CAMPFIRE Association short video on strengthening the capacity of rural communities in non-lethal human and elephant conflict mitigation and wildlife conservation using sustainable and affordable low cost technology - the Chili gun (mhiripiri bomber) and an effective problem elephant pre-warning system in Tsholotsho Zimbabwe.

Background

CAMPFIRE has a combined 2.4 million beneficiaries, made up of 200,000 households that actively participate in the program, and another 600,000 households that benefit indirectly from social services and infrastructure supported by CAMPFIRE income within districts. There are in excess of 120 elected and constituted Village and Ward CAMPFIRE Committees that operate through specific Traditional Leaders in their areas. ‘Communal' in the acronym CAMPFIRE, has since been changed to ‘Community' in order to focus on communities instead of the geographic spread of the programme.

Scope of the CAMPFIRE Program

 

Land area under CAMPFIRE

50,000 km2 – 12% of Zimbabwe

No of CAMPFIRE Districts

58

No of wildlife districts

28 (15 active in hunting)

No of Safari Operators

33

No of Photographic safaris

10

No of leased Parks Safari Areas

4

 

 COMMUNITY BENEFITS

Variation of CAMPFIRE Districts

According to CAMPFIRE Revenue Sharing Guidelines, 55% of income is allocated to communities, 26% to the RDC to support costs attributable to CAMPFIRE activities, 15% for general RDC administration, and 4% as a levy to the Association. 55% of income to communities is the minimum limit, which has been exceeded to 60% in Tsholotsho, as an example.

It is important to note that a district or RDC may be part of CAMPFIRE, but this does not mean that every village/ward in that district will be directly engaged in CAMPFIRE activities. Equally, not all 60 RDCs in Zimbabwe are CAMPFIRE members. Others such as Nyanga have communities earning some income from non-wildlife activities such as community based tourism. The performance of CAMPFIRE across districts therefore varies, as benefits, especially from wildlife, are determined by the size of land that is free from human settlement for agriculture and livestock rearing, or other economic activities such gold panning and mining, that do not negatively impact on wildlife management, and on which CAMPFIRE related income generating activities such as safari hunting can be administered. The human population density in most districts today is more than 20 people per square kilometer, compared to 10 people per square kilometer when CAMPFIRE was started.

Wildlife management under CAMPFIRE is most successful in buffer areas between national parks and those areas in which people live and conduct their other livelihood activities. Buffer areas serve as communal wildlife dispersal areas which are not gazette at law, but are maintained at the pleasure of rural communities. CAMPFIRE has no history of resettling people in order to create space for wildlife management, unless such resettlements were voluntary, as in the case of Mahenye in Chipinge in the 1980s. There are very few examples of standalone community wildlife ventures in the country that exist in districts away from national parks, for example Sidinda ward in Hwange.

Illegal killing of elephant in typical CAMPFIRE areas is relatively low and averages only 25% of annual national statistics. In some CAMPFIRE areas, safari operators have developed partnerships for anti-poaching and problem animal control, e.g. Mbire district, with great success. As shown in Table 2, up to 40 elephants were poached in 2010, but only 5 in 2015 as a result of improved law enforcement at local level.

Table 2: Results of the Dande Anti-Poaching Effort

 

Year

Number of Elephant

2010

40

2011

36

2012

16

2013

4

2014

9

2015

5

 

 In other cases (Table 3), districts relying on CAMPFIRE hunting income alone are unable to manage problem animals and control poaching, e.g. Hwange, where communities do not have a buffer area from which to effectively benefit. Wildlife species migrate from the Hwange National Park throughout most of the 18 wards of the communal area, causing serious conflict with people in the form of crop damage, livestock losses, damage to infrastructure, injuries to people, and even loss of human lives. The majority of the wards receive very little benefits mainly from wildlife, especially elephant that are hunted as trophies only after crossing the main road northwards to raid crops. Most of the income generated through safari hunting in the district is therefore mostly from Sidinda ward, which has significant wild land. Consequently, benefits from this ward are diluted when shared by another 17 wards of the district that also suffer from problem animals, leaving very little income for wildlife management. This has created negative perceptions of CAMPFIRE in the district, as people currently suffer more than they benefit from wildlife.

