An Investigation of the Impact of the Fast Track Land Reform Programme's Wildlife Based Land Reform...

DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT STUDIES

The Dissertation Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements of a Bachelor of

Social Science Honours Degree in Development Studies

By Njabulo Moyo (L 010 0097C)

May 2014

SUPERVISOR:MR D.DUBE

An Investigation of the Impact of the Fast Track Land Reform Programme’s Wildlife Based Land

Reform Policy on Communal Areas Management Programme for Indigenous Resources

(CAMPFIRE) Programmes. A Case Study of Tsholotsho District, Ward 3, Zimbabwe.

Abstract

This research paper investigates the impact of the Fast Track Land Reform Programme‟s

subsection called the Wildlife Based Land Reform Programme on the Communal Areas

Management Programme For Indigenous Resources (CAMPFIRE) in Ward 3, in Tsholotsho

rural district of Zimbabwe. Due to a number of controversies and inefficiencies which emerged

on CAMPFIRE, the Government of Zimbabwe implemented the Wildlife Based Land Reform

Policy within the frameworks of the Fast Track Land Reform Program. The Wildlife Based Land

Reform Policy was implemented to correct, adjust and modify wildlife management programs

such as CAMPFIRE since 2002. The policy has a prime objective of empowering the local

communities with gender equity in the ownership and management of conservancies and

wildlife.

Despite this, not much has been done to attempt to prevent the human-wildlife conflicts, the real

empowerment of local communities in the management of the wildlife resources to sustain their

livelihoods. This is due to the local government structures commonly called the Rural District

Councils, who have deprived the local communities of their rights to natural resource

management by monopolising and centralising power in accessing and controlling natural

resources. This study thus investigated the impact of the FTLRP‟s Wildlife Based Reform Policy

on CAMPFIRE program. Attention was also given to investigating the challenges and

opportunities for the CAMPFIRE beneficiaries.

The conclusion reached that the Wildlife Based Land Reform Policy modified CAMPFIRE

programs to enhance rural development, but the local communities still do not have access and

control of the wildlife resources management.

Keywords

Impacts, natural resources management, Fast Track Land Reform Programme, Wildlife Based

Land Reform Policy, CAMPFIRE, local communities, investigating.

Acknowledgements

First and foremost, my greatest appreciation goes to the Lupane State University‟s Department of

Development Studies for giving me a direction and expertise in this profession. For I am who I

am as result of all the lecturers that, they passionately gave me. I am deeply grateful to Mr. D.

Dube my Dissertation Supervisor who believed in me, his patience, and support and for all the

expert counsel and guidance they gave me to see the fruition of this study. Thank you for

encouraging me to go on through the challenging moments of my research as I managed to fulfill

my designated requirements.

Many thanks also to my mother, family and friends for their support and all their

encouragements, without which it would have been difficult for me to pull through. Thank you

for your prayers and everything. Notably many thanks go to Miss Nonsikelelo Moyo for her

passion, prayers and for the companionship and the shared moments of struggle, laughter and

bliss during my study. I will always bear these memories of support.

From Mlevu village in Ward 3 of Tsholotsho District (Zimbabwe), I thank all the villagers whom

I interviewed, for their cooperation during my fieldwork. Special thanks to the Tsholotsho Rural

District Council‟s management for granting me permission to carry out the study in their district

and for their outstanding co-operation in sourcing and sharing their data with me.

Above all I give thanks to the Almighty God for His grace that sustained me throughout my

study. I am forever indebted to Him.

List of Abbreviations

ARP Agrarian Reform Programme

CAMPFIRE Communal Areas Management Programme For Indigenous Resources

CBNRM Community Based Natural Resources Management

DNPWLM Department of National Parks Wild Life Management

FTLRP Fast Track Land Reform Programme

GoZ Government of Zimbabwe

RDC Rural District Council

SLA Sustainable Livelihoods Approach

SLF Sustainable Livelihoods Framework

TDRC Tsholotsho Rural District Council

WBLRP Wildlife Based Land Reform Policy

Zim Trust Zimbabwe Trust

List of Appendices

Appendix 1: Data Collection instrument (Questionnaire)

Appendix 2: Interview Guide for Tsholotsho Rural District Council‟s CAMPFIRE Manager

Appendix 3: Interview Guide for Focus Group Discussion

Appendix 4: Access Letter for authorization to conduct research

Table of Contents

Abstract ……………………………………………………………………………………..ii

Acknowledgements……………………………………………………………….…...........iii

Abbreviations ………………………………………………………………………………iv

List of Appendices…………………………………………………………………………..v

Table of Contents……………………………………………………………………...........vi

CHAPTER 1: Study Introduction........................................................................................1

1.0. Chapter Introduction.........................................................................................................1

1.1. Background of CAMPFIRE…..........................................................................................2

1.2. Background of the FTLRP‟s Wildlife Based Land Reform Policy………………………2

1.3. Problem Statement........................................................................................................... .2

1.4. Significance of the Study...................................................................................................3

1.5. Objectives of the Study......................................................................................................4

1.6. Research Questions............................................................................................................4

1.7. Delimitation…………………............................................................................................5

1.8. Map of Tsholotsho Rural District Council.........................................................................6

1.9. Summary………………………………………………………………………………….6

CHAPTER 2: Literature Review.......................................................................................... 7

2.0 Concepts of Livelihoods………………..............................................................................7

2.1 Concepts of Sustainable Livelihoods Frameworks..............................................................7

2.2 Sustainable Livelihood Framework……............................................................................ 9

2.3Rural Problem Concept……………………………………………....................................11

2.4Poverty……………………….............................................................................................12

2.5 Participation……………………………. ......................................................................... 12

2.6 Definition of CAMPFIRE……………….......................................................................... 13

2.7 Definition of FTLRP‟s Wildlife Based Land Reform Policy..............................................13

2.8 Background of FTLRP‟s Wildlife Based Land Reform Policy...........................................14

2.9 Contents of the Wildlife Based Land Reform Policy..........................................................15

2.10 The Study Area: Tsholotsho……………………..............................................................16

2.11 Summary …………….......................................................................................................16

CHAPTER 3: Research Methodology ……………………………......................................17

3.0 Introduction…………………………………………………………................................. 17

3.1 Research Methodology…….................................................................................................17

3.2 Qualitative Case Study……………….................................................................................17

3.3 Population Sampling……………….....................................................................................18

3.3.1 Sampling Method and Technique………………………………………………………..18

3.3.2 Non Probability Sampling……………………………………………………………….19

3.3.3 Snowball Sampling………………………………………………………………………19

3.3.4. Purposeful/Purposive Sampling………………………………………………………….19

3.3.5. Sample Size……………………………………………………………………………...19

3.4. Data Collection Methods………………………………………………………………….20

3.5. Qualitative Research Method……………………………………………………………..20

3.6. Questionnaire……………………………………………………………………………...21

3.7. Interview…………………………………………………………………………………..22

3.7.1. Face to Face interview…………………………………………………………………..22

3.7.2. General Group Interview Approach……………………………………………………..22

3.8. Focus Group Discussions………………………………………………………………….23

3.9. Ethical Issues………..………………………………………………………………….23

3.9.1. Authorization letter to conduct Research…………………………………………….24

3.11. Validity Instruments…………………………………………………………………..25

3.12. Data Management……………………………………………………………………..25

3.13. Data Analysis………………………………………………………………………….26

3.14. Conclusion…………………………………………………………………………….27

CHAPTER 4: Data Presentation and Analysis................................................................ 28

4.0 Introduction……………………………………………………..................................... 28

4.1. The understanding of the Importance of CAMPFIRE in Tsholotsho..............................28

4.2. The importance of FTLRP‟s Wildlife Based Land Reform Policy................................ 28

4.3. The effects of the FTLRP‟s Wildlife Based Land Reform Policy on CAMPFIRE....... 30

4.4. Administration of CAMPFIRE in the aftermath of the WBLRP ...................................32

4.4.0. CAMPFIRE Institutions…….......................................................................................32 4.4.1. Tsholotsho Rural District Council……….……………………………………………………32

4.4.2. Tsholotsho CAMPFIRE Office……………………………………………………………….32 4.4.3. CAMPFIRE Ward and Village Committees.................................................................33

4.4.4. Other Factors on the Administration of CAMPFIRE…………………………….......33

4.4.5. CAMPFIRE Revenue Disbursements………………………………………………...34

4.4.5.1. CAMPFIRE‟s Problem Animal Revenue…………………………………………..35

4.5. Socio-Economic Changes on the aftermath of the WBLRP…………………………...35

4.6.1. Challenges faced by Tsholotsho Ward 3, CAMPFIRE beneficiaries………………...38

4.6.2. Challenges faced by the Tsholotsho Rural District Council………………………….40

4.7. Opportunities in the aftermath of the Wildlife Based land Reform Policy……………..41

4.8. Summary………………………………………………………………………………..42

CHAPTER 5: Summary, Conclusion and Recommendations ........................................ 43

5.0. Introduction………..........................................................................................................43

5.1. Summary of the Study……………………………………………..................................43

5.2. Major Findings…………………………………………………………………............. 44

5.2.1. Impacts of the FTLRP‟s Wildlife Based Land Reform Policy on CAMPFIRE........... 44

5.2.2. Challenges faced by the Tsholotsho CAMPFIRE Beneficiaries................................... 45

5.2.3. Opportunities to improve CAMPFIRE…………......................................................... 46

5.3. Conclusion…………….………………………………………….................................. 46

5.4. Recommendations…………………………………………………................................ 48

REFERENCES..................................................................................................................... 51

List of Appendices..................................................................................................................56

Appendix 1-Data Collection instrument (Questionnaire) ……………………………………56

Appendix 2-Interview Guide for TRDC CAMPFIRE Manager…………………………......59

Appendix 3-Interview Guide for Focus Group Discussion ………………………….............60

Appendix 4-Access Letter for authorization to conduct research ……………………………61

CHAPTER 1

Study Introduction

This study is clearly set to investigate the impacts of the Fast Track Land Reform Programme‟s

Wildlife Based Reform Policy on the current CAMPFIRE programmes, with a case of

Matabeleland North Province, Tsholotsho district‟s CAMPFIRE programs. The study aims at

investigating the impacts of the FTRLP‟s wildlife reform policy on CAMPFIRE (issues of local

people‟s participation and involvement, representation, responsiveness as stated in the new

wildlife policy), challenges faced by the current CAMPFIRE beneficiaries, and the availability of

the opportunities and recommendations that can be stated to improve the program‟s efficiency in

meeting its core objectives.

1.0. Chapter Introduction

This chapter will outline a brief overview of the Fast Track Land Reform Programme‟s wildlife

based reform policy and CAMPFIRE, precisely it will state the background of the Zimbabwe‟s

Fast Track Land Reform Programme‟s wildlife policy, define Communal Areas Management

Programme for Indigenous Resources (CAMPFIRE), problem statement, significance of the

study, research objectives, delimitations and research questions before a concluding summary is

drawn up. Therefore the experience of Tsholotsho District‟s Ward 3, will be used as a unit of

study. In this regard, this chapter will further outline the Problem Statement, Research

objectives, delimitations and the significance of the study.

1.1. Background of CAMPFIRE Programmes in Zimbabwe

According to Nabane (2010) Communal Areas Management Programme for Indigenous

Resources (CAMPFIRE) is a community based natural resource management programme which

was set by the Government of Zimbabwe (GoZ) in 1987 as a sustainable livelihoods programme

for rural development so as to illustrate that, with appropriate incentives, “wildlife” is a viable

land use option in ecologically marginal rural areas. It was incepted only in the communal areas

that are adjacent to the National Parks, thus those living with or close to the wildlife, will benefit

from wildlife use. Thus CAMPFIRE has been an ongoing programme until in year 2000 where

the GoZ implemented the Fast Track Land Reform Programme (FTLRP) nationwide on top of

the CAMPFIRE programmes.

1.2. Background of FTLRP’s Wildlife Based Land Reform Policy

Murphree (2006) explains that, in July 2000, the GoZ implemented the Fast Track Land Reform

Programme (FTLRP) as an initiative set to address the colonial socio-economic injustices

whereby the white colonial master had forcefully dispossessed the black Zimbabweans from

their land, by giving back land to the black majority Zimbabweans. Murphree (2006) articulates

that, when other landuse options such as wildlife were not “fully” empowering the grassroots

people with full wildlife management, in 2002 the GoZ through the Ministry of Wildlife,

National Parks, Tourism and the Ministry of Environment, further adjusted the FTLRP to expand

and include other indigenous resources such as wildlife. Thus a Wildlife based reform policy was

set up and implemented in 2002, and the policy had the core objective of ensuring an engendered

equitable access to land and to the management of wildlife resources. This had an impact on the

ongoing wildlife programs such as CAMPFIRE. The GoZ has set the Rural Districts Councils

(RDCs), to occupy leading roles in the administration of both CAMPFIRE and FTLRP.

Moyo (2006) states that, in 2002 the FTLRP was revised to address wildlife and forestry in the

Natural regions IV and V, thus the Agrarian Reform was re-modeled to be the Wildlife based

reform for the ecological areas. This was initiated under the Department of Wildlife; Natural

Resources Management (DWNRM) of which this had an “impact” on the ongoing wildlife based

CAMPFIRE programmes nationwide. Bond and Child (2011) concede that, after the post 2000

Agrarian Wildlife based Land Reform Program CAMPFIRE expansion‟s was re modeled to

fulfill the following objectives That wildlife resources are or will become adequate to sustain

commercial exploitation and wildlife utilization can compete economically and financially with

other extensive forms of land use. The communities deriving wealth from wildlife resources will

be able to, protect these resources.

1.3. Problem Statement

In as much as CAMPFIRE was implemented since the late 1980s to continue running as a

sustainable livelihoods programme perennially, it has had problems which have hindered it from

achieving its objectives of poverty alleviation in the ecological areas by empowering the

grassroots with equitable management of wildlife as well protecting people from wildlife

intrusions. In other districts like Bulilimamangwe, it is lamented in this post 2002 Wildlife based

reform policy. On CAMPFIRE programmes, Mavhumashava on (29 October 2013-Southern Eye

Newspaper) reveals that, in other areas such as Gonarezhou National park, Save Valley,

Bulilimamangwe district and in Binga where the wildlife based reform policy was implemented

on CAMPFIRE, there are continued ,prevailing human-wildlife conflicts. For instance in

Bulilimamangwe district, wildlife from Hwange National park (elephants and the carnivores-

hyenas, foxes) has been attacking the agricultural crops and livestock and even injures and kills

people yet there is CAMPFIRE which cannot protect humans. Precisely elephants destroy crops,

whilst the foxes, hyenas (nocturnal predators) attack and feed on the livestock of the

communities. Since this problem is prevailing in many regions where CAMPFIRE was

implemented, perhaps the same situation can be taking place in Tsholotsho.

