community based natural resource management ...

COMMUNITY BASED NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT: STOCKTAKING ASSESSMENT ZAMBIA PROFILE

AUGUST 2011 This publication was produced for review by the United States Agency for International Development. It was prepared by DAI in collaboration with World Wildlife Fund, Inc. (WWF).

COMMUNITY BASED NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT: STOCKTAKING ASSESSMENT ZAMBIA PROFILE

Program Title:

Capitalizing Knowledge, Connecting Communities Program (CK2C)

Sponsoring USAID Office:

USAID/Office of Acquisition and Assistance

Contract Number:

EPP-I-00-06-00021-00/01

Contractor:

DAI

Date of Publication:

August 2010

Author:

Vincent R. Nyirenda

Collaborating Partner:

COPASSA project implemented by World Wildlife Fund, Inc. (WWF); Associate Cooperative Agreement Number: EPP-A-00-00004-00; Leader with Associate Award Number:LAG-A-00-99-00048-00

The authors’ views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of the United States Agency for International Development or the United States Government.

Cover photo Successful community-based dam fishery in Southern Province. Courtesy of M. Mbewe

CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS......................................................................V ABBREVIATIONS .............................................................................VII EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ....................................................................IX 1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................. 1 1.1 BACKGROUND ................................................................................. 1 1.2 TERMS OF REFERENCE .................................................................... 2 2. ASSIGNMENT METHODOLOGY ................................................... 3 2.1 METHODS ........................................................................................ 3 2.2 STUDY LIMITATIONS ........................................................................ 3 PART 1: HISTORY AND CURRENT STATUS OF CBNRM ............... 5 3. HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE OF CBNRM IN ZAMBIA ................. 5 3.1 GENESIS AND EVOLUTION OF CBNRM............................................. 5 3.2 SCALE OF CBNRM PROGRAM ....................................................... 15 4. IMPACTS OF CBNRM ACTIVITIES TO DATE............................. 21 4.1 CHANGES IN RIGHTS TO BENEFIT FROM NATURAL RESOURCES ...... 21 4.2 CHANGES TO THE NATURAL RESOURCE BASE AND ASSOCIATED TRENDS .............................................................................................. 26 4.3 CHANGES IN GOVERNANCE, RURAL REPRESENTATION AND ADVOCACY .................................................................................. 30 4.5 CONTRIBUTIONS TO NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT PRIORITIES AND PROGRAMS .................................................................................. 37 PART 2: ANALYSIS AND FUTURE ORIENTATIONS ..................... 39 5. ENABLING CONDITIONS ............................................................ 39 6. LESSONS LEARNED ................................................................... 41 NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND MONITORING ........................ 41 GOVERNANCE ..................................................................................... 42 BENEFITS GENERATION AND MANAGEMENT ......................................... 43

COMMUNITY BASED NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT: STOCKTAKING ASSESSMENT: ZAMBIA PROFILE

i

7. BEST PRACTICES ....................................................................... 45 WITH RESPECT TO NATURAL RESOURCES ............................................ 45 WITH RESPECT TO ECONOMIC BENEFITS AND LIVELIHOODS ................... 45 WITH RESPECT GOVERNANCE AND RIGHTS ........................................... 46 8. SCALING UP................................................................................. 47 HOW TO EXPAND THE IMPACT AND SCOPE OF CBNRM ......................... 47 GEOGRAPHIC AREAS TO TARGET ......................................................... 48 9. CHALLENGES AND BARRIERS CONFRONTING CBNRM PROGRAMS...................................................................................... 49 10. LINKS TO NATIONAL DEVLOPMENT PRIORITIES AND PROGRAMS...................................................................................... 53 POVERTY ALLEVIATION AND MDGS ..................................................... 53 ECONOMIC GROWTH ............................................................................ 53 COMBATING LAND DEGRADATION ........................................................ 53 CLIMATE CHANGE ADAPTATION AND MITIGATION .................................. 53 FOOD SECURITY .................................................................................. 54 11. OPPORTUNITIES FOR STRENGTHENING CONTRIBUTIONS TO NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT PRIORITIES AND PROGRAMS . 55 12. RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................... 57 13. SUMMARY, SYNTHESIS AND CONCLUSION .......................... 59 14. REFERENCES ............................................................................ 61 ANNEX A: STATEMENT OF WORK ................................................ 65 ANNEX B: CBNRM PROFILE QUESTIONNAIRE (FOR CK2C CBNRM STUDY) ............................................................................... 71 ANNEX C: PERSONS & INSTITUTIONS CONTACTED .................. 75 ANNEX D: CASE STUDY SUMMARIES .......................................... 77 ANNEX E: CRB LOCATIONS AND ESTABLISHMENT DATES ..... 83 ANNEX F: FOREST AREAS............................................................. 85 ANNEX G: ESTIMATED AREAS OF FORESTS, JOINT FOREST MANAGEMENT AREAS, GMAS, AND NATIONAL PARKS ........... 97 ii


TABLES AND FIGURES TABLE 1

Geographical Extent of CBNRM in GMAs ................................................................. 15

2

Areas of National Parks ............................................................................................ 16

3

Areas of Fisheries ..................................................................................................... 18

4

Human Population in Fishery Areas Between 1996 and 2008 .................................. 18

5

Estimated 1999 Population Trends of Selected Species of Game Hunted During Licensed Safaris in six ADMADE Hunting Units ............................................ 27

6

Average yield (kg/ha) by Small-Scale Farmers in Zambia ........................................ 30

FIGURE 1

Operational Definition of CBNRM ............................................................................... 1

2

Revenue Sharing Framework under ADMADE ........................................................... 8

3

Elements of an Effective Community-Based Forest Management Program in Africa ..................................................................................................................... 13

4

Institutional Malaise in the Fisheries Sector .............................................................. 13

5

Location of CRBs, GMAs and National Parks ........................................................... 17

6

Map of Key Fisheries ................................................................................................ 19

7

Joint Forest Management Areas and Non Joint Forest Management Areas ............ 20

8

Hunting Revenue Sharing Framework ...................................................................... 23

9

Strategies for Improving Access to, and Use of NWFPs ........................................... 25

10

Wildlife population estimates for South Luangwa National Park and the Adjacent Lupande GMA Between 1994-2006 ........................................................... 27

11

Annual production estimates in eleven fisheries ....................................................... 29

12

CRB Formation and Growth Number of functional CRBs between 1999 and 2009 ............................................... 32

13

Details of Community Revenue Disbursements between 2001 and 2009 ................ 35


iii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The stocktaking process was spearheaded by the CK2C project (implemented by Development Alternatives, Inc.). In particular, Mr. Tom Erdmann played a very useful role in guiding the process of developing the Zambia CBNRM profile. Funding for the exercise was made available by USAID and the assignment was conducted in collaboration with the COPASSA project. A number of stakeholders – too many to name – were consulted and generously provided input and materials that have been invaluable for the formulation of the Zambia CBNRM profile. In particular, Mr. G. Mushinge developed and provided the illustrative maps for CBNRM units.


v

ABBREVIATIONS ADC

Area Development Committee

ADMADE

Administrative Management Design Program for Game Management Areas

CBNRM

Community-Based Natural Resource Management

CBE

Community-Based Enterprise

CBO

Community-Based Organization

CFU

Conservation Farming Unit

CK2C

Capitalizing Knowledge, Connecting Communities

COMACO

Community Markets for Conservation

COPASSA

Conservation Partnerships for Sustainability in Southern Africa

CRB

Community Resources Board

DAI

Development Alternatives, Inc.

DANIDA

Danish International Development Agency

FMC

Fisheries Management Committee

GMA

Game Management Area

HIV/AIDS

Human Immunodeficiency Virus/Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome

IGA

Income Generating Activity

ILUA

Integrated Land Use Assessment

JFMA

Joint Forest Management Area

JFMC

Joint Forest Management Committee

LLC

Local Leaders Committee

LIRDP

Luangwa Integrated Resource Development Project

MDG

Millennium Development Goal

MOMS

Management Oriented Monitoring System

NGO

Non-Governmental Organization

NPWS

National Parks and Wildlife Service

NWFP

Non-Wood Forest Product


vii

SLAMU

South Luangwa Area Management Unit

TFCA

Trans-Frontier Conservation Area

VAG

Village Action Group

VDC

Village Development Committee

VMC

Village Management Committee

VRMC

Village Resource Management Committee

USAID

United States Agency for International Development

WCRF

Wildlife Conservation Revolving Fund

WCS

Wildlife Conservation Society

WMA

Wildlife Management Authority

WWF

World Wide Fund for Nature

ZAWA

Zambia Wildlife Authority

ZMC

Zonal Management Committee

viii


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Zambia community-based natural resource management (CBNRM) profile presents a review of CBNRM in the country, taking into account its genesis and how it has evolved over the past three decades. It specifically attempts to quantify CBNRM impacts (focusing on the effectiveness of CBNRM delivery), as well as the scale of CBNRM interventions. The profile also elucidates enabling conditions, key lessons, and associated challenges, barriers and threats. Enabling conditions consisted of policy and other changes that led to the observed impacts. Lessons were defined as actions that produced superior results, and thus merit replication, or those that have produced negative results and thus need to be avoided in the future. Best practices have also been documented; these comprised the best methods of implementing CBNRM that led to a healthy natural resource base and increased revenues for communitybased organizations or community-based enterprises and their beneficiaries. From a research platform in the Luangwa Valley of Zambia (1979-1984), CBNRM was projected into practical applications. As a complementary approach to “command and control,” CBNRM has sought to explore community collective action models that include co-management, participatory, collaborative, and community-based management models across natural resource landscapes. As a result of conducive policy and legislation, as well as support from cooperating partners and local governance systems, CBNRM produced positive results. The impacts include partial devolution of rights, responsibilities and power, as well as freedom of choice and representation at local levels. Local communities also played a role in active management of natural resources. Though devolution of rights, responsibilities and power has been partially achieved, there is a need for further advocacy in this area in order to unlock the potential of maximum benefits accruing to local communities. Commercialization of natural products is seen by CBNRM practitioners and stakeholders as a viable vehicle for increased generation of benefits for local communities. Best CBNRM practices include appropriate use of participatory planning and implementation, conflict resolution, continued capacity building for local people, and integrative technical and local knowledge input. With respect to economic benefits and livelihoods, superior methods include household-level diversified product development, emphasizing sustainable yield harvesting while also taking advantage of social networks for marketing. In the context of governance and rights, strengthening of local institutions in a broad-based participatory environment (avoiding elite capture effects) through specific communication and capacity building strategies is one of the key best practices. Scaling up has been viewed from both spatial and scope perspectives. The scope of CBNRM is dynamic and needs to be considered as such. For example, the scope for CBNRM in Zambia includes partnerships and product diversification. It is envisaged that harmonization of policies and legislation on CBNRM can also play a pivotal role in moving away from sector-based CBNRM implementation to a holistic landscape scale.


ix

1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 BACKGROUND The United States Agency for International Development (USAID) has a long history of supporting community-based natural resource management (CBNRM) in Zambia via funding that can be traced back to the 1980s. In recent initiatives, USAID has supported the Conservation Partnerships for Sustainability in Southern Africa (COPASSA) project, of which Zambia is a part, and which focuses on capacity building through networks of CBNRM stakeholders. In their recent assessment, Matakala and Johnson (2009) noted that the key success of the regional and national CBNRM forums and their subsidiary working groups was networking and exchange of information. Through such networking and information exchange, the Zambia CBNRM Forum refined the principles of CBNRM 1 as: i)

Communities should have adequate authority and responsibility to control the resources in their area.

ii)

Communities should have clear rights of either ownership or access, rights to manage and sell, and rights to benefit from the management of natural resources.

iii)

The benefits of natural resource management must outweigh the costs as an a priori incentive for community involvement in management.

iv)

The membership of community structures for natural resource management must be clearly defined with provisions for decision making and good governance.

v)

The geographic boundaries of a community-managed area must be clearly defined to facilitate monitoring and compliance.

Figure 1 below provides an operational definition of CBNRM that is applicable to diverse situations and geographical settings. FIGURE 1: OPERATIONAL DEFINITION OF CBNRM There are a number of definitions for CBNRM, but the definition below may have the widest relevance: CBNRM is the management of natural resources under a detailed plan developed and agreed by all concerned stakeholders. The approach is community based in that the communities managing the resources have the legal rights, the local institutions, and the economic incentives to take substantial responsibility for sustained use of these resources. Under the natural resource management plan, communities become the primary implementers, assisted and monitored by technical services (Josserand, 2001). Therefore, for CBNRM to succeed, target local communities should actively participate in the management of natural resources. To ensure sustained participation, the benefit accruals to the producer

1

See the Forum’s brochure on the policy and legal CBNRM framework in Zambia.


1

communities must be in quantities greater than the perceived and actual costs of managing or tolerating the resource (Rihoy & Steiner, 1995). The benefits should not only be socio-economic, but legal as well. From the scholarly and practice perspective, the CBNRM approach is promising. It usually includes rights and responsibilities for target, local communities on a voluntary basis. However, CBNRM socioeconomic and policy or legal effectiveness has progressed slowly. Despite its slow evolution, CBNRM in Zambia has been integrative in nature, moving from the wildlife sector to focus on other natural resources. The present stocktaking process was driven by the desire to not only foster CBNRM mainstreaming in national development programs, but to analyze and communicate successes (enabling conditions, lessons and best practices). The process was partially framed by the Nature-Wealth-Power concept advanced by Anderson (2002). Through USAID funding, the COPASSA project worked with Development Alternatives, Inc. (DAI) and its Capitalizing Knowledge, Connecting Communities (CK2C) project to implement an assessment or stocktaking process which produced the present Zambia CBNRM profile.

1.2 TERMS OF REFERENCE The objective of the stocktaking process was to assist the Zambia CBNRM Forum to undertake a participatory review and analysis of their CBNRM program such that: a) the history of Zambia’s CBNRM program is documented; b) the current scale of the CBNRM effort is quantified; c) the impacts of the program are captured; d) lessons learned are recognized; and e) the challenges and barriers to further advancement of CBNRM are identified and prioritized (please refer to the statement of work in Annex A for details on the assignment). In other words, the participatory process was intended to assist the Zambia CBNRM Forum to take stock of the progress and impacts of CBNRM activities and programs since inception in the 1980s, while concomitantly catalyzing a national level dialogue on the identification and prioritization of challenges currently confronting the program. The resulting profile or stocktaking report would be a “snapshot” of CBNRM in Zambia. This profile would subsequently be compiled with profiles from other southern African countries to provide a regional perspective of CBNRM. The consolidated report or compilation would contain information and recommendations regarding a standardized approach to CBNRM data collection across southern Africa.

2


2. ASSIGNMENT METHODOLOGY 2.1 METHODS Desktop literature review: Various documentation in the form of published and unpublished (gray literature) reports and articles were reviewed for relevant data and information. These included end-ofproject reports and national CBNRM reports. The materials were supplied by DAI, the Zambia CBNRM Forum, government departments, and the Zambia Wildlife Authority (ZAWA). Fieldwork: Fieldwork was minimal and consisted of interviews with key CBNRM stakeholders (informants) resident in Lusaka. A structured questionnaire (see Annex B for details) was prepared and administered to targeted stakeholders who were selected based on experience and relevance. Only individuals or institutions that met the criteria were interviewed (see Annex C for a list of persons interviewed). Consultations & Consensus Building: A workshop was held on 23 July 2010 in Lusaka to discuss and validate the findings contained in the draft profile report. The proceedings of this workshop can be downloaded at: http://www.frameweb.org/CommunityBrowser.aspx?id=4880&view=k&lang=en-US. Analysis & Presentation: The outputs were derived from extensive and in-depth reviews, consultations, and analysis, and were presented in a user-friendly format. The present report is the culmination of the Zambian CBNRM stocktaking process.

2.2 STUDY LIMITATIONS The following limitations of the stocktaking approach were noted: i)

Data gathering was largely limited to the desktop study and stakeholder interviews in Lusaka only 2 ; and

ii)

Statistical data was limited; only in 2010, has the Zambia CBNRM Forum developed its CBNRM performance monitoring and evaluation indicators to guide systematic data collection, analysis and reporting.

Among other objectives, the stakeholder workshop held in July 2010 aimed at addressing the gaps arising from the methodological problems.

2

The decision to limit fieldwork and conduct interviews in Lusaka only was made in consultation with the Zambia CBNRM Forum at the start of the stocktaking process. Although limited funds were available to conduct some interviews and visit selected CBNRM sites outside of Lusaka, these funds – as well as the duration of the study period – were deemed insufficient to obtain a representative sample of non-Lusaka stakeholders.


3

PART 1: HISTORY AND CURRENT STATUS OF CBNRM 3. HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE OF CBNRM IN ZAMBIA 3.1 GENESIS AND EVOLUTION OF CBNRM 3.1.1 PRE-CBNRM ERA In the pre-CBNRM era, the management and utilization of natural resources were anchored to centralized traditional systems. Areas of ecological and socio-economic importance were preserved. Natural resource utilization was controlled by traditional rules (laws), practices, and norms, which were strictly followed and communicated via family ties, clans, and the traditional leadership system. The society as a whole enforced the rules and norms, thereby promoting stringent compliance. Thus, historically, these systems and values kept human natural resource use in check (Lewis et al. (1990); DeGeorges & Reilly, 2008). Whereas these systems and values were observed throughout Zambia, one typical example from Western Province can be cited. In this area, the Lozi people were permitted to harvest natural resource products by the traditional leadership, while abiding by particular local regulations. Consequently, in the case of fisheries, numerous judicious and sustainable methods of harvesting fish evolved. Moreover, local traditional authorities designated particular parcels of land for various uses including conservation. Forest lands were delineated according to access rights and use levels. Management of forests was based on local rules (community by-laws) that included fire control and management of specific species and headwaters. Similarly, wildlife was conserved by traditional decree. Overall, the traditional systems had particular and pragmatic governance tenets embedded in procedures, rules, and practice. However, the traditional systems and values, which specified the rights and responsibilities of local communities, were diminished and largely replaced by colonial hegemony. Nonetheless, it should be noted that perhaps the greatest sacrifice and sign of willingness by the traditional leadership to contribute to natural resource management was their surrender of vast tracks of land to create a protected areas system in Zambia. 3.1.2 TRIGGERS OF CBNRM IN ZAMBIA CBNRM initiatives originated within the wildlife sector in Zambia. Subsequently, other sectors, such as forestry, fisheries, and agriculture, diligently adopted the concepts of CBNRM. According to Lewis et al. (1990), Barrow et al. (2002), Mbewe et al. (2005), DeGeorges and Reilly (2008), and Mölsä (2009), the responsibility of managing natural resources was usurped from the traditional system by the colonial government. Subsequently, the colonial command and control approach was continued by the Zambian government after independence; however, this approach failed to effectively protect natural resources from plunder. COMMUNITY BASED NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT: STOCKTAKING ASSESSMENT: ZAMBIA PROFILE

5

This approach has also been described as “fortress conservation” (Metcalfe, 1999) by dint of the exclusionary principle employed against local communities. In the fisheries sector, Mölsä (2009) suggests that traditional access-regulating mechanisms administered by traditional leaders were replaced with fishing licenses, which apparently were inadequate; the result was that a well-regulated common resource property was converted to an open access system. Due to the failures of the command and control system, natural resources were under a growing threat of depletion. The increasing poaching levels in the 1970s and early 1980s, largely due to inadequate law enforcement as a result of low human, financial, and logistical resource allocation, inadequate community participation, and a growing trade in wildlife (Leader-Williams, 1990; Lewis et al. 1990; Gibson & Marks, 1995; Jachmann, 1998), in particular, became a growing concern in conservation circles. Inevitably, both natural resource management practitioners and researchers (scholarly scientists) sought solutions to the anthropogenic forces that were destroying Zambia’s biodiversity. Analysis pointed to several underlying causes, including: i)

Management capacity: failing government systems at the time (1970s and 1980s) could not sustainably conserve natural resources due to the vast area of the State estate as well as dwindling financial capacity – copper revenues (the major source of government revenue) could no longer satisfactorily sustain the national economy. Government institutions, consequently, failed to contain the rising illegal access pressure on natural resources.

ii)

Proprietary rights: analysts and observers noted the reduced levels of participation by local communities due to usurpation, beginning with colonial rule, of natural resource benefits. The traditional leadership and the local producer communities were alienated from natural resources, having lost control over the resources that they once considered theirs. The local conservation strategies and rules were no longer enforceable. The traditional systems of governance were undermined by colonial rule (and subsequent post-colonial governments), which hampered the evolution of traditional management systems, and in some cases, ignored and eliminated them. Local community participation and involvement in natural resource management were non-existent.

iii)

Unrealized economic value from natural resources: the economic value of natural resources did not accrue to local communities.

3.1.3 PROMULGATION OF CBNRM The origin of CBNRM in Zambia owes much to a program that came to be known as the Administrative Management Design Program for Game Management Areas (ADMADE), and which commenced in 1987. In addition, Lewis (1993) noted that the foundation of CBNRM in Zambia can be attributed to the joint Lupande Research Project (1979-1984), initiated by the New York Zoological Society and the National Parks and Wildlife Service (NPWS), which focused on elephant management and associated interactions with humans. The research was conducted in areas inhabited by local communities, i.e., in the Lupande Game Management Area (GMA). The following outcomes from the project suggested that local community involvement was critical: i)

Human disturbance in Lupande was contributing to a compression of the elephant population in the park with adverse effects on its woodland habitats.

ii)

Improved elephant management required greater freedom of movement by elephants to utilize certain habitats in the Lupande landscape outside of South Luangwa National Park.

6


iii)

Local residents had detailed knowledge of their tribal land, its flora and fauna, and routes used by illegal hunters to gain access to wildlife in their chiefdom.

iv)

Many local residents resented that the study had been conducted in their area, fearing that it might result in the creation of a new national park.

In September 1983, a multi-stakeholder, Lupande Development Workshop was convened and recommended sustainable management of natural resources via the involvement of local producer communities who should be allowed to sufficiently benefit from the natural resources in their areas. Representatives included researchers, government departments, non-governmental organizations (NGO), community and traditional leaders, and the private sector. According to Kalyocha (2000), several concerns were raised during the workshop: i)

Perpetuation of colonial rules and regulations that discounted the traditional systems of natural resource management.

ii)

Due to increasing poverty, local people collaborated with outsiders to poach wildlife.

iii)

Insignificant benefits accrued from living with wildlife while, at the same time, it became increasingly costly to manage wildlife in light of human-wildlife conflict.

iv)

Inter-relationships between local communities and the NPWS had deteriorated as the wildlife agency undertook forceful and confrontational law enforcement that was characterized by harsh, excessive force with respect to local community members.

From this workshop was born the idea of establishing a Lupande Development Project that was largely focused on wildlife management in the context of development. Hachileka et al. (1999) report that the objectives of the subsequent Lupande Development Project (1984-1987) were to (a) involve the local community directly in the protection and management of wildlife, and to (b) return a significant portion of wildlife revenues to them. According to Lewis (1993), some of the successes achieved by the Lupande Development Project were: i)

Development of a revenue sharing scheme for local communities.

ii)

A proposal to set up a Wildlife Conservation Revolving Fund (WCRF) at the government level. The WCRF was subsequently established under ADMADE and became responsible for collection of revenues from hunting as well as disbursing a portion of the funds to local producer communities (see Figure 2 below). The WCRF also administered other funds that were used as contributions to community projects.

iii)

Employment, initially, of 15 village scouts who were responsible for resource protection in Lupande. Thus, in addition to government wildlife police officers carrying out law enforcement, non-governmental personnel were also allowed.


