The plight of Malawi s wildlife: is trans-location of animals the solution?

Biodiversity and Conservation 11: 751 768, 00. 00 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands. The plight of Malawi s wildlife: is trans-location of animals the solution? 1, * SIMON M. MUNTHALI and FRANCIS X. MKANDA 1 SADC Wildlife Technical Co-ordination Unit, P.O. Box 30131, Lilongwe 3, Malawi; Department of National Parks and Wildlife, P.O. Box 30131, Lilongwe 3, Malawi; * Author for correspondence (e-mail: smunthali@tropical.co.mz) Received June 000; accepted in revised form 17 May 001 Key words: In situ conservation, Malawi, Poaching threats, Translocation Abstract. Poaching for wildlife in Malawi s national parks and wildlife reserves has forced the Department of National Parks and Wildlife (DNPW) to resort to translocating animals from Kasungu to Liwonde National Park. The rationale for this action has been influenced by the perception that Liwonde National Park is safer from incursions by poachers than Kasungu National Park. An examination of anthropogenic threats in terms of encroachment and illegal activities, however, suggests that this premise may have been misapplied. The higher human population density neighbouring Liwonde compared with Kasungu National Park is a potential threat to the conservation of wildlife in the former. Furthermore, the magnitude of illegal activities in Liwonde is not any different from that observed in Kasungu. Therefore, it is questionable if translocation is the ultimate solution to the plight of wildlife in Malawi. Two translocations have been undertaken to date, but both have been disastrous failures. We recommend that the DNPW should improve in situ conservation of wildlife by curbing poaching pressure and ensuring that communities neighbouring protected wildlife areas are given sufficient incentives to support wildlife conservation. Introduction Protected wildlife areas, such as national parks and wildlife reserves, account for about 11.7% (1.1 million ha) of the total land area of about 9.4 million ha in Malawi (Orr et al. 1998). The occupancy of such large land areas by national parks and wildlife reserves has created serious conflicts between the government and the interests of rural communities. The Malawi Government s goals for establishing protected areas include wildlife and water catchment conservation, while rural communities view the protected wildlife areas as potential land for settlement and agricultural development. This is particularly the case because overall wildlife does not play a major role in Malawi s economy due to low animal population density, and limited tourist infrastructure (World Bank 1991). Furthermore, the role that national parks and wildlife areas play in catchment conservation seems to be nebulous to the majority of Malawians, hence they do not necessarily appreciate the values of protected areas. Although the Department of National Parks and Wildlife (DNPW) has made concerted efforts to make wildlife in Malawi an asset for promoting rural development based on sustainable use, so far nothing tangible has been implemented in this

75 regard. In its effort to win the support of local communities in conserving wildlife, DNPW has since 1985 allowed local communities living around protected areas to collect on sustainable basis some resources (e.g., thatch-grass, mushrooms, termites and Saturniidae caterpillars) and practice beekeeping, in and around the protected areas. The main objective of these schemes is to diversify the rural people s economic base, and consequently encourage them to adopt wildlife management as an adjunct to subsistence agriculture. However, in achieving this objective, the economic viability of these resources, e.g., beekeeping in relation to the most predominant rural enterprises, such as agriculture, has not been demonstrated to rural people. So far promotion of beekeeping to the rural people has been on ad hoc basis, with inadequate information on its economic viability and efficiency. Consequently, there is an element of risk for rural communities to adopt beekeeping as an economic activity, more especially as it attracts an interest rate of 16% per annum on the loan given to local communities for getting started in the beekeeping business. The high interest rate seems to have reduced the local community s enthusiasm to invest in beekeeping. This failure has led to the widespread illicit use of protected wildlife, resulting in the demise of many large mammals in protected areas (Munthali 1998a). Outside of the protected areas, wildlife is treated as an open-access resource. Traditional authorities no longer regulate the activities of their own people, nor do they deter outsiders from utilising wildlife that occurs within their territories. The indifference of traditional authorities, coupled with the rapid increases in Malawi s human population (10.3 million by 1998), with an annual increase of.5% (World Resources Institute 1998), has resulted in depletion of many large mammals outside protected areas. The main causes for this depletion are illegal hunting, problem animal control by the DNPW, and habitat destruction (Munthali 1998a). For instance, Munthali (1998b) reported that from 1986 to 1996, of the 7083 various large mammals known officially to have been killed in Malawi, % were illegally killed in protected areas, while 78% were killed in protection of the human life and property outside protected areas. Additionally, about 3.5% of the total forest cover is being lost annually due to deforestation (World Bank 1991). The DNPW, which is the government agency responsible for management of all wildlife resources in the country, is ill equipped to counteract the illegal off-take of wildlife. DNPW receives insufficient funds from the Government to effectively manage the protected wildlife areas, let alone the wildlife that occurs outside protected areas. Funding levels have been aggravated by the World Bank s Economic Structural Adjustment Programme imposed on Malawi. Dublin et al. (1995) reported that excluding salaries, the budgetary allocation to the DNPW had declined by nearly 5% in real terms between 1988 and 1993. With such receding funding levels, field patrollers have in some instances operated with inadequate ammunition, uniform, and camping equipment. This has greatly eroded their morale, particularly as poachers have increasingly used sophisticated weaponry in killing animals. As a desperate attempt to safeguard wildlife in protected areas, DNPW has recently translocated some large mammals from Kasungu National Park, in the central region of the country, to Liwonde National Park, in the southern region. The

