Local people (e.g., individuals, communities, co-operatives)
National external (individual, groups. e.g., hunters, anglers, photographers, tourists)
International external (individual, groups. e.g., hunters, anglers, photographers, tourists)
Is the use part of a strategy to generate conservation incentives, to finance conservation, or to improve tolerance/stewardship?
Yes
Is there evidence that the use is affecting the conservation status of the species? HIDE
Yes – use is improving the status (e.g., population is increasing or stabilising, extraction effort OR catch per unit effort is decreasing or stable)
Is there evidence that the use is affecting natural selection?
Unknown/not recorded
Is there evidence that the use is affecting poaching of illegal wildlife trade?
Yes, positive (use is helping combat poaching or illegal wildlife trade)
It seems that without the presence of the CAMPFIRE program, elephant populations would have been negatively affected, particularly by habitat conversion. In addition, since the start of the program (2010), it seems that elephant population sizes in Zimbabwe have been stable, hinting at sustainability of use.
The revenues generated from the trade in this species through hunting and tourism increases the tolerance for this animal since this offsets the costs of living with them in a rural environment with high poverty.
Is there any evidence that this use of the species is having a knock-on effect on the status of non-target species
Yes, it is having a positive effect (e.g., reduced competition, reduced risk of hybridization)
Yes, positive (e.g., it increases / retains land area for conservation)
Yes, considered sustainable
Additional Details (if available)
The legal trade in listed species, such as elephant, has raised the much needed revenue for resource protection, particularly for law enforcement and minimising the threat of illegal harvesting.
Additional Details (if available)
Legal trade in CITES-listed species is a strong incentive for wildlife to remain a viable land use option beyond the protected area network. The space requirements of such species cannot be met with protected areas alone, hence the land under CAMPFIRE is an important part of Zimbabwe’s conservation landscape and strategy. Without a supportive framework for legal trade in such species, most habitat for elephant, lion, leopard, wild dog, etc, will be brought under the plough.
Details of assessment carried out
It seems that without the presence of the CAMPFIRE program, elephant populations would have been negatively affected, particularly by habitat conversion. In addition, since the start of the program (2010), it seems that elephant population sizes in Zimbabwe have been stable, hinting at sustainability of use.
Has a valuation of financial flows from this use at the site/national/international level been recorded
The CAMPFIRE wards tend to elect to invest in projects that provide social services to the whole community and only in special circumstances are dividends paid out for food security and direct cash benefits.
the bulk of these funds (45%) allocated directly to social services35 that support schools, clinics and other infrastructure that benefit the whole community
the bulk of these funds (45%) allocated directly to social services35 that support schools, clinics and other infrastructure that benefit the whole community
Training and extension services through revenues generated from the sustainable use of elephants. For e.g. training on crop-raiding mitigation techniques.
compensation for human-wildlife conflict victims; human-wildlife mitigation techniques
Wild fire prevention and mitigation, soil erosion and deforestation
control
Has any assessment of socio-economic sustainability been recorded
Yes, considered sustainable
Details of assessment
However, it goes without saying that, currently, the greatest limitation facing the beneficiaries of the CAMPFIRE Programme is the inability of the hunting industry to market elephant trophies. Zimbabwe sees the absence of being able to trade in elephant products (such as ivory) as the greatest threat to elephant survival in the country (and in the region as a whole).
Has the use of the species been recorded as resulting in changes to human health in this record?
Unknown/not recorded
Has the species in use been noted as being of particular disease risk to humans?
Unknown/not recorded
Has the use of the species resulted in changes to animal welfare in this record?
Unknown/not recorded
Are there particular practices which have increased the risk to human or animal health or welfare in the use of this species?
Unknown/not recorded
Does the use of this species increase susceptibility to pathogen spread?
Unknown/not recorded
Unknown/not recorded
Strong community governance/institutions/rights for wildlife management
Absent
Supportive policy and legislative framework
Absent
Adequate capacity to implement and enforce governance arrangements
Absent
Good alignment of legal protections with local cultural values and traditional
Absent
Support from NGOs
Absent
Support from Government
Absent
High financial returns from use
Absent
Abundant population of target species
Absent
Biological characteristics of target species
Absent
Capacity building of community
Absent
Establishment and implementation of species and/or area management plan
Absent
Effective private sector approach engagement through certification
CITES (2020) CITES and Livelihood Case Studies 2020: Trophy hunting of elephants and how this supports the Zimbabwe CAMPFIRE PROGRAM.
the birth of Zimbabwe’s Community Areas Management Program for Indigenous Resources (CAMPFIRE), was developed in response to the realization that unless communities living with wildlife can obtain direct value from wildlife, they will not protect the wildlife. Most of the income generated by CAMPFIRE came from trophy hunting. The - Parks and Wildlife Management Authority allocates hunting quotas to each of the CAMPFIRE Districts through a participatory and science-based process. Between 2010 and 2018 (9 years), the 10 districts were allocated a quota of 1,437 elephants
How many people or households are involved in the use?