Beneficiaries are actors too.pdf - Southern Institute of Peace ...

(Murindagomo, 1990). Its main approach was to return some
revenue generated from wildlife to the district councils
neighbouring the protected areas. The meat from elephant culling
and some revenue from trophy fees was occasionally paid to rural
communities adjacent to state-managed protected areas, with the
aim of encouraging a positive attitude to wildlife. While the project
did not manage to change people's attitudes towards wildlife, it
highlighted a need to devolve proprietorship over wildlife to enable
those living with wildlife to receive direct and sustained benefits
from it (Frost and Bond, 2007). The project did not succeed
mainly because communities were not involved in decision
making, there were no direct benefits to communities and district
councils failed to remit revenue to the communities affected by
wild life (Murindagomo, 1990).
CAMPFIRE project
After the failure of project WINDFALL, CAMPFIRE (Communal
Areas Management Programme for Indigenous Resources) project
was conceived in 1986 and implemented by DPWLM in
partnership with Centre of Applied Social Science (CASS) at the
University of Zimbabwe and a number of non-governmental
organisations (NGO) such as Zimbabwe Trust (IIED report, 1994).
The CAMPFIRE project was first experimented in districts which
had large numbers of wildlife outside protected areas such as
Sebungwe in Gokwe before being rolled out to all the Districts of
the country. CAMPFIRE was designed specifically to stimulate
long-term development, management and sustainable use of
natural resources in Zimbabwe's communal farming areas (Frost
and Bond, 2007). It aimed to align land use more closely with the
natural opportunities and constraints of these agriculturally
marginal areas. CAMPFIRE was designed to encompass four
major natural resources, that is wildlife, woodlands, water and
grazing land. However wildlife utilisation dominated other forms
due to high profits involved. While CAMPFIRE managed to
record successes in the form of appreciation of the value of wildlife
by rural communities, funding of social infrastructure such as
clinics and schools and drastic reduction in poaching, its major
constraint was the reluctance by local authorities to devolve real
power to the communities and the failure to remit revenue due to
30