EVALUATION OF WILDLIFE CONSERVATION SOCIETY’S ADMINISTRATIVE MANAGEMENT DESIGN PROJECT (WCS/ADMADE) CONTRACT NO PCE-I-00-99-00001-00 PREPARED FOR USAID ZAMBIA 5 MAY 2000 PREPARED BY ASSOCIATES IN RURAL DEVELOPMENT IN COLLABORATION WITH INTERNATIONAL PROGRAMS CONSORTIUM INC -RAISE EVALUATION OF WILDLIFE CONSERVATION SOCIETY’S ADMINISTRATIVE MANAGEMENT DESIGN PROJECT (WCS/ADMADE) CONTRACT NO PCE-I-00-99-00001-00 by J E CLARKE PHD Presented to David Soroko USAID/Zambia under the Rural and Agricultural Incomes with a Sustainable Environment (RAISE) Contract No. PCE-I-00-99-00001-00: Task Order 11 May 2000 ARD-RAISE Consortium 1601 North Kent St., Suite 800 Arlington, VA 22209 Tel: 703-807-5700, Fax: 703-807-0889 gkerr@arddc.com The ARD-RAISE Consortium: Associates in Rural Development, Cargill Technical Services, Associates for International Resources and Development, CARANA Corporation, A.P. Gross & Company, International Programs Consortium, Land O’ Lakes, Purdue University, and TechnoServe NRMP/ADMADE final evaluation ARD/IPCCorp i EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A final evaluation was made of the USAID/Zambia’s Wildlife Conservation Society’s Administrative Management Design Project (WCS/ADMADE), Contract PCE-I-00- 99-00001-00, between 3 April and 7 May 2000. The Project ran from 1989 to 1999. Its purpose was to support the growth of community-based natural resource management (CBNRM) through Zambia’s ADMADE program, and to contribute towards Strategic Objective S.O.1. Total allocation was $4.8 million. ADMADE is a CBNRM program—Zambia’s official policy for wildlife management in game management areas (GMAs) From 1989 to 1994, USAID helped the Ministry of Tourism (MoT) set up and establish ADMADE through the provision of commodities and technical assistance. From 1994 to 1995 USAID gave non-operational support under the terms of a co￾operative agreement with World Wildlife Fund—US. From 1996 to 1998, MoT was provided with direct financing via project implementation letters. From 1998 to 1999, technical assistance was provided under the terms of a co-operative agreement with the Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS). During the latter phase, what had begun life as a wildlife management program took on a greater food security role. The Project strengthened ADMADE; USAID investments were well used. Through research and trial, the Project developed a set of community institutions— democratically elected Village Area Groups (VAGs) and Community Resource Boards (CRBs)—that show signs of being able to take responsibility for, and make decisions about, wildlife management, including setting quotas for off-take, and community development. It showed limited success in expanding women’s participation. The Project has also • shown that CBNRM is a workable system for wildlife management in at least some GMAs, and may be applicable to others • shown that safari hunting is a profitable use of wildlife in GMAs, the revenue from which can be used to improve household living standards • defined the criteria needed to create sustainability of ADMADE programs • established CBNRM programs that are probably self-sustaining in some Luangwa Valley GMAs where ADMADE is active • shown that ADMADE can produce local employment opportunities and raise incomes • set up monitoring programs that may demonstrate a positive link between living standards and optimal sustained wildlife yields 86$,'LQYHVWPHQWVLQWKH3URMHFWKDYH EHHQZRUWKZKLOH%HLQJWKHPDMRUVRXUFHRI VXSSRUWWKH\DUHUHVSRQVLEOHIRUPXFKRI WKHVXFFHVVUHFRUGHGLQWKLVUHSRUW NRMP/ADMADE final evaluation ARD/IPCCorp ii • influenced Government wildlife policy resulting in CBNRM provisions being included in the new Zambia Wildlife Act • begun testing the linkage between wildlife management and food security Problems regarding management of the Wildlife Conservation Revolving Fund, noted by mid-term evaluations, have been rectified insofar as the new Zambia Wildlife Authority (ZAWA) maintains accurate computerised records of revenue received from hunting. Management and disbursement of finances intended to fund community resource management and community development are still flawed in so far as remittances are either not being paid in full or on in a timely manner. Faults appear to lie with financial control in the ADMADE Units as much as with ZAWA. Ways in which the Project has contributed significantly to S.O.1 are identified. The way forward for ADMADE is dependent upon the role that ZAWA will play, its capacity to manage and its commitment to CBNRM. These will remain unknowns until the interim period of uncertainty is ended and ZAWA becomes fully operational. NRMP/ADMADE final evaluation ARD/IPCCorp iii LIST OF ACRONYMS ADC Area development committee ADMADE Administrative management design for game management areas AMCA ADMADE management contract agreement CBDA Community-based delivery agent CHA Controlled hunting area CLUSA Co-operative League of the USA CRB Community resource board CBNRM Community-based natural resource management EDF European Development Fund ESRI Environmental Systems Research Institute EU European Union GIS Geographical information systems GMA Game management area GRZ Government of the Republic of Zambia LFSP Livingstone Food Security Program MoE Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources MoEd Ministry of Education MoT Ministry of Tourism NGO Non-government organisation NPWS National Parks and Wildlife Service NRG Northern Rhodesia Government PHAZ Professional Hunters Association of Zambia PRA Participatory rapid appraisal RGBP Rural Group Business Program RNFE Rural non-farm enterprise RNRMP Regional Natural Resource Management Program SADC Southern Africa Development Community SIDA Swedish International Development Program TEVETS Technical Education, Vocational and Entrepreneurship Training Secretariat UNDP United Nations Development Program USAID United States Agency for International Development US$ United States dollar VAG Village Area Group WCRF Wildlife Conservation Revolving Fund WCS Wildlife Conservation Society WMA Wildlife Management Authority WWF-I Worldwide Fund for Nature-International WWF-US World Wildlife Fund-US ZAWA Zambia Wildlife Authority ZESCO Zambia Electricity Supply Company ZMK Zambian kwacha NRMP/ADMADE final evaluation ARD/IPCCorp iv TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 Introduction....................................................................................................... 1 2.0 Objectives of the Current Evaluation............................................................... 2 3.0 Background ....................................................................................................... 2 ADMADE ....................................................................................................................... 2 Rationale behind ADMADE........................................................................................... 5 The Origins of ADMADE............................................................................................... 6 An ADMADE village land use meeting ......................................................................... 7 USAID Support for ADMADE....................................................................................... 8 4.0 Associated Institutions ...................................................................................... 9 Ministry of Tourism: National Parks and Wildlife Service............................................ 9 Wildlife Conservation Revolving Fund ........................................................................ 10 African College of Community-based Natural Resource Management....................... 11 Other Public Institutions................................................................................................ 14 Non-government organizations..................................................................................... 15 Community-based institutions....................................................................................... 15 Private sector ................................................................................................................. 15 5.0 Evolution of the Project ...................................................................................16 Main phases................................................................................................................... 17 Project evaluations between 1989 and 1995................................................................. 18 6.0 The Project 1996 To 1999 ................................................................................20 Focus of resources......................................................................................................... 20 Project evaluations 1996-1999...................................................................................... 22 7.0 Community-Based Institutions ........................................................................23 Wildlife Authorities and Sub-authorities ...................................................................... 23 Village Areas Groups and Community Resource Boards ............................................ 24 Participation by women................................................................................................. 26 8.0 Project Results and Achievements...................................................................27 Results identified in the project paper supplement, September 1993........................... 27 Results identified in the WCS co-operative agreement, October 1998........................ 33 9.0 Monitoring Impacts On Wildlife and Communities .......................................36 Monitoring Systems....................................................................................................... 36 The ADMADE Data Manager ...................................................................................... 38 Wildlife populations...................................................................................................... 38 Hunting quotas............................................................................................................... 39 Household incomes ....................................................................................................... 40 Rural family quality of life............................................................................................ 40 Community capacity building....................................................................................... 41 NRMP/ADMADE final evaluation ARD/IPCCorp v Land use planning.......................................................................................................... 42 Investment in GMAs from outside sources................................................................... 42 Comments on monitoring.............................................................................................. 44 10.0 Beneficiaries....................................................................................................44 Inhabitants of chiefdoms inside and bordering GMAs................................................. 44 NPWS (and thus ZAWA).............................................................................................. 46 NGOs............................................................................................................................. 46 Central and local government departments................................................................... 46 Safari companies............................................................................................................ 46 11.0 Income Earning Opportunities ......................................................................47 Opportunities pursued by community groups............................................................... 47 Opportunities not pursued ............................................................................................. 48 12.0 Supports and Constraints ..............................................................................48 Major supporting factors ............................................................................................... 48 Major constraints........................................................................................................... 49 13.0 Relevance of CARE/LFSP and CLUSA/RGBP.............................................51 14.0 Contributions to USAID/Zambia’s SO.1.......................................................52 Performance Indicator a): Land and labour productivity.............................................. 52 Performance Indicator a): RNFE sales and service revenue......................................... 53 Performance Indicator b): Improved RNFE access to finance ..................................... 53 Performance Indicator: Improved trade and investment environment ......................... 