Is Mozambique’s Buffalo Hunting Quota System On Track?

Mozambique’s buffalo hunting quotas are being questioned for their conservation effectiveness.  Here we explore whether conservation goals are being met and whether the conflict between photographic and hunting safaris can be resolved.

There are certain areas where regulated buffalo hunting and conservation efforts have been very successful in Mozambique.  Notable of these is Coutada 11, which, with the anti-poaching efforts, habitat management, and community engagement has seen an increase in the buffalo population from 1,200 in 1992 to 20,000 today. 

The hunting quota team at Coutada 11 is very selective on the age and sex of the buffalo being hunted, to ensure ongoing sustainability of the species. The communities also benefit through education, job creation, and meat supply. Interestingly, the anti-poaching unit in this area is manned by ex-poachers – it takes a thief to find a thief!

The Zambezi Delta has also demonstrated how regulated hunting, strong conservation efforts, and community involvement, can contribute to effective wildlife conservation.

These two examples are success stories, thanks to strong management, involving collaborations with private enterprises that are invested in conservation and anti-poaching, and the community.

While other wildlife areas of Mozambique do have effective quota systems, they face more challenges as they don’t have the resources that the likes of Coutada 11 have. Some areas lack funding and resources, making it difficult to conduct the research required to set accurate quotas, implement effective anti-poaching projects, or effectively manage the habitat.

The involvement of the community is key to the success of any conservation efforts and for this reason, there need to be benefits and incentives for the community to support wildlife management. Where the communities are less supportive or believe they can gain more benefit from another business or industry, this impacts the success of conservation in that area.

Some areas’ ecological conditions are not conducive to high buffalo populations, thus making it difficult to support conservation through hunting quotas alone.

A lot needs to be done to determine the effectiveness of the Mozambique quota system throughout the whole country, including:

1. Determining the buffalo populations in the various areas to assess if and where quotas are appropriate for the population in that area.
2. Investigate the successes, or not, of anti-poaching efforts in the different areas, identify problem areas where more effort is required, and compare anti-poaching efforts with hunting quota success.
3. Involve the community and get their feedback regarding the benefits they receive (or not) from hunting activities, and their involvement with conservation, if they have established a community-based natural resource management system (see below) which could benefit conservation efforts.
4. Compare experiences between areas with successful quota systems, with those with fewer effective outcomes and identify areas for improvement.

The following information was gleaned from an article in Resource Africa.

A survey was conducted by Leandra Merz and a team from the Universities of Florida and Georgia plus Resource Africa’s Dr Shylock Muyengwa.  The survey, which questioned 237 respondents from the communities bordering the Sabie Game Reserve on the border between Mozambique and Kruger National Park in South Africa, showed the importance of the communities being empowered to make their own decisions regarding wildlife management, including the costs and benefits of living with wildlife.  The establishment of Community-based Natural Resource Management (CBNRM), a concept adopted by some other African countries, goes a long way towards resolving human-wildlife conflicts by elected members of the community discussing and agreeing on how to manage wildlife, rather than waiting for authorities to fix the problem (which is often not possible/feasible).  Perhaps more could be done in Mozambique to follow the examples of Coutada 11, the Zambezi Delta, and the CBNRM model.

Are Increasing Photographic Safaris in Conflict with Hunting Safaris?

Both photographic and hunting safaris contribute to the economy, the communities, and conservation, but in different ways. While photographic safaris provide consistent and sustained revenue throughout the year, hunting attracts a considerably higher revenue.

Potential Conflicts

The perception of how conservation should be conducted is likely the main cause of conflict between these two groups, with photographers being anti-hunting for ethical reasons, whereas hunters believe that regulated hunting is important for control of the wildlife population, poaching, and habitat management for conservation.

Another conflict could arise over land usage, with photographers seeking pristine and beautiful landscapes with prolific wildlife and birds untraumatized by hunting activities, and hunters arguing that the substantial revenue they generate aids the conservation and management of the wildlife populations, the habitat, and the community.

It may be necessary to balance the seasonal high revenue from hunting with the potentially more sustainable, but variable income from photographic tourism. Given that the hunting season for most species is from April to November, which are the drier months, would it not be an idea to encourage more photographic safaris in the wet summer months, thus reducing the conflict? In the rainy season the landscape is lush and green, therefore more appealing to most photographers. It is a time when many animals give birth allowing photographers to capture newborns on camera. The birdlife is particularly prolific, with migratory birds also being present. One possible downfall of photographic safaris during the rainy season is that some areas could become inaccessible due to flooded waterways and muddy roads. On the other hand, the dry season is more conducive to seeing more animals as they congregate at waterholes and are more visible with the shorter grasses.

