OCCASIONAL PAPERS A Short History of Wildlife Conservation in Malawi Brian Morris CENTRE OF AFRICAN STUDIES Edinburgh University Price: E 6.00 or U S $ 12.00 A SHORT HISTORY OF WILDLIFE CONSERVATION IN MALAWI Brian Morris Centre of African Studies Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Edinburgh CONTENTS 1. THE EARLY COLONIAL PERIOD 1 2. THE POST WAR YEARS 24 3. G.D. HAYES AND THE NYASALAND FAUNA PRESERVATION SOCIETY 38 4. THE POST-COLONIAL ERA 54 5. CONTEMPORARY PERSPECTIVES ON WILDLIFE CONSERVATION 7 8 References Dr Brian Morris Reader in Anthropology Goldsmiths College University of London New Cross London SE14 6NW I A SHORT HISTORY OF WILDLIFE CONSERVATION IN MALAWI 1. TEE EARLY COLONIAL PERIOD Recent histiography has shown that in the early part of the nineteenth century southern Malawi was a well populated region, particularly along the lakeshore and in the Lower Shire Valley. The area was the focus of developed trade routes, a complex agricultural system which used dry season cultivation in low lying areas (dimba) and where iron-working was a flourishing industry, to be'commented upon favourably by Livingstone (1865; 536). While iron production was mainly in the highlands, there was a developed cotton economy in the Lower Shire Valley (Mandala 1990; 36-63). By the end of the century, however, the increasing ravages of the slave trade after 1840, the advent of the militaristic Ngoni, and the incursion of Yao traders into the Shire Highlands, all adversely affected population distribution and disrupted the economy of the area. This led many people to take refuge in such places as high on the mountains of Zomba and Mulanje, or on Chisi Island, in Lake Chilwa. In his travels near Lake Chilwa towards the end of the century, the Scottish divine Henry Drummond reported that the region was "almost unihabited" and that "nowhere else in Africa did I see such splendid herds of the larger animals as here" (1889; 30-32). Zebra were particularly abundant, and he went on to describe central Africa as Ifthe finest hunting country in the world1',where elephant, buffalo, eland, lion, leopard, zebra, hippopotamus, rhinoceros and "endless species" of antelope were all to be 2 found (106, cf. McCracken 1987; 67). He even mentions the giraffe, although it is doubtful if this species is an indigenous species to Malawi. The reason for this abundance of wildlife Elias Mandala puts down - in the Lower Shire at least - to the Mang'anja's loss of control over nature, resulting from the devastation and desolation caused by the slave trade, coupled with the chaos and instability that followed the famine (chaola) of 1862-63, when the rains failed over two seasons (1990; 74-78). Around the turn of the century, beginning with Johnston's administration of 1891, further disruption to the local economy and to the land was caused by the alienation of vast tracts of land to European settlers and companies. Almost 4 million acres, representing 15 per cent of the land was granted in freehold to Europeans, and this included much of the land of the Shire Highlands (Pachai 1978; 11-47). Vaughan writes perceptively on the social effects of these socioeconomic changes and on the perceptions of both the colonial officials and local Africans to these changes. She makes some speculative remarks regarding local conservation measures with regard to game animals, mentioning totemic beliefs and the control of chiefs over the exploitation of ivory, and writes that the "breakdown in game preservation techniques may well have been accelerated by the European laws which took the control of game away from the chiefs". In the first three decades of this century, as game increased and tsetse fly spread, the European contention that wildlife was in danger must have seemed hollow to local Africans - whp were fundamentally concerned with their own livelihood during a period of famine and disease - for in the early decades of the century there were serious outbreaks of infectious diseases, as well as of famine. European game policies, she feels, must have appeared to the Africans as hypocritical in extreme (1978; 8). It must be noted, however, that the term "conservation mania" when applied to the policies of the early colonial administration in Malawi is something of a misnomer with respect to wildlife. The administration were not concerned with "conservation", a term which was used only in relation to soil. The concept of conservation in its wider ecological sense, was not in fact articulated until the middle decades of the present century. What the colonial government was concerned with was a much more limited conception - that of game preservation. And for Europeans at the turn of the century "game" had a more restricted meaning even than the cognate term in Chewa nyama: it applied only to the larger mammals, the hunting of which was considered "sportt1. Following it seems the