Zambia Conservation

Camels to be introduced to Zambia's National Parks...

2008-01-19T11:38:00.000+02:00

Post newspapers
Levy donates Gaddafi’s camels to Zambians
By Chibaula Silwamba
Saturday January 19, 2008 [03:00] Print Article Email Article

PRESIDENT Levy Mwanawasa has donated his personal camels that were given to him by Libyan President Muammar Al-Gaddafi to Zambians.

In a speech read on his behalf by tourism, environment and natural resources minister Michael Kaingu during the hand-over of four camels to the Zambia Wildlife Authority (ZAWA) yesterday, President Mwanawasa said although President Gaddafi gave the camels to him, he found it befitting to share them with Zambians.

“In this regard, I am handing the animals over to the Zambia Wildlife Authority (ZAWA) under the Ministry of Tourism, Environment and Natural Resources, who will manage them on behalf of and for the benefit of the people of Zambia. Accordingly, these animals are here forth the property of the state,” President Mwanawasa said.
He said in the past when Libya donated camels to Zambia, they all died.

“While it is true that camels are desert animals and that the Zambian environment may not be conducive for them, it is also true that with good management these animals can adapt to the Zambian environment and even produce,” he said. “I therefore, wish to challenge you the minister through your wildlife experts to ensure that these animals are well looked after so that they quickly adapt to the new environment and start producing.”

President Mwanawasa urged ZAWA to work with the veterinary services department to ensure that the camels were regularly vaccinated and monitored to ensure that they were not attacked by any diseases.
And ZAWA director general Dr Lewis Saiwana assured that that camels would be protected.

“We will keep them well and ensure that we can have more camels in Zambia so that in future we can also distribute them to some of our National Parks,” said Saiwana.

And Kaingu said the addition of camels to the list of animals in Zambia would enhance tourism products.

CRBs should account for money received from ZAWA - Levy

2008-01-07T11:48:00.000+02:00

By Zambia Times Reporter

PRESIDENT Mwanawasa has directed Tourism, Environmental and Natural Resources Minister, Michael Kaingu to ensure that there is accountability in the usage of the money the Zambia Wildlife Authority (ZAWA) was paying to the Community Resource Boards (CRBs). Every quarter of the year, ZAWA retains 50 per cent of the money it raises from the issuance of the hunting licences in the game management areas, of which 45 per cent is given to the CRBs while five per cent is given to traditional leaders. Dr Mwanawasa said at a public rally in Mambwe District on Saturday that the ministry should account for how the money was being used. “95 per cent of the money ZAWA pays to the CRBs should be used for the provision of social services to the people living near the National Parks,” he said. The President noted that Mambwe District has been experiencing perennial drought which usually devastates many crops and wondered why the money ZAWA was paying the CRBs was not being used to lessen some of the burdens brought about by the floods. He said the money ZAWA was paying to the CRBs was meant to improve the lives of the people living in the national parks. Meanwhile, Dr Mwanawasa took a swipe at traditional leaders for misleading him that ZAWA was not retaining their five per cent allocation. “During my stay here, some Chiefs approached and asked me to assist them acquire their five per cent allocation which they claimed ZAWA has not been giving them. But when I called my minister and ZAWA officials they showed me the cheques that have been cut for the chiefs,” he said. The president said when he called back the chiefs they did not give him a satisfactory answer to the reason they had misled him.

Dr Mwanawasa said there would be no development if the traditional leaders could not be trusted any more.

MANNING COMMENTS:

The President is right to require accountability for ZAWA payments to CRBs - and their use by CRBs. As a partner investor in a Hunting Concession Agreement with ZAWA and CRBs in West Petauke, I have long called for transparent accounting by way of a published public audit - something not forthcoming. And CRBs, comprising unpaid villagers, cannot be blamed for a lack of administrative support and guidance by ZAWA, or of the fact that some chiefs simply help themselves to the funds. The Wildlife Act of 1998 has placed chiefs in an unenviable position in their customary areas by creating elected CRBs, with the chief as mere Patron of the CRB. This was designed to remove chiefs from decision making - a grave error. Chiefs cannot be removed from decision making in this manner. The whole CRB scheme is in need of complete overhaul, but ZAWA do not wish this, having turned down just such proposals in the past.

A reader asks what I mean by illegal alienations...

2007-12-20T07:09:00.000+02:00

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.

Searching for enlightenment...

2007-12-19T10:08:00.000+02:00

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.

A word on a desecrated Zambian National Park...

2007-12-02T14:14:00.000+02:00

"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?

Zambia's parastatal dysfunction and tolerance of corruption

2007-12-01T03:25:00.000+02:00

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.

ALIEN INVASIONS OF ZAMBIA

2007-11-17T16:32:00.000+02:00

“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.

Bednets Sachs's legacy...

2007-11-15T12:32:00.000+02:00

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.

Zambian Chiefs waking from their slumbers...

2007-11-04T10:41:00.000+02:00

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.

Where the water meets the sky...I.P.A.Manning

2007-11-01T22:03:00.001+02:00

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.

A Scots conservationist and a brave and principled Zambian soldier…

2007-10-28T13:16:00.000+02:00

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.

Mossy nets and feeling good about Africa...

2007-10-19T09:04:00.000+02:00

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...

Lochinvar National Park dying due to neglect and disinterest

2007-09-24T09:03:00.000+02:00

Statutory bodies and NGOs involved with the conservation and protection of national forests and parks should be made accountable when such disasters occur

Zambia, the Ramsar Convention and Bangweulu...

2007-09-23T10:00:00.000+02:00

-----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

The Kasanka National Park intends re-arranging the deck chairs...

2007-09-22T12:30:00.000+02:00

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.

Zambia needs to change how it manages wildlife and protected areas..

2007-09-16T09:39:00.000+02:00

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.

Dr Neo Simutanyi talks of organized racket in Zambia hunting licenses...

2007-09-10T09:01:00.000+02:00

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'.

Lochinvar National Park suffocates from neglect...

2007-09-05T08:35:00.000+02:00

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.

A report from Livingstone on Zambia's game translocations...

2007-09-03T12:28:00.000+02:00

"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.

Luembe Headmen complain about, and to, ZAWA...

2007-09-01T10:47:00.000+02:00

Zambian community suspends it own village wildlife scouts…

2007-09-01T08:03:00.000+02:00

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.

Think again America...

2007-08-25T21:46:00.000+02:00

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.

The Ramsar African Secretariat writes to ZAMBIA...

2007-08-24T07:25:00.000+02:00

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:

New Minister for Zambia's Ministry of Tourism, Environment and Natural Resources...

2007-08-23T07:43:00.001+02:00

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.

Zambia: Bangweulu Ramsar Site

2007-08-22T12:06:00.000+02:00

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.

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.

Auditor-General 2005 Report on ZAMBIA WILDLIFE AUTHORITY...

2007-08-16T07:52:00.000+02:00

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.

Ecology of the Zambia sitatunga antelope

2007-08-11T13:53:00.000+02:00

ZAMBIA RESEARCH ABSTRACTS

Ecology of the Sitatunga (Tragelaphus spekei selousi Rothschild, 1898) in the Bangweulu swamps, Zambia, Central Africa.
by

I.P.A. Manning

Research into the ecology of the sitatunga (Tragelaphus spekei Rothschild, 1898.) in the south-east Bangweulu, Zambia, was carried out between 1973 and 1976. The sex ratio for sitatunga does not differ significantly from 1:1, although 47.3% of the population are adult females and 25.6% adult males, 12.1% immature males, 4.3% immature females and 10.6% calves. Two conception peaks are related to the onset and cessation of the rains with breeding occurring throughout the year. Sitatunga occur singly (50%), in twos (22.2%) or in threes (16.7%). Females and their calves are the only group with any integrity. The maximum number observed in a group was 7. The minimum home range for males is 0.0363 km2 and for females 0.176 km2. Aggression and the mutual avoidance of dominant males suggests territoriality. Sexual dimorphism is marked. Pelage colouration is variable. The white facial markings are important in male agonistic displays. Criteria for relative age determination of sitatunga were derived from eruption and attrition sequences of impressions taken from maxillary teeth. Males reach a theoretical maximum weight of 106 kg at 8.1 years and females 51.5 kg at 7.34 years. Males are 54.6% heavier than females and maximum horn length is achieved at 7.5 years. Age is significantly correlated with weight, horn length and the length/weight index. The mean horn length for adults is 64.2 cm and the mean front hoof length, for both sexes, is 7.6 cm.

See Bush Telegraph for Auditor-General's report on ZAWA

2007-08-11T11:39:00.000+02:00

Supreme Court decision pending injunction given Nawalya community partners in a hunting lease...

2007-07-24T15:38:00.000+02:00

Two weeks ago the Supreme Court heard the case in which the Zambia Wildlife Authority had appealed against the decision of the High Court in awarding an injunction to the Nawalya Community Resource Board (representing the villagers of Chief Nwalya) stopping ZAWA from removing the concession held by Leopard Ridge Safaris Ltd in their area. This decision is extremely important given that CRBs form partnerships with ZAWA and safari operators and do have the right -by way of the Hunting Concession Agreement, to choose or fire their operating partners. Of interest here will be the Supreme Court decision affecting 7 hunting companies, found in favour of the respondents. The matter must now go back to the High Court (see http://zambiasafarihunting.blogspot.com)

Corruption is real in Zambia - Saudubray

2007-07-17T15:25:00.000+02:00

Corruption is real in Zambia - Saudubray
By Masuzyo Chakwe
Monday July 16, 2007 [04:00]

CORRUPTION is real in Zambia and the country should not relent in fighting it, outgoing French ambassador to Zambia Francis Saudubray has said. And ambassador Saudubray said his dream is for Zambia to implement the decentralisation policy.

During the French National Day which fell on Saturday, ambassador Saudubray said like in most countries in the world, corruption was real in Zambia. He said Zambians should be courageous, ambitious and have independent legal systems to fight corruption. He hoped that the country would not relent in fighting the scourge.

“It is not because a former president has been condemned, in a civil case by a British court, that everything has been solved. Corruption is real in Zambia, like in most countries in the world. It eats up public funds, ruins investment opportunities and compromises development,” he said.

Ambassador Saudubray said he dreamt of a decentralised Zambia.
“Who in Lusaka can claim to know what is good in Isoka, Sesheke or Zambezi districts? Only local citizens and their elected counsellors must decide on the construction of a school, a clinic, a bridge or a borehole,” he said.

He said he dreamt of a Zambia that would finally have respect for its environment.
Ambassador Saudubray said there was nothing more saddening than seeing forests decimated through charcoal burning or empty national parks because the wildlife had been ruined through poaching.

“There is nothing more saddening than seeing both the old and young throwing rubbish on the road through the windows of their cars or bus,” he said.

He said there was need to encourage the use of new domestic fuels and ban charcoal.
Ambassador Saudubray said there was need to fight poaching by offering real alternatives to the poor who go through the wilderness in search of preys by meting out stiffer punishment to those who earn a living by or promote the trafficking, those who trade in game meat, ivory or poached trophies.

He hoped those making considerate profits especially in the mining sector would be brought to pay tax.

“It is not fair to take advantage of a past agreement made with the Zambian government several years ago when the conditions for the mining development no longer have anything to do with what they were then. For instance, when copper is being sold at US $7,000 a metric tonne whereas it was worth US $2,000 five years ago,” he said.
And Ambassador Saudubray said he and his wife Virginie had criss-crossed the country and didn’t feel like they lost time in Zambia.

“I have criss-crossed your country from north to the south and from the east to the west. I have admired the Zambezi plains in Mongu or Lukulu, I have gone through the ‘black forest’ or national parks such as Kafue, Lower Zambezi or North Luangwa National Parks, I have taken water from the great Zambezi River at its very spring, north of Mwinilunga, I have refreshed my face with the mist from the Kabwelume or Kundaila Falls,” he said.

“I have swum in the crystal waters of Lake Tanganyika or marveled in front of those of Lake Bangweulu, I have admired the rock paintings in Kasama or Tonga potteries in Sinazongwe. I have exchanged views with government officials and poor fishermen at Lake Mweru. I have visited the mines on the Copperbelt and Sugarcane plantations in Mazabuka. I have participated in Likumbi Lyamize, Kuomboka, Kazanga, Ncwala exceptional ceremonies,” he said.

Ambassador Saudubray said he had kept a feeling of a harmonious country with a lot of potential that deserved more than what it had at the moment.
He hoped Zambia, through dialogue and negotiations, would reach a system of government convenient for her.

He said it was not for him to say whether it was by law or through the reform of the Constitution that would solve the issue.
Ambassador Saudubray said Zambia shoud be proud of its culture and traditions and model of government.

“How many African countries can claim to have never been at war, to be in harmony inside and outside of their borders, to play a role in promoting peace and stability? Zambian diplomacy has to capitalise on these benefits on these values, on these assets. The beneficial and peaceful role that your country plays on Africa scene must be more known, heard and recognised,” said ambassador Saudubray.

Last of the Livingstone white rhino....

2007-07-14T06:05:00.000+02:00

Some weeks ago an AK47 bunch of Angolan plunderers, working with some Livingstone Wildlife Police Officers killed one of the two remaining white rhino, source of daily joy and tourism income, an adult female, cut off her horn, and disappeared. Further reports from Livingstone say, "...is missing its buddy and was searching in vain. Leg iseither still with bullet, or at the gate they say "shattered'. Havent seen it as is keeping low. His name is fwanya and he was always the tamest,gentlest and friendliest of them. poor thing, he should probably be sent
home!"

Apparently the Zambia Wildlife Authority have made some arrests.

These rhino were first brought to Zambia in 1961 by Barry Shenton and Johnny Uys of the Game and Fisheries Department of Northern Rhodesia, a gift of the Natal Parks Board. The picture shows Johnny and Barry delivering two rhino to Kafue in 1961, later - after the death of one of them, transferred to Livingstone's Mosi oa Tunya National Park.

Auditing natural resource revenues...

2007-07-13T08:11:00.000+02:00

From http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2007/07/auditing-natura.html

When my editor and I were exchanging drafts of this piece, my spam blocker wouldn't let them through. There is too much talk of Nigeria and diamonds! Here is one excerpt:

Paul Collier, an economics professor at Oxford University, has a new and potentially powerful idea. In his recently published book, “The Bottom Billion: Why the Poorest Countries Are Failing and What Can Be Done About It” (Oxford University Press), Professor Collier favors an international charter — some widely publicized guidelines that countries can voluntarily adopt — to give transparency in spending wealth from natural resources. A country would pledge to have formal audits of its revenues and their disposition. Imagine PricewaterhouseCoopers auditing the copper revenues of Zambia and issuing a public report.

Zambia's National Policy on Environment of 1995 yet to be ratified?...

2007-07-04T07:35:00.000+02:00

Zambia has an area of 752,614 km2 located at an altitude between 2,164
and 350m with a most equable climate, largely on the Central African
Plateau, with four major biomes consisting of forest, woodland, grassland
and aquatic systems. These encompass large parts of the Zambezi and
Congo drainage systems and it is thus probably the best watered country
in Africa. It is endowed with a wealth of natural resources within 16
ecosystems with landscapes that include extensive forests, grassy plains,
hills and steep escarpments; huge lakes and rivers, deep valleys and
ecologically rich wetlands together with areas of anthropic origin such as
cropland, plantation forests and urban settlements.

All development programmes are undertaken against this environmental
background and depend to some extent upon natural resources. Above
all, the country is mainly a primary commodity producer of non-renewable
resources that require special care, management and application. It is
within this context that, with planned economic growth, the ensuing
increase in resource utilisation can only be sustained through application
of a national policy to protect and manage the environment. The country
at present faces daunting challenges of de-forestation at the rate of 250-
300 thousand ha per year; land degradation in many places verging on
desertification; wildlife depletion especially in the protected areas and all
accompanied by soil erosion, loss of productivity, inadequate sanitation
and air and water pollution.

The relationship between widespread poverty, with a national mean of
around 73% of the population living below the poverty line determined by
the Central Statistical Office, 1997 and environmental degradation, is
clear since 62% of the population lives within the rural areas where
dependence upon natural resources for livelihood is on the increase.
For example, some 60% of the total land area is covered by forest. Most
of it is degraded through deforestation, encroachment and uncontrolled
bush fires2. This situation has developed mainly as a result of long-
established inappropriate policies that tend to discourage forest
management and appear to favour other forms of land use, very often at
the expense of forests.

The population is growing at the rate of about 2.9% per annum which,
without sufficient public awareness and control, contributes further to a
vicious circle of increasing poverty and increasing depletion of resources.
This central issue is compounded by limited understanding of
environmental problems, a weak administrative and legal framework and
breakdown of traditional values and practices which previously ensured a
high degree of social responsibility and equitable sharing of resources
within a natural equilibrium.

There are 11 government ministries involved in environmental affairs (9 of
these have policies that include concern for environmental matters, some
of which is extremely scanty). There are over 33 sets of legislation
affecting the environment, much of which is inadequate. Zambia has a
dualistic legal framework and is signatory to 21 international conventions
on environment. Yet it is without a single over-arching institutional
arrangement, institution or policy mandated for integration and
collaboration over these issues of national importance.

Deficiencies reflect a historical sector approach to legislation that includes
inadequate incorporation of international standards within national
legislation; that apart from forestry, water and wildlife sectors, there is little
provision for involvement of local communities in the implementation and
enforcement of related legislation; lack of intra and inter-sectoral
institutional arrangements and few coordination mechanisms for effective
integration of legislation. The Environmental Council of Zambia (ECZ),
created in 1992 through the Environmental Protection and Pollution
Control Act No. 12 of 1990, has not been able to bring into being the
necessary nationwide collaboration in environmental and natural
resources management largely through lack of resources.

Environment has an estimated budget allocation within the Transitional
National Development Plan of less than 1% of the total. There is thus a
clear requirement to appropriate additional financial resources for
environmental purposes and in particular to strengthen the ECZ.
Current shortfalls include ineffectual mechanisms for community-based
natural resources management. This makes prospects for maintaining
environmental integrity bleak and efforts for poverty reduction and
sustainable development seriously impaired. Lack of formal inter-sectoral
links and limited up-to-date baseline data further hinder the process. In
addition, at a higher level, there are limited national guidelines for
effective integration of international environmental conventions into the
country’s environment and natural resources management efforts.
Management of trans-boundary conservation of natural resources, whilst
being accepted as a key pillar in ecosystem management is not well
supported. There is insufficient provision in development programmes for
environmental education and promotion of gender equity through
inclusion of gender-related activities in project activities and national
agendas and work plans. Enhancement of private sector participation in
environmental and natural resources management, also receives
insufficient support.
Preamble to the draft National Policy on Environment (May, 1995)

Zambia wildlife officers plunder the birthright of the rural poor...I.P.A. Manning

2007-06-29T07:03:00.000+02:00

At midday on the 24th June 2007, a few of my employees and I – accompanied by and old friend from pre UDI Rhodesia days, cut human tracks in the bed of the Ilinda stream which lies within a wonderful piece of old Africa, the West Petauke Game Management Area of Zambia,.

Looking south, I saw a wisp of blue smoke rising up in front of a small thicket; then turning north, I found myself staring at a man armed with a military weapon standing a hundred yards away, a lean and sallow complexioned man dressed in the familiar shirt worn by government Wildlife Police Officers. Unhurriedly he moved out of sight. I immediately sent two trackers after the man, unaware that they had seen a second man, similarly armed, running away, and then walked towards the smoke where lay a newly dismembered impala ram and other meat being smoked over a fire and boiling away in two pots, and the boots and the familiar apparel of Zambia Wildlife Authority employees scattered about, the organization having the mandate and duty to protect Zambia’s wildlife. Ten minutes later my people escorted the officer in charge of the Kalansha Wildlife Camp, one Joseph Mbo, into my presence. His story was familiar: they had come on poachers with newly killed animals, had fired a few shots in the air while giving chase, and had then started to prepare the meat so that it could be collected for consumption by the painfully poor villagers. A perfect alibi, naturally, but one in which the absence of a bullet would make it well nigh impossible to prosecute the gang in court. Without being pressed, Mbo happily divulged the names of his group: Daniel Daka and Fraxon Phiri from Nyimba, and Axon Phiri and Josephat Walya hailing from Kalansha game camp.

Mbo, in calm and unhurried fashion, said that they had come on the poachers the previous day. The impala ram however, had been killed but a few hours before, fresh blood still mantling the leaves where it lay. Disarming Mbo, I gave orders for the camp to be packed up and loaded on my car, drove to my camp on the Luangwa river, and the following morning then drove sixty kilometers to the little town of Nyimba lying on the Great East Road. Some half way along this track we were hailed down by none other than the ZAWA sector i/c based in Nyimba, Collins Chibeka, a name familiar to us in our ongoing investigations into the elephant and meat poaching syndicate laying waste the district. Loading him and his bark wrapped bundle of fish or meat, perhaps both, we drove to the Nyimba Police Station. There CID spent a number of hours interrogating us and Mbo, declaring that our chances of putting the gang in jail were slim. My newly qualified public prosecutor, Japhat, agreed. I tried to remember where I had read that on occasion the weight of circumstantial evidence could far outweigh direct evidence. Outside I found Chibeka, his bundle of meat already spirited away. Despondent, I drove back to the Luangwa with Mbo and my main witness, Sylvester, heading directly to the Ndevu Wildlife Camp where Mbo said we would find the other officers who had accompanied him under his command. There we found Phiri and Walya, the former a village scout employed by the Luembe Community Resource Board, the man who had run away, and Walya – he being the man who had left his trousers hanging on the tree in the poaching camp. I then dropped them off part way towards my own camp, discovering later that they had left two AK 47s in the car.

