Case Studies on Successful Southern African Nrm Initiatives and Their Impacts on Poverty and Governance

CASE STUDIES ON SUCCESSFUL SOUTHERN AFRICAN NRM INITIATIVES AND THEIR IMPACTS ON POVERTY AND GOVERNANCE

ZIMBABWE: MASOKA AND GAIREZI

February 2007

This publication is made possible by the support of the American People through the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). The contents of this publication are the sole responsibility of International Resources Group (IRG) and do not necessarily reflect the views of USAID or the United States Government.

CASE STUDIES ON SUCCESSFUL SOUTHERN AFRICAN NRM INITIATIVES AND THEIR IMPACTS ON POVERTY AND GOVERNANCE

ZIMBABWE: MASOKA AND GAIREZI

This report was written by RD Taylor and MW Murphree.

IUCN South Africa Country Office International Resources Group P.O. Box 11536, Hatfield 1211 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Pretoria, 0028 Suite 700 Tel: +27 12 342-8304/5/6 Washington, DC 20036 Fax: +27 12 342-8289 202-289-0100 Fax 202-289-7601 www.iucnsa.org.za www.irgltd.com

CONTENTS

I General Introduction ...... 1 1. FRAME Programme...... 1 1.1 Objectives ...... 1 1.2 Project Phases ...... 1 1.3 Zimbabwe Case Study: CAMPFIRE...... 2 2. Phase III: Case Studies ...... 2 2.1 Terms of Reference...... 2 2.2 Choice of Case Studies...... 3 3. Methodology, research activities, dates...... 4 3.1 Outline Followed...... 4 3.2 General Checklist for Local Case Studies ...... 5 3.3 Checklist for Programm Level Activity ...... 6 3.4 Activities and dates ...... 6 II THE MASOKA CASE STUDY...... 8 1. Summary Description ...... 8 2. Background...... 9 2.1 Environmental setting...... 9 2.2 Demography and Livelihood Issues...... 16 2.3 Resources Used or Managed...... 17 2.4 Institutions Responsible for Managing Resources...... 17 2.5 Funding – Who, How Much, How Long...... 18 3. Detailed Description of the Project...... 18 3.1 Goal ...... 18 3.2 Problem to be Resolved ...... 19 3.3 Description of Activities...... 20 4. Results ...... 22 4.1 Livelihood Results ...... 22 4.2 Equity, Cotton and Wildlife ...... 26 4.3 Natural Resource Results...... 31 4.4 Governance Results...... 39 4.5 Unexpected results...... 44 5. Conclusions...... 45 5.1 Lessons learned...... 45 III THE GAIREZI CASE STUDY ...... 46 1. Summary description ...... 46 2. Background...... 46 2.1 Environmental setting...... 46 2.2 Livelihood Issues...... 48 2.3 Resources Used or Managed...... 49 2.4 Institutions Responsible for Managing Resources...... 49 2.5 Funding – Who, How Much, How Long...... 51 3. Detailed description of project ...... 51 3.1 Goal ...... 51 3.2 Problem to be resolved ...... 51

III

3.3 Description of activities...... 52 4. Results ...... 54 4.1 Livelihood Results ...... 54 4.2 Natural Resource Results...... 55 4.3 Governance Results...... 57 4.4 Unexpected Results...... 59 5. Conclusions...... 60 5.1 Lessons Learned ...... 60 IV CONCLUDING REFLECTIONS ...... 61 1. Importance of the Macro-economic and Policy Environment ...... 61 2. Legitimations of Authority: “Traditional” or “Modern?”...... 61 3. Proprietor–Client Relationships...... 62 4. Leaders and Followers...... 63 5. Institutional Memory...... 63 V LINKS TO THE UNITED NATIONS CONVENTION TO COMBAT DESERTIFICATION...... 64 REFERENCES...... 66

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Rivers and flow regimes in Kanyurira Ward, Dande Communal Land Table 2. Vegetation classification for Kanyurira Ward (after Cunliffe 1995) Table 3. The average number and density of elephant and buffalo estimated in Guruve South using aerial sampling over the period 1988-2001 Table 4. Minimum estimates of selected large herbivores Guruve South quota area in 2001 Table 5. Masoka wildlife income 1990–2006 Table 6. Number of employed persons and nature of employment at Masoka Table 7. Masoka wildlife revenues and budget allocations 1990-1995 (ZW$) Table 8. Net household income from cotton sales, Masoka 1995 Table 9. Infrastructural development at Masoka Table 10. Masoka Ward Wildlife Committee budget July-December 2006 Table 11. Wildlife habitat loss in Kanyurira Ward between 1989 and 1997 as reflected by change in size of ward wildlife area Table 12. Current settlement patterns at Masoka Table 13. Elements of biodiversity in Zimbabwe’s Eastern Highlands Table 14. Income Gairezi Development Trust 2004-2006

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure1. Map of Zimbabwe showing Guruve and Nyanga Districts in the Zambezi valley and eastern highlands respectively, within which the study sites of Masoka and Kairesi are situated Figure 2. Kanyurira Ward in Guruve District showing Masoka Figure 3a. Estimated elephant numbers for Guruve South quota area 1988-2001 Figure 3b. Estimated buffalo numbers for Guruve South quota area 1988-2001 Figure 4. Masoka CAMPFIRE wildlife income 1990–2006 Figure 5. Frequency distribution of household net income from cotton production at Masoka during 1995

Figure 6. Land use plan map Figure 7. Monthly incience of fence break-ins at Masoka, August-October 1996 Figure 8. Average monthly voltage flowing through the Masoka electrified game fence, August-October 1996 Figure 9. Elephant and buffalo shot on PAC at Masoka 1999-2006 Figure10. Themonthly requency of elephant and buffalo shot on PAC at Masoka, 2005- 2006 Figure 11a. Quota allocation and offtake of trophy male elephant for the Guruve South quota area, 2001-2005. Figure 11b. Trophy size (single tusk weight in lbs) for male elephant shot in Guruve South quota area, 2001-2005. Figure 12a. Quota allocation and offtake of trophy male buffalo for the Guruve South quota area, 2001-2005. Figure 12b. Trophy size (horn length in inches) for male buffalo shot in Guruve South quota area, 2001-2005. Figure 13. Distribution of sport hunted large mammals hunted in the Guruve South quota area which includes Kanyurira Ward Figure 14. Nyanga District showing Tangwena Ward. The dashed boxed inset is the Gairezi Resettlement Area Figure 15. The Gairezi Resettlement Area on the Gairezi river showing A: Dazi and B: Nyamutsapa, north of Nyanga National Park Figure16. The number of routcaught by NDFFC members 1959-1992 Figure 17. The average weight of trout caught by NDFFC members 1959-1992

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix 1. Indicative work plan Appendix 2. Persons consulted Appendix 3. Vegetation map Appendix 4. List of large mammals (see Conybeare) Appendix 5. WWC Community budget 2006

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

CAMPFIRE Communal (Community) Areas Management Programme for Indigenous Resources CBNRM Community Based Natural Resource Management CCG CAMPFIRE Collaborative Group CDF CAMPFIRE Development Fund CEO Chief Executive Officer DEAP District Environmental Action Plan DNPWLM Department of National Parks & Wild Life Management CASS Centre for Applied Social Sciences COMPASS Community Partnerships for Sustainable Resources Management Project ELMS Environment and Land Management Sector EMA Environmental Management Agency GDT Gairezi Development Trust G(K)RPA Gairezi (Kairezi) River Protected Area LIFE Living in a Finite Environment NAP National Action Plan NDFFC Nyanga Downs Fly Fishing Club NGO Non Government Organisation NRM Natural Resource Management PAC Problem Animal Control PWMA Parks and Wildlife Management Authority RAP Regional Action Plan RDC Rural District Council SADC Southern Africa Development Community SAFIRE Southern African Forum for Indigenous Resources SRAP Sub-Regional Action Plans TTCB Tsetse and Trypanosomiasis Control Branch

VII

UNCBD United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity UNCCD United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification USAID United States Agency for International Development WWC Ward Wildlife Committee WWF SARPO World Wide Fund for Nature Southern Africa regional Proramme Office ZCCDU Zimbabwe Campfire Community Development Union ZIMTRUST Zimbabwe Trust

VIII

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS In Harare, we thank the following persons for sharing their time and knowledge with us: Mrs Mutsa Chasi, Director-General Environmental Management Agency, Isaac Chaipa, Chairman Gairezi Development Trust, Bill Bedford and Charl Grobbelaar, Ingwe Safaris, Shaun Dutton, Chairman Nyanga Downs Fly Fishing Club, and Charles Jonga, Director CAMPFIRE Association. David Hamiliton did likewise in Wedza. At Masoka, Headman Blessing Kanyurira and Gift Zirota were especially helpful in updating us on developments and events in Kanyurira Ward. Edson Zengeretsi and Step Coffee provided much information, data and figures pertaining to CAMPFIRE at Masoka. In Nyanga, Jaravaza and Thomas Machena, Nyanga RDC, and Rolland Mandondo, Disitrict Administration provided us with their perspectives and insights on the Gairezi Eco-Tourism Project. At Gairezi, Trustees Gordon Mudzi and Judith Nyagondere were very helpful, hospitable and shared their insights freely. Ernest Mandipe, the GDT Project Supervisor arranged all of our local visits and provided us with invaluable information and statistics. Conrad Steenkamp, Brigitte Schuster and Josephine Charinga at IUCN South Africa and Botswana have facilitated our work in a very helpful and relaxed manner. John Stevens and Charles Waghorn were helpful and enjoyable companions during the field work.

I GENERAL INTRODUCTION

1. FRAME PROGRAMME

1.1 OBJECTIVES The objective of the FRAME programme is to expose Natural Resource Management (NRM) practitioners and decision makers to the existing body of knowledge and ideas on successful and promising NRM experiences in southern Africa. Partnering with various African institutions, FRAME aims at documenting achievements in promoting sustainable NRM as a means of combating environmental degradation and/or desertification, reducing poverty and promoting good governance in southern Africa. The case studies being assessed are not limited to wildlife-related NRM programmes and include other natural resource use strategies. Of particular interest to the programme is the capture and sharing of knowledge in relation to the UN Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD). FRAME has already supported a number of case studies assessing the environmental, economic and governance impacts of investments in natural resources management in several West African countries and is expanding its regional focus to capture the southern African experience.

1.2 PROJECT PHASES The project is set out as five phases. These are: Phase I: Completed in April 2006, desk top studies reviewed and profiled four programmatic country studies which had received support from USAID. These were the NRM Project (1990-1999) in Botswana, COMPASS (1999-2004) in Malawi, LIFE (1993-2008) in Namibia and CAMPFIRE (1989-2003) in Zimbabwe1. Phase II: Following completion of the desk studies, a planning workshop was held in Pretoria in April 2006. This meeting identified and selected specific projects within the country NRM programmes reviewed during Phase I, for more detailed field site studies. Phase III: Field studies of these cases were undertaken between October 2006 and February 2007. Two case studies for each country were completed and this report details the field site findings of the two case studies in Zimbabwe. Phase IV: The outcome and results of the case studies reported here will be presented at a Forum workshop in early 2007. Phase V: The development of an edited publication, including inputs generated through the Forum workshop, will be undertaken during the middle of 2007.

1 Dates only indicate periods of USAID funding, not necessarily the start and/or finish of CBNRM programmes or projects in the respective countries. These may well be still continuing as indeed CAMPFIRE is in Zimbabwe.

CASE STUDIES ON SOUTHERN AFRICAN NRM INITIATIVES - DRAFT 1

1.3 ZIMBABWE CASE STUDY: CAMPFIRE For NRM in Zimbabwe, CAMPFIRE was designed by the then Department of National Parks & Wild Life Management (DNPWLM, now the Parks & Wildlife Management Authority, PWMA) in the mid 1980s (Martin 1986). It is a long-term programmatic approach to rural development that uses wildlife and other natural resources as a mechanism for promoting devolved rural institutions and improved governance and livelihoods (Child et al 2003). The cornerstone of CAMPFIRE is the devolution of rights to manage, use, dispose of, and benefit from natural resources. As originally envisaged, CAMPFIRE was to focus on the conservation and exploitation of four natural resources, wildlife, forestry, grazing and water. Because wildlife is able to provide direct and immediate tangible financial benefits, initial success of the programme was premised on the utilization of large mammal wildlife resources, mostly through high value trophy hunting safaris. Subsequently, largely because of its strong links with wildlife management, CAMPFIRE has continued to focus more on the consumptive and non-consumptive use of wildlife rather than other natural resources. Nevertheless, CAMPFIRE has diversified its NRM activities beyond wildlife utilisation to include non- consumptive eco-tourism ventures, timber and bamboo harvesting, honey and fruit production, fisheries, marketing mopane caterpillars and the sale of non-renewable resources such as river sand for construction purposes (Taylor 2006).

2. PHASE III: CASE STUDIES

2.1 TERMS OF REFERENCE Individual consultant’s brief The consultant(s) will conduct field research in Zimbabwe using the Checklist (Addendum B; see Section 3 below) as a guideline; (the full Terms of Reference are given in Appendix 1). The research will assess the attitudes of relevant government actors and others towards the projects. The research will further integrate the results and incorporate the findings of the fieldwork and interviews into the final case study report, building on the initial findings presented in the desktop study. The case study report should follow the prescribed structure outlined below: a. Summary description b. Background - Environmental setting - Livelihood issues - Resources used or managed - Institutions responsible for managing resources - Funding – who, how much, how long c. Detailed description of project/activity/investment - Goal - Problem to be resolved - Description of activities d. Results - Livelihood results

2 CASE STUDIES ON SOUTHERN AFRICAN NRM INITIATIVES- DRAFT

- Natural resources results - Governance results - Unexpected results e. Conclusions - Lessons learned - Links to the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD) Methods to be used during Phase 3 include: - Integration of new literature - Interviews by telephone or other means with key actors - Field trips to the agreed case study area In order to achieve the above objectives, the consultant will sub contract and coordinate the participation of a social scientist in the fieldwork and ensure that a strong social science perspective is brought to bear on the analysis of the case studies and write-up of the paper. Where the Project Consultant and the Sub-Consultant have differences of opinion, these should be made explicit in the report writing.

2.2 CHOICE OF CASE STUDIES The two case studies were chosen for their differences in biophysical location and features, tenure arrangements, social institutions and governance, and the nature of the resource base being used. This not only provides contrasting situations within CAMPFIRE but also a comparative and analytical framework for the study demonstrating the importance of, and need to avoid, “blue prints” or models for CBNRM. The diversity and variability inherent in CAMPFIRE is arguably one of its strengths, which we highlight in these two case studies. The first study site is situated at Masoka in Kanyurira Ward, a wildlife-rich area in the western mid-Zambezi valley (Figure1). Kanyurira Ward is a part of Guruve Rural District Council (RDC), which together with Nyaminyami RDC, was granted Appropriate Authority (AA) status in 1988 by DNPWLM2, becoming the first two CAMPFIRE districts in the country. The second study site is in the Eastern Highlands of Zimbabwe. Nyanga District was accorded AA status later, in 1992 and thus has a much more recent CAMPFIRE history, although a much longer contested history in relation to land and leadership (Moore 2005). This is centred mostly on the Gairesi river with its importance as a fly fishing destination, either side of which are the Gairesi Resettlement communities of Dazi and Nyamutsapa, a part of Ward 21 or Tangwena Ward, below Nyanga National Park. More complete details of the two sites are given in the individual case study reports.

2 In Zimbabwe, DNPWLM (now PWMA) is the legally mandated authority responsible for wildlife resources in the country. The 1975 Parks and Wild Life Act decentralized state authority, and conferred privileges on owners or occupiers of alienated land as custodians of wildlife, fish and plants (Government of Zimbabwe 1975). Land owners or occupiers were designated “appropriate authorities”, giving them de facto responsibility for wildlife and making them the beneficiaries of sound wildlife conservation and use. After 1980, similar rights were extended to communal farmers through an amendment to the Act in 1982, which delegated Appropriate Authority to Rural District Councils (Taylor 2006).

CASE STUDIES ON SOUTHERN AFRICAN NRM INITIATIVES - DRAFT 3

Figure1. Map of Zimbabwe showing Guruve and Nyanga Districts in the Zambezi valley and eastern highlands respectively, within which the study sites of Masoka and Gairesi are situated

HURUNGWE GURUVE MUZARABANI

PFURA RUSHINGA

NYAMINYAMI CHAMINUKA MUDZI BINDURA UMP MAZOWE MUTOKO GOKWE NORTH HARARE BINGA GOROMONZI@

NYANGA GOKWE SOUTH MARONDERA

WEDZA HWANGE LUPANE CHIKOMBA MUTARE NKAYI @

GWERU BUHERA @ BUBI TSHOLOTSHO

UMGUZA CHIMANIMANI MASVINGO BULAWAYO @ @ INSIZA CHIPINGE BULILIMAMANGWE UMZINGWANE

MATOBO E KEY GWANDA MWENEZI CHIREDZI CAMPFIRE Districts Study District National Boundary BEITBRIDGE @ KM Major Road BEITBRIDGE @ City/Town 0 100 200

3. METHODOLOGY, RESEARCH ACTIVITIES, DATES

3.1 OUTLINE FOLLOWED The recommended methodology and associated activities for the fieldwork were as follows: Demonstrate in greater detail the achievements as well as constraints of current CBNRM projects in southern Africa; Explore how the CBNRM model and experiences can be used to contribute towards the implementation of UNCCD and UNCBD National Action Plans. Activities Two community case studies in each country with fieldwork using impact assessments on environment, poverty/ livelihoods and social/ institutional aspects using techniques such as PSIA and others. Data will be collected through focus group discussions, in-depth interviews and analysis of CBO files. Programme level activities (mostly national) to assess the broader impact of the projects (upscaling) and evolution of the enabling environment. This will be mostly done through interviews with key resource persons and institutions. It is important that the UNCCD and the UNCBD focal points be incorporated. The case studies focus on local project impacts on poverty, environment and institutional components. In addition, the case studies will explore local perceptions about changes (positive and negative) at the programmatic level. For example, is government commitment increasing? Is there sufficient support from government and NGOs? What support does the community need and for how long?

4 CASE STUDIES ON SOUTHERN AFRICAN NRM INITIATIVES- DRAFT

The programme-level activities will focus on changes in the enabling environment, and will put the two cases studies in the broader perspective of all CBNRM projects (where are they on the scale of failure-success and development?). To ensure comparability between countries, a general checklist is used for all countries; each country will add specific questions to suit their needs.

3.2 GENERAL CHECKLIST FOR LOCAL CASE STUDIES The local analysis differentiates between three levels: community, households and marginal groups.

Impact area Checklist questions 1. How many jobs and income has the project generated in time? 2. What are the sources of revenues (e.g. wildlife, other NR and productive projects) 3. Have community and household assets increased? Has the project developed new productive activities? 4. Has the project alleviated poverty and reduced inequality within the village? 5. Have human and social resources (e.g. expertise, formal training, networking, institution building) been developed through the project? Livelihoods and 6. Have there been other non-material benefits of the project that have reduced poverty and improved poverty livelihoods (e.g. greater participation of marginal groups)? 7. What have been the major trends affecting livelihoods and poverty in the community and how has the project helped coping with these trends? 8. What have been the major shocks affecting livelihoods and poverty in the community (e.g. drought, livestock diseases) and how has the project helped coping with such shocks? 9. How can the contribution of CBNRM projects to poverty reduction be improved? Access to resources: 1. Which resources (e.g. wildlife, forests, fish, veld products) are covered by the CBNRM projects and how has access to these resources changed through the project? 2. Which other institutions control access to these resources and in what way? Resource conditions: 3. Have resource conditions changed in time since the CBNRM project started? Indicate changes in numbers and quality

Harvesting practices:

4. How are NR being harvested? Has there been any change in harvesting practices since the start of the CBNRM project? 5. Has there been a change in attitude towards NR since the start of the CBNRM project? Which one and reasons? Community management: 6. How are NR under local control managed and how does this compare with the pre-CBNRM phase? Environment 7. Who determines the permissible off-take, what are the underlying principles and how is harvesting monitored (e.g. has illegal harvesting declined)? 8. Does the community invest in NR e.g. through restocking and land rehabilitation? 9. Could the CBNRM approach be extend to communal rangelands used for livestock production and other resources?

CASE STUDIES ON SOUTHERN AFRICAN NRM INITIATIVES - DRAFT 5

Impact area Checklist questions CBNRM operations: 1. Rules and regulations 2. Involvement and participation of all segments of community, especially the marginal groups. 3. Transparency of decision-making 4. Enforcement and conflict resolution Institutions, 5. Project management capacity of community governance 6. Dependency on external support (type, time period etc.) & support Support environment 7. Is there growing or waning external support (e.g. government, donors)? 8. Level and effectiveness of government support 9. Level and effectiveness of NGO support 10. Level and effectiveness of support/collaboration with private companies

3.3 CHECKLIST FOR PROGRAMME LEVEL ACTIVITY Important to cover government, NGOs, CBNRM community, private sector and UNCCD and UNCBD focal points.

Area Questions Broad impact assessment- 1.What have been the poverty/ livelihoods (e.g. food security), social, institutional and effectiveness environmental impacts of CBNRM? 2.How do the two case studies compare with the other CBNRM projects? 3. Is there a supportive environment for CBNRM in the country (e.g. policy, law, support CBNRM support environment institutions, funding)? Is it getting better? 4. Main institutions and their roles (government, NGOs, private sector and donors) 5. Do governments still perceive CBNRM as a mainstream development option? What about other stakeholders? CBNRM perceptions 6. Have there been changes in perception towards the effectiveness of CBNRM and what are the reasons? 7. What alternatives for CBNRM exist as a rural development and resource conservation approach? 8. What is the current state of implementation re UNCCD and UNCBD and what are the CBNRM and UNCCD and critical issues and constraints? UNCBD 9. Could the CBNRM approach be used for the implementation of UNCCD and UNCBD activities? Details.

3.4 ACTIVITIES AND DATES The indicative work plan is provided in Appendix 2 and persons consulted are indicated in Appendix 3. Specific activities are detailed below.

Activity Person(s) Location Dates Meeting with Dr Donald Moore, Anthropologist MWM University of California, Berkeley October 2006 Meeting with Executive Director CAMPFIRE RDT & Harare 13 December 2006 Association Mr Charles Jonga MWM Meeting with Messrs WRG Bedford and C RDT & Harare 18 December 2006 Grobbelaar of Ingwe Safaris MWM Meeting with Mr S Dutton Chairman Nyanga RDT & Harare 19 December 2006

6 CASE STUDIES ON SOUTHERN AFRICAN NRM INITIATIVES- DRAFT

Activity Person(s) Location Dates Downs Fly Fishing Club MWM Masoka Field Trip Kanyurira Ward Guruve District 8-12 January 2007

- Meeting with Community Leadership Headman Kanyurira and others - Meeting with Ward Wildlife Committee RDT & members MWM - Examine files & records with Chairman and Clerk WWC Masoka Village - Visit Schools and Clinic & interview Heads - Attend General Meeting with community (c.100 persons) to receive financial statements for last quarter 2006 Meeting with Mrs M Chasi D-G Environmental RDT & Harare 15 January 2007 Management Agency, Ministry of Environment & MWM Tourism Gairesi Field Trip Tangwena Ward 21 Nyanga 16-19 January 2007 District - Meeting with GDT Project Supervisor - Meeting with GDT Trustee/Project Secretary - Meeting with Nyamutsapa residents RDT & - Meeting with GDT Managing Trustee MWM Gairesi River & Dazi and Nyamutsapa settlements - Examine files & records at GDT offices - Meeting with GDT Trustee/ Project Treasurer - Meeting with CEO & Auditor Nyanga RDC - Meeting with A/DA Nyanga District Attend AGM Nyanga Downs Fly Fishing Club RDT & Harare 22 January 2007 MWM Meeting with Mr I Chaipa Chairman GDT RDT & Harare 26 January 2007 MWM Meeting with Mr D Hamilton Trustee GDT RDT Wedza 27 January 2007 Meeting with Executive Director CAMPFIRE MWM Harare 6 February 2007 Association Mr Charles Jonga Meeting with Messrs WRG Bedford and C RDT & Harare 8 February 2007 Grobbelaar of Ingwe Safaris MWM

CASE STUDIES ON SOUTHERN AFRICAN NRM INITIATIVES - DRAFT 7

II THE MASOKA CASE STUDY

1. SUMMARY DESCRIPTION Masoka3 can rightly claim to be the first community4 in Zimbabwe to inaugurate a natural resource management regime for local development under the banner of CAMPFIRE, described by Taylor in his desk top study of the programme (Taylor 2006). Although a proto-CAMPFIRE experiment was already in place at Mahenye in the Chipinge District (cf. Petersen 1991) and discussions on the introduction of CAMPFIRE were under way in other districts it was at Masoka that a formal decision to enter the programme was first made and conveyed to the district council in early 1988. This decision was preceded by extended discussions over several months with external facilitators5 and within the community, and thus it is fair to mark the beginning of CAMPFIRE in Masoka as 1987. In October of 1988 Government accorded “Appropriate Authority” status to the Guruve District largely because of developments at Masoka, and Guruve, together with Nyaminyami, became the first two districts in the country to enter CAMPFIRE. Masoka thus presents us with a 20 year case study in communally-based NRM, giving a rich longitudinal dimension which is lacking in many case studies. Masoka’s CAMPFIRE time-span covers periods when the country’s macro-economic status was flourishing (the early 1990’s) and when it has plunged to record depths (the last five years). It has seen a 6-fold growth in human population and has experienced a change in traditional leadership with the death of the old headman and his replacement by a younger man. A new generation of leadership is now dominant; many of the older leaders are now dead. The programme itself has changed in important dimensions and currently faces challenges which were not seriously anticipated at its inception. And yet through all this change Masoka has consistently remained as one of the leading wildlife producing wards in the country and has a record of self-funded infrastructural development which cannot be matched elsewhere in Zimbabwe’s communal lands. All of this provides rich case study material which is expanded further below. Finally it should be noted that there is a fairly extensive, if uneven, body of documentation on Masoka’s CAMPFIRE history. Valuable baseline information is provided by Cutshall (1989) and Taylor (1989). A variety of published material makes reference to Masoka6 and two master’s theses have taken aspects of Masoka as their focus (Nabane 1997, Dimbi 1998). Valuable data on Masoka is found in Cumming and Lynam (1997) and the files at WWF, CASS and Masoka itself provide useful historical and survey data. This wealth of documentation has meant that our use of this material has had to be highly selective for a report of this size, as has indeed our use of field work data collected during the current exercise. The text which follows is thus highly condensed, concentrating only the most salient points of the case study. As an over-all guide, and from a 20 year long perspective of the case study, it may be useful to discern its history as a continuing struggle on three fronts: a) between the community and other external actors on the balance between appropriations deriving from the area’s wildlife resources; b) between the benefits of

3 In this report we use the title Masoka to refer to the area and people concerned. The term derives from the name of the area’s spirit medium nyaMasoka and its use is common practice for the people of Dande, this area of the Zambezi Valley. In Government circles the ward is often referred to as Kanyurira, after the chiefly line from which the headmen are drawn. 4 We use the word “community” here to denote the ward and the people living in it, being fully aware of the ambiquities which the term contains. 5 The facilitators were largely staff from CASS and WWF, operating in cooperation with DNPWLM. 6 Of interest is that one of these published articles was authored by two members of the Masoka community itself (Chisunga and Zirota, 1997).

