african indaba e-newsletter volume 12, number 2 page 2african indaba e-newsletter volume 12, number...

http://www.cic-wildlife.org/

African Indaba e-Newsletter Volume 12, Number 2

For hunter-conservationists and all people who are interested in the conservation, management and sustainable

use of Africa’s wild natural resources. African Indaba is the official CIC Newsletter on African affairs, with editorial independence. For more information about the International Council for Game and Wildlife Conservation CIC go to

www.cic-wildlife.org

Shortly thereafter PETA dragged another personality, a medical professor from Heidelberg, Germany, into the light of the public and accused him of environmental crime. His alleged misdoing was shooting a hippo in Namibia. This again was completely legal. Namibia even received recently the highest environmental prize of the WWF for successfully managing and conserving its wildlife, and safari hunting is one important element of the country’s strategy. In this case the hippo had even been a problem animal, endangering the local community. It was shot under the instruction of the conservation agency, and the community received on top the revenues from the hunt as compensation for damages incurred.

The list of such incidents could be extended. It also happens elsewhere, like in the case of a woman TV moderator in the USA, who had recently shot a lion in South Africa or of the CEO of a web company who had hunted a problem elephant in Zimbabwe. All these events show a strategy by the animal welfare movement: Take a completely legal hunt in Africa, claim that it was illegal, unethical and a crime and try to destroy the civil existence of the person concerned. It is just another way to fight sustainable hunting in Africa. A German commentator wrote that this green inquisition reminded him of the 1930ies in Germany when people were persecuted because of race, belief and opinion. I am not astonished that animal welfare groups and green political parties follow such strategies. I am shocked, however, about the political climate in a democracy, which tolerates such discrimination.

With the present wave of poaching, conservation agencies in Africa need the hunting revenues more urgent than ever. If wildlife is to survive there it must have a value. The strategy to destroy such economic value by strangling the demand side is not only clever, but also evil and neo-colonialist. The welfare organizations claim that they know better than the people in Africa themselves what is good for them and for their wildlife. At the same time these organizations collect big money from many well-meaning people in Europe and the United States, but they do not contribute to the protection of species. The little money which arrives in Africa goes into emotional projects like the upkeep of elephant babies, which is irrelevant for the survival of the species in the wild.

The resource economists Terry Anderson and Shawn Regan wrote in 2011 under the title “Shoot an Elephant, Save a Community” that environmental groups, which are anti-hunting, are “long on rhetoric and short on results.” They “rally against causes with easily identifiable ‘bad guys’… While such good-versus-evil narrates are useful for garnering financial support, they ignore the complexities of human-wildlife conflicts in Africa and the role of property rights and local management in resource conservation.” Seldom would such organizations advocate for more practical but less emotive ‘pro’ causes such as wildlife habitat, community resource management, or higher incomes. Anderson and Regan advised their readers to ask whether they are buying environmental rhetoric or environmental result before they write a check to their favorite environmental group.

I would like to add that hunters should decide now to go for their next African safari. The ongoing anti-poaching efforts of conservation agencies on the continent need all the financial support they can get. And we hunters should not fear “shit storms”. Experience shows that the typical “man resp. woman on the street” is sensible enough to understand the conservation benefit behind sustainable hunting, if explained properly.

Hunters United Against Wildlife Crime

Hunters of the world will gather at the 2014 General Assembly of the CIC in Milan, Italy for a historic World Summit

on the 24th of April 2014. The Summit is organized as an urgent response by hunters all over the world, who are concerned by the new dimensions which wildlife crime (poaching and illegal trade of wildlife) is taking, including an increase in the prevalence of organized crime.

This new face of wildlife crime requires an overhaul of the current management actions. Together, hunters as a united force are able to substantially support enforcement efforts against wildlife crime at all levels. Hence, the Summit will connect and bring together the leaders of hunting and wildlife crime enforcement agencies, each sharing the objective of stopping wildlife crime. The meeting will be convened on April 24th, 2014 in Milan. For details contact: [email protected]


http://perc.org/blog/shoot-elephant-save-community

http://www.hoover.org/publications/defining-ideas/article/81076

http://www.hoover.org/publications/defining-ideas/article/81076

mailto:[email protected]






African Elephant and the Summits Ali Kaka

It all began after, I believe, a series of reports on seizures of ivory began to be seen on an escalating basis in what has for a long time been known as African transit countries for illegal ivory including the main ones; Kenya and Tanzania. New points of exit surfaced as well. Recipient countries such as Vietnam, China, and Thailand among others also began to see an upsurge in frequency and amounts of ivory being confiscated. Mind you, these were the successful seizures. No one can tell yet how much slipped thru official and dubious routes. Numbers of dead elephants, albeit tusk-less, correspondently increased in shocking numbers, although we may never know how many went unreported and unseen.

With this increasing exposure around the globe, increasing number of high profile NGOs and persona took an interest and thus began a movement calling for attention. Several meetings were organized to raise the level of influence. Prime of these were the Clinton Global Initiative held in Washington DC, the IUCN African Elephant Summit in Botswana and United Kingdom Wildlife Crime Summit in London. These were held in rapid succession between September, 2013 and February, 2014. All these had the participation of the highest level of Government representation particularly from Africa – the source of the item, ivory. At the end of each, there were sober faced declarations. All measures agreed to, after obvious recognition to the problems, were aimed at taking urgent measures to address the poaching on the ground, to reviewing legislation to eliminating trade in illegal ivory. Below is a short excerpt of the introduction to the declarations from each of the above Summits: Clinton Initiative: September, 2013

Call is made for African range state-initiated campaign urging range, transit and consumer countries to declare or re-state national moratoria on all commercial imports, exports and domestic sales and purchases of tusks and ivory products until wild elephant populations are no longer threatened by poaching for trade Government of Botswana and IUCN African Elephant Summit: December, 2013

Having NOTED that elephant poaching and the illegal ivory trade are a major concern across Africa and beyond, with serious security, economic, political and ecological ramifications as these crimes increase in frequency and severity and expand into previously secure elephant populations United Kingdom Elephant Protection Initiative: February, 2014

The Elephant Crisis: the illegal killing of elephant and trade in their ivory is out of control across much of Africa. It threatens the survival not only of small exposed elephant populations, but also those which have previously been thought secure thereby harming economic development of our countries and undermining the ecological integrity of our ecosystems. The poaching and illegal trade is driven by international criminal networks and cartels, which fuels corruption, undermines the rule of law and security, and, evidence suggest provides funding to those associated with organized crime and terrorist activities.

A number of more specific actions were signed off by the parties committed to the list. Notably, South Africa did not participate in the two subsequent Summits after the Clinton Initiative citing possible conflict to their national strategies on wildlife utilization and conservation. And now we wait for the action by all the signatories, i.e. Governments. Disappointingly, no one accepted any binding language that would also put in place time based results. Meanwhile, poaching is still a serious concern in most countries and remains by far the most pertinent threat to the species.

Madiba: Conservationist and Hunter … and a Bit of History Jeremy Anderson and Gerhard Damm

In 1981 the Apartheid government created KaNgwane a semi-independent homeland for the Swazi people consisting of two territories at the border to Swaziland and a third one somewhat to the north, at the border of the Kruger National Park; the three having a total area of 3,000 km² (1,158 sq. mi.) populated by 183,000 inhabitants. In 1982, the Apartheid government temporarily suspended the semi-autonomy of KaNgwane, but restored it in 1984. Dr. Enos Mabuza , the Chief Executive Councilor of KaNgwane and leader of the Inyandza National Movement, however, refused accepting an Apartheid sponsored independence, adopted for example by Transkei, Ciskei and Bophutatswana. In 1986, Dr. Mabuza led a 21-person Inyandza delegation to meet leaders the exiled African National Congress (ANC) in Lusaka, Zambia. He publicly and repeatedly called for the release from prison of Nelson Rolihlahla Mandela (8 July 1918 – 5 December 2013), also affectionately known in South Africa by his clan name Madiba.

When Madiba was finally released, Dr. Mabuza invited him to come to the Lowveld and stay at Bongani Lodge in the shadow of the Malelane Mountains. Mthethomusha Game Reserve, where Bongani Lodge is located, comprises 8,000


http://www.nelsonmandela.org/content/page/biography





ha of rugged terrain with a diversity of interesting ecosystems, abundant wildlife and unspoiled nature on the south western border of the Kruger National Park.

It became immediately apparent that Madiba loved the clean air and unfettered surrounding of the bush, and the teeming wildlife at Mthethomusha; he took every opportunity in his busy schedule to visit the reserve. Already during his second visit he spent much time in the field with the rangers and left his state-provided bodyguards back at the camp. Madiba, in his unmistakable open and friendly attitude, came to know the staff by their first names.

In March 1992, the reserve management was removing surplus male blesbok in Songimvelo as part of the reserve’s sustainable utilization policy. When asked whether he would like to hunt a blesbok Madiba agreed, but was rather firm requesting for appropriate marksmanship training under expert tutelage. Madiba handled the rifle very well and proved to be an excellent marksman. He told his trainers about him learning to use a rifle in Ethiopia. Later he admitted that the only time he had shot anything was when he used an air rifle shooting doves, when hiding under the pseudonym of David Motsamayi at Arthur Goldreich’s Liliesleaf Farm in Rivonia. This episode is described on page 268 in Madiba’s acclaimed book Long Walk to Freedom (the autobiography of Nelson Mandela, first published in 1994 by Little, Brown & Co UK, IBSN 978-1-4087-0311-3).

After Madiba had satisfied himself that he could consistently place clean shots into the bull’s eye, the hunting party went out in search of blesbok. Peter Hitchins, the then warden of Songimvelo knew where most of the blesbok congregated on the reserve. Madiba and his guide were able to stalk a blesbok ram to about 80 meters. Madiba calmly took aim, and brought it down cleanly with a single shot. Afterwards he mentioned that he had suffered from the shakes and a good dose of buck fever during the crucial moments before firing the shot. Jeremy Anderson was amongst them who reassured Madiba that it was perfectly normal for most first-time hunters, and also for old hands to the game, to suffer from these bouts of shaking when about to taking the life of an animal.

Madiba of course took the meat of the blesbok home. During a following visit, he proudly told the rangers how good it felt eating the blesbok venison with his family and friends. At a later date, Madiba hunted again in Mthethomusha; this time for an old impala ram, which he harvested also with a single clean shot.

On one of his stays in Mthethomusha Game Reserve, Madiba was interviewed for a television program. Madiba wanted to illustrate to the interviewers on what the ANC would do in the field of nature conservation. Ever mindful to learn more, he asked the game rangers for advice. They suggested that it would be appropriate for the ANC to increase the country’s conservation estate so that it would meet the standards set by the IUCN. Madiba made this commitment in the interview and went on saying "It is important for conservation and rural development to be combined. [Conservationists] must take into account the needs of people around the reserves. They need to encourage education programs about protecting wildlife and always act in co-operation with the local communities."

After Madiba became president of South Africa and the ANC the governing party, South Africa has made significant progress in increasing the number and area of national parks in the country. Together with Anthony Rupert, Madiba co-founded the Peace Parks Foundation (PPF) in 1997. PPF works to establish transboundary protected areas that preserve animal migration patterns and share wildlife resources.

Nelson Mandela had a strong interest in wildlife conservation; and it is well-worthwhile remembering that he said: “If we do not do something to prevent it, Africa’s animals, and the places in which they live, will be lost to our world and her children, forever. Before it is too late, we need your help to lay the foundation that will preserve this precious legacy long after we are gone.”

The late Nelson Rolihlahla Mandela with Jeremy Anderson and Madiba’s Blesbok Ram

Photo Credit: © Jeremy Anderson


http://www.liliesleaf.co.za/

http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/318431.Long_Walk_to_Freedom





Zimbabwe: Save Valley Conservancy to Be Indigenized? Gerhard Damm

The Zimbabwe Independent published an article about the “Indigenization of the Save Valley Conservancy” on January 17th. We discussed the article with Willy Pabst, a German national, owner of a large tract of land in the Conservancy and acting as Save Valley Conservancy Vice-Chairman. Willy Pabst is a member of the CIC International Council for Game and Wildlife Conservation. Here are the facts on Save Valley:

34% Zimbabwe's Save Conservancy are in black hands, about 30% are foreign investments and exempted from

Indigenization. 36% of partly-white owned properties will see some 51% taken over by the Ministry of Environment as custodian of which some 10% will go to communities neighboring SVC with the option of some of the 41% handed on to investors who are supposed to pay for values created and future capital needed. The latter is being negotiated with the new Minister Saviour Kasekuwere.

Wilfried Pabst, who was quoted in the Zimbabwe Independent article as having said that the conservancy operators had signed a memorandum of understanding with the National Parks Authority to establish the national park, confirmed that he was incorrectly quoted, and insisted that the Save Valley Conservancy did not agree to a conversion into a National Park, but will remain an independent Conservancy with indigenous participation. What Pabst said was that the Conservancy was close to concluding negotiations with Environment, Water and Climate minister Saviour Kasukuwere. Pabst however emphasized that the indigenization would not affect foreign-owned properties in the conservancy, nor would it be a "freebie" where government or locals just grab properties for free.

"About 30% of the conservancy is foreign-owned and this will not be affected by the indigenization," he explained adding that "neither will be the 34% which are already in indigenous hands. However the 51% to be the indigenized portion will come from the remainder of about 36% of the landmass of SVC, which is currently in the hands mostly of a combination of white and black Zimbabweans." "Another criterion for these investors is that all those who already own one farm obtained through the indigenization process will not be considered," said Pabst “and this will eliminate the criminal part of ZANU-PF wanting to invade and steal properties”, Pabst concluded. Some Zanu PF party members, aka the “Masvingo 37”, who intended to parceling out the conservancy amongst themselves are now side-lined, according to Pabst. Pabst singled out former deputy minister Shuvai Mahofa, describing her as "notorious" after she "grabbed Savuli ranch within the conservancy and has poached many animals. She has tried to poach rhinos too,” he said. Mahofa reportedly took and destroyed some 10 farms, including Savuli and killed all animals for bush meat trade

According to Pabst, the German KFW, the German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ), and the German Foreign Office want to move forward on general plans presented by Pabst regarding a revival the entire wildlife industry in Zimbabwe, including the National Parks, provided the Government of Zimbabwe continues on a pragmatic route, stays on the legal course and meets several basic criteria of freedom of civil society, the media and the political opposition

Safari Hunting in Africa and Public Opinion in Germany Hans Siege

Early February the Minister of Environmental Affairs of the federal German state of Thuringia suspended and

transferred one of his directors. Among other responsibilities, this director, a Mr. W., was in control of the protection of endangered species and the implementation of CITES regulations.

What was the cause of the Minister’s decision? Some days prior to the Minister’s announcement the opposition Green Party went public with some private emails of the mentioned director, photos attached, which showed the director posing with an elephant which he had legally hunted and shot during a safari. The typical picture displayed hundredfold on the websites of hunting operators from all over Africa. W. had hunted the elephant bull in Botswana on 6th Dec. 2013; the hunt was completely legal, and conducted under observation of all prescriptions set forth by the relevant wildlife authorities of Botswana, which, incidentally also include the relevant international regulations.