The following day I met with the Chairman of the Luembe CRB, Axon Lungu, a fellow trustee of our Luembe Conservancy Trust, and we agreed that none of the gang should be allowed to continue in their posts. And talking to other community leaders, I sense the immergence of new strength and determination to root out those who masquerade as protectors.

IN MEMORIAM: D.S.G. MacLeod - 30 years ago

2007-05-01T17:40:00.000+02:00

In loving memory of
Derek MacLeod
Born 23.4.1944
Died 24.4.1977

Remembered and much loved
by his Luangwa friends
and his family.

IT WAS THE BEST OF TIMES;
HE MADE IT SO.

WILLIAM ASTLE. 11 December 1932 – 2 March 2006

2007-05-01T17:25:00.000+02:00

Bill Astle, Gaborone c.1977

Bill spent 17 years working in Northern Rhodesia and Zambia, first as an agricultural research officer in the Agricultural Department, and later as a biologist in the Department of Wildlife and National Parks – most of it in the Luangwa Valley, and finally, as Chief Biologist stationed at our HQ in Chilanga. He left in 1973, the early 70’s being the period when a corpse of men consumed with the passion of conservation departed the Game Department for ever: Frank Ansell, John Clarke, Phillip Berry, Barry Shenton, Johnny Uys…

Bill was a wonderfully eccentric man whose generosity of spirit was combined in such delightful ways: I well remember the saga of the jacket many years ago; Bill lending his only jacket to his malonda, pitying him for the cold nights of winter in the Luangwa, then, when it was time for him to go to England on leave, looking for the jacket in irritation, then remembering what he had done with it, and ‘borrowing’ it back for his three month’s leave. And before that, in the 60’s when he gone on leave again and had returned with a wife, a beautiful and exotic creature from Brazil called Mercedes, news of her arrival drawing us to his fence, peering though with binoculars to see if it was true. And how many are the Zambians, who, having worked as labourers or carriers in the bush for Bill, or taken under his wing as research assistants - and later assisted financially by him, rose to be university lecturers, senior civil servants and the first fully certified Zambian tourist guides.

Of course, Bill’s patch in life was the Luangwa Valley, a place which he loved deeply, where indeed I found him in 1966 – already a veteran bachelor and biologist it seemed in our beloved Game Department, already with a reputation as a plant ecologist with a deep knowledge of the miombo forest. In the early 1970’s, Bill became the Department’s Chief Wildlife Research Officer, he, Mercedes and their daughter, Marilia, leaving soon after in 1973. He then went into consultancy work, moving to Botswana to carry out ecological studies for F.A.O. in the Okovango and at a research station near Gaborones. In the late 80’s he was back in the valley, again doing some remote sensing work with Steve Prince, his former protege, moving back into the same research camp he had left long before at old Mfuwe.

Bill I saw as the quintessential Englishman of the north of England: careful with his money, generous, disdaining of affected ways, a man who found great delight in a quaint phrase, a humourous gesture…a man who loved a good laugh. Of that we had many. And of course there was cricket: we played together in many places: in Fort Jameson, on the old Mfuwe airstrip in the Luangwa amidst the calling cards of a herd of buffalo that had rested there the previous night, in Gaborone and in Lobatse, and had watched cricket at his beloved Old Trafford in the sun, and in the cold. He will soon be there again, or in the valley, striding rapidly along, the carriers struggling to keep up with him; Bill, our friend.

Astle, WL. (1969). The vegetation and soils of Chishinga Ranch, Luapula Province, Zambia. Kirkia 7, 73-102
Astle, WL. (1971). Management in the Luangwa Valley. Oryx 11, 135-139
Astle, WL, Phiri, PSM & Prince, SD. (1997). Checklist of the flowering plants and ferns of the South Luangwa National Park, Zambia. Kirkia 16(2): 109- 160.
Astle, WL. (1999). A History of Wildlife Conservation and Management in the Mid-Luangwa Valley, Zambia. British Empire and Commonwealth Museum, Bristol
Astle, WL. (1988). Republic of Zambia, South Luangwa National Park Map, landscape and vegetation. Lovell Johns, Ltd, Oxford
Astle, WL, Lawrence, CJ, and Webster, R. (1969). Land classification for management planning in the Luangwa valley of Zambia. Journal of Applied Ecology, 6, 143-169

Barry Shenton on dealing with crop raiding elephant

2007-05-01T17:02:00.000+02:00

Barry Shenton in 1952 protecting villagers

SOME OBSERVATIONS ON ELEPHANT CONTROL OPERATIONS IN EASTERN PROVINCE - 1958
BY J. B. SHENTON, GAME RANGER, LUNDAZI

In order fully to appreciate the implications of these observations it is necessary to have a general idea of the elephant control policy in the Eastern Province over the past few years.

Until 1957 season, one elephant from the party actually raiding cultivation was followed for a maximum of three miles and destroyed, and then only after it was proved to be a confirmed raider i.e. the animal(s) had to visit the garden at least twice before any action was taken. During 1957, the Nicholson Theory was put into practice. In effect this entailed following the raider from the garden, and if only bulls were found, they were left undisturbed while a circuit was made to look for a possible breeding herd in the vicinity. If found, the leading or most mature female was shot. If not, one of the young bulls from the garden was destroyed.

This policy proved to be unsatisfactory due mainly to lack of supervision of the Control Guards, which meant that very little information was obtained, and the results did not seem to justify the continuation of the scheme.

Consequently this year the policy generally in the Province has reverted to that of pre-Nicholson years, except for one Chief's area in Lundazi, where the experiment has continued. This area was chosen because of the large number of breeding herds inhabiting the area and adjacent Lukusuzi, Nsefu, Luambe and Luangwa Reserves.

The results from this area and others are shown below, observed by Game Ranger, Lundazi, or, in some cases sifted from facts supplied by the specially chosen Elephant Control Guard stationed in Chief Mwanya’s area. It is intended to produce a second report at the end of this season’s operations, which it is hoped will serve as a useful basis for future control policy in the Province.

Observation 1. Chimpamba Village, Chief Chikwa, Lundazi.

Raiding by bulls in this group of villages was quite regular during March until 11 April, during which period one elephant male was destroyed on 17 March, and another bull shot on 31 March. Possibly two but certainly small female herd was in the vicinity during March/April. On 11 April after four consecutive days of raiding, the cow herd moved up the Luangwa from the area voluntarily, and all raiding ceased on that date, and has not recurred during the past month.

Observation 2. Simulemba group of villages at foot of escarpment, Chief Chikwa.

During February and March sporadic raiding by bulls took place, but it is not known definitely that any breeding herds were in the vicinity, though reported by local villagers. Raiding became more frequent however in early April, and on 16th a cow herd 20 + strong moved close to Simulemba Village, while three bulls actually raided the shambas. One of these males was shot the same day and the cows removed themselves, with the remaining bulls following to a point about 20 miles distant, where raiding took place during the following week. It is clear that the destruction of the bull on 16 April had nothing to do with the departure of the cow herd, as they had moved on some hours before the bull was shot. Later the cow herd moved to yet another area and raiding more or less followed this line.

Observation 3. Sam Village Chief Mwanya area, Luangwa Valley

On 14th March 1958, a female elephant was shot after bulls had raided, the latter having joined the females later the same day. Raiding by bulls was reported for several days previous to 14th. No further raiding has since taken place in this area.

Observation 4. Chief Mwanya's own village.

On 14 April, six females plus two immature elephant raided these gardens, one of which was shot. Eight days later, two bulls raided nearby Saidi gardens and one was shot. Here it must be pointed out that both raiding parties came from the nearby Lukusuzi Game Reserve and survivors returned there. It is likely that there was no connection between cows herd and raiding bulls in this case.

Observation 5. Changachanga Village, Chief Mwanya, and adjacent villages.

21 March, Mundu Village: bulls raided, 1 shot.
23 March, Changachanga Village: breeding herd of about 30 raided, 1 female shot. 15 April, Munyanga Village: bulls raided, 1 shot 23 April, Saidi Village, bulls raided, 1 shot.
24 April, Chiweka Village: bulls raided, 1 shot.

In all the above cases of bulls raiding, there were no females in the immediate vicinity of the bulls when shot, and apparently regular shooting of bulls had little deterrent effect. But the destruction of one female from a herd on 23 March kept the area clear for the following three weeks.

Observation 6. Tom Village, Chief Mwanya’s area.

For over a week a herd of nine females and young elephant raided this village regularly, except on the occasion when three bulls came instead. On 8 April, one cow was shot and all raiding ceased, and no reports were received for the rest of the month.

Conclusion.

1. It would appear that in the majority of cases regular raiding by bulls in an area can be traced to a breeding herd in the vicinity. When these herds are removed by shooting one of their number (usually the oldest female, or leader), the bulls in attendance are drawn away and raiding ceases.
2. The shooting of one bull raider from a party does not necessarily clear the area of potential raiders (see observation NO.5 in particular) though the remaining bulls usually steer clear of cultivation for a time.
3. It appears that on the comparatively rare occasions when an elephant herd - composed mainly of females, raids crops, destruction of one of their number has the effect of removing the herd for some considerable time. This maybe due to the fact that the females have not been affected to any extent in the past by elephant control operations, and react more than do the bulls to punishment.

Ecology of the Sitatunga

2007-05-01T16:47:00.000+02:00

Ecology of the Sitatunga (Tragelaphus spekei selousi Rothschild, 1898) in the Bangweulu swamps, Zambia, Central Africa
by
I.P.A. Manning

Research into the ecology of the sitatunga (Tragelaphus spekei Rothschild, 1898.) in the south-east Bangweulu, Zambia, was carried out between 1973 and 1976. The sex ratio for sitatunga does not differ significantly from 1:1, although 47.3% of the population are adult females and 25.6% adult males, 12.1% immature males, 4.3% immature females and 10.6% calves. Two conception peaks are related to the onset and cessation of the rains with breeding occurring throughout the year. Sitatunga occur singly (50%), in twos (22.2%) or in threes (16.7%). Females and their calves are the only group with any integrity. The maximum number observed in a group was 7. The minimum home range for males is 0.0363 km2 and for females 0.176 km2. Aggression and the mutual avoidance of dominant males suggests territoriality. Sexual dimorphism is marked. Pelage colouration is variable. The white facial markings are important in male agonistic displays. Criteria for relative age determination of sitatunga were derived from eruption and attrition sequences of impressions taken from maxillary teeth. Males reach a theoretical maximum weight of 106 kg at 8.1 years and females 51.5 kg at 7.34 years. Males are 54.6% heavier than females and maximum horn length is achieved at 7.5 years. Age is significantly correlated with weight, horn length and the length/weight index. The mean horn length for adults is 64.2 cm (measured according to Rowland Ward’s) and the mean front hoof length, for both sexes, is 7.6 cm.

John Barry Shenton. 30 April 1929, Eshowe, Zululand - 21 March, 2007, Mkushi

2007-05-01T16:21:00.000+02:00

Front left: Barry Shenton, Johnny Uys on his right - with some of our guards behind, and members of the Natal Parks Board at a time when some black rhino were collected from Hluhluwe in 1961.

Barry Shenton, a quiet self-effacing man, served his adopted country for twenty years as an officer in the Game Department of Northern Rhodesia, ending his time in the Department of Game and Fisheries. At the time he joined the Game Department in 1950, there were only a few game reserves in the country, a populace struggling to defend itself against marauding elephant, baboons and wildpig, and little tourism to speak of. By the time he left in 1970, the planning was complete for the promulgation of 19 National Parks and a framework of 34 Game Management Areas, and the existence of a burgeoning hunting and tourism industry.

After a few years in the Natal Parks Board, Barry joined the Game Department in 1950 and was posted to Lundazi to join the newly established Government Controlled Hunting Scheme. This was the latest in the Provincial Administration’s efforts since 1946 to see that local people benefited from game cropping, paying hunters and properly organized and conducted hunting safaris. Barry joined Ranger Bert Schultz as one of the professional hunters, a man of great experience who had been hunting the valley since 1919. In May of 1949, the District Commissioner at Lundazi, Errol Button, suggested that it would be advantageous to nurture non-hunting tourism as well, saying that it would not interfere with the activities of local hunters. This was accepted, and the Director of the Game Department, T. Vaughan-Jones instructed Ranger Norman Carr to take over the Department’s camp in Nsefu, Chipera, and convert it for tourist use, with all revenue accruing to the Nsefu Native Authority. Senior Chief Nsefu, having been a willing partner in these important developments, then requested that his area be converted into a national park. This was refused. But with the assistance of Carr, Schultz and Barry, the move towards attaining game reserve status in 1954, and finally national park status in 1972, was inevitable. And it was Barry who laid out the boundaries.

Until 1954, Barry continued on with the hunting in the dry season, and in the wet season managed a number of crop protection guards. For this he developed policy guidelines - the same guidelines recently passed on to the Zambia Wildlife Authority as they now embark on a major new training of village protection guards, and in 1952, established a game guard training camp at Milyoti. Over the next five years Barry was a full time Ranger opening up the west bank of the Luangwa Game Reserve to tourism and also served at Kabompo, Kasempa and Lundazi, building the Nyika Lodge on the 8000ft plateau.

In 1958, Norman Carr was appointed Warden of the Kafue Game Reserve – until then run by Len Vaughan, former owner of the ranch which is now Lochinvar National Park, and was allowed to take two Rangers with him to develop the area for tourism. He was given a year to do it or see much of it lose its status. Norman chose Barry and Johnny Uys to assist him. In less than a year they constructed 900 km of road, built Ngoma Lodge and two safari camps. At the end of 1959, the Kafue was opened for tourists. In 1961, Barry married a Swedish national, Marianne, his first child, Rolf being born in 1963; and in 1964, he became the Warden.

These are some of the bare facts of Barry’s personal ulendo through his conservation life. What we are left with, apart from the existence of our National Parks, our hunting and tourism industry, his meticulous notes, photographs and correspondence - evidence of a life of reverential dedication and hard work, the orderly farm in Mkushi, is the remarkable family he has left behind: Marianne, Rolf, Allison, Derek and Clive, all, in one way or another, dedicated to conservation and the elevation of the rural poor, the selfless serving of the common good. Barry’s legacy to Zambia is immense.

Hoovering Africa’s rivers ……….by I.P.A. Manning

2007-05-01T03:20:00.000+02:00

News that the wife of the President of the United States will shortly descend upon Zambia in order to personally deliver thousands more insecticide-charged mosquito nets, is cause for considerable alarm. In a harvesting culture, such a simple and deadly gift has already had a major negative impact on fish stocks, and obviously on other beasties like otter and crocodile who survive on fish. And where once we sat for hours escaping the midday heat in a river such as the Luangwa, safe in the knowledge that the local croc would not bother us – nourished as he once was by a plentiful supply of fish, it would be a foolish man to try it now. Everywhere the mosquito net removes the larvae and juvenile fish, the ubiquitous gillnet the rest, aided by the poisoning of rivers with easily obtained cotton insecticides. We even now, God help us, have developed a trade in vulture heads to supply traditional healers and the witchbound. Of course, such poisoning also accounts for the lion, the leopard, the jackal, the civet, the hyena…

Although Zambia has obtained an exemption from the Stockholm Convention for the use of DDT, there is not much sign of a carefully controlled programme of spraying getting under way in the villages of the hinterland. It’s all, I suppose, about the neurosis to give. Why not a net. Sounds good.

More on Hammer Simwinga...

2007-04-25T13:24:00.000+02:00

Hammer and the Mpika Elephant Hunters' graveyard...

2007-04-25T06:51:00.000+02:00

In the early 70's while working in the Bangweulu for the National Parks and Wildlife Service, I employed someone to take care of the old elephant hunters' graveyard at Mpika boma, usually the responsibility of the Ranger, Mpika. But this being an old mazungu graveyard, when the former Rangers Poles and Les Allen had long since left, and I as well, it remain uncared for. In 2003, on my return to Zambia, I visited the site and found it completely overgrown, the aircraft propeller and the elephant bones which had lain so long on Charlie Ross's grave, missing, and gravestones lying hither an thither. I immediately hired 20 people with hoes and put them to work. At the end of the day, having finished the job, and admiring how good it all looked, a man came strolling along, quickening his pace suddenly while still some distance off.
"What has happened here? he inquired.
"We've just cleaned the old place up".
"But I wrote over a year ago to the Council, asking for permission to clear it, but they never replied. How did you get permission?"
"I didn't".
This was my first meeting with Hammer. Since then he has cared for the place, working on plans for an information centre, perhaps later a library. An unusual man this, I thought.

Zambian Honored for Grassroots Environmental Work

2007-04-25T06:30:00.000+02:00

April 2007

The Goldman Environmental Prize was established in 1990 by San Francisco civic leader and philanthropist Richard N. Goldman and his late wife Rhoda H. Goldman. The US$125,000 prize, now in its 18th year, is awarded annually to six grassroots environmental heroes and is the largest award of its kind in the world.

The Goldman Prize winners are selected by an international jury from confidential nominations submitted by a worldwide network of environmental organizations and individuals. Prize winners participate in a 10-day tour of San Francisco and Washington, D.C., for an awards ceremony and presentation, news conferences, media briefings, and meetings with political, public policy and environmental leaders.

This year’s prize winner for Africa is Hammerskjoeld Simwinga, a 45 year old Zambian from Mpika in the Northern Province. Here is his story:

“Without a salary, outside funding or transport for almost a year, he kept his programs alive by visiting remote villages on foot, bicycle or catching lifts. He has helped locals realize the precious nature of their wildlife heritage and the fragile balance that can so easily be destroyed. He is a modern day hero.”
- Mark Owens, co-founder and co-president with Dr. Delia Owens, the North Luangwa Conservation Project (1986-1997) and the Owens Foundation for Wildlife Conservation.

Transforming Communities through Sustainable Development

In Zambia’s North Luangwa Valley, where rampant illegal wildlife poaching in the 1980s decimated the wild elephant population and left villagers living in extreme poverty, Hammerskjoeld Simwinga – known as Hammer – is utilizing innovative sustainable community development strategies to restore wildlife and transform this poverty stricken area.

Heading up the North Luangwa Wildlife Conservation and Community Development Programme (NLWCCDP), Simwinga protects the biodiversity of the North Luangwa National Park while simultaneously improving village life in the region through micro-lending, education, rural health programs and women’s empowerment.

Simwinga began working in the region with the US-funded North Luangwa Conservation Project in 1994, when local economies relied heavily on income from poaching. He helped villagers form “wildlife clubs” that used small business loans to provide basic goods, services and legal jobs as alternatives to working for the poachers. Each wildlife club was run as a free enterprise; village entrepreneurs were expected to repay their start-up loans.

Through the wildlife clubs, villagers opened small general stores and grinding mills, offering employment to millers, mechanics and bookkeepers. The program also assisted subsistence farmers with seed loans, transportation and technical assistance to help them grow protein-rich crops with better yields so they did not have to depend on meat from wild animals. Simwinga tied the entire project to protection of the wildlife, thus supplanting an illicit economy based on poaching with a legal one.

Simwinga’s tireless efforts have led to a dramatic transformation of the region. Income has increased one hundred-fold among the villagers and family food stocks have doubled. As a result, illegal elephant poaching is now 98 percent controlled and bush meat poaching is minimal. Wildlife has returned to the area, including elephants, hippos, buffalo and puku. Even critically endangered black rhinos have been reintroduced in the North Luangwa National Park by the Frankfurt Zoological Society.

The program now reaches more than 35,000 people and serves as a model for other sustainable development programs throughout the African continent.

Government Interference and Continuing Need for Support

Simwinga began his community development work with the North Luangwa Conservation Project (NLCP), a US-funded organization founded in 1986 by Dr. Delia and Mark Owens that trained local game scouts and worked with villages to rehabilitate and conserve the 6,200 square-kilometre North Luangwa National Park. In the 1980s the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) set regulations on, but did not ban, trade in ivory, resulting in years of massive elephant poaching in Africa; half of Africa’s 1.2 million wild elephants were killed between 1979 and 1989 and North Luangwa’s elephant population dropped from 17,000 to 1,300.

As the successes of NLCP’s work became apparent in the mid 1990s, powerful government officials and others capitalizing on poaching saw their profits dwindle with the slowdown in the illicit ivory and meat trade. In 1996, Zambian government officials arrived in Mpika and seized the NLCP offices; the entire project came to a halt. Within weeks the project was reopened but after a year of uncertainty, NLCP was turned over to a new management organization. They were unable to fund all of NLCP’s initiatives and quickly dropped support for all village development programs.

