [ ] Indivíduos jovens atacados _____ Indivíduos adultos atacados ______ MORTE [ ] Indivíduos jovens atacados _____ Indivíduos adultos atacados ______

[ ] GADO CAPRINO

FERIMENTO [ ] Indivíduos jovens atacados _____ Indivíduos adultos atacados ______ MORTE [ ] Indivíduos jovens atacados _____ Indivíduos adultos atacados ______

[ ] CÃESFERIMENTO [ ] Indivíduos jovens atacados _____ Indivíduos adultos atacados ______ MORTE [ ] Indivíduos jovens atacados _____ Indivíduos adultos atacados ______

[ ] AVES DOMESTICAS

FERIMENTO [ ] Indivíduos jovens atacados _____ Indivíduos adultos atacados ______ MORTE [ ] Indivíduos jovens atacados _____ Indivíduos adultos atacados ______

[ ]OUTRO especifique:

_________________

FERIMENTO [ ] Indivíduos jovens atacados _____ Indivíduos adultos atacados ______ MORTE [ ] Indivíduos jovens atacados _____ Indivíduos adultos atacados ______

COMENTÁRIOS

.........................................................................................................................................................................

.

.........................................................................................................................................................................

.........................................................................................................................................................................

.

.........................................................................................................................................................................

.

.........................................................................................................................................................................

.

.........................................................................................................................................................................

.

68

Ficha de campo por levantamento de dados sobre conflitos homem animal

HIPOPÓTAMO

HORA DA OCORRÊNCIA: __: __

POSTO________________________

ALDEIA_______________________ LAT....……......…….....… LONG……………..........…….

NOME DO ENUMERADOR__________________________ DATA DO INCIDENTE ..…../....…/.…..

NOMES DOS QUEIXOSOS DATA DA QUEIXA ….... /..….. /…....

_________________________

_________________________

_________________________

_________________________

9) DISTANCIA DO INCIDENTE DAS HABITAÇÕES MAS PRÓXIMAS (Passos) ____________

10) DISTANCIA DA MACHAMBA ATACADA À MARGEM DO RIO (Passos) ____________11) EXISTE ALGUM TIPO DE MÉTODO PARA MITIGAR O CONFLITOS COM OS

HIPOPÓTAMOS NA ALDEIA? SI [ ] NO [ ] Barulho [ ]

Fogo [ ]

Armadilhas [ ]

Caça [ ]

Outros (especificar) .................................................................................................................................

...................................................................................................................................................................

IDADE DA CULTURA

4) CULTURA ATACADA MUDA INTER MADURA

______________ [ ] [ ] [ ]

______________ [ ] [ ] [ ]

______________ [ ] [ ] [ ]

______________ [ ] [ ] [ ]

______________ [ ] [ ] [ ]

5) DIMENSÕES (Passos) TOTAIS DO CAMPO ONDE OCORRERAM OS DANOS

COMPRIMENTO _____ PASSOS

LARGURA _____ PASSOS

6) DIMENSÕES (Passos) DA ÁREA DANIFICADA

COMPRIMENTO _____ PASSOS

69

LARGURA _____ PASSOS

70

7) OUTRO DANO

AMEAÇA À VIDA [ ] quantidade .........

FERIDA HUMANA [ ] quantidade .........

MORTE HUMANA [ ] quantidade .........

OUTRO (ESPECIFIQUE)

.........................................................................................................................

.........................................................................................................................................................................

.........................................................................................................................................................................

8) TAMANHO DO GRUPO DE HIPOPÓTAMOS NÚMERO

Numero total _____

Machos adultos (caso se conheça) _____

Fêmeas adultas (caso se conheça) _____

Animais imaturos (caso se conheça) _____

COMENTÁRIOS

..........................................................................................................................................................................

..........................................................................................................................................................................

..........................................................................................................................................................................

..........................................................................................................................................................................

..........................................................................................................................................................................

..........................................................................................................................................................................

..........................................................................................................................................................................

..........................................................................................................................................................................

..........................................................................................................................................................................

..........................................................................................................................................................................

..........................................................................................................................................................................

..........................................................................................................................................................................

71

Ficha de campo por levantamento de dados sobre conflitos homem animal

D) OUTROS ANIMAIS (especificar a espécie) _____________________

HORA DA OCORRÊNCIA: __: __

POSTO________________________

ALDEIA_______________________ LAT....……....…….....… LONG……………..........…….

NOME DO ENUMERADOR____________________________ DATA DO INCIDENTE .…./..

…/.….

NOMES DOS QUEIXOSOS DATA DA QUEIXA ….. /.…. /…...

_________________________

_________________________

_________________________

12) DISTANCIA DO INCIDENTE DAS HABITAÇÕES MAS PRÓXIMAS (Passos) ____________

13) DISTANCIA DO INCIDENTE DÃO PONTO DE AGUA MAS PRÓXIMO, RIO, LAGOA, BOMBA DE AGUA, (Passos) ____________

14) EXISTE ALGUM TIPO DE MÉTODO PARA MITIGAR O CONFLITOS COM ESTA ESPÉCIE

NA ALDEIA? SI [ ] NO [ ]

Se sim especifique aqui o tipo:

Barulho [ ]

Fogo [ ]

Armadilhas [ ]

Caça [ ]

Outros (especificar) .................................................................................................................................

...................................................................................................................................................................

IDADE DA CULTURA

4) CULTURA ATACADA MUDA INTER MADURA

______________ [ ] [ ] [ ]

______________ [ ] [ ] [ ]

______________ [ ] [ ] [ ]

______________ [ ] [ ] [ ]

______________ [ ] [ ] [ ]

5) DIMENSÕES (Passos) TOTAIS DO CAMPO ONDE OCORRERAM OS DANOS

COMPRIMENTO _____ PASSOS

LARGURA _____ PASSOS

72

6) DIMENSÕES (Passos) DA ÁREA DANIFICADA

COMPRIMENTO _____ PASSOS

LARGURA _____ PASSOS

(Em caso de árvores de fruta)TIPO DE ARVORE .................................NUMERO DE PLANTAS .................................

7) OUTRO DANO

CELEIRO [ ] numero de celeiros ......... produto no celeiro..........................

ABASTECIMENTO DE ÁGUA [ ]

AMEAÇA À VIDA [ ] numero de pessoas.........

FERIDA HUMANA [ ] numero de pessoas.........

MORTE HUMANA [ ] numero de pessoas.........

FERIDA ANIMAIS DOMÉSTICOS [ ] animal domestico.................................... .......... numero .........

MORTE ANIMAIS DOMÉSTICOS [ ] tipo animal domestico........................................

numero .........

OUTRO (ESPECIFIQUE)

COMENTÁRIOS

.........................................................................................................................................................................

.........................................................................................................................................................................

.........................................................................................................................................................................

.........................................................................................................................................................................

.........................................................................................................................................................................

.........................................................................................................................................................................

.........................................................................................................................................................................

.........................................................................................................................................................................

.........................................................................................................................................................................

.........................................................................................................................................................................

.........................................................................................................................................................................

.........................................................................................................................................................................

73