The loss of biodiversity and ecosystem services disturbance will result in serious ecological and socioeconomic consequences. How can people be prepared to be more efficient in preserving ecosystems, its services and resources? The Messalo Wilderness Area (MWA) is an area lacking a bottom-up approach for the design of a management plan. This research intended to develop a strategy to gather people’s views to begin a human wellbeing assessment for the area, for which a Digital Questionnaire (DQ) was developed and tested. The specific objectives were to 1) verify the dispersion/distribution of people and elephants; 2) study the natural resources used by the inhabitants; 3) locate the areas from where the most important natural resources are extracted and where conflict between humans and animals occur; 4) propose a Management Plan (MP) capable of mitigating the human-animals conflict, promoting the conservation of elephants and, consequently, of other types of biodiversity, thus working towards a better socio-economical development of the area. The elements gathered in the consulted references were used to design several maps and cartographic figures shown in this article, using the Map Window software. These maps describe: fresh water distribution, habitat distribution, population dispersal and main road connections, crop fields distribution and main exploitation spots of the different resources, orography and topography. The results from the DQ analysis helped to gather indicators to the human wellbeing assessment. The information gathered in the literature and by inquiry was effective in confirming the high dependency of local people on land and sea resources, as well as the conflicts between people and wild animals, such as elephants and African wild dogs, and the reasons for those conflicts. The DQ is effective in gathering people’s opinions and it constitutes an important tool in a bottom-up approach to the design of a management plan as to the design of the MP for the MWA.
In the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment [
Ecosystem goods (such as food) and services (such as waste assimilation) represent the benefits human populations derive from ecosystem functions. Ecosystem functions “refer variously to the habitat, biological or system properties or processes of ecosystems” [
ecosystem goods and services as Ecosystem Services (ES). The study they presented estimated the economic value of several ecosystem services. The calculus is important because it helps to be aware of ES value and the implications of certain governmental choices which interfere with nature services. People have to understand and believe that all actions will improve their quality of life [
What would happen if people had to pay for most of the supporting, cultural and regulating services of nature? The value would be considerably high. The awareness of its value is still to come by means of education [
Planning and managing natural goods and services are recognized as being achievable and also a great challenge, because they involve investigators, stakeholders and communities in a long-term experience in which the consequences are unpredictable [
Mozambique is a rich country in terms of natural resources. The Cabo Delgado Province is not different [
This paper derives from a team work that was built to answer to a mission: contributing to the rural organization and management abilities of the natural resources of MWA. It also aims to contribute to the understanding of people’s choices and needs, predicting and proposing changes which can improve sustainability locally, followed by an attempt to understand and evaluate local perceptions towards wild life and resources. This stage was centered in the Human-Wildlife Conflicts (HWC). It was intended to understand the position of people about a species of elephants: Loxodonta africana. Another wild animal was chosen, the carnivorous African Wild Dog (AWD), Lycaon pictus. Both species have the statutes “vulnerable” and “endangered”, respectively, in the IUCN Red List of Threatened Animals (http://www.iucnredlist.org/apps/redlist/search).
The study also aims to produce a base plan with the contributions of the population, stakeholders and the available investigators, which can be refined by their continuous involvement in the creation and implementation of management committees. The organic structure of these committees is also proposed in this paper. The community and its stakeholders were engaged in the process by participating on the survey.
Having this in mind, the first challenge was to collect information on people’s livelihoods and their use of the available resources, as well as their perceptions towards wildlife in the MWA. The analysis of this information was critical to make decisions about strategies that would be suitable and/or accepted by inhabitants. This represents a small scale study, but it was organized in the following steps, based on Fraser et al. [
For the first step the investigation team developed a Digital Questionnaire (DQ). Several investigators like Bradshaw and Bekoff [
This information led us to be able to combine and map the knowledge gathered for this area. It culminated with the proposition of a management plan to mitigate the Human-Elephant Conflict (HEC), and to promote the conservation of elephants, and, consequently, of other types of biodiversity that may sustain the human wellbeing in the MWA. It also led us to try to answer to the following questions exposed by Fraser et al. [
This plan was not yet been put into practice. But we believe this “bottom-up” and “close” approach can provide general awareness of how individual actions will result, in the future, in improvements in everyone’s quality of life [
This study was carried out in the North of Mozambique in an area known as Messalo Wilderness Area (MWA) (
The cartographic figures shown in this and subsequent sections were generated in Map Window GIS 4.8.1. version, from the documental analysis of the existent charts, and from information collected through inquiry and observation during field work. Field-work information corresponds to coordinates measurement with a GPS device (Garmin model, Colorado 300), to the marking of the different habitats, to the signalizing of animal tracks,
Area Limits | East limit | Indian Ocean |
---|---|---|
North limit | Messalo river estuary Lat 11˚40'17.83''S; Long 40˚26'16.02''E | |
Norwest and West limits | Mainstream of Messalo river | |
South limit | Paqueve cape Lat 11˚53'5.94''S; Long 40˚27'59.86''E | |
South-West limit | Part coincident with the Diquide river and part coincident with the north line of the QNP buffer zone Lat 11˚52'23.53''S; Long 40˚18'46.18''E - Lat 11˚47'22.84''S; Long 40˚8'10.26''E |
signs and remains on field charts (sightings, kill sites, pellet/droppings), and to photographic and video records in several parts of the area.
