THE IMPACT OF
WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT POLICIES
ON COMMUNITIES AND CONSERVATION
IN GAME MANAGEMENT AREAS IN ZAMBIA
MESSAGE TO POLICY MAKERS
Natu
ral Resources Consultative Forum
Together sustainably managing Zambia’s natural resources
BY PHYLLIS SIMASIKU, HOPESON I. SIMWANZA, GELSON TEMBO,
SUSHENJIT BANDYOPADHYAY AND JEAN-MICHEL PAVY
MESSAGE TO POLICY MAKERS
This report shows that Zambia’s Game Management Areas (GMAs) are in a spiral of degradation economically, sociologically and ecologically – in spite of the unquestionable commitment and efforts of the Zambian Government, the Zambia Wildlife Authority (ZAWA), the communities and their partners.
10 years ago the government implemented the 1998 Zambia Wildlife Act as it realized that without viable natural resources, future generations would face increased risks of hunger and poverty, which would compel them to further exploit their diminishing natu-ral resources. The enacted Policy for National Parks and Wildlife in Zambia instituted the concept of Community-Based Natural Resources Management.
Today, it appears that GMA governance through community institutions such as Com-munity Resources Boards and Village Action Groups is failing to achieve the purpose for which GMAs were established; namely to act as buffer zones to National Parks in order to protect wild animals and their habitats to support a viable wildlife-based tourism in-dustry, which contributes significantly to the national economy and to the improvement of welfare in GMAs.
Lessons from Zambia and other countries in the region demonstrate that blame must be placed, not with the unequivocal commitment and capacity of the Zambian Govern-ment and its partners, but rather with the wildlife manageGovern-ment policy itself. This report encourages the Zambian Government to launch a national review of the management of GMAs with the view to design and adopt a new policy framework for wildlife manage-ment in the broader context of protected area and natural resources managemanage-ment. This report advises the government to ensure that this policy is drafted prior to modifying the Zambia Wildlife Act so it can influence its content.
FOREWORD
Both the Zambia Wildlife Act No. 12 and the Policy for National Parks and Wildlife in Zambia of 1998 recognize local communities as partners in wildlife conservation. Furthermore, these legislative policy instruments recognize the socio-economic and ecological importance of wildlife resources to the people of Zambia. However, one may ask: What is the impact of wildlife management policies on communities and conservation? The Zambian government has and continues to make efforts to enhance socio-economic and ecological benefits.
However, the economic, sociological and ecological performance of GMAs – as demonstrated in this document – indicates that not much has been achieved. Therefore, government is called upon to review the management of GMAs including designing a more effective and dynamic wildlife management policy framework and legislation. Furthermore, government is called upon to address the factors affecting the per-formance of GMAs and to adopt adaptive management approaches in order to learn from the community-based natural resources management programs within the Southern African region.
I sincerely hope that the government will act on the policy recommendations presented in this document. The Natural Resources Consultative Forum (NRCF), being a non-partisan grouping of stakeholders en-dorsed by the Ministry of Tourism, Environment & Natural Resources offers it services to facilitate this process and, if requested, to spearhead the required technical work and consultations.
Dr. Henry Mwima Chairman Natural Resources Consultative Forum
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ... 1. GAME MANAGEMENT AREAS: BACKGROUND ...
A. THE RATIONALE BEHIND GMAs ... B. WILDLIFE UTILIZATION IN GMAs ... C. THE EVOLUTION OF COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT IN GMAs ... D. GMA MANAGEMENT UNDER THE 1998 WILDLIFE ACT ... E. OTHER NATURAL RESOURCES IN GMAs ... F. NEW APPROACHES ...
2. ECONOMIC PERFORMANCE OF GMAs ...
A. CONSUMPTIVE WILDLIFE USE ... B. NON-CONSUMPTIVE WILDLIFE USE ...
3. ECOLOGICAL PERFORMANCE OF GMAs ...
A. WILDLIFE RESOURCES IN GMAs ... B. PAST TRENDS IN WILDLIFE POPULATIONS (BEFORE 2002) ... C. CURRENT TRENDS IN WILDLIFE POPULATIONS (AFTER 2002) ... D. CATEGORIZATION OF GMAs ... E. HABITAT TRANSFORMATION IN GMAs ... F. SETTLEMENT PATTERNS IN GMAs ...
4. SOCIOLOGICAL PERFORMANCE OF GMAs ...
A. SOCIO-ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS OF GMAs ... B. THE NATIONAL GMA HOUSEHOLD SURVEY ...
5. FACTORS AFFECTING THE PERFORMANCE OF GMAs ...
A. IDENTIFICATION OF THREATS ... B. UNSUSTAINABLE LIVELIHOOD ACTIVITIES ... C. LOW MANAGEMENT PERFORMANCE ... D. UNCOORDINATED GOVERNANCE ...
6. COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF CBNRM PROGRAMS ...
A. ZIMBABWE: CAMPFIRE ... B. BOTSWANA: TRUSTS ... C. NAMIBIA: CONSERVANCIES ... D. LESSONS FROM NEIGBORING COUNTRIES ... E. LESSONS FROM ZAMBIA ...
7. A WAY FORWARD ...
A. CONCLUSIONS ... B. POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS ...
ANNEX 1. GAME AND PROTECTED ANIMALS ... ANNEX 2. ZAMBIA ECOSYSTEMS WITH ASSOCIATED NPs AND GMAs ... ANNEX 3. 2007 HUNTING CONCESSIONS IN ZAWA’S HUNTING BLOCKS ... ANNEX 4. PARTNERSHIPS WITH NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS ... ANNEX 5. CURRENT STATE OF WILDLIFE IN ZAMBIA’S 36 GMAs ... ANNEX 6. DATA SUMMARY OF GMA HOUSEHOLD SURVEY ... REFERENCES ... vi 1 1 1 1 2 3 3 5 5 10 11 11 11 11 12 13 14 17 17 17 21 21 21 22 22 23 23 23 24 25 25 26 26 27 29 30 31 32 33 35 36
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE 1.1: National Parks and Game Management Areas of Zambia ... FIGURE 2.1: Total safari quota allocation and utilization between 1995 and 2006 ... FIGURE 2.2: Quota utilization trends for key species (1995-2005) ... FIGURE 2.3: Trends in trophy quality (2003-2005) ... FIGURE 2.4: Trends in number of quality trophies harvested (1983-2006) ... FIGURE 2.5: Comparative Income from Safari Hunting in Southern Africa ... FIGURE 2.6: Bed capacities in GMAs (2006) ... FIGURE 3.1: Population trends large ungulates in South Luangwa NP and Lupande GMA (1993-2002) ... FIGURE 3.2: Evolution of classification of GMAs 1997 and today ... FIGURE 3.3: Settlements and distributed farmland in Bilili Springs GMA ... FIGURE 3.4: Settlements in Kaputa GMA ... FIGURE 4.1: Comparison of welfare of households around national parks with national rural average ... FIGURE 4.2: Differences in welfare between households participating or not in VAGs/CRBs ... FIGURE 4.3: Comparison of welfare between VAG/CRB participating and non-participating households ... FIGURE 4.4: Welfare of the same households whether they participate or not in VAGs/CRBs ... FIGURE 5.1: Assessment of threats and pressures in GMAs ... FIGURE 5.2: Expenditure components for ZAWA (2006) ... FIGURE 6.1: Main sources of benefits in Namibian conservancies in 2005 ...
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 2.1: Mandatory allocation of hunting Revenues ... TABLE 2.2: Disbursed revenues under LIRDP in Lupande GMA (1992-1999) ... TABLE 2.3: Community hunting revenue disbursements 2002-2006 (rounded to nearest ZMK) ... TABLE 2.4: Top quality trophies harvested between 2000 and 2006 ... TABLE 2.5: Income from GMA hunting sector in Zambia and Zimbabwe ... TABLE 3.1: Abundance status of species in areas of the Western Region 2001 ... TABLE 3.2: Percentage of settled and cultivated land for selected GMAs ...
4 7 7 8 8 9 10 12 13 15 16 18 18 19 19 21 22 24 5 5 6 9 9 11 14
LIST OF BOXES
BOX 3.1: The special case of the Lechwe ... BOX 4.1: Female-headed households in GMAs ...
