Jade Cana CNXJAD001
Tutorial 4

Week 3: In what ways have residents of Gwayi, Zimbabwe been disadvantaged by the protection of the forest reserve?

About 2.4% of Zimbabwe's land area is forested and managed by the Zimbabwean Forestry Commission (FC) on behalf of the state. Colonial and post-colonial state implemented practices to dispossess and alienate forest residents from protected forests to make way for commercial timber harvesting and wildlife hunting. Besides being a deliberate strategy to force local people to become part of the reserve labour pool to generate capital for developing settlers, Forestry conservation has greatly disadvantaged the communities that live within and around reserved forests in Zimbabwe such as the residents of Gwayi/mbembesi Forests. The forest has a long history of settlement by largely Ndebele speaking people, stretching way back before state dispossession during colonialization. It is important to note that the scaling back of the state is associated with neoliberalization that resulted in cutting back of state funding to conservation leading to the FC (as a state cooperation) to raise this funding gap from protection of the state forests. Marketing of forests for funding conservation has gained impetus, where state controlled territories are offered to investors through rents and concessions in the form of safari hunting and timber concessions allowing them to make private capital. There are many ways in which the residents of Gwayi are disadvantaged and it starts from the focus of revenue generation from the use of wildlife leading to the forced move of forest residents.

Matose (2014), speaks about the 'discursive blur' where he witnesses how the protection of forestry is being protected under the policy discourse of "biodiversity conservation" when it contradicts the realities and practices of local people and disadvantages them. Such relocations has been justified by authorities arguing that if people are allowed to stay, pressure will continue for others to settle and this will lead to the destruction of forests and that they are not able to provide the level of infrastructure available to those living in communal lands, thus by allowing them to stay in the forests they would be guilty of depriving forest occupants the right to development being enjoyed by those living in communal lands. There are also scientific arguments on the basis of environmental change such as deforestation were predicted if Gwayi settlers are allowed to stay.

The first relocation of residents from Insuzwa Wetland to western Gwayi in 1960 was to make way for wildlife habitat and increase capital made from that activity.. For example, people's resistance in the form of a policy of 'harassment' was initiated on grounds of the issue of water provision. They said animals got much better attention which is ridiculous. It was noted that in Hwange National Park there is a water point every 2km which runs all day to ensure water spills but the FC denies human beings access to water for drinking, limiting them to thrice a week. The success of the first Insuza Wetland displacement in 1960's led to FC wanting to create another wildlife habitat increasing the need to move residents from western Gwayi to eastern Gwayi. Concerning the issue of cultural identity, the fertile valleys of the Kalahari Sand Dunes have been the Ndebele resident’s home for many generations. This way of life came under increasing threat from the cumulative effects of the state's neoliberal conservation practices to 'protect forests', practices which threaten the Ndebele residents existence and culture. The Ndebele people's cultural identity also revolves around keeping large livestock herds which require access to good rangelands and western Gwayi provides that. Grazing is a highly valued resource for older Ndebele residents in both Gwayi sites, and if state regulation are highly enforced, these residents’ livelihoods are threatened.

Matose (2014) spoke with forest residents and many shared stories of them being denied access, permits and many indirectly disadvantaged in various ways. The residents say they cannot hunt to feed themselves whereas authorities of FC can kill animals at will and cut trees for pleasure on land that they found the forest residents living on. The revenue gained from timber concessions and wildlife safari hunting has significantly increased and brings in good capital to the FC, this has resulted in practices which disadvantages forest residents and adversely affected relationships with forest residents of Gwayi. Overt conflict emerged over the use of land in Gwayi west, there were increasing attempts to relocate all forest residents from the East to the west of gwayi but the people continued to resist and defy authorities covertly. Forest managers resorted to the prohibition of expansion of settlement and cultivation areas for all forest residents.

Mechanisms to achieve what they wanted were described by forest residents as warlike and harassment. Mechanisms included closure of water wells and dip tanks, leaving residents to rely on sand wells dug in a nearby forest river for their water needs and to buy chemicals for the water that was given to livestock, thereby cutting off of important sources of sustenance for livestock and forest residents. Other harassment included the prohibition of school reconstruction, undermining school operations. School buildings in Gwayi west were mostly brick under thatch for classrooms and teachers dwellings were constructed from mud and poles. Gwayi residents lived in fear and anxiety about their future especially given experiences in 1990 when some homes were burned and some people moved to distant communal lands. IN some parts of Gwayi west, grazing leases were granted by the FC in order to effectively reduce the amount of land available to local residents as a way to compel them t move to the east. Permits for construction material were denied, leaving residents unable to fix to their homes, when homes were in such a state of disrepair they went ahead and cut poles and thatch grass without permits and received regular fines. Fines were so high that residents couldn’t afford them and this was followed by the destruction of the newly established homes. People who owned cattle’s had to watch their main assets die and some cattle owners resisted and got in major trouble and were threatened with death.