century AD. Although Derricourt^14 claims
that the importance of wildlife resources in
rural areas fell off with the imposition of
colonial wildlife regulations, wildlife
resources are still widely consumed and
traded throughout Zambia today.^15 However,
some significant changes towards wildlife
access occurred during the colonial period.
Although customary law had long controlled
African access to wildlife resources,^16 it was
not until colonial rule that this access was
conceived of within a legal framework. As
colonial laws began to be instated, one of
the primary effects on many Africans was
the attempt to eliminate access to wildlife
and other natural resources by removing
them from what would become protected
areas, disallowing Africans to own firearms,
or policing rural areas to ensure
compliance.^17 While justified as necessary
conservation steps, African alienation from
wildlife resources was as often a way for
colonial authorities to protect European
hunting access^18 and control rural popula-
tions.^19
When the British took over colonial rule they
introduced a system of indirect rule. Within
this system, “Native Authorities” made up of
Chiefs and their Councils, were charged with
spreading colonial rule throughout Northern
Rhodesia. Despite paternalistic claims,
British indirect rule was more about control-
ling large territories on a tight budget than
about allowing the “native” to “stand on his
own feet”^20 or finding locally appropriate
administrative structures.^21 Once estab-
lished, conservation regulations and protect-
ed areas were ostensibly managed through
these Native Authorities, in what some have
claimed was a precursor to later CBNRM
efforts. Astle, a retired agriculture (1959-
1965) and wildlife officer (1965-73),
believes that the “Provincial Administration
placed great importance on involving local
people.”^22 According to him^23 native authori-
ties were consulted on all developments,
received a percentage of the revenues gen-
erated from the protected area, from the
Game licenses they issued, and from fines
paid for breaking Game Laws, but they were
also expected to monitor illegal use of
wildlife. However, this level of “involvement,”
is at best superficial. In the end, these con-
cerns often did not wind up benefiting
“native inhabitants” in any considerable
way,^24 since district commissioners regularly
overruled native authorities, denying them
real decision making authority.^25 While
clearly not an ideal form of participatory
conservation, “empowerment” as it is used
today, “seems oddly like the operation of
‘Indirect Rule’ in British colonial Africa.”^26
Thus, how CBNRM is practiced in independ-
ent Zambia today may not be that far
removed from the participatory rhetoric of
the past. Both are based upon a grammar
of difference that infantilises the ‘native’.
Both contend that ‘natives’ have a special
connection to nature and simultaneously
praise this connection, while using it as jus-
tification to remove decision making authori-
ty from those who live closest to the natural
resources.
Zambian independence
The British ruled Northern Rhodesia until
the country was briefly federated with
Southern Rhodesia and Nyasaland (Malawi)
in 1953. Independence was achieved in
- Almost since the beginning of inde-
pendence, the Zambian economy has been
troubled,^27 opening the door for significant
donor involvement in the national decision-
making process.^28 This involvement has
come in the form of a neo-liberal democracy
that demands good governance and
accountability from African states,^29
demanding African leaders continuously
prove they are not corrupt, inept or child-
like, thus reproducing the grammar of differ-
ence that had marked European-African
relations during colonial times.
Wildlife conservation and utilisa-
tion in independent Zambia
In Zambian conservation, there has been a
History, cculture aand cconservation
