Thursday, December 20, 2007
A reader asks what I mean by illegal alienations...
The meaning of illegal alienations of National Parks and forests is fully explained in my blogs http://victoriafallsheritage.blogspot.com/ and http://zambiaforests.blogspot.com/, which deal specifically with attempts to alienate parts of the Mosi Oa Tunya National Park (part of the Victoria Falls World Heritage Site) and the actual alienation of the northern section of the West Mvuvye National Forest. In the case of Mosi, the 220 ha illegally given on long lease to hotel developers was cancelled as a result of the opposition of concerned conservationists, local citizens and the the international tourism industry. In the case of West Mvuvye, the Surveyor-General recently gave orders for the cancellation of a 99 year (renewable) leashold held by some businessmen. To date, none of those responsible have been prosecuted; the only lasting impact being the on-going harassment of the main whistleblower by the Government.
Wednesday, December 19, 2007
Searching for enlightenment...
The Enlightenment which we all yearn for is delayed by the unwillingness of most of our intellectuals to come to grips with Zambia's historical and cultural reality: that Zambia is made up of a small corrupt western world of Government and business elite - both in bed with the donors, a recently constructed world afloat in a sea of traditional Zambia (95% of the land), which is itself undergoing a Neolithic revolution from hunter-gatherer to more settled agriculture, their only problem being that the changes being wrought by their own Government and the donors - walking fully into the Malthusian trap, is making their lives more difficult, not easier. And to blame foreign investors for an assault on natural resources is a travesty. The destruction of the Ila cattle and grazing lands, the illegal alienation of national parks and national forests, the imposition of a .6% royalty on mining companies, the failure to place very strict environmental controls on their mining operations, are just a few of the impacts of Government, donors and capitalism on true Zambians.
The genius of Zambia is being trampled on, because the elite - searching desperately for a plot and a Pajero, don't look where they are going.
The genius of Zambia is being trampled on, because the elite - searching desperately for a plot and a Pajero, don't look where they are going.
Sunday, December 02, 2007
A word on a desecrated Zambian National Park...
"ENVIRONMENT-ZAMBIA: An Unwelcome Guest Has Taken Root
By Newton Sibanda
LUSAKA, Dec 1 (IPS) - An invasive shrub has colonised a corner of the Lochinvar National Park, upsetting the balance of one of Zambia’s most diverse ecosystems. Mimosa pigra, originally from Mexico, is now threatening wildlife and pastoralists who depend on grazing lands in and around the park. "It’s a national disaster," a consultative meeting of stakeholders in the nearby town of Monze concluded in its final report last month. According to Highvie Hamududu, the member of parliament for the Bweengwa area in Monze, about 185 kilometres south-west of Lusaka, "Very soon, the grazing lands in this part covered by the infamous weed will not be accessible by our animals. Something needs to be done urgently; this is our cultural heritage." Lochinvar makes up a relatively small (428 square kilometre) part of the 7,000 square kilometre Kafue Flats floodplain, declared a protected wetland site under the Ramsar Convention -- a treaty providing for international co-operation for the conservation of wetlands. Yet with over 400 bird species recorded, it is renowned as a bird watchers paradise. Traditional leaders, local politicians and other community leaders attended the meeting in Monze, called to discuss the Chunga Lagoon Pilot site initiative which aims to restrict the spread of Mimosa pigra and to clear existing shrubs from the Kafue Flats. The floodplain is fed by the Kafue River between the Itezhi tezhi Dam in the west and the Kafue Gorge Dam in the east. Within the flats, Mimosa pigra has mostly affected the southern banks of the Kafue River around the Chunga Lagoon. The thorny shrub is found in many tropical and sub-tropical parts of the world. On the African continent it has posed special challenges in Ethiopia, Ghana and Uganda. Since it was first noticed in the Kafue Flats in the early 1980s, Mimosa pigra has destroyed 2,900 hectares of pasture, and replaced it with impenetrable thickets that crowd out indigenous plants and animals.
It usually grows to just over two metres tall, but may reach heights of six metres. Under favourable conditions, these plants can grow up to one centimetre a day. In addition, their seeds can remain dormant in the ground for 10 years in the event of prolonged dryness, germinating when favourable conditions return. "Large plants of the weed can produce vast amounts of seeds of up to 220,000 per year which are typically dispersed in two main ways: they are carried downstream during flooding, or transported by animals or machinery," said Griffin Shanungu, co-ordinator of the Chunga Lagoon Pilot site. According to William Lonsdale of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, the meteorological data of Lochinvar National Park show that in the period from 1980 to 2005 there was a steady decrease in rainfall, while temperatures remained almost the same. This has contributed to having a smaller proportion of flooded areas during the wet season, to the benefit of the Mimosa pigra plant, which does better on the fringes of the floodplain than in permanently waterlogged areas.
n addition, Lonsdale believes that the construction of dams at either end of the Kafue Flats has altered flooding patterns to the advantage of Mimosa pigra; there has been an insufficient release of water from the Itezhi tezhi Dam. The director of the Environmental Council of Zambia, Edward Zulu, says the invasive weed is having a detrimental effect on many sectors of the economy, including agriculture and tourism. Mimosa pigra is making it difficult for tourists to observe the Kafue lechwe (a marsh antelope found only on the flats) and to spot birds. Certain bird species endemic to the area, such as crowned and the wattled cranes, are endangered. "The rich biodiversity of the Kafue Flats is under threat by the infestation of Mimosa pigra, which has significant impact on tourism by denying access to the area, also by making water availability very difficult and altering the scenery -- but most significantly rendering the area almost mono-specific with regard to plants and almost completely devoid of wildlife which is the basis of the national park’s tourism," said Zulu.
Tourists still visiting the park have also had difficulty finding places to spend the night, recently. "There is a critical shortage of accommodation in the Lochinvar National Park as lodge owners have abandoned the area," said Hamududu. Lodge owners are reluctant to establish tourist accommodation in the park because the Mimosa plant has been destroying the scenery. Hamududu said that the shortage of accommodation in the park has forced visiting tourists to spend nights in Monze. As the spread of the plant continues to destroy the ecological balance of the Kafue Flats, local stakeholders -- including the National Environmental Council of Zambia (NECZ) and the Zambia Wildlife Authority -- have been taking steps to control the weed. "As with most of the invasives, the three options available for preventing the spread of Mimosa is through mechanical, chemical or biological control," said Brian Nkandu, national project co-ordinator at the NECZ for control of the invasive weed.
He said that about 100 hectares would be cleared this year, and 1,000 hectares by the end of 2009. (END/2007)"
I notice that there is no mention of the impacts on the baila people and a loss of more than 50% of their cattle. This is a national disaster; but what is being done about ZESCo and its mismanagement of water from the barrage?
By Newton Sibanda
LUSAKA, Dec 1 (IPS) - An invasive shrub has colonised a corner of the Lochinvar National Park, upsetting the balance of one of Zambia’s most diverse ecosystems. Mimosa pigra, originally from Mexico, is now threatening wildlife and pastoralists who depend on grazing lands in and around the park. "It’s a national disaster," a consultative meeting of stakeholders in the nearby town of Monze concluded in its final report last month. According to Highvie Hamududu, the member of parliament for the Bweengwa area in Monze, about 185 kilometres south-west of Lusaka, "Very soon, the grazing lands in this part covered by the infamous weed will not be accessible by our animals. Something needs to be done urgently; this is our cultural heritage." Lochinvar makes up a relatively small (428 square kilometre) part of the 7,000 square kilometre Kafue Flats floodplain, declared a protected wetland site under the Ramsar Convention -- a treaty providing for international co-operation for the conservation of wetlands. Yet with over 400 bird species recorded, it is renowned as a bird watchers paradise. Traditional leaders, local politicians and other community leaders attended the meeting in Monze, called to discuss the Chunga Lagoon Pilot site initiative which aims to restrict the spread of Mimosa pigra and to clear existing shrubs from the Kafue Flats. The floodplain is fed by the Kafue River between the Itezhi tezhi Dam in the west and the Kafue Gorge Dam in the east. Within the flats, Mimosa pigra has mostly affected the southern banks of the Kafue River around the Chunga Lagoon. The thorny shrub is found in many tropical and sub-tropical parts of the world. On the African continent it has posed special challenges in Ethiopia, Ghana and Uganda. Since it was first noticed in the Kafue Flats in the early 1980s, Mimosa pigra has destroyed 2,900 hectares of pasture, and replaced it with impenetrable thickets that crowd out indigenous plants and animals.
It usually grows to just over two metres tall, but may reach heights of six metres. Under favourable conditions, these plants can grow up to one centimetre a day. In addition, their seeds can remain dormant in the ground for 10 years in the event of prolonged dryness, germinating when favourable conditions return. "Large plants of the weed can produce vast amounts of seeds of up to 220,000 per year which are typically dispersed in two main ways: they are carried downstream during flooding, or transported by animals or machinery," said Griffin Shanungu, co-ordinator of the Chunga Lagoon Pilot site. According to William Lonsdale of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, the meteorological data of Lochinvar National Park show that in the period from 1980 to 2005 there was a steady decrease in rainfall, while temperatures remained almost the same. This has contributed to having a smaller proportion of flooded areas during the wet season, to the benefit of the Mimosa pigra plant, which does better on the fringes of the floodplain than in permanently waterlogged areas.
n addition, Lonsdale believes that the construction of dams at either end of the Kafue Flats has altered flooding patterns to the advantage of Mimosa pigra; there has been an insufficient release of water from the Itezhi tezhi Dam. The director of the Environmental Council of Zambia, Edward Zulu, says the invasive weed is having a detrimental effect on many sectors of the economy, including agriculture and tourism. Mimosa pigra is making it difficult for tourists to observe the Kafue lechwe (a marsh antelope found only on the flats) and to spot birds. Certain bird species endemic to the area, such as crowned and the wattled cranes, are endangered. "The rich biodiversity of the Kafue Flats is under threat by the infestation of Mimosa pigra, which has significant impact on tourism by denying access to the area, also by making water availability very difficult and altering the scenery -- but most significantly rendering the area almost mono-specific with regard to plants and almost completely devoid of wildlife which is the basis of the national park’s tourism," said Zulu.
Tourists still visiting the park have also had difficulty finding places to spend the night, recently. "There is a critical shortage of accommodation in the Lochinvar National Park as lodge owners have abandoned the area," said Hamududu. Lodge owners are reluctant to establish tourist accommodation in the park because the Mimosa plant has been destroying the scenery. Hamududu said that the shortage of accommodation in the park has forced visiting tourists to spend nights in Monze. As the spread of the plant continues to destroy the ecological balance of the Kafue Flats, local stakeholders -- including the National Environmental Council of Zambia (NECZ) and the Zambia Wildlife Authority -- have been taking steps to control the weed. "As with most of the invasives, the three options available for preventing the spread of Mimosa is through mechanical, chemical or biological control," said Brian Nkandu, national project co-ordinator at the NECZ for control of the invasive weed.
He said that about 100 hectares would be cleared this year, and 1,000 hectares by the end of 2009. (END/2007)"
I notice that there is no mention of the impacts on the baila people and a loss of more than 50% of their cattle. This is a national disaster; but what is being done about ZESCo and its mismanagement of water from the barrage?
Saturday, December 01, 2007
Zambia's parastatal dysfunction and tolerance of corruption
The Times of Zambia of 29 November reports: "Public Accounts Committee chairperson, Charles Milupi told the House that his committee discovered that 15 parastatal institutions did not contribute to the national revenue in form of tax or non-tax revenue in 2005. He said when he presented a report of the Auditor-General for 2005 on the accounts of parastatal bodies that there was need for the Government to put up management boards at most parastatals. Mr Milupi said reshuffles of ministers should not delay the appointment of management boards for accountability's sake. He said the National Food and Nutrition Commission did not have financial statements for 11 years despite having received K4.8 billion while the Engineering Services Corporation and the Village Industry Service also ignored preparation of financial statements."
This gloomy news, when added to the fact that Government is already taking care of the pension and tax debt of the parastatal responsible for wildlife and associated protected areas, the Zambia Wildlife Authority, should underline the urgent need for a review of parastatals. Is the ZAWA Board now to have a management board supervising it? And where has all the money gone that the Village Industry Service has received, an organization supposedly there to improve villager livelihoods? Perhaps the newly appointed Vice-Chairman of the Human Rights Commission, Palan Mulonda - a man with some knowledge of the poor and rich divide, should investigate.
This gloomy news, when added to the fact that Government is already taking care of the pension and tax debt of the parastatal responsible for wildlife and associated protected areas, the Zambia Wildlife Authority, should underline the urgent need for a review of parastatals. Is the ZAWA Board now to have a management board supervising it? And where has all the money gone that the Village Industry Service has received, an organization supposedly there to improve villager livelihoods? Perhaps the newly appointed Vice-Chairman of the Human Rights Commission, Palan Mulonda - a man with some knowledge of the poor and rich divide, should investigate.
Saturday, November 17, 2007
ALIEN INVASIONS OF ZAMBIA
“A State without the means of some change is without the means of its conservation.”
Edmund Burke
The present public uproar over foreign cheap labour (code for Chinese) invading Zambia, resulting in the announcement by a Government Minister that a Zambianization committee will be re-introduced to deal with it, is indicative of how sensitive the Zambian people are to any invasion of their national sovereignty, be it competition in the labour market, disease or foreign investors. This perfectly natural xenophobia – obviously having some survival value, if only of the collective psyche, lead after all in Northern Rhodesia to the rejection of British Imperial Government rule and the ushering in of Independent Zambia in 1964. However, such driven protectionism is highly selective in its expression, for escaping such nationalistic xenophobic scrutiny is an invasive force arguably far more threatening to a nation than being colonized by the pre-eminent culture of the time; an invader that reduces a nation’s GDP, watches as the average life expectancy decreases over the last 20 years from 57 to 37, removes development incentives, underwrites corruption, parasitizes civil servants time and then poaches their services, ignores traditional systems – the magma of future life, and forcibly injects a debilitating cocktail of untested foreign ideas, policies and development drugs into the national buttock - in contempt of the law of unintended consequence and the demands of the precautionary principle. Such an invasive force is foreign donor aid – exemplified by its visible battalions, aid programmes.
One such Zambian aid programme, the UNDP/GEF, ‘Classification of Protected Areas’ project, is yet further spawn of the mutualistic parasitic relationship of donor and government, a relationship now more secure in evolutionary terms than the ‘marriage’ of the shark and the sucker fish. The UNDP is the United Nations Development Programme, and GEF, the Global Environmental Facility, the latter controlled, as it happens, by UNDP and a few other UN organizations. To most Zambians, poor people after all, the UN workers are citizens of many countries who they see speeding by locked in the largest of 4 x 4 stations wagons, a massive radio aerial clamped on bumper, windows shut fast, air-conditioner excluding the native air, its besuited ‘experts’ rushing off to a meeting. But what they don’t know, is that the UNDP resembles very much their own Government, as random readings concerning the UNDP by Inner City Press at the UN HQ in New York makes clear. UNDP is one of the bad apples in the UN barrel.
UNDP recently spent $737, 000 on a commissioned book about themselves called, “UNDP: A Better Way”, a hagiography seeking to sanctify the doings of the successive Administrators of UNDP: Maurice Strong - who left the organization after the uncovering of strong skullduggery, Mark Malloch-Brown (now back in the British cabinet) – an undistinguished time at the helm at best, and the present incumbent, Kemal Davis – the latter with such a dislike for the press and transparency that he refused to answer questions from them for 14 months. The flow of questionable procedures at UNDP is unending: the Spanish Prime Minister criticizes UNDP for not providing audited accounts for its 192 Member States, saying that only summaries go to the members of the UNDP’s executive board; UNDP rent ten rooms in Jerusalem for Quartet envoy Tony Blair, at a cost of $1.3 million that it did not have commitments for, and signed a lease before any internal review procedure, and without considering comparable prices; and the Administrator’s Concessionary Fund, released $709,000 of the 2006 spending, and $698,000 of the 2005 spending, for the Millennium Project, the group led by ‘Bednets’ Jeffrey Sachs and his team including Guido Schmidt-Traub, which was brought in-house at UNDP without following recruitment and hiring rules, and Inter Press Services further report that, “the entire staff of the UN Millennium Project, which Mr. Sachs has led since 2002, was merged into UNDP, in seeming violation of applicable recruiting and hiring rules. UNDP has stated in writing that it will not respond to questions about these employment practices, nor will it release audits, neither to the media nor to countries which fund UNDP – and regarding Mr. Sachs, several UNDP sources suggested that inquiry be made into compensation beyond the previously announced One Dollar a Year service to the Secretary General.”
One of the areas of great concern in UNDP and Zambia alike is corruption, as well as the treatment of whistleblowers. Those in various countries who have exposed corruption in UNDP have not been given protection, the UNDP Department of Management leaving whistleblowers out to the maggot flies, a strong parallel with whistleblowers against corruption in Zambia, where, if they are tourism and conservation investors on self-employed or work permits, get placed in Coventry by ZAWA and the Ministry of Tourism, Environment & Natural Resources (MTENR) – shunned by the likes of UNDP, as well as being targeted by the Office of the President and the Minister of Home Affairs. Such is my first hand experience.
In Zambia, as is its custom, UNDP gets together with the MTENR to conjure up its wish list of programmes for funding by the GEF – often a reliable funder of environmental projects, but also, like most aid programmes, one of many sources for those in power of jobs for pals, new Pajeros, sitting allowances, computers, lucky grant awards (Philipines GEF office) foreign travel, study bursaries and - as the reports of the Zambia Auditor-General attests, corruption. In another classic waPajero move, UNDP and MTENR came up with the idea that Zambia’s protected areas, an invader artefact after all, required re-classification. The justification for this was presented in September 2000 to GEF as a concept proposal for a PDF Block “B” grant, stating that “ Zambia has demonstrated it’s commitment in conserving and managing the country’s biodiversity through various legal instruments and policy frame works and through the establishment of institutions at national and local levels”, a statement made at a time when such commitment was little in evidence, the Department of National Parks and Wildlife having just been wiped off the map and replaced by a statutory body, the Zambia Wildlife Authority, the chromosome deficient infant of an EU midwife project and its little survival-pack afterbirth, ‘The Master Plan’, few of whose recommendations have been followed to this day.
