Competing for tourists at Victoria Falls: A historical consideration of the effects of government involvement

Abstract

Although many African countries have only recently started benefiting from tourism development, Zambia and Zimbabwe have a long history of promoting tourism. Since the late nineteenth century, the large number of visitors drawn to Victoria Falls has stimulated the development of one of southern Africa's earliest and most popular tourist destinations. Its value as both a commercial and spiritual site and its position on the border between Zambia have resulted in a complex, long-term transnational struggle between interested parties on both sides of the border. This article examines tourism development around Victoria Falls from a historical perspective, with attention to the efforts of colonial and post-colonial governments to promote tourism, and policies that have stifled it.

Keywords:

• tourism development
• Victoria Falls
• Zimbabwe
• Zambia

1. Introduction

In 1877, Richard Frewin travelled to see Victoria Falls, the magnificent waterfalls made popular in Europe by David Livingstone's writings. Although Frewin was impressed with the Falls, he doubted that many fellow Europeans would ever get to view them. He lamented, ‘This part of Africa … will never support a railway, and the travelling by ox-wagon, its difficulties, troubles, fatigue and endurance of hardship will never suit a Cockney’.1 Frewin, of course, was wrong. In short order, Victoria Falls became a popular destination for Europeans, white South Africans and Americans, and today it is one of Africa's most recognisable destinations.

The Falls are on the Zambezi River, which serves as a natural border between Zimbabwe and Zambia, and both sides play host to tourism industries that promote not only Victoria Falls but also local wildlife, white water rafting, fishing, bungee jumping, sunset cruises, helicopter flights, curio markets, cultural experiences and accommodation that ranges from backpacker lodges to 5-star resorts. Both sides claim to have the best views of the Falls, the best accommodation and the most exciting activities. This competitive spirit, which reflects not only national pride but, perhaps more accurately, a battle to profit from tourist traffic, has been a long time in the making.

From the earliest years of tourism development around Victoria Falls, the northern and southern sides have struggled to dominate the area's tourism industry. Colonial and post-colonial governments have both played a role in aiding, and hindering, the development of tourism on both sides of the border. Although governments are not the only factor contributing to periods of success or stagnation in this competition between tourism industries, an examination of the history of government involvement demonstrates the importance of cooperative and supportive administrations or, conversely, the detrimental effect where governments have little concern for tourism. The conflict between governments and the tourism industry does not exist in a vacuum; from the early days of tourism development in this border area, tensions between the industry and the governments also affected the way the northern and southern sides of the Falls saw each other. Competition became strongly partisan as southern Africa's governing body, the British South Africa Company (the BSACo), helped create an environment that pitted the northern side against the southern. The earliest forays into tourism development, under the BSACo's administrative bodies in Southern and North Western (eventually Northern) Rhodesia, established an imbalanced pace and scale of tourism-related growth that affected the trajectory of tourism development throughout the mid and late twentieth century. This tension continues today, as the tourism industry fails to embrace a transnational, cross-border approach to tourism development. As Zimbabwe and Zambia enter a new decade of potential growth or decline in tourism development and revenue, the role of government continues to be a critical component of the century-old battle for tourism traffic around Victoria Falls.

Since the beginning of the twentieth century, development at the Falls has been decidedly lopsided, with the southern side (Southern Rhodesia/Zimbabwe) outpacing the northern (North Western Rhodesia/Northern Rhodesia/Zambia). The imbalanced maturation of the tourism industry has its roots in the early colonial period, when the BSACo adopted different positions on the usefulness and significance of tourism to the overall development agendas of North Western Rhodesia and Southern Rhodesia. The government interest in tourism in Southern Rhodesia launched that colony's Victoria Falls development under the BSACo, and was sustained by subsequent governmental bodies. North Western Rhodesia's disadvantages in the early decades of tourism development at the site continued to hamper efforts to create a strong tourism industry well into the post-Independence era.

Government intervention takes many forms; for the purposes of this paper, I focus specifically on the presence (or absence) of tourism in political agendas as demonstrated by government campaigns promoting tourism and by interactions between government officials and the private tourism sector. For example, land allocation and business licences for tourism-related development were easier to obtain in Southern Rhodesia than in North Western Rhodesia. The governmental emphasis on tourism in Southern Rhodesia and the lack of interest in North Western Rhodesia set the stage for future development and created a discrepancy between the two sides that still affects the border area today.

Figure 1: Victoria Falls area map

2. The early days: Tourism in North Western Rhodesia

The earliest efforts to develop tourism around Victoria Falls were made on the northern side. As trans-oceanic travel became more popular and British colonial influence spread throughout southern Africa, European and white South African entrepreneurs saw the Victoria Falls area as an ideal tourist destination. As early as the 1890s, they moved to the northern bank of the Zambezi, anxious to develop their vision of a tourist hot spot into a reality. Although at the time the BSACo showed no interest in the tourism potential of the area, the charters that gave the BSACo control of land north of the Zambezi facilitated the birth of a modern tourism industry. As one historian states:

The 1890s marked a watershed in the development of tourism at the Falls. The British S.A. Company (BSACo.) negotiated a number of agreements with African leaders [local chiefs] that legitimised the company's intended commercial exploitation of land and minerals in South Central Africa to the north and south of the Falls … These conditions precipitated the development of the Falls as a tourist attraction, with the attendant socio-spatial reorganisation of the landscape. (Husbands, 1995:35)

As far as a small group of entrepreneurs was concerned, the stage was set for tourism development. The BSACo, on the other hand, had no interest in encouraging tourism, and the battle lines were drawn between the settlers and the administration.

