Zimbabwe has for a number of years developed a program of involving local communities in wildlife management by way of the transfer of ownership and management responsibilities. This program, the Campfire Program, was identified in the recent Senate Inquiry into the Utilisation of Native Wildlife as a program worthy of further investigation. The Zimbabwe Government has also encouraged the development of privately run and owned conservation and safari parks based on native wildlife, which are now some of the more successful such ventures in the African continent.
The Senate Inquiry into the Commercial Utilisation of Australian Native Wildlife drew attention to the model of sustainable use of wildlife in southern Africa and recommended that:
The government examine the appropriateness of such a model to biodiversity in Australia.28
The Committee took up an opportunity to undertake a study tour to Zimbabwe early in 1999 and investigated the operation of such local management programs. The Committee:
a) met and spoke with the key groups involved in delegated wildlife ownership programs; and
b) inspected rural wildlife programs on the ground and met with local managers and affected communities.
National Context
The Republic of Zimbabwe has a relatively temperate climate with a diverse economy - albeit suffering from a weak currency - and good infrastructure. The country has a population of about 11.5 million, three-quarters of whom live in rural areas. The rural areas have been destabilised in the early 1990s by spillover of conflicts in neighbouring countries. Land supply is limited and there is no social security. In addition to the national government, there are local government areas known as District Councils. About eight national Ministries and 18 statutes cover environmental issues, including the Department of National Parks.
Like a number of developing countries in the region, it has its own conservation approaches and does not support highly restrictive methods. The Zimbabwe Government was pleased that an Australian delegation chose to see the Campfire Program first hand.
Zimbabwe tourism in essence means wildlife. Some 13 per cent of Zimbabwe is in the parks estate, with a further 18 per cent of habitat protected by other government agencies (that is Forests Department), as well as in communal lands and parts of some commercial farms. The Department of National Parks is a large and economically important ministry of government. The Department has had a long-standing sustainable-use focus. It regulates the use of wildlife as well as managing national parks.
In Zimbabwe the wildlife resources are not owned by anyone. However, the owner of land has user rights to wildlife under permit. Currently there is no payment for use (other than permit fee).29 Three basic permits are granted:
a) hunting permit - to registered commercial wildlife operators, with annual hunting quota (that is 10 animals if population is 100, etc.);
b) selling permit - ie to trade in wildlife; and
c) culling permit - for management purposes.
The highest level of protection is given to endangered species, such as the black rhinoceros. Less-threatened species (those listed in `Appendix 2' of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Flora and Fauna (CITES)) can be utilised. These include elephants (which are now basically only found in national parks and nearby land). Elephant quotas are set by national aerial surveys. There is no hunting permitted in national parks - other than required culling. Culling is undertaken by sub-contractors, with all byproducts utilised. Hunting-only `safari areas' have been established. Hunting is also permitted on private game ranches and communal lands.
The World Conservation Union (IUCN), a United Nations conservation program, operates a regional office from Harare, Zimbabwe. It oversees a number of programs, including wildlife export programs (as part of the implementation of CITES) agreements for endangered species).
The CAMPFIRE Program
The Committee met with the Director and other staff of the CAMPFIRE program in Harare and also discussed the program on the ground and inspected local community activities in the Chiredzi and Chipinge Rural Districts.
Overview of the Concept and Operation
The primary goal of the CAMPFIRE Association is `to see rural communities in Zimbabwe freed from the vagaries of poverty and enjoying the benefits of the sustainable use of their natural resources'. Its approach is ecosystem based, not species based. It sees sustainable use as desirable from a conservation as well as economic perspective.
In 1975 the National Parks and Wildlife Act permitted farmers (that is mainly white settlers) to gain benefit from the wildlife on their land. As a result, wildlife numbers went up, or more specifically, the numbers of wildlife of high tourist or game value went up. Examples of the application of these legislative provisions are the Malilangwe Trust and Save Conservancy described below.
In the early 1980s the Act was amended again to allow similar provisions for communal land - the `Communal Areas Management Programme'. This enabled local authorities (the District Councils) to manage the wildlife on the communal lands (that is the lands of the indigenous Zimbabwe people) on behalf of the local people.
