- WWF Zambia Backs Specialised Environment Court and Science-Led Wildlife Management
WWF Zambia has welcomed proposals to establish a specialised Lands and Environment Court alongside the government’s commitment to science-based wildlife management, describing the two initiatives as important steps towards strengthening environmental governance and protecting the country’s natural assets. The conservation organisation said stronger institutions and evidence-led policymaking would be critical as Zambia seeks to balance economic development with biodiversity protection, community livelihoods and climate resilience. The measures place both environmental justice and wildlife management at the centre of a broader debate over how the country governs increasingly valuable and contested natural resources.
The proposed court, announced by Chief Justice Dr Mumba Malila, is intended to provide specialised expertise for the resolution of land and environmental disputes. WWF Zambia said the increasing complexity of such cases required an adjudicatory system capable of dealing with environmental law, land use, natural-resource management and related disputes efficiently and with appropriate technical understanding. The organisation believes a dedicated court could strengthen enforcement while improving access to environmental justice.
WWF noted that Zambia’s 2016 Constitution provides for the establishment of a Lands Commission to address matters relating to land administration and jurisdiction, although the commission has yet to be fully operationalised. The proposed court could therefore become an important additional institution within the country’s environmental governance architecture. Its effectiveness, however, will depend not merely on its creation but on whether it is adequately resourced, staffed with appropriate expertise and able to deliver timely judgments.
Nalucha Nganga-Ziba, WWF Zambia Country Director, said the proposed court could strengthen environmental accountability by improving the way environmental and land-related cases are handled. “A specialized Lands and Environment Court will strengthen environmental justice and support sustainable natural resource management through informed and efficient adjudication of environmental matters,” she said. WWF sees that specialised capacity as increasingly important as environmental disputes become intertwined with investment, community rights, conservation and land-use decisions.
The wider significance extends beyond individual court cases. Investors, communities and conservation organisations all benefit from predictable and enforceable rules governing land and natural resources, particularly where development projects intersect with environmentally sensitive areas. A credible judicial framework can therefore support both conservation and economic activity by reducing uncertainty over rights, obligations and environmental standards.
WWF Zambia has also backed the government’s position that wildlife hunting can be suspended where scientific assessments show that animal populations have declined to levels requiring recovery. The organisation said wildlife-management decisions should be based on regular monitoring and credible data rather than short-term commercial or political considerations. Temporary hunting restrictions, it added, can form part of the conservation toolkit where evidence indicates that a species requires time to rebuild.
Nganga-Ziba said sustainable conservation required continuous assessment of wildlife populations and interventions proportionate to the evidence. “Where species need time to recover, temporary hunting suspensions can be an important conservation tool to safeguard biodiversity for future generations,” she said. Such measures, however, are most effective when supported by monitoring systems capable of determining when populations have recovered sufficiently and when restrictions can be reconsidered.
The approach is economically significant because wildlife represents more than a conservation asset for Zambia. Healthy populations support tourism, community livelihoods and other economic activity connected to protected landscapes and wildlife areas, meaning deterioration in biodiversity can eventually carry financial as well as ecological costs. Conservation policy must therefore weigh immediate revenue opportunities against the longer-term economic value of maintaining viable wildlife populations.
WWF also emphasised the role of local communities in conservation and wildlife monitoring. Community observations and participation can provide information that complements formal scientific research, while local involvement can strengthen the legitimacy and effectiveness of conservation decisions. This is particularly important where communities bear some of the direct costs of living alongside wildlife or depend on natural resources for their livelihoods.
The organisation called for continued collaboration among government, traditional authorities, researchers, conservation organisations, communities and the private sector. Such cooperation could improve monitoring, strengthen data collection and help ensure that wildlife-management decisions incorporate ecological, economic and social considerations. The challenge is to build a system in which conservation restrictions are scientifically justified while communities also see tangible value from protecting wildlife.
Nganga-Ziba said Zambia’s wildlife resources should be treated as long-term national assets rather than resources to be managed solely around immediate extraction or utilisation. She commended the government for prioritising science and sustainability, arguing that successful conservation required a balance between ecological integrity and economic and social needs. Maintaining healthy and resilient wildlife populations, she said, was essential to ensuring that those assets remained productive for future generations.
Taken together, the proposed court and the commitment to science-based wildlife management point towards a broader institutional approach to environmental policy. One addresses how environmental disputes and rights are adjudicated, while the other concerns how decisions over wildlife utilisation are made and reviewed. Their credibility will ultimately depend on transparent implementation, institutional independence, access to reliable evidence and consistent enforcement.
For Zambia, the longer-term test will be whether these reforms translate into stronger protection of ecosystems without unnecessarily constraining responsible economic development. Effective environmental governance should provide certainty to investors, safeguards for communities and credible protection for natural assets rather than forcing policymakers to choose permanently between conservation and growth. WWF’s support reflects the view that stronger institutions and better science can help Zambia pursue both objectives more sustainably.
The proposed Lands and Environment Court and science-led wildlife policy therefore represent more than conservation initiatives. They are part of a wider question about how Zambia manages natural capital that supports tourism, livelihoods, economic activity and ecological resilience. Their success will be measured not by the announcements themselves, but by whether they deliver fairer environmental justice, healthier wildlife populations and more sustainable management of the country’s natural heritage.
