E2493 v2 Community Consultation Report and Community Stakeholders Profile A contribution to the Project Preparation for: Extension of Kasanka Management System to Lavushi Manda National Park Part I GEF Agency project ID: P108882 GEF Agency: World Bank Other Executing Partners: Kasanka Trust Ltd. Published by: Kasanka Trust Ltd. Date: January 2009 Contents: Contents: ........................................................................................................................2 1. Summary ....................................................................................................................4 2. Acknowledgements....................................................................................................6 3. Background to the Community Consultation/ Profiling ............................................6 4. Objective of Consultation and Terms Of Reference..................................................8 4.1. Objectives ...........................................................................................................8 4.2. Project Brief ........................................................................................................8 5. Methodology ..............................................................................................................9 6. Results......................................................................................................................12 6.1 General findings.................................................................................................12 6.2 Stakeholders response to the proposed project ..................................................16 6.3 Stakeholders response and findings per Chiefdom............................................19 6.4 Results from Stakeholders Workshop................................................................27 7. Discussion ................................................................................................................29 8. Conclusion and recommendations ...........................................................................31 9. References................................................................................................................34 Final report Community Consultancy LMNP Part I 2 List of Abbreviations ADC Area Development Committee BAMU Bangweulu Area Management Unit CRB Community Resources Board DDCC District Development Co-coordinating Committee DOPE Development of People’s Empowerment ESIA Environmental and Social Impact Assessment GEF Global Environment Fund GMA Game Management Area KT Kasanka Trust Limited KNP Kasanka National Park LMNP Lavushi Manda National Park MAFF Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries NP National Park PF Process Framework REMNPAS Reclassification and Effective Management of the National Protected Areas Systems Project SLNP South Luangwa National Park UNDP United Nations Development Program WB World Bank WWF World Wide Fund for Nature ZAWA Zambia Wildlife Authority Final report Community Consultancy LMNP Part I 3 1. Summary A community consultation tour was undertaken as part of the project preparation for the Extension of the Kasanka Management System to the Lavushi Manda National Park (LMNP). The goal of the tour was to complete the consultation process with a large portion of the community and other stakeholders, to collect comments and concerns as well as to prepare a socio-economic profile of the communities within the 50 km of the park limits. During the tour 4 out of 5 Chiefdoms surrounding the LMNP were visited. Kopa chiefdom was not visited due to the Senior Chief being out of the country. In each chiefdom public meetings, (special interest) village group meetings and random village interviews were held using participatory techniques. Separate meetings were held with each ruling Chief. Additional information was collected through interviews with representatives from the Local District Councils and various line departments in Mpika and Serenje, as well as other relevant stakeholders in the project area. A large majority of the stakeholder representatives consulted were supportive of the proposed project for the Extension of the Kasanka Management System to Lavushi Manda National Park. Valuable information and advice was provided by many interviewees. Many acknowledged that the LMNP is almost depleted of wildlife as a result of poaching. It was also stated there is other destructive use of the park such as cutting of trees for honey and caterpillars. The general concensus was that restoration of the park would be a good idea which would create jobs and capacity building for the local community and support the development of the surrounding areas. Also the Chikuni Community Partnership Park as well as South Luangwa National Park could benefit from the proposed project. LMNP was thought to have a good tourism potential. The restoration of Lavushi Manda National Park was already incorporated in the Mpika District Development Plan. A representation of the main stakeholders confirmed their support of the proposed project once more by signing a ‘Declaration of Intent’ at a conclusive Stakeholder Workshop. Some issues and concerns emerged from the field research and/or the Stakeholders Workshop, amongst them: ¾ Signs of donor fatigue amongst the community (‘Another research team demanding our time and then we hear nothing anymore’). Community members insisted the project should take off and not remain in the investigation phase. ¾ It will not be easy to improve the protection of LMNP as many people benefit from the trade in bush meat. ¾ Illegal hunters might not be willing to change unless they are assisted to adopt sustainable livelihoods. ¾ An estimated 32 households currently live inside the park, occupying an estimated 1800 ha (1.1% of the park) as confirmed by recent aerial photographs ¾ Involuntary resettlement is not acceptable (note from the author: there are no plans for involuntary resettlement) ¾ People from the Chiefdoms surrounding the park should benefit from the jobs in LMNP, not outsiders. ¾ The proposed project area is very big. There is a chance it will turn into a white elephant with insufficient funding and insufficient presence on the ground. Final report Community Consultancy LMNP Part I 4 ¾ Kasanka Trust must prove it has the capacity to support a much larger organisation. ¾ The current Kasanka Trust activities should not suffer from the new project. Main recommendations were: ¾ In the short term, priorities should be with park protection, tourism development, conservation education and community relations. ¾ In the longer term, emphasis should move towards livelihood support, CBO support and land-use planning, whilst the activities from the short term are carried on. ¾ Kasanka Trust will need to secure funding to sustain community outreach activities for a minimum of 8-10 years ¾ As for law-enforcement and community outreach the project should make its presence felt both inside and outside the park. It must show it is serious and follow up frequently. ¾ Much effort is needed to improve law enforcement inside and outside the park, including the reinforcement of roadblocks to curb the trade in bush meat. Valuable advice was provided on this topic. ¾ Park boundaries should be demarcated clearly. ¾ Existing illegal settlements and fields inside the park should be mapped in detail and a baseline should be published and notified to those inside the park and their leaders after which no more expansion (clearing of land) will be tolerated. ¾ Meanwhile, a process of discussions should be started with the encroaching farmers and their leaders to gradually resolve the issues. This should be done as soon as possible under the leadership of ZAWA and in close cooperation with the Honorouble Chiefs. A solution must be agreed upon within a year from the release of the baseline survey ¾ Project planning should be done in a participatory manner with a fair representation of stakeholders. ¾ The project should work in close cooperation with the surrounding conservation projects. Final report Community Consultancy LMNP Part I 5 2. Acknowledgements This study would not have been possible without the hospitality and time provided by all interviewees. Our sincere thanks go out to all people who participated in our meetings and commented on our explanations of the proposed project. Our special thanks go out to HRH Senior Chief Kopa, HRH Chief Chiundaponde, HRH Chief Mpumba, HRH Chief Muchinka and HRH Chief Chitambo IV for allowing us to work in their chiefdoms. Without their advice and their assistance in organizing the public meetings and the meetings with various village groups this research would not have been possible. Our special thanks also go to the Warden Bangweulu Area Management Unit (BAMU) for chairing the conclusive Stakeholders Workshop and to the Reclassification and Effective Management of the National Protected Areas Systems Project (REMNPAS) Bangweulu Demonstration Site for assisting with transport for the invited Chiefs to attend the Stakeholders workshop. 