Analysis of satellite images (from Google Earth) and of written documents from previous investigations in the area (see reports in reference section) were carried out.
The coordinates of the places, paths, villages and spots of interest were registered.
To inquire the habitants using a computer, it was developed a digital questionnaire (DQ), as shown in
The sampling method was a mix of convenience sampling and purposive sampling (in the subtype’s heterogeneity and snowball sampling) [
The DQ was made in the Visual Basic Express Edition Software 2008. The collected data was stored in the Microsoft Access Database.
A pre-questionnaire was applied in January 2009 and the data was analyzed as a preview-test to identify bias in the procedure/questions. Then it was rectified and applied in the field again. The questions were asked face- to-face and the answers were typed in the DQ box by the interviewer. This way it was easier to make sure that every question was being answered. The process became very practical, fast, efficient and ecological.
Part of the collected data from the DQ was analyzed by a qualitative content methodology. Data was clustered in created categories, following Moreira’s [
The sample was performed by 189 volunteers (2.3% of the resident population) of which 6.5% were major stakeholders. Then data was analyzed using the following programmes: Microsoft Office Access 2007, Micro-
soft Office Excel 2007, PASW Statistics Data Editor 18, where variables were analyzed and categorized [
The design of committees to develop and apply the plan mentioned in Section 4 was made from the field studies, from the results of the questionnaires and also from the analysis of other proposals.
The MWA has approximately 32.931 ha [
The coastal line has several coralliferous formations, sandy beaches and mangrove areas of which the most important one is the mangrove of Messalo river estuary. The inland shows several marine sedimentary rock formations [
Besides being influenced by the south equatorial current, the littoral (with thin continental platforms) is conditioned by the existence of three submarine canyons of East-West orientation (Kero Niuni in the North; Med-
jumbe in the Centre; Macaloé in the South) and also by barriers which constitute the islands and reefs of the Quirimbas Archipelago.
The littoral’s turbidity, salinity and nutrient concentrations are influenced by Messalo, Muenha and Diquide rivers’ discharges and by sediments brought by sliding waters resultant of intense rain. The Messalo river influence favors the existence of a large estuary and vigorous mangrove.
The area is influenced by the southern and northern monsoons, which create two seasons (winter/dry, summer/ rainy). The first monsoon affects the dry season and the second the rainy season. The climate is rainy and hot from October/January to April/May, summer period, and dry from June to September during the winter period. The summer monsoon influences the region with North-Northeast-East winds, which blow less than 5 m/s in average, from September or November to February or March. The winter winds (9 m/s in average) blow from south and southeast from March or May to September or October [
Earth and sea winds, connected to tide movements, influence the coast. The Mozambique current, which presents a flow of up to 4 knots and a tidal range of, in average, 0.7 - 4.6 m during spring tides and 2.1 - 3.0 m for neap tides [
The area is located in the Eastern Miombo Woodland ecoregion [
Other habitats like floodplains, grasslands, lowland forests and a mountain forest plateau (the Quiujulo location) can be found and represent a refuge for several animals (
This region has approximately 8164 inhabitants.
Village | Population | Variation | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2004a | 2006b | 2010 | 2004-2006 % | 2006-2010 % | 2004-2010 % | |
Mitacata | 1391 | 1442 | 1472 | 3.7 | 2.1 | 5.8 |
Natugo I | 163 | 213 | 158 | 30.7 | −25.8 | −3.1 |
Natugo II | 474 | 576 | *576 | 21.5 | - | - |
Paz | 113 | 130 | *130 | 15.0 | 0.0 | 15.0 |
Unidade | 0 | 310 | 500 | 100.0 | 61.3 | 100.0 |
Malada | 252 | 257 | *257 | 2.0 | - | - |
Milamba | 1796 | 1827 | 459 | 1.7 | −74.9 | −74.4 |
Namaneco | 597 | 697 | 250 | 16.8 | −64.1 | −58.1 |
Ilala | 1166 | 1366 | 1360 | 17.2 | −0.4 | 16.6 |
Mwera | 320 | - | - | - | ||
Paqueve | 1117 | 1426 | 2175 | 27.7 | 52.5 | 94.7 |
Likuedo | 60 | *60 | - | - | - | |
Gaza | 352 | 0 | 125 | −100.0 | 100.0 | −64.5 |
Ibo | 114 | *114 | - | - | - | |
2000 | 208 | *208 | - | - | - | |
Total | 7421 | 8626 | 8164 | 16.0 | -5.3 | 10.0 |
*Values of 2006; NA: note available; a, bData from Garnier, 2006 [
where the study was conducted. The data was first gathered in the Garnier report [
The area has an approximate density population of 24.8 individuals per Km2. The majority of the population (93.8%) lives along a corridor defined by the main road Mitacata-Ilala (no 247), and the coastal line Mitacata- Paqueve (15.766 ha). This corridor area has a population density of not less than 48.6 habitants per Km2 (
Immigration has become another important aspect, which interferes in the economy of the region and increases the exploitation of natural resources.
