Where are you: Home

Policy 2

Peace Parks: International Aspirations vs. Local Agendas
By Bruce Campbell, Bev Sithole, will Cavendish, Peter Frost and Billy Mukamuri

A number of Peace Parks are proposed for Southern Africa. These are international
wildlife areas linking countries. The concept has captured the imagination of
conservationists – e.g. there are dreams to link up the Kruger National Park in
South Africa, Gonarezhou in Zimbabwe and adjacent areas of Mozambique.
While planners may find it easy to draw lines on maps to redefine land-use, local
realities may not be conducive to the establishment of Peace Parks. Within
Zimbabwe, some of the problems are:

The new areas to be incorporated in Peace Parks are populated.
Rural people are often negative towards wildlife and National Parks.
Local communities are strongly differentiated, with potential conflicts
between cattle owners and non-owners, and between irrigated agriculture
and wildlife.
Household incomes of many of these areas are largely driven by money from
other places (e.g. remittances, border jumping to South Africa) – thus some stakeholders will have little interest in local natural resources.
The district governments may have aspirations that are very different from
those of local people.

Attitudes towards wildlife, National Parks and CAMPFIRE

Local attitudes towards wildlife and National Parks are usually negative. Wildlife
damage crops, increase livestock mortality, and pose dangers to human life.
Many residents of the areas remember the forced relocations that occurred when
the parks were created. Promoting wildlife-based land use systems are viewed
by local people as increasing the likelihood of conflicts between themselves and
wildlife. People are generally very angry about the current efforts of controlling
problem animals.

Our interviews indicate that people are often neutral or negative towards
CAMPFIRE. The programme is remote from their aspirations; it is seen as a
government initiative, not as a tool for empowerment. The benefits of many of
the CAMPFIRE programmes are going towards community development inititatives
(e.g. fences for the irrigation schemes). Government previously funded such
initiatives. In Sengwe it is 5-10 times more lucrative from a household
perspective to poach an animal than wait for the CAMPFIRE dividends. Wildlife
will have to make a major economic impact to the household if the negative
attitudes are to be countered.

Land Resettlement

Zimbabwe is in the process of finding solutions to inequitable land allocation
dating from the colonial era. In Sengwe Communal Land in south-western
Zimbabwe the population density is around 25 persons km2; thus if land for
Peace Park of 60 000ha was to be earmarked within the Communal Land, about
2000 households would be affected. Given the current land re-distribution
programme, it is highly unlikely that people would be moved to make way
for a Park; people would need to be incorporated within the Peace Park concept.

Wildlife as a Landuse in Dry Woodlands

There is much evidence that wildlife production makes economic sense in the drier
woodlands of Southern Africa. Many commercial farms in southern Zimbabwe have
switched from cattle to safari hunting and eco-tourism. Within the smallholder
sector, CAMPFIRE has been initiated with some success. This programme aims
to empower communities to mange and derive economic benefits from their natural
resources.

Social Differentiation, Cattle and Conflict with Wildlife

Communities in the Sengwe project area are markedly differentiated. Surveys
show that over a third of households have no cattle, while a quarter have more
than 11 head per household. Generally, cattle owners are the wealthier and more
influential households. Some cattle barons from distant areas use the areas
designated for Peace Parks as seasonal grazing areas, mostly in extreme drought
years. Wildlife is regarded as being in conflict with livestock, and thus the wealthy
and influential households in the local communities may resist any attempts at
destocking cattle or introducing wildlife.

Another important component of local livelihood systems is irrigated agriculture;
irrigation schemes are often damaged by wildlife. The community may be
divided over the impact of wildlife on irrigations, as many households do not
have access to irrigation plots (e.g. 57% in Chishinya area of Sengwe).

How is Cash Income Generated?

Cash Income for Meals

Employment outside area:                 49%
Livestock:                                           28%
Hired Labour                                      10%
Wood carving                                      6%
Brick moulding                                     2%
Crop Production                                  1%
Other                                                  4%

Households incomes are generally low in semi-arid areas, and households
maintain a diverse livelihood strategy in order to counter risk. The cash
income profile for males in Chishinya (above) shows tat employment outside
the area is the major source of income, and any threats to the source of
income would undermine the entire livelihood system of the area. Much of
this employment is in South Africa, often through illegal movement
across the border. What will the new era of Peace Parks bring? Is there a
stakeholder grouping in such communities that has little time to give to local
management of natural resources? At present wildlife income plays a small
role in the household income profile.

Rural District Councils and Local People

Currently we find situations where the Rural District Councils (RDCs) are positive
towards CAMPFIRE (and similar schemes), while local people are somewhat
skeptical.
The generally positive attitudes of the RDCs are because they have access to
income derived from CAMPFIRE at a time when other sources of income are
dwindling.Thus in some areas of the country 50% of the benefits are being
retained by the
RDCs.
In addition, some of the remaining benefits may go towards community
development projects, funds for which previously came from central government.
Peace Parks initiatives need to engage households and organizations at lower
levels that the RDCs, as “local management” does not imply RDC management.

The Way Forward

What then is the potential for establishing Peace Parks? A great deal of attention
will need to be paid to local communities, local councils and the different interests
within the communities. Peace Parks will have to incorporate people within their
boundaries. The economic benefits to be derived from Peace Parks will have to be
substantial to counter the negative attitudes towards wildlife and National Parks.
Benefits must also be substantial if the interests of the whole community are to be
engaged (given that much of the present wealth in the areas is derived from
outside).

The Italian Ministry of Foreigh Affairs through CESVI mostly funded this work with other
funds from the European Union Actions in Favour of Tropical Forests in Developing
Countries, and the Ford Foundation. For full versions of the research papers contact IES.