|
| 1. Project Details |
| Author or Responsible Organization |
|
R. D. Smith and E. Maltby. (2003). Using the Ecosystem Approach to Implement the Convention on Biological Diversity: Key Issues and Case Studies. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. x +118 pp. |
| Project Title |
|
Community-Based Natural Resource Management:The Campfire Programme in Zimbabwe |
| Date of Publication |
|
|
| Project Status |
|
Ongoing |
| Project Start Date |
|
|
| Project End Date |
|
|
| Countries |
|
Zimbabwe |
| Regions |
|
Africa |
| Funding Source |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2. Background to Project |
| Project Issue/Problem Statement |
|
The Communal Areas Management Programme for IndigenousResources (CAMPFIRE) is a Community-Based NaturalResource Management (CBNRM) initiative that aims to promote the sustainable use of natural resources, especially wildlife, for socio-economic development. |
| Project Description |
|
In the semi-arid and arid regions of Zimbabwe, home to most of the population, communities had no vested interest in conserving wildlife, as they had become increasingly alienated from its management and use. CAMPFIRE seeks to overcome these obstacles by demonstrating the livelihood and conservation benefits that result when the management and use of natural resources are decentralised. The focus has been wildlife management in communal areas, particularly those adjacent to national parks, where people and animals are in conflict over resources. Wildlife management and use has the potential to bring rapid economic returns in agriculturally marginal areas. |
| Highlighted Aspects of Ecosystem Approach |
|
· By recognizing that local populations need to experience real benefits if protected areas are to succeed in their conservation goals, this case study illustrates efforts to simultaneously achieve all three of the CBD objectives. However, the focus is on sustainable use to support rural social and economic welfare. · Design and expansion of CAMPFIRE has been in response to the expressed needs of the participating population.· The project has identified a number of questions relating to defining the lowest appropriate level of management: How should the unit of management be defined? Is it feasible to have different levels of devolution in one country? Participants realized that government will need to retain the right to intervene in situations where actions by some communities can negatively affect others, e.g. strategic resources and threatened species. The feasibility of devolving the management of wildlife from the district level to the ward and/or village levels is being investigated.· The institutional problems of two government agencies led to the neglect of key strategic and policy issues.· The only evaluation of goods and services related to wildlife use. Nonetheless, economic evaluation has allowed the long-term value of wildlife to communities to be contrasted with agriculture, cultural and political values, the programmes of donors and the demands of safari activities. Adaptive management is seen to be important but the necessary ecological, social and economic monitoring and indicators have yet to be systematically applied. |
| Conclusions |
|
Wildlife protection can best be ensured when producer communities are given an economic and management stake in the wildlife resource.
Administrative and institutional structures are needed. Communities can benefit more from wildlife than from agriculture in arid and semi-arid lands. Collaboration with a diversity of institutions has been the key to success
|
|
|
|
|
| 3. Sectors and Biomes |
| Sectors |
|
|
| Biomes |
|
Dry and Sub-Humid Lands Biodiversity |
|
|
|
|
| 4. Tools and Approaches |
| Tools and Approaches |
|
Relevance
Score |
|
Further
Information |
| Public Participation |
|
3-High |
|
|
| - Community based methods |
|
3-High |
|
|
| Governance, Law and Policy |
|
3-High |
|
|
| - Policy development, planning and reform |
|
3-High |
|
|
| Management and Incentives |
|
3-High |
|
|
| - Adaptive management |
|
3-High |
|
|
| Protected Areas and Land Use Policy |
|
3-High |
|
Sustainable wildlife management next to protected areas |
|
|
|
|
|
| 5. Issues |
| Issues |
|
Relevance
Score |
| Economics, Trade and Incentive Measures |
|
3-High |
| Protected Areas / In-Situ Conservation |
|
3-High |
| Public Participation |
|
3-High |
| Sustainable Use of Biodiversity |
|
3-High |
|
|
|
|
|
| 6. Ecosystem Approach |
| Principles and Operational Guidance |
|
Relevance
Score |
|
Reason
(Only if NOT relevant) |
| Principle 1: The objectives of management of land, water and living resources are a matter of societal choices |
|
3-High |
|
|
| Principle 2: Management should be decentralized to the lowest appropriate level |
|
3-High |
|
|
| Principle 4: Recognizing potential gains from management, there is usually a need to understand and manage the ecosystem in an economic context |
|
3-High |
|
|
| Principle 7: The ecosystem approach should be undertaken at the appropriate spatial and temporal scales |
|
3-High |
|
|
| Principle 8: Recognizing the varying temporal scales and lag-effects that characterize ecosystem processes, objectives for ecosystem management should be set for the long term |
|
3-High |
|
|
| Principle 9: Management must recognize the change is inevitable |
|
3-High |
|
|
| Principle 10: The ecosystem approach should seek the appropriate balance between, and integration of, conservation and use of biological diversity |
|
3-High |
|
|
| Principle 11: The ecosystem approach should consider all forms of relevant information, including scientific and indigenous and local knowledge, innovations and practices |
|
3-High |
|
|
| Principle 12: The ecosystem approach should involve all relevant sectors of society and scientific disciplines |
|
3-High |
|
|
| Operational Guidance B: Enhance benefit-sharing |
|
3-High |
|
|
| Operational Guidance D: Carry out management actions at the scale appropriate for the issue being addressed, with decentralization to lowest level, as appropriate |
|
3-High |
|
|
| Operational Guidance E: Ensure intersectoral cooperation |
|
3-High |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 7. Lessons Learned and the Outcomes |
| Lessons Learned |
|
· Wildlife protection can best be ensured when producer communities are given an economic and management stake in the wildlife resource.· Administrative and institutional structures were needed.· Communities can benefit more from wildlife than from agriculture in arid and semi-arid lands.· Collaboration with a diversity of institutions has been key to success. |
| Outcomes |
|
|
| Other Information |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 8. References |
| References |
|
R. D. Smith and E. Maltby. (2003). Using the Ecosystem Approach to Implement the Convention on Biological Diversity: Key Issues and Case Studies. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. x +118 pp. |
|
|
|
|
| 9. Contact Details |
| Contact Person |
|
Ms Leah Mohammed |
| Job Title |
|
Intern |
| Organization |
|
CBD |
| Address |
|
Montreal World Trade Centre |
|
|
393 Saint-Jaques, 8th floor |
| Postal Code |
|
H2Y 1N9 |
| City |
|
Montreal |
| ZIP/State/Province |
|
Quebec |
| Country |
|
Canada |
| Telephone |
|
514-288-2220 |
| E-mail Address |
|
leah.mohammed@biodiv.org |
| |
| |
