MESSAGE TO POLICY MAKERS

Transcription

1 THE IMPACT OF WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT POLICIES ON COMMUNITIES AND CONSERVATION IN GAME MANAGEMENT AREAS IN ZAMBIA MESSAGE TO POLICY MAKERS Natural Resources Consultative Forum Together sustainably managing Zambia s natural resources BY PHYLLIS SIMASIKU, HOPESON I. SIMWANZA, GELSON TEMBO, SUSHENJIT BANDYOPADHYAY AND JEAN-MICHEL PAVY JUNE 28

2

3 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. 1 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 natural 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 Community 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 industry, 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 Government and its partners, but rather with the wildlife management 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 management in the broader context of protected area and natural resources management. 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. [ i ]

4 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 performance of GMAs and to adopt adaptive management approaches in order to learn from the communitybased 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 endorsed 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 [ ii ]

5 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY... vi 1. GAME MANAGEMENT AREAS: BACKGROUND... 1 A. THE RATIONALE BEHIND GMAs... 1 B. WILDLIFE UTILIZATION IN GMAs... 1 C. THE EVOLUTION OF COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT IN GMAs... 1 D. GMA MANAGEMENT UNDER THE 1998 WILDLIFE ACT... 2 E. OTHER NATURAL RESOURCES IN GMAs... 3 F. NEW APPROACHES ECONOMIC PERFORMANCE OF GMAs... 5 A. CONSUMPTIVE WILDLIFE USE... 5 B. NON-CONSUMPTIVE WILDLIFE USE ECOLOGICAL PERFORMANCE OF GMAs A. WILDLIFE RESOURCES IN GMAs B. PAST TRENDS IN WILDLIFE POPULATIONS (BEFORE 22) C. CURRENT TRENDS IN WILDLIFE POPULATIONS (AFTER 22) D. CATEGORIZATION OF GMAs E. HABITAT TRANSFORMATION IN GMAs F. SETTLEMENT PATTERNS IN GMAs SOCIOLOGICAL PERFORMANCE OF GMAs A. SOCIO-ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS OF GMAs B. THE NATIONAL GMA HOUSEHOLD SURVEY FACTORS AFFECTING THE PERFORMANCE OF GMAs A. IDENTIFICATION OF THREATS B. UNSUSTAINABLE LIVELIHOOD ACTIVITIES C. LOW MANAGEMENT PERFORMANCE D. UNCOORDINATED GOVERNANCE COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF CBNRM PROGRAMS A. ZIMBABWE: CAMPFIRE B. BOTSWANA: TRUSTS C. NAMIBIA: CONSERVANCIES D. LESSONS FROM NEIGBORING COUNTRIES E. LESSONS FROM ZAMBIA A WAY FORWARD A. CONCLUSIONS B. POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS ANNEX 1. GAME AND PROTECTED ANIMALS ANNEX 2. ZAMBIA ECOSYSTEMS WITH ASSOCIATED NPs AND GMAs... 3 ANNEX 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 [ iii ]

6 LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE 1.1: National Parks and Game Management Areas of Zambia... 4 FIGURE 2.1: Total safari quota allocation and utilization between 1995 and FIGURE 2.2: Quota utilization trends for key species ( )... 7 FIGURE 2.3: Trends in trophy quality (23-25)... 8 FIGURE 2.4: Trends in number of quality trophies harvested ( )... 8 FIGURE 2.5: Comparative Income from Safari Hunting in Southern Africa... 9 FIGURE 2.6: Bed capacities in GMAs (26)... 1 FIGURE 3.1: Population trends large ungulates in South Luangwa NP and Lupande GMA ( ) 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 (26) FIGURE 6.1: Main sources of benefits in Namibian conservancies in LIST OF TABLES TABLE 2.1: Mandatory allocation of hunting Revenues... 5 TABLE 2.2: Disbursed revenues under LIRDP in Lupande GMA ( )... 5 TABLE 2.3: Community hunting revenue disbursements (rounded to nearest ZMK)... 6 TABLE 2.4: Top quality trophies harvested between 2 and TABLE 2.5: Income from GMA hunting sector in Zambia and Zimbabwe... 9 TABLE 3.1: Abundance status of species in areas of the Western Region TABLE 3.2: Percentage of settled and cultivated land for selected GMAs LIST OF BOXES BOX 3.1: The special case of the Lechwe BOX 4.1: Female-headed households in GMAs... 2 [ iv ]

