![]()
Previous:
Next:
|
![]() Conservation Outside Protected Areas1. Elephants and PeopleGiven the rate of Africa's human population growth (approximately 3 per cent per year), and that almost 80 per cent of elephant range lies outside of protected areas, there are serious doubts about the long-term future of the African elephant. The questio n that needs to be answered is whether or not elephants and people can reach a modus vivendi?For those living in Europe and North America, it is well worth remembering that wild megaherbivores, like mammoths and rhinos, were eliminated from these continents thousands of years ago, very likely as a result of human activity. Certainly elephants had been virtually eliminated from the Mediterranean coast of North Africa by Roman times as a consequence of both the ivory trade and population increase. Closer to our time, the mid-to-late 1800s also witnessed a steady decline in the numbers of the Africa n elephant, probably as a result of hunting, the expansion of human settlement, and cultivation. The extent to which elephants and humans can live side-by-side depends very much on such factors as human and elephant population density, human land-use patterns, and elephant foraging habits. These factors in turn depend on ecological variables such as climate and vegetation that affect human and elephant habitats alike. Figure 2 shows Africa's current rural population densities by region and the corresponding human-elephant ratio. It can be inferred from the table that the likelihood of human-elephant conflict as a consequence of competition for land is greater in west a nd eastern Africa, where there is a high human density, than in southern or central Africa, where human density is lower.
Figure 3 offers another perspective on the problem. As a simplified matrix of ecoclimatic zones and land use, it indicates the likely outcome of human-elephant interactions. Although the table shows that human-elephant conflict occurs throughout the five ecoclimatic zones, it is in zones II, III and IV that the conflict is increasing most sharply. It is in these regions that elephants raid crops, kill livestock, destroy water supplies, demolish grain stores and houses, injure, and even kill people.
If the information in Figures 2 and 3 are combined, it can be seen that human-elephant conflict is most severe in areas where both populations are high; the conflict is serious, but more localized where there are either small numbers of elephants occurrin g in isolated patches of high human density, or where there are low human densities but a shortage of a shared resource (such as water supply). The modalities are evident whether one observes the villages surrounding the Selous Game Reserve in Tanzania; the communal lands of the Zambezi Valley in Zimbabwe; the borders of farms and protected areas in Malawi; the agricultural areas of Kenya, or in the isolated patches of cultivation in the forests of Cameroon, Gabon, and Zaire. Each, for example, reports increased incidences of crop-raiding. The relationship of human density to elephants does not, however, tell the whole story. The actual number of people does not necessarily create the conflict, rather it may be a question of land use. Broadly speaking, pastoralists who live in Africa's sava nnas and semi-arid areas have tolerated elephants (except where there is competition over scarce water resources), while farmers who occupy areas with higher rainfall and more intensive cultivation, have not. Conflict is also likely to increase as a resul t of human population pressure forcing changes in land-use patterns. In the forested and high rainfall areas of southern Cameroon, northern Congo, Gabon, and in vast sections of Zaire, where human densities are low and cultivation sparse, conflict levels between humans and elephants tend to be concentrated in areas where s lash and burn cultivation is pushing into elephant range. The severity of the conflict also has its seasonal element. In northern Cameroon, for instance, elephants from the Waza National Park disperse northwards in the dry season, and to the south when the rains arrive. The dry season migration presents relative ly few problems because the elephants encounter few people, and the local communities are primarily pastoralists. To the south in the Kaélé region, however, the situation is critical. There the heavily settled agricultural communities have to co ntend with the wet season migration of elephants into the region. The movements coincide with the peak of the harvest. Given that the average daily food intake of an adult elephant is 230kg, the damage they (mainly bulls) can do is enormous. With no means to contain the elephants in the national park, created in the first place to protect elephants, the authorities have a cquiesced in the face of public pressure and have shot a significant number of crop-raiding elephants, a pattern that is unlikely to stop in the immediate future. Another reason for the increase in human-elephant conflict is possibly related to changes