Environmental justice

Robert Bullard (1996) defined environmental justice as the principle that allows all communities and people to have equal protection from environmental and public health laws and regulations. Similarly, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA, 2017) defines environmental justice as the fair treatment and involvement for all people irrespective of their race, class, gender, origin or income with regards to the development, implementation and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations and policies. Therefore, this movement highlights the demand for justice and fair distribution for all communities and individuals when environmental laws, regulations and policies are implemented.

However, the reason why this topic has been so controversial over the years is because there are no obvious solutions to solve the injustices that are often documented (Mohai, Pellow, & Roberts, 2009).

Colonial conservation through game parks and private areas as a way to reduce locals access

Introducing an environmental issue that I believe has led to continual environmental injustice in Zimbabwe is game parks and private areas that were set up for conservation during colonial times. According to Murombedzi (2003), the colonizers rationale was that the indigenous lands and people were underused and therefore could be overtaken (and exploited) for the benefit of the colonisers.

The establishment of these game parks was at the expense of the people living in those areas. Hundreds of thousands of people were displaced and relocated to overcrowded areas to form game reserves (Murombedzi, 2003). These game parks were disguised as conservation areas, supplying recreation to those qualified by race and class (Mackenzie, 1988). For example, Gonarezhou game reserve in Zimbabwe was proclaimed in 1934 and lead 1500 families to be relocated to Matibi 2 reserve. Local people were displaced and barred access to their rightful lands at the hands of the colonizers.

The colonisers used the land and the environmental resources, including the wild animals, as they pleased. Hunting camps were often set up to attract foreign visitors. Local communities no longer had access to wild animals and therefore could not rely on these animals as a resource for food. Locals had to adapt their diets with the lack of access to this food source or try steal wild animals for their use. (Mackenzie, 1988)

Following from the colonial times, post-colonial governments in southern Africa have sometimes strengthened the colonial conservation practices. Many new areas have been established as biodiverse areas needing protection, transforming National Parks from institutions of colonial conservation which served white minority interests to a community-based model of conservation which attempt to link the protection of biodiversity to human needs (Adams, 2003). This dominant Western ideology remains with the premise of preserving the environment without considering the moral and practical dilemmas for people in southern Africa who depend on access to nature.  It raises questions about whether this transformation involves fundamental change or a shallow restructuring.