The media shit storm following the publication of the emails cum photos obviously surprised Mr. W. His first media statements reconfirmed that his and other elephant hunting safaris contributed to wildlife conservation in Botswana. He further stated that what he does in his spare time was anyway no business of the public or his employer, provided it was legal, as indeed it was.

Only two days later, on 6th February, the notorious animal-rights organization PETA followed up with a press release, naming a Heidelberg university professor and director of the Institute of Internal Medicine; the release contained


http://allafrica.com/stories/201401170891.html

https://www.kfw.de/kfw.de-2.html

http://www.bmz.de/en/

http://www.auswaertiges-amt.de/EN/Startseite_node.html





photographs which were lifted – probably illegally – from the website of a Namibian hunting operator. The good professor had hunted a hippo in Namibia, again under observation of all legal prescriptions, and in line with Namibian wildlife conservation regulations. Nevertheless, PETA, not blessed with a reputation for using subtle arguments, insisted, without referring directly to animal rights issues, that conservation principles like the protection of endangered species were being violated in the country and by Namibian authorities. PETA demanded the general ban of tourist hunting for the reason of the preservation of endangered species such as hippo. The clear neo-colonial character of the PETA argumentation– we know what is right for Namibia, whereas the Namibians don’t, and we won’t listen to them anyway– does not seem to register.

Both cases of legal and sustainable hunting tourism in Africa are used, unashamedly and without showing the real facts one might be tried to say, by animal rights groups and environmental organizations under their influence, to play the public opinion in Germany and elsewhere. Unfortunately, larger parts of the public in Germany seem to be open to such populist manipulation of news. The animal rights groups went another step in their endeavor for domination of the public debate on how to manage wildlife in Germany, Africa and indeed around the World.

Unfortunately, as far as public opinion is concerned, these types of populist pressure campaigns seem to win the case more often than not. It is especially worrisome that they are now choosing Africa as one of the main battlegrounds. Their public naming and shaming could deter hunters of all nationalities from on African safaris; the livelihoods of rural African communities, wildlife conservation programs and the many hunter-funded anti-poaching projects on the continent, could suffer irreparable damage. All this happens at a time, when the poaching pandemic would need the on-the-ground assistance of hunters more than ever.

Finally, a suggestion to hunters who intend to go on an African Safari: for obvious reasons avoid signing provisions in your safari contract which give an agent or outfitting company and/or their staff the rights to use photographs or videos taken during your safari in relation to hunting or any other aspect of your safari and/or holiday. Insist that a paragraph is included in your contract which expressively prohibits the use of any such photographs and/or videos, and/or the publication of your name or names of members of your party without your written consent in each and every individual case.

Angola: Giant Sable Update Pedro vaz Pinto (edited for space by Gerhard Damm)

This year rains started early Cangandala NP and access roads soon became so damaged, that from October

onwards it became impossible to drive across the boundary into the park. In late September the animals seemed to be doing very well, with young Mercury proudly assuming his role as the new master bull of Cangandala.

We were able to confirm 8 new calves born in 2013, the mothers being the 6 young females brought from Luando in 2011, and from Louise and Teresa, the two very old fertile cows that can’t stop breeding. If we exclude the 4 old cows that never calved, the fertility of the remaining cows is outstanding and pretty much at 100%. However, the calf mortality during first year often becomes a limiting factor for population growth.

After September 2013 we couldn’t track properly calf development and success. By the end of the year it also seemed clear that we have permanently lost the two older bulls that had been the main protagonists in Cangandala for the past few years. There is no other large bull in the region and no serious wild predators, so I’m afraid that we have to conclude that [at least one bull] was poached, either shot or caught in a snare trap.

The rainy season is when the fence is most vulnerable, but so far it seems that no sable has escaped, but on the other hand at least two new roan bulls have established themselves inside the sanctuary. This shouldn’t be surprising, as the roan population has apparently increased significantly in Cangandala, as proven by our remarkable trap camera record. We confirmed in the photographs a young mature bull and also a lonely yearling, in two different salt licks. The latter is yet another animal that, miraculously given his age and smaller size, survived a snare trap, showing an ugly scarred front leg.

In 2012 and concerned with continuing hybridization risks, we castrated the young and only roan male inside the sanctuary as he had joined the sable cows. Now the situation has changed slightly and it is not realistic to keep tackling in such radical fashion every new roan invader. Especially because they will probably keep coming and more importantly the






sable herds seem now properly supervised by young sable bulls. But we’ll keep watching… On the other hand and even if the one sable bull’s fate remains open to debate, the injuries on the new young roan prove that poaching with snares is still a major issue even in Cangandala NP.

In Luando Reserve the 15 sable equipped with GPS collars are being tracked permanently and apparently are all safe. It seems clear that the most serious threat pending over the last surviving giant sable herds in Luando, are the snare traps planted around the majority of water holes, mainly concentrated between June and August, and aiming to capture by the leg any medium to large ungulate that attempts to approach the site to drink. This infamous technique seems to be causing huge and unsustainable annual mortality on giant sable. Particularly affected are the most vulnerable, such as breeding cows and young animals, and this is supported by our demographic data. Pregnant and recently calved cows are probably the most dependent on a constant water supply, while yearlings are trusting, adventurous and inexperienced, and many times lack the strength to escape a snare. Old bulls are more wary creatures, less dependent on water and much stronger. This may explain why the bull population in Luando seems to be in better shape than the female herds, and why so many females have serious leg injuries, and also why there seems to be an abnormally low annual recruitment of young animals into adult age, contrasting with healthy numbers of calves.

We have devised and tested a new strategy, expected to producing results next season: we have acquired high resolution satellite imagery to pinpoint an accurate water network for the whole reserve; all water points were provisionally classified according to their nature, size and proximity to known sable territories or home ranges.

We conducted a quad bike expedition in September for ground trothing, and fine tuning and further detailed classification of the most important water holes. By that time, most water holes had dried out, but the first right rains had started. Herds were not visiting the sites for drinking, and snare traps had already been removed. We able to evaluate the pre-identified water holes and to determine their importance and levels of threat. We visited 9 sites (of which only one was previously known by us). 2 water holes had limited water retaining capacity and were downscaled as unimportant. Of the remaining 7 sites, 6 had recent to not-too-old giant sable tracks. 4 sites had serious and clear poaching signs. In three water holes we found large poles that had been used during the last dry season, for snares targeting sable and other large antelope. In one of these sites there was a skeleton of a reedbuck.

In the last site visited we surprised a poacher calmly drying up meat around the fire on a camp situated less than 200m from the water hole. He was alone as his other two mates had gone out to poach with shotguns. There were a few freshly killed duikers from the previous day, but we were even more alarmed to find that the two absent poachers had gone in pursuit of a giant sable bull that had visited the site during the night. This was easily concluded by the fresh tracks on the scene. The poacher was arrested and delivered to the local authorities, and his bounty burned. Upon interrogation he confessed that he lives in village situated more than 100km away, and they were a team of three and came in two bikes. The plan was shooting antelopes for a few days, drying up the meat and then take the product to Malanje and sell it in the market. Unfortunately and much to our shock and disappointment, we learned later, that our poacher escaped detention within 24 hours of being arrested and delivered… We now hope to establish network surveillance next dry season and this may, hopefully and for the first time in many years, help to start turning the tables in our favor in the fight against poaching.

Another key milestone in this struggle is the renewed commitment from the FAA - Angolan Military Forces, who during October conducted a serious ground and aerial operation in Luando, aiming to serve as deterrent to poaching. For a few days they deployed teams patrolling the reserve, making local villagers aware of the importance to protect the giant sable, and sending the message that from now on, the military will be watchful to protect the national symbol. We collaborated with their initiative, and some awareness flyers and posters were produced and used. At the end of the operation no poachers had been caught but a clear statement was made.

Nevertheless, a few weeks later we received worrying reports that many armed poachers were still active in Luando, and as compelling evidence the shepherds found a freshly killed roan carcass. It was a yearling male and had been shot by poachers near the diamond areas along the Kwanza River. And yet another worrying report was learning from the shepherds that the big lion was back in business, patrolling and hunting inside giant sable sensitive areas. After the helicopter incident in July he had left the scene for a few months, but finally returned.

To see some of vaz Pinto’s photos go to this link


https://plus.google.com/photos/113384424565470443034/albums/5967678625420685505?authkey=CJ6vpfnVq8LXdg





Background to Rhino Poaching The WESSA Rhino Initiative

In Africa we are currently seeing the methodical and calculated reduction of rhino numbers in their natural habitat. The number of poached numbers has been escalating year-on-year over the past 5 years. It is true that we have experienced severe poaching pressure before, and defeated it. However today, because of the insanely inflated price being paid for rhino horn, the poachers are now employing a diversity of methods which no longer fall within the traditional poaching mold. Banked-rolled by substantial finances, the modern day poacher can now afford the latest technology and buy the services of skilled people and influential officials.

For conservation, this becomes a big challenge whilst at the same time an opportunity. The challenge is to find lasting solutions to the problem which will secure the future of rhinos. The public can also be a part of this and therefore it is an ideal opportunity for every South African to become involved in conservation and the preservation of their heritage.

We trust that authorities are doing everything they can and they must be applauded for all the arrests they have made. Increased pressure has resulted in an increase in the number of arrests of poachers. However, this seems to have little impact. To have a better impact, those that are higher up in the poaching chain need to be nabbed, not just the so called ‘foot soldiers’ that they hire, of which there are an endless supply. More needs to be done in order to get these criminals into our courts, and WESSA would further like to see the judiciary fast- tracking court cases against suspected poachers

who, if found guilty, should receive the harshest possible sentence in order to send out a strong message to potential poachers. What is driving increased rhino poaching in South Africa?

The demand for rhino horn emanates from a few Asian countries (east and south East Asia). There are apparent reasons for the need for rhino horn, but it is used mainly as an ingredient in traditional medicines and not as an aphrodisiac as is often widely reported. In more recent times it is being marketed to cure non-traditional conditions such as cancer.

Rhino horn is valuable because of the simple economics of the situation – demand far exceeds supply.

South Africa has the largest rhino population in the world of both white and black rhino. We have traditionally been seen as a difficult environment within which poachers could operate. As the easier targets (i.e. other countries) have lost all their rhino, so the demand has shifted to South Africa. We also know that crime of all types is rampant in this country and rhino poaching is an extension of this.

Law enforcement relating to wildlife crime has certainly not received the requisite attention. While South Africa has commendable legislation, it unfortunately is not well enforced in terms of implementing the law as well as achieving sentences that send out a strong message to would-be poachers. As a result of the rhino situation, we have seen positive progressive moves by government to improve systems and sentences. However we are in a lag phase where it will still be some time before we see the large scale benefits of this progress.

The current economic crisis hit at a time when the incidences of rhino poaching were low. We have seen exponential increases in these incidences as the global recession gained momentum. One of the concerns is that private landowners (as well as public departments) may have cut back on security measures as a result of budget cuts. This would then expose increased opportunities for the criminals.

Banked-rolled by substantial finances, the modern day poaching syndicates can now afford the latest technology and buy the services of skilled people and influential officials.


http://wessa.org.za/get-involved/rhino-initiative/background-to-rhino-poaching.htm





Cherry-Picking ‘Grey Literature’ On Rhino Horn Ivo Vegter The Daily Maverick Editor’s Note (GRD): Please read this article in conjunction with the following article authored by Colin Bell, which also appeared in The Daily Maverick.

The International Fund for Animal Welfare last week released a meta-report claiming to review the economic literature on rhino horn trading. It is as weak as the article reporting its release, sadly. “Pro-trade thinking comes in for criticism”, reported Ian Michler about rhino horn, last week in Daily Maverick. He cited a single source: a new report commissioned, paid for and published by the International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW). Michler is a photographer and “naturalist” working with the Conservation Action Trust, and if the article reads like a press release, that is because it is. The exact same text appeared in The Mercury. If you want a guess at the report’s conclusions, look no further than IFAW’s stated purpose: “[We work] to stop all commercial exploitation and trade of animals.”

The report is innocuously entitled Horn of Contention: A review of literature on the economics of trade in rhino horn, but it is far from neutral. Since Michler does not bother to provide a link to the actual report, one can safely assume that the majority of his readers will not have read it. Let me, therefore, begin with his article. The piece challenges South African environmental economists, naming Michael ‘t Sas-Rolfes and Michael Eustace in particular. The former maintains a website and written several detailed papers on rhino trade over a period of more than 20 years. The latter has long been involved in wildlife conservation himself, and writes for Business Day. It tries to discredit both.

“Pro-trade fighters” present “the legalization of trade in rhino horn as the panacea for the continent’s rhino poaching crisis”, according to the Michler article, promptly hitting its first rhetorical pothole. IFAW, likewise, accuses them of “ridiculous arguments that legalizing trade would stop poaching.” Nobody I have ever read on this subject has proposed a panacea that would stop poaching.

Just last week, I pointed out: “Of course, neither private property rights nor legal trade in animal products are panacea.” About farming endangered species, ‘t Sas-Rolfes has on more than one occasion said: “It is not a panacea.” Eustace wrote: “Poaching will never be totally stopped.” So, while I did IFAW the courtesy of quoting their purpose, rather than describing it in my own disparaging words, Michler starts by over-simplifying and misrepresenting the views of those in favor of legal trade in rhino horn. And then they accuse their opponents of being “simplistic and misguided”. It doesn’t get much better, either.

“...now in the first of what is likely to be many more convincing critiques...” is a telling line. Why anticipate “many more convincing critiques”? The rhino horn trade debate rose in intensity soon after the spike in poaching began in 2008. Why, after dozens of papers, conferences, talks and opinion articles on legal rhino horn trade, not to mention several invitations by government for public comment, is this first critique so long overdue? It is not that it took so long to write. It was commissioned only in November 2013 and published just two months later. Why would it need the support of other critiques? Does Michler also think this one is quite unconvincing by itself, as I do? Why would he report those non-existent future critiques to be “convincing” even before they are written? Reporting the past is history. Reporting the present is news. Reporting the future is fiction. Michler notes the IFAW report’s conclusion, but not its reasoning. He highlights that the report finds economists that make the case for rhino horn trade publish so-called “grey literature”, as opposed to “formal peer-reviewed articles”, which are more ambiguous in their conclusions.

First, and most importantly, this is a bald-faced lie. The IFAW report reviews only six papers. Two of them it considers formal, but “ambiguous” in their conclusions about whether poaching increases or decreases with legal trade. By that it means only that they discuss complexities specific to the markets they address, which may influence how market behavior may depart from economic theory. This is normal. That is what economic papers do. And both, for all their formality, predate the recent rhino poaching crisis, so have nothing to say about it. The remaining four papers – one of which is actually a newspaper article – it considers informal, or “grey”. However, this is equally misleading.

One of them, Elephants, rhinos and the economics of the illegal trade by ‘t Sas-Rolfes, was published in a peer-reviewed journal, Pachyderm, which is an organ of the elephant and rhino specialist groups of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN). You may know the IUCN as the keeper of the Red List of threatened and endangered species. It proposed the Convention on the International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) in 1963, before IFAW was even founded. Other than the color of the animal for which it is named, doesn’t get any less “grey” than that. For another example, the report authors selected a self-published pro-trade paper by Rowan Martin, categorizing it as “grey”, while ignoring a peer-reviewed journal article which Martin co-authored that makes a similar case and was published in the prestigious AAAS journal Science.

