adminThe present human and animal conflicts partly emanate from the fact that since the onset of colonialism, traditional wildlife management systems were rapidly replaced by European models which acknowledged little need for existing indigenous knowledge and practices.
Before colonialists came, the dependence of many African communities on wild life and plant resources, based upon collective access, allowed for the evolution of resource management systems. Access to resources such as wildlife and forests for food, medicine and cultural purposes, among other uses were controlled by local institutions and involved complex sharing and rotational schemes, bound by tribal laws and knowledge.
It was the nature of this “access” to natural resources which formed the basis of unique socio-economic, cultural and political structures upon which the survival and propagation of communities depended.
Zimbabwe’s wildlife policy long dominated by the minority, mainly whites and white-run institutions is still disadvantaging indigenous Zimbabweans who lose their land and right of access to forests for honey, firewood and medicinal herbs.
The BaTonga, for instance whose close- knit community was split up with the creation of Lake Kariba in the 1950s were evicted to the arid areas of the Nyaminyami, Binga and Gokwe districts, losing access to the fertile region of the Zambezi where fishing and cultivation had previously ensured their household food security.
Now because wildlife has been alienated from them through laws, villagers have no claim to ownership of wildlife and they regard animals as vermin that kills their livestock or raid their crops. Some have resorted to snaring and spearing the animals resulting in the dangerous confrontation that have killed more than 50 people over the past two years in wildlife infested communities around the country, according to Campfire.
The conflicts are high during the cropping and dry seasons when people guard their crops or go to the rivers for fishing and later get attacked by elephants and buffaloes in their fields while crocodiles and hippos also lay ambush on the rivers.
The costs of these raids are not restricted to the loss of food. In some districts, children stay home to guard crops instead of going to school. This impacts on their education and future employment prospects.
Adults have been susceptible to stress caused by anticipating nocturnal raiders and the ghastly consequences that arise when the game devours their crops. In the results, people have turned their hostility towards those they believe are responsible–not the animals, but the conservation and safari operators.
The Shangaan people who originally inhabited the Gonarezhou National Park along with the Chitsa community in the Great Limpopo Transfrontier Park area are in constant conflict with private safari operators and Zimbabwe Parks and Wildlife Management Authority. This has not only resulted in poaching activities but fierce clashes between humans and animals.
Wild animals tend to peg territories or follow certain migratory routes for a number of years, so if their space is invaded they have no choice but get confrontational in order to regain or defend the invaded territories. They even fight among themselves.
Conservationists also observed that successive droughts over the years also left the animal’s watering points dry; hence the animals roam out of the parks to adjoining villages in search for water.
Western perceptions of wildlife did not recognise the alienation and marginalisation of the indigenous people populations at whose expense enjoyment was provided.
The Government needs to modify the wildlife- based land reform programme, the existing wildlife and natural resource policies to ensure equitable access to rural communities living with these resources.
A closer look at the land manipulation strategies employed by private commercial wildlife farmers and land owners to retain their large tracts of land by converting them from agro-pastoral to wildlife enterprises reveals the enormous implications this move has had on land reform and wildlife policies.
Zimparks is still to carry out an audit on the farms that have not changed hands since the land redistribution exercise started in 2000. According to the latest Environment Outlook Report, a combined area of about 300 000 hectares is still under the ownership of a few conservancies.
These include Save Conservancy, Midlands Conservancy (Kwekwe), Bubiana Conservancy (West Nicholson), Malilangwe Ranch (Gonarezhou), Halgen Ranch (Turk Mine,) Bubi Ranch (Bubi), Bally Vaughn Game Ranch (Shamva), Antelope Park (Gweru), Imire (Marondera), Johnsls (Tsholostho), Mbizi (Harare) and Rosslyn Ranch in Beitbridge.
Conservationists have warned that the challenge facing these tourism ventures is not only to reconcile wildlife conservation policies with the needs and aspirations of communities, but link their economic and social development to conservation and protecting them from wild animals.
These communities need to be accorded the same rights as those of private wildlife land owners. They are still not allowed to hunt wildlife for subsistence or for traditional ceremonies.
The private land owners, on the other hand, can directly utilise and fully benefit from wildlife resources on their land, indicating the prevalence of prevalence of discriminatory colonial inspired laws.
The present wildlife policy systematically subjugates the indigenous people of their natural resources, and this has resulted in a number of problems in the area of wildlife management.
Antagonism between local communities and wildlife grew, particularly in those communities previously evicted from national parks and other wildlife farms.
Prohibited from hunting for subsistence, they were forced to cultivate on poor soils. There are no provisions for compensation for the destruction of crops or physical injuries inflicted by wildlife in the current wildlife policy.
Communities complain that in the few cases when they receive compensation, it never amounts to the value of the crops or family members that were lost or injured. They feel the money given is not for compensation but simply to apologise to the affected person.
While the guiding philosophy of the Campfire is one of “sustainable rural development that enables rural communities to manage, and benefit directly from indigenous wildlife” this claims is challenged by existing wildlife laws which still do not permit rural communities in the communal areas to utilise wildlife resources for their own social, economic or cultural purposes.
No community tolerates threats to its welfare by dangerous animals that are of no value to them.
Online Reporter