By the late 1880s, the British Government was determined to spread the British sphere of influence into the Zambesia region.2 Enlisting the aid of Cecil Rhodes's BSACo expedited the process, with benefits for both the British Government and the BSACo. Kenneth Vickery explains:

A primary goal of the policymakers was to enlarge the British counterweight to growing Afrikaner power in southern Africa. But Her Majesty's Government … was still hesitant to incur the large financial obligations necessary to establish a full-fledged protectorate or colony run by the Colonial Office. Rhodes … proposed to finance the occupation and development of the region by means of a private company of investors, backed by a royal charter. (Vickery, 1986:39)

After reaching that agreement, the BSACo moved north, with permission from the British Government to sign treaties and agreements with African chiefs ‘to obtain administrative and commercial rights, establish government and police force, engage in mining, banking and commerce and make land grants – to become, in short, a colonial state as well as a business’ (Vickery, 1986:39). The goals for development of the territories north and south of the Zambezi were distinct but complementary and consistently favoured the latter. The British Government had little interest in the northern land, and Rhodes's vision of the area focused on gaining mining rights. With lack of British support and a singular focus on mineral extraction, the land north of the Zambezi was never slated for large-scale white settlement (Arrington, 2007). Additionally, the BSACo initiated policies that restricted the recruitment of native labourers in North Western Rhodesia and instead filtered the workers into Southern Rhodesian mines and farms.3 Simply put, the BSACo saw North Western Rhodesia as a resource for developing Southern Rhodesia and South Africa, not as a site for internal development. This profoundly affected the way tourism initiatives by entrepreneurs were treated by the North Western Rhodesia administration.

The first significant European settlement in the Falls area was at a site known first as Sekuti's Drift and then as Old Drift. Established in 1898, this site was less than 4 kilometres north of the waterfalls, along the banks of the Zambezi. One of the first settlers, FJ Clarke, quickly established a river transport system and ‘a small hotel built of pole and mud, and a bar adjacent’ (Ese, 1996:20), demonstrating early on an interest in making the area amenable to travellers. Already the area, popularised by David Livingstone's writings, was being visited by groups of European and white South African adventurers and hunters. The white settlers saw the area's potential as a tourist destination (Arrington, 2007). Although by many accounts this small settlement quickly developed into a lively place for residents and visitors alike, it was also a rough environment. The riparian location made malaria and blackwater fever an ever-present threat, and the loose frontier space fostered rowdy behaviour and a general sense of lawlessness. It was not long before the BSACo turned its attention to dealing with Old Drift. This early clash between entrepreneurs and the administration marked one of the first disputes between the tourism industry and government about Victoria Falls.

During 1903 and 1904 the BSACo considered multiple proposals on where to establish a town site several kilometres away from the Zambezi. The company officers saw Old Drift as an unhealthy location and identified two possible resettlement sites, one that was still ‘close to the Falls and the river’ and one that was ‘located on a sand belt some seven miles north’ (Tanner Robbins, 1977:27). The Old Drifters vehemently opposed both locations, arguing that they were ‘too far from both the Falls and the river’ and that the sandy terrain would make building and road construction expensive and unstable.4 Against the wishes of the setters, North Western Rhodesia's head administrator Robert Coryndon selected the site where the town of Livingstone stands today, about 10 kilometres from the Zambezi. The forced relocation of Old Drift created a deep and long-standing disdain for the BSACo among North Western Rhodesia's earliest entrepreneurs and settlers, one of whom angrily proclaimed that the matter was ‘settled without reference to us’.5

The town of Livingstone was founded in 1905, but for years afterwards white settlers with an interest in developing the tourism industry continued to complain about the location. Even the 1905 completion of the BSACo sponsored railway from the Cape, through Bulawayo up to the Falls, failed to generate much goodwill to the administration because the trains stopped just at the Falls to allow tourists off. In 1906, a newspaper article listed numerous grievances against the BSACo, including its failure to provide transport between the Falls and Livingstone as it had originally promised. The author of the article noted how the distance from the Falls and lack of transport was adversely affecting the entrepreneurs who relied on tourist traffic. In his indictment against the BSACo, he complained that:

Conductor Holland informs us that there were 101 passengers on board last Saturday's train de luxe. About a dozen of them managed to get as far as Livingstone. This is most unsatisfactory and it is to be hoped that some effort will be made … to provide transport facilities for our visitors.6

Clearly this was unsatisfactory to Livingstonians, who were mere kilometres away from this rapidly increasing tourist traffic at the Falls.

