AcknowledgmentsThis report have been a success through God’s assistance. China luck program assisted in my data collection. I appreciate the family and the Monitoring and Evaluation Department and the University of Zimbabwe support and encouragement I received throughout the whole research.
Executive summaryIn 2005 the Chinaluck organisation was formed it came as an intervention to help with initiatives to conserve the ecosystem. Hunting safaris are carried out on a tender basis and the winner of a tender is given a contract of at least $500 000. Each year three safaris are done. The community normally receives 10 percent of the revenues from each safari.Human extractive activities in tropical forests (including but not restricted to hunting) are disruptive processes and can trigger numerous, yet not completely understood, mechanisms (compensatory or predation rate changes) or effects (trophic cascade or keystone effects) which will in turn alter, in a more or less significant way, the overall function, structure and composition of the ecosystem (Bennett ; Robinson 2000). Although every organism contributes to ecosystem processes, the nature and magnitude of individual species contributions vary considerably.
Most ecosystem processes are driven by the combined activities of many species. Plant regeneration (loss of pollinators, seed dispersers and seed predators), food webs (loss of top predators or of their prey), and plant diversity (change in herbivory patterns, increased pests) are amongst the various processes dependent upon the presence of fauna. Therefore activities, such as hunting, have the potential to not only impact targeted species but the ecosystem more broadly(Sheil ; Salim, 2004). Hunting like poaching is dangerous to the environment this is why the Chinaluck program was begun to try and protect endangered animals and protect the environment.

Different species, performing similar roles in ecosystem processes and having similar trophic status or life-history constitute what have been termed functional groups (Anstey 2001). Species within these groups such as grazing mammals, large predators, perennial grasses, or nitrogen-fixing microbes are functionally similar despite their uniqueness in genes, life history, and other traits. It is therefore often difficult to determine the relative contributions of a given species to ecosystem processes as several species may contribute in similar ways (Bennett ; Robinson 2000).

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!


order now

Acronyms
M and E -Monitoring and Evaluation
Table of Contents
TOC o “1-3” h z u Acknowledgments PAGEREF _Toc521016724 h iExecutive summary PAGEREF _Toc521016725 h iiAcronyms PAGEREF _Toc521016726 h iiiTable of Contents PAGEREF _Toc521016727 h ivChapter 1 PAGEREF _Toc521016728 h 1Background and Introduction PAGEREF _Toc521016729 h 11.0 Background to the organisation PAGEREF _Toc521016730 h 11.2 Objectives of the study PAGEREF _Toc521016731 h 2Chapter 2 PAGEREF _Toc521016732 h 3Literature review PAGEREF _Toc521016733 h 32.1 The challenge of poaching PAGEREF _Toc521016734 h 32.2 Wildlife utilization PAGEREF _Toc521016735 h 32.3 Value of M and E PAGEREF _Toc521016736 h 4Chapter 3 PAGEREF _Toc521016737 h 5Methodology PAGEREF _Toc521016738 h 53.1 Research Design PAGEREF _Toc521016739 h 53.2 Research methodology PAGEREF _Toc521016740 h 53.3 Mixed method research methodology PAGEREF _Toc521016741 h 53.4 Questionnaires PAGEREF _Toc521016742 h 63.5 Interviews PAGEREF _Toc521016743 h 63.5.1 Focus group interviews PAGEREF _Toc521016744 h 6Chapter 4 PAGEREF _Toc521016745 h 7Presentation and analysis of the findings PAGEREF _Toc521016746 h 74.0 Introduction PAGEREF _Toc521016747 h 7Chapter 4 presents the findings from the research and analysis the data a conclusion and recommendations will be given at the end of the chapter PAGEREF _Toc521016748 h 7Figure 4.1 Number of boreholes sunk for improved habitants of wildlife PAGEREF _Toc521016749 h 7Table 4.3 Increased key species PAGEREF _Toc521016750 h 9Fig 4. 5 Number of reports investigated by the police PAGEREF _Toc521016751 h 114.7 Protected land PAGEREF _Toc521016752 h 124.9 Conclusion and recommendations PAGEREF _Toc521016753 h 15References PAGEREF _Toc521016754 h 15
Chapter 1Background and Introduction1.0 Background to the organisationIn 2005 the Chinaluck organisation was formed it came as an intervention to help with initiatives to conserve the ecosystem. Hunting safaris are carried out on a tender basis and the winner of a tender is given a contract of at least $500 000. Each year three safaris are done. The community normally receives 10 percent of the revenues from each safari.

