Wildlife Conservation in Zimbabwe - Africa Biodiversity Collaborative

Wildlife Conservation in Zimbabwe - Africa Biodiversity Collaborative


829KB Sizes 0 Downloads 0 Views

Recommend Documents

Specific opportunities between South Africa and USA - Lood Bester & Wiaan van der Linde ... GREAT SOUTH AFRICAN CONSERVA

wildlife conservation - Wildlife Reserves Singapore
Aug 26, 2006 - and Mrs Charoen Sirivadhanabhakdi of Thai. Beverage PLC, Chawang's new adopter. Thumbuakar dancers lend a

Biodiversity conservation in traditional farming landscapes
diversity, as evident for example in different sward heights during spring and ..... sheltering sites and high insect av

as well as the current state of South Africa – Zimbabwe relations and possible future ... historical and economic rela

missing urbanisation in zimbabwe - Africa Research Institute
This process unfolded both before and after the 2002 census. But then came the “tsunami”, the military-style Operati

Biodiversity Conservation in Coffee - Standards Impacts
Mar 1, 2015 - Autodesarrollo. (ICADE). Biodiversity Conservation in Coffee. Transforming productive practices in the cof

Wilderness Conservation in a Biodiversity Hotspot - CiteSeerX
the most important of the world's 18 megadiversity coun- tries (Mittermeier et al. ... and animal families and genera ar

currency reforms in zimbabwe - Africa Portal
de-industrialisation and general despondency. With respect to inflation, Zimbabwe experienced hyperinflation from 1998 t

Philanthrocapitalism, biodiversity conservation and development
Increasingly, the economic value of habitats and species for ecotourism, ecosystem services, and other ways of paying ..

Apr 30, 2007 - Fijians have a saying "Kunekune Vakayaloka ni Dilio (Like finding a Dilio egg.) One can never find a Dili



ABCG/BATS Task on Land Tenure FY2011 Report by African Wildlife Foundation September 2011 AWF Conservation Centre Ngong Road, Karen P.O. Box 310, 00502 Nairobi, KENYA +254 20 276 5000 www.awf.org

This report is made possible by the generous support of the American people through the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) under the terms of Cooperative Agreement No. RLA-A-00-07-00043-00. The contents are the responsibility of the Africa Biodiversity Collaborative Group and do not necessarily reflect the views of USAID or the United States Government. This report was produced by the African Wildlife Foundation.

Contents List of Abbreviations .................................................................................................................................................................................. ii List of Tables ............................................................................................................................................................................................. iii Background ..................................................................................................................................................................................................1 Executive Summary .....................................................................................................................................................................................2 1.



Legal and Policy Framework ............................................................................................................................................................4 2.1 The Parks and Wildlife Act [Chapter 20:14] 1996..........................................................................................................................4 2.2 Wildlife Based Land Reform Policy ................................................................................................................................................5 2.3 The Rural District Councils Act Chapter [29:13] 2002 ..................................................................................................................7 2.4 The Indigenisation and Economic Empowerment Act [Chapter 14:33] 2007 ...............................................................................8

3. The Parks Estate.................................................................................................................................................................................... 10 3.1 Resource Monitoring ..................................................................................................................................................................... 12 3.2 Fire management and Road Maintenance..................................................................................................................................... 13 3.3 Invasive Plant Species ................................................................................................................................................................... 13 3.4 Research Activities ........................................................................................................................................................................ 13 3.5 Infrastructure and Equipment ........................................................................................................................................................ 15 3.6 Human Resources .......................................................................................................................................................................... 16 3.7 Revenue.......................................................................................................................................................................................... 17 4. CAMPFIRE........................................................................................................................................................................................... 18 5. Conservancies ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 24 6. Conclusions and Recommendations .................................................................................................................................................... 30 7. References ............................................................................................................................................................................................. 34 8. Annex .................................................................................................................................................................................................... 36


List of Abbreviations ARDA Agriculture and Rural Development Authority AWF

African Wildlife Foundation


Bilateral Investment Promotion and Protection Agreement


Communal Areas Management Programme for Indigenous Resources


Centre for Applied Social Sciences


Community Based Natural Resources Management


CAMPFIRE Collaborative Group


Confidence Interval


Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species


Great Limpopo Transfrontier Park


Intensive Conservation Area


Monitoring of the Illegal Killing of Elephants


Management Oriented Monitoring System


National Committee


Non-Governmental Organisation


Problem Animal Control


Rural District Council


Transfrontier Conservation Area


Sport Hunting Form


United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization


Zimbabwe Parks and Wildlife Management Authority


List of Tables Table 1.1

Details of National Parks

Table 1.2

Details of Botanical Gardens and Botanical Reserves

Table 1.3

Details of Sanctuaries and Safari Areas

Table 2

Summary of research activities

Table 3

Vehicles that are currently off the road in the Parks Estate (2010)

Table 4

Estimated costs for strengthening water transport (2010)

Table 5

Actual revenue and planned budget for 2010

Table 6

Percentage contribution of each revenue source to the 2010 income

Table 7

Summary of categories of leases as at January 2010

Table 8

Some examples of benefits that accrued to local communities

Table 9

Percentage analysis of District income by activity (1989–1993 revenue)

Table 10

Pre- and post-tender prices for hunting concession areas in 3 districts Participating in CAMPFIRE

Table 11

Estimates of wildlife population in Save Valley Conservancy

Table 12

Estimates of wildlife population in Malilangwe Trust

List of Graphs Graph 1

Conservation area land tenure

List of Maps Map 1

African Wildlife Foundation Heartlands

Map 2

Zimbabwe Protected Areas

Map 3

Bubiyani Conservancy

Map 4

Malilangwe Trust

Map 5

Resettlement in the Save Valley Conservancy


Background The African Wildlife Foundation (AWF) is an international conservation organization headquartered in Nairobi, Kenya and focused solely on Africa. AWF’s mission is to work together with the people of Africa to ensure the wildlife and wild lands of Africa endure forever. AWF has an integrated large landscape-scale approach, called the African Heartland Program, which is currently operational in nine high-priority landscapes across 15 countries in sub-Saharan Africa. In each Heartland, AWF implements its work through four main programs: applied science and research; land and habitat conservation; conservation enterprise; and capacity building. Policy development and climate change are cross-cutting themes that are integrated into each of these programs. Through these focal programs AWF aims to facilitate practical, field-based, tangible solutions to global and local sustainable natural resource management challenges in Africa. AWF has had success developing economic models for communities to benefit financially from conservation. AWF has worked throughout Africa with various protected area authorities to help them improve revenue generation and sustain conservation. Three of AWF’s Heartlands include Map 1. African Wildlife Foundation Heartlands Zimbabwe: Limpopo; Kazungula and Zambezi. AWF has been working in these Heartlands for over 10 years; however, due to the socio-political challenges in Zimbabwe and lack of funding, AWF tapered its involvement in Zimbabwe. Recently AWF has been assessing if there is potential value AWF can add to Zimbabwe’s wildlife, land conservation and community engagement. This report is being provided to the Zimbabwe Parks and Wildlife Management Authority at their request. It summarizes in brief areas of threat and opportunity and proposes areas where AWF may be able to add value assuming a supportive political environment.


Executive Summary Zimbabwe’s natural resources are important both ecologically, providing rich biodiversity and ecosystems’ services, and economically, through sustainable utilization. The Wildlife sector is an important part of these natural resources. The government of Zimbabwe acknowledges this importance and has set aside more than 14% of the land as state land for biodiversity conservation. The communal lands (CAMPFIRE areas) as well as the privately owned land (Conservancies) also play a pivotal role in this biodiversity conservation and sustainable utilisation. Funding constraints have weakened wildlife management capacity especially in state protected areas. The economic downturn and decline in tourism has also affected revenue generating capacity. The government’s Land Reform Policy and Indigenisation Policy have had a significant impact on the wildlife sector. As a result of these developments, it is necessary to come up with new models for revenue generation, indigenous participation and partnerships for Zimbabwe’s conservation units. Several pieces of legislation and policies govern the wildlife sector. Chief among these are the Parks and Wildlife Act, Wildlife Based Land Reform Policy, Rural District Councils Act and the Indigenisation and Economic Empowerment Act. This paper highlights the key aspects of these legal and policy instruments. Details of the categories of the Protected Area Estate are also provided. These categories are National Parks, Botanical Gardens and Botanical Reserves, Sanctuaries and Safari Areas as well as Recreational Parks. Resource monitoring (including animal population statistics) is also discussed as well as fire management and road maintenance and the inherent challenges being faced. The research efforts in the Parks Estate are also listed in detail. The status of infrastructure and equipment is highlighted, including the challenges. Recommendations are given on how to address these challenges. Human resource issues including current staffing levels and optimal staffing levels are discussed with an example from the Northern region. The revenue that accrued to the Parks estate in 2010 is compared with the projected budget. There was a negative variance between actual revenue and projected variance. Hunting (consumptive utilisation) accounted for 31% of the total revenue and entry into the parks estate (non-consumptive utilisation) accounted for 26% of the total revenue. Recommendations on how to improve other revenue sources such as accommodation fees and leases and rentals are highlighted. The major objectives of the Communal Areas Management Programme for Indigenous Resources program (CAMPFIRE) are outlined. The revenue distribution principles are explained. The mechanisms for the utilization of the CAMPFIRE resources varied among the Districts. Historical examples are given of the financial benefits that accrued to communities and how the dividends were utilised. It was noted that hunting accounted for more than 91% of the income from CAMPFIRE that accrued to the Rural District Councils. The benefits from CAMPFIRE included a decrease in poaching and increased availability of funds that were used either for community projects or paid out as household dividends. The multi-stakeholder participation in the CAMPFIRE programme was also important. A number of lessons were learnt in CAMPFIRE, one of which was that CAMPFIRE is not a blueprint but that it provides guiding principles for Community Based Natural Resources Management. The challenges facing the CAMPFIRE programme are discussed. Chief among these are the lack of security of tenure and the inability of communities to enter into legal agreements since they do not constitute a legal entity. The ability to collate information on conservancies was more challenging than protected areas. There are very few conservancies that are still operational following the “Fast Track” Land Reform Programme. There are several 2

challenges facing the remaining conservancies, including unplanned settlement, land tenure uncertainties, poaching, land conversion and habitat degradation. Recommendations are made on how to address the various issues in the Parks Estate and conservancies. 1. Introduction The Government of Zimbabwe recognizes the importance of its natural resources in terms of both ecological (biodiversity conservation) and economic (sustainable utilisation) value. Wildlife is an integral part of this biodiversity. The Government’s commitment is shown by the fact that as far back as 1991, it had already set aside 13% of Zimbabwe’s land as protected State Land under wildlife (Policy for Wildlife, 1992). This land that constitutes the Parks and Wildlife Estate is not subject to land speculation and it cannot be reduced except by the President of the Republic of Zimbabwe.

