Emergency Study of Phirilongwe Elephant, Its Habitat Utilization, and Economic Development of Mangochi District

 

Kenneth R. McKaye1,2, Hans van der Heiden1, Everson Kalonga3, Joseph Mponda1, Davis Kalima4, Joe Chinguwo4, Patrick Phiri5, Alison Wiklund1,2,

 

 

 

 

 

1World Wide Fund for Nature Finland, Box 66 Monkey Bay, Malaŵi;

2Appalachian Laboratory Centre for Environmental Science, University of Maryland System, 301 Braddock Road, Frostburg, Maryland, 21532. U.S.A.

3Africare/Malaŵi, P.O. Box 2346 Lilongwe, Malaŵi

4 Malaŵi National Parks Department, Lake Malaŵi National Park, Box 48, Monkey Bay, Malaŵi

5 Malaŵi Fisheries Department, Mangochi.

 

                                                                                                           

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

                                                                                                                        

OBJECTIVES

The long-term objective of the GoM/EU Micro Projects Programme supported project was to reduce Human Elephant Conflict (HEC) and to increase the economic well-being and food sufficiency of the people adjacent to Lake Malaŵi National Park and Phirilongwe Forest Reserve.  This began in September 2004, when Traditional Authority (TA) Chief Nankumba requested WWF Finland to save the elephant population that had now become dispersed within the 3 Traditional Authorities areas: Nankumba, Mponda and Chimwala – all within the Mangochi District.   The 3  TA Chiefs were consulted and they submitted a written request for a solution to the HEC conflict to WWF Finland, the Director of Malawi National Parks, Africare - an NGO dealing with community development, as well as the GoM/EU Micro Projects Programme.

The resulting team of partners thus embarked on a two-month rapid assessment programme to:

1. Assess the number, location and grouping of the elephants. 

2. Assess the extent and causes of human-elephant conflict. 

3. Determine if utilitarian benefits from the elephants in the form of game

    ranching and tourism could be achieved.

4. Assess the feasibility/cost of removing the elephants from the area.

5. Sensitize select communities within the area on the value of

    elephants and discuss both the fate of the elephants, as well as

    economic development within Mangochi District.

6. Meet with major lake-shore hotels and top management of Malawian

     hotel chains to determine the economic impact of expanding Lake

     Malawi National Park on tourist industry and hotel occupancy. 

7. Assess the needs of the communities for training, education, health,

     sanitation, agriculture, aquaculture and economic development with or

     without the creation of a National Park or protected area for elephants.

8. Determine what wildlife existed in the Mangochi district and interview

     older residents as to which species they could recollect seeing in the

     area.  

9. WWF Finland offered to organize three separate workshops related to

     aquaculture, fuel briquettes and paper-making for representatives of

     the three TAs: Nankumba, Mponda & Chimwala in Mangochi district. 

 

From this survey, a programme was developed - with a challenging breadth of scope. Not only could this be utilized throughout the Mangochi District to enhance both  its economic development, health and environmental conditions.  Indeed, the concept of communities working and living in harmony with wild-life in their natural habitat could serve as a model for the entire Lake Malawi shoreline communities –  if not the whole Lake Malawi Ecoregion.

Acknowledgement and Disclaimer:

This study was partly funded by the GoM/EU Micro Projects Programme as a contribution to the local communities with partial funding and contributions from World Wide Fund for Nature Finland (WWF) and Africare, Malaŵi National Parks Department, Malaŵi Fisheries Department, and the HEEED Centre, Chirombo Bay.  The opinions and proposals expressed in the study are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the opinions and policies of the GoM/EU Micro Projects Programme or any of the partner organizations. 

 

 TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

I. Mangochi Rural Development Scheme: A Model to Enhance Tourism and Attract Foreign Investors and Donors to Malaŵi. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4

II. Enlargement of LMNP and Adjacent Planned Communities: Time-Frame. . . . . . . .  15

 

IV. Socioeconomic Solutions to Human and Elephant Conflict in Mangochi District. . .17

 

            Annex 1: Reports of individual villages visited. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  49

 

            Annex 2:  Checklist for Livelihoods for Mangochi Project. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  77

 

            Annex 3:  Household Checklist. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .       80

 

      Annex 4: Work Plan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  81

 

      Annex 5 List of Persons Met. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .82

 

 

V. Assessment of Elephant Numbers and Distributions in Elephant Range Land in Traditional Authorities Mponda and Nankumba in Mangochi. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84

 

VI Social-Economic Survey Report by Malaŵi Department of National Parks. . . . . . .  88

 

VII. Environmental and Extension Programmes Department of National Parks . . . . . .  91

 

VIII. Minutes of the PAC Task Force Report Back Meeting by Chiefs' Consultative Meetings: Translocation of Elephants to Proposed Extension Area of Phirilongwe Forest Reserve Held at Mangochi District Assembly Chamber on 24 June 2005. . . . . . . . . . .   93

 

VIII.  Aquaculture Workshop. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98

 

IX.  Fuel Briquettes Workshop. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101

 

X.  Art Education, Creative and Paper Making Workshop. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105

 

XI.  Letters from Traditional Authorities, Nankumba, Chimwala and Mponda. . . . . . . 109

 

XII. Possible Investment Model to Attract Foreign Capital. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  . . . . . . .111

I. Mangochi Rural Development Scheme: A Model to Enhance Tourism and Attract Foreign Investors and Donors to Malawi.

 

Mangochi District is undoubtedly a magnet for tourism, and potential foreign investors and donors. Here, Lake Malawi National Park (LMNP) was established as a UNESCO World Heritage Site in l983.  Situated at the southern end of Lake Malaŵi, this beautiful region of undulating hills and a striking coastline - studded with lush islands and surrounded by crystalline waters - has formed a dramatic backdrop to an area rich in unique species of fish, as well as a broad aquatic and terrestrial biodiversity.  LMNP and the current programmes adjacent to the Park have great potential for enhancing the economic and social development of the country.  Foreign investment, in particular, is of great consequence as it will bring jobs, know-how and technology, attract international publicity, increase exports and allow Malaŵi to become more competitive in the global market.  Wildlife-based tourism would be a 'tool' to bring a better life to the people and to benefit the environment and the nation.

 

The fundamental problem in the area of LMNP is clear: a dense and increasing population that has been trying to extract a livelihood from a finite and diminishing resource base. This has led to a descending spiral of poverty (Table 1) and environmental degradation (Fig. 1).  The central question is how to transform a society by creating a world-class National Park (wildlife area / game reserve) that would support both a thriving wildlife population (including the elephants), as well as a wholesome community living within a healthy environment. 

 

This initiative, innovative and exciting in its scope, will contribute to the reversal of the trend of environmental degradation in the region – by formulating and implementing a plan that will foster the creation of an outstanding National Park and significantly improve the quality of life of the communities that surrounding the National Park. 

 

Through carefully-coordinated international investment, ‘a private-sector/public sector cooperative partnership with the Malawi government - the present environmental decline, erosion and over-fishing of LMNP could well be reversed and tourism enhanced.  At the same time, Planned Communities (PCs) in the Mangochi District would significantly improve the quality of life of the people in surrounding communities through provision of facilities such as health clinics, schools and capacity-building for aquaculture and irrigated agriculture programmes, as well as providing opportunities for income generation provided by an invigorated tourist sector. Furthermore, with an integrated private/public business plan, strong backing by the Malawi Government and associated law enforcement agencies, LMNP could be developed as an outstanding model for other parks in the region.  This programme could be easily replicated in the Central Region around Kasungu National Park and in the North Region around the Nyika National Park.

Table 1 - Selected Statistics for the Nankumba Peninsula                        

The Mangochi District lies in the Southern Region of Malawi, and consists of twelve wards (areas where a Chief presides (TA)). The Nankumba Peninsula is located within this area, and incorporates the wards presided over by three Chiefs (TAs); TA Nankumba, TA Mponda and TA Chimwala. The elevation of the area is generally between 300 and 900 m above sea level with some mountains as high as 1500 m. The following provides the demographics related to the parts of the area under discussion here:-

Extracted from “Malaŵi, An Atlas of Social Statistics” by Todd Benson, James Kaphuka, Richmond Chinula and Shelton Kanyanda. (Census in 1998 and document completed in 2001.)

                                                                        Mponda                          Nankumba                        Chimwala

Households:                                                 20 754                             19 248                                 21 020

Population:                                                    87 426                             79 419                                 87 024

Population Density (No/sq km):                100-200                           50-100                                 50-100

Annual Growth Rate (1977):                       2.77-3.5%                       3.5-5%                                3.5-5%

Pop under 5 yrs old:                                    16.7-17.5%                     16.7-17.5%                         17.5-19%

Mean age (yr):                                              21.9-23                            21.9-23                                21.9-23

Mean Household size:                                4-4.2                                4-4.2                                    4-4.2

Households headed by women:                25-30.9%                        25-30.9%                            25-30.9%

Poverty headcount

(<US$0.41/day):                                            70-80%                           50-60%                               70-80%

Ultra Poverty

(<US$0.25/day):                                            40-50%                           20-30%                               40-50%

Orphaned < 14yr (=< 1 parent):                  8.5-11%                          8.5-11%                              6.5-7.51%

Health facilities (No./facility):                    10000-21000                   10000-17000                       10000->21000

Literacy 15-24 yr olds:                                 55-65%                           65-76%                               76-80%      

Children 6-13 yr NO education:                 30-40%                           23.4-30%                            23.4-30%

No Education 15-24 Yr olds:                       80.3-90%                        80.3-90%                            90-95%

Higher Education 15-24 Yrs:                       <1.5%                             <1.5%                                 <1.5%

Primary school pupils / teacher:                60-69.8                            80-90                                   60-69.8

Persons per room (housing):                      >1.6                                 >1.6                                     1.45-1.6

Live in Traditional housing:                       67.1-75%                        75-85%                               50-67.1%

Protected water source/dwelling:              40-50%                           40-50%                               40-50%

No toilet facilities:                                        15-22.7                            30-40%                               15-22.7

Firewood fuel used:                                     >95%                              >95%                                  >95%

Lighting w/paraffin & candles:                  92.1-95%                        92.1-95%                            92.1-95%

Mean Maize yield (kg/ha):                      1.5-1.75                     1.25-1.375                          1.5-1.75

 

June 24, 1984                                                             July 25, 2004

Matakataka Road
 

 

Fig. 1. In 20 years the vegetation (red colour) has been dramatically reduced. 

What will happen in the next 20 years: A desert or a Park??????

Aims and Objectives:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Fig. 2. An example of a section of the Lake Malaŵi lake shore where a Planned Community could be established--shows a typical Planned Farm Community layout. In this model the residential area is surrounded by the 1 ha farms, and the headmen with their clans are separated by community centres, rivers, or by roads.

 

 

 

                  Fig. 3. Possible community centre for a Planned Community

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Fig. 4.  Map with hypothetical boundary for expanded Lake Malaŵi National Park.  Yellow zone includes possible first sanctuary to enclose elephants and begin breeding program near lake resorts.

 

 

 Why LMNP is ideally placed as a candidate for the expansion project.

 

The participants:

1) The LMNP Concession-private/public partnership; 2) The Present Tour Operators; 3) Community Wildlife Endowment Fund (CWEF) which will be formed from the traditional Stewards of Wildlife under the direction of the Traditional Authorities and Mangochi District Assembly; 4) Private investment partners; 5) International NGOs, Donors, Foundations, Trusts; 6) Government of Malaŵi, Ministry of the Environment, Ministry of Tourism and all other relevant Government agencies.

 

The results and the major benefits would be:

 

A brief history of Lake Malaŵi National Park (LMNP) – established in l980: the unique variety of over 1000 species of fish led to its designation as a UNESCO World Heritage Site (1983).  This strikingly beautiful area covered by LMNP is located at the southern end of Lake Malaŵi that forms part of the African Rift Valley.  LMNP consists of a set of discrete terrestrial components plus a component of the aquatic ecosystem within the lake: the total area comprises 94.1 km2, of which 87.1 km2 are land and 7.0 km2 is water.  The largest component of LMNP is the hilly Cape Maclear Peninsula on the mainland at the tip of the Nankumba Peninsula.  Also on the mainland lakeshore some 8 kilometres south of Monkey Bay are Mwenya Hill, Nkudzi Hill and the Nkudzi Spit.  All the mainland components of the National Park fall within the boundary of TA Nankumba in the Mangochi District. LMNP includes a further thirteen islands rocks and reefs, most of which are within Traditional Authority Nankumba in Mangochi. 

 

When LMNP was created in l980, the population of Chembe numbered circa 2,000 and the other villages totalled approximately 2,000.  More than twenty five years later, the total population of subsistence farmers, and fishermen, and dependents is estimated at approximately 27,000 and continues to rise.  This dramatic increase in population has resulted in severe deforestation, soil erosion,  over-fishing, encroachment by maize farmers and unsanitary living conditions for many villagers.  80% of the population of Chembe village (the largest village in Malaŵi – circa 15,000) suffers from bilharzia and there are periodic outbreaks of cholera among the fishing communities.   Fear of bilharzia, poor access to the area (especially by air and road) and a general lack of security, have all contributed to the decline in tourism to LMNP and the consequent loss of revenue for the communities.  Nevertheless, PriceWaterhouseCooper (2001) submitted a Lake Malaŵi National Park Management Plan that outlines in a rigorous and thorough fashion how LMNP could be transformed into a World Class Tourist Destination.  Unfortunately its recommendations have yet to be implemented. 

 

The continuing severe degradation of the environment since this report was published in 2001 has raised alarm bells with WWF and other conservation organizations - concerning the lack of harmonious co-existence between wildlife and the adjacent communities of LMNP.  LMNP fee collection and law enforcement has been weak on the part of the Malaŵi Government and, at the same time, the TA's and some other chiefs in the Mangochi district have expressed concern about the declining health and economic well-being of their communities.  A few villagers have been killed and their crops damaged by the population of elephants that originally inhabited the Phirilongwe Forest Reserve – some 50 kms due south of the Cape Maclear Peninsula.  Cut off from their original habitat, the elephants have been forced to forage elsewhere and have been sighted as far afield as Monkey Bay.  Elephants are an indicator species and at TA Nankumba’s request to WWF, we agreed to survey the sustainability of both the existing elephant population, as well as the surrounding communities.   This survey has led, in turn, to questioning the future of LMNP, as it now exists, and to explore alternative solutions for its sustainable continuity as a place of pristine beauty and a tourist magnet.

 

How the Concession and Stewards of Lake Malaŵi National Park would form a partnership through a Resource-sharing Model & Community Wildlife Endowment Fund (CWEF) Proposal

 

The Concession  would set up a Management Programme for the Park under the guidance of an Ethical Committee.  The Ethical Committee would oversee the Concession, the Management team and all various stakeholders, including Planned Communities (Figs. 2-3).  The Management team would:

 

  1. Develop a strategy to improve the living standards of people ‘outside the fence’ through genuine business partnerships with PC members and donor-funded, PC-supported projects and creation of the CWEF.
  2. Create opportunities for meaningful participation of Malaŵians.
  3. Ensure the full and active support of the Government of Malaŵi.
  4. Implement a carefully planned, professionally monitored environmental rehabilitation and wildlife re-stocking programme, coupled with the promotion of Wildlife Management as a desirable land-use option and investment opportunity. There must be provision for a 10-20 year restocking plan, coupled with monitoring and re-evaluation on a regular basis – the re-stocking program must be responsive to regular vegetation mapping and monitoring of same, as well as all other relevant factors. The Concession, Stewards and CWEF will operate in the following way:

·        Partners will buy Wildlife such as Sable, Buffalo, Waterbuck, etc on the open market  and donate it to the CWEF .  Stewards (with support from donors) and private investors  will place additional animals/ of approved species in LMNP for safekeeping, and members will receive credits for animals already in area such as elephant, bushbuck etc.. The local community must share in this existing resource, on equal terms with the other partners – otherwise, they will poach them

·        Progeny from these animals (only those actually purchased privately and placed in the park) become property of the Concession and Stewards based on the percentage contribution.  Estimated progeny of the already existing animals must be divided amongst the partners – this will make their investment ‘grow’ just like money put into a savings account – and all known poaching must be deducted, just as if money had been stolen from the bank.  Fines from poaching should be used for enhancing poaching control.

·        All estimates of increase/decrease must be based on approved and internationally accepted counting methods (WWF can help with funding and methodology for this work), which must include not only aerial surveys, but ground-based counting methods, and these should be carried out annually with assistance from all partners.

5.   Work with the security (law-enforcement) and judiciary (both must be approved by and recognized by all members, and the penalties for poaching must also be agreed upon) and set a "no tolerance" standard for all poaching offenders.  Organize workshops for Mangochi magistrates and prosecutors for this purpose. Advertise on radio and TV the laws relating to the value of wildlife.

             

 

The Wildlife Endowment Option   

 

The LMNP Concession envisages a series of Community Trusts in TA Nankumba, Mponda, and Chimwala's areas that could use donor funding to purchase wildlife (of approved species that are appropriate to the area, and in numbers that are also appropriate to the ecological conditions) that would be released to LMNP and would be regarded as breeding stock of the Trust. 

 

The stockholding arrangements are a win-win arrangement for the Communities (Stewards) and the LMNP Concession.  For the Communities, the concept of a stockholding in wildlife is analogous to a herd of breeding cattle being grazed on adjacent land.  For the LMNP Concession, the advantage (apart from good neighbour relations) is that the Trusts’ Wildlife Endowments will add to the attractions of the area for non-consumptive tourism.

 

Experience with community-based resource management projects throughout Africa has shown that passing hand-outs across a fence to communities do not engage these communities into a stable, reciprocal relationship with the wildlife operations that generate this largesse for them. Beneficiary Communities have to be involved in businesslike joint ventures which will require them to not only curtail poaching activities, but to also contribute what they can to the joint ventures, such as labour for the clearance of seasonal vegetation growth along the agreed sections of the Buffer Zone/perimeter fence.  By making such contributions, the communities living along the conservancy boundaries have a case for receiving the wildlife benefits instead of these benefits being spread more widely.     

 

In the long term, the carrying capacity of LMNP  will be reached and the annual surpluses of wildlife will be exported from LMNP to other markets, including Malaŵi National Parks, as well as the proposed transfrontier conservation areas in the Nyika and Kasungu National Parks - that would link with Zambia. These areas could also benefit from a massive wildlife restocking programme, for which LMNP and the Liwonde Sanctuary would be a convenient source of animals. 

 

Separate elements necessary for the success of the project:

1. Build partnerships with responsible private investors whose activities will be in harmony with the aspirations of the people of the Mangochi District. 

2. Procure wildlife to start the CWEF for the benefit of the local populace.

3. Develop market for surplus game through translocation and harvesting.

4. Research component – this is an important ‘experiment’ in international terms and must be constantly monitored, evaluated and adjusted to ensure success and sustainability, as well as to keep the international community fully informed and able to offer advice & assistance.

5. Tax concessions and removal of governmental "red tape"—fast track approval of investor proposals that will allow for duty free importation of goods, tax concessions, and land details in less than one week's time from submission. 

6. Immediate granting of Temporary Work Permits to all non-Malaŵian specialists required for the project in both research and management.

7. Private investment in construction, transport (road, air, maritime, rail), as well as tourism.

 

The enlargement of Lake Malaŵi National Park, the Concession and the adjacent Planned Communities are ambitious plans that are multi-sectoral in scope and require the confident backing of the Malaŵi Government.  The whole project will provide opportunities for both the health and economic well-being of subsistence farmers and fishermen in the district of Mangochi, as well as successful investment in tourism, game-ranching and wildlife. Such a project could transform the economy of Malaŵi.   

 

Meanwhile, a drama is now taking place in Lake Malaŵi National Park that needs the attention of the world. There is a rapid and descending spiral of poverty and environmental degradation in this UNESCO World Heritage Site, where a dense and increasing population is trying to eke out a livelihood from finite and diminishing natural resources.  Without this project, and with the  continued over-fishing and deforestation (1), the Mangochi district is doomed ecologically in the next 20 years.  Malaŵi's treasure resides not in gold-mines nor in advanced technology but in the pristine waters of Lake Malaŵi, as well as in its rich variety of terrestrial flora and fauna.  If these natural treasures are subjected to further unsustainable and uncontrolled utilization it may no longer be possible for Malaŵi to be perceived as the Warm Heart of Africa – to the impoverishment of both Malaŵians and the world. 


III. ENLARGEMENT OF LMNP AND ADJACENT PLANNED COMMUNITIES: TIME-FRAME

 

Present activities:

April-June 2005.  Determine a management plan and economic solution to the HEC in the Mangochi District and whether the expansion of Lake Malaŵi National Park is feasible. Develop a preliminary business plan for LMNP concession and PCs, if project is possible.  This three month project is funded by (GOM)/EU Micro projects Programme.