In 1907 Livingstonians, with the support of other white settlers in North Western Rhodesia, proposed to the BSACo that the townships of Livingstone and Kalomo be merged and resettled at a site called Imbault's Camp. They argued that this new location (unsurprisingly, closer to the Falls), ‘having the permanent officials in residence and the tourist traffic in the season would, it is considered, develop into a prosperous town’.7 H Rangeley, the Secretary of the North Western Rhodesian Administration, showed little interest in the proposal. It was reported that ‘His Honour's reply was entirely non-committal. He understood that our objections to the present site were chiefly on account of the sand and distance from the Falls; he thought we attached too much value to the tourist trade’.8 The BSACo was simply not interested in what would nurture the growth of tourism.

Despite lack of BSACo support, Livingstonians continued building a tourist infrastructure. They strongly believed that the view of the Falls was more impressive from the northern bank (an argument that continues to this day), and had already invested time, energy and money in developing their businesses in North Western Rhodesia. Documentary evidence suggests that these white settlers preferred the frontier life offered by North Western Rhodesia and considered it a cheaper location to start businesses. These were not farmers, miners or trained professionals, and accounts of early white settlers in North Western Rhodesia suggest that they were not fully comfortable south of the Zambezi. That said, some of the wealthier Livingstonians applied for business licences in Southern Rhodesia and to exchange town stands (lots) in Livingstone for space in Victoria Falls Town as early as 1908.9 The debate over the town location continued, but discussions about the place and privileges of white settlers intensified, and competition with their sister colony to the south only added to the tension. White settlers did not just complain about the BSACo ignoring tourism growth; they also argued that in North Western Rhodesia the interests of Africans were put ahead of the interests of Europeans (Arrington, 2007). In 1909, Lord Selborne, the BSACo High Commissioner based in Johannesburg, issued a statement that made it clear why the BSACo took little interest in the economic activities of white settlers in Livingstone and North Western Rhodesia. In comparing North Western Rhodesia to Southern Rhodesia, he stated that:

Southern Rhodesia is a country where the whites form a steadily increasing element of the community, and the Government necessarily takes the shape mainly of a government of white men … The condition of affairs, however, in … North-Western Rhodesia is totally different … There is a vast population of natives and infinitesimal population of white people. The Government, therefore, is necessarily not mainly a government of whites, but mainly a government for natives …10

This certainly clarified what many white settlers in North Western Rhodesia feared: the BSACo was less interested in promoting the agendas and activities of the white population and more interested in sorting out how to harness the labour and resources of Africans in the territory. Despite this proclamation, though, the white settlers continued to push for their interests and rights, and those involved in tourism accelerated their efforts to create a world class tourist destination. Five years later, entrepreneurial Livingstonians continued to publicly express their hostilities towards the BSACo. In one letter sent to the Livingstone Mail, the author blamed the BSACo for a lack of cohesion and clarity of purpose and inconsistencies in policies and marketing that negatively affected the prosperity of the colony (now Northern Rhodesia). The author wrote:

A mere handful of white settlers have come in [to Northern Rhodesia]. They have taken up land, established trading centres, and a government. For more than ten years, they have pegged away in perfect peace, undisturbed by any misfortune such as Southern Rhodesia endured – rinderpest, rebellion, East Coast Fever. During that time the natives have become accustomed to their domination and have attempted to assimilate … at any rate they have purchased their goods and copied their clothes. Today the country is suffering from commercial depression and money has to all intents and purposes, ceased to circulate. What is the trouble?11

This diatribe, published in the newspaper that served the heart of Northern Rhodesia's tourism industry, reflected a growing panic among the white settlers in the area. Southern Rhodesia was swiftly cornering the tourism trade around Victoria Falls, leaving Livingstone with just a slow trickle of tourists. The BSACo, in the minds of the settlers, showed no concern for the economic well-being of their population, and the impact was being felt. Ten years of bickering and pleading with the BSACo had brought no positive changes, and the settlers felt that their government was hindering the potential prosperity of Northern Rhodesia. For so many Livingstonians, the dream of a strong, local economy based on tourism and satellite industries was proving to be unattainable.

3. Gaining the upper hand: The growth of tourism in Southern Rhodesia

While entrepreneurs in North Western Rhodesia struggled to build a tourism industry with little government support, the BSACo in Southern Rhodesia adopted a decidedly different approach. Although it would be an overstatement to say that the BSACo here strongly endorsed and encouraged the creation of a tourism industry, it is safe to state that it was more flexible and open to entrepreneurial efforts in tourism activities. As early as the first decade of the twentieth century there was considerable effort to develop the southern side of the Falls. Within just a few decades, it was clear that Southern Rhodesia was at the forefront of tourism development and revenue generation. The fears of Livingstonian entrepreneurs became reality as Victoria Falls Town rapidly emerged as the centre of tourism in the area.