54 15.0 Findings and Lessons Learned for Future Application ................................55 16.0 Bibliography ...................................................................................................63 Annex 1 Principal contacts Annex 2 Papers produced by the African College for CBNRM from October 1998 to December 1999 Annex 3 The Zambia Wildlife Act, 1998. Full text of Sections 40-42, which provide for the issue of special licences Annex 4 Scope of work NRMP/ADMADE final evaluation ARD/IPCCorp 1 1.0 INTRODUCTION Formation of the Southern Africa Development Community (SADC) in Lusaka on 1 April 1980 provided a basis for co-operation between countries in the southern half of the continent, and for donor support to be co-ordinated and organised more effectively. Seeking appropriate activities for funding under the SADC umbrella, USAID identified natural resource management as a suitable candidate and established the Regional Natural Resource Management Program (RNRMP) on 20 August 1989. The regional office for RNRMP, at first in Harare, Zimbabwe, was later transferred to Gaberone, Botswana. Having decided that the recently initiated ADMADE program in Zambia was an appropriate initiative for USAID support, RNRMP/ADMADE (the Project) was set up. The Project, originally authorised on 16 January 1990, provided the Government of Zambia (GRZ) with $3,000,000 for the period January 1990 to 31 August 1995.1 Its purposes were: • to demonstrate the technical, social, economic, and ecological viability of community-based natural resource management programs on marginal lands for improving household and community incomes while sustaining natural resources • to improve national and local capability to halt the decline in the wildlife and natural resource base through training, education, wildlife protection, communication, and technology transfer. Specific objectives included: • demonstrating that wildlife utilisation could be a preferred and profitable land use in four command areas of the National Parks and Wildlife Service (NPWS) and, through building local capacity for sustainable management, influence change in national policy to confer proprietorship on local communities • establishing self-sustaining resource management programs in nine target Game Management Areas (GMAs) that would increase local employment opportunities and incomes, result in optimal sustained wildlife yields and provide the communities with access to a renewable source of revenues for development projects • establishing and strengthening institutions and decision-making procedures involving local communities in sustainable resource management and distribution of economic benefits from the wildlife resource base • enhancing social and rural welfare through increased income and access to protein, community development projects, and expanded participation of women in the development process • building the ability of development sub-authorities to capture returns from wildlife utilisation and to influence policy changes supporting direct return of economic benefits to communities On September 30, 1993, USAID/Zambia authorised an additional $1,800,000, as the first amendment to the Project. The following additional outputs were identified. 1 In the previous year, USAID provided $40,000 in a matching agreement with World Wildlife Fund-US (WWF-US). NRMP/ADMADE final evaluation ARD/IPCCorp 2 • Improved management and operations of the Wildlife Conservation Revolving Fund (WCRF). • The existence of policy statements and legislative changes that would provide a legal basis for community based participation in natural resource management and utilisation. • Assistance continuing in land use planning and resource management planning at the level of GMAs. • The existence of trained project participants and research into relevant policy and institutional matters. 2.0 OBJECTIVES OF THE CURRENT EVAL UATION This report is the final evaluation of the Project, which took place between 3 April and 7 May 2000. Its objectives were: • to determine whether USAID investments achieved their desired impacts • to generate ideas on how the impact of USAID investments in community wildlife management might have been improved • and to generate ideas on how RNRMP/ADMADE (the Project) experiences can influence ongoing or future USAID and other institutional investments in natural resources conservation, increasing rural incomes or improving food security Methods used were searches of relevant documents, and interviews with relevant persons working on the Project, GRZ, non-government organisations (NGOs), the private sector and community representatives. Interviews took place in Lusaka, Chilanga, the African College of Community-based Natural Resource Management (the College) at Nyamaluma, and at Nalusanga on the border of Mumbwa Game Management Area and in villages nearby. A list of persons interviewed is the subject of Annex 1. The evaluation took place during a time of flux. ZAWA had replaced NPWS four months earlier but its senior management team had not been appointed. Changes had been agreed upon administratively concerning the nature and role of community institutions but none had been formally approved and or adopted by the Board of ZAWA. Changes to the system for distributing revenue earned from hunting had been proposed but had not been implements because no remittances had been made. Furthermore, ZAWA faced financial problems arising from a misunderstanding over whether ZAWA or GRZ would pay staff salaries. An air of uncertainly persisted up to the final day of the evaluation mission. 3.0 BACKGROUND ADMADE ADMADE is a complex program that seeks to link wildlife conservation with the well being of people who live in close proximity to large wild animals. Its complexity makes it difficult for newcomers to comprehend. NRMP/ADMADE final evaluation ARD/IPCCorp 3 ADMADE is an acronym for Administrative Management Design for Game Management Areas, a program now 10 years’ old, managed by the former National Parks and Wildlife Service (NPWS), now renamed Zambia Wildlife Authority (ZAWA) and currently undergoing reorganization. The three factors foremost in precipitating its development were: • the drastic rise in poaching, from about 1975, of commercially valuable wild animals—in particular elephant and black rhinoceros • an increased access to firearms, especially automatic and semi-automatic weapons • drastic reductions in resources available to NPWS to carry out its mandate during the 1980s Coupled with these factors was the continued rise in human populations, which placed increasing pressures on finite agricultural land in the GMAs. During the second half of the 20th century, Zambia’s population rose from about 2.5 million to 10 million. ADMADE aims to administer wildlife management through participation and leadership of residents living in GMAs. It seeks to ensure that a portion of revenue earned from wildlife management is shared between residents of GMAs ‘in the form of employment, community development and the resource itself by meeting basic wildlife management costs.’ (Mwenya et al, 1990). It is a type of program that has become known as community-based natural resource management (CBNRM). Another aim of CBNRM has been to take better advantage of the unique megafauna that occurs in Southern and Eastern Africa, which is potentially a major source of income and foreign exchange from sport hunting. Variations occur elsewhere in the Region and beyond. One of the best known is the CAMPFIRE program in Zimbabwe; others are practised in Botswana and Namibia. NRMP/ADMADE final evaluation ARD/IPCCorp 4 Game management areas Zambia’s protected wildlife areas comprise national parks and GMAs. The system has evolved greatly during the course of the 20th century but the total area under legal protection has altered little over the past 50 years. By the early 1950s, most of today’s national parks were game reserves under earlier legislation; the only national park was Kafue. Most present-day GMAs were called Controlled Hunting Areas (CHAs), divided into first and second class CHAs. In 1972, the National Parks and Wildlife Act of 1968 came into force, replacing previous statutory laws. Most game reserves2 were re-gazetted national parks; most CHAs became GMAs. Lower Zambezi National Park was added to the system several years’ later. National boundary SLAMU Areas WWF We land areas Where ADMADE not ntroduced Unsupported ADMADE areas USAID supported areas National Parks N Zambia’s protected wildlife areas Game reserves had largely been managed for tourism and biodiversity conservation, as were the national parks that replaced them. Most CHAs had been managed for higher quality licensed hunting, which continued after they became GMAs. Second class CHAs were allocated for hunting only by residents of those areas; first class CHAs allowed for hunting by residents and non-residents, including safari hunting by foreigners. The National Parks and Wildlife Act of 1991, which replaced the 1968 version, did not alter the broad management objectives; neither, in respect of national parks, did the Zambia Wildlife Act of 1998. The extant protected wildlife area system managed by ZAWA consists of 19 national parks, totalling 63,500 km2 (8.4 per cent of the country) and 34 GMAs totalling 164,000 km2 (21.8 per cent). National parks are established by presidential statutory 2 Including the Litunga’s game areas in Western Province, formerly Barotseland. NRMP/ADMADE final evaluation ARD/IPCCorp 5 order for 'the conservation or protection and enhancement of wildlife, ecosystems, biodiversity and natural beauty'3 . All other forms of land use are forbidden except that minerals may be exploited, subject to the findings of environmental impact assessments made in accordance with the provisions of the Environmental Protection and Pollution Control Act. GMAs are also declared by presidential order4 but all forms of land use are subject to the provisions of management plans developed by community resource boards.5 Realistically, however, wildlife management in GMAs is to be pursued in a manner commensurate with other forms of land use, including crop production, livestock husbandry, fishing and forestry. Rationale behind ADMADE The basic principle of CBNRM projects in Zambia and elsewhere is that, ‘for a community to manage its resource base sustainably it must receive direct benefits arising from its use. These benefits must exceed the perceived costs of managing the resource and must be secure over time’ (Stiener & Rihoy 1995) The rationale for ADMADE was described by Mwenya et al (1990), who presented cogent reasons for participatory management of wild animals and described the development and way in which the program works. However, on page 1 under the heading ‘Giving back what was taken’ the authors proffered views that have not gone unchallenged. They asserted that ‘game laws enacted by the colonial government discriminated against Africans’ and implied that a system of traditional, benign local management was already a feature of pre-colonial days although they acknowledge that laws similar to those of the colonial era were still in force 26 years after the colonial government had disappeared. Astle (1999) has challenged both submissions, and cites numerous well-documented sources showing that British colonial policy on wildlife (or ‘game’ as it was generally known) recognized the importance of wild animals to rural people and mandated that it be managed for their benefit. He also refutes the ‘romantic’ view of benign, wise management by local peoples, and points out that wildlife in what is now Western Province (formerly Barotseland) was not subject to GRZ control until 1970, at which time its status was found to be in much the same condition as elsewhere in Zambia. The principle of CBNRM has its critics. MacKinnon (1994), writing in the Asia￾Pacific context, observed that, ‘Rich and powerful individuals and organizations are far more capable of protecting their own resource bases than are rural communities. For example, there is little illegal cutting of timber or even poaching in Indonesian timber concessions compared to what happened in (government) nature reserves.’ To these examples might be added the large, privately owned conservancies of Zimbabwe, whose owners (some of them very rich) protect and manage their wildlife efficiently and profitably. A conclusion is that people can best be relied upon to safeguard resources if they feel that they own them. 3 Zambia Wildlife Act, 1998 section 10. 4 Ibid., section 26. 5 Ibid., section 7. NRMP/ADMADE final evaluation ARD/IPCCorp 6 A commonly expressed opinion concerning ADMADE (and similar CBNRM programs such as CAMPFIRE) is that it was started by biologists as a strategy for saving wildlife by hypothesising a link with human welfare. Astle (1999) worked in Zambia first as an Agricultural Officer, later as a Biologist in the Luangwa Valley, and ended his service with GRZ as Chief Wildlife Research Officer. He maintained, first, that urban people have no interest whatsoever in wildlife, and, based upon his personal experiences, that most rural people view wildlife as pests that should be eliminated. He does not question the possibility that community-based wildlife management may be a valid concept, given suitable conditions and provided that it is demonstrably an economic asset. However, in order that it can be judged an economic asset, the needs of people and available resources in an area must be judged on socio￾economic terms, not by biologists. Community-based wildlife management programs, Astle (1999) argues, are no more than special pleading on behalf of wild animals by biologists. Given the history of ADMADE’s origins, this is a valid point, whatever changes the program may have undergone since then. Other critics accept the principal of CBNRM but argue that ADMADE is not achieving its objectives: recent ones include Matenga (1999) and Hachileka et al (1999). Matenga (1999), in particular, claimed that ADMADE, far from empowering people, was disempowering them. This claim was based on the Sub-authority system6 of CBNRM that was in force at the time, and he acknowledged that the new system that was to replace it gave cause for optimism. During this evaluation, the main practitioners of ADMADE claimed not to have been approached by either critic, and to know nothing of their reports until they were shown copies by the evaluating team. ADMADE’s practitioners have also been accused, in their eagerness to implement the program, of overstating its potential benefits and creating inflated expectations that could not be met. Some criticism may stem from rivalry between protagonists, who perceive each other as competitors (a common feature of wildlife management). A final point concerns law enforcement. ADMADE reports and papers have stressed the ineffectiveness of law enforcement as a method of conserving wildlife. This is rich seeing that ADMADE puts considerable resources into law enforcement; the 600 Village Scouts it has trained and deployed have doubled the patrolling capacity in many GMAs, and been very supportive of NPWS and ZAWA. There will always be circumstances where firm control and law enforcement are valuable strategies: better still, of course, is professional management backed by adequate financial and manpower resources. No matter how successful other strategies may be, it will always pay the law-breaker to flout the law provided he can get away with it. His personal gain is greater than his share of the communal loss. The Origins of ADMADE ADMADE’s roots lie in the Lupande Research Project (1979-84), in which NPWS and the New York Zoological Society7 conducted joint studies into relationships 6 Described in Section 7. 