 

Year 1:

Immediate major actions following completion of GOM/EU report.

 

 

Year 2—Two major initiatives:

 

This is a long-term, 10-year project, requiring both international and Malaŵi government multi-sectoral support.  The results from the initial consultancy in 2005 will determine the plan for years 3-10. The Concession will review the current plan and actions at the end of 2006 and present its report to the Malaŵi Government, as well as shareholders, NGOs and other partners.  Further Planned Communities will be built and the perimeter of the enlarged LMNP will fenced. By 2015, there would be at least 6 Planned Communities, enjoying good health and economic well-being – thanks to the enlarged LMNP, a thriving wildlife and a well-developed infrastructure for sustainable tourism.


 

IV. RAPID ASSESSMENT OF THE HUMAN-ELEPHANT CONFLICT IN THE MANGOCHI DISTRICT, MALAŴI.

 

J.T. van der Heiden, and Kenneth McKaye.

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study is to propose options and recommend ways in which Human-Elephant Conflict (HEC) in the Nankumba Peninsula, Mangochi District could be resolved, and in so doing, to benefit the communities in the areas affected by HEC. The options proposed will be considered by the Traditional Authorities (TA’s) or paramount Chiefs and Government administrators, and once decided upon, funding and support will be sought from NGO’s, the Public Sector and overseas investors to assist in developing the chosen way forward.

INTRODUCTION

THE PROBLEM:

With the constant increase in rural human populations in Africa, and the need to sustain ever increasing numbers of people from the land, rural populations of people have traditionally practiced the age old “slash and burn” practice of agriculture to produce crops from fertile ‘virgin’ soils, and move on as these soils become unproductive from overuse to new virgin bush land. While doing so in the Nankumba Peninsula of Malaŵi, these subsistence farmers have pressured the remnants of the elephant populations into ever dwindling and restricted indigenous bush land, resulting in intense conflict between the humans and elephants for the remnants of wild and virgin land, and water resources, and the destruction of crops during the rain season. The once abundant populations of indigenous wildlife have all but disappeared from these areas.

AREA:

The area is in the Mangochi District, and is part of the Southern Region. It includes parts of the domain of three TAs, that of TA Nankumba, TA Mponda, and TA Chimwala (Fig. 5). These three communal areas are bounded in the north and west by Lake Malaŵi, the Shire River and Lake Malombe. In the south and east it is bounded by other TA areas. It incorporates the Lake Malaŵi National Park (LMNP), a UNESCO World Heritage Site; the Phirilongwe Forest Reserve.

POPULATION:

The most densely populated villages are on the fertile soils along the lake shore and river banks. Away from the lake shore in the hilly areas, where soils are poor, and permanent water is scarce through the year, the population is much less dense (Fig. 6). Farming activities are undertaken away from the main village centres along and in the hilly areas near to the elephant core refuge areas. Temporary shelters are put up and manned during the growing season to protect them from crop raiding by baboons and other wildlife. This less densely populated area is generally the area where the elephant remain throughout the year in pockets of dense bush.

Fig 6.  Population Density between Lake Malaŵi National Park (LMNP) and Phirilongwe Forest Reserve (PFR).

ELEPHANT:

The elephants, known as the “Phirilongwe Elephant” because of their original home range incorporating the PFR, are confined to two areas at the southern end of Lake Malaŵi in the Mangochi District. They are remnants of a once much larger elephant population, now decimated by poachers and human expansionism. Their present habitat is all that remains of an age old and previously well established environment, home to vast numbers of African wildlife. Of the numerous herds making up several hundred elephants known to have lived in the area before the 1930’s, there are now only some 30 to 55 animals left. These remnants consist of several bulls and at least two small breeding herds.

DAMAGE:

The communities, many who are immigrants from Mozambique and other regions of Malaŵi, are removing natural vegetation to plant subsistence crops, mostly maize and some tobacco, and encroaching into areas where the elephant have taken refuge. In doing so, they have exposed their crops to depredation by the elephants, and have exposed themselves to injury, even death in some cases. Over the past 10 years, six villagers have lost their lives and others have been injured, the latest death being on 4 Oct 2004 (Pers. Comm. Davie Mwafulirwa DNPW).

INITIATIVE TO SAVE ELEPHANT:

The initiative to save the remnants of the Phirilongwe Elephants came from TAs Nankumba, Mponda, and Chimwala (see letters pp. 107-109).  TA Nankumba's predecessor also made requests in the late 80’s and early 90’s to save them (Pers. Comm.: TA Nankumba and Ms. Sherry Long). There are three major upmarket hotels with over 500 beds available along the lake shore, as well as 14 smaller backpacker lodges, and all are in favour of keeping the elephants and having them form part of a wilderness tourism attraction as long as they no longer endanger the local communities or their crops.

The new Administrators of Majete National Park, a recently privatized National Park to the south west of Blantyre, offered to capture and translocate the entire population of elephants in the Phirilongwe area to remove the danger they posed to the villagers and their crops. This is a sound solution, but there was resistance from some TA’s in whose lands the elephants lived. It was felt that the elephant could benefit the local communities through tourism and related industry, in a similar manner as was being done in the nearby Liwonde National Park. The matter was also brought to the attention of the GoM/EU Micro Projects Programme (EU). The EU discussed this issue with representatives from WWF (Finland) based at Cape Maclear in the LMNP, Malaŵi. This was followed by meetings with the individual TAs and each formally put their request for assistance in writing (Appendix A). This study is a result of these interactions, and was funded in part by the EU, and WWF (Finland).

METHODS and MATERIALS and COLLABORATING PARTNERS

WWF

WWF initiated the study by arranging the participation of specialist organizations. Africare, a partner NGO on this study with headquarters in Lilongwe agreed to work with WWF on this project. A research team from the Department of National Parks and Wildlife (DNPW) undertook the assessment study of the elephants. Both teams were expected to produce comprehensive reports on their findings. Each of the teams provided their own transport, and WWF provided funding for fuel and allowance for officers in the field and away from home. The study started on April 1st 2005, and was completed by 30th June 2005.

WWF project organizers were involved in interviewing and attending meetings, both formal and informal, to sensitize the decision makers at the highest levels in the Government of Malaŵi. This entailed frequent trips to Lilongwe and other main centres, and hosting numerous guests at Cape Maclear. Government departmental heads were sensitized and hosted at various venues related to this study. Several evening presentations were held to sensitize invited guests from the relevant Government Ministries, NGO’s and Private Sector.

Tourist stakeholders along the lake shore between Mangochi and Monkey Bay were interviewed with regards to their possible support for a project involving the establishment of Planned Farm Communities, as well as a financially viable Lake Malaŵi National Park/Game Ranch (LMNP/GR) project to provide another destination dimension to the tourism industry in the area. These facilities were selected as they would be most involved by the proposed development.

Aerial surveys of the general area were undertaken to backup the information needed to provide options for the TAs. Arial searches for available ground water and game trails were also undertaken, and video documentary films were made of the terrain and vegetation. Ground surveys were undertaken of the area to assess the terrain, and the potential for the options which are expected on completion of this study.

AFRICARE

Africare, a Pan African NGO with offices in Malaŵi, was tasked to organize surveys to determine the status of the communal people living and working in the area. Their researchers specialize in dealing with African rural communities, and two staff were in the field for two months. They used a four wheel drive vehicle to reach the remote villages where their team, accompanied by a WWF team, gathered data and sensitized villagers of the possibilities of the HEC being resolved. Information gathered by the two teams was recorded on a questionnaire.

The team made appointments several days before the intended meetings at a number of headman’s villages. Invitations were sent out to all the clans under the headman’s jurisdiction by runners and by word of mouth, a routine procedure used by the District Commissioner and the TA, as needed. Only one meeting per day was possible as villagers would walk from their own village to the meeting place in the morning, and then return in the afternoon. At these meetings, while the Africare team was talking and explaining the study, and asking questions, the WWF contingent would walk through local nearby villages gathering physical information, recording their findings as they went.

DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL PARKS AND WILDLIFE

The head of the Parks research team from Cape Maclear, Mr. Kalima, tasked to work with WWF, was asked to collect specific data aimed at assessing the population of elephant, and to determine fecundity, age structure and herd cohesion. Research staff undertook two field trips, one of one week from 18 to 24 April with ten observers, and one of two weeks from 9 to 22 May with five observers. They camped near villages in the area, and using their four wheel drive vehicle, interviewed villagers to pinpoint the elephant. They then went into the areas indicated by local villagers on foot. A local villager with a good knowledge of the area was seconded to accompany the Parks research staff to ensure that they achieved the best possible results.

As members of the Parks research team were usually based in Monkey Bay and Cape Maclear in the Lake Malaŵi National Park where there is little or no wildlife, they were not overly familiar with the elephants or the communal areas where the study took place.

 

RESULTS

Africare

Africare was invited to assist with the study in order to provide background information and to sensitize the communities in the areas where HEC has been a problem. The surveys were carried out by one researcher and a driver, assisted by teams of from two to four WWF (Finland) staff through the study. Africare have produced a report and their findings are summarized here.

The sixteen Villages where sensitization meetings took place have a total population of 47,307 people. Of these, 1,494 attended Africare meetings, though none were able to attend from two villages due to funerals in progress on the days set aside for the meetings. Of these, five villages reported serious HEC, while others reported a few or no incidents.

Of the sixteen villages most affected by HEC from the three TAs, when asked for their suggestion on how best to deal with the elephants, 87.5% suggested they be fenced in a reserve and remain in the Mangochi District; 12.5% suggested they be relocated to Majete. Villages around Phirilongwe Forest Reserve were not in favour of having the elephants moved there. The survey confirms that the main cause of the HEC is that people are more and more in conflict for natural resources historically available almost entirely to the wildlife and elephants. The area was well stocked with a good range of wildlife as little as 50 years ago. This varied from elephants, buffalo, lions and leopards, impala, kudu, eland, roan and sable (Pers Com. Joe Chinguwo. Senior Assistant Wildlife Officer & Extension Services) and a range of smaller wildlife. Most of these have now been poached.

The mean plot size for ten villages was 0.695 ha. The survey concluded that maize was the main crop grown in the area, but although farm size was not an issue, the poor soils were not very productive. Other less important crops grown are Sugarcane, Cassava, Tobacco, Cotton, Groundnuts, Chilies, Sweet potatoes and Sorghum. Some villagers own a few Cashew nut trees which produce well in the area. Cotton is regarded as a useful cash crop. Livestock kept in modest numbers by families are Cattle, Chicken, Sheep, Goats, Pigs, Pigeons, Ducks, Sheep, and Guinea fowls. Vegetables were grown where there was available surplus water: consisted of Cabbage, Onions, Tomatoes and Rape.

Of the sixteen villages in the survey, thirteen had no local clinic. Infection rates for AIDS is in the region of 25%. Only primary schools are recorded in most villages, but attendance is poor due to poverty. There were no secondary schools amongst the surveyed villages. Several villages have boreholes, and all report unusable boreholes due to broken pumps. All villages report drawing untreated water for consumption from rivers, streams, and Lake Malaŵi. Twelve villages report that 51% of families have no toilets. Thirteen of the sixteen villages do not have ready access to trading centres.

All villages reported the availability of fruit such as mangoes, bananas, pawpaw, avocado, guava, oranges and lemons, wild fruit, such as Masau, Mapoza, Malambe, Bwemba, Mbulukututu, Matowo, and Gungule is also available. These are often used during periods of drought when other crops fail.

 

National Parks Department

Research staff from the Department of National Parks and Wildlife, funded by a grant from the EU through WWF (Finland), were relied upon to undertake the elephant assessment surveys. They undertook two surveys. In their report they assessed the population of elephants at 28, and stated that there could have been more as counting in the thickets was very difficult. Several big bulls were seen, along with breeding herds. On one occasion they watched a herd of 13 walk past to a waterhole only 6 metres from their observation position, and there was no sign of aggression by the elephants.

 

Fig 7.  Distribution of Elephants during survey of April-May 2005

WWF (Finland)

A survey was conducted to determine the state of the lakeshore hotel and lodge industry with a view to determining their current ‘used’ and ‘available’ bed nights. Each facility was called on and assessed for suitability for the local, regional and international tourist market. There was no established grading system for these facilities in Malaŵi, and there was no cohesive tourist association amongst the facilities. Management of fourteen facilities were interviewed for the survey between Mangochi and Monkey Bay. Three were found to be closed. Between Nkapola Lodge, Club Makokola and Sun & Sands there are 510 bed nights available at regional and international standards. The large facilities set up to cater for the local market, with some regional visitors had 196 beds and 92 rooms (Palm Beach, Boadzulu and Andrews Motel. In the five remaining smaller lodges, there are some 162 beds and 82 rooms available at backpacker and budget level. Some facilities had air conditioners in bedrooms and most have overhead or desk fans. Power cuts are common in the area, and only the larger facilities had backup generators. Several budget facilities also offered tents under thatched shelters but these were not included in the survey. A good range of lakeside activities were on offer, such as parasailing, skiing, scuba diving, angling, cruises, kayaking, sailing, and most facilities had a swimming pool. Some offered snooker, tennis, basketball, volleyball, netball, footballs, darts, children's playground, trampolines. Two facilities had additional attractions such as ostriches, a large bird aviary and donkeys. All had celtel and landline phone connections, though the landlines were unreliable at some facilities. All but the smaller establishments had conference facilities, although only the larger facilities could handle these facilities at any professional level. None offered safaris, cultural village tours, or were even aware that they could undertake bushwalks, nor that there was a  populations of elephants within 10 Km of their facilities. Not one facility had access to an experienced safari guide. When the concept of Planned Farm Communities and a large LMNP/GR was explained, all were in favour of these options and recognized the potential to increase employment, tourism and business turn over. Advertising, with the exception of the three larger facilities, had not been considered as a means to increase tourism and none in this category had been to any trade shows. All were registered with the Department of Tourism (DOT) but few had any direct contact with this department. Despite this, DOT was involved in establishing a cultural Village in the area, of which the established operators appeared to be unaware. A number of facilities reported gradual but major downturn in tourism over the past 5 years. Occupancy figures for the hotels ranged from 20% to 80% depending on season, but more realistic averages of 12 to 15 % appeared more normal.

Meetings were attended and a good number of slide presentations were provided at local village level to some hotel managers and staff, and to NGO’s and selected Ministers and senior Civil Servants including a presentation at the residency of the United Nations Director in Malaŵi, Mr. Michael Keating.  The final presentation was given to the Mangochi Problem Animal Control Task Force Meeting convened on 24th June 2005.

OPTIONS FOR THE FUTURE

To eliminate HEC, three options were considered. The first was to cull all the elephants, the second was to translocate the elephant, and the third to keep them in their home range, and to make suggestions and provide options on how this might be achieved, bearing in mind that the communities would need to benefit from this option, and eliminate HEC. Option one, regarding the translocation of the elephants, was found to have two possibilities, that of moving them into the nearby PFR, or to the recently privatized Majete National Park.

As a result of numerous meetings with local residents, members of the private business sector, meetings with administrators and senior Government Ministers, and a literature survey, two of the three general options for the elephants and the communities were deemed to be realistic.

1.      The first and most unacceptable option would be to destroy all the elephants, thereby eliminating the HEC problem. This option is recorded only to show that it was considered, even though it is not acceptable.

2.      The second option is to move the elephants. On the one hand, DNPW undertook an independent survey from 9 to 16 March 2005 and concluded, with a presentation to the Mangochi PAC Task Force on 3 May 2005, that the elephant could be driven into the Phirilongwe Forest Reserve. On the other hand, the more realistic approach to moving the elephant would be to move them to a viable and well protected sanctuary. The recently privatized Majete National Park, currently being restocked with wildlife with a view to re establishing it as a leading wildlife tourist destination, have had discussions with the DNPW to dart the Phirilongwe elephants and move them by road to Majete National Park. Their proposal is much more positive and would definitely be a realistic solution for this population of elephants. It would definitely solve the HEC problems in the Nankumba Peninsula area. They have also been very proactive in monitoring the Phirilongwe elephants over a good number of years, and have been instrumental in putting collars onto four of them to monitor their movements (Pers. Comm. Dr A Hall Martin). The Majete administration have proposed a means of funding the translocation exercise through specialist tourism participation at an estimated cost of US $ 2 500 per animal, and would use specialized game capture organizations from South Africa. However, the TAs, of their own conviction, have decided they want to keep the elephants (see letters and Fig. 8).

Fig. 8.  Community request to retain elephants in Mangochi District.

 

3.      The third option is based on the decision by the TAs to retain the elephants, and has far reaching implications for the improvement of the communities. This option aims at establishing an expanded LMNP/GR between the present LMNP, and the PFR. It aims to improve the lifestyles and economies of those who live in and around the HEC areas, to build planned farm communities and make available better land use and farming techniques, community facilities such as health, education, agriculture, and transport. This is a multidisciplinary approach, whereby the communities and the region become the custodians, beneficiaries and driving force of a massive new initiative. It will, if undertaken as recommended, become the means whereby all positive and progressive inputs will result in unequivocal progress and advancement not only for the communities, but also the District of Mangochi and the Nation of Malaŵi as a whole. It will provide improvements in agriculture, in health and HIV, in education, in housing and lifestyle, in the laws of the country, as well as the road infrastructure. The District Commissioner of Mangochi wrote on 6 April 2005 to the Office of President and Cabinet requesting support to retain the elephants in the Mangochi District (Fig. 9).

            Fig. 9. Letter from Mangochi District Commission to Office of President and     Cabinet.

These aspirations will not only follow the wishes of the Government of Malaŵi, but also the projections and objectives of the international community. This set of options and recommendations presented here, holds precious the objectives of policymakers, and sets these objectives and principles at the core of the options offered. Briefly, these deep-seated values are magnificently expressed as follows:-

·        The Constitution of Malaŵi in section 13 (d) The Environment, requires the state of Malaŵi “To manage the environment responsibly in order to —

(i) prevent the degradation of the environment;

(ii) provide a healthy living and working environment for the people of Malaŵi;

(iii) accord full recognition to the rights of future generations by means of environmental protection and the sustainable development of natural resources; and

(iv) conserve and enhance the biological diversity of Malaŵi.

·        The objective as outlined in “The Malaŵi National Strategy for Sustainable Development (2004 p.87)” is to “Radically enhance social change, trade participation, and poverty alleviation through sustainable tourism in the form of ecotourism and cultural tourism by 2015.”

·        The Principal Secretary for the Ministry of Mines, Natural Resources and Environmental Affairs in Malaŵi, Mr. T.R. O’Dala, a well respected senior civil servant with exceptional perception and foresight for Malaŵi, is quoted.

“June 2004 - “There is no “blueprint’ approach for national sustainable development strategies.  What is important is that the strategy is formulated as a tool for informed decision-making, providing a framework for systematic thought across sectors.  A national sustainable development strategy is a coordinated, participatory and iterative process of thoughts and actions to achieve economic, environmental and social objectives in a balanced and integrated manner.”

From the foregoing, it is clear that this approach is what the nation and the international advisors are recommending for the betterment of both the communities and the country as a whole. This concept, once under way, can be used as a model for other districts, and can be adopted by neighboring countries.

OPTIONS – THE WAY FORWARD

In order to arrest the HEC as soon as possible, it is suggested that positive action is taken from the outset. The options provided here are temporary measures only, until the option to create a much bigger LMNP/GR project is undertaken. This option aims at eliminating the need to “capture” the elephants and attempts to avoid ‘handling’ them in any way.

THE ELEPHANTS
Initial short term

As the elephants have either chosen or been forced by human encroachment to remain in some core areas where water is available through the year, and the vegetation has been protected by their presence, these areas are referred to as “Core Home Range Areas” (CHRA), and could constitute the basic sanctuary areas referred to below. In order to take charge of the HEC position immediately, it is recommended that the elephants are contained by enclosing them in their CHRA where they have been living over the years by encircling them with suitable electric fencing. Several such areas, or sanctuaries, can be planned around permanent waterholes, and these areas should become part of the larger LMNP/GR within two years. Each of these sanctuaries should be between 30 and 50 sq Km with no more than 15 to 25 elephants in each at the outset. To achieve success, the population must be assessed in terms of herd structure, age, and ability to reproduce. The core home area should be determined, and a boundary for the fence identified. Each elephant requires not less than 2 Sq Km, and each sanctuary area should be well away from any major roads, farms and villages. It is also essential that the sanctuary areas identified have no villages in them. The fences must be well maintained and the fence guards well supervised. It is possible that translocations of other soft skin species can be undertaken into these areas after some preliminary studies as to the suitability of the area. This will kick start the breeding process, and positive development will be established. Once established, these sanctuaries can be opened to low intensity walking safaris, and hides can be built at the water sources for clients drawn from the hotels in the area.

