Many large farms in Zimbabwe are being divided into smaller areas. This land redistribution is potentially important for supporting smallholder livelihoods. At the same time wildlife ranching is being promoted as a way to earn foreign exchange. Unlike land redistribution, these wildlife ranching schemes require large areas of land.

Both land uses have benefits: dividing farms provides more people with land, whilst wildlife ranching is thought to be better for the environment. Wildlife ranching is not so beneficial to the rural poor, however. Managing the problems caused by these contrasting uses is difficult, but is important for rural development in the region.

Research from the Sustainable Livelihoods in Southern Africa Programme, co-ordinated by the UK-based Institute of Development Studies examines a new approach that attempts to combine wildlife-based development and land reform. Previous developments in the wildlife industry, such as the community-based Campfire scheme, have identified wildlife management as the most suitable land use for south-eastern Zimbabwe. It is argued that dryland agriculture is not feasible, which supports the case for wildlife-based approaches. It is also argued that wildlife management is better for the environment than farming, and generates income from tourists and hunters.

However, this argument underestimates the many benefits of smallholder livestock-based systems. Such arguments are often based on misunderstandings of farming systems, and ignore the importance of farming as a livelihood strategy. In most instances, wildlife management schemes are promoted by the elite groups who benefit most, and ignore the needs of the rural poor.

The research suggests that:

• Wildlife ranching does not combine well with other land uses, particularly those associated with poor local people. Wildlife management schemes usually benefit wealthy elites, particularly where they are associated with large-scale commercial ranches.
• Wildlife promotion has been favoured by white farmers looking to diversify, indigenous elites looking to capitalise on their new land resources, and environmental groups.
• Benefits to the rural poor of large-scale wildlife management schemes are limited, and very few jobs are created by such schemes. Alternatives to wildlife management, such as beef ranching, are also unlikely to benefit smallholders.

Managing different land uses is complicated further by the changing politics in Zimbabwe, which have included land invasions and resettlement schemes. To reduce tensions, attempts are being made to combine wildlife management with land reform, such as in the Save Valley conservancy (a large commercial wildlife scheme) and the Gonarezhou National Park. These projects can increase the involvement of local people in wildlife management. Smallholder-based wildlife schemes potentially offer greater benefits to the poor than existing large-scale systems.  

Land-use policy is a controversial issue throughout southern Africa, and particularly so in Zimbabwe. Land has symbolic importance, is subject to ancestral claims, and it is a key economic resource. It is one resource that poor people can rely upon when other means of subsistence fail. Wildlife management is a similarly controversial issue in Zimbabwe. There are many different groups involved, with very different levels of political support and power. Policymakers need to:

• balance long-term goals, such as increasing earnings from foreign exchange, with the immediate interests of the rural poor
• negotiate between the different groups who are pushing for very different forms of land use
• experiment with programmes that offer more opportunities for poor people to benefit through employment or revenue sharing.

Source(s):
'Wildlife Management and Land Reform in Southeastern Zimbabwe: A Compatible Pairing or a Contradiction in Terms?', IDS Sustainable Livelihoods in Southern Africa Research Paper Number 1. IDS: Brighton, by W. Wolmer, J. Chaumba, and I. Scoones, 2003.
‘Wildlife management and land reform in southeastern Zimbabwe: a compatible pairing or a contradiction in terms?’ Geoforum 35, pp.87-98, W. Wolmer, J. Chaumba and I. Scoones, 2004

Funded by: Department for International Development, UK

id21 Research Highlight: 24 February 2005

Further Information:
William Wolmer,
Institute of Development Studies,
University of Sussex,
Brighton
BN1 9RE
United Kingdom

Tel: +44 (0) 1273 606261
Contact the contributor: w.wolmer@ids.ac.uk

Sustainable Livelihoods in Southern Africa, IDS, UK

Other related links:
'Protecting the environment across borders in southern Africa'

'Buying and selling wildlife conservation in Kenya'

'Resettlement in Central Africa: balancing conservation and people'

'Land rights in Africa: protecting the interests of vulnerable groups'

The Wild Foundation

World Wilderness Congress