eotN.433Z ZambiaEconomicandPoverty ImpactofNature-based Tourism Report No. 43373-ZM Report No. 43373-ZM Zambia Economic and Poverty Impact
Public Disclosure Authorized Authorized Disclosure Disclosure Public Public of Nature-based Tourism
December 2007
Economic and Sector Work Africa Region Public Disclosure Authorized Authorized Disclosure Disclosure Public Public Public Disclosure Authorized Authorized Disclosure Disclosure Public Public
Document of the World Bank Public Disclosure Authorized Authorized Disclosure Disclosure Public Public
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... i 1. INTRODUCTION: MAIN OBJECTIVES OF THE SNDY...... 1 A . STRATEGIC CONTEXT ...... 1 B. OUTLINE OF STUDY ...... 1 2 . TOURISM AS A GROWTH SECTOR: CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES ...... 3 A . INTRODUCTION ...... 3 B. GLOBAL TOURISM TRENDS ...... 4 C. REGIONAL TOURISM TRENDS ...... 5 D. PROFILE OF ZAMBIAN TOURISM ...... 7 E. PROFILE OF ZAMBIAN TOURISTS ...... 12 F . IMPEDIMENTS TO GROWTH ...... 17 3. NATURE TOURISM:-CONTRIBUTIONTO THE ZAMBIAN ECONOMY...... 27 A . INTRODUCTION ...... 27 B. SURVEY DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY ...... 27 C. THE TRUE NUMBER OF NATURE TOURISTS ...... 30 D . TOURIST PROFILE...... 30 E. ECONOMIC IMPACT OF NATURE TOURISM ...... 31 F . INCREASING THE ECONOMIC IMPACT OF NATURE TOURISM ...... 34 G. LINKAGES AND LEAKAGES ...... 35 4 . HOUSEHOLD WELFARE AROUND NATIONAL PARKS ...... 38 A . INTRODUCTION ...... 38 B. SURVEY DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY ...... 40 C. SURVEY RESULTS ...... 43 D. WELFARE ...... 46 E. INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS ...... 49 5 . MANAGEMENT OF THE WILDLIFE ESTATE ...... 54 A . DESCRIPTION OF THE WILDLIFE ESTATE ...... 54 B. MANAGEMENT OPTIONS ...... 56 C . THE MANAGEMENT INSTITUTION: ZAWA ...... 59 D. FINANCING THE WILDLIFE ESTATE ...... 63 E . THE TRANSFORMATION AGENDA ...... 66 6 . CONCLUSIONS ...... 70
2
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE 2.1 : Existing and projected growth in tourist arrivals to Zambia ...... 3 FIGURE 2.2: Worldwide tourist arrivals by destination region (2005) ...... 4 FIGURE 2.3: Tourist arrivals in south-eastern Africa ...... 5 FIGURE 2.4: Tourist arrival trends in South-Eastern Africa ...... 6 FIGURE 2.5: Availability of nature tourist accommodation units by region ...... 11 FIGURE 2.6: Availability of nature tourist bed nights by region ...... 11 FIGURE 2.7: Availability of nature tourist bed nights by accommodation type ...... 12 FIGURE 2.8: Tourist arrivals to Zambia by purpose of visit. 2005 ...... 13 FIGURE 2.9: Stated purpose of holiday visit. 2005 ...... 13 FIGURE 2.10: Holiday and VFR visitors to Zambia by source region. 2005 ...... 14 FIGURE 2.1 1: Holiday-makers in south-eastern Africa by source country (2005) ...... 15 FIGURE 2.12: Duration of stay by nature tourists...... 15 FIGURE 2.13: Number of sites visited in Zambia by holiday-makers ...... 16 FIGURE 2.14: Mean group size of nature tourists ...... 16 FIGURE 2.15: Number of visits to Zambia by tourists...... 17 FIGURE 2.16: Tourists’ average daily expenditure ($) ...... 18 FIGURE 4.1 : Comparison of welfare of households living around national parks with national rural average ...... 45 FIGURE 4.2: Welfare of households in GMAs relative to those in non-GMA areas ...... 47 FIGURE 4.3: Welfare of households living in GMAs in comparison to the same households if their GMA was not designated a GMA ...... 48 FIGURE 4.4: Differences in welfare between households participating or not in VAGsICRBs ...... 50 FIGURE 4.5: Welfare of the same households whether they participate or not in VAGs/CRBs...... 51 FIGURE 4.6: Comparison of welfare between GMA and non-GMA households for poor and non-poor households ...... 51 FIGURE 4.7: Comparison of the welfare of the same households in GMAs if the GMA effect was withdrawn, i.e. if its land was not in a GMA anymore ...... 52 FIGURE 4.8: Comparison of welfare between VAG/CRB participants and non-participating households ...... 53 FIGURE 4.9: Comparison of the welfare of the same households whether they participate or not in VAG/CRB ...... 53 FIGURE 5.1 : Nature tourist’s willingness to pay park entrance fees ...... 64 FIGURE 5.2: Willingness to pay conservation fee ...... 66
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 2.1 : Budgets and visitor arrivals of selected African countries (2004) ...... 6 TABLE 2.2: International tourist arrivals. tourism receipts and ratios ...... 7 TABLE 2.3: National parks and number of visitors, 2003-2005 ...... 9 TABLE 2.4: Importance ranking of destinations by principal international tour agents ...... 14 TABLE 2.5: Booking materials preferred by nature tourists and their booking agents ...... 20 TABLE 2.6: Progress against objectives in the Tourism Strategy and Action Plan ...... 23 TABLE 3.1 : Tourism receipts of selected African countries. 2003 ...... 27 TABLE 3.2: Distribution of tourists by location of interview ...... 28 TABLE 3.3: 95% confidence intervals for selected indicators...... 29
4 TABLE 3.4: Visitor arrivals 2005: Area of origin by purpose of visit ...... 29 TABLE 3.5: Number of tourists in the sample by origin and purpose of visit ...... 30 TABLE 3.6: Nature tourists’ overall satisfaction with sites (YO)...... 31 TABLE 3.7: Nature tourists’ average expenditures without airfare ...... 31 TABLE 3.8: Breakdown of expenditures per nature tourist per trip (non-package) ...... 32 TABLE 3.9: Direct and indirect economic impact of nature tourism in 2005 ...... 33 TABLE 3.10: Direct and indirect employment content of ZMK 1 billion final consumption 34 TABLE 3.1 1: Expenditure for non-package nature tourist per trip by number of sites ...... 35 TABLE 3.12: Cost of overseas services (including flights) for nature tourists in Zambia .... 35 TABLE 4.1: Allocation of hunting revenues ...... 39 TABLE 4.2: Sampled GMAs in park systems (designed for survey purpose) ...... 41 TABLE 4.4: Comparison of households in GMAs versus non-GMAs ...... 44 TABLE 4.5: Comparison of communities in GMAs versus non-GMAs ...... 44 TABLE 5.1: Zambia’s management regions and Area Management Units ...... 55 TABLE 5.2: Eco-regions in relation to Zambia’s protected areas ...... 58 TABLE 5.3: Classification of Zambia’s national parks ...... 58 TABLE 5.4: ZAWA’s financial performance 2001-2005 ...... 62 TABLE 5.5: Potential revenue from international park visitors, 2005 ...... 65
LIST OF BOXES
Box 2.1 What is a Tourist ...... 4 Box 2.2. Livingstone as a Hub? ...... 20 Box 3.1. Coffee Leakage ...... -36 Box 4.1. Game Management Areas ...... 38 Box 4.3. Direct Benefits from Safari Operators ...... 39 Box 4.4 Consumption as a Measure of Welfare ...... 40 Box 4.5 Female-Headed Households in GMAs ...... 49 Box 5.1. Trans-Frontier Conservation Approaches ...... 68
LIST OF MAPS
MAP 2.1 : Distribution of main tourism investments...... 8 MAP 2.2: National Parks and Game Management Areas in Zambia ...... 9 MAP 2.3: Tourist arrival routes ...... 22 MAP 4.1 : National Park system and GMAs with sampled areas ...... 41 MAP 5.1: Eco-regions and National Parks...... 54
5 ABBREVIATIONS & ACRONYMS
ADMADE Administrative Management Design (for GMAs) AFTEN Africa Technical Environment Unit of the World Bank AFTPS Africa Technical Private Sector Unit of the World Bank AMU Area Management Unit CAS Country Assistance Strategy CBNRM Community-based Natural Resources Management CRB Community Resources Board cso Central Statistical Office cv Contingent Valuation DRC Democratic Republic of Congo DSI Development Services & Initiatives ENV Environment Unit of the World Bank FNDP Fifth National Development Plan GDP Gross Domestic Product GEF Global Environment Facility GMA Game Management Area ICDP Integrated Conservation and Development Programs IDA International Development Association IO Input-Output ITC Information Technology and Communication KAZA Kavango-Zambezi MLE Maximum Likelihood (joint) Estimation MTENR Ministry of Tourism, Environment & Natural Resources NGO Non-Governmental Organization NIUB Net Income of Unincorporated Business NPWS National Parks & Wildlife Service NRCF Natural Resources Consultative Forum PCC Per Capita Consumption PCEXP Per Capita Consumption Expenditure PPP Public Private Partnership PPS Probability Proportional to Size PRSP Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper PSM Propensity-Score Matching SEA Standard Enumeration Area SEED Support for Economic Expansion and Diversification (project) SME Small and Medium-sized Enterprise TFCA Trans frontier Conservation Area UNDP United Nation Development Program VAG Village Action Group VAT Value Added Tax VFR Visiting Friend and Relatives WTP Willingness To Pay ZAWA Zambia Wildlife Authority ZDA Zambia Development Agency
6 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Our team comprised Kirk Hamilton (ENV), overall coordination and write-up; Sushenj it Bandyopadhay (ENV), design and coordination of the GMA Household Survey and data analysis of both household and Tourism Demand Survey together with Gelson Tembo (consultant, University of Zambia); Jean-Christophe Carret (AFTEN) led the initial design; Goodson Simyenga (consultant, Central Statistical Office) and Benjamin Guillon (consultant) organized the Tourism Demand Survey; Besa Muwele (consultant, Central Statistical Office) did the input and output analysis to calculate the multiplier; Suzane Mourato (consultant) designed the Willingness to Pay Survey; Adam Pope (consultant) carried out the Nature-based Tourism Supply-side Survey and contributed to write-up of Chapter 2 and Chapter 5; Phyllis Simasiku (consultant) reviewed the write-up ofthe GMA Household Survey; and Changa Consulting, contracted by ZAWA, carried out the review of progress towards ZAWA’s current strategic plan.
This work could not have been completed without the co-financing by our constructive partners and in particular Winnie Musonda (UNDP), Jacob Jepsen, Hans Aaskov and Misael Kokwe (Denmark), and Jan-Erik Studsrod, Mosho Imakando and Odd Arnesen (Norway).
All studies were carried out under the umbrella of the NRCF under the chairmanship of Dr. Henry Mwima, the coordination of David Mulolani and the support of Frank van Dixhoorn, at DSI, and all members of the NRCF.
The Ministry of Tourism ofthe Government of Zambia showed support and attention to the process and its result under the leadership of M. Russel Mulele (previous PS MTENR), Justina Wake (Director of Tourism), John Chiluwe (Tourism) and the late Davy Siame (Biodiversity).
At ZAWA, special thanks for their leadership and openness are extended to Dr. Lewis Saiwana (Director General), Hapenga Kabeta (previous Director General), Victor Siamudala (Director Planning), Vincent Nyirenda (head of planning), Tom Mushingwe (previous Commercial Director) and Mukela Muyunda (previous Financial Director).
The quality control was entrusted to our peer reviewers to whom we are thankful for their time and invaluable contribution: Shaun Mann (AFTPS), Sergio Margulis (AFTEN) and Grant Cummings (private investor).
7 ECONOMIC AND POVERTY IMPACT OF NATURE-BASED TOURISM
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1. This study estimates the contribution of nature-based tourism in Zambia to economic growth and poverty reduction as well as to the sustainability of the management of the wildlife estate.
Setting the Stage ii. The Zambian Government has identified tourism along with agriculture, mining and manufacturing as the most important sectors for economic development in its various planning documents, including the 2007 Fifth National Development Plan (FNDP). iii. Impediments to accelerated tourism growth are recorded in the section about tourism in the FNDP. They include: (I)inadequate tourism planning; (2) lack of infrastructure; (3) limited product base; (4) inadequate management ofnational parks; (5) insufficient country marketing; (6) lack of government funding; (7) lack of community interestlparticipation;(8) poorly trained and insufficient human resources; and (9) Zambia being a high cost destination. To address these impediments, the FNDP proposes to focus on: (1) the design of a proper national Tourism Master Plan; (2) large-scale development of infrastructure; (3) increased investment in human capital; (4) country marketing; and (5) tourism data collection. iv. Being aware of the importance of the wildlife estate as a main tourism product, the Zambian Government reformed its protected area system in the 1990s. A pillar of the reform was the establishment of an autonomous public institution, the Zambia Wildlife Authority (ZAWA). ZAWA was created with a mandate to rehabilitate the wildlife estate whilst seeking financial sustainability through commercialization of tourism products. This was to be achieved in collaboration with communities living in Game Management Areas (GMAs). Sharing of benefits from consumptive use of wildlife, in particular hunting, would contribute to poverty alleviation, and government subsidies and donor-funded projects would ensure a gradual reinvestment. v. By 2004, it was clear that the reform was not delivering the intended environmental, economic and social benefits. ZAWA could only manage a fraction of the wildlife estate. Government subsidies did not materialize and donors continued funding operating costs instead of investments. ZAWA was increasingly dependent on revenue from hunting in GMAs. Governance issues surfaced and the progress made during the 1990s in community-based natural resources management was largely arrested. vi. Despite steady growth ofthe tourism sector, the Government continued to view tourism as a foreign-dominated sector not contributing to the economy. The perception was that pre-paid packages led to high leakages. At the same time, the private sector increasingly criticized the lack of efficiency in the management of the wildlife estate as well as the high cost of doing business. Finally, cooperating partners failed to comprehend why the Government’s official declarations about the potential in tourism were not backed by commitment towards making the reform a success. vii. This provides the setting for this study which, through empirical data’, seeks to bring reality to the much debated economic potential of tourism. It is hoped that this information, which shows the need for more investments in the wildlife sector, will be useful to Zambian decision-makers.
’ A total of three surveys provide data for this report: the Zambia Nature-based Tourism Supply-side Survey (carried out by Whydah Consulting in November 2005), the Tourism Demand Survey (carried out by the Natural Resources Consultative Forum in OctobedNovember 2005), and the Gh4A Household Survey (carried out by the Central Statistical Office in September 2006).
1 viii. This report is organized into three sections:
0 Chapters 2 and 3 characterize the tourism industry and the economic impact of nature tourists. Using a variety of sources of information, the two chapters profile the tourism industry in Zambia and analyze the barriers to growth.
Chapter 4 investigates the welfare of communities living in GMAs around national parks. These communities are the most likely to suffer from wildlife conflicts and/or benefit from economic activities in and around the parks. A household survey compares the welfare of communities living in GMAs with ordinary rural communities.
0 Chapter 5 analyzes the performance of ZAWA during its first five year of existence, and explores the current state of the management of the wildlife estate and its potential to contribute to economic growth through tourism.
Focus on Nature Tourists ix. This study aims to show the importance of investments in the wildlife estate; hence it concentrates on nature tourists, which are international visitors on holiday visiting natural attractions such as the Victoria Falls, wildlife or nature-based adventure activities. In 2005, out of a total of 669,000 international visitors, Zambia received 206,000 holiday-makers, of which 176,000 can be categorized as genuine nature tourists2.
An Emerging Destination x. The emerging nature of tourism in Zambia is demonstrated by the profile ofthe tourism sector. Most tourists visit one site only, usually the Victoria Falls; stay less than three days; and combine their visit with other regional destinations. The industry is so small that a single large investment is sufficient to have a major impact: The Sun International in Livingstone has attracted 60,000 additional tourists to Zambia, equivalent to 10% ofthe total number of visitors in 2005. xi. In spite of this profile, a survey of tourists conducted during the preparation ofthis study indicated that nature tourists are satisfied with their experience in Zambia. 84% say they will visit Zambia again, and at least 90% rate the most popular parks (Mosi-oa-Tunya, South Luangwa, Lower Zambezi and Kafue) as good or very good.
Actual Economic Contribution xii. In spite of its emerging character, nature tourism is already a major contributor to the Zambian economy. The average nature tourist spent $1,100 per trip in Zambia in 2005, adding up to a total of $194 million or 3.1% of GDP for all the 176,000 nature tourists. If 176,000 nature tourists contributed 3.1% of GDP, it is clear that the 669,000 international visitors received in 2005 contributed much more to GDP than officially figured3.Probably, the real contribution oftourism in 2005 was in the order of 6% to 10% of GDP. In comparison, mining contributed 8.6%, agriculture 6.5% and manufacturing 10.6% in 20054.
The economic impact of this subset of the overall tourist population is a conservative estimate of the economic impact induced by the falls and national parks. It does not include the contribution of tourists who declare they are “visiting friend and relatives” or on “business” - despite it being obvious that a proportion of these tourists will visit natural attractions as well. Neither does the sample include domestic “tourists”, who in some parks constitute nearly half of all visitors.
The official figure for tourism’s contribution to GDP was 3.5% in 2003. The Central Statistical Office (2006). ii xiii. When one nature tourist spends $1,100 in Zambia, s/he generates nearly $2,300 in GDP (the ‘tourism multiplier’ is therefore 2.1), $1,300 in wages and $420 in tax revenue (indirect and corporate taxes). When multiplied by the total number of nature tourists, the overall economic contribution is nearly 16% of exports of goods and services, more than 6% of wages and net income of unincorporated business, 7% of government revenue (indirect and corporate taxes) and 6.5% of GDP ($403 million). In comparison, the direct and indirect impact of the public protected area estate in Namibia constitutes less than 6% of GDP.
Contribution to Employment xiv. The direct contribution to employment of the 176,000 nature tourists in 2005 was in the order of 19,000 formal jobs. Note that this figure is generated by one quarter of all international visitors in 2005. As a result it compares well with other Zambian growth sectors such as agriculture (56,000 jobs), mining (46,000 jobs) and manufacturing (56,000 jobs)5. xv. When indirect impacts are included, calculations show that each nature tourist provides 30% of a full time equivalent formal sector job. This equates to nearly 10% of the country’s formal sector employment or 55,000 formal jobs. xvi. Encouragingly, tourism is an average generator of informal jobs. According to the Central Statistical Office, 44% of employment in the hotel and restaurant industry is informal compared to 7% in the mining industry, 99% in agriculture and 66% in manufacturing.
Leakages xvii. Contrary to common beliefs, leakages from tourism are not a source of concern in Zambia. Out of the 206,000 holiday-makers that Zambia received in 2005, 30% or 60,000 tourists arrived on a prepaid package. Although overseas services constitute over 70% of the total package price, they are not a leakage from the Zambian economy! Rather, they are payments for services in the source markets, including representation, marketing, insurance and flights; services that are used to sell the Zambian product, without which there would be no benefit at all to Zambia. xviii. Every holiday-maker, regardless of their package arrangements, spend about $1,100 in Zambia; a figure that compares favorably with other countries, e.g. Kenya ($405), Tanzania ($1,105) and South Africa ($879)6.Within the $1,100, about $200 is leaked through imports. This is money that leaves the country to pay for a good (e.g. food, specialized equipment, etc.) or service (e.g. expatriate salary) not available in Zambia. Leakage in the form of repatriation of profits is minimal in Zambia, as the tourism sector, more so than in other countries, is dominated by small and medium- size operators without the necessary vertical integration (not including the Sun International Group in Livingstone). Genuine leakages such as imports and profit repatriation can only be reduced by encouraging local participation in the tourism industry and support services. Policy intervention should be targeted at building a robust supply chain and strong cross-sectoral linkages rather than at plugging leakages. xix. Zambia is fortunate to have attracted a good number of foreign investors in the tourism sector, who have provided access to overseas markets and induced growth in Zambian-owned businesses serving the sector. Although few Zambian investors have ventured into national parks, in the Livingstone-Kazungulacorridor, Zambians own about 65% of accommodation (excluding the Sun ~nternational)’.
The Central Statistical Office (2006). World Tourism Organization -Africa Report 2006. Economic Impacts of Trans Frontier Conservation Areas: Baseline of Tourism in the Kavango-Zambezi TFCA, Conservation International South Africa (2005). iii The Impact of the GMA Effect on Community Welfare xx. While it is encouraging that nature tourism contributes significantly to the country’s economy, the scale of its contribution to poverty alleviation in communities is minor and highly variable from site to site. To measure the welfare of communities living with wildlife, a household survey was conducted in areas adjacent to some of Zambia’s most visited national parks. The survey found that the average annual per capita consumption (PCC) of communities living in GMAs and non-GMA control areas is ZMK 839,0008 and ZMK 850,000 respectively. In comparison, the average rural community in Zambia had a PCC of ZMK 1.2 million in 20049. In other words, the welfare of communities living around national parks is about 70% ofthe national rural average. xxi. 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 live in remote areas lacking basic infrastructure. Thus, their access to markets and public services is limited compared to households who inhabit areas closer to the main roads. Furthermore they are likely to live in less fertile areas, as this is one ofthe reasons why game reserves were demarcated in the first place. xxii. Certain GMAs fare better than others. Actually, nature tourism in the Luangwa Valley is contributing significantly to poverty alleviation. After 20 years of community-based natural resources management (CBNRM) support, the average PCC in the Luangwa Valley is ZMK 1.18 million in GMAs and ZMK 8 10,000 in non-GMAs. In other words, the welfare of communities in GMAs in the Luangwa Valley is similar to the national average. xxiii. Hence, nature tourism has some impact on poverty alleviation. Interestingly, this becomes even more obvious when statisticians analyze what the PCC would have been if a GMA had not been established. This analysis shows that communities currently living in GMAs would have had a PCC of about ZMK 280,000 if their GMA did not exist. In other words, they would have been much worse off.
Benefits of Community-based Natural Resources Management xxiv. Participation in Village Action Groups (VAGs) and Community Resources Boards (CRBs) is used as a proxy for involvement in CBNRM. On average, the PCC of participating households is ZMK 1.05 million, nearly that of the national average and 20% more than non-participating households. This is even more pronounced for participating households living in GMAs in the Luangwa Valley, where the PCC of ZMK 1.32 million exceeds the national rural average. xxv. However, amongst these households, those with most assets (the less poor) are benefiting more than the very poor by more than 50%. In other words, it is mostly the non-poor households with a member involved in CBNRM, who benefit from the GMA effect. This indicates a ‘rent-seeking’ behavior by the elite households ofthe communities.
CBNRM as a valid Poverty Alleviation Strategy xxvi. The fact that the welfare of communities living in GMAs in the Luangwa Valley is the same as the national rural average is certainly an important achievement of past CBNRM programs. In itself this demonstrates that CBNRM, under certain conditions, can be a powerful tool for poverty alleviation. Additionally, it indicates that further tourism revenue retention at community level would have a beneficial impact on community welfare - as long as the revenue reaches the poor households in the community.
* $210 at ZMK/$4,000. Zambia Poverty and Vulnerability Assessment (2007), World Bank. iv xxvii. The question of sustainability of the impact of CBNRM on poverty alleviation must be raised. Nature tourists, whether naturalists or hunters, will visit GMAs only if the wildlife product matches international standards. Unfortunately, national trends show a degradation of wildlife habitat and population throughout the country's GMAs. Some GMAs such as Bilili Springs in the Southern Province have succumbed entirely to agriculture, and a total of 12 out of 34 GMAs are now classified as depleted by ZAWA, in comparison to none in 1997. xxviii. With this in mind, it is clear that the positive results obtained in the Luangwa Valley will not materialize for communities living in other GMAs. In addition, if not arrested, habitat destruction in the GMAs will eventually reach the national parks they buffer and threaten the economic return of these parks. This suggests the need for a fundamental review ofthe current governance, management and revenue-sharing mechanisms in GMAs; a process that to some degree has been initiated with the UNDP/GEF reclassificationproject".
The Management of the Wildlife Estate xxix. Since its inception in 2001, ZAWA has doubled the revenue stream both from hunting and non-consumptive tourism, launched major donor-funded investments in two national parks and established a series of promising public-private partnerships in five additional parks. xxx. However, this study shows that the management of the wildlife estate fails to match the performance of nature tourism. A review of the implementation ofthe first Strategic Plan (2003- 2007) shows that these results are modest in comparison to plans. Many national parks are unmanaged and wildlife and natural habitats are under threat in most GMAs. Furthermore, ZAWA has been unable to transform its corporate culture in order to improve its credibility and its financial and conservation performance. The review also shows that several of the external assumptions - upon which ZAWA was created and the first Strategic Plan was based - have not materialized. Two of these key assumptions were the independence of ZAWA's board from political influence and the recapitalizationfrom the national budget.
Financing the Wildlife Estate
xxxi. The lack of budget support stems from the Ministry of Finance failing to realize that subsidizing the management of the wildlife estate is a sound economic strategy. In fact, the economic arguments to do so are compelling. In 2005, based on a modest subsidy of about $1 million, Government received fiscal revenue generated by international nature tourists visiting national parks calculated at between $5 million and $7.6 million". As tourists continue to increase in numbers, spend more time in Zambia and visit more sites, the fiscal revenue - along with other economic returns of nature tourism - will outweigh the financial costs of managing the country's wildlife estate estimated at $6 million. xxxii. Direct economic revenue is not the only benefit of the wildlife estate. The main purpose of protected areas is to preserve the natural heritage, biodiversity as well as provide ecosystem services such as watershed protection. xxxiii. The study also demonstrates the importance of boosting non-consumptive tourism in national parks. Up until now, non-consumptive tourism revenue have increased in proportion to consumptive tourism to reach almost 50% in 2006, and one major investor, the Sun International in Livingstone, is responsible for 12% of ZAWA's non-consumptive tourism revenue. Given the
loUnited Nation Development Program/Global Environment Facility: Reclassificationand Effective Management of Zambia's Protected Areas. The main objective of the project is to strengthen the enabling policy, regulatory and governance frameworks and institutional capacities for managing the national protected area system with biodiversity conservation as a principal outcome. " Authors' calculations.
V positive economic impact that large-scale investments have on the economy in general, and on ZAWA’s financial performance in particular, it makes sense to push for large-scale investments in national parks as well. xxxiv. Additionally, tourists may be willing to pay more for conservation. The Tourism Demand Survey showed that nature tourists are willing to pay 50% to 100% higher fees for visiting the Victoria Falls and the national parks, particularly if improvements are made.
Better Management of the Wildlife Estate xxxv. While revenues are important, equally are costs. Better management efficiency and delegation of functions would improve both performance and sustainability of the wildlife estate. ZAWA needs to establish credible instruments such as a business plan (based on a diverse set of partners, activities and revenues) that demonstrate how investments would lead to sustained results. Already now the most efficiently managed protected areas - in terms of economic and environmental input/output ratio - are managed in public private partnerships (PPPs). Clearly, ZAWA made a sound decision to encourage these PPPs. xxxvi. The next steps should include low-inpuvhigh-return parks such as the Mosi-oa-Tunya National Park, where a private-led commercial approach would generate sufficient return to subsidize other protected areas. In return, ZAWA must improve its capacity to establish and regulate PPPs. The improvement of ZAWA’s efficiency must include a review of the incentive and salary structure for a better corporate culture.
Achieving the FNDP Targets xxxvii. In order to substantiate the analysis presented above it is useful to compare with the FNDP targets. This study establishes that the sub-set of nature tourism already contributes to direct earnings of about 60% of the FNDP target. Hence, a strategy that focuses on developing nature tourism would achieve - and even exceed - the FNDP targets. The obvious approach would be to improve and develop tourism products in Zambia that will make nature tourists stay longer. For example, if by 201 0, nature tourists on average stay another 2 days, the direct earnings would amount to an additional $98 million, thereby reaching 97% of the FNDP target. xxxviii. Persuading more tourists to stay longer in Zambia would require a combination of infrastructure investment and better promotion of Zambian tourism products. xxxix. Already, with .donor assistance, ZAWA has begun improving the attractions in the Kafue and the South Luangwa National Parks; two parks that can compete regionally. xl. Key next steps could be: (1) to improve the management of national parks through internal reforms at ZAWA, increased government support until revenues can balance operating costs and establishment of additional PPPs; (2) in accordance to the FNDP, to invest in access infrastructure, e.g. the Itezhi-tezhi and the Chipata-Mfuwe Roads as well as airstrips and road maintenance within national parks; and (3) to attract large-scale investments in the order of 100 beds or more in the three flagship national parks: South Luangwa, Lower Zambezi and Kafue. xli. Finally, to ensure that the economic growth is shared, keys next steps could be: (1) to ensure that the statutory instrument of the Tourism & Hospitality Bill establishes a favorable incentive system to attract potential Zambian investors as per the country’s citizen empowerment policy; (2) to invest in the development of skills in the Zambian population along the tourism supply chain through the design of a major tourism skill development program; and (3) to step up the current reclassification process through a fundamental review and debate of the governance, management and revenue-sharing mechanisms in GMAs.
vi 1. INTRODUCTION:
MAIN OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY
1.1 The Government has identified tourism as one of four pillars of economic development (the other three being agriculture, manufacturing and mining). However, the socio-economic impact of tourism is currently unclear. Additionally, little is known about barriers to achieving the Government’s targets for the sector and about management options for improving the sector’s performance. This study presents analytical work to estimate the contribution of nature tourism to economic growth and poverty reduction in Zambia. It contributes to a larger body of work undertaken by a group of donorsI2 and partners under the umbrella of the Natural Resources Consultative Forum (NRCF). The target audience is the Zambian Government, the NRCF, the National Development Plan’s Sector Advisory Groups, Private Sector Associations, NGOs and donors.
A. STRATEGIC CONTEXT
1.2 The past four decades, Zambia’s economic development has been dominated by the decline in the value of the country’s copper resources and the resulting fall in per capita income. The impact on the poor has been relentless; by the end of the 1990s, about 73% of the population lived below the poverty line and up to 20% were affected by HIV/AIDS. In this context, the World Bank’s 2004 Zambia Country Assistance Strategy (CAS) seeks to promote economic growth based on a diversified and export-oriented economy, and investments in the tourism sector have been facilitated by the International Development Association (IDA) and the Global EnvironmentalFacility (GEF) through the Support for Economic Expansion and Diversification Project (SEED).
1.3 The Government seeks to see tourism grow from 3.5% in 2003 to 10% of GDP in 10 years. As the sector currently is reliant on Zambia’s natural assets such as national parks, it is important to attract investments that can increase the economic value derived from these assets. Furthermore, as suggested by the Zambia Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper (PRSP), there is a clear need to “encourage community participation in wildlife conservation” to ensure that tourism contributes to poverty reduction. The analytical work presented in this report illuminates the scope for growing the nature tourism sector and for using it as a tool for poverty reduction. The study touches on three key priorities for Zambia and the World Bank: (I)it builds on CAS and current PRSP concerns, (2) it explores poverty-environment linkages to feed into the new PRSP, and, importantly, (3) it integrates environment and poverty issues into sectoral planning.
1.4 Ifnature tourism is to serve as a source of growth and poverty reduction in Zambia, it is important to understand the potential value of the sector and how to strengthen its capability to boost development. This study seeks to provide information that the Government of Zambia can use in practical ways to implement its vision for the sector.
B. OUTLINE OF STUDY
1.5 Chapter 2 characterizes the nature tourism sector in Zambia. Key questions include: How many tourists are visiting Zambia and what is their contribution to GDP? What do we know about these tourists (country of origin, purpose of visit, length of stay, etc.)? What are the main tourism assets in the country? What is the state of the business climate and what are the impediments to growth in the nature tourism sector? What is the state of planning in the tourism sector? Finally, this chapter considers the key institutional challenges in the sector, including: (1) capacity within relevant agencies, (2) skills development, (3) infrastructure, (4) promotion of the sector, and (5) implementation of a Tourism Master Plan.
Donors include Denmark, Norway, United Nation Development Program and the World Bank. 1 1.6 Chapter 3 presents an analysis ofthe contribution of nature tourism to the Zambian economy. The analysis draws upon a Tourism Demand Survey undertaken in 2005 to assess key characteristics of tourists, tourist expenditures, and willingness to pay for tourism activities (using contingent valuation methods). The expenditure data from the survey is used to estimate the direct plus indirect contribution of nature tourists to exports, GDP, wages, government revenue and employment.
1.7 The impact of nature tourism on poverty reduction is analyzed in Chapter 4. Revenue from hunting in Game Management Areas (GMAs) is shared with local communities, and there are potential spill-over benefits from tourism activities in national parks. To understand the contribution of nature tourism to local economies, a GMA Household Survey was undertaken in 2006 in GMAs as well as comparative non-GMA communities. This chapter reports on the results of quantitative evaluation techniques to assess the net benefits from hunting and related tourism activities in GMAs.
1.8 The management of the main tourism asset, the wildlife estate, is analyzed in Chapter 5. This chapter considers the key institutional challenges in the sector: (1) capacity issues within the Zambia Wildlife Authority (ZAWA); (2) financing and capitalization of the sector; and (3) the importance of rethinking the governance and incentive framework of GMAs.
1.9 Finally, Chapter 6 summarizes key conclusions and highlights the policy implications ofthe study.
2 2. TOURISM AS A GROWTH SECTOR:
CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES
A. INTRODUCTION
2.1 Zambia’s tourism industry established itself in the 1950s, and despite short interludes of serious investments, particularly in the 1970s, mid-1980s and from 2000 onwards, it remains an emerging industry. Regardless, the Government has recently promoted the sector to one of four pillars of the economy - alongside mining, agriculture and manufacturing. Under these circumstances it is vital to have a clear understanding of what targets are being sought and how tourism can be developed to meet the expectations of the Government and of the sector’s investors.
2.2 First, it must be recognized that Zambia’s tourism industry is developing within a context of international and regional growth. Globally, tourism is expanding rapidly, fuelled by widespread economic growth and the associated increase in disposable incomes. Since 2000, this phenomenon has started to benefit southern Africa more noticeably due to customer demand for new destinations and products. Historically, Zambia’s stake in the industry has been insignificant, but the past five years or so have witnessed a steady growth in the tourism sector, projected to deliver over 1.4 million tourist arrivals by 2015 (see Figure 2.1).
FIGURE 2.1: Existing and projected growth in tourist arrivals to Zambia
Total Tourist Arrivals Projected to 2015
1,600,000
v) 1,400,000 2 1,200,000 1,000,000 800,000 ! *Totall .%L 600,000 400,000 200,000
Years
Source: Projected from data from Ministry of Tourism, Environment & Natural Resources.
2.3 It is worth pointing out that the sector has developed with limited government support. The recent growth correlates with the increase in foreign and domestic investments following the Government’s decision to privatize key tourist assets. The privatization process was induced by the marked declines in copper revenue and real economic growth characterizing the 1980s and 1990s, which made it necessary to consider other sectors, including tourism as potential new sources of economic growth. In part, this also built on increasing global recognition of the potential growth and multiplier effects oftourism with regards to economic development and diversification.
3 Paper of 200 1. The current Fifth National Development Plan (FNDP) has Box 2.1 What is a Tourist the focus On tourism and for The World Tourism Organization defines an international the first time identified specific targets for tourist as a person who travels to and stays in a place tourist arrivals, employment and outside his usual environment for less than one earning~‘~. consecutive year for leisure, business and other purposes. However, this document is mostly interested in the 2.5 Although the new prioritization of holiday-maker, i.e. the tourist who travel for leisure, and tourism should assist the sector, it is then a sub-set defined as nature tourists, Le. holiday- important to address constraints facing the makers traveling with the purpose to visit natural tourism industry in Zambia including attraction such as the Victoria Falls. national parks and policy, regulatory and business facilitation nature-basedad’enture activities.
