International Development CommitteeWritten evidence submitted by Zambian Ornithological Society
1. Executive Summary
1.1 Zambia is listed amongst Least Developed and Heavily Indebted Poor Countries. It was at the bottom segment of the Human Development Index for 2010, where it ranked 150th out of 169 countries. The country is off-track or regressing on achieving MDG 1 and off-track on achieving MDG 7 (African Economic Outlook 2010). The country needs substantial support to boost its efforts towards eradicating poverty and ensuring environmental sustainability. To a large extent, this amongst other initiatives means improving environmental planning, creating environmentally friendly and sustainable jobs and improving the delivery of goods and services to the poor.
1.2 We note that DFID’s support to Zambia has been substantial though a lot more needs to be done to scale up programs aimed at helping the country need its obligation of attaining MDG 7. DFID’s support towards institutional development and that towards the Zambia Civil Society Climate Change Network (ZCSCCN) in particular is appreciated and noted to be one input toward MDG 7. This support is however not sufficient to create a critical mass for environmental sustainability. The inclusion of biodiversity conservation and management with the inclusion of bio-prospecting and community engagement is recommended.
1.3 A very strong interrelationship exists between MDG 7 and other MDGs. MDG 1 in particular exhibits a direct cause-effect relationship since environmental sustainability would to a greater extent translate into increased prospects for reducing poverty and hunger.
1.4 There is need for cooperating partners and the Zambian government alike to allocate substantial funds towards programs and activities focusing on MDG 7. The questions however are; How committed is the Zambian government and DFID towards environmental management and sustainability? How much could the Zambian government and DFID commit towards such a cause?
1.5 The Civil Society in Zambia has over the years developed and was capable of engaging government on various issues pertaining to environmental sustainability. DFID could strengthen working ties with both government and the civil society.
2. Introduction
2.1 The Zambian Ornithological Society (ZOS) is a membership-based environmental NGO established in 1969. The organisation is a member of a global environmental and conservation network through its partnership with BirdLife International.
2.2 The main objective of ZOS is to promote the study, conservation, and general interest in birds and their habitats in Zambia. ZOS works with people to conserve wild birds, habitats and global biodiversity while striving towards promoting sustainable use of natural resources and sustainable livelihoods.
2.3 The organisation has four (4) thematic areas of focus namely; species conservation, conservation actions for Important Bird Areas (IBAs) in partnership with local conservation groups, habitat/biodiversity monitoring and taking actions aimed at enhancing sustainable linkages between biodiversity conservation, natural resource utilization and rural livelihoods.
3. Factual Information
3.1 Development support made by the Department for International Development (DFID) in Zambia is substantial and undisputable. Significant support focusing on education, water and sanitation, poverty alleviation, health & HIV/AIDS, governance and institutional development is evident. DFID has made significant efforts in helping Zambia address Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) particularly; MDG 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6. A lot, however, still needs to be done in addressing MDG 7, a goal on environmental sustainability. There is also a challenge of linking all other MGDs to MDG 7.
3.2 We are aware of DFID’s support towards the development of the Zambia Civil Society Climate Change Network (ZCSCCN), a network to which ZOS is a member and has been active from its inception. ZCSCCN has been successfully established, strengthened and was taking a center stage on the Climate Change agenda at national level. Though this network and its institutional arrangements have the potential of contributing towards MDG 7, a lot in Zambia is yet to be done if MDG 7 and indeed MDG 1 were to be attained.
3.3 In Zambia and perhaps Africa as a whole, environmental sustainability, poverty, hunger and health were interrelated. For instance Chidumayo 2010 states that a survey conducted in a few African countries including Zambia suggested that 65% of original wildlife habitat had been lost as a result of agricultural expansion, deforestation and over grazing, which were fueled up by rapid population growth and poverty. The rate at which Zambia was losing forests which are an important niche for biodiversity stands 6% per year. This is on the higher side by any standard. In Zambia biodiversity loss was ever on the increase with insufficient efforts being undertaken to avert the situation.
3.4 It has been recorded that protected areas across Africa were becoming increasingly ecologically isolated while wildlife and biodiversity on adjacent lands were being actively eliminated (African Forest Forum, 2011). This scenario is true for Zambia where protected areas are being encroached for charcoal production, poaching and agriculture activities thereby exacerbating environmental instability. A wide variety of species of animals and birds; some with the potential of providing information on environmental stability and contributing to poverty alleviation in a variety of ways were increasingly being threatened.
3.5 At national level, monitoring of biodiversity, habitats and species, some of which are under extreme pressure was lacking. Monitoring information, however, is critical for the effective management of protected areas including Trans-Frontier Conservation Areas (TFCAs).
3.6 Inadequacy of up-to-date information on biodiversity and limited ability to handle the available information makes it difficult to effectively plan, manage and monitor biodiversity conservation and its sustainable use.
3.7 Information on trends, extents, severity of threats, distribution and suitability of habitats can only be acquired through regular and sustained monitoring of biodiversity. Information obtained through such can be used to advocate and lobby for better management and protection of key biodiversity sites. However, past and on-going attempts to monitor Zambia’s biodiversity by various institutions have been uncoordinated and limited to the scope of individual institutions.
3.8 In 2010 for instance, the Zambia Wildlife Authority was monitoring vegetation in National Parks, the African Wildlife Foundation (AWF) was monitoring wildlife corridors and the presence of Human-wildlife conflicts, the Community Based Natural Resources Forum was monitoring livelihoods and natural resources use through Management Oriented Monitoring Systems (MOMs) while the Zambian Ornithological Society was monitoring habitats and bird populations. The need for coordinated efforts, shared data and information protocols and integrated planning aimed at helping the country attain MDG 1 and 7 cannot be overemphasized.
3.9 Protected areas are a cornerstone of biodiversity conservation in Zambia. However, existing legislations preclude neighboring communities from accessing goods and services from them. This has created “islands of green” surrounded by degraded communally owned landscapes. The result has been increased illegal harvesting of timber and game and proliferation of illegal settlements in some areas.
3.10 It should also be noted that the bulk of the country’s biodiversity lies outside protected areas and is under extreme pressure from various threats. In spite efforts to conserve biodiversity outside protected areas through joint management, especially in forestry, wildlife and fisheries sectors, efforts to improve management of biodiversity in non-protected areas through CBNRM initiatives continue to be hampered by the inadequacy of incentives to local communities.
4. Recommendation
4.1 DFID should expand its support for environmental programs to include biodiversity management as a way of helping Zambia move towards attaining MDG 1 and 7.
4.2 The country should be helped in developing and implementing a comprehensive but simple biodiversity inventory and monitoring programmes covering key species and habitats.
4.3 Skills to handle and package the information are needed to improve knowledge and improve management of biodiversity.
4.4 In addition to health, education and other elements of the MDGs, Zambia urgently requires concerted R & D efforts that would unleash the economic potential locked up in the country’s biological resources through bio-prospecting, value addition and finding innovative ways to equitably share benefits there from. There is also need to help build capacities of local communities that live with the biological resources in management of common property resources.
4.5 There is need to help government formulate policies, legislation and bye-laws that regulate access to and use of biological resources.
4.6 In order to ensure results and impact, DFID should explore partnerships with Civil Society Organizations.
4.7 Funds should be allocated towards environmental management and biodiversity conservation in particular.
March 2012