In the earliest days of colonial development at Victoria Falls, there was some indication that perhaps the administrations of Southern Rhodesia and North Western Rhodesia would share the burden of expenses and resources for developing a tourism industry at the Falls. This joint effort seemingly made sense; after all, both administrations worked as part of the larger BSACo governmental body. In 1903, the BSACo office in London sent notification to Sir William Milton, a high level BSACo officer in Southern Rhodesia, that his request to appoint FW Sykes as Curator of the Falls (on both sides) had been approved by the BSACo Board.12 In relatively short order, this cooperative effort for a transcolonial guardianship of the Falls escalated into discussions about money. Both administrations agreed to share a curator,13 and the BSACo Board in London recommended ‘that half Mr Sykes’ additional salary should be paid by the Administration of Southern Rhodesia and half by the Administration of North Western Rhodesia'.14 It appears that both administrations agreed to share that cost but, as Sykes expanded his activities, the North Western Rhodesian administration grew concerned that it would be footing the bill for some of Sykes's costly activities. In October 1904, the Secretary of North Western Rhodesia's Administration sent a letter to the BSACo office in Salisbury about the costs of a house Sykes had built. The administrator appealed to Sir William to cover some of Sykes's expenses. He wrote:

I am directed to suggest … that a part of the expense, incurred in the erection of a house and guest house for the District Commissioner of the Falls District, be borne by the Southern Rhodesia Administration. As you are aware, Mr Sykes holds the dual positions of District Commissioner [North Western Rhodesia] and Conservator of the falls, and half his emoluments in the latter capacity are paid by your Government. It was owing to the large number of visitors to the Falls, many of whom Mr Sykes found it necessary … to entertain on behalf of the British South Africa Company, that the erection of such large accommodation, at an approximate cost of £2,200, became necessary …15

The response from Sir William's office was interesting. Rather than the Southern Rhodesia administration covering half of the costs, it was conveyed that ‘Sir William Milton understands from the London Office that it is desired that expenses on the Falls Park should be charged to a special account in London, and not to Southern Rhodesia’.16 There is no indication that North Western Rhodesia was allowed to draw from a special account, leaving the question open as to how that administration, which frequently felt short-changed, especially in comparison with its sister colony in the south, felt about Southern Rhodesia receiving special dispensation for such expenses.

A major triumph in Southern Rhodesia's claim to Victoria Falls tourism was the construction of the Victoria Falls Hotel. Around the same time that the Old Drifters were begrudgingly adjusting to resettlement in Livingstone, the Victoria Falls Hotel was built a short distance from the Zambezi, with views of the gorges that surrounded the Falls. Livingstonians were outraged; they were told they could not build that close to the river and could not understand why the south bank of the Zambezi was afforded the privilege. Entrepreneurs complained that the BSACo decisions were uneven and thus unfair in policy. According to Creewel, the BSACo responded by saying that ‘The Victoria Falls Hotel was only a temporary expedient and would be abolished [sic] as soon as accommodation was available in Livingstone’ (1994:18). Livingstone, which already had small hotels (not of the scale and grandeur of the Victoria Falls Hotel), accelerated work on their response to the grand hotel in Southern Rhodesia, and in 1909 opened the North Western Hotel. This was described by one writer for the Livingstone Mail as ‘a handsome and commodious building tastefully and comfortably furnished, and the accommodation provided will be found equal, if not superior, to any in Rhodesia’ (Ese, 1996:8). Another piece in the local newspaper reported that on the first night of business at the North Western, ‘we dined there, and a very good dinner it was. The surroundings, moreover, are congenial; one could almost fancy oneself at the Ritz or Carlton, but for the colour of the waiters’.17 Livingstonians were obviously keen on this new addition, and believed that, with its opening, the Victoria Falls Hotel would be closed as promised by the BSACo.

The BSACo did not close the hotel, much to the chagrin of Livingstonians. Despite the presence of the North Western Hotel, too much money was being made by the Victoria Falls Hotel to shut it down. Moreover, Livingstonians were upset that the BSACo had granted a licence for a store, shaving salon and souvenir shop to operate in the grounds of the Victoria Falls Hotel. According to Creewel (1994:18), they argued to the BSACo officials that this ‘rendered the existence of Livingstone superfluous … and, they suggested, the settlement at the Falls should be abolished and all tourists be compelled to patronise the facilities in Livingstone’. It is apparent at this point that the tensions between the entrepreneurs in Livingstone and the BSACo also affected relationships between settlers and businesses on either side of the Falls. There is no evidence that tourism industry business owners saw tourism development as a transcolonial endeavour, and that division continues to hinder transnational development schemes today.