16 20
ACRONYMS & ABBREVIATIONS
ADMADE Administrative Management Design (for Game Management Areas)
AIDS Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome
AMUs Area Management Units
CAMPFIRE Communal Areas Management Program for Indigenous Resources
CAs Controlled Areas
CBNRM Community-Based Natural Resources Management
CHAs Controlled Hunting Areas
COMACO Community Markets for Conservation
CRBs Community Resources Boards
DANIDA Danish International Development Assistance
DSI Development Services & Initiatives
FNDP Fifth National Development Plan
FZS Frankfurt Zoological Society
GMAs Game Management Areas
HCAs Hunting Concession Agreements
HIV Human Immune Virus
LIRDP Luangwa Integrated Resource Development Project
METTPAZ Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool for Protected Areas managed by ZAWA
NACSO Namibia Association of CBNRM Support Organizations
NGOs Non-Governmental Organizations
NORAD Norwegian Agency for Development
NPs National Parks
NPWS National Parks & Wildlife Service
PCEXP Per Capita Consumption Expenditure
PH Professional Hunter
RDCs Rural District Councils
REMNPAS Reclassification and Effective Management of the National protected Areas Systems Project
SLAMU South Luangwa Area Management Unit
USA United States of America
USAID United States Agency for International Development
VAGs Village Action Groups
WTO World Tourism Organization
WWF Worldwide Fund for Nature
ZAWA Zambia Wildlife Authority
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
BACKGROUNDGame Management Areas (GMAs) are wildlife estates in communally owned lands in which some wild animals are protected and used primarily for regulated hunting (consumptive tourism) and photographic safaris (non-consumptive tourism). The 36 GMAs in Zambia cover 22% of the country’s territory equivalent to 170,000 km2.
GMAs act as buffer zones for national parks. In the early 1980s, as heavy poaching decimated wildlife popula-tions, new models of conservation with integrated community development emerged. The Zambia Wildlife Act number 12 of 1998 was enacted to enhance the concept of community participation in GMAs.
This document examines, as objectively as available data permit, the impact of the current wildlife management policy on the triple bottom line of economy, ecology and community welfare.
COMMERCIAL PERFORMANCE OF GMAs
Only about 10 of 36 GMAs have photographic tourism developments, and Chiawa and Bangweulu Community Resources Boards (CRBs) are the only recipients of revenue from lodges. Formal employment in the non-con-sumptive tourism sector remains extremely low. In the Mfuwe area, which is the most active tourist hub in any GMA in Zambia, there were only 700 permanent and temporary staff in 2005.
Analysis of utilization of key species (lion, leopard, sable, roan and buffalo) in the hunting packages show declin-ing trends together with the trophy quality for major species. Compared to its neighbors, Zambia has underper-formed on generating revenue from hunting. The main reason is the decreasing availability of trophy animals. Consequently, the hunting revenues disbursed by Zambia Wildlife Authority (ZAWA) to CRBs have declined since 2004. Incomes fell by about K170 million in 2005 and K50 million in 2006.
ECOLOGICAL PERFORMANCE OF GMAs
Quantitative evidence suggests that in more than half of Zambia’s GMAs animal populations have declined, mainly due to poaching, and in some GMAs the animal status is unknown. Many hunting blocks are affected. Kasonso Busanga, Nkala, Mulobezi and West Petauke appear to have degenerated from prime to secondary sta-tus, and twelve other GMAs are in a critical state of depletion.
A snap survey furthermore shows that the natural habitats available to support wildlife in GMAs is shrinking throughout the country due to increased settlements, cultivation, traditional land claims and uncoordinated plan-ning by government departments. Bilili GMA is the worst affected with almost no land left for wildlife.
SOCIOLOGICAL PERFORMANCE OF GMAs
GMA communities are characterized by high poverty levels. Monthly per capita expenditure is estimated at ZMK 71,005 compared to ZMK 111,747 for rural areas generally and ZMK 244,352 for urban areas (LCMS, 2006). When compared to other rural communities, the welfare of communities in GMAs is 30% lower than national rural average.
A 2006 poverty impact study of nature-based tourism in GMAs found that, on average, households in GMAs gain from living in GMAs, but benefits are captured by the elite and relatively non-poor stratum of the commu-nity. The elite capture is supported by audit reports of CRBs in the Kafue National Park system, which pointed to large proportions of funds being spent on travel allowances, accommodation and meeting costs.
FACTORS AFFECTING THE PERFORMANCE OF GMAs
The most serious problems across all GMAs are poaching, human encroachment, fire, deforestation, subsistence agriculture and illegal fishing. Food insecurity is high. Very little funding goes to resource protection and only three GMAs (Lupande, Chiawa and Sandwe), meet the minimum requirements for management effectiveness. Some politicians apparently tolerate unlicensed use of resources by local people and discourage wildlife managers from implementing technically correct decisions.
COMPARATIVE ANALySIS OF CBNRM PROGRAMS
Experiences from several Southern African countries show that community-based natural resources management can help reduce poverty if the policy framework is stimulating and if community institutions are effectively or-ganized to participate in natural resources development. Namibian conservancies offer a model of joint ventures between communities and the private sector that may be beneficial in Zambia’s GMAs.
CONCLUSION
This report paints an alarming picture of Zambia’s GMAs in terms of economical, sociological and ecological benefits. Chapter 2 reveals that the commercial flow to and from GMAs probably is decreasing. Chapter 3 illus-trates that natural habitats and wildlife are decreasing at an alarming rate in most GMAs. Chapter 4 shows that GMA communities are 30% poorer than the average Zambian rural communities. Chapter 5 demonstrates that 31 out of 36 GMAs fail to meet the requirements for satisfactory management effectiveness.
This report concludes that GMAs have failed to fulfill their purpose; namely to act as buffer zones to National Parks in order to protect wild animals and their habitats to support a viable wildlife-based tourism industry, which contributes significantly to the national economy and to the improvement of welfare in GMAs. The key message to the Zambian Government and other policy makers is that current wildlife management policies are inadequate whether evaluated from an ecological, economic or sociological perspective. This report therefore urges them to launch, as rapidly as possible, a review of the governance of GMAs with the view to adopt a new policy for wildlife management prior to the revision of the wildlife legislation.
1. GAME MANAGEMENT AREAS: BACKGROUND
Game Management Areas (GMAs) are wildlife estates in communally owned lands (i.e. customary or traditional lands) in which some wildlife is protected (see Annex 1) and used primarily for regulated hunting (consumptive tourism) and/or photographic safaris (non-consumptive tourism) for the benefit of the nation, local communi-ties and the wildlife resource. Human habitation is permitted, along with economic activicommuni-ties that are compatible with in-situ wildlife management such as agriculture, forestry and mining.The current 36 GMAs (see Annex 2) cover about 170,000 km2 or 22% of the country’s territory.
A. THE RATIONALE BEHIND GMAs
The concept of GMAs goes back to the mid-1940s, when a few areas were declared as Controlled Areas (CAs) to permit a strictly controlled number of non-residents to hunt. In 1954, CAs were reclassified as Controlled Hunt-ing Areas (CHAs) to allow for controlled huntHunt-ing in general, formally initiated in 1956 when the Fauna Conser-vation Ordinance, Chapter 106, was put in force. CHAs were to serve as buffer zones between the country’s 19 National Parks and farming areas to: (1) provide alternatives to commercial agriculture in areas of low agricultural potential, and (2) to enclose the mammalian hosts of the tsetse fly to prevent the spread of the domestic livestock disease Trypanosomiasis.
In 1962, the Fauna Conservation Ordinance, Chapter 106, was replaced with the Fauna Conservation Ordi-nance, Chapter 241, to be repealed and replaced, in 1971, with the National Parks and Wildlife Act, Chapter 316. Under the National Parks and Wildlife Act all CHAs were declared as GMAs with stricter hunting controls.
B. WILDLIFE UTILIZATION IN GMAs
Consumptive utilization of wildlife in Zambia’s GMAs includes hunting and to a lesser degree live capture. Safari hunting is carried out by international clients under the guidance of licensed professional hunters in hunting blocks in specific GMAs (see Annex 3). Resident hunting, predominantly for meat, is carried out by citizens of Zambia, bonafide district residents and expatriate residents. ZAWA is the licensing authority except for special licenses issued by the Minister of Tourism, Environment & Natural Resources for research, game capture, tradi-tional ceremonies, dignitaries and for management of problematic animals.
