GIS and natural resource management : prospect and problems
Kanyati Communal Lands, Zimbabwe
Figure 4. Carrying capacity for livestock (ha/LU) of different vegetation units
Table 4. Comparison of livestock carrying capacity, number of livestock in 1992 and LU-balance
which shows whether village land is likely to be overstocked (negative values) or understocked.
| Village
|
Carrying capacity (LUs)
based on vegetation
cover |
Actual LUs
in 1992 |
LU balance |
| Chebere |
257 |
146 |
111 |
| Chitete |
350 |
284 |
66 |
| Hurenje |
158 |
179 |
-21 |
| Hwamira |
330 |
97 |
233 |
| Kadziru |
386 |
273 |
113 |
| Kanyati |
256 |
331 |
-75 |
| Kemangwandi |
423 |
273 |
150 |
| Makande |
138 |
333 |
-195 |
| Nyadara |
200 |
314 |
-114 |
| Nyajena |
362 |
192 |
170 |
Table 4 indicates that Makande, Nyadara and Kanyati villages are overstocked. Most of the other
villages still have surplus of forage, when considering the number of livestock in relation to potentially
available forage.
Case E. Crop damage by wildlife
Wildlife incidents in the ten villages have been recorded by the Campfire Association from 1993 up
till 1998 (Mwiya, 1998) and by Agritex/WWF. Data from the two sources (Table 5) are not the same
but of the same orders of magnitude. Table 5 shows that the most northern villages that border
conservation areas suffer most.
Table 5. Number of incidents with elephants and other wildlife species (column “other”) and total
number of wildlife incidents from 1993 to 1998 based on Agritex/WWF data. The column Campfire
shows total wildlife incidents over the same period, recorded by Campfire.