Table 3: Income generation: Hwange District

YEAR

GROSS INCOME

COMMUNITY 55%

CAMPFIRE MGT 26%

COUNCIL LEVY 15%

CAMPFIRE ASS 4%

2009

32,500

17,874

8,450

4,875

1,300

2010

41,725

22,948

10,848

6,258

1,669

2011

63,070

34,648

16,398

9,460

2,522

2012

74,408

40,924

19,346

11,161

2,976

2013

65,300

35,915

16,978

9,795

2,612

2014

85,777

47,177

22,302

12,866

3,431

2015

49,350

27,142

12,831

7,402

1,974

 

CAMPFIRE income

As indicated in the preceding section, only 15 districts involved in CAMPFIRE have sufficient wildlife resources to generate some financial benefit to communities. In such cases, the consumptive use of wildlife resources has provided a supplementary form of income to subsistence farming for communities, and this has proved sustainable. These benefits are associated with communities in the wards shown in Table 4, and are not district wide.

Table 4: Example of District wards and CAMPFIRE Wards 

 

DISTRICT

DISTRICT WARDS

CAMPFIRE WARDS

BEITBRIDGE

15

7

BUBI

23

2

BINGA

25

14

BULILIMA

22

13

HURUNGWE

26

7

HWANGE

20

18

CHIPINGE

30

2

CHIREDZI

32

9

GOKWE NORTH

36

10

MATOBO

24

6

MBIRE

17

8

NYAMINYAMI

12

6

TSHOLOTSHO

22

11

UMGUZA

19

19

 

On average CAMPFIRE generates nearly US$2million per year. This means that communities in major CAMPFIRE areas receive about US$1million every year in total. Since 2007, these communities have been opening their own bank accounts to receive cash from safari operators under a Direct Payment System. This system eliminates previous delays in money reaching the communities and ensures that communities see the value of wildlife.

As shown in Table 5, CAMPFIRE income is often understated as it is largely recorded based on income receipts from safari hunting only. Economic multipliers like taxidermy, travel, extended tourism activities, food and others, are not captured as part of CAMPFIRE income. The proportion of safari operating expenses paid locally in the form of wages and salaries, and purchase of materials is also not recorded. Income from tourism ventures under CAMPFIRE is also mostly unrecorded, as a result of low investment and returns due to the current downturn in tourism receipts for the country.

Table 5: CAMPFIRE Income: 1989-2015
(Compiled by WWF SARPO, Harare 2006. 2009-2015 data based on CAMPFIRE District Annual Reports. Data for the period 2007-8 not available due hyper-inflation)

The gross amount disbursed to communities as dividends from 1989 to 2006 was US$20,8million, representing 52% of the total income earned. Total income generated between 2009 and 2015 was US$10,2million. The amount disbursed to communities was US$5,5million, representing 54% of total income earned.

American clients generally constitute 76% of hunters in CAMPFIRE areas for all animals hunted each year.  The suspension of ivory imports from Tanzania and Zimbabwe by the United States of America (USA) in April 2014 resulted in the cancellation of 108 out of 189 (57%) elephant hunts initially booked by US citizens in CAMPFIRE areas. As a result of the ban, CAMPFIRE income dropped to US$2,1million in 2014, compared to US$2,3million in 2013, as fewer American hunters conducted their safaris nevertheless in anticipation of the lifting of the ban. However, the ban continued into 2015, resulting in a massive decline of total CAMPFIRE income to US$1,6million.

Table 6: 2014 Income Disaggregated by District

 

 

 

Table 7: 2015 Income Disaggregated by District

As shown in Table 6 and 7, most of the income is generated from elephant. This is the major hunted species, which contributes more than 50% of the total income. Only Matobo district did not generated any income from elephant hunting, with Hwange district getting 100% of its income from elephant during the period. Gokwe North and Binga used to be major wildlife districts, but hunting has gone down due mostly to uncontrolled human settlement and consequently a decline in animal populations. Nyaminyami has begun to reverse to loss of wildlife and CAMPFIRE income from poaching by establishing a game conservancy through a partnership between the RDC, communities, and the Safari Operator.