7

FIGURE 2: REVENUE SHARING FRAMEWORK UNDER ADMADE Based on the successes of Lupande, in 1987, the revenue sharing model was expanded to eight additional GMAs in Zambia (Lewis, 1993). Later, the program was implemented in 26 GMAs (Hachileka et al. 1999). In the ADMADE areas, revenue sharing from wildlife hunting offered hope for livelihoods in arid and semi-arid areas where agriculture and livestock rearing were largely for subsistence and unsustainable. Revenues that accrued to the local communities were used to cover resource management costs such as recruitment of village scouts and convening management and public meetings. A number of projects such as building schools and health centers were also undertaken by the local communities with these funds. Local communities were free to decide on which projects to undertake with the revenues received. The revenue allocation from GMA wildlife management activities were formalized by the WCRF as follows: i) ii) iii) iv)

40% to local communities for wildlife management activities (e.g., resource protection and meetings). 35% for local community development projects (e.g., construction of schools, clinics, feeder roads, and grinding mills). 15% to NPWS for administrative costs (e.g., supervisory costs, meetings, and overhead). 10% for projects at the District Council level (e.g. wildlife-related projects and activities such as land use planning).

According to Mwenya et al. (1990), the objectives of the ADMADE program were: i)

To provide an effective network of buffer zones for National Parks and self-supporting wildlife management units.

ii)

To provide a self-sustained management program for long-term protection of wildlife resources in Game Management Areas (GMA).

iii)

To develop an improved and sustainable basis for supporting local community projects.

iv)

To foster a closer and more cooperative relationship between the NPWS and local communities regarding wildlife management.

v)

To earn foreign exchange from the wildlife estate for the government central treasury.

vi)

To stimulate the development of entrepreneurship and skills among residents needed to support the management of renewable wildlife resources.

According to Mano Consultancy Services Limited (1998), the pre-ADMADE era was characterized by: i)

High poaching levels,

ii)

Communities not being stakeholders in wildlife management,

iii)

Data collection not carried out for monitoring purposes,

iv)

The inexistence of local NPWS administration,

v)

Inadequate camps and wildlife scouts,

vi)

Government controlled resource ownership, and

vii)

The inexistence of a training institute for community skills.

8


The ADMADE program attempted to remedy many of these problems. It was implemented in two phases: a development phase (1989-1994) and a strengthening phase (1995-1997). The development phase was characterized by: i)

Sub-authorities formed as governance structures,

ii)

Residents were trained as village scouts for resource protection,

iii)

USAID provided equipment support (including vehicles),

iv)

Extension officers (Unit Leaders) were deployed,

v)

WCRF (established in 1984 to supplement government funding to National Parks) was used to return benefits or revenue to local communities,

vi)

An information gathering system was developed,

vii)

Community skills were introduced and the Nyamaluma CBNRM Institute was created,

viii) Wildlife camps for scouts were constructed and improved, and ix)

District councils were involved in wildlife management.

Key events during the strengthening phase included: i)

Sub-committees were formed to leverage the power of traditional leaders (Chiefs),

ii)

Sub-authority members were elected,

iii)

Village area groups were formed,

iv)

Local bookkeepers or accountants were recruited and trained,

v)

Capacity building courses were taught,

vi)

A licensing system was computerized,

vii)

Participatory skills were included in the training for Unit Leaders,

viii) Quota setting was supported with indicators and local participation, ix)

Databases were made user-friendly and accessible to local management,

x)

Lease agreements were tied to CBNRM commitment with capacity to monitor compliance, and

xi)

The Nyamaluma Institute expanded the curriculum for local leaders and developed GIS applications for ADMADE.

For additional ADMADE lessons and achievements, see Box D3 in Annex D. 3.1.4 LEGITIMIZATION OF CBNRM During the ADMADE era and subsequently, there were several instruments and developments that legitimized CBNRM, including supportive policies and legal instruments, sustained support from cooperating partners, and improved local adaptive governance. 3.1.4.1 Policy and Legal Framework

In 1993, a policy was approved by the government which recognized community involvement in wildlife management: Policy on Wildlife and National Parks in Zambia. Under this policy, communities’ rights, responsibilities and powers were highlighted and implemented. However, this recognition was limited to COMMUNITY BASED NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT: STOCKTAKING ASSESSMENT: ZAMBIA PROFILE

9

wildlife resources. The Wildlife Policy and Zambia Wildlife Act No. 12 of 1998 strengthened the provisions for local community participation in wildlife management. The rights, responsibilities and power were decentralized and devolved to local organizations and the general populace through democratic and enfranchising practices. In other natural resource sectors, for example forestry, fisheries, and agriculture, the policies and legislation with respect to local communities have also been strengthened. The National Forest Policy of 1998 supports and fosters involvement of local communities in protection, management, and utilization of forest resources via Joint Forest Management Committees (JFMC) and also recognizes the roles of gender, local institutions, and traditional systems in conservation. The Forest Act of 1999 provides for delegated powers to local communities, traditional authorities or JFMCs for the participatory management of local forests. However, this Act has not been implemented by the government mainly because of inadequate financial resources to establish a forest commission. On the other hand, establishment of Joint Forest Management Areas (JFMA) is legal under government statutory instrument No. 47 of 2006. The Draft Fisheries Policy and the National Agricultural Policy (2004-2015) progressively envision improved fish yields via new fishing methods and management regimes as well as by promoting aquaculture development while at the same time providing for the empowerment and participation of fishing communities in fisheries development and management in a gender-balanced manner. The amended Fisheries Act of 2007 includes development and promotion of fisheries co-management. The agricultural policy also aims to guide increased food production, sector liberalization, commercialization, and the promotion of partnerships for sustainable agricultural development. The Land Act, Cap.184, of 1995 places all land in two categories: state land and customary land. Traditional leadership is responsible for land allocation in customary lands, whereby traditional rights to natural resource use are conveyed. The National Policy on Environment (2007) provides for crosssectoral approaches for co-management with local communities regarding socio-economic and environmental issues, including mechanisms for re-investment and revenue sharing with poor communities for development purposes. It also provides for capacity building through effective environmental information, education and communication. The National Decentralization Policy (2004) supports devolution of rights, responsibilities, and power to District Councils and lower organs for increased local community involvement. 3.1.4.2 Governance and Local Institutional Arrangements

Overall, governance of natural resources in Zambia has been sector-based. In the wildlife sector, ADMADE was governed by two key structures: Wildlife Management Authorities (WMA) and wildlife management sub-authorities. WMAs were responsible for policy making and facilitation through approvals of annual operating budgets and programs; they operated at the regional level and were chaired by the District Governor. Membership in the WMAs consisted of representatives from the traditional tribal system (chiefs and indunas), the government, and the private sector. This included representation from senior district government officials, area members of parliament, councilors and area safari outfitters (directors). Due to this mix, Lewis (1993) suggested that traditional knowledge was merged with the technical input from technocrats, producing workable CBNRM recommendations. The recommendations were implemented by the subsidiary wildlife management sub-authorities, comprised of chiefs, village headmen, unit leaders (employees of ADMADE responsible for its implementation), councilors, and representatives from governmental departments.

10


The sub-authorities were responsible for wildlife co-management, conflict resolution, community development, and project identification and implementation. Community funding approvals at WMAs were derived from proposal evaluations of suggested projects at sub-authority levels in respective chiefdoms. However, many of the development projects were concentrated around the chiefs’ palaces and their areas of interest (Matenga, 1999), thereby eroding community trust in traditional leadership as resources were not equitably distributed. Another model of CBNRM was the Luangwa Integrated Resource Development Project (LIRDP) which was implemented during the period 1986-1999. According to Moinuddin et al. (2002), LIRDP “aimed at alleviating the socio-economic deprivation of the local communities, which was seen as the primary cause of depletion of the wildlife resources in the Luangwa Valley.” In 2000, LIRDP was subsumed into the structure of the newly created ZAWA and it became the South Luangwa Area Management Unit (SLAMU). A three-tier system existed in all six chiefdoms under the SLAMU model: Local Leader Committees (LLC), Area Development Committees (ADC), and Village Development Committees (VDC). Under LIRDP, representation in the Local Leader Committee, which operated at the regional level, included SLAMU staff, councilors, the district secretary, and Members of Parliament. At the Lupande GMA level, there were six Area Development Committees (each with representation from respective chiefdoms, SLAMU staff, and villages). The subsidiary structure was the Village Development Committee (with representation from elected representatives and membership of about 200 households). Under SLAMU, the second generation of CBNRM structures, Community Resources Boards (CRB), replaced the six Area Development Committees and Local Leader Committees were abolished. In addition, Village Development Committees were replaced by 42 ancillary Village Action Groups (VAG) in the Lupande Game Management Area. The major responsibilities of the LLC (as is presently the case with CRBs which have combined the roles of LLCs and VDCs) was policy making and providing approvals for financial proposals with respect to area development projects whereas the ADCs functioned to coordinate specific projects by VDCs. In the same way as is currently the case with VAGs, each VDC implemented the locally developed constitutions or guidelines. The local communities assumed full rights to revenues generated in the area and made decisions on the utilization of revenues through transparent, public forums at quarterly and annual meetings. In the second generation of CBNRM, CRBs, assisted by VAGs, replaced the three-tier local structures. The CRBs are formed through a democratic and decentralized enfranchising process where the free choice of local communities is exercised. However, the chiefs are only patrons, while their village headmen or headwomen are not accommodated. Despite these advances during the second generation of CBNRM, the complementary government Decentralization Policy of 2004 is not yet operational. Kapungwe (2000) observed that, as a result, devolution of power from central government to the district councils and traditional leadership or the community-based institutions for resource management has not been achieved and traditional leaders view the tendency as a ploy to undermine the authority of district councils and traditional authorities – a situation that continues to date. In addition, local-level capacity building also remains as a key challenge. According to Wilbelaeur et al. (2005), capacity building at the community level, including sensitization and environmental education, are still critical and needed to enhance CBNRM.


11

VAG PUBLIC MEETING IN MUFUNTA GMA

Photo courtesy of A. Phiri

The objectives and strategies of the Provincial Forestry Action Program (2002-2008) included strengthening of the public sector forestry institutions and promotion of local community and private sector participation in forest management and utilization (Kokwe, 2007). The participatory program drew strength from the community-based wildlife programs. The program was piloted in 3 provinces (Copperbelt, Luapula and Southern), through 7 Joint Forest Management Areas (JFMA) situated within districts. The JFMAs were managed by Forest Management Committees in small units of Village Resource Management Areas, controlled by Village Resource Management Committees (VRMC). (See Annex G for details on the size of the JFMAs.) The Forest Management Committees were responsible for coordination and management of the activities of the VRMCs. These activities involved different user groups linked to community-based enterprises (CBE), such as pit sawyers, mushroom growers, and Non-Wood Forest Product (NWFP) collectors (e.g., beekeepers), associated with various income generating activities (IGA) and local forest management. The institutions were established through decentralized and democratic systems permeating village-level constituencies. As such, the institutional arrangements were hierarchical and included regime nodes that were used for management and utilization of forest resources. The JFMCs were tasked with decision making while the VRMCs operated as local executing agents. All seven JFMAs developed joint forest

12


management plans using participatory approaches. Overall, the program elements mirrored those presented in Figure 3 below. FIGURE 3: ELEMENTS OF AN EFFECTIVE COMMUNITY-BASED FOREST MANAGEMENT PROGRAM IN AFRICA “The most successful community-based forest management programs develop management capacity of forest-based enterprises, strengthen community-based organizations, improve local governance and relations between government and local communities, and increase access to forest resources at the local level.” Source: Heermans & Otto, 1999

Like the forestry sector, co-management arrangements in the fisheries sector benefitted from the lessons learned in the wildlife sector. Previously running the gamut from self-managed to non-managed systems, fisheries are now divided into fishery zones which are managed by Zonal Management Committees (ZMCs). For example, the Lake Kariba fishing communities are grouped into 4 zones since 2006, whereas 14 zones demarcate the Mweru-Luapula fishing communities since 2007. ZMCs are, in turn, accountable to Fisheries Management Committees (FMC), which are comprised of representatives from local fishing communities, local authorities, traditional leadership, NGOs, and the fishing and aquaculture industry, among others. The functions of the FMCs, which are overarching fisheries advisory bodies, include fisheries management, facilitation, coordination, and lobbying. ZMCs serve as executive bodies for Village Management Committees (VMC) and undertake overall fisheries co-management in a particular zone. ZMCs are assisted by the VMCs which function as implementing agents; the VMCs also identify and implement local projects and programs, and are responsible for extension and management. In addition, as implementing agents at the grassroots level, VMCs manage revenue collection from fish license fees, fish levies and fines, enforcement of fisheries regulations against infractions, and information collection; they also disseminate information to local communities on cross-cutting issues (e.g., Human Immunodeficiency Virus/Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome [HIV/AIDS], environmental education, and conservation). ZMCs, embracing collaborative management concepts, have diverse representation composed of traditional leadership, VMC representatives, fishers associations, local NGOs, tour operators, business houses, local authorities and representatives from the Fisheries Department. VMCs comprise representation from local fishers, headmen, fisheries extension agents, private entrepreneurs, and local NGOs. Although this governance system seems pragmatic, some stakeholders may feel threatened by these structures (see Figure 4 below). FIGURE 4: INSTITUTIONAL MALAISE IN THE FISHERIES SECTOR Due to institutional problems, the number of functional VMCs in the Kariba fisheries zones decreased from 60 to 49 from 2006 to 2009, despite the fact that the committees are federated and democratically formed. At the village level, the traditional leadership perceives elected VMC leaders as undermining their authority. In contrast, the 77 VMCs of the Mweru-Luapula zones are implementing proactive strategies to address this challenge via training of local communities, including their leadership, in the establishment of collaborative mechanisms. Source: data from Fisheries Department records, 2010

The agricultural sector has, for a number of decades, experimented with organizing farmers in blocks, camps, and field schools in respective districts, in a hierarchical fashion. A present, farmers are organized COMMUNITY BASED NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT: STOCKTAKING ASSESSMENT: ZAMBIA PROFILE

13

in groups such as cooperatives and field schools for special interest groups, with the objective of service and commodity delivery, and technology transfer. Through facilitation by Ministry of Agriculture and cooperative extension services (including training), local community field schools organize themselves and govern their activities in conservation farming. The Farmers Union of Zambia, through its Conservation Farming Unit (CFU), which is the technical unit of the association, has also established a structure for farmers. Trained lead farmers (currently over 5200 farmers) provide extension services and are the contact farmers for more than 160,000 farmers in 12 districts of Zambia. Overall, the small-scale farming community is probably the largest livelihood interest group in rural Zambia. Farmers in the operational areas tend to reduce transaction costs by belonging to organizations such as cooperatives and marketing groups (e.g., Community Markets for Conservation [COMACO]), each with an intricate social network. Novel initiatives have in the recent past emerged in the water and energy sectors. Water management and utilization programs have made strides regarding community participation via the integrated water resource management concept that incorporates collaborative participation of various stakeholders including local communities. The water end users are also grouped into regime nodes for management and utilization purposes. The energy sector is currently experimenting with bio-diesel production which involves Jatropha farmers groups. 3.1.4.3 External Recognition and Funding

To a large extent, CBNRM in Zambia has been driven by donors. Some of the major initiatives are briefly described below: i)

USAID funded the Regional Natural Resource Management project from 1989 to 1999 at a level of US $4.8 million. The project focused on enhanced local community and private sector participation, testing CBNRM with an eye towards expansion, and demonstrating the effectiveness and legitimacy of community capacity building in wildlife management. The project operated within the ADMADE program.

ii)

USAID provided US $7 million for the Community-Based Natural Resource Management and Sustainable Agriculture (CONASA) project from 2001 to 2004. This project focused on rural livelihoods and resource monitoring in the areas surrounding Kafue National Park.

iii)

The Danish International Development Agency (DANIDA) & Mellemfolkeligt Samvirke (MS) Zambia supported livelihood initiatives in Mumbwa and Itezhi-tezhi districts from 2002 to 2007 at a level of US $2 million.

iv)

The Economic Expansion and Diversification project, supported by the Norwegian government and the World Bank, invested approximately US $205,000 in CBNRM in areas adjoining Kafue National Park between 2005 and 2009.

v)

The Norwegian government provided enormous support to CBNRM in the Lupande area with, for example, an annual budget of US $2.5 million in project phase II (1987 -1992), and US $1.5 million annually in project phase IV (1995-1998).

vi)

The World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) financed the development of land use plans for the Mufunta GMA (2009-2010) and the Lupande GMA (2002-2010).

vii)

USAID financed the Care Livingstone Food Security project from 1994 to 1998 at a level of US $3.6 million. The project targeted 18,000 farmers and focused on community- and institution-

14


building, improved and sustainable farming systems, water harvesting and utilization, and increased incomes and income earning opportunities. viii) The Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS) financed the Nyamaluma Regional Institute for Community-Based Natural Resources Management from 1984 to the present date. Activities of the institute focused on training as a vehicle for building capacity among the local communities in natural resource management. WCS has also supported community scouts at a level of US $300, 000 over the years. ix)

USAID provided US $5 million for the Cooperative League of the USA (CLUSA) Rural Group Business project from 1996 to 2000. The project targeted 9,450 farmers in 210 rural groups and focused on activities linked to capacity building for financing, marketing, and management.

3.2 SCALE OF CBNRM PROGRAM CBNRM is currently practiced in all 35 GMAs with the exception of Luwingu, Chambeshi, and Mansa GMAs. The total area covered is 16,548,208 ha, which comprises about 22% of Zambia’s total land mass (see Table 1 below for details). The activities that are supported by CBNRM range from community projects such as construction of electric, elephant-retaining fences, health clinics, feeder roads, schools, markets, and tourism camps. Other activities that are supported include recruitment of village scouts for resource protection and monitoring. TABLE 1: GEOGRAPHICAL EXTENT OF CBNRM IN GMAS GMA

Status

Area (ha)

GMA

Status

Area (ha)

Chibwika

Active

146,675

Lumimba

Active

418,696

Lupande

Active

444,821

Machiya Fungulwe

Active

153,759

Chikuni

Active

278,998

Kafue Flats

Active

469,717

Petauke

Active

430,551

Nkala

Active

20,339

Namwala

Active

316,983

Bilili

Active

368,904

Upper-west Zambezi

Active

1,586,530

Kasonso Busanga

Active

703,441

Lukwakwa

Active

258,019

Masele Matebo

Active

388,615

Luano

Active

838,222

Bangweulu

Active

385,248

Rufunsa

Active

228,502

Chikuni

Active

278,998

Chambeshi

Not active

Lower Zambezi

Active

217,630

Kafinda

Active

343,826

Chisomo

Active

361,061

Sandwe

Active

26,819

Munyamadzi

Active

268,846

Mulobezi

Active

358,337

Musalangu

Active

1,136,710

Sichifula

Active

235,457

Kaputa

Active

299,430

Lower-west Zambezi

Active

2,399,160

Tondwa

Active

Lunga Luswisji

Active

1,342,500

Luwingu

Not active

123,720

Mufunta

Active

637,048

Mansa

Not active

176,859

Mumbwa

Active

341,284

73,788


43,892

15

The CBNRM activities in the GMAs and in some open areas are supported by 73 CRBs and their respective VAGs (see Figure 5 below). GMAs, where the majority of CRBs are situated, mainly comprise buffer zones around National Parks. The total area under National Parks is approximately 6,260,585 ha or almost 9% of the total Zambian landmass. Please refer to Table 2 below for the areas of specific National Parks and Figures 5, 6, and 7 for the spatial locations of the National Parks. TABLE 2: AREAS OF NATIONAL PARKS Name

Area (ha)

Isangano

81,639

Kasanka

47,008

Lavushi Manda

156,197

Blue Lagoon

46,096

Kafue National Park

2,268,977

Lochnivar National Park

40,563

West Lunga

174,470

Lower Zambezi

412,509

Luambe

33,916

Lukusuzi

263,645

North Luangwa

469,872

Nsefu

23,515

Nyika

7,608

South Luagwa

846,321

Lusenga Plain

89,209

Mweru Wantipa

313,498

Sumbu

202,648

Liuwa

325,758

Musi-o-tunya

6,966

Sioma Ngwezi

450,170

16


FIGURE 5: LOCATION OF CRBS, GMAS AND NATIONAL PARKS


17

More than 8,233,243 ha of lakes and other water bodies have fishing communities (see Table 3 below for details on the areas of specific fisheries). These areas are used by people whose primary livelihood is fishing. There are also traders among the fishing communities. These communities have a collective responsibility for fish conservation and utilization in the fisheries. The fisheries are shown in Figure 6 while Table 4 below provides information on the number of people in the different fisheries from surveys undertaken during the 1996-2008 period. TABLE 3: AREAS OF FISHERIES Name

Area (ha)

Sinazongwe and Mweemba

485,783

Chipepo

314,038

Simaamba

362,761

Tanganyika

1,064,470

Proposed Mweru-Luapula Fishery

995,931

Proposed Lukanga Fishery

1,168,540

Proposed Bangweulu Fishery

3,841,720

TABLE 4: HUMAN POPULATION IN FISHERY AREAS BETWEEN 1996 AND 2008 Fishery

Number of People in VMCs Before 2005 Male Female

Kariba Itezhi-Tezhi Kafue Lusiwashi Lower Zambezi Lukanga Upper Kafue Bangweulu Mweru-Wantipa Tanganyika Upper Zambezi Super Upper Zambezi Mweru-Luapula

1,343 2,133 1,754 74 271 550 8,489 2,274 1,870 1,671 538 10,152

12 9 28 17 4 4 1,751 63 54 645 309 1,895

Total 1,355 2,142 1,782 91 275 554 10,240 2,337 1,924 2,316 847 12,047

2006, 2007 & 2008 Male Female 2,780 1,167 2,904 298 379 901 307 12,523 20,195

24 5 46 67 3 6 4 2,590 1,027

Total Population

Latest Survey

Total 2,804 1,172 2,950 365 382 907 311 15,113 21,222

4,185 80,252 2,978 7,286 3,997 1,757 147,973 29,277 257,648

2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2007 2007 2004 2004 1996 1997 2008

Data source: Fisheries Department records, 2010

A total of 8,059,548 ha of forests benefits, in one way or another, from community participation in management and/or conservation (see Annex F for additional details on these forests). However, there are a few forests (see Figure 7 below) which have been under a formal, joint forest management arrangement. The joint forest management areas typically aimed at improving community participation in forest management.

18


FIGURE 6: MAP OF KEY FISHERIES


19

FIGURE 7: JOINT FOREST MANAGEMENT AREAS AND NON JOINT FOREST MANAGEMENT AREAS

20


4. IMPACTS OF CBNRM ACTIVITIES TO DATE 4.1 CHANGES IN RIGHTS TO BENEFIT FROM NATURAL RESOURCES 4.1.1 WILDLIFE RESOURCES The rights to benefit from wildlife have improved over the past years due to CBNRM, which also attempted to address issues of rural poverty and unemployment in order to gain local support for wildlife conservation. In the past, local communities were alienated from benefiting from natural resources, including land. Current legislation has introduced rights to benefit from natural resources. The Zambia Wildlife Act No. 12 of 1998 allows greater participation of local communities, thus establishing their rights to use and manage natural resources in GMAs and Open Areas 3 . This includes provisions for participation in developing management plans. In particular, as provided for by the 1998 Wildlife Act, a local community in a chiefdom in a Game Management Area, or in an open area or a particular chiefdom with common interests in the wildlife and natural resources in that area, may apply to ZAWA for registration as a community resources board (CRB). Through their respective boards, local communities have the following rights: a)

They may invite any person, whose presence is, in their opinion, desirable, to attend and to participate in the deliberations of a meeting of the board (but such a person shall not vote on any matter).

b)

They may regulate their own procedures.

c)

They may convene any meeting at any time for the conduct of their business.

d)

They can negotiate, in conjunction with the ZAWA, co-management agreements with hunting outfitters and photographic tour operators.

e)

They can manage the wildlife under their jurisdiction, within quotas specified by ZAWA.

f)

They can appoint village scouts to exercise and perform the duties of a wildlife police officer.

g)

In consultation with ZAWA, they can develop and implement management plans which reconcile various land uses in their areas.

h)

With the approval of ZAWA and the Minister, they can accept grants and donations from any source within Zambia. However, anybody who misuses the community funds and is found guilty of an offence will be liable, upon conviction, to pay a fine, or to a term of imprisonment not exceeding twelve months, or to both.