Illegal poaching increasingly constitutes a form of exploitation of wildlife. With human population densities on the rise, the demand for bush meat has progressively transformed subsistence hunting into commercial poaching. Non-consumptive use of wildlife (game viewing) is so far limited to relatively few lodges and camps. Only 10 out of 36 GMAs attract this kind of tourism.
C. THE EVOLUTION OF COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT IN GMAs
In the 1940s, ownership of wildlife changed hands from traditional control to state control. The creation of wildlife estates resulted in displacement of communities and restricted traditional hunting and access to protected areas by local people. Most communities considered the wildlife legislation discriminatory and hence few cooper-ated with the state authorities.However, from the early 1980s, heavy poaching opened a new debate on conservation practices. It was progres-sively recognized that wildlife conservation can only succeed if resident communities derive benefits from the use of wildlife. Such benefits should, theoretically, be of sufficient magnitude to discourage detrimental land uses.
With support from WWF (USA), the Lupande Development Project was born in 1983 to test the feasibility of letting local people participate in the management of wildlife resources in partnership with the Department of National Parks & Wildlife Service (later transformed into ZAWA). Eventually, the Luangwa Integrated Resource Development Project (LIRDP) and the Administrative Management Design (ADMADE) program followed. LIRDP adopted an integrated approach combining agriculture, infrastructure development, and community de-velopment projects with conservation support. Revenues from wildlife use were given to the community institu-tions for community projects. ADMADE ensured that revenues generated from wildlife in a GMA were shared between the residents of that particular GMA and the basic wildlife management costs. Residents benefited through employment opportunities and community projects such as schools, clinics and water wells.
ADMADE and LIRDP were credited for stimulating local people’s support, which in turn reduced poaching, minimized land use conflicts and stabilized habitat encroachment. This triggered policy discussions and ultimate-ly the enactment of the Zambia Wildlife Act number 12 of 1998.
D. GMA MANAGEMENT UNDER THE 1998 WILDLIFE ACT
POLICy AND INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORKIn 1998, the National Parks and Wildlife Act, Chapter 316, was repealed and replaced with the Zambia Wildlife Act Number 12, which also allowed for the transformation of the Department of National Parks & Wildlife Ser-vice into the Zambia Wildlife Authority (ZAWA). Key innovations under the Zambia Wildlife Act included the explicit formalization of community-based natural resources management and the introduction of Community Resources Boards (CRBs) as democratic local institutions to work in partnership with ZAWA.
ZAWA facilitates and supervises community-based wildlife management through its GMA Unit in the Conserva-tion Directorate. The GMA Unit mainly provides policy guidance and extension support to CRBs and promotes partnerships with community, private sector and other institutions in the management of GMAs.
COMMUNITy RESOURCES BOARDS
Communities wishing to form CRBs must fulfill a set of specific conditions specified in the Wildlife Act. Firstly, the local community must have common interest in the wildlife and natural resources of its area and be resident in an area defined as a chiefdom. In addition the CRB must have members elected by the local community. The local authority and the Chief are represented by one person each with the Chief serving as a patron of that Board. CRBs are assisted by their village representation, the Village Action Groups (VAGs).
The formation of CRBs has had two positive impacts. CRBs have provided platforms for development organiza-tions who wish to help improve communities’ welfare. Communities in turn have a forum in which to participate in development planning. Furthermore, ZAWA has returned hunting revenues (see Table 2.1), which, in most GMAs, were not available to the communities before.
In reality, however, the performance of CRBs has been generally unsatisfactory. CRBs are meant to be conduits of sharing benefits of wildlife management with residents of GMAs. However, audits have revealed gross financial misapplication of community funds, lack of transparency in the administration and unfavorable influence by chiefs on expenditure of community funds.
CRBs lack technical capacity to perform their functions. No single CRB has negotiated an agreement with a company in wildlife enterprise. Not a single management plan has been implemented although efforts are being made to produce some with assistance from ZAWA’s partners. Management plans have been completed for Nkala and Kafinda GMAs. The capacity to administer CRB has been weak or virtually non existent for some GMAs. In many GMAs, recruitment of qualified staff for CRB secretariats has not been possible because revenues are considered too low to accommodate wages.
Only 29 out of 68 CRBs have had sufficient revenues to employ village scouts. Regardless, all CRBs are required to finance conservation programs. Their low performance is therefore not surprising.
OTHER STAKEHOLDER ASSISTANCE
Currently, direct financial support is given to CRBs in about six GMAs by DANIDA, NORAD and UNDP, and a further 10 GMAs receive NGO support (see Annex 4). NGOs work with communities to stimulate conserva-tion awareness and support protecconserva-tion of wildlife. They also catalyze support from the private sector and donors for livelihood activities and community development projects such as schools. The low level of assistance is attrib-uted to lack of confidence in the suitability of the current GMA policy and in ZAWA’s approach to its implemen-tation.
The CBNRM Forum is an umbrella organization for community-based organizations with interest in natural resources management. It was established with WWF assistance to help communities voice at the national level their concerns and wishes for the management of wildlife and other natural resources. Even though CRB rep-resentative from various regions were elected, the forum has remained dormant, possibly because of insufficient buy-in at the grassroots level. Also, given the low revenues of CRBs, the forum’s existence depends on donor sup-port, which has not materialized.
The private sector is involved through safari hunting operators. Furthermore, investors are increasingly becoming interested in establishing tourist lodges in GMAs on the boundary of National Parks. Under the present arrange-ments, however, the GMA policy does not enable CRBs to tap effectively the private sector, especially their know-how and capital for investment in wildlife management.
E. OTHER NATURAL RESOURCES IN GMAs
GMAs are endowed with a variety of natural resources, including land, water, forests, minerals, fishes, wildlife, etc. The management and user rights of the various natural resources are governed by separate legislations and government institutions. Although in principle natural resources are vested in the President, in practice the use of natural resources on customary land is determined by traditional authorities. This dual tenure system coupled with multiple legislations/institutions hinders coordination. The consequence is uncoordinated planning and development, incompatible land or resource uses, and insufficient monitoring of resource exploitation.
F. NEW APPROACHES
There have been several attempts at devising new approaches to enhance wildlife conservation by promoting local people’s participation:
The CBNRM project is a Danida-funded development project that operated in Mumbwa and Itezhi-tezhi Dis-tricts until 2007. Field operations included (1) providing skills, administrative and material support to commu-nity-based institutions; (2) initiating income-generating activities such as beekeeping for groups of households; and (3) establishing linkages with urban markets. With Danish and Norwegian support, progress was made in terms of more inclusive and meaningful multi-stakeholder processes for land use planning, primarily in Nkala and Namwala GMAs. The identification of conservation zones was initiated in six additional GMAs. Conserva-tion zones are designed and coordinated in relaConserva-tion to similar zones in neighboring GMAs and NaConserva-tional Parks. Designed by the NGO Wildlife Conservation Society, the Community Markets for Conservation (COMACO) addresses the causes of land degradation and biodiversity loss around protected areas. It operates in Rufunsa, Sandwe, Lupande, Munyamadzi, Lumimba and Musalangu GMAs. Realizing that the market economy exerts pressure on natural resources and influences the community choice of land uses, COMACO focuses on house-holds, on livelihoods and on market linkages. Under COMACO, farmers organize themselves in producer groups. They adopt farming and land use practices compatible with wildlife production and watershed
protec-tion. In return, COMACO offers better market access and prices. COMACO also helps community organiza-tions entering the tourism sector by assisting in the management of three bush camps. Success has been reported in conservation and livelihood improvements.
Since 2005, the Luawata Conservation Limited, a hunting safari company based in Munyamadzi GMA in the Luangwa Valley, has combined its operations with support to a range of wildlife projects through an NGO called the Conservation Foundation Zambia financed by the same investors. The NGO’s mission is to provide financing and technical support to ZAWA and other government and non-governmental agencies and rural communities that are involved in natural resources conservation, management and sustainable utilization. Some of these in-clude: (1) a scout field training program that has trained over 250 scouts and 10 instructors; (2) a scout housing program in North Luangwa; (3) rehabilitation of park buildings; (4) air support to rainy season patrols in North and South Luangwa National Parks; and (5) re-introduction of 16 black rhinos in North Luangwa.