Funding for this project should be sourced from the donor community and would constitute an investment in the plans for the LMNP/GR to be established while developing the Planned Farm Communities. It is also possible that further private overseas investors can be identified, and who might be considered as investors in the LMNP/GR in the future.

Long term

In the longer term, the sanctuaries can become part of the larger LMNP/GR, and the fences for the LMNP/GR would enclose the sanctuaries. When fencing of the larger LMNP/GR is completed, the elephants can be released into it. If found to be in suitable locations, the sanctuaries could continue as core breeding areas for other wildlife, and could continue to be available for tourism until the wildlife populations in the greater LMNP/GR area have bred up sufficiently. These sanctuaries could also be moved to more suitable locations inside the LMNP/GR for breeding up other species for eventual release or sale.

Several species of wildlife have bred successfully in the Liwonde National Park (LNP) sanctuary, and this concept should be replicated here. In the LNP, species like black rhino, eland, buffalo, zebra, Lichtenstein’s Hartebeest, and roan were introduced to the breeding programme with great success. Nyasa Wildebeest, once so common in Malaŵi, is now locally extinct. However, there are small populations in Tanzania and there have been past agreements at Presidential level, to translocate a breeding herd of some 80 of this species back to Malaŵi. This effort has not come about to date, and further efforts can be made to bring this Malaŵian wildebeest back to its former range. Other species which attract tourist are giraffe, ostrich and lions, and these should be considered as candidates for the sanctuaries. Lions along with leopards and other native carnivores can be bred successfully in sanctuaries. In the future, these might be introduced into the greater Park area.

THE EXPANSION OF THE LAKE MALAŴI NATIONAL PARK TO THE PHIRILONGWE FOREST RESERVE WITH A GAME RANCH

The options provided as “the way forward”, and which the TAs, the Mangochi DC and the Government of Malaŵi (GOM) must consider for adoption, are offered here in two sections. Both are interdependent on each other for the success of the proposals, if adopted. From the outset, it is stressed that these options are offered as preliminary solutions. Further detailed specialized studies will be needed before implementation of the large scale option, that of the formation of a self sustainable game ranch, extending Lake Malaŵi National Park, and joining it with the Phirilongwe Forest reserve. The larger part of the options proposed relate to the communities, and addressing specific sectors which will improve their wellbeing.

The Lake Malaŵi National Park, designated as a World Heritage by UNESCO, was established primarily to protect the lake’s unique aquatic environment; the unique aquatic fishes in their undisturbed natural environment.  However, the protection of the land habitat was seriously neglected, and as a result, poaching of wildlife and uncontrolled use of resources such as wood, sand, and stone has almost destroyed the National Park as a unique natural ecosystem. Erosion has also caused siltation which affects fish habitat and feeding and breeding grounds.

There is now, as a direct result of the HEC, a unique opportunity to rectify the neglect of the Lake Malaŵi National Park and return it to a fully protected ecosystem. By enforcing the basic parks regulations, eliminating unauthorized activities in the park (including illegal squatting), it could once again become the fully protected ecosystem and tourism destination for which it was established. By connecting the Park to the land proposed as a LMNP/GR to the south, any wild life this development brings about in this ecosystem will have renewed access to the LMNP, and once again, will further attract tourists. The increased tourism potential can provide the much needed revenue to set the Park on the road to recovery and enable it to become financially independent, while benefiting the basic health and living conditions of local communities.

The Phirilongwe Forest Reserve, 42 km to the south of the Lake Malaŵi National Park is set around the Phirilongwe Mountain, the highest peak in the area. Although it is 161 sq km in extent and has permanent water, about a third of it consists of very steep mountain terrain, and is generally inaccessible. While the Government intended to extend the boundaries in the 1980’s, and despite putting in beacons and markers, it was not gazetted, and was never implemented as some of the village communities moved into the area before it was officially declared an extension (Reference to Letter: Banda, B. Ref File No. M/C/5/19 – DFO “The main objective of the Pro Phirilongwe F. R. Ext area was to protect and conserve elephants”).

In order to ensure that the proposed LMNP/GR option is going to be an economically viable and sound tourism opportunity, it should be large, and not take up any significant areas of prime agricultural land. It should be confined to areas with low human densities, and yet be suitable to sustaining wildlife with a few essentials, such as the provision of water holes. It must also have reasonable access to the existing hotel infrastructure already established in the area. With this in mind, using maps and satellite imagery, an area was provisionally marked out and a map drawn of the whole area. Once the boundary was determined, the overlay was applied to the Population Density Map (Fig. 6).  This was found to fit precisely over the areas with lowest density, thus showing that the area proposed would incorporate the least numbers of the resident populations and which would all have first choice of moving into the pre established Planned Farm Communities. With this, and the need for economic viability of the whole district in mind, the area as proposed should be seriously considered as one which could be provided for the anticipated LMNP/GR. For the purposes of reasonable accuracy, the extent of the boundary is as follows:-

The area is located in the Mangochi District, and encompassed large parts of three TAs-- these being Mponda, Nankumba and Chimwala. Parts of the higher hill areas between LMNP and PFR, as shown in the map of Nankumba Peninsula (Fig. 4), will become the LMNP/GR, and final boundaries have to be decided upon and identified by the TAs and Government of Malaŵi (GOM).  Also underutilized land bordering the Mtakataka road to the east of the proposed LMNP/GP could be considered also for game ranching.

The land recommended for inclusion in the LMNP/GR is customary land. It runs from the Northern boundary of the PFR. From there it runs to a point some 10 to 15 Km west of Mangochi to the base of the escarpment, then along the foothills roughly 5 to 8 Km from the Mangochi / Monkey Bay road to and joining the LMNP as shown. On the west it follows the lake shore in the areas known as Kasanka, and on to Malembo, then further along the lake shore to the TA Nankumba / Chindamoto boundary. From there it leaves the Lakeshore and heads to the Mtakataka Road and follows it on the lakeside to a point one or two Km north of the Nankumba turn off on the Mtakataka Road. From there it heads to the foothills to the west and heads south, past Nankumba and Mvumba villages and on past Mtosogo Hill to join the northern boundary of the PFR. This last section follows along the foothills and remains on the east of the road to PFR. The proposed boundary avoids densely populated village areas and potentially good farmland which might be identified for the building of the Planned Communities.

Bearing in mind that Malaŵi is not now considered as a wildlife ecotourism destination, and has little to offer the very competitive ecotourism market, as reflected by the near collapse of the tourism industry (2004/5), any improvements created to provide for a recovery in this regard will have a positive bearing on Malaŵi as an international ecotourism destination.

Although Malaŵi has a good number of National Parks, only the Liwonde National Park is significantly productive from the tourism and revenue perspective. All the others are marginal in their ability to earn revenue and manage (and protect) the ecosystem (the fauna and flora). The tourism accommodation infrastructure in Malaŵi is reasonably good, and can be built upon alongside the improvement of ecotourism destinations. Lake Malaŵi can be considered as one of the great ecosystems in the world, but the marketing through the tourism sector is poor, and needs to be modernized, using well-known international marketing organizations.

COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENTS

Table 1 shows the results of a survey carried out by Benson, T., et. al. 2002, and reflects the poverty of the communities who share the areas inhabited by the elephants. These areas are not only unsafe from the depredations of the elephants, but they are also areas where poverty and diseases are common. Here diseases such as malaria, cholera, typhoid, malnutrition, and HIV Aids are common, and the infant death rate is unacceptably high.

It is clear that the communities in the more remote areas are in need of assistance to break free of poverty, improve health, education, as well as improve their living standards. Almost all of the criteria selected in the table can be addressed and improved upon. The work done by Africare Malaŵi not only confirms the position, but shows it as worse in some of the criteria.

Most people in the general area live on or near to the lake shore and along perennial rivers. The inland areas between Lake Malaŵi National Park (LMNP) and the Phirilongwe Forest Reserve (PFR) are lightly populated (Fig. 6). These are also the areas historically used by the elephants. It is estimated that there are some 5,000 families in the lightly populated area, consisting of some 20,000 people. These families are all exposed to HEC, some more than others, depending on the locations of natural water sources and the proximity to the elephants CHRA. These are also the families most severely affected by poverty, disease, poor education, no protected water sources, no proper toilet facilities, and very low crop yields. These people need help, could benefit the most from the options provided by this study.

This study proposes that “Planned Communities” (PC) are provided and established. Low density areas with rich soils would be identified near to main roads and the lake or major rivers, and would be surveyed to determine suitability for intense farming. Irrigation specialist would plan irrigation canals and furrows, and working with farm surveyors, while farm plots would be pegged and demarcated. In this study, one hectare plots are discussed, but this could be increased or decreased in later planning stages as needed. Community suburb sites would be identified.  Housing would be built in each such community, using aesthetically and functionally pleasing house designs laid out in a town planning fashion, and providing all basic modern facilities such as plumbing, sewage and electricity. Communities would be accommodated according to their traditional clans and kept together with their headmen and TAs. Several such communities would be established in selected lakeside locations or other suitable areas along the LMNP/GP boundary where good farming land is available in presently less densely populated areas. The land along lake shore between Monkey Bay and Mangochi, to the foothills in the west, has large tracts where there is little or no use of the majority of the land on any sustainable basis. This is good, fertile land, and by formally planning 0.5-1.0 hectare plots could define the basic farm size, radiating out from the community housing complex.  By surveying this land to enable a conventional demarcation system with surveyed furrows to provide flood irrigation throughout the year, the plots will provide for thousands of farming families (see Figs. 2-4). Several such Planned Communities should be planned around the LMNP/GR area as per the example in s. 2-3.

In this proposal, there should be a good road infrastructure from main national roads to gain road access to each farm plot. Water for irrigation for all farms can be pumped from the nearby lake or perennial rivers into reservoirs on higher ground. Irrigation furrows will be placed to ensure that in times of drought there will be water, and that dry season winter crops can be grown, thereby increasing the productivity and income of each farmer. Each farmer will be responsible for the maintenance of the furrows under the supervision of agricultural extension workers, who will also advise on suitable crops and farming techniques. New crops can be grown, and new home industries established. Bananas and tomatoes can be dried for the overseas market, or to make chutneys and tomato sauce in the district. Herbs and spices can be produced for the international markets, as is done in Zanzibar with its similar hot tropical climate. Bee keeping is encouraged. The establishment of new aquaculture ponds and fish production is recommended to reduce the reliance on the ever dwindling fish resources harvested from Lake Malaŵi.  Women can become more involved in farming. As well as in the production of curios for the tourist trade, they can grow vegetables for their families, for sale at the local markets, and for the hotels and lodges in the area. With better access to agricultural advisory and extension facilities, farming practices will improve, resulting in better harvests and better income for the farming communities. The residential communities are well placed to ensure that facilities such as schools, clinics, adult education, are well supported nearby. Shops, markets, woman’s affairs centres, day care centres, churches and grave-yards will be incorporated into the community centres (see Fig. 3), and there will be provision for private enterprise to become established to serve the PC. Access to main roads, transport, clinics and hospitals, schools and similar amenities will improve lifestyles, and the communities will thrive.

 

In order to develop these PC areas, funding must be sourced from the donor community. Once established, the scattered subsistence communities in the more remote areas will be invited to take up farms in their allocated areas, and it is anticipated that no family which is offered a farm, would turn down the opportunity for improving their lives. Life for the people would be far safer in these PC areas near to roads and essential facilities, and well out of the reach of the HEC areas. 

Benefits from the proposed LMNP/GR

 

Game Ranching is well established in African countries like South Africa, Namibia and Zimbabwe. Private ownership of wildlife has made wildlife a precious marketable commodity in these countries, and the protection, conservation and expansion of wildlife ecosystems has resulted. Wildlife is very valuable! Following periods of drought, cattle ranchers in these countries have converted from cattle ranching on marginal lands, to ranching indigenous wildlife such as kudu, impala, wildebeest, waterbuck, zebra, buffalo, and others, choosing wildlife, which has historically evolved in their habitat over thousands of years. These animals are well adapted to the climatic and ecological conditions which prevail in the region. Big game ranches have been more successful financially than relatively small farms and ranches in these countries. Smaller farms and cattle ranches therefore have combined their land to create larger conservancies, jointly owned and managed by the landholders. More diverse habitats have thereby been created and African wildlife are the attraction. In the larger managed LMNP/GR ecosystems, almost all the species which occupied these habitats over a hundred years ago, can become re-established, bringing in up-market tourism with excellent potential to bring in the much needed revenue essential for surrounding communities to live healthy and honourable lives. As such, all families, and members of families in these communities, are the custodians and main beneficiaries of the wildlife and the ecosystem, and will help protect their heritage by preventing abuse of the ecosystem, and prevent poaching and unauthorized use of any part of the LMNP/GR. Environmental education will be the greatest tool at all levels of education, and the people in the whole region must be environmentally aware, and they must know of the benefits they derive from the protection of the whole system.

The establishment of the proposed LMNP/GR is vital, and essential for the whole project to succeed. In order for a LMNP/GR to succeed, it must be headed by a professional administration, and the highest ethics must be applied at all levels. This venture must be set up for the benefit of the main players; the communities and stakeholders. It must ensure there is no illegal personal gain for any individuals, but must provide equally and equitably for all members of the community, who are part of this initiative.

It is proposed that if this option is adopted, a CONCESSION AGREEMENT from GOM with suitable channels of command, communication, and funding is firmly established to administer the LMNP/GR and its business operations. An ETHICS Committee must be part of the agreement to ensure “fair play” at all levels, thereby ensuring that the benefits to the community and other stakeholders are guaranteed. The members of this committee must include public figures that are held in the highest regard on an international basis. Such personalities might include the President of Malaŵi, Royal patrons, winners of prestigious conservation awards. The model proposed by Mr. C Slager[1] at a meeting with several Senior Malaŵian Government Ministers at Club Makokola on 2 May, was deemed an inspirational blueprint, and is hereby recommended as the organizational/company prototype to run the whole LMNP/GR business undertaking. His model gives credibility to the proposed business and conservation, ensures the prevention of corruption through the ethics committee at all levels, and ensures that the communities benefit, while the investors recoup their interest. Investors will accept international interest rates, presently at 3-4% and would be at liberty to ‘roll over’ and donate interest earned to communities for specific developments if they choose to do so.

It is proposed that an ‘in depth’ Business Plan be put together to plan for the LMNP/GR operation, providing an in depth projection on how this might work. Funding for one year would be needed for this. It needs to draw attention to the benefits to the communities and to the Mangochi district, as well as Malaŵi, through tourism and improvements in other sectors. It needs to project the growth of the wildlife populations and how these will be used to earn revenue, and it needs to project expenditure and revenue returns on a ten year timescale. It needs to show how conservation will benefit district communities, overall tourism, assist other districts to reach self sustainability by making the best use of the environment and wildlife. This business plan must provide solutions to self sustainability and overall improvements to the communities. Costs of game fencing and fence guard housing, road infrastructure, breeding sanctuaries, plant and equipment, must be determined. There will be costs for environmental reclamation such as re-forestation using indigenous vegetation and the removal of non indigenous vegetation, the removal of old building structures.

DISCUSSION

In retrospect, the elephants have turned out to be the catalyst for a major rethink on how Malaŵi can recover from mass poverty in the Mangochi District. The HEC problem brings to light three major problems: the need to protect villagers and their crops in the exposed areas, the need to protect the elephants, and the need to turn their protection into a self sustaining enterprise. This study aims to provide not only positive options to resolve the HEC, but to provide solutions to the alleviation of poverty and to improve human living standards.

Human living standards are improved through development. The Development Policy Research Unit, at the University of Cape Town in their DPRU Policy Brief No. OI/P13, May 2001, defined Human Development as a process that enlarges human choices and improves the quality of life for every man, woman and child. That document further defines the choices, including the opportunity to lead long, healthy, creative, productive lives and to participate fully in every decision and process that affects their lives, education, and equal access to resources for a decent standard of living. These basic choices lead to other options such as political, economic, cultural and social freedom; security, justice, human rights, empowerment and self esteem. Income becomes an important means to human development if it enriches every person to reach her or his full potential.

Tourism is the best option for the future of the Phirilongwe Elephants, as well as for the people who have borne the brunt of the depredations of the elephants. TAs Chimwala, Mponda and Nankumba are on the right course, just as TA Liwonde was when his efforts and foresight resulted in the creation of the now very successful Liwonde National Park many years ago: he recognized that ecotourism does bring improvements to the living standards on the local communities.

This study reflects on two tangible options in the ‘translocation’ alternative mentioned above.

The recommendation to move the elephants into the Phirilongwe Forest Reserve as per the presentation (‘Feasibility Study of the Identified Area for Translocation of Phirilongwe Elephants’) by National Parks to the Mangochi Problem Animal Control Task Force (MPACTF) on 3 May 2005, provides a possible short term solution if funding can be secured for the translocation, fencing, staffing and ongoing maintenance. Although not mentioned, it is assumed that DNPW would provide or source the funding for such an exercise. It does not provide for a long term permanent solution to the ultimate wellbeing of either the communities, or the elephants. No mention is made of how the elephants will be managed, or how their confinement will benefit the communities. The option to only confine the elephants into the Phirilongwe Forest reserve is not practical as it is unlikely to become a major tourist attraction or destination, nor is it likely to generate any significant revenue which could support the betterment of the communities. A solution needs sustainable self funding, and this issue was not addressed in any way. The Phirilongwe Forest Reserve itself does not have a large enough habitat to become a major wildlife sanctuary to attract the international tourist.  Competition from other African countries in the International Tourism arena providing big game ecotourism destinations would be too great for the 161 square km Phirilongwe Forest Reserve, even with 78 sq Km of customary (community) land added as suggested, and containing only the Phirilongwe elephants. The suggested 239 sq Km is only large enough to hold between 80 and 120 elephants, assuming a wild stocking rate of one elephant per 2 to 3 sq Km.

The option to translocate the elephant to Majete National Park is ecologically sound: it would benefit the elephants and will eliminate the HEC in the area. The Majete administration has the financial capacity and expertise to undertake such an exercise successfully and will contract specialist game capture teams from South Africa to undertake the translocation exercise. Hofmeyer pegs the cost of the sedation and capture of elephant at SA R 10,000 per animal without transport costs. Dr Hall-Martin, a well respected ecologist and Director of the recently privatised Majete National Park, estimates the translocation cost to be in the region of US $2,500 per elephant based on experience in the Kruger National Park in South Africa. However, this cost would probably be significantly higher in Malaŵi.

The translocation of elephants was first undertaken by Clem Coetzee in 1993 in Zimbabwe, and was adopted in the Kruger National Park in 1994 as a means of moving elephants from overpopulated Parks to other sanctuaries as an alternative to culling. There is some risk though, and Coetzee reports that 1.8% of elephants translocated initially--died, mainly from suffocation. In Kenya however, a mortality rate of 31% was reported by Njumbi, S., et. al. 1996 for initial translocations in 1995, and also in Kenya, Omondi, P., et al. 2002 report a reduced mortality rate of 8.9% while moving a total of 56 elephants in July 2001.

SUMMARY

As a result of numerous meetings with NGO’s and top Government officials and Ministers, it is clear that the international donor community would become financially involved if this project was elevated at Presidential level to that of a priority for the country. It is clear that at local and ground level there is positive commitment to the overall development, with the establishment of Planned Farm Communities taking a leading role initially. This will lead to positive economic benefits at household level by improved and more intensive farm practices resulting in improved crop yields, better health, schooling, and access to facilities and vastly improved living standards. Ultimately, it will reduce the burden on GOM to provide its very limited resources for the overall upkeep of the area. 

Meetings with major lakeshore stakeholders were held. These consisted primarily of hotels. It was determined that they would welcome the development of what was seen as an additional attraction for tourism in the area. With an existing plan to build a new international airport in the Mangochi area, the potential economic impact of expanding Lake Malaŵi National Park on the tourist industry and hotel occupancy would be immense. 

The surveys have highlighted the urgent need for much needed and sustained community training in education, health, sanitation, agriculture, aquaculture and economic development.

The extent and causes of human-elephant conflict was assessed and found to be concentrated along a band some 8 Km wide and between 4 and 6 km along and almost parallel to the Mangochi / Monkey Bay road as shown in Fig. 7.  Although the elephant used to live in the Phirilongwe Forest area, this area was surrounded by villages in the late 1980’s, and their presence and expansion has prevented the elephants from returning. After seasonal movement related to crop raiding in the areas they now occupy, Chinguwo reports serious HEC in the villages of Mwalembe, Makokola, Mtsinje, and Mjeleza which has been ongoing for 14 years. In this area elephants have killed 6 people and destroyed crops. It is reported that HEC started in 1989 when elephants disappeared from Phirilongwe Forest reserve and were forced  out of their hitherto core habitat after considerable encroachment in their traditional home range by people from other districts such as Chiradzulu, Mulanje, Thyolo and Lilongwe. He states that the elephants were not able to return to Phirilongwe Forest Reserve because “there is a ring of villages between the present habitat where they are and the original Phirilongwe Forest Reserve. The villages in question are: Kaiche, Mtalika, Belo, and Chilonga. Nkaweya, Mkwatula, Kalino, lmani, Chitundu, Chechawa, John Mapata, Malopa, Mtonda, Njeleza, and Songa”.

