THE US government recently sent a group of five congressmen to Zimbabwe under the guise of a wildlife conservation fact-finding tour.
Ironically, this is the same government that has been funding the Communal Areas Management for Indigenous Resources (CAMPFIRE) for over two decades.
According to the Americans, the success of wildlife enterprises on private lands was naively assumed by advocates of the CAMPFIRE to make wildlife a more viable form of land-use than livestock or subsistence agriculture.
However, studies conducted in communal areas on the comparative socio-economic value of wildlife versus subsistence agriculture or livestock to rural communities have shown that the latter is the most preferred form of land-use in achieving household food security.
Cattle have a high value in rural areas, especially for their draught power, provision of manure, transport, milk, meat and hide.
Cattle also contribute to household investment and savings.
Wildlife conservation, as a land-use, will only result in sustainable rural development if the CAMPFIRE programme is economically, ecologically and socially viable.
But so far, no CAMPFIRE district has demonstrated that the programme is viable.
The lack of ownership of wildlife, the unreliable nature of household wildlife dividends and the exclusive and financially focused nature of wildlife schemes under CAMPFIRE such as trophy hunting has failed to convince rural communities that wildlife should replace agro-pastoral income-generating activities.
Little attention has been paid to the accountability of the implementing agencies on their use of donor funds and in fulfilling their mandate to rural communities.
An interesting study of non-governmental organisations (NGOs) involved in rural development in Zimbabwe revealed that projects undertaken by most of these organisations in the so-called CAMPFIRE areas still suffer from high failure rates, as they fail to reach the intended beneficiaries, although they claim to do so in project documents to donors.
The NGOs have also failed to advocate changes in policies and legislation which could lead to more equitable allocation of resources to the poor.
The CAMPFIRE implementing agencies received funding because of their claims to be assisting the poorest of the poor, especially in rural areas.
Subsequently, they placed themselves between the donor organisation and the intended beneficiaries.
So, there is really nothing the American congressmen can teach us on wildlife conservation in the wake of the above scenarios.
This is why President Robert Mugabe was ‘surprised’ by the visit.
Interestingly, the congressmen must have taken with them a piece or two of our wooden artefacts at the roadside, carved by our able craftsmen.
They take these as souvenirs and one wonders why they have not focused attention on the rampant destruction of our forests which is being fuelled by their insatiable appetite for Zimbabwean curios, another form of colonising our artefacts.
One would expect a delegation to come and discourage the felling of centuries-old mukwa and mahogany trees in state forests, but nothing of this sort ever happened, instead attention has been focused on our wildlife resources.
The Forestry Commission, working with the police, have been swooping on curios vendors and confisticating the wares in a campaign aimed at conserving indigenous hardwoods mainly used in carving artefacts.
Most of the artefacts are impounded along the Victoria Falls and Binga roads.
Authorities say the move will save forests since vendors were wantonly cutting down indigenous trees, some which take ages to grow.
The Forestry Commission is also empowered by a Statutory Instrument 112/2009 that prohibits the exporting of unfinished wood products from indigenous trees.
If wood carvers continue to use certain species of red mahogany trees for the curios, the trees will be wiped out within the next five years, environmentalists predict.
Several species of hardwood trees in the forests surrounding Zimbabwe’s western border town of Victoria Falls are threatened with extinction due to excessive curio-carving to supply a booming market in Western countries.
Cross-border traders who used to carry crotchet work such as bed covers, tablecloths and food covers to South Africa are now taking carvings which, they say, sell better and have a ready market.
To make their curios, the wood-carvers select red mahogany trees such as Afzello-Quancesnsis and the Pretro-carpus, which environmentalists predict will be wiped out by year 2018 if the wanton cutting is not controlled.
Although the carvers agree that some trees could become extinct, they say they are driven into carving by poverty and unemployment.
In June, it was reported that some hardwood trees favoured by carvers in the resort town of Hwange had been wiped out and the carvers had turned to other species.
In Lupane, the effects of excessive tree-felling are already being felt.
The Southern Alliance for Indigenous Resources (SAFIRE) and Environment Africa, both NGOs that deal with the conservation of local resources, have been trying for a long time to warn carvers about the environmental problems caused by their activities (carvers), but in vain.
The organisations encourage villagers to plant mahogany and other indigenous trees that have seeds.
However, they know the trees take a long time to grow.
Meanwhile, our artefacts continue to decorate offices in Western capitals at the exploitation of our resources and environment.