GeoJournal 60: 301–310, 2004.
© 2004 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.
301
Problems associated with tourism development in Southern Africa: The case of
Transfrontier Conservation Areas
Sanette Ferreira
Department of Geography and Environmental Studies, University of Stellenbosch, Private Bag X1, Matieland 7602, South
Africa (E-mail: [email protected])
Key words: communities, conservation policies, land invasion, peaceparks, rural economies, unstable political situation
Abstract
Tourism in Southern Africa is synonymous with the wildlife safari. In the post-colonial era the establishment of so-called
‘peaceparks’ that straddle the borders of states has come to be seen as a key not only to increasing tourism in the Southern
African region, but also to the modernizing of conservation policies and the development of rural economies. This paper
focuses on the global and continental presence of transfrontier conservation areas, the link between conservation and tourism
development, and the current factors that constrain and influence the realization of an ‘African Dream’ – ‘establishment
of the greatest animal kingdom’. The unstable political situation in Zimbabwe and how this negatively affects wildlife
conservation and tourism in the Gonarezhou part of the Greater Limpopo Transfrontier Park, serves as a case study.
Introduction
In Southern Africa – as elsewhere – the establishment of
national parks and wildlife reserves has provided an environment in which wildlife populations have some protection
from poachers and expanding human occupancy. In addition, national parks and nature reserves have become one
of the most important draw cards for tourism in Southern
Africa and are thus a major source of foreign exchange in
these countries. Further expansion of nature-based tourism
can contribute substantially to an improvement in the quality
of life of all people in the region, particularly those living
in and around the parks. However, from a biogeographical point of view the present system of parks and reserves
comprises a disparate and disconnected chain of habitat ‘islands’, an arrangement that has not only blocked ‘natural’
wildlife migration patterns, but has placed rare or threatened
species at risk due to the lack of genetic mixing (Shroeder,
1999). In the post-colonial era the establishment of so-called
‘peaceparks’ that straddle the borders of states has therefore
come to be seen as an imaginative new method which can
in principle play a very important role in the survival of
wildlife in Southern Africa. As is evident from the international literature, such cross-border cooperation is also seen
as significant for the mutual strengthening of the tourism
industries of neighbouring countries (Timothy, 2001), as key
to increasing tourism in the entire Southern African region,
and as a means for achieving the modernization of conservation policies and the development of rural communities
(Ferreira, 2003, p. 37).
The most ambitious exercise in this regard has been
the merger of the three national parks which straddle
the lower middle reaches of the Limpopo River – South
Africa’s Kruger, Mozambique’s Limpopo and Zimbabwe’s
Gonarezhou. This mega merger has created a massive
(89,000 km2 ) single conservation area now known as ‘the
Greater Limpopo Transfrontier Park’. The merger also appears to fit in well with the ideals of the New Partnership
for Africa’s Development (Nepad), and to have been a most
handsome launching gift to the African Union, serving as a
ready-made example of a new Africa beckoning. This initiative is supposed to boost tourism, protect biodiversity, uplift
communities and promote harmony in Southern Africa. In
addition, it will also allow park managers to unify their development, law enforcement and fire management strategies.
Significantly, too, it provides a platform to address the individual parks’ most serious threats to wildlife, i.e. illegal
poaching and the loss and fragmentation of habitats (Cumming, 1987, p. 59; Holt-Biddle, 1998, p. 110). However,
while there is broad excitement about and support for the
establishment of this ‘cross-border conservation area’ in particular, there are factors that constrain and undermine the
realization of this ‘African dream’. According to the Transboundary Protected Areas Research Initiative (TBPARI) it
is time to rethink transboundary conservation in the Great
Limpopo and elsewhere (Hughes, 2003). A detailed analysis of these hopes and fears constitutes the main thrust of
this paper. The analysis is preceded by a brief overview of
some general considerations with regard to the peace park
concept and the contested relationship between conservation
and tourism development.
