Paper short abstract:

The CAMPFIRE programme runs in Zimbabwe since 1989 entailing the commodification of natural resources, especially wildlife through trophy hunting, to promote rural development, community empowerment and conservation. The paper found the CAMPFIRE failing its goals and provides recommendations

Paper long abstract:

In the last centuries, humans have progressively distanced themselves from nature but their reliance on natural goods and services has increased to promote economic growth. As consequence, the biodiversity has declined drastically over the last fifty years (MEA, 2005). A recurrent debate is which approach towards conservation is more effective with alternative and nuanced ways proposed over the more common fortress or community-based conservation paradigms.

In Zimbabwe, the colonisation period has seen an increasing environmental degradation due to indiscriminate extraction of natural resources. Protected areas and national parks have then been created with the concurrent resettlement of indigenous people into communal areas. The Communal Area Management Programme for Indigenous Resources (CAMPFIRE) was launched in the country in 1989 (Martin, 1986) entailing the commodification of natural resources, especially wildlife through trophy hunting, in order to promote rural development, community empowerment and sustainable use of natural resources.

The paper investigates the CAMPFIRE projects in the South East Lowveld of Zimbabwe (Chipinge and Chiredzi districts) triangulating and enriching the data available in literature with 9 semi-structured interviews conducted in July 2019. The analysis found the CAMPFIRE failing to contribute to rural development, discrepancies in the revenues and a sharp decline of CAMPFIRE revenues. Wildlife populations outside the park is almost non-existent while human-wildlife conflict is perceived increasing.

The findings suggest that, for the programme to achieve its goals, it is necessary to devolve appropriate authority to community members, promote good natural resource management governance and increase participation and empowerment of local people.

Paper short abstract:

The Community Based Conservation Approach (CBC) has been used in managing natural resources such as wildlife around the world especially in Africa. However, there are questions on whether the approach is a success or not. This paper presents some problems affecting the success of the approach.

Paper long abstract:

The Community Based Conservation Approach (CBC) has been used in managing natural resources such as wildlife around the world. Kupika et al. (2018) define wildlife as all forms of undomesticated flora and fauna while Gren et al. (2018) define wildlife as all land-based mammals and birds. In this article wildlife will mean all land and water-based mammals and birds. From time immemorial wildlife has been a very important resource to indigenous people, especially in Africa. The African people for a long time depended on wildlife for food and cultural purposes, one of the services provided by ecosystems (MA, 2005). Wildlife is very important in supporting human wellbeing hence the need to effectively conserve it.

However, from the late 1970s, there has been a significant loss of various wildlife species in most African countries. Some scholars have argued that this is attributed to inadequate participation of local people in wildlife management and the increase in poverty levels. To prevent the rampant loss of wildlife conservation advocates and scholars recommended the involvement of local communities in wildlife management. This saw the introduction of the CBC programmes. In the 1980s the Community Based Natural Resources Management (CBNRM) Programme was introduced (Wainwright and Wehrmeyer, 1998).

This paper argues that CBNRM in Zambia has not been successful due to challenges such as inadequate capacity and elite capture. Success could be measured in terms of increase in wildlife numbers and improvement of local community livelihoods. This article will draw examples from Mumbwa Game Management Area.

Paper short abstract:

The South African ‘wildlife economy’ maintains racial inequality: tourism reserves and gated ‘wildlife estates’ have consolidated land into private, mostly white, ownership, using a ‘logic of enclosure’. The wildlife economy creates ‘green apartheid’, continuing to exclude black African voices.

Paper long abstract:

In the paper we present here, we explore recent and newly emerging relations between race, capital and wildlife conservation in the town of Hoedspruit and its surroundings, South Africa, and how these continue to silence black African voices. Since the early 2000s, Hoedspruit has developed from a small, agricultural hub to one of the main centres for the lucrative and rapidly growing ‘wildlife economy’ in the country. While generally marketed as a shining example of wildlife-based development, we show that behind this image is a highly unequal and racialised state of affairs that is deeply unsustainable. At the core of these dynamics are private wildlife reserves, high-end nature-based tourism and gated ‘wildlife estates’. These have further consolidated land into private, mostly white, ownership, dependent upon black labourers who commute daily from former homeland areas. Municipal efforts to mediate this situation, i.e. by building affordable housing, have been opposed by some of the wealthy inhabitants and property developers. We follow Mbembe’s ‘logic of enclosure’, in which the historical creation of borders, fences, and so on have important socio-economic implications. Based on this, we argue that the wildlife economy and its ‘green’, philanthropic discourses perpetuate and reinvent older forms of colonial and apartheid geographies of segregation, in effect creating forms of ‘green apartheid’. Through this continuation of segregation, the Hoedspruit case serves as an important example of the regressive and unsustainable forms of development that the wildlife economy in South Africa can create, because black African voices remain marginal or unheard.

Paper short abstract:

This paper examines Human Elephant Conflict using an environmental justice framework. A case-study of the Okavango Eastern Panhandle (OEP) in Botswana explores the complexities of a conservation 'success' story, i.e. a rapidly expanding elephant population and the impacts this has for local people.

Paper long abstract:

This paper examines Human Elephant Conflict using an environmental justice framework. This framework draws attention to a lack of participatory approaches in the processes of policy making. Across Africa, Human Wildlife Conflict (HWC) is a complex issue that does not always have readily available mitigating measures. In some instances, the animals involved tend to be those internationally recognized as vulnerable species. Local solutions like culling may not be accepted globally. Such is the case with the Human Elephant Conflict (HEC) in the Okavango Eastern Panhandle (OEP) of Northern Botswana. Elephants have grown in numbers and are now moving out of their protected areas and encroaching into the villages of the OEP.

The growth in number of these elephants, despite being good for tourism and the country’s international conservation image, has come at a cost for many local people. Elephants raid their ploughing fields and destroy their crops, leading to limited access of food, causing poverty for many households. The management of these elephants can be attributed to a combination of conservation, wildlife management and tourism policies, but the making of these policies is not inclusive of all the relevant stakeholders. In fact, these policies are made with no regard to participatory approaches. This means that the procedural justice is sacrificed when local people are left out. The result is that the costs and benefits of expanding elephant numbers are not equally distributed.