Lindsey Peter A, Nyirenda Vincent R, Barnes Jonathan I, Becker Matthew S, McRobb Rachel, Tambling Craig J, Taylor W Andrew, Watson Frederick G, t'Sas-Rolfes Michael
Panthera, New York, New York, United States of America; Mammal Research Institute, Department of Zoology and Entomology, University of Pretoria, Pretoria, Gauteng, South Africa.
Zambia Wildlife Authority, Chilanga, Lusaka, Zambia.
PLoS One. 2014 May 21;9(5):e94109. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0094109. eCollection 2014.
Many African protected areas (PAs) are not functioning effectively. We reviewed the performance of Zambia's PA network and provide insights into how their effectiveness might be improved. Zambia's PAs are under-performing in ecological, economic and social terms. Reasons include: a) rapidly expanding human populations, poverty and open-access systems in Game Management Areas (GMAs) resulting in widespread bushmeat poaching and habitat encroachment; b) underfunding of the Zambia Wildlife Authority (ZAWA) resulting in inadequate law enforcement; c) reliance of ZAWA on extracting revenues from GMAs to cover operational costs which has prevented proper devolution of user-rights over wildlife to communities; d) on-going marginalization of communities from legal benefits from wildlife; e) under-development of the photo-tourism industry with the effect that earnings are limited to a fraction of the PA network; f) unfavourable terms and corruption which discourage good practice and adequate investment by hunting operators in GMAs; g) blurred responsibilities regarding anti-poaching in GMAs resulting in under-investment by all stakeholders. The combined effect of these challenges has been a major reduction in wildlife densities in most PAs and the loss of habitat in GMAs. Wildlife fares better in areas with investment from the private and/or NGO sector and where human settlement is absent. There is a need for: elevated government funding for ZAWA; greater international donor investment in protected area management; a shift in the role of ZAWA such that they focus primarily on national parks while facilitating the development of wildlife-based land uses by other stakeholders elsewhere; and new models for the functioning of GMAs based on joint-ventures between communities and the private and/or NGO sector. Such joint-ventures should provide defined communities with ownership of land, user-rights over wildlife and aim to attract long-term private/donor investment. These recommendations are relevant for many of the under-funded PAs occurring in other African countries.
许多非洲保护区未能有效发挥作用。我们评估了赞比亚保护区网络的运行情况,并就如何提高其有效性提供见解。赞比亚的保护区在生态、经济和社会方面表现不佳。原因包括:a) 人口迅速增长、贫困以及狩猎管理区(GMA)的开放获取系统,导致广泛的丛林肉偷猎和栖息地侵占;b) 赞比亚野生动物管理局(ZAWA)资金不足,导致执法不力;c) ZAWA依赖从GMA获取收入来支付运营成本,这阻碍了将野生动物的使用权适当下放给社区;d) 社区在野生动物合法利益方面持续被边缘化;e) 摄影旅游业发展不足,以至于收入仅占保护区网络收入的一小部分;f) 不利的条款和腐败现象,阻碍了狩猎经营者在GMA的良好做法和充足投资;g) GMA反偷猎责任不明确,导致所有利益相关者投资不足。这些挑战的综合影响是,大多数保护区的野生动物密度大幅下降,GMA的栖息地丧失。在有私人和/或非政府部门投资且无人居住的地区,野生动物的情况较好。需要:增加政府对ZAWA的资金投入;国际捐助者加大对保护区管理的投资;转变ZAWA的角色,使其主要专注于国家公园,同时促进其他利益相关者在其他地方发展基于野生动物的土地利用;以及基于社区与私人和/或非政府部门合资企业的GMA运作新模式。这种合资企业应为特定社区提供土地所有权、野生动物使用权,并旨在吸引长期的私人/捐助投资。这些建议适用于其他非洲国家许多资金不足的保护区。