More on management of protected areas: the human dimensions.

Public relations are a huge part of conservation work

In the previous post I described two of the ten lessons that we, a bunch of conservation managers and researchers from eastern and southern Africa identified at a workshop in Serengeti. I started with the big lessons on making sure you start with boundaries that make ecological sense - and what can happen particularly to migrations if that's not done. There's more to learn on that score too, but I'll skip to one of the most important lessons we identified, that will come as no surprise to anyone working in the field: don't neglect public relations!

On cattle in African protected areas

Typical pastoralist scene near Lake Eyasi

Talking about blog topics the other day, a friend asked me about the impact of goats and cattle on wildlife. And then over here someone else started a similar discussion on cattle, which collected a wealth of different ideas, so I thought it would be a good idea to collate all this information for a different audience over here. Increasingly, discussions about cattle come up when people are visiting areas that aren't National Parks - here in Tanzania many people are surprised to see cattle (and their Maasai herders) right in the Ngorongoro crater, as well as around the rest of the NCA. And increasingly (particularly in Kenya where land laws make it much easier, but also here in places like Manyara Ranch) conservancies are being set up where communities set aside land for both wildlife and pastoralist activities. The fact that organisations like the Northern Rangelands Trust are making a real success of this, combined with ongoing concerns about displaced people and human rights issues, has encouraged people to think seriously again about whether the strict 'no people' policy of many national parks in Africa might be relaxed, and recognising this a few years ago the International Conservation Union (IUCN) relaxed their national park category definition to allow management "To take into account the needs of indigenous people and local communities, including subsistence resource use, in so far as these will not adversely affect the primary management objective". So, what are the issues here, and what are the ecological arguments? In this post I'm going to deal with cattle, and leave the goats and sheep for a future occasion.

Commelina, the Maasai Reconciliation Grass

Commelina sp, Mongo wa Mono, March 2011

It's surprisingly easy these days to find information on the medicinal use of plants (there's a great list for the Samuru people here, for example), such as the Commiphora uses we covered last week, but many plants have cultural significance beyond the simple medicinal uses and it's often much harder to find information about these uses. One of the 10 things I like to get people talking about when there are no lions is all to do with people, and talking about cultural uses of plants is often quite interesting. I was seriously impressed when one of the guides on our training course in November said that in 'circumcisim school' he'd had to learn to identify about 200 plant species and know their cultural and medicinal uses, so this knowledge is still very much alive out here - though he did confess to having forgotten many (before going on to hive an example of a rather harrowing use for one of the Euphorbia species that really isn't suitable for polite company...). So it's rather surprising how shy people can be about sharing the information, perhaps thinking it's not interesting, or somehow backward.

Threats and opportunities of the bushmeat trade

Snared giraffe, Serengeti NP Jan 2011. A major target right now

Following my post a while back about Dennis Rentsch's work on the bushmeat trade around Serengeti, Matt asked me to cover this issue in a bit more depth. (Though if you want to see how it's possible to have a sustainable harvest of around 100,000 wildebeest per year from Serengeti, with a net value of $2.5-$8.5 Million per year check the original post here!) And there've been a number of interesting papers recently that have started to fill in some details. It's not a subject I've much experience of, so I'm skimming the surface a bit, but I think it might at least highlight some of the issues involved.

