The functions of National Parks and Wildlife Authority and their implications for the
Zimbabwean Tourism and Hospitality Industry
Introduction
Tourism is a rapidly growing industry that is set to continue to expand, even with the Covid
19 set back the industry is set to recover faster than other industries. Tourism based on
wildlife and nature has been promoted for its potential to finance both conservation and
economic development (Lilieholm&Romney,2001). In poor developing countries wildlife
and nature tourism can provide economic support to communities that have lost access to
natural resources as a result of the creation of national parks, some communities live with
wildlife and have to bear the cost through destruction of crops and cattle.
In Zimbabwe, most wildlife is managed by the Parks and Wildlife management authority in
national parks, safari areas, recreational parks and sanctuaries collectively called the Parks
and Wildlife Estate and these cover an estimated 12.5 percent of the total land area of
Zimbabwe. Wildlife contributes an estimated over US$ 250 million annually to the country's
economy through safari hunting, game cropping, tourism and live animal sales. Safari
hunting generates substantial foreign exchange and provides direct employment for local
populations (Chigumira, Dube, Mudzonga, Chiwunze & Matsika 2019). In 2018 the total
value of Zimbabwe’s tourism economy was estimated as USD1 964 592 880, which
translates to 4.25% of the country’s GDP (UNWTO,2021).
Sustainable tourism development is the management of all resources in such a way that they
meet economic, social, and aesthetic requirements while also preserving cultural integrity,
critical ecological processes, biological diversity, and life-supporting systems (Fennell and
Dowling, 2003). The notion of sustainability was adopted from the Brundtland report that
defined sustainable development as development that meets the needs of the present without
compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs (Brundtland, 1987).
The sustainability of wildlife tourism is affected by a number of factors that include rapid
ecological changes (Ariya, Sempele and Wishitemi, 2020), political and economic instability,
natural disasters (Saha & Yap, 2015), capacity management in the protected areas and
support for wildlife conservation and tourism from the local communities living adjacent to
the protected areas (Ap & Crompton, 1998).
Parks and Wildlife Authority contributes to the tourism in various ways from managing the
country’s flora and fauna, engaging communities in and around wildlife areas, leasing out
land to private players in their Estates, issuing hunting quotas, as well as avoiding extinction
of protected species from hunting and illicit trade of wildlife. The following discussion
explores the roles of the ZPWMA and their implications on the tourism industry it concludes
with a proposed model for the sustainable operations of the authority.
Background to the study
The Zimbabwe Parks & Wildlife Management Authority (ZPWMA) operates under an Act of
Parliament, the Parks and Wildlife Act of 1975. The Act introduced the classification of
ecological reserves into national parks, botanical reserves and botanical gardens, sanctuaries,
safari areas and recreation parks (Child, Spenceley, and Suich, 2009). Protected areas that are
managed by the Parks and Wildlife Management Authority, constitutes about five (5) million
hectares of Zimbabwe’s total land. ZPWMA falls under the Ministry of Environment,
Climate Change, Tourism and Hospitality Industry. According to the Act the ZPWA roles are
to control, manage and maintain national parks, botanical reserves and botanical gardens,
sanctuaries, safari areas and recreational parks for the enjoyment, benefit and recreation of
the public. The parks and wildlife estate afford the public opportunities for camping, hunting,
fishing, photography, viewing of animals, bird-watching and other recreational activities.
The Authority’s primary mandate to manage the entire wildlife population in Zimbabwe,
whether on state, private or communal lands. All the wildlife in Zimbabwe is state property
and belongs to the citizens of Zimbabwe, National parks are the custodians of this resource.
In private and communal properties National Parks manages the wildlife through appropriate
authority where private landowners or communities can utilize the wildlife on their land but
are still accountable to the Authority for the welfare of the animals, they cannot harvest the
animals as and when they please they would need permission from the authority. ZPWMA
ensures wildlife and their habitat are protected by encouraging good environmental practices
in state, communal and private land teaching communities about proper farming methods that
avoid siltation of rivers as well as fire prevention methods.