The Reclassification and Effective Management of the National Protected Areas Systems Project (REMNPAS) has been initiated with financial assistance from the Global Environment Facility (GEF) and the UNDP to run from 2006 to 2011. The goal is to establish a new protected area system comprising a representative sample of Zambia’s ecosystems effectively safeguarded from human-induced pressures through effective management partnerships, and which establishes Zambia as a tourism destination of choice. This calls for creation of new categories of protected areas where public/private/community partnerships will embrace new management responsibilities and benefit-sharing mechanisms. Models of community/private parks are being developed to be tested in Bangweulu and Chiawa GMAs. The REMNPAS project still has a mammoth task ahead of it in developing the partnership models. Many issues related to restriction of land uses in order to protect wildlife resources need to be addressed as they affect local people’s basic livelihoods such as fishing, hunting and other natural resource uses.
In all cases, even when the new approaches are promising, sustainability remains an issue of concern when only external donor or NGO funds or initiatives are mobilized to assist communities in managing their GMAs.
FIGURE 1.1: National Parks and Game Management Areas of Zambia.
2. ECONOMIC PERFORMANCE OF GMAs
A. CONSUMPTIVE WILDLIFE USE
The principal economic activity for which GMAs were created is hunting (consumptive wildlife use). Many GMAs are so large and/or contain such varying densities of huntable species that they are divided into sepa-rate hunting blocks that are concessioned sepasepa-rately to safari hunting operators (see Annex 3).
HunTinG Revenues
in 2003, after a two-year moratorium of hunting in Zambia, ZAWA and the local communities in GMAs granted hunting blocks to safari hunting operators. The safari hunting companies signed 10 to 15-year lease agreements known as Hunting Concession Agreements (HCAs). The HCAs provide for specific obligations that safari hunting companies are expected to fulfill in addition to the community pledges that they make. The HCAs further provide for the annual review of the safari hunting operators to determine their status and continued operations.
safari hunting is the major source of wildlife revenue in GMAs. ZAWA disburses 50% of animal fees and 20% of concession fees to local communities in GMAs through their CRBs for resource protection and the improvement of livelihoods (see Table 2.1).
TABLE 2.1: Mandatory allocation of hunting revenues.
ZAWA Village scouts Chiefs CRB administration Community projects Total Animal fees 50.00% 20.25% 5.00% 9.00% 15.75% 100.00% Concession fees 80.00% 6.75% 5.00% 3.00% 5.25% 100.00% Source: Hamilton et. al., 2007.
In comparison, the LIRDP released 100% of the hunting revenue generated in the Lupande GMA from 1997 to 1999 (see Table 2.2), although this was reversed under the 1998 ZAWA Act to maintain uniform sharing propor-tions for all GMAs.
TABLE 2.2: Disbursed revenues under LIRDP in Lupande GMA (1992-1999).
year 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999
GMA income (US$) 79,784 123,490 140,333 175,578 198,838 241,807 227,273 225,000
Community disbursement (US$) 61,737 116,014 56,133 153,495 153,846 241,807 227,273 225,000 Share (%) 77 94 40 87 77 100 100 100 Source: Compiled by authors.
* In 2001/02 international safari hunting was suspended in Zambia. Source: Compiled by authors.
As illustrated in Table 2.3, the revenues increased from 2003 to 2004, because ZAWA split the hunting blocks and increased quotas – despite declining trends in animal populations as demonstrated in the next chapter of this report. From 2004 onwards, however, the revenues have been declining with about K170 million in 2005 and K50 million in 2006 - and when inflation is taken into account, the decrease is much sharper. This trend is linked to the decrease in quota utilization.
HUNTING QUOTA UTILIZATION
Between 1995 and 2000, National Parks & Wildlife Service steadily reduced the safari quota allocation to re-spond to the low utilization levels (see Figure 2.1). After 2003, ZAWA increased quota allocation and decreased the sizes of hunting blocks. Because of low utilization levels, ZAWA also introduced performance bonds based on 75% minimum quota utilization. Regardless, as demonstrated in Figure 2.1, overall quota utilization has remained low at about 40% since 2003. This indicates that there are not enough trophy animals in the GMAs to fill out the quotas implying that the quotas were inflated against the principle of sustainability.
Table 2.3 shows ZAWA’s disbursements to communities in GMAs with hunting blocks.
TABLE 2.3: Community hunting revenue disbursements 2002-2006 (rounded to nearest ZMK).
GMA Lumimba Bangweulu Munyamadzi Musalangu Lupande Mumbwa Kafue Flats Lunga Luswishi West Petauke Kasonso Busanga Mulobezi Kasonso Busanga Bilili/Nkala Tondwa Namwala Sichifulo Sandwe Chiawa Rufunsa Luano Chisomo West Zambezi Kalasa Mukoso Mukungule Chizera TOTAL 2001 – 2002* 53,519,258 129,272,659 170,340,600 116,296,147 61,448,450 52,078,202 66,891,280 0 83,202,500 49,575,100 127,914,498 104,731,612 39,822,358 14,237,423 20,740,945 104,224,634 9,800,535 91,904,595 41,836,275 386,790 203,002 22,579,400 932,600 0 0 1,361,938,863 2003 215,127,945 91,316,025 177,042,695 229,360,783 161,351,015 59,607,860 199,124,030 118,158,280 46,993,090 77,852,480 46,472,320 55,594,435 120,333,154 25,029,875 60,930,863 23,597,697 0 2,625,150 5,228,100 0 0 66,627,590 0 0 0 1,782,373,386 2004 678,977,003 433,216,875 416,511,805 396,995,128 332,930,795 246,254,498 244,165,632 191,113,313 148,928,365 145,355,565 128,559,308 120,548,080 72,312,201 69,450,730 52,920,170 48,911,404 37,398,920 29,154,425 26,111,240 12,087,175 4,266,500 250,268 0 0 0 3,836,419,397 2005 493,107,796 237,949,772 444,790,670 354,845,346 514,379,722 265,116,600 158,673,047 170,978,876 59,251,900 163,897,126 127,748,476 100,584,976 117,623,924 56,045,826 45,255,651 41,694,336 58,562,976 81,882,516 62,178,052 10,764,000 47,168,550 19,122,676 0 21,879,000 12,033,450 3,665,535,264 2006 464,561,250 211,142,405 357,055,709 358,969,785 588,141,417 275,089,920 157,291,660 150,488,775 75,586,475 145,971,715 195,712,295 54,592,900 104,767,425 61,512,250 48,942,075 34,434,508 11,424,750 122,075,515 91,043,850 7,314,000 0 30,974,038 0 54,333,700 15,801,978 3,617,228,394
Currently, a total of 41 species are being harvested on the safari hunting quota. Citizens and established residents take 16 species, mainly for meat, not including species such as lion, leopard, sable, roan, eland, zebra and el-ephant. In 2006, from a total hunting quota of 10,073 animals, 46% was harvested by international clients, 35% by residents, 13% for animal capture, 3% for special license and 3% for culling.
FIGURE 2.1: Total safari quota allocation and utilization between 1995 and 2006.
Source: Compiled by authors.
An analysis of safari quota utilization of key species in the hunting packages (lion, leopard, sable, roan and buf-falo) for the period 1995 to 2006 (see Figure 2.2) shows that buffalo is the only larger mammal whose numbers are sufficient to be targeted for both trophy and meat. Figure 2.2 shows that the quota utilization of buffalo increased in 2004 and 2005. The number of leopard collected increased slightly, whereas the other three species show declining trends.
FIGURE 2.2: Quota utilization trends for key species (1995-2005).
Source: Compiled by authors.
Not surprisingly, declining trophy quality is resulting in a similar decline in the number of quality trophy animals being harvested (see Figure 2.4). Declining trophy quality translates into increased hunting effort as more time is being spent and larger areas are being searched to find good trophy animals.
FIGURE 2.4: Trends in number of quality trophies harvested (1983-2006).