But Simwinga was undeterred. He worked tirelessly to keep the community development program moving forward, funding the project partially through loan repayments from villagers. For almost a year he worked alone with the communities, regularly walking 30 kilometres between villages. Slowly he pulled together a substantial Zambian non-government organization, NLWCCDP, and attracted small funding to keep the work alive. His challenge now is to manage the ever-growing demand for the project in neighboring regions and bolster financial support from the international community.

“Conservation of wildlife communities is not possible in the long term without simultaneously meeting the basic needs of the local human communities.”
- Hammer Simwinga

Compiled by Linda Shenton

OBITUARY: Rice Time c.1920 – 2006 (September).

2007-04-23T14:22:00.001+02:00

Rice Time, gone now from our midst, was a hunter’s hunter: honest, good humoured, courageous, imbued with a keen intelligence and unshakable tenacity and fortitude; a man of integrity. He hunted, not for ivory or trophies – legal or illegal, but rather to protect farmers and villagers from wildlife depredations, following on in our Game Department the tradition set by the Provincial Administration of 1935 with the establishment of a Game Control Department (later known as the Game Department) - responsible for protecting people rather than wild animals, expanding in 1942 into the Department of Wildlife and Tsetse Control, and later when Rice and I worked together in 1966/67, the Department of Game and Fisheries, and later still in 1988/89, the Department of Wildlife and National Parks.

Rice, a Tonga from the south bank of the Zambezi, had his start with Operation Noah during the flooding of the Zambezi at Kariba, a programme which rescued island-stranded wildlife on his ancestral lands and then released them on the mainland. Later, he moved to the Mazabuka farming block where he earned his spurs hunting down lion and leopard cattle killers, bushpig and baboons under the Vermin Control Officers, Johnny Uys and T.G. Murphy, earning the admiration of the Provincial Game Officer, Frank Ansell, and the gratitude of many farmers and villagers. Like most of the great fundis and game guards, he was without formal education.

In 1966, he was recruited by the Warden of Luangwa Command, Johnny Uys, to the Luangwa Game Cropping Unit at Kakumbi and assigned to me as my fundi. He spoke no English, and I no Chinyanja, so we prattled on in Chilapalapa – spoken then from Cape Town to Tanganyika. And like my great friend, Derek Macleod’s fundi, Nelson Chilangwa – well known for his assistance to Norman Carr in the rearing of a few lion and a trip to London to publicize Norman’s book ‘Return to the Wild, he proved to be a goldmine of bush lore and utterly fearless and dependable. Only the best fundis sufficed, for the work was arduous and highly dangerous as it involved killing complete elephant herds by day with dart guns, and to begin with, hippo on foot at night. In the first rainy season, we all went briefly our separate ways, deployed by the Warden, Johnny Uys, on game control work of one sort or another, although it was the Senior Ranger, Les Allen, who sent Rice off to deal with garden raiders with 29 rounds of ammunition. He returned at the end of the rains with 29 elephant tails.

As the cropping work involved a great deal of running – not always forward, through the bush after elephant with ten 20 cc syringes clutched in the hand, and the Game Department being loth to revert to the use of firearms, fearing the disturbance factor, I suggested to the then Chief Game Officer, Bill Bainbridge, that when MacLeod and I left, that Rice and Nelson should take over the cropping. This was agreed to. I then trained them in the use of the dart guns, in the handling of the drug – a rather unforgiving neuro-muscular blocking agent for which no antidote existed, but for some reason replacements were brought in, one being the highly experienced Rob Backus, but other candidates were uninspiring. Rice and Nelson merely carried on as before. When I saw Rice a year later, he recounted some of his experiences, laughing and shaking his head at the scrapes he had been lead into.

The cropping scheme closed in 1972, the thousand or so elephant shot a paltry dent in the
100, 000 whom it was feared would severely alter the floristic diversity of the Luangwa. The following year began the killing fields, in the case of the elephant, a repeat of the depredations a hundred years before by the hunters in the employ of the Tete based ivory traders.

In 1970, Rice assisted Johnny Uys – then Chief Game Warden, in conducting the Crown Prince Birendra of Nepal and his wife, Princess Aiswarya, on a hunt at Luwawata in the Luangwa, the Prince’s father, King Mahendra, hunting with Peter Hankin. This Eton and Harvard educated Prince was without luck for the safari was a disaster of massive proportions, and seven years after his coronation in 1974, his son killed both him and his wife and a number of family members.

In 1988/89, Rice - now retired, and I were re-united in the doomed task of saving the last few black rhino left in Zambia: the plan being to fence off a large patch of land on the Mushilashi river in the South Luangwa National Park, and there to translocate the last pockets of rhino left in the country since the onset of the killing fields in 1973. Rice soon set to work and after a few weeks in the bush alone, found fourteen rhino in and around the Chendeni Hills, not far from the headquarters of the Luangwa Integrated Rural Development Project. Other surviving rhino were noted for future rescue work. But those in power refused to allow the Chendeni rhino either to be moved or to be placed in a sanctuary; they were safe we were told. Inevitably, within a few years they were all dead.

I found other work for Rice: training guards in the Kasanka National Park and ending his career with Kapani lodge, becoming a great favourite on walking trails with the great, the good and the balmy. Rice, in a long and adventurous life, had two wives, 16 children, 30 grandchildren and 10 great-grand children, a remarkable achievement in itself. I hope they will carry the memory of his integrity with them.

Chief Nyawa is dead...

2007-04-23T07:02:00.000+02:00

I am told that the present Chief Nyawa is hale and hearty, the newspaper article referring to the previous incumbent, who died in 1996

Barry Shenton 1952

2007-04-18T06:59:00.000+02:00

OBITUARY: J.B. Shenton of the Kafue National Park (1929 - 2007)

2007-04-06T16:44:00.000+02:00

John Barry Shenton was born on the 30th April 1929 in Eshowe Zululand. His father “Shen” had moved to South Africa from Leicester, UK as a baby with his grandparents in search of a new life in the gold reefs of Johannesburg in 1894 and Shen followed his father as a mining engineer up to the Great War. Captain John Lindsay Shenton “Shen” came back from Europe to a cattle/cotton farm. Barry’s mother Pat was a strong-willed Scot of third generation in South Africa. By 1936 the cotton had done well but the cattle had been decimated by Nagana, the deadly tsetse disease and when Shen joined the Parks Board, the family moved to Hluhluwe game reserve that year until the time they trekked north to Zambia in 1948. The conflict between the three small game reserves in Zululand and the livestock escalated because of Nagana and at one time the game department were given orders to shoot all the wild animals to prevent further spread. Barry and his younger brother Bob became good hunters until Shen organized six Martins bombers to spray DDT up to the boundaries of the reserves and this stopped the tsetse conflict. Barry served for a couple of years in the Natal Parks Board before accompanying his parents to Northern Rhodesia where Pat farmed chickens for eggs while the two men opened up a virgin piece of land in Mazabuka. It is remarkable that the eggs were sent by train to the Copperbelt with the train guard, and the money and the boxes returned on the next train.

Times were tough with the first crop yielding 35 bags of maize, so Barry joined Bert Schultz as a professional hunter in the newly formed Northern Rhodesia Game Department in 1950 on the Government Controlled Hunting scheme in Luangwa Valley. Wealthy overseas clients would pay to hunt wildlife on Chief Nsefu’s reserve and the profits were given to the chief to develop his area – a system not unlike today’s Community Resource Boards. These early rangers became testers for Mr. Bata who would come out every year with shoes modified for the tough environment in Luangwa. Barry ended up with a cupboard full of shoes like Imelda Marcos- rope soles, tall mosquito boots, and many versions of the “veld skons” that most bush people preferred in the end. These shoes were nick-named “brothel creepers”. The first camp they built, Nsefu, survived the floods this year, for the 57th time while many other newer structures have been washed away over the years, a testimony to the quality of service offered by those early government workers.

Barry spent an exciting four years hunting in the dry season and controlling elephant in the wet season by shooting crop raiding bulls in the villages around eastern province. He had grown up fluent in Zulu and now learnt ChiNyanja. Over the next five years Barry was a full time ranger opening up the west bank of the Luangwa game reserve to tourism and also postings to Kabompo, Kasempa and Lundazi where he built the Nyika Lodge on the 8000ft plateau.

In late 1958, the council gave the game department just eleven months to open up Kafue National Park to tourism, failing which the area would lose its status and be re-settled. Norman Carr selected Barry and Johnny Uys to help him and over a very hectic year, they managed to open up 900km of road and build Ngoma Lodge and two bush camps under very challenging conditions. Roads were surveyed on foot and cleared behind by hand to then be smoothed with a railway line triangle pulled behind a Landrover. Bridges were built with rock and concrete around 44-gallon drum forms, all carted by an old three ton Morris truck via Namwala. The Morris chassis eventually broke, and it was repaired with a mopane pole wrapped with wet buffalo hide - good enough to finish the job. By the end of 1959, the game department had won its challenge, and Zambia’s biggest National Park was open to visitors. Barry was a painfully shy man in those days but dedicated to duty, efficiency and discipline and was promoted to Warden of KNP in 1964, while his parents ran Ngoma Lodge.

One of the visitors in the dry season of 1961 was a pretty Swedish nurse who had settled at a mission hospital in eastern Rhodesia (Zimbabwe) and escorted her visiting parents to KNP in an old Morris they had bought for the journey. The car developed a problem and Barry took four days to fix it, by which time he had proposed her for marriage and in 1963, their first son Rolf was born. Marianne loved the bush and moved to KNP to become his lifelong partner, bearing three sons and a favourite daughter, Allison who lives in Livingstone. Marianne, always a socialist, a nurse and a great traveller, mellowed Barry’s colonial past and shyness and he adapted positively to the new Zambia when droves of Europeans left.

By 1970, Zambians were ready to take over the Game Department, and Barry retired to manage brother Bob’s farm in Mazabuka. He attacked this job with the same vigour and determination as always and within two years produced the first crop of tomatoes on top of seed maize and cotton. The first half of the crop was given away in the Mazabuka market as no-one had the taste for this new fruit. Suddenly the taste caught on and Barry couldn’t produce enough for the next few years. He also introduced potatoes to Mazabuka’s growing list of produce and used to sell them off the back of the truck in Lusaka’s city market. Barry was always up- to-date with new ideas and bought a new diesel Mercedes from Germany in 1969 forseeeing the fuel crisis. This car is still driving around Lusaka.

In 1982, Barry finally managed to buy his own farm in Mkushi and again adjusted quickly to the new environment. He proved, at 53, that one is never too old to start a new life and became one of Zambia’s biggest seed growers, both in soya and maize. Barry diversified whenever opportunities arose, and ran a borehole drilling rig, contract harvested maize, and built Kaingo Safari Lodge in South Luangwa National Park in 1992 with his son, Derek. In 1994, when the Great North Road was almost impassable, he began his last major project: The Forest Inn. Friends and family advised him that it was a bad time to build with all the uncertainty, but as usual he responded by saying he might not have the energy to start later and that the road would be fixed sooner or later, and so he did it anyway! The well-appointed, peaceful Forest Inn has become the place to stay for almost all visitors to Mkushi with all creeds and colours welcome for business or leisure.

Barry slipped quietly away on the 21st of March in his bed surrounded by his wife and children, surely a satisfied man, having beaten all his life’s challenges, including a first cancer fifteen years ago. Youngest son, Clive will continue managing the farm and the Forest Inn. His children and grandchildren have continued his sense of nation building, social conscience and sustainable resource management.

Rolf Shenton

Zambia's Chief Nyawa of the Sichifulo Game Management Area

2007-03-31T07:02:00.000+02:00

Speech of His Royal Highness Chief Nyawa, at a meeting with DG ZAWA and Sichifulo GMA operator held on 16/03/07.

Welcome everyone to this meeting.
I speak on behalf of the people of Nyawa my subjects, my own and those who are in the same precarious condition as we are. This meeting that we are having today is but one of those in a series that have been held at our cost in terms of money, time and energy yet it has become a vicious cycle. My people and I are not ready to be taken for a ride while institutions and private individuals are plundering our resources in full view and in some cases with full co-operation of those entrusted to protect them. In view of this, let me address the issue of the concession holders in Sichifulo GMA. During a meeting we held last year at my palace together with His Royal Highness Chief Siachitema, we resolved that he leaves the area once and for all. Despite many of our efforts to have him out, he is still showing his head and ZAWA is at home with such an operator.
The following were the reasons why we wanted him out and still stand as justification of his being not of any help:

• No employment of a liaison office.
As provided and required in the pledges list in the Hunting Concession Agreement dually signed by our CRB, ZAWA and the operator, we expected to have a liaison officer. To date there is no such a person employed to help bring harmony and feed both sides with information. This is there in the agreement but the operator has decided to do all the work on his own. Due to this, we do not have a focal person who in our view would be available to us and update us.

• No benefits
We have got nothing so far from the GMA despite the hunting which have been taking place. Can anyone responsible and sensible justify this theft and plunder going unabated. We are aware that even other CRBs are owed money running into billions but we can not accept to be cheated out when our animals are being hunted and the money disappears in the thin hair. Is there any justification of the existence of the GMA when the objectives which it was suppose to achieve are far from being realistic, attainable, tangible and measurable?

• Depletion of Sichifulo GMA
Today our GMA is a secondary hunting area when both ZAWA and the operator are benefiting from the last animals being killed there. There is no programe put in place to help resuscitate, protect and responsible management of our wildlife. Why is this audacity and disregard for natural justice to do good being perpetrated by the operator with impunity and ZAWA is fully aware and can not do anything in a positive direction? Today the depleted GMA is a play ground for any poacher and the abuse of even legal hunting is the order of the day. If I may ask can ZAWA and the operator justify their presence in the GMA as adding value to it or contributing factors to its depletion? We know what they all stand for and what they have done to our GMA. No Govt agent like ZAWA can claim being responsible when a protected area can go from prime to depleted status under their supervision. Where were they?

The total effects of the negligence by both ZAWA and the operator have had the following effects on the resources and the people of Nyawa.

• Total Loss of confidence in ZAWA and the operator
The traditional leadership and the Nyawa community have lost confidence in both the operator and ZAWA for failure to bring sanity and make a difference. Instead, the GMA has been depleted at a very alarming rate and level ever experience in the whole history of the Nyawa people. The role and perceived partnership with you is seen as a ploy to save your own interest at the expense of the community. How would we have faith and trust in you when your presence in our GMA has caused the worst plunder of our resources. There is no motivation for our people to give you the slightest support when all you have done is to amass benefits to yourselves at the expense of even the resources which are the goose that lays the golden eggs.

• Encouragement of Poaching.
Our community scouts have stayed for over 20months without getting their pay. These are the people which both ZAWA and the operator expect to fully protect our GMA. Honestly this is not fair and least expected of them. It is logical to say the protector will become the abuser if you do not meet his welfare. These officers have families, kids to take to school and person responsibilities to take care of. If they are not paid for 20months + what are they eating, how are they taking their kids to schools and looking after themselves? This is a breeding ground for corruption, resources abuses and poaching at its best. These are clear issues and on the ground situations which unfortunately are taking place in places where money is being made for other important individuals and institutions. Those getting the lion’s share (ZAWA and the operator) from our rural resources are taking the least responsibilities and we the owner of the “pool resources” and the least beneficiaries if any are concerned.
It is clear that there is no motivation in both ZAWA and the operator to take quick action because they have other areas they can go to and abuse. What would you two lose if today our GMA was turned into a desert? You will simply relocate your businesses elsewhere and continue abusing rural resources. Sichifulo will be a forgotten story and you will never ever step there again. At the helm of encouraging poaching if not involved in are the uncaring operator and ZAWA.

• Encouraged Encroachments.
The current conservation effort of our GMA has made no difference on the lives of people and many have seen the area more as a potential crop land and pasturing area. This is so because those getting the lions ‘share have failed to justify why the area should be left as a GMA. It is the responsibility of ZAWA and the hunting safari operator to help redress the situation but all we see is nothing of such action. There is no justification for you getting more money when you are doing nothing in our area. Once again we the community leaders and our people getting nothing as at now are once taking up the responsibilities to protect our GMA. Surely why should you be getting more than us when you are doing almost nothing. Once again at the helm of encouraging encroachment and poaching and doing nothing about stopping these rots are ZAWA and the operator.

• Negative Effect on the social-economical
The fact that conservation of rural resources is a money making venture, vice versa is true of what is happening in our area. To the common man our GMA is nothing rather than a piece of unproductive land being put to no use. This negative attitude is deliberately created so that individuals amass wealth at the expense of the actual owners, we the Nyawa people. Neither ZAWA nor the operator can stand proudly and give even a single indicator to the people of Nyawa that their social-economics have being positively affected by the money they are making in Sichifulo. Can anyone of you give such an example? Definitely you have nothing to show. This is a typical example where Govt institutions and individuals because of the connections to the power that be have taken people for granted. There is no reason beyond that. If your involvement in our land has a zero effect on our lives then you are not worthy being there. Your presence is no different from thieves who come to still in a field they have no idea what crops are there.

• Political distortion
To many they are seeing our getting nothing as a political ploy to persecute the people because of their different political affiliations. The question is, to which extent is even the Head of State aware of this abuse and negligence. I said in my opening remarks that, we are aware that this negligence is country wide and many are owed billions of money. Unless people get the realistic, tangible and equitable benefits, the fate of the GMA is viewed as a ploy by ZAWA and the operator to deny the people of their benefits.

• Way Forward,
I stand by our last year’s resolution that the operator has failed and must without delay leave the area. There is no doubt that we the Nyawa aspire to maximise the benefits from our GMA and we will endevour to protect our rights to that. All we want is sanity to come back and our resources protected from designed abuse and uncontrolled harvest. We want a new operator who will look beyond a year’s hunt. We do not want to have the like of the failed former Dept. of National Parks and Wildlife Services Director, no. There are responsible operators who treat their areas as their own sources of livelihood and have helped to conserve the resources in a more meaningful way, not this operators way.

• Conclusion
From the many failures and problems identified, there is no doubt that there are institutional problems in ZAWA that have spread into operation and management. We the Nyawa people are willing and capable to call for a total change that will secure our interest unlike the way we are being treated by businessmen who have no responsibilities over our resources. Finally, let the operator go in peace he and his group have failed. If ZAWA has any place for abuse let them give them to him, as for Sichifulo we have had enough. This is an indication that there are failures by the new system (ZAWA) and therefore need for a comprehensive and complete review. No one will do this for us if those entrusted to do it are the abusers and do not care. The Nyawa people would be in the forefront to call for a complete change that respects partnership as the current system is not working for us but businessmen and ZAWA. Unless something is done to protect our interest, we will submit a formal complaint of non payment to relevant authorities and institute independent investigations.
The list of the rot is endless and the existence of a government conservation agency (ZAWA) seems non existence and doing nothing. By copy of this I am asking those copied to look critically on the issues I have raised and help come up with a way forward for the interest of us all. Let us not pretend this is not what is expected of ZAWA and any operators. We need change in the right direction radical or otherwise.

His Royal Highness Chief Nyawa v

C.c. Min. of Tourism, Lusaka
C.c. Southern Province Minister, Livingstone
C.c. House of Chiefs,
C.c. Board Chairperson ZAWA
C.c. Tourism Council of Zambia,
C.c. Professionals Hunters Association of Zambia (PHAZ)
C.c. Operators Association of Zambia
C.c. Co-Chairpersons, Natural Resources Consultative Forum Committee,
C.c. Chairperson, Natural Resources and Environmental Committee (Nyawa Royal Establishment)

Comment on Shenton's letter to The Post

2007-03-12T13:16:00.000+02:00

Executive contempt...

2007-03-09T06:19:00.000+02:00

Zambia and the rule of law...

2007-03-05T10:21:00.000+02:00

As a fellow investor in the tourism industry and in rural development, and as a corporate member of Business Action for Africa, an organization based in London and established under the Commission for Africa which lobbied successfully for major debt write-offs to Zambia by our G8 Group of Nations, the deportation on Saturday of Mr Ross Michelson is an extremely serious departure from the rule of law and from common decency. This man has been abused by the Zambian Government: his hunting lease removed without reason and without due process, accused of crimes for which he has not been charged or found guilty in a court of law, and while out of the country marketing Zambia, deported under emergency powers still in force from the Chiluba regime – all of this instigated by a rival business group having undue political influence within the tourism sector and who slaver after his concessions and his game ranch. And then Mr Michelson, when allowed back in to the country by the Attorney-General - the Department of Immigration at Lusaka airport allowing him ingress, is, in defiance of the judiciary, arrested and bundled onto a plane for another country.

Michelson’s and my lawyer, Wynter Kabimba, has courageously spoken out against this infringement of the African Charter of Human and People’s rights, of Michelson’s rights, of this abusive treatment of investors. For there have been other deportations of bona fide investors: an Italian farmer in Kabwe, a Dane and how many others harried out under emergency powers. But of all things – for after all we are but men, it is the contempt of the Ministry of Home Affairs for the judiciary which is the most serious threat to our fledgling democracy. ‘This is not a democracy like America or Britain,’ thundered the Minister of Tourism, Environment and Natural Resources to me the other day. Well no, fine.

