NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

BARRIERS AND MOTIVATIONS STUDY

AMALIMA LOKO STUDY REPORT

March 14, 2022

This study report was made possible by the support of the American people through the United States Agency
for International Development (USAID). The contents are the responsibility of CNFA and do not necessarily
reflect the views of USAID or the United States Government.
This publication was produced by CNFA under the USAID-funded Amalima Loko activity.
Amalima Loko Agreement No. 72DFFP20CA00008

Period of Study:
August to November 2021
Prepared by:
CNFA, DUNS Number: 153876610
1828 L Street NW Suite 710
Washington, DC 20036
202-296-3920 (tel.)
www.cnfa.org

Lead Investigator:
Anna Brazier
abrazier@mango.zw

Research Team:
Louise Nkomo, Watershed Lead
Mkhokheli Sithole & Qondani-enjosini Sibanda, NRM Coordinators
Munyaradzi Ziburawa, Resilience Coordinator
Sambulisiwe Maseko, GIS Specialist
Vusumuzi Mlilo, Environmental Officer
Assisted by the following Field Officers: Zibusiso Mpofu, Sithabile Bafana, Shackson Ncube, Mxolisi
Dlodlo, and Skhulile Dube

Cover Photo: Sorghum field in Chisuma village in Hwange district

1
CONTENTS
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ....................................................................................................................... iii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................................ iv
1. Background and Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 1
1.1 Historical context ............................................................................................................................................. 2
1.2 Governance context......................................................................................................................................... 5
2. Methodology ............................................................................................................................................................. 7
2.1 Sampling ............................................................................................................................................................... 8
2.2 Development of data collection tools .......................................................................................................... 8
2.3 Data collection and analysis ............................................................................................................................ 9
2.4 Study limitations ................................................................................................................................................ 9
2.5 Theoretical framework ................................................................................................................................. 10
3. Findings .................................................................................................................................................................... 10
3.1 What natural resources do people value and why? ............................................................................... 10
3.2 What are the behaviours being practiced that lead to natural resource degradation? ................. 13
3.3 Who is responsible for the degradation? ................................................................................................. 17
3.4 Are individuals and communities aware of how and why natural resources are being degraded?
................................................................................................................................................................................... 19
3.5 What are the reasons and motivations for the current practices that contribute to land
degradation and unstainable use of water by market actors, communities, and households (including
mining, deforestation, overgrazing, and unsustainable agricultural practices)? ................................................ 19
3.6 What are the NRM best practices identified by community members and other stakeholders
that can be implemented in the project area? ................................................................................................ 21
3.7 What are the barriers to implementing these practices? ..................................................................... 24
Governance issues ................................................................................................................................................ 26
3.8 What are the factors that will convince different stakeholders to adopt promoted NRM
practices?................................................................................................................................................................. 28
3.9 Who are the priority groups and the influencing groups regarding the practice of specific
behaviours both positive and negative? ........................................................................................................... 29
3.10. What action can communities take to promote behaviours that enable sustainable natural
resources management amongst members? ................................................................................................... 30
3.11 Which wild edible plants, fruits and animals are commonly consumed at the household and at
what level of consumption? ................................................................................................................................ 30

i
 3.12 What practices related to the harvesting of wild edible plants, fruits, and wildlife are prevalent?
................................................................................................................................................................................... 33
4. Discussion and recommendations..................................................................................................................... 34
REFERENCES ......................................................................................................................................................... 38
ANNEX A: Gaps to be addressed by the study ............................................................................................ 41
ANNEX B: Social ecological model of behaviour change ............................................................................ 42
ANNEX C: NRM governance structures in the study districts ................................................................. 43
ANNEX D: Wild fruit species per district ...................................................................................................... 44

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Most frequently mentioned valued resources ........................................................................................ 11
Figure 2: Ecosystem services ....................................................................................................................................... 12
Figure 3: Most frequently mentioned reasons for valuing resources ................................................................. 12
Figure 4: The most common forms of resource degradation.............................................................................. 13
Figure 5: The perceived impacts of resource degradation ................................................................................... 14
Figure 6: Reasons for resource degradation ............................................................................................................ 20
Figure 7: Beneficial NRM practices mentioned by FGDs by study district ....................................................... 22
Figure 8: Barriers to implementing successful NRM practices ............................................................................ 25
Figure 9: Factors that will convince and motivate different stakeholders to improve NRM........................ 28
Figure 10: Influencers in the community ................................................................................................................... 29
Figure 11: Social ecological model of behaviour change ....................................................................................... 42
Figure 12: NRM governance structures in the study districts ............................................................................. 43
Figure 13: Indigenous fruit harvested for sale and household consumption in Binga..................................... 44
Figure 14: Indigenous fruit harvested for sale and household consumption in Hwange ............................... 45
Figure 15: Indigenous fruit harvested for sale and household consumption in Nkayi .................................... 46

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Key findings by research question ................................................................................................................. v
Table 2: Wild foods consumed and sold in a Hwange community ..................................................................... 30
Table 3: Fruits commonly harvested for household consumption or sale in the three study districts ..... 32
Table 4: Recommendations for Amalima Loko from study findings................................................................... 35
Table 5: Information gaps identified in the Amalima Loko ‘Inception Workshop’. ........................................ 41

ii
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
Agritex Agricultural Advisory Service
BHA Bureau for Humanitarian Assistance
CAMPFIRE Communal Areas Management Programme for Indigenous Resources
DVLS Department of Veterinary and Livestock Services
EMA Environmental Management Agency
FGD Focus group discussion
FTLRP Fast Track Land Reform Programme
KII Key informant interview
NRM Natural resource management
SBC Social behavior change
RDC Rural District Council

iii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Amalima Loko program is a five-year USAID/Bureau for Humanitarian Assistance (BHA)-funded
Resilience Food Security Activity (RFSA) designed to improve food and nutrition security in Zimbabwe
through increased food access and sustainable watershed management. The program is implemented in
Matabeleland North by a consortium led by CNFA and comprised of the Organisation of Rural
Associations for Progress, Dabane Water Workshops, The Manoff Group, International Medical Corps,
and Mercy Corps.

Introduction
In 2021 Amalima Loko undertook a natural resource management (NRM) barriers and motivation study
to understand what leads to or prevents the adoption of improved NRM practices by households,
communities, market actors, and government entities. The specific objectives of the study were to:
1. Identify the factors that contribute to, motivate, and hinder individual and community value of
natural resources and cooperation in managing natural resources.
2. Increase understanding of the contextual factors and specific practices by government and
market-actors that contribute to land degradation and unsustainable water use.
3. Determine the factors that will influence stakeholder groups with vested interests to adopt and
support new actions that are necessary to restore watersheds.
4. Use the findings to inform the design of capacity building plans for strengthening the knowledge,
skills, and abilities of individuals, households, and communities to adopt NRM best practices and
better manage natural resources for the long-term future.

Methodology
The study was conducted in Nkayi, Binga, and Hwange. These were selected as being most
representative of the five project districts. A team of eight researchers, accompanied by the consultant,
collected data through 39 key informant interviews (KIIs) at district and ward level and 24 focus group
discussions (FGDs) in the selected study wards during September 2021. Within each study district, two
wards were randomly selected as study sites.
Key informants were purposively selected from each district and ward and included representatives of
government departments, private sector companies, market actors, and traditional and church leaders.
FGD participants were selected from each study ward to include four demographic groups in the
community: men over 35 years, women over 35 years, men 18-35 years, and women 18-35 years.
Groups were segregated by gender and age to enable free expression of views on natural resources and
avoid impedance related to cultural norms.
In total, 24 FGDs (12 women and 12 men) were conducted, transcribed, and coded for analysis. There
were 199 total focus group participants (105 women and 94 men). Eleven of the 24 total FGDs involved
only youth. Two of the men’s FGDs had both youth and middle-aged adults. One women’s FGD had
both youth and middle-aged adults. Most key informants at both district and ward level were middle-
aged men. In this study, “youth” refers to those 18-35 years of age and “middle-aged” refers to those
over 35 years of age.
The consultant trained the research team on the study methods and the data collection tools were
tested at a site in Lupane district. The team collected data in September 2021, carried out transcription
and translation in October, and analysed the data in October/November. The team then developed a
code book and coded the data using Dedoose software, which enables systematic and thematic data
analysis.

iv
Key Findings
Table 1 summarises the key study findings in terms of the research questions.

Table 1: Key findings by research question

Research question Key findings

1. What natural
The ten most listed valued resources were trees and forest products,
resources are valued
water sources, soil, wild animals, wild foods, grass and grazing areas,
and why?
livestock, and materials used in construction (stones and gravel, pit
sand, and soil for building). Trees was the most frequently mentioned
and was also the first valuable resource mentioned in most of the
FGDs.
The main reasons for valuing natural resources were income,
ecosystem regulation, food/nutrition, cultural and social uses, balance
of the ecosystem, indigenous knowledge, traditional medicine, barter
trade, and because human life depends on it. The range of responses
showed how deeply communities understand and appreciate their
natural resources both in terms of instrumental and intrinsic value.

2. What are the

The main degradation behaviours people identified were tree cutting/
behaviours being
deforestation, soil damage leading to gullies and related problems,
practiced that lead to
poaching and wildlife decline, streambank cultivation, water pollution,
natural resource
overfishing, unsustainable harvesting of wild fruit, sand and gravel
degradation?
extraction, use of sleighs (to transport heavy items such as firewood),
and charcoal production.

The main perceived impacts of these were siltation, reduced grazing

land, water shortages, human-wildlife conflict, livestock deaths, and
health impacts from pollution.

3. Who is responsible Participants attributed specific types of degradation to all land users,
for the degradation? including:
Young men - mining, sand extraction and brickmaking, firewood, and
charcoal.
Young women - wild fruit harvesting and basketry.
Middle-aged men - deforestation, sand extraction, brickmaking, and
wildlife poaching.
Middle-aged women - stream-bank cultivation.
Rich people with many cattle - degrading grazing areas.
Private companies assisted by councils and traditional leaders -
water pollution from mining (in Hwange), degradation of rivers
through sand extraction (mainly in Hwange), and over-fishing (in
Binga).

v
Research question Key findings
There are few young people in rural communities, but they are
physically active, so people feel that they do a lot of damage. Also,
adults said that because young people do not participate in
development projects, they are less likely to follow community NRM
rules.

4. Are individuals and Almost everyone consulted, from community to government

communities aware of departments, showed a broad and deep understanding of
how and why natural environmental systems and their importance.
resources are being
degraded?

5. What are the reasons The main reasons and motivations identified by participants include
and motivations for basic survival, lack of land (in Binga, due to the hilly terrain), livestock
the current practices overpopulation and poor management, lack of knowledge and
that contribute to awareness about alternatives, poor governance, lack of fertile soil, and
land degradation and the rise of Christianity causing decline in power of traditional leaders
unsustainable use of and traditional resource management.
water by market
actors, communities,
and households?

6. What are the NRM The main best practices people identified include conservation
best practices agriculture, tree planting and protection, soil conservation works,
identified by livestock grazing plans, planting vegetation to stabilize soil, streambank
community members and wetland protection, veld-fire prevention, soil fertility
and other improvement, dam scooping and dam construction, water-harvesting,
stakeholders that can beekeeping, and irrigated gardens.
be implemented in
the project area?

7. What are the barriers The main barriers to implementing these practices participants
to implementing identified include negative attitudes (such as not caring, laziness, or
these practices? dependency), labour issues, poor governance, lack of knowledge of
alternatives, cultural norms toward cattle, lack of uptake, problems
relating to the Communal Areas Management Programme for
Indigenous Resources (CAMPFIRE), lack of community cohesion, and
climate change.

8. What are the factors

The motivations and supports that participants identified were better
that will
governance, more training, education and awareness-raising, capacity-
convince different
building of traditional leaders, free agricultural inputs, food for work/
stakeholders to adopt
assets, encouraging collective action, developing more income
promoted NRM
generating projects, targeting young people, and giving recognition to
practices?
environmental resource monitors and community champions through
competitions and exchange visits, demonstrations, and field days.

vi
Research question Key findings

9. Who are the priority Priority groups include all land-users, particularly women as they
groups and the interact daily with resources; men as resource users and community
influencing groups decision-makers; the elderly as repositories of traditional knowledge;
regarding the practice and youth who are viewed as “key perpetrators” according to FGDs.
of specific behaviours Participants recommended engaging these priority groups and to
both positive and increase their sense of belonging and reduce their exploitation by
negative? private sector.
Influencing groups include traditional leaders, church leaders, youth
peer leaders, community elders, councillors, Agricultural Advisory
Service (Agritex) officers, Environmental Management Agency (EMA)
officers, environmental resource monitors, and Rural District Council
(RDC) representatives. Traditional leaders and youth are blamed for
causing problems but are also seen as key change agents.

10. What action can Covered in responses to question 6.

communities take to
promote behaviours
that enable
sustainable natural
resource management
amongst members?

11. Which wild edible This varies from ward to ward and between districts and is also likely
plants, fruits, and to vary from year to year. Wild fruits, vegetables, mushrooms, honey,
animals are insects, lizards, small mammals, and birds are collected for food; and
commonly consumed certain species are sold or exchanged in barter trade within the
at the household and community or with buyers from urban areas. The number of harvested
at what level of fruit tree species was similar for the three districts. The species most
consumption? consumed and sold were notably quite similar across the three
districts. Hwange participants mentioned a wide variety of wild
harvested vegetable species and stated that this was the only district
where they are sold. Hwange also had the largest number of insect and
animal species for consumption and sale. Respondents across all three
districts reported that they consume and sell wild honey and wild
mushrooms. It was not possible to determine the level of
consumption.

