Embracing indigenous knowledge systems in the ...

This article was downloaded by: [Chinhoyi University of Technology] On: 25 August 2014, At: 03:05 Publisher: Taylor & Francis Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Biodiversity Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tbid20

Embracing indigenous knowledge systems in the management of dryland ecosystems in the Great Limpopo Transfrontier Conservation Area: the case of Chibememe and Tshovani communities, Chiredzi, Zimbabwe ab

a

a

a

Gladman Chibememe , Never Muboko , Edson Gandiwa , Olga L. Kupika , Victor K. a

Muposhi & Gilbert Pwiti

c

a

Department of Wildlife Ecology and Conservation, Chinhoyi University of Technology, Private Bag 7724, Chinhoyi, Zimbabwe b

Chibememe Earth Healing Association (CHIEHA), c/o Sangwe (Takunda) Secondary School, Private Bag 7110, Chiredzi, Zimbabwe c

Department of History and Archaeology, University of Zimbabwe P.O. Box MP167, Mount Pleasant, Harare, Zimbabwe Published online: 15 Jul 2014.

To cite this article: Gladman Chibememe, Never Muboko, Edson Gandiwa, Olga L. Kupika, Victor K. Muposhi & Gilbert Pwiti (2014) Embracing indigenous knowledge systems in the management of dryland ecosystems in the Great Limpopo Transfrontier Conservation Area: the case of Chibememe and Tshovani communities, Chiredzi, Zimbabwe, Biodiversity, 15:2-3, 192-202, DOI: 10.1080/14888386.2014.934715 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14888386.2014.934715

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http:// www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

BIODIVERSITY, 2014 Vol. 15, Nos. 2–3, 192–202, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14888386.2014.934715

Embracing indigenous knowledge systems in the management of dryland ecosystems in the Great Limpopo Transfrontier Conservation Area: the case of Chibememe and Tshovani communities, Chiredzi, Zimbabwe Gladman Chibememea,b*, Never Mubokoa, Edson Gandiwaa, Olga L. Kupikaa, Victor K. Muposhia and Gilbert Pwitic a Department of Wildlife Ecology and Conservation, Chinhoyi University of Technology, Private Bag 7724, Chinhoyi, Zimbabwe; Chibememe Earth Healing Association (CHIEHA), c/o Sangwe (Takunda) Secondary School, Private Bag 7110, Chiredzi, Zimbabwe; c Department of History and Archaeology, University of Zimbabwe P.O. Box MP167, Mount Pleasant, Harare, Zimbabwe

Downloaded by [Chinhoyi University of Technology] at 03:05 25 August 2014

b

(Received 5 May 2014; final version received 11 June 2014) The important role indigenous knowledge systems (IKS) is described in redefining the biodiversity conservation agenda of the Chibememe and Tshovani communities in the Sangwe Communal Lands, Chiredzi, in the management of dryland ecosystems of the southeastern low veld of Zimbabwe. These communities constitute part of the Great Limpopo Transfrontier Conservation Area (GLTFCA). We explored ways in which the use of IKS by Chibememe and Tshovani communities have contributed to the conservation and sustainable utilisation of forest, water and wildlife resources in light of existing contemporary scientific value systems, policy and institutional frameworks. Participant observation, interviews with traditional leaders and elders, focus group discussions and literature review techniques were employed within a case study framework. Our results revealed that IKS approaches are used in the management of dryland forest, water and wildlife resources in the Chibememe and Tshovani communities and have contributed positively to the conservation and sustainable utilisation of dryland resources. We conclude that IKS play a critical role in the management of dryland forest, water and wildlife resources at the local community level and have potential to contribute to the conservation of transfrontier conservation area resources such as in the GLTFCA, provided they are recognised, respected, preserved, protected, as well as integrated into mainstream dryland ecosystem conservation. We recommend that, for communities and their biodiversity to survive, conventional science and IKS should complement and should not seek to undermine each other. Keywords: biodiversity conservation; Indigenous Peoples’ and Local Community Conserved Areas and Territories (ICCAs; local community; resource governance; sacred natural site; taboo

Introduction Sangwe Communal Lands in southeast Zimbabwe and their environs are endowed with unique riparian and terrestrial flora and fauna. These resources have been administered under pre-colonial, colonial and postcolonial resource management systems over the years. According to Mataire (1998), the Eurocentric nature of the colonial system of conservation is based on sectorial policies and laws, designed in a ‘command and control’ approach. Mohammed-Katerere (1998) observes that these policies and laws succeeded in creating inequitable natural resource distribution and disempowerment of traditional leadership structures. These polices and laws ultimately failed to recognise local users as planners, protectors and owners of the natural resources and gave rise to unsustainable resource use patterns leading to biodiversity loss (Matowanyika 1998). The post-colonial era in Zimbabwe (1980 to date) saw the repulsion of colonial laws and the amendment and enactment of new environmental laws (e.g. Communal Lands Act of 1982, the Rural District Council Act of *Corresponding author. Email: [email protected] © 2014 Biodiversity Conservancy International

