WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT IN SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA. Report from a preliminary visit to Zimbabwe

Transcription

1 WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT IN SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA Report from a preliminary visit to Zimbabwe Prepared by DPhil candidate at the Departments of Zoology (University of Oxford) and Land Economy (University of Cambridge). Contact details: giulia_wegner@yahoo.com

2 PREFACE The risk with any scholarship is a push towards structural utopianism the search for few categorisations that apply everywhere. Life doesn t work this way. The diversity of people s agency must be recognised. This doesn t mean that some patterns and trends cannot be identified, but they must be contextualised. For many years there has been a debate over development vs. conservation. The conclusion is that these two go together, but the means and agencies to achieve them are extremely heterogeneous, and they are what matters. Where people make a living out of natural resources, they will be interested in conservation only if it leads to development, i.e., only if it means something for their future. People in Africa invest most of their revenues in the education of their children this shows that the conditions for sustainability are there, but the means to realise them are still extremely poor (respondent, pers. comm.). TABLE OF CONTENTS PREFACE... 2 INTRODUCTION... 3 AIMS OF THE STATUS REPORT... 3 HUMAN-WILDLIFE RELATIONS... 4 COMMUNITY-BASED WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT... 5 TRANS-FRONTIER CONSERVATION AREAS (TFCAS)... 6 REFERENCES... 6 Front cover photo: sunset in Hwange National Park (by Stephanie Periquet)

3 INTRODUCTION Conservation scientists argue that the current network of reserves in Africa are not sufficient to cover the distribution of all threatened species, and claim that the conservation of wildlife outside of protected areas is therefore essential (Fjeldså et al., 2004). Landscape approaches to conservation are also deemed necessary, and have lead to the establishment of trans-frontier conservation areas (TFCAs) through partnerships between governments, NGOs and the private sector. Many of the gaps in reserve coverage and large portions of identified TFCAs lay in areas of high human population density (Fjeldsa et al., 2004). The flourishing of wildlife in these areas therefore often clashes with the livelihood and development needs of the local communities. As a solution to this trade-off between wildlife conservation and rural development, efforts have been made by the international donor community and the national governments to promote wildlife as a land-use option for rural communities. These integrated conservation and development (ICD) projects consist in the state entrusting communities with the responsibility to preserve wild habitats and species, in return for economic and other incentives. While these projects have been more or less successful at addressing the tenure problem, their capacity to generate sufficient, sustained and equitable incentives for the conservation of nature has been less evident (Swallow et al., 2007). In some areas of sub-saharan Africa the costs of living with wildlife have increased instead (Marks and Fuller, 2009). AIMS OF THE STATUS REPORT The aim of this document is to report the findings from semi-structured interviews held with a range of stakeholders involved in wildlife conservation and rural development in Zimbabwe. These interviews took place during a preliminary visit to the country in April- May The gathered information is currently being used by the author to develop a detailed plan for a DPhil research project at the Departments of Zoology (University of Oxford) and Land Economy (University of Cambridge), UK. A broad range of stakeholders were consulted during this preliminary visit to Zimbabwe, including traditional and local authorities, social and natural scientists, policy-makers, NGOs and business entrepreneurs 2. More specifically, the objective of these interviews was to develop an overview and gather information on: - Human-wildlife relations - Community-based wildlife management - Trans-frontier Conservation Areas (TFCAs) 2 A list of the stackeholders involved in the interviews can be requested from the author.

4 HUMAN-WILDLIFE RELATIONS There are several open debates regarding the allocation of land to alternative uses for wildlife conservation and rural development. These debates revolve around the following topics: Use of marginal rangelands investment in wildlife utilisation vs. investment in agricultural improvement It is generally believed that investment in wildlife-based livelihoods is most effective in dry rangelands of limited value to agriculture. Based on this, some of the stakeholders interviewed during this preliminary visit to Zimbabwe argued that inhabitants on these marginal lands should make an almost complete shift from agricultural to wildlife-based livelihoods. However, other informants stressed that under the current economic setup of the country revenues obtained from the sustainable use of wildlife (e.g. for tourism) are not sufficient to provide for the needs of resident populations, and that parallel investment in agriculture remains fundamental to rural development. Human-wildlife relations separation vs. integration Informants held different views on this topic. We can hypothesise that there is probably no unique correct approach. In some cases wild species require large territories and their effective management by communities outside protected areas may be a sound economic option. In other cases the fencing of large areas may be ecologically feasible and socially desirable. In general, it is expected that living with wild animals is sustainable when it is the result of an autonomous and informed choice by local communities. Informants also stressed that the integration of wildlife in rural livelihoods can be sustainable only if the attacks of wild animals on people and their property are properly managed, though the introduction of technological fixes and husbandry practices, and through the control of problematic animals by legal authorities. Role of herbivores in seasonally dry ecosystems the cause or the solution to land degradation? The generally accepted wisdom is that in seasonally dry ecosystems overgrazing by livestock is the major source of land degradation. Representatives of the rangeland holistic management approach who participated in the interviews, on the other hand, argued that fire is the major source of land degradation in these ecosystems, and that ungulate herbivores, both domestic and wild, are instead necessary to maintain healthy grasslands. The holistic management approach therefore promotes the abandonment of fire as a rangeland management tool, the reintegration of the role of wild herbivores and their predators, and the careful use of livestock.

