Communal Areas Management Programme for Indigenous Resources: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 22:07, 2 June 2017

Latest revision as of 19:05, 12 January 2024

(18 intermediate revisions by 14 users not shown)

Line 1:

{{Short description|Zimbabwean natural resource management program}}

The '''Communal Areas Management Programme for Indigenous Resources''' ('''CAMPFIRE''') is a [[Zimbabwe]]an [[Natural resource management#Regional or Community Based NRM|community-based natural resource management]] programmeprogram. It is one of the first programs to consider wildlife as [[Renewable resource|renewable natural resources]], while addressing the allocation of its ownership to indigenous peoples in and around conservation protected areas.{{sfn|SatchelSatchell|1996}}

== BeginningBackground ==

CAMPFIRE was initiated in 1989 by the Zimbabwean government as a program to support community-led development and sustainable use of natural resources.<ref name=":0">{{Cite journal|last1=Frost|first1=Bond|last2=Bond|first2=Ivan|date=2008|title=The CAMPFIRE Programme in Zimbabwe: Payment for Wildlife Services|url=https://www.researchgate.net/publication/222401703|journal=Ecological Economics|volume=65|issue=4|pages=776–87|via=Research Gate|doi=10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.09.018}}</ref> The 1975 Parks and Wildlife Act set the legal basis for CAMPFIRE by allowing communities and private landowners to use wildlife on their land, marking a substantial shift from colonial policy that made it illegal for local populations to utilize wildlife in any way.<ref name=":6">{{Cite journal|last=Vorlaufer|first=Karl|date=2002|title=CAMPFIRE-The Political Ecology of Poverty Alleviation, Wildlife Utilisation and Biodiversity Conservation in Zimbabwe|journal=Erdkunde|volume=56|issue=2|pages=184–206|doi=10.3112/erdkunde.2002.02.06}}</ref>

It began with U.S. funding to assist local people managing natural resources. Elephants were often killed by [[Zimbabweans]] because they would destroy the peoples livelihood by raiding their land and gardens. Also, rogue elephants killed hundreds of people each year. CAMPFIRE began by selling 100-150 licenses per year for $12,000 to $15,000 (US dollars) for sport hunters to kill elephants. The returns were to be given to local councils to deem how it was used. Poaching was to be suppressed by the people in these hunting areas.<ref>Ceballos, G.; Ehrlich, A. H.; Ehrlich, P. R. (2015). ''The Annihilation of Nature: Human Extinction of Birds and Mammals''. Baltimore, Maryland: Johns Hopkins University Press. pp. 170 - 172. {{ISBN|1421417189}} - via open edition.</ref>

Population pressures in Zimbabwe have led to people living in communal lands, much of which is arid and unsuitable for agricultural farming.<ref name=":3">{{Cite journal|last=Murindagomo|first=Felix|date=1990|title=Zimbabwe: WINDFALL and CAMPFIRE|journal=Living with Wildlife: Resource Management with Local Participation in Africa|pages=123–140}}</ref> CAMPFIRE would allow individuals to earn income on these communal lands through sustainable use of the environment and wildlife.<ref name=":3" /> CAMPFIRE is managed through Rural District Councils (RDCs) who distribute contracts for safari hunting and tourism and allocate revenue to local wards.<ref name=":0" /> Poaching was to be suppressed by the people in these hunting areas.<ref>Ceballos, G.; Ehrlich, A. H.; Ehrlich, P. R. (2015). ''The Annihilation of Nature: Human Extinction of Birds and Mammals''. Baltimore, Maryland: Johns Hopkins University Press. pp. 170 - 172. {{ISBN|1421417189}} - via open edition.</ref> While some endangered animals were killed, the program aimed at supporting these populations in the long run by managing hunting, decreasing illegal [[poaching]], and strengthening the economic prospects of the community through environmental protection and revenue generation.