in elephant behaviour, as there is some evidence to suggest that elephants are becoming bolder or more aggressive, and are going out of their way to raid crops and a ttack people. Apart from the loss of food and productivity this is causing, there are social costs which also have to be taken into account: the sleepless nights for farmers, who stay awake to chase elephants from their fields; the loss of education for c hildren who are too afraid to walk to and from school, the extra effort for women who must walk further to avoid elephants when collecting water and firewood. In addition, there is now a political dimension to these incidences. The wave of democratization that has swept across Africa in recent years has led to an increase in the frequency of reporting of problems with elephants, turning the issue into a politic al rallying point. The African press is now more likely to run stories on how many people are being killed by elephants, rather than how many elephants are being killed by people, and editorials on the topic abound. Headlines such as "Elephants invade villages in search of food"; "Rogue elephants trample three to death"; "Elephant menace continues"; "Elephants wreak havoc on crops"; "Ten-year old girl trampled to death by elephants"; and "Elephants destroy granaries" , have become a regular feature in Africa's daily papers. There is no doubt that the elephant problem is becoming politically important. In Kenya, the Wildlife Service's elephant conservation officer estimates that he now spends 80 per cent of his time tr ying to mediate and ameliorate human-elephant conflicts. Formerly, many complaints to government officials about elephant crop raiding were neglected, as non-elected governments remained unresponsive to the needs of rural people and their problems. But the "democracy movement" has meant that people are becoming more aware of their rights and elected government officials are being held more accountable. Today's voters expect local politicians to pay more attention to their complaints and to use their political leverage to seek compensation for their constituents .
2. Ameliorating Human-Elephant ConflictDespite the growing concern and the increasing number of studies on the human-elephant conflict, general solutions to crop raiding and other damage have not been found. Moreover, each situation is likely to warrant a unique approach.Many physical deterrents to crop raiding have been tried over many years and at many sites. Crop-raiding elephants soon learn to ignore thunder flashes, lights, and gun-shots. Shooting crop-raiding bulls has not been particularly effective in deterring ot her elephants from further crop-raiding. Shooting problem elephants "on control" is not very effective either, as all too often elephant-control teams arrive days after the crop-raiding has taken place and shooting an elephant (any elephant) becomes a pub lic relations exercise -- rather than a solution to the problem. Driving elephants with beaters or helicopters is another method that has generally proven ineffective. Building barriers to exclude elephants from cropland holds some promise but is expensive. Even the most high-specification fencing appears to be of limi ted use under certain circumstances. Studies in Laikipia, Kenya, found that there was no clear relationship between the effectiveness of fences and their design and construction. Some simple fences worked, some high-tech fences (including high-voltage ele ctric fencing), did not. It probably all depends on how badly the elephants want what is on the other side. Furthermore, fences built to keep elephants and people apart may not always be appreciated by local communities, unless their construction follows a participatory process which imbues a clear sense of common ownership and responsibility. When this is not the case the consequences can be disastrous. The South African government, for example, recently financed an expensive, electrified fence around Liwonde National Park in Malawi. The fence soon became the source of material for producing wire snares by nei ghbouring communities and within a short period of time it largely disappeared, while poaching for game meat inside the park increased dramatically. Now, without the barrier, the elephants are once again crop-raiding and nine people have been killed. The park's neighbours, in the belief that responsibility for maintaining a government fence rests with the government itself, are agitated. Without adequate funds, however, the wildlife authorities are unable to repair the dysfunctional fence, and so the conf lict festers. Meanwhile, other means of deterring elephants are being investigated. Given that elephants are highly intelligent animals, it may be possible to employ some form of aversion therapy to teach them that entering cultivated areas will be an unpleasant experi ence not to be repeated. Experiments with aerosol capsicum (pepper) sprays have been conducted in Zimbabwe with some success. Sound-aversion, based on elephant communication, is also