Community Conservancies in Zimbabwe (2026): Conservation & Tourism

Quick answer: Community conservancies in Zimbabwe are community-rooted landscapes designed to connect biodiversity protection with local governance, livelihoods and human-wildlife-conflict management. The model is being revived through organisations including SAFIRE, ZELO and Wildlife Conservation Action, while newer initiatives in Mbire and the Greater Mana Pools Ecosystem are strengthening legal, financial and operational capacity.

Zimbabwe does not have one single national community-conservancy system with uniform rules. Instead, community conservation includes communal-land conservancies, CAMPFIRE-related arrangements, partnerships around national parks and emerging co-management structures. Results therefore vary by place, governance quality, funding and the extent to which communities receive meaningful benefits from conservation.

Last reviewed August 2026. Conservation data changes — see the cited sources for the latest figures.

Why community conservancies matter in Zimbabwe

Zimbabwe’s wildlife landscapes do not end at national-park boundaries. Communities living beside protected areas may share land with elephants and other wildlife, experience crop or livestock losses, and carry the practical costs of maintaining habitat. A community-conservancy approach starts from that reality: conservation is more durable when local institutions participate in decisions and when wildlife protection is connected to credible social and economic benefits.

The country’s CAMPFIRE programme is an important part of this history. Research on community-based conservation identifies CAMPFIRE as a Zimbabwean example of aligning conservation objectives with local governance structures and socio-economic incentives. However, the wider record also shows why institutions matter. The Nature Conservancy’s review of conservation-finance models notes that funding-flow problems in Zimbabwe’s CAMPFIRE programme are well documented, illustrating how weak accountability can undermine community confidence and conservation finance.

That history helps explain the current emphasis on governance rather than simply creating new boundaries. Community conservation organisations are working on environmental rights, legal recognition, transparent finances, leadership accountability and livelihood opportunities. Maliasili describes this as a movement away from extraction and exclusion towards stewardship and shared prosperity, while noting that important policy and implementation challenges remain.

What is a community conservancy?

A community conservancy is a locally rooted conservation arrangement in which communities or their representative institutions help govern land and natural resources for biodiversity and human well-being. In practice, this can include habitat management, wildlife monitoring, ranger or patrol support, conflict mitigation, sustainable livelihood projects and tourism partnerships.

The term should not be confused with a privately owned safari concession or a national park. A conservancy may operate on communal land, alongside a protected area or across a wider wildlife corridor. Its legitimacy depends on who makes decisions, how benefits are distributed, how rules are enforced and whether residents can participate meaningfully in the process.

Mbire provides a clear current example. Community conservancies in Mbire South, Mbire North and Mbire East span 45,000 hectares of communal land. A Danish Church Aid-supported Utariri Project workshop, documented by the Zimbabwe Environmental Law Organisation, focused on biodiversity conservation, climate resilience and sustainable livelihoods, with training in governance, bookkeeping, transparency and accountability.

Key threats facing community conservation

Human-wildlife conflict

In Mbire, human-wildlife conflict is described as a daily challenge rather than an abstract conservation issue. This matters because residents are asked to tolerate wildlife while facing risks to crops, livestock, homes or personal safety. A conservancy that does not address those costs is unlikely to retain durable local support, even if its ecological aims are sound.

Conflict also affects protected areas. The Mana Pools impact report records that encroachment into former community-conservancy land displaced wildlife and increased conflict, creating a difficult balance between human interests and habitat protection. The lesson is not that communities are the problem; it is that unclear land-use planning and insufficiently supported local governance can place both people and wildlife under pressure.

Poaching and illegal hunting

Poaching remains a concern across Zimbabwe’s wildlife landscapes, and community participation is one part of a broader protection system that includes national authorities, rangers, law enforcement and conservation partners. The available research supplied for this article does not provide a reliable national 2026 poaching total, so a single countrywide statistic would be misleading.

There are, however, documented local results. Bushlife Conservancy reported that Mana Pools National Park had experienced no elephant-poaching incidents for six years at the time of the 2024–25 impact report. That is an encouraging site-level result, not proof that elephant poaching has been solved across Zimbabwe. Travellers interested in the wider issue can read SafariFind’s overview of anti-poaching and wildlife crime in Zimbabwe.

Habitat loss and land-use pressure

Habitat protection is central to the conservancy model because wildlife requires connected landscapes, not isolated tourism enclaves. The Mana Pools report identifies illegal gold mining and habitat destruction as ongoing concerns, while also recording encroachment into former community-conservancy land.

In the Matetsi area, the Woodlands Community Conservancy began operations in 2024 with the stated aim of creating a continuous wildlife corridor connecting three areas, including Kazuma Pan National Park. The project is intended to reduce poaching and illegal hunting while improving land management, but the source describes it as starting from scratch, so its long-term outcomes should not yet be assumed.