3. Background to the Community Consultation/ Profiling The World Bank/ GEF approved a Project Preparation Grant on 20/12/2007 for the Extension of the Kasanka Management System to Lavushi Manda National Park. The project will develop and implement an effective Protected Area management system based on the existing and successful Public-Private-Partnership (PPP) model in Kasanka National Park (KNP). This project builds on the impressive progress made in KNP due to an efficient management scheme, introduced and administered over the past 20 years by the non-governmental Kasanka Trust Limited (KTL), under a special public-private partnership (PPP) agreement with the state Zambian Wildlife Authority (ZAWA). The project seeks to expand KT's management to include the restoration of the Lavushi Manda National Park (LMNP) (150,000ha). This will be done by (i) securing financial sustainability of Kasanka National Park; (ii) mobilizing Kasanka Trust experience to improve the management of Lavushi Manda National Park; (iii) linking both parks to the greater Bangweulu ecosystem through protected wildlife corridors and coordinated management, monitoring and research activities; (iv) contributing to the development of Northern Zambian tourism routes (a priority of the Government of Zambia highlighted in Zambia’s fifth national development plan) by placing a new product on the market for the northern route; (v) ensuring cost-efficiency and leverage fund raising and (vi) enhancing synergies with ZAWA’s “Reclassification Project”at the broader systemic and institutional levels related to policies, legal framework and monitoring efforts of the PA system. A Project Identification Form (PIF) and Project Preparation Grant (PPG) was submitted to GEF and endorsed on March 31, 2008. A one-year Memorandum of Understanding between KTL and ZAWA on the cooperation in the restoration, development and management of Lavushi Manda National Park was signed on May 21, 2008. A legal agreement for the PPG was signed between Kasanka Trust Limited and the World Bank in July 2008. KTL is the designated executing agency for the PPG. Final report Community Consultancy LMNP Part I 6 Context of the consultation To ensure good co-existence with the Lavushi Manda and Kasanka National Park local stakeholders (communities, community resource boards, traditional authorities, NGOs and other projects), KTL must design the project in such a way that it conforms to the socio, economic and cultural context. To achieve this, the communities around the park must be informed and consulted and KTL must understand their socio-economic realities. It has been determined that this project will trigger three World Bank Safeguards Operational Policies (OPs): Environmental Assessment (OP 4.01), Natural Habitats (OP 4.04), and Involuntary Resettlement (OP 4.12). In order to fulfil the requirements of implementing a World Bank - GEF project, Kasanka Trust Ltd (KTL) will require an Environmental and Social Specialist to prepare: (1) an Environmental and Social Impact Assessment (ESIA) which satisfies the requirements of World Bank Safeguard Policies OP 4.01 and OP 4.04, and (2) a Process Framework (PF) which satisfies the World Bank's OP 4.12 Safeguard Policy. - Environmental Assessment (OP 4.01). This is a conservation operation that seeks to improve the status of biodiversity and management practices in the Lavushi Manda and Kasanka National Parks. There will be investments such as small infrastructures within the LMNP (staff houses, base camp, gravel roads, conservation centre) and activities such as anti-poaching etc. that can affect the local environment as well as the lives of neighbouring communities. The impacts of specific investments may be difficult to identify during the preparation phase. Therefore, an environmental assessment is needed for both parks to ensure the identification of potential impacts and mitigation options and will be included in the ESIA including reviewing the capacity of the biodiversity and the protected areas to take the volumes and numbers of small infrastructure investments to ensure that the area will not be saturated (including using the mandatory Management Effectiveness Tool). The assessment will involve local communities in a highly participatory manner in preparation and implementation. Their responsibilities will be developed and clarified to ensure more positive impacts to the local population. - Natural Habitats (OP 4.04). The two parks are essentially natural habitats which are expected to gain enhanced protection status through the proposed projects but there is a small possibility that new tracks and access to the LMNP locally increases the ecosystem disturbance. - Involuntary Resettlement (OP 4.12). The improved resource protection and law enforcement measures will restrict access to natural resources from people who were using it before. There is no involuntary displacement of habitation expected. Final report Community Consultancy LMNP Part I 7 4. Objective of Consultation and Terms Of Reference 4.1. Objectives (1) To complete the consultation process with a large portion of the community and stakeholders, collect comments and concerns expressed during consultations and report on what issues were encountered and identified by communities during consultations. (2) To identify the potential environmental and social implications of the extension of Kasanka management system to Lavushi Manda National Park and provide and mitigation measures for potential negative impacts and to prepare a Process Framework which identifies ways in which impacted communities will be included in project goals. 4.2. Project Brief The consultant is expected to review current WB Safeguards OPs (which can be accessed at www.worldbank.org) to ensure up-to-date knowledge and understanding of these OPs. Then, the consultant shall undertake the following specific tasks: Consultation & socio-economic baseline • Carry out a desktop review of various publications and report to prepare a socio- economic profile of the communities within the 50 km of the park limits (this information is to be provided on a map) • Carry out a rapid verification of profile through visit to communities and local authorities (District Councils, Chiefs, etc.) • Identify the relevant local and national stakeholders that need to be consulted about the project. • Hold several separate consultations with these groups using participative techniques such as public meetings, village group meetings (e.g. women, youth, farmers) and interviews with community leaders and representatives. Special effort must be made to ensure vulnerable groups are adequately consulted and participate in consultation process. • Organize a stakeholder workshop on site, with representatives of ZAWA, the district councils, the local chiefs, the various GMA community resource board and other stakeholders of tourism in the areas and interested parties. Special effort must be made to ensure vulnerable groups are included in stakeholder workshops and consultations. • Identify areas where the project is likely to need awareness-raising, assistance and capacity building that would allow them to understand and benefit of the project. Environmental (including Natural Habitat) and Social Impact Assessment (ESIA) • Identify negative environmental impacts that would or may result from implementation of the project (this may include potential improved access to poachers resulting from better roads or better burning regimes, river siltation due to poorly constructed infrastructures, etc) • Identify negative impacts on the natural habitat that would or may result from implementation of the project (this may include a decrease in the area of the Final report Community Consultancy LMNP Part I 8 national park as a result of modification of limits) • Identify potential negative social impacts that may result from implementation of the project (e.g. increased human-wildlife conflict). Special attention should be given to the impact on employment, livelihood, agriculture and food security, poverty, gender issues and traditional social organization and networking • Prepare an Environment and Social Impact Assessment that considers both Environmental Assessment and Natural Habitats safeguards. • Prepare a Mitigation Plan for those impacts that are clearly identified, if any, and a Management Framework for those impacts that may be identified during implementation, e.g. as a result of a road rehabilitation contract within the park Process Framework (PF) • Establish a process by which affected communities participate in design, implementation, and monitoring of relevant project activities. • Describe process by which communities will benefit from the project. • Criteria for eligibility by which affected person(s) will be determined. This will establish how affected communities will be involved in identifying adverse impacts, assess magnitude of impacts, and establish criteria by which mitigation measures will assist an impacted community (or person). • Identify measures that will be implemented to assist affected communities (or persons) in improving, or at least maintaining, their standard of living. • Describe grievance procedures by which disputes relating to restriction to natural resources will be resolved. • Assess and describe administrative and legal procedures including: (1) previous agreements between communities and government agencies relating to access to natural resources, and (2) administrative and financial responsibilities. • Identify monitoring and evaluation process which is participatory and monitors effectiveness of measures taken to improve (or maintain) standard of living. This report will address the Community Consultation & Socio-economic Baseline. The ESIA and PF will be addressed in separate volumes. 