-CBNRM Forum holds breakfast meeting

Report on CBNRM Breakfast Meeting:

Held on October 30th, 2012 at Southern Sun

Opportunities for Community Based Natural Resource Management (CBNRM) in Sustainable Development in Zambia

1.0            INTRODUCTION

The Zambia Community Based Natural Resources Management (ZCBNRM) Forum supported by WWF Zambia is an umbrella organization for Community Based Organizations (CBOs) or institutions with interest in or supportive of Community Based Natural Resource Management (CBNRM) in the country.   The Zambia CBNRM Forum facilitated a donor Breakfast meeting through the Policy Working Group.  The breakfast meeting was intended to bring together relevant stakeholders involved in CBNRM to discuss CBNRM opportunities for sustainable development in Zambia.  The meeting aimed at providing an opportunity to share experiences of the forum and discuss key issues in CBNRM implementation and financing potential towards ZCBNRM practitioners and partners in Zambia. The workshop was held at Sun Hotel on 30th October, 2012.  Participants to the workshop included relevant line ministry staff, Non Governmental Organizations, Consultants, Civil Society Organisation’s (CSOs) and Cooperating partners.

2.0            BACKGROUND

Community Based Natural Resource Management (CBNRM) is an approach combining conservation and development and has emerged within the work of international donors and nongovernmental organisations (NGOs). The objective of the CBNRM approach is considered twofold, (1) as a means to achieve rural development and (2) conservation of the natural resources.

However it has been observed in Zambia that most attention is focused mainly on the management of wildlife and very little attention on the rest of the CBNRM sub-sectors such as forestry, fisheries and other resources.  One of the critical requirements to implement CBNRM project is adequate funding. Realizing this fact, the Policy Working Group observed that there is potential to secure funding from the available Cooperating Partners in Zambia.  Thus this meeting was organized to create rapport between CBNRM stakeholders and Cooperating Partners in order to establish a level of information exchange in an attempt to resolve the challenges of which funding is predominant.

3.0            OBJECTIVES

The main objectives of the meeting include:

  1. To explore opportunities of decentralization in improved natural resource management
  2. To share policy challenges in CBNRM in Zambia
  3. To find ways of addressing implementation challenges of CBNRM in Zambia but not limited to the following:
  • Local institution arrangements
  • Local level skills
  • Funding
  • Markets

 

 

 

 

4.0            PROCEEDINGS OF THE BREAKFAST DONOR MEETING

4.1              Welcome Remarks

The Vice-Chairperson of the ZCBNRM Forum Mr. Moses Nyoni from BirdLife Zambia facilitated the proceedings of the meeting.  The facilitator requested participants for self introductions and their expectations.  The main expectations included the following:

  • To explore sustainable deployment potential through CBNRM
  • To nature networking efforts among CBNRM Practitioners
  • To promote a balance covering socio-economic and environmental issues for sustainable development.
  • How can this platform address the concerns of CBNRM practitioners?

The facilitator’s expectation was that potential strategic partnerships among the stakeholders could be created as a result of this meeting. Thereafter, he called upon the Mr. Biston Mbewe the Board Chairman of the Zambia CBNRM Forum to give his welcome remarks and a background presentation on the CBNRM Forum.

In his welcome remarks the Board Chairman highlighted that the goal of the meeting is to create awareness of the forum, clarify the activities and hence look at potential engagements. To further elaborate these aims he made presentation as highlighted in the next sub-section.

4.2              Background presentation by Mr. Biston Mbewe

A background paper was presented by Mr. Mbewe to share information and experiences on Zambia CBNRM activities to motivate a discussion.  The presentation highlighted the following:

  • Background of Zambia CBNRM Forum

The Zambia CBNRM Forum was established in 2004 and formally launched on 12th August, 2005 by the Ministry of Tourism, Environment and Natural Resources (MTENR).

The Forum is an umbrella organization for Community Based Organizations (CBOs) or institutions with interest in or supportive of Community Based Natural Resource Management (CBNRM) in the country. The forum has a membership of 150 institutions and individuals who registered interest at the Annual General Meeting of September 2011.