Moreover Muchapondwa (2011) argues that, in both Binga district and in Bulilimamangwe

districts, CAMPFIRE funds are not distributed equally between the RDCs and the CAMPFIRE

beneficiaries. Corruption and embezzlement of CAMPFIRE revenue exists in these districts.

Scoones and Chaumba (2012) concur with Muchapondwa (2011) points out that, poor

management of Game ranches by the newly indigenous people (war veterans), Poaching,

rangeland fires, vandalism of plough fields fences, illegal cutting of timber (deforestation) is

rampant in Hwange and Binga districts. Moreover there are Gender imbalances on access to

CAMPFIRE infrastructural projects employment, and poverty is still rampant in other

CAMPFIRE districts. From the above projection of the problems surrounding CAMPFIRE and

the current FTLRP‟s wildlife reform policy, the researcher envisages that, since these problems

are evident in many CAMPFIRE districts, maybe Tsholotsho has the same or similar problems.

1.4. Significance of the Study

This study is important due to the ultimate facts that, it will virtually contribute to the testing of

the framework of Sustainable livelihoods theory. Secondly the study will investigate and expand

the extent of decentralization which yields in the socio-economic empowerment of the

indigenous people, precisely their access and control of both land and ecology management and

also will assess the gender sensitivity in the access to the equitable access to the wildlife and

environmental management which are contained in the major objectives of the FTLRP‟s Wildlife

reform policy. Thirdly this study is important because it will employ the Participatory initiatives

to implement the “Bottoms Up approach” to collect recommendations even from the current

CAMPFIRE beneficiaries so that, if they are considered with most positive response, then

CAMPFIRE under policy will be efficient in fulfilling its intended design objectives of

eradicating poverty on rural livelihoods, through empowering them with equitable access to the

management of the ecology around them.

1.5. Objectives of the Study

1. To investigate the impact of Fast Track Land Reform Programme‟s Wildlife Based Land

Reform Policy on the Communal Areas Management Programme for Indigenous

Resources (CAMPFIRE) in Tsholotsho district.

2. To investigate the challenges faced by the both the CAMPFIRE Department and more on

the beneficiaries of the CAMPFIRE programme on the aftermath of the Fast Track Land

Reform Program‟s Wildlife Based Land Reform Programme.

3. Assess the opportunities for both the beneficiaries and the Tsholotsho Rural District

Council (TRDC) in the post FTLRP‟s Wildlife Based Land Reform Policy period.

1.6. Research Questions

Do the communities understand the significance of CAMPFIRE programme‟s objectives?

Do the communities understand the importance of the Fast Track Land Reform

Programme‟s Wildlife Based Land Reform Policy?

Are the CAMPFIRE beneficiaries “really” empowered by the Wildlife Based Land

Reform Policy to have equitable access to manage wildlife?

Why was the Wildlife Based Land Reform Policy implemented on top of CAMPFIRE in

Tsholotsho District?

On the aftermath of the FTLRP‟s Wildlife Based Land Reform Policy, how is the

CAMPFIRE program being administrated (issues of decentralization, transparency,

gender sensitivity, sustainability, accountability and the dissemination of information)?

What are socio-economic changes on rural livelihoods on the CAMPFIRE program since

the implementation of the FTLRP‟s Wildlife Based Land Reform Policy?

What are the challenges faced by the Tsholotsho Ward 3 community since the

implementation of the FTLRP‟s Wildlife Based Land Reform Policy?

What can be done to improve the efficiency of CAMPFIRE in the current Wildlife Based

Land Reform Policy period?

1.7 Delimitation

The research will take place in Tsholotsho District; ward 3 in Matabeleland North Province only.

The researcher will travel the distance from Bulawayo to Tsholotsho town centre which is

115km and from Tsholotsho centre, the researcher will travel 102km to ward 3‟s villages. In total

the researcher will travel 434km to and from. The study will investigate the impact of FTLRP‟s

Wildlife Based Land Reform Policy on the CAMPFIRE programme, which is a sustainable

livelihood initiative for poverty alleviation in Ward 3. Firstly, the study site was selected because

of its diversity in sustainable livelihoods which the Tsholotsho people embark on. Secondly it is

very adjacent to the torn, vandalized fence of Hwange National Park boundary, and it has more

CAMPFIRE activities in Tsholotsho district. This study will be done at a ward level. The

following map on the next over leaf left above shows the geographical location of Tsholotsho

district in relation to the other districts in Zimbabwe.

1.8. Below is Map of Tsholotsho Rural District

Source: Google images.

1.9. Summary

The first chapter has mainly asserted an introduction for the whole study as well as the chapter

introduction to the study, problem statement, research objectives, significance of the study,

research questions, the data collection plan and the delimitations .The chapter has discussed the

above facts as a rationale for conducting the study in Tsholotsho ward 3.

CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW

The major purpose of this chapter is to virtually assert the relevant utilization of the scholary

perspectives in review of the related literature to the study so as to construct a compactible

theoretical framework for the research. This will include other various related literature such as

poverty, rural problem, participation, sustainable livelihoods frameworks. Blackburn and

Holland (2008) articulate that, literature review is any investigation which involves reading what

other people have written about in the area of interest, gathering data to support or refute

arguments.

2.0.The Concepts of Livelihoods

According to Chambers (2005) Livelihoods is means to a living and it incorporates the

capabilities, assets (natural, physical, human, financial and social capital), the activities and the

access to these are mediated by institutions and social relations that together determine the means

of living gained by the individual or household. Carney (2008) emphasises that, a livelihood is

sustainable when it can cope with and recover from stresses and shocks, maintain or enhance its

capabilities and assets, while not undermining the natural resource base both now and in the

future. Carney (2008) cautions that, a sustainable livelihood is analyzed through interaction of

five livelihood indicators (contexts, assets, access modifiers, strategies and outcomes) which

together make up a sustainable livelihood framework.

2.1.Concept of Sustainable Livelihoods Frame Works

Carney (2008) defines a sustainable livelihoods framework in terms of the ability of a social unit

to enhance its assets and capabilities in the face of shocks and stresses over time. The

Sustainable Livelihood Approach (SLA) first seeks to identify the important assets in livelihood,

their trends over time and space as well as the nature and impacts of shocks and stresses

(environmental, economic) and social upon these assets. After taking cognisance of the wider

context for example political, legal, economic, institutions, infrastructure, and interventions are

designed to address any vulnerability of enhance livelihoods perhaps by diversification of

income streams. The FTLRP and CAMPFIRE are examples of interventions made to address

poverty among rural populations to enhance their livelihoods. The Sustainable Livelihood

approach recognises that everyone has assets on which to build and support individuals and

families to acquire assets needed for long-term well-being. Carney (2008) states that, they may

focus on a more limited for example specifically economic or a wider set of assets for example

personal, cultural, social, political. The approach provides a simple but well-developed way of

thinking about complex issues. In this case the complex issue is poverty among populations in

rural areas and how it can be reduced considering the possession of their asserts. By building

assets, individuals and households develop their capacity to cope with the challenges they

encounter and to meet their needs on a sustained basis.

Chambers (2005) states that, the Sustainable Livelihoods (SL) framework places people,

particularly rural poor people, at the centre of a web of inter-related influences that affect how

these people create a livelihood for themselves and their households. Closest to the people at the

centre of the framework are the resources and livelihood assets that they have access to and use.

These can include natural resources, technologies, their skills, knowledge and capacity, their

health, access to education, sources of credit, or their networks of social support. The extent of

their access to these assets is strongly influenced by their vulnerability context, which takes

account of trends (for example, economic, political, and technological), shocks (for example,

epidemics, natural disasters, civil strife) and seasonality (for example, prices, production, and

employment opportunities). Access is also influenced by the prevailing social, institutional and

political environment, which affects the ways in which people combine and use their assets to

achieve their goals. These are their livelihood strategies.

Chambers (2005) emphasises that, SLA is used to identify the main constraints and opportunities

faced by poor people, as expressed by themselves. It builds on these definitions, and then

supports poor people as they address the constraints, or take advantage of opportunities. The

framework is neither a model that aims to incorporate all the key elements of people's

livelihoods, nor a universal solution. Rather, it is a means of stimulating thought and analysis,

and it needs to be adapted and elaborated depending on the situation.

2.2. Sustainable Livelihoods Framework

Above is a Sustainable Livelihoods framework adapted from Carney (2008)

According to Carney (2008) the above sustainable livelihoods framework articulates that:

2.2.1 Livelihood Assets are assets for the building blocks of a sustainable livelihood. By building

assets, individuals and households develop their capacity to cope with the challenges they

encounter and to meet their needs on a sustained basis. The framework draws attention to the

variety of assets that contribute to making a sustainable livelihood and to ways in which they are

interdependent. Within the five broad categories of assets it presents, it suggests a wide range of

subcategories.

2.2.2 Vulnerability Context: these are factors that create and perpetuate vulnerability and poverty

can be seen at two levels: that of individuals and their circumstances, and that of the broader

context. This aspect of the framework directs attention to the contextual and systemic factors that

contribute to the occurrence of poverty. It points out the need to seek changes at the

organizational, community and policy levels in addition to building the assets of individuals and

households. Carney (2008) explains that, the vulnerability context describes the external

environment that the poor people live in. It also includes shocks such as uneven distribution of

funds from local governments‟ livelihood programmes, natural disasters or economic inflation,

and seasonality which refers to the way prices, employment opportunities and production might

shift with the seasons. All of these factors will affect the assets that people have and thereby the

sustainability of their livelihoods.

2.2.3 Strategic and Practical Interventions: Carney (2008) states that, the framework identifies

two basic types of intervention that rural communities can pursue in their poverty reduction

work. “Practical interventions” facilitate the efforts of low-income households to build their

livelihood assets. They include such things as counselling programs, education, employment

training, economic literacy and savings programs, income generating projects, livelihood

programmes and support for small business development. “Strategic interventions” are directed

toward the vulnerability context. They work toward the goal of social and economic change at

the systemic level.

Chambers (2005) concedes that, the sustainable livelihoods framework is built on the belief that

people need assets to achieve a positive livelihood outcome. People have different kind of assets

that they combine, to help them achieve the livelihoods that they seek. These asserts are as

follows:

Human capital is one of these assets, and refers to the skills, knowledge, ability to labour

and good health that enable people to achieve their desired livelihoods. Human capital is

essential in order to use the other kinds of capitals that exist.

Social capital refers to the social resources that people can get help from in order to

achieve their livelihoods – this could be through networking, membership of formalised

groups or mere trust between people that make them help each another.

Natural capital is to be understood in a very broad manner, since it both covers tangible

factors, like natural resources such as trees, land etc., and more intangible products such

as the atmosphere and biodiversity.

Physical capital describes the basic infrastructure and producer goods that are needed to

support the livelihoods that people seek.

Financial capital is the financial resources that people can use to achieve the livelihoods

that they are striving for.

Chambers (2005) points out that, transforming structure and process includes the institutions,

organisations and policies that frame the livelihoods of the rural poor, and they are found on all

levels : from the household to the international level. These processes and structures determine

the access that people have to different kinds of assets, and therefore the importance cannot be

over-emphasised. Livelihoods strategies are the way that people act in order to achieve their

desired livelihood. The access that people have to different kinds of assets affect the strategies

that they employ, and the structures and processes in a given society also creates possibilities and

constraints on the strategies that people are able to use. Finally Livelihood outcomes are the

achievements of people's livelihood strategies. However, outcomes are to be described by the

local people themselves, since these include much more than income. For outsiders it can be

difficult to understand what people are seeking and why because this is often influenced by

culture, local norms and values.

2.3. Rural Problem Concept.

According to Carney (2008) the rural problem has suppressed the rural development policies to

fail because a central bureaucratic system imposes top-down control and objectives throughout

the development process in the rural areas governance structures. This fails to sufficiently

promote the reconfiguration of local resources, which is better achieved through bottom-up

processes and the local heuristic system. Chambers (2005) argues that, rural disadvantages are

mainly based on “Access and control of Resources”. These further limit different types of access

to, and from, peripheral areas, namely: physical, economic, and political (acts and policy) access.

Chambers (2005) laments that, rural problem is also bad physical access, due to poor physical

infrastructure (roads, telecommunications, amenities), which sets strong constraints on the

movement of people, goods and information, limiting physical access. For example the lack of

good roads limits: the possibility of commuting from a peripheral area into a nearby industrial

centre, the transport of goods produced or the number of tourists attracted. On the other hand, it

also limits the attractiveness of an area for industrial inward investment. Bazin (1995) states that,

rural areas lack soft infrastructure (such as business and financial services, educational

institutions, health services) is less visible.

2.4. Poverty

Chambers (2005) defines poverty as a state of lacking the major resources to meet the basic

needs to sustain life, and it is a state of lacking access to main services and rights or a deprivation

of a well-being (as measured by income and consumption levels but immaterial as well measured

by the level of education, health, children nutrition and rights). Carney (2008) asserts a deeper

concept of poverty that, traditionally poverty refers to the failure of the individual to meet the

basic needs of food and consumption, whereas in the aftermath of the new millennium it refers to

the lack of materialistic asserts to include other aspects starting from education, health, shelter,

nutrition, till enjoying security and rights like freedom of speech. It is even broadened to include

vulnerability and exposure to risk, voicelessness and powerlessness. Therefore this study seeks to

assess or investigate the impacts of the Wildlife Based Land Reform Policy (WBLRP) on

CAMPFIRE programmes in the pursuit of poverty alleviation.