Source: Compiled by authors. TROPHy QUALITy
Trophy quality is a suitable way of monitoring wildlife populations that are being hunted. However, ZAWA’s da-tabase on trophy quality is scanty and cannot provide a fully accurate picture. Still, indications of trophy quality for major species except buffalo show a steady declining trend between 2003 and 2005 (see Figure 2.3).
Table 2.4 reveals that the Luangwa Valley system surpasses all other areas in Zambia when it comes to trophy quality of all species except Sable. In fact, Sable can only be harvested from the Kafue National Park system to a minimum quality set by the Professional Hunters Association of Zambia.
TABLE 2.4: Top quality trophies harvested between 2000 and 2006.
Luangwa Valley System Kafue National Park System Lower Zambezi NP System Bangweulu System
Mweru Wa Ntipa System Upper Zambezi System
Buffalo 8 1 0 1 0 0 Eland 1 0 0 0 0 0 Leopard 4 2 0 0 0 0 Lion 4 1 0 0 0 0 Roan 4 1 0 0 0 0 Sable 0 5 0 0 0 0 Source: Compiled by authors.
INCOME FROM HUNTING
Zambia has significantly underperformed on generating income from hunting compared to its neighboring com-petitors (see Figure 2.5). Contributing factors have included poor allocation of quotas, under-pricing of animals, poaching and weak law enforcement.
FIGURE 2.5: Comparative annual income from safari hunting in Southern Africa.
Zambia CAMPFIRE Zimbabwe Area (km2) 162,311.0 19.5 Income (US$) 1,304,568 2,000,000 Income (US$/km2) 8.0 102.4 Source: DSI (2004).
A comparison of hunting on public land in Zambia and Zimbabwe (see Table 2.5) shows that, in spite of higher human density and smaller huntable areas, Zimbabwe generates far more hunting revenue per unit area. Among possible explanations is the fact that Zimbabwe auctions quotas for a larger number of some of the valuable big game species such as elephant. Higher quotas and higher prices have been made possible by a relatively better management performance and thus a better wildlife product.
TABLE 2.5: Annual income from GMA hunting sector in Zambia and Zimbabwe.
Adapted from DSI (2004).
So uth A fri ca Zimba bw e Bo tsw an a N amib ia Zamb ia US$/h a
Source: Compiled by authors.
These GMAs are concentrated around in particular the Lower Zambezi National Park (Chiawa and Rufunsa GMAs) and to a lesser degree the South Luangwa (Lupande GMA) and Kafue National Parks (Nkala, Mumbwa, Namwala and Lunga Luswishi GMAs) as well as West Zambezi offering fishing on the Upper Zambezi.
Chiawa and Bangweulu are the only two GMAs, where a percentage of the fixed lease fees and variable fees is giv-en to the community from the lodges. Otherwise, photographic safari operators contribute to the local economy through salaries and the purchase of goods and services. Other indirect benefits include social programs mainly in health care and education, but increasingly also through community tourism ventures. In GMAs such as Chiawa, the photographic safari operators are probably the biggest contributor to the local economy.
Nevertheless, although the tourism sector is the world’s largest employer, the magnitude of employment in two of Zambia’s most popular National Parks, the Lower Zambezi and the South Luangwa, is insignificant (Pope, 2005). Mfuwe, for example, which is the gateway to South Luangwa, had some 700 permanent and temporary staff in 2005, up from approximately 80 employees in 1990. The spin-off benefits amounts to roughly 6 household individuals being provided with a livelihood per employee, and through the economic multiplier (NRCF, 2007) about 800 additional jobs are created.
B. NON-CONSUMPTIVE WILDLIFE USE
In some GMAs, hunting operators share the wildlife with safari lodges offering game viewing on titled land. However, only 10 out of 36 GMAs provide non-consumptive wildlife use (see Figure 2.6).
FIGURE 2.6: Bed capacities in GMAs (2006).
C hi aw a W es t Z ambezi Lupan de Ruf uns a Nk al a M umb w a Lumimba Nam w al a Lun ga L us w ishi Ban gw eulu Bed ca pa ctit y 260 240 220 200 180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20
3. ECOLOGICAL PERFORMANCE OF GMAs
A. WILDLIFE RESOURCES IN GMAs
Wildlife in GMAs is described by Jachmann (2000) and Simwanza (2001, 2002, 2003, 2004 and 2005) and is presented in Annex 5.
B. PAST TRENDS IN WILDLIFE POPULATIONS (BEFORE 2002)
A report on the status of wildlife and hunting in the Western Region stretching from the Kafue Flats to the border of Angola (Simwanza, 2001) show that already in 2001 very few species, in some cases none, were abun-dant and common. The majority of species were either rare or of unknown status as demonstrated in Table 3.1. A similar situation prevails in other GMAs.TABLE 3.1: Abundance status of species in the Western Region, 2001.
GMA West Zambezi Chibwika Ntambu Lukwakwa Musele Matebo Chizera Bilili Springs Nkala Namwala Mumbwa Lunga Luswishi Kasonso Busanga Abundant 2 1 1 0 0 0 3 4 5 0 1 Common 3 1 0 0 2 0 3 4 3 2 5 Rare 7 1 3 0 2 7 11 7 9 4 7 Unknown Status 19 11 1 5 15 8 7 10 5 14 17 Total 31 14 5 5 19 15 24 25 22 20 30 Number of species
Abundant: Frequently observed in large numbers but may be restricted in distribution. Common: Widely distributed and frequently observed.
Rare: Will be seen only through special search.
Unknown: Present, not abundant, but not established whether common or rare. Source: Compiled by authors.
In the 1990s, a number of large ungulate species, including hartebeest, roan, waterbuck and wildebeest steadily and significantly declined in Lupande, Lumimba, Munyamadzi, Sandwe, Chisomo and West Petauke GMAs (Jachmann & Phiri, 1999). Although the buffalo population increased between 1994 and 1999 in South Luang-wa National Park and Lupande GMA, Duhnam & SimLuang-wanza (2002) observed a decline in 2002 (see Figure 3.1).
C. CURRENT TRENDS IN WILDLIFE POPULATIONS (AFTER 2002)
Because of lack of monitoring and subsequent absence of data on occurrences and population sizes for most spe-cies in most GMAs, it is difficult to establish an up-to-date picture of the animal status in Zambia’s GMAs. A number of aerial surveys have been conducted between 2002 and 2006 in the Kafue Flats (Kamweneshe et.al., 2003; ZAWA & WWF, 2005), Zambezi Heartland (Simwanza, 2005 & 2003), Kafue Ecosystem, West Lunga Ecosystem and Upper Luano (Simwanza, 2004), Mweru Wa Ntipa Ecosystem (Simwanza, 2003 & 2005) and Lupande GMA (Duhnam & Simwanza, 2002) and important information has been collected leading to thereview of the abundance and distribution status of some species. The results show declining trends in species such as elephant, buffalo, impala, puku, warthog, zebra, Kafue lechwe and Tsessebe, and generally a decline in many of the other species. Even though the animal status in some GMAs is unknown, the quantitative evidence suggests that more than half of Zambia’s GMAs have low population levels.
The GMAs that contain significant wildlife populations are either part of the Kafue National Park system, the Luangwa Valley system or the major wetland systems of the Kafue and Bangweulu as seen from the aerial surveys mentioned above. There seems to be a correlation between the abundance of wildlife in GMAs and the presence of donor-funded projects.
It has been observed that in almost all areas the populations of some of the animal species has decreased due to poaching which occurs in almost all GMAs (ZAWA, 2004, 2005 & 2006).
FIGURE 3.1: Population trends large ungulates in South Luangwa NP and Lupande GMA (1993-2002).
Source: Compiled by authors.
D. CATEGORIZATION OF GMAs
Another way to examine population trends is to analyze the evolution of ZAWA’s own rating of the GMAs. ZAWA classifies GMAs according to their viability, i.e. their performance in producing revenue from hunting. In this regard GMAs are classified as prime, secondary, specialized, understocked and depleted as follows:
Prime: areas with species that are fairly abundant and include highly valued trophies namely lion, leopard, roan and sable, that can accommodate five or more classical safaris and seven or more mini safaris per hunting season. Classical safaris include trophies of lion, leopard, roan and sable as well as many other species. A mini safari limits the hunter to seven animals of different species excluding lion, leopard, roan and sable.