The concept note erroneously stated that “since the 1960’s when the present boundaries of the protected area system was designed and implemented, there has been substantial habitat conversion, encroachment and unsustainable use of resources within the protected areas. These impacts have changed the nature of the protected areas, and in some cases, boundaries no longer coincide with biodiversity hot spots and distribution. Furthermore, there is increasing demand from local communities for access to the resources. It is therefore an urgent necessity, as recognized in the NBSAP, to reinventory, reclassify, and redefine the protected areas system, and at the same time develop incentives for community involvement in the management and conservation of biodiversity, to ensure long term sustainability of the new classification and system.” Apart from getting the date wrong by between twenty or seventy years – depending on the particular protected area, no empirical evidence was put forward for such wild and woolly claims that would justify such a manic spring-clean of the protected area cupboard; but that was hardly the point, for this was a pure McLuhanesque example of ‘The medium is the message’, where the waPajero’s invented world has little to do with the historical and ecological reality of the late iron-age darkness of traditional Zambia – the real Zambia. Somebody at the Ministry simply helped his desk-officer chum in UNDP to make up the numbers on the project quota. The patient was gravely ill they said, and they had the treatment.
Well, there is an inevitably about all of this, GEF and the World Bank and the Nordic Development Fund were sent the concept note with a request for £410K so that a Great Plan could be produced. The money was handed over, and a foreign consultant, unversed in the history and traditions of the country, began work. That the man from the Ministry and the woman from UNDP (it only takes two) had not found out that the Game Department had tried its first Public-private partnership (PPP) in 1949, and that it had continued this process in 1969-76 (Black Lechwe Project), arriving at the first lease agreement for a National Park in 1988, and that they were working quite hard at delivering a number of these PPPs in other National Parks, came as no surprise. For how would they know, without a number of visits to the archives; after all, there is no institutional memory left in Government. But none of this matters, for the Foreign Master Plan subsumes all, even accepted policy.
The first Great Plan recommended nine (sic) implementing partners for the Re-classificion of Protected Areas Project: the MTENR, ZAWA, WWF, UNDP, Ministry of Finance and Planning, Natural Resources Consultative Forum, a ‘Relevant Ministries Steering Committee’, a Technical Advisory Group, a Project Consultation Group (consultants) and private sector partners for two demonstration sites. Of course they had left out the customary authority and the people. Ten then.
In 2003, I met up with the relevant UNDP desk officer, telling her of the Mpumba Trust in Chief Mpumba’s country near Mpika, then still funded by WWF-USA (now abandoned like the Tanganyika Groundnuts Scheme), and of the Landsafe Investment Trust model, funded by Gamefields – a private investment group, which had been presented to Paramount Chief Kopa of the Bisa, and which is now currently into its fourth year of use as the template for the development of the Luembe Conservancy Trust in Nyimba district, and for a growing number of similar trusts in Zambia which do not allow the alienation of customary land, be it by foreigner or Zambian. In addition, I mentioned the proposals for PPPs in respect of the two remaining National Parks in the Bangweulu both in need of management, as well as a proposal for a conservation investment framework incorporating a part of DRC (the last of the primary miombo), the Bangweulu, the Luangwa rift and adjoining patches of Malawi, Mozambique and Zimbabwe.
But for some reason all went quiet at UNDP - a new Belgian GEF desk officer suddenly became incommunicado, and the officer dealing with conservancies and private development at ZAWA – on the surface all smiles and enthusiasm about this empowerment of local communities, but telling a different and hostile tale to community members when they visited him, is the same man employed by UNDP now to manage the Bangweulu demonstration site. And the ZAWA hierarchy turned down applications for a PPP in respect of the two Bangweulu parks, Isangano and Lavusi Manda National, at the very time when the Liuwa Plain N.P. was given out on a PPP arrangement in a partnership between the Paramount Chief of Barotse and Africa Parks; and at the time, the Norman Car Foundation, which some of us had formed to assist ZAWA, had just developed guidelines for ZAWA on PPPs. Time passed, consultants arrived and were now pushing matters forward, later setting up shop at the former offices of the Department of Wildlife and National Parks’ Revolving Fund at ZAWA HQ - an unfortunate location, as in the 1980s much of the safari hunting, donor and Government money had disappeared there.
Later word came that the project was going ahead with demonstration sites in Chiawa and Bangweulu being established. In the Chiawa – an area along the Zambezi, the UNDP consultants reported that “community representatives, ZAWA and local tourism operators have agreed to create a new PA category out of the eastern part of the GMA and to raise the protection status. This means that an area will be gazetted on customary land that will have the same protection status as a National Park. The land remains under customary tenure and will be governed in a partnership between the resident community, ZAWA and local tourism operators.”
Let us be clear about what this means: this new category of protected area, placed on customary land, signals a future change of land tenure - effectively alienation by another name, no mater how it is clothed – such was the experience of Chief Nsefu in 1949-1954, who saw his land, which he had agreed to becoming an early form of a PPP arrangement, becoming a game reserve, and later being included in the South Luangwa National Park. This new protected area category has been engineered by UNDP, but clearly with the blessing of ZAWA. To deliver this protected area, a secular planning religion called Future Search was brought in, a facilitator which believes in securing salvation through gathering people together, and which eventually arrives at some sort of consensus of the way life is to be lived. It matters not what it is that your group wish to do, or what some manipulator wishes a group to do, in fact, it helps not to know what to do, for Future Search will get you all together and through a process not unfamiliar to the more passive religious sects, conjures up the future vision and gets everyone singing, hands lifted, from the same hymn sheet. Yassah ! However, as I know only too well, having worked with one of the best facilitators in this line of business, this method is only as good as the quality, knowledge and experience of the stakeholders involved – and it is after all just another man-plan, which is likely not to have any relevance to the actual situation on the ground. Future Search and its kith and kin, a global marriage market of conjuring up ideas, are like eunuchs at the May Ball: they may get the wallflowers up and going on the dance floor but they don’t do anything afterwards. But these were just the people and process brought in by UNDP.
As Chieftainess Chiawa assisted in the distribution of the Landsafe Trust system to the House of Chiefs, accepted by them and submitted to the 5th National Development Plan on 6 July by James Matale, the House of Chiefs' spokesman, as Chiefdom Trusts, declaring that "We should be allowed to retain absolute title to our land while giving investors and non-subjects renewable lease rights under various chiefdom trusts", one wonders therefore why she agreed to effectively hand over a large part of her country to ZAWA, given the increasingly slender claims they have by way of their Game Management Areas (GMAs) – 34 lodge sites already having been sold in Chiawa by the chieftainess over 40 km of the Zambezi, despite it being a GMA where supposedly the permission of ZAWA had to be obtained before any alienation occurred. Of course, to bring this about they made sure not to involve other Zambian developed trust systems which seek to decentralize the power of Government and place it in the hands of customary leaders and landowners – the latter being a group increasingly seeking their democratic cake, but within the traditional system, and acting with the local council and investors, rather than bringing in some outside consultants in order to introduce a franchised development system having alien roots. So, in a stroke, UNDP/GEF completely ignored an indigenous system developed over a period of 58 years, and injected a foreign one.
And so we turn to an examination of the South-East Bangweulu, one of the demonstration sites. As I was once in charge of the area for the Department of National Parks and Wildlife, I was curious as to why there was no mention of the Black Lechwe Project (1969-1976), which had sought first to save the Black lechwe from extinction, and then to ensure that the local inhabitants would benefit from them in the future.
In this second demonstration site where UNDP and ZAWA proposed their new system (the latter now on its uppers but now soon to be out of debt after being thrown a lifeline by a K23 billion bail-out from the Medium Term Expenditure Framework for 2008-2010), which UNDP little knowledge of, they conjured up an agreement with six chiefs within the Black lechwe range i.e. the area which the BL project had been most involved with, an area totally neglected by ZAWA and by the National Wetland Management Committee which is supposed to be in place – but isn’t, in violation of Zambia’s agreement under the RAMSAR Convention. Again, UNDP seem unaware of some important facts: that the this site was greatly expanded by RAMSAR in 1991 to include all the three National Parks of the Bangweulu and their attendant Game Management Areas – the latter nothing more than a planning framework introduced by the Game Department in 1971, and not a new category of State land.
There never was a plan to gazette part of the Bangweulu into a National Park, for the simple reason that it would have impacted on local people in their annual movement with the floods in search of fish and lechwe. What was proposed by the original Blacke lechwe team, Richard Bell and Jeremy Grimsdell, who carried out a seminal ecological study of the area, was the gazetting of a special GMA, with the second choice being the establishment of a National Park within it – an option they and I never expected to be chosen, one taking in the main watermeadows and plains around Chikuni, Mutoni, Lukanga and Kaleya and up to Chafye island - towards the line of the Chambeshi.
And the plan was not in anyway constrained by land tenure issues. The fact is that when the Black Lechwe Project ceased functioning in February of 1976 with my departure as a result of the changes made by the President of Zambia’s Watershed Speech of 25 June 1975, nothing was done there again, the Anglo-American funded Chikuni Research station, HQ of the project, simply fell down in time, the airboat donated by WWF International (handed over by Sir Peter Scott) simply sank ever deeper into the bungyhollow ooze, and my disconsolate driver, without a truck to drive – for that had been expropriated by some village chickens, was still sitting outside his hut dutifully collecting his pay every month when I visited a year later.
Now UNDP/ZAWA have conjured up a Community Conservation Park – yet another protected area, when we already have 19 others in the country, most of which are not looked after and desperately need public private partnerships. One wonders what paramount Chief Kopa is thinking about, having been excited by the Landsafe system – and signing up for it with the House of Chiefs, or how Chief Mpumba regards matters with his community owned trust now abandoned by WWF-USA. Perhaps Chief Chitambo will tell them of the benefits he has derived from the Kasanka Trust – who have managed the Kasanka National Park - which lies in his country, under a PPP with ZAWA now for 18 year or more, and which his people gave over to protected status in the 1930s. And my old friend Chief Chiundaponde, the longest serving chief in Zambia, what does he think about in his dotage, having awaited for the development so long promised? And perhaps the present Chief Bwalya Mponda, at his masumba on Ncheta Island on the Chambeshi, having had ‘the knowledge’ passed down to him by the late former Chief, Cotton Mateyo, who served throughout the time of the Black Lechwe Project as a game scout and valued assistant, will merely nod his head. Anything, after all, is better than nothing.
There is no mention of the structure under which these ‘people’s parks’ are to be run and managed, but one thing is for certain is that every effort was made to have nothing to do with the models already being tested elsewhere. Why could ZAWA and UNDP not have engaged with those who developed the models, having registered them with ZAWA and elsewhere, and now struggling on with them in Mpumba, Kaingu, Luembe, Mazavuka... and soon in Nylaugwe and Mwape perhaps. An anonymous comment which came through to me summarises the situation exactly:
“The UNDP reclassification project exhibits all the classic mistakes of an aid program: i) supporting an institution that does not follow its own agenda of partnership building, and one that has made no effort to decentralise or manage its finances - see Auditor-General's report of 2005 on parastatals, and ii) using foreign consultants (Future Search) who appear to have no experience in rural Africa when there are at least three community ownership projects run by locals, two of them supported by a sister institution, WWF ( Mpumba and Mazabuka) and iii) dreaming up a big plan without extensive involvement of the local stakeholders and with no reference to relevant past studies or paying heed to existing conventions. Bound to fail at a cost to future generations.”
And recently, this self same UNDP/GEF project, were persuaded to the idea of creating a conservancy in the Luembe open area by some businessmen who had conspired to alienate part of the adjoining West Mvuvye National Forest, and having failed to do the same on the rest of it, sought to take over the adjoining Luembe open area, thinking that having the chief and some senior politicians in their pocket would suffice. But UNDP, discovering that the Luembe Conservancy Trust was not only street-legal and had the blessing of the Community Resource Board, the Headmans’ Association and the community in general, they declined to back them.
And so we must now await the next move of the waPajero who feed together from the full pot in town – or as some call it, the plunder pot, while out there in the old timeless traditional world of the true Zambia, is the empty pot. And as I write, the waPajero, the UNDP and the MTENR, will be hatching out anew their statutory instruments to take over customary and community land under the all-consuming Great Master Plan.
Edmund Burke
The present public uproar over foreign cheap labour (code for Chinese) invading Zambia, resulting in the announcement by a Government Minister that a Zambianization committee will be re-introduced to deal with it, is indicative of how sensitive the Zambian people are to any invasion of their national sovereignty, be it competition in the labour market, disease or foreign investors. This perfectly natural xenophobia – obviously having some survival value, if only of the collective psyche, lead after all in Northern Rhodesia to the rejection of British Imperial Government rule and the ushering in of Independent Zambia in 1964. However, such driven protectionism is highly selective in its expression, for escaping such nationalistic xenophobic scrutiny is an invasive force arguably far more threatening to a nation than being colonized by the pre-eminent culture of the time; an invader that reduces a nation’s GDP, watches as the average life expectancy decreases over the last 20 years from 57 to 37, removes development incentives, underwrites corruption, parasitizes civil servants time and then poaches their services, ignores traditional systems – the magma of future life, and forcibly injects a debilitating cocktail of untested foreign ideas, policies and development drugs into the national buttock - in contempt of the law of unintended consequence and the demands of the precautionary principle. Such an invasive force is foreign donor aid – exemplified by its visible battalions, aid programmes.
One such Zambian aid programme, the UNDP/GEF, ‘Classification of Protected Areas’ project, is yet further spawn of the mutualistic parasitic relationship of donor and government, a relationship now more secure in evolutionary terms than the ‘marriage’ of the shark and the sucker fish. The UNDP is the United Nations Development Programme, and GEF, the Global Environmental Facility, the latter controlled, as it happens, by UNDP and a few other UN organizations. To most Zambians, poor people after all, the UN workers are citizens of many countries who they see speeding by locked in the largest of 4 x 4 stations wagons, a massive radio aerial clamped on bumper, windows shut fast, air-conditioner excluding the native air, its besuited ‘experts’ rushing off to a meeting. But what they don’t know, is that the UNDP resembles very much their own Government, as random readings concerning the UNDP by Inner City Press at the UN HQ in New York makes clear. UNDP is one of the bad apples in the UN barrel.
UNDP recently spent $737, 000 on a commissioned book about themselves called, “UNDP: A Better Way”, a hagiography seeking to sanctify the doings of the successive Administrators of UNDP: Maurice Strong - who left the organization after the uncovering of strong skullduggery, Mark Malloch-Brown (now back in the British cabinet) – an undistinguished time at the helm at best, and the present incumbent, Kemal Davis – the latter with such a dislike for the press and transparency that he refused to answer questions from them for 14 months. The flow of questionable procedures at UNDP is unending: the Spanish Prime Minister criticizes UNDP for not providing audited accounts for its 192 Member States, saying that only summaries go to the members of the UNDP’s executive board; UNDP rent ten rooms in Jerusalem for Quartet envoy Tony Blair, at a cost of $1.3 million that it did not have commitments for, and signed a lease before any internal review procedure, and without considering comparable prices; and the Administrator’s Concessionary Fund, released $709,000 of the 2006 spending, and $698,000 of the 2005 spending, for the Millennium Project, the group led by ‘Bednets’ Jeffrey Sachs and his team including Guido Schmidt-Traub, which was brought in-house at UNDP without following recruitment and hiring rules, and Inter Press Services further report that, “the entire staff of the UN Millennium Project, which Mr. Sachs has led since 2002, was merged into UNDP, in seeming violation of applicable recruiting and hiring rules. UNDP has stated in writing that it will not respond to questions about these employment practices, nor will it release audits, neither to the media nor to countries which fund UNDP – and regarding Mr. Sachs, several UNDP sources suggested that inquiry be made into compensation beyond the previously announced One Dollar a Year service to the Secretary General.”
One of the areas of great concern in UNDP and Zambia alike is corruption, as well as the treatment of whistleblowers. Those in various countries who have exposed corruption in UNDP have not been given protection, the UNDP Department of Management leaving whistleblowers out to the maggot flies, a strong parallel with whistleblowers against corruption in Zambia, where, if they are tourism and conservation investors on self-employed or work permits, get placed in Coventry by ZAWA and the Ministry of Tourism, Environment & Natural Resources (MTENR) – shunned by the likes of UNDP, as well as being targeted by the Office of the President and the Minister of Home Affairs. Such is my first hand experience.
In Zambia, as is its custom, UNDP gets together with the MTENR to conjure up its wish list of programmes for funding by the GEF – often a reliable funder of environmental projects, but also, like most aid programmes, one of many sources for those in power of jobs for pals, new Pajeros, sitting allowances, computers, lucky grant awards (Philipines GEF office) foreign travel, study bursaries and - as the reports of the Zambia Auditor-General attests, corruption. In another classic waPajero move, UNDP and MTENR came up with the idea that Zambia’s protected areas, an invader artefact after all, required re-classification. The justification for this was presented in September 2000 to GEF as a concept proposal for a PDF Block “B” grant, stating that “ Zambia has demonstrated it’s commitment in conserving and managing the country’s biodiversity through various legal instruments and policy frame works and through the establishment of institutions at national and local levels”, a statement made at a time when such commitment was little in evidence, the Department of National Parks and Wildlife having just been wiped off the map and replaced by a statutory body, the Zambia Wildlife Authority, the chromosome deficient infant of an EU midwife project and its little survival-pack afterbirth, ‘The Master Plan’, few of whose recommendations have been followed to this day.
The concept note erroneously stated that “since the 1960’s when the present boundaries of the protected area system was designed and implemented, there has been substantial habitat conversion, encroachment and unsustainable use of resources within the protected areas. These impacts have changed the nature of the protected areas, and in some cases, boundaries no longer coincide with biodiversity hot spots and distribution. Furthermore, there is increasing demand from local communities for access to the resources. It is therefore an urgent necessity, as recognized in the NBSAP, to reinventory, reclassify, and redefine the protected areas system, and at the same time develop incentives for community involvement in the management and conservation of biodiversity, to ensure long term sustainability of the new classification and system.” Apart from getting the date wrong by between twenty or seventy years – depending on the particular protected area, no empirical evidence was put forward for such wild and woolly claims that would justify such a manic spring-clean of the protected area cupboard; but that was hardly the point, for this was a pure McLuhanesque example of ‘The medium is the message’, where the waPajero’s invented world has little to do with the historical and ecological reality of the late iron-age darkness of traditional Zambia – the real Zambia. Somebody at the Ministry simply helped his desk-officer chum in UNDP to make up the numbers on the project quota. The patient was gravely ill they said, and they had the treatment.
