Development of transfrontier conservation areas (TFCAs) in southern Africa depends, among other, on
the ability of stakeholders to find practical and sustainable solutions for wildlife‐livestock integration in
the conservation landscape. Due to the presence of buffalo Syncerus caffer in most of the TFCAs in
southern Africa, foot‐and‐mouth disease (FMD) has to be controlled in susceptible livestock species
sharing the rangelands with wildlife. Conventional FMD control measures act as an additional burden
on communal livestock producers and may hamper rural development and wildlife‐livestock integration
even further. However, commodity‐based trade in the form of an integrated approach to the control
of both food safety and disease risk along the entire beef value chain has been proposed as a more
favourable alternative for ensuring market access for beef produced at the wildlife‐livestock interface.
Such a non‐geographic based approach could allow for trade to continue despite high risk of FMD if
appropriate disease risk and food safety measures are implemented by farmers and subsequent role
players along the value chain and hence, could promote greater wildlife‐livestock compatibility.
The objective of the present study was to analyse beef production, health and trade systems of farmers
at the wildlife‐livestock interface within foot‐and‐mouth disease (FMD) protection zones in order to
identify challenges, risks and limitations that may limit compliance with proposed commodity‐based
trade prerequisites as well as value chain participation. Based on the findings of this study a holistic,
integrated approach is proposed at the village level that could be implemented to serve as an incentive
for equitable participation by farmers whilst 1) addressing the risks and limitations of a farming system,
2) ensuring greater wildlife‐livestock compatibility, and 3) promote consistent market access by fulfilling
the requirements of an integrated value chain approach based on commodity‐based trade standards.
A farming systems approach was used to investigate beef production, health and trade systems in FMD
protection zones mainly within the Zambezi Region (ZR) of Namibia, which is situated within the KAZA
TFCA (Kavango‐Zambezi Transfrontier Conservation Area), but also the Mnisi study area (MSA) in South Africa adjacent to the Great Limpopo Transfrontier Conservation Area (GLTFCA). A combined qualitative
and quantitative approach was used to assess and describe farmers’ perceptions in selected study areas
about beef production, trade, and wildlife conservation. Secondary data obtained from state veterinary
services, the Meatco abattoir in Katima Mulilo, as well as previous studies were analysed and modelled
to describe spatial‐temporal trends in trade as well as cattle distribution in relation to resource
availability.
The results indicate that beef production systems in some of the most remote areas of the ZR as well
as in the MSA resemble a typical low‐input low‐output production system, mainly due to the high level
of risk farmers had to cope with and the limited opportunity to offset losses. The major challenges
within livestock farming in all the areas studied were animal diseases, grazing competition, predation,
stock theft and contact with wildlife, although the importance of each varied between study areas.
Herd size effect in the MSA significantly explained the variation in attitude towards trade, production
and management of cattle between farmers with below average and farmers with above average herd
sizes. In the MSA, home slaughter contributed significantly more to direct household food security in
households with larger herd sizes than in households with smaller herd sizes, and in the ZR farmers with
smaller herd sizes were discouraged from participation in formal trade.
The attitudes and perceptions of farmers In the ZR towards wildlife and conservation often varied
between survey areas as a consequence of the variation in the geophysical properties of the landscape,
proximity to conservation areas, as well as the form of the interface with conservation areas. The
perceived spatial‐temporal movement of buffalo varied between survey areas in the ZR. However, the
frequency and nature of buffalo‐cattle interaction was generally high and intimate. Most farmers
associated buffalo with risk of disease, especially FMD, but some were more concerned about grazing
competition and the negative effect on husbandry practises. Farmers readily deployed traditional risk
mitigation tactics in the form of kraaling at night and herding at day to control the movement of their
animals and to reduce risks. Herding was found to be a potential strategy to specifically mitigate cattlebuffalo
contact despite the lack of evidence that an overall strategic approach to herding exist. Although
the majority of farmers in the ZR were in favour of conservation and its benefits, the negative impact
of increasing wildlife numbers on farmers’ attitudes was an indication that the generally positive
sentiment was changing and may in future deter conservation efforts.
Indications are that the cattle population in the ZR at its estimated density and distribution had reached
the ecological capacity of the natural resource base in the ZR and animal performance and survival was
therefore subjected to increased variability in resource availability linked to climate change. The cattle
population’s existence at ecological capacity and the inability of farmers to offset the loss of condition in the dry season with supplementary feed were reflected in the changes in carcass quality and grades
across seasons. However, there was sufficient forage produced in the ZR to sustain animal performance
to some extent throughout the year, but those areas with surplus forage existed beyond the assumed
grazing range around villages and perennial rivers where most cattle and wildlife concentrate. The
future ability of farmers to access such underutilised grazing resources in order to strategically counter
the negative consequences of climate change and growing wildlife numbers could be an important
coping and risk management mechanism linked to commodity‐based trade and sustained animal
quality.
Regular FMD outbreaks had a significant impact on the consistency with which the Meatco abattoir in
the ZR operated between the years 2007‐2011, with negative consequences to both farmers and the
abattoir itself. It was found that the formal trade system in the ZR discriminated against farmers with
below average herd sizes, and that the disposition held by farmers with smaller herd sizes are most
significant in areas further than approximately 55km away from quarantine camps. Vegetation type and
possible contact with buffalo or previous FMD outbreaks in the area did not significantly affect market
participation nor off‐take rates at a crush‐pen level in the ZR. The negative effect that distance from a
quarantine station had on formal off‐take rate and the level of sales to Meatco at crush‐pen level, was
the most significant in the winter months and crush‐pens situated beyond 55km from a quarantine
station. The results indicate that the trade range of the Meatco abattoir was less than its trade threshold
which contributed to its struggle to sustain throughput and profitability.
Finally the loss of income farmers experienced in both the ZR and the MSA during simultaneous FMD
outbreaks in the year 2012 was quantified, as well as the impact it had on livelihoods in the ZR. A
commodity‐based trade approach may have reduced the impact on farmers’ income significantly.
However, we farmers are unable to comply with the proposed requirements for mitigating risk and
ensuring food safety and quality in such communal systems in the absence of interventions to build the
necessary capacity and awareness. It is recommended that at the wildlife‐livestock interface such as
those investigated in this study, an integrated value chain approach to trade could serve as a catalyst
to incentivise and enable farmer participation in holistic, integrated rangeland and livestock
management practises that will promote conservation and rural development.