8 CASE STUDIES ON SOUTHERN AFRICAN NRM INITIATIVES- DRAFT

these resources and the costs that they incur; and c) between individual and collective interests in the community’s common property regime. These three categories of conflict do not of course encompass the entire spectrum of issues CAMPFIRE has faced in Masoka, but the discerning reader will be struck by the prominence of these themes in the material which follows.

2. BACKGROUND

2.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

LOCATION Situated at 30°15´ East and 16°15´ South in the middle Zambezi valley, Kanyurira Ward (Guruve District in Dande Communal Land) extends from Masoka in the north on the Angwa river at 400-500 m asl, to the south at over 800 m asl amongst the hills of the Zambezi escarpment, covering an area of nearly 400 km2 (Figs. 1 and 2). Generally difficult to access, the landscape is relatively flat with limited broken and hilly terrain rising abruptly to the escarpment. The Angwa and Mkanga rivers form the western boundary of the ward and the eastern boundary lies approximately 5 km east of the Manongora river. The Mariangwe Hills lie along the northern boundary and to the immediate south and west of Kanyurira Ward, respectively, are the State-protected Doma and Chewore Safari Areas.

TSETSE AND TRYPANOSOMIASIS Prior to 1980 much of the Zambezi valley was infested with tsetse fly, Glossina spp., capable of transmitting trypanosomiasis or sleeping sickness to both humans and in particular to domestic livestock, mostly cattle. Internationally funded eradication programmes using aerial spraying, complemented by ground clearance operations were highly successful in removing tsetse flies from all but a few Protected Areas.

Figure 2. Kanyurira Ward in Guruve District showing Masoka and the adjacent Chewore, Dande and Doma Safari Areas

DANDE COMMUNAL LAND

DANDE SAFARI AREA

CHEWORE CHISUNGA NESHANGWE CHIRIWO MATSIWO

MASHUMBI MASOKA CHITSUNGO WEST MAHUWEMASOMO CHITSUNGO EAST

DOMA

E KEY District Boundary Ward Boundary KM Study Ward Protected Area 0 20 40

CASE STUDIES ON SOUTHERN AFRICAN NRM INITIATIVES - DRAFT 9

This was the case in Kanyurira Ward at the commencement of CAMPFIRE. Although cattle holdings had increased substantially from across the Manyame river to the eastern boundary of the Ward by the late 90s, there were still no cattle at Masoka. Declining government allocations and the collapse of donor support however, led to re-invasion of tsetse after 2000, reversing the gains of the 80s and 90s, such that the presence of tsetse fly is now much as it was prior to the large scale eradication programmes. Thus cattle have never featured in the economy of Masoka, a feature which is well recognised by the people living there, and who consequently view wildlife as “their livestock”7.

CLIMATE The climate is characterised by low and variable rainfall with high temperatures (mean minimum and maximum range from c.15 ° to c.35° C). At Angwa Bridge, some 15 km downstream from Masoka, annual precipitation varies from below 500 mm to above 850 mm with an annual average rainfall below 650 mm falling between November and March. Early October rain can occur in the escarpment. Mean annual evaporation is approximately 2000 mm.

GEOLOGY, SOILS AND ASSOCIATED VEGETATION The Zambezi valley trough is considered a largely graben structure (Lister 1987) with sedimentary fill consisting of Karoo and Post Karoo rocks and Quartenary aeolian and fluvial deposits on a Precambrian metamorphic bed in a lacustrine environment (Oesterlen 1990). At Masoka on the Angwa river and its tributaries, deposits of Quaternary alluvium occur as relatively fertile soils on river terraces which are complemented by scarp foot deposits of colluvium further away and inland from the Angwa. To the north and east of the ward Karoo and post Karoo (Kadzi Beds) sediments of conglomerate, sandstone, grits, siltstones and mudstones characterise the geology of the area (Broderick 1990). To the south the escarpment comprises ancient gneiss. Alluvial soils at Masoka are locally referred to as River Jecha and Upper Jecha8,9. River Jecha comprise layers of brown silt alternating with deposits of river sand deposited by flooding. These shallow deposits on the flood banks of the river are very fertile with good moisture retention and are used for winter cropping of maize and vegetables. Associated vegetation includes Faidherbia albida, Trichelia emitica, Ficus capreifolia and Phragmites mauritianus. Upper Jecha soils are sandy clays or sandy clay loams on the upper river terraces with good depth of 2-3 m. Relative fertility is lost after 5 years continuous cropping but moisture retention is good. This is the most important and extensive agricultural soil for cropping at Masoka on which c.75% of crops are grown. Natural vegetation in Upper Jecha include Adansonia digitata, Acacia tortilis10, Combretum imberbe, Lonchocarpus capassa and Kirkia acuminata.

7 Headman Kanyurira explicitly acknowledged this fact in our discussions with him and other members of the leadership in January 2007 8 Local soil types and their descriptions arise from participatory natural resource surveys undertaken with the Masoka community by the WWF Support to CAMPFIRE Project during the mid-1990s (Taylor and Mackie 1994). Much of the environmental information provided in this section draws on these participatory surveys 9 A detailed soil survey of Kanyurira is described by Moyo and Nyamwanza (1995) in Annex 5.2.3.4 of the Final Technical Report Volume 4b on Landuse Changes, Wildlife Conservation and Utilisation, and the Sustainability of Agro-ecosystems in the Zambezi Valley (WWF 1997) under EU Contract B7-5040/93/06 10 Acacia tortilis occurs frequently as a secondary woodland on abandoned settlement and cultivation areas at Masoka (and elsewhere in the Zambezi valley). It is thus an important indicator of previous occupation, which in Kanyurira Ward is more extensive than initially apparent. Return to many of these areas is now prohibited in terms of the community land use plan as they constitute important wildlife habitat, especially along the Angwa river upstream of Masoka.

10 CASE STUDIES ON SOUTHERN AFRICAN NRM INITIATIVES- DRAFT

Bepe soils are heavy, black self-churning clays occurring in depressions throughout the northern areas of the ward. Although possessing high moisture retention capacity and high fertility lasting 10 years, the nature of the soil makes it very difficult to work, especially by hand. It also requires initial high rainfall to ensure plant germination. Although maize and cotton in particular, can be grown successfully on Bepe soils, they also provide a wide variety of wild plant species important for numerous household uses., Woody vegetation found in the Bepe depressions include Acacia spp., Combretum obovatum, Combretum fragrans, Kigelia africana and Ziziphus mucronata. Katondo soils are reddish-brown sandy clay loams with depth to 3-4 m and good moisture retention but which is quickly lost once the dry season commences. An uncommon soil type Katondo comprises less than 25% of the settled area at Masoka. It is however a very good agricultural soil. Natural occurring vegetation on Katondo soils include Colophospermum mopane and Combretum eleganoides. Mutapo soils are grey-white clays associated with sodic/saline areas in mopane (C. mopane) woodland. Depth may be as much as 3 m but their occurrence is probably less than 25% of the combined settled and unsettled area below the escarpment. Associated vegetation includes C. mopane, A. nigrescens, Ximenia americana, Grewia spp., and Dalbergia martini. Bukutu soils are again reddish-brown but gravelly and shallow but with some clay content. Probably more than 50% of the ward comprises this soil type of which, however, there is very little in the Masoka settled area. Vegetation includes C. mopane, X. americana, Diplorhynchus condylocarpon, Sterculia spp., and Hyphaene benguellensis. North of Masoka are white sandy Shapa soils. With depth up to 6 m these soils are infertile with no moisture retention capacity and of no agricultural value. Probably occurring over 25% of the ward, this soil is not found in the Masoka settled area but is used extensively as pit sand for building.

SURFACE WATER SUPPLIES In Dande Communal Land, five major rivers drain the valley floor north of the escarpment to the Zambezi river. These are the Angwa, Dande, Manyame, Kadzi and Musengedzi rivers. All are seasonal rivers and cease flowing at the height of the dry season in September-October. In terms of water supply only the Angwa is of significance to the Masoka community; two boreholes, one in disuse, provide potable water. Elsewhere in Kanyurira Ward, rivers, springs and pans are especially important for wildlife and their annual adequacy to provide surface water is summarised in Table 1. Between the hills in the escarpment and the Angwa, surface water by October becomes very scarce. A dam has been built by Ingwe Safaris on the eastern side of the ward.

CASE STUDIES ON SOUTHERN AFRICAN NRM INITIATIVES - DRAFT 11

Table 1: Rivers and flow regimes in Kanyurira Ward, Dande Communal Land River name Flow regime Duration Angwa Seasonal with permanent pools and sub-surface flow Surface flow: November-August Urungu Seasonal with pools November-March Mkanga Seasonal with pools November-March Chituwe Seasonal with pools November-March Rukute Seasonal November-March Manangora Seasonal with pools in the hills and spring November-March Whewhe Seasonal with pools in the hills and spring (Mavabvu) November-March Chamakuyo Seasonal with spring November-March Kamusoro Flood only During peak rains Mupwara Flood only During peak rains Rupanga Seasonal with permanent pools and sub-surface flow Surface flow: November-August There are 6 springs of significance, namely Chotonga in the southern escarpment hills, Diyi in the northern Mariangwe hills, Chamakuyo and Manangora on the rivers of the same name, Mavabvu on the Whewhe river and Piti spring.

Whilst there are numerous small pans throughout the mopane woodland areas of the ward, most are not named save for a fairly large pan, Nyangwena, at Masoka itself.

VEGETATION11 AND ASSOCIATED HABITATS Cunliffe (1995) recognises 12 vegetation types (Appendix 4) classified into three main groups on the basis of the underlying geology. These types proceed from vegetation on depositional soils through that on sediments to vegetation on escarpement gneiss with an accompanying increase in slope and decrease in soil depth. (Table 2). Plant density generally decreases with decreasing soil depth from deep depositional soils through to shallow and skeletal soils in the escarpment. The scientific description of both soils and vegetation accords well with local understanding of soils and habitats also outlined here.

Table 2. Vegetation classification for Kanyurira Ward (after Cunliffe 1995) Underlying geology Type Name Description Trees: Acacia tortilis, Croton megalobotrys, Trichelia emetica 1.1 Lowest alluvial terraces Shrubs: Pluchea dioscoridis, Ficus capreifolia Grasses: Panicum spp. Trees: Cleistochamys kirkii, Diospyros mespiliformis, T. 1. Depositional soils emitica, Lonchocarpus capassa 1.2 Mixed riparian woodland Shrubs: Friesodielsia obovata, Diospyros senensis, Combretum mossambicensis Grasses: Panicm spp., Urochloa Trees: Combretum eleagnoides, K. acuminata, Xeroderris 1.3 Riparian deciduous thicket sthulmannii Shrubs: C. eleagnoides, F. obovata Grasses: Panicum spp., Urochloa, Brachiaria Trees: Mixed as above

11 A detailed description of the vegetation of Kanyurira Ward is provided by Cunliffe (1995) in Annex 5.2.4.3 of the Final Technical Report Volume 5 on Landuse Changes, Wildlife Conservation and Utilisation, and the Sustainability of Agro-ecosystems in the Zambezi Valley (WWF 1997) under EU Contract B7-5040/93/06

12 CASE STUDIES ON SOUTHERN AFRICAN NRM INITIATIVES- DRAFT

Underlying geology Type Name Description 1.4 Alluvial woodland Shrubs: F. obovata, A. tortilis Grasses: Panicum spp., Urochloa, Heteropogon contortus Trees: A. tortilis, A. nigrescens, Colophospermum mopne 1.5 Alluvial shrubland Shrubs: C. eleagnoides, C.mossambicensis Grasses: Urochloa Trees: Colophospermum mopane 1.6 Mopane woodland Shrubs: C. mopane, Ximenia Americana Grasses: Urochloa, Aristida 2.1 Low open woodland on Kadzi Trees: C. mopane, Combretum apiculatum, Terminalia deposits sthulmannii, Brachystegia allenii, B.boehmii Shrubs: Grasses: 2.2 Mopane-Miombo alternating Trees: C. mopane, Commiphora merkeri, C. apiculatum, woodland Psuedolachnostylis maprounifolia, 2.Kadzi & Karoo formations Shrubs: C. mopane, C. apiculatum C. eleagnoides, T. brachystemma

Grasses: Aristida, Loudetia, Urochloa 2.3 Combretum-Strychnos Trees: C. apiculatum, Strychnos madagascariensis woodland Shrubs: C. apiculatum C. eleagnoides, Karomia tettensis Grasses: Aristida 2.4 Terminalia thicket Trees: Terminalia brachystemma, C. apiculatum Shrubs: T. brachystemma, C. apiculatum, C. mopane Grasses: Digitaria 3.1 Open Miombo woodland on Trees: Brachystegia alleni, Diospyros kirkii Gneiss Shrubs: C. apiculatum, Diplorhynchus condylocarpon, Catunaregam 3. Escarpment Gneiss Grasses: Loudetia, Aristida Schmiditia, Andropogon 3.2 Open woodland on scarp foot Trees: C. apiculatum, Diospyros kirkii deposits C. mopane Shrubs: C. apiculatum, Diospyros kirkii C. mopane C. apiculatum, Diospyros kirkii C. mopane Grasses: Loudetia

HABITATS Five habitats are locally recognised and identified in Kanyurira Ward (Taylor 1989, Taylor and Mackie 1994) and reflect the vegetation description of Cunliffe (1995). Riverine and alluvial terrace woodlands (Types 1.1-1.5) Matoro Forest and woodland on old alluvium, often along fringing watercourses. Diospyros mespiliformis, Trichelia emitica, C. mopane, Combretum spp., Adansonia digitata, Cordyla africana, Ficus zambesiaca, Lonchocarpus capassa Mopane woodlands (Type1.6 & 2.1) Mupani Varied vegetation found on undulating slightly raised terrain. C. mopane, Terminalia stuhlmannii, Combretum spp.

CASE STUDIES ON SOUTHERN AFRICAN NRM INITIATIVES - DRAFT 13

Mopane-Miombo woodlands (Type 2.2) Open woodland with grassland in a mosaic on shallow and rocky soils, and on colluvium below the escarpment. C. mopane, Afzelia quanzensis, Commiphora spp., Diospyros quiloensis, Kirkia acuminata, Sterculia africana. Thicket vegetation (Type 2.4) Jesse Found on elevated areas of unconsolidated sands. A dense shrub layer with mostly early deciduous species. Combretum eleagnoides and Terminalia brachystemma. Brachystegia (Miombo) escarpment woodlands (Type 3.1) Makomo Dominated by Brachystegia spp. and/or Julbernardia globiflora occurring above 900 m asl. In terms of edible plant resources for wildlife (graze, browse and fruit), the escarpment vegetation is least productive with greatest productivity on the depositional soils, where numerous plants for human consumption are also located. Within the original settlement area at Masoka, local depletions of grass, poles and fuelwood have occurred. Nevertheless, these household needs are still readily found beyond Masoka, e.g. in vegetation Types 2.1 and 2.2 on Kadzi and Karoo sediments. Beyond the Masoka settlement, and because wildlife densities, especially elephant12, are relatively low, much of the original vegetation remains intact and conservation value is high in Types 1.2 (Mixed riparian woodlands), 1.3 (Riparian deciduous thicket) and 1.4 Alluvial thicket) where other components of biodiversity can be found, including endemic and/or rare/uncommon bird species, e.g. African (Angola) Pitta, Pitta angolensis, Livingstone’s Flycatcher Erythrocercus livingstonei.

WILDLIFE ABUNDANCE Kanyurira Ward and the adjacent communal and State protected areas support a diverse and extensive population of large mammals. Following the commencement of CAMPFIRE in 1988-1989, key wildlife districts were surveyed and censused for large mammals (Taylor and Mackie 1997, Taylor 2006). In Guruve District, the Guruve South quota area comprises 4 aerial sampling strata (Kadzi, Chitsunga, Kanyurira valley and Kanyurira escarpment), covering an area of approximately 1,784 km2. The average number and density of elephant and buffalo estimated in Guruve South using aerial sampling over the period 1988-2001 was 0.34 elephant km-2 and 0.93 buffalo km-2 (Table 3). The trends in these populations are shown in Figs. 3a and 3b.

Table 3. The average number and density of elephant and buffalo estimated in Guruve South using aerial sampling over the period 1988-2001 Species Quota area Size (km2) Average number Density (no./km2) No. censuses Elephant Guruve South 1,784 611 0.34 10 Buffalo Guruve South 1,784 1665 0.93 9 Source: Data from Taylor and Mackie (1997) and Mackie 2001 The data demonstrate the amount of variability that can be expected between surveys. This variability becomes greater the smaller the sample area, since large wide-ranging herbivores such as elephant and buffalo function at a scale somewhat larger than the size of an average ward or survey stratum, such as Guruve South. This variability is further compounded by the clumped distribution of buffalo, sometimes resulting in a zero return from individual surveys.

12 Elephant densities in CAMPFIRE areas are approximately half or less those found in State protected areas (Taylor 2006), but consistent with the maintenance of woodlands and healthy habitats for other wildlife populations (Cumming et al. 1997)

14 CASE STUDIES ON SOUTHERN AFRICAN NRM INITIATIVES- DRAFT

1400 1200 1000 800 600 Elephant 400 200 0 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 0 1

Figure 3a. Estimated elephant numbers for Guruve South quota area 1988-2001

5000

4000

3000 Buffalo 2000

1000

0 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 0 1

Figure 3b. Estimated buffalo numbers for Guruve South quota area 1988-2001

Nevertheless, these densities provide huntable quotas within Kanyurira Ward. A range of other large herbivores are also found in the ward and some of these species are indicated in Table 4 for the Guruve South quota area during 2001. Because of their cryptic nature and relatively small size, the numbers indicated are minimum estimates only.

Table 4. Minimum estimates of selected large herbivores in Guruve South quota area in 2001

Species Sable Waterbuck Kudu Zebra Impala Number 50 37 204 31 442 Source: Data from Mackie (2001) Some 40 large to medium sized mammals, as well as crocodiles in the Angwa river, are represented in the ward (Appendix 5). This includes roan antelope, pangolin and cheetah, all Specially Protected Species in Zimbabwe. Black rhino had been eliminated by the early 90s, due to the combined effects of poaching and translocation to more secure areas.

FIRE Uncontrolled late season hot wild fires have been an annual feature of the western Zambezi valley for many years. The WWC, together with the safari operator introduced an early burning programme to reduce the frequency and extent of such fires. Although there is no quantified monitoring data available, fires have not

CASE STUDIES ON SOUTHERN AFRICAN NRM INITIATIVES - DRAFT 15

burnt as much as previously since the introduction of early burning. The inaccessible escarpment areas continue to suffer from extensive late annual burning.

EROSION Severe sheet erosion is limited to areas on the Kadzi sediments in the south east of the ward but is otherwise not conspicuous. Erosion as result of road clearing and poor drainage by TTBC is common along most roads. Gully erosion is evident at the base of the escarpment and on the Angwa alluvial terraces. Bank erosion following severe flash flooding is not uncommon on a number of the larger rivers flowing into the Angwa.

2.2 DEMOGRAPHY AND LIVELIHOOD ISSUES Shortly after the start of CAMPFIRE in Masoka Cutshall conducted a complete household study of the community in June/July 1988 (Cutshall 1989). At that time there were 60 households present, with a total population of 482 residents. Thirty-six of the households were single nuclear family units; the remaining 24 were composite households containing two or more discrete family units. All but two of the 60 households were of Korekore13 origin. Fifty-four of these households had been established before independence in 1980; of the six post-1980 households five were Korekore and one was Chikunda. Only three of the households were female-headed. The subsequent expansion of the community’s population will be taken up later in this report when the activities and results of the project are discussed. However the picture in 1988 was one of a small, relatively homogeneous and stable settlement living along the Angwa River separated from the next centre of population at Angwa Bridge14 by 30 km. of bush and linked to the rest of Dande by two Tsetse & Trypansomiasis Control Branch (TTCB) tracks, one impassable in the rainy season. Household settlement was largely along the river, although one working borehole about 3 km away from the river (established by the Government with EU funds) was beginning to draw some settlement away from the river. Infrastructural development was minimal prior to 1988. Aside from the borehole mentioned above15 a grinding mill had been established through a loan from a church donor and a small, struggling retail store was open irregularly. There was no school or clinic. The few children who did go to school did so by walking to and from the school at Angwa Bridge on weekends and “boarding” in self-catered huts during the school week. The nearest medical help was at a small clinic at Angwa Bridge; the nearest hospital was at Chitsungo mission, over 60 km. away. Subsistence agriculture was, and still remains, the livelihood mainstay of the population. Maize cultivation is the main activity, with other grains such as sorghum and millet being planted by most households as insurance against poor rains, which in some years are inadequate to produce a good maize crop. Subsistence grain crops are supplemented by household vegetable production (e.g. pumpkins, rape and beans), much of this being from small garden tracts along the Angwa floodplain, cultivated during the dry winter season. Dryland tillage was formerly largely by hand, although in 1988 some tractor tillage was available (on a fee basis) from non-governmental aid organizations which would bring in tractors from time to time. Use of these services tended to be mostly by larger households which engaged in cash cropping and had labour for weeding and cropping.

13 The Korekore constitute the predominant linguistic and ethnic sub-grouping of the Shona in the north central area of Zimbabwe. 14 Angwa bridge is the centre of the Chisunga chieftainship of the Korekore living in western Dande. The Masoka population is a break-away segment of this population which separated itself in the early 20th century as the result of a succession dispute over the chieftainship, giving its loyalty to the Kanyurira lineage. Repeated requests to constitute Kanyurira as a separate chiefdom have been rejected and officially Kanyurira remains a headman of chief Chisunga. In practice however Masoka (or “Kanyurira Ward”) is administratively and ritually independent of Chisunga. 15 Other borehole sites had been explored, but were either unproductive or saline.