Well, there is an inevitably about all of this, GEF and the World Bank and the Nordic Development Fund were sent the concept note with a request for £410K so that a Great Plan could be produced. The money was handed over, and a foreign consultant, unversed in the history and traditions of the country, began work. That the man from the Ministry and the woman from UNDP (it only takes two) had not found out that the Game Department had tried its first Public-private partnership (PPP) in 1949, and that it had continued this process in 1969-76 (Black Lechwe Project), arriving at the first lease agreement for a National Park in 1988, and that they were working quite hard at delivering a number of these PPPs in other National Parks, came as no surprise. For how would they know, without a number of visits to the archives; after all, there is no institutional memory left in Government. But none of this matters, for the Foreign Master Plan subsumes all, even accepted policy.
The first Great Plan recommended nine (sic) implementing partners for the Re-classificion of Protected Areas Project: the MTENR, ZAWA, WWF, UNDP, Ministry of Finance and Planning, Natural Resources Consultative Forum, a ‘Relevant Ministries Steering Committee’, a Technical Advisory Group, a Project Consultation Group (consultants) and private sector partners for two demonstration sites. Of course they had left out the customary authority and the people. Ten then.
In 2003, I met up with the relevant UNDP desk officer, telling her of the Mpumba Trust in Chief Mpumba’s country near Mpika, then still funded by WWF-USA (now abandoned like the Tanganyika Groundnuts Scheme), and of the Landsafe Investment Trust model, funded by Gamefields – a private investment group, which had been presented to Paramount Chief Kopa of the Bisa, and which is now currently into its fourth year of use as the template for the development of the Luembe Conservancy Trust in Nyimba district, and for a growing number of similar trusts in Zambia which do not allow the alienation of customary land, be it by foreigner or Zambian. In addition, I mentioned the proposals for PPPs in respect of the two remaining National Parks in the Bangweulu both in need of management, as well as a proposal for a conservation investment framework incorporating a part of DRC (the last of the primary miombo), the Bangweulu, the Luangwa rift and adjoining patches of Malawi, Mozambique and Zimbabwe.
But for some reason all went quiet at UNDP - a new Belgian GEF desk officer suddenly became incommunicado, and the officer dealing with conservancies and private development at ZAWA – on the surface all smiles and enthusiasm about this empowerment of local communities, but telling a different and hostile tale to community members when they visited him, is the same man employed by UNDP now to manage the Bangweulu demonstration site. And the ZAWA hierarchy turned down applications for a PPP in respect of the two Bangweulu parks, Isangano and Lavusi Manda National, at the very time when the Liuwa Plain N.P. was given out on a PPP arrangement in a partnership between the Paramount Chief of Barotse and Africa Parks; and at the time, the Norman Car Foundation, which some of us had formed to assist ZAWA, had just developed guidelines for ZAWA on PPPs. Time passed, consultants arrived and were now pushing matters forward, later setting up shop at the former offices of the Department of Wildlife and National Parks’ Revolving Fund at ZAWA HQ - an unfortunate location, as in the 1980s much of the safari hunting, donor and Government money had disappeared there.
Later word came that the project was going ahead with demonstration sites in Chiawa and Bangweulu being established. In the Chiawa – an area along the Zambezi, the UNDP consultants reported that “community representatives, ZAWA and local tourism operators have agreed to create a new PA category out of the eastern part of the GMA and to raise the protection status. This means that an area will be gazetted on customary land that will have the same protection status as a National Park. The land remains under customary tenure and will be governed in a partnership between the resident community, ZAWA and local tourism operators.”
Let us be clear about what this means: this new category of protected area, placed on customary land, signals a future change of land tenure - effectively alienation by another name, no mater how it is clothed – such was the experience of Chief Nsefu in 1949-1954, who saw his land, which he had agreed to becoming an early form of a PPP arrangement, becoming a game reserve, and later being included in the South Luangwa National Park. This new protected area category has been engineered by UNDP, but clearly with the blessing of ZAWA. To deliver this protected area, a secular planning religion called Future Search was brought in, a facilitator which believes in securing salvation through gathering people together, and which eventually arrives at some sort of consensus of the way life is to be lived. It matters not what it is that your group wish to do, or what some manipulator wishes a group to do, in fact, it helps not to know what to do, for Future Search will get you all together and through a process not unfamiliar to the more passive religious sects, conjures up the future vision and gets everyone singing, hands lifted, from the same hymn sheet. Yassah ! However, as I know only too well, having worked with one of the best facilitators in this line of business, this method is only as good as the quality, knowledge and experience of the stakeholders involved – and it is after all just another man-plan, which is likely not to have any relevance to the actual situation on the ground. Future Search and its kith and kin, a global marriage market of conjuring up ideas, are like eunuchs at the May Ball: they may get the wallflowers up and going on the dance floor but they don’t do anything afterwards. But these were just the people and process brought in by UNDP.
As Chieftainess Chiawa assisted in the distribution of the Landsafe Trust system to the House of Chiefs, accepted by them and submitted to the 5th National Development Plan on 6 July by James Matale, the House of Chiefs' spokesman, as Chiefdom Trusts, declaring that "We should be allowed to retain absolute title to our land while giving investors and non-subjects renewable lease rights under various chiefdom trusts", one wonders therefore why she agreed to effectively hand over a large part of her country to ZAWA, given the increasingly slender claims they have by way of their Game Management Areas (GMAs) – 34 lodge sites already having been sold in Chiawa by the chieftainess over 40 km of the Zambezi, despite it being a GMA where supposedly the permission of ZAWA had to be obtained before any alienation occurred. Of course, to bring this about they made sure not to involve other Zambian developed trust systems which seek to decentralize the power of Government and place it in the hands of customary leaders and landowners – the latter being a group increasingly seeking their democratic cake, but within the traditional system, and acting with the local council and investors, rather than bringing in some outside consultants in order to introduce a franchised development system having alien roots. So, in a stroke, UNDP/GEF completely ignored an indigenous system developed over a period of 58 years, and injected a foreign one.
And so we turn to an examination of the South-East Bangweulu, one of the demonstration sites. As I was once in charge of the area for the Department of National Parks and Wildlife, I was curious as to why there was no mention of the Black Lechwe Project (1969-1976), which had sought first to save the Black lechwe from extinction, and then to ensure that the local inhabitants would benefit from them in the future.
In this second demonstration site where UNDP and ZAWA proposed their new system (the latter now on its uppers but now soon to be out of debt after being thrown a lifeline by a K23 billion bail-out from the Medium Term Expenditure Framework for 2008-2010), which UNDP little knowledge of, they conjured up an agreement with six chiefs within the Black lechwe range i.e. the area which the BL project had been most involved with, an area totally neglected by ZAWA and by the National Wetland Management Committee which is supposed to be in place – but isn’t, in violation of Zambia’s agreement under the RAMSAR Convention. Again, UNDP seem unaware of some important facts: that the this site was greatly expanded by RAMSAR in 1991 to include all the three National Parks of the Bangweulu and their attendant Game Management Areas – the latter nothing more than a planning framework introduced by the Game Department in 1971, and not a new category of State land.
There never was a plan to gazette part of the Bangweulu into a National Park, for the simple reason that it would have impacted on local people in their annual movement with the floods in search of fish and lechwe. What was proposed by the original Blacke lechwe team, Richard Bell and Jeremy Grimsdell, who carried out a seminal ecological study of the area, was the gazetting of a special GMA, with the second choice being the establishment of a National Park within it – an option they and I never expected to be chosen, one taking in the main watermeadows and plains around Chikuni, Mutoni, Lukanga and Kaleya and up to Chafye island - towards the line of the Chambeshi.
And the plan was not in anyway constrained by land tenure issues. The fact is that when the Black Lechwe Project ceased functioning in February of 1976 with my departure as a result of the changes made by the President of Zambia’s Watershed Speech of 25 June 1975, nothing was done there again, the Anglo-American funded Chikuni Research station, HQ of the project, simply fell down in time, the airboat donated by WWF International (handed over by Sir Peter Scott) simply sank ever deeper into the bungyhollow ooze, and my disconsolate driver, without a truck to drive – for that had been expropriated by some village chickens, was still sitting outside his hut dutifully collecting his pay every month when I visited a year later.
Now UNDP/ZAWA have conjured up a Community Conservation Park – yet another protected area, when we already have 19 others in the country, most of which are not looked after and desperately need public private partnerships. One wonders what paramount Chief Kopa is thinking about, having been excited by the Landsafe system – and signing up for it with the House of Chiefs, or how Chief Mpumba regards matters with his community owned trust now abandoned by WWF-USA. Perhaps Chief Chitambo will tell them of the benefits he has derived from the Kasanka Trust – who have managed the Kasanka National Park - which lies in his country, under a PPP with ZAWA now for 18 year or more, and which his people gave over to protected status in the 1930s. And my old friend Chief Chiundaponde, the longest serving chief in Zambia, what does he think about in his dotage, having awaited for the development so long promised? And perhaps the present Chief Bwalya Mponda, at his masumba on Ncheta Island on the Chambeshi, having had ‘the knowledge’ passed down to him by the late former Chief, Cotton Mateyo, who served throughout the time of the Black Lechwe Project as a game scout and valued assistant, will merely nod his head. Anything, after all, is better than nothing.
There is no mention of the structure under which these ‘people’s parks’ are to be run and managed, but one thing is for certain is that every effort was made to have nothing to do with the models already being tested elsewhere. Why could ZAWA and UNDP not have engaged with those who developed the models, having registered them with ZAWA and elsewhere, and now struggling on with them in Mpumba, Kaingu, Luembe, Mazavuka... and soon in Nylaugwe and Mwape perhaps. An anonymous comment which came through to me summarises the situation exactly:
“The UNDP reclassification project exhibits all the classic mistakes of an aid program: i) supporting an institution that does not follow its own agenda of partnership building, and one that has made no effort to decentralise or manage its finances - see Auditor-General's report of 2005 on parastatals, and ii) using foreign consultants (Future Search) who appear to have no experience in rural Africa when there are at least three community ownership projects run by locals, two of them supported by a sister institution, WWF ( Mpumba and Mazabuka) and iii) dreaming up a big plan without extensive involvement of the local stakeholders and with no reference to relevant past studies or paying heed to existing conventions. Bound to fail at a cost to future generations.”
And recently, this self same UNDP/GEF project, were persuaded to the idea of creating a conservancy in the Luembe open area by some businessmen who had conspired to alienate part of the adjoining West Mvuvye National Forest, and having failed to do the same on the rest of it, sought to take over the adjoining Luembe open area, thinking that having the chief and some senior politicians in their pocket would suffice. But UNDP, discovering that the Luembe Conservancy Trust was not only street-legal and had the blessing of the Community Resource Board, the Headmans’ Association and the community in general, they declined to back them.
And so we must now await the next move of the waPajero who feed together from the full pot in town – or as some call it, the plunder pot, while out there in the old timeless traditional world of the true Zambia, is the empty pot. And as I write, the waPajero, the UNDP and the MTENR, will be hatching out anew their statutory instruments to take over customary and community land under the all-consuming Great Master Plan.
Thursday, November 15, 2007
Bednets Sachs's legacy...
I have been firing off missiles regarding the irresponsible distribution of bednets to all and sundry, with no result. The Environmental Council of Zambia, apart from an initial acknowledgement of the problem, remain mute - as on other matters. Therefore it was good to read this piece. However, what is being done about it? Oncemore the donors from Gates to Sachs to DFId to Canadian Red Cross - the whole bang shoot, must shoulder responsibility for what bednets are doing to the fishery. Africa just lies back and takes it because powerful individuals make money out of it.
The news from africanpress on November 14, 2007 reported by Wilfred Zulu, is that "Zambia’s quest to fight Malaria has come under an unprecedented challenge as it scales up to overcome an epidemic that is claiming an average of 50,000 lives a year. Among the key challenges facing the country is the improper use of the Insecticide Treated Nets (ITNs) by some beneficiaries. The other problem is educating people on the need to seek early treatment to avert malaria-related deaths.
Health officials say Zambia’s efforts to fight malaria are being frustrated by people living near lakes and rivers. These people, they say, are using the nets for economic gains as opposed to safeguarding themselves against the mosquito bite that causes malaria and subsequent death. Health spokesman Canisius Banda said, despite government giving away the protective nets at highly subsidised rates to most vulnerable people, the trend of misusing the nets has continued, fueling concerns that Zambia’s desire to scale down malaria by 2010, as demanded by the World Health Organisation (WHO), might fail.
‘’We have introduced ITNs as a way of fighting the disease but most people, especially in rural areas, use it for fishing at the expense of their lives,’’ Mukonka said. The abusers are mainly people in the north-eastern region near lakes Bangweulu and Mweru, and in Mpulungu, a border town near Tanzania, as well as those living near Zambezi River and Kafue River in southern Zambia, according to a survey. Health Minister Brian Chituwo says unless Zambians changed their attitudes, the fight against malaria might fail. Zambia has teamed up with British Department for International Development (DFID), and Japan International Corporation Agency, as well as WHO, UN’s Children’s Fund and local stakeholders to fight the disease. DFID provided 1.6 million dollars to cover 2003-2006 and Global Fund 17 million dollars to finance a two-year comprehensive malaria control programme in Zambia, Chituwo said.
Joseph Sichone, a fisherman in Mpulungu, says he has been forced to use the nets for fishing. He says he has a family of eight, most of who are at school, to look after. ‘’Because of the high level of poverty in our area, we are using the nets to catch fish to sell and make ends meet,’’ Sichone says. ‘’We are doing this to save our children from dying of hunger.’’ fddddddddddddMary Mwele, who lives near Lake Mweru, says she has also been forced to use the net to feed her children. Her husband died five years ago. Fishermen say they are prepared to stop abusing the net should the government provide them with loans to start alternative businesses. Edward Tafuna, a traditional ruler in northern Zambia, blames the government for failing to help his people, most of whom, he says, are vulnerable and at the mercy of hunger. ‘’Most of my subjects have been told not to use the nets for fishing but they are wondering how they can survive in this economy. The government should either create jobs or empower the people through loans,’’ Tafuna says.
DFID health advisor in Zambia, Tony Daly says the British funding was intended to benefit children under the age of five as well as pregnant women. The nets, he says, are a vital component of the government’s Roll Back Malaria programme.
‘’We are concerned that people put themselves at risk of contracting the disease if they are not sleeping under the nets. We are pleased that, through on-going information, the authorities are reinforcing messages on the correct use of ITNs and the importance of using them for malaria prevention. This public education is crucial and can save lives,’’ Daly says.
WHO Malaria Expert in Zambia, Fred Masinga warned that the use of the mosquito nets for fishing would affect the aquatic life. ‘’We have reports of people using the ITNs for fishing and not for their safety. We are presently undertaking a study to verify the reports although we know that the nets can’t last for long because they are meant to trap mosquitoes and not fish,’’ Masinga says. The Environmental Council of Zambia spokesman, Joseph Mukosa says his organisation will work to discourage fishermen from using the nets. ‘’The ITNs are meant to protect people especially pregnant women and children. And for someone to have the audacity to use it to catch fish is out of this world. The Zambian government needs to speed up its sensitisation programme to avoid unnecessarily deaths among the vulnerable people,’’ Stella Goings, UNICEF Representative in Zambia, said.
Of the 10.5 million people, 50,000 Zambians die every year from malaria, and nearly 40 percent of the deaths of children aged five years or under are caused by the disease, according to the Lusaka-based National Malaria Control Centre. Not only Zambia, but similar problem is facing the 13-nation Southern African Development Community (SADC) where around 63 percent of the population lives in malarial zone, according to the Harare-based Southern Africa Malaria Control programme.
In areas of stable transmission, under-five year olds and pregnant women are at greatest risk of severe malaria due to the low levels of acquired immunity, said the organisation. While in the predominantly stable transmission countries - Angola, Malawi, Mozambique, Tanzania and Zambia – there are an estimated 13.7 million under-five year olds and 3.4 million pregnant women at risk of severe malaria, it added. In the predominantly unstable transmission countries – Botswana, Namibia, South Africa, Swaziland and Zimbabwe – where all age groups have a high risk of malaria due to low levels of acquired immunity, 12.4 million people are at risk of malaria. According to the organisation, malaria is responsible for 200,000 deaths per annum in the SADC region. Between 10 million and 37 million confirmed cases of malaria occur in the sub-region every year, it says.
The news from africanpress on November 14, 2007 reported by Wilfred Zulu, is that "Zambia’s quest to fight Malaria has come under an unprecedented challenge as it scales up to overcome an epidemic that is claiming an average of 50,000 lives a year. Among the key challenges facing the country is the improper use of the Insecticide Treated Nets (ITNs) by some beneficiaries. The other problem is educating people on the need to seek early treatment to avert malaria-related deaths.
Health officials say Zambia’s efforts to fight malaria are being frustrated by people living near lakes and rivers. These people, they say, are using the nets for economic gains as opposed to safeguarding themselves against the mosquito bite that causes malaria and subsequent death. Health spokesman Canisius Banda said, despite government giving away the protective nets at highly subsidised rates to most vulnerable people, the trend of misusing the nets has continued, fueling concerns that Zambia’s desire to scale down malaria by 2010, as demanded by the World Health Organisation (WHO), might fail.
‘’We have introduced ITNs as a way of fighting the disease but most people, especially in rural areas, use it for fishing at the expense of their lives,’’ Mukonka said. The abusers are mainly people in the north-eastern region near lakes Bangweulu and Mweru, and in Mpulungu, a border town near Tanzania, as well as those living near Zambezi River and Kafue River in southern Zambia, according to a survey. Health Minister Brian Chituwo says unless Zambians changed their attitudes, the fight against malaria might fail. Zambia has teamed up with British Department for International Development (DFID), and Japan International Corporation Agency, as well as WHO, UN’s Children’s Fund and local stakeholders to fight the disease. DFID provided 1.6 million dollars to cover 2003-2006 and Global Fund 17 million dollars to finance a two-year comprehensive malaria control programme in Zambia, Chituwo said.
Joseph Sichone, a fisherman in Mpulungu, says he has been forced to use the nets for fishing. He says he has a family of eight, most of who are at school, to look after. ‘’Because of the high level of poverty in our area, we are using the nets to catch fish to sell and make ends meet,’’ Sichone says. ‘’We are doing this to save our children from dying of hunger.’’ fddddddddddddMary Mwele, who lives near Lake Mweru, says she has also been forced to use the net to feed her children. Her husband died five years ago. Fishermen say they are prepared to stop abusing the net should the government provide them with loans to start alternative businesses. Edward Tafuna, a traditional ruler in northern Zambia, blames the government for failing to help his people, most of whom, he says, are vulnerable and at the mercy of hunger. ‘’Most of my subjects have been told not to use the nets for fishing but they are wondering how they can survive in this economy. The government should either create jobs or empower the people through loans,’’ Tafuna says.