Map 2. Protected Areas Zimbabwe

The Government’s commitment also includes Communal Lands where Rural District Councils manage natural resources (including wildlife) on behalf of the communities. The role played by the private land-owners in biodiversity conservation and sustainable utilization is also acknowledged. The Government supports the different players in the wildlife sector by the enactment of legislation and crafting of policies that are facilitative to the industry. Both CAMPFIRE and creation of wildlife conservancies were possible due to an enabling legal and policy environment. 3

Since independence in 1980, Zimbabwe has been implementing a Land Reform programme aimed at addressing historical inequities of land distribution. Manjengwa, (2006), chronicles three phases of the land reform programme. The first phase of the resettlement was from 1980 to 1997. Approximately 71,000 families were resettled on 3,500,000 hectares of land that was acquired. The second phase was from 1998 to June 2000. During this phase, approximately 4,097 families were resettled on 200,000 hectares of acquired land. The third phase of the land reform programme was launched in July 2000. This phase is also referred to as the “Fast Track” land redistribution phase. The ultimate objective of the “Fast Track” phase was to accelerate both land acquisition and land redistribution (Ibid). The change in government policy required the amendment of the Land Acquisition Act. The willing buyer, willing seller approach was replaced by compulsory acquisition. The “Fast Track” phase resulted in the resettling of approximately 134,452 families on 6,300,000 hectares of acquired land. A further 14,286 families informally settled on 416,808 hectares of land (Manjengwa, 2006).1 The “Fast Track” phase had two major impacts on the wildlife sector. Firstly, there was an upsurge in both poaching of animals and land clearance (for construction of houses and crop production) in some of the newly resettled areas. Secondly, the unplanned settlement patterns in the newly resettled areas disrupted wildlife habitats in some of the existing conservancies. Another development that has had an impact on the wildlife sector, especially on privately owned land, is the enactment of the Indigenisation and Economic Empowerment Act. The promulgation of this Act has resulted in much uncertainty among some stakeholders in the wildlife sector. Zimbabwe has an opportunity to support community engagement through legitimate indigenisation, sustain and improve conservation and decrease poverty should it choose to do so. In view of these developments, there is a need to develop new models for indigenous participation, partnerships and profit sharing in the wildlife sector to ensure sustainable conservation and legitimate community engagement. This paper reviews literature on some aspects of the wildlife sector on state protected land, CAMPFIRE areas and conservancies and aims at providing some background information that will inform the development of the new models of partnership for sustaining conservation in Zimbabwe. 2. Legal and Policy Framework There are several Acts of Parliament that govern the conservation and sustainable utilization of the wildlife resources in Zimbabwe. These Acts are supported by various subsidiary pieces of legislation such as Statutory Instruments. Several policies have also been formulated to guide activities in the wildlife sector. The principal Acts governing wildlife conservation and utilization include the Parks and Wildlife Act, Chapter 20:14; the Rural Districts Council Act, Chapter 29:13; and the Indigenisation and Economic Empowerment Act, Chapter 14:33. Some definitions and aspects of these Acts, which are important in the context of this study, will be highlighted together with the Policies. Other Acts that are related to natural resources management include the Environmental Management Act and the Trapping of Animals Act. 2.1 The Parks and Wildlife Act [Chapter 20:14] 1996 This is the pivotal Act with respect to wildlife management in Zimbabwe. The Act includes the following sections: 1. Parks and Wildlife Board 2. Parks and Wildlife Estate and Parks and Wildlife Land 1

These figures are estimates. The actual relocation numbers are difficult to ascertain.


3. National Parks 4. Botanical Reserves and Botanical Gardens 5. Sanctuaries 6. Safari Areas 7. Recreational Parks 8. Specially Protected Animals 9. Specially Protected Indigenous Plants 10. Indigenous plants 11. Hunting, removal, viewing and sale of animal products 12. Protection of animals and Indigenous plants on alienated land 13. Fish Conservation 14. Evidence, prevention and detection of offences and additional penalties and forfeitures 15. Inspectors, Officers, employees and advisory committees 16. General The Act also defines the different types of land (Alienated land): a) “Private Land” means land the ownership of which is vested in any person other than the President. b)

“State Land” means land vested in the President other than Communal Land or trust land vested in the President.


“Trust land” means any land, other than Communal land held in trust by the President or a statutory body or by a person, whether solely or jointly with others, by virtue of his being the holder of some office in a statutory body.

It is also through this Act that various legal entities are granted authority over wildlife outside the Parks Estate. This is defined as “Appropriate Authority” in the Act. These authorities include private land-owners (where the land is held under an agreement of purchase or lease), forest land (such as Forestry Commission estates). For Communal Land, the Rural District Councils (RDC) may be appointed the Appropriate Authority. The Minister of Environment grants this authority, with input from the Zimbabwe Parks and Wildlife Management Authority. If appropriate authority is not granted, the authority remains vested in Central Government. This Appropriate Authority clause in the Act, paved the way for the implementation of the Communal Areas Management Programme for Indigenous Resources (CAMPFIRE). 2.2 Wildlife Based Land Reform Policy The Parks and Wildlife Act is also supported by a Policy for Wildlife, which was developed in 1992 and later revised in 2004 to cater for the Land Reform programme. The revised policy is known as the Wildlife-Based Land Reform Policy. 5

The vision is to ensure profitable, equitable and sustainable use of wildlife resources, particularly in areas where agricultural potential is limited. In the Wildlife-Based Land Reform Policy it states that “the policy has been developed in the context of Zimbabwe’s Land Reform Programme and is underpinned by recognition that wildlife is a viable land-use option, that it can facilitate attainment of equity objectives and that it is feasible. This policy is complemented by existing natural resources legislation and the state protected area system.” The policy also states that the key issues that were taken into consideration were; The state will continue to make provision for wildlife management outside the protected area system, including setting aside certain core zones for wildlife production. In these areas wildlife should be the only permitted primary land use option. Outside core zones, wildlife production, amongst other land use options, will be encouraged. In these areas the most profitable and ecologically sustainable land use option must be allowed to evolve in response to changing economic influences, notwithstanding the need to ensure food security. The scale of wildlife operations must be allowed to vary from intensive to extensive, depending on agro-ecological settings. All beneficiaries of wildlife operations, whether individually or jointly, must equitably share the costs of production. Wildlife Management responsibility and authority must be devolved to the most appropriate level for efficient resource management and production incentives must be maximized for landholders. Security of tenure over resources is key to successful wildlife-based land reform.

These core areas should be identified. The aims of the Wildlife-Based Land Reform Policy are listed as: a) To facilitate the indigenisation of the wildlife sector and to ensure more equitable access by the majority of Zimbabweans to land and wildlife resources and to the business opportunities that stem from these resources. b) To maintain a proportion of land outside state protected areas under wildlife production. c) To enhance diversity of land uses through wildlife production. d) To promote secure and equitable tenure. e) To develop and implement appropriate institutional arrangements for wildlife-based land reform. The policy recognizes that wildlife production can be at different scales (spatial). The scale is dependent on a number of factors that include the type of wildlife, management regime and ecological conditions. Three categories are highlighted in the policy: a) Intensive production systems with captive or semi-captive species such as crocodiles and ostriches (1 – 100 hectares). b) Semi-intensive to semi-extensive production systems with free-ranging “plains game” populations (1,000 to 10,000 hectares). c) Extensive production systems incorporating “big game” populations (over 10,000 hectares). 6

According to the Wildlife Based Land Reform Policy, two approaches to land redistribution will be promoted; 1. A state leasehold approach which is based on the reallocation of leasehold leases. o This approach entails the acquisition of the entire land-holding with compensation for infrastructure, wildlife, etc., o The land will be reallocated to lessees under terms and conditions that will ensure sustainable wildlife management, on-going investment and capacity-building in that area. 2. A corporate equity model that involves transfer of shares within a land-owning company. o The transfer of shares will be in accordance with the Indigenisation goals and sound business principles; o Proposals from stakeholders must outline realistic ways in which new entrants can increase their shareholdings well beyond an initial level, over a reasonable time scale. o The proposals must make provision for immediate allocation of shareholdings to new participants. The Policy document also acknowledges that: a) The two approaches can be applied in combination and shall be considered on a case by case basis; and b) the state may from time to time consider other approaches that meet the objectives of the Wildlife Based Land Reform Policy. A very important recommendation is made in the policy document with respect to the gazetted maximum farm sizes. It is noted that the current maximum farm sizes as defined in Statutory Instrument 288 of 2000, are based on agricultural activities rather than wildlife-based activities. In the Policy, it is recommended that a technical review be undertaken on the issue of maximum farm sizes in order to address the issue of wildlife production. It is not clear whether this recommendation has been acted upon. 2.3 The Rural District Councils Act Chapter [29:13] 2002 The Rural District Councils Act is important in the wildlife sector as it provides for a legal entity (in Communal Lands) responsible for wildlife resources. Since the land in Communal areas is not privately owned by the communities and given that most of the communities do not constitute a legal entity, the Appropriate Authority status is conferred to the Rural District Councils (RDCs). Thus the RDCs act as custodians of the wildlife resources on behalf of the communities. Efforts are now underway in some areas to form Community Development Trusts. There is scope for these Community Development Trusts to be used as vehicles to further devolve authority from the District level to the sub-district level, which will provide more income at a community level and therefore increase conservation support from the community as they will have a true vested interest. This model is used successfully across Africa. The feasibility of granting Appropriate Authority to these Trusts in Zimbabwe needs to be assessed and piloted. The major challenge with these Trusts is that of financial sustainability as they do not have adequate funds to cater for their activities. Capacity-building of all Trust members is also a key requirement to ensure institutional sustainability. In the Rural District Councils Act, there are three key terms that will be described further: Ward, Ward Development Committee and Communal Land.


According to the Act, a “Ward” (an administrative unit) means a ward into which a council area is divided or re-divided. Several villages make up a ward. In the Act, a “Ward Development Committee” means a village development committee established in terms of Section fifty eight of the Act. A Ward Committee is made up of members who are elected from the community to represent the community in discussions/meetings with the Rural District Council. The Act further defines three different types of Wards. These are, Commercial Ward, Communal Ward and Resettlement Ward. The Commercial Ward is a large-scale commercial ward or a small-scale commercial ward. A Communal Ward is a ward consisting wholly or mainly of Communal Land. A Resettlement Ward is a ward consisting wholly or mainly of Communal Land (as in the case of the Communal Ward). It is important to establish whether in practice, the RDCs make this distinction of the wards or whether they are all considered simply just as wards. The “Communal Land” is defined a: a) any land that is Communal Land in terms of the Communal Land Act [Chapter 20:04]; and b) any other land that was within the area of a district council on the 19th August 1988. 2.4 The Indigenisation and Economic Empowerment Act [Chapter 14:33] 2007 This is a more recent Act in comparison to the Acts discussed prior. The general objective of this Act is: “To ensure that at least fifty-one per centum of the shares of every public company and any other business shall be owned by indigenous Zimbabweans.” It should be noted that the Act also provides a temporary waiver of this general objective. The waiver (of the 51% requirement) is that “...may prescribe a lesser share than fifty-one per centum or a lesser interest than a controlling interest may be acquired by indigenous Zimbabweans in any business referred to in subsections 1(b)(iii), 1(c)(1), 1(d) and (e) in order to achieve compliance with those provisions, but in so doing he or she shall prescribe the general maximum time frame within which the fifty-one per centum share or the controlling interest shall be attained.” The Act also provides for the establishment of a Board and a Trust, described in more detail later. Some key definitions in the Act need to be included in this report in the context of this study. “Indigenisation” means a deliberate involvement of indigenous Zimbabweans in the economic activities of the country, to which hitherto they had no access, so as to ensure the equitable ownership of the nation’s resources. “Indigenous Zimbabwean” means any person who, before 18th April 1980, was disadvantaged by unfair discrimination on the grounds of his/her race and any descendant of such person, and includes any company, association, syndicate or partnership of which indigenous Zimbabweans form the majority of members or hold the controlling interest. “Employee share ownership scheme or trust” means an arrangement the dominant purpose or effect of which is to enable employees of a company or group of companies to participate in or receive profits or income arising from the acquisition, holding, management or disposal of the stock, shares or debentures of the company or group of companies concerned provided that a management share ownership scheme or trust shall not include a share option scheme operated for the benefit of any managerial employee . The text in italics was inserted in the Indigenisation and Economic Empowerment (General) (Amendment) Regulations, 2010 (No. 2). Under the Act, there is an Indigenisation and Economic Empowerment Board (IEEB). The Chief Executive Officer of the Board is ex officio and other Board members (not less than eleven and not more than fifteen members) are appointed by the Minister of Youth Development, Indigenisation and Empowerment after consultation with the President.