Human extractive activities in tropical forests (including but not restricted to hunting) are disruptive processes and can trigger numerous, yet not completely understood, mechanisms (compensatory or predation rate changes) or effects (trophic cascade or keystone effects) which will in turn alter, in a more or less significant way, the overall function, structure and composition of the ecosystem (Bennett ; Robinson 2000). Although every organism contributes to ecosystem processes, the nature and magnitude of individual species contributions vary considerably.
Most ecosystem processes are driven by the combined activities of many species. Plant regeneration (loss of pollinators, seed dispersers and seed predators), food webs (loss of top predators or of their prey), and plant diversity (change in herbivory patterns, increased pests) are amongst the various processes dependent upon the presence of fauna. Therefore activities, such as hunting, have the potential to not only impact targeted species but the ecosystem more broadly(Sheil ; Salim, 2004). Hunting like poaching is dangerous to the environment this is why the Chinaluck program was begun to try and protect endangered animals and protect the environment.

Different species, performing similar roles in ecosystem processes and having similar trophic status or life-history constitute what have been termed functional groups (Anstey 2001). Species within these groups such as grazing mammals, large predators, perennial grasses, or nitrogen-fixing microbes are functionally similar despite their uniqueness in genes, life history, and other traits. It is therefore often difficult to determine the relative contributions of a given species to ecosystem processes as several species may contribute in similar ways (Bennett ; Robinson 2000).

However some species or functional groups matter more than others. This becomes especially clear in the case of “keystone species” which are also referred to as “ecosystem engineers” or organisms with high “community importance values.” All these terms refer to species whose loss has a disproportionate impact on the community when compared to the loss of other species (Bennett ; Robinson 2000). Conventional wisdom therefore predicts that as hunters prefer large animals that are often keystone species, the reduction or extirpation of these animals will result in dramatic changes to the ecosystems. Some of these predicted changes have been empirically demonstrated while others have yet to be demonstrated or have so far proved to be inexact (Bennett ; Robinson 2000).
Some examples of keystone species whose removal induced change in ecosystem features are: Top predators (e.g. large cats): their extirpation triggers an uncontrolled growth of the prey population which in turn dramatically increases browsing or grazing intensity to the point where forest regeneration can be totally prevented (Anstey 2001). However, it is also possible that the loss of a predator will be compensated by hunting pressure in which case changes might not be as dramatic as expected (Sheil ; Salim, 2004).

Elephants have a tremendous role in modifying vegetation structure and composition through their feeding habits (differential herbivory, seed dispersal) and movements in the forest (killing a large number of small trees). Two similar forests, one with elephants the other without, show different succession and regeneration patterns as shown by the long term studies in Budongo (no elephants) and Rabongo (large population of elephants) forests (Sheil ; Salim, 2004). Wild pigs (Sus spp., Potamochoerus sp, etc.) and some antelopes are among the most active seed predators.
A significant change in their population densities will have a major effect on seedling survival and forest regeneration. On the other hand, there are some examples where additions or losses of possible keystone species have had, for various reasons, little obvious effect on ecosystem processes, e.g. when another species takes over the ecological niche of a keystone species (Bahuchet and Ioveva 2009). Below shows a picture of elephants that are part of the Chinaluck program

1.2 Objectives of the studyShow the effectiveness of the program in achieving its mandate
Suggest ways in which a proper monitoring and evaluation system can be put in place
Chapter 2Literature review2.1 The challenge of poachingPoaching poses the greatest challenge in efforts to conserve wildlife heritage, especially endangered species such as the rhino and elephant. Some cats, especially leopards, are also targeted by the poachers for their pelts, which are in great demand. Many other animal species are killed either for their skins, trophies, or other parts. Elephants and rhinos are poached for tusks and horns, respectively. The demand is fuelled by the growing market in Asian countries. Prices for tusks and horns are extremely high and thus poaching is tempting, and the number of players involved in the market supply chain is huge (Bennett ; Robinson 2000).

