Community-Based Natural Resource Management as a Climate Adaptation Practice in Zambia
A practical example of a successful community-based adaptation practice observable in north-western Zambia is Community Forest Management (CFM) under the Forestry Department, implemented through Community Forest Management Groups (CFMGs). Although primarily framed as a conservation and livelihoods initiative, in practice it functions as a community-based natural resource management (CBNRM) system that directly supports climate adaptation, particularly in forest-dependent rural settings such as Zambezi District.
Climate-related challenge addressed
The initiative responds to deforestation, declining forest-based livelihoods, and increasing climate variability, notably prolonged dry spells, unpredictable rainfall, and seasonal flooding. These stresses have weakened subsistence farming systems and intensified reliance on charcoal production and unsustainable timber harvesting. By formalising community rights and responsibilities over forest resources, CFM addresses both environmental degradation and livelihood vulnerability, which are core drivers of climate risk.
Local engagement in planning and decision-making
Local people are engaged through elected Community Forest Management Groups, which participate in forest boundary demarcation, rule-setting, patrols, and benefit-sharing arrangements. Planning processes typically combine Forestry Department technical guidance with community by-laws derived from customary norms. While the enabling framework is externally legislated, operational decisions—such as controlled harvesting, fire management, and access rules—are largely community-determined. This places the initiative closer to CBA in design, but with emerging features of LLA where community autonomy is respected.
Outcomes and observed impacts
Several outcomes are evident. Forest cover and regeneration have improved in demarcated areas. Illegal harvesting and late dry-season fires have reduced where enforcement is consistent. More importantly, households have diversified income through non-timber forest products, beekeeping, and seasonal forest-based safety nets during crop failure years. These outcomes enhance adaptive capacity, even if they are not formally labelled as climate resilience indicators.
Indigenous and traditional adaptive practices
Long before formal CBNRM, communities in this region practised rotational farming (chitemene), selective tree preservation, early burning, communal forest protection, and floodplain avoidance in settlement patterns. Water use relied on shallow wells positioned with ecological knowledge of groundwater recharge zones. Housing designs—raised floors, thatched roofs, and flexible materials—allowed adjustment to seasonal floods and heat.
Relevance to current climate risks
Many of these practices remain climate-relevant, particularly fire management and forest conservation. However, some—such as chitemene—have been discouraged or abandoned due to population pressure, policy restrictions, and environmental misinterpretation. Modern approaches, often externally promoted, sometimes replace rather than adapt these systems, weakening local ownership.
Connection to identity, values, and institutions
These practices are deeply embedded in customary authority, collective responsibility, and spiritual relationships with land and forests. Resource stewardship was historically tied to identity and social legitimacy. CBNRM initiatives that acknowledge traditional leadership structures tend to achieve stronger compliance and legitimacy than those relying solely on statutory enforcement.
Integrating traditional practices under an LLA framework
Under a locally led adaptation framework, these indigenous practices could be reframed, not replaced. Early burning could be formalised as climate-informed fire management. Traditional forest zoning could inform ecosystem-based adaptation planning. Customary institutions could be recognised as legitimate adaptation governance structures, with direct access to adaptation finance at community level.
Barriers to sustainability and revival
Key barriers include policy fragmentation, limited legal authority over benefits, youth migration, generational shifts in values, and over-reliance on donor-driven project cycles. Climate finance rarely reaches community institutions directly, limiting genuine localisation. Additionally, formal education systems often undervalue indigenous ecological knowledge, accelerating its erosion.
Examples of successful integration
Some community forestry and wildlife management areas in Zambia and neighbouring countries have begun integrating traditional fire regimes, customary land-use rules, and ecosystem-based adaptation principles with modern monitoring tools. Where this integration is intentional and rights-based, outcomes resemble locally led adaptation in practice, even if policy language remains conservative.
Analytical reflection
This example illustrates that CBNRM in Zambia operates at the intersection of CBA and LLA. Its effectiveness as an adaptation strategy depends less on technical interventions and more on the depth of local authority, continuity of indigenous knowledge, and control over resources and finance. In this sense, CBNRM is not merely an adaptation tool but a litmus test for how serious adaptation systems are about localisation.