5. Methodology The consultancy team consisted of the consultant Ms. Cornelie van der Feen de Lille, the consultants’ assistant Mr. Frank Malata and the camp attendant Mr. Chilekwa Damson. The consultant has over 10 years experience in the field of Community Conservation, Participatory Resources Management and Sustainable Development in Zambia. As for the limited time available it was decided to focus the community consultancy at the chiefdoms directly bordering the Lavushi Manda National Park, namely: Senior Chief Kopa, Chief Chiundaponde, Chief Mpumba and Chief Mpumba. The chiefdom of Chief Chitambo IV was added to this list. His chiefdom does not directly border the Lavushi park but his chiefdom/GMA was thought to have a considerable influence on the LMNP through an existing wildlife corridor. Another important reason for including Chief Chitambo IV was the fact that the stakeholders workshop was planned to be held in his area, including a visit to Kasanka National Park and a discussion of lessons learnt from the private-public partnership in Kasanka. Final report Community Consultancy LMNP Part I 9 Before the start of the consultancy tour the team was introduced by the Kasanka Trust Park Manager to Chief Chiundaponde, Chief Muchinka and Chief Mpumba, being the chiefs who had not met the consultant before. In the period September – October 2008 the team visited 4 out of 5 Chiefdoms around the LMNP. The Chiefdom of Senior Chief Kopa was not visited due to the Senior Chief being out of the country. The team spent 2-3 days in each Chiefdom first having a separate meeting with the ruling Chief, then addressing a public meeting and various meetings with women groups, farmer groups, ADC/CRB, chipupilas and chiefs’ advisors. The respective meetings were organized with the assistance of the ruling Chief in that area. In addition some random household interviews were held in each chiefdom. All methods used were participatory and female and male participants were encouraged to give their own views even if they were different from others. The Bomas of Mpika and Serenje were visited to collect additional information, advice and statistical data from representatives of relevant line departments as well as the District Councils. Where possible tourism, conservation and other relevant stakeholders were also interviewed whilst on tour. Annex 9.1 provides an overview of the team’s travel scheme. A total of 12 days was spent in the various chiefdoms; 6 days were spent in Mpika or Serenje Boma and 6 days in total were spent traveling. At each public meeting the Kasanka Trust was introduced and an outline was given of the proposed Lavushi Manda Restoration Project. The participants were then asked to give their views on the proposed project and to advice on how to better protect the LMNP. Participants were also asked how illegal activities in the park could be halted. Annex 9.2 contains the story outline provided at each public meeting. The various stakeholders were interviewed using an open ended interview structure. Two checklists with relevant topics were used to guide the discussion with the Chiefs/ government officers and the various community groups respectively. The checklists are included in Annex 9.3 and 9.4. Public meetings and interviews basically focused on the following main topics: ¾ Current status and importance of LMNP ¾ Proposed plans for LMNP ¾ Kasanka Trust current activities and results ¾ Importance of land use planning and linking up with other protected areas ¾ Issues, concerns and advice for proposed plans Annex 9.5 provides an overview of people interviewed during the tour. After the community consultation tour a Stakeholders Meeting was organized for the Chiefs and community representatives from all Chiefdoms visited including Senior Chief Kopa. Representatives from Mpika and Serenje BOMA were also invited. The goal of the meeting was to present the results of the community consultation tour and to discuss the way forward. The meeting was held on 17-18 November at the Kasanka Conservation Centre next to Kasanka National Park. Annex 9.6 contains the minutes of the Stakeholder Meeting and Annex 9.7 the Declaration of Intent signed at this meeting. Finally Annex 9.8 provides the GPS data of some of the places visited during the consultancy tour as well as some relevant road indicators and Annex 9.9 - 9.11 contain maps which indicate the proposed project area as well as places visited during the tour. Final report Community Consultancy LMNP Part I 10 Final report Community Consultancy LMNP Part I 11 6. Results 6.1 General findings Location and size The whole area of the Lavushi Manda National Park as well as the Chiefdoms of Kopa, Chiundaponde and Mpumba are located in the Northern province of Zambia and under the jurisdiction of the Mpika District Council. The Kasanka National Park and the Chiefdoms of Muchinka and Chitambo IV are in Central province and fall under the jurisdiction of the Serenje District Council. An overview of the location of the LMNP and neighbouring protected areas is provided in Figure 1. A sketch overview of the location of some chiefdoms around the proposed project area is provided in Figure 2. A map detailing the national and a regional position of the proposed project area in Zambia is provided in Annex 9.15 and 9.16. A map detailing the locations of villages/areas visited is presented in Annex 9.17. Final report Community Consultancy LMNP Part I 12 Figure 1: Location of proposed project area Final report Community Consultancy LMNP Part I 13 Figure 2: Approximate location of chiefdoms in/ around proposed project area General socio-economic profile It has been difficult to obtain hard data on specific socio-economic development specified per chiefdom, ward or district. In some cases no official (detailed) data Final report Community Consultancy LMNP Part I 14 exist, in other cases they do exist but are hard to come by as they are only kept by a few key persons. For example, during the tour we managed to obtain a copy of the District Situational Analysis of Serenje but not from Mpika. The Mpika DSA was only obtained 3 months later. All chiefdoms visited are remote, rural and low income areas with little support from the central or the local government. The majority of the people live from subsistence farming, using a chitemene system of agriculture. Cassava, maize and groundnuts are the major sources of agricultural produce. All areas experience poverty, little development, low levels of education and few paid jobs. Schools and clinics are often far apart, resulting in long walking distances for pupils and patients. Kopa chiefdom is the only area which has a secondary school. The literacy levels in Mpika district are 62.8% for adults and 54.4% for youths (Zambia population census 2000). The teacher-pupil ratios are invariably low, e.g. in Serenje District 1:53 as opposed to the national standard of 1:40. In Serenje 11.6% of pupils are without a teacher and only 50% of teachers have been provided with a house. As for agricultural extension, 31.5% of the farming households are living without the services of a camp extension officer. In terms of food security the situation in Serenje District is far below expectation: for example only 32% and 28% of the optimum level of the staple foods maize and cassava are produced. In community development, 70% of the target staff in Serenje District are without accommodation (Serenje District Situation Analysis 2005). From our observations the situation in Mpika district is not much different from the situation in Serenje district. In all chiefdoms the human populations are reported to be growing fast but there has been little or no land-use planning for human settlements, farms, conservation areas and the use of natural resources. The official population figures from the District Situational Analysis/ Population Census are usually an underestimate. Estimates from other (field) sources are probably more realistic (Table 1). Table 1: Some features of chiefdoms in proposed project area (Source: Mpika District Situational Analysis 2007, Serenje District Situational Analysis 2005; Zambia Census of Population and Housing 2000) Chiefdom District Population Population Approximate (DSA /census (estimate other surface estimate) sources) (km2) Chiundaponde Mpika 6.924 25.000-30.000 1190 Kopa Mpika 6.460 20.000 600 Mpumba Mpika 16.703 100.000 ? Muchinka Serenje 32.855 100.000 ? Chitambo Serenje 21.312 80.000 3860 Infrastructure and communication networks are problematic in most areas. All feeder roads are untarred and receive little maintenance, often making them impassable in the rainy season. The Mpumba, Muchinka and Chitambo chiefdoms are slightly better of with a tarred road passing through the area. Most chiefdoms have no or limited access to newspapers, television, phone or internet. The radio is the most reliable means of receiving news. The chiefdoms of Mpumba and Muchinka have recently been (partly) covered by a mobile telephone network. Final report Community Consultancy LMNP Part I 15 Community Based Organizations The central government recently introduced a decentralization policy. Part of the policy is the promotion of Area Development Committees which are responsible for the development of their ward. The Mpika District Council has actively promoted this policy, resulting in the set-up and training of ADCs in all wards of Kopa, Chiundaponde and Mpumba chiefdoms. ADC’s have also been set up in Muchinka Chiefdom but they seem to be dormant. For Chitambo Chiefdom it was agreed with the Serenje District Council that the Chitambo CRB would take on the role of the ADC (F. Mbulwe, personal communication) All chiefdoms visited have some more or less active women groups, farmer groups and farmer cooperatives. Some of these groups are supported by local government extension officers or by NGO’s, others do not receive any support. Chiundaponde, Kopa and Chitambo have an active Community Resources Board (CRB) which are supported by extension workers from various NGO’s. NGO support in conservation and community development The communities of Chiundaponde and Kopa have been receiving some support in the areas of conservation and community development from WWF, UNDP/REMNPAS, DOPE and World Vision. Recently the Chikuni Community Partnership Park was initiated with the help of the UNDP/REMNPAS program. The Kasanka Trust has been supporting communities in Chitambo Chiefdom for more than 10 years. Peace corps also supports some communities in this area. In Mpumba and Muchinka chiefdoms there has been little NGO support, apart from Peace corps. Kasanka Trust recently initiated a small program in Muchinka. 