12. What practices

Wildlife poaching, overfishing, and overharvesting of wild fruits are
related to the
problems identified by respondents. Illegal hunting of game in Nkayi
harvesting of wild has eradicated most antelope and other non-predator species
edible plants, fruits,
according to respondents. Respondents also said poaching has been
and wildlife are
successfully controlled in Binga thanks to the CAMPFIRE programme.
prevalent?
In some areas, harvesting wild fruit for sale is unsustainable, but in
other areas respondents said that those who harvest for sale take
better care of the trees.

vii
 1. Background and Introduction
The Amalima Loko program is a five-year USAID/ Bureau for Humanitarian Assistance (BHA)-funded
Resilience Food Security Activity designed to improve food and nutrition security in Zimbabwe through
increased food access and sustainable watershed management. The program is implemented in
Matabeleland North by a consortium led by Cultivating New Frontiers in Agriculture (CNFA) and
comprised of the Organisation of Rural Associations for Progress, Dabane Water Workshops, The
Manoff Group, International Medical Corps, and Mercy Corps.
A major component of Amalima Loko is integrated water resources management linked to improved
natural resource management (NRM) along micro-catchments in five districts in Matabeleland North.
Achieving Purpose 2 of the program, “Improved health and availability of soil, water, and plant resources
within the watershed” will require engagement and commitment at the government, market actor,
community, and household levels to adopt improved agriculture and NRM practices and sustain the
infrastructure investments and coordination processes that the program will help establish. The Amalima
Loko Institutional Dynamics Assessment investigated government functions, barriers and motivations
and more broadly, but more information is needed to understand these dynamics as they relate
specifically to NRM and at the market actor, community, and household levels. Therefore, the NRM
Barriers and Motivations study seeks to understand community perspectives and perceptions to land
degradation and identify behavioral determinants that limit the adoption of sustainable NRM practices.
By identifying the factors that contribute to, motivate, or hinder individual and community buy-in
towards sustainable natural resource management, this study supports the refinement of the Amalima
Loko NRM and social behavior change (SBC) strategies to improve use of watershed resources for lives
and livelihoods (SP2.2) and improve community ownership of watershed resource governance (SP2.1).
The Amalima Loko program undertook the NRM Barriers and Motivations study. The specific objectives
of the study were to:
1. Identify the factors that contribute to, motivate, and hinder individual and community value of
natural resources and cooperation in managing natural resources.
2. Increase understanding of the contextual factors and specific practices by government and
market-actors that contribute to land degradation and unsustainable water use.
3. Determine the factors that will influence stakeholder groups with vested interests to adopt and
support new actions that are necessary to restore watersheds.
4. Use the finding to inform the design of capacity building plans for strengthening the knowledge,
skills, and abilities of individuals, households, and communities to adopt NRM best practices and
better manage natural resources for the long-term future.
The study will be used to address information gaps to refine the TOC, including priority behaviours.
found in Annex A.
The study was conducted in three of the project districts: Nkayi, Binga, and Hwange. The lead
investigator consultant and Amalima Loko team collaboratively developed a scope of work (SOW)
detailing the research methodology, which was approved by BHA. The study included a literature
review, which involved a context analysis of the historical and governance situation with respect to
NRM in Zimbabwe. A behaviour change literature review helped inform the methodology and
theoretical framework for the study. A team of researchers collected data through key informant
interviews (KIIs) at district and ward level and focus group discussions (FGDs) in the selected study
wards during September 2021. The data was coded using Dedoose software and analysed. The findings
and project recommendations are presented in this report.

1
1.1 Historical context
Zimbabwe has a rich stock of natural resources, which the economy is heavily dependent on. More than
67 percent of people live in rural areas with agriculture and natural resource linked livelihoods.1 The
country has a highly variable climate with a single rainy season making agriculture vulnerable to periodic
droughts exacerbated by climate change. Most of the country’s soils (70 percent) are sandy, inherently
low in fertility, pH and moisture retention capacity, and highly prone to erosion.2 Surface water
resources are limited. Most rivers are seasonal, and dams and irrigation schemes are not widespread.
Dependence on limited groundwater is high for domestic, irrigation, and commercial activities.3 All rural
communities rely heavily on forests for fuel, timber, and non-timber products for food and income.4
Due to cultural norms, women and children provide agricultural labour and are responsible for water
and fuelwood collection. This makes them most vulnerable to environmental degradation and climate
change impacts.5 It is necessary to explore the history context in order to understand the current land
degradation and natural resource exploitation in Matabeleland North.

Early environmental governance

According to the literature, pre-colonial Zimbabweans lived in close synchronicity with their natural
environment and developed complex social and cultural systems for environmental governance.6 Under
traditional African beliefs systems, humans are considered part of the environment. The concept of
natural resources as valued only in terms of their use by people is alien to this belief system. Interaction
with the environment was controlled by traditional and religious leaders through promotion of taboos,
rules, sacred sites, and family totems. Environmental abuses were punished by the supreme being (often
manifesting as drought) and threats from spiritual beings such as water spirits. Community cohesion was
cemented through communal ceremonies and collective action including amalima.7 Women, especially
the elderly, midwives, and herbalists, understood the importance of environmental management because
of their direct interaction with resources in terms of food processing and soil management, and
collecting water, firewood, and wild plant and animal products.8 They were also involved with
intergenerational transfer of indigenous knowledge related to environmental management through
storytelling.

Colonial influences
Traditional governance and belief systems declined in the colonial era from the late 1800s, due to the
introduction of Christianity and colonial values. Missionaries preached that man should have dominion
over the environment and science superseded indigenous knowledge.9 The state took control of
resource management and resource protection was linked to economic value. When land-use
technologies were introduced by the state, men were invariably targeted.10 The colonial government
reorganised the national settlement pattern through land redistribution acts, the creation of National
Parks, and the Kariba dam displacing communities into new areas to claim the most productive land for

1 Zimstat, 2017
2 Dhliwayo et al., n.d.
3 FAO, 2016
4 GOZ, n.d Fifth National Biodiversity Communication
5 FAO, 2017
6 Mapara, 2009
7 Amalima is the Ndebele word for the social contract by which community members come together to help each other engage
in productive activities such as land cultivation, livestock tending, and asset building.
8 Manyonganise and Museka, 2020
9 Mapara, 2009
10 Page and Page, 1991

2
white commercial farmers. Africans were pushed into Tribal Trust Lands in marginal areas with poor soil
and climate.11 The Tonga lost their traditional flood plain farming methods while the San lost access to
wild foods.12 Populations of people and livestock in the Tribal Trust Lands (now called Communal
Areas) increased but land was not expanded. This led to severe environmental degradation which has
intensified since then.13
The Rhodesian agricultural extension service was developed in the 1920s and the plough was
introduced, leading to the expansion of field size through large-scale deforestation.14 Ploughing led to
very high soil erosion rates in most areas.15 There were no national markets for small grains and since
Africans had to pay land tax, they were quickly pulled into the maize cash economy even though maize is
unsuitable for cultivation in most parts of Zimbabwe.16 The Master Farmer certified training scheme was
introduced in the 1930s to encourage farming excellence but only men could qualify. The scheme is still
in existence and since independence, it has been open to women and expanded to Advanced Master
Farming level.17 Master farming criteria included that fields had to be cleared of all trees and crop
monoculture practiced.18 Draconian conservation measures were introduced through the Natural
Resources Act in 1941 and the Native Land Husbandry Act in 1951. These included including
centralisation of settlements and grazing areas, enforced de-stocking of cattle, and introduction of
contour ridges.19 Women were usually tasked with construction of contour ridges, which increased
their already high labour burden. The measures were enforced by the Natural Resources Board (a
precursor to the Environmental Management Agency (EMA)). These compulsory measures made
environmental conservation extremely unpopular and a highly politicised issue up to this day. As noted
by Whitlow “the bitter resentment of peasant farmers to forced reduction of cattle numbers hardly
provided a sound basis for encouraging participation in future conservation programmes.”20

Post-independence
The post-independence era (after 1981) saw a focus on developing health, education, and the national
economy with a deterioration of implementation of laws and policies protecting natural resources. The
new government carried forward the repressive, authoritarian governance style and protectionist
economic controls of the pre-independence regime. Political compliance in Matabeleland and Midlands
was ensured through the state organised Gukuruhundi massacres where over 20,000 people were killed
between 1984-87.21 The massacres significantly impacted the provinces’ local economies and were
followed by decades of lack of investment. Land redistribution was slow and ineffective and population
density continued to increase in the extremely degraded communal areas.22
Economic Structural Adjustment Plans introduced to liberalise the economy in the 1990s led to the
collapse of local industry, widespread unemployment, and increased poverty and inequality.23 Post-
independence resettlement programmes have relocated about 500,000 families. Most of these were part
of the Fast Track Land Reform Programme (FTLRP) in the 2000s where land was forcibly removed from
white owners in rapid, uncoordinated, and often violent bouts implemented mainly by war veterans, and

11 Whitlow, 1988
12 Mashingaidze, 2020; Chingwe, in Kangira et al, 2019
13 Whitlow, 1988
14 Alvord, 1927
15 Elwell, n.d
16 Whitlow, 1988; van Engelen et al, 2004
17 FAO, n.d
18 Page and Page, 1991
19 Whitlow, 1988, 10-12
20 Whitlow, 1988, 10
21 Muzondidya, 2009
22 Dore, 2001; Zinyama and Whitlow, 1986
23 Raftopoulos, 2009

3
was sanctioned by government. These resettlement programmes have eased population pressure to
some extent but have intensified environmental degradation. As noted by Chimhowu, the FTLRP
changed the “dynamics of environmental stewardship, and attitudes and patterns of resource use in
Zimbabwe”.24 The FTLRP radically shifted Zimbabwe’s economy away from large-scale commercial
agriculture causing huge contraction of per capita gross domestic product (GDP) and fiscal revenue,
crippling service provision and leading to pervasive rural and urban poverty.25. Widespread livelihood
instability has led rural communities to increasingly exploit natural resources in unsustainable,
uncontrolled, and often illegal ways.26 The assumption is that the Covid-19 lockdown has dramatically
exacerbated these problems in the last two years.
Currently, most of the rural population is still concentrated in the increasingly marginal communal
areas.27 Policies to revitalise the ailing economy28 have focused on expanding cash cropping and the
mining sector which accounts for over 12 percent of gross domestic product and 55 percent of foreign
currency earnings.29 The rapid and unregulated growth of these sectors has had an extremely negative
impact on the environment.30 The precedence given to private sector resource exploitation has led to
additional community displacement, over-exploitation of resources, and contamination of soil, water,
and air, particularly in the districts selected for this study.31 Zimbabwe is experiencing threats to forests
and wildlife species and a serious decline in the quality of soil, air, and water resources.32 Expansion of
agriculture, unsustainable exploitation of fuelwood, infrastructural developments, wildfires, invasive
species, overharvesting of non-timber forest products, and climate change have led to forest biodiversity
loss.33 Soil loss from rangeland erosion ranges from 3 to 75 tons per hectare per year, and 15 to 50 tons
per hectare per year from arable lands.34 The country is currently losing ten percent of its forests per
decade.35 Forest cover has declined from 53.2 percent of total land area in 1992 to 36 percent.
Wetlands are drying due to overgrazing, cultivation, and climate change. Uncontrolled mining (small and
large-scale) and streambank cultivation ran rife leading to soil erosion, landslides, siltation, and water
pollution and a decline in fisheries.36 Human-wildlife conflicts are increasing as settlements encroach on
national parks and wildlife seek food in farming areas in drought years. According to a recent USAID
study, the main drivers of natural resource degradation in Zimbabwe are poverty, reliance on
unsustainable livelihoods, food insecurity, population growth, institutional and economic failures,
corruption and patronage, insecure land tenure and inconsistent execution of land reform, poor
governance capacity and lack of political will to enforce existing laws, growing energy demand,
international demand for natural resources, and lack of mapping and other critical data inputs.37
Zimbabwe has become one of the most vulnerable and least prepared countries in the face of climate
shocks and hazards.38 Resource degradation is exacerbating climate change impacts and increasing
vulnerability, particularly in Matabeleland North. Further problems in Matabeleland relate to historical
pre- and post-independence land redistribution causing an influx of displaced or resettled people from

24 Chimhowu et al, 2010, 5

25 World Bank, 2019; Zimstat, 2017
26 GOZ, 2014
27 Swinkles et al, 2019
28 such as the National Development Strategy 1, 2021-2025; the Transitional Stabilisation Policy, 2018; and the National
Agriculture Policy Framework 2021-2030
29 Deloitte, 2020
30 Åkesson et al, 2016
31 Nkomo, 2021; Nare, 2020
32 GOZ, n.d. Fifth National Biodiversity Communication
33 USAID, 2021
34 GOZ, 2017
35 GOZ, n.d.
36 GOZ, 2017
37 Ibid
38 https://gain-new.crc.nd.edu/country/zimbabwe

4
other parts of Zimbabwe, reducing social cohesion.39 The failure to recognise the need to designate
grazing areas in the resettlement process in the Matabeleland context has compounded degradation
there.40

1.2 Governance context

Policy and legislation governing natural resources
The Environmental Management Act (2002) provides a basic governance framework. Zimbabwe has a
forestry policy, a water policy and strategy, a climate change policy and strategy, a national biodiversity
strategy and action plan, and is a signatory to the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification
and Drought. However, Zimbabwe lacks an overarching NRM policy and governance frameworks are
fragmented. Several ministries are tasked with enforcing environmental legislation resulting in confusion
on responsibilities, weak monitoring of degradation, and poor enforcement. Further problems include
lack of awareness among the judiciary and police, lack of a holistic approach to development, and lack of
transparency, accountability and political will to address environmental abuses.41
Governing bodies
This section is derived from the literature review with clarification given by key informants during the
study. Nationally, under the Ministry of Environment Tourism and Hospitality Industry, the EMA has the
mandate of regulating, monitoring, and promoting sustainable NRM and environmental protection. It is
responsible for guiding the development of national environmental management plans and local
environmental action plans; conducting, reviewing, and approving environmental impact assessments;
regulating and monitoring the management and utilization of ecologically fragile ecosystems; developing
and implementing incentives for protection of the environment; and undertaking environmental
protection activities. The Forestry Commission is responsible for overseeing management of resources
in designated state-protected forests as well as communal area forests and offers community-based
training in forestry techniques. The Parks and Wildlife Management Authority (ZimParks) is responsible
for regulating the management of resources within national parks and recreation areas, including wildlife
and fisheries in Lake Kariba. The Ministry of Lands, Agriculture, Water, Climate, and Rural Resettlement
also plays a role in NRM mainly through the Agriculture Advisory Service (Agritex), the Department of
Research and Specialist Services, the Zimbabwe National Water Authority, and the Department for
Fisheries and Aquatic Resources. The Ministry of Health and Child Care also plays a role through the
Environmental Public Health Department. All these departments are represented at national, provincial,
and district level. However, only Agritex and the Environmental Public Health Department are
represented by officers at ward level.
The Rural District Council (RDC) is responsible for NRM in the district through District Development
Committees and can develop NRM bylaws. According to the Rural District Councils Act, RDCs are
meant to convene district environment committees headed by an Environmental Officer or Natural
Resources Officer (in districts with wildlife). The district environment committee should set up ward
and village level environment committees that are meant to identify community-based environmental
resource monitors—volunteers who draw attention to resource abuses and raise awareness of NRM
for both the EMA and the Forestry Commission. Due to lack of incentives and support, these resource
monitors appear inactive in most districts. However, in some places, they are more motivated when