  • Vision, Mission and Overall Objective

Vision statement

“To foster sustainable livelihoods among rural communities through sustainable management and utilization of natural resources.”

Mission statement

“To promote CBNRM and sustainable utilization of natural resources in Zambia and facilitate the implementation of CBNRM programmes through lobbying, advocacy, capacity building activities, networking and information

Overall objective

“ To influence coordination of CBNRM interventions, influence CBNRM related policy formulation and facilitate effective implementation of CBNRM programmes and projects that develop sustainable strategic partnerships among communities, private and public sectors through continuous consultation and networking among stakeholders”

  • How the CBNRM Forum operates

The Zambia CBNRM Forum operates in two ways; (1) by providing direct support to communities and (2) by initiating various activities through Working Groups (WGs). There are basically four WGs in the forum namely,

  • Management Oriented Monitoring Systems (MOMS)
  • Community Based Enterprise/Community Based Organisation
  • Training
  • Policy
  • Activities
  1. 1.      Management Oriented Monitoring Systems (MOMS)

Piloting MOMs in two chiefdoms of Kabulwebulwe and Mulendema of Mumbwa districts on Beekeeping, Wild life Human conflict, Conservation farming and health/HIVAIDS  The forum has up scaled MOMS to Kaoma in Mufutha Game Management Area ( GMA) targeting only wildlife human conflict and support Village scouts to effectively report to the Community Resource Boards (CRBs).

  1. 2.      Community Based Enterprise/Community Based Organisation
  • Institutional strengthening for honey production sites in Chinsali district through formulation of bye laws.
  • Facilitation of Market linkages to COMACO Honey value chain of Itezhi tezhi honey producers
  • Exploring establishing baobab enterprises in Luangwa district.
  • The forum facilitated member participation at the 2012 Green Expo for market linkages and Green business development.
  • Supporting Community enterprise on producing improved beehive construction in Mpolokoso
  1. 3.      Thematic Training Working Group
  • Participated in the review of the Curriculum of Zambia Forest College.
  • Supported Zambia Forest College for a 6 Months attachment of one member of staff to University of Florida as capacity development in CBNRM training.
  • Supported Natural Resources Development College (NRDC) in curriculum review for CBNRM courses
  • Have signed a contract with Zambia Forest College for provision of a professional course in CBNRM
  1. 4.      Thematic Policy Working Group
  • Submitted comments on EIA on Mining in the Lower Zambezi NP and participated in the public hearing with a position that was considered by ZEMA in the final decision.
  • Submitted comments on the Tourism and Hospitality legislation review to promote;
    • Community ecotourism business
    • Community members working as bush guides without licenses fees
    • Participated in the process of developing of  the National Climate Change Response Strategy
    • Participated in the review and validation of the National REDD Readiness Programme
    • Influenced inclusion for the Chapter on environment in the Sixth National Development Plan
    • Facilitated a process of member organisation developing a position on NRM in the 2012 draft National constitution and community awareness through district meetings about the chapter

 

  1. 5.      Secretariat Engagement
  • Mobilized recourses from DFID for the establishment of the Zambia Climate Change Network (ZCCN)
  • The Forum sits on the National REDD  steering committee
  • The Forum sits on a Technical committee of the Interim Environment Fund of ZEMA supported by Finish and Danish embassies
  • The Forum sits on the Technical committee of the Lake Tanganyika conservation project.
  • Facilitated participation of two members organisations to the Rio+ 20 Earth Summit in Brazil 2012
  • The forum was nominated to be part of the National delegation to the 11 conference of parties on the convention of Biodiversity in India 2012.

The following were comments, reaction and questions for clarification after the presentation:

Question 1: The meeting observed that from the CBNRM activities outlined in the presentation, fisheries sub-sector appears not to be mentioned. What is the explanation to this?

In response, the meeting was informed that support to communities depends heavily on felt needs of the community. However, this also has a bearing on the historical perspective of CBNRM which was biased to wildlife management and benefit sharing was the driving factor thus other natural resources were sidelined. Nevertheless, the forum is scaling out to other resources but will ensure that benefit sharing is as well incorporated.

