Wildlife policies need surgery
By NEWTON SIBANDA

From The Zambia Daily Mail

IN my column this week, I would like to draw attention to an important report released recently.

The report highlights the failures of the current wildlife policies intended to protect wildlife and improve the welfare of people living in close proximity to this important resource.

The report entitled “The Impact of Wildlife Management Policies on Communities and Conservation in Game Management Areas in Zambia” brings to the fore the dismal failure of the community based natural resource management strategy.

It shows that Zambia’s Game Management Areas (GMAs) are in a spiral of economic, sociological and ecological degradation despite the commitment and efforts of Government, the Zambia Wildlife Authority (ZAWA), partners and communities.

The report says blame must not be placed on the government and its partners, but rather on the wildlife management policy itself.

“Ten years ago, Government implemented the 1998 Zambia Wildlife Act in good faith, after realising that without viable natural resources, future generations would face increased risks of hunger and poverty, which would in turn compel them to unsustainably exploit their diminishing natural resources,” the report says.

The report by the Natural Resources Consultative Forum (NRCF) was supported by the Danish and Norwegian embassies, UNDP and the World Bank.
The National Parks and wildlife policy was the basis for instituting the concept of community based natural resource management (CBNRM).

Unfortunately, the report notes, GMA governance through community institutions such as community resource boards and village action groups has failed to achieve the purpose for which GMAs were established--to act as buffer zones for national parks, protect wild animals and their habitats, support a viable wildlife based tourism industry which contributes significantly to the national economy and to improve the welfare of animals in GMAs.

GMAs are wildlife estates in communally owned lands in which some wild animals are protected and used primarily for regulated hunting and photographic safaris.

The 36 GMAs in Zambia cover 22 percent of the country’s territory, equivalent to 170,000 square kilometres.

GMAs act as buffer zones for national parks. In the early 1980s, as rampant poaching decimated wildlife populations, new models of conservation, involving community integration, emerged.

The Zambia wildlife Act of 1998 was enacted to enhance the concept of community participation in GMAs.
Commercial performance of GMAs

The report shows that only about 10 of 36 GMAs have photographic tourism developments and Chiawa and Bangweulu Community resource Boards (CRBs) are the only recipients of revenue from lodges.

Formal employment in the wildlife tourism sector remains extremely low. In Mfuwe , which is the most active tourist hub in any GMA in Zambia, there are only 700 permanent and temporary staff in 2005.

The report notes that the use of key species (lion, leopard, sable, roan and buffalo) in hunting packages shows declining trends together with the trophy quality for major species.

Compared to its neighbours, Zambia has underperformed in generating revenue from hunting, mainly due to the decreasing presence of trophy animals.

Consequently, the hunting revenues disbursed by ZAWA to CRBs have declined since 2004. Incomes fell by about K170 million in 2005 and K50 million in 2006.
Ecological performance

The report says in more than half of Zambia’s GMAs, animal populations have declined mainly due to poaching, and in some GMAs, the animal status is not known.

Some hunting blocks are affected. Kasonso Busanga, Nkala, Mulobezi and West Petauke seem to have degenerated from prime to secondary status, and twelve other GMAs are in a deplorable state of depletion.

The report notes that the natural habitats which are supposed to support wildlife in GMAs are shrinking throughout the country due to increased settlements, cultivation, traditional land claims and uncoordinated planning by government departments.

Bilili is cited as the worst affected GMA with almost no land left for wildlife.

Sociological Performance
Perhaps one of the most outstanding features of the report is that GMA communities are characterised by high poverty levels. Monthly per capita expenditure is estimated at K71, 005 compared to K111, 747 for rural areas generally and K244, 352 for urban areas.

The report notes that when compared to other rural communities, the welfare of communities in GMAs is 30 percent lower than the national 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 the benefits are captured by the elite and relatively well to do.

This is confirmed 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.

The report cites the most serious factors affecting the performance of GMAs as poaching, human encroachment, fire, deforestation, subsistence agriculture and illegal fishing.

It notes that food insecurity in GMAs is high and that very little funding goes to resource protection and only three GMAs (Lupande, Chiawa and Sandwe) meet the minimum requirements for management effectiveness.

It also notes that some politicians apparently tolerate the unlicensed use of resources by local people and discourage wildlife managers from implementing technically correct decisions.

The report says community based natural resource development can help to reduce poverty if the policy framework is stimulating and community institutions are effectively organised to participate in natural resource development.

It says Namibian conservancies offer a model of joint ventures between communities and the private sector which may benefit Zambia’s GMAs.

The report, which paints an alarming picture of Zambia’s GMAs in terms of economical, sociological and ecological benefits, urges the government and its partners to launch a review of the governance of GMAs as quickly as possible, with the view of adopting a new policy for wildlife management prior to the revision of wildlife legislation.

The key message to the Zambian government and other policy makers is that current wildlife management policies are inadequate either from an ecological, economic or sociological perspective.

Rather than blame anyone, the report urges Government to launch a natural review of the management of GMAs and design and adopt a new policy framework for wildlife management in the broader context of protected areas and natural resource management.

The report advises the government to ensure that the policy is drafted prior to modifying the Zambia Wildlife Act so that the policy can influence the content of the Act.


For comments, contact nsibanda@daily-mail.co.zm/nsibanda@yahoo.com or 096 6452590.