IN my previous articles I dwelt much on the utilisation of wildlife products by Zimbabwean rural communities and the role foreign sponsored programmes like the Communal Management Programme for Indigenous Resources (CAMPFIRE) were fronted to exploit vulnerable rural Zimbabwean communities.
In concluding this series I would like to dwell on the role the United States Agency for International Development (USAID)’s policy for assisting lesser developed countries and its role as the major donor of the CAMPFIRE programme.
In essence, the policy is just a replication of our own Zimbabwe Agenda for Sustainable Socio-Economic Transformation (Zim-ASSET) which encourages the need for indigenous Zimbabweans to benefit from their own natural, wildlife and mineral resources.
This economic blueprint by far supersedes the USAID policy which seeks to exploit Zimbabwe’s natural and wildlife resources in rural areas.
The USAID policy to assist less developed countries by the United States government is best described as, “Foreign aid addresses fundamental threats to American security in the post Cold War era, marked by the breakdown of international order, mass migrations, and the failure of nations by fostering an enabling environment for free markets and increasing the economic capacity of developing nations, foreign aid creates markets abroad for US goods and ensure the economic well being of the United States into the next century.”
In this context, it is clear that most programmes spearheaded by the USAID should have economic benefits for the US government, in the case of funding CAMPFIRE the US government amassed wildlife wealth through the illegal exportation, hunting and harvesting of wildlife resources under the guise of conservation.
Rural communities in which these programmes were being or are being implemented remain poorer and are still bearing the brunt of confronting dangerous wild animals while the foreign hunter smiles all the way to their foreign banks.
In one of its Development Fund for Africa, Fiscal Year reports, USAID has stated that, United States strategy for providing aid to Zimbabwe supports, “structural adjustment,” and acknowledges that, “access to economic resources and economic empowerment has been disproportionally vested in that minority population (of European descent).”
To Americans, aid implies humanitarian relief, transfer of resources from a wealthier nation to one less fortunate particularly food, education and health.
They support programmes which result in self determination, attempting to stop the spiral of poverty, war and famine that has rocked the African continent for decades now.
Critics of USAID’s policies believe that in the last three decades, USAID has taken on an open political role, directly dictating policy to recipient governments, furthermore, throughout the 1980s pressures for privatisation of industry increased taxation to pay the foreign debt, for the devaluation of the currency to increase production of export crops and to facilitate population control were applied so strenuously that self-government in most of the developing countries virtually ceased to exist.
The USAID policies closely reflect those of the Economic Structural Adjustment Programme (ESAP) particularly in the encouraging of an export oriented market, increasing foreign exchange earnings, and privatisation of natural resources (wildlife in case of CAMPFIRE).
These elements have been central to the wildlife policies that direct CAMPFIRE and private land use patterns.
An example of this was found in a USAID document on CAMPFIRE where one criterion asks if assistance to the programme will help in the flow of international trade or strengthen free labour unions.
The response by programme implementers to this request was, “This assistance will increase the export of wildlife products, tourism in Zimbabwe, the private development wildlife and the growth of communal organisations.”
It is, however, interesting to note that the first response that assistance from the US will increase the ‘export of wildlife products’ was the catch word and probably got the United States funding the CAMPFIRE programme.
The private wildlife sector – the largest scale commercial farmers, ranchers, and safari operators engaged in wildlife enterprises control the wildlife export and tourism sector. The CAMPFIRE programme has simply opened the way for them to maximise their profits from wildlife exploitation in the communal areas.
In essence, USAID’s funding of CAMPFIRE has bolstered the economic and political power of minority whites in Zimbabwe.
Despite this, and the contravention of funding requirements particularly on the human rights violations, participation of women and the use of funds for lobbying the US government, USAID continues to fund CAMPFIRE programme implementers. Most importantly, USAID has done little to ensure that the programme assists rural communities in their call for equitable land distribution and access to natural resources.
Instead, USAID funding policies have only served to strengthen the economic status of the minority white population, directly contracting its own goals of poverty alleviation and sustained growth in rural Zimbabwe.
The US federal government has invested resources in CAMPFIRE, principally through USAID. By late 1997, US$7 million had been donated to the programme.
This support created controversy in US politics. The CAMPFIRE leadership lobbied in favour of the legalisation of the sustainable consumptive use of endangered species as a strategy to increase the value of their remaining populations.
This position clashed with the majority preservationist, anti-hunting public sentiment in the US and national and international law, in particular Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES).
While several community-based, community-directed programmes in Zimbabwe are operating successfully, none has received as much publicity and acclaim as CAMPFIRE.
Backed by at least US$33 million for a 10-year period from 1989 to1999 and beyond in funds allocated from the United States, European Union, United Kingdom, Norway, Netherlands, Germany and Japan, and labelled as the most ‘successful community-based programme in Africa’, CAMPFIRE has attempted to influence wildlife policy not only in Zimbabwe, but in other African countries as well.
The programme, however, has also been the subject of much controversy.
This has been mainly due to the amount of US taxpayers’ money spent on the programme, and the political lobbying efforts expended by groups representing CAMPFIRE to reopen international trade in ivory and to promote international acceptance for trophy hunting.
As Zimbabwe implements Zim-ASSET which is largely focused on the beneficiation of natural, wildlife and mineral resources, organisations such as CAMPFIRE and Zimbabwe Trust are developing new strategies to lure USAID to rural areas to do exactly the same thing that the blueprint strives to do.
Projects in wild fruits harvesting, honey farming and community tourism are sprouting up in the same remote areas, but lest we forget these are the same programmes that are in different shoes, out to exploit our communities.
The implementation of Zim-ASSET can be the only salvation to these communities to benefit from their resources.