6.2 Stakeholders response to the proposed project The public meetings were well attended in most chiefdoms visited. The same can be said for the separate community group meetings. Especially the people from Mpumba turned up in large numbers for the public meeting (150). In Muchinka the attendance was disturbed by a presidential election campaign, resulting in a lower attendance for the public meeting (60). The attendances for all meetings are specified in table 2. Table 2: Chiefdom Date Meeting Partici- Partici- Total pants pants atten- male female dance Mpumba 7-10-08 Public meeting Mpumba school 75 75 150 Mpumba 7-10-08 Farmers groups Mpumba 50 10 60 Mpumba 7-10-08 Women groups Mpumba 75 75 Mpumba 7-10-08 Chiefs representatives, 5 2 7 chipupilas, ADC Mpumba Mpumba 8-10-08 Farmers groups, women groups, 40 20 60 village headmen, ADC, Mpumba conservation society at Salamo Final report Community Consultancy LMNP Part I 16 Mpumba 8-10-08 Illegal hunters 15 15 Mpumba 9-10-08 Random household interviews 7 7 14 Chiundapo 16-10-08 Public meeting Chiundaponde 70 50 120 nde school Chiunda- 16-10-08 Women groups 20 20 ponde Chiunda- 16-10-08 Farmer groups 10 10 ponde Chiunda- 16-10-08 Chipupilas 6 6 ponde Chiunda- 16-10-08 CRB + ADC 2 2 ponde Chiunda- 17-10-08 Chimba fish farmers, chibusa ? ? 33 ponde poultry club, chaya bee club, ex- hunters Chiunda- 18-10-08 Random household interviews 3 4 7 ponde Muchinka 22-10-08 Public meeting Nakatambo 30 30 60 school Muchinka 22-10-08 Women groups Nakatambo ? Muchinka 22-10-08 Farmer groups Nakatambo ? Muchinka 22-10-08 Random household interviews 9 1 10 Chitambo 27-10-08 Public meeting Mulembo village 70 40 110 Chitambo 27-10-08 CRB/VAG/Chiefs’ advisors 14 1 15 Chitambo 3-11-08 Random household interviews 3 5 8 Musangashi villages General response to the proposed project: A large portion of the people attending public meetings and interviewed stakeholders welcomed the proposed restoration project of the Lavushi Manda National Park, on the basis that it would bring jobs for the local communities; it would generate development and it could assist the communities in livelihood projects and (conservation) education projects. On a number of occasions it was emphasized that the project should not remain at the investigation stage, but it should be implemented in reality. Park protection and tourism development The Lavushi Manda National Park is said to have a good potential for tourism. It has a beautiful scenery with impressive rocks, hills, rivers, waterfalls, plains and forests. The park is attractive for birding, sport fishing, walking, mountain biking, canoeing and hiking expeditions. There are still some wild animals left in the park and with firm protection measures the animals could multiply to attractive numbers. Hunting provides for the most important illegal use of park resources whilst the people from Mpumba do most of the hunting inside the park – as confirmed by the Final report Community Consultancy LMNP Part I 17 Mpumba community. Other less intensive forms of illegal use are the seasonal collection of caterpillars and the collection of wild honey. According to community members and other interviewees the park is not well protected. It is relatively easy to enter the park, spend some nights hunting and leave again undiscovered. Poachers enter the park from all sides and there are well known bicycle and footpaths through the park. The tracks as well as places frequented by animals are indicated in a map drawn by illegal hunters from Salamo (figure 4). The public road passing through the park is another weak point in the law enforcement. Cars and cyclists are allowed to pass through without an escort, leaving an opportunity to embark on illegal activities whilst on transit. It has been recommended to have a permanent scout base on both sides of the public road and the checkpoints to be operational on a 24 hours basis. Both ZAWA employees and community members recommend to intensify the scout patrols, to construct some more permanent scout camps at strategic places and to use mobile fly camps in the park. The ZAWA scouts need assistance with rations and patrol equipment. The illegal trade of bush meat on the Great North Road has been identified as another major obstacle in the protection of LMNP. There is a widespread trade going on between the people of Mpumba and the towns of Lusaka and the Copperbelt. Business people from the towns come to Mpumba to buy bush meat and then return by night bus. Bush meat is also sold to truckers and individual drivers. Community members and other stakeholders recommended to curb this trade by seriously improving the law-enforcement through roadblocks. According to various interviewees from the local community, there are only a few illegal settlers or illegal fields in the Lavushi Manda National Park. Those who are there are mostly just on the border of the park or they have a field just inside the park and their houses outside the park, according to the interviewees. This situation occurs on the south end of the park, and on the east side of the park nearby the public road through the park. An additional investigation by method of aerial photographs made in July 2009 has confirmed the situation. It is is estimated that currently 31 households divided over 2 clusters live inside the park. Additionally there are 2 clusters of chitemene fields in use inside the park, with no houses. The largest clusters are in the southern tip of the park (approximately 1100 ha, 16 households) and the northeastern tip near to the dirt road through the park (approximately 501 hectares, 13 households). The other clusters are much smaller in size. See appendix 9.18 for more details. The restoration of Lavushi Manda National Park is already incorporated in the Mpika District Development Plan, following suggestions from the communities/ADC. A Chiundaponde CRB representative suggested that better protection of LMNP may also help to improve the protection of the newly formed Chikuni Community Partnership Park. It has also been suggested that better protection of Luitikila National Forest on the north of LMNP will improve park protection. The national forest however was reported to be in a process of deterioration due to timber harvesting and illegal settlements. Final report Community Consultancy LMNP Part I 18 Alternative livelihoods In general, many people said they were willing to change from unsustainable sources of income such as illegal hunting to more sustainable forms of income generation. However they needed help to change their livelihood. There was an outcry for extension services and input support for various community groups such as farmer groups, fish farmers, bee keepers, youth clubs, women groups etc. The supply of chemical fertilizer was often mentioned. Other requested inputs were: vegetable/ soybean/ bean/ sunflower seeds, fingerlings, chicks and a yenga press. On many occasions the concept of Conservation Farming was explained. When asked if people were interested in learning the technique, most said they were. Conservation farming is a more sustainable way of farming, needing less or no chemical inputs. The Ministry of Agriculture and Co-operatives (MACO) has been promoting the technique since 4 years in some pilot areas – amongst them Chitambo and Muchinka. Conservation education The need to educate people on the importance of conservation was often spontaneously mentioned. Interviewees suggested there should be conservation lessons at schools, but also in adult community groups. Chongololo and conservation clubs are there, but it has been reported they need motivation and support. According to some people, youth should receive extra attention as they are the main poachers. Youth clubs should motivate the members to excel in sports, or various forms of sustainable and legal income generation. When asked at several occasions, the idea of a dedicated conservation education centre accessible to a wide array of schools and adult groups was welcomed. Land-use planning The topic of land-use planning was new to all bordering chiefdoms. Only in Chitambo chiefdom there has been some experience in the initial stages of land-use planning by the CRB. After explaining the basic concept of land-use planning, many interviewees acknowledged that land-use planning could help to secure the linkages between LMNP and other conservation areas and at the same time could help to reduce human-animal conflicts. In all chiefdoms it was reported there were still some traditional animal corridors in use, although many of those are threatened by a fast growing human population. Others emphasized that land-use planning is a sensitive topic which needs a lot of discussion with various stakeholders. The support of the Chief, his advisors and his chipupilas is seen to be essential. Chipupilas are traditional leaders in charge of the distribution of land and fish. Some interviewees stated land-use planning and the safe-keeping of wildlife corridors is still possible – but needs to be done fast. Others said it is too late with the given expansion of human settlements. A condition for land-use planning is that there is suitable land available for those who volunteer to resettle, as well as for newcomers looking for a first settlement. 