During this study several flights were undertaken to assess the number of elephants and the terrain by air. Two video documentary films of parts of the study area were made to assess the extent of the villages and determine access to more remote villages. An edited video of the area was made and shown to numerous people in the sensitisation exercise. Attempts to locate the elephants by air were followed by ground sightings and GPS readings, but were not successful due to the delay of several days between ground sightings and flights, and also the rapid mobility of the elephants at a time when crops had already been harvested.

Sixteen communities from the HEC area were sensitized regarding the potential of elephants, and their leading ‘trigger’ role in the creation of a potential LMNP/GR. It was clear from these meetings that almost all were in favour of retaining the elephants in the area providing they were securely fenced in, and that the communities could benefit in some way.

The presence of the elephants could clearly be turned into a very beneficial source of income for the community as a whole. By establishing a suitably large block of land, fencing it and by re-introducing locally extinct endemic wildlife species, it could become a very productive LMNP/GR. Non consumptive tourism, and after some five to ten years from inception, consumptive tourism could become the mainstay of a thriving tourism industry in the district. This will create support industry which will further benefit the district’s communities and at the same time provide a competitive destination for the international ecotourism arena.

It has been determined that it is possible to move the elephants from the area completely by translocating them. There is some risk to the elephants being translocated which results in the death of a percentage of those moved. Although a figure of US $ 2,500 per elephant has been proposed for the cost of translocating elephants, if translocation becomes an option, updated estimates of translocation costs will need to be determined.

The surveys were able to determine what species of wildlife existed in the district previously through interviews with older residents. With this information plans can be made as needed in the future to compile lists of species to be reintroduced to the proposed LMNP/GR.

LITERATURE CITED

Benson, T., Kaphuka, J., Chinula, R., and Kanyanda, S. 2002. Malaŵi, An Atlas of Social Statistics. Pub. National Statistics Office, Government of Malaŵi. International Food Policy Research Institute Census, Washington. Published in CD format.

Constitution of the Republic of Malaŵi. 2003. Ministry of Justice, Lilongwe.

Hofmeyer, M. Translocation as a management tool for control of elephant populations. Veterinary Wildlife Services, Kruger National Park, Skukuza 1350, South Africa

Njumbi, S., Waithaka, J., Gachago, S., Sakwa, J., Mwathe, K., Mungai, P., Mulama, M., Mutinda, H., Omondi, P., and Litoroh, M. 1996. Translocation of elephants: the Kenya experience. Pachyderm. 22:61-65.

Ormondi, P., Wambwa E., Gakuya F., Bitok E., Ndeere D., Manyibe T., Ogola P., and Kanyingi J. 2002. Recent translocations of elephant family units from Sweetwaters Rhino Sanctuary to Mweru National Park, Kenya. Pachyderm. 32:39-48.

Reports and presentations – Unpublished.

Banda, B. 2005. Feasibility Study of the Identified Area for Translocation of Phirilongwe Elephants. Presentation to the Mangochi PAC Task Force on 3 May 2005.

Chinguwo, J. (Senior Assistant Parks and Wildlife Officer). 2005. Social - Economic Survey Report by DNPW

Kalima, D. 2005. Assessment of elephant numbers and distributions in the elephant range land in traditional authorities Mponda and Nankumba in Mangochi. Report dated 17 June 2005 to WWF (Finland).

Mwafulirwa, D.Y., and Mkumbawa S. 2004. Report on the status of Phirilongwe Elephant and its Habitat Utilization. Mangochi Problem Animal Control Task force Meeting. 5th July 2004 6 pp.

 

IV. Socioeconomic Solutions to Human and Elephant Conflict in Mangochi District

Prepared by AFRICARE/MALAŴI, P.O. Box 2346 Lilongwe, Malaŵi

 

LIST OF ACRONYMS

 

ADMARC                               Agricultural Development and Marketing Corporation

ADRA                                     Adventist Development and Relief Agency

AIDS                                       Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome

ARI                                          Acute Respiratory Infection                  

BVC                                        Beach Village Committee

CAC                                        Community Aids Committee

CCAP                                      Church for Central Africa Presbytery

EPA                                         Extension Planning Area

FINCA                                    Foundation for International Community Assistance

GVH                                        Group Village Headman

HIV                                         Human Immuno-deficiency Virus          

HSA                                        Health Surveillance Assistant

ICEIDA                                   The Icelandic International Development Agency                      

IGAs                                        Income Generating Activities

LEA                                         Local Education Authority

LMNP                                     Lake Malaŵi National Park

Maldeco                                   Malaŵi Development Corporation

MARDEF                                Malaŵi Rural Development Fund

Masaf                                       Malaŵi Social Action Fund

MCV                                       Malaŵi Children’s Village

MRFC                                     Malaŵi Rural Finance Company

NABW                                    National Association of Business Women         

NGO                                       Non-Governmental Organization

Reflect                                      Regenerated Freirian Literacy through Empowering Community Techniques

SCFUS                                    Save the Children Federation Inc. (United States)

SDA                                        Seventh Day Adventist

TA                                           Traditional Authority

TB                                           Tuberculosis

VAC                                        Village Aids Committee

VDC                                        Village Development Committee

VNRMC                                  Village Natural Resource Management Committee

WESM                                    Wildlife and Environmental Society of Malaŵi

WFP                                        World Food Program

WVI                                        World Vision International

WWF                                      World Wide Fund Finland

 

 

1.      EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

1.1      Background

 

For several years, the presence of elephants in Mangochi district, south of Malaŵi, and specifically in Traditional Authorities (TAs) Chimwala, Mponda and Nankumba has been a major danger for the local population.  As human settlement and economic activity have encroached on traditional wildlife habitat, the interaction between them has led to increased competition for scarce resources. 

 

In conjunction with the Department of National Parks and Wildlife (DNPW), World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) and Africare/Malaŵi agreed to seek funding for a survey to examine ways to deal with Human – Elephant conflict and assess livelihoods potential for the area.  Resolving the conflict between humans and elephants would improve the safety of the people, their economic situation and the environment. 

 

The GoM/EU Micro Projects Programme funded the survey to examine the nature and scale of conflict between elephants and people in and around the targeted area, reach a consensus regarding best options for resolving the conflicts between humans and elephants (both immediate and long-term), explore the livelihoods options that could be promoted in the context of existing menace, and propose capacity building strategies for preparing communities to undertake community-based conservation initiatives. The survey objectives were divided amongst the above-mentioned collaborators who are DNPW, Africare/Malaŵi and WWF according to areas of competence. Africare/Malaŵi being competent in the field of community mobilization, undertook to deal with the following objectives in the survey:

  1. Assessment of the extent and causes of human-elephant conflict. 
  2. Determination of how utilitarian benefits from the elephants in form of game ranching and tourism can be achieved. 
  3. Reviewing of the current and alternative livelihoods opportunities for communities

4.      Sensitizing selected communities within the area to the value of elephants and engage in discussions concerning the fate of the elephants and economic development within Mangochi District.

  1. Determination of what wildlife existed in the district previously and interview older residents as to when they were last seen with a view to reintroducing such species where feasible.

 

This report starts with an executive summary, and then it describes the rationale for the survey, how Africare/Malaŵi approached the survey in its methodology and finally, it presents survey findings and concludes recommendations based on the findings. 

 

            Summary of findings

 

GoM/EU Micro Projects Programme financed the Socioeconomic Solutions to Human and Elephant Conflict Survey for two months. The main findings of the survey as per the objectives are as follows:

·        Although causing some damage to crops and people, most villages opted for fencing of the elephants within their present locality.

·        The communities are involved in growing some crops and keeping a number of livestock but women are the ones more involved in looking after them while the actual ownership rests in the hands of men

·        Income sources are varied, with villages along the lake relying much on selling fish while those in the upland rely on small businesses.

·        Social services are not adequate in the study area prompting a lot of people to travel long distances in order to access them.

·        The area surveyed has very big potential for activities such as aquaculture and tourism which are not being fully exploited.

 

            Summary of conclusions/recommendations.

 

The survey has revealed that the rural communities in question have been living with the elephants for a long time without any tangible benefits being accrued to them. The government has initiated several interventions such as community based conservation where revenue has been generated but very little of the money is seen at the household level. It is however notable that with proper coordination with the rural communities, the trend can be reversed and activities in these areas can smoothly be implemented.

 

It is very important therefore to realize that several stakeholders are involved and each stakeholder has promoted its interest at the expense of the other. Understanding each stake holder’s interest is crucial before implementing a big project.

 

Control of natural resources and resultant benefits should be transferred to communities for tangible impact. In addition, the survey revealed that there is need for intensive civic education about the project benefits so that the communities should appreciate and accept easily.

 

The survey shows that phasing of the planned communities and other relevant activities would play a crucial role in this project.  It is also crucial to note that the community needs capacity building in the area of business establishment.

 

2.0 RATIONALE OF THE SURVEY

 

Stakeholders such as Traditional Authorities and National Parks Department are empowered to manage the natural resources within their area and encouraged to take local control in conserving and utilizing their scarce resources including elephants.  This survey was designed to work directly with the communities to find a permanent solution to the elephant problem.  It was intended to answer such questions as can a problem be turned into an economic asset? It was apparent that this project could serve as a model and catalyst for an integrated economic and environmental strategy for the affected area and could be replicated around protected areas in both the Central and North Regions of Malaŵi.

 

2.1 Description of the problem

 

The three Traditional Authority of Nankumba, Mponda and Chimwala requested for emergency assistance to resolve the issues of the local communities arising from the presence of a significant elephant herd in the area.  Significant increased human encroachment into Phirilongwe Game Reserve, the consequent destruction of food crops by the resident elephants, as well as a number of human and elephant deaths highlighted the need to resolve the crisis as soon as possible. The long-term goal was to reduce elephant-human conflict and to increase the economic well-being and food sufficiency of the people of the area in question.  This would result in an improvement of the health and environmental conditions within which they live, and serve as a model for the entire Lake Malaŵi shoreline.

 

2.2 Design of the survey

 

It was arranged that the villages that registered more interactions with the elephants were the ones selected for the exercise so that more insights could be obtained. As a result, the survey visited more villages in TA Nankumba followed by TA Mponda and then Chimwala. In terms of tools involved, there was a checklist, a questionnaire and another guide that was used for collecting information from NGOs and government institutions.

 

2.2.1 Survey areas (sampling)

 

The survey was concentrated in Mangochi district of Malaŵi. It was mainly in three Traditional Authorities (TAs) south of Cape Maclear. The populations affected by the presence of elephants and hippopotamus inhabit the coastal region of the district in territories encompassing approximately 1,800 square kilometres. The survey areas included TA s Chimwala, Mponda and Nankumba. This area is bordered by lake Malaŵi to the east, Lake Malombe to the south and includes Phirilongwe Nature Reserve to the west. In these traditional Authorities, 16 villages were selected based on how affected they are with the problem at hand. These villages are Mwalembe, Chirombo, Kaiche, Kasankha, Malembo, Chembe, Msaka, Chilonga, Malenga, Mtalika, Mayera, Njereza, Makokola, Nsejere, Mputa and Zimbayuda. (The details of findings for these villages are attached to this report in annex 1). 

 

2.2.2 Methodology

 

A total of 16 villages were selected from sites in the three Traditional Authorities (TAs) mentioned above with more villages in the TAs most affected by the problem of elephants. The following steps were used in order to get the required information that would be relevant to the objectives:

 

Level One: Community meetings were conducted in each of the selected villages where a mixed group was allowed to discuss issues as presented by the facilitator who had a guiding checklist.  At the end of each meeting, some key members were identified for a Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) to provide deeper insights about the communities.  The FGDs were also a means that helped to triangulate community responses.  We were running one meeting and one FGD in each village with an average of 150 people per meeting.  The FGDs were usually 10 people (5 men and 5 women). In addition to the above approach, a specially designed questionnaire (attached as annex 3) was being administered in the same communities by enumerators as the meetings were taking place.

At the end of each day, the whole group that was involved immediately analyzed the information collected so that any gaps should be taken care of before it was too late.

 

Level Two: Line ministries and other organizations represented in the target communities were consulted using the same discussion guide.  However, this time more probing was done to gain a deeper understanding from the professional perspective also as means of triangulating community responses. The organizations reached at this level were Community Services, Ministry of health, Save the Children US and ICEIDA.

 

All qualitative data collected has been incorporated in the report directly while qualitative data has to come later.

 

3.0 FINDINGS OF THE SURVEY

 

 2.1     Community Perceptions on relocation of the elephants

 

Community perceptions in the various villages

Total

Parameter

Fence the elephants at present location (Maldeco Makanjira Stretch)

 

Relocate elephants to Majete/Liwonde

Relocate the elephants to Phirilongwe

 

Frequency

5

 

2

9

16

Percentage

31.25

 

12.5

56.25

100%

 

Sixteen villages were asked about their suggestion how to deal with the elephants and five villages (31.3%) said they wanted them fenced out; two (12.5%) wanted them relocated to Majete while eight (56.3%) villages wanted them relocated to a proper location within Phirilongwe Forest Reserve.  Villages around Phirilongwe Forest Reserve refused having the elephants moved to the reserve while, to the contrary, most affected villages advocated retaining them within their habitat but preferred them fenced. Probably this is because they see potential benefits since they have already put up with the elephants for a long time. Those that are refusing relocating them to Phirilongwe are villages around Phirilongwe.  Many of these people are squatters without legal title to the land.

       3.2    Livestock ownership and who owns them within the household

In almost all the villages, it was indicated that men own the livestock                                                                                                                                                      but women take a leading role in looking after the livestock. This clearly shows that women have very little influence in as far as decisions over assets are concerned.

          3.3   Crops grown by the community

The survey has revealed that agriculture in the whole area is largely dependent on the production of maize.  As in many other parts of Malaŵi, maize, while a high yielding crop, is not well suited to local soils and is heavily impacted by a lack of appropriate irrigation.  Cassava is also grown, but not in quantities to be either economically or nutritionally significant. The existing rice crop is produced solely for subsistence despite available potential for commercialization with improved irrigation systems. Other crops that were mentioned and found in the survey area are groundnuts, beans, tobacco, cotton, sugarcane and beans.  Fruit crops such as mangoes, bananas, avocadoes, paw paws are also produced, but not in commercially viable quantities. A lot of different wild fruits such as masuku, baobab, matowo etc exist in this area and they are also a source of conflict between the people and wild animals.  Land holding per household in the survey area is not a limitation to crop production but rather soil condition and farming practices.

There is however need to thoroughly analyze the state of agriculture in the survey area.

       3.4    Community main source of income

The major sources of income are sales from agricultural crops, firewood and fish especially those villages along the lake.  Other sources include ‘ganyu’ selling baked bricks; charcoal selling, grass thatch and brewing and selling local beer.

 

Overall, the survey found that the most food deficit months for the villages studied are from December to February. However, in one extreme case (Ntalika Village) cited October to March every year as food deficit months. (The survey team considers this as an exaggeration and treats it with caution because people always think that portraying grave situation is attractive for more support).  During this food deficit period, most communities mentioned that they sell firewood, do piecework, selling grass thatch and charcoal as their survival strategy.

 

         3.5     Main sources of water for domestic use.

The main source of water for domestic use for most of the households in the survey area is boreholes. Very few people drink from protected wells, while the rest use water from unprotected sources such as rivers and the lake. 

        3.6     HIV/AIDS issues

In almost all communities visited, HIV/AIDS messages have reached them through churches, hospitals and NGOs. Available figures on HIV infection are questionable.  However, anecdotal information indicates a possible infection rate approaching 25%.  This figure seems reasonable given the fact that the lake region in Malaŵi is essentially a transit corridor and a 25% prevalence rate would conform to such corridors in other parts of Africa. 

 

            3.7    Availability of social services in the area.

 

The entire survey area (refer to the attached reports) has two health facilities, Malembo and Chembe. However, these are private health facilities and therefore fee paying which makes them inaccessible to most people. Distances to some health facilities from various villages range from 6 kms to 40 kms in extreme cases. This range is for both government and private facilities. In almost all centres visited there are neither postal services nor telecommunication facilities. This makes it very difficult for the communities in these areas to communicate with the outside world. In addition, there are no defined trading centres in all the areas visited and this makes it difficult for them to comfortably dispose of their wares within their localities. There are also a few villages that had full primary schools. Most of them have junior primary schools which go up to standard 5.  Several NGOS are involved in various activities in the area under study. These are Wildlife and Environmental Society of Malaŵi (WESM), Save the Children US, ICEIDA, MCV, WVI, WFP and WWF. The details of each one of them are contained in the individual reports attached.

            3.8    Environment

 

            It was evident during the meetings that deterioration of the environment over the last few decades has caused considerable difficulty for the communities that we visited. In the individual village reports attached, deforestation and destruction of valuable habitat have had negative consequences. In some cases, people mentioned that firewood and building poles which were readily available before, are now becoming scarce. People have to travel an average of 5 kilometres to get them. The loss of indigenous species resulting from poaching and human settlement was also apparent. People mentioned various wild animal species that were in their vicinity before but are no longer available. These are such animals as kudu, cane rats, buffaloes, zebras, lion, leopards, hyenas, bush pigs and common duikers. The only commonly mentioned animals that are around and causing crop damage are baboons and monkeys.

 

            3.9    Extent and causes of human-elephant conflict in the survey area

As human settlement and economic activity have encroached on traditional wildlife habitat, the interaction between them has led to increased competition for scarce resources in the survey area. The presence of elephants in the survey area has been a major danger for the local population. Conflict between rural farmers and the elephants is widespread and common. Elephants raid food crops and grain stores, damage housing, and occasionally injure and kill people and their livestock. Their presence near villages can cause widespread fear, and has many secondary implications for rural villagers. Specific instances of this conflict related during the survey are loss of life that happened as early as 1992, followed by 2000, then 2003 and as late as 2004. In one instance, a community member during the meetings (Makokola village) stood up showing a maimed arm caused by elephant attack. (Check details on the attached village reports under annex 1). Elephants compete with villagers for resources such as wild fruits and water. Farmers have to protect their crops at night, an activity that is dangerous, reduces productivity, and increases the risks of catching diseases such as malaria due to night-time exposure to mosquitoes. Also, in selected areas of the area, hippopotami have caused considerable damage. 

Over the last five years crop losses due to elephant movement and grazing are estimated to be in the neighbourhood of 217 square hectares in Mbwadzulu Extension Planning Area (EPA) alone.  This represents crop losses for 2,104 families (approximately 14,728 people).  During the last growing season, crop losses in Nansenga EPA were calculated to be 35.8 hectares affecting 11,585 villagers6.  Data on the total acreage cultivated in these EPAs is not available.  Without a clear picture of total acreage under cultivation it is not possible to put a monetary value on the losses thus far incurred.  Likewise, as the available data does not specify crop types, tonnages are impossible to estimate.  However, from the evidence available, it appears that these losses have been enormous.

 

The losses incurred through these interactions are possibly a direct result of increased human population in the area.  The increased human settlement may be forcing larger numbers of people on to marginal land that, in the past would not have been attractive for agricultural activity.  The survey above mentions a pattern of swidden agriculture (slash and burn cultivation) that could be increasing the friction between people and elephants.  This could be a result of low soil fertility that leads to the exhaustion of cultivated land making shifting agriculture necessary.  Indications show that the area was well populated with many species of indigenous wildlife in the past.  Increases in human population have resulted in encroachments into areas that have brought pressure on this wildlife.  Woody vegetation and other habitat have similarly been systematically destroyed to make room for new agricultural land or provide fuel for the increased population.

           3.10     Aquaculture

 

The contribution of aquaculture to the economic development and health of people in this area is not significant.  Aside from demonstration ponds, established by the World Wildlife Fund for Nature, Finland (WWF) there is no fish husbandry at the local level.  Some aquaculture is being pursued by commercial entities, i.e. the Club Makokola tourist resort, but has had no impact on the villages in the area. However, the area has a big potential for fish husbandry if the people can be exposed to the technicalities of this activity.

