Almost 5 million people live in arid and semi-arid communal lands covering almost

half of Zimbabwe. Despite the dryness and difficult conditions, a wide range of
wildlife is also found here.
Community based natural resource management programmes (CBNRM) are a way
for communities to work together to protect their natural resources and at the
same time bring long-lasting benefits to the community and future generations
CBNRM projects vary within and between nations resulting in considerable diversity
in project development, implementation and outcomes.
CAMPFIRE (Communal Areas Management Programme for Indigenous Resources) is a
CBNRM programme designed to assist rural development and conservation in
Zimbabwe. It works with the people who live in these communal lands, supporting
the use of wildlife as an important natural resource. CAMPFIRE was meant to help
people in these areas manage the environment in ways which are both sustainable
and appropriate.
Wildlife was and is the most valuable resource Zimbabwe but it is also the greatest
threat to agricultural production. The solution was to promote the conservation of
wildlife through the provision of economic benefits of wildlife hunting as well as
agricultural production.

Today 12% of Zimbabwe is protected as conservation areas or National Parks. Some

animal species have prospered so much in the protected areas that they are
causing serious environmental damage e.g. elephants. Some species are also
suffering genetic problems because of inbreeding.

Many local people were evicted from their homes when the Parks were created.
Most now live in the surrounding communal lands. They are no longer permitted to
hunt the animals and harvest the plants now found inside protected areas.
However, animals frequently roam outside Park boundaries, destroying crops and
killing livestock and sometimes people. This has created much conflict between
local people and National Park staff, often resulting in illegal hunting. Local people
generally consider wildlife to be a nuisance, not a resource.

CAMPFIRE is highly regarded in the conservation community. From CAMPFIRE’s

inception in the 1980’s, the program has encouraged rural communities on
communal lands to conserve local wildlife populations. Prior to the program,
Zimbabwe did not have a system where landowners and rural residents could
manage the wildlife for their own benefit.

Like other African countries, upon independence Zimbabwe inherited a system of

State ownership of wildlife. But, in 1975, the Parks and Wildlife Act was passed
that gave private landholders the right to manage wildlife for their own benefit.
This change in policy facilitated the recovery of wildlife on private lands. In 1982,
the legal provisions of the Act were extended to Rural District Councils (RDCs),
which was the beginning of the CAMPFIRE program.
The RDCs administer communal areas in Zimbabwe, and have become a mechanism
for the implementation of government’s policy of sustainable use of natural
resources in these areas. The majority of the Zimbabwe’s people reside on
communal lands. Many of the communal lands are marginal environments
characteri zed by low rainfall and poor soils. The major land uses in these areas
are subsistence farming of crops and livestock, and wildlife conservation. Many
inhabitants in these areas are poor, and otherwise depend on subsistence farming.

A first attempt to enable rural communities to realize economic benefits from

wildlife was Project WINDFALL (Wildlife Industries New Development for All),
launched in 1978. The objective of Project WINDFALL was to reduce conflicts
between human populations and wildlife and to improve attitudes toward
conservation in communal areas by returning revenues from wildlife use for
example, an elephant culling programme- in protected areas directly to
neighbouring district councils.

Project WINDFALL, however, soon manifested a number of significant problems.

First, since it was based on wildlife found on state rather than communal lands,
the communities were not involved in decision-making. Second, little meat found
its way to the local communities and only a small proportion of the revenue
generated was actually returned to the district councils as originally intended.

Third, the district councils have not necessarily passed the money they received
back to the originating communities (i.e. those where the wildlife are actually
located). Because it fails to involve community land or resources, it develops
neither local participation in decision-making nor a sense of proprietorship at the
local level. With these shortcomings, WINDFALL fails to forge the link between
wildlife resources and economic benefit which is necessary for the continuing
success of community-based wildlife development.

Aware of these problems and encouraged by the new government's commitment to

localized planning and implementation, the DNPWLM developed the CAMPFIRE
programme (Communal Areas Management Programme for Indigenous Resources)
to give full control of wildlife management to rural communities. The theory
behind CAMPFIRE is that communities will invest in environmental conservation if
they can exploit these resources on a sustainable basis for their own benefit.

The programme is based on creating appropriate institutions under which resources

can be legitimately managed and exploited by the resident communities. Profits
from the enterprise may be used for communal benefits or distributed to individual
households at the discretion of the community.

In the late 1980s, the government of Zimbabwe instituted a national program

combining wildlife conservation and rural development known as CAMPFIRE
(Communal Areas Management Programme for Indigenous Resources) (Metcalfe
1994).

CAMPFIRE centers on the use of community-based natural resource management

(CBNRM) to generate revenue for the country’s underdeveloped rural districts
through

sustainable use of wildlife and habitat in these outlying areas. The expressed logic
of the

program is that once income from sustainable use of wildlife flows to the
communities,

local residents will have the incentives to support rather than undermine
conservation

efforts and local districts will have a reliable source of funds for community
development (Hulme & Murphree 2001a). The program was in part a response to
injustices that occurred before Zimbabwe became independent in 1980. During the
colonial era, lands set aside as game reserves were often expropriated from the
traditional territory of local communities.