16 CASE STUDIES ON SOUTHERN AFRICAN NRM INITIATIVES- DRAFT

In 1988 there were no cattle in the community due to the presence of tsetse fly. Household domestic livestock consisted of small numbers of goats and a comparative abundance of poultry. These were for domestic consumption. With the exception of a small production of tobacco made into “cakes” for sale by some farmers, there was only one significant cash crop-cotton. In 1988, 73% of households devoted some proportion of their fields to this crop, with the larger households being more involved in this activity. However cotton production in Masoka requires heavy cash inputs: insecticide, tillage (for those using tractors), transport to the market and long delays in payment. Net household incomes from cotton are highly variable and Cutshall reports that in 1988 net income for cotton-producing households ranged from $14 to $4,300. Fifty per cent of these households realized $205 or less and Cutshall concludes that “cotton production…. actually provides very little cash income to the community,” (1989:14) yielding an average of $34.27 for each member of the community. Remittances from wage labour outside the community and salaries from local employment (largely work for a safari operator and a small number of government employees, i.e. teachers, public health workers and community development workers) made up the other source of income. Cutshall reports that 35% of households had incomes of this type, some of it periodic. Actual amounts were difficult to obtain. Cutshall suggests that resultant differentials in income make little observable differences in life styles and that the main impact of such income is primarily that it acts as a stimulant to cotton cash cropping. The last item to be considered under livelihood issues is wildlife. Crop production was severely affected by wildlife, with 224 incidents of crop damage being reported for the 1987-1988 season. Seventy four per cent of these involved maize damage and 15% cotton damage. Of the species involved 32.6% were buffalo and 28.1% were elephant, Wild pig (18.8%) and monkeys and baboons (18.8%) were also implicated. It is however buffalo and elephant which are seen as the community’s “chief agricultural protagonists” (Cutshall 1989:29). Furthermore such species are a danger to human life; in the three year period to 1988 14 incidents of injury or death to community members were reported. The importance of the costs of wildlife will be further analysed later in this report. In his 1989 survey Cutshall found that health care topped all other livelihood concerns in the community. Other felt needs included agriculture/wildlife, education, stores and roads. As will be seen, this report is in large part the history of how a community has attempted to convert wildlife from a perceived problem to an asset addressing these needs.

2.3 RESOURCES USED OR MANAGED Arable agriculture and wildlife are clearly the economic mainstays of the community and thus fertile soils and good wildlife habitat are the main natural resources of the community. Aside from these the use of other natural resources augments the livelihood needs of the community. Fish (generally small and in small numbers) are caught in the Angwa River. The extensive woodlands and grasslands provide building poles, fuelwood, edible fruits, tubers and thatching grass. These are abundant in Masoka. Cumming and Lynam analyse this type of use in terms of household “resource catchment” areas and found that, in five cases in northern Zimbabwe Masoka data exhibited the smallest household foraging area necessary: 5.8 km2 or a radius of 1.36 km (Cumming and Lynam 1997:112). All the natural resources mentioned fall under the management of the Wildlife Committee described later.

2.4 INSTITUTIONS RESPONSIBLE FOR MANAGING RESOURCES Aside from land allocated to households for arable use, all natural resources are regarded as parts of the communal commonage, their use being formalized to the degree of their value and scarcity. The Korekore are among the more “traditional” ethnic sub-divisions of the Shona, and land and resources are closely associated with their traditional religion. In this cosmology the spirits (mhondoro) of the founding Korekore

CASE STUDIES ON SOUTHERN AFRICAN NRM INITIATIVES - DRAFT 17

ancestors are the “owners” of the land and its resources and have the power to bestow or withhold rain and fecundity. The ancestral spirits have their different spirit provinces and are represented by their mediums who while in trance convey the wishes of the mhondoro to the leadership and their people. In Masoka this leadership traditionally was an hierarchy consisting of household heads (samusha) grouped under a sub-lineage or village head (sabuku), these all reporting to the headman, Kanyurira. In effect the headman and the spirit medium represented the pinnacles of political and normative power in the community. Masoka thus conformed closely with the Korekore ideal, in which social and ecological health were closely linked, leading Schoffeleers to refer to it as a “ritually driven ecosystem” (Schoffeleers, 1979:3). This is probably an over statement, but there is no doubt that the Korekore religion has had a powerful influence on natural resource management. Both the colonial and post-colonial governments encouraged a structuring of local affairs under elected committees in an effort to achieve representative local government. Thus in 1988 there was a (embryonic) school committee, a grinding mill committee and – at least on paper – a natural resource committee. All of these were seen as sub-committees of the Ward Development Committee, with the Headman and Spirit Medium as ex officio members. Since 1988, as we shall see, there has been a proliferation of local committees with the Wildlife Committee effectively taking up the role of the Ward Development Committee since it alone has significant funds to disperse.

2.5 FUNDING – WHO, HOW MUCH, HOW LONG With this sub-title we come directly to “the project,” although the authors consider that this term may be misleading; CAMPFIRE in Masoka is perhaps better seen as a development process. Masoka, throughout its CAMPFIRE history, has received only one significant donor grant. This was the provision of a Z$70 000 donation from Goldfields, solicited by WWF for the erection of the electric fence at the beginning of the Programme. More recently Masoka has received some help from the District in the building of four concrete causeways along its 53 km access track. Whether these should be considered a “donation” or not is a moot point since this access road could be considered a responsibility of the district in any case. What is clear is that these all-weather crossings would not have been built (by a Masoka builder) without significant inputs from Masoka funds. The infrastructural accomplishments of Masoka’s programme will be detailed below but it is noteworthy at this point to recognize that Masoka has built its own primary and secondary schools, and its clinic, without any inputs from Government or aid agencies. This is not to say that Masoka has not benefited indirectly from donor aid. Facilitation in developing its programme has been provided by agencies supported by foundations and development organizations, among the most prominent of these agencies being WWF, CASS, ZIMTRUST and the CAMPFIRE Association. Government agencies, such as DNPWLM, have also given assistance. In our view Masoka’s history amply demonstrates the importance of these inputs. It also however demonstrates the importance of self-reliance in development when such agencies reduce their inputs.

3. DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT

3.1 GOAL As part of CAMPFIRE, the project at Masoka had ecological, economic/livelihood and institutional goals, as described by Taylor in his earlier study in this series (Taylor 2006). Promoted by a consortium of agencies, these goals were considered “congruent” (Murphree 1997), even if each agency prioritized them somewhat differently. For DNPWLM and WWF ecological health was a priority, for ZimTrust economic growth was primary and for CASS organizational and institutional development was the main objective. These different priorities were recognized but seen as being compatible and jointly grounded in the objective of a sustainable natural resource use and management regime.

18 CASE STUDIES ON SOUTHERN AFRICAN NRM INITIATIVES- DRAFT

For the people of Masoka goals were more specific and focused. Cutshall describes a list of “felt needs,” with health care ranking first. Other items included educational facilities, improved agricultural productivity, roads, tsetse eradication, stores and control of wildlife16. These were all seen as items for government attention, stores and agricultural improvement being seen as consequential to development in the others.

3.2 PROBLEM TO BE RESOLVED There were thus two formulations of the goal of the project when dialogue between facilitators from CAMPFIRE and the community commenced in 1987. For the community the goal was to persuade government to provide the infrastructure and services necessary. For the CAMPFIRE facilitators the goal was to mobilize the natural resources of the community to meet its needs without recourse to external aid through a collective regime of sustainable management. The difference in these perspectives was profound. The CAMPFIRE proposal was untested, with no concrete example of success available to the community.17 The conventional dependency approach by contrast had a proximate exemplar in the mid-Zambezi Project to the east. The Project could be imported into Masoka. Roads, schools and clinics could be built by the project. Arable plots could be allocated, land cleared and wildlife eliminated and cattle could be introduced as the tsetse fly was cleared.18 In other words there was a fairly clear alternative available to the community during the dialogue, which lasted for several months. It had been made clear to the community that the choice was up to them – CAMPFIRE would not be imposed and they were free to choose a different development path if they wished. There was an ambivalence in local attitude but eventually, backed by the headman and the spirit medium, the majority opted to accept CAMPFIRE. This fundamental decision having been made, the problems to be resolved shifted to a more immediate implementational level. The most pressing of these was Masoka’s continuing dilemma, its wildlife. This wildlife constituted Masoka’s most valuable resource but it was simultaneously the greatest threat to Masoka’s agricultural production. Solutions were discussed. Firearms could be purchased and problem animals shot, but the community was wary of the potential abuses contained in this approach. An electric fence surrounding the community’s residential and arable area was discussed and subsequently constructed, planned by the community with the understanding that it might be extended or abolished at some time in the future. As mentioned earlier the capital cost of the fence (Z$70,000) has been the only significant external donation to Masoka’s CAMPFIRE during its entire history. Two other problems had at this stage to be addressed. The first was an internal organization to deal with the administration of the programme. A Wildlife Committee was formed, in the first instance reflecting to a great deal the traditional leadership. The demands of small-scale bureaucratic development and record- keeping soon drew a younger, literate and numerate segment into the Committee, with impacts discussed below under the “results” section. A second set of problems rapidly arose, related to the community’s relationships with the district council and the safari concessionaire. As Taylor points out (2006: 7-10) CAMPFIRE legislation devolved proprietorship of wildlife in communal lands only to district councils, not their constituent wildlife communities. This has diluted the authority and responsibilities of these communities, placed district councils in a position to appropriate large amounts of communally generated

16 These and other community goals were further articulated at subsequent participatory land use planning sessions (WWF 1996, 1998) 17 There was one important exception. During 1987 a four-roomed primary school building (plus teachers’ house) was build with assistance from Operation WINDFALL, a wildlife revenue fund controlled by DNPWLM. These funds came from safari hunting contracts in communal lands, at that time directly between DNPWLM and the Safari Operator. 18 The Tsetse & Trypansomiasis Control Branch was in 1988 in the middle of a big push to eradicate tsetse from the Valley through traps and aerial spraying. Relatively successful, the effort has now diminished through lack of funds and an increase in tsetse is now apparent.

CASE STUDIES ON SOUTHERN AFRICAN NRM INITIATIVES - DRAFT 19

revenues and has meant that formally, the relationship between the producer (the community) and the client (the professional safari operator) is an indirect one, through the council. The implications of these relationships will be seen in the results section below.

3.3 DESCRIPTION OF ACTIVITIES It has already been pointed out that while Masoka did not formally join CAMPFIRE as an inaugural member until 1988, the Programme’s activities date back to 1987 when DNPWLM and two of its CAMPFIRE Collaborative Group19 partners, WWF and CASS, started discussions with the community. The discussions of this pre-project period were fundamental to the life of the subsequent programme in that they firmly established the following: a. The decision to join CAMPFIRE was one made by the community itself, uncoerced by Government or any other body. b. That WWF, CASS and other members of the Collaborative Group would be invited to act as advisors to the community, but on the community’s terms and at its request. c. The community would create the needed organization for the management and use of its natural resources, including the employment of necessary staff. d. The problem animal issue would be dealt with through an electric fence surrounding arable and residential areas. Capital costs of the fence would be met by a donation arranged by WWF; the maintenance of the fence would be a responsibility of the community. e. Erection of the fence would require a land use plan and mapping. This was done iteratively with WWF and CASS and a final plan delivered to the Council20. The plan involved the enclosure of 18 km2 for agricultural and residential purposes, with the rest of the ward being devoted to wildlife production. The first full year of CAMPFIRE in Masoka, 1989, was momentous. The four-classroomed school built with WINDFALL funds was opened. Calculating safari off-takes for 1988, the district council allocated Z$47,000 to Masoka, to be used at its discretion. Elements in council had argued that it should make this determination but eventually council took the decision that this was Masoka’s money, to be used as it determined. In the event Masoka took the decision to declare a dividend to each member household of Z$200 and use the balance for school improvement. The Z$200 dividends were handed out at a ceremony in March to the great satisfaction of the community. (We discuss revenue distribution further below in the “Results” section.) 1989 also saw other significant developments. The fence was erected and fence maintenance personnel were employed. Game guards were also employed and, together with the fence minders received training from WWF. The Wildlife Committee composition was modified to include more literate members who received training in bookkeeping. Bye-laws were formulated governing the use of natural resources. We can regard the period 1990-1995 as being one of learning a relative success. Two wildlife committees presided over the programme during this period, one from 1990 – 1991 and the other from 1991-1995. Some continuity in membership was present but the trend was to a younger membership. While household dividends remained a feature of the budget there was a bias towards infrastructural development.21 Two more school blocks were built and a Z$350 000 clinic had been started and was

19 The CAMPFIRE Collaborative Group (CCG) was a coalition of two government and three NGO support agencies, subsequently led by the political representation of CAMPFIRE districts, the CAMPFIRE Association 20 On the role of the facilitators in this process see Murphree 1997:491 21 “We don’t know,” said the councilor at the time, “how long Government will let us keep these animals. So we must use them for community projects that will last.”

20 CASE STUDIES ON SOUTHERN AFRICAN NRM INITIATIVES- DRAFT

nearing completion.22 Organizationally however a few cracks were beginning to appear. Dissatisfaction with budgetary allocations and financial accounting by the Wildlife Committee became more frequent. The period 1996–2000 was generally a difficult one for Masoka. 1996 began with an auspicious start, the opening of the clinic. This was however tempered by the fact that the Ministry of Health did not provide the full complement of promised staff, and the clinic did not become fully operational even though its presence greatly improved healthcare for minor ailments, childbirth and infant care. One further addition to the community was the stationing of a WWF facilitator23 in Masoka in a WWF-built house adjacent to the clinic. This posting lasted from 1994 to 1998. On two other fronts the programme continued to provide development. Four further classrooms were added to the primary school and work started on classrooms for a secondary school. A tractor was purchased for tillage, provided at subsidized rates. But conflict with the district council and the safari operator increased, and internally the community was rocked with a scandal in 1997 which involved the handling of Wildlife Committee funds. (The 1997 Wildlife Committee survived for only one year.) Household numbers increased dramatically24 and new settlement began to appear outside the fence. The fence itself fell into disrepair and its solar panels were stolen. A further blow to the community was the death of headman Kanyurira in 2001. Traditional succession is usually a drawn out process and in this case the leadership hiatus undoubtedly contributed to a certain lack of direction at Masoka which was resolved only by the confirmation of a successor in 2006. These conditions notwithstanding, CAMPFIRE continued to be a dominant development force during 2001- 2006, with infrastructural development continuing in a period when external support and facilitation waned. CASS had lost the resources necessary to make regular inputs and WWF had withdrawn its facilitator by the end of 1998 with its last meaningful activity being the facilitation of a land use planning review25 in December 1997. Although the Ward invited CASS and WWF to assist with reassessing the fence, only a few visits were made after 2000, and although courteous, these were of a cursory nature largely because both organisations were not really in a position to be of meaningful assistance. However, preceded by a period of growing conflict, 2006 turned out to be an important year for the programme in that the conflict between community and the council became acute. The community accused the council of falsifying reports, appropriating community funds and inordinate delays in making payments to the community. “We would prefer,” said community representatives, “to return to the old system of being directly under national parks.” In the heat of such sentiment the Director of the CAMPFIRE Association was called in to facilitate a settlement and agreement was reached with Council and the safari operator that by the 1st January 2006 the safari operator would begin to make direct payments to the community’s bank account of 50% of his contract quota price (the other 50% going to council and CAMPFIRE Association). Although the 50%

22 Expenditure for a clinic at this level of expenditure might be considered extravagant but was made necessary by the Ministry of Health’s insistence on a building to Government standards elsewhere. 23 The facilitation role was directed at empowering the community to manage its wildlife resources and is described fully in Goredema et al. (2005) 24 The reasons for population growth in Masoka (60 households in 1988, 169 in 1996 and 340 in 2007) need further investigation than we were able to conduct. Some of this increase may be due to natural increase and some to in-migration by persons elsewhere in Zimbabwe, e.g. 12 Karanga families were reported. Far more important was the migration of 40+ Dema households to Masoka during 1990 – 1993 from the neighbouring ward of Chisunga. The Dema, a Korekore offshoot which took up residence in the Chewore Hills in the early 20th Century, were among the country’s few true hunter-gatherers, were highly mobile and moved to Masoka under the influence of their spirit medium who formed an alliance with Headman Kanyurira. They were allocated land along the Urira River, to the north of the Angwa River. Some cropping is now practiced, although hunting and gathering still form important aspects of household livelihoods (cf. Nabane 1997: 21-24.) However we suspect that the greatest number of new households are the product of urban out-migration due to current national macroeconomic conditions by persons with a Masoka ancestry. There has also been some emigration of at least 10 households (Lilian Goredema pers. com.) 25 Land use planning workshop report: Kanyurira Ward and Guruve RDC. Mushumbi Pools December 1997. WWF SARPO Harare

CASE STUDIES ON SOUTHERN AFRICAN NRM INITIATIVES - DRAFT 21

deduction can be considered exhorbitant26, this was a quantum advance in the mode of community receipt of revenue and greatly to the satisfaction of the community, improving community/safari operator relationships and giving the Wildlife Committee a new confidence and clarity in planning its operations. This was the situation when the authors arrived in Masoka on 8 January 2007 to commence this evaluation.

4. RESULTS

4.1 LIVELIHOOD RESULTS Our terms of reference call for an assessment of the impact of CAMPFIRE on “poverty/livelihoods” in Masoka. While we have used some of the techniques suggested in the TORs (group discussions, interviews) our approach to the assessment has been also to use the wealth of survey and documentary material available to give an historical depth to the assessment. We examine first the benefits (cash, goods, services, employment) brought by the Programme to the community and, where possible, their related costs. We then examine how these benefits have been allocated within the community and the resultant implications for poverty/livelihoods.

WILDLIFE REVENUE Revenue earned by the Masoka programme steadily increased from US$31,620 in 1990 to nearly US$109,000 in 2000 before dipping sharply, notably during the three years 2003-2005, to an all time low of US$11,437 in 2004. This was followed by a dramatic increase to US$132,522 in 2006 (Table 5 and Figure 4). Table 5. Masoka wildlife income 1990–2006 Year Income (ZW$) Income (US$) Mean Exchange Rate ZW$/US$ 1990 78,170 31,620 2.47

1991 89,293 23,805 3.75 1992 276,475 54,083 5.11 1993 459,898 70,441 6.53 1994 639,290 77,846 8.21 1995 526,593 60,360 8.72 1996 660,817 65,623 10.07 1997 738,897 59,380 12.44 1998 2,187,731 89,756 24.37 1999 2,153,067 56,160 38.34 2000 4,853,650 108,788 44.62 2001 4,198,415 76,243 55.07 2002 3,988,359 69,720 57.21 2003 9,233,665 16,045 575.49 2004 51,349,052 11,437 4,489.57 2005 503,220,189 23,372 21,531.19 2006 21,456,529,570 132,522 161,909.32 Source: Masoka Ward Wildlife Committee records, Dzomba (2000) and CAMPFIRE Monitoring & Evaluation Database, WWF SARPO Harare

26 Whilst indeed exhorbitant, the 50% revenue retention reflects the CAMPFIRE Revenue distribution guidelines and the tensions this creates between communities and District Councils and central Government. For detailed discussion see Bond (2001) and Murombedzi (2001).

22 CASE STUDIES ON SOUTHERN AFRICAN NRM INITIATIVES- DRAFT

The latter results probably reflect both the machinations of a cash-strapped Council and the impacts of the land reform fast-track resettlement programme on the Country’s macro-economic performance since 2000. It was these events which precipitated the crisis and conflict between Masoka, Council and the safari operator leading to a tripartite agreement whereby hunting revenues due to Masoka could be paid directly into the Ward account, by-passing Council in the process. The consequences of this are graphically depicted in the income received for 2006. It also conveys a very strong message regarding the levels of “wildlife taxation” imposed by the Council on the Masoka community over the preceding years.

Figure 4. Masoka wildlife income reflecting its CAMPFIRE revenue 1990-2006

Masoka CAMPFIRE Revenue: 1990 - 2006

140,000

120,000

100,000

80,000

60,000 Income (US$)

40,000

20,000

0 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Year

OTHER BENEFITS Employment There are 16 community members who are employed full time and paid by the Ward Wildlife Committee. In addition to the Ward Wildlife Committee comprising 7 members, there are three other committees responsible for health and education (Table 6). The Chief, Headman and Spirit Medium are automatically members of these Committees. There are at least 24 office bearers (Chair, V/Chair, Secretary and Treasurer) amongst the various Committees giving a total of 40 persons who enjoy remunerated employment on either a full or part time basis at Masoka itself. An additional 25 persons are employed full time and a further ten part time by the resident safari operator concessionaire. Thus, in all, some 80 people at Masoka are locally employed on an annual basis. Assuming employees come from different households, then one-third of all households have at least one family member in employment of one form or another. Roads and Transport Access to and from Masoka has never been easy. The main route from Guruve through Mushumbi Pools and Angwa Bridge to the Chewore Safari Area is an all season gravel road but which runs north of the Angwa river at Masoka and is thus not reachable when the river is flowing strongly. An alternative but torturous route directly south via the escarpment and Doma Safari Area is hardly if ever used nowadays, although it was the only route out of the western Zambezi valley in the past. Development of the valley has relied mostly on the east west access described above. There is a secondary made-up track from the eastern boundary of Kanyurira Ward which is currently the most favoured route as it does not cross the

CASE STUDIES ON SOUTHERN AFRICAN NRM INITIATIVES - DRAFT 23

Angwa in order to arrive at Masoka. However, it has numerous small but difficult river crossings, especially during the rains when most of these become impassable.

Table 6. Number of employed persons and nature of employment at Masoka Position Number Mode of Payment Duties Full/Part time Game Guards 9 Law enforcement, Full time monitoring Grinding Mill IGP 2 Manage & operate Full time grinding mill

Tractor tillage unit 3 Manage & drive tractor Full/Part time Salaried Wildlife Clerk 1 Administration Full time School Clerk 1 Administration Fulltime WardWildlife 7 Committee Clinic Committee Min 4 Elected membership Primary School Min 4 with specific duties and Committee responsible to te Allowances Masoka community Part time Secondary School Min 4 Committee Masoka Community Min 4 Development Trust Ingwe Safaris 25 Formal salaried Cooks,waiters, trackers, Full time (privatesector) employment with benefits skinners Ingwe Safaris 10 Seasonal labour force Road clearance, Part time (private sector) preparation

The WWC invested a major part of its CAMPFIRE income on upgrading the road and building a stone and concrete causeway across one river the Urungu in 1998 but this effort was short-lived. Road maintenance in such an environment is a recurrent and costly undertaking. More recently over the past two years substantial concrete causeways have been constructed across 4 of these rivers, with CAMPFIRE funding and support from the recently elected Guruve MP. Transport remains a problem. Buses travel infrequently to and from Angwa Bridge and the Masoka community make use of their tractor and trailer to transport goods and people to and from Mushumbi Pools along the road described above. Meat Over the past seven years (2000-2006), the resident safari operator’s annual quota of the larger huntable animals yielded an average 31 tonnes of fresh meat. This meat is delivered during the hunting season (April to October) to Masoka for household distribution following the completion of a hunt where, in particular large game have been taken, e.g. elephant, buffalo, impala. This provides meat equivalent to 90 kg per household per annum or 0.25 kg per household per day. An impala cropping scheme in Nyaminyami District was able to produce only 9 kg per household per annum or one-tenth of the meat produced at Masoka (Taylor 1991). The constraint to households is that this meat is only available during the hunting season with a peak during the middle of the season, i.e. July-August. Revenue Allocations As noted earlier, the right to make revenue allocations in the programme has been devolved by the Council to the Ward (but see discussion on household dividends below). Established procedure has been for the

24 CASE STUDIES ON SOUTHERN AFRICAN NRM INITIATIVES- DRAFT

Wildlife Committee to generate a budget on the basis of revenue received or anticipated. This budget is then submitted to a general meeting of the community for discussion and approval. For much of the programme’s life this has been an annual exercise; more recently the community has moved to a semi- annual budgeting system. Household dividends or collective projects? This issue has been one of enduring debate in CAMPFIRE, not only at Masoka but elsewhere. Advocates for a household dividend component in community budgets argue that this makes clear to members the benefits of collective enterprise, motivates compliance27 and in times of crisis (i.e. drought) provides essential poverty relief. Opponents of dividend distribution argue that when revenues are low dividends are derisory and that collective revenues should be used on collective benefits. Government has recently decreed that CAMPFIRE revenues must be used only on community infrastructure. A cynical analysis could argue that this is an indirect way to evade government duties since such community infrastructure is usually projected as a government responsibility. Whether the government decree is followed or not phasing is probably important. In Masoka household dividends featured prominently in the past while more recently (Table 7) they are absent. Household dividends and drought relief The use of household dividends is linked to local strategies to deal with acute poverty and points of extreme food crises. Although basic and modest, household diets are minimally adequate and no cases of severe malnutrition appear in the one health survey conducted (Matshona-Dube 1995). A bad drought can, however, put household food supplies in severe jeopardy. At such times the community has been willing to allocate wildlife revenues to food relief, using wildlife to reduce vulnerabilities to the vagaries of drought and growing conditions, shown clearly in Table 7. Table 7. Masoka wildlife income and budget allocations, 1990 – 1995 Budget Allocations (ZW$) Year Revenues1 Resource Household dividends/ Community (After deduction of management drought relief projects council levies) 1990 78,170 10,260 25,200 42,710 (13%) (32%) (55%) 1991 89,293 7,798 69,677 11,818 (8%) (78%) (13%) 1992 276,745 44,279 10,640 221,292 (16%) (4%) (59%) 1993 459,891 65,599 127,000 267,292 (14%) (28%) (59%) 1994 639,290 138,290 165,000 336,000 (22%) (26%) (52%) 1995 526,593 115,200 140,000 271,393 (22%) (26%) (53%) Sources: Masoka Wildlife Committee and Guruve Council records. Note: 1.Revenues are (for the years shown) made available by council to the community in December or early in the following year. They reflect the previous year’s production. Note that 1991 revenues were allocated at nearly 80% for household dividends and drought relief, because of an almost complete crop failure in the 1991-1992 growing season. By contrast 1992 revenues were used

27 Household dividends imply a members’ list, which can be used to enforce compliance by any prospective deviants.

CASE STUDIES ON SOUTHERN AFRICAN NRM INITIATIVES - DRAFT 25

primarily for the development of local infrastructure because of good crops from the 1992-1993 growing season. In other words, Masoka was using revenue flexibly, in good crop years for collective development, in years of crop failure as food security. The absence of household dividends in recent budgets may be due in part to government dictates but may also be a reflection of the fact that in recent years food relief supplies have become a regular feature in Dande28. Finally, it should be noted that the provision of seed maize packages and subsidized tillage to households in recent budgets is in fact a household subsidy.