==United States involvement==

The US federal government has invested resources in CAMPFIRE, principally through [[USAID]]. By 1997, $7 million had been donated to the programme. This support created controversy in US politics. CAMPFIRE leadership lobbied in favor of the legalization of the sustainable consumptive use of [[endangered species]] as a strategy to increase the value of their remaining populations. This position clashed with the majority [[Wilderness#Conservation vs. preservation|preservationist]], anti-hunting public sentiment in the US as well as national and international law, in particular [[CITES]].{{sfn|Rowe|1997}} By 2014 the US stopped the importation of elephants into the US, halting much of the hunting carried out in CAMPFIRE communities by paying US citizens and apparently putting the program at risk.<ref>https://firstforwildlife.wordpress.com/2015/08/18/the-campfire-program-in-zimbabwe/</ref>

The US federal government has supported CAMPFIRE, principally through the [[United States Agency for International Development]], or [[USAID]]. CAMPFIRE received $7.6 million initially and $20.5 million in 1994 from USAID.<ref name=":1">{{Cite journal|last=Hasler|first=Richard|title=An Overview of the Social, Ecological and Economic Achievements and Challenges of Zimbabwe's CAMPFIRE programme|url=http://pubs.iied.org/pdfs/7796IIED.pdf|journal=Evaluating Eden Series Discussion Paper No 3|pages=1–22}}</ref> USAID did not renew its funding once their commitment ended in 2000.<ref name=":1" />

==Results==

During 1989–2001, CAMPFIRE generated over US$20 million of transfers to the participating communities, 89% of which came from sport hunting. The scale of benefits varied greatly across districts, wards and households. Twelve of the 37 districts with authority to market wildlife produced 97% of all CAMPFIRE revenues, reflecting the variability in wildlife resources and local institutional arrangements. The programme has been widely emulated in southern and eastern Africa. It has been estimated by the World Wildlife Fund that households participating in CAMPFIRE increased their incomes by 15-25%.<ref>http://www1.american.edu/ted/campfire.htm</ref> Between 1989 and 2006 the project generated US$30 million, of which approximately 52 percent was distributed to local communities to promote rural development projects. No ___location has benefited more substantially than the Masoka ward, which has used its revenue to improve the livelihoods of its rural residents by building a four-block primary school, a two-ward clinic, a grinding mill, and two hand-pumped boreholes, to name but a few. In addition, environmental benefits have been witnessed since CAMPFIRE's inception; elephant numbers have increased, buffalo numbers are either stable or witnessing a slight decrease, and habitat loss has diminished, and in certain regions, even reversed. CAMPFIRE leadership also chose to invest communal development funds from tourism revenue to build a beer hall for local residents.{{sfn|Archabald and Naughton|2001}}

== Results ==

CAMPFIRE was affected by political events in Zimbabwe and a significant decline in tourism in the 2000s. It seems to have reemerged subsequently and maintains an active website.<ref>http://campfirezimbabwe.org/</ref> Hunting for cash continued. The 2014 ban in importation of elephant parts into the US has led to a significant decline in revenues from hunting parties.<ref>https://firstforwildlife.wordpress.com/2015/08/18/the-campfire-program-in-zimbabwe/</ref>

CAMPFIRE has been implemented widely across Zimbabwe, encompassing 36 of Zimbabwe's 57 districts.<ref name=":1" /> CAMPFIRE earns revenue through safari hunting, the sale of animal products, and tourism contracts.<ref name=":0" /> During 1989–2001, CAMPFIRE generated over US$20 million of transfers to the participating communities, with 89% of revenue being generated through safari hunting.<ref name=":0" /> Twelve of the 37 districts with authority to market wildlife produced 97% of all CAMPFIRE revenues, reflecting the variability in wildlife resources and local institutional arrangements.<ref name=":0" />

=== Benefits to Households ===

While crop and livestock cultivation are more susceptible to drought or irrigation failures, wildlife serves as a more dependable source of income due to their comparative advantage in the environment.<ref name=":6" /> The scale of benefits varies greatly across districts, wards and households. Rural district councils typically allocate 40–60% of revenue to wards, either through direct benefits or through funding projects.<ref name=":4">{{Cite journal|last=Child|first=Brian|date=1993|title=Zimbabwe's CAMPFIRE programme: using the high value of wildlife recreation to revolutionize natural resource management in communal areas|journal=The Commonwealth Forestry Review|volume=72|issue=4|pages=284–296|jstor=42606968}}</ref> It has been estimated by the World Wildlife Fund that households participating in CAMPFIRE increased their incomes by 15–25%.<ref>{{Cite web | url=http://www1.american.edu/ted/campfire.htm | title=American University, Washington, D.C | access-date=2014-09-29 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150612030244/http://www1.american.edu/ted/campfire.htm | archive-date=2015-06-12 | url-status=dead }}</ref>

