Conservancies: Islands of colonial land tenure

By Tichaona Zindoga

From The Herald
October 6, 2010

SOMEONE once said that an unimplemented plan is as good — or bad — as no plan at all.

If this does not sound a little ruthless or uncompromising, it surely is one philosophy that helps eliminate some absurdities of life that have tended to dog societies and governments.

It is not unusual to hear of some "brilliant" plans and blueprints that are "gathering dust" in some Government office or another, or those that have been implemented somewhere else with success.

And as fate would have it, the problems that these supposed "brilliant" pieces of work should address lie festering, all too ready for a sick implosion.

Participants at a recent workshop on the Wildlife-based Land Reform Policy, which Government adopted in 2000 as part of the wider historic land reform programme were mortified when the Director General of the National Parks and Wildlife Management Authority revealed that the reform had failed to take off.

Parks, under the Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources Management, is tasked with implementing the policy of wildlife-based land reform.

It will be interesting to put into context Director General Vitalis Chadenga’s shocking revelation.

He had begun with spelling out the background against which wildlife-based land reform lay, noting that the land reform programme in 2000 tended to concentrate on resettlement biased on crop and livestock production at the expense of wildlife production.

Under the programme, conservancies could not be allocated for resettlement purposes, elongating wildlife production as a preserve of a white minority.

Noting that wildlife represented "a viable land use option", Chadenga said that the policy on wildlife-based land reform sought to address this imbalance and ensure access by the majority to the wildlife resource.

With wildlife-based land reform, all land under conservancies and game ranches shall cease to be an exclusive right of the few, declares the policy, as those owning conservancies and ranches shall be required to surrender portions of the same to accommodate indigenous Zimbabweans

Chadenga then outlined "indigenisation options" in which ownership of conservancies and game ranches must change to reflect objectives of the land reform programme.

The three options are current (white) farmers teaming up with Parks and communities, current farmers teaming with communities and current farmers teaming with communities and private indigenous investors.

Then he dropped the bombshell: none of the above had been operationalised.

Among the problems was resistance by white farmers to accept the dispensation of wildlife-based land reform.

They also snubbed new players, thus refusing to cede land acquired and offered to 25-year leaseholders.

On the other hand, the Ministry had been issuing 25-year leases to persons that do not meet the criteria of demonstrable interest and experience in wildlife conservation, capacity for business and development, and ability to contribute to asset base.

Illegal settlements in conservancies had compounded the problem.

Overally, the implementation of the policy had been "poor and uncoordinated" as, besides Parks’ own limitations and omissions and commissions, Lands and Resettlement ministry had put for cropping land that was for wildlife production.

If it is to be owned that implementation of plans has been the bane of many plans and projects, the situation here is as outrageous. The Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources Management says there are 2 million hectares that are earmarked for wildlife-based land reform, of which none has been touched, apparently.

There are seven wildlife conservancies in Masvingo, Midlands and Matabeleland provinces.

These are Gwayi, Chiredzi, Midlands, Bubi, Bubiana, Malilangwe, and Save.

Chadenga revealed that only thirty 25-year leases, have been issued thus far, and that means with warts and all.

If the problem lies with unrepentant rogue elements that resist change from a skewed colonial ownership structure depriving indigenous peoples of their rightful place in the sun, then the law must take its course.

At any rate, some of them have been noted for their most racist of actions rendering their properties some "Little Rhodesias" and "Little Englands" beyond the reach and unaffected by politics of majority blacks.

It implies that if they are not comfortable with sharing the resource that they have long enjoyed exclusive "right" to, a "right" that came into being through a wrong called colonialism, they should be vehemently be called to part with the same.

In this case, the recently enacted law of Indigenisation, which requires that indigenous peoples take up 51 percent stake in any business venture, becomes handy.

No longer should sharing be a matter of choice but necessity and political and historical correctness.

It will be cruel to have a throwback to an earlier era of exclusive ownership of resources just when the country is beginning to reap rewards of the land reform programme characterised by surging growth.

Before land reform in 2000, the skewed land tenure meant that one percent of Zimbabwe’s population controlled 45 percent of all agricultural land, condemning the majority to arid and unproductive land.

If properly executed, wildlife-based land reform will be able to produce a success story of its own.

Yet there will always be problems that pertain to wildlife production as a business, and a delicate one for that matter.

It will only be prudent that persons that meet the ideal criteria that have been made be able to access land for wildlife.

In this regard, time is arguably not a factor, as rash issuance of leases to those that cannot deploy usefulness in the sector can only spell doom for the programme.

There is need for support for those who meet the minimum requirements to commence business, as in the case with seed animals, which the ministry says it can provide, and other relevant implements.

The problem that some people have settled themselves in conservancies, a reference mainly to the Chitsa clan, which has claimed parts of the Save conservancy, could be addressed amicably in the context of community participation.