B. GLOBAL TOURISM TRENDS
2.6 The tourism industry worldwide has shown significant and mostly sustained growth over the past five years with total tourist arrivals reaching 789 inillion in 2005. Africa attracted the smallest fraction (4.7%) of international tourists arrivals (see Figure 2.2), but exhibited the highest regional growth (32%) since 2000, second only to the exceptional growth in the Middle East (61%)14. By the end of 2006, the World Tourism Organization recorded a further 16.5% increase in international tourism to a total of 842 million tourist arrivals, with an average growth rate of4.8% to 2005 (exceeding the projected rate).
FIGURE 2.2: Worldwide tourist arrivals by destination region (2005)
World Inbound Tourism by Destination Region, 2005 I
Source: World Tourism Organization.
13 Tourist arrivals to increase from 515,000 (2005) to 736,450 (2010); employment from 19,650 to 30,404 and earnings from $174 million to 5304 million. 14 In 1990, the Middle East attracted 63% of Africa’s tourist arrivals, but by 2004 it had overtaken Africa. Clearly, tourism marketing in countries such as Egypt, Syria and the Emirates is worth studying.
4 2.7 Given the present high levels of disposable income in most parts of the world, these trends are expected to continue to a projected level of 1.6 billion tourist arrivals by 2020'5. There are provisos, however, including volatility in the oil market, security issues, and that macroeconomic conditions in source regions do not deteriorateI6.
2.8 One interesting feature of tourist arrivals after 2004 is the emergence of new trends and niches, in particular involving greater environmental awareness and cultural interests. This development, which has diversified the tourism industry through the emergence of new destinations and products, has benefited Africa. The continent has seen significant growth in 2005 and the highest regional growth in tourist arrivals in 2006 (8.1% - double the global rate). Within the African region, sub-Saharan Africa recorded an even higher growth of 9.4% with South Africa and Kenya as the main beneficiaries.
2.9 Outside Africa, Asia and the Pacific continue to lead with tourist arrivals growing at 7.6% in 2006, in spite of tsunamis and other natural disasters. Within this region, South Asia recorded a 10% growth with India as the main beneficiary. Europe and the Americas are growing more slowly with emerging destinations in Central and South America showing growth above 5%.
C. REGIONAL TOURISM TRENDS
International Arrivals
2.10 Figure 2.3 illustrates international tourist arrivals in south-eastern Africa in 2004; showing South Africa's dominance with 53% of all tourist arrivals in the region and Zambia's comparatively poor performance (4%). Overall trends indicate that tourist arrivals to the region will grow to between 16 million and 20 million by 20 10, with the cluster of countries around Zambia, the is Zambia's main competitors, out-performing the region as a whole.
?IGURE2.3: Tourist arrivals in south-eastern Africa. -_ South-East Africa Tourist Amivals 2004 (Thousands)
Malaw
3 Mozambque
0 Namibla
6,815
Source: World Tourism Organization.
l5Tourism 2020 Vision, World Tourism Organization, 2005. '' World Tourism Barometer, World Tourism Organization, January 2007. 5 2.1 1 Figure 2.4 shows the trends in tourist arrivals in Zambia’s main competitor countries in south- eastern Africa. Data for South Africa has been removed to clearly show the performance ofthe other countries in the region. Zambia’s comparatively small share of the market is evident, but equally its steady growth pattern. The latter may relate to increasing interest in the real Africa, Le. low-volume but high-value wildlife destinations, or may represent a more complex array of factors.
FIGURE 2.4: Tourist arrival trends in South-Eastern Africa
South-East Africa Tourist Arrivals Trends 1990-2005
-6- Botswana 2,500 , I -v) U -8- Malawi = 2,000 2 Jt Mozambique 2 1,500 t +Namibia 4 1,000 +Tanzania 500 *g4 +Zambia
&Zimbabwe 1990 1995 2000 2003 2004 2005
Years
Source: World Tourism Organization.
2.12 Whichever reason applies, given Zambia’s relatively small budget for tourism marketing (see Table 2.1), this demonstrates the potential in increasing national marketing efforts to the levels of competitor countries.
Country Annual promotional budget ($) Visitor arrivals Botswana Tourism 7 million 1,523,000 Namibia Tourist Board 6 million 700,000 SATOUR (South Africa) 180 million 6,8 15,000 Tanzania Tourist Board 18 million 566,000 , Zambia National Tourist Board 1.5 million 5 15,000”
International Tourism Receipts
2.13 Table 2.2 indicates that although Zambia is good at attracting new tourists, it is less successful in securing maximum financial benefits from those tourists. In part this is due to the relatively short average stay of tourists in Zambia (6.9 days, compared with 8.6 in Botswana and 12.4 in Namibia) but doubtless it also reflects the lack of depth in the Zambian tourism infrastructure. The tourism supply chain is short and the ability to move tourists between destinations within Zambia is limited by infrastructure and transport shortcomings.
2.14 As indicated in Table 2.2 there is a clear discrepancy between the high receipts for Tanzania and Mauritius on the one hand, and lower receipts for Namibia, Botswana and Zambia on the other. Perhaps not coincidentally the first two countries both have coastal resources. If Zambia could l7 According to the WTO, 515,000 international visitors arrived in Zambia in 2004, while the Zambia National Tourist Board records 610,109 visitors. This variation points to the inadequacy of data in the tourism sector.
6 diversify its supply and value chain to the extent of Tanzania (that receives a similar number of tourist arrivals), the possibility exists for tourism earnings to be increased by as much as a factor 4.
TABLE 2.2: International tourist arrivals, tourism receipts and ratios
Country Tourist arrivals Tourist receipts ($ ‘000) Receipts/ Receipts/ 2003 2004 2003 2004 tourist (%) tourist/day ($) Botswana 1,406,000 1,523,000 457,000 549,000 343 40 Malawi 424,000 471,000 23,000 24,000 53 Mauritius 702,000 7 19,000 696,000 853,000 1,090 Mozambique 44 1,000 470,000 98,000 95,000 212 Namibia 695,000 nla 330,000 403,000 503 41 Tanzania 552,000 56.6,OOO 647,000 746,000 1,246 Zambia 413,000 515,000 149,000 161,000 334 52
2.1 5 Interestingly,Namibia,, Botswana and Zambia all generate tourism receipts in close proportion to their average length of tourist stay. What differs is that Zambia’s receipts per tourist per day are 30% and 27% higher than those for Botswana and Namibia respectively. This tends to confirm - not that Zambia’s tourism industry is more effective - but rather that Zambia is a high cost destination. Finding ways to reduce the costs of tourism operations is central to increasing market share in the region. On the opportunity side, Table 2.2 suggests that Zambia’s tourism supply base has considerable growth and diversification potential at the lower end of the market.
D. PROFILE OF ZAMBIAN TOURISM
2.16 The tourism sector in Zambia is strongly oriented towards nature tourism, yet there are fewer than 250 licensed nature tourism accommodation providers countrywide. Map 2.1 shows that major tourism supply side clusters have developed in only a few key urban and national park locations18, with a strong bias to the Livingstone region (that offers nearly 40% of all nature tourism beds).
2.17 Other factors indicative of a limited base include the extreme seasonality of Zambia’s nature tourism”; the under-capitalization of many of its operations; a restricted pool of trained personnel; poorly developed national marketing; and limited policy, legislation and planning for the sector.
Tourism Assets
2.1 8 Zambia’s tourism industry is currently based on two principal assets: the Victoria Falls and the country’s wildlife estate in national parks, GMAs and game ranches. In popularity, the Victoria Falls (approximately 106,000 visitors in 2005) outshines the safari product (approximately 6 1,000 visitors in 2005). This is due to the Victoria Falls being a one-time attraction, a “must see” site that appeals to a large range of visitors as it only requires a short stay and, therefore, can be pegged to weekend getaways and added on to visits to the region.
2.19 As a result of the “pull” factor of the Victoria Falls, tourism activities in Livingstone are relatively well developed compared to other regions in Zambia. The area has a large proportion of Zambia’s adventure tourism capacity, an excellent museum, interesting old street facades, some cultural tourism, a depth of tourism linkages and easy access to complementary and competing facilities in Zimbabwe, Botswana and Namibia. In fact, Livingstone has partly substituted (in tour operator itineraries) the much more developed town of Victoria Falls in Zimbabwe, and it has the potential to develop into the preferred regional hub or gateway2’.
leThe cities of Livingstone, Lusaka, Ndola and Kitwe and the South Luangwa and Lower Zambezi NPs. In many national parks limited to a five to seven-month season. 7 MAP 2.1: Distribution of main tourism investments
2.20 Nevertheless, Zambia is rich in alternative although scarcely visited natural attractions such as spectacular landscapes (the Luangwa and Tanganyika rift valley escarpments, the upper Zambezi and Kafue flood plains, the gorges on the Zambezi and the montane areas in the north-east); waterfalls (mainly in the Northern and Luapula Provinces); and lakes, rivers and associated water activities (especially the rift valley lakes, Tanganyika and Mweru; Lake Bangweulu; Lake Kariba; and the major river systems, Zambezi, Kafue, Luangwa, Chambeshi and Luapula).
2.2 1 Zambia also has a rich and well researched Iron Age heritage and an equally rich pre- and post-colonial history, but besides from a few traditional ceremonies (especially the Kuomboka in the Western Province); cultural, archaeological and historical assets are rarely included in tourist itineraries. Neither is special-interest tourism based on themes such as birding, fishing, railways, etc.
Tourism Circuits
2.22 National tourism planning has identified three potential tourism circuits: a western circuit incorporating the Victoria Falls, the upper Zambezi and the Kafue National Park; a central circuit linking Lusaka, the Kafue Flats, the Lower Zambezi National Park and the Kariba shoreline; and an
2" At its peak in the early 1990s, Victoria Falls Town received over 800,000 tourists annually. The expectation that Livingstone could grow in a similar way is valid because the locations are essentially comparable. 8 north-eastern circuit, including the North and South Luangwa National Parks, extending northwards to include the Bangweulu Basin and the northern lakes and waterfalls.
2.23 In reality only a single combined circuit exists, linking the Victoria Falls (Livingstone) with the South Luangwa and Lower Zambezi National Parks. Logistical issues, low densities of tourism establishments and an absence of real incentives have so far precluded development of the three circuits. Strategies will have to be developed to counterbalance the current bias on Livingstone, and possibly recognize the northern lakes and waterfalls as a separate entity. This will require significant levels of analysis and planning, investments in air and ground infrastructure, and linkages with regional partners (particularly with the southern Tanzanian tourism circuit, the four comers region linking Botswana, Namibia, Zambia and Zimbabwe, and the Malawi-Zambiacross-border region).
The Wildlife Estate
2.24 The wildlife estate comprising 19 National Parks and 34 Game Management Areas (see map 2.2) is the main tourism product after the Victoria Falls. Table 2.3 shows the steady growth in entries in national parks between 2003 and 2005.
TABLE 2.3: National parks and number of visitors, 2003-2005
I 2003 2004 Lower Zambezi National Park 4,413 6,059 6,040 Mosi-oa-TunyaNational Park 23,497 17,762 19,972 South Luangwa National Park 19,728 23,929 25,814 Kafue National Park 3,812 3,789 6,202 Lochinvar National Park 390 415 Other National Parks* 700 2,024 2,588
~ 52,540 53,978 61,400 Total international visitors 40,388 38,821 4 1,964 Total local visitors 12,152 15,157 19,436 I Total I 52,540 53,978 6 1,400 Source: Zambia Wildlife Authority. * North Luangwa, Liuwa, Kasanka, Luambe, West Lunga, Sioma Ngwezi, Sumbu, Chete Island.
2.25 Of the 19 National Parks, four are emerging as tourism flagships:
e South Luangwa is the most popular park. Nested in the Luangwa Valley, its products are the classic safari as well as walking safari. Animals are plentiful and sightings are rewarding. It includes endemic large mammals such as Thornicroft’s giraffe and Cookson’s wildebeest.
e Lower Zambezi is popular for its canoe and boat safaris on the Zambezi River. Angling for tiger fish is becoming a central attraction, and tourists can enjoy large populations of hippo and elephant with the escarpment as a dramatic backdrop.
0 Kafue is emerging as the last wilderness in southern Africa. Larger than the Kruger National Park in South Africa, it offers an unmatched variety of wildlife. Its main features are Lake Itezhi-tezhi and the Busanga and Nanzhila Plains with large concentrations of antelopes and predators including tree-climbing lion.
e Mosi-oa-Tunyais a small park adjacent to the Victoria Falls on the Zambezi River. It offers a quick glance of Africa’s wildlife, including the only white rhino in Zambia.
9 MAP 2.2: National Parks and Game Management Areas in Zambia
Source: Zambia Wildlife Authority (2007).
2.26 Other parks are slowly entering the market as well:
0 Kasanka is the only park where tourists are almost guaranteed to observe the elusive sitatunga antelope. Its main attraction, however, is the annual migration of millions of fruit bats by the end of the year. It is located near the Bangweulu Swamps, which harbor large concentration ofthe endemic Black Lechwe.
0 Liuwa Plain is located on the large flood plains of the Lozi kingdom. Home to the second largest migration of blue wildebeest in Africa, this park offers vast grasslands teeming with wildlife, and, apparently, some of the largest lions in Africa.
0 Blue Lagoon and Lochinvar, on opposite banks of the Kafue River in the Kafue Flats, are relatively easily accessible from the capital of Lusaka. Both parks feature extraordinary bird life as well as large concentrations of the endemic Kafue Lechwe.
Tourism Supply Capacity
2.27 In 2003, the Ministry ofTourism, Environment & Natural Resources recorded a total of 8,774 tourist beds located in around 340 accommodation establishments countrywide. Recently, Zambia has experienced a significant increase in bed night availability, especially in Livingstone where several new hotels are completed or under construction and others are planned. A 2005 survey2' of the Livingstone region reported 3,802 tourist beds, of which 1,558 were provided by hotels. By way ofcomparison, the Zimbabwean hotel capacity in Victoria Falls was 2,636 in 200422.
~~ 21 Livingstone Tourism Survey, Support for Economic Expansion and Diversification Project, Ministry of Tourism, Environment & Natural Resources, Lusaka (2006). 10 FIGURE 2.5: Availability of nature tourist accommodation units by region
National Availability of Nature-Based Accommodation Units, by Region
11 19
Livingstone and Rapids Lowr Zambezi 0 Lung4 Kafue, Kafue Flats Lusaka
W South Luangwa 0 Western andNorth-Western 30 I Source: Zambia Nature-based Tourism Supply-Side Survey (2006).
2.28 The Nature-based Tourism Supply-side Survey identified a total of 229 nature tourism accommodation providers in Zambia in 2005. Together they offered 4,429 beds and 1,38 1,290 bed nights at an average of 3 12 bed nights per bed (Le. many smaller providers are not open all year). Figures 2.5,2.6 and 2.7 show the distribution and capacity of nature tourism establishments identified in the survey, illustrating the significantly higher volumes and level of product diversity in the Livingstone region.
FIGURE 2.6: Availability of nature tourist bed nights by region
Availability ofBed Nights in Nature-Based Tourism Establishments by Region Kariba Lakeside
=Livingstone and Rapids
OLower Zambezi
OLunga, Kafue, Kafue Flats Lusaka
Northern
South Luangwa
Western and North- Western
Source: Zambia Nature-based Tourism Supply-side Survey (2006).
2.29 Figure 2.7 illustrates the relative paucity of nature-based bed nights provided by hotels. Considering the absence of hotels and large lodges in the national parks, this explains the small average group size of tourists visiting Zambia (see Figure 2.15). The need exists to re-examine the
'' Economic Impacts of Transfrontier Conservation Areas: Baseline of Tourism in the Kavango-Zambezi TFCA, Conservation International, South Africa (2005). 11 low volumeihigh value mantra of tourism is Zambia to accommodate the high volumes of tourists that are necessary for economies of scale in the industry.
FIGURE 2.7: Availability of nature tourist bed nights by accommodation type
4,320 170,280 Hotels Tourist Lodges 42,480,j / UBackpacker Lodges Tourist Camps Traveller Lodges Self-catering Camps Community Camps OBush Camps Walkinghlobile Camps Large HouseboatsKruiserr 0 Small HouseboatsiCruiseri 289,620 uv 67,320 Camp Sites Source: Zambia Nature-based Tourism Supply-Side Survey (2006).
2.30 Zambia’s tourist products are largely marketed through foreign travel agents and tour operators. Only a limited number of local tourism operators exist, many ofwhich function as safari operators as well. Consequently, local tourism operators are reluctant to interact in a marketing context, and this limits the capacity for creating packages and tailor-made tours in Zambia, which, otherwise, could increase the length of stay in the country.
2.3 1 In other words, it is necessary to diversify and strengthen the product base and supply chain in Zambia. While such initiatives must be demand driven, strategic choices in public sector investment could enhance their success. Basic infrastructure, taxation regimes, and support for training initiatives are three key issues.
E. PROFILE OF ZAMBIAN TOURISTS
Purpose of Visit
2.32 Establishing the purpose of visit for tourists depends on the arrival forms filled in by visitors at entry points to Zambia. Figure 2.8 demonstrates that tourists arriving for holiday amount to 30.8% of all tourist arrivals, but tourists visiting friends & relatives (VFR) are likely to include some holiday time as well. However, holiday-makers are likely to be over-represented in the statistics, as business people, especially from neighboring countries may well classify their visit as holiday rather than bus in ess .
2.33 Figure 2.8 illustrates an opportunity for tourism growth in the form of conferencing. Only 1.5% of tourists classified their visit as conferencing, a frequently lucrative business in other countries. Spectacular sites such as the Luangwa and the Zambezi rift valleys would be well suited to this niche market if access was easy and affordable. This would extent the small market already created principally by facilities at the Victoria Falls (Livingstone).
12 FIGURE 2.8: Tourist arrivals to Zambia by purpose of visit, 2005
40.0% 37.8%
35‘0% 30.8% 30.0%
25.0%
20.0% 16.0% 13.9% 15.0%
10.0%
5.0% 1.5% 0.0% Holiday Business Conference VFR Other Source: Zambia National Tourist Board.
2.34 Figure 2.9 provides more detail on the purpose of holiday visits, indicating that more than half Zambia’s holiday-makers (54%) arrive with the intention of visiting the Victoria Falls and only approximately half that number come for Zambia’s wildlife attractions (28%). Overall 88% of holiday-makers are nat~re-based~~.What is unclear is the proportion of visitors that visit the Falls as a primary attraction, but also visit one or more wildlife tourism sites, and vice versa.
FIGURE 2.9: Stated purpose of holiday visit, 2005
Purpose of Holiday Visit Among Sample, 2006
Victoria Falls
B Wildlife
0 Adventure tourism
Hunting
Other
~- Source: Tourism Demand Survey (2005).
2.35 The Nature-based Tourism Supply-side Survey indicated that while North American tour agents showed a major preference for the Victoria Falls in their itineraries, southern African, European and Australasian agents all viewed wildlife destinations with equal importance. Overall, the
23 This proportion may be higher because non-specific reasons for visiting Zambia such as ‘part of package’, ‘recommended by friend’ or ‘good previous experience’ are classified as ’other’ in the survey. 13 small sample of international tour agents surveyed indicated that the Victoria Falls and the South Luangwa National Park had equal ranking in their demand-driven itineraries (see Table 2.4).
TABLE 2.4: Importance ranking of destinations by principal international tour agents
Y, 1 Others (state)? I 51 11
2.36 Nevertheless, what is clear is that at present the availability of bed nights in the Livingstone region (46% of all nature tourism bed nights) compared to other nature tourism destinations in Zambia is a response to current demand patterns. Other factors, such as accessibility, linkage to regional tour routes, travel cost and marketing effort are likely to have influenced this status. It is changes in the weighting of these factors that hopefully will change the current heavy destination polarity over time.
Country of Origin
2.37 Figure 2.10 demonstrates that southern Africa is the primary source area for Zambia’s holiday-makers. These data, however, are probably contaminated by inaccurate records of cross- border trade movements in particular with neighboring countries. As previously explained, business people are likely to classify their visit as holiday rather than business. Data for the rest of Africa are exposed to a similar although less significant contamination.
FIGURE 2.10: Holiday and VFR visitors to Zambia by source region, 2005.
Holiday and VFR Amvals to Zambia, 2006 South Africa
Southern Africa (other)
0 Total East Africa
Total North, West & Central Africa
United Kingdom
Europe (other)
United States of America
Americas (other) 6% 8% Australia
Other Asia and the Pacific
Source: Zambia National Tourist Board.
2.38 The second largest source region is Europe, with the United Kingdom as the primary country. Other regions such as the Americas, Australasia and Japan are small contributors to Zambia’s tourism.
14 FIGURE 2.1 1: Holiday-makers in south-eastern Africa by source country (2005)
W UK 3.2% USA 4.3% 0 Germany 2.8?4 W France 2.7% W Italy 1.8%
Source: Zambia Nature-based Tourism Supply-Side Survey (2006).
2.39 When examining European holiday tourists specifically, figure 2.1 1 illustrates Zambia’s need for targeted marketing in source markets. The United Kingdom is clearly a source market for most of south-eastern Africa, but the relative proportion of other nationalities visiting East Africa indicates that these are potential markets worth investigating in Zambia.
Duration of Stav
2.40 The Tourism Demand Survey indicated that nature tourists stay on average stay 6.9 days in Zambia (see Figure 2.12). As noted earlier this is significantly less than in competitor countries.
FIGURE 2.12: Duration of stay by nature tourists.
- - __ Source: Tourism Demand Survey (2005). i 45 - ~ 1
2.41 Usually, the length of stay is linked either to the diversity of activities at a specific tourism site, or to the number of sites in that country. Figure 2.13 shows that 84.5% of all nature tourists only
15 visited one site in Zambia in 2005. This is mainly because Zambia is combined with other countries inthe region, typically Botswana (87%), South Africa (80%), Malawi (67%) and Namibia (55%)24
FIGURE 2.13: Number of sites visited in Zambia by holiday-makers
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0 One Site Two Sites Three Sites Four + Sites Source: Tourism Demand Survey (2005).
Grout, Size
2.42 The other major determinant oftourism earnings is group size. The larger the number of tourists travelling together the larger is the potential earning capacity per tour booking. Figure 2.14 illustrates that nearly half of all nature tourists arrive in groups of two, and that almost 80% of all tourist arrivals are in small groups of four or less. Only 1 1% arrive in groups larger than six.
FIGURE 2.14: Mean group size of nature tourists
Mean Group Size of Nature-Based Tourist Groups
singles Doubles 03-4 05-6 07- 10 11 - 15 I>16
2.43 Regional variations in group size reinforce existing perceptions, that the largest percentages of single tourists are associated with conference locations, particularly Lusaka and the Kariba shoreline. The Kariba shoreline also supports the highest percentage of groups larger than 16 (19%),
24 Zambia Nature-based Tourism Supply-Side Survey, World Bank (2006). 16 which doubtless reflects conferencing as well. Mid-range groups (3 to 6) are more common in driven safari areas. The high percentage (60%) of groups of two in the Livingstone region reinforces the perception that it is a weekendhhort visit destination strongly oriented to couples.
2.44 Encouraging larger tourists groups will be easiest in the Livingstone region where accommodation is reasonably well developed. Elsewhere the successful marketing of larger group sizes will depend on the determined promotion of large-scale investments. Income and Education
2.46 The tourism demand survey demonstrates that the average Zambian tourist is economically active and well-educated. Only 13% oftourists to Zambia are retirees, and 88% have a post-secondary education. 55% oftourists are “top end”, 36% middle bracket and 9% economy tourists. These results all support the contention that Zambia is a high cost destination.
Number of Visits
2.45 Most tourists to Zambia are first-time visitors (see Figure 2.15), confirming the emerging nature oftourism in Zambia.
F. IMPEDIMENTS TO GROWTH
2.47 In 2004, international tourists and agents identified five advantages in Zambian tourism:
0 Excellent wildlife, scenic, cultural and adventure resources. 0 Low density, real Afiica image and adventure tourism capacity. 0 Price competitiveness. 0 Diverse destination options in an emerging tourism market. 0 Friendly people.
FIGURE 2.15: Number of visits to Zambia by tourists
Number of Visits to Zambia by Sampled Tourist Arrivals
80.0% 70.0% 60.0% 50.0% 40.0% 30.0% 20.0% 10.0% 0.0% Once Twice 3-5 6-10 > 10 times times times Number of Visits
Source: Tourism Demand Survey (2005).
2. 8 Yet, the 2007 Travel and Tourism Competitiveness Index25ranks Zambia 94 out of 12 countries. Zambia falls behind some of its neighboring competitors such as South Africa (62),
25 The Travel and Tourism Competitiveness Report 2007 - Furthering the Process of Economic Development, World Economic Forum, Geneva (www.weforum,org/en/initiatives/gcp/TraveIandTourismReport/index.htm). 17 Botswana (70), Namibia (73) and Tanzania (80) -but is ahead of Kenya (98), Uganda (101), Zimbabwe (1 07) and Malawi (1 14). The country got its best score (72) for travel and tourism human, cultural and natural resources and its worst score (1 20) for travel and tourism business environment and infrastructure. Specific weaknesses include infrastructure (in particular ground transport and information and communications technology), human resources (wellness, education and training), health and hygiene standards and low price competitiveness (caused by rising prices in 2005/06).
2.49 A recent World Bank studyz6explored reasons for Zambia’s relative under-performance in tourism. Two main conclusions were reached: 1) Zambia is receiving far fewer tourists than its first- class nature attractions should do; and 2) the principle reasons for this are its relatively undeveloped infrastructure and business and investment climate, which makes it a high cost destination. Daily expenditure for travelers in Zambia is higher than in any other competing country (see Figure 2.16).
FIGURE 2.16: Tourists’ average daily expenditure ($)
200 Package expendlture per 150 day
100 Independent 50 travel expendlture per day 0 Zambia Tanzania Kenya South Namibia Botswana Africa
Source: Expenditure survey data for various years: Namibia (2003), South Africa (2005), Botswana (2004), Kenya (2004), Tanzania (2004), Zambia (2005).
2.50 The study concluded that Zambia could attract 5 1% more tourists if it was performing on u pur with South Africa. In reality Zambia does not have the infrastructure to support arrivals at this level, nor can it be expected to match the South African economy. Nevertheless, the implications are clear: if Zambia can improve its tourism infrastructure along with the regulatory and other business and marketing aspects of its tourism industry, there will be a measurable, positive impact on the performance of the sector and the economy.
2.5 1 Some of these impediments are well recognized by the Government and listed in the Fifth National Development Plan (FNDP):
Underdeveloped infrastructure. Limited product base relying on wildlife. Inadequate country marketing. Insufficient government funding. Lack of community interest and participation. Inadequate management of natural resources. Shortage of well-trained human resources. Zambia is a high cost destination.
26 Services, Trade & Development: the Experience of Zambia, 2007, Palgrave Macmillan/World Bank. 18 2.52 Other impediments include:
0 Lack of a realistic vision for the sector along with the planning and regulatory functions capable of delivering the vision. The tourism industry is marked by out-dated tourism policies and inadequate sector planning, partly due to limited public sector management capacity, partly due to poor legislative environment.
0 Lack of economies of scale throughout the supply chain. The tourism industry needs to diversify across products, across the country and across borders. The goal is to increase tourist volumes, complement low volume/high value approaches and capture elements of the tour package market.
0 Lack of attractive investment environment. The tourism sector needs to consolidate existing investments while actively encouraging new initiatives, especially domestic investments as well as high volume establishments.
0 Lack of consistent statistics and databases.
Underdeveloped Infrastructure
2.53 International access to Zambia is limited and expensive. The airfare to Zambia from key markets averages $1,500 which is almost double the average to Kenya. Only British Airways flies direct from Europe to Lusaka with three flights per week. Regional connections are available through Johannesburg, Harare, Nairobi, Addis Ababa and Dar es Salaam.
2.54 The recent rehabilitation of the airport in Livingstone supported by the European Development Fund has proven a critical catalyst in realizing existing investments (e.g. the Sun International) and mobilizing supplementary spin-off benefits. Livingstone now has more major hotel investments in the pipeline together with a plethora of supporting tourism activities and services. Similar initiatives are needed elsewhere in the country, especially to anchor further growth in the Kafue National Park as well as in the three main tourism circuits.
2.55 If the objective of Zambian tourism remains a balanced growth of all tourism circuits, then strategies will have to be developed that will off-set the current bias on Livingstone (see Box 2.2). These should include incentives that will reduce the considerable risk in establishing scheduled air services on new routes in underdeveloped areas. Fifth, sixth and/or seventh freedom of air opportunities*’ could be used to incentivize scheduled air routes into new areas by using business traffic to support tourism growth.
2.56 Map 2.3 illustrates the current tourist arrival routes, demonstrating the service gaps in the north-east and north-west. Although the development of existing Zambian airline and charter businesses need support, new approaches should not be overlooked, e.g. the Livingstone-Mfuwe- Johannesburg and Kasama-Mbeya-Dar es Salaam routes.
’’ 5th freedom: the right for an air carrier of country A to pick up revenue traffic, including passengers in country B destined for country C or vice versa. 6th freedom: a service taking passengers between countries B and C which flies via country A. 7th freedom: a service between countries B and C operated by airline of country A - a “free-standing fifth freedom”. 19 Box 2.2. Livingstone as a Hub?
An issue worth some consideration is the focus on the Victoria Falls (Livingstone) as a flagship destination. Although this is one of Zambia's most favored tourism destinations, concerns have been expressed about the skewing effect this is having on the development of Zambian tourism. Firstly, Livingstone is a short- duration destination (approximately 2 days) and a typical package tour will seek cheap extension destinations, currently only available in Botswana, Namibia and Zimbabwe. Possibly, these neighboring countries will benefit more than Zambia from the recent lengthening of the runway at Livingstone Airport. Certainly, focusing on Livingstone will make the development of other tourism circuits, particularly the north-east, more difficult. The converse argument is that an increased throughput of tourists will develop local tourism service industries and stimulate innovating ideas for re-directing tourists into Zambia.
2.57 Investments in all-weather tourism airfields widely distributed throughout Zambia along with the subsequent maintenance of them need encouragement as an integral element of tourism development.
TABLE 2.5: Booking materials preferred by nature tourists and their booking agents
h3 h 3 2 G /I & z a 2 W -3 2 % e I- v1 % a - 0 5 cli w 3 4 National tourism website 49% 34% 8 YO , 40% 33%s National tourist brochures 29% 24% 4% 20% 21% Operator websites 83% 62% 100% 100% 78% Operator brochures 51% 62% , 48% 80% 5 7% Email communication 5 7% 52% 128% 160% 49% Side Survey (2006).
Inadecluate Countrv Marketing
2.58 Several studies have identified the need for more effective destination marketing for Zambia. One of them, the Nature-based Tourism Supply-side Survey, demonstrated that operator websites and other documentation are the preferred formats for international tourists and agents booking holidays in Zambia (see Table 2.5), significantly exceeding the use of national tourist websites. Although the survey also recognized that Zambian tourism promotional material was at least on apar with that of competing countries, the need for a much more significant investment by government in tourism marketing is clearly warranted. In particular national, circuit and national park branding need to be introduced more effectively to support the Real Africa label that Zambia already has established.
Shortage of well-trained Human Resources
2.59 Another outstanding issue - and a recommendation ofthe EU-funded Tourism Development Program2' - is the re-organization of the hospitality training facilities in Zambia. There is a paucity of fully trained tourism and hospitality staff in Zambia, and this will become increasingly critical as the tourism sector continues its expansion, especially outside traditional tourist areas. A significant effort
** Tourism Development ProgrammeiTranstec, 1999: Tourism Development Framework, Ministry of Tourism. 20 is required to establish a suitable set of standards, training subject matter and curricula and training processes. Further efforts are then needed in encouraging the private sector to enter this market, which in turn will require some regulatory structure and criteria.
Zambia is a High Cost Destination
2.60 One of the growing areas of concern among tourism operators is the rising cost of Zambian destinations. Zambia is further from sea ports and intercontinental airport hubs than most competitor countries, thus, the landed costs of imported fuel and goods (on which Zambian tourism is still heavily dependent because of the country’s limited manufacturing sector) are higher. Zambia has also been identified as a “high effort” destinationz9with no nearby oceanic tourist coastline. To off-set these disadvantages and successfully compete with its neighbors, Zambia must ensure effective regulation, good infrastructure and the clustering of facilities in order to reduce direct transport costs and realize economies of scale.
Tourism Planning
2.6 1 In the mid-199Os, the Ministry of Tourism, Environment & Natural Resources developed a Medium Term Tourism Strategy and Action Plan. The plan was based on four pillars, including: (1) establishing a tourism focus for Zambia based on the Victoria Falls; (2) linking the Victoria Falls to the Kafue National Park as Zambia’s flagship park; (3) developing three tourism circuits; and (4) creating interlinking hierarchical tourism facilities within nine core tourism areas.
2.62 The main strategies were: 1) to use the branding of national parks as a central focus in marketing Zambian tourism; 2) to develop domestic tourism; and 3) to build public-private linkages in the industry in order to strengthen implementation and regulation.
2.63 The Plan is a sound document, especially when combined with many of the outputs produced by the subsequent Tourism Development Program. However, more than a decade later, the Plan is not used as a guide to tourism development in Zambia. In part the failure is the outcome of inertia on finalizing the Tourism and Hospitality Bill, which, although started in the mid- 1990s, remains incomplete and increasingly questioned by many stakeholders who believe that the draft by now is outdated.
2.64 In Table 2.6, we examine how the current tourism infrastructure would score against the objectives of the Plan. The absence of any widely circulated material on the status of the Plan, or possibly re-definition of its objectives and goals, reinforces concerns that tourism planning is not being given the resources or the priority it requires. If these resources were to be made available it will be necessary to invest heavily in tourism data collection, analysis as well as storage and retrieval systems as a pre-requisite to an effective planning and monitoring function.
2.65 If Zambia is to develop its tourism sector in a more predictable, geographically balanced and successful manner, the primary requirement, as recognized in the FNDP, is the development of a simple and realistic Tourism Master Plan that incorporates:
Long-term tourism sector targets and milestones (keeping in mind that commercial developments commonly need at least five years to realize their full potential).
Improved statistical data collection and management system.
29 Grant Thornton Kessle Feinstein, 2003: Study for Development and Promotion of Tourism in Zambia. 21 MAP 2.3: Tourist arrival routes
Balanced development of Zambia’s tourism circuits, especially weak and new circuits (Kafue, western Zambia and the northern waterfalls/lakes).
0 Essential road, air, ITC and power infrastructure (outstanding projects include the Chipata- Mfuwe and Itezhi-tezhi Roads and the Kasama and Kasaba Bay Airports).
The critically important supporting framework of policy and legislation; establishing standards, licensing and training capacity; improving marketing (especially national destination marketing); and sector management and regulation.
2.66 The Plan must take due cognizance of current shortcomings, as well as the more systemic issues. Long lead time issues such as the development of training capacities; the establishment ofphysical infrastructure; and the development ofeffective country, circuit and product marketing require immediate attention. Issues needing less preparation such as the development ofa planning function; improvements in data collection and management; an overhaul of the standards and licensing functions; and improvements in regulatory functions can be incorporated more flexibly.