Wildlife species that are important for wildlife tourism, for example, the ‘Big Five’ in Africa,
namely, the rhinoceros, lion , leopard , Cape buffalo, and African elephant, usually are the
same that are often threatened by illegal hunting and trade (UNWTO, 2015). Illegal wildlife
hunting and trading has become Africa's greatest direct and immediate danger to animal
species, making this expanding trend a reason for worry (Muboko, Gandiwa, Muposhi &
Tarakini, 2016). ZPWMA works tirelessly to avoid poaching and illegal trade of animals,
they have special anti-poaching units and their efforts have helped keep poaching in
Zimbabwe to a minimum. The Authority also embarks on special programs for the protection
of specially protected species such as the leopard, elephant African wild dog, their
commitment to these causes has resulted in increases in the number of these animals.
Literature review
The following section explores the role that wildlife conservation plays in the tourism
industry the world over zeroing in on the Zimbabwean context. There is a consensus among
scholars that there is a symbiotic relationship between tourism and conservation (Lilieholm
and Romney, 2001; Cameron, 2018; Higginbottom, 2001) Tourism relies on the conservation
of natural environments for its viability and competitiveness while the conservation efforts
rely on income generated from tourism for their continued success. Wildlife conservation is a
costly business that involves ensuring the animals are safe from poaching (fencing, armed
rangers), maintaining a balance between animal populations and the ecosystem (research),
maintaining and in some cases increasing population of certain species to avoid extinction
and a whole range of other functions. These activities require lots of money which
conservation agencies raise partly through tourism.
Implications of National Parks and Wildlife Authority to Zimbabwe’s Tourism and
Hospitality Industry
In many African countries and in Zimbabwe in particular, tourism is dependent on wildlife
resources and related activities among others (Manwa, 2007). Zimbabwe’s tourism product is
mostly nature based offering pristine areas of breathtaking beauty. Through their
conservation efforts the ZPWM helps create and maintain natural tourism attractions, forested
parks offer unique experiences like the sights, sounds and dense smells of the tropical forest,
with abundant insects and birdlife (Lilieholm and Romney,2001). Zimbabwe boasts of the
‘Big Seven’ animals namely rhino, elephant, lion, leopard, hippopotamus, crocodile and
buffalo (ZTA, 2013).According to the National Report to the Convention on Biological
Diversity, (2010) Zimbabwe supports 4,440 vascular plant species 672 bird species, 196
mammal species, 156 reptile species, 57 species of amphibians and 132 fish species. Such an
abundant supply of flora and fauna make Zimbabwe’s tourism product unique and attracts a
lot of nature based tourism involving various activities such as game viewing, bird watching,
fishing, bush walking to name a few. Parks and Wildlife Estate make Zimbabwe a
competitive destination in the world to the point that General Assembly of European Council
on Tourism and Trade unanimously awarded Zimbabwe ‘World Best Tourist Destination For
2014’(Kelly,2016).
Parks and wildlife estates are an important component of the Zimbabwean tourism product,
they draw tourists from both the domestic and international market. The Zimbabwe Tourism
Authority statistics for 2019 state that the Parks and wildlife Estates received a total of
928,754, of this figure 527,563 were international tourists while 401,191 were domestic
tourists. The international arrivals for the year totaled 2,294,259 meaning 22.9% of all
visitors to Zimbabwe visited national parks. It is also interesting to note that these figures do
not include visits to private game reserves and game parks, Zimbabwe has a host of private
players in wildlife management that are internationally acclaimed and receive a significant
number of both domestic and international tourists.