302
Table 1. Regional distribution of complexes of internationally adjoining protected areas (Zbicz 2001, 56)
1988
Complexes
1997
Complexes
2001
Complexes
Complexes
involving
3 countries
1997
Protected
Areas
2001
Protected
Areas
North America
Central and South America
Europe
Africa
Asia
5
7
20
20
7
8
25
44
33
26
10
29
64
36
30
0
6
8
12
5
42
93
154
123
76
48
121
239
150
108
Total
59
136
169
31
488
666
‘TFCA’S: A concept whose time has come’
Transfrontier Conservation Areas can be defined as relatively large areas which straddle the frontiers between two
or more countries and cover large-scale natural systems encompassing one or more protected areas (Van Riet, 2000,
p. 1). As such the concept of transborder protected area cooperation through the establishment of ‘peace parks’ is not
a new one. The World Conservation Union (ICUN) has long
been promoting their establishment because of the many
benefits associated with them (Hamilton et al., 1996; Westing, 1993). By 1988, the ICUN’s Commission on National
Parks and Protected Areas identified at least 70 protected areas in 65 countries which straddle national frontiers
(Thorsell, 1990). At present transfrontier parks play a major
role in environmental frameworks and the global network of
conservation. There are currently 169 complexes of internationally adjoining protected areas containing 666 individual
protected areas in 113 countries (Zbicz, 2001). Table 1 indicates the growth (1988–2001) and regional distribution of
such complexes of internationally adjoining protected areas
(PAs).
Table 1 shows the continent of Africa to be in the second
position (after Europe) in the number of complexes, as well
as protected areas, and to be leading the field in the number
of complexes involving three (or more) countries. The creation of a series of ‘peace parks’ in Africa is certainly one of
the most ambitious conservation moves since the creation of
the continent’s first game reserve (which is now the Kruger
National Park) a century ago. It is also a high-risk, highreward proposal, the fate of which will, in large measure,
determine the future of conservation in Africa (Goodwin,
1998, p. 7).
In Southern Africa, governmental wildlife departments,
NGOs, and donors began to plan international, cross-border
parks and protected areas in the mid-1990s. At present six
TFCAs have already been established in the region with 15
more to follow (Figure 1). According to Hughes (2002, p. 1),
conservation in Southern Africa has in this sense broken
loose from the trends elsewhere. However, as he has also
stated (Hughes, 2002, p. 1) Southern African conservation
appears to be maturing faster as discourse than as material practice, and, as a discourse, its currents are complex
and contradictory. This is illustrated in a consideration of
the varied views and the (contested?) relationship between
conservation and tourism development.
Conservation and tourism development
The conservation of natural resources and the provision
of opportunities for tourism and recreational use are often
considered to be somewhat contradictory reasons for many
national parks. But, according to Eckersley (1992) resource
conservation is the least controversial stream of modern environmentalism, although it is seen as anathema to the more
radical ecocentric perspectives. It includes the national parks
movement that seeks both to conserve nature and make it
pay for itself, a compelling argument for environmental conservation for many cash-strapped Third World governments
(Mowforth and Munt, 1998, p. 163). Wildlife is likely to
be envisaged in terms of the potential income it can attract
through safaris and game watching, an economic justification for their retention and development. In addition many
of the sites chosen for parks are also places of unique scenic
beauty, providing spectacular settings for wildlife observation. Within this perspective, therefore, sustainability is
conceived as ‘sustainable development’ and involves sustaining the environment for human production (the creation
of national parks) and consumption (for the enrichment and
enjoyment of tourists). However, tourism has also been criticised for perpetuating external dependency and reinforcing
regional and international inequality. These processes are
repeated at the local scale, and in particular resonate in the
debates concerning the role of nature-based tourism in rural
development (Goodwin et al., 1998, p. vii)
Nevertheless, conservation and tourism development are
undoubtedly (both) of vital importance in Southern Africa.
In turn, Trans-border approaches to policy making and management can enhance both. During the colonial period in
most cases political boundaries were drawn with very little
regard for ecological consequences. These political boundaries later become international fences, very often severing traditional migration routes of animals or otherwise impeding
natural processes. Apart from the greater efficiency provided
by such co-operation and the increased conservation opportunities inherent in larger park units, such co-operation
thus almost always improves the opportunities to manage
303
Figure 1. TFCAs in the Southern African Development Community.
according to nature’s units – populations and ecosystems –
rather than according to politically determined boundaries
(MacNeil, 1990). From a tourist perspective, the boundaries
between countries are in any case disappearing. Thus according to De Villiers (1994) and Pinnock (1996) Southern
Africa as a whole is now beginning to be seen as a single
tourist destination.
Westerners have been promoting tourism as the salvation
for Africa’s economic woes, poverty and underdevelopment
for decades. In this the conservation of the continent’s natural heritage (wildlife) is central. Bonner (1993, p. 219)
quotes Gardner Brown as saying “people don’t come to
Africa to see the cities and the factories and the farms, they
want to see the buffaloes and the elephants.” In fact, “Tourists are willing to pay an additional $100 per day in order to
protect elephants” (Bonner, 1993, p. 219). However, conservation is not achievable in circumstances where people are
starving. Notwithstanding all the worthy efforts of the many
who care about the environment, unless conservation can be
made to pay for itself, and be seen to be doing so, not only
will Africa’s heritage be destroyed, but also the cornerstone
of its tourism potential.