Other species are killed for their meat and a number of them are threatened by unsustainable
Offtake. Antelopes for instance are killed usually for the commercial bush meat trade or for subsistence to provide animal protein to families living in the rural areas. In earlier days, hunter communities used to kill a few animals for food, and because they used crude weapons, wildlife had higher chances of survival by escaping. Then in came the guns and hunters succeeded more than ever before to kill wildlife (Anstey 2001). Using their knowledge of the behaviour of wildlife under different conditions, they devised ingenious methods of killing antelopes en masse. Once meat is obtained it is then transported and sold in town centres where demand is always high. The meat is not always sold openly but customers know where and how to get it and the price is cheap hence more appealing. Conservation education addresses this vice by highlighting the negative aspects of uninspected meat.

2.2 Wildlife utilizationWildlife habitats have shrunk drastically over the last four decades. Wildlife, however, remains an important cog in the tourism industry and up to 80% of safaris in Africa depend on wildlife. Most of the available land is owned by individuals or by groups and very little of
it is trust land. To get more land for wildlife, the people must be involved. In order for them
to share their land with wildlife, they must reap benefits from wildlife. The Chinaluck education program enlightens the landowners on the benefits to be gained through wildlife enterprises. Attitude change has been drastic and many landowners have organized themselves and formed wildlife conservancies which are now benefiting them through ecotourism ventures. Many other small landholders have started game farming that does not require large tracts of land (Anstey 2001). Animals farmed include game birds, crocodiles, tortoises, butterflies, chameleons etc
2.3 Value of M and EIt is Rossi and Freemans (1999) view that most organisations think M and E is unaffordable and it is a burden, this is mostly because these organisations do not realise why M and E is so important. As an initial stage to M and E, it is imperative for an organisation and its employees to comprehend the concept and role it plays in making the organisation more effective and more efficient (Meyer 2002).

If used well M and E can be a strong tool for social change and political change. M and E can help an organisation to assess if its projects and programmes are making any difference at all (Kusek and Rist 2004). M and E helps to assess if the project has been useful in achieving its goals on people’s lives. M and E helps improve how groups function and how they operate as an organisation. Things like what would bring results and what would not, barriers and successes are all revealed through M and E (UNDP 2007). M and e is important because it ensures accountability within in the organisation, it evaluates those things that would bring positive results for the company versus those things that do not and can influence policies made by the government (Australian Government 2000). M and E is based on lessons learning therefore lessons are shared between the community and with other similar projects. M and e also helps to state clearly set indicators, goals and outcomes. This is important because it helps everyone who is part of the project to keep checking for any adverse effects that may be affecting the project (MCA-N 2011).

Chapter 3Methodology3.1 Research Design
Leedy (1997:195) defines research design as a plan for a study, providing the overall framework for collecting data. MacMillan and Schumacher (2001:166) define it as a plan for selecting subjects, research sites, and data collection procedures to answer the research question(s). They further indicate that the goal of a sound research design is to provide results that are judged to be credible. For Durrheim (2004:29), research design is a strategic framework for action that serves as a bridge between research questions and the execution, or implementation of the research strategy. The study will use a qualitative research design.

3.2 Research methodology
Schwardt (2007:195) defines research methodology as a theory of how an inquiry should proceed. It involves analysis of the assumptions, principles and procedures in a particular approach to inquiry. According to Schwardt (2007), Creswell and Tashakkori (2007), and Teddlie and Tashakkori (2007), methodologies explicate and define the kinds of problems that are worth investigating; what constitutes a researchable problem; testable hypotheses; how to frame a problem in such a way that it can be investigated using particular designs and procedures; and how to select and develop appropriate means of collecting data. The study will use a mixed method research methodology that is qualitative and quantitative research methodology.