22 TABLE 2.6: Progress against objectives in the Tourism Strategy and Action Plan
No. Item I Score I Reason 1 OBJECTIVES 1.1 Competitive advantage in low 60% Largely individual initiatives rather than a volume, high cost wilderness and coordinated strategy adventure tourism 1.2 Identify target development areas 25% Livingstone only 1.3 Promote domestic tourism 15% Local piecemeal initiatives, especially in I Livingstone, but no national strategy 1.4 Public-private linkages developed 1 10% I Limited real progress 2 PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT
6 I DEVELOPMENT OF CLUSTERS 6.1 I Development ofhierarchical tourism 1 15% I Practically no planning outside ZAWA’ clusters in each tourism area general management plans, which does not include hierarchical planning 6.2 Tourism area plans and committees 10% Need to develop real public-private partnerships
Regulatory Environment
2.67 The inadequacies ofthe tourism regulatory environment have been an area of concern for some time. Zambia still does not possess an effective tourism classification and standards system. Suggestions for such systems were made in the late 1990s under the Tourism Development Program, but have not been followed up adequately3’. The absence ofsuitable systems and the capacity to monitor and enforce them is having negative impacts through a failure to reward quality and control compliance avoidance, thereby giving unfair advantages to those that pursue this path.
2.68 Taxation is another concern. The corporate taxation rate of 35% is comparatively higher than that in regional competitor countries. Although tourism is a non-traditional export sector, it does not receive the reduced (15%) corporate tax available to agriculture and other sectors. Furthermore, value added tax (VAT) is not equally applied - with Livingstone being VAT exempted since 1991 while other areas aren’t. Also some segments ofthe tourism sector are zero rated for tax while others aren’t.
30 Output reports of the Tourism Development Program, 1998. 23 2.69 Suggestions have been made for a “guillotine” approach to rationalizing and simplifying Zambia’s tourism regulatory environment, where regulatory requirements are passed through a cascading set of criteria. Elements that fail to meet the criteria (legally supported, necessary, business friendly, etc.) are passed on for further review and appeal before a final list is approved3’.
2.70 Furthermore it is vital to strengthen the commercial management functions in the MTENR and ZAWA, as neither institution is recognized for the excellence of their customer services. In excess of 90% of all responding tourism operators considered regulatory authorities to be either 1) unprofessional and obstructive, or 2) inefficient and ~npredictable~~.
2.71 In effect this translates into high costs of setting up and operating tourism enterprises. Tourism operators indicate that the direct cost of regulatory compliance ranges between $2,000 and $30,000 per annum and the time cost of obtaining them between $2,000 and $20,000. It is of equal interest that operators from different regions declared different licensing requirements (from 2-4 in one area to more than 12 in the Livingstone region), reinforcing the concern that regulatory systems are not being applied in a systematic and predictable manner. The Hotel and Catering Association estimates that the annual cost of their regulatory compliance is in the region of ZMK 9.5 million33.
Investment Environment
2.72 Although the public sector has played a very useful role in facilitating the growth in tourism in Livingstone, generally it is accepted that Zambia’s improved competitiveness is due largely to private sector initiative, drive and persistence. However, the private sector is sensitive to the overall business and investment climate (see Box 2.3).
2.73 Zambia’s investment climate has improved following macroeconomic and other policy shifts in government since 1999. Nevertheless, the country lags behind international and regional investment areas on a number of important issues, mainly labor management and productivity, taxation and macroeconomic stability. For example, the 2005 Zambia Investment Climate Assessment concluded that Zambian companies use over $12,000 of capital per unit of labor whereas in East African competitor countries the figure is around $3,50034.Other areas ofdisparity included value addition: 23 US cents per unit of capital in Zambia compared with approximately 60 US cents in Uganda; the ratio of labor to value addition is 0.41 in Zambia and 0.32 in China.
2.74 The report concluded that “the future of private sector-led growth does not lie in selected industry promotion by the Zambian government but rather in creating policies and institutions that encourage investors to productively and creatively employ their resources and people.” Accordingly, the Governments ofthe Netherlands and France are now supporting capacity building in the private sector umbrella organization, the Tourism Council of Zambia. Furthermore the Ministry of Tourism, Environment & Natural Resources has pledged to encourage tourism investment in northern Zambia, but logistical issues, low density of tourism establishments and an absence ofreal incentives has so far precluded developments.
2.75 Other important issues to address for promoting private sector investments include the encouragement of strategic larger tourism investments, support to private sector-led community initiatives, further growth in small-scale suppliers of accommodation or tourism services, and the rationalization and effective investment in tourism marketing.
3’ Jacobs and Astrakhan, 2006; Mattoo and Payton, 2007 ’*Zambia Nature-based Tourism Supply-Side Survey, World Bank. 33 Mattoo and Payton, 2007. 34 Africa Private Sector Group, 2005: Zambia Investment Climate Assessment, World Bank, Washington. 24 Box 2.3. Private Sector Concerns
The private sector lists the following key concerns in the 2005 Zambia Investment Climate Assessment:
High cost of financing (especially with high interest rates prevailing until late 2005). Lack of macroeconomic stability (for example the 30%+ Kwacha appreciation in late 2005). High tax rates and the often unilateral management of tax collection and administration. Limited access to finance (especially for smaller enterprises). High crime, fraud and disorder rates and limited confidence in the Police. Corruption at all levels. Interrupted electricity supplies. Poor labour skills and low productivity. Convoluted customs and trade legislation and implementation problems similar to the tax sector. Transport inefficiencies and high transport costs (and poor operations on the railway systems). Difficult access to land and often corrupt and slow administration of titles. Limiting labour regulations (especially terminal benefit provisions). Excessive requirements for business licensing and permits (especially in the tourism sector). Slow and uncertain administration by the courts.
2.76 Nevertheless, the recent creation of a one-stop investment office, the Zambia Development Agency (ZDA) should facilitate new investments, provided it is able to secure its powers in key areas such as land acquisition, employment permits, tax benefits and streamlined regulatory compliance support. Previously, such initiatives have all developed into contentious facades that have ultimately removed the effectiveness of the investment support instrument. Furthermore, any existing investment license needs to be re-instated - at a considerable fee - a rather obvious fund generator for the ZDA.
Lack of Incentives
2.77 Zambia’s investment situation improved briefly in the early 1990s through fiscal and other investment incentives established under the 1993 Investment Act. In the subsequent years these incentives have largely been withdrawn or eroded. In a tourism context there are effectively no incentives although macroeconomic planning frameworks from the Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper (PRSP) and the Transitional National Development Plan to the current FNDP all alluded to tourism being private sector-driven and to being one of four pillars of the economy.
2.78 The 2006 investment legislation apparently limits significant incentives to investments greater than $500,000. Real tax and other incentives are offered for investments of more than $10 million. Nor are there any incentives for smaller domestic investors (who are unlikely to raise $500,000).
2.79 One element that was introduced in 2002 for smaller Zambian tourism investors under the PRSP was the Tourism Development Credit Facility. This instrument is administered by the MTENR. Its effectiveness and credit recovery levels are not widely known, but it has been accessed by a number ofZambian investors.
2.80 The Citizens Economic Empowerment Policy and Act, now awaiting presidential approval and commencement, introduces the objective of providing specific business advantages for Zambian owned (shareholding) and Zambian influenced (management) businesses and for targeted citizens. Anticipated opportunities for these groups will include procurement advantages and access to direct or employee shareholding schemes, directorships and greater access to management positions. Access to land and to training and other forms of empowerment are also intended.
2.8 1 The impact of the Act cannot be accurately predicted, but its success will doubtless depend heavily on how pragmatically and effectively it is introduced, the level of political influence and the performance of the economy. Ifcircumstances permit a constructive and positive implementation of
25 the policy, it could have significant impacts on empowering, capitalizing and formalizing the informal sector, diversifying the economy through building and deepening supply and value chains, especially in rural areas, and on encouraging further domestic and foreign investment in Zambia. Most of all it could be a major catalyst in raising Zambia’s productivity levels, thus ensuring sustainability of the policy and achievement of its ultimate objective of economic growth and prosperity.
High Volume Investments
2.82 Although Zambia has adopted a low volumehigh value approach to tourism, in reality it will be necessary for some strategically placed, high volume tourism entities to become part of the tourism plan. These will help to generate the economies of scale on scheduled air transport routes and to support local charter flight operations - key areas in linking tourists and destinations. The Tourism Strategy and Action Plan anticipated this need in the form of apex entities within each tourism cluster. Provided the location of these high volume (hotels and large lodges) entities is well planned, their density impact can still be low and limited.
2.83 The need to scale-up investments in tourism is illustrated by how the Sun International Group in Livingstone has resulted in 60,000 more visitors, over 1000 jobs and an additional $16 million in direct and indirect tourism earnings35.Zambia’s tourism cannot grow without further emphasis on attracting large investments. This strategy needs to be linked and supported by an SME linkages development program to increase the participation of local firms in the tourism economy.
35 Personal comm. Sun International Management. 26 3. NATURE TOURISM:
CONTRIBUTION TO THE ZAMBIAN ECONOMY
A. INTRODUCTION
3.1 Statistics from the World Tourism Organization shown in Table 3.1 indicate that Zambia is solidly in the middle rank of African tourist destinations when it comes to international tourism receipts as a share of GDP.
TABLE 3.1: Tourism receipts of selected African countries, 2003
International tourism receipts ($) Percent of GDP Namibia 333 million 7.8% Ghana 4 14 million 5 -4% Botswana 356 million 4.8% Tanzania 450 million 4.4% Zambia 149 million 3.5% Senegal 184 million 2.9% South Africa 4270 million 2.7% Kenya 339 million 2.4% Mozambique 98 million 2.3% Madagascar 76 million 1.4% Source: World Tourism Organization.
3.2 The goal of this chapter is to delve into the contribution that nature tourism makes to the Zambian economy. The principal tool used for this task is a Tourism Demand Survey carried out by the World Bank in Octoberhlovember 2005. The objectives of the survey included: (1) understanding the basic socio-economic characteristics of Zambian tourists, (2) identifying the purpose of visit, (3) measuring duration of stay and number of sites visited, (4) recording perceptions of quality, and (5) measuring willingness to pay for visits to national parks and for their improvements.
3.3 The results of the survey are combined with an Input-Output table in order to estimate the impacts of nature tourists on wages, employment, value added and tax revenue. These results also shed light on the much debated leakages.
3.4 Internationaltourists visit Zambia for a variety of reasons, including holiday, business, visitingfiiends and relatives, etc. Since the Zambian Government seeks to make tourism’s contribution to the economy grow significantly, this chapter focuses on the portion of the tourist universe most sensitive to government policy: holiday-makers and in particular nature tourists.
B. SURVEY DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY
Sample Design
3.5 The Tourism Demand Survey aimed for a sample of 1,800 tourists. In the end, 1,578 agreed to fill out the questionnaire (see Annex 1). The survey was carried out for a period of 25 days using a cross sectional sample of tourists.
3.6 The target population for the survey consisted of internationaltourists who were interviewed at either international airports (Lusaka and Livingstone) or in lodges and hotels in and around national parks (South Luangwa, Kafue and Mosi-oa-Tunya). Tourists were interviewed at the end of their stay in Zambia.
27 3.7 For the purposes of this survey, tourists were stratified into internally homogenous categories based on their respective origin and mode of transport used to visit the country and the sites. This implies that tourists who traveled by air were interviewed at the two international airports whilst self- drive tourists were covered in their respective lodges and hotels around Livingstone town, Kafue and South Luangwa National Parks.
Sample Selection
3.8 In order to minimize selection bias, the survey employed a systematic sample of tourists in airports and parks. In the case of airports, the interviewer was expected to interview every i’th tourist that entered the departure lounge after immigration clearance. In the parks, every i’th tourist was selected using a lodginghedding list provided by the operators. In the case of Kafue and South Luangwa National Parks, the field teams targeted tourists who had completed their park activities.
3.9 The sampling interval was determined as follows:
(Available number of tourists) (Sampling Interval) = (Required daily sample of tourists)
3.10 Table 3.2 shows the distribution oftourists by interview location. Roughly 55% of the sample was interviewed in the international airports, with the remainder interviewed at lodges and hotels in Livingstone, South Luangwa and Kafue.
Interview Location Number of Tourists Proportion (YO) Lusaka Airport 424 26.9 Livingstone Airport 460 29.2 Livingstone Town 306 19.4 South Luangwa National Park 248 15.7 Kafue National Park 140 8.9 Total 1,578 100.0
3.1 1 In 2005, 668,862 visitors visited Zambia (see Table 3.4), out of which the survey sampled 1,578 visitors. Even though the sample size may appear to be small relative to the total number of visitors, it is sufficient to provide reliable estimates of the average characteristics of all the tourists visiting Zambia in 2005, as demonstrated by confidence intervals for key variables.
3.12 A confidence interval generates a lower and upper limit for the mean. The interval gives an indication of how much uncertainty there is in the estimate of the true mean. The narrower the interval, the more precise is the estimate. The confidence coefficient of 95% is the proportion of samples of size N that may be expected to contain the true mean. That is, if many samples of the same size N were collected and the confidence interval computed, in the long run about 95% of these intervals would contain the true mean.
3.13 Table 3.3 shows the 95% confidence intervals for three key variables in the analysis. For example, the average expenditure for a non-package tourist in Zambia is between $1,038 and $1,146. The number ofdays spent in Zambia by an average tourist is from 6.4 to 7.4 days. And an average visitor to Livingstone is willing to pay from $26.70 to $28.40 for visiting the Victoria Falls. The narrow range of 95% confidence intervals of these key indicators implies high degree of reliability of the sample means as estimates ofthe true population mean.
28 TABLE 3.3: 95% confidence intervals for selected indicators
N Mean Low High Average expenditure per tourist trip 558 1092 1038 1146 Number of days in Zambia 1131 6.9 6.4 7.4 Willingness to pay for Livingstone 899 27.6 26.7 28.4
TABLE 3.4: Visitor arrivals 2005: Area of origin by purpose of visit
Area of Origin Holiday Business Conference VFR" Other Total South Africa 48,O 10 34,475 2,219 12,108 13,460 110,272 Zimbabwe 16,23 1 69,666 1,632 44,256 16,65 1 148,436 Other Southern Africa 13,640 19,224 1,273 8,781 7,967 50,885 Total Southern Africa 77,881 123,365 5,124 65,145 38,078 309,593 Kenya 2,446 5,227 122 1,659 2,284 11,738 Tanzania 6,120 39,490 463 8,070 11,738 65,881 Other East Africa 2,654 7,838 181 3,390 3,386 17,449 Total East Africa 11,220 52,555 766 13,119 17,408 95,068 Central Africa 7,075 23,032 336 7,393 9,944 47,780 North Africa 700 973 55 429 595 2,752 West Africa 809 3,224 84 1,057 633 5,807 Total West & Central Africa 8,584 27,229 475 8,879 11,172 56,339 Denmark 1,752 1,089 72 528 701 4,142 France 4,609 1,667 85 666 997 8,024 Germany 9,915 4,080 269 1,490 2,006 17,760 Italy 4,168 1,755 90 712 973 7,698 Sweden 2,366 1,570 160 685 957 5,738 United Kingdom 23,788 10,761 547 4,066 5,207 44,369 Other Europe 13,056 6,332 457 2,816 3,210 25,871 Other Scandinavian 4,678 1,428 190 670 1,144 8,110 Total Europe 64,332 28,682 1,870 11,633 15,195 121,712 Canada 5,684 2,631 130 1,173 1,612 11,230 South America 1,020 588 120 275 452 2,455 United States of America 13,734 4,783 616 1,979 2,783 23,895 Total Americas 20,438 8,002 866 3,427 4,847 37,580 Australia 9,264 3,977 153 1,234 1,708 16,336 India 3,290 2,695 166 1,135 1,372 8,658 Japan 2,146 1,433 118 588 919 5,204 New Zealand 4,529 1,468 87 592 959 7,635 Other Asia 4,29 1 3,552 202 1,069 1,623 10,737 Total Australasia 23,520 13,125 726 4,618 6,581 48,570 Grand Total 205,975 252,958 9,827 106,821 93,281 668,862 Share by purpose 30.8% 37.8% 1.5% 16.0% 13.9% 100.0% Total minus southern Africab 176,104 164,068 6,922 53,784 68,663 469,541 Total minus Africab 156,300 84,284 5,68 1 3 1,786 40,083 3 18,134 iource: Zambia National Tourist Board. a:VFR: Visiting friends and relatives, b: South Africa is included in the total.
29 C. THE TRUE NUMBER OF NATURE TOURISTS
3.14 When determining the economic impact of nature tourism, it is important to define which universe of tourists should be used in the analysis. Table 3.4 summarizes the distribution of all tourists visiting Zambia in 2005, compiled from arrival figures provided by the Zambia National Tourist Board. The data were collected from twelve ports of entry, including Nakonde, Kasumbelesa, Mwami, Chirundu, Kariba North, Kazungula, Victoria Falls, Katima Mulilo borders, and Ndola, Mfuwe, Lusaka and Livingstone International Airports.
3.15 From Table 3.4, we can derive a conservative figure for the total number of foreign nature tourists of 176,104. Southern African (minus South African) holiday-makers have been subtracted due to cross-border contamination caused by business people coding their visit as holiday rather than business. A lot of ‘‘tourists” from neighboring countries are actually on day trips for commerce.
D. TOURIST PROFILE
Visitor Origin and Purpose of Visit
3.16 Table 3.5 breaks down the basic information on the tourists sampled in the survey. Ofthe 1,578 tourists in the total sample, 1,4 17 were able to provide both region of origin and purpose of visit information. The high percentage of holiday-makers reflects the fact that the sampling strategy for the survey was designed to capture information about holiday-makers primarily.
TABLE 3.5: Number of tourists in the sample by origin and purpose of visit
Region of Origin Holiday Business Conference VFR Other Total Holiday share UK 352 25 3 30 1 41 1 30.9% Other Europe 367 27 7 57 4 462 32.2% North America 21 1 27 6 19 0 263 18.5% AsidPacific 119 12 2 14 0 147 10.4% South Africa 79 22 1 9 2 113 6.9% Neighboring SSA’ 10 4 1 2 0 17 0.9% Other 3 0 1 0 0 4 0.3% Total 1,141 117 21 131 7 1,417 100.0% Shareby purpose 80.5% 8.3% 1.5% 9.2% 0.5% 100.0% Source: Tourism Demand Survey (2005). a: Includes Angola, Botswana, DRC, Malawi, Namibia, Tanzania and Zimbabwe.
3.1 7 The proportion oftypes of visitors in Tables 3.4 and 3.5 cannot be compared. Still, they show that business travelers are under-represented in the sample, which may be linked to individual business travelers making multiple visits per year (which a one-shot survey would miss) or to seasonality, or the fact that the city ofNdola was not sampled. Additionally, there is an under-count of South African holiday-makers which may be seasonal or related to the over-weighting of international airports in the sample, as many South Africans arrive by road.
Visitor Satisfaction
3.1 8 Visitor satisfaction is an important issue for tourist destinations; it certainly affects whether nature tourists return again, and may be influential in the informal marketing of a destination by word of mouth. The survey asked tourists to rank the major destinations in Zambia according to overall satisfaction as well as specific sub-components: accommodation, food and beverages, transport, safety, value for money and, in the case of the parks, wildlife abundance. Table 3.6 reports the overall satisfaction with the major sites.
30 TABLE 3.6: Nature tourists’ overall satisfaction with sites (YO)
Good Verygood Livingstone (Victoria Falls and Mosi-oa-Tunya) 44 46 South Luangwa National Park 34 61 Lower Zambezi National Park 29 68 Kafue National 54 40 Source: Tourism Demand Survey (2005).
3.19 Overall, at least 90% of nature tourists were satisfied or very satisfied with the destinations they visited (only 5 tourists in the sample rated their experience as ‘bad’). Tourists were also asked how likely they would be to visit Zambia again, as there may be good reasons for not returning, for example, a desire to see more of Africa. However, 84% of nature tourists said they would visit again.
E. ECONOMIC IMPACT OF NATURE TOURISM
Distribution of Tourist Expenditures
3.20 The key to the economic impact of tourism is the total amount of expenditure incurred by tourists in Zambia and the distribution of these expenditures across different goods and services. The tourist survey asked respondents to break down their total trip expenditures both inside and outside the country.
3.2 1 In identifying tourist expenditures an important distinction has to be made between package and non-package tourism. 5 1% of holiday-makers in the survey sample were not traveling on a package, meaning that they purchased transport to Zambia, local travel, accommodation, food, shopping and activities as separate transactions. The remaining 49% bought a full package in their home country, with or without airfare, or bought a package in Zambia. Table 3.7 reports the levels of expenditure for these different categories of holiday-makers.
TABLE 3.7: Nature tourists’ average expenditures without airfare
Per person Average Per person per trip ($) stay (days) per day (!$) Overseas package bought with airfare (airfare subtracted)’ 2,540 5 508 Overseas package bought without airfare 3,098 7 443 Local package 1,137 6 190 Local non-package 1,092 8 137
3.22 Table 3.7 suggests that the average international package tourist paid roughly $2500-$3 100, compared with roughly $1 100 for tourists who either bought a package in Zambia or made individual purchases of goods and services in Zambia36.The latter figure is the best estimate of the economic impact of international tourists on the Zambian economy because it excludes overseas services.
3.23 Finally, the distribution of expenditures within Zambia matters when examining economic impact as different sectors (accommodation and transport for example) may vary in their employment intensiveness and degree of linkage to the domestic economy. Table 3.8 presents the average expenditures for non-package holiday-makers for different categories of goods and services.
36 Since most South African holiday-makers are non-package tourists, the small difference between local package and non-package expenditures in Table 3.7 suggests that the undercount of South Africans in the survey sample will not have a significant effect on the estimates of the economic impacts of tourism in Zambia. 31 TABLE 3.8: Breakdown of expenditures per nature tourist per trip (non-package)
Category of expenditure $ Hotel 583 Transportation 200 Food 240 Shopping 31 Activities 186 Source: Tourism Demand Survey (2005).
Input-Output Table
3.24 As seen in the section above, the average nature tourist spends $1,100 in Zambia, and these expenditures are distributed across different goods and services in proportion to the figures appearing in Table 3.8. This information can be combined with the 1998 Input-Output (IO) table3’ for Zambia to estimate the impact of nature tourism on value added, wages, employment, tax revenue and imports.
3.25 IO tables are built around a matrix of inter-sectoral flows detailing how much of the intermediate demand for goods and services in a given production sector is met by other sectors in the economy. Detailed information on value added broken down into wages, indirect taxes and operating surplus complete the production accounting system. IO models make the strong assumption that factor inputs are fixed in proportion, but have the unique property of being able to trace sectoral inter- linkages in great detail.
3.26 The methodology employed in this analysis is to tie the IO table to households; then a thousand Kwacha of expenditure on the output of a sector such as Hotels and Restaurants generates a certain amount of wage income and net surplus which accrues to households, who then spend this income by consuming goods and services. In addition, when the Hotels and Restaurants sector produces one thousand Kwacha worth of output, it must purchase inputs of food, beverages, water, electricity, communications, manufactures, and so on. These inputs are either imported or produced by other sectors in the Zambian economy. When all these transactions are added up it is possible to arrive at a total measure ofthe direct plus indirect production, value added, wages, employment, tax revenue and imports required in order to meet this demand38.
Impact on the Economy
3.27 Table 3.9 shows the economic impact of one nature tourist in Zambia. In rough figures, $1,100 worth of expenditure by a nature tourist generates nearly $2,300 worth of GDP in the Zambian economy (the ‘tourism multiplier’ is therefore 2. l), $1,300 worth of wages and net income of unincorporated business (NIUB), $420 in tax revenue, and $425 worth of imports of goods and services. Every three nature tourists generate one full-time equivalent job in the formal sector39.
37 This IO table may appear dated for the analysis of tourism in 2005. However, as long as the structural parameters of different sectors (the relative proportions of intermediate and primary inputs) are fairly stable over time there is no particular issue with regard to the vintage of the IO data. While the copper sector has restructured since 1998, it sells none of its output to other sectors in Zambia, thus does not affect the calculation of the direct plus indirect effects of nature tourist demand featured in this section. Technically the re-spending by households is an ‘induced’ effect, but we will simplify the terminology. 39 Note that this should not be taken literally. Three nature tourists generate fractions ofjobs across the different sectors ofthe economy, and these fractions add up to one full time equivalent job.
32 3.28 Table 3.9 further shows the economic impact of 176,000 nature tourists each spending $1 ,I00 in Zambia4’. This level of spending represents an export value to the economy of $194 million or 3.1% of 2005 GDP.
TABLE 3.9: Direct and indirect economic impact of nature tourism in 2005
Value added $2,288 1 $ 403 million I 6.5% Indirect taxes $152 $ 27 million 0.4% Corporate taxes $265 $ 47 million 0.8% Imports $425 $ 75 million 1.2% Wages & NIUB $1,298 $ 228 million 3.7% Employment 0.307 54,000 jobs n/a
3.29 In 2005, government revenue was about 17% of GDP in Zambia, exports 20% and imports 27%. The story given by Table 3.9 can therefore be portrayed in the following broad terms: When direct and indirect linkages are included, nature tourism contributes nearly 16% of Zambian exports, over 6% of wages and net income of unincorporated business4’, 7% of government revenue, nearly 10% of formal sector employment, over 4% of imports, and 6.5% of GDP (see Figure 3.1). In comparison, the direct and indirect impact of the public protected area estate in Namibia constitutes less than 6% ofGDP4*.
FIGURE 3.1: Direct and indirect contribution of nature tourism to the Zambian economy, 2005
16%
14%
12%
10%
8%
6%
4%
2%
0% Exports Govt revenue GDP Wages 8 NIUB Employment Source: Authors’ calculations.
3.30 Tourism also compares favorably with other sectors in the Zambian economy such as agriculture (6.5% of GDP), Manufacturing (10.6%) and Mining & Quarrying (8.6%)43.
40 The impact on the Zambian economy is calculated using 2005 GDP at Atlas exchange rates of $6.19 billion as the benchmark. Atlas exchange rates use a 3-year running average, which dampens out the effects of sharp appreciations such as that experienced by the Kwacha in 2005. 41 The wages and NIUB generated by nature tourists is 3.7% of GDP as reported in Table 3.9, which represents 6.2% of total wages and NIUB in the economy. 42 Anchor Environment Consultants (2004). 43 Central Statistical Office (2005): constant 1994 prices. 33 Impact on Employment
3.3 1 As shown in Table 3.9, every three nature tourists generate one full-time equivalent job in the formal sector44.Accordingly, the direct and indirect contribution to employment of 176,000 nature tourists is in the order of 54,000 formal jobs (about 19,000 jobs when indirect linkages are excluded). As this is generated by one quarter of all international visitors in 2005, it compares well with other Zambian growth sectors such as agriculture (56,000 jobs), mining (46,000 jobs) and manufacturing (56,000 jobs)45.
3.32 The Hotels and Restaurants sector, accounting for more than 60% ofnature tourist expenditures (see Table 3.Q is a major contributor to employment. Table 3.10 shows the number of direct and indirect formal sector jobs generated by different economic sectors in response to one billion Kwacha of additional final consumption expenditure. The very low figures for textiles and leather, other manufacturing, and chemicals reflect the high import content of these goods, for example, on average 6 1% of final consumption expenditure on ‘other manufacturing’ is imported.
TABLE 3.10: Direct and indirect employment content of ZMK 1 billion final consumption
Sector No. of jobs generated Construction 184 Trade 182 Hotels & restaurants 182 Real estate & business service 158 Forestry 142 Financial institutions & insurance 138 Transport & communications 137 Livestock & fishing 133 Agriculture 132 Community & personal services 123 Mining & quarrying 120 Food, beverages & tobacco 117 Electricity, water & gas 115 Textiles & leather 59 Other manufacturing 47 Chemicals 40 Source: Authors’ calculations.
3.33 In terms of direct and indirect employment generation per unit of final expenditure, the key supplier of tourism services, the Hotels and Restaurants sector, is virtually at the head of the list, equaling wholesale and retail trade and only slightly lagging construction.
3.34 Actually tourism is a low generator of informal jobs. According to the Central Statistical Office, 44% of employment in the hotel and restaurant industry is informal compared to 7% in the mining industry, 99% in agriculture and 66% in manufacturing.
F. INCREASING THE ECONOMIC IMPACT OF NATURE TOURISM
3.35 The Tourism Demand Survey found that nature tourists on average stay 6.9 days in Zambia. This is low compared to competing destinations such as Botswana (8.6 days), Kenya (13.4 days),
44 Note that three nature tourists generate fractions ofjobs across the different sectors ofthe economy, and these fractions add up to one full time equivalent job. 4s The Central Statistical Office (2006). 34 Namibia (12.4 days), South Africa (12 days) and Tanzania (14.2 days). One ofthe most direct ways to increase tourism receipts in Zambia is to increase the number of days that nature tourists spend in the country.
3.36 Increasing the length of stay to match the equivalent figure for Botswana is a reasonable goal, at least in the short run. This would imply an increase of about 2 days and extra expenditures of $190 per day (see Table 3.7). Multiplying these figures by 176,000 nature tourists leads to an increased value oftourism exports of $67 million or an additional 1.1% of direct GDP. When indirect linkages are included through the tourism multiplier, the overall impact could be as large as 2.2% of GDP.
3.37 The length of stay is often closely TABLE 3.11: Expenditure for non-package nature tourist linked to the number of sites that a tourist visits. As reported in Chapter 2, 84.5% of holiday-makers in Zambia visit one site only, usually the Victoria Falls. Table 3.1 1 shows the average expenditure per tourist Two Sites 12.0% 1,258 per trip broken down according to the Three Sites 3 .o% 1,447 number of sites visited. On average each Source: Tourism Demand Survey (2005). additional site adds $200 to expenditures Data for 4+ sites not shown owing to small sub-sample size. in Zambia per person per trip.
3.38 The other way to increase tourism receipts in Zambia is to attract more visitors through better promotion of Zambia as a tourist destination. However, the limitations of infrastructure and transport in Zambia would act as a bottleneck in tourism sector expansion. As discussed in Chapter 2, improving tourism receipts will likely require actions on several fronts, including (1) increased promotion of Zambian tourism in source markets, (2) infrastructure investments, particularly in transport, and (3) scaling up of private sector investment in hotels and lodges as well as local tour operators who can promote multi-site packages.
G. LINKAGES AND LEAKAGES
3*39 A concern that is commonto TABLE 3.12: Cost of overseas services (including flights) for many tourist destinations is the nature tourists in Zambia question of financial leakages. In most all-inclusive package tours, up to 80% oftravelers' expenditures go to airlines, hotels and other 1,100 international companies with headquarters in the source markets, and not to local businesses. The good Source: Tourism Demand Survey (2005). news is that out of the 206,000 a: $1,100, equivalent to the average of local package and local holiday-makers that Zambia received non-package is the best estimate of overseas package tourists' expenditures in Zambia. in 2005' most arrive On b: $1,527 is the average airfare reported for holiday-makers who tailored holidays. Either they have purchased their own flight to Zambia. purchase travel, accommodation, food, shopping and activities as separate transactions - in Zambia - or they buy a local package - in Zambia. Only 30% or 60,000 tourists arrived on an overseas package with overseas services (including flights), constituting over 70% ofthe package price (see Table 3.12).
3.40 Contrary to common beliefs these overseas services are not a leakage from the Zambian economy! Rather, they are payments for services in the source markets, including representation, marketing, insurance and flights; services that are used to sell the Zambian product, without which there would be no benefit at all to Zambia. Instead it makes more sense to compare tourism with other export industries; i.e. regarding overseas services as a leakage in the Zambian tourism industry is like
35 suggesting that Kenya should not be exporting coffee because the ‘leakage’ rate when an American buys a tall coffee at Starbucks is 99.4% (see Box 3.1).
Box 3.1. Coffee Leakage
According to information from Global Exchange, the price paid for raw coffee at auction in New York averages $0.50 per pound, while the price paid to the farmer in Kenya averages about $0.30 per pound. The difference represents local processing costs, wholesaling margins and transportation costs. When an American consumer buys a pound of coffee at retail they may pay $10-$12 for a pound of roasted coffee beans. The difference between this price and the New York raw bean price consists of processing, roasting, packaging, transport, wholesale and retail margins.
When this same consumer buys a tall coffee at their local Starbucks, they pay $1.75 for an amount of coffee beans that they could buy at retail for $0.35. Here the difference in price consists of renting retail space, hiring service staff, paying for expensive coffee-making equipment, marketing, providing cream and sugar, and so on. The Kenyan farmer who grew the coffee beans in question would have received, on average, $0.01 for them. So the leakage rate on a coffee at Starbucks is 1 - 1/175 or 99.4%.
Underfair trade schemes, the farmer is paid $1.00-$1.20 for the same pound of beans that previously fetched $0.30. This means that the farmer is receiving $0.03-$0.04 for the beans in the tall coffee purchased for $1.75 at Starbucks, and the leakage rate is therefore about 98%.
3.4 1 It is a common misconception that a host country is entitled to capture the entire value chain between source and destination markets. Rather, decision-makers should focus on the portion of the global value chain that is accounted for in Zambia. Then, leakage comprises imports, expatriate salaries and profit repatriation.
3.42 Every holiday-maker, regardless oftheir package arrangements, spend about $1,100 in Zambia; a figure that compares favorably with other countries, e.g. Kenya ($405), Tanzania ($1 ,I05) and South Africa ($879)46.However, within the $1,100, about $200 is leaked through imports. This is money that leaves the country to pay for a good (e.g. food, specialized equipment, etc.) or service (e.g. expatriate salary) not available in Zambia. It is unlikely, however, that the tourism sector is worse than other export industries such as mining.
3.43 Repatriation of profits is often mentioned. Commercial enterprises pursue profit optimization rather than a host country’s development objectives, and profit repatriation to the parent company often comprise an essential contribution to overhead costs and corporate profits. Barriers to profit repatriation will therefore deter many overseas investors. Rather, reinvestment should be encouraged through a combination of incentives and competition. Markets with many operators tend to limit profit repatriation, as the degree of reinvestment is regulated according to demand.
3.44 In Zambia, however, there is very little leakage in the form ofrepatriation of profits, as the tourism sector, more so than in other countries, is dominated by small and medium-size operators without the necessary vertical integration. With the exception of the Sun International, Zambian tourism enterprises are therefore heavily reliant on overseas service providers.
3.45 Although overseas services, as pointed out previously, not can be considered a leakage, they can be reduced by encouraging local participation in the tourism industry and support services. This will require significant commitments of resources to capacity building and skills development. It will also be vital to ensure financial resources targeted specifically at providing credit to local entrepreneurs to improve existing enterprises and enable new businesses to open, and to ensure that they can operate successfully in the long run.
46 World Tourism Organization - Africa Report 2006. 36 3.46 In order to increase the scale of accommodations and the number of local tour operators with the capacity to move large volumes of tourists around Zambia, it is necessary to address infrastructure impediments, as well as the limited operating season in Zambia. The Masai Mara in Kenya receives 50% more rainfall than South Luangwa or Kafue National Park, but the operating season is 1 1 months, and the Tanzanian government has extended the season in the Serengeti from 6 months in 1990 to 12 months in 2000 by upgrading key access roads to all-weather standard.
3.47 Zambia is fortunate to have attracted a good number of foreign investors in the tourism sector, who have provided access to overseas markets. As a result of the increase in foreign investments there has been substantial growth in Zambian-owned businesses serving the sector. Although few Zambian investors have ventured into national parks, in the Livingstone-Kazungulacorridor, Zambians own about 65% of accommodation (excluding the Sun Internati~nal)~’.
3.48 To further this development, it is essential that decision-makers focus on building new linkages within the economy rather than on plugging leakages. Linkages between tourism and the local economy can be boosted by improving the safety, health, education of population and the business environment. Policy intervention should be targeted at building a robust supply chain and strong cross-sectoral linkages.