2.5. Participation

In this case, the experience of Tsholotsho District‟s Ward 3, will be used as a unit of study and

the livelihoods of people, environment settings, the utilization and the management of resources

will be assessed as well. The effects of WBLRP on CAMPFIRE programme which is a

participatory and sustainable development programme will be investigated in the study. Thus

Blackburn and Holland (2008) concede that, the concept of Participation which CAMPFIRE is

largely centred on, refers to the involvement by a local population and, at times, additional

stakeholders in the creation, content and conduct of a program or policy designed to change their

lives. Built on a belief that citizens can be trusted to shape their own future, participatory

development uses local decision making and capacities to steer and define the nature of an

intervention. On the other hand, the concept of sustainable livelihoods where CAMPFIRE has its

objectives set on, is asserted by Jackson (2006) that, it is based normatively on the ideas of

capability , equity , and sustainability each of which is both end means .In this regard, Jackson

(2006) explains that, a livelihood is environmentally sustainable , when it maintains or enhances

the local or global assets on which livelihoods depend and has net beneficiary effects on their

livelihoods.

2.6. Definition of CAMPFIRE

According to Muchapondwa (2011) CAMPFIRE is defined as a sustainable livelihoods

programme which is designed to alleviate poverty by setting up a decentralized mechanism

which empowers the grassroots populations to manage the indigenous wildlife resources, in the

rural areas that have a dry or poor agrarian set up but having more ground on ecology.

Muchapondwa (2011) postulates that, in Tsholotsho district, the Government of Zimbabwe

implemented CAMPFIRE in 1987 so as to promote Community-Based Natural Resource

Management (CBNRM). Logan and Mosely (2009) point out that, the GoZ tasked the

Department of National Parks and Wildlife Management (DNPWM) to conceive the

CAMPFIRE program as a policy response to potential threats to wildlife within and outside

national parks. CAMPFIRE centres on the use of Community-Based Natural Resource

Management (CBNRM) to generate revenue for the country‟s underdeveloped rural districts

through sustainable use of wildlife and habitat in these outlying areas.

2.7. Definition of the FTLRP’s Wildlife Based Land Reform Policy

Scoones and Chaumba (2012) concede that, in the Zimbabwean context, the 2000 FTLRP refers

to the direct, equitable radical compulsory land acquisitions and land redistribution mainly from

the white minority land owning class to the poor black Zimbabweans. Murphree (2006) concurs

with Hughes (2005) by articulating that, when other landuse options such as wildlife were not

“fully” empowering the grassroots people with full wildlife management, in 2002 the GoZ

through the Ministry of Wildlife, National Parks, Tourism and the Ministry of Environment,

further adjusted the FTLRP to expand and include other indigenous resources such as wildlife.

This had an impact on the ongoing wildlife programs such as CAMPFIRE. The GoZ has set the

Rural Districts Councils (RDCs), to occupy leading roles in the administration of both

CAMPFIRE and FTLRP. Hughes (2005) further asserts that, this expansion in the realm of

wildlife utilisation from the commercial to the communal realm was justified in similar

economic and ecological terms to those used by the advocates for game ranching. Hunting and

game viewing with the bonus of cultural tourism were promoted as the most lucrative land uses

in Zimbabwe‟s arid regions where dry land agriculture was perceived to be a waste of time.

Logan and Mosely (2009) articulate that, the wildlife based land reform policy seeks to promote

wildlife ranching as a viable land use option in agriculturally marginal areas, thus reducing

degradation. This model is also meant to integrate communities in communal lands that live near

wildlife areas and allow them to engage in wildlife ranching through conservancies or

CAMPFIRE projects. In this case, Nabane (2010) elaborates that, this Wildlife Based Reform

Policy sought to balance the distribution of wildlife revenues in Districts that have CAMPFIRE

programmes.

2.8. Background of the FTLRP’s Wildlife Based Reform Policy

Rukuni (2012) points out that, although the Wildlife Based Land Reform Policy (WLBLRP) and

the Forestry Based Land Reform Policy (FBLRP) were part and parcel of the Fast Track Land

Reform Programme (FTLRP), not much public attention has been brought to them over the last

decade. Conservancies are a unique form of wildlife conservation, and in Africa these are

prominent in South Africa, Namibia and Zimbabwe. Zimbabwe has a total landmass of 36.9

million hectares with 33 million reserved for agriculture. 5.5 million hectares or 15% percentage

of Zimbabwe‟s total land mass is reserved for wildlife production and 11% fall under the

Communal Areas Management Programme for Indigenous Resources (CAMPFIRE).

According to Moyo (2006) due to the political conflicts, in July 2000 the Government of

Zimbabwe initiated a radical compulsory land acquisitions as a second phase of the Land

Redistribution and Resettlement programme in the form of the Fast Track Land Reform

Programme (FTLRP). Hill (2012) explains that, this initiative was set to address the colonial

socio-economic injustices by giving back land to the black majority Zimbabweans. This saw

even the wildlife-ecological farms being re-taken under this process of land repossession.

FTLRP and the land targeted for transfer was shifted from 5 to 10 million hectares by 2001.

However Moyo and Sukume (2004) state that, from 2001 there was a significant drop in

agricultural production and food availability in particular, and in economic activity in general

have accompanied this change. Severe droughts between 2001 and 2002 worsened this situation

especially in the rural areas. Murphree (2006) articulates that, when other landuse options such

as wildlife were not “fully” empowering the grassroots people with full wildlife management, in

2002 the GoZ through the Ministry of Wildlife, National Parks, Tourism and the Ministry of

Environment, further adjusted the FTLRP to expand and include other indigenous resources such

as wildlife. Thus a Wildlife based reform policy was set up and implemented in 2002.

Moyo (2006) states that, the Wildlife Based Land Reform policy an “impact” on the ongoing

wildlife based CAMPFIRE programmes nationwide. Bond and Child (2011) concede that, after

the post 2000 Agrarian Wildlife based Land Reform Program CAMPFIRE expansion‟s was re

modeled to fulfill the following objectives : That wildlife resources are or will become adequate

to sustain commercial exploitation and wildlife utilization can compete economically and

financially with other extensive forms of land use. The communities deriving wealth from

wildlife resources will protect these resources. Katerere (2009) agrees with Murphree (2006)

that, the Wildlife Based Land Reform Policy (WBLRP) was set to further modify and improve

ecological programmes like CAMPFIRE to have a direct impact in the alleviation of poverty in

the dry Natural regions IV and V whilst the Agrarian reform stimulates national economic

growth with agronomy.

2.9. Contents of the Wildlife Based Land Reform Policy

The contents of the Wildlife Based Land Reform Policy (WBLRP) are outlined by Rukuni

(2012) who states that, the Parks and Wildlife Management Authority (established in June 2002)

which was formerly known as the Department of National Parks and Wildlife Management, falls

under the Ministry of Environment and Tourism, was tasked by the GoZ to implement the

Wildlife‐Based Land Reform Policy which is a parcel of Fast Track Land Reform Program is an

integral part of the Government's overall land reform policy with focuses on land with limited

agricultural potential. The objectives of the WBLRP policy are stated as:

To achieve greater gender equity in the ownership and management of wildlife resources,

conservancies and wildlife ranches

To maintain business viability and investor confidence in the sector.

Rukuni (2012) further states the key elements of the Wildlife based reform policy are: All

wildlife usage rights, including trading rights are to be allocated to conservancies by an

appropriate authority. The economic interests of local communities surrounding each

conservancy or ranch shall be managed through a Trust linked to that conservancy. The Trust

will operate under the auspices of the relevant RDC.

2.10. The Study Area: Tsholotsho Ward 3

The study was conducted in Tsholotsho district, one of the seven districts in Matebeleland North

province, which is south west Zimbabwe. It is approximately 115km from Bulawayo. The

district is very dry and arid and falls in ecological natural-regions IV and V, which are suitable

for livestock and wildlife ranching. This district shares its western boundary with the Hwange

National Park. The field data will be collected in Ward 3‟s Mlevu village. Madzudzo and

Dzingirai (2009) point out that, Elephants and other wildlife intrude Tsholotsho district through

the vandalized boundary fence of Hwange National Park. Only eight wards have CAMPFIRE in

Tsholotsho district, mainly on the basis of perceived wildlife presence and activity. Four of these

wards make the Northern section, namely wards 2, 3, 4 and later 9. The Southern section

includes wards 1, 7, 8, and 10. Since the inception of the Wildlife Based Land Reform Policy of

the FTLRP in 2002, now the districts depend entirely on hunting revenues. Most of the land is

used for agriculture and wildlife. Tsholotsho district covers 7 844km2.

2.11. Summary

This chapter has stated the use of the Literature review which is relevant for the study. Topics

such as the Concepts of Livelihoods, Sustainable Livelihoods Frameworks, Rural Problem

concept, Poverty, Participation, Definition of both CAMPFIRE and the Wildlife Based Land

Reform Policy and its contents and the Study area of Tsholotsho. The following chapter will

point out the Research Methodology for the study.

CHAPTER 3

Research Methodology

3.0. Introduction

This chapter covers the research methodology which was used in the study. In this case, a

presentation of the research design, population sampling method, case study, and methods of

data collection with its instruments, ethical considerations and data analysis are set in relation to

literature of other scholars. This research took place in Tsholotsho District‟s ward 3, Mlevu

village.

3.1. Research Methodology

This study has largely utilized more of qualitative methods which have been coined in the form

of a qualitative case study. On the investigation of the impact of Fast Track Land Reform

Program‟s Wildlife Based Land Reform Policy on CAMPFIRE programme in Tsholotsho, a

qualitative has been advantageous as this method is best fit for making generalizations on a

sample population for the whole population. Tewksbury (2008), states that, research

methodology refers to ways of obtaining, organizing and analysing data. Additionally Brenda

(2009) postulates that, research methodology includes the design, setting, sample,

methodological limitations, and the data collection and analysis techniques in a study.

Furthermore it is a coherent group of methods that complement one another and that have the

ability to fit and deliver data and findings that will reflect the research question and suit the

researcher‟s purpose. An exploration and description of the experiences of the Tsholotsho people

involved in the current CAMPFIRE programmes been better investigated through the qualitative

approach. Thus Qualitative methodology is dialectic and interpretive. During the interaction

between the researcher and the research participants, the participants‟ world was discovered and

interpreted by means of qualitative method in this study.

3.2. Qualitative Case Study

The design methodology for this study has been a Qualitative case study. The researcher chose it

because, qualitative research method gives room for gathering in-depth data which can be further

expressed in pictorial, audio-visual recordings. Eckstein (2002) concurs with George and

Bennett (2004) in defining a case study, as an intensive study of a single unit with an aim to

generalize across a larger set of units. Case studies rely on the same sort of covariational

evidence utilized in non-case study research. Thus, the researcher has used the case study method

to correctly understand it as a particular way of defining the Tsholotsho ward 3 case, and not a

way of modeling causal relations. In this regard, as the researcher collected quality data in a

more descriptive way, therefore Yin (1994) states that a Case Study is used for collecting data in

descriptive inferences which are in the frameworks of a qualitative method so as to produce a

research that is ethnographic and participant-observation or otherwise in the field it has a

research which is characterized by process-tracing. Yin (1994) further depicts that a case study is

used in the field to make a research which is characterized by process-tracing as the research

investigates the properties of a single case. Thus this study has carried out as a case study for a

single unit of Ward 3 in Tsholotsho district.

3.3. Population Sampling

According to Satin (2003) population is defined as the number of the inhabitants (unit of

analysis) of a place and the sample is a subset of the population selected to participate in a

research study. The unit of analysis may be a person, group, organization, country, object, or any

other entity that you wish to draw scientific inferences about. Sarndal and Swensson (2002) state

that, the sample is chosen for the study population that is commonly referred to as the “target

population or accessible population” mainly for purposes of making generalizations and

statistical inferences about that population. Social science research is generally about inferring

patterns of behaviors within specific populations. In this study, the eligibility criteria of the

representative sample for analysis has consisted of the Tsholotsho RDC CAMPFIRE manager,

CAMPFIRE Ward 3 committee, and a gender balance of few villagers who are beneficiaries of

CAMPFIRE.

3.3.1. Sampling Method and Technique

This study has used a nonprobability sampling technique to incorporate both the purposive and

snowball sampling so that the different data collection methods which included Focus Group

Discussions, the Questionnaire and the interview guides. Bhattacherjee (2012) articulates that

purposive sampling is the one in which the researcher uses his discretion to make sample

representative through his knowledge of the area of study of the population being studies. A

simple random sampling method will ensure that each person has an equal chance of being

selected.

3.3.2. Non Probability Sampling

Bhattacherjee (2012) states that Nonprobability sampling is a sampling technique in which some

units of the population have zero chance of selection or where the probability of selection cannot

be accurately determined. Typically, units are selected based on certain non-random criteria,

such as quota or convenience. Because selection is non-random, nonprobability sampling does

not allow the estimation of sampling errors, and may be subjected to a sampling bias. Types of

nonprobability sampling techniques include the following:

3.3.3. Snowball Sampling

Satin (2003) points out that, in snowball sampling, researchers start by identifying a few

respondents that match the criteria for inclusion in your study, and then ask them to recommend

others they know who also meet your selection criteria.

3.3.4. Purposeful Sampling

According to Bhattacherjee (2012) purposeful sampling is the sample size that is small, and it is

very dependent on what one wants to know, the credible things, the available resources and what

can be accomplished within a certain timeframe. Thus purposive sampling will be used in this

study so as to select the key individuals (key informants) who are viewed to provide expert data

and opinion in the subject.

3.3.5. Sample Size

Cochran (2007) defines a sample size as “a proportion of a population”. This study‟s sample has

been chosen from the current CAMPFIRE beneficiaries and the Tsholotsho RDC‟s CAMPFIRE

manager, CAMPFIRE ward 3 committee member representatives, CAMPFIRE key informant

villagers and the headmen. Des Raj (2002) asserts that sample size does not influence the

importance or quality of the study and note that there are no guidelines in determining sample

size in qualitative research. Des Raj (2002) cautions that, qualitative researchers do not normally

know the number of people in the research beforehand; the sample may change in size and type

during research. Sampling goes on until saturation has been achieved. Satin (2003) confirms that

in sampling, a portion must be selected to represent the whole population. Sampling is closely

related to generalisability of the findings. In this study the sampling will be a non-probability to

include snow ball and purposive sampling techniques. Participants for the focus groups will be

selected through purposive and snow ball sampling of approximately more than ten people in

Ward 3. The purposive and snowball sampling allowed for the r inclusion of a gender sensitive

selection of both men and women (adults) and youths in the sample. The sample consisted of two

separate focus groups one for men, one for women (to ensure that women are given a free

podium to state their perspectives without intimidation from their husbands). The sample of two

villages in Ward 3 was selected from a total of 6 villages where there is CAMPFIRE project in

Tsholotsho north. The purposive and snow ball sampling worked to exclude members of the

community who were not key informants of the current CAMPFIRE programme.

