Work Can Be a Violent Experience for Zimbabwe’s Forest Rangers

In Africa's protected areas, nearby communities and rangers are victims of a military approach to conservation.

As cases of poaching rise across Africa’s protected areas, some governments have responded with a military approach to nature conservation. From as early as the mid 1980s, military forces themselves were used to enforce conservation, as were military strategies and technologies and paramilitary personnel. In 2011, about 165 South African soldiers were deployed to the Kruger National Park, and soldiers were deployed to Zimbabwe’s national parks in 2015. Deployment of soldiers and use of military tactics has increased the number of arrests and poachers killed but has not reduced the number of rhinos and elephants poached.

Ranger - Kruger NP
From as early as the mid 1980s, military tactics have been used to enforce conservation and prevent poaching in Africa’s protected areas, but a recent study shows that militarized conservation has had some unfortunate consequences. Photo by Nick Castle.

Militarized conservation has had unfortunate consequences. Sometimes poaching suspects died before getting their right to a trial. For example, between 2008 and 2013, about 300 suspected poachers were killed in the Kruger National Park. Communities living in and around protected areas also suffer unintended consequences such as being harassed by rangers for accessing resources.

Though often hailed as heroes, park rangers have also been victims of militarized conservation. Not only are they at direct risk of death in the line of duty, they also experience violence as implementers of the policy. This aspect has not received much previous attention from researchers.

I studied the experiences of forest rangers in Sikumi Forest Reserve in Zimbabwe in 2016. I found that forest rangers were subjected to occupational violence by their employers. Occupational violence refers to all acts or threats of physical violence, intimidation or verbal abuse, including exposure to life threatening risks at the workplace. I further found that experiences of violence by forest rangers contributed to the persistence of everyday violence such as aggressive policing. These findings also have to be taken into account when considering alternative approaches to conservation.

Forest rangers and violence at work

My study in Sikumi Forest Reserve took place from April to July 2016. The reserve is managed by the state through its authority, the Forestry Commission. The area was primarily reserved to protect endangered tree species and fragile Kalahari soils. The forest, however, shares a permeable border with Hwange National Park, providing continuity of wildlife movement. This means wildlife also has to be managed by the forest rangers. One of the key duties of Sikumi forest rangers, as specified by the Forest Act, is to combat timber and wildlife theft.

During the four months that I became a 14th member of the anti-poaching team in the reserve, I observed that forest rangers experience occupational violence through violent training. Though it is necessary for them to learn techniques for their safety, training is often conducted in a manner that is overly violent. They are subjected to direct physically harmful punishments and verbal harassment. “After training we are angry!” was a common statement among forest rangers, suggesting the emotional effect of a violent training process.

Training instructors defended their methods as part of hardening forest rangers and instilling discipline. Discipline is fundamental in any paramilitary establishment or organisation, but in Sikumi Forest Reserve it systematically entrenches occupational violence against forest rangers. For instance, discipline prohibited forest rangers from questioning orders even if those orders threatened their well-being and safety at the workplace. As a result forest rangers suffered in silence.

They also had to work with obsolete equipment that exposed them to occupational hazards. The firearms used by forest rangers were old and incapable of matching modern automatic rifles used by poachers; neither could they efficiently respond to animal attacks. Instead of protecting forest rangers, these firearms exposed them to life-threatening danger. For several years, requests for more suitable firearms or servicing of the current ones were not addressed by the Forestry Commission.

Forest rangers additionally conducted daily anti-poaching activities without adequate protective clothing. All 13 rangers had worn-out or oversized uniforms, and improvised protective hats. They had received a donation of boots from a local non-governmental organisation. But while I was there, two rangers still had to wear ordinary shoes which were not appropriate for the job.

Deployment to anti-poaching camps was done without provisions and adequate water. When water supplies ran out, rangers turned to wildlife waterholes, potentially exposing themselves to zoonotic diseases. But these camp experiences were defended as part of hardening forest rangers.

The ripple effect of occupational violence

Occupational violence frustrates forest rangers. Such frustration often turns to anger, and anger to hostile policing. A group of forest rangers explained:

“Imagine going to work hungry then coming across illegal activities. If the person runs away you have to chase them for more than 2km. Maybe you are tired because you have already walked 20km in the heat with no food, no water and poor shoes. Tell me what is going to happen when we finally catch that person. We will teach him a lesson.”

These views show that experiences of occupational violence can provoke a violent reaction to illegal activities, resulting in violent policing tendencies.

This study was conducted in 2016, but the circumstances of forest rangers in the reserve have not changed. And there are similar reports from Cameroon, Democratic Republic of Congo and Tanzania. Resources for conservation in Zimbabwe are limited because of long standing economic and political challenges but authorities could do better to meet the needs of forest rangers.

The Conversation

You Make Our Work Possible

You Make Our Work Possible

We are standing at a pivotal moment in history, one in which education and advocacy around the climate emergency, public health, racial injustice, and economic inequity is imperative. At Earth Island Journal, we have doubled down on our commitment to uplifting stories that often go unheard, to centering the voices of frontline communities, and to always speak truth to power. We are nonprofit publication. We don’t have a paywall because our mission is to inform, educate and inspire action. Which is why we rely on readers like you for support. If you believe in the work we do, please consider making a tax-deductible year-end donation to our Green Journalism Fund.

Get the Journal in your inbox.
Sign up for our monthly newsletter.

The Latest

Environmental Protest Is Being Criminalized Around the World, Say Experts

More than 400 climate scientists sign letter saying activists are being targeted at pivotal time in fight against global heating.

Matthew Taylor The Guardian

Fight Over Proposed Mine by Menominee River has Brought Together Unlikely Allies

Recent court decision is a setback for the planned Black Forty mine, but it is not the end of the project.

Al Gedicks

Drought-Hit California Orders Nestlé to Stop Pumping Millions of Gallons of Water

Nestlé, accused of taking millions more gallons than it is entitled to, receives draft cease-and-desist order from state officials.

Maanvi Singh The Guardian

Agriculture’s Greatest Myth: There Isn’t an Impending Food Crisis

Most global food models either underestimate global food supply or overestimate demand and thus tend to predict a crisis even when there isn't one.

Jonathan Latham

Can Biden Actually Make the 50 Percent Emissions Cut Happen?

Grounding the ambition of the climate summit in policy design and implementation will be tough work.

Morgan Bazilian and David Victor

US Vows to Cut Emissions at Least 50 Percent by 2030 Ahead of Climate Summit

Move comes as the US scrambles to regain international credibility after the climate denialist presidency of Donald Trump.

Oliver Milman The Guardian