 

3.11   Tourism

 

Tourism represents a significant aspect of the local economy.  This is, however, a largely untapped resource for the local population.  Little, if any, of the local agricultural produce is utilized by the tourist industry.  Fisheries do benefit from the presence of the ten (10) lodges and hotels along the lakeshore.  However, much economic potential is not pursued due to a lack of understanding by local farmers of what varieties of produce would be of marketable value to the tourist industry.  Additionally, like much of Malaŵi, much of the local production is of questionable market value due to poor post-harvest handling and storage.  National estimates are that up to 20%4 of all crops harvested are lost from this alone.  As a result of this phenomenon, the tourist oriented industries either rely on their own production or imported produce.

 

4.0 Conclusion

It is widely accepted that rural farmers bear the costs of living with elephants, and receive little of the benefits. Even where community-based conservation initiatives exist, and elephants generate large revenues, little of the money is seen at the rural household level. Resolving conflict between humans and elephants is widely recognized as one of the most pressing wildlife management issues in Africa, because the costs must be reduced and the benefits raised if elephants are to persist in agricultural areas.

In most African nations today, the real and perceived costs of human-elephant conflict (HEC) greatly outweigh the potential benefits and, subsequently, elephants are increasingly being excluded from many parts of their former range. Once the elephants are gone, however, the local communities will have lost a valuable asset, while at the same time contributing to the loss of biodiversity and overall degradation of the ecosystems on which they depend for their livelihoods. As a result the bigger percentage of the communities visited have opted for retaining the elephants in Mangochi and therefore making it a possibility for a potential project to be launched in the area.

5.0 Recommendations

 

  1. Mangochi District is undoubtedly a magnet for tourism, and potential foreign investors and donors. The values of the area under survey are economic, biological and cultural. It is important to realize that there are a lot of stakeholders and that each group of stakeholders is promoting its own interests at the expense of the other. This being the case, it would be very important to thoroughly survey and understand each stakeholder’s interests before fully launching a project of this magnitude.
  2. There are ongoing programmes adjacent to the Park by LMNP that have great potential for the economic and social development of the area. However, control of natural resources, together with the resultant benefits, should be transferred to the communities. As the communities start seeing real tangible benefits, it would be easy for them to whole-heartedly adopt the incoming project.
  3. It is clear that foreign investment, in particular, is of great consequence as it will bring back big game wildlife and ranching, jobs, know-how and technology, attract international publicity, increase exports and allow Malaŵi to become more competitive in the global market. It is however crucial that more time be invested in civic education to the communities affected about the benefits of the project to them so that they do not derail the process or any investor’s efforts.
  4. It was encouraging to note that even the communities themselves realized that the fundamental problem in the area of LMNP was a dense and increasing population that has been trying to extract a livelihood from a finite and diminishing resource base. The idea of Planned Communities (PCs) brought some excitement and was welcomed by the communities.   
  5. During interactions with the communities, it was evident that natural resource management skills were lacking in all the communities. Mobilizing the communities into Natural Resource Management groups would be the way forward to achieve this. These groups’ capacities need to be enhanced so that they are able to establish viable agricultural and forestry development activities as well as wildlife management programmes. Some examples already going, on but only requiring expansion are initiatives by WWF who are promoting aquaculture ponds, fuel briquette centres and paper making.
  6. Capacity building in the area of business idea generation, identification, establishment and management needs to be incorporated in the overall activities of the project.
  7. There is need for more study on agricultural interventions in the survey area
  8. Aquaculture which has a big potential in the survey area needs to be promoted
  9. Every effort needs to be made to exploit market linkages between local communities and the tourist in the district

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Annex 1: Reports of individual villages visited

5.0 COMMUNITY SENSITIZATION AND MEETINGS

Village 1

1. Mwalembe Village in Traditional Authority Nankumba (7th April, 2005)

Mwalembe had a total of 111 participants (52 men, 51 women, 5 boys and 3 girls) for the large group discussion while the focus group discussion had ten participants (5 men and 5 women).

Background of the village

The village has a mixed community and comprises the following tribes: Awiza, Yao, Mang’anja, Lomwe and Sena. The Awiza were the early settlers in this village who came around 1920s. Mwalembe has a total population of 1,448 people and there are a total of 198 households. The first tribe (Awiza) came from Guma village near Nkope.

Findings from this village

Human – Elephant Conflict

During the discussions with the villagers in the large group, it was very clear that there exists a conflict between humans and elephants in this village. The conflict is becoming intense with the passage of time and the elephants have been destroying crops and killing people in some instances. According to the villagers, this conflict is as a result of the destruction and disturbance of the ecology of the elephants. The disturbance came about due to people who have been allocated land in the designated reserve area by the Chief, without proper consultations with relevant authorities.

As the overall population of both the elephants and the people in the area is swelling there is pressure on the land hence bringing encroachment on the other’s livelihoods.

Proposed solutions before civic education

The large group proposed that the elephants be relocated to another place within Mangochi or to Liwonde National park. It was clear from the discussions that the Chief did not make any attempt to brief their subjects about the economic benefits of keeping the elephants within their locality. In other words, information flow from the Chief to his subjects in this area is not smooth.

Proposed solutions after civic education

§         During the focus group discussions, the village representatives were given civic education on the economic benefits of keeping the elephants in their locality and as a result, they proposed that the elephants be relocated to Phirilongwe or fence them anywhere within Mangochi for future generation and tourism

§         The team sensitized this community about the formation of Village Natural Resources Management Committee (VNRMC) and people agreed to form one.

§         Means of transport in this village is by foot and bicycles.

§         There are no postal services in this village.

§         Major sources of income in this community are growing and selling farm produce such as tobacco, cotton, maize and cassava.

§         There is no trading centre in this village.

§         The people here have never benefited from any business loan scheme apart from farm inputs loans from MRFC.

§         Wild animals existing in the area are elephants, baboons, monkeys and bush pigs. However, the bush pigs seem to be lapsing into extinction.

§         The idea of game ranching and wild life farming was very well received.

§         The most food deficit months mentioned are December to February. During this period, people are compelled to chop and sell firewood.

§         According to this community, the following NGOs are operating in the area

                                 i.            Wildlife and Environmental Society of Malaŵi (WESM) – The are involved in supplying tree seedlings, guinea fowls rabbits etc

                               ii.            Save the Children Us – sending aids messages through Youth clubs.

§         The roads in and around this village are in need of immediate attention because they are in very bad state.

 

Agriculture

In this village the average landholding is 0.9 Hectares per household. Meanwhile, people in this village are involved in the following activities:

Crops – The crops grown in the area are Maize, cassava, cotton, bananas, sweet potato and pigeon peas with women taking a leading role in gardening activities.

Livestock – They are involved in keeping the following livestock: chickens, goats, sheep, ducks and guinea fowls with women taking a leading role.

Vegetables- They grow a few vegetables such as tomatoes for consumption

Fruits- Fruits found here are mangoes, banana, paw paws and avocado.

Wild fruits found being masawu, malambe, bwemba and matowo.

Health and sanitation

The village has no healthy facility. The nearest clinic is at Nkope (Anglican and fee paying) which is 15 kms away. There are only 4 boreholes in this village. The village has 84 ordinary pit latrines translating to 42% of the households that appear to have toilets.  People in this village are aware of HIV/AIDS and can freely discuss it. They get information about HIV/AIDS through radio, health centres and AIDS clubs. They are also aware that AIDS has some bearing on such problems such as deaths and orphans. Prevalent diseases in this area are malaria, cholera, diarrhea and pneumonia.

Education

The village has one full primary school (1 to 8) called Nakundu and has an enrolment of 862 pupils (417 boys and 445 girls). According to the head teacher 20% of the school going age do not attend school due to poverty, early pregnancies/marriages and lack of encouragement from parents. This school has 7 qualified teachers and one volunteer. 

Environment

There is too much use of fuel wood in this village which is causing a lot of forestry degradation. Having been briefed about the consequences of degradation and the need to do conservation, the community agreed to form a VNRMC.

Question from the community

Why is it that hunters from Department of National Parks and Wildlife kill hippos only and not elephants?

Village 2

2. Chirombo village in Traditional Authority Nankumba (8th April, 2005)

Chirombo had a total of 172 participants (61 men, 94 women, 7 boys and 10 girls) for the large group discussion while the focus group discussion had thirteen participants (6 men and 7 women).

Background of the village

The lake to the east and the Mangochi – Monkey Bay road to the west, borders this village. The village started in early 1930s, and is made up of Yao, Nyanja, Tumbuka and Ngoni tribes. The Yaos were the early settlers who came from across the lake in Makanjira area. Chirombo has a total population of 2,415 people with an average household size of 5 people.

Summary of findings from this village

Affluent people from urban areas have bought pieces of land along the lakeshore from the local populous. The impact of selling this lakeshore land is that most of the people have deprived themselves of vegetable growing land. The few that are having dambo land for dimba crops are viewed with envy.

There are some benefits however brought about by the cottage owners to this community and these are 1) employment 2) bringing in of projects such as health care, roads improvement and schools just to mention a few.

In terms of land ownership, men have a bigger say than women.

People in this village either use bicycles or walk by foot as their means of transport.

Wild animals existing in the area are baboons, monkeys, hippos and porcupines while those that have disappeared with time are leopard, lion and elephants.

The village generally does not have potential for game ranching and wildlife farming because of limited land.

In this village which is along the lakeshore, there is no human – elephant conflict but the animals that are causing problems are baboons, hippos and porcupines.

This community indicated that they are involved in some form of income generating activities (IGAs) such as selling firewood, brewing local beer (kachasu), Fish selling and mats selling. These are common activities and it is an indication that they need special skills to be able to identify viable IGAs

The community does not have any conservation structures except BVC, which means that there is need to orient the community on the importance and management of conservation structures. This will be reinforced by the formation of VNRMC which they indicated readiness to form.

Agriculture

In this village the average landholding is 0.3 Hectares per household and this is small compared to the national average of 0.5 Ha. Meanwhile, people in this village are involved in the following activities:

Livestock – They are involved in keeping the following livestock: Goats, cattle sheep, chickens, ducks and guinea fowls. All animals in this village are on free range and are mostly looked after by young boys. This is an indication that livestock farming is not taken seriously.

Crops – The crops grown in the area are Maize, vegetables and rice. In the whole village the only fruit that is very prominent is a wild fruit called masawu.

The people also mentioned that they have enough food only for four months during the whole year and these are March to June.

Institutional capacities

There are such local institutions as an active Village Development committee (VDC) and Village Aids Committee (VAC) by Save US. Another NGO brought in Micah project benefiting the people with a borehole, chickens, mosquito nets, vegetables and drugs.

Overall, the village has benefited from several interventions such as Reflect by Community Services, Health education by ADRA.

Health and sanitation

The community does not have any health facility. However the nearest hospital is at Monkey Bay which is 10 kms from this village. Water for drinking is a big problem in the area. The whole village has one reliable borehole out of the three available, as the other one does not produce good water while the other is not working. As a result, cholera cases are prevalent. Other diseases mentioned are malaria, bilharzia, anemia and diarrhea. Almost all the people in this community are aware of HIV/AIDS through radios, hospital, VAC by Save (US) and ADRA. They also mentioned the impact of the pandemic being deaths of parents and others leaving behind orphans.

Education

The village has one full primary school called Namazizi that is located along the Mangochi – Monkey Bay, with 896 pupils. The school has 13 qualified teachers.

Environment

The community mentioned that they collect firewood deep in Lipere forest (3 kms away) with the distances increasing as the years go by. This firewood is both for domestic and commercial purposes. People observed that ten years ago they could fish and fetch firewood from within reach but today fish and firewood are found very far away. The people are projecting that there will be a serious problem of both firewood and fish in the next five years. Asked what should be done to address the problem, they advocated for planting of trees and enforcing the laws that prevent the wanton cutting of trees.

 

 

Village 3

3. Kaiche Village in Traditional Authority Nankumba  (11th April, 2005)

Kaiche village had a total of 129 participants (75 men, 41 women, 11 boys and 2 girls) for the large group discussion while the focus group discussion had fourteen participants (9 men and 5 women).

Background of the village

The village is divided into two for administrative purposes. Kaiche I has a population of 1,851 people while Kaiche II has 873 people bringing the total to 2,724 people. The houses are very scattered apparently because each family would like to stay near their garden for fear of their crops being attacked by monkeys and baboons. There is a total of 329 households in Kaiche village. The following villages border the two Kaiches: Nzenga, Mtalika, Kiyera, Makokola, Kuntola, Nselema and Kanyenga. The village started in early 19th century by people who originated from Michesi area as they were looking for land to grow crops for food but the inhabitants then was not a threat to the movement of elephants. This time, there are Yaos (early settlers), Lomwes Chewas, Tumbukas, Ngonis and Senas from various districts of Malaŵi.  

The road to this village is not in good shape. There is an urgent need to build a bridge over Lisangadzi River which connects this village to such services as the new maize mill and the main road to Nkope and Nankumba. As a result of this inaccessibility, people in this area have bicycles and by foot as their means of transport.

The village’s main sources of income are sales from farm produce, selling fish and piecework. They suggested selling clothes, farm produce, fish and hawker as possible businesses in the area.

Summary of findings in this village

Below is the summary of the outcome of the survey team’s interaction with this community in relation to the objectives:

Meanwhile, there is no human-elephant conflict in this community. The elephants that existed used this village as transit route from Phirilongwe to a stretch of forest between Maldeco and Mpinganjira. The elephants failed to move back to Phirilongwe after this transit route (Kaiche village) swelled because of people from other localities that came to find some places to farm. This was in 1992 when there was drought and the elephants were in search of water and this water was found in their present location which is along the lake.

The people of Kaiche therefore are encroachers from TA Mponda and have settled in TA Nankumba who is advocating their relocation. It remains for the two TAs to agree on the fate of these people, otherwise the area is a big stretch suitable for a forestry reserve.

In terms of maintaining the elephants in Mangochi, people resisted the idea strongly and advocated their relocation to Chikwawa apparently because they knew they were encroachers.

The people welcomed the idea of game ranching but not with elephants around.

 

The issue of planned settlements was also received positively especially because of the fact that it is the only way development structures can easily benefit all households.

Agriculture

In this village the average landholding is 1.2 Hectares per household and this is decreasing from 2 hectares in 2002 according to Nankumba EPA staff. Meanwhile, people in this village are involved in the following activities:

Livestock – They are involved in keeping the following livestock: Goats, pigs and chickens. All animals in this village are on free range and women take a leading role in looking after them. This is an indication that livestock farming is not taken seriously.

Crops – The crops grown in the area are maize, burley tobacco, G/nuts, pepper, cotton, cassava and sugarcane. According to crop estimates of this year, food production requirement is expected to go down by almost half. The requirement for the EPA is 16,690 Metric tones but estimates this year are indicating 8,153 Metric tones which is 50% deficit. This EPA covers Malembo as well.

Fruits- the fruits found in this area are bananas, papaws, mangoes and guavas.

Vegetables- They grow Chinese cabbage, tomato and rape

The people also mentioned that they have enough food only for four months during the whole year from March to June.  As a result they welcomed the idea of irrigation farming.

Institutional capacities

There are such local institutions as Community Policing but no any other NGOs has activities in the area apart from Masaf which has donated a maize mill towards orphan care activities and are erecting a school block. Apart from Masaf, MRFC also gave out loans for farm inputs whose outcome was not well articulated.

Health and sanitation

The community does not have any health facility and the nearest hospital is at Nkope which is 40 Kms from this village. Potable water is a big problem in this community. There are no boreholes and all the people drink from unprotected wells in Lisangadzi River. People in this area are aware of HIV/AIDS including its causes. They get this information through radios and health institutions. They also mentioned the impact of the HIV/AIDS pandemic being deaths of parents and others leaving behind orphans.

The other issues worth mentioning is the absence of toilet and refuse facilities in most households. They admitted using the bush to relieve themselves. The whole village of 329 households and 2,724 people has 185 ordinary pit latrines which is 56% of the households.

Education

The community has two primary schools only. One goes up to standard 5 while the other goes up to standard 7. Pupils who are to proceed to standard 8 mostly drop out, while those whose parents can afford the cost, rent houses for them closer to full primary schools which are very far from this community. In addition, the school with 7 classes has only one qualified teacher, the rest being volunteers who are paid a small honorarium by the community.

Environment

There is no problem with fuel wood but standard poles for building construction are getting scarce with the passage of time. Discussion on this resulted in agreeing with this community to come up with a VNRMC.

Question from the community

What about establishment of youth programmes in our area to deal with life skills issues? A young lady asked this question.

We seriously need portable water here. This was a felt need by the whole community.

Village 4

4. Kasankha Village in Traditional Authority Nankumba (12th April, 2005)

Kasankha village had a total of 202 participants (77 men, 82 women, 27 boys and 16 girls) for the large group discussion while the focus group discussion had eighteen participants (5 men and 13 women).

Background of the village

This lakeshore village is  bordered by the following villages: Mbeya, Mtewa, Kamphande and Mbwana. It has a total population of 2,772 and has about 396 households.

The village is comprised of Awiza tribe who originated from Malambo in Zambia.

Summary of findings in this village

Below is the summary of the outcome of the survey team’s interaction with this community in relation to the objectives:

There is no human-elephant conflict in this community but human-baboon conflict. Game ranching was accepted but favoring small animals

People pointed out that a survey of the present habitat of the elephants be done to find out why the elephants do not want to move from that place.

Part of the community advocated for the relocation of the elephants to Phirilongwe while another group recommended that the elephants be fenced where they are for tourism and future generation

Wild animals that existed are elephants, crocodiles, hippos, bush pigs, baboons and monkeys.

When the idea of planned communities was brought up, people indicated that they would be ready to take it up.

Agriculture

Land holding size is 0.4 hectares per household

Crops grown are maize, cassava, potato and sugarcane. It was generally mentioned that women take a leading role in agricultural activities compared to men who spend 60% of their time fishing.

Livestock found in the area are chickens, goats and ducks.

Fruits found here are mango, banana and paw paws.

Vegetables grown are rape, tomato and Chinese cabbage. The few people that have dambos for dimba crops have problems with hippos.

Health and sanitation

The village has three boreholes and all are functioning. There is no clinic in this village. Instead people go to Monkey Bay that is 10 kilometres away and Nakhwali health centre (2 kilometres away) but it is a fee-paying clinic. There are no toilets in this village. As a result, people use the bush for toilet facilities.

Other Livelihoods

Sources of income mentioned are fishing, beer brewing, firewood selling and clay pots selling.

The community said that they have never benefited from any credit facilities but have received business training from such institutions as Admarc, Fisheries, NABW and Community Development.

Institutional capacities

Save the Children USA is implementing HIV/AIDS activities in the area and has been instrumental in the formation of VACs.

Education

There is one primary school which goes up to standard 2 while a full primary school is at Nankhwali which is 2 Kilometres away.

Environment

There exists human-baboon conflict in the area.

Elephants visit the area during dry months such as October to drink water from the lake.

Domestic Violence

Men against women

Property grabbing

Forced marriages

Prostitution

Beating

Little care

Women against men

Beating when drunk

Orphans discrimination

Village 5

5. Malembo Village in Traditional Authority Nankumba (13th April, 2005)

Scheduled meeting that was on 13th April, 2005 did not take place because there was a funeral. Instead, the team had time to assess general issues affecting the village from secondary data sources. In this respect, the team visited the following institutions on this day:

Malembo Fisheries Office where we had discussion with Mr. Kalonga Joshua who is Malaŵi Fisheries Officer.

Malembo Health Centre and we talked to Mr. A Khongonyowa a medical Assistant

Nankumba health Centre, where we talked to Mr. I.I. Maunde

Nankumba EPA where we talked to Mr. R.P. Samisoni

Background of the village

Malembo which is under GVH Matekwe is made up of the following villages: Chilimba, Manzi, Katole, Mbinda, Matekwe, Khombe and Simon. According to the information collected from Nankumba EPA, Malembo has a total population of 12,035 people (5165 Male and 6870 Female). In total, the GVH has 2,413 households.

Summary of statistics in this village

Landholding size is 1.2 Hectares per household

Source of income is largely fishing followed by trading and ganyu.

Livestock available are goats, chickens, cattle, pigs, ducks and sheep.

Sources of water are Lake Malaŵi, boreholes and shallow wells. There are 17 boreholes of which 5 are not working. In addition, there 18 protected shallow wells in the area.

Fruits available in this area are: Paw paws, mangoes and bananas.

There is one SDA health facility at Malembo which is 2 kms from the village.

Malembo is well developed and has such facilities as full primary school, a private secondary school, and electricity and a well flourishing trading centre with all the necessary facilities such as groceries, post office and road network.

The whole village has 839 ordinary pit latrines and 133 Dome slab latrines.

Health and sanitation

Malembo has dirty beaches according to the fisheries officer there. This links well with the information from the health centre where they mentioned prevalent cases of diarrhea and other diseases such as malaria, acute respiratory infection (ARI)

Environment

There is much of deforestation in the area because they need a lot of fuel wood for fish smoking.