47 Economic Impacts of Trans Frontier Conservation Areas: Baseline of Tourism in the Kavango-Zambezi TFCA, Conservation International South Africa (2005). 37 4. HOUSEHOLD WELFARE AROUND NATIONAL PARKS
A. INTRODUCTION
4.1 The Government of Zambia identifies tourism as an economic growth pillar. Several initiatives have been introduced in the areas around the national parks designated as Game Management Areas (see Box 4.1). However, the effectiveness ofthese initiatives and their impact on households’ living conditions remain unknown. This knowledge is key to identifying strategies necessary for increasing the contribution of nature tourism to the GDP. complemented by community-based programs in many countries. Community-based natural Box 4.1. Game Management Areas resources management emerged as a result of greater awareness ofthe difficulties of Game Management Areas (Gh4As) were created mainly achievingconservation without engagingthe to serve as bufSeer zones between national parks and local communities, It has the added advantage farming areas. Not only were they to provide opportunities for hunting, but also to contain the that it frees state resources and allows for mammalian hosts of the tsetse fly to prevent the spread political, administrative fiscal and of domestic livestock disease into farming areas. Gh4As decentralization. Over the years, i~~~rnationalare communal areas in which people generally live by organizations and governments have invested semi-subsistence agriculture, coexisting with wildlife. in various community-based programs and Other land uses such as fishing and harvest of forest institutions to help manage natural resources4*. products are permitted. Cash crop production and out- grower schemes supported by multinational companies 4.3 Most community-based programs try are also emerging, although commercial agriculture and to meet at least two complex goals: (1) other extractive land uses are restricted. conservation ofnature, and (2) economic
4.4 The CBNRM program in Zambia instructs the Zambia Wildlife Authority (ZAWA) to share its hunting revenues (see Table 4.1 and Box 4.2) and wildlife management responsibilities with the communities living in Game Management Areas (GMAs). The communities allocate the revenue between employment of village scouts, social infrastructure and development projects through community institutional structures called Village Action Groups (VAGs) and Community Resources Boards (CRBs).
48 USAID, 2003, UNDP-GEF, 2004, Shyamsundar et al., 2005, Emerton et al., 2005. 49 Wells and Brandon, 1992. 38 TABLE 4.1: Allocation of hunting revenued'
Zambia Wildlife Authority 50.00% I 80.00% Village Scouts 20.25% 6.75% Chiefs 5.00% 5.00% CRB administration 9.00% 3.00% Community projects 15.75% I 5.25% Total 100.00% 1 loo.ooo/o
~ ______~~_____ BOX 4.2. HUNTING (CONSUMPTIVE NATURE TOURISM)
Safari hunting is permitted in GMAs on game ranches and in the so-called open areas of Zambia, provided hunters posses valid firearm and trophy licenses. Safari hunting is primarily carried out by international clients in GMAs and on game ranches, raising around 90% of the Zambia Wildlife Authority's hunting revenue from approximately 10% of the available hunting quota, with a hunting season running from June to December. The hunting industry as a whole generates revenue in the range of $3.2 million per annum (average 2004 and 2005). Revenue is derived mainly from two sources: concession fees (paid for access to a hunting areas, normally for 5 years), and trophy fees (differential payments for different species according to rarity and importance to safari and local hunters). Other charges are levied for bird hunting licenses, CITES permits (for restricted species), trophy export permits and so on. Local hunters can obtain cheaper hunting licenses in GMAs in non-prime months, in open areas and in community areas.
4.5 The CBNRM program in Zambia evolved out ofthe Administrative Management Design Program financed by USAID in the 1990s. By 1997 tlie current institutional community structures were established. In this system, VAGs are composed of five to ten elected representatives from a cluster of villages of populations of 500-1,000. Each VAG elects its representative to sit on the CRB. Each CRB consists of 9-10 members and elects a chairperson. A ZAWA officer is assigned to a GMA under a CRB, as its unit leader.
4.6 The increase in nature tourism in Box 4.3. Direct Benefits from Safari Operators Zambia begs the question whether this kind of tourism has any impact on the welfare of The direct contribution of lodge operators and the communities and households living in hunting industry to welfare of GMA residents is far GMAs. Lodges and camps may employ from insignificant. Safari operators contribute to social local labor; increased demand for handicraft infrastructure; water, clinics and schools; they create and other nature-based products may employment; and they give financial and material provide new enterprising opportunities; support to other activities such as skills development; traditional entertainment and culture may e.g. carpentry, construction and farming. The overall magnitude of these benefits is unknown. The survey increase revenue potential from tourists - does not assess revenue and benefit streams; thus, and this survey seeks to measure these cannot differentiate these benefits from others such as potential welfare benefits (see Box 4.3). ZAWA revenues, but as they contribute to the overall household welfare, they are measured by the survey.
Animal fees, including trophy and all hunting licenses, are shared between ZAWA (50%), chiefs (5%) and CRBs (45%). Concession fees are shared ZAWA (80%), chiefs (5%) and CRBs (15%). Both CRB portions are distributed 20% to CRB administration, 45% to village scouts and 35% to community projects. 39 Box 4.4 Consumption as a Measure of Welfare
This study measures welfare in terms of per capita household consumption expenditure. It includes food and non-food consumption. Own produced goods as well as natural resources collected and consumed are included in this measure. 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, we use consumption-based measure of welfare and asset-based measure of wealth and poverty.
4.7 This chapter thus focuses on the economic welfare of households living in GMAs. A survey of households and communities in GMAs and other areas near national parks (non-GMAs) was carried out in AugustBeptember 2006. The survey seeks to measure differences in welfare, measured as per capita consumption expenditure (see Box 4.4) between poor and non-poor households5’ that may be attributable to residing in GMA and participating in VAG/CRB activities. Estimations of differences in welfare benefits between the poor and non-poor allow us to measure the possibility and extent of elite capture of benefits derived from the GMAs.
B. SURVEY DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY
Survey Objectives
4.8 The overall goal of the survey is to determine the impact on household welfare of the current GMA-specific policies and regulations, including VAGKRB participation.
4.9 Accordingly, the survey aims to address three objectives: (1) identify and quantify the factors characterizing the households in GMAs in comparison to household living outside GMAs, (2) identify factors that influence households in GMAs to participate in meetings and decision-making in VAGs and CRBs as a proxy measure for involvement in CBNRM, and (3) determine the overall impact of living in GMAs on the welfare of their households; the so-called “GMA effect”.
4.10 If the GMA effect has impact on welfare, the survey further seeks to establish how these benefits are shared between the poor and non-poor households. Subsequent research objectives are: (1) whether welfare is evenly distributed between participating and non-participating households in VAGs and CRBs, (2) whether higher welfare is associated with participation in VAGs and CRBs, (3) whether the poor and non-poor are better or worse off when living in GMAs, and (4) whether the poor and non-poor are better or worse off when participating in VAGs and CRBs.
Sample Design
4.1 1 Due to logistical and funding constraints, the GMAs in the north and north-western parts of the country were omitted. Given the proportion of GMAs sampled, this omission is unlikely to influence the national conclusions inferred from the survey. The remaining GMAs were grouped around national parks or groups of national parks into four park systems (see Table 4.2).
5’ The poor are defined as households in the bottom two quintiles with respect to consumer durable asset values. Conversely, the top three quintile asset-owning households are considered non-poor. This asset-based indicator of poverty is based on indicators of household wealth as opposed to household income or consumption. 40 TABLE 4.2: Sampled GMAs in park systems (designed for survey purpose)
Park system Associated national parks Sampled GMAs Control areas Bangweulu Kasanka NP Kafinda Lavushi Manda NP Bangweulu Chambeshi Luwingu Kafue Kafue NP Mumbwa Kaindu Blue Lagoon NP Kasonso Busanga Mufunta Lochinvar NP Kafue Flats North & South Lunga Luswishi Lower Zambezi Lower Zambezi NP Chiawa Rufunsa Luangwa South Luangwa NP Lupande North east Lukusuzi NP Lumimba Munyamadzi Chisomo
4.12 Each of these park systems was regarded as a reporting domain in the sampling process. A stratified two-stage sampling procedure was used, involving selection of standard enumeration areas (SEAs) in the first stage (see map 4.1) and selection of sample households from each SEA in the second stage. The sampling frame of SEAs was drawn by selecting all SEAs located in GMAs (digital GMA maps from ZAWA were overlaid on digital SEA maps from the Central Statistical Office).
MAP 4.1: National Park system and GMAs with sampled areas
Dark Gray: National Parks White: Game Management Areas Black: Standard Enumeration Areas (GMA)
%* Sl_
Source: GMA Household Survey, map by Central Statistical Office.
41 hunting activities). Two specialized GMAs also exist Stratum Area where Lechwe and unusual species may be hunted, and . Prime some GMAs have been categorized as completely Secondary depleted. To control for variations arising from GMAs Specialized differences in quantity and type of key species harvested, the frame of GMA SEAs was therefore subdivided into Understocked Non-GMA
4.14 A sample of 139 SEAs was drawn from the frame described above using probability proportional to size (PPS) sampling scheme, where the size is based on the 2000 Census of Population and Housing. The second stage of sampling was implemented using a list of households generated through a listing exercise, and a systematic probability sampling scheme. A total of 2,649 households were interviewed with about half of the sample (49 percent) living in control areas in the survey. 4.15 The non-GMA areas sampled were chosen on the border of the national parks to enable the sampling of communities who are exposed to a GMA-similar environment, generally of low human density and comparable quantity and quality of natural resources.
4.16 Some observations were lost due to non-response problems. Data were collected using household and community questionnaires (see Annexes 2 and 3) pre-tested in one non-sample GMA (Luano) and one non-sample non-GMA (east of Chongwe). In addition to the initial training, the enumerators and supervisors were kept on track through carefully prepared enumerator and supervisor manuals.
Selection Bias
4.17 Many factors affect household welfare, and living in GMAs and participating in VAG/CRB activities are but some of them. Other factors include socio-demographic characteristics, for instance whether the household is female headed; size, age and sex composition of the members; highest level of education within the household; etc. Yet other factors have community-wide effect on household welfare such as levels of physical capital in infrastructure, social capital in community-based organizations and access to markets. Under these circumstances, it is important to break up the effects of the various factors, especially because many of the factors vary depending on whether a household lives in a GMA or not, and because the same factors influence whether a household in a GMA participate in VGAs and CRBs.
4.18 Some selection bias arises because some households reside in GMAs because of their own choice and others because of social, economic or other conditions. Additionally, households in GMAs self-select themselves to participate, or not, in VAGs and CRBs.
4.19 Historical factors for creating controlled hunting areas, later converted into GMAs, as well as criteria used by ZAWA to create recent GMAs are not always available in quantitative form usable in the analysis. Such unobserved factors may also result in selection bias.
4.20 One of the important implications of selection bias is that the simple differences in average per capita consumption between households living in and outside GMAs, or between participants and non-participants of VAGs and CRBs are not an accurate measure of respective impacts. We refer to such comparison of simple averages as “unconditional comparison” in the survey results section below. Fortunately, a number of empirical techniques have been developed to help minimize this bias
42 for cross-sectional data, including propensity-score matching (PSM) and Maddala’s treatment regression (two-stage or joint estirnati~n)~~.
4.21 With only cross-sectional data from households and communities in GMAs and non-GMA areas, this study used Maddala’s treatment regression techniquess3to estimate impacts. Although the treatment regression can be estimated in two stages, we estimate the two relationships - participation and welfare regression equations -jointly by using maximum likelihood techniques. Treatment regression estimation corrects for selection biases from observed data in the model as well as bias resulting from unobserved and unknown factors. Maximum likelihood joint estimation of participation and outcome equations allows us to test whether selection biases from unobserved and unknown factors are statistically significant.
4.22 The results of the maximum likelihood joint estimation were corroborated by also estimating the impact using propensity-score matching based on a Gaussian kernel function and bootstrapped standard errors. If the effect of selection bias from unobserved and unknown factors is not statistically significant, treatment regression and propensity-score matching estimations should be close to each other. Where selection bias from unobserved and unknown factors are statistically significant, the propensity-score matching estimations would be biased and the differences between the estimates using two methods should depend on the direction of the bias. We found significant selection bias from unobserved and unknown factors using treatment regression maximum likelihood joint estimation approach in some of the estimation results. In these situations the propensity-score matching estimations were different as expected from the direction of the bias. Where the bias was not statistically significant the estimations results from the two methods were very similar. Thus, we only report the treatment regression results below.
4.23 The models in both the PSM approach and the MLE joint estimation were conditioned on the relevant household and community characteristics.
C. SURVEY RESULTS
Descriptive Statistics
4.24 Tables 4.4 and 4.5 presents the descriptive statistics for the variables used in the analysis based on the full sample and the non-GMA and GMA sub-samples. On average, a typical sampled household has a per capita consumption expenditure (PCEXP) of ZMK 846,000 per annum. When analyzed by sub-sample, PCEXP is 1.7 percent higher in non-GMAs than in GMAs. However, the difference is not statistically significant. Other than PCEXP and a few distance variables, the rest of the variables are significantly different between non-GMAs and GMAs.
52 Maddala, 1983. 53 Maddala, 1983; Bandyopandhyay and Shyamsundar, 2004; StataCorp, 2003. 43 National average Full Non- GMA rural sample GMA population Number of sample households 2,649 1,289 1,360 Per capita consumption expenditure (ZMK) 846,33 1 353,750 839,359 1,209,384 Age of household head (years) 42.42 43.6 41.29 *** 41.20 Female headed household (%) 25% 22% 28% *** 22% Education of most educated hh member (years) 6.87 7.45 6.33 *** 6.82 Number of children below 15 years 2.55 2.66 2.44 *** 2.23 Number female members 15-60 years 1.27 1.30 1.24 * 1.25 Number of male members 15-60 years 1.19 1.22 1.15 ** 1.22 Number of adults above 60 years 0.26 0.30 0.23 *** 0.34 Distance to nearest all-weather road (km) 5.25 3.58 6.86 *** 3.65 Distance to nearest basic school (km) 4.88 4.96 4.80 Distance to nearest health center (km) 11.52 11.27 11-77 I Value of consumer durable assets (m ZMK) 0.44 0.58 0.30 *** ng Index !004. Statistical significance: *=significance at lo%, **=significance at 5%, *=sigr
TABLE 4.5: Comparison of communities in GMAs versus non-GMAs
I Description Sub-samples Full Non- GMA sample GMA Number of sample communities 133 65 68 Number of projects in the community 2.01 1.84 2.16 *** CRB generated and got funds from ZAWA past three years (YO) 9 yo 5yo 14% *** Household participation in VAGiCRB (%) 9% 6% 13% *** Household participation in agricultural cooperatives (%) 15% 19% 11% ***
4.25 An average rural community in Zambia has an annual per capita consumption ofZMK 1.2 million54.As illustrated in Figure 4.1, this is much more than the annual per capita consumption of communities living around national parks of ZMK 854,000 in non-GMA and ZMK 839,000 in GMA. In other words, on average, the welfare of communities living around national parks is about 70% of the national average for rural areas.
4.26 Although there is some CBNRM activity in non-GMAs, it is more intense in the GMAs. Proportionately, VAG/CRB participation in non-GMAs (6%) is about half of that in GMAs (1 3%). It is not surprising, therefore, that the proportion of households with a member participating in VAGs or CRBs that have received hunting proceeds from ZAWA is almost three times as high in GMAs than in the control areas.
54 Zambia Poverty and vulnerability Assessment (2004), World Bank. 44 FIGURE 4.1: Comparison of welfare of households living around national parks with national rural average I Per capita Annual Consumption in ZMK I 1400000
1200000
1000000
000000 Per capita Annual 600000 Consumption in ZMK
400000
200000
0 Household Household Amrage in GMA not-in Zambian GMA Rural Household
Source: GMA Household Survey.
Characteristics of GMA Households
4.27 Whether a sampled household lives in a GMA or not; and whether a GMA-based household participates in natural resources management through VAGs and CRBs; both are influenced by the circumstances that the household faces both within the household and in the communityss.Tables 4.4 and 4.5 show that, compared to non-GMA control areas, households living in GMAs:
0 Have younger heads of households. 0 Have a higher probability of being female-headed. 0 Have less educated members. 0 Have less consumer durables. 0 Tend to be further away from the main roads. 0 Tend to participate less in community-based organizations.
4.28 Also, the larger the number of projects in the community andor the higher the number of households living in the GMA, the higher the likelihood of any household picked at random being a GMA-based household. A household is likely to be in a GMA if ZAWA shares hunting revenue with the CRB in the area where the household lives.
4.29 Participation in VAGICRB activities is influenced significantly by a number of demographic and other factors (see Table 1 in Annex 4): The household’s probability of participating in VAGs and
55 Several factors were considered and the significance of their contributions towards explaining the realities tested (see Annex 4). Column 1 of Table 1 in Annex 4 presents the coefficient estimates from a probit analysis of the binary decision to be or not to be in the GMA, whereas Column 2 presents the probit estimates of the factors affecting the probability of participation in VAGs and/or CRBs. These probit models were jointly estimated with the outcome regression models using maximum likelihood techniques. The estimates of welfare impact of GMA and participation in VAGs and/or CRBs and other factors are presented in Columns 1 and 2 of Table 2 in Annex 4. Both tables identify among the listed variables the ones that were statistically significant (indicated with asterisks).
45 CRBs increases if the level of education ofthe most educated member is increased by one year. A household that is involved in other cooperatives in the GMA is more likely to participate in VAGs and CRBS.
Access to Markets
4.30 The sample frame ofthe non-GMA control areas were carefully selected to only include areas adjacent to national parks, however, households in the control areas were found to be different from those in GMAs in one key factor; distance to the nearest all-weather road. The average non-GMA household lives 3.3 km from the nearest all-weather road, whereas the average GMA household lives 6.3 km away.
4.3 1 Longer distances may imply that the household is more isolated and has less access to various input and output markets. Such isolation from markets may constrain the economic productivity ofthe household. The study finds that each extra kilometer of distance from the nearest all-weather road is associated with 0.5% less consumption welfare for the average household in the sample.
4.32 The study also finds that a GMA household is more likely to participate in VAGs and CRBs the farther away it is from the nearest all-weather road. One interpretation of this result may be that remote and isolated households that are closer to wildlife might be more interested in conservation. However, VAG/CRB participation is also associated with higher consumption welfare for the households. Thus, higher probability of isolated households may result from possible welfare gains from VAGs and CRBs in the absence of access to markets and economic opportunity.
4.33 An average GMA household near the Lower Zambezi National Park is 3 km away from the nearest all-weather road. Future comparative studies between GMAs near the Lower Zambezi National Park and those in other park systems may address the issue of the impact of better access to roads on wildlife populations. The data for the present study did not include a survey ofwildlife population, so it cannot address this question.
D. WELFARE
Comparison of GMA and non-GMA Households
4.34 Figure 4.2 shows the average per capita consumption expenditures of households in GMA and non-GMA areas in the four sampled park systems as well as for the whole sample. Average per capita consumption is slightly higher in the non-GMA areas of all park systems except for Luangwa. In all cases, the difference between non-GMA and GMA areas are not statistically significant.
Impact of the “GMA effect”
4.35 The picture is even clearer when adjusted for the “GMA effect”. To measure the net impact of GMAs (the GMA effect) on household welfare, we compared the welfare of GMA households with the welfare of the same households in the same location if that location was not a GMA anymore. Estimation of the counterfactual ofGMA households living in the same location but not designated as GMA is based on the results of the maximum likelihood treatment regression in Annex 4 (Table 2).
4.36 Substantial differences between the actual and the counterfactual average per capita consumption expenditures of households in GMAs near Bangweulu and Luangwa park systems, as well as for the overall sample show significantly greater welfare for households in a GMA, due to its GMA effect.
46 FIGURE 4.2: Welfare of households in GMAs relative to those in non-GMA areas
Per caplta consumption expenditure: Unconditlonal 1400000
12ooooc
1000001
8OOOW :MK
60000C
40000(
2000M
0 Bangweulu Kafue Lower Luangwa Total Zambezi Park System m Non-GMA GMA Source: GMA Household Survey.
4.37 For the overall sample, out of ZMK 840,000 average per capita consumption expenditure, ZMK 560,000 may be attributable to the GMA effect (see Figure 4.3). Unconditional comparison of welfare of households living in GMA and non-GMA areas hide this relatively large benefit as other household and community characteristics of GMA households make them worse ofrelative to households in non-GMA areas. The estimation results in Annex 4 (Table 2) show these factors and their effects on household welfare.
4.38 The above analysis together with Figures 4.2 and 4.3 show that around Kafue and Lower Zambezi park systems, there is no difference in the welfare of household whether they are in a GMA or not. Because household in most GMA have limited access to classic economic activities such as agriculture, it can be inferred that the wildlife revenue exactly compensate these household for the opportunity cost ofunfavorable conditions restricting classic activities
4.39 In Bangweulu park system to some extent, but mostly in Luangwa park system, it is clear that the GMA effect is beneficial overall. This may be due to the fact that the Luangwa Valley has had a long history ofCBNRM; that it includes the GMAs where most ofZAWA’s revenue from hunting is accrued; and that it is a famous destination for nature tourists
Impact of Household and Community Factors
4.40 As earlier postulated, household welfare (measured by per capita consumption expenditure) is influenced by a variety ofhousehold and community factors. The results in Annex 4 indicate that the majority ofthe factors postulated to be associated with welfare are strongly significant:
0 An additional year of education for the most educated member would raise the household’s per capita consumption by 2-4%.
An additional one million Zambian Kwacha ofconsumer durables would raise the household’s per capita consumption by 4-10%.
47 FIGURE 4.3: Welfare of households living in GMAs in comparison to the same households if their GMA was not designated a GMA
Per capita consumption expenditure: Conditional 1400000
1200000
1000000
800000 ' 600000 400000
200000
0 Bangweulu Kafue Lower Zambezi Luangwa Total Parksystem If not GMA GMA
Source: GMA Household Survey.
Households that participate in cooperatives have 23.7% (GMA sub-sample) and 35.7% (full sample) more per capita consumption expenditure than non-participating households. Since cooperatives in GMAs are founded on agricultural activities, the results imply that agriculture makes a significant contribution to per capita expenditure. As most respondents cited farming as their main economic activity, the unfavorable ecological conditions of GMAs and policies unfavorable to farming are likely to contribute to the low welfare in GMAs.
Female-headed households have 15% (GMA sub-sample) and 18.6% (full sample) less per capita consumption expenditure than their male-headed counterparts (see Box 4.5).
Every additional kilometer from the main road or health center is associated with 0.2-0.6% less per capita consumption expenditure.
The results also seem to imply that larger household sizes are associated with lower welfare levels, regardless ofthe household's composition. This is shown and confirmed by the unambiguously negative effects of additional members in all the four agehex groups. The fact that additional working-age adults (15-60 years) have an adverse effect on welfare may imply that there are limited income-generating opportunities in these areas. However, children under 15 years and adults over 60 years have greater welfare-depressing effects than the working- age groups. Box 4.5. Female-Headed Households in GMAs
28% of the households in GMAs are female-headed compared to 22% in the non-GMA control areas. The study suggests that, on average, female-headed households living near national parks, either in GMAs or in non-GMAs, enjoys 19% less per capita consumption than male-headed households, after controlling for other factors. If we consider households in GMAs only, the loss in welfare attributable to female headedness is slightly lower at 15 percent.
Why there are relatively more female-headed households in GMAs and why such households are worse off as compared to their male-headed counterparts were discussed at three regional stakeholder consultative workshops in Mpika, Mfuwe and Mumbwa. Several hypotheses emerged from these discussions: Higher rates of polygamous relationships in remote areas such as GMAs may result in higher incidences of female-headed households if different wives live in separate households. Male heads may be spending long periods away from home while engaging in illegal hunting resulting in the house being headed by the female spouse. The survey data were unable to provide useful information about illegal hunting as an economic activity of household members. Relatively long periods of separation during the male head's absence in GMAs may result in higher divorce rates. Higher rates of promiscuity in the GMAs may have resulted in more males dying mainly due to HIVIAIDS related causes leaving their widows as household heads. Lower levels of education for girls in GMAs may be responsible for more teenage pregnancies and single-mother families. The more educated men may leave GMAs in search of better economic opportunities leaving female-headed families behind.
Some of these hypotheses are testable with the survey data and future research may help understand the phenomenon better to enable policy-makers targeting this disadvantaged group of households.
E. INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS
Does VAG/CRB Participation make a Difference?
4.41 If VAGs and CRBs use the hunting revenue to provide broad social infrastructures, we would expect all households in a GMA to gain in welfare. However, active participants in VAGs and CRBs are reported to have reserved privileges in terms of access to information, meat contributions and services from safari hunting outfitters, and ZAWA disbursements in form of allowances for CRB and VAG activities.
4.42 Figure 4.4 shows the differences in per capita consumption expenditure between household participating in VAGs and CRBs and those that do not. The welfare of the non-participating households is slightly lower than that of the participating households in all park systems except Kafue. Higher welfare levels of participants relative to non-participants is expected as participating households are more educated and are likely to have better access to information and otherwise have more economic opportunities.
4.43 Consultations during the dissemination of these survey findings revealed that active participants and leaders in CRBs and VAGs are predominantly educated and retired persons who have decided to settle in GMAs after active employment in urban areas. It was reported that communities increasingly are electing educated persons to positions in development projects, including VAGs and CRBs, believing that these have greater awareness and are likely to comprehend new messages and interact because of their ability to read and write English. Perhaps this explains the study findings that most participants of VAGs and CRBs also are active participants of other community organizations such as cooperatives.
49 FIGURE 4.4: Differences in welfare between households participating or not in VAGs/CRBs
Participation in VAOs and CRBs in QMAs
1.eoo.000
1.400.WO
1,200.000
1.000.w0 1 aoo.ooo
900.000
400 000
200 000
0 Banpweulu Kafue Lwer Zamberi L"."W. Total P.rk syn.m. 1 Non-partlclpanl Palticlp.nl I Source: GMA Household Survey.
4.44 Figure 4.5 shows the welfare ofthe participating households and compares it with that of the same households if it did not participate in VAGs and CRBs. Figure 4.5 is surprisingly similar to Figure 4.3 in terms of welfare impacts in the four park systems. As we saw in Figure 4.3, households in the GMA areas of Kafue and Lower Zambezi park systems obtain no welfare gains from the GMA effect. Similarly, participating households within GMAs do not seem to obtain significant benefits from participation in VAGs and CRBs in these park systems. Conversely, the residents of the GMAs near the other two park systems seem to obtain significant benefits from participation in VAGs and CRBS.
Who Gets the Benefits of Living in a GMA?
4.45 Figure 4.6 presents the results of an unconditional comparison of household per capita consumption between households located in GMAs and those located in non-GMA areas.
4.46 Although there is a slight difference in welfare levels between asset-poor households living in GMAs and asset-poor households living outside GMAs, that difference is very small and statistically insignificant. In the asset non-poor group, there is virtually no difference in the average per capita consumption expenditure. Indeed, the non-existence of observable differences between GMAs and non-GMAs is clearly visible even in the full sample. Does this mean that the GMA effect has no impact?
50 FIGURE 4.5: Welfare of the same households whether they participate or not in VAGsKRBs.
~~ ~
Per Caplta consurntlon ciponditure for households In QMA parllclpatlng In VAQICRB
BmgyI.YIY KNUe Low1Zamberl LY."IW. TOt.1 P.* sy.t.m.
1s If not pan1cipant IPanlclpmt I source: GMA Household Survey.
FIGURE 4.6: Comparison of welfare between GMA and non-GMA households for poor and non-poor households
Per capita consumption expenditure Unconditional
1,000,000 , 900,000
800.000
700,000
600,000
500,000
400,000
300,000
200.000
100,000
0 Poor Nonpoor Total Wealth Status of Household
I mNon-GMA GMA Source: GMA Household Survey.
4.47 Ifthe GMA effect is removed, it appears that the households in the GMAs would become substantially worse off (see Figure 4.7). This effect is visible in the full sample and in the sub- sample of asset non-poor households. There is, however, no effect on the asset-poor households. This seems to identify the existence ofseveral non-GMA factors such as poor soil fertility or less access to basic education that would make the households in those areas worse off in the absence ofthe GMA-related interventions.
51 FIGURE 4.7: Comparison of the welfare of the same households in GMAs if the GMA effect was withdrawn, i.e. if its land was not in a GMA anymore.
Percapita consumption expenditure: If not GMA
1 ,,000000 - ......
900 000
800 000
700 000
600 000
(I = 500000
Y! 400000
300 000
200 000
100 000
0 Poor Nonpoor Total Wealth Status of Household
1 If not GMA GMA Source: GMA Household Survey.
4.48 This shows that the Gh4A effect is benefiting the non-poor and is neutral to the poor. In other words, it does not make any difference for a poor household residing in the vicinity of a national park whether the land it lives on is inside or outside a GMA.
Who Gets the Benefits of Participating in VAGs and CRBs?
4.49 Figure 4.8 compares the welfare levels between the households that participate in the VAGsiCRBs with those that do not. It shows that the non-poor are getting substantially larger benefits than the poor. While participating non-poor households are getting close to ZMK 1,200,000 per capita consumption expenditure, the poor are getting just about two-thirds of this.
4.50 In general, participants are unambiguously better off than non-participants, regardless of whether one is looking at the full sample or the sub-samples of poor and non-poor households. However, the magnitude of the differences differs across these samples. For example, the difference among poor households is less than a third of the difference among non-poor households.
4.5 1 For the households that participate in VAGs/CRBs, Figure 4.9 shows how their welfare would be if they were not participating in these activities. While there is virtually no change in welfare level among poor households, the non-poor households would lose more than half of their current consumption welfare level.
4.52 Hence, GMAs (and, by extension, hunting revenue sharing) may not be an effective means of poverty alleviation. The benefit distribution institutions such as VAGs and CRBs need to be reformed so that the revenue reaches the poor households in the community
52 FIGURE 4.8: Comparison of welfare between VAG/CRB participants and non- participating households
Average per capita consumption expenditure Unconditional
1,400,000
1,200,000
1,000,000
800.000 J! :: 3 600,OW
400,000
200,000
C Poor Nonpoor Wealth Status of Houowholds I aNonparUcipant mParticlpantj Source: GMA Household Survey.
FIGURE 4.9: Comparison of the welfare of the ~amehouseholds whether they participate or not in VAG/CRB
1,ooo,ow
800,OW (1 f 3 6W,OW
400,000
200,000
0 Poor Nonpoor Total Wealth Status of Houseshold Ilfnot participant IParticipant 1 Source: GMA Household Survey.
53 ANAGEMENT OF T LIFE ESTATE
5.1 As long as Zambia’s tourism remains based on natural resources and wildlife in particular, the health and sustainability of these resources must be recognized as being vital to the success of any plans for the future growth, prosperity and economic contribution ofthe tourism sector.
A. DESCRIPTION OF THE WILDLIFE ESTATE
5.2 Zambia’s wildlife estate consists of 19 National Parks and 34 Game Management Areas (GMAs), which are widely distributed and reasonably well matched against areas of ecological interest, as shown schematically in Map 5.1.
MAP 5.1: Eco-regions and National Parks
Source: Zambia Nature-Based Tourism Supply-Side Survey (2006).
5.3 The wildlife estate is managed by the Zambia Wildlife Authority (ZAWA), previously the National Parks and Wildlife Service (NPWS). Under NPWS, protected areas were arranged under nine provincial units. One of ZAWA’s key strategies for improved management was to reduce the complexity of the organizational structure (and administrative staff) to four management regions only (see Table 5.1). Each management region oversees several clusters ofnational parks and GMAs grouped into Area Management Units (AMUs). Each AMU reports to headquarters through their respective management region. 54 TABLE 5.1: Zambia’s management regions and Area Management Units
Region AMU Associated national parks Associated GMAs Eastern region South Luangwa South Luangwa Lupande Sandwe West Petauke East Luangwa Lukusuzi East Musulangu Luambe Nyika Central region Lower Zambezi Lower Zambezi Rufunsa Chiawa Luano 1Machiya-Funguluwe Kafue Flats Lochinvar Kafue Flats Blue Lagoon Mosi-oa-Tunya Mosi-oa-Tunya Sichifulo Mulobezi Western region Chunga Kafue (north) Kasonso-Busanga Lunga-Luswishi Mumbwa Namwala Ngoma Kafue (south) Nakala Bilili Springs West Sioma Ngwezi West Zambezi (upper and Liuwa Plain lower) Lunga West Lunga Lukwakwa Chibwika-Ntambu Musele-Matebo Chizera Northern region Bangweulu North Luangwa Munyamadzi Lavushi Manda West Musalangu Isangano Mukungule Bangweulu (part, incl. Chikuni) Nsumbu Sumbu Kaputa Mweru wa Ntipa Tondwa Mansa Lusenga Plain Chisomo Kasanka Kafinda Bangweulu (part) Kalasa Mukosa Chambeshi I Luwingu Source: Authors’ compilation based on various ZAWA sources.
The Role of GMAs
5.4 GMAs were created mainly to serve as buffer zones between national parks and farming areas. Not only were they to provide opportunities for hunting, but also to contain the mammalian hosts of the tsetse fly within designated areas, thus preventing the spread of the domestic livestock disease Trypanosomiasis into farming areas. Tsetse fly cordon areas were established to separate settled farming areas from wildlife habitats. However, settlements and related human activities have since passed over these cordons as human encroachment into animal habitats continues.
55 5.5 Therefore, from the early 1980s, it was progressively recognized that GMAs can achieve this objective only if the resident communities can balance the disadvantages of supporting wildlife populations with benefits derived from conservation. Efforts were made to create a wildlife utilization cycle that incorporated financial benefits to communities in GMAs. There has been substantial government and donor support over the subsequent 20 years to community-based natural resources management (CBNRM) in the GMAs. But there is still a long way to go to develop this concept into a viable working system.
5.6 The rationale for the establishment of GMAs was the prioritization of wildlife-based land use practices as a viable alternative to commercial agriculture in areas of low agricultural potential. However, from the early 1980s, it was progressively recognized that GMAs can only fulfill this role if the resident communities can balance the disadvantages of supporting wildlife populations with the benefits derived from their contribution to conservation. Such benefits should, theoretically, be of sufficient magnitude to discourage destructive subsistence foraging and cultivation as well as other land uses and unplanned developments in conflict with conservation efforts.
5.7 Therefore, from 1982, efforts were made by NPWS to create a wildlife utilization cycle that incorporated the feedback of financial benefits to communities in GMAs. There has been substantial government and donor support over the subsequent 20 years to Zambia’s Administrative Management Design for Game Management Areas (ADMADE) program and other similar methodologies for community-based natural resources management (CBNRM) in GMAs, but a viable working system is still a long way off. One conceptual issue that has negated many otherwise useful initiatives is that the fundamental concept of ‘community’ has proved to be an increasingly elusive commodity, as market forces and the associated dynamics of development progressively take hold in rural areas.
B. MANAGEMENT OPTIONS
5.8 Wildlife estate management increasingly needs to take cognizance of the economic landscape as a whole. Wildlife and wildlife areas no longer can be viewed in isolation. Land is an increasingly precious commodity, and resources on, or below this land, are increasingly inter-competitive through smaller and smaller variances in gross margins offered to potential investors. Wildlife areas at the very least have to compete in return of land rentals; in economic terms, if not in direct financial returns.
The Ecosvstem Context
5.9 The concepts of eco-regions and conservation complexes are gradually transforming protected area management approaches worldwide. Eco-regions are land areas within one or a cluster of linked ecosystems. Conservation complexes are groupings of different protected areas that have the same ecosystem management approach. Biodiversity research has identified 10 eco-regions in Zambia (see Table 5.2)56.
5.10 Originally, Zambia’s protected wildlife areas were structured so that one or more national parks formed a core conservation area, surrounded by one or more GMAs. This configuration was based on the concept of a national park protecting a core range and breeding area for game animals, while the adjoining GMAs were buffer zones separating wildlife areas from commercial farming areas and were areas where the wildlife resources could be harvested.