Question 2:  It is undisputable that the numbers of extractive industries other than mining are on the increase in resources such as forestry. What measures does the forum put in place to discourage this trend both in the short and long term?

Sensitization activities of chiefs have been undertaken among chiefs particularly in North Western Province in mining areas under the SEPA a member of the CBNRM Forum. Sensitization in schools has also been embarked on. Community sensitization meetings have also been conducted to promote best practices of harvesting caterpillars and hence conserve forests.

The major challenge is the lack of consultation; mining investors and government do not engage effectively with traditional authorities.  Another important issue of concern attention associated to this is the need to safe guard land grabs by investors.

Comment 1: The activities of the CBNRM Forum are well appreciated however; the CBNRM focus should also target remote areas where poverty is concentrated. Hence the needs for the forum to pay attention on scaling up out-reach programs in those areas.

4.3              Presentation on Gaps & Barriers for CBNRM in Forestry, Mining & Wildlife Sectors, Dr. Rose Fumpa-Makano

A presentation on gaps and barriers for CBNRM in forestry, mining and wildlife sectors was given by Dr Rose Makano an independent Policy Analysist/Consultant. The aim of the presentation was to: share feedback on study findings on issues related to barriers and gaps in natural resources management policies affecting CBNRM.  The presentation highlighted the following:

  • The CBNRM Concept

The presentation highlighted some underpinning concepts of CBNRM as way of defining in broad terms what CBNRM is all about.

  • Voluntary community efforts aimed at sustainable management of natural resources
  • A people cantered and time-tested natural resource management tool.
  • Local communities have a natural attachment to their environments, a sense of ownership and, therefore, a responsibility to manage the natural resources in their vicinity.
  • CBNRM concept is based on devolution of authority and responsibility on resource ownership.
  • Covers devolution of power and rights on the resources for mutual benefit.

 

  • CBNRM Principles

The following were highlighted as principles of CBNRM and these guided the analysis of this study.

  • Local participation
  • Local institutions/governance
  • Benefit sharing  (Generation and distribution)
  • Political Support (Legislation and Policy)
  • Private Sector Linkages
  • Biodiversity conservation
  • FORESTRY

National Forestry Policy of 1998 is under review as well as well as the Forests Act 1973 (and 1999) is under review.  The Statutory Instrument (SI No. 47 of 2006) provides for Joint Forest Management (JFM), a form of CBNRM – which gives access and control over forestry resources to people living in and around forests.  The forestry produce is both commercially important on world, national and local markets and for households’ well-being through the provision of food and beverages, income, shelter, health and so on.  Forestry contributes 5.4% to national GDP

 

  • National Forestry Policy
    • Overall objective of the policy is: to enhance the sector’s contribution to national socio-economic development in a sustainable manner.
    • Government’s goal in the SNDP (2010-15) is to reduce deforestation and enhance investment in natural resources management.
    • The policy states:
    •       “Local communities, including community-based organisations, shall advise government on policy formulation and implementation. They shall be the key actors in planning and management of forests at local levels. They shall also be the implementers and the determinants of the species and technologies to be used in community based forestry plantation establishment and management” (item 4.1.5 of the National Forestry Policy).

 

  • Gaps and Barriers under Forestry

Issues under both policy and the Act are currently under review. Government is in support of CBNRM in forestry through the policy, however, the S.I. No 47 of 2006 is not comprehensive; there are some issues that require attention.  The following are gaps and barriers under the Forestry sub-sector:

  • Non commencement of the 1999 Forests Act.
  • The 1998 National Forestry Policy more progressive than the 1973 Forests Act.
  • No clear distinction between commercial and community user rights
  • Levies on products from JFM areas
  • Local communities cannot harvest, use or sell forest produce, have to pay a fee to Forestry Department
  • Community members can only license minor (non wood) products and not major forest products
  • Benefit sharing mechanism not clear
  • Poor information dissemination to communities participating in JFM
  • No Private Sector support to local communitie
  • MINING

The Mines and Minerals Development Policy of 2006 updated the Mines and Minerals Policy of 1995.  Mines and Minerals Act, Cap. 213 (was amended in 2007)

Mining rights supersedes any other rights on the land (surface property rights versus mineral rights). Land owner can be moved if the land he/she occupies has minerals. The Act is not explicit on compensation for affected people.

