Policy coherence and interplay between Zambia’s forest, energy, agricultural and climate change policies and multilateral environmental agreements

Abstract

There is increasing international demand by policymakers focussed on Reduction of Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation for developing countries to conserve forests in the face of pressure from agriculture and energy demands. Improving forest conservation efforts requires a better understanding of how policies influence forest resources management, hence a need for better analysis of policy coherence and interaction. This study employs a content analysis of national sectoral policies in agriculture, energy and forestry, and national programmes under United Nations Rio conventions in Zambia to examine coherence and interplay between international- and national-level policies. Results show positive horizontal interplay between energy and forestry policies, while conflicts were observed between the agricultural and forestry policies despite the potential of conservation farming to provide a mutually supportive link. Policy documents show inconsistencies between national sectoral policies and national statements to the Rio conventions. Additionally, although national statements to Rio conventions share common ground on measures to address deforestation, they seem to be poorly mainstreamed into national policies and broader development policies at national level. Findings have further revealed a lack of coherence between national commitments to Rio conventions and national forest legislation. The paper concludes that although developing countries, such as Zambia, are ratifying international environmental conventions, measures are often not drafted into national policies and linkages remain largely superficial.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

  1. 1.

    Woodfuel is a combination of fuelwood (unprocessed wood, i.e. poles, branches, twigs) and charcoal.

Abbreviations

GRZ:

Government Republic of Zambia

MA:

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment

NAP:

National Action Programme

NAPA:

National Adaptation Programme of Action

NBSAP:

National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan

REDD:

Reduction of Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation

CBD:

United Nations Convention on Biodiversity

UNCCD:

United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification

UNCED:

United Nations Conference on Environment and Development

UNFCCC:

United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change

References

  1. Akinnifesi, F. K., Sileshi, G., Ajayi, O. C., Chirwa, P. W., Mng’omba, S., Chakeredza, S., et al. (2008). Domestication and conservation of indigenous Miombo fruit trees for improving rural livelihoods in southern Africa. Biodiversity (Ottawa), 9(1–2), 72–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Alig, R., Latta, G., Adams, D., & McCarl, B. (2010). Mitigating greenhouse gases: The importance of land base interactions between forests, agriculture, and residential development in the face of changes in bioenergy and carbon prices. Forest Policy and Economics, 12(1), 67–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Angelsen, A. (2010). Policies for reduced deforestation and their impact on agricultural production. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 107(46), 19639–19644.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Angelsen, A., Brockhaus, M., Kanninen, M., Sills, E., Sunderlin, W. D., & Wertz-Kanounnikoff, S. (Eds.). (2009). Realising REDD+: National strategy and policy option. Bogor: Center for International Research in Forestry.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Angelsen, A., & Kaimowitz, D. (1999). Rethinking the causes of deforestation: Lessons from economic models. The World Bank Research Observer, 14(1), 73–98.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Benner, P. (1985). Quality of life: A phenomenological perspective on explanation, prediction, and understanding in nursing. Advances in Nursing Science, 8(1), 1–14.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Bluffstone, R. A. (1995). The effects of labor-market performance on deforestation in developing-countries under open access: An example from rural Nepal. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 29(1), 42–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Bond, I., Chambwera, M., Jones, B., Chundama, M., & Nhantumbo, I. (2010). REDD+ in dryland forests: Issues and prospects for pro-poor REDD in the miombo wooldands of southern Africa. Natural resource issues no. 21. London: IIED.