The legislation charges local community institutions (CRBs) with promoting and developing integrated approaches to the management of human and natural resources in GMAs and open areas falling under their jurisdiction; these areas buffer national parks for the most part. Local communities not only

3

Open Areas are areas other than protected areas (i.e., national parks, and bird and wildlife sanctuaries).


21

participate in setting wildlife quotas but also retain a quota that is utilized by residents only. They participate in the selection of hunters and also jointly enter, with ZAWA, into hunting and photographic concessions, where they specify a wide array of benefits that should accrue to them. The onus is on the CRB to equitably distribute benefits to the local communities located within its management area. However, the responsibility for wildlife management lies with ZAWA and, as such, ZAWA contributes to the overall performance of the CRBs. There are currently 41 hunting concessions within GMAs, dating from 2003. From the revenues generated (please refer to Figure 13 below for details), members of local communities have been employed by CRBs as village scouts to assist ZAWA with protection and monitoring of wildlife resources. These scouts assess crop damage and watch problem animals in their communities, where they also create environmental awareness among the local populace. 66 of 73 CRBs have employed 1,012 village scouts operating in 33 of 36 GMAs in Zambia (see Figure 5). There are an additional 79 support staff employed by CRBs across Zambia. Local communities obtain and access social amenities from various rural development projects funded by revenues gained from wildlife resources. The projects span construction of water holes, schools, clinics, and feeder roads, as well as crop damage counter-measures including solar and chili pepper fences. More residents benefit indirectly from participating in wildlife management and accessing the resource, depending on the ability of the wildlife industry to generate funds. See Figure 8 below for details regarding wildlife revenue sharing arrangements. VILLAGE SCOUTS PARTICIPATING IN A SAFARI HUNT

Photo courtesy of W. Moonga

22


FIGURE 8: HUNTING REVENUE SHARING FRAMEWORK The sources of funds are animal and concession fees. Animal revenue derives from fees for the animal licenses and varies in value from one animal to another. Concession fees constitute revenue based on the value of the hunting areas; these areas are granted to tour operators with hunting rights through tripartite hunting agreement. The tripartite agreement is made between ZAWA, tour operators, and CRBs. The concession fees are paid annually for the period covered by the hunting agreement – usually ranging from 10 to 15 years. Animal fees are shared: i) 5% of the funds go to the CRB patron (traditional leader or Chief); ii) 45% of the funds go to the CRB in the form of community funds; and iii) 50% of the funds go to ZAWA in the form of conservation funds. Concession fees are shared: i) 5% of the funds go to the CRB patron (traditional leader or Chief); ii) 15% of the funds go to the CRB in the form of community funds; and iii) 80% of the funds go to ZAWA in the form of conservation funds. Community funds are utilized as follows: i) 45% of the funds go to wildlife management, including resource protection and escort services; ii) 35% of the funds go to community projects such as construction of clinics, roads, schools, and wells; and iii) 20% of the funds go to administration of the CRBs. In accordance with CRB constitutions and guidelines, local institutions access information on natural resource management through extension services and are provided with decision support during meetings. Attitudinal changes are also occurring in some areas where local communities increasingly recognize the value of wildlife and are beginning to support community conservation projects. Independent assessments have validated this local community support in areas where benefits from wildlife have been received, as documented by Dalal-Clayton and Child (2003) and Simasiku et al. (2008). 4.1.2 FISH RESOURCES Access to, and use of fish resources is regulated via decentralized and democratic mechanisms including community representation. Ownership of the fish resource is granted to individuals who acquire fishing licenses issued by the Department of Fisheries. Certificates of Origin are issued to fish traders by VMCs in collaboration with Zonal Committees. The District Councils distribute 25% of fish levy revenues collected by fisher agents to the respective zonal committees to defray their operating costs with respect to fishing and fish trading. The fish levy revenues are, in turn, used by local communities for community projects and programs (80%) and wage payments to fisher agents (20%). The projects include infrastructure development (e.g., construction of landing sites and fish processing platforms) and marketing. Via patron and client arrangements, traditional chiefs also receive tributes from fishermen; these arrangements also serve as traditional regulatory mechanisms, thereby enhancing social capital. 4.1.3 FOREST RESOURCES Access to, and use of forest resources has been greatly impeded by existing legislative and administrative arrangements (Kokwe, 2007); implementation of community-based forest management has also been COMMUNITY BASED NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT: STOCKTAKING ASSESSMENT: ZAMBIA PROFILE

23

stymied by inadequate capacity building. Local communities gained rights and responsibilities from the government (Forestry Department) for forest resource management and utilization in a few pilot areas; these efforts focused largely on incentives. The 1998 National Forest Policy encouraged local institutions to enter into partnerships, including with the private sector, and also enhanced the sense of forest ownership by local communities. Where capacity has been built for IGAs, user groups have been able to generate income. Under the community forest management model, revenues are generated and retained at the household level. However, individual members of the local communities take advantage of lower transaction costs via various associations, cooperatives and social networks for production, collection, pre-processing, and marketing of forest products. Gondo et al. (2002) assessed the potential for production, commercialization and marketing of NWFPs by rural producers (CBEs) in Zambia to improve their livelihoods and concluded that a large number of the products (e.g., fruits, mushrooms, fiber, roots and tubers, indigenous vegetables, and traditional medicines) were accessed and utilized by local communities for subsistence and income generation in all nine provinces of Zambia. Illustrations of forest-based CBEs can be viewed in the photos below. In addition, please refer to Figure 9 below for proposed strategies for improving access to, and use of NWFPs. AN EXAMPLE OF A COMMUNITY-BASED ENTERPRISE – COMMUNITY MEMBERS HARVESTING AND PROCESSING MUNGONGO FOR TRADITIONAL OIL IN SESHEKE DISTRICT

Photos courtesy of V. Ziba

24


FIGURE 9: STRATEGIES FOR IMPROVING ACCESS TO, AND USE OF NWFPS A number of strategies and techniques related to NWFPs and CBEs have been attempted by local communities: i)

Improved handling and packaging of indigenous vegetables in partnership with private companies, resulting in penetration of commercial markets. Examples of common, wild, indigenous vegetables are Kalembwe Katali (Sesamum calycinum) and Pupwe (Cochurus sp.).

ii)

Re-organization of honey producers into producer associations that received training and extension support (e.g., the Mpongwe and Kaloko Trust) resulted in improved production and improved quality and quality consistency and penetration into, and retention of commercial markets.

iii)

Partnerships with private sector partners enhanced management skills, marketing information and skills, processing technology, and financial sourcing all of which increased local community participation in raw material production, collection and pre-processing.

Based on Gondo et al., 2002

4.1.4 AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES Most rural farmers utilize customary land that they access via the discretion of traditional authority per their declared needs. They cultivate crops and rear animals on this land as they deem fit. With the growing demand for land, community members have tended to retain successive use of land, thereby developing a sense of ownership. In the long run, to some extent, farmers have adopted farming the same parcel of land as opposed to moving and opening new parcels of land (itinerant agriculture). Using a combination of traditional, local knowledge and modern technical knowledge, rural farmers have begun adopting improved land use practices, including soil fertility management – often via agroforestry techniques – and water conservation (see photos below for results). EXAMPLES OF CONSERVATION FARMING

Photos courtesy of S. Mbale

Access to associated, essential resources such as water is more or less open as is the case with grazing grounds. However, in some areas, such as Mpezeni (Chipata), traditional rules for these resources have been developed and implemented by local communities, with the assistance of traditional authorities.


25

Recent farming interventions have aimed at internalizing the externalities from land degradation at the local community, and subsequently, household levels. Using cooperative and collective action, farmers have been improving their farming systems via farmer field schools and cooperatives, testing various measures such as conservation farming, learning from each other, enforcing good traditional, conservation agricultural practices, and employing cooperative marketing. This is partly the reason why conservation farming has been considered by Zambian stakeholders as part of CBNRM.

4.2 CHANGES TO THE NATURAL RESOURCE BASE AND ASSOCIATED TRENDS 4.2.1 Wildlife Resources

The elephant population in the Luangwa Valley, which was the focus of conservation efforts at the genesis of CBNRM, shows positive growth since the inception of CBNRM. The Luangwa system now supports the majority of Zambia’s elephants, with a number that has been increasing and which currently stands at 18,634 ± 3,592; this constitutes 72% of Zambia’s elephant population (CITES, 2010) and is a significant increase from the estimated population of about 9,000 in the early 1980s. Figure 10 below depicts some general population trends of selected animal species in the South Luangwa National Park and the adjacent Lupande GMA (also see Table 5). However, the trends per se need to be interpreted with caution as there were changes in survey methods and approaches over time. Although these animals roam about in Lupande GMA, there is no evidence that the status is solely or directly determined by the application of CBNRM (i.e., anthropogenic factors). Ecological factors such as predation and disease may also be responsible for regulating the animal numbers in the area. Nonetheless, there is a consensus among a number of stakeholders that CBNRM has contributed to increasing or sustaining the wildlife resource base. Despite this observation, some local community members have continued snaring animals even when benefits from community projects were evident (Lewis & Phiri, 1998; Dalal-Clayton & Child, 2003); this can probably be partly attributed to what is referred to as a “moral hazard” or a “free ride” mentality. In the context of the impact of CBNRM on wildlife, CBNRM should be viewed as being complementary to conventional law enforcement. This notion is reinforced by Jachmann (1998) who has shown that the status of wildlife depends, to some extent, on financial resource allocations to law enforcement. It should be noted, however, that law enforcement is conducted with the participation of local community members in GMAs, thereby reducing the transaction costs of biodiversity conservation.

26


FIGURE 10: WILDLIFE POPULATION ESTIMATES FOR SOUTH LUANGWA NATIONAL PARK AND THE ADJACENT LUPANDE GMA BETWEEN 1994 -2006 14000

Estimated Population

12000 10000 1994

8000

2002 6000

2006

4000 2000

a

W

i ld

Ze br

st eb

er bu

ee

ck

g W

at

W

ar th o

an Ro

Pu ku

Ku du

la pa

t Ha

rte

Im

be

ira

es

ffe

d G

an El

Bu f

fa

lo

0

Selected Anim al Species

Data sources: Jachmann & Kalyocha, 1994; Dunham & Simwanza, 2002; Milanzi& Msoka, 2006

TABLE 5: ESTIMATED 1999 POPULATION TRENDS OF SELECTED SPECIES OF GAME HUNTED DURING LICENSED SAFARIS IN SIX ADMADE HUNTING UNITS Species Buffalo Bushbuck Crocodile Duiker Eland Elephant Grysbok Hartebeest Hippo Hyaena Impala Kudu Leopard Lion Puku Warthog Roan Waterbuck Wildebeest Zebra Key: + : increase,

Mwanya

Chanjuzi

Nyampala

Luawata

Chifunda

Chikwa

+ + + 0 0/+ + 0 + + + 0 + 0 0 -/+ +

+ 0 0 0 + + 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 0 -

+ 0 + + + + 0 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 + 0

0 0 + + + + + 0 0 + 0 + + 0 0 0 0 + 0 0

+ + + + + 0 + + 0 0 + 0 + 0 0 + 0 -

+ + 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 +

- : decrease,

0 : no change

Adopted from Clarke, 2000


27

4.2.2 FISH RESOURCES Human capital (skills and practice) appears to be a persistent challenge in most of Zambia’s fisheries. Overall, information acquisition and management has not benefited from CBNRM in these areas. Moreover, Mölsä (2009) highlights the fact that no systematic monitoring of the fish catch (one fish population indicator) has been conducted since the 1990s in the Mweru-Luapula fisheries. Thus, systematic information on the contribution of CBNRM to the fish population status does not exist. However, estimates on the production (metric tons/annum) of 11 fisheries between 2003 and 2009 are available (see Figure 11 below). It is worth noting that, in traditionally protected fisheries such as parts of the Barotse plains and some zones of the Kariba fisheries, where community participation is robust, there are indications of increased stocks. 4.2.3 FORESTRY RESOURCES Annex F shows a total area of 8,059,548 ha of forests in Zambia. In general, local communities have been encouraged to engage in participatory forest management in these areas. The Integrated Land Use Assessment (ILUA) study (GRZ, 2008), which was the latest comprehensive assessment of forest cover in Zambia, provided a fair outlook of the status of the forest resources. In the specific study, “Land cover change detection in Zambian forests, 1990 - 2005” by the Forestry Department, it was estimated that about 284,000 ha per annum (equivalent to 0.62% of the total Zambia’s forest cover) was deforested during that period (Siampale, 2008). Overall, the study estimated that national deforestation rates were in the range of 250,000 to 300,000 ha per year. The Forestry Department further estimated that there was a total volume of 1.4 billion m3 of forests and trees outside gazetted forests (local forests as opposed to National Forests). These resources have, to a large extent, been conserved through community participation and traditional values. Unsustainable agricultural practices and uncontrolled settlements, however, continue to pose threats to conservation of forest resources. Local communities have depended on NWFPs over time along with wood-based forest products. A nation-wide survey done for the ILUA indicated that dependence by rural communities on these products was positively correlated with poverty levels (GRZ, 2008). In addition, it was estimated that about 31 million hectares of forest (62% of the total forest cover) were located on customary land. Therefore, due to the wide spatial coverage of customary land, efforts to devolve rights, responsibilities and power should be cognizant of the legal and institutional orientation linked to resource ownership and land tenure.

28


FIGURE 11: ANNUAL PRODUCTION ESTIMATES IN ELEVEN FISHERIES

a ip a zi zi ul t be i be i lu u ap an i k a m m u a h a a zh e W y L s w er u - eru - ga n e a a ng er Z i wa er Z i- te g b u i h p n f r n k s w z w w M T a Ka K a L u Up L u L o It e Ba M

2003

20000 13617

10000

2004

13903

13089 8791

8737

3064

2210

8768

2982

2256

2007 15098

581

2008

20000

15668

14512

11886 10524

9776

9747 7983

8008

3327

2725

1933

1180

20000

2007 531

10000

3592 1556

2547

2646 701

0

la p a k a u e b a g a ezi lu h i ez i h i e u ap u an t i n yi K af ar i k an mb w as m b i- tez w i K u a a a g L u r Z L u s r Z t ezh an ru -L ru -W an g I B e T pe e we p w o U L M Mw

13055

1 2 5 2 21 3 0 1 7

2450 649

10000

8012

7302

2359

1441

2009

19380

10555

7421

6763

6079

5539

7531

6864 4443

3150 1599

0

2196

2115

1291

597

16301 12366

6653

6062 2173

1327

585

2006

13008

6834

6228 2128

1299

mtons/annum

9003

6694

3001

0

13533

13364 8976

8818 6100

2005

2496 659

l a p a k a u e i ba g a ez i s h i ezi zh i lu an mb wa m b i -t e ar eu ap u an ti n y i Kaf w i K uk a a a u g L er Z L u s e r Z tez h a n ru - L ru - W an g I p T B e w e p w U Lo M Mw

Fisher ies

Data source: Department of Fisheries Records, 2010


29

4.2.4 AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES With the adoption of conservation farming and other improved farming technologies, various farming groups have been able to increase their crop yields. One improved technology is agroforestry; heavily promoted agroforestry species include Faidherbia albida (Musangu), Sesbania macrantha and Gliricidia sepium. Overall, in the first year of practicing conservation farming, yield increases of between 20-50 % per ha have been recorded. For example, maize farmers have graduated from an average of 1.1 tons/ha to above 3.5 tons/ha. Table 6 below depicts average small-scale crop yields in Zambia associated with CBNRM approaches (i.e., due to application of conservation farming methods) that have enabled small-scale farmers to achieve yields per hectare superior to those considered as acceptable. Under the auspices of the Conservation Farming Unit (CFU), the conservation farming program is being implemented in Eastern Province (Lundazi, Chipata, Katete and Petauke districts), Lusaka Province (Chongwe), Central Province (Kabwe, Mumbwa and Kapiri Moshi districts), Southern Province (Kafue, Mazabuka, Monze, Choma and Kalomo districts), and Western Province (Mongu and Kaoma districts). Through intricate coupling of intensive and extensive extension work alongside targeted, specialized training, farmers have been able to adopt sustainable agricultural techniques. TABLE 6: AVERAGE YIELD (KG/HA) BY SMALL-SCALE FARMERS IN ZAMBIA Crop Maize Groundnuts Cotton Sunflower Soya Beans

Average Yield (kg/ha) 1,100 500 550 400 400

Acceptable Yield (kg/ha)

Good Yield* (kg/ha)

3,500 1,500 900 1,000 1,200

5,000 2,000 1,500 1,500 2,000

*via conservation farming techniques Source: CFU, 2009

4.3 CHANGES IN GOVERNANCE, RURAL REPRESENTATION AND ADVOCACY 4.3.1 WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT Policy and legislative transformations for community participation in wildlife management took place in the late 1990s. Prior to 1998, the wildlife policy of 1993 created a platform for community participation but did not provide instruments and rights to the communities so that they could substantively benefit from natural resource management. In its Part III, the Zambia Wildlife Act of 1998 encourages interested communities residing in GMAs and open areas to apply to ZAWA for registration as CRBs. Wildlife Management Authorities and Sub-Authorities preceding CRBs were found to be ineffective as they were dominated by traditional leaders and their appointees, who wielded undue influence and concentrated community rural development efforts around their palaces (Matenga, 1999). However, mainstreaming of local institutions, such as CRBs, provided a mechanism for local community participation, benefit sharing, and poverty reduction (Sichilongo, 2003). Nonetheless, there is still a need for strengthening 30


local institutions. For example, Nkhata and Breen (2010) noted that CBNRM efforts in the Kafue Flats area appeared to be failing because the transfer of decision-making and the benefit-distribution process from the government to local communities was not sufficient and did not allow for the successful integration of community interests. The 1998 Policy on National Parks and Wildlife in Zambia is the forerunner to the Zambia Wildlife Act of 1998 that established local community structures (CRBs) for the purpose of enhancing wildlife management outside national parks. Together, these instruments allow local communities to participate in natural resource management through democratically elected representation and essentially empower them by granting rights and responsibilities. The traditional chiefdom constitutes the community unit for CBNRM and for the production and utilization of wildlife products. Since 1999, the number of CBNRM community units has grown to 73 CRBs (please refer to Annex E for details on these CRBs) with 384 village action groups (VAGs). These CRBs, guided by local constitutions, are accountable to the local communities they represent and held responsible for their actions and decisions: they are expected to provide information to the public in a transparent manner, principally through minutes from committee (e.g., natural resource management, community development, and financial management committees) and board meetings. In total, there are 216 technical committees, composed of representatives from host communities who can call upon other members from government departments, the private sector, or NGOs whenever necessary; these latter institutions and organizations assist CRBs across Zambia. In addition, over 600 officers drive the day-to-day business of various CRBs. With the number of CRBs levelling at 73 functional CRBs during the past decade, it is assumed that the scale of CBNRM in GMAs in particular had reached its optimal level (see Figure 12 below for details on the growth of CRBs). This implies that additional, innovative means are needed to bring more benefits to the local communities in the GMAs. There is, however, an opportunity for expansion of CBNRM in open areas. It should also be noted that the formation of CRBs is voluntary. Overall, the CRBs operate in broad-based social networks that include NGOs such as: i)

African Wildlife Foundation,

ii)

Wildlife and Environmental Conservation Society of Zambia,

iii)

Frankfurt Zoological Society,

iv)

WCS,

v)

Southern Alliance for Indigenous Resources,

vi)

World Vision (Mumbwa),

vii)

Christian Children’s Fund (CCF) (Mumbwa), and

viii) World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF). These organizations have played facilitation, independent monitoring and evaluation, and advocacy roles, among others, with respect to CBNRM. However, there is still a need for building more technical and financial capacity at the level of community-based organizations (CBO) and CBEs through appropriate training programs.


31

FIGURE 12: CRB FORMATION AND GROWTH Composition of CRBs: i) 7-10 representatives elected by the local communities; ii) 1 representative of the local authority in the area; and iii) 1 representative of the traditional Chief in the area where the CRB is established. FIGURE 12 (CON’T): NUMBER OF FUNCTIONAL CRBS BETWEEN 1999 AND 2009 80 70

70

No. functional CRBs

60

66

66

2005

2006

72

73

2008

2009

56

50

46

48

40 30 23

20 10 0

17 11

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004 Year

2007

Data source: ZAWA, 2010

4.3.2 FISHERIES MANAGEMENT Communities around the designated fisheries have been democratically re-organized into social units composed of committees. These committees function within a decentralized system and are empowered to make decisions. The representation in local fishery institutions is drawn from key stakeholder groups, dominated by individuals from local communities. In order to ensure that the local institutions benefit from the participation of various partners, thus enhancing local social networks, NGOs, civil society groups, businesses, and government departments are incorporated. However, despite this integrative approach, the traditional leadership at the village level fears that, with the VMC representatives becoming more influential and wielding greater control regarding the access to, and use of the local fish resources, they will be marginalized. The social units or committees operate within a framework of local constitutions and guidelines. Via this re-organization, local communities and their partners will be inclined to manage fish populations sustainably by following fisheries management plans that have been developed in a participatory fashion (Mölsä, 2009), particularly in the Mweru-Luapula areas. This tool (participatory fishery management plans) will need to be replicated in other fishery areas. Committee meetings held in various fisheries have proven to be useful due to growing levels of transparency and empowerment (freedom of choice) that is 32


being provided to marginalized groups such as women. Due to several benefits, including employment and business opportunities that accrue to fishing communities, there has been increased support for fish conservation in some key fisheries, though demand for fish continues to increase. There are over 15 community-based dam fisheries in Southern Province that have displayed effective and coherent leadership (see illustrated example on the cover page of this report). These fisheries have persisted out of 200 fishery CBEs that were voluntarily established in the same geographical area. Several reasons have been advanced for this low success rate, including natural causes, such as siltation, induced by livestock overgrazing in adjoining areas. Open access to the fish resources in the dammed ponds has also been cited by the stakeholders as one of the causal elements of the low success rate. One common characteristic, however, for the successful community-based dam fisheries is the resiliency of community organizations coupled with coherent collective action. WOMEN PARTICIPATING IN A FISHERIES ENTERPRISE MEETING IN THE TANGANYIKA FISHERY AREA

4.3.3 FOREST MANAGEMENT Community initiatives in the forestry sector have been built around federated, democratic, and decentralized local social units, which have taken advantage of various production-based private partnerships. These social units have become operational via 7 JFMCs and their subsidiary VRMCs which strive to provide benefits to the local communities in proximity to the forests. The current forest legislation provides local communities with access to, and use rights with respect to NWFPs. Local communities exercise their rights in participatory forest management based on locally developed forest management plans. The local forest management plans include forest identification, inventories, COMMUNITY BASED NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT: STOCKTAKING ASSESSMENT: ZAMBIA PROFILE

33

demarcation, and mapping, all of which have been developed in an interactive and participatory manner (Flender & Mabuluki, undated). In addition to developing and implementing area-specific forest management plans, by-laws and operational guidelines have also been developed to facilitate implementation. The capacity of the CBOs and CBEs to organize themselves and function effectively largely depends on the levels of facilitation by their social networks. One case that clearly demonstrates attitudinal changes of local communities towards forest resources is the propagation of rattan species on individually owned land parcels; these species can grow naturally and are used in the production of local cultural materials which are subsequently sold commercially. Keepers Zambia Foundation, one of the local NGOs working on community-based forest management, facilitated capacity building on related aspects such as community mobilization and participatory planning. The fusion of technical and local knowledge propelled community participation in some target areas such as North Western Province. 4.3.4 AGRICULTURE Groups of farmers are organized in farming blocks, camps, and field schools. Though largely acting individually, farmers access collective traditional and technical skills. Where by-laws exist with regard to certain practices such as grazing, open access resources are converted into communal common property and management of the natural resources is enhanced. Zambia Land Alliance, a local NGO, has also contributed to creating civic awareness with respect to rural land access and exclusionary rights. 4.4 CHANGES IN BENEFITS In the wildlife sector, from US $ 302, 653 in 2001/2002, the disbursements of funds to local communities (CRBs) rose steadily to over US $ 1.4 million in 2009 (see Figure 13 below for details). These funds were utilized according to revenue sharing guidelines for CRB funds. With the exception of the Lupande GMA, there has been no cash income that reached individual members of the communities as there was no national policy for disbursement of funds to households.