4.2 EQUITY, COTTON AND WILDLIFE The rural development literature often suggests that the commoditisation of natural resources usually increases the possibility that the value of such resources will be captured by elites. CAMPFIRE involves the commoditisation of wildlife and this generalisation might be thought to apply to Masoka. The record in Masoka however, certainly with regard to revenue allocation, indicates otherwise. Masoka budgets over the years show allocations either to collective enterprises or as member dividends. In the case of communal infrastructural projects, distribution to the communal membership (i.e. the households) can be assumed to be relatively equitable even if we recognize that differentials in household size and composition will create small differences in benefit. It is however when we compare household income from the cash cropping of cotton (the community’s only cash crop) and the cropping of wildlife that we find the equity impacts to be most sharply delineated. Households large and small all receive the same annual dividend, if this is in the budget. Revenue from cotton, on the other hand, depends critically on the labour and cash (fertilizer, tillage, transport) inputs that the household can make. CASS files contain a detailed record of a survey carried out in 1995 of the 156 households existing at that time. Of these 81 (52%) had cultivated cotton in that year. Large differences in field size and the cost of inputs were however in evidence. When net revenue was calculated this large spread was replicated. Table 8 shows the range and frequencies of incomes from cotton sales, also indicated graphically in Figure 5.

Table 8. Net household income from cotton sales, Masoka 1995 Value range Frequency Percentage Cumulative percent $0-500 30 37.0 37.0 $501-1000 19 23.5 60.5 $1001-1500 11 13.6 74.1 $1501-2000 5 6.2 80.2 $2001-2500 6 7.4 87.7 $2501-3000 4 4.9 92.6 $3001-3500 4 4.9 97.5 $4001-4500 2 2.5 100 TOTALS 81 100.0 100.0

Total reported net income for Masoka from cotton was Z$170 187, i.e. an average of $2 102 for each of the 81 cotton growing households. But note that 60.5% of these households received $1000 or less for their cotton, and only 7.4% earned more than $3000. It is interesting to note that in this same year receipts

28 During our Jan. 2007 evaluation visit Christian Care, the local agent for relief food supplies, came to Masoka to generate a list of households qualifying for relief.

26 CASE STUDIES ON SOUTHERN AFRICAN NRM INITIATIVES- DRAFT

for wildlife were $526 593 and that the 140 households on the membership register29 each received a $1000,00 wildlife dividend. Table 8 provides figures for 1995 only and unfortunately the survey exercise which produced them has not been repeated on a regular basis. We were assured however by the field enumerator who conducted the 1995 study that the general profile of community cotton production remains the same: one half of households growing cotton (perhaps somewhat less than 50% now) with a very wide differential in income received.

Figure 5. Frequency distribution of household net income from cotton production at Masoka during 1995

40 35 30 25 20

Percent 15 10 5 0 $0-500 $501- $1001- $1501- $2001- $2501- $3001- $4001- 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4500 Value

From these figures it is clear that: 1. As a cash crop, wildlife outperforms its only rival in Masoka, cotton by several orders of magnitude. (In 1995 three times as much in value; currently probably much more). 2. Receipt of revenues from wildlife tends to be far more equitable across households than cotton receipts. Buildings and Works With the exception of the store (built by local entrepreneurship) most public buildings and works in Masoka are associated with CAMPFIRE (Table 9).

29 One hundred and fifty six households were in Masoka in 1995, but 16 of these, being newcomers, were not yet on the membership list.

CASE STUDIES ON SOUTHERN AFRICAN NRM INITIATIVES - DRAFT 27

Table 9. Infrastructural development at Masoka Description Funding 1 clinic built to Government specifications, with 2 wards, All provided by Masoka CAMPFIRE. No donor or delivery room, treatment room, ablution block, office and government funds. storerooms. Furnished Nurses’ houses (3)

4 block primary school with 8 classrooms, 4 teachers’ CAMPFIRE houses

2 block secondary school with 6 classrooms, 3 teachers CAMPFIRE houses

1 grinding mill: building and machinery Built and installed by loan from Lutheran World Federation. Now maintained by WWC.

1 school office for joint primary/secondary use CAMPFIRE

1 small 3 roomed administrators’ block for wildlife Former WWF facilitator’s house, donated to WWC.

1 18km electric fence. Now in disrepair. Donated by Goldfields

2 functioning boreholes, hand -pumped EU funded, government provided

4 river causeways on access road Paid by WWC with some help from Dande MP. One additional causeway planned.

1 safari camp with 4 chalets, kitchen, storage facilities. Donated by Safari operator when he moved his camp to Water pipes, toilets, water storage, but currently no pump. new site. Usable, but in some disrepair.

2 tractors (one under repair), trailer and implements WWC

The Masoka WWC likes to boast that all their buildings are self-funded. Technically this is not quite true, as can be seen in Table 9. The wildlife office and the safari camp were donations, and there have been inputs to the causeways, the fence and grinding mill. But overall, they are correct; this building array is an outstanding example of rural self-help unmatched to our knowledge elsewhere in the country.

CURRENT BUDGET ALLOCATION The writers were fortunate enough to arrive on the field trip to Masoka, unannounced, at precisely the time when the WWC was preparing its report to the community general meeting on expenditure against the July-December 2006 budget. We were given a copy of this budget on arrival, had the chance to subsequently ask questions on detail, and then attended the 5 hour-long report back meeting to the community on Thursday January 11th. The meeting was attended by more than 100 community residents and the WWC presenters did not escape aggressive questioning on expenditure of some line items. Certain points were conceded and passed forward for attention during the next budget period. Over and under expenditure on certain line items was reported and discussed. There was, however, general satisfaction with the overall performance of the WWC.

28 CASE STUDIES ON SOUTHERN AFRICAN NRM INITIATIVES- DRAFT

We attach as Appendix 6 the community’s budget for July-December 2006 as presented to us and subsequently to the ward general meeting. The document might be considered rather “scruffy” by professional accountants working in their offices equipped with the latest in computerized equipment. There are errors in spelling and syntax, budget categories are sometimes mixed and additions do not (always) tally perfectly. We were however given rational responses to the questions these points raised and were given the impression of conscientious, if sometimes imprecise, accounting. Futhermore we had to recognize the vast accounting problems the WCC and its treasurer were facing: hyperinflation of over 1000%, consistently shifting (real) exchange rates and a devaluation (by 3 zeros) of the Zimbabwean currency during the budget year. As if this were not enough, consider the logistical problems involved. A visit to the bank or the reproduction of the budget (Appendix 6) involved a 35 km cycle ride to Angwa Bridge, a 3 hours bus ride to Mvurwi, the employment of a typist to produce and duplicate tables, and a return journey. Considering all these constraints, we consider that the WWC and its treasurer have done a commendable job with their 2006 budget. For the purposes of this analysis we have re-structured the budget below (Table 10) but at this point we draw attention to Appendix 5, which provides an authentic flavour to an understanding of the community’s aspirations and concerns regarding their wildlife income. We have altered the document in only one respect: we have numbered the line items for cross-referencing to this text. Many of these line items are self-explanatory, but we provide comment on the following, which colourfully depict the community’s efforts to improve livelihoods and buffer against poverty: Line items #1 - #11: All these items relate to WWC training and administration. We see in the careful detailing of expenditure the lessons learned in 1997 about hostility to expenditure on Committee entertainment. (T and S = travel and subsistence). Line item #12: Note the employment of a school clerk. Government does not provide this in school staff establishments. Masoka was convinced by its two headmasters that this was desirable and created the post. Line items #17, # 18, #20, #22: Salaries related to grinding mill and tillage operations. Tractors and the grinding mill are supposed to be self-supporting, but there is an element of household subsidy in each. Hence the 1 month salaries. Line items #19, #25, #26: Mudzimu = spirit medium; machira = black cloths for the spirit medium; mutape = acolyte of the spirit medium. Masoka is surely unique among wildlife programmes in providing a line item budget for the spirit medium. Note the quote from Schoffeleers in Section 2.4 of the report! Line item #21: Note the pre-school at Masoka Line item #23: This was provision for pre-budget transactions on which there is no clarity as yet. It could read “pending”. Line item #30: “Turnery” = tannery Line item #32: Arms and ammunition for problem animal control. Line items #33 - # 41: Not all of these are “capital” projects and some overlap with previous items. Our reconciliation appears below. Line items # 35, #36: Considerable repair and maintenance in the detail. Line item #37: “Charlet” = chalets. Relates to renovation of the hunting camp, cf. section 4.2 below Line item # 38: Not only soccer, but musical entertainment nights. Line item #39: A familiar title in Zimbabwean urban contents. The nearest police post is 60 km away and it is argued that some means of local law enforcement is necessary.

CASE STUDIES ON SOUTHERN AFRICAN NRM INITIATIVES - DRAFT 29

Line item #41: Considerable duplication with previous items. Line item #42: Grand Total. This is revised in our figures – see below. Budget Allocation by Category For purposes of this analysis we have restructured Masoka’s July-December 2006 budget30 by categories in Table 10 below.

Table 10. Masoka Ward Wildife Committee budget July-December 2006

Category Amount Z$ Percentage Administration/Committee Costs 1,066,800 4.4% Wildlife and Resource Management 4,005,400 16.7% Community Projects 13,757,000 57.3% Agriculture/Drought Relief 4,989,000 20.8% Sundries Pending 200,000 .08% TOTALS 24,017,900 99.28%

Note: Under “Agriculture/Drought Relief” we have included the line items in Appendix 5 which appear as the “maize seeds scheme”, “”tillage” and costs related to tractors. While there is some mix of categories in tractor use, they are used primarily in agriculture. Table 10 has its similarities to Table 7. Expenditures on resource management fall within the general range of percentages, which have prevailed before. The “Agriculture/Drought Relief” category can in some ways be seen as a substitute for household dividends since subsidized tillage and seed maize are items provided on a household basis. Administration and Committee costs are extremely low, possibly out of sensitivity over past accusations of committee extravagance.

BUDGETING, INCOME AND EXPENDITURE Two aspects of Masoka’s fiscal management rapidly become apparent when exposed to the documentation and discussion made available to us during the field study. The first is that budgeting had to be done on a highly speculative income. Given the context of hyperinflation and an uncertain exchange rate, this is not surprising. As a result the actual income fell short of the budget. During the general community report-back meeting of 11 January 2007, the WWC, and chairs of beneficiary committees, reported verbally on under and over expenditures against budget. Unfortunately we did not have these figures on paper, nor are our rapidly inscribed notes adequate for us as yet to give a detailed report (see, however, Appendices 7a-g). It was clear however that the WWC had used a well- worn response to this crisis: prioritization with special attention to staff maintenance, and the postponement of new projects. Thus several “big ticket” new items: the causeway, the development of the ecotourism camp, the tannery and the acquisition of new firearms were noted as yet to commence, with no protest from the meeting. The WWC reported a small balance in the bank. A new 2007 budget, and income from hunting, will shortly be forthcoming. Like most of Zimbabwe, Masoka’s programme is temporarily in a caretaker mode. Unlike most of Zimbabwe, because of the strength of its industry, it can expect for increased activity very shortly.

30 In this analysis we have not included the January-June 2006 budget since it was an interim “holding” budget of relatively small proportions (Z$878,973). Furthermore it was in pre-devaluation currency, with inflation giving the estimates a different real value.

30 CASE STUDIES ON SOUTHERN AFRICAN NRM INITIATIVES- DRAFT

COSTS The costs of Masoka’s CAMPFIRE are very difficult to quantify. Administrative and resource management costs are clear and relatively easy to calculate. But beyond this a variety of costs exist which are extensive but difficult to measure. These include the large amounts of transaction time donated by members, the risks involved in living with dangerous wildlife and the opportunity costs of foregoing cattle and development paths promoted by the Government in eastern Dande. Costs associated with crop raiding by wildlife are clearly the foremost concern of community members, but they have as yet failed to develop a commonly accepted yardstick to quantify crop damage. Cost-benefit analyses of Masoka’s CAMPFIRE are therefore difficult and unlikely to be definitve.31 Much more useful is a comparative analysis which contrasts Masoka’s development with those of other wards in Dande over the last 20 years. In one sense people have been doing this with their feet over this period. The rise in population in Masoka from 60 to 340 households is a significant indicator of people’s views of Masoka’s comparative livelihood and poverty reduction status.32 Masoka may not be a wildlife welfare state, but nowhere else in Dande can one find a community where education is completely free, where there is a pre-school, where there is a subsidized sport and entertainment programme, a subsidized grinding mill and household maize seed and tillage allocations, where free meat is available and where the community runs a security system. Masoka’s growing population suggests that for many, the benefits of Masoka residence exceed the costs involved.

4.3 NATURAL RESOURCE RESULTS

LAND ALLOCATION Following community acceptance of CAMPFIRE (see 3.2 & 3.3 above), Masoka had now to address the issues of managing its wildlife resources. This began with the production and implementation of a land use plan developed in 1990 by the community, with the technical assistance of WWF and CASS. The plan (Figure 6) provided for the electrified fencing around the periphery of some 18 km2 to protect the residential and arable holdings of the 60 households immediately south and east of the Angwa river at Masoka itself, in Chemapango and Kanungwe Vidcos. The remaining 457 km2 of the ward north and south of the settled area was allocated to wildlife management and use.

31 This is not to discount the value of the collection of quantifiable data. Certain data sets should have been initiated long ago but were not. Examples include health and nutritional statistics. 32 Admittedly in-migration to Masoka stems from several causes. Much of it is by people without alternatives, but for others it is a choice based on perceived benefit. See footnote 13.

CASE STUDIES ON SOUTHERN AFRICAN NRM INITIATIVES - DRAFT 31

Figure 6. The Masoka Land Use Plan 1990

KEY

Ward boundary Chisunga Ward

Settlement & Cultivation

Roads Mkanga settlement

Rivers M k a n Angwa R. g a Fence R .

Chewore safari area Masoka settlement

Kanyurira Ward

0 2 4

Doma safari area

The plan whilst recognising the need for further expansion of settlement in time to come, did not cater for the needs of households across the Angwa, which included two Dema villages immediately north-west of the river in Maocha Vidco. It also did not exclude the large Nyangwena pan located within the settled area, and frequented in particular by buffalo. It provided for two small fenced enclosures within the larger perimeter fence, intended for intensive vegetable cultivation. In the event these enclosures fell into disuse and a small number of older buffalo males took up semi-permanent residence in the vicinity of the pan. Although tolerated, these animals did cause frequent damage to crops and harassment to villagers from time to time (see below).

SPATIAL DISTRIBUTION OF SETTLEMENT By 1997 population growth at Masoka was placing pressure on the available land resource within the settled fenced area and people had begun moving southwards to establish new homes and arable holdings. This coincided with the collapse of fence maintenance and efforts to re-align portions of the fence to

32 CASE STUDIES ON SOUTHERN AFRICAN NRM INITIATIVES- DRAFT

accommodate the new settlement area. Some 26 households indicated their desire to move but this met with resistance from the RDC resulting in confrontation between the Ward and the Council. This led to WWF facilitating a land use planning workshop33 in November 1997 which identified two areas for new settlement, one north of the Angwa at Mkanga, and the other in the preferred and already partially settled, southern area, Mavabvu. In an assessment of habitat maintenance and productivity at Kanyurira, Conybeare (1998) found that up to an additional 8 km2 had been settled compared to 1989, reflecting a loss of only 2% of the wildlife area (Table 11). By 2000 the majority of the above households were settled at Mavabvu.

Table 11. Wildlife habitat loss in Kanyurira Ward between 1989 and 1997 as reflected by change in size of ward wildlife area

Wildlife area 1989 Settled area 1989 Settled area 1997 Wildlife area loss Site km2 % km2 % km2 % km2 % Kanyurira Ward 457 96 18 4 26 5 8 2 Settlement Area Source: Conybeare (1998) By 2007 there had been very little change when we were informed of current household numbers and their distribution (Table 12). There are presently 22 households in the new southern extension settlement area at Mavabvu, constituting only 7% of all households compared to the majority of households (nearly 80%) still residing in the original settlement area. The original fence has now all but collapsed and new fencing arrangements are being sought by the Masoka community as well as new human-wildlife conflict mitigation measures. Such developments are not entirely unexpected. With experience, technical specialists have recognised the shortfalls of large-scale electrified wildlife fencing (Hoare and Booth 1998) and are presently recommending an alternative suite of mitigation measures (WWF 2006), no one of which will guarantee success in completely removing wild animal damage to arable holdings and household assets. During our visit it was intimated that different fencing arrangements, including the adoption of family-owned household-level electric fencing needed to be examined34 as well as the use of other mitigation measures, such as growing chill pepper for making “chilli grease” and “chilli bombs”. Chilli peppers can also be grown, harvested and sold commercially35. Such measures also needed to be linked to a re-assessment of the land use plan and by mid February of this year, a new land use plan had been drafted. This plan also incorporates a new ecotourism venture based on the provision of facilities for birding safaris at the former safari camp donated to the Masoka community (see Table 9 above and new initiatives below).

Table 12. Current settlement patterns at Masoka Original Settlement Mkanga New southern extension 270 Households 48 Households (33 Dema) 22 Households 79 % 14% (of which 69% = Dema) 7%

33 Land use planning workshop report: Kanyurira Ward and Guruve RDC. Mushumbi Pools December 1997. WWF SARPO Harare 34 See Hoare (2000): An investigation into the feasibility of implementing a household scale electric fencing scheme in Masoka, Guruve District, Zimbabwe. A Report to WWF Support to CAMPFIRE Project. WWF SARPO, Harare. 35 See Elephant Pepper Development Trust (www.elephantpepper.org)

CASE STUDIES ON SOUTHERN AFRICAN NRM INITIATIVES - DRAFT 33

WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT Fence arrangements At the time of construction, the fence itself was technically state of the art, which performed well under the right conditions in keeping large wildlife species, notably elephant and to an extent, buffalo out of the settled area. Some 13 km of fence line, with treated poles 5 and10 m apart, were electrified by three solar powered energisers which continuously kept 12 v batteries charged and stepping up voltages to between 6,000-9,000 v through alternating insulted offset live and negative wires. Earth pegs and lightning diverters protected the 3 power stations. Two additional wire strands were not electrified but further restricted physical entry. Four large gates provided for vehicle movement and 10 small gates provided entry and exit points for pedestrians. The fence crossed irregular terrain including eight small rivers, which could result in fence damage during flash floods in the rainy season. Each crossing had a floating floodgate, resting on the river bed during the dry season. During the 1996/97 such an event occurred and the WWC together with the fence minders repaired the damage and re-aligned the fence away from the newly eroded alluvial terrace. Fence maintenance With the erection of the fence most wildlife was kept out of the settled area at Masoka. In particular elephant were excluded totally and conflict was minimal, despite the resident buffalo bulls at Nyangwena pan. Consequently the fence was viewed as a success even though numerous break-ins continued. Following the erection of the fence much effort was spent in the development of participatory methods and training of fence monitors in fence maintenance, monitoring and reporting on the status of the fence and wildlife trespass (Goredema et al. 2005) and in 1998 the WWC and fence monitors produced a guideline manual on solar electric fence maintenance at Masoka36 for use by monitors. This manual includes data and analyses provided here. Over a 3 month reporting period August-October 1996, 31 reports (10 each month) were produced by the fence monitors. Employing 4 monitors, the number of man-days involved amounted to 261 or an average of 65 days per monitor. A total of 1,692 break-ins occurred with buffalo being responsible for 86% of these entries. The other species involved were waterbuck, impala, warthog and bushpig. The monthly frequency of break-ins (Figure 7) is negatively related to the fence voltage (Figure8) with the greatest number of break-ins coinciding with the lowest average voltage. These same animals also broke out of the fence in similar numbers (1,723 break-outs) and frequency, reflecting the greater ease with which they could penetrate the fence, compared to elephant. The fact that buffalo were already resident and tolerated within the fence complicates an unequivocal analysis. From a community perspective crop damage was minimal compared to that of elephant and indeed, the reason given for break-ins during this reporting period was the large amount of grass and grazing available inside the fence, as opposed to damage to crops already harvested.

36 Solar Electric Fence Maintenance Manual. Kanyurira Ward 11 (Masoka) Guruve RDC November

34 CASE STUDIES ON SOUTHERN AFRICAN NRM INITIATIVES- DRAFT

Figure 7. Monthly incidence of fence break-ins at Masoka, August-October 1996. Data from Fence Maintenance Analysis Forms, Masoka WWC

1000

800

600

400

200 Number of break-ins Number 0 Aug Sept Oct Months

All species Buffalo

Fig 8. Average monthly voltage flowing through the Masoka electrified game fence, August-October 1996. Data from Fence Maintenance Analysis Forms, Masoka WWC

6 5 4 3 2 Voltage (Kv) Voltage 1 0 Aug Sept Oct Months

Voltage (Kv)

Fence maintenance requires a high level of commitment, especially fault finding when voltages are less than optimal, which was a frequent occurrence. Figure 8 shows that voltage varied from 3-5 Kv over the three month period when it should have been over 6 Kv. Voltage drops are caused by vegetation growth touching the wires, broken insulators, fallen fence poles, breakages, earthing of live wires, human disruption, e.g. at gates and wildlife break-ins. Low voltages are also a phenomenon of the dry season and the ground around the power source should ideally be kept moist, a somewhat difficult task in the hot dry Zambezi valley.

CASE STUDIES ON SOUTHERN AFRICAN NRM INITIATIVES - DRAFT 35

PROBLEM ANIMAL CONTROL (PAC) Following the collapse of the fence after 1998, elephant and buffalo damage within the formerly protected settlement area increased. Between 1999 and 2000, some 27 elephant and 102 buffalo were destroyed on PAC activities (Figure 9). Although the number of elephant shot is relatively low (3-4 annually), that for buffalo (nearly 13 per year) is high, sufficiently so to perhaps be affecting the trophy quality of those buffalo shot as trophy animals (see Sport hunting below). Most problem animal activity and related human-wildlife conflict takes place during the crop growing season (Figure 10), particularly between February and May when crops are maturing. Problem animal activity, especially that of buffalo resumes again at the height of the dry season when resources such as water and food are scarce.

Figure 9. Elephant and buffalo shot on PAC at Masoka 1999-2006. Data from PAC records,Masoka WWC and Dzomba 2000

35 30 25 20 Elephant 15 Buffalo Numbers 10 5 0

5 6 0 0 0 1999 2000 20 2 Year

Figure10. The monthly frequency of elephant and buffalo shot on PAC at Masoka 2005- 2006. Data from PAC records, Masoka WWC

14 12 10

8 Elephant 6 Buffalo Numbers 4 2 0 JFMAMJJASOND Months

Interestingly, we were informed that the human-wildlife conflict reported above was confined to the Masoka settlement area and that little or no activity took place at Mavabvu in the southern extension. This is probably due to the proximity of Masoka to the Angwa river whereas Mavabvu is some 5-10 km inland of the Angwa.

36 CASE STUDIES ON SOUTHERN AFRICAN NRM INITIATIVES- DRAFT

SPORT HUNTING Sport hunting in CAMPFIRE districts, including the right to a huntable quota approved by PWMA is leased to a commercial Safari Operator, usually on a 5-10 year lease agreement with the District Council. Details of lease agreements are negotiated between the Safari Operator and RDC through the application of market based mechanisms. Hunts are marketed internationally by the operator, with emphasis on greater efficiency of resource use by the operator (Child 1995, Bond 2001, Taylor 2006).

Figure 11a. Quota allocation and offtake of trophy male elephant for the Guruve South quota area, 2001-2005. Data from Ingwe Safaris.

12 10 8 Quota 6 4 Offtake 2 No. of Elephant 0 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Years

Figure 11b. Trophy size (single tusk weight in lbs) for male elephant shot in Guruve South quota area, 2001-2005. Data from Ingwe Safaris.

44 42 40 38 Elephant 36 34 Size in Pounds 32 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Years

CASE STUDIES ON SOUTHERN AFRICAN NRM INITIATIVES - DRAFT 37

Figure 12a. Quota allocation and offtake of trophy male buffalo for the Guruve South quota area, 2001-2005. Data from Ingwe Safaris

50 40 30 Quota 20 Offtake 10 No. of Buffalo 0 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Years

Figure 12b. Trophy size (horn length in inches) for male buffalo shot in Guruve South quota area, 2001-2005. Data from Ingwe Safaris.