3.4. Data Collection Methods

Data collection is defined by Bhattacherjee (2012) as the precise and a systematic gathering of

information relevant to the research sub-problems, using methods such as interviews, participant

observation, questionnaire completion, focus group discussion, narratives and case studies or

histories through the use of quantitative or qualitative methods. This study has undertaken

qualitative data collection by following the empirical phase, which involves the actual collection

of data, then followed by preparation for data analysis in chapter 4 and 5. The various methods

of data collection were reflective to give the participants the opportunity to reflectively express

their experiences.

3.5. Qualitative Research Methods

According to Berg (2007) Qualitative research, one of the two primary approaches to the conduct

of social science research, and it is a superior means for conducting meaningful research in

sustainable livelihoods and poverty alleviation initiatives for this study. Denzin and Lincoln

(2011) clearly concur with Tewksbury (2005) that, Qualitative research refers to inductive, in-

depth information, holistic, emic, subjective and process- oriented methods used to understand,

interpret, describe and develop a theory on a phenomena or setting. It is a systematic approach

used to describe life experiences as it includes field notes, interviews, conversations,

photographs, recordings, and memos to the self. Warren and Tracy (2005) explain that,

Qualitative research is mostly associated with case studies, audio-visual, words (films, post

cards, videos, audio speeches, and pictures), language and experiences rather than measurements,

statistics and numerical figures of the quantitative research. For the above and following reasons,

this study has largely used more of Qualitative methodology than quantitative method, for data

collection, because it is flexible and unstructured, capturing verbatim reports or observable

characteristics and yielding data that usually do not take numerical form. Warren and Tracy

(2005) articulate that, since human emotions are difficult to quantify (have a numerical value

assigned to them), qualitative research appears to be a more effective method of investigating

emotional responses than quantitative research.

3.6. Questionnaire

This study has used the questionnaire method in the data collection because it plays a central role

in the data collection process since they have a major impact on data quality and influence the

image that the statistical agency projects to the public. Jack and Clarke (2008) define a

questionnaire (or form) as a group or sequence of questions designed to obtain information on a

subject from a respondent. Questionnaires can either be in paper or computerised format. Thus

for this study a questionnaire was suitable because in data collection, it enhances efficiency in

data gathering with a minimum number of errors and inconsistencies; and it is respondent

friendly and interviewer friendly and it leads to an overall reduction in the cost and time

associated with data collection.

Furthermore a questionnaire was most suitable for this study to collect data from the key

informant CAMPFIRE beneficiaries. Straub (2006) points out that, a questionnaire was used to

collect both qualitative and quantitative data to be collected in a standardized way so that the

data are internally consistent and coherent for analysis. A questionnaire is also used to ensure the

comparability of the data across interviewers, increases speed and accuracy of recording, and

facilitates data processing, questionnaires will be considered the most important tool for

gathering data for which respondents answer by way of writing. The questionnaires are used to

verify facts, opinions, beliefs, attitude and practices. Furthermore, questionnaires have been

given accurate information required by the research and at the same time, they will be regarded

as official documents hence despondences are likely to treat them with care and try to provide

accurate data.

3.7. Interviews

According to Warren and Tracy (2005) Interviewing refers to structured or unstructured verbal

communication between the researcher and the participants, in which information is presented to

the researcher. In this study, data was gathered by interviewing research participants in a quiet

environment, free from disturbances, and where they feel safe. In this study, the interview was

conducted for 30 to 40 minutes with the TRDC‟s CAMPFIRE manager.

3.7.1. Face-to-Face Interview: Warren and Tracy (2005) most interviews are face-to-face or

one-on-one conversation. This type of an interview is suitable for this study because the focus

should be on the person asking questions and the researcher will maintain eye contact, listen and

respond once a question has been asked. The interviewer‟s goal is to establish rapport with the

interviewee. The study used the interview with the CAMPFIRE manager in his office.

3.7.2. General Group Interview Approach: Valenzuela (2012) argues that this is the guide

approach which is intended to ensure that the same general areas of information are collected

from each interviewee. Thus this type of a group interview has been suitable for this study on the

data collection in the two separate focus group discussions, because it provided more focus on

the conversational approach, and it still allows a degree of freedom and adaptability in getting

the information from the group interview. In this study, a purposive and a snow ball sample of

respondents were brought together at a common homestead (place). Respondents will stated their

responses independently whilst interacting with each other. This format was convenient for the

researcher, as it brought a high response rate.

This study used interviews due to the following advantages: Interviewing is a flexible technique

that allows the researcher to explore greater depth of meaning than can be obtained with other

techniques. There is a higher response rate to interviews than questionnaires, leading to a

complete description of the phenomenon under study by the participants. Interviews allow

collection of data from participants unable or unlikely to complete questionnaires, such as those

whose reading, writing and ability to express themselves is marginal.

3.8. Focus Group Discussions

Kitzinger (2004) defines a focus group as a group of individuals selected (usually 7-12

respondents or more) and assembled by researchers to discuss and comment on, from personal

experience, the topic that is the subject of the research for the purpose of collecting data.

Kitzinger (2004) articulates that, focus group involves “interviewing” a number of people at the

same time, the emphasis being on questions and responses between the researcher and

participants. Focus groups however rely on interaction within the group based on topics,

questions that are supplied by the researcher. In this study the researcher interviewed the current

CAMPFIRE beneficiaries collectively to elicit their opinions on the impacts of FTLRP‟s wildlife

reform policy on the already running CAMPFIRE programme. The interviewer (the researcher)

was essentially a facilitator whose job was to lead the discussion, and ensure that every person

has an opportunity to respond.

Focus group discussions were suitable for this study because, Flores and Alonso (1995) states

that, a focus group discussion has the following advantages: It is a cheaper and quicker way of

obtaining valuable data. Colleagues and friends are more comfortable in voicing opinions in each

other‟s company than on their own with the researcher. Furthermore Goss and Leinbach (2006)

reveal that, focus group make the dynamic interaction among participants which stimulates their

thoughts and reminds them of their own feelings about the research topic. All participants

including the researcher have an opportunity to ask questions, and these will produce more

information than individual interviews. Informants can build on the answers of others.

Bhattacherjee (2012) articulates that, because of their small sample size, focus groups are usually

used for descriptive or explanatory research.

3.9. Ethical Issues

According to Gerring (2001) research ethics serve to outline detailed information overview of

the relevant national and international guidelines pertaining to ethical issues in research

involving human participants. Moreover, research ethics educates and monitors scientists

conducting research to ensure a high ethical standard. Brenda (2009) articulates that, in the use

of research ethics, research participants must voluntarily consent to research participation as

research aims should contribute to the good of society. Brenda (2009) explains that, all

researchers should be familiar with the basic ethical principles and have up-to-date knowledge

about policies and procedures designed to ensure the safety of research subjects and to prevent

sloppy or irresponsible research.

Horowitz (2005) articulates that, Ethical guidelines or considerations relate to moral standards

that the researcher should consider in all research methods in all stages of the research design.

Researchers should try to avoid asking questions that transgress or transcend into the privacy of

the respondents. In this study, no information about specific respondents would be released as

this could impinge negatively on research results and dehumanize the respondents. Knowledge

of research results will be assured to the respondents. This study therefore considered the

following ethics:

Research should be conducted in such a way that the integrity of the research enterprise is

maintained, and negative after-effects that might diminish the potential for future

research will be avoided.

Reporting results that accurately represent data from the respondents and what the

researcher will observe.

The research will be carried out in full compliance with awareness of local customs,

standards, laws and regulations.

Full confidentiality of all information and the anonymity of participants will be

maintained. Participants will be informed of any potential limitations to the

confidentiality of any information supplied. Procedures will be put in place to protect the

confidentiality of information and the anonymity of the participants in all research

materials.

3.9.1 Authorization Letter to Conduct Research

To fulfill the University requirements and expectations, the researcher sought and bore the

Access letter from the Department of Development Studies in order to get access to the

governing institutions of Tsholotsho Rural District council (TRDC). Thus the researcher went to

meet the Chief Executive Officer of Tsholotsho RDC (to obtain permission to conduct research

in the district of Tsholotsho), and to the District Administrator (DA) of Tsholotsho district and

other relevant departments which the researcher needed consult for information which was

pertinent to the study. The sign of approval and permission that the researcher got from the

TRDC was manifested by the stamps of the TRDC Chief Executive Officer‟s stamp and the

District Administrator‟s stamp on the researcher‟s access letter from Lupane State University‟s

(LSU) Department of Development Studies. Thus the access letter was borne by the researcher

during his study showing it to the Tsholotsho ward 3 local authorities, then at the end of the

study it was returned to the researcher‟s records and archives.

3.11. Validity of Instruments

According to Straub (2006) validity of instruments is the utilization of mixed sampling methods

help to improve the validity of the data to be collected. The validity of the data will be further

increased by triangulation of different tools. In this study, the reliability of the data was

improved by developing the research instruments and pre-testing them before the actual data

collection stage. Thus on the pre-testing of the data collection tools, the researcher translated the

research questions to the vernacular language (Ndebele) which is fit for Tsholotsho district, so as

make the research to acquire as much needed information. Straub (2006) explains that, Validity

refers to how well a questionnaire can measure what it is intended to measure, the questionnaire

should be user friendly, Validity is usually measured by corresponding the scores of one

questionnaire to other gathered information or other outcome measures. Additionally the validity

of instruments is the extent to which differences in scores on it reflect true differences among

individuals on characteristics that one seek to measure rather than consistent or random error-

validity addresses the effectiveness of questionnaires whether it focuses on what the researcher

wants to really find out.

3.12. Data Management

Jefferson (2002) articulates that, Data management, in respect to research ethics, references three

issues: 1) the ethical and truthful collection of reliable data; 2) the ownership and responsibility

of collected data and 3) retaining data and sharing access to collected data with colleagues and

the public. Each issue contributes to the integrity of research and can be easily overlooked by

researchers. A clear, responsible, ethically sound, and carefully outlined plan for data

management is required at the beginning of research to prevent all manners of conflicts and

inappropriate research methods. Data management is used to collect and maintaining data when

conducting a research project as it ensures responsibilities which include the following important

issues: Oversight of the design of the method of data collection, Protecting research subjects

from harm, Securing and storing data safely to preserve the integrity and privacy of data,

Delegating work with data to others and responsibility over the work of others, Responsible use

of data and truthful portrayal of data results.

During the focus group discussion the researcher ensured that participants understand the

purpose of data gathering. He elaborated on their human rights as Zimbabwean citizens to be

well informed on policy and acts issues. The researcher further explained the role of the

participants as to make them give honest opinions on the issues so that there could be adequate

sharing of information. Respect for individual opinion was also be guaranteed. The participants

were assured that in discussions there are no wrong answers hence all contributions were given

the same attention. Respondents were encouraged to feel free to participate actively.

The researcher created rapport with respondents by introducing himself and explaining the

purpose of the interview addressing issues of confidentiality, explaining all the modalities of

each interview and how the discussions were to be analyzed. Ground rules regarding the

discussion were set before the start of the discussions. The researcher assured participants that

the meeting will not exceed a maximum of two hours and ensured that important aspects,

principles and ethics of conducting a face to face interview were observed and followed.

3.13. Data Analysis

According to Bernard and Ryan (2010), Data analysis is a mechanism for reducing and

organising data to produce findings that require interpretation by the researcher. Since this study

used qualitative methodology for data collection, therefore the data analysis was done as a

“Qualitative data analysis”. Charmaz (2006) points out that, Data analysis is the process of

putting together qualitative and quantitative data. Data Analysis is used to use information to

derive answers to the research questions. Due to the fact that, this study is largely a qualitative

research design for data collection, by default it employed the qualitative analysis of the data in

both chapter 4 and 5.

Moreover, Miles and Huberman (2004) concede that, Qualitative analysis is the analysis of

qualitative data such as text data from interview transcripts. Unlike quantitative analysis, which

is statistics driven and largely independent of the researcher, qualitative analysis is heavily

dependent on the researcher‟s analytic and integrative skills and personal knowledge of the

social context where the data is collected. The emphasis in qualitative analysis is “sense making”

or understanding a phenomenon, rather than predicting or explaining. A creative and

investigative mindset is needed for qualitative analysis, based on an ethically enlightened and

participant-in-context attitude, and a set of analytic strategies.

3.14. Conclusion

Chapter three has described the research methodology which was used to guide the field work of

data collection of the research. The justifications and endorsements for the following factors has

been outlined: research design, different design methodologies, data collection and data analysis,

ethical considerations. The purpose of a research design was to maximise valid answers to a

research questions. The researcher was the main data collection instrument. Data will be

collected by means of interviewing, as a case study. The researcher made sense of data by using

a qualitative descriptive method, precisely its subsection of the “Grounded theory” to analyse the

data and also ensured that the data was trustworthy. Observing the principles of ethical

guidelines made the participants to be morally and ethically protected, thereby making the

research a success. From this approach, the effectiveness of the investigation of the impact of

Fast Track Land Reform Program‟s Wildlife Reform Policy on CAMPFIRE programmes was

carried out within this research methodology. The next chapter will present the research findings

and analyse the data collected to interpret the findings.

CHAPTER 4

DATA PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS

4.0. Introduction

This chapter largely focuses on the data presentation and data analysis. Therefore this chapter

revisits the objectives of the study so as to compare the findings with the research objectives and

further answer the research questions. Some of the referencing is be made relatively to the

literature that was reviewed during the study‟s earlier stages. It must be understood that this

chapter presents the findings of the investigations on the impact of the Wildlife Based Land

Reform Policy a subset of the Fast Track Land Reform Programme on the CAMPFIRE program

in Tsholotsho‟s ward 3 communities.

4.1. The Understanding of the importance of CAMPFIRE in Tsholotsho Communities

The Tsholotsho Rural District Council‟s (TRDC) CAMPFIRE manager stated that, “all

Tsholotsho wards were CAMPFIRE program is implemented understand CAMPFIRE”. The

villagers pointed out that, CAMPFIRE activities are implemented at ward and village levels and

they are dominated relatively by the Tsholotsho RDC‟s CAMPFIRE department and the

CAMPFIRE local ward committees. It was discovered during the study that the majority general

public is relatively informed about the CAMPFIRE that it is a conservationist program which

empowers the community to derive income to improve their livelihoods. However other,

villagers argued that it had been long since they received publicity in form of “training

programs” and awareness on the current modifications on CAMPFIRE issues.

