Contemporary Socio-Economic Determinants of Cattle Ownership by Farmers Living at the Edge of Protected Areas: A Case of Hwange Rural Ward Fifteen, Zimbabwe

Abstract

This paper presents socio-economic determinants of cattle ownership in Hwange District, focusing primarily on Ward 15, located adjacent to Hwange National park and Sikumi Forest Reserve. The study utilised both quantitative and qualitative approaches. Quantitative data were collected using structured questionnaires which were administered to cattle owners only, (N=114). Focus Group Discussions and Key Informant Interviews were used to collect qualitative data and further insights on cattle ownership. Analysed data shows that age is a major determinant of cattle ownership. Other important socio-economic variables such as ethnicity, religion and traditional beliefs such as status, power and respectall associated with wealth in society emerged as some of the socio-economic determinates of cattle ownership. Apart from provision of grazing and other forms of pasture, the edge presents serious challenges to livestock ownership because of zoonotic diseases from wildlife and predation, as well as underdeveloped state supported veterinary services and output markets for cattle. Knowledge of zoonosis and risks associated with driving cattle into protected areas needs to be expanded if local herders, especially those within the highest cattle owning age group, are to benefit from improved prices and health cattle. Keywords; protected areas, livestock management, socio economic determinants, decision making THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HUMANITIES & SOCIAL STUDIES ISSN 2321 9203 www.theijhss.com 248 Vol 7 Issue 6 DOI No.: 10.24940/theijhss/2019/v7/i6/HS1906-041 June, 2019 al., (2012). Cattle markets have long been a main way of investing capital for people living in the communal lands of Zimbabwe (Giller et al., 2013). Cattle also serve as an indication of one’s wealth status or status symbols (Chimonyo et al., 1999; Ndebele et al., 2007). Cattle also play a pivotal role in socio-cultural function such as bride price or lobola payments and conciliation of ancestors. Mavedzenge et al., (2006) adds that cattle can also be exchanged or loaned to neighbours to enhance relationship ties. Building and strengthening of social networks can also be realised through cattle ownership and management strategies. Betterncourt (2013) defines social capital as about the value of social networks bonding similar people and bridging between diverse people with norms of reciprocity. Many poor households either share or loan cattle with neighbors and relatives. In case of absentee owners, the remaining family members can keep livestock. Livestock social functions correspond to the symbolic values associated with other animals for the fulfillment of a set of rituals and social responsibility of families and communities. Livestock gives social status when it demonstrates wealth. Grahn & Leyland (2005) argued that economic status is realised when cattle facilitate the access to informal credits and loans to the households. Cattle are also used in traditional rituals, ceremonies and festivals and are given as a gift in church, for example, installation of ancestral spirits, ritual slaughter, and bride wealth. In addition, some cultures consider certain animals to be sacred for example cattle in India and in others cultures particularly Muslims animals such as pigs are impure (Ouma et al., 2003). Livestock ownership in sub Saharan Africa is deeply rooted in culture, Rwelamira et al., (1999). Thus, the control of household livestock is culture and context specific. Traditional men are responsible for keeping and selling of large animals such as cows among other animals whilst women claims control over small livestocks such as goats, pigs and poultry. Decisions to manage these livestock also follow suit. However, according to Heffernan (2004), livestock ownership involves costs for the poor farmers such as high expenditures for animal healthcare for those that own and keep livestock. In countries such as Tanzania, Zambia and Malawi, women involvement in cattle ownership is limited but they do have access to animal power for cultivation limiting through hiring and borrowing which may obstruct production (Heffernan 2004). Widows, divorced and abandoned women lose the right to livestock through patriachical inheritance systems and are accordingly economically and culturally marginalized (Van Dach et al., 2007). McLeod (2001) argues that age is importance when it comes to cattle ownership. He further comments that young men who have not reached thirty years rarely own livestock as they still under responsibility of their parents. Older men over the age of sixty-five are the ones that own most livestock. Ncube et al (1992) comments that men over sixty-five years, when given retirement packages they buy cattle as a form of investment. Women will then inherit their husband’s cattle and will be responsible for decision making processes concerning that livestock. Anderson