i
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.
ii
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.
iii
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.
iv
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
v
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
vi
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
vii
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
1
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
2
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
3
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
4
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)?
5
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.
6
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.
7
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
8
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.
9
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
10
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.
11
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
12
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
13
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.
14
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
15
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.
16
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.
17
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
18
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 non- probability 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
19
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
20
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,
21
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.
22
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.
23
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
24
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
25
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
26
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
27
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.
28
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
29
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
30
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.
31
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.
32
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.
33
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
34
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
35
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.
36
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-
37
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.
38
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.
39
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
40
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
41
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.
42
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.
43
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,
44
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
45
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.
46
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
47
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.
48
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
49
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
50
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.
51
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
Publications, London
52
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
Publications, London
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
Publications, London
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
53
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
Publications, London
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
54
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.
55
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
and
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
56
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix 1: Data Collection Instrument (Questionnaire)
DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT STUDIES
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?
57
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?
58
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?
59
Appendix 2: Interview Guide for Tsholotsho Rural District Council’s CAMPFIRE
Manager
DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT STUDIES
TSHOLOTSHO RDC CAMPFIRE MANAGER’S INTERVIEW GUIDE
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…………………………………………………….
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?
60
Appendix 3: Interview Guide for Focus Group Discussion
DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT STUDIES
FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSION INTERVIEW GUIDE
Province: Matabeleland North Village:
District: Tsholotsho Month and Year: April 2014
Ward: 3
Student Name: Njabulo Moyo (L 010 0097 C) Designation: Block Release (part 4:2)
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?
Top Related