34


FIGURE 13: DETAILS OF COMMUNITY REVENUE DISBURSEMENTS BETWEEN 2001 AND 2009

Community Revenue Shares (US$)

1600000 1400000 1200000 1000000 800000 600000 400000 200000 0

2001-2002 2003

2004

2005 2006 Year

2007

2008

2009

From 2000 to 2009 there were 59 CRBs that received revenue from hunting activities whenever hunting took place in their respective areas. The shares of the revenue were dependent on the amount of revenue their respective hunting areas were able to generate.

In the Lupande GMA, after a few years of experimentation with direct disbursements of revenues to households, this practice was discontinued due to inadequate funds generated for the total population in the area. Accordingly, DeGeorges & Reilly (2009) observed that distribution of natural resource revenue to individuals in local communities was problematic due to the large human population to revenue ratio. Therefore, there is a need to increase communal revenue generation – other than earnings from CBNRMrelated employment – in order for revenue to be sufficient for distribution to individuals in the local communities. It is important to note that, over the years, a number of people in local communities have received some form of training (in-kind benefits) in a wide range of CBNRM-related subjects ranging from financial management, business planning, entrepreneurship, natural resource management, and leadership in order to enhance the ability to create wealth and sustainably manage natural resources. There have also been 1,012 village scouts who were employed and who reaped financial benefits from CBNRM. Overall, CBNRM-related employment is one of the key benefits that individual community members gain via direct participation in resource management. The Forestry Resources Management Program (2002-2008) operated in North Western and Luapula Provinces and was implemented in selected districts; local communities benefited both financially and inkind from this project. The strategic focus was on development of feeder roads, social amenities, and IGAs based on NWFPs. Local communities accrued revenue on an individual level and at the household level as a production unit. Gender concerns were mainstreamed into the project to the extent that women who previously, for instance, could not even set beehives began to place and manage beehives for honey production. Women have also been involved in the planting, pre-processing, and marketing of rattan. Other common IGAs include mushroom growing, wild vegetable and orchid cultivation, and caterpillar COMMUNITY BASED NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT: STOCKTAKING ASSESSMENT: ZAMBIA PROFILE

35

production. These activities have continued beyond the program lifespan (the program ended in 2008). However, in areas that have very tall trees such as in North Western province, the inappropriate practice of placing beehives at levels well below the tree canopy has discouraged beehive owners, due to low honey productivity, as bees fly well above the canopy. The Itezhi-tezhi CBNRM project funded by DANIDA (2005-2007) provides a case study of how 800 households, grouped into 22 associations (CBEs) and 67 interest groups (including beekeeping and carpentry), and supported by multiple stakeholders, internalized benefits within the membership. The project operated in Namwala GMA which covers an area of 3,600 km2 and involved the Kaingu, Shimbizhi, and Chilyabufu chiefdoms. The initiative aimed to: 1) support district and community-based institutions in conservation and natural resources management, 2) support income generating and business activities, targeting enhancements in the quality and quantity of production and providing an organized, sustainable link to inputs and market outlets for viable local micro-projects, and 3) support private sector involvement (mostly organized through local business associations or trusts) in providing an immediate local market, standard checking, and quality control of products from local micro-projects. Among the project’s achievements were: i)

Community Resource Boards and Village Action Groups (VAGs) were re-organised and strengthened. Radio communication equipment was installed to facilitate communication among the local communities and record keeping was also enhanced.

ii)

Community members were trained in safari monitoring and were able to conduct safari monitoring by themselves.

iii)

Community members were also able to monitor the operations of the lodge owners in Namwala GMA.

iv)

The village scout program was strengthened, resulting in data collection that indicated that the animal populations were becoming stable or increasing. Moreover, with increased scout effort, the number of poachers caught in illegal acts has also decreased over time.

v)

A land use plan was developed for the Namwala GMA via project support.

vi)

Village headmen were trained in traditional rights with respect to natural resource management.

vii)

By-laws were developed and enforced by the CRB members.

viii) The 22 Associations involved in beekeeping, gardening, and carpentry operated via established and registered committees, used locally developed business plans, constitutions, and action plans, and also opened business accounts. ix)

Capacity was built for community members regarding honey harvesting, processing, and bee management, resulting in enhanced productivity.

x)

The honey council, which was formed locally, transformed itself into the District Beekeepers Association and promoted bee products at the district level.

The fisheries sector has focused on implementation of CBNRM in four fisheries (Mweru- Luapula, Bangweulu, Kariba, and Zambezi) out of a total of 8 fishery areas. The Lake Kariba model of fisheries co-management commenced in the early 1990s and offers, probably, the most developed model among the four fishery areas; the other areas recently started re-organizing themselves as is the case for the Mweru-Luapula fishery. In the Kariba fishery, in order to maximize benefits to local fishing communities,

36


people were relocated into conglomerate villages to facilitate provision of social services such as schools, clinics, road networks, sanitation, and water, as well as local fisheries institutions. In the agricultural sector, various farming technologies and marketing strategies (e.g., agro-business) have been presented to local farmers to create food security (CFU, 2009). The benefits accrue to individual farmers. In-kind benefits include donated farming inputs, seeds, herbicides, and training which contributes to skills development and an agro-business orientation for poverty alleviation and food security. However, in some cases, the influx of facilitated donations erodes community development due to apparent dependence. Based on the gains in farm production, some farmers have diversified into agricultural services for other farmers (e.g., land preparation by equipment owners). Farmer field schools have also assisted local community members by providing loans for local entrepreneurship, thereby acting as a local farmer social assurance facility; these loans, which come with flexible terms, can easily be accessed by other community members.

4.5 CONTRIBUTIONS TO NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT PRIORITIES AND PROGRAMS Acceptance of CBNRM models has grown due to recognition by the government and cooperating partners. In many ways, CBNRM is intended to be implemented through decentralized arrangements and has recently been promoted in the National Decentralization Policy of 2004; this policy emphasized CBNRM’s potential for generating economic returns that would encourage local communities to sustainably conserve natural resources and manage the environment. CBNRM forms a unique platform – producers who are also primary beneficiaries – for technical and financial assistance from cooperating partners and other stakeholders to invest in national developmental priority areas such as tourism development, agriculture, and the environment. As such, CBNRM has contributed, in some measure, to national commitments to various Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). In Zambia, CBNRM has made strides in supporting interconnected developments in food security, poverty alleviation, environmental sustainability, and basic social services such as construction of rural schools, clinics, boreholes, and feeder roads through local community projects. Innovative food security and livelihoods programs (e.g., conservation farming, on-farm and off-farm product marketing) have been conducted using CBNRM concepts aimed at providing rural people with incentives to participate in natural resource management. Moreover, specific programs have been undertaken by local communities on HIV/AIDS. Over time, HIV/AIDS concerns have been streamlined into CBNRM activities. Gender tenets have also been integrated in the operations of the CBNRM social units which form local governance systems. In general, CBNRM initiatives support Zambia’s Fifth National Development Plan (2006-2010) and the Zambia Vision 2030 which both call for use of local, federated institutions founded on democratic and decentralized principles. CBNRM has also fostered inter-state cooperation and collaboration via transfrontier conservation areas (TFCAs). As postulated by Sandwith et al. (2001), best practice in transfrontier protected areas ought to involve integrating local people and ensuring that they benefit from these protected areas. Zambia has consequently incorporated CBNRM in its existing TFCAs which are supported by the Southern African Development Community (SADC) trans-frontier initiative. These TFCAs include Kavango-Zambezi (KAZA), Nyika, Zimbabwe-Mozambique-Zambia (ZIMOZA) – COMMUNITY BASED NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT: STOCKTAKING ASSESSMENT: ZAMBIA PROFILE

37

around the confluence of the Zambezi and Luangwa Rivers – and Lower Zambezi-Mana Pool. Currently, KAZA has an integrated development plan that was developed in a participatory and integrative manner with local communities in the target zone. Through various social capital elements, CBNRM aims to create adequate economic benefits and equally provides a platform for concerted efforts to combat the challenges of desertification and climate change. However, addressing these challenges will require long-term investments and the national CBNRM movement will need to lobby for mainstreaming CBNRM not only into policies, but also into assistance frameworks such as the United Nations Development Assistance Framework.

38


PART 2: ANALYSIS AND FUTURE ORIENTATIONS 5. ENABLING CONDITIONS CBNRM in Zambia was influenced by conditions or changes that enabled or led to impacts on natural resources. The overarching enabling condition had been, firstly, supportive policies and legal instruments that facilitated benefit sharing and devolution of power, responsibilities, and rights to local communities. Secondly, there has been acceptance of CBNRM by a range of stakeholder groups (e.g., government, local communities, natural resource based associations, NGOs, and cooperating partners) as a peoplecentered, cost effective conservation strategy for natural resources that contributes to rural and national development. In the case of local communities, one of the key enabling conditions for operationalizing CBNRM was a strong desire at the household level to see improved efficiency that results in greater, realized benefits from conservation. However, poor administrative skills at this level have reduced the impact. On the other hand, it was envisaged that local communities’ proximity to problems associated with the resource and direct links between communities and potential benefits (if solved) would make CBNRM an important strategy. With respect to economic and livelihood benefits, the enabling condition for creation of wealth has been positive policy and legal transformation. Similarly, with respect to governance and rights, supportive policy and legal provisions have been deemed to be critical, particularly for the formation of local institutions and benefit sharing. Notably, the CBNRM paradigm reinforced conventional approaches to conservation. CBNRM, therefore, has been a complementary approach to the centralized “command and control” system (and has not replaced it). Overall, CBNRM has brought about certain changes to natural resource management, livelihoods, and governance compared to the old paradigm. Starting with the Wildlife Policy and Zambia Wildlife Act, no. 12 of 1998, as a forerunner to other legislation, co-management, participatory, and collaborative models and concepts evolved in the natural resource management sector. These models have sought enhanced local participation and benefits in light of negative pressures on natural resources, mitigating the need by local communities to destroy the resource base.


39

6. LESSONS LEARNED The focus of this lessons learned sub-section is what has worked or what did not work with respect to CBNRM initiatives or actions in Zambia. Actions or ways of doing things that should be avoided or not repeated were seen to be important to identify and document as lessons learned. Similarly, changes that were made in implementing approaches or strategies that led to better or increased impacts were also noted as lessons learned. (See the three boxes in Annex D below for more details on lessons from COMACO, JFMAs, and ADMADE, respectively.) The lessons associated with policy include the importance of mainstreaming benefit sharing mechanisms for natural resources in order to maximize benefits for local communities. As CBNRM has been implemented, it has been learned that benefit sharing mechanisms for natural resources are essential in promoting CBNRM. Conversely, local communities withdraw their participation if license fees from fisheries and forestry are collected by the government in full, since local communities maintain that they would like to receive a share of these fees. Linked to this, exaggerating the potential benefits for local communities, even during operational undertakings, should be avoided as it induces a lack of enthusiasm with respect to supporting community-based programs when the benefits are not forthcoming. Clear objectives regarding collaboration with local communities by civil society organizations in natural resource management were seen as facilitating the growth of CBNRM. Overall, clear objectives increased the visibility of NGO activities by setting and developing a transparent agenda for the respective initiatives. Conversely, some NGOs collaborated with local communities without explaining the rationale of the collaboration. As a result, suspicions developed and trust was lost. In addition, some stakeholders have questioned the purpose of certain NGOs operating in particular areas, largely because of a lack of clarity in their agenda for community-based initiatives. Consequently, synergies have not been fully utilized and strengthened for the collective promotion of CBNRM. As policy and legislation have played a key role in shaping CBNRM in Zambia, there has been a need to regularly review the pertinent laws and policy so that they can remain relevant to the dynamic nature of the natural resource base and local communities. In general, the policy and legal transformation engendered a CBNRM program that established functional, local institutions for natural resource management. The policy and legislation not only formalized rights for access to natural resources for wealth creation, but also established local institutions that were charged with co-management, participatory, or collaborative natural resource management. Future policy advocacy and legal revisions could focus on strengthening these institutions and their delivery processes. More specific lessons learned are described below.

NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND MONITORING •

Local community participation in wildlife counts tended to lower the cost of conducting field level verification (ground truthing) of aerial surveys. Community members have taken part in inventorying wildlife and monitoring population trends together with the staff from the government’s wildlife agency (ZAWA). Patrol coverage has also been increasing through the engagement of local communities in the Game Management Areas. There are currently 2 GMAs (Mukungule and


41

Bangweulu) with ratified and operational land use plans that are used for resource management; 20 other GMAs are presently formulating their land use plans out of a total of 36 GMAs. •

In the forestry sector, community members have been involved in inventorying and monitoring forest resources in the JFMAs and NRM project areas. Seven JFMA have forest management plans. With respect to fisheries, fisher communities have participated in resource management and monitoring in key fishery areas. Management Oriented Monitoring Systems (MOMS) have also been launched in Mumbwa district to encourage local communities to systematically collect and manage natural resource information for effective natural resource management at the local level. In all of these natural resource sectors, it is evident that the participation of local communities has played a role in reducing what would have otherwise been high costs for managing and monitoring natural resources.

•

In some cases, there was limited participation by local communities in natural resource management, especially where CBNRM initiatives have been imposed rather than having evolved organically. One example is from community-based dam fisheries in Southern Province where the Department of Fisheries tried to facilitate the process of CBNRM in fisheries. Overall, the concept did not evolve with the local communities as had been the case with the emergence of community-based wildlife management in the 1980s. After establishment of 200 community-based dam fisheries, only 15 have persisted (an unimpressive 7%). One key element common to these successful fisheries is institutional resiliency. All of the 15 enduring community-based dam fisheries have evolved through community commitment and a willingness to enhance the initiative by the local communities themselves, without necessarily relying on outsiders. The communities have expanded the initiative and accepted it as their own via an understanding of their own circumstances. Such a phenomenon may also explain the low success rate of projects in other natural resource sectors that were supported by other stakeholders without the full commitment from the local communities themselves. On the other hand, all of the 73 CRBs (including the eight in open areas), registered from 2000 onwards, are operational. The legislation (Zambia Wildlife Act of 1998) provides for the establishment of CRBs on a voluntary basis: communities choose to form and register CRBs for the purpose of natural resource management in their area.

•

Despite the great pressures they confront, there is a level of resiliency in natural resources which can be facilitated by sustainable management. Stakeholders acknowledge that CBNRM has an important role to play in countering the pressures on natural resources.

•

It is important to continuously strengthen training institutions through the evolution of training curricula. Various higher learning institutions have mainstreamed CBNRM in their curriculum, recognizing that more effective natural resource management can, in part, be dependent upon the quality of human skills (human capital). Examples of such institutions are the University of Zambia, Copperbelt University, the Natural Resources Development College, and the Nyamaluma Institute.

GOVERNANCE CBNRM initiatives have drawn the following governance lessons through implementation. •

42

Better implementation was guaranteed by the development of guidelines with respect to participation in the selection of hunters, use of funds, and quota setting. Use of these guidelines worked well within the wildlife sector.


•

Avoid sharing revenue with local communities which have a high risk of financial mismanagement, especially prior to building capacity of local institutions. For instance, in the wildlife sector there was financial mismanagement prior to 2008 in some CRBs largely because of inadequate training and guidance given to CRBs by collaborating stakeholders. Subsequently, ZAWA implemented a deliberate policy of training and monitoring compliance of CRB guidelines, and this greatly improved the situation.

•

Functional, local institutions that are well organized, demonstrated better implementation of fishery CBNRM and showed greater resiliency. The examples are mainly found in the Kariba fisheries and some functional community-based dam fisheries in Southern Province.

•

Avoid channeling all efforts through a small group of local leaders as this reduces opportunities for a broader set of solutions and strategies. Local leaders are, however, essential and should be included from the outset in any CBNRM initiative.

•

Organizing households into groups that focus on livelihood initiatives, and that can also be better linked to markets, improves their participation in natural resource management as can be shown in the example from the COMACO project (see Box D1 in Annex D below for details). In addition, avoid “elite capture” by encouraging broad-based participation. In practice, since elites are educated and hold an influential status in society, it is difficult to completely avoid them, but practitioners should encourage their positive participation with other CBNRM participants in an environment of transparency, accountability, and compliance.

BENEFITS GENERATION AND MANAGEMENT •

As stated above, avoid sharing revenue with local communities that have a high risk of financial mismanagement, prior to providing adequate capacity building.

•

Identifying and implementing innovations in IGAs linked to natural resources provides more leverage with respect to community participation. In addition, local communities participate more in a community activity if they can benefit as individuals. IGAs may be conducted communally but should aim to provide direct benefits to participants. However, not all activities generate the same level of benefits and most of them require value addition. Moreover, due to differential taxation (see Box D2 in Annex D below for more information), there is a need for value addition in order to encourage competitive commodity pricing.

•

In general, avoid handouts and promote organic CBNRM models which have a propensity to grow. Organic CBNRM models are those that allow collective, community ownership of both processes and outputs without interference from handouts. These organic or “homegrown” initiatives are characterized by improved collaboration among stakeholder groups, a common vision and norms, and high levels of trust, knowledge generation, and exchange of information. Likewise, such initiatives are widely viewed as legitimate and likely to be sustainable.

•

There is a need to invest more in market incentives in order to drive maximization of conservation benefits. In general, natural resources are threatened by degradation due to anthropogenic activities, which may include poaching, deforestation, and open access fishing. In order to counter these negative trends, local communities need value-added products for high paying, accessible markets; this will


43

maximize their returns and will keep them away from activities that are adverse to conservation. Thus, there is a need to explore business models for commercializing natural resources.

44


7. BEST PRACTICES In the context of this report, best practices can be defined as the best ways or the best methods to implement CBNRM that have resulted in positive or maximum impact. These ways or methods of implementing CBNRM are also those that lead to a healthy wildlife population and habitat, enhanced fish and forest resources, increased revenue for CBOs, and improved governance of natural resources.

WITH RESPECT TO NATURAL RESOURCES •

Participatory approaches in planning, implementation and monitoring, conflict resolution, and stakeholder capacity building – particularly among local people – will likely lead to best results or maximum CBNRM impacts. Similarly, identify community facilitators and build their capacity in order to foster superior CBNRM results.

•

Any commercial extraction of natural resources must be preceded by a high quality feasibility study.

•

Local communities may have a wealth of local knowledge with respect to conserving natural resources, but need technical input from modern knowledge. Nonetheless, the use of indigenous knowledge is indispensable in promoting environmental awareness; consequently, facilitators should include different classes of local people. Therefore, integrative technical input into local knowledge, via environmental awareness activities, is one of the best ways of implementing CBNRM and will lead to a healthy natural resource base. Other best practices include development and implementation of natural resource plans as well as participatory resource monitoring. Also, by reducing policing by government agencies and promoting local community participation, management costs are likely to shrink and confrontations over resources between government institutions and local communities are reduced.

•

Prioritizing human/wildlife conflict mitigation, mainly through effective planning and strong settlement controls, is critical to success.

•

Similarly, creation of innovative land and water resource plans that maximize the buffer or separation zones between wildlife resources and valued crops and livestock and settlements are equally important.

•

Establishing viable natural resource management systems, that secure healthy populations, support propagation and regeneration of wildlife, fish, and vegetation, and enable occasional or seasonal movement of wildlife populations to water and forage, generates positive results.

WITH RESPECT TO ECONOMIC BENEFITS AND LIVELIHOODS •

The best way of implementing CBNRM that targets revenue generation for CBOs is to encourage productivity at the household level but product marketing and social networking (facilitation roles) at a higher level or social unit (cooperatives or associations) in order to reduce transaction costs.

•

Natural resource protection is essential in hedging sustainable economic benefits.

•

Encourage community-based commercialization and diversification of entrepreneurship, focusing on product development coupled with appropriate technologies and stakeholder capacity building.


45

•

Employ appropriate business and entrepreneurship models which take economies of scale into account (e.g., use of associations and federations vs. lead or individual contact persons).

•

Emphasize sustainable harvesting and sustainable yields and develop suitable strategies to ensure these.

•

Finding alternatives to destructive practices which are driven by real, accessible, and rewarding markets can lead to increased revenues for CBOs and their affiliates.

•

Providing viable forms of access to financial, communications, and marketing services is essential. In some circumstances this may warrant linkages with commercial enterprises that have access to financial, communications, and marketing services, but this will often require an independent arbiter or facilitator.

WITH RESPECT GOVERNANCE AND RIGHTS •

The best way of implementing CBNRM is by strengthening local, functional organizational units through capacity building – thereby allowing for learning by doing and adaptive management.

•

Implementation of improved communication strategies leads to transparency and positive results.

•

Implementation of solid, workable community structures and governance systems is essential.

•

Clear and realistic allocation of authority and responsibility for the resources being managed is essential. This, a priori, requires: 1) some knowledge of the precedent status of the resource, 2) a mutually agreed set of management targets, 3) clarification of the community management structure and individuals and its governance standards and targets, 4) clarification and confirmation that they have the formal and realistic authority to manage within the framework of the conventional or traditional governance system they are operating in, 5) independent monitoring systems, and 6) mechanisms that can be implemented with immediate effect to recover authority and management responsibility where failures occur.

•

Monitoring of local community practices by government agencies and NGOs in their respective operational areas provides important checks and balances. For instance, there should be accountability in the use of funds that local communities receive as their revenue share; these funds should be treated as public funds.

•

The involvement of local authorities at the district level (local district councils) and the implication of the department of community development through the decentralization process should be emphasized. In general, in order to ensure success in decentralization, transparent, democratic processes are essential.

•

Implementation of bottom-up approaches in CBNRM initiatives produces superior results. These types of approaches guarantee that CBNRM initiatives remain relevant to local communities.

46


8. SCALING UP HOW TO EXPAND THE IMPACT AND SCOPE OF CBNRM •

Expand partnerships, with a goal of making local institutions more effective at delivery. For instance, strive for community-based organizations that can partner with well-run, serious, credible, and effective business partner organizations, in a commercial form of co-management, which focuses on the welfare of local communities (improved livelihoods) in exchange for conservation compliance.

•

Diversification of livelihood activities is needed for scaling up or expanding CBNRM.

•

Expansion should be based on the lessons learned from successful CBNRM sites, focusing on efficiency and effectiveness (i.e., employ a social learning strategy).

