Lupande CBNRM Land Use Planning Project, ZM003801 – Mid Term Internal Progress Review November 1–15 2004

Background

The Zambia Wildlife Authority (ZAWA) through its South Luangwa Area Management Unit (SLAMU) has been successful in developing tourism in South Luangwa National Park (SLNP) to the point where locally earned revenue meets 75 per cent of its recurrent expenditure. Increased tourism development has, however, been associated with an unchecked growth in the informal business sector and congestion at the Mfuwe Park Gate/Cropping Area. This has resulted in an increased level of human-wildlife conflict, made wildlife management more difficult, and caused a decrease in the value of the tourism product. Development of the area and sound environmental management depend on planned land use in the area.

Recognising the threats to the viability of SLNP and the CBNRM Programme in the Lupande GMA, SLAMU and the Mambwe District Council (MDC) in 2001 developed a joint initiative to develop land use and development plans for Village Action Groups (VAGs). WWF SARPO and the Sand County Foundation (SCF), who had previously provided limited technical support to SLAMU's CBNRM Programme, were requested to provide technical and financial support to the process.

This review focussed on the period from 2003 until date. Since early 2003 the land use planning (LUP) activities in Lupande changed from being a set of activities under another larger project (Support to CAMPFIRE) to being a separate and much smaller project. There was no separate Logical Framework Analysis prepared for the LUP activities as part of this transition, this was only done from 2004. The project goal was that 'Land and natural resources in Lupande Game Management Area effectively managed for sustainable economic development', while the project purpose was that 'In all six Chieftainships/Community Resource Boards in Lupande GMA and under Mambwe District Council, wildlife based land use plans have been developed, agreed upon and implemented by 2005'.

Purpose/objective

The objective of the participatory progress review was to assess the impact and relevance of the Land Use Planning (LUP) Project to date in relation to project objectives, target groups, partners and other affected parties; and to determine whether the Project was on track, and to review and improve its implementation strategy.

Methodology

A critical aspect of the overall review process was the emphasis on the self-participatory evaluation process. WWF project staff were encouraged to actively participate in the progress review in which they are fully involved in self-critical analysis. This enables the WWF team to constantly monitor, evaluate, redesign and guide the project implementation process as well as document lessons learnt. The Progress Review was conducted with the help of the Logical Framework Approach.

The review team consisted of an external consultant / team leader who was also responsible for preparing the review report, a WWF representative that had not been involved in the implementation of the LUP Project and a WWF representative that had been involved in the LUP Project implementation.

The progress review included meetings of the review team, review of relevant documentation of the Project as well as formal interviews and informal discussions with important stakeholders in Lusaka and particularly in the field, covering representatives from central and local government, local people, Traditional Chiefs, NGOs, CBOs and private sector. The review team also participated in the Annual LUP Project Stakeholders' Workshop in Mfuwe 4th - 5th November 2004. The review was guided by a Terms of Reference, which is included as an annex in the review report.

Key findings

It was ascertained that the LUP Project is relevant and supports land use-planning efforts in the Lupande GMA. Through the Project a large body of data has been amassed which will feed into the development of land use plans and maps. Data has been used to develop community Action and Strategic Plans for some areas that focus on issues that the local communities can address themselves.

However, the expectations for a land use plan and map have far exceeded the rather small Project's ability to produce these outputs in a timely fashion. Partly this has been as a result of responding to immediate community needs, e.g. mitigating the effects of human-wildlife conflict. Poor data collection methods has also meant that field staff have at times had to go into the field to collect the same data several times. This has created a feeling of frustration among community members that the LUP is about collecting data. Location of the Technical Advisor (TA) has not helped expedite project implementation as he is located in Harare, Zimbabwe, and coupled with limited communication infrastructure in the project area has meant that the TA is unable to respond timely to contentious project issues. The LUP has been able to facilitate some limited training for community trainers of trainers on land use issues. However, training for project staff to build up their capacity for project execution has been limited.