Both the Mines and Minerals Development Policy of 2006 and the Mines and Minerals Development Act of 2008 provide leverage for CBNRM although not explicitly mentioned. Never the less is implied room for CBNRM).  The intention is to attract local and foreign investment in order to stimulate growth of the small-scale (artisan) mining sector for economic development and wealth creation.

Although the gemstone sub-sector is recognized as having “the greatest potential for enhancing the country’s export earnings, rural employment creation and other alternative sustainable livelihoods and opportunities,” it has several areas of improvement which include among others the following major areas of focus:

  • Access to affordable finance;
  • Technical and managerial skills;
  • Physical infrastructure – roads, power, clinics, potable water, etc;
  • Gemstone marketing bottlenecks; and
  • Developing industry capacity for value addition

Generally, the following key issues in mining were identified during the study:

  • Gemstone miners pay more tax on their revenues than larger mining companies, weakens the very provision the policy identified.
  • Indigenous gemstone miners don’t receive any tax holidays given to larger mining companies.
  • Artisan mining permits valid only for 2 years and are non-renewable. (How will Zambians get wealth from the mineral resources if the law is so restrictive?)
  • Fees for mineral geological maps too high for small scale miners to afford.
  • Inadequate information on mineral wealth.
  • Benefit sharing: focuses on job creation for locals rather than local people having direct and substantial ownership of the resource.
  • All mining revenues go to central government (general revenue account) where is decentralization to support local governance?
  • Lack of access to affordable financing
  • Revolving fund not only inadequate but payback period too short.
  • Terms used in the policy not explained – there is need to unbundle terms for CBNRM purposes. For instance, local people (does this apply to all Zambians or only to those near the mineral resource)?
  • Private sector (does CBNRM groups fall in here?)
  • Ownership of mineral wealth vested in the Republican President on behalf of Zambians
  • Gaps and Barriers under Mining
    • Policy silent on community participation.
    • Policy highly favours commercial investors.
    • Benefit sharing and wealth creation mechanism puts Zambians in a subordinate position, to be employed.
    • Lack of access to affordable financing.
    • Licensing and tax regimes favour foreign investors against local people.

 

  • WILDLIFE

Wildlife is the pioneer sector to formally institutionalize CBNRM in Zambia (through ADMADE).  Both the National Parks and Wildlife Policy of 1998 and the Wildlife Act of 1998 support CBNRM.  It is worth noting that that Wildlife Act of 1998 also applies to forests & water resources found in National Parks and GMAs.  CBNRM in wildlife management provides many useful lessons that could be used design models in other resources.  Local communities’ participation is provided for through Community Resource Boards (CRBs)

 

The following issues were identified in the wildlife sub sector:

  • Land can be delineated for GMA purposes without permission, unless one has title to that land.   (But few people have title deeds on customary lands).
  • Immunity given to wildlife officers excessive (village scout or honorary wildlife police officer) Places the officers above the law, a good recipe for abuse of office and shielding erring officers.
  • Too much power given to ZAWA and the Minister
  • Appointment of a Patron for areas that cut across Chiefdoms is not clear.
  • Compensation for displaced communities during creation of National Parks not mentioned.
  • Community user rights and access to National Parks not clear.
  • Research information to be disseminated to other people, does not mention giving it to communities where the info would have been collected from (Knowledge is power!!)
  • Ownership of wildlife vested in the Republican President on behalf of Zambians (in a way it takes away local ownership!)
  • Gaps and Barriers under Wildlife sector
    • Emphasis on economic value of wildlife may drive utility motives at the expense of sustainability
    • Community participation not clear at planning level, policy mentions inter-disciplinary team of professionals.
    • Compensation for displaced communities during creation of National Parks not mentioned.
    • Excessive immunity given to wildlife officers may lead to abuse of office.
  • Sectors that were embarked upon during the study are;
    • Agriculture
    • Energy (electricity)
    • Environmental Management
    • Fisheries
    • Forestry
    • Land
    • Mining
    • Water
    • Wildlife
    • Wetlands