Competition between the two colonies continued, but towards the end of the decade 1910–1920 Southern Rhodesia appeared to be gaining the upper hand in tourism development around the Falls, and the relationship between the white settlers on both sides of the Falls was strained. Although North Western and North Eastern Rhodesia were amalgamated early in that decade and Livingstone was named the capital of the new Northern Rhodesian colony, most of the tourist traffic to the Falls area stayed south of the Zambezi. Certainly, Southern Rhodesia had the upper hand in terms of geographical location, since most visitors came from the south. But in the early decades of colonialism these visitors would not have been required to pay extra to cross into North Western Rhodesia. Even today, the costs are not prohibitive, as some passport holders do not need visas and others spend only US$50 on visas, yet until recently most tourists have stopped short of the Zambian border. The railway bridge was built to cross into the northern colony, but Victoria Falls Town offered more amenities to visitors, so trips across the Zambezi were typically day trips that did not generate much profit for the northern side. Within a decade, two distinct foundations had been created for tourism, with Southern Rhodesia enjoying a much stronger base on which to build up their side of the Falls. A visitor to the Victoria Falls region captured the tensions between the Rhodesias thus:

But between Northern and Southern Rhodesia a much greater gulf is fixed than the bed of that river, for the south is older, has a greater population of white people, and talks derisively of the ‘Black North’. And the Black North retaliates with the astonishing vigour of extreme youth, and as she grows older speaks of an alliance with Nyasaland and the north, rather than of one with Southern Rhodesia …18

That gap continued to divide the Rhodesias, and the parties involved in tourism on both sides of the Falls were not immune to the broader tensions. After Southern Rhodesia went from being a BSACo territory to a self-governing colony in 1923, government interest in tourism intensified, leaving the BSACo-governed Northern Rhodesia even further behind. Instead of focusing on the Victoria Falls area alone, the Southern Rhodesian Government envisaged developing multiple sites of interest to create a large-scale tourist experience. A memo from SM Lanigan O'Keeffe, Minister of Internal Affairs, circulated by upper level government officials, reflects a growing interest in the possible value of a robust tourism industry:

It appears to me that one of the ways in which prosperity can surely be brought to this colony is by a thorough, systematic and courageous development of the Tourist Traffic… Given a strong courageous policy tourists can well solve most of our troubles and go a long way to solve the question of markets for what we produce. A well known hotel proprietor said to me the other day that an influx of say only one thousand tourists meant the local purchase of ‘a thousand everything else’.19

The argument that white entrepreneurs around Victoria Falls had been making for decades was finally voiced with great enthusiasm by government leaders, only the leaders were not those of Northern Rhodesia. The Southern Rhodesian Government embraced the idea that tourism development could stimulate other industries and strengthen not just the local but also the colony's economies. Indeed, Southern Rhodesia viewed the development of a strong tourism industry as a sign of progress. One letter to Minister Lanigan O'Keeffe offered the opinion that ‘In most modern states Tourism has now reached the dignity of a great and ever increasing industry providing employment for numbers of people and pouring money into the country’.20 Tourism, long considered a peripheral economic activity, quickly gained credibility among Southern Rhodesian government officials.

To be sure, Livingstone was still considered the centre of Northern Rhodesia's tourism industry, but the new energy and support for tourism growth in Southern Rhodesia meant that Livingstone was going to have to fight even harder to bring tourists into Northern Rhodesia. In my research I discovered brochures issued by the Livingstone Publicity Bureau (published, ironically, in Bulawayo) that highlighted ‘Livingstone: Tourist Centre for the Victoria Falls’. The difference between the Southern and Northern Rhodesian tourism advertisements is striking though, as the Livingstone Publicity Bureau document focuses solely on Victoria Falls and reads more like a town guide than a true advertisement. Southern Rhodesia's tourism publications from the same time period are flashier and more eye-catching. The pictures and evocative descriptions introduce not just one tourist site but a country full of places to explore.

In the mid 1930s, the administrative capital of Northern Rhodesia moved from Livingstone to Lusaka, making it more difficult to attract tourists. By 1936, a large-scale publicity campaign was under way in Southern Rhodesia, inviting tourists to visit ‘Rhodesia, Unspoilt Playground of Africa’ and the ‘Land of the Glorious Outdoors’.21 There was a striking change at this time, as we see the first instance of enthusiastic government support for the development of tourism. It was also at this time that Livingstone's tourism industry found itself in an even more critical position. The early years of governmental lack of interest in tourism development north of the Zambezi made the two tourism economies more disparate, as the BSACo still showed no signs of commitment to tourism development, and Southern Rhodesia implemented an energetic campaign to build up its tourism industry. The gap between the Rhodesias, and the competition between the two sides of the Falls was once again affected by the choices the two governments made about fostering tourism development.

4. Contemporary ramifications

From the 1940s well into the late twentieth century, Southern Rhodesia/Rhodesia/Zimbabwe dominated the tourism industry at Victoria Falls. Northern Rhodesia/Zambia fell further behind as government support in Southern Rhodesia created an atmosphere in which a modern, comprehensive tourism industry flourished in Victoria Falls Town. The trajectory of the industry's development remained affected by early colonial administrative policies and decisions about fostering or ignoring the tourism sector. Simply put, the damage had been done, and the governments of both colonies (and eventually independent countries) tended to maintain the status quo in terms of support for tourism development. Budget travellers and upscale tourists alike found plenty of activities and accommodation to choose from on the southern side of the Falls, but they also had options throughout the countryside. Visitors spent their time and money traversing Southern Rhodesia/Rhodesia/Zimbabwe. Crossing over to Zambia became either a day trip, or did not happen at all, and Livingstone faded into the background of the Victoria Falls tourism industry. Tourists who did cross over to Northern Rhodesia/Zambia often just visited the Falls Park, not even venturing into Livingstone.