7 Now the Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS). NRMP/ADMADE final evaluation ARD/IPCCorp 7 between elephants and human activities (Mwenya et al). The most significant conclusion that emerged from this project was that conservation should be based, at least in part, on the needs of local residents. In September 1983, the Lupande Development Workshop was convened and attended by a multidisciplinary audience of natural resource and rural development specialists, who concluded that the inhabitants of the Luangwa Valley’s GMA’s should be enabled and encouraged to participate in development and management of the Valley’s natural resources. Upon this basis was established the Lupande Development Project (LDP), which ran from 1984 to 1987. In the final year of LDP, NPWS extended the principle of CBNRM to 10 of Zambia’s 34 GMAs: this was ADMADE. Although participants at the workshop were generally agreed on the principle of CBNRM, two factions emerged. One, favoring a large-scale program that embraced several natural resources, gave rise to the Luangwa Integrated Rural Development Project (LIRDP)8 . The second, which led to ADMADE as described above, focussed on wildlife (to be precise, game animals), which were to remain NPWS’s responsibility, but allowed for participation by members of local communities. An ADMADE village land use meeting 8 LIRDP was independent of NPWS, financed by Norway and enjoyed President Kaunda’s patronage. After 1991’s general election, it was placed under NPWS, was shorn of non-wildlife functions (e.g., agriculture and transport) and renamed South Luangwa Administrative Management Unit (SLAMU). NRMP/ADMADE final evaluation ARD/IPCCorp 8 USAID Support for ADMADE USAID has been the major source of outside funding for the ADMADE program; $4.8 million has been allocated in two tranches as outlined above. The Project has supported the development and operations of ADMADE from 1989 to 1994, and selected aspects of development from 1994 onwards. At present, 29 GMAs are included in the ADMADE program: 21 where safari hunting takes place and local peoples benefit from this activity, and eight depleted areas that have been leased to private companies to rehabilitate over 15 years Areas supported by USAID are listed in Table 1 and illustrated in Map 1. Confusion over the number of areas supported by USAID is evident in written reports and oral evidence: the current evaluation team found they ranged from nine to 12. Confusion arises from lack of clarity in distinguishing between GMAs, hunting blocks and ADMADE management units, and this is compounded by the absence of an easily located, definitive map showing the layout of protected areas in Zambia; those at ZAWA’s Chilanga office varied from one another. Table 1 attempts to allay this confusion by proposing that USAID supported ADMADE in 11 GMAs and 13 hunting blocks that involved 10 Community Resource Boards (CRBs). The latter are described below under Section 7. Table 1. ADMADE Management Units supported by USAID 1989-1999. Names of Units Notes Location CRBs elected Chanjuzi + Mwanya One GMA (Lumimba) with two hunting blocks and two CRBs Luangwa 1999 (2) Chifunda One GMA and hunting block with one CRB Luangwa 1999 Chikwa + Fulazi Two GMAs combined into one hunting block with one CRB Luangwa 1999 Kasonso One GMA and hunting block with one CRB Kafue Lunga-Busanga Lunga-Luswishi Two GMAs and hunting blocks that share one CRB Kafue 1999 Luawata +Nyampala Two hunting blocks in Munyamadzi GMA that share one CRB Luangwa 1999 Mulobezi One GMA and hunting block and one CRB Kafue 2000 Mumbwa East + Mumbwa West One GMA divided into two hunting blocks, and one CRB Kafue 1999 Sichifulo One GMA and hunting block and one CRB Kafue 1999 Source: Based upon information in ADMADE and WCRF reports NRMP/ADMADE final evaluation ARD/IPCCorp 9 The original project agreement supported three activities, intended to contribute towards USAID Strategic Objective 1 (S.O.1), ‘increased rural incomes of selected groups'. • Community-based use of natural resources, wildlife management and community development. • Conservation of the resource base, elements of which included ecological monitoring, resource management and wildlife protection. • Regional communications and exchange of information. 4.0 ASSOCIATED INSTITUTIONS Three institutions were intimately bound up with the Project: the Ministry of Tourism (MoT), WCRF and the College. Ministry of Tourism: National Parks and Wildlife Service The Project was based in MoT, with which it had a close and generally harmonious working relationship. This association allowed the Project to have direct access to, and the protection of, GRZ. MoT was always represented at Project workshops, and the Technical Assistant employed by WCS has long been NPWS’s (and now ZAWA’s) technical adviser on ADMADE and other aspects of wildlife and protected area management. Through the work of the Project, ADMADE emerged as MoT’s official strategy for managing GMAs, and one of its most important programs. Close relations with a GRZ ministry enabled WCS to gain a 10-year memorandum of understanding, giving formal approval of a relationship under which funds can be raised and plans produced. NPWS was the largest department in MoT, with a civil service establishment of about 1,480 and 450 daily paid staff. It was formed in 1974, when the former Department of Wildlife, Fisheries and National Parks was divided, and continued under that name until ZAWA’s commencement in November 1999. At the time of this evaluation, the transformation is incomplete, and recruitment for the senior positions not yet started. The upper management structure is expected to resemble that illustrated below. Director General Director Conservation & Management Director Finance & Administration Director General Services Director Planning & Information Director CBNRM ADMADE Company Secretary Internal Auditor NRMP/ADMADE final evaluation ARD/IPCCorp 10 The Director General will be responsible to the ZAWA Board; 18 members were appointed in October 1999 and the Chairman in May 2000. The Board is answerable to the Minister of Tourism. At present there is an Interim Management Team that includes members of ZAWA and the management consultants Deloitte Touche. The field structure of ZAWA is expected to comprise four management units: see Box. Wildlife Conservation Revolving Fund Starting in the early 1980s, GRZ allowed departments to hold revolving funds, enabling them to retain a proportion of the revenue they earned to support management costs. The Ministry of Finance set up the Wildlife Conservation Revolving Fund (WCRF) in 1983 as a means of supplementing government funding to wildlife management. It was controlled by a Board of Directors whose Chairman was the Permanent Secretary of Tourism. The WCRF enabled additional manpower to be recruited for Lupande GMA, in the form of Village Scouts who were daily paid employees rather than civil servants. With the appearance of ADMADE in 1989, the Fund’s objectives were modified so that revenue was shared between GRZ and WCRF in the following manner. Revenue collected from sale of hunting licences was divided equally: and of WCRF’s share, 40 per cent was to be used for wildlife management within GMAs, 35 per cent for local community development and 25 per cent retained by ZAWA to cover management costs and subsidise depleted GMAs. Revenue collected from sale of hunting rights or concessions went entirely to WCRF, where it was subject to the same 40-35-25 pattern of distribution. WCRF had a chequered career, as did other revolving funds set up after 1980. The first two mid-term evaluations criticised it for its lack of transparency and incompetent management. Matters improved in 1994, with the appointment of a Financial Manager, who introduced computerised accounting. WCRF was absorbed into ZAWA at the latter’s commencement in November 1999. Its Controller will be the yet-to-be-appointed head of the Directorate responsible for Finance and Administration. Since then, the arrangements have, in theory, been that all revenues (licence and hunting rights) accrue to ZAWA to be shared out as before9 . 9 A current proposal is that shares be 40 per cent to community development (5 per cent of which would be paid to the Chief), 40 per cent to resource management and 20 per cent to ZAWA. ¶'XHWRDODFNRIRYHUVLJKW PDQ\RIWKHVHUHYROYLQJIXQG PDQDJHUVEHFDPHZHDOWKLHU· Quote from a Ministry of Finance official, cited by Astle (1999) 3URSRVHGILHOGVWUXFWXUHIRU=$:$ 1RUWKHUQ:LOGOLIH0DQDJHPHQW8QLW0SLND 6RXWKHUQ:LOGOLIH0DQDJHPHQW8QLW.DIXH (DVWHUQ:LOGOLIH0DQDJHPHQW8QLW&KLSDWD :HVWHUQ:LOGOLIH0DQDJHPHQW8QLW0XPEZD NRMP/ADMADE final evaluation ARD/IPCCorp 11 However, complications arose. Due to an apparent breakdown in communication, ZAWA assumed that GRZ would continue to pay salaries after commencement but GRZ had planned to stop payments because ZAWA staff would no longer be civil servants. When January 2000 salaries failed to appear, ZAWA used funds earmarked for communities from the former WCRF to pay them. Eventually an interim arrangement was made, in which GRZ agreed to pay salaries from February to June 2000, and reimburse the Fund for the January salaries. Reimbursement had not occurred at the time of this evaluation. As a result, disbursement to support community resource management and community development for 2000 has been delayed although Community Resource Boards (CRBs)10 were anticipating payment in November 1999. Members of CRBs are understandably dissatisfied. A CRB Chairman interviewed during the evaluation reported that newly elected members were becoming disillusioned. At present their needs are modest: minor office equipment and stationery to allow for a local publicity campaign; pay off former members of Sub￾authorities; and cover costs of convening meetings. Accurate book keeping (at Unit Leader level) has been, and continues to be, a weak point in administration of the Fund. Abuses are reported chiefly with the 40 per cent share for resource management. The 35 per cent share for community development is controlled more effectively. To the outside observer, problems experienced in getting both the 40 and 35 per cent shares disbursed seem to warrant a simple solution: arrange for the safari companies to remit direct to CRBs’ bank accounts. However, until levels of competence in book keeping and accountability can be raised sufficiently this will remain impracticable. It was also reported to the evaluating team that there are legalistic barriers, and safari companies would feel uneasy about security if payments were made directly to CRBs. African College of Community-based Natural Resource Management The African College of Community-based Natural Resource Management is a cumbersome and somewhat pretentious title for what was previously known as the Nyamaluma Training and Research Centre. It was founded in 1987 on the site of the former Nyamaluma Schools’ Camp, a gift of the Beit Trust in the 1950s. The College was established as a means of starting the ADMADE program by training Village Scouts. Since then it has expanded to include training across a range of other courses. In 1999, it was registered with the Technical Education, Vocational and Entrepreneurship Training Secretariat (TEVETS) and renamed. It claims to be the only institute in the SADC region that focuses exclusively upon community based management and aims its curricula at fulfilling village level needs. Controversy surrounds the siting at Nyamaluma. Two arguments are leveled against the present location. One, that it favors development of CBNRM in the Luangwa Valley GMAs to the detriment of GMAs in the Kafue area. This is evidently true but 10 Described in Section 7. NRMP/ADMADE final evaluation ARD/IPCCorp 12 the research and training facility must be based somewhere, and were it to be in the Kafue area, the same shortcoming would apply in reverse. And if had been sited centrally, say in NPWS headquarters at Chilanga, CBNRM personnel would have been under constant pressure to take on other roles detracting from the focussed attention that they were able to give ADMADE in a remote rural setting. The second is that ADMADE, as a program of NPWS, should have been at a location where NPWS could have exercised greater control over it. Being at Nyamaluma, over 700 km from Chilanga and poor communications linking them, the College enjoyed a large helping of independence, which may not have been to NPWS’s or ADMADE’s advantage. The 1995 mid-term evaluation (see section 5) observed that NPWS ‘had allowed technical leadership to be controlled at Nyamaluma’. The College supports a program of integrated research and teaching, in which training is based upon research findings. USAID and WCS have been its major supporters. Research has included: • needs research to establish the needs of people in and around GMAs in terms of food security and survival, and in skills presently lacking but needed to develop strategies for problem solving • wildlife management including population estimates or trends and levels of law￾breaking • broad based PRA studies of communities in and around selected GMAs • use of GIS techniques and database management In its earlier years, courses for Village Scouts predominated but the proportion dropped as vacancies were filled. During the period 1987 to 1996, out of 986 trainees, 565 were on the Village Scout Basic course, 34 Village Scout Advanced and 132 Advanced ADMADE Scouting (74 per cent). In contrast, from April to September 1999, Village Scout courses in total accounted for 75 out of 357 trainees (21 per cent). From 1987 to 1999, an estimated 1,500 trainees have passed through the College at an average rate of about 125 a year. The rate in recent years has risen to nearer 450. &RXUVHVWDXJKWDWWKH$IULFDQ&ROOHJHRI&%510 Village Scout Basic Village Scout Advanced Unit Leader Advanced CBNRM Leathercraft & Tanning Basic Mechanic