753 species and numbers that were translocated are 13 zebra (Equus burchelli), 9 roan antelope (Hippotragus equinus), 15 eland (Taurotragus oryx), 40 Lichtenstein s hartebeest (Alcelaphus lichtensteini), and 90 buffalo (Syncerus caffer). Given the wide distribution of these species across Africa (Clarke 1983b), it is possible that they may have occurred in the area that is now Liwonde National Park. This contention is based on the fact that other species, such as kudu (Tragelaphus strepsiceros), warthog (Phachoecorus aethiopicus), and impala (Aepyceros melampus) that associate with the translocated species occur in the park. It is possible that the demise of these five species may have occurred during the rinderpest epidemic of the 1890s that swept across Africa (Clarke 1983a). Irrespective of the fact that the species may have occurred in the past, the fact that they have not been recorded since the park s establishment over 30 years ago raises concern as to the ecological implication of introducing or reintroducing them where they no longer exist. Apart from the concern about the survival of the translocated species in a totally new environment, there appears to be a misguided sense of trust in the effectiveness of law-enforcement patrols in Liwonde National Park. The park has a rhino sanctuary that was established in 1993 to accommodate two black rhinoceroses (Diceros bicornis) imported from South Africa. The sanctuary occupies an area of 40 ha, and it is guarded 4 hours a day by armed Wildlife Scouts. The rest of the park, however, does not benefit from similar law-enforcement intensity. During the construction of the rhino sanctuary, a resident herd of 40 sable antelopes (H. niger) were inadvertently enclosed. It is believed that these sables increased to 10 by 1999 (R. Bhima, personal communication). These figures imply an average annual increment rate of 13.3%, which can be attributed to better habitat in terms of food resource and security in the sanctuary. Such a high annual increment rate is not unusual under suitable habitat conditions. For example in Lengwe National Park, Malawi, annual increment rates of nyala (Tragelaphus angasi) have been estimated to be as high as 1.6% because of provision of water supply, which was limiting the population (Bell 1981). In 1999, part of the enclosed sable population was released into the larger part of the park. As a result of this success, it is the intention of DNPW to make the Liwonde rhino sanctuary a breeding centre for animals that have been translocated from Kasungu National Park. The ultimate aim is to release the animals in Liwonde National Park, and hopefully relocate some back to Kasungu National Park, once they have multiplied in numbers. DNPW s rationale for translocating the five species is that Liwonde is a safer sanctuary than Kasungu. The basis for this rationale is that there is less poaching in Liwonde than in Kasungu National Park. The fundamental concern, however, should have been that if the species truly are not native to Liwonde, then surely the translocation was contradictory to the basic conservation biology principle of avoiding introduction of species in a new ecosystem. In fact article 8 (h) of the Convention on Biological Diversity calls for the prevention of the introduction of alien species. Habitat suitability studies were never conducted prior to the translocation, and it was beyond the scope of our study to do so. The fundamental principle notwithstanding, this study examined the rationale for

754 the translocation based on the premise that Liwonde is more secure from illegal incursions than Kasungu. Although this examination may be of secondary importance, it provides an adequate basis for challenging the rationality of the translocation exercise. Since law enforcement in Liwonde is skewed in favour of the rhino sanctuary, we argue that DNPW s justification for translocating animals from Kasungu to Liwonde is not convincing. There is no evidence to prove that once the animals are released into the larger part of Liwonde National Park they will be safer than they were in Kasungu. To prove our argument, we examined some of the anthropogenic threats to wildlife in the two national parks under an alternative hypothesis that Liwonde may not be a safer refuge than Kasungu National Park. Secondly, we discuss the implications of translocation with respect to the population status of the species that have been removed, vis a` vis local communities benefits from the two parks. Study sites Kasungu National Park Kasungu National Park (316 km ), located at 18559S, 338089 E (Figure 1), lies on the international border with Zambia within the central African Plateau in central Malawi. The park s geology is dominantly of ancient biotite gneiss and other acid rocks of the Precambrian age. The soils are sandy, and of low fertility (Clarke 1983a). Brachystegia/Julbernadia and Isobelirnia angolensis are the dominant vegetation types. The park supports 47 mammal species, including elephant (Loxodonta africana) as the keystone species, with great influence on the park s biomass, 1 1 which ranges from 500 kg ha in areas with poor nutrient soils to 4700 kg ha in areas of high nutrient soils (Bell et al. 1993). The human settlements in the neighbourhood of the park depend on agriculture. Smallholder farmers grow maize, beans, groundnuts, cassava and sweet potatoes. They also keep some livestock, mostly poultry, and to a little extent the farmers own micro-enterprises such as shops, pottery, and local beer breweries (Mkanda and Munthali 1994). Local communities within a 5 km radius of the park are allowed on a small scale to pick Saturniidae caterpillars, and practice beekeeping in the park as a means of supplementing their diets and incomes (Munthali and Mughogho 199). Liwonde National Park Liwonde National Park (548 km ) is located upon 148509 S, 35809 E (Figure 1) within the Great East African Rift Valley, south of Lake Malawi. It is surrounded by human settlements, most of whom engage in subsistence agriculture based on maize, sorghum, rice, sugar canes and pulses. Geologically, the area is composed of Precambrian gneisses covered by quaternary to recent alluvial and gravely colluvium soils (Clarke 1983b). The dominant vegetation types are Mopane woodland, Brachystegia woodlands in the hills, and

