Forums.NitroExpress.com

If "a meaningful population reduction" was to take place requiring the "removal" of 10 000 elephants a year, say, the DWNP report says it would yield 40 tonnes of ivory, 8 000 tonnes of meat, and 650 tonnes of hide per year.

*

Increased trophy hunting would not, the DWNP report argues, necessarily mean substantially greater income, because the larger number of animals shot would include many with smaller, less valuable, tusks. Trade in elephant products is moreover restricted. Only sport-hunting trophies and live animals for "in situ conservation programmes" can be exported. Only unprocessed hides can be exported.

*

economic value of elephants is essentially confined to their attraction of tourists in terms of safari hunting and non-consumptive wildlife viewing.
....
contribution to GDP of elephant in wildlife viewing in 2000, as P397 million and P159 million respectively".

*****

How to Deal With 130,000 Elephants?

Mmegi/The Reporter (Gaborone)

ANALYSIS
August 20, 2004
Patrick Van Rensburg

SOUTHERN Africa holds the great majority of the continent's elephants with between 197 000 and 214 000 animals, according to the third report of the project of the Department of Wildlife and National Parks (DWNP) to review the Elephant Management Plan of 1991.

Of these, over 50 percent are in Botswana. The latest (2002) aerial surveys give an estimate of 123 000 in the North. There are also elephants in the Tuli Block and south of the Boteti River, west of the Makgadikgadi National Park and in western Ngamiland.

Botswana's northern elephants are part of the larger population, which stretches from Zimbabwe through Botswana and into Namibia. There are now a number of cross-border conservation initiatives being pursued by various governmental and non-governmental organisations, including the "Four Corners" project in the extreme north that will entail joint management of wildlife with Namibia, Zambia and Zimbabwe.

In 1990, it was generally felt that elephant numbers in Botswana had reached a level at which reduction to a recommended sustainable 60 000 was necessary. As was noted last week, no control measures have been taken since. Elephants have, as a result, wrought great changes in the landscape, causing a "loss of scenic value, of shade and useful plant species, which are all viewed with concern".

Crop raiding by elephants, fence damage and damage to water systems anger communities. Elephants were also considered to be "impacting negatively" on the availability of veldt products. Communities affected want numbers to be reduced by controlled shooting.

Two communities, which operate effective Community Based Natural Resource Management over elephants, felt that killing - apart from licensed hunting - was less acceptable than other methods.

Wider, general public attitudes sounded by the Department were less in favour of killing, though the majority polled "did not shrink from the principle when it was necessary".

Government policy on utilisation of elephants (indeed, all wild life) is that the full potential of the resource should be utilised. If "a meaningful population reduction" was to take place requiring the "removal" of 10 000 elephants a year, say, the DWNP report says it would yield 40 tonnes of ivory, 8 000 tonnes of meat, and 650 tonnes of hide per year. However, restrictions on exports would "severely limit the values of the products".

Increased trophy hunting would not, the DWNP report argues, necessarily mean substantially greater income, because the larger number of animals shot would include many with smaller, less valuable, tusks. Trade in elephant products is moreover restricted. Only sport-hunting trophies and live animals for "in situ conservation programmes" can be exported. Only unprocessed hides can be exported.

The economic value of elephants is essentially confined to their attraction of tourists in terms of safari hunting and non-consumptive wildlife viewing. The DWNP uses a rather abstract calculation based on a "biomass ratio of 41 percent" to estimate "the total gross output, and the contribution to GDP of elephant in wildlife viewing in 2000, as P397 million and P159 million respectively".

The Department reckons that while the economic contribution of the livestock sector "likely exceeds that of the wildlife sector, in quite large parts of the country the returns to land for wildlife use far exceed those for livestock production".

I noted last week the DWNP acknowledgement of the failure to keep the elephant level at that of 1990, and to maintain woodlands in an acceptable state. This is blamed on a lack of qualified staff.

Six new key points of policy are now: to minimise human-elephant conflict; maximise elephant populations while ensuring the maintenance of habitats and bio-diversity; manage elephants to the benefit of the national economy; enhance benefits from elephant management to the rural population; meet international obligations; and manage elephants on the basis of sound scientific information.

These aims are laudable, as similar aims were 14 years ago. The problem will lie in their implementation, now as then - especially maximising populations while maintaining habitats.

The DWNP report acknowledges the need for improved public relations, and more specially the need to enlighten the general public about the issues that result from large elephant populations. "It is felt that restrictions under international conventions such as CITES would be lifted if international opinion were better informed."

Control of numbers is clearly a key issue and the report looks at various means of doing this, noting advantages and disadvantages of each.

They include culling. Its advantages are that large numbers can be removed quickly; it is inexpensive if products can be sold; and, the DWNP says it causes minimal stress to animals if done properly,

On the other hand, it is "emotionally unappealing", potentially disruptive of tourism; requires large resources of equipment and skilled personnel; expensive and wasteful if there is no market for products; logistically difficult in some areas; dangerous, and can only be undertaken by skilled professionals.

"Ethical and humane considerations are paramount to counter negative publicity," the report notes.

Translocation is more humane but hugely expensive. Passive dispersal may have to be "encouraged".

Contraception cannot be seriously considered until there is a proven feasible method.

Other possibilities include increased safari hunting, increased citizen hunting, cropping (shooting an entire elephant family group), live sales to international markets, and domestication.

The Department also has proposals to fence off protected stands of local vegetation enclosing a full spectrum of vegetable types of the area as a basis of preservation for later extension.

I am sure the department would like to hear from readers interested in reacting to their proposals.

--------------------
________________________________________________________________

African News Headlines at a glance daily

Post Extras