The functions of the Board are; a) To advise the Minister on the Government’s indigenisation and economic empowerment strategies. b) To advise the Minister on appropriate measures for the implementation of the objectives of this Act. c) To administer the Fund in terms of this Act (i.e. the Indigenisation and Economic Empowerment Fund). d) To oversee compliance with the Charter. e) To perform such other functions as may be conferred upon the Board under this Act or any other enactment. According to the Act the Board is supposed to submit to the Minister an annual report upon matters the Board has dealt with during the previous year. The Minister, will in turn submit the report to Parliament. Provision is made in the Act for the establishment of a Fund known as the National Indigenisation and Economic Empowerment Fund. The five objectives of this Fund are: a)

To provide financial assistance to indigenous Zimbabweans for any of the following purposes: i.

the financing of share acquisitions;


the warehousing of shares under employee share ownership schemes or trusts; and


management buy-ins or buy-outs.

b) To provide finance for business start-ups, rehabilitation and expansion. c) To finance market research in connection with the objectives of the Act. d) To finance capacity-building projects on behalf of indigenous Zimbabweans. e)

Any other purpose which the Minister considers will promote the economic empowerment of indigenous Zimbabweans.

The availability of adequate funding is very important if the Board is to fulfil its mandate. The Act further states that the assets and liabilities of the National Investment Trust of Zimbabwe were transferred to a special account of the National Indigenisation and Economic Empowerment Fund called the “Unit Trust Account.” The main subsidiary legislation to this Act is Statutory Instrument 21 of 2010; Indigenisation and Economic Empowerment (General) Regulations, 2010. The regulations stipulate that businesses with an asset value of or above five hundred thousand United States dollars (US$500,000) need to comply with the requirements of these regulations. The regulations also provide details on the extent to which procured goods and services (by non-indigenous companies or businesses) are to be subcontracted to indigenous Zimbabweans. The regulations also provide details on how an employee share ownership scheme or trust that complies with Section 14 of these regulations may be taken into consideration when assessing the extent to which a business that is a company has achieved or exceeded the minimum indigenisation and empowerment quota (i.e. 51%). Countries throughout Africa have worked to achieve more indigenous ownership. The African Wildlife Foundation has experience in helping communities acquire equity in various enterprises and would be pleased to share lessons learned and models with the Zimbabwe Park and Wildlife Management Authority. 9

3. The Parks Estate The bulk of Zimbabwe’s wildlife occurs within the Parks Estate, which is made up of different categories; National Parks, Safari Areas, Botanical Reserves and Botanical Gardens, Sanctuaries and Recreational Parks (Parks and Wildlife Act, 1996). The Tables below provide details of these different categories. Table 1.1 Details of National Parks (Source: Parks and Wildlife Act, 1996) Type of Land 1 Parks and Wildlife 2 Parks and Wildlife 3 Parks and Wildlife 4 Parks and Wildlife 5 Parks and Wildlife 6 Parks and Wildlife 7 Parks and Wildlife 8 Parks and Wildlife 9 Parks and Wildlife 10 Parks and Wildlife 11 Rhodes Estates 12 Rhodes Estates

Name of Park Chizarira Gonarezhou Matusadonha Chimanimani Mana Pools Kazuma Pan Hwange Victoria Falls “A” Victoria Falls “B” Zambezi Rhodes Nyanga Rhodes Matopos

District Binga Chiredzi Nyaminyami Chimanimani Hurungwe Hwange Hwange Hwange Hwange Hwange Nyanga Matobo

Area (hectares) 191,000 505,000 140,700 17,110 219,600 31,300 1,465,100 1,904 436 56,010 47,150 42,400

Total Area of National Parks: 2,717,710 hectares.

Table 1.2: Details of Botanical Gardens and Botanical Reserves (Source: Parks and Wildlife Act, 1996) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

Type of Land Parks and Wildlife Parks and Wildlife Parks and Wildlife Parks and Wildlife Parks and Wildlife Parks and Wildlife Parks and Wildlife Parks and Wildlife Parks and Wildlife Parks and Wildlife Parks and Wildlife Parks and Wildlife Parks and Wildlife Parks and Wildlife Parks and Wildlife Parks and Wildlife Trust Land

Name Pioneer Reserve Tolo River Reserve South Camp Reserve Chisekera Hot Springs Mawari Raphia Palm Tingwa Raphia Pan Haroni Forest Rusitu Forest Sebakwe Acacia Karoo Sebakwe Great Dyke Sebakwe Mountain Acacia Mazowe “A” Mazowe “B” Bunga Forest National Botanic Garden Vumba Botanic Garden Ewanrigg Botanic Garden

District Beitbridge Beitbridge Beitbridge Chiredzi Mt. Darwin Mt. Darwin Chimanimani Chimanimani Kwekwe Kwekwe Kwekwe Harare Harare Mutare Harare Mutare Goromonzi

Area (hectares) 38 44 26 95 34 290 20 150 60 165 53 43 3 495 67 200 286

Total Area of Botanical Gardens and Botanical Reserves: 2,069 hectares


Table 1.3 Details of Sanctuaries and Safari Areas (Source: Parks and Wildlife Act, 1996) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

Type of Area Sanctuary Sanctuary Sanctuary Sanctuary Sanctuary Sanctuary Safari Area Safari Area Safari Area Safari Area Safari Area Safari Area Safari Area Safari Area Safari Area Safari Area Safari Area Safari Area Safari Area Safari Area Safari Area

Name Maninii Pan Melsetter Eland Mbaze Pan Nyamanyetsi (Nyamanechi) Mushandike Rhodes - Bulawayo Tuli Chete Chipinga (Chipinge) Malapati (Malipati) Chinsa Hartley (Chegutu) Charara Hurungwe Doma Umfurudzi Dande Chelvore (Chewore) Sapi Deka Matetsi

District Chiredzi Chimanimani Nkayi Guruve Masvingo Matobo Beitbridge and Gwanda Binga Chipinge Chiredzi Gokwe Chegutu Kariba and Hurungwe Hurungwe Makonde Shamva Guruve Hurungwe Hurungwe Hwange Hwange

Area (ha) 300 1,800 40 2,840 12,900 1,100 41,600 108,100 26,100 15,400 171,300 44,500 169,200 289,400 94,500 76,000 52,300 339,000 118,000 51,000 295,500

Total Area of Sanctuaries and Safari Areas: 1,910,880 hectares.

Table 1.4 Details of Recreational Parks (Source: Parks and Wildlife Act, 1996) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Type of Land Parks and Wildlife Parks and Wildlife Parks and Wildlife Parks and Wildlife Parks and Wildlife Parks and Wildlife Parks and Wildlife Parks and Wildlife Parks and Wildlife Parks and Wildlife Parks and Wildlife Parks and Wildlife Parks and Wildlife Parks and Wildlife Rhodes Estates

Name Chibwatata Kavira Lake Kariba Ngezi Umfuli (Mfurudzi) Lake Robertson (Manyame Lake) Lake Cunningham Chinhoyi Caves Manjirenji Bangala Sebakwe Robert McIlwaine (Chivero) Umzingwane Kyle (Mutirikwi) Lake Matopos

District Binga Binga Binga, Nyaminyami and Hwange Kadoma Chegutu Chegutu, Makonde and Harare Insiza Makonde Zaka Zaka and Masvingo Kwekwe Harare Umzingwane Masvingo Matobo

Area (ha) 6 50 287,200 5,800 12,700 11,200 4,172 120 3,400 2,700 2,600 6,180 1,233 16,900 2,900

Note: List excludes recent additions such as Osborne Dam. Total Area of Recreational Parks: 357,161 hectares. The Transfrontier Conservation Areas (TFCAs) are not listed in the Act as they were established after the Act had been passed. A clause referring to these TFCAs will need to be included in future revisions of the Act. 11

There are two established TFCAs, the Great Limpopo Transfrontier Park (GLTP) which includes Gonarezhou National Park, and the Limpopo/Shashe TFCA. Other TFCAs that are at various stages of development are the Kavango-Zambezi (KAZA), Lower Zambezi-Mana Pools, Zimbabwe-Mozambique-Zambia (ZiMoZa) and Chimanimani. Integrated Development Plans for these proposed TFCAs have been developed. 3.1 Resource Monitoring Various methods are being used to monitor natural resources. These include Ranger (Scout) reports and species-specific surveys such as aerial surveys of large mammals. During 2010, a large mammal census covering the Lower Zambezi Valley was carried out. This survey was conducted by Parks staff in conjunction with the CITES, MIKE office. The data from this survey will be compared with results from the 2005 survey. An aerial survey of elephants and other large herbivores was carried out in the Mid-Zambezi Valley (Chimuti, 2005). The total area that was surveyed was 17,127 km2. This area included Mana Pools National Park, Hurungwe, Sapi, Dande, Doma, Charara and Chewore Safari Areas. The survey also covered those parts of the Communal Lands in Guruve, Hurungwe and Centenary Districts, which have resident elephant populations. The estimates, including 95% Confidence Interval (CI) were: elephants 30,209 (19.8% CI); buffalo 29,679 (CI 52.5%); impala 11,391 (CI 18.8%); kudu 2,631 (CI 19.6%); zebra 1,766 (CI 38.3%); warthog 1,593 (CI 33.9%); waterbuck 2,898 (CI 23.6%); sable 2,539 (CI 98.7%); eland 172 (CI 76.5); and hippo 4,751 (CI 26.6). Domestic livestock in the communal lands were also counted. The estimates were cattle 19.814 (CI 12.7), sheep and goats 17,579 (CI 20%). In 2009, an aerial survey of elephants and other large herbivores was conducted in Gonarezhou National Park, Malapati (Malipati) Safari Area and adjacent communal lands (Dunham et al., 2010). This survey was undertaken jointly by the Zimbabwe Parks and Wildlife Management Authority, the TFCA Coordination Unit in Mozambique and the Frankfurt Zoological Association. The area covered in Zimbabwe was 7,112 km2. The estimated population numbers of the principal large herbivores in Gonarezhou were: elephant 9,123 (upper and lower 95% confidence limits -20.8%); impala 6,005 (37.4%); buffalo 2,274 (88.2%); kudu 2,285 (29.7); zebra 1,385 (30.3%); wildebeest 364 (81.8); giraffe 251 (61.6); eland 317 (120.2%); nyala 370 (50.8%); and waterbuck 360 (85.5%). In the report, it was noted that the 2009 estimate of the number of elephants in Gonarezhou National Park was the highest estimate of the elephant population in this park since surveys started in 1975. In the Northern part of Gonarezhou National Park, there were approximately 603 huts (50.3%) built by people illegally residing there. Another important point that was recorded is that the 2009 survey was seventh aerial survey since the severe drought of 1992. Results of a trend analysis showed that since the drought, there had been a significant increase in the estimated numbers of all elephants, elephants in cow herds, buffalo, eland, kudu, waterbuck and zebra. These observations have significant animal management implications in that in the future, animals from this area could be translocated to those areas where animal numbers are low. In 2009, it was estimated that there were about 425 black rhino and 300 white rhino country-wide on both state land and private land. It was also estimated that 80% of the black rhino and 55% of the white rhino are on private land. Chipangali Wildlife Sanctuary lost all its rhinos due to poaching. Bubiana Conservancy had all its rhino translocated for security reasons. In 2009, there were 33 black rhino mortalities, 81% (27 animals) died due to poaching and the remainder died due to factors such as fighting, starvation of orphaned calves, injuries and other unknown causes. During the same year, there


