FREE ESSAY ON WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT IN AFRICA

WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT IN AFRICA

Wildlife Management in Africa
In the past three decades, many of Africa's wild animals have suffered a massive decline
in population due to poaching. Africa is the world's second largest continent and home to
thousands of species of animals. Unlike in North America, most of these animals roam
completely free in an almost totally undeveloped environment. In attempt to save these
animals from possible extinction, anti-poaching laws have been enacted by governments
throughout Africa, as well as an international ban on ivory trade. Anti-poaching
regulations have in turn stemmed the formation of programs and policies for the
management of Africa's wildlife.
Poaching: Background
Poaching, the illegal killing of protected animals, occurs in Africa for a variety of
reasons. The most profitable reason is the ivory trade. Hundreds of elephants and Rhinos
are slaughtered every year for their ivory tusks, which claim a sizeable profit on the
black market. Many hunters also poach for the sport of it, the thrill of the hunt. Many
of the country's native peoples, however, poach animals as a means to stay alive. Because
the wildlife of Africa roams so free, many people and crops are damaged and destroyed
every year and natives poach the animals for self-defense. Financial concerns also drive
many natives to poaching, seeing as most of Africa is still considered to be third world
and an elephant tusk can mean the difference between starving to death and a prosperous
year (Messer, 50). Poaching also has negative effects on the environment, and on the
economy. Governments in Africa and around the world have tried to enforce strict
anti-poaching laws, and also regulate the ivory trade, until recently however, both
efforts have been in vain.
In the past, government imposed anti-poaching laws transformed animals such as elephants
and rhinos into a non-resource. They imposed laws that forbad the killing of these
animals, but offered no alternative for those whose livelihood came from the animals
(Butler, Mar1995; 40). The programs that were implemented were enforcement programs: many
with a policy of shoot to kill (poachers). For example, in 1984, Zimbabwe implemented
"Operation Stronghold," whose main policy was to shoot poachers on site. Kenya has
similar policies in their game parks, in retaliation to the poachers "poaching" park
rangers (Hogan, 13). This attempt to secure animal populations has often cut off the
human population in the immediate area from a valuable source of both income and food. 
Wildlife and Rural Inhabitants
Many rural communities depend on farming as livelihood. Only 5 percent of the land in
Africa is considered suitable for intensive agriculture, which therefore makes farming
difficult (Child, 1997). Wild animals, especially elephants, make it even more difficult
to eek out a living on the African landscape because they like to eat the crops,
devastating the farmer's income. In order to avoid or reduce damage from elephants,
farmers have tried various strategies to deter them. Especially during the harvest
season, farmers expend a great deal of labor attempting to guard their fields from
elephants. Different methods, such as lighting fires, beating drums, and even firing guns
into the air are tried. However, farmers explain that elephants, with their great
intelligence, quickly learn that they will not be harmed by these methods and often
return to eat the crops (Butler, Mar1995; 40). More modern methods, such as electric
fencing and trip alarms have also been tested. Despite the high cost of these deterrents,
elephants have learned to foil them as well. Another method that has been used with some
success in Zimbabwe is the firing of tear gas canisters filled with chili pepper (Butler,
Mar1995; 40). So far, no method has been able to completely deter the elephant aside from
killing it. It should be noted that elephants do not destroy crops solely by eating them,
but can also cause considerable damage by trampling crops while in transit.
On the other side, farming and ranching have had a dramatic impact on Africa's wildlife.
Some 90 percent of the herbivore biomass is now domestic livestock (Child, 1997). Land
that was once open range for elephants and rhinos is now used for agriculture and
livestock. In addition to poaching, these factors put great strain on animal populations.
Ranchers often construct fences to contain their livestock, but wildlife needs aren't
taken into consideration (Lee, 2001). For example, a fence may keep cattle from
wandering, but it also prevents wild animals from reaching watering holes or food. 
Economics of Poaching
Many poachers are driven to do so because of poverty. Often times, their only source of
income is farming or ranching on mediocre lands. These lands are only "productive" when
the weather agrees and if no animals come to enjoy the crops. If crops fail, people are
left with no money or food to live off of. To alleviate this suffering, some people turn
to poaching animals either for their ivory or for meat to sell at market. 
The prevalent conflicts between humans and animals attempting to inhabit the same regions
made apparent the need for a new approach to wildlife conservation. Instead of looking at
wildlife as a non-resource, animals were instead treated as a normal renewable natural
resource. This involved mainly valuing the direct use of the wildlife for commercial uses
that could take place on public, private, and communal lands. It involves a wide range of
activities or potential activities, including wildlife viewing tourism, safari hunting
tourism, community wildlife use, game ranching, intensive ostrich or crocodile
production, elephant culling, animal relocation, and product processing (Child, 1997). In
Zimbabwe, Botswana, Namibia and South Africa, recent legislative changes giving
communities access to custodial rights over wildlife have opened the way for wildlife use
to contribute to livelihoods.
New Ways to Manage Wildlife
Since it has been noted that typical command and control enforcement mechanisms do not
usually work in Africa