39 38.5 38 37.5 Buffalo 37 36.5

Size in Inches 36 35.5 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Years

Kanyurira Ward is hunted as part of a larger quota area, Guruve South which includes Kanyurira, Chisunga, Neshangwe, Chitusungo and Chiriwo Wards (the Kanyurira valley, Kanyurira escarpment, Chisunga and Kadzi aerial survey stratum). Although some 18 large mammals, including lion and leopard are offered on hunts, only elephant and buffalo are discussed here by way of example and because they are two key trophy species sought by sport hunters. Figs.11a and12a show the Guruve South quota and the related offtake for elephant and buffalo over the 5 years 2001-2005. The accompanying trends in trophy quality are provided in Figs. 11b and 12b. The distribution of hunted animals (Figure 13) shows that most of these animals are hunted in Kanyurira Ward, more so in recent years (WGR Bedford pers. com.) as human population pressures and arable holdings increase from the eastern valley (Cumming and Lynam 1997).

38 CASE STUDIES ON SOUTHERN AFRICAN NRM INITIATIVES- DRAFT

Figure 13. The distribution of sport hunted large mammals in the Guruve South quota area which includes Kanyurira Ward

! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! Dande!!! ! ! ! Safari! Area! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!! !!! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! Chisunga ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Chiriw KEY !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Neshangwe !! ! ! District boundary ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!!! ! ! !! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! CAMPFIRE Ward !! ! ! ! !! ! ! !!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! !!!!!! ! !! ! !!!!! ! ! !!!!!!! ! ! ! ! ! !! !!!! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Species hunted ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!!! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!! ! ! ! !! ! !!! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !!!! ! ! !! ! ! !!! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Chitsungo ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! Kanyurira ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Matsiwo ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

E ! ! KM Mutota 0 5 10 Mukwenya

Whilst elephant quotas and offtakes have remained fairly consistent at around 10 animals per year (Figure 11a), a variable or possibly declining trophy quality is indicated in Figure 11b. Tusk weight varies from 36-42 lbs but a good trophy elephant is considered to be at least 50 lbs or more. Elephant numbers in the Zambezi valley are high at around 12-15,000 animals (Dunham and Mackie 2001) but probably increasing PAC over the larger quota area is impacting on elephant bull trophy size, as opposed to a possibility of unsustainable offtakes. Given the longevity of an elephant (65 years), however, the recovery of “lost” trophy quality will take time, coupled with a reduction in PAC. For buffalo, quotas and offtakes have remained constant at around 40 animals annually (Figure 12a) with variable trophy quality between 36-39 inches. A desirable buffalo trophy is considered to be 40 inches or more. That buffalo trophies are less than this in the western Zambezi valley may be a reflection of both excessive PAC, such as the 102 buffalo shot at Masoka (see Figure 9 above) or a selection bias towards younger animals to meet certain trophy measurement standards amongst the hunting fraternity.37 Unlike elephant, buffalo trophy quality can be recovered relatively quickly once the pressure is taken off the “huntable” segment of the population.

37 A recent study by WG Taylor (2005) shows that the North American SCI Scoring System, based on an aggregated sum of different scores, may be biased towards the hunting of younger age class buffalo (6-8 years) compared to the traditional British Rowland Ward measurement system based on a single measurement. Ideally, mature buffalo males in age classes 8-10 years provide desirable trophies using the Rowland Ward system

CASE STUDIES ON SOUTHERN AFRICAN NRM INITIATIVES - DRAFT 39

PARTICIPATORY QUOTA SETTING The above discussion on trophy offtake and quality is highly relevant to both Masoka and the resident safari operator since successful marketing of high quality hunting is key to maintaining and improving revenue flows. Participatory quota setting is an innovative monitoring tool which triangulates a set of biologically linked indices to adaptively manage sport hunting quotas in a multi-stakeholder resource management regime (Taylor 2001, Goredema et al 2005, Rigava et al 2006). The key stakeholders include the WWC and other community members, the safari operator, RDC, PWMA and wildlife biologists who make use of facilitated workshops38 to examine biological and wildlife management data to establish next years quota. Such data includes trends in animal abundance from aerial and/or ground counts, trophy quality, illegal activity, PAC and hunt catch-effort indices. Thus at a quota setting workshop for Guruve South in 1996, the Masoka community and safari operator agreed that numbers of most species were stable or increasing. The exceptions were leopard, hippo and bushbuck, all of which were indicating downward trends and therefore quotas were adjusted downward accordingly. Once the quota is finalised at local sub district level, the RDC submits the recommended quota to PWMA who as the responsible management authority, provides final approval, with or without adjustment. In this way the quota setting process is decentralised and debated openly amongst the resource managers on the ground, notably the WWC and operator. Arguably these stakeholders are as well placed if not better so, than any centralised decision making process, to provide the needed information for sustainable high quality hunting. Whilst the conceptual underpinnings of this methodology are inherently sound, in practice it has taken time to root itself institutionally, with lack of participation or “buy-in” on the part of some stakeholders. Nevertheless it is one of the more successful participatory methodologies developed for sustainable wildlife use in CAMPFIRE and has enjoyed much success at Masoka when applied appropriately.

4.4 GOVERNANCE RESULTS Any discussion of the governance impacts of a programme like CAMPFIRE inevitably involves value judgements about the desirable components of “good” governance. CAMPFIRE rests on philosophical assumptions about matching ecological, economic and regime scales and is thus itself inherently political. For the purposes of this evaluation however we use a minimalist definition of good governance to mean an organizational system which is institutionally legitimate for its constituency, efficient in carrying out its purposes and resilient in dealing with challenge and change. For Masoka the last of these related in particular to the community’s ability to negotiate its interests in dealing with the safari operator and the district council. We use these three criteria – legitimacy, efficiency and representational ability – to evaluate governance in Masoka since the advent of CAMPFIRE. Formally Masoka has been a ward (Ward II, “Kanyurura Ward”) in the Guruve Rural District Council,39 under legislation which includes the Communal Land Act, the Rural District Councils Act and the Traditional Leaders Act. Under this legislation two forms of authority exist at the ward level; a traditional structure comprised of the headman and village heads and whose function is to adjudicate civil disputes and allocate land, and a structure of village and ward assemblies comprised of elected members and traditional leaders. The function of these assemblies is primarily to oversee the commonage and plan local development. An elected Councillor represents the ward at the Rural Development Council. It is fair to say that the structure

38 See for example, Guruve RDC Quota Setting Workshop Reports, 12 September 1996 and 14 August 1998 39 This has now changed. Guruve is a large district, with considerable difference between its southern part on the middle/high veld and its northern part lying below the escarpment in the Zambezi Valley. Sentiment to divide the district has built up over time and in July 2006 this took place, the 8 Zambezi Valley wards being constituted the new Mbire District, headquarted at Mushumbi Pools. This change will clearly have important ramifications for Masoka. Statutory Instrument 102 of 2006 stipulates that the new Mbire Council assumes all the contractural assets and responsibilities of the Guruve RDC in respect to the wards involved, and at the time of this review it was too early to determine any clear direction associated with the change.

40 CASE STUDIES ON SOUTHERN AFRICAN NRM INITIATIVES- DRAFT

described above is in practice rarely in place in its details. Formally constituted village assemblies are rare; at the Ward level activity tends to be responsive rather than proactive. A ward may be active in response to a project initiative (e.g. a grazing scheme) or activated in response to a perceived threat (e.g. a proposed dam to serve other areas). But generally speaking, the Ward Development Committee (WADCO) acts as a shell within which other more active committees (e.g. the school committee, the grinding mill committee) carry out their own programmes. This was very much the position pertaining in Masoka in 1988, as noted above in Section 2.4. With the introduction of CAMPFIRE a Wildlife Committee was set up, in the first instance appointed by the headman. Subsequently, and at the insistence of the headman, elections were held and an elected Wildlife Committee took up office in 1989. With the building of the first school rooms, the first dividend ceremony and the erection of the fence the legitimacy of the Committee was high. Most of its members were mature in age and reflected “traditional” leadership values. But the financial dimensions of CAMPFIRE led to a need for literacy and numeracy in the Committee, which was modified in 1990 to reflect this. Between 1990 and 1997 four successive Wildlife Committees were in place.40 At the beginning of this period there was general satisfaction with the programme and its leadership structures. A Constitution with by-laws was created and met with general compliance. The fence was operative, school blocks were being added and building on the clinic had been commenced. Dimbi shows a trend during these years towards a younger and more educated Committee (Dimbi 1998:53). The Committee was certainly not representative: women and the Dema ethnic sub-group were under represented and sometimes completely absent. Representative or not, the Committee enjoyed high legitimacy during the first few years. Visible accomplishment was seen as efficiency, and efficiency bestowed legitimacy. Nabane’s field work, carried out 1992-4, reports that even though not represented on the Committee, 82% of a sample of women were satisfied with its decisions (Nabane 1997:73). There was however growing dissatisfaction over the Committee’s stewardship of funds in its custody. The Committee was making budget decisions without recourse to the general meeting and one of its 1997 projects, an entertainment video facility, was widely unpopular. The Committee was seen as awarding itself exhorbitant travel and entertainment allowances. The legitimacy of the Committee plunged, and reached its nadir in 1997 when accusations of embezzlement against members of the committee were made, at first locally and then in the national press. As a result the Committee was dissolved at a general ward meeting called by the headman in September 1997 and subsequently a new committee was installed. Its membership was weighed somewhat more heavily toward older members. Another innovation has been the incorporation of several village headmen. Since 1997 there have been further revisions of Committee membership. A pattern seems to have emerged with the following elements: a) Membership on the Ward Wildlife Committee is rarely for more than three years. b) Relinquency of a position on the WWC does not necessarily mean committee inactivity. Frequency such a person becomes a member of another communal committee, e.g. the school committee, the clinic committee, the tractor committee, etc. c) The WWC, holding the only significant communal funds, funds a number of other committee projects. It thus acts in many ways like the Ward Development Committee, although the distinction between the two is maintained. d) The community seeks balance in its WWC between youth and maturity, between education and experience. The community looks for a committee in which the young will provide ideas and energy and the mature will provide caution and compromise.

40 The size of the Committee varied between 11-16, inclusive of the headman and Councillor in their ex officio capacities. Interestingly the Ward Wildlife Constitution does not specify the composition of the Committee or its duration. During our recent field visit the intention to revisit the Constitution was stated. The Constitution is in Shona. For an English translation see Dimbi 1998: 125-129.

CASE STUDIES ON SOUTHERN AFRICAN NRM INITIATIVES - DRAFT 41

This is a general profile of the WCC as it evolved after the traumas of 1997. In the main the programme was seen as being both legitimate and efficient, the failure to maintain the fence being considered the WCC’s major shortcoming. Legitimacy and efficiency on the home front were not sufficient, however. Masoka’s governance structure also needed negotiating competence: the ability to defend and enhance its interests with a world of external actors involved in CAMPFIRE, seen as being potentially or actually predatory. For Masoka these included the Department of National Parks and Wildlife Management (DNPWLM), the gamekeeper that had attempted to curb the community’s “poaching” in pre-CAMPFIRE days. But under CAMPFIRE it was the Rural District Council (RDC) and the safari operator who were the main sparring partners. Legally it was the RDC, which was empowered to set aside land for wildlife and enter into contracts for its sale. Legally the safari operator held a contract with the RDC and could in theory, ignore the community. The two (the RDC and the operator) thus had a stranglehold on the community’s wildlife resources, what they could do with it and what proportion they might receive from the proceeds of any sales. DNPWLM had issued “guidelines” to councils suggesting a division of revenue as indicated earlier (and Taylor 2006) but since the funds came to council, revenue could be diverted in a number of ways. The ability of Masoka’s programme to negotiate a satisfactory relationship with operator and council was, therefore, a critical element in the programme’s governance. Dissatisfaction with these relationships emerged early in the programme, conflict emerging between the RDC, the operator and the community over the community’s rights to expand its settlement (cf. Nabane 1998:57). The community also had its complaints about the safari operator; he was not employing sufficient local staff, he did not provide adequate meat to the community and he did not deal with problem animals.41 More fundamentally the running dispute was with the RDC. If there were complaints about the safari operator, they could be laid at the door of the RDC, who had chosen him and negotiated the contract with him. Beyond this, the RDC was, as the Headman once put it, “a thief.” Council took 35% of revenues for wildlife management, claiming to carry out poaching and wild animal control but effectively doing neither. Council was in receipt of safari payments, but held onto them until year-end, gaining large amounts of currency from the country’s hyperinflationary situation. Council made payments late, with no explanation as to how they were calculated. Even worse was to come. Government’s land distribution programme 2002- 2004 meant that Guruve RDC lost almost all its tax base derived from commercial farms. It was broke and the only income it could turn to was that from safari hunting. Indeed the RDC admitted as much to Masoka, telling them that council would have to increase the amount they deducted from community payments to cover the deficit. The result is graphically illustrated by the amounts received by Masoka in 2003, 2004 and 2005 (cf. Table 4 and Figure 4). Dissatisfaction with the Council spilled over into dissatisfaction with the CAMPFIRE Association. This was an association representing council interests; what was needed was a national association representing productive wildlife wards. Some of the more articulate and aggressive members of Masoka’s Ward Wildlife Committee started to promote this idea and the formation of what in effect would be a rival to the CAMPFIRE Association, the proposed Zimbabwe CAMPFIRE Community Campfire Development Union (ZCCDU). While this proposal has yet to receive broad national support or funding, it nevertheless constituted a warning to the RDC-based CAMPFIRE Programme that opposition to established procedures was reaching significant proportions. In Masoka opposition reached a crescendo at a meeting attended by the District Administrator and the CAMPFIRE Association Director held on the 11th November 2004. A this meeting local participants threatened to leave and suggested that it might be better to return the whole programme to PWMA

41 Acerbic correspondence from the community exists in the files, as well as the operator’s response.

42 CASE STUDIES ON SOUTHERN AFRICAN NRM INITIATIVES- DRAFT

(formerly the Department of National Parks and Wild Life Management). Drawing back from the brisk, the meeting agreed to further discussion on the matter, facilitated by the CAMPFIRE Association Director. The Director of the CAMPFIRE Association subsequently, and over a period of months, went into a series of meetings with the RDC and the safari operators. Using the findings of a Parks and Wildlife Management Authority (PWMA) workshop held in April 200542 which recommended: a) payout from safari operations at 3 monthly interval rather than annually, to address inflation, and b) that “Safari operators make separate payments according to each category of CAMPFIRE beneficiaries,” (PWMA 2005:10), the CAMPFIRE Association Director negotiated an arrangement for the operators43 to make direct payments into the Masoka bank account of monies due to the ward.44 A confirmation letter from the CEO of the Guruve RDC is dated 29 December 2005. The significance of this step cannot be underestimated. Although no legislative change was made, and although council deductions could still be considered exhorbitant, Masoka now had 50% of its earnings being paid directly into its bank account at predictable intervals. The increase in revenue was dramatic, as is clearly shown in Figure 4. The question of why the Guruve RDC and its parent ministry (the Ministry of Local Government, Public Works and Urban Development) would be willing to effectively surrender a significant source of its revenue base can be raised. One could speculate that the knowledge that Masoka would be hived off to a new district (cf. footnote 39) suggested that Guruve would not suffer any long-term deprivation. This is however rather tenuous and the authors consider that Masoka won the concessions involved, primarily through the aggressive representation that its leadership structures persistently applied. The threat of alternative arrangements, or withdrawal (an old ‘peasant’ tactic), were taken seriously and Masoka’s reputation was such that these could not be ignored. Masoka has accepted compromises and the negotiatory battle will continue, but for the present governance in Masoka scores highly on all three of our criteria: legitimacy, efficiency and representational ability. It is emphasized that this is a current condition. There is always the danger that Masoka could have some of its rights withdrawn or that internal success in corporate solidarity could lead to individualized avarice in the leadership. But given Masoka’s now considerable history of self-evolved governance, one has the sense that a resilient organizational and institutional system is now in place. 1. In conclusion we make the following generalizations on governance in Masoka, with the check-list of questions in this exercise in mind: 2. Governance of natural resources through the Ward Wildlife Committee (WWC) is, because of revenues earned, inextricably bound up in the Ward’s development processes. The WWC could be held to be the lead agency in the Ward.

42 Report on the Proceedings of a Workshop to Review the CAMPFIRE Programme. PWMA, CAMPFIRE Association and WWF SARPO. 26 April 2005. PWMA, Harare. 43 There are in fact two safari operators in Kanyurira Ward, Ingwe Safaris (base camp in Kanyurira and all of the ward to the south east of the Angwa) and Swainson’s Safaris, who have a base in the Dande Safari Area but hunt that part of Masoka north of the Angwa River. 44 Calculated as follows:- Masoka community 50% Council Project management 31% Council Levy 15% CAMPFIRE Association 4% 100%

CASE STUDIES ON SOUTHERN AFRICAN NRM INITIATIVES - DRAFT 43

3. Rules and regulations exist, including a constitution. They are generally effective and meet with compliance. It is however, evolved practice which appears more important for both the structure and process of governance than a constitution per se. 4. Membership in the WWC appears to be deliberately limited in duration, with many leaders being shifted from time-to time in a type of rotational leadership to other committees of the ward. 5. Membership in the WWC appears to be deliberately balanced between young and old, educated and uneducated. 6. Two marginal categories in the community are under-represented on the WWC: women and the Dema. 7. The legitimacy of the WWC has fluctuated over time. It reached its lowest point in 1997 when the embezzlement of community funds was revealed. Since that point the WWC has been careful on administrative expenses and budget allocations. A transparent system of WWC reporting and general community meetings is in place. 8. Project management by the Community, given the logistical problems involved, must be noted as generally efficient. 9. There is no dependency on external support (other than the food relief programmes which operate throughout the country). 10. Government support in the form of road infrastructure, bureaucratic back-up, school and extension staff, and general oversight is provided. On the other hand it can be argued that RDC taxation of wildlife revenue has been highly extractive. This is now somewhat improved by the new payment arrangements. Thus comment on government support for CAMPFIRE in Masoka must be ambivalent. Government provides certain services and the external legitimacy which the programme needs. On the other hand the RDC is seen as being intrusive in its resource management functions and extractive in its claims on hunting safari incomes. More broadly, we must note that in the current economic climate, Government is not in a position to give much assistance to rural communities. If it does, it will demand credit for doing so, and the political will to accept independent and self-supported initiatives from its rural constituency is itself open to debate (cf. Chiwewe 2003). 11. NGO support of the facilitative kind, provided in the earlier years of the programme is appreciated and sought. There has, however, been practically none of this in the last three years. Some judicious research and training inputs would be appropriate, as long as they are carried out under the control and at the invitation of the community. 12. Involvement of the private sector is restricted almost solely to the safari operator. Clearly the operator’s professional competence is a major factor in wildlife incomes, together with the resource base and the quality of collaboration between operator and community. Up until recently the operator has been associated with council; with the change to direct payments our impression is that the way is open for closer operator/community collaboration, with potential benefit to both parties.

4.5 UNEXPECTED RESULTS Given the somewhat pessimistic comments in Taylor’s (2006) programmatic review of CAMPFIRE, especially the concluding analysis of the assumptions underlying the “success” of CAMPFIRE as a CBNRM programme, we were favourably impressed by what we witnessed at Masoka. Contrary to our expectations this community had not only continued vigourously pursuing their NRM programme but had also overcome a number of key obstacles, notably the question of fiscal devolution, albeit very recently. The community

44 CASE STUDIES ON SOUTHERN AFRICAN NRM INITIATIVES- DRAFT

had also retained and improved their organisational capacity, as reflected in legitimacy, efficiency and representational ability discussed above, no doubt strengthened by occasional lapses in such performance. During our visit a new Constitution was discussed and this has already been drawn up in draft to be presented at a General Meeting in the near future. Despite the lack of support from Government and non-government agencies, including donor support, and against a backdrop of declining macro-economic performance and a hyper-inflationary environment, Masoka has managed to continue “growing” in development terms. There has been explicit recognition that such growth is dependent upon good stewardship of the local environment and natural resources, and most importantly, commitment to a wildlife-based land use and economy. Cattle seem to be far less an issue than previously experienced and may also be linked to the re-invasion of tsete fly. Such commitment could as easily have lapsed in the face of a number of unfavourable external factors. One important factor that fortunately has remained favourable to Masoka has been the maintenance of a strong market for sport hunting in Zimbabwe. Whilst most forms of non-consumptive tourism dependent on a strong foreign clientele have collapsed, safari hunting has not. Also unexpected is the current settlement pattern and the distribution of arable holdings, most of which are still retained within the original settlement area, despite a five-fold increase in the number of households since the inception of CAMPFIRE at Masoka. More unexpected has been the recent revision of the land use plan and a commitment, at least on paper, to reduce the southern settlement extension and to consolidate northwards back towards the former southern fence boundary. This could be as much as a third to one half of the land area being vacated and returned to the wildlife area. Importantly this appears to be very much a local community decision rather than linked to Council-driven attempts at planning as happened in 1997. Masoka does not sit still. In addition to the development and adoption of new land use planning arrangements, is the need to develop fresh measures for PAC, as mentioned above. These may include amongst other mitigation measures, a re-look at fences. It is clear that the WWC “failed” to maintain the original fence and it is already a stated desire to learn from this bad experience and build on the lessons learned, including adopting more recent innovative approaches to controlling in particular, problem elephant and buffalo. Part of new initiatives at Masoka is the planned development of a ecotourism camp catering mostly for bird watchers, based on the presence of the rare and uncommon African or Angola Pitta, amongst many other birds present in Kanyurira Ward. A rudimentary start has been made and the Masoka Community Development Trust together with the WWC is seeking to train a competent bird guide and source funding to develop the camp appropriately.

CASE STUDIES ON SOUTHERN AFRICAN NRM INITIATIVES - DRAFT 45

5. CONCLUSIONS

5.1 LESSONS LEARNED As already indicated, Masoka has not been the direct beneficiary of any form of donor funding, apart from the Goldfields donation of ZW$70,000 towards the cost of constructing the electrified fence around the original settlement area. Indeed Masoka conforms more to the CAMPFIRE model as originally envisaged when external donor aid was relatively uncommon (as it is presently), i.e. the creation of a rural sector economy based on the use of high valued resources which would contribute to self-sustainability, with some initial Government support through a Public Sector Investment Programme. Applying this to Masoka alone, with little of the Government support anticipated, the importance of economic incentive cannot be over-emphasised. Substantial hunting revenues have been as appreciated if not more by the RDC who have reluctantly complied with the CAMPFIRE revenue guidelines, imposing a grossly unfair tax on Masoka. To their credit the Masoka community have fought the RDC over this issue for a considerable time whilst continuing their development and NRM programme, creating for themselves an increasingly sustainable economy and improved livelihoods. Indirectly, Masoka has benefited from the facilitation services, training and technical support of CAMPFIRE service providers, i.e. CAMPFIRE Association and notably CASS and WWF both of which have contributed significantly to the implementation process for almost the full 20 year life of CAMPFIRE at Masoka. This investment of time is as important as the funding such support might have contributed. Building a strong relationship of mutual trust and confidence over time between community and facilitator is crucial to the long term process-oriented nature of development. Undoubtedly, the donated fence was a pivotal catalyst for subsequent events, as was the voluntary participation of the community in CAMPFIRE with outsiders being more demand-driven facilitators rather than top-down technical specialists. “Letting go” (Chambers 1983) is equally important. Such letting go has been enforced over the past 3-5 years and the results are self evident as described in this report. An important lesson, not only for outside observers but equally for Masoka, has been recognition of the importance of inter-generational cohesion. The balance between old and young, with youthful arrogance and ignorance tempered by wisdom and caution has benefited Masoka greatly, a balance now well learnt and understood. There is also a greater leadership role now being played by women than previously. It may be worth noting that the WWF resident facilitator was female. This gendered observation is also important in a consideration of the transaction costs, especially of time, born by office bearers and indeed employees of the Masoka programme. All are farmers and family members who have a full daily schedule in the annual farming cycle. Taking time off to attend to the business of CAMPFIRE has its costs (which helps to explain the importance of allowances for committee members) but with growing success these costs may reduce to assume equal importance alongside other on-farm enterprises.

46 CASE STUDIES ON SOUTHERN AFRICAN NRM INITIATIVES- DRAFT

III THE GAIREZI CASE STUDY

1. SUMMARY DESCRIPTION

2. BACKGROUND

2.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

LOCATION The Gairezi Resettlement Area is located within Ward 21 or Tangwena Ward, Nyanga District in Zimbabwe’s Eastern Highlands (Figure 14). The study site, Gairezi Extension, itself a part of the resettlement area, on the Gairezi river at 32°54´ East and 18°12´ South, is on the northern boundary of Nyanga National Park and has two communities, Dazi and Nyamutsapa comprising some 270 households, resident on either side of the river (Figure 15). Mozambique forms the eastern boundary of Tangwena Ward.