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 1:  Gaps and Barriers In Legal-Policy Framework For CBNRM in Zambia

 

SECTOR PRESENCE OF CBNRM
Policy Legislation Comments
Agriculture Yes No Implied in cooperatives & farmer organizations. Act does not provide for CBNRM initiatives.
Energy (electricity) No No No direct measures for development or management of energy by communities. However, some CBNRM entry points available.
Environment Yes Yes Not stated explicitly but implied in various statements that demand for the right to a safe environment, and responsibility for actions that promote environmental best practices.
Fisheries Yes Yes
Forestry Yes Yes
Land No Yes Policy acknowledges participation but no specifics on how. The Act recognizes customary tenure, protection of use & occupancy rights.
Mining No No Corporate oriented.
Water Yes Yes Recently incorporated in the National Water Policy of 2010 and 2011 Water Act.
Wildlife Yes Yes Provides lessons for other sectors.
Wetlands n/a n/a 2001 Draft, awaits agreement among stakeholders to move forward.

Table 2: The Consulting Team

 

NAME INSTITUTION EMAIL
Dr. Rose Fumpa Makano Freelance Consultant rose.makano@gmail.com
Mr. Moses Nyoni Birdlife Zambia zosproject@zamnet.zm
Mr. Alimakio Zulu Natural Resources Consultative Forum alimakio_zulu@yahoo.com
Mrs. Faustina Mwenda PELUM  (Participatory Ecological Land use Management) Association mwenda.faustina@gmail.com
Chitaku Mucheleng’anga NISIR (National Institute for Scientific and Industrial Research) chitaku_58@yahoo.com
  • Reaction to the Presentation

Comment and question: There is need to have linkage between community, sustainable development and resources.  The study alludes to the fact that job creation is the major focus of CBNRM in as regards mining; a question was raised if there is any data to substantiate this statement?

 

Comments: There is need to link economic value and sustainability of natural resources.  What is the forum doing to promote natural resources economic enterprises in support of conservation? Examples of such initiatives could be in the areas of game ranching, aquaculture and forestry plantation.  The other initiative could be in the area of policy advocacy such as to call for higher taxes in mining to discourage such extractive industries.

 

Comment and question:  The challenge is that Civil Society Organisations (CSOs) are visibly fragmented and so are there efforts. There is need for well harmonized CSO to ensure that the all activities are well coordinated and CSOs speak with one voice in the sector.

Comment: Compensation for displaced communities due to extractive industries investments such as mining is a challenge. Therefore, the CBNRM practitioners need to find ways of facilitating an effective processes of resolving resettlement compensation issues on behalf of the voiceless and vulnerable communities.

 

Comments:  By representative of Forestry Department present in the meeting, the following comments were made:

  1. The CBNRM practitioners were commended for their efforts in the implementation of the initiatives aimed at conservation of natural resources as well as improved livelihoods. However, CBNRM practitioners should not focus on “money” but “innovative ideas”.

 

  1. The existing law does not differentiate between ‘commercial’ and ‘community’ user rights. This means that communities by law are required to pay for any felling or removal of any forest produce and any other activities that require a license accordingly.   In the light of this statement, it was emphasized that this is only applicable to commercial purposes and not applicable to domestic use of forest produce.
  2. On excessive Forestry officers’ immunity, it was emphasized that this was a necessary provision to guarantee the officers to perform their duties as necessary in the interest of conservation.
  3. Benefit sharing in the Forestry co-management arrangement, should not be compared to the model of wildlife sector which is done through the CRBs. This is because the benefits in the forestry co-management arrangement cannot easily be translated into monetary value; hence the benefits are translated in a form of use of forest produce in general including ecosystem services.  Still, the question is; where is empowerment?

4.4              Presentation on   Community Based Natural Resource Management  (CBNRM) in Southern Africa  (The case of Zambia)

 

A presentation on the Community Based Natural Resource Management (CBNRM) in Southern Africa (The case of Zambia)   was given by Mr. Mwape Sichilongo from WWF Regional CBNRM Capacity Building Programme in Southern Africa.  The objective of the presentation was to share CBNRM conceptual approach taking a case for Zambia. The presentation focused on the areas of focus and successes of CBNRM.