Community Liaison Officer Community Health Worker Community Book-keeping Community Development Resource Management Financial Management Traditional Rulers’ Executive Food Security Agroforestry Bee-keeping Outpost skills Drama GIS skills Computer skills NRMP/ADMADE final evaluation ARD/IPCCorp 13 The extent to which skills taught at the College reach into the GMAs of the Luangwa and Kafue areas is shown in Table 2. Skills have been imparted more widely in the former areas, due to the presence of the College in the Luangwa Valley. Table 2. ADMADE Units whose communities have benefited from 10 selected skills taught at the College. Luangwa Units CDC FMC RMC Bookkeeper Chiefs’ leadershi p Quota setting Drama skills Land use planning Bee keeping Family planning Chikwa X XX X X X X X X X Mwanya X XX X X X X X X X Chifunda X XX X X X X X X X Chanjuzi X XX X X X X X X X Munyamadzi X XX X X X X X Kafue Units CDC FMC RMC Bookkeeper Chiefs’ leadership Quota setting Drama skills Land use planning Bee keeping Family planning Mumbwa X X X X X X Sichifulo X X X Mulobezi X X X Lunga Kasonso X X CDC = Community Development Committee FMC = Financial Management Committee RMC = Resource Management Committee Source: Tables supplied from College records To the outsider, the range of courses offered at this remote location suggest either remarkable talents at work or an organisation that is over-extending itself (particularly as there is no qualified Educationist on the staff) and attempting to teach subjects that it may not have the expertise to teach well. The College Administrator heads the staff of the College. There are about 10 teachers, and supporting staff bring the total strength up to about 30. Several of the supporting staff have artisanal skills that they teach. WCS pays the salaries of the College Administrator, five of his colleagues and the Technical Assistant. WCS also pays the five Outpost trainees, an arrangement that is to continue in their field postings. Two tanners support themselves on earnings from their craft. The remaining staff members have been paid either by WCRF or GRZ. Starting in 1997, US Peace Corps volunteers have been participating in ADMADE’s Luangwa Valley programs. There are now six, one at the College and five in the field. Further volunteers are to be recruited after the Outpost trainees have been deployed to their posts around the Kafue GMAs. The volunteers work at village level, attend meetings and focus on financial management and community development aspects. 21(,17(59,(:((5(0$5.(' 7+$77+(21/<68%-(&76127 <(77$8*+7$71<$0$/80$$5( 7+(&21752/2)+855,&$1(6 )/22'6$1' ($57+48$.(6 NRMP/ADMADE final evaluation ARD/IPCCorp 14 The College can accommodate up to 100 in double rooms, five- and ten-bedded rooms and a dormitory. If larger numbers are to be catered for, when workshops are held, tents are used to expand capacity. The College is to continue its program of training based upon research, and research is likely to expand to provide an improved basis for training. The College Administrator has ambitions to internationalise the College by attracting trainees from neighbouring countries or even further afield. There is no comparable competitor in the SADC region although some universities offer community-based management courses. Whether the College is to become an internationally recognised institute of training or if it only expands to cater for a more extensive ADMADE program, it needs to upgrade some of its facilities. • Replace the existing system of solar power generation with mains connection. This would enable College equipment, especially its computers, to function round the clock, and would make it a more attractive site on which well qualified professionals would be more prepared to live for extended periods. ZESCO has carried out a feasibility study, and quoted a price of $100,000 for connection with the national grid, including wiring all buildings (College Administrator, pers com). • Improve the 40-km access road between the College and Mfuwe. Although some bridges and culverts have been installed, the road remains a constraint to entry especially during November to April, taking about two hours to negotiate. No estimate for upgrading the road is available. • Upgrade inadequate water supply system. • Establish a telephone connection with the outside world. There is as yet also no development plan, upon which to base requests for donor support. Although the College has been accredited by TEVETS (see above) and the staff appear well motivated, none has formal training in education, which would presumably be a prerequisite if the College is to become more than a national institute. Other Public Institutions Ministry of Environment (MoE) The Project established contacts with MoE and contributed to development of forest sector community-based management. In partnership with the Department of Forests, the Project shared experiences and gave some training in open areas around Kafue National Park. Ministry of Education (MoEd) Teachers have shown interest in College curricula, developed heightened awareness in wildlife management and passed this on to their pupils. The College was accredited NRMP/ADMADE final evaluation ARD/IPCCorp 15 by TEVETS. Numerous MoEd representatives have visited the College. Revenue earned through the ADMADE program funded new schools. Area Development Committees (ADCs) Local councils have ADCs, which produce development plans. ADCs in Kasempa, Mumbwa, Lundazi and Chama Districts decided to use the assistance of CRBs in planning. There were advantages to ADMADE and the Project in this arrangement. For example, support in controlling fishing, and in obtaining advice on setting up rural health posts. Non-government organizations Several NGOs have been associated with ADMADE. See section 14, under I.R. 2 for a list. Community-based institutions Institutions set up under ADMADE are described in section 7. Private sector The most important component of the private sector to ADMADE is the safari hunting industry. The history of safari hunts in Zambia (Astle, 1999) dates back to 1950, when the first ‘Conducted Hunting Scheme’ was introduced by the Northern Rhodesian Government (NRG). NRG provided all facilities except catering, which was contracted out. The first ‘professional hunters’ were serving officers of the Department of Game and Tsetse Control. Native Authorities in the hunted areas received half of all revenue, which, over 1950 to 1959 amounted to £9,000, roughly equivalent today to $280,000. It is clear that revenue sharing with local communities was already a feature of safari hunting in colonial times—a fact that is conveniently overlooked by modern day champions of CBNRM. After a decline in demand, safari hunting was discontinued in 1962 but reintroduced two years’ later with concessions granted to a single company. A second company appeared in 1972 but the two merged soon after. Payments continued to be made to Native Authorities and, in 1970, safari companies were required to deliver all meat to local communities. After 1975, the number of safari companies rose steeply, reaching 21 by 1986, at which time they were cut back to six. Leases were issued on an ad hoc basis by the Director of NPWS (Chairman of the Professional Hunters Association of Zambia (PHAZ), pers. com.). A legal dispute between GRZ and four companies led to the latter being awarded sizeable damages. By 1991, 21 companies were in business 6$)$5,+817,1*,1=$0%,$ • FRPSDQLHV • WRSURIHVVLRQDOKXQWHUV • FOLHQWVD\HDU • DQQXDOHDUQLQJVRIWRPLOOLRQ NRMP/ADMADE final evaluation ARD/IPCCorp 16 again, and the first four-year concessions for 1992-95 were put to tender. Tendering was repeated in 1995 for 1996-2000. Disputes and wrangles have bedevilled tendering, causing a brief hiatus in the Project during 1996. ADMADE has become closely involved with the hunting industry. Liaison with the private sector produced changes in the requirements for issuing hunting leases and the conduct of safaris. • A requirement was introduced for Liaison Officers to be attached to safaris, to resolve disputes between communities and the company. • Increased employment was secured for members of local communities. • The Conservation Bullet Award was introduced, aimed at increasing standards in hunting skills and ethics. • A pre-season hunting meeting was introduced to minimise the chances of problems occurring after clients had arrived in Zambia and hunting had commenced. However, PHAZ claims that only one meeting was ever held (1998). • MoT representatives were encouraged to attend safari club conventions. • The Project produced safari guidebooks and brochures directed at hunting clients, informing them about Zambia and ADMADE. In spite of the foregoing, safari hunting is still controlled by GRZ. Hunting concessions are awarded by GRZ, not by the community institutions. Safari client with male roan antelope, Mwanya’s area, Luangwa Valley 5.0 EVOLUTION OF THE PROJECT Prior to commencement of the Project, $40,000 of USAID support was given to help start up ADMADE. This was provided through the terms of a matching grant NRMP/ADMADE final evaluation ARD/IPCCorp 17 agreement between USAID and WWF-US, in which both parties put up equal amounts to raise a total $80,000. The WWF-US input came from a private benefactor. This section summarises the development of the Project throughout its 10 years, and includes the findings of evaluation missions conducted before 1996. Main phases August 1989 to June 1994 A bilateral agreement between USAID and the Ministry of Tourism (MoT) gave assistance to NPWS, enabling it to set up and establish ADMADE, through the provision of commodities (vehicles and plant, computers, camping and patrol gear and other equipment), training services and limited technical assistance. WWF-US was the implementing agency. During this period, $3.0 million out of the $4.8 million was expended. Approximately half was used to purchase capital equipment, the major outlay being in 1991. The balance was expended on technical assistance and consultancies between 1991 and 1994. July 1994 to December 1995 From now on, all USAID support went into non-operational support—technical assistance, training and research—rather than to direct support of ADMADE units. Under the terms of a cooperative agreement with WWF-US, USAID provided technical assistance to support legislative reforms, participatory management planning of GMAs and improvements to information systems. About $30,000 were used to pay two lawyers from the University of Florida, who had been identified by WCS. January 1996 to June 1996 A hiatus occurred caused by concern over lack of transparency on the part of the National Tender Board in processing applications for safari hunting concessions. The possibility existed that this might lead to closing down RNRMP/USAID support but good sense and diplomacy prevailed. During the hiatus, support was minimal. July 1996 to September 1998 USAID provided direct financing to NPWS via project implementation letters. Funds were used to advance training courses at Nyamaluma and strengthen the library, and to purchase new computers. Geographical Information System (GIS) software was acquired. These moves enabled ADMADE to continue and develop. About $250,000 was spent during this period, plus other funds to support WCRF by providing a professional manager and to pay auditors. October 1998 to December 1999 Under the terms of a cooperative agreement with the Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS), USAID provided technical assistance to document and disseminate information on the impacts of ADMADE and lessons learned. The cost was $450,000. During this phase, what had begun life as a wildlife management program took on a greater food security role. NRMP/ADMADE final evaluation ARD/IPCCorp 18 Project evaluations between 1989 and 1995 Three evaluations were carried out during the period 1989 to 1995. Their findings are summarized below. July 1992. Midterm evaluation of the Zambia Natural Resources Management Project (Project no. 690-0251.11) Submitted to USAID/Zambia by Peter Alpert and Paul André DeGeorges. This evaluation concluded that the Project: • was meeting objectives to demonstrate that wildlife can be a profitable form of land use, and that benefits derived from wildlife management can be distributed to local people • was demonstrating progress towards increasing the welfare of local communities, increasing participation by women and returning benefits from local use of wildlife to communities • had increased local employment • had trained and deployed law-enforcement personnel, which had resulted in reduced illegal hunting • was successfully convincing local people of the values of wildlife conservation However, the evaluation also reported that the Project: • had not yet succeeded in establishing self-sustaining wildlife management programmes • had not yet succeeded in influencing national policies governing rights of ownership over wild animals • was unlikely to demonstrate the ability of local communities to manage wildlife unaided although it had shown that communities could manage local development projects. It also considered that improvements could be made in: • wildlife monitoring and research capacity • internal communications within the ADMADE program • consistency of management and record keeping • persuading officials and leaders to share authority with lower levels • financial accounting and increase revenues • vehicle maintenance July 1994. Mid term planning assessment of the Natural Resources Management Project (Zambian component USAID 690-0251.12): final report. Prepared by ULG Consultants Ltd, Harare office. This document was an ‘assessment or forward plan’ for the Project, which drew four general conclusions • That, while adequate technical knowledge for natural resource management, land use planning, community development and other relevant issues existed, the Project was hampered by: NRMP/ADMADE final evaluation ARD/IPCCorp 19 ƒ lack of will on the part of GRZ to follow through existing policies or to commit sufficient resources to the wildlife sector ƒ insufficient attention by NPWS to address constraints to the Project’s success ƒ insufficient attention to management issues on the part of USAID offices in Lusaka, Harare and Washington DC • That the monitoring systems were not yet producing sufficient data to determine whether or not natural resource management or the lives of local people had been improved. • The community development component had not got started, and was beset with policy, management and personality problems. There was minimal coordination between the conservation and community development components of the Project, which often competed for the limited local resources being generated. • Complete and accurate data were unavailable for the WCRF, making it impossible to analyze availability or use of funds, and that little effort seemed to be made by NPWS to address this problem. August 23, 1995. Natural Resources Management Project Zambian component of Southern Africa Regional Project: a success in the making. Presented to USAID/Zambia by Irving Rosenthal and Frederick W Sowers. This was the first evaluation to suggest that sustainability of ADMADE was possible; the subtitle had a ring of optimism. The authors reported that, ‘While the program is not mature, it has achieved a degree of sustainability. Even without further USAID funding, the ADMADE program, or something like it, would continue.’ Several general conclusions were drawn and recommendations made. • GRZ’s adoption of a wildlife policy11 has given needed official support to the principal of community-based management. But institutional changes were needed in NPWS to give greater support to ADMADE. • The concept of community-based natural resource management is now seen to be workable in Zambia, and the Zambian sport hunting industry has positive economic benefits that can be passed on to local rural people. A new initiative is needed to assist local communities in planning and conducting management programs for conservation and development. • Management of the WCRF had improved since the last assessment. • WWF-US had been unable to provide leadership and coordination, and NPWS had allowed technical leadership to be controlled at Nyamaluma. The Research and Training Center at Nyamaluma was an asset but needed strengthening, and its role in other fields clearly specified to ensure its continued support of NPWS. • Monitoring of wildlife and economic development still needed improvement. The authors recommended that the Technical Assistant spend less time on community development, and that more Zambians be trained to carry out research and monitoring and how to use the information derived from them. • Village Scouts (who are trained at Nyamaluma) were functioning well under trying conditions but needed stronger leadership. 11 In fact, the new policy was only in draft form at that time. It was formally adopted three years later (Anon., 1998). NRMP/ADMADE final evaluation ARD/IPCCorp 20 • The new USAID regional office in Gaberone was giving greater attention to Project management. 6.0 THE PROJECT 1996 TO 1999 This section discusses in greater detail the way the Project was implemented from 1996 onwards. Focus of resources In July 1996 an in-house, ad hoc group was formed in NPWS, which focussed upon ADMADE and the safari hunting industry. The group was composed of senior NPWS staff and the WCS Technical Assistant, who met from time-to-time to discuss issues. During their early meetings, the group identified two particular problems: the negative roles played by most Chiefs, who stifled or suppressed broader community needs, and the inadequate manner in which funds were disbursed by WCRF to finance wildlife management (the 40 per cent share). The share was being remitted to Wardens, who failed to pass it on to communities. Thus people in the communities often failed to perceive the benefits. However, WRCF argued that changing this arrangement would lead to unaccountability and misuse of funds. There was clearly distrust over the capacity of community structures to handle money, which continues to the present day. Adequate systems were in place for monitoring, law-enforcement and public education but: • The Sub-authority system was not structured so as to draw decisions from people that would have the best impacts on resource management • there was a high continuing rate of snaring • poor accountability of financial control would continue while Bookkeepers remained subject to Chiefs, leading to misuse of funds There were, therefore, two targets: a resolution of problems at community level, which would entail a strengthened Nyamaluma Institute, and a strengthened WCRF. A decision was taken to adopt a workshop rather than training course strategy, with the aim of bringing about change by facilitation, leading, it was hoped, to a closer and more direct consultative process with communities. Based upon the findings of the workshops, new training modules were developed in 1997. The modules focussed especially upon training Bookkeepers, financial management and upon aspects of community development such as methods for holding meetings, making decisions and resolving disputes. Before the program of workshops, communities were expressing needs for capital structures such as new schools and health centers, which might be considered ‘Chiefs’ projects. During the workshops a different set of needs were revealed; food security, cash and higher incomes. The workshops of 1996-97 led to proposals for replacing the existing system of sub-authorities with Village Area Groups (VAGs) and Community NRMP/ADMADE final evaluation ARD/IPCCorp 21 Resource Boards (CRBs). Training for the needs of VAGs and CRBs began in 1997, well in advance of the first elections in 1999. By this time it was clear that these new bodies would become a reality and that they would have a high degree of autonomous authority. In hindsight, deeper research or PRA approaches might have discovered earlier what local people’s real perceived needs were. The Chiefs continued to oppose the VAG/CRB system but this was overcome in 1998 after negotiation and a promise that five per cent of community development revenue would be paid to each Chief for his or her personal use. The resultant change in community-based institutions represented a recognition on the part of the Project that it had been pursuing a defective strategy and demonstrated that it was prepared to change tactics when the evidence called for change. Monitored elections with secret ballots began in October 1999. Soon after the first elections, the Project recruited three more staff to raise the level of extension work by helping the newly elected VAG members. Help was especially needed in the following subjects, all aimed at imparting a greater sense of confidence. • Methods of making need assessments and getting the more vulnerable, less articulate people to express their views. • Methods of conducting meetings. Some of the new members lacked confidence and did not appreciate the necessity to plan in advance. • Methods of resolving conflict. During the period October 1998 to December 1999, $450,000 of USAID support was channelled though WCS to the College to enable the following work to be carried out. • Results’ analysis of ADMADE carried out by the WCS Technical Assistant. • Research into household needs for food security. • Wild animal population trends and quotas for hunting. • Training communities in methods of data collection and use. • Production of land use plans by VAG areas. ADMADE drama group performing in Mumbwa District NRMP/ADMADE final evaluation ARD/IPCCorp 22 Project evaluations 1996-1999 Two evaluations were carried out during 1998 although neither was strictly evaluating the Project itself. January/February1998. An evaluation of the ADMADE program with special reference to the ‘strengthening phase’ 1995-97. Prepared by Mano Consultancy Services Ltd for USAID. This report looked at ADMADE in general, not only the USAID-supported component. On the opening page, ADMADE is said to be ‘non-donor dependent’, a remarkable judgement for a program that has enjoyed $4.8 million in USAID support. The report notes that controversy has surrounded ADMADE, with opinions having become polarized—a burden suffered by many wildlife management initiatives. The authors concluded, however, that ADMADE was: • sound in conception, design and implementation • an effective and cost-effective system of wildlife conservation and community development • financially and politically sustainable, wherever an area had been ‘secured’ The report recommended that radical alternations were unnecessary but that efforts should be made to increase the share of hunting revenues used to finance resource management and community development. No suggestions were made as to how much the increase should be or how it might be achieved. February 1998. USAID/Zambia report on the Wildlife Conservation Revolving Fund financial management capacity. Prepared by Ernst & Young. This report noted that improvements were visible in WCRF’s financial management—its operations were now transparent and sufficient revenues were being generated from hunting licences to achieve financial self-sustainability. However, some problems remained. • Absence of accounting records in some GMAs to support alleged expenditure of money received from WRCF. • Absence of co-ordination and direction in and between WRCF, NPWS and LIRDP; duplication was leading to wasted resources. • GMA residents allege that absence of a ceiling to special licence issue results in lost revenue opportunities. • Absence of communication between WRCF and GMAs regarding accounting for funds and licence issue. The report noted that WCRF would become financial managers within ZAWA, when the latter was established12, and it identified three areas where continued need for financial support would exist. 12 This occurred in November 1999. NRMP/ADMADE final evaluation ARD/IPCCorp 23 • The College. The report recommended that USAID support current activities but on a larger scale, and that management courses be introduced for senior ZAWA employees. • Major capital investment in plant and vehicles and radios. As expenditure of this kind is not directly community based, and cannot (in the medium term) guarantee tangible income for communities, USAID would be unlikely to give support. The report suggests that EU support might be found for radios. • Internal auditors be employed to review the work of Bookkeepers trained at Nyamaluma and working at the headquarters of the four proposed management units. The four headquarters would, in turn, monitor their GMAs. Financial support would be needed to establish the four offices but thereafter they would be sustained by revenue from the GMAs. 7.0 COMMUNITY-BASED INSTITUTIONS Wildlife Authorities and Sub-authorities References have been made in previous sections to the old and new community structures. These are described below. Plans to institute CBNRM in GMAs were drawn up in 1989. The first institutions established were Wildlife Management Authorities (WMAs), one for each GMA, and below them the Sub-authorities. Membership of a WMA comprised: • The District Governor as Chairman • Elected councillors • The local NPWS Warden • A few Sub-authority members The logistics of convening WMA meetings proved troublesome; most District Governors showed scant interest. It became evident that ADMADE’s purposes would be better served by Sub-authorities, each of which was closer-knit geographically. When the first bank accounts were opened, they were in the name of Sub-authorities. WMAs withered away. Sub-authorities covered smaller areas, and meetings were more easily arranged. Some members were elected, and the first elections were held during 1994-95. Membership of a typical Sub-authority comprised: • The local Chief as Chairman • A few members appointed by the Chief (generally living near him) • A few elected13 members coming from a wider area within the Chiefdom By 1997, the Project was of the opinion that Sub-authorities were not serving ADMADE’s purposes well. Monitoring through workshops suggested that people were dissatisfied with the control exercised by Chiefs, and would prefer accountable 13 These elections, if held at all, were not by secret ballot but were conducted in open meeting. NRMP/ADMADE final evaluation ARD/IPCCorp 24 institutions composed solely of elected members. Resource management was not progressing well, high rates of snaring were still being recorded and safari companies were reporting excessive disturbance of wildlife and their hunts. However, Chiefs had, by-and-large, been supportive of ADMADE, making it desirable to find a solution that would meet community aspirations without undermining traditional authority. The crux of the problem was money: Chiefs had enjoyed access to benefits that could not continue under a more democratic system. Much motivation and diplomacy were needed but, finally, arrangements were hammered out under which new institutions, to be called Village Area Groups (VAGs) and Community Resource Boards (CRBs) would be fully elected. Chiefs would not have a place on VAGs or CRBs but would be Patrons to the latter, and be paid 5 per cent of revenue received by CRBs for community development. Village Areas Groups and Community Resource Boards The latest ADMADE community institutional structure today can be summarised as follows and is illustrated in the figure below. • VAGs are composed of elected representatives from a cluster of villages, typically five to 10 and populations of 500-1,000. • Each VAG elects its representative to sit on the CRB, and two representatives each to sit on the committees for Financial Management, Resource Management and Community Development • Each CRB elects a Chairman VAG 2 VAG 1 VAG 3 Board Committees • 8-12 people/committee • Financial Management (FMC) • Resource Management (RMC) • Community Development (CDC) Chief • patron VAG Committees • 12-16 people/committee VAG Communities • 500-1000 people/VAG Community Resource Board • 9-10 members/board ADMADE Unit Peer Groups • Resource users • e.g., fishermen, honey collectors, farmers, etc. NRMP/ADMADE final evaluation ARD/IPCCorp 25 Needs(Project) thru VAG meetings Vehicle purchase Roads Health services Education Food Security Resources Management Palace Local court Needs(Project) by