39 Alexander and McGregor, 2002

40 Mabhena, 2014
41 Akesson et al, 2016

5
supported and trained by NGOs. Annex C
presents a diagram of the NRM governance
Environmental resource monitors
structures in the study districts.
These are community volunteers recruited by the
CAMPFIRE RDC in liaison with EMA, Forestry Commission, or
CAMPFIRE (depending on the predominant resource
In some districts, the Communal Areas issues in a district) to promote environmental rights as
Management Programme for Indigenous set in section 4 (1) of the Environmental Management
Resources (CAMPFIRE), —initiated by the Act (Chap 20:27) and the environmental principles of
Government through the Department of the Act section 4 (2) (d). They can be called different
National Parks and Wildlife in 1989 with USAID things in different places (such as NRM monitors or
funding—provides a mechanism for community- CAMPFIRE monitors) but they have essentially the
based NRM. Through this scheme, RDCs allow same function - as focal points for liaison between
safari operators to exploit wildlife and a share of environmental governance bodies and the community.
the profits is invested into community Although they do not seem to do much monitoring,
development projects by the RDC. The lead they are environmental role models in their locality.
coordinating agency is the CAMPFIRE They assess the state of resources and chart the
Association, a registered Private Voluntary progress or decline of degradation through:
Organization (PVO). The CAMPFIRE
• Initiating environmental rehabilitation projects,
Association is the umbrella association of RDCs
implementing CAMPFIRE. The Association • Initiating environmental awareness-raising, and
receives revenue from RDC membership fees, • Reporting environmental crimes.
donor grant funds, and potentially, funds from They are not EMA or RDC employees and can work
the CAMPFIRE Trust. The Association uses its with any other individual or institution (including
revenue to represent and promote the interests NGOs) promoting environmental management and
of its members at the national, regional, and protection.
international level. According to CAMPFIRE They may get incentives from EMA (when their budget
Revenue Sharing Guidelines, 55 percent permits), such as a reflector bib, which helps the
(minimum limit) of income is allocated to monitors to be recognised for their environmental role
communities, 26 percent to the RDC to support in the community. The reflector remains the property
costs attributable to CAMPFIRE activities, 15 of EMA and can be withdrawn. They wear the reflector
percent for general RDC administration, and when undertaking environmental management and
four percent as a levy to the Association.42 protection duties under the guidance of EMA staff,
traditional leadership, environment committees and
Of the 60 RDCs in Zimbabwe, not all are sub-committee members, or the local authority.
CAMPFIRE members; and if an RDC is part of
They do not enforce environmental laws but alert the
CAMPFIRE, this does not mean that every
relevant authorities of abuses. Their term of office is
village/ward in that district will be engaged in determined by their willingness and performance.
CAMPFIRE activities. Therefore, the
performance of CAMPFIRE varies, as benefits
are determined by the size of land free from
human settlement and livelihood activities, and on which CAMPFIRE related income generating activities
can be administered. Population density in most districts today is more than 20 people per square
kilometre, whereas it was ten people per square kilometre when CAMPFIRE was started.
The programme has been heavily criticised for widespread corruption and its failure to ensure that
communities benefit directly. In some districts, most CAMPFIRE proceeds have been used to prop up
RDCs, which have suffered from dwindling national finance.43 USAID withdrew support to the

42 https://www.campfirezimbabwe.org/article/what-we-do
43 Frost and Bond, 2008

6
programme in 2005. CAMPFIRE proved successful in some areas with new methods of benefit-sharing
including direct payments of dividends to community accounts and revolving funds.44 There have been
calls for the programme to decentralise to the community level45 and diversify its focus beyond wildlife
to include forest and mineral resources. The government has recently committed to reviving the
programme.46 In Lupane and Nkayi, CAMPFIRE committees do not exist. This is most likely a result of
past failures of the project which exacerbated land-tenure and resource access disputes between
communities, councils, and the Forestry Commission.47

Traditional leaders
NRM at the community level is meant to be administered by traditional leaders (in line with the
Traditional Leaders Act, 1999) with support from local authorities and various government
departments.48 The village assembly, under the village head, is responsible for enforcement of all
environmental planning and conservation bylaws on behalf of the chief, RDC, and national government.
Both government and traditional institutions are severely lacking in resources and capacity to implement
policies and legislation. Regarding the RDC, this has encouraged revenue from local resources, such as
wildlife, to be diverted to benefit councils rather than local communities. The role of traditional leaders
has been undermined by successive governments; and communities often accuse both local government
and traditional leaders of corruption and mismanagement, e.g., allowing foreign and local companies to
conduct uncontrolled mining, logging, and wildlife exploitation.49

2. Methodology
The study was conducted in three of the five of the project districts: Nkayi, Binga, and Hwange. The
three districts were selected by placing all five project implementation districts into three unique district
clusters, which were grouped together because of cultural, ethnic, ecological, livelihood, and other
similarities. The three clusters are: 1) Lupane and Nkayi, 2) Hwange and Tsholotsho, and 3) Binga. A
team of eight researchers accompanied by the consultant, collected data through KIIs at district and
ward level and FGDs in the selected study wards during September 2021. The team included project
staff Louise Nkomo (Watershed Lead), Mkhokheli Sithole and Qondani-enkosini Sibanda (NRM
Coordinators), Munyaradzi Ziburawa (Resilience Coordinator), Sambulisiwe Maseko (GIS Specialist),
Vusumuzi Mlilo (Environmental Officer) and two NRM field officers per district namely Zibusiso Mpofu,
Sithabile Bafana, Shackson Ncube, Mxolisi Dlodlo, and Skhulile Dube. The research team developed a
study methodology and workplan, which was approved by BHA. The data was coded using Dedoose
software and analysed. The findings are presented in section 4 of this report.

44 Chimhowu, et al 2010
45 https://www.zimbabwesituation.com/news/decentralise-campfire-programme-in-matland/
46 https://allafrica.com/stories/202109280377.html
47 Alexander and McGregor, 2002
48 Including the environmental management agency, the national water authority and departments responsible for forestry,
national parks and wildlife and agricultural extension, ministry responsible for mines.
49 Chigwata, T. 2016. The role of traditional leaders in Zimbabwe: are they still relevant? Law, Democracy and Development.
Volume 20, 2016

7
2.1 Sampling
Within each study district, two wards were randomly selected as study sites. Key informants, linked to
NRM, were purposively selected from each district and ward. These included representatives of
government departments, private sector companies, market actors, and traditional and church leaders.
District level key informants included representatives from the following government departments:
EMA, Forestry Commission, Zimbabwe National Water Agency (ZINWA), The Ministry of Small to
Medium Enterprises, Ministry of Women’s Affairs, and Agritex. In total, 14 in-depth KIIs were carried
out.
Ward level informants included the ward-based Agritex officers, traditional leaders, market actors
representing the crops and livestock sector, Environmental Health Technicians, Natural Resource
Management committee members, and Disaster Risk Reduction committee members. In total, 25 semi-
structured KIIs were carried out.
FGD participants were selected from each study ward to include four demographic groups deemed
to be representative of genders and age groups in the community: men over 35 years, women over 35
years, men 18-35 years, and women 18-35 years. Groups were segregated by gender and age to enable
free expression of views on natural resources and avoid impedance related to cultural norms. In total,
24 FGDs were carried out.

2.2 Development of data collection tools

The research team consulted with the Amalima Loko SBC team to develop an FGD guide and interview
guides for semi-structured and in-depth interviews for district and ward level respondents. These guides
were based on the study research questions detailed in the SOW.

Research questions
1. What natural resources do people value and why?
2. What are the behaviours being practiced that lead to natural resource degradation?
3. Who is responsible for the degradation?
4. Are individuals and communities aware of how and why natural resources are being
degraded?
5. What are the reasons and motivations for the current practices that contribute to land
degradation and unstainable use of water by market actors, communities, and households
(including mining, deforestation, overgrazing, and unsustainable agricultural practices)?
6. What are the NRM best practices identified by community members and other stakeholders
that can be implemented in the project area?
7. What are the barriers to implementing these practices?
8. What are the factors that will convince different stakeholders to adopt promoted NRM
practices?

8
 9. Who are the priority groups50 and the influencing groups51 regarding the practice of specific
behaviours both positive and negative?
10. What action can communities take to promote behaviours that enable sustainable natural
resources management amongst members?
11. Which wild edible plants, fruits and animals are commonly consumed at the household and
at what level of consumption?
12. What practices related to the harvesting of wild edible plants, fruits, and wildlife are
prevalent?

Testing and finalizing the tools

The consultant trained the research team in the research methods and the data collection tools were
tested at a site in Lupane district. Testing involved conducting two FGDs and three KIIs. The team then
refined and translated the tools into Ndebele, Nambya, and Tonga.

2.3 Data collection and analysis

Data collection was carried out in September 2021 and transcription and translation were carried out in
October. The enumerators recorded the interviews and FGDs and the research team used the audio
files and notes to develop the final transcripts. The team collected data in line with the guidelines
stipulated in the SOW with respect to ethics, confidentiality, safety, and Covid-19 protocols. In total, 24
FGD transcripts, 25 ward KII transcripts, and 14 district KII transcripts were coded. A code book was
developed, and coding carried out using Dedoose. This enabled systematic and thematic analysis of the
data.

2.4 Study limitations

In general, the data collection process went smoothly according to the workplan. Four of the scheduled
KIIs could not be conducted due to informants not being available for the interview at the appointed
time. However, based on the large amount of data collected from other informants, the research team
does not see this as a major limitation to the study.
The team found that data collection on wild foods could not be done consistently and effectively using
focus groups. It took a very long time and community members found it hard to recall numbers and
types of wild foods consumed and sold, possibly due to the highly seasonal nature of the foods and the
variation between years. Translation of names of wild fruits, vegetables, and other products from
Nambya and Tonga could not be done in the given timeframe for the study so there is a gap in this
section of the analysis. The translation will need to be done by a professional botanist who can speak
Nambya/ Tonga and who can give the Latin names of the plant and insect species. To do justice to this
important topic, the research team recommends conducting a longitudinal study with selected
community members who regularly eat or sell wild foods.

50group of people who will perform the positive behaviour – for example dryland farmers, livestock farmers
51people who influence the priority group regarding the behaviour, who can either support or prevent the priority group from
adopting the positive behaviour – for example, local leaders

9
2.5 Theoretical framework
Social scientists maintain that social and behavioural barriers can prevent people from conserving natural
resources even though they know that conservation is important, that they value the resources, and that
they want to conserve them.52 Fear of the negative consequences of abusing natural resources (in terms
of legal punishment or long-term decline in soil and water quality) does not necessarily prevent people
from abusing resources. The factors influencing behaviour can be summarised using the Social Ecological
framework53 shown in Annex B (adapted for the Amalima Loko context). The model shows that
behaviour is influenced by many factors, which include characteristics of individuals, their family and
friends, the wider community, and the general enabling environment. There are also cross-cutting
factors, which include factors related to information, motivation, ability to act, and societal norms. This
framework was used to analyse the data collected in this study.

3. Findings
The following section presents the findings of the study organized by the research questions on which
the study was based.

Study demographics
In total, 24 FGDs (12 women and 12 men) were conducted, transcribed, and coded for analysis. There
were 199 total focus group participants (105 women and 94 men). Eleven of the 24 total FGDs involved
only youth. Two of the men’s FGDs had both youth and middle-aged adults. One women’s FGD had
both youth and middle-aged adults. Most key informants at both district and ward level were middle-
aged men.
The first ten research questions relate to NRM behaviour. The last two questions are specifically related
to wild foods. The findings are thus presented in this order.

3.1 What natural resources do people value and why?

The study found that participants across all three districts value a wide range of natural resources.
Figure 1 presents the most frequently mentioned resources by FGD and KII participants.
The most frequently listed valued resources were trees, water, soil, wild animals, and wild foods
(including edible fruits, vegetables, and insects). When listing valuable resources, participants mentioned
trees first in ten of the 24 FGDs and mentioned water first in five FGDs. Trees were likely mentioned
first because they have economic value and multiple uses.

52Kollmuss and Agyeman, 2002

53https://sbccimplementationkits.org/sbcc-in-emergencies/learn-about-sbcc-and-emergencies/what-is-social-and-behavior-
change-communication/

10
Figure 1: Most frequently mentioned valued resources

Mountains
wetlands
Basket reeds
Bees/ honey
Fish
Brick soil/ kayolin
River or pit sand
Livestock
Stones/rocks
Grass/ grazing areas
Wild foods
Wild animals
Soil/ land
Water sources/ rivers
Tree/ forest resources

0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Number of times mentioned by study participants

The most frequently mentioned benefits of trees by FGD participants were fuel, construction materials,
wild fruits and edible leaves, fodder for livestock and wild animals, and traditional medicine. Some of the
less expected uses included production of oxygen (mentioned 19 times), use as a windbreak (mentioned
15 times) use as shade (mentioned ten times), for soil conservation (mentioned six times), for soil
fertility improvement (mentioned four times), production of rainfall (mentioned three times), as carbon
sinks/ absorbing carbon dioxide (mentioned three times), and protection from ozone (mentioned twice).
The most frequently mentioned tree species were fruit trees and mopane trees, which are valued
because of their strength, straightness (useful for construction), and their effectiveness as a fuel in terms
of firewood and charcoal. A few focus group participants and KIIs mentioned that some tree species are
conserved because they are considered sacred (e.g., used in rainmaking ceremonies) and traditional
leaders prohibit their destruction.
Livestock were considered a natural resource in most focus groups and are valued not only for their
products and draught power but also to store wealth and for cultural reasons. In the FGDs, men
frequently mentioned trees, honey, and livestock as valuable while women frequently mentioned water
sources, grass/ grazing areas, mountains, wild animals, wild foods, and fish. Interestingly, women
mentioned stones, pit sand, and soil for brick-making more frequently than men did in the focus groups.
These resources are normally associated with men’s activities.
Older people listed more valued resources than youth participants. However, the youth FGDs
mentioned pit sand and soil/ land more frequently than the middle-aged adult FGDs did.
Trees, water, and soil were the top mentioned valued resources in all three districts. Basket reeds,
honey, fish, wild foods, and mountains were mentioned more frequently in Binga than the other districts.