Secondary: areas with species not so abundant but that generally can sustain safari hunting of three to four classical safaris and a minimum of five mini safaris per hunting season.
Specialized: wetland areas where any of the three species lechwe, sitatunga and tsessebe dominate and are restricted in their distribution.
Understocked: areas with species assemblages that are intact but populations are too sparse. Sometimes one or more species may be exterminated while other species are available. Such areas have room for a minimum hunting quota.
Depleted: areas with species assemblages that are fragmented and much of the wildlife generally de-mised. The recommendation is that safari hunting and indeed any other form of hunting should not take place in these areas, e.g. Bilili Springs and Chibwika Ntambu GMAs.
In 1997, ZAWA classifed 14 GMAs as prime or secondary (see Figure 3.2), but an analysis of the hunting returns 10 years later indicates that this number has decreased with 30% to 10 GMAs. Apparently, Kasonso Busanga, Nkala, Mulobezi, Lupande and West Petauke GMAs have degenerated from prime to secondary, while Sichifulo, Msoro-Lupande, Sandwe and Lower Luano GMAs have slipped from secondary to under-stocked (see Annex 3 for classification of current hunting blocks).
On the other hand, 16 GMAs were classified as understocked or depleted in 1997 against seemingly 24 in 2007 (up by 50%). In fact, no GMAs were classified as depleted in 1997, whereas this figure has increased to 12 in 2007, including Luwingu, Kaputa, Chambeshi, Mansa, Chibwika Ntambu, Musele Matebo, Chizera, Kafinda, Bilili Springs, Kalasa Mukoso, Machiya Fungulwe and Lukwakwa GMAs.
FIGURE 3.2: Categorization of GMAs 1997 and today*.
* The number of GMAs has increased from 32 in 1997 to 36 in 2007 as new GMAs have been added. Source: Compiled by authors.
E. HABITAT TRANSFORMATION IN GMAs
Even more important than wildlife is the availability of natural habitat to support wildlife. It is therefore essen-tial to analyze its status. Although there is very little readily available information to show a clear picture of the condition of the range and how much of it in spatial terms remains in each GMA, a snapshot survey shows that the habitat is shrinking due to increased settlements and cultivation.
Spec iali zed Prime Secon dar y U nde rst oc ked De ple ted N umbe r o f G MAs 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 1997 2007
Encroachment induced by traditional claims to land or by uncoordinated planning by government departments are resulting in accelerated loss of habitats. Population increase, hunger, poverty and lack of education fuel poaching, charcoal burning and an extensive slash-and-burn farming system; all are threats to natural habitats, and the emergence of commercial farming is jeopardizing natural habitats, wildlife and other natural resources in Zambia’s GMAs.
Over the past decade, law enforcement has generally failed to control the harmful impact of these threats. On the other hand, ZAWA only has authority over wildlife in GMAs and is legally powerless at controlling human settle-ment and habitat degradation.
F. SETTLEMENT PATTERNS IN GMAs
GMAs attract settlements (see Table 3.2) because of their relatively abundant land and natural resources vital to the sustenance of rural livelihoods – assisted by deliberate attempts at attracting immigrants. The Department of Agriculture has set up farm settlement schemes resulting in extensive human encroachment in Bilili Springs and Namwala GMAs, and Chiefs encourage immigrants to settle as a way to claim authority over lost lands, which has affected Mumbwa GMA in particular.
TABLE 3.2: Percentage of settled and cultivated land for selected GMAs.
GMA Bilili Springs Mufunta Sichifulo Kaputa Kasonso Busanga Mulobezi Lunga Luswishi Nkala Tondwa Size (km2) 3,080 6,411 3,600 3,600 7,780 3,420 13,340 194 540
Size of settled & cultivated land (km2)
2,662 1,150 645 632 213 181 134 0 0 % 86 18 18 18 5 3 1 0 0 Source: ZAWA Information Department, 2007.
Currently, Bilili Springs is the most heavily settled GMA in Zambia with almost no land left for conservation (see Figure 3.3). Close behind, however, are Namwala, Mumbwa, Sichifulo and Kaputa GMAs. In the latter, the corridor for movement of animals between Mweru Wa Ntipa and Nsumbu National Parks has been completely disrupted by heavy settlements (see Figure 3.4).
Population sizes in GMAs are highly variable, ranging from about 2,000 people in for instance Chisomo GMA, to over 70,000 people in GMAs such as Bangweulu, Kaputa, Musalangu and West Zambezi. GMAs that encom-pass districts within their boundaries have very large populations and a mixture of rural and urban economies. Examples are Kalabo and Shangombo in Western Province and Chama, Lundazi and Mambwe in Eastern Prov-ince.
It is interesting to note that the districts with the highest annual population growth rates are either within GMAs or adjacent to GMAs and National Parks. For example, Chongwe adjacent to Rufunsa and Luano GMAs, has an annual growth rate of 3.7%, which is higher even than Lusaka at 3.6%, while the provincial average annual growth rate is 3.5%. Mpongwe near Machiya Fungulwe and Lunga Luswishi GMAs, has the highest annual growth rate on the Copperbelt at 5.2%. Not surprisingly, Machiya Fungulwe GMA is now classified as depleted, while Lunga Luswishi has degraded from prime to secondary status.
FIGURE 3.3: Settlements and distributed farmland in Bilili Springs GMA.
FIGURE 3.4: Settlements in Kaputa GMA.
Source: ZAWA, 2007 (b).
BOX 3.1: THE SPECIAL CASE OF THE LECHWE
The decline in the Kafue lechwe popu-lation in the Kafue Flats is a cause for concern. Assuming that environmental conditions are not limiting and that natu-ral predation is insignificant it is reason-able to assume an annual 10% increase in population. If the population is stable at 40,000 animals, as indicated in later years, it should increase by 4,000 annu-ally. Since legal off-take has amounted to about 800 lechwe a year, and as there is no evidence of large-scale mortality from disease, it is likely that poaching is re-sponsible for the decline taking more than 3,000 animals per year. In comparison, the Black lechwe population in the Ban-gweulu Swamps appears to be increasing.
19 74 19 76 19 78 19 80 19 82 19 84 19 86 19 88 19 90 19 92 19 94 19 96 19 98 2000 200 2 Pop ul ati on e stim at es 120,000 110,000 100,000 90,000 80,000 70,000 60,000 50,000 40,000 30,000 20,000 10,000 Year Kafue lechwe Black lechwe
4. SOCIOLOGICAL PERFORMANCE OF GMAs
A. SOCIO-ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS OF GMAs
Poverty trends in the Fifth National Development Plan show that 68% of Zambia’s population live below the national poverty line earning less than ZMK 111,747 per month with rural small-scale farmers being the poorest. Levels of poverty are highest in remote provinces such as Western, Luapula and North-Western with 83%, 79% and 76% of their populations respectively living below the national poverty line.
The incidence of poverty is highest among female-headed households (see Box 4.1), among large households of seven or more members, and among households where the household head has less than seven years of formal basic education (LCMS, 2004). School attendance rate is lowest among rural small-scale agricultural households and fishing communities (LCMS, 2004).
Data from the Central Statistical Office (LCMS, 2004) confirm that GMA communities have high poverty levels typical of rural small-scale producers with similar characteristics.
B. THE NATIONAL GMA HOUSEHOLD SURVEY
In 2005, the Central Statistical Office conducted a national GMA household survey to determine the impact of nature tourism on poverty in areas close to protected wildlife areas (see Annex 6). The objective was to determine the impact of the current GMA-specific policies and regulations on GMA households (the so-called GMA effect). The survey compared welfare of communities and households in GMAs with those in non-GMA control areas adjacent to some of Zambia’s most visited national parks. Welfare was measured in terms of per capita consump-tion expenditure (pcexp) comprising food and nonfood consumpconsump-tion, including own produced goods and natural resources collected and consumed. An alternative indicator of welfare is household or per capita income. However, since income is more volatile than consumption and is reported less accurately in surveys, this survey used consumption-based measure of welfare and asset-based measure of wealth and poverty.