DFID health advisor in Zambia, Tony Daly says the British funding was intended to benefit children under the age of five as well as pregnant women. The nets, he says, are a vital component of the government’s Roll Back Malaria programme.
‘’We are concerned that people put themselves at risk of contracting the disease if they are not sleeping under the nets. We are pleased that, through on-going information, the authorities are reinforcing messages on the correct use of ITNs and the importance of using them for malaria prevention. This public education is crucial and can save lives,’’ Daly says.
WHO Malaria Expert in Zambia, Fred Masinga warned that the use of the mosquito nets for fishing would affect the aquatic life. ‘’We have reports of people using the ITNs for fishing and not for their safety. We are presently undertaking a study to verify the reports although we know that the nets can’t last for long because they are meant to trap mosquitoes and not fish,’’ Masinga says. The Environmental Council of Zambia spokesman, Joseph Mukosa says his organisation will work to discourage fishermen from using the nets. ‘’The ITNs are meant to protect people especially pregnant women and children. And for someone to have the audacity to use it to catch fish is out of this world. The Zambian government needs to speed up its sensitisation programme to avoid unnecessarily deaths among the vulnerable people,’’ Stella Goings, UNICEF Representative in Zambia, said.
Of the 10.5 million people, 50,000 Zambians die every year from malaria, and nearly 40 percent of the deaths of children aged five years or under are caused by the disease, according to the Lusaka-based National Malaria Control Centre. Not only Zambia, but similar problem is facing the 13-nation Southern African Development Community (SADC) where around 63 percent of the population lives in malarial zone, according to the Harare-based Southern Africa Malaria Control programme.
In areas of stable transmission, under-five year olds and pregnant women are at greatest risk of severe malaria due to the low levels of acquired immunity, said the organisation. While in the predominantly stable transmission countries - Angola, Malawi, Mozambique, Tanzania and Zambia – there are an estimated 13.7 million under-five year olds and 3.4 million pregnant women at risk of severe malaria, it added. In the predominantly unstable transmission countries – Botswana, Namibia, South Africa, Swaziland and Zimbabwe – where all age groups have a high risk of malaria due to low levels of acquired immunity, 12.4 million people are at risk of malaria. According to the organisation, malaria is responsible for 200,000 deaths per annum in the SADC region. Between 10 million and 37 million confirmed cases of malaria occur in the sub-region every year, it says.
Sunday, November 04, 2007
Zambian Chiefs waking from their slumbers...
Chief Shakumbila's dissatisfaction at not being consulted, or worse - at seeing no benefit for himself and his people from 60 zebra wrested from the Blue Lagoon National Park - an area first obtained by the late Erica and Ronnie Critchley as a ranch, then later left to the Government as a National Park, strikes a rich seam of sympathy among those living around National Park and Forests, the very swathes of good country which they had voluntarily given over to conservation - the implicit understanding being that they would benefit from such an altruistic action. Chief Nsefu is the historical case in point. He had entered into just such an arrangement with the Provincial Administration in the Protectorate days of 1949, at first reaping funds for the Native Authority, only to see matters get out of control and part of his chiefdom become the Nsefu Game Reserve and then later to see it included in the South Luangwa National Park. The people from Nsefu now have no direct say in the management or earning opportunities there - let alone the harvesting of bush materials and wild food from what was once their land. And with the acceptance by the House of Chiefs of Chiefdom Trusts, the muttering in the villagers and in the House at this state of affairs will soon rise to a shriek.
The capture of animals from National Parks or Game Management Areas for the stocking of other areas, now a common occurrence it seems, is a worrying trend. These zebra were clearly intended for Liuwa Plain National Park and not Lusenga Plain National Park which has not been cared for for 30 years or more. And there is a fellow beavering away in a public private partnership with ZAWA at Blue Lagoon already. I wonder what he thinks of all this. I have written elsewhere about the translocation of zebra from Kafue to Bangweulu and the failure to do something about the native species already there - a different animal to the Kafue lot. The Convention on Biological Diversity's central pillar, the Precautionary Principle, is being totally ignored.
Thursday, November 01, 2007
Where the water meets the sky...I.P.A.Manning
Watwa c. 1914 J.E. Hughes.
"Men were hunting, and we passed near large herds of antelopes, which made a rushing plunging sound as they ran and sprang away among the waters. A lion had wandered into this world of water and anthill, and roared night and morning, as if very much disgusted: we could sympathize with him."
So wrote David Livingstone on 7 April, 1873, as he made his way by canoe and donkey through the flooded land of eastern Bangweulu from the Munikazi river towards the Lulimala river and his last resting place near Headman Chitambo's village. On the 27 April, he wrote: 'Knocked up quite, and remain - recover - sent to buy milch goats. We are on the banks of the Molilamo.' In the early hours of 1 May, he was dead.
The Bangweulu is one of the most ancient land surfaces in the world: a vast flat basin with a total area of approximately 10,000 square miles. In the north-western corner of this basin are the open lakes which slowly give way in the east to deep permanent swamp, and then gradually grow shallower until the estuaries of the principal rivers and their fringing floodplains are reached on its periphery. There are seventeen major rivers which flow into the basin, and only one river, the Luapula, which drains it in the south. Evaporative water loss and this single drainage point is not sufficient to either maintain or decrease the water level permanently and this has given rise to a seasonal fluctuation to which all animal life is adapted. In the rainy season (November to April) the water pushes out onto the floodplains as far as the fringing woodland, driving much life before it, only to begin its retreat in April to the great drainage line of the Chambeshi which cleaves the centre of the basin from the north-east and which eventually becomes the Luapula. In the south-east of this basin lie the principal breeding grounds of the black lechwe - the meadows which are allied with the estuaries of the Luitikila, Lumbatwa, Lukulu and Lulimala rivers.
Until the Great War, the black lechwe numbered in their hundreds of thousands. In 1957, the ecologist , Desmond Vesey-Fitzgerald wrote that during a tour in 1939, that he was: 'amazed at the number of lechwe seen; all along the boat channel in an almost unbroken line.' In 1966, the Game Department conducted an aerial survey and could only account for 4,000 animals, for they had somehow missed out a large part of the population. This miscount resulted in the animal being listed by the World Conservation Union in its Red Data Book of endangered and vulnerable species, and with the support of Anglo-American Corporation – persuaded by a senior executive, David Gleason, the Black Lechwe Project was initiated so as, 1) to protect the lechwe, 2) to report on their ecology, and 3) to allow the local community to benefit from their sustained use once their population had recovered.
At the start of this project under Jeremy Grimsdell in 1969 – later joined by Richard Bell, there were 17,000 lechwe. In May of 1973, as phase 1 of the programme was coming to an end and lechwe numbers had already increased rapidly, I was instructed by Frank Ansell to take charge of the new Bangweulu Command and to put in place phase II of the programme, this being management, law enforcement, and ecological monitoring. At the end of 1973, I took over the research project from Richard and Jeremy, who had by then completed an excellent study of the black lechwe, and worked on the lechwe’s dual lekking system, and on the ecology of the sitatunga. In 1975, Peter Moss and I carried out an aerial survey and arrived at a population figure a little short of 40,000.
The greatest concentration of large mammals in Bangweulu occur in the estuaries of the south-east, the most numerous species being the black lechwe, sitatunga and Bangweulu tssesebe, with buffalo, reedbuck, oribi, elephant and leopard well represented, though lion were by 1975 much reduced. It is the flooding regime, coupled with the grazing action of these animals, and that of a caterpillar which appears seasonally, which produces a mat of leafy grass, high in protein, allowing for seasonal densities of 2,000 lechwe per square mile.
The sight of one of these water meadows early in the new year is unforgettable: a brief glimpse perhaps of the pleistocene plenitude that was, of nature relatively untouched, going about its slow purposeful way in a world where there is no time, only the gradual change of seasons.
During the March/April period, the level of the water on the water meadow rises, signalling the end of the lechwe rut, and forcing the herds back into the peripheral woodland -fortunately for no more than two or three months, for the grasses there are of low nutritive value and the lechwe quickly lose condition. By the end of May the waters recede and the lechwe segregate into male and female groups. The latter then begin their annual trek some thirty miles to the north to the line of the Chambeshi river. With them go the fishermen, who now make their temporary camps on the swamp islands, and the elephant and the buffalo and many of the birds such as spurwing geese and fulvous tree duck and knob nose which gather in dark glittering mobs to feed on wild rice. A month or two later most of the female lechwe have gone, then the males leave en masse - bar a number who remain all year, and follow the same route as the females. In September/October, the females drop their calves, and the males, in anticipation of the first rains in November, start their journey back to the water meadows, and then lingering a month or two, the females and calves follow.
Within the immediate vicinity of the lechwe live numbers of people - in 1974 they numbered 20, 000, of which two of the three tribes, the Unga and the Bisa, came from the west in the 17th Century and found the Twa already resident in the swamps, living on game, fish and the roots of papyrus and water lilies. Today these tribes are much intermarried though some settlements are still largely composed of the Twa, an independent and shy people who for long have shown little allegiance to authority, be it the early trading concessionaires, the British Administration or their own government. Life to them is one long unremitting struggle, even in so rich a paradise.
The Black Lechwe Project had to grapple with a future in which the destinies of people and lechwe should ideally remain forever entwined. The project land use proposals noted that the peripheral areas of floodplain outside of the Black lechwe range had considerable agricultural potential, and that in the lechwe range, some limited tourism, safari hunting and cropping of lechwe could be carried out – the latter only once populations had reached higher numbers, some 160, 000 being the number suggested, given the human demographics. For a maximum sustained yield to be achieved, Jeremy and Richard maintained that cropping would be at half the level of the population at carrying capacity i.e. 80,000, and that this would allow for a 15% annual increase i.e. about 11,000 lechwe a year, producing 400 metric tons of dressed carcass. These they suggested should be handed out in the form of licenses to village residents. They suggested that if the annual increase was about 10% it would take 18 years to reach the necessary level. It is now 34 years later. What, I wonder, is the population now?
For the floodplain areas they suggested that the GMAs: Bangweulu, Kafinda, Chambeshi and the then proposed Kalasa Mukosa flats, should remain, and a specified area within the present Bangweulu and Kafinds GMA be protected from settlement and development. This in essence became the Chikuni GMA. They also suggested as a secondary choice, the creation of a National Park within the Chikuni GMA, which would take in Chimbwe plain and Chafye island, essentially the Lukulu estuary and its drainage line out to Chafye island, the edge of the deep swamp. The Black Lechwe Project was closed on my departure in February of 1976; and the people still have no legal access or authority over the resources on their ancient lands.
On 28 December 1991, The RAMSAR Convention on Wetlands came into force for Zambia, with eight sites designated as Wetlands of International Importance, one of them being called the Bangweulu swamps, now including all the three National Parks (Kasanka, Lavusi Manda and Isangano) and their attendant GMAs, with a surface area of 15, 561 sq. miles. But the fact that it is now a RAMSAR site may not be sufficient to save it from the hydro-electric producers of the future who may wish to re-visit plans to impound the Luapula and create a vast shallow lake ensuring the demise of the lechwe and its significant fishery. Zambia should avoid the tragedy such as has befallen the Kafue flats, once the elysian fields.
Sunday, October 28, 2007
A Scots conservationist and a brave and principled Zambian soldier…
On 27 October 2007, four men imprisoned for treason were released in Zambia; two of them, Major Berrington Mkoma and Lt. Baldwin Manase, who were - according to Mkoma, entirely innocent of the charges, being tortured, and, in the case of Mkoma who had contracted cancer, receiving no mercy or sympathy for his condition from the authorities – except from President Mwanawasa who saved them from hanging.
I read the report this morning in The Post…Mkoma…Mkoma, an unusual name I thought, where had I heard it before. Of course, he had been in Rwanda in 1996, seconded by Zambia to the UN forces at a time when the Tutsis where putting their mail-order machetes to work on the Hutu - retaliation for their destruction by the Hutu in 1994. A killing round, endless it seems. And there had been a Scots journalist, Nick Gordon, who wrote in a British newspaper, “It could, I suppose, be compared to eating a picnic outside Auschwitz. For a start we are not meant to be here. This is the Mutara, the forbidden zone of Rwanda - a desolate and treeless former game reserve in north-east of this homicidal little country that is off-limits to anyone but the army. Anyway, Mutara or not, the photographer and I are sitting in a hired car in the only lay-by in Rwanda, tearing a baton of bread to shreds and trying not to be too conspicuous as we observe the buildings on the hill half a mile away.”
It must have been here just after this, in 1996, that a Zambian UN army officer, Berrington Mkoma, saved Nick Gordon’s life by wresting him from the hands of homicidal rebels. Nick Gordon never forgot.
In 1997, returning from Rwanda to Zambia, Mkoma was charged with treason – attempting, so Government said, to overthrow the Chiluba Government. Gordon worked tirelessly on his behalf. In 2003 Mkoma developed cancer. In 2004, having left his mark as one of the great wildlife cameramen and journalists for his work in the rainforests of Brazil, Gordon died of a heart attack. Who then came more recently to try and spring Mkoma? Have the last three years gone so quickly that it was Nick Gordon who came to Mwanawasa to plead for Berrington Mkoma’s release?
I don’t know anything of the treason charges and the bungling coup attempt, nor the meaning in Zambians' eyes of a freedom fighter, but here is a man whom Zambia should clasp to its bosom.
Friday, October 19, 2007
Mossy nets and feeling good about Africa...
Any intervention into the lives of people and the environment is
subject to the law of unintended consequence.
In a country like Zambia, one of the best watered in Africa, and with a
fishery that was once the envy of all but which is now much
diminished due to the complete absence of any controls on fishing
- driven as it is by an insatiable and expanding urban market
for fish and bushmeat, the indiscriminate issue of three million or so
mosquito nets provides a significant environmental perturbation.
A friend reported to me that he had seen one such tapeworm of a net,
fully 100 yards long, the individual mosquito nets sown together, set
across a stretch of water, doubtless later being 'walked' across the
water by villagers, and all age classes of fish removed. And from all
over the country come reports of mosquito nets being used to catch
fish. And in these waters are crocodile, otter, water python, just
part of the myriad array of animals dependent on fish.
In the Luangwa and Luitikila rifts where our Trust is active, the fish
population is so reduced that we now, for the first time I can
remember, have people taken by crocodile in the dry season.
And one wonders at the effect of the insecticide treated net on all
life in the water, joining as it does the land-based poisoning of
vultures for their heads – sold to the muti trade, and of the scavengers
such as lion, leopard and hyena who then feed on the bait carcasses
laced with cotton insecticide.
Before any such massive intervention was contemplated, there should
have been an application made to the Environmental Council of Zambia
for net distribution and use, followed by an Environmental Impact
Assessment and advertisements in the press calling for public comment
on the short, medium and long term impacts.
Mosquito nets are needed here, as is a controlled DDT spraying
programme presently being carried out on a limited scale as allowed by
the Stockholm Convention. But one of the main factors ensuring the
continued ravages of malaria is that the prophylaxis and treatment
against malaria has - like HIV retrovirals, been poorly dealt with
leading to a loss of natural resistance to malaria by native Africans,
and their further resistance to the drugs of choice. And in any case,
as ludicrously claimed in the July issue of the National Geographic
magazine, drugs such as Coartem are not available to the people in
Zambia - and are certainly not free. And the nets, supposedly donated
to the people of Zambia, are being sold to them in the clinics at a
price higher than can be bought in the suq. Of course, the mossy net
thing, is all part of the donor/recipient problem...
subject to the law of unintended consequence.
In a country like Zambia, one of the best watered in Africa, and with a
fishery that was once the envy of all but which is now much
diminished due to the complete absence of any controls on fishing
- driven as it is by an insatiable and expanding urban market
for fish and bushmeat, the indiscriminate issue of three million or so
mosquito nets provides a significant environmental perturbation.
A friend reported to me that he had seen one such tapeworm of a net,
fully 100 yards long, the individual mosquito nets sown together, set
across a stretch of water, doubtless later being 'walked' across the
water by villagers, and all age classes of fish removed. And from all
over the country come reports of mosquito nets being used to catch
fish. And in these waters are crocodile, otter, water python, just
part of the myriad array of animals dependent on fish.
In the Luangwa and Luitikila rifts where our Trust is active, the fish
population is so reduced that we now, for the first time I can
remember, have people taken by crocodile in the dry season.
And one wonders at the effect of the insecticide treated net on all
life in the water, joining as it does the land-based poisoning of
vultures for their heads – sold to the muti trade, and of the scavengers
such as lion, leopard and hyena who then feed on the bait carcasses
laced with cotton insecticide.
Before any such massive intervention was contemplated, there should
have been an application made to the Environmental Council of Zambia
for net distribution and use, followed by an Environmental Impact
Assessment and advertisements in the press calling for public comment
on the short, medium and long term impacts.
Mosquito nets are needed here, as is a controlled DDT spraying
programme presently being carried out on a limited scale as allowed by
the Stockholm Convention. But one of the main factors ensuring the
continued ravages of malaria is that the prophylaxis and treatment
against malaria has - like HIV retrovirals, been poorly dealt with
leading to a loss of natural resistance to malaria by native Africans,
and their further resistance to the drugs of choice. And in any case,
as ludicrously claimed in the July issue of the National Geographic
magazine, drugs such as Coartem are not available to the people in
Zambia - and are certainly not free. And the nets, supposedly donated
to the people of Zambia, are being sold to them in the clinics at a
price higher than can be bought in the suq. Of course, the mossy net
thing, is all part of the donor/recipient problem...
Monday, September 24, 2007
Lochinvar National Park dying due to neglect and disinterest
Statutory bodies and NGOs involved with the conservation and protection of national forests and parks should be made accountable when such disasters occur
Sunday, September 23, 2007
Zambia, the Ramsar Convention and Bangweulu...
-----Original Message-----
From: Ian Manning [mailto:ipamanning@gmail.com]
Sent: 22 August 2007 13:48
To: Ramsar Mailbox
Subject: Bangweulu Zambia
Dear Dwight
Can you send me details of the National Wetland Steering Committee
Aye
Ian Manning
See my comments below....
Zambia: Bangweulu Ramsar Site
Ramsar Convention Secretariat blurb...
"The Convention on Wetlands came into force for Zambia on 28 December 1991. Zambia presently has 8 sites designated as Wetlands of International Importance, with a surface area of 4,030,500 hectares.