Percentage Allocation

Despite the CAMPFIRE Guidelines, income distribution proportions to communities vary from district to district for several reasons. Currently communities get the highest allocation in Tsholotsho and Umguza districts, i.e. 60%, with Councils retaining 36%. Hurungwe district has not been generating CAMPFIRE income consistently since 2009 due to unresolved issues regarding the leasing of two state Safari Areas. Data from 13 RDCs (Table 8 and 9), shows that on average, 52% (instead of the prescribed 55%) of income went to communities. Councils generated a significant percent of 44% (more than the prescribed 41%), for administration, field patrols, monitoring of hunts, problem animal control, water, and fire management. This also represents significant income for rural development in districts that have a limited financial base such as Mbire, Nyaminyami, and Tsholotsho.

Table 8: Income Allocation in 2014

Table 9: Income Allocation in 2015

There are also districts where quota utilization has gone down as numbers of key species has declined over time due to factors, and also the ban on ivory imports into America. In such cases, benefits to communities have been reduced as shown in Table 8.

Table 10: Distribution of hunting income for 2015: Nyaminyami

 

 

COMMUNITIES

 

 

51%

4%

 

45%

 

 

 

 

AREA

TOTAL INCOME

COUNCIL

CA

GACHE GACHE 2

MOLA 3

MOLA 4

NEBIRI 7

KASVISVA 8

MSAMPA

KARUMA 9

GACHE GACHE

46,452

23,690

1,858

20,903

 

 

 

 

 

OMAY 1

110,510

56,360

4,420

 

37,025

5,499

4,892

2,312

 

OMAY 2

92,860

47,358

3,714

 

17,253

4,005

7,224

7,434

5,870.05

TOTAL

249,822

127,409

9,992

20,903

54,278

9,504

12,117

9,746

5,870.05

In 2015 quota allocation and utilization for key species was as follows: Omay Area 1: Buffalo – 28/10, Elephant – 5/1; Omay Area 2: Buffalo – 30/10, Elephant – 4/2. Anticipated income in 2015 from Omay 1 was $252,430, but only $ 110,510 was realized. In Omay 2, only $ 92,860 was generated, against a target of $213,420. In Gache Gache $46,452 was generated, instead of the expected $82,226.

Use of Income

Revenue received by communities (about USD1 million annually) helps directly offset the costs of living with wildlife.  Most communities have voluntarily invested in infrastructure which has long term benefits such as clinics, schools, and grinding mills. However, in some areas, the projects are spread too thinly to meet the needs of a growing number of people. Other communities have drilled boreholes, constructed seasonal roads, erecting of fencing to keep out wildlife, purchase of tractors, and direct purchase of drought relief food. Children benefit from reduced walking distances through the construction of schools, procurement of learning materials, and payment of school fees from CAMPFIRE proceeds. Communities also benefit from meat in excess of the requirements of safari hunting operations, and from problem animal control.

Table 11: Examples of existing Community Projects funded from CAMPFIRE Revenue

 

District

Project

Beitbridge

Rehabilitation of schools, clinics and protection of irrigation schemes

Bililima

Rehabilitation of 3 clinics and 3 primary schools, hall, fencing of fields and rehabilitation of lodge, community truck, tractor, dam repair machinery.

Chipinge

3 grinding mills, lorry, teachers houses, community office, shop

Chiredzi

Clinics, mothers waiting shelters, teachers’ houses, primary schools, community-grinding mills, Police sub-office, piped water and electrification of clinic.

Hurungwe

Construction of classroom block - Nyamakate Secondary, Maintanance of Nyamakate bridge. Purchase of tractor tube, Payment of carpenters, Roofing Chipfuko Primary School and Huyo Secondary School, CAMPFIRE Ward tractor major service, Purchase of Treasurers bicycle, Payment of Nyamakate Clinic guard,

7 resource monitors allowances, 26 bag cement Chitindiva, Kabidza , Manyenyedzi and Mawau cchools for toilets construction, Renovation Karuru School (5 bags cement), and toilet construction, Chitindiva Clinic toilet construction, Roofing Chikova Secondary School, Purchase of buiding materials Chikova Secondary Block, Painting Dete Primary School, Building toilets Makwiye school, Building shed Mupuse school, Roofing Bhashungwe primary school, Sanyati Bridge camp renovation, Purchase of Cement Tashinga Primary School, 6 pairs uniform for resource monitors, Purchase of 20 bags cement Chisipite Primary School, Purchase of tyres for ward tractor, Bridge maintenance

Mbire

Clinics, nurses houses, ward offices, storerooms, 14 classrooms, 7 teachers houses, grinding mills, school offices, wildlife administration offices, 2 hand pump boreholes, water piping, toilet, water storage tanks, 2 tractors, a basic tourist camp with 4 chalets;

