Africa’s conservation sector has primarily relied on international donors to finance protected areas, biodiversity research, and community projects. Recent disruption in overseas development assistance has exposed how fragile this model can be. When donor priorities change, wildlife managers and local communities are often left with the responsibilities of conservation but with fewer resources to meet these responsibilities. Classical liberal conservation offers a different starting point – one in which Africans conserve wildlife because they hold secure rights to it and can benefit lawfully from its use.
At the 2026 Annual General Meeting of the George Ayittey Society in Accra, Ghana, a fascinating discussion on Africa beyond USAID (the US Agency for International Development) ensured and triggered hard questions. For example, what would wildlife conservation look like if local people were treated not mainly as beneficiaries of donor-funded projects, but as rights-holders, entrepreneurs, and custodians? Before the closure of USAID in February 2025, the agency had been a major donor, funding a myriad of projects across the continent for decades including conservation. Its closure has prompted discussions seeking alternatives to development strategies and assistance in Africa. Reflecting on the traditional aid dependency in Africa, the conservation sector is not spared.
The decline in aid offers us an opportunity to relook and consider self-sustaining models for conservation. Classical liberalism could offer us a sustainable alternative as championed by George Ayittey’s work. So let us explore this a bit further. First, who was George Ayittey and what did he have to say that might be relevant to wildlife conservation in Africa? Second, what is the classical liberal paradigm that shaped his thinking and his contributions in an African context? And third, what are the key elements of ‘classical liberal conservation’ that could provide an alternative to aid-dependent conservation?
George Ayittey and Africa’s wildlife
Born in Ghana and educated in Ghana and Canada, Dr George B. N. Ayittey (1945- 2022) can be described as an institutionalist free‑market African development economist grounded in indigenous African economic traditions. In his essay on Indigenous African Free-Market Liberalism, Ayittey describes what he called ‘peasant capitalism’ as follows:
Ironically, traditional Africa, in contrast to modern Africa, was characterised by much economic freedom for centuries before the arrival of the European colonialists. There the basic economic and social unit was the extended family, the lineage, or the clan. The means of production were owned by the lineage – a private entity separate from the tribal government – and thus privately owned, although individual ownership was common…
Markets were ubiquitous in precolonial Africa. Two types were distinguishable: the periodic (weekly) rural markets and the large regional markets… Chiefs and kings played little or no role in economic production. Their traditional role was to create a peaceful environment for trade and economic activity to flourish. No tribal government enterprises existed.
In pre-colonial rural markets, farming households exchanged surplus grain, vegetables, and livestock and alongside dried fish, game meat, hides, medicinal plants, and other wild produce supplied by fishers, hunters, and foraging communities. Larger regional markets handled higher-value and long-distance commodities, including frankincense and myrrh, ivory and animal skins, shea and kola nuts, and aloes and wild thyme.
The harvesting and use of wildlife featured predominantly in precolonial Africa as key primary economic activities, and thus Ayittey often draws on wildlife-related examples. In his essay, he explains that:
The means of production were owned by the lineage – a private entity separate from the tribal government – and thus privately owned, although individual ownership was common. Land, for example, was lineage-controlled, giving rise to the myth of communal ownership, while hunting gear, spears, and fishing canoes were individually owned.
In Applied Economics for Africa, Ayittey is clear that the use of wild species in pre-colonial Africa is a component of its market-based economy:
There is still much mythology about Africa’s indigenous economic system. The myth of “hunters and gatherers” persists, giving the impression that Africa had no economic institutions or culture before contact with the Europeans…
Africans engaged in a wide variety of economic activities. Although mostly primary – agricultural, pastoralism, hunting, fishing, and woodworking – there were also crafts and other industries such as cloth-weaving; pottery; brass works; and the mining and smelting of iron, gold, silver, copper, and tin…
In much of indigenous Africa, all the means of production were owned by the natives, not by their rulers, the chiefs, or by tribal governments… That means, in popular language, that all the means of production were privately owned. The hunting spears, fishing nets, cattle, pots, huts, farm produce, fish, textile looms, gold jewellery shops, and various tools and products were all privately owned.
Though not a conservation economist, Ayittey recognised the importance of private property, markets, and free trade in the management and use of wild resources. He argued that African economic life before colonial rule was not devoid of institutions or inherently hostile to markets. It was shaped, in different places and forms, by lineage and community rights, local exchange, voluntary association and limits on political authority. Applied to wildlife conservation, this insight points towards an indigenous African model built on secure stewardship rights, lawful enterprise, predictable rules, and direct benefits from sustainable wildlife management. These factors are key elements of the classical liberal paradigm.
Classical liberalism
The core principles of the George Ayittey Society – “principles of private property, freedom of exchange, restraints on power, and the rule of law” – stem directly from classical liberal thinking.
Classical liberalism emerged in the 17th century writings of John Locke followed on by Adam Smith, John Stuart Mill, and others. In earlier days, it was simply referred to as liberalism and focused on individual liberty and limited government. Over time, however, the term liberal became associated with support for significant government intervention and economic redistribution. Hence, the term classical liberalism is now commonly used.