Figure 14. Nyanga District showing Tangwena Ward. The dashed boxed inset is the Gairezi Resettlement Area

Tangwena

Nyanga Urban Nyanga NP

KEY E District Boundary Ward Boundary KM Study Ward 0 20 40

The river area covers no more than about 12-15 km2 along approximately 12 km of the Gairezi river running between Dazi and Nyamutsapa and with a undefined boundary of 1-2 km either side of the river. Dazi and Nyamutsapa cover an area of about 30 km2.

CASE STUDIES ON SOUTHERN AFRICAN NRM INITIATIVES - DRAFT 47

CLIMATE, TOPOGRAPHY AND SOILS Gairezi lies in Zimbabwe’s most productive agro-ecological zone, a high rainfall area along the mountainous terrain of the Eastern Highlands. Rainfall exceeds 1500 mm annually and mild mean annual temperatures vary from 13°-15° C. The Gairezi river rises in Mount Nyangani at 2,593 m asl but drops rapidly to around 1,500 m asl at the study site. The terrain for the most part, rises precipitously from the river itself. Soils are deep red Haplustox loams and clay loams.

VEGETATION Much of high Nyanga was originally montane grassland, a relic of the last Pleistocene ice age some 2,500- 12,000 years ago, with fire-protected forest patches and woodland. The original open grassland landscape has been extensively modified through agricultural settlement and the establishment of exotic timber plantations (West 19xx ). Today, grasslands and wooded grasslands extend over 4% of the landscape with woodland, bush and disturbed land, i.e. put to agricultural use, comprising 94% of cover. Plantations cover 2% and natural forest less than 1% of the remaining landscape (Frost 2000).

BIODIVERSITY AND BIODIVERSITY LOSS The Eastern Highlands (a part of the Afrotropical Highlands biome) support a rich biodiversity which includes 29 range- restricted woody, herbaceous and grass plants, of which12 are endemic species, 18 birds of which 13 are forest or forest-edge species, 3 endemic frogs, 9 butterflies and 11 snakes and skinks (Frost 2000). Land use change has led to extensive habitat fragmentation and its reduction. Associated with such loss has been the extensive establishment of exotic plant invasives, beyond that contained within commercial timber plantations. Key plant invasives include Pinus patula, Acacia mearnsii, (Wattle) A. melanoxylon and bracken, Pteridium aquilinum. The spread of these invasive trees and shrubs, coupled with either too little or too frequent burning, has led to hydrological change with increased drainage rates, reduced stream low and accelerated erosion (Frost 2000).

Figure 15. The Gairezi Resettlement Area on the Gairezi river showing A: Dazi and B: Nyamutsapa, north of Nyanga National Park. Map scanned from Moore (1998)

48 CASE STUDIES ON SOUTHERN AFRICAN NRM INITIATIVES- DRAFT

THE GAIREZI RIVER AND ITS FISH The Gairezi river, a part of the Lower Zambezi catchment, rises just below the summit of Mount Nyangani and flows strongly in a northerly direction along the Zimbabwe border before entering Mozambique. Thereafter it swings easterly before entering the Zambezi river itself. In the waters of the Nyanga highlands, mostly mountain catfish of the Genus Barbus are found, of which there are eight species recorded (Bell- Cross 1976). Eels (Anguilla nebulosa labiata) are common in the Gairezi and considered a major predatory species on trout. In Africa, historically trout occurred naturally in the Atlas mountains of Morrocco but not elsewhere on the continent (Turnbull-Kemp 1994). Both trout species in Zimbabwe, the Rainbow Trout Salmo gairdnerii and the Brown Trout Salmo trutta are therefore introduced exotics and occur almost exclusively in the Eastern Highlands where the temperatures are sufficiently low to accommodate them. Trout were introduced to the Gairezi in the 1930’s when the potential of the river for trout and fly-fishing was first recognised (Cowan 1984). The subsequent development and exploitation of the Gairezi river for its trout fishing is discussed later.

2.2 LIVELIHOOD ISSUES Like most of the inhabitants of Zimbabwe’s communal and resettlement lands, those living in the Gairezi Resettlement Area are small-scale farmers practicing agro-pastoralism for a living. This agro-pastoralism is however modified by two factors noted above: a mountainous terrain with steep slopes and a comparatively high rainfall, averaging over 1500mm. per annum. Agriculture is thus physically very demanding, while at the same time it is less vulnerable to the periodic droughts which afflict much of Zimbabwe. Subsistence living in Gairezi thus also acts as a partial buffer against the macroeconomic woes which now beset Zimbabwe, representing “a lifeline amid Structural Adjustment’s double trouble: skyrocketing inflation and frozen wages” (Moore 2005: 105-6) Cropping is centered around the cultivation of maize, tilled with cattle or by hoe. Three to four hectares of maize seems to be the norm. Beans and melons are often intercropped with maize, in part for nitrogen fixing. Tubers such as tsenza and madhumbe (Colocasia esculenta - yams) are also grown in small plots. A range of vegetables are produced, often in gardens irrigated from the many small springs and streams that characterize the landscape. A variety of deciduous fruit is also grown. Most households have some cattle, typically 4-6, although there are some cattle owners with much larger herds. Goats and sheep are also part of the household’s livestock, as well as chickens. Water and fuelwood supplies are not a problem for most households. For many, water is brought to the homestead by small canals. Fuelwood is generally found in abundance, a favoured species being wattle (A. mearnsii), an invasive exotic introduced early in the last century. An interesting inversion of attitudes towards exotics seems to have taken place over time. When timber plantations were developed in the Eastern Highlands in the mid-20th Century a number of land evictions took place to make room for this development. As a result the view arose in the minds of some that the planting of exotics was dangerous, presaging the removal of local people (Moore 1996: 18-19). Now however there is strong sentiment in the Parks and Wildlife Management Authority (PWMA),45 ecologists generally and such groups as the Nyanga Downs Fly Fishing Club that the main invasive exotics (wattle and pine, Pinus patula) should be eradicated. On the other hand we heard local people argue that good fuelwood species such as wattle should be cultivated on a limited basis for household fuelwood purposes. Transport and communication make life difficult in Dazi and Nyamutsapa. A telephone exists at Nyafaru, but is often out of order. By gravel road it is 17.5 km from the bridge crossing on the Gairezi to Troutbeck,

45 Formerly the Department of National Parks and Wildlife Management (DNPWLM).

CASE STUDIES ON SOUTHERN AFRICAN NRM INITIATIVES - DRAFT 49

the nearest post office and general store. However such is the condition of this road which, climbs 650 m on its precipitous way to Troutbeck that this stretch requires nearly one hour of driving. On foot, and by taking shortcuts, local people make the journey in 3-4 hours, often carrying heavy loads. Life in the hamlets of Gairezi is thus one in which the basic necessities of life are present. Neither famine or starvation are in evidence. But life there is also hard, demanding physical effort and mental persistence. Moore entitles his recent book Suffering for Territory, his focus being largely on political and social conflict but also implying a conflict over limited resources. We return to the theme of political and social conflict below, but at this point note that there is no apparent arable land hunger at the moment, although the rough terrain is a limiting factor. Our estimate of total cattle holdings (800-1200) would also suggest that grazing land in this lush landscape is adequate although perhaps reaching its carrying capacity. This perception, that of having adequate land and grazing but little to spare, was colourfully put to us by one elder who had once worked at a hotel: “We are now fully booked out.”

2.3 RESOURCES USED OR MANAGED As noted above, the project area runs along the Gairezi valley, from the boundary of Nyanga National Park downstream for approximately 12 km. These two points are fixed, but the boundaries of the Gairezi Ecotourism Project running parallel to the river on its east and west banks are far more uncertain. This vagueness about the boundary tells us something about the project area: there is very little direct competition over the resources it holds. The river runs in what is effectively a steep gorge, the topography providing few areas of level land near the river bank. Local use of the gorge is limited to some fuelwood foraging, occasional cattle grazing and some fishing, primarily for eels. People do not draw water from the river in the Project Area since their homesteads are abundantly supplied by adjacent springs and streams. There is some poaching of trout, but its extent appears limited. Trout are, of course, the primary interest of the Project’s clients, although the prolific bird life, walking trails, mountain biking, whitewater canoeing and the spectacular landscapes are also important tourist and visitor attractions. For this analysis however, the important fact is that the local hosts and their clients want different things from the Project Area. There is thus little local opportunity cost involved in the Project. Should there be a significant rise in cattle numbers this could conceivably cause a conflict in the future, but this is currently not a problem. Project management is primarily concerned with the river and its fish, and with the accommodation and management of fishermen. These activities will be detailed in Section 3. In terms of project/local people relationships, management does have to deal with a degree of trout poaching and employs river wardens for this purpose. Management of fuelwood collection is also required, but needs only low inputs.

2.4 INSTITUTIONS RESPONSIBLE FOR MANAGING RESOURCES In our first case study we attempted to show how, in Masoka, traditional and local institutions had been blended to constitute an organization for managing the ward’s wildlife. In the Gairezi case the approach has been completely different. New structures have been set up to manage the project, deliberately distanced from traditional leadership. These new structures will be discussed in section 3. However, traditional institutions, although “distanced” by the Project, remain a pervasive influence in Gairezi.46 This institutional history is important for the case study and we give a very brief ethnographic synopsis here. At the time of white occupation in 1890 the area east of Mount Nyangani was sparsely populated and ruled by Nyahuruwa, a deputy of Mutasa and a rainmaker (musikamazi). A Barwe chief, Dzeka, fleeing the predations of Makombe, another Barwe chief, in Mozambique, crossed the border and sought refuge with Nyahuruwa. Nyahuruwa took in Dzeka, who then usurped the rainmaker. In 1902 the Rhodesian

46 Moore’s extensive analysis of the Gairezi area emphasizes historical “sedimentation” in culture and power as being fundamental to our understanding of contemporary micropractice and politics (Moore 2005)

50 CASE STUDIES ON SOUTHERN AFRICAN NRM INITIATIVES- DRAFT

authorities installed Dzeka as Chief Tangwena.47 Dzeka did not have however, a clearly delineated territory and in 1905 the Anglo-French Matebeleland Company purchased the area of 73,600 ha from the British South Africa Company. In 1930, much of this land was purchased by the Hanmer brothers as the Gairezi Ranch. Tangwena and his people continued to live there as labour tenants, paying an annual hut tax and supplying labour to the owners. In 1970 the owners forcibly evicted many of Tangwena’s people, producing a reaction which included litigation to prevent the evictions. This failed and some people moved to other parts of the district and some fled to Mozambique. But, at a time when nationalist reaction to Rhodesia’s Uinlateral Declaration of Independence (UDI) was gaining momentum, Tangwena became an icon of national importance in the liberation struggle. After Independence Tangwena’s core area was detached from the Gairezi Ranch and made a resettlement area under DERUDE, the Department of Rural Development. It was, however, a resettlement area with a national status. Moore quotes the District Administrator at Nyanga as saying in 1991. “Tangwena was a ‘special case’. Our problem has always been defining just how special” (Moore 1996:7). It was special enough for the two villages of Dazi and Nyamutsapa to be formed into Ward 21 of the Nyanga Rural District Council and be titled “Tangwena Ward.” This creates internal problems, since Dazi (the part of Ward 21 west of the Gairezi) is held by many of its inhabitants to not be part of Tangwena’s territory, but rather a part of Chief Saunyama’s lands.48 Ward 21 has been the subject of disputes other than that of the chieftainship. As a resettlement area DERUDE claimed jurisdiction over land allocation there, a claim rejected by many inhabitants, particularly those in Nyamutsapa. Another claimant was the Department of National Parks and Wild Life Management, (DNPWLM) which had since 1987 been expanding the Nyanga National Park eastwards through the purchase of private properties. DNPWLM’s preference would have been to acquire the land for the Park, but failing this it proposed in 1988, a Gairezi River Protected Area (GRPA49), managed by DNPWLM. While protected area status was accepted, the DNPWLM proposal as a whole was rejected, on the grounds that the river valley belonged to Dazi and Nyamutsapa and should be managed by the inhabitants for both conservation and local benefit. From this arose the GRPA Committee, which was to supervise the project. From 1991 to 1996 the GRPA Committee presided over a series of debates about the Project, which is recorded by Moore in detail (Moore 1996:24-34). During this period the Nyanga Downs Fly Fishing Club (NDFFC) was also active in the debates. The Club had been formed in 1959 to facilitate fly fishing on the Gairezi River, its members being largely white farmers from the Nyanga and Wedza areas. For the first twenty odd years of its existence fishing on the river was provided to members of the Club by private riparian landowners. When this land shifted to government and then resettlement status the Club turned, through the District Administrator, to the new proprietors of the area. A lease arrangement was sought which would insure that the Club retained its rights to fly fishing in the river. Fishing continued under the GRPA Steering Committee with annual payments of Z$4000-$5000 being made by the Club. Gradually, over time, the GRPA took on project characteristics, with a membership in Dazi and Nyamutsapa, a place-based enterprise the rights of which devolved to “those living in the two residential “communities” straddling the GRPA yet unified as one imagined community of “development’ beneficiaries.” (Moore 1996:34) This was a trajectory welcomed by some and depreciated by others. Some headmen complained that they had not been consulted, and that by focusing on Dazi and Nyamutsapa the project was neglecting the River’s lower reaches. At one meeting in 1996 reported by Moore, one headman angrily shouted, “The Kairezi River is dividing the Tangwena people … Who authorized this? I have not. What is

47 cf. Moore, 2005:220-233 for variants of this history. 48 Saunyama is a Manyika chief, loosely part of the Mutasa kingdom 49 Moore (2005) and others refer to the Gairesi as “Kairesi” and consequently the protected area has been similarly referred, i.e. KRPA, but since both the Trust Deed document and the MoU use “Gairesi”, we have adopted this latter usage

CASE STUDIES ON SOUTHERN AFRICAN NRM INITIATIVES - DRAFT 51

the role of the headmen, the chief, and the Councillor in all of this?” (Moore 1996: 32) Others were happy that traditional leadership had been excluded: “If the chief and the headman join, they will destroy everything”. Moore adds that from this perspective, “if the project became defined for the benefit of an ethnically defined territorial entity – the Tangwena people – the Chief and his headman would channel its benefits into their private coffers.” Whatever the disputes may have been, the notion of a two-village, transriver project took firm root, and was boosted by the encouragement of the CAMPFIRE Association which had started extension work in the Nyanga District in the late 1990s. Activities in “the project” commenced in 1998, and are discussed below in section 3.

2.5 FUNDING – WHO, HOW MUCH, HOW LONG The Dazi and Nyamutsapa resident’s more recent formalized Project, the Gairezi Community Eco-tourism Project, has become the natural successor to the GRPA “project”. Following Gairezi’s long history of land contestations and the eventual establishment of the GRPA, the CAMPFIRE Association (CA), through its diversification programme (1997-2003), provided USAID funding totaling Z$4,180,000 (USD$93,722) from its CAMPFIRE Development Fund to the Gairezi community. This facilitated the establishment and implementation of the Project in 2001. The community contribution to the Project was in the form of locally available materials, such as stone for building and the provision of labour to construct two cottages and other infrastructure (see section 3.3 below). The Nyanga RDC was responsible for the development of a road network at least to the offices, cottages and campsites, all in close proximity to each other. Initial construction started in April 2000 and continued over the next 12 months with project implementation commencing in 2001, although infrastructual development was not yet complete. By 2003 the available funding was exhausted and completion of the infrastructure was funded in the amount of Z$26,400,000 (USD$45,900) by the USAID LEAD Programme, as well as provision for restocking of the river with trout. Further support was received from the CAMPFIRE Association’s USAID Small Grants Fund enabling SAFIRE (Southern Alliance for Indigenous Resources) to facilitate the development of a Trust Deed document for legal registration. This marked the end of formal donor support and the Project has been striving for self sustainability since then over the past 3-4 years.

3. DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT

3.1 GOAL The Gairezi Community Eco-tourism Project seeks to alleviate poverty and improve rural livelihoods through the sustainable management and utilization of natural resources. Employment creation and income generation from the provision of tourism services are directed to community development, food security and support for widows and orphans. As a CAMPFIRE community project, the broad goals have remained much the same as elsewhere and as described for the Masoka case study, i.e. responsible and sustainable natural resource management (notwithstanding the “exotic” nature of the key resource being managed and providing benefits), the generation of economic activity and institutional strengthening as reflected in good governance.

3.2 PROBLEM TO BE RESOLVED By 2000 when CAMPFIRE reached Gairezi, the national programme had gained much experience with numerous lessons learned, including the need for greater NRM diversification in the absence of large mammal wildlife resources. The village and ward CAMPFIRE committees at Gairezi recognized that such diversification could boost tourism and their income base. Opportunities for ecotourism were clear but how to develop and realise this potential was problematic. Initially the community planned to run the new

52 CASE STUDIES ON SOUTHERN AFRICAN NRM INITIATIVES- DRAFT

tourism facilities themselves but both the difficulty of attracting a wider niche in an already depressed tourism market, together with the maintenance of the cottages and campsites at an appropriate standard was self evident. There was however, an accumulated experience of dealing with fly fishermen and knowledge of the importance of the Gairezi as an outstanding trout river, at least for local fishermen. Thus the formalisation of a new arrangement with a long standing partner, the NDFFC, was a means of overcoming a number of immediate problems as well as providing for longer term possibilities while the Gairezi Development Trust (GDT – see below) found its new institutional and organisational feet.

3.3 DESCRIPTION OF ACTIVITIES

ORGANISATIONAL DEVELOPMENT The main actors in the Project were, by 1998, the GRPA Committee and their constituencies, the Nyanga Rural District Council (NRDC), the NDFFC and the CAMPFIRE Association (CA). Operational activities continued during 1999 to 2002 under the aegis of the GRPA and the NDFFC; in terms of facilitation the CA played an important role, and in 2000 negotiated a grant from USAID under the CAMPFIRE Development Fund of Z$4,180,000 (US$93,680) for the construction of two 4-bed cottages constructed of local stone and overlooking the lower section of the river, together with an administrative office and ablution block, and two campsites with a capacity of 18 persons each. The cottages were fully equipped, with lighting and water heating by solar power. Construction of the buildings took 12 months starting in April 2000. Some of the furnishings were provided by the NDFFC, and initial management was done by NDFFC in conjunction with the GRPA Committee. Formalization of the project’s structure was also a concern and in 1983 SAFIRE (the Southern African Forum for Indigenous Resources), an NGO specializing in Trusts, was commissioned to assist in developing a trust deed for the project. This was duly produced and with its registration on the 12th June 2003 the Gairezi Development Trust (GDT) was legally born. Shortly thereafter on 19 August 2003, a Memorandum of Agreement governing their respective rights and responsibilities in the Project was signed by the Nyanga Rural District Council, the Gairezi Development Trust and the Nyanga Downs Fly Fishing Club. The Trust Deed establishes the Gairezi Development Trust (GDT) as a body corporate with perpetual succession, legal persona and capacity to own property. Its objects inter alia are to “in association with the rural district council and such partner as the Trust may consider necessary, to develop and manage a non- consumptive ecotourism project in the Community…. And to empower the Community to utilize, on a sustainable basis, the natural resources in the area of the Community for tourism development with a view to generate income and alleviate poverty.” Reference is also made to a Trust objective to “determine the proportion of the income of the Trust which should be paid out as dividends equally between Dazi and Nyamutsapa villages….” The single most important aspect of the Trust Deed is that the Rural District Council “has devolved authority to manage natural resources along the Kairezi River in Dazi and Nyamutsapa Villages of Ward 21, Nyanga District”, in the words of the Memorandum of Agreement. Membership in the Trust is constituted as follows: a. three community representatives elected by Dazi village b. three community representatives elected by Nyamutsapa village c. one member appointed by Nyanga RDC d. one member appointed by NDFFC e. three members appointed by the Trust Board The Trust is authorized to appoint committees, hold cash and property, and employ staff. The Board is required to hold an annual general meeting (at which the balance sheet and financial statement is rendered)

CASE STUDIES ON SOUTHERN AFRICAN NRM INITIATIVES - DRAFT 53

and such other meetings as may be required. The Chairman of the Board of Trustees is elected by the Trustees themselves. Trustees hold office for a period of three years and are eligible for re-election or re- appointment for one addition term of office. Although the Trust deed is a fairly standard and conventional document in typical legal idiom, it does contain points or omissions worth noting. Firstly, reference is made to “the Project” but at no point is its geographical extent defined. Secondly the “Kairezi River Protected Area” (clause 3 d) and its committee (clause 14.4) are mentioned. No role for this committee is however stipulated, and (as we shall see) it appears to have been assimilated within the Trust. Like many such documents, the Trust Deed does not provide the management specifics required to carry out its objectives. It was shortly followed therefore by the Memorandum of Agreement between the RDC, the GDT and the NDFFC. A series of “undertakings” is stipulated for each party. Among the most important of these are the following; a) By the Council: “To transfer long term user rights and ownership of the eco-tourism facilities to the Trust,” and to maintain access roads to the project site to a standard usable by two-wheel drive vehicles. b) By the Trust: “To assume over-all responsibilities for the ecotourism venture”; to “host at least one stakeholder meeting per year,” “to recruit and supervise all Project employees”; to: “distribute the financial benefits to the communities during the first quarter of each financial year;” “to pay 15% of net revenue to the Council to help defray its administrative costs; to appoint competent auditors to audit the books of accounts of the Trust every year”. c) By the Club: “To manage the project as directed by the Trust”; “to monitor and ensure smooth running of the chalets50 and campsites”; “to provide the expertise for monitoring and assessing the quality of fishing resources in the project area”; “to manage bookings for the chalets”; “to collect, receive and manage revenue on behalf of the Trust,” “to disburse money to the Trust at least once every year during the first quarter in order to facilitate payments to the Council and the communities;” “to submit quarterly and annual progress and financial reports to the Trust”. The list of undertakings made above is not exhaustive, but it does give the main contours of the different roles played by the main institutional actors in the Project. The role of the RDC is relatively straightforward. It is to maintain the legitimacy of the Project and ensure that a road infrastructure to the project area is maintained. It could be argued that the main access road is, in any case, a responsibility of the RDC but this stipulation does focus its role. (The road is not well maintained, but this is a general condition of council roads in today’s Zimbabwe of cash-strapped councils. The division of rights and responsibilities between the Trust and the Club is of more interest. We note that the Trust’s role is one of general oversight, the promotion of awareness and transparency and the monitoring of local finances. The annual distribution of financial benefits to the communities during the first quarter of each financial year” is clearly an important function. But there are more bureaucratic responsibilities indicated, including an annual payment of 15% of net revenue to the RDC and the conduct of an annual audit. As for the Club, it is required to manage the Project, including the management of the cottages. It is to “collect, manage and receive revenue on behalf of the Trust,” and to submit reports, including financial reports, to the Trust. Some of these mandates would appear to overlap, or exist as potential points of friction, e.g. “the Trust is to recruit and supervise all project employees,” but the Club is charged with managing the project. Or again, both the Club and the Trust receive, hold and disperse monies within the project. In practice what has transpired has been that those connected with the Project have evolved their own modus vivendi to push its objectives forward. Even before the creation of the Trust in 2003 the old KRPA Committee and the Club had a Management Committee to supervise local activities. With the building of the USAID CAMPFIRE facilities in 2000, management activities increased, with Project staff position

50 While the Memorandum of Agreement refers to the accommodation units as “chalets”, these are more commonly known as “cottages” which is the term used here

54 CASE STUDIES ON SOUTHERN AFRICAN NRM INITIATIVES- DRAFT

expanding to 2 river wardens, 2 housekeepers, 2 guards and 1 Project Supervisor. The old Management Committee proved to be somewhat cumbersome in dealing with daily business and the Trust designated one of its members as a “managing trustee.” This trustee who lives in Nyamutsapa close to the Project administration site, liaises with the Project Supervisor on a weekly basis. Together with a NDFFC representative living in Troutbeck who keeps the books, pays salaries and makes occasional site visits, these persons can be considered the de facto Management Committee which administers the Project on the ground. Organisationally this arrangement seems to be reasonably effective in the provision of attractive tourism facilities and managing the resource base (see below, section 4.2). Its incorporation in the institution-building of the Trust is more debatable and will be discussed further under “results” below.