The Act provided for licences for the use of the natural resources of these areas - mainly for hunting and to a less, but increasing, extent, ecotourism (and more recently forestry and mining). In essence the CAMPFIRE Program is about sustainable utilisation and devolvement of natural-resource management to local communities.
The program works through the Rural District Councils (that is local government), although there is also a national coordinating body - the CAMPFIRE Association. This was set up in 1989 to represent and promote the rural communities involved in the CAMPFIRE program. The Association is a non-government organisation (NGO) and is largely funded by donor countries (including Australia). Some 36 District Councils have chosen to join the program to date.
Each District Council has a CAMPFIRE Committee, with individual local communities (wards) choosing whether or not to be part of the program. In turn the local communities elect a local committee to oversee the program in their area. The district programs were kick-started by international donations.
To date the emphasis has been on hunting rights. Consequently most of the programs in operation are in areas adjoining national parks, where the highest concentrations of wildlife remain. Only animals outside the national parks can be taken. Quotas are set by the National Parks Department (the `wildlife experts'), with the CAMPFIRE Program acting as `service provider'. There is often tension between the scientifically based quota and the quota desired by the local authorities - but the advice is adhered to and may be negotiated.
Pre-1982 poaching was rife and elephants used to trample villages' crops. Using force against local communities didn't work to preserve illegal kill of elephants (note that a number of the national parks were formerly communal lands). CAMPFIRE responded to this in an innovative way. There are now 66,000 elephants in Zimbabwe (scientifically based carrying capacity has been estimated as 35,000) and the growth rate is now five per cent per annum.
Hunting can only be undertaken by licensed professional hunters, who pay both an access right and a trophy fee to the CAMPFIRE Program. The District Councils and National Parks monitor the hunters' operations and armed `game monitors' are employed as anti-poaching units.
Any revenue is split between the CAMPFIRE Association head office (two per cent), the District Council (generally around 15 per cent - some, however, take up to 50 per cent), and the local communities (generally around 75 per cent).
Community Benefits
The District and Local Committees decide the allocation of revenue. The local committee may decide to allocate the revenue to, most commonly, a community use such as a clinic or school and/or distribute it as a dividend to the head of each household community. Other benefits of the program are the development of leadership, self-confidence and an increase in political awareness among local communities.
The program is attractive to local communities - CAMPFIRE income may provide up to 80 per cent of a household's annual income ($US10 is the average per annum income in these areas). In the Chiredzi District Council area, 11 wards have chosen to be part of the program (all abut national parks). One of these, the Chehondo Ward program, was visited by the Committee.
The benefits of the program were most impressive. Here was a community that was economically destitute by any account (and had experienced major dislocation from the Mozambique war) but had dignity, a vision for the future and accountable and democratic processes. The development of basic infrastructure (such as a store, a mill and water bore) was the outward tangible benefit of the program. The bore is intended not only to ease domestic life, but will enable the production of cash crops such as citrus fruits and vegetables (the community would also be pleased to receive financial assistance to purchase a truck to help this project!).
While the District CAMPFIRE Committee/District Council puts the hunting concessions out to tender, separate hunting areas are defined - which define the return to the local community. Last year eight elephants were killed on Chiredzi lands - for which the community received $US1,000 per person. The local people are protective of the elephants and actively ensure that there is no poaching and that local by-laws (such as tree-clearing restrictions) are obeyed.
The Committee also visited a local program in the Chipinge Rural District Council area - the Mahenye Ward program.
This program also had the very enthusiastic support of the local village community. The CAMPFIRE program had funded telephone systems, electricity, a clinic and road construction. One innovation was the construction of a `tourist village' from CAMPFIRE funds to display traditional architecture and living styles. A sanctuary area is proposed on communal lands and a zebra meat processing plant is being considered.
A key and pioneering project in the Mahenye Ward was the partnership created between the community and a lodge developer (Zimbabwe Sun Ltd). Under the arrangement the company was given to build two lodges on community lands, with a share of revenue returned to the community.
Independent Appraisal of the Program
The Wildlife Society of Zimbabwe, a long-standing community-based conservation organisation, supports the CAMPFIRE program and the work of the `Wildlife Producers Association' (private landowners/conservancies with `ownership' rights to the wildlife on their properties). Such support was conditional on the existence of the current system of regulations and permits. It believes that CAMPFIRE has prevented poaching and encouraged local communities to protect habitat. The Society also undertakes environmental education through the creation of small sanctuaries near population centres. It owns and operates these sanctuaries, which are stocked with native wildlife.