The Impact of Increased Photographic Safaris on Permit Demand

Increased demand for photographic safaris will result in a higher demand for permits related to eco-tourism activities and additional employment opportunities and revenue for conservation and park management.

There will need to be a shift in resource allocation to manage the growth of photographic safari demand, possibly involving the improvement of infrastructure, hides, lodges, and human resources such as bird guides, and game rangers to guide and ensure the safety of the safari participants. The increased foot traffic could impact the environment, which would need to be mitigated to ensure minimal ecological and habitat impact.

Photographic vs Hunting Permits

For photographic safaris, permits are required to enter national parks and wildlife reserves. These permits are less expensive and easier to obtain than hunting permits. They include access to the park and could involve specific permissions for filming activities or professional photography.

On the other hand, hunting permits, particularly for large animals, are a lot more expensive, and require more hoops to be jumped through. Permits are issued according to the species being hunted, and the hunter must prove competency.

Should Buffalo Hunting Safaris Step Aside for Photo-Safaris?

To answer this question, we must ask, “What would be the effect of stopping regulated buffalo hunting?”

THE NEGATIVES:

1. Reduced conservation funding. Regulated buffalo hunting generates a sizeable revenue that contributes directly to conservation, anti-poaching, habitat management, and community projects.  Without this funding, indiscriminate poaching is likely to increase, affecting the sustainability of the species, and there would be no control over the habitat.
2. The communities would lose the economic benefits from regulated hunting, such as funding, meat supply, employment, and education, resulting in increased poverty and encouraging illegal activities, such as poaching.
3. Stopping regulated hunting and thus management of the sustainability of the species and the habitat, could result in overpopulation, habitat degradation, and increased human-wildlife conflict. With no regulated hunting, there would be no control over which species would be hunted, and the overpopulation of some wildlife populations could grow beyond the capability of their habitats resulting in damaging the ecosystems.  This will affect all species – not only buffalo.

THE POSITIVES:

1. Halting regulated hunting could increase photographic safaris, as more tourists are attracted to areas with no hunting activities.
2. Hunting can cause stress to wildlife causing animals to become skittish and thus difficult to see in their natural habitat. Stopping hunting could therefore lead to healthier and more stable populations in the long term, but it would be necessary for other conservation measures to be implemented to avoid overpopulation. 
3. The cessation of hunting could result in more public support and interest in conservation.

In Mozambique,  a few species are at risk of overpopulation, causing habitat destruction if their numbers are not controlled.  This will have a knock-on effect on other species and the ecosystem.  At the top of the list is the Cape Buffalo.

The buffalo’s size and herd behavior have a strong impact on the habitat by overgrazing the grasslands and reducing biodiversity.  Without natural predators and regulated buffalo hunting in Mozambique, buffalo populations can grow rapidly, and overpopulation could become a real concern.

In Conclusion, or Inconclusion?

In concluding a topic that appears inconcludable, here is an extract from the article, “Photo-Tourism Versus Safari Hunting Versus Both?” by Kevin Leo-Smith which is in response to an argumentative dialogue between Ivan Carter (professional hunter) and Dereck Joubert (award-winning, anti-hunting filmmaker), published in The Conservative Imperative.  

“I don’t have time to research and write a proper resource economics argument properly supported with analysis and facts, about both points of view. However, I submit that such a study will likely conclude that 1+1 = 3 (i.e. both solutions applied sensibly and appropriately lead to a synergistic outcome) where the macro environment required for both hunting and photo safaris create enormous value for each other and more importantly for the benefit of the locals and the rest of the world – while also benefiting climate change mitigation efforts. A win for all.”

Time To Act - Book Your Mozmbique Buffalo Hunt

While the thrill of the hunt is a hunter’s biggest ambition, most are also concerned about the conservation and sustainability of buffalo, wildlife, and habitat collectively, and are aware of the positive impact the hunting revenue has on these aspects.  So, put your money where it is most needed, and book your buffalo hunt in Mocambique with Game Hunting Safaris – we will ensure that you are linked with the best outfitter to suit your needs and will ensure there is more ‘bang for your buck/buffalo’ – yes, corny we know, but we couldn’t resist.