Sub-authority Vehicle purchase Roads Health services Education Food Security Resources Management Palace Local court An officer of ZAWA is assigned to the Unit covered by a CRB (typically a hunting block) as its Unit Leader. He is answerable to a Warden, who may be responsible for one or more GMAs and/or national parks. Provisions for CRBs were included in the new Zambia Wildlife Act, which commenced in November 1999, although implementing these provisions began in August 199914 with preparations for elections of members to VAGs, working through existing Wildlife Sub-authorities. By 31 December 1999, 10 CRBs had been formed, two followed in 2000 and another two are imminent at the time of writing. Over 600 Village Scouts were operating in the field. A model ADMADE Community Constitution was prepared (ADMADE, 1999a), to be used by individual CRBs when preparing their constitutions. It was drawn up by CRB representatives with only the assistance of a US Peace Corps volunteer secretary. The CRB constitution conforms to the laws of Zambia; it is anticipated that the ZAWA Board will approve it during 2000. Another document prepared during the final month of the Project was the ADMADE Management Contract Agreement (AMCA) (ADMADE, undated), which is to be signed by each CRB and MoT. Signed AMCAs give CRBs formal recognition of their status and define their responsibilities. Much public interest was shown in the first elections, more than for parliamentary or local council elections. Candidates stood as individuals, not as representatives of political parties. Balloting, facilitated by ADMADE, was secret and monitored to guard against irregularities. Those elected had higher potentials for leadership than members of the Sub-authorities; for example, some were retired civil servants. The first VAGs are less than a year old but a different set of community development investments are emerging, compared with those that were manifest during the time of Chief-dominated Sub-authorities. The new set of investments are generally more supportive of household needs, in contrast to the previous pattern of large scale projects. See Figure 1. Figure 1. Comparison of needs expressed by Sub-authorities and VAG meetings. Source: ADMADE (2000) 14 By administrative arrangement. NRMP/ADMADE final evaluation ARD/IPCCorp 26 Current PRA and monitoring suggests that the new system may be workable and sustainable, and could result in more wildlife and reduced poverty although confirmation requires that further investigation be conducted over a longer period and wider geographical area. The evaluating team observed that criticisms directed at ADMADE’s community development achievements were often based on the system of Chief-dominated Sub￾authorities that has long been recognised, and which has been in the process of being phased out since mid-1999. Participation by women Before ADMADE, wildlife management was virtually an all-male activity but during the course of the Project women have become more prominent although they remain a minority. Data gathered at the College on male and female attendance at public meetings indicate ratios of about 75/25 or 80/20. It is conjectured that mixed meetings intimidate women and inhibit them from contributing ideas. The College argues that women-only meetings should be tested. In recent elections for VAGs, women appeared to comprise at least 50 per cent of those who voted but very few stood as candidates. Table 3 shows the numbers of men and women who participated in the process of nominating candidates for VAGs. Although the differential was not great (56.3 to 43.7 per cent respectively) only one woman of three candidates was elected. Table 3. Numbers of men and women participating in the 1999 VAG elections in three ADMADE units of the Luangwa Valley Unit No of candidates Nominating supporters Men Women Chikwa 24 298 182 Chifunda 19 214 166 Kazembe 19 186 194 Chitungulu 19 214 166 Total 81 912 708 Percentages 56.3% 43.7% Source: ADMADE et al, 1999. The following figure is a typical example of male and female participation in VAGs. It is taken from Mumbwa GMA, where 15 villages are grouped to form three VAGs, called Chibuluma, Mulendema and Kabulwebulwe. Mumbwa CRB has nine members, all men. ¶7KHOHDGHUVGRQ·WFDUHDERXW RXUQHHGV7KH\GRQ·WOLVWHQWR XV· A woman in Mwanya’s area, speaking of the local Sub-authorities 1998 NRMP/ADMADE final evaluation ARD/IPCCorp 27 Women are disadvantaged at candidate stage. Two requirements for candidacy are literacy and a Grade 9 education. Fewer women than men have achieved these requirements: they tend to leave school earlier. Women are constrained by cultural factors, their lighter physiques and the fact that they care for children. The constraints are greatest in the role of implementers, most marked in fieldwork that involves travel away from home. These factors are less inhibiting to the role of decision making. Women have appeared as implementers, chiefly though employment as office workers including Bookkeepers, but very few have been recruited as Village Scouts. Safari hunting and tour operator personnel appear to almost entirely male, a trend that extends from hunters, trackers and skinners to camp attendants and cooks. Some women cut grass to supply tourist or hunters’ camps with thatching, a role that is mostly restricted to the early dry season. Women have, therefore, entered into wildlife management in the roles of decision￾makers and implementers but to a relatively minor extent. ADMADE continues to encourage women to play increasingly more significant roles. Women have benefited from infrastructure developments, financed through ADMADE, such as water supplies, clinics and health centres and schools. Men of course also benefit but women and children do so more directly. 8.0 PROJECT RESULTS AND ACHIEVEMEN TS Results identified in the project paper supplement, September 1993 Four results were identified: they addressed issues concerning WCRF; policy and legislative change; land use planning; training project participants; and carrying out research into policy and institutional matters. 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 Chibuluma Mulendema Kabulwebulwe Men Women NRMP/ADMADE final evaluation ARD/IPCCorp 28 Management of the Wildlife Conservation Revolving Fund Improvements were achieved in the management of the WCRF, after the two mid￾term evaluation (1992 and 1994) reported lack of transparency and the impossibility of determining revenues and disbursements. The appointment of a Financial Manager in 1994 led to the keeping of accurate, computerised records. Table 4. Safari hunting revenue 1994-99, from USAID-supported GMAs, showing the 40% and 35% shares. Hunting Unit 1994 1995 1996 40% 35% 40% 35% 40% 35% Chanjuzi 15,690 13,729 22,662 19,829 34,332 30,041 Chifunda 15,952 13,958 19,984 17,486 28,713 25,124 Chikwa 11,528 10,087 16,802 14,702 Fulaza 6,466 5,658 15,460 13,528 9,918 8,678 Kasonso 30,323 26,533 29,141 25,498 27,796 24,322 Lunga-Busanga 3,050 2,669 12,863 11,255 16,585 14,512 Lunga-Luswishi 111 97 7,760 6,790 3,528 3,087 Luawata 39,420 34,493 58,648 51,317 34,240 29,960 Mulobezi 18,781 16,433 33,456 29,274 34,197 29,922 Mumbwa E 10,173 8,902 7,694 6,732 19,543 17,100 Mumbwa W 19,708 17,245 21,145 18,502 35,066 30,683 Mwanya 39,091 34,205 35,911 31,422 33,483 29,298 Nyampala 33,988 29,740 27,270 23,861 29,368 25,697 Sichifulo 14,112 12,348 19,041 16,661 30,425 26,622 Year Totals 258,393 226,097 337,837 286,857 337,194 295,046 Records of revenues from Chikwa and Fulaza were merged from 1996 onwards. Shading: Luangwa Units for which demographic data are available. Hunting Unit 1997 1998 1999 40% 35% 40% 35% 40% 35% Chanjuzi 29,450 25,769 29,050 25,419 25,190 22,041 Chifunda 33,820 29,593 20,560 17,990 22,900 20.038 Chikwa Fulaza 35,852 31,371 21,480 18,795 27,520 24,080 Kasonso 15,370 13,449 27,752 24,283 16,330 14,289 Lunga-Busanga 12,706 11,118 11,820 10,343 10,200 8,925 Lunga-Luswishi 17,608 15,407 24,160 21,140 18,730 16,389 Luawata 41,180 36,033 24,000 21,000 50.660 44,328 Mulobezi 36,648 32,067 31,970 27,974 36,140 31,623 Mumbwa E 1,980 1,733 5,460 4,778 860 753 Mumbwa W 24,240 21,210 24,540 21,473 32,732 28,641 Mwanya 24,380 21,333 26,230 22,951 29,855 26,123 Nyampala 28,862 25,254 29,464 25,781 9,816 8,589 Sichifulo 36,492 31,931 24,234 21,205 23,360 20,440 Year Totals 338,588 296,268 300,720 263,132 304,293 266,259 Source: Extracted from revenue print outs produced at ZAWA, Chilanga Computer printouts for each year 1994-1999 were obtained by the evaluating team, showing against each USAID-supported hunting block, the 40-35-35 per cent shares from resident hunting (in ZMK) and safari hunting (US$): see Table 4 for the safari hunting component, which accounts for about 90 per cent of total hunting revenue. NRMP/ADMADE final evaluation ARD/IPCCorp 29 The system whereby the 40 and 35 per cent shares that reach the GMAs for reinvestment in resource management and community development is currently flawed. The 35 per cent share generally reaches ADMADE Units but often only after delay. Excessive time taken by banks to clear checks will partly explain these delays. Another reason is that Bookkeepers do not submit their returns to WRCF/ZAWA on time or in proper order. Examination of data graphed in the following figure for the 40 per cent shares shows serious discrepancies, suggesting that as little as 44 per cent of the share intended for resource management may reach Units. Source: Based upon tabulated data in ADMADE et al, 1999. The source of this information stresses that its analysis is only preliminary but that its findings may account for ‘the attitudes and perceptions among a growing number of field staff that management in the field is failing to adequately protect wildlife resources because full financial support is not forthcoming.’ Safari hunting investments in USAID￾supported GMAs 1994-1999 0 100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 Years US$ 40% share 35% share 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 Chifund Chikwa Mwanya Mulobez Munyamad Sichiful Chanjuz Mumbw $ Entitlement Actual NRMP/ADMADE final evaluation ARD/IPCCorp 30 The evaluation team decided to investigate further, using the ADMADE Data Manager (see section 9). Data sets for 40 and 35 per cent entitlements (in US$) were compared with monthly disbursements (in ZMK) for two ADMADE Units during 1998. The data had been supplied by WCRF for the Project during its final 15 month run. Surprisingly the two sets of data matched closely, disbursements in both cases occurring in the same month that entitlements arose. Small differences in amounts were easily attributable to variations in the exchange rate from month to month. It was clear that one data set (entitlement) was being used to generate two sets of data (entitlement and disbursement) in two different currencies. Data for disbursements were, therefore, invalid. With the introduction of the first CRBs, advances have, in theory, been made in the way in which revenues will be disbursed to communities. The basis of this advance has been the CRB constitution drawn up by representatives of CRBs (see section 7). The relevant provisions in the constitution mandate that: • monies should reach CRBs in a timely manner • CRBs must prepare annual budgets of revenue and expenditure • monitoring is in place to check that these requirements are being followed • interventions are available to deal with cases where requirements are not being followed PROCESS FOR REMITTING SHARES OF REVENUE THE 40 PER CENT SHARE FOR RESOURCE MANAGEMENT • 3$,'%<&+(&.72$1$&&2817+(/'%<$/2&$/=$:$2)),&,$/(*:$5'(1 • 6,*1$725,(67<3,&$//<7+(:$5'(17+(81,7/($'(5$1'27+(5=$:$ 67$))&+(&.6'5$:11(('$7/($677:26,*1$785(6 • 5(&(,376$1'(;3(1',785(6$5(5(&25'('%<$%22..((3(575$,1('$77+( &2//(*($1'(03/2<('$77+(81,7 • 35,1&,3$/86(6 ƒ 6$/$5,(6)259,//$*(6&2876 ƒ 6$/$5<)25%22..((3(5 ƒ 5$7,21$/)259,//$*(6&2876 ƒ )8(/)2575$9(//,1*21'87<%<81,7/($'(5$1'27+(56 • 620(86(60$<5(/$7(720$1$*(0(172876,'(7+(81,7 THE 35 PER CENT FOR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT • 3$,'%<&+(&.72$1$&&2817+(/',17+(1$0(2)$68%$87+25,7<25&5% • 6,*1$725,(67+(/2&$/&+,() &+$,50$12)68%$87+25,7< 25&+$,50$12) &5%$1'27+(5&200,77((0(0%(56&+(&.6'5$:11(('$7/($677:2 6,*1$785(6 • 5(&(,376$1'(;3(1',785(6$5(5(&25'('%<$%22..