The Imperial Lion. Human Dimensions
of Wildlife Management in Central
Africa
Stuart Marks
Westview Press Inc., Boulder, Colorado,
Pages i-xv, 1-196
Price: £17-50
ISBN 0 86531 818 2
1984
This book is largely a critique of the activities of the
wildlife department* in Zambia from the time of its postwar expansion in 1946, with particular reference to the
area occupied by the Bisa people of the Munyamadzi
'corridor' in the Luangwa Valley. *[It had other titles
before the present one of 'National Parks and Wildlife
Service'. For convenience I refer to it simply as 'the
Department' .] The introduction is followed by chapters
on human dimensions in wildlife management; a historical sketch; lineage management of a resource system;
administration of wildlife under colonial and bureaucratic states; and a final section entitled 'A conclusion which
may be a beginning'. Each chapter ends with a useful
summary and within most chapters are 'boxes' with relevant extracts, mainly from government documents, including old reports from the files of the Department.
There is so much food for thought in this book that it is
difficult to review it briefly, and I can touch on only
some of the author's points. The title is allegorical and
the basic theme is that wildlife administration in Zambia
(and by implication in other parts of Africa) has ignored
the human dimension, that policy has been orientated
towards outside rather than local interests, and that
those responsible for this had '... little empathy and
understanding of social issues and the historical context
of their programmes'. This is a serious charge, but the
criticism is to a large extent valid, though over-riding of
local by outside interests has by no means been confined
to wildlife matters - displacement of the Zambezi valley
Tonga people by the Kariba dam is only one example.
An unfortunate consequence of the lack of attention to
human aspects, of which the author complains, was
polarization of attitudes between the then Provincial
Administration
and the Department.
Dr Marks is
correct about the political situation in the late nineteen
fifties and early sixties exacerbating what was an already
less than satisfactory position though, again, it should be
remembered that this was not confined to wildlife but
also adversely affected forestry, soil conservation and
other issues.
As far as wildlife policy is concerned it is not true that
local interests were altogether ignored and the author is
less than fair in failing to give sufficient stress to the fact
that the Department originated as an elephant control
organization for the protection of village gardens; or to
note that as long ago as the nineteen thirties the
importance
of game meat in the rural diet was
recognized (Pitman 1934: 152 ) which in due course was
reflected in the nominal price of the game licence
available to village hunters. * *[This was evidently not the
case everywhere in Africa, for example Kenya and
Uganda (Parker 1983: 286).] A notable omission from
the list of references is a thoughtful paper by the founder
director of the Department (Vaughan-Jonl':s 1948), and
had this been available to the author he might have had a
better idea of what the policy actually was as opposed to
what was often practised. Nevertheless it can be agreed
that a significant failure of the Department
was to
alienate rather than enlist the support of the rural population in conservation of wildlife as a sustainable natural
resource, a difficulty that remains a challenge to this day.
The section on subsistence hunting within a lineage
management system of local resources (Chapter 4) is
interesting, though now largely of historical rather than
practical interest. I must, however, join issue with the
author on the somewhat romanticized and idealized
picture he draws of the subsistence hunter's place in the
rural scene. The hunters depicted in Figures 4.7 and 4.9
are not 'ecological man' (Eltringham 1979: 220 ) but
technological man with firearms. Dr Marks does indeed
admit the breakdown of the old system with the coming
of motor transport to the 'corridor' and consequent
emergence of a monetary economy, a breakdown which
had occurred many years before in less remote parts of
Zambia. The subsistence hunter, as long as he remained
a subsistence hunter, posed no threat to the wildlife
resource, to which he stood in a reasonably balanced
predator/prey relationship. But in practice the picture
became increasingly
blurred with improvement
of
communications between the rural and the urban areas,
and enhancement of fire power. In the last three decades
the muzzle loader, itself far removed from indigenous
hunting methods, has given way to the shotgun, rifle and
even military types of weapon; while the pedestrian and
the pushbike have been replaced by four-wheel drive
vehicles capable of reaching the remotest areas. This
combination of heavy fire power and long-range mobility
poses a serious threat to game animals where adequate
protection cannot be given, and this can hardly be in the
interest of the rural villager who is often still dependent
on wild animals for meat.