11
Figure 3: Most frequently mentioned reasons for valuing resources

Barter trade/ payment of fines, lobola etc

Human life depends on natural resources
Traditional medicine
Indigenous knowledge/ cultural value
Balance of the ecosystem/ nature
Cultural and social uses
Food/ nutrition
Ecosystem regulating
Income

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Number of times mentioned by study participants

Livestock, river/pit sand, stones/ rocks, Figure 2: Ecosystem services

trees, and wild animals were mentioned
more frequently in Hwange. Grass and
grazing areas were mentioned more
frequently in Nkayi.
The main reasons given for valuing these
resources (figure 2) were income;
ecosystems services (figure 3) including
provisioning, cultural, and regulating
services (such as trees providing oxygen,
shade, and windbreaks); food production
and nutrition; and cultural and social uses
(such as sites for rainmaking ceremonies).
Several FGD participants mentioned that
natural resources, particularly trees and
water, are crucial because human life
depends on them. Participants also
frequently mentioned the “balance of
nature”. Ecosystem services are the direct and indirect contributions of the
Examples of responses showed how environment to human well-being. They can be divided into:
deeply FGD participants understand and • provisioning services - the products obtained from ecosystems,
appreciate the range of ecosystem
• regulating services - benefits obtained from the regulation of
services (in terms of provisioning, ecosystem processes,
regulating, supporting, and cultural
services) provided by their environment. • cultural services - nonmaterial benefits people obtain from
ecosystems, and
A FGD of middle-aged women in Hwange
stated: “Trees provide poles for construction, • supporting services - services necessary for the production of
firewood for household use and burning all other ecosystem services.
bricks, construction of livestock pens, wild Source: World Wide Fund for Nature: Living Plante report 2016. Adapted from
the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005.
fruits, fencing… [they] provide oxygen, wind

12
breaks, shade, carvings, add humus to the soil through shedding leaves… medicine, soil protection, and fruits.”
A FGD of middle-aged men in Hwange stated: “It is important to protect and improve natural resources to
sustain human nature. If they are not managed future generations will not have the privilege of seeing and using
most of the resources that we saw and used… Management of natural resources enhances the balance of
nature… As a community our livelihoods depend on natural resources so we should manage and use them
sustainably.”
Most youth FGDs gave detailed responses to this question, refuting the perception held by several key
informants that young people do not care about natural resources. For example, a focus group of young
women in Hwange said: “Natural resources are a source of our livelihoods without them our lives would be
faced with many hardships and challenges; literally we cannot live without them… All the resources should be
protected to balance the ecosystem. Our lives are dependent on the natural resources because we get services
and products.”

3.2 What are the behaviours being practiced that lead to natural
resource degradation?
Study participants mention a wide range of resource degradation actions that are practiced in the study
districts (as shown in figure 4). Figure 5 shows the associated negative impacts mentioned by study
participants.

Figure 4: The most common forms of resource degradation

Air pollution
Invasive species
Expanding croplands
Livestock issues
water overuse
Theft of livestock
Wetland drying
Wildfires
Private sector exploitation
Charcoal production
Use of sleighs
Sand/ gravel extraction
Wild Fruit unsustainable harvesting
Overfishing
Water pollution
Stream bank cultivation
Poaching/ wildlife decline
Soil damage/ gulleys etc
Tree cutting/ deforestation

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Number of times mentioned by study participants

13
*If a family does not own a scotch cart, traditional wooden sleighs are used to transport heavy items
such as firewood or harvested crops. The sleighs are dragged across the landscape causing serious de-
vegetation and soil erosion.

Figure 5: The perceived impacts of resource degradation

In general, study participants said resource degradation is serious in their communities. The exception
was the issue of deforestation in Nkayi, which community respondents did not perceive to be a
problem. This is despite a 2018 study showing that between 1990 to 2017, woodland in the district
declined by 11 percent due to clearance for crop land.54 The Forestry Commission representative in the
district suggested that because trees are so abundant there, communities think they will never run out.
The research team suggests the reason could also be that deforestation is a very gradual process and
hard for communities to appreciate unless they are monitoring it.
Deforestation was reported by respondents to be notably worse in Hwange resettlement areas, which
the team did not visit as it was not part of the sample area. The Forestry Commission representative in
Hwange said that these areas have been almost completely cleared of all mopane trees, which were cut
to produce charcoal for sale. Although this practice is illegal, it is rapidly increasing even in the districts
the team visited. An FGD of older women in Hwange noted: “The mopane trees are being cut in
unsustainable manner to make charcoal. Our children will never know the Mopane tree…The unsustainable
cutting of trees causes a lot of problems in our village. Our village is now almost a desert with no trees for shade
and protection of the soil. Strong winds also affect our homesteads.” Charcoal is produced by burning the
whole tree, which kills the tree and prevents coppicing (sprouting new branches after being cut). This
practice also leads to wildfires according to respondents.

54 Chimira, Ncube and Vanrooyen, 2018

14
Study participants noted mopane cutting for firewood sale as a problem in Binga. Participants also
frequently identified clearing of forest to expand cropping areas as r problem. Study participants
identified the negative impacts of deforestation as soil erosion and siltation, firewood shortages, and loss
of indigenous knowledge. Participants noted that children would not be able to learn about indigenous
foods, trees, and wildlife because they would no longer exist in their communities. FGDs in Nkayi
expressed community-wide anger about not benefitting from commercial hardwood timber cutting in
their district. Consequently, there is increasing disenchantment with the timber company, and the
Forestry Commission and RDC, both of which are paid dividends by the timber company. Part of this
money is meant to go into community projects in the same manner as the CAMPFIRE programme.
However, the community feels they are not getting their share. Currently, this practice is mainly done in
the state designated and protected Gwampa forest, which borders Nkayi and Lupane. Communities
have been excluded from the forest since it was designated as protected although there are some
“illegal” residents who refuse to leave. According to the timber company representative, there are also
some “illegal” activities that include hunting, cutting, and selling of hardwood by community members;
firewood collection; and wild honey harvesting in Gwampa forest.
Poor soil management (including annual ploughing, ploughing down slopes, and poor fertility
management) is leading to widespread soil degradation in all districts. Key informants from Agritex said
that a driver of these practices was a lack of knowledge. According to FGD participants in Hwange, low
fertility is causing very low yields despite with good rains. Erosion is leading to loss of arable and grazing
land and shortages of water systems from siltation. When talking about local farmers, a key informant
from Hwange said: “The quality of the soil has reduced. The degradation is very serious... No matter how much
the rains pour, there's always hunger. It's like a perpetual drought season. Like last year … even though there
was a lot of rain the yields were still low. They got nothing.”
Several respondents noted that the traditional method of shifting cultivation was still being practiced,
despite being vigorously discouraged by extension officers since the colonial era. A key informant from
Binga said of farmers in the community: “They do not feed their soil to enhance soil fertility and when they see
that the land is not giving them enough crops, they shift to another piece of land … that is due to lack of
knowledge on ways to improve soil fertility.”
A ward Agritex officer noted: “I am worried about soil degradation, as is it the major natural resource, we
cannot survive without soil … if we lose our soil, we end up having deserts. It’s very worrying, this season we had
so much rain that washed away the soil, and we were left with many gullies … If we have gullies, we have
nowhere to farm or have enough land to build our houses.”
Poaching and wildlife decline was a particular problem in Nkayi where most FGD and KII
participants said that most wildlife had been completely eradicated by the community through illegal
hunting at night with torches. Wildfires were also deliberately started for hunting purposes. A key
informant lamented: “Can a place without wild animals be a good place? Without wildlife children will have no
relationship and knowledge of wildlife. It’s important for children to see these animals and not just see them in
books.” In Nkayi, poaching further contributed to human-wildlife conflict due to the remaining predators
(jackals and hyenas) that attack livestock in the absence of other wild food sources.
Streambank cultivation of horticultural crops is practiced widely throughout all the study districts
although everyone knows that it is illegal. Streambank cultivation causes siltation and river pollution,
mainly due to clearance of trees and ploughing (if field crops are being gown). The practice has been
illegal since colonial times. Cultivation is prohibited within 30m of the edge of streams and rivers. Most
FGDs and key informants and district and ward level noted that the EMA has rules against streambank
cultivation. This practice is particularly bad in Binga where ploughing and field crop cultivation is
common on the streambank. The main drivers appear to be farmers taking advantage of fertile soils
followed by water for irrigation. In Binga and Hwange, the lack of flat land for crop cultivation is a major
contributing factor as the only flat areas are along stream banks.

15
The lack of livestock grazing management, including overstocking and failure to rotate or rest
grazing areas, and wildfires, were implicated in the lack of fodder and sever soil erosion, which leads to
livestock encroachment into arable land. Study participants reported cattle deaths from starvation or
disease caused by drought. Key informants highlighted extreme reluctance to practice de-stocking for
cultural and economic reasons. Cattle are used to pay lobola (bride price) and are also an important,
stable store of wealth, which is particularly important in a hyperinflationary economic environment.
Participants in four FGDs mentioned that cattle are also a cultural symbol of wealth. A respondent from
Hwange noted that cattle “provide meat for relish, draft power especially in tilling the land, manure for
improving soil fertility. Those with livestock, especially cattle are regarded as wealthy so cattle is a symbol of
wealth. Livestock are sold to get income.”
A respondent from the department of livestock and veterinary services noted: “Cattle are becoming too
many… the problem of this community is that they did not put aside land for grazing, so when they were issuing
land, you find that there are homes and fields [in the same area] … what is needed is to have a law to say an
individual can have a maximum of 20 animals. If there are more, they can sell the extra and maintain the 20.
Keeping up to 60 to 80 cattle is detrimental to veldt carrying capacity… When you introduce laws for the first-
time people tend to retaliate but as time goes, they will realise the purpose of the laws.” Currently, there is no
national law on the number of cattle that can be owned.
Mining problems, particularly coal mining as none of the study districts had gold mining, is a localized
problem in Hwange and a severe threat to the health of people and livestock through water, soil, and air
pollution and loss of land. Community respondents were extremely antagonised by this issue. They have
tried for decades to engage their traditional leaders, councillors, and the EMA, to address the issue but to
no avail. The government key informants interviewed regarding this issue were very reluctant to comment.
One refused to have the interview recorded. The key informants told the research team that the EMA
does fine the collieries when they pollute. However, this is clearly not stopping the problem. A ward level
Environmental Health Technician (EHT) told the team that he collects water samples at regular intervals
and takes them to Victoria Falls for analysis, but no action is taken based on the results of these samples.
An FGD with middle-aged women noted: “The companies dump mining waste into the river to save money for
processing and disposing the waste in an environmentally friendly way… The water in the river is now undrinkable
for livestock and community members. Livestock mortalities are high due to the contamination… We face water
challenges because we can longer access water from the river for agriculture and domestic consumption. Our goats
are dying.” The press has reported this issue for decades, but nothing has been done yet.55 However
according to a recent newspaper article, the colliery may finally be about to resolve the problem.56
Overfishing was most frequently mentioned in Binga occurring along the river and lake. In Binga,
community members are allowed to fish for household consumption if they use fishing rods, whereas
using nets requires a licence. Several different fish species are harvested but for commercial purposes
the most popular are tilapia and kapenta (a type of freshwater sardine). Overfishing was linked to too
many individuals and companies from Harare having licences, illegal fishing in breeding areas, use of illegal
nets, and prolific poaching of fish, mainly by Zambians crossing into Zimbabwean territory. Local
fishermen and fish union representatives interviewed said that large companies from Harare are being
given greater concessions and that this is impacting fish availability for locals. Locals can’t compete with
these companies because they lack modern equipment e.g., decent nets. Some key informants feel that
the fishery may be on the verge of collapse and proper monitoring is non-existent.
Overharvesting of wild fruit was mainly noted in Binga and includes damage done to trees, such as
throwing stones and breaking branches or even chopping down the whole tree to access the fruit.

55 https://www.zimbabwesituation.com/news/hwange-villagers-decry-deka-river-pollution/
56 https://miningzimbabwe.com/colliery-company-acts-on-deka-river/

16
Annex D details the types of wild fruits harvested. Overharvesting can also lead to reduced tree
regeneration as there are fewer seeds returned to the forest. The study suggested that people in Binga
were living off wild fruit sales since crop yields were extremely low. Wild fruit was being overharvested
and stolen from trees in people’s fields in the district. A Forestry Commission representative explained:
“People harvest everything. Some in the communities no longer have enough fruit. Some of the trees are now
personalised by certain people yet they belong to the whole community. Those who want to sell must pay for a
Forest Produce Permit, but no one has ever done that, and local Forestry Commission rarely benefits from these
permits. We sometimes fine people for selling the fruits but at times we just leave them because they are just
trying to survive.”
Uncontrolled sand extraction, which destroys water courses, was noted as a problem in Hwange
where the study suggests the RDC is allowing companies to extract sand without any proper regulation.
The sand is used in construction of buildings. Communities accuse RDC employees of being involved in
illegal extraction. When asked about uncontrolled extraction of sand, the RDC argued that those
extracting sand were doing it according to the RDC and EMA regulations, however this was doubtful
given the number of complaints from the community during FGDs.

3.3 Who is responsible for the degradation?

The responses to this question did not identify one clear group. Not surprisingly it seems that different
types of people (men, women, youth, duty bearers, and companies) are engaged in different resource
degradation activities at different levels for different reasons, as this excerpt from a FGD with female
youth in Binga explains:
“Wildlife poaching is done by men and male youths, meat is sold to get income for buying household needs and
sending children to school… Nobody in the community cares about enforcing or reporting poaching cases and
policing lies in the RDC rangers, the police and Parks and wildlife… Both men, women and youths are
responsible for selling pit sand and quarry [stones] illegally being motivated by the fact that they are not getting
benefits from the resource which they deem as theirs. Some traditional leaders are also engaged in this illegal
act. Sand extraction has resulted in the widening of Lukosi river channel as commercial extractors have opened
up access roads within the channel itself totally destroying riverbank in some areas. EMA is meant to be
regulating the conduct of council and commercial extractors unfortunately no one known to the community has
been arrested for breaking this law. EMA is… selective in the application of the law as it [EMA] descends heavily
on farmers practicing stream bank cultivation leaving people causing immense environmental pollution and
degradation. They are labelled as corrupt.”

Youth
Study participants most frequently cited male youth as the responsible party (mentioned 32 times) for
natural resource degradation. However, most respondents, including young people themselves, said that
youth were not heavily involved with livelihoods linked to natural resources. The older respondents
suggested that young people are attracted to livelihoods that give quick returns and are transient—as
youth aim to move to urban areas or across borders. For young men who have not migrated, mining,
sand extraction, and brickmaking are the main livelihoods related to natural resources. For young
women, wild fruit harvesting and basketry were identified as key livelihoods linked to natural resources.
The research team has interpreted this contradiction to suggest that despite a low youth population in
rural areas, young people contribute to natural resource degradation for the following reasons: 1) the
young people that do live in rural areas aim for livelihoods that are not agriculture-related because the
returns are quicker; 2) young people use the available natural resources since there are few livelihood
options; and 3) young people do a lot of damage despite their small population because of their
increased strength and level of physical activity.

