Zimbabwe’s Save Valley Conservancy, Indigenisation And ‘The Lie Of The Land — By Takura Zhangazha
September 6, 2012
On the surface of it, it would appear that the political dispute over the
Save Valley Conservancy in South Eastern Zimbabwe is yet another story of
‘illegal land-grabs’. It must however be said at the onset that this is an
understandable perception given the controversy and violence that has come
to be associated with our government’s land reform policies since the year
2000. The fault for such a perception resides with the same said government
and I do not hold a brief to assist it in changing how its policies are
viewed globally or domestically. It is however important that the issue of
the Save Conservancy not be lost in the conundrum of typical debate about
land conflict and/or reform in Zimbabwe. This is because it is more
complicated than what is currently being placed in the public domain.
Evidently, and as has been reported in the media, there are four points of
conflict over and about this safari area. The first being that of the broad
policy of the Zimbabwean government to pursue indigenisation of the national
economy. In this, the government has insisted that all sectors of the
economy must be placed into indigenous ownership. Given the fact that parts
of the conservancy are managed by some local state and private entities in
partnership with foreign nationals, it appears that the Zimbabwe Community
Areas Management Programme for Indigenous Resources (Campfire) is not immune
from indigenisation . In response, the European Union has issued a warning
that it may renew sanctions on Zimbabwe over this matter. This of course is
in keeping with the contemporary narrative of our government’s international
relations and domestic policies.
The second point of conflict over the Save Conservancy has been between the
political parties in the inclusive government. The two MDCs in government
have denounced not only the broader methodology of economic empowerment but
also specifically the takeover of the conservancy through the same policy
and by persons perceived to be functionaries of Zanu Pf.
This also leads us to the third and rather surprising node of conflict
surrounding this matter. This being that of the Zanu Pf intra-party
divisions over the allocation of parts of the conservancy that have
reportedly required the intervention of Vice President Mujuru. The fourth
and perhaps most important point of dispute over the Save Valley Conservancy
has now been reported as coming from traditional chiefs who are arguing that
any redistribution of the land there must not be only for the bigwigs but
must benefit the community.
This claim by the chiefs should however be accepted with caution as it is
not clear whom and whose interests they are representing. Fundamentally
however, all of the four nodes of disagreement have some sort of tentative
acknowledgement that whatever happens, the conservancy must benefit the
‘community’ and this is a point that must be debated honestly.
The general narrative about conservancies has been about preserving wildlife
both for environmental reasons or alternatively touristic and game hunting
profitable endeavors. As akin to our forestry protection policies,which are
largely a carry over of colonial policy, conservancies are protected
particularly from what have been perceived to be the ‘marauding’ locals who
are deemed to have a limited understanding of either the environment or the
wildlife that they live in close proximity with. (Hence some of the
statements from the incumbents at the Save Conservancy that some of those
that wish to take over do not understand a thing about running safaris).
Further still, even those that have been in partnerships or those that
intend to politically take over the conservancy have not shifted in their
approach to the same ‘local community’. As it was in the beginning of the
laying of the boundaries between villages and the wildlife/forestry areas
before independence, so it has remained. This even in the aftermath of the
once much celebrated Campfire which has demonstrated the patent ineptitude
of many a rural district council since its inception in 1989. In effect, all
players in this new environmental/safari tourism cum political contest have
essentially become part players in what is referred to in some academic
circles as the lie of the land ( an unquestioning acceptance of statistical
data from environmental and other NGOs that Africa’s rural poor damage their
own environment). This has been the underlying reason why local communities
are barely in with a chance of benefiting from such projects. This is
especially so when one looks at the example of displacements of people from
Matopos to the Gwaai Shangani forests and their subsequent placement under
another Campfire project in their new locations after independence
(ostensibly to protect the elephants and other wildlife).
In extending its indigenisation programme to conservancies, the government
has not demonstrated a thorough re-examination of its Campfire programmes
thus far and is not necessarily seeking to depart from ‘colonial’ policy
understanding of the interaction between environmental/natural resources and
the country’s citizens. The Save Conservancy debacle is the latest proof of
this. To seek to merely want to replace existing owners of the wildlife
sanctuary and assume that is ‘progress’ is thoroughly inadequate.
Simultaneously to talk of community share ownership trusts without a
thorough re-examination of Campfire’s successes and failures is to give
false hope (if any) to communities in the vicinity of the area.
The primary challenge is now not only about managing the narrative of
investor confidence ahead of the Untied Nations World Tourism Organisation
conference. Instead, it is of the urgent need for the country and government
to depart from the exclusionary policies of the colonial past not by way of
displacement or replacement but by wholesale democratic reform of the manner
in which our natural resources are managed in the best public interest. This
would begin with an evident understanding that what is happening in Save is
a proverbial case of the grass suffering while the elephants fight in order
for things to remain the same.
^ Phrase ‘Lie of the land’ title taken from the title of the book by
Melissa Leach and Robin Mearns, eds. The Lie of the Land: Challenging
Received Wisdom on the African Environment Oxford: James Currey and
Portsmouth, N.H.: Heinemann, 1996.
* Takura Zhangazha writes in his personal capacity.
(takura-zhangazha.blogspot.com)