The report also claims that there is a lack of formal literature specific to the rhino poaching crisis that began in 2008, whether pro- or anti-trade. This is odd. Besides Martin’s paper, a cursory search on Google Scholar turned up Hall (2012), Vigne & Martin (2013), Challender & MacMillan (2014), and Conrad (2012). All are academic papers about rhino


http://www.dailymaverick.co.za/opinionista/2014-01-21-cherry-picking-grey-literature-on-rhino-horn/#.UuEYIhD8LIV

http://www.dailymaverick.co.za/article/2014-01-16-horn-of-contention-pro-trade-thinking-comes-in-for-criticism/#.UuEasxD8LIV

http://conservationaction.co.za/recent-articles/horn-of-contention-pro-trade-thinking-comes-in-for-severe-criticism/

http://www.ifaw.org/sites/default/files/Horn-of-Contention.pdf

http://www.ifaw.org/sites/default/files/Horn-of-Contention.pdf

http://www.rhino-economics.com/

http://www.rhino-economics.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Rhino-Masters.pdf

http://www.etana.co.za/uploads/files/The_Rhino_Poaching_Crisis_by_Michael_t_Sas-Rolfes_Final.pdf

http://www.bdlive.co.za/articles/2012/01/20/rhino-poaching-what-is-the-solution

http://www.ifaw.org/united-states/news/shifting-burden-proof-means-no-trade-rhino-horn-%D0-pretoria-are-you-listening

http://www.dailymaverick.co.za/opinionista/2014-01-13-350000-reasons-to-kill-a-black-rhino/#.UuEbGxD8LIU

http://perc.org/blog/qa-michael-t-sas-rolfes-rhino-and-tiger-economics

http://www.bdlive.co.za/articles/2012/01/20/rhino-poaching-what-is-the-solution

http://www.rhino-economics.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/Pachyderm.pdf

http://max2.ese.u-psud.fr/epc/conservation/PDFs/Rhinos.pdf

http://repository.up.ac.za/handle/2263/21091

http://repository.up.ac.za/handle/2263/21091

http://www.pachydermjournal.org/index.php/pachy/article/viewArticle/309

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/conl.12082/abstract

http://rhino-dialogues.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Trade-bans-A-Perfect-Storm-Conrad-2012.pdf





horn or rhino farming. Three (all except Hall) appear in credible journals. Three take a position in favor of legal trade or critical of a trade ban. The fourth, Vigne & Martin (not Rowan Martin), is neutral on this point. So the IFAW report authors are not just dishonest, they cherry-pick the literature they choose to review in order to fit their conclusions.

Second, economics, being about individual human action, is not an exact science. It can explain behavior, but it cannot reliably predict it. Some economic theorists have entirely rejected the notion that given enough data and sufficiently sophisticated statistical tools, economics can, or ought to, be used as a scientific predictor of the future. If it could, central planning as a model of economic organization would work just fine. It isn’t, which is exactly why so many economists advocate free markets. A central planner cannot, as a rule, trump many independent agents who concurrently attempt competing solutions to satisfy varied needs and wants.

Not all the methods of the natural sciences are even available to economics. Anecdotal evidence is easy to come by, of course, but that is a low standard of proof. Models can be constructed, but they are only as good as the theories and assumptions on which they are based. When you try to model very complex systems, you quickly discover that models – both in the physical sciences and in economics – have severe limitations. The ultimate standard of scientific evidence, short of mathematical proof, is a well-constructed laboratory experiment or randomized controlled trial, both of which are rarely possible in economics. It is sheer hubris to suppose that economics can supply a proof, in advance, that a given policy will achieve a desired end.

Third, a superficial appeal to peer review is not sufficient to make or break a case. Dismissing papers you don’t agree with as “grey”, even if they are, is a misleading appeal to authority. It fails to address the substance of the arguments. Not only that, but the “hallowed process of peer review is not all it’s cracked up to be”, we learn in How science goes wrong, an article that appeared, appropriately enough, in The Economist. So, when the IFAW report rejects the pro-trade papers as “less rigorous in their application of economic principles”, it is throwing rocks in a glass hothouse.

In fairness, the IFAW report authors do raise several valid flags about market complexities and potential confounding factors. Michler glosses over them, perhaps because the report’s own summary is overly simplistic. The full text is a little more nuanced on this topic. It is clearer about the supposed “ambiguity” of the formal papers it reviews, and about its criticisms of the pro-trade papers and articles it chooses to critique.

It is not true to suggest, as the report does, that the pro-trade economists fail to assess complexities that might change their conclusions, such as the true extent of demand in an unfettered market, the scope for laundering illegal horn, or the potential for demand management. One paper is focused entirely on assessing, as far as economics can do, the market characteristics of rhino horn that prompted the recent upsurge in poaching. Another, omitted from the IFAW report, investigates rhino awareness, product substitution and a decline in rhino horn trade in a major market.

Pro-trade economists and rhino farmers also frequently stress the importance of sound institutions, complementary demand management programs and regulatory monitoring and enforcement, if South Africa is to establish a successful legal market that succeeds both at supplying demand and protecting rhino populations.

More to the point, however, would be to observe that many of these complexities are issues that are best dealt with by producers in a free market. Not IFAW, nor environmental economists, nor government regulators, own crystal balls. The IFAW report concludes that “economic logic does not suggest that a legal trade in rhino horn would necessarily reduce poaching of rhino in Africa”. That is true, and no pro-trade economist would dispute this. They would use the word “likely”, instead of “necessarily”. Pro-traders argue, and this report concedes, that “under certain conditions this may occur”, suggesting that we ought to focus on those conditions, rather than on whether or not to permit legal trade. IFAW argues that the onus of proof is on those who advocate legalizing the trade in rhino horn, despite the fact that the preponderance of the evidence is on the side of the pro-trade economists. But what about scientific proof?

If the IFAW activists know that this is a standard neither they nor their opponents in this debate can meet, it is a disingenuous and desperate attempt to rescue a losing argument. If they don’t know this, they expose their own economic naiveté. And if they need to ignore existing academic evidence to sustain a demand for proof, they’re being dishonest. However, I’d like to propose that South Africa’s policy makers give them what they want.

The scientific way to prove something is to conduct an experiment. We know that the CITES experiment, to ban the trade in rhino products, has run for nearly 40 years. It has at best proven that a ban does not work, and arguably that it is counter-productive. We know that the rise in poaching has been met with greatly increased enforcement efforts by government, rhino owners, and concerned citizen groups, but they remain out-numbered and out-gunned, while the rhino is being poached faster than population numbers grow.

We also have experiments, in the vicuña, the crocodile, the addax, the ostrich, the dama gazelle and the scimitar-horned oryx, which demonstrate that property rights and legal trade can work. If scientific proof is what IFAW wants, all we lack is the experiment that will supply it: legalize trade in rhino horn. And, as I argued before, don’t try only once-off stockpile auctions, but establish a proper, ongoing free market.

If the experiment fails, there is no real downside: we’re merely back at square one, with the rhino facing extinction. If, however, it succeeds, we may be able to save the species. Economics is not an exact science. It is about human behavior. It is about risk and reward in the face of uncertainties and unknowable demand. It cannot guarantee positive


http://mises.org/daily/940

http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21588069-scientific-research-has-changed-world-now-it-needs-change-itself-how-science-goes-wrong

http://www.etana.co.za/uploads/files/The_Rhino_Poaching_Crisis_by_Michael_t_Sas-Rolfes_Final.pdf

http://www.pachydermjournal.org/index.php/pachy/article/viewArticle/309

http://www.dailymaverick.co.za/opinionista/2013-08-06-half-measures-will-fail-the-rhino/





outcomes. However, given the potential reward, and the lack of a downside, legalizing rhino horn trade seems the only sensible way forward. Conversely, maintaining the status quo while demanding impossible standards of proof of advocates of change is the only certain policy: it will guarantee failure.

To paraphrase Michler’s conclusion: With the extinction of rhino at stake, it is difficult to see how the global regulatory authorities would be able to allow any continuation of the current no-trade policies.DM

Ivo Vegter is a columnist and the author of Extreme Environment, a book on environmental exaggeration and how

it harms emerging economies. He approaches issues from the perspective of individual liberty and free markets. His meticulously researched opinion pieces appear in The Daily Maverick.

Rhinos: It's Time For Plan B Colin Bell The Daily Maverick Editor’s Note (GRD): I had an interesting exchange of emails with Colin Bell after reading his article. He said “I am not against hunting in SA. For me it is another form of land use and frankly I would rather see land under wildlife than under goats!” Although I do not agree with a number of other points Colin mentioned, and tend much more towards Ivo Vegter’s opinion, it is worthwhile contrasting the two articles … here you go!

In public debates about how to save our rhino, those who advocate ending the ban on trading their horns fail to acknowledge (if you'll excuse the metaphor) the elephant in the room. They also seem to be very jaundiced economists. Not least among them is Ivo Vegter (Daily Maverick, 21 January 2014). Economics is as much an art as a science, and history is full of examples of the planet's most brilliant economists making some of the world’s most disastrous economic and financial decisions. The tragedy of the horn debate is that, for reasons I will point out, highly respected rhino custodians (park authorities, field rangers, anti-poaching, monitoring teams) and even politicians and scribes like Vegter, have embraced a failed, private-sector-driven, pro-trade economic model as the answer to the rhino crisis.

I think there are two reasons for this. The first is a constant public engagement by a few academics and private rhino farmers who stand to make or lose a fortune if trade in rhino horn is legalized or not. The stock of just one of these rhino farmers is worth billions or zero, depending on the outcome of this debate. The second reason is a misunderstanding of the difference between successful policies to save rhinos pioneered by environmentalist Dr Ian Player in the past and conditions today in the face of rampant poaching. Vegter raises the standard pro-trade argument that “if the (rhino horn sale) experiment fails, there is no real downside”. In my 35 years in the wildlife industry I have seldom seen a more naive statement. The replacement of rhino in the wild with rhino farmed like cattle is, in my opinion, a definite downside. The idea that selling lopped-off horns from farmed rhinos will curb poaching is untested, unproven, unlikely, and something pro-traders avoid like that proverbial elephant in the room. Unfortunately we do not get a second chance if we get the economics of rhino trading wrong; rhino in the wild will be gone. So we have to get it right and there's no room for experiments.

Let's look at the economics. Pro-traders argue that supply of rhino horn can equal demand through free-trade pricing. This may work for large, complex and visible items like Ferraris, but it has not worked for other consumer goods where counterfeiters thrive and expand markets by attracting new buyers to the market by selling goods at discounted prices. With the real cost of obtaining a rhino horn being merely the cost of a bullet and a hacksaw, there will always be too much of a price difference between the legal selling price of a rhino horn and the cost of poaching that horn. To assume that free-trade pricing economics will stem demand and solve the poaching crisis is nonsense. That sort of theory doesn't stick when criminal poaching syndicates and the rogue militia have the ability to expand markets by supplying discounted goods and perverting the legal market.

The pro-trade price theory simply has not been proven – it is pure conjecture nor does it take into account the massive potential size of the market. The counter-argument (speaking to my real concern) is: what if the demand for rhino horn is much greater than supply? With close to a billion potential Asian consumers, this could easily become the reality, especially when criminal syndicates can induce increased demand by operating in the grey markets at prices below those set by the central selling organization. Then what? In my view, the horns of just 25,000 rhinos simply cannot satisfy the demand from just a million, let alone a billion or more potential Asian consumers.

Vegter cites examples of ostriches, crocodiles, vicuñas as successes that rhino policies must copy in order to ensure rhino survival. I'm not convinced that these are comparable examples, as none show the same relative scarcity levels based on values attached to body parts. Tigers and elephants do, and we've seen what trade in their parts has done to wild populations. If trading were the simple answer for all wildlife crises, why don’t we try to breed and trade tigers (or maybe even wild dogs) out of their critical status?


http://www.exclus1ves.co.za/books/Extreme-Environment-Author-Ivo-Vegter/000000000100000000001000000000000000000000000009781770223646/

http://www.dailymaverick.co.za/opinionista/2014-02-05-rhinos-its-time-for-plan-b/#.UxrnQPmSySq

http://www.dailymaverick.co.za/opinionista/2014-01-21-cherry-picking-grey-literature-on-rhino-horn/#.Uu69aoUrgSQ





Drawing a comparison on the potential of breeding rhinos in the same way as ostrich, vicuña and crocodile is, in my view, a flawed assumption. Ostriches and crocodiles are bred commercially almost in the way that domestic poultry is bred; laying large clutches of eggs with short gestation periods. Rhinos, on the other hand, have an extremely long gestation period and will only breed after long carving intervals.

The pro-traders propose that the way to conduct rhino sales is via a De Beers-type Central Selling Organization (CSO). There are many economists, traders and merchant bankers out there who'll tell you how cartels serve only their own narrow interests (rhino farmers?) rather than the majority of stakeholders. The De Beers CSO made money for their vested interests, but in the process certainly didn't stop ‘blood diamonds’ or illegal parallel markets.

Well-organized criminal syndicates are extremely clever and innovative… they'll find every loophole to work around and become enriched by a rhino-horn CSO, which will merely provide a legal platform for them to launder horn, as happened with ‘blood diamonds’. And, given the current poor delivery record of the South African bureaucracy and policing services, we have to ask whether our authorities would really be able to run a sophisticated CSO system.

But here's the crux of the matter. Current international legislation clearly states that there can be no trade in rhino horn. Surely, then, as is the case with all legal and legislative parameters, the onus is on the pro-trade lobby to prove that trading of rhino horn will unequivocally work and that changing the laws will not be detrimental to rhino populations? The pro-trade lobby also needs to demonstrate that changing the legislation will largely do away with poaching and the illegal trade. This has clearly not yet been proven and current pro-trade modeling glosses over these vital areas by making basic assumptions.

We also need to factor in that South Africa has little chance of getting any application for approved seller status through CITES in the foreseeable future, no matter how hard we lobby. The earliest SA can submit such a proposal for change is 2016, and this merely sets in motion a whole range of bureaucratic procedures and legislative measures that then have to be satisfied before a vote takes places. Any change then requires a 75% majority. Given South Africa’s current administrative malaise, it's far from meeting the extensive CITES requirements and would need unprecedented coordination to achieve this. Approval to trade rhino horn is highly unlikely and even if South Africa succeeds, sales may only be made to CITES-approved Purchaser Nations. The two most likely applicants, China and Vietnam, have little or no chance of getting such approval without massive internal legislative and law enforcement upgrading. Are we going to waste years of haggling for a slim chance of ever getting trade introduced?

With this protracted process in mind, I'm surprised that South Africa has no 'Plan B', because it's going to need one. My suggestion is that all sides get together to create a strategy that's a wide-ranging, multi-faceted approach covering the entire scope of the crisis to ensure that rhino have a chance of surviving in the wild. Here's my stab at it:

To avoid the poaching avalanche, we declare all forms of trade in rhino products illegal. This means we have to switch mindsets from creating value from rhinos to taking away all their value in order to save them in the wild. Rapidly increasing rural populations, together with the likes of criminal and terrorist syndicates, have changed conditions on the ground from when Dr Player and his teams were in the trenches saving the rhino. The difference from those days to now is that putting a price on rhinos made them valuable enough to buy, breed and keep, ensuring their survival. Putting a price on rhino horn today will make rhinos valuable enough to kill, ensuring their extinction.