4.2. The Understanding of the Importance of the FTLRP’s Wildlife Based Reform Policy in

Tsholotsho Communities

According to the TRDC CAMPFIRE manager, it was noted that, the communities are well

informed of the Fast Track Land Reform Policy‟s (FTLRP) subsection called the Wildlife Based

Land Reform Policy (WBLRP). The CAMPFIRE manager explained that, the Tsholotsho

communities have been informed that the FTLRP was not set as a resettlement initiative. But in

communal areas that are adjacent to wildlife, they received the implementation of the sub section

of the Wildlife Based land reform policy. Thus this policy was set to reshape CAMPFIRE to

fully empower the communities with the benefits of wildlife management in a gender sensitive

way. The study noted that, at a community leadership level, the majority of other village and

ward (leaders) involved in CAMPFIRE have gained a better understanding of issues related to

Wildlife management. For example the headmen, councilor, local village council officials and

members of ward CAMPFIRE committees were all aware of the “empowerment issues” of the

wildlife based reform policy and the commercial value of wildlife and timber. However many of

the villagers of the Ward 3 communities of Siyazama village argued that, the Tsholotsho RDC

has not “fully” raised awareness of the contents and package of the FTLRP‟s Wildlife Based

land Reform Policy and they do not see its value. They further lamented that, the TRDC uses a

(top down approach) passive participation which they use to repress the entitlements of the

communities in the CAMPFIRE.

Some of the ordinary villagers resident in Tsholotsho‟s Siyazama village in Ward 3, lamented

that, CAMPFIRE program was said to have last held the awareness meetings during the year

2013 in July and a number of issues and problems were discussed, but the TRDC has not

implemented any of the recommendations which were stated by the villagers. According to

Chambers (2005) the disadvantages of rural areas are mainly based on “Access and control of

Resources”, thus access to information is also very critical in initiating poverty alleviation in

rural areas. When the rural communities are less informed about issues and developmental

policies around them, their opinions will not be included by the local governing authorities who

make final decisions. In this case, findings from the research revealed that, the villagers are

aware of CAMPFIRE programme “only” and a few others are aware of the FTLRP‟s wildlife

based reform policy. Some women did not know the wildlife reform policy as they argued in the

focus group that, the TRDC has never informed them of it, they only know CAMPFIRE. Yet

those in the ward leadership like the councillor, CAMPFIRE committee and the headmen who

are involved in CAMPFIRE knew the wildlife reform and they have gained a better

understanding of issues related to Wildlife management.

These findings contemplate and agree with Chambers (2005)‟s statement of the major rural

disadvantage which is lack of access to information. It is sad that, the local governing authority

claims to inform communities, yet the communities do not know anything about developmental

policy matters such as the WBLRP. Usually this approach of the TRDC hinders the

dissemination of information which is vital for community development. From the lamentations

echoed by villagers, the TRDC uses a (top down approach) passive participation which they use

to repress the entitlements of the communities in the CAMPFIRE. However, it is equally obvious

that CAMPFIRE is a highly controversial program. This is evident from the heated nature of

debates about CAMPFIRE in public meetings, at both District and local levels, and from the

prominent role that CAMPFIRE issues play in local Politics, particularly the politics of

Tsholotsho Rural District Council that has been the talk of the day in newspapers.

4.3. Effects of the Fast Track Land Reform Programme’s Wildlife Based Reform Policy on

CAMPFIRE

According to the CAMPFIRE manager, “the Government of Zimbabwe (GoZ) in 2000

implemented the Fast Track Land Reform Program (FTLRP) to address agronomy matters”.

Seeing that other land use matters like wildlife were left aside, through the Ministry of

Environment they further implemented the Wildlife based reform policy as a sub section of the

FTLRP. Thus the Wildlife Based Land Reform Policy (WBLRP) attributed a modification and

reinforcements of CAMPFIRE programme to now address both the wildlife and timber issues for

developing the communities at a district level. The CAMPFIRE manager explained that, firstly

the communities have a human right to be protected by CAMPFIRE program department which

must protect them from the foraging needs of wildlife. These communities are adjacent to the

Hwange National park‟s torn boundary fence. Secondly the Wildlife based reform policy

reinforces CAMPFIRE to bring more revenue into these affected Communal lands.

This is done through the implementation of the community –infrastructural developmental

projects which are funded by CAMPFIRE revenue. Thus the employed communities in these

projects can therefore use the money to improve their livelihoods. In this case the FTLRP‟s

Wildlife based reform modifies CAMPFIRE programs to empower the communities with the

equal audacity to participate and be engaged in the projects like hunting and timber cutting

concessions so as to attain income to sustain their livelihoods.

Additionally the TRDC CAMPFIRE manager stated that, the Wildlife reform policy of 2002 has

adjusted CAMPFIRE revenue to develop the whole district, and not to develop CAMPFIRE

wards only, mainly for infrastructural development. The wildlife based reform policy has

decentralized the bureaucracy of TRD‟s CAMPFIRE department to first seek permission and

account to the Department of Wildlife National Parks (DWNP), Forestry Commission (FC) and

even share the CAMPFIRE revenue with them. But now the TRDC‟s CAMPFIRE department is

liberated by the Ministry of Environment through the implementation of the FTLRP‟s wildlife

policy of 2002, to operate independently from the DWNPs and FC, not to share any CAMPFIRE

revenue with it. Moreover, the TRDC now has the autonomy to independently give the hunting

and timber concessional tenders and trophies to any of its desired stakeholders. Through the

Wildlife Based Land Reform policy (WBLRP) contents, hunters are now clearly required and

obliged by the TRDC CAMPFIRE department to provide the villagers with temporary

employment, for example some people work as animal trackers, camp builders and bearers,

guides. Thus now all wild animals that intrude the Tsholotsho district boundary are subject to the

hunting exploitation of the TRDC‟s CAMPFIRE department.

A few CAMPFIRE beneficiaries argued that, they were informed on the contents of the FTLRP‟s

wildlife reform policy. They were informed that, in the communal lands, the FTLRP will not be

an agrarian resettlement but it will be done at a policy level which became the wildlife based

reform policy which attributes that, the grassroots populations are empowered to have a two

thirds (2/3) share in the benefits of both timber and wildlife concessions of CAMPFIRE program

to sustain their livelihoods. The Focus groups articulated a flashback that, in 1990-94

CAMPFIRE was administrated by Zim-Trust, which was transparent on the CAMPFIRE funds.

But from the -mid-1990s when Zim trust handed over CAMPFIRE program‟s administration to

the TRDC, the CAMPFIRE funds began to be seen after a long time, yet the hunting and the

timber concessions were seen by the communities regularly in ward 3‟s communal area, and the

TRDC majored on a top down participation to repress the villagers‟ participation. The villages

stated that, in 2005, after the inception of the FTLRP‟s wildlife based reform policy which

contemplated for the equitable local people‟s participation in the management of the natural

resources, the TRDC particular the CAMPFIRE department‟s officers has taken initiatives to

inform and engage the communities in the infrastructural developmental projects of CAMPFIRE.

4.4. Administration of CAMPFIRE on the aftermath of the Wildlife Based Land Reform

Policy

4.4.0. CAMPFIRE Institutions

CAMPFIRE institutions refer to the regiments which collectively administrate the CAMPFIRE

program in Tsholotsho District. These include the local government commonly called the

Tsholotsho Rural District Council, CAMPFIRE office and the CAMPFIRE Ward and Village

committees.

4.4.1.Tsholotsho Rural District Council.

According to the CAMPFIRE manager, the Government of Zimbabwe (GoZ) empowered the

Tsholotsho Rural District Council to administrate wildlife management such as CAMPFIRE

program. It has an elected body, comprised of one representative known as councilors from each

of the district‟s CAMPFIRE 8 wards. The chairperson is elected by the councilors from among

themselves. The RDC‟s CAMPFIRE activities are commercial exploitation of wildlife resources

and “problem animal “control. The main form of commercial exploitation is, again as elsewhere,

the lease of hunting concessions to private safari operators like Lodzi hunters and Matupula who

are operating in Tsholotsho currently. The concessions are required in the CAMPFIRE

Guidelines, leased through public tender. The leases allow the safari operator to kill a certain

quota of animals in return for an agreed payment to the Rural District Council. Although the

leases extend for a number of years, the quotas which specify the number of each species that

can be killed are revised annually. Under the requirements of the new FTLRP‟s wildlife policy,

the quotas of animals are set after consultations with the RDC, the safari operator and

community-based CAMPFIRE committees.

4.4.2. Tsholotsho CAMPFIRE Office

The CAMPFIRE Manager pointed out that, the Tsholotsho CAMPFIRE program is the

responsibility of the Conservation Committee. The Council employs its own staff, subject to

conditions prescribed by national legislation. The CAMPFIRE department is responsible for all

CAMPFIRE activities and maintains its own accounts. The department is headed by the

CAMPFIRE Manager and includes a training officer, game guards and clerical staff. There is no

external funding for the department, and it is now dependent on CAMPFIRE revenue.

CAMPFIRE Guidelines and Council policy, there are CAMPFIRE committees in each of the

district‟s wards. However, because of the practical difficulties of organizing mass meetings, the

members of ward committees are often elected by a relatively small group of people. However

the villagers of Tsholotsho Ward 3, argued that the selection was influenced by council members

not the community its self which commonly includes members of the general purpose ward and

village development committees , traditional leaders, and a few independent individuals who

take an active interest in community affairs. This argument was said to be a big challenge for the

community since they felt the council was responsible for manipulating their elections for people

who represent them.

4.4.3. CAMPFIRE Ward and Village committees

The CAMPFIRE manager stated that, the major role of the ward and village committees is to

take responsibility for the ward‟s share of CAMPFIRE revenue, including maintaining a ward

bank account, deciding in consultation with the community as a whole how the money will be

used, and organizing the implementation of projects thus funded. They are also responsible for

reporting “problem animals” and educating the general public on the importance of wildlife

conservation. There is a considerable amount of work involved, especially at ward level. Some

wards with relatively large amounts of CAMPFIRE revenue employ a full-time person known as

a resource monitor, while those with electric fences employ fence monitors to monitor and repair

the fences. The research will conclude whether these institutions represent well the communities

or they are the catalyst to problems in the community in question.

4.4.4. Other factors on the Administration of CAMPFIRE in the aftermath of the WBLRP

The CAMPFIRE beneficiaries lamented that, CAMPFIRE revenue is now equally disbursed at a

district level not like in the 1990s decade where it used to address only CAMPFIRE wards. The

TRDC claims that, it gives the community a podium to state their areas that need infrastructural

development or renovations, yet the CAMPFIRE beneficiaries dispute this notion. From this

assertion, there is no participation of the grassroots people on CAMPFIRE program at a planning

and at a decision making level. Since 2004, the Wildlife Land Reform Policy states that, all wild

animals which intrudes the boundary of the Tsholotsho district is directly under subject to be

hunted by TRDC). The CAMPFIRE beneficiaries pointed out that, the TRDC is required to

account to the communities on their intended initiatives on CAMPFIRE. However the Villagers

argued that, the TRDC initiates CAMPFIRE program in a top down approach (whereby they

only indoctrinate the grassroots of their next line of development) instead of following the

Wildlife Land Reform Policy which requires the use of the bottoms up approach participation

(which entails that, the TRDC must engage the grassroots people in the planning process for the

program).

4.4.5. CAMPFIRE Revenue Disbursements

The CAMPFIRE manager revealed that, currently under the frameworks of the Wildlife land

reform Policy, CAMPFIRE funds are now disbursed in the following manner:

60% of CAMPFIRE revenue is given to the Tsholotsho wards for infrastructural

development

40% of CAMPFIRE revenue is taken by the TRDC for CAMPFIRE expenditure

Although the frameworks of the Wildlife based reform policy entail that that the two thirds of the

CAMPFIRE revenue goes to the Community, the villages argue that they this year they have not

seen any of the 60% revenue, yet they have witnessed multiple encountered of hunting

concessions in their communal land. This expounds that, the TRDC is misappropriating

CAMPFIRE revenue and thus why they have not managed to conduct a single meeting with the

community to account their CAMPFIRE income and expenditure to the local people as required

by the Wildlife Based Reform Policy.

4.4.5.1.CAMPFIRE’s Problem Animal Control Revenue

The CAMPFIRE manager conceded that, “all the stray-wounded animals that intrude the

Tsholotsho district are classified as Problem Animals”. These are Problem Animal Control

(PAC) hunting concession is directly taken by the TRDC and this revenue is not shared with the

community. The Department of National Parks and Wildlife (DNPW) is no longer in charge of

the giving of the Concessional hunting tenders and the in every ward where there is CAMPFIRE.

The Forestry Commission is not in charge of giving the Timber concessional timbers. Thus the

TRDC as the CAMPFIRE administrator is now in charge of giving the Hunting and timber

cutting concessional tenders, and the revenue from the initiatives is shared with the wards at a

district level. Villagers are required by the TRDC‟s CAMPFIRE department to report any cases

of wildlife intrusion or problematic animals, and the TRDC is obliged to respond to ensure the

safety of villagers. Mavhumashava (29 October 2013) argues that, the Problem Animals have

injured, killed human life as well as destroying crops, yet the CAMPFIRE program which was

set to protect and prevent these alarming human-wildlife conflicts is not even having a regulatory

to compensate the affected grassroots people, the program needs refining to meet these

challenges. This is not fair to the communities that bear the rage and fury of these wounded,

PAC animals that usually destroy crops, natural ecosystem, injure people, as they are not

compensated. Clearly the matter of PAC is totally a discrepancy and somehow an insult to the

Tsholotsho communities affected directly by wildlife as it serves to benefit the TRDC at the

expense of the community.