The official language is Portuguese. In the Quiterajo district only 13.5% of the population in 1997 could speak Portuguese [
The interviewed (N = 189) are distributed by 13 of the 15 villages in the area according to the percentages: Gaza (1.1%), Ilala (14.3%), Malada (0.5%), Milamba (13.2%), Mitacata (23.8%), Mwera (0.5%), Namaneco (4.8%),
Natugo I (6.3%), Natugo II (9.0%), Paz (3.7%), Paqueve (12.1%), Quiterajo (4.2%), Unidade (6.3%). The average age is 46.74 ± 15.63 years (N = 186).
The main religion is Muslim (94.7%). A considerable percentage of the interviewed (46.6%) have always lived in the area. From the total sample, 55.0% live with a spouse, and 50.8% live with their children. The average of sons per household goes from 1 - 4 (depends on the village). The average of daughters per household ranges from 2 - 4. There are families with more than 10 children at their care.
The qualitative analysis of some answers to the open questions “who do you respect the most”, “who has knowledge”, “who takes important decisions”, “who commands the reunions of the village council” revealed cultural aspects. These questions intended to define the stakeholders in whom people have confidence. Answers show that the traditional and political village leaders, the religious leaders and the elderly are recognized as the most respected people. They are also the knowledge keepers of the region culture and people. The interviewees mentioned the justice actors (such as judges) and traditional healers (“curandeiros”) as being also important. Main decisions are taken in meetings with village leaders and councilors. These reunions take place in a central spot of the village (as a community house, or plaza), or in the political/traditional leader’s house, or even in the moss. In these meetings stakeholders plan land distribution amongst other important decisions for the community.
The majority of the interviewees practice traditional agriculture (62.4%), without profit (39.2%), meaning no income generation for the family (see
culture. There is no use of machines in farming. This shows a precarious agrarian system.
Another traditional practice is fishery (34.9%). For 12.7% of the interviewees it is the main profession. Only 18.5% of the individuals collect some profit of fishery. 10.6% use small boats, but there is no fishing fleet in the area or considerable port.
Hunting is also an occupation. Only 2.1% admit to hunt wild animals and 94.0% of the interviewees admit to eating wild animals.
In
Mitacata, Paqueve and Ilala are the villages with the biggest populations. This justifies the search and strong exploitation of resources in the periphery of these villages. Other villages are concentrated in the north-south axis near the coast. It is evident that the concentration of crop fields and resources spots in the surroundings of the same axis. Tables 3-5 gather the number of answers collected by inquiry, and respective percentages per village. These answers concern to resources exploitation. The goal was to make a list of the main natural resources explored in the area.
Fresh water is a very important resource (93% of answers). Most of the interviewees (50.3%) extract water from traditional wells with or without manual pumps (
Anguane & Paqueve | Gaza | Ilala | Malada | Milamba | Mitacata | Muera | Namaneco | Natugo I | Natugo II | Paz | Quiterajo | Unidade | Total | |||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Sample Size | N | % | N | % | N | % | N | % | N | % | N | % | N | % | N | % | N | % | N | % | N | % | N | % | N | % | N | % |
