|all articles latest | past | articles by topics | search wildnews|
wild news on wildsingapore
27 Oct 06
Hunting 'has conservation role'
By Elli Leadbeater
BBC 27 Oct 06
Hunting for conservation solutions
Viewpoint by Eugene Lapointe
Hunting bans could do more harm than good when it comes to the long-term survival of vulnerable species such as African elephants, argues Eugene Lapointe.
In this week's Green Room, the former head of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) makes the case for hunting and why it can be a part of wildlife management policies.
Are bans on hunting and trade the best way to conserve species? It is natural for people to jump to the conclusion that they are. After all, if no one is allowed to kill an animal, the thinking goes, surely its population will grow.
But the problem is that many more species are becoming endangered each year and very few are recovering. The World Conservation Union (IUCN) Red List of threatened species worldwide now stands at 16,119 for all flora and fauna and includes a quarter of all mammals.
Is it not time we found a better approach?
To understand why hunting and trade bans are not as effective as they are supposed to be, it is worth considering elephant conservation programmes in Africa, where countries have adopted two diverse strategies.
Elephant tusks (ivory) are used in artefacts around the world and, whether we like it or not, they command a market value similar to many precious metals. As a result, there is a constant international demand for ivory.
Unfortunately, most African economies are poor and wildlife conservation has to compete with many pressing demands for public money, such as the provision of public housing, sanitation projects, health care (particularly related to Aids) and education.
So conservation projects are going to be most successful if they can be self-supporting; in other words, if they can generate income and provide local jobs.
In southern Africa, countries have followed the philosophy of sustainable use. They have issued permits to sport hunters to kill a limited number of elephants that are pre-selected according to factors like age and sex. They cannot shoot breeding animals, for example.
Sport hunting produces significant income through hunting fees, safari costs (guides, accommodation, trophy fees, etc.) and this is reinvested into conservation programmes.
Local people support it because it provides secure employment. The result is that in Namibia, South Africa and Botswana, elephant populations are well-stocked and healthy, while incidences of poaching have been kept to low levels.
By contrast, Kenya takes a protectionist approach. Killing elephants is prohibited and the country steadfastly argues against international trade in ivory.
An unintended consequence is that poaching is encouraged because local people receive little added value from the elephants and, instead, see a local resource going to waste. In some areas people suffer when elephants destroy crops and homes. Habitat damage from dense populations also negatively impacts many other species.
Conservation in Kenya has become largely a law enforcement operation and, inevitably, this is a drain on limited local resources.
While elephant populations have recovered, poaching remains a problem and, in stark contrast to southern Africa, people have to be paid to shoot problem animals.
Fishing for solutions
In the case of sturgeon, caught for its roe, protectionists claim that a caviar trade ban would help populations to recover in their principal location, the Caspian Sea.
But the real cause of depleted sturgeon numbers is not the legal trade, which is carefully regulated, but the illegal one which, by definition, is not, and which is unfortunately many times larger.
If there was a ban on caviar trade, as some groups advocate, responsible producers - who have invested in hatcheries to replenish stocks - would no longer have any conservation incentives.
The result would be disastrous. Rather than lead to a recovery of sturgeon stocks, such an approach would accelerate their depletion, while fishermen would lose their livelihoods. Aquaculture can be developed but does not itself promote conservation in the affected areas.
What we need to do instead is take steps that positively encourage conservation by providing incentives to local producers, rather than criminalising them.
It is to be expected that people will question how conservation can be aided by allowing animals to be killed and utilised.
Sustainable use still seems counterintuitive to some. But the conservation results with species like African elephants and the fully recovered and abundant Florida crocodile prove otherwise.
Sustainable use is enshrined in the UN Convention on Biological Diversity and is used as the basic wildlife management philosophy in countries like the United States.
And there are signs that "sensible conservation" may be creeping into vogue as realities hit home and wildlife officials begin to critically assess realities.
Recently, the BBC reported that authorities in Malaysia have decided that the best way to protect turtles is to license, rather than ban, the collection of their eggs.
Unfortunately, there is a tendency for nations to practice sustainable use at home while prescribing protectionism abroad. This is true for African elephants, seals, sturgeon, whales, tigers, rhinos and many of the so-called "charismatic" species.
