Were environments ever truly decolonised?
By Elaura Lacey, Third Year History Student
In order to tackle a question that raises speculation over whether environments were truly decolonised, we must first think about what this process means and in what ways it can be considered complete or not. American historian, David Gardinier’s definition of decolonisation is perhaps the most useful in this assessment as he argues that decolonisation extends its meaning to include the elimination of all aspects of the colonial experience, such as the environmental and psychological as well as political and economic. The moment of Independence is often used to symbolise decolonisation in many parts of the world; however, colonial legacies and consequences can still be felt by indigenous populations of newly independent states long after they claim sovereignty. Environmental management and ideologies embedded in policy is one area in which the impacts of colonialism, or neo-colonialism, continue to exist in various ways. To narrow the scope of this expansive topic, this paper will use wildlife conservation practise in Independent East African states as a lens to explore continuities of colonial legacies in environmental management. C.C Mavhunga sets the tone for this study by persisting in 2014 that national parks and game reserves in Africa present a “colonial relic struggling to adjust to a postcolonial reality”, suggesting the incompletion of decolonisation due to the persistent issues that resonate from colonial conservation structures and ideologies. To argue this further, this essay will identify the key characteristics of colonial conservation in Africa and draw comparisons to post-Independent Tanzania and Kenya, focusing on the functions of tourism, centralised management, and indigenous alienation. These cases, supported by primary material from the Arusha Wildlife Conference in 1961 and other sources, contribute to a wider claim that environments weren’t truly decolonised due to the inheritance and perpetuation of colonial legacies after Independence was achieved.
The Character of Colonial Conservation Practise
To argue that colonial experiences and attitudes were perpetuated under post-Independence African governments, we first need to identify the origins of colonial conservation and the ideologies and consequences that derived from these experiences for comparison. Before colonial intervention, historians claim that indigenous populations practised their own versions of wildlife conservation and preservation. In Ghana, Awuah-Nyamekye has argued that totemism and religious sanctions on land-use contributed to a version of protectionism that ensured sustainable living. Some animals, like elephants, were considered to be of a special status, and bye-laws protected their populations by only allowing local chiefs to hunt them. Such spiritual justifications and restrictions on resource use were amplified across the continent, with Tanzania displaying similar attitudes with certain animals protected as totem symbols. This form of conservation, however, was largely replaced by European models during colonial periods of African history, with the introduction of laws that prohibited hunting being at the forefront of this cultural and economic change.
Kjekshus supports this by arguing that a key characteristic of colonial conservation was the separation of humans from nature. He argues that the exclusivity of hunting for white men through restrictions alienated black Africans from their natural environments and branded them as destructive and incapable of responsibly managing their natural resources. This is demonstrated in the case of Sabi Game Reserve in South Africa under British administration. In 1903, a local Game Protection Association warned the Colonial Secretary that black African hunting was a threat to the wildlife, leading to hunting bans for black Africans under warden James Stevenson Hamilton from 1902-1946. Similar laws were introduced in Tanzania as early as 1896, which prohibited traditional methods for hunting like the use of bows, nets and snares, only allowing licensed guns for more tourist-driven forms of hunting. Such laws demonstrated how the establishment and management of game reserves and later National Parks was to benefit white European settlers and tourists, excluding indigenous populations and damaging their cultural and economic ties to wildlife resources.
Another key aspect of colonial management was the centralised nature of administration, and the external supervision of policy. The Society for the Preservation of Fauna of the Empire, for example, was London-based and played a crucial role in shaping conservation practise. Advocation for fortress conservation is one example, as this idea prohibited human activity in protected regions altogether as they believed human interference with environments was detrimental. This can be reflected with the Ngorongoro Crater being officially declared a ‘close reserve’ in 1928, banning hunting and land cultivation despite the fact that tribes like the Maasai used the area for resources. This theme of indigenous expulsion became commonplace in these ventures, with pastoralists and villages being displaced to make way for protected areas void of human interference. Rangarajan has convincingly argued that these defining characteristics of western styles of conservation produced a pretext for the continuation of colonialism through the adopted attitudes and policies of African governments after Independence. Having outlined these characteristics, the rest of this paper will assess how they are perpetuated in Independent African states through ideology and practise.