Although Zambia's first post-Independence president Kenneth Kaunda made mention of tourism in his national development agendas, agriculture absorbed so much of the government's attention that tourism continued to be a peripheral concern. Kaunda did build lodges and guest houses owned by the government throughout the country, including the Falls area, in the hope of spurring tourism, but could never fully articulate a plan to prioritise tourism development. Fourteen years after his tenure as president ended, Kaunda remarked that tourism was something ‘which we [government leaders] have not so far paid the necessary attention yet it has the potential to be a catalyst for the economic revival of many of our Countries in Africa’ (Kaunda, 2005).

The consequences of almost 100 years of disparate tourism development in the Falls border area are obvious. On my first visit to the Falls, in 1999, I found the town of Victoria Falls bustling and well developed. By contrast, Livingstone was a sleepy town with few tourists. Whereas Victoria Falls Town had a robust and diverse offering of accommodation, activities and shops, Livingstone offered seemingly little. In late 2005, Sara Nyondo, a Tourism Development Officer working on a new Zambian National Tourist Board initiative promoting the country to potential tourists as ‘Zambia, the Real Africa’, told me that the Ministry of Tourism had given two billion kwacha to the Tourist Board to promote tourism, as a response to the deterioration of Zimbabwe's tourism industry. Most of the resources were meant to stimulate the growth of tourism around Victoria Falls, with Livingstone as the main focus. The 5-year plan, 2005–2010, was to boost the number of visitors and increase awareness of all that Zambia had to offer its visitors. This followed on the back of a World Bank programme called the Support for Economic Expansion and Diversification (SEED) Project, which included money to be spent on strengthening the economic contributions of tourism. According to Nyondo, up to 2005, ‘Zambia was secondary to Zimbabwe’ in terms of tourism, but there was now an opportunity to attract tourists away from Zimbabwe to Zambia (interview, Sara Nyondo, Tourism Development Officer, Zambian National Tourist Board, Livingstone, 20 September 2005). The opportunity she referred to was the escalating political and economic crisis in Zimbabwe that was scaring tourists away from that country. With the success of the opening of the South African owned ‘Zambezi Sun’ resort complex in 2001, the government and investors from inside and outside Zambia realised that Zambia was in a position to exploit the growing instability affecting Zimbabwe's tourism industry. These initiatives focused on developing indigenous entrepreneurship in the tourism sector, as well as encouraging further foreign investment in large-scale projects, such as the construction of resorts and shopping complexes. The town of Livingstone had experienced significant changes in the last 5 years with the establishment of more foreign-owned stores, tour operators and hotels, as well as a boom in indigenous owned guesthouses and other small-scale business ventures hoping to capitalise on Livingstone's growing economy.

Although Livingstone had long been the centre of Zambia's tourism industry, it was not clear to Livingstonians that their town and economic agenda figured in national development plans. Before 2001, Livingstone had been a town in a state of decline. The once diverse, if not booming, local economy had been fading. One director of a local business reported that by the 1990s Livingstone had lost about 50 industries, and that where his business used to have 50 000 fully employed people, by 2001 it had only 4000 (Lee, 2001). With little government interest in this border town, it seemed that Livingstone had been left to develop on its own, and what little development had occurred had often come from outside investors, which limited the impact on the local population. Within a few years, though, this seemingly forgotten town had taken centre-stage as the government realised that bolstering tourism might help the country's economic health. The ‘Zambia, the Real Africa’ campaign demonstrated a fresh commitment by the government to spur economic growth, and to help Zambians reap the rewards. According to Nyondo, the Tourism Board planned to use its resources to support and renovate local museums, offer loans for tourism-specific business ventures, encourage domestic tourism by establishing local rates and promote local ownership of tourism industry initiatives (interview, S Nyondo, 20 September 2005).

The timing of this renewed interest by the Zambian Government in tourism, and specifically the Victoria Falls area, was not coincidental. Over the first decade of the twenty-first century, Victoria Falls Town in Zimbabwe watched a vibrant, profitable industry fade away as political, economic and social crises scared would-be tourists away from the country. One report estimates that in 1999 the Zimbabwe Tourism Authority documented 597 000 overseas arrivals to the country but that by 2005 that number had decreased to 201 000 (Rodgers, 2008). Zimbabwe's loss has been Zambia's gain, as tourists still anxious to see the magnificent falls choose to view them from the Zambian side of the river. As Victoria Falls Town entered a period of decline, Livingstone just across the border in Zambia was booming as the centre of Victoria Falls tourism traffic. As one Zimbabwean tour operator explained to a Washington Post reporter, ‘Livingstone has become a success because of what's happened in Zimbabwe … There's no way, to the extent that it has grown, that it would have happened without the downturn here’ (Brulliard, 2009). Without a doubt, there was a major shift in this border area, and it was clearly linked to Zimbabwe's political crisis. Finally, Livingstone's tourism industry had the attention of the national government.