Interesting as the past may be, the important thing is
the future, and here we confront philosophical as well as
practical questions. First, it is clear that in the long run
the fate of wildlife everywhere depends on containing
the increase in human numbers. This, it should be noted,
applies not only to wildlife, for ultimately unless the
population problem is solved all other problems will be
insoluble. That said, however, it can be asserted that
Zambia is not at present grossly overpopulated and it is
therefore possible to afford space for wildlife in at least
the medium-term future. A criticism made by Dr Marks,
and sometimes voiced elsewhere, is that the very concept
of wildlife conservation is alien to Africa - something
imposed from outside by 'Northern'
i.e. developed
world, interests. This may be so, but it is equally true of
literacy, commerce, industry and in fact anything and
everything outside a village-orientated subsistence economy. Should such foreign ideas and practices not have
come to Africa? In the abstract it could be argued that
perhaps it might have been better had they not come,
but in practice the die has long been cast and no African
country can opt out of the twentieth century and its
technology. Third World countries have to adapt as well
as adopt and need to seek ways of integrating the best of
the new with the best of the traditional. Against such a
background the continuation, and indeed expansion, by
the newly independent Zambian Government of a wildlife policy, albeit less than perfect, surely merits approval rather than condemnation. Further, I do not accept
the patronizing implication that this was entirely due to
ulteriorly motivated expatriate influence - the same
criticism is not made about advice on agriculture or
industry.
Two other targets for the author's criticism are the
setting aside of national parks to preserve ecosystems,
and the appropriation to central government of income
derived from wildlife. It has long been accepted that
many of the larger and potentially damaging wild
animals are incompatible
with crops and domestic
livestock, and that if they are to continue to exist it can
only be in places set aside for the purpose. Given that
available land resources are adequate, as I consider to be
the case in Zambia, I cannot see why the idea of
retaining intact ecosystems, as far as possible protected
from the impact of modern technology, should evoke
condemnation.
There are ethical, aesthetic, scientific
and economic reasons to support the concept, and it
seems reasonable to regard such areas as a national
heritage as worthy of retention as man-made features
(the pyramids or the Taj Mahal for example) in other
parts of the world. Of course this may inconvenience
local inhabitants, but is unavoidable where long-term
national interests take precedence over short-term local
interests - a phenomenon by no means confined to the
Third World, witness current local apprehensions about
the proposed Channel tunnel between England and
France. The answer is to do all possible to mitigate
adverse local effects and to ensure that as much benefit
as possible reaches local levels, admittedly often easier
said than done.
Coming to wildlife derived income, it is reasonable to
argue that local people should receive financial benefit
from wildlife in their areas and, as Dr Marks points out,
in the Luangwa Valley this comes at present only in the
form of comparatively low-paid employment
in the
tourist and hunting safari business. It was, however, a
considered
decision
that
revenue
from
safari
concessions, licences and the like should go to central
rather than local government, presumably at least in part
because it is central government which has to provide
education, health centres and other public services in the
rural as well as urban areas. A good proportion of the
direct and indirect financial return from Zambian
wildlife is in the form of hard currency ('Forex' is the
current jargon) which the country needs. In its wildlife
Africa has something in demand which commands a
good price on the world market and, notwithstanding
their own economic problems, the leisure industry in the
developed countries seems likely to continue as a growth
area. Use of Zambian wildlife as a sustainable resource
assists the diversification of the economy so often
advocated, though economic factors are not everything
and should not exclude other considerations.
Notwithstanding the above reservations, I consider
this a very worthwhile book which would repay study by
anyone concerned with wildlife in Zambia particularly
and in Africa generally. I wish something like it had been
available when I joined the Department in 1947.
W.F.H. ANSELL
Trendrine, Zennor, St Ives, Cornwall, TR26 3BW,
Kingdom
United
References
ELTRINGHAM, S.K. 1979. The ecology and conservation
of large African mammals. MacMillan, London.
PARKER, LS.C. 1983. Conservation, realism and the
future. In: Management of large mammals in African
conservation areas. HAUM Educational Publishers,
Pretoria.
PITMAN, C.R.S. 1934. Report on a faunal survey of
Northern Rhodesia. The Government Printer,
Livingstone.
VAUGHAN-JONES, T.G.C. 1948. A short survey of the
aims and functions of the Game and Tsetse Control
Department of Northern Rhodesia. Rhodes-Livingstone
Institute Journal 6: 37--48.