DAY ONE OF MOSI OA TUNYA WORKSHOP 11-15 SEPT.

Zambia Wildlife Authority (ZAWA) Stakeholders’ Workshop on the Preparation of the
GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN for MOSI-O-TUNYA NATIONAL PARK
11-15 September 2006, New Fairmount Hotel, Livingstone

The workshop was attended by approximately 25 participants (varying from day to day) from various organisations (see appendix). This constituted about 50% of the invited stakeholders.

Workshop Facilitator: Zook Muleya, Head of Protected Areas Planning, ZAWA


DAY ONE

1. PRESENTATION ON THE MANAGEMENT PROBLEMS, ISSUES, CONCERNS AND OPPORTUNITIES OF MOSI-OA-TUNYA NATIONAL PARK AND ITS SURROUNDINGS
By Acting Park Manager, Mr Nyirenda

Problems
1. High rate of road kills on Sesheke Road (30-45% of all animal deaths)
2. Frequent bashing of gates 1 and 2 (on Sesheke Road) by motorists (twice in 2005 and 7 times in 2006)
3. Uncontrolled access into the South-Eastern part of the park
4. Increased cases of problem elephants in surrounding communities
5. Frequent fence damage by elephants/vandalism by people
6. Vegetation removal from park (wood cutting and footpaths)
7. Littering of park in areas adjacent to human settlements and along transit roads
8. Costly water supply method to gates and rhino monitoring centre (drawn from outside park and carried and stored in 210 litre drums)
9. Formal settlement and business houses in the park (Palm grove)
10. Hostility of local communities towards ZAWA (e.g. after deaths by elephants)

Issues
1. Motor traffic in the park
- animals not given right of way
- not observing gates
- over speeding
2. Resource Security and Management
- illegal removal of park resources
- snares
- elephants
- no buffer zone
- vandalism of fence
- poor radio reception
Probably mostly due to allocation of plots near the park.
3. Community Food Insecurity
- crop damage by animals
- crop protection methods (like chilli fences) not aggressive enough
4. Park environment
- Road-sides littered
- No litter management by buses and taxis
- Palm grove - lack of adequate knowledge of park rules
5. Community/ZAWA relations
- ZAWA Community Resource National Resources Management (CBNRM) programme understaffed
- Benefits to local community not well defined
- Community not happy with ZAWA

Concerns
1. Park motor traffic
- wild animals lost
- road authorities slow to enforce speed controls
2. Human wildlife conflict
- allocation of plots near park
- increased elephant presence
- not aggressive CBNRM programme
- poor ZAWA/ community relations
3. Environment
- litter along roads
4. Management
- cost of water provision
- cost of sustaining fence maintenance
- delayed installation of radio repeater

Opportunities
Resource protection

Apply speed control humps Reduce wildlife mortality Increase tourism revenue production

Fence the park
Reduce environment degradation
Minimise human/wildlife conflict
Improve ZAWA local community relations
Improve security of park resources

Embark on aggressive chilli fencing programme Enhance crop security


Facilitate community cooperation with ZAWA


Improve Tourism Revenue Production Support wildlife production


2. PRESENTATION ON THE ANIMAL STATUS OF MOSI-OA-TUNYA NATIONAL PARK - by Lisa Mwiinga, Research Technician, MOT NP

Species diversity
75% birds
13% reptiles
8% mammals

Mammals
Mostly brought from outside
Total species diversity in park and surrounding area - 530

Birds
415 species

Reptiles and amphibians
69 reptiles, 23 amphibian species

Invertebrates
782 species recorded

THREATS
Mammals, birds, reptiles and amphibians
- poaching
- in-breeding (giraffe and impala - not confirmed by research)
- diseases (mostly tick-borne)
- road accidents
- unfavourable weather conditions (drought)

Problem animals controlled (Jan-June 2006)
4 crocodiles
5 elephants
2 baboons
1 buffalo

Problem animal reports
2004 - 134 reports
2005 - 185 reports
2006 Jan-June 170 reports

Fish
- netting
- illegal angling
Very little research has been done

Invertebrates
- bush fires
- habitat destruction

Recommendations
- monitor disturbance and pollution
- assess status of fish species
- monitor trends in mammal numbers and distribution
- carry out biodiversity of all animals
- increase size and diversity of wildlife populations
- training in specialised techniques (eg animal movement, darting, etc)

3. PRESENTATION ON FLORA STATUS OF MOSI-OA-TUNYA NATIONAL PARK
by Jones Masonde - Ecologist MOT NP (presented on his behalf by Lisa Mwiinga)

(Description of various landscape and vegetation types given)

Concerns
- water organic pollution
- low primary productivity
- overgrazing
- tree cutting
- fires
- soil erosion
- infestation by invasive alien species
- elephant damage
- effects of fencing