755 Figure 1. Map of Malawi showing protected areas, and the study sites. Kasungu National Park is shown as number 3, and Liwonde is number 6. Source: Stuart et al. (1990). seasonally flooded grasslands along the Shire River (Clarke 1983b). Thirty-five mammal species have been recorded in Liwonde National Park (Clarke 1983b), of which the most common include Elephant, Hippopotamus (Hippopotamus amphibius), Sable, Kudu (T. strepsiceros), Impala (A. melampus), Warthog (P. aethiopicus) and Bushbuck (T. scriptus). The overall carrying capacity of Liwonde 1 National Park in terms of biomass is estimated at 5000 kg ha (Clarke 1983b). Methods To evaluate threats to wildlife in both Kasungu and Liwonde National Parks, several relevant and comparable indicators were selected as the focus of the study. These include human population growth around the two parks, and its associated problems such as encroachment and illegal off-take of wildlife. Counter-measures, in the form of law-enforcement effort were also evaluated. Besides these parameters, population trends of the translocated animals at their site of origin were examined to find out if the removal may have a negative impact on their numbers, and hence gene pools.

756 Human population pressure around Liwonde and Kasungu National Parks Population pressure around the two national parks was measured in terms of arithmetic human population density and the degree of encroachment (for cultivation and settlement) into the parks. Due to the unavailability of the most recent census results, we used 1977 and 1987 population census results to calculate the changes in population pressure around Liwonde and Kasungu National Parks. Records on the amount of land encroached and excised from the two national parks were obtained from the DNPW. Illegal off-take of wildlife Law-enforcement effort, number of poachers arrested, and the number of large animals illegally killed in the two protected areas were used to assess the extent of illegal activities in the two parks. Data on law-enforcement effort, expressed as catch per effort, were extracted from quarterly patrol reports from the two areas for the period when complete data were available, i.e., 1991 1996. The catch per effort method gives an index of encounter rates of illegal activity per unit law-enforcement effort by area and time. It was developed by the Malawi Wildlife Research Unit by using catch per effort indices from patrol records (Bell 1984a). The indices are calculated using the following formula: C/E5KI where C is the catch, i.e., the number of encounters with illegal activity per unit area per unit time; E is the effort, i.e., the index of patrolling effort per unit area per unit time; K is the capture constant, which defines the relationship between catch per effort and the quantity of illegal activity per unit area per unit time; and I is the quantity of illegal activity per unit area per unit time. The catch per effort data were compared between Liwonde and Kasungu National Parks. Records of the number of arrested poachers were also extracted from quarterly and annual patrol analysis reports over a period of 16 years. Hsu s statistical test (Sall and Lehman 1996), which compares differences in the means, was applied to determine if DNPW s assumption that Liwonde is better than Kasungu regarding illegal incursions, and hence safer for the translocated animals, was valid. Similarly, the test was used to determine if the number of arrests differed significantly between the two parks. Population and number of large mammals illegally killed The population estimates for large mammals in the two parks were extracted from DNPW s latest aerial survey report of 1994, while the number of species illegally killed was obtained from quarterly and annual patrol analysis reports for the period 1986 1996. The Sign Test (Siegel and Castellan 1988) was used in comparing the extent of illegal off-take of wild animals between the two parks.

