542 L. Sibanda et al.
TABLE 1 Lion Panthera leo mortality in north-western Zimbabwe before (2008–2012) and after (2013–2017) the introduction of the Long Shields programme across three communities. Numbers are presented separately for collared and non-collared individuals.
Mabale Before
Poison 00 0 Spear
2 1
1 0
1 0
Total 43 4 1Problem animal control by officials.
After
Tsholotsho Before
0 10 00 00 00 1 0 1
2 0
6 0
0 0
0 1
0 0
0 0
0 0
1 4 13 2 5 0 5 0 5 After
Victoria Falls Before
Total After
Collared? Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Shooting1 12 3 Snare
Before
1 17 24 05 05 16 0
29
0 11 0
After
15 1 0 1
17
Although our overall findings indicate that losses to
lions have decreased since the implementation of the Long Shields programme, the impact of the programme varied across study sites. Participating farmers in Mabale experi- enced an increase in livestock depredation over the course of the study. The reasons are difficult to discern, but this could be related to several large-scale demographic factors (e.g. increase in human population and land-use change) that were beyond the scope of the study design. In all three sites, distinct social norms and regulations dictate local livestock grazing practices (Sibanda et al., 2020). Farmers in Tsholotsho and Victoria Falls graze their live- stock in specifically designated rangeland areas located within the communal lands. In contrast, farmers in Mabale graze their livestock within Sikumi Forest Land, a wildlife area where an agreement with the local forestry authorities allows farmers to graze cattle up to 3 km inside the forest boundary (Guerbois et al., 2013). The risk of live- stock depredation by lions is generally higher in these wild- life areas (Valls-Fox et al., 2018). Further, Guerbois et al. (2013) reported that the human population density in Mabale has been rising rapidly, with a 60% increase during 2000–2010. As a consequence of this increase in the human population and the conversion of land into crop fields, the number of farmers who depend on Sikumi Forest Land for water and grazing is increasing (Perrotton, 2015). There are reports that farmers are now venturing up to 7 km into the wildlife area to find high-quality pasture, thereby visiting areas that are frequently used by lions (Valls-Fox et al., 2018). The observed increase in livestock depredation rates in Mabale may thus be attributed to the expansion of the local human population and the cascading implications for livestock management practices that bring livestock and lions into closer contact. Another possible reason for the increased livestock losses
in Mabale could be the local implementation of measures to control so-called problem animals. Our intervention relied on placing GPS collars on individual lions in a pride to de- termine when the pride was close to human settlements, so that warning messages could be sent to farmers and hazing
initiated (Petracca et al., 2019). However, if lions continued to pose a threat, often after repeated attacks on livestock, the communities could request assistance from the local author- ities who may legally shoot and kill individual lions classi- fied as problem animals. The shooting of lions as a control measure occurred throughout our study period, with a total of 15 lions being shot since the inception of the Long Shields programme (Mabale = 4, Tsholotsho = 6, Victoria Falls = 5; Table 1). However, in Mabale the majority (75%, 3 individ- uals) of these lions were fitted with GPS collars (50% of the collared individuals in the area). This compromised our ability to effectively monitor the movement of livestock- predating lions and hindered the implementation of the early warning system in that area. We thus recommend that conservationists consider possible differences or risks across study sites when designing interventions. Our findings indicate that in Tsholotsho, livestock losses
to lions were reduced after programme implementation even for non-participating farmers (Fig. 2). We suggest three possible reasons: (1) lions may have been generally deterred from using communal land, which also bene- fited non-participating villages, (2) the exchange of alert messages warning of approaching lions prompted non- participating farmers to move their grazing livestock to a lower-risk area, or (3) the efficacy of using night-time kraals was communicated by participating farmers to their non- participating counterparts (Sibanda et al., 2021). These find- ings suggest that the impacts of the Long Shields pro- gramme may have expanded beyond the initial target area. Similar effects were observed in Assam, India, where farmers who did not participate in a community-based human–elephant conflict mitigation programme recorded a reduction in crop losses after they exchanged information on crop protection measures with peers who were pro- gramme participants (Zimmermann et al., 2009). Future re- search should examine communication channels and broader social networks to gain further insights into this sharing of information amongst communities (Sibanda et al., 2021). The number of lions killed in retaliation for depreda- tion decreased by 41% after the start of the Long Shields
Oryx, 2022, 56(4), 537–545 © The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Fauna & Flora International doi:10.1017/S0030605321000302
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140 |
Page 141 |
Page 142 |
Page 143 |
Page 144 |
Page 145 |
Page 146 |
Page 147 |
Page 148 |
Page 149 |
Page 150 |
Page 151 |
Page 152 |
Page 153 |
Page 154 |
Page 155 |
Page 156 |
Page 157 |
Page 158 |
Page 159 |
Page 160 |
Page 161 |
Page 162 |
Page 163 |
Page 164