Lower Zambezi Fisheries Management Project

CLZ already supports community scouts with salaries and equipment. These are managed by the wildlife authority.

The project does provide for performance incentives, as well as paid intelligence. Voluntary actions are expected of fishing committees. Unlike terrestrial wildlife, there is a greater sense of ownership of the fishing resource by the fishing communities.

We are addressing regulation changes in fishing that should benefit both fishers and the fish. The area already sees a good flow of benefits from tourism, fishing and hunting tourism through employment, as well as leasing (concession fees), 50% of which are due to the community (through Community Resource Boards (CRBs)). Unfortunately, the community component is often paid late (up to a year), and this is a problem with all CRBs across the country, which is harming the CBNRM model in Zambia, and alienating communities from their wildlife as the benefits are delayed to such a degree.

People continue their subsistence resource use for most resources without much impediment, except in the stricter classes of protected areas like National Parks.

This project has little provision for taking action on HWC, beyond understanding its link to people’s perceptions of wildlife and incentive for facilitation of IWT. There is some provision to use project equipment (boat, vehicle) to respond to HWC emergencies to improve the response-time after incidents (one of the most widely expressed complaints).

Whilst fish are technically considered wildlife, in this case helping conserve and manage the fish stock should secure the fishing resource as the already-viable ‘alternative’ it provides to poaching.

The community-level benefits such as infrastructure is theoretically what the CRBs are supposed to spend their CBNRM share on, after consulting with the various sub-committees (village action groups or VAGs) who are supposed to identify priority projects. In practice, delayed receipt of funds and lack of transparency mean that the link to wildlife is still under appreciated.

This is widespread, particularly of the fish stocks. In wildlife, we also endeavour to explain to theoretical linkage between wildlife utilisation (through tourism and hunting), and the devolved benefits explained above.

By being consulted on fishing issues, and giving input to management recommendations, the communities should feel a strengthened sense of ownership and official recognition from conservation organisations and government partners that that ownership is recognised.

CLZ has a very successful schools programme in environmental education.

This project also has an education and awareness component, again particularly in fisheries, where conflicts between fishing stakeholders (local artisanal fishers vs tourist angling) are mitigated through increased flow of knowledge between the two sectors. A lot of misunderstanding of each-other’s activities exists between the two sectors, and by researching the dynamics of each, the project is a good arbitrator. Results are communicated through public meetings and through elected fishing representatives for the artisanal fishery, and social media and an email update group for the tourism stakeholders.