Fusion of conservation and tourism development as mutually interdependent issues, using protected areas and heritage sites as beacons in the formation of tourist routes,
is clearly the best method to simultaneously spread wealth
and conserve what is precious. It has positive implications
for conservation in terms of increased visitor numbers and
awareness, but, more significantly, it integrates the value of
heritage resources into the economies of the communities
in their vicinity, thus gaining the support of the latter for
conservation efforts. This co-dependency in an economic
environment has (in fact) become a major incentive for conservation. In time it could go further than that, by actually
creating an ‘ecology economy’ of considerable magnitude
(Pinnock, 1996, p. 88). The establishment of TFCAs where
appropriate can clearly make a vital contribution in this
regard. However, there are risks in sharing a natural resource base with neighbours – especially neighbours who
struggle with political instability, still bear the effects of
civil war, lack conservation capacity, and/or are (much) less
developed economically (Ferreira, 2003, p. 40). In this regard the present Zimbabwe situation appears to cast enough
doubts on the (hoped for) success, of the ‘crown jewel’ in
the Southern Africa’s developing system of TFCA’s, the
‘Greater Limpopo Transfrontier park’.
304
Figure 2. The Greater Limpopo Transfrontier Park.
Case study: The Greater Limpopo Transfrontier Park
Introduction
The merger of three large national parks – South Africa’s
Kruger Park, Mozambique’s Limpopo Park and Zimbabwe’s
Gonarezhou – into an 89,000 km2 conservation area, ‘the
Greater Limpopo Transfrontier Park’ is supposed, to boost
tourism, protect biodiversity and promote harmony in Southern Africa (Van Riet, 2000). Functionally to its supporters,
the mega-merger (see Figure 2) promises to be tri-laterally
advantageous since it allows park managers to unify their
strategies with regard to tourist development, law enforcement and fire management. In addition it also provides a
platform to address the individual parks’ most serious threat
to wildlife, the loss and fragmentation of habitats. However,
since South Africa’s Thabo Mbeki, Mozambique’s Joaquim
Chissano and Zimbabwe’s Robert Mugabe put pen to paper
in November 2002, the realization of these ideals have come
under serious threat from two sources. These are the political
instability in Zimbabwe, and the relocation of people living
in Mozambique’s Limpopo Park.
This case study focuses on the Zimbabwean part of the
Greater Limpopo Transfrontier Park, i.e. the Gonarezhou
National Park located in the south eastern most corner of
the country. The unstable political situation caused by the
Zimbabwean government’s land reform policy and how this
negatively affects wildlife conservation in Zimbabwe, but
also in a regional tourism context, are considered.
As background, Gonarezhou’s role as link in the regional
and even sub-continental systems of parks should however
first be established.
Gonarezhou park’s: An ‘important link in the system of
parks’
In an ecological context the south eastern part of Zimbabwe
– Gonarezhou park – is a basalt plain with a relatively low
biodiversity, but in a spatial and strategic sense this park is
a very important ‘capstone’ or link in the Southern African
system of parks (see Figure 3).
In this regard there are two spatial issues on the agenda.
Firstly, the integration of Gonarezhou with the Greater
Limpopo Park, and, secondly, the proposed creation of
a ‘mega-elephant park’ in Southern Africa (Olivier, 2003,
p. 10). Between Gonarezhou and Kruger’s Limpopo River
border there is a corridor of about 50 km from which sizeable communities will have to be resettled to make way for
a fenced-off strip of about 5 km wide to link the two parks.
According to Ferrao (2003, p. 2), a task team comprising of
law and business experts and staff from the ‘Implementing
Agency’ is now working on the draft management and contractual arrangements required to incorporate this so-called
Sengwe Corridor (Figure 3) into the Great Limpopo Transfrontier park. A bridge also needs to be built across the
Limpopo River for people to cross.
While the process of merging the Kruger-, Limpopo- and
Gonarezhou parks is still not complete, a second much more
ambitious proposal has been put on the table (Olivier, 2003).
This is to move faster to solve the ‘elephant problem’ in the
305
Kruger Park, and to do so through the further establishment
of a proposed ‘Mega-elephant Park’ (Figure 4) by linking/or
merging the Greater Limpopo Transfrontier Park with the
Tembe and Maputo Elephant Parks to the south of it and
with the Etosha- (Namibia), Chobe- (Botswana) and Kafue(Zambia) national parks further west through a series of
corridors. In this context Gonarezhou Park will dearly play
an extremely important role as a corridor linking the conservation areas of South Africa, Mozambique, Zimbabwe,
Botswana, Namibia and Zambia.
