Negotiating Community Rights to Forest Resources in the Tanganyika Basin in Zambia: Understanding structural power asymmetries in a landscape approach

The effectiveness of community resource management and land rights in the Lake Tanganyika Integrated Project (LTIP) has been premised on principles that legally devolved control over demarcated forests to the locals will secure community rights to resources, increase local stewardship and thus create a sustainable management option. Traditionally, the conservation regimes in this region have been centralised through a network of forest reserves and open landscapes under the control of government and traditional authorities respectively. Through stakeholders’ advocacy, there has been a recent shift from centralised forest management policy to community engagement in a landscape approach. A study was conducted in this landscape to analyse the engagement of two communities comprising 87 respondents. The objective of the study was to understand how different actors in the community influence decision-making in the negotiation process of forestland rights and benefits within the context of a landscape approach. The paper also discusses the asymmetries of power and gender within the communities, and how such asymmetries affect access to environmental goods and services. Based on ethnographic work, focus group interviews and historical analysis of forestry policies affecting the Tanganyika Basin, the study validates that through rigorous stakeholder engagement and negotiated common goal entry points for resource use and management, communally managed forests increase stewardship of local resources, thereby creating opportunities to leverage conservation and development. The findings also indicate that decentralisation of forest resource governance is a complex political process, involving (re)distribution of power and requiring strong local administrative capacities. Involving women and youths in decision-making processes increases equitable access to forest resources compared to more centralised options. Finally, the research found that communal forest, while promising a steady flow of ecosystem services arising from sustainable management, has potential to create exclusivity in social networks that may foster resource use conflicts at inter-community level. The paper concludes that the negotiation process for resource rights takes a long time and requires a well thought out consultative process.