5 COMMUNITY-BASED WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT Community-based natural resources management attempts to address the tragedy of the commons by providing communities with ownership over natural resources and incentives for their sustainable use and conservation. However, some of the interviewed stakeholders claimed that programmes like the Communal Areas Management Programme for Indigenous Resources (CAMPFIRE) in Zimbabwe often missed this target. They highlighted that the revenues obtained by local communities from tourism and sport hunting are often insufficient to compensate for the opportunity costs of habitat and wildlife conservation. Another limit of these programmes, it was argued, is that they often fail to account for some important roles of wildlife (both positive and negative) in the lives of local residents. For example, these programmes rarely make space for the protein value that people attach to wildlife, and often fail to protect local communities from wildlife attacks. Informants expressed concerns also in relation to the equitable distribution of wildlife benefits and costs among beneficiaries at several levels: - Intra-district should CAMPFIRE payments to local communities be equal or differentiated among wards? Equal payments dilute the incentives for the conservation of species in those wards where wildlife is most abundant. On the other hand, differentiated payments may neglect those wards that do not have resident populations of wildlife and yet bear direct costs caused from dispersal species. - Intra-ward Should CAMPFIRE revenues be used to generate communal goods or to compensate those who experience direct losses? Some community members consider investment in communal goods (e.g. waterholes, schools, etc.) a priority; others perceive the lack of compensation for individual losses as a disincentive to conservation. - Intra-household levels Women, and especially widows, are often excluded from decision-making on how CAMPFIRE revenues should be spent. During the interviews, broader political forces were also mentioned as important factors that determine the permanence and success of community-based conservation programmes. In Zimbabwe, forces of re-centralisation are met with pushes towards full devolution of authority over wildlife to local communities. However, while there has been a certain amount of theoretical development on devolution, informants stressed that practice is lagging behind, being confronted with unclear administrative borders and insecure tenure, weak traditional authorities, and insufficient human and social capital among local governments and communities. Consequently, government s role remains fundamental to create a supportive legal environment and build capacity for communitybased wildlife management.

6 TRANS-FRONTIER CONSERVATION AREAS (TFCAS) The TFCA concept was developed to promote the harmonised management of ecosystems and natural resources that transcend national boundaries. Some of the interviewed stakeholders expressed a concern that if not properly designed and managed, TFCA initiatives carry the risk of exacerbating the human-wildlife conflict. Other informants also noticed that some TFCA projects largely focus on wildlife conservation, while neglecting other ecosystem goods and services that are important for human wellbeing. The goal of TFCA, they argued, should be the effective management of ecosystems that straddle across political boundaries so as to guarantee the sustained provision of a wide range of ecological services, including not only wildlife, but also water, soil, fisheries and forests. Another source of scepticism about TFCAs is their capacity to permanently solve ecological problems posed by species like the elephant, whose population growth has outstripped the carrying capacity of some regions in sub-saharan Africa. The establishment of TFCAs may expand the territory available to the elephant through improved interconnectivity, temporarily relieving their pressure on local ecosystems. However, some biologists who participated in the interviews were concerned that in the long-term this may lead to further elephant population growth, renewed pressure on local ecosystems, and the expansion of the human-elephant conflict in new areas. REFERENCES Fjeldså, J., N.D. Burgess, S. Blyth and H.M. de Klerk (2004). Where are the major gaps in the reserve network for Africa s mammals? Oryx 38: Marks, S.A. and R.J. Fuller (2009). Enclosure of an Important Wildlife Commons in Zambia1. Paper prepared for the International Association for the Study of the Commons conference at University of Gloucestershire, Cheltenham, UK. July Swallow, B., M. Kallesoe, U. Iftikhar, M. van Noordwijk, C. Bracer, S. Scherr, K.V. Raju, S. Poats, A. Duraiappah, B. Ochieng, H. Mallee and R. Rumley (2007). Compensation and Rewards for Environmental Services in the Developing World: Framing Pan-Tropical Analysis and Comparison. ICRAF Working Paper no. 32. World Agroforestry Centre, Nairobi.