It is time for the British High Commissioner to make it absolutely clear that such treatment of one of its citizen investors is totally unacceptable, and to talk less of ending protectionism in Europe and more of the necessity for the Zambian Government to adhere to western liberal democratic standards. And our other mother countries: Ireland, Denmark, Italy, France, Germany, Sweden, Norway, America, Canada, to name but a few, need to take note and resist the fashionable sycophancy. We are in the trenches here.

I.P.A. Manning
5 March 07

Ross Michelson deported !!!

2007-03-04T11:35:00.000+02:00

Dr Saiwana of ZAWA defends himself...

2007-03-01T16:08:00.000+02:00

ACC arrests senior cop

By Times Reporter

THE Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC) has arrested a senior police officer and two other persons for allegedly soliciting for K6.3 million from Zambia Wildlife Authority (ZAWA) Director General Lewis Saiwana.
The senior police officer and two others allegedly solicited for K6.3 million as an inducement or reward for them to quash a case of money laundering against Dr Saiwana.
ACC public relations manager Timothy Moono said in Lusaka yesterday the three were arrested following investigations.
Mr Moono identified the officer as assistant superintendent Samuel Nyirongo of police headquarters who has been charged with one count of corrupt practice by a public officer contrary to Section 29 (1) (a) and 41 of the ACC Act number 42 of 1996.
Two of his accomplices, Stephen Shinondo of plot number 7846, New Mumbwa road, and Rodgers Shakalima of plot 33/15 off Vubu road, Emmasdale, have been charged with one count of corrupt practices by private persons contrary to sections 31 (1) and 41 of the ACC Act number 42 of 1996. The trio has been released on police bond and will appear in court soon.
And ACC acting director of investigations Isaac Chilanga commended the Police Service for reporting the matter to the commission.

World Bank funded reports...

2007-02-10T07:52:00.000+02:00

The Zambia representative of the World Bank must surely realize that if you pay for a study commissioned by a government department that the Bank has a responsibiity to ensure that the consultants are qualified, that wide-ranging consultations are undertaken within civil society and that the report does not serve an end which is clearly not in the nation's interest. In the case of this study clearly none of this occurred; therefore the Bank must take it on the chin. When I questioned the revolutionary conclusion of the consultant that all customary land should in future fall under the Ministry of Lands, saying that the House of Chiefs were not represented at the meeting, nor the cross-sectoral Natural Resources Consultative Forum, adding that the consultation process appeared to have been engineered to ensure that there was no opposition to such extraordinary conclusions, the two Bank representatives said they would ensure that this was done before handing in the report. This was smoke and bones as they did not ensure further consultations were carried out; therefore they lied to the Zambian public and should be disciplined by the World Bank Group's Institutional Integrity Department (INT). After all, what is corruption.

And in the case of the Bank funded review of the Zambia Wildlife Authority's strategic plan, when I pointed out glaring errors in the draft report as well as the serious omission of any mention in the accounts of disbursements made to rural communities, nothing was done to rectify the matter in the final report. And the Bank is aware that as a result of payment shortfalls based on income from hunting safaris , wildllife protection in rural areas is severely impaired and elephant poaching and the illegal bushmeat trade on the rapid increase.

Chief Kasempa complains of the lack of benefits from tourism in his area

2007-02-04T09:10:00.000+02:00

While Chiefs are supposed to receive 5% of the hunting concession and trophy fees earned from safari hunting and paid to ZAWA, this percentage may be changed by the Minister of Tourism, Environment and Natural Resources under the Wildlife Act Part 3:6(6). Therefore the Chief Kasempa should take his case to his area M.P. - who is the Minister, to have this changed.

In 2002 a CRB/ZAWA workshop agreed to share revenues as follows: 45% CRBs, 5% Chiefs, 40% ZAWA, 10% Central Treasury - however this only applied to animal trophy fees and was implemented for the seasons 2002-2004. A committee of ZAWA administrators and 7 CRB Chairmen then met at the end of 2004 and decided to share concession fees: CRBs 15%, Chiefs 5%, ZAWA 80%. At the end of 2006, CRBs insisted on 50% of concession fees, 5% going to the Chief. Numerous complaints are building up from CRBs who say they have not been paid what is owed them, nor given proper accounting. As a result many village scouts are owed salaries, and little , if any money has been made available for community development.

One of the hunting concessions within Chief Kasempa's area, Lunga Busanga, in the hands of the company
African Experience Safaris (in the Northern Kafue – a Secondary area). On the sudden departure from Zambia of the owner of African Experience Safaris, Ed Smythe, a meeting was held in Kasempa on 4 My 2006 between ZAWA and some of its board members, CRB representatives in the Lunga Busanga area, the local chief (Senior Chief Kasempa), a House of Chiefs representative and a Kasempa District Council representative. The purpose of the meeting was to re-allocate the concession ‘administratively’ rather than put it out to tender, the latter being the normal and accepted procedure so as to avoid any hint of corruption. Tom Mushinge, the then Commercial Director of ZAWA, stated that in this case they would like the local community to decide on who would be chosen to take up the concession, and that the CRB could not take on the hunting concession themselves – as they had already applied to do. A ZAWA Board member (Sikongo) said that the concession had been removed because Smythe had breached various hunting regulations, “such as failure to honour community pledges, hunting without Escort Scouts, over shooting the quotas, no respect to traditional authority, etc”, though no mention was made that the necessary procedures, as laid out in the lease agreement, and put there to protect the partners, had been followed. Such charges are, under the circumstances, not convincing; many safari companies suffering similar charges.

The Kasempa CRB put forward four companies that had expressed an interest in taking up the concession:
• TEA – ECO Systems Limited
• C.K. Scientific Group Zambia Limited
• Mukata Zulu and Associates
• Royal Zambezi Wildlife Safaris

Senior Chief Kasempa objected to Royal Zambezi on the grounds that Chieftainess Chiawa was a shareholder and he did not think it proper that a chief from another area should take up a concession in his area. However, ZAWA stated that Royal Zambezi was suitable, and supported by the District Councilor and the House of Chiefs representative, this motion was adopted. They then called in the operator (Reynolds) to negotiate on pledges and concession fees, a further break from normal procedure, as in an ‘administrative’ re-allocation it would be expected that the original lease agreement would be adhered to. Nevertheless, Reynolds proposed a concession fee of $24 000, the CRB representative countered with $25 000, and this was agreed. Then the operator’s representative pledged the sum of $10 000 to the CRB, to be paid every season. This was accepted. Then the CRB requested that meat be issued, as did the District Council, and this was accepted.

It is highly irregular to make a cash pledge to a CRB given that the purpose of pledges is to see that the community benefit from hunting. It is likely that this payment will be distributed between the members of the CRB and the chief, with nothing going to the community whom they represent. One of the reasons put forward for giving this concession to the Chieftainess Chiawa safari group – Royal Zambezi Safaris, stems from their hunting operations in the Chiawa GMA where they have been hunting up and around the game lodges. At the time, the Chieftainess was the acting Chairman of the ZAWA Board. Royal Zambezi Safaris are still hunting in the area.

Zambia conservation:light and dark...

2007-02-02T22:15:00.000+02:00

January of 2007 started with a truce meeting between government, rural communities and safari operators. The door was open we were told for a new beginning. The optimists (the minority) opted for immediate meetings with the 'Big Men'; the skeptics counseled a waiting period - the wise hunter approach; the cynics said that the "Big men' were merely playing for time so that they could enter the land of free speech in peace. Well, the optimists engaged and were told some rather brazen porkies; the skeptics proved to be right; the cynics, knowing full well the price of everything but the value of nothing, said that honesty and service to the nation is not an endemic concept and therefore one should expect nothing. Those of us in the first group took a rare old pasting. However, I called in to the office of the Chairman of th Zambia Wildlife Authority Board today, finding him newly returned from his trip to Washington and the hunting convention in Reno in company with Minister Pande and Dr Saiwana, the head of the Zambia Wildllife Authority. He urged me to be patient, that he would be arranging a series of meetings soon for all concerned in Zambia to discuss such matters as the auctioning of elephant hunting permits, which the Natural Resources Consultative Forum had advised should not be done, and were ignored. What is in his favour, Walusiku Lisulo, that is, is the fact that he is an architect and he knows something therefore of project management and the dangers of building on sand. Let us wait in the company of skeptics.

Dark deeds in darkest Africa…by I.P.A. Manning

2007-02-01T10:17:00.000+02:00

The issuing of a deportation order by the Zambian Minister of Home Affairs for the summary removal of a significant foreign conservation investor in Zambia, Ross Michelson, is cause for concern. He has allegedly – according to the Immigration Department, contravened the immigration laws on a number of occasions, though as the owner of a game ranch, a hunting safari company and a water drilling company it is unlikely that his immigration and investor status is the reason for Government wanting him out. I am reminded unpleasantly here of the dark days of the Kaunda regime when people were sent packing on the whim of an official.

Michelson, the former Chairman of the Game Producers’ Association of Zambia, has made a significant contribution to the nurturing of the game ranching industry in Zambia. His problem is that he has locked horns with a powerful grouping of anti-western elements, as have I, who have used their political muscle to have him removed, leaving the field free to take his game ranch and his hunting company, doubtless soon to be issued to one of the grouping, ‘administratively’.

The pressure has been relentless: the reporting to State House by one of the anti group that he, I, a senior member of the main opposition party and two others had met for lunch to plot the overthrow of the ruling party and the destruction of the maize stocks of Zambia; Chief Nyalugwe (where Michelson’s ranch is located, and where my hunting company operates) being taken by one of the anti group to see the Director General of the Zambia Wildlife Authority(ZAWA) to ask him to close us down, then on to State House where he made a request of the President for our deportation on the grounds that we had been calling animals with ‘louder speakers’. Then Michelson had his hunting concession closed down without due legal process, again on the grounds of calling animals with loud speakers, and of overshooting his hunting quota by one animal, none of them proven or sufficient grounds to take such draconian action; and his brother, Greg, had his professional hunters’ license removed – again without due process being followed. Of course, Michelson obtained an injunction and got the area back, but letters have appeared on hunting websites in America and South Africa, with contradictory statements made by ZAWA, and damage done to his business and Zambia. Of course, he, like I, have complained to the Americans and South African market, which is our right to do. But the Minister in charge of tourism and wildlife has taken exception to these e-mails, warning the US Fish & Wildlife Service and Safari Club International that some operators are up to no good, calling at the same time for the Americans to allow the import of ivory from sport hunting – something we have all opposed. And on the 3rd January he said that those foreign operators who continued to criticize Government, would be asked to leave the country. And what do the anti group say now; the notice is in the post, they will say, bwana!

All of this is part of a resurgence of anti-foreign investor bashing – not so much against the big chaps (who did what Rhodes’ emissaries did years earlier) with their mines which pollute but are not fined, but against us little chaps with our safari companies and our worn out gari-motos dealing with the wild-horse exchange rate mechanism, fuel shortages and fuel price increases unhinged from reality, threats by Government and opposition alike to send us to join the 12,000 suffering buggers in the Lusaka jail for crimes of casualization of labour, and threats of deportation by the Immigration Department if we don’t provide the full $500,000 now required to have our self-employed permits renewed – a totally illegal edict.

What is going on here? From where floweth this spring of antipathy?

The time is long past for donors, particularly our own mother countries, to say enough is enough: if you take our aid, if you agree to the proposals of the Commission for Africa and if you accept the debt write-off offered by our countries at the Gleneagles G8 meeting, then certain standards are required. And don’t call us imperialists; don’t lay the blame on the West for the corruption which places Zimbabwe and Zambia in the top 11 most corrupt places on earth, don’t blame the West for the poverty caused by poor governance – horrifyingly revealed in the Transparency International Zambia facilitated analysis of the Auditor-General’s reports which found that, since independence, only 16% of national government expenditure went on health, education, agriculture and local government, and that over the last 20 years almost a years’ worth of that expenditure was stolen or unaccounted for. And what about the fact that more was spent on traditional ceremonies than on agriculture; that 38% went on Presidential state visits. It is time for some honesty and truth.

I.P.A. Manning
MD
Mbeza Safaris Ltd
Corporate Member: Business Action for Africa

Ross Michelson order of deportation issued for allegedly...

2007-02-01T10:04:00.000+02:00

Immigration Department deports British businessman

Zambia Times 1 February 2007

A 46-YEAR-OLD Briton has been deported for allegedly contravening immigration laws.
Immigration Department spokesperson, Mulako Mbangweta, said in Lusaka yesterday that Michaelson Mathew Ross, proprietor of Leopards Ridge Company and Gatewell Limited that drills boreholes in Lusaka, was deported after investigations instituted recently. Ms Mbangweta said it was the opinion of the ministry of Home Affairs that the presence of Mr Ross was likely to be a danger to the peace and good order of Zambia. Mr Ross was deported under Section 269 (2) of the Immigration and Deportation Act. The order followed investigations and several warnings issued against him. Ms Mbangweta said the Immigration Department would not hesitate to deal with any person found contravening immigration laws and added that it was saddening that some foreigners were abusing the hospitality they enjoyed in Zambia

ZAMBIA JUMBO JUMBLE…by I.P.A. Manning

2007-01-31T22:48:00.000+02:00

The newspapers here in Zambia are full of the horrors of corruption - the cancer which renders development impossible and which has reduced this country – now in the top-ten hit parade of world corruption, to a pale shadow of what it once was. They also, in a marvelous example of their editorial capacity to hold two contradictory views simultaneously, blame the West (the imperialists) for our poverty, despite a recent report from Transparency International Zambia revealing that since independence only 16% of national government expenditure went on health, education, agriculture and local government – surely a heinous and deeply shameful shortfall of funds needed to alleviate the woeful plight of the poor; and, to add salt to the wounds, over the last 20 years almost a years’ worth of that expenditure was stolen or unaccounted for.

And there is a continuing 33 year long tide of corruption in our magnificent wilderness, our native black rhino killed, our wildlife slaughtered daily for the bushmeat trade, including, our elephant. Once it was for their tusks only, many thousands killed since1973, and now DNA analysis revealing that between 1994 - 2002, 123.5 tons of ivory - the equivalent of 14,500 elephant, were taken from the Luangwa Valley of Zambia and shipped by a single syndicate through Malawi and on to the Far East. Not surprisingly, with such a lamentable conservation record since then, Zambia is not allowed by CITES to sell its ivory stockpile (if still there), though since 2005, CITES, apparently persuaded by a Minister of Tourism, Environment and Natural Resources’ ludicrous assertion that they had identified 20 crop raiding elephant and that these should be killed on sport hunting permits, allowed it to issue 20 permits annually for elephant sport hunting, though the US Fish & Wildlife Service bars them from entry into the USA, the source of most hunting clients. Zambia of course needs money to run its statutory body responsible for wildlife; hence, you might conclude, it needs to sell some elephant permits – though the $100,000 share to the Government hardly pays for two vehicles. But the sad fact is that the Minister, advised by his head of the Zambia Wildlife Authority (ZAWA), has ignored the advice of the Zambia Natural Resources Consultative Forum – a cross-sectoral body drawn from Government departments, civil society and the donors (suppliers of 50% of Zambia’s financial needs) - which includes hunting organizations in its membership, to ban elephant hunting until such time as elephant populations and their management allow for it.

And undertakings given on 3 January at a meeting convened by the Minister with the private sector and rural community representatives - supposedly to rectify past mistakes and to consult widely with them on all issues, have fallen asunder; this followed by the lie that elephant hunting permits would not be issued unless all the people and organizations involved were consulted, and certainly not, said Dr Saiwana of ZAWA, before a ministerial visit to the Safari Club International hunting convention in Reno at the end of January.

But there was more to come on that trip to America, the Minister visiting the US Fish & Wildlife Service and lobbying not only for the ivory of the 20 elephant to be allowed in, but for increased numbers as well, he looking enviously at Zimbabwe and the 500 or so elephant it is culling (so he says), saying that Zambia’s paltry quota of eight elephant are far too few, neglecting to mention that elephant on the Zambia side are not part of the Hwange/Chobe population, and that those that are there form the basis of a thriving tourism business on the Zambezi, some of them already shot not far from the lodges.

The present Minister of Tourism etc, Kabinga Pande - guided by the dictates of politics and economics rather than wildlife management, is hard on the spoor of the previous Minister who stated that only the 20 identified crop-raiding bulls would be hunted, although the Statutory Instrument No 40 of 2005 made clear that the ‘hunting of elephants for sport (a) shall not include the hunting of elephant for purposes of controlling problem elephants’. And this SI states that nothing less than an elephant carrying 33 pounds of ivory side may be taken, thus opening the door for the killing of young breeding bulls. And what of the communities this is supposed to benefit. Evidence is to hand that communities within hunting concessions are owed a fortune by ZAWA, many of them unable to pay village scouts, encouraging them to poach the very animals they are charged to guard. One community with whom I work, with the help of the ZAWA crimes investigation unit - once it became clear we would brook no alternative, is playing a large part in bringing to book a poaching syndicate run by wildlife police officers. They shot two matriarchal herds of elephant and took the meat to the nearest roadhead where it was collected by their senior officer and transported into town in the Government pick-up.

The Minister of Tourism etc, Pande, in pursuit of economic justification, states that the 115 elephant shot as a result of village garden raiding in 2006 would have brought in $10,000 each ($1,115 000). But he clearly is unaware that a large percentage of these animals were females carrying small ivory. Not much of a trophy there. Well if we take the 14,500 elephant which were removed without let or hindrance from those charged to protect them, following the Pande formula they would have brought in $145, 000,000. And a thorough investigation of the disribution of the meat from garden raiders and elephant shot by safari hunters will surely reveal that little of it went to the villagers on whose lands the animals fell.

But it is the continuing slur on foreign investors in the safari industry, repeating in the press non-proven charges of the electronic calling of lion to the hunter’s rifle, which flies in the face of undertakings given at the truce meeting that the dirty linen would not be washed in public. And the Minister's charge that some of us send e-mails to America saying that safari hunting in Zambia is corruptly handled, is true. It would be silly to do so were it not true, and were one not able to prove it.

And today comes news of the issuing of a deportation notice by the Minister of Home Affairs against the safari operator, Ross Michelson - like me, one of those accused of calling lion with ‘louder speakers‘ but not yet found guilty in the courts (difficult when two of the three of us so charged had not been in the area where the crime was supposed to have been committed), something in defiance of habeus corpus, whose origins lie in our Magna Carta of 1215. His ‘sin’, and mine, is that he fell foul of a syndicate of anti-western imperialists; and mighty powerful they are here. And in my case, according to the present Director of Research of ZAWA, I am also inciting the local community against ZAWA. Well, as an old Game Department man here, I am merely carrying on a tradition of local villagers empowerment, kicked off by the doyen of conservationists, Norman Carr, and my friend and former colleague, Barry Shenton, in 1949/50. It is a fine and worthy tradition to follow.

Conservationists are dumbfounded by all this, donors alarmed and bunching like buffalo when a lion is about - for they know they control the purse strings, and the soldiers of civil society are both contemptuous and ashamed of what is happening. And the latter are a growing force, buoyed by their victory in defeating ZAWA and the Ministry in their proposed sale of Mosi oa Tunya National Park land and the building there of an 18 hole golf estate.

And what be the life of a paleface conservationist investor here: phone tapped, threats of deportation, ‘action targeted’, defamed, sullied and abused. Well, it be ‘faga moto’ and tilting at the windmill.

As a woman once said to me in Ireland, “It’s hard to know where you’r goin’ when you’r lost!”

Lusaka, Zambia.
31 January 2007
Chartered Wildlife Biologist
Steering Committee Member: The Natural Resources Consultative Forum of Zambia
Corporate Member: Business Action for Africa.
Foreign Investor and MD: Mbeza Safaris Ltd
Member: Professional Hunters’ Association of Zambia
gamefields@zamnet.zm

A truce and other things...

2007-01-30T07:55:00.000+02:00

The Editor
The Post,
I refer to the Saturday Post, January 20, 2007: "Pande asks Safari operators to leave if they are not ready to operate within the law" which quoted various sources as to what was said at the recent stakeholder truce meeting held on 3 January between the Minister, ZAWA, safari operators and community representatives. As this newspaper finds its way deep into the hinterland, and as the sources appear not to have made careful notes of what was said, allow me my ngwes’ worth – being guided as I am by a fellow director present with me at that meeting, as well as two senior members of the community where we operate. Pande said foreign operators who continued to criticise Government without bringing their complaints first to its door would be asked to leave the country – not the sector; when Pande questioned casualization, I replied that casualization needed to be discussed between the stakeholders as it was a reaction of the market to prevailing economic conditions and an investor unfriendly Labour Act, and that much of the tourism industry was seasonal in nature and therefore employed many workers for part of the year; I stated that in my company’s case – purchased to support a community development scheme, large profits were illusory; Pande directed the Safari Hunting Operators Association to reflect all racial sectors of the industry – though the fact that only 50% of a racially mixed industry have joined as members is hardly the fault of the Association. However, Pande never mentioned anything at the meeting about action being taken against operators for being allegedly involved in illegal activities such as overshooting and ‘using loud speakers to attract lions before shooting them down’. This source obviously therefore intends mischief. There is a case coming before the Supreme Court which has its roots in the intemperate remarks of a former DG of ZAWA in which he accused some operators of overshooting their quotas by a few animals, saying they were criminal acts; patent nonsense of course as operators hunt legitimately in the field – and no such ‘criminal acts’ have as yet been proven. On the charge that some operators used ‘loudspeakers to call lions’, one of such charges – directed by Chief Nyalugwe against myself, Dr Guy Scott and others, being laid by Chief Nyalugwe at State House under malign influence, I can only say that I have never hunted in Nyalugwe’s country, and as far as I am aware, Scott only hunts political prey, admittedly occasionally using loudspeakers.
Ian Manning.

