Zimpapers Logo

wetlands crisis.
The destruction of wetland areas in the country is unsustainable. No amount of environmental legislation or public outcry has so far managed to effectively stop wetlands from turning into drylands or built-up lands. The damage is severe.

In Harare alone, which in 1992 had an area measuring 1,3 million hectares covered by wetlands of the dambo type (mapani or matoro), more than half of this is now dryland, well, so to speak.

A much clearer picture of the state of wetland areas in Zimbabwe is depicted in a study by Mrs Memory Msipa, then a University of Zimbabwe masters student, four years ago.

The study examined land use changes on wetland areas across Zimbabwe over the past 40 years. Focusing on three key wetlands in Harare, Msipa established that the rate of destruction in these areas averaged 62,7 percent in the years 1972 to 2008.

The study showed that the Honeydew wetland, east of Harare, had declined 88 percent in the 36 years to 2008 as a result of farming.

Many of the changes which led to the drying up of the wetland occurred in just 13 years between 1995-2008 due to “water abstraction and the moving of heavy agricultural machinery”, which compacted the soil, said Msipa.

During the same periods, the wetlands in Mabvuku and Monavale decreased 64 percent and 36 percent respectively due to agricultural activity and human settlements.

Monavale’s resilience is underpinned by strong conservation work by local residents. The reasons for wetland destruction are the same: deforestation of watersheds, overgrazing, pollution, land tenure, urbanisation and infrastructure development among other things.

In another case study of Shurugwi District conducted by the Department of Geography and Environmental Studies at Midlands State University revealed that in 1980 wetlands occupied 220 hectares or 55,6 percent of the area under study.

By 2003, wetlands in the study area declined 43,4 percent representing an annual average decrease of 0,6 percent, as reported by an article on the Ministry of Science and Technology’s website.

Wetlands are areas constantly saturated by water for very extended periods in a year, able to support a variety of fauna and flora.  These natural lands include floodplains, artificial impoundments, pans and dambos or vleis. In Zimbabwe, wetlands cover approximately 4,6 percent of land. Vleis are most dominant covering 3,6 percent of the land area.

The Ramsar Convention, an international treaty promoting the conservation of wetlands, of which Zimbabwe is signatory, estimated 15 years ago that 8,6 million square kilometres or 6,4 percent of the earth’s land surface was covered in wetlands.

But over the last century, 50 percent of all wetlands worldwide have been lost due to unsustainable land use practices. Now, this global catastrophe has taken root here despite the various benefits of sustainable wetlands management. Wetlands perform myriad functions that maintain the ecological balance. Veronica Chapman of Environment Africa says wetlands are highly productive ecosystems because of their unique composition.

She said in a report last year: “These damp, soggy areas, when healthy, are among our planet’s most diverse and varied habitats supporting a wide spectrum of plant and animal species, more so than most other habitats.”

Environment authorities disappoint on wetland management
Given the wide-ranging benefits of wetland areas, we question, therefore, the effectiveness of the Environmental Impact Assessments, and by extension, the competence of those trusted to oversee and pass the assessments for any planned project, as environmentally sustainable and friendly.
Clearly, if the primary function of the Environmental Management Agency is to protect, manage and govern Zimbabwe’s natural environment, the agency has dismally failed where wetlands are concerned.

EMA cannot be allowed to evolve into another bulldog without teeth, barking at every passing shadow but too weak to sink its incisors into the real environmental enemy.

A case in point would be the construction of a vast hotel and shopping mall on a designated wetland adjacent to the National Sports Stadium in Harare. Where peaceful plush green indigenous trees once stood, now stands two large fierce lion-like creatures, as you enter the gates of this sprawling shopping and hotel complex. Here, environmental considerations were brutally trashed by desires for infrastructure development.

Even the biggies showed they don’t care, exhibiting astonishing ignorance, perhaps a little arrogance. Zimbabwe Tourism Authority chief executive Mr Karikoga Kaseke said about the construction of the hotel some time last year: “. . . Who cares whether the land is wet or not?

“These are the Chinese we are talking about. They can build anything, anywhere.” Times of ignorance are forgiven.

But not for those in the know like EMA. It is difficult to understand how such a huge project would proceed in a protected area right under the agency’s nose.

It’s not as if Harare has run short of suitable non-designated wetland areas where this overly celebrated hotel and shopping mall by the know-it-all Chinese could be built. Similar problems continue to flourish in the housing development sector.

The City of Harare has allocated several wetland areas for development of residential properties, and homes have been successfully (or not) built in those protected lands. Infrastructural development on wetlands increases surface run-off and thus increases chances of flooding.

But protected by whom, from who? Certainly, EMA lacks the capacity to protect our precious lands of saturated water and thriving biodiversity from profit-driven vultures such as the Harare City Council and other land developers.

For if the EIAs (enforced by EMA) were carried out as they ought to be according to the law, how then is it possible infrastructure development has proceeded in designated and protected wetlands without anyone raising their head? Even if heads were raised, were they looking in the right direction at all?

The understanding is that among many things, one of the key objectives of undertaking the assessment is to measure the scale of the environmental impact, and sustainability thereof, of any project in a given area prior commencement.

The results of the EIA will then be used to determine whether the project goes ahead or not, or revised, whichever suits. However, other land developers are desperate to be on the good side of the wetlands law. Augur Investments, who have come under fire for developing the infamous Mall of Zimbabwe on a wetland in Harare’s plush Borrowdale suburb last week exonerated themselves from any anti-wetland, anti-environmental practices saying they will work to protect the 52-hectare vlei adjacent to their mall project. The actual construction had not interfered with the environment, Augur Investments said. However, the failure by EMA to effectively protect the country’s wetlands betrays commitments made by Zimbabwe under the Ramsar Convention to promote the conservation of wetland areas.

It also flies in the face of the Act which informs EMA’s mandate, the Environment Management Act, which provides for the sustainable management of natural resources and protection of the environment, the prevention of pollution and environmental degradation. Wetlands should be protected by all.

God is faithful.

[email protected]