Traditionally located in peripheral areas, national parks present unique tourist attractions
(Bushell and Eagles, 2007; Wall Reinius and Fredman, 2007) and may therefore serve as rare
engines of economic development in otherwise often weak regional economies by attracting
spending from outside the region. In Zimbabwe most of the Parks and Wildlife Estates are
located mostly on land with a low agricultural potential, rejected for any kind of farming due
to low rainfall (Child, Spenceley and Suich, 2009). The country’s national parks are located
between natural regions 4 and 5 or in rugged mountainous areas, these are least agriculturally
productive where communities are mostly poor. National parks provide the much needed
supplementary income for households in and around the national parks. Further cementing
tourism’s contribution towards the strategic development goals of poverty alleviation.
ZPWA works closely with communities through various Communal Areas Management
Program for Indigenous Resources (CAMPFIRE) initiatives across the country to ensure that
communities participate in the conservation as well as the utilization of wildlife resources.
The Authority is responsible for setting and issuing hunting quotas based on Convention on
International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Species of Flora and Fauna (CITES).
Communities get a portion or all of the income generated from hunting. ZPWMA has
contracts with private players to operate lodges in the parks and wildlife estate, some of these
lodges commit to ensuring that their consumable goods are locally grown or produced and
they also aim to buy local produce from community markets in close proximity to them
(Obenaus, 2005). Communities benefit economically to varying degrees from the flow of
tourist expenditures, capital/infrastructure expenditures and employment generated by
tourism (Higginbottom, 2001). This generally results in greater support for the conservation
effort. Goodwin (2002) argues that If local people secure a sustainable income (a tangible
economic benefit) from tourism to these protected areas, they will be less likely to exploit
them in other less sustainable ways – obvious examples include fuel collection, charcoal
burning, over-fishing, poaching or coral blasting. CAMPFIRE aims to enable communal area
residents to receive readily identifiable benefits from wildlife resources, especially through
revenue from safari hunting. As a consequence, residents are more likely to perceive wildlife
as an economic asset, protect it from illegal hunting and regard its management as a
financially attractive land use option, Hulme and Murphree,(2000).
The ZPWMA estates are an important tool for generating demand for cultural tourism.
Goodwin (2002) examined the link between national parks and local culture and concluded
that there is considerable interest among international visitors to National Parks in the
national and local cultures of the destination countries. In his research, data were collected on
the relative importance of landscape, wildlife and culture to visitors to four National Parks.
Respondents were asked to rate the importance of a range of motivations for travel on a five-
point scale, the results are shown below;
Visitors to national parks are interested in more than just the landscape and wildlife, they also
want to experience the local culture. Buckley (2003) concurs with this view and argues that
natural diversity is inextricably linked to cultural diversity, tourists want to know the different
uses of the natural plants, local folklore and artefacts. In the Mavhuradonha tourism
development zone this link between culture and national parks is undeniable. The
Tengenenge cultural village is a part of the zone’s tourism product. ZPWMA also engages
communities in tourism examples are their involvement in the Korekore village, they are
currently in the process of establishing a project with locals in Tsholotsho as well as the
Doma people in Mbire (personal communication, Farao ZPWMA, May 2022).
Zimbabwe Parks and Wildlife Management has been working together with parks and
wildlife authorities from other countries in the region in conservation and management of
wildlife resources resulting in various transnational conservation parks in the SADC region.
Zimbabwe is currently pursuing six TFCAs and these are at various stages of development.
These are Great Limpopo Transfrontier Conservation Area (GLTFCA), Greater Mapungubwe
(GM TFCA), Kavango-Zambezi (KAZA TFCA), Chimanimani TFCA, Lower Zambezi-
Mana Pools TFCA and ZIMOZA TFCA. Trans frontier founded with the aim of
collaboratively managing shared natural and cultural resources across international
boundaries, for improved biodiversity conservation and socioeconomic development.