In June 2008, just weeks before the highly contested presidential run-off election, I interviewed two Zimbabweans employed in managerial positions directly connected to the Victoria Falls tourism industry. Because of tensions in Zimbabwe at the time, and concern for their safety, these informants' identities have been disguised. I visited the tourism authority board organised by the business community of Victoria Falls Town and asked if anyone would be willing to be interviewed about the decline in tourism. The administrator organised this meeting with the two Zimbabweans, who were members involved in the leadership of the organisation. They were the only high ranking tourism-related businesspersons willing to speak to me. We discussed the downfall of one of Zimbabwe's key industries, tourism. Unlike Zambia, Zimbabwe's government (in both the colonial and post-colonial eras) had paid sustained attention to tourism and saw the industry as a key sector in the overall national economy. Now it was a pariah government that was blamed for all but obliterating the once booming tourism industry. The once strong base of Victoria Falls Town's tourism was crumbling, revealing a major shift in the development pattern of the area.

We did not discuss the potential for development, but rather focused on what it would take for the country to regain what it had lost in the last decade. They felt strongly that President Mugabe's government was largely to blame for scaring off tourists. I was particularly interested in finding out if they thought that government, which is largely to blame for the decline of tourism, could also help revive the industry. The tourism board they belong to operates strictly as a private sector venture and receives no funding from the government. Its members include many local business owners and managers, mostly representing the tourism industry but also some representing some non-tourism industry companies. One of the interviewees, ‘Matthew’, was outspoken about why their board had been formed, despite there being various governmental tourism boards. He explained that their board recognised the importance of a diverse economy around Victoria Falls and wanted to create alliances among local businesses. He believed that government councils had a bias when it came to tourism, which would eventually be detrimental to the economic health of the area. Specifically, he believed that the government was biased in favour of tourism-related businesses owned by foreign-based companies. He felt it privileged such companies and did little to help locally owned businesses. The attention to high-end tourism was doing little, in his opinion, to help all the businesses in the area. Even more to the point, though, he argued that the local and national governments benefit from tourism but do not contribute to its growth in meaningful, sustainable ways. In essence, he suggested that business should be left to business people and not to the government (interview, Tourism Manager ‘Matthew’, Victoria Falls Town, 10 June 2008). One hundred years earlier, and on the other side of the Falls, white entrepreneurs had complained that tourism was blocked by government agendas and policies that did not promote the growth of business. Now a Zimbabwean businessman was expressing similar disdain for a government that he perceived to be limiting tourism industry operations.

In retrospect, and within the context of this study, Matthew's comments were provocative but also sent a mixed message. When discussing the recent boom in Zambia's tourism industry, Matthew emphasised a common opinion that the Zambian Government, despite its lip service to local initiatives, was still not empowering locals. Embedded in that comment is an idea that somehow the government can and should empower local business owners, suggesting that Matthew believes the government does have a role in tourism development. He also discussed the local versus foreign investment issue in the Zimbabwean tourism industry and said that, as it stood then, indigenous initiatives were numerous but had limited potential because of the presence of foreign-owned businesses. He thought that the government should help local businesses expand and grow, even if it meant stifling outside investors. Finally, he argued that, locally, the municipal administration had to be made more accountable in ensuring the overall health of the tourism industry and other sectors of the local economy. These statements reflect distrust for government interference in the tourism industry, but also imply that he thought the government (both local and national) could be instrumental in building up this sector of the economy.

On the other hand, Matthew was active in an organisation that shunned government input. He said several times that there was no accountability in the government, so people involved in tourism were simply waiting out this downturn and making plans on how to rebuild the industry when the situation improved. He also said that those conversations among local business owners and members of this board excluded government officials and paid no attention to what the governmental tourism advisory boards might say or do in the future. He expressed little faith that the local or national government could do anything to get the industry back on track and made it clear that the private sector was preparing for its comeback despite the lack of governmental support. It is obvious that in the current political climate, owners and managers in the tourism industry see the government as a hindrance to growth, but it is also clear that they believe it does have some responsibility to aid the industry. What is not clear is how owners and managers will reconcile their distrust of the government and their push for autonomy with their expectation that the government should assist local businesses.

My historical research and analysis suggests that, regardless of whether entrepreneurs and businesses want governments to have a hand in tourism development, the commitment of colonial administrations to tourism has greatly affected the trajectory of the industry. Governments have the power to either stifle or foster tourism development. Since its earliest colonial days, Zambia's interest in tourism development has fallen by the wayside because of unsupportive or aloof governments. Zimbabwe's tourism industry, on the other hand, never faced strong opposition to its agenda, and by the 1930s was enjoying a boost from an enthusiastic governmental push to expand tourism. Recent events in the region remind the tourism industry how powerfully the political affairs and governments can affect its operations, as it has watched a government and country in crisis scare away significant numbers of would-be visitors.