3.3 Mixed method research methodology
This study adopted a mixed methods research approach. Kemper, Springfield and Teddlie (2003) define mixed methods design as a method that includes both qualitative and quantitative data collection and analysis in parallel form (concurrent mixed method design in which two types of data are collected and analysed in sequential form). Bazely (2003) defines this method as the use of mixed data (numerical and text) and alternative tools (statistics and analysis), but apply the same method. It is a type of research in which a researcher uses the qualitative research paradigm for one phase of a study and a quantitative research paradigm for another phase of the study.
Burke and Onwuegbuzie (2005:1) indicate that mixed methods research is a natural complement to using either of the traditional qualitative or quantitative research methods in isolation. They view it as the class of research where the researcher combines or mixes qualitative and quantitative research techniques, methods, approaches, concepts or language in a single study. On the philosophical level, according to Burke et al. (2005), mixed methods research is a ?third wave, or third research movement that moves past paradigm wars by offering a logical and practical alternative.
Creswell, Fetters and Ivankova (2004:7) argue that mixed methods research is more than simply collecting both qualitative and quantitative data; it implies that data are integrated, related, or mixed at some stage of the research process. They further indicate that the underlying logic to mixing is that neither qualitative nor quantitative methods are sufficient in themselves to capture the trends and details of the situation…when used in combination, both qualitative and quantitative data yield a more complete analysis, and they complement each other. In pursuit of the same argument regarding the logic of mixed methods research, Johnson and Onwuegbuzi (2004:17) indicate that mixed methods research includes the use of induction which refers to the discovery of patterns, deduction which involves testing theories and hypotheses, and abduction which refers to uncovering and relying on the best set of explanations for understanding one’s results.
3.4 Questionnaires
A questionnaire is a form containing a set of questions, especially addressed to a statistically significant number of subjects, and is a way of gathering information for a survey. It is used to collect statistical information or opinions about people. The Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary (1997:952) defines a questionnaire as a written or printed list of questions to be answered by a number of people, especially as part of a survey.
For the purpose of this study, the questionnaire formed my second data collection method and its content was guided by the literature reviewed. The questionnaire was administered to the 30 participants who were part of the Chinaluck program.
3.5 InterviewsSeale, Giampietro, Gubrium and Silverman (2004) define an interview as a social encounter where speakers collaborate in producing retrospective and prospective accounts or versions of their past or future actions, experiences, feelings and thoughts. Two types of interviews were used in this study, namely focus group interviews and structured interviews.
3.5.1 Focus group interviews
According to Rabiee (2004:655), a focus group is “…a technique involving the use of in-depth group interviews in which participants are selected because they are a purposive, although not necessarily representative sampling of a specific population, this group being focused on a given topic.? Lewis (2000) defines a focus group interview as a “…carefully planned discussion designed to obtain perceptions in a defined area of interest in a permissive, non-threatening environment”. According to Lewis (2000), this type of interview will yield both a more diversified array of responses, and afford a more extended basis for designing systematic research into the situation at hand.
The focus group interview can be used for a variety of reasons or to achieve a myriad of objectives in research. According to Stewart and Shamdasani (1990), focus group interviews can be used to obtain general background information about a topic of interest for generating research hypotheses that can be submitted to further research and testing using more quantitative approaches; to stimulate new ideas and creative concepts; to learn how respondents talk about the phenomenon of interest which may facilitate quantitative research tools; and to interpret previously obtained qualitative results.
Chapter 4Presentation and analysis of the findings4.0 IntroductionChapter 4 presents the findings from the research and analysis the data a conclusion and recommendations will be given at the end of the chapterFigure 4.1 Number of boreholes sunk for improved habitants of wildlife

In both Hwange and Gokwe only two boreholes each in that area where sunk making those areas the places with the least number of boreholes. 5 Boreholes were sunk in Gwanda, Gokwe had 2 boreholes sunk and Beitbridge had 3 boreholes sunk. The total of boreholes sunk was 15, the boreholes had different carrying capacities.

Table 4.2 Location of boreholes and their capacity
District Carrying capacity (ml) Location
Gokwe 40
22 Sasati
Gadata
Gwanda 20
33
31
14
19 Garanyemba
Tuli
Ntalale
Ntepe
Guyu
Beitbridge 22
33
17 Wenimbe
Mitebi
Satambi
Hwange 27
13 Mlambi
Batela
Muzarabani 34
25
43 Muzambara
Manana
Gobvu
In Gwanda boreholes were sunk in Garanyemba, Tuli, Ntalale, Ntepe and Guyu. In Beitbridge boreholes were sunk in Wenimbe, Mitebi and Satambi. Hwange has the least carrying capacity as compared to the other Districts. Hwange had the highest carrying capacity of boreholes followed by Muzarabani.