perspectives of Kjekshus (1977) and Vail (1977) Vaughan's contention that the government had a policy of "carving out game reserves in populous areas" (9) is a misleading exaggeration. For what the early game regulations of British Central Africa (1897) was in essence concerned with, was to restrict the hunting of larger game animals only to Europeans, who alone could afford the game licences. Only two "game reservesN were in fact specified in the first game ordinance - the Elephant Marsh near Chiromo, and Lake Chilwa - both popular duck shooting areas for Europeans - as they still are. Neither of these were initially 'lreserves1Iin the true sense, for those possessing the appropriate licences could freely hunt there. The animal species specified in the 1897 game schedule were all ungulates (elephant, blue wildebeest, rhinoceros, zebra, buffalo, eland, warthog, bushpig and around nineteen species of antelope). Several species not in fact found in Malawi - giraffe, sitatunga, tsessebe and lechwe - were also listed on the schedule - although at that period !British Central Africa' as still a fairly undefined area and included part of eastern Zambia. Accordingly to the Game Regulations a f25 licence enabled a person to shoot all the 28 species specified, including elephant, rhino, blue wildebeest and giraffe, in any part of the protectorate. A E3 licence excluded these four species. Outside of the private estates and the two game reserves a person was free to "kill, hunt or capture" any wild beast - which included the carnivores and smaller mammals like the porcupine, baboon, monkey and pangolin, which were not considered "game". There were severe penalties for those who contravened the regulations, that is, hunted the larger game animals - the ungulates - without a licence. The regulations therefore were essentially concerned with restricting the hunting of game animals - particularly the elephant, which was the prime economic resource - to the European population. It was not in the least concerned with the flconservationuof animal life, as Vaughan suggests. Needless to say, such regulations found little support or sympathy among the African communities in Malawi, who felt that their basic rights and freedoms were being denied them - as indeed they were. The game regulations of 1902 elaborated upon the earlier schedule and specified the number of animals that could be killed or hunted. Elephant, buffalo and eland were placed under a special schedule, and could only be killed under a special licence, along with three species of mammals that were thought to be particularly rare, but which in fact have never been recorded from Malawi - the mountain zebra, wild ass and white-tailed gnu. Under the £25 licence elephant (2), rhinoceros (2) and blue wildebeest (6) could be hunted and killed, while the schedule for the 'B' licence (costing £4) covered bedsides the many ungulates, carnivores like the serval, cheetah and jackal, as well as some birds like the egret and maribou stork. Under the B licence a person was entitled to hunt or kill a range of ungulates and other mammals, totalling in all, around a hundred game animals per year. With a view of l'preserving"game from indiscriminate slaughter, two areas were set aside as "game reserves1*- the Elephant Marsh and the "Central Angoniland Reserven which consisted of an area south of the Dedza-Lilongwe road, covering essentially the Dzalanyama range of hills. Carnivores such as lion, leopard, hyena, mongoose and others were not protected by the game laws, and could be shot or killed anywhere within the protectorate, even within a game reserve. By means of a gun licence, the colonial authorities attempted to keep a strict control over firearms. The possession of high-power rifles and the importation of ammunition was kept strictly in the hands of Europeans. Shot guns and muzzle loaders were allowed to local chiefs and hunters, primarily for the protection of crops rather than for hunting. The game ordinance of 1911 essentially followed the same pattern. Elephant and rhino (and a number of birds) could only be hunted and killed by special licence, but the protectorate licence of £2 (El0 for visitors) entitled a person to hunt or kill the following: Buffalo 6 ~ippopotamus 4 Eland 6 ~luewildebeest 6 Zebra 6 Sable 6 Roan 6 Kudu 6 Other antelopes 3 0 Monkeys 6 Antbear 2 Warthog 10 Egret 10 A total of 104 specimens of wildlife could thus be legitimately killed during the year. At the discretion of the District Resident a special licence could be granted to local Africans for a fee of £1, and permission granted to kill animals that were damaging crops or molesting people. But in essence what the game regulations entailed was to restrict the hunting of game animals to Europeans, and it seems, looking at the lists of whose who took out a B licence, that this included missionaries, as well as planters and administrators.