Environment 2000, a grass-roots organisation established in 1990, has a contrary view. It considers that the CAMPFIRE program was hijacked by the Government and is now led by District Councils rather than the originally envisaged local communities. Revenue generated seems to be used to fund infrastructure, a responsibility previously the sole province of the District Councils.
An indication of the program's success is the establishment of similar programs in neighbouring countries.
Conservation Trust Properties - the Malilangwe Conservation Trust
The Committee visited the Malilangwe Conservation Trust property and spoke to its Executive Director, Mr Derek de la Harpe.
The Malilangwe Conservation Trust is a non-profit body that bought a run down farm that retained much of its original habitat but little wildlife. Over five years it restocked the land and it is now managed as a private conservation/ecotourism park. The property is fenced and patrolled. It has developed two up-market tourist lodges on the property.
The Trust is locally run, but funded largely through a European charitable organisation. It aims to be financially sustainable and sees itself as a model, not only for conservation, but also for development. The Trust also makes a point of assisting adjoining landowners/communities through a `Neighbourhood Outreach Program' of skill transfer and local employment.
It has spent $US1.5 million on restocking animals (although predators such as lions reappeared naturally from surrounding areas. More recently it has acquired 28 black rhino for $US1 million from South Africa. (This was the biggest private wildlife transaction - and involved the purchase of 10 per cent of the total rhino population). Animals were purchased from national parks and private landowners. Trading is only permitted within the country - export is not permitted.30
Breeding has been successful and the Trust is planning to sell zebra and envisage that in three to five years it will have to cull elephants. The ability to sell surplus stock is an important funding source.
It permits game shooting, but only if the whole park is closed - that is it separates hunters from ecotourists in time and space. Hunters have to be accompanied by a licensed professional hunter. Landholders can authorise the killing of animals on their land. Trophy hunting is largely self-regulating because of the need for `trophy standard' animals to sustain an ongoing industry.
Wildlife is now considered more valuable than cattle ranching in drier parts of the country. Any culling has full recovery of hides, tusks, etc. It costs $Z2,400 to kill an elephant, but (with recent easing of CITES rules) the Trust can sell elephant products - $Z11,000 can be obtained for a hide.
Nature Conservancies - the Save Conservancy
The Committee visited the Save Conservancy property and spoke to the Director, Mr Clive Stockil, and other Board members. It is the largest of a number of similar conservancies in Zimbabwe.
The conservancy is located in a low-rainfall area. When the area was settled in the 1920s, wildlife had no value, with cattle the only economic activity. However, the land was marginal, and so stocking rates were increased even though it was obvious that this degraded the land. Recent research has shown that perennial grasses declined (further reducing carrying capacity) and that native animals were out-competed (as selective eaters) and indeed were shot out.
The 1991-92 drought was the `cross roads' for this part of Zimbabwe - the ecosystem effectively collapsed.
A group of (white settler) landowners engaged Price Waterhouse to undertake an investigation into alternative productive and sustainable uses for the land. In effect the report concluded that running wildlife best met the three required criteria of environmental sustainability, economic viability and socio-political acceptability.31 Two key strategies were used - a conservancy and a trust. The Government provides a framework of rules and regulations under which it operates.
The conservancy consists of 21 individuals who own their own freehold - covering 900,000 acres. They all generally operate their own areas - but the wildlife roams over all.
The initial focus was on restocking and fencing - a double fence (to prevent buffalo mixing with adjoining cattle as a quarantine requirement) surrounds the conservancy. Research was undertaken into species, stocking rates, reproduction, etc. and a central research facility established. Elephants were bought from the Government - at the cost of the otherwise required cull. It shifts elephants in family groups which, while more expensive, avoids death from stress and it has found that re-establishing family groups avoids problems associated with the previous practice of only troublesome males being available. Specimens of the endangered black rhinoceros have also been purchased. Numbers of these are increasing 10 per cent per annum.
The Trust is for local communities in the district to become involved by obtaining wildlife and entering into management agreements with the conservancy to carry and breed the wildlife. Any offspring are returned to the Trust, who can sell them. This has helped obtain community support and overcome poaching. It was kick-started by a $2 million donation by the Conservancy.