Political and economic instability in Zimbabwe
While Gonarezhou’s importance as a link in the proposed
system of parks is clear, there are serious doubts whether
this role can in fact be realized, because of current conditions in Zimbabwe in general and its local manifestations
in Gonarezhou park. This section examines the former aspect, while the following section specifies the problems in
the park itself.
General economic situation in the SADC-countries
At the dawn of the new millenium Southern Africa as a
whole is now beginning to be seen as a single tourist destination. Transborder parks (or transfrontier conservation areas)
that form an important part of the tourism resource-base
of the sub-continent adds to this perception (De Villiers,
1994; Pinnock, 1996; Ferreira, 2003). It is doubtful however, whether mega mergers of conservation areas can be
successfully achieved where people are starving. On paper
Africa has the largest surface area under conservation of all
continents. However, due to the critical state of many of
the African states’ economies and the high levels of poverty
the conservation areas of Africa- including those in some of
the SADC (South African Developing Community) statesare under great pressure to survive. According to Dr John
Hanks of Conservation International (CI), these parks need
massive amounts of money for their survival (Bonthuys,
2003, p. 15). Fourteen African countries’ conservation efforts are drastically impeded by a shortage of funds. Certain
conservation areas in Zambia and Angola exist only in name.
Officially they are important biodiversity areas, but national
governments have few resources to provide management and
protection systems on the ground. Mowfort and Munt (1998,
p. 171) refer to these parks as ‘paper parks’.
The parlous agricultural and economic situation of the
SADC community is stressed by the grain shortage as predicted in 2002 for the past 2002/2003 season. Table 2
indicates a shortage of grain for most countries with the exception of South Africa. Add political instability, drought
and low or falling agricultural production levels and you
get a human disaster in the making. Zimbabwe currently
exemplifies this situation in the worst possible manner.
Table 2. Predicted grain shortage in the SADC states 2002/2003 (’000 tons)
(SADC: Early Warning Unit cited in Taylor 2002)
State
Domestic shortage/
surplus (’000 tons)
Import gap
Population (mil)
Angola
Botswana
Lesotho
Malawi
Mauritius
Mosambique
South Africa
Zwaziland
Tanzania
Zimbabwe
−468
−289
−338
−596
−203
−445
783
−131
−423
−700
−468
−15
0
−332
0
0
0
−41
−50
0
12,5
1,5
2,1
10,0
1,2
1,2
42,6
1,0
31,3
9,7
Current economic situation in Zimbabwe – ‘countdown to
economic collapse’
Zimbabwe is facing severe socio-economic challenges.
These have been compounded by a hostile external and domestic environment, arising from the opposition to the government’s ill-conceived and managed ‘Land and Agrarian
Reform Programme’. Sanctions imposed on Zimbabwe have
seen important sources of foreign exchange – donor funding
for development projects, banks’ lines of credit, foreign direct and portfolio investment – dry up. This, coupled with
a worsening export performance, has heightened failure to
adequately provide for fuel, electricity, food, drugs as well
as spares, capital and equipment, among others. If not urgently addressed, foreign exchange unavailability will lead
to further national instability and pose a threat to national
security (The Herald, 2003).
At the beginning of May 2003 the inflation rate in Zimbabwe was 364% (Sithole, 2003, p. 6). At the same time
unemployment was 70%, and the agriculture sector almost
destroyed (Du Toit, 2003, p. 16). Figures 5 and 6 show
respectively the decline in grain production and beef stock
numbers over the past few years. Currently more than seven
million Zimbabweans are threatened by famine. Most of
them live in the rural areas.
Amongst the generally better off urban consumers frustration levels have recently reached breaking point. In May
2003, armed police had to control furious consumers who
were unable to draw money from banks because of a general
lack of it. Some of the reasons for the shortage of money
could be found in the lack of overseas credit-worthiness
of the Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe, so that the institution
could not obtain the special paper needed to produce paper
money. Furthermore, banks and other financial institutions
almost ‘crashed down’ as a result of the ‘potting up’ of
money (Z$200 billion – R1 billion) by more affluent citizens
(Gibson, 2003, p. 4). Some clients refrain from banking
their money (at all) and keep it in their own safe deposits,
with banks losing further income. According to a Zimbabwean economist Witness Chiyamana the shortage of cash
is a final setback for investor trust in the financial sector in
306
Figure 3. Gonarezhou park location within the GLTB (WWF 2003).