were 13 white rhino mortalities, 69% (9) of which were due to poaching. The poaching of rhino escalated in 2010 and 2011 though the actual numbers are yet to be confirmed. 3.2 Fire management and Road Maintenance Veld fires are a persistent problem in the Parks estate. There is need to improve the conditions of service for temporary employees engaged to carry out fire management in order to ensure that planned fire management targets are achieved. In 2010, the planned target for fireguards was 11,173 kilometres. Only about 50% of the target was achieved. The planned target for early burning in 2010 was 604 km2. Only 50% of this was achieved. During 2010, unplanned fires burnt an area of 986km2, which was about 2% of the Parks Estate area. The 2010 targets for road maintenance were not achieved due to various factors including the frequent break-down of equipment. 3.3 Invasive Plant Species Invasive plant species are creating problems in some areas of the Parks Estate. The main areas that are affected are Nyanga National Park, Zambezi National Park and Victoria Falls Rain-Forest. The wattle (Acacia mearsii) is the main problem in Nyanga National Park, while Lantana camara is the major problem in both Zambezi National Park and Victoria Falls Rain–Forest. Plans are underway to clear the wattle in Nyanga National Park; however, this requires substantial capacity and routine monitoring. 3.4 Research Activities Table 2 below is a summary/inventory of some of the research activities and their status. Table 2: Summary of research activities (as of 31 December, 2010); not a comprehensive list OBJECTIVE



To assess private wildlife breeding properties in Zimbabwe Assessment of Habitat suitability on private farms for recommendations to permits office.

To assess management and status of the farms.

Periodic assessments of farms ongoing -Carried out a feasibility of Longville Farm in Gwanda Zebra restocking -Carried out assessment of the crocodile structures in the low veld -Carried out a feasibility of Barwick9 Farm in Shamva for wildlife restocking -Carried out assessment of the crocodile structures in the Lowveld

To set sport hunting quotas

Hold 2011 participatory sport hunting quota-setting workshops will be held in Bindura, Chinhoyi, Kadoma, Kwekwe, Triangle, Mwenezi, Matopos and Hwange

- Quota Setting workshops done

2010 Large Mammal Aerial Survey in Zambezi Valley

Survey successfully undertaken

- Training and purchase of topographical maps done in May/December 2010 -Training on Large Mammal Aerial Survey design done -Topographical maps for use produced -Data analysis and project report write up in progress

To assess habitat suitability before issuing of Capture and Translocation and Live Sales Permits





Launch of Human-Wildlife Conflict Management project

Presented position paper on human-wildlife conflict in Zimbabwe

-Meetings, seminars attended in Harare and Masvingo in July 2010 - Presentation made on 10th December 2010 in Harare

To analyse sport hunting in the country

Analyse TR2 hunting returns Analyse Experimental hunting in Zimbabwe (bow hunting, use of haunts, and use of hand guns)

-Compiling data and analysing it. -Compiling data (2000 to Date) on the experiments hunts. Analyse the data and produce a report on the findings.

World Heritage Properties (UNESCO) - Online questionnaires - SOUV reports

Updating properties’ information

-Statements of Outstanding Universal Values produced and forwarded to UNESCO for evaluation. -Online questionnaires for the periodic reporting compiled for the 5 properties in Zimbabwe.

Joint States Conservation report

Produced for Victoria Falls/Mosi-oa-Tunya World Heritage Property

-The report was produced and forwarded to UNESCO in February 2010 – NATCOM – Zimbabwe for submission to UNESCO World Heritage Centre.



CITES MIKE Database Data Analysis

-Database updated. -Data analysis in progress. -Training of trainers on Large Mammals Aerial Surveys.

CAMPFIRE/PARKS Evaluation programme

58 RDCs under CAMPFIRE programme

-Proposal to evaluate CAMPFIRE programme produced and forwarded to Directorate for approval

Inspection of bird breeder’s sites

- Site visits and inspections

-Carried out survey of Cranes in Shagashe, Mvuma Area. -Bird Survey Permit issued to Birdlife of Zimbabwe on 2nd of December 2010 -Carried out assessment of Avian Influenza spread in Ducks and other Water Birds in the Sinamatella Area.

Avian Influenza

- Detections

Fish Stock Assessment

Conduct Fish Stock Assessments so as to have sound information on fish culture feasibility studies

-Assessment in the MIMMOSA dam (Harare) done and field report produced.

Gonarezhou National Park

- Desk study being finalized

-Final report an advanced stage.

Hyena Research Determination of the spotted hyena density and foraging behaviour

To estimate home range, density and interactions with lion

On- going in Hwange NP.

PhD Projects being undertaken by research staff/ecologists I. H. Tendaupenyu: Effects of climate change on food chain in Lake Kariba (UZ) E. Gandiwa (Wageningen University The Netherlands) - Interface between wildlife and domestic livestock in the south east Lowveld of Zimbabwe

Theoretical studies started in November 2008 Theoretical studies finalized November 2008

Field Data collection in progress Field Data collection in progress in Gonarezhou National Park.





Elephant Research Impact of elephant on vegetation in Hwange National Park

Monitor woodland tree canopy cover in relation to elephant population densities

Replicated vegetation enclosure experiments.

Duiker research Influence of duiker on habitats in Matopos National Park

To establish the impacts of duikers on habitats

Research permit issued and research commenced.

CAMPFIRE Wildlife Management and Management Oriented Monitoring techniques (MOMS) Implementation (Ongoing)



Presentation of the Problem Animal Control Toolbox by CIRAD to Mbire RDC Assessed CAMPFIRE Projects in Mazowe, Bindura, Shamva RDCs

- Advised Chief Executive Officers on hunting contracts administration. - Local Communities trained on the application of MOMS Techniques.

3.5 Infrastructure and Equipment A lot of infrastructure and equipment in the Parks Estate is now either obsolete or very costly to maintain. It is therefore important that a replacement/upgrading plan be developed and implemented that ensures not just replacement and upgrading, but the long-term sustainability of the infrastructure. Investment in infrastructure and equipment, plus a management and sustainability plan, plays a critical role in increasing revenue flows to the ZPWMA. Buildings The buildings that require the most attention are staff houses. In some areas, the staff accommodation is inadequate and therefore additional units need to be constructed. In other areas, the houses are very old and therefore require either extensive rehabilitation or replacement. Some stations also need to have their offices refurbished/upgraded. Other buildings that require attention are some of the lodges and chalets. Some of the lodges and chalets are very old and are therefore failing to be as competitive as those on private land adjacent to the Parks Estate. Consequently, some lodges and chalets will need to be rehabilitated to bring them to the same standard as those operated by private landowners and the management of these should be assessed. Vehicles Many vehicles are now off the road due to old age. Replacement vehicles will need to be purchased to strengthen the transport situation, especially in the field stations. Table 3 is a summary of the number of vehicles that are off the road (i.e. non-runners). Table 3: Vehicles that are currently off the road in the Parks Estate (2010) Region Northern Southern Western Central Total 26 38 9 No. of non-runners 36 109 Boats In all regions the water transport (boats) needs to be enhanced either through the repair of available engines or the purchase of new boats and engines. Table 4 shows the estimated costs for rehabilitating water transport in each region. 15

Table 4: Estimated costs for strengthening water transport (2010) Region Northern Southern Western Central Total 37,200 86,400 40,500 182,400 Estimated costs (US$) 18,300 Office equipment A number of Park stations are still using old computers and printers. These need to be replaced. Other office equipment that needs to be bought includes fax machines and photocopiers. Some stations do not yet have e-mail/internet facilities. Where this is feasible (especially where there is electricity), these facilities need to be installed. Efficient communication can contribute significantly to increased revenue generation. Decisions that require approval by senior management can be acted upon quickly. Lighting plants and water pumps Some stations require the rehabilitation/replacement of their lighting plants. Some water pumps also need to be replaced in other stations. 3.6 Human Resources The current staff complement in most stations is less than what the Park managers feel is the optimal level. This aspect is illustrated by data from the Northern Region which shows that the total number of staff in Manyame (Darwendale), Charara, Dande, Chewore, Mana Pools, Hurungwe and Sapi was 298. A total of 165 additional staff members are required. Training is required in law-enforcement, weaponry, tracking, radio procedures, leadership development, basic first aid, computing, finance for non-financial managers, basic accounting, legislation, field data collection, coxswain training, defensive driving, basic GIS, and public relations/customer care.


3.7 Revenue There are various revenue sources in the Parks and Wildlife Estate. Table 5 shows the total actual revenue received in 2010 compared to the planned (projected) budget. Table 5: Actual Revenue and planned budget for 2010 Revenue Source Entry fees Annual Registration fee Accommodation fees Special Permits Services and facilities Law Enforcement Hunting income Other revenue Fishing Permits River Usage Licence and permits Lease and rentals Park Product sales Examinations Grants and donations Total Revenue

2010 Actual USD 2010 projection USD Variance (USD) Variance (%) 4,237,274 4,307,435 (70,161) (2) 634,640 857,878 (223,238) (26) 1,306,870 2,155,949 (849,079) (39) 31,187 126,934 (95,747) (75) 56,842 60,000 (3,158) (5) 205,988 175,796 30,192 17 5,073,647 5,471,353 (397,706) (7) 330,621 545,340 (214,719) (39) 805,121 1,239,401 (434,280) (35) 824,041 1,224,557 (400,516) (33) 419,945 509,909 (89,964) (18) 1,133,839 861,346 272,493 32 775,500 595,728 179,772 30 46,564 30,975 15,589 50 61,043 144,000 (82,957) (58) 15,943,122 18,306,601 (2,363,479) (13)

The actual income was less than the projected income (variance of 13%). Table 6 shows the percentage contribution of each revenue source item to the total annual income for 2010. Table 6: Percentage contribution of each revenue source to the 2010 annual income Revenue Source Hunting income Entry fees Accommodation fees Lease and rentals River Usage Fishing Permits Park Product sales Annual Registration fee Licence and permits Other revenue Law Enforcement Grants and donations Services and facilities Examinations Special Permits Total Revenue