It's a big ask for everyone to change mindset and direction, but the horn must become worthless for rhino to survive in the wild. Of course it's easier said than done, but we have to start by sending a clear message to the markets by minimizing value through a blanket ban on all trade. We can then work on reducing demand through the local and consumer-country media, increasing security, targeting the middlemen, rewarding whistleblowers, enhancing policing and prosecutorial effectiveness and international co-operation.

We have to give General Jooste's anti-poaching team time to get fully trained-up and place an iron fist over southern Kruger, then expand that to cover all of Kruger. The same no-nonsense attitude needs to prevail in other protected areas. There are reserves in the country that have not had a single rhino poached because of their potent intelligence and effective anti-poaching systems. This needs to be replicated throughout South Africa. And we have as yet not used the full capability of the military.

Very little has been done to target the middleman. They're the Achilles heel in the poaching chain and could be the syndicate’s weakest link. They pay poachers to kill rhino and export the horns to Asia. Currently, middlemen are operating relatively unhindered from inside Mozambique and even from within South Africa. And there can’t be too many of them. Some are not hard to spot. Many believe they're untouchable and show off their wealth with expensive new cars, luxury housing and consumer products. Without them the whole poaching chain would start to implode.

Offer rewards for information, do lifestyle audits and get the taxman working on suspects. Communities will give information if the rewards for poaching information are greater than what they earn from poaching. In addition, there are laws and processes in Mozambique that allow assets and possessions to be confiscated immediately without going through lengthy court cases if there is reasonable evidence. There are reputable people with the necessary skills, expertise and contacts who are prepared to tackle this problem if they're given the go-ahead and budget.






South Africa’s tourism and wildlife policies have often not sufficiently included rural communities living alongside national parks into their business models and it is from these communities that many poachers come. Many wildlife areas are surrounded by rapidly increasing rural populations coupled with increased levels of extreme poverty. Innovative policies and plans must be put into place to integrate these communities into the business models that govern our wildlife and tourism industries. As long as these neighboring communities remain marginalized, they'll seek to claim wildlife, either in their cooking pots or through illicit activities. In order to redress this, I propose the creation of a ‘Natural Capital Fund’ to:

bolster conservation and anti-poaching work, remunerate and uplift communities who live alongside parks and reserves uplifting their lives and

pay for information leading to the arrest of the middlemen and poachers. The South African tourism industry generates around R100 billion a year. My proposal is that a 1% levy is charged

on all tourism accommodation and related services to support this ‘Natural Capital Fund’. This could generate as much as R1 billion a year. Getting tourism industry buy-in would take some discussion and persuasion, but it would be possible if there were leadership and the will. In my experience, tourists do not mind paying additional money if they know it's going to a worthy cause.

This ‘Natural Capital Fund’ could be administered on an annuity-type basis and we could get one of South Africa’s large corporate investment houses involved as part of their environmental commitment. We could also approach the corporate world for initial donations to get the ball rolling and top up this fund through fund-raising campaigns aimed at private citizens and profiled by well-respected individuals and suitable celebrities. The myriad rhino conservation NGOs that have sprung up should be encouraged to pay their proceeds over to this fund. The combined efforts would be to get the fund to generate more than R1 billion a year. The funds could be distributed through an impartial and respectable NGO so that the money is spent wisely, effectively and accounted for.

We will have to engage with the Mozambican authorities more effectively to address policies that will reduce poaching. The Natural Capital Fund could help speed up negotiations and ease some of the community issues along Kruger’s eastern boundaries (and will help ferret out the poaching middlemen). SA needs to get the Mozambican authorities to close the loopholes in their ports and airports. If we don’t have progress with the Mozambican authorities, the rhino issue should then be elevated to Presidential priority level (and with Vietnam) to speed up agreements and implement effective policies.

International conservation agencies, governments and NGOs must put greater emphasis on demand-reduction strategies and spread awareness that horn has no medicinal properties. These efforts must be significantly increased, using all platforms, especially the social media and celebrities. The current horn consumption patterns in Vietnam are not based on age-old traditional practices. They are very recent behaviors that have followed the economic boom. Global political and economic agencies must also put further pressure on China, Laos and Vietnam to step up measures against users and criminals. China and Vietnam are states heavily controlled by politburos where a very small number of people effectively dominate the country. These influential few can effectively shift public demand, as happened with the recent Chinese ban on serving shark fin soup at official banquets and the resulting drop in overall demand.

Additional effort needs to be put into standardizing wildlife legislation and criminal sentences around the continent as well as strengthening policing and prosecutorial capacity. In most cases, current criminal sentences are inappropriate to the point of not sending a clear message that wildlife trade is a crime, let alone providing any deterrent. We need an Elon Musk/Steve Jobs-type of left-field thinking to ensure that technology is created to help monitor and protect vast wildernesses such as Kruger. Drones that work, Google Earth that assists anti-poachers and counters poachers as well as other high-tech solutions would be a boon and we are capable of making them.

The above list is far from exhaustive and I’m sure that our conservators and rhino experts can add many more, better points to the list.

Ivo Vegter and the pro-trade lobby concede that trading rhino horn would not necessarily reduce poaching in Africa and furthermore, some pro-traders concede that their policies may result in rhinos becoming extinct in the wild and only being found on well-protected farms. Is this what we want? The bottom line is: which is the safer bet - test the gluttony of market demand, or get together to create an effective and risk-free Plan B with no trade, ensuring that rhinos do survive in the wild? In my view, we cannot let rhinos become extinct in the wild and South Africa become merely a ‘Big 4’ tourism destination through risky economic policies. DM

Colin Bell is a tourism professional with 35 years of experience and co-author of “Africa’s Finest” a new book out

on the good, the bad and the ugly of the tourism industry. His operations have successfully re-introduced rhino into the wilds of Botswana and pioneered sustainable partnerships with rural communities in Namibia that ensure that rhino thrive outside of protected areas.


http://africasfinest.co.za/





Botswana's Impending Wildlife Disaster Kevin Robertson (Courtesy of Sports Afield)

I’m concerned about recent developments here in southern Africa. I write this because the pending closure (at the

end of 2013) of all sport hunting on public land and Controlled Hunting Areas in Botswana is seriously bad news. What makes this situation so ridiculous is the reason behind this draconian governmental decision. To quote from a press statement issued by the Botswana Ministry of Environment, Wildlife and Tourism dated November 29, 2012, “The decision to impose this moratorium on hunting was made in the context of a growing concern about a sharp decline in the populations of most of the wildlife species that have been subject to licensed hunting.” In a nutshell, sport hunting is being blamed as the root cause of the dramatic decline in numbers of both predators and the various and diverse antelope species that occur naturally in Northern Botswana and the Okavango Delta. This is ridiculous.

Many theories are being bandied about as to the reason for the alarming decline in Botswana’s antelope numbers (and consequently the predators that prey upon them), with prolonged drought and a reduction in water flow into the swamps being the most prominent. Yet to all of us who love Africa and its wildlife, the real cause is blatantly obvious despite the fact that everyone seems to be pussyfooting around it. Nobody seems to have the intestinal fortitude to stand up and say what really needs to be said —so I will. The truth is simply this: Botswana has too many elephants. Way too many, in fact, and it is their influence on the environment that is impacting all the other species.

Available on the internet is a fascinating article by David Cumming and Brian Jones of the WWF (World Wide Fund For Nature). The article is entitled “Elephants in Southern Africa: management issues and options.” (http://www.fitzpatrick.uct.ac.za/publications/Cumming_Jones_2005.pdf) Published in 2005, it is now somewhat dated; nonetheless, it makes for fascinating reading. The elephant population figures it provides are eye-openers. According to the article, southern Africa’s elephant populations had collapsed by the 1880s, primarily due to overhunting. Thanks to dedicated conservation efforts since that time, begun in the colonial era and then continued in a fashion by the game departments of the various newly independent southern African countries (Zambia, Zimbabwe, Mozambique, Botswana, Namibia, and South Africa), elephant numbers have increased dramatically. From only a few thousand in the late 1800s, southern Africa’s combined elephant population has increased to somewhere in the region of 300,000 today.

Botswana currently has the largest elephant population. In the early 1960s there were less than 10,000 pachyderms in this landlocked and generally dry country. Since that time their numbers have increased steadily by about 5 to 6% annually. By 1990 there were 50,000 elephants in the wetter, northern parts of the country and in the following year the Botswana Department of Wildlife Conservation and National Parks drew up a draft elephant management policy. In that year (1991), it was established that the then-current elephant population of 55,000 was the maximum the country could sustain without the eventual loss of habitat so essential for species biodiversity. Unfortunately, the policy was never adopted or implemented even though it made the recommendation that management of elephant numbers was necessary because of their impact on habitat.

Instead, Botswana’s elephant numbers continued to increase steadily and exponentially. By 1995 the population had increased to 80,000. By 2002 some estimates said it was 120,000; by 2005, 140,000; and heaven only knows what it is today. There is much speculation. When one realizes that 55,000 was the maximum figure that would ensure environmental preservation, it should be blatantly obvious where the problem so conveniently blamed on sport hunting actually lies.

I find the “prolonged drought” excuse a poor one. Drought is non-selective. It affects all herbivores, including elephants. During the so-called drought period, (the 1990s and early 2000s) elephant numbers increased steadily by about 6% annually while in the Moremi Game Reserve (which borders the Okavango swamps and where no hunting takes place) giraffe numbers over the same period decreased by 8% annually. Kudu numbers also decreased by 11% annually, as did Lechwe by 7%, Tsessebe by 13% and Wildebeest by 18%! (Source: Elephants Without Borders paper entitled “Dry Season Fixed-Wing Aerial Survey Of Elephants & Wildlife in Northern Botswana, Sept.-Nov. 2010.”).

Zimbabwe, too, has seen a dramatic increase in elephant numbers. From only a couple of thousand in the early 1900s, their numbers have increased to approximately 100,000 today. Until the mid-1980s, Zimbabwe’s elephant population was maintained at 45,000 by well-organized, professionally conducted, government-regulated culling regimes. Even though I was living in the country at the time, I never got to witness an elephant cull, but I became acquainted with 3 Department of National Parks and Wildlife officers who had each shot more than 6,000 elephants in the course of their duties.

Zimbabwean independence and subsequent changes in the wildlife department eventually resulted in the loss of the experienced culling teams, and by the late 1980s, all elephant culling came to an end in Zimbabwe. Since that time the country’s elephant population has doubled.

Having spent more than two decades in Zimbabwe, much of it in the Zambezi Valley, I’ve witnessed firsthand what an ever-increasing elephant population can do to the environment. My passion was the sporting pursuit of old dagga-boy buffaloes, and my favorite hunting grounds were the Zambezi Valley’s Nyakasanga and Sapi safari areas. I also hunted in the Makuti and Charara as well as the Rifa Safari Areas. During the early 1990s, bushbuck were a popular add-on species


http://www.sportsafield.com/content/botswanas-impending-wildlife-disaster

http://www.fitzpatrick.uct.ac.za/publications/Cumming_Jones_2005.pdf

http://www.elephantswithoutborders.org/downloadspapers/EWB_View_from_the_Top_%20Africa_Geographic_Aug2011.pdf

http://www.elephantswithoutborders.org/downloadspapers/EWB_View_from_the_Top_%20Africa_Geographic_Aug2011.pdf





on these buffalo hunts, but as elephant numbers increased many of the Zambezi Valley’s dense riverine vegetation areas started to open up due to increasing elephant feeding pressure. These were the areas favored by these secretive, highly territorial antelope. Eventually the bushbuck lost much of their habitat and when this happened they simply disappeared. By the early 2000s it wasn’t worth purchasing a bushbuck license, so uncommon had they become.

A similar scenario has evolved in South Africa’s well-known Kruger National Park. Up until 1995 the park's elephant population was kept below 8,000 by a regular, carefully managed, scientifically evaluated culling program. International pressure put an end to the culling, and since that time the park’s elephant population has doubled. The result of this has been an 80 percent reduction in top canopy trees, very evident habitat change, and considerable public alarm and condemnation at the pending loss of the park’s biodiversity. The park’s rarer antelope species like sable, roan, and nyala have just about disappeared, which is most unfortunate.

To me the solutions to the Botswana problem is obvious — get the elephant numbers back to where they should be. Unfortunately this is something easier said than done because it is already too late for a massive culling program. Human sentiment, heated emotions, politics, and the greenies have long since entered the picture and the situation has become confusing, illogical, and directionless.

To me it seems that southern Africa’s elephants have attained almost ambassadorial status. Culling to keep their numbers in check and to preserve the environment is now simply taboo, with threats of boycotts and even economic sanctions being levelled at countries when the mere suggestion of any form of a culling program has been raised.

In my opinion, a life is a life. Is the life of an elephant more important or sacred than that of a giraffe, for example, or a kudu, which disappears because it no longer has trees to feed on? Everything in nature needs to be in balance, and when the balance tips too far in favor of the mega-herbivores, everything else falls apart.

The sad situation is that everyone seems so paranoid about the elephants and their preservation at all costs that they appear to have forgotten about the other (and, in my opinion, equally important) African wildlife species. I can’t help but wonder: Where are the greenies championing the cause of the giraffe, kudu, or bushbuck, or that of the many bird species which have lost their nesting sites due to all the trees being destroyed? Sadly, none of these species seem to stir the emotions strongly enough to rake in the gullible public’s donation dollars. This, of course, elephant can do very well, and this is the root cause of the problem.

The worrying aspect is finding a logical solution to the problem and then implementing it. Banning sport hunting is not going to make all these problems disappear—that is for sure. You and I both know this. In fact, it is only going to make things worse. Subsistence poaching is going to escalate as rural communities lose the funds sport hunting once generated. When this happens, even more pressure is going to be placed upon the dwindling antelope numbers.

When wildlife loses its economic value, it is replaced with something that is valuable. Look at what has happened in Kenya, for example. This once wonderfully rich wildlife country has, since the banning of sport hunting, lost 80 percent of its wildlife. Only time will tell if Botswana walks the same path.

Unfortunately, I have no solution to the elephant problem. At their current rate of population growth it is predicted that there will be in excess of 500,000 of them in southern Africa by 2020. Is this likely to happen? I doubt it. Nature is smarter than all of us. Something is going to crash, and when it does I’m sure it will not be pleasant. Unfortunately it’s going to be the other wildlife species that will be affected most. Massive environmental degradation and the loss of Botswana’s biodiversity is a disaster just waiting to happen.

Sport hunting could have been part of the solution. Instead it is being used as an excuse for poor environmental management and now it is about to be banned. Where is the logic in this?

Rhino Conservation Isn’t Just About Rhinos Ben Carter, Executive Director Dallas Safari Club

“It’s God’s job to judge poachers. It’s our job to arrange the meeting.” That’s what a South African game ranger told me in June as we followed rhino tracks—and boot tracks—through a remote area of Kruger National Park. I glanced up expecting to see a smile, but there was none. His eyes told me he wasn’t kidding. That face, those words, and the violence they suggested, are still chilling. The ranger stared back and slowly described the escalating trend of enforcement against poachers.