4. RESULTS

4.1 LIVELIHOOD RESULTS As we have already noted in the preface, the Gairezi Community Eco-tourism Project covers a small, if ecologically very important, area of the Eastern Highlands of Zimbabwe. At this point in time it has only one economically significant client, the Nyanga Downs Fly Fishing Club. Fly fishing is a relatively esoteric sport, and the Club probably includes most of the active trout fly fishers in the Country.51 Although comparatively well-off, this small membership (less than 100) is thus a finite clientship which cannot compare with the safari hunting customers of our first case study, Masoka. It would thus be misleading to suggest that the Project could make a vast impact on household incomes or livelihoods, nor to our knowledge has this ever been claimed at either community or district levels. In considering livelihood impacts one must also keep in mind what has been said earlier (section 2.3) about the Project involving little if any cost to local people. People only occasionally use resources drawn from the project area (e.g. driftwood, some grazing) and these uses can be made compatible with the Project with only a minimum of management input. We are thus talking of a small project with modest economic drawing power unlikely to make great impacts on household livelihoods. The project could make a substantial impact on Gairezi livelihoods if it stimulated the improvement of the access road from Troutbeck (envisaged in the Memorandum of Agreement) but as yet this has not happened. This disappointment aside, one can note that, as the project employs 7 full-time staff and also occasional staff, certain households have benefited financially. A small local market for vegetables and other produce is also provided for the Project’s visitors. Overall financial return to the community have been modest (Table 2) by comparison with wildlife income from sport hunting as in the Masoka case study. As indicated in section 2.4 in earlier days before the Trust came into existence the NDFFC had made annual payments to the community of cash in the range of Z$4000 – Z$5000 per annum. This worked out to about $20/25 per member. In 2004 the payment was raised to Z$10 000 000.00 which at that time was a substantial improvement.

51 Visiting fly fishers from other countries are very rare.

CASE STUDIES ON SOUTHERN AFRICAN NRM INITIATIVES - DRAFT 55

Table 2. Gairezi Community Eco-Tourism Project income from NDFFC 2004-2006 Year Income (ZW$) Income (US$) Mean exchange rate 2004 10,000,000 2,227 4490 2005 60,000,000 2,787 21,351 2006 1,131,925,000 6,991 161,909

In 2005 an innovation in payments was introduced by the Trust. Offered a cash payment by the NDFFC, the Trust suggested that members would prefer to receive payment in fertilizer, difficult for Gairezians to obtain and transport. NDFFC agreed, and as a result 200 x 50kg bags of AN52fertilizer were purchased and delivered for distribution. This highly ostensible and practical mode of revenue distribution clearly made a great impact. During our field visit fertilized plots of maize were proudly shown to us by farmers in contrast to plots without treatment. On fertilizer delivery alone, the Gairezi project was perceived as a success in 2006 by our informants. Plans are to replicate the approach in 2007, to include seed maize which was purchased in 2006 but failed to reach farmers. Looking at the checklist questions, one can suggest that the project has indeed made a favourable contribution to livelihood improvement in Gairezi through its fertilizer pay-outs at a time of national shortages. Moreover, an average annual return of USD$14.8 per household over the past three years compares more than favourably with the equivalent national statistic for CAMPFIRE of USD$4.6 per household (Bond 2001 quoted in Taylor 2006). In the long-run it is also contributing in a more subjective manner, such as stimulating people to think of other ways in which their environment can be used sustainably. This is especially important given the return of USD$250 per km2 noted below, which suggests ecotourism generally and fly fishing specifically, can be an extremely competitive land use. Fish farming, nature trails and increased tourism are in people’s minds, and in a future where Zimbabwe’s tourism industry is allowed to thrive, Gairezians stand to improve their competitive position. They have few alternatives.

4.2 NATURAL RESOURCE RESULTS

THE RIVER AND ITS ENVIRONS The Gairezi, a pristine freestone river environment, is by local and indeed international standards, an impressive montane river with numerous reaches, runs, pools and waterfalls. The river, either very clear or a hazy blue grey, is exceptional in that it is only rarely discoloured by strong spates following heavy rainfall. The river has maintained this status for over a century despite commercial cattle ranching from the 1930s to the 70s, during which time a now-disused dip was constructed on the river. There is remarkably little siltation along the 12 km stretch of river in the GRPA, probably a reflection of the upstream protection the river enjoys in Nyanga National Park but also the well conserved status of the GRPA itself. Uncontrolled wild fires are, however, a serious problem, both in the Park as well as elsewhere, exacerbating runoff and erosion. A consultant ichthyologist was employed by the NDFFC to undertake an assessment of river quality in 2005 and he reported very favourably on the status and condition of the river (Davies 2005). It still remains

52 Ammonium nitrate, for application in the early stages of maize cultivation.

56 CASE STUDIES ON SOUTHERN AFRICAN NRM INITIATIVES- DRAFT

suitable for breeding trout and the insect life, and thus food supply for trout, is more diverse and abundant on the eastern side of Inyangani compared to the west (Worsley-Worswick pers. comm.)53.

TROUT AND FLY FISHING Trout ova were imported from the Cape in South Africa and following successful hatching, fry were introduced into tributaries of the Gairezi in the early 1930s. Trout were first introduced into the Gairezi just prior to the Second World War. Stocking continued thereafter and the success of these efforts led to the formation of the Inyanga (now Nyanga) Downs Fly Fishing Club in 1959. Large fish of 3-5 lbs were initially caught but numbers and average weights declined in successive years (Figs. 16 and 17).

Figure16. The number of trout caught by NDFFC members 1959-1992

400 350 300 250 200 Fish caught 150 100

Number caught 50 0

3/84 7/88 59/60 63/64 67/68 71/72 75/76 79/80 8 8 91/92 Years

The average number of fish caught over 31 years was 78 with a mean weight of 2 lbs (0.9 kg). Fish up to 6 lbs (2.7 kg) have been taken with numerous 4-5 lb fish over the years. The decline in numbers remains a concern of the NDFFC and an intensive restocking programme commenced in 2005. Average weight has been less problematic with a fairly constant 1-2 lb weight maintained over the years. One important factor in controlling trout numbers is predation by eels. Poaching is considered less problematic.

Figure 17. The average weight of trout caught by NDFFC members 1959-1992

Fish w eight (lbs)

4 3 2 1

Fish Weight (lbs) 0 59/60 61/62 63/64 65/66 67/68 69/70 71/72 73/74 75/76 77/78 79/80 81/82 83/84 85/86 87/88 89/90 91/92 Years

53 John Worsley-Worswick has fished the Gairesi successfully for many years and is considered a local expert on the river, its trout and fly fishing.

CASE STUDIES ON SOUTHERN AFRICAN NRM INITIATIVES - DRAFT 57

VEGETATIVE COVER AND LIVESTOCK The natural vegetative cover, largely a tussock grassland, is generally good, not only in the GRPA, but also more widely in Dazi and Nyamutsapa. Our estimate of total cattle numbers at 800-1200 head suggests that grazing land in this lush landscape is adequate although perhaps reaching its carrying capacity. The current stocking rate is approximately 1 LSU:3-5 ha over the 30 km2 comprising Dazi-Nyamutsapa. Although cattle and small livestock graze and water along the river, their impact presently appears minimal. This is in strong contrast to British streams where livestock grazing and watering have to be carefully controlled often with movable electric fencing so as to protect stream integrity.

EXOTIC PLANTS There is strong sentiment in the Parks and Wildlife Management Authority (PWMA),54 amongst ecologists generally and such groups as the Nyanga Downs Fly Fishing Club that the main invasive exotics (wattle, Acacia mearnsii and pine, Pinus patula) should be eradicated. Nevertheless, these exotics, wattle in particular, are an important source of fuelwood and any eradication programme should take this into account. Moreover limited production on a planned and controlled basis in an otherwise treeless landscape should be carefully considered.

ILLEGAL ACTIVITY Our Dazi-Nyamutsapa informants acknowledged that poaching occurred in the GRPA but also that it is not a major problem. This was corroborated by members of the NDFFC who thought eel predation upon trout a much more serious problem. Nevertheless, poachers are known not only to take trout but also wildlife species such as kudu and bushbuck, which are driven out of the National Park and trapped in the gorges of the Gairezi river. River wardens employed by the Project feel that only a limited number of persons (six known families perhaps, and not all necessarily Dazi-Nyamutsapa residents) are responsible for the poaching that does occur. They also take eels which perhaps negates the impacts of their fish poaching.

ECONOMIC RETURN TO THE LAND We did not expect as high a return to the land as appears to have been achieved. Fly fishing activity is limited to the confines of the river and its immediate environs, an area probably not more than 15 km2. The income earned over the past three years, an annual average of USD$4000, suggests that the Project is earning in the order of at least USD$250 per km2 or between USD$1.50-2.50 per ha from this part of the Gairezi river. The figure is halved to USD$125/km2 if extrapolated to the 30 km2 resettlement area, but still remains significant. Whilst the limited land area and thus total earnings from it mask the impact of the return per unit area, this return is substantial and compares extremely well with agricultural land uses and indeed other wildlife based land uses.

4.3 GOVERNANCE RESULTS In our section on organizational development, we concluded that managerially the project was performing with relative efficiency. We however raised a question about the linkage between Project management and institutional growth, in terms of the Trust Deed’s objective of empowering “the Community to utilize, on a sustainable basis, the natural resources in the area of the Community for tourism development with a view to generate income and alleviate poverty.” (clause 3 b) We found villagers in Dazi and Nyamutsapa to have positive views toward the project (particularly because of fertilizer pay-outs) but less certain about the Trust and their location within it.

54 Formerly the Department of National Parks and Wildlife Management (DNPWLM).

58 CASE STUDIES ON SOUTHERN AFRICAN NRM INITIATIVES- DRAFT

SEVERAL ISSUES ARE INVOLVED, AND ARE DISCUSSED BELOW. Membership. Membership was regarded as a good thing, witness the fertilizer dividend available to all members. But this was membership in what? Presumably the Project, although there was the sense among some that this meant membership in the Trust. And membership was not the same as residence, since there was a joining fee (Z$3000) and an annual member’s fee (Z$80). Without having paid these monies to the Trust, one would not have one’s name on the dividend list. A further debate was whether membership should be by individual (as is now the case) or by household. Labour Joining and annual fees were not the only costs. Local members were also expected to maintain internal tracks which give access to strategic points for fishing along the 12 km river footage. Management found it difficult to persuade people to do this, although there was evidence of efforts at maintenance in a few places. In other words, some members worked and others did not. At the time of dividend (fertilizer) distribution, the argument was put forward that only fully paid up members who had helped in road maintenance should received dividends. Others argued that this would be difficult and divisive and that all should receive fertilizer, an argument which eventually prevailed. [Note: This is not a petty issue; it relates to the question of whether commonage enterprises should be inclusive or voluntary, and to means of enforcing compliance]. Record Keeping Record keeping by the Trust leaves much to be desired. The Project Supervisor maintains a monthly report record at the project office, but aside from this the Trust records are in various places. Membership dues are paid to the Secretary of the Trust, a trustee who lives in Nyamutsapa. She maintains a membership list and receipt book. The cash is then handed over to the Treasurer, another Trustee who lives in Dazi, with no record of the cash hand-over. Accounting and Fiscal Security. There are in effect two sets of books in place. The NDFFC manages the finances for the accommodation, camping and entrance fees and staff salaries. A commercial bank is used and an annual financial report is rendered to the Trust and the annual community general meeting. This accounts for the bulk of Project monies involved. The Trust account involves only local membership fees collected. This is a relatively small amount (around Z$300 000), an amount not justifying the expense of a bank account. The alternative at the moment is for this money to be tucked away in a hut, with inadequate records to back it up. This is an unsatisfactory situation to which several alternatives suggest themselves. Policy oversight and executive roles. Eight of the 11 trustees are resident in the Project area. Those who are not are: - The Chairman of the Trust. From the Nyamutsapa Village, the Chairman works for a development and aid agency, resident in Harare. - Nyanga RDC trustee - NDFFC trustee (although he has a home very nearby) With this preponderance of local trustees the Trust initially embarked on an ambitious monthly meeting schedule, in effect assuming the executive role of the earlier Management Committee. However it became apparent that few trustees were willing to meet this frequently, and so executive functions were delegated to the managing trustee. Frequent Trust meetings are still called but are poorly attended with the Chairman not having been in attendance for a number of meetings. The effect of these developments has been to co-mingle the policy and oversight role of the Trust and the executive function conducted by administration. It has also marginalized, we believe, the potential contributions of the NRDC and NDFFC representatives since they cannot be expected to attend more than the annual or semi-annual Trust meetings. Finally, we sense that these developments may create a local image of the Trust as being driven by a small number of local elite rather than by the general meeting.

CASE STUDIES ON SOUTHERN AFRICAN NRM INITIATIVES - DRAFT 59

Communications. Communication and information dissemination is generally poor, both internally and externally. Within the community, attention to the Project is episodic, arising only on such occasions as dividend distribution and its attendant celebrations. The community has yet to learn the power of printed reports, as witnessed in our first case study. Externally, the CEO of the NRDC complained that he had no recent reports from the Project, and that the Council’s 15% levy, mandated by the Memorandum of Agreement, had not been paid. Admittedly logistics make communication difficult in Gairezi, but its importance should not be discounted. It is not the writers’ role to make specific recommendation on these issues, other than to suggest that the Trust should look carefully at its obligations as dictated by the Trust Deed, and that the organization of the Project should be the subject of further consideration through a workshop or other means. In making this suggestion we are not intent on denigrating the good work that has been done to date and which has, we believe, caused the Project to take institutional roots in Ward 21. We are concerned however that the Project’s gains in local institutional strength receives constant, rather than intermittent support from the people of Dazi and Nyamutsapa. The main external actors involved, the NRDC and the NDFFC are well- disposed to the project and in a position to help the Trust gain that measure of collective legitimacy which it needs to meet the challenges of the future.

4.4 UNEXPECTED RESULTS Generally speaking, small-scale, communally managed ecotourism projects in Zimbabwe have not fared well, certainly not as well as for example, in Namibia. The reasons are multiple but one major factor has been that many of these initiatives have come on line at precisely the time (post 2000) that Zimbabwe’s tourism industry has been in decline. Even domestic tourism has been impacted due to inflation and fuel shortages. It was therefore a pleasant surprise for the writers to encounter in Gairezi a well-run project with general community support, pleasant accommodation and good customer service (bed-night bookings rating much higher than the national average). We list below 4 “unexpected results” the first being not really “unexpected” since we have encountered it elsewhere, but nevertheless a negative consequence of success. Internal (self) Help = Less External Help. Here we are talking of a tendency by Government to consider the fruits of self-initiative and self-help as “luck,” to be rewarded by retention rather than addition. In the case of Gairezi this has taken the form of resistance to building a secondary school in Dazi on the grounds that “they have received all that help for the Project” and should therefore pay for their own school”. Unfortunately this logic can act as a disincentive for self-help and self-initiated projects. Harmonious trans-racial interaction. The Gairezi Project brings together an all-black (Dazi and Nyamutsapa villages) resource proprietor with, to date, an all-white (the NDFFC) clientele and this at a site where racially structured politics gained international attention in the 1970s. Moore, for instance, makes “racialized dispossession” a core theme of his book (Moore 2005: ix). Given this history one might have expected a formalized and highly stereotyped relationship between the Trust and the NDFFC, but what we found was insightful and friendly collaboration. It appears to be clear to both parties that they need each other, in different ways. The Trust has a resource which cannot be adequately duplicated by the NDFFC; the leadership of NDFFC appreciates that in addition to annual payments, the Trust can benefit from Club services, as long as they are provided in a way which does not threaten local proprietorship. This is not to ignore the potential of Zimbabwe’s racial legacy to create problems, but in this instance we see the Project as an integrative force. Infrastructural Development. The project has been in receipt of monies from the USAID-supported CAMPFIRE Community Development Fund (CDF) for the erection of its administration blocks and two guest chalets. One can develop a certain degree of scepticism for aid funds like the CDF in the context of CBNRM, especially if they turn grants into obstacles to self-achievement. We were unexpectedly pleased however with the impacts of the USAID CDF grant in Gairezi. The community had no way of providing the capital itself, the infrastructure was quickly built and the cottages provided the community with an instantly

60 CASE STUDIES ON SOUTHERN AFRICAN NRM INITIATIVES- DRAFT

attractive addition to the ‘package’ that it was offering its client, the NDFFC. The facilities are well maintained and collaboration in management has been a further bonding factor in unifying proprietor and client. This we believe is a good example of how to structure and use infrastructural grant money. Economic and financial returns. The comparative economic advantage of wildlife over other more conventional agricultural and livestock land use practices has been well demonstrated over larger scale landscapes through the use of large mammals (Child 1995). Typically, wildlife use options which include sport hunting and game ranching, yield returns between USD$4-10/ha per annum. At Gairezi, a return of USD$2.50/ha is highly comparable as is the average annual financial return of nearly USD$15 per household, especially when viewed against household returns for CAMPFIRE generally.

5. CONCLUSIONS

5.1 LESSONS LEARNED Some of the lessons learned have been anticipated in the section above but are reiterated here. The importance, in small-scale community based enterprises, of an established clientele. Many initiatives fail because this is lacking. In the Gairezi case the NDFFC provides a reliable client. The Project can and should expand its clientele in the future but is fortunate in having a steady stable client (and partner) in the enterprise during its inceptive period. The benefit of targeted aid. Too often the issue of grants-in-aid is debated in a dichotomous, “have-or-have- not” mode. This is unhelpful, aid should be considered carefully and in context. The USAID CDF contribution of cottages and administration buildings is an example of well-strategised assistance, at the right time and to a project with the capacity to manage and maintain the infrastructure provided. Modes of benefit distribution are important. In the Gairezi case the distribution of fertilizer rather than cash was subjectively important, with far more impact than cash dividends. Other innovative approaches also exist. What is perhaps most important is that the mode of distribution has the support of the project’s constituents. Communication and information dissemination are critical, both internally within the Project area and between the Project and its significant partners. More facilitative assistance is needed on this in Gairezi. Record-keeping is an aspect of this topic and should not be neglected. The importance of accountability by leadership to the constituency is emphasized by the Gairezi case study. While the Trust Deed attempts to underline this, in Gairezi we encountered the sense that this was not being adequately addressed. Policy and practice were somewhat different. We feel that the core response to the issue of accountability lies in the annual general meeting, adequately orchestrated, accompanied by regular communication with the membership between such occasions. Further facilitative work on this in Gairezi may be appropriate.

CASE STUDIES ON SOUTHERN AFRICAN NRM INITIATIVES - DRAFT 61

IV CONCLUDING REFLECTIONS

1. IMPORTANCE OF THE MACRO-ECONOMIC AND POLICY ENVIRONMENT That the underlying assumptions for CAMPFIRE (Taylor 2006: Table 9; pp18) have mostly not been met, is especially important for this study. We believe that a very different picture might have emerged had the more favourable macro-economic conditions of the 90s persisted. The declining performance of the country’s economy in the intervening period has had the effect of forcing a level of self-sufficiency, resilience and partnership in both our case studies that has enhanced their performance beyond expectation. Ward level income especially in Masoka, was severely affected over the period 2003-2005 although it was already declining the previous two years as Guruve RDC struggled with hyperinflation, land reform and its own poor performance. Growing unemployment, declining real wages and rural immigration also impacted on land, natural resources and households. A declining tourism industry and lack of visitor support was the death knell for many CAMPFIRE ecotourism ventures following the diversification efforts of the programme after 2000. The failure of Government to devolve natural resource management through legislative change, together with policy shifts towards re-centralising wildlife management have stalled the progress of CAMPFIRE, although the new Environmental Management Act holds promise for the future. Still, most NR legislation continues to ensure centralised control of resources and land. Given these conditions the positive findings of our assessments of the two case studies are all the more remarkable. The representational ability of the Masoka WWC and community to challenge the status quo and achieve a negotiated agreement on payments of wildlife earnings in their favour is unprecedented. In the case of Gairesi, the devolved management authority for natural resources in the GRPA to the Trust is also unprecedented. Both the Trust and NDFFC have negotiated an agreement on behalf of their constituencies that is mutually beneficial and importantly, the financial return to households, albeit modest in one sense, is threefold that of CAMPFIRE nationally. We would argue that CAMPFIRE has enabled a process of empowering communities to maximize their roles within the existing set of rules, and by so doing, allowing these rules to be challenged. Under such conditions, institutional change (Bond 2001) is more likely, and indeed, under present circumstances in Zimbabwe, has perhaps accelerated that change, at least in some contexts.

2. LEGITIMATIONS OF AUTHORITY: “TRADITIONAL” OR “MODERN?” One of the more important debates on commons governance concerns the appropriate basis on which local governance should be based, particularly in CBNRM-type contexts. The debate typically pits the arguments for “traditional” authority (customary ethnic and religious leadership) against “modern” authority (residency-based elected or appointed leadership). In a recent perceptive article Ribot refers to the first as a system of identity-based belonging and the second as a system of residency-based citizenship.55 Ribot’s preference (and that of much contemporary scholarship) is clearly for the second (Ribot 2006: 117-118)

55 Ribot has a third category: a system of interest-based identity, not discussed here.

62 CASE STUDIES ON SOUTHERN AFRICAN NRM INITIATIVES- DRAFT

In our Gairezi case study this was also the preference of many residents, forcibly expressed by the elder who is quoted in the text. At present, people in Dazi and Nyamutsapa seem to prefer a project leadership which is legitimated by resident approval rather than one which derives from the customary structures of headmen and chiefs, although the debate is by no means over. Moore puts it this way: “Contending visions of resource rights continue to pit populist visions of localized environmental entitlements against ‘traditional’ and ethnically-coded ancestral claims to the landscapes” (Moore 1996:34). When however we look at our other case study we see, over time, a different pattern of preference evolve. Leadership of CAMPFIRE in Masoka started under the aegis of “traditional” authority and then swung over time to a Wildlife Committee in which younger and more educated members predominated. Subsequently a pattern of ‘balance’ can be seen, with youth and experience, education and wisdom, being merged. What do we infer from this interesting contrast between our two case studies? It is that the debate does not really belong in the studies and boardrooms of scholars and policymakers, using abstractions such as “traditional” and “democratic”. It takes place in reality in the different contexts of time and place which CBNRM throws up, and the judgement is one which people make on the basis of their experience and their estimate of who can best represent their collective interests. In this judgement, certainly now at Masoka, people are looking not simply at individuals but for a corporate profile of leadership which can deliver effectiveness in management and in guarding collective interest against sectional greed, both internal and external. In Gairezi this judgement will evolve in time, determined to a great degree by the way in which the Trust performs.

3. PROPRIETOR–CLIENT RELATIONSHIPS In both our case studies there is a private sector partner, in the case of Masoka, the safari operator running a for-profit business; and in the case of Gairezi, the NDFFC a not-for-profit membership association. The relationship between the respective partners, i.e. community and private sector, is one reflective of a “proprietor-client” relationship and crucially important for markets, income generation and fostering both commercial enterprise development and environmental stewardship. Until very recently, the safari operator partner at Masoka was more closely aligned with the RDC, because it was the RDC which was legally empowered to enter into contractual arrangements with the safari operator for the marketing of wildlife. Thus the RDC acted as the “proprietor” and was perceived as such by both the operator and the Masoka community, albeit grudgingly and with much dissatisfaction. The ability of Masoka’s programme to negotiate a satisfactory relationship with operator and council was, therefore, a critical element in the programme’s governance. This three-way relationship was more or less continuously under challenge, as already described, with much tension between the parties, the root cause of which was the RDC’s intransigence. Nevertheless, operationally at Masoka, there needs to be a close involvement with the operator. Major factors in generating wildlife incomes include: the operator’s professional competence; careful management of the resource base, in the hands of both Masoka and the operator; and the quality of collaboration between operator and community. Until recently the operator has been associated with council; with the change now to direct ward payments, our impression is that the way is open for closer operator and community collaboration, with potential benefit to both parties. An established clientele is especially important in small-scale community based enterprises. Many initiatives fail because this is lacking. In the Gairezi case the NDFFC provides a reliable and collaborative client. Whilst the Project may expand its clientele in the future, it is fortunate to have had a positive relationship with a steady stable client (and partner) in the enterprise during this early inceptive period. The relationship needs to be continued and nurtured.

CASE STUDIES ON SOUTHERN AFRICAN NRM INITIATIVES - DRAFT 63

4. LEADERS AND FOLLOWERS Institutionally, much emphasis is given to leadership in CBNRM and related development-type projects. Infrequently are the followers referred to. The collective will and social capital amongst a community such as Masoka has undoubtedly had a strong influence on the processes of organisational and institutional development. The wildlife and other committees, their regular meetings, activities and turnover in office bearers, are under regular community scrutiny, with such reflected in the General Meeting. The community role has been one of providing direction, keeping that direction focused and influencing change when required. The followers help ensure the efficiency, legitimacy and representational ability of their leadership, which we have already noted as crucial elements of sound governance. This is not so evident in Gairezi, however. In part this can be accounted for by the “newness” of the Project and its efforts to develop the community and indeed leadership cohesion still needed. This cohesion remains hampered by the lack of “residency”, and thus participation, on the part of some of the Trustees, extending the arguments put forward above on the legitimation of authority. This is also linked to the tensions of traditional leadership still evident in Gairezi. Greater community support would no doubt be forthcoming if there was a leadership to follow. Infrequent Trust meetings, poor attendance and lack of mechanisms for accountability confirms the need for some institutional re-structuring.

