Lincoln Towindo
The move by Government to initiate the long-over­due wildlife-based land reform programme by issuing hunting permits to 25 black farmers — allo­cated plots at the Save Valley Conservancy in the Lowveld after a delay of nearly eight years — has been the dominant subject of debate in socio-political and economic circles over the past two weeks.

Very few were surprised as they watched while a gen­uine case of black empowerment was mali­ciously turned into a political soap opera as hag­gling between the Parks and Wildlife Management Authority of Zim­babwe, the Save Valley Conserva­tion Farmers, the Zim­babwe Tourism Authority, indigenous permit recipi­ents and Government ministers raged.
It soon became clear to those with a discerning eye that the licensing of the black farmers had indeed touched a raw nerve among the white for­mer conservancy owners who have domi­nated the industry even before independence.

Charges of double dipping, aiding and abetting poaching against the black licence holders by the white farmers were met with counter-accusations of unwill­ingness to work with indigenous people and outright greed levelled against the white farm­ers.
Observers say the unrelenting media assault on the wildlife-based land reform by the white farm­ers within the Save Valley Conservancy marks a new but expected twist to a campaign aimed at frustrat­ing black empowerment.

As Zimbabweans attempt to comprehend the rationale behind the refusal by the current land occu­piers to accommodate new indigenous play­ers, the whole debate should be put into perspec­tive.
The facts are as follows:
Government’s Wildlife-based Land Reform Pro­gramme Operationalisation Policy Document — a product of the Land Acquisition Act of 2006 — approved three basic models of indigenising the indus­try.

According to the policy, the first option involves a partnership between the current farmers, the Parks and Wildlife Management Authority of Zim­babwe and local communities.
The second option involves a joint venture between sitting farmers and the local communities.
This option involves the ceding of 10 percent share­holding to a local trust in a manner to what for­eign-owned mines are doing.
The last option, which was chosen as the model of choice for the 25 black lease recipients in the Save Val­ley Conservancy, has been the source of all the recent brouhaha.

It is an arrangement that involves a three-way part­nership between the current farmers, local communi­ties and private indigenous investors.
White farmers preferred the implementation of the second model despite its glaring disadvantages for local people, thereby opposing the Govern­ment-preferred model number three, which not only benefits entrepre­neurs but also local commu­nities.

The refusal by the white farmers to comply with the country’s laws, which state that beneficiaries of any State land are granted “user rights” in the form of either a lease, offer letter or a certificate of occu­pation, smacks of outright arrogance and lawless­ness.
Close scrutiny of the wildlife-based land reform pro­gramme shows that under the second model, local communities benefit very little in terms of participa­tion, capacity-building and community sustainable development given their meagre 10 percent sharehold­ing.

The shareholding structure gives them very little say in how the conservancy venture is run.
Observers also argue that under the model, tradi­tional chiefs and rural community leaders who will sit on the conservancy board are not tech­nically compe­tent but also have very little bargain­ing power when it comes to agitating for the devel­opment of their com­munities, making the whole exercise piecemeal and cosmetic.
The third model will result in what wildlife manage­ment expert and lecturer at Chinhoyi Uni­versity of Technology Mr Gladman Chibhememe describes as “a comprehensive indigenisation of the wildlife industry that maximises the potential for business innovation”.

Under the arrangement, 10 percent community share ownership is awarded to local communities while the rest of the shareholding stake is appor­tioned among local investors and the current farm­ers on an equitable basis.

This means, at the end of the day, locals will hold at least a 55 percent stake.
While the public has been fed falsehoods that white farmers will end up losing their investment and land allocations, it is clear that none of the three models stip­ulates the compul­sory acquisition of land.
The law clearly says the onus to extend the white farmers’ leases or those of black farmers for that matter remains with the “allocat­ing authority”.

However, while caution should be taken during this transitional period given the significance of this key cog of the tourism industry, the question on most peo­ple’s minds is: should the nation be held to ransom by a group of privileged farmers?
While there have been loud cries of foul play in the way the leases and hunting quotas were allo­cated to mostly senior Zanu-PF officials, this should not deflect the debate from the fact that the programme is aimed at ensuring equitable access by Zimbabweans to land and wildlife resources as well as associated busi­ness opportuni­ties.

It, however, goes without saying that trans­parency in the allocation process is a fundamental aspect of the whole exercise that should be at the top of the allocating authority’s priority list.
According to Mr Chibhememe, a single 18-day ele­phant hunt rakes in no less that US$24 000 for a con­servationist while lion and leopard hunts leave the farmer US$20 000 richer.
He said farmers in the Save Valley Conservancy with a land allocation of 10 000-plus hectares usu­ally receive yearly hunting quotas of no less than 10 lions, 10 buf­faloes, 10 leopards and an assortment of other game, making the business one of the most lucrative ventures in the tourism indus­try.

Apart from constructing campsites, artificial water­ing holes, safari lodges, providing security and paying their workers meagre salaries, the con­servationists have very little else in terms of opera­tional costs.

They are also required to relinquish 2 percent of their earnings for each successful hunting tro­phy to the Parks and Wildlife Management Authority of Zim­babwe.
It remains to be seen whether the white farmers will throw a tantrum and walk down the same road as the former com­mercial farmers who sought recourse at the now-defunct Sadc Tribunal.
It is the same script, only the actors are different. The former commercial farmers whose properties were designated for acquisition approached the tri­bunal, hoping it would reverse the land reform programme. The tribunal was all but dismantled at the Sadc summit in Maputo two weeks ago.

Analysts say the Rhodie mentality that was dis­played by opponents of the agrarian revolution at the turn of the millennium is the same thinking that informs those who are opposing wildlife-based land reform.