Community-Based Payment for Ecosystem Services and Wildlife Conservation: Lessons from Zimbabwe
Abstract:
Community-Based Payment for Ecosystem Services (CB-PES) has emerged as a critical mechanism for addressing the dual challenges of biodiversity conservation and rural livelihood improvement in developing countries. In Zimbabwe, where wildlife resources outside protected areas are under increasing pressure from population growth, land-use change and economic instability thus innovative financing models are urgently required. This essay provides an in-depth and extended analysis of Community-Based Payment for Ecosystem Services (CB-PES) in Zimbabwe, drawing extensively from the CAMPFIRE (Communal Areas Management Program for Indigenous Resources) initiative and newer PES models such as carbon markets and biodiversity offsets. Using a qualitative review of literature, policy documents and case studies it gives authority to the paper in terms of evaluation of institutional arrangements, community participation, benefit-sharing mechanisms, governance challenges, and long-term sustainability prospects. Particular emphasis is placed on policy implications and future directions for CB-PES in Zimbabwe. The analysis demonstrates that while CB-PES has significant potential to support wildlife conservation and community development, its success depends on strong governance, diversified revenue streams, secure community rights and integration into national development strategies.References:
[1]. Murphree
MW. The CAMPFIRE program in Zimbabwe: payment for wildlife services. J Environ
Manage. 2009;90(2):362–370.
[2]. Frost PGH,
Bond I. The CAMPFIRE programme in Zimbabwe: payments for wildlife services.
Ecol Econ. 2008;65(4):776–787.
[3]. Wunder S.
Revisiting the concept of payments for environmental services. Ecol Econ.
2015;117:234–243.
[4]. Mapedza E.
Community-based natural resource management in Zimbabwe: lessons and
challenges. Afr J Ecol. 2019;57(3):451–462.
[5]. Bond I.
Market-based conservation in Southern Africa: emerging trends. Conserv Sci
Pract. 2019;1(8):45–56.
[6]. Wunder S.
Payments for environmental services: some nuts and bolts. Bogor: CIFOR; 2005.
[7]. Muradian
R, et al. Reconciling theory and practice: an alternative conceptual framework
for understanding payments for environmental services. Ecol Econ. 2010.
[8]. Fabricius
C, Koch E. Rights, resources and rural development: community-based natural
resource management in Southern Africa. London: Earthscan; 2004.
[9]. Jones B.
The evolution of community-based natural resource management in Africa. 2001.
[10]. CAMPFIRE
Association. The state of community conservation in Zimbabwe: a review of the
CAMPFIRE program, 2016–2023. 2025.
[11]. Frost PGH,
Bond I. CAMPFIRE and payments for environmental services. London: IIED; 2006.
[12]. Murombedzi
J. Devolution and CBNRM in Zimbabwe. 1999.
[13]. Bond I.
Payments for ecosystem services in Zimbabwe: prospects and challenges. 2009.
[14]. Blignaut
J, et al. Establishing PES in Southern Africa: lessons from case studies. 2013.
[15]. Matose F.
Institutional challenges in PES implementation in Zimbabwe. 2014.
[16]. Child B.
Evolution and innovation in wildlife conservation: parks and game ranches to
trans-frontier conservation areas. 2009.
[17]. Lindsey
PA, et al. Trophy hunting and conservation in Africa: problems and
opportunities. 2007.
[18]. Balint PJ,
Mashinya J. CAMPFIRE during Zimbabwe’s crisis. 2006.
[19]. KAZA
Secretariat. Kavango-Zambezi Trans-Frontier Conservation Area strategy. 2020.
[20]. Cumming
DHM. Conservation in Southern Africa: challenges and opportunities. Afr J Ecol.
2008;46(1):1–5.
[21]. Taylor RD.
Community-based natural resource management in Zimbabwe: the experience of
CAMPFIRE. Biodivers Conserv. 2009;18(12):2563–2583.
[22]. Hutton J,
Adams WM, Murombedzi JC. Back to the barriers? Changing narratives in
biodiversity conservation. World Dev. 2005;28(4):707–725.
[23]. Ferraro
PJ, Kiss A. Direct payments to conserve biodiversity. Science.
2002;298(5599):1718–1719.
[24]. Scherr SJ,
White A, Kaimowitz D. A new agenda for forest conservation and poverty
reduction: making markets work for low-income producers. Washington, DC: Forest
Trends; 2004.
[25]. McDermott M, Mahanty S, Schreckenberg K. Examining equity: a multidimensional framework for assessing equity in payments for ecosystem services. Environ Sci Policy. 2013;33:416–427.
