Save Conservancy – Article in the Herald and a Response
The Herald, 30th August 2012
Isdore Guvamombe Features Editor
In the past two weeks or so, Save Valley Conservancy in Chiredzi, south of Masvingo, has hogged
the limelight for all the wrong reasons, yet when one follows the hullabaloo with a trained ear, many
people involved seem to miss the real points, facts and context. It is critical to start with general
historical facts about wildlife in Zimbabwe before going into the new era that has caused many
heartaches, confusion and tongue lashing, even among Cabinet ministers.
First, Zimbabwe (then Rhodesia) had a wildlife policy that took a turn in 1975, through the National
Parks and Wildlife Act. The 1975 Act took away all the wildlife from the indigenous people and
redistributed it between the State and the white farmers. The white farmers then started having private
wildlife conservancies but were keeping wildlife on behalf of the State, which allocated them hunting
quotas for harvesting.
The Act deprived the majority blacks of wildlife by classifying them as poachers after meat, and
classified whites as conservationists and professional hunters.
This was based on the belief that blacks only needed meat while the whites needed the precious
trophy as in ivory, horns and hides. Blacks protested. Rhodesia then made another proclamation called
the Windfall, which meant that blacks from the communities surrounding the conservancies would
occasionally, get a “windfall” of meat when an elephant was shot and killed during the whiteman’s
professional hunting.
The whites took away the precious ivory and sold it in markets in Europe and Asia for thousands
of dollars while blacks shared the meat. The local chief was given the elephant trunk as a sign of
respect. Compare the pieces of meat given to each family with the US$20 000 hunting price for an
elephant. It should be noted that the majority of Zimbabweans do not generally eat elephant meat but
only taste it when it is available. Elephant meat has never been part of the menu of Africans.
Game meat from buffalo and other large plains game, which has historically been part of the main
relish menu of blacks was turned into biltong for international markets in Europe and Asia and shops
in cities and the blacks were never given that meat.
At independence in 1980 the blacks continued to protest and, in 1982, the new Government of
Zimbabwe tried to solve the issue through the Communal Areas Management Programme for
Indigenous Resources (CAMPFIRE). While this was a good project that brought real benefits to the
black people in terms of sharing of hunting dividends, construction of schools, clinics roads and real
life benefits, it was restricted mainly to Guruve, Gokwe, Hurungwe and Binga where there was State
land teeming with wildlife. The white farmers or private conservancies were not touched.
The Save Valley Conservancy is situated in the south-eastern Lowveld of Zimbabwe and covers
approximately 342 123 square kilometres and was never part of the Rhodesian wildlife conservancy
matrix. Since colonialism, this area was predominantly used for cattle ranching until 1991 when
intermittent droughts and erratic rainfall patterns forced 21 white property owners to abandon cattle
ranching and form the Save Valley Conservancy that has become a sore of Zimbabwe’s wildlife based
land reform programme.
It should be noted that the massive drought served as a catalyst to change overall land use from
cattle ranching to conservation. Setting aside personal agendas, dividing fences and differences of
opinion individual ranchers worked to create an enormous wildlife reserve. There we must give credit
where it is due. It was quite a good job.
The Government approved the plan and even assisted Save Valley Conservancy access a loan
facility to restock the conservancy with wildlife. But operationally the new conservancy adopted the
Rhodesian mentality, dwelling on the Windfall system with slight modifications.
There are times when villagers from the surrounding communities were made to buy elephant meat
for US$1 per kg from Save Valley Conservancy instead of giving them for free. There are times and
many people can testify, when villagers who did not have cash were asked to batter trade with hardearned
sorghum and rapoko (the drought-resistant grain crops villagers managed to harvest in that
drought prone area).
It is important at this stage to note that out of the 21 properties that today form the Save Valley
Conservancy, only one – Sango Ranch – owned by Wilfried Pabst is protected under BIPPA, through
the German government. To date, this property has not been allocated to any indigenous person yet its
owner is in the forefront of demonising the whole process. This is fact not fiction.
At the dawn of the Land Reform Programme, all land in Zimbabwe ceased to belong to individuals
and reverted to the State. Remember all the wild animals are still State property and National Parks and
Wildlife Management Authority only gives one permission.
After the formation of Save Valley Conservancy, the area became an island surrounded by a sea of
poverty, thus maintaining the Rhodesian scenario. It became isolated, secluded and a no-go area for
blacks to the extent that no one from villagers to journalists and Government officials would easily get
access to it and its happenings.
Several airstrips became dotted where private jets landed and did business without national security
scrutiny. There has always been suspicion of underhand dealings and the latest refusal to allow black
players to partner with the former owners further strengthens this suspicion.
It must be interesting to note that Save Valley Conservancy is not the only one affected by the land
reform programme. There is Bubi and Bubiana in Matabeleland South, there is Gwayi in Matabeleland
North and there is Sebakwe in Midlands, among others yet the noise is coming from Save Valley only.
The reason is simple, being the largest European island in Africa, Save Valley Conservancy was the
capital of the last vestige of hard core Rhodesians and is using the German BIPPA to leverage
resistance.
What the Save Valley Conservancy has done is to use the hosting of forthcoming United Nations
World Tourism Organisation 2013 General Assembly to hold the nation’s wildlife-based land reform
programme at ransom.
Since the wildlife-based land reform programme was promulgated in 2006 and the 25-year leases
given to the indigenes in 2007, there has been fierce resistance by the former white owners so much that
without resistance from them, this country would be past that phase.
