Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- Figures and tables
- Abbreviations and glossary
- Foreword
- Preface and acknowledgements
- 1 The place, methodology, and chapter overviews
- 2 Brief history of the central Luangwa Valley
- 3 Munyamadzi Game Management Area and its residents
- 4 The changing nature of rural community lives
- 5 Human welfare and resource status at Nabwalya Central, 1966–2006
- 6 Community Resources Board and community participation
- 7 Perspectives from the Munyamadzi Game Management Area communities
- 8 A conclusion to the 2006 exercise
- 9 A perspective covering eight decades
- 10 Conjuring the Munyamadzi Game Management Area as a frontier
- Appendix A Revised questionnaire, 2006
- Appendix B Major characteristics of village area groups within the Munyamadzi Game Management Area communities, 2006 and 2011
- Appendix C Respondents’ comments on ‘fairness’ of Zambia's wildlife exchange
- Notes
- References
- Index
6 - Community Resources Board and community participation
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 19 March 2020
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- Figures and tables
- Abbreviations and glossary
- Foreword
- Preface and acknowledgements
- 1 The place, methodology, and chapter overviews
- 2 Brief history of the central Luangwa Valley
- 3 Munyamadzi Game Management Area and its residents
- 4 The changing nature of rural community lives
- 5 Human welfare and resource status at Nabwalya Central, 1966–2006
- 6 Community Resources Board and community participation
- 7 Perspectives from the Munyamadzi Game Management Area communities
- 8 A conclusion to the 2006 exercise
- 9 A perspective covering eight decades
- 10 Conjuring the Munyamadzi Game Management Area as a frontier
- Appendix A Revised questionnaire, 2006
- Appendix B Major characteristics of village area groups within the Munyamadzi Game Management Area communities, 2006 and 2011
- Appendix C Respondents’ comments on ‘fairness’ of Zambia's wildlife exchange
- Notes
- References
- Index
Summary
In 1997, the NPWS asked the communities whether they were ready to manage wildlife in the GMAs on their own. Communities refused because they did not have the capacity to do so. It was also argued that NPWS was relegating its responsibilities to the community. Co-management was the preferred option. ZAWA are the custodians of national parks and some protected areas. The GMAs act as buffer areas for the national parks. It is a requirement that GMA management plans should be prepared to enhance biodiversity conservation, viability, law enforcement, revenue collection and utilisation, research, etc … Even CRBs that have already been created, they have yet to effectively be involved in management of wildlife. That role is still evolving; and ZAWA is yet to gain confidence to allow for that. [Dr Lewis Saiwana, June 2002]
[Chief Nabwalya] reminded the gathering about the age-old traditional role the communities played of looking after wildlife. He indicated that he has a company that lost out in the 2002 award of hunting concessions by Zambia National Tender Board (ZNTB) and ZAWA. He was bitter about that, and was seeking explanation from ZAWA. He complained bitterly about corruption for ‘this unfortunate development’. He went on to explicitly indicate that if his complaint was not addressed, he was not going to allow anybody to hunt in his area. He cited frequent changes of Ministers at the Ministry of Tourism, Environment, and Natural Resources (MTENR) as contributing to the never-ending problems in the wildlife sector. [Honourable Chief Nabwalya, June 2002]
To overcome some deficiencies within the earlier wildlife programme, donors and various consultants in association with NPWS leadership proposed legislative and structural changes that came into effect in 1999 with the passage of the Zambia Wildlife Act (1998). This legislation would eliminate the NPWS and create a new ‘independent’ body, ZAWA, which would supposedly make wildlife less amenable to political influences and recognise that local people were the appropriate custodians of wildlife. In addition, this wildlife Act created CRBs to replace the older Sub-Authority as the highest management authority at the GMA level.
The ADMADE Community Constitution for Zambia (drafted in December 1998 and redrafted in July 1999) elaborated the specific functions of the CRBs. They were sent to chiefs, who became ‘patrons’ to these new boards. In January 2001, Chief Nabwalya responded to the draft CRB constitution sent to him by the Nyamaluma Institute.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Discordant Village VoicesA Zambian 'Community Based' Wildlife Programme, pp. 115 - 144Publisher: University of South AfricaPrint publication year: 2014