5.1 1 At the time of inception, this concept appeared sensible. However, once a wider, more dynamic eco-system perspective is considered (where there is no convenient separation between what an animal does or needs in a national park, and what it may find essential for its survival in the adjoining GMA), the simplistic GMA buffer zone concept loses some ofits appeal. Then a more
56 WWF, 2002: Miombo Eco-regions Report, Harare. 56 complex protected area system plan is needed to create biological and management coherence over a mosaic of individual protected areas.
5.12 ZAWA introduced the concept of conservation clusters to overcome structural constraints in the rigid national parWGMA system. Conservation clusters offer an ecological basis for conservation management by specifically identifying and linking different forms of protected areas under a single management approach. This also helps to focus Zambia’s responsibilities under international conservation conventions and permits the participation of land owners in adjoining areas to contribute to the overall management approach.
Protected Area Design in Zambia
5.13 Geographically, Zambia’s wildlife estate falls into ten clusters, although two small national parks: Nyika in the north-east and Mosi-oa-Tunya in the south-west are rather removed from neighboring protected wildlife areas. Table 5.2 reveals a good match between the Zambian protected area clusters and the country’s eco-regions. The mismatches or gaps are in North-Western Province where the West Lunga National Park and its associated GMAs are remote from both the biodiversity- rich Zambezi source area and the upper Zambezi floodplain, and do not really share their biodiversity. Furthermore, the Kafue National Park does not fall within any individual regional biodiversity complex.
5.14 In GMAs there are other representation problems. While these areas are important in a commercial context, their fimction in biodiversity conservation is limited because their main purpose is the controlled hunting of game animals. Moreover, GMAs that are not directly linked with a national park tend to become neglected and vulnerable. There is need to redefine the functions of GMAs, recognizing the economic value of all natural resources, the dynamic land uses and the need to quickly protect general biodiversity and particular species threatened with extinction.
Wildlife Estate Management Strategy
5.1 5 Preparatory work done in the lead-up to the establishment of ZAWA included the production of a DraR Master Plan57for the management of the wildlife estate. This document worked from the premise that restoring effective management in all 19 national parks was not possible in the short term. Consequently national parks were prioritized for management purposes under a four category classification, based on three classifying parameters: (1) conservation and heritage values; (2) economic and recreational values; and (3) the feasibility of management implementation.
57 EDF/National Parks and Wildlife Service Project, 1998: Draft Master Plan, Transtec. 57 TABLE 5.2: Eco-regions in relation to Zambia’s protected areas
Neighboring Zambian Conservat bn cluster countries portion National parks Angola Large None DRC -1 Angola Large West Lunga Liuwa Plain Kalahari “4 corners” Botswana Marginal Sioma Ngwezi West Zambezi Namibia Mosi-oa-Tunya Zimbabwe Kafue floodplain None Exclusive Blue Lagoon Lochinvar Mid-Zambezi valley Mozambique Marginal Lower Zambezi 2 GMAs Zimbabwe I Luangwa-Luano rift None 1 Exclusive I North Luangwa 9 GMAs complex South Luangwa Luambe Lukusuzi Chambeshi-Bangweulu None Exclusive Isangano 7 GMAs I basin Kasanka Lavushi-Manda Luapula-Mweru Wantipa DRC Large Mweru wa Ntipa 2 GMAs Sumbu I Lusenga Plain Lake Tanganyika DRC Large Sumbu Tanzania Nvika massif Malawi Marginal Nyika NOW Eucliisive Kat‘uc 8 GMAs cSource: .uthors’ compila
5.16 On the basis of this classification the 19 national parks were classified as shown in Table 5.3 in declining order.
TABLE 5.3: Classification of Zambia’s national parks South Luangwa Mosi-oa-Tunya Lower Zambezi Kafue North Luangwa Kasanka Lochinvar Blue Lagoon Chikuni (proposed) Liuwa Plain Sioma Ngwezi Lavushi Manda Nyika Lukusuzi Priority 4: Review parks Luambe Mweru wa Ntipa Lusenga Plain Isangano
58 5.17 Revenue Darks were considered capable of recovering their management costs. Conservation were seen as important wildlife species areas justifying some continuing investment. SDecial/contract parks were identified for possible contracting out to private developers to remove necessary investment needs from ZAWA’s own budget. And review Darks were considered to be significantly degraded and were recommended for studies to identi@alternative land uses.
5.18 Another consideration, especially in remote and poorly settled areas, is to raise the protected area status of selected parts of GMAs to national park, or, alternatively, an intermediary status that might be classified as a wildlife reserve. A UNDPIGEF project is currently examining possible reclassification of protected areass8,including three previously identified areas:
0 The south-eastern Bangweulu Swamp area to protect the prime breeding area of the Black Lechwe, Tsessebe and Shoebill Stork.
0 The three GMAs in the southern Luangwa-Luano rift complex (Chisomo, West Petauke and Luano GMAs) as a remote, low human population density, refuge area for large mammal species.
0 An area generally agreed to require additional protection due to its location in a high rainfallhich biodiversity region along the north-western boundary with the DRC, including the Zambezi River source.
C. THE MANAGEMENT INSTITUTION: ZAWA
5.19 The Zambia Wildlife Authority (ZAWA) was created in 2000, following a drawn-out period of transformation from its antecedent institution, the Department of National Parks and Wildlife Service”. That institution had suffered inter alia from a progressive decline in government support from 13.8% of the government budget in 1954 to 0.45% in 200260.
The First Strategic Plan
5.20 In early 2002, ZAWA was sufficiently established to formulate its first Strategic Plan (2003- 2007), firstly to define objectives for the institution, and secondly to guide its development through the subsequent five years.
5.2 1 This plan envisaged achieving excellence in wildlife management by developing innovative new approaches and partnerships that embodied best practice and complete transparency. The practical objective was to transform ZA WA into a respected and professional conservation agency, but also one that would move systematically towards financial self-sustainability over a period of eight to ten years.
5.22 The first Strategic Plan drew on principles from several reports6’ that had an important bearing on both the treatment ofthe wildlife sector in the economy and the mechanisms by which the sector management mandate could be achieved. These principles were:
’*United Nation Development Program/GlobalEnvironment Facility: Reclassificationand Effective Management of Zambia’s Protected Areas. The main objective of the project is to strengthen the enabling policy, regulatory and governance frameworks and institutional capacities for managing the national protected area system with biodiversity conservation as a principal outcome. 59 The process started in 1992 with the commissioning of a report on possible mechanisms for change (Child and Lee, 1993: Reorganization and Restructuringthe Department of National Parks and Wildlife Service, WWF). 60 ICC, 2002: Zambia Wildlife Authority Five-Year Strategic Plan 2003-2007, Main Report, Chilanga. Child, 2004: A Financial and Economic Analysis of the Costs and Benefits of Managing the Protected Area Estate. ARCA Consulting, 1998: From NPWS to ZAWA - Management RestructuringReport, EDFMPWS 59 Wildlife as a resource should be valued by government and have similar access to subsidization and long-term investments as other growth sector such as agriculture.
0 All national parks should have working management plans.
0 Conservation and management of wildlife should be subject to wide, grassroots debate and consensus in order to build ownership among those that live and work with or invest in the wildlife resource.
0 ZAWA should: (1) become commercially better at capturing the real value of wildlife assets, but in a transparent and sensitive manner and without undermining conservation objectives; (2) be devolved to regional, sectoral and lower order units; (3) identify innovative ways to manage the wildlife estate affordably, probably through a prioritized classification of protected areas; (4) carry out a skills and technology gap analysis as well as training, service, information flow and technology investments; and (5) develop a credible, respected and more popular image as part of creating a new, effective institution.
5.23 From these principles, the following eight pre-conditions were identified as being crucial to the success of the first Strategic Plan:
Development of policy and regulatory structures that would realize the advantages of ZA WA’s semi-autonomous financial and management status.
Establishment of a governance framework for the board and management team based on political independence, financial transparency and professionalism.
Development of an ecosystem-based conservation management approach drawn from an apex Protected Area System Plan, a middle tier Management Master Plan and area management plans.
Working up ZA WA’s human capital base through improved communications, devolved responsibility and authority, improved systems and technologies, training and competitive and rewarding working conditions.
Improving ZA WA’s commercial performance in a non-conflicting manner through better systems, innovative new products and an effective marketing approach to attract new investments.
Developing clear and functional working relationships with community entities with a view to progressive devolution of management responsibilities in these areas.
Re-establishing a respected, but cost-effective and stakeholder-sensitive law-enforcement system.
Linking all these activities to the public through a coherent, visible and effective public relations system in order to enhance understanding and respect of the institution.
Performance since the First Strategic Plan
5.24 In 2006, leading up to the formulation of its second Strategic Plan, ZAWA commanded an independent review of its performance in implementingthe first Strategic Plan. The review
Project, Chilanga. Department of National Parks and Wildlife Service, 1998: Draft Master Plan, EDFMPWS Project, Chilanga 60 demonstrated that ZAWA had managed to establish itself as a fully fledged institution and had built all the internal mechanisms required for its functions. In addition, ZAWA had leveraged funding from several donors and established several partnerships. The following achievements, in particular, must be recognized:
0 Reorganization of hunting operations in all GMAs.
Establishment of PPPs in several national parks.
0 Implementationof two major investment programs in South Luangwa and Kafue National Parks and less ambitious programs in Lower Zambezi and Mosi-oa-Tunya.
Doubling of tourism revenue through concessions in several national parks.
0 Preparation of 12 management plans, 5 of which are ratified by the Board.
5.25 Unfortunately, the review also demonstrated that very few of the eight pre-conditions for a successful implementationof the first Strategic Plan had been put in place by either Government or ZAWA6*, and that the institution’s performance had been seriously constrained by financial issues (see Table 5.4).
5.26 Since 2002, the Government has subsidized ZAWA, initially with around $2 million per year and by 2005 in the order of $1 million. Table 5.4 shows that even though ZAWA’s financial performance has been improving, creditors have been increasing at a similar rate.
5.27 As can be seen in Table 5.4, the commercial revenue streams are almost balanced between hunting sources in GMAs (about 57% in 2005) and non-consumptive tourism in national parks. When GMAs are compared to national parks in terms of revenue, non-consumptive tourism returns twice as much per hectare as safari hunting.
5.28 When economic factors are considered, the multiplier effect of non-consumptive tourism can expect to generate a significantly higher economic impact than hunting. Chapter 3 demonstrated that 176,000 nature tourists generated about $74 million in corporate and indirect taxes in 2005. 28% of these tourists arrive in Zambia to visit the country’s national parks (see Figure 2.9). If assuming, conservatively, that park visitors spend two to three days in a park, the direct and corporate tax revenues generated by national parks lie in the range of $5 million to $7.5 million63.
5.29 These figures demonstrate that the economic and fiscal benefits far surpass the potential financial cost of subsidizing the national park system; amounting to about $1 million in 2005, and estimated at $9 million annually under a worst-case scenario64.
Changa Management Services, 2007: Draft Strategic Plan 2008-2012, Zambia Wildlife Authority, Chilanga. 63 Author’s calculations. 64 Child, 2004: A Financial and Economic Analysis of the Costs and Benefits of Managing the Protected Area Estate. 61 TABLE 5.4: ZAWA's financial performance 2001-2005
Description 200 1 2002 2003 2004 2005 Income K'm K'm K'm K'm K'm Hunting, license and concession fees 278 909 7,8 12 12,610 13,771 Park income 5,306 6,156 7,952 9,92 1 10,262 Donor grants 1,380 4,578 10,573 5,420 11,150 Government subsidies 7,757 12,293 3,884 4,465 4,572 Exchange gains & other income 873 993 1,749 2,283 4,369 Total Income 15,594 24,929 32,269 35,960 44,124 Expenditure Establishment expenses 13,470 14,385 20,878 25,296 24,385 Administration expenses 6,411 7,014 8,181 16,008 17,110 Field operation expenses 2,125 1,593 4,260 7,884 8,899 Total expenditure 22,006 22,992 33,319 49,188 50,394 % of field operating costs to total costs 10% 7% 13% 16% 18% I Surplus/ (Deficit) (6,4 12) 1,937 (1,050) (13,228) (6,270) Source: Final technical report: Assessing the Current Status of ZAWA Strategic Plan Implementation, Changa Management, 2006. In 2006, 1 US$ was equivalent to 4000 Kwacha.
The Second Strategic Plan
5.30 In 2006, ZAWA drafted its second Strategic Plan (2008-2012). This plan recognized that little progress had been made since the first Strategic Plan. ZAWA had failed to transform itself into a more successful institution due to two principal constraints: (1) a lack of change in corporate culture from the perceived security of the original departmental system, and (2) a failure by government to appreciate the role that ZAWA plays in generating national economic benefits, and that these benefits only can be achieved through significant financial investments and less political involvement (that should be channeled through board structures rather than directly through management).
5.3 1 Neither of the two Strategic Plans has addressed the following five concerns:
The government must endorse that ZAWA is an important public service provider of both an economic asset (tourism product) and of environmental services (watershed protection, pollution buffer, biodiversity, etc.) - and that these services require investments to materialize.
ZAWA will have to take concrete and time-bound steps to create a new corporate culture. Some doubt remains whether ZAWA fully supports this intention, especially considering the limited adoption of the first Strategic Plan. Changing the corporate culture is not necessarily the same as improvements to the constituent elements of the corporate system.
How the resistance to change and associated job insecurity can be addressed through a proper human resources management strategy that makes ZAWA, as an employer, competitive with the labor market.
b How leadership skills, authority and responsibility can be applied to drive and support the transformation process at the various organizational levels.
b The need for a realistic time frame required to achieve the objectives of the Strategic Plan that matches capacity, availability of investment financing and partnerships.
62 D. FINANCING THE WILDLIFE ESTATE
5.32 As demonstrated above, ZAWA's performance has been seriously constrained by financial issues. Furthermore, pressure is increasing for ZAWA to delegate more responsibility and revenue to Community Resources Boards (CRBs) in GMAs. If a major component of this revenue is to be transferred out of ZAWA's control, without first securing alternative financing, it would further compromise the institution's financial base.
5.33 One strategy may consist of the identification of services that ZAWA could offer to CRBs, including law enforcement, planning, hunting administration, etc. But services will have to be offered in a competitive manner, which in turn requires ZAWA to ensure that its skills and experience are competitive. Another strategy may include a long overdue overhaul of the hunting sector, as hunting revenue in Zambia are a fraction of those generated in regional competitor countries.
5.34 In the medium term, ZAWA's success in developing and maintaining a world class tourism product in its entire wildlife estate depends on:
0 A sound investment program based on: (1) government subsidies, (2) cooperating partners investment projects and (3) private or NGO partners through PPPs.
0 The maintenance of a permanent flow of resources for operational costs obtained from (1) non-consumptive tourism, (2) government subsidies, (3) private or NGO partners through PPPs and (4) a conservation fee levied on international tourists.
5.35 Note that it will take several years for ZAWA to achieve a sustainable financial position based on non-consumptive tourism, and appropriate time must be allowed for the process of devolving GMA responsibilitiesand revenue to CRBs. It may even be necessary to outsource the GMA/community liaison function to appropriate organizations, trusts or private-community partnerships with experience in, and drive for, community development matte#.
Survey of Willingness to Pay
5.36 New avenues for financing of the wildlife estate need to be explored, and an important part of the Tourism Demand Survey was a series of questions on tourists' willingness to pay: (1) to enjoy the national parks as they stand, (2) for specific improvements in the national parks, and (3) for a conservation fund to improve protection and management of the environment in Zambia (see questionnaire in Annex 1).
5.37 The important considerations in the willingness to pay (WTP) portion of the questionnaire include: (I)tourists were interviewed after they had enjoyed their trip to a national park to make the questions seem less hypothetical to the respondent; (2) the scenarios used to elicit willingness to pay are described in precise terms to root them in the experience the respondent has just had; and (3) the means of eliciting willingness to pay was through a payment card, giving the respondent a menu of potential amounts to pay for the experience just enjoyed (or enhancements to the experience) - the questions are couched in terms of maximum willingness to pay. 5.38 The survey used five out of six guidelines from the "Report on the NOAA Panel on Contingent Valuation"66.The survey used personal interviews, probability sampling, careful pre-
65 The issue of CBNRM remains off ZAWA's active agenda. It warrants a solid independent review, preferably with the injection of regional and international models that have worked. The findings must be mindful of the absence of business services in remote GMAs; the dynamics in rural communities; the high diversity in Zambia; and the impact of rapidly changing market economies in these hitherto marginalized areas. The output needs to state ZAWA's real responsibilities in these areas; how it might adapt to the new revenue and management circumstances; and what market opportunities exist for the organization in supporting the transition. 66 Arrow et al, 1993, Randall, 1997. 63 testing, and reminders of budget constraints and the availability ofsubstitutes. A common criticism of Contingent Valuation (CV) analysis is that CV estimates are gross overestimates. Studies show that, under plausible conditions, when asked to value quasi-public goods where the effective trade-off is a quality change against a cost change, and public goods to be provided by means of an increased tax, it is in the strategic interest of the respondents to truthfully reveal their WTP6’. The survey used a menu of multiple choices in payment cards. This question format is likely to bias WTP responses downwards for three reasons68:(1) the optimal strategy for respondents whose WTP is less than the expected cost is to state a WTP of $0; (2) open-ended and payment card questions indicate uncertainty about future costs for the respondent and result in a lower WTP response; and (3) if the respondent believes that the government is capable of capturing part of any available surplus for unproductive purposes, the WTP reported would be lower. Thus, WTP reported in the survey may be lower than the actual WTP of the respondents.
Willingness to Pay to visit National Parks
5.39 Figure 5.1 illustrates the results of the WTP questions for the main parkdsites. Respondents were reminded of the current park fee before they answered the questions. The figure shows that untapped nature tourists’ willingness to pay to enjoy the national parks in their current state is roughly two-third higher than current park entrance fees. When specific improvements in the national parks are part of the scenario, willingness to pay climbs to roughly twice the level of current fees.
5.40 Note that even at the highest fee level, an individual park fee would represent less than 1% of the total trip price for a typical international tourist (see Table 3.7). If the elasticity of tourism demand is 1, the reduction in demand for visits to national parks would be 1% - however, the price elasticity of total tourist spending is low (0.39)69and so is price elasticity of demand for hotel rooms (0.44)70. Increasing park fees would therefore not deter international tourists.
FIGURE 5.1: Nature tourist’s willingness to pay park entrance fees
50 1 45 -
40 -
35 0 - 8 30
I 2025 2’6 15 7 10 i 5 i 0 4 Livingstone South Luangwa Lower Zarnbezi Kafue Source: Tourism Demand Survey (2005).
5.41 Table 5.5 displays the current and potential revenues for the most popular national parks in Zambia, drawing upon the data displayed in Figure 5.1, Iftourists’ willingness to pay was tapped through higher fees; park revenue, currently amounting to $2.2 million, could increase to between $3.9 million and $5.1 million.
67 Carson et al, 1999. Carson, 1997. 69 Crouch and Shaw, 1991. ’O Hiemstra and Ismail, 1992, 1993. 64 TABLE 5.5: Potential revenue from international park visitors, 2005
Park Scenario Fee No. of nature tourists Revenue (%) Livingstone Current fee 15 105,879 1,588,185 (Victoria Falls and Mosi- No imurovement 27 2,858,733.. oa-Tunya) With improvement 36 3,811,644 South Luangwa Current fee 20 22,688 453,760 No improvement 36 8 16,768 With improvement 45 1,020,960 Lower Zambezi Current fee 20 5,177 103,540 No improvement 32 165,664 With improvement 40 207,080 Kafue Current fee 15 2,003 30,045 No improvement 24 48,072 I Withimprovement I29 I 58,087 TOTAL I Current fee 2,175,530 No improvement 3,889,237 With improvement 5,097,771
5.42 It is important, however, that new park fees are introduced gradually to reduce the effect of ‘sticker shock’ (although studies show that tourists are fairly price-insensitive). Increases should also be made in full consultation with the private sector, as any sudden increase in park fees (which are typically built into the package price paid by a tourist) would adversely affect operator revenue.
Willingness to Pay for Conservation
5.43 Figure 5.2 shows that the mean willingness to pay a conservation fee for the different categories oftourists in Zambia is $20 per person per visit”. As can be seen in Annex 1, this willingness to pay is linked to a specific scenario including the establishment of a conservation fund.
5.44 It is important to bear in mind that a conservation fee is a tax oftourists, not of operators (that already are burdened with various taxes). Since the conservation fee in principle would be paid by all visitors, the relatively low variation in willingness to pay across different types of visitors is important (note that conference and ‘other’ visitors, the categories with the lowest willingness to pay, are small proportions of the total number oftourists).
5.45 A conservation fee of $20 levied on all South African and non-African visitors, Le. the true holiday-makers, would generate more than $4 million per year. The fact that Zambia is a high cost destination means that $20 constitutes a very small proportion of the total package. As the demand for tourism is quite price-inelastic, a conservation fee is unlikely to be a deal-breaker.
” The mean fee of $20 is calculated as a weighted average across the different categories of visitors to Zambia. 65 FIGURE 5.2: Willingness to pay conservation fee
1 I I 20
Y) f 15
.= io ei
5
0 Holiday Business Conference VFR Other Source: Tourism Demand Survey (2005). VFR: Visiting friends and relatives.
Implications of WTP Figures
5.46 Nature tourism in Zambia generates potentially enormous economic rents - with the primary beneficiaries being the tourists. Contrary to resources such as sun, sea and sand, which many destinations can offer, Zambia has one resource that is absolutely unique (the Victoria Falls) and another (wildlife) that is extremely scarce and getting scarcer. As these assets belong to Zambia, it is appropriate for the Government to capture the available rents. Ifno attempt is made, then a bunch of foreign tourists are simply flying away with the rents in their pockets (in the form of untapped willingness to pay).
5.47 However, the Government needs to understand that if it chooses to introduce higher park fees and/or a conservation fee, then it is entering into a contract with the tourist, who expects that the fees actually are used for conservation and improved management ofthe wildlife estate. Ifthe government fulfils its part of the deal, total fee receipts could total as much as $1 1.5 million per year, with $3.4 million of that coming from visitors to the Victoria Falls.
5.48 Increasing fees should not be seen by the Government as a way of, once and for all, terminating its support of ZAWA on the grounds that ZAWA can generate funds to sustain itself. Fees should be earmarked for ZA WA, but on the basis of a contract that requires reforms in governance, management and technical capacity. Without significant reforms to ZAWA, tourism will continue to under-perform.
E. THE TRANSFORMATION AGENDA
5.49 The agenda for the transformation of ZAWA has to be ambitious, and a precondition to any action must be the realization that it can only be accomplished by a carefully orchestrated and well- managed series of particular steps.
5.50 The first step is to address the Government’s concerns regarding ZAWA. As long as the Government continues to adopt a piecemeal and ad hoc approach to ZAWA, it facilitates political interference, an insecure financial platform, inadequate performance from the institution as a whole - and generates the vicious circle of reducing financial returns and the more serious progressive erosion of the resource base.
66 5.51 In order to convince the Government that ZAWA has the financial robustness and necessary vigor to carry the mission forward and generate due economic multiplier effects, in such as way that it is worth additional supporting investment, the next steps include the implementation of the following key inputs:
0 A protected area plan based on a comprehensive conservation plan and an affordable and appropriate management system.
A human resources plan that takes due cognizance of necessary organizational changes, especially management‘corporate culture development.
0 A financing plan that includes greater flexibility in the setting of fees, guided by willingness to pay as income.
Corporate Culture
5.52 A core assumption in establishing ZAWA as a viable conservation agency was to develop a motivated, productive and customer-oriented staff. This was intended simultaneously to break the antecedent image of a largely moribund organization, and to realize the productivity and motivation advantages and operational flexibility offered by its status as a statutory agency.
5.53 In keeping with this, ZAWA, in its first Strategic Plan, identified the need to establish itself as a customer- and performance-oriented institution by: (1) identifying and profiling the customer base and its needs; (2) assessing current performance against those needs; and (3) developing performance indicators for attaining customer requirements. 5.54 In turn this would result in the development of management systems that would: (1) match internal and customer needs; (2) identify skills gaps needed to service the customer base; (3) recruit human resources needed to meet expectations; (4) improve working conditions; and (5) establish training programs and a performance-basedemployment systems to sustain and motivate staff.
5.55 Important elements of the institutional culture change should include establishing a board with the skills and independence to champion and direct the new approach”.
5.56 In theory, the performance of ZAWA’s staff should match that of the private industry. In practice, because the salary scale is un-competitive, ZAWA has difficulties attracting qualified staff. As a consequence, the individual performance is extremely variable. A revision of the salary scale is therefore necessary. At this stage, given ZAWA’s financial constraints, this can only be achieved with support from external or alternative resources or additional government subsidies.
5.57 ZAWA’s performance would significantly improve if it could recruit, from the private sector, a limited number of highly qualified candidates to develop, market and administer the important commercial function as well as drive and coordinate the protected area planning function. The desired qualifications and experience for these functions must be identified so that curricula in local training institutions are progressively modified. This will make appropriately trained staff locally available to ensure long-term sustainability.
’*Zambia Wildlife Authority, 2002: Five-Year Strategic Plan 2003-2007, Volume 2 Implementation Plan, Chilanga. 67 Decentralization
5.58 There is need to develop an effective, decentralized management structure with appropriate communications and reporting systems to support it. Rolling out a decentralized budgeting and accounting system would substantially improve the opportunities for excellence within ZAWA. It will require considerable training, the subsequent devolution of real responsibilities and authority, and a financial and physical performance management and audit system, but it is feasible if implemented in manageable stages. The outcome would permit ZAWA to play a constructive role in effecting government’s decentralization policy in the wildlife sector. More importantly, it would offer field managers the opportunity to take an active role in wildlife resource planning and management at the district level.
Public Private Partnerships
5.59 A major conundrum facing Zambia in recent decades has been how to pay for its extensive protected areas. In the wildlife sector interest has grown in recent years for the development of PPPs as a mechanism for achieving this, effectively passing on to the private sector, Le. investors andor international NGOs, the day-to-day cost of managing wildlife areas.
5.60 The first Strategic Plan stated that until every effort had been made to develop a holistic plan for the whole wildlife estate, no national parks should be removed from the protected area system. It was in this context that Public Private Partnerships (PPPs) were introduced for low priority parks.
5.61 PPPs have rightly been advanced as a viable mechanism for reducing the direct costs to ZAWA of managing the wildlife estate, while also increasing the number of protected areas under effective management. However, it pre-supposes the existence of the following components:
A protected area management system that permits the considered delegation of protected areas to partners, with limited risk of collateral damage to other elements of the estate or to other biological or commercial relationships.
General, financial and commercial management systems that are capable of determining the value of proposed PPPs to ZA WA’s management and of negotiating satisfactory agreements.
Management and communication systems that will permit the effective incorporation of a given PPP into the wildlife estate management system. PPPs should not operate independently of the overall strategies for the wildlife estate.
5.62 To date, ZAWA has had some Box 5.1. Trans-Frontier Conservation Approaches success in establishing- PPPs of types*But each negotiation is ZAWA is currently pursuing trans-border agreements in three still undertaken on a one-off basis, areas: (1) in the upper Zambezi in the format of the Kavango- IWFIY because insufficient demand Zambezi Trans-frontier Conservation Area (KAZA), (2) in the exists at this stage for a more middle Zambezi, and (3) and Lukusuzi-Kasungu-Nyika Trans- competitive approach. To improve its frontier Conservation Area shared with Malawi. These initiatives PPPs, ZAWA intends to address have the advantage that they assist in sharing conservation costs shortcomings such as: (1) the need to while also creating wider benefits through expanding areas under placepppSwithin the frameworkofa effective conservation management. The PPP approach is also specific strategy for them; (2) possible in this context and initial linkages (still to be finalized) exist for the Sioma Ngwezi National Park in the KAZA area and developinga standard and for the Nyika National Park in the Zambia-Malawi trans-frontier negotiation stance for PPPs; (3) zone. establishing PPP performance targets;
68 Credible Business Plan
5.63 To convince the government of the financial and economic arguments for investing in ZAWA, according to the review of the first Strategic Plan, three financial components need immediate e~amination’~:
Removing the accumulating (mainly statutory) creditors on ZAWA’s balance sheet. Generating medium-term working capital to improve the cash flow position. Quantifying why government should invest in the protected area systems in order to sustain future economic benefits.
5.64 This requires financial restructuring actions by government that will permit ZAWA to access finance to cover some of its medium-term working and investment capital requirements. Financial restructuringshould be linked to an annual performance-based contract between government and ZAWA, which at least covers elements of the organization’s biodiversity conservation obligations.
5.65 A fourth component is equally urgent to address:
Providing ZAWA with the necessary commercial flexibility to manage its commercial resources in a businesslike manner.
5.66 This requires several actions, including de-linking ZAWA’s fee-setting from the statutory instrument process, which is so cumbersome that realistic and timely commercial charges are almost impossible to maintain, and raising the level of innovation in the commercial sector.
5.67 Possible new income streams include: (1) services to Community Resources Boards and other private sector clients; (2) publications and public relations materials; (3) PPPs; (4) a reclassificationof GMAs to permit a greater diversity of tourism activities (without compromising livelihood options for resident communities, the sustainability of wildlife populations, or underminingthe earning capacity of any one land use); and, most importantly, (5) a reorganized hunting sector that could realize improved returns per square kilometer of hunting area through the development of more innovative products and product marketing.
73 Changa Consulting, 2006. 69 6. CONCLUSIONS
6.1 The preceding chapters have presented an array of information about the nature tourism sector, the constraints that it faces, the assets that underpin nature tourism, the limitations ofthe management of these assets, the economic impact of nature tourism, and the benefits associated with living in a Game Management Area next to a key tourism asset, a national park. Below are outlined the major conclusions of the report:
Zambia constitutes an emerging Destination
6.2 Even though Africa only receives about 4.5% of all international tourists, its 8.1% expansion rate is among the fastest in the world. Zambia, while steadily performing, remains an emerging player with no more than 4% of sub-Saharan African tourists.
6.3 The emerging nature of Zambia’s tourism is demonstrated, firstly, by the profile of a typical tourist: Most tourists visit Zambia for the first time, visit one site only (usually the Victoria Falls), stay less than seven days, travel in small groups and arrive on packages including other countries in the region. Secondly, major tourism supply side clusters have developed only in a few key urban and national park locations, with a strong bias to the Livingstone region.
6.4 The emerging nature is by no means an impediment; rather it demonstrates that the tourism potential in untapped.
Zambia’s Tourism Profile
6.5 More than half of Zambia’s holiday tourists (54%) arrive with the intention of visiting the Victoria Falls, and only approximately half that number, come for Zambia’s wildlife attractions (28%). At least 88% of all holiday-makers are nature tourists, who visit the falls, wildlife or nature- based adventure activities. In 2005, a total of 176,000 nature tourists visited Zambia. They were satisfied with their Zambian experience, as 84% say they will visit again, and at least 90% rate the major parks (Mosi-oa-Tunya Falls and National Park, South Luangwa, Lower Zambezi and Kafue National Parks) as good or very good.
The Economic Imuact ofNature Tourism
6.6 Nature tourism is currently making a major contribution to the Zambian economy. The overall (direct and indirect) economic impact of 176,000 nature tourists visiting Zambia in 2005 amounted to nearly 16% of Zambian exports, 6.5% of GDP, over 6% of wages and net income of unincorporated business, 7% of government revenue and nearly 10% of formal sector employment.
6.7 Hotels and Restaurants, the largest provider oftourism services, is the second-most employment intensive sector in the economy. The direct and indirect contribution to employment of 176,000 nature tourists is in the order of 54,000 formal jobs (about 19,000 jobs when indirect linkages are excluded), which compares favorably with other Zambian growth sectors.
Increasing the Economic Imuact ofNature Tourism
6.8 This report has demonstrated that Zambia easily can increase its tourism receipts by focusing on nature tourism. The average duration of stay in Zambia by a nature tourist is 6.9 days, which is low compared to Botswana (8.6 days) or Namibia (12.4 days). Increasing the length of stay by 2 days (to roughly match the figure for Botswana) would increase nature tourism’s contribution to direct GDP with an additional 1.1% and exceed the FNDP targets.
70 Linkages rather than Leakage
6.9 Contrary to common beliefs, leakage from tourism is not a source of concern in Zambia. Overseas services such as flights, travel agents and tour operators are value that is added in the source market countries to sell the Zambian product, without which there would be no benefit at all to Zambia. Genuine leakage in the form of imports (of specialized goods or services not available in Zambia) and to a lesser extent profit repatriations (limited by a tourism sector dominated by small operators) can only be decreased through improved local participation in the tourism sector and its support services.
Tourists can HelD to Finance Conservation
6.10 Contrary to resources such as sun, sea and sand, which many destinations can offer, Zambia has one resource that is absolutely unique (the Victoria Falls) and another that is extremely scarce and getting scarcer (wildlife). As these assets belong to Zambia, it is appropriate for the Government to capture the available rents.
6.1 1 Nature tourists are willing to pay 50% to 100% greater fees for the falls and parks they have visited, particularly if improvements are made. Tapping nature tourists’ willingness to pay could increase proceeds at the gates (of the falls and the major parks) from the current $2.2 million to between $3.9 million and $5.1 million, depending on whether improvements are implemented or not.
6.12 Tourists would also be willing to pay a conservation fee of $20 per visit if the fee was used to improve and extend the natural areas under protection in Zambia. If charged to South African and non-African visitors, Le. the genuine holiday-makers, a conservation fee could raise as much as $6.4 million per year.
6.13 Increasing fees should not be seen by the Government as a way of, once and for all, terminating its support of ZAWA on the grounds that ZAWA can generate funds to sustain itself. Fees should be earmarked for ZAWA, but on the basis of a contract that requires reforms in governance, management and technical capacity.
Performance of the Wildlife Management Institution (ZA WA)
6.14 After a few years of operations, Zambia Wildlife Authority (ZAWA) has managed to launch major investment programs in several parks, produce management plans for several parks, double the revenue stream both from hunting and non-consumptive tourism and to establish a series of public private partnerships (PPPs).
6.1 5 However, the review of the first Strategic Plan (2003-2007) shows that the above results are modest in comparison to plans. This is mainly because several of the external pre-conditions upon which the first strategic plan was based (e.g. independence of board and government capitalization) did not sufficiently materialize. As a consequence, ZAWA has not been able to convert to a corporate culture which would improve its credibility and multiply its financial and conservation performance.
6.16 At this stage it seems risky to proceed with the second Strategic Plan (2008-20 12). Especially because it is unclear whether the government appreciates that ZAWA plays an important role in generating sustainable, national economic benefits - and that these benefits will materialize only through significant financial investments. Conversely, ZAWA needs to establish credible instruments such as a business plan based on modern and forward-looking partners, activities and revenues that demonstrate how a major capitalization would generate economic growth.
6.17 This report shows that financing ZAWA’s investment program and operations is within reach given several policy decisions: (1) improving ZAWA’s efficiency through change of corporate culture, better planning instruments and management systems including human resources
71 development, (2) implementing a greater number of PPPs, (3) rethinkingthe governance and management of GMAs and hunting, and (4) mobilizing visitors’ willingness to pay for conservation.
Conservation as a Tool to Povertv Reduction
6.18 On average, the welfare of communities living around national parks is about 70% of the national rural average. Household welfare is about the same in Game Management Areas (GMAs) as in non-GMA areas in three of the four surveyed park systems (i.e. Bangweulu, Kafue and Lower Zambezi), whereas Luangwa park system, with a long history of community-based natural resources management, can show a higher welfare in its GMAs than in its non-GMA areas.
6.19 When adjusting for the “GMA effect” (by comparing the welfare of a GMA household with the welfare of the same household in the same location if that location was not a GMA anymore), it becomes obvious that for poor households, there appear to be neither welfare gains nor losses associated with living in GMAs. However, non-poor households in GMAs would be significantly worse off if their GMA had not been declared a GMA.
