Green Colonialism in Zimbabwe, 1890-1980 By Vimbai Kwashirai

Rural African societies perceive conservation as a burning political issue because it touches on land use, their economic mainstay. In Zimbabwe, state intervention seeking to balance human-forest relations directly impacted their major economic resources and their rights (or kodzero) to land and dwelling places. Moreover, colonial conservation strategies were seldom based upon the participation and consent of affected communities. The exclusion of rural people from national parks and demarcated forest reserves in the interest of protecting wildlife and wilderness or large animal species and the preservation of habitats engendered conflict between officials and local people. Beinart observes that the land-husbandry schemes of the late colonial states were imposed upon reluctant populations in the name of European notions of improvement and development.⁴⁵ He suggests that they did so to improve African agriculture.

Atampugre characterises colonial forest departments in Africa and Asia as part of the colonial administrative structure, which reflected the colonial policy, priorities, and objectives of facilitating extraction of forest products, especially timber.⁴⁶ The attitudes and actions of foresters were those of policemen guarding natural resources from illegal exploitation. Foresters also acted as tax collectors, gathering revenue from fines and cutting permits.⁴⁷ Atampugre, Beinart, and Coates argue that the rights and privileges of indigenous peoples were largely overridden.⁴⁸ Local communities were viewed either as a source of cheap labour for forest activities or troublesome illegal encroachers. Therefore, the twin role of foresters as authoritarian protectors and as exploiters and their marginalisation of the needs of local people hampered attempts to reach an amicable balance between greater productivity and environmental concerns. With respect to recent, postcolonial forestry, Glastra adds that abuse of power, corruption, and the violation of state laws have contributed to ecological imbalances.⁴⁹ He argues that the cost-benefit analysis and hands-off approach of many colonial and postcolonial governments contributed to ecological collapse. Rietbergen maintains that neglected forest laws, understaffed and underfunded forest departments, low penalties for forest offences,