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.

Page 8 of 12
| Previous | Next |