((3(575$,1('$77+( &2//(*($1'(03/2<('$77+(81,7 • (;3(1',785('(7(50,1('%<7+(68%$87+25,7<25&5% • 35,1&,3$/86(6 ƒ &$55<287:25.625385&+$6(*22'6256(59,&(6)25&20081,7<%(1(),7 NRMP/ADMADE final evaluation ARD/IPCCorp 31 The ZAWA Board has not yet approved the constitution but, in practice, the control of revenues has now been shifted from Chiefs to CRBs, as provided for in the draft ADMADE Community Constitution (ADMADE, 1999a). A needs assessment is required on the part of VAGs through local debate, and this has been partially achieved. Bookkeepers have been trained at the College but require longer, practical on-the-job experience. At the Project’s end, the share of GMA revenue for community development projects was generally reaching CRBs but problems continued with getting the share for wildlife management disbursed on time. With the change from NPWS to ZAWA, and absorption of WCRF by the latter, a different system for allocating shares of revenue has been introduced. All revenue from hunting concessions and licence fees will now be divided up according to the 40-35-25 pattern (see Section 4). Five per cent of the 35 per cent share for community development is paid directly to the Chief. In spite of progress recorded above, doubts persist as to ZAWA’s ability or willingness to disburse funds to communities, and in the capacity of communities to keep accounts. In practice this had not occurred at the time of writing this evaluation report; ZAWA was still in a state of limbo. The old and new systems are illustrated in the following diagram. OLD SYSTEM SAFARI LICENSE FEES ($936,000 USD IN 1998) HUNTING CONCESSION FEES ($375,000 USD IN 1998) GRZ 50% 50% 40% 35% 25% 40% 35% 25% RESOURCE MANAGEMENT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT WCRF ADMINISTRATIO NEW SYSTEM ALL REVENUE 40% 35% 25% ZAWA ADMINISTRATIO COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT The financial implications of the new system are illustrated in the figure below, using revenue earned during 1998. NRMP/ADMADE final evaluation ARD/IPCCorp 32 1998 REVENUE UNDER OLD AND NEW ALLOCATION SYSTEMS $0 $100,000 $200,000 $300,000 $400,000 $500,000 $600,000 RESOURCE MANAGEMENT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT OLD SYSTEM NEW SYSTEM Policy and legislative changes Substantial progress was made by the Project in influencing GRZ policy and laws in at least eight ways. • By assisting MoT to develop the new Wildlife Policy especially those provisions that involve communities and the private sector. • By assisting development of the Zambia Wildlife Act of 1998, chiefly the section and statutory instrument that relate to community-based management. Two lawyers were recruited from the US. This assistance required long-term efforts on the part of the Project to transfer traditional authority from Chiefs to the new institutions. Although the Act has already commenced, the statutory instrument, which will formalise the position of VAGs and CRBs still requires approval by the Board of ZAWA. • Ownership of the resource continues to be vested in the President on behalf of the Republic15. However, policies and legislative changes have moved in the right direction to support further development of ADMADE. • Helping to develop lease agreements for safari companies, using the same two lawyers referred to above. • Facilitating meetings involving ZAWA, safari companies and PHAZ. One outcome was a new licensing system, long asked for by the industry and designed by the College to be piloted during 2000. The new system allows for a safari client to be issued a hunting licence against payment of a deposit, while payments for animals actually hunted are made at the end of the hunt—a system similar to that practised in Botswana and Zimbabwe. If adopted, this arrangement would replace one that presently works to Zambia’s disadvantage. The safari companies would pay in advance for up to the total numbers of each species within quota. • Another program being piloted in 2000 is that in which CRBs hold three bank accounts. Under this arrangement, the safari company makes two payments: one to the WCRF, one to the CRB. The CRB then pays its share into two local accounts, one to cover costs of resource management, and one for community development. 15 Zambia Wildlife Act, 1998, Section 3(1). NRMP/ADMADE final evaluation ARD/IPCCorp 33 • Development of local fishing policies (the Department of Fisheries has given responsibility to local councils). Fishing has adverse impacts on safari hunting: fishermen impede animal movements, disturb animals, set snares and cut wood. The Project has helped councils to control fishing sites. • In 1999, ADMADE developed a program of awards to safari companies, called the Green Bullet Award, based upon their meeting objective criteria and aimed at stimulating excellence. PHAZ do not object to the program but point out that after 10 of the 21 existing companies received awards, one that did not appealed to the Minister of MoT, who reversed the decision. Other countries have similar programs but, at international level, their significance is probably slight. Land use planning Areas of responsibility were assigned to VAGs, and a Land Use Planning Manual was produced. Progress was made in developing simple community-based land use management plans with the completion of plans for all GMAs in the Luangwa— Chitungulu, Kazembe, Chifunda and Munyamadzi (see also Annex 2). Community-based management plans are short (about 15-25pp) and simple. They focus upon preventing disturbances to safari hunting and improving food security. They also include provisions for fishing and bee keeping. Work on producing management plans for the Kafue GMAs is to begin during 2000. Trained project participants • The Project stimulated a growing level of professionalism at Nyamaluma. There are now 12 graduates, whose specialities include agroforestry, agriculture, community organisation, GIS and computer systems. These professionals were taken on and given training in community based management techniques. • At the time of writing, intensive, broad-based training in community-based management is being given to five graduates who are to be assigned to ADMADE outposts at Kasempa, Mumbwa and Kalomo in May 2000. The ADMADE Support Office in Chilanga and ZAWA’s Directorate will service them for Community-based Natural Resource Management. Research into relevant policy and institutional matters A considerable body of research was carried out into policy and institutional matters, leading eventually to the recent transfer of community leadership from Sub￾authorities to VAGs and CRBs. See Annex for a list of papers produced during 1999. Results identified in the WCS co-operative agreement, October 1998 Five results were identified: a strengthened ADMADE; conditions needed for sustainability identified; present degree of sustainability achieved; lessons learned to help expand ADMADE to other GMAs; and recommendations for enhancing and supporting ADMADE under ZAWA. NRMP/ADMADE final evaluation ARD/IPCCorp 34 Strengthening ADMADE Progress made in strengthening ADMADE has been described in the previous sections. They include: • progress made in training at the College • improving operations of the WCRF • significant contributions to the design of ZAWA. • stimulated interest within ZAWA in food security and its link with wildlife management, and created a wider appreciation of local needs • alterations to community institutions have been described above in Section number. Conditions for sustainability Good progress was made in identifying conditions needed to support the sustainability of ADMADE in GMAs that have sufficient wildlife to justify safari hunting. They are: • Direct, regular linkages between ADMADE, GRZ ministries and the private sector (i.e., safari companies and tour operators). • Technical capacity within communities to manage resources and promote rural development. • Leaders in communities who can conduct open meetings and be accountable to the people they represent. The Project developed the AMCA (see section 7), which spells out operational conditions that can be monitored—conditions that address the needs of people and food security. • Policies in place that allow the safari industry to compete favourably with neighbouring countries. Already achieved. • Sound financial control by CRBs that produce and follow annual budgets, which are audited. • Remittances from ZAWA (which has absorbed the former WCRF) to CRBs are timely. • The shares of revenue paid to communities are sufficient to secure a feeling of ownership of the resource and awareness of its value; but entitlement to shares of revenue must be linked to obligations on the part of communities laid out in the management contract agreements they sign with ZAWA. • Ongoing programs of training in financial management, resource management and rural development. Degree of sustainability ADMADE has reached a position where the necessary knowledge to set quotas and work harmoniously with the private sector is available. What is less assured at present is the capacity within communities to do these tasks although the College is actively imparting these skills. Sustainability is not an ‘on’ or ‘off’ phenomenon but rather a sliding scale along which it is not easy to decide when the point of sustainability has been reached. At NRMP/ADMADE final evaluation ARD/IPCCorp 35 present there appear to be three broad classes of GMA based upon degree of sustainability. • Luangwa GMAs that have enjoyed USAID and WCS support. Their community institutions are further forward in development, have received training and are more confident. Some may already be self-sustaining. • Kafue GMAs, where VAGs and CRBs have been elected but are awaiting training. They are unlikely to have reached the stage of self-sustainability. • GMAs with no ADMADE or a weak ADMADE presence. They are far from being sustainable but could become so in the future once the conditions listed above have been achieved, and, in the case of depleted areas, when wildlife stocks have increased to levels where hunting can be justified. Village Scouts on anti-poaching patrol Expanding ADMADE and enhancing it under ZAWA The Project produced a series of Lessons Learned papers, intended to assist continuation of ADMADE, its extension into additional GMAs and to enhancing and support its development under ZAWA. These papers were prepared during late 1999 and early 2000. Target readers are members of the Project and other ADMADE workers (stimulating them to self-analysis and criticism), donors and ZAWA. Four papers were completed, while two are in draft. They are well produced and provide NRMP/ADMADE final evaluation ARD/IPCCorp 36 material for the new management of ZAWA to consider. Issues raised in them are included in Section 15. 9.0 MONITORING IMPACTS ON WILDLIF E AND COMMUNITIES Monitoring Systems Monitoring provides essential information against which progress towards goals and objectives can be measured, and feedback so that adjustments can be made to strategies or to ongoing work programs. Two constraints affect the ability of ADMADE and similar programs to monitor progress (Lyons, 1998). ƒ Large geographical areas have to be covered ƒ Limited resources are available with which to carry out monitoring ADMADE’s problems are also compounded by the complexities posed through the multifaceted environment in which it operates, involving relationships with GRZ, local communities, private companies and donors. Wildlife is a biologically complex resource base that has a demanding appetite for information to supply feedback that can guide law enforcement strategies, staffing, setting off-take quotas, land use planning and development. Information required includes wildlife abundance, distributions and movements; levels of legal and illegal hunting; habitat condition; and demographic data. In support of community development, information is needed on revenues and expenditure, human needs and perceptions and specific enterprises. Two mid-term evaluations of the ADMADE Project (Alpert & DeGeorges, 1992, ULG, 1994) reported that no data were available that could confirm or deny the success of project objectives beyond that already recorded by a prior review mission. ULG (1994) also noted that, in respect of wildlife, the monitoring system was well designed but that ADMADE’s and NPWS’s ability to apply the system was weak. There was only one poorly equipped Biologist (out of four required) and he was without vehicle. Scouts visited by the evaluators lived in remote areas that lacked schools and clinics, faced day-to-day dangers from poachers armed with automatic weapons, had no uniforms or simple equipment, did not receive wages on time and suffered periodic bouts of illness. ‘The number of man-days lost through sickness, leaving station to see if pay has arrived and growing crops to make good the food that they cannot buy because they have no money, must be considerable.’ Circumstances did not inspire confidence in the data collected by them, and the Scouts interviewed had reported that they had not worked their transects during 1993. In respect of community development, there was no adequate information that could be used as a basis for monitoring and evaluation. Qualitative data in reports were too fragmented for a coherent appreciation of progress and changes in GMAs. Weakness in monitoring community based resource management programs is a common phenomenon: for example, evaluations of another USAID/CARE program in NRMP/ADMADE final evaluation ARD/IPCCorp 37 southwestern Uganda—the Development Through Conservation project—made similar findings. Since the two mid-term ADMADE evaluations mentioned above, changes have been made to the monitoring system. In brief, the current system is as follows (Lyons, 1998). ADMADE has tried to overcome the two constraints mentioned above by: • recruiting local residents to collect data • providing centralised training on monitoring, backed up with field visits • centralising data processing and analysis (at the College) • using GIS software to supply the spatial dimension • supplementing field data on habitat and encroachment with satellite imagery • using standardised forms and collection procedures to achieve high quality control over data on wildlife populations • trying to minimise false data by not offering incentives for monitoring • using multiple indicators to measure the same phenomena Monitoring wildlife and other natural resources is done almost entirely by Village Scouts who live in camps located at strategic points about the ADMADE Unit. They collect two sorts of data. • Anti-poaching patrols (of about 1-10 days) are primarily to catch poachers. One Scout in each patrol also records signs of poaching, encounters with poachers, wildlife sightings (including carcasses), grassfires and waterholes • Safari hunting sorties, where one Scout accompanies the professional hunter and client. He records hunting success, hunting effort and trophy size. Community monitoring is chiefly concerned with financial control. Units receive revenue derived from hunting to fund wildlife management and community development. At the Unit, a Bookkeeper maintains records on how much revenue is expected from the former WCRF in ZAWA, based on numbers of animals hunted, and how the revenue is used. Exchange of money between ZAWA and the Unit is the most problematic link in ADMADE both in practice and design. Visiting teams from the College inspect activities of the Units, including monitoring, and they facilitate information flow (e.g., on hunting quota recommendations) between Units and ZAWA. They also monitor Unit performance, measuring indicators such as use of revenue for resource management and community development, management capacity and community awareness. $'0$'(·VLQGLFDWRUVIRU HYDOXDWLQJSRSXODWLRQWUHQGV • +XQWHUUHVXOWV ƒ 0HDQWURSK\VL]H ƒ +XQWLQJVXFFHVV ƒ +XQWLQJHIIRUW • 7KLUGSDUW\DVVHVVPHQWV ƒ 3URIHVVLRQDOKXQWHUV ƒ 7UDFNHUV ƒ 9LOODJHVFRXWV • 3DWUROUHVXOWV ƒ )UHTXHQF\RIVSHFLHVVLJKWLQJV ƒ ,OOHJDORIIWDNH NRMP/ADMADE final evaluation ARD/IPCCorp 38 The ADMADE Data Manager ADMADE's monitoring system