Communities also receive indirect benefits through community projects, such as the construction of schools, clinics, grinding mills, or prospects for additional income through employment as a game monitor or a related job.<ref name=":4" /> Depending on wildlife population density, some wards have diversified their revenue streams. For instance, the Mahenye ward had no elephants or large wildlife immediately around its district and opened game-viewing lodges to generate revenue in place of hunting contracts.<ref name=":5">{{Cite journal|last=Balint|first=Peter|date=2009|title=CAMPFIRE During Zimbabwe's National Crisis: Local Impacts and Broader Implications for Community-Based Wildlife Management|journal=Society and Natural Resources|volume=21|issue=9|pages=783–796|doi=10.1080/08941920701681961|s2cid=153944326}}</ref> Wards with higher per household revenue have encouraged immigration in order to increase population density in a way that would warrant the development of roads, schools, and other infrastructure suited for high population densities.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Murombedzi|first=James C.|date=1999|title=Devolution and Stewardship in Zimbabwe's Campfire Programme|journal=Journal of International Development|volume=11|issue=2|pages=287–293|doi=10.1002/(SICI)1099-1328(199903/04)11:2<287::AID-JID584>3.0.CO;2-M}}</ref>

=== Wildlife and Land Management ===

Environmental benefits have been witnessed since CAMPFIRE's inception; elephant numbers have increased, buffalo numbers are either stable or witnessing a slight decrease, and habitat loss has diminished, and in certain regions, even reversed.<ref name=":1" /> Between 1980 and 2000, wildlife management as a percent of total land in Zimbabwe increased by 21%.<ref name=":1" /> Because rural district councils have an incentive to maintain revenue streams, hunting laws are heavily enforced and instances of illegal poaching have decreased.<ref name=":5" />

As a result of CAMPFIRE, wildlife monitoring has increased but remains inconsistent and focused on large species, such as elephants.<ref name=":1" /> CAMPFIRE manages wildlife populations by maintaining a certain agreed upon hunting quota; the quotas take both species endangerment and sex ratios into account to maintain wildlife populations, since hunters tend to selectively hunt male animals for sport.<ref name=":6" /> CAMPFIRE has experimented with moving wildlife populations to different wards to benefit communities with lower populations and reduce wildlife competition within certain areas.<ref name=":6" /> 

Because benefits were clearly linked to wildlife, CAMPFIRE helped to develop positive attitudes surrounding animal conservation; in districts, celebrations around the opening of grinding mills and other community projects would be accompanied by performances with animal costumes.<ref name=":4" /> Villagers are more likely to report neighbors for illegal poaching activity.<ref name=":5" /> Surveys have found that public awareness campaigns funded by CAMPFIRE revenues have been effective in reducing harmful community behavior, such as indiscriminate tree cutting and damaging fishing techniques.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Montana|first=M.|title=Environmental awareness and biodiversity conservation among resettled communal farmers in Gwayi Valley Conservation Area, Zimbabwe|journal=International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology|volume=23|pages=242–250}}</ref>

== Criticisms ==

The sustainability of protecting wildlife is contingent upon market demand for safaris, hunting, and other wildlife commodities.<ref name="The CAMPFIRE Program in Zimbabwe">{{Cite web | url=https://firstforwildlife.wordpress.com/2015/08/18/the-campfire-program-in-zimbabwe/ |title = The CAMPFIRE Program in Zimbabwe|date = 2015-08-18}}</ref> After increased violence around land ownership, investment and tourism decreased, resulting in a decline of revenue generation across wards.<ref name=":5" /> Furthermore, CAMPFIRE's model is based on the sustainable consumptive use of [[endangered species]] as a strategy to increase the value of their remaining populations. This position clashed with the majority [[Wilderness#Conservation vs. preservation|preservationist]], anti-hunting public sentiment in the US as well as national and international law, in particular [[CITES]].{{sfn|Rowe|1997}} In 2014 the US stopped the importation of elephants and ivory into the US, halting much of the hunting and revenue carried out in CAMPFIRE communities.<ref name="The CAMPFIRE Program in Zimbabwe"/> More recently, the Trump administration has lifted the US' ban on [[Trophy hunting|trophy imports]].<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/07/science/trump-elephant-trophy-hunting.html|title=U.S. Lifts Ban on Some Elephant and Lion Trophies|last=Nuwer|first=Rachel|author-link=Rachel Nuwer |date=2018-03-07|work=The New York Times|access-date=2019-05-10|language=en-US|issn=0362-4331}}</ref>