Instead of being viewed as a problem, locals and communities represent legitimate entitlement to a resource they historically have been deprived of, and one which they understand, too.

It is only too racist and demeaning to view them as poachers and potential poachers and spoilers.

It has to be admitted that it is their continued marginalisation and criminalisation that might in fact lead to frustration and destruction.

Yet the success of community-based conservation projects over the years, in the mould of the Communal Areas Management Programme for Indigenous Resources suggests communities are as good guardians of their environment as they are businesspeople in their own right.

As the policy suggests, share transfer to the likes of Chitsa clan represents not only an amicable solution but also a historically just and prudent initiative.

To be fair, especially to the poor folk at Parks who are tasked with the big challenge of moving reform in the sector, more time, consultations and resources are needed.

The fact that wildlife-based land reform is not a spatial or isolated event but a national, historical, economic and social one tends to dwarf the authority.

In which case it can be suggested that reform in the wildlife sector be treated with more seriousness, robustness and delicateness it deserves.

The juxtaposition of the wildlife-based land reform and the agrarian reform is also a telling one.

As it is well-known that the latter encountered some challenges in implementation, it is imperative that the former be trained to avoid the same pitfalls.

It will be illogical and tragic for the implementers of the programme to have seen or learnt anything.

Yet it should be realised that where we can afford to grow grass and let lie our pieces of land somewhere for use tomorrow or the day after, wildlife resources face acute danger of extermination and ill use.

No resource is expendable and the sooner and more resolute the programme of wildlife-based land reform is carried out the better.

tichaona.zindoga@gmail.com

To my knowlege the Gwayi is long gone.

For Zim, this is not the beginning of the end, or the end of the beginning. This is the end of the end.

These conservancies are the Noah's ark of Zimbabwe. Once they are gone, the country's wildlife heritage will have been irreversibly devoured and the habitat irrevocably razed.

"Land reform" and "wildlife" are a contradiction in terms.

This same ideology will be copied by South Africa. "Poacher is a racist term" etc etc. That country is still at the beginning of the end.

Many sins have been committed behind a smoke screen of racial rhetoric, and many more remain to be committed. The formula works.

quote:

Many sins have been committed behind a smoke screen of racial rhetoric, and many more remain to be committed. The formula works.

Has been and will continue to go on in the US as well.

What Russ said is spot on. This is nothing more than a continuation to overtake all white owned land..by hook, crook or force. I've been in many Zim areas that were taken over, only to see little or NO wildlife...none! These conservancies are some of Zim's last hope to salvage their wildlife, but once they become taken over or "partnered" they are doomed..period!

Anyone for a racial slur or two ? Blacks CANNOT run that, or any African country without full bore corruption, tribal bias, and lazy, greedy and shortsighted thinking on every possible issue.
To hell with this idiot .

I really hate to agree with Dave's comments; however, after living on St. Thomas for almost 20 yrs, I have come to the conclusion that absent a document called the U.S. Constitution, this place would be another tin-pot dictatorship right along with most African countries

I make a big part of my living there, and I HATE TO HAVE TO SAY IT TOO !! But the truth is there , literally in black and white. The whites build, grow and prosper. The blacks steal, cheat, bully, lie and corrupt. It is institutional tribalism and "steal while you can" mentality that will NEVER go away. Dress him up all you want, but the African politician is a thug at worst, and a self serving sloth at his very best. South Africa is next boys, and it it is coming sooner than later.
They think the white man was an oppressor ? They are going to just love the warm embrace of the Chinese who are going to be running much of the joint soon.

quote:

Originally posted by Dave Fulson:
I make a big part of my living there, and I HATE TO HAVE TO SAY IT TOO !! But the truth is there , literally in black and white. The whites build, grow and prosper. The blacks steal, cheat, bully, lie and corrupt. It is institutional tribalism and "steal while you can" mentality that will NEVER go away. Dress him up all you want, but the African politician is a thug at worst, and a self serving sloth at his very best. South Africa is next boys, and it it is coming sooner than later.
They think the white man was an oppressor ? They are going to just love the warm embrace of the Chinese who are going to be running much of the joint soon.

quote:

Originally posted by Dave Fulson:
Anyone for a racial slur or two ? Blacks CANNOT run that, or any African country without full bore corruption, tribal bias, and lazy, greedy and shortsighted thinking on every possible issue.
To hell with this idiot .

+1

Dave:

I think that the British pulled out of Africa about one century too soon. (As an unreconstructed Irishman, I stll wonder why they gave up India without a shot)

quote:

Originally posted by Gerrypeters375:
Dave:

I think that the British pulled out of Africa about one century too soon. (As an unreconstructed Irishman, I stll wonder why they gave up India without a shot)

It's not that they left too soon. It's that after they left, in a fit of post-colonial guilt, they began dictating to the whites who had made africa thier home how they should live in the colonies that they were abandoning.