17
The fact that young people do not feel part of their communities is likely related to the frequency of
mentioning youth as people who practice harmful behaviours and the perceived intensity of degradation
inflicted by youth. Two of the youth FGDs mentioned that there was not enough land for young people.
A group of young men from Hwange noted that: “we need to have somewhere to settle as the youth, we are
worried about this issue of selling land to people from other areas…The village heads are selling our land.” The
same group noted that “We are powerless, ... We have no representation as the youth…These resources will
soon be exhausted.” Meanwhile, young women in a focus group in Binga reported that they feel alienated
from their communities and did not think of them as home. They also said that they are left out of
community development projects because they do not attend meetings. Young women are particularly
affected by the issue of alienation since when they get married, wives are expected to live with their
husband’s community.
Middle-aged study participants mentioned a gap and conflict between generations. A key informant from
Nkayi said that the traditional beliefs held by older community members are no longer relevant to youth
noting that “there is a generational gap between the elderly and the youth with no platforms to bridge this gap.”
This gap was manifesting due to a fear of censoring youth in some communities. For example, a
councillor in Nkayi noted that people are afraid to tell young people to stop poaching because they think
the youth will come and steal your goats. He explained that when the community wanted to celebrate
world wetland day with the EMA at Mbazhe wetland: “the young people threatened us with axes and
scolded the Headman and Chief so we ended up abandoning the celebration. We are afraid of them.”

Middle-aged men and women

Several study participants (11) said a mixture of people or even the whole community (in five
interviews) are responsible for resource degradation. They suggested that physically or economically
active middle-aged men and women have the most impact on degradation. The study suggests that men,
because they are physically stronger, were more involved with deforestation, sand extraction,
brickmaking, and wildlife poaching while women were more likely to be responsible for stream-bank
cultivation. In five interviews, study participants blamed rich people in the community for natural
resource degradation and suggested that they usually have larger livestock herds, which degrade grazing
areas. Rich people can employ others to exploit resources for them and because they are rich, can pay
bribes and fines and just continue to degrade resources.

Private sector and duty bearers57

Private companies assisted by councils and traditional leaders (who turn a blind eye) were deemed
responsible for water pollution from mining (in Hwange), degradation of rivers through sand extraction
(mainly in Hwange), and over-fishing (in Binga). Study participants in seven interviews mentioned
corruption of local authorities and traditional leaders in relation to these activities. In all districts, FGD
participants were outraged by the lack of regulation and corruption involved in private sector resource
exploitation. They were also angered by the fact that not only do communities fail to benefit financially
from private sector resource exploitation (mentioned 15 times), but they must bear the consequences
in terms of loss of land, loss of livelihoods, and pollution. Regarding a Chinese owned mining company in
Hwange, an FGD with older women noted: “The Chinese do not have toilets. Anyone who questions them is
bribed. The Chinese discharge chemicals into the river…. Most of the grazing area has been occupied by mining
companies as a result some community members are not following practices that protect the grazing

57 Duty bearers are those actors who have a particular obligation or responsibility to respect and promote rules and laws such
as government and traditional leaders.

18
areas…Council is given money so there is no way out. We tried to form committees to lobby for benefits as a
community since our livestock are dying and we breathe [coal] dust everyday but it was to no avail.”
In Binga, a key informant explains how fishing companies from Harare are blamed: “In the past we had
functional fishing associations and … we would regulate fishing, choose fishing areas and those who did not
follow fishing regulations were fined. Unfortunately, this system is no longer functional. We now have an influx of
rich fishermen from outside of Binga, who do as they please. Fishing has become very political and unfortunately,
we are seeing a decline in the number of fish catches in the Zambezi. This is affecting the livelihood of local
fishermen - less yields mean low incomes.”

3.4 Are individuals and communities aware of how and why natural
resources are being degraded?
Study participants mentioned lack of awareness as the reason for resource degradation in six interviews.
However almost everyone consulted, from community level to government departments, showed a
broad and deep understanding of environmental systems and their importance. For example, most
participants stated the relationship between poor soil management practices in arable and grazing areas
and siltation of water systems. Most are extremely aware of and seriously concerned about the severe
resource degradation in their communities. Deforestation in Nkayi was hard for some communities to
perceive due to its gradual nature. Awareness is also lower than what it could be due to the lack of
monitoring of resource degradation. Based on responses from Agritex officers, the need for long term
measures to improve soil fertility (such as increasing soil organic matter content) appears to be the least
well understood NRM practice.
This issue of lack of awareness is discussed in more detail in section 3.5.

3.5 What are the reasons and motivations for the current practices
that contribute to land degradation and unstainable use of water by
market actors, communities, and households (including mining, deforestation,
overgrazing, and unsustainable agricultural practices)?
The reasons and motivations were varied and are presented here (figure 6) in order of frequency of
mention in FGDs and KIIs. Poor governance is discussed further under barriers to implementation of
successful practices (section 3.7).
Basic survival as a reason for resource degradation, was mentioned 44 times in FGD and KII
responses. In the FGDs, women more frequently mentioned basic survival (18 times), than men did
(eight times). The study suggests that basic survival is the main driver for most individuals abusing natural
resources since they have no other way of making a living. Furthermore, the livelihoods from resource
exploitation that these individuals do engage in barely produce enough for them to survive. For many,
farming no longer provides enough for even subsistence, so many have turned to activities such as
brickmaking and sale of firewood, river sand, wild fruits, and carvings to earn money to buy food and pay
for basic expenses. Other basic needs such as housebuilding materials, fuelwood, and water have no
substitutes and must come from the local environment. An FGD of middle-aged men from Nkayi
summed up the issue saying: “People need income and feel it’s better to degrade the natural resources than to
steal from other community members.” Also, an EHT explained: “There is not much concern about the future
when people have pressing issues now.”

19
Figure 6: Reasons for resource degradation

Poor farming practices

Human over population
Lack of water
Christianity
Lack of fertile soil
Poor governance
Lack of knowledge/awareness
Livestock issues
Lack of crop/grazing land
Basic survival

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Number of times mentioned by study participants

Lack of land and fertile soil was also identified as reasons for streambank cultivation, deforestation,
and wetland degradation. According to KII respondents, lack of land was an issue in Binga due to its hilly
terrain, which means that the only flat land for crop production is on streambanks. As noted by the
EMA officer: “In all the wards is streambank cultivation. The problem is the area doesn't have good land for
agriculture - except in Lusulu. But along the valley it's very mountainous - the only flatland is within streambanks.
There are small patches - and they plough in those patches. We have a big hassle in driving them away from
those areas because there's just no land in most of the wards.” Participants mentioned lack of fertile soil in
nine FGDs, more often by men than the women.
Livestock are allowed to graze on wetlands because of the lack of grazing land due to uncontrolled
veldfires and lack of rotational grazing, which depletes pastures. This issue was mentioned in eight FGDs,
equally by men and women. Uncontrolled settlement patterns have arisen in recent years whereby
people are being given, or choosing, land to settle in grazing areas. Grazing areas in Hwange were being
increasingly occupied by private sector mining activities. Lack of fertile soil is affected by soil becoming
exhausted due to continuous cropping and lack of fertility management.
Issues related to livestock in terms of overstocking or poor grazing management were mentioned 26
times in the FGDs (more often by women than men) as a reason for resource degradation. These can
be linked to poor governance and law enforcement, which was cited 13 times (more often by men
than women) as a reason for degradation. The study found that all NRM governance institutions are
severely lacking in resources and are comprehensively failing to carry out their mandates.
Lack of knowledge or awareness about the causes and consequences of resource degradation was
mentioned 16 times by KII respondents. It was only mentioned once in an FGD. While possible that
some people in the community are not aware of the issues, all the study participants showed that they
are very knowledgeable about natural resources—they value them, are aware of and concerned by
resource degradation, and are aware of the regulations governing natural resources. Many were also
able to admit that they are contributing to resource degradation through their actions. Therefore, lack
of awareness could likely mean lack of ideas on ways to address the problem and find alternative land-
use practices or livelihoods that do not degrade natural resources.
The rise of Christianity was identified nine times in FGDs and KIIs (more by men than women) as a
reason for the decline of traditional resource government measures and the decline in the role of
traditional leaders. One EMA officer summed up the issue: “Cultural rules are no longer followed due to

20
Christian religion. Now people do not listen to the cultural values or even believe in them anymore. The older
people still respect traditional ways for natural resource management however they are outnumbered and out
powered by the younger generations who have a different value perspective for natural resources.”
Overpopulation was mentioned six times as a cause of resource degradation. Although not densely
populated, the carrying capacity of Matabeleland North districts is low (due to the hot, dry climate,
fragile soil, and scarce water resources). Overpopulation of people and livestock is an issue and has been
getting worse for decades.
Although not mentioned by many, the study noted in responses to other questions that profit is
undoubtedly a driver for some wealthy community members and leaders who, along with corporations,
use their social and political influence or pay bribes to profit from unregulated natural resource
exploitation. One example is the huge cattle herds kept by wealthy farmers. Cattle are used as a store
of wealth and because they breed, they increase wealth. They are also a sign of social status. Since there
is no legal limit on the number of cattle that can be kept nor a culture of destocking, the environment
and less wealthy community members with smaller herds are disadvantaged.

3.6 What are the NRM best practices identified by community

members and other stakeholders that can be implemented in the
project area?
Respondents had difficulty in identifying successful practices and had to be probed. Figure 7 shows the
practices that communities identified that could be used to reduce resource degradation, including those
which are actually practiced in the community. Young people mentioned more beneficial practices than
middle-aged people did, and men mentioned more than women. More beneficial practices were
mentioned in Binga than in the other districts.
Conservation farming (a minimum tillage method whereby crops are planted in basins to conserve
moisture and crop residues are left on the land after harvest) was the most frequently listed best
practice, mentioned 26 times by KIIs and 31 times in FGDs, more by men (19 times) than women (12
times). This was widely promoted by the government last year and seems to have taken off in all
districts last season, mainly thanks to the presidential inputs scheme.58 An FGD of middle-aged men in
Nkayi noted: “Yields have significantly increased as a result of conservation farming compared to when the
farmers were using the conventional farming practices. A small plot gives triple the yield when utilising
conservation farming compared to conventional farming.” FGD participants also mentioned increased yields
as a result of conservation farming. However, the study suggests that the government and non-
governmental organisations (NGOs) giving inputs is the biggest incentive for taking up this practice.
A group of young men in Nkayi noted: “A lot of people in the community practice conservation agriculture
because of the free seed and fertilizer they get after being enlisted for such programmes.”

58Through this scheme, small-holder farmers are given free inputs to support increased maize production. Larger farmers get a
loan of inputs through the Command Agriculture Scheme. This loan must be repaid using part of the maize harvested.

21
Figure 7: Beneficial NRM practices mentioned by FGDs by study district

16

14
Number of times mentioned

12
by FGD participants

10

0
n

s
il

n
re

t
n

n
ng
ks

g
en

en
in
in

so

in
tio

tio
tio

tio
tu

or

pi

ep
ck

st
em

rd
ec

ec

en

uc
ize

oo
ul

ve
do

ke

ga
ric

ot
ot

ov

tr
ev

sc
l
n

ar
bi

ee
d

ns
tio
pr

on
pr
ag

pr

pr

-h
a

ta

am

B
p

co
va

er

iti
s

d
g/
n

e
s/

D
lan
io

to

fir

yi

tr
tin

er

at
am
an
at

nu
W
ns

ilit
et

ld
n
an

pl

D
rv

tio

Ve
/w
co

rt

d
pl

g
se

te
zin

fe
a
ee

nk
il

t
on

iga
e
So

il
ra

eg
Tr

ba

So
C

Irr
G

tv

am
an

re
Pl

St

Binga Hwange Nkayi

Tree planting and tree protection measures, initiated mainly by the Forestry Commission and
NGOs often through schools, were identified as examples of successful projects nine times by KIIs and
26 times in the focus groups, more by men (11 times) then women (15 times). Some FGDs mentioned
that the government encourages everyone in the nation to plant trees on national tree planting day (the
first Saturday of December), which is mainly done in schools.
A focus group of young women in Binga mentioned that planting trees as windbreaks is practiced in their
community. Two middle-aged men in a Binga focus group mentioned that they had planted a tamarind
tree (Tamarindus indica) and a snot apple (Azanza garckeana) both of which were now giving their
families fruit. A Forestry Commission representative in Binga said that the commission encourages
growing all indigenous trees, especially fruit trees such as snot apple (Azanza garckeana), nyii (Berchemea
discolor), and baobab (Adansonia digitata). They also encourage propagation of hardwoods including
rosewood (Guibourtia coleosperma), wooden banana (Etandrophragma caudatum), pod mahogany (Afzelia
quanensis), mukwa (Pterocarpus angloensis), and teak (Baikia plurijuga). The nurseries are at community
and homestead level and sometimes at schools.
A traditional leader in Binga noted schools in his community grow gum trees (Australian Eucalyptus spp.)
and sell them to locals to generate income to improve the school. The Forestry Commission has been
promoting propagation and planting of gum trees in schools and communities as woodlots for decades.
The aim was to reduce the pressure on indigenous species for fuelwood and construction materials.
However, although they grow very well, gum trees in Zimbabwe cause problems with lowering the local
water table and inhibiting the growth of other plants, including crops in their vicinity. The Forestry
Commission representative in Nkayi told the research team that the organisation is now discouraging
gum trees but cannot recommend an alternative species to communities.
However, planting trees is not sufficient as noted by a Forestry Commission representative in Nkayi:
“The problem with trees is people plant them but don't look after them. They need someone with passion look