6.3 Stakeholders response and findings per Chiefdom Kopa Chiefdom Although Kopa Chiefdom was not visited physically - due to the Senior Chief being out of the country - some information was collected through interviewees in Mpika. Kopa area is a GMA which is partly wetland; it has a CRB and it is partner in the Chikuni Community Partnership Park. The Senior Chief Kopa and his subjects belong to the Bisa tribe. The Senior Chief Final report Community Consultancy LMNP Part I 19 was reported to be a conservationist, promoting early burning and discouraging the cutting of trees for caterpillar collection, for example. Luitikila National Forest could potentially serve as a buffer zone to Lavushi Manda NP. It is located directly north of the park and is partly under Chief Kopa, partly under Chief Luchembe. However the forest is reported to be depleting rapidly, due to cutting of trees for timber and due to squatters. The Mpika District Council and the Mpika Forest Department are concerned about the depletion of forests and the loss of water catchment areas. They are currently looking into possible ways of conserving the forest in partnership with the community. The animal corridor from Chikuni to LMNP along the Lumbatwa river is still in tact. Keeping this wildlife corridor open could help to restock Lavushi Manda NP and could serve as an attractive conservation area for tourists. Kopa Chiefdom is supported by various NGO’s, amongst them UNDP/REMNPAS and World Vision. The latter supports a program for capacity building in health (HIV, home based care, traditional birth attendants), education (child sponsorship), water and livelihood (soft loans for e.g. chickens, cattle, pig production). Chiundaponde Chiefdom Chiundaponde is known to be a vast and rich conservation area. The whole area of LMNP belonged to Chief Chiundaponde before it was declared as state land. The population is roughly estimated at 25.000 – 30.000 people. Chief Chiundaponde and his subjects belong to the Bisa tribe. A large part of Chiundaponde’s area is a GMA; however the area around Waka waka west of Lavushi Manda National Park is open area. Chiundaponde has an active CRB which receives a considerable income from hunting revenues. The reported income for 2007 was 60 million kwacha. The CRB is active in conservation awareness and community development. It employs more than 20 village scouts and is willing to negotiate the placement of village scouts nearby LMNP. Chiundaponde Chiefdom is supported by various NGO’s such as UNDP/REMNPAS; WWF and African Parks. UNDP/REMNPAS has supported the creation of the Chikuni Community Partnership Park: a new and exiting initiative whereby the chiefs and communities from 5 Bangweulu Chiefdoms pledged not to hunt or to use unsustainable methods of fishing anymore. The land still belongs to the community (i.e. customary land) but the area will be managed (including law-enforcement) by the Bangweulu Wetlands Management Board. African Parks has been selected as a business partner and will assist in the management of the area as well as in the development of tourism. WWF-SARPO under the Miombo Woodlands program has been supporting Chiundaponde CRB and various community groups to achieve a sustainable livelihood. Various animal corridors (Moboshi -Chaya, Moboshi -Lulimala, Kapilya) in Chiundaponde chiefdom are still (partly) in use as can be seen from the maps sketched by community members: Figure 3 + 4. Final report Community Consultancy LMNP Part I 20 Figure 3: Village resources map of Chiundaponde Chiefdom The Nakapalayo Community Tourism Project is based in Chiundaponde Village and has been receiving a regular flow of visitors since its inception in 2004. Other tourism initiatives in Chiundaponde area are: Shoebill Island Camp (owned by Kasanka Trust), Nsobe Community Camp, Waka Waka Camp (owned by Chiundaponde CRB) and Muwele Community Camp (owned by ?). Final report Community Consultancy LMNP Part I 21 Figure 4: Choso village resources map, Chiundaponde Chiefdom Mpumba Chiefdom The area of Chief Mpumba is situated in between LMNP and South Luangwa National Park. Amongst all chiefdoms visited it has the largest population (roughly estimated at 100.000) which is still growing fast. The Great North Road, the railway line and a mobile network provide better transport and communication opportunities compared to the other chiefdoms. Chief Mpumba and his subjects belong to the Bisa tribe. Chief Mpumba’s subjects are reported to be the biggest poachers in the research area, operating on a commercial scale. They hunt in either SLNP, LMNP, Chikuni + NLNP area or a combination. The sale of bush meat can be very profitable as one antelope can earn an amount of K 100.00 – K 200.000 (40 – 75% of minimum monthly wage). Some interviewees think the most notorious poachers are not willing to change because of the high profits. Others think at least part of the illegal hunters are interested to change provided they are assisted to adopt an alternative livelihood. It has been suggested to employ declared ex-poachers in the LMNP, especially the ‘King-poachers’ whose leadership the other group members cannot do without. An official handing-over ceremony with bonus payments could also encourage illegal hunters to stop and start an alternative livelihood. The consultancy team observed a lot of unsustainable use of natural resources in Mpumba Chiefdom: large scale chitemene, large scale charcoal production (sold to truckers), cutting of trees for honey and caterpillar collection. Final report Community Consultancy LMNP Part I 22 The Chief has introduced some rules on natural resources use such as: ‘no late burning, no cultivation on riverbanks or sources of rivers, no charcoal export out of the area’. However the Chief himself noted not everyone adheres to his rules: ‘The export of charcoal is an easy and fast method to earn money’. There used to be various animal corridors between LMNP, NLNP and SLNP passing through Mpumba Chiefdom. Some animals such as hippo and buffalo still try to use those routes but their chances of survival are small due to the increased number of settlements. One animal corridor could possibly be revived if negotiated well: LMNP - Salamo – Mutinondo route. During a unique session with illegal hunters a detailed map was sketched of the area indicating animal and hunters tracks inside and outside the national park (figure 5) Figure 5: Resources map of LMNP and Mpumba Chiefdom Please note that the sketch maps in this report are an interpretation of the surrounding area by some local community members. The maps are not drawn to scale and the information therein (eg distances and north/south indication) should not be considered as exact). There are 2 community based conservation organizations in Mpumba Chiefdom. One is called Mpumba Conservation Society (formerly Chintu Mukulu Society) based in Salamo. Its goals are to promote conservation awareness and sustainable development. The society owns a conservation/community tourism centre which is just starting up. The Society also applied for 8474 hectares of land to be conserved for tourism and safari-hunting purposes. The profits will be spent for community Final report Community Consultancy LMNP Part I 23 development. The Societies business is run by the Mpumba Conservation Trust with board members from the District Council, UCZ, Mutinondo Wilderness and the Mpumba Conservation Society. The Society applied some time ago to ZAWA to form a CRB. The application was turned down for unknown reasons. It has been suggested that ZAWA might be willing to consider another application. The other community based conservation organization is called Mpimbishi Conservation/ Foundation for Wildlife and Habitat Conservation. It has recently started some activities in conservation education and fish farming. The organization is initiated by Mr. Hammer Simwinga who is supported by the Owens Foundation. Apparently they are also interested in acquiring land for conservation purposes. No more information was available at the time of the research. Muchinka Chiefdom The consultancy team visited the village area of Nakatambo which is on the Waka waka road and near to Nsalu cave, a national heritage site. Nakatambo is the closest village to Lavushi Manda NP. At Nakatambo a public meeting was held together with the Chief, followed by community group meetings with farmers, women groups and ADC. Chief Muchinka and his subjects belong to the Lala tribe. Chief Muchinka’s area borders for a small part to the south end of LMNP. The main source of livelihood in Muchinka is agriculture; chitemene is wide spread. There are few wild animals in the area which is why the whole chiefdom is an open area. There is no GMA, no CRB. There is a titled cattle farm nearby Nakatambo which almost borders the LMNP. It is owned by Newton Young who is interested in developing a game farm. The approximate location of the farm, the park and the cave are indicated on a sketch made by the villagers of Nakatambo (figure 6) Final report Community Consultancy LMNP Part I 24 Figure 6: Nakatambo village resources map The Nakatambo interviewees indicated an area and the names of the people living inside the national park. It basically concerns 3 families: 2 from Muchinka and one from Mpumba. According to the interviewees their houses are of a very simple structure and the owners do not live there due to lack of farming space; they are basically there for the purpose of poaching. There is no serious farming or chitemene in the area where small houses are established. NGO’s working in Muchinka chiefdom are: Peace corps, CLUSA and KTL. The latter provides some small scale support to a VAG, some village groups and a community school nearby