Communal Areas Management Programme for Indigenous Resources: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 11:32, 13 November 2019

Latest revision as of 19:05, 12 January 2024

(12 intermediate revisions by 9 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]] program. 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}}

== Background ==

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|lastlast1=Frost|firstfirst1=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|url=|journal=ErdunkeErdkunde|volume=56|issue=2|pages=184–206|viadoi=10.3112/erdkunde.2002.02.06}}</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|url=|journal=Living with Wildlife: Resource Management with Local Participation in Africa|volume=|pages=123–140|via=}}</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.

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|date=|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|volume=|pages=1–22|via=}}</ref> USAID did not renew its funding once their commitment ended in 2000.<ref name=":1" />

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|date=|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|volume=|pages=1–22|via=}}</ref> USAID did not renew its funding once their commitment ended in 2000.<ref name=":1" />

== Results ==

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 40-6040–60% 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 15-2515–25%.<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|url=http://eds.b.ebscohost.com.libproxy.berkeley.edu/eds/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=4&sid=74753b83-a94d-42fd-840d-b2cf1d23f9d8%40sessionmgr4006|journal=Journal of International Development|volume=11|issue=2|pages=287–293|via=|doi=10.1002/(SICI)1099-1328(199903/04)11:2<287::AID-JID584>3.0.CO;2-M}}</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}}</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|url=http://eds.b.ebscohost.com.libproxy.berkeley.edu/eds/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=4&sid=74753b83-a94d-42fd-840d-b2cf1d23f9d8%40sessionmgr4006|journal=Journal of International Development|volume=11|issue=2|pages=287–293|via=|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.|date=|title=Environmental awareness and biodiversity conservation among resettled communal farmers in Gwayi Valley Conservation Area, Zimbabwe|url=|journal=International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology|volume=23|pages=242–250|via=}}</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>{{Cite web | urlname=https://firstforwildlife.wordpress.com/2015/08/18/the-campfire-program-in-zimbabwe/ |title = "The CAMPFIRE Program in Zimbabwe|date = 2015-08-18}}<"/ref> 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|url=|journal=Development and Change|volume=31|issue=3|pages=605–627|via=|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|volume=|pages=1–31|via=}}</ref>

==See also==

Line 46 ⟶ 50:

| publisher = Alta Mira

| pages = 195–205

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

| last = Fortmann

| first = Louise

Line 65 ⟶ 69:

| journal = [[Erdkunde]]

| date = 2002-04-01

| doi = 10.3112/erdkunde.2002.02.06

| jstor = 25647452

}}

Line 74 ⟶ 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 85 ⟶ 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 97 ⟶ 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 112 ⟶ 117:

| journal = Environmental Conservation

| year = 2001

| s2cid = 85748166

}}

[[Category:ConservationNature conservation in Zimbabwe]]