23 | 12.2 | 2 | 1.1 | 27 | 14.3 | 1 | 0.5 | 25 | 13.2 | 45 | 23.8 | 1 | 0.5 | 9 | 4.8 | 12 | 6.3 | 17 | 9.0 | 7 | 3.7 | 8 | 4.2 | 12 | 6.3 | 189 | 100 | |
Petroleum | 20 | 10.6 | 0 | 0 | 24 | 12.7 | 1 | 0.5 | 20 | 10.6 | 39 | 20.6 | 1 | 0.5 | 6 | 3.2 | 9 | 4.8 | 8 | 4.2 | 7 | 3.7 | 6 | 3.2 | 9 | 4.8 | 150 | 79.4 |
Coal | 4 | 2.1 | 0 | 0 | 8 | 4.2 | 1 | 0.5 | 1 | 0.5 | 20 | 10.6 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0.5 | 2 | 1.1 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 1.1 | 4 | 2.1 | 0 | 0 | 43 | 22.8 |
Rocks | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Natural Gas | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0.5 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0.5 |
Minerals | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0.5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0.5 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0.5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 1.6 |
Sand | 23 | 12.2 | 2 | 1.1 | 25 | 13.2 | 1 | 0.5 | 25 | 13.2 | 45 | 23.8 | 1 | 0.5 | 9 | 4.8 | 12 | 6.3 | 16 | 8.5 | 7 | 3.7 | 6 | 3.2 | 12 | 6.3 | 184 | 97.4 |
Anguane & Paqueve | Gaza | Ilala | Malada | Milamba | Mitacata | Muera | Namaneco | Natugo I | Natugo II | Paz | Quiterajo | Unidade | Total | |||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Sample Size | N | % | N | % | N | % | N | % | N | % | N | % | N | % | N | % | N | % | N | % | N | % | N | % | N | % | N | % |
23 | 12.2 | 2 | 1.1 | 27 | 14.3 | 1 | 0.5 | 25 | 13.2 | 45 | 23.8 | 1 | 0.5 | 9 | 4.8 | 12 | 6.3 | 17 | 9.0 | 7 | 3.7 | 8 | 4.2 | 12 | 6.3 | 189 | 100 | |
Wood Lenha | 23 | 12.2 | 2 | 1.1 | 26 | 13.8 | 1 | 0.5 | 25 | 13.2 | 43 | 22.8 | 1 | 0.5 | 8 | 4.2 | 12 | 6.3 | 17 | 9.0 | 7 | 3.7 | 7 | 3.7 | 12 | 6.3 | 184 | 97.4 |
Wood Estacas | 23 | 12.2 | 2 | 1.1 | 26 | 13.8 | 1 | 0.5 | 25 | 13.2 | 43 | 22.8 | 1 | 0.5 | 8 | 4.2 | 12 | 6.3 | 17 | 9.0 | 7 | 3.7 | 6 | 3.2 | 12 | 6.3 | 183 | 96.8 |
Wood Tocos | 23 | 12.2 | 2 | 1.1 | 24 | 12.7 | 1 | 0.5 | 25 | 13.2 | 38 | 20.1 | 1 | 0.5 | 8 | 4.2 | 12 | 6.3 | 10 | 5.3 | 7 | 3.7 | 5 | 2.6 | 12 | 6.3 | 168 | 88.9 |
Forest Fruits | 23 | 12.2 | 2 | 1.1 | 26 | 13.8 | 1 | 0.5 | 25 | 13.2 | 43 | 22.8 | 1 | 0.5 | 8 | 4.2 | 12 | 6.3 | 17 | 9.0 | 7 | 3.7 | 6 | 3.2 | 12 | 6.3 | 183 | 96.8 |
Roots | 23 | 12.2 | 2 | 1.1 | 26 | 13.8 | 1 | 0.5 | 25 | 13.2 | 42 | 22.2 | 1 | 0.5 | 8 | 4.2 | 12 | 6.3 | 17 | 9.0 | 7 | 3.7 | 4 | 2.1 | 12 | 6.3 | 180 | 95.2 |
Leaves | 23 | 12.2 | 2 | 1.1 | 25 | 13.2 | 1 | 0.5 | 25 | 13.2 | 42 | 22.2 | 1 | 0.5 | 8 | 4.2 | 12 | 6.3 | 17 | 9.0 | 7 | 3.7 | 5 | 2.6 | 12 | 6.3 | 180 | 95.2 |
Bark | 11 | 5.8 | 2 | 1.1 | 21 | 11.1 | 1 | 0.5 | 14 | 7.4 | 18 | 9.5 | 1 | 0.5 | 6 | 3.2 | 8 | 4.2 | 12 | 6.3 | 6 | 3.2 | 1 | 0.5 | 8 | 4.2 | 109 | 57.7 |
Drink (Sura) | 2 | 1.1 | 0 | 0 | 7 | 3.7 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 1.6 | 2 | 1.1 | 1 | 0.5 | 1 | 0.5 | 3 | 1.6 | 2 | 1.1 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 1.1 | 4 | 2.1 | 27 | 14.3 |
Honey | 23 | 12.2 | 2 | 1.1 | 25 | 13.2 | 1 | 0.5 | 25 | 13.2 | 42 | 22.2 | 1 | 0.5 | 8 | 4.2 | 12 | 6.3 | 17 | 9.0 | 7 | 3.7 | 7 | 3.7 | 11 | 5.8 | 181 | 95.8 |
Cashew | 23 | 12.2 | 1 | 0.5 | 26 | 13.8 | 1 | 0.5 | 25 | 13.2 | 42 | 22.2 | 1 | 0.5 | 8 | 4.2 | 12 | 6.3 | 14 | 7.4 | 7 | 3.7 | 7 | 3.7 | 10 | 5.3 | 177 | 93.7 |
Copra | 23 | 12.2 | 0 | 0 | 25 | 13.2 | 1 | 0.5 | 23 | 12.2 | 38 | 20.1 | 1 | 0.5 | 8 | 4.2 | 12 | 6.3 | 8 | 4.2 | 7 | 3.7 | 7 | 3.7 | 10 | 5.3 | 163 | 86.2 |