the Kasanka National Park. Chitambo Chiefdom Chief Chitambo and his subjects belong to the Lala tribe. The whole area of Chief Chitambo is under Kafinda GMA which surrounds Kasanka National Park. The park has been managed by Kasanka Trust for over 20 years under a management agreement with ZAWA. Chitambo CRB has been active in (conservation) education, alternative livelihoods and land-use planning. The CRB has been supported with advice and training by Kasanka Trust for over 6 years. Each quarter the CRB receives 5% of the Kasanka tourism revenues. In Chitambo Chiefdom a public meeting was held at Mulembo village, followed by a group meeting with chiefs’ advisors, village headmen, CRB and VAG members. HRH Chief Chitambo was not present at these meetings as he was called elsewhere on an urgent mission. The random house-hold interviews were done in Musangashi village area, the area proposed by Chitambo CRB to be set aside as a wildlife corridor from Kasanka NP to LMNP. Final report Community Consultancy LMNP Part I 25 The discussions in Chitambo Chiefdom mainly concentrated on the subject of land- use planning. There were some reservations amongst a majority of the people present – the most important one being afraid of involuntary resettlement as a result of the establishment of a bufferzone and wildlife corridors. The audience was reassured there would be no involuntary resettlement and all decisions would be made democratically – with the involvement of the chief, his advisors, chipupilas, the VAG, the CRB and the wider community. Some people wondered about the availability of suitable farming land for newcomers or those who choose to settle elsewhere on a voluntary basis. The importance of the subject was acknowledged by the research team and the audience was advised that this issue should be discussed with the Chief, his advisors and the CRB. Chitambo CRB has already been involved in a participatory land-use planning process with the advice from ZAWA, KT and various line departments. The objective is to zone the whole GMA and thereby reaching an agreement with the local communities on sustainable land-use. The CRB is in the process of proposing a wildlife corridor in order to promote long term conservation and reduce animal conflicts. Possible wildlife corridors are sketched in figure 7: Note by the author: An issue of concern is the encroachment on the border of Kasanka National Park in between Mulembo village and Njelele village. This is part of the proposed bufferzone and wildlife corridor to Lavushi Manda. This area should be considered for voluntary resettlement. Another concern brought forward at the public meeting was the increase in crop- raiding visits by elephants. The Warden was asked to ensure full implementation of procedures once a problem animal was reported to destroy crops. Community Final report Community Consultancy LMNP Part I 26 members were advised not to settle in natural wildlife corridors as well as to adopt the chilli farming techniques promoted by Kasanka Trust. Other relevant chiefdoms The Warden from Mpika, supported by some other interviewees, pointed out that apart from the 5 chiefdoms visited by the consultancy team, the communities of Chief Luchembe, Chief Kabinga and Chief Chikwanda also have an influence on Lavushi Manda NP. Luchembe especially was thought to have a lot of poachers, who approach LMNP through Luitikila National Forest. Chief Chikwanda rules over Mpika urban and rural which is a market area for bush meat, timber and other illegal off take. It has been recommended to involve these 3 chiefs in a next phase, or at least visit them to get their advice as traditional leaders as well as to regularly update them about the project. 6.4 Results from Stakeholders Workshop The goal of the stakeholders workshop was as follows: ¾ to explain the initial ideas for the proposed project for the extension of the Kasanka Park Management System to Lavushi Manda NP ¾ to provide information about the history, achievements and current activities of Kasanka Trust ¾ to present the findings from the community consultancy tour ¾ to discuss the way forward The meeting was attended by a total of 30 participants. Amongst them 5 Chiefs, 15 community members from 5 different chiefdoms, 4 representatives from Mpika and Serenje line departments and 1 representative from the Mpika District Council. Apologies were received from Mutinondo Wilderness and Newton Young (both tourism stakeholders) and from South Luangwa Conservation Society, African Parks and UNDP/REMNPAS (conservation stakeholders). The list of participants and the minutes of the stakeholders workshop are attached in Annex 9.6. The following is a summary of the most important issues discussed: ¾ Each Royal Highness was given a chance to comment on conservation in general and on the proposed project. The Chiefs expressed gratitude to be invited for this unique occasion whereby so many people from 5 different chiefdoms were brought together to share experiences and ideas. ¾ Chief Chitambo IV explained Kasanka National Park was 20 years ago in the same state as LMNP is now – almost fully depleted. He stated over a period of 20 years there has been a lot of development inside and outside the park – thanks to the help of Kasanka Trust. The same could happen to LMNP but one needs to be patient. Development will only come after a long time. ¾ Chief Chiundaponde stated that the conservation efforts have gone down in his area. There used to be many more animals in his area. The depletion of LMNP is disappointing and so is the effort put in by ZAWA. Some ZAWA scouts are even found poaching. The Chief encouraged all stakeholders to work together to improve the protection of natural resources – for the benefit of the people. ¾ Chief Mpumba welcomed the new project but emphasized the need to support alternative livelihoods, as an important source of (illegal) income will be taken away in his area. The project must show it is serious by publicizing a timetable Final report Community Consultancy LMNP Part I 27 and by making its’ presence felt. It should work fast and follow up frequently on all aspects of the project. ¾ Senior Chief Kopa hoped Kasanka Trust would maintain the same spirit as displayed in Kasanka NP. He emphasized the importance of involving the Chiefs. Without their cooperation it is difficult to work with the communities. The Kasanka Trust Park Manager gave an overview of the history of KT and its current activities. He also addressed some misunderstandings about KT. After his explanation of the proposed project the following issues were raised: ¾ The need of a project timetable ¾ The need to continue consultations with the communities ¾ Chief Luchembe to be involved as his area accommodates many poachers ¾ Minimal force to be used for park protection and encroachment ¾ A clear description and demarcation of the park boundaries ¾ A clarification of the Chiefs’ role in the formulation and the renewal of the MOU for park management between KT and ZAWA Each of these points were discussed in plenary and a way forward agreed upon. The consultant then presented the results from the community consultancy tour which have been described elsewhere in this report. After a visit of Kasanka NP whereby the developments under 20 years of KT management could be reviewed, the participants revened again to draft a Declaration of Intention. The Declaration was formulated in a plenary session whereby every participant could comment. A draft was prepared on the basis of the discussions the day before. It was agreed to focus the first phase of the project on park protection, tourism development and conservation education. ZAWA was urged to increase its efforts for the protection of Lavushi Manda N.P. and Kasanka Trust committed itself to raise funds to support ZAWA in the development and the protection of Lavushi Manda N. P. The LMNP boundaries were another important topic in de discussion. It was agreed that KTL and ZAWA shall demarcate the park boundaries during the project development and ZAWA and KTL shall make copies of the statutory instruments and an accompanying map detailing the park boundaries available to all stakeholders. As for community work there was a long discussion on whether the project should start broad and address conservation education, alternative sources of livelihood, CBO support and landuse planning all at the same time. It was agreed that KTL shall initially focus its efforts on conservation education work to support the communities around Lavushi Manda N.P. This will naturally come together with CBO support. Support of alternative sources of livelihood and land-use planning – although acknowledged to be of great importance – would be addressed during later stages of the project development. Finally it was agreed that Kasanka Trust shall recruit a majority of the project staff from the communities which border the Lavushi Manda N. P. and a Working Committee shall be formed with representation from all surrounding chiefdoms and the Mpika District Council to advise the development of a project program. In this way project plans would be developed, monitored and evaluated in a participatory manner. The final document was then signed by all Royal Highnesses and a community representative from each Chiefdom. See Annex 9.7 for the signed Declaration. Final report Community Consultancy LMNP Part I 28 7. Discussion The community consultation under discussion had 2 goals: to establish preliminary contacts with the relevant communities and other relevant stakeholders; and to draft a community stakeholders profile. These goals have been achieved with the following side marks: within the timescale available it has not been