ENGAGEMENT PLAN FOR BAROTSE FLOODPLAINS (ZAMBEZI BASIN) AREA
1.0 Stakeholder Analysis and Selection
Stakeholder identification, categorization, reasons for engagement, and potential stakeholder benefits for engagingSTAKEHOLDER / CATEGORY / REASONS FOR ENGANEMENT / BENEFITS FOR ENGAGING
Famer groups / Private / Sharing experiences / Informed and better transparency of
decisions made
Livestock owners / Private / Sharing experience / Informed and better transparency of the
decisions made
Fisher groups / Private / Sharing experience and potentialcontributor to project goals / Informed decisions made, ensure fish bans
followed
Land owners / Private / Sharing and potentialcontributor / Informed and better decisions for transparency
Department of fisheries(DOF) / Government / Strengthen science policy interface and ensuring relevance of research output / Opportunity to develop better policies,
Ensuring policy implementation / policy and research monitoring
Department of agriculture(DOA) / Government / Strengthen science policy interface and ensuring relevance of research out put / Opportunity to develop better policies
Ensuring policy implementation / policy and research monitoring
Town councils / Government / Strengthen science policy interface and ensuring relevance of research out put / Develop better policies based on shared
experiences
International NGOs (World Fish) / Civil society / Policy advocacy, funding of research activities, / Opportunity to tap specialized experts and
to get the funding
Research and collaborating other partners.
Local NGOs (caritas) / Civil society / Research and policy implementation, monitoring / Opportunity to have experts who can
implement the research output
Cultural Institutions (BRE) / Civil society / Key collaborator, link to the community, power broker / Opportunity to get access to the communities,
research monitoring, to develop better policies
based on local experience
High
Interest
LowInfluence High
Fig2: Stakeholders group, Interests, Influence and Relationship
The major resource is the Aquatic Agricultural Systems (AAS) which is found in our land. The larger the stakeholder group the greater the influence it has on the AAS in the area. The closer the group to AAS depicts its stake in influencing the the AAS.
Explanation. BRE has higher interest and greater influence on AAS in Barotse floodplains. The establishment determines who has the rights to access the waters and other resources. It has administrative structures up to the lowest communities.
World fish works closely with the BRE trying to influence change through research. It closely monitors the fish ban as well tries to collaborate with all the partners in the area.
DOF is the department of fisheries, which is the government representative in the area. Its work is policy implementation. However due to conflicts of interest, the BRE and local communities do not have a good working environment. But DOF remains as a major partner on paper with greater influence and interest but distant from reality.
The church plays a passive role hence its influence is not so much felt. Local NGO work in collaboration with international organisations like world fish, thus implying their activities are much influenced by international organisation
Key to abbreviation:
AAS: Aquatic agricultural systems
BRE: Barotse Royal Establishment
DOF: Department of Fisheries
2.0 Matrix for planning activities for different level of engagement (Evaluation scenarios)
Project Timescale → / Before / Before / During / During / During / After / AfterRoles of Stakeholders / Research design, policy design / Contribute in goal setting / M&E, participate in activities workshops / Policy/research implementation, reporting / Participate in workshops, M&E, / Project revision, recommendations / Output harvest, synthesis reports / Evaluation, collaborate and reporting / Adoption of lessons learnt and new proposal / Identify future research questions
Stakeholders ↓ / Specific stakeholder activities
Government ministries (DOF, DAO) / Involve / Involve / Involve / Inform / Collaborate / Collaborate / Inform / Inform / Involved / Involved
International NGOs / Involve / Involve / Involve / Involved / Collaborate / Involved / Involved / Involved / Involved / Involved
Cultural institutions:Barotse Royal Establishment (BRE) / Collaborate / Involve / Involve / Inform / Inform / Consult / Inform / Inform / Inform / Involved
Communities (Beneficiaries) / Consult / Involve / Involve / Involve / Collaborate / Collaborate / Inform / Inform / Involved / Involved
Local NGOs
Consult / Involve / Collaborate / Collaborate / Collaborate / Collaborate / Collaborate / Inform / Collaborate / Involved
Business communities
Consult / Involve / Inform / Inform / Inform / Consult / Inform / Inform / Inform / Involved
Churches / Consult / Involve / Inform / Inform / Inform / Consult / Inform / Inform / Inform / Inform
Source: (Durham, 2014).
Notes: Project timescale (top row) indicates the most likely stage at which each method would be applied. I have colour coded the methods according to the level of engagement (Inform – most basic level of engagement; Consult– specific questions are asked but not
full discussion or interaction; Involve– more opportunity for discussion; Collaborate– involved to some extent in full decision making (Durham, 2014).