The sampled GMAs included Bangweulu, Chambeshi and Kafinda in the Bangweulu system; Kafue Flats North, Kasonso Busanga, Lunga Luswishi and Mumbwa in the Kafue National Park system; Chiawa and Rufunsa in the Lower Zambezi system; and Chisomo, Lumimba and Lupande in the South Luangwa system.
RESULTS OF GMA HOUSEHOLD SURVEy
Even if nature tourism contributes significantly to the country’s economy, the GMA household survey demon-strated that the scale of its contribution to poverty alleviation in communities is minor and highly variable from area to area. The survey found that the average annual per capita consumption (PCC) of communities living in GMAs and non-GMAs is ZMK 839,000 (approximately US$ 250) and ZMK 850,000 respectively (see Figure 4.1). In comparison, the Central Statistical Office reports that the average rural community in Zambia has a PCC of ZMK 1.2 million. In other words, the welfare of communities living around national parks is about 70% of the national rural average.
While the survey was unable to provide a statistically sound explanation, it can be inferred that households liv-ing around national parks are poorer because they reside in remote areas lackliv-ing basic infrastructure. The survey found that each extra kilometer of distance from the nearest all-weather road is associated with 0.5% less con-sumption welfare for the average household in the sample. The implication is that households in GMAs have lim-ited access to various inputs and output markets as well as public services. Their isolation coupled with the fact that they live in areas of low agricultural potential (one of the reasons why GMAs were demarcated as GMAs) constrain economic productivity and adversely affect household welfare.
Certain GMAs fare better than others. For example, tourism in the Luangwa Valley is contributing significantly to poverty alleviation. After 20 years of community-based natural resources management (CBNRM), the average PCC in the Luangwa Valley is ZMK 1.18 million in GMAs and ZMK 810,000 in non-GMAs.
FIGURE 4.1: Comparison of welfare of households living around national parks with national average.
Source: GMA Household Survey.
Hence, nature tourism has some impact on poverty alleviation. Interestingly, this becomes even more obvious when statisticians analyze what the PCC would have been if a GMA had not been established. This analysis shows that communities currently living in GMAs would have had a PCC of about ZMK 280,000 if their GMA did not exist. In other words, they would have been much worse off.
Welfare is also related to participation in community organizations. Figure 4.2 shows the differences in per capita consumption expenditure between households participating in VAGs and CRBs (used as a proxy for participation in CBNRM activities) and those that do not. The welfare of the non-participating households is slightly lower than that of the participating households in all park systems except Kafue.
FIGURE 4.2: Differences in welfare between households participating or not in VAGs/CRBs.
G MA Non -G MA Rur al a ve ra ge 1,400,000 1,200,000 1,000,000 800,000 600,000 400,000 200,000
Per Capita Annual Consumption of households (ZMK)
Ban gw eulu Kafue Lo w er Z ambezi Luangw a To tal Kw ac ha 1,600,000 1,400,000 1,200,000 1,000,000 800,000 600,000 400,000 200,000 Non-participants Participants Park Systems Source: GMA Household Survey.
The survey found that the level of participation in VAGs and CRBs is influenced significantly by the level of education of members of the household. A household that is involved in other co-operatives in the GMA is more likely to participate in VAGs and CRBs. Non-poor households, i.e. with high consumption and owning many assets, are more likely to have a member participating in VAG and CRB activities than poor households. Although all households with a member engaged in VAGs/CRBs gain from this participation, Figure 4.3 shows that the non-poor are getting substantially larger benefits than the poor. Non-poor households would be signifi-cantly worse off if they did not have a household member participating in VAG/CRB activities.
FIGURE 4.3: Comparison of welfare between VAG/CRB participants and non-participating households.
Source: GMA Household Survey.
Figure 4.4 shows how the welfare of households that participate in VAGs/CRBs would be if the same households were not participating in these activities. While there is virtually no change in welfare among poor households, the non-poor households would lose more than half of their current consumption welfare level.
FIGURE 4.4: Welfare of the same households whether they participate or not in VAGs/CRBs.
Source: GMA Household Survey.
The survey concluded that benefits from participating in VAGs/CRBs are captured by the elite and relatively non-poor stratum of the community. The elite capture of benefits is supported by audit reports of some CRBs, which show that large proportions of CRB funds are spent on travel allowances, accommodation and meeting costs.
Kw ac ha 1,400,000 1,200,000 1,000,000 800,000 600,000 400,000 200,000 Non-participants Participants
Poor Non-poor Total
Average Per Capita Consumption Expenditure: Unconditional
Wealth status of households
Kw ac ha 1,400,000 1,200,000 1,000,000 800,000 600,000 400,000 200,000 Non-participants Participants
Poor Non-poor Total
Average Per Capita Consumption Expenditure: If not participant
BOX 4.1. FEMALE-HEADED HOUSEHOLDS IN GMAs
The survey found that 28% of GMA households are female-headed compared to 22% in non-GMAs. Furthermore, female-headed households living near national parks, either in GMAs or in non-GMAs, on average enjoy 19% less per capita consumption than male-headed households. When considering GMA households only, the loss in welfare attributable to female headedness is slightly lower at 15 percent. The reasons for these discrepancies were discussed at three regional stakeholder consultative workshops in Mpika, Mfuwe and Mumbwa. Several hypotheses emerged from these discussions:Higher rates of polygamous relationships in remote areas such as GMAs may result in higher incidences of female-headed households if different wives live in separate households.
Male heads may be spending long periods away from home while engaging in poaching resulting in the house being headed by the female spouse. The survey data were unable to provide useful information about illegal hunting as an economic activity.
Relatively long periods of separation during male head’s absence in GMAs may result in higher divorce rates.
Higher rates of promiscuity in the GMAs may have resulted in more males dying mainly due to HIV/AIDS related causes leaving their widows as household heads.
Lower levels of education for girls in GMAs may be responsible for more teenage pregnan-cies and single-mother families. The more educated men may leave GMAs in search of better economic opportunities leaving female-headed families behind.
Some of these hypotheses are testable with the survey data and future research may provide explana-tions that will enable policy-makers to target this disadvantaged group of households.
5. FACTORS AFFECTING THE PERFORMANCE OF GMAs
A. IDENTIFICATION OF THREATS
Mwima (2007) has analyzed the management effectiveness of Zambia’s protected areas. The degree of threats and pressures was based on scores ranging from 1 (not very serious) to 10 (very serious). The outcome of the analysis of all Zambia’s GMAs is presented in Figure 5.1. It confirms that the most serious problems are poaching, human encroachment, fire, deforestation, subsistence agriculture and, not the least, illegal fishing. These threats emanate from a combination of factors analyzed in subsequent sections.
FIGURE 5.1: Assessment of threats and pressures in GMAs.
Source: Mwima, 2007.
B. UNSUSTAINABLE LIVELIHOOD ACTIVITIES
Poverty in GMAs is linked to a high incidence of conflicts between humans and wildlife. Firstly, conflicts result in loss of human lives. In 2005, a total of 56 people were killed by wild animals with crocodile (34 victims), hippo (12), elephant (7), lion (2) and hyena (1) taking the largest tolls. Secondly, crops are destroyed, which lead to low agricultural productivity. Food insecurity is high in some GMAs, particularly those with populations of elephant and hippo such as Chiawa, Luano, Rufunsa and West Zambezi GMAs as well as GMAs of the Luangwa Valley. Livestock productivity suffers in several ways, as domestic animals compete for grazing and water resources, are susceptible to disease outbreaks and get killed by carnivores.
In this context, it is not surprising that local communities generally are indifferent towards conservation efforts due to lack of tangible benefits from their natural resources. As demonstrated in earlier chapters of this report, the lack of formal jobs, income-earning opportunities, access to markets and general lack of economic development has driven people to exploit readily available natural resources. Food insecurity attributed to floods, poor soils, poor farming practices, poor support services and poor performance of the liberalized marketing system has com-pounded the problem of poaching, creating conditions where a growing number of people are relying on illegal use of wildlife to make up for livelihood shortfalls.
Another cause of habitat destruction is commercial charcoal production. Without alternative sources of income, charcoal has become one of the most popular ways of generating income by taking advantage of the ready mar-kets in urban centers. Mumbwa, Namwala and Rufunsa GMAs are the worst affected.