Until two weeks ago, National Parks and Wildlife Management Authority has been withholding,
since 2007, hunting permits, demanding that there be order between the political leadership in
Masvingo, the new farmers and the old farmers. The reason was simple: Parks did not want to be part
of the selection criteria and also the brewing conflicts. If anything the new lease holders have been too
patient to remain on the sidelines with papers in their hands instead of moving in to do business.
When the wildlife-based land reform policy was adopted in 2006 the issue of the hosting of the
UNWTO was nowhere in the picture and when the leases were subsequently allocated in 2007, the
hosting of the UNWTO General Assembly was still not even thought of.
To link the two is therefore political mischief on the part of the former white owners who are not
being evicted but are being told to co-exist with new players.
The adverts being flighted in newspapers about emaciated blacks, whose ribs one can count but
trying to take over Save Valley and destroying wildlife are ironic and racist. They are typical of the
Rhodesian propaganda scare tactics and should be condemned with the contempt they deserve.
Then comes the issue of the beneficiaries. It is fact not fiction that some of the beneficiaries own
land elsewhere and that cannot escape scrutiny. But the selection of beneficiaries was done by the
Chiredzi District land committee and endorsed by the Masvingo provincial land committee. If there
is a problem with the criteria then that is Masvingo’s problem. But on further investigation the 25-year
leases have no guarantee of being extended and therefore one might need another piece of land as a fallback
position.
Early this year National Parks and Wildlife Management Authority refused to renew 10-year-leases
that had expired and those were for some of the most senior service chiefs, among other senior citizens.
So that example means one would need somewhere to fall back on. This is unlike the 99-year leases
for the other land reform component.
By and large, the new beneficiaries have to really invest in cash into conservancies because in order
to harvest the wildlife, one needs to employ a professional hunter, erect hunting camps, drill artificial
water holes and market their quota.
The issue at Save Valley Conservancy is that of the last resistance to indigenisation of the wildlife
sector, forever, the preserve of whites in Rhodesia and the first two decades of Zimbabwe.
When the dust eventually settles, the former white farmers will have to come to terms with the
reality that Save Valley Conservancy cannot remain an island in Zimbabwe, feeding the pockets of one
race.
____________
Feedback: [email protected]
—————————————–
Response to an article which appeared in The Herald newspaper in Zimbabwe
on 30th July 2012 written by the Features Editor, Isadore Guvamombe
This article is a racial diatribe calculated to foment division between
blacks and whites in Zimbabwe. Guvamombe, whilst claiming to present the
‘historical facts’ relating to wildlife in Zimbabwe, presents a narrative which
is ignorant of the facts, perverts the facts and creates facts which never
existed. The author is a stranger to the truth.
Guvamombe’s rant does, however, throw into stark contrast two totally
different approaches to wildlife in Zimbabwe. These approaches have
nothing to do with race and there are white and black supporters of both
approaches.
For one group, the cornerstone of Zimbabwe wildlife policy is the simple
principle that by creating Appropriate Authorities in legislation, wildlife will
be managed and protected by the persons who occupy land – be it private
land, communal land or parks. This empowerment creates the incentive to
husband the resource and to use it sustainably as a high-valued land use.
Conservation is not necessarily the driver of the process but it turns out to be
the consequence of this approach.
The other group, epitomised by Guvamombe’s interpretation of wildlife
issues, see wildlife as a resource owned by the State to which access will be
parcelled out by Government. The fact that this is inconsistent with the
provisions of the law escapes them. It opens the door for a political élite to
capture the resource but it does nothing to encourage long term investment in
wildlife or its sustainable use. It is an approach which has failed in every
African country which espouses it.
Guvamombe does not understand the principle of self-determination
which has underpinned Zimbabwean policy and wildlife legislation. His
vision of the world is one where Government (or the Party) is responsible for
all access to wildlife and all the benefits take the form of largesse delivered
under political patronage to a constituency.
1. Bond, I. & Cumming, D. H. M. (2006). Wildlife research and development.Pages 465-496, In:
Rukuni M, P. Tawonezi, C. Eicher, M. Munyuki-Hungwe & P. Matondi, (eds) (2006) Zimbabwe’s
agricultural revolution revisited. University of Zimbabwe Publications, Harare. 728pp.
The history of wildlife in Zimbabwe is one of which every Zimbabwean,
black or white, can be proud. Zimbabwe has led the way in southern Africa
by adopting liberal and far-sighted policies, and giving effect to these policies
through enlightened legislation and innovative institutional reforms that have
enabled all Zimbabweans to benefit from wildlife as a land use without racial
discrimination. It is an insult to those pioneering Ministers such as Victoria
Chitepo and Herbert Murerwa to cast their efforts in such a poor light as
Guvamombe has done.
Once upon a time … not so long ago … Zimbabwe enjoyed a respected
status in international treaties such as CITES and the CBD based on its
performance in the realm of wildlife conservation and sustainable
development. As a result of outpourings from a few individuals such as
Guvamombe, that status is now in jeopardy.
But international status is not the key issue. All of Africa is reaching a
tipping point where the available natural resources are unable to support the
human populations attempting to live off them. As a higher valued land use,
wildlife development offers an escape from this poverty trap. Sadly, it is
through articles such as this that the opportunities for improved human
livelihoods will be foreclosed.
_________________
Rowan B. Martin (Independent Wildlife Consultant)
Notes
1. The author is at the moment preparing a more detailed review of
Guvamombe’s article which should be available in a few days.
2. Bond & Cumming (2006) give an unbiased review of the history of
wildlife development in Zimbabwe.1