There is over fishing because 90% of the population that lives there solely depends on fishing. This is in addition to some well-developed fishermen owning big boats who come from town. It is difficult to control fishing in this area without an alternative option for these people.

Village 6

6. Chembe Village in Traditional Authority Nankumba (14th April, 2005)

Chembe village had a total of 34 participants (14 men and 20 women) for both the large group discussion and focus group discussion.

Background of the village

The village is predominantly comprised of two tribes namely Chewas and Nyanjas. Chembe has a total population of 5,039 people according to official statistics, but the village might have double that number. There are a total of 1,083 officially counted households in Chembe village. Over 75% of the population is made up of Christians (CCAP and Catholic) while the rest are Muslims. Most traditional customs are dying as they are advocating doing things like chinamwali and chisamba through the church system.

 Findings from this village

Meanwhile, there is no human-elephant conflict in this community because no elephants frequent the area however there is baboon-human conflict.

The community preferred the idea of relocating the elephants to Phirilongwe

Their main income source is fishing (90%) followed by trading and employment in the lodges.

Means of transport in this village is by foot, Matola, bicycles and boat.

There no postal services in this village and people have to go all the way to Monkey Bay which is more than 25 kilometres away for these services.

Agriculture

In this village the average landholding is 0.2 Hectares per household. Meanwhile, people in this village are involved in the following activities:

Livestock – They are involved in keeping the following livestock: chickens, goats, ducks, guinea fowls and doves.

Crops – The crops grown in the area are maize and rice, with women taking a leading role than men since men spend most of their time fishing. There are no vegetables grown in Chembe because the soils are no ideal for vegetable production. The available dambos are not used because they do not retain water throughout the year.

Vegetables- As explained under crops there are no vegetables grown in Chembe.

NGOs operating in the area- The following NGOs are operating in Chembe village:

WWF are dealing with bilharzias threat, conservation matters and general development issues in Chembe.

Assist orphans who are affected due to HIV/AIDS pandemic and have formed a VAC in this village

Loan facilities- The following institutions also did some work in Chembe as follows:

Malaŵi Fisheries who trained people on how to efficiently run fishing as a business.

Malaŵi Rural Finance Company (MRFC) disbursed loans in form of cash for business ventures.

FINCA is disbursing loans for small-scale businesses.

Health and sanitation

The village has one reliable private clinic called Billy Riordan Memorial Trust clinic which charges 50 kwacha all round per patient. The government health centre that was constructed in this area did not come to operational stage because the roof was blown off. There was a clear sign of poor workmanship. Main sources of water in this village are: the lake and boreholes. In total, there are eight boreholes in the whole village out of which six are the ones that are functional while the other two require maintenance.

The whole village has 488 ordinary pit latrines and 174 dome slab toilets bringing total number of toilets to 662. This translates to 61% of the households that appear to have toilets. The rest of the population uses the bush and the lake as toilets. Prevalent diseases are malaria, blood diarrhea and TB. People in this village are aware of HIV/AIDS and the information filters through radio, hospitals, VAC and AIDS clubs. They are also aware that AIDS has some bearing on such problems as deaths and orphans.

Education

The village has one full primary school called Cape Maclear that is located on the southern portion of the village and its enrolment is 1,300 pupils. There is also a junior secondary school (forms one and two) and has 53 students. Other educational initiatives are Adult literacy now popularly known as Reflect and has so far reached 34 people.

Environment

The people mentioned that animals existing in this area are baboons, monkeys, bush pigs and porcupines. In as far as they are concerned, it is the baboons that cause problems. The people also revealed to the team that they collect firewood from the Lake Malaŵi National Park at a fee of 20 Kwacha/bundle. However, the men expressed that good poles for construction are becoming difficult to find.

Village 7

7. Msaka (Chimphamba) Village in Traditional Authority Nankumba ( 15th April, 2005)

Although the location is called Msaka, the village is called Chimphamba.

Formal community sensitization meeting did not take place in this village because there were two funerals. However, the village headman who is also the head teacher of the primary school found in this area, was kind enough to speak on behalf of the community. Other sources of information such as health surveillance Assistant were exploited.

Background of the village

The village has a mixed community comprising the following tribes: Chewas, Yao, Ngoni, Tumbuka, Lomwe, Nkhonde and Tonga. The Chewas from central region were the early settlers dating back to 1860s. This location is similar to Chembe where the bigger population is made up of christens but a few Muslims. Msaka has a total population of 5,389 people. There are a total of 748 households in Msaka village. Most traditional customs are dying as they are advocating doing things like chinamwali and chisamba through the church system.

 Findings from this village

Meanwhile, there is no human-elephant conflict in this community.

The chief confided in us that the community is of the view that the elephants be relocated to Phirilongwe for tourism and future generation.

Means of transport in this village is by foot, Matola, bicycles and boat.

There no postal services in this village and people have to go all the way to Monkey Bay which is 25 Kilometres away for these services.

This is a major fish-marketing centre where people from other districts of Malaŵi come to buy fish for sale. The place has an active trading centre where assorted goods are offered for sale.

Agriculture

In this village the average landholding is 0.15 Hectares per household. Meanwhile, people in this village are involved in the following activities:

Livestock – They are involved in keeping the following livestock: chickens, goats, cattle, ducks and guinea fowls.

Crops – The crops grown in the area are Maize, rice and sugarcane with women taking a leading role than men since men spend most of their time fishing.

Vegetables- The following vegetables are grown in this location: cabbages, rape and onions.

NGOs operating in the area- The following NGOs are operating in Msaka village:

ICEIDA which has built a school

Save the Children which is helping orphans

WFP are running a school feeding programme.

Loan facilities- The following institutions also implemented some activities as follows:

MRFC, which has disbursed, funds to 20 people so far.

FINCA has disbursed loans to 40 people

Masaf is yet to disburse funds.

Health and sanitation

The village has no any health facility but go to Monkey bay for treatment. Main sources of water in this village are: the lake, Msaka River and boreholes. In total, there are five boreholes in the whole village out of which three are functional while the other two require maintenance.

 

The village has 269 ordinary pit latrines and 69 dome slab toilets bringing total number of toilets to 338. This translates to 45% of the households that appear to have toilets. Prevalent diseases are malaria, diarrhea, bilharzia and syphilis. People in this village are aware of HIV/AIDS and the information filters through radio, hospitals, VAC and AIDS Toto clubs.

They are also aware that AIDS has some bearing on such problems such as deaths and orphans.

Education

The village has one full primary school called Msaka LEA build with funding from ICEIDA that is located at the entrance to the village. The school has 11 teachers its enrolment is 923 pupils. There is also a reflect class with an enrolment of 39 people.

Environment

The village headman also revealed to the team that they collect firewood from the Lake Malaŵi National Park at a fee of 20 Kwacha/bundle.

Village 8

8.  Chilonga Village in Traditional Authority Nankumba (16th April, 2005)

Chilonga village had a total of 130 participants (64 men, 38 women, 23 boys and 5 girls) for the large group discussion while the focus group discussion had ten participants.

Background of the village

The village has a mixed community comprising the following tribes: Yao, Lomwe, Sena and Ngoni. The Yao were the early settlers of the area dating back to 1930s. The Yaos came from Makanjira area (Mataka) across the lake while the rest came from other districts because of they were facing land pressure problems. Chilonga village has a total population of 3,426 people and there are a total of 612 households. Over half of the population are Muslims while the rest are Christians. Traditional dances found in this area are beni, chioda, book and digong’o.

 Findings from this village

This community does not experience any human-elephant conflict because elephants do not go that far but there is a problem of human-baboon conflict.

The community was of the view that the elephants be relocated to Phirilongwe.

Means of transport in this village is by foot and bicycles.

There are no postal services in this village and people have to go all the way to Nankumba which is 18 Kilometres away.

People are willing to be involved in such IGAs as groceries, kaunjika and commercial farming but they lack working capital

Major sources of income in this community are sales of farm produce, small-scale businesses such as groceries and tea rooms.

The village has no pronounced trading centre. People travel all the way to Nankumba and Chimvuu for provisions and this is 18 kilometres away.

The community understood and accepted game ranching idea.

They also requested that government hunters be sent to kill baboons and monkeys which are destroying their crops

Agriculture

In this village the average landholding is 1.2 Hectares per household. Meanwhile, people in this village are involved in the following activities:

Livestock – They are involved in keeping the following livestock: chickens, goats, guinea fowls and doves with women taking a leading role.

Crops – The crops grown in the area are maize, cassava, cotton, sorghum, chilies and groundnuts.

Vegetables- There are dambos available to few people where they plant such vegetables as tomatoes.

Fruits- Mangoes, masawu, bananas, paw paws and guavas.

NGO operating in the area- No NGO is operating in the area.

Loan facilities- No institution has disbursed any loans in this area however, MRFC trained people in business management but never disbursed any loans.

Health and sanitation

The village has a new looking health facility which was built two years ago but is not operational because no medical assistant is willing to work there. Instead people go to Nankumba. Potable water in this village is a big problem. People drink water from such rivers as Mua, chiwandila and Nanyanje. All these rivers are seasonal. In total, there are three boreholes in the whole village out of which two are functional while one requires minor maintenance.

 The village has 217 ordinary pit latrines and 18 dome slab toilets bringing total number of toilets to 235. This translates to 38% of the households that appear to have toilets. Prevalent diseases are malaria and diarrhea. People in this village are aware of HIV/AIDS and the information filters through radio, hospitals, VAC and AIDS Toto clubs. They are also aware that AIDS has some bearing on such problems such as deaths and orphans No any outside organization helps this village on orphans except through home-based care.

Education

The village has one full primary school (1-8) called Mawundu and has an enrolment of 710 pupils with only three teachers. This school is 10 kilometres away from the village centre. According to the Deputy head teacher (Mr. Lakapati), 30% of school going age are out of school due to 10 poverty 2) hunger 3) Early marriages 4) parents who have no interest to encourage their children to go to school.

Environment

  The village collects its firewood from the nearby surrounding hills. In addition, the community revealed that they plant exotic trees such as blue gums.

 

 

Village 9

9.  Ntalika Village in Traditional Authority Mponda (18th April, 2005)

Ntalika village had a total of 257 participants (108 men, 96 women, 29 boys and 24 girls) for the large group discussion while the focus group discussion had ten participants.

Background of the village

     The Yao were the early settlers in this who came around 1967. Other tribes that moved into the area later are Lomwe, Tumbuka, Chewa, Sena and Ngoni. Ntalika has a total population of 2,646 people and there are a total of 294 households. About 75% of the population is Muslims while the rest (25%) are Christians. Traditional practices such as Jando are still being practiced and traditional dances include beni, chioda and nawasha. 

 Findings from this village

There is no human-elephant conflict in this area but notable animals known to cause problems in this area are baboons, bush pigs and monkeys.

Elephants were last seen in this area around 1989 and were believed to have moved to Maldeco area where there is much water and food according to their observation. The elephants moved away from this area because of population growth.

The team sensitized this community about the formation of VNRMC and people agreed to form one.

The community was of the view that the elephants be relocated to Phirilongwe or they be fenced around their present location.

Means of transport in this village is by foot and bicycles.

There are no postal services in this village and people have to go all the way to Katema postal agency which is 17 kilometres away.

Major sources of income in this community are sales of farm produce such as tobacco, chilies, cotton and maize.

Possible enterprises mentioned if funds would be made available are: Buying and selling fish, buying and selling second hand clothes, buying and selling farm produce.

The most food deficit months mentioned are October to March

Agriculture

In this village the average landholding is 0.6 Hectares per household. Meanwhile, people in this village are involved in the following activities:

Crops – The crops grown in the area are Maize, tobacco, groundnuts, cassava, sorghum, sweet potatoes, chilies, soybeans and peas and groundnuts.

Livestock – They are involved in keeping the following livestock: chickens, goats, guinea fowls, sheep, pigs and rabbits, with women taking a leading role.

Vegetables- Much of the vegetables are grown in Chileka dambo, along Lisangadzi and Kapako rivers. The vegetables grown are rape, tomato, lettuce and Chinese cabbage.

Fruits-  Mangoes, mapoza (wild) and masawu also wild.

NGO operating in the area- No NGO is operating in the area.

Loan facilities- Only MRFC has operated in the area and they have supplied farm input loans.

Health and sanitation

The village is assisted by Katema mission health facility which is 17 kilometres away and fee paying. The nearest government hospital is Phirilongwe and it is 22 kilometres away. Potable water in this village is a big problem. People drink water from Lisangadzi and Kapako rivers. There is only one borehole installed at Kapako School for the pupils.

The village has ordinary pit latrines and dome slab toilets. Prevalent diseases are cholera and diarrhea. People in this village are aware of HIV/AIDS and the information filters through radio, VAC, Banja La Mtsogolo hospital and CAC. They are also aware that AIDS has some bearing on such problems such as deaths and orphans No any outside organization helps this village on orphans except through home-based care.

Education

The village has a junior primary school (1 to 7) called Kapako and has an enrolment of 636 pupils. Out of this number, only 10 – 15%) come from Ntalika village because parents do not encourage their children to go to school. According to the parents, school has no benefits. This school has three qualified teachers, one temporary and three volunteers on a monthly honorarium of MK 200 each per month. There two primary school as follows: Chileka (7 Kilometres away) and Mpitilira (10 Kilometres away).

Environment

The village collects its firewood from within the village but is aware that degradation is taking its toll since the forests are not remaining the same.

Village 10

10.  Mayera Village in Traditional Authority Mponda(19th April, 2005)

Mayera village had a total of 81 participants (46 men, 32 women, nil boys and 3 girls) for the large group discussion while the focus group discussion had ten participants.

Background of the village

The Yao were the early settlers in this village who came around 1930s. Other tribes that moved into the area later are Awiza, Chewa, Ngonis, Sena, Tumbuka, Nyanja and Lomwe. Mayera has a total population of 2,923 people and there are a total of 612 households. About 50% of the population is Muslims while the rest (50%) is a mixture of Christian denominations. Traditional practices such as Jando are still being practiced and their traditional dances include chisakasa, chioda, Likwata, Manganje, Mbwiza and Chopa. 

Findings from this village

In this village, there is human-elephant conflict and the team learnt that elephants frequent the area on a monthly basis.

The team sensitized this community about the formation of VNRMC and people agreed to form one.

The community was of the view that the Jumbos (this is how elephants are referred to in this area) be relocated to Phirilongwe or they should be fenced around their present location so long that people’s safety is not at stake.

People whose crops have been damaged by the Jumbos asked for government compensation.

Shifting cultivation is practiced which is also causing encroachment into as people want to move into new area to cultivate.

Means of transport in this village is by foot and bicycles.

There are no postal services in this village and people have to go all the way to Katema postal agency which is 19 Kilometres away.

Major sources of income in this community are burning and selling charcoal, collecting and selling firewood, growing and selling farm produce such as tobacco, chilies and cotton.

They do not have a pronounced trading centre. What was seen was a small place near a maize mill where small merchandise is sold. If they need other necessities, they have to go all the way to Makawa which is 22 Kms away.

The people here have never benefited from any loan scheme.

Wild animals existing in the area are baboons, elephants, bush pigs and duikers.

The most food deficit months mentioned are December to February. This is why selling firewood and charcoal is very important to them because this is how they survive during these difficult months.

Agriculture

People in this village are involved in the following activities:

Crops – The crops grown in the area are Maize, cassava, tobacco, cotton, groundnuts, chilies, sweet potato, peas and sorghum with men taking a leading role in gardening activities.

Livestock – They are involved in keeping the following livestock: chickens, goats, sheep, pigs, doves, guinea fowls and ducks with women taking a leading role.

Vegetables- The dambo land found in this village is available to 25% of the population (early settlers). These dambos are found along Mwantimba and Mkombe rivers. The vegetables grown are tomato, onions, rape and Chinese.  

Fruits- Fruits found here are mangoes, banana, paw paws, masawu, oranges, malambe, bwemba and gungule.

 NGO operating in the area- No NGO is operating in the area.

Loan facilities- No loan facility institution has operated in this area.

Health and sanitation

The village relies on two health facilities and these are Katema Mission Clinic and Maldeco Health Centre which is 19 kilometres and 20 kilometres away respectively. In addition, both are fee paying. Potable water in this village is a big problem. People drink water from Lisangadzi river.

The village has 179 ordinary pit latrines and nil dome slab toilets bringing total number of toilets to 179. This translates to 29% of the households that appear to have toilets.  People in this village are aware of HIV/AIDS but cannot discuss it openly and the information filters through radio, hospital and VAC. They are also aware that AIDS has some bearing on such problems such as deaths and orphans No outside organization helps this village on orphans except through home-based care.

Education

The village has a junior primary school (1 to 7) called Mayera and has an enrolment of 503 pupils. 75% of school going age is attending school in this village. This school has three qualified teachers and two volunteers.

Environment

  There is too much use of fuel wood in this village which is causing a lot of forestry degradation. Having been briefed about the consequences of degradation and the need to do conservation, the community agreed to form a VNRMC.

Village 11

   11.  Njereza (John Sawadi) Village in Traditional Authority Mponda (on 20th April, 2005)

John Sawadi village had a total of 103 (66 men and 37 women) for the large group discussion while the focus group discussion had 10 participants (5 men and 5 women)

Background of the village

The Yao were the early settlers in this village who came around 1980s. Other tribes that moved into the area later are Lomwe, Chewa, Sena, Ngoni and Nyanja. Njereza has a total population of 543 people and there are a total of 129 households. About 70% of the population is made up of Christians while the rest (30%) is made up of Muslims. Traditional practices such as Jando and Mzondo are still being practiced and their traditional dances include chintali, chioda and Manganje. 

 Findings from this village

In this village, there is a serious human-elephant conflict. They destroy crops and according to the community members they are seen almost on daily basis.

The team sensitized this community about the formation of VNRMC and people agreed to form one.

The community was of the view that the elephants be relocated to Phirilongwe.

Means of transport in this village is by foot and bicycles.

There are no postal services in this village and people have to go all the way to Maldeco for postal services that is 20 Kilometres away.

Major sources of income in this community are growing and selling farm produce such as tobacco, cotton, maize and cassava.

There is no trading centre in this village. For their other necessities, they have to go all the way to Maldeco and Makawa which are 20 Kms and 17 kms away respectively.

The people here have never benefited from any loan scheme. Not even MRFC has visited the area. Wild animals existing in the area are baboons, monkeys, duikers, elephants, hares and rock hyrax. The community favored the idea of game ranching especially small animals e.g. antelopes.

The most food deficit months mentioned are December to February. During this period, people are compelled to chop and sell firewood.

According to this community, no NGO is operating in the area.

The roads in and around this village are in need of immediate attention because they are in a bad state.

Agriculture

In this village the average landholding is 0.8 Hectares per household. Meanwhile, people in this village are involved in the following activities:

Crops – The crops grown in the area are Maize, cassava, tobacco, cotton, groundnuts, chilies, sweet potato and sorghum with women taking a leading role in gardening activities. Most people indicated that they would like to grow the cash crops but they lack reliable market information.

Livestock – They are involved in keeping the following livestock: chickens, goats, sheep, pigs and guinea fowls with women taking a leading role.

Vegetables- There are some dambos along Linguwi, Chinyasa and Kwirira rivers. All these rivers are perennial as a result; people in this area grow tomatoes and other vegetables for sell and consumption.

Fruits- Fruits found here are mangoes, banana, paw paws and avocado.

Wild fruits found being masawu, malambe, bwemba and matowo.

Health and sanitation

The village relies on two health facilities and these are a Catholic facility at Maldeco and another one at Nkope (Anglican) which are 16 kilometres and 20 kilometres away respectively. In addition, both are fee paying. There are only three boreholes in this village with distances from locations ranging from 3- 10 kilometres. As a result, some people resort to drawing water from unprotected wells along Linguwi, Chinyasa and Kwilira streams.

The village has 78 ordinary pit latrines, translating to 60% of the households that appear to have toilets.  People in this village are aware of HIV/AIDS and can freely discuss it. They get information about HIV/AIDS through radio, health centres and AIDS clubs. They are also aware that AIDS has some bearing on such problems such as deaths and orphans No outside organization helps this village on orphans except through home-based care. Prevalent diseases in this area are malaria, cholera, diarrhea and TB.

Education

The village has a primary school (1 to 7) called Njereza and has an enrolment of 310 pupils (131 boys and 169 girls). According to the head teacher most pupils do not attend school in this village due to poverty and problem of the baboons and monkeys in the gardens also force them to use their children to guard crops. This school has one qualified teacher and two trained but yet to qualify and one volunteer.  After standard 7, pupils have to go to Nankundu Full primary school at Mwalembe village which is 20 kms away.

Environment

 There is too much use of fuel wood in this village which is causing a lot of forestry degradation. Having been briefed about the consequences of degradation and the need to do conservation, the community agreed to form a VNRMC.