Most of the landowners operate various kinds of ecotourist activity, such as tourist lodges and wildlife viewing; some permit hunting safaris. Revenue is also obtained by trading animals.
It is not quite economically self-sustaining at present. The Board has found that balancing the stocking of economically attractive animals with ecologically appropriate animals is difficult - it tries to work on the basis that nature knows best.
Issues
The CAMPFIRE program is targeted at communities that have joint ownership of extensive areas of communal lands. Such a circumstance is rare in Victoria (although, the Committee notes, may be applicable elsewhere in Australia). However, the advantages of ensuring that local communities gain a direct benefit from nurturing their native wildlife was well demonstrated. The Committee also noted that the wildlife being harvested did not solely reside within the bounds of the communal lands - the territories of the wildlife included, but were not restricted to, these lands. The wildlife being protected were mostly dependent on the maintenance of habitat in adjoining lands (which was included in national parks).
The conservation trust and conservancy models rely on the ability of private landowners to trade in animals - to stock the areas and to generate income. The entire territory of the fauna is within the boundary of the relevant trust or conservancy.
1 Senate Rural Affairs and Regional Affairs and Transport Reference Committee (1998) Commercial Utilisation of Australian Native Wildlife, Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra, ACT, p. 83.
3 Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia (1998), Commercial Utilisation of Australian Native Wildlife. Report of the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee, Canberra, p. 83.
4 Wildlife Regulations 1992, r. 9.
7 Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988, s. 20.
8 Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988, s. 26(1)(a). Interim conservation orders have a two year duration - Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988 (Vic) s. 32.
9 Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988, s. 27(b) & (c).
10 Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988, s. 36 - failure to comply with any notice of prohibition or compliance with result in an initial 100 unit fine and further 10 unit per day penalties.
11 Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988, s. 39.
12 Minister for Planning and Local Government (1997), Victoria Planning Provisions, general provisions p. 8.
13 Department of Natural Resources and Environment, Properties by Year Assessed Data Base - as at 01 June 1999.
14 As at August 1997 - Department of Natural Resources and Environment (1997). Know Your Catchments, Victoria 1997. An Assessment of Catchment Condition Using Interim Indicators, Department of Natural Resources and Environment, Melbourne, Vic., p. 86.
15 Department of Natural Resources and Environment (1997). Know Your Catchments, Victoria 1997. An Assessment of Catchment Condition Using Interim Indicators, Department of Natural Resources and Environment, Melbourne, Vic., p. 86.
16 Although the actual incentive to fence may be to restore balanced water recharge.
17 As shown by data collected by the Australian Bureau of Statistics in recent years.
18 Department of Natural Resources and Environment (1997), Know Your Catchments, Victoria 1997. An Assessment of Catchment Condition Using Interim Indicators, Department of Natural Resources and Environment, Melbourne, Vic., pp. 82, 88.
19 Even if undertaken primarily for aesthetics, shade and shelter, land-degradation control or capital gain.
20 Between March 1993 and March 1995 - Department of Natural Resources and Environment (1997). Know Your Catchments, Victoria 1997. An Assessment of Catchment Condition Using Interim Indicators, Department of Natural Resources and Environment, Melbourne, Vic., pp. p82, 84.
21 Department of Natural Resources and Environment (1997). Know Your Catchments, Victoria 1997. An Assessment of Catchment Condition Using Interim Indicators, Department of Natural Resources and Environment, Melbourne, Vic., pp. p82, 84.
22 Earth Sanctuaries Limited (1998) Annual Report 1998. Stirling, South Australia, p. 20.
24 Letter from the Minister for Conservation and Land Management to Earth Sanctuaries Limited; 1 December 1998
25 Australian Bush Heritage Fund, Written Submissions, No.U32.
28 Senate Rural Affairs and Regional Affairs and Transport Reference Committee (1998) Commercial Utilisation of Australian Native Wildlife, Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra, ACT, p 116.
29 This may change in the future.
30 It seems that these restrictions relate in part to previously exported animals being used for `canned lion hunting' in South Africa.
31 Some have argued that it also provides a mechanism to avoid government land redistribution policies.
