Almost 80 per cent of the elephant range in Africa lies outside protected areas. Human-elephant conflicts are high, particularly in southern and central Africa where both the populations are high (see graph: Competing for
resources). The conflicts are serious but more localised in areas
where there are a smaller number of elephants in isolated
patches of high human density or where the human density is
low but shared resources like water are scarce. Zimbabwe
alone has 65,000 elephants against an estimated carrying
capacity of 30,000. Botswana has over 79,000 and Namibia
more than 7,000 elephants.
The relationship is further complicated in areas of cultivation - pastoralists in the Savannah tolerate elephants but
farmers in areas with higher rainfall and intense cultivation do
not, since they damage crops. Given a daily intake of food of
about 230 kg, elephants can cause a lot of damage. As a World
Wide Fund For Nature report (Conserving Africa's Elephants:
Current issues and priorities for action) points out, apart from
the loss of food and productivity, there are also social costs -
such as the loss of education of children who are afraid to walk
to school and the extra effort put in by women to avoid elephants while collecting fuelwood and water.
Deterrents such as fences, thunder flashes, lights and gunshots have been tried and failed. Most wildlife managers in
Africa now believe that a long-term solution lies in encouraging landuse strategies to minimise conflict situations, and
ensuring that where human and elephant populations do
overlap, that people derive tangible benefits from their presence. "The 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," says WWF International campaigners.
One way that the people can benefit, of course, is from
tourism revenues. In Kenya, tourism is already the single
biggest source of foreign exchange. But so far, it is largely the
central government and the private sector which have benefited most from tourism
rather than local communities. Pointing out that
elephant management is
costly, and that extensive
assista*e from outside
donors has been; assared
but is not forthcoming,
governments and local
NGOS say that consumptive
use of elephants for trophy
hunting and through ivory
exports is the only way to
raise money (see box: A
clean argument).
Big game or trophy
hunting is already a means
of generating income in
Cameroon, Namibia, South Africa, Tanzania, and Zimbabwe. Botswana plans to
reopen elephant trophy hunting and the issue is under consideration in Congo, Gabon and Mozambique. The countries register their annual trophy hunting quota with the CITES Secretariat and the ivory from these animals can be exported
and imported legally for non-commercial use, provided it is
accompanied by the CITES documentation, and there are no
stricter domestic measures in the importing country.
In Namibia, Tanzania and Zimbabwe, national legislation
allows for some of the revenue from trophy hunting to return
to the local communities. In Tanzania, a licence to shoot an
elephant costs us $4,000, while in Zimbabwe, a single elephant
hunt can cost us $20,000. The number of elephants shot varies
- in Tanzania, 154 were shot between 1988 and 1992, out of
a national population of about 56,000. In Zimbabwe, the
annual quota is set at about 200 animals.
More than 57 per cent of the revenue generated from the
CAMPFIRE in Zimbabwe comes from elephant trophy hunting.
These revenues are used for community development needs.
Licence fees from trophy hunting in Zimbabwe go to the government for further conservation work, and sport hunting
itself provides local employment. In other countries, the
major share earned from trophy hunting does go to the central government and to private individuals, but a recent study
in Tanzania demonstrated that earnings from the sport were
even more evenly spread over the country elephants range
than fees from non-consumptive uses such as tourism. In
some instances, trophy hunting has been merged with problem elephant control.
Whaling dealing
A similar problem was encountered
with regard to whaling. Five proposals for placing three species of whales
from Appendix I to Appendix it were
submitted by Japan and Norway.
All were rejected. There was also a
,separate proposal from Japan, asking
the cop to review the relationship
Of CITES with the International
Whaling Commission, which was
also rejected.
The International Whaling
Commission (rwc), recognised as the
global authority for regulation of
whaling, was established in 1948, to
implement the International Convention for the Regulation of
Whaling. A moratorium on commercial whaling was passed
by the iwc in 1981, and a Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary
was established in 1994. The rwc: maintains zero quotas for all
member countries, until the implementation of its revised
management scheme (Rms), which would grant quotas after a
control mechanism has been put in place.
But members of the High North Alliance, a Norwegian
NGO, claim that the anti-whaling nations - namely the USA,
UK, Australia and New Zealand - are delaying work on the
Rms. At present, they say, work on the Rms has come to a complete stop and that it is unlikely that commercial whaling will
ever be allowed.
The whaling industry in the past was
driven by a demand for whale oil, and
operations were carried out by the UK, USA,
the Netherlands, New Zealand and
Australia. With demand for whale oil
being taken over by cheaper vegetable oils,
these countries have no plans to resume
whaling. The other whaling countries use
whale as a food source. The Bvc moratorium has allocated quotas for "aboriginal
subsistence whaling" to the Russian
Federation, Greenland, and the Alaskan
Inuit.
By a resolution passed in 1979, CITES
chose to follow the management measures
suggested by the rwc, and all whale species
were placed on Appendix I. Pro-wbaling
countries are unhappy with this state of
affairs, claiming that the iwc is dominated
by a group of nations that have declared
themselves in opposition to commercial
utilisation of whales in any form whatsoever - irrespective of whether it is sustainable or not. "By basing its decisions on those of the IWC, CITES will be endorsing a policy where myths, cultural preferences and the popularity of
certain animals in urban public opinion means more than biological and ecological sites and scientific assessment," say
members of the High North Alliance. "As a result, the credibility of CITES as a conservation body will be severely impaired."
The NGO claims that the chairperson of the iwc scientific committee, Phil Hammond of the UK, resigned in protest against the contempt with which the recommendations of the committee were treated.
The research of the committee
showed that some whales stocks are
abundant. Whaling nations point at
the hypocritical stand taken by some
anti-whaling nations. The current
chairman of the iwc, Peter
Bridgewater from Australia, reportedly said that there was no reason
"why such large and beautiful animals should be hunted for meat and for other products available from other sources." But Bridgewater heads the
Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service, which culls
about 3 million kangaroos every year. Australia is campaign-
ing to increase exports of its kangaroo products, and has
protested strongly against a ban on import of such products in
the US.
Japan, Norway, Peru and the former Soviet Union had
lodged objections to the iwc moratorium adopted in 1982.
Japan later withdrew its objection, but continued to catch
minke whales (Balacnoptera acurostrata) in the Antarctic and
North Pacific Oceans for 'scientific purposes', which is
allowed under the terms of the 1w( . Norway decided
to resume minke whale harvest in 1993. Iceland left the
nvc in 1992 in protest against its not having lived up to its own
intentions. Canada left in 1982, and is not contemplating
rejoining, despite the fact that its aboriginal population in the
North West Territory has resurned catching Greenland
whales.
Meanwhile, Canada, Iceland, Japan, Norway and Russia
have been threatened with economic sanctions by the L2@ on a
number of occasions. Organisations such as Greenpeace have
threatened to "hit where it hurts most", by persuading
importers to boycott Norvyegian goods, and by pressurising
the ITS government to impose trade sanctions. At the 10th cop,
once again, five proposals for listing three species of whale in
Appendix ii, submitted by Japan and Norway, were opposed
by NGOS who said that they would result in illegal meat being
laundered into legal trade.
Once again, in question are the mechanisms for controlling illegal trade, especially in Japan, where illegally obtained
whale meat is often passed off as a 'bvcatch'. Norway claims to
have a well developed database on the DNA of whales, but
whether this could serve to develop viable methods to distinguish between meat of whales listed in Appendix it from the
meat of a species on Appendix i remains a moot point.
