The Communal Areas Management Programme for Indigenous Resources (CAMPFIRE) is a program in Zimbabwe that helps communities manage natural resources. It was one of the first programs to treat wildlife as a resource that can be used again, while also deciding who owns these resources—local people living near protected areas.
Background
CAMPFIRE was started in 1989 by the government of Zimbabwe to help communities develop projects and use natural resources in a way that can last for many years. In 1975, the Parks and Wildlife Act provided the legal rules that allowed communities and private landowners to use wildlife on their land. This was a big change from earlier rules that had made it illegal for local people to use wildlife in any way.
In Zimbabwe, population growth has caused many people to live on communal lands, which are often dry and not good for farming. CAMPFIRE helps people earn money on these lands by using the environment and wildlife in a sustainable way. The program is managed by Rural District Councils (RDCs), which give contracts for safari hunting and tourism and share the money with local areas. People in these hunting areas were expected to help stop poaching. Although some endangered animals were killed, the program aimed to help these populations grow over time by controlling hunting, reducing illegal poaching, and improving community income through environmental protection and earning money.
The US government supported CAMPFIRE mainly through the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). CAMPFIRE received $7.6 million at first and $20.5 million in 1994 from USAID. USAID did not continue its funding after their support ended in 2000.
Results
CAMPFIRE has been used in many areas of Zimbabwe, covering 36 of the country’s 57 districts. CAMPFIRE earns money through safari hunting, selling animal products, and tourism deals. Between 1989 and 2001, CAMPFIRE sent more than $20 million to communities, with 89% of the money coming from safari hunting. Twelve of the 37 districts that can sell wildlife made 97% of all the money, showing how wildlife resources and local rules affect income.
Farming crops and raising livestock can be hurt by drought or irrigation problems, but wildlife provides more reliable income because animals are better suited to the environment. Benefits from CAMPFIRE vary greatly between districts, areas, and families. Rural councils usually give 40 to 60% of the money to local areas, either directly or by funding projects. The World Wildlife Fund estimated that families involved in CAMPFIRE earned 15 to 25% more money.
Communities also gain benefits through projects like building schools, clinics, and grinding mills, or by finding jobs such as game monitors. Some areas have created new ways to earn money based on wildlife numbers. For example, the Mahenye area had no elephants or large animals nearby and started lodges for tourists instead of hunting. Areas with higher income per family have encouraged more people to move there, which helps build roads, schools, and other structures needed for larger populations.
Since CAMPFIRE began, the environment has improved. Elephant numbers have grown, buffalo numbers are stable or slightly lower, and habitat loss has decreased in some areas. Between 1980 and 2000, wildlife management covered 21% more land in Zimbabwe. Because councils need to keep income sources, hunting rules are strictly followed, and illegal hunting has dropped.
CAMPFIRE has improved wildlife monitoring, but it is not always the same and focuses mostly on large animals like elephants. CAMPFIRE controls wildlife by keeping a set number of animals that can be hunted, considering how endangered species are and the balance between male and female animals, since hunters often target males. CAMPFIRE has tried moving animals to different areas to help communities with fewer people and reduce competition for resources.
Because benefits are tied to wildlife, CAMPFIRE helped people value animal conservation. Celebrations for projects like grinding mills often include performances with animal costumes. People are more likely to report neighbors for illegal hunting. Surveys show that campaigns funded by CAMPFIRE money helped reduce harmful actions, such as cutting trees without permission and using bad fishing methods.
Criticisms
The ability to protect wildlife depends on how much people want to pay for safaris, hunting, and other wildlife-related products. After more violence happened around land ownership, less money was invested in tourism and other activities, which led to less income being made in certain areas. CAMPFIRE's plan uses the careful use of endangered animals to help increase their numbers and value. This idea did not agree with the opinions of many people in the United States who believe in protecting animals instead of hunting them, as well as with national and international laws, especially CITES. In 2014, the United States stopped allowing elephants and ivory to be brought into the country, which greatly reduced hunting and income in CAMPFIRE communities. Recently, the Trump administration allowed the import of trophies from hunting again.
After Zimbabwe's economy worsened in the 2000s, CAMPFIRE faced more problems with leaders using their power to benefit themselves and their families. Villagers reported that jobs and leadership roles in CAMPFIRE were given to friends and relatives of local leaders. RDCs, which manage CAMPFIRE funds, have kept more of the money over time and are criticized for not listening to local needs. In some areas, projects started with CAMPFIRE money are not continued, and the income from these activities is not enough to replace money earned from farming.
Villagers worry that protecting wildlife is more important than their own safety and ways of making a living. In some areas, rules limit where people can move, grow crops, or use natural resources. These rules prevent villagers from reaching better farmland. People also say that wildlife causes safety problems for them, their crops, and their animals.