•

Strategies for implementing expansion efforts should include advocating for harmonized, integrative, and supportive legislation with respect to CBNRM. Similarly, the concept of CBNRM should be expanded to include ecosystems or landscapes, and should move away from sector-based approaches. Lessons from various institutions and groups that are implementing CBNRM should be accessible and shared among CBNRM practitioners.

•

For effective impacts, a broadened knowledge base and more sensitization on environmental issues are required, such as a focus on climate change. In addition, the role of women in CBNRM needs to be emphasized. In order to change gender perceptions (which can be a barrier), messages and efforts in this regard should target men who traditionally dominate women.

However, it should be acknowledged that some maintain that CBNRM is a problematic concept wherever it is applied, and is only successful where adequate authority, responsibility, resources, and support exist. In addition, this school of thought postulates that CBNRM is always at risk from more focused and competitive models of economic activity and, usually, it is only successful where economic circumstances are unattractive to the private entrepreneur. This could imply that success is only possible in circumstances of complete protection, or where levels of remuneration are insufficient to encourage “normal” economic activity, and where community dynamics enable stable management. The above suggests that CBNRM will eventually be replaced by conventional business models, as access to resources and markets improves. If so, scaling up should be focused on the more remote areas where stable community dynamics exist and where natural resource management can utilize unique high-value resources (wildlife, bees, fish, special plants) that will either attract the market to the area (tourism), or cover the cost of transport to sustainable markets. As such there is need for 1) careful planning to select priority areas (given the usual constraint of limited financial resources), 2) capacity building for community management and marketing skills (to permit feasible, sustained operations and viable benefit sharing structures), and 3) sufficient authority and responsibility for the management of the targeted natural resources.


47

GEOGRAPHIC AREAS TO TARGET •

Expand the current 7 Joint Forest Management Areas (districts) in three provinces to all nine provinces.

•

Strengthen CBNRM fishery programs in areas other than Kariba, targeting the Itezhi-tezhi, Bangweulu and Mweru-Luapula fisheries. In addition, new areas for the extension of CBNRM fisheries are proposed for the Bangweulu and Lukanga fisheries.

•

Expand Mungongo oil production from Sesheke to other districts on Kalahari soils in Western Province.

•

Encourage local communities in open areas to adopt the CBNRM approach to wildlife management and also establish CRBs in the Chambeshi, Mansa, and Luwingu GMAs.

•

Expand farmer field schools and conservation farming or conservation agricultural practices to all rural areas of Zambia.

48


9. CHALLENGES AND BARRIERS CONFRONTING CBNRM PROGRAMS The current, major challenges confronting CBNRM initiatives in Zambia follow. •

The legal framework for benefit sharing is inadequate with respect to forest resources; benefits for local communities are insufficient. Advocacy by civil society will play a critical role in strengthening the policy and legal framework.

•

Literacy and numeracy can pose very serious challenges to the ability of local communities to negotiate effectively with stronger partners.

•

The commitment of some local organizations is inadequate, as demonstrated in the case of communitybased dam fisheries in Southern Province.

•

Due to inadequate revenues accruing from wildlife resources, households do not receive direct dividends from wildlife management. Yet, direct dividends implies revenue sharing as compensation for living with a resource and bearing the costs associated with it.

•

Growing land use pressures from conflicting land uses and slow response rates to these pressures, coupled with an apparent lack of commitment to address the pressures in a realistic and adaptive manner by some key stakeholders constitute another challenge. For instance, there is extensive encroachment in some zones of the Namwala and Bilili GMAs, due to farming activities, which has a negative impact on wildlife habitats. Another example is the growing demand for both construction and agriculture in riparian areas that increases the silt load in major fisheries, thereby affecting breeding sites and subsequently reducing production. In order to resolve land use pressures, one of the long-term solutions is early collaborative planning, involving all stakeholders; the plan can subsequently gain ownership and be implemented by local communities.

•

Non-transparent cost and benefit sharing mechanisms with respect to wildlife revenues at the national level.

•

Failure by many of the stakeholders to acquire and utilize indigenous knowledge that can enhance CBNRM.

•

Complex and dysfunctional dynamics within rural economies and communities: this is a very difficult challenge and a fundamental weakness in traditional CBNRM. The dynamics could possibly be improved via improved land use and development planning, greater support from district councils, and effective integration of CRB area plans into the District Development Coordinating Committee (DDCC) process.

•

Insufficient decentralization of authority and responsibility, leaving communities with little to manage. There is thus a need to increase delegation of quota setting and management responsibility based on performance targets. COMMUNITY BASED NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT: STOCKTAKING ASSESSMENT: ZAMBIA PROFILE

49

•

Remoteness poses a challenge in many ways. This could be addressed, in part, through the increased use of information and communication technology, and focusing on activities that are sustainable within existing economic circumstances.

•

Institutional weaknesses in CRBs: much more investment in building capacity is needed, but this can only be addressed along with the other challenges mentioned in this section as part of a larger decentralization program.

•

Various law enforcement agencies only concentrate on their mandates, ignoring the other natural resources. Consequently, harmonizing of mandates with respect to law enforcement is needed for various natural resources in order to reduce the transaction costs.

•

The scope of CBNRM is currently limited. Redefining the CBNRM scope to encompass emerging land use pressures due to social and capital demands could result in increasing the impact of CBNRM.

Following are the barriers confronting CBNRM initiatives: •

In the fisheries sector, community participation is not fully legitimized for the fishers and other local community members. For instance, fishery legislation does not confer powers and rights to participating village fish scouts in co-management schemes.

•

Overall, traditional and/or community ownership of natural resources is more rhetoric than substance.

•

Natural resource management is largely sector-based. There is a need to move towards holistic approaches to nature conservation.

•

Generally, policies are not resilient enough to adapt to rapidly changing social and economic conditions. Similarly, there is a lack of a policy framework that provides communities with a clear roadmap regarding how to gain a larger proportion of resource benefits if the resources were better managed for conservation.

•

Ownership of the natural resources is principally stated but not enshrined in the legislation. There is therefore a need for increased advocacy on improving CBNRM policy and legislation.

Following are the threats confronting the cumulative national CBNRM program as manifested at a range of CBNRM sites: •

Lack of benefit sharing from forest and fishery resources, especially with respect to license fees.

•

Middlemen (private partners) have a tendency of not fulfilling their pledges, thereby eroding the trust of local communities with respect to partnering in conservation activities; the overall consequence is reduced support for conservation.

•

There are elements of donor-driven participation in CBNRM (i.e., imposed and not organic CNRNM). Moreover, CBNRM systems are frequently driven by donor subsidies. While this may be essential in start-up situations, the subsidies often mask the essential economies and realities of building what needs to be a hard-nosed and sustained business enterprise.

•

Many communities are still not fully aware of how they can participate in CBNRM initiatives.

•

Sidelined traditional systems at the local level can be a real source of conflicts.

50


•

Contradictory policies on land use, e.g., expansion of agriculture, without reinforcing capacity to mitigate negative effects, often results in siltation of lakes and waterways; this, in turn, has a negative impact on fish breeding sites downstream.

•

Current CBNRM models do not allow sufficient flexibility to encourage new solutions and adaptation to challenges. For instance, many traditional leaders may not have been effectively engaged in natural resource management efforts yet current models do not encourage a response to this challenge.

The following strategies can be adopted to address these issues: •

Strengthen the effectiveness of CNBNM networks and the National CBNRM Forum.

•

Develop improved strategies for implementing CBNRM in Zambia.

•

Advocate for providing full rights, responsibilities, and powers to local communities (full devolution).

•

Adopt holistic NRM approaches; similarly, harmonize policies and the promotion of dialogue as is being done by the National CBNRM Forum.

•

Use more analysis to build or improve CBNRM models.

•

Ensure robust, local organizational structures, replete with the capacity to negotiate and manage partnerships and manage resources on their own – this will ensure a certain resiliency to shocks. In other words, empower local institutions by redesigning CBNRM structures to encompass more social capital attributes.

•

Build capacity at both the local community level and among practitioners, including technocrats.

•

Provide mechanisms for empowering local communities to sustainably implement CBEs (e.g., fish farming, craft production, livestock rearing, mushroom growing, indigenous fruit and vegetable processing, honey production, rattan cultivation, and tourism).

•

Improve on communication and information sharing at all levels.

•

Implement mechanisms to protect local communities from third parties and from the phenomenon of “elite” capture.


51

10. LINKS TO NATIONAL DEVLOPMENT PRIORITIES AND PROGRAMS POVERTY ALLEVIATION AND MDGS CBNRM has contributed to a number of MDGs, in particular, support for Goal No. 1, “Eradicate extreme poverty and hunger,” and Goal No. 7, “Ensure environmental sustainability.” The contributions have been both direct and indirect, through the creation of natural-resource-based employment, resource protection, and rural development via the provision of social facilities and infrastructure. CBNRM should now focus on contributing to utilization of integrative indigenous knowledge for conservation.

ECONOMIC GROWTH CBNRM should continue strengthening local and national economies through product development and entrepreneurship. It should be noted that much of this contribution has not been quantified. In the future, CBNRM can increase its economic growth contributions, provided transport and other infrastructure, as well as communication technologies can be improved.

COMBATING LAND DEGRADATION Local communities have, from time immemorial, been conscious of nature. Modern knowledge continues, however, to reinforce forest regeneration, soil conservation, and other best practices for combating land degradation. Moreover, some management instruments, such as management plans, have become indispensible tools in natural resource management. It should be noted that there is no single case of desertification in Zambia, in its true sense. However, combating land degradation is a domain in which CBNRM has yet to realize its full potential; it is a domain in which CBNRM could be crucially important in supporting land and water conservation measures as well as the application of best wildlife management practice in areas where domestic livestock and rainfed cropping are inappropriate.

CLIMATE CHANGE ADAPTATION AND MITIGATION Local communities have been exploring strategies for adaptation to, and mitigation of climate variability. For instance, farmers have been planting a diverse range of resistant crops that can survive during times of drought and floods, such as cassava. In general, the rural populace continues to depend on natural resources of all kinds, and via their interaction with nature, they experience climate change and climate variability more intensely. Therefore, as knowledge increases in the area of climate change adaptation and mitigation, more capacity building (provision of training and tools), including subjects such as carbon credit trading, and the participation of local communities, will be required. Though it is acknowledged by stakeholders that there are a number of community-managed areas (e.g., in Western Province) that demonstrate superior management for traditional purposes, such as ceremonies, evidence of reduced fire or degradation in these forests has yet to be systematically documented. These examples of best CBNRM COMMUNITY BASED NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT: STOCKTAKING ASSESSMENT: ZAMBIA PROFILE

53

practice should be studied and, where appropriate, applied with respect to climate change mitigation and adaptation.

FOOD SECURITY CBNRM continues to play a critical role in addressing environmental issues such as crop damage by livestock and wildlife. By community participation in crop damage mitigation techniques, food security benefits are created that otherwise replace the desire by local communities to degrade natural resources. Overall, food security should be a focal area linked to CBNRM, but the selection of crops and livestock and the location of food security investments need to take real economic circumstances into account. For example, if cash crops are suggested in an area outside a realistic market radius, it is unlikely that they will be sustainable once subsidies are removed. Conversely, new market opportunities within rural areas always exist, but they need to be developed within a framework of capacity building in marketing skills as well as increased use of sound bulking and logistical techniques. Avoiding animal-agriculture conflict and instituting sound soil and water conservation measures need to be embedded in the planning of any food security initiatives. Finally, it has been noted that, while allowing communities to respond to opportunities and to weather crises, community resiliency can also be strengthened through national organizations; this will help protect local institutions and their communities from stronger partners.

54


11. OPPORTUNITIES FOR STRENGTHENING CONTRIBUTIONS TO NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT PRIORITIES AND PROGRAMS CBNRM can improve its contribution to national development priorities by clearly defining CBNRM processes and approaches. This should include community mobilization and facilitation approaches. It is important that CBNRM results become predictable and not mixed. One real opportunity will be restoring ownership of resources to land owners based on compliance with conservation principles that generate real incentives and benefits. CBNRM should become more results-driven and market-driven (commercialization) in order to achieve both economic and biological sustainability. Some of the approaches and opportunities identified for fostering CBNRM are: •

Develop a holistic approach to natural resource management as opposed to a sector-based approach. In order to harmonize natural resource management, there is a need to identify, through studies, conflicting areas among the various sectoral policies. In addition, the National CBNRM Forum will have to engage with the ongoing reclassification program and other relevant programs which will impact future CBNRM options.

•

Aggregate district-level information on game numbers and uses into a national-level database. There should be a working system at the district level for inputting data into the national database.

•

Advocate for the development of by-laws at the local level which will promote sound management of all natural resources (devolution).

•

Strengthen and develop viable CBEs. These CBEs should be documented by type.


55

12. RECOMMENDATIONS The following key recommendations can be made based on the present CBNRM stocktaking exercise: i)

Develop a long-term financial commitment by stakeholders through a trust fund for CBNRM initiatives; once established, the fund could make incremental investments relevant to conservation, poverty alleviation, and rural development. This is based on the observation that the sustainability of short-term projects and other commitments are, in most cases, questionable. There are several projects that have been abandoned by local communities after the project or related commitments were phased out. Overall, short-term projects or commitments should ensure that they are financially and ecologically viable beyond the duration of the project or commitment.

ii)

The unit of management and benefits associated with CBNRM need to be clearly defined. Although the National CBNRM Forum expressed a desire for CBNRM information management through the use of performance monitoring and evaluation indicators, the unit of management and the benefits (as targets) have not been defined for CBNRM practitioners. These targets and definitions will be critical in promoting CBNRM and redefining or adapting initiatives when the need arises. Clearly defined management units and benefits should be linked to performance monitoring and evaluation indicators.

iii)

Capacity building aimed at strengthening the existing National CBNRM Forum and Natural Resource Conservation Forum is essential for continued networking among members and information exchange, and also for forging policy advocacy with respect to natural resource management. Policy advocacy should be an ongoing process but should, in particular, take advantage of policy and legislation reviews.

iv)

Strengthen performance monitoring and evaluation to contribute to effective information sharing and decision making, particularly with respect to future investments in CBNRM.

v)

There is a need to continuously invest in the training of CBNRM practitioners in government agencies and their partners as well as in the leadership of local institutions (CBOs and CBEs).

vi)

Identify and invest in producer or interest groups (e.g., conservation farmers, mushroom growers, beekeepers, and handicraft groups), making production units more effective, as opposed to investing at the level of larger community units.

vii)

There is a need for a national CBNRM strategy or action plan. The strategy or action plan should highlight, concisely, what needs to achieved and how this will be achieved.

viii) Providing tangible rights to local communities for fisheries co-management, including decision making powers within the legal framework, would facilitate conflict mitigation. For example, village fish scouts who participate in resource monitoring and management are not recognized or legitimized by law. Therefore, there is a need to address such issues in the legislation. ix)

In order to ensure more effective CBNRM, there is a need for full devolution of rights, responsibilities, and power from the State to local communities. In order to achieve this, increased advocacy will be required by civil society groups and NGOs working in the natural resource sector.


57

13. SUMMARY, SYNTHESIS AND CONCLUSION The present CBNRM profile forms an initial assessment at the level of national stakeholders that will inform future initiatives and the development of CBNRM, and which will, in turn, affect activities at the local level. CBNRM in Zambia presents a number of strengths that include: i)

A long and dynamic history of CBNRM development.

ii) The mainstreaming of CBNRM in various environmental and natural resource sector priorities and programs. iii) Goodwill and support by the government for CBNRM as demonstrated by various policies and legislation. iv) Broad-based stakeholder participation in supporting the development of CBNRM. Therefore, the scaling up of CBNRM needs to be holistic (encompassing several sectors, policies, and institutions at the same time), taking into account various issues currently defining the scope of CBNRM. CBNRM is also positioned to draw strength from the positive transformation of “command and control” State institutions to a local community partnership orientation (e.g., co-management, participatory, and collaborative arrangements). CBNRM initiatives should also focus on economic value addition and commercialization in order to maximize benefits. The past decades have witnessed much progress with respect to the establishment and transformation of local institutions associated with natural resource management. Debate regarding whether these local institutions have satisfactorily delivered results continues and was quite evident during interviews for the present CBNRM country profile. CBNRM has failed to take full advantage of prevailing enabling conditions and lessons, particularly with respect to broad community involvement in the management of the natural resource base (e.g., wildlife, fisheries, forests, water, and energy). Local institutions exist in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity and scale which supposes that federalized social units can be effective if they are well organized and are well placed to effectively deliver results, but require, at the same time, broad-based participation and inclusion to avoid the “elite capture” syndrome. At present, there is a need to link weaknesses to opportunities; this, in turn, makes development and revision of the CBNRM strategy very important. In addition, the fusion of technical and local, traditional knowledge remains critical. Significant progress has been made with respect to the devolution of rights, responsibilities, and power but much still remains to be done in this area. It is probably necessary that full devolution of rights, responsibilities, and power to local communities occurs in order for CBNRM to realize its full potential; it may be difficult, however, for technocrats to give up such rights, responsibilities, and powers. This is an area that requires more advocacy by civil society and interest groups. Challenges, barriers, and threats that impede the development and scaling up of CBNRM do exist but are probably not insurmountable; they are, rather, soluble, but require the commitment of stakeholders at all levels. The National CBNRM Forum should utilize the contents of this profile (and subsequent, related COMMUNITY BASED NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT: STOCKTAKING ASSESSMENT: ZAMBIA PROFILE

59

studies) to enhance its information sharing and networking efforts. It is proposed that the Zambia CBNRM profile be revised and updated every 3 years due to the dynamic nature of CBNRM.

60


14. REFERENCES Anderson, J. (2002). Nature, wealth and power: emerging best practice for revitalising rural Africa. USAID / Africa Bureau (AFR/SD), Washington, USA. Barrow, E., J. Clarke, I. Gandy, K.R. Jones, and Y. Tessema (2002). Analysis of stakeholder power and responsibilities in forest management in Eastern and Southern Africa. Forest and Social Perspectives in Conservation, No. 9. IUCN Eastern Africa Programme, Nairobi, Kenya. CFU (2009). Conservation farming and conservation agriculture handbook for hoe farmers in agroecological regions I & IIa – flat culture. Lusaka, Zambia. Child, B. (2009). Community conservation in southern Africa: rights-based natural resource management. In: Suich, H., B. Child, & A. Spenceley (eds.), Evolution and Innovation in Wildlife Conservation: Parks and Game Ranches to Transfrontier Conservation Areas. Earthscan, London, UK. CITES (2010). Doc. 68 Annex 6b - Report of the panel of experts on the African elephant on the review of the proposal submitted by Zambia to transfer its national population of Loxodonta africana from Appendix I to Appendix II. http://www.cites.org/eng/cop/15/doc/E15-68A06b).pdf Clarke, J. E. (2000). Evaluation of Wildlife Conservation Society’s Administrative Management Design project (WCS / ADMADE). ARD – RAISE Consortium, Burlington, USA. Dalal-Clayton, B. and B. Child (2003). Lessons from Luangwa: The Story of the Luangwa Integrated Resource Development Project, Zambia. IIED, London, UK. DeGeorges, P. and B. Reilly (2008). A critical evaluation of conservation and development in SubSaharan Africa. Edwin Mellen Press, Lewiston, USA. DeGeorges, P. and B. Reilly (2009). The realities of community based natural resource management and biodiversity conservation in sub-saharan Africa. Sustainability 1(3): 734-788. Dunham, K. and I. Simwanza (2002). Aerial census of elephants and other large herbivores in South Luangwa National Park and Lupande GMA, Zambia. WWF-SARPO Occassional Paper No. 8. WWFSARPO, Harare, Zimbabwe. Flender, U. and K. Mabuluki (undated). JFM guidelines for participatory forest identification, demarcation and map production of Joint Forest Management Areas in Zambia. Keepers Zambia Foundation & DED, Lusaka, Zambia. Gibson, C. and S. Marks (1995). Transforming rural hunters into conservationists: an assessment of community-based wildlife management programs in Africa. World Development 23(6): 941-957. Gondo, P., P. Sola, and N. Kurebgaseka (2002). Assessing the potential for production, commercialization and marketing of NWFPs by rural producers in Zambia to improve their livelihoods. PFAP II, Lusaka, Zambia. GRZ (2008). Integrated land use assessment (ILUA), Zambia (2005-2008). Forestry Department, Lusaka, Zambia. COMMUNITY BASED NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT: STOCKTAKING ASSESSMENT: ZAMBIA PROFILE

61

Hachileka, E., M. Chundama, and C. Mupimpila (1999). The effectiveness of benefit sharing schemes in community based wildlife resource management programmes in Zambia. Social Recovery Project, Ministry of Finance and Economic Development, Lusaka, Zambia. Heermans, J. and J. Otto (1999). Whose woods these are: Community based forest management in Africa. USAID/Africa Bureau, Sustainable Development Office, Washington, USA. Jachmann, H. (1998). Monitoring illegal wildlife use and law enforcement in African savanna rangelands. Wildlife Resource Monitoring Unit, ECZ, Lusaka, Zambia. Jachmann, H. and G. Kalyocha (1994). Surveys of the large mammals in nine conservation areas of the Central Luangwa Valley. LIRDP Project, Chipata, Zambia. Josserand, H. (2001). Community-based natural resource management in Africa: A review. ARD- RAISE Consortium, Arlington, USA. Kalyocha, G. (2000). Sustainability of community based natural resource management programmes: lessons from the Luangwa Integrated Resource Development Project. LIRDP, Chipata, Zambia. Kapungwe, E. (2000). Empowering communities to manage natural resources: where does the new power lie? Case studies from Mumbwa Game Management Area and Lupande Game Management Area, Zambia. In: Shackleton, S. and B. Campbell (eds.), Empowering Communities to Manage Natural Resources: Case Studies from Southern Africa. STEP Project, CSIR, Pretoria, South Africa. Kokwe, M. (2007). Lessons from joint forest management in Zambia. Provincial Forestry Action Programme, Phase II, Department of International Development Cooperation, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Government of Finland and MTENR, Government of the Republic of Zambia, Lusaka, Zambia. Leader-Williams, N., S. Albon, and P. Berry (1990). Illegal exploitation of black rhinoceros and elephant populations: patterns of decline, law enforcement and patrol effort in the Luangwa Valley, Zambia. Journal of Applied Ecology 27: 1055-1087. Lewis, D. (1993). The Zambian way to Africanize conservation. In: Lewis, D. and N. Carter (eds.), Voices from Africa: Local Perspectives on Conservation.WWF, Washington, USA. Lewis, D. and A. Phiri (1998). Wildlife snaring – an indicator of community response to a community based conservation project. Oryx 32(2): 111-121. Lewis, D., A. Mwenya, and G. Kaweche (1990). African solutions to wildlife problems in Africa: insights from community-based projects in Zambia. Unasylva 161(41): 11-20. Mano Consultancy Services, Ltd. (1998). An evaluation of the ADMADE programme with special reference to the strengthening phase, 1995-1997. USAID/Zambia, Lusaka, Zambia. Matakala, P. and S. Johnson (2009). Assessment of progress since the December 2008 mid-term review: regional community based natural resource management (CBNRM) capacity building programme in Southern Africa – implementation phase (SAF 2861). WWF-SARPO, Harare, Zimbabwe. Matenga, C. (1999). Community-based management schemes in Zambia: empowering or disempowering local communities? Paper presented at the International Conference on African Environment: Past and Present, 5-6 July 1999, Oxford, UK.