possible to interview a large portion of the communities around the LMNP. However we tried to interview a representative portion of the communities and relevant stakeholders. As for the community stakeholders profile we did not collect many hard data on socio-economic issues at the Chiefdom/Ward level, due to the unavailability of the requested data. However this has been compensated by a compilation of field observations. It is encouraging that all stakeholders consulted are supportive of the proposed project for the Extension of the Kasanka Management System to Lavushi Manda National Park. Valuable information and advice was provided by many interviewees during the community consultancy tour as well as during the stakeholders workshop. Many people interviewed acknowledged that the Lavushi Manda NP is almost depleted of wildlife due to a high level of poaching. Many also acknowledged there is other destructive use of the park such as cutting of trees for honey and caterpillars. The general consensus was that restoration of the park would be a good idea which would create jobs and capacity building for the local community and support development of the surrounding areas. Support for the restoration of the LMNP has already been existing for a longer period as can be deducted from the Mpika District Development Plan (Mr. S. Chilekwa, personal observation) which objective of the restoration of LMNP was suggested by community members. ‘Protection of the environment and natural resources’, ‘Promotion of community based natural resources management programmes’ and Land-use planning’ are part of the Mpika Poverty Reduction Strategy 2006. It is encouraging that even at public meetings community members suggested that poaching should be halted by more efficient and strict law-enforcement. At the same time it was emphasized that there is a genuine need for conservation education as well as for alternative livelihood support. Especially in Mpumba it was stated that a large number of community members reverted to poaching after the government withdrew its fertilizer support from a certain area. The general opinion was that community members are willing to stop poaching as long as there are reasonable alternatives, and there is help to start a new livelihood. In all chiefdoms we found a high demand for assistance with farming inputs and for extension support of commodity groups such as beekeepers, farmers cooperatives, fish farmers and women groups. Conservation education was thought to be important as well. Some recommended to concentrate on the wider community - being adults, youth and school children and not on Chongololo clubs only. A conservation education centre in one or more chiefdoms was also welcomed, especially if near to a school and easily accessible. There are opportunities to link a conservation education program to other existing programs. As for land-use planning this topic was found to be less easy as a result of the high growth of human population in the chiefdoms. It was also seen to be a sensitive issue, which needs a lot of discussion with the Chiefs and various other community leaders as well as with the wider community. It is an important issue though as it was revealed that there are still some old animal corridors in use and they could help to revive/ sustain the various protected areas. Especially the animal corridors between Final report Community Consultancy LMNP Part I 29 LMNP and Kasanka and between LMNP and Chikuni were assessed to be viable or could be revived. It must be noted that there was a general outcry for the project to be implemented – it should not remain at the investigation stage as with some other consultancies/ researches. This is an indication of a growing ‘donor- fatigue’ (‘Another research team demanding our time and then we hear nothing anymore’) which has been a worrisome factor elsewhere in Zambia. At the same time the very fact that the communities have been a consulted also creates an unavoidable expectation within the community. However we emphasized every time that the goal of our tour was to gain support and advice and that no promises could be made at this time. It must be also noted that the response from the wider community can be less positive once the proposed project is implemented in the field and some people realize that they will now loose their (illegal) source of income. This may be especially the case in Mpumba where a lot of people depend on poaching. The Warden Bangweulu Command has already emphasized that resistance should not be tolerated. An intensive sensitization campaign before the start of stricter law- enforcement is of great importance. The campaign could also serve to encourage people to adopt alternative livelihoods. The presence and recent expansion of illegal fields and settlements inside the park is a point of concern. Although the actual number of households within the park is relatively low; the hectarage of land they are occupying is worrisome. An encroachment area of over 1800 hectares is unacceptable. The exact locations of fields and households inside the park should be verified on the ground as soon as possible. A baseline of names and locations should then be published and notified to those inside the park and their leaders after which absolutely no more expansion (clearing of land) will be tolerated. Meanwhile, a process of discussions can be started with the encroaching farmers and their leaders to gradually resolve the issues. This should be done as soon as possible under the leadership of ZAWA and in close cooperation with the Honorouble Chiefs. A solution must be agreed upon within a year from the release of the baseline survey. There is sufficient land outside the park available so that the cultivation currently inside the park can be progressively redirected outside the park within the usual pattern of shifting cultivation. The positioning of community relations project staff in the Chiefdoms surrounding the park is important in order to develop an effective relationship of trust, full understanding and exchange of ideas between the project and the wider community. This relationship needs continuous care and should remain an important focal point during the whole project period. Neglecting community relations on the long term could have a negative impact on the project. It is now time to catch the momentum with the government of Zambia promoting tourism to Northern Zambia, ZAWA realizing it does not have the capacity and funding to manage all national parks on its own, and the realization of the Chikuni Community Partnership Park as a first step towards the protection of the Greater Bangweulu Basin: a unique and sofar neglected area with great tourism and conservation potential. An area of international importance as recognized by the RAMSAR convention. Close cooperation and parallel development between the Chikuni Partnership Park, the Bangweulu Management Board and the Lavushi Manda restoration project would mean a tremendous boost to the protection and the sustainable development of the whole Bangweulu Basin. Final report Community Consultancy LMNP Part I 30 8. Conclusion and recommendations Most stakeholders consulted were supportive of the proposed project for the Extension of the Kasanka Management System to Lavushi Manda National Park. Valuable information and advice was provided by many interviewees during the community consultancy tour. Many acknowledged that the Lavushi Manda NP is almost depleted of wildlife as a result of poaching. Many also acknowledged there is other destructive use of the park such as cutting of trees for honey and caterpillars. The general concensus was that restoration of the park would be a good idea which would create jobs and capacity building for the local community and support development of the surrounding areas. As for the project design there are some important aspects to be considered: The design of the project: the LMNP (150.000 ha) is a large undeveloped area which has far reaching implications for the project. In order to achieve relevant results, a serious budget is required for law-enforcement, transport and logistics. The same can be said for the surrounding communities. There are 4 bordering chiefdoms which all cover a vast area. Distances between chiefdoms and within chiefdoms are enormous and many untarred roads become impassible in the rainy season. Means of communication are very limited. High costs for transport, communication and logistics should be accounted for on the short and on the long term. Some minor cost savings could be made for the community relations component by focusing mainly on the Chiefdoms of Chiundaponde and Mpumba (which have the longest borders with LMNP), with a lower presence in Kopa, Muchinka and Chitambo Chiefdom. Leaving out these three chiefdoms is definitely not recommendable. A serious commitment by the donor to secure long term funding for at least 8-10 years is needed in order to achieve sustainable results and to avoid ‘donor-fatigue’ within the community. Actual presence on the ground: has been recommended to show the communities the project is taking her task serious. This means there should be efficient, fair and strict law-enforcement within and outside the park. As for community activities there should be a frequent follow-up of outreach activities, to be implemented by staff members who are approachable as they are based within in the area. Living within the community also provides a better understanding of all aspects positively or negatively influencing the project. It is important to avoid a so-called ‘white elephant’ e.g. setting up an ambitious project present in a large area with limited staff presence on the ground and