Some Africans in the diaspora deepened wrong views...

2007-01-27T16:26:00.000+02:00

‘Market Zambia to the western world’
By BWALYA NONDO in Reno, USA
Zambia Daily Mail 27 January 2007

GOVERNMENT has appealed to Zambians in the diaspora to rise to the challenge of helping to market the country’s investment opportunities and to demystify wrong perceptions of Africa in the western world.

Minister of Tourism, Environment and Natural Resources, Kabinga Pande, said some Africans in the diaspora deepened wrong views about the continent because they did not bother to take personal responsibility to give the correct picture.

Mr. Pande was giving a lecture to students and lecturers at the University of Reno under the auspices of the Nevada Committee on Foreign Affairs focusing on Africa with special emphasis on Zambia. Mr Pande, who made a co-presentation with Zambia’s Ambassador to the US, Dr Inonge Mbikusita-Lewanika, said it was the duty of Africans in the diaspora to embark on a crusade to market the continent and Zambia as objectively as possible. The minister also urged Zambians abroad to invest back home and contribute to efforts aimed at strengthening the economy. He said Zambia was an incomparable oasis of peace and political stability in Africa. “It offered an excellent investment environment which Zambians should help to market,” he said. He was confident that tourism would give impetus to the growth of the economy by eight per cent annually by 2010, from the current three per cent. The minister said President Mwanawasa’s administration through fiscal discipline and sound economic policies, had made it possible to bring inflation to a single digit. He challenged intellectuals living abroad to come forward and help improve the economy instead of being critics from a distance. He commended Dr Mbikusita-Lewanika for the role she was playing to market Zambia.

Dr Mbikusita-Lewanika said Zambia was one of the few African countries that continued to enjoy political stability. She said this had greatly contributed to increased investment and productivity in the nation. She explained that improved fiscal performance had also led to total debt reduction from over US$7 billion to US$500 million following the attainment of the HIPC completion point. She said Zambia was also reputed for embracing democratic governance and observing all human rights conventions.

Zambia Ministry of Tourism lobbies USA to allow elephant hunting

2007-01-27T16:15:00.000+02:00

Zambia lobbies US over elephant trophy hunting
From BWALYA NONDO, Nevada, USA
The Daily Mail 27 January 2007
ZAMBIA has launched a campaign to lobby the United States government to recognise elephant trophy hunting as key to the conservation of the earth’s largest mammal. The American government does not allow its citizens to participate in elephant safari hunting in Zambia, and advances the Convention on Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) banning, dealing in ivory among others, as the reason for its position. Zambia has since met the United States Fisheries and Wildlife Services authorities to argue that increased quotas for trophy hunting in selected areas with trans-boundary elephant populations, was necessary. These areas include the Zambezi valley, where the elephant population was shared by Zambia and Zimbabwe. Zambia considers a quota of eight for the Lower Zambezi, far below the limit settings recognised for elephant trophy hunting quotas.

Minister of Tourism, Environment and Natural Resources, Kabinga Pande, who is leading a delegation of Government, Zambia Wildlife Authority (ZAWA), and Zambia National Tourist Board (ZNTB) officials to the annual hunters convention in the American desert city of Reno, said he was concerned that while Zimbabwe was allowed a gigantic 500 quota in the shared trans-boundary elephant population for sport-hunting, Zambia was restricted to a paltry 20, annually. Speaking when he met United States Fisheries and Wildlife Services, director, Ken Stensil, at the Reno Convention Centre, Mr Pande observed that sport-hunting had the potential to bring large financial benefits to the country and empower local communities economically and motivate them to participate in conservation projects. He said sport hunting would also go a long way in easing animal-human conflicts in game management areas and therefore enhances conservation of animals such as elephants. He said sport hunting was a conservation tool that would help Zambia plough back proceeds into the community. He regretted that in the past, the government has been subsidising conservation of elephants through funds raised from other species when the elephant could itself contribute to its own management. Between 2001 and 2005, 115 elephants were killed on control programmes, resulting in a loss of US$1.1 million in licence fees. If the same animals were hunted for trophy, communities would have realised US$575,000 for investment in various socio-economic areas to reduce poverty. Mr Pande said although many elephants were killed on control programmes every year, the only benefit to the community was meat. He said it was for this reason that communities supported the resumption of trophy hunting.

The United States was an important market for Zambian trophies and appealed to authorities to rescind the decision not to allow their citizens to bring trophies from elephant-hunting safaris. Mr Pande also cautioned the American government to be wary of some safari hunters who were maligning the Zambian government through e-mails, suggesting that safari hunting in Zambia was corruptly handled.

And Mr Stansell assured the Zambian delegation that US authorities would study the Zambian case. He appealed for more information to enable the American authorities appreciate Zambia’s elephant situation clearly. The five-day convention organised by Safari Club International, has attracted 19,000 delegates from around the world.

<>

World Bank erred...Manning

2007-01-25T08:09:00.000+02:00

Feeding from the cooking pots of the community...

2007-01-25T07:46:00.000+02:00

Dear Ian,
As long as ZAWA still remain a parastatal institution feeding from the cooking pots of the community,it will remain a liability to conservation efforts in the country and beyond than a prime mover of objective and sustainable natural resources management practices and innovations.
A promise made in public having been abrogated in order to create some friendship with individuals and give ZAWA a breath to pay some credit is the most terrible betrayal of trust among parties ,collaborators and sympathisers.
ZAWA will never commit itself to any truth as long as they are dripping with the desire to make money for their senior staff and settle what they owe people.It is a very shamefully situation that the donor agents have continued to go to bed with ZAWA while deliberately failing to put enough conditions and ask for tangible and projected results of the use of their money.
Professional judgment and management of wildlife is no longer the main focus but the commercial benefits gained in such a program.
Have a look at what happened in the Legacy Deal.If ZAWA was ready to lease the 218 hectares of the prime area of the Park here in Livingstone for an initial $9 million and a further $ 2 million per annually,what is so specially about 10 elephants selected without scientific or any elaborate research based on many considerations let alone the concern of other partners.They went even further to quickly review the draft management plan and zoned the 218 hectares as a high level used area with full support of "top and learned senior management of ZAWA.Elsewhere heads would have rolled but at ZAWA some people have built empires and dynasties run purely as an individual wish.Shame on Govt and its misinformed technocrats at ministry level.
ZAWA has completely lost direction and unless the influence of political rhetoric is stopped,by the time the alarm of misuse of public resources will have been sounded,it will be like closing the stables when the horses would have escaped.
If you check in today's Post newspaper, you will see adverts asking the public to apply for hunting licenses in GMAs.If you as a forum asked for the animal census on which the quotas will be based,you will be given none.Most likely they will be based on hunting success.We all know that this is not the best data on which to base hunting quotas.Even the minister had said it that unethical methods were used by even safari operators who he even threatened to deal with.What other atrocities are been committed by unaccompanied individual hunters in GMAs.Dry season drinking points have becomes target spots for most people hunting in GMAs
Today ZAWA game guards in Mazabuka have been turned into fish scouts,they are used by some farmers locally to clean their cattle farms of their own staff who poach for the pot once in 365 days while the Lechwe in Lochnivar are slaughtered at will by poachers.The list is endless and for those with the passion to see sanity return to ZAWA there is only one term to use that is "wildlife management in Zambia has go to the dogs and Government has NO will to say the least"
Can the National Consultative Forum address such concern for the people of Zambia and World over before its role becomes synonymous with any compromised line ministry department.
Please pass this to people that will have the nerve to find a common ground for our wildlife including donors.
Thank you for the update and have a good day.
Kalaluka Mulyokela

ZAMBIA: OF TRUCES, BROKEN PROMISES AND ELEPHANT

2007-01-25T07:43:00.000+02:00

23 January 2007

On 3 January 2007, a truce between Government and the hunting safari industry – including sections of the tourism and conservation community, was brokered by the Minister of Tourism, Environment & Natural Resources, Kabinga Pande, at a meeting in Lusaka. The Zambia Wildlife Authority (ZAWA) Director-General, Dr Lewis Saiwana, admitted past mistakes and requested future cooperation, and the Minister promised a future open-door policy, requesting that the campaign against Government cease and that the factional fighting besetting the industry should be resolved. On Monday 15 January, 2007, Ian Manning and Rolf Shenton, steering committee members of the Natural Resources Consultative Forum of Zambia (NRCF) – a cross-sectoral forum of all the stakeholders in the environmental and natural resources field, met with the Chairman of the ZAWA Board, Walusiku Lisulo, who stated that ZAWA would fully consult all stakeholders in the future before making major decisions. This undertaking was confirmed by Dr Saiwana, who added that no elephant hunting permits would be issued without full consultation with all concerned, and that a full round of stakeholder meetings would be held in February 2007 on the return of the Minister, the Chairman and the DG from their attendance at the forthcoming Safari Club International meeting in Reno, USA.

The NRCF had in January 2006, invoked the precautionary principle, and with the agreement of the hunting fraternity of Zambia (Safari Hunting Operators’ Association and Professional Hunters’ Association), advised the Minister that no elephant hunting should be allowed until the necessary supporting scientific information was to hand. This had been ignored by the Ministry and ZAWA in 2006, assurances obviously now being sought that this would not happen again.

On Tuesday 16 January, the licensing office of ZAWA phoned safari operators to announce that an auction of elephant hunting permits would be held at ZAWA HQ on Friday19 January, 2007. On Wednesday 17 January, Manning e-mailed and had delivered by courier to Dr Lewis Saiwana, Walusiku Lisulo, and the public relations officer of the Ministry, Bwalya Nondo - the latter promising to place the letter in the hands of the Minister, a letter querying the auction. No reply was forthcoming.

On Friday 19 January 2007 - in a repeat of the auction of 2006, and witnessed by a safari operator’s representative, ten elephant for sport hunting were put up for auction at a reserve price of $10,000 each, two elephant permits being purchased by Mr Doug Reynolds of Royal Zambezi Safaris, to be killed in the Chiawa concession, an area adjoining a photo tourism hotspot. Rashid Randera of Baobab Safaris and Nyampala Safaris, who in 2006 had purchased eight elephant permits, attended the auction, did not take part in the public bid, but met with the auctioneers prior to the auction, reputedly placing an offer on the table for the permits remaining unsold – they being for two areas, Rufunsa and Lower Lupande where Randera has an interest. No other operators, Reynolds and Randera apart - as in 2006, attended. An opportunity was given to the acting Director General of the Zambia Wildlife Authority, Isaac Longwe, to comment on the auction and to confirm the train of events. He has so far not done so.

I.P.A. Manning

Reject World Bank land proposals -Hansungule...

2007-01-12T07:33:00.000+02:00

ZAWA official arrested

2007-01-05T20:17:00.000+02:00

By Times Reporter

THE Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC) has arrested a Zambia Wildlife Authority (ZAWA) head of intelligence and investigations unit for allegedly soliciting for a bribe of K5 million.
Mr Winter Mvula was arrested and charged with one count of corrupt practice by public officer contrary to sections 29 (1) and 41 of the ACC Act number 42 of 1996.
ACC public relations manager Timothy Moono in a statement released in Lusaka yesterday said the officer was arrested after investigations.
Mr Moono said details of the offence were that on dates unknown but between December 1, 2006 and January 3, 2007, Mr Mvula allegedly solicited for K5 million and received a sum of K1 million from Sean Rosebotsa, director of credit at Barclays Bank head office.
Mr Moono explained that the money was allegedly given to the officer through a senior manger at the same bank.
The money was allegedly meant to be an inducement or reward for the officer not to publicise Mr Rosebotsa’s arrest.
Mr Rosebotsa was found in possession of a python skin.
He said the suspect was released on a K2 million bond with two working sureties and would appear in court on January 9, 2007 for mention and plea.

Magna Carta

2006-12-25T14:45:00.000+02:00

No free man shall be taken or imprisoned or deprived or outlawed or exiled or in any way ruined, nor will we go or send against him, except by the lawful judgement of his peers or by the law of the land.

FAGA MOTO

Those supposed to protect...

2006-12-05T08:30:00.000+02:00

Zambia’s Luangwa Valley elephant poaching war continues…by I.P.A. Manning

I recently reported the killing of three elephant and the wounding of another on 12 November 2006 near my safari camp, Malone - now closed for the rainy season. On 30 November, close to Malone, a fusillade of shots were fired at 7.00 am, some two hours later, my terrified workers watched as scores of vultures moved in. In the camp, having arrived late the previous day was my employee, David, who had been in Malone during the previous incident.

On 29 November, four armed scouts, two from the nearby town of Nyimba, two from the nearby Ndevu game camp – one going by the name of Siliya, came to Malone at 10.00 am. Here they washed, rested and cooked a meal, leaving camp at 2.00 pm. The following morning war broke out. Later in the day, David went down to the river and was told by fishermen that they had seen some men running away from the shooting. David then left for Lusaka and when passing through Nyimba, saw Mr Chibeka of the Zambia Wildlife Authority who said he would be going to Ndevu camp on 5 December to collect his scouts – and doubtless the meat. He complained of missing meat from the previous incident.
The Nyimba police have refused to investigate our complaints, saying it is a matter for ZAWA.

West Mvuvye National Forest No. 54 Illegal Alienation

2006-11-29T08:44:00.000+02:00

The Chairman of the Luembe Community Resource Board reports that Messrs Tom Younger and Andrew Baldry visited Snr Chief Luembe again recently in order to obtain more land, and were unsuccessful. It appears that the pair have obtained a renewable 99 year statutory lease on that portion of the National Forest which formerly was Luembe customary land. In order for National Forest to be sold, it needs to be de-gazetted with Parliament's approval. This has not been done. Apparently the local community have received a 20% share in the scheme - through an Association. This illegal alienation, as well as the illegal alienation of that part of the National Forest formerly part of the Chief Mwape customary area has been reported to the Commission for Investigations, to the National Movement Against Corruption (NAMAC) and shortly as a petition to Parliament by the Chairman of the CRB and by the Headman's Association of Luembe. The Luembe Conservancy Trust, which applied for a Joint Forest Management Agreement with the Forestry Department in order to develop a participatory conservationa and development scheme two years ago, has to date received no reply to its application, clearly now having been overtaken by current events. Despite numerous contacts with Foresty - particularly its regional representative, Bwalya Chendaoke, they appear to be taking no action.

Senior Chief Luembe is now the subject of an application for an Interim Injunction in the High Court for Zambia under the Chiefs Act (Cap 287 of the Laws of Zambia) restraining the respondent Francis Kalunga Njobvu from acting as Chief Luembe. the plaintiff is Devallias Phiri Besa. Recently the head of the Yendwa clan, Senior Chief Mboroma visited Luembe and travelled to Mwape for a meeting of the Nyendwa chiefs to discuss the issue.

ZAMBIA ELEPHANT MAYHEM

2006-11-22T14:15:00.000+02:00

I. P. A. Manning
21 November 2006

Elephant continue to be poached for their ivory and meat in Zambia: last week in the West Petauke Game Management Area of the Luangwa Valley, close to my camp on the Luangwa river, a cow herd was all but obliterated by a poaching gang. http://www.elephant.news.com/

The meat from these elephant, from hippo and our now decimated herds of buffalo, is carried to the villages of Rufunsa and Lukwipa on the Great East Road, which links Malawi with the capital, Lusaka, and sold openly to motorists; the ivory, we now know, follows the traditional route through Malawi and on to Singapore or to Manila, Hong Kong, Taiwan and eventually, Japan and China.

In 2002, a consignment of 5.9 metric tons of ivory was intercepted in Singapore and traced to a shipper in Lilongwe, Malawi. Shortly before this seizure, at the CITES meeting in Santiago, Zambia had requested that elephant be downgraded to Appendix one, and that they be allowed to sell their ivory stockpile, both requests denied as a result of a fact finding mission which found that in excess of 800 elephant a year were being killed illegally – an unsustainable offtake; Zambia later burnt the ivory on payment of $200,000 from elephant protectionist organizations.

In April 2005, the Environmental Investigation Agency (UK) held an International Ivory Enforcement Training Workshop in Lusaka funded by DFID. A presentation on the Singapore ivory seizure was made, which included details of the DNA investigations of the ivory and soil isotope analysis suggesting that the elephant came from two savannah populations. But they needed to be matched with samples from Luangwa and elsewhere. This has now been done.

As reported in a National Geographic newsletter, Sam Wasser and his team at the University of Washington sequenced DNA recovered from nearly 500 samples of dung collected from elephant in 23 African countries and then matched it with DNA from the seized ivory. When Wasser's team compared 75 samples from the illegal shipment to their genetic map, they found that all of the ivory came from Zambia. And as the bulk of Zambia’s remaining elephant are to be found in the Luangwa and its associated rift valley systems this does suggest the ivory’s source.

And what of the prosecution of those responsible? Apparently a Malawian national was being held some months ago, a Chinese national skipped the country and the Singaporean transshipment agent received a fine of $3 000.

However, at this same presentation, an astounding comment was made by one of the participants, Samuel Ngosi, of the Malawian Anti-Corruption Bureau, who revealed, possibly for the first time, that his investigations had uncovered the fact that a total of 19 shipments had been made between 1994 and 2002 by the same people in Lilongwe, using the same methods and freight carriers – a total of 123.5 tons of ivory being shipped (which I had mis-reported elsewhere as 23.5 tons!), much of it small worked pieces. The value of this is in the order of US $185 million.

Extrapolating from the CITES report on Zambia, which found that the average ivory in the strong room was 4.23 kg; this would mean that 14, 598 elephant were poached in the Luangwa over a nine year period, equivalent to what is considered to be the approximate current population of between 10, 000 and 14, 000 animals – a conclusion reached from aerial census work carried out in 1998, 1999 and 2002. No count has since been conducted. Thus if the population estimates are correct, some 11% of the population would have been taken off illegally each year over a nine year period, which when added to natural mortality, is clearly unsustainable, suggesting that the population census work either undercounted or that our elephant numbers are now very low.

And what is the position of the Zambia Wildlife Authority, a statutory body responsible for wildlife conservation and our 19 National Parks?

In April 2004 ZAWA announced that they were applying to CITES to downgrade elephant from Appendix 1 to Appendix 2 in order to ‘control 20 animals’ considered to be crop raiders. In May 2005, ZAWA applied for a voluntary elephant quota of 40 tusks at a CITES Standing Committee meeting and then went ahead and issued elephant hunting licenses for the 2005 hunting season. On 10 January, 2006, the Natural Resources Consultative Forum (NRCF), a cross-sectoral forum for environment, whose membership includes the hunting industry, resolved that no elephant sport hunting should be conducted in Zambia in 2006 until such time as the necessary scientific information was to hand. The minutes were widely circulated. An advisory note and the minutes of the meeting were sent by the NRCF to the Ministry of Tourism, Environment and Natural Resources, followed by a meeting between the NRCF Chairman and the Minister. No reply to the advisory note has to this day been received. On 11 April 2006 at the Zambia Wildlife Authority offices, an auction for 20 elephant for sport hunting was held and the licenses purchased by one bidder. These 20 elephant, according to the then Director-General of ZAWA, one Habinga Kabeta – former Managing Director of the Kapiri Mposhi Glass Factory, in a statement to the Office of the Vice-President’s Disaster Management Unit, were elephant which had been identified as crop raiding bulls. A number of icon bulls, of inestimable value to the tourist industry, have since been shot, and the poaching of elephant continues without let or hindrance for in January, 2006, Philippine Customs Officials seized six tons of ivory in Manila, believed to have come from Zambia. In June, ZAWA officials set off for Manila, only to find on arrival that the consignment had been stolen.

At the 54th Standing Committee meeting of CITES in Geneva in October of 2006, it was decided that Japan will be the designated buyer – pending certain conditions, of the proposed one-off sale of ivory stocks from Botswana, Namibia and South Africa. A decision on designating China as well has been put off to a later date. Thus it appears, that despite Japan being a major buyer of illegal ivory, legal ivory will now find its way there. And how will we now tell the difference?

WILDLIFE AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION SOCIETY OF ZAMBIA (WECSZ) submssion on Legacy EIA...

2006-11-20T06:47:00.000+02:00

The Manager Inspectorate
Environmental Council of Zambia
P. O. Box 35131, Lusaka
E-mail: pzulu@necz.org.zm
Tel: 01 254094/254130
Fax: 01 254164

WILDLIFE AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION SOCIETY OF ZAMBIA (WECSZ) , Livingstone
P.0 Box 60498

ECZ Submission for the EIA for the LEGACY HOLDINGS ZAMBIA LIMITED proposed “Mosi-Oa-Tunya Hotel and Country Club Estate Project” in Livingstone, Zambia

“Our national parks are as good, only as good, as the intensity with which we treasure them”
John G Mitchel, National Geographic, August 2006.