2010 Income % of income 5,073,647 31.8 4,237,274 26.6 1,306,870 8.2 1,133,839 7.1 824,041 5.2 805,121 5.0 775,500 4.9 634,640 4.0 419,945 2.6 330,621 2.1 205,988 1.3 61,043 0.4 56,842 0.4 46,564 0.3 31,187 0.2 15,943,122 100.0


From Table 6, hunting (consumptive utilization) was the largest revenue source, contributing 31%, followed by entry fees (non-consumptive utilization) which contributed 26%. Table 7 summarizes the major categories of leases as at January 2010. Table 7: Summary of categories of leases as at January 2010 Category of Lease Number of leases Non-consumptive leases 106 Consumptive (Hunting) Leases in Safari Areas 22 Fisheries and others 24 Joint Ventures between Parks and private companies 6 Jetty sites 9 Conservancies 2 Total 169 These leases and rentals have the potential to significantly increase revenue flows. The potential income from leases and rentals, based on the approved fees schedule for 2010, could have easily surpassed US$1,699,000. However, only US$1,133,839 was realized. Thus the non-payment leakage in income could have been as high as US$565,000. Some lease fees appear not to have been reviewed for a long time and these will also require special attention. A number of the hunting leases are due to expire at the end of 2011; thus, the review of leases should include coming up with the best option that will maximize revenue inflows. It is imperative that a thorough assessment of the status of lease and rental agreements be conducted. This assessment should cover aspects such as outstanding payments as well as reviewing the actual lease and rental fees based on prevailing market conditions. The review would need to be done on a case by case basis hence a lot of effort will be required for this exercise. The study could also come up with guidelines for the management of lease agreements and there are examples from other African countries that would be of use. The objective of these guidelines would be to minimize leakages as well as improve the rate at which leases are reviewed, having been informed by market trends. The 2010 total expenditure was US$ 16,184,880; thus, there was an operating deficit of US$241,759. Minimizing leakages in the lease and rental fees could easily offset such a deficit. There is potential to increase the revenue flows from non-consumptive activities such as lodges and chalets if these facilities are properly rehabilitated and potentially managed by private investors. The occupancy rates can be increased significantly if this infrastructure rehabilitation exercise is carried out. Simultaneously however a major marketing campaign must be done by the country to increase interest in Zimbabwe’s Parks. Visitor numbers to Zimbabwe are very low. In Gonarezhou National Park, in 2010, there were 853 vehicles that entered the Park and a total of 1820 visitors to the Park. The current international image of Zimbabwe is not positive for tourism. Investment also has to be made in training all relevant staff in skills such as customer care. The lodges and chalets have to be competitive and ZWPMA should consider various management options, such as leasing to private investors. 4. CAMPFIRE The Parks and Wildlife Act of 1975 allowed commercial farmers and ranchers to have proprietorship of wildlife resources on their land. However, no such provisions existed for wildlife in Communal Lands; thus, in 1982, the Act was amended to allow the communal farmers to also have proprietorship over the wildlife just like the commercial farmers and ranchers. This amendment paved the way for the implementation of CAMPFIRE. However, because the communal farmers did not constitute a legal entity, the Rural District Councils were then tasked with being the legal 18

entity that would represent the Communal farmers; thus, the Rural District Councils would act on behalf of the communities on matters relating to wildlife utilization on Communal Land. The principles of revenue distribution (from wildlife utilization) were then established. The then Minister of Environment and Tourism requested that 80% of monies be spent by the community in whose area an animal was shot (Child, 1995). The choice of how to spend the money from wildlife was to be made by the community, and one of these choices was the right to retain cash for household needs. Another requirement was that the process of revenue distribution be transparent. The revenue distribution principles were described by Child, (1995). There are three types of expenditure: contribution to council (tax), Council CAMPFIRE Management; and community revenue. 1. Contribution to Council (tax) The purpose of this tax was to finance general RDC administration. The rule is that it should not exceed 5% of wildlife revenues. The rationale was that there should be no discriminatory taxation of wildlife. This minor resource was not expected to fund district development when much bigger resources such as cattle and crops did not contribute. 2. Council CAMPFIRE management The purpose of this fee was for the direct management of CAMPFIRE and wildlife. The rule is that it should not exceed 15% of wildlife revenues. This money was to be kept in a separate account with no transfers to other accounts except the 5% Council tax. The rationale was that these funds should be adequate to cover central functions, and all other management activities are to be devolved to communities. 3. Community revenue The purpose of these funds is to provide for community and household benefits, as well as to cover wildlife management at community level. The rule was that these revenues can be used for any purpose decided by the community (including cash). This decision must be made in a transparent manner by the whole community. The rationale was that these monies should be treated in the same manner as income from crops but belongs to a community rather than an individual. Responsible communities will reinvest some of this into wildlife management. With regard to cash dividends to households, the RDC’s responsibility ends with a signed payment list. For community projects, activities and bank accounts, the Council should ensure that minutes are kept and that implementation is subject to a written agreement between the community and the implementer (committee, individual, Council or other). The agreement should include budgets, tasks, completion dates, penalty clauses and reporting procedures. While not accountable financially, the Council is responsible for ensuring that these procedures are followed and should assist in implementing them, for example by training finance committees, facilitating bank accounts, auditing and reporting back to communities. According to Maveneke, the major objectives of CAMPFIRE were: 1) To obtain voluntary participation of communities in a flexible programme which offers long-term solutions to problems of resources, 2) to introduce a system of group ownership with defined rights of access to natural resources for communities residing in the target areas,


3) to provide the institutions needed by resident communities to manage and exploit resources legitimately for their own direct benefit; and 4) To provide technical and financial assistance to communities, which join the programme to enable them to realize these objectives. The CAMPFIRE mechanisms were described by Frost and Bond (2006). Communities using land under communal tenure have been granted authority through their RDCs to market wildlife in their area to safari operators. These in turn sell the hunting or photographic safari opportunities to, mostly, foreign sport hunters or tourists. The revenue and other benefits are received by the RDCs on behalf of the communities and are generally paid out according to the revenue distribution principles outlined earlier, although there are frequent delays and occasional underpayments. Although many RDCs have appropriate authority to market wildlife, only a few generate revenue regularly. Some examples of benefits that accrued to local communities were given by Maveneke and are shown in Table 8. Table 8: Some examples of benefits that accrued to local communities (Modified from Maveneke) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

District Muzarabani Chipinge (Mahenye) Hurungwe Tsholotsho Beitbridge (Chikwarakwara) Rushinga Guruve (Kanyurira) Tsholotsho Guruve (Kanyurira) Binga Guruve (Chapoto) Guruve (Chisunga) Guruve (Kanyurira) Mudzi Hurungwe Guruve Hwange (Chief Nekatambe) Hwange (Chief Nelukoba)

Year 1992 1992 1992 1993 1990 1990 1990 1992 1992 1993 1993 1993 1991 1993 1993 1993 2009 2011

Amount (Zw) 50,000 180,000 464,427 1,174,181 85,000 19,183 47,000 84,113 141,839 1,402,080 92,600 199,553 56,000 19,189 906,994 450,000

Amount (US$) 7,331 26,393 68,098 172,167 26,730 6,032 14,780 12,333 20,798 205,584 13,578 29,260 17,610 2,814 132,990 65,982 2,000 10,000

Use Drought relief Household dividends Household dividends Household dividends and community projects Community grinding mill and classroom block Community projects Household dividends Water engine and its accessories Community clinic Household dividends and community projects Household dividends Household dividends Household dividends Household dividends Household dividends and community projects Household dividends and community projects Construction of toilets at local school Electrification of Mabale Clinic

Note: In 2009 and 2011, the US dollar is the base currency and Zimbabwe dollar not in use.

According to Bond (1999), the financial benefits devolved from the district to the sub-district, provide the incentives for institutional change. Between 1989 and 1993, more than Zw$ 20,000,000 was earned by 12 RDCs with appropriate authority for wildlife. Of this amount, more than Zw$ 11,000,0002 was devolved to sub-district level. Sport hunting constituted more than 91% of this revenue as shown in Table 9.


This is approximately 55%; significantly less than the 80% stipulated in the policy.


Table 9: Percentage Analysis of District income by activity (1989-1993 revenue) Activity Hunting Tourism Cropping (PAC) Hides and Ivory (PAC) Other Total 91.8 1.4 0.8 1.6 4.4 100 % Note: The total amount was approximately equal to US$ 4,428,952

Although at its inception CAMPFIRE was to focus on four major natural resources (i.e. wildlife, woodlands, water and grazing), at implementation, wildlife became dominant due to its much higher realisable value compared to other resources (Frost and Bond, 2006). Bond (1999) concluded that in absolute and relative terms the incentives for institutional change were low. The median benefit per household declined from Zw$ 41.67 (approximately US$6.11) in 1989 to Zw$ 39.44 (approximately US$5.78) in 1993. Not all the beneficiaries of the CAMPFIRE dividends were from producer wards. Some RDCs adopted the principle of distributing the benefits to all the wards irrespective of whether they had contributed to revenue generation. This approach has the potential to create tension between the producer wards and the non-producer wards. The low household benefits, coupled with the principle of distributing to non-producer wards may be contributing to the disenchantment that is now occurring in some communities who are part of the CAMPFIRE programme. There were variations in utilisation arrangements among the local authorities. Some Districts auctioned concession areas to safari companies, which paid an annual concession fee and a trophy fee for each animal shot. This resulted in competition among safari operators. The longer term concessions attracted higher bids. Some communities entered into joint venture partnerships with safari operators and the net profits would be shared based on prior agreements. Other Districts, especially those with limited wildlife, established locally controlled enterprises. These hired their own professional hunter to support clients, or they set up camp sites and eco-tourism facilities (Frost and Bond, 2006). Through the adoption of an open competitive bidding process for tenders for concession areas, the RDCs were able to significantly increase their revenue as illustrated in Table 10. In addition, tendering also may help to provide a more transparent process by which people are selected in a public process because of their skills and experiences as opposed to ‘who they know.’ Table 10: Pre-and post-tender prices for hunting concession areas in 3 districts participating in CAMPFIRE. (Adapted from Frost and Bond, 2006) District Pre-tender price (Zw$) Post-tender price (Zw$) % increase Tsholotsho 108,000 (9,000) 280,000 (23,300) 159 Hurungwe 172,000 (14,300) 654,000 (54,500) 280 Chipinge 70,000 (5,800) 300,000 (25,000) 329 Note: 1. The pre-tender price refers to the annual value of the lease in the year immediately before it was tendered through an open market system 2. Figures in brackets are US dollar equivalent values (approximate) using the exchange rate as at January, 1997 (1US$ equivalent to Zw$ 12)