  9. Brundtland, G. H. (1987). Our common future. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Bryant, R. L. (1992). Political ecology: An emerging research agenda in third-world studies. Political Geography, 11(1), 12–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Campbell, B. M., Luckert, M., & Scoones, I. (1997). Local-level valuation of Savanna resources: A case study from Zimbabwe. Economic Botany, 51(1), 59–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Central Statistics Office. (2005). Living conditions monitoring survey report 2004. Lusaka: Central Statistics Office.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Chandra, A., & Idrisova, A. (2011). Convention on Biological Diversity: A review of national challenges and opportunities for implementation. Biodiversity and Conservation, 20(14), 3295–3316.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Chasek, P. S. (2010). Confronting environmental treaty implementation challenges in the Pacific Islands. East-West Center: Honolulu.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Chhatre, A., & Agrawal, A. (2009). Trade-offs and synergies between carbon storage and livelihood benefits from forest commons. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 106(42), 17667–17670.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Chidumayo, E. N. (1987). Woodland structure, destruction and conservation in the Copperbelt area of Zambia. Biological Conservation, 40(2), 89–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Chundama, M. (2009). Preparing for REDD in dryland forests: Investigating the options and potential synergy for REDD payments in the miombo eco-region (Zambia country study). London: International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED).

    Google Scholar 

  18. Colchester, M., Boscolo, M., Contreras-Hermosilla, A., Gatto, F. D., Dempsey, J., Lescuyer, G., et al. (2006). Justice in the forest: Rural livelihoods and forest law enforcement. Centre for International Forestry Research (CIFOR): Bogor.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Cowie, A., Schneider, U. A., & Montanarella, L. (2007). Potential synergies between existing multilateral environmental agreements in the implementation of land use, land-use change and forestry activities. Environmental Science & Policy, 10(4), 335–352.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Creswell, J. W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  21. De Bruijn, H., & ten Heuvelhof, E. (2000). Networks and decision making. Utrecht: Lemma Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  22. FAO. (2010). Global forest resource assessment. Rome: FAO.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Forbes, D. (2000). Reading texts and writing geography. In I. Hay (Ed.), Qualitative research methods in human geography. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Ghimire, B. K., & Pimbert, P. M. (1997). An overview of issues and concepts. In B. K. Ghimire, & P. M. Pimbert (Eds.), Social change and conservation (p. 342). London: Earthscan.

  25. Gomar, J. O. V., Stringer, L. C., & Paavola, J. (2013). Regime complexes and national policy coherence: Experiences in the biodiversity cluster. Sustainability research institute working paper, number 48.

  26. Graham, K. (2011). Making REDD+ cross-sectoral: Why, how, and what are the potential socio-economic impacts? http://www.odi.org.uk/resources/docs/7287.pdf. Accessed 8 Oct 2012.

  27. Graham, K., & Vignola, R. (2011). REDD+ and Agriculture: A cross-sectoral approach to REDD+ and implications for the poor. http://redd-net.org/files/REDD%20and%20agriculture%20laid%20up.pdf. Accessed 9 Oct 2012.

  28. GRZ. (1999). National biodiversity strategy and action plan. Lusaka: Ministry of Tourism, Environment and Natural Resources.

    Google Scholar 

  29. GRZ. (2002). Zambia national action programme (NAP) for combating desertification and mitigating serious effects of drought. Lusaka: Ministry of Tourism, Environment and Natural Resources.

    Google Scholar 

  30. GRZ. (2004). National agricultural policy. Lusaka: Ministry of Agriculture and Co-operatives.

    Google Scholar 

  31. GRZ. (2006a). United nations convention on biological diversity: Third national report. Lusaka: Ministry of Tourism, Environment and Natural Resources.

    Google Scholar 

  32. GRZ. (2006b). Vision 2030: A prosperous middle-income nation by 2030. Lusaka: Ministry of Finance and National Planning.

    Google Scholar 

  33. GRZ. (2007a). National adaptation programme of action (NAPA) on climate change. Lusaka: Ministry of Tourism, Environment and Natural Resources.

    Google Scholar 

  34. GRZ. (2007b). National energy policy. Lusaka: Ministry of Energy and Water Development.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Hewitt, S. (2009). Discourse analysis and public policy research. Discussion paper series number 24: Centre for Rural Economy.