These examples show why corridor planning must include people who live on or use the land. Conservation boundaries that ignore settlement, agriculture, grazing and local rights can shift pressure elsewhere rather than solve it.

Climate and livelihood vulnerability

The Mbire conservancy programme explicitly links biodiversity conservation with climate resilience and sustainable livelihoods. That connection is practical: where households depend heavily on climate-sensitive farming or livestock, conservation measures need to be accompanied by realistic economic options and support for adaptation. The supplied research does not provide a Zimbabwe-wide climate-impact figure for community conservancies, so the challenge is best described as a management priority rather than quantified nationally.

What is being done in 2026?

Building stronger community institutions

SAFIRE, the Zimbabwe Environmental Law Organisation and Wildlife Conservation Action are among the organisations identified as helping to renew Zimbabwe’s community-conservation movement. Their work includes environmental and legal rights, leadership, conservation governance and economic opportunities. ZELO’s Mbire work included practical training in bookkeeping, transparency, accountability, environmental principles and leadership responsibility.

This institutional work can appear less visible than a ranger patrol or a new tourism lodge, but it is fundamental. Conservation funds need clear controls; community representatives need defined responsibilities; and residents need ways to question decisions. The Nature Conservancy’s conservation-finance review stresses that transparent and accountable funding flows are especially important where legal and institutional contexts are weaker.

Co-management in the Greater Mana Pools Ecosystem

In 2025, the Zimbabwe Parks and Wildlife Management Authority and Peace Parks signed a co-management agreement for the Greater Mana Pools Ecosystem through a Special Purpose Vehicle, the Greater Mana Pools Co-management Conservation Trust. The model is intended to clarify roles, strengthen oversight and create a shared long-term management framework for the ecosystem.

Peace Parks reported catalytic support of US$2,873,534 for the newly formed trust, alongside EU NaturAfrica investment of US$4,627,883. It also reported 24 additional rangers, 10 ranger-accommodation units and refurbishment of Mana Pools’ main airstrip during 2025. These are programme inputs and infrastructure milestones, not a guarantee of ecological success. Long-term effectiveness will depend on governance, reliable financing, community participation and measurable wildlife and social outcomes.

Rangers, monitoring and field support

Ranger protection remains a practical requirement in remote landscapes. The Mana Pools 2024–25 report states that 75 national-park rangers were deployed in the bush per month per vehicle, supported by a full-time mechanic and a Harare-based runner for spare parts. The same report describes engagement with Hurungwe Rural District Council, village headmen and chiefs to address wildlife conflict.

Elsewhere, conservation projects have used predator surveys, elephant-movement monitoring, telemetry, night drives, foot patrols, water-point maintenance, tree planting and invasive-species removal as field activities. Such activities can generate useful information and employment, but visitor participation should always follow the rules of the responsible conservation organisation and should never replace trained professional monitoring.

Community conservancies, tourism and the wildlife safari

Tourism can support community conservation when revenue is transparent, benefits reach residents and visitors respect local authority and environmental limits. Research on community-based conservation identifies ecotourism and payments for ecosystem services as potential livelihood links, but also emphasises that outcomes depend on effective implementation and governance.

For travellers, this means a wildlife safari is not automatically a community-conservation contribution. Ask who owns or manages the land, whether a community institution is involved, what local benefits are delivered, and whether the operator can explain its conservation and employment commitments. A low-volume, locally accountable tourism model may be more useful than simply choosing the most expensive lodge.

The Woodlands Community Conservancy illustrates one possible tourism-conservation relationship: a community landscape is being developed as part of a corridor connecting protected areas, with the stated objectives of reducing illegal hunting and improving land management. Visitors should treat this as an emerging project rather than a completed conservation success story.

Travellers planning a wildlife safari park visit in the Matetsi or Hwange region can also explore SafariFind’s guide to Hwange National Park walking safaris and its practical information on Kazuma Pan National Park. The point is not to equate national-park tourism with conservancy governance, but to understand how connected landscapes function across different management categories.

Results and setbacks: what the evidence shows

Area or initiative	Reported progress	Important limitation
Mbire South, North and East	45,000 hectares of communal land are included in the conservancies; training has covered governance, finance, climate resilience and livelihoods.	Human-wildlife conflict remains a daily challenge, and the source calls for urgent action rather than declaring success.
Greater Mana Pools Ecosystem	A co-management trust was established; Peace Parks reported additional rangers, ranger housing and airstrip refurbishment in 2025.	The model is still in a gradual transition, and effective oversight and shared implementation remain necessary.
Mana Pools National Park	Bushlife Conservancy reported six years without elephant-poaching incidents at the time of its impact report.	Encroachment, wildlife displacement, conflict, illegal gold mining and habitat destruction remain concerns.
Woodlands Community Conservancy	Operations began in 2024 to help create a wildlife corridor connecting three areas.	The project is described as starting from scratch, so future ecological results are not yet established.
National community-conservation movement	SAFIRE, ZELO and WCA are supporting rights-based, community-rooted conservation and livelihood opportunities.	Policy reform, financing and organisational capacity remain pressing challenges.