  • Why communities

Communities are the traditional and historical owners of land and natural resources even where national parks are today. Most high value conservation areas are either shared with communities or surrounded by poor communities. Communities therefore, are legitimate partners.

Regional CBNRM Capacity Building Programme operates in the SADC countries; thus the SADC Treaty embraces the protocol on wildlife and law enforcement through international conventions such as (CBD, UNFCCC, UNCCD).

  • Effective community engagement results in the following:
    • Additional capacity and goodwill for natural resource management mobilised;
    • Reduced tension and improved enabling environment for conservation and development
    • Improved natural resource governance – decentralisation, democratisation, promotion of human, cultural, social, economic and environmental rights
    • Increased progress in achieving national and global targets under international conventions
  • Four Key Elements in CBNRM

The following are the four key elements in CBNRM.

  • Conservation through use – incentives for landholders to manage the environment; choice; social, economic and political issue
  • Devolution – authority and responsibility; right to manage, benefit and sell
  • Economic justification – major driver of sustainable use; policy to make wildlife more competitive
  • Communal ownership or proprietorship – a defined group managing a resource within defined boundaries
  • Community Based Natural Resources Management; A case for Zambia

Origins and rationale of CBNRM in Zambia was based on heavy elephant and rhino poaching in the Luangwa Valley in the 1980s. Stakeholders’ workshop 1983 came up with a consensus that conservation success depends on community participation with benefits; not government alone.

Two pilot projects – Administrative Design for Game Management Areas (ADMADE) at national level and the Luangwa Integrated Resource Management Project (LIRD) were initiated to pilot CBNRM in Zambia. The following were the key features of implementation of these programmes:

  • Engaged traditional leaders and communities
  • Created community structures
  • Hired village scouts
  • Pilot projects were initiated
  • National Parks and Wildlife Act of 991 transformed into the Zambia Wildlife Act of 1998 which encouraged formal community participation and benefit sharing.
  • It is however, acknowledged that basic components of the enabling environment of CBNRM are in place but these are not adequate.

Regarding benefit sharing, the Administrative Design for Game Management Areas (ADMADE) established a revolving fund which was retention of 50% out of hunting revenue to create this fund.   The Luangwa Integrated Resource Management Project (LIRDP) to the contrary had 100% retention of the hunting concession fees.

There are over 70 Community Resource Boards working with co-managers of GMAs such as programmes like Community Markets for Conservation (COMACO).  The focus of the operations is on Community development and resource protection.  Basic components for implementation of CBNRM are in place and provide substantial lesson learning opportunities for other natural resources conservation.

  • Challenges

The following challenges have been experienced in CBNRM:

  • Enabling environment not comprehensive – poor distribution of benefits, land use conflicts, low wildlife populations in some areas; encroachment; degradation
  • Poor incentives for conservation compared with agriculture
  • Limited implementation of CBNRM due to limited capacity
  • Limited capacity of community partners; poor engagement
  • Limited partnership opportunities between communities and private sector and NGOs
  • Over dependence on one source of income
  • GMAs and resource base under threat
  • Lessons from community engagement
    • Where communities are not adequately empowered and supported – natural resources are in decline
    • Where communities are empowered legally; given space, skills and status – improved indicators of sustainability do manifest.
    • CBNRM is delivering economic and conservation benefits as a result of community participation but only when capacity is facilitated; enabling conditions are in place; partnerships make things happen, business approach; enterprise developed, communities (citizens) trained, mentored
  • Opportunities
    • Review of GMAs to improve protection of high biodiversity areas and improve management of depleted areas – through partnerships with communities and private sector
    • Partnerships should be realistic and equitable
    • Promote Community Game Ranching – integrated with forestry
    • CBNRM should be more beneficiary-focused
    • CBNRM support programme – community engagement, capacity, skills, local land use planning are essentials for a successful CBNRM implementation
    • Innovative CBNRM models – ecotourism, enterprise, carbon, payments for ecosystem services; joint ventures; COMACO. We have been stuck on wildlife management model for over 30 years
    • Action – policy and legislation review; role of government; what role should government play?