The introduction of CAMPFIRE resulted in a reduction of poaching incidences. The communities had a greater appreciation of the wildlife resources because they felt they had a stake in conservation and they benefited from capacity building initiatives. Maveneke noted that community members were trained at village, ward and district levels. Those who were trained included community workers, monitors, problem animal reporters, guards, wildlife scouts and professional hunters. The local people elect those who go for the training and they determine their responsibilities. The locals also receive management training in aspects such as basic book-keeping (income and expenditure relationships), project planning and implementation, as well as monitoring and evaluation. The CAMPFIRE programme has worked with several partners that had different responsibilities. These partners were all members of the CAMPFIRE Collaborative Group (CCG). Zimbabwe Trust (ZIMTRUST) carried out capacity-building programmes. The Centre for Applied Social Sciences (CASS) at the University of Zimbabwe used to carry out baseline social surveys and training for monitoring. The World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) carried out ecological surveys. Africa Resources Trust (ART) focused on international linkages, while Action Magazine was involved in environmental curriculum development. The Ministry of Local Government provided basic policy guidelines on rural development through the RDCs. Currently, some of these organizations have wound up operations. These include ZIMTRUST and Africa Resources Trust. WWF is no longer carrying out the ecological surveys. It is important to review the current performance of CAMPFIRE in view of these recent developments. A review exercise was initiated, albeit delayed, by the ZPWMA. The review should come up with recommendations on how to improve CAMPFIRE. Maveneke, (1998) highlighted nine lessons learnt regarding the CAMPFIRE programme. a) For successful locally-based natural resources management, there is a need to establish differential benefits; those who meet costs of living with natural resources must benefit. b) Adaptive management and social learning are important in community participation. The facilitators and communities learn from each other. Patience is the key to the delivery of inputs. Blueprint approaches are giving way to process planning. c) Multi-agency/multi-disciplinary approaches work better for environmental issues. Ecological sciences, social sciences and local knowledge can be applied together for resource management. The public and private sectors can work hand in hand in conservation. d) Indigenous knowledge systems are key in mobilising rural people in environmental management. One must start from what the people know and what they appreciate. There is accumulated wisdom among the people. e) Locals must decide on resource use-options. f) There is need to broaden the natural resources for sustainable use. These include wildlife, forestry, eco-tourism and cultural resources. This is what CAMPFIRE has aimed to do; not withstanding that in practice, wildlife utilisation has emerged as the primary revenue source. g) The policy environment must facilitate the devolution of responsibilities to local people. The granting of appropriate authority is the first step and there is need for greater advocacy for more devolution. h) International influence impacts significantly on key species such as elephants. International perceptions that are steeped in “conservation” ecology as opposed to ecologically sustainable 22

utilization have a negative impact on community-based resource use programmes such as CAMPFIRE. i)

CAMPFIRE is not a blueprint; only its principles are valid. The primary principle is the facilitation of local decision making in the utilisation of natural resources. The incentives have to be focused on the local people to ensure that the communities continue to be committed to the programme.

One option of broadening the revenue sources is to assess the feasibility of developing new products (e.g. non-timber forestry products). Lessons can be gleaned from communities across Africa. Frost and Bond (2006) identified three major challenges with respect to the CAMPFIRE programme. a) The actual wildlife areas in the communal lands are not clearly demarcated, and as management units, they lack particular economic or ecological rationales. Ideally, such units should be contained within the jurisdiction of a recognized community group, and sufficiently discrete to allow for direct interaction, discussion and decision-making among the community members. On the other hand, these areas should be large enough to sustain a resource base that can be exploited in an ecologically and economically sustainable manner. Such a combination is not easy to achieve. b) Organisationally, the communal lands are complex with overlapping jurisdictions among different types of authorities (traditional, spiritual and modern). These authorities function at different levels. The communities are not homogeneous. Within the communities there are differences based on social standing. Factors such as lineage, influence and relative wealth sometimes come into play. Consequently, consensus is more difficult to achieve than is commonly assumed. c) The major challenge is the lack of clearly defined property rights and strong tenure at both individual and community level. People’s rights over the land and its resources vary with location. There were usufruct rights over arable land, and collective rights elsewhere. Consequently, there is uncertainty which leads to opportunistic use of resources, with minimal or no investment in resource management except for that which produces quick returns. Since the producer communities are not legal entities, they cannot enter into legally binding contracts. It is reported that in spite of calls to strengthen both communal and individual rights, backed up by a government-appointed commission on land tenure, there has been very little change (Frost and Bond, 2006). The Commission was tasked with reviewing the land tenure system in Zimbabwe and to make recommendations. The final report of the Commission was submitted to Government. Communities and their constituents remain in legal limbo. These contradictions will have to be resolved or CAMPFIRE (and conservancies) will falter. Dhliwayo et al. 2009 reiterate that in Zimbabwe, all communal land is vested in the President and that RDCs have the authority, in terms of the Rural District Council Act, to manage communal lands. They recommend that the CAMPFIRE programme should address the issue of security of tenure over natural resources (for the communities) in order to ensure long-term community participation and interest in the programme. Dhliwayo et al. 2009, also argue that the lack of legal backing for CAMPFIRE has been one of its weaknesses as policies are not as binding as legislation. Consequently, the sustainability of CAMPFIRE is dependent, at least to some extent, on political goodwill. Programmes that are solely dependent on policy are more vulnerable to expedient policy changes. Therefore, it is preferable to have legislative or statutory provisions in order to help guard against any policy reversals.


CAMPFIRE is a programme that aims to facilitate community participation and empowerment. Since community participation and empowerment are processes, CAMPFIRE should be viewed as a means to an end. Therefore the programme should continue to evolve and it should continue to address the shortcomings and weaknesses that have been identified so far. Dhliwayo et al. 2009, recommend that efforts be made to have a specific statute in Zimbabwe which allows communities to constitute themselves into legal entities capable of holding land and other resources. Lessons are already available from South Africa and Mozambique in the context of the Great Limpopo Transfrontier Park (GLTP), as well as across Africa. Over the last few years, there has been the establishment of Community Development Trusts in certain areas such as the Zambezi Valley (Mbire District) and in the Lowveld. Trusts across Africa give local communities a real vested interest in land and conservation. By enabling the Trust to enter into agreements with businesses, it incentivizes community to manage their land sustainably. Efforts should be made to use these Trusts as a vehicle for devolution. AWF has vast experience establishing and working with Trusts and would be pleased to share lessons learned. 5. Conservancies Zimbabwe, as opposed to Namibia or South Africa, does not have a statutory definition of conservancy. One definition provided in a study conducted by Price Waterhouse and published by the Save Valley, Bubiana and Chiredzi River Conservancies defines conservancy as follows: "The term conservancy can be applied to any number of properties which are amalgamated into a single complex in order to enable more effective management, utilization and protection of some or all natural resources in that area (e.g. Map 3). In the case of the lowveld Conservancies, they are developed on the principle that in arid regions, rangeland resources need to be managed at larger scale than individual farms, in order to cope with a variable and unpredictable environment.”

Map 3. Bubiyani Conservancy

Conservancies are proving to be a successful conservation model throughout Africa. Conservancies complement government owned Protected Areas, help generate income for communities and provide areas for diversified conservation management. While more information is certainly needed, what is known is that Zimbabwe’s conservancies hosts some of Zimbabwe’s most important natural resources and serve as ecological and economic 24

anchors; however, Zimbabwe’s conservancies are under enormous threat. The only major conservancies that are still operational include Malilangwe, Midlands (Sebakwe), Bubi/Bubiyani, Save Valley and Chiredzi River.

Map 4. Malilangwe Trust

A major challenge facing some conservancies are the unplanned settlements within wildlife areas leading to habitat fragmentation and illegal wildlife off-take. Settlements and agricultural areas should be consolidated and zoned so that areas for wildlife are clearly demarcated from residential, agriculture and cropping areas to reduce human wildlife conflicts as well to maintain the ecological integrity of the areas set aside for wildlife. It is due to these settlement patterns that most of the highveld conservancies, which used to be ecologically and economically viable, are no longer operational as wildlife based enterprises. The literature study on conservancies was limited. As part of this study, we sent out questionnaire and most of the questionnaires were not responded to. A probable cause for the failure to respond could be the very sensitive nature of the issue of Indigenisation. As of 2003, conservancies comprised of 1.9% of the total land base. (Source: National Environmental Policy, September 2003). This figure is expected to be less today because of habitat fragmentation and resettlement within conservancies.


Graph 1. Conservation area land tenure. Based on the literature search at ZPWMA Head office, no vegetation monitoring reports for the conservancy areas were available. This will need to be verified on the ground. However, some conservancies have had post-graduate (Masters) students carry out vegetation studies. In the future, such studies should be encouraged for all conservancies and possible formal/informal arrangements could be made between the Conservancies and academic institutions to have students regularly carry out studies (e.g. annually or every two years). Current vegetation monitoring is insufficient. ZPWMA could introduce satellite image analysis combined with ground truthing and a quick survey technique to determine vegetation structure and composition in a set of reference/sample sites in each major conservation area. Wildlife monitoring is carried out in the conservancies. Species monitored include rhino, cheetah, wild dog and lion. Each Conservancy usually has a Conservator, whose prime responsibility is to monitor wildlife in the conservancy. Consequently, the Conservators should have reliable data regarding wildlife populations, including numbers and distribution. Monitoring wildlife is costly, and given the decline in tourism throughout Zimbabwe, many conservancies are unable to support adequate wildlife monitoring. Wildlife monitoring across state-protected areas, CAMPFIRE and conservancies is currently insufficient. To address this, a standardized monitoring approach could be adopted, such as the techniques used in Namibia; the Management Oriented Monitoring System (MOMS). There is also need to keep better records of consumptive use of wildlife through analysis of hunt return data, estimates of poaching losses, sample transect aerial surveys to estimate elephant carcass ratios (being more intensive every 5 years, as a national large mammal survey, and using a smaller sample of transects to measure trends in intervening years). With respect to conservancies that may be operating at sub-optimal levels, Chiredzi River Conservancy is one such example. This is primarily due to habitat fragmentation as a result of the haphazard resettlement pattern within the prime wildlife areas. There is an urgent need for planned resettlement with distinct zones for cropping/livestock rearing that are away from the wildlife areas. This will not only improve the ecological integrity of the area, it will provide people with a more viable livelihood, as they avoid human-wildlife conflict. Malilangwe and Bubye Valley Conservancies could retain full ecological and economic viability although land conceded by Bubye Valley for settlement should be re-planned to allow a more logical wildlife fencing situation for foot-and-mouth control plans. Areas east of Bubye Valley Conservancy also require re-planning for wildlife-based land use in order to combine these ranches within a logical wildlife complex between Bubye Valley and Nuanetsi Ranch. It is also possible to reclaim from settlement a significant portion of Save Valley Conservancy through better planning of the settled areas. Approximately half of Bubiana could also be reclaimed through better planning.


The Gwayi and Matetsi Conservancies were also affected by the land redistribution programme. Records at ZPWMA indicate that up to 95% of the land in Gwayi, and 85% in Matetsi was allocated to new settlers. The land-use being practiced is mixed farming (i.e. wildlife, cattle ranching and crops) in the A1 model (large-scale commercial), while in the A2 model (small scale commercial); the land-use is mainly wildlife and cattle ranching. It was observed that the most suitable land-use is wildlife and cattle ranching. It was recommended that in order to maximize benefits from the resource, as well as minimize conflict with wildlife, it is necessary to reorganize the settlement pattern on some A1 settlements, especially those close to Matetsi Safari Area. Bubiana Conservancy is no longer fully functional as a Conservancy although approximately three ranches within this area are still involved in wildlife production, but no longer in a coordinated way and with reduced areas. Chiredzi River is barely functional because of the extent of settler encroachment. The only core wildlife area left is the Ruware Ranch portion. At least one-third of Save Valley is no longer under wildlife production after resettlement, habitat degradation and depletion of wildlife through poaching. In many cases, the resettlement has been done to the detriment of the people as well as the wildlife. For example, in Save Conservancy the settlement is in the southern portion of the Conservancy on the east and west side as well as in the middle of the Conservancy, essentially severing the Conservancy in half. This has resulted in severe habitat fragmentation as well as human-wildlife conflict. Given the aridity of this area, the people who have been resettled are struggling to survive because of the inability to grow food in such an arid landscape that hosts wildlife.