Village 12

   12. Makokola Village in Traditional Authority Mponda (on 21st April, 2005)

Makokola village had a total of 143 (62 men, 72 women, 5 boys and 4 girls) for the large group discussion while the focus group discussion had 10 participants (5 men and 5 women)

Background of the village

The Yao were the early settlers in this village who came around 1920s. Other tribes that moved into the area later are Lomwe, Chewa and Sena. Makokola has a total human population of 445 people and there are a total of 134 households. About 75% of the population is made up of Muslims while the rest (25%) is made up of Christians. Traditional practices such as Jando and Mzondo are still being practiced and their traditional dances include chioda, chindimba and beni. 

Findings from this village

In this village, there is a serious human-elephant conflict. One member of the community (a man) actually stood up during the meeting with a deformed hand, which was a result of an attack by elephants some ten years ago, as he was coming from Maldeco and passing through the forest to this village alone. In 2003 Abiti Ibu was attacked and killed in the forest as she went to collect firewood. More recently (2004) Abiti Sumani was attacked and killed as she was collecting palm leaves.

The community was of the view that the elephants be fenced where they are and not move them to Phirilongwe.

The team sensitized this community about the formation of VNRMC and people promised to form one immediately.

Means of transport in this village is by foot and bicycles.

There are no postal services in this village and people have to go all the way to Mangochi for postal services and that is 20 Kilometres away.

Major sources of income in this community are selling firewood and grass for thatching.

There is no trading centre in this village. For their other necessities, they have to go all the way to Namiyasi.

The people here have never benefited from any loan scheme. Not even MRFC has visited the area

Wild animals existing in the area are elephants, baboons and monkeys.

The idea of game ranching and wildlife farming was accepted.

The most food deficit months mentioned are December to February. During this period, people survive by selling firewood and thatch grass.

According to this community, there is one NGO (Malaŵi Children’s Village) operating in the area.

Agriculture

People in this village are involved in the following activities:

Crops – The crops grown in the area are Maize, cotton, sweet potato and cashew nuts with women taking a leading role in gardening activities.

Livestock – They are involved in keeping the following livestock: chickens, goats, ducks, sheep, doves and guinea fowls with men taking a leading role.

Vegetables- no vegetables are grown in this area because they do not have dambos.

Fruits- Fruits found here are mangoes and paw paws.

Wild fruits found being masawu, mapoza,  malambe, mbulukututu and matowo.

Health and sanitation

The village relies on two private healthy facilities and these are Perekamoyo and Mwenda which are 6 kilometres away from this village. The nearest government health facility is in Mangochi, 20 kilometres away. Although there are three boreholes in this village, only one is functional and the villagers have to travel between 2 – 5 kms to this water source. As a result of fearing congestion, 75% of the people draw water from unprotected wells along Namingundi stream and lake Malaŵi 25 kms away using buckets on bicycles.

According to health surveillance assistant for the area, the village has 62 ordinary pit latrines translating to 46% of the households that appear to have toilets.  People in this village are aware of HIV/AIDS. They get information about HIV/AIDS through radio, health centres and Save the Children through Mchanda ndi Mchanda groups. They are also aware that AIDS has some bearing on such problems such as deaths and orphans There is Malaŵi Children’s Village (an NGO) which is helping orphans in this village. Prevalent diseases in this area are malaria, cholera, cough, blood diarrhea and bilharzia.

Education

The village has a primary school (1 to 7) called Mauni and has an enrolment of 362 pupils (179 boys and 183 girls). According to the head teacher, after standard 7, pupils have to go to Luwanga full primary school which is about 6 kilometres away. This school has 4 qualified teachers and 4 trained but yet to qualify. The head teacher also mentioned that only 20% of school aged children goes to school from this village. Children run into early marriages and there is no encouragement from parents to go to school.

Environment

  There is too much use of fuel wood in this village which is causing a lot of forestry degradation. Having been briefed about the consequences of degradation and the need to do conservation, the community agreed to form a VNRMC.

Village 13

   13.  Mtsinje (Nsenjere) Village in Traditional Authority Mponda  (on 22nd April, 2005)

Mtsinje village had a total of 142 (61 men, 72 women, 5 boys and 4 girls) for the large group discussion while the focus group discussion had 10 participants (5 men and 5 women)

Background of the village

The Yao were the early settlers in this village who came around 1920s. Other tribes are Lomwe, Chewa and Sena. Mtsinje has a total human population of 890 people and there are a total of 602 households. About 50% of the population is made up of Muslims while the other (50%) is made up of Christians. Traditional practices such as Jando and Mzondo are still being practiced and their traditional dances include chioda, mganda, beni and mbwiza. 

 Findings from this village

In this village, there is a serious human-elephant conflict. They attack crops.

The community was of the view that the elephants be fenced where they are and not move them to Phirilongwe.

The team sensitized this community about the formation of VNRMC and people promised to form one immediately.

Means of transport in this village is by foot and bicycles.

There are no postal services in this village and people have to go all the way to Mangochi for postal services and that is 27 Kilometres away.

Major sources of income in this community are selling firewood and selling grass for thatching.

There is no trading centre in this village. For their other necessities, they have to go all the way to Maldeco.

The people here have never benefited from any loan scheme. Not even MRFC has visited the area

Wild animals existing in the area are elephants, baboons and monkeys.

The idea of game ranching and wildlife farming accepted.

The most food deficit months mentioned are December to February. During this period, people survive through selling firewood and thatch grass.

 

Agriculture

People in this village are involved in the following activities:

Crops – The crops grown in the area are Maize, cassava, cotton, sweet potato, groundnuts, sugarcane and sorghum with women taking a leading role in gardening activities.

Livestock – They are involved in keeping the following livestock: chickens, goats, ducks, sheep and guinea fowls with men taking a leading role.

Vegetables-  The people in this area grow cabbages, tomatoes and rape. The place has one dambo called Mitawa along Nsenjere river but the river is seasonal.

Fruits- Fruits found here are mangoes, banana and paw paws

Wild fruits found being masawu, malambe, mbulukututu and matowo.

Health and sanitation

The village has no clinic and people go to Koche Mission Clinic which is 7 kilometres away from this village. There is only one functional borehole in the whole village out of the three boreholes available. According to health surveillance assistant for the area, the village has 270 ordinary pit latrines translating to 45% of the households that appear to have toilets.  People in this village are aware of HIV/AIDS. They get information about HIV/AIDS through radio, schools and health centres. They are also aware that AIDS has some bearing on such problems such as deaths and orphans. There is Malaŵi Children’s Village (an NGO) which is helping orphans in this village. Prevalent diseases in this area are malaria, cholera, TB, pneumonia and blood diarrhea.

Education

The village has one junior primary school (1 to 3) called St. Paul primary school and has an enrolment of 210 pupils (124 boys and 86 girls). According to the head teacher after standard 3 pupils have to go to Koche full primary school about 7 kilometres away. This school has one qualified teacher and one volunteer.

Village 14

14.  Malenga Village in Traditional Authority Chimwala  (on 23rd April, 2005)

Malenga village had a total of 141 (51 men, 63 women, 23 boys and 4 girls) for the large group discussion while the focus group discussion had 10 participants (5 men and 5 women)

Background of the village

     The Yao were the early settlers in this village who came around 1930s.  Other tribes are Lomwe and Chewa. Malenga, according to Health Surveillance Assistant (HSA) for the area, has a total human population of 2,390 people and there are a total of 320 households. About 25% of the population is made up of Christians while Muslims account for 75%. Traditional practices such as Jando and Mzondo are still being practiced and their traditional dances include beni, upinde and likwata. 

 

Findings from this village

In this village, there is no human-elephant conflict. However, elephants were sighted around 1977 and then in 1999.

The community was of the view that the elephants be relocated to Majete game reserve and not Phirilongwe. This statement came from the village headmen but the youth who attended that meeting recommended that the elephants be relocated to Phirilongwe.

The team sensitized this community about the need to have a strong VNRMC to help conserve Phirilongwe forest.

Means of transport in this village is by foot, bicycles and matola.

There are no postal services in this village and people have to go all the way to Chilipa for postal services and that is 7 Kilometres away.

Major sources of income in this community are commercial farming practices.

There is no trading centre in this village. For their other necessities, they have to go all the way to Chilipa.

The people here have never benefited from any loan scheme. Not even MRFC has visited the area

Wild animals existing in the area are baboons, hyenas and monkeys.

The idea of game ranching and wildlife farming was accepted.

The most food deficit months mentioned are December to February. During this period, people survive through piecework.

Agriculture

People in this village are involved in the following activities:

Crops – The crops grown in the area are Maize, cassava, cotton, groundnuts, sweet potatoes, sorghum, sugarcane and tobacco with women taking a leading role in gardening activities.

Livestock – They are involved in keeping the following livestock: chickens, goats, ducks, doves, guinea fowls and cattle with women still taking a leading role.

Vegetables- Few people have got dambos along Mkasi River however the dambos are not utilized because there is no water.

Fruits- Fruits found here are mangoes, banana, paw paws, avocado, oranges, lemons and guavas.

Wild fruits found are masuku, mapoza, mdawa, mbulukututu and matowo.

Health and sanitation

The village has no clinic and people go to Chilipa government clinic about 7 kilometres away. There are three functional boreholes which supply safe water to 5 villages in Malenga. According to Health Surveillance Assistant for the area, the village has 302 ordinary pit latrines translating to 94% of the households that appear to have toilets.  People in this village are aware of HIV/AIDS. They get information about HIV/AIDS through radio, schools, churches and mosques. They are also aware that AIDS has some bearing on such problems such as deaths and orphans. Prevalent diseases in this area are malaria, diarrhea, TB and pneumonia.

Education

The village has one full primary school (1 to 8) called Malenga primary school and has an enrolment of 896 pupils (446 boys and 450 girls). This school has 6 qualified teachers and 4 volunteers.

Village 15

15. Mputa Village in Traditional Authority Nankumba  (4th May, 2005)

Mputa village had a total of 410 participants (175 men, 100 women, 75 boys and 60 girls) for the large group discussion while the focus group discussion had 16 participants (11 men and 5 women).

Background of the village

Mputa village has a population of 1,250 people and 238 households.  The following villages border Mputa village: Kuntola Kalowa, Chilawe, Katole and Mapatang’ombe. The village started in early 19th century by people who originated from Mozambique looking for land to grow crops and settle. At this time, there are Yaos (early settlers), Lomwes, Awiza, Chewas, Ngonis and Senas from various districts of Malaŵi.  

The road leading to this village needs urgent attention. It is in very bad state. There are two streams namely Chitukuko and Chiwere which are seasonal and also there are no bridges over them. This means that the place is not accessible by car during the rainy season while now, it is only bigger cars (4 X 4) that are able to pass through. People travel by foot and bicycles in their daily lives. In order to ease movement burden, there is an urgent need to construct bridges over Chitukuko and Chiwere rivers. The village’s main sources of income are sales from bamboos, mats, baskets and doing piecework.

Summary of findings in this village

Below is the summary of the outcome of the survey team’s interaction with this community in relation to the objectives:

Meanwhile, there is no human-elephant conflict in this community. Elephants never existed in the area. However, the area was once a home of wild animals such as buffalos, zebra, lion, leopard, kudu, hyenas, bush pigs and common duikers. These animals are no longer around due to human settlements, cultivation and poaching. On the fate of elephants roaming about between Maldeco and Mpinganjira, people welcomed the decision to fence the elephants within the Phirilongwe area and not Chikwawa. The people also welcomed the proposal of game ranching and wildlife farming with the elephants around. After briefing the community about the planned communities, people positively supported the idea since they knew they were going to benefit from the development structures proposed.

Agriculture

In this village the average landholding is 0.5 Hectares per household.  Meanwhile, people in this village are involved in the following activities:

Livestock – They are involved in keeping the following livestock: Goats and chickens. All animals in this village are on free range and women take a leading role in looking after them. 

Crops – The crops grown in the area are maize, pigeon peas, groundnuts, beans, tobacco and sugarcane. Men take a leading role in gardening work in this village. Most people in this village have not harvested enough during this season. During one of the household visits, a team member found children crying saying “ Mayi sitinakhute nsima”(we have not had enough food mother) to which their mother replied “ ufa tilibe woti ukwanire mpaka madzulo” (we do not have enough flour for the evening meal). The team thought that this is an indication of serious hunger.

Fruits- the fruits found in this area are bananas; paw paws and mangoes while wild fruits include malambe, mapoza and bwemba.

Vegetables- People in this area grow the following vegetables Chinese cabbage, onions and rape. The place has potential for irrigation farming using Lisangadzi River.

The people also mentioned that their food deficit months are November to February.

Institutional capacities

There is no NGO operating in the area. There is no any organization that has ever come to this community to promote any businesses except on one occasion, when a councilor came to organize groups for MARDEF loans.

The place does not have any market place nor post office services. People go to Monkey Bay for such facilities.

Health and sanitation

The community does not have any health facility. Patients are taken to Monkey Bay where there is a government hospital 27 kilometres away. Other fee paying health facilities are in Malembo belonging to SDA 16 kilometres away and Nkope which is 20 Kms from this village. As result, patients die on the way. A dilapidated structure meant to become a clinic started by one MP remains uncompleted. There are 2 boreholes in this village and a majority of the people drink from unprotected wells along Lisangadzi River. The village has 151 ordinary pit latrines which is about 63% of the households although most of the latrines are in bad shape; only a few have roofs. The people admitted using the bush to relieve themselves as a result of the bad condition of their toilets.  People in this area are aware of HIV/AIDS, including its causes. They get this information through radios and health institutions. They also mentioned the impact of the HIV/AIDS pandemic being deaths of parents and others leaving behind orphans. Other prevalent diseases mentioned include malaria, bilharzias, tuberculosis, pneumonia and cholera. 

Education

The community has one junior primary school (1-5) called Funwe. Enrolment data was not available as the visit was made on a public holiday when the two teachers were not available.

 

 

Environment

The environment is not well looked after by the community. There is massive deforestation mainly on bamboos which have found a steady market along Lakeshore resorts and Monkey Bay. Firewood is becoming increasingly very scarce. Women walk 5- 8 kilometres to get it from Funwe hills. The community agreed to come up with a VNRCM to tackle environmental issues.

Village 16

16. Zimbayuda Village in Traditional Authority Nankumba  (19th May, 2005)

Zimbayuda village had a total of 87 participants (31 men, 47 women, 6 boys and 3 girls) for the large group discussion while the focus group discussion had 10 participants (5 men and 5 women).

Background of the village

Zimbayuda village has a population of 972 people and 212 households. Human settlements in the village are scattered. The village has the following tribes: Yao, Lomwe, Sena, Nyanja, Ngoni and Awiza. The Nyanja were the early settlers dating back to 1940s. The Nyanja came from Samama village in TA Mponda in Mangochi.  Traditional practices such as chinamwali and dances are still done. Chinamwali practices include chisamba, Jando, nzondo, by Yaos and Chilangizi by Christians. Traditional dances include Gulewankulu, Likwata, Beni, Manganje Chioda and Maundi.  

The road leading to this village requires to be rehabilitated so that the place becomes easily accessible by a vehicle. Meanwhile, although the village is only 3 kms from the new Golomoti Monkey Bay highway it is not easily accessible by vehicle.

Summary of findings in this village

Below is the summary of the outcome of the survey team’s interaction with this community in relation to the objectives:

The community members mentioned that there used to be   human-elephant conflict existing in this community until three years ago. In 1992, one man was killed followed by another man in 2000. At that time elephants used to cause a lot of damage to people’s crops. Meanwhile, animals causing problems are baboons and monkeys. However, the area was once the home of wild animals such as lions, bush pigs, common duikers, eland, kudu and cane rats. These animals are no longer around due to human settlements, cultivation and poaching. On the fate of elephants roaming about between Maldeco and Mpinganjira, people welcomed the decision to fence the elephants within the Phirilongwe area and not Chikwawa.

Agriculture

In this village the average landholding is 0.6 Hectares per household Meanwhile, people in this village are involved in the following activities:

Livestock – They are involved in keeping the following livestock: Goats, chickens, sheep, guinea fowls, ducks, turkey and doves. All animals in this village are on free range and women take a leading role in looking after them. 

Crops – The crops grown in the area are maize, sweet potatoes, cassava groundnuts, sugarcanes, sorghum, ground beans, cotton and chilies.

Fruits- the fruits found in this area are: mangoes, guavas, bananas and paw paws while wild fruits include malambe, mapoza, magwede, mbimbimbi, matowo, mpinjipinji and bwemba.

Vegetables- People in this area grow the following vegetables Chinese cabbage, onions and rape. The place has potential for irrigation farming using Lisangadzi River.

Other sources of income are: Piecework, moulding and selling bricks, cotton sales and growing and selling vegetables.

The people also mentioned that their food deficit months are October to February.

Institutional capacities

 NGO operating in the area are ICEIDA building a nursery school and REFLECT (literacy programs), Save the Children assisting the primary school orphans, as well as actual construction, maintenance and schoolbooks. WVI is doing a food security project while WFP is doing school feeding through Save the Children. FINCA once funded a group of ten women but later pulled out because of default.

The place does not have any market place nor post office services. People go to Monkey Bay (25 kms) for such facilities.

Health and sanitation

The community does not have any health facility. Patients are taken to Monkey Bay where there is a government hospital 25 kilometres away. Other fee paying health facilities are in Malembo belonging to SDA 16 kilometres away and Nkope which is 20 kms from this village. As result, patients die on the way. There are 4 boreholes in this village but one is not working. Some people drink from unprotected wells along Lisangadzi River. The village has 180 ordinary pit latrines, which is about 85% of the households People in this area are aware of HIV/AIDS including its causes. They get this information through radios and health institutions. They also mentioned the impact of the HIV/AIDS pandemic being deaths of parents and others leaving behind orphans. Other prevalent diseases mentioned include malaria, bilharzias, tuberculosis, pneumonia and cholera. 

Education

The community has one full primary school called Sangadzi. Enrolment is 1775 pupils (837 boys and 938 girls). The school has 8 qualified teachers and 3 temporary. At least 80% of the children attend school. The school feeding programme is also contributing towards this high attendance.

Environment

Firewood, which they get from Chisangalalo hill, is becoming increasingly very scarce. Women walk 5- 8 kilometres to get it. The community has a VNRCM which is not active. They agreed to revive it through National Parks.

Annex 2

 

 

CHECKLIST FOR LIVELIHOODS FOR MANGOCHI PROJECT

 

 

A. DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION

-         Ethnic groups-languages, tribes, religions

-         Customs and beliefs

-         HH wealth ranking (disaggregated by gender) keep this open without coming up with categories

 

B. LIVELIHOOD SYSTEMS

  1. Farming systems

-         Landholding size (average) and who has title to the land between male and female

-         livestock (what types, species, challenges, high value animals ,ownership i.e. man/woman or both)

-         crops/fruits/vegetables (what types, varieties, challenges, high value crops, when and where grown)

-         availability of forest, uses, challenges

-         land use, i.e. availability of dambo land for winter cropping/fish farming

-         Major sources of income

-         Major sources of food

-         Major sources of fuel/energy- where collected and how long/who collects

-         What are the main sources of water/distance/availability by season/ quality for domestic use

-         What type of waste disposal facilities are available in the village

-         Does each household have a toilet that is in usable state-  Type, any knowledge of alternative types and reasons for not opting them

-         Availability of toilets and water in schools and health centres

-         availability and access to services i.e. school, clinics, markets, credits, savings and credit, transport and communication

  1. Social-cultural systems and structures

-         availability of social institutions/services/networks/groups

-     are the groups functional/if not why

-     Miyambo/Customs/Zikhulupiliro/ Beliefs (health related, economic development related, agricultural related, nutrition related, HIV/AIDS related, hygiene and sanitation

 

C. CRITICAL ISSUES

 

C.1 HEALTH & HIV/AIDS

-         What are the main health issues/when do they occur

-         levels of HIV/AIDS knowledge

-         sources of information

-         roles of different structures/institutions supporting PLWHAs/orphans and affected households

-         participation of the affected and infected individuals/families in development activities (stigmatisation and discrimination

-         what is the impact of HIV/AIDS on the community

-         current activities on       HIV/AIDS

-         community capacities to deal with the impacts of HIV/AIDS/what are they doing on issues of HIV/AIDS

-         care and support of HIV/AIDS orphans

-         participation of the youth in issues of HIV/AIDS, what do they do

-         cultural practices/traditional practices related to HIV/AIDS (spread/mitigation

-         who are most affected i.e. men, women, children with the HIV/AIDS pandemic in the area/ how

-         Does each household have a toilet

 

C.2 ENVIRONMENT (water, land, air, forests etc)

-         What wild animals exist here and which wild animals existed before?

