What a Contested Zambian Floodplain Can Teach Us About Saving the Planet

Map of the Kafue Flats and Surrounding Parks

Introduction: The Conservation Conundrum

When we think about “conservation,” a common image comes to mind: vast, untouched wilderness, perhaps a national park, where nature is protected by keeping people out. It's a simple, powerful idea—creating pristine sanctuaries where ecosystems can thrive, walled off from human interference. But what if this approach, born from a desire to protect, sometimes causes the very harm it seeks to prevent?

The Kafue Flats in Zambia is a sprawling, complex floodplain ecosystem where this simple idea has been tested and found wanting. Sustained by the seasonal floods of the Kafue River, this vibrant landscape of grasslands and lagoons is a critical habitat for wildlife and a vital resource for the local Ila, Tonga, and Twa peoples who have lived there for centuries.

The story of the Kafue Flats is one of unintended consequences, where top-down conservation efforts clashed with ancient systems of resource management. This post will explore a few surprising and powerful lessons from this contested floodplain that challenge our most basic assumptions about the relationship between people, wildlife, and the environment.

Takeaway 1: When "Protection" Becomes the Problem

Building Walls Around Nature Can Backfire.

For much of the 20th century, conservation in the Kafue Flats followed a "top-down" model. First, British colonial authorities, and later the post-independence Zambian Government, implemented natural resource management practices that systematically excluded the local Ila, Tonga, and Twa communities from their traditional lands. The state took control over the wetlands, wildlife, and fisheries, treating the local inhabitants as a threat to the environment.

This exclusion had a series of disastrous consequences. First, it created deep resentment among the communities who had been the stewards of the land for generations. Second, when the government declared "ownership" over wildlife, it disincentivized these communities from protecting it; the animals were no longer their resource to manage, but the state's property.

Finally, due to the post-independence economic decline, the Zambian Government lacked the capacity to effectively monitor the vast area and enforce its new regulations. Lacking both local participation and state enforcement, the region devolved into an "open-access situation." This vacuum led to a dramatic increase in overfishing and poaching, creating tribal conflicts between the traditional owners and seasonal migrants from other Zambian groups, specifically the Lozi and Bemba peoples. The very act of trying to protect the ecosystem by removing its traditional managers inadvertently opened the door to its exploitation.

Takeaway 2: The Genius of Ancient Environmental Science

Indigenous Peoples Ran a Sophisticated Resource Management System for Centuries.

Contrary to the colonial stereotype of primitive or chaotic land use, the Ila, Tonga, and Twa peoples had developed highly structured and sustainable resource management systems over centuries. These systems were a form of local environmental science, perfectly adapted to the seasonal rhythms of the floodplain.

• Pasture Management: The Ila and Tonga practiced a seasonal transhumance system called kuwila. During the dry season, they moved their cattle from upland villages to graze in the floodplain at temporary matanga cattle camps. When the rains returned (kubola), they moved the herds back to higher ground. Access to these critical grazing lands wasn't a free-for-all; it required approval from traditional leaders, ensuring the pastures were not over-exploited.

• Fisheries Management: Fishing was meticulously governed by rules and taboos tied to seasons, specific fish species, and designated access rights linked to villages and clans. The Twa, who held traditional control over the waters, would coordinate collective fishing days guided by spiritual beliefs. Access rules were dynamic and sophisticated. As the Flats would flood, access was opened to all. But as the dry season started and the waters receded, access reverted to the community owners and, depending on conditions, could lead to a complete closure to all to prevent overharvesting.

• Wildlife Management: Traditional hunting of the endemic Kafue Lechwe was a carefully organized collective event known as chila. This hunt was designed to respond to the animal's migratory movements and, just as importantly, to ensure the fair distribution of meat throughout the community, reinforcing social bonds. A further layer of control was the cultural taboo against hunting a clan's totem animal, which helped prevent overharvesting.

For the Ila and Tonga peoples, these practices were deeply intertwined with their identity; cattle, in particular, were their "main source of identity." This cultural significance added a powerful incentive to manage their resources wisely for future generations.

Takeaway 3: The Ripple Effect of a Single Change

A Single Engineering Project Can Unravel an Entire Ecosystem.

In the 1970s, two hydroelectric dams were constructed on the Kafue River. While intended to power the nation's development, this single engineering decision triggered a cascading domino effect that fundamentally altered the entire floodplain ecosystem.

The dams disrupted the natural seasonal flooding patterns that had sustained the Flats for millennia. This led directly to:

• Reduced pasture size for cattle as the floodplains no longer received the same level of seasonal inundation.

• "Woody encroachment" on former grasslands, as trees and shrubs took over areas that were previously too wet for them to grow.

• An increase in cattle disease, linked to the changing environment and vegetation.

• Heightened conflict between cattle and wildlife, especially the Kafue Lechwe, as they were forced to compete for shrinking grazing land.

This shows the profound interconnectedness of an ecosystem. One major change to the river's hydrology triggered a chain reaction of negative consequences that rippled through the environment, ultimately impacting the health of wildlife, livestock, and human food security.

Takeaway 4: The Forgotten Logic of Sustainability

The Guiding Principle Was "Restraint for Gain".

The traditional management systems of the Ila, Tonga, and Twa were not a random collection of rules. They were built on a powerful, unifying principle: a conscious strategy to ensure long-term abundance for the community. These systems defined boundaries, influenced decisions, and enforced sanctions to manage access and distribute benefits. The outcome was sustainable use.