22
after them, take care of them, check to make sure whether everything is OK, [and ask] are there any diseases -
termites eating them underneath? We no longer just give people trees, but we want to know what measures they
are putting in place to look after the trees. Fencing is important it really helps areas to resuscitate and regrow.
Paddocking helps in regeneration of an area. Goats are the real enemy of regeneration they eat everything.”
In Nkayi, the timber company has initiated a tree planting project in Gwampa forest using the seed ball
method whereby seeds of the desirable hardwood species are packed into balls of soil mixed with
manure. This improves germination and helps protect them from insect attack. The company
representative estimated that there was a 20 percent survival rate and that most of the surviving trees
were planted underneath existing trees.
Several FGD participants also mentioned tree protection methods, such as pruning for firewood (as
opposed to cutting down a whole tree) and fencing trees from livestock. The Forestry Commission
representative noted that in Binga, communities make fire breaks around tamarind trees since they
provide valuable fruit. He also noted that a company is paying communities to collect the seeds of
Trichilia emetica, which are used for cosmetic oil extraction. Additionally, there is a REDD+59 project in
Binga run by Carbon Green Africa so communities can benefit by protecting their trees, however, like
CAMPFIRE this project has attracted controversy for benefits not reaching communities.60
Soil conservation works were mentioned ten times by KIIs and 23 times in FGDs, more by women
(15 times) than men (eight times). This included gulley repair and prevention as well as construction of
contour ridges in fields. One popular example in Binga was using plants, such as vetiver grass, to stabilise
soil (mentioned 13 times in FGDs). These projects had been mostly initiated by NGOs or government
through food for work schemes rather than by the community.
Grazing management (including rotational grazing and paddocking) was mentioned as being
successful 12 times in KIIs and 18 times in FGDs, equally by men and women and more often by middle-
aged people. Communities implemented a successful rotational grazing management system in some
wards in Nkayi (where it was mentioned more often as a successful technique compared to other
districts). A ward Agritex officer explained the system: “We have a system of grazing that is systematically
followed and anyone not adhering to this grazing plan is punished [by traditional leaders]. From February to May
communities drive cattle away from the wetland area into the forest to allow for the regeneration of the grass
species in the wetland... All the seven villages implement the same NRM practices but [one] village suffered in
one year when they were not following this rotational grazing practice. One farmer in the drought year [2019]
lost … 21 cattle.”
Streambank and wetland conservation (initiated by NGOs such as World Vision with the EMA) in
Nkayi and Binga have been successful according to both key informants and focus group participants.
Protection of streambanks and wetlands was mentioned slightly more often in focus groups by young
men than other groups and was mentioned least in Nkayi.
Wildfire prevention was most frequently mentioned in Hwange in KIIs and FGDs and is coordinated
by the EMA, Forestry Commission, and CAMPFIRE.
Soil fertility improvement methods including application of livestock manure, mulch, and other
organic methods to fertilise fields were mentioned ten times, by Agritex officers in all study districts and
FGD participants (more often in Hwange than in other districts).
Beekeeping was mentioned ten times in the study. While most of the mentions were in Binga, others
were from interviews with the Forestry Commission and EMA, interviews with the timber company in

59 REDD+ is a framework created by the UNFCCC Conference of the Parties to reduce emissions from deforestation and
forest degradation
60 https://redd-monitor.org/2018/02/08/the-kariba-redd-project-in-zimbabwe-from-carbon-credits-to-earth-tokens/

23
Nkayi, and a couple of focus groups in Nkayi and Binga. The Forestry Commission and the timber
company in Nkayi is promoting this practice to protect forests and prevent eradication of wild bee
colonies.
Dam scooping initiated by communities in Nkayi was mentioned (five times by focus groups with
women and three times by key informants in Nkayi) as a successful practice. One key informant in the
district explained: “In Tshutshu village, the community members teamed up to scoop sand in their dam to
increase the amount of water the dam can hold. Similarly, this also happened in Gezekhaya Village – where
communities did dam scooping and dam maintenance activities to increase the amount of water harvested.”
NGO-initiated irrigation schemes in Hwange and Binga have been successful according to four KIIs
and three FGDs. However, observations of group irrigation schemes in the study districts revealed that
it is common for individuals to have streambank gardens in addition to plots in group gardens
established by NGOs.61 The quality of vegetables produced in the streambank gardens is markedly
higher than those from the irrigation schemes, which is likely due to better soil fertility, management,
and microclimate.
According to the literature review and two KIIs, the CAMPFIRE programme has been successful in
some Binga wards whereby funds from contract hunting appear to go directly to community projects
(such as building a community centre and contributing to school improvements) rather than being
siphoned by the council. The project used to exist in Nkayi but is no longer functional there. An Nkayi
key informant noted: “CAMPFIRE used to close gullies. It was successful but people chased it away. They were
not happy when CAMPFIRE wanted to rehabilitate Mbazhe dam since some homesteads would have had to be
relocated.”
Other notable successful practices mentioned (all in Binga and more frequently by KIIs than FGDs)
include destocking of cattle and livestock fodder production for supplementary feeding.

3.7 What are the barriers to implementing these practices?

Barriers mentioned (shown in figure 8) were similar to the reasons put forward for resource
degradation, therefore only those not mentioned in section 3.5 will be discussed here.

61 In group gardens, individuals have their own plots, but the group shares the water resource.

24
Figure 8: Barriers to implementing successful NRM practices

Climate change

Lack of community cohesion

CAMPFIRE Problems

Lack of uptake

Cultural attitudes to cattle

Lack of knowledge

Poor governance

Labour-intensive

Negative attitude

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Number of times mentioned by study participants

A negative attitude was cited 45 times (in FGDs and KIIs) as a major barrier to NRM. In the focus
groups, men more often than women mentioned this barrier. Negative attitude includes not caring
about the consequences of degradation, being lazy (mentioned six times), being selfish (mentioned four
times), or having dependency syndrome (mentioned twice), whereby one expects others to address
natural resource degradation issues.
This issue was most prevalent in Nkayi, where it was (mentioned in eight KIIs and three FGDs. Six KIIs
and two FGDs mentioned this issue in Hwange and seven KIIs and two FGDs in Binga.
The middle-aged respondents often attributed the negative attitude regarding natural resources to
young people. However, the FGDs with young people revealed that they care deeply about NRM issues.
A group of village heads from Binga explained: “People do not understand the long term consequences of
their actions. People do not really know that the side effects of their actions like pulling of sleighs results in soil
erosion. Some people think that when we warn them against activities that degrade the environment, we do not
want them to succeed in life. People are ignorant and some do it out of jealousy and hate.” An Agritex officer
from Binga noted: “Some people in the community are too lazy to take the initiative. They have the knowledge
but it’s a behavioural problem.” Two middle-aged men mentioned negative colonial era associations with
conservation practices and two others mentioned disliking being told what to do by Agritex.
Lack of uptake of successful practices intended to promote conservation agriculture, gulley
reclamation, and cattle destocking, was cited as a barrier by study participants. The fact that
conservation measures, including gulley reclamation, and conservation agriculture are labour intensive
is likely significant factor in lack of uptake of promoted practices. Participants mentioned this 21 times,
15 of which were in FGDs where it was mentioned twice as often by women than by men. Lack of
knowledge was mentioned ten times.
Study participants saw cultural norms around cattle as a barrier to implementing NRM best
practices. Cattle is regarded as an important store of wealth and a status symbol, which prevents
destocking. Agritex officers in Hwange and Binga and the Department of Veterinary and Livestock
Services (DVLS) in Binga all mentioned this issue and noted that they had been trying to encourage
farmers to destock cattle particularly during a drought, but adoption rates are very low. The officers all
said that this was due to cultural factors associated with cattle. An Agritex officer in Hwange said: “It is

25
just a norm. They keep livestock for prestigious reasons. They won’t cull. Adoption level is 5 to 10 percent.” The
DVLS officer in Binga explained: “We do encourage them to destock the old animals. And some people do
agree but the older generation will not be willing to let go because they have a strong cultural attachment with
the animal.” He recommended encouraging ‘beef committees’ where groups of people in the community
come together to pay a farmer to slaughter a cow and then shared the meat with the committee. He
noted that this would reduce the impact of cattle on the land and improve on community nutrition. He
also noted that “what is needed is to have a law to say an individual can have a maximum of 20 animals, if
they are more, they can sell the extra and maintain the 20. Keeping up to 60 to 80 cattle is detrimental to veldt
carrying capacity.” Farmers are even resistant to slaughter goats, as noted by an Agritex officer in Binga:
“A farmer with over 40 goats will not sell three goats to buy acaricides, this is a behavioural challenge.”
Two respondents mentioned problems with CAMPFIRE programme. As previously mentioned,
CAMPFIRE was seen as successful in one ward in Binga but collapsed in Nkayi. Some traditional leaders
in Nkyai explained: “CAMPFIRE- it was a success for a few years but later failed because people did not have
an understanding of conserving and preserving natural resources and utilisation. They did not accept it because
they did not like being controlled on how to use their own natural resources e.g., the Mbazhe wetland project.”
Lack of community cohesion was mentioned by key informants in Binga and Hwange and an FGD of
older men in Nkayi. They all noted that the “lack of unity” in the community was leading to resource
degradation.
The research team observed additional problems, such as challenges with irrigated gardens and politics.
The technical and social challenges of irrigated group gardens also influence their success. These
challenges include the poor microclimate (wind and heat) created by removal of all trees when
establishing the garden, poor soil fertility, crop choice, and group garden dynamic problems leading to
social conflict. Seasonality is also an issue whereby gardens are often neglected or abandoned during the
rains because labour is focused on field crops.
Politics as a problem was not mentioned much and not by any of the focus group participants. One key
informant in Binga noted that if a traditional leader “supports one political party and the community another,
there tends to be conflict, with chiefs neglecting those communities.” Another key informant in Nkayi noted:
“The issue of enforcement of bylaws is tricky in the sense that there is an element of political interference
because of patronage. There is an attempt to punish people, but politicians say why are you punishing people?
And the enforcers get confused. The politicians do this to get people to like the party.”

Governance issues
As already mentioned under reasons for resource degradation (3.5), extremely poor governance of
natural resources is a major issue nationally and across all districts.

Traditional leaders
The traditional governance systems that once existed have become severely eroded. Although legally,
traditional leaders are the custodians and regulators of natural resources (according to the Traditional
Leaders Act), the study shows that they are currently unable to do this. Their role has been undermined
by successive government policies and the increasing influence of the church dating back to colonial
times. An EMA officer explained: “Most traditional leaders are not aware of the Act that empowers them.
There might be a lack of understanding or even fear. Some call on EMA to assist them but it is their mandate to
enforce regulations…The gap is in that they do not seem to understand their roles. They need to be trained and
given literature. At times they do not like to take responsibility in their areas. They are afraid of sanctioning their
own people.”
Problems relating to governance by traditional leaders were mentioned 73 times (in FGDs and KIIs) and
included lack of capacity, corruption, community mistrust, and lack of support from government

26
departments. Several of the traditional leaders interviewed admitted that they themselves were
ineffective.
Although respondents noted that rules are made by traditional leaders in agreement with communities,
these are largely ignored. A FGD of young men in Nkayi explained: “The village head, chief, and councillor
set these laws. On estimation, 80 percent of households abide by these bylaws… Some do pay [fines] and
correct their ways, however some do not do so and … some of the cases are not followed up because some
community members pay leadership, and some are feared by the leaders and are not confronted.”
A FGD of older men in Nkayi noted: “Punishments are very weak. People just apologise to village heads.
Grazing land monitors favour people who break grazing land laws. People are made to pay fines and the money
is … usually embezzled by village heads. The money is supposed to help the community, but this rarely happens.
The same people break the law year in and year out.”
Respondents noted that chiefs were more highly respected. In every study site visited, study participants
indicated that headmen and village-heads were ineffective and/ or corrupt. The study also suggested that
councillors and resource monitors were lacking capacity and not performing their roles adequately.
The traditional management systems that used to exist, such as rotation of grazing areas and protection
of streams and wetlands, have completely broken down. Meanwhile other negative traditional practices,
such as shifting cultivation and streambank cultivation, persist in most areas.

Government departments
Due to critical lack of resources, there is almost no monitoring, regulation, or punishment for
environmental abuses by the EMA or Forestry Commission although departments are very aware of the
problems. The EMA and Forestry Commission are invisible in most wards due to only one officer being
available for a whole district, along with no money for fuel nor a functional vehicle. These departments
depend almost entirely on NGOs or private sector for transport. In emergency situations they get some
assistance from provincial offices.
Some of the representatives from these departments were utterly depressed about the situation. For
example, one Forestry Commission respondent said: “I feel like we're letting the traditional leaders down
because when they bring up those reports some of them are so passionate about the environment but sometimes
you really get ashamed when they tell you please come but the policies don't really allow you. Sometimes I end
up using my own resources to come - you see this person is so dedicated and needs your support if you don't
come tomorrow, he won't come back to you he'll just say you're useless. It really tears me apart. You can't really
do anything about it they will have done their part you get despondent.”
The representative from the Lower Gwayi catchment council admitted that while his department is
meant to monitor surface and groundwater resources, in practice no monitoring is done at all, due to
lack of capacity and lack of resources.
There is also some overlap and confusion in the roles of departments and authorities. As shown in the
diagram in Annex C, there are many different government departments responsible for similar things.
An EMA officer in Binga explained that there is often confusion about the role of the department by the
RDC who expects the EMA to be responsible for some things that do not come under its mandate–such
as litter management and fire management within the boundary of the land that is meant to be managed
by the RDC. It is also not very clear what specific and different roles should be played by the EMA,
CAMPFIRE committees, and community environmental resource monitors and committees. If these
organisations were better coordinated, in theory those which lack resources could be supported by
others that are better resourced. Agritex is the only department consistently on the ground. EHTs
(which fall under the Ministry of Health and Child Care) are present at ward-level but lack capacity and
mandate to get involved in most NRM issues.

27
The Environment or Natural Resources Department in RDCs (where they exist) seem to focus on
resource exploitation for the benefit of the council rather than management for the benefit of
communities. Structures that have been set up at sub-district level (ward environment committees and
environment monitors) are defunct. Only some CAMPFIRE committees seem to be working in some
areas (notably Binga). These are voluntary committees set up by the CAMPFIRE programme in wards
where CAMPFIRE is active.
Private sector companies (including mining, timber, fishing, and sand extraction companies) can exploit
natural resources without accountability or any clear benefit to source communities and they can
degrade and pollute with impunity.

3.8 What are the factors that will convince different stakeholders to
adopt promoted NRM practices?
The factors that are most likely to stimulate better NRM by the different stakeholders mentioned in
FGDs and KIIs are shown in figure 9.
Better governance was key to improvement of NRM and was mentioned 69 times, more often by key
informants although the issue was mentioned in ten FGDs. Better governance included better
coordination of stakeholders, enforcement of rules, and monitoring with improved accountability and
transparency in terms of benefits due to communities. Study participants also saw capacity building for
traditional leaders as key to improving NRM.
The next most frequently mentioned solution was more training and awareness raising of
communities (mentioned in 12 FDGs and 28 KIIs). This was seen as most important in Binga, then in
Nkayi, and was only mentioned by four key informants in Hwange.
Since the respondents seem to be very knowledgeable already (apart from on soil management), a key
factor for improving NRM are interventions that go beyond training. When this was pointed out,
communities had few solutions to offer. Some said that they need help in coming up with ideas to
address the problems because they are so immersed in survival that they can’t see a way forward. Key
informants from Binga noted: “Community initiatives succeed only when there is a great need and a direct
benefit to them”. Behaviour change interventions were only mentioned four times.