1988, and recently the promulgation of Zimbabwe’s new Constitution Amendment (No. 20) of 2013). However, Mohammed-Katerere (1998) argues that these policies and laws reflect a replica of the legislative instruments of colonial times. Ruppel (2013) believes that the current environmental legislation is not far away from the colonially rooted environmental legislation which ‘excludes people from nature in the context of conservation’. These laws and policies have to a large extent relegated, trivialised and negated indigenous knowledge systems (IKS) belonging to the pre-colonial system of biodiversity conservation, use and management. Muboko and Murindagomo (2014) reviewed conservationbased legislation focusing on community-based natural resources management and conflict resolution approaches, and are of the view that although such legislative changes provide for devolution of power and authority to the local communities, in reality devolution or decentralisation of authority to the lowest possible community structure has not been achieved. Berkes (1998) argues that in a traditional system resources are


B I O D I V E R S I T Y managed in an ‘ecosystem view in which humans are considered as part of the ecosystem’. Berkes (1998) further states that ecological wisdom enshrined in traditional resource management and production systems emphases the communities’ respect, responsibility and accountability on the use of resources. In the same vein, Dudley, Higgins-Zogob, and Mansourian (2005) believe these traditional systems such as ‘…sacred sites are probably the oldest method of habitat protection on the planet and still form a large and mainly unrecognised network of sanctuaries around the world’. A rejection of the traditional practices, values, knowledge and innovations of rural communities by the contemporary legislative and policy instruments has to a large extent contributed to unsustainable use of biodiversity in many parts of the world. The Sangwe community, like many traditional communities in Zimbabwe, still uses some pre-colonial systems of managing biodiversity through IKS based on their cultural values, customary laws, innovations and spiritual and religious practices. Much of the IKS contain strategies critical for managing forest, water and wildlife resources. Malilangwe Conservation Trust (1998) noted that the Shangaan of the Sangwe communal lands ‘were great traditional conservationists’ and, like the Maasai of East Africa, they ‘conserve nature because they are part of nature, while artificial conservationists do the same because there is utility that can be derived from it’ (Nelson and Hossack 2003). Matowanyika (1998) warns that ‘in the history of failed development efforts in Lesotho and the region, a major fault is that programme developments were not rooted in local values, institutions and local people’s committed responses’. Similarly, traditional structures in Chibememe community and the Sangwe area at large have been downgraded and trivialised by both public and private sector players (Wels 2003). Despite this trivialisation, Wels (2003) observed that Chief Gudo’s people in Sangwe Communal Lands consider certain areas such as Dombo hills and the Sadzive marshes sacred and feel that denying them access to these sites would cut the link between them and their ancestral spirits. It is the persistence of such traditional resource management beliefs and practices that drew the attention of authors like McNeely (1993), who not only calls for the need to re-establish ‘cultural means for the controlling of over exploitation of forests, savannah land, and wildlife’, but also argues that ‘research on traditional means of resources management needs to be carried out as a high priority’. Anecdotes such as this bring to light the importance of exploring IKS resource management approaches such as those applied by Sangwe communities, especially the Chibememe community which through its community-based conservation organisation called Chibememe Earth Healing Association (CHIEHA), established in 1998, was awarded the Equator Initiative Prize

193

due to its contribution to biodiversity conservation and poverty reduction initiatives. The purpose of this paper, therefore, is to: (1) provide a basis for arguing for the resuscitation, revival and revitalisation of the positive components behind IKS to support biodiversity conservation and sustainable development efforts in rural communities; and (2) assesses the role IKS play in natural resource management systems of dryland forest, wildlife and water resource areas in Chibememe and Tshovani communities. Materials and methods Study area The study area covers Chibememe and Tshovani communities in the Sangwe Communal Lands, southeast Zimbabwe (Figure 1). Sangwe Communal Land is located 50 km north of Chiredzi Town and covers an area of 484 km2. It is home to more than 3933 households with a population of 21,766 (Agritex 1998). It shares a boundary with the Save Valley Conservancy, Save River, Gonarezhou National Park and Chizvirizvi resettlement area. These areas, together with others like Malilangwe, Chiredzi River Conservancy and communal lands (Matibi II, Sangwe and Sengwe) and Gonakudzingwa resettlement area form part of the Zimbabwean component of the Great Limpopo Transfrontier Conservation Area (GLTFCA) which covers about 100,000 km2. Sangwe communal land falls under agro-ecological region V of Zimbabwe. The average rainfall per annum is 450 mm and due to its unreliability, suitable farming systems are those based on utilisation of the veld. Annual mean temperature is 22°C, with maximum temperature above 30°C especially during the month of October. Land use production systems in the area include livestock and wildlife ranching with most of the local communities’ livelihood mainly sustained by livestock production as crop production is generally not viable due to low relief. Soils are dark reddish brown and moderate to deep clay loams and alluvial soils along rivers and streams such as Save and Mkwasine. The high clay content of the soils means a good water holding capacity with topography comprising of gentle undulating terrain. The altitude of the area ranges between 200 and 500 m above sea level (Gandiwa et al. 2013, Giller et al. 2013). Vegetation comprises generally of drought tolerant shrubs and bush savannah with durable hard wood trees such as mopane and Acacia species which are suitable for use as roofing timber and wood fuel among other uses. Data collection We used semi-structured interviews with traditional leaders and village elders from Chibememe and Tshovani communities, focus group discussions and participant

