Community based natural resource management in Zimbabwe: the experience of CAMPFIRE

Abstract

Communal Areas Management Programme for Indigenous Resources (CAMPFIRE) is a long-term programmatic approach to rural development that uses wildlife and other natural resources as a mechanism for promoting devolved rural institutions and improved governance and livelihoods. The cornerstone of CAMPFIRE is the right to manage, use, dispose of, and benefit from these resources. Between 1989 and 2006, CAMPFIRE income, mostly from high valued safari hunting, totalled nearly USD$ 30 million, of which 52% was allocated to sub-district wards and villages for community projects and household benefits. Whilst a number of assumptions underlying the success of CAMPFIRE as an innovative model for CBNRM have yet to be met, CAMPFIRE confirms the concept that devolving responsibility and accountability for natural resource management can be highly effective for the collective and participatory management of such resources. Elephant numbers in CAMPFIRE areas have increased and buffalo numbers are either stable or decreased slightly during the life of the programme. However, offtake quotas for these two species have increased with a concomitant decline in trophy quality. Although the amount of wildlife habitat diminished after 1980, following the commencement of CAMPFIRE the rate of habitat loss slowed down and in some specific instances was even reversed. More recently there has been increased pressure on habitats and other natural resources as a consequence of deteriorating socio-economic conditions in the country. Where devolution has been successful, promising results have been achieved and the recent acceptance and implementation of direct payments to communities is probably the most significant development since 2000. That this has happened can be attributed to CAMPFIRE enabling communities to maximize their roles within the existing set of rules, and by so doing, allowing these rules to be challenged. Donor (73%) and government (27%) This article is based on an unpublished report originally produced for USAID FRAME.

Re-assertion of Elite Control in Masoka’s Wildlife Program, Zimbabwe

“…However, legally, the lowest formal institution in communal lands was the Rural District Council (RDC), formed through the Local Government Act. To bridge this gap between policy, intent of wildlife officials, and the existing organizational structure of the Ministry of Local Government and Rural Development, a strategic compromise was reached and Appropriate Authority was devolved to District Councils with a gentleman's agreement that this be further devolved to wildlife "producer communities" (Taylor, 2009;Campbell et al, 2001;B. Child, 1996a) .…”

“…high wildlife populations, increased income to community, and relatively high number of community funded projects) (N. Nabane and Matzke, 1997;Matzke and Nabane, 1996). The retrospective opinions of people interviewed between 2007 and 2009 (Taylor and Murphree, 2007a;Taylor, 2009) also indicated that Masoka was a successful Communal Areas Management Program for Indigenous Resources (CAMPFIRE) project managed through an impersonal and institutionalized governance system that delivered development and cash benefits to its members (Murombedzi, 1997;Taylor, 2007). However, between 2009 and 2011 it lost its impersonal and institutionalized rule as the elite centralized the governance of CAMPFIRE benefits.…”

Status, distribution and use of threatened tree species in the walnut-fruit forests of Kyrgyzstan

“…As noted by Cantarello et al (2014) and , this could potentially be achieved by adopting a participatory forest management approach, where local people are actively involved in forestry activities. In recent years, there has been increasing interest in such participatory approaches in many countries, illustrated by the CAMPFIRE project in Zimbabwe (Taylor 2009) and the development of Community Forest User Groups in Nepal (Lawrence et al 2006). In order to introduce such approaches to Kyrgyzstan, such approaches will need to be adapted to the prevailing pattern of land ownership.…”

Ecotourism and the development of indigenous communities: The good, the bad, and the ugly

“…An interesting experience has taken place in the Communal Areas Programme for Indigenous Resources (CAMPFIRE) in Zimbabwe, i.e., the flagship community-based resource program in southern Africa, where the legally mandated authority responsible for wildlife management in the country has decentralized state authority and conferred privileges on occupiers of titled land as custodians of wildlife, fish, and plants. Hence, land occupiers were given de facto responsibility for wildlife and were made beneficiaries of sound wildlife conservation and use (Taylor, 2009 …”