Degr ee o f thr eat/p re ssur e 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 Poa chin g H um an e nc roa chm en t Fir e De fo re stati on Agr ic ultur e (su bsis te nce) Illeg al fishin g Agr ic ultur e (comm er cial) C har coal b ur nin g M inin g W at er pollu tion In va siv e s pec ie s W ildlif e dis ea se s
C. LOW MANAGEMENT PERFORMANCE
In 2006, ZAWA’s expenditure for National Parks and GMAs totaled ZMK 47 billion. About 8% of the expendi-ture went to CRBs as their share of community funds (Simwanza, 2007). In short, about 8% of ZAWA’s budget is spent in GMAs in spite of the fact that these generate more than 50% of ZAWA’s revenues and constitute more than 70% of the land under their stewardship (Simwanza, 2007). ZAWA spend most of its money on salaries and other administrative costs amounting to 48% and 19% respectively of its expenditure in 2006 (see Figure 5.2).
FIGURE 5.2: Expenditure components for ZAWA (2006).
Source: Simwanza, 2007.
The consequences of insufficient financing in GMAs become obvious when analyzing the management effective-ness of protected areas (Mwima, 2007). Based on six management functions, including context, planning, inputs, processes, outputs and outcomes, the analysis suggests that only three GMAs (in order of descending manage-ment effectiveness): Lupande, Chiawa and Sandwe, meet the minimum requiremanage-ments. This situation is exacerbat-ed by the lack of GMA management plans. The management of wildlife and habitat in GMAs is only enforceable with a management plan prepared by the CRBs and approved by the ZAWA Board. As of now, only a few GMAs have a draft Management Plan, for example Mukungule, Namwala and Nkala, but none has been approved by the ZAWA Board.
D. UNCOORDINATED GOVERNANCE
While the conservation and use of wildlife in GMAs are regulated by law, the land that supports these activities is not. The land itself can be alienated by Chiefs and district authorities. Land held under leasehold title within the boundaries of a GMA is excluded from the GMA except by consent of the leaseholder according to the Wildlife Act. With the liberalization of land acquisition, parcels of land are being acquired in GMAs for farms and lodges, and lack of coordination has made it difficult for ZAWA to manage the situation.
The lack of broad development in GMAs is further caused by the absence of District Development Plans that integrate all of a district’s land and resources.
Better integrated planning may also help to address the political interference in the management of protected areas. Politicians sometimes tolerate unlicensed use of resources by local people, and they influence decision-mak-ing processes thereby preventdecision-mak-ing managers from makdecision-mak-ing technically correct decisions.
M illi on K w ac ha 22,000 18,000 14,000 10,000 6,000 2,000 Dir ec t l abo r (s al ar ie s) Adminis trati ve co sts C omm unit y sh ar e Ve hi cle m ain te nan ce an d f ue l C onsult an ci es Patr ol f ue l Trainin g an d w or ksh op s Patr ol r ati ons Roa d m ain te nan ce (m ac hin es) C ombat unif or ms Oth er s Patr ol/fie ld eq uip m en t Roa d m ain te nan ce (f ue l/lu br ican ts) Office b uil din g Amm uniti on Su bsis te nce allo w an ce (r oa ds) Office eq uip m en t C asu al w ag es (r oa ds) Roa d m ain te nan ce (m at er ials) Fir ear m e xpe ns es
6. COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF CBNRM PROGRAMS
In Southern Africa, Community-based Natural Resources Management (CBNRM) started in the 1980s with the support of donors. CBNRM is based on the assumption that communities will manage wild resources sustainably if these resources provide direct and significant benefits surpassing gains from alternative land uses.A. ZIMBABWE: CAMPFIRE
In Zimbabwe, the Communal Areas Management Program for Indigenous Resources (CAMPFIRE) has de-centralized wildlife management by bestowing appropriate authority on rural district councils (RDCs) through a legislation change. CAMPFIRE revenues were derived from trophy hunting of big game including elephant. Revenue from hunting fees goes to the RDCs, which distribute a portion to the Ward Development Commit-tees or the Village Development CommitCommit-tees and/or individual households as determined by the RDC policy. Each RDC determines its own policy for use and distribution of funds, and direct payments to households vary depending on the RDC policy and the capacity to earn substantial revenues.
The CAMPFIRE Association, a grouping of NGOs, the University of Zimbabwe’s Centre for Applied Social Sciences and Government ministries and departments play various roles such as advocacy, information dissemina-tion, research and coordination. Success is measured in increase in wildlife populations, retention of habitats and financial revenues from hunting and lodges.
One of the biggest challenges to CAMPFIRE is to deliver convincing benefits to households. While the RDCs get between 50% and 90% of revenues amounting to thousands of US Dollars, each households would receive as little as US$1 to US$3 per year (Campbell, 2000). Furthermore, the councils represent broad spectrums of politi-cal and economic interests, which tend to overshadow the interest of wildlife producer communities.
B. BOTSWANA: TRUSTS
In Botswana, CBNRM is implemented on tribal lands which are administered by District Land Boards. Com-munities can obtain the right to engage in resource utilization in Controlled Hunting Areas by fulfilling require-ments set by government, which include: (1) forming a legally registered community-based organization such as a trust, society or cooperative; and (2) having defined membership.
The common legal entity on tribal lands is the Community Trust. In a trust, members or trustees hold interest in the property but are subject to an equitable obligation to use or keep the property for the benefit of the benefi-ciary group. Trusts members include all adult village residents who have resided in the local area for at least five years. Community Trusts are reported to have been successful at managing local natural resources due to their strong legal status, flexibility and democratic principles. Furthermore, they comprise a suitable forum for educa-tion and training of communities.
Success is recorded in decreased resource degradation, income-generation for local development and increased livelihood opportunities for participating households. The disadvantages are mainly associated with lack of educa-tion, training and skills among trust members to perform responsibilities of institutional management, particu-larly financial and technical aspects.
C. NAMIBIA: CONSERVANCIES
In Namibia, CBNRM is implemented in conservancies formed by resident communities. The Nature Conserva-tion Amendment Act of 1996 granted communities the rights to utilize, manage and benefit from consumptive and non-consumptive use of wildlife within these communal lands in order to complement their existing land uses and livelihoods. The conservancies are implemented in partnership between different levels of government, non-governmental organizations, private sector and rural communities.
Successes include an increase in wildlife populations, increased economic benefits to local people and direct and indirect contribution to the national economy. Accordingly, more communities are attracted to form conservan-cies. In 2005, there were 44 registered conservancies managing more than 10.5 million hectares or 35% of all communal land in Namibia, and 26 other communities are at various stages of forming conservancies (NACSO, 2006).
Two factors have been important to the success of this model: (1) assistance from international community; and (2) rapid growth in the tourism industry coupled with a government policy emphasizing that local communities should have rights over major tourism activities (NACSO, 2006). The growth enabled the establishment of new trophy hunting concessions, lodges and campsites.
The Namibian government is now striving to further increase the economic impacts of CBNRM for the poor by revising wildlife legislation and introducing new policies on concessions, parks and neighboring communities and human/wildlife conflicts.
Namibian conservancies provide a model of progressive diversification of wildlife utilization (See Figure 6.1). Income comes mainly from community/private joint venture tourism and to a lesser degree use of own game, trophy hunting, campsite fees and craft sale. In fact, joint venture tourism represents 56% of all conservancy income, as conservancies will negotiate a levy or income-sharing agreement with all camps and lodges in their areas. In addition some benefits are non-financial such as meat from hunting or other contributions (comput-ers, education materials, equipment, etc.) to local or economic development activities, primarily made by joint venture partners.
FIGURE 6.1: Main sources of benefits in Namibian conservancies in 2005.
Source: NACSO, 2006. Valu e (N$) 8,000,000 7,000,000 6,000,000 5,000,000 4,000,000 3,000,000 2,000,000 1,000,000 M isce llan eo us Pr emium h un tin g Ve ld p rodu cts Sh oo t an d s ell In te re st ear ned Liv e g am e s ale s Cr af t s ale s C am psit e f ee s Trop hy m eat de sitr ib uti on Us e o f o w n g am e Trop hy h un tin g Jo in t v en tur e t our ism Source of benefit