-         When did you last see them?

-         any conflict with wild  any animals in this area, if yes what kind of conflict

-         What do you think are the possible causes of the conflict

-         What in your opinion are the possible solutions

-         How much do you know about conservation of nature

-         What conservation structures are there

-         Give a chance do people have any interest about game ranching and wildlife farming as IGA

-         What can people do to address environmental degradation

-         environmental situation analysis over time

-         why is the situation like that at the moment

-         what is being done currently on the situation

-         what problems are currently being faced by the community as a result of the current environmental situation

-         who is most affected with the situation (men/women/children-how)

-         roles of different gender groups on environmental management-what are people doing about the situation

-         level of knowledge on environmental conservation

-         challenges in environmental management

-         what is the community capacity to deal with environmental issues?

 

C.3 FOOD SECURITY

-    main types of food eaten in the area

-         role of men / women /youth in food production/processing/storage

-         knowledge on nutritional issues

-         sources of information

-         time of the year when there is acute food shortage

-         coping mechanisms adopted by households during food shortage

-         impact of food shortage on community

-         what are people doing about the situation/community capacity

-         community capacity to deal food security issues- challenges

 

C.4 DOMESTIC VIOLENCE

Nkhanza za pakhomo

-         beating of spouses/does it occur in the area

-         denied access to basic necessities

-         incest taboo

-         conflict resolution

-         knowledge about rights

-         sources of information

      -     anything happening on rights issues

 

C.5 MARKETING

      -     what produce/products do people sell in the area

-         availability (numbers)/distance to markets

-         what is  source of market information/is it easy to get it

-         types of markets i.e. input, produce

-         availability of business/associations in the area

-         current marketing challenges

-         who determines prices

-         what are the people doing to address the marketing challenges

-         agro-processing activities in the area

-         roles of men/women/youth in marketing

 

C.6 CAPACITY BUILDING

-         training offered to community by different organisations/GOM i.e. of environment,

     Agriculture, marketing, gender, HIV/AIDS, nutrition, leadership

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

 

 

Annex 4: Work Plan

Calendar of events

Activities

Dates

April/May

Period (days)

Travel to Mangochi

April 4

1

Preparation and meeting with rest of the team

April 5

1

Community sensitization

April 6-8

3

Community meetings

April 7-27

20

Meetings with line ministries and other organizations

May 4-6

3

 

 

 

Data analysis

Was done within meeting days

 

Sharing of data analysis with rest of team

Dates to be incorporated

 

Writing first draft report

 

 

Presentation of report to stakeholders

 

 
Total number of days

 

 

Community Sensitization Meetings

 

Name of TA

Name of village

Date to be visited

Day of the week

Nankumba

Mwalembe

7/04/05

Thursday

 

Chirombo

8/04/05

Friday

 

Kaiche

11/04/05

Monday

 

Kasankha

12/04/05

Tuesday

 

Malembo

13/04/05

Wednesday

 

Chembe

14/04/05

Thursday

 

Msaka

15/04/05

Friday

 

Chilonga

16/04/05

Saturday

 

Mputa

4/05/05

Wednesday

 

Zimbayuda

19/05/05

Thursday

 

 

 

 

Mponda

Mtalika

18/04/05

Monday

 

Mayera

19/04/05

Tuesday

 

Njereza

20/04/05

Wednesday

 

Makokola

21/04/05

Thursday

 

Katema

22/04/05

Friday

 

Nsenjere

23/04/05

Tuesday

 

Mwawa

25/04/05

Monday

Chimwala

Malenga

27/04/05

Wednesday

 

Annex 5 List of Persons Met

 

 

Miss Sharon Hauser           Save the Children USA in Mangochi

Mr. L.H Kambwiri             Agricultural Extension Development Coordinator (AEDC) - Nansenga EPA

Mr. Guma                          Agricultural Extension Development Coordinator (AEDC) for Mbwadzulu EPA.

Mr. R.P. Samison               AEDC for Nankumba EPA

Mr. Kalonga Joshua           Fisheries Officer at Malembo

Mr A.M. George                  Chilonga Dispensary temporary in charge (Health Surveillance Assistant)

Mr. A. Khongonyowa         Health Assistant for Malembo health centre

Mrs Chizule                         Community Development Office- Mangochi

Mr. K. Kambwiri               Training Development Centre Assistant Coordinator in Nankumba

Mr. Adams Anubi                Health Surveillance Assistant for Chembe

E.J. Kanjala                        Acting Head teacher For Kapako Junior Primary School

E.J Joe                                Agriculture Extension Development Officer (AEDO) for Ntalika

B.M Chule                          Head Teacher for Mauni Primary School

Mrs Siwale                          Malaŵi Children’s Village

Miss G. Kachepatsonga      Nkope Health Centre

Miss M. Banda                   Monkey bay Hospital

Mr. Alfoso                         Health Surveillance Assistant for Msaka

Mr. E. Mbewe                   Health Surveillance Assistant for Zimbayuda

Mr. F. Chizule                      ICEIDA

Mr. J. Kapandawako            Health Surveillance Assistant

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yellow indicates the present home range of the Phirilongwe Elephants and the two hatched regions were the localities of the Elephants during April-May 2005

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  WORLD WIDE FUND FOR NATURE (WWF)

 

 

 

 

AQUaCULTURE WORKSHOP

 

 

 

 

Workshop Report

By PATRICK PHIRI (DFO)

 

 

MANGOCHI

 

29th – 30th April 2005 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Introduction

The meeting was funded by WWF with the main objective of orienting fish farmers from Chirombo, Chilimba, Madzedze, Mponda, Mpinganira and Chiwaula to activities that WWF is implementing in Mangochi. This was done in conjunction with the Department of Fisheries with the major aim of introducing alternative source of income to fishers to reduce effort from Lake Malaŵi, Upper Shire and Lake Malombe.

 

Participants

Name                                      Place

J. Chimbayo                             Chirombo Village

Kanyenda                                 Madzedze Village

Z. Issa                                      Chilimba Village

S. Buta                                     Madzezdze Village

F. Katuma                                Mpinganjira Village

H. Hagi                                    Chiwaula Village

Y. Alubi                                   Chipeta Village

S. Adamu                                 Chipeta Village

D. Kasimu                                Chpeta Village

S. Moyo                                   Chilimba Village

B.K.B. Joshua                          Fisheries Department

J. Pelani                                    Fisheries Department

Dr McKaye                              WWF

P.M. Phiri                                 District Fisheries Officer

E.P. Nkumbira                         Accountant Fisheries Department

C. Makauala                            WWF

 

Day 1

 

Remarks by the District Fisheries Officer (DFO)

The DFO opened the meeting by thanking all the participants who attended the meeting. He also thanked WWF for organizing the meeting which will help fish farmers in Mangochi to learn more skills to develop their fish farming activities. He also highlighted the decline of fish stock in natural waters of Malaŵi especially in Lake Malombe and South East Arm of Lake Malaŵi. He therefore encouraged the fish farmers to take the orientation workshop very seriously to ensure that they learn more skills that would enhance their business which is a supplement to capture fisheries

 

Presentation from WWF

This was done by Dr McKaye who briefed the participants on what WWF is implementing in Mangochi District. WWF is helping in a number of activities especially fish farming activities at Namazizi, fish farming activities at Malaŵi Children's Village (MCV). They will also be involved in solving the problem of Human/Elephant Conflict at Phirilongwe Forest Reserve.

 

He also urged the participants to take part in the conservation of the environment, especially fish resources which the most precious commodity for Mangochi District. He also showed slides of beautiful fish species that are found in Lake Malaŵi and found nowhere in the world. If properly conserved, these species would attract more tourists and would help to improve the economy of this country.

He therefore urged the fish farmers to embark on fish farming to reduce the pressure of fishers currently on the Lake Malaŵi, Lake Malombe and Upper Shire.

 

He finally presented T-shirts to all the participants

 

Discussions

The participants thanked WWF and Department of Fisheries for organizing the meeting and pledged to take the orientation workshop very seriously. They were also very happy with what WWF will be doing to help in the conflict of communities and elephants at Phirilongwe. Actually some of the participants were directly affected by the problem. On fish farming they urged WWF and Department of Fisheries to help the fish farmers in pond construction and also in the purchasing of inputs. In reply, WWF and DFO pledged the fish farmers to help them in all their activities if they take an active role in developing fish farming in their area. They were requested to link with Fisheries Extension staff in their respective areas so that proper help and guidance can be provided for them. On the issue of community and elephant conflict at Phirilongwe, WWF pledged to help the communities to ease the problem

 

Day 2

 

Activities on Day 2 were meant to orient all the participants on developmental activities that WWF is implementing and also for them to appreciate the dwindling of fish catches from the natural waters

 

Visit to Lake Malombe

All the participants were taken to Chimwala Beach for them to appreciate the decline of fish stocks in the natural waters. The DFO explained to the participants the history of the fishery in Lake Malombe and the situation that has made Lake Malombe where it is now. A number of fishermen were visited and interviewed and all of them explained that fish stocks are dwindling and there is a need to find an alternative to ease the pressure on the lake. The participants therefore agreed to take fish farming as a very good option of easing pressure to the natural waters to allow the natural fish to recover.

 

Visit to Namazizi School, Chirombo Stocks

The participants visited Namazizi School where WWF is doing a great work in fish farming. The participants visited all the ponds and WWF representative briefed the participants about the objectives of the ponds. The participants were impressed and asked WWF to help them with supply of fingerlings once the ponds are in operational

 

The participants also visited Namazizi School library which is intended to help the communities to have an access to different types of information they need.

 

 

Visit to Malaŵi Children's Village (MCV)

The participants also visited ponds at MCV that is another initiative by WWF to provide the needy children with a source of proteins. Participants learnt how feeding and harvesting of fish from the pond is conducted. The participants were very pleased to see very big fish from the pond that was ready for harvest that can earn a lot of monies on the market. They requested Department of Fisheries and WWF to help them with knowledge to improve their fish farming activities

 

Production:  During this study four 40 x 10 m aquaculture ponds were built at the HEEED centre in Chirombo Bay, and one pond 10 x 10 m pond was built at Chembe Village with primary support from WWF Finland.

 

Conclusion

The meeting was very successful and there is need to make proper follow-ups on the fish farmers who attended the meeting. Issues of farm inputs are very vital to be addressed so that the farmers can improve on what they are currently doing

 

 

 

  WORLD WIDE FUND FOR NATURE (WWF)

 

FUEL BRIQUETTES

 

 

Workshop Report

By Joseph Mponda – Field Manager

 

 

 

MANGOCHI

 

7th – 8th June 2005

 

 

 

Introduction

This workshop was organized by WWF with funds from the EU.  The purpose was to sensitize the women on the importance of conserving the environment and how they can save the trees by using fuel briquettes for cooking as an alternative to fire wood. The participants came from three TAs; Mponda, Chimwala and Nankumba.  The training was conducted at Malaŵi Children’s Village (MCV) in Mangochi for two days by Joseph Mponda, Loyce Chembe and Glones Laija.

 

Participants

 

T/A

PARTICIPANTS

VILLAGE OR PLACE

Chimwala

Dalini Laison

Chimwala

Chimwala

Jenet Hasan

Chimwala

Mponda

Grace Afana

Mpondas

Mponda

Inesi Sanudi

Mpondas

Mponda

Mary Chataika

Mpondas

Mponda

Beatrice Majawa

Mpondas

Mponda

Ayesi Shaibu

MCV

Mponda

Asiyatu Jawadu

MCV

Nankumba

Loyce Kadango

Mvumba

Nankumba

Nelia Idana

Mvumba

Nankumba

Getrude Kaluma

Chirombo

Nankumba

Ema Tsegula

Chirombo

Nankumba

Cecilia Fonex

Kasankha

Nankumba

Fanes Jackson

Kasankha

Nankumba

Loyce Chembe

Chembe

Nankumba

Lones Laija

Chembe

 

Presentation

 

On day 1 the Field Manager of WWF welcomed the participants and thanked them for attending the workshop.  He emphasized that deforestation is one of major problems in many areas in the country and Mangochi is not exceptional. This is due not only to poor yield caused by soil erosion but also women and young girls walk long distances to fetch fire wood. He added that it is the concern of the government; NGOs as well as donor communities to ensure that women live a better life; that was why the EU funded the workshop so that the women are would be trained to make fuel briquettes as an alternative to fire wood. After the Field Manager finished explaining how the whole process is done, the women were very happy to hear that the process for making the briquettes is very simple and that everyone in the family can participate.   

 

Lois Chembe, the women’s supervisor for briquette making in Chembe village, also explained to the participants how the project has helped the women in the area. She mentioned about the number of briquette centres built in different places in village which are utilized by many families in Chembe. She showed the participant one of briquette made by the women in Chembe, and they were impressed.

 

Remarks by the participants

The participants said they were so grateful and were ready to learn how to make the briquettes. They said it is difficult to get fire wood because there are no trees in the areas of their home. To them this was a great opportunity that now they will be able to make fuel from organic waste.

 

Training

In the afternoon of day 1, the participants started the training in briquette making.  The sixteen women happily worked together first by cutting up into small pieces the corn stalks, then soaked the pieces overnight ready for retting the following day. The women also collected clay soil for making mud stove.

 

On day 2 the participants enjoyed making briquettes and drying them. Every woman made her briquettes and they were amazed at how easy it was to produce a briquette.  They promised to share the idea with their friends at home.  Glones from Chembe also trained the participants on how to make a mud stove to use with the briquettes.  Water was boiled for tea using the briquettes and this impressed the women very much; each woman went home with a bunch of ten briquettes.

 

Production   One briquette centre each was built at Kasanga, Chimwala, Chirombo Bay and Malawi Children's village during this period and 8 briquette centres at Chembe Village were constructed or already operating with funding from WWF Finland.

 

Conclusion

After the training, the women asked WWF to build briquette centres in their areas.  It was a successful training and an immediate assistance will be required for the briquette centres in theses areas.  Briquette centres were built at MCV in Chief Mponda's area, Kasanka, and Chirombo Bay in Chief Nankumba's area, and one centre has been built directly in front of Chief Chimwala's house.

 

 

 

 

  WORLD WIDE FUND FOR NATURE (WWF)

 

 

 

ART  EDUCATION,  CREATIVE RECYCLING & PAPER MAKING

 

An Introductory Course for Primary School Teachers from          T/A Nankumba, Mponda & Chimwala

 

 

 

Workshop Report

By Joseph Mponda-Field Manager

 

CAPE MACLEAR

 

20th – 22nd June 2005 

 

 

 

Introduction

This workshop was organized by WWF with funds from the EU.  The purpose was to equip the teachers with creative skills on art education and paper recycling which will be shared with the pupils in their schools. The participants were three Primary School Advisors and eight teachers who came from T/A Mponda, T/A Chimwala and T/A Nankumba areas.  The training was conducted at Chembe Paper Shack in Cape Maclear for three days.  

 

 

Participants

 

T/A

PARTICIPANTS

VILLAGE OR PLACE

Chimwala

Edward Zabula

Chimwala

Chimwala

Wellington Uladi

Nasite School

Chimwala

Edna Mtota

Chimwala

Mponda

James Kapoka

St. Augustine

Mponda

Josephy Maganga

St. Augustine

Mponda

Dorothy Jambo

Mpondas

Nankumba

James Billiat

Monkey Bay TDC

Nankumba

Laiton Ntalika

Namazizi School

Nankumba

 Turner Guwa

Luwi School

Nankumba

Nyson Pangani

Sangadzi 1

Nankumba

Laston Thomas

Namazizi School

 

 

Presentation

 

On day One, the Project Coordinator of WWF Ms Alison Wiklund welcomed the participants and thanked them for attending the workshop.  She emphasised the importance of the workshop that it will equip the teachers with lots of useful and creative ideas for their teaching career. She told the participants that the skills they are going to learn from the training will help the students (back in their schools) in observation, knowledge and understanding of the environment. She said that once the skill is adopted by a student, it will occupy the child from wasting time in destructive activities, develop their creative talents and that the child will appreciate the environment. She assured the participants that creative recycling is one activity that will solve some of the common problems for young people such as: employment, homelessness, crime environmental pollution etc...

 

The Project Coordinator showed the participants samples of children’s drawing on hand-made paper, samples of paper products made and sold in US and Europe.  She also showed them simple materials for paper-making and leaf-pressing.  The Field Manager lead the participants into the art room where they were shown the beautiful paper-products made by Chembe Paper Shack team.  They were then shown the wet room where organic waste is being retted and hand-made papers pressed before they are put in the sun for drying. 

 

Training

The group was finally led to the working station where they were shown the process for paper-making.  Working in pairs each participant made: 16 A5 sheets for cards, 10 small square sheets for card decoration and A4 sheets.  They were also trained to make sheets of paper using tin-cans and embroidery frames; these sheets would be used for “seed pot planting”

 

Day Two: The participants were trained to make A5 cards, using various decorative features; making fold-out booklet, 8 page booklet and paper boxes.  In the evening the participants watched a video showing Developments in Hand-Papermaking through the Centuries; “Hiding Hyena”            

 

Day Three:  Using their hand-made paper and cards the participants practised leaf pressing using stamp pad; making stencils, using foams and tubes. Finally there was a half an hour discussion before a boat ride to Lake Malaŵi National Park and a visit to the Environmental Education Centre and Museum.

 

Production A paper making facility at Chembe was supported during this period.  Here the course was held  and well over 5000 cards and other paper products have been produced during and after this teaching programme was initiated.

 

Conclusion

After the training it was concluded that the participants will sensitize their fellow teachers, the PTA and the pupils in their schools what they have learnt.  The second step will be the formation of ART CLUB in their schools. The three Primary Education Advisors as well as the eight teachers were very happy and each expressed appreciation to WWF and EU for organizing the workshop. All the participants got T-shirts from WWF.

 

 

·         

 

 

XII. POSSIBLE INVESTMENT MODEL TO ATTRACT FOREIGN CAPITAL

 

Possible foreign investment model for Malaŵi based on Nicaragua Laws where Dr. McKaye has been working for the past 16 years from www.pronicaragua.org/why-nicaragua.html.

 

Guarantees to foreign investment:

·        Repatriation of foreign capital

·        Free remission of profits generated by registered capital

·        Quick, appropriate and effective compensation in case of expropriation.

 

Tourism Incentive Law (Law #306)

The Tourism Incentives Law, which grants special incentives to the tourist-oriented industry allows:

·        80% to 100% exemption of income tax, according to the type of activity.

·        Total exemption of the tax on properties for a period of 10 years.

·        Exemption of the sales tax in the purchase of equipment and construction materials

 

Nicaragua Investment climate highlights:

 

·        Full Currency convertibility

·        Freedom to expatriate all capital and profits

·        Full international ownership allowed; no discriminatory treatment for foreign investors

·        Strong investment incentives: Tourism Law, Free Zone Law, Export Promotion Law, Temporary Admission Law

 

LEGAL FRAMEWORK FOR FOREIGN INVESTMENT

 

Since the beginning of the nineties, a democratic system and macroeconomic stability have been achieved.  More than a decade of strong liberalization policies have been marked by the elimination of price controls and governmental subsidies, large-scale privatizations, ratification of several free trade agreements, protection of personal and intellectual property, and the free repatriation of profits and capital by foreign investors.  These measures have stimulated private sector investment and have improved Nicaragua's competitiveness.

 

INVESTMENT LAW

 

The purpose of Nicaragua's Foreign Investment Law is to promote investment, and in doing so, contribute to job creation and to the economic and social development of the country.  Foreign investment in particular is of great importance as it will bring jobs, know-how and technology, increase exports, and allow Nicaragua to become more competitive in the global market.  This Law seeks the creation of the appropriate legal framework, with clear and precise rules, to attract new investment.

 

 

 

 

Some of the highlights of the Law of Foreign investment are:

 

·        Equal treatment to local and foreign investors.

·        Freedom to make investments: Any individuals or entity, national or foreign, may carry out investments of any kind, except for those few activities limited by the Law.

·        Transfer of Funds Abroad:  Foreign investors are guaranteed to enjoy an expedited transfer of funds abroad and conversion to foreign currency though the local banking system.

·        Access to Local Financing:  The foreign investor may have access to financing available in the local banks, according to the terms established by them.

·         

Protection of Property and Safety: Nicaraguan law recognizes and guarantees the rights of the national and foreign investor, the protection of their property and the right to the free disposition of assets, capital and profits.

 


[1] Mr Slager is Director of Molekaten, business behind creation of 17 Pan Parks world-wide

6 The apparent discrepancies in these reporting figures are the result of differences in settlement density in the two areas cited.

4 M.S Liu and Paul C. Ma, Research Paper, Malaŵi Ministry of Agriculture and irrigation.


Free Web Hosting by BlackAppleHost.com, a free web hosting division of WiredHub.net