4.5              Presentation  on Collaborative Forestry in Zambia: Experiences from PFAP II

 

A presentation on Collaborative Forestry in Zambia: Experiences from PFAP II by Mrs. Guni Mickels Kokwe from Zambia CBNRM Forum.  The objective of the presentation was to share experiences from PFAP II in Zambia.

  • What was PFAP?

PFAP stands for Provincial Forestry Action Programme, which aimed at decentralised forestry and Finland funded the programme in two phases: PFAP I and II.  PFAP I emerged from ZFAP (Zambia Forestry Action Programme), building decentralised capacity in Forestry Department to manage forestry through the preparation of provincial plans. PFAP I  came to an end in 1998/9.

The PFAP II ran from 2000-2004 and shifted focus to district level to initiate a collaborative forestry around 2001.  After 2004, PFAP II continued and went into a non-cost extension until 2008.  Piloting collaborative forestry, known as Joint Forest Management, enabled by two SIs.  This was piloted in a total of 9 sites picked ( 6 local forests, 2 national forests, 1 open area).  Under the JFM plans were prepared for 5 Local Forests and 1 National Forest. However, the process was ground to a halt around 2005.

  •  Key Achievements

The following were the key achievements were realized through the JFM:

  • Communities were very enthusiastic with the engagement (some committees formed ten years ago are still functional!)
  • Forest brought under protection and management – still active in some locations (e.g. Mwewa Local Forest in Samfya district)
  • Valuable lessons were learnt at forest level about what works and what does not (”good practice”) – silviculture, organisation, etc
  • Dialogue opened between communities and Forestry Department; when handled well this would provides  a way to resolve many other problems
  • Forestry Department staff who were exposed to collaborative forestry, were very appreciative and interested – skills platform was generated!
  • Key Weaknesses and Challenges
    • Institutional challenges: Forest Department Headquarters – guidance and support lacking for the districts
    • Institutional challenges: Working in silos – cross-sectoral collaboration
    • Legal challenges: Inability to resolve cost-benefit sharing mechanism in practice
    • Funding challenges: Process too dependent on donor support, local level set up too expensive
    • Funding challenges: Appropriation in aid – not working for the districts
    • Lack of capacity at district level –in terms of materials, equipment and skill – but also in some cases in appreciation of the task  But the latter (# 6) can be corrected – if the
      above are attended to
  • Future for collaborative forestry?

It is imperative that collaborative forestry needs to be revived and there broad opportunities to support this as follows:

  • Revised Forestry Legislation (Forest Bill 2012) allows for additional forms of collaborative forestry;
  • Revised Zambia Forestry Action Plan (ZFAP 2012)  may provide framework for process;
  • Renewed interest from donors: USAID in Eastern Province, Finland decentralised forestry in Muchinga and NWP provinces.
  • REDD + voluntary carbon schemes?
  • Responses to the presentation
  • Collaboration under the studies done to ensure that things move
  • There is need that the forum considers to set up a special group focusing on forestry under CBNRM.
  • There is need to embark on resource mobilization both locally and internationally in view of the Zambia Forestry Action Programme. There are a lot of pledges in ZFAP document that did not get their fulfillment thus there is an opportunity for the Zambia CBNRM Forum and partners to pursue these pledges.
  • There is a tendency to initiate pilot projects which often time result in not as much of benefits on the ground.
  • Although donor support is inevitable and of great importance the drawback however it that the guidelines seem to be very restrictive in the activities of support – rigidity in guidelines.
  • There is a huge budget deficit for CBNRM to allow the activities to cover the whole country.
  • There are lessons learnt from Uganda where funding is often provided as direct support projects to local communities to run their own income generating activities.
  • There is need to precisely identify policy issues that have direct effect on poverty and advocate for policy reforms for such policies.
  • Due lack of significant beneficial impact at community level from many projects, communities are compelled to continue with practices detrimental to the environment such as charcoal burning to make quick income for their immediate needs. Thus the forum needs to identify alternative income generating activities and sustainable livelihoods.
  • Although capacity building projects, such as training programmes at local levels, are not highly preferred by Cooperating Partners (CPs) the general state of affairs is that there is lack of local level leadership on the ground to lead the several committees that have been formed and ensure an integrated approach for conservation.
  • There are media reports on BBC for example that there is more game meat in the U.K. which come from commercial game ranchers. Communities could be supported to venture in this business and compete on the international market.