7 ACRONYMS & ABBREVIATIONS ADMADE AIDS AMUs CAMPFIRE CAs CBNRM CHAs COMACO CRBs DANIDA DSI FNDP FZS GMAs HCAs HIV LIRDP METTPAZ NACSO NGOs NORAD NPs NPWS PCEXP PH RDCs REMNPAS SLAMU USA USAID VAGs WTO WWF ZAWA ZMK Administrative Management Design (for Game Management Areas) Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome Area Management Units Communal Areas Management Program for Indigenous Resources Controlled Areas Community-Based Natural Resources Management Controlled Hunting Areas Community Markets for Conservation Community Resources Boards Danish International Development Assistance Development Services & Initiatives Fifth National Development Plan Frankfurt Zoological Society Game Management Areas Hunting Concession Agreements Human Immune Virus Luangwa Integrated Resource Development Project Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool for Protected Areas managed by ZAWA Namibia Association of CBNRM Support Organizations Non-Governmental Organizations Norwegian Agency for Development National Parks National Parks & Wildlife Service Per Capita Consumption Expenditure Professional Hunter Rural District Councils Reclassification and Effective Management of the National protected Areas Systems Project South Luangwa Area Management Unit United States of America United States Agency for International Development Village Action Groups World Tourism Organization Worldwide Fund for Nature Zambia Wildlife Authority Zambian Kwacha [ v ]

8 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Background Game 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 (nonconsumptive tourism). The 36 GMAs in Zambia cover 22% of the country s territory equivalent to 17, km 2. GMAs act as buffer zones for national parks. In the early 198s, as heavy poaching decimated wildlife populations, 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 1 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-consumptive tourism sector remains extremely low. In the Mfuwe area, which is the most active tourist hub in any GMA in Zambia, there were only 7 permanent and temporary staff in 25. Analysis of utilization of key species (lion, leopard, sable, roan and buffalo) in the hunting packages show declining trends together with the trophy quality for major species. Compared to its neighbors, Zambia has underperformed 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 24. Incomes fell by about K17 million in 25 and K5 million in 26. 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 status, 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 planning 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 71,5 compared to ZMK 111,747 for rural areas generally and ZMK 244,352 for urban areas (LCMS, 26). When compared to other rural communities, the welfare of communities in GMAs is 3% lower than national rural average. A 26 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 community. 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. [ vi ]

9 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 organized 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 illustrates that natural habitats and wildlife are decreasing at an alarming rate in most GMAs. Chapter 4 shows that GMA communities are 3% 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. [ vii ]

10 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 communities and the wildlife resource. Human habitation is permitted, along with economic activities that are compatible with in-situ wildlife management such as agriculture, forestry and mining. The current 36 GMAs (see Annex 2) cover about 17, km 2 or 22% of the country s territory. A. THE RATIONALE BEHIND GMAs The concept of GMAs goes back to the mid-194s, 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 Hunting Areas (CHAs) to allow for controlled hunting in general, formally initiated in 1956 when the Fauna Conservation Ordinance, Chapter 16, 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 16, was replaced with the Fauna Conservation Ordinance, 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, traditional 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 1 out of 36 GMAs attract this kind of tourism. C. THE EVOLUTION OF COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT IN GMAs In the 194s, 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 cooperated with the state authorities. However, from the early 198s, heavy poaching opened a new debate on conservation practices. It was progressively 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. [ 1 ]

11 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 development projects with conservation support. Revenues from wildlife use were given to the community institutions 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 ultimately the enactment of the Zambia Wildlife Act number 12 of D. GMA MANAGEMENT UNDER THE 1998 WILDLIFE ACT Policy and Institutional Framework In 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 Service 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 Conservation 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 organizations 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. [ 2 ]

12 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 1 GMAs receive NGO support (see Annex 4). NGOs work with communities to stimulate conservation awareness and support protection 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 attributed to lack of confidence in the suitability of the current GMA policy and in ZAWA s approach to its implementation. 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 representative 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 support, 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 arrangements, however, the GMA policy does not enable CRBs to tap effectively the private sector, especially their knowhow 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 Districts until 27. Field operations included (1) providing skills, administrative and material support to community-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. Conservation zones are designed and coordinated in relation to similar zones in neighboring GMAs and National 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 households, 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- [ 3 ]

13 tion. In return, COMACO offers better market access and prices. COMACO also helps community organizations entering the tourism sector by assisting in the management of three bush camps. Success has been reported in conservation and livelihood improvements. Since 25, 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 include: (1) a scout field training program that has trained over 25 scouts and 1 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 26 to 211. 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. Source: ZAWA Information Department. [ 4 ]

14 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 separate hunting blocks that are concessioned separately to safari hunting operators (see Annex 3). Hunting Revenues In 23, 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 1 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 5% of animal fees and 2% 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 Source: Hamilton et. al., 27. Animal fees 5.% 2.25% 5.% 9.% 15.75% 1.% Concession fees 8.% 6.75% 5.% 3.% 5.25% 1.% In comparison, the LIRDP released 1% 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 proportions for all GMAs. TABLE 2.2: Disbursed revenues under LIRDP in Lupande GMA ( ). Year GMA income (US$) Community disbursement (US$) Share (%) , ,49 14, , , ,87 227, , 61, ,14 56, , , ,87 227, , Source: Compiled by authors. [ 5 ]