1) Introduction
2) International Agreements, Conventions and Jurisdiction
3) Golf Course in a National Park
4) Eco Tourism
5) Environmental Impacts
5.1) Birdlife
5.2) Habitat destruction and wildlife
5.3) KAZA TFC
6) Methodology and Baseline Information
7) The Impact on Present Infrastructure
8) Conclusion

1) Introduction
The Wildlife and Environmental Society of Zambia, WECSZ has raised major concerns over the impacts of the Legacy Holdings Zambia LTD proposed Hotel and Golf Estate Project. . This submission outlines the WECSZ objections and the basis for those objections. WECSZ is in agreement with the Legacy EIA statement that the project site will have all its natural vegetation removed and that the result will be “irreversible ecological damage”

The Legacy EIA is actually a project document detailing what is to be done but it does not detail the strategic environmental impacts of such a development to the region as a whole. Many of the facts used in the EIA document are out of date, irrelevant to the site and to the region and are not factual (agricultural statistics, rainfall stastics, employment figures and birdlife). For a multi million dollar investment in an internationally sensitive and crucial conservation area, The EIA for Legacy is seriously lacking in serious data and assessment.

The claim in the EIA that “ The Mosi-Oa-Tunya Hotel and Country Club Estate will be an environmentally sensitive tourism development along the banks of the Zambezi River as well as the Maramba River” is incomprehensible. No amount of mitigation will change the fact that the 220 ha area will be irreversibly changed, the natural environment destroyed and the damage to the park as a whole, and to regional conservation development, devastating. The proposed development would cut the Mosi – oa – Tunya Park and the World Heritage site into two separate parts which has serious implications for the planned improved bio-diversity of the park by the SEED PROJECT including the projected increase in length of stay at Livingstone and the sustainability of Tourism in Livingstone. The danger of the Victoria falls being delisted from its World Heritage Status has major implications for the tourism industry and Zambias standing in the International arena.

The essence of the EIA should be to ask, and then answer, the following question:
Are the economic benefits of the proposed project justifiable against
• completely destroying a World Heritage Site, National Park and protected area, a wildlife corridor, wildlife breeding and feeding grounds
• loss of biodiversity
• permanent alteration of indigenous vegetation
• destruction of Stone Age/Iron Age archaeological sites
• loss of public access to two rivers?
• massive damage to present Transfrontier Conservation Initiatives
• the delisting of Victoria Falls World Heritage Site status
• the massive loss to the economy from tourists who decide not to visit a country which is prepared to sacrifice its heritage for short term gain

WECSZ submits that the irreversible damage to the natural environment at the site of the proposed development far outweighs any potential economic benefits to the local area.
Below is a point-by-point examination of selected issues that arise from the EIA. Each point begins with an issue, in bold, followed by a critique of that issue.

2) International Agreements, Conventions and Jurisdiction
On Friday 10th November 2006 the Times of Zambia reported that the Government has ratified 25 global environmental conventions which play an important role in influencing polices and laws in the sector. Mr. Mutembo, the Copperbelt Deputy Permanent Secretary announced the government “had embarked on a series of initiatives aimed at attaining sustainable socio economic development through sound environmental protection and natural resources management”. How does the proposed development support these ratifications?

• The EIA lists some of the conventions and agreements to which Zambia is a signatory, such as the Convention on Biodiversity, The Ramsar project, IUCN, UNESCO, etc.
• The Victoria Falls and its surrounds - both in Zimbabwe and Zambia - is a World Heritage Site and is therefore protected by international convention. UNESCO declared a 30km radius of Zimbabwean and Zambian territory around the Victoria Falls a World Heritage Site in 1989. At a July meeting of UNESCO's World Heritage Committee in Lithuania's capital, Vilnius, the committee cited concerns that "the integrity of the property [Mosi-O-Tunya National Park] remained threatened by uncontrolled urban development, pollution and unplanned tourism development." In her presentation to the meeting at the Fairmount Hotel, Livingstone on the 6th November, UNESCO commissioner, Mulenga Kapwepwe, said the Victoria Falls, which had put Zambia on the tourism world map, risked losing its world heritage status because of the laxity to consider the protocols seriously.
• The World Conservation Union (IUCN) management plan for the area (The Strategic Environmental Assessment of Developments around Victoria Falls, June 1996) states categorically that no developments should be allowed within the boundaries of the site, and that the wilderness value and the biodiversity of the area are prime resources, which have to be maintained.
• Since then Zambia has ratified a number of international treaties, including :
Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage, and the
African Convention on the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources. The proposed Legacy site is also a designated Important Bird Area (IBA) as declared by Birdlife International and it forms part of the Transfrontier Conservation Area (TFC).

The Post, Thursday November 16th quotes The Minister for Tourism Environment and Natural Resources, Mr Kabinga Pande, “It must be remembered that laws are in place to safeguard the interests of citizens. I have further directed the Environmental Council of Zambia to ensure that existing law on environmental protection is enforced and complied with fully.”

The proposed Legacy site falls under the joint jurisdiction of ZAWA, the NHCC and the City Council:
1) The Livingstone Development Plan, which was approved by Council in 2006, includes the Vision of the Council to guide future development:

• “Livingstone, as the main tourism destination in Zambia, must strive to become the preferred tourism destination in Southern Africa, through provision of a quality tourism experience, by resolutely protecting the World Heritage Site and its surrounds, and actively promoting this unique environment, thereby improving the economic situation and quality of life of the residents.”
• “The mission of the Livingstone City Council is to provide minimum level of services that are affordable and to ensure that the costs of such services are recovered in order to protect the environment of this World Heritage Site and promote sustainable development.”

2) This is further endorsed by ZAWA’s Mosi oa Tunya General Management Plan (GMP) of May 1999, which inter alia states:

• A national park, by definition, must possess nationally significant natural or cultural resources and retain a high degree of integrity as a true, accurate, and relatively unspoiled example of a resource;

• Section 3 (Planning Guidelines) states clearly:
“Management emphasis in national parks will be to minimize all undesirable human impacts on wildlife populations”;

• Section 3.5.1 (Natural Resources) states that the priorities for the management of the national park will include: Protecting and conserving the Zambezi River and its riverine vegetation. Any development – local, national, international – which threatens the integrity of the riverine ecosystem should be opposed in the strongest terms.

• Figure 7 in the GMP illustrates the distribution of management zones within the national park.
A narrow riverside path route is provided between the Maramba River and the present Sun Hotel site for pedestrian access. The rest of that sector is designated for general tourism activity where permanent structures cannot be erected without full justification. Permitted activities in the Tourism Zone include only: game drives; escorted walks; and picnics.

The narrow, riverside development zone north of the Maramba River will be restricted to existing developments and to jetties, information centres, car parks, toilets and picnic sites. In this area “…no new leases will be considered…These limitations are imposed to keep development to a minimum and safeguard the corridor used by wildlife in this narrow and restricted part of the park.”

The road that runs from the cultural centre along the Maramba River to the confluence is a public road and any change in its status requires that it be de-gazetted by an act of Parliament. Zambian Law on land tenure vests all national parks and gazetted sites in the hands of the state, and any lease of such land is subject to normal tender procedures. As former Minister, Sonny Mulenga said the land had not been advertised or subjected to any tender procedures. "We are setting a very bad precedence for the future generation – land which is gazetted, as a World Heritage Site should never be given out for a song. No records have been given on who evaluated that land, and the amount in question is a mockery."

The concession was expanded from 2 ha. to 220 ha. for a reported period of 75 years without going to tender and is therefore procedurally incorrect and subject to cancellation by the Commission for Investigations
ii) The boundaries of the Park would have to be changed by statute to make the concession possible.
iii) The proposed development places ZAWA in default of its statutory mandate as laid down in the Wildlife Act of 1998: section 5(1) (a) and (c)
iv) The concession reduces the area of the National Park, contrary to Section 12 of the Act.

3) Golf Course in a National Park
The Legacy EIA justification for building and destroying a natural, protected area within a National Park is by reference to golf courses in other National Parks, namely Kruger, Pilansberg, Sabi River, Mt Kenya, Aberdares, and Mweya in Uganda.
What is not considered or pointed out is that these other National Parks are far larger than Mosi-Oa-Tunya National Park (MOTNP). The golf courses in these parks do not take up the entire neck of a Park as Legacy would do in MOT NP. The other golf courses do not completely block a wildlife corridor, whereas the Legacy Development would effectively cut the MOT NP into two distinct halves. In Zimbabwe, the Falls are surrounded by the 2 340 ha Victoria Falls National Park and the 57 000 ha Zambezi National Park. The golf course at Elephant Hills on the Zimbabwean side does not, therefore, impact on the free movement of wildlife as there is adequate space for animals to move around the developed area. This is not the case in the much smaller MOTNP where the Legacy Development would take up 3% of the entire park, and block the crucial wildlife corridor of the park.
4) Eco Tourism
The EIA states that “It is the intention of the developers to follow the "eco-tourism" guidelines produced by the Livingstone Tourism Association”. Ideally, true ecotourism should satisfy several criteria, such as
• conservation (and justification for conservation) of biological diversity and cultural diversity, through ecosystems protection
• promotion of sustainable use of biodiversity, by providing jobs to local populations
• sharing of socio-economic benefits with local communities and indigenous people by having their informed consent and participation in the management of ecotourism enterprises.
• increase of environmental & cultural knowledge
• minimisation of tourism's own environmental impact
• affordability and lack of waste in the form of luxury
So, why is ZAWA allowing Legacy to turn a huge area of our National Park into luminous green carpet of landscaped fairway? Is ZAWA under a deluded notion that, because golf courses are green in colour, they are somehow 'green' in the environmentally friendly sense, too? The truth is, golf courses take up too much space, too much water and disrupt the balance of wildlife. Why has ZAWA allowed this when they are tasked with the protection of our natural environment?
5) Environmental Impacts
• The Legacy EIA states that the development would remove all natural vegetation from the site and that it would cause ‘irreversible ecological destruction’ and cause “disruption to Elephant/Animal Corridors”, despite this it insists that the socio-economic considerations outweigh environmental impacts.
• Despite being offered alternative sites on the river Legacy has stated that if refused, Legacy will pull out of Zambia. Why has Legacy Holdings refused to consider an alternative site, despite this being required by Law under the Environmental Protection and Pollution Control Act (EPPCA). How can Legacy Holdings Zambia embrace irreversible environmental damage and the loss of World Heritage Status without considering an alternative site?
• The EIA report states “The main objective of this EIA is to examine impacts on ecological units and ecological processes of the project area including impacts on physical, biological, socio-economic and cultural environment and to provide mitigation measures for identified impacts”. The resorts are being built on that specifically identified narrow part of the national park where elephants cross the river and move through to the gorges - an area of major conservation importance for water birds and other wildlife, and also the only part of the river near the Victoria Falls accessible to the people of Livingstone. So how do you mitigate the effects of permanent environmental damage, the blocking of a wildlife corridor, fencing hippo out of their grazing grounds, the pollutants from chemicals and pesticides and fertilizers, the loss of biodiversity and the closure of access of locals to the river? The mitigating measures put forward by the EIA, i.e. by planting exotic grass, an elephant corridor of 200 meters, allowing a few tame impala to run around, sparing some trees for weavers to nest in, or planting Acacia nigrescens, which take years to mature, are paltry and trivial. Having seen the plans for proposed project, which include a swimming pool built on the Zambezi riverbank, (despite recommendations for building 50 meters from the river), it is obvious that the recommendations in the EIA and mitigating factors would also be ignored.

5.1) Birdlife
The riverine vegetation is a crucial breeding and feeding ground for many species of waterbirds, and woodland species prefer the shrubs, scrub, grasses and trees of the drier mopane areas. At the Lower Maramba to Zambezi Confluence, at the proposed site for Legacy, on the 14th June 2006, R Stjernstedt, S. P. Norman and M. Kalaluka , carried out a brief study of the birds in the area , covering a distance of 1.3 km. This is a walk frequently used by bird-watchers and naturalists in Livingstone, because it is a stretch of undisturbed riverine vegetation on the banks of the Zambezi River, looking directly across to a nesting colony of Egrets and Cormorants. This is also a site, almost the only point left to the general public, to see such Zambezi specialities as Rock Pratincoles, White backed Night Heron, Osprey, and Finfoot.

The survey reported 49 species of bird. Notable among birds special to this habitat were
Purple Heron African Goshawk
Gymnogene Red billed Wood Hoopoe
Orange breasted and Grey headed Bush Shrikes African Golden Oriole
Yellow-bellied Greenbul Brown headed Kingfisher
Trumpeter Hornbill Lesser Honeyguide
Collared Palm Thrush Eastern Bearded Scrub Robin
Yellow breasted Apalis Spectacled Weaver.

A longer study, conducted over a ten-year period by the Livingstone Museum Department of Natural History has identified 53 species of waterbirds in the area. Renowned ornithologist and local resident, Robert Stjernstedt, reports that 420 bird species are known to occur in the Victoria Falls Area. The survival of these birds depends on the biodiversity of the area.

For this reason, the area within and around the proposed site for Legacy Holdings’ development of a golf course and resort was declared an IBA (Important Bird Area) declared by Birdlife International. The aim of Birdlife International’s Important Bird Area Programme is to identify and protect a global network of sites that are critical for the long-term survival of all bird species and their habitats. Birds are prone to endemism (found in a restricted distribution area) and are an excellent indication of biodiversity in general. If an area holds rare or endemic birds or a particularly diverse range of birds, it is likely to hold a comparable array of other organisms. When water levels drop, rocky islands and sand bars are exposed along the river above the falls. Rock Pratincoles breed in large numbers on the rocks, and sandbars attract species such as White-fronted Sand Plover and African Skimmer. The riparian forest is home to species such as White-backed Night Heron, Western Banded Snake Eagle, African Finfoot and Brown-necked Parrot. A number of interesting species has been recorded on the boundary of the National Park at the Livingstone Sewerage Ponds including several rare waders and a variety of crakes. Slaty Egret has occurred on a few occasions. The general area also holds large numbers of indigobirds, amongst which can be found odd individuals imitating Brown Firefinch” From Important Birds of Zambia, Peter Leonard. Published by ZOS 2005

Threats to the biodiversity of the area identified by Birdlife International are the general level of disturbance and the effects of the ever-expanding tourist industry, which include light aircraft and helicopters, tourist activities and the immediate disturbance caused by new roads and infrastructure.

5.2) Habitat destruction
The expected Civil Works and construction phase of the Mosi oa tunya Hotel and Country Club as laid out in the EIA would be expected to last twenty-four months.

“This phase would involve the following activities, which would adversely affect the environment:
i) Clearance of the existing natural vegetation and trees;
ii) Removal of the top-soil around the foundation area;
iii) Construction of access road and internal roads within the project area;
iv) Installation of surface water drains;
v) Construction of buildings.
The activities would be undertaken using front-end loaders, graders, wheelbarrows, shovels and picks. The soil removed from the foundation area would be stockpiled in designated areas for future re-planting”.
The IUCN report states that “no mature trees or riparian vegetation should be cut down”. The natural vegetation provides crucial habitats for a wide variety of species of wildlife: large mammals (elephant, hippo, waterbuck, bushbuck and occasionally buffalo), smaller mammals (baboons, vervet monkeys, cane rats, genets, scrub hares, civet, duiker, mongoose, night apes, etc.) as well as birds, insects and reptiles.

In a study by WECSZ, 54 species of woody plants were recorded on the right bank of the river. It was found to be heavily infested in places with exotic Lantana, Melia and gums (Eucalyptus); apart from these the indigenous vegetation appears intact, with Kigelia africana, Combretum, Acacia, Diospyros, Terminalia, and Bauhina specimens of good size, being undisturbed by human encroachment. Of special interest is tree wistaria, Bolusanthus speciosus, a marginal species for Zambia but an endemic monobasic genus of the Zambezian phytochorological region. This species by itself is enough to recommend the site for preservation, as it is of frequent occurrence here and the trees are of good form and height, thus offering Zambians a unique opportunity to see this beautiful tree within their own country.

The IUCN management plan states “there should be access to the riverbank and animal crossing points”. The Legacy development ignores this stricture. The importance of elephants in overall conservation is as a keystone species, i.e. they encourage biodiversity through dispersal of seeds through dung, through their large ranges and by opening up overgrown, dense thickets giving other plant species a chance to grow. Elephants frequent the area between Sun Hotels and the Maramba river, their passage hindered by increasing tourist activity and the developments built to support tourism. The area in question is the last remaining intact area of good vegetation outside of the Park where elephants are free from human pressure. It is crucial that this area remains undeveloped and conserved as a route for animals from the Park and for those crossing the river to travel to the gorge and the Mukuni area. MOT is already damaged by overgrazing and deforestation. The competition for feeding is very high, and so the elephant destruction to trees within the park area is devastating. Over 100 elephants have been seen to use the Legacy area, in various-sized herds, primarily for feeding on fruiting trees , grasses and shrubs. There is very little evidence of trees having been pushed over in the Legacy site area, probably because of the lack of competition from other game. This alleviates much pressure from the fenced Zoological Park. If the Legacy Development went ahead, the increase in destruction to the fenced Zoological Park would be disastrous and could permanently alter the vegetation and carrying capacity of the Mosi-Oa-Tunya National Park. There is also likely to be an increase in elephnant /human conflict upriver past the Sinde if the elephant access to the gorges is blocked off.

5.3) KAZA TFC
One of the “major negative environmental impacts of the Legacy Holdings Development have been identified in the EIA as : Disruption to Elephant/Animal Corridors”.
At the World Summit on Sustainable Development, one of the key resolutions was to foster Transfrontier Conservation Area. ZAWA has signed an agreement with the Kavango Zambezi Transfrontier Conservation Area (KAZA TFC) to establish a Transfrontier Conservation Area (TFCA) with the Peace Parks Foundation (PPF) in agreement with the Africa Wildlife Foundation (AWF). The underlying philosophy of TFCA’s is that cooperation in the management of natural resources that occur along international boundaries will spur increased collaboration between neighbouring states, which will benefit conservation through the wise use of these shared resources by
• Enhancing biodiversity conservation across borders
• Socio-economic development based on sustainable management of natural resources
• Enhancement of cooperation between states, government agencies and communities across political borders.

In practical terms the combining of protected areas across borders allows for improved management and increased ranges for migratory animals such as elephant. It also allows for the marketing of a larger and more diverse tourism destination.

At a meeting held in Angola in April 2003, the Ministers responsible for tourism in Angola, Botswana, Namibia, Zambia and Zimbabwe, agreed to establish a major transfrontier conservation and tourism development area in the Kavango and Upper Zambezi River basins.The proposed Kavango Zambezi TFCA falls within the Okavango-Upper Zambezi TFCA Zone, where the international borders of five countries converge. It includes a major part of the Upper Zambezi basin, the Okavango Basin and Delta. The most significant feature of the Kavango Zambezi TFCA is the large drainage system running though it (the Zambezi, Kavango/Okavango, Kwando and Chobe rivers). The core area is a series of wetlands (Okavango, Chobe/Zambezi) and saline lakes (the Makgadikgadi Pans). The other major feature is the presence of significant populations of the African Elephant. The area is estimated to have nearly 200 000 elephant which is around 30% of the world’s estimated population. Elephants are recognised as the flagship of conservation. The TFCA is designed to conserve landscape-scale ecological function, and elephants being such important herbivores need large landscapes to move around naturally and cannot be conserved inside traditional game reserves and national parks, which are too small and do not necessarily cover international boundaries.

The Kaza TFCA boasts renowned natural features such as the Okavango Delta (the largest Ramsar Site in the World), the Victoria Falls, and the Kafue wetlands as well as considerable tracts of riverine and floodplain habitats along the Okavango and Zambezi Rivers and their tributaries, namely the Kwando, Chobe and Quito Rivers. The TFCA covers many areas formally gazetted as national parks, game reserves, forests or wildlife management areas as follows:

Namibia
• The Mamili, Mudumo and Bwabwata National Parks
• State Forests

Zambia
• National Parks: Liuwa Plains, Kafue Park, Mosi oa Tunya and Sioma Ngwezi National Parks
• Game Management Areas: West Zambezi, Mulobezi, Sichifulo, Bilili, Namwala, Mumbwa, Lunga-Luswishi, Busanga and Kasonso
• State forests

Botswana
• National Parks: The Chobe, Makgadikgadi, Nxai Pan National Parks and Moremi Game Reserve
• Wildlife Management Areas: Okavango, Kwando, Nunga, Ngamiland, Boteti and Nata State Lands
• State forests: Kazuma and Chobe
Zimbabwe
• National Parks: Hwange, Kazuma Pan, Zambezi and Victoria Falls National Parks (and the Matetsi Safari Area)
• State forests: Kazuma, Panda Masuie and Fuller forests
Angola
• National Parks: Luiana and Mavinga Game Reserves
• State hunting areas: Longa-Mavinga, Luengue and Mucusso Coutadas

KAZA TFC is currently working with ZAWA and WECSZ in creating the links between the protected areas in Zambia and those in the neighbouring countries. The Open Areas that occur between the Game Management Areas and the Zambezi River will create the links between the Kafue Park and the protected areas in the neighbouring countries, with the vision of creating wildlife corridors and linkages to re-establish the old elephant migratory routes between the Zambezi River and parks such as the Kafue Park and the Sioma Ngwezi Park.