This core logic is best described by a simple but profound phrase:

This can be viewed as “restraint for gain”

This idea flips the modern narrative of sustainability on its head. It suggests that sustainability is not simply about sacrifice or doing with less. Instead, it is a wise and strategic investment. By exercising restraint in the present—by not overfishing, overhunting, or overgrazing—the community guarantees a greater gain in the future: the continued health and productivity of the ecosystem upon which their culture and survival depend.

Conclusion: Looking Forward

The story of the Kafue Flats provides a crucial lesson for our time. It demonstrates that effective conservation cannot be imposed from the top down. It must be a collaborative process, one that is culturally aware and deeply respectful of the local knowledge that has co-evolved with an ecosystem over centuries. Exclusionary models that treat local people as obstacles are not only unjust; they are often doomed to fail, creating the very "open-access" tragedies they are meant to prevent.

The challenges in the Kafue Flats are a microcosm of the environmental crises we face globally. As we look for solutions, the past offers a powerful guide for the future. This leads to a final, critical question: As we face global environmental challenges, how can we better listen to and empower the local communities who have been the stewards of their lands for generations?

Check out some of the work I've done here:

Hammond-R_Collaborative-Proposal.pdf

Download PDF • 166KB

Sources:

1)    Haller, T. (2013). The contested floodplain: Institutional change of the commons in Southern Zambia. Lexington Books.

2)    Haller, T., & Merten, S. (2010). Chapter Seven. “We Had Cattle And Did Not Fish And Hunt Anyhow!” Institutional Change And Contested Commons In The Kafue Flats Floodplain (Zambia). In Disputing the Floodplains (Vol. 22, pp. 301–359). BRILL. https://doi.org/10.1163/ej.9789004185326.i-454.86

3)    Jeffery, R. C. V., & Chooye, P. M. (1991). The people’s role in wetlands management: the Zambian initiative. Landscape and Urban Planning, 20(1), 73–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/0169-2046(91)90094-3

4)    Jeffery, R. C. V., Chabwela, H. N., Howard, G., & Dugan, P. J. (1992) Managing the wetlands of Kafue Flats and Bangweulu Basin. IUCN

5)    Jones, B (2004) CBNRM: poverty reduction and sustainable livelihoods: developing criteria for evaluating the contribution of CBNRM to poverty reduction and alleviation in southern Africa. In Commons southern Africa occasional paper series No. 7. Centre for Applied Social Sciences and Programme for Land and Agrarian Studies.

6)    Lewis, D., Kaweche, G., & Mwenya, A. (1990) Wildlife Conservation Outside Protected Areas – Lessons from an Experiment in Zambia. Conservation Biology 4(2), 171 – 180.

7)    Mbaiwa, J. E. (2004). The Success and Sustainability of Community-Based Natural Resource Management in the Okavango Delta, Botswana. South African Geographical Journal 86(1). 44 – 53.

8)    Mukang’ombe, R., Josephat, D., Hachibamba, S., & Sawka, K. S. (2015). The Twa of Zambia’s Kafue Flats Southern Province Itezhi-Tezhi District – Linguistic Survey Report. SIL International.

9)    Mukang’ombe, R., Josephat, D., & Sawka, K. S. (2016). The Twa of Zambia’s Kafue Flats Southern Province Itezhi-Tezhi District. SIL International.

10) Ng’onga, M.; Mapedza, E.; Siamudaala, V.; Muzungaire, L. 2024. Mapping land and water supported livelihoods, stakeholders, policies and governance mechanism in the Lower Kafue Basin, Southern Zambia. Colombo, Sri Lanka: International Water Management Institute (IWMI). CGIAR Initiative on Aquatic Foods. 36p.

11) Nkhata, B., Breen, C., Chomba, M., & Brears, R. C. (2018). Why Southern Africa Needs More than an Adaptation Strategy to Build Climate Resilient Floodplains: A Call for Transformative Water Security on the Kafue Flats of Zambia. In Climate Resilient Water Resources Management (pp. 77–91). Springer International Publishing AG. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-78896-8_6

12) Reid, R. S., Nkedianye, D., Said, M. Y., Kaelo, D., Neselle, M., Makui, O., Onetu, L., Kiruswa, S., Kamuaro, N. O., Kristjanson, P., Ogutu, J., BurnSilver, S. B., Goldman, M. J., Boone, R. B., Galvin, K. A., Dickson, N. M., & Clark, W. C. (2016). Evolution of models to support community and policy action with science: Balancing pastoral livelihoods and wildlife conservation in savannas of East Africa. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences - PNAS, 113(17), 4579–4584. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0900313106

13) Schelle, P., & Pittock, J. (2005). Restoring the Kafue Flats – A partnership approach to environmental flows in Zambia. Brisbane River Symposium, September 2005

14) Shanungu, G. K., Kaumba, C. H. Beilfuss, R., 2015. Current Population Status and Distribution of Large Herbivores and Floodplain Birds of the Kafue Flats Wetlands, Zambia Results of the 2015 Wet Season Aerial Survey, Chilanga, Zambia: Zambia Wildlife Authority.

15) Smardon, R. C. (2009). The Kafue Flats in Zambia, Africa: A Lost Floodplain? In Sustaining the World’s Wetlands (pp. 93–123). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-49429-6_4

16) United States Peace Corps. (2005). PACA: Using participatory analysis for community action. United States Peace Corps. Publication No. M0086