G. CHIBEMEME ET AL.


194

Figure 1. Location of the study area in southeast Zimbabwe. Sources: Adapted from UNDP (2012) and Chibememe (2003, 2006).

observations. Traditional leaders, village elders and participants in group discussions were selected through snowball sampling following Goodman (1961) and Velempini and Perkins (2008). Study sites (Wards 1 and 4) were selected based on: (i) presence of community-based conservation initiatives, (ii) being part of the GLTFCA, and (iii) close to major protected areas (Gandiwa et al. 2013). We interviewed each respondent at their village until a 30% sample size was achieved per village, thus contributing to a total of 40 interviewees (Table 1). In addition, a

literature review on sacred sites, relevant case studies and experience in other countries including diverse cultures, traditions and resources conservation strategies used by various communities was conducted. Two focus group discussions (FGDs) were held in Chibememe (9 people) and Mugejo (15 people) villages, one of Tshovani villages, at Tagurana Pre-School and Makarepo project site respectively to enable villagers to map resources in the area (Figures 2 and 3). Issues discussed related to resource use and livelihoods. Each

B I O D I V E R S I T Y

195

Table 1. Number of traditional leaders and village elders per village and sample size. Village


Chibememe Tagurana Mahlasera Mugejo Total sample

Number of traditional leaders and village elders

Number of traditional leaders and village elders interviewed and percentage (30%)

19 37 38 39 133

6 11 11 12 40

of ensuring forest and water resources are managed and kept intact for the present and future generations. The majority of the traditional leaders and village elders (n = 39; 98%) believe that the Chibememe community and its neighbours has over millennia developed IKS-based resource access, harvesting and use systems that have helped conserve and sustain local resources and their livelihoods, including the use of sacred places, taboos and totems. Cultural uses and access issues to land and its resources

Figure 2. Researcher helps Ward 1-community group discussion participants in drawing their resource map. Source: Picture research taken by researcher during field survey in Ward 1 (2013).

participant was actively involved in resource mapping in which local materials such as twigs, stones, fruits and leaves were used to draw resource maps for their village. These maps were initially drawn on the ground then transferred onto a flip chart (Figures 2 and 3). Data analysis Data from semi-structured interviews with traditional leaders and village elders were summarised into percentages and qualitatively analysed. Data from focus group discussions were grouped into themes and/or subjects, analyzed to identify and ascertain the key themes and presented in some cases as descriptive narratives. Results IKS-based forest, water and wildlife resources management system Communities in the Sangwe communal lands, particularly Chibememe and Tshovani communities, employ IKS-based strategies for managing wildlife, forest and water resources in and around their areas, with the hope

Most traditional leaders and village elders (n = 35; 88%) stated that their traditional community value systems are based upon a cultural respect for land and resources. Elder women and men from Chibememe and Mugejo communities noted that all land is generally sacred to the community because they associate it with where their umbilical cord was buried and also a site to the graves of their dead relatives. Most of the traditional leaders and village elders (n = 26; 65%) believe that ‘conservation of sacred places form the core of our humanness and culture’. These areas are presented in Table 2. Sacred pools as places for managing and conserving water and aquatic resources Most traditional leaders and village elders (n = 38; 95%) agreed that their sacred pools were intended as areas where aquatic resources were highly regulated in order to prevent over-harvesting of fish. Harvesting of fish in such areas require approval from the relevant traditional authority and in some sacred pools, such as Sadzive, Chiso and Dendere, ordinary people were not permitted to fish at will or use nets without permission from the chief. Only for crucial community rituals, ceremonies and festivals were fishing allowed in these pools. Each sacred pool in Sangwe community is assigned to a particular village head who oversees it on behalf of the chief and the community (Table 3). They are expected to monitor fish stocks in their designated pool, informing the chief when it is ready for harvesting or when illegal harvesting has occurred. Those caught

196

G. CHIBEMEME ET AL.

illegally harvesting fish from a sacred pool will be fined two head of cattle. However, we noted that such taboos and rules that discouraged encroachment in these areas was currently being ignored implying that people were disrespecting the rules.