The following specifically deals with some of the more critical issues that emerged from the progress review, which include:
i. Weak project design: The design of the LUP Project was inadequate from the outset, although through successive stakeholder planning processes from 2001 efforts have been made to ensure that a project document is in place that outlines indicators and specific targets.
ii. Conflicting power relations among key local governance institutions in Lupande: There is a power struggle in the Lupande GMA among the three key authorities, the Mambwe District Council (MDC), six Traditional Chiefs and the Zambia Wildlife Authority (ZAWA)/South Luangwa Management Unit (SLAMU). The power struggle is further exacerbated over the fact that there does not exist a clear boundary delineation of which authority manages which area. Clear understanding of the respective roles, functions and responsibilities of each has not been sufficiently discussed and communicated to the Lupande populace. A great deal of suspicion between the three authorities about their respective agendas and several sensitive issues that are important in terms of control over financial resources and land further complicates the situation.
iii. Lack of inclusive consultative participatory process: Land use planning process has not been sufficiently participatory and has largely been project driven. Project buy in from the outset was not sufficient, and there was insufficient attention to community awareness and sensitisation. The project team has therefore struggled to secure community support for the land use planning process, even though there is a clear need and understanding of the importance to plan for future tourism developments in the Lupande GMA by all stakeholders.
iv. Conservation versus rural development: While the intent of the LUP was to facilitate the development of a land use plan and map, the Project, due to pressing community needs, has been compelled to respond to, and by and large take on a rural development face (facilitation of the construction of a school etc.). This shift in focus has definitely affected project progress and delayed the delivery of key project outputs.
v. Missed opportunity for WWF to be facilitator and neutral broker: WWF missed opportunity through this initiative to secure it's own role of facilitator and broker between the various stakeholders in the Lupande GMA. The LUP Project has not been able to develop capacity to facilitate let alone broker the power relations from a neutral standpoint between, MDC, Traditional Authority, private sector, communities and ZAWA.
vi. Institutional location of the LUP Project and emerging perceptions: Locating the LUP Project within ZAWA/SLAMU's offices has created perceptions that the LUP Project was only about planning for wildlife resources and not more broadly about natural resources and tourism development.

Recommendations

In view of the foregoing observations, the following priorities need to be addressed in order to guarantee and secure the future land use planning activities in the Lupande GMA:
i. Focus project activities in 2005: WWF is advised to focus on key LUP activities in the remaining year. It is imperative that during the remaining year project efforts are focused on a selected set of activities as recommended below.
ii. Draft land use plan prepared: WWF needs to accord priority to the preparation of a draft land use plan during the first quarter of 2005. The draft land use plan must thereafter be circulated for inputs from all the stakeholders. WWF should also facilitate a workshop during which time the views of all stakeholders on the draft land use plan will be discussed and incorporated and this process should be seen as part of a consensus building process on future land use planning efforts in the Lupande Game Management Area.
iii. Recruit a land use planning/community specialist: WWF should recruit a land use plan / community specialist to be based in the Lupande area. The current situation where oversight for the Project is provided through the WWF Zambia Coordination Office (ZCO), the WWF Southern Africa Regional Programme Office (SARPO) and a Technical Advisor of Sand County Foundation (SCF) is inadequate. Furthermore, the Project Executant in Lusaka is too far removed to be able to respond effectively to technical and contentious issues that arise at the field level as well as provide mentoring support to the field team. It is anticipated that the recruitment of such an individual would enable the project to respond more timely to contentious issues at the field level as well as provide technical and mentoring support to the field team. The individual's scope of work should include facilitating and promoting institutional linkages between the various stakeholders at the field level (Traditional Authority/Chiefs, MDC and ZAWA) as well as to WWF ZCO and WWF SARPO. In this regard WWF should seek to learn from the field experience of WCS who have successfully facilitated a similar process in the Lumimba and Musalangu GMAs.
iv. Negotiate with ZAWA to incorporate LUP activities into CBNRM Component of SLAMU Phase V: Furthermore, it will be important for WWF to proactively consider negotiating with ZAWA to incorporate specific activities of the LUP into the CBNRM component of SLAMU Phase V.
v. Facilitate dialogue on the proposed growth node: WWF needs to seriously consider involving external support while facilitating the dialogue between the Chiefs, MDC and other stakeholders on the sensitive issue of the growth node, now that the MDC and Chief Mnkhanya have expressed willingness to reopen discussions on this issue and have given their commitment at the recent stakeholders workshop to work together.
vi. Strengthen MDC institutional capacity to undertake land use planning activities: Given the institutional weakness of the Mambwe District Council (MDC) to fully participate in land use planning efforts, WWF may wish to consider extending some support to MDC in terms of technology support (hardware and software) as well as training in land use planning for MDC staff.
vii. Document experiences of the land use planning process: As part of WWF's own internal learning process, it is important that the experiences from the LUP Project are well documented.
viii. Disseminate experiences and lessons: WWF is encouraged to disseminate through various media (the Natural Resources Consultative Forum, workshops, print and voice media) the experiences and lessons learnt from the LUP Project. This is important because the LUP Project has been one of the major land use planning initiatives in a GMA to date in Zambia. As two of Zambia's cooperating partners Governments of Denmark and Norway commence to provide support to the natural resources sector and wildlife specifically, documented experiences and lessons from WWF's LUP Project will become very useful from a replication and scaling up aspect.