Table 4.3 Increased key speciesSpecies

Initial count Last count
Male Female Total Male Female Total
Leopard 97 250 347 357 3478 3835
Elephant 2456 2456 5600 4398 10 000
Rhino 200 200 1245
White Rhino 123 421 Black Rhino 477 The white Rhino numbered 123 males at the last count and 421 females at the last count. The black rhino were 477 at the last count. All the species are increasing elephants have the highest numbers when comparing with the leopard, white rhino and black rhino. The female leopards are more than the male leopards at the last count with female leopards 3478 and male leopards 357.

Figure 4.4 the amount of revenues by communities

In August 2011 41, 876, 34 was generated in revenue by the community, in August 2010 28,234, 32 was generated in revenue by the community. In November 2007 23, 156, 90 was generated in revenue by the community from the Chinaluck project. In November 2010 13 343,87 was generated as part of community revenue from the Chinaluck project. When looking at the totals in revenues that were generated since the project begun it reveals a huge increase each year although they were some declines in 2010 which later picked up in 2011 showing a great improvement in revenue generated by the project.

Fig 4. 5 Number of reports investigated by the police

Poaching poses the greatest challenge in efforts to conserve wildlife heritage, especially endangered species such as the rhino and elephant. Some cats, especially leopards, are also targeted by the poachers for their pelts, which are in great demand. Many other animal species are killed either for their skins, trophies, or other parts. Elephants and rhinos are poached for tusks and horns, respectively. The figure above shows that cases of poaching decreased from 126 cases in 2006 to 23 cases in 2010, this shows that the program has had a positive impact on fighting poachers.
Fig 4. 6 Maize yields (tons per ha)

A total of 452 in maize tons per ha was generated from 2009-2014. In 2009 there was 56 tons per ha and it rose in 2010 to 67 tons per ha. The figure kept increasing until it got to 99 tons per ha in 2014. The figure above reflects that in 2010 there was a rapid increase in maize yield, however a sharp decline was experienced in 2011 of 62 t per ha which later increased to 99 in 2014
4.7 Protected land,
Many other small landholders have started game farming that does not require large tracts of land. Animals farmed include game birds, crocodiles, tortoises, butterflies, chameleons etc . In 2010 considerable amount of land was protected but reduced in 2011 to 279 000kms. In 2012 there was an unprecedented decrease on secured land to 120 000.
.

Table 4.8 Shows the budget and expenditure on the Conservation and Development Project
2011 2012 2013 2014
Conservation & Development Project ACTUAL BUDGET ACTUAL BUDGET ACTUAL BUDGET ACTUAL BUDGET
610 Field Staff Salaries 28,000 20,000 38,000 31,000 36,000 33,000 45,000 34,000
620 Project Housing 6,900 8,000 4,800 5,000 5,760 5,500 3 600 5,000
630 Water Supply 5,000 3,000 5,000 4,000 5,000 3,500 4,000 3,000
640 Landowner Education 2,000 3,000 900 1,500 2.100 3,000 400 1,000
660 School Fee Subsidies 1,500 2,000 1,200 2,000 1,500 2,000 800 2,000
670 Project Travel 1,450 1,000 2,000 1,000 3,000 3,000 4,000 2,000
680 Project materials & supplies 2,000 3,000 2,500 3,000 2,400 3,000 1,600 3,000
Total Conservation & Development Project 46,850 40,000 54,400 47,500 55,760 53,000 59,400 50,000
School fees subsidies have been the only cost on the budget were the actual amount used has been below the budgeted amount this shows that the project was not using all the school fees subsidies allocated to it through the budget. The genuine utilization on the project hotel and field staff pay rates were much more than the budgeted utilize. Under such condition, thus the spending lines are most likely going to be negatively impacted.
4.9 Conclusion and recommendations
Maize yields from the projects have been increasing this shows a positive outlook. Other positive outcomes from the program, the harvest yield, income from hunting safaris and animal species expanded as noted.
The community has been able to generate a lot of revenue from the Chinaluck there is records of incomes which were given to the communities with a specific end goal to increase proceeding with support from the group since they need to know the amount they picked up from the program and this keeps the program going.
The program has been overspending and its budget is not favorable or positive. There is need for a revision on spending above budgeted amount. Spending should be amended keeping in mind the end goal to forestall under spending or over spending.
To enhance execution there is requirement for continuous, satisfactory and exact information accumulation routinely.