Figure 4. Proposed Mega Elephant Park (Olivier 2003).
307
Zimbabwe (Sithole, 2003, p. 6). Apart from the shortage of
cash, the non-availability of petrol in certain areas and the
announcement on the 3rd of May 2003 that Air Zimbabwe
had only enough petrol for another three days, resulted in
a further panic attack among Zimbabwe’s urban consumers.
The shortage of petrol is closely linked to the lack of foreign exchange. The current economic and social crisis in
Zimbabwe is damaging investors’ perception of the Southern
African region as whole and undermines the fragile process
of regional integration. Yet it is in the rural areas that the
country’s political and economic crisis has had the worst
impact.
Land policy
The origin of the so called ‘land issue’ in Zimbabwe lies in
politics (both colonial and post colonial) and the inability of
the Zimbabwean government to better the living conditions
of their voters. Over the years political intolerance, weak
development efforts and institutions that could not protect
the constitution or the freedom of individuals, were characteristics of this country. Opposition was never allowed to
develop and the centralization of power occurred. Opponents
disappear from the scene, and without proper restrictions
on the power of the rulers corruption and favouritism just
escalate. The economic performance of the country suffered
as a result of Robert Mugabe’s ZANU-PF party’s policy
of ‘africanization’ and the acceptance of certain laws that
empowered the government to own assets and industries on
behalf of the nation. Unemployment and poverty increased
and the referendum held by Mugabe in 2000 to change the
constitution was lost by him. As Mugabe’s roguery grew,
and in search of a scapegoat for this defeat and for all his
country’s economic and agricultural problems, he turned his
attention to the white farmers, mainstay of Zimbabwe’s agricultural economy. With his government’s land reform policy
having failed, people were now paid to occupy white commercial farms under the supervision of the police (Willemse,
2002, p. 10). The theft of farms for politicians is well known
and the latest was the forced take over of other commercial farms owned by white farmers without any financial
compensation. These farms were issued to the war veterans
that returned from the Congo. This process resulted in open
conflict between war veterans and the owners of the farms
and added to the politically unstable situation in the country.
Inevitably the worsening situation in the rural areas has had
a detrimental impact on nature conservation areas as well.
Cracks in the ‘CAMPFIRE’ model for community
conservation
Until recently, Zimbabwe was a leading country in Africa
with regard to issues of natural resource use in rural areas.
Thus it pioneered the concept community involvement in
the management of wildlife resources, widely copied elsewhere on this continent. Under the Transfrontier Park and
TFCA initiative too, local community participation, will
be through the promotion of Community Based Natural
Resource Management (CBNRM) in interstitial areas – a
philosophy which in Zimbabwe has long been promoted
through the Communal Areas Management Programme for
Indigenous Resources (CAMPFIRE). The guiding principle
under CBNRM is one of sustainable rural development that
enables rural communities to manage and directly benefit
from natural resources. Unfortunately the social and economic crisis in the country is destroying the proud heritage
of the Zimbabwean conservation tradition. The next section examines current conditions in Gonarezhou itself in this
regard.
Problems in Gonarezhou
Roots of the problems
Gonarezhou Game Reserve, the second largest park in Zimbabwe and located in the south eastern corner of the country,
was proclaimed in 1934 and was upgraded and declared
a national park in 1975. The local Shangaan people were
forced to resettle outside the park’s boundaries in 1975 –
an act that has caused major discontent in the area ever
since. In Shona gona-re-shou means ‘abode of elephants’,
but for the elephant it has not been a safe abode; poaching
has long been prevalent in this south eastern corner of Zimbabwe (Sharman, 2001, p. 17). The formation of a park
did little to stop such unnatural deaths amongst the resident
elephants. During the war of independence Gonarezhou was
land-mined extensively and elephant and buffaloes are still
being maimed by land mines. In the 1980s and 1990s poaching by Mozambican guerrillas took its toll. As a constituent
part of a proposed peace park, it is ironic that historically
Gonarezhou has rarely been at peace.
Land invasions
Smouldering resentment amongst those previously evicted
has recently led to the invasion of parts of Gonarezhou. This
so-called ‘moving back’ process has occurred in a stepwise
fashion in a number of separate phases. By November 2000
sections of Gonarezhou were being occupied, cleared and set
alight by residents of neighbouring villages (Sharman, 2001,
p. 17). The situation deteriorated as Agritex (the Agricultural
and Rural Extension Department) began demarcating and
pegging out 520 plots for allocation within the park. And
since November 2002 Josiah Hungwe, the Governor of Masvingo Province, who had already been responsible for the
invasion of privately owned wildlife conservancies, has been
encouraging families of the previously evicted Shangaans,
as well as opportunistic ‘war veterans’ to take over 5 000 ha
within Gonarezhou, north and south of the Runde River (Figure 7). In addition cattle are being grazed inside the park
daily since the cattle fence has been pull down, allowing free
movement in and around the park (Sharman, 2001, p. 17).