Compounding the insult, the regime asserted ownership of all wildlife, both inside
and outside protected areas. Thus, community members were forbidden to hunt
either in the newly established game reserves or in the resettlement areas. Not
surprisingly, poaching and conflicts with wildlife management authorities were
common (Murphree 2001).

After independence, CAMPFIRE was an effort to defuse these conflicts and redress
the grievances by providing the opportunity for locals to benefit from wildlife. The
program had the additional benefit of helping fund local government institutions in
the previously neglected rural districts.

CBNRM, on which CAMPFIRE is based, attempts to integrate environmental

conservation and local community development. The CBNRM concept emerged in
the early 1980s as an alternative to top-down, state-centered environmental
protection regimes instituted in the 1960s and 1970s. Many observers judged these
earlier conservation efforts to have failed, locally and globally, in promoting
sustainable practices (Gibson & Marks 1995; Matzke & Nabane 1996). The central
idea of CBNRM is devolution of control over natural resources from the state or
other external agents to the community, with an emphasis on participatory
democracy (Li 2002; Western & Wright 1994). CBNRM quickly become a primary
strategy for conservation action in developing nations where rural communities,
often the poorest segments of society, have long inhabited and managed
ecologically valuable regions. Underlying the approach is the belief that, to be
effective over the long-term, resource management programs must offer local
residents clearly defined rights, responsibilities, and benefits.

Despite the compelling economic logic and social ideals of CBNRM and

CAMPFIRE, however, outcomes in the field have often been disappointing

(Alexander &

McGregor 2000; Hasler 1999; Murombedzi 2001; Newsham 2002). In particular,

observers have often criticized the program for its lack of complete devolution

(Murombedzi 1992; Murphree 2004). Under CAMPFIRE’s enabling statutes, authority

for resource management passes to the rural district councils (RDCs) rather than to
the

communities, which hold land in common and therefore lack legal property tenure.

Others have noted that participation is a potential weak point (Dzingirai 2003a).
The CAMPFIRE movement, designed and managed entirely by Africans, began in the
mid 1980's. It encourages local communities to make their own decisions about
wildlife management and control. It aims to help people manage natural resources
so that plants, animals and people - the whole ecosystem - all benefit. It helps
provide legal ways for such communities to raise money by using local, natural
resources in a sustainable way. As a result, many communities now actively
protect local wildlife, seeing it as a valuable asset. In some areas locals have even
provided them with emergency food and water in times of shortage.

Hence, CAMPFIRE emerged in 1989 from Zimbabwe's Department of National Parks

and Wildlife Management (DNPWLM) as a means of facilitating the devolution of
natural resource management while building local institutions. In conjunction with
the World Wildlife Fund for Nature, the University of Zimbabwe's Centre for
Applied Social Sciences, Africa Resources Trust and Zimbabwe Trust, the DNPWLM
has assembled a multidisciplinary suite of actors to assist in the creation and
implementation of the CAMPFIRE program by providing expertise in such areas as
institution building, ecological monitoring and economic research. These efforts
contribute to the long-term viability of community-based conservation and
development.

CAMPFIRE's core tenet maintains that those bearing the costs of living with wildlife
should also benefit, monetarily or otherwise, from the utilization of those
resources. Implementation of CAMPFIRE requires that rural communities obtain
approval from the DNPWLM for a wildlife management plan. Once approved, rural
communities have rights to access wildlife, enabling them to satisfy many of their
material needs in a sustainable manner.

By engaging in activities such as safari hunting and nature tourism, CAMPFIRE

projects earned US$1,384,083 (Z$20 million) in 1997, according to the NGO
Zimbabwe Trust. For the rural residents, tangible benefits include well drilling to
provide clean drinking water; construction of schools and health clinics; fencing
arable and residential land and the funding for fence maintenance; road
development and installation of grinding mills.

26 districts throughout Zimbabwe were sustainably managing their wildlife

resources and shaping their own rural development through CAMPFIRE, including
every district bordering a national park. This is significant because CAMPFIRE is
reshaping local people's perception of wildlife as a valuable resource rather than a
worthless nuisance, and conservation efforts are less likely to be viewed in terms
of the cultural imperialism long associated with national parks.
Five main activities help provide extra income to local communities:

 Trophy hunting: About 90% of CAMPFIRE's income comes from selling

hunting concessions to professional hunters and safari operators working to
set government quotas. Individual hunters pay high fees to shoot elephant
(US$12,000) and buffalo and are strictly monitored, accompanied by local,
licensed professionals. Trophy hunting is considered to be the ultimate form
of ecotourism, as hunters usually travel in small groups, demand few
amenities, cause minimal damage to the local ecosystem, yet provide
considerable income.
 Selling live animals: this is a fairly recent development. Some areas with
high wildlife populations sell live animals to National Parks or game reserves
e.g. Guruve district raised US$ 50,000 by selling 10 roan antelope.
 Harvesting natural resources: a number of natural resources e.g. crocodile
eggs, caterpillars, river-sand and timber are harvested and sold by local
communities. Skins and ivory can be sold from 'problem animals' (individual
animals who persistently cause damage or threat and can legally be killed).
 Tourism: in the past most revenue from tourists has not gone to local
communities. During the 1990's pilot projects have been set up and 5
districts now benefit from tourism. Development of specialist areas e.g.
culture tourism, bird watching and visits to hot springs are planned. Some
local people are employed directly as guides or run local facilities for
tourists.
 Selling wildlife meat: where species are plentiful. Managing wildlife often
means killing it, and under the CAMPFIRE system, when animals become too
abundant, local councils can authorize annual culling operations. e.g. impala,
the National Parks Department supervise killing and selling of skins and meat.
However, this only raises fairly small sums of money.