6.20 Similarly, there appear to be neither welfare gains nor losses associated with participating in community-based natural resources management, i.e. Village Action Groups (VAGs) or Community Resources Boards (CRBs) for poor households. However, non-poor households in GMAs who participate in VAGiCRB activities, would be significantly worse off if they did not participate.
6.2 1 Hence, GMAs (and, by extension, hunting revenue sharing) may not be an effective means of poverty alleviation. The benefit distribution institutions such as VAGs and CRBs need to be reformed so that the revenue reaches the poor households in the community.
Factors Hamuerinrr the Tourism Industrv
6.22 As tourism is a private sector-led industry, it is very sensitive to the over-all business climate. Impediments to the tourism sector in particular are already listed in the Fifth National Development Plan (FNDP). They include: (I)inadequate tourism planning; (2) insufficient infrastructure; (3) limited product base; (4) inadequate management of national parks; (5) insufficient country marketing; (6) lack of government funding; (7) lack of community interest or participation; (8) poorly trained and insufficient human resources; and (8) Zambia being a high cost destination.
6.23 These impediments result in high costs of setting up and operating tourism enterprises. The Hotel and Catering Association estimates that the average annual cost of the regulatory compliance of each of their members is in the region of ZMK 9.5 million ($2,300) and involves up to 74 individual licenses. Operators from different regions indicate different licensing requirements (from 2-4 in one area to more than 12 in Livingstone), and they estimate that the direct cost of regulatory compliance ranges between $2,000 and $30,000 per annum (with the time cost ranging between $2,000 and $20,000).
6.24 Zambia is failing to secure maximum financial benefits from its tourists, partly because of the relatively short stay of tourists in Zambia, partly because ofthe lack of depth in the country’s tourism infrastructure. Zambia needs to develop a Tourism Master Plan that addresses policy, legislation and planning for the sector, including development of training capacities, physical infrastructure, country marketing, data collection and management, and standards and licensing requirements.
72 7, WAY FORWARD
A. BASIC POLICY AND INVESTMENT REQUIREMENTS
7.1 A range of actions are needed to secure Zambia’s tourism industry in the regional market. Most are already known and planned as part of the Fifth National Development Plan (FNDP) and include:
Developing a realistic vision for the sector and creating planning, investment facilitation and regulatory functions capable of delivering this vision.
Developing strategies for tourism growth that are more balanced across the country.
Establishing market niches worthy of investment and then diversify and building tourism supply and value chains.
Strengthening Zambia’s internal tourist linkages as well as bilateral and regional initiatives.
Developing and implementing more effective branding and marketing functions, especially at national level.
Consolidating existing investments while actively encouraging new domestic and foreign initiatives.
Identifying ways of complementing low volume/high value approaches with strategies aimed at increasing tourist volumes and capturing elements of the tour package market.
Using increased tourist volumes and length of stay to develop economies of scale across the supply chain, thus enhancing accessibility to and affordability of products.
Strengthening Tourism Planning and Policv
7.2 The primary prerequisite for a thriving tourism sector is to develop a simple and realistic Tourism Master Plan that incorporates:
0 Objective tourism sector targets and milestones.
0 An improved statistical data collection and management system.
0 Mechanisms for the balanced development of Zambia’s existing tourism circuits and development of new circuits (Kafue, western Zambia and the north-eastern waterfalls and lakes).
0 Plans to invest in key infrastructure.
Infrastructure
7.3 Acceleration of growth in the tourism sector is completely dependent on large public investment in infrastructure. The government needs to invest in the essential road, air, telecommunications and power infrastructure, including long overdue projects such as the up-grade of the Chipata-Mfuwe and Itezhi-tezhi roads, Kasama and Kasaba Bay airports, etc.
73 Tourism Promotion
7.4 Zambian tourism promotional materials are at least on apar with the regional competition, but there is a need for a much more significant investment in tourism marketing. In particular national, circuit and destination (national park) branding need to be introduced more effectively to support the Real Africa label that Zambia has established.
Building Human Capital
7.5 The Tourism Development Program recommended reorganizing tourism and hospitality training facilities in Zambia. This still has to be implemented and as a consequence there is a p_aucity of fully trained tourism and hospitality staff. This will become increasingly critical as Zambia’s tourism sector continues its expansion, especially outside traditional tourist areas. A significant effort will be required to establish a suitable set of standards, training subject matter and curricula and training processes. Further efforts are then needed in encouraging the private sector to enter this market - which in turn will require some regulatory structure and criteria.
Better Tourism Data
7.6 The conservative estimate of export revenue from nature tourists presented in Chapter 3 is roughly as large as the World Tourism Organization’s figures for all tourists, derived from Zambia’s balance of payments accounts. Since nature tourists are a subset (albeit an important subset) of all tourists, this suggests that data on numbers and expenditures of tourists are fairly weak in Zambia. Strengthening these data systems will be critical for the implementation of any Tourism Master Plan that the government may wish to pursue.
B. EXCEEDING THE FNDP TARGETS
7.7 The tourism section of the FNDP un-ambitiously seeks, by 2010, to attract 740,000 visitors annually, employ 30,000 people and earn about $304 million (direct contribution).
7.8 Already in 2005, 176,000 nature tourists had a direct contribution of $194 million, and they contributed to direct employment of 19,000 people. If 176,000 nature tourists had such an impact, the 669,000 international visitors of 2005 had an impact that far exceeds the 2010 FNDP targets for jobs and earnings - despite Zambia being an emerging destination where holiday-makers’ length of stay is among the shortest in the region and most of them limit their visit to one site, usually the Victoria Falls.
7.9 Consequently, this report suggests that it is on this “policy sensitive” segment that the Government and the Ministry of Tourism, Environment & Natural Resources need to focus to accelerate growth.
7.10 To illustrate this point, Chapter 3 showed that an additional 2 days spent in Zambia, assuming no increase in the number of tourists, leads to an increase in tourism earning of $67 millions. As this would be supplemented by the increase in the number of tourists, which has grown annually by 10% for the past years, 2 extra days would amount to added earnings of $98 million by 2010.
7.1 1 In other words, by ensuring that nature tourists stay longer in Zambia (visiting more sites), Zambia would not only succeed in exceeding its 2010 targets, the Government would also position the tourism sector more prominently as a growth pillar.
7.12 Accordingly, this report advices the Government to aggressively develop access, ensure better management and stimulate private sector investment in accommodations in the three flagship national parks, South Luangwa, Lower Zambezi and Kafue, through the following tools:
74 e Stimulate large-scale investments similar to the Sun International in at least two of these parks, maybe through special incentives.
Scale up investment in all weather roads within each of these parks to increase the length of the tourism season.
e Construct a rapid access gravel/tarred road and airstrip in each of these parks with focus on the Chipata-Mfuwe and Itezhi-tezhi Roads.
e Mobilize sufficient funding, government or otherwise, to ensure that the cost of management (resource protection, monitoring and maintenance) is secured until commercial revenue can fully cover operations.
e Focus ZAWA’s investments, human resources capacity and management on the development of these three parks while delegating, or partnering with others, for the development of other parks in order to gradually establish them as new products able to increase the length of stay of tourists in Zambia. Particular focus is needed on the northern national parks, which rightfully are seen as a priority in the FNDP.
Develop market mechanisms and training systems targeted at these three parks to create incentive for Zambian investors to invest in tourism accommodations.
C. MANAGING THE WILDLIFE ESTATE
7.13 Achieving the FNDP targets through investments in the flagship parks raises the issue of how to optimize the management of the wildlife estate in terms of financing, conservation performance and community benefits.
Improving the Management of the Wildlife Estate
7.14 Both this report and the recent review of ZAWA’s first Strategic Plan have put forward a long list of issues in need of reform if ZAWA is to become a more effective steward of the key tourism assets in Zambia. These issues are not a primary focus of this study, but clearly they are extremely important for increasing nature tourism’s contribution to economic development in Zambia.
7.15 Internal reforms in ZAWA is a matter of priority, and would involve: (I)acquiring a corporate culture commensurate with the complexity of the mission, (2) investing in human resources and adapting their skills to the need of the organization, (3) developing a business plan that is convincing to the Ministry of Finance, (4) improving management systems and controls with a focus on decentralization and field operations, and (5) aggressively establishing public private partnerships.
Rethinking GMA Governance and Management
7.16 GMAs can play a major role in the success of the protected area system. Chapter 4 has provided concrete evidence that there are welfare benefits associated with living in some GMAs. Conversely, there is also evidence for ‘elite capture’ in the GMAs, with non-poor households benefiting disproportionately. This report advises the government to initiate a full review of the governance and management of GMAs and take opportunities of current trends such as administrative decentralization, commercial diversification and public private partnerships.
7.17 Experiences elsewhere demonstrate that there is potential to establish a better equilibrium between communities, private sector and public institutions for the greater economic benefit of all and better management of biological resources.
75 Increase Community Benefits of Conservation
7.18 A greater proportion of hunting revenue should probably be shared with communities in GMAs. Although this would affect the revenue stream for ZAWA’s operations, it could reduce the inherent conflict of interest that ZAWA faces between generating revenue on the one hand and conserving wildlife on the other. Similar conflict will be experienced as long as dependence on hunting is continued even under new management arrangements.
7.19 However, revenue sharing on its own is likely to beneficial to the non-poor section of the communities only. If conservation is to play a role in poverty reduction there is a need to look at ways to spread the benefits of living in GMAs more widely. These may include: (1) sensitization activities to enhance participation of residents in development activities regardless of their economic status, and (2) identification and promotion of livelihoods that would provide alternatives to illegal harvesting and trading in natural resources.
Financing Conservation
7.20 The findings on tourists’ willingness to pay for parks and conservation are clearly important when the question of finance to sustain the basis of nature tourism, the protected areas of Zambia, is considered. However it is important not to rush to judgment on the figures presented in this study. Questions of phasing, the appropriateness of earmarking (hypothecation), and the capacity ofthe key institution, ZAWA, and other environmental management institutions, need to be addressed. There is a clear need for providing annual support to ZAWA until revenues balance expenses and for significant investment in ZAWA if it is to become an effective manager of the wildlife estate. Beyond this, the willingness to pay figures presented in this study indicate that there is substantial potential for the sector to become more self-financing.
76 ANNEX 1
TOURISM DEMAND SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE
1 Questionnaire number
ZAMBIA VISITOR SURVEY
Final Version
2 Interviewer code 3 Date : I I2005
Mon=l Tue=2 Wed=3 Thu=4 Fri=5 Sat=6 Sun=7 4 Day: 1 I I I I I 1
5 Weather conditions (circle the correct response, one in each box) 5.1 I 5.2 I 5.3 I 5.4 Very hot (>3OoC) 1 Sunny 1 Dry 1 Calm 1 Hot (2loC-3O0C) 2 Broken cloud 2 Driulelshowers 2 Breezy 2 Warm (15-2OoC) 3 Overcast 3 Persistent rain 3 Windy 3 Cool (10-1 5OC) 4
Lusaka airport 1 Livingstone I Victoria Falls / Mosi Oa Tunya 2 Livingstone airport 3 Lower Zambezi I Lake Kariba 4 South Luanawa 5 IMfuweiirDort I 6 I I 7 I North Luangwa 8 Kasanka 9 I Nsumbu I Lake Tannanvika I 10 I
7 Air flight number (if applicable): 8 Time started (24 hour clock): 9 Time ended (24 hour clock): 10 Total time taken: mi n u tes
77 INTERVIEWER INSTRUCTIONS ASK THE VISITOR IF HUSHE HAS ALREADY BEEN INTERVIEWED IN ANOTHER SITE. IF YES, THEN WITHDRAW POLITELY; IF NO, THEN PROCEED Hello, my name is ...... And I am doing a survey for the Ministry of Tourism, Environment and Natural Resources of Zambia. I would be very grateful if you would answer a few questions about your visit to Zambia. This is not a marketing or sales survey. We are doing the survey to have a better understanding of what tourists want from their trip to Zambia and what experiences and natural resources they value the most. The survey should not take more than 30 minutes. The questions are really easy to respond to. Any information you provide will be kept strictly confidential. Would you be prepared to answer some questions? IF YES, THEN PROCEED; IF NO, THEN WITHDRAW POLITELY A. SOCIOLOGIC DATA
Male 1 Female 2
I 18-24 years I 1 I I 25-34 years I 2 I I 35-44 years I 3 I I 45-54 years I 4 I I 55-64 years I 5 I I 65-74 years I 6 I I 75 or more I 7 I 13 What is your nationality? Circle one only. I Zambian I 1 I I American (USA) I 2 I I Australian I 3 I I British I 4 I rcanadian 5 ~ I I ____ Chinese 6 Danish 7 Dutch 8 French 9 German 10 Indian 11 Italian 12 I Japanese I 13 I I Kenyan I 14 I I New Zealander I 15 I I South African I 16 I I Swedish I 17 I I Tanzanian I 18 I I Zimbabwean I 19 I Other Please specify:
79 Yes 1 No 2 15 Which level best describes the highest level of education you have attained until now? Circle one onlv. 1 No formal education I 1 I I Primary school (up to 11 years old) I 2 I I Lower Secondary school (up to 15 years old) I 3 I I Upper Secondary school (up to 18 years old) I 4 I I Professional qualification or diploma I 5 I I College degree I 6 I I Higher degree (MSc or PhD) I 7 I
Self-employed 1 Employed full-time (30 hours plus per week) 2 Employed part-time (under 30 hours per week) 3 Student 4 Unemployed 5 Looking after the home full-time I housewife/husband 6 1 Retired 7 I Do not work: private means I a I I Unable to work due to sickness or disability I 9 I I Unpaid voluntary work I 10 I Other work status Please specify: 17 What is your yearly gross (personal) income? (If the interviewee is reluctant stress that the survey is anonymous and the information will be kept strictly confidential) Use the income card with the relevant currency
I Record currency I Record income 17.1 17.2
Currency
Dollar =I Rand =4 Euro =2 Kwacha =5 Pound =3
80 18 Do you have any children (including independent children)? Circle one only.
19 How many people are in your travel party, including yourself? Record response.
Number of people IF ANSWER IS 1 GO TO QUESTION 22
20 Record the people the tourist is travelling with. Circle one only. Family 1 Friends 2 I Family and friends I 3 I Work colleagues 4
Male Female Up to 5 years 21.1 21.2 I 6 to 15years I 21.3 I 21.4 16 to 60 years 21.5 21.6
60 to 75 years 21.7 21.8
Over 75 years 21.9 21.10
81 22 What is your country of residence? Circle one only. I Zambia I 1 USA 2 I ~~ ~ I Australia 3 UK 4 ~ Canada 5 China 6 Denmark 7 France 8 Germany 9 Holland 10 India 11 Italy 12 Jaoan 13 I Kenya I 14 I Newzealand I 15 I I South Africa I 16 I Sweden I 17 I Tanzania I 18 I I Zimbabwe I 19 I Other country of residence Please specify:
IF ANSWER IS NOT ZAMBIA, THEN GO TO SECTION C
82 FOR RESIDENTS ONLY B. GENERAL RESIDENT TRIP INFORMATION
Visited Not visited I 23.1 Botswana 1 2 123.2 Kenya I1121 I 23.3 Malawi I 1 12 I 23.4 Namibia 1 2 23.5 South Africa 1 2 I 23.6 Tanzania I1121 23.7 Uganda 1 2 23.8 Zimbabwe 1 2
24 From which province and city did you start this trip to the parks? Record responses. Exclude transit provinces and cities.
24.1 Province 1 24.2 City I Town I Province city Central =I Chipata =I Lusaka = I1 Copperbelt =2 Chirundu =2 Ndola = 12 Eastern =3 Choma =3 Mansa = 13 Luapula =4 lsoka =4 Mazabuka = 14 Lusaka =5 Kabwe =5 Mkushi = 15 Northern =6 Kafue =6 Mongu = 16 North-western = 7 Kapiri Mposhi = 7 Mpika = 17 Southern =8 Kasama =8 Mpulungu = 18 Western =9 Kitwe =9 Sia vonga = 19 Livingstone = IO Solwezi = 20 Other city: please specify
GO TO SECTION E
83 FOR NON RESIDENTS I FOREIGNERS ONLY C. GENERAL INTERNATIONAL TRIP INFORMATION
25 How many times in total have you visited Zambia (including this trip) in the last ten years? Circle one only. 1 (it is my first time) 1 2 2 3-5 3 I 6-10 I 4 I I Over 10 I 5 I 26 Which countries in Sub-Saharan Africa have you ever visited? Circle the response, only once per row. Visited I Not visited 26.1 Angola I 1 12 26.2 Botswana I 1 12 26.3 Kenya 1 2 26.4 Malawi 1 2
26.5 Mozambique 1112 26.6 Namibia 1 2 26.7 South Africa 1 2 26.8 Tanzania 1 2
26.9 Uganda 1112 26.10 Zimbabwe 1 2
Record number of days spent.
84 28 What is the main reason you came to visit Zambia? Circle the main one only. I I came for business reasons I 1 I I I came for a conference I 2 I I I wanted to visit Victoria Falls I 3 I I am on a huntina trip 4 I ~~ I I I came for an adventure trip (rafting, boating, bungi jumping) 5 I came for a cultural trip (heritage sites, villages) 6 I came for viewing and photographing wildlife 7 I wanted to visit friends or family 8 It was included in my packaged tour 9 It is close to where I live 10 It was recommended by friends/ relatives/ book 11 I I had a really good experience during my previous trip I 12 I Other reason Please specify: 29 From which country, province and city did you come into Zambia? This refers to the country, province and city you were before coming into Zambia. Exclude transit countries, provinces and cities
29.1 Record country
29.2 Record province
I 29.3 Record city Country:
Angola =I India = 10 Sweden = 19 Australia =2 Italy = I1 Tanzania = 20 Botswana =3 Japan = 12 Uganda = 21 Canada =4 Kenya = 13 UK = 22 China =5 Malawi = 14 USA = 23 Denmark =6 Mozambique = 15 Zimbabwe = 24 France =7 Namibia = 16 Other country: Please specify Germany =8 New Zealand = 17 Holland =9 South Africa = 18
85 30 What is the principal mode of transport that you used to come into Zambia from this previous destination? Circle one only. Aeroplane 1 Car 2 Coach 3 Taxi 4
IF THE RESPONSE IS NOT 1 GO TO QUESTION 32 31 Which Airline did you fly with?
Record the airline
Airlines
Air Malawi = 1 Ethiopian Airways = 5 Nationwide Airlines = 9 Air Zimbabwe = 2 InterAir = 6 Regional Air = IO British Airways = 3 Kenya Airways = 7 South African Airways = 11 Comair =4 KLM = 8 Other airline: Please specify
Lusaka Airport 1 Livingstone Airport 2 Mfuwe Airport 3 Ndola Airport 4 Chirundu border 5 Nakonde 6 Mwami 7 I Kasumbalesa I a l I Kariba / Siavonga I 9 I I Kazungula I 10 I I Katimamulilo I 11 I Other entry point Please specify: 33 Is this visit to Zambia part of a packaged tour? Circle one only: I Yes I 1 I 1 2 I GOTOSECTIONE I
86 FOR NON RESIDENTS I FOREIGNERS ONLY D. INTERNATIONAL PACKAGED TOUR INFORMATION
34 From whom did you purchase your tour?
34.1 Record name
34.2 Record the name of the tour (if any)
Price per person Price for the group Currency 35.1 35.2 35.3
Currency:
Dollar = 1 Rand =4 Yen =6 Euro =2 Kwacha =5 Other currency: Please specify: Pound =3 36 Which of these other items are included in the price of your tour? Circle the response, only one per row I If not Currency included Not Included amount included spent on round trip 36.1 International air fares (from 36.2 36.3 home to origin city of tour and 2 back) Transfers 1 2 ;;:& 2 Inland transportation 1 Accommodation 2 36.7 Breakfast I1 2 36.8 Lunch 1 2 36.9 Dinner 1 2 36.10 Drinks 2
36.11 Parks entry fees 11 2
No 2 GO TO QUESTION 39
a7 38 How long did it take you to travel to Zambia from your home? Record the time spent in hours. I I
GO TO QUESTION 45
Yes 1 GO TO QUESTION 41 No 2
40 How much did you spend in total on international airfare/travel cost between countries in the package tour? Record the amount I Record the currency
Currency:
Dollar =I Kwacha =5 Euro =2 Yen =6 Pound =3 Other currency: Please specify Rand =4 41 Is Zambia your first destination? Circle one only. Yes 1 No 2 GO TO QUESTION 43
42 How long did it take you to travel to Zambia from your home?
Record the time spent in hours.
GO TO QUESTION 45 43 From which country, province and city did you start your tour? 43.1 Record country
43.2 Record province I 43.3 Record city I I
Country:
Australia =I India =9 Sweden = 17 Botswana =2 Italy = IO Tanzania = 18 Canada =3 Japan = 11 Uganda = 19 China =4 Kenya = 12 UK = 20 Denmark =5 Malawi = 13 USA = 21 France =6 Namibia = 14 Zimbabwe = 22 Germany =7 New Zealand = 15 Other country; Please specify Holland =8 South Africa = 16
88 44 Which countries are also included? Which are the specific tourism sites in these countries that are included in your packaged tour?
Time spent to go Mode of to this country Country Sites visited /to be visited transportation from the previous country in hours 44.1 44.2 44.3 44.4 First country from home 44.5 44.6 44.7 44.8
44.9 144.10 1 44.11 44.12
44.13 44.14 44.15 44.16
44.17 44.18 44.19 44.20 Back to your count
Country Mode of transport
Botswana =I Tanzania =6 Plane =I Kenya =2 Uganda =7 Car =2 Malawi =3 Zambia =8 Coach =3 Namibia =4 Zimbabwe =9 Taxi =4 South Africa =5 Other country: Please specify Other mode of transportation: Please specify: 45 How many days does your packaged tour last? Record total number of days( including days in other countries) I I
The following questions are now only related to the Zambian part of your t rip.
89 cd cd rd I Cur. d d d
m 0
2d t2 m 7 2 Cur. cd Q) 1 d Q CO m 7
d2 d2
0 f-
2d d2
7 N 7 cd cd d d ds
-0 f r-
E d2 8 0 m 9 Q cd d
m h! cd d s
d
2d m Cur. ;
mQ)
7 CO N m
0 f-
d2 d2 d2
m
d2
N a r c ui i7j d d2 *; 0 E. NON INTERNATIONAL PACKAGED TOUR INFORMATION IF THE TOURIST IS A ZAMBIAN RESIDENT THEN SKIP TO QUESTION 54 47 Will you visit ONLY Zambia during your trip? Circle one only. Yes 1 No 2 GO TO QUESTION 50
48 How long did it take you to travel to Zambia from your home? I Record the time in hours. I I 49 How much did you pay per person and for the whole group for travelling into Zambia? I Record the price per person I Record the price for the group I Record the currency I 49.1 I 49.2 1 49.3 1
Yes 1 I No I 2 I GO TO QUESTION 51 I
50.a) How long did it take you to travel to Zambia from your home? Record the time spent in hours.
GO TO QUESTION 53 51 From which country, province and city did you start your tour? 51 .I Record country
51.2 Record province I 51.3 Record city I I Country: Australia =I India =9 Sweden = 17 Botswana =2 Italy = 10 Tanzania = 18 Canada =3 Japan = I1 Uganda = 19 China =4 Kenya = 12 UK = 20 Denmark =5 Malawi = 13 USA = 21 France =6 Namibia = 14 Zimbabwe = 22 Germany =7 New Zealand = 15 Other country: Please specify Holland =8 South Africa = 16
92 52 Could you then provide me more details on your multicountry trip? Record the re jonses in order of visit Country Mode of transport- Time spent to Cost of the Cur. sites visited /to ation go to this transportatio be visited country from n from your your previous previous country in country hours 52.1 52.2 52.3 52.4 52.5 52.6 First country from home
52.7 52.8 52.9 52.10 52.11 52.12
52.13 52.14 52.15 52.16 52.17 52.18
52.19 52.20 52.21 52.22 52.23 52.24
52.25 52.26 52.27 52.28 52.29 Back to your home country
52.30 52.31 52.32 52.33 Total time and cost I Country Mode of transport Currency
Botswana =I Plane =I Dollar =I Kenya =2 Car =2 Euro =2 Malawi =3 Coach =3 Pound =3 Namibia =4 Taxi =4 Rand =4 South Africa =5 Other mode of transportation: Kwacha =5 Tanzania =6 Please specify: Yen =6 Uganda =7 Other currency: Zambia =8 Please specify: Zimbabwe =9 Other country: Please specify 53 How long in total will your multi-country trip last?
Record number of days
93 54 Which of these sites in Zambia have you visited during this trip? Circle the response on the table below, only one per row.
55 Do you know what the entry price to the sites you visited is? Record the response on the table below.
Response:
I don’t remember// don’t know = 1 I am not sure, it is . . . =2 Of course, I know if is.. . =3
56 If yes could you give use the amount you paid Record the amount paid if given on the table below.
Currency:
Dollar =I Rand =4 Euro =2 Kwacha =5 Pound =3 Yen =6 Other currency: Please specify
Question Question 54 Question 56 Response 57 Not to 55 Number Visited visited Amount Cur. of time
54.1 Livingstone I 55.1 56.1 56.2 57.1 Victoria Falls I 1 2 Mosi Oa Tunya 55.2 56.3 56.4 57.2 54.2 South Luangwa 1 2
54.3 Lower Zambezi I 55.3 56.5 56.6 57.3
94 58 Did you buy an organized tour for visiting sites in Zambia? Yes 1 I No 2 I GO TO QUESTION 61
Price per person Price for group Currency Sites covered 59.1 59.2 59.3 59.4
60 What was included in your organized tour?
Circle the response
1 I IncludedNot I Travel to site 1 2 Accommodation 1 2 Breakfast 1 2 Lunch 1 2 Dinner 1 2 Drinks 1 2 Parks entry fees 1 2 Activities 1 2
95 hl k Cur. 7 7 I (D (D
In 0 7 k r '?r(D I; (D
Cur. 7 I 0 IS
43 (9 c
hl (D 7 (9 7 7 (D (D r -_ (9 Cur. 7 I (D S
03 (D n!(D7 I%
b In 0 n! t (4 7 7 7 7 (D (D (D (D
r 7 (D (D
In 0 7 k n! (9 r 7 - (D co7 If (D d n! Cur 7 7 7 (D (D (D m 5 E Q) v! 4 7 C (D g '5 a, 43 c v) t v! c Is 7 a, (D t, 0 -c $ P I- I 0 n! n! 7 7 - (D (D In a, CI v! 7 7 i7j (D (D - IIII II IIIIII :sP,
L 3 8 \r 9) F. PERCEPTIONS ABOUT NATIONAL PARKS
People who visit benefit directly (recreation, enjoyment, education, etc) 1 Peode who do not visit can benefit indirectlv (documentaries. books etc) 2 It ensures that we all have the option of visiting in the future 3 It is important for the sake of the animal and plant life, regardless of its current or future use 4 It is important for the local population (part of their culture and identity) 5 It is important for future generations 6 It contributes to the country economy through local livelihoods, employment, tourism, business, etc 7
63 Approximately how many wildlife parks have you visited in the last 5 years, anywhere in the world and in Sub-Saharan Africa? I I Record number of parks in Sub-Saharan Africa
Record number of parks anywhere in the world
64 Approximately how many natural sites of outstanding beauty, excluding wildlife parks, have you visited in the last 5 years, anywhere in the world?
Record number of sites
98 65 I am now going to read out a number of features of a visit to Zambian natural sites. Please rank them using a scale that ranges from 1 ‘very bad’ to 5 = ‘very good’, to classify the quality of each of these features, according to the experience you had. I 1 I 2 I 3 I 4 I 5 I
Insert answer code from the scale.
Site visited
Livingstone Victoria Falls /Mosi Oa Tunya= 1 North Luangwa =5 South Luangwa =2 Nsumbu / Lake Tanganyika = 6 Lower Zambezinake Kariba =3 Kasanka =7 Kafue =4 Other site visited: please specify
99 66 What features would you like to see improved or introduced?
Record improvement or introduction I ~~~~~ 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Site visited Livingstone Victoria Falls / North Luangwa =5 Mosi Oa Tunya =I Nsumbu /Lake Tanganyika = 6 South Luangwa =2 Kasanka =7 Lower Zambezinake Kariba = 3 Other site visited: please specify Kafue =4 67 Do you plan to visit Zambian natural sites again in the future? Circle one only. I Yes I 1 I No I 2 68 If the park(s) you visited had been closed to tourism this year and you had known this in advance, what would you have done instead? Circle one only: Visit other natural sites in Zambia 1 68.1 Please specify: Visit other places (not natural sites) in Zambia 2 68.2 Please specify: Visit other natural sites in other countries 3 68.3 Please specify: Visit other places (not natural sites) in other countries 4 68.4 Please specify: I Stay at home I 5 I
100 G. VALUATION SECTION
IF THE TOURIST HAS EVER VISITED LIVINGSTONE, THEN PROCEED IF NOT SKIP TO THE SOUTH LUANGWA NATIONAL PARK SUB SECTION
LIVINGSTONE SUB SECTION Identify and circle entry fee paid by Entry feelpersonlday Citizens Residents Non-residents Victoria Falls and Mosi Oa Tunya K 40,140 K 50,220 US$15
While staying in Livingstone, you can see the Victoria Falls, watch wildlife in Mosi Oa Tunya, and cruise at sunset on the Zambezi River. The current price charged to access this site is (see fable). I am going to ask you several questions related to how much this experience is worth to you. First imagine the following situation. While you were planning your trip to Livingstone you learned that the entry fee had increased. What is the maximum fee you personally would be prepared to pay to visit Livingstone (Show the payment card)? This is the amount above which you would choose not to visit this park at all.
69 Please do not agree to pay an amount that you cannot afford, that you are unsure about, or that you feel would be better spent in other things. Please also assume you would not change the duration of your visit. I Record the fee Currency I
Currency
Dollar =I Euro =2 Pound =3 Rand =4 Kwacha =5 Other currency Please specify:
IF THE AMOUNT INDICATED IS MORE THAN THE CURRENT FEE: GO TO QUESTION 71 70 What are the main reasons why you are not willing to pay any more than the current fee to visit Livingstone?
101 Record the fee Currency
Currency
Dollar =I Euro =2 Pound =3 Rand =4 Kwacha =5 Other currency Please specify:
IF THE AMOUNT NDICATED IS MORE THAN THE PREVIOUS MAXIMUM WILLINGNESS TO PAY, GO TO NEXT PARK VISITED 72 What are the main reasons why you are not willing to pay any more to visit Livingstone if the changes described had been implemented?
102 SOUTH LUANGWA NATIONAL PARK SUB SECTION
IF THE TOURIST HAS EVER VISITED SOUTH LUANGWA NATIONAL PARK,THENPROCEED IF NOT SKIP TO THE LOWER ZAMBEZI NATIONAL PARK SUB SECTION
Identify and circle entry fee paid by I Entry feelpersonlday I Citizens I Residents I Non-residents I South Luangwa National Park K 25,020 K 31,320 US$20
The South Luangwa National Park is acknowledged as one of the greatest wildlife sanctuaries. The concentration of game there is among the most intense in Africa. Whilst staying in South Luangwa National Park, you can experience a walking safari, that allows you to get as close as possible to elephants, hippos or even lions. The current price charged to access this site is (see table). I am going to ask you several questions related to how much this experience is worth to you. First imagine the following situation. While you were planning your trip to South Luangwa National Park you learned that the entry fee had increased. What would be the maximum fee you personally are prepared to pay to visit South Luangwa National Park (Show the payment card)? This is the amount above which you would choose not to visit this park at all. 73 Please do not agree to pay an amount that you cannot afford, that you are unsure about, or that you feel would be better spent in other things. Please also assume you would not change the duration of your visit.
I Record the fee Currency
Currency Dollar =I Euro =2 Pound =3 Rand =4 Kwacha =5 Other =6 1.l.c Please specify:
IF THE AMOUNT INDICATED IS MORE THAN THE CURRENT FEE: GO TO QUESTION 75 74 What are the main reasons why you are not willing to pay any more than the current fee to visit South Luangwa National Park?
103 Record the fee Currency 1
Currency Dollar =I Euro =2 Pound =3 Rand =4 Kwacha =5 Other =6 1.3.c Please specify:
IF THE AMOUNT INDICATED IS MORE THAN THE PREVIOUS MAXIMUM WILLINGNESS TO PAY, GO TO NEXT PARK VISITED
76 What are the main reasons why you are not willing to pay any more to visit South Luangwa National Park if the changes described had been implemented?
104 LOWER ZAMBEZI NATIONAL PARK SUB SECTION
IF THE TOURIST HAS EVER VISITED LOWER ZAMBEZI NATIONAL PARK, THEN PROCEED IF NOT SKIP TO THE KAFUE NATIONAL PARK SUB SECTION
Identify and circle entry fee paid by I Entry feelpersonlday I Citizens 1 Residents I Non-residents I I Lower Zambezi National Park I K25,020 K I K31,320 I US$20 I
The Lower Zambezi National Park is one of the most spectacular park in Africa where you can get close to game that wanders around. You can see enormous herds of elephants, lions and leopards amongst a profusion of birdlife. The current price charged to access this site is (see table). I am now going to ask you several questions related to how much this experience is worth to you. First imagine the following situation. While you were planning your trip to Lower Zambezi National Park you learned that the entry fee had increased. What would be the maximum fee you personally are prepared to pay to visit Lower Zambezi National Park (Show the payment card)? This is the amount above which you would choose not to visit this park at all. Please do not agree to pay an amount that you cannot afford, that you are unsure about, or that you feel would be better spent in other things. Please also assume you would not change the duration of your visit.
77 Please assume you would not change the duration of your visit. Please do not agree to pay an amount that you cannot afford, that you are unsure about, or that you feel would be better spent in other things.
Record the fee Currency
IF THE AMOUNT INDICATED IS MORE THAN THE CURRENT FEE: GO TO QUESTION 79 78 What are the main reasons why you are not willing to pay any more than the current fee to visit Lower Zambezi National Park?
105 79 Now imagine another situation. There have been proposals to improve the quality of the visit to Lower Zambezi National Park for tourists and raise more revenue for natural resources management. These include: i) Road improvement (show the pictures) and increase in the number of lodges. ii) Increasing the abundance of animals in Lower Zambezi National Park; The visitors will be then sure to see elephants, zebras, giraffes, antelopes and monkeys during each visit they make. The number of big cats will also be increased, so that people can expect to see at least one of them during a week stay.
Record the fee Currency
Currency Dollar =I Euro =2 Pound =3 Rand =4 Kwacha =5 Other =6 I. 3. c Please specify:
IF THE AMOUNT INDICATED IS MORE THAN THE PREVIOUS MAXIMUM WILLINGNESS TO PAY, GO TO NEXT PARK VISITED
80 What are the main reasons why you are not willing to pay any more to visit Lower Zambezi National Park if the changes described had been implemented?
106 KAFUE NATIONAL PARK SUB SECTION
IF THE TOURIST HAS EVER VISITED KAFUE NATIONAL PARK, THEN PROCEED IF NOT SKIP TO QUESTION 90
Identry and circle entry fee paid by I Entry feelpersonlday I Citizens 1 Residents I Non-residents I I Lower Zambezi National Park I K20,160 I K25,200 I US$15 I
The Kafue National Park is the second largest national park in the world, and about the size of Wales. You have seen really rare antelopes like Sable and Roan, you did probably photograph zebras, thousand of red Lechwes. The wealth of game on the plains is also a big attraction for predators, leopards, cheetahs and up to 20 lions. The current price charged to access this site is (see table). I am now going to ask you several questions related to how much this experience is worth to you. 81 First imagine the following situation. While you were planning your trip to Kafue National Park you learned that the entry fee had increased. What would be the maximum fee you personally are prepared to pay to visit Kafue National Park (Show the payment card)? This is the amount above which you would choose not to visit this park at all. Please do not agree to pay an amount that you cannot afford, that you are unsure about, or that you feel would be better spent in other things. Please also assume you would not change the duration of your visit.