In Africa’s bloody war over rhinos and elephants, every lawman knows he might be murdered tonight. The International Ranger Federation website lists 32 African game wardens killed by homicide so far in 2013, and estimates the actual count is likely 2-3 times higher. Stressed, weary, undermanned and underequipped, frustrated by arrests that seldom end in prosecutions, more and more rangers are resorting to shooting on sight any poacher caught in the act. Deadly force is tolerated, even encouraged, by some agencies to help save the lives of their officers.


http://biggame.org/





There’s tragedy on both sides of the badge. In impoverished countries, good people—including rangers—can be sucked into the temptations of poaching. Many pay with their lives. Too much money dangles low. Powdered rhino horn is now 2-3 times more valuable per kilo than cocaine, and it’s in high demand by affluent Asians. Some believe it cures cancer. Research has disproved any actual medical benefits. But for triggermen, black-market traffickers, drug cartels, and organized crime syndicates and even terrorist cells profiting from rhino poaching, the big paydays are worth wasting entire species along with anyone who stands in the way.

The ranger said if the war continued at the current pace, a thousand rhinos would be slaughtered by the end of the year, along with untold human lives that would never even be counted. That dark prediction was still fresh on my mind in October when the Government of the Republic of Namibia asked our organization, the Dallas Safari Club (DSC), to help raise crucial funding for additional law enforcement and other rhino conservation initiatives—by auctioning a permit to hunt a black rhino in Namibia.

Most poaching is in South Africa. Namibia is faring much better and intends to keep it that way. In fact, Namibia’s black rhino population is doing so well, the country is allowed by science-based international treaties to sell up to five rhino hunting permits a year. Biologists say these hunts are partly responsible for the increasing rhino numbers. Black rhinos are aggressive and territorial. Old, post-breeding males are known to kill younger bulls, cows and even calves. They also consume food, water and space needed to sustain the breeding animals required for species survival. Biologists’ call these “surplus animals” because removing them does no long-term harm to a population—and can actually help it grow.

But the people of Namibia also are part of the equation. The country is renowned for its unique conservation model. Local communities form and manage their own refuges, called conservancies, on surrounding lands. The citizenry is allowed to sustainably use the natural resources produced there. This community involvement helped build a nationwide grassroots commitment to conservation. Since Namibia gained independence in 1990, lands under sustainable management have increased from 13 to 44 percent of the nation’s surface area. Wildlife now abounds. And black rhino populations have doubled.

Hunting provides the majority of income from most conservancies. Revenue supplements every household either directly or indirectly through community projects. Meat derived from hunting is equitably distributed to the neediest, such as the elderly and schools. Without well-managed lands and hunting, many rural communities in Namibia would fail. The International Council for Game and Wildlife Conservation (CIC) awarded its prestigious Markhor Award to the country and the conservancies to honor this conservation model. DSC is honored to help support this remarkably successful conservation model, and provide more funding for rhino conservation initiatives including anti-poaching patrols

The sale of a permit to hunt a surplus black rhino bull was in January during our annual convention in Dallas. The permit sold for $350,000 — enough to pay the salaries of a good number of game rangers for a year! Along with law enforcement manpower, revenue from previous rhino hunting permits has allowed Namibia to develop an unmanned aerial vehicle equipped with an infrared camera to assist in rhino patrols. Electronic and specialized security equipment, helicopter surveillance, research and other projects also have been funded. The DSC auction will supplement all of these.

This was not the first time our organization has supported rhino initiatives. Since 2006 alone, to South Africa and other nations, DSC has granted more than $175,000 for a variety of crucial projects involving rhinos. We’ve helped train ranger students, provided gear and fuel for rhino protection teams, funded the drilling of boreholes to supply potable water at ranger field stations, supported rhino research and habitat programs, and more.

The auction was merely the latest demonstration of hunters’ longstanding commitment to conservation in Africa. It is DSC’s fervent hope that with better habitat, science-based wildlife management and overwhelming law enforcement presence, more rhinos—and more people—will be spared.

About Dallas Safari Club (DSC) Since 1972, Dallas Safari Club has been the gathering point for hunters, conservationists and wildlife enthusiasts. As an international organization has a grant in aid program that contributes hundreds of thousands of dollars each year to programs and projects promoting the DSC mission to conserve wildlife and wilderness lands, to educate youth and the general public and to promote and protect the rights and interests of hunters worldwide. www.biggame.org.


http://www.biggame.org/





Does it Make Sense Then to Destroy Stockpiles of Ivory? Farai Sevenzo (BBC News) Editor’s Note (VB): Letter from an African journalist, film-maker and columnist, who contemplates the outcome of the recent conference on the illegal wildlife trade, hosted by the UK government.

Sorry to go on about elephants when there are more pressing human problems all around us. To be fair, the

human problems will be with us for some time to come but alas, the elephants may not be. Three princes, four presidents, various foreign affairs ministers, wildlife experts and a clutch of wildlife charities gathered in London earlier this month to shine a spotlight on the illegal trade in wildlife. The numbers of murdered elephants are growing every day and of course there is a link to their gruesome deaths and the increasing demand for their ivory in markets as far afield as China and Vietnam. The presidents of Botswana, Chad, Gabon and Tanzania all spoke up about the efforts being made to deter poaching. Those of us following this story were reminded by secret filming which showed ivory and rhino horn freely available in market stalls all over Asia. They decided stockpiles of ivory around the world confiscated from smugglers and tusks taken from naturally expiring elephants and animals culled by game rangers were to be destroyed. There were also reports that Prince William had expressed a yearning to destroy all the artefacts made of ivory in the British royal palaces.

Porous Borders: If an elephant could have been present at the Wildlife in Danger conference, that elephant in the room would have applauded such high level interest in his species' fate. But he would also have reminded all present that his kind do not hold passports and that many more African presidents, including those from Zambia, Zimbabwe, Malawi, Sudan, the Democratic Republic of Congo and everywhere else his species roam, should all agree or there would be holes bigger than the cavities where his tusks used to be in their efforts to save his kind from extinction through poaching.

Then he would look around the gathered delegates and strain his massive ears to hear what the Chinese and other Asian delegates had to say about the rise in value of ivory and the tremendous demand it commands in Asia. He would want to know - is it true that the trade in ivory now commands billions of dollars? What is it about elephants the Chinese love so much, for there is no year of the elephant in their zodiac? But the elephant in the room would hear nothing back, for the Asian delegates told us nothing and did not speak.

White Gold: Even as the African presidents promised a 10-year moratorium on the sale of their ivory, the WWF estimated that the black market for ivory was now nudging $19bn (£11bn) a year. The illicit wildlife trade is estimated to total about $19bn (£11bn) annually. What does $19bn mean in the struggle to save the elephants? It means that an elephant killer is no longer a lone bush tracker with a rusty rifle and a spear for back-up; that with billions at stake, organized crime can see money at every watering hole, in every country, through every porous border. The poachers have global positioning satellite devices; they use rocket-propelled grenades and Kalashnikov rifles and carry off elephant tusks by helicopter. The London Conference on the Illegal Wildlife Trade concluded in its declaration that "there is a serious threat to the survival of many species if action is not taken to tackle the… trade". And the UN General Assembly has decided to proclaim 3 March as World Wildlife Day.

But the elephant in the room keeps going back to that outrageous figure - $19bn - and must surely conclude that no amount of proclamations can guarantee the elephants' survival in the face of such relentless Asian commerce for tusks. It is one of the oddities of delayed conscience that governments rush to destroy things when our moral indignation floats above the dollar signs. Does it make sense then to destroy stockpiles of ivory? Should we not be legally selling it to those with an ivory fixation and using the funds to fight the war against poaching? But if folk in Beijing continue to call elephant ivory "white gold", it seems that it is going to be a long and bloody war to save Africa's elephants.

Kenya: Wildlife loved to Death Glen Martin Huffington Post Editor’s Note (GRD): Readers should also look at the D. H. M. Cummings review of Martin’s book “Game Changer: Animal Rights and the Fate of Africa’s Wildlife” in this African Indaba. A primary focus is the state of conservation in Kenya where the International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW), and other animal rights protagonists, has been instrumental in convincing Kenya to maintain and reinforce a 1977 ban on hunting and the consumptive use of wildlife. Despite Kenya’s high profile as a wildlife tourist destination, its conservation record is abysmal and marked by a 70% decline in large mammal populations since the 1970s.

Kenya's much-praised ban on hunting, in fact, has had an impact opposite to its intent: wild animals are disappearing at an accelerating rate. "Charismatic megafauna" -- elephants, lions, rhinos, the larger antelopes -- are in a


http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-26330575

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/glen-martin/kenya-a-contrarian-view_b_1542148.html

http://www.ucpress.edu/book.php?isbn=9780520266261

http://www.ucpress.edu/book.php?isbn=9780520266261

http://ilriclippings.wordpress.com/2011/06/01/wildlife-crash-reported-in-kenyas-famous-masai-mara-region/





true death spiral. When Kenya's hunting ban was passed in 1977 in response to the "Ivory Wars" that were ravaging the nation's elephants, it was hailed as a new and progressive paradigm for wildlife management. With the hunting pressure off, animal lovers opined, the game would bounce back. And it's true that elephants did recover modestly over the ensuring two decades. But now the slaughter has begun anew, driven by an unrelenting demand from a prosperous Asia for ivory objets d'art. Meanwhile, everything else is going down the tubes, including carnivores and antelopes. By best estimates, Kenya's wildlife has declined by more than 70 percent over the past 20 years.

What happened? While the ban played well in the developed world, it was catastrophic for the people who lived in the rural hinterlands of Kenya - the places where wildlife actually exists. Basically, folks out in the bush had the responsibility for maintaining wildlife on their lands, but they were deprived of any benefit from the animals. Such a situation is intolerable for subsistence pastoralists and farmers.

Subsequent to the ban, they could not respond - legally - when an elephant raided their maize and stomped their goats, or when a lion killed a cow. But laws made in Nairobi are seldom if ever applied with rigor in the Kenyan bush. Even as animal rights groups lionized Kenya's no-kill policy and urged its adoption across Africa, the killing has continued unabated. Carnivores are poisoned, antelope snared, elephants speared and shot: Crops can thus be raised and the livestock grazed in peace.

Michael Norton-Griffiths, who has served as the senior ecologist for Tanzania's Serengeti National Park and the manager of the Eastern Sahel Program for the International Union for the Conservation of Nature, likened the situation to owning a goat. Assume, says Norton-Griffiths that you're a poor pastoralist in rural Kenya, and your assets consist of a goat. You can eat this goat, or milk it. You can sell it, gaining hard currency that you can use to buy necessities. Or you can breed it, increasing your asset base in the form of another goat. But now imagine that a law is passed that forbids you to eat, sell, or breed that goat. In fact, the only thing you can do with it is allow tourists to take pictures of it. Even then, you obtain no benefit; the money derived from the tourists photographing the goat goes to the owner of the "eco-lodge" they are patronizing. By substituting wildlife for the goat, says Norton-Griffiths, you have the situation that exists in Kenya today.

If African wildlife is to survive -- let alone thrive -- local people must value it. In other words, they must be allowed to gain both income and meat from it in a sustainable fashion. And repugnant as it may seem to most urbanized westerners, lion, buffalo and elephant hunting can be sustainable enterprises -- like most large African mammals, these species are fecund. Wealthy hunters will pay between $50,000 to $100,000 to take a trophy male lion or elephant bull, and up to $20,000 for a buffalo with big horns. If that money is returned to local communities -- along with the meat -- then tolerance for wildlife reflexively improves. Similarly, the commercial cropping of certain species of plains game for hides and meat (Burchell's zebra most specifically) can build support for conservation among Africa's pastoral and agricultural communities.

This isn't to say hunting is a panacea for Africa's wildlife crisis. Kenya's wildlife stocks currently are too depleted to allow any kind of "consumptive" game policy. Tanzania has larger populations of wildlife than Kenya, and both trophy and subsistence hunting are allowed -- but the game is dwindling. Over-hunting due to poor enforcement of the quotas and general government corruption is widely acknowledged as a contributing factor. But a template for a rational wildlife policy exists: in Namibia. By the late 1980s, wildlife was almost wholly extirpated from this vast southwestern African territory following decades of conflict between South Africa and the Southwest Africa People's Organization (SWAPO). Following Namibia's independence from South Africa in 1990, the leaders of the new nation established wildlife policies that invested tribal communities with control over the game, while simultaneously establishing firm quotas for individual species. Income from both hunting and cropping is rigorously tracked, and diligently returned to the communities. Namibian wildlife, in short, was changed from a liability to an asset. Today, Namibia is burgeoning with wildlife, game and non-game species alike. The country has the world's largest population of cheetahs. Elephants are abundant -- in some places too abundant -- and lions are returning. Rare antelopes such as kudu and sable are anything but rare in Namibia; their meat, the yield of certified cropping programs, is easily found in supermarkets.

Obviously, this would not be possible without relatively good governance. In the 2011 corruption index for 182 countries released by Transparency International, Namibia ranked 57th and Kenya was close to the bottom at 154. If Kenya is to duplicate Namibia's success, it must address its rampant corruption as well as revamp its game laws.