Sacred hills and other sites During Gudo Chief, Tagurana Chihunguve’s reign from 1924 to 1936, the colonial government began surveying and delineating land into tribal trust lands and areas for Europeans. However, Chief Gudo Tagurana managed to

To Dombo Business Centre

0

1

CHIEF GUDO

3 kilometres

2

To Dombo Business Centre

D o n g o R u in s


M a n jira V illa g e Gudo B.C. Dikiti School

MKWASINE RANCH

G u m b ura V illa g e

Gudo Dip

Muzaramondo

C h ib e m e m e V illa g e

SANGWE

COMMUNAL

St Peter’s Mission

Store

Chieha information Centre

Gudo’s Pool

Z iv e m b a v a Is la n d

LAND

M u s in d o V illa g e w

a Store LEGEND

St Joseph’s School

Hut

Chisumbanje Business Centre

Building Silt Trap

NDOWOYO COMMUNAL LAND

Dip Tank Garden Site Irrigated Land

Chisumbanje Dip

River, Stream Road 33kv

Power Line

To Rupangwana

C h ib e m e m e m a in la n d fo r e s t P ro p o s e d C o m m u n ity G arde n

Figure 3. Chibememe Village community resource map indicating sacred sites (forests, ruins and pools).


197

Table 2. Cultural use of land and resources (functions and their locations). Location

Management systems

Functions

Sadzive, Chiso, Utota, Dongo ruins Zivembava Island, Nheverasave Utota, Chibedza, Chindokwe Dendere

Sacred pools Sacred forests, trees and birds Sacred hills Wetland

Watering livestock, source of fish Medicine, rituals, ecotourism Rituals Ritual, fish and small game


Table 3. Sacred pool resources in Sangwe Communal Lands: custodianship, access and threat. Name of pool

Current custodianship

Access to resource

Current threats

Chiso/Gudo pool

Traditional leadership (Sabhuku Tagurana and Gungubu)

Kurova Chiso – seasonal harvests

Siltation, fish poisoning Pollution form agriculture Overfishing Ownership and access issues Natural disasters – cyclone Eline Land use conflicts Siltation Pollution, poisoning, siltation Siltation Over harvesting Pollution Siltation

Harvests by experts Sadzive/Sajive

Traditional leadership (Chief Gudo), farmers and conservators

like legendary Ngomasa Biannual organised harvest Harvest shared to all by chief Conservators and farmers

Utota pool

Traditional leadership

Dendere pool (Chiteveteve)

Traditional leadership (Sabhuku Manyaya) Traditional leadership

Lundi pools Mkwasine-Save river confluence sacred pool Madzvuto pans Makandwa maviri

Traditional leadership (Sabhuku Manyaya) Traditional leadership (Sabhuku Masindo) Traditional leadership (Sabhuku Mapwere)

Harvest to be after ritual performances As sanctioned by the rules and taboos Organised rotational harvesting / reed net fishing (saila) Seasonal and rotational harvesting

Siltation Overfishing

Seasonal harvesting of fish

Siltation Pollution

Seasonal and rotational harvesting

Siltation Pollution

Source: Survey data (2013).

declare most of the natural sites in Sangwe as sacred ‘no go’ areas for modern agriculture. This declaration saw a number of hills being considered sacred within the Sangwe community and include Dombo, Ndongo ruins (Chindokwe), Mkwasine ruins (in Hammond ranch), Gomoramateya, Chibedza, Chinyamukwarurwi and Munguni hills all in Chief Gudo’s area, while Utota, Chigarapasi and Chionza hills are found in Chief Tsovani’s area. Dombo hill is considered a royal burial shrine (ninga) for the Gudo chieftainship. These are hills believed to be habitats for both sacred tree and animal species, where use of resources is controlled and regulated by taboos and rules preventing over-exploitation. This is probably why despite its proximity to Chiredzi town and one of Zimbabwe’s fastest growing growth points, i.e. Checheche, the Gudo area has remained inaccessible to many. Chief Gudo Tagurana is thus considered as a great substantive chief (1925–1935) among the Gudo people for his respect towards efforts to preserve the dignity and culture of his people.