Organisation

Each village taking part in the CAMPFIRE project (now covering

26 districts) has a wildlife committee responsible for counting
animals, anti-poaching activities, conflicts which arise through
'problem animals' and environmental education. Game scouts are
trained to help stop poaching and manage wildlife.

Quotas

For hunting concessions to be granted and wildlife managed

sustainably, local communities need to monitor their wildlife populations and
manage their habitats, protecting them from poaching or alternative forms of land
use e.g. farming. Every year the Department of National Parks helps to estimate
the wildlife population totals so that sustainable quotas can be set.

Counting can be carried out in a number of ways. One (expensive) way of counting
large animals e.g. elephants, is by aerial survey. WWF carries out aerial surveys
every 2 years in some districts with high elephant populations; every 5 years in
districts with smaller numbers. Other data is provided by professional hunters and
tour operators who know local populations particularly well. Villages also carry out
surveys, mapping sightings on a monthly basis. This includes the type, number and
sex of each animal (where possible).

Workshops are held annually so that all data can be shared and estimates made for
the year. These, plus the carrying capacity for each area, form the basis for
setting sustainable quotas for hunting and harvesting. At present quotas are issued
by the Department for National Parks.

Tour operators must, by law, keep detailed records of animals killed e.g. size,
weight, length of certain animals and/or horns and tusks. This helps check that
young animals are not being taken, putting future numbers at risk. New quotas are
not issued until operators produce these records for analysis by the Department for
National Parks. Local communities may also apply to kill (or sell concessions on)
what are known as 'problem animals'.

Where the money goes

Income is collected and distributed by District Councils, using guidelines produced

by CAMPFIRE. They suggest that:

 80% of the money is given directly to local communities who should

collectively decide how it should be spent
 20% is used by the District Councils for administration and managing the
local CAMPFIRE projects

District Councils are accountable to the government via the Department for
National Parks. Over US$1.4 million was raised by 26 Districts which ran CAMPFIRE
projects in 1993, although amounts vary considerably from project to project.

In good years money is used for the general community e.g. building and equipping
clinics and schools, constructing fences, drilling wells, building roads, paying
guides and funding local sports teams. In bad, usually drought, years money is
given directly to local people or used to buy maize and other foodstuffs. Since
1989 over 250,000 Zimbabweans have been involved in CAMPFIRE projects.

Some examples of CAMPFIRE projects:

 Binga District (N.W.Zimbabwe) had just 13 primary schools

in 1980 with most of its people living in poverty. Money
from hunting concessions, fishing and tourism was used by
Sinkatenge village (near Matusadona National Park) to build a 12km length
of electric fencing to enclose their fields, preventing animals from
trampling their crops and providing full time work for two local people to
maintain it. Today the District has 56 primary and 9 secondary schools,
health clinics and wells as a result of income from CAMPFIRE projects.
 Masoka in the north east was one of the first to join CAMPFIRE. Local people
now receive more than four times their previous income via hunting
concessions, using it to buy maize and other food in drought years, building
a clinic, buying a tractor and funding their football team. For the first time
here, local rural women were employed, working on CAMPFIRE projects.
 CAMPFIRE is also actively encouraging women to participate in community
decision-making, something which has been traditionally dominated by men.
Women have also been encouraged to attend workshops and take part in
training schemes.
 Nyaminyama District (southern edge of L.Kariba) is introducing land use
zoning with specific areas for wildlife conservation, tourism, crocodile
breeding and hunting.

A recent WWF report estimated that CAMPFIRE has increased incomes in communal
areas by up to 25%.

Since its inception, CAMPFIRE has been very successful. The US federal government
has invested resources in CAMPFIRE, principally through USAID. A recent WWF
study estimated that households participating in CAMPFIRE increased their incomes
by 15-25%.
The suspension has not only negatively affected investment into the protection of
wildlife, but has also removed direct incentives at the community level to protect
elephants. There were 412 human-elephant conflict cases in CAMPFIRE districts in
2013, but by November 2014 there were already more than 597 documented
conflicts. In the Beitbridge district an average of 12 cases a day of human-elephant
conflict were reported in 2014. Disgruntled CAMPFIRE communities will turn to
pastoralism and agriculture, thereby reducing wildlife habitat. While well-
intentioned, the U.S. government’s suspension of elephant importation effectively
meant the end of the CAMPFIRE communities as we know them.
There are advantages and disadvantages to any system of ownership of wildlife.
While the western, public ownership model seems to work well in developed
countries, it's not always applicable to developing countries