The removal of fencing and driving of cattle into buffalo land
could result in a serious outbreak of foot and mouth disease.
The invasion of Gonarezhou is the latest in a line of
crises in Zimbabwe’s wildlife since the ‘fast-track’ resettlement programme moved into key conservation areas. The
308
policy, is now negatively affecting wildlife conservation,
with the Zimbabwe Conservation Task Force saying poaching has reached alarming proportions. Keeping the Greater
Limpopo Transfrontier Park in mind, the biggest threat regarding the poaching of wildlife is probably to the Kruger
Park (Marshall, 2003, p. 6). The Kruger therefore is the
one stakeholder that has the most to share and consequently
where this threat has thus far been successfully contained.
Compared to the Mozambique region and also Gonarezhou,
it still teems with wildlife and also has the most to lose.
This prompted Endangered Wildlife Trust director Dr John
Ledger to call for the transfrontier park project to be put
on ice until the situation has been stabilized (Molefe, 2002,
p. 8).
The decline of tourism
Figure 5. Grain production in Zimbabwe 1997 & 2002 (Taylor 2002).
Figure 6. Commercial stock numbers in Zimbabwe 1991–2001 (Taylor
2002).
invasions appear to have been carried out without the permission – or knowledge – of the Ministry of Environment
and Tourism. However, destructive as it is to conservation,
land invasions currently affect only parts of Gonarezhou.
Two other factors which affect the park as a whole and therefore also its role in the Greater Limpopo Transfrontier Park
are poaching and the fall in tourist numbers caused by the
political instability in Zimbabwe.
Poaching of wildlife
By 2002 conservationists were losing confidence in the
ability- and willingness- of the Zimbabwe government to
combat wildlife poaching, which has been described as ‘a
survival strategy of the poor’. Almost 60% of conservation
areas have been burned down and 20 of the black Rhino
of the Bubiana area disappeared as the result of poaching (Game and Hunt, 2002, p. 17). The unstable political
situation in Zimbabwe, caused by the government’s land
Tourism dries up in Zimbabwe as refugees flee the country. Political instability is frightening potential visitors away.
Tourism in Zimbabwe, once as predictable as the highs and
the lows of its premier attraction, the Victoria Falls, is in
a deepening trough. Tourist revenue has declined sharply
since 2000 (Business Day, 2002). The upmarket Illala lodge
has since 2000 seen a ‘60% drop in business’, mostly from
American and British clients. The disappearance of the self
drive market from South Africa into Zimbabwe and despite
the exceptional value of the rand on the black market, is another example of this. Many of the country’s top hotels have
occupancy rates of below ten percent. Owen Evans, a ranger
at Linkwasha Lodge in Hwange National Park states that a
retrenchment rate of 30 to 50% has been the norm in safari
and other tourism based industries over the past few year
(Briggs, 2001, p. 52) According to Amor Kenny, owner of
Cape Town-based Zimbabwe Tours, they have experienced
a 90% decline in business (Business Day, 2002).
Gonarezhou: The future of the tri-lateral partnership
The two fundamental requirements for a successful integration of Gonarezhou into the Greater Limpopo Transfrontier
Park are positive attitudes and perceptions amongst its crossborder partners and the support and co-operation of the
local population (Marshall, 2003; Zwecker, 2002). In both
instances the role of the Zimbabwe Government is crucial.
Even before the official opening of the Greater Limpopo
Transfrontier Park, people had been asking whether South
Africa should be opening the Kruger National Park and its
game to the risks inherent in the Zimbabwean situation by
joining it with that country’s Gonarezhou. Apart from the
poaching issue, it is also open to question whether it is morally in order and politically prudent for South Africa to be
seen to be entering into such an association with Zimbabwe
right now (Marshall, 2003, p. 6). The withdrawal of donations for Zimbabwean environmental causes has been one of
the more telling demonstrations of the international distaste
for the country’s policies (Zwecker, 2002, p. 4).