757 Status of the translocated animals in Kasungu National Park The population census data of the translocated animals were examined for the years when the census was done in Kasungu National Park, i.e., 1981, 1987, 1989, 199, and 1993. The most recent data were unavailable. A regression analysis was applied to discern trends in the populations of the translocated animals in this park. Results Population pressure The human population around the two parks has substantially increased over a period of 10 years. However, the population density around Liwonde National Park is more than twice as high as around Kasungu (Table 1). Similarly, the degree of encroachment is much higher in Liwonde National Park than in Kasungu, where land has never been excised in response to either public pressure or illegal encroachment. To the contrary, Liwonde National Park has lost about 3.3% of its total area (Table ). Law-enforcement effort The catch per effort indices are higher in Liwonde than in Kasungu National Park (d 5.68, P 5 0.01, Hsu s MCB test, Figure a). However, in terms of the number of arrested poachers, there is no significant difference between the two parks (d 5.45, P. 0.01, Figure b). Table 1. Trends in human population densities in traditional authorities in which Kasungu and Liwonde National Parks occur over the period 1977 1988. Human population density (persons/ km ) National Park 1977 1987 % Increase Kasungu 30.0 5.0 73.3 Liwonde 76.3 130.3 70.8 Source: National Statistics Office (1987). Table. Extent of encroachment in Kasungu and Liwonde National Parks in km. Protected area Land parameter Kasungu Liwonde Size (km ) 316 548 Land (km ) legally excised due to population pressure 0 10 Land (km ) illegally cultivated 0 8 %Habitat reduction 0 3.3 Source: Munthali (1998a).

758 Figure. (a) Law-enforcement catch per unit effort indices for Kasungu and Liwonde National Parks. (b) Number of poachers arrested in Kasungu and Liwonde National Parks. Number of animals illegally killed in Kasungu and Liwonde National Parks Elephant and buffalo have been the main target for poachers in Kasungu National Park, while in Liwonde, besides the elephant, hippopotamus, waterbuck (Kobus ellipsiprymnus) and sable have been the most taken animals (Table 3). However, in terms of number of animals illegally killed, there is no significant difference between Kasungu and Liwonde National Parks (Sign Test, z 50.7, P. 0.05). Population trends of the translocated animals Among the animals that have been translocated, only buffalo (r 5 0.96, t 5 5.69, P, 0.05) has been increasing in numbers. The rest have significantly declined (Figure 3(a e)) over the period under review: eland (r 50.90, t 5 3.63, P, 0.05),

759 Table 3. Population size and number of wild animals illegally killed in Kasungu and Liwonde National Parks from 1986 to 1996; the most recent population estimate in the two parks was done in 1993. Species Kasungu National Park Liwonde National Park 1993 Number 1993 Number Population illegally Population illegally estimate killed estimate killed Aardvark (Orycteropus afer) n/a 1 n/a 0 Buffalo (Synterus caffer) 109 56 Bushbuck (Tragelaphus scriptus) 10 0 1 1 Bushpig (Potamochoerus porcus) n/a 4 n/a 0 Common duiker (Sylvicpra grimmia) 84 3 0 Eland (Taurotragus oryx) 3 6 Elephant (Loxodonta africana) 763 16 414 66 Hartebeest (Alcelaphus lichtensteini) 95 6 Hippo (Hippotomus amphibius) 55 0 359 54 Impala (Aepyceros melampus) 60 0 451 10 Kudu (Tragelaphus strepticeros) 135 3 18 14 Lion (Panthera leo) n/a 0 n/a 3 Porcupine (Hystrix africae-australis) n/a 3 n/a 0 Puku (Kobus kob) 3 4 Reedbuck (Redunca arundinum) 45 4 0 Roan (Hippotragus equinus) 130 5 Sable (H. niger) 09 686 7 Waterbuck (Kobus ellipsiprymnus) n/a 1 539 53 Warthog (Phachoecorus aethiopicus) 308 7 16 0 Zebra (Eruus burchelli) 166 5 ( ) Implies that the particular species does not occur in the park. In using the Sign Test, only species that occur in both parks were included in the analysis. n/a implies that a particular species was not included in the survey, either due to its nocturnal behaviour, e.g., bushpig, porcupine and aardvark, or because it occurs in very low numbers, e.g., waterbuck in Kasungu National Park, or due to cryptic behaviour which makes it difficult to count from an aircraft, e.g., lion. hartebeest (r 5 0.91, t 5 3.77, P, 0.05), roan (r 5 0.97, t 5 7.4, P, 0.05) and zebra (r 50.9, t 5 3.95, p, 0.05). Discussion Translocation of wildlife is a recognised form of wildlife management in Malawi and indeed, the world over. It has been used as a means of reducing grazing or browsing pressure on wildlife habitats or simply stocking new areas. For example in 1981, as part of alleviating pressure due to drought in Lengwe National Park, the DNPW recommended that 400 nyala (T. angasi) be removed in the form of culling and translocation (Bell 1981; Kamvazina 1981; Munthali 1991). Furthermore, it has been recommended that in the event of climate-change induced habitat deterioration, translocation could be one of the adaptive measures in national parks (Mkanda 1996). The present situation, however, did not warrant any translocation. Previous experience shows that animals that were translocated from Kasungu to