Other observed conserved sacred areas include the Zivembava Island forest and Nhevera Save forest located in Chibememe community. Zivembava Island forest (Figure 3) is considered a place where ‘the sacred baboon resides’. This ‘sacred baboon’ is believed to be a creature who announces the starting of the rainy season each year and is a crucial spiritual messenger. Historically, the Zivembava Island forest was a crossing point on the once mighty Save River during the Mfecane and Bantu migrations, adding to its sacredness. Zivembava Island is also believed to have been a migratory route for wildlife species among which include elephant (Loxodonta africana), zebra (Equus quagga) and blue wildebeest (Connochaetes taurinus). Focus group participants claimed that elephants have been passing (2003 and 2006) through the island forest to Chisumbanje Estates with reports of the use of Sangwe as a wildlife migratory route dating back to 1965. Most traditional leaders and village elders (n = 31; 78%) stated that the island was under the custodian of

198

G. CHIBEMEME ET AL.

Table 4. Commonly used plant species and the threats they are currently facing. Local name

Common name

Botanical name

Threats

Mubveve Gavakava Mavhovhani Chiriyariya (Dururu) Mutengeni Musekesa Mupfura

Sausage tree Aloe excels Stapelia B Bulb

Kigelia africana Aloe excelsa chamburta Stapela gigantea Crinum macowani Ximena caffra Piliostigma thinning Sclerocarya birrea

Habitat destruction and poor farming methods Veld fires and collection Fire collection and habitat destruction Veld fire, farming and habitant destruction Veld fires and poor farming methods Habitat destruction and poor farming methods Habitat destruction and urbanisation

Monkey cake or bread Marula



village head Chibememe and the traditional knowledge associated with the island is the basis for the conservation of its resources. On one study visit we noticed forested areas that were neither farmed nor inhabited, referred to as ‘no till areas’ (Madambakurimwa), some of which were old burial places or sties once settled by royal family members. These are no till areas where collection of medicinal plants is allowed (Table 4). The totem (mutupo) as a cultural wildlife conservation concept All traditional leaders and village elders (n = 40; 100%) mentioned that wild animals found in and around the Chibememe community and Sangwe Communal Lands resembled totems of community members and the common totemic animals being zebra, eland (Taurotragus oryx), elephant, hippopotamus (Hippopotamus amphibius), baboon (Papio ursinus) and lion (Panthera leo). It was indicated that animals used as totems (Table 5) would be voluntary protected from any plunderers by the respective animal totemic holders. Such a system of assigning people certain totemic animals reduces harvesting pressure on particular animal species as it is considered a taboo for a person to kill or eat one’s totemic animal. The concept of sacred trees and animals Traditional leaders and village elders said that in the olden days bullfrogs (Dzetse) could only be harvested after the chief had made certain cultural rituals and other sacred animals such as Harakabvuma (pangolin Manis temmincki), Shumba (lion) and Shato (python) are not

allowed to be killed. If such animals were caught alive during a hunt the hunters were obliged to hand over the animal to the chief as a gift (Mupiro). Most believe it to be a sign of bad luck (Manenji) to produce the sounds of animals such as the brown hyena (Hyena brunnea) or bird species like the owl. It is taboo for one to kill such animals as they are believed to be embodiments of supernatural spirits, thus resulting in their conservation and protection. In addition, there are also certain trees which are not supposed to be cut due to their qualities of bringing rain, fortunes, food and providing medicines and these include; baobab, marula (Sclerocarya birrea), sausage tree (Kigelia africana) and the monkey cake (Piliostigma thinning). Among the key threats to these sacred trees include poor farming methods, veld fires, habitat destruction and urbanisation. IKS-based resource harvesting strategies The majority of the traditional leaders and village elders (n = 34; 85%) stated that Chibememe community and its neighbours are still using sustainable strategies for resource harvesting, with traditional hunters (hombarume) being highly respected by the community. The tools commonly used for hunting include poisoned arrows (Seve/Miseve), bows (Ura/Uta), small knives lased with poisons extracted from toxic plants like the Zambezi tail flower (Strophanthus kombe) and Mudzepete (Boophane), and stone and log traps. Other methods included Cina (organised hunting), Saila (annual fish drives) and Kurova Chiso (traditionally sanctioned rotational harvesting of Chiso Pools), details of which are shown in Table 6.