We'll start with the caveats. Understanding the bushmeat trade is tricky - in most places it's illegal, and people aren't always going to talk freely. And if they do talk, there's a good chance they won't tell you the truth either - they might either say they do less hunting than they really do to play down the impact, or they might go down the macho route and tell you they're excellent hunters and never come back without a pile of buffalo, etc... Dennis's work took an alternative strategy, instead of asking the poachers to tell him what they hunted, asking the villagers to tell him how much bushmeat they consumed and working back to the harvest that way. Others have worked on data using poacher arrests, viewing this as an index of poaching activity - though there's no way to tell what proportion of poachers get away with it (what poacher, when arrested, will really tell you how often they've been poaching before and not been caught?!). The only comparison between these three methods is Dennis' and that suggests that measuring consumption gives a poaching pressure that parallels that from arrest records, but neither of these fit with pressure as assessed by poacher interviews. That suggests to me that Dennis' work is probably the most accurate, but he's not yet published these studies, so for now you can only read about it here. The vast majority of other work is based on poacher surveys, and we also know that when you compare what poachers say the meat is with what the DNA tells you, you get remarkably little agreement too.All of this suggests to me that we need to take the research based on poacher surveys with a large pinch of salt. So, with that in mind,  I'm going to focus more on the declines that are reported to be associated with bushmeat, rather than the more poacher-based surveys.

Myrrh trees (Commiphora) are useful things...

Most Commiphora have distinctive peeling bark, Eyasi Aug 2011.

Having last week given you the bad news about the biological warfare that plants with thorns are engaging in, I thought it only fair to share some tips that may help you stave off those tropical nasties threatening to kill you... So the good news is that some of those very same thorny trees that are out to get you also hold the cure in their sap. Traditional healers and many folk still living in the country have long known about the beneficial effects of the sap of Commiphora trees. Indeed, the earliest recorded use of Commiphora to treat infections goes back to 1100BC where Sumerians were recorded using myrrh (for that is what Commiphora is) to treat tooth infections and intestinal worms. It's use is also clear in the Bible, as one of the three famous gifts presented to the infant Jesus. Today it's still commonly used in village communities to treat an endless list of infections and maladies, and it's also pretty good as a mosquito repellant if you need emergency cover!

TAWIRI Conference discussions

I've spent most of this week at the Tanzania Wildlife Research Institute (TAWIRI) conference here in Arusha. This is an event that happens every two years and involves a very high proportion of researchers active across Tanzania, so it's always a good place to hear about interesting things going on in these areas. I thought I'd give a few of my highlights today. The two talks that most exicted me were from two different aspects of ecology - one by Dr. Grant Hopcraft on the Serengeti and how climate change might impact wildlife there, the other also related to Serengeti, but this time by Dr. Dennis Rentsch from Frankfurt Zoological Society on the economics of the bushmeat industry. I know both of these folk fairly well, so was able to press them for lots of extra information about both talks, and what I'm going to descibe here represents both their presentations and some of the other stuff we talked about - I hope they don't mind me putting this information out before it's all polished and published!

Wildebeest and zebra migrating through Grumeti Reserves, Feb 2010

Grant knows rather a lot about Serengeti and, in particular, the herbivores of the system. His work has focussed on how nutrition impacts herbivores and his talk fitted well into the overall theme of the conference on climate change, by asking how climate change will affect the nutrient content of the grasses and how this might impact the animals that feed on them. You might think it's crazy to suggest that climate change impacts grass quality (i.e. nutrient content), but actually it can have some pretty profound impacts indeed. Grass growing in high rainfall areas gets very tall very quickly, but also tends to be poor in nutrients - it might be that the grass can only collect the same amount of nutrient from it's roots, but in wet years it grows faster, so there's less nutrient per leaf than in dry years when the plants can't grow as much and pack all the nurients into a smaller volume. So more rain means lower quality grass, but more of it, less rain would mean less, but higher quality grass. In fact, lots of people showed plots of rainfall in Serengeti and demonstrated that the area is getting wetter (though I also suspect there might be shifts in the dry season length which could be even more significant, but no-one really talked about that), so we should be seeing more, lower quality grass. What is the consequence of this? Well, according to Grant, perhaps it means different things for different species, since all the herbivores prefer slightly different combinations of nutrient quality and grass quantity. In particular, hind-gut fermenters like zebra are happy with lots of relatively low quality food, whilst wildebeest are typically selective ruminants and need higher quality grass. Now, Wildebeest in Serengeti are food limited, not predation limited or anything else, so a decline in food quality might be bad for them - but they are, of course, interested in quantity too, particularly during the dry season when any rain is going to provide grazing which is clearly better than no rain at all. So a wetter Serengeti, if it impacts the dry season too, is probably going to mean more food at this crucial dry-season food shortage period, and we can expect that even in a wetter dry season the rain will still be scarce, so the grass will be relatively nutritious. So on the one hand poorer-quality forage during the wet season might be bad news, but more grass in the dry season is certainly going to be good news - which effect wins out isn't yet clear. My money will be on the dry season effects, but we'll wait to see! On the other hand, it seems pretty unambiguously clear that a wetter Serengeti will be good news for zebra, provided again that the dry season remains at least a bit wet too. So more zebra will always be good - though how that will affect everything else is also tricky to forsee. Does more zebra mean better facilitation for the wildebeest? Or might there be more competition? Who knows, as usual, more research needed (and if you want to fund Grant on his next project, do let him know - he's searching for money right now!).