15 Table 2.3 shows ZAWA s disbursements to communities in GMAs with hunting blocks. TABLE 2.3: Community hunting revenue disbursements (rounded to nearest ZMK). GMA 21 22* 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 53,519, ,272,659 17,34,6 116,296,147 61,448,45 52,78,22 66,891,28 83,22,5 49,575,1 127,914,498 14,731,612 39,822,358 14,237,423 2,74,945 14,224,634 9,8,535 91,94,595 41,836, ,79 23,2 22,579,4 932,6 215,127,945 91,316,25 177,42, ,36, ,351,15 59,67,86 199,124,3 118,158,28 46,993,9 77,852,48 46,472,32 55,594,435 12,333,154 25,29,875 6,93,863 23,597,697 2,625,15 5,228,1 66,627,59 678,977,3 433,216, ,511,85 396,995, ,93, ,254, ,165, ,113, ,928, ,355, ,559,38 12,548,8 72,312,21 69,45,73 52,92,17 48,911,44 37,398,92 29,154,425 26,111,24 12,87,175 4,266,5 25, ,17, ,949, ,79,67 354,845, ,379, ,116,6 158,673,47 17,978,876 59,251,9 163,897, ,748,476 1,584, ,623,924 56,45,826 45,255,651 41,694,336 58,562,976 81,882,516 62,178,52 1,764, 47,168,55 19,122,676 21,879, 12,33,45 464,561,25 211,142,45 357,55,79 358,969, ,141, ,89,92 157,291,66 15,488,775 75,586, ,971, ,712,295 54,592,9 14,767,425 61,512,25 48,942,75 34,434,58 11,424,75 122,75,515 91,43,85 7,314, 3,974,38 54,333,7 15,81,978 TOTAL 1,361,938,863 1,782,373,386 3,836,419,397 3,665,535,264 3,617,228,394 * In 21/2 international safari hunting was suspended in Zambia. Source: Compiled by authors. As illustrated in Table 2.3, the revenues increased from 23 to 24, 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 24 onwards, however, the revenues have been declining with about K17 million in 25 and K5 million in 26 - 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 2, National Parks & Wildlife Service steadily reduced the safari quota allocation to respond to the low utilization levels (see Figure 2.1). After 23, 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 4% since 23. 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. [ 6 ]

16 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 elephant. In 26, from a total hunting quota of 1,73 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 26. Source: Compiled by authors. An analysis of safari quota utilization of key species in the hunting packages (lion, leopard, sable, roan and buffalo) for the period 1995 to 26 (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 24 and 25. The number of leopard collected increased slightly, whereas the other three species show declining trends. FIGURE 2.2: Quota utilization trends for key species ( ). Source: Compiled by authors. [ 7 ]

17 Trophy Quality Trophy quality is a suitable way of monitoring wildlife populations that are being hunted. However, ZAWA s database 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 23 and 25 (see Figure 2.3). 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 ( ). Source: Compiled by authors. [ 8 ]

18 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 2 and 26. Buffalo Eland Leopard Lion Roan Sable Luangwa Valley System Kafue National Park System Lower Zambezi NP System Bangweulu System Mweru Wa Ntipa System Upper Zambezi System Source: Compiled by authors. Income from Hunting Zambia has significantly underperformed on generating income from hunting compared to its neighboring competitors (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. South Africa Zimbabwe Botswana Namibia Zambia US$/ha Source: DSI (24). A comparison of hunting on public land in Zambia and Zimbabwe (see Table 2.5) shows that, in spite of higher human density and smaller huntable areas, Zimbabwe generates far more hunting revenue per unit area. Among possible explanations is the fact that Zimbabwe auctions quotas for a larger number of some of the valuable big game species such as elephant. Higher quotas and higher prices have been made possible by a relatively better management performance and thus a better wildlife product. TABLE 2.5: Annual income from GMA hunting sector in Zambia and Zimbabwe. Area (km 2 ) Income (US$) Income (US$/km 2 ) Zambia CAMPFIRE Zimbabwe 162, ,34,568 2,, Adapted from DSI (24). [ 9 ]