Figure 9: Factors that will convince and motivate different stakeholders to improve NRM

Behaviour change
Exchange visits/ demonstrations
Competitions and recognition
Targetting youth
More income generating projects
Encourage collective action
Food for work/ assets
Inputs
Capacity building of traditional leaders
More training/ education/ awareness-raising
Better governance and co-ordination

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Number of times mentioned by study participants

28
Being given inputs such as seed and fertilizer to encourage uptake of conservation farming was
mentioned 13 times (more often in Nkayi than the other districts and more often in FGDs). Food for
work was mentioned 12 times as a motivator for soil conservation projects such as gulley reclamation.
This was more frequently mentioned by respondents in Binga and by women in FGDs.
Encouraging collective action was mentioned 11 times (six times by key informants and most
frequently by respondents in Binga). This included encouraging people to work in groups to reduce
labour and working together to share ideas and information. Developing more income generating
projects (mentioned nine times) and targeting young people (mentioned nine times, mostly by key
informants) were also noted as being important solutions. Exchange visits, field days, and
demonstrations were mentioned seven times, more frequently by key informants in Binga).
Recognition of resource monitors by being given t-shirts, bicycles, and awards was mentioned four
times and competitions to recognise champions were mentioned four times.
When probed most respondents agreed that being given inputs and food for work would give short-
lived results and would also reinforce dependency syndrome, which has already been mentioned as a
problem in these communities.

3.9 Who are the priority groups and the influencing groups regarding
the practice of specific behaviours both positive and negative?
The priority groups are all land users. Women were cited as the most direct land users as they
interact daily with resources (firewood and water collection, crop production, harvesting, processing,
and food preparation). Men are predominantly still the community decision-makers and thus must be
involved in all planning processes and must be made aware of the impact of natural resource degradation
on the community and women in particular. Elderly people are repositories of traditional knowledge
about NRM, and intergenerational knowledge transfer must be encouraged. Young people, although low
in numbers in rural areas, are still blamed for most of the degradation for reasons already mentioned.
Targeting youth would not only address some of the NRM problems identified but would also increase
their feeling of belonging in the community. It could also help to protect them from exploitation by
unregulated companies.

Figure 10: Influencers in the community

women and womens groups

Teachers
RDC
Resource monitors/ committees
EMA officers
People for outside the community
Agritex officers
Elders
Councillors
Youth peer leaders
The church
Traditional leaders

0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Number of times mentioned by study participants

29
In terms of influence groups, (shown in figure 10), the following were identified (in order of frequency
of mention by key informants) as people that could influence better natural resource management:
traditional leaders, church leaders, youth peer leaders, community elders, councillors, Agritex officers,
EMA representatives, resource monitors, RDC representatives, schoolteachers, and women’s groups.
Several respondents also mentioned that people from outside the community (such as NGOs) can have
a lot of influence since they are well respected and non-biased.
The fact that traditional leaders are blamed for being ineffective but are also seen as key influencers is
notable. Church leaders can also play a key role in supporting traditional leaders and NRM behaviour
and governance. It is also notable that even though young people were often blamed as perpetrators of
natural resource degradation, they were also seen as important change agents.

3.10. What action can communities take to promote behaviours that

enable sustainable natural resources management amongst members?
Apart from the measures already listed in 3.6, communities showed that to some extent they have run
out of ideas on how to address the problems and feel quite powerless. Some respondents felt that there
were no solutions. An FGD in Hwange of middle-aged men stated: “There is nothing that we can do as a
community if there was a possible solution, we could have done that.”
The final two sections in the report findings (3.11 and 3.12) deal with wild foods that are collected and
consumed in the community.

3.11 Which wild edible plants, fruits and animals are commonly
consumed at the household and at what level of consumption?
The response to this question (collected during FGDs) varies according to the wards and districts based
on availability of the resource. The information likely also varies from year to year. Wild foods in terms
of fruits, vegetables, mushrooms, honey, insects, lizards, small mammals, and birds were mentioned as
being collected for food. Certain wild fruits, insects, animals, and small birds are sold or exchanged in
barter trade with other community members, or with buyers who come from urban areas. The full list
of wild fruits mentioned in each district is given in Annex D.
Since they are highly seasonal, community members had a difficult time estimating the amount of these
products that contribute to their diet. Table 2 shows an example of estimates from a FGD of young
women from Hwange. In Binga, respondents noted that due to crop failure, some communities depend
on wild foods as their main source of income.

Table 2: Wild foods consumed and sold in a Hwange community

Wild food Percent Sold

Wild fruits
Umviyo, wild medlar (Vangueria infausta) 70
Umkhomo, baobab (Adansonia digitata) 5
Umnyi, bird plum (Berchemia discolor) 0
Umthwankela, chocolate berry (Vitex payos) 100
Umthunduluka, batoka plum (Falcourtia indica) 70
Amajambe, wild grape (Cissus spp.) 0

30
 Wild food Percent Sold
Isambiya 0
Umsosobiyana, bow wood (Grewia occidentalis) 0
Umkhemeswane, monkey orange (Strychnos cocculoides) 0
Ubhunzu, half-leaf grewia (Grewia avellana) 0
Umsuma, African Ebony (Diospyros mespiliformis) 0
Uxakuxaku, snot apple (Azanza garckeana) 50
Umwawa, wild orange (Strychnos madagascariensis) 0
Umhlali, African orange (Strychnos spinosa) 0
Umswantsha, blue sour plum (Ximenia americana) 0
Vegetables
Sipanyukile 0
Tende 0
Chadobha 0
Malandela sporo 0
Unkambo 0
Kashungwandongo 0
Munyangombe 0
Izhozhutu, mushrooms 0
Idelele, wild okra (Abelmoschus esculentus) 60
Imbuya yedonki, pigweed (Amaranthus hybridus) 0
Sidambi 0
Ulude, spider flower (Cleome gynandra) 70
Insects
Amacimbi (caterpillars) 100
Inswabanda 0
Inhlwa 0
Amabhombo 0
Small animals
Imbulumakhasane 90
Tundonga (birds) 100
Makoto 30
Mabhangwa 0

31
 Wild food Percent Sold
Mabhende (mice) 100
Kasindi (squirrel) 50
Kakoto 0
Imwembe (buck) 70
Ihanga (guinea fowl) 100
Kakwati 0
Chinjiri (warthog) 70
Impondwe 0
Katimba 70
Injiba (doves) 100
Ibhangu 0

Table 3 shows the most commonly consumed and sold wild fruits in the three districts. The numbers in
the table indicate the number of times the wild fruit was mentioned, during the FGD, as being harvested
for sale or household consumption. The number of fruit species mentioned per district was surprisingly
similar (19 in Binga, 21 in Hwange, and 20 in Nkayi). This was interesting because key informants in
Nkayi had said there were very few wild fruits in the community. The tree species available and those
most commonly consumed and sold were notably quite similar across the three districts. The fruit most
commonly sold in Binga are Vitex payos, Azanza garckeana, and Berchemia discolor. In Hwange, the
Vangueria infausta was the most commonly sold fruit followed by Adansonia digitata. In Nkayi, the most
commonly sold fruit is Adansonia digitata followed by Azanza garckeana.

Table 3: Fruits commonly harvested for household consumption or sale in the three study districts

Fruit species
Binga Hwange Nkayi Total
(Latin and Ndebele names)
Sold Consumed Sold Consumed Sold Consumed
Vitex payos,
6 8 2 2 3 4 25
Umstwankela

Azanza garckeana,
6 6 3 3 3 3 24
Uxakuxaku

Vangueria infausta
3 5 6 4 2 3 23
Umviyo

Berchemea discolor
6 6 2 3 2 2 21
Umnyi

Adansonia digitata 1 1 5 3 4 3 17

32
 Umkhomo

Diospyros mespiliformis
5 5 1 1 1 13
Umdlawuzo

Grewia flavescens
2 1 3 1 4 11
Ubhunzu

Strychnos cocculoides
2 3 2 4 11
Umkhemeswane

Tamarindus indica
5 5 10
Umpapanyuka

Strychnos madagascariensis
1 3 1 5
Umwawa

Grewia occidentalis
3 1 4
Umsosobiyana

In terms of wild harvested vegetables, FGD participants in Hwange and Binga respectively mentioned 22
and 16 different species that were consumed, while participants in Nkayi mentioned only four species.
Hwange was the only district where participants said they sell wild vegetables (as shown in table 2). In
terms of wild animals and insects caught in the wild, seven species were mentioned in Binga (only two of
which were sold), 23 species were mentioned in Hwange (14 of which were sold), and only caterpillars
were mentioned in Nkayi for sale and home consumption. Respondents across all three districts
reported that they consume and sell wild honey and wild mushrooms.

3.12 What practices related to the harvesting of wild edible plants,

fruits, and wildlife are prevalent?
As already mentioned, KII and FGD respondents identified wildlife poaching, overfishing, and
overharvesting of wild fruits are problems. Illegal hunting of game in Nkayi has eradicated most antelope
and other non-predator species according to respondents. Only ‘dangerous animals’ such as elephants,
buffalo, and predators including leopards, hyenas, and jackals are left but these are rare according to
KIIs.
According to FGDs, overharvesting of wild fruit was a problem in some areas, particularly in Binga. The
study suggested that some of the people who harvest for sale take all the fruit even before it ripens, or
damage the trees by breaking branches, throwing stones at the trees, and even cutting down the whole
tree to get the fruit. However in other areas, the study suggested that those who harvest for sale take
better care of the trees. For example, a focus group of middle-aged men in Binga said: “Some of the trees
need to be pruned in order for them to reproduce in future… We really look after these wild fruits, there are a
source of livelihood, some are now planting the trees.” In the same focus group, some complained that they
get very low prices for the fruits that they sell to outsiders who then put a large markup when they sell
the fruit in Bulawayo.

33
In Hwange, a European Union-funded and Food and Agriculture Organization-supported project (Forest
Forces, 2014-2017)62 has set up a baobab processing initiative, which focus group participants said was a
failure while the local Agritex officer felt it was a success. A recent press report however shows that
although the project has declined, seven local entrepreneurs are using the equipment to process baobab
into stockfeed, cosmetics. and other products.63
Wild vegetables (mostly consumed in Binga) are mainly collected for subsistence purposes. According to
KIIs, control of poaching have been successful in parts of Binga due to strong collaboration between
ward level CAMPFIRE committees, the RDC, and ZimParks.

4. Discussion and recommendations

The study set out to fill gaps in the project implementation methodology and answer research questions
to inform implementation of the Amalima Loko project with respect to the purposes and thematic areas
outlined in the theory of change.
The findings show that communities in the study districts value a wide range of resources because their
lives and livelihoods depend on them but also because of their intrinsic value. A wide range of
contextual factors (which differ between districts) and individual behaviours are contributing to natural
resource degradation, mainly relating to agriculture, wild food collection, and income generation
activities. Various individuals are responsible for the degradation with different genders and age groups
being responsible for different degradation types. Private companies (both foreign and Zimbabwean-
owned) are benefiting from resources without the communities themselves receiving benefits. Some
companies are causing resource degradation and pollution with impunity. The activities of individuals and
groups are leading to the severe decline of natural resources in terms of both quantity and quality.
Communities and stakeholders are aware of and concerned by this decline. Most degradation by
individuals is linked to their dependence on natural resources for basic survival and not having
alternative livelihoods options or substitutes for things such as housebuilding materials, fuelwood, and
water. Some individuals and companies are profiting from natural resource degradation, taking advantage
of the extremely weak governance systems.
Successful NRM practices identified included conservation of soil, water, forests, and water systems and
improved agricultural practices (notably conservation agriculture and grazing management). Although
fraught with problems, the CAMPFIRE programme has been successful in reducing poaching and
delivering benefits to communities in Binga and lessons can be learned and adapted from this.
Table 4 presents recommendations for Amalima Loko, which) have been developed by analysing the
main degradation practices and barriers while looking at successful practices and motivations mentioned
by study participants. The recommendations are in line with the theoretical framework introduced in
section 2 of this report, which suggests that to change NRM behaviour, project influences need to be at
multiple levels and should target individual land-users of different ages and genders, as well as
households and groups–such as farmer support groups, the wider community, and the general enabling
environment. The cross-cutting factors related to information, motivation, ability to act, and societal
norms also need to be taken into account. Therefore, the recommendations here include ways to
improve the enabling environment, as well as natural resource governance at community and district
level, capacity building of individuals, and methods to encourage positive behaviour change.

62 https://www.sundaynews.co.zw/fao-invests-55m-for-value-addition-of-forestry-products/
63 https://www.chronicle.co.zw/hwange-villagers-put-value-addition-to-baobab-fruit/

34
Table 4: Recommendations for Amalima Loko from study findings

NRM degradation Suggested solutions/ Amalima Loko activities with respect to

problem TOC

1. Weakness of Improved governance (SP1.1 and SP2.1) empower traditional leaders

traditional supported by environmental resource monitors and councillors to set up
leadership and action committees (I.O 1.1.2) and develop NRM plans and bylaws.
traditional NRM Involve church leaders as well as relevant government departments (EMA,
governance, and Forestry Commission, and RDC) through training (under IO.1.1.1 and IO
undermining of 1.1.2).
traditions by the
Capacitate traditional leaders to know their roles and responsibilities.
church
Introduce accountability mechanisms and community feedback systems so
people can report abuses anonymously.

2. Government Improve governance by facilitating mechanisms for interdepartmental

departments coordination to fill gaps caused by lack of resources and reduce confusion
in roles (IO 1.2.1). Assist with production of education and communication
materials. Involve the EMA, Forestry Commission, RDC, and CAMPFIRE at
all stages where possible and relevant in planning, monitoring, and
accountability mechanisms. Feed into national mechanisms such as the
national biodiversity strategy and action plan.

3. Deforestation Improve governance by supporting action committees to develop

community forest management plans, bylaws, and monitoring (IO 2.1.2)
Encourage communities/ traditional leaders to issue licences for people
selling firewood and fines for charcoal sellers. Licence fees and fines should
go into a community fund, which is managed transparently and used for
community development.
Capacitate land users to:
• Leave some high value trees in crop fields and gardens.
• Prune rather than cut/ burn whole trees.
• Plant woodlots and protect existing trees (especially high value species).
• Introduce agroforestry in files and gardens.
• Intensify field cropping, and soil improvement to reduce land clearance.
Establish tree nurseries and seed banks in communities

4. Poor soil Improve governance by instituting community-wide soil conservation

management, low and water-harvesting measures (I.O.2.2). Discourage use of sledges through
fertility levels, and community bylaws.
lack of land
Capacitate land users to implement: (SP 3.2)
• Conservation agriculture including intensification of cropping.
• Contour ridges on slopes with trees or bunch grasses (vetiver).