The migration reaches Seronera, Nov 2010. Don't get eaten!

Spot the snare: many animals are poached in Serengeti. Moru Jan 2011

Meanwhile Dennis has been working on bushmeat trade on the western side of Serengeti for many years now. His approach to studying what is, after all, an illegal activity has been to deal not with the hard end in the park of finding and apprehending poachers and trying to get them to tell him how many animals they hunt (they're very unlikely to give an honest answer in such circumstances!). Instead he's focussed mainly on trying to work out how much bushmeat is being consumed in the villages around the Serengeti by asking them about the various protein sources they eat during the week. Although there might still be some resistance to tell the absolute truth in this context, it's likely his numbers are underestimates of the full impact of the harvest (especially as it doesn't include any of the meat that gets exported from the region commercially). Underestimates they might be, but the numbers are still staggering. In the villages surveyed, the average number of meals of wildebeest eaten per family per week was 2.4. Obviously that goes up during the period when the wildebeest are migrating through the particular village, and down when they're far away, but 2.4 meals per week is the average for the villages immediately around Serengeti NP. And knowing the number of households in each village, plus the number of villages Dennis estimates that somewhere between 90,000 and 100,000 wildebeest are harvested (illegally) from Serengeti each year. To put that into context, it's equivelant to a harvest greater than the entire wildebeest population of South Africa each year!

At between 500 and 1500TSh / kg (depending on seasonal availablity), and assuming a conservative 100kg of meat per animal that gives a a total market value of $2.5 - $8.5 Million per year. Compare that to TANAPA income from Serengeti gate fees 10 years ago (the latest I can find online) at about $5.23 Million, and we're talking the same size economy. (Bear in mind that these TANAPA fees are used throughout the national park system to subsidise less well visited parks, so Serengeti NP actually has an opperating budget of only around $2Million per year.) That's a pretty remarkable figure on it's own, but Dennis went on to talk about how consumption is related to price of other meat in the area - if the price of beef goes up, more wildebeest is eaten. Which suggests that it might be possible to reduce the amount of wildebeest eaten, if you bring the price of beef down. Now unfortunately I wasn't quick enough to get all the figures off Dennis's slide to do the calculation here, but I think I'm right in saying that if you want, say to halve the wildebeest harvest, his figures suggest you need to bring the price of beef down by about 3 times as much - so 50% of 50% of 50%, which is an 87.5% reduction in price. That's probably going to be tricky to achieve, unless you fill Serengeti with cattle, which is hardly going to help! So you're rather stuck there. Instead, the only effective solution is to make the wildebeest more expensive - and Dennis suggested you can do that either by giving poachers alternative employment and dry up the supply of meat, or by even more strictly enforcing the regulations within the park. But bear in mind that this is a sustainable harvest - there's no impact of this level of poaching on the wildebeest population overall. The problem is the bycatch - people want to trap common wildebeest, but instead their snares catch resident game sometimes and have had a missive impact. So instead of strictly enforcing current regulations, perhaps TANAPA should be looking at ways to encourage sustainable use and minimse the negative off-take. Perhaps making a few million $$ in the process. What do you think? Should we go this way? Or how should we feed these people?