19 B. NON-CONSUMPTIVE WILDLIFE USE In some GMAs, hunting operators share the wildlife with safari lodges offering game viewing on titled land. However, only 1 out of 36 GMAs provide non-consumptive wildlife use (see Figure 2.6). FIGURE 2.6: Bed capacities in GMAs (26). Bed capactity Chiawa West Zambezi Lupande Rufunsa Nkala Mumbwa Lumimba Namwala Lunga Luswishi Bangweulu 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 given 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, 25). Mfuwe, for example, which is the gateway to South Luangwa, had some 7 permanent and temporary staff in 25, up from approximately 8 employees in 199. The spin-off benefits amounts to roughly 6 household individuals being provided with a livelihood per employee, and through the economic multiplier (NRCF, 27) about 8 additional jobs are created. [ 1 ]

20 3. ECOLOGICAL PERFORMANCE OF GMAs A. WILDLIFE RESOURCES IN GMAs Wildlife in GMAs is described by Jachmann (2) and Simwanza (21, 22, 23, 24 and 25) and is presented in Annex 5. B. PAST TRENDS IN WILDLIFE POPULATIONS (BEFORE 22) A report on the status of wildlife and hunting in the Western Region stretching from the Kafue Flats to the border of Angola (Simwanza, 21) show that already in 21 very few species, in some cases none, were abundant 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, 21. GMA West Zambezi Chibwika Ntambu Lukwakwa Musele Matebo Chizera Bilili Springs Nkala Namwala Mumbwa Lunga Luswishi Kasonso Busanga Abundant Common Number of species Rare Unknown Status Total 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 199s, 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 Luangwa National Park and Lupande GMA, Duhnam & Simwanza (22) observed a decline in 22 (see Figure 3.1). C. CURRENT TRENDS IN WILDLIFE POPULATIONS (AFTER 22) Because of lack of monitoring and subsequent absence of data on occurrences and population sizes for most species 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 22 and 26 in the Kafue Flats (Kamweneshe et.al., 23; ZAWA & WWF, 25), Zambezi Heartland (Simwanza, 25 & 23), Kafue Ecosystem, West Lunga Ecosystem and Upper Luano (Simwanza, 24), Mweru Wa Ntipa Ecosystem (Simwanza, 23 & 25) and Lupande GMA (Duhnam & Simwanza, 22) and important information has been collected leading to the [ 11 ]

21 review 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, 24, 25 & 26). FIGURE 3.1: Population trends large ungulates in South Luangwa NP and Lupande GMA ( ). 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. [ 12 ]

22 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 demised. 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 1 years later indicates that this number has decreased with 3% to 1 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 27 (up by 5%). In fact, no GMAs were classified as depleted in 1997, whereas this figure has increased to 12 in 27, 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* Number of GMAs Specialized Prime Secondary Understocked Depleted * The number of GMAs has increased from 32 in 1997 to 36 in 27 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 essential 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. [ 13 ]

23 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 settlement 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 (km 2 ) 3,8 6,411 3,6 3,6 7,78 3,42 13, Size of settled & cultivated land (km 2 ) 2,662 1, % Source: ZAWA Information Department, 27. 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, people in for instance Chisomo GMA, to over 7, people in GMAs such as Bangweulu, Kaputa, Musalangu and West Zambezi. GMAs that encompass 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 Province. 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. [ 14 ]

24 FIGURE 3.3: Settlements and distributed farmland in Bilili Springs GMA. Source: ZAWA, 26 (b). [ 15 ]

25 FIGURE 3.4: Settlements in Kaputa GMA. Source: ZAWA, 27 (b). BOX 3.1: The special Case of the Lechwe Population estimates 12, 11, 1, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1, Year Kafue lechwe Black lechwe The decline in the Kafue lechwe population in the Kafue Flats is a cause for concern. Assuming that environmental conditions are not limiting and that natural predation is insignificant it is reasonable to assume an annual 1% increase in population. If the population is stable at 4, animals, as indicated in later years, it should increase by 4, annually. Since legal off-take has amounted to about 8 lechwe a year, and as there is no evidence of large-scale mortality from disease, it is likely that poaching is responsible for the decline taking more than 3, animals per year. In comparison, the Black lechwe population in the Bangweulu Swamps appears to be increasing. [ 16 ]

26 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, 24). School attendance rate is lowest among rural small-scale agricultural households and fishing communities (LCMS, 24). Data from the Central Statistical Office (LCMS, 24) confirm that GMA communities have high poverty levels typical of rural small-scale producers with similar characteristics. B. THE NATIONAL GMA HOUSEHOLD SURVEY In 25, 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 consumption expenditure (pcexp) comprising food and nonfood consumption, 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 demonstrated 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, (approximately US$ 25) and ZMK 85, 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 7% of the national rural average. While the survey was unable to provide a statistically sound explanation, it can be inferred that households living around national parks are poorer because they reside in remote areas lacking basic infrastructure. The survey found that each extra kilometer of distance from the nearest all-weather road is associated with.5% less consumption welfare for the average household in the sample. The implication is that households in GMAs have limited 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. [ 17 ]