Table 5. Totemic emblems of the traditional leaders and village elders. Totem

Animals venerated

Moyo Chauke Nzou Mvuu Shoko Total

Heart/cattle Snail/bullfrog Elephant Hippopotamus Monkey/baboon

Number and percentage of traditional leaders and village elders 14 (35%) 10 (25%) 5 (13%) 6 (15%) 4 (11%) 40 (100%)


199

Table 6. Chibememe village and Sangwe area IKS strategies for sustainable use and harvesting of local biodiversity resources. Method

Major purpose

Resource sharing mechanisms

Time

Participants

Saila (fish reed net drive)

Fishing

Chief, but fish trapped in floating reed baskets belonged to the owner of the basket

Annually during summer

Mambure (animal netting)

Hunting through capture, may be individualised Group organised hunting Pest control and food resource

Animals and animal parts designated as belonging to chiefs handed to chief and rest shared among villagers As above

After breeding season

Community members including women and children All capable men, excluding women and children As above


Cina (organised or group hunting) Quelea birds night raids

Individual catches, although sharing may spill over to extended family system Animals or animal parts designated as chief’s handed over to chief and the rest shared among group of participating experts

Harvesting by experts or skilled harvestors (Humbarume or nyanzvi – Shavi rekuvhima, kuredza)

Ritual/ceremony, food

Masasi (fish torch harvesting system)

Food

Individual harvest No obligation to share

Locust harvest (night)

Food supplement and form of pest control Food supplement seasonally Food supplement

Individual harvest

Kujuruja (ant harvesting) Kuambasira macheechee (macheche or madzetse)(harvesting bull frogs) Kuchirerambeva (mice clay pots harvesting)

Food provision and pest control mechanisms

Shared within extended family system Chief given first harvest to perform rituals Family harvests Shared within extended family system Individual harvest Shared among extended family members system

As above Crop maturity and harvesting time

Free for all

Chief and elder determine harvesting time which is normally off breeding season During summer and on very dark nights Crop maturity and harvest time

Expert community hunters or fisherman

Cropping season

Any interested person Free to all after ritual performance by chief

Beginning of rain season

Cropping season

All interested people Any interested person

Any interested person


Discussion

Sacred pools, trees and community livelihoods

Our results indicate that Chibememe and Tshovani communities use IKS in natural resource conservation. IKS has been regarded by some ‘as inefficient, irrational, untidy, unruly and destructive of the environment’ (The Ecologist 1993). However, IKS are alive, and thriving, in many indigenous and local tribal communities in Africa, mainly because most of the ‘…main spiritual traditional beliefs had strong connections with nature as they were founded in times dependent on nature’ (Burrow 2010). Dudley, Higgins-Zogob, and Mansourian (2005) note that, ‘before the existence of officially protected areas as we know them today, people were protecting their sacred lands’. Nelson and Hossack (2003) assert that such indigenous approaches to conservation are what can be referred to as natural conservation while conventional ones can be perceived of as artificial and not in keeping with the needs and practices of the concerned communities.

Sangwe Communal Land is located in a dry region where water is a crucial component of the lives and livelihood of local communities, thus any site that protects, and stores water is highly respected (see Annex 1). Consistent with Wels (2003), we also noted that the Chibememe community respected sacred marshes where ritual ceremonies were conducted from time immemorial and would resent any crop production activities on such places. Such a belief has had a positive impact on the protection of biodiversity found in these areas and has for centuries contributed to the conservation of dryland forest, water and wildlife resources in the semi-arid areas of Zimbabwe. Rain is only expected to fall when the village elders have performed rain making ceremonies under designated sacred trees in the villages such as baobab and marula trees. During such ceremonies the chief would permit community members to harvest fish in the sacred


200

G. CHIBEMEME ET AL.

pools using sustainable harvesting methods such as reed fish nets. The harvested fish were shared equitably using both the chief’s resource allocation and the extended family benefit sharing system. The use of taboos is not unique to Sangwe communities but is also common among the Maasai community where someone cutting a large tree must sprinkle milk or honey, to appease the ancestors and ‘Mother Nature’ (Nelson and Hossack 2003) before cutting. This notion of taboos associated with sacred areas has been reported in Ghana (Schaaf and Rossler 2010), where the destruction of sacred areas, such as, a tree or rock through extension of cropping fields is considered as taboo. In a study on sacred trees and groves, Burrow (2010) notes that ‘the baobab has numerous cultural and mythical associations in Africa and Madagascar because of its shape, longevity, multitude of uses and as a residence of spirits’. In most cases, forest and woodland areas where such trees are found are not allowed to be destroyed and in turn become habitats for a variety of plants and animal species. Almquist (1993) recommends that IKS that conserve biodiversity should be used as a foundation and basis for developing and implementing indigenously rooted biodiversity conservation programmes. In the same vein, Schaaf and Rossler (2010) believe that ‘the power of a chief is intrinsically linked with his function as supreme custodian of sacred grove…his power over the community derives from his role as protector of the sacred grove. Should he relinquish this function, his power as chief would be forfeited’. Protecting sacred forests Sacred forests are an important component of the IKS based resource management in Sangwe area. The protection of Zivembava forest which is more than 200 ha of sacred forest has resulted in an additional 120 ha piece of land conserved (UNDP 2012). Although threatened by wood poachers from Checheche growth point, the island is noted for its diverse tree, bird and animal population. UNDP (2012) states that: ‘The forests contain high density of unique grass, trees, shrub and aloe species, several threatened animals including monkeys, pythons (three breeding sites with more than twelve snakes per site…) … a diverse assortment of bird species, including doves… eagles… a population of small mammals such as porcupines and ant-bears’. In Sangwe area, there are taboos surrounding the utilisation of resources in sacred forests. Similarly, it is taboo for the Maroon community in Suriname to harvest medicinal herbs during the dark and to ring bark or cut down the whole tree in order to harvest its bark. Furthermore, Maroons are allowed to ‘… only slice the bark from the sunny side of the trunk…’ of any sacred medicinal plant (Andel 2010). This could be revived and