Still, Namibia points to a better way than the blanket no-hunt policy that has become holy writ among some animal rights groups. And it's better because it's pragmatic: It addresses the needs of people as well as the rights of animals. Unlike Kenya's current wildlife policy, it actually works.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-17675816

http://www.wanderlust.co.uk/magazine/news/wildlife-numbers-drop-by-70-per-cent-in-kenyas-mara-region

https://docs.google.com/a/huffingtonpost.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:JNDYrDtwq4cJ:www.ajol.info/index.php/ajcr/article/view/63311/51194+pastoralist+conflict+with+wildlife+kenya&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEEShkbqcEGgo02TwKmkhJ5RA_Hdl4bW2xD6KSMUfLabDXBDAn1dm_BVZflZ1o0ajVMAasB9w4gBP8-gbJ0DjKDj32SJXZLuUP0tV2az0UZSVaD_Qr03N8mhIWZfK-FIqSnFFUqQ71&sig=AHIEtbQLC_e8FryubW2tVT12oziHm0LFIA&pli=1

https://docs.google.com/a/huffingtonpost.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:JNDYrDtwq4cJ:www.ajol.info/index.php/ajcr/article/view/63311/51194+pastoralist+conflict+with+wildlife+kenya&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEEShkbqcEGgo02TwKmkhJ5RA_Hdl4bW2xD6KSMUfLabDXBDAn1dm_BVZflZ1o0ajVMAasB9w4gBP8-gbJ0DjKDj32SJXZLuUP0tV2az0UZSVaD_Qr03N8mhIWZfK-FIqSnFFUqQ71&sig=AHIEtbQLC_e8FryubW2tVT12oziHm0LFIA&pli=1

http://alumni.berkeley.edu/news/california-magazine/januaryfebruary-2009-effect-change/lion-king

http://www.mng5.com/concerns.htm

https://docs.google.com/a/huffingtonpost.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:m86CaoCXDCYJ:westinstenv.org/wp-content/How_Many_Wildebeest_WEC00267_00802_Norton-Griffiths.pdf+michael+norton+griffiths+goat&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESiREFlU4oC6RUXaaZ0Kdjjh2uxBHWA10Ra92P9G5sxjErNnmExK5kiLxPofcMEW1u2RG4YmNFKd3JiQYP5XjkNsWyh2SMb1wBGNaBXomKdUzaXk66i-6bMfuEnAZ_2vUyIEmR66&sig=AHIEtbRBValNBLheY1N7_hp4BunJ2uDmTA

https://docs.google.com/a/huffingtonpost.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:98JpqwaQA14J:ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep../fao/010/aj114e/aj114e09.pdf+hunting+ban+in+kenya+failure&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESg7MBTejq5zF-lfG8kCwcz-5kXHzT24o8WzODlVk9-UqfZOwFZIfYEmPDqBtuL97rQWjzbYDjeJSs60SjMMCZZySa43W0BoAAdTQRlW6QinwhqLIqhUrCdCTyI6EYEM04rhpj88&sig=AHIEtbRI_rmnDnXVvfBtL2rIL1X33eRDdw

https://docs.google.com/a/huffingtonpost.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:k5n9go4uW1EJ:www.tnrf.org/files/E-TNRF-Information_on_Wildlife_2008_full_ver.pdf+wildlife+declines+tanzania&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEEShRM2sVlZV6OQvKr_MsMtkL_e-_fgN0NLbC-EuBdgqb-hdhU6zBAIFdWIJ69ynOBLK6G4DQg3QwrkFtqlEBoO2zqPwxaRY-GJFOMMDlNImXggndyaNvlO6ggLh4nW5__ajOdVYE&sig=AHIEtbRRiIO6Cyb_oDKXLk4R2AxIzLXunA

http://www.swapoparty.org/

https://docs.google.com/a/huffingtonpost.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:snmguVnYrJgJ:ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/010/aj114e/aj114e10.pdf+namibia+wildlife+conservancies&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEEShgpsOWh2IY9UF8LVNzKh-eV47QdN9VkpVEgzkx1R_boGcnVCAtfQ7W9tQDtaUKXZohwJPt3o7xGaWJL2UXhzegtBKDqnVR3DjKy8cHReuXjWscfc9wq6Oxa1Lfpvsl_sFLDVcb&sig=AHIEtbRlzXiSddyobro59GwPklZZ2ff1Yw

http://wildlifeconservationnetwork.org/wildlife/cheetahnamibia2.html

http://www.inamibia.co.na/news/world/item/12301-namibia-ranked-57th-least-corrupt-nation.html





Kenya: Animal Welfare Groups up in Arms Against New Wildlife Law Rolf Baldus

Animal welfare groups have sounded alarm bells on provisions in the newly enacted wildlife management law,

which in their opinion appear to create loopholes for sport hunting. The Wildlife Conservation and Management Act (2013) legalize the killing of excess wild animals and harvesting of wild game for a range of products.

“We are opposed to any form of cropping. It has been tried before and failed because it is prone to corruption, mismanagement and abuse. It is likely that owners of game ranches may crop and cull animals beyond the list provided for in the Act,” said Africa Network for Animal Welfare (ANAW) executive director Josphat Ngonyo.

The new law, assented to by President Uhuru Kenyatta last month, further provides for local processing and sale of wildlife trophies from animals that have been cropped. Although it retains the ban on sport hunting and bush meat trading, the Act — which came into force on January 10, 2014 — it provides for culling and cropping of surplus wildlife in game ranches for their products and trophies.

Kenya banned sport hunting in 1977. Since then around 70 % of the country's wildlife was lost, which is undoubtedly not a good track record for the hunting ban.

For further reading click here

Zambia: Surveys and Investigations Leave Wildlife Authorities in a Pickle Barbara Crown (Courtesy: The Hunting Report)

In Zambia, the reopening of those 19 closed concessions remains stalled. You’ll recall the ministry wanted wildlife

population surveys before moving forward with the hunting allocations. Those surveys were conducted this past November, during the wet season when it is most difficult to spot game. I spoke with someone in direct contact with the pilots on those aerial counts. While it was difficult to see game, the trend is clear, he says. Pilots reported flying for two to three hours at a time without seeing much until they were over the national parks. Game numbers are way down in those closed concessions.

In addition to that, the corruption investigation that Minister of Tourism and Arts Sylvia Masebo launched into the allocations done in December 2012 has concluded. The results had not been officially released when I spoke with sources at the Safari Club International convention in February.

The standoff has put the Zambian Wildlife Authority (ZAWA) in a bit of a pickle. They have completed both the surveys and the investigation, which the minister and others said they needed in order to reopen those hunting concessions. If they declare there was corruption, they have to expose the guilty, chance the consequences and conduct new allocations. If they deny finding any wrong doing, then the Minister loses face politically and ZAWA must allow the allocations to stand. Otherwise the operators who won those allocations will sue ZAWA for not releasing them. Of course, the minister herself is now under investigation for corruption. The results of that may determine how ZAWA moves forward.

No matter what the outcome, the biggest loser here is the wildlife of Zambia. The one thing everyone agrees on is that the poaching in the closed concessions is out of control. If and when the areas reopen, operators will have a rough time making any money on safaris there while getting the areas back in shape.

In the meantime, hunting in Zambia continues in the other seven concessions that were not part of the recent reallocations. I listed those and a number of fenced operations last March in Hunting Report. There are also great hunting opportunities on a number of game ranches I have reported on as well.


http://www.businessdailyafrica.com/new-wildlife-law-sparks-fears-over-sport-hunting-ban-status/-/539546/2152118/-/9xpyw1/-/index.html?goback=%2egde_2649321_member_5830923415581650947#%21

http://www.huntingreport.com/





SCI: Fighting for Lions Campaign: One Year Later Safari Club International

With ONE MILLION hunter-raised dollars in the bank, one strategic plan to ensure the conservation of the African lion, and just one year; Safari Club International Foundation awaits the first indications of success with its Fighting for Lions Campaign. [The] United States Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) will announce what protection status, if any, should be assigned to the African lion under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Anti-hunting organizations have petitioned the FWS to list African lions as endangered, and through a set procedure, the government must consider the ESA petition within a limited time frame. If [listed] as endangered, the U.S. market is closed to lion hunting causing a cascade of problems.

An endangered listing would essentially mean a total loss of U.S. citizen participation in lion hunting. International hunters would fill the void, but they would pay less to hunt. This means African lions would lose economic value. There would be an immediate reduction in revenue for private and government run anti-poaching efforts that protect lions, depredation compensation, and contributions to community development. As a result, farmers and ranchers will no longer have any incentive to protect lions: they would kill lions instead to protect their animals and families. Jobs and incomes of local people associated with the hunting industry would be at risk, and at the bottom of the cascade would be the lion. Ironically, lions will suffer most from the very Act that was designed to help conserve them.

For the same reasons, stopping all lion hunting (not just from U.S. hunters), would be devastating for lion conservation. This is the goal of anti-hunting organizations: to end all hunting, everywhere “ without regard to its positive benefits. They will likely try to reach this goal by proposing to up-list lions to the maximum protection status at the next Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). African lions are presently protected under CITES, but their populations are healthy enough to sustain international trade. If the maximum CITES protection status is decided for lions, many countries would block their citizens from participating in international hunting and trade. The Fighting for Lions Campaign represents the hunting community and gives a voice to those who understand the importance of hunting to lion conservation. The campaign's three approaches to conserve lions across the entire African continent are:

Population Research where needed;

Conservation, which includes human-wildlife conflict and anti-poaching; and

Outreach and Education. The campaign brings science to the forefront and communicates that lions are absolutely not on the brink of

extinction. In the past year, SCI Foundation has initiated or accomplished the following: Population Research: Census surveys and organized research are of utmost importance to ensure the FWS and

CITES have the correct information to make decisions. SCI Foundation has three major lion research projects underway, all of which are designed to improve lion conservation and management.

Project 1: Lion aging experiment: If we can visually age lions in the field to a specific year class, then we can have more control over the harvest. Harvest of old lions is generally accepted as a best practice. SCI Foundation has partnered on a long term aging study that will determine whether it is possible to age lions in field situations, as well as post-harvest, with precision. This is currently a management need, as African countries trial age-based harvest regulations. The research includes lions from Zambia, Tanzania, and South Africa.

Project 2: Zambia-wide lion population census: SCI Foundation is working to build a four-way partnership with Zambia's Wildlife Management Authority, University of Zambia, and Mississippi State University. This multiple-year population census will derive the most scientifically robust estimate of lions, and include statistical precision. This is a fundamental step to quota setting in Zambia with an anticipated reopening of hunting.

Project 3: Study of harvest statistics in lion range states: SCIF has discovered a discrepancy between African government lion harvest statistics and trade statistics reported in a CITES database. The CITES database is the best information available regarding trade in protected wildlife, including lions. Thus, it is imperative that the database is accurate. Otherwise, analyses using the database to understand lion harvest and trade are inherently flawed.

Conservation (Human-Wildlife Conflict and Anti-Poaching): With population growth, humans and lions increasingly share the same lands resulting in conflicts. Increased agriculture and livestock production replaces the habitat of lions and their prey, exacerbating the problem. The more lions interact with humans, the more common poaching for bush meat and retaliatory killings becomes. By preventing these conflicts, we can help protect African lions from illegal killings. SCI Foundation is in communication with African governments to learn how we can alleviate human-wildlife conflict.

On July 1, 2013, President Obama signed an executive order establishing a Presidential Taskforce on Combating Wildlife Trafficking (Taskforce). SCI Foundation is pleased that the administration has taken such a strong step to combat the growing problem of poaching and illegal wildlife trade. The Taskforce will coordinate efforts among federal agencies and work with foreign nations and international bodies to aid in enforcement against crime related to wildlife


http://member.safariclubfoundation.org/newsletter/14/01/Fighting-for-Lions/





trafficking. To the best of our ability, SCI Foundation will be involved with the development of recommendations that are implemented by the task force.

During the African Wildlife Consultative Forum (AWCF), hosted by Zambia and SCI Foundation in Livingstone, Zambia, November of 2013, three letters were drafted:

o The first letter was to Director Ashe of the FWS asking for his consideration of the African nations represented at AWCF before making any decisions regarding the listing of the African Lion under the Endangered Species Act. All nations represented signed on.

o The second letter detailed the importance of the African government's intelligence to the development of strategy with wildlife trafficking and anti-poaching. All nations represented signed on and the letter has since been submitted to the record.

o The third letter was drafted by the PH Association representatives and expressed their interest to be involved, however possible, with anti-poaching efforts initiated by the Taskforce. Every single PH Association signed onto the letter giving a strong "boots-on-the ground" voice that hunting in Africa is essential to combating wildlife trafficking. SCI Foundation acted on the 13 PH associations' behalf and submitted the letter for record.

Outreach and Education: Public opinion impacts regulatory decisions. SCI Foundation has completed public opinion surveys to help explain the impacts of an ESA listing and CITES up-listing to decision makers. Both regulatory mechanisms can have a great influence on hunters investing in the conservation of the African lion. Just like in the U.S., hunting generates conservation revenue in Africa. An Endangered status or up-listing for the African lion will result in major revenue losses for conservation and less protection for African lions in Zambia, Tanzania, and South Africa, among others.

In early 2013, SCIF conducted extensive public research on the listing and the proper way to frame the argument to prevent the extinction of the African lion through its listing of endangered under the ESA. Further, SCI Foundation partnered with some of the foremost experts in Washington when it comes to the intricacies of the Endangered Species Act. These experts advised SCIF for the best course of action moving forward through 2014 and beyond.

In June of 2013, SCIF participated in an exclusive workshop hosted by the FWS. SCIF Conservation Chair Dr. Al Maki outlined current conservation efforts across the lion's range and focused on Tanzania's successful management of the species. All participating biologists were in agreement that the African Lion was NOT "on the brink of extinction."

Also in June of 2013, SCIF released "Keeping the Lion's Share" which counters a "study" issued by the petitioning groups questioning the role of hunters in helping African communities, and calling for African lions to be listed by the U.S. government as an endangered species. The report points to figures that show the millions of dollars contributed by hunters to African communities dwarf the paltry expenditures by the animal rights groups in sub-Saharan Africa. The report was published by many main stream media outlets such as The Wall Street Journal, Yahoo News, and CNBC.

The first real-world measure for the effectiveness of the Fighting for Lions Campaign starts with the Endangered Species Act. SCI Foundation's efforts with outreach and communication of lion science will be successful if the African lion is not listed as an endangered species. Future measures include CITES recommendations on how lions should be listed by CITES, ground breaking research being used in lion management, and public awareness of the benefits hunting has to lion conservation. To make a donation to support the Fighting for Lions Campaign, contact Kimberly Byers at [email protected] or call (520) 620-1220 Ext. 322. You may also contact your state representative to show your support to the campaign and SCI Foundation's wildlife conservation efforts. For a list of your elected US officials, click here.

Lion Numbers Could Improve With New Sustainable Hunting Quotas "Data-poor management of African lion hunting using a relative index of abundance," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 16 December 2013. Corresponding author E. J. Milner-Gulland, Imperial College London

Researchers have devised a simple and reliable way to set sustainable quotas for hunting lions, to help lion populations to grow, in a new study. Trophy hunting occurs in 9 of the 28 African countries that have wild populations of lions. Hunting is legal in these countries but quotas are set to restrict the numbers of lions that can be killed.

Whilst such hunting is controversial, evidence suggests that it can help conservation efforts because it generates substantial revenue. Hunters can pay up to US$125,000 to shoot a male lion. This enables governments to leave wilderness areas as habitats for wildlife, rather than turning the land over for other uses such as farming. However, there is much uncertainty over the sustainability of quotas, as conservation authorities lack reliable information on the total number of lions



http://www.usa.gov/Contact/Elected.shtml





inhabiting their countries. This has contributed to a decline in the number of lions across Africa, from an estimated 100,000 fifty years ago to roughly 30,000 today.

In a new study in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, conservation scientists from Imperial College London and the Universities of Stirling and Cape Town devised a method that should ensure more sustainable hunting quotas. They created an algorithm that uses data about how long it takes to find and shoot a lion in a given area to estimate how many adult males can be hunted, whilst allowing the lion population to grow.

The researchers modelled the effects of introducing their new method for setting hunting quotas in a heavily depleted lion population and found that the number of adult males would grow from around 38 to 100 individuals in 30 years. During the same time, the sustainable quota could increase from 15 to 22 lions, thus benefiting hunters.

Professor E.J. Milner-Gulland, one of the authors of the research from the Department of Life Sciences at Imperial College London, said: "Many people don't feel happy about the idea of hunting animals for sport, especially animals that are as beautiful and impressive as lions. However, in some areas, the money that comes in from hunting is what enables the land to be set aside for wildlife and this provides the lions with a home.

"As conservation scientists, we want to ensure that populations of lions can thrive. Our model shows that it is possible for lion numbers to grow even where there is hunting, but this only works if you set quotas for hunting at the right level, and in many places this is not happening at the moment. Our new method for setting quotas relies on information that is easy for governments to get hold of and it should be simple for them to use. It could also be used to set reliable quotas for other animals which are hunted by searching for individuals, such as wild sheep or deer. The next step is for us to test the method in the field and if it proves successful, we hope it can be widely adopted."