Parks and wildlife estate is an important driver for domestic tourism. WTO in Mena (2004)
defines domestic tourism as the class of tourism in which the place of visit of the traveler is
within the political boundaries of the country of residence. Thus domestic tourism constitutes
the activities of persons travelling to and staying in places outside their usual environment but
within the country of residence for not more than one year for leisure, business and other
purposes without engaging in remunerative work and with intention to go back. Mazimhaka
(2007) argues that the development of domestic tourism can bring stability to a volatile
industry and create a more sustainable path for tourism development. According to ZTA
Trends and statistics for 2019 domestic tourists topped the visitor numbers in all but the top
three parks. Other national parks were mostly visited by the domestic clientele mostly
individuals, families and churches on excursions. Schools usually visit national parks
seasonally and mostly in the second term (ZTA,2019). In the same year 84% of the clientele
in the country’s hotels are domestic.
ZPWMA also contributes to the Zimbabwean tourism and hospitality industry through
sourcing for investors in tourism. They lease out land within the parks estate to private
companies in the tourism industry. Examples of the Authority’s tenants are Hwange Safari
Lodge and Elephant Hills hotel. At the recently concluded Dubai World Expo the Authority
was exhibiting investment opportunities within parks estate. They published a brochure
giving detailed information about each opportunity. Such initiatives help grow the country’s
tourism industry as well as diversify the tourism product. Examples of projects mentioned in
the brochure include the Tugwi Mukosi Dam, Sibilobilo Island EcoResort and Nyanga
National park. The Authority is also active in the accommodation sector, they provide basic
accommodation as well as camping facilities in the Parks and Wildlife estate. Currently they
have 800beds across the nation and these mostly cater for the domestic market which cannot
afford the high rates charged in larger hotels (personal communication, Farao ZPWMA)
The Model
Though the ZPWMA generates funds from leases and park fees wildlife conservation is very
costly, the government should resume funding for the Authority. On their webpage there is a
call for donations. This however is not the best way to raise funds for a resource so critical to
the economy and cultural heritage of a nation. Making the Authority self-sustaining may have
dire impacts on the sustainability of operations, the authority may not be able to raise
sufficient funds for all wildlife projects resulting in problems of incapacitation to carry out
their mandate. This may result in increased poaching and human wildlife conflict as the
Authority may lack funds to dispatch adequate rangers, or the rangers are ill equipped to deal
with specific problem animals. Government funding is critical for ZPWMA and should be
resumed.
The Authority should carefully examine its participation in business venture, against its core
business of managing protected areas and wildlife. The Authority cannot be both referees and
player at the same time, their effectiveness in either, or both roles will be compromised.
ZPWMA’s key area is conservation their involvement in accommodation is secondary and
the authority may not have the best staff or managers for their hospitality business. While
national parks lodges provide a cheaper option for tourists, usually within the parks one
wonders if the lodges would generate more profit if they were privatized. Their location is the
best selling point, it is possible the Authority could make more from leasing them out to
private players with capacity to rehabilitate the facilities as well as engage more competent
personnel (FAW,2011).
To maximize Park revenue, Zimbabwe needs to embark on a broad marketing campaign to
advertise its resources and increase tourism interest in the country (FAW,2011). Visits to the
national parks show that more international clients visit parks estate than domestic tourists
while the park entry fees for local visitors are very low ranging from $3 to $7 (payable in
local currency at bank rate) for locals. The Authority should market its resources to the
domestic market so that more people travel to their estates as these are affordable rates that
most of the working class can afford.
The park entry fees for international tourists should be increased. They are lower compared to
those of other countries offering similar products. In Masai Mara the park entrance fees range
between $70 and $80 for adults while in Zimbabwe park entrance fees is $30 which is less
than the fees for a child in Kenya! Barnes, Schier and van Rooy(1997) noted that park
entrance fees in Zimbabwe remain the lowest in Southern Africa. Research has shown that
tourists to wildlife conservation areas are willing to pay higher fees so they contribute to the
conservation to the areas. The price elasticity for wildlife tourism is very low therefore the
authority should carry out further research to find out how much tourists are willing to pay so
they raise their prices based on more recent research.