35
 • Planting across the slope not down slope.
• Intercropping cereals with legumes for food and fodder.
• Leaving crop residues on soil.
• Planting soil improving perennials on field bounds and green manure
crops in fields.
• Organic soil improvement methods to enhance long term soil moisture
and nutrient-holding capacity.
Establish farmer support groups as part of farmer field schools to
encourage behaviour change beyond training and awareness.

5. Poaching/ wildlife Improve governance by managing wildlife numbers through supporting

decline and human- CAMPFIRE systems where they exist. This will be difficult in Nkayi due to
wildlife conflict historical dislike of CAMPFIRE. Introduce community level holistic land and
livestock management systems to mitigate livestock loss from predators.
Capacitate land users to:
• Implement tried and tested systems to keep wildlife out of crop and
garden areas.
• Increase production and consumption of small livestock.
• Find alternative livelihoods.

6. Streambank Improve governance by getting permission from the EMA to relax the
cultivation and streambank rule from 30m to 15m with the condition that conservation
wetland damage measures are put in place by farmers who cultivate in these areas.
Capacitate land users to:
• Protect stream banks by planting appropriate trees, reeds, and bunch
grasses such as Napier fodder.
• Use organic soil fertility improvement methods (IO 3.2.2).
Establish irrigation points for gardens (preferably individual rather than
group gardens).

7. Poor livestock Improve governance by supporting action committees to institute

grazing community-wide rotational grazing schemes in participation with traditional
management, leaders building on Nkayi successes and with advice from Africa Centre for
overstocking, and Holistic Management.
no grazing planning
Encourage
• A licencing system for people with more than 20 cattle to discourage
over-stocking. Licence fees to go into community fund.
• Community-based meat markets and beef committees to encourage
destocking.
• Improve fodder production and supplementary feeding (IO 3.2.2).

36
8. Private sector Improve governance with assistance from Zimbabwe Environmental
abuses, mining Lawyers Association to support action committees to lobby private
pollution, and companies to commit to improved practices.
overfishing
Capacitate fishing associations to know their rights and encourage fishers
to join associations. Link them to income savings and lending schemes to
raise money for better equipment.
Encourage private sector investment in community projects through
corporate social responsibility funds.

9. Over-harvesting of Improve governance by supporting community action committees to

wild fruit and develop bylaws and issue licences to wild fruit harvesters. Licence fees to
uncontrolled sand/ go into community fund.
gravel extraction
Capacitate harvesters to use sustainable methods.

10. Labour issues Improve governance by encouraging work parties for laborious tasks.
related to soil
Introduce:
conservation
works and • Mechanised methods for large scale conservation and rehabilitation
conservation works.
agriculture
• Labour saving technologies for conservation agriculture and small grain
processing.

11. Youth alienation Improve governance by ensuring that young people are involved in
and lack of planning and decision-making.
community unity
Use watershed champions as peer leaders.
Introduce alternative non-natural resource-based livelihoods that give
quick returns to encourage young people.
Encourage intergenerational knowledge transfer with elders presenting
traditional knowledge sessions at schools.
Involve school children and teachers in community visioning, setting up
demonstrations of better agricultural practices in school gardens and
housing nurseries and seed banks.

12. Negative attitudes Use behaviour change strategy to address some of these issues
and cultural working with farmer support groups. Encourage collective action and
attitudes around improve enabling environment through better governance and alternative
livestock livelihoods measures mentioned above.

37
REFERENCES
Åkesson, U., Ölund Wingqvist, G., César, G. 2016. Environmental and Climate Change Policy Brief
Zimbabwe. SIDA Helpdesk for Environment and Climate Change
Alexander and McGregor, 2002. Wildlife and Politics: CAMPFIRE in Zimbabwe. Development and
Change 31, (3), June 2000, 605-627 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1467-7660.00169
Alvord, E.D. 1929. Agricultural Life of Rhodesian Natives. NADA vol 7, pp. 9–16.
Brazier, A. 2021. Harnessing Zimbabwe’s Indigenous Knowledge for a Changing Climate. Konrad
Adenauer Stiftung. Harare
Chimhowu, A. Manjengwa J. and Feresu, S. Editors. 2010 Moving Forward in Zimbabwe. Reducing
poverty and Promoting Growth. University of Manchester.
Chimira, Albert: Mundy, Peter, Nicholas Ncube, and A.F. Vanrooyen. 2018. "Vegetation Changes in the
Miombo Woodlands in Northwestern Zimbabwe: A Case Study of Nkayi District 1990 to 2017."
IntechOpen (IntechOpen). https://www.intechopen.com/books/vegetation/vegetation-changes-in-the-
miombo-woodlands-in-northwestern-zimbabwe-a-case-study-of-nkayi-district-1.
Chingwe, S. 2019. The San people of Zimbabwe. Decades after Land Dispossession. In Kangira, J.,
Nhemachena, A., Mlambo, N. 2019 Displacement, Elimination and Replacement of Indigenous People:
Putting into Perspective Land Ownership and Ancestry in Decolonising Contemporary Zimbabwe.
Langaa RPCIG.
Deloitte, 2020. Leveraging on the Mining Sector for Economic Stimulation in Zimbabwe. Harare
https://www.icaz.org.zw/imisdocs/mining.pdf
Dhliwayo D.K.C., Nyapwere N., Mhaka L., Chkwari, E., Manyanga A. and Nyamangara, J. N.d. Status of
soil resources in Zimbabwe. Harare https://www.slideshare.net/FAOoftheUN/status-of-soil-resources-
in-zimbabwe-the-needs-and-priorities-for-sustainable-management-dhliwayo-nyapwere-mhaka-chkwari-
manyanga-and-nyamangara-chemistry-and-soil-research-institute
Dore, D. (2001) Transforming traditional institutions for sustainable natural resource management:
history, narratives and evidence from Zimbabwe's communal areas, African Studies Quarterly, 5 (3),
Website accessed 7 July 2010 http://web.africa.ufl.edu/asq/v5/v5i3a1.htm.
Elwell, H. (n.d.) Development and adoption of conservation tillage practices in Zimbabwe. FAO. Harare.
http://www.fao.org/3/t1696e/t1696e11.htm
FAO, n.d. The agricultural extension system in Zimbabwe. https://www.fao.org/3/AC913E/ac913e05.htm
FAO, 2018. Zimbabwe Country Profile. http://www.fao.org/countryprofiles/index/en/?iso3=ZWE.
FAO, 2017. National gender profile of agriculture and rural livelihoods: Zimbabwe’. Country Gender
Assessment Series. FAO. Harare.
FAO, 2016. AQUASTAT Country Profile – Zimbabwe. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United
Nations (FAO). Rome
Frost, P.G.H and Bond, I 2008. The CAMPFIRE programme in Zimbabwe: Payments for wildlife services.
Ecological Economics 65 (2008) 776-787

Gandiwa, E., Heitkönig, I. M. A., Lokhorst, A. M. H., Prins, H. T. and Leeuwis, C. 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

38
Government of Zimbabwe (GOZ), n.d. Fifth National Biodiversity Communication
https://www.cbd.int/doc/world/zw/zw-nr-05-en.pdf
GOZ, 2014. National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan 2014. https://www.cbd.int/doc/world/zw/zw-
GOZ, 2014-01-en.pdf
GOZ, 2017. Republic of Zimbabwe National Land Degradation Neutrality Targets.
https://knowledge.unccd.int/sites/default/files/ldn_targets/Zimbabwepercent20LDNpercent20Countryper
cent20Commitments.pdf
Kollmuss, A., Agyeman, J., 2002. Mind the Gap: Why do people act environmentally and what are the
barriers to pro-environmental behavior? Environmental Education Research 8, 239-260.
Mabhena, C. 2014. Livestock livelihoods compromised: The dilemma of the Fast-Track Land Reform and
Resettlement Programme in Matabeleland South, Zimbabwe. Journal of Contemporary African Studies
32(1)
Manyonganise, M and Museka, G. 2020. The Sedated Sacred: A socioreligious analysis of Zimbabwe’s land
reform programme and environmental degradation. Chapter 5 in Mother Earth, Mother Africa and African
Indigenous Religions. Sun Media. Eds Matholeni, N. P., Boateng, G.K. and Manyonganise, M.
Maome, R.; Rajah, D.; Jerie, S. 2012. "Challenges in implementing an integrated environmental manage-
ment approach in Zimbabwe", in Journal of Emerging Trends in Economics and Management Sciences,
Vol. 3, No. 4, pp. 408-414.
Mapara, J. 2009. Indigenous Knowledge Systems in Zimbabwe: Juxtaposing Post-Colonial Theory. The
Journal of Pan African Studies, 3(1), 139-155.
Mashingaidze, T. 2020. Risk and Vulnerability in an Untamed Landscape: The Zimbabwean Tonga in the
aftermath of the Kariba Dam Induced Displacements, 1956-1980s. Journal of Human Security Studies, 9
(1), 21-44.
Muzondidya, J. 2009. Form Buoyancy to Crisis 1980-1997. In Raftopoulos, B. and Mlambo, E. eds. (2009)
Becoming Zimbabwe: A history from the precolonial period to 2008, Weaver Press, Harare: chapter 6.
Nare, T. 2020. Deadly pollution by Hwange coal mines exposed. CITE 13th October 2020.
https://cite.org.zw/deadly-pollution-by-hwange-coal-mines-exposed/
Nkomo, L 2021. Hwange villagers decry Deka River pollution. The Standard October 17, 2021.
https://www.zimbabwesituation.com/news/hwange-villagers-decry-deka-river-pollution/
Page S. and Page H. 1991. Western hegemony over African agriculture in Southern Rhodesia and its
continuing threat to food security in independent Zimbabwe. Agriculture and Human Values, Vol. 8, pp.
3–18.
Raftopoulos, B. (2005) The post-colonial years: political crisis, state and international politics, in
Raftopoulos, B. and Mlambo, E. eds. (2009) Becoming Zimbabwe: A history from the precolonial period
to 2008, Weaver Press, Harare: chapter 7.
Swinkles, R., Norman, T., Blankespoor, B., Mutanditi, N. and Zvirereh, H. 2019. Analysis of Spatial
Patterns of Settlement, Internal Migration, and Welfare Inequality in Zimbabwe. World Bank
United Nations Country Analysis Report for Zimbabwe 2010
USAID/ Zimbabwe 2021. Foreign Assistance Act Sections 118/119 Tropical Forests and Biodiversity
Analysis. United States Agency for International Development (USAID) Environmental Compliance
Support. The Cadmus Group

39
van Engelen, V., Mantel, S., Dijkshoorn, J., Huting, J. 2004. The Impact of Desertification on Food
Security in Southern Africa: A Case Study in Zimbabwe. ISRIC
Whitlow, R. 1988. Land degradation in Zimbabwe. A geographical study. Harare: Department of Natural
Resources, Zimbabwe.
World Bank (2019) Https://www.worldbank.org/en/country/zimbabwe/overview
Zimstat, 2017. Zimbabwe Poverty report https://zimstat.co.zw/wp-
content/uploads/publications/Income/Finance/Poverty-Report-2017.pdf
Zinyama, L. and Whitlow, R. (1986) Changing patterns of population distribution in Zimbabwe,
GeoJournal, 13(4): 365–384.

40
ANNEX A: Gaps to be addressed by the study
Table 5: Information gaps identified in the Amalima Loko ‘Inception Workshop’.

Information Gap

What are the barriers to the adoption of a holistic land management practices in
communal lands?

What factors impede or enhance household and community action for sustainable NRM,
how do they influence capacity and willingness to address environmental, economic,
climatic, and other shocks and stressors, and how can these issues be addressed so as to
improve collaborative management of the natural resource base on which resilience
depends?

What is the intrinsic and instrumental value of natural resources for communities?

How can institutional and value chain actors better support the improved productive and
NRM practices of the target communities?

How will vested interests, such as livestock owners who want to graze their livestock,
become convinced that new actions are necessary to restore watersheds, including
perhaps restrictions on grazing or grazing areas?

Why do people engage in harmful agricultural or NRM practices?

What are the most dominant deforestation and mining practices in the communities and
why do they occur? Who is responsible?

What are the harmful NRM practices and who is undertaking them? How can these
harmful practices be overcome?

41
ANNEX B: Social ecological model of behaviour change

Figure 11: Social ecological model of behaviour change

Source: Mckee, Manoncourt, Chin and Carnegie 2000. https://sbccimplementationkits.org/sbcc-in-

emergencies/learn-about-sbcc-and-emergencies/what-is-social-and-behavior-change-communication/

42
ANNEX C: NRM governance structures in the study districts

Figure 12: NRM governance structures in the study districts

43
ANNEX D: Wild fruit species per district
The figures 13, 14, and 15 show the number of focus groups that mentioned wild fruit species that were
harvested for consumption or sale across the three districts.

Figure 13: Indigenous fruit harvested for sale and household consumption in Binga

44
Figure 14: Indigenous fruit harvested for sale and household consumption in Hwange

Insomvwa
Amadabala
Ikononga
Inchenje
Hyphaene petersiana
Isambiya
Ximenia americana
Strychnos spinosa
Cissus spp
Strychnos madagascariensis
Grewia occidentalis
Grewia flavescens
Flacourtia indica
Diospyros mespiliformis
Vitex payos
Strychnos cocculoides
Berchemea discolor
Azanza garckeana
Adansonia digitata
Vangueria infausta

0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Number of focus groups where fruit was mentioned as sold or consumed
consumed sold

45
Figure 15: Indigenous fruit harvested for sale and household consumption in Nkayi

Vangeriopsis lanciflora
Strychnos spinosa
Strychnos pungens

Strychnos madagascariensis

Parinari curatellifolia

Grewia occidentalis

Grewia bicolor

Friesodielsia obovata
Flueggea virosa

Dovyalis caffra

Diospyros mespiliformis

Uholotshiyane
Flacourtia indica

Grewia flavescens

Vangueria infausta

Strychnos cocculoides

Berchemea discolor

Vitex payos

Azanza garckeana

Adansonia digitata

0 1 2 3 4

Number of focus groups where fruit was mentioned as sold or consumed

consumed sold

46