The balanced conclusion is that Zimbabwe is rebuilding rather than presenting a finished model. There are credible signs of renewed local organisation, investment and co-management, but the evidence does not justify claiming that community conservancies have solved poaching, conflict or habitat loss.

How travellers can help responsibly

• Choose accountable operators: ask how tourism revenue is shared, who manages the land and which local services or enterprises benefit.
• Respect community authority: follow guidance from local leaders, conservancy staff and professional guides, particularly around homes, schools, livestock areas and culturally sensitive sites.
• Do not demand close wildlife encounters: responsible viewing reduces pressure on animals and avoids rewarding unsafe driving or intrusive behaviour.
• Support locally useful spending: use local guides and services where appropriate, and buy crafts or produce on fair terms rather than treating communities as a photo opportunity.
• Ask about conservation claims: request specific information instead of accepting vague promises about anti-poaching or community benefit.
• Consider direct support carefully: donations are most useful when organisations publish clear objectives, governance arrangements and reporting.

SafariFind travellers can book conservation-supporting safaris through the marketplace, but the strongest choice is an informed one: select an itinerary whose operator can explain its relationship with the relevant conservancy, community institution or park authority.

The outlook for Zimbabwe’s community conservancies

Community conservancies have a credible role in Zimbabwe because they address the scale at which coexistence actually happens: villages, communal land, wildlife corridors and district-level institutions. Their future depends on more than wildlife numbers. It will be measured through safer communities, accountable finances, meaningful local participation, functioning habitat and conservation benefits that residents can recognise.

Zimbabwe’s emerging agenda is therefore both promising and conditional. Mbire demonstrates investment in grassroots capacity; the Greater Mana Pools Trust demonstrates a move towards structured co-management; and the work of SAFIRE, ZELO and WCA demonstrates renewed attention to rights and local leadership. The unresolved questions are equally important: how will benefits be distributed, how secure will community authority become, and how will programmes remain financially resilient when tourism or donor income changes?

Those questions should guide responsible tourism and conservation funding in 2026. Supporting communities is not an optional addition to wildlife protection; in shared landscapes, it is part of the conservation system itself.

Frequently Asked Questions

What are community conservancies in Zimbabwe?

They are community-rooted conservation arrangements that connect biodiversity protection with local governance, livelihoods and human-wildlife-conflict management. Zimbabwe’s examples include communal-land conservancies in Mbire and emerging co-management arrangements around Greater Mana Pools.

Where are Zimbabwe’s community conservancies located?

The research specifically identifies conservancies in Mbire South, Mbire North and Mbire East, as well as community-conservation and corridor initiatives in the wider Mana Pools, Zambezi Valley and Matetsi landscapes.

How large are the Mbire community conservancies?

The Mbire South, North and East conservancies span 45,000 hectares of communal land.

How do community conservancies help wildlife?

They can support habitat management, local monitoring, conflict mitigation, ranger or patrol activities, conservation governance and tourism or livelihood enterprises. Their effectiveness depends on implementation, local participation and accountable institutions.

Do community conservancies replace Zimbabwe’s national parks?

No. Conservancies and national parks are different management arrangements. Community conservancies may complement protected areas by managing communal land, reducing pressure on habitats and helping maintain wildlife corridors.

What is the Greater Mana Pools Co-management Conservation Trust?

It is a Special Purpose Vehicle established through a 2025 co-management agreement between the Zimbabwe Parks and Wildlife Management Authority and Peace Parks for the Greater Mana Pools Ecosystem.

Are community conservancies in Zimbabwe successful?

The evidence shows promising but uneven progress. Reported gains include stronger governance training in Mbire, new investment and ranger capacity in Greater Mana Pools, and a reported six-year period without elephant-poaching incidents in Mana Pools at the time of one impact report. Ongoing conflict, encroachment, habitat destruction and financing challenges mean success cannot yet be assumed nationally.

How can a wildlife safari support community conservation in Zimbabwe?

Choose operators that can explain their relationship with a conservancy or community institution, how revenue is shared and what local employment or conservation outcomes are supported. Tourism helps only when benefits and governance are transparent.

What are the main threats to Zimbabwe’s community conservancies?

The documented challenges include human-wildlife conflict, encroachment, habitat destruction, illegal gold mining, poaching and weak or insecure conservation finance.

How can travellers behave responsibly in a Zimbabwe conservancy?

Follow local guidance, respect community authority and private spaces, avoid intrusive wildlife encounters, use local services where appropriate and ask operators for specific information about conservation and community benefits.