760 Figure 3. (a e) Trends in the population of translocated wildlife species in Kasungu National Park.

761 Figure 3. (continued). Liwonde never survived. In 1985, the DNPW initially translocated 0 buffalo and eight zebra from Kasungu National Park to Liwonde National Park, but all the animals escaped and/ or were killed by the villagers outside the Liwonde National Park. Considering the magnitude of illegal activity in Liwonde, our data also suggest that the long-term survival of the translocated animals is questionable. Population pressure It is apparent that in deciding to translocate animals from Kasungu to Liwonde National Park, the threat that the high human population density poses on the long-term survival of the translocated animals and their habitats was not taken into consideration by DNPW. The most obvious threat caused by the human population pressure is encroachment, which in Liwonde National Park has resulted in a loss of 18 km (3.3%) of the total area of the park (Table ). The population density around

76 this park has been more than twice as high as around Kasungu National Park (Table 1). In view of an annual growth of about.5% (National Statistics Office 1987) there is reason to believe that in the communities neighbouring both parks, the densities have increased since the 1987 census. In the western part of Liwonde National Park the human population density is as high as 30 persons/km, and cultivation extends to the park boundary (Bhima 1998). With this high population density, it can be expected that in the near future, human encroachment, and demands to degazette Liwonde National Park will escalate. The need for land is underpinned by the fact that Malawi s economy is heavily dependent on agriculture, which employs 96% of the rural people, and it is considered to be the key means of meeting demands for the much needed food and cash to improve the people s living standards. In the traditional authorities in which Kasungu National Park occurs, on the other hand, the human population density (Table 1) is lower than the national average of about 117 persons/ km (National Statistics Office 1993), and as the park has not lost any portion due to encroachment, we are inclined to believe that this density is not yet a threat to the park s habitats (Table ). Therefore, in terms of human population pressure and encroachment, Kasungu is safer than Liwonde National Park. Translocating animals from Kasungu to Liwonde National Park, therefore, renders the animals vulnerable to impacts of habitat reduction. The other consequence of high human population around wildlife protected areas is exacerbation of wildlife/ human conflicts, such as crop raiding and human injuries or death caused by wildlife. Deodatus and Sefu (199) have reported that annually, villagers neighbouring Liwonde National Park lose about two million Malawi Kwacha (US$ 44000) due to crop damage by wildlife. In contrast, farmers that are adjacent to Kasungu National Park lose about one million Malawi Kwacha (US$ 000). Consequently, by introducing more animals to Liwonde National Park, the crop damage situation may be aggravated, and thus the antagonism by the local communities towards the park and its authorities. Already the relationship between the park authorities and communities is strained by the extant wildlife/ human conflicts. As a manifestation of their antagonism, villagers have vandalised the park perimeter fence (H. Jamusana, personal communication). Poachers seeking resources in the park can cross between the fence strands without having to vandalise it. Therefore its vandalisation is a sign of people s intolerance of the park s existence. In the absence of a park perimeter fence in Liwonde, lots of animals may be killed by DNPW s Problem Animal Control Unit (PACU), which has the task of protecting humans and their property from marauding wild animals. Ensnaring of animals by the local communities, and the killing of animals to protect human interests threaten the long-term survival of the wildlife in Liwonde National Park. In Kasungu National Park on the other hand, the communities that live close to the park are separated by an approximately 5 km radius buffer zone and a solarelectric fence. It has been reported that the fence significantly reduced both the number of animals killed in protection of crops, and the damage caused by wildlife to crops in the surrounding villages (Bell 1984b).

763 Illegal activities Although the number of large mammals killed (Table 3) and poachers arrested in Liwonde and Kasungu National Parks (Figure b) are not significantly different, the catch per effort indices are significantly higher in Liwonde than in Kasungu National Park (Figure a). This implies that both parks experience serious poaching, with Liwonde being worst in this regard. This observation nullifies the premise on which the translocation was based, and questions the logic of translocating animals from one unsafe park to another one that is equally unsafe. The number of animals recorded as illegally killed in Kasungu and Liwonde National Parks (Table 3) is not a true reflection of the mortality of animals due to illegal hunting. Poaching is rampant (Figure a and b), but often poachers remove the dead animals without being detected by the law-enforcement personnel, partly because patrol coverage of the protected areas is rarely 100%. For instance, Bell (1984a) noted that in Malawi, law-enforcement patrollers tend to follow a limited number of familiar routes and footpaths. This pattern does not only result in actual patrol-coverage reduction, but patrollers movements also become predictable and hence, avoidable by poachers. In terms of illegal off-take of wildlife, therefore, neither Kasungu nor Liwonde can be considered to be safer than the other. Trends in the population of the translocated animals in Kasungu National Park Besides buffalo, the populations of all other animals that have been translocated to Liwonde National Park have significantly declined in Kasungu National Park over a period of 1 years (Figure 3a e). Although the actual impact of removing animals from the declining populations is not known, it is feared that the genetic diversity within such populations may not be maintained at sufficient levels to guard against inbreeding depression. Furthermore, by introducing these animals to Liwonde, which is outside their natural range, the DNPW may be contributing to the demise of these animal species, especially if they eventually end up being poached once they have been released from their high security enclosure. The decline in large mammals is not unique to Kasungu National Park. Similar trends have been reported for large mammals in all of Malawi s wildlife protected areas (Munthali 1998a). For instance, of the 18 large mammal species that occur in Malawi, one, the Blue Wildebeest (Connochaetes taurinus), is extinct. Others, such as elephant, nyala, waterbuck, hartebeest, eland, roan, and zebra have overall significantly declined in numbers over the past two decades (Munthali 1998a). Although a number of factors, such as natural mortality, habitat destruction and inbreeding depression can cause the population of wildlife to decline, the demise of large mammals in Malawi s protected areas can largely be attributed to illegal hunting due to significant decline in law-enforcement performance in most protected areas in Malawi (Munthali 1998a).