Human influences in national parks

Maasai Paintings at Moru Kopjes, Serengeti NP

Gong Rocks, Moru Kopj

Quite a few people are surprised that one of my 10 things to talk about is people - we're on safari, we've come to wonderful wilderness, and you want to talk about people?! Must be crazy...  But I don't think so, and it shouldn't be surprising once you remember that people evolved in Africa and have been here a very, very long time. Their influence is everywhere, despite the fairly recent notion that we must separate people from wildlife in strict protected areas.

Some things are obvious - such as the paintings featured above at Moru Kopjes in Serengeti. These are relatively recent Maasai paintings, but despite their recent history I can't find anything particularly informative about them - some speculation here, and some hints they may be a circumcision site. Anyone with any better information to share (if you know a source, even better, but I suspect the stories must still be available in living memory...)? Such sites obviously provide an opportunity to talk about how the idea of wilderness areas and safari sites as being without people are a moden (mostly colonial) myth - people have been present in wildlife areas in Africa for as long as there have been recognisable 'people'. I think this is an issue that can generate debate, but I think a lot of visitors to these areas are willing to engage and learn and I think a lot of people are interested to know that what they might have thought of as a 'pristine wilderness' and 'unchanged Africa' is very much a modern invention.

'Managed' fire in Tarangire NP, June 2011

Even today, the influence of people is obvious in many parks - and I don't mean simply the negative aspects of queues of cars, roads, poaching and all the rest. Fires, already established as a favourite topic of mine here and one of the big four of savanna ecology, are actively set by people as the one major land-management practice carried out in much of East Africa's savannah. And they're pretty much all set by man (I understand from Grant Hopcraft that there isn't a single recorded incidence of natural fire in the Serenegeti ecosystem - though I suspect that's mainly a consequence of an inappropriate management regime, rather than an indicator that there wasn't any pre-hominid fire) - and before modern men were around, they were set by earlier hominids, perhaps as long ago as 1.5 - 2 million years ago. Now, that long ago there were some pretty odd beasts inhabiting the savannahs, as anyone visiting the Olduvai museum will know (if you ahven't been, check the photo here!). So the modern fauna of the savanna have all evolved under conditions of regular, hominid induced, fire - our influence is massive and pervasive, and fires are still a good opportunity to talk about people in the savanna today.

Hadzabe hunter shooting doves, Eyasi, Jan 2011

Handzabe baobab peg ladder, Mongo wa Mono, April 2011

It's not just that though. Until relatively recently (and in some areas, still today, even with parks!) people were one of the top predators. And hopefully we already know how top predators are important at maintaining a functioning ecosystem - we've talked a lot about lions creating a landscape of fear, people too must have done the same in many areas until relatively recently. And in a few pockets, of course, they still do (let's ignore poaching!) - the Hadzabe are a hunter-gatherer tribe who maintain a traditional lifestyle and although now limited in distribution to a few pockets around Lake Eyasi they were relatively recently spread much more widely. You can still find evidence of their (or similar people's) occupation in many parks today. Baobabs are probably the best places to look - you'll often see old pegs from honey-gatherers embedded in the trunk, and when watching the Hadza use these ladders today I find it amazing to think that their ancestors may well have been running up the same tree 1000 years ago, for exactly the same purpose - that's sustainaility! These hints of a (recent) but different way of life are always fascinating I think.

And your conversations about people can be wider than that too - you can point out the berries you can eat (feed people them too!), the uses people have for many of the plants (and animals!), and all the rest. These little pointers about how people still use nature are great and to be exploited - I hope we'll be able to feature some of these stories in more detail on the blog in time (let me know your favourites in the comments, as I love to learn too!).