being considered. Most wildlife managers in Africa now believe that the key to finding a long-term solution to the elephant problem is two-fold: to encourage national land-use strategies to minimize the occurrence of conflict situations, and to ensure that in areas where h umans and elephants do overlap, that people derive tangible benefits from their presence. Land-use plans developed by relevant stakeholders (e.g. farmers, tour operators, and local governments) could reduce conflict and help to ensure that human activitie s are restricted to those which are compatible with elephants. Activities such as selective timber and secondary forest product extraction and extensive systems of animal production, including wildlife ranching and ecotourism, can provide tangible benefit s to people who share the land with elephants. In most rural areas, however, elephants will not survive unless a balance is found between their value as an asset, or as a liability. Initial attempts to mediate conflict involved financial compensation to farmers for crop damage, a scheme largely abando ned due to corruption, insufficient funds, and an inability, on the part of central governments, to administer it. In order to maintain the support of local communities, the members must feel that they have a meaningful level of control over, or ownership of, the wildlife with which they share the land, and also that by managing the wildlife wisely they can benefit from it. The benefit may derive from non-consumptive use (e.g. mass tourism or small-scale ecotourism), or consumptive use (e.g. trophy-huntin g, or shooting of problem animals for meat). This "use it or lose it" approach may not be popular in some conservation circles, but a more forgiving attitude towards wildlife is a luxury most Africans simply cannot afford. Utilization on a sustainable basis may be the only means by which elephants a nd other wildlife will have a long-term future outside of protected areas. This, however, will rely heavily on strong political support, the building of individual and institutional capacity, the formulation and adoption of policy and legislation, the man ner in which benefits are allocated, as well as financial support from Northern donors.
3. Non-consumptive Use of ElephantsOne way that local people can benefit from the wildlife in their midst is from the tourist revenues it generates, whether through small-scale ecotourism or mass tourism. Tourism, on a small or large scale, is a very profitable industry in many African cou ntries. In Kenya, for example, tourist revenues are the single biggest source of foreign-exchange. Large predators and elephants are two of the top tourist attractions. The viewing value of elephants in Kenya in 1989 was roughly estimated at US$22-30milli on.
While not all elephant areas, or all communities, are suitable for, or conducive to, community-based ecotourism, those communities that inhabit large areas of natural habitat, and still co-exist with significant wildlife populations will, in general, bene fit most from wildlife-based tourism. Local communities in Kenya, for example, now receive revenues accrued from parks and reserves. Maasai living around Amboseli National Park, a tourist destination whose popularity is largely due to the presence of easi ly-observed groups of elephants and large-tusked bulls, receive more than US$60,000 a year from camping fees. Tourism also provides employment in hotels, camps, and lodges, as well as income from the sale of local handicrafts and the performance of tradit ional dances and ceremonies. In north-western Namibia, communities have developed small ecotourism ventures, based on viewing of the country's unique desert-adapted elephants. These communities have opened camp sites, craft markets, as well as organizing village visits for ecotourist s in the Kunene Region where elephants and black rhinos are the main wildlife attractions for visitors. Elephant-viewing is also popular on some large privately-owned tracts of land (e.g. around Kruger National Park in South Africa). Where the game-ranches are unfenced all the problems associated with elephants can arise for the local people. But where they receive tangible benefits such as jobs, medical care, and meat from game-cropping on the private ranches, they tolerate the damage the elephants do. This is exactly the case with the local people living in the vicinity of the Nazinga Game Ranch, in Burki na Faso, where there are approximately 300 elephants. The people who lived some distance away from the ranch, however, are far less tolerant, gaining nothing from the presence of the tourists, and even less from the elephants. Despite these small advances from tourism in a few important elephant areas, it is central government coffers and the private sector in Africa that benefit most from the revenues generated from elephant-viewing tourists, an imbalance that will have to cha nge so that local communities can gain more direct benefits, if they are to be persuaded to tolerate the elephants in their midst.
