Africa’s wildlife laws follow a colonial model which separates people and animals: why it’s not working

Africa is home to many iconic national parks and marine reserves, such as Virunga in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Niokolo-Koba in Senegal, Kruger National Park in South Africa and Serengeti National Park in Tanzania. 

Many of them were established during the colonial era, and nearly half are still managed by government agencies.In total, the continent houses 8,924 protected areas, which make up 14.51% of Africa’s total land area.

I am a scholar-practitioner with more than ten years’ expertise in environmental governance. I have researched what happens when communities are pushed out of protected areas and why these areas fail both people and wildlife.

In my latest study, I analysed wildlife laws in all 54 African countries and found they were similar. This made me wonder: where did the laws and regulations come from, why were they so similar and how have they endured even after independence?

I found that many protected areas across the continent are still shaped by a colonial-era system that separates people from nature and restricts local communities’ access to land and resources.

This is the Convention Relative to the Preservation of Fauna and Flora in their Natural State (known as the London Convention). It was signed in London in 1933 by the then colonial Union of South Africa and several European colonial powers. This agreement set out the rules that shaped wildlife conservation across much of the continent for decades.

The convention had its roots in an idea that European wildlife preservationists came up with in the late 1800s. They decided that the world’s first national park, Yellowstone National Park in the US, should be used as the model in Africa to preserve scenic areas.

The 1933 London Convention established national parks where people were excluded and game reserves where European hunters were allowed. The convention was also driven by fears that expanding agriculture, fuelled by new farming equipment and firearms, was rapidly destroying wildlife habitats across eastern and central Africa.

After independence, African states inherited and continued this system by supporting wildlife laws and regulations based on the London Convention.

I found that using this governance model leaves no room in African countries for community access to the areas. It cuts off community rights over their ancestral lands. It doesn’t protect wildlife either, because it confines animal species to small, disconnected areas where they become isolated. When animals cannot move between areas, neither can seeds, pollen, or other plant materials that rely on wind, water and animals to spread.

Over time, this weakens genetic diversity. Plants and animals become more vulnerable to disease and climate change. I argue that Africa’s protected areas must be redesigned to support community livelihoods. This is not a favour to communities, but as a condition for the protected areas’ survival and legitimacy.

The history of Africa’s protected areas

My review noted that across the continent, communities have been evicted and displaced to make way for protected areas.

Those communities who lived on the edges of protected areas were denied access to their land and prevented from using the resources in the protected areas.

Although African countries’ struggles for independence centred on returning land taken by colonisers back to the people, wildlife preservation groups pushed back against this. By the time that liberation struggles got underway in the 1950s, wildlife preservationists had set up powerful international organisations.

For example, at the 1961 conference attended by representatives of several African states, President Julius Nyerere of Tanzania presented the Arusha Manifesto which endorsed the London Convention’s model of protected areas.

From this time, the colonial protected area model has been justified on ecological and economic grounds. However, it is important to remember that Yellowstone National Park was established in 1872. “Ecology” entered the Oxford English Dictionary in 1875, and “ecosystem” only appeared in 1935.

This suggests that the original justification for protected areas was not ecological in the way we understand it today, as the preservationist model was driven by aesthetics and not by ecological science.

What needs to happen next

Africa’s wildlife laws still reflect a colonial mindset. They push people off their ancestral lands and treat local communities as a threat to conservation. Wildlife laws turn protected areas into tourist destinations rather than places that support local livelihoods.

The result is that people who have lived alongside wildlife for generations can be punished for hunting or fishing to feed their families. At the same time, mining and oil projects are often allowed within protected areas.

The idea that protected areas in their current exclusionary form are necessary to attract thousands of international tourists who bring an income also needs closer scrutiny. Tourism generates income, but much of the money goes to companies based outside the continent. Local people are often displaced and see few benefits.

Africa is expected to have the world’s largest population by 2050. This means that conservation must support people’s needs for land, food, water and jobs. New laws are needed that recognise communities as partners in protecting nature, not obstacles to it.

Dr F Dermmillah Obare is a Postdoctoral Research Fellow at the Center of Governance and Sustainability, University of Massachusetts in Boston. A scholar-practitioner with over a decade of experience advancing environmental governance in Africa, she holds a PhD in Global Governance and Human Security from UMass Boston, as well as an MA in Conflict Resolution, an MS in Biology of Conservation, and a BS in Wildlife Management. Her research and practice focus on the design and performance of government wildlife institutions, advocating for inclusive governance models that integrate the livelihood needs of Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities. 

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.