4.5. Socio-economic Changes on the aftermath of the FTLRP’s Wildlife Based Land

Reform Policy

Other CAMPFIRE beneficiaries stated that, poverty still exists on the ground, as droughts further

exacerbates it in the CAMPFIRE wards. Many CAMPFIRE beneficiaries during a Focus group

discussion argued that, they have not experienced economic changes/ improvements as they do

not get access to CAMPFIRE‟s employment creation projects, which have been temporary, and

they accommodate a few individuals, and they are not long term as it only comes twice or thrice

a year. This has forced many of the Tsholotsho populations to migrate to the neighbouring

country called South Africa in search for employment. However a few other villagers argued in

the questionnaires that, due to recent CAMPFIRE‟s infrastructural developmental projects such

as the building of classroom blocks, refurbishment of roads construction, borehole construction

(cutting timber and fencing them) they have attained temporary employments which has resulted

in them getting income for household expenditures .i.e. thus purchasing of other household

asserts. The two separate focus group discussions concur that in July 2013, the building of the

two classroom blocks was completed in Ward 3‟s Mlevu Primary School in Mlevu village. More

than eight (8) boreholes have been drilled since 2007-2012 and one was refurbished in January

2013. Ntulula Primary School in Mlevu village is still under construction through the funding of

CAMPFIRE programme. Water pumps and water diesel engines and Kapani Clinic fencing have

also been attained from CAMPFIRE revenue.

Below are two pictures taken by the researcher in Mlevu village, Ward 3 showing some positive

impacts exerted by the CAMPFIRE revenue in the aftermath of the Fast Land Reform

Programme‟s Wildlife based land reform policy implementation.

Above left picture, one of the boreholes which was Above right picture, one of the classroom

funded by CAMPFIRE revenue in 2010 blocks that was completed in July 2013.

(Mlevu Village-Ward 3) It was funded by CAMPFIRE revenue

(Mlevu primary school)

According to Chambers (2005) Livelihoods is means to a living and it incorporates the

capabilities, assets (natural, physical, human, financial and social capital), the activities and the

access to these are mediated by institutions (thus the CAMPFIRE TRDC institution) and social

relations that together determine the means of living gained by the individual or household. From

the above assertions, one can therefore point out that, Chamber (2005)‟s above statement has

been fulfilled by the evident CAMPFIRE‟s positive impacts as enhanced by the current FTLRP‟s

wildlife reform policy in Tsholotsho‟s ward 3, Siyazama village, where a few villagers argue that

CAMPFIRE has improved their socio-economic aspects (as some have purchased farming

asserts-from CAMPFIRE employment projects) in this dispensation of the post FTLRP‟s wildlife

based reform policy. Carney (2008) cautions that, a sustainable livelihood is analyzed through

interaction of five livelihood indicators (contexts, assets, access modifiers, strategies and

outcomes) which together make up a sustainable livelihood framework. Thus the FTLRP‟s

wildlife based reform policy has enhanced “accessible-modified” the current CAMPFIRE

program to further address poverty through initiating rapid “strategies” of infrastructural-

developmental projects on the communities so that, from the income they receive they can

purchase household asserts as the outcomes of the CAMPFIRE program. By building assets,

individuals and households develop their capacity to cope with the challenges they encounter and

to meet their needs on a sustained basis.

Carney (2008) defines a sustainable livelihoods framework in terms of the ability of a social unit

to enhance its assets and capabilities in the face of shocks and stresses over time. The

Sustainable Livelihood Approach (SLA) first seeks to identify the important assets in livelihood,

their trends over time and space as well as the nature and impacts of shocks and stresses

(environmental, economic) and social upon these assets. After taking cognisance of the wider

context for example political, legal, economic, institutions, infrastructure, and interventions are

designed to address any vulnerability to enhance livelihoods perhaps by diversification of

income streams. The FTLRP‟s Wildlife Based Reform Policy which was set on CAMPFIRE are

examples of interventions made to address poverty among rural populations to enhance their

livelihoods. The Sustainable Livelihood approach recognises that everyone has assets on which

to build and support individuals and families to acquire assets needed for long-term well-being.

From the data collected, especially other few villagers who claimed that that the FTLRP‟s

wildlife policy has adjusted CAMPFIRE to transform their livelihoods, one can therefore employ

Jackson (2006) assertion of sustainable livelihoods, to state that, CAMPFIRE program has

enhanced Social benefits, reduced vulnerability, created employment benefits, brought cash

income, brought household food security and cultural benefits. This will is elaborated below:

Social benefits: Income from CAMPFIRE‟s community managed projects has brought in

more income to provide the community with infrastructural development, and

strengthened social cohesion as the villagers will be working together.

Reduced vulnerability: CAMPFIRE often forms a diverse livelihood strategy, so it

reduces the vulnerability to poverty and food insecurity through its direct benefits from

infrastructural projects, and meat from trophies, killing of problem animals by the

TRDC‟s CAMPFIRE staff.

Employment benefits: The TRDC CAMPFIRE manager stated that, since 2004, over 400

people have been employed in CAMPFIRE infrastructural projects, and Muchapondwa

(2011) argues that, since 1990, on CAMPFIRE‟s inception nationwide, more than 2000

people have been employed in CAMPFIRE projects.

Cash income: Money received from CAMPFIRE‟s infrastructural developmental projects

enables the communities to have access to health care, food, clothing, goods and other

asserts.

Household food security: CAMPFIRE‟s intendeds to protect communities from the

foraging needs of wildlife thus, when the fields are secure ,cash income empowers

communities to purchase farming assets, farming inputs to be food secure. CAMPFIRE‟s

killed Problem animals usually directly provided the communities with meat benefits.

Cultural benefits: CAMPFIRE‟s infrastructural projects are often social activity,

strengthening social cohesion

4.6.1. Challenges faced by the Tsholotsho ward 3, in the aftermath of the implementation of

the FTLRP’s Wildlife Based Land Reform Policy

From the two separate focus group discussions, it was noted that, the Local people have no

control of wildlife resources. The major role of CAMPFIRE is to give local people control over

their wildlife. However the control of wildlife by the grassroots locals is being limited by the

RDC and CAMPFIRE ward committee who have the upper hand on CAMPFIRE revenues and

activities. The Council has vast power to decide whether to exploit wildlife commercially to

lease hunting concessions, and how to manage the program, while ward and village members

have limited power to decide how to utilize the revenue to their advantage and level of needs

such that they have become victims of exploitation and corruption by the RDC and the

CAMPFIRE.

The CAMPFIRE beneficiaries argued that, the TRDC is not transparent, as local CAMPFIRE

committees and villagers have very limited powers to make decisions. One of the most obvious

manifestations of this problem is the CAMPFIRE training and awareness programs that are not

held frequently as expected. Almost all the activities were said to be administered in a passive

manner, leaving little room for local responses or inputs.

Moreover, the CAMPFIRE beneficiaries argued that, the ward and village CAMPFIRE

committees have limited power to determining quota numbers and revenues. TRDC and

CAMPFIRE staff determines those since they have records of all the main species of animal in

each ward. During the study the villagers in the ward 3 argued that there was no transparency at

all in the allocation of resources and use of funds in the CAMPFIRE. The CAMPFIRE

beneficiaries lamented that, there is no Transparency and Accountability of CAMPFIRE

revenue. The TRDC does not clearly account to the wards on the actual income and expenditure

of CAMPFIRE. Even the 60% revenue is not balancing (tallying) with the constant hunting

concessions which are evidenced by the villagers. The failure of the TRDC to clearly account to

the CAMPFIRE beneficiaries on the actual income and expenditure of CAMPFIRE revenue

reveals high level of corruption as corruption is characterised by lack of transparency and clear

accountability.

Other CAMPFIRE beneficiaries lamented that, CAMPFIRE revenue suffers embezzlement by

the TRDC and the revenue is seen after a long time. This can be compared and contrasted to

Muchapondwa (2011) who asserts that, in both Binga district and in Bulilimamangwe districts,

CAMPFIRE funds are not distributed equally between the RDCs and the communities

(CAMPFIRE beneficiaries). Thus the majority of the grassroots communities that have borne,

and that continue to bear the wildlife expenses, are been deprived of attaining the CAMPFIRE

funds and with such corruption existing, it seems that CAMPFIRE‟s objectives of poverty

alleviation is still a long way to be achieved.

Secondly Maphosa (01 June 2012-Newsday) reported that, “between 2010-11 three Tsholotsho

Rural District officials, the RDC CAMPFIRE Manager , finance officer and Chief Executive

Officer, were arraigned before the courts as they were accused of $37000 fraud emanating

from the purchase of two vehicles meant for CAMPFIRE .” Their case is still pending in courts.

The existence of misappropriation of CAMPFIRE funds makes it hard for the TRDC to foster

rapid infrastructural developmental initiatives that will significantly develop the communities. If

these funds are used in the correct channels, then CAMPFIRE may yield the achievement of its

core objectives of poverty alleviation. Ward 3, beneficiaries of CAMPFIRE argue that, the fact

that now the CAMPFIRE revenue develops the whole district equally poses a challenge to the

wards which are directly affected by the wildlife intrusions. The human-wildlife conflicts still

exist, and the Problem Animals (such as elephants) usually in fury and rage turn to destroy crops,

homesteads and injure or kill people. These wards are not compensated for all their big loss from

these human-wildlife conflicts. The timber concessional revenue has never been seen developing

the wards, this has resulted in high levels of deforestation by the frustrated villagers who cut

timber to sell for their illegal commercial use. The villagers alluded this to the TRDC which is

not transparent and accountable on CAMPFIRE‟s timber concessions to the timber providing

communal areas as required by the terms of the wildlife based reform.

The Problem Animal Control revenue is directly taken by the TRDC and they do not share it

with the community which bears the challenges and problems that are brought by these

problematic, wounded-stray animals which in fury turn to destroy crops, and injure people. The

TRDC fails to drag away these animals sometimes and controlling of “problem animals” has also

become a challenge to the local people since they are not allowed to take the law in their hands

and kill these animals .Most of them said they would be arrested if they killed the problem

animals such as Elephants and Lions particularly in ward 3. Thus poachers kill the elephants and

steal the elephants horns, leaving the dead carcasses behind which attracts the hyenas to dwell in

the communal areas due to the availability of these carcasses. The Hwange National Park is

destroyed and vandalized, which makes the adjacent wards like ward 3, to be vulnerable to the

intrusion of wildlife. Furthermore Muchapondwa (2011) points out that, poor management of

Game ranches by the newly indigenous people (war veterans), Poaching, rangeland fires,

vandalism of plough fields fences; illegal cutting of timber (deforestation) is rampant in Binga

district. Poaching and deforestation are also evidenced in Tsholotsho‟s ward 3.

4.6.2 Challenges faced by the Tsholotsho RDC in the aftermath of the implementation of

the FTLRP’s Wildlife Based Land Reform Policy

The CAMPFIRE manager lamented that, the CAMPFIRE department‟s capacity to handle

human-wildlife conflicts is limited, due to inadequate resources, for example the TRDC

CAMPFIRE Department has one vehicle. They do not have a policy and resources for

compensating the villagers who report cases of elephants that destroy their crops, homesteads or

medical payments for people who are injured by stray wild animals. There are inadequate funds

to repair the worn out Hwange National park as the DWNP is not willing to repair the fence. No

funding to meet other CAMPFIRE needs, especially for the CAMPFIRE wards. Inadequate

vehicles to quickly respond to deal with the animal problems increase in the number of poachers.

4.7. Opportunities in this post Wildlife Based Land Reform Policy period

The CAMPFIRE beneficiaries articulated the following recommendations as the opportunities

that may be used to enhance the efficiency of CAMPFIRE. The TRDC must formulate

investment policies that will draw the Saw mill timber companies to establish sub-stations in

ward 3, to alleviate poverty by generating employment to the grassroots people. TRDC must

follow all the requirements of the FTLRP‟s Wildlife policy which requires it to use the “Bottom

Up” approach in formulating their operational plans for CAMPFIRE. TRDC must be clearly

transparent and accountable on the actual income and expenditure of CAMPFIRE revenue. PAC

revenue must be shared equally with the villages that are affected by the intrusion of

problematic-stray and wounded wildlife. The TRDC to clearly disseminate or inform the

communities of wildlife policy matters. The government must return other stakeholders like Zim

Trust to return and co-administrate CAMPFIRE mutually with the TRDC. From the TRDC

CAMPFIRE manager, it was noted that, the TRDC has to formulate significant consortiums for

collaborative efforts with other relevant stakeholders to accumulate more funding, i.e. DWNPs,

Forestry Commission, and Hunting Safaries.

The CAMPFIRE manager revealed that, in February 2013, the TRDC‟s CAMPFIRE department

received one vehicle (a Land rover) as a donation from the Lodzi Hunters to compliment the

CAMPFIRE activities. Additionally, the Tsholotsho RDC CAMPFIRE Manager pointed out that,

the Wildlife Based land Reform policy of 2002 has adjusted CAMPFIRE revenue to be equally

disbursed in other non-CAMPFIRE wards as well at a district level, for infrastructural

development. Thus the wildlife based reform policy has decentralized the bureaucracy of TRD‟s

CAMPFIRE department to first seek permission and account to the DWNPs and even share the

CAMPFIRE revenue with it, but now the TRDC‟s CAMPFIRE department is liberated by the

FTLRP‟s wildlife policy of 2002, to operate independently from the DWNPs and not to share

any revenue with it.

The TRDC now independently gives the hunting and timber concessional tenders and trophies to

any of its desired stakeholders. Thus now all wild animals that intrude the Tsholotsho district

boundary are subject to the hunting exploitation of the TRDC‟s CAMPFIRE department. The

policy has modified CAMPFIRE through: firstly the Department of National Parks must not

receive a share of any wildlife concession that is done outside the boundary of Hwange National

Park (thus any wild animal which intrudes the boundary of the Tsholotsho district is directly

under the charge of the TRDC), secondly the grassroots populations are empowered to have a

share in the benefits of both timber and wildlife concessions to sustain their livelihoods.

4.8. Summary

This chapter has presented the findings and carried an analysis of data. In this regard, the study

investigated the impacts of the Fast Track land Reform Programme‟s Wildlife based reform

policy on the CAMPFIRE programme in Tsholotsho Ward 3 where the study was carried out. It

has gave answers to the research questions particularly on issues such as communities

understanding of FTLRP‟s wildlife based land reform policy and CAMPFIRE, challenges faced

by both the CAMPFIRE beneficiaries and the Tsholotsho Rural District Council (TRDC),

administration of the CAMPFIRE programmes in the (aftermath of the Wildlife based land

reform policy), precisely the utilization of the CAMPFIRE revenue, and Opportunities which are

there for both the CAMPFIRE beneficiaries and the TRDC CAMPFIRE department have been

presented and even linked to the related literature which was used in the early stages of the study.