Sugarcane | 23 | 12.2 | 0 | 0 | 24 | 12.7 | 1 | 0.5 | 23 | 12.2 | 42 | 22.2 | 1 | 0.5 | 8 | 4.2 | 12 | 6.3 | 17 | 9.0 | 7 | 3.7 | 7 | 3.7 | 10 | 5.3 | 175 | 92.6 |
Citrus | 23 | 12.2 | 2 | 1.1 | 26 | 13.8 | 1 | 0.5 | 24 | 12.7 | 42 | 22.2 | 1 | 0.5 | 8 | 4.2 | 12 | 6.3 | 17 | 9.0 | 7 | 3.7 | 7 | 3.7 | 10 | 5.3 | 180 | 95.2 |
Cotton | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Medical Plants | 23 | 12.2 | 2 | 1.1 | 25 | 13.2 | 1 | 0.5 | 25 | 13.2 | 40 | 21.2 | 1 | 0.5 | 8 | 4.2 | 12 | 6.3 | 15 | 7.9 | 7 | 3.7 | 7 | 3.7 | 12 | 6.3 | 178 | 94.2 |
Wild Pastures | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0.5 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0.5 | 1 | 0.5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 1.6 |
Anguane & Paqueve | Gaza | Ilala | Malada | Milamba | Mitacata | Muera | Namaneco | Natugo I | Natugo II | Paz | Quiterajo | Unidade | Total | |||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Sample Size | N | % | N | % | N | % | N | % | N | % | N | % | N | % | N | % | N | % | N | % | N | % | N | % | N | % | N | % |
23 | 12.2 | 2 | 1.1 | 27 | 14.3 | 1 | 0.5 | 25 | 13.2 | 45 | 23.8 | 1 | 0.5 | 9 | 4.8 | 12 | 6.3 | 17 | 9.0 | 7 | 3.7 | 8 | 4.2 | 12 | 6.3 | 189 | 100 | |
Goats | 23 | 12.2 | 0 | 0 | 25 | 13.2 | 1 | 0.5 | 25 | 13.2 | 43 | 22.8 | 1 | 0.5 | 8 | 4.2 | 12 | 6.3 | 13 | 6.9 | 7 | 3.7 | 7 | 3.7 | 10 | 5.3 | 175 | 92.6 |
Sheep | 23 | 12.2 | 0 | 0 | 25 | 13.2 | 1 | 0.5 | 23 | 12.2 | 39 | 30.6 | 1 | 0.5 | 8 | 4.2 | 12 | 6.3 | 13 | 6.9 | 7 | 3.7 | 6 | 3.2 | 10 | 5.3 | 168 | 88.9 |
Pigs | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0.5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 2.1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 2.1 | 0 | 0 | 9 | 4.8 |
Birds | 22 | 11.6 | 2 | 1.1 | 26 | 13.8 | 1 | 0.5 | 24 | 12.7 | 43 | 22.8 | 1 | 0.5 | 8 | 4.2 | 12 | 6.3 | 16 | 8.5 | 7 | 3.7 | 7 | 3.7 | 12 | 6.3 | 181 | 95.8 |
Savage/ Wild Animals | 23 | 12.2 | 1 | 0.5 | 25 | 13.2 | 1 | 0.5 | 25 | 13.2 | 42 | 22.2 | 1 | 0.5 | 8 | 4.2 | 12 | 6.3 | 16 | 8.5 | 7 | 3.7 | 6 | 3.2 | 11 | 5.8 | 178 | 94.2 |
Fish | 23 | 12.2 | 2 | 1.1 | 26 | 13.8 | 1 | 0.5 | 25 | 13.2 | 43 | 22.8 | 1 | 0.5 | 8 | 4.2 | 12 | 6.3 | 17 | 9.0 | 7 | 3.7 | 7 | 3.7 | 12 | 6.3 | 184 | 97.4 |
Crustaceous | 23 | 12.2 | 1 | 0.5 | 25 | 13.2 | 1 | 0.5 | 25 | 13.2 | 43 | 22.8 | 1 | 0.5 | 8 | 4.2 | 12 | 6.3 | 17 | 9.0 | 7 | 3.7 | 7 | 3.7 | 11 | 5.8 | 181 | 95.8 |
Molusks | 23 | 12.2 | 0 | 0 | 26 | 13.8 | 1 | 0.5 | 24 | 12.7 | 43 | 22.8 | 1 | 0.5 | 8 | 4.2 | 12 | 6.3 | 17 | 9.0 | 7 | 3.7 | 7 | 3.7 | 11 | 5.8 | 180 | 95.2 |
The use of clay (89%) and sand is very relevant (
The most important resources are wood, roots, leaves, wood bark, honey, cashew, copra, sugarcane and various herbaceous medicinal plants (
Other results came from the qualitative analyses of the questions “What do you eat?”, “What do you cultivate?”, “What products can’t you find in your village?”, “Do you trade your products?”, because some products are not named in the resources section, but then appear in the nutrition plan of the villagers. The main crops are beans, cassava (Manihot esculenta), maize, pumpkin, rice, watermelon. Less cultivated crops are sweet potato and cucumber. This type of vegetables integrates their meals. Other vegetables were referred; 10% refer having to search for products in other villages or locations. Copra and cashew cropping and wood exploitation in forestry are still observed nowadays.