  36. Holden, S. T. (1993). Peasant household modeling: Farming systems evolution and sustainability in northern Zambia. Agricultural Economics, 9(3), 241–267.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Jordan, A. (1999). The implementation of EU environmental policy: A policy problem without a political solution? Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 17(1), 69–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Kaimowitz, D. (2003). Forest law enforcement and rural livelihoods. International Forestry Review, 5(3), 199–210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Kalaba, F. K., Quinn, C. H., Dougill, A. J., & Vinya, R. (2013). Floristic composition, species diversity and carbon storage in charcoal and agriculture fallows and management implications in Miombo woodlands of Zambia. Forest Ecology and Management, 304, 99–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Keleman, A., Manage, U. G., & Dooley, K. (2010). Conservation and the agricultural frontier: Collapsing conceptual boundaries. Journal of Sustainable Forestry, 29(6), 539–559.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Ledoux, L., Crooks, S., Jordan, A., & Kerry Turner, R. (2000). Implementing EU biodiversity policy: UK experiences. Land Use Policy, 17(4), 257–268.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Lenschow, A. (2002). Environmental policy integration: Greening sectoral policies in Europe. London: Earthscan.

  43. Liu, J. G., Dietz, T., Carpenter, S. R., Alberti, M., Folke, C., Moran, E., et al. (2007). Complexity of coupled human and natural systems. Science, 317(5844), 1513–1516.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  44. MA. (2005). Ecosystems and human well-being: Synthesis. Washington, DC: World Resource Institute.

  45. Mwape, C., & Gumbo, D. (2010). Communities Reorganization for REDD+ implementation in Zambia. In X. Zhu, L. R. Møller, T. D. Lopez, & M. Z. Romero (Eds.), Pathways for Implementing REDD+. Experiences from carbon markets and communities (pp. 127–140). Roskilde, Denmark: UNEP.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Myers, N. (1993). Tropical forests: The main deforestation fronts. Environmental Conservation, 20(01), 9–16.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Nasi, R., Wunder, S., & Campos, J. J. (2002). Forestry ecosystem services: Can they pay our way out of deforestation?. Global Environment Facility (GEF), United Nations Forum on Forestry (UNFF) II: Discussion paper prepared for the forestry roundtable. New York.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Niang-Diop, I., & Bosch, H. (2005). Formulating an adaptation strategy. In B. Lim, E. Spanger-Siegfried, I. Burton, E. Malone, & S. Huq (Eds.), Adaptation policy frameworks for climate change: Developing strategies, policies and measures (pp. 183–204). Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Oberthür, S., & Gehring, T. (Eds.). (2006a). Institutional interaction in global environmental governance. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Oberthür, S., & Gehring, T. (2006b). Institutional interaction in global environmental governance: The case of the Cartagena protocol and the world trade organization. Global Environmental Politics, 6(2), 1–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Pichon, F. J. (1997). Colonist land-allocation decisions, land use, and deforestation in the Ecuadorian Amazon frontier. Economic Development and Cultural Change, 45(4), 707–744.

    Google Scholar 

  52. Pittock, J. (2011). National climate change policies and sustainable water management, conflicts and synergies. Ecology and Society, 16(2), 1–25.

    Google Scholar 

  53. Quinion, A., Chirwa, P. W., Akinnifesi, F. K., & Ajayi, O. C. (2010). Do agroforestry technologies improve the livelihoods of the resource poor farmers? Evidence from Kasungu and Machinga districts of Malawi. Agroforestry Systems, 80(3), 457–465.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Rasul, G., Chettri, N., & Sharma, E. (2011). Framework for valuing ecosystem services in the Himalayas. Kathmandu: ICIMOD.

    Google Scholar 

  55. Reardon, T., & Vosti, A. S. (1995). Links between rural poverty and the environment in developing countries : Asset categories and investment poverty. World Development, 23(9), 1495–1506.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Rock, M. T. (1996). The stork, the plow, rural social structure and tropical deforestation in poor countries? Ecological Economics, 18(2), 113–131.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Rogers, D. L., & Whetten, D. A. (1982). Interorganizational coordination. Ames: Iowa State University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  58. Rosendal, G. K. (2001). Impacts of overlapping international regimes: The case of biodiversity. Global Governance, 7, 95.