generates a considerable amount of data that would quickly become overwhelming without computerisation. During the early 1990s, research staff at Nyamaluma developed an information system that enabled thousands of dataforms to be entered and analysed. The information system could also create tabular and graphical summaries generated for community use and applied research. Nyamaluma also pioneered the use of GIS technology for community-based conservation, digitising dozens of Survey Department maps for the production of flipchart-sized summary maps of monitoring data. As pioneering as Nyamaluma's information system was, it was constrained by the software and hardware of the early 1990s, and its performance severely limited in several ways. By 1998, the College had acquired newer and more powerful hardware and software. With the assistance of a visiting graduate student, Nyamaluma upgraded the information system to a relational database management system using MS Access. The new database, dubbed the ADMADE Data Manager, integrates all datasets through a single user-friendly interface. Analysts can now query information from the field patrol dataforms, safari hunting, WCRF revenue, hunting quotas, demography, poacher case records, or staff records for any year and GMA. Dozens of preset summaries, including interactive charts and queries, are available, and new ones can be easily added to the menu system. The database also supports the display of GIS data, and can present customisable interactive maps through the same easy-to-use interface. Data entry is easier and more robust, decreasing data entry time and allowing a greater number of staff to work with the data. The Data Manager is now the working information system at the College, and has helped research staff to extract and summarise information from the thousands of dataforms on file. The Data Manager is also available at the ADMADE Co-ordinating Office in Chilanga, and will soon be used at the new Outpost Stations around Kafue National Park to input and analyse data. This powerful tool has eliminated most of the technical barriers involved in sharing monitoring data within the project and with external stakeholders. With a minimal amount of training, users anywhere now have nearly the same capabilities as researchers at the College for conducting analyses and preparing a variety of outputs of monitoring data. Wildlife populations Estimated trends in wildlife for the Luangwa GMAs have been generally upwards with variations between species. For example: • waterbuck decreasing in Mwanya • zebra stable or slightly decreasing in Chifunda • eland decreasing in most areas • wildebeest16 decreasing it places where it occurs 16 The latter is an endemic subspecies, Cookson’s wildebeest, found only in the Luangwa where it occurs almost entirely in and around Luambe National Park. NRMP/ADMADE final evaluation ARD/IPCCorp 39 • kudu and all other hunted species increasing Table 5 shows the full assessment for six areas in the Luangwa, 1999. Trends for wildlife in the Kafue GMAs have generally been slightly downwards. Table 5. Estimated trends in populations of selected species of game hunted on licensed safaris in six ADMADE hunting Units, made in 1999. Species Mwanya Chanjuzi Nyampala Luawata Chifunda Chikwa Buffalo + - + 0 + - Bushbuck + + 0 0 + + Crocodile + 0 + + + + Duiker 0 0 + + + 0 Eland 0/+ 0 + + - 0 Elephant + + + + + 0 Grysbok 0 + 0 + 0 0 Hartebeest - - 0 0 - - Hippo + 0 0 0 + + Hyaena + 0 0 + + 0 Impala + 0 0 0 0 0 Kudu - 0 0 + 0 0 Leopard 0 + + + + - Lion + 0 0 0 0 0 Puku 0 0 0 0 + 0 Roan - - 0 0 0 - Warthog 0 - 0 0 0 - Waterbuck -/+ - 0 + - - Wildebeest - 0 + 0 0 - Zebra + - 0 0 - + + = increase - = decrease 0 = no change Source: College database records. Hunting quotas Hunting quotas are set by ADMADE community institutions, based upon monitoring as described above. The process at Unit level is led by the Unit Leader (a ZAWA employee) and members of the Resource Management Committees. At least until 1999, NPWS also drew up quotas, and ZAWA is likely to continue to do so. A comparison between the two is the subject of Figure 2. Compliance between the two sets of quotas increased over the period 1998-99. Ultimately, ZAWA controls quotas because it issues the licenses. NRMP/ADMADE final evaluation ARD/IPCCorp 40 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 1998 1999 Year Percentage full compliance quota increased by NPWS quota decreased by NPWS Figure 2. Degree of compliance between safari hunting quotas set by local institutions and NPWS during 1998 and 1999. Source: ADMADE report Household incomes Household incomes are measured as benefits from employment with ADMADE, safari companies, tour operators or other jobs created through ADMADE. Employment is reported to have increased in all GMAs supported by USAID. Empirical data are available for one GMA only, Munyamadzi, where, in 1998, 339 households received a total of ZK86,460,000 ($30,900), averaging ZK255,000 ($91.00) per household. See Table 12. Table 6. Expenditure on community projects by Kazembe CRB, 1999 VAG Purchase Cost Comments Zokwe Classroom block roofing $970 Completed Mbuzi School completion $650 Completed Kataba School rehabilitation $730 Completed Kazembe Central 90x50kg maize $850 Food security Zokwe Construction of camp $550 Operational All Tractor spares $500 In progress All Volunteer Village Scouts $230 In progress Mtimbansonjo 100x50kg maize $1,040 Food for work program Chibeza School rehabilitation $670 In progress TOTAL $6,190 Source: Data assembled by College Instructors for the evaluation team. Rural family quality of life Indicators used were funds directed into projects that benefit all members of communities or groups within. They included such diverse items as capital projects (e.g., school buildings, health posts and scout camps); purchase of footballs for recreation; bicycles to enable VAG and CRB members to attend meetings; and maize to assist food security. Table 6 and Table 7 give illustrations from two CRB areas. NRMP/ADMADE final evaluation ARD/IPCCorp 41 Table 7. Expenditure on community projects by Mwanya CRB, 1999 VAG Purchase Cost Comments All 120x90kg maize $8,750 Food security All Locks and labor $80 Safeguarding granaries Chasera Health post $1,250 All Toyota L/C $6,670 All Bicycles $430 All 5 footballs $50 One for each VAG team Yakobe & Chasera Communal farms $460 Yakobe Spares for grinding mill $1,150 Yakobe & Chasera 2 wildlife camps $740 TOTAL $19,570 Source: Data assembled by College Instructors Community capacity building Indicators are participation at ADMADE meetings, and the uptake of relevant skills by communities. Following the switch from Sub-authorities to CRBs and VAGs and the first elections in 1999, attendance at public meetings increased five-fold. Table 8. Capacity building course at the College during a six-month period 1999. Name of course No of trainees Percentages men/women Duration (days) CRB leadership & planning 44 92/8 12 Village Scouts 44 98/2 120 Deputy Unit Leaders 13 100/0 120 Community Book keeper 20 60/40 15 Advanced Village Scout 31 100/0 9 Advanced Unit Leader 12 100/0 6 Community Liaison Officer 12 100/0 6 Agroforestry 32 88/12 3 Bee keeping 52 97/3 14 Resource management committee skills 35 91/9 14 Financial management committee skills 15 94/6 24 Land use planning 76 96/4 5 Food security 27 78/22 10 Building skills 12 100/0 30 Drama & local dissemination of information 12 90/10 7 Source: College records During 1999, 570 participants attended 20 courses at the College, aimed at capacity building in the communities. Table 8 covers training for the period April to June 1999, when 437 trainees passed through. NRMP/ADMADE final evaluation ARD/IPCCorp 42 Land use planning ADMADE’s impacts on local land use planning have been beneficial. In this they received support from District Councils. Land use plans being produced by the College identify the causes of disturbance and define strategies to control them in the interests of improved food security. The linkage that reduced poaching (especially snaring), leads to increased and less disturbed wildlife, leading to increased hunting quotas that bring in more revenue, of which communities take a share. ADMADE has helped directly to: • reduce disturbances to safari hunting • eliminate unplanned settlements in five cases of encroachment on prime wildlife habitat using local CRBs or Sub-authorities, and with support of Chiefs Investment in GMAs from outside sources The two main investments in GMAs, attributable to ADMADE’s wildlife conservation activities since 1989 have been USAID and safari hunting revenue. Other smaller investments include WCS and grants from GRZ, for example to support the College. USAID USAID support totaled $4.8 million. • An estimated $1.5 million was spent in 1991 to purchase plant and vehicles, office equipment, computers and patrol and camping gear. • An estimated $1.5 million was spent between 1991 and 1995 to cover costs of technical assistance and to purchase consultancy services. • About $1.8 million was spent during 1995 to 1999 to purchase Table 9. USAID investment in 11 GMAs, 1989-1999 GMA Area (km2 ) USAID investment $ invested/km2 Lumimba 4,142 Chifunda 2,104 Chikwa +Fulazi 5,051 Kasonso 4,592 Lunga-Busanga 2,094 Lunga-Luswishi 13,323 Munyamadzi 3,177 Mumbwa (W) 1,580 Mulobezi 3,573 Sichifulo 3,478 Total 43,114 $4,800,000 $111.33 Source: Various ADMADE and WCRF records. It is impossible to assign portions of this expenditure to specific GMAs or ADMADE Units. Much of the initial capital outlay went to purchase vehicles and equipment for the College and NPWS headquarters. Some vehicles were allocated to Wardens, NRMP/ADMADE final evaluation ARD/IPCCorp 43 whose responsibilities extended beyond ADMADE GMAs. It is, however, possible to derive an overall figure of dollars invested per km2 of GMA; see Table 9. This will be a maximum figure because part of the investment went into supporting NPWS headquarters and Wardens. Safari hunting Safari hunting revenue for 1994 to 1999 that should17 have accrued to GMAs supported by USAID, in the form of the 40 per cent share to fund wildlife management and 35 per cent to fund community development, totaled an estimated $3.6 million. See Table 10 for yearly totals against each hunting Unit for safari hunting only. Accurate data for years preceding 1994 are unavailable. Revenue from resident hunting is estimated to be about 10 per cent of safari revenue. Table 10. Safari hunting revenue designated for reinvestment in the 11 GMAs supported by USAID 1994-1999. GMA Area (km2 ) Safari investment ($) 40% + 35% shares $/km2 Lumimba 4,142 647,484 156.32 Chifunda 2,104 266,118 126.48 Chikwa +Fulazi 5,051 271,925 53.84 Kasonso 4,592 275,086 59.90 Lunga-Busanga 2,094 126,046 60.19 Lunga-Luswishi 13,323 134,807 10.12 Munyamadzi 3,177 762,969 240.15 Mumbwa (W) 1,580 295,185 186.83 Mulobezi 3,573 358,485 100.33 Sichifulo 3,478 276,871 79.60 Total 43,114 3,414,976 79.21 Source: Extracted from Table 4 and various ADMADE documents. Table 11 tabulates safari hunting revenue per capita over 1994 to 1998 for those Units in the Luangwa, where demographic data were available. Table 11. Total revenue (US$) from safari hunting that should have accrued to communities during 1994 to 1999 in GMAs supported by USAID Hunting Unit 40% share 35% share Total Estimated population 1998 Total per capita Chanjuzi+Mwanya Lumimba GMA 345,424 302,160 647,584 12,710 $50.95 Chifunda 141,929 124,189 266,118 7,441 $35.76 Chikwa+Fulazi 145,026 126,899 271,925 3,963 $68.62 Luawata+Nyampala Munyamadzi GMA 406,916 356,053 762,969 6,356 $120.03 Source: Table 4 and ADMADE documents 17 See discussion in section 8 on the discrepancies between Units’ entitlements and actual remittances. NRMP/ADMADE final evaluation ARD/IPCCorp 44 Comments on monitoring The evaluating team heard criticism levelled at ADMADE’s monitoring programmes for both wildlife population trends and community development. The evaluation team considers this criticism unjustified. A look at the data being collected and processed at the College, its meticulous attention to detail coupled with the database that was set up in 1998 gives cause for confidence. The indicators used to assess wildlife population trends are conventional and well tried internationally. The 1994 mid-term evaluation recorded a sophisticated system of monitoring being inadequately implemented in the field. We believe this has been largely rectified. Doubts may remain as to the extent to which Scouts who accompany professional hunters and clients are reliant upon tips or other gratuities, which might influence the validity of data, and of the morale of Scout during the rains, when they may feel isolated and suffer sickness. The evaluating team doubts that these are cause for serious concern. However, some data are quite patchy, especially in the Kafue GMAs, which have received less attention than the Luangwa, and trends have been recorded over relatively few years. A criticism linked with monitoring comes from academics outside Zambia, who allege that they have been shown no data that can confirm or deny ADMADE’s claims of success. This was not the experience of the evaluating team, who were offered more information than they could assimilate in the time available. 10.0 BENEFICIARIES Several groups have derived tangible benefits from ADMADE. Inhabitants of chiefdoms inside and bordering GMAs • Construction of infrastructure; schools, teachers’ houses, clinics and health centers, water supplies, grinding mills and footbridges were financed by ADMADE revenue. Chiefs once benefited most; as Chairmen of the Sub￾authorities they dominated decision making. This is no longer so under the system of CRBs, where the Chief’s role is reduced to that of Patron, although not all GMAs have the new system in place. • Purchase of equipment such as beds for health centers and tools for roadwork. • Food bought using ADMADE revenue in famine stricken areas during times of critical shortage, without which many may have failed to survive. • Improved household economic benefits through employment opportunities generated by ADMADE. The percentage of household that benefited during 1998 ¶$JUHDWFKDQJHKDVRFFXUUHGLQ