ReferencesAnstey, S. (2001). Wildlife utilization in Liberia. Wildlife survey report. World Wildlife Fund and Liberian Forestry Development Authority, Gland, Switzerland.

Asibey, E.A.O. and Child, G. (2001) Wildlife management for rural development in sub-Saharan Africa. Nature et Faune 7 : 36-47.

Aunger, R. (2002). An ethnography of variation: food avoidance among horticulturalists and foragers in the Ituri forest, Zaire. PhD, University of California, Los Angeles.

Auzel, P. (2001). Les villes en forêt : impact de l’exploitation forestière sur la gestion coutumière des ressources naturelles. Pp. 235-251 in Delvingt W. (Ed.) La forêt des hommes : Terroirs villageois en forêt tropicale africaine. Les Presses Agronomiques de Gembloux, Gembloux.

Auzel, P. and Wilkie, D.S. (2000). Wildlife Use in Northern Congo: Hunting in a Commercial Logging
Concession. In J.G. Robinson and E.L. Bennett, eds(2015). Hunting for Sustainability in Tropical Forests, pp. 413- 426. New York: Columbia University Press.

Aviram, R., Bass, M. and Parker, K. (2003). Extracting Hope for Bushmeat: Case studies of oil, gas, mining and logging industry efforts for improved wildlife management. 57p, in Uncertain Future: the Bushmeat Crisis in Africa, Bushmeat Crisis Task Force.

Bahuchet, S. and Ioveva K. (2009). De la forêt au marché : le commerce de gibier au sud Cameroun. Pp 533- 558 in L’homme et la forêt tropicale. S. Bahuchet, D. Bley, H. Pagezy and N. Vernazza-Licht (Eds). Travaux Société Ecologie Humaine, Paris.

Bailey, N. 2000. Global and Historical Perspectives on Market Hunting: Implications for the African Bushmeat Crisis. Sustainable Development and Conservation Biology, University of Maryland and Bushmeat Crisis Task Force, Silver Spring, Maryland.

Bailey, R.C. and Peacock, N.R. (2008). Efe pygmies of northeast Zaire: subsistence strategies in the Ituri forest. In Uncertainty in the Food Supply (eds I.de Garine and G.A. Harrison), pp. 88-117. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Bennett, B.C. (2002). Forest products and traditional peoples: Economic, biological, and cultural considerations. Natural Resources Forum 26 (4): 293-301.

Bennett, E.L. and Robinson, J.G. (2000). Hunting of Wildlife in Tropical Forests. Implications for Biodiversity and Forest Peoples. Biodiversity Series, Impact Studies, Paper no 76, The World Bank Environment Department, Washington D.C.

Bennett, E.L. and Rao, M. (2002). Wild meat consumption in Asian tropical forest countries: is this a glimpse of the future for Africa? In Links between Biodiversity, Conservation, Livelihoods and Food Security: The Sustainable Use of Wild Species for Meat (Mainka, S. and Trivedi, M., eds) pp. 39–44, IUCN.

Bodmer, R.E., Fang, T.G. and Moya, L. (2004). Managing wildlife to conserve Amazonian forests: population biology and economic considerations of game hunting. Biological Conservation 67: 29-35.

Bodmer, R.E., Eisenberg, J.F., and Redford, K.H., (2007). Hunting and the likelihood of extinction of Amazonian mammals. Conservation Biology 11 (2):460-466.

Bowen-Jones, E., Brown, D. Robinson E. (2002). Assessment of the solution-orientated research needed to promote a more sustainable Bushmeat Trade in Central and West Africa. Report for the DEFRA (ex-
DETR) Wildlife & Countryside Directorate (2000). Fauna & Flora International, National Resource Institute, ODI,