Biological Sciences - Sustainability Science: Data-poor management of African lion hunting using a relative index of abundance. Charles T. T. Edwards, Nils Bunnefeld, Guy A. Balme and E. J. Milner-Gulland; published ahead of print December 16, 2013. Download the full text of this paper at HERE

Break the Link Between Terrorism Funding and Poaching Johan Bergenas and Monica Medina The Washington Post

Johan Bergenas is deputy director of the Managing Across Boundaries Initiative at the Stimson Center, a nonprofit and nonpartisan think tank that studies peace and security challenges around the world. Monica Medina is a former special assistant to U.S. defense secretaries Leon Panetta and Chuck Hagel.

There is a new threat in the terrorist hotbed of Africa, and the U.S. military can do much more to combat it.

Poaching of endangered elephants and rhinos has become a conservation crisis, and profits from wildlife crimes are filling the coffers of terrorist organizations. The twin crises should be cause for alarm for military leaders, not just conservation groups. They need to start working together before it is too late. In the past two years, about 60,000 elephants and more than 1,600 rhinos have been slaughtered by poachers, according to reports from the Wildlife Conservation Society, the International Union for Conservation of Nature and others. About a thousand park rangers have died in the past decade defending the animals.

Illegal wildlife trade generates an estimated $19 billion a year — more than the illicit trafficking of small arms, diamonds, gold or oil. A July Congressional Research Service report found that a rhino horn is worth more than $50,000 per kilogram on the black market — more than gold or platinum. Sadly, poaching elephants and rhinos in Africa is easy money for terrorists, and they are cashing in.

One Elephant Action League undercover investigation in Kenya concluded that illegal ivory funds as much as 40 percent of the operations of al-Shabab, the group behind the November attack at a Nairobi shopping mall where 60 people were killed. The former director of the Kenyan Wildlife Service and the U.N. secretary general have drawn similar links between crime against wildlife and al-Shabab, al-Qaeda and the notorious Lord’s Resistance Army.

Last May, President Obama called for a new strategy to fight al-Qaeda and its affiliates. To be effective, these counterterrorism plans must engage not only African defense leaders but also conservation and development leaders. U.S. military plans for Africa should include ending elephant and rhino poaching to cut off a key source of funds for al-Qaeda and other terrorists. A high-level summit on wildlife crimes, organized by the British government, Prince Charles and Prince William, is scheduled to take place this month in London. It is the perfect place to call for a new partnership between the defense and conservation communities.

As Obama’s national security team plans its next steps, it can follow Hillary Clinton’s lead. Before stepping down as secretary of state, Clinton commissioned an intelligence review of the impact of wildlife trafficking on national security. Completed last summer, the review prompted Obama to sign an executive order creating an interagency task force to


http://www.pnas.org/search?author1=Charles+T.+T.+Edwards&sortspec=date&submit=Submit

http://www.pnas.org/search?author1=Nils+Bunnefeld&sortspec=date&submit=Submit

http://www.pnas.org/search?author1=Guy+A.+Balme&sortspec=date&submit=Submit

http://www.pnas.org/search?author1=E.+J.+Milner-Gulland&sortspec=date&submit=Submit

http://www.pnas.org/content/111/1/539.full?sid=815b8902-a5b7-4f5e-aab4-8ca4b07751cd

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/break-the-link-between-terrorism-funding-and-poaching/2014/01/31/6c03780e-83b5-11e3-bbe5-6a2a3141e3a9_story.html?tid=hpModule_6c539b02-b270-11e2-bbf2-a6f9e9d79e19

http://www.iucn.org/news_homepage/?14120/New-figures-reveal-poaching-for-the-illegal-ivory-trade-could-wipe-out-a-fifth-of-Africas-Elephants-over-next-decade

http://iccfoundation.us/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=445&Itemid=367

http://www.ifaw.org/united-states/resource-centre/criminal-nature-global-security-implications-illegal-wildlife-tra-0

https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL34395.pdf

http://elephantleague.org/project/africas-white-gold-of-jihad-al-shabaab-and-conflict-ivory/

http://elephantleague.org/project/africas-white-gold-of-jihad-al-shabaab-and-conflict-ivory/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/africa/gunmen-attack-shopping-mall-in-nairobi-kenya/2013/09/21/079fa144-22df-11e3-b73c-aab60bf735d0_gallery.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/africa/militants-kenyan-security-forces-locked-in-protracted-battle-at-mall-and-on-twitter/2013/09/24/5912ee72-251a-11e3-ad0d-b7c8d2a594b9_story.html

http://iccfoundation.us/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=421:kenyan-poaching-crisis&catid=70:briefings-2012&Itemid=81

http://www.cites.org/eng/news/pr/2013/20130523_un_lra.php

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/the-lords-resistance-army/2011/10/14/gIQAoKhbkL_gallery.html





develop an anti-poaching strategy. Due out this year, the strategy should include a greater military role in responding to this growing challenge.

Last year Congress gave the Pentagon permission to combat the Lord’s Resistance Army’s poaching and human-trafficking activities. That authority should be expanded to cover all terrorist groups, including al-Shabab. Even without specific direction from Congress, the Defense Department and intelligence agencies should work with conservation groups to combat poaching, using new and inexpensive technologies to detect and deter terrorist activities and traffickers. Drones, satellite imagery, tracking devices and other high-tech tools could transform the fight to save elephants and rhinos, cheaply and effectively starving terrorists of the easy money they gain from wildlife crimes. Already, some African countries are asking for such tools.

Top U.S. defense officials should routinely discuss wildlife trafficking in meetings with African military leaders. The U.S. military’s post-Afghanistan plans must explicitly include poaching in Africa and illegal trafficking of wildlife as new “fronts” in the war on terror. Using technology to detect and deter poachers is a much less expensive way to fight terrorists than deploying Special Operations forces — and less dangerous to U.S. troops.

Finally, private-sector security and technology companies should be encouraged to work with African governments to deploy sensors, radars, unmanned aerial vehicles, satellites and other sophisticated data-gathering and detection systems. These types of defense technologies are needed to bolster borders, ports, roads, energy facilities and other economic infrastructure in Africa. Over the next few decades, the market for this infrastructure and societal security capacity is estimated to be at least $60 trillion, according to reports by McKinsey and others. By working now to protect African economic infrastructure, which includes endangered elephants and rhinos, technology companies could reap huge financial and public relations rewards.

Security technology, military capacity and market incentives are all waiting to be deployed to defeat terrorists and save wildlife in Africa — a huge potential win-win. Here’s hoping that Prince Charles and Prince William use this month’s summit to publicly call on military and industry leaders to join the fight to conserve rhinos and elephants.

CIC Celebrated First-Ever World Wildlife Day on 3rd March CIC Press Release

No nature, no wildlife! Nature without wildlife is unthinkable. Both scenarios are not what we want, yet humanity is

managing to get there! So, will 1 day in a year of 365 days with us sending well-intended messages make a difference? Yes, because it is a small but important step in a marathon of efforts required to achieve a healthy balance between human development and the conservation of nature. The existence of many wildlife species is threatened, charismatic and lesser known species alike. Unfettered development on the one hand and a combination of organized crime and human greed on the other hand, are the root causes.

The International Council for Game and Wildlife Conservation (CIC) champions the perpetuation of wildlife and wild spaces through an incentive-driven-conservation approach and the wise and sustainable use of nature’s components. Despite the many catastrophic media reports on wildlife crime, the CIC is proud to announce and to spread the many exemplary conservation success stories.

The CIC acknowledges these conservation leaders in public and for the World to see through the handing-over, on a biannual basis, of the acclaimed CIC Markhor Award at the Conference of the Parties of the Convention on Biological Diversity. The commonality between all these success stories is the participation of local people and communities in the conservation and use of landscapes and wildlife and the significance of socio-cultural aspects in the long-term realization of wildlife conservation projects.


http://iccfoundation.us/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=504:african-officials-seek-us-drones-to-fight-poachers&catid=72:2013&Itemid=373

http://iccfoundation.us/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=504:african-officials-seek-us-drones-to-fight-poachers&catid=72:2013&Itemid=373

http://www.mckinsey.com/insights/engineering_construction/infrastructure_productivity

http://www.cic-wildlife.org/2014/03/no-nature-no-wildlife/

http://www.cic-wildlife.org/who-we-are/awards-and-prizes/markhor-award/





Legal, well-regulated and sustainable hunting is an important component with a proven track record; and embedded therein are demonstrable actions on the ground in the global efforts to contain wildlife crime! Yet, none of the recent global summits on wildlife crime have even mentioned the potential of mobilizing the dozens of millions of hunters in the world to strengthen the global fight against wildlife criminals. The CIC is organizing, on the 24th of April 2014, in Milan, Italy, a Global Summit: “Hunters United against Wildlife Crime” which will showcase the rallying of the global hunting community in systematically bringing down wildlife criminals. More on the official website of World Wildlife Day and read the “Message on World Wildlife Day” of the Collaborative Partnership on Sustainable Wildlife Management (CPW)!

News From and About Africa Central African Republic 65% of Central Africa's forest elephants were killed between 2002 and 2013, reported the Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS) at the London Conference on Illegal Wildlife Trade in February. WCS researchers said the forest elephant is being poached at an alarming rate of 9% per year. The 12-year study of Central African forest elephants took 80 sites in five countries into account. The study is a follow-up to previous research done by the same team, which revealed that the forest elephant population had been reduced to just 10% of its historical size and that the pachyderms occupy just one-quarter of the area they once did. John Robinson, WCS Chief Conservation Officer said that the numbers highlight the sense of urgency facing the elephant poaching crisis. He said that conservation commitments made by nations around the world "cannot fail or the African forest elephant will blink out in our lifetime." "At least a couple of hundred thousand forest elephants were lost between 2002-2013 to the tune of at least sixty a day, or one every twenty minutes, day and night" said WCS researcher Fiona Maisels. The study revealed that the tiny nation of Gabon is home to about 60 percent of the remaining forest elephant population. Historically, the Democratic Republic of the Congo would have hosted the most forest elephants. "The current number and distribution of elephants is mind-boggling when compared to what it should be," said Samantha Strindberg, a WCS researcher and study co-author. "About 95 percent of the forests of DRC are almost empty of elephants." African forest elephants (Loxodonta cyclotis) are found exclusively in Central African nations. Just four years ago they were conclusively proved to be a separate species from African savanna elephants (L. africana). Chad Chad has seen its elephant population dwindle from 50,000 to 1,500 in the last half-century, now announced that it will join several other countries that have been destroying their ivory stockpiles of late. According to African Parks, Chad’s president burned the ivory on February 21 as part of the Zakouma National Park’s 50th anniversary celebration, following the London Conference. Europe The European Parliament approved an important Motion for a Resolution on Wildlife Crime on 15 January, with 647 positive votes, 14 against and no abstentions. The Resolution calls for measures against wildlife crime, placing it on the same level as human trafficking and drug trafficking. In the non-binding motion, the European Commission is urged to establish an EU plan of action against illegal wildlife trade, supporting wildlife law enforcement in range states and assisting them in fighting organized poaching and trafficking; it should also include the promotion of demand-reduction campaigns to black-list illegal products. IUCN supports these important elements of the motion for Resolution, as it has strong conservation benefits. However, in order to ensure a well-balanced position on this subject, IUCN recommends that EU institutions acknowledge the role that well-managed, sustainable use and trade can play in promoting effective wildlife conservation and species recovery; including for example, the South American vicuña and many crocodilian species. Luc Bas, Director of the IUCN EU Representative Office said: "The motion is an important step forward in the fight against wildlife trafficking, but unfortunately does not adequately consider the importance of engaging local communities as active partners in conservation, and the need to take into account their interests while ensuring efforts to combat wildlife crimes." Hong Kong 28 tons of Hong Kong's elephant ivory will soon go up in flames—the largest stockpile ever burned, the semi-autonomous Chinese region announced Thursday. The decision makes Hong Kong the latest government to destroy its ivory, following recent burns by the United States and the Philippines. Hong Kong's ivory will be destroyed over a period of two years, and any ivory confiscated in the future will be regularly disposed of, Hong Kong's Endangered Species Advisory Committee Chairman Paul Shin said in a press conference.


http://www.cicmilan2014.com/Summit.html

http://www.wildlifeday.org/content/international-council-game-and-wildlife-conservation

http://www.cic-wildlife.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/CPW-Message_World_Wildlife_Day_3_March.pdf

http://www.wcs.org/press/press-releases/new-data-on-forest-elephants.aspx

http://www.wcs.org/press/press-releases/new-data-on-forest-elephants.aspx

http://www.natureworldnews.com/articles/6021/20140213/london-conference-illegal-wildlife-trade-concluded-resolution-end-crime.htm

http://www.african-parks.org/Blog_105_President+Idriss+Deby+of+Chad+commits+to+destroying+ivory+stockpile+amongst+range+of+elephant+protection+measures.html

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?&ref%20erence=B7-2014-0013&language=EN

http://www.iucn.org/about/union/commissions/sustainable_use_and_livelihoods_specialist_group/sulinews/issue_2/sn2_vicunas/

http://www.iucn.org/about/union/commissions/sustainable_use_and_livelihoods_specialist_group/sulinews/issue_5/sn5_crocodiles/





INTERPOL INTERPOL released a report, 'Elephant Poaching and Ivory Trafficking in East Africa: Assessment for an effective law enforcement response,' which emphasizes the need for greater information sharing to enable more proactive and effective law enforcement against trafficking syndicates. The report offers methods to enhance multinational law enforcement responses to elephant poaching and ivory trafficking from East Africa, as well as the identification of persistent law enforcement challenges. It recommends that East African elephant range States, and countries through which ivory transits, should create National Environment Security Task Forces (NESTs). It also recommends that East African elephant range States should use the International Consortium on Combating Wildlife Crime (ICCWC) Wildlife and Forest Crime Analytical Toolkit to assess their effectiveness in addressing wildlife crimes and create, as needed, intelligence analysis and investigation units dedicated to tackling wildlife crime. David Higgins, Head of INTERPOL's Environmental Security unit, noted that while there was global recognition of the problem of elephant poaching and ivory smuggling, a more integrated approach was necessary to secure a more effective response. Kenya Kenya's judiciary took another blow to its chequered reputation, when only a day after 40 magistrates had participated in a workshop about the new wildlife laws promulgated on 14th January 2014, and less than a week after the first landmark ruling which fined a Chinese ivory smuggler to 232,000 USD or 7 years in prison, another magistrate defied expectations and handed down a fine of 15,000 USD only. The new wildlife punishes poaching of elephants and rhinos with a fine of 232,000 USD or life imprisonment. To secure a conviction will however require watertight evidence, excellent prosecutions and judicial compliance discussed in a series of dialogues and trainings dubbed "Wildlife Crime Dialogue" organized by the Judiciary Training Institute. Apparently, not all Kenyan magistrates attended! Mozambique Conservationists in northern Mozambique, where an average of three to four elephants are being poached a day, have implicated local authorities in the killing spree. Rangers say the weapons used include helicopters and heavy-calibre guns normally used by military forces. In Niassa National Reserve, where elephant numbers have dropped from more than 20,000 in 2009 to about 9,000 Frelimo has been accused of using the proceeds of ivory sales to fund its 10th anniversary congress in nearby Pemba last year. Alastair Nelson, director of the Wildlife Conservation Society in Mozambique, said the proceeds from ivory, which is smuggled via the nearby port of Pemba or across the border into Tanzania, were fuelling corruption in northern Mozambique. Namibia Minister of Environment and Tourism, Uahekua Herunga, said he is pleased with the N$3, 7 million the government will receive from auction sale of the hunting permit for a black rhino bull. He hoped that the next auction sale would reach US$1 million. The minister said that "we should be allowed as a country to exercise our right to utilize our natural resources sustainably" and added that “there are other permits that will be issued this year to hunt rhinos and buffaloes”. Netherlands (Delta/KLM Airlines) Hunters planning to fly Delta/KLM or other airlines through Amsterdam on a hunting trip should expect long delays in processing their firearm transit permits. The Hunting Report has learned of several hunters experiencing difficulties getting the transit permit issued to them by the Dutch Customs office (Netherlands Tax and Customs Administration). The permit is required to transit through the Netherlands with firearms, even though the bags are never claimed and are merely passed from one aircraft to the next. It appears the Dutch Customs office is taking up to two months currently to process and issue the necessary transit permits and then only after continuous follow-up in the weeks prior to hunters’ trips. Nigeria Lanre Awoseyin, National Coordinator, Nigerian Hotels Association, said that adequate wildlife conservation would boost tourism development and attract more tourists to Nigeria’s 8 national parks, but underscored the need to improve wildlife conservation as part of efforts to boost the country's tourism potential. He suggested that farmers had encroached deeply into the demarcated areas and urged the government to educate farmers around game reserves to desist from bush burning. Awoseyin reiterated that the law prohibiting poaching of wildlife was not stringent enough and noted that Nigerians' taste for "bush meat" had somewhat encouraged poachers to continue illegal killing of wildlife. He underscored the need to regulate and reduce the consumption of "bush meat".