4.6              Presentation  on WWF Support to CBNRM

A presentation on WWF Support to CBNRM was given by Dr. Nyambe Nyambe from WWF Zambia Country Office.  The objective of the presentation was to share historical, current and future perspective of WWF support to CBNRM.  The presentation was in form of comments in relation to issues raised in the earlier presentations during the meeting.

The WWF mission statement highly recognizes the value of biodiversity and effective partnership to achieve conservation locally and internally.  CBNRM is the sustenance of the WWF as an institution.

Historically WWF was involved in the Administrative Design for Game Management Areas (ADMADE), CAMPFIRE in Zimbabwe and currently in Botswana and Namibia. However, there is need for further support to CBNRM.

Piloting is the approach being taken both at national and regional levels particularly in responding to weak civil society Organisation (CSO).  In trans-frontier nature conservation areas (TFNCAs), CBNRM is equally a challenge to implement.

WWF in Zambia operates in 4 focal areas namely; the Bangweulu basin, KAZA, Luangwa and Iluwa but spreading thinly throughout the country in the forestry sector, extractive industries, and wetlands in addition to wildlife through CBNRM initiatives.

  • Overall Comments on issues by Dr Nyambe
    • The desired outcomes of WWF efforts are to see strengthened conservation platforms and structures at various levels. The inconspicuous fisheries sector in CBNRM is a challenge. This is as a result of lack of an integrated approach to natural resource management that have compelled many to pay greater attention only to wildlife and neglecting such important resource as wetlands.  Furthermore due to the same reason, structures that have been formed also confuse local communities as they do not ‘’speak to each other ‘’- they take a fragmented approach to natural resources management.  There is need to pilot new models in CBNRM i.e. to explore what else can be done differently.  This therefore requires development of long term strategies to safeguard land and effects of extractive industries for example.
    • Impact at household level is of profound importance and a challenge also effective use of fund in implementing CBNRM i.e. value for money.
    • Capacities at community level should be built; therefore the forum is required to communicate effectively to ensure the community members are sufficiently informed about CBNRM programming.  In addition outreach should be worked on if the forum will have to make greater and wide spread impact.
    • Fragmentation of efforts in the forestry sector needs to be worked on in order to achieve greater impact.
    • Forum needs to run for the vision and not money is an important observation.
    • Gaps and barriers in CBNRM will need to be focused so that strategies to address them can precisely be embarked upon.
    • There are good lessons from PFAP which could be exploited to improve on weaknesses and challenges in the forestry sector.
    • The fisheries sector appears to be neglected in CBNRM and thus there is need to shift the attention towards fisheries management.
    • The purpose of this Donor breakfast meeting was to attract good will from Cooperating Partners (CPs) to show case what the Zambia CBNRM Forum and its partners are doing

5.0            RECOMMENDATIONS

  • The CBNRM Forum needs to undertake a total review of all CBNRM related activities and programmers that have been implemented in the past to take stock of what is available and obtain lessons from these reviews.
  • Challenges of financials will be eminent with the Zambia CBNRM Forum as the WWF support to CBNRM will be on the decline as consolidation phase is progressing into mid 2014.  The forum should consider collaborating with the Southern Africa Resource Watch (SARW) as the organization mentioned that they are in search of suitable institutions to collaborate with.
  • From the gap analysis and barriers presentation, it is evident that there is need for collaboration among stakeholders to promote public private partnerships (PPPs).

6.0            CONCLUSION

The Vice Chairperson of the Zambia CBNRM Forum on behalf of the Chairperson, Mr. Moses Nyoni, in closing the meeting thanked all participants for the active participation and valuable contributions. He stated that the process of stakeholder engagement would continue to create enabling environment for strategic partnerships.  As a forum we welcome constructive criticism. Lastly he again thanked the members  for their time.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s