Map 5. Save Conservancy Resettlement. With respect to revenue generation, the revenue in most conservancies is decreasing because the only source of revenue is hunting and most areas do not have enough animals to hunt on a sustainable basis. Non-consumptive tourism, which used to compliment income in these areas has not yet recovered because of the country’s political instability and international reputation, and will take a while to recover because of the small game numbers. The current quota setting system is deemed to be adequate as the animals are managed as one single population This provides a check and balance system similar to what used to happen with the Intensive Conservation Area (ICA) system in the repealed section of the Parks and Wildlife Act. Save Valley Conservancy (SVC) is the biggest wildlife conservancy in Zimbabwe and is a critical ecological anchor in the south-western part of Zimbabwe. SVC hosts important national species such as rhino and wild dog and serves as a critical source population for Gonarezhou National Park, which then links into Kruger National Park. This part of Zimbabwe has enormous potential for tourism; however, its natural resources are currently under severe threat. SVC occupies a land area of 3,442 km2 (Child, 2009). This conservancy is made up of approximately 24 private properties and 2 state-owned properties managed by ARDA (Machena and Mutepfa, 2003). The owners formed a company to manage the conservancy and a shareholding arrangement was agreed upon based on the value of the 28

aggregated properties. The conservancy bought wildlife from ZPWMA and other commercial farms. The conservancy also has 9,900 cattle (Lindsey et al. 2009). Current estimates of wildlife populations in the Save Valley Conservancy are provided by Lindsey et al. (2009). As Zimbabwe works to restore its tourism market and revenue to the country; support should be given to conservancies such as SVC, as they serve as key ecological anchors in larger landscapes. Table 11: Estimates of wildlife population in Save Valley Conservancy (Lindsey et al. 2009) Species Impala Zebra Wildebeest Buffalo Warthog Kudu 17,191 5,075 4,927 1,785 1,426 1,150 Total Species Elephant Giraffe Waterbuck Sable Rhino 1,117 781 735 214 151 Total Malilangwe Conservancy is 400km2 in extent. The estimates of the wildlife population in the conservancy in 2005 are shown in Table 12. Table 12: Estimates of wildlife populations in Malilangwe Trust. (Source: Malilangwe Trust, 2005) Species Impala Zebra Wildebeest Buffalo Warthog Kudu 3,049 589 115 1,320 68 62 Total Species Elephant Giraffe Waterbuck Sable Rhino 152 263 97 81 52 Total With respect to Zimbabwe’s Indigenisation policy, there is potential to improve the livelihoods of communities by helping them acquire interest in tourism businesses, assuming the businesses rebound from the current economic crisis. However, the selection of limited partners by the Government, as opposed to broad community participation, will not be successful because a) imposed business partnerships are difficult to maintain indefinitely; b) many of these operations are now in the red therefore such partnerships will not yield economic benefits to the new investors; and c) this does not enable broad community engagement and therefore broad economic empowerment. There are various creative options for achieving Indigenisation, such as the setting up of a wildlife-owning corporation for each conservancy, with shares allocated to existing operators on the basis of the wildlife that they have maintained to date (in most cases following substantial restocking and protection efforts). This will require independent ecological “audits.” New participants can add wildlife (to replace the poaching losses) and thereby acquire shares in this corporation. Donor-supported and state-supported restocking on behalf of the communities would create community equity. Quotas to use the wildlife resources could be allocated according to shareholdings. Levies for conservancy costs (such as anti-poaching and monitoring) could be proportional to shares (for all types of shareholder). Those shareholders who are not running businesses within the conservancy could set up joint ventures with those who are, or could sell their quotas to operators. This mechanism would allow for more than 50% of the resource base to be indigenised under arrangements that are business-based, retain investor confidence, give a guaranteed return and help rebuild the wildlife resources. If there were legitimate community investments coupled with secure land tenure, donors would be interested in investing in conservancies. In tackling the indigenisation issue, the following should also be considered. For over a decade, conservancies have been under economic pressure, which was compounded by national economic decay and the poor tourist image of Zimbabwe. These factors have undermined the business viability of conservancies; to such an extent that only the operations with substantial foreign investment have managed to remain functional. Therefore, forcing an indigenisation strategy on weak 29

or non-viable businesses will break them, unless the new investors bring in substantial funding. It should be realized that wildlife resources are business assets that have required substantial private investment. Therefore it is important to recognize the economic realities that underpin the wildlife industry and to encourage ongoing investment of funding and retention of crucial skills, rather than assuming that there are quick profits to be made and that the wildlife resources are free for everyone. Indigenisation without substantial community participation will leave those communities marginalized and likely to continue poaching and engaging in other forms of resource degradation. Consequently, a more inclusive model that incorporates communities that live in proximity to conservancies rather than the simplistic one of partnerships for the benefit of a few individual indigenous partners is required for true success at national and local levels. The lack of spatial planning during the Fast-Track land reform process has resulted in a land-use quagmire in which important wildlife habitat and corridors degradation, wildlife-human conflict, and the risk of wildlife-livestock disease transmission has significantly increased. People have been relocated to inappropriate locations where they cannot grow or access food and have to deal with human-wildlife conflict. This is not beneficial to the people, wildlife or country as a whole. The general lack of effective law-enforcement within the wildlife sector, including tolerance of many forms of poaching, fence-destruction, unplanned settlement, will need to be replaced by more disciplined and technically sound land-use practices. Failure to implement these changes will result in continued degradation of wildlife populations and habitats. It should also be noted that due to economic and political stress, the membership of conservancies has become disunited in some areas. A dynamic new approach that re-establishes joint wildlife management and provides incentives to better manage joint wildlife assets is essential to rebuild the common vision required for conservancies. The re-definition of conservancy boundaries cannot be done by the conservancies themselves and requires firm political will and sound governance instead of current tolerance of a free-for-all situation that is occurring in areas that are being continually cleared for cultivation, which in some cases is in direct violation of Zimbabwe land use zonation, or are being poached. Other measures to be taken include the rebuilding of fences, with strong law-enforcement by authorities to protect the wildlife within, reduction of wildlife-livestock disease transmission and reduction of wildlife-human conflicts. Problem Animal Control (PAC) has also become problematic. This is viewed as a wasteful practice that is seriously depleting the income generation potential, especially from trophy-quality elephant bulls. Therefore PAC should be better managed for safari hunting and reduced through interventions that include better spatial planning of settlement areas and wildlife areas as well as the re-erection of wildlife fencing. The current quota setting approach requires improvement. It is essential that quotas be set for conservancies as a whole and not for individual ranches. This is because the wildlife assets are shared over the entire area and animals move from one property to another, hence there is a risk of “double-counting.” These quotas need to be more clearly linked to shareholdings in the wildlife assets as outlined earlier. More triangulation of trophy quality data, population surveys and managers’ perceptions is required to establish quotas. 6. Conclusions and Recommendations Indigenisation and Economic Empowerment Act The government’s land reform and indigenisation legislation has had significant impact on the wildlife sector – requiring new models for revenue generation, indigenous participation and partnership, especially in conservancies.


The current practice of trying to achieve indigenisation through the selection of a select few and community resettlement inside conservancies is putting unnecessary strain on conservancies, many of which have lost valuable habitats and wildlife; hence many conservancies have and are becoming commercially unviable. There are very few conservancies that are still operational following the “Fast Track” Land Reform Programme; while the remaining conservancies face problems, which include poaching, human-wildlife conflict and severe habitat degradation. Records indicate that the major conservancies that are still operational include Malilangwe, Midlands (Sebakwe), Bubi/Bubiyani, Save Valley and Chiredzi River. Priority should be given to these to broker operational, acceptable and functional partnerships otherwise Zimbabwe is at great risk of losing these important ecological and economic resources. For the conservancies that have been significantly encroached and wildlife depleted, there is need for land use planning and zoning, which should guide decision to rehabilitate or abandon them. 1. The Zimbabwe Parks & Wildlife Management Authority should request for the government to immediately implement a moratorium on resettlement and selected partnerships that do not include broad indigenous community engagement in the conservancies to allow it to facilitate or carryout the following: o Detailed ecological audit of the conservancies in terms of wildlife status, and future viability. Assessment of their commercial viability and requirements for re-capitalization. Determining equity for negotiating partnership arrangements between the private sector and genuinely interested indigenous partners. It should be noted that forcing an indigenisation strategy on weak or non-viable businesses can’t work, unless the new investors bring in substantial funding. Donors will only be interested if there is legitimate community engagement. o Nominate a neutral broker to negotiate partnership arrangements between the private sector and indigenous investors. The same broker should assist the indigenous partners in negotiating grants or soft loans from the State’s National Indigenisation and Economic Empowerment Fund, assuming this fund is fully established and capitalised. Accessing funds from the National Indigenisation and Economic Empowerment Fund is particularly essential because most communities do not have access to capital. It is noted that the Minister can provide a waiver on the 51% requirement. The Indigenisation policy provides Zimbabwe with an opportunity to successfully ensure local and broad indigenous ownership of wildlife business, which will in turn support a national conservation effort and improve poverty alleviation in the country. However, this cannot be achieved with the preselection of limited partners and a non-neutral broker. o In support of the indigenisation legislation, the ZPWMA should donate wildlife to leverage an indigenous partners’ equity in the joint venture businesses. Wildlife should be donated based on demonstrated capacity to safeguard wildlife from poaching, as well as the ecological needs outlined in the audit above. o There is need for reform in quota setting for consumptive wildlife use. It is essential that quotas be set for conservancies as a whole and not for individual ranches because the wildlife assets are shared over the entire area and animals move from one property to another. Triangulation of trophy quality data, population surveys and managers’ perceptions are required in establishing quotas. Improving the capacity of scientific services of the Wildlife Authority should be a priority. The Authority should partner with conservation NGOs in boosting this capacity, which is done successfully throughout Africa. o Revise periods of hunting leases. The 5-year leases for hunting concessions are too short. Thus, concessionaires may try and maximize returns during the 5 years since the renewal of the lease is not 31