Goats, sheep and birds (chickens) are the most used livestock (
Wild animals are seen very often. Turtles, snakes (“mamba” with 14.8% answers), and crocodiles (63.5%) are the most seen reptiles. The most important seen birds are bush chickens (“Nambiri”, “Ololo”, “Anga” are common names for bush chickens). The Figures 10(a)-(c) show graphs and correspondent list (see
Fish, crustaceous and marine mollusks are part of the diet. Coral reefs have been suffering destructive actions due to activities and arts related to fish and mollusks catch. The population also transforms corals into lime, using this product in construction. Trophic chains linked to coral environments are diverse. However, human practices have been compromising intermediate levels in this trophic connectivity. The catch of fish larvae, juveniles of several species and of adult specimens for human consumption and commercialization is a practice in the MWA. The intensive capture of crustaceans like crabs, lobsters, prawns and shrimps has been frequent as well.
Animal | Comon name (English) | Comon name in Mwani | Species |
---|---|---|---|
A | Great Kudu | Nandolo | Tragelaphus strepsiceros |
A | Impala | ? | Aepyceros melampus |
A | Nyala | Inhala | Tragelaphus angasii |
A | Waterbuck | Nandoro (Kimwani) = Nandolo (Makonde language) = Inhacoso = Piva | Kobus ellipsiprymnus |
A | Suni | Nazolo | Neotragus moschatus |
A | Sable | Palavi (Makua language) | Hippotragus niger |
A | BushBuck | Mbawalla = imbabala | Tragelaphus scriptus |
B | Baboon | Nyani | Papio cynocephalus |
B | Samango | Ima | Cercopithecus albogularis |
B | Vervet | Nhumbire | Cercopithecus pygerythrus |
C | Elephant | Nembo | Loxodonta africana |
D | Warthog | Mango | Phacochoerus africanus |
E | Leopard | (Suhui) Suwi | Panthera pardus |
F | Lion | Simba | Panthera leo |
G | Buffalo | (Inhati) Nyati | Syncerus caffer |
H | Spotted Hyaena | Fisi | Crocuta crocuta |
I | Bush Duiker | Nanjanga | Sylvicapra grimmia |
Red Duiker | Kutuku (Makua language) | Cephalophus natalensis | |
Oribi | ? | Ourebia ourebi | |
J | ? | Raposa (?) | ? |
K | African Wild Dog | Mwizi | Lycaon pictus |
L | Hippo | Chiboko (Maconde language), Namonto | Hippopotamus amphibius |
M | Side-striped Jackal | Nancheto | Canis adustus |
N | Porcupine | Nachinugo | Hystrix africaeaustralis |
O | Aard-vark | Nanyoma | Orycteropus afer |
P | Wildebeest | ? | Connochaetes taurinus |
Q | Wild cat | Maka nundu | Felis lybica |
Cartilaginous and bony fishes from the families Dasyatidae, Carangidae, Hemiramphidae, Lutjanidae, Scaridae and, with less frequency, Serranidae have been also intensively captured.
Turtles such as “Assa” (Green, Chelonia mydas), “Nhamba” (Hawksbill, Eretmochelys imbricata) and “Liluvi” (Loggerhead, Caretta caretta)?names in Kimwani dialect?are also present (69.3%).
1) Human Wildlife Conflict with African Wild Dog
One problem concerning the African wild dog has been pointed out. Their occasional attacks on livestock preoccupy the population. However, the African wild dog shares this guilt with other carnivorous (lions, leopards) and are less feared. Monkeys are also pointed out as animals that attack people and resources. In contrast, Lycaon pictus are not as hated as elephants, because they also present some advantages to the interviewees. People referred that when African wild dogs are present other dangerous carnivorous are kept away. African wild dogs eat some resources (livestock) but don’t destroy crop areas like elephants do when they invade crop fields. So African wild dogs are seen as useful and other predators and elephants are not. This doesn’t mean people accept their near presence. People would prefer all type of wild animals to be in a different area, specially because they don’t like to share natural resources, as they admitted. So the major solution advanced by the inquired was physical separation between African wild dogs and people.
