ZIMBABWE - Destruction of wildlife, the environment and sensitive eco-systems

TARGETED AREAS AND SUITABILITY FOR RESETTLEMENT

The current destruction is made all the more senseless when you realise that ecologically the land is entirely unsuitable for sustainable systems of agriculture, the soils being poor and rainfall low. This is the case for all the afflicted conservancies which were specifically set aside for wildlife nearly 10 years ago after a major drought devastated the region, graphically illustrating the non-viability of the land for any sustaining subsistence or commercial level of farming. All of the conservancies fall into an agro-ecological zone known as 'Region V' which officially classifies an area as unsuitable for sustainable agricultural practices without extensive irrigation. It has been statistically shown that in these areas only one food crop of dry land maize production can be reaped over a period of five years.

Furthermore, over many years farmers in the area have discovered that cattle ranching, is not as commercially viable, or as ecologically sound, as the management and conservation of game for tourism and hunting

One study carried out in the Save Conservancy in 1994 showed that whilst a wildlife operation could expect to yield a gross income of Z$800,480 per annum, a cattle operation on the same property and using the Agritex (The Agricultural, Rural and Extension Department) recommended stocking rate of 1LSU (Livestock per Unit) per 12 hectares (which is actually believed to be too high and results in veld degradation) grosses Z$445,171 per annum. In other words a cattle operation can expect to gross only 56% of the revenues expected from wildlife. If the stocking rate is reduced to a more sustainable figure of 1LSU per 20 hectares, the cattle operation grosses Z$267,103 per annum. Furthermore, from the point of view of the potential for employment creation, the wildlife operation is believed to generate twice that of the cattle operation. (Figures compiled by Price Waterhouse Wildlife, Tourism and Environmental Consulting, 1994).

Since their inception 9 years ago the conservancies have steadily managed to build up their wildlife populations and their industry, encouraging tourists worldwide to come to Zimbabwe. The adjacent communities were also starting to reap the benefits, not just from employment but also from 'Communal Areas Management Programme for Resources' (CAMPFIRE) style projects, and the general spin-offs that come with an area's involvement in the tourist industry. Save Valley Conservancy has been of major benefit to local communities through the formation of a Trust. The Trust purchases animals that then become the property of local communities. Roger Whittal explains, 'They own the wildlife in the conservancy that they've purchased. For example, if we have US$1,000,000 that goes into the trust and the community purchases 1000 buffalo, they own those buffalo and get a 4% levy every year on the trophies that are taken off. So they'd be getting a regular income of at least US$80-100,000 going back into them every year. There's also the spin-offs from all this, Buffalo Range Airport would come into operation, you'd get taxi firms, bus services, hotels, curio stalls, food stalls, grocery stalls in the towns. You could go on and on discussing what the spin-offs are from tourism.'

Looking into the future, the prospects for this area and its people appeared even brighter. Through game corridors, all of these conservancies can be linked to Gonarezhou National Park which is a part of the peace parks scheme to link the wildlife areas of Zimbabwe with the Kruger National Park in South Africa and Coutada 16 in Mozambique. With these developments, south-east Zimbabwe was poised to become one of the project's major beneficiaries. The livelihoods of thousands were on the brink of being turned around.

Clem Coetsee, one of Zimbabwe's greatest conservationists and a current member of the Chiredzi Conservancy says, 'The Peace Parks for Zimbabwe would've been very important. It could've put the conservancies on the world map and helped with getting funding from donors to help with fencing, getting better patrolling and anti-poaching squads. The lowveld would've come alive. It would've also meant a lot more employment for the area.'

In addition to the increased funding and investment the Trans-Frontier Conservation Area (TFCA) could bring to the area, it would mean access to the 2 million tourists presently visiting the northeastern Transvaal. 'Just 5% of those 2 million people - 100,000 visitors - would radically transform the whole tourism industry in southeast Zimbabwe, and thus the regional economy as well.' (Derek de la Harpe of the Malilangwe Trust). In turn, it would actually mean more tourists for all three participating countries, as they are attracted by the concept of the TFCA and the new opportunities it offers for travel between the different nations.

Whittal concludes, 'In the whole of Masvingo Province there's no other development they could do to increase it other than to get the conservancies going and the Peace Parks - that's the only development opportunity they've got, nothing else.'

Considering all these issues it seems highly irrational to ignore the benefits of maintaining the conservancies as wildlife areas, in favour of turning them into a mass of subsistence plots in a marginal, drought-prone zone. This will do no more than achieve the destruction of one of the country's most successful wildlife enterprises and with it the livelihoods of hundreds of employees and their families, and the opportunity for neighbouring communities to have earned a decent living from wildlife and tourism.