guaranteed. This is likely to result in poor trophy quality. It was reported that currently, the trophy quality of buffalo in the Zambezi Valley is no longer attractive to overseas clients. The decline in trophy quality is also an issue of concern as it can result in reduced revenue from hunting. o Communities who are living in unsustainable areas of conservancies should be relocated. Proper zoning should take place to ensure wildlife conservation as well as appropriate areas where communities can grow food and sustain and improve their livelihoods. o The Wildlife-Based Land Reform Policy references core zones outside protected areas that should be protected for wildlife. These core areas should be identified and protected. The Zimbabwe Parks & Wildlife Management Authority Estate The Zimbabwe Parks & Wildlife Management Authority estate has over the past decade degraded in terms of infrastructure, staff quality and management equipment. The Authority needs high capital recapitalization and a strategy for sustainability. As donors are not forthcoming and the Authority needs to develop a model that will sustain its operations in the long-run, the Authority needs innovative ways of improving its revenue generation capacity. Areas of urgent attention for improved revenue capture include: Upward revision of leases and rentals, which have not been reviewed for a long time. A number of the hunting leases are due to expire at the end of 2011; thus, the review of leases should include coming up with the best option that will optimise revenue inflows. Upward revision of gate entrance fees, and introduce leak-proof of gate fees. Models should be reviewed from elsewhere in Africa. The Authority should carefully examine its participation in business venture, against its core business of managing protected areas and wildlife. Currently, Zimbabwe Parks has 6 Joint Ventures between Parks and private companies. It has 106 non-consumptive leases; 22 consumptive (Hunting) Leases in Safari Areas; 24 Fisheries and others; 9 Jetty sites, and 2 Conservancies. The performance of these needs in depth analysis and evaluation. The key questions being: Does the Authority get competitive profits from these businesses? Would it make more if it privatised these ventures? Does it have competent (businesstrained) personnel to generate competitive profits from these ventures? The Authority should avoid running sub-standard businesses; hence it needs to objectively assess the performance of each enterprise and ensure that the profits being obtained are regionally and internationally competitive. The current poor state of lodges, chalets and hospitality personnel clearly show that privatisation may be the best choice to unlock the potential to increase revenue from non-consumptive tourism. The private investor would rehabilitate the dilapidated facilities and engage competent personnel, a condition the Authority could impose on private investors. This would in turn improve occupancy rates and hence revenue for the Authority as well. To maximize Park revenue, regardless of the model, Zimbabwe needs to embark on a broad marketing campaign to advertise its resources and increase tourism interest in the country. Management hunts are conducted in order to provide rations to staff, especially those going on extended patrols. The issue of management hunts in National Parks (for staff rations) has to be addressed. The hunts which are being conducted by non-national hunters from within the region are fuelling bad publicity that will negatively impact the photographic safaris. 32

CAMPFIRE Program The performance of the Communal Areas Management Programme for Indigenous Resources programmes is declining. For many years it has been recognised that lack of security of tenure and the inability of communities to enter into legal agreements as they do not constitute a legal entity constrain effective benefit sharing under the CAMPFIRE. Rural District Councils, who act as custodians of the wildlife resources on behalf of the communities, capture the bulk of benefits. This approach doesn’t provide incentives to communities who consider wildlife as a pest and not an asset for their livelihood improvement. Complaints about human-wildlife conflicts are increasing. Poaching is also increasing, resulting in wildlife depletion. It is necessary therefore that: Efforts currently underway in some areas to form Community Development Trusts should be encouraged. There is scope for these Community Development Trusts to be used as vehicles to further devolve authority from the District level to the community development trusts. Community Trusts would ensure more revenue reaches the community, which would give the community more of a stake in conservation; thereby, increasing the community’s interest in and support of conservation of wildlife and wildlands. The feasibility of granting appropriate authority to these Trusts needs to be assessed and supported. The current benefit-sharing arrangement in the CAMPFIRE programme should be reviewed. Issues to be assessed should include the percentage of revenue allocated to the RDCs and communities. An assessment also needs to be made to determine whether the guidelines that were set out for the implementation of the CAMPFIRE programme have been adhered to. Input from the RDCs and the communities will need to be sourced independently. Under the current benefit-sharing model, for some RDCs, the proceeds from the CAMPFIRE programme represent a significant proportion of the Councils’ income at the expense of the communities and should be adjusted to ensure communities get a fair share of these benefits and therefore feel a sense of responsibility for and interest in conservation. The Zimbabwe Parks and Wildlife Management Authority shouldn’t supply wildlife to CAMPFIRE areas, unless fully assured of wildlife security and if the RDCs pay for wildlife, otherwise providing free wildlife to CAMPFIRE under current poor management would be to a sink for valuable wildlife resources. The African Wildlife Foundation currently works in fifteen countries in Africa. AWF has extensive experience working with protected area authorities; local communities and private investors. AWF would welcome the opportunity to share the lessons it has learned in helping park authorities increase revenue; brokering private-public partnerships; developing community trusts; helping communities acquire equity in businesses; and protecting wildlife populations and land.


7. References Bond, I. 1999. CAMPFIRE as a vehicle for sustainable rural development in the semi-arid communal lands of Zimbabwe: Incentives for Institutional change. Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) thesis. Department of Agricultural Economics and Extension. Faculty of Agriculture. University of Zimbabwe. December, 1999. 291 pages. Child, B. 1995. Guidelines for managing communal lands wildlife revenues in accordance with Policy for Wildlife, Zimbabwe. CAMPFIRE Coordination Unit. Department of National Parks and Wildlife Management. Harare Zimbabwe. Child, B. 2009. Game ranching in Zimbabwe. In Suich, H. et al. (eds). Evolution and innovation in wildlife conservation: Parks and game ranches to transfrontier conservation areas. London and Sterling, VA: Earthscan. Chimuti, T. 2005. Aerial Survey of elephants and other large herbivores in the Mid-Zambezi Valley, Zimbabwe. Zambezi Heartland Transboundary Natural Resources Management Area. African Wildlife Foundation. Dhliwayo, M.; Breen, C.; Nyambe, N. 2009. Legal, Policy and Institutional Provisions for Community Participation and Empowerment in Transfrontier Conservation in Southern Africa. Journal of International Wildlife Law and Policy. 12:1, 60 – 107. Dunham, K.M.; van der Westhuizen, E.; van der Westhuizen, H.F.; Gandiwa, E. 2010. Aerial Survey of elephants and other large herbivores in Gonarezhou National Park (Zimbabwe), Zinave National Park (Mozambique) and surrounds: 2009. Gonarezhou Conservation Project. Frost, G.H.; Bond, I. 2006. CAMPFIRE and the payment for environmental services. International Institute for Environment and Development. London. Indigenisation and Economic Empowerment Act. Chapter 14:33 Lindsey, P. et al. 2009. Save Valley Conservancy: A large-scale experiment in co-operative wildlife management. In Suich, H. et al. (eds). Evolution and innovation in wildlife conservation: Parks and game ranches to transfrontier conservation areas. London and Sterling, VA: Earthscan. Machena, C. and Mutepfa, F. 2003. Conservancies as complementary land reform models in Southern Africa. Harare: ZERO and IUCN – ROSA. Malilangwe Trust. 2005. Annual Report. Chiredzi: The Malilangwe Trust. Manjengwa, J. 2006. Natural Resources Management and Land Reform in Southern Africa. Centre for Applied Social Sciences (CASS) and Programme for Land and Agrarian Studies (PLAAS). Maveneke, T. (no date). The CAMPFIRE programme in Zimbabwe: Changes of attitudes and practices of rural communities towards natural resources. Maveneke, T. N. 1998. Local participation as an instrument for natural resources management under the Communal Areas Management Programme for Indigenous Resources (CAMPFIRE) in Zimbabwe. International Workshop on CommunityBased Natural Resources Management (CBNRM). Washington DC. 10-14 May 1998. Murphree, M.W. and Metcalfe, S.C. 1997. Conservancy Policy and the CAMPFIRE Programme in Zimbabwe. Centre for Applied Social Sciences Technical Paper Series 1/97. Centre for Applied Social Sciences, University of Zimbabwe. Parks and Wildlife Act, Chapter 20:14. Revised Edition. 1996. Government of Zimbabwe. 34

Policy for Wildlife. 1992. Department of National Parks and Wildlife Management. Government of Zimbabwe. Rural District Councils Act, Chapter 29:13. Government of Zimbabwe. Statutory Instrument 21 of 2010 [CAP 14:33]. Indigenisation and Economic Empowerment (General) Regulations, 2010 {as read with Statutory Instrument 116 of 2010 – Indigenisation and Economic Empowerment (General) (Amendment) Regulations, 2010 (No. 2)} Wildlife Based Land Reform Policy. 2004. Government of Zimbabwe.


8. Annex

Annex 1: Proposed methodology for Rapid Assessment Documenting the current status of conservation areas in Zimbabwe is important to determine how best to improve these areas. The rationale for the proposed methodology is that given the extensive spatial spread of protected areas and CAMPFIRE areas, any assessment that aims to physically cover all the areas would require more than six working months. Consequently, for these two types of conservation areas, the input of Area Managers and Regional Managers (in the Parks Estate), and Wildlife Officers and the Chief Executive Officers (in CAMPFIRE areas) would ensure a rapid assessment. 1. Parks and Wildlife Estate Prior to the implementation of this proposed assessment methodology, a meeting with the Director General of ZPWMA will need to be convened not later than three weeks before the planned start date of the assessment. The meeting would discuss the following; (a) The Director General would be requested to prepare and circulate a Memorandum requesting the relevant staff (e.g. Regional Managers and Area Managers) to co-operate fully in the timely implementation of the assessment, including preparing any relevant reports as requested by the assessment team and attending all the planned meetings. (b) The Director General would endorse the itinerary for the assessment and release the relevant staff (both from head office and the field offices). (c) The Director General would also endorse the requested input from Parks staff. The approach would entail convening a 2/3 day meeting (workshops) in each of the four Regional Centres of the Parks and Wildlife areas (i.e. Chinhoyi for Northern Region, Gweru for Central Region, Bulawayo for Western Region and Masvingo for Southern Region). The Regional workshops will be preceded by preparation of reports by the relevant Area Managers, under the supervision/co-ordination of the respective Regional Managers. The content of the reports will be guided by the relevant Terms of Reference of the Assessment; thus, an Area Manager will prepare a report for the Park estate(s) under him/her. The Assessment Team will provide the Area Managers with an outline of the format and expected content of the reports. The reports will then be presented at the Regional workshops for discussion. The assessment team will attend all the workshops while the Regional Managers, Area Managers, and Regional Finance and Administration Officers will attend the workshop for their respective Region. Depending on availability of funds, key stakeholders in the specific regions should also be invited (e.g. safari operators and tour operators). The proceedings of the workshops would then be compiled. It is proposed that the workshops for the CAMPFIRE areas be held back to back with the workshops for the Parks and Wildlife Estate. The Area Managers in charge of Parks estates that are adjacent to CAMPFIRE areas could then attend both workshops, this would be more efficient.


Some Parks field offices do not have telephone/fax, internet and mobile phone access. Consequently, the lead time for communicating with these offices should allow for information to get to these stations well before the planned dates of the workshops so that the Area Managers have ample time to prepare their reports.

2. CAMPFIRE Areas It is proposed that for CAMPFIRE areas, one day be allocated for each region. As indicated in the section of the Parks Estate, this one day would be soon after the Parks workshop for that particular region. The CAMPFIRE Wildlife Officers for the respective Rural District Councils would prepare the presentations. The Finance and Administration Officers and the Chief Executive Officers of these RDCs would also attend the 1-day meeting. Other representatives to be invited should be from the traditional leaders (Chiefs), from the Councillors and from the community (e.g. the Ward Development Committees). The workshop proceedings would also be documented.

3. Conservancies Indications are that there only about six or seven Conservancies that are still operational. Except for Midlands Conservancy, all the other Conservancies are in the Lowveld. It is proposed that field visits be conducted to all the six or seven conservancies. The Conservator for each Conservancy would then prepare a presentation that can be given to the assessment team during its field visit.