http://www.interpol.int/News-and-media/News/2014/N2014-029

http://www.interpol.int/News-and-media/News/2014/N2014-029





South Africa CapeNature and the Endangered Wildlife Trust announced the discovery of a population of the critically endangered riverine rabbit (Bunolagus monticularis, Thomas 1929), in the Anysberg Nature Reserve (Klein Karoo, ca. 81 000 ha) in December 2013. The riverine rabbit also known as the bushman rabbit or bushman hare is endemic to the Nama and Succulent Karoo areas and serves as an important indicator species for riverine habitat health. Until now this critically endangered species was known to occur exclusively on privately owned farmland or reserves. The Riverine rabbit typically has a black stripe running from the corner of the mouth over the cheek; a brown woolly tail, cream-colored fur on its belly and throat, and a broad, club-like hind foot. Its tail is pale brown with a tinge of black toward the tip. They feed at night and rest up in shallow scrapes during the day. Two types of droppings are produced. At night, when the rabbit is active, hard pellets are deposited. During the day droppings are soft, taken directly from the anus, and swallowed. In this way the riverine rabbit obtains vitamin B, produced by bacteria in the hind gut, and minerals such as calcium and phosphorus are recycled. South Africa On January 9th 2014, President Jacob Zuma handed over land from world renowned Mala Mala Game Reserve to the N’wandlamhlarhi Community Property Association. This process which forms part of government’s efforts to accelerate land reform programs will benefit 960 households. The Mala Mala claimants lodged claims against 21 properties consisting of 63 portions, measuring 65,000 ha. The claimed land included the Mala Mala Game Reserve, which is currently operating as an internationally renowned ecotourism destination. The Mala Mala settlement framework restores a total of 5 farms, consisting of 9 portions, having a total extent of 13,184 ha. After lengthy negotiations, the legal representatives of the land owners considered a settlement amount of 939.36 Million South African Rand (ca. 90 Million US Dollars) for the purchase of 13,184 ha which equates to R71,250 (ca. 6,850n US$) per hectare. “The total land value appears to be exorbitant, however it should be noted that this is prime game land attested to by expert witnesses in court,’’ said Minister of Rural Development and Land Reform, Mr Gugile Nkwinti. South Africa The total number of rhino poached in South Africa during 2013 increased to 1004, as the number of people arrested for rhino poaching-related offences climbed to 343," said the Department of Environmental Affairs department on January 17th. Since the start of 2014, 37 rhino have been poached. In 2012, 668 rhino were poached, while 448 were killed in 2011. Since 2008, 2 778 rhino have been poached in South Africa. The Kruger National Park bore the brunt of rhino poaching in 2013 with the park losing a total 606 of the iconic animals to poachers. A total of 114 rhino were poached in Limpopo, 92 in Mpumalanga, 87 in North West and 85 in KwaZulu-Natal. The number of rhino poachers arrested during 2013 increased considerably with 343 being arrested, 133 of them in the Kruger National Park. In 2012, 267 alleged poachers were arrested. Since the beginning of 2014, six alleged poachers have been arrested. South Africa Eleven rhino poachers have been killed in the Kruger National Park (KNP) since the beginning of the year according to SA National Parks (SANParks). The poachers were killed by park rangers and members of the SA National Defense Force, in an attempt to curb rhino poaching in the park, SANParks spokesperson Reynold Thakhuli said. "They [poachers] operate in groups of four to six and are aggressive and engage and shoot at the rangers on sight, creating a daily life-threatening situation. Up to 15 heavily armed groups operate in the KNP at any given time, especially during the full moon period," he said. South Africa Edna Molewa, South Africa’s Minister of Water and Environmental Affairs lauded the 21.8 million USD grant made to the Peace Parks Foundation by the Dutch and Swedish Postcode Lotteries towards the fight against rhino poaching as “the largest single contribution made by the private sector to combat rhino poaching and wildlife crime”. The majority of this funding will be spent on enhancing the existing efforts to protect rhino in South Africa, which hosts 83% of the continent’s wild rhino population. All other southern African rhino range states have been consulted during the development of this project and will form an integral part of the strategies designed. The main focus will be the devaluation of the horns of live rhino, through a combination of methods, including the physical devaluation and contamination of the horn, as well as the use of tracking and monitoring technology. In addition Peace Parks Foundation also received 1.9 million USD. South Africa Some 400 endangered amphibians and reptiles from Madagascar have died from dehydration and improper shipping in South Africa, animal inspectors say. More than 1,600 animals were discovered crammed into two crates at the OR Tambo International Airport. The survivors are being treated at Johannesburg zoo. The animals, destined for the exotic pet market in the USA, had been without water and food for at least five days.


https://www.google.co.za/maps/preview#!q=Mala+Mala+game+reserve&data=!1m4!1m3!1d229657!2d31.505699!3d-24.8158154!4m15!2m14!1m13!1s0x1ec2ade8b2e22fdb%3A0xeaade21ba4537d94!3m8!1m3!1d847615!2d18.6560594!3d-33.915538!3m2!1i1024!2i768!4f13.1!4m2!3d-24.800376!4d31.540816





South Africa Foreign trophy hunters spent R1.24bn in South Africa in 2012, R400m more than the Department of Environmental Affairs had estimated, says a report commissioned by the Professional Hunters' Association of South Africa. The department's calculations only included species fees and daily rates, and the report conducted by North West University included airfares, transport, ammunition, shipping costs, trophy handling, licenses and permits and additional tours. Regular hunters averaged about 9,000 a year, but "they are loyal, and spend a great deal of money" said the association's CEO Adri Kitshoff. The report says average hunter's daily fees were more than $3,300. They spent on average $7,891 on game and more than $17,000 on the full experience. About 88% of hunters were from the US and the average length of stay at the hunting destination was 10 nights with an additional three nights dedicated to sightseeing, the report said. Other hunters come from Denmark, Germany, France and Mexico, with growing interest from Russia. South Africa's hunting industry was valued at R6.5bn with an estimated 250,000 domestic hunters, says the association. It benefited the country by conserving animals and creating jobs, said Piers van der Merwe, one of the researchers for the report. The report was conducted via a web-based survey which respondents completed from January to October last year. The most popular provinces were Limpopo and the Eastern Cape. Lion and kudu are the biggest income generators. Lions cost $18,438 each. Most of the lion shot are bred in captivity. South Sudan The Secretariat of the UN Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) has announced that South Sudan deposited its instrument of accession to the Convention on 17 February 2014. South Sudan is now the 194th party to the CBD. The CBD will enter into force for South Sudan on 18 May 2014. The country supports important wildlife populations in Africa, and hosts one of the largest wildlife migrations in the world. Boma National Park, west of the Ethiopian border, as well as the Sudd wetland and Southern National Park near the border with Congo, provide habitat for large populations of kob and topi, buffalo, elephant, giraffe, hartebeest and lion. Sudan's forest reserves also provide habitat for bongo, giant forest hog, red river hog, forest elephant, chimpanzee, and forest monkey. Tanzania The safari camps and lodges based in the Selous Game Reserve have been seriously disturbed by an increased wave of elephant and rhino poaching in Tanzania and have therefore teamed up together and pooled ca. 40,000 US$ to aid anti-poaching activities in the Selous Game Reserve. The donation shows the trust, which the private sector has, in the present leadership of the reserve. Tanzania Tanzanian President Jakaya Kikwete announced on January 19th that he had appointed Mr. Lazaro Nyalandu as new Tourism Minister, taking over from Khamis Kagasheki who had resigned from the post in December 2013.The fight against poaching is one of the major challenges of the new Minister, who had served previously as Deputy to Mr. Kagasheki. The new Deputy Minister is Mr. Mahmoud H. Mgimwa, a MP from Iringa. Mr. Nyalandu’s predecessor, the serious and no-nonsense former Minister Mr. Kagasheki, is widely seen in the industry and by conservationists as the most efficient Natural Resources Minister the country ever had. He was forced to resign after accusations emerged about torture, corruption and atrocities during an exercise to arrest poachers. However, the leading forces in the so-called Operation Togomeza were the army and the police. Minister Nyalandu, a former ambassador and political heavyweight took responsibility for events, which did not fall under his responsibility. The general opinion in the conservation community is that he was a sacrificial lamb to offenses he never committed and is seen as a victim of corrupt officials and politicians, who succeeded to oust him so that they can go on squandering Tanzania’s wildlife and forest resources. In addition the Director of Wildlife, Prof. Dr. Alexander Songorwa, was transferred to the College of Wildlife Management Mweka as new Principal. His successor is Paul Sarakikya, a long standing Deputy Director of the Wildlife Division. The Division is presently transformed into a self-budgeting Parastatal, called Tanzania Wildlife Authority (TAWA) Tanzania Minister for Natural Resources and Tourism, Lazaro Nyalandu said the country has a bulging stockpile of elephant tusks stored safely in state warehouses, but what Tanzania is going to do with them is something which hasn't been decided yet. Destroying the 'white gold' seems to be out of question because the money from selling them could support conservation efforts. Two years ago, Tanzania requested CITES permission to sell off the ivory stockpile, currently weighing over 100 metric tons and counting, but the request was withdrawn. Thousands of stored elephant tusks that have been accumulating

Lazaro Nyalandu






over the past 25 years are estimated to be valued at US $60 million. These are legally accumulated tusks from animals that expired naturally and ivory confiscated from people who harvested them illegally," explained Mr Nyalandu, adding that all consignments were being treated as state trophies owned by the People of Tanzania. Zimbabwe The Zimbabwe Parks and Wildlife Management Authority announced that Nyakasanga hunting concession will be withdrawn from the Zambezi Valley auctioned hunting packages and that the auction as from 2014 will include Sapi and Tuli hunting areas only. The 2014 Sapi and Tuli hunting camps and Sapi fishing camps auction will be held on the 21st of March 2014 at the Rainbow Towers, Harare, Zimbabwe. MAC Auction Services will be administering the auction on behalf of Parks. Zimbabwe The number of rhino poached in Zimbabwe dropped sharply last year but decades of illegal killing have decimated the population and only 750 (450 black and 300 white rhino) remain, the director of the Zimbabwe Parks and Wildlife Authority said in March. Poachers killed 20 rhino in the country in 2013, compared to 60 killed in 2012 and 84 slaughtered in 2008. “In the late 1980s we had close to 2000 rhino and then poaching crashed the country's rhino population over the past two decades,” he said.

D. H. M. Cumming Reviews Glen Martin’s Book “Game Changer: Animal Rights and the Fate of Africa’s Wildlife” “This book is an important contribution to the debate on wildlife conservation in Africa and needs to be widely read. Above all it provides a timely warning of the likely impacts on Africa’s rich and unique biodiversity of ill-conceived conservation policies and inappropriate ideologies. I fear, however, that those who most need to read this outspoken and hard-hitting book may not have the courage to do so.” - D. H. M. Cumming

“A primary focus is the state of conservation in Kenya where the International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW),

and other animal rights protagonists, have been instrumental in convincing Kenya to maintain and reinforce a 1977 ban on hunting and the consumptive use of wildlife. Despite Kenya’s high profile as a wildlife tourist destination, its conservation record is abysmal and marked by a 70% decline in large mammal populations since the 1970s.”

The conservation of Africa’s diverse and charismatic large mammals has become the battleground for opposing philosophies based on fundamentally different beliefs regarding the treatment of animals. For the most part Africans view wildlife as an environmental good that can be used for their benefit, whether as food, items to trade, or, more recently, as a means to generate returns through consumptive or non-consumptive tourism, or both. This underlying instrumental or utilitarian philosophy is readily translated into conservation through sustainable use.

In contrast, the philosophical underpinnings of animal rights movements assign an intrinsic value to individual animals and strongly oppose the killing of wild animals for any reason. As Glen Martin convincingly portrays in this highly readable book, the end result in Africa is that wild animals possess little, if any, (legal) value to rural people. There is no strong incentive to sustain large wild animals on their land.

The modern approach to conservation of wildlife in Africa is barely a century or two old. It grew out of colonial administrations and the decimation of wildlife by overhunting and diseases, such as rinderpest, during the 19th Century. The first attempts to save remnant herds involved establishing laws to control hunting as well as setting aside game reserves. With the advent of cinema, television and nature films, in which wild animals were increasingly depicted as individuals with human characteristics (e.g. Disney films and Bambi), the stage was set for the increasing influence of western-based values and animal rights movements on conservation in Africa.

Glen Martin explores the fundamental rift between utilitarian and animal rights approaches to conservation and their consequences for the survival of Africa’s large mammals. He does so by skilfully and engagingly weaving the insights of the many experienced conservation experts he interviewed on his travels in Africa with his own commentary on the issues and complexity surrounding the conservation of Africa’s wildlife. A primary focus is the state of conservation in Kenya where the International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW), and other animal rights protagonists, has been instrumental in convincing Kenya to maintain and reinforce a 1977 ban on hunting and the consumptive use of wildlife. Despite Kenya’s high profile as a wildlife tourist destination, its conservation record is abysmal and marked by a 70% decline in large mammal populations since the 1970s. Martin contrasts the Kenyan situation with those in Tanzania, Namibia and South Africa, where hunting by citizens and foreign tourists is an integral component of wildlife management. In stark contrast to Kenya, wildlife-based land



http://www.ucpress.edu/ebook.php?isbn=9780520952058


http://www.africanindaba.co.za/


http://www.africanindaba.co.za/

http://www.africanindaba.co.za/entry.htm



african indaba e-newsletter volume 12, number 2 page 2african indaba e-newsletter volume 12, number...

Documents