Following Zimbabwe's economic downturn in the 2000s, CAMPFIRE experienced a greater degree of elite capture, with villagers reporting that council positions and CAMPFIRE-related employment opportunities being held by friends and family members of sitting councillors.<ref name=":5" /> RDCs have retained an increasing percentage of CAMPFIRE revenues and are criticized for being unresponsive to local concerns.<ref name=":3" /> In some areas, the communal projects are initiated but are not sustained, while the income from CAMPFIRE revenues is insufficient to substitute agricultural income.<ref name=":2" />

Villagers express concern that wildlife protection supersedes their own safety and livelihood strategies. Some wards have restricted immigration, settlement expansion, and the use of natural resources.<ref name=":0" /> Physical restrictions on land expansion bar villagers from accessing more fertile land.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Alexander|first=Jocelyn|date=2002|title=Wildlife and politics: CAMPFIRE in Zimbabwe|journal=Development and Change|volume=31|issue=3|pages=605–627|doi=10.1111/1467-7660.00169}}</ref> Villagers have expressed that wildlife presents safety concerns for themselves, crops, and livestock.<ref name=":2">{{Cite journal|last=Harrison|first=Elizabeth P.|date=2015|title=Impacts of natural resource management programmes on rural livelihoods in Zimbabwe - the ongoing legacies of CAMPFIRE|url=https://www.psa.ac.uk/sites/default/files/conference/papers/2015/Harrison_PSA2015_Paper_Livelihoods.pdf|journal=Pacific Sociological Association Conference|pages=1–31}}</ref>

==See also==

Line 31 ⟶ 50:

| publisher = Alta Mira

| pages = 195–205

| editors editor= J. Peter Brosius, |editor2=Charles Zerner, |editor3=Anna Lowenhaupt (eds.)

| last = Fortmann

| first = Louise

Line 38 ⟶ 57:

| ___location = Walnut Creek, CA

| year = 2005

| chapter-url = http://cnr.berkeley.edu/fortmann/CommunityBambi.pdf

}}

*{{Cite journal

| doi = 10.2307/25647452

| issn = 0014-0015

| volume = 56

Line 49 ⟶ 67:

| first = Karl

| title = CAMPFIRE — The Political Ecology of Poverty Alleviation, Wildlife Utilisation and Biodiversity Conservation in Zimbabwe (CAMPFIRE — Die Politische Ökologie der Armutsbekämpfung, Wildtiernutzung und des Biodiversitäts-schutzes in Zimbabwe)

| journal = [[Erdkunde]]

| date = 2002-04-01

| doi = 10.3112/erdkunde.2002.02.06

| jstor = 25647452

}}

Line 60 ⟶ 79:

| title = Wildlife Protection Gets a Tough Probe

| work = Christian Science Monitor

| accessdateaccess-date = 2012-11-29

| date = 1993-06-22

| url = http://docs.newsbank.com/s/InfoWeb/aggdocs/NewsBank/0EB41E559C3D605B/49A2E19BE58747EE91F5ACB8D85A7A48?s_lang

Line 71 ⟶ 90:

| title = African trip draws criticism

| work = USA Today

| accessdateaccess-date = 2012-11-29

| date = 2000-01-20

| url = http://docs.newsbank.com/s/InfoWeb/aggdocs/NewsBank/127D6E42D3238D28/49A2E19BE58747EE91F5ACB8D85A7A48?s_lang

Line 83 ⟶ 102:

| title = Stampeding toward ivory and irony

| work = San Diego Union-Tribune

| accessdateaccess-date = 2012-11-29

| date = 1997-05-08

| url = http://docs.newsbank.com/s/InfoWeb/aggdocs/NewsBank/116C4B678DB05AB0/49A2E19BE58747EE91F5ACB8D85A7A48?s_lang

Line 90 ⟶ 109:

| doi = 10.1017/S0376892901000145

| volume = 28

| issue = 022

| pages = 135–149

| last = Archabald

Line 98 ⟶ 117:

| journal = Environmental Conservation

| year = 2001

| s2cid = 85748166

}}

[[Category:ConservationNature conservation in Zimbabwe]]