assimilated for the benefit of the Sangwe community and the GLTFCA in general. This is consistent with the assertion of Sandwith, Oglethorpe, and Tessema (2001) that transboundary natural resource management initiatives ‘…should build on existing internal natural management rather than inventing totally new initiatives…’. It is therefore essential that as practitioners and policy makers in the conservation and sustainable development arena we need to consider the wise counsel of Mao Tse-tung who stated that we need to ‘…go to the practical people…learn from them: then synthesise their experience into principles and theories; return to the practical people and call them to put these principles and methods into practice so as to solve their problems and achieve freedom and happiness’ (Schumacher 1975). Conclusion and recommendations We conclude that Chibememe and Tshovani communities, just like other local communities elsewhere, have since time immemorial been using IKS to manage sacred sites in the form of sacred pools, mountains, forests, trees and animals. However, such knowledge has been largely trivialised and neglected although IKS can ‘provide a powerful basis from which alternative ways of managing natural resources can be developed’ (EOLSS 2002). Hence, the use of IKS in conserving natural resources is increasingly becoming more important today as contemporary conservation approaches alone are inadequate (e.g. Gandiwa 2012), especially in culturally sensitive and conservative communities. We, therefore, recommend the following: (1) The tried and tested IKS resource management approaches practised by the communities in the Sangwe Communal Lands should be considered by policy and decision-makers in the development of local and regional conservation and sustainable development initiatives in the south low veld of Zimbabwe. (2) The state and relevant stakeholders should start to consider recognising ICCAs (Indigenous Peoples’ and Local Community Conserved Areas and Territories) as one of the pragmatic ways of nature conservation. (3) Sacred sites should be recognised and supported as legitimate means for biodiversity conservation. (4) Customary tenure should be recognised to enable communities to fully and effectively manage their sacred sites. (5) There is a need to support and build on traditional authorities and institutions’ efforts in promoting the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity in all its forms.

B I O D I V E R S I T Y Acknowledgements We acknowledge the following people – Dr L.T. Chitsike, Dr Z. Duri and Dr Mawondo (deceased), Chief Gudo, Village heads; Elliot Chibememe, Mahlasera, Mugejo and Tagurana, Mr. E. Musenji, Mr. Alifonso Mapwere, Mr J. Mundondo, Mrs K. Moyo-Mhlanga, Mr J. Sambo, Mr B. T.M. Shumba, Sekuru Tirivana Musindo, Mr Elijah Musindo, Mrs Olive Jenya, Councillor Chibememe and Murhaho and Norman Chibememe for the various roles and great inputs they made for the success of this study. We are also grateful to anonymous reviewers for their useful comments and suggestions which helped improve this manuscript.


References Agritex. 1998. Save Bank Syndicate Irrigation Project Report. Zimbabwe Ministry of Agriculture. Almquist, A. 1993. African Biodiversity: Found a Turn for the Future. A Framework for Integrating Biodiversity Conservation on Sustainable Development. Beltsville: Professional Printing Inc. Andel, T. 2010. “How African-based Winti Belief Helps to Protect Forests in Suriname.” In Sacred Natural Sites: Conserving Nature and Culture, edited by B. R. Verschuuren, R. Wild, and G. Oviedo, 139–145. London: Earthscan. Berkes, F. 1998. Common Property Resources: Ecological and Community Based Sustainable Development. London: Belhaven Press. Burrow, E. G. C. 2010. “Falling between the ‘Cracks’ of Conservation and Religion: The Role of Stewardship for Sacred Trees and Groves.” In Sacred Natural Sites: Conserving Nature and Culture, edited by B. R. Verschuuren, R. Wild and G. Oviedo. London: Earthscan. Chibememe, G. 2003. An Evaluation of the Role of Indigenous Knowledge Systems in the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Biological Diversity in the Sangwe Communal Lands of Chiredzi. Harare: University of Zimbabwe. Chibememe, G. 2006. “Access and Benefit Sharing Options: Enhancing Biodiversity Conservation and Livelihoods of Local Communities.” MSc Thesis, Durrell Institute of Conservation and Ecology. University of Kent, Canterbury. Dudley, N., I. Higgins-Zogob, and S. Mansourian. 2005. Beyond Belief: Linking Faiths and Protected Areas to Support Biodiversity Conservation. World Wide Fund for Nature. EOLSS. 2002. Encyclopedia of Life Support Systems. Oxford: EOLSS Publishers Co., Ltd. Gandiwa, E. 2012. “Local Knowledge and Perceptions of Animal Population Abundances by Communities Adjacent to the Northern Gonarezhou National Park, Zimbabwe.” Tropical Conservation Science 5 (3): 255–269. Gandiwa, E., I. M. A. Heitkönig, A. M. Lokhorst, H. H. T. Prins, and C. Leeuwis. 2013. “Campfire and Human–Wildlife Conflicts in Local Communities Bordering Northern Gonarezhou National Park, Zimbabwe.” Ecology and Society 18 (4): 7. http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-05817-180407. Giller, E., F. Baudron, S. Mtema, J. Milgroom, C. Murugweni, C. Guerboisi, and W. Twine. 2013. “Population and Livelihoods on the Edge.” In Transfrontier Conservation Areas, edited by A. J. Andersson and M de Garine-Wichatitsky. Earthscan: London.