Despite the long history of government involvement in tourism development, the second interviewee, ‘Nancy’, made a strong statement that calls for consideration. In the midst of the crisis in Zimbabwe, which affects every industry, not just tourism, Nancy stated that Zimbabweans are ‘resilient people’. She said, ‘We are adapting and the government is not. We will be around longer than they will’ (interview, Tourism Manager ‘Nancy’, Victoria Falls Town, 10 June 2008). This statement, which conveys the disgust and despair felt by Zimbabweans about President Mugabe's regime, seems to suggest that the tourism industry can operate outside the scope of government. Although my two informants seemed angry at the turn of events, they were calm and assured me repeatedly that there would be a plan and that Zimbabwe would bounce back quickly. They expressed confidence that Zimbabwe would win back its tourists and that Livingstone would once again be outstripped by Victoria Falls Town in the competition for tourist dollars.

It appears they might not have to find out whether their industry can proceed with recovery and further development without the backing of their government. As the end of 2009 saw the creation of a ‘unity government’ in Zimbabwe, attention to the tourism industry seems to be picking up. The new Deputy Prime Minister identified tourism as one of the elements critical to Zimbabwe's economic recovery. If Zimbabwe is able to re-brand itself and regain tourists' confidence, Zambia's government will need to articulate and launch a plan that will not send its tourism industry spiralling back to pre-2000 conditions. Zambia will lose the momentum gained over the past decade, but need not lose the battle for tourists. Although informants on both sides of the Falls said they were prepared to compete hard for tourist dollars, it may be time for the competition to be put aside in favour of long-term, sustainable growth that will benefit both sides of the Falls. Perhaps the next decade will be a period when tourism in the Victoria Falls area takes on a transnational character as the governments, companies and entrepreneurs on both sides of the Zambezi create a development plan that will enable both local communities and the national economies to prosper.

Notes

¹National Archives of Zimbabwe (NAZ). Jack, AH, ‘Some early journeys to the Victoria Falls’, British South Africa Annual, December 1936, p. 137.

²Zambesia was a territory on the Zambezi, under British protection, and in the hands of the BSACo. It included Mashonaland, Matabeleland, and the country of Khama. Definition taken from The Nuttall Encyclopædia, edited by the Reverend James Wood. www.fromoldbooks.org/Wood-NuttallEncyclopaedia/z/zambesia.html

³Zambian National Archives (ZNA). HC 1/2/33. John Carden, ‘Report on the supervision of labour recruited by the Rhodesia Native Labour Bureau and others for employment in southern Rhodesia’, 10 January 1908.

⁴Livingstone Museum (LMA). Box: D1/7 – F1/7/3 BSAC. Reports. E 9/4, Acc. 44. ‘Minutes of a meeting held at the Old Drift: 1905’, p. 1.

⁵LMA. Box: D1/7 – F1/7/3 BSAC. Reports. E 9/4, Acc. 44. ‘Minutes of a meeting held at the Old Drift: 1905’, p. 6.

⁶LMA. The Livingstone Mail, Vol. 1, No. 3, 21 April 1906.

⁷LMA. The Livingstone Mail, Vol. 3, No. 55, 13 April 1907.

⁸LMA. The Livingstone Mail, Vol. 3, No. 58, 4 May 1907.

¹⁰London Public Records Office (PRO). CO 879/10. No. 244, 27 December 1909, pp. 320–1.

¹¹LMA. The Livingstone Mail. No. 149, 9 April 1914.

⁹NAZ. Central African Archives Item No. L 2/2175/62. Southern Rhodesia.

¹⁵NAZ. Folder A 11 2/16/10 – 2/17/1; Folio 222S. 141/1904, No. H. 105. Letter from North Western Rhodesia Secretary of Administration (Kalomo) to Secretary of the Administrator (Salisbury), 20 October 1904.

¹²NAZ. Folder 1 11 2/16/10 – 2/17/1; Folio 222. Letter from AP Millar (London) BSACo office to Sir William Milton (Salisbury), 7 October 1903.

¹³NAZ. Folder A 11 2/16/10 – 2/17/1; Folio 222. Letter from AP Millar to the Under Secretary of State, Colonial Office London, 10 November 1903.

¹⁴NAZ. Folder A 11 2/16/10 – 2/17/1; Folio 222. Letter from AP Millar to Sir William Milton.

¹⁶NAZ. Folder A 11 2/16/10 – 2/17/1; Folio 222. No. P.S. 359. Letter from Private Secretary (Salisbury) to Secretary (Kalomo), 23 October 1904.

¹⁷LMA. The Livingstone Mail, Vol. 7, No. 160, 17 April 1909.

¹⁸NAZ. S/AF 751. The Far North, A Trip to the Falls. Cape Argus. The African World Annual, December 1917, p. 147.

¹⁹NAZ. File 2 246/682. Letter from the Office of the Minister of Internal Affairs to the Prime Minister, 12 October 1933.

²⁰NAZ. File S 246/682. Letter to Ministry of Internal Affairs, 11 October 1933.

²¹NAZ. Advertisement for Rhodesia by the Director of Publicity, British South Africa Annual 1936, p. 146.