62


Mbewe, B., C. Makota, E. Hachileka, J. Mwitwa, M. Chundama, and M. Nanchengwa (2005). Community based natural resource management in Zambia: status report, 2005. WWF, Lusaka, Zambia. Metcalfe, S. (1999). Study on the development of trans-boundary natural resource management areas in southern Africa – community perspectives. Biodiversity Support Program, Washington, USA. Milanzi, J. and J. Msoka (2006). Aerial census of elephants and other large herbivores in South Luangwa National Park and Lupande Game Management Areas. SLAMU, Lusaka, Zambia. Moinuddin H. (2002). Project document for continuing Norwegian support to SLAMU, phase V. Zambia Wildlife Authority, Lusaka, Zambia. Mölsä, H. (2009). Fisheries management plan for Mweru – Luapula, Zambia (draft). Programme for Luapula Agricultural and Rural Development, Luapula, Zambia. Mwenya, A., D. Lewis, and G. Kaweche (1990). ADMADE: policy, background and future. National Parks and Wildlife Service, New Administrative Design for Game Management Areas, NPWS, Lusaka, Zambia. Nkhata, B. and C. Breen (2010). Performance of community-based natural resource governance for the Kafue Flats (Zambia). Environmental Conservation 37: 296-302. Rihoy, E. and A. Steiner (1995). The commons without the tragedy? Strategies for community based natural resources management in southern Africa. Report of the Annual Regional Conference of the Natural Resource Management Programme, SADC Wildlife Technical Coordination Unit, Lilongwe, Malawi. Sandwith, T., C. Shine, L. Hamilton, and D. Sheppard (2001). Trans-boundary Protected Areas for Peace and Co-operation. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland. Siampale, A. (2008). The potential for carbon sequestration in the terrestrial forests of Zambia. Paper presented at the Carbon and Communities in Tropical Woodlands Conference, 16-18 June 2008, Edinburgh, UK. Sichilongo, M. (2003). The Significance of Community Resource Boards (CRBs) in Zambia. MSc. Thesis, Durrell Institute of Conservation and Ecology, University of Kent, UK. Simasiku, P., H. Simwanza, G. Tembo, S. Bandyopandhyay, and J. Pavy (2008). The impact of wildlife management policies on communities and conservation in Game Management Areas in Zambia: message to policy makers. NRCF, Lusaka, Zambia. Tilley, P. (ed.) (1995). Our efforts, our rewards: Administrative Management Design for Game Management Areas. NPWS and WWF, ADMADE Program, Lusaka, Zambia. Wilbelaeur, C., A. Mosimane, R. Mabumnda, C. Makota, A. Khumalo, and M. Nanchengwa (2005). A preliminary assessment of natural resource management capacity of community based organisations in southern Africa – the case of Botswana, Mozambique, Namibia, Zambia and Zimbabwe. Regional CBNRM Project, WWF, Harare, Zimbabwe.


63

ANNEX A: STATEMENT OF WORK 1.0 BACKGROUND In October, 2008, the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) awarded WWF a cooperative agreement through the Leader With Associates funding mechanism for implementation of the Conservation Partnerships for Sustainability in Southern Africa (COPASSA) Project. The primary function of the COPASSA Project is to promote CBNRM as an appropriate conservation/ development strategy by strengthening networks of CBNRM service providers across Southern Africa. This award is building upon more than two decades of USAID support and over $250 million in CBNRM and biodiversity conservation investments in Southern Africa. CBNRM is an incentive-based conservation philosophy that links conservation of natural resources with rural development and improved rural livelihoods. The basic hypothesis within the southern Africa CBNRM program is that “for a community to manage its natural resource base sustainably it must receive direct benefits arising from its use. These benefits must exceed the perceived costs of managing the resources.” This hypothesis has three conceptual foundations: 1) economic value, giving a resource such as wildlife, a focused value that can be realized by the community or land owner; 2) devolution, emphasizing the need to devolve management decisions from the government to the community or local land users in order to create positive conditions for sustainable wildlife management; and 3) collective proprietorship, whereby a group of people are jointly given use rights over resources, which they are then able to manage according to their own rules and strategies. The Zimbabwe Communal Areas Management Program for Indigenous Resources (CAMPFIRE) and the Zambia Administrative Management Design Program for Game Management Areas (ADMADE) were the initial forerunners of CBNRM in southern Africa, with both commencing in the 1980s. The Botswana National CBNRM Program was initiated in the early 1990s, while the Namibia National CBNRM Program was commenced 1993 through the USAID-funded Living In A Finite Environment (LIFE) Project. USAID also supported CBNRM investments in Malawi through the COMPASS Project, providing substantial support through two funding phases. More recently, embryonic CBNRM initiatives have been started in Mozambique and Tanzania, with both countries offering promising potential. As a way to demonstrate the potential of CBNRM, CK2C will collaborate with the WWF and its COPASSA partners in conducting Stocktaking Assessments. These Assessments will generate Country CBNRM Profiles for five to seven (depending on budget availability) SADC countries that are implementing CBNRM programs at scale. This Assessment will focus on CBNRM impacts achieved in the subregion—regardless of source—and the lessons produced. With an emphasis on impacts and lessons, it will be non-judgmental and will avoid identifying a project as “successful” or “unsuccessful”. While the studies will describe the genesis and evolution of the country-specific programs, the main goals of the CK2C undertaking are to identify, analyze and assess the various initiatives and to identify opportunities and impediments to further expansion, adoption, and execution of CBNRM in each country The following Terms of Reference lay out the proposed approach, tasks, and deliverables that would be COMMUNITY BASED NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT: STOCKTAKING ASSESSMENT: ZAMBIA PROFILE

65

expected of Regional CBNRM specialists who would be contracted by the CK2C Project to assist country stakeholders in this stocktaking process.

2.0 APPROACH The objective of the planned stocktaking process will be to assist CBNRM Country Forums to undertake a participatory review and analysis of their CBNRM Programs such that: a) the history of each country’s CBNRM Program is summarized (including the evolution of the working hypotheses that drove the various programs); b) the current scale of the CBNRM effort is quantified, to the extent feasible; c) the impacts of the program are captured; d) lessons learned are recognized; and e) the challenges and barriers to further advancement of CBNRM are identified and prioritized. This participatory process is intended to assist CBNRM forums in targeted countries to take stock of the progress and impacts their CBNRM programs have made since initial program inception, while concomitantly catalyzing a national level dialogue on the identification and prioritization of challenges and opportunities currently confronting the program. The resulting Profile will be a “snapshot” in time of each CBNRM Program providing a look at where the program is, from where it came, and to where it may go. 4National CBNRM Forums are comprised of CBNRM service providers (government departments and NGOs), CBOs (in some countries), Private Sector (in some countries); their main aim is to coordinate CBNRM support through sharing of information, experiences, materials, tools, etc. The compilation of the country reports will be consolidated to provide a regional analysis of CBNRM impacts, enabling conditions, strategies to produce the enabling conditions, and threats to the CBNRM approach. In particular, analysts will compare and contrast experiences across the subregion to determine if there are universal principles for establishing and strengthening CBNRM and if there are common threats. These assessments will not be judgmental but will focus on successes and best practices. These analyses should inform both national and subregional forums on mainstreaming CBNRM. The approach to initiating and implementing the CBNRM Country Profiles is as follows: A. The concept of the CBNRM Country Profile and its implementation approach and process are introduced to targeted CBNRM Country Forums by WWF through the COPASSA Project and the WWF Regional CBNRM Capacity-Building Project; B. If positively received, the CBNRM Country Forum in each of the targeted countries will help identify authoritative CBNRM Specialist(s) that can participate in the initiative through the CK2C project; C. At the same time, WWF and DAI will identify a lead CBNRM consultant to coordinate the entire effort, provide backstopping support to country consultants and facilitate the development of a regional CBNRM status report. D. The Country CBNRM Forum would bring together key CBNRM country stakeholders to introduce both the idea of the CBNRM Profile and the appointed CBNRM consultant(s); E. As one of several means to continue discussions and exchanges of information following the Assessments, CK2C, WWF and the various CBNRM Forums will explore developing an on-line discussion group (or Community-of-Practice) through the FRAME website, which is managed by CK2C. We anticipate that this aspect of the initiative will continue beyond the term of this specific assignment and will be supported by CK2C. 66


F. The CBNRM Consultant(s) would collect key reports and papers and conduct a desktop study of the national CBNRM Program with an emphasis on the most relevant G. Following the desktop study, the lead CBNRM Consultant would supplement desktop study findings with consultative meetings with key CBNRM stakeholders. The Consultant would use a customized questionnaire (same core questions for each country) to conduct interviews with stakeholders and document findings; H. GIS specialists will collect digital data so relevant CBNRM information and protected areas could can be mapped. This process would be completed in tandem with the introduction and development of the Geospatial mapping tool to assist CBNRM forums to create “virtual” visits to key CBNRM sites in their countries; I.

Following preparation of a draft Profile report, the CBNRM Forum would share the draft with country stakeholders. Approximately one-two weeks later, the CBNRM Forum would convene a meeting of the forum members and key CBNRM stakeholders to go through the profile to reach consensus on the content of the profile. During this meeting, particular emphasis would be placed upon reaching consensus on CBNRM challenges, opportunities, and barriers and the prioritization of these. A key activity in this process would be to guide the participants through the use of the CBNRM Policy Index tool, which would assist stakeholders in the identifying enabling environment challenges, bottlenecks, etc.;

J.

A final glossy report (inclusive of appropriate photos, charts, graphs, etc.) would be produced and submitted to the National CBNRM Forum, CK2C and COPASSA;

K. Consolidate all profiles into one bound document for sharing at a regional CBNRM conference to be held at a later date.

3.0 SPECIFIC TASKS FOR THE CBNRM CONSULTANTS The consultant(s) would have the following specific tasks to perform: 3.1 CBNRM COUNTRY SPECIALIST (32 DAYS - 1 SPECIALIST ONLY FOR ZAMBIA): A. Review proposed Terms of Reference with the National CBNRM Forum; B. Hold initial orientation meeting with the National CBNRM Forum to gain direction and mandate to carry-out the assignment and to obtain a list of key CBNRM stakeholders to be interviewed (1 day); C. Collect key CBNRM documents, reports, and digital images from various sources of information (with assistance of National CBNRM Forum, DAI and WWF), inclusive of supporting donors (3 days); D. Undertake desktop study of key National CBNRM documents and commence filling in Profile information based upon available CBNRM documents (6 days); E. Review the proposed customized CBNRM Profile questionnaire (to be supplied by DAI via WWF and the Regional CBNRM Forum) to determine whether additional questions should be added to the questionnaire (1 day);


67

F. Conduct individual CBNRM questionnaires with identified national level CBNRM stakeholders to gather additional information on CBNRM Program and the challenges and barriers the Program is facing (10 days); G. Consolidate findings of desktop studies and interviews into draft “Profile” and submit this for review by National CBNRM Forum and stakeholders interviewed (3 days). H. Facilitate, through the National CBNRM Forum, a workshop that presents the findings of the draft report and contains a dedicated working session to identify and prioritize the National CBNRM challenges and barriers (2 days preparation, 1 day workshop); I.

Prepare Workshop Proceedings and submit to National CBNRM Forum (2 days);

J.

Incorporate workshop findings and recommendations into draft report for review by National CBNRM Forum and stakeholders (2 days); and

K. Prepare final Profile report, inclusive of inputs from National CBNRM Forum and involved stakeholders and submit to National CBNRM Forum (as well as CK2C and COPASSA) (1 day). In some instances, we anticipate that this workload will be covered by more than one local consultant especially when the technical scope of CBNRN initiatives in a specific country covers several sectors (wildlife, forest sector, fisheries and so on).

4.0 DELIVERABLE PRODUCTS: 4.1 CBNRM COUNTRY SPECIALIST(S): A. Minutes of initial orientation meeting between the Consultant(s) and the National CBNRM Forum; B. Draft desktop study report of CBNRM documents, inclusive of bibliography of studies review; C. Summary report of interviews conducted, inclusive of list of stakeholders (title and institution) interviewed; D. Draft report of CBNRM Profile, inclusive of findings from CBNRM desktop review and interviews; E. National CBNRM Forum Workshop proceedings from review of semi-draft report and generation of prioritized challenges and barriers; and F. Final National CBNRM Country Profile.

5.0 SCHEDULE The consultancy involved with the undertaking of the Zambia National CBNRM Profile should be conducted between May 5, 2010 and August 31, 2010.

6.0 SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS AND QUALIFICATIONS: Each CBNRM Specialist should be recognized as a CBNRM expert in the country for which the National CBNRM Profile is being undertaken. He/she should have a demonstrated history of preparing CBNRM documents in the country, be an excellent writer, and have the skills to facilitate the National CBNRM 68


Forum meeting at which the draft “Profile” is reviewed and the national CBNRM challenges and barriers are identified.


69

ANNEX B: CBNRM PROFILE QUESTIONNAIRE (FOR CK2C CBNRM STUDY) 1.

2.

Impacts on Natural Resources (Nature) 1.1

In general, what has been the impact of CBNRM on the natural resources base?

1.2.

Do you have or know of any data (especially numerical – we want to quantify the impacts as much as possible) that can demonstrate these impacts? If so, please specify.

1.3.

More specifically, what has been the impact of CBNRM on the following resources (please quantify whenever possible): 1.3.1

Wildlife (terrestrial and aquatic [fish])? {n.b. consultant should obtain graphs and any other quantitative data from respondents whenever possible}

1.3.2

Forests & woodlands? {obtain maps whenever possible}

1.3.3

Rangeland? {obtain maps whenever possible}

1.3.4

Water?

1.3.5

Soil?

1.4.

Has CBNRM had any related impact on agriculture? If so, please specify.

1.5.

Are you aware of any negative impacts of CBNRM on the natural resources base? If so, what are they?

Economic and livelihoods impacts (Wealth) 2.1.

In general, what has been the impact of CBNRM on the livelihoods of local communities and on local, rural economies?

2.2.


2.3.

More specifically, what has been the impact of CBNRM on (please quantify whenever possible):

2.4.

Revenue for CBOs? {obtain quantitative data whenever possible; present compiled data in bar graph(s)}

2.5.

Revenue for CBO members? {add to 2.4 bar graph(s)}

2.6.

In-kind benefits to CBOs and CBO members (e.g. materials for infrastructure, ecotourism)? {add data to 2.4 bar graph(s) or create new bar graph(s)} COMMUNITY BASED NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT: STOCKTAKING ASSESSMENT: ZAMBIA PROFILE

71

2.7.

Indirect or trickle down contributions to the local economy?

2.8.

Creation of community enterprises (please specify scope and kind of enterprise)? {present information in table}

2.9.

How have CBOs and CBO members used the revenue or in-kind benefits from CBNRM? {present information in table and/or pie charts}

2.10. What is the scope of CBNRM economic or livelihoods impacts, i.e., how many people have benefited from/been supported by CBNRM? {present compiled information in bar graph} 2.11. Are you aware of any negative impacts of CBNRM on local community livelihoods or on local rural economies? If so, what are they? 2.12. How many jobs have been created through CBNRM enterprises and/or activities? Pleases specify types of jobs. 3.

Impacts on governance and rights (Power) 3.1.

In general, what has been the impact of CBNRM on local governance and rights to natural resources?

3.2.


3.3.

More specifically, what has been the impact of CBNRM on the following (please quantify whenever possible): 3.3.1 Specific rights to manage natural resources (please specify the kind of rights and natural resources)? {compile data in table} 3.3.2 Specific rights to use natural resources (please specify the kind of use and natural resources)? {add to 3.3.1 table} 3.3.3 Specific rights to benefit from natural resources (please specify the kind of use and natural resources)?{add to 3.3.1 table} 3.3.4 The ability or capacity of CBOs to organize themselves and govern natural resources? 3.3.5 The ability or capacity of CBOs to develop and apply rules regarding use and management of natural resources? 3.3.6 The ability or capacity of CBOs to distribute or share income/revenue?

72

3.4.

What is the scope of involvement in CBNRM, i.e., how many CBOs exist? How many people are members of the CBOs (if possible, please disaggregate by gender and social class)? {compile data in table} What has been the impact on marginalized people/groups/classes?

3.5.

Are you aware of any negative impacts of CBNRM on governance of and rights to the natural resources base? If so, what are they?

3.6.

Have there been attitudinal changes by communities towards their natural resources as a result of the CBNRM Program? If yes, please specify these changes.


4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

Enabling Conditions 4.1.

Think back on the history of CBNRM in your operational areas. What were the conditions or changes that enabled or led to the impacts of CBNRM on natural resources?

4.2.

Please speculate on why these enabling conditions or the enabling environment occurred or were established.

4.3.

Did the CBNRM concept or paradigm replace a former, concept, paradigm or policy? If yes, please explain. If yes, how did the CBNRM paradigm shift change natural resources, livelihoods and governance compared to the old paradigm?

Lessons 5.1.

During implementation of CBNRM in your operational areas, what lessons did you learn? (What worked and what didn’t work?)

5.2.

Were there actions or ways of doing things that one learned to avoid?

5.3.

Were there actions or ways of doing things that one learned to repeat?

5.4.

What changes were made in implementing approaches or strategies that led to better or increased impacts?

Best practices 6.1.

In your operational areas, what are the best ways or the best methods to implement CBNRM in order to achieve the best results or maximum impact?

6.2.

For example, what are the best ways of implementing CBNRM that will lead to a healthy wildlife population and habitat?

6.3.

For example, what are the best ways of implementing CBNRM that will lead to increased revenue for CBOs?

6.4.

For example, what are the best ways of implementing CBNRM that will lead to improved governance of the natural resources?

Scaling up 7.1.

Is there scope or opportunities for scaling up or expanding CBNRM in Zambia? If so, what areas or zones should be targeted for this expansion?

7.2.

If so, what, in your opinion is needed to scale up or expand CBNRM?

7.3.

If so, what is the best way or method for implementing expansion efforts?

Challenges, barriers & threats 8.1.

What are the present challenges with respect to achieving the maximum CBNRM impacts or best CBNRM results? Do you have any suggestions regarding how to meet or eliminate these challenges?


73

9.

8.2.

Are there barriers that exist with respect to achieving the maximum impact or best results in CBNRM? If so, what are they and do you have any suggestions regarding how to eliminate these barriers? Please rank the barriers in order of importance.

8.3.

Do you see or know of any threats to the continuation or expansion of CBNRM in your operational areas? If so, what are they? Do you have any suggestions or recommendations for addressing these threats? Please rank the threats in order of importance.

8.4.

How can the impacts and lessons of CBNRM be used to overcome critical challenges, barriers and threats?

Opportunities & national priorities, programs 9.1.

In general, has CBNRM contributed to national sustainable development priorities? If yes, please specify the contributions and the national priorities.

9.2.

If no, do you think CBNRM has the potential to contribute to these priorities? If so, how?

9.3.

More specifically, has or can CBNRM contribute to the following priorities (please specify how):

9.4.

9.3.1

Poverty alleviation or the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs)?

9.3.2

Food security?

9.3.3

Climate change adaptation and mitigation?

9.3.4

Land Degradation?

9.3.5

Economic growth?

In your opinion, how can CBNRM improve or enhance contributions to the national priorities mentioned above? What are the best opportunities in the near future for improving CBNRM’s contributions?

10. Additional observations & questions 10.1. In your opinion, has CBNRM contributed to community and/or environmental resiliency, i.e., has it allowed communities to respond to opportunities and to weather crises? If yes, please specify or elaborate. 10.2. In your opinion, will CBNRM assist in the mitigation of, or adaptation to anticipated climate change for Zambia? Please provide reasons for this opinion. 10.3. Do you have any additional observations on CBNRM that you would like to share (especially those that you think should be part of the country profile)?

74


ANNEX C: PERSONS & INSTITUTIONS CONTACTED GOVERNMENT Zambia Wildlife Authority

i)

Ms. Melody Zeko, Manager, Game Management Areas

ii)

Mr. Andrew Phiri, Game Management Areas Officer

Fisheries Department

i)

Mr. Mbamwai Mbewe, Principal Fisheries Officer

ii)

Mr. Maiza K. Kalonga, Chief Fisheries Officer

Forest Department

i)

Mr. Deuteronomy Kasaro, Provincial Extension Officer

ii)

Mr. Davis Kashole, Forestry Extension Officer

Ministry of Tourism, Environment and Natural Resources

i)

Mr. Duncan Mumba Musama, Senior Natural Resource Management Officer

ii)

Mr. Ephraim Mwepya Shitima, Technical Officer - Natural Resource Economics & Climate Change Facilitation Unit (CCFU) - MTENR/UNDP

Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives

i)

Mr. Lackson L. Kaluba, Chief Agricultural Extension Officer

ii)

Mr. Martin Sishekanu, Chief Land Husbandry Officer

NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS Wildlife and Environmental Conservation Society of Zambia

i)

Mr. Patrick Shawa, Executive Director

Wildlife Conservation Society

i)

Dr. Dale Lewis, Country Director

Conservation Foundation (Zambia)

i)

Mr. Jeremy Pope, Director COMMUNITY BASED NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT: STOCKTAKING ASSESSMENT: ZAMBIA PROFILE

75

Southern Alliance for Indigenous Resources (SAFIRE)

i)

Mr. Vincent Ziba, Regional Manager

World Wide Fund for Nature

i)

Mwape Sichilongo, National CBNRM Coordinator

ASSOCIATIONS Zambia National Farmers’ Union/Conservation Farming Unit

i)

Mr. Sinya Mbale, Manager Training and Field Operations

Natural Resources Consultative Forum

i)

Mr. Alimakio Zulu, Coordinator

TRAINING INSTITUTIONS University of Zambia

i)

Mr. Evaristo Kapungwe, Lecturer, Geography Department

PRIVATE SECTOR i)

Mr. Adam Pope, Private Practitioner

ii)

Mr. Phil Minaar, Safari Industry

76


ANNEX D: CASE STUDY SUMMARIES BOX D1:IMPACTS OF COMMUNITY MARKETS FOR CONSERVATION (COMACO) IN THE LUANGWA VALLEY (SOURCE: COMACO DOCUMENTS) Community Markets for Conservation (COMACO) is an initiative of the Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS) that acts as an interface between agriculture, commerce, and wildlife conservation. The initiative operates as a limited by guarantee, non-profit company and aims at maximizing income benefits to farmers through value-added agricultural and forest products. This unique model, based on results of long-term (over 20 years) conservation research, achieves its objectives of contributing to poverty reduction, marketing enhancement, and improved conservation through promotion of sustainable land uses and practices, by meeting small-scale farmers’ needs through¬¬¬¬ skills training, farm inputs, and increased market benefits. Farmers’ compensation has been achieved via improved and above average market value for commodities which acts as an incentive to abandon destructive resource use practices. IMPACTS ON NATURAL RESOURCES (NATURE) • The model spans 9 districts, covering 75% of the Luangwa Valley or 144,000 km2 in areas contiguous with National Parks. •

COMACO has recovered over 50,000 snares and over 1800 illegal firearms from farmers since inception; this represents saving well over 4,000 wild animals from illegal killing. These snares and firearms are turned in on a voluntary basis by community members who possess them for the purpose of illegal (poaching) activities. In return, farmers gain support from the COMACO project in the form of seeds, agricultural lime, cuttings, and training to change their focus from poaching to sustainable farming activities.

•

In the project areas, wildlife population trends stabilized and, for 30% of the species monitored between 2000-2009, the populations have shown significant increases, including elephant.

ECONOMIC AND LIVELIHOODS IMPACTS (WEALTH) • Having received 2,748 tons of agricultural inputs (seeds, lime, cuttings, etc.) from COMACO in 2009, compared to 1,241 tons in 2008, registered COMACO farmers earned additional revenues amounting to more than US $830,900 generated from the sale of 13 distinct, value-added products processed into various product packages. •

More than 600 illegal hunters have given up their firearms and turned to sustainable livelihood activities for legitimate income generation. Their hunting skills are used in blasting chilli, using surrendered muzzle-loading guns, as a counter-measure to protect crops from wildlife. The incentives are the agricultural inputs that are provided to registered farmers, and the additional support from COMACO in purchasing surplus crop yields. COMACO buys the surplus from the registered farmers at a competitive price in order to encourage them to remain in the COMACO program. COMMUNITY BASED NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT: STOCKTAKING ASSESSMENT: ZAMBIA PROFILE

77

•

Between 2000 and 2009, total household grain production increased from 1,189 kg to 1,618 kg. During the intervening years, food security increased from about 14% to 118% of total yields depending on the year and rainfall comparison.

