Zambian Game Management Areas
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
ZAMBIAN GAME MANAGEMENT AREAS The reasons why they are not functioning as ecologically or economically productive buffer zones and what needs to change for them to fulfil that role Lindsey, P., Nyirenda, V., Barnes, J., Becker, M., Tambling, C., Taylor, A., Watson, F. Photo: C. Masterson A study commissioned and funded by the Wildlife Producers Association of Zambia Contents Executive summary ................................................................................................................................. 4 Potential benefits associated with CWCs ............................................................................................... 8 Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 10 Methods ................................................................................................................................................ 12 Literature survey ............................................................................................................................... 12 Stakeholder survey ........................................................................................................................... 12 Estimating current earnings from Game Management Areas .......................................................... 13 Estimating rates of human population growth rate and encroachment in GMAs ........................... 13 Estimating mammalian biomass in GMAs, national parks and extensive game ranches ................. 13 Ecological modelling ......................................................................................................................... 13 Financial and economic modelling .................................................................................................... 14 Statistical analyses ............................................................................................................................ 19 Results and discussion .......................................................................................................................... 20 Review of the ways in which GMAs are failing and the reasons why ............................................... 20 Community-related issues ............................................................................................................ 20 ZAWA-related problems ............................................................................................................... 22 Operator-related issues ................................................................................................................ 24 Other factors contributing to the poor performance of GMAs .................................................... 25 Stakeholders’ perspectives of the relative severity of various threats to wildlife populations declines in GMAs ................................................................................................................................................. 26 Combined effects of these problems .................................................................................................... 27 Ecological impacts ............................................................................................................................. 27 Economic impacts ............................................................................................................................. 31 Social impacts ................................................................................................................................... 32 Changes needed to allow GMAs to function ........................................................................................ 33 1. Changes to the funding support of and focus of ZAWA ........................................................... 33 2. New models for the ownership, structure and functioning of GMAs ...................................... 34 Lessons from other community conservation programmes in southern Africa ........................... 34 Community wildlife conservancies (CWCs) in GMAs .................................................................... 34 Attracting donor support .............................................................................................................. 35 Identifying potentially suitable sites ............................................................................................. 35 Administrative basis and land ownership ..................................................................................... 35 Models for investor participation and stake holdings in CWCs .................................................... 36 Developing a Resource Management Trust for management of wildlife ..................................... 36 Models for how wildlife-based land uses in CWC would be managed ......................................... 37 Structuring of financial benefits for communities ........................................................................ 37 Involvement of ZAWA and ownership of wildlife ......................................................................... 37 Role of fencing .............................................................................................................................. 39 Zambian versus international investors ........................................................................................ 40 Legislation that would need to change to make CWCs possible .................................................. 40 Potential earnings from a model CWC .................................................................................................. 41 Shortcomings of our models ............................................................................................................. 41 Key findings from the modelling exercise and insights into policy issues ......................................... 41 Significantly improved benefits for communities .......................................................................... 41 Low, slow financial slow returns and the need for long leases ..................................................... 43 High economic returns and the case for government/donor investment ..................................... 44 Impact of ZAWA trophy and land fees .............................................................................................. 45 The inability of CWCs to support ZAWA ‘taxation’ ....................................................................... 45 The importance of diversifying income streams ........................................................................... 45 The importance of allowing the hunting of high value species ..................................................... 46 2 Importance of not allowing resident hunting to undermine value of wildlife .............................. 46 Potential benefits associated with CWCs ............................................................................................. 46 Conclusions ........................................................................................................................................... 47 Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................................... 47 Abbreviations CWC= Community wildlife conservancy ERR = Economic rate of return FRR = Financial rate of return IRR = Internal rate of return GMA = Game Management Area GNI = Gross national income NNI = Net national income NPV = Net present value USD = United States Dollar 3 Executive summary Zambia has allocated an impressive proportion of its land surface to wildlife conservation. The protected area is comprised of 20 national parks (covering ~65,000 km2) and 36 game management areas (GMAs) (167,000 km2) and a variety of other protected area categories. Together these areas comprise ~40% of the nation’s land area. Human settlement is generally not permitted in national parks and wildlife-use is limited to non-consumptive photo-tourism. In the GMAs, by contrast, human settlement is permitted and wildlife use is focused primarily on trophy hunting (mainly by foreign nationals) and hunting for meat by local and national residents. Despite their size and potential, the wildlife resources in many GMAs are in a state of steep decline and are not sufficiently productive in ecological, economic or social terms. In this study, by surveying stakeholders, reviewing available literature, and collating available data, we identify the drivers of poor GMA performance make recommendations for improvement, and suggest changes to legislation and policy necessary for this improvement to occur. We then use ecological and financial modelling to develop a proposed model for creating ‘Community Wildlife Conservancies (CWC)’ in GMAs or on un-gazetted customary lands (open areas). We believe that such a structure (and variants of it) has potential to significantly elevate the social, economic and ecological benefits of GMAs. Reasons for the failure of GMAs The reasons for the poor performance in GMAs can be broadly categorized as being those relating to the participation of communities, the Zambia Wildlife Authority (ZAWA) and hunting operators respectively. Community-related issues are primarily related to the fact that local people do not receive adequate benefit flows from wildlife in GMAs, because community ownership of land and wildlife resources is not recognized