With the opening ceremony on the 10th November 2002
Dr John Ledger, Endangered Wildlife Trust’s past president, warned that the association between these countries was
309
Figure 7. Invasion in Gonarezhu-north and south of the Runde river.
an unequal one (Sapa, 2002, p. 6). A transfrontier park is
essentially a partnership between countries. Where there is
an enormous disparity in the capacity and efficiency of the
park’s management in adjacent countries, this can lead to
problems (Ferreira, 2003).
empower such communities economically, thus help them
to withstand and overcome outside pressures. This is especially so in societies where there is a commitment to good
governance. Unfortunately, however, this is currently not the
case in Zimbabwe.
Cooperation of the local population
The cooperation and support of a poverty-struck local populace for conservation efforts on ‘their land’ will only be
forthcoming if it can be shown that they will derive material benefits from it. In this regard it should be considered
that protected areas are broadly of two kinds: those where
the emphasis is almost exclusively on the protection of the
natural world, and those where the focus is on maintaining a relationship between people and nature (Philips, 2003
p. 1). With regard to the former, Pinnock (1996) stated that:
“The remaining wildness of Africa may be its only hope for
overcoming its poverty and competing in the global economy; probably the safest prediction that one can make is
that shortly the world’s fastest-growing market, tourism, will
be chasing the world’s fastest shrinking product: wilderness”. However, it is the second idea – i.e ., that people
and nature belong together and which is the heart of the socalled Protected Landscape Approach (category V model) –
which is probably very relevant to the communities in and
around the Gonarezhou park. As elsewhere in rural Zimbabwe these Shangaan communities (in the south eastern part
of the country) face many challenges, including those of
poverty alleviation and creating better livelihood prospects
for all their members. The category V model can help to
Conclusion
The establishment of transfrontier ‘peaceparks’ in Southern Africa appears to be an idea whose time has come.
The vision of cross-border collaboration gives effect to
the stated objectives of the Southern African Development
Community (SADC), which aims at promoting synergy in
regional initiatives for economic, social and conservation
benefits for the sub-continent. Transfrontier conservation
initiatives also form an integral part of the new Partnership
for Africa’s Development (Nepad), whose ideals encompass trans boundary ecosystem management, integration of
conservation with development for sustainability, as well as
the promotion of regional co-operation for peace and socioeconomic development between countries. However, in the
case of the Greater Limpopo Transfrontier Park its success
appears to depend to a considerable extent on the resolution
of current problems in the Zimbabwean part.
As mentioned before, the Gonarezhou park has a relatively low biodiversity. In this sense land invasions here
may therefore do less ecological damage than elsewhere.
It could perhaps also be argued that the granting of land
here may act as a pressure-relief valve that would reduce
310
the invasion threat in conservancy areas with a higher biodiversity value. However, be this as it may, the resolution
of the land claims within Gonarezhou should in any case
take into account the constraints on dryland agriculture here.
A wildlife-based land reform model (protected landscape
model) should therefore be given preference to one based on
arable farming. The other crucial factor to take into account
is that any resettlement must not cut off the wildlife corridors
between the park and the adjacent private wildlife areas such
as Malilangwe and the Save valley (Figure 3).
Parks are precious national assets and for many South
Africans Kruger Park is particularly so. It may well be
asked whether any good will come from tying it to Zimbabwe in its current state. (A temporary blessing is the fact
that the linkup with Gonarezhou via the Sengwe corridor
is in any case going to take a good few years; it might
even take much longer should the communities currently
still occupying the corridor resist their proposed resettlement elsewhere). Generally speaking, it seems likely that
the Greater Limpopo Transfrontier Park will be a major test
case for the last part of the Nepad’s vision, i.e “the promotion of regional co-operation for peace and socio-economic
development between countries.”
References
Bonner R., 1993: At the hand of man: perils and hope for Africa’s wildlife.
New Vintage Books, New York.
Bonthhuys J., 2003: Parke van Papier- Geldknyp verswelg bewaringsgebiede in Afrika. Die Burger, 15 Maart 2003: 15.
Briggs I., 2001: Hwange. Africa, Environment and wildlife,- South African
Nature Foundation 9(3): 40–55.
Business Day, 2002: Zimbabwean tourism dries up. http://www.bday.co.za,
viewed on 31 October 2002.
Cumming D., 1987: Zimbabwe and the conservation of the Black Rhino.
The Zimbabwe Science News 21(5/6): 59–62.
De Villiers N., 1994: The Open Africa initiative. OAI, Claremont.
Du Toit Z.B., 2003: Geldkrisis in Zimbabwe. Die Burger, 10 Augustus: 16.
Eckersley R., 1992: Environmentalism and Political Theory: towards an
ecocentric Approach. University College London Press, London.