Nyaminyami

Tillage tractors, renovation of dispensary at clinic, nurse’s house. Construction of Mayovhe classroom block, 3 grinding mills, Teacher’s house, Jongola school. School bursaries x 3 students at Seke Teacher’s College. Renovation of pre-schools x 2. Negande: Rehabilitation of water pipeline, grinding mill. Nebiri: Chikuro primary block, rehabilitation of Harudziva water pipeline. Kasvisva: Rehabilitation of water pipeline to supply water to Kasvisva clinic, Kasvisva Secondary school block. Msampa: Teacher’s house, Majazu primary, renovation of ward warehouse; Kanyati: Cement for teacher’s house renovation.

Tsholotsho

Classroom blocks and furniture (Sihazela, Mlevu, Mtshwayeli, Ntulula, Dibutibu, Gwaai, Nkwizhi, Zibalongwe, Malindi, Mgodimasili, Phelela, Mpilo, Jimila, and Kapane Primary schools), 2 F14 cottages, 10 sewing machines (Dibutibu Secondary school), 7km piped water system for Thembile primary school, Sikente Clinic, Tshitatshawa and Jowa clinics construction, fencing of Madlangombe clinic, 10 water engines, borehole drilling and repairs and repair kits, Lister diesel engines for 6 villages in ward 21 and at Sihazela Line in ward 1, grinding mills, solar water pumping in wards 1, 2 and 4. 2 pickup trucks for wildlife monitoring purchased in 2015.

Think again at CoP17

During the period 2010-2015, human and wildlife conflict in Zimbabwe’s communal areas has resulted in the loss of 88 lives,
Over 5000 livestock, 6000 hectares of crops, and irrigation and water supply equipment.
Some of the recent deaths include school children and heads of households as shown below:

 

           
Gaison Chitsove, 14:
Killed by elephant on 2 February 2016 while herding cattle in Kamumbembe village, Mbire District
Fezile Moyo, 14:
Killed by elephant at water point on 19 November 2015 in Dzibalekhiwa, Tsholotsho

Commerce Karunga, 45:
Killed by buffalo while guarding crops on 10 September 2016 in Chiramba village, Mbire District

Jackson Kasinaukuse, 50:
Killed by elephant while guarding crops on 18 December 2015 in Kanhukamwe village, Muzarabani District
Olivia Ndlovu, 68:
Killed by elephant at water point on 18 October 2015 in Tshotanda, Tsholotsho District
John Mumpande, 41:
Killed by elephant while going to elds with wife on 8 April 2016 in Kamalala village, Hwange district.

Sadly these people were killed because they live with dangerous wildlife.

Think again at CoP17.

Rural communities would prefer to
receive bene ts from the sustainable use of dangerous wildlife
instead of converting their land to other uses.

 

“On 9 January 2016, a female lion struck a cow in the eld of a villager at
Masuwe in Chidobe area of Hwange district. The villagers woke up and
fought the lion to rescue the cow. The lion ran away and some villagers
remained behind guarding the cow, while others went to make a report to
the Parks of ce. Later the lion came back swiftly and jumped onto one of
the women and started eating her alive”. E ye witness.

 

Think again

before you up-list the
African Elephant and African Lion
on Appendix I

Georges LodgeIntroduction and Background

The Gorges Lodge is a joint venture photographic tourism project between Matupula Safaris ( a private safari company ) and the local communities of Chisuma Village (under Ward 2) in Hwange District. The lodge is strategically situated within communal land 22 kilometers from the world-famous majestic Victoria Falls. The project was conceived, developed and operates under the auspicies and principles of the CAMPFIRE project. The project aim is to involve local communities in the conservation of natural resources that attract tourists to the area while simultaneously generating financial and social benefits from activities taking place locally and within the general environs of Victoria Falls.

Hwange National Park’s eastern boundary, which stretches for over 220kms, is maintained with the co-operation of adjacent communities. CAMPFIRE Communities in Bulilima district from Point 222 at corner with Botswana, all the way northwards through Korodziba/Makona in Tsholotsho, connecting to the Ngamo Forest boundary, provide an important conservation buffer zone. Tsholotsho district was granted Appropriate Authority Status for the management of wildlife in 1991, and has 11 Wards that benefit from the CAMPFIRE Programme.