CBNRM was seen as a “more African” way
of conserving wildlife,^43 while colonial poli-
cies were built upon the assurance that
Africans were inherently bound to nature,
primitive and savage. In the realm of colo-
nial conservation this meant that Africans,
despite their close connections to nature
had to be separated out from nature
because they were not capable of rationally
managing the resource base. Within the
sphere of CBNRM in Zambia today, these
ideas exist in a less exaggerated form, but
nonetheless with serious implications for
rural Zambians, justifying the role of CBNRM
proponents as “trustees” for rural Africans,
who cannot be trusted to honestly manage
either the natural resources or the financial
benefits that come from these resources.
These organisations have adopted the role
of caretaker, acting on behalf of an infan-
tilised rural community until, through ade-
quate “sensitisation” and training, they
become fiscally responsible, hold their dem-
ocratically elected leaders accountable, and
ultimately will be allowed by more powerful
actors to manage what they have been told
are their own resources.
The strengthening of neo-liberal policies in
wildlife conservation has seen a rebirth of
the paternalistic relations
that guided wildlife conser-
vation in colonial times. It is
this similarity of devolving
responsibility, rather than
authority, which most clear-
ly connects Zambian
CBNRM directly to that of
the Northern Rhodesian
Colonial authorities. The
commonalities between
colonial and postcolonial
Africa are important,^44
although sometimes painful,
to point out. This is per-
haps an unpopular view because it suggests
post-colonial states, donors, and NGOs are
responsible for some of the problems that
continue to befall developing nations. As
Gledhill^45 claims, the ills of the world cannotbe explained simply as a colonial legacy.
Asymmetries of power continue, and those
in power today (in both North and South)
are responsible for their actions. As anthro-
pologists and conservationists, we may wish
to distinguish and remove ourselves from
our colonial ancestors; but we must not do
that by “silencing” history.^46 Rather we must
be open to what our search reveals.Some social scientists and historians who
have prodded the past in this way are com-
ing up with results that may disturb our
sense of a historical break in practice. For
example, Elliot^47 found that despite signifi-
cant policy changes, there has been sub-
stantial continuity in soil conservation prac-
tice between colonial Rhodesia and
Independent Zimbabwe. While Neumann,^48
almost apologetically, presents his findings
that because postcolonial governments
defended their actions according to the
greater “public good” of “national develop-
ment,... the postcolonial state has imple-
mented wildlife conservation policies using
means that were shunned as politically inex-
pedient by colonial governors and secre-
taries of state for the colonies.” As a result
there has been more violence, for example,
against people living in and around
Tanzania’s protected areas during the post-
colonial era, than prior to independence.
Perhaps Neumann was concerned that he
would be taken to task for supposedly sym-
pathizing with the colonisers. This is the
case with Grove^49 whose extensive exami-
nation of the role colonial officers played in
creating a conservation ethic, has been criti-
cised, not because it is wrong, but rather
because it appears sympathetic to the
colonisers.^50 As a result, we must be careful
of our own sense of censorship when we
reach unpopular conclusions. These com-
monalities are important to remember, not
because they elevate colonialists or deni-
grate post-colonialists, but rather, because
of what this tells us about the how certain
ideas may be present and manipulated byHistory, cculture aand cconservation
traits tthat iinclude
where ppeople rreside,
their eethnicity,
nationality, cclass, oor
education llevel [[...]
are uunderstood aas
representing aa ggroup
that iis eeither nnaïve
or tthoughtful, ssav-
age oor ccivilised, ttra-
ditional oor mmodern,
and nnatural oor ccul-
tured.