IMPACTS ON GOVERNANCE AND RIGHTS (POWER) • Being a limited by guarantee, non-profit company, COMACO maximizes income benefits for farmer producer group members, adding incentives for farmers that demonstrate compliance with conservation practices. COMACO reinvests the net profits in supporting food security, rural incomes, and conservation. •

34,381 registered farmers, including 52% who are women, as well as over 40,000 beekeepers and livestock producers, have joined the COMACO program since 2000.

•

Participating farmers are organized into farmer producer groups and are serviced at six different community trading centers, networked to 75 community trading depots supported by 639 trained, lead farmers, and 43 extension area managers who maintain over 600 demonstration plots to improve adoption rates and relevant skills. Compliance levels are around 80% across the operational areas. Field extension is accomplished at an instructor to farmer ratio of 1:50.

LESSONS • Market-driven or commercial incentives can enhance conservation if the community groups are well organized. BEST PRACTICES • Target various community groups (e.g., farmers, charcoal makers, and fishermen) with livelihood alternatives to destructive practices through real, accessible, rewarding markets that benefit their households. SCALING UP • Future interventions should take the form of jointly-owned enterprises that are not limited to agriculture, but diversify into other rural IGAs such as the development of forest products and tourismbased enterprises, through serious, credible and effective partners.

78


BOX D2: SELECTED KEY LESSONS LEARNED FROM JOINT FOREST MANAGEMENT IN ZAMBIA (BASED ON KOKWE, 2007) Joint Forest Management in Zambia emanates from the Forest Policy of 1998, and was implemented in seven forest management areas located in Copperbelt, Luapula and Southern Provinces under the Provincial Forestry Action Program. After implementation during a number of years (2002-2008), lessons were drawn and are presented below in the context of forest resources, livelihoods enhancement (wealth creation), and governance. Using the provisions of the statutory instrument no. 47 of 2006 which provides legal status for established Joint Forest Management Areas, there is an opportunity to scale up this program. FOREST RESOURCES • An integrated approach to forest use planning is essential for conflict resolution. An “integrated approach” means that there is involvement of key stakeholders and various resources are also taken into consideration in the forest use planning. •

Control of negative externalities (e.g., open access) is enhanced by devolution of management responsibility (including forest protection) and ownership of forest resources to local communities.

•

Developing simple, cost effective, and transferable appropriate technologies and tools for community resource monitoring is essential. An example of this is the management oriented monitoring system (MOMS).

LIVELIHOOD ENHANCEMENT (WEALTH CREATION) • The stronger the communities become with respect to IGAs, the more motivated they become with respect to active participation in conservation initiatives. •

Appropriate valuation of forest products and modification of the licensing system can greatly improve benefits to the communities and other stakeholders.

•

Priority setting for economic resource use should focus on broader livelihood options with the potential for enhancing value and benefits for the target communities.

•

There is a need for better understanding of the market and value chain for the commercialized products which would facilitate the process of communities positioning themselves for favorable price negotiations with consumers and/or buyers.

•

Strategic alliances with the private sector and/or NGOs (with high comparative facilitation advantages) are likely to support a cost effective marketing strategy.

•

Maximizing benefits from natural resources should be founded on simple but robust cost-benefit analysis of market conditions, especially where differential “taxation” or regulation disadvantages exist for wild products. This should therefore result in differential license fees (also see Dalal-Clayton & Child, 2003).


79

GOVERNANCE AND RIGHTS • A conducive legal and policy framework is a prerequisite to functional participatory forest management. •

Within a community empowerment framework, where access rights and retention of benefits are transparently and clearly defined as well as mutually accepted, communities sustain higher levels of commitment to collaborative forest management.

•

Designating community participation in managing and utilizing forest products and resources in a hierarchical fashion including regime nodes (also refer to section 3.1.2.2 above) as a “scaled up” institutional management model, has been easier than a model based solely on forest management areas. Involvement and integration of traditional authority in forest management and utilization (including rights to use and benefit from forest resources and rules for exclusion) also makes it socially legitimate and acceptable.

•

Developing organizational performance monitoring instruments is essential to improving efficiency and effectiveness of CBOs and CBEs.

•

Internalization of best practices is effectively achieved through social and experiential learning by doing (part of the adaptive management model).

80


BOX D3: SELECTED KEY LESSONS LEARNED FROM THE ADMADE PROGRAM (BASED ON CLARKE, 2000) The ADMADE program, which was the first generation CBNRM in Zambia, provided, among others, the following lessons: •

CBNRM was a workable system for wildlife management in at least some GMAs and could be applied in other sectors.

•

Safari hunting was a profitable use of wildlife in GMAs, the revenue from which could be used to create sustainable CBNRM programs.

•

Established CBNRM programs that were probably self-sustaining were found in some Luangwa Valley GMAs where ADMADE was active.

•

ADMADE could produce local employment opportunities and raise funds.

•

Testing the linkage between wildlife management and food security was essential. This is being further tested under the COMACO project and is demonstrating positive results (see Box D1 above).

•

CBNRM provisions were mainstreamed in the legislation. This was a recommendation that was initially implemented in the existing legislation and there is an opportunity to revise the legislation and strengthen these provisions.

•

Monitoring programs that demonstrated a positive link between living standards and optimal sustained yields were critical.

Following are some achievements of the ADMADE program: •

The management of the Wildlife Conservation Revolving Fund (WCRF) improved with the recruitment of a Financial Manager and generation of accurate and computerized financial records.

•

ADMADE influenced government policy through:

a.

Assisting in developing a new wildlife policy (1998) and Act (1998).

b.

Advocating for devolution of rights, responsibilities and powers to local communities.

c.

Helping to develop lease agreements for safari companies.

d.

Assisting with development of the new licensing system.

e.

Enforcing payments to CRBs’ accounts and the WCRF.

f.

Helping district councils to control fishing in hunting areas.

•

Community land use plans were developed for all the GMAs in the Luangwa Valley. These plans focused on preventing disturbances to safari hunting and improving food security as well as providing for sustainable fishing and beekeeping.


81

•

At the Nyamaluma Community Based Training Institute, various trainings were conducted for local communities in natural resource management, agroforestry, agriculture, and community organisation.

•

Research was carried out in the domains of policy and institutions, leading to the formation of VAGs and CRBs, which are currently in place.

82


ANNEX E: CRB LOCATIONS AND ESTABLISHMENT DATES No 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41

CRB Chikanta Mbosya Mboroma Chisomo Chitambo Kaingu Shimbizhi Chilyabufu Chibwika Ntambu Lewanika Chizela Chiundaponde Kopa Kabinga Nsamba Bwalya Mponda Shakumbila Muwezwa Mwanchingwala Hamusonde Mungaila Nalubamba Choongo Kasempa Siachitema Chiawa Sesheke West Nyalugwe Nyawa Lundu Sandwe Shikabeta Mphuka Mburuma Mpanshya Nsama Msoro Kambombo Tembwe Mukungule

GMA Bbilili Luano Luano Chisomo Kafinda Namwala Namwala Namwala Chibwika/Ntambu Chibwika/Ntambu West Zambezi Chizera Bangweulu Bangweulu Bangweulu Bangweulu Bangweulu Kafue Flats Kafue Flats Kafue Flats Kafue Flats Kafue Flats Kafue Flats Kafue Flats Lunga Luswishi Sichifulo/Bbilili Chiawa West Zambezi West Petauke Sichifulo Musalangu Sandwe Luano Rufunsa Rufunsa Rufunsa Tondwa Lupande Musalangu Musalangu Mukungule

Year Formed 2003 2005 2004 2000 2000 2000 2005 2005 2008 2004 2000 2005 2000 2005 2005 2001 2001 2001 2002 2002 2002 2002 1999 1999 2001 2001 2002 1999 2004 2002 2002 2002 2002 2004 2002 2003 2003 2004


83

No 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73

84

CRB Kazembe Nabwalya Moomba Chibuluma Kabulwebulwe Mulendema Chitungulu Mubambe Luembe Musungwa Shezongo Chifunda Chikwa Mwanya Nsefu Jumbe Mkhanya Malama Kakumbi Kalasa Mukoso Kaindu Mwape Miyombe Mwasemphangwe Chikomeni Kaputa Kahare Mporokoso Mushota Munkata Mufulani Sikufele

GMA Lumimba Munyamadzi Mulobezi Mumbwa Mumbwa Mumbwa Lumimba Kasonso Busanga West Petauke Nkala Nkala/Bbilili Musalangu Musalangu Lumimba Lupande Lupande Lupande Lupande Lupande Bangweulu Open Area Open Area Open Area Open Area Open Area Kaputa Mufunta Open Area Open Area Open Area West Zambezi Lower Lukwakwa

Year Formed 1999 1999 1999 2002 2002 2002 1999 1999 2002 2002 2002 1999 1999 1999 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 2007 2005 2004 2004 2007 2005 2007 2007 2005 2009


ANNEX F: FOREST AREAS Type Local Forest Local Forest Local Forest Local Forest Local Forest Local Forest Local Forest Local Forest Local Forest Local Forest Local Forest Local Forest Local Forest Local Forest Local Forest Local Forest Local Forest Local Forest Local Forest Local Forest Local Forest Local Forest Local Forest Local Forest Local Forest Local Forest Local Forest Local Forest Local Forest Local Forest Local Forest Local Forest Local Forest Local Forest Local Forest Local Forest Local Forest Local Forest Local Forest Local Forest Local Forest Local Forest Local Forest Local Forest

Name Samfu Mpulungu Kanonge Kambashi Kalungwishi Mukalizi Chikwalala Nchelenge Shili Plantation Nakonde Mporokoso Kabembe Makasa Kapoli Mushota Pambashe Block C Luena Plantation Lubulafita Pambashe Block A Pambashe Block B Mwamba Chambeshi Flats Mankalala Lumbo Kalisa Chitimukulu Amenshi Amenshi Amenshi Amenshi Mungwi Amenshi Amenshi Amenshi Amenshi Amenshi Pando Hills Amenshi Amenshi Isoka Plantation Amenshi Amenshi Amenshi Amenshi

District Mbala Mpulungu Kaputa Mpulungu Nclelenge Mbala Mbala Nchelenge Mporokoso Nakonde Mporokoso Kawambwa Mungwi Kawambwa Kawambwa Kawambwa Kawambwa Kawambwa Kawambwa Kawambwa Kasama Mungwi Kawambwa Kasama Mwense Mungwi Kasama Kasama Kasama Kasama Mungwi Kasama Kasama Kasama Kasama Kasama Isoka Kasama Kasama Isoka Kasama Kasama Kasama Kasama

Province Northern Northern Northern Northern Luapula Northern Northern Luapula Northern Northern Northern Luapula Northern Luapula Luapula Luapula Luapula Luapula Luapula Luapula Northern Northern Luapula Northern Luapula Northern Northern Northern Northern Northern Northern Northern Northern Northern Northern Northern Northern Northern Northern Northern Northern Northern Northern Northern

Area (ha)

Area (km2)

1925.9676 19229.288 29100.5472 20881.2992 144.937737 8060.944 6448.7964 533.64115 144.088975 47.227287 5979.854 2274.4786 3334.4948 747.7948 102.39355 880.591 55.792618 6756.8664 302.695075 613.8824 5830.4004 7091.992 37736.0288 25149.0896 25417.7104 3010.3054 28.393593 46.578406 120.851537 47.353609 187.550325 9.147331 30.412381 73.591293 53.10395 53.821231 9042.116 21.188934 34.765237 113.390437 22.079931 20.55139 26.135056 33.710675


19.259676 192.29288 291.005472 208.812992 1.449377 80.60944 64.487964 5.336411 1.440889 0.472272 59.79854 22.744786 33.344948 7.477948 1.023935 8.80591 0.557926 67.568664 3.02695 6.138824 58.304004 70.91992 377.360288 251.490896 254.177104 30.103054 0.283935 0.465784 1.208515 0.473536 1.875503 0.091473 0.304123 0.735912 0.531039 0.538212 90.42116 0.211889 0.347652 1.133904 0.220799 0.205513 0.26135 0.337106 85

Type Local Forest Local Forest Local Forest Local Forest Local Forest Local Forest Local Forest Local Forest Local Forest Local Forest Local Forest Local Forest Local Forest Local Forest Local Forest Local Forest Local Forest Local Forest Local Forest Local Forest Local Forest Local Forest Local Forest Local Forest Local Forest Local Forest Local Forest Local Forest Local Forest Local Forest Local Forest Local Forest Local Forest Local Forest Local Forest Local Forest Local Forest Local Forest Local Forest Local Forest Local Forest Local Forest Local Forest Local Forest Local Forest Local Forest Local Forest Local Forest

86

Name Ilangali Luchindashi Kapele Amenshi Chief Munkonge Amenshi Lupoposhi Chipoma Chief Chipalo Chief Shimumbi Kashiba Chief Tungati Chipunga Chungu Kafinsa Mushitu Kalomboshi Ntambi Chinsali Plantation Milima Mulobola Lwelangwa Lukunde Ituntwe Nsombo Pembela Mulanda Mushitu Matipa Lupasa Muhonge Chimimbi Hills Lubu Mwewa Majamu Muzenza Chief Mpepo Nkomba Mansa Plantation Chilubi Plantation Kafweko Luanya West Katoka Luanya East Luinga Lukangaba Shamendi Chibunda Kafue Headwaters Mufundwa Nkunyi

District Mungwi Mungwi Chinsali Kasama Kasama Kasama Luwingu Luwingu Luwingu Luwingu Mwense Luwingu Chinsali Luwingu Luwingu Luwingu Chinsali Chinsali Kasama Kasama Luwingu Chinsali Luwingu Luwingu Luwingu Chilubi Kasama Mwinilunga Mansa Chinsali Samfya Mwinilunga Mwinilunga Mpika Mwinilunga Mansa Chilubi Mwinilunga Mpika Mwinilunga Mpika Mwinilunga Mansa Mansa Mwinilunga Solwezi Mwinilunga Mwinilunga

Province Northern Northern Northern Northern Northern Northern Northern Northern Northern Northern Luapula Northern Northern Northern Northern Northern Northern Northern Northern Northern Northern Northern Northern Northern Northern Northern Northern North Western Luapula Northern Luapula North Western North Western Northern North Western Luapula Northern North Western Northern North Western Northern North Western Luapula Luapula North Western North Western North Western North Western


Area (ha)

Area (km2)

2974.557 9689.3208 7334.4296 11.810865 10912.0392 38.184615 4111.5044 16754.0288 4697.7216 11700.1144 256.123675 3906.24 6850.6544 2548.6364 155.538862 7823.8624 7268.0032 131.727187 90.031 7332.0584 208.0498 5005.2324 27.47399 8668.7968 36.469093 20112.2576 7701.136 1467.0898 28902.576 6885.5304 2121.4546 1260.7863 1446.5487 34921.3824 1172.3891 65.992112 18.000034 4523.7996 2632.324 2922.6054 1580.5359 629.98605 7123.276 56827.936 5524.9184 209597.9264 12153.796 8448.3584

29.74557 96.893208 73.344296 0.118108 109.120392 0.381846 41.115044 167.540288 46.977216 117.001144 2.561236 39.0624 68.506544 25.486364 1.555388 78.238624 72.680032 1.317271 0.90031 73.320584 2.080498 50.052324 0.274739 86.687968 0.36469 201.122576 77.01136 14.670898 289.02576 68.855304 21.214546 12.607863 14.465487 349.213824 11.723891 0.659921 0.18 45.237996 26.32324 29.226054 15.805359 6.29986 71.23276 568.27936 55.249184 2095.979264 121.53796 84.483584


Name Kangasa Chinuma Lunuka Mulembo Lumimba Lundazi Dam Kapalala Chimaliro Mufulira Kaluwe Chingola Lumina Ngala Musola Njovu Musangashi Maposa Roan Muva Bwana Mkubwa Nyakulenga Chavuma Lusongwa Chizela Munte Yongwe Lupande Chankhadze Kamona Kamkomole Mufumbwe Ngoza Chidazi Mpomwa Litoya Nkanga Chinsinsi Chinsinsi Mwanjangulu Nkundwe West Nkundwe Kangwamaula Kanyelele Katendwa Mangoli Chambizi Ngonzi Kasesi

District Mwinilunga Mwinilunga Milenge Serenje Lundazi Lundazi Milenge Lundazi Mufulira Lundazi Chingola Mufulira Mufulira Serenje Lundazi Serenje Luanshya Luanshya Luanshya Ndola Zambezi Chavuma Kabompo Mufumbwe Serenje Chipata Mambwe Chipata Kasempa Chipata Mufumbwe Chipata Chipata Mambwe Kabompo Mambwe Chipata Chipata Chipata Chipata Chipata Chipata Chipata Kabompo Chipata Chipata Chipata Zambezi

Province North Western North Western Luapula Central Eastern Eastern Luapula Eastern Copperbelt Eastern Copperbelt Copperbelt Copperbelt Central Eastern Central Copperbelt Copperbelt Copperbelt Copperbelt North Western North Western North Western North Western Central Eastern Eastern Eastern North Western Eastern North Western Eastern Eastern Eastern North Western Eastern Eastern Eastern Eastern Eastern Eastern Eastern Eastern North Western Eastern Eastern Eastern North Western

Area (ha)

Area (km2)

15676.9056 18746.6496 27167.184 15957.424 11358.4768 338.051825 865.2574 7758.1416 6437.83 288.9148 1247.7185 4547.1876 3077.6004 6675.394 14854.9136 11453.4984 9228.5784 7642.252 3354.8604 1854.8024 18946.3088 9372.5344 9944.064 940.8586 354.821625 9596.064 4786.3452 954.1014 22501.5008 1432.685 3748.382 1068.673 262.167125 6990.144 1781.5958 2540.856 330.479125 206.13805 336.997175 107.171975 147.029025 515.7724 340.89195 293.34335 689.81695 947.8076 601.6407 1030.5894


156.769056 187.466496 271.67184 159.57424 113.584768 3.380518 8.652574 77.581416 64.3783 2.889148 12.477185 45.471876 30.776004 66.75394 148.549136 114.534984 92.285784 76.42252 33.548604 18.548024 189.463088 93.725344 99.44064 9.408586 3.548216 95.96064 47.863452 9.541014 225.015008 14.32685 37.48382 10.68673 2.621671 69.90144 17.815958 25.40856 3.304791 2.06138 3.369971 1.071719 1.47029 5.157724 3.408919 2.933433 6.898169 9.478076 6.016407 10.305894

87


88

Name Chamulaza Mpoto Kukwe Katakoli East Diwa Katanino Katanino Chisambala Masupe Chipata Ipumbu Mwangazi Lutembwe Chaba Mkwawe Chiulukire East Msipazi Chiulukire West Kapiri Mposhi Chindindendi Mfumu Hills Sasare Chiswa West Ngubo Mulodzela Kazimuli Mpangwe Hillls Kadamnuzu Matanta Chamchenga East Liyenda Kondongwe Kambinda Chikanga Mwimba Kasanga Kasizhi Kalenga Mupya West Ndaya Mupya East Lukona Limpele Kanampende Lunga Hills Kalulu Mataba C Chilowe

District Chipata Mambwe Chipata Mambwe Chipata Masaiti Masaiti Chipata Chipata Chipata Kapiri Mposhi Chipata Chipata Mkushi Chipata Katete Chipata Katete Kapiri Mposhi Katete Chipata Petauke Katete Kasempa Katete Chadiza Katete Chadiza Katete Chadiza Lukulu Katete Lukulu Chadiza Kaoma Mumbwa Lukulu Lukulu Petauke Lukulu Petauke Lukulu Lukulu Lukulu Katete Kabwe Lukulu Petauke

Province Eastern Eastern Eastern Eastern Eastern Copperbelt Copperbelt Eastern Eastern Eastern Central Eastern Eastern Central Eastern Eastern Eastern Eastern Central Eastern Eastern Eastern Eastern North Western Eastern Eastern Eastern Eastern Eastern Eastern Western Eastern Western Eastern Western Central Western Western Eastern Western Eastern Western Western Western Eastern Central Western Eastern


Area (ha) 4821.1832 1896.148 3949.4408 6562.4224 514.329 5527.2296 250.357625 656.2132 889.3858 1755.7622 13670.2656 762.83945 502.0522 1903.3634 1035.275 5986.2536 279.22175 4745.9664 873.127 1427.0344 712.76645 3375.586 646.33085 19960.48 842.9101 388.736625 1638.0435 383.92305 1030.8898 2176.3444 8774.6448 1481.4805 5563.3916 6232.3424 4509.8756 9872.9536 1435.5202 882.2258 307.95165 1541.064 107.292337 569.2031 1190.8135 2097.0442 648.9229 4673.9484 1714.3334 582.86425

Area (km2) 48.211832 18.96148 39.494408 65.624224 5.14329 55.272296 2.503576 6.562132 8.893858 17.557622 136.702656 7.628394 5.020522 19.033634 10.35275 59.862536 2.792217 47.459664 8.73127 14.270344 7.127664 33.75586 6.463308 199.6048 8.429101 3.887366 16.380435 3.83923 10.308898 21.763444 87.746448 14.814805 55.633916 62.323424 45.098756 98.729536 14.355202 8.822258 3.079516 15.41064 1.072923 5.692031 11.908135 20.970442 6.489229 46.739484 17.143334 5.828642


Name Mulungushi West Nchembwe Shidongwe Mataba B Nabowa Kapungwe West Lulenge Kabanga Kapungwe East Mataba A Ngomangulu Luena Kapungwe West Sitwa Msumbazi Nsangwe North Nsangwe South Nalusheke Namboma Chombwe Kiuuli Chifisi Mbanga Kacholola Scenic Shonkamba Nkwali Lutondo Lukulaisha Musima Pamadzi Luwenga Lutengwe Chacha Mushingashi Kakwe Shishamba Mukunkuki Lunjofwa Mahilo Kaoma Kembe Yande Muuyi Kambowa Nabiyoyo Namapombo Likonge Nobala Sikundu

District Chibombo Petauke Kaoma Lukulu Lukulu Petauke Lukulu Mufumbwe Petauke Lukulu Lukulu Kaoma Petauke Kaoma Petauke Nyimba Nyimba Lukulu Lukulu Lukulu Kalabo Petauke Lukulu Nyimba Lukulu Lukulu Kaoma Chibombo Nyimba Petauke Petauke Mongu Kaoma Mumbwa Mongu Kaoma Kaoma Chibombo Kaoma Kaoma Chibombo Mongu Mongu Mongu Kaoma Kaoma Mongu Kalabo

Province Central Eastern Western Western Western Eastern Western North Western Eastern Western Western Western Eastern Western Eastern Eastern Eastern Western Western Western Western Eastern Western Eastern Western Western Western Central Eastern Eastern Eastern Western Western Central Western Western Western Central Western Western Central Western Western Western Western Western Western Western

Area (ha)

Area (km2)

10757.8064 667.5455 5685.2976 1198.3154 15352.0864 1242.1469 1805.4944 43606.5408 1423.8849 3846.128 2508.3946 13730.6976 1172.5981 5038.7276 2071.0568 1219.583 1880.4772 439.33825 2119.645 150.731287 3454.822 1276.33 3451.8176 14924.2224 852.3703 239.184675 417.9816 7274.2592 15532.1536 872.8087 1099.3826 211.111 6828.9896 16750.3168 361.80725 1967.1694 5538.4656 7147.528 48.384543 10879.3736 713.68445 1313.9551 1463.6544 1631.9904 11790.9128 12234.7976 25599.3056 1863.8802