Current studies for the KAZA TFC include seeking land features between conservation areas (parks/forests) that meet the habitat needs of elephants, mapping the landscapes that effectively allow fragmented elephant populations to interact, and evaluating the suitability of these wildlife habitats with the emphasis on the habitat requirements of elephants. Recent satellite data received from Elephants without Borders, an NGO working to track elephant movements to establish elephant corridors using satellite imagery have shown that elephants use the entire area of the proposed Legacy Holdings site, not just a corridor along the Maramba river. The Legacy proposed “elephant corridor” along the Maramba River is simply not viable: elephants do not walk in straight lines and the area is not a walkway but a feeding ground. Preserving a corridor will not preserve the functioning of the crossing point as the entire area needs to be preserved. As has been shown in Botswana, elephant corridors need to be not less than two kilometers wide to be sustainable.

6) Methodology and Baseline Information

Baseline data was collected through field appraisal, discussion with relevant agencies and institutions in the concerned areas and consultation with local communities and individuals in the project area.

The foundation stone was laid prior to any consultation with local stakeholders, including the Livingstone City Council. The recommendations and concerns put forward at the Scoping Meeting held by Legacy at the Fairmount Hotel have been noted but ignored. The ECZ public meeting held at Maramba River Lodge was more of a political rally with cadres bussed in to disrupt environmental concerns, than an assessment of environmental impacts. Threats and racism were used to intimidate the public. ECZ was not on the panel, questions were directed to the Legacy Board of Directors. ZAWA was not present to discuss environmental concerns. NHCC was not present. Few of 300 or so participants had heard of the EIA document, fewer had even read it. Was this an public hearing for Environmental Impact Assessment?
7) The Impact on Livingstone Infrastructure
The increase in traffic and burden on already disintegrating road networks, water and sanitation and electricity in Livingstone would be enormous. Legacy expects a maximum of 3330 guests, 1850 permanent employees and 1250 visitors on a daily basis. The conference center provides for 1000 delegates. There would also be a craft production site which would require more people transported to and fro, as well as fresh produce, i.e. fish and vegetables and other guest supplies produced on site. The traffic increase and congestion, not to mention road accidents and increased pressure on our roads, would be devastating. An estimated increase of 60 more vehicles a day would be used in the construction phase and would be active at peak hours and, once operational, an additional 200 vehicles a day, of which 50 would be bulk supply vehicles. The repercussions for the already-congested road network in Livingstone are alarming.
8) Conclusion
The EIA states that: ”the socio-economic benefits of the project to the communities in the project area of influence outweigh the “no-development” scenario. The project is therefore being recommended for implementation assuming the incorporation of the recommended mitigating measures and implementation of the Impact Mitigation Plan and Environmental Monitoring Plan”.
WECSZ is very aware of the need for employment in Livingstone. We have high unemployment and poverty which requires urgent addressing. The Livingstone community desperately needs more income, more development and improvement to its infrastructure. We do not have a proper or adequate refuse disposal system, we do not have sufficient water, our roads are in a shocking state of disrepair and our economy is limited to seasonal tourism . So Livingstone residents are certainly not against development. They need and want development.
However, we have to embrace responsible tourism for long term sustainability. By destroying the World Heritage Site and a National Park, the negative effects of this development will outweigh the positive impacts of jobs.

Tourists are attracted to Zambia primarily for its vast and relatively intact wilderness areas. Most lodges are eco-friendly, small-scale structures with minimum impact on the environment; but the potential damage to the tourism industry, by over-development and the complete commercialisation of the Victoria Falls area could have serious repercussions for Livingstone. Tourists come to Livingstone, and for that matter, Zambia, primarily for a wilderness experience. They do not come to Livingstone to find something like Florida or the coast of Majorca. The construction of Legacy resorts on a World Heritage Site, permanently altering the aesthetic beauty of a natural environment and blocking a wildlife corridor, is likely to alienate those attracted to “the real Africa”.
The main attractions for visitors (and hence the thousands of visitors every year) is the Victoria Falls, the Mosi-Oa-Tunya National Park and the wildlife in our area. IUCN stresses that one of the principal attractions of the area is its perceived “wilderness” value and “the juxtaposition of natural wild area with modern visitor amenities. If this wilderness is lost due to over-development, then the visitors will not come and the economy and social structures will suffer.” IUCN Victoria Falls – Skeleton Management Plan Part Quite simply, if the Park is destroyed through over-development, many of the visitors will stay away. And, as a World Heritage Site it is incumbent on us to protect it for all mankind.
As George Schaller says in an interview with John. G Mitchell in National Geographic, October 2006, “It’s essential that each country keep part of its natural heritage untouched, as a record for the future, a baseline to measure change, so people can see the splendor of their past, before the land was degraded. And if we ever want to rehabilate habitat, we need to see how things used to be. These parks and reserves, these untouched places are also genetic resevoirs, where plants and animals that don’t exist elsewhere still survive. They can be invaluable to the human species as a source of food or medicine. If we destroy the parks, they’re gone forever, and we may be losing something invaluable to us”.
“There are certain natural treasures in each country that should be treated as treasures, and it’s up to conservation organizations to fight on behalf of the special places. Too many of these organizations have lost sight of their purpose. Their purpose is not to alleviate poverty or help sustainable development. Their purpose is to save natural treasures”
Tourism is one of the world's largest and fastest growing industries as more people are exploring other countries, destinations and cultures. “Ecologically sensitive areas, those where natural resources are critically endangered by physical changes and which contain a great diversity and interdependence of living habitats”, are experiencing an increase in visitation. Sensitive areas hold the main assets on which the tourism industry depends, so conservation is a must. Any changes in the component of an ecosystem will have unpredictable effects on the entire system”. These sites may be national parks, world heritage sites, wilderness area or cultural sites. As UNESCO’S Gina Doubleday says, “Tourism is great; there’s more discovery and more awareness about the sites, but it does mean we have to work hard to protect them”. Selling off a park, or degazetting it, serves short term appetites while compromising long term ideals. “Parks exist in the dimension of economics as well as geography, biology, symbolism as well as politics and time.”
We also cannot afford to lose our World Heritage Status. We have much pride in boasting such an internationally recognised status. The Victoria Falls is one of the Seven Natural Wonders of the World (CNN). This deserves all the protection it can get. The response to the proposed Legacy development in our national park has been met with unbridled passion, respect and love for our wildlife and our natural and historical heritage. The publicity that this project has received, both locally and internationally, and the response from all walks of the community have shown that, the value of our wildlife and our environment and its protection outweigh the economic effects of this development.
Ali Shenton, Vice-Chairman of the Livingstone Branch.

ZAMBIA’S STATE OF THE ENVIRONMENT

2006-11-19T05:01:00.000+02:00

I. P. A. Manning
19 November, 2006.

The present imbroglio concerning the issue by the Zambia Wildlife Authority (ZAWA) of a 75 year Tourism Concession Agreement on 220 ha. in the Mosi oa Tunya National Park – part of the Victoria Falls World Heritage Site, to a vigorously assertive black empowerment company, Legacy Holdings Limited, and its plans to build a golf estate in the middle of it, stirs the nation.

It is now clear that the lease is without legal foundation, and that the proposed development would, in Legacy’s own words in its 360 page Environmental Impact Statement, remove all the natural vegetation and result in irreversible ecological damage. It is, in short, an impending natural and national disaster as it would destroy the Park, destroy the Victoria Falls World Heritage Site, drive away tourists and investors, and destroy the credibility of ZAWA, the Environmental Council of Zambia (ECZ) and the Government itself.

Zambia, as never before, has suddenly become aware of the environment; not just the natural resources: the wildlife, the forests, lakes and rivers, but the state of the environment. The recent closure of the Konkola Copper Mining Company’s operations due to its continuing pollution of its surrounds, the news that Kabwe is one of the ten most polluted places on earth, the sufferings of the poisoned poor, ensures that the ECZ and the myriad Government ministries, departments and statutory bodies responsible for the environment now have to place its well-being at the forefront of all they do. Therefore they need, as a matter of extreme urgency, to ratify the draft National Policy on the Environment (NPE), and build the ECZ into a formidable institution able to implement it – fully supported by the Natural Resources Consultative Forum (NRCF) and the National Movement Against Corruption (NAMAC).

There is growing impatience within civil society, among donors, rural communities and Government for the attainment of the UN Millennium Development Goals through sound environmental and natural resource use. The clarion call by the Minister of Tourism, Environment and Natural Resources (MTENR) for funding for an Institutional Framework and Action Plan for inter-sectoral implementation under the auspices of the MTENR, and in line with the National Decentralisation PoliPolicy, 2003, underlines the crucial importance of the NPE, buttressed by the appropriate legislation and regulations. This will help attain and ultimately secure the goal of development.

ZAMBIA’S STATE OF THE ENVIRONMENT

2006-11-19T04:56:00.000+02:00

I. P. A. Manning
19 November, 2006.

The present imbroglio concerning the issue by the Zambia Wildlife Authority (ZAWA) of a 75 year Tourism Concession Agreement on 220 ha. in the Mosi oa Tunya National Park – part of the Victoria Falls World Heritage Site, to a vigorously assertive black empowerment company, Legacy Holdings Limited, and its plans to build a golf estate in the middle of it, stirs the nation.

It is now clear that the lease is without legal foundation, and that the proposed development would, in Legacy’s own words in its 360 page Environmental Impact Statement, remove all the natural vegetation and result in irreversible ecological damage. It is, in short, an impending natural and national disaster as it would destroy the Park, destroy the Victoria Falls World Heritage Site, drive away tourists and investors, and destroy the credibility of ZAWA, the Environmental Council of Zambia (ECZ) and the Government itself.

Zambia, as never before, has suddenly become aware of the environment; not just the natural resources: the wildlife, the forests, lakes and rivers, but the state of the environment. The recent closure of the Konkola Copper Mining Company’s operations due to its continuing pollution of its surrounds, the news that Kabwe is one of the ten most polluted places on earth, the sufferings of the poisoned poor, ensures that the ECZ and the myriad Government ministries, departments and statutory bodies responsible for the environment now have to place its well-being at the forefront of all they do. Therefore they need, as a matter of extreme urgency, to ratify the draft National Policy on the Environment (NPE), and build the ECZ into a formidable institution able to implement it – fully supported by the Natural Resources Consultative Forum (NRCF) and the National Movement Against Corruption (NAMAC).

There is growing impatience within civil society, among donors, rural communities and Government for the attainment of the UN Millennium Development Goals through sound environmental and natural resource use. The clarion call by the Minister of Tourism, Environment and Natural Resources (MTENR) for funding for an Institutional Framework and Action Plan for inter-sectoral implementation under the auspices of the MTENR, and in line with the National Decentralisation Policy, 2003, underlines the crucial importance of the NPE, buttressed by the appropriate legislation and regulations. This will help attain and ultimately secure the goal of development without destruction.

Of hydros and smelly fish...

2006-09-02T09:01:00.000+02:00

The Kalungwishi hydro project could present us all and the local fish-dependent population with another Livingstone Nat Park 'development' fait accompli........a 160MW hydro project intending to take out a 140m head of the Kalungwishi River water (including the three huge waterfalls; Chimpempe, Kabwelume & Lumangwe) and the surrounding relatively unspoilt environment is huge and of likely huge impact - this not just in ecology & environment terms, but also in terms of the survival of the (alarmingly fast-growing) populations of people along this river. All for electricity which we don't need for Zambia (which the local populations will not get and couldn't afford even if they did) but which will be nice and profitable to export.
What regard is given to just how important such natural resources are - and how profitable they could be if protected and used sustainably for Zambia and her people's long term good?
There seems to be an incredible ignorance as to just how close the rural populations are directly dependent on the fragile natural environment - their shelter; their food; their water; everything.
How many jobs will the hydro project produce? How many livelihoods will it destroy or change for the bad?

The Kafue Pollution & Dead Fish Population incident - as usual the reported ECZ response to the Kafue pollution incident(s) is to say the least weak (which is what you would call it if you're exceptionally polite). The latest from the farmers in that area is that the ECZ now reports to them that it could have been caused by a tanker that leaked acid when on a bridge.
So the ECZ's reported opinions and findings change by the week:
*First, the "initial findings" were that it was nothing to do with mining pollution;
*Then, it was mining pollution;
*Now, it was a tanker spilling acid from a bridge.

What next? - probably nothing conclusive while we let the culprits off the hook with the excuse that "we are suffering from the legacy of the past".

==================
PS - one widespread feature of Zambia's share of the Congo Basin system of rivers in Luapula & N provinces is that the mosquito nets issued free by certain donor organisations and intended to 'save children's lives', are going straight to the rivers to end the fish populations lives, which of course in turn will end the children's lives...........
=============================
PPS - have you heard about the "tourist development" of the Zambezi Source?? It has been completely Nat Heritage Conservation "Commissioned" into a complete tourist joke.
=========================================
PPPS - at 1.5MW (initially 0.75MW), the hydro scheme on the upper Zambezi at Kaleni Hill again is very many times what's needed for the mission station and for little Ikelenge town. It's also too much for the beautiful Zambezi Rapids stretch of the river, which will be a gonner very soon.
===========================

COPIES OF PRESS REPORTS

Govt shortlists 2 companies for Kalungwishi power station development
By Kabanda Chulu
Thursday August 17, 2006

GOVERNMENT has shortlisted two companies for the development of the proposed
160-mega watts Kalungwishi Hydro Electric Power station in Northern Province.

Office of the Promotion of Private Power Investments (OPPPI) director John
Wright said Olympic Milling in association with Lunzuwa Hydro Corporation
and Lunsemfwa Hydro Power Company would be invited to submit their proposals
relating to the development of the power project.

"Government has decided to concession the development of Kalungwishi power
station by inviting the private sector and two companies have been
shortlisted for the same project," Wright said.

"The Ministry has just completed designing the framework and will through
the national tender board formally invite these two firms to submit their
proposals that will be evaluated and negotiations will be commenced with the
successful bidder who will be given the concessional rights to develop the
project."

Wright said when the Kalungwishi project is fully developed and becomes
operational, transmission lines would be constructed to link the
Zambia-Tanzania-Kenya interconnection at Kasama.

"There is potential to produce 160 mega watts at Kalungwishi and after its
completion, there will also be provision to construct power transmission
lines (250 kilometres) that will link at Kasama to join the interconnector
regional project," said Wright.

Studies for the development of hydro electric power on Kalungwishi River was
earlier carried out by Legger, Waster Meyer, Piesold and Uhlmann Consultants
in 1973.

It was envisaged then that it was feasible to provide a power station, which
would utilise the confluence of Lumangwe, Kabwelume and Chimpempe falls that
is 140 metres deep.

-----------------------

Kafue river indicates mine waste - ECZ
By Carol Jilombo
Saturday August 19, 2006

ENVIRONMENTAL Council of Zambia (ECZ) manager-inspectorate Patson Zulu has
revealed that samples taken from the Kafue River indicate mine water waste.

Last week, fish of various sizes were found dead or dying in the Kafue River
due to suspected chemical poisoning.

To this effect, ECZ had warned the public against consuming water or dead
fish from the Kafue River.

Zulu said the fish died from mine effluent, which had caused the pollution.

Zulu said ECZ was already on the ground sorting out the problem.
"We have already asked the mines within the vicinity to show us their
operation and production books so that we can ascertain the activities they
engaged in during the period the fish were dying," said Zulu.
And ECZ director Edward Zulu on Thursday said the mines were the major
pollutants of rivers.

Konkola Copper Mines (KCM) was earlier this year given up to December 31 by
ECZ to comply with pollution control regulations.
"KCM has a waste disposal site but the pollution control dam in Chingola is
full and that is the biggest polluting factor at the moment. It requires a
redesign of the entire system," he said.

Zulu acknowledged that the smelters on the Copperbelt were old and designed
at a time when there was no environmental concern.
"We are suffering from the legacy of the past but pollution is something we
have to manage," said Zulu.
Rolf Shenton

Zambia: Biodiversity is Under Threat, Says Mulele

2006-08-22T10:33:00.000+02:00

The Post (Lusaka)

August 21, 2006
Posted to the web August 21, 2006

Carol Jilombo
Lusaka

BIODIVERSITY in Zambia is under threat from habitat destruction and Invasive Alien Species (IAS), Ministry of Tourism Permanent Secretary Russell Mulele has said.

During the launch of the UNEP/GEF IAS project on removing barriers to invasive plant management in Africa in Lusaka, Mulele said it was common knowledge that invasive alien species had continued to pose threats to biodiversity, the environment and associated economic activities in Zambia.

Invasive Alien Species (IAS) are species that are foreign to the eco-system under consideration and whose introduction causes or is likely to cause economic or environmental harm.

The species can also cause harm to human health.

"Current levels and trends of encroachment by invasive species are worrying and the situation has resulted in calls for drastic and concerted efforts before the situation deteriorates," Mulele said. He said Zambia had not been spared from the invasion of plant invasive species that caused social, economic and biological problems in the national economy.

"For example, in 1998 we declared the Kafue weed (Water hyacinth) as a national disaster," Mulele said.

He said efforts put in place to manage the threats posed by the invasive plants had not yielded the desired results because the problem still persisted and the rate at which it was spreading was a source of worry to the nation.

"Despite control efforts by various stakeholders, the weeds have spread and continued to grow profusely in most rivers and Wetlands, thus highlighting the need to intensify monitoring, mitigation and management measures," he said.

Mulele said the aim of the project was to reduce or remove barriers to the management of invasive plant species through effective implementation of Article 8(h) of the Convention on Biological Diversity in the four pilot projects of Ethiopia, Ghana, Uganda and Zambia. Article 8(h) states that parties are required to put in place conservation measures and as far as possible and as appropriate to prevent the introduction of, control or eradicate alien species, which threaten ecosystems, habitats or species.

Mulele said the project would address issues that had hindered effective management of invasive alien species in Zambia.

"These are a weak and fragmented policy and institutional framework, lack of information, slow implementation of invasive alien species prevention and control plus lack of capacity for sustainable invasive alien species management," he said.

Mulele said the barriers were translated into four project components, the successful implementation of which would save the nation millions of kwacha in controlling the invasive species.'

The Global Environmental Facility (GEP) through the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) funds the project while the government will meet the co-financing part.

Chinese and Chipata Chipper

2006-08-03T15:46:00.000+02:00

The Chinese want hardwood for export and sleepers for a new railway line between Chipata and Malawi.They want 3000 trees in Nsefu, 3000 in Kakumbi and 21,000 in Nsefu. It's all illegal. The Chairlady of the MMD in Chipata, Mrs Mbewe is the middle person in Jumbe. She has got the local people to get the licences and cut the trees, though she is paying for them which is illegal as they are supposed to be for local use only. 150 have been cut already and most if not all ferried out on lorries.

The Forestry Officer in Mambwe (Musiwa) is in on it, as is Chief Jumbe. All further licences have been suspended while an investigation goes ahead. ZAWA are dead against it. Cutters have now been forced to apply for a pit saw licence (min 40, max 60 trees a month!). This will give everyone (Forestry, ZAWA, Environmental Council of Zambia and other stakeholders) chance to have their say and it will then be refused or curtailed.
anonymous

OCCASIONAL ZAMBIA CONSERVATION BULLETIN, 28 APRIL 2006 (No. 1)

2006-08-02T08:03:00.000+02:00

On 10 January, 2006, the Natural Resources Consultative Forum (NRCF) resolved that no elephant sport hunting (ESH) should be conducted in Zambia in 2006. The minutes were widely circulated; no replies were received in support – or answers to my queries, from elephant conservationists, CITES or the US Fish & Wildlife Service, though the Biodiversity Convention Secretariat replied that they had no real powers over signatories
An advisory note - and the minutes of the NRCF ESH meeting, were sent by the NRCF to the Ministry of Tourism, Environment and Natural Resources (MTENR), followed by a meeting between the NRCF Chairman and the Minister. No reply to the advisory note was received from the Minister.

On 11 April 2006 at the Zambia Wildlife Authority (ZAWA) offices, an auction took place for 10 of the 20 elephant for sport hunting (the other 10 being taken up by the concessionaries where they had been made available)
Subsequent efforts to hold meetings of the full cross-sectoral NRCF to discuss policy and legislative issues affecting natural resources and environment have not been successful since January. Matters requiring attention include: the proposed Livingstone lion park and breeding project which has been approved by ZAWA anf for which no EIA was called for; regulations on Game Management Areas (GMAs), game ranching and captive breeding and national parks; tourism leases, wildlife harvesting quotas and the rationalization of hunting concessions, the impact of wildlife on customary and statutory landowners, the implementation of the National Policy on the Environment, feedback on joint forest management, national park public private partnerships, community natural resource management empowerment; UNDP/GEF programme on protected areas – and the state of the pilot projects in Bangweulu and Lower Zambezi; the World Bank SEED programme; the Bangweulu Ramsar site, its management and need for greater protection...