Conclusion
- Habitats in the park are still viable to support controlled levels of animal populations
- But there has been extensive damage to the habitat
- Primary productivity is low and has been declining each year
- The fence will change the ecological condition similar to a game ranch

Management Options
- employ intensive ecological management system
- increase primary productivity by - irrigation, widening artificial plains, broadcasting seeds of palatable grasses

4. PRESENTATION ON THE CULTURAL RESOURCES OF MOSI-OA-TUNYA NATIONAL PARK AND ITS SURROUNDING
by Munukayumbwa Munyima, Director, National Heritage Conservation Commission (NHCC) South-West Region

Cultural Heritage Resources
• Livingstone District has over 368 Cultural Heritage Resources, including archaeological sites, historical buildings, engineering structures and traditional sites. Ten of these are declared national monuments.
• There are 45 cultural resources in the Mosi-oa-tunya National Park and immediate surrounding area. These comprise 39 archaeological, 5 historical and 1 anthropological (traditional).

Significance
• Traditional rites and ceremonies – have direct or indirect connection with some resources in the park
• Most resources contain information or materials that represent continuity of cultural history

Management of Cultural Resources
• Cultural resources are managed by NHCC
• It is important to ensure that any other organisation wishing to develop a management plan for the area seeks to conserve and enhance the status of these resources

Challenges
• Heritage conservation interests tend to clash with those of people who want to develop at any cost
• Tourism development is one of the major threats to many immovable cultural resources
• Both cultural and natural resources complement each other in promoting tourism

Conclusion
The proposed General Management Plan needs to include these resources.

COMMENTS
1. Chief Musokotwane informed the participants that the recent floods in his chiefdom exposed some archaeological sites, which should be investigated. NHCC promised to visit the sites.
2. A participant said that there seemed to be less flowers around the Falls than there used to and wanted to know why. It was not clear which flowers were being referred to, however, it was explained that the Act prohibits tampering of plants in protected areas. It was also explained that there had been a systematic removal of the invasive plant species Lantana camara, which was disturbing indigenous species.
3. A question was raised as to who was policing and providing information in the Falls area, as it was not always clear to visitors. It was explained that NHCC had tour guides for the Falls area, who could provide information.

4. PRESENTATION ON STRATEGIC PLANNING PROCESS FOR PREPARING GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLANS FOR PROTECTED AREAS
By Zook Muleya, Head of Protected Areas Planning, ZAWA

Definitions for various terms such as Natural Resources, General Management Plan, Land Use Planning, EIA, etc, were given.

Introduction
The increasing exploitation of natural resources requires that efforts be put in place, which would allow sustainable utilization of protected areas without compromising the long-term survival of these areas. National Parks, Bird Sanctuaries and Wildlife Sanctuaries should be managed in accordance with General Management Plans (GMPs), prepared in consultation with local communities and other stakeholders. The methodology adopted by ZAWA to prepare GMPs for protected areas is the ‘Strategic Planning Process’ (SPP).

Depending on the size, situation analysis and complexity of the problems, issues and concerns, at least 6 months is needed to complete one comprehensive protected area management plan.

The completion of the management plan requires going through:
• Pre-fieldwork phase
• Baseline data collection fieldwork phase
• Reconnaissance field survey and first planning workshop phase
• Post fieldwork phase

The presenter then went on to explain the Management Plan process and Strategic Planning Process.


FIELD TRIP
In the afternoon the participants went on a trip to see the northern end of the park.

Thorntree Lodge/ Sinde River
• Imusho Village, which used to be between the former fenced area and Thorntree Lodge had been moved upriver of Thorntree Lodge, before Sinde River.
• To accommodate this move, the northern end of the park was to be degazetted and would now end at Thorntree, not at Sinde River.

Gate 3 (Sesheke Road, northern gate)
• Water problems
• Toilet seemed about to collapse
• Gatehouse building could perhaps be better designed for cooking and other activities
• Not enough warning signs about the park gate on the road well in advance
• Problem of motorists speeding on the road
• Road Traffic were responsible for regulating speed, but had not sent a representative to the workshop
• Being a gazetted road there was resistance from the public to put speed bumps
• 2 boreholes had been sunk on the northern side of the road
• There had been a proposal to put the guard house in the middle of the road and make the road divert around in order to force drivers to slow down.

Knights Drive (northern end of park)
• Problem of how to man the gate on this road, near the bottom end.
• Two sites had been advertised for tourism near the top of the hill
• The airport extension, near former Chalets hotel, had reached right up to the park boundary and had been cleared of trees.
• There was confusion over whether this was actually Airport land or Forest Reserve. However, Forestry department had allowed to sell the wood from the cut trees.
• The new ZAWA staff accommodation would be on the slope between the Chalets and the Cemetery. It had not yet been subdivided.