Tourism and Colonial Ideology
Colonial ideologies and attitudes around conservation in Africa were perpetuated under independent states due to the extension of colonial policies and the neo-colonial atmosphere that conservation-based tourism emerged from after the Second World War. In the case of Tanzania, after independence in 1961, much of the legal system and conservation policies that advocated white-man’s game and fortress conservation, were inherited by the new government, suggesting that these environments weren’t truly decolonised despite the façade of state autonomy. The perception of African wildlife being a unique, natural phenomena and global heritage was one not naturally withheld by Tanzanians, as Elizabeth Garland has argued, but was used to appeal to the European imagination for political and financial support. This particular vision was conveyed on a global scale through the commodity network of conservation-based tourism, and this transnational aspect of wildlife management in Africa connected new governments to European institutions, exposing them to ideological imposition and regulation.
The Arusha Wildlife Conference in 1961 demonstrates how colonial rhetoric and ideology was embraced by President Nyerere and Tanzanian diplomats to consolidate state power whilst appealing to the global north for conservation funding. At the conference, Nyerere pledged to cooperate with the International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN), by using fortress conservation theory, as pushed by Director of Frankfurt Zoo, Bernhard Grzimek, to lead conservation strategy. Nyerere is recalled having accepted the “trusteeship of [their] wildlife” in order to protect their “rich and precious heritage”. This interaction highlights one of two things: it demonstrates the external influence the IUCN had on East African conservation efforts and how European ideology was embraced by Tanzanian diplomats. The particular reference to a ‘heritage’ infers the legacy of a historically imperial version of conservation practise rather than one naturally belonging to the indigenous population. The role of the IUCN in this interaction further demonstrates the propagation of colonial control over developing states, as the European institution led international policy guidelines and exclusively had European Presidents until the mid-1970s, displaying a racially divided power imbalance.
The Arusha Conference also exhibited the political approach taken by the Tanzanian government which Weiskopf refers to as ‘wildlife diplomacy’. In embracing the European vision of African wildlife, Tanzanian diplomats promoted animals and landscapes as national emblems to trade and market for political alliances and revenue through the tourism industry. National parks and game reserves expanded alongside tourism, and by the 1960s became the third largest source for foreign exchange next to the export of diamonds and sisal. The economic incentives from Eurocentric conservation is underlined in a letter addressed to Richard Nolte in 1961 from a Fellow of the Institute of Current World Affairs, Ian Michael Wright. He writes, “I think a break-through has been made in convincing Africans to treasure their valuable heritage,” and goes on to suggest it would be some time before they understood the scientific value of preservation, “but dollars… have their own value”. Not only does this imply an intention on behalf of European actors to control and alter African approaches to conservation practise, but it also confirms a compliance of governments to allow this neo-colonial relationship to exist for monetary benefits. Thus, ideologies that promoted white, European supervision over environmental policy and doubted the competence of black African management were adopted by governments, such as Tanzania’s, to receive foreign exchange by manipulating European fetishization of African wildlife. This was demonstrated in 1988, when the Tanzanian government requested Tony Fitzjohn from the Fitzjohn and George Adamson Wildlife Preservation Trust to salvage the Mkomazi reserve and prevent its collapse. The internalisation of concepts like the fragility of eco-systems and dependence on the global north suggests that on an ideological level, these environments were not decolonised.
Alienation of Indigenous Tribes
The last section of this essay will consider how colonial experiences were replicated through practise, that being the continued expulsion of indigenous tribes and restricted access to resources in protected areas. A consequence of fortress conservation in areas like Kenya and Tanzania after independence, was the continued expulsion of tribes from their environments in efforts to make way for expanded park territory. The Amboseli National Park in Kenya, for example, was one particular site of conflict. In 1961, the park was handed over to local authorities which generated hope for the Maasai people who occupied this space, however these people continued to be disadvantaged by policies that disregarded human needs in conservation. Amboseli became a National Park in 1974, much to the Maasai’s frustration, but schemes were introduced to try and close the gap between people and environmental protectionism. By the mid-1970s, a World Bank Scheme was established to open negotiations between Maasai leaders and the Kenyan government. This resulted in the compliance of Maasai to evacuate the park zone in return for a share in tourism revenue and supplies in cattle and water. The scheme only lasted five years before it deteriorated, as elephant and rhino poaching triggered the revival of fortress methods of conservation once more. Disregard for human needs in conservation projects continued to be a trademark for this colonial version of environmental management and became central to policy debates around strategy for decades to come.