    Google Scholar 

  59. Rudel, T., & Roper, J. (1997). The paths to rain forest destruction: Crossnational patterns of tropical deforestation, 1975–1990. World Development, 25(1), 53–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Sand, P. H. (1992). The effectiveness of international environmental agreements: A survey of existing legal instruments. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  61. Sharp, L., & Richardson, T. (2001). Reflections on Foucauldian discourse analysis in planning and environmental policy research. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 3(3), 193–209.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. SNDP. (2011). Sixth national development plan. Lusaka: Ministry of Finance and National Planning.

    Google Scholar 

  63. Söderberg, C. (2008). ‘Much ado about nothing?’—Energy forest cultivation in Sweden: How intersectoral policy coordination affects outcomes from EPI in multisectoral issues. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 10(4), 381–403.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Stokke, O. (2001). Governing high-seas fisheries: The interplay of global and regional regimes. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  65. Stokke, O. S. (2009). The interplay of international regimes: Putting effectiveness theory to work. Lysaker: Fridtof Nansen Institute.

  66. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  67. Stringer, L. C., Dyer, J. C., Reed, M. S., Dougill, A. J., Twyman, C., & Mkwambisi, D. (2009). Adaptations to climate change, drought and desertification: Local insights to enhance policy in southern Africa. Environmental Science & Policy, 12(7), 748–765.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Syampungani, S. (2009). Vegetation change analysis and ecological recovery of the Copperbelt Miombo woodland of Zambia. Stellenbosch: University of Stellenbosch.

    Google Scholar 

  69. Syampungani, S., Chirwa, P. W., Akinnifesi, F. K., Sileshi, G., & Ajayi, O. C. (2009). The miombo woodlands at the cross roads: Potential threats, sustainable livelihoods, policy gaps and challenges. Natural Resources Forum, 33(2), 150–159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Taylor, S. J., & Bogdan, R. (1984). Introduction to qualitative research methods: The search for meanings. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  71. Urwin, K., & Jordan, A. (2008). Does public policy support or undermine climate change adaptation? Exploring policy interplay across different scales of governance. Global Environmental Change, 18(1), 180–191.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Vinya, R., Syampungani, S., Kasumu, E., Monde, C., & Kasubika, R. (2011). Preliminary study on the drivers of deforestation and potential for REDD+ in Zambia. Lusaka: Ministry of Lands and Natural Resources.

    Google Scholar 

  73. Virtanen, P. (2002). The role of customary institutions in the conservation of biodiversity: Sacred forests in Mozambique. Environmental Values, 11(2), 227–241.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. Willows, R. I., & Connell, R. K. (Eds.). (2003). Climate adaptation: Risk, uncertainty and decision-making. Oxford: UKCIP.

    Google Scholar 

  75. Young, O. R. (2002). The institutional dimensions of environmental change: Fit, interplay and scale. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  76. Young, O. R., King, L. A., Aggarval, A., Underdal, A., Sand, P. H., & Wasson, M. (1999). Institutional dimensions of global environmental change. In Science plan (p. 100). Bonn: International Human Dimension Program.

  77. Zambia Department of Forestry, & FAO. (2008). Integrated land use assessment. Lusaka, Zambia: Ministry of Tourism Environment and Natural Resources.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the two anonymous reviewers for their thoughtful comments on earlier drafts of this paper. Funding was provided by the Copperbelt University and a Commonwealth research studentship to Felix Kanungwe Kalaba.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Felix Kanungwe Kalaba.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kalaba, F.K., Quinn, C.H. & Dougill, A.J. Policy coherence and interplay between Zambia’s forest, energy, agricultural and climate change policies and multilateral environmental agreements. Int Environ Agreements 14, 181–198 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10784-013-9236-z

Download citation

Keywords

  • Policy interplay
  • Forests
  • Governance
  • Deforestation
  • Rio conventions
  • REDD