4. Consumptive Use of ElephantsThe need for new approaches to manage elephants is set to become progressively more urgent for all the reasons that have been laid out above. The question that remains, however, is who will bear the cost of this management if there is no substantial reven ue from elephant products, or extensive assistance from external donors -- which, despite many assurances, has not been forthcoming on the scale promised.While some countries would like to resume the trade in elephant products, no responsible country will tolerate the uncontrolled and unsustainable illegal killing of elephants that characterized much of the trade in the two decades prior to the imposition of the ivory ban in 1990. Unless there is confidence in both producing and consuming countries that effective and accountable trading protocols are in place, it is unlikely that any move towards a resumption of international trade in elephant products wil l be made. Today we are left with questions that have yet to be answered:
Until these fundamental questions are addressed, the debate on how best to conserve the African elephant will remain contentious and divisive both within and outside Africa. One of the current means for generating revenue from elephants is through big-game or trophy-hunting. As this hunting is an expensive leisure activity, the demand almost exclusively originates from, and is financed by, citizens of developed and emerging m arket countries. Although the long-term demand from the North is not assured and may be on the decline, there are a number of elephant range states that depend on market demand being maintained at present levels, if not at greater ones in the future. Trophy-hunting of elephants is allowed in Cameroon, Namibia, South Africa, Tanzania, and Zimbabwe. Botswana plans to soon re-open elephant trophy-hunting, and the issue is under consideration in Congo, Gabon, and Mozambique. All other elephant range state s have domestic bans on elephant hunting. The countries that offer elephant trophy-hunting register their annual elephant quotas with the CITES Secretariat and the ivory from trophy-hunted animals can be exported and imported legally for non-commercial us e, provided it is accompanied by the correct CITES documentation and there are no stricter domestic measures imposed by the importing country. In Namibia, Tanzania, and Zimbabwe, national legislation allows for some revenues from elephant trophy-hunting to return to local communities. In South Africa, hunting is done mainly on private land, so the options for community involvement are not the sa me. Hunters pay dearly for the privilege of shooting an elephant. In Tanzania, for example, a licence to shoot an elephant costs US$4,000. In Zimbabwe over US$20,000 can be earned from a single elephant hunt. The number of elephants shot for trophies is v ery small relative to overall population numbers. For example, in Tanzania, 154 were shot between 1988 and 1992 out of an estimated national population of 56,000. In Zimbabwe, the annual quota is set at about 200 elephants per year out of a national popul ation of about 60,000 elephants. Over the five-year period from 1988 to 1992, only 771 elephants were actually shot on trophy licence in Zimbabwe. The overall contribution in terms of revenue generation can be quite high. More than 64 per cent of the entire income of Zimbabwe's CAMPFIRE programme comes from elephant trophy-hunting. These revenues are used for community development needs and hunted a nimals provide meat for local people. Licence fees from trophy-hunting also go to government wildlife authorities to further conservation work, and the hunting industry itself provides local employment. One of the advantages of hunting is that little infr astructure is needed as hunters prefer to be mobile. Camping in the bush is considered part of the experience, so large tourist hotels and extensive road networks are not required. As a result, negative environmental and cultural impacts associated with m ore intensive forms of mass tourism are minimized. In most countries involved in the trophy-hunting industry, the lion's share of the benefits probably accrue to central government, private individuals, companies, and tourism-related traders based in the urban centres. One recent study in Tanzania, howeve r, demonstrated that the earnings from trophy hunting were much more evenly spread over the country's elephant range, than fees from non-consumptive tourism, which is largely concentrated in the north and were not supporting the areas that harbour the lar gest proportion of Tanzania's elephant population. In some instances, trophy-hunting has been merged with problem animal control (the hunters shoot an elephant that has been identified as a crop-raider), thus bringing a dual benefit to local communities. Botswana and Gabon, which have high elephant densit ies, are keen to re-open trophy-hunting both for the revenues it will bring and to control problem elephants. Trying to merge the two can be difficult: elephants tend to raid in the rainy season when crops are ripening, a time when it is difficult for hun ters to move around. Also the crop-raiders are not necessarily elephants with trophy-sized tusks. Successful utilization of elephants and other wildlife by local communities hinges on such pre-conditions as knowledge of the resource (e.g. how many animals are present and how many can be taken off without negatively affecting the population), and accou ntability (e.g. making sure revenues return to communities and are fairly distributed). Education and awareness-raising as to the value of wildlife underpins this whole approach.
Next: Controlling Illegal Trade in Elephant Products
![]()
|