Like Kenya, Tanzania saw the continued expulsion of the Maasai from development of the NCA from 1961 until 1981 when doors were opened by Maasai MP, Matei Ole Timan, in the Ngorongoro constituency. During this time, Tanzanian protected areas constituted around 25% of total landmass, resulting in many government initiatives to relocate indigenous populations. President Nyerere for example, had eight out of ten villages moved under his Villagization Scheme to make way for expanded park territory. By the 1980s, thousands of indigenous residents had been regrouped from areas in Mkomazi and the Ngorongoro Crater by the Tanzanian government, an approach that became recognised for reflecting conservation success. The fortress conservation invoked by colonial conservationists was entwined with post-independence management and strategy for new parks and reserves, adhering to a type of environmental organisation that only benefitted the white man. Martha Honey supports this judgement by suggesting that the relocation of indigenous tribes directly tied conservation practise to a colonial ideology that exploited resources for the benefit of white Europeans and at the expense of local communities. It wasn’t until 1982 that the Tanzanian government began to integrate local management and participation into conservation programmes. The National Environment Management Council created in 1983 was designed to arrange policies of wildlife management on a local level, making sure developments didn’t infringe on local access to vital resources. This failed to make significant changes however, as it lacked political power; in 1996 the council tried to prevent the construction of the Rufiji Delta Farm Project on grounds it wasn’t environmentally sound but were vetoed by the government, indicating a continuance of centralised regulation that deprived local communities for financial benefits. Like conservation ideologies that derived from colonial origins, the physical consequences of environmental management and strategy replicated those from colonial administration and developed long-term negative impacts on indigenous people for decades after Independence. This would support the judgement that environments haven’t been decolonised, from an ideological viewpoint as well as a practical one.
In conclusion, through the comparative study of wildlife conservation practises and consequences of policy in independent East African states, we can presume that environments weren’t truly decolonised. The key characteristics of colonial conservation in Africa, underpinned by external influence, degrading representations of black Africans as environmentally damaging, and the separation between indigenous communities and wildlife resources, have been since replicated by new governments after Independence was achieved. Both on an ideological and practical level, colonial experiences have been recreated and maintained by neo-colonial international organisations and vulnerable developing governments who rely on the global north for funding. This has left lasting negative impacts on the indigenous communities and has formulated neo-colonial political relations that will take time to break completely. Therefore, completion of decolonisation requires the uprooting of colonial legacies from an ideological and physical perspective, suggesting that this process is one that endures political sovereignty of a nation.
Bibliography
Primary Sources
Letter from Ian Michael Wright (Fellow of the Institute of Current World Affairs, 1961-1964) to Richard H. Nolte of the Institute, dated Nairobi, 15 September 1961. Quotes from Mr. Wright regarding the development of environmental preservation in East Africa.
Letter from Ian Michael Wright (Fellow of the Institute of Current World Affairs, 1961-1964) to Richard H. Nolte of the Institute, dated Nairobi, 22 September 1961. Quotes from President Nyerere regarding the Arusha Wildlife Conference.
Secondary Sources
W. Beinart & L. Hughes, Environment and Empire (New York: Oxford University Press, 2007) pp. 294
E. Garland, ‘The Elephant in the Room: Confronting the Colonial Character of Wildlife Conservation in Africa’, Africa Studies Review, vol 51, no. 3, (2008), pp. 51-53
D. Gardinier, Decolonization referenced in: R. F., Betts, ‘Decolonisation: A Brief History of the World’, The American Historical Review, 74(1), p. 23
M. Honey, Ecotourism and Sustainable Development (Washington, D.C., Island Press, 2008) found in D. Kroeker-Maus, The Protected Area as Enclave: Towards New Geographies of Tourism and Conservation, Geography Compass, vol 8 (2014) p. 798
H. Kjekshus, Ecology Control and Economic Development in East African History (London: J. Currey, 1996) pp. 69-71
C.C. Mavhunga, Transient Workspaces (Cambridge: The MIT Press, 2014) p. 5
M. Munyaradzi & S. Awuah-Nyamekye, Between Rhetoric and Reality: The State and Use of Indigenous Knowledge in Post-Colonial Africa (Bamenda: Langaa Research & Publishing, 2015) pp. 132-133
A.R., Mkumbukwa, ‘The Evolution of Wildlife Conservation Policies in Tanzania During the Colonial and Post-independence Periods’, Development Southern Africa, vol 25, (2008) pp. 590-599
F. Nelson, ‘The Evolution and Reform of Tanzanian Wildlife Management’, Conservation and Society, vol 5, no. 2 (2007) p. 236
M. Rangarajan, ‘Parks, Politics and History: Conservation Dilemmas in Africa’, Conservation Society, Vol 1 (2003) pp 78-84
J. Weiskopf, ‘Socialism on Safari: Wildlife and nation-building in postcolonial Tanzania, 1961-77’, The Journal of African History, vol 56, (2015) p. 430
Cover Image Credit: Solen Feyissa on Unsplash