107.578064 6.675455 56.852976 11.983154 153.520864 12.421469 18.054944 436.065408 14.238849 38.46128 25.083946 137.306976 11.725981 50.387276 20.710568 12.19583 18.804772 4.393382 21.19645 1.507312 34.54822 12.7633 34.518176 149.242224 8.523703 2.391846 4.179816 72.742592 155.321536 8.728087 10.993826 2.11111 68.289896 167.503168 3.618072 19.671694 55.384656 71.47528 0.483845 108.793736 7.136844 13.139551 14.636544 16.319904 117.909128 122.347976 255.993056 18.638802

89


90

Name Luba North Kawena Lutale Mulundu Sanje Luba South Lwenga Chipilepile Luangondo Mwapula Munyeta Nyungu Mbuyi Nambala Hills Sisheke Yanga Nambala Ikomoki Lilundu Kanakantapa South Soli Chitope Suwe Sungutu Mulambwa Shii Nembwalushi Simemba Soyaela Chongwe Mukwe Lushi Sisheta Pan Mwalanda Sitwita Nalikena Malumbwe Kalamba Nonwa Simuhange Lukona Ilomba Lusaka East Lusaka South Mumbo Kataba Lusaka South Mungu

District Mumbwa Mumbwa Mumbwa Mongu Mumbwa Mumbwa Kalabo Chibombo Kalabo Chibombo Chongwe Kalabo Kaoma Mumbwa Mongu Kalabo Mumbwa Kalabo Kalabo Chongwe Chongwe Luangwa Mongu Mongu Kaoma Kalabo Kalabo Mongu Mongu Chongwe Mongu Kalabo Kalabo Mongu Mongu Mongu Mongu Mongu Mongu Kalabo Kalabo Mongu Lusaka Lusaka Kalabo Senanga Chongwe Mongu

Province Central Central Central Western Central Central Western Central Western Central Lusaka Western Western Central Western Western Central Western Western Lusaka Lusaka Lusaka Western Western Western Western Western Western Western Lusaka Western Western Western Western Western Western Western Western Western Western Western Western Lusaka Lusaka Western Western Lusaka Western


Area (ha) 5027.4532 18959.6368 2780.904 5062.4544 10987.376 20695.6368 273.380875 9725.5096 2546.6372 12044.168 12506.4592 2854.806 14208.7872 835.8156 122.077225 4035.4892 14900.3888 1827.1106 1605.6303 5775.5748 5161.56 383.065525 4200.8856 1985.658 22029.9168 1492.4104 1326.9842 1096.3996 517.66475 355.56925 1278.4576 231.168 305.467775 133.404262 776.2013 1891.6134 2419.9956 677.4362 355.030325 2445.4258 1828.228 4219.5332 941.6187 6221.4732 12115.3832 592.1119 2.33009 1181.584

Area (km2) 50.274532 189.596368 27.80904 50.624544 109.87376 206.956368 2.733808 97.255096 25.466372 120.44168 125.064592 28.54806 142.087872 8.358156 1.220772 40.354892 149.003888 18.271106 16.056303 57.755748 51.6156 3.830655 42.008856 19.85658 220.299168 14.924104 13.269842 10.963996 5.176647 3.555692 12.784576 2.31168 3.054677 1.334042 7.762013 18.916134 24.199956 6.774362 3.550303 24.454258 18.28228 42.195332 9.416187 62.214732 121.153832 5.921119 0.0233 11.81584

Type Local Forest Local Forest Local Forest Local Forest Local Forest Local Forest Local Forest Local Forest Local Forest Local Forest Local Forest Local Forest Local Forest Local Forest Local Forest Local Forest Local Forest Local Forest Local Forest Local Forest Local Forest Local Forest Local Forest Local Forest Local Forest Local Forest Local Forest Local Forest Local Forest Local Forest Local Forest Local Forest Local Forest Local Forest Local Forest Local Forest Local Forest Local Forest Local Forest Local Forest Local Forest Local Forest Local Forest Local Forest Local Forest National Forest National Forest National Forest

Name Lusaka South Lusaka South Extension Musalonga Simuhange South Namianji Mambwe Namalubi Mateya Mbuta Mpande Hills Kaituka Kafue Nangole Kande Ntobolole Liangati Magoye Mwanza Bulanda Sikaleta Chivuna Hills Mutulanganga Nadonga Mapanza Nakabwe Lukwechele Kalomo Hills Musisa Bbondo Munyumbwe Kanyanga Malavwe Nachitwe Machili Nanga Ndondi Chipepo Martin Tunga Zeze Hills Bombwe Zimba Hills Siganeka Malanda Livingstone Simonga Katombora Katombora Extension Lungu Mwenze Chila

District

Province

Lusaka Lusaka

Lusaka Lusaka

Senanga Kalabo Mongu Mongu Kaoma Kalabo Mongu Kafue Mongu Kafue Senanga Shangombo Mazabuka Senanga Mazabuka Sesheke Namwala Mazabuka Siavonga Monze Choma Monze Siavonga Kalomo Gwembe Gwembe Gwembe Sesheke Kazungula Sesheke Sesheke Choma Gwembe Kazungula Sinazongwe Kazungula Kalomo Sinazongwe Kazungula Livingstone Livingstone Kazungula Kazungula Mbala Mpulungu Mbala

Western Western Western Western Western Western Western Lusaka Western Lusaka Western Western Southern Western Southern Western Southern Southern Southern Southern Southern Southern Southern Southern Southern Southern Southern Western Southern Western Western Southern Southern Southern Southern Southern Southern Southern Southern Southern Southern Southern Southern Northern Northern Northern

Area (ha)

Area (km2)

0.159785 2097.1378

0.001597 20.971378

3813.5772 3191.3284 4633.6408 3356.2168 4802.1976 6459.4752 2423.2008 6123.7296 3081.625 2393.2746 4704.6364 3121.4278 9899.564 8226.176 2355.4142 423.71705 11140.8472 697.08145 9771.8928 5235.608 178.290075 5601.4132 2569.1402 183443.4944 12736.3312 3573.142 1307.6863 2036.105 70976.8832 49411.8144 1550.4819 5142.708 1967.538 61313.8944 8133.8088 2527.5982 18523.8224 5219.2356 17171.4272 13736.3216 6400.9472 5193.322 3782.1164 13638.1632 23805.9696 2196.67

38.135772 31.913284 46.336408 33.562168 48.021976 64.594752 24.232008 61.237296 30.81625 23.932746 47.046364 31.214278 98.99564 82.26176 23.554142 4.23717 111.408472 6.970814 97.718928 52.35608 1.7829 56.014132 25.691402 1834.434944 127.363312 35.73142 13.076863 20.36105 709.768832 494.118144 15.504819 51.42708 19.67538 613.138944 81.338088 25.275982 185.238224 52.192356 171.714272 137.363216 64.009472 51.93322 37.821164 136.381632 238.059696 21.9667


91

Type National Forest National Forest National Forest National Forest National Forest National Forest National Forest National Forest National Forest National Forest National Forest National Forest National Forest National Forest National Forest National Forest National Forest National Forest National Forest National Forest National Forest National Forest National Forest National Forest National Forest National Forest National Forest National Forest National Forest National Forest National Forest National Forest National Forest National Forest National Forest National Forest National Forest National Forest National Forest National Forest National Forest National Forest National Forest National Forest National Forest National Forest National Forest National Forest 92

Name Mbala Lunzua North Lunzua South Lunzua Extension Kasisi Gorge Chambeshi Headwaters West Chinakila Mbeleshi Mantapala Kapweshi Mubende Mafinga Hills Fungwe Kasama Luongo Mukabi Makutu Nkole Mfumu Mitanga Mulobola Munwa Lundazi Lutandebwe Kavungu Fibale Bwingi Mfumu Zambezi Source Samfya Kakula Luakera River Kalenga Nyambau Musaka Mufundwa 'B' Kasoto Misambo Chamato Kipushi Lwitikila Ngazhi Luangwa Mfwembe Mpika Boma Chimbe Lunda Mulenga Bushingwe Kabwima

District

Province

Mbala Mbala Mbala Mbala Mbala Mbala

Northern Northern Northern Northern Northern Northern

Mpulungu Kawambwa Nchelenge Kawambwa Mwense\Kawambwa Isoka Isoka Kasama Mwense Mwense Chama Kasama Isoka Kasama Kasama Chama Kasama Mwinilunga Chama Mpika Mwinilunga Samfya Mwinilunga Mwinilunga Mwinilunga Mwinilunga Solwezi Mwinilunga Mwinilunga Solwezi Solwezi Solwezi Mpika Solwezi Mpika Solwezi Mpika Solwezi Mwinilunga Solwezi Solwezi Solwezi

Northern Luapula Luapula Luapula Luapula Northern Northern Northern Luapula Luapula Eastern Northern Northern Northern Northern Eastern Northern North Western Eastern Northern North Western Luapula North Western North Western North Western North Western North Western North Western North Western North Western North Western North Western Northern North Western Northern North Western Northern North Western North Western North Western North Western North Western


Area (ha)

Area (km2)

2670.1176 5984.4224 16748.232 2264.7 70.775962 19004.5664

26.701176 59.844224 167.48232 22.647 0.707759 190.045664

29064.0544 49082.4864 8241.612 2535.6374 94063.3344 7706.8032 35878.912 4115.4408 34308.6496 7676.7344 35856.0352 54837.888 23076.0736 7732.1304 18814.776 418602.5472 25854.4752 755.3512 1708.5118 108883.4432 230.78745 3112.9304 5739.8424 32619.456 6981.8216 39599.2288 23436.0784 9511.7696 5227.3184 16342.2688 35811.904 4959.0052 104983.9552 19217.296 278957.824 12836.4912 2751.1992 9555.3328 177282.9184 7278.1952 32905.9648 28814.5472

290.640544 490.824864 82.41612 25.356374 940.633344 77.068032 358.78912 41.154408 343.086496 76.767344 358.560352 548.37888 230.760736 77.321304 188.14776 4186.025472 258.544752 7.553512 17.085118 1088.834432 2.307874 31.129304 57.398424 326.19456 69.818216 395.992288 234.360784 95.117696 52.273184 163.422688 358.11904 49.590052 1049.839552 192.17296 2789.57824 128.364912 27.511992 95.553328 1772.829184 72.781952 329.059648 288.145472

Type National Forest National Forest National Forest National Forest National Forest National Forest National Forest National Forest National Forest National Forest National Forest National Forest National Forest National Forest National Forest National Forest National Forest National Forest National Forest National Forest National Forest National Forest National Forest National Forest National Forest National Forest National Forest National Forest National Forest National Forest National Forest National Forest National Forest National Forest National Forest National Forest National Forest National Forest National Forest National Forest National Forest National Forest National Forest National Forest National Forest National Forest National Forest

Name Acres Kafwira Mbonge Kafwira Extension Kalilele Ndembo Solwezi Border Lualaba Dome Lamba Headwaters Block A Kamenza Nsato Konkola Kirila Mutanda Hippo Njiri Luano Luji Lushishi Kasaria Kipupu Fitanda Luma Chisenga Chisangwa Chati Lamba Block A Nkana North B Ichimpe Nkana North A Mwekera Mwekera East Chibuluma Extension Lamba Headwaters Block B Chibuluma Misaka Ndola East Ndola Kalibu Lamba Block C Lamba Block B Ndola West Kanona Chichele Monkey Fountain

District

Province

Area (ha)

Area (km2)

Solwezi Solwezi Solwezi Solwezi Solwezi Mwinilunga Solwezi Chililabombwe Solwezi Chililabombwe Lufwanyama

North Western North Western North Western North Western North Western North Western North Western Copperbelt North Western Copperbelt Copperbelt

76733.4528 14790.016 5877.6148 8769.916 49743.4464 47959.0976 12347.808 6872.9032 112612.4544 3963.4256 194422.5792

767.334528 147.90016 58.776148 87.69916 497.434464 479.590976 123.47808 68.729032 1126.124544 39.634256 1944.225792

Chililabombwe Mufulira\Chililabomb Chililabombwe Chililabombwe Solwezi Chingola\Chililabomb Mufulira Chingola Solwezi Chingola Mufulira Solwezi Kalulushi Solwezi Kalulushi Kalulushi Kalulushi Lufwanyama Kalalushi Kalulushi Kalalushi Kitwe\Ndola Ndola Kalulushi Lufwanyama

Copperbelt Copperbelt Copperbelt Copperbelt North Western Copperbelt Copperbelt Copperbelt North Western Copperbelt Copperbelt North Western Copperbelt North Western Copperbelt Copperbelt Copperbelt Copperbelt Copperbelt Copperbelt Copperbelt Copperbelt Copperbelt Copperbelt Copperbelt

7230.5472 14975.5536 4207.148 2377.5302 12991.8208 602.50185 6030.2728 13450.4432 134255.7056 8451.1392 6418.0348 33617.8976 2393.1486 11268.2976 4580.2028 9567.2424 36665.2608 8973.9984 357.30615 7368.1656 473.7794 19777.264 1824.7074 1408.52 5089.3972

72.305472 149.755536 42.07148 23.775302 129.918208 6.025018 60.302728 134.504432 1342.557056 84.511392 64.180348 336.178976 23.931486 112.682976 45.802028 95.672424 366.652608 89.739984 3.573061 73.681656 4.737794 197.77264 18.247074 14.0852 50.893972

Kalulushi Ndola Ndola Ndola Kitwe Lufwanyama Lufwanyama Ndola Serenje Ndola Ndola

Copperbelt Copperbelt Copperbelt Copperbelt Copperbelt Copperbelt Copperbelt Copperbelt Central Copperbelt Copperbelt

741.556 29433.8112 2175.3632 3685.4644 327.639275 44920.368 64544.4224 2458.5992 28133.1712 2402.9434 39.327381

7.41556 294.338112 21.753632 36.854644 3.276392 449.20368 645.444224 24.585992 281.331712 24.029434 0.393273


93

Type National Forest National Forest National Forest National Forest National Forest National Forest National Forest National Forest National Forest National Forest National Forest National Forest National Forest National Forest National Forest National Forest National Forest National Forest National Forest National Forest National Forest National Forest National Forest National Forest National Forest National Forest National Forest National Forest National Forest National Forest National Forest National Forest National Forest National Forest National Forest National Forest National Forest National Forest National Forest National Forest National Forest National Forest National Forest National Forest National Forest National Forest National Forest National Forest 94

Name Masansa Lufubu North Botanical Res. Machinje Hills Ndesha Kanjenjesi Chondwe Kansamfwe Serenje Ndenda North Swaka Block B Luombwa East Lunga Miengwe Mkushi Headwaters Songe We Lala Chibombo Myafi Kabompo Luembe Zambezi Chaba Extension Mzewe North Mzewe South Dongwe Chibwe West Mvuvye Mvuvye Katete Sinda Mubofwe Minga Kabwe Block 1 Chibanga Kabwe Block 2 Muyama Mumba Mwomboshi Chisamba Karubwe Kaande Lusaka North Likonge Ifuluta Ila Lwao Ila Keyana Lueti

District

Province

Luanshya Luanshya

Copperbelt Copperbelt

Mambwe Solwezi Chipata Masaiti Masaiti Serenje Mufumbwe Mkushi Serenje Kasempa Masaiti Mkushi Masaiti Mufumbwe Mkushi Kabompo Kapiri Mposhi Zambezi Mkushi Chipata Chadiza Lukulu Kapiri Mposhi Nyimba Nyimba Katete Katete Mkushi Nyimba Kabwe Kabwe Kabwe Chibombo Mumbwa Chibombo Chibombo Chibombo Mongu Lusaka Urban Senanga Senanga Itezhi-Tezhi Senanga Namwala Shangombo Senanga

Eastern North Western Eastern Copperbelt Copperbelt Central North Western Central Central North Western Copperbelt Central Copperbelt North Western Central North Western Copperbelt North Western Central Eastern Eastern North Western Central Eastern Eastern Eastern Eastern Central Eastern Central Central Central Central Central Central Central Central Western Lusaka Western Western Southern Western Southern Western Western


Area (ha)

Area (km2)

3721.7848 107.5646

37.217848 1.075646

68281.408 44035.344 7936.776 3179.6086 2407.598 30856.6688 244004.1472 109006.8864 14874.4496 494273.2288 8255.1376 11952.048 6341.4144 121417.024 2006.1472 115098.7008 104589.3632 80115.3152 1703.1044 7553.8704 21092.6128 49742.8032 32665.3792 63042.9632 77198.0928 532.8324 3533.9388 16003.4272 6696.0924 7281.3456 135.79285 3378.7288 24075.0784 12777.6176 4052.1208 5907.2384 8775.96 636.9391 337.30875 3669.8056 10841.5512 37701.2736 4603.6096 8549.1992 23650.7088 19186.1328

682.81408 440.35344 79.36776 31.796086 24.07598 308.566688 2440.041472 1090.068864 148.744496 4942.732288 82.551376 119.52048 63.414144 1214.17024 20.061472 1150.987008 1045.893632 801.153152 17.031044 75.538704 210.926128 497.428032 326.653792 630.429632 771.980928 5.328324 35.339388 160.034272 66.960924 72.813456 1.357928 33.787288 240.750784 127.776176 40.521208 59.072384 87.7596 6.369391 3.373087 36.698056 108.415512 377.012736 46.036096 85.491992 236.507088 191.861328

Type National Forest National Forest National Forest National Forest National Forest National Forest National Forest National Forest National Forest National Forest National Forest National Forest National Forest National Forest National Forest National Forest National Forest National Forest National Forest National Forest National Forest National Forest National Forest National Forest National Forest National Forest National Forest National Forest National Forest National Forest National Forest National Forest National Forest National Forest National Forest National Forest National Forest National Forest National Forest Total Area

Name Lusitu Headwaters Sitondoya Kangwe Magoye South Kabundi Mutungi Kangwe Mbunda Lusengezi Watembo Naluywa Mulonga Luanga-Namakusi Shelangu East Shelangu West Lilengo Nampiu Sikabenga Sikalongo Shokosha Choma West Choma Kazunamena Simwami Muzuma Sijulu Sioma Ngwezi Nangombe Kateme Kayumbwana Nanduka Lumino Kasenu Zungubo Nanyota Samatela Masese Chiobe Lusu Bovu

District Mazabuka Senanga Senanga Monze Sesheke Senanga Senanga Shangombo Mazabuka Shangombo Senanga Shangombo Senanga Shangombo Shangombo Shangombo Shangombo Shangombo Choma Sesheke Choma Choma Sesheke Sinazongwe Sesheke Sesheke Sesheke Sesheke Sesheke Sesheke Sesheke Sesheke Sesheke Sesheke Sesheke Sesheke Sesheke Sesheke Kazungula

Province Southern Western Western Southern Western Western Western Western Southern Western Western Western Western Western Western Western Western Western Southern Western Southern Southern Western Southern Western Western Western Western Western Western Western Western Western Western Western Western Western Western Southern

Area (ha)

Area (km2)

30326.272 4475.8308 16596.4208 1371.3143 3892.5188 7480.7728 3290.1632 31281.7888 37625.1424 12286.6216 21277.04 1370.4293 7732.8768 12667.7408 11627.3952 2193.0958 29149.2224 2911.516 1713.115 3840.9524 791.56605 1561.2472 5872.7784 78840.0448 2951.4488 457210.88 1729.9046 2759.1456 3129.7814 1018.2596 3323.9156 1037.7996 914.2712 3403.3716 6336.8328 59689.4016 985.6864 1431.9287 30979.36 8059547.624


303.26272 44.758308 165.964208 13.713143 38.925188 74.807728 32.901632 312.817888 376.251424 122.866216 212.7704 13.704293 77.328768 126.677408 116.273952 21.930958 291.492224 29.11516 17.13115 38.409524 7.91566 15.612472 58.727784 788.400448 29.514488 4572.1088 17.299046 27.591456 31.297814 10.182596 33.239156 10.377996 9.142712 34.033716 63.368328 596.894016 9.856864 14.319287 309.7936 80595.4762

95

ANNEX G: ESTIMATED AREAS OF FORESTS, JOINT FOREST MANAGEMENT AREAS, GMAS, AND NATIONAL PARKS FOREST AREAS Province

Total Est. Area (ha)

Total Forests

Central

470,385

40

Copperbelt

623,725

52

Eastern

784,353

77

Luapula

353,411

27

Lusaka

38,863

13

2,317,958

63

Northern

999,143

85

Southern

649,960

36

1,067,517

123

North Western

Western

JOINT FOREST MANAGEMENT AREAS Province


Copperbelt

Total Forests

227

1

Luapula

8,245

2

Southern

12,685

2

INACTIVE GMAS Name Chambeshi

Total Est. Area (ha) 65,641

Luwingu

109,737

Mansa

158,415


97

ACTIVE GMAS Name


Chibwika

131,656

Lupande

399,688

Chikuni

249,314

Petauke

391,400

Namwala

291,795

Upper west Zambezi

1,439,097

Lukwakwa

232,195

Luano

765,460

rufunsa

209,309

Kafinda

308,232

Sandwe

24,193

Mulobezi gma bou

332,477

Sichifula

219,274

Lower west Zambezi

2,222,574

Lunga Luswisji

1,219,060

Lumimba

373,419

Machiya Fungulwe

139,335

Kafue Flats

432,987

Nkala gma

18,794

Bilili gma bound

342,641

Kasonso Busanga

639,771

Masele matebo

349,655

Bangweulu

343,983

Chikuni

249,314

Lower Zambezi

200,578

Chisomo

326,247

Lupande

399,688

Munyamadzi Musalangu

239,878 1,006,029

Kaputa

262,982

Tondwa

38,548

Mumbwa

313,128

Mufunta

585,023

98


NATIONAL PARKS Name


Blue Lagoon

42,428

Isangano

72,527

Kasanka

42,005

Lavushi Manda

139,725

Liuwa

295,790

Lochnivar Nation Lower Zambezi

37,462 378,802

Luambe

30,270

Lukusuzi

235,437

Lusenga plain

78,716

Musi-o-tunya

6,556

Mweru Wantipa Nsefu

275,569 21,065

South Luagwa

759,642

Sumbu

177,898

West lunga

157,044


99

community based natural resource management ...

community based natural resource management ...

Suggest Documents

progressing community-based natural resource management ... - PLAAS

Community-based natural resource management - ifad.org

Community-based Natural Resource Management in ... - CiteSeerX

Community-based natural resource management ... - Semantic Scholar

Community Natural Resource Management: Promise

The Role of Community-based Natural Resource Management in ...

Community-based Natural Resource Management in ... - iied iied

Community-based Natural Resource Management in ... - iied iied

How does community-based natural resource management in ...

Community Natural Resource Management: Promise ...

community-based conservation - USAID Natural Resource ...

Influence of community-based natural resource ...

Natural Resource Management: Ecological

The Realities of Community Based Natural Resource ... - MDPI

the success and sustainability of community-based natural resource

The Realities of Community Based Natural Resource ... - MDPI

Can scenario-planning support community-based natural resource ...

Community-based monitoring of natural resource use and ... - CiteSeerX

1 Do Households Gain from Community-based Natural Resource ...

Assessing participatory GIS for community-based natural resource ...

The Case of Community-Based Natural Resource - Canadian Political

Community-based monitoring of natural resource use and ... - CiteSeerX

The Realities of Community Based Natural Resource ... - MDPI

Effects of Community-Based Natural Resource ... - Semantic Scholar