Parks and Wildlife Management Authority must channel tourism to other parts of the country
away from Victoria falls. In 2019 68% of all visitors to national parks visited the Rainforest
(the Victoria Falls) and the nearby Zambezi national park. These figures are too high to be
concentrated in 1 region and have serious implications on the sustainability of tourism in the
region. There is a lot of development in and around the Victoria falls parks and Wildlife
estate which could in future jeopardise the quality of the tourism product such as the
overcrowding in the parks, altered animal feeding and mating habits which may have serious
implications on the ecosystem. Aggressive marketing to both the domestic and international
market creates more demand for other regions in the country. The Authority may have to
liaise with relevant authorities so they offer potential investors better deals in Parks and
Wildlife Estate in other regions of the country to ensure investment in those regions, rather
than applying the same contractual terms throughout the country.
The Global Code of ethics for tourism is an important tool that the Authority must adopt.
Borrowing principles from the 10 principles, Parks and Wildlife authority must develop a
tourist code of conduct for all Parks and Wildlife Estate. This code must guide tourist
behavior in and around the park, to ensure they do not litter, feed the animals or make noise
within the park. This ensure animal behavior is not modified.
To enhance community benefits ZPWMA must assist local communities to engage in
horticulture projects to ensure all fresh produce consumed in and around Parks and Wildlife
Estate is homegrown. Zimbabwe still has situations where lodges and hotels import food
from Harare and even abroad this results in serious leakages. Research has shown that most
of the soil in Zimbabwe is fertile, it is rainfall patterns that causes some regions to be less
productive. ZPWMA must assist communities with irrigation schemes and education on
horticulture to increase community benefits from tourism.
Bibliography
African Wildlife Foundation (2014). Zimbabwe Parks and Wildlife Management Authority
Commercial Revenue Model Assessment.
Brundtland, H. (1987) Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development:
Our Common Future
Cameron, T. () National parks as economic engines: an overview of economic research methods for a
developing country: Case Study: Hwange National Park, Zimbabwe. Stellenbosch University, South
Africa.
Chigumira, Dube, Mudzonga, Chiwunze & Matsika (2019) Enhancing natural resource
management in Zimbabwe: Case studies of mineral exploration; Forestry management; wild
life management and solar energy. The African capacity building foundation.
Child, B. Spenceley, A. and Suich, H. eds (2009) Evolution and Innovation in Wildlife
Conservation; Earthscan Publishing, London
Constitution of Zimbabwe Chapter 20:14, Parks And Wildlife Act, 1975
Fennell, D. & Dowling, R. (2003). Ecotourism policy and planning: stakeholders, management and
governance. In D. A. Fennell, & R. K. Dowling (Eds.), Ecotourism Policy and Planning (pp. 331-
334). Wallingford: CAB International.
Higginbottom, K. (Ed.). (2004). Wildlife tourism: Impacts, management and planning. Australia:
Common Ground Publishing.
Higginbottom, K., Northrope, C. & Green, R. (2001). Positive effects of wildlife tourism on wildlife.
Gold Coast: CRC for Sustainable Tourism.
Lilieholm, R and Romney, L (2001), Tourism,national parks and wildlife,
Liu, Z. (2003). Sustainable tourism development: A critique. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 11(6),
459-475.
Mazimhaka J. (2006) The Potential Impact of Domestic Tourism on Rwanda’s Tourism Economy
(Unpublished Masters Dissertation) University of Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa
Scheyvens R. (2007), Valuing the development potential of domestic and diaspora tourism, Progress
in Development Studies vol 7 issue 4 pages 307-325
Parks and Wildlife Management Authority of Zimbabwe.( 2019) 2019 Zimparks annual
Sustainability report.
Zimbabwe Tourism Authority (2019) Tourism trends and statistics.
Zimbabwe Tourism Authority( 2013) Zimbabwe, A world of wonders.