2) Human Elephant Conflict (HEC)
Conflicts in the Quiterajo-Ilala area occur, mostly, between January and June. Garnier [
When it was asked “what do you think of the presence of elephants”, 33.3% of the interviewed weren’t favourable about their presence (only one favourable answer). These animals are considered a problem and are non desirable. It was understood why the interviewed have this perception: 51.9% of them said they had problems caused by elephants. Mostly related with consumption of water and crop products (22.2%), followed by the invasion and destruction of crops and goods (14.8%). Also attacks to people are mentioned (3.7%). However, when it was asked what they thought of total disappearance of elephants from the area, though 37% give any answer, 33.3% said it would be bad, against 29.6% saying it would be good. Their reasons are stated in
The interviewed are receptive to support measures to diminish the conflict with the elephants (59.3% in favour vs. 40.7% missing). The presence of elephants creates insecurity among residents of MWA. However, the answers clarify that communities don’t want to share space or resources with these animals: 18.5% saying there is “no possible solution of sharing space”, 66.7% saying animals should be in a fenced area, apart from the people, 7.4% saying culling would be the solution, and 3.7% saying they don’t have ideas for solutions (and 3.7% missing answers). This shows that 92.6% of the inquired think that the solution of the conflict is non-coexistence. People want physical separation from wild animals. There is only one opinion/suggestion of co-existence and space sharing, which implies the construction of community crop fields with surveillance.
Another relevant aspect is that the need for resources overcomes the fear of wild animals. This is the reason why populations occupy some of the passages previously used by elephants (
In this scenario, perceptions towards wild animals are shared between the ones that were victims and the ones that weren’t victims. This was concluded after the application of a Pearson Chi-square test to a subsample, derived from the division of our sample in three: sample “corridor villages” (most affected by elephant attacks); sample “coast villages”; and sample “interior villages” (less attacked). The results showed to be not statistically significant, in what concerns to the opinion of these three groups (the Pearson Chi-square = 3.160; P = 0.206; N = 137) for the question “Do you think it would be good if elephants disappeared?”
The analysis of the results showed that the major environmental issues resident communities face are: conflicts with wild animals, mainly elephants, low productivity of crops and fisheries and deficient water supply, low income, insufficient access to energy sources and low education levels. Problems also emphasized by Ntumi et al. [
One reason why local communities and corresponding crops are vulnerable to wild animals, such as elephants, is highlighted by the topographic analysis of the region revealed by
Positive factors/ideas | Negative factors/ideas |
---|---|
27.45%?elephants are benefic resources to the community; 12.25%?elephants are living creatures; they belong to nature; 6.86%?elephants are creatures of God; must be preserved; 5.39%?elephants cannot disappear, because future generations have to see them. | 34.31%?elephants must disappear because they cause problems; 5.88%?elephants must be shot, killed, sent away, because they cause problems; 3.92%?elephants must disappear because they kill people and cause worry/panic. |
Freshwater spots and paths are shared by animals and people, specially in the dry season. The drought obligates animals and people to search more frequently the same water spots. This is one of the reasons why respondents argue for physical separation between them and wild animals. The great pressure is mainly in the coastal area, concerning the villages of Natugo I, Paz, Unidade, Namaneco and Ilala. The freshwater points are also concentrated near these villages.
In the MWA, like in other locations of MZ and Africa, the problem with wildlife is related with land use. This is the grand reason for the existence of human-elephant conflicts as emphasized by Hoare [
There was a major concern to design a plan capable of minimizing the HEC pointed out by the interviewed, and of protecting wild life forms. The MWA was visualized and subdivided in: protected areas, corridor and conditioned-use areas.
The corridor is marked in grey color in
Douglas-Hamilton et al. [
[
Certain areas (conditioned-use areas) can be determined as “interdict” for certain periods of time. Committees can set exceptions on a seasonal basis for resource exploitation. These areas include Mitacata, Malada and Milamba mangroves and all the beaches. The supervision of these areas could be made by “fiscais” from nearby villages.
It is important to keep specific areas (specific use areas) for free exploitation of resources. They encompass crop areas occupied by main villages like Mitacata, Natugo II, Malada, Milamba, Namaneco, Paqueve and Ilala. Rice fields in Likuedo, 2000 and Ibo should continue to be explored. Areas from n˚ 1 to 9 are crop fields which must continue to exist, with exception of area no 4. Proposed crop fields are the ones signalized with the letters A, B (palm groves), C (rice fields), and D (diverse vegetables). Area n˚ 6 requires rehabilitation for future sustainable usage (see Section 4.2.1.1). The coastal and marine area and respective resources, situated between Messalo estuary and Paqueve-cape, could be divided subareas and consequently explored with careful supervision (see Section 4.2.1.3).
The creation of a control station is proposed near area limits, at south (“S” dot signalized near Ilala in
1) Forest and Crop Management
Results showed a high dependency on wood materials that are used for fuel and construction. Therefore a strict plan is important regarding this matter. These “pristine areas” are already inside the proposed LPA in Fig- ure 12. Also, there is a delimitation of areas only for agriculture practices (areas n˚ 1 to n˚ 9). An additional concern was the definition of arborous species for plantation, to renew forest cover inside the MWA. What is intended is the rehabilitation of palm tree groves (section A and B), Afzelia quanzensis, Millettia stuhlmannii, Pterocarpus angolensis, Dalbergia melanoxylon, Euclea natalensis (Mulala) Olax dissitiflora (Mussiro) Strycnos spinosa (Massala), Hyphaene coriacea (Macuti-Palm tree leaves), Cocos sp. (Palm trees), cashew nut trees, Mangifera indica (Mango trees), Sclerocarya birrea subsp. caffra (Marula, Ocanho), Citrus sinensis (Orange trees), Agave sisalana (Sisal plant) dispersed in areas like D, and n˚ 1 to n˚ 9. The improvement of forest cover would have the effect of creating new occupations, and the wood waste could be used as firelighters for cooking (thus alleviating the energy problem). Also, many of these species are used by locals on their daily tasks.