et al., (2013) note that many people living on the boundary of protected wildlife areas now find themselves residing in newly designated Trans Frontier Conservation Areas (TFCAs), but with little clue as to what it actually means. With conservation in these areas still ill defined, they continue to live on the wildlife frontier and are exposed to the risks that come with it. Making a living on the fringe of Protected Areas can be unsafe business as it is often dependent on the low and erratic rainfall that usually characterises these areas. There is risk of crop destruction and loss of livestock to wild predators or diseases and even loss of human life to wildlife as the boundaries of Protected Areas are permeable to various degrees. Disease transmission is arguably one of the major obstacles to the coexistence of wildlife and livestock in sub Saharan Africa (Bourn & Blench, 1999). Movements of both humans and animals occur across the boundaries of Protected Areas often driven by resource gradients. Generally, wildlife livestock interaction has been defined as the direct or indirect contact of wildlife and livestock with transmission of pathogens bi-directionally between wildlife and livestock (Bengis et al., 2002). The livestock wildlife interface can be classified as linear, that is along a fence, or patchy reflecting habit preferences of a disease host, at shared water and grazing points and such cases are popular in savannah ecosystems of Africa. Cleaveland, (2006) asserts that the transmission of disease pathogens can be indirect. Wildlife and livestock behaviours in terms of feeding are different whereby wildlife tends to avoid contact with livestock and humans for example Anderson et al (2013) posits that, buffaloes and other wildlife are observed at night and early in the morning watering and grazing exactly where livestock are observed at different times. This entails that disease transmission is not always direct physical interaction but can be due to indirect contact through the soil, forage, and water with which the other animal has had contact and left discharges such as urine, saliva. Faeces, nasal or ocular discharge or through common insect vectors (Fenner 1982). Community based animal health systems for instance, have been advocated as improving the livelihoods of secluded, marginalised and undeserved livestock keeping communities, through improved productivity and access to markets (Grahn & Leyland, 2005). The current schemes implemented regarding livestock health, including vaccinations, acaricide treatments or other prophylactic actions, do not address local priorities as perceived by livestock keepers themselves. Keeley & Scoones (2003) argue that this is largely because livestock disease management is driven by government veterinary services at the national level, which often concentrate their limited resources on control of transboundary animal diseases to allow international trade, which is regulated by policies negotiated at the international level. Relations between wildlife and domestic animals present challenges in the livestock industry worldwide, particularly in East and Southern Africa where many communities are closer to the wildlife areas, Cleaveland et al., (2006). Rural poverty has been increased due to the spread of diseases from wildlife to domestic animals, which has declined livestock production, and this has often caused conflicts between people and wildlife especially over the issue of boundaries created to demarcate communities from wildlife-reserved areas (Mutambanvumi, 2006). The Ngorongoro conservation area in Tanzania is one example where the Masai cattle had to be moved away from main grazing lands in the short grass plains to THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HUMANITIES & SOCIAL STUDIES ISSN 2321 9203 www.theijhss.com 249 Vol 7 Issue 6 DOI No.: 10.24940/theijhss/2019/v7/i6/HS1906-041 June, 2019 avoid malignant catarrhal fever, which is transmitted from wild beasts’ calves. However, this change has caused pressure on the highland ecosystems and exacerbated tick-borne diseases (Field et al 1997). Communities adjacent to Serengeti National Park in Tanzania present an inverse association between livestock ownership and involvement in game meat hunting. Game meat from livestock development programs could be a source of protein in these areas to avoid the demand for wildlife meat but the production of livestock is much constrained by the transmission of diseases from wildlife such as trypanosomiasis (IFAD, 1995). Livestock predation by wildlife, especially lions, hyenas and leopards play a significant role in cattle ownership by farmers living at the edge of protected areas (Anderson & Wichatitsky et al., 2013). The above review points attest to the existence of multiple drivers of cattle ownership at the edge. A fairly recent study shows that the macro-economic environment plays a significant role in cattle ownership by people living at the buffer of protected areas (Zishiri 2012). The study found out cattle owners failed to sustain large herds because