Record the fee Currency
IF THE AMOUNT INDICATED IS MORE THAN THE CURRENT FEE: GO TO QUESTION 83 82 What are the main reasons why you are not willing to pay any more than the current fee to visit Kafue National Park?
107 83 Now imagine another situation. There have been proposals to improve the quality of the visit to Kafue National Park for tourists and raise more revenue for natural resources management. These include: i) Improve the accommodation supply with more bush camps ii) Open new areas for tourist visit that will allow you see different landscapes and more wildlife. What would be the maximum fee you personally are prepared to pay to visit Kafue National Park in this case? (Show payment card). Please assume you would not change the duration of your visit. Please do not agree to pay an amount that you cannot afford, that you are unsure about, or that you feel would be better spent in other things.
Record the fee Currency
Currency Dollar =I Euro =2 Pound =3 Rand =4 Kwacha =5 Other =6 I.3. c Please specify:
IF THE AMOUNT INDICATED IS MORE THAN THE PREVIOUS MAXIMUM WILLINGNESS TO PAY, GO TO QUESTION 85
84 What are the main reasons why you are not willing to pay any more to visit Kafue National Park if the changes described had been implemented?
108 Record the fee Currency
Currency
Dollar =I Rand =4 Yen =6 Euro =2 Kwacha =5 Other currency: Pound =3 Please specify
IF THE AMOUNT INDICATED IS NOT ZERO GO TO SECTION H
86 What are the main reasons why you are not willing to pay for the re-stocking and re-opening of 3 additional national parks?
GO TO SECTION H
109 FOR RESIDENT ONLY: 87 Finally, consider a third situation. In Zambia, tourists mainly visit three nature- based sites Livingstone, South Luangwa, Lower Zambezi. Suppose that the government is considering doubling the number of such tourism sites by also equipping Kafue National Park, Kasanka and Lake Tanganyika. This will imply re- stocking some of the wildlife that has been lost to poaching in these sites and providing adequate tourist facilities. The additional sites have some distinguishing features. Kafue will be the largest wildlife area in Africa. Kasanka will provide tremendous bird watching opportunities and Lake Tanganyika is the deepest lake in the world and harbour a huge crocodile population, some of them are reaching more than 6 meters length. These sites will provide different attractions and experiences not found in Livingstone, South Luangwa, or Lower Zambezi. If this project takes place, it would then increase the choice of natural destinations for tourists in Zambia. While part of the expenses would be funded by international donor organizations, it is most likely that funds would still have to be raised in the country. One option would be to raise an additional tax to be added on the electricity bill (just like the National Broadcasting tax). What is the maximum conservation tax you personally would be prepared to pay in order to have the option of visiting these three additional sites? (Show payment card) Please do not agree to pay an amount that you cannot afford, that you are unsure about, or that you feel would be better spent in other things.
Record the fee Currency
Dollar =I Rand =4 Yen =6 Euro =2 Kwacha =5 Other currency: Pound =3 Please specify
IF THE AMOUNT INDICATED IS NOT ZERO GO TO SECTION H 88 What are the main reasons why you are not willing to pay for the re-stocking and re-opening of 3 additional national parks?
110 H. MISCELLANEOUS QUESTIONS Finally, these are the last few questions.
89 What will you remember most vividly about your visit to Zambian natural sites? This might be a good or a bad thing!
Record memory
90 Last of all, what did you think of this questionnaire7 Circle all that apply: I lnterestina I 1 ~~ ~~~ ~ ~~ Too long 2 Difficult to understand 3 Educational 4 Unrealistic/ not credible 5
111 INTERVIEWER DECLARATION
(SIGN EACH QUESTIONNAIRE)
Date:
This interview was conducted face to face with a respondent who is unknown to me
Please print your name:
Signature:
112 ANNEX 2
GMA HOUSEHOLD QUESTIONNAIRE
REPUBLIC OF ZAMBIA QUESTIONNAIRE NO: OF CENTRAL STATISTICAL OFFICE u P.O. BOX 31908, LUSAKA, ZAMBIA TEL Nos. 251377/251370/253609/251385/253908/ ~5346a/t56520 FAX Nos. 253609/250195/253468/253908/256520 email: Info @Zamstats.gov.zm Website: www.zamstats.gov.zm IMPACT OF GAME MANAGEMENT AREAS ON HOUSEHOLD WELFARE SURVEY
WII. " .w CODE NUMBER 1. PROVINCE NAME 0 2. DISTRICT NAME un 3. CONSTITUENCY NAME 4. WARD NAME m 5. CSA NUMBER m 6. SEA NUMBER 0 7. STRATUM 1. Prime 2. Secondary 3. Specialised 4. Under stocked 5. Non GMA 0
8. NEAREST NATIONAL PARK 1. Bangweulu (Kasanka, Lavushi, Isangano) 2. Kafue (Kafue, Blue lagoon, Lockinvar) 3, Lower Zambezi 4. Luangwa System 0 9. HOUSEHOLD NUMBER (HHN) Originally selected Name of Head...... un 10. VILLAGE NAME 11. HOUSEHOLD SELECTION STATUS: 1. Originally selected household >> 14 2. Replacement household cl
12. IF REPLACEMENT HOUSEHOLD, REASON FOR REPLACING: 1. Refusal 2. Non-contact 3. Household moved out 4. Others specifV 13. HOUSEHOLD NUMBER (Replacement household) Name of Head...... 14. NAME OF MAlN RESPONDENT SERIAL NUMBER FROM ...... HOUSEHOLD ROSTER m 15. TOTAL NUMBER OF PERSONS WHO LIVE IN THIS HOUSEHOLD (INCLUDE USUAL MEMBERS ABSENT) m
16. ENUMERATOR'S NAME ...... DATE OF INrERVIEW mmm 17. SUPERVISOR'S NAME ...... DATE OF CHECKING mmm INTRODUCTION: Iwould like to start the interview by asking you questions about yourself and other usual members of the household 1 2 3 SERIAL Please give me the names of all persons who usually live with this How old is...... , .now? NUMBER OF household. Start with the head of the household and exclude visitors. HOUSEHOLD RECORD AGE IN COMPLETED YEARS. Include usual members, who are away visiting, in hospital, at boarding MEMBER (PID) IF LESS THAN 1 YEAR. RECORD 00 schools or college or university etc. Also include visitors who have lived I with the household for six months or more. AGE m m m m a m m I m m m m m m m m m Ul m m m D m m m D m m m m
114 5 What is the relationship of . . . ,..to the head of the Is ...... male or FOR THOSE AGED 12 YEARS AND FOR THOSE AGED 5 YEARS AND ABOVE ONLY ABOVE ONLY household? female? HEAD 01 What is the marital status of...... ? What was the highest grade ..... attained? SPOUSE...... 02 OWN CHILD ...... 03 MALE. .., . . .. , . .. 1 NEVER MARRIED...... I [REFER TO THE CODES AT THE FEMALE...... 2 MARRIED ...... 2 END OF THE QUESTlONNAIREl GRAND CHILD ...... 05 PID SEPARATED ...... 3 BROTHER/SISTER ...... 06 DIVORCED...... 4 NIECEMEPHEW ...... 07 WIDOWED ...... 5 BROTHEWSISTER-IN LAW...... 08 PARENT 09 PARENT-IN-LAW...... 10 OTHER RELATIVE...... 11 MAIDMANNYiHOUSE-SERVANT.,. ..12 NON-RELATIVE ...... 13 D o 0 mj m 0 m m 0 0 m ml m 0 0 m m 0 m 0 0 0 0 0 0 m m 0 0 m m 0 0 m 0 0 0 0 0 0 m 0 0 0 0
115 I.. i.i.i 3 ... . -3 SECTfON 2 :ECONOMIC AC TMTY- FOR ALL PERSONS ACED 5 YEARS AND ABOVE INTRODUC'I )N: I am now going to ask about the economic activify itus of some members of the ho
PID What is ...... & economic (activity) status? Who is . , . , . . , . , , main employer? To what does ...... 's main employer / business relate most? [ENTER MOST IMPORTANT ONLY] IN WAGE EMPLOYMENT ...... 01 SELF EMPLOYED ...... 01 COMMUNITY CAMPSITES ...... 01 RUNNING A BUSINESSiSELF EMPLOYED...... 02 ZAWA ...02 PRIVATE LODGES AND CAMPS
FARMING ...... 03 CENTRAL GOVT (OTHER THAN LICENSED GAME HUNTING . . , . , FISHING ...... 04 ZAWA) ...... 03 UNLICENSED GAME HUNTING ...... 04 CRB ...... 04 SAFARI HUNTNG ...... os PIECEWORK...... 06 VAG ...... OS PHOTO SAFARI ...... 06 UNPAID FAMILY WORKER 07 LOCAL GOVT ...... 06 RECREATIONAL FISHING NOT WORKING BUT LOOKING FOR WOW PARASTATAL ...... 07 NONRECREATIONAL FISH MEANS TO DO BUSINESS ...... OS PRIVATE SECTOR NON TOURISM LIVE GAME SALE ...... 09 NOT WORKING AND NOT LOOKING FOR WOW ...... 08 CRAFT PRODUCTION ...... IO MEANS TO DO BUSINESS BUT AVAILABLE OR PRIVATE SECTOR TOURISM .09 CULTURAL ENTERTAINMENT. WISHING TO DO SO ...... 09 NGO ...... IO TIMBER/ POLE COLLECTING.. FULL TIME STUDENT ...... IO Q4 PRIVATE HOUSEHOLD ...... I1 FUELWOOD COLLECTING ..,.. RETIRED ...... I1 OTHER(PEC1FY) ...... I2 CHARCOAL MAKING ...... I4 TOO OLDIYOUNG TO WO RK ...... I2 WILD HONEY COLLECTING ...... IS OTHER (SPECIFY) ...... 13 GATHERING ANTS AND CATERPILLERS ...... 16 OTHER TOURISM /WILDLIFE / FOREST RELATED (SPECIFY) ...... 17 BREWING BEEWNON-ALCOHOLIC DRINKS FOR SALE ...... 18 CARPENTRY ...... 19 BAKING ...... 20 ANY OTHER ACTIVITY (SPECIFY) ...... 21 m rn rr m m rn m m rn U rn m m m m rn rn m rn U m m rn U rn m m U m m rn rn m rn m m m r-r m m rn U m rr Ul rn U m Ul m U m m U
116 PID s.... engaged in nny/other income who is ...... s other employer? To what does . . , . , , .'s other employer / business relate :enerating activity? most? SELF EMPLOYED ...... 01 [ENTER MOST IMPORTANT ONLV] YES...... I ZAWA ...... 02 VO ...... 2 >>NEXT SECTION CENTRAL GOVT COMMUNITY CAMPSITES ...... 01 (OTHER THAN ZAWA)...... 03 PRIVATE LODGES AND CAMPS ...... 02 CRB ...... 04 LICENSED GAME HUNTING ...... 03 UNLISENSIED GAME HUNTING ...... 04 SAFARI HUNTNG...... 05 PARASTATAL ...... 07 PHOTO SAFARI ...... 06 PRIVATE SECTOR NON TOURISM ...... 08 RECREATIONAL FISHING ...... 07 PRIVATE SECTOR TOURISM ...... 09 NONRECREATIONAL FISHING ...... 08 NM...... IO LIVE GAME SALE ...... 09 PRIVATE HOUSEHOLD II CRAFT PRODUCTION OTHER SPECIFY)...... I2 CULTURAL ENTERTAINMENT ...... II
FUELWOOD COLLECTING ...... 13 CHARCOAL MAKING ...... 14 WILD HONEY COLLECTING ...... I5 GATHERING ANTS AND CATERPILLERS ...... 16 OTHER TOURISM / WILDLIFE / FOREST RELATED (SPECIFY) ...... 17 BREWING BEERMON-ALCOHOLIC DRINKS FOR SALE ...... 18 CARPENTRY ...... I9 BAKING ...... 20 ANY OTHER ACTIVITY JSPECIFY) ...... 21 m 0 m m m o m m m m Ul m m m m 0 m m 0 m m m 0 m m m 0 m m m m m m m rn m 0 m m m 0 m rn m 0 m rn
117 SECTION 3: INCOME FOR ALL PERSONS AGED 5 YEARS AND ABOVE {Cont'd) " I am now going to ask for each member of the household about their income earned individually, How much income did ...... receive from the N KWACHA1
1, Non farm main business in the last one 2. Non farm other businesses, in the last 3. How much is , . . .. . regular gross monthly month? one month? salary/wage including regular allowances such as housing and transport allowances, regular overtime, retention allowance, from the main
I18 PID 4. How much non regular allowances did 5. How much is ...... ’s regular gross 6. How much non regular allowances did . t...... receive , overtime payments, monthly salary/wage including regular receive , overtime payments, subsistence subsistence allowances, bonuses, etc from allowances such as housing and transport allowances, bonuses, etc from the second job in main job in the last I month? allowances, regular overtime, retention the last 1 month? allowance, from the second .job?
119 '3 8 SECTION 3: INCOME FQ 7. How much income in-kind did. ,. . receive 8. How much rent did., ... receive per 9. How much remittances did .. . . , . receive last per month e.g. bags of mealie meal, month from houses, other buildings, non- month? charcoal, etc from the job/s? agric equipment and non-agriculturalland he/she owns? [RECORD ONLY FOR THE PERSON WHO [CONVERTTO KWACHA ACTUALLY RECEIVED IT] m .m m .m ,m m m m m m m m m m m
120 .... .j .,.; :: :i). , .. ; .- *, .. ON 3: MCOME FOR AUPERSONS AGED 5 YEARS Ap PID 10. How much did ..... receive as pension 11. How much in gifvgrants did.. .. receive 12. How much income did ..... receive from any payment per month? per month (both cash and in-kind) other sources last month? ICONVERT IN-KIND TO CASH] [PLEASE SPECIFY1 m ...... m 1111111111 ...... m ...... m LImmmn ...... a ...... m 1111111111 a a ...... a m m ...... a EImmmn ...... m lzlnann m 1111111111 m
121 smmrt3: INicom FOR m, PEwmAGED 5 YEAM m ABOVE ~CLUD~GAGR~cuL~ INCOME ,. 16. Did any member of this household sell any crop from own production in past 12 months? Yes ... 1 No ....2>>NextPaae 0 17 How much income did all members of your household (combined) receive in the last 12 months from sale of own produced...... ? FOOD CROPS AMOUNT IN WORDS (KWACHA) AMOUNT IN FIGURES (KWACHA)
I
1 Hybrid Maize I I
I 2 Local Maize I I
I 3 Cassava I I
4 Groundnuts I I
, 5 Rice I I
6 Millet I I
7 Sorghum ! I
8 Beans I I
9 Soyabeans I I II I I I I I I I I I
I 10 Sweet Potatoes I I
11 Irish Potatoes I I
12 Vegetables 1 I Other Food 13 I Crops I NON-FOOD AMOUNT IN WORDS (KWACHA) AMOUNT IN FIGURES (KWACHA) I I
. 14 Cotton I I
15 Tobacco I I
16 Sunflower I I ,I I I I I I I I I I I
17 Paprika I I Other non-food 18 crops
122 18 Did any member ofthis household own ...... in the last 12 months? Yes . . ..lNo . . . ..2 >> Next Livestock / Poultry LIVESTOCK NUMBER NUMBER INCOME FROM LIVE SALES NUMBER INCOME FROM SLAUGHTER Yes .....1 No.... 2 CONSUMED SOLD LIVE IM KWACHA] SLAUGHTERED SALES IM KWACHA]
I 19 I POULTRY I NUMBERCONSUMED I NUMBER SOLD I INCOME FROM SALES I
1 Chicken
, 2 Guineafowls nun n EImIaII 3 Ducks and geese nun UmIn LIImnn 4 Turkeys nun uIIIn EIImnn
123 INTRODUCTION: I am now going to ask you questions about whether or not your household owns the following items
I Does hshousehold own 2 How many 3 If you were to sell all the (s) today, how any now? does this household much would you get? ASSETS I YES Own7 2 NO>>NEXT BET IADD VA-N 11 I Plough 0 m EIaIm Crop sprayer 2 I I I m I 3 Boat
14 Cellular phone (active) U
IS Sewing machine
16 Scotchcart II
124 any ...... now? the household own? today, how much would you get? I....YES 2. ...NO 22 NEXT
)DUCTION: I am now going to ask vou about Your :urrent and previous residence status OUESTlON CATEGORY AND CODE CODE Where was your household residing 5 years ago? SAME DWELLING ...... 1 DIFFERENT DWELLING, SAME LOCALITY/SAME DISTRICT ...... 2 DIFFERENT LOCALITYiSAME DISTRICT...... 3 DIFFERENT DISTRICT SAME PROVMCE ...... 4 DIFFERENT PROVINCE...... S DIFFERENT COLTNTRY ...... 6 NEW HOUSEHOLD...... 7
125 !SErnION 6 HOUS EHOL; 1 What kind of building materials idare the ...... of (A) ROOF ASBESTOS SHEETS I the main dwelling made of? [IF A MULTI- TILES 2 STOREYKINIT BUILDING RECORD IRON SHEETS 3 BUILDING MATERIALS OF THE OUTER GRASSiSTRAWfTHATCH 4 I C0 N CRE T E 5 ROOF (ROOF TOP) AND OUTER WALL]. OTHER6PEClFY) ... .,.~,.....6 (e) WALLS PAN BRICK 01 BURNT BRICK 02 MUD BRICK 03 CONCRETE BRICK 04 CONCRETE BLOCK 05 CONCRETE 06 POLE 07 m POLE & DAGGA 08 m 09 GRASWSTRAW IO IRON SHEETS II ASBESTOS SHEETS 12 HARDBOARD 13 A MIXTURE OF HARDBOARD, TIN SHEET, PLASTIC, ETC 14 - QTtlF;BLSPECIFW ...... , I5 2. a) What is the main source of drinking water for DIRECTLY FROM THE RIVEW WET SEASON LAKEISTREAMIDAM I this household during the wet season? UNPROTECTED WELL 2 0 PWED(PIPED) FROM THE b) What is the main source of drinking water for RIvERnmAM 3 DRY SEASON PROTECTED WELL 4 this household during the dry season? BOREHOLE 5 0 TAP 6 BOTTLED MINERAL WATER 7
QTHER(SPEC1FY) , . . , . 8
3. HOWfar IS this source of drinking water during the season? Wet Season
[IF LESS THAN ONE KILOMETRE ENTER Dry Season
4 HOWis water treated by the household during the Boil 1 Wet Season ...... season? Add chlorine 2 0 Other treatment 3 Dry Season Don't treat 4 0 5. What is the main type of energy used for lighting in KEROSINEiPWFIN 1 ELECTRICITY 2 your household? CANDLE 3 DIESEL 4 OPEN FIRE 5 TORCH 6 SOLAR PANEL 1 OTHER (SPECIFY) 8
~ NONE ...... 9 6. What is the main type of energy that your 2OLLECTED FIREWOOD 01 KEROSINEPARAFFIN 06 'URCHASED FIREWOOD 02 GAS 07 household uses for cooking? ZHARCOAL OWN PRODUCED 03 ELECTRICITY 08 m 2HARCOAL PURCHASED 04 CROP/LIVESTOCK RESIDUES 09 :0AL 05 OTHER (SPECIFY) IO 7 What is the main type of toilet facility for this FLUSH TOILET I ORDINARY PIT LATRINE 2 household? VIP PIT LATRINE 3 0 NONE. 4
126 INTRODUCTION: I am now g ng to ask YOU questions about distances to various facilities
I 2
Do you know How far is it to the nearest...... ? where the nearest [READ OUT FACILITIES]
. , .. is located7 IF DISTANCE MORE THAN I KILOMETER GIVE DISTANCE m KM. IF LESS THAN A KILOMETRE ENTER IN DECIMAL YES.. 1 IF MORE THAN 90 KM ENTER 90.0 N0..2 >>next IF DON’T KNOW PROBE USING TIME TO WALK @ facility Skmh 1.1 Food Market 0 1.2 Post Ofticeipostal agency
1.3 Community School - n I.4 Lower Basic School (I- 4) - n IS Middle Basic School (I- 7) n 1.6 Basic School (1 - 9) 0 1.7 Secondary school - 0 1.8 High School 0
1.9 Health Facility (Health - centericlinicihospital) 0 1.10 Hammer mill Un
1.11 Input market (for seeds, fertilizer, agricultural 0 - implements) 1.12 Police statiodpost
1.13 Bank
1.14 Public aansport (road, or rail, or water transport) - 0 1.15 Public Phone
1.16 ZAWA oftices - 1.17 Tarred Road 0 All weather motorable road 1.18 0 1.19 Agriculture Extension Ofticer 0 DU 1.20 Community Resource Board 0
127 NO. QUESTION CATEGORY CODE 1 Has any member of this household been employed as village scout by CRB? Yes.. . . I No .....2 0 2 Has any member of this household been employed as village scout by Yes ....1 ZAWA? No .....2 0
3 Has any member of this household been employed as Labourer by CRB? Yes.. . .1 No .....2 0 4 Has any member of this household been employed as Labourer by ZAWA? Yes. .. .1 No .....2 0
5. Is any 6. How long 7. Is this 8. How much did member(s) 9. Did the 10. How much income did this person(s) receive from member of has this person(s) pay as fees for this club in last household the ...... during the last 12 months? paid up this person@) 12 months? receive any member(s) household a been a ? income GROUPSKLU member of member of from . . . BS the.. . ..? ,.....7 YES ...... l during the M MONTHS NO.,, . . , , .2 last 12 >> YES I months? NO 2>> Que NEXT 9 CLUBiGROUP Yes. . . .. 1 No ...... 2 >> Next Club
I.Farmers 0 un 0 Group LI I1 I I II’I 0 2. Fishery 0 un o Group
3. Bee Keeper’s 0 un 0 Group
4. Women’s 0 un0 Club
5. Credit Group 0 un 0
6. Hammer Mill 0 un 0 Club 7. AIDS awareness 0 un 0 Group
128 129 IUCTION: Iam 9. How often do you get invitations to attend ...... general meetings?
Once a 01 Twice a year 02 7.Does Three times a any year 03 member of Four times e this a. DO YOU year 04 IO. Did you or 6. Did any household know if the Every 2 anyone 1. Have you ever 5, Do member of belong to , , , , , , leaders months OS else from this
heard of the., , , in 2. Is any 4. Do YOU this @JY call for Every household month 06 your area? member of YOU know If household elected general attend the Every this know the the vote in the body or meetings general week 07 Yes ...l household a name ... .leade last election committee where all the meeting When No ...2>> Next member of of..... r was for that households in the last needed 08 Item the...... ? leader? elected ? the.. ..leader represent are invited? 12 months? Irregularly ? the...... ? 09 IFCRB-2 GO Yes ....1 Yes .... l Yes ....l Yes ....I Never TO No .....2>> No...... 2 No ...... 2 Yes ....1 Yes ....1 No ...... 2 >> IO Yes.. .. 1 NEXT SECT MONTHS No ...... 2 No...... 2 011 VAG - 0 0 o m 0 CRB 00 0 0 o olo m 0 m __ ~ YES ....1 II In the last three years, has the CRB implemented any developmental activities in NO ....2 >>Q 13
YES., .. 1 12. Has this benefited your household in anyway? NO.... 2 YES.. .. I 13. In the last three years, has the CRB formed any Clubs I Trusts / Groups in this NO ....2 >>Q 15 0
YES., .. 1 14. Has this benefited your household in anyway? NO.... 2 YES ....1 15. Do you how if in the last three years the CRB has received any funds from NO.. . .2 >> Next sect
Do you think the amount of funds the CRB gets from ZAWA is related in some YES...... 1 16. way to the number of Game found in this GMA? NO ...... 2 DON’T KNOW .....3 0 Do you think the amount of funds the CRB gets from ZAWA is related in some YES...... 1 17 way to the number of tourists coming to this GMA? ...... NO ..2 DON’T KNOW .....3 0 YES.. .. I 18. Do you believe the CRB spends the funds in a way that benefits this household? NO.. ..2
130 YES.. .I I. Does any member of this household use any land inside the GMA? NO.... 2 >> Q7 YES. ... I 2. Are you aware of any land use restrictions within the GMA? NO.... 2 -46 YES ....1 3. Do these restrictions stop you from using the land the way you want to? NO.. ..2 YES.. ..I 4. Do these restrictions stop you from using enough land for the need of this household? NO.. ..2 0 YES.. ..I 5. Do you find these restrictions beneficial to you? NO.. ..2 Compared to three years ago, does this household use more, the same, or less More.,...... l N/A.,...... 4 6. land within GMA now? Same ...... - I 2 I U
Compared to three years ago, does this household use more, the same, or less More.,...... 1 N/A...... 4 7. land outside GMA now? Same ...... 2 lo
YES....I 8. Does your household find it advantageous to live in or near GMA? NO., . .2>> Q 10 0 9. If yes, tell me the most important advantage / benefit for your household to live in or near GMA.. ..
2..,.Job opportunities 0
3.. .. Availability of game meat, honey, fruits, etc
4.... Other (Specify) YES ....I IO. Are there any disadvantages to living in or near GMA? NO.... 2>>Nextsect If yes, tell me the most important disadvantage for your household to live in or near GMA....
1.. , ,. Restrictions to land use 11. 2. .... Destruction of crops/livestock by wild animals 0
3.. , .. Markets/schools/clinics etc, too far
4. .... Other (Specify)...... I
131 Did any member of this household grow any crops in the agriculture (2004/5) season? I YES.. ... I
I PRODUCTION
2. Did any 3. Area under crop? 4. Whatquantityof .....did 5. What quantity of...... did 6. How much was realised member of this all the members of the the household sell? from the sell of...... ? household grow LIMA...... 1 household harvest? any., .... during ACRE ...... 2 CODES FOR THE UNIT CODES FOR THE UNIT CROPS the agriculture HECTARE ...... 3 KG...... 1 KG...... 1 (2004/05) 20 Ltr TIN...... 2 20 Ltr TIN...... 2 season? 25KG Bag...... 3 25KG Bag...... 3 YES ..I 50KG Bag ...... 4 50KG Bag...... 4 NO ...Z-aext 90KG Bag ...... 5 90KG Bag...... 5 [TOTAL VALUE IN crop KWACHA] UNIT AREA UNIT QUANTITY UNIT QUANTITY
1.Local Maize 0 2, Hybrid Maize
3. Cassava (flour)
4 Millet (Threshed) 0 5. Sorghum 0 6. Rice (Paddy) 0 1. Mixed beans 0 8. Soyabeans 0 9. Sweet Potatoes 0 7nn 10. Irish Potatoes 0 7mo 11 Groundnuts (Shelled)
12. Cotton 0 13. Tobacco 0 14. Sunflower 0 7uInn 15. Paprika 0 7uIno 16. Hoticultural 0
132 2. School uniforms including shoes, socks, ties, materials for making uniforms
CLOTHING AND FOOTWEAR
2 How much was spent on.,, .during the last 12 months? IEXCLLJDING SCHOOL UNIFORM1 I.Chitenges ......
2. Clothing......
3. Fabrdmaterial......
4. Tailoring charges., ......
5. Footwear (shoes, sandals, slippers, patapata, sofias, etc)......
3. BEDDING
1. Blankets ......
______~~~~~ 2. Bed sheets ......
3. Pillows ......
I33 How much was spent on ...... during the last one month [AMOUNT IN KWACHA] [AMOUNT IN KWACHA] I and during the last 3 months? Last one month Last 3 months 1. Medicines ...... clnmIl K[1777777 2. Fees to Doctor / Health Assistant / Midwife /Nurse / Dentist, etc ......
3. Fees to Traditional healer...... 4. Payment to hospitalhealth centre/surgery
How much was spent on ...... during the last one month [AMOUNT IN KWACHA] [AMOUNT IN KWACHA] and during the last 3 months? Last one month
1.Rent......
2. Water ......
3,Electricity......
4. Candles ......
5. Paraffin......
6. Diesel (for lighting and cooking only). , . , . , , , , ,.,, , , , , , 7. Charcoal...... QUANTITY m. QUANTITYm . 0 1 [SO KG BAG] K LlmIIn
8. Firewood...... K UImIIl
9. Home repairs (plumbing, painting, etc) ......
IO. Telephone...... 1 I.Cable/pay TV (DSTV, CASAT, MNET, SATELITE, ZNBC) etc. How much own aroduced charcoal did you consume ...... [SO KG BAG] QUANTITY 171. 0
K 11111111 How much own uroduced firewood did you consume ......
How much was spent on cash remittances during the last one month and during the last 3 months? n
134 9. What is the cash value of remittances paid in-kind in the last 4MOUNT IN KWACHA AMOUNT M KWACHA one month and during the last 3 months? Last one month Last 3 months
K
10. During the , ., .., how much was spent on public transport: 1 .. To and from work
2.. To and from school including boarding school and abroad
3... Other transport expenses (to church, to visit. etc) 11. And how much was spent on ...... for personal transport during the last one month and during the last 3 months? I...Petrol/diesel/oil ......
2. ... Vehicle maintenance and repairs ......
3 .... Motorbike repairs (tyres, tubes, oil, etc) ......
4. ... Bicycle repairs (tyres, tubes, solution, etc)......
5. ... Boat / canoe repairs...... 12. How much was spent ...... during the last one month and during the last 3 months?
1. Toiletries (Wash soap, bath soap, toothpaste, tissues, shampoos, Vaseline, sanitary towels, cotton wool, etc.)
2. Cosmetics (lotions, complexion creams, make-up, glycerine, etc...... 3. Hair dressing (Perming, shampooing, conditioning, braiding, hair cuts, etc...... 4. Laundry service (Dry cleaning, etc)...... 5. Entertainment, excluding drinking alcohol only (Cinema, video hire, disco, watching soccer, etc)...... 6. Cobra / polish, brooms, mutton cloths, cleaning agents e.g. Ajax, floor cleaners, dishwashing soap, etc......
7. Batteries for radio, torches, watches, etc......
8. Stamps, parcel post, envelopes, writing pads, etc......
135 - __I_-- ____I SECTION 12: IlOUSEHOI,D EXPENDITURE (CONT'D) tuld like to Ead out ebout how much t&r housebold oxnt on food and how much was ronsumcd 13 How much was spent on ...... during the last one month?
1. Breakfast mealie meal
2 Roller mealie meal Kl.IuEl
3. Hammermilled mealie meal
4.- Maize grain......
5 Grinding cxpcnses
14. How much was spent on 15. How much .....was 16. How much .....was cash purchases on ...... in the consumed from own production received as gifts in the last 2 .I-_ .I-_ last 2 \reeks? in the last 2 weks? weeks?
1. Maize grain ...... I.__. __- .. K m K uInn
2. Cassava ...... K
3. Millet ...... K~IKm
4. Sorghum......
5. Rice ......
6. Sweet Potatoes KmlKm
7. Irish Potatoes......
136 14. How much was spent on 15. How much .....was 16. How much .....was cash purchases on ...... in the consumed from own production received as gifts in the last 2 last 2 weeks? in the last 2 weeks? weeks?
8. Groundnuts K KmK UInn
9. Kapenta (Driedfresh)
10. Fish (Driedfresh)
1 I.Beef (Driedfresh)
12. Goat meat (Driedfresh)
13. Sheep meat (Driedfresh)
14. Pig meat (Driedfresh)
15. Game meat (Driedlfresh)
16. Chicken and other poultry (Guinea fowl, turkey, ducks, KmKm geese, pigeons, rabbits)
17. Beans (Driedfresh)
18. Tomatoes
19. Onions
20. Other vegetables (Rape, cabbage, pumpkin leaves, KmKm carrots, okra, impwa, cucumber, green beans, peas, etc)
2 1. Breadhead rolls/buns/fritters 22. Fruits (Oranges, bananas, pineapples, lemons, masuku, avocados, apples, pears, etc)
23.Eggs
24. Milk (Fresh)
137 14. How much was spent on 15. How much .....was 16. How much .....was cash purchases on ...... in the consumed from own production received as gifts in the last 2 last 2 weeks? weeks? 25. Milk (Powdered - excluding baby milk) K K
2 6. Butter/Margarine/Cheese/ jam, etc
27. Sugar
28. Honey
29. Salt
30. Cooking oil
3 I.Non alcoholic beverages (Juices, soft drinks, munkoyo,
32. Tedcoffeekocodhot chocolate/milo
33. Alcoholic beverages
34, Cigarettes/tobacco
35. Baby foods (Cerelachaby milk, etc)
36. Rodents
37. Edible Ants
38. Caterpillars
138 I NO. I OUESTION 1. Which social and economic facilities would you like provided or improved in this community including what directly CHOICE 2 ...... affects your household? Please list them in order of importance
CHOICE 4 ......
2. Have the following projects or changes occurred in your community 3. Was any member of your household involved in decision to in the last five (5) years? undertake...... ?
YES ...... 1 NO ...... 2 >>NEXT PROJECTKHANGE N/A ...... 3 >>NEXT PROJECT/CHANGE YES ...... I CODE 2.1. Building of school IO 2.2. Rehabilitating of school IO 0 2.3. Building of health facility IO 0 2.4. Rehabilitating of health facility IO 0 2.5. Building of new road (Tarred or gravel) IO 0 2.6. Grading of gravel road IO 0 2.7. Tarring of road IO 0 2.8. Sinking of well (Protected) 0 2.9. Sinking of borehole 0 0 2.10. Piping of water 0
I39 2. Have the following projects or changes occurred in your community 3. Was any member of your household involved in decision to undertake in the last five (5) years? ...... 7 YES ...... 1 NO...... 2 >> NEXT PROJECT/CHANGE N/A...... 3 >>NEXT PROJECT/CHANGE YES ...... I :ODE 2.1 1. Water supply rehabilitatedor improved 0 0 2.12. Provision of hammermill 0 U 2.13. Transport service provided/improved 0 U 2.14. Sanitation provided/ U improved 2.15. Agricultural inputs provided on credit 0 0 2.16. Buyers of agricultural produce available/increased 0 0 2.17. Consumer goods now available 17 2.18. Credit facility now being provided 0 0 2.19. More employment opportunities available 0 0 2.20. Police services now available/improved 0 0 2.21. Agriculture extension service available or improved 0 0 2.22. Veterinary services now provided or improved 0 0 2.23. Agricultural inputs now more readily available 0 0 2.24. Radio reception now availableiimproved 0 0 2.25. Radio station built 0 0 2.26. Television reception now available/improved 0 0 2.27. Tourist Lodge built/ improved 0 0 2.28. Bridges builthehabilitated o n 2.29. The Area electrified n
140
’2
VELQPMEMTAL ISSUES AMI SOCIAL FUND IMPA” CT ICont’dl . . %/ Have the following projects or changes 4. How has this activity/ 5. Did any member of your 6. Who financed this project/ occurred in your community in the last project improved the way household participate in provision activity? five (5) years? you live? [MOST of materials, labour, management IMPORTANT ONE] or finds to the project? ZAMSIF ...... I YES ...... 1 MICRO PROJECT UNIT...... 2 GOVERNMENT...... 3 NO...... 2 >>NEXT PROJECT/ SAVED YES, MATERIALS...... 1 NGOs...... 4 CHANGE TIME ...... 1 YES, LABOUR ...... 2 COSTS YES,MANAGEMENT ...... 3 UNITED NATIONS ...... 5 N/A ...... 3 >>NEXT PROJECT/ SOME OTHER INSTITUTION REDUCED...... 2 YES, FUNDS...... 4 CHANGE QUALITY OF THE SERVICE YES, COMBINATION OF MORE (SPECIFY BELOW) ...... 6 AN INDIVIDUAL... IMPROVED...... 3 THAN ONE OF THE ...... 7 CRBIVAGIZAWA.. ,8 INCOME INCREASED...... 4 ABOVE ...... 5 ...... DON’T KNOW 9 MORE COhlMUNITY NO,...... 6 ...... TOGETHERNESS ...... 5 REDUCED MY/OUR WORRIES ...... 6 CODE INCREASED EMPLOYMENT...... 7 NO IMPROVEMENT...... I I l 2.18. Credit facility now being provided 0 0 o 2.19. More employment opportunities available 0 0 0 0 2.20. Police services now available/improved 0 0 0 0 2.21. Agriculture extension service available or improved 0 0 0 0 2.22. Veterinary services now provided or improved 0 0 0 0 2.23. Agricultural inputs now more readily available 0 0 0 0 2.24. Radio reception now availableiimproved 0 0 0 0 2.25. Radio station built 0 o 2.26. Television reception now 0 o 2.27. Tourist Lodge built/ 0 0
142 1. Have there been any deaths in the household (of usual members) in the last 12 months?