Ramsar description as follows:
Bangweulu Swamps. 28/08/91; Northern Province; 1,100,000 ha; 11°25'S 029°59'E. Includes National Parks, Game Management Areas. In addition to providing a breeding ground for birds, fishes and wildlife ( e.g., the African elephant Loxodonta africaca, the buffalo Syncerus caffer, and Sitatunga Tragelaphus spekei), the site is known to support large numbers of the endemic, semi-aquatic Black Lechwe (vulnerable Kobus leche) and is home to the threatened Wattled crane (Grus carunculatus), as well as the only home in Zambia for the threatened Shoebill (Balaeniceps rex). The swamp is a natural flood controller and important for groundwater recharge and water quality control. The site contains the historical Nachikufu caves with bushman paintings, maintained by the National Heritage Conservation Commission. Threats to the wetland such as poaching will be addressed by the National Wetlands Steering Committee with a proposed general management plan that will steer development away from sensitive habitats. The Zambian Wildlife Authority in collaboration with WWF-Zambia office are collaborating on improving sustainable livelihoods and ecotourism possibilities. The site was extended from 250,000 to 1,100,000 ha on 2 February 2007. Ramsar site no. 531. Most recent RIS information: 2007.
For further information about the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands, please contact the Ramsar Convention Secretariat, Rue Mauverney 28, CH-1196 Gland, Switzerland (tel +41 22 999 0170, fax +41 22 999 0169, e-mail: ramsar@ramsar.org ). Posted 25 January 2000, updated 2 May 2007, Dwight Peck."
Ian Manning comments:
In the original Ramsar core of this site i.e. the water meadows and plains associated with the Lukulu river of the S.E Bangweulu (not the river of the same name i.e. the Bemba Lukulu which debouches into the Chambeshi river), and once the site of the Black Lechwe Project on Chikuni Island, which I headed from 1973-1976, the uncontrolled impacts of fishermen has had a deleterious impact on the most important Black lechwe lekking grounds of the Bangweulu: four foot fishing weirs, permanent huts and villagers houses dot the high ground, altering flow patterns and changing the dynamics of the system. Added to this the embankment access which I originally constructed to allow tourists to reach Shoebill Island camp, now forms an almost solid wall, again impacting and altering flow patterns. In addition, inflated hunting offtake quotas set by the Zambia Wildlife Authority and poaching is from all reports having a negative impact on the biology of animals such as sitatunga, and on the quality of hunting trophies.
What the Ramsar Secretariat does not mention is that the Bangweulu core area of the five river estuaries (Munikashi, Luitikila, Lumbatwa, Lukulu and Lulimala) and deep swamp, provide a productive fishery for the people of the swamp islands; and that what it should have done since 1976 - as per the Black Lechwe Project, was to provide sustained yield offtakes of lechwe and some other species for people who had lived off them for centuries (and still do, but illegally) - particularly the aboriginal baTwa centred about Mboyalubambe. This is the reason why the Chikuni Special GMA was gazetted, and why a National Park was not created. People need to be part of wildlife conservation and development, particularly in S-E Bangweulu. Present work being carried out by the GEF/UNDP Protected Areas Re-Classification Project, should see that the Luitikila National Forest, the Isangano and Lavusi Manda National Parks, the five river estuaries, the Mwendachabe forest, and their associated floodplains, and the Kasanka National Park are knitted into a conservation mosaic covering the chiefdoms of Kopa, Chiundaponde, Chitambo etc, but under a series of interlocking smart partnership of the Landsafe Trust system, rather than just a few National Parks which exclude people, or which are unable to manage the conservation and management of the system as a whole, as is presently the case
Greetings, and many thanks for this. I've forwarded your comments to our Africa team, Mr Abou Bamba (bamba@ramsar.org) and his assistant Ms Evelyn Moloko (africa@ramsar.org), and will ask them to inform you about the Committee.
Best regards, Dwight.
*************** Dwight Peck Communications Officer Convention on Wetlands (Ramsar, Iran, 1971) CH-1196 Gland, Switzerland peck@ramsar.org, http://ramsar.org
--
Dear Mr. Nalumino and others,
Accept regards from the Ramsar Secretariat.
We recently received an email from Mr. Ian Manning, inquiring about the National Wetlands Steering Committee in Zambia. This information was provided in the updated Ramsar Information Sheet for Bangweulu Ramsar site. We however realized that we do not have any information documented on this at the Ramsar Secretariat. We would like to inquire whether this is similar to the ‘National Committee’ as encouraged by Recommendation 5.7 of the 5th Meeting of the Conference of the Contracting Parties Kushiro, Japan (which encouraged Contracting Parties to establish, or recognize the establishment of, national committees according to the needs of each Contracting Party, to provide a focus at national level for implementation of the Convention. This same recommendation requests that national committees send the Bureau summary information concerning their establishment, updated with reference to their work in subsequent national reports).
We would therefore appreciate you forwarding information on the National Wetlands Steering Committee in Zambia; when it was created, its members, how it operates and other necessary information about. This would help us stay up to date with the activities geared towards the implementation of the Ramsar Convention in Zambia and would serve as a good example to other Contracting parties. We would refer Mr. Ian Manning to you for further information on this issue and subsequent issues.
Furthermore, there was some information provided concerning threats to the Bangweulu Ramsar site and additional information which could be included in the Ramsar Information sheet for this site. You would find this information in his email which is below. The Ramsar Administrative Authority in Zambia, together with Mr. Ian Manning, can check out the possibility of incorporating this information in the RIS for this site or in what way this information could be used.
We are copying this email to Mr. Ian Manning as well.
We look forward to your reply and we hope to get some information on this National wetlands Committee.
Sincere regards,
Evelyn.
Moloko Evelyn Parh Assistant Advisor, Africa Convention on Wetlands (Ramsar, Iran, 1971) Rue Mauverney 28, CH-1196 Gland, Switzerland Tel.: + 41 22 999 01 72 Fax: + 41 22 999 01 69 E-mail: africa@ramsar.org Web site: http://ramsar.org
From: PECK Dwight Sent: mercredi 22 août 2007 14:17 To: Ian Manning Cc: BAMBA Abou; MOLOKO, Evelyn Subject: RE: Bangweulu Zambia
Dear Mr. Manning,
Your email of August 22nd was forwarded to the African team for follow up. Thank you for the information provided on the Bangweulu Swamps Ramsar site.
In response to your question concerning the National Wetlands Steering Committee in Zambia, we are sorry to inform you that we do not have any documented information on this committee at the level of the Ramsar Convention Secretariat. Since we are an inter-governmental organization, we work for the governments of the Contracting parties through officially appointed contact institutions in each contracting party. We have therefore forwarded your request to the Ramsar Administrative Authority in Zambia (the Zambia Wildlife Authority, ZAWA) for further information. We would forward any responses we get from them to you. Meanwhile, we would advice you to keep in touch with them and work hand in hand with them, towards the wise use and management of Zambian wetlands. The contacts information for our contact persons in ZAWA are below:
Mr Nalumino Nyambe
Project Leader
WWF Zambia Coordination Office
PO Box 50551, Ridgeway
Lusaka, ZAMBIA
Fax :+260 1 250 805
Tel: +260 1 255 598
email: wetlands@zamtel.zm
Ms Francesca Chisangano
Senior Ecologist - Conventions and Agreements
Zambia Wildlife Authority
P/B 1, Chilanga
Lusaka, ZAMBIA
Fax: +260 1 278 299
Fax: +260 1 278 365
Tel: +260 1 278 365
Email: Chisanganof@zawa.org.zm & zawaorg@zamnet.org
Mr Monty Hapenga Kabeta
Director General
Zambia Wildlife Authority
Private Bag 1, Kafue Road
Chilanga, Lusaka
ZAMBIA
Fax: +260 1 278 244
Tel: +260 1 278 524
email: kabetah@zawa.org.zm
& zawaorg@zamnet.zm
We hope this information would be helpful to you and we would be grateful if you could tell us more about yourself for the record keeping.
Ian Manning replies:
Many thanks for all your very rapid responses, something very unusual
these days. You ask for some details of myself: I am the former
Warden/Senior Biologist of the Bangweulu Command in 1973, followed by
Director of the Black Lechwe Project until 1976, based in the S.E.
Bangweulu in the black lechwe range, with responsiblity for the
Bangweulu, the Kasanka, Isangano and Lavusi Manda National Parks and
all the attendant Game Management Areas. My work involved black lechwe
protection, research on black lechwe lekking behavour, shoebill stork
behaviour and ecology, and the ecology of the sitatunga. In addition I
translocated lechwe back to the Bwela flats of Chinsali district - an
area in which they once occurred. Since that time I assisted in the
negotiations with Government for a PPP on the Kasanka National Park,
was the scientific advisor to the Kasanka Trust in London, and gave
the use of Shoebill Island and Lake Waka Waka (which had been given to
me by the customary authority) to the Kasanka Trust of Zambia, the
present leaseholders of the Park. For some time I have been trying to
interest investors in taking on the Isangano and Lavusi Manda in a
partnership with Government and their local communities.
You should be aware of the Reclassification of Protected Areas Project
(UNDP/GEF) which seeks to do certain things in the newly constituted
Bangweulu Wetland (RAMSAR). Also, Hapenga Kabeta has since April last
year (2006) not been the DG of ZAWA. That post is now filled by Dr Lewis
Saiwana, someone who assisted greatly in the 80's and 90's with the
PPP in respect of Kasanka.
There would appear to be no national committee dealing with this or
any other wetland, a serious concern.
Look forward to hearing more
Aye
Ian Manning
From: Ian Manning [mailto:ipamanning@gmail.com]
Sent: 22 August 2007 13:48
To: Ramsar Mailbox
Subject: Bangweulu Zambia
Dear Dwight
Can you send me details of the National Wetland Steering Committee
Aye
Ian Manning
See my comments below....
Zambia: Bangweulu Ramsar Site
Ramsar Convention Secretariat blurb...
"The Convention on Wetlands came into force for Zambia on 28 December 1991. Zambia presently has 8 sites designated as Wetlands of International Importance, with a surface area of 4,030,500 hectares.
Ramsar description as follows:
Bangweulu Swamps. 28/08/91; Northern Province; 1,100,000 ha; 11°25'S 029°59'E. Includes National Parks, Game Management Areas. In addition to providing a breeding ground for birds, fishes and wildlife ( e.g., the African elephant Loxodonta africaca, the buffalo Syncerus caffer, and Sitatunga Tragelaphus spekei), the site is known to support large numbers of the endemic, semi-aquatic Black Lechwe (vulnerable Kobus leche) and is home to the threatened Wattled crane (Grus carunculatus), as well as the only home in Zambia for the threatened Shoebill (Balaeniceps rex). The swamp is a natural flood controller and important for groundwater recharge and water quality control. The site contains the historical Nachikufu caves with bushman paintings, maintained by the National Heritage Conservation Commission. Threats to the wetland such as poaching will be addressed by the National Wetlands Steering Committee with a proposed general management plan that will steer development away from sensitive habitats. The Zambian Wildlife Authority in collaboration with WWF-Zambia office are collaborating on improving sustainable livelihoods and ecotourism possibilities. The site was extended from 250,000 to 1,100,000 ha on 2 February 2007. Ramsar site no. 531. Most recent RIS information: 2007.
For further information about the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands, please contact the Ramsar Convention Secretariat, Rue Mauverney 28, CH-1196 Gland, Switzerland (tel +41 22 999 0170, fax +41 22 999 0169, e-mail: ramsar@ramsar.org ). Posted 25 January 2000, updated 2 May 2007, Dwight Peck."
Ian Manning comments:
In the original Ramsar core of this site i.e. the water meadows and plains associated with the Lukulu river of the S.E Bangweulu (not the river of the same name i.e. the Bemba Lukulu which debouches into the Chambeshi river), and once the site of the Black Lechwe Project on Chikuni Island, which I headed from 1973-1976, the uncontrolled impacts of fishermen has had a deleterious impact on the most important Black lechwe lekking grounds of the Bangweulu: four foot fishing weirs, permanent huts and villagers houses dot the high ground, altering flow patterns and changing the dynamics of the system. Added to this the embankment access which I originally constructed to allow tourists to reach Shoebill Island camp, now forms an almost solid wall, again impacting and altering flow patterns. In addition, inflated hunting offtake quotas set by the Zambia Wildlife Authority and poaching is from all reports having a negative impact on the biology of animals such as sitatunga, and on the quality of hunting trophies.
What the Ramsar Secretariat does not mention is that the Bangweulu core area of the five river estuaries (Munikashi, Luitikila, Lumbatwa, Lukulu and Lulimala) and deep swamp, provide a productive fishery for the people of the swamp islands; and that what it should have done since 1976 - as per the Black Lechwe Project, was to provide sustained yield offtakes of lechwe and some other species for people who had lived off them for centuries (and still do, but illegally) - particularly the aboriginal baTwa centred about Mboyalubambe. This is the reason why the Chikuni Special GMA was gazetted, and why a National Park was not created. People need to be part of wildlife conservation and development, particularly in S-E Bangweulu. Present work being carried out by the GEF/UNDP Protected Areas Re-Classification Project, should see that the Luitikila National Forest, the Isangano and Lavusi Manda National Parks, the five river estuaries, the Mwendachabe forest, and their associated floodplains, and the Kasanka National Park are knitted into a conservation mosaic covering the chiefdoms of Kopa, Chiundaponde, Chitambo etc, but under a series of interlocking smart partnership of the Landsafe Trust system, rather than just a few National Parks which exclude people, or which are unable to manage the conservation and management of the system as a whole, as is presently the case
Greetings, and many thanks for this. I've forwarded your comments to our Africa team, Mr Abou Bamba (bamba@ramsar.org) and his assistant Ms Evelyn Moloko (africa@ramsar.org), and will ask them to inform you about the Committee.
Best regards, Dwight.
*************** Dwight Peck Communications Officer Convention on Wetlands (Ramsar, Iran, 1971) CH-1196 Gland, Switzerland peck@ramsar.org, http://ramsar.org
--
Dear Mr. Nalumino and others,
Accept regards from the Ramsar Secretariat.
We recently received an email from Mr. Ian Manning, inquiring about the National Wetlands Steering Committee in Zambia. This information was provided in the updated Ramsar Information Sheet for Bangweulu Ramsar site. We however realized that we do not have any information documented on this at the Ramsar Secretariat. We would like to inquire whether this is similar to the ‘National Committee’ as encouraged by Recommendation 5.7 of the 5th Meeting of the Conference of the Contracting Parties Kushiro, Japan (which encouraged Contracting Parties to establish, or recognize the establishment of, national committees according to the needs of each Contracting Party, to provide a focus at national level for implementation of the Convention. This same recommendation requests that national committees send the Bureau summary information concerning their establishment, updated with reference to their work in subsequent national reports).
We would therefore appreciate you forwarding information on the National Wetlands Steering Committee in Zambia; when it was created, its members, how it operates and other necessary information about. This would help us stay up to date with the activities geared towards the implementation of the Ramsar Convention in Zambia and would serve as a good example to other Contracting parties. We would refer Mr. Ian Manning to you for further information on this issue and subsequent issues.
Furthermore, there was some information provided concerning threats to the Bangweulu Ramsar site and additional information which could be included in the Ramsar Information sheet for this site. You would find this information in his email which is below. The Ramsar Administrative Authority in Zambia, together with Mr. Ian Manning, can check out the possibility of incorporating this information in the RIS for this site or in what way this information could be used.
We are copying this email to Mr. Ian Manning as well.
We look forward to your reply and we hope to get some information on this National wetlands Committee.
Sincere regards,
Evelyn.
Moloko Evelyn Parh Assistant Advisor, Africa Convention on Wetlands (Ramsar, Iran, 1971) Rue Mauverney 28, CH-1196 Gland, Switzerland Tel.: + 41 22 999 01 72 Fax: + 41 22 999 01 69 E-mail: africa@ramsar.org Web site: http://ramsar.org
From: PECK Dwight Sent: mercredi 22 août 2007 14:17 To: Ian Manning Cc: BAMBA Abou; MOLOKO, Evelyn Subject: RE: Bangweulu Zambia
Dear Mr. Manning,
Your email of August 22nd was forwarded to the African team for follow up. Thank you for the information provided on the Bangweulu Swamps Ramsar site.
In response to your question concerning the National Wetlands Steering Committee in Zambia, we are sorry to inform you that we do not have any documented information on this committee at the level of the Ramsar Convention Secretariat. Since we are an inter-governmental organization, we work for the governments of the Contracting parties through officially appointed contact institutions in each contracting party. We have therefore forwarded your request to the Ramsar Administrative Authority in Zambia (the Zambia Wildlife Authority, ZAWA) for further information. We would forward any responses we get from them to you. Meanwhile, we would advice you to keep in touch with them and work hand in hand with them, towards the wise use and management of Zambian wetlands. The contacts information for our contact persons in ZAWA are below:
Mr Nalumino Nyambe
Project Leader
WWF Zambia Coordination Office
PO Box 50551, Ridgeway
Lusaka, ZAMBIA
Fax :+260 1 250 805
Tel: +260 1 255 598
email: wetlands@zamtel.zm
Ms Francesca Chisangano
Senior Ecologist - Conventions and Agreements
Zambia Wildlife Authority
P/B 1, Chilanga
Lusaka, ZAMBIA
Fax: +260 1 278 299
Fax: +260 1 278 365
Tel: +260 1 278 365
Email: Chisanganof@zawa.org.zm & zawaorg@zamnet.org
Mr Monty Hapenga Kabeta
Director General
Zambia Wildlife Authority
Private Bag 1, Kafue Road
Chilanga, Lusaka
ZAMBIA
Fax: +260 1 278 244
Tel: +260 1 278 524
email: kabetah@zawa.org.zm
& zawaorg@zamnet.zm
We hope this information would be helpful to you and we would be grateful if you could tell us more about yourself for the record keeping.
Ian Manning replies:
Many thanks for all your very rapid responses, something very unusual
these days. You ask for some details of myself: I am the former
Warden/Senior Biologist of the Bangweulu Command in 1973, followed by
Director of the Black Lechwe Project until 1976, based in the S.E.
Bangweulu in the black lechwe range, with responsiblity for the
Bangweulu, the Kasanka, Isangano and Lavusi Manda National Parks and
all the attendant Game Management Areas. My work involved black lechwe
protection, research on black lechwe lekking behavour, shoebill stork
behaviour and ecology, and the ecology of the sitatunga. In addition I
translocated lechwe back to the Bwela flats of Chinsali district - an
area in which they once occurred. Since that time I assisted in the
negotiations with Government for a PPP on the Kasanka National Park,
was the scientific advisor to the Kasanka Trust in London, and gave
the use of Shoebill Island and Lake Waka Waka (which had been given to
me by the customary authority) to the Kasanka Trust of Zambia, the
present leaseholders of the Park. For some time I have been trying to
interest investors in taking on the Isangano and Lavusi Manda in a
partnership with Government and their local communities.