The construction of community crop fields (the machambas) away from pathways of elephants and near water supplies that are not shared with wild animals is also important to avoid and diminish HWC (see Forest and Wild Life Law [
Implementation of apiculture is also advised to create new jobs (supervision and care of beehives), to increase resources (directly by collecting honey and wax, and indirectly by protecting crop fields from wild animals), and to improve bee pollenisation (an important ES).
2) Fauna Management
Elephants are not the only wild life responsible to create problems, as the answers revealed. Baboons are frequent and cause destruction of crops, albeit being more tolerated than elephants. The creation of zones only for wild life is a demanded strategy by the interviewed. However, the habitats for wild life have already been fragmented inside the MWA. Jackson et al. [
3) Fishery and Mangrove Management
Wells et al. [
Estuaries and associated mangroves are ecologically vital because they provide habitat and breeding grounds for numerous fish and crustaceous species. They also filter and retain silt brought by rivers (which could be deadly to coastal coral reefs).
Mangrove harvesting is an important source of construction materials. In a study carried in the mangroves of river Limón, older mangrove harvesters reported a decrease in local availability of the favored size of mangroves for harvesting. These observations were supported by the scientific data about the effect of harvesting. This consistency between local and scientific knowledge, suggested that harvesters have conscience of the impact of their practices in exploited mangroves [
We focused on the preservation of the unique biodiversity of the selected areas and the preservation of the mangroves and leave the type of management decisions to the committees. Perhaps the design of a marine reserve network could be thought for the future of the region. It would be important since the area is already considered a natural reserve, it is nearby the QNP (Quirimbas National Park), whose marine area covers a coastline of 100 Km encompassing 11 islands, and it is nearby an area which was selected as a potential transfrontier MPA. Networks of marine reserves bring benefits, not only because they are designed to meet fisheries goals focus on yield and profitability, but also because they enable “estimating ecosystem-wide effects of fishing to inform ecosystem-based fisheries management, spatially explicit stock assessments, and disentangling effects of fishing from climate change and other impacts” [
A marine turtle conservation project can be implemented. Identification and protection of nesting sites is extremely important (see Law of the Environment [
To achieve the proposed goal, Rosendo et al. [
Management plans have been applied all over the world, with the configuration of local committees, with stake- holders and advisors, but also with local people. The involvement of the local inhabitants in a multidisciplinary approach for designing a management strategy is advised by specialists like Paterson [
It is recognized, however, that the implementation of successful management plans is extremely difficult [
agement committees is also supported by Mozambican Law [
The roles of the CC can include, among others, ensuring the participation of local communities, articulating government strategies in sustainable exploitation of natural resources, supervising PC administration, administrating generated income, managing revenue application into community facilities, searching for relevant external assistance and funding to establish and maintain the management regime, spreading awareness on and applying education programs and, finally, creating community support programs. PCs may decide on field practices, and therefore an argument can be made on giving them the control to adapt CC measures. They may organize food provision, reinforcement of intercommunity relations, and conflict mitigation (among resource users, among animals and humans).
There is a considerable amount of methods and recommendations that need to be taken in consideration before designing an ES management plan. Each case is different as regards the community, their culture, aspirations and expectations, their views and commitment levels towards wildlife and natural resources. The MWA management plan and the creation of committees represent a strategy. The DQ is a tool which can easily be applied by these committees to complete the human wellbeing assessment, and it can be applied for the same purposes in other areas of MZ or eastern Africa, and similar coastal areas of the world. There are, however, problems to debate and deal with. The attraction of further numbers of people to the MWA can increase pressure on natural resources.
Overall, following the work presented in this study, we hope to achieve the emergence of ecological awareness and change of values that promote biodiversity, as a first step towards a sustainable economy for the MWA, and for other areas of Eastern/Central Africa.
The authors would like to thank the Maluane scouts, Rachid Abudala (Major Dade), and Dusan Misic (Zemun Agro Industrial?www.pembazemun.com/aboutus.html) for their help during field work. We address our gratitude to Sérgio Cardoso due to the precious support given to the informatic and digital artwork. We are also grateful to several institutions, iTC-Cabo Delgado, Maluane and AFPR which have contributed for the project “Área de Conservação do Messalo-Gestão dos Recursos Naturais”.
Views expressed in this paper are those of the authors. They do not represent the views of the financial sponsors of this work or the authors’ institution.