In the future, the fate of many animals may well depend on the extent to which the public around the world starts to accept the idea of utilising wildlife in a sustainable way.
Eugene Lapointe is president of the International Wildlife Management Consortium (IWMC) World Conservation Trust, and was secretary-general of CITES between 1982-1990
The Green Room is a series of opinion articles on environmental topics running weekly on the BBC News website A series of thought-provoking environmental opinion pieces
BBC 27 Oct 06
Hunting 'has conservation role'
By Elli Leadbeater
Rifle-toting tourists hunting exotic animals could actually help protect Africa's vulnerable species, a leading conservationist has suggested.
Elephant populations had benefited from a permit system that allowed sport hunters to kill a limited number of the beasts, according to Eugene Lapointe. Mr Lapointe was head of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) between 1982-90. Animal welfare campaigners rejected the idea as "morally unjustifiable".
Writing in the BBC News website's Green Room, Mr Lapointe, president of the International Wildlife Management Consortium (IWMC), said that despite the best efforts of conservationists, the number of threatened species continued to grow.
He suggested that it was time to reconsider bans on hunting: "Unfortunately, most African economies are poor and wildlife conservation has to compete with many pressing demands for public money.
"So conservation projects are going to be most successful if they can be self-supporting; in order words, if they can generate income and provide local jobs," he wrote.
A number of nations in southern Africa had adopted a "sustainable use" philosophy, including Namibia, South Africa and Botswana, he added. "They have issued permits to sport hunters to kill a limited number of elephants that are pre-selected according to factors like age and sex. They cannot shoot breeding animals, for example," Mr Lapointe explained.
As a result, these nations had well-stocked and healthy elephant populations and poaching was not a major problem, he observed.
The idea of "trophy hunting" being a weapon in the conservationists' armoury to protect vulnerable species was supported by Peter Lindsey from the University of Zimbabwe.
"Realistically, for conservation to succeed, wildlife has to pay for itself in Africa," Dr Lindsey told a recent meeting at London Zoo. "If local people do not benefit, it is usually lost."
Trophy hunting involves allowing high-paying guests to shoot in the company of a professional hunting guide. Each hunter pays, on average, 10-20 times more than most eco-tourists would for their holiday. He said that it can encourage landowners to accommodate and protect threatened wildlife in areas that do not appeal to most eco-tourists because they are politically unstable, too remote, or simply less scenic.
In South Africa, landowners were given permission to allow shooting of excess male white rhinos once the species began to recover after a sharp decline. This gave landowners an incentive to buy and provide land for the rhinos, which is thought to have significantly accelerated their recovery.
Dr Lindsey, who is not a hunter, carried out research to assess both the positive and negative effects of hunting on conservation.
He found that the industry is not without setbacks. Estimates of how many animals can be shot without threatening the population are sometimes based on guesswork, because no research data is available.
Irresponsible lodge owners, who allowed illegal and unethical practises, such as hunting caged animals or shooting from cars, posed a severe threat to the industry's prospects.
Hunters also needed to find ways to make sure that the money from rich tourists did not end up in overseas bank accounts, but reached local communities, he added.
These concerns were shared by animal welfare groups. International Fund for Animal Welfare (Ifaw) spokeswoman Rosa Hill called the idea of shooting elephants and rhinos "morally unjustifiable".
"There is very little evidence that the funds raised from killing wildlife are ploughed back into conversation," she said. "There are also biological reasons why trophy hunting is not a good idea.
Generally, hunters want to kill the biggest, strongest and fittest animals and this can have disastrous implications for the species.
Ms Hill said a lack of knowledge about how many animals there were and how the creatures behaved could result in a sudden population crash. "Trophy hunting quotas are not set with proper knowledge of true population sizes, so it can be difficult to measure a species' decline," she explained.
But Dr Lindsey believed that the overall shortfalls did not outweigh the conservation benefits. He said: "The industry's not perfect, and we have to work on the problems; but there is no question in my mind that if hunting were to be banned, the conservation consequences in Africa would be dire."
Related articles on Wildlife trade
|News articles are reproduced for non-profit educational purposes.|
website©ria tan 2003 www.wildsingapore.com