You should be aware of the Reclassification of Protected Areas Project
(UNDP/GEF) which seeks to do certain things in the newly constituted
Bangweulu Wetland (RAMSAR). Also, Hapenga Kabeta has since April last
year (2006) not been the DG of ZAWA. That post is now filled by Dr Lewis
Saiwana, someone who assisted greatly in the 80's and 90's with the
PPP in respect of Kasanka.
There would appear to be no national committee dealing with this or
any other wetland, a serious concern.
Look forward to hearing more
Aye
Ian Manning
Saturday, September 22, 2007
The Kasanka National Park intends re-arranging the deck chairs...
Pic of the puku lover by David Rogers
The Kasanka National Park, which lies on the edge of the floodplains of the south-east Bangweulu, has since about 1988 been run by David Lloyd and his Kasanka Trust. As the former warden/biologist of the Bangweulu with its three national parks and its game management areas, I assisted David in the negotiations with government towards a public private management agreement, but it was Peter Moss – a former colleague in the Department of Wildlife and National, and a Mkushi farmer, Gary Williams, who set the park up and obtained the initial funding from the EU.
Unfortunately, the three of us no longer have anything to do with the park, it being run as a tourist operation, with no management plan in place, and no formal trust structures established with the Chitambo chiefdom in which the park falls, originally a portion of what was created in 1931, the Livingstone Memorial Game Reserve.
A report on two of the game counts carried out in Kasanka in 1952 and 1955
I have just been informed that the Kasanka Trust wish to translocate Black lechwe into the Kasanka National Park to augment the two males which recently arrived there. Black lechwe never occupied the Kasanka i.e. as a breeding population, as long as we have had records - and I have copies or access to most of them. Lechwe do mate with puku if there are none of their own kind about – being a member of the same genus, but the offspring of the union is infertile and will simply die off in time; but in the Kasanka the offspring of the lechwe male there should be removed at once, and the lechwe male as well.
Zebra in the Lavusi Manda circa 1910 (J.E. Hughes)
Black lechwe should not be translocated into the Kasanka simply to add to the tourists' species list. We already have the example of the scientifically irresponsible and high-handed translocation of the Kafue strain of zebra (with their stripe shadow) onto one of the floodplains allied with the Lukulu river – the main lechwe lekking ground, showing a complete disregard for the principles of wildlife conservation. No effort was made to find the remnants of the Bangweulu strain and to conserve them. And this sort of thing is happening all over Zambia as private farmers and the Zambia Wildlife Authority put and take animals at will.
The 5th National Development Plan says...
The greatest threat to wetlands in the country is from their degradation caused by human-induced processes and exacerbated by climatic fluctuations (particularly drought). It is estimated, for example, that over 20 percent of the flood plains and swamps have been degraded as result of dam development, siltation, and human settlements. At least 30 percent of dambos in Southern, Lusaka, Central, and Eastern Provinces of the country are degraded through inappropriate agricultural practices, siltation, overgrazing, and human settlements. Over 40 percent of wetlands’ wildlife resources have been depleted through over-hunting and habitat loss, while over 50
percent of wetland fisheries resources have been considerably over-exploited.
Sunday, September 16, 2007
Zambia needs to change how it manages wildlife and protected areas..
The Zambia Wildlife Authority (ZAWA), with one man at the helm with any experience and the qualifications to back it up, Dr Lewis Saiwana, is beyond repair, beyond reconstruction. That it has not even made the necessary pension contributions for its own staff is proof that it is time to call it a day. At HQ, ZAWA is a shambles, unable to pay consultants as promised, unable to administer the hunting industry and the quota system, unable to pay all the Community Resource Boards who are responsible for hiring village scouts, unable to answer a simple letter. And in the field, uncannily mirroring national expenditure over the last 20 years on agriculture, education, health and local councils, only between 7 – 15% or so of funds has been deployed for field operations. If the West Petauke Game Mangement Area (GMA) is anything to go by, local ZAWA officers operate ‘legalized’ bushmeat and elephant ivory poaching operations, assisted by village scouts who need little encouragement to poach given the fact that they are only paid occasionally.
Zambia is in the grip of an implacable criminal operation denuding customary areas and National Parks and National Forests of its wildlife. Yet like Zambia itself, ZAWA calls for a financial rescue package. This is not the panacea for the ills which beset ZAWA or the country.
It is time for Government to accept that the management of protected areas and its wildlife, and the wildlife of customary areas, can no longer be run by a highly centralized statutory body with a weak supervisory board. It is time to put all National Parks and Forests out to public private partnerships, and in customary areas, to place the ownership of wildlife in the hands of development trusts which incorporate customary leaders, local councils, the villagers and NGOs.
At a meeting the other day at the national archives, addressed by the Minister of Home Affairs and the Permanent Secretary of that Ministry, the latter said he will request the Minister to instruct all District Commissioners to pay a visit to the archives in order to study the District Notebooks kept by the British South Africa Company from 1902 – 1924, and by the administration of the Imperial Government until 1964, so that the DC’s may learn how to administer their districts. It is time that ZAWA’s senior personnel started looking into the old files of the Game Department in order to learn that its prime function was to protect people from the depredations of wildlife, and to earn money for the Native Authority from wildlife. And it is time that the district councils studied the files of the Native Authority to see how well Zambia’s districts were once managed. It was not a matter of money then, as it is not now.
Monday, September 10, 2007
Dr Neo Simutanyi talks of organized racket in Zambia hunting licenses...
In The Post newspaper of 10 September 2007, Dr Neo Simutanyi in his article entitled 'Education and the Criminal Economy' says that "There have also been reports of an organized racket in the award and use of hunting licenses in which some government officials are believed to be involved'.
Wednesday, September 05, 2007
Lochinvar National Park suffocates from neglect...
In 1918, long before it became a National Park, Lochinvar ranch was bought in a Nairobi pub over a couple of beers by my good late friend, Len Vaughan (pictured above); he had not seen the place before. It was the ellysian fields, covered from one side to the other with lechwe, buffalo, eland and now and then, the Ipumpe crowned Mushkulumbwe on one of their spearing chilas. Steadily over the years since 1976 it has been neglected, the annual flooding regime on which the ecology depends all but destroyed by the impoundment of Iteshiteshi upstream. Now it is being taken over by the dreaded Mimosa, starving out the grasses, stifling the lekking water meadows on which lechwe depend, driving them into the woodland to meet the hoards of cattle. It is all a national disgrace.
Monday, September 03, 2007
A report from Livingstone on Zambia's game translocations...
"I was down at (Zambia Wildlife Authority) ZAWA this afternoon when a truck that had bought down 10 zebra from Kafue turned up. Only 6 are alive after offloading. 2 died on the way down, one at the weighbridge this afternoon and one just after it was off loaded. The truck left Kafue at 1600 yesterday but only got to Livingstone at 1400 today!!!! The truck, which is Zimbabwe registered, is a converted container.
I’m not an expert on moving game but I am a farm boy and I wouldn’t have put cattle in it. There is a serious lack of ventilation.
Can you please pass this on to wildlife society and ask someone to follow it up as they are about to start bringing the roan, sable and eland next week. If they take that amount of time to get from Kafue to here in the current heat, the only thing being restocked will be game rangers freezers."
Another report received states that ZAWA intends capturing eland from the Kafue National Park and translocating them to Liuwa Plain NP. Any removal of eland from Kafue, given their numbers, is to be deplored.
I’m not an expert on moving game but I am a farm boy and I wouldn’t have put cattle in it. There is a serious lack of ventilation.
Can you please pass this on to wildlife society and ask someone to follow it up as they are about to start bringing the roan, sable and eland next week. If they take that amount of time to get from Kafue to here in the current heat, the only thing being restocked will be game rangers freezers."
Another report received states that ZAWA intends capturing eland from the Kafue National Park and translocating them to Liuwa Plain NP. Any removal of eland from Kafue, given their numbers, is to be deplored.
Saturday, September 01, 2007
Zambian community suspends it own village wildlife scouts…
The Community Resource Board (CRB) for the Luembe chiefdom of Zambia’s southern Luangwa valley, on Thursday, 30 August, took the decision to suspend all their 12 village wildlife scouts. For over 30 years – in particular from the time of the takeover in November 1999 of wildlife and protected area affairs by the Zambia Wildlife Authority (ZAWA) from the Department of National Parks and Wildlife, the region has been in the grip of a crime syndicate made up of the very people supposed to protect wildlife. The supplier of the ammunition, the transport for collecting the dried game meat, and the supervision of the actual poaching operation is the officer-in-charge of ZAWA Nyimba sector, Collins Chibeka, and the two ZAWA Wildlife Police Officers (WPOs) in charge of two ZAWA camps, Ben Mwale and Joseph Mbo, assisted by all the village scouts and the other WPO.
This action by the CRB and its capable Chairman, Axon Lungu, is highly significant, for along with the Nawalya CRB further up in the Luangwa, who opposed the removal of their hunting safari operator by ZAWA without due legal process, it shows that rural people living in Game Management Areas are starting to resist the heavy hand of ZAWA, and that of corrupt chiefs, in the management of their lives.
The Luembe Chiefdom is in the midst of a major attempt to remove its chief, Senior Chief Luembe, for selling off their land and for a litany of human rights abuses carried out by him against them. Removed once from office, then replaced by a Government Minister, he will shortly appear in the Kabwe High Court. Investigations are also underway against him and the Chairman of the MMD ruling political party, Whiteson Njobvu, for their part in the illegal alienation of the adjoining West Mvuvye National Forest No. 54 and in the chief’s case, his failure to place a caveat against the 99 year alienation of the M’Nyamadzi game ranch. Both these men were trustees of the Luembe Conservancy Trust, whose mission was to conserve the wildlife and land for the benefit of the villagers.
Since July 2005, the concession holders of the area, Mbeza Safaris, has been apprehending WPOs and village scouts poaching. On 3 July 2007, the Secretary of the Luembe Headmen Traditional Committee wrote in outrage to the Director-General of ZAWA, saying that nothing was being done about the poaching of elephant and other game. In particular, he produced proof of the involvement of the WPO Ben Mwale in the killing of two elephant, and of Collins Chibeka for collecting bags of meat and taking it to Lusaka. He also supplied an affidavit signed by 27 men and woman, admitting that they had worked in Ben Mwale’s fields in return for elephant meat.
The Association has yet to receive a reply, and Mwale and Mbo and Chibeka have not been suspended, let alone prosecuted. And no action has been taken by ZAWA to suspend the village scouts.
I have written elsewhere of catching Mbo and village scouts at their meat filled poaching camp, and of finding Chibeka waiting nearby at another camp. Although I took them to the police, I was not able to prosecute as we could discover no bullet in the impala we found. Their well-oiled story of ’we found poachers and their camp, fired in the air, they ran away’ has served them and their predecessors well since 1976, accounting for all the Zambian rhino and in excess of a 100,000 elephant and countless buffalo and other game.
The sad part of all this is that village scouts are recruited from villager ranks. They are part of the community, with the ZAWA officers coming from elsewhere and being placed in charge of them. As they have not been paid by ZAWA for many months, it is hardly surprising that they poach. But they are directed in this by the permanently employed WPO civil servants.
Ben Mwale recently was given a pair of tusks recovered from an elephant by the fisherman, Ghandi,but has received no reward as is customary. Ghandi states that this ivory has not been handed into the Nyimba office for registration.
The Chairman of the CRB told me yesterday that his CRB had received no funds from ZAWA this year, though Mbeza paid its concession fees in April.
Saturday, August 25, 2007
Think again America...
A doubling of aid to Africa is well intentioned but misguided; it will merely further fatten the slumbers of corrupt and dysfunctional governments, further centralize their power, and further disenfranchise and impoverish the poor. And the news that Laura will arrive in Zambia bearing thousands of mosquito nets, is terrible news for the fish stocks of our countless rivers and, ultimately, for the villagers who are so dependent on them for some protein. Everywhere these nets meant to combat malaria are being sown together and used to remove every living fish, egg and spawn from our waters. We need money to flow directly to the people through local trust structures and associations. In the one million acres of mountain, alluvial plain, rift valleys and rivers of the chiefdoms in which I work, our wildlife is being massacred by ivory poachers and the agents of the bushmeat trade. The killing fields of Africa asserts itself with renewed vigour while the money pours in, propping up governments which are no longer connected with their people. We need funds to go directly to villagers so that they may have an incentive to conserve their resources. Who will be accountable for seeing that this 'doubling' of funds actually produces an improvement in the lot of the poor? Think again America.
Friday, August 24, 2007
The Ramsar African Secretariat writes to ZAMBIA...
To the Zambia Wildlife Authority:
We recently received an email from Mr. Ian Manning, inquiring about the National Wetlands Steering Committee in Zambia. This information was provided in the updated Ramsar Information Sheet for Bangweulu Ramsar site. We however realized that we do not have any information documented on this at the Ramsar Secretariat. We would like to inquire whether this is similar to the ‘National Committee’ as encouraged by Recommendation 5.7 of the 5th Meeting of the Conference of the Contracting Parties Kushiro, Japan (which encouraged Contracting Parties to establish, or recognize the establishment of, national committees according to the needs of each Contracting Party, to provide a focus at national level for implementation of the Convention. This same recommendation requests that national committees send the Bureau summary information concerning their establishment, updated with reference to their work in subsequent national reports).
We would therefore appreciate you forwarding information on the National Wetlands Steering Committee in Zambia; when it was created, its members, how it operates and other necessary information about. This would help us stay up to date with the activities geared towards the implementation of the Ramsar Convention in Zambia and would serve as a good example to other Contracting parties. We would refer Mr. Ian Manning to you for further information on this issue and subsequent issues.
Furthermore, there was some information provided concerning threats to the Bangweulu Ramsar site and additional information which could be included in the Ramsar Information sheet for this site. You would find this information in his email which is below. The Ramsar Administrative Authority in Zambia, together with Mr. Ian Manning, can check out the possibility of incorporating this information in the RIS for this site or in what way this information could be used.
Reply from:
To Mr Nalumino Nyambe
Project Leader
WWF Zambia Coordination Office:
In response to your question concerning the National Wetlands Steering Committee in Zambia, we are sorry to inform you that we do not have any documented information on this committee at the level of the Ramsar Convention Secretariat. Since we are an inter-governmental organization, we work for the governments of the Contracting parties through officially appointed contact institutions in each contracting party. We have therefore forwarded your request to the Ramsar Administrative Authority in Zambia (the Zambia Wildlife Authority, ZAWA) for further information. We would forward any responses we get from them to you. Meanwhile, we would advice you to keep in touch with them and work hand in hand with them, towards the wise use and management of Zambian wetlands. The contacts information for our contact persons in ZAWA are below:
We recently received an email from Mr. Ian Manning, inquiring about the National Wetlands Steering Committee in Zambia. This information was provided in the updated Ramsar Information Sheet for Bangweulu Ramsar site. We however realized that we do not have any information documented on this at the Ramsar Secretariat. We would like to inquire whether this is similar to the ‘National Committee’ as encouraged by Recommendation 5.7 of the 5th Meeting of the Conference of the Contracting Parties Kushiro, Japan (which encouraged Contracting Parties to establish, or recognize the establishment of, national committees according to the needs of each Contracting Party, to provide a focus at national level for implementation of the Convention. This same recommendation requests that national committees send the Bureau summary information concerning their establishment, updated with reference to their work in subsequent national reports).
We would therefore appreciate you forwarding information on the National Wetlands Steering Committee in Zambia; when it was created, its members, how it operates and other necessary information about. This would help us stay up to date with the activities geared towards the implementation of the Ramsar Convention in Zambia and would serve as a good example to other Contracting parties. We would refer Mr. Ian Manning to you for further information on this issue and subsequent issues.
Furthermore, there was some information provided concerning threats to the Bangweulu Ramsar site and additional information which could be included in the Ramsar Information sheet for this site. You would find this information in his email which is below. The Ramsar Administrative Authority in Zambia, together with Mr. Ian Manning, can check out the possibility of incorporating this information in the RIS for this site or in what way this information could be used.
Reply from:
To Mr Nalumino Nyambe
Project Leader
WWF Zambia Coordination Office:
In response to your question concerning the National Wetlands Steering Committee in Zambia, we are sorry to inform you that we do not have any documented information on this committee at the level of the Ramsar Convention Secretariat. Since we are an inter-governmental organization, we work for the governments of the Contracting parties through officially appointed contact institutions in each contracting party. We have therefore forwarded your request to the Ramsar Administrative Authority in Zambia (the Zambia Wildlife Authority, ZAWA) for further information. We would forward any responses we get from them to you. Meanwhile, we would advice you to keep in touch with them and work hand in hand with them, towards the wise use and management of Zambian wetlands. The contacts information for our contact persons in ZAWA are below:
Thursday, August 23, 2007
New Minister for Zambia's Ministry of Tourism, Environment and Natural Resources...
Zambia's President has replaced Kabinga Pande with Michael Kaingu, the noted advocate of the information highway. Pande will now deal with those beyond our borders i.e. Foreign Affairs.
Wednesday, August 22, 2007
Zambia: Bangweulu Ramsar Site
Ramsar Convention Secretariat blurb...
"The Convention on Wetlands came into force for Zambia on 28 December 1991. Zambia presently has 8 sites designated as Wetlands of International Importance, with a surface area of 4,030,500 hectares.
Ramsar description as follows:
Bangweulu Swamps. 28/08/91; Northern Province; 1,100,000 ha; 11°25'S 029°59'E. Includes National Parks, Game Management Areas. In addition to providing a breeding ground for birds, fishes and wildlife (e.g., the African elephant Loxodonta africaca, the buffalo Syncerus caffer, and Sitatunga Tragelaphus spekei), the site is known to support large numbers of the endemic, semi-aquatic Black Lechwe (vulnerable Kobus leche) and is home to the threatened Wattled crane (Grus carunculatus), as well as the only home in Zambia for the threatened Shoebill (Balaeniceps rex). The swamp is a natural flood controller and important for groundwater recharge and water quality control. The site contains the historical Nachikufu caves with bushman paintings, maintained by the National Heritage Conservation Commission. Threats to the wetland such as poaching will be addressed by the National Wetlands Steering Committee with a proposed general management plan that will steer development away from sensitive habitats. The Zambian Wildlife Authority in collaboration with WWF-Zambia office are collaborating on improving sustainable livelihoods and ecotourism possibilities. The site was extended from 250,000 to 1,100,000 ha on 2 February 2007. Ramsar site no. 531. Most recent RIS information: 2007.