1 YES 2 NO >>NEXT SECTION U
2. How many household members died in the last 12 months? NUMBER OF DEATHS m
3. How old was the deceased 4. What was the cause of death? 5. Did the deceased have the following symptoms? YES.. .I NO ... 2 and what was the sex? Disease ....., ...... 1 - [RECORDAGE IN p COMPLETED YEARS] orr5 [RECORD 00 IF LESS THAN 1 YEAR]
MALE...... , . . .. 1 FEMALE... ,,.2 AGE SEX
DECEASED 1 mu 7 DECEASED 2 mu 0 00 DECEASED 3 mu no DECEASED 4 mu 171 nu DECEASED 5 mn 0 171171
DECEASED 6 mu I 0 nu
143 How much did all members of your household (combined) collect, sell and receive as income from the followina sources in the last twelve (12) months? WILDLIFE / QUANTITY INCOME FROM SALES I I FOREST PRODUCTS COLLECTED CONSUMED SOLD [KWACHA1
I. Edible Ants and Caterpillars
2. Wild Fruits m 3. Wild Honey m UIn 4. Mushrooms m UIn Other edible forest products UIn 5, ____-______m
6. Poles and Timber
Fuelwood (excluding 7. charcoal)
How much did all members of your household (combined) collect, sell and receive as income from the following sources in the last 3 months? Charcoal $0 ku hnu 8. IIIII
144 YES.....l In the course of your regular activities do you see any wildlife? NO...... 2 >> NEXT SECT More...... l Compared with three years ago, do you think the number of wildlife in this area is more, Same ...... 2 0 2. the same, or less now? Less ...... 3 In how many days in the one month have you seen ...... ? LAST 30DAYS 3
3.1 Lechwe m 3.2 Impalas m 3.3 m 3.4 m 3.5 m 3.6 m 3.7 m 3.8 m 3.9 m 3.10 m 3.11 m
3.12 ~ ~~~ m 3.13 Warthogs m 3.14 Wild Pigs m 3.15 Porcupine m 3.16 Baboon m 3.17 Monkey m
145 In how many days in the one month have you seen ...... ? LAST 30DAYS
3.18 Caracal un
3.19 Cheetah 1111
3.20 Leopard m
3.21 Lion m
3.22 Hyena un
3.23 Wild Dog un
3.24 Rhinoceros CIn
3.25 Elephant CIn
3.26 Giraffe un
3.21 Hippopotamus
146 1. Were any of the crops your household planted in the last 12 months damaged by wild animals? YES...... 1 NO ...... 2 >>NEXT SECTION I Un Z..Was.. ... one of the crops that was 3. What area planted under 3. Which animals damaged the...... most? destroyed? .....was damagedl destroyed? CODE: YES., .,1 ANTELOPES (Impala, Wildebeest etc.)...... 01 NO... .2 >> Next crop UNIT RHINOCEROS ...... LIMA...... 1 ACRE ...... 2 ...... 04 HECTARE...... 3 ELEPHANTS ...... 05 GIRAFFES ...... 06 HIPPOS ...... WARTHOGS WILD PIGS ...... 09 MONKEYS ...... 10 BIRDS ...... I1 OTHERS (Specify) ...... 12 2.1, Hybrid Maize 0 a 2.2. Local Maize nu m 2.3. Cassava nY m 2.4. Millet o a 2.5. Sorghum 0 a 2.6. Rice nu m 2.7. Mixed Beans 0 m 2.8. Soyabeans 0 m 2.9. Sweet Potatoes 0 a 2. IO. lrish Potatoes nu m 2.1 1. Groundnuts o m 2.12. Cotton nu m 2.13. Tobacco nY a 2.14. Sunflower 0 m 2.15. Paprika nu m 2.16. Other nu m
147 one of the animals that was hunted? YES 1 NO 2
2.1 Lechwe 2.1 I Buffaloes 2.20 Leopard 0
2.21 Lion 2.2 Impala , 2.12 , Zebras
2.13 Warthogs 2.22 Hyena 2.3 Kudu 0 0
2.14 Wild Pigs 2.4 Duiker 0 2.23 Wild Dog 0
2.5 Eland 0 2.1 5 Porcupine 0 2.24 Rhinoceros 0 0 2.1 Puku 2.16 Baboon 0 2.25 Elephant 0
2.8 Sable 0 2.17 Monkey 2.26 Giraffe
2.9 Water Buck 0 2.18 Caracal 0
2.10 Wildebeest 0 2.19 Cheetah 0
148 3 1. Did any member ofthis household own any ..... during the last 2.How many ...... 3. Were any of the 4. How many ...... 11. 12 months? does this household own ...... killed / were killed / injured in now? injured by wildlife the last 12 months?
TYPE OF LIVESTOCK YES.. , ..1 in the last 12 NO...... 2>>NEXTANlMAL months? YES... .. 1 NO...... 2 >> NEXT ANIMAL
Cattle o UIn UIn
Goats 0 UIn 0 Pigs 0 UIn Sheep 0 UIn UIn
Chickens 0
Ducks & geese 0
Guinea fowls 0 Any other poultry (e.g turkey, rabbits, pigeons) UIn
Does ZAWA control the problem iflwhen you report wildlife causing damage to crops and/or livestock? 0 YES .....1 NO...... 2 -0 7
How soon after reporting does ZAWA control the problem 1 ...... One day 2...... Less than a week 3...... One-two weeks 4...... Three-four weeks 0 5...... More than a month I. Are you or any other member of this household engaged in fish farming? YES ...... 1 NO ...... 2 >> NEXT SECTION 0
How many fish ponds does this household own? m
How many of these fish ponds are currently operational? m
What was the quantity of fish (IN KILOGRAMS) harvested in the last 12 months?
149 WILDLIFE 1. How many ..... 2. What proportion of 3. How much did all members of your were hunted by ...... did the household (combined) receive as income this household in household sell ? from the sale of...... in the last twelve the last 12 (12) months? months? Code None ...... 1
Less than Half.,, , , .2 Half ...... 3 More than Half .....4 All ...... 5
Lechwe 0
Impalas 0 1111111111
Kudus 0
Diuker 0
Eland 0
Hartebeest
Puku
Sable 0
Water Buck 17
Wildebeest 0
Buffaloes
Zebras m
Warthogs
Wild Pigs n 1111111111
Porcupine n 0
Baboon n o
Monkey 0
I50 N 20: WILDLIFE (Cont'd] WILDLIFE 1. How many ..... 2. What proportion of 3. How much did all members of your were hunted by ...... did the household (combined) receive as income this household in household sell ? from the sale of...... in the last twelve the last 12 (12) months? months? Code None ...... 1 [RECORD IN KWACHA] Less than Half...... 2 Half ...... 3 More than Half .....4 All ...... ,S I
18 Caracal
19. Cheetah ml
20. Leopard 0
21. Lion 0
22. Hyena 0
23. Wild Dog um 0
24. Rhinoceros 1111111111
25. Elephant
26. Giraffe
27. Hippopotamus
151 codes for section I question 7 -Date Before 1956 1956-65 1966-80 1981 to Date CODES TO ENTERED Sub-standard A Sub standard Grade 1 Grade 1 01 Sub-standard B Sub-Standard Grade I Grade 1 01 Standard I Standard 1 Grade 2 Grade 2 02 Standard 2 Standard 2 Grade 3 Grade 3 03 Standard 3 Standard 3 Grade 4 Grade 4 04 Standard 4 Standard 4 Grade 5 Grade 5 05 Standard 5 Standard 5 Grade 6 Grade 6 06 Standard 6 Lower Grade 6 Grade 6 06 Standard 5 Standard 6 Upper Grade 7 Grade 7 07 Standard 6 Form 1 Form 1 Form 1 Grade 8 08 Form 2 Form 2 Form 2 Grade 9 09 Form 3 Form 3 Form 3 Grade IO 10 Form 4 Grade I1 11 Form 4 (GCE) Form 4 Grade 12 12 (KE) GCE (0) Form 6 Lower Form 6 Grade 12 12 (Lower) GCE (0) Short Courses 13 Form 6 Upper Form 6 Form 5 Grade 12 14 Upper GCE (A) GCE (A) DiplomdCertificate 14 Undergraduate University 14 Bachelors’ Degree 15 Post Graduate Diploma 16 Master Degree 17 Doctorate and above 18 Economic Facility Code (Section 13)
01. Building of schools 11. Water supply rehabilitated or improved 20. Police services made available/improved 02. Rehabilitationof school 12. Provision of hammer mill 21. Agriculture extension service made 03. Building of health facility 13. Transport service providedimproved available or improved 04. Rehabilitationof health facility 14. Sanitation provided improved 22. Veterinary services provided or improved 05. Building of new road (Tarred or gravel) 15. Agricultural inputs provided on credit 23. Agricultural inputs made more readily 06. Grading of gravel road 16. Buyers of agricultural produce available 07. Tarring of road availablelincreased 24. Radio reception made available/improved 08. Sinking of well (Protected) 17. Consumer goods made more available 25. Radio station built 09. Sinking of borehole 18. Credit facility being provided 26. Television reception made 10. Piping of water 19. More employment opportunities available available/improved 27. Tourist Lodge builtl improved 28. Bridges built or rehabilitated. 29. The area electrifi
152 ANNEX 3
GMA COMMUNITY QUESTIONNAIRE
REPUBLIC OF ZAMBIA QUESTIONNAIRE NO: CENTRAL STATISTICAL OFFICE no. P.O. BOX 31908, LUSAKA, ZAMBIA FORM: m] TEL Nos. 251377/251370/253609/251385/253908/ 253468l256520
FAX Nos. 253609/250195/253468/253908/256520 email: Info @Znmstats.gov.zm Website: www.zarnstats.eov.zm IMPACT OF GAME MANAGEMENT AREAS ON HOUSEHOLD WELFARE SURVEY
1. PROVINCE NAME 0 2. DISTRICT NAME Un
3. CONSTITUENCY NAME 4. WARD NAME m 5. CSA NUMBER m 6. SEA NUMBER n
7. ESTIMATED NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS
8. ESTIMATED TOTAL POPULATION
9. STRATUM 1. Prime 2. Secondary 3. Specialised 4. Under stocked 5. Non GMA
10, NEAREST NATIONAL PARK 1. Bangweulu (Kasanka, Lavushi, Isangano) nu 2. Kafue (Kafue, Blue lagoon, Lochinvar) 3. Lower Zambezi 4. Luangwa 5 Nsumbu 1 1, NAME OF GMA OR NON GMA (code?) m
12. NAME OF AREA
13. SUPERVISOR’S NAME...... DATE OF INTERVIEW
14. MASTER TRAINER’S NAME ...... mmm
153 SECTION 1: Compositionof Interview: The interview will include key informants from among the following: The village Headman. VAG Members, ZAWA Officials, NGO workers and Nurse/Health worker. The group should include women. I I I I I TITLE I NUMBER IN ATTENDANCE I NUMBER IN ATTENDANCE I I. Headmen m 2. VAG members m m 3. Other VAG members m m I 4. I ZAWAofficials m m I 5. I NGO workers m m I 6. I Nursehealth workers m m School Headmaster m m Other School Teachers m I 8. m Agricultural Extension Officer 19 m m Other (specify: ...... I lo I m D I Other (specify: ...... ) I m m
I I 1 1s there a VAG in this community? YES...... 1 NO.. . ..2>> NEXT SECTION 0 2 What is the name of this VAG?
3. Does this VAG benefit from the GMA? YES ...... 1 NO...... 2 0
4. Did the VAG obtain anv fhds from ZAWNCRB last YES ...... 0 NO 2 year? ...... >>Question 7 5 How much did the VAG receive the oast 12 months? 1- 6. What was this money soent on mostly? Dividends ...... 1 0 Infrastructure...... 2 Salaries/wages.,... 3
Other (specify).. , ..4 I. Does this VAG have representation in a CRB or Community YES...... I Development Committee NO...... 2 0 8. Does this VAG have an elected executive Committee? YES ...... I NO ...... 2>>> NEXT SECTION 0 9. How many members are there in the Committee? No. OF MEMBERS D 10. How many of these members are women? No. OF MEMBERS m 11 What is the sex of the VAG Chairperson? 1 ...... MALE un I 2 ...... FEMALE
154 12. How often does the VAG committee hold meetings? 1.. . Twice a month 5.. . Twice a year 2... Once a month 6... Once a year 3.,, Once in hvo months 7... Irregularly 0 4.. . Once in 3 months 8... Never 13. What were the discussions mainly about in the last VAG 1 =Conflict resolution committee meeting? 2 = Resource allocation 3 =Wildlife conservation 0 4 =Wildlife movements across the GMA 5 =Other (specify ) - 14. Organizations 14.1 Does this VAG have any conflict 14.2 Was VAG able to resolve this conflict with , , . . . . . , .. . .. , 7. with ...... ? 1 = Yes; 2 = No ---> Next organization 1 =Yes; 2=No
1.. . Other VAGs/CRBsRrust 0 0
2..ZAWA nu 0
3.. . Safari operators nu nu
4.. . Other NGOs nY 0
5. Lodge operators nu 0
6.. Wildlife Conservation Society nu 0
6... Other (Specify 0 n 15. How many village scouts does this communityNAG have?
SECTION 3: Migration
I I 1 How many households moved into this Community in the last 5 years? m 2 How many households moved into this Community in the last 12 months? m 3 How many households moved out of this Community in the last 5 years? m 4 How many households moved out of this Community in the last 12 months? m
155 SECTION 4: Physical Infrastructure
Type of 1, Is there 2.Which organisations 3. What type of 4. In which year did this 5. What did the 6. In what state is ...... 7 infrastructure any... in helped with the construction contribution did organization start community contribute I. . . New or functional this rehabilitatiodexpansion of this organisation helping with the towards the construction needing no repair Community make? construction of ...... ? of ....1 Z...Functional but needs ? l=Labour only some repair
YES....I I....Gov? 1 , . . . Construction 2=Materials only 3., .Dilapidated, unusable
NO..... 2>> 2.....cRB 2,., , Rehabilitation 3=Cash only without repair NEXT 3.,. .World BaMGO 3,.. . Expansion 4=Labour and materials 4., .Unusable, under ITEM 4.. .Zamsif/micro project only construction or repair 5,.. .RIF 5=Labour and cash only 6...... Plan International 6=Materials and cash only
7.. , ..JAICA 7=Labour, materials and 8.. . ..world vision cash 9..... Local businessman 8=Nothing IO.... Other (Specify) 9=Other (specify) II ....None I Primary school 0 m 0 0 - classrooms 0 0 block m m 0 o m o 0 2 Rimary school - 0 L nU 0 staff houses m nu 0 m o
nu - m 3 Secondary 0 m 0 school- classrooms m 0 m o
- m 4 Secondary 0 m o school -staff
nY houses m m I= nY m 0
156 SECTION 4: Physical Infrastructure(Continued)
~~ ~ Type of 1, Is there 2.Which organisations 3. What type of 4 In which year did this 5. What did the I 6. In what state is... . . ,? infrastructure any... in helped with the construction contribution did organization Start community contribute 1 ... New or functional this rehabilitatiodexpansion of this organisation helping with the towards the construction needing no repair Community .? make? construction of 7 of ....? 2...Functional but needs ? l=Labour only some repair
YES. ...1 I....Goa 1.. , , Construction 2=Materials only 3.. ,Dilapidated, unusable
NO .....2 >> 2,.. ..cRB 2.. , , Rehabilitation 3=Cash only without repair
NEXT 3....WorldBaMGO 3.. . , Expansion 4=Labour and materials 4,. ,Unusable, under ITEM 4...Zamsiflmicro project only construction or repair 5... .RIF 5=Labour and cash only 6...... Plan International 6=Materials and cash only
7.., ..JAICA 7=Labour, materials and
8.,, ..world vision cash 9.....Local businessman 8=Nothing IO.... Other (Specify) 9=Other (specify)
1 I, , . .None 5 Health centre 0 0 UIn 0 m I 0 0 m 0 I m 0 0 - o UIn 6 Health staff 0 0 11171 houses m 0 11171 m 0 mn o 0 0 0 - m 0 11171 7 Market 0 m 0 0 0 m 0 11171 0 0 m 0 mn m 0 8 Post Office 0 m 0 0 0
157 SECTION 4: Physical Infrastructure (Conmued)
Type of 1. Is there 2.Which organisations 3. What type of 4. In which year did this 5. What did the 6. In what state is...... ?
infrastructure any... in helped with the construction contribution did organization start community contribute 1 , . . New or functional this rehabilitationiexpansion of this organisation helping with the towards the construction needing no repair Community ...... ? make? construction of ...... ? of ....? 2...Functional but needs ? I=Labour only some repair YES... .I I....GOM I. . . . Construction 2=Materials only 3...Dilapidated, unusable
NO..... 2>> 2.. , ..cRB 2.. . . Rehabilitation 3=Cash only without repair
NEXT 3.. . ,World Ban!v'NGO 3.. , , Expansion 4=Labour and materials 4.. .Unusable, under ITEM 4...Zamsif/micro project only construction or repair 5... .RIF 5=Labour and cash only 6...... Plan International 6=Materials and cash only
7,,, ..MICA 7=Labour, materials and 8.....world vision cash 9..... Local businessman 8=Nothing
IO.,, . Other (Specify) 9=0ther (specify)
II .. , .None Post Ofice 0 UIn u -Staff houses 1 m 10 UIn 0 m lo UIn 0 0 Police 0 0 0 11 Police 0 UIn 0 0 stationipost - Staff houses m lo UIn 0 0 m UIn 0
U - m UIn o 12 Forest guard 0 UIn 0 U- station u 0 0 0 m lo UIn U o
158 3ECIION 4: Physical Infmstructure (Continued)
Type of 1, Is there 2.Which organisations 3. What type of 4. In which year did this 5. What did the 6. In what state is.. , , ..? infrastructure any... in helped with the construction contribution did organization start community contribute 1 ... New or functional sm this rehabilitatiodexpansion of this organisation helping with the towards the construction needing no repair Community . , . , . . 7. make? construction of , . , . , . ? of ....? 2.. .Functional but needs ? I=Labour only some repair
YES....I I....Govt I.,, , Construction 2=Materials only 3,..Dilapidated, unusable
NO .....2 >> 2.. , ..cRB 2.... Rehabilitation 3=Cash only without repair NEXT 3....World BanWNGO 3.. . . Expansion 4=Labour and materials 4. ..Unusable, under ITEM 4...Zamsif/micro project only construction or repair 5... .RIF I S=Labour and cash only 6...... Plan International 6=Materials and cash only 7... ..JAICA 7=Labour, materials and 8... ..world vision cash 9.....Local businessman S=Nothing IO.... Other(Specify) 9=Other (specify) 11 None 13 Forest guard 0 m station
- Staff houses m m - m 14 Tourist Lodge 0 L m m m 15 Tourist Lodge 0 m 0 IUIn - Staff houses m m 0 UIn
- m 16 Borehole(s) 0 m m m m
159 SECTION 4: Physical Infrastructure (Continued)
Type of 1. Is there 2.Which organisations 3. What type of 4. In which year did this 5. What did the 6. In what state is...... ? infrastructure any... in helped with the construction contribution did organization start community contribute I,,. New or functional SN this rehabilitatiodexpansion of this organisation helping with the towards the construction needing no repair
Community ...... 1 make? construction of . . . , , . ? of ....? 2...Functional but needs ? l=Labour only some repair YES. ..,I l....Govt I. . . . Construction 2=Materials only 3., ,Dilapidated, unusable NO .....2 >> 2..... CREI 2.... Rehabilitation 3=Cash only without repair
NEXT 3....World BWGO 3.,, , Expansion 4=Labour and materials 4.. .Unusable, under ITEM 4...Zamsif/micro project only construction or repair 5... .RIF 5=Labour and cash only 6...... Plan International 6=Materials and cash only
7.. , ..JAICA 7=Labour, materials and
8.. , ..world vision cash 9.....Local businessman I=Nothing
IO.., . Other (Specify) 9=Other (specify) - 1 1 , , , .None 17 Well (Protected) o 1 0 0 m 0 0 m UIn 0 0 - m o 0 0 18 Dip tank o 0 m 0 0 (Public) m mn o 0 m 0 0 m lo m 0 0 19 Other (specify) 0 m 0 0 m lo m o 0 m lo 0 o m Io m 0 o 20 Other (specify) 0 m m 0 0 m o m 0 0 m lo m 0 0 0 o - m lo UIn
160 i 5: Natural Resources
1 Are there any community/group/clubfish ponds in this area? YES.. ...
1.2 If YES how many fish ponds are there? NUMBER OF PONDS
Who operates the fish ponds? YES ...... 1 NO...... 2 Community members...... l Women's club...... 2 lo CRB ...... 3 Care taker hired by community...... 4 I 0 Other (Specify) ...... 5 0 Do you generate any income from these ponds? YES...... I NO.,.... .2 >>>Question 5 0 Do ..... benefit from this income? YES ...... 1 NO...... 2 Members...... 1 Whole community...... 2 I nu The Chief/ Headmen...... 3. I nu Other (Specify)...... 4 I nu 5. Does the community have a land use plan? YES...... l NO...... 2 o
6. Has the community set aside any area of land specifically for wildlife YES., , , . .I migration or habitat? NO...... 2 >>>Question 7 0 6.1. If YES, is this area set aside for wildlife used by some households for...... YES ...... I NO...... 2
1.. , .. Grazing 0
2.., .. Planting crops 0
3,.... Cutting trees for fuel wood 0
4.. , .. Cutting trees for making charcoal 0
5..... Cutting trees for timber 0 7. Do you receive any tourists in your community? YES...... 1
8. Roughly, how many tourists does this community receive during the dry season?
9. Roughly, how many tourists does this community receive during the wet season? 10. What is the main purpose for which the tourists come? 1,. Photo safari 2.. Game hunting 3.. . Recreational fishing
161 SECTION 6: Social Capital
1. Are there any...... s active in this community? 2. How many members does this.,, .. (group) 3. In which year was this. .. , .. started? YES .....1 have? NO...... 2 >> NEXT ITEM YEAR
No. OF MEMBERS I. FarmeMAgro Club UIn 2. Fishery Club 0 3. Bee keeper’s Club ID I UIn 4. Women’s Club 5. Credit Club 0 6. Peer Educators ID I 7. Drama Club UIn
8. Football Club 9. Other (Specify) mn
162 Rial Capital (Continued)
NGOs 4. Is .... 5. Since which year 6. Does ..... support 7. What is the most 8. Does , .... 9. What is the IO. Does ..... 1 I,What is active in this has ...... been any User Groups? important type of support any most important support any the most community? active in the YES..... 1 User Group Income Income Training important YES,. . ,. 1 community? NO ...... 2 >> Q 8 supported by. .. .. ? Generating Generating Activities? Training NO ...... 2 Activites? Activity YES..... 1 Activity
>> Next See codes below YES., , , . 1 supported by NO . .. . . ,2 >> supported
NGO NO , ... , .2 x- .., ., ? Next NGO by .....? Q 10 See codes See codes below 1. PAM 2. WVI 0 3. Oxfam 0
4. Plan International 0 5. Care International 0 6. CLUSA 0 7. MMCI 0
8. Catholic Relief 0 m om0 Services (CRS) 9. ADRA om0 m om0 IO. LWF om0 m om0 11.wcs OUIn 0 m om0 12. Other (specifv) om0 m om0
b Codes for Question 7: Most Codes for Question 9: Most important Codes for Question 11: Most important training important type of user group income generating activities activity
]=Farmer group/agro club 1=Agriculhlral production I=Financial Management Training 2=Business / Enterprise Training 2=Fishery club 2=Agricultural marketing 3=Natural Resource Management Training 3=Bee keepers’ club 3=Agriculhlral processing 4=Tourism Training 5=Other, specify 4=Women’s club 4=Business development (general) 5Credit club 5=Tailoring 6=Peer educators 6earpentry 7=Drama club 7=Black smithing 8=Football club S=Kniting 9=Other (specify) 9Crafts ]&Other (specify)
163 i 7: Empowerment
Does , , , .. participate in deciding which community 1.. , Government development project to take place within this community? 2....ZAWA
YES ..... I 3.. , Chief / Headmen NO...... 2
4.. . Committee Members
S., .The Community
6... . NGO financing the project
7... Other (Specify) ...... ,......
Do community leaders hold regular meetings with the YES ....., 1 households? NO ...... 2 >>NEXT SECTION
How often do the community leaders hold meetings? I,,, Twice a month 2.,. Once a month 3., . Once in two months 4.. . Once in 3 months S... Twiceayear 6.. . Once a year 7.. , Irregularly
164 Event Has . . . taken placeheen constructed in In how many of the In which year did . . . What proportion this community in the past 10 years? past 10 years has last occur? (YO)of the Yes ....1 . . . taken place? community was
1 = Drought
2 = Flood 3 = Crop disease/pests lo 4 = Livestock disease 0 5 = Human epidemic disease 0 m UIn CIn 6 = Sharp changes in prices 0 7 = Massive job lay offs 0 8 = Loss of key social services l o I I 9 = Other (specify) In
11 = Development project o 12 = New employment opportunity 0 13 =New health facility In 14 = New road O 15 = New school o Im lmlm 16 = Other (specify) o
THE END OF INTERVIEW
165 ANNEX 4
TABLE 1: Factors affecting the household's probability to live in the GMA and, once in the GMA, the probability to participate in the VAG/CRB
Probit models for the household's probability to Participate in the Variable Variable description Live in the GMA VAGICRB" (1) (2) cons Intercept 0.707 ** -2.612 *** (0.279) (0.262) Park2 Kafue dummy variable -1.099 *** -0.247 (0.332) (0.190) park3 Lower Zambezi dummy -0.523 -0.123 (0.3 3 0) (0.106) park4 Luangwa dummy -0.512 -0.336 *** (0.340) (0.121) hage Age of the household head in years -0.006 * 0.001 (0.003) (0.006) fhhh Female-headed household dummy 0.193 ** -0.018 (0.08 8) (0.138) maxedu Education of the most educated household -0.033 ** 0.034 ** member in years (0.0 13) (0.015) cot014 Number of children below 15 years -0.026 0.015 (0.0 19) (0.030) f15to60 Number of female members 15-60 years old 0.009 0.071 (0.039) (0.076) ml5to60 Number of male members 15-60 years old 0.058 0.055 (0.036) (0.071) m6lplus Number of members older than 60 years -0.062 -0.125 (0.075) (0.158) kroad Distance to the nearest main road in km 0.008 * 0.008 *** (0.004) (0.002) kbsch Distance to the nearest basic school in km 0.004 -0.01 1 (0 .o 10) (0,010) kheal Distance to the nearets health centre in km -0.002 0.006 * (0.004) (0.004) vacast Value of consumption assets in ZMK -0.020 ** -0.003 (0.008) (0.018) dcoop Participation in cooperatives dummy -0.388 *** 0.552 *** (0.098) (0.157) nproj Number of projects in the community 0.042 ** 0.055 *** (0.019) (0.017) dcfnd CRB funded dummy variable 0.617 *** 0.829 *** (0.159) (0.155) npart Number of participants in the CRBNAG 0.097 * 0.203 *** (0.058) (0.0 19) "Based only on the sub-sample of households that are located in the GMAs Level of significance: *=Significant at 10%; **=Significant at 5%; ***=Significant at 1% Values in parentheses are standard errors
166 TABLE 2: Impact of living in the GMA and, once in the GMA, of participating in the VAG/CRB
Treatreg models for the impact on per capita consumption expenditure of Participating in Variable Variable description Living in GMA” VAGICRB~ (1) (2) cons Intercept 13.020 *** 13.580 *** (0.209) (0.0 86) park2 Kafue dummy variable 0.400 *** 0.192 ** (0.143) (0.0 88) park3 Lower Zambezi dummy variable 0.416 *** 0.217 *** (0.127) (0.063) park4 Luangwa dummy variable 0.434 *** 0.537 *** (0.100) (0.0 96) hage Age of the household head -0,001 -0.001 (0.001) (0.002) fhhh Female-headed dummy -0.186 *** -0.150 *** (0.047) (0.054) maxedu Education of the most educated member 0.043 *** 0.022 ** (years) (0,010) (0.010) cot014 Number of children less than 15 years old -0.132 *** -0.145 *** (0.01 1) (0.01 1) f15to60 Number of female members 15-60 years -0.063 ** -0.091 *** (0.025) (0.029) m15to60 Number of male members 15-60 years -0.100 *** -0.090 *** (0.022) (0.022) m6lplus Number of members older than 60 years -0.140 *** -0.186 *** (0.037) (0.05 1) kroad Distance to the nearest main road in km -0.005 *** -0.006 *** (0 * 002) (0.002) kbsch Distance to the nearest basic school in km 0.001 0.010 *** (0.003) (0.003) kheal Distance to the nearest health centre in km -0.002 -0.004 *** (0.002) (0.002) vacast Value of consumption assets in ZMK 0.045 *** 0.107 *** (0.014) (0.024) dcoop Participation in cooperatives dummy 0.357 *** 0.237 *** (0.051) (0.066) gma or Participation dummy variable“” 0.665 *** 0.438 ** dvcrb (0.23 7) (0.205) Number of observations 2,209 1,112 Log-likelihood value -3,405 -1,333 Goodness of fit Chi-square 297.73 *** 407.06 *** Rho -0.583 *** -0.301 * “Participation dummy variable refers to the GMA dummy, equal to 1 if the household is located in a GMA bTheparticipation dummy variable refers to the CRBNAG dummy, equal to 1 if the household participates in the VAG/CRB. This model uses a sub-sample of households that are located in the GMA Significance: *=Significant at 10%; **=Significant at 5%; ***=Significant at 1% Values in parentheses are standard errors
167 REFERENCES
Africa Private Sector Group, 2005: Zambia Investment Climate Assessment, World Bank, Washington.
Anchor Environment Consultants, 2004, Economic Analysis and Feasibility Study for Financing Namibia's Protected Areas, GEF-UNDP-Government of Namibia.
ARCA Consulting, 1998: From NPWS to ZAWA - Management RestructuringReport, EDF/NPWS Project, Chilanga
Arrow K., Solow R., Portney P.R., Learner E.E., Radner R., Schuman H., 1993 "Report of the NOAA Panel on Contingent Valuation." Federal Register 58: 4601-14.
Astle, W.L., 1999. A history ofwildlife conservation and management in the mid Luangwa Valley, Zambia, British Empire & commonwealth Museum.
Bandyopandhyay, S. and P. Shyamsundar. "Fuelwood Consumption and Participation in Community Forestry in India." World Bank Policy Research Working Paper 333 1, June 2004.
Blanke, Jennifer and Thea Chiesa, 2007: The Travel and Tourism Competitiveness Report 2007 - Furthering the Process of Economic Development, World Economic Forum, Geneva
Carson R.T., 1997 "Contingent Valuation: Theoretical Advances and Empirical Tests since the NOAA Panel." American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 79(5): 1501-7.
Carson, R.T., Groves T., Machina M., 1999, "Incentive and Informational Properties of Preferences Questions." Plenary Address, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, Oslo, Norway.
Changa Management Services, 2007: Draft Strategic Plan 2008 - 2012, Zambia Wildlife Authority, Chilanga
Child, G. and D. Lee, 1993: Reorganisationand Restructuringthe Department of National Parks and Wildlife Service, WWF, Lusaka).
Central Statistic Office, 2004: Living Conditions Monitoring Survey Report, Republic of Zambia.
Central Statistic Office, 2006: Formal Sector Employment and Earning Report, Republic of Zambia.
Central Statistic Office, 2006: National Accounts Statistical Bulletin N. 9 1994-2005, Republic of Zambia.
Crouch, G., and R. Shaw. 1991. "International Tourism Demand: A Meta-Analytical Integration of Research Findings." Management Paper No.36. Graduate School of Management, Monash University, Australia. 168 DCDM Consulting, 2006: Livingstone Tourism Survey, Support for Economic Expansion and Diversification Project, Ministry of Tourism, Environment and Natural Resources, Lusaka
EDFmational Parks and Wildlife Service Project, 1998: Draft Master Plan, Transtec Grant Thornton Kessle Feinstein, 2003: Study for Development and Promotion of Tourism in Zambia.
Grant Thornton Associates, Contour Project Managers, and Bicon Zambia, 2005. Audit of Zambia Wildlife Authority’s (ZAWA’s) Current Capabilities & Development of Project proposals for Institutional Capacity Development over a Five Year Period (2004-2008), Zambia.
Hiemstra, S. and J. Ismail. 1993. “Incidence ofthe Impacts of Room Taxes on the Lodging Industry.” Journal of Travel Research, Spring, pp.22-26.
International Capital Corporation, 2002: Zambia Wildlife Authority Draft Five-Year Strategic Plan 2003-2007, Main Report, Chilanga.
Jacobs, S. and I.Astrakhan, 2006: Effective and Sustainable Regulatory Reform: The Regulatory Guillotine in Three Transitional and Developing Economies, Jacobs and Associated, Washington, DC.
Ministry ofTourism, Environment and Natural Resources, 2005
Mattoo, Aaditya and Lucy Payton (Eds.), 2007: Services, Trade & Development, The Experience of Zambia, Palgrave MacmilladWorld Bank
Ministry of Finance and National Planning, 2006: Fifth National Development Plan, Zero Draft
Ministry of Tourism, 1995: Medium Term Tourism Strategy and Action Plan, Lusaka
Pitman, Col. C.R. S., 1934: Report on the Faunal Survey ofNorthern Rhodesia.
Ravallion, M. 2001. “The Mystery of the Vanishing Benefits: An Introduction to Impact Evaluation.” The World Bank Economic Review, 15 (1): 1 15-140.
Ravallion, M. 2005. “Assessing the Poverty Impact of an Assigned Program.” Tool Kit, Chapter 5, World Bank, Washington DC.
Robins Development Associates, 2005: Analysis Report on Tourism Sector Trends in Zambia, JICA, Lusaka.
Sinyenga, G, Muwele, B and Hamilton, K, 2007: Draft Report on The Contribution of Nature Tourism to the Zambian Economy, World Bank, Washington
169 Suich, Helen, Jonah Busch and Nathalie Barbancho, 2005: Economic Impacts of Transfiontier Conservation Areas: Baseline of Tourism in the Kavango-Zambezi TFCA, Conservation International, South Africa
Tourism Development ProgrammeR'ranstec, 1 999: Tourism Development Framework, Ministry of Tourism.
Tourism Development Programme, 1998: Output reports
Whydah Consulting, 2006: Zambia Nature-based Tourism Supply-side Survey, World Bank, Lusaka
World Tourism Organisation,2005: Tourism 2020 Vision, Madrid.
World Tourism Organization website
World Tourism Organization, World Tourism Barometer, January 2007.
World Wide Fund for Nature, 2002: Miombo Ecoregions Report, Harare
Zambia National Tourist Board, 2006
Zambia Wildlife Authority, 2002: Five-Year Strategic Plan 2003-2007, Volume 2 Implementation Plan, Chilanga
170