764 Alternative approaches The biggest challenge for the DNPW is to improve in situ conservation of wildlife. This could be achieved by: (a) Forming alliances among the different stakeholders, such as government, private sector, local communities living in the neighbourhood of protected areas and non-governmental organisations (NGOs). The role of the government in this alliance should be to provide an enabling environment for the private sector and local communities to participate in the development and marketing of ecotourism, and management of wildlife through policy and legislation revision. The role of NGOs should be to: assist in capacity building at local levels through helping rural communities to organise themselves, identify and address their problems relating to wildlife management develop entrepreneurship in ecotourism and natural resource management skills of the rural communities; and seek funds from international donors for community-based ecotourism development, and conservation of biodiversity. Elsewhere in southern Africa, community-based ecotourism has been developed as a means of diversifying the local communities income base. Notable examples include the community ecotourism initiative in Ndumo Game Reserve, where the KwaZulu Natal Nature Conservation Services involves local communities in providing an overnight facility at the entrance to the reserve (Pollock 1994). Similarly, in Namibia, besides campsites development by local communities and the provision of local tourism guides, bed and breakfast in traditional homes, there are numerous examples of joint ventures between the private sector and local communities in the development of ecotourism (Ashley 1995). The income that is earned from these ventures and controlled by the communities boosts local development and conservation (Ashley 1995). Development of community-based ecotourism around and in Malawi s protected wildlife areas would be consistent with the Government s goal of alleviating poverty in the rural areas, and would be seen as one of the ways communities could emancipate themselves from the web of subsistence livelihoods, and encroachment into protected areas. Rural communities would undoubtedly be willing to participate, as they do not necessarily want to remain backwards and wedded to a largely subsistence livelihood (cf. Walker 1994). However, any wildlife-based investment promoted by the DNPW for the local communities neighbouring protected areas should be preceded by a community s needs assessment and socio-economic evaluation. This would help in promoting activities that are acceptable, viable and sustainable. Part of the revenues earned from ecotourism can be re-invested in strengthening the law-enforcement capacity. It has been reported that increasing an overall lawenforcement budget led to increased law-enforcement manpower, improved investigation techniques and a bonus system, which concomitantly enhanced wildlife conservation in the Luangwa Valley, Zambia (Jachmann and Billiouw 1997). The

765 DNPW should therefore endeavour to learn from these experiences. Regardless of availability of incentives to local communities, e.g., revenues from the private sector and local communities joint venture eco-tourism operations, there will always be deviants, who will continue poaching; therefore, enhancement of law enforcement should always be a priority by the DNPW. (b) As the human population densities around wildlife protected areas are high and, therefore, it is not feasible to involve everybody in ecotourism development and marketing, the DNPW should raise funds from commercialised activities in w protected areas, and/ or donors for the provision of social amenities in the villages neighbouring the protected areas. These services should be directly linked to conservation so that villagers can appreciate the values of wildlife to sustaining their socio-economic livelihoods. (c) Villagers could also be allowed to harvest on sustainable basis some of the resources in protected areas. The use of wildlife resources in protected areas by rural communities is not a new idea. Examples of resource harvesting in protected areas include collection of firewood, medicinal plants, thatch grass and reeds, Phragmites australis (Mishra 198; Cunningham 1988; Lucas 1988; Van Wyk and Anderson 1988) and beekeeping and Saturniidae caterpillar utilisation in Kasungu National Park (Munthali and Mughogho 199; Mkanda and Munthali 1994). Conway and Goodman (1988) also give several examples of resource use by communities neighbouring wildlife reserves in KwaZulu Natal. The activities recommended above could be the basis for viable and sustainable Community Based Natural Resource Management (CBNRM) programmes in Malawi. The guiding principle under CBNRM is one of sustainable rural development that enables rural communities to directly benefit from wildlife resources, and support their management programmes. This is achieved through dual objectives. First, by making wildlife profitable, through active participation of the private sector, it attempts to generate rural development. Secondly, it provides local communities with incentives to conserve wildlife and to manage inter-related natural resources such as soil, water, woodlands, arable land and grazing land (Patel 1998). In southern Africa this philosophy is being promulgated through three major projects, namely the Communal Areas Management Programme for Indigenous Resources (CAMPFIRE) in Zimbabwe, the Administrative Management Design for Game Management Areas (ADMADE) in Zambia and Living in a Finite Environment (LIFE) in Namibia. Besides these, several prototype models are being replicated in many southern African countries, hence there is opportunity for Malawi to learn from the diverse experiences within the Southern African Development Community (SADC). However, unlike in other southern African countries, where local communities engage in CBNRM activities in buffer zones and communal areas, in Malawi, where protected areas are islands surrounded by human settlements, communities should be allowed to undertake CBNRM activities inside protected areas. The aim should be to ensure that local people in the neighbourhood w These would include schools, health facilities and water supply, which are always in short supply in Malawi s rural areas.