For further information about the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands, please contact the Ramsar Convention Secretariat, Rue Mauverney 28, CH-1196 Gland, Switzerland (tel +41 22 999 0170, fax +41 22 999 0169, e-mail: ramsar@ramsar.org ). Posted 25 January 2000, updated 2 May 2007, Dwight Peck."
Ian Manning comments:
In the original Ramsar core of this site i.e. the water meadows and plains associated with the Lukulu river of the S.E Bangweulu (not the river of the same name i.e. the Bemba Lukulu debouching into the Chambeshi river), and once the site of the Black Lechwe Project on Chikuni Island, which I headed from 1973-1976, the uncontrolled impacts of fishermen has had a deleterious impact on the most important black lechwe lekking grounds of the Bangweulu. Four foot fishing weirs, permanent huts and villagers houses dot the high ground, altering flow patterns and changing the dynamics of the system. Added to this the embankment access which I originally constructed to allow tourists to reach Shoebill Island camp, now forms an almost solid wall, again impacting and altering flow patterns. In addition, inflated hunting offtake quotas and poaching is from all reports having a negative impact on the biology of animals such as sitatunga, and on the quality of trophies.
"The Convention on Wetlands came into force for Zambia on 28 December 1991. Zambia presently has 8 sites designated as Wetlands of International Importance, with a surface area of 4,030,500 hectares.
Ramsar description as follows:
Bangweulu Swamps. 28/08/91; Northern Province; 1,100,000 ha; 11°25'S 029°59'E. Includes National Parks, Game Management Areas. In addition to providing a breeding ground for birds, fishes and wildlife (e.g., the African elephant Loxodonta africaca, the buffalo Syncerus caffer, and Sitatunga Tragelaphus spekei), the site is known to support large numbers of the endemic, semi-aquatic Black Lechwe (vulnerable Kobus leche) and is home to the threatened Wattled crane (Grus carunculatus), as well as the only home in Zambia for the threatened Shoebill (Balaeniceps rex). The swamp is a natural flood controller and important for groundwater recharge and water quality control. The site contains the historical Nachikufu caves with bushman paintings, maintained by the National Heritage Conservation Commission. Threats to the wetland such as poaching will be addressed by the National Wetlands Steering Committee with a proposed general management plan that will steer development away from sensitive habitats. The Zambian Wildlife Authority in collaboration with WWF-Zambia office are collaborating on improving sustainable livelihoods and ecotourism possibilities. The site was extended from 250,000 to 1,100,000 ha on 2 February 2007. Ramsar site no. 531. Most recent RIS information: 2007.
For further information about the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands, please contact the Ramsar Convention Secretariat, Rue Mauverney 28, CH-1196 Gland, Switzerland (tel +41 22 999 0170, fax +41 22 999 0169, e-mail: ramsar@ramsar.org ). Posted 25 January 2000, updated 2 May 2007, Dwight Peck."
Ian Manning comments:
In the original Ramsar core of this site i.e. the water meadows and plains associated with the Lukulu river of the S.E Bangweulu (not the river of the same name i.e. the Bemba Lukulu debouching into the Chambeshi river), and once the site of the Black Lechwe Project on Chikuni Island, which I headed from 1973-1976, the uncontrolled impacts of fishermen has had a deleterious impact on the most important black lechwe lekking grounds of the Bangweulu. Four foot fishing weirs, permanent huts and villagers houses dot the high ground, altering flow patterns and changing the dynamics of the system. Added to this the embankment access which I originally constructed to allow tourists to reach Shoebill Island camp, now forms an almost solid wall, again impacting and altering flow patterns. In addition, inflated hunting offtake quotas and poaching is from all reports having a negative impact on the biology of animals such as sitatunga, and on the quality of trophies.
What the Ramsar Secretariat does not mention is that the Bangweulu core area of the five river estuaries (Munikashi, Luitikila, Lumbatwa, Lukulu and Lulimala) and deep swamp, provide a productive fishery for the people of the swamp islands; and that what it should have done since 1976 - as per the Black Lechwe Project, was to provide sustained yield offtakes of lechwe and some other species for for people who had lived off them for centuries (and still do, but illegally) - particularly the aboriginal baTwa centred about Mboyalubambe. This is the reason why the Chikuni Special GMA was gazetted, and why a National Park was not created. People need to be part of wildlife conservation and development, particularly in S-E Bangweulu. Present work being carried out by the GEF/UNDP Protected Areas Re-Classification Project, should see that the Luitikila National Forest, the Isangano and Lavusi Manda National Parks, the five river estuaries, the Mwendachabe forest, and their associated floodplains, and the Kasanka National park are knitted into a conservation mosaic covering the chiefdoms of Kopa, Chiundaponde, Chitambo, Luchembe and Bwalya Mponda but under a series of interlocking smart partnership of the Landsafe Trust system, rather than just a number of National Parks which exclude people, or which are unable to manage the conservation and management of the system as a whole, as is presently the case.
Thursday, August 16, 2007
Auditor-General 2005 Report on ZAMBIA WILDLIFE AUTHORITY...
Note: During this period, the senior officers of the Zambia Wildlife Authority were:
Director-General: Hapenga Kabeta;
Director of Finance: Tom Mushinge;
Director of Conservation: Gershom Chilakusha
-------------------------
ZAMBIA WILDLIFE AUTHORITY
Background
The Zambia Wildlife Authority (ZAWA) was established under the Zambia Wildlife Act, No 12 of 1998. Its functions include among others to:
a) provide for the establishment, control and management of National Parks and for the conservation and enhancement of wildlife eco systems;
b) provide for the establishment, control and management of Game Management Areas;
c) involve local communities in the management of Game Management Areas
d) provide for the regulation of game ranching;
e) provide for the licensing of hunting and control of the processing, sale, import and export of wild animals and trophies. Management
According to the provisions of the Act, ZAWA is managed by a Board of Directors consisting of eighteen (18) board members appointed by the Minister drawn from the private and public sectors for a tenure of three (3) years and members are eligible for a further period. The Board appoints the Director General, subject to the approval of the Minister. The Director General is responsible for the administration of the Authority and is assisted by five (5) directors in charge of Finance and Corporate Services, Research, Planning and Information, Commercial Services and Game Management Areas, Conservation and Management and Board Secretary. The Director General, Directors and the Secretary are appointed by the Board for a renewable three (3) year period. Sources of Funds
According to the ZAWA Act No. 12 of 1998, the funds of the Authority consist of moneys as may: a) be appropriated by Parliament; b) vest in or accrue to the Authority; c) be paid to the Authority by way of fees, levy, grants or donations; d) accept moneys by way of grants or donations from any source in Zambia and subject to the approval of the Minister from any source outside Zambia; e) subject to the approval of the Minister raise by way of loans or otherwise, such moneys as it may require for the discharge of its functions and; f) in accordance with the regulations made under this Act charge and collect fees for services provided by the Authority. Provisions of K4,014,617,507 were made in 2004 and 2005 respectively in the Estimates of Revenue and Expenditure as grants to the Authority. However, the Treasury released K7,470,000,000 and K4,572,000,000 in 2004 and 2005 respectively resulting in over funding of K3,455,382,493 and K557,382,493, respectively. During the same period, ZAWA budgeted and collected revenue through fees, levies and sales in addition to Government grants as tabulated below:
2003 (K’Million) 2004 2005
Budgeted Income 23,668 28,234 30,497
Actual Income 16,827 24,882 28,402
Variance (6,841) (3,352) (2,095)
As can be noted from the table above, the Authority collected revenue below the budgeted amounts during the periods under review. It was also observed that contrary to the provisions of the Zambia Wildlife Authority Act of 1998 which stipulates, among other things, that the Authority may accept moneys by way of grants or donations from any source in Zambia and subject to the approval of the Minister from any source outside Zambia, ZAWA received a donation of K207 million in 2005 from People and Parks, an organisation based outside Zambia, without the approval of the Minister. Review of Operations
A review of the audited accounts and other relevant documents for financial years ended 31st December 2003 to 2005 carried out in August 2006 revealed the following: Financial Performance a) Profit and Loss Account for the years ended 31st December 2003,2004 and 2005
2003 2004 2005
K'Million K'Million K'Million
Income 31,582 35,933 44,124
Expenses:
Community share of income 20,878 3,345 4,315
Establishment Expenses 8,181 25,296 24,385
Administrative Expenses 1,949 16,008 13,451
Operating Expenses 2,311 4,539 4,584
Total Expenditure 33,319 49,188 46,735
Excess of exp. over income (1,737) (13,255) (2,611) As can be seen above, while income rose by 39.7 % from K31,582 million in 2003 to K44,124 million in 2005, the Authority continued to incur excess expenditure over income during the same period. b) Balance Sheet 2003 2004 2005
K'Million K'Million K'Million
NON CURRENT ASSETS
Property, plant and equipment 10,306 12,526 12,938
CURRENT ASSETS
Inventories 918 1,224 2,142
Receivables and prepayments 4,962 3,261 4,182
Cash and cash equivalent 12,115 20,419 11,510
17,995 24,904 17,834
CURRENT LIABILITIES
Payables and accrued expenses 20,694 27,020 30,511
Bank overdraft - 17 1020, 694 27, 037 30,521
Net current liabilities (2,699) (2,133) (12,687)
TOTAL ASSETS 7,607 10,393 251
Capital employed
Capital grants 10,154 8,894 10,243
Revaluation surplus 3,506 3,506 3,506
Accumulated funds-deficit (7,534) (20,669) (27,033)
Deferred income 44 13, 498 8, 371
NET ASSETS 6,170 5,135 (4,913)
Non current liabilities
Retirement benefit obligation 1,437 5,164 5,164
SHAREHOLDERS FUNDS 7,607 10,299 251 As can be seen above, the Authority had net current liabilities of K2,699 million, K2,133 million and K12,687 million for the years 2003, 2004 and 2005 respectively. This entails that the Authority would not be able to pay its liabilities when they fell due. The liquidity position worsened in 2005. Registration of Property to be Transferred by Government 22. According to Part I, Section 19 (1) and (2) of the Zambia Wildlife Act of 1998, any property, rights, liabilities and obligations of the Government through the Department of National Parks and Wildlife Service are deemed transferred to the Authority in respect of which transfer a written law provides for registration, the Authority shall make an application in writing to the appropriate authority for registration of the transfer. It was, however, observed that the Authority does not hold title to its buildings despite enjoying economic benefits from the buildings. It was also observed that the Authority had not taken stock of its properties since its establishment in 1998.
Irregular Payment of Gratuity and Allowances In December 2001, the Authority appointed a Director General for an initial renewable period of three (3) years. Accordingly, in December 2004 the Authority renewed the contract of the Director General for a period of another three (3) years beginning December 2004. However, in November 2005, the Authority terminated the contract of the Director General after serving for one year. According to the contract, the former Director General was entitled to, among others, a gratuity paid tax-free at 35% of basic annual salary payable on termination or expiration of contract. To be eligible for pro rata entitlement, the Director General should have served for at least two (2) years of the contract. It was observed however, that though the contract provided for non-payment of gratuity in the event that the contract is terminated before serving two (2) years, the authority paid his full gratuity and salary for the remaining two (2) years that he had not served in amounts totalling K335,488,842.50. In addition, the former Director General was paid K215,000,000 in allowances relating to the remaining period of the contract resulting in an irregular payment of K550, 488,842 which is recoverable. In his response dated 12th November 2006, the Director General stated that this was a matter of the Board and the Ministry to address as they were the ones who knew what happened. Un-retired Imprest
Contrary to Financial Regulation No. 186 which stipulates that special imprest should be retired immediately after the purpose for which it was issued was fulfilled, it was observed that imprests in amounts totalling K368, 346,544.08 were outstanding for more than ninety (90) days as of 31st December 2005. In his response dated 12th November 2006, the Director General stated that recoveries are effected where amounts are outstanding for a long time and that efforts would continue to ensure that the situation was brought to an acceptable level. Non Recovery of Salary Advances
Contrary to ZAWA regulations, which stipulated that salary advances must be recovered in three (3) months, amounts totalling K175,065,703 relating to salary advances to 261 members of staff were outstanding for more than two (2) years without effecting recoveries. In his response dated 12th November 2006, the Director General stated that as regards non recovery of salary advances, officers who retired were being paid their benefits by the Ministry, not by ZAWA. Consequently, the recovery of salary advances could not be done. Trade debtors It was observed that ZAWA did not have an effective mechanism of monitoring its debtors. In this regard, amounts totalling K1,300,233,627, owed by nineteen (19) operators who had since abandoned their projects and left the country or were wrongly classified, could not be collected. Consequently, ZAWA management applied to the Board to write off the debts. South Luangwa Area Management Unit (SLAMU)
In January 1999, Government of the Republic of Zambia (GRZ) entered into an agreement with the Government of the Kingdom of Norway regarding cooperation for promotion of the economic and social development of Zambia to extend continued assistance to South Luangwa Area Management Unit (SLAMU). According to the agreement, the GRZ shall make all reasonable efforts to facilitate the successful implementation of the project by granting the project status as pilot within ZAWA throughout the project period and thereby: a) Grant the project permission to retain all revenues from tourism and safari hunting in SLNP and LGMA; b) Allow the community based natural resources management (CBNRM) approach to be continued; and c) Delegate sufficient decision making authority to the project to facilitate its operation. Contrary to the provisions of the agreement with the Kingdom of Norway, the following were observed: i) In July 2004, ZAWA entered into an agreement with L and L properties for culling of six hundred (600) hippos over a period of three (3) years in South Luangwa Area Management Unit. Under this agreement, ZAWA received amounts totalling K498,033,775 in 2005. As of December 2006, only K82,391,000 had been remitted to SLAMU leaving a balance of K415,612,775 still owing. ii) It was also observed that both SLAMU and ZAWA Head office had been invoicing Chichele lodge based in South Luangwa National Park. In this regard, the lodge made payments directly to head office instead of SLAMU, as a result, records at SLAMU indicated that Chichele Lodge owed them a sum of K523,403,066 (US $67,202) whereas the statement obtained from the lodge showed that the lodge was owing US$19,764 as of August 2006. iii) It was further observed that the offices at SLAMU which were built under the project have no title deed, and as such it has proved difficult to insure the buildings whose roof was grass thatched and prone to high risk of fire. Irregular Procurement of Uniforms for Drug Enforcement Commission (DEC)
A review of records relating to the procurement of uniforms indicated that ZAWA had procured uniforms for DEC using the Support to Economic Expansion and Diversification (SEED) project funds in amounts totalling K46, 614,610. A scrutiny of the SEED agreement did not provide for such arrangement. There was no evidence of an agreement between DEC and ZAWA. As of October 2006, there were 130 T-Shirts, 130 Combat jackets, 130 Long sleeves polo neck skippers for DEC as uniforms in stores. Irregular Issue of Title Deeds in Mosi-O-Tunya National Parks
According to the provisions of the Act, ZAWA allocates sites in National Parks and Wildlife /Bird sanctuaries to successful bidders. The successful bidders are awarded a Tourism Concession Agreement (TCA). The TCA is a commercial agreement that regulates the conduct of the operators. It confers the rights and obligations of the concessionaire and grantor (ZAWA). An Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is prepared and approved by Environmental Council of Zambia (ECZ) before the operator would proceed with the development of operations. However, it was observed that two operators namely Waterfront lodge and Maramba River lodge had been issued with title deeds in the Mosi-O-Tunya National Park. The title deeds for Waterfront have since been cancelled and a Tourism Concession Agreement was signed on 8th February 2005 for a period of twenty five (25) years. As of August 2006, the title deed for Maramba River lodge had not been cancelled and the Authority was not receiving any money from the lodge, as there was no agreement though the lodge operated in the National Park. Furthermore, there was no evidence of an Environmental Impact Assessment having been done for the above-mentioned lodges by the ECZ. Outstanding Statutory Obligations
In accordance with the Income Tax Act, Cap 323, every employer is required to remit Pay As You Earn (PAYE) to the Zambia Revenue Authority (ZRA). During the period under review, it was observed that ZAWA had not been remitting PAYE. As at 30th June 2006, the outstanding PAYE stood at K19,656,327,267. It was also observed that the Authority had not remitted pension contributions to NAPSA for its employees in amounts totalling K3,544,973,232 as of August 2006. The issue was brought to the attention of the Board at its 4th meeting held on Friday 16th May 2003 by the finance committee, though no action has been taken as of October 2006. In his response dated 23rd November 2006, the Director General stated that efforts were being made to address the matter. Share of Community Resource
The Communities in Game Management Areas (GMA) have formed Community Resource Boards (CRB) which comprise a registered board for the purpose of administering the CRBs. The main sources of income for the CRB are revenue from concession, bird and animal fees. As a way of equitably distributing the wildlife resources, ZAWA and the CRBs recommended allocating the utilization of the resources as follows; % ZAWA 50 Chief 5 CRB 45 The funds to the CRBs are distributed as follows: % Wildlife Conservation 45 Community Projects 35 Administration 20 Board members of the CRBs are volunteers elected among the community. Failure By CRBs to Prepare Annual Reports and Audited Accounts
According to the provisions of Part III section 5 subsections (a), (b) and (c) of the ZAWA Act of 1998, the Community Resource Board (CRB), is required not later than ninety days after the end of the financial year, to submit to the Authority, through the Director General: _ An audited balance sheet; _ An audited statement of income and expenditure ;and _ A report concerning its activities during that financial year. Contrary to the provisions of the Act, the sixty two (62) CRBs did not submit audited accounts and did not prepare the annual reports. A review of records and other relevant documents pertaining to the operations of Community Resource Boards revealed the following:
Chiawa Game Management Area
The Government issued a gazette number 332 in 1998 directing all operators in the Chiawa GMA to be paying land user fees. The fees were to be paid at the beginning of the year. However, as of December 2005, total amounts of K450,999,935 and US$128,857 (K440,175,512) were outstanding as unpaid land user fees for over 120 days. As of June 2006, the fees had not been paid and ZAWA had not invoiced the operators for the year 2006. b) Chiawa Community Resource Board Records obtained from ZAWA indicated that Chiawa CRB received an amount of K71,470,328 during 2005. However, a review of the bank statements of the CRB indicated that an amount of K200,648,714 had been received from ZAWA. No explanation was given for the variance of K129,178,386. It was also observed that: i) There were no expenditure details in respect of the period from January 2003 to June 2005 for which the Board Secretary and the Finance Chairperson gave no satisfactory explanation. ii) ZAWA guidelines provide that the panel of signatories comprise two from the community and another one from ZAWA. However, it was observed that the panel of signatories did not include officers from ZAWA. iii) Contrary to the agreed guidelines, nine (9) members of the CRB paid themselves loans ranging between K1,200,000 and K10,000,000 in amounts totalling K38,200,000 between July and December 2005. Though the loan agreements provided that the loans would be recovered by June 2006 none of the money had been recovered as of August 2006. c) Jumbe Community Resource Board During the period under review, Jumbe CRB received a sum of K35,993,350 and the funds were to be apportioned as follows: Recommended Actual (K) (K) Chiefs Share - 16,000,000 Wildlife Conservation 16,197,007 7,593,850 Community projects 12,597,672 7,214,500 Administration 7,198,670 5,185,000 It was observed that contrary to the guidelines, the chief was paid K16,000,000 from the CRB funds. In 2003 ZAWA signed a Hunting Concession Agreement with the Mungomba Hunting Safari Company which provided for among others, the drilling of boreholes, provision of grinding mills and the employing of five (5) village scouts for the Jumbe CRB. The agreement did not specify the safari operator’s obligations in terms of quantities and values. Contrary to the concession, the safari company did not sink the boreholes for the community, but instead only provided two grinding mills which are situated at the chief’s palace, and the community was not benefiting from the grinding mills as they were not accessible to the rest of the community for which they were intended.
d) Chitungulu Community Resource Board
A review of the ZAWA field report dated 2nd December 2004 revealed that one of the board members was given a sum of K18,000,000 paid on cheque number 000136 to purchase a grinding mill for the community which was not procured. As of August 2006, the K18,000,000 had not been refunded and the matter had not been reported to the police. It was observed that the CRB issued another cheque number 22045 in amounts totalling K13,530,125 for the purchase of the grinding mill.
e) Mwanya Community Resource Board
During the period under review, the CRB received an amount of K560,888,489 as community share. It was observed that: i) Board members of the CRB diverted funds and paid themselves advances of K300,000 each totalling K3,000,000. The terms of the advance were that it would be recovered by December 2005. However, as of August 2006 the deductions had not been effected, though the members continued to be paid sitting allowances. ii) The Hunting Concession Agreement in the area provided, among others, the drilling of boreholes, provision of grinding mills, employing five (5) village scouts, employing community coordinator, training local people to be profession hunters. Contrary to the concession agreement, the community bought a second hand light truck at a cost of K48,000,000 from the safari hunter. The terms of payment were such that the community forego the drilling of boreholes and add an amount of K24,000,000 paid on cheque number 00050. The basis of determining the cost of the boreholes and the valuation of the cost of the vehicle could not be ascertained. The Safari hunter has not fulfilled the other obligations he made in the agreement.
