 |
|
|
Elephant Overpopulation Keeps Cull Debate Simmering |
|
By Kudzanayi Shumba*
Local
communities participate in elephant management in Zimbabwe. But
the authorities aren't ruling out the possibility of returning to
culling to control the herd size -- a practice that was abandoned
17 years ago.
HARARE, Oct 9 (IPS/IFEJ) - Precious Nyoni,
35, resident of the Gokwe district in southwest Zimbabwe, surveys
his garden. The vegetable and sugarcane stalks are flattened, and
half-eaten crops lie all around. This was his only livelihood, and
in one night, it is all gone.
"(Zimbabwe's) liberation struggle ended in 1980. But now we have
another war with the elephants. We are not allowed to kill them,
hence we just frighten them, but look, where am I going to get the
food to survive when everything has been trampled by these creatures?"
he wondered.
"They are too many and I believe they should be reduced through
a culling exercise. Just recently, elephants destroyed 50 hectares
of maize crop belonging to some villagers. It means that all of
us need food assistance even before we have harvested," Nyoni said,
looking as devastated as his garden.
More than 600 kilometers north of Gokwe, in Omay communal lands
of the Nyaminyami district, farmers come down from a rickety treetop
watchtower. They have worked in shifts through the night, guarding
their lands from a raid by an elephant herd.
Southern African countries have been plunged into an elephant management
and ecological degradation crisis that demands urgent action.
In the 1970s and 1980s, the ivory trade decimated elephant populations
in Africa. After the Convention on International Trade in Endangered
Species of Flora and Fauna (CITES) banned trade in ivory in 1989,
depleted populations began to recover and now they are competing
in some areas with humans for food and land.
An estimated 600,000 elephants roam the African continent. Fragmented
populations are to be found in 37 range states. Zimbabwe alone has
a sixth of the total population; nearly half of these crowded into
the country's most famous sanctuary, Hwange National Park.
Regional governments believe a legal and controlled ivory trade
could bring substantial economic benefits without jeopardizing the
conservation of the species, or a further loss of biodiversity.
That could include halving the jumbo population to bring them to
manageable levels through translocation or exporting live animals
to countries that need them, which is approved by CITES. Also on
the table is the controversial culling method, which Zimbabwe would
like to see resume after a hiatus of 17 years. The practice was
banned under CITES.
African countries have been divided over elephant culling. Kenya,
with some west African states, are strongly opposed to any resumption
of the ivory business, which they believe will provide cover for
an illegal trade derived from poaching.
Namibia, Botswana and South Africa are part of the pro-culling lobby.
They want to be able to trade their significant stockpiles of ivory
to fund conservation work.
CITES denied permission on Oct. 5 to the three countries to hold
a special sale of 60 tons of elephant tusks they have stockpiled
since 2002, a decision that will be reviewed at the 14th Conference
of Parties (COP 14) to the Convention, to be held in The Hague,
Jun. 3-15, 2007.
At the last CITES conference, held in Thailand in 2004, Kenya's
proposal for a six-year moratorium on ivory trade was withdrawn,
and Namibia's proposal for an annual export quota of two tons of
raw ivory was rejected.
However, permission was granted for trade in elephant hides and
hair goods, as well as non-commercial trade in worked ivory, provided
it was accompanied by a valid export certificate. South Africa also
gained permission for trade in elephant hides.
Tapera Chimuti, operations director of the Zimbabwe Parks and Wildlife
Management Authority, said the country was unlikely to ask for approval
at COP 14 to sell ivory.
"If we were to ask for approval to sell ivory today, the whole world
will be against us for political reasons, although we have the best
wildlife management practice in place in almost the whole continent,"
said Chimuti.
Meanwhile, the Zimbabwean authorities are encouraging the participation
of local communities in elephant conservation efforts, through the
Community Areas Management Program for Indigenous Resources (CAMPFIRE),
in which villages are part of the decision-making process, and the
main beneficiaries of revenue earned from wildlife.
Based in Harare, CAMPFIRE was initiated in 1982, after an amendment
of the Parks and Wildlife Act (1975) that granted "appropriate authority"
status to popularly elected rural district councils so that they
could manage and benefit from the sustainable utilization of wildlife.
According to the program's director, Charles Jonga, CAMPFIRE has
succeeded in reducing conflict between people and wildlife, and
has created opportunities for sustainable economic development in
Zimbabwe's rural areas through natural resources management. Fifty-seven
of the country's 59 rural districts participate in the program.
"CAMPFIRE's impact on national income is at least 10 million dollars
annually. If the multiplier on tourism activities is included, CAMPFIRE
is worth 20 to 25 million dollars to Zimbabwe's economy each year,"
Jonga calculated in a Sep. 26 report.
Jockoniah Nare, the CAMPFIRE chairman, who lives in Beitbridge,
nearly 500 km south of Harare, is of the firm opinion that the more
a community benefits, the greater their interest and investment
in wildlife.
Though he recognized that the social costs of living with wildlife
can be particularly high. They include, crop damage, threat to humans
and livestock, and the loss of land set aside for wildlife that
could otherwise be used for growing crops or other uses.
Elephants are responsible for up to 75 percent of all wildlife crop
damage in communal areas, with between 30 and 45 cases reported
per ward every season. Most rural communities are located close
to rivers, and this naturally creates competition for water with
the wildlife.
Local communities have lived alongside elephants for centuries.
But over the last three decades, large numbers of migrants have
come to the Zambezi River area, attracted by the good farming conditions,
and have captured territories that are part of established elephant
corridors, and around waterholes.
Affected communities are not paid compensation by the government.
However, rural district councils under CAMPFIRE have set aside funds
for loss of property, crops and even death.
* This story is part of a series of features
on sustainable development by IPS-Inter Press Service and IFEJ-International
Federation of Environmental Journalists. |