766 of the protected areas are given sufficient incentives for them to support wildlife conservation. For example as earlier noted, this could be achieved through revenue shares earned from ecotourism in protected areas. This would in turn encourage local communities to participate in the management of the wildlife resource, as a means of sustaining these revenues (Lewis and Phiri 1998). The expectation of these schemes is that communities will become vital allies of the wildlife management effort, resulting in net increase in sustainable and commercially competitive wildlife products (Lewis and Phiri 1998). In conclusion, we reiterate that translocation of animals from an unsafe park to another equally insecure park will not reverse the degradation of wildlife in Malawi s protected areas. The DNPW should realise that the threat to biodiversity conservation in Malawi is partly because old approaches to wildlife management have failed. Hence the need for innovative approaches to reverse the loss of biodiversity. This would require an integration of human needs and economic tools into its defunct wildlife management approach. In today s world, conservation cannot be separated from human development. This has been amply demonstrated in many African countries, where conservation that does not consider social and economic factors is doomed to fail (Ovejero 1999). Where conservation of wildlife and human development needs are in competition, ecosystems must pay their way, and unless conservation through sustainable use is a competitive form of sustainable development, habitats will be converted and species will go extinct (Ovejero 1999). Acknowledgements We are most grateful to Mr Humphrey Nzima, Deputy Director of the DNPW, Dr Roy Bhima and Mr Khumbo Kamanga for providing some of the data used in this study. References Ashley C. 1995. Tourism, communities and the potential impacts on local incomes and conservation. Research discussion paper number 10. Directorate of Environmental Affairs, Ministry of Environment and Tourism, Namibia. Bell R.H.V. 1981. Notes on the Nyala Situation and Discussion of Management Options. Department of National Parks and Wildlife, Lilongwe, Malawi. Bell R.H.V. 1984a. Monitoring of illegal activity and law enforcement in African conservation areas. In: Bell R.H.V. and McShane-Caluzi E. (eds), Conservation and Wildlife Management in Africa. United States Peace Corps, Washington, DC, pp. 317 35. Bell R.H.V. 1984b. The man animal interface; an assessment of crop damage and wildlife control. In: Bell R.H.V. and McShane-Caluzi E. (eds), Conservation and Wildlife Management in Africa. United States Peace Corps, Washington, DC, pp. 387 416. Bell R.H.V. 1984c. Traditional use of wildlife resources in protected areas. In: Bell R.H.V. and McShane- Caluzi E. (eds), Conservation and Wildlife Management in Africa. United States Peace Corps, Washington, DC, pp. 97 316.