Further breakdown
STAKEHOLDER( table extension) / Areas of Common Interest
(High (H)/Medium (M)/Low (L)) / Roles of Stakeholders / Engagement process
(discussion and activities)) / Format of Communication
( mode/channel of communication) / Communication Mechanism
(Explainatio discussion and activities))
Famer groups / M / Cultivating Land for crops for cash and food / Inform, Involve / Community Meetings,
Village assembly meeting-
Fcilitating workshops,
Social media,
Newsletters, Poster, Video; snow- ball / Communication at the start of the engagement process
Livestock owners / M / Livestock for livelihood / Inform, Involve / Community Meetings,
Village assembly meeting-
Fcilitating workshops,
Social media,
Newsletters, Poster, Video; snow- ball / Communication at the start of the engagement process
Fisher groups / H / Inform, Involve / Community Meetings,
Village assembly meeting-
Fcilitating workshops,
Social media,
Newsletters, Poster, Video; snow- ball / Communication at the start of the engagement process
Land owners / M / Private businesses
(Investor, multinationals and other big corporations,
small and medium enterprises and business organisations, Local business) / Inform, Involve, Collaborate / Community Meetings,
Village assembly meeting-
Facilitating workshops,
Social media,
Newsletters, Poster, Video; snow- ball / Communication at the start of the engagement process
Department of fisheries(DOF) / H / have Mandate / mission, strategic objectives
Project Design
Monitoring / Collaborate / Steering
Group / Communication during the entire engagement process
Department of agriculture(DOA) / H / have Mandate / mission, strategic objectives
Project Design,
Project implementing
Monitoring / Collaborate / Steering
Group / Communication during the entire engagement process
Town councils / M / Networking
Advice
Project Revision / Collaborate / Steering
Group / Communication during the entire engagement process
International NGOs (World Fish) / H / porividing support, (Kowledge, Facilitating, Cosching, Training, Networking) / Consult, cooperate / Email, social media, telephone, conferences / Communication over what’s next
Local NGOs (caritas) / M / porividing support, (Kowledge, Facilitating, Cosching, Training, Networking) / Consult, cooperate, collaborate / Email, telephone, workshops / Communication over what’s next
Cultural Institutions (BRE) / H / Networking
councillors / Advice /
Project Revision / Collaborate / Workshops, Email, telephone / Communication during the entire engagement process
Cooperating partners / H / ?
Economic values of the Barotse flood plains (Zambezi basin)
Adapted from: Emerton, (1998)
Economic benefits of the goods and services of Zambezi Basin Wetland
Adapted from: Schuyt, (2005)
Economic costs associated with flooding and land degradation in Barotse flood plains
The costs to biodiversity can either be direct or indirect costs. These costs include: overexploitation, pollution, fire, dam and modification of hydrology, land clearance and introduction of exotic species (Timberlake, 2000).
Overexploitation is the use of the resource beyond the rate at which it can repair itself. Land along the Zambeziregion (Barotsefloodplains) have been overgrazed, over fished, mammals have been destroyed especially wild species and deforestation is at large scale for purposes of charcoal and land clearance for agriculture(Turpie, Smith, Emerton, & Barnes, 1999). The construction of dams and high ways has implication water quality and the fish species in the waters along the Zambezi basins. And the introduction of exotic species makes the native species exotic and therefore end up modifying the ecology of the area and hence making it impossible for the remaining native species to adapt (Timberlake, 2000).
Cost benefit analysis
Annual cost and benefit of the economic and natural actvities along the Zambezi basinItem / Costs (C) value in (USD) / Benefits(B) value in (USD)
Fishing / 700000 / 6500000
Agriculture / 4800000 / 13000000
Livestock rearing / 1800000 / 3900000
Wild animals / 5000 / 219000
Palms / 2000 / 621000
Reeds, papyrus / 163000 / 378000
Grass / 130000 / 2200000
Flood attenuation / 400000 / 2700000
Water purification / 1600000 / 18400000
Carbon sequestration / 8000000 / 64000000
Ground water recharge / 500000 / 7500000
Ecotourism/wildlife services / 1000000 / 814000
Total / 19100000 / 120232000
Net benefit (B-C) / 101132000
Source: Schuyt, (2005)
Note:
1.That we took the maximum expected values for benefits from Table 4
2.That we took the minimum expected values of benefits to be our estimated loss/costs fromTable 4
3.Costs could be be loss, or costs assocaited with land degradation, monitoring,
equipment installation
To calculate the benefit cost ration, (b/c)
We shall employ the formulas below but some assumption have to be made.
Assumptions:
The probability of success is the estimated percentage that we shall achieve the sales
The probability of costs is the percentage that we shall keep the costs at the estimated target cost.
Therefore, assuming that the probability for success is 85% (0.85) and the probability that we shall incure the costs/loss in case measure are not put in place to be 90% (0.90).
Thus,.
Interpretation: That for every dollar (USD) spent on this project, we shall earn 5.95 US dollars per year. Therefore, it would pay to take cautious measures to avoid the effects associated with land degradation, overexploitation of fish and natural resources, and deforestation in Barotse floodplains.
NOTE:The benefit / cost ratio is based on estimations, this could only be reliable if we had actual costs that occurred due to the effects of land degradation, overgrazing, deforestation and other associated costs mentioned in the project.
Operational costs
Facilitation needed during the workshop engagement
Item Description / Cost per unit (USD) / Total cost (USD)Administrative costs (internet, communication, office space, stationery etc)
Personnel costs (transport refund)
Workshop space hire
Hire expert facilitator
Consultation
References
Durham, E., Baker, Helen., Smith, Matt., Moore, Elizabth. & Morgan, Vicky. (2014). BiodivERsA Stakeholder Engagement Handbook. Paris: BiodivERsA.
Timberlake, J. (2000). Biodiversity of the Zambezi basin: Biodiversity Foundation for Africa.
Turpie, J., Smith, B., Emerton, L., & Barnes, J. (1999). Economic value of the Zambezi Basin Wetlands. IUCN Zambezi Basin Wetlands Conservation and Resource Utilization Project: Unpublished.