-------------------------
ZAMBIA WILDLIFE AUTHORITY
Background
The Zambia Wildlife Authority (ZAWA) was established under the Zambia Wildlife Act, No 12 of 1998. Its functions include among others to:
a) provide for the establishment, control and management of National Parks and for the conservation and enhancement of wildlife eco systems;
b) provide for the establishment, control and management of Game Management Areas;
c) involve local communities in the management of Game Management Areas
d) provide for the regulation of game ranching;
e) provide for the licensing of hunting and control of the processing, sale, import and export of wild animals and trophies. Management
According to the provisions of the Act, ZAWA is managed by a Board of Directors consisting of eighteen (18) board members appointed by the Minister drawn from the private and public sectors for a tenure of three (3) years and members are eligible for a further period. The Board appoints the Director General, subject to the approval of the Minister. The Director General is responsible for the administration of the Authority and is assisted by five (5) directors in charge of Finance and Corporate Services, Research, Planning and Information, Commercial Services and Game Management Areas, Conservation and Management and Board Secretary. The Director General, Directors and the Secretary are appointed by the Board for a renewable three (3) year period. Sources of Funds
According to the ZAWA Act No. 12 of 1998, the funds of the Authority consist of moneys as may: a) be appropriated by Parliament; b) vest in or accrue to the Authority; c) be paid to the Authority by way of fees, levy, grants or donations; d) accept moneys by way of grants or donations from any source in Zambia and subject to the approval of the Minister from any source outside Zambia; e) subject to the approval of the Minister raise by way of loans or otherwise, such moneys as it may require for the discharge of its functions and; f) in accordance with the regulations made under this Act charge and collect fees for services provided by the Authority. Provisions of K4,014,617,507 were made in 2004 and 2005 respectively in the Estimates of Revenue and Expenditure as grants to the Authority. However, the Treasury released K7,470,000,000 and K4,572,000,000 in 2004 and 2005 respectively resulting in over funding of K3,455,382,493 and K557,382,493, respectively. During the same period, ZAWA budgeted and collected revenue through fees, levies and sales in addition to Government grants as tabulated below:
2003 (K’Million) 2004 2005
Budgeted Income 23,668 28,234 30,497
Actual Income 16,827 24,882 28,402
Variance (6,841) (3,352) (2,095)
As can be noted from the table above, the Authority collected revenue below the budgeted amounts during the periods under review. It was also observed that contrary to the provisions of the Zambia Wildlife Authority Act of 1998 which stipulates, among other things, that the Authority may accept moneys by way of grants or donations from any source in Zambia and subject to the approval of the Minister from any source outside Zambia, ZAWA received a donation of K207 million in 2005 from People and Parks, an organisation based outside Zambia, without the approval of the Minister. Review of Operations
A review of the audited accounts and other relevant documents for financial years ended 31st December 2003 to 2005 carried out in August 2006 revealed the following: Financial Performance a) Profit and Loss Account for the years ended 31st December 2003,2004 and 2005
2003 2004 2005
K'Million K'Million K'Million
Income 31,582 35,933 44,124
Expenses:
Community share of income 20,878 3,345 4,315
Establishment Expenses 8,181 25,296 24,385
Administrative Expenses 1,949 16,008 13,451
Operating Expenses 2,311 4,539 4,584
Total Expenditure 33,319 49,188 46,735
Excess of exp. over income (1,737) (13,255) (2,611) As can be seen above, while income rose by 39.7 % from K31,582 million in 2003 to K44,124 million in 2005, the Authority continued to incur excess expenditure over income during the same period. b) Balance Sheet 2003 2004 2005
K'Million K'Million K'Million
NON CURRENT ASSETS
Property, plant and equipment 10,306 12,526 12,938
CURRENT ASSETS
Inventories 918 1,224 2,142
Receivables and prepayments 4,962 3,261 4,182
Cash and cash equivalent 12,115 20,419 11,510
17,995 24,904 17,834
CURRENT LIABILITIES
Payables and accrued expenses 20,694 27,020 30,511
Bank overdraft - 17 1020, 694 27, 037 30,521
Net current liabilities (2,699) (2,133) (12,687)
TOTAL ASSETS 7,607 10,393 251
Capital employed
Capital grants 10,154 8,894 10,243
Revaluation surplus 3,506 3,506 3,506
Accumulated funds-deficit (7,534) (20,669) (27,033)
Deferred income 44 13, 498 8, 371
NET ASSETS 6,170 5,135 (4,913)
Non current liabilities
Retirement benefit obligation 1,437 5,164 5,164
SHAREHOLDERS FUNDS 7,607 10,299 251 As can be seen above, the Authority had net current liabilities of K2,699 million, K2,133 million and K12,687 million for the years 2003, 2004 and 2005 respectively. This entails that the Authority would not be able to pay its liabilities when they fell due. The liquidity position worsened in 2005. Registration of Property to be Transferred by Government 22. According to Part I, Section 19 (1) and (2) of the Zambia Wildlife Act of 1998, any property, rights, liabilities and obligations of the Government through the Department of National Parks and Wildlife Service are deemed transferred to the Authority in respect of which transfer a written law provides for registration, the Authority shall make an application in writing to the appropriate authority for registration of the transfer. It was, however, observed that the Authority does not hold title to its buildings despite enjoying economic benefits from the buildings. It was also observed that the Authority had not taken stock of its properties since its establishment in 1998.
Irregular Payment of Gratuity and Allowances In December 2001, the Authority appointed a Director General for an initial renewable period of three (3) years. Accordingly, in December 2004 the Authority renewed the contract of the Director General for a period of another three (3) years beginning December 2004. However, in November 2005, the Authority terminated the contract of the Director General after serving for one year. According to the contract, the former Director General was entitled to, among others, a gratuity paid tax-free at 35% of basic annual salary payable on termination or expiration of contract. To be eligible for pro rata entitlement, the Director General should have served for at least two (2) years of the contract. It was observed however, that though the contract provided for non-payment of gratuity in the event that the contract is terminated before serving two (2) years, the authority paid his full gratuity and salary for the remaining two (2) years that he had not served in amounts totalling K335,488,842.50. In addition, the former Director General was paid K215,000,000 in allowances relating to the remaining period of the contract resulting in an irregular payment of K550, 488,842 which is recoverable. In his response dated 12th November 2006, the Director General stated that this was a matter of the Board and the Ministry to address as they were the ones who knew what happened. Un-retired Imprest
Contrary to Financial Regulation No. 186 which stipulates that special imprest should be retired immediately after the purpose for which it was issued was fulfilled, it was observed that imprests in amounts totalling K368, 346,544.08 were outstanding for more than ninety (90) days as of 31st December 2005. In his response dated 12th November 2006, the Director General stated that recoveries are effected where amounts are outstanding for a long time and that efforts would continue to ensure that the situation was brought to an acceptable level. Non Recovery of Salary Advances
Contrary to ZAWA regulations, which stipulated that salary advances must be recovered in three (3) months, amounts totalling K175,065,703 relating to salary advances to 261 members of staff were outstanding for more than two (2) years without effecting recoveries. In his response dated 12th November 2006, the Director General stated that as regards non recovery of salary advances, officers who retired were being paid their benefits by the Ministry, not by ZAWA. Consequently, the recovery of salary advances could not be done. Trade debtors It was observed that ZAWA did not have an effective mechanism of monitoring its debtors. In this regard, amounts totalling K1,300,233,627, owed by nineteen (19) operators who had since abandoned their projects and left the country or were wrongly classified, could not be collected. Consequently, ZAWA management applied to the Board to write off the debts. South Luangwa Area Management Unit (SLAMU)
In January 1999, Government of the Republic of Zambia (GRZ) entered into an agreement with the Government of the Kingdom of Norway regarding cooperation for promotion of the economic and social development of Zambia to extend continued assistance to South Luangwa Area Management Unit (SLAMU). According to the agreement, the GRZ shall make all reasonable efforts to facilitate the successful implementation of the project by granting the project status as pilot within ZAWA throughout the project period and thereby: a) Grant the project permission to retain all revenues from tourism and safari hunting in SLNP and LGMA; b) Allow the community based natural resources management (CBNRM) approach to be continued; and c) Delegate sufficient decision making authority to the project to facilitate its operation. Contrary to the provisions of the agreement with the Kingdom of Norway, the following were observed: i) In July 2004, ZAWA entered into an agreement with L and L properties for culling of six hundred (600) hippos over a period of three (3) years in South Luangwa Area Management Unit. Under this agreement, ZAWA received amounts totalling K498,033,775 in 2005. As of December 2006, only K82,391,000 had been remitted to SLAMU leaving a balance of K415,612,775 still owing. ii) It was also observed that both SLAMU and ZAWA Head office had been invoicing Chichele lodge based in South Luangwa National Park. In this regard, the lodge made payments directly to head office instead of SLAMU, as a result, records at SLAMU indicated that Chichele Lodge owed them a sum of K523,403,066 (US $67,202) whereas the statement obtained from the lodge showed that the lodge was owing US$19,764 as of August 2006. iii) It was further observed that the offices at SLAMU which were built under the project have no title deed, and as such it has proved difficult to insure the buildings whose roof was grass thatched and prone to high risk of fire. Irregular Procurement of Uniforms for Drug Enforcement Commission (DEC)
A review of records relating to the procurement of uniforms indicated that ZAWA had procured uniforms for DEC using the Support to Economic Expansion and Diversification (SEED) project funds in amounts totalling K46, 614,610. A scrutiny of the SEED agreement did not provide for such arrangement. There was no evidence of an agreement between DEC and ZAWA. As of October 2006, there were 130 T-Shirts, 130 Combat jackets, 130 Long sleeves polo neck skippers for DEC as uniforms in stores. Irregular Issue of Title Deeds in Mosi-O-Tunya National Parks
According to the provisions of the Act, ZAWA allocates sites in National Parks and Wildlife /Bird sanctuaries to successful bidders. The successful bidders are awarded a Tourism Concession Agreement (TCA). The TCA is a commercial agreement that regulates the conduct of the operators. It confers the rights and obligations of the concessionaire and grantor (ZAWA). An Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is prepared and approved by Environmental Council of Zambia (ECZ) before the operator would proceed with the development of operations. However, it was observed that two operators namely Waterfront lodge and Maramba River lodge had been issued with title deeds in the Mosi-O-Tunya National Park. The title deeds for Waterfront have since been cancelled and a Tourism Concession Agreement was signed on 8th February 2005 for a period of twenty five (25) years. As of August 2006, the title deed for Maramba River lodge had not been cancelled and the Authority was not receiving any money from the lodge, as there was no agreement though the lodge operated in the National Park. Furthermore, there was no evidence of an Environmental Impact Assessment having been done for the above-mentioned lodges by the ECZ. Outstanding Statutory Obligations
In accordance with the Income Tax Act, Cap 323, every employer is required to remit Pay As You Earn (PAYE) to the Zambia Revenue Authority (ZRA). During the period under review, it was observed that ZAWA had not been remitting PAYE. As at 30th June 2006, the outstanding PAYE stood at K19,656,327,267. It was also observed that the Authority had not remitted pension contributions to NAPSA for its employees in amounts totalling K3,544,973,232 as of August 2006. The issue was brought to the attention of the Board at its 4th meeting held on Friday 16th May 2003 by the finance committee, though no action has been taken as of October 2006. In his response dated 23rd November 2006, the Director General stated that efforts were being made to address the matter. Share of Community Resource
The Communities in Game Management Areas (GMA) have formed Community Resource Boards (CRB) which comprise a registered board for the purpose of administering the CRBs. The main sources of income for the CRB are revenue from concession, bird and animal fees. As a way of equitably distributing the wildlife resources, ZAWA and the CRBs recommended allocating the utilization of the resources as follows; % ZAWA 50 Chief 5 CRB 45 The funds to the CRBs are distributed as follows: % Wildlife Conservation 45 Community Projects 35 Administration 20 Board members of the CRBs are volunteers elected among the community. Failure By CRBs to Prepare Annual Reports and Audited Accounts
According to the provisions of Part III section 5 subsections (a), (b) and (c) of the ZAWA Act of 1998, the Community Resource Board (CRB), is required not later than ninety days after the end of the financial year, to submit to the Authority, through the Director General: _ An audited balance sheet; _ An audited statement of income and expenditure ;and _ A report concerning its activities during that financial year. Contrary to the provisions of the Act, the sixty two (62) CRBs did not submit audited accounts and did not prepare the annual reports. A review of records and other relevant documents pertaining to the operations of Community Resource Boards revealed the following:
Chiawa Game Management Area
The Government issued a gazette number 332 in 1998 directing all operators in the Chiawa GMA to be paying land user fees. The fees were to be paid at the beginning of the year. However, as of December 2005, total amounts of K450,999,935 and US$128,857 (K440,175,512) were outstanding as unpaid land user fees for over 120 days. As of June 2006, the fees had not been paid and ZAWA had not invoiced the operators for the year 2006. b) Chiawa Community Resource Board Records obtained from ZAWA indicated that Chiawa CRB received an amount of K71,470,328 during 2005. However, a review of the bank statements of the CRB indicated that an amount of K200,648,714 had been received from ZAWA. No explanation was given for the variance of K129,178,386. It was also observed that: i) There were no expenditure details in respect of the period from January 2003 to June 2005 for which the Board Secretary and the Finance Chairperson gave no satisfactory explanation. ii) ZAWA guidelines provide that the panel of signatories comprise two from the community and another one from ZAWA. However, it was observed that the panel of signatories did not include officers from ZAWA. iii) Contrary to the agreed guidelines, nine (9) members of the CRB paid themselves loans ranging between K1,200,000 and K10,000,000 in amounts totalling K38,200,000 between July and December 2005. Though the loan agreements provided that the loans would be recovered by June 2006 none of the money had been recovered as of August 2006. c) Jumbe Community Resource Board During the period under review, Jumbe CRB received a sum of K35,993,350 and the funds were to be apportioned as follows: Recommended Actual (K) (K) Chiefs Share - 16,000,000 Wildlife Conservation 16,197,007 7,593,850 Community projects 12,597,672 7,214,500 Administration 7,198,670 5,185,000 It was observed that contrary to the guidelines, the chief was paid K16,000,000 from the CRB funds. In 2003 ZAWA signed a Hunting Concession Agreement with the Mungomba Hunting Safari Company which provided for among others, the drilling of boreholes, provision of grinding mills and the employing of five (5) village scouts for the Jumbe CRB. The agreement did not specify the safari operator’s obligations in terms of quantities and values. Contrary to the concession, the safari company did not sink the boreholes for the community, but instead only provided two grinding mills which are situated at the chief’s palace, and the community was not benefiting from the grinding mills as they were not accessible to the rest of the community for which they were intended.
d) Chitungulu Community Resource Board
A review of the ZAWA field report dated 2nd December 2004 revealed that one of the board members was given a sum of K18,000,000 paid on cheque number 000136 to purchase a grinding mill for the community which was not procured. As of August 2006, the K18,000,000 had not been refunded and the matter had not been reported to the police. It was observed that the CRB issued another cheque number 22045 in amounts totalling K13,530,125 for the purchase of the grinding mill.
e) Mwanya Community Resource Board
During the period under review, the CRB received an amount of K560,888,489 as community share. It was observed that: i) Board members of the CRB diverted funds and paid themselves advances of K300,000 each totalling K3,000,000. The terms of the advance were that it would be recovered by December 2005. However, as of August 2006 the deductions had not been effected, though the members continued to be paid sitting allowances. ii) The Hunting Concession Agreement in the area provided, among others, the drilling of boreholes, provision of grinding mills, employing five (5) village scouts, employing community coordinator, training local people to be profession hunters. Contrary to the concession agreement, the community bought a second hand light truck at a cost of K48,000,000 from the safari hunter. The terms of payment were such that the community forego the drilling of boreholes and add an amount of K24,000,000 paid on cheque number 00050. The basis of determining the cost of the boreholes and the valuation of the cost of the vehicle could not be ascertained. The Safari hunter has not fulfilled the other obligations he made in the agreement.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)