767 Bell R.H.V., Banda H.M., Mkwinda S. and Nothale D. 1993. Kasungu National Park Management and Land Use Plan. Department of National Parks and Wildlife, Lilongwe, Malawi. Bhima R. 1998. Elephant status and conflict with humans on the western bank of the Liwonde National Park, Malawi. Pachyderm 5: 74 80. Clarke J.E. 1983a. Protected Areas Master Plan for the Central Region. Department of National Parks and Wildlife, Lilongwe, Malawi. Clarke J.E. 1983b. Protected Areas Master Plan for the Southern Region. Department of National Parks and Wildlife, Lilongwe, Malawi. Conway A.J. and Goodman P.S. 1988. The use of natural resources by neighbours and the development of natural resource areas in and around the Natal Parks Board Zululand Reserves. Paper presented at the International Symposium: National Parks, Nature Reserves, and Neighbours. Endangered Wildlife Trust, Johannesburg, p. 11. Cunningham A.B. 1988. People, plants, and conservation: where do we draw the line? Proceedings of International Symposium: National Parks, Nature Reserves, and Neighbours. Endangered Wildlife Trust, Johannesburg, pp. 75 80. Deodatus F. and Sefu L.D. 199. National survey of wildlife pests. FAO Field Report FO:MLW/87/010, No. 4. Department of National Parks and Wildlife, Lilongwe, Malawi. Dublin H.T., Milliken T. and Barnes R.F.W. 1995. Four years after the CITES Ban: illegal killing of elephants, ivory trade and stockpiles. A Report of the IUCN/ SSC African Specialist Group. Jachmann H. and Billiouw M. 1997. Elephant poaching and law enforcement in the central Luangwa Valley, Zambia. Journal of Applied Ecology 34: 33 44. Kamvazina B.S. 1981. Nyala Culling and Capture Report, Lengwe National Park. Department of National Parks and Wildlife, Lilongwe, Malawi. Lewis D.M. and Phiri A. 1998. Wildlife snaring an indicator of community response to a communitybased conservation project. Oryx 3: 111 11. Lucas P.H.C. 1988. The parks/ people interface: living with our neighbours. Proceedings of an International Symposium: National Parks, Nature Reserves, and Neighbours. Endangered Wildlife Trust, Johannesburg, pp. 7 1. Mishra H.R. 198. A delicate balance: tigers, rhinoceros, tourists and park management vs. the needs of the local people in royal Chitwan National Park. In: McNeely J.A. and Miller K.R. (eds), National Parks, Conservation and Development, the Role of Protected Areas in Sustaining Society. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC, pp. 197 05. Mkanda F.X. and Munthali S.M. 1994. Public attitudes and needs around Kasungu national park, Malawi. Biodiversity and Conservation 3: 9 44. Mkanda F.X. 1996. Potential vulnerability of wildlife habitats to climate change in Lengwe National Park, Malawi. Climate Research 6: 157 164. Munthali S.M. 1991. The feeding habits of Nyala (Tragelaphus angasi Gray) in Lengwe National Park, Malawi. Nyala 15: 17 3. Munthali S.M. and Mughogho D.E.C. 199. Economic incentives for conservation: beekeeping and Saturniidae caterpillar utilisation by rural communities. Biodiversity and Conservation 1: 143 154. Munthali S.M. 1998a. The State of Biodiversity in Malawi. Unpublished Consultancy Report. Ministry of Forestry, Fisheries and Environment. Munthali S.M. 1998b. Game meat utilisation and trade in Malawi. Consultancy Report. WWF/TRAFFIC International. National Statistics Office 1987. Annual Survey of Agriculture, 198/ 83 1984/ 85, Vol. Zomba, Malawi. National Statistics Office 1993. Smallholder Household Composition Survey Report, 199/ 93. National Sample Survey of Agriculture, Vol 1. Zomba, Malawi. Orr B., Eiswerth B., Finan T. and Malembo L. 1998. Malawi Public Lands Utilisation Study. Final Report. University of Arizona and the Forestry Research Institute of Malawi, 181 pp. Ovejero J. 1999. Questioning old approaches to conservation a reply to François Moutou. Oryx 33: 3 4. Patel H. 1998. Sustainable Utilisation and African Wildlife Policy. The case of Zimbabwe s Communal

768 Areas Management Programme for Indigenous Resources (CAMPFIRE). Rhetoric or Reality? Indigenous Environmental Policy Centre (IEPC). Pollock G. 1994. KwaZulu ecotourism case study, Chapter 6. In: Robinson R. (ed.), African Heritage 000: the Future of Protected Areas in Africa. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland. Sall J. and Lehman A., SAS Institute 1996. JMP Start Statistics; a Guide to Statistics and Data Analysis using JMP and JMP IN Software. Duxberry Press, San Francisco, California. Stuart S., Adams R.J. and Jerkins M.D. 1990. Biodiversity in Sub-Saharan Africa and its Islands. Conservation, Management and Sustainable Use. Occasional Papers of IUCN Species Survival Commission No. 6. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland, p. 13. Siegel S. and Castellan N.J. 1988. Nonparametric Statistics for the Behavioural Sciences. nd edn. McGraw-Hill, New York. 199. Text of the Convention on Biological Diversity. http:// www.biodiv.org/ chm/ conv/ art8.htm. Accessed February 01, 001. Thomson R. 1988. The wildlife resource and the needs of man. Proceedings of an International Symposium: National Parks, Nature Reserves, and Neighbours. Endangered Wildlife Trust, Johannesburg, pp. 93 98. Van Wyk A.W. and Anderson J.L. 1988. Tribal resource use in Ka Ngwane: a promising start. Proceedings of an International Symposium: National Parks, Nature Reserves, and Neighbours. Endangered Wildlife Trust, Johannesburg, pp. 61 63. Walker P. 1994. Community participation case study: Botswana National Parks and Wildlife management areas, Chapter 4. In: Robinson R. (ed.), African Heritage 000: the Future of Protected Areas in Africa. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland. World Bank 1991. Malawi Economic Report on Environment Policy. World Bank Report No. 9888-Mal. World Resources Institute 1998. World Resources 1998 99; a Guide to the Global Environment. World Resources Institute, New York.