In Classical Liberalism – A Primer, Eamonn Butler summarises its core principles as follows:
1. The presumption of freedom
Classical liberals have a presumption in favour of individual freedom or liberty… They want to maximise freedom in our political, social, and economic life.2. The primacy of the individual
Classical liberals see the individual as more important than the collective. They would not sacrifice an individual’s freedom for some collective benefit – at least, not without a solid justification.3. Minimising coercion
Classical liberals want to minimise coercion. They want a world in which people get along by peaceful agreement…4. Toleration
Classical liberals believe that the main – or perhaps the only – good reason to interfere with people’s freedom is to prevent them doing or threatening actual harm to others.5. Limited and representative government
Classical liberals concede that some force may be needed to prevent people injuring others and agree that only the authorities should have this power.6. The rule of law
This is the idea that we should be governed by known laws, not the arbitrary decisions of government officials…7. Spontaneous order
You may think that a large and complex society needs a large and powerful government to run it; but classical liberals dispute this… The complex social institutions that we see around us are… the result of human action, but not of human design.8. Property, trade, and markets
Classical liberals believe that wealth is not created by governments, but by the mutual cooperation of individuals in the spontaneous order of the marketplace. Prosperity comes through free individuals inventing, creating, saving, investing and, ultimately, exchanging goods and services voluntarily, for mutual gain – the spontaneous order of the free-market economy.9. Civil society
Classical liberals believe that voluntary associations are better at providing individuals’ needs than are governments… clubs, associations, unions, religions, schools, online communities, campaigns, self-help groups, charities and all the other institutions that we call civil society.10. Common human values
Classical liberals, then, wish to harness our common humanity for mutual benefit. They uphold the basic principles of life, liberty, and property under the law. Those, they believe, are the foundations of a thriving, spontaneous social order based on mutual respect, toleration, non- aggression, cooperation, and voluntary exchange between free people.
Could classical liberalism offer an alternative to aid-dependent, government-directed conservation that has been the dominant model in post-colonial Africa? In other words, could the principles of private property, freedom of exchange, restraints on power, and the rule of law be applied to the conservation of Africa’s wild animals and plants and the habitats in which they live?
Considering Butler’s core principles and the writings of other classical liberal thinkers including Ludwig von Mises, F A Hayek, and Roger Scruton, we can sketch out a classical liberal approach to conservation as way forward in Africa and elsewhere.
What classical liberal conservation means in practice
Classical liberal conservation is an approach to conserving nature that recognises secure property rights, the rule of law, voluntary exchange, entrepreneurship, and accountable governance as the most effective foundations for maintaining wild species and their habitats. The proposition is that wildlife is most likely to be conserved when people have both the authority and the incentive to benefit legally and sustainably from its continued existence.
In this regard, rather than viewing conservation and the use of wild species as opposing objectives, a classical liberal approach would see the sustainable and legal use of wild species as generating economic, social, and ecological incentives that reinforce long-term conservation.
In terms of Butler’s core principles, classical liberal conservation could be described as follows:
1. The presumption of freedom
People should be able to harvest, use, and trade wild resources as they choose. Any regulations or governance would need to be evidence-based and based on local informal institutions (norms and traditions).
2. The primacy of the individual
Classical liberals would be wary of treating ‘the environment’ or ‘nature’ as a value that overrides individuals’ rights.
3. Minimising coercion
People should be able to choose how to ensure conservation and sustainable use rather than being subject to regulations or trade bans.
4. Toleration
Differing values, for example with respect to hunting and the consumption of wild meat, should be respected, while regulation should address demonstrable ecological, social and intergenerational harm.
5. Limited and representative government
Conservation authorities should operate under clear statutory limits and be answerable to the public, without open-ended powers to regulate.
6. The rule of law
Predictable and universally applied rules should apply, which mitigates the risk of regulatory capture and encourages long-term investment in wildlife conservation.
7. Spontaneous order
Ayittey observed that in pre-colonial Africa the allocation and use of resources had been done by decentralized institutions and the same holds for use of wildlife, such as customary fishing rights and community-based forest management.
8. Property, trade, and markets
Well-defined, secure, and tradable property rights provide a direct incentive to conserve, use, and invest in wild resources. Classical liberals would see the loss of wildlife as a property-rights failure, not a market failure.
9. Civil society
Voluntary conservation is preferred over government expropriation and control. This would include community-based conservation, the efforts of conservation non-profits, and voluntary standards, such as FairWild to ensure sustainable trade.
10. Common human values
Wildlife conservation is pursued through voluntary exchange rather than by using government to impose one group’s values on others.
In contemporary African villages – where the use of wild resources and the benefits derived from them continue, in practice, to be privately controlled – these principles can still be found. Under local custom, those who hunt may sell their catch, those who harvest firewood on communal land may trade it, those who gather medicinal plants may exchange them for cash or other goods, and those who harvest edible insects may sell them both within and beyond the community, without being obliged to channel proceeds through formal community beneficiation schemes.
Local chiefs and headmen, working with the community, monitor levels of extraction to prevent over-exploitation, in much the same way that other governance systems regulate resource use. Thus, contrary to the assumptions of many urban-born conservationists, many traditional communities retain private use rights and the freedom to trade in wild resources just as they did in the past.
Beyond aid for Africa’s wildlife
A classical liberal approach to conservation would seek to conserve wildlife by aligning ecological sustainability with human freedom, responsibility, and prosperity. The approach supports secure property rights, strong legal institutions, decentralised governance, entrepreneurship, and voluntary exchange as foundations for conservation. It recognises that wildlife is most likely to flourish when people have enduring incentives to protect it and share fairly in its benefits.
From a classical liberal perspective, conservation is not achieved by protecting wildlife from human use, but rather by enabling lawful and sustainable use supported by voluntary processes and decentralised institutions that incentivise the conservation of wild species and their habitats.
As Ayittey remarked, “Perhaps, the decline in foreign aid is just what Africa needs.” Could classical liberal conservation be the way forward for Africa?
By Francis Vorhies, Crespen Ndlovu, and Wiseman Ndlovu
The article was originally published by AWEI here.