A case is currently before the High Court regarding the sale of part of the West Mvuvye National Forest No. 54 by Chieftainess Mwape to a businessman. A 99 year renewable lease was issued, signed only by the Commissioner of Lands – although, for areas in excess of 250 ha, it is required that the Minister of Lands signs. The plaintiff is the brother of Chieftainess Mwape and Senior Chief Luembe. The Forestry Department appear disinclined to act. There are other similar cases where national forest has been alienated.

The proposed sale of land greater than 250 ha by Chief Nyalugwe to a businessman was refused by the Nyimba District Council and by the Lands Minister

Senior Chief Luembe, removed as chief by the community and local government, has been re-instated – although he has yet to receive the return of his official stamp. He had been removed partly due to the dissatisfaction of the Community and the CRB for selling off a large area of land to a Petauke businessman behind the backs of the Luembe Trust – a trust of which I am co-director. This sale was not approved.

The Zambian Government - through the Ministry of Lands, is reviewing the draft land Policy. The World Bank is assisting them in finalising the review process. Recently the World Bank consulted a number of stakeholders on land policy related issues and have drafted an action plan for finalising the Land Policy, this draft action plan was presented to some 12 or so participants on Wednesday 12th April 2006. I attended part of the meeting. The draft plan – to be handed in to the Ministry on 13 April, had concluded that in future all land in Zambia fall under the control of the Ministry, with chiefs acting as ‘land administrators’ – a report which clearly had concluded that customary usufruct and tenure, and the chiefs, were obstructing Zambia’s progress. On my objecting to their obviously limited consultations and on the revolution they were suggesting, the consultants said they had been constrained by the list of people and organizations supplied by the Ministry of Lands, and had therefore not consulted the NRCF, the Royal House of Chiefs, Local Communities, the private sector and civil society. The WB representative at the meeting said that they would have to now introduce this essential further step in the process. The Land Alliance needs to monitor this.

From 19 – 21 April, the Environmental Investigation Agency (UK) held an International Ivory Enforcement Training Workshop in Lusaka funded by DFID. Rolf Shenton, Dave Cummings and I, plus the Nyalugwe CRB Secretary and a Luembe community member Mbeza Safaris is funding at NIPA taking the course on legal prosecutions. A presentation on the Singapore ivory seizure was made (2002) in which the details of the shipment of 6.5 tons of ivory – suspected to come mostly from the Luangwa valley in Zambia, sent from Lilongwe, via Durban, to Singapore, was made. DNA investigations of the ivory and soil isotope analysis so far reveals that the elephant come from two savanah populations. These now need to be matched with samples from Luangwa and elsewhere. While presenting his part in the investigation, Samuel Ngosi of the Malawian Anti-Corruption Bureau revealed – possibly for the first time, that his investigations had uncovered the fact that a total of 19 shipments had been made by the same people, using the same methods and carriers, between 1994 and 2002 – a total of 123.5 tons of ivory being shipped, much of it small worked pieces. No arrests or prosecutions have as yet been made. Some of this ivory might be hippo ivory (see TRAFFIC reports on the swing to hippo ivory), given that a recent survey I made of over 300 hippo in the lower Luangwa could find only one alpha male. In addition, in the nearby Lukushashi and Lunsemfwa rivers, most of the hippo have been poached.

Elephant continue to be poached in the Zambezi valley – one last week; and a village scout in Nyalugwe’s country in the south Luangwa, who had poached an elephant last year, is still on the run.

The recent elections held for the Luembe Community Resource Board have been nullified as a result of a boycott of the election by the residents of the Luembe section of the West Petauke Game Management Area, who – as the designated local community partners in the hunting lease agreement, felt that they should hold a majority Board representation. A new election has been held, the same chairmen re-elected, as well as a representative of all the Village Area Groups (VAGs).

Meetings have been held with the Disaster Management Unit (DMU) in the office of the Vice-President to determine why food relief has not been forthcoming for some communities in the West Petauke GMA hard hit by animal damage and flooding of villages and cropland. The investigation revealed that money had been issued to agents (ARDRA) in January, but that they had not yet delivered. Promises were made that the army would deliver food soon. In addition, promises made to communities by the DMU and ZAWA in March of 2005 (to empower specified community members and professional hunters to undertake crop protection) have not been forthcoming

Some professional hunters are currently assisting the Director of Conservation in ZAWA, Dr Lewis Saiwana, in the training of crop and human protection guards, with guidelines provided by Barry Shenton, former senior warden and veteran of the elephant control group in the Department of National Parks & Wildlife, a group established in the 1930s. In addition, the legendary control guard and hunter, Rice Time, will be called on to offer his sage advice.

In The Post newspaper of Friday 21 April, a letter marked SECRET was printed which had been copied to the Secretary General of the Patriotic Front Party by the Zambia President’s Principal Private Secretary, and which had been addressed to myself and three other people, stating that the President was in receipt of information that we were working against his MMD Party, and that – amongst other things, we had agreed to create artificial food shortages in Zambia by buying-up and destroying maize. The Post editorial of 22 April strongly condemned State House for the letter. The President was out of the country at the time. Three of the named people are safari operators. The allegations made are patently false. On 27 April, one of the accused was visited by security police. He was told that we had all been cleared and that an apology would be forthcoming. However, the rather sorry saga is further evidence of some rather sinister forces at work within the Zambian wildlife and tourism industry.

TOAZ ADVISES MINISTRY ON NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

2006-08-02T03:36:00.000+02:00

THE POST NEWSPAPER (TUESDAY, AUGUST 1 2006)

TOAZ ADVISES MINISTRY ON NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
Joan Chirwa and Florence Bupe

TOUR Operators Association of Zambia (TOAZ) has advised the Ministry of Tourism, Environment and Natural Resources to concentrate on sustainable management of natural resources and not its business component. Association chairperson, Rolf Shenton said in countries where money was hard to find, natural resource management was always treated as a trivial concern compared to making money. Shenton said appropriate management of natural resources was being hindered by double responsibilities that the Ministry of Tourism and Environment was given. He said the Zambia Wildlife Authority (ZAWA) and the Department of Tourism were always in conflict, regarding issues of natural resource management and reserving money for tourism. Shenton noted that problems of wildlife conservation by ZAWA were as a result of limited funding to the authority, which ended up granting hunting licenses to individuals once it ran out of finances.

"In principle, I would like to see the whole ministry of tourism rationalised so that it deals with natural resource management and that the business issues from tourism are dealt with by the Ministry of Commerce as in any other business sector," Shenton said. ""The Natural Resources Consultative Forum is the ideal place to deal with cross-sectoral issues. Whilst we mix business and conservation we will always compromise sustainable use of resources. We will continue eating chicken instead of feeding it and sharing the eggs. Very Soon we will all be standing around in poverty with no natural resources to manage. The same argument applies with ZAWA which must become a small, muscular regulatory body that we can trust to control exploitation of wildlife resources in a sustainable manner, not one that leads the harvest because they need more money."

Customary land and signs of light!

2006-08-01T08:04:00.000+02:00

At the Fifth National Development Plan (FNDP) Stakeholder's meeting in Lusaka, chiefs' representative, James Matale, said that chiefs should be allowed to retain absolute title to their land, while giving investors and non-subjects renewable lease rights under various chiefdom trusts, and that " the land leased for commercial use should attract royalites and fees which will form part of the income and resources for financing adminstration and development projects in their areas." This is the first public statement revealing that the chiefs have studied the Landsafe Trust Investment Model for customary and protected areas, which I had given to the House of Chiefs a year ago, and that they see it as a way forward for attracting investment, but without alienating the land.

However, what chiefs have to remember is that - with the exception of Barotse, it is the headmen - chaired by the chief, who are the custodians of land - all land ownership being vested in the President. Total authority over land cannot be exercised by chiefs alone as they will continue alienating it against the wishes of their headmen and subjects. And non-subjects (Zambians) should not have to make lease payments for land used in the traditional subsistence sense.

The Natural Resources Ship of Zambia

2006-08-01T07:27:00.000+02:00

THE Law Association of Zambia (LAZ) recently stated that after the dissolution of the National Assembly the Vice-President, Cabinet ministers, provincial deputy ministers and deputy ministers should - in accordance with Article 45(2), 46(2) and 47(3) of the Constitution of Zambia, cease to perform their respective functions. Given that the Zambian Wildlife Authority (ZAWA) Board is currently dissolved, and that the Minister of Tourism, Environment and Natural Resources (MTENR) is responsible for appointing its members, a new ZAWA Board may not be appointed until after the election on 28 September 2006. Thus ZAWA is left without a Board to control its actions, and without a Minister to give regulations and statutory instruments effect.

VICE-PRESIDENT LAYS LEGACY FOUNDATION STONE

2006-07-31T05:40:00.000+02:00

On Saturday 29 July 2006, Vice-President Lupando Mwape laid the foundation stone of the Legacy Holdings, Mosi-oa-Tunya Hotel and Golf Estate development in the World Heritage Site in Livingstone, saying “The planned provision of permanent jobs by this Legacy Holdings project is really commendable because this sector is reported to be riddled with vices of casualisation and payment of slavery wages. Government will not hesitate to deal firmly with any investor found practicing this form of abuse and exploitation of the Zambia people. Those who have been hero-worshipped somewhere else based on misdirected superiority complex will not be worshipped in Livingstone and the country in general and I therefore direct Haakayobe (PS) to submit a report on these culprits within seven days so that government puts a stop to these managers’ honeymoon”.

He said the proposed project has been allocated 200 hectares of the national park.

Chumamaboko

2006-07-30T15:59:00.000+02:00

Chumamaboko

2006-07-30T15:53:00.000+02:00

CHUMAMABOKO, FIRST OF THE CENTRAL AFRICAN PROFESSIONAL HUNTERS?

At the time that F. H. Melland - a nephew of Prime Minister Asquith, arrived in 1901 on foot at Mpika in order to take up his post with the British South Africa Company as Assistant Native Collector, Chumamaboko (arms of iron) had for some time been a leading member of the elite elephant hunting, achiwinda clan. Famous in that part of the world for his hunting prowess, he soon attracted the attention of Melland who wanted to spend as much time as possible on his favourite pastime, hunting. They were to stay together until Chuma’s death shortly before Melland’s departure for England in 1924 when North-Eastern and North-Western Rhodesia were removed from BSA Company control and became Northern Rhodesia, administered by the Imperial Government.

Chuma became Melland’s professional hunter at the same time that the pioneer professional white hunters, the Hill brothers, Clifford and Harold, began conducting lion hunting parties on their ranch in the Machakos area of Kenya. Arguably therefore, Chuma was the first professional hunter in what now constitutes Zambia.

While at Mpika until about 1912, he guided Melland all around the district, venturing far into the Bangweulu swamps and the nearby Luangwa Valley. On the Luitikila river, which has its headwaters near Mpika, they shot a 116 pounder which today can be seen in the Thring Museum in England, one of the biggest elephant ever taken in Zambia, the record being a 136 pounder with one tusk.

Chuma followed Melland from Mpika to Solwezi, thence to Kasempa, Kafue and finally, to Mazabuka. And all the time they hunted together.

Melland wrote three books, one on elephant hunting, one on the anthropology of the Kaonde in Kasempa district, and one recounting his journey with Chuma and a friend from Bangweulu to Cairo, hunting elephant on the way. There are a number of fish named after Melland as a result of his Bangweulu fish collections, and he made valuable contributions in anthropology and on African development. His friends were people like Mickey Norton, perhaps the greatest of all elephant hunters, and J.E. Hughes who operated the first professionally conducted safaris in the Bangweulu and whose classic book, ‘Eighteen Years in the Bangweulu’ is still much in demand.

Chuma was remarkable in every way: Melland recounts the tale of how Chuma, a man revered by his fellow Zambians, once personally cleaned up the latrines in the labour lines at Kasempa during an outbreak of dysentery, hubris being absent from his character.

The picture of Chuma was given to me by Melland’s eldest daughter, Amicia, in 1998, a remarkable woman who worked for many years in Chile. F.H. was killed at the outbreak of war in 1939 when he fell between the train and the platform. He had just been appointed Secretary to the Royal Africa Society.

People of Luembe.....waiting!

2006-07-30T11:22:00.000+02:00

LANDSAFE INVESTMENT TRUSTS

2006-07-30T11:13:00.000+02:00

LANDSAFE INVESTMENT TRUSTS FOR CUSTOMARY LAND AND PROTECTED AREAS OF ZAMBIA

-A PRELIMINARY GUIDE PREPARED FOR CUSTOMARY LEADERS, GOVERNMENT AND COMMUNITY RESOURCE BOARDS -

WHAT IS A LANDSAFE INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIP
A Landsafe investment partnership is made up of the local community and government, investors, and local and international NGOs. It is a sustainable business partnership of equals who share a common goal of integrating community development with that of biodiversity and land conservation. It is investment driven; and it does not take away customary land.

A Landsafe partnership may be registered as a trust company under the Companies Act CAP 388 of the Zambian Laws (limited by guarantee) or under the Land (Perpetual Succession ) Act (Cap. 186 of the Laws of Zambia) - non-profit, having as its trustees the chief (chairman of the headmen), the investor, a representatives of the main partner NGO, the Community Resource Board (dealing with wildlife interests) and the District Council (or a governmental organization in the case of protected areas such as ZAWA and the Forestry Department) in which the programme is being conducted, and other key stakeholders.

WHY DO CHIEFDOMS NEED LANDSAFE DEVELOPMENT?
The chiefdoms cover more than 94% of the land in Zambia and contain a wealth of natural resources. Development has not come to these areas, and the opportunities for attaining food security and the raising of living standards are few in places where villages are scattered, lie far from Government services and from markets, and where crops are preyed upon by wildlife. The Government does not have the money or the capacity to deliver full development, and donor support merely ensures continued dependency on aid. The way forward is to encourage investment, but investment which comes in as a partner of communities, that supports the traditional structures and that does not take away the land.

HOW CAN A LANDSAFE INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIP ASSIST DEVELOPMENT?
Chiefs are empowered under the Lands Act No. 29 of 1995 to dispose of land for up to 99 years on leasehold tenure – provided Government agree. Driven by a need to generate income, chiefs are selling off land, removing it forever from the community. The Landsafe model ensures that land remains in the villagers’s control – except, in exceptional cases, perhaps for small areas needed for high-cost buildings. Chiefdoms also do not own the wildlife of their areas, this resource being held by Government and given out as yearly hunting quotas. In support of Government’s policy of de-centralization and devolution, the Wildlife Act of 1998 offers an opportunity for the community to obtain more powers over its own wildlife resources – one of its main opportunities for raising living standards and for wealth creation, giving as one of its main objectives ‘to facilitate the active participation of local communities in the management of the wildlife estate’. This Act, also allows for the recognition of Community Resource Boards (CRBs), which, representing the Zambia Wildlife Authority (ZAWA), may obtain and make use of game quotas and are responsible for the protection of wildlife and people (from wildlife – the original function of ZAWA’s predecessor organizations). However, CRBs are only empowered under the Wildlife Act, making the formation of Trusts – with responsibility for all natural resources, essential. Landsafe makes use of these two Acts – as well as the proposed Forest Act of 1999 and the National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (NBSAP) – and the recent National Policy on Environment (May 2006), to lay the groundwork for the future development of customary land so as to conserve the biodiversity and, at the same time, to stimulate much needed rural development.

WHAT IS THE ROLE OF LANDSAFE PARTNERS?
• The Customary Authority
The Authority i.e. the chiefs and their headmen, is, along with the investor, the co-director of the Trust responsible for the development of the area, lending to it his traditional powers and those enshrined under the Lands Act, ensuring that secure access to and use of the land is possible, and that the community benefits.
• The Community Resource Board
The CRB, being only empowered under the Wildlife Act, is there to assist in the sustained use of the wildlife resources for the benefit of the community – in particular in taking ownership of game quotas and for deploying and managing village scouts, protectors of the very resource which should be sustainably utilized. It is also the vehicle to serve the community by making applications, where feasible, for wildlife harvesting rights, as allowed under Part 3(3) of the Wildlife Act – a rarely invoked right.
• The Investor/manager
The role of the investor/manager is to provide the seed money to start the project, to recruit other investors, and perhaps to manage the development. For this to happen there has to be an incentive to do so, as well as the necessary protection and security of tenure for the investors. The manager will also have the crucial role of managing a conservation area (a conservancy), one containing scattered communities, and possibly endangered species and protected areas. This is an holistic development requiring experience in wildlife management, biodiversity protection, tourism development, artisanal and commercial agriculture, forest exploitation, community development and small business development.
• The NGOs
The NGOs act as umpires between managers and investors, the customary authority, the community based organizations (CBOs) and Government. They assist the scheme to grow, and lay the groundwork for long-term sustainability. Crucially, they are empowered to carry out community development, identifying projects through participatory rapid rural appraisal, developing project proposals, drawing on money built up in a trust fund, as well as accessing donor funds for micro-level development.

WHAT WILL LANDSAFE INVESTMENT DO IN ZAMBIA?
• It will create a business partnership between the community, Government and investors, expressed in the form of a trust company in which the chiefdom, the investor/manager, NGOs, CBOs and the District Councils are subscribers
• It will allow ‘use and occupancy’ (usufruct) of land – from which it will derive rentals – managed by the trust in a trust fund, to benefit the community and the biodiversity on which it depends
• It will help to empower the CBOs so that they are better able to conserve the natural resources of the chiefdom for the benefit of all concerned
• It will provide for sustainable agricultural and natural resource development
• It will improve livelihoods and, in comparative terms, create wealth
• It will provide food security
• It will provide a framework for sustainable donor involvement
• It will provide a model and framework for the delivery of true rural development, particularly in resource rich areas
• It will not alienate the land

WHAT DO THESE WORDS MEAN?
Biodiversity
Biological diversity (biodiversity): the variations in biological organisms at ecosystem,
species and gene level
Chiefdom
Authority over land held under customary tenure
Landsafe Investment Model
An integrated conservation and development model (symbolized by the traditional
African chair) established within areas of customary tenure and associated protected
areas, and carried out by a partnership between investors, customary authorities and
government, and non-government organizations
Conservancy
A conserved area (not, necessarily, a game ranch)
Customary Area
Land held under customary tenure i.e. Open Areas and Game Management Areas
Customary Authority
The custodian of land held under customary tenure (chiefs and headmen)
Customary Tenure
Land held, through long tradition, by village headmen under the chairmanship of a chief
(Appendix 4 of the Laws of Zambia)
De-centralization
The allocation of responsibilities for decision-making and operations to lower levels of
government, community organizations, private sector, and NGOs
Devolution
The transfer of power from a central to a subordinate level of organization, particularly
from a central government to regional or local governments
Ecosystem
A dynamic complex of plants, animal and micro-organism communities and their non-
living environment interacting as a functional unit
Game
Commonly hunted animal species specified under the Wildlife Act
Holism.
The principle which makes for the origin and progress of wholes in the
universe. It is not only creative but self-creative, and its final structures are far
more holistic than its initial structures
Holistic Management.
The management of the whole
Hunting Concession
An area where authority to hunt within a specified hunting block has been given by ZAWA and the local community, to a company for a specified period of time
Land Alienation
The conversion of land from customary tenure to leasehold tenure: provisionary – 14
years; full title – 99 years (renewable)
Land tenure
The rights of individuals or groups over arable, grazing and residential land, how such
rights are acquired, what they consist of, how they operate in the holding, transfer and
inheritance of land and how they may be extinguished
Local Community
The resident ‘owners’ of customary land - including GMAs, other than owners of tourist and camp lodges or hunting concessions – who by virtue of their rights over land, invest in and should derive benefits from the sustainable utilization of the natural resources in their area; or as defined by ZAWA in the 2003 Safari Lease Agreement as ‘The total number of villages, their residents and traditional rulers within a Game Management Area
Natural Resources
Land and its biological resources: the soils, vegetation and the fauna
Open Areas
Customary land not included in GMAs
Partner
One who shares risks, losses and profits
Private game ranches
Fenced privately owned property (leasehold) (ZAWA: Draft Policy on Private Wildlife
Estates)
State Land
Land which is not situated in a customary area (Lands Act 1995)
Strategy
A set of chosen actions to support the achievement of a specified development goal
Sustainable Use
Use of an organism, ecosystem or other renewable resource at a rate within its capacity
for renewal
Tenure System
Legal and institutional framework which determines the ways in which rights to natural
resources (property rights) are defined and enforced
Usufruct
The principle of customary tenure whereby anyone can have access to and the use of a
piece of land but cannot claim any form of ownership of it. The latter implies in English
jurisprudence – from which Zambia’s laws are derived, title to the lands and full rights of
management including the rights of alienation (ownership at law) but not necessarily
possession or enjoyment of benefits which may belong to the owner at equity.

The Luangwa River, Luembe's country.

2006-07-30T11:06:00.000+02:00