limited follow-up on outreach activities resulting in a low impact of the project. Experience from other projects in Zambia including the Kasanka Community Project has proved that a smaller project with a high ‘extension-client’ ratio generates a more and longer lasting impact. Park protection and tourism development The protection of LMNP needs much improvement. There is an urgent need for law- enforcement both inside and outside the LMNP. It is important from the beginning of the project to send out a clear signal that the park is now well protected and illegal activities are no more tolerated. The scouts should be well equipped and motivated. Inside the park the number of patrols should be much increased. A number of fixed scout camps are needed at strategic points and mobile fly camps will improve the chances of being caught. The park boundaries should be clearly demarcated in the field and explained to the wider public. Final report Community Consultancy LMNP Part I 31 Existing illegal settlements and fields inside the park should be mapped in detail and a baseline of names and locations should be published and notified to those inside the park and their leaders after which absolutely no more expansion (clearing of land) will be tolerated. Meanwhile, a process of discussions should be started with the encroaching farmers and their leaders to gradually resolve the issues. This should be done as soon as possible under the leadership of ZAWA and in close cooperation with the Honoroble Chiefs. A solution must be agreed upon within a year of the release of the baseline survey There is an urgent need to curb the flourishing trade of bush meat outside the park by operating the existing roadblocks at Kanona and Mpika on a 24-hour basis and to search night buses, trucks and cars on a regular basis. It was also recommended to re-open the old roadblock on the Great North Road near to the Chiundaponde turn- off. Opportunities for creating or improving potential buffer zone areas around the national park should be further researched especially for Luitikila National Forest and the (game) farm managed by Newton Young. An improved protection of Lavushi Manda NP and efficiently operating roadblocks will have an added positive impact on the preservation of Chikuni Community Partnership Park and SLNP. Conservation education Conservation education is important for general conservation awareness, as well as to increase awareness of the importance of LMNP and the benefits of the proposed project. Conservation education should focus on all 4 bordering chiefdoms with an emphasis on the 2 chiefdoms with the longest borders (being Chiundaponde and Mpumba). The education efforts should concentrate first on the areas nearby the park e.g. up to a distance of 30-50 km. The use of drama groups has been proved to be the most efficient way of communication in rural areas as it provides strong messages to the wider communities which are even remembered after many months. In addition, drama is considered to be a welcome method of entertainment in rural areas where there is not a lot of distraction. Conservation work with children should focus on schools and not only on Chongololo clubs. The emphasis should be on practical skills not on theory. Pilot school gardens could be initiated where children produce their own vegetables and fruits, meanwhile learning the skills of conservation farming, agro forestry, beekeeping, compost production and the use of green manure. Schools could be invited for park visits, combined with a series of lessons on conservation. From experience park visits make a huge impression on school kids and the experience is often passed on to the family. Schools could also be encouraged to organise public natural resources competitions, litter campaigns etc. Conservation education could be well combined with capacity building for drama group members as well as for teachers. Livelihood assistance Livelihood assistance should focus on sustainable agricultural practices such as beekeeping, conservation farming and agro forestry techniques. Marketing should form an integral part. Livelihood assistance should initially focus on Mpumba and Chiundaponde Chiefdoms as these Chiefdoms have the largest park borders and relatively many people dependent on poaching. According to the DACO in Mpika it is a long term goal of the Ministry of Agriculture Food and Fisheries (MAFF) to move away from costly high-input farming towards cheaper low input methods such as conservation farming. Conservation Farming has generated good results in some Farmer Field Schools in Chief Chitambo’s area - Final report Community Consultancy LMNP Part I 32 especially those which were guided intensively (i.e. weekly) for a longer period. Cooperation possibilities should be researched with MAFF. The Conservation Farming Unit of the Zambia National Farmers Union already expressed an interest to cooperate. Land-use planning One of the goals of the extension of the Kasanka Management System to Lavushi Manda NP is to link both parks to the greater Bangweulu Ecosystem through protected wildlife corridors and coordinated management, monitoring and research activities. Land-use planning is a logical and essential tool to achieve this goal. Land- use planning involves a long process of many consultations with even so many stakeholders. There is not a lot of experience with participatory land-use planning in GMA’s in Zambia. As there are a lot of do’s, don’ts and possible pitfalls we recommend to study similar projects in Zambia (e.g. Mukungule GMA, Chitambo GMA), publish a document of ‘Lessons learnt in participatory land-use planning’ and use this document for guidance in the LMNP land-use planning process in a later phase. At the same time the document could be published and made available to other interested parties in Zambia. Land-use planning should initially focus on Chiundaponde, Kopa and Chitambo Chiefdoms as these chiefdoms have the most human-animal conflicts and at the same time the most viable animal corridors. Long term and short term priorities The proposed project will directly or indirectly affect many people in a large area. Therefore the project should be planned on a long term basis and sufficient funds for a period of 8-10 years should be reserved for the project to make a lasting impact. On the short term priorities should be with park protection, tourism development, conservation education, building community relations and explaining the importance and benefits of the project. The development of a relationship of trust and understanding with the communities and other stakeholders is of great importance in order to achieve lasting results. On the longer term emphasis should move towards livelihood support and land-use planning, whilst the activities from the short term are carried on. Although KTL is basically a conservation agency and not an agency for agricultural diversification or land-use planning, it is important not to neglect these topics. Livelihood support is of ultimate importance to guide community members on the way to a sustainable living whilst sparing wild animals and their habitats. Land use planning is an important process which will determine whether people and animals can live together on the long term. Other experienced partners/NGO’s in Zambia could be asked to assist in these fields. Participation in project design and mainstreaming with surrounding projects During the Stakeholders Workshop it was agreed to set up a Working Committee with representatives from all surrounding chiefdoms and the Mpika District Council to advise the development of a project program. In this way participation from all stakeholders is ensured to come up with a suitable project design. Also on the long term there should be a continual process of consultation, advise and evaluation by community representatives. One possibility is to set up a Project Management Committee following the example of the existing Kasanka Park Management Committee. This committee meets twice a year and evaluates results and future plans for park management as well as for community development. The Kasanka Park Management Committee consists of representatives of various stakeholders at the local, district and national level. It has also been proposed to form a Conservation Partner Liaison Committee. The goal of this committee would be to exchange and streamline approaches towards Final report Community Consultancy LMNP Part I 33 protected area protection, conservation education, livelihood support and land-use planning. The basic idea is to ensure no contradicting messages or financial arrangements (e.g. allowances) are being implemented. Committee members would be the UNDP reclassification project, African Parks, KTL and WWF amongst others. 9. References ¾ Mpika District Situation Analysis, Mpika District Council, 2007 ¾ North Luangwa National Park General Management Plan, ZAWA 2004 ¾ Poverty Reduction Strategy 2006-2010, Mpika District Development Unit, 2006 ¾ Project Identification Form: Extension of Kasanka Management System to Lavushi Manda National Park. GEF Agency Project ID:P108882. (Re)Submission date: 03/04/2008 ¾ Request for Project Preparation Grant (PPG): Extension of Kasanka Management System to Lavushi Manda National Park. GEF Agency Project ID:P108882. (Re)Submission date: 12/20/2007. ¾ Serenje District Situational Analysis, Serenje District Council, 2005 ¾ The National Decentralisation Policy, Republic of Zambia, 2002 ¾ Zambia Census of Population and Housing 2000, Central Statistical Office, Republic of Zambia, 2003. ¾ Zambia Population Census, Republic of Zambia, 2000 ¾ Zambia Wildlife Act No. 12 of 1998 Final report Community Consultancy LMNP Part I 34