Does the CAMPFIRE programme ensure economic benefits from wildlife to households in Zimbabwe?

Pierre Kabeya Tchakatumba,Edson Gandiwa,Emmanuel Mwakiwa,Bruce Clegg,Simukayi Nyasha

doi:10.1080/26395916.2019.1599070

Abstract

ABSTRACT This study was conducted in three districts of the southern lowveld of Zimbabwe to assess the economic impact of CAMPFIRE among rural households in the area. Data were collected through surveys from households (n = 569) and key informant interviews from ward councillors from 10 communities, and historical data from the district offices between September and November 2014. Results showed that households were incentivised through direct and indirect economic benefits. The direct economic benefits were small but the households appreciated the infrastructural facilities from CAMPFIRE. About 3% of surveyed households felt that CAMPFIRE contributed to a reduction in human-wildlife conflicts. Both direct and indirect benefits deteriorated after donor withdrawal beginning 2003, as evidenced by a sharp decline in household dividends, and an increase in human-wildlife conflicts and incidences of illegal hunting. However, given that households still benefit from CAMPFIRE, more than a decade after donor withdrawal is an indication of its resilience. Revitalising the CAMPFIRE model is crucial given its benefits for households at the grassroots and its contribution to conservation. Improving transparency and providing tenure security for the hunting area in CAMPFIRE would increase effective ownership of the programme at the household level and promote its sustainability.

Highlights

Following independence in 1980, Zimbabwe inherited from Southern Rhodesia environmental laws that provided privileged access to wildlife resources particular groups and sectors, while denying others access to the same resources even if those resources were outside national parks and wildlife sanctuaries (Baldus 2009; Roe et al 2009; Reid 2016)
We addressed the following topics: (1) Household characteristics, (2) household asset and income, (3) CAMPFIRE direct and indirect economic benefits to household (CAMPFIRE dividends received in the following periods: donor (1989–2003) and postdonor (2004–2014) eras; CAMPFIRE employment and game meat distribution; household perceptions on infrastructural development), (4) CAMPFIRE issues (household perceptions on the prevalence of humanwildlife conflict before, during and after the donor era rated on a three-point Likert scale, illegal hunting), (5) CAMPFIRE sustainability
Beitbridge council, on the other hand, has stated that the percentage allocated to wards and district council were the same, i.e. 48% each, the remaining 4% being allocated to CAMPFIRE Association; and these figures seem to agree with our results

Summary

Introduction

Following independence in 1980, Zimbabwe inherited from Southern Rhodesia environmental laws that provided privileged access to wildlife resources particular groups and sectors, while denying others access to the same resources even if those resources were outside national parks and wildlife sanctuaries (Baldus 2009; Roe et al 2009; Reid 2016) Those laws were often resented by marginalised rural people, who viewed them as discriminatory and an impediment to benefits of local natural resources. The cornerstone of CAMPFIRE is the devolution of rights to manage, use, dispose of, and benefit from wildlife resources (Taylor 2006; Krause and Zambonino 2013) In this regard, households at community (i.e. ward and village) level were the intended ultimate beneficiaries of the programme, as sufficient revenue must accrue to local individuals, at the household level, to raise their interest in resource management and conservation (Emerton 1999; Taylor 2009).

Objectives

Methods

Results

Discussion

Conclusion