Ferrao J., 2003: Great Limpopo Transfrontier Park- current status. Peace
Parks foundation News (April–May 2003). www.peaceparks.org/ content/news, viewed on 5 June 2003.
Ferreira S.L.A., 2003: Sustainable tourism in Post-colonial Southern
Africa. African Insight 3(1/2): 37–42.
Game and Hunt, 2002: Zimbabwe wild afgemaai. Game & Hunt 8(3): 17.
Gibson E., 2003: Brandstof knip Air Zimbabwe se vlerke. Die Burger,
13 Mei: 4.
Goodwin H., Kent I., Parker K. and Walope M., 1998: Tourism, conservation and sustainable development. Institute for Environment and
development; case studies from Asia and Africa. Wildlife and Development series No.11. International Institute for Environment and
Development, London.
Hamilton L.S., Mackay J.C., Worboys G.L., Jones R.A. and Manson G.B.,
1996: Transborder Protected Area co-operation, Australian Alps liaison
committee and IUCN, Canberra, 16–18 September, 1996.
Harvey R.K., 1992: The conservation Movement in Zimbabwe: a proud
heritage. Heritage of Zimbabwe 11(1): 91–94.
Holt-Biddle D., 1998: The painted wolf of Africa: Zimbabwe-wildlife,
conservation & environment. Africa & Wildlife 6(3): 110.
Hughes D.M., 2002: Going Transboundary; scale-making and exclusion
in Southern-African conservation. Unpublished paper presented at the
Environment and Development Advanced research circle, University of
Wisconsin, Madison, 19 April.
Hughes D.M., 2003: When Tourists Cross Boundaries and Peasants don’t
– scale-making and exclusion in the Great Limpopo. Teleconference
seminar, Wednesday October 1, 16h30. Transboundary Protected Areas
Research Initiative, University of the Witwatersrand.
MacNeil J., Winsemius P. and Yakushij T., 1991: Beyond Interdependence:
The meshing of the world’s Economy and the Earth’s Ecology. Oxford
University Press, London.
Marshall L., 2003: Poaching across border mars idealistic vision of new
transfrontier park. Sunday Independent, 26 January: 6.
Molefe R., 2002: Zim crisis wont effect new park. Sowetan, 17 September:
8.
Mowforth M. and Munt I., 1998: Tourism and sustainability: new tourism
in the third world. Routledge, London.
Olivier A., 2003: Olifant-megapark sal aanwas stabiliseer. Die Burger,
26 Augustus: 10.
Philips A. (ed.), 2003: Management Guidelines for IUCN category V Protected Areas, protected landscapes/Seascapes. Best Practice Protected
Area Guidelines Series No 9. Cardiff Universty, ICUN.
Pinnock D., 1996: Superparks an Impossible dream? Getaway 8(8): 88–97.
Sapa 2002: Africa’s biggest park takes shape – three presidents celebrate
launch of transfrontier initiative. The Star, December 10: 6.
Sharman J., 2001: Invasions threaten peace park. Weekly Mail and Guardian, 1 November: 17.
Sithole K., 2003: Geldkrisis in Zim. Die Burger, 29 Julie: 6.
Schroeder R.A., 1999: Geographies of environmental intervention in
Africa. Progress in Human Geography 23(3): 359–378.
Taylor D., 2002: Famine in Zimbabwe no longer a matter of debate: news
feature. Farmers Weekly, 920(2): 12.
Timothy D., 2001: Tourism and Political Boundaries. Routledge, London.
The Herald, 2003: Finance Minister Launches multi-sectoral economic
revival program. http://www.herald.co.za, viewed on 5 March 2003.
Thorsell, J.W. (Ed.), 1990: Parks on the borderline: Experience in Transfrontier Conservation, IUCN, Gland, Switzerland.
Van Riet W., 2000: The trans-boundary Parks Initiative – the origins and
objectives of the Peace Parks Foundation.
www.environment.gov.za/projects/gkg_transfrontier/background.htm,
viewed on December 6.
Westing A.H., 1993: Building confidence with transfrontier reserves: the
global potential. transfrontier reserves: the global potential. Transfrontier reserves for peace and nature: a contribution to human security.
UNEP, Nairobi.
Willemse J., 2002: Chaos in Zimbabwe raak SA regstreeks. Landbou
weekblad 30 (Augustus): 10–11.
Zbicz D., 2001: List of Transfrontier Protected Area Complexes.
ICUN/WCPA.
Zwecker W., 2002: Zimbabwe wolk oor oorgrensparke – beleggers skrikkerig vir Afrika droom. Beeld, 10 Desember: 8.