5. INSTITUTIONAL MEMORY We have referred frequently to the importance of good record keeping and financial book keeping. The importance of this is clearly evident in the Masoka case where substantial sets of information, data and figures are available from the past and which continue to be maintained reasonably well. Apart from the transparency the availability of such information conveys, it is now being put to good use for future planning by the WWC and others in the community. A revised constitution is being modelled on the first constitution as is the new land use planning exercise making use of well documented past experiences. Equally important is the fact that this information helps safeguard and maintain an “institutional” memory. Already nearly 20 years on, CAMPFIRE at Masoka has experienced its own loss of personalities through death, retirement, departures, as well as turnover in office bearers. Without formal documented records, these invaluable “memories” relating to experience, skills and knowledge would be lost. We would suggest that much is lost where it matters most in the development process through failure to capture the institutional memory relating to these processes. Clearly such institutional memory needs to be more fully developed at Gairezi in relation to the GDT ecotourism project, and other likely nitiatives, with a central repository for minutes of meetings, financial records of statements and transactions and natural resource monitoring.

64 CASE STUDIES ON SOUTHERN AFRICAN NRM INITIATIVES- DRAFT

V LINKS TO THE UNITED NATIONS CONVENTION TO COMBAT DESERTIFICATION

Recognising that desertification is a major global economic, social and environmental problem, the United Nations Conference on Desertification adopted a Plan of Action to Combat Desertification (PACD) in 1977. Despite this, by 1991 the problem of land degradation in arid, semi-arid and dry sub-humid areas had intensified. At the UNCED (Earth Summit) in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, a new integrated approach emphasized sustainable development at the community level, with the Conference calling for a Convention to Combat Desertification, especially in Africa. The CCD came into force in 1996 with the first CoP being held in 1997. By 2002, over 179 countries were Parties to the Convention.56 National Action Programmes (NAPs) are one of the key instruments in implementing the Convention. These are developed using a participatory approach at local levels, providing practical measures for combating desertification. NAPs are strengthened by Sub-regional and Regional Programmes (SRAPs and RAPs). In 1997 the Southern African Development Community (SADC) submitted its SRAP document through the Environment and Land Management Sector (ELMS).57 This was followed by Zimbabwe’s NAP submission in c.2000.58 In the Zimbabwe NAP, desertification is interpreted as land degradation. The underlying causes of land degradation are identified as general poverty and over-dependence on land and natural resources for sustaining livelihoods. The NAP process aims to mitigate the effects of drought and control land degradation. Zimbabwe’s Focal Point for the CCD is the Environmental Management Agency (EMA) housed in the Ministry of Environment and Tourism. EMA is a new agency (replacing the Department of Natural Resources) with a mandate to implement the Environmental Management Act (xxxx). This Act brings together previously uncoordinated pieces of environmental and natural resources legislation and is ambitious in its intent, including devolving greater environmental responsibility to local structures. Much as the Masoka WWC assumes de facto the role of the Ward Development Committee through its responsibility for expenditure of wildlife revenues earned, its governance role in respect of natural resources is likely to mean that the WWC will be required to maintain and strengthen its role as an ”environmental committee” in terms of the Environmental Management Act. The stated intent of EMA is in fact to “use CAMPFIRE Committees”, i.e. the WWC, to play this role more broadly. Similarly, one can expect the GDT or its “management committee” to play a similar role but this is still to happen and once GDT is more institutionally organized. Meanwhile the Nyanga RDC is likely to retain a “watchdog” role to the extent it is able to, albeit an undesirable state of affairs in the longer term. Presently EMA views CAMPFIRE as a programme that is actively contributing to halting land degradation and as such CAMPFIRE areas are not a priority for any mitigating actions on the part of either EMA or the

56 Source: http://www.unccd.int/ 57 See SADC-ELMS Sub-Regional Programme to Combat Desertification in Southern Africa. Unpublished Report 1997 58 See Republic of Zimbabwe (Undated): The National Action Programme (NAP) in the Context of the UNCCD in Zimbabwe. Ministry of [Mines,] Environment and Tourism, Harare.

CASE STUDIES ON SOUTHERN AFRICAN NRM INITIATIVES - DRAFT 65

CCD. Rather CAMPFIRE is seen as an enabling approach to the better management of common property resources and greater economic diversification in communal and resettlement areas to include eco-tourism, and the production and sustainable use of wildlife and non-timber forest resources. Masoka provides an excellent example to emulate and certainly there is no evidence of serious land degradation in either the GRPA or the wider Dazi – Nyamatsupa Resettlement Area. Relatively conservative land use practices, combined with a benign natural resource use ensure minimal environmental damage. Most problems relating to degradation or specifically in the case studies, are related to largely man-induced accelerated soil erosion. This erosion has for the most part been initiated by agents of central or local Government, for example TTCB in its extensive road making to control tsetse fly or the RDC in its limited ability to construct a good sound road network. The Zimbabwe NAP is focused on eight priority areas, namely energy, land use planning and soil conservation, management of water resources, education is, public awareness and capacity building, the provision of alternative livelihoods and poverty alleviation, land tenure, strengthening policy, legal and institutional arrangements and research. Whilst a number of these have direct or indirect links with CAMPFIRE, notably land use, tenure, alternative livelihoods and policy and legal frameworks, these linkages remain weakly developed and articulated. For example whilst there is emphasis given to dispersed responsibility, the focus is to empower RDCs to take charge of resources and development issues, rather than sub district (ward and village) institutions, as CAMPFIRE has been trying to achieve. For example, an evaluation of the NAP Catalytic Phase found that the role of RDCs in relation to rural communities was ill- defined, even though the programme had made a positive impact at community level. Nevertheless, the Zimbabwe NAP recognizes that current land use planning is top-down and not participatory, that plans are biased towards agriculture at the expense of other uses and that problems of ownership arise in common property resources such as forests, woodlots, water and grazing lands. Suggested interventions include further debate on land tenure and the adoption of CAMPFIRE principles and practice. Linked to District Environment Action Plans (DEAPs), the NAP remains project based rather than exploring strategic interventions that can create and catalyse change.

66 CASE STUDIES ON SOUTHERN AFRICAN NRM INITIATIVES- DRAFT

REFERENCES

Anon. (1997). SADC-ELMS Sub-Regional Programme to Combat Desertification in Southern Africa. Unpublished Report. SADC, Maseru. Bell-Cross, G (1976). The Fishes of Rhodesia. National Museums and Monuments, Salisbury. Bond, I (2001). CAMPFIRE and the incentives for institutional change. In: African wildlife and livelihoods: The promise and performance of community conservation. (Eds. D Hulme and M Murphree). James Currey, Oxford. Broderick, T (1990). An interpretation of the geology of the Cabora Bassa basin, mid-Zambezi valley. Annals of the Zimbabwe Geological Survey 14, 1-11. Chambers, R (1983). Rural Development: Putting the Last First. Longmans, London. Child, GFT (1995). Wildlife and People: The Zimbabwean Success. Wisdom Foundation, New York. Chisunga, B and Zirota, G (1997). Management of the Land and Resources of the Masoka Community of Dande Communal Lands, Zimbabwe. Society and Natural Resources 10, 405-408. Chiwewe, WA (2003). Decentralisation or Re-centralisation: Perspectives for a Paradigm Search. Paper presented to the SADC Technical Committee on Local Government. 11-13 July. 16 pp. Conybeare, A (1998). Assessment of habitat maintenance, diversity and productivity under communal management. Unpublished Report. WWF Resource Management Support to CAMPFIRE Project. WWF SARPO, Harare. Cowan, A (1984). The Nyanga Downs Fly Fishing Club: The first twenty five years 1959-1984. Typescript, 5 pp. Cumming, DHM and Lynam, TJP (1997). In: Landuse Changes, Wildlife Conservation and Utilization and the Sustainability of Agro-Ecosystems in the Zambezi Valley. Final Technical Report, Volume 1. . EU Contract B7-5040/93/06. WWF SARPO, Harare. Cumming, D.H.M. et al. (1997) Elephants, woodlands and biodiversity in southern Africa. South African Journal of Science 93, 231-236. Cunliffe, RN (1995). Vegetation survey of Kanyurira Ward, Dande Communal Land, Guruve District. In: Landuse Changes, Wildlife Conservation and Utilisation, and the Sustainability of Agro-ecosystems in the Zambezi Valley. Final Technical Report Volume 5, Annex 5.2.4.3. EU Contract B7-5040/93/06. WWF SARPO 1997, Harare. Cutshall, CR (1989). Masoka/Kanyurira Ward. A Social-Economic Baseline Survey of Community Households. Unpublished Report. CASS, Harare. Dimbi, LR (1998). The Role of Leadership in the Structure and Functioning of Community Based Natural Resource Management Organizations: A Zimbabwean Case Study. M.Sc. thesis, University of Natal, Pietermaritzburg. 141 pp. Dzomba, T (2000). Basic Information: CAMPFIRE. Kanyurira Ward 11, Guruve Rural District Council. Typescript, 6 pp. Frost, PGH (200x). Biodiversity and Functioning of the Eastern Highlands Grasslands. Presentation at a Workshop on the Conservation of the Blue Swallow, Rhodes Hotel, Nyanga.

CASE STUDIES ON SOUTHERN AFRICAN NRM INITIATIVES - DRAFT 67

Goredema, L, Taylor, RD, Bond, I and Vermeulen, S (2005). Empowering rural communities to manage wildlife: lessons learned from WWF’s Support to CAMPFIRE Project 1993-2002. Power Tools Series. IIED, London. Government of Zimbabwe (undated). The National Action Programme (NAP) in the Context of the UNCCD in Zimbabwe. Ministry of Mines, Environment and Tourism, Harare. Government of Zimbabwe (1975). Parks and Wild Life Act (Cap. 20:14) Revised Edition 1996. Government Printer, Harare. Government of Zimbabwe (1992). Communal Land Act (Cap. 20:04) Revised Edition Harare: Government Printer, Harare. Government of Zimbabwe (1996). Rural Councils Act (Cap. 29:13) Revised Edition. Government Printer, Harare. Government of Zimbabwe (1998). Traditional Leaders Act (cap: 29:17) Harare: Government Printer Guruve RDC (1996). Guruve South Area 2: Quota Setting Workshop Report. Facilitated by the ZimTrust/WWF/SCI Quota Setting Project. WWF SARPO, Harare. Guruve RDC (1998). Quota Setting Workshop Report. Facilitated by the WWF Support to CAMPFIRE Project. WWF SARPO, Harare. Hoare, R (2000). An investigation into the feasibility of implementing a household scale electric fencing scheme in Masoka, Guruve District, Zimbabwe. Unpublished Report. WWF SARPO, Harare. Hoare, R and Booth, V (1998). Wildlife electric fencing projects in Communal Areas of Zimbabwe: current efficacy and future role. Report for World Wide Fund for Nature Southern Africa Regional Programme Office. WWF SARPO and Price Waterhouse, Harare. Kanyurira Ward and Guruve RDC (1997). Land Use Planning Workshop Report. Mushumbi Pools 2-4 December 1997. WWF Support to CAMPFIRE Project. WWF SARPO, Harare. Lister, (1987) Mackie, CS (2002). Aerial census of elephants and other large herbivores in the Zambezi valley, Zimbabwe: 2001. WWF SARPO Occasional Paper Series No. 2. WWF SARPO, Harare. Matshona –Dube, J. (1995) Rural Primary Health Care Needs and Assessment: A Case Study of Masoka/Kanyurira Ward in Guruve District, Dande Communal Lands, Zimbabwe. Field work Report for the Bachelor of Social Work Degree, University of Zimbabwe. 16pp. Moore, DS (1998). A river runs through it: Environmental history and the politics of community in Zimbabwe’s Eastern Highlands. Unpublished Report, CASS, Harare. Moore, DS (1998). Clear waters and muddied histories: Environmental history and the politics of community in Zimbabwe’s Eastern Highlands. Journal of Southern African Studies 24 (2), 377-403. Moore, DS (2005). Suffering for Territory: Race, Place and Power in Zimbabwe. Weaver Press, Harare. Moyo, M and Nyamwanza, B (1995). Soils of Kanyurira Ward, Dande Communal Land, Guruve District. In: Landuse Changes, Wildlife Conservation and Utilisation, and the Sustainability of Agro-ecosystems in the Zambezi Valley. Final Technical Report Volume 4b, Annex 5.2.3.4. EU Contract B7-5040/93/06. WWF SARPO 1997, Harare.

68 CASE STUDIES ON SOUTHERN AFRICAN NRM INITIATIVES- DRAFT

Murombedzi, J (2001). Committees, Rights, Costs and Benefits: Natural Resource Stewardship and Community Benefits in Zimbabwe’s CAMPFIRE Programme. In: African Wildlife and Livelihoods: The Promise and Performance of Community Conservation (Eds. D Hulme and M Murphree). James Currey, Oxford. Murphree, MW (1997). Articulating Voices from the Commons, Interpretation, Translation, and Facilitation: Roles and Modes for Common Property Scholarship. Society and Natural Resources 10, 415-421. Nabane, N. (1997). Gender Dimensions in the Communal Areas Management Programme for Indigenous Resources: A Zambezi Valley Community Case Study. M.Phil. thesis, University of Zimbabwe. 144pp. Oesterlen (1990). Peterson, JH (1991). A Proto-CAMPFIRE Initiative in Mahenye Ward, Chipinge District: Development of a Wildlife Programme in Response to Community Needs. Unpublihed Report, CASS, Harare. Parks and Wildlife Management Authority, Government of Zimbabwe (2005). Proceedings of a Workshop to Review the CAMPFIRE Programme, 26 April 2005. Typescript11pp. Ribot, J.C. (2006) Choose democracy: Environmentalists’ socio-political responsibility. Global Environment Change 16, 115-119. Rigava, N, Taylor RD and Goredema, L (2006). Participatory quota setting. Participatory Learning and Action 55, 62-69. IIED, London. Schoffeleers, JM ed. (1979). Guardians of the Land. Gweru, Mambo Press. 315pp. Taylor, RD (1989). Resource Survey Report on Masoka/Kanyurira. Report No. 2/88. Unpublished Report. WWF SARPO Harare. Taylor, RD (1996). Resource surveys, landuse planning and wildlife management: Kanyurira Ward (Masoka), western Dande. Report No 2. Land Use Planning Project Working Group. Unpublished report. WWF SARPO, Harare. Taylor, RD (1991). Socio-economic aspects of meat production from impala harvested in a Zimbabwean Communal Land. In: Wildlife Production: Conservation and Sustainable Development. Eds. LA Renecker and RJ Hudson. University of Alaska, Fairbanks. Taylor, RD and Mackie, CS (1997). Aerial census results for elephant and buffalo in selected Campfire areas. CAMPFIRE Association Publication Series 4, 4-11. Taylor, RD (2001). Participatory natural resource monitoring and management: implications for conservation. In: African Wildlife and Livelihoods: The Promise and Performance of Community Conservation. (Eds. D. Hulme and M. Murphree). James Currey, Oxford. Taylor, RD (2006). Case study: CAMPFIRE (Communal Areas Management Programme for Indigenous Resources), Zimbabwe. USAID-FRAME Paper draft #3. 05/05/06/ 23pp. Taylor, WG (2005). The influence of trophy measurement on the age of sport hunted buffalo Syncerus caffer (Sparrman) in the Zambezi valley, Zimbabwe and its implications for sustainable trophy hunting. BSc (Hons) dissertation. Oxford Brookes University, Oxford. Turnbull-Kemp, P.St J. (1994) The Fly Fisher’s Nyanga. National Trout Anglers Society, Harare. Zimbabwe Trust (1994) Dande/Guruve and Other Campfire Initiatives. Report to the ODA 1993. Harare: Zimbabwe Trust. 21pp.

CASE STUDIES ON SOUTHERN AFRICAN NRM INITIATIVES - DRAFT 69

APPENDIX 1. INDICATIVE WORK PLAN Phase III Field work Plan Masoka & Gairezi, Zimbabwe rdt = RD Taylor; mwm = Prof. MW Murphree; cs = Conrad Steenkamp

Activity Months Sept 06 Oct 06 Nov 06 Dec 06 Jan 06 Feb 06 Responsible/Comments Finalise Contract details ● ●●● rdt/cs/IUCN 1 day Liaise with sub-contractee & IUCN ●● ●● rdt/mwm Literature reviews, relevant publications & desk top ● ●●● ●●●● mwm/rdt studies 2 days Meet with Donald Moore, University California, Berkeley mwm Develop survey & questionnaire instruments ●●● mwm/rdt 1 day Initial meetings with CAMPFIRE Association, Ingwe Safaris ●●● ● rdt & mwm & attend AGM, NDFFC, Harare 2 days Field visit to Masoka Ward, Dande Communal Land ●●●● rdt & mwm including meetings with Guruve RDC 3-5 days Field visit to Gairesi River, including meetings with GDT ●●●● rdt & mwm and Nyanga RDC 3-5 days Feedback and discussions with stakeholders, Harare; ●●●● rdt & mwm commence analysis & write up 2 days Prepare draft report and circulate for comments etc ●●●● rdt & mwm 2 days Submit final draft report to IUCN for final commenst ●●● rdt/cs 1 day Finalise & submit final report ●●●● rdt 1 day

CASE STUDIES ON SOUTHERN AFRICAN NRM INITIATIVES 71

APPENDIX 2. PERSONS MET &/OR CONSULTED

Mr WRG Bedford, Director Ingwe Safaris Mr I Chaipa, Chairman Gairezi Development Trust Mr G Chambare, Treasurer Masoka Ward Wildlife Committee Mrs M Chasi, Director-General Environmental Management Agency Mr I Chaukura, Trustee Masoka Community Development Trust Mr S Chaukura, Secretary Masoka Ward Wildlife Committee Mr S Coffee, Wildlife Clerk Masoka Ward Wildlife Committee Mr S Dutton, Chairman Nyanga Downs Fly Fishing Club Mr I Fakero, Trustee Masoka Community Development Trust Mr C Grobbelaar, Director Ingwe Safaris Mr D Hamilton, Trustee Gairezi Development Trust Mr S Hondo, River Warden Gairezi Development Trust Mr Jaravaza CEO Nyanga RDC Mr C Jonga, Executive Director CAMPFIRE Association Mr R Kanjengo Chairman School Committee Masoka Mr H Kanyongo River Warden Gairezi Development Trust Mr B Kanyurira, Headman Kanyurira Ward Mr T Machena Internal Auditor Nyanga RDC Mr E Mandipe, Project Supervisor Gairezi Development Trust Mr R Mandondo A/District Administrator Nyanga District Mr O Marowa School Clerk Dr DS Moore, Assistant Professor of Anthropology University of California Berkeley Mr G Mudzi, Managing Trustee Gairezi Development Trust Mrs W Muzuzu, V/Chair Masoka Ward Wildlife Committee Mrs J Nyagondere, Trustee & Board Secretary Gairezi Development Trust Mr M Nyagondere, Resident Nyamutsapa Trustee & Board Treasurer Gairezi Development Trust Mr A Zengeretsi, Treasurer Masoka Community Development Trust Mr E Zengeretsi, Chairman Masoka Ward Wildlife Committee

CASE STUDIES ON SOUTHERN AFRICAN NRM INITIATIVES 73

Mr G Zirota, Chairman Masoka Community Development Trust Mr M Zirota, Learner bird guide Housekeepers, Gairezi Cottages Nightwatchmen, Gairezi Cottages

74 CASE STUDIES ON SOUTHERN AFRICAN NRM INITIATIVES

APPENDIX 3. VEGETATION MAP OF KANYURIRA WARD, DANDE COMMUNAL LAND, GURUVE DISTRICT

Vegetation Types Mopane - miombo alternating woodland Riparian decidous thicket Low open woodland on Kadzi sediments Alluvial shrubland Bushland on lowest alluvial terraces - cultivated Alluvial wooodland - cultivated Mopane woodland Bushland on lowest alluvial terraces Alluvial woodland Open woodland on scarp foot deposits Combretum-strychnos woodland Terminalia thicket Mixed riparain woodland Open miombo woodland on gneiss

0 2 4

Source: Cunliffe (1995)

CASE STUDIES ON SOUTHERN AFRICAN NRM INITIATIVES 75

APPENDIX 4. LIST OF LARGE MAMMALS OCCURRING IN KANYURIRA WARD.

Species common name Scientific name Status Score Elephant A 3 Buffalo A 3 Hippo S 1 Zebra P 2 Eland P 2 Waterbuck A 3 Kudu A 3 Reedbuck S 1 Roan S 1 Sable A 3 Impala A 3 Nyala S 1 Bushbuck A 3 Duiker A 3 Klipspringer S 1 Suni S 1 Warthog A 3 Lion S 1 Leopard S 1 Cheetah S 1 Hyaena A 3 Jackal S 1 Wild dog S 1 SCORE 45

Status & score: A: Abundant = 3; P: Present = 2; S: Scarce = 1; N: Absent = 0

CASE STUDIES ON SOUTHERN AFRICAN NRM INITIATIVES 77

APPENDIX 5. MASOKA WWC BUDGET JULY- DECEMBER 2006 (RETYPED FROM ORIGINAL)

VOTE / BUDGET ALLOCATION / DETAILS TOTALS COMMITTEE ALLOWANCES 11 MEMBERS x 6 MEETINGS x $500.00 $33 000.00 EMERGENCY C/MEETING ALLOWANCES 11 MEMBERS x 3 MEETINGS x $500.00 $16 500.00 VILLAGE HEADS AND SECRETARIES ALLOWANCES 16 MEMBERS x 3 MEETINGS x $500.00 $24 000.00 WADCO WORKSHOPS ALLOWANCES 80 MEMBERS x 5 WORKSHOPS x $500.00 $200 000.00 FOOD FOR WORKSHOPS 5 WORKSHOPS x $15 000.00 $75 000.00 OFFICE STATIONERY $35 000.00 $35 000.00 T & S MUSHUMBI 3 TRIPS x 3 MEMBERS x $7 000.00 $63 000.00 T & S GURUVE 2 TRIPS x 2 MEMBERS x $10 000.00 $40 000.00 T & S MVURWI 1 TRIP x 3 MEMBERS x $15 000.00 $35 000.00 T & S MVURWI 6 TRIPS x 2 MEMBERS x $15 000.00 $180 000.00 T & S HARARE 1 TRIP x 3 MEMBERS x $20 000.00 $60 000.00 3 TRIPS x 2 MEMBERS x $20 000.00 $20 000.00 WILDLIFE CLERK & SCHOOL CLERK SALARIES 2 MEMBERS x 6 MONTHS x $10 000.00 $120 000.00 SENIOR GAME SCOUT & SENIOR GUARD SALARIES 2 MEMBERS x 6 MONTHS x $9 000.00 $108 000.00 OTHER GAME SCOUTS SALARIES 9 MEMBERS x 6 MONTHS x $8 800.00 $475 200.00 GAME SCOUTS PATROL ALLOWANCES 3 MEMBERS x 4 DAYS / MONTH x $500.00 $36 000.00 x 6 MONTHS OTHER GUARDS SALARIES 13 MEMBERS x 6 MONTHS x $8 800.00 $686 400.00 GRINDING MILL & TRACTOR MANAGERS SALARIES 2 MEMBERS x 1 MONTH x $10 000.00 $20 000.00 TRACTOR DRIVER SALARIES 1 MEMBER x 1 MONTH x $9 000.00 $9 000.00 MEDIUMS ALLOWANCES 4 MEMBERS x 6 MONTHS x $3 000.00 $72 000.00

CASE STUDIES ON SOUTHERN AFRICAN NRM INITIATIVES 79

ASSISTANCE DRIVERS SALARIES 2 MEMBERS x 1 MONTH x $8 800.00 $17 600.00 PRE-SCHOOL TEACHERS SALARIES 2 MEMBERS x 4 MONTHS x $5 000.00 $40 000.00 G/MILL OPERATOR SALARIES 1 MEMBER x 1 MONTH x $9 000.00 $9 000.00 PREVIOUS PAYMENTS $200 000.00 $200 000.00 UNIFORMS TO BE BOUGHT MACHIRA EMUDZIMU 16m x $ 1 000.00 $16 000. 00 4 DUST COATS FOR MUTAPES 4 MEMBERS x $4 000.00 $16 000.00 HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT $20 000.00 NEW PROJECTS 1) DROUGHT RELIEF PROGRAMME a) MAIZE SEEDS SCHEME $1 000 000.00 $1 000 000.00 b) TILLAGE $1 000 000.00 $1 000 000.00 2) TURNERY $500 000.00 $500 000.00 3) MURURUZI BRIDGE CONSTRUCTION $500 000.00 $500 000.00 P A C $1 000 000.00 $1 000 000.00

CAPITAL PROJECT 1) SECONDARY SCHOOL = Z$ 7,888,000.00 2) PRIMARY SCHOOL = Z$ 2,150,000.00 3) TRACTORS = Z$ 2,970,000.00 4) GRINDING MILL = Z$ 950,000.00 5) CHARLETS = Z$ 1,200,000.00 6) SOCCER = Z$ 913,000.00 7) NEIGHBOURHOOD WATCH COMMITTEE = Z$ 92,000.00 8) CLINIC = Z$ 1,145,000.00 9) WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT = Z$ 7,882,400.00 GRAND TOTAL = Z$ 25,190,400.00

80 CASE STUDIES ON SOUTHERN AFRICAN NRM INITIATIVES