CHAPTER 5

SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.0. Introduction

This chapter focuses on outlining the summary of the whole study, conclusion and

recommendations. Therefore this chapter earmarks the end of the study. It must be understood

that this chapter is clearly concluding the investigations on the impacts of the Fast Track Land

Reform Programme‟s wildlife based reform policy on the CAMPFIRE program in Tsholotsho‟s

ward 3 communities. The study will finally concede a significant, core recommendation that,

since the FTLRP‟s wildlife based reform policy was largely set to empower the local grassroots

people with the management of the wildlife resources and equitable access to land for agronomy

and timber processes, thus this can only be achieved through a “bottom-up approach” on the

decision making and the planning processes of equitable resource allocations to the communities.

5.1. Summary of the Study

The study focused on the background of both CAMPFIRE programme and the Fast Track Land

Reform Program‟s Wildlife based reform policy, particularly more focus was set on its effects on

the CAMPFIRE programs. Thus an investigation was made into its role in sustaining the

livelihoods people‟s livelihoods by averting poverty has been made. The research primarily

began with investigating whether the community had an understanding and knowledge of

CAMPFIRE, the importance of FTLRP‟s wildlife reform policy, and secondarily it focused on

the communities perspectives on the effects of the FTLRP‟s Wildlife based reform policy on

CAMPFIRE program, and how it is currently administrated on the aftermath of the Wildlife

based reform policy, the socio-economic changes on rural livelihoods, that have exerted by the

FTLRP‟s wildlife reform policy on CAMPFIRE, the challenges that have been faced by both the

TRDC‟s CAMPFIRE department and the CAMPFIRE beneficiaries and the opportunities which

are available to adjust and suit the CAMPFIRE program to them, to enhance the program‟s

efficiency. In this regard the study initiated some investigations on the current CAMPFIRE

activities that have been evidently implemented in the study area, other issues like the local

participation and control over wildlife by communities were also looked into in relation to

wildlife reform policy‟s major objectives. Lastly the study pointed out some prescriptions,

suggestions and recommendations from the grassroots participants as opportunities that can best

be adopted and implemented to initiate poverty alleviation strategies.

5.2. Major Findings

This section of the chapter will draw some conclusions on the research‟s three main objectives.

Thus the conclusions will be stated, discussed and analysed under the following headings:

Impacts of the FTLRP‟s Wildlife Based Land Reform Policy on CAMPFIRE programmes,

Challenges faced by the Tsholotsho ward 3 community in the aftermath of the implementation of

the FTLRP‟s wildlife reform policy, Opportunities or recommendations to improve the

efficiency of CAMPFIRE in this post Wildlife based reform period. Finally the study will draw a

conclusion on the impacts of FTLRP‟s wildlife based reform policy on CAMPFIRE to alleviate

poverty in sustaining livelihoods in the communal areas.

5.2.1. Impacts of the FTLRP’s Wildlife Based Land Reform Policy on CAMPFIRE

programmes

Form the data presentation of the previous chapter, the implemented the Fast Track Land Reform

Program (FTLRP)‟s Wildlife based reform policy has reinforced and modified CAMPFIRE

programme to bring equitable-gendered access to the grassroots people to benefit from the

management of wildlife natural resources. These CAMPFIRE funds now serve to bring rapid

infrastructural development to the communities at a district level. The policy has reinforced

security matters mainly in protecting the communities‟ crops from the foraging needs of wildlife,

by asserting a significant response to any wildlife intrusions in communal lands. The WBLRP

has empowered the communities to be entitled to access the existing “temporary” employments

in these CAMPFIRE funded projects, resulting in the improvements of livelihoods. Secondly the

WBLRP has entitled communities to have a direct access to meat (from hunting concessions,

killed problem, wounded animals) thus enhancing food security, and improved diets.

Moreover the FTLRP‟s Wildlife based reform has further adjusted CAMPFIRE programs to

create a podium for the empowerment of the communities to participate in the planning and

decision making processes as well managing their two third share of quarterly CAMPFIRE

revenue. The wildlife based reform policy has significantly reduced unnecessary long

bureaucracies of TRD‟s CAMPFIRE department to first seek permission from other relevant co

stakeholders such as to the Department of Wildlife National Parks (DWNP) and others. But now

the TRDC‟s CAMPFIRE department is liberated by the Ministry of Environment through the

implementation of the FTLRP‟s wildlife policy of 2002, to operate independently from these co-

stakeholders. The WBLRP is a successful mechanism to reshape such sustainable livelihood

programs as CAMPFIRE to achieve a people driven development as it has made CAMPFIRE of

late to enhance more socio-economic changes on rural livelihoods.

5.2.2. Challenges faced by the Tsholotsho Ward 3 Communities in the aftermath of the

implementation of the FTLRP’s Wildlife Based Land Reform Policy

From the lamentations of the grassroots CAMPFIRE beneficiaries, the study noted that, the

Local people have no control of wildlife resources. The major role of CAMPFIRE is to give

local people control over their wildlife. However the control of wildlife by the grassroots locals

is being limited by the Tsholotsho Rural District Council (TRDC) as they monopolise power by

giving themselves vast powers and to a lesser extent, the CAMPFIRE ward committees who

have the upper hand on CAMPFIRE revenues and activities at the expense of the majority

grassroots people. The villagers argued that, the TRDC is not transparent, infact it is very corrupt

as they misappropriate CAMPFIRE funds.

The TRDC has vast powers to determine quota numbers and CAMPFIRE revenues. This can be

compared and contrasted to Muchapondwa (2011) who reveals that, in Bulilimamangwe district,

CAMPFIRE funds suffers high embezzlement (cases of fraud are common) by the RDCs. Such

levels of corruption virtually become an obstacle for the communities to be rapidly developed by

the CAMPFIRE revenues. Human-wildlife conflicts still exist, the Hwange National park

boundary fence is still unrepaired, problem animals still destroy crops whereas the carnivore

wildlife preys on peoples livestock, resulting in poverty. The failure of the RDCs to be

transparent and accountable, monopolization of control of resources and the misappropriation of

CAMPFIRE revenue has posed as a stumbling block to rural development.

5.2.3. Opportunities to improve the efficiency of CAMPFIRE in this post Wildlife Based

Land Reform Policy period

From the facts that were pointed out by the key informant CAMPFIRE beneficiaries, in this

current aftermath of the Wildlife Based Land reform policy period, CAMPFIRE can successfully

fulfill its major objectives if the following factors are considered: the TRDC must formulate

sound investment policies that will draw the game butcheries and Saw mill timber companies to

establish sub-stations in ward 3, to alleviate poverty by generating employment to the grassroots

people. TRDC must follow all the requirements of the FTLRP‟s Wildlife policy which requires it

to use the “Bottom Up” approach in formulating their operational plans for CAMPFIRE. TRDC

must be clearly transparent and accountable on the actual income and expenditure of

CAMPFIRE revenue. PAC revenue must be shared equally with the villages that are affected by

the intrusion of problematic-stray and wounded wildlife. The TRDC to clearly disseminate or

inform the communities of wildlife policy and act matters. The government must return other

stakeholders like Zim Trust to return and co-administrate CAMPFIRE mutually with the TRDC.

It will be good TRDC formulates significant consortiums for collaborative efforts with other

relevant stakeholders to accumulate more funding, i.e. DWNPs, Forestry Commission, and

Hunting Safaries. If these above opportunities are considered with a most positive response, it is

envisaged that, a people driven, people centred development and a community owned

development will be inevitable in alleviating poverty in the rural areas.

5.2. Conclusion

A theoretical equitability of natural resource management in general which is claimed by the

Tsholotsho Rural District Council (TRDC) will not bring significant benefits to local people of

Tsholotsho unless the local governing authority virtually addresses the issues of real concern,

(such as decentralization, practical- equitable empowerment to manage natural resources) to

local people in a bottoms up approach following the clear guidelines of the FTLRP‟s Wildlife

based reform policy. In the case of the current CAMPFIRE, the majority of rural Tsholotsho

population have clearly refuted CAMPFIRE as a success in this dispensation of the Fast Track

Land Reform Programme‟s wildlife based land reform policy period, because the program has

failed to fulfill some of its core objectives of protecting people from the foraging needs of

wildlife as it has not addressed the major critical problem of human-wildlife conflicts and

damage to crops. The grassroots people‟s concerns are that the benefits of the modified

CAMPFIRE under the FTLRP‟s wildlife based land reform policy are not rapidly-adequate to

necessarily accrue to the majority of the community. Many grassroots populations in Tsholotsho

district have not attained much benefits on a rapid-constant basis due to the misappropriation of

CAMPFIRE revenue by both the TRDC and to a lesser extent the local CAMPFIRE local

committees. The livelihoods have not improved or changed much over the years as many

Tsholotsho people have migrated to the neighbouring country, South Africa in search for

employment.

It is clear that, that although the 2002 FTLRP‟s wildlife land reform policy has been designed by

the GoZ to decentralize the management of natural resources, yet there has been a stagnant

failure to decentralize the control over wildlife management, and this is a huge problem/

challenge. This can be attributed to the local governance structures (Rural District Councils)

having fear of losing power, has made them to monopolise the administration of the management

of natural resources.

Although there are multiple negative occurrences in the current FTLRP‟s wildlife based land

reform policy‟s effects on CAMPFIRE, in Tsholotsho district, the researcher acknowledges the

Government of Zimbabwe for adopting the CAMPFIRE program and further modifying it with

the FTLRP‟s wildlife based land reform policy as a sustainable livelihood strategy to enhance it

to be an efficient poverty alleviation strategy as it entails the existence of an engendered-

equitable access to the sustainable management of land and wildlife. There are a lot of success

stories in the districts like Binga, Hwange and Save Valley-near Gonarezhou National park and

others have been recorded as they have significantly changed the communities lives for the best

resulting in; social benefits, employment, household food security, reduced vulnerability and

increased income to enhance poverty alleviation resulting in significant Rural Development.

5.4. Recommendations

On the other hand, from the data collected by the researcher, it will be unfair to dismiss the

modified CAMPFIRE by the wildlife based reform policy as a “total failure”. It has been noted

in the study that, the Tsholotsho CAMPFIRE program has done well in its project activities of

infrastructural development, precisely in ward 3, but it needs to significantly improve on the

matters of Transparency and Accountability, Decentralization, Dissemination of information

especially on policy and acts issues, Problem Animal Control, and Responsiveness to both

respond to problem animals and in addressing poverty in the rural communities of Tsholotsho

and mostly importantly do away with the “Top down Approach” and adopt the “Bottoms Up

Approach” so as to improve the local people‟s participation in both the planning process and

decision making processes.

The researcher used the bottoms up approach to gather the following suggestions to have the

opportunities which exist to enhance CAMPFIRE‟s efficiency in this current dispensation of the

FTLRP‟s wildlife based land reform policy: The TRDC must formulate sound investment

policies that will draw the Saw mill timber companies to establish sub-stations in ward 3, to

alleviate poverty by generating employment to the grassroots people. TRDC must follow and

implement all the requirements of the FTLRP‟s Wildlife policy which requires it to use the

bottoms up approach in formulating their operational plans for CAMPFIRE program. In as much

as the TRDC claims to be accountable to the Ministry of Environment and the Ministry of

Tourism and the National Parks, it must also be clearly transparent and accountable on the actual

income and expenditure of CAMPFIRE revenue even to the Communities (CAMPFIRE

beneficiaries). The TRDC on PAC revenue must share it in accordance of the guidelines of the

FTLRP‟s wildlife based land reform policy‟s: two third revenue to the community and one third

revenue will go to the TRDC, precisely the PAC must be disbursed with the main villages that

are affected by the intrusion of problematic-stray and wounded wildlife. The TRDC must clearly

disseminate information and inform the communities of wildlife policy and acts matters. The

GoZ must return other stakeholders like Zim Trust to co-administrate CAMPFIRE mutually with

the TRDC so as to curb these evidently- alarming misappropriation of CAMPFIRE funds by the

TRDC. From the TRDC CAMPFIRE manager, it is noted that, the TRDC has to formulate

significant consortiums for collaborative efforts with other relevant stakeholders to accumulate

more funding, i.e. DWNPs, Forestry Commission, and Hunting Safaries. Lobby the government

and other stakeholders to provide resources to enhance the efficiency of the CAMPFIRE

department in its response to animal problems. CAMPFIRE department must run other

agronomy projects that will generate or empower it with other sustainable income generating

initiatives to fund its expenditures.

Furthermore, it must be understood that, the FTLRP‟s Wildlife Based Land Reform Policy is still

in force, as far as the researcher knows, and has not been repealed by the GoZ. The researcher

believes therefore that there is room to revisit the policy and its implementation strategy with the

view to sharpen the equitable empowerment (indigenization) options so that the potential

participating grassroots populations can find legitimate expression. It is prudent in the

researcher‟s opinion that the GoZ find ways of assessing the full implementation of the Wildlife

based land reform policy and that the RDCs CAMPFIRE departments establish business

partnerships that in turn invest time and effort into establishing broad‐based business and social

partnerships with neighbouring communities. After all, community participation offers more

potential benefits. The prospects for both economic and social impact are greater.

Rukuni (2012) argues that, these communities historically had strong relationships with the

wildlife anyway. It was part of African culture and heritage to have a symbiotic relationship with

wildlife. In folklore, mythology and traditional religions, wildlife is the most significant inherited

form of relationship with nature that defines family, clan and ancestral identity. The traditional

beliefs in the sacredness of wildlife should be re‐invented by once again formalising the

relationship between communities and wildlife. This is a more effective and least‐cost means of

conservation because enforcement against poaching does not require a plethora of laws,

regulations and game wardens. Rather the people‟s beliefs and conscience is a far better

policeman and deterrent. By expanding conservancies through the incorporation of neighbouring

communities, the potential of expanding options beyond consumptive tourism towards more

cultural, photographic and other non‐consumptive forms of tourism are greater. The prospects for

more effective integration with transfrontier conservation efforts are also greater. These, in the

researcher‟s opinion, are the principles that should guide Zimbabwe‟s strategic vision for

conservatives moving forward.

COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION IS THE FUTURE

Zimbabwe has three decades of experience with the Communal Areas Management Programme

for Indigenous Resources (CAMPFIRE) programme. From that experience the model can be

improved further into establishing more self‐reliant Community Trusts with sufficient autonomy

from the Rural District Councils (RDCs) who, in the researcher‟s, should play a facilitating and

regulatory role rather than as a business player. From Rukuni (2012)‟s example the Conservation

strategists have proved that the Save Valley Conservancy, as an example, can expand in physical

size by crafting community held land and resources into the conservancy. It is then conceivable

that the conservancy would eventually “merge” with Gonarezhou National Park in the south,

which in turn is conceivably linked to the inter‐country transfrontier conservation areas. The

scope for tourism and related business for Zimbabwe and Southern Africa are enormous. The

researcher however, does not see how this potential can be harnessed to the optimum through

large‐scale commercial interests alone (be they foreign, indigenous, or a combination) without

significant community engagement and participation.

Community participation also requires comprehensive planning and investment in terms of

capacity. There is need to refine and regularise the relationships between Rural District Councils

and Community Trusts moving forward. There is need for the RDCs and Community Trusts to

enter into a Memoranda of Understanding with respective conservancies so as to formalize roles

and responsibilities around the commercial undertakings they enter into with these

conservancies. There is need to build the capacity of communities to establish viable Community

Trusts with capabilities in both social and business entrepreneurship. The Community Trust

should be established on the basis of a much broader community vision and plan for

development, and not restricted to business participation and share ownership. The Community

Trust assumes all fiduciary responsibilities for the rural community it represents. Community

Trusts need to enter effective management agreement with their business partners.

REFERENCES

Bazin, G (1995) Resistance to marginalization in Mediterranean rural regions, McGraw Hill

Publications, USA

Berg, B. (2007) Qualitative Research Methods for the Social Sciences(6th ed), Pearson

Education Publishers, Boston

Bernard, H. R. and Ryan, G. (2010) Qualitative data analysis: Systematic approaches, Sage

Publications, London

Bhattacherjee, A (2012) Social Science Research: Principles, Methods, and Practices , University

of South Florida Press, USA

Blackburn, J and Holland, J eds. (2008) Who Changes?: Institutionalizing Participation in

Development, Immediate Technology Publications, London

Bond, I. and Child, B. (2011) Cattle, wildlife, both or neither: results of a financial and economic

survey of commercial ranches in Southern Zimbabwe, Longman Publications, Harare.

Brenda, P (2009) A Guide to Research Ethics, University of Minnesota Press, USA

Carney, D. (2008) Implementing the sustainable rural livelihoods approach, DFID Publications,

London

Chambers, R. (2005), „Sustainable livelihoods, environment and development: putting poor rural

people first, Macmillan Publications, London

Charmaz, K. (2006) Grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis, Sage

Cochran, W.G (2007) Sampling Techniques, John Wiley and Sons Publishers, New York.

Denzin, N and Lincoln, Y. (Eds.) (2011) Handbook of qualitative research (4th ed) ,Sage

Des Raj. P (2002) The Design of Sample Surveys, McGraw-Hill Publications, New York

Eckstein, H (2002) Case Studies and Theory in Political Science, University of California Press,

California

Flores J.G. and Alonso C.G. (1995) Using focus groups in educational research, McGraw Hill

Publications, New York

George, A. L. and Bennett, A (2004) Case Studies and Theory Development, University of

Cambridge Press, London

Gerring, J. (2001) Social Science Research Methodology: A Criterial Framework, Cambridge

University Press, London

Goss J.D. and Leinbach T.R. (2006) Focus groups as alternative research practice, Macmillan

Hill, K.A. (2012) Zimbabwe's Wildlife Utilization Programs: Grassroots Democracy or an

Extension of State Power? Zed Books Publications, London

Horowitz, D. L. (2005) Ethical Guidelines, University of California Press, California

Hughes, D.M. (2005) Rezoned for business: how eco-tourism unlocked black farmland in eastern

Zimbabwe, Macmillan Publications, London

Jackson C 2006 Sustainable development at the sharp end, field worker agency in participatory

projects, Penguin publications, London

Jack, B and Clarke, A (2008) The purpose and use of questionnaires in research, Routledge

Jefferson T, (2002) Measuring the Quality of Editorial Peer Review, Macmillan Publications,

London

Katerere, Y. (2008) Exploring approaches to land reform and resettlement in wildlife production

areas, University of Zimbabwe Publications, Harare.

Kitzinger J. (2004) The methodology of focus groups: the importance of interaction

between research participants, John Hopkins University Press, USA

Logan, B.I. and Mosely, W.G. (2009) The political ecology of poverty alleviation in Zimbabwe‟s

Communal Areas Management Programme for Indigenous Resources (CAMPFIRE), University

of Pretoria Press, South Africa

Madzudzo, E and Dzingirai, V. (2009) A comparative study of ethnicity on CAMPFIRE in

Tsholotsho, Bulilimamangwe and Binga Districts of Zimbabwe, Longman Publications, Harare

Map of Tsholotsho District, Zimbabwe from Google images. Districts of Zimbabwe: references.

http://images.google.com/images?hl=EN&biw=1366&bih=677&gbv=2&tbs=isch:1&sa=1&q=m

ap+of+tsholotsho+district+in+zimbabwe&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=

Mavhumashava (29 October 2013) Campfire needs refining to meet new challenges, Southern

Eye Newspaper

Maphosa, K (01 June 2012) Newsday news paper

Miles, M and Hurberman, M (2004) Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd

ed.), Sage Publications, London

Moyo. S and Sukume ,M (2004) Land Occupations and Land Reform in Zimbabwe, Zed Books

Publications London

Moyo, S (2006) A Review of Zimbabwean Agricultural Sector following the Implementation of

the Land Reform: Overall Impacts of Fast Track Land Reform Programme, University of

Zimbabwe Publications, Harare

Muchapondwa, E (2011) Can local communities in Zimbabwe be trusted with wildlife

management? Evidence from contingent valuation of elephants on CAMPFIRE, Longman

Publications, Harare

Murphree, M.W. (2006) Decentralising the Proprietorship of Wildlife Resources in Zimbabwe's

Communal Lands. Centre for Applied Social Sciences, University of Zimbabwe Publications,

Harare

Nabane, N, et al (2010) Membership in Common Property Regimes. A Case Study of Guruve,

Binga, Tsholotsho and Bulilimamangwe CAMPFIRE Programmes: Centre for Applied Social

Sciences, University of Zimbabwe Publications, Harare

Rukuni, M (2012) Re‐framing the Wildlife Based Land Reform Programmes in Zimbabwe,

University of Zimbabwe Publications, Harare

Sarndal, C.E. B. and Swensson (2002) Model Assisted Survey Sampling, Springer-Verlag

Publishers, New York.

Satin, A (2003) Survey Sampling: A Non-Mathematical Guide – Second Edition, Macmillan

Publications, Canada

Straub, D.W (2006) Validating Instruments in MIS Research, Oxford University Press, London

Strauss, A and Corbin, J (1998) Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures

Techniques, Sage Publications, London

Scoones, I and Chaumba, J (2012) Wildlife Management and Land Reform in Southeastern

Zimbabwe: A Compatible Pairing or a Contradiction in Terms? Macmillan Publications, London

Sunday News (5-11 May 2013)

Tewksbury, P (2005) Research Methods: A Qualitative Reader, Prentice-Hall Publishers, Boston

Warren, C. A. B. and Tracy X. (2005) Discovering Qualitative Methods: Field Research,

Interviews, and Analysis, Roxbury Publications, Los Angeles

Valenzuela, D (2012) Interview as a Method for Qualitative Research, Yale University Press,

Sydney

Yin, R. K. (1994) Case Study Research: Design and Methods, Sage Publications, London

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix 1: Data Collection Instrument (Questionnaire)

CAMPFIRE BENEFICIARIES QUESTIONNAIRE

This questionnaire will gather data on the investigation of the impacts of Fast Track Land Reform Programme (FTLRP)’s

Wildlife Based Land Reform Policy on the CAMPFIRE programme. In this case, the data will be collected from the

Purposive sample of the individuals who are CAMPFIRE beneficiaries. In this tool, the researcher will interview the

beneficiaries on a one on one basis, precisely interpreting the following questions to the vernacular (Ndebele) language of

the beneficiaries. These questions are linked to the research objectives.

Province: Matabeleland North Village:

District: Tsholotsho Month : April

Ward: 3 Year: 2014

Student Name: Njabulo Moyo (L 010 0097 C) Designation: Block Release (part 4:2)

Respondent name…………………………………………………….

Age………………………………………………..Marital Status……………………………………………………………

1.1 Are you a CAMPFIRE beneficiary? Yes/No

1.2 How is CAMPFIRE programme being run in the aftermath of the Fast Track Land Reform Programme’s Wildlife Based Land Reform policy?

1.3 How does the Fast Track Land Reform Programme’s Wildlife Reform policy of 2002 implementation empower the ordinary people to have access and control to manage CAMPFIRE?

1.4 Before Fast Track Land Reform Programme’s Wildlife Based Land Reform policy was implemented, how did you benefit from CAMPFIRE programme?

1.5 In your own opinion, how did the Wildlife Based Land Reform Policy of the Fast Track Land Reform Programme affect the CAMPFIRE?

1.6 On the post 2000 Fast Track Land Reform Programme’s Wildlife Based Land Reform Policy in Tsholotsho district, how does your household benefit from the CAMPFIRE programme?

2.0 Do wild animals destroy your livestock and your crops? If yes explain

Yes / No

2.1 How does the Tsholotsho Rural District Council distribute the income (benefits) of the CAMPFIRE programme in the post Fast Track Land Reform Programme’s Wildlife Based Land Reform Policy period?

2.2 What are the other challenges that you face on CAMPFIRE on the aftermath of Fast Track Land Reform Programme’s Wildlife Based Land Reform policy?

2.4 How does the Tsholotsho Rural District Council respond in cases of wildlife intrusions in your area?

3.0 In the post Wildlife Based Land Reform Policy period, are you given a platform to freely state other ways of planning and running the CAMPFIRE programme?

Yes / No

3.2 If Yes , explain

3.3 What can be done to improve CAMPFIRE in the post Fast Track Land reform Programme’s wildlife based reform policy

3.4 Since 2002, have you ever been employed in the CAMPFIRE projects of infrastructural development?

3.5 On CAMPFIRE activities, how do the Hunting Safaries and the Timber companies employ you in the area?

Appendix 2: Interview Guide for Tsholotsho Rural District Council’s CAMPFIRE

Manager

TSHOLOTSHO RDC CAMPFIRE MANAGER’S INTERVIEW GUIDE

District: Tsholotsho Month: April

Ward: 3 Year: 2014

Respondent name…………………………………………………….

1. Does the Tsholotsho Ward 3, community understand the importance of CAMPFIRE?

2. Is the community (CAMPFIRE beneficiaries) aware of the Fast Track Land Reform Program’s Wildlife Based Land Reform Policy?

3. How did the Wildlife Based Land Reform Policy affect CAMPFIRE?

4. After the Fast Track Land Reform Programme’s Wildlife Based Land Reform Policy was implemented, how does the Tsholotsho Rural District Council administrate CAMPFIRE?

5. In your own opinion, what are the socio-economic changes on rural livelihoods of CAMPFIRE beneficiaries since the implementation of the Wildlife Based Land Reform Policy?

6. What are the challenges faced by the Tsholotsho Rural District Council’s CAMPFIRE department?

7. How has the CAMPFIRE department ensured that the local people are empowered to have an equitable access to manage wildlife resources as stated in the Wildlife Based Land Reform Policy?

8. State the opportunities that the Tsholotsho RDC may urtilise to enhance efficiency in the administration of CAMPFIRE in this current period of the Wildlife Based Land Reform Policy period?

9. How does the Wildlife Based Land Reform Policy of the Fast Track Land Reform Programme, empower the Tsholotsho Rural District Council to manage natural resources?

Appendix 3: Interview Guide for Focus Group Discussion

FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSION INTERVIEW GUIDE

District: Tsholotsho Month and Year: April 2014

Ward: 3

Number of Respondents…………………………………………………….

Names of Respondents…................................................................................................................................................

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

1. Does the Tsholotsho ward 3, community understand the importance of Communal Areas Management Programme For Indigenous Resources (CAMPFIRE)?

2. Does the Tsholotsho ward 3 community understand the importance of Fast Track Land Reform Programme’s Wildlife Based Land Reform Policy?

3. From your own perspectives, how did the Fast Track Land Reform Programme’s Wildlife Based Land Reform Policy affect CAMPFIRE programme in the community?

4. How are the Communities empowered by the Wildlife based Land Reform Policy to manage wildlife?

5. After the Wildlife Based Land Reform Policy was implemented, how is CAMPFIRE being administrated?

6. On the aftermath of Fast Track Land Reform Programme’s Wildlife Based Land Reform Policy, what are the socio-economic changes on rural livelihoods of CAMPFIRE beneficiaries?

7. What are the challenges that the Tsholotsho ward 3 community face in the aftermath of the implementation of the Fast Track land Reform Programme (FTLRP)’s Wildlife reform policy?

8. What can be done to further enhance improvement on the administration of CAMPFIRE programme?

Appendix 4: Authorization letter to conduct research

An Investigation of the Impact of the Fast Track Land Reform Programme's Wildlife Based Land Reform...

Documents

Transcript of An Investigation of the Impact of the Fast Track Land Reform Programme's Wildlife Based Land Reform...

The effect of collective forestland tenure reform in China: Does land parcelization reduce forest management intensity?

reflections on land transactions in Svosve Communal Area ...

REFLECTING ON LAW, MORALITY AND COMMUNAL ...

Land Reform Policies, the Sources of Violent Conflict, and Implications for Deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon

Global Regulatory Reform

The Contested Status of 'Communal Land Tenure' in South Africa

Ethnicity and the Dilemma of Ethno-Communal Conflicts in ...

Communal Coping and Adjustment to Chronic Illness

COMMUNAL TENSION AND GENDER BIAS IN MAHESH ...

Communal Irrigation Systems Component - PIDS

Education REFORM

Land degradation and livestock production in Zimbabwe's communal areas

Communal Polyethylene Biogas Systems - DiVA portal

Push Factors, Household Support & Effects of Communal land

Conducting a Communal Questionnaire in Community ...

Jewish Communal Fund

the agricultural land reform code of 1963

Productivity, Net Returns, and Efficiency: Land and Market Reform in Vietnamese Rice Production

Urban land market and land-use changes in post-reform China: A case study of Beijing

Explanation of Models A,B,C and D of Land Reform in Zimbabwe