Heritage management in Zimbabwe: Development projects are not always the root of destruction

Effective heritage management can often be significantly affected by development projects. This effect may be either positive or negative, depending on the nature of the development project, the cultural and natural significance of the heritage site, and the approach and measures taken by the relevant authorities and communities. In the case of Zimbabwe, for instance, we see examples of both positive and negative effects of development on heritage management. On the positive side, development projects can create opportunities for showcasing and promoting heritage. For example, the development of the Victoria Falls airport in Zimbabwe improves accessibility to the UNESCO World Heritage Site, potentially attracting more visitors and raising more revenue to aid in conservation efforts. Furthermore, the careful monitoring of such development projects by bodies like the National Museums and Monuments of Zimbabwe (NMMZ) can ensure that these developments respect and actively support the preservation of heritage sites. On the negative side, however, unchecked or poorly planned development can pose serious threats to heritage sites. An example of this in Zimbabwe is the destruction of sacred cultural sites such as Nharira in the name of harvesting granite for construction. This harmful extraction was stopped by authorities, signaling the need for better heritage impact assessments before approving such issuances. Scholars such as Pwiti, Chirikure, and Manyanga have highlighted the often complex relationship between heritage management and development. Pwiti, for instance, has noted that heritage management and development should not be seen as mutually exclusive, but rather that heritage should be seen as a resource that can contribute to development. Chirikure, on the other hand, focuses on the importance of local engagement and knowledge in mediating the impact of development on heritage. He suggests that such engagement can reduce potential conflict between heritage conservation and development, ultimately promoting more sustainable and beneficial outcomes. Manyanga, however, warns of the dangers of 'developmentalism', where heritage is seen only in terms of its economic value under the logic of development. He finds this approach limited and counterproductive, arguing instead for a broad, inclusive view of heritage that recognises its inherent cultural, historic, and epistemic value. In conclusion, while development projects can significantly affect effective heritage management, the verdict's validity may vary based on several factors. It's clear that achieving a delicate balance between development and heritage preservation requires inclusive planning, rigorous impact assessment, local community participation, and understanding the complex values of heritage.