201

Goodman, L. A. 1961. “Snowball Sample.” The Annals of Mathematics Statistics 32: 148–170. Malilangwe Conservation Trust. 1998. “Minutes of the Inaugural Meeting of the Shangaan/San Cultural History Museum Committee, Simbiri Camp, Chiredzi.” Mataire, L. R. 1998. “African Agenda Must be Incorporated in Biodiversity Management.” Sunday Mail, July 12. Matowanyika, J. Z. Z. 1998. “Challenges in Promoting Indigenous Knowledge Systems in Southern Africa.” In Hearing the Crabs Cough: Perspectives and Emerging Institutions for Indigenous Knowledge Systems in the Resources in Southern Africa, edited by J. Z. Z. Matowanyika. Harare: IUCN-Rosa. McNeely, J. A. 1993. “People Protected Area: Partners in Prosperity.” In The Law of the Mother: Protecting Indigenous Peoples in Protected Areas, edited by E. Kemf. San Francisco: Sierra Club Books. Mohammed-Katerere, J. 1998. “Customary Law and Sustainable Land Management: Incorporating Indigenous Knowledge into National Legal Systems.” In Hearing the Crabs Cough: Perspectives and Emerging Institutions for Indigenous Knowledge Systems in Land Resources Management in Southern Africa, edited by J. Z. Z. Matowanyika. Harare: IUCN-Rosa. Muboko, N., and F. Murindagomo. 2014. “Wildlife Control, Access and Utilization: Lessons from Legislation, Policy Evolution and Implementation in Zimbabwe.” Journal for Nature Conservation 22: 206–211. Nelson, J., and L. Hossack. 2003. From Principles to Practices: Indigenous Peoples and Protected Areas. Moreton-inMarsh, UK: Forest Peoples Programme. Ruppel, O. C. 2013. Environmental Law and Policy in Namibia. Windhoek: Hanns Seidel Foundation. Sandwith, T. H., L. J. Oglethorpe, and Y. Tessema. 2001. Beyond Boundaries: Transboundary Natural Resources Management in sub-Saharan Africa. Washington, DC: Grammarians Inc. Schaaf, T., and M. Rossler. 2010. “Sacred Natural Sites, Cultural Landscapes and UNESCO’s. Action.” In Sacred Natural Sites: Conserving Nature and Culture, edited by B. R. Verschuuren, R. Wild and G. Oviedo, 161–169. London: Earthscan. Schumacher, E. F. 1975. Small is Beautiful: Economics as if People Mattered. London: Harper and Row Publishers. Ecologist, The. 1993. Whose Common Future? Reclaiming the Common. Philadelphia: New Society Publishers. UNDP (United Nations Development Programme). 2012. Chibememe Earth Healing Association, Zimbabwe. Equator Initiative Case Study Series. New York, NY: United Nations Development Programme. Velempini, R., and J. S. Perkins. 2008. “Integrating Indigenous knowledge and Modern Scientific Knowledge for Biodiversity Conservation and Human Livelihoods in the Southern Kalahari, Botswana.” Botswana Notes and Records 39: 75–88. Wels, H. 2003. Private Wildlife Conservation in Zimbabwe. Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill.

Annex 1 Historical walking stick of the Vaera Moyo or Kumbuya (heart) totem of the Sangwe area, showing the linkage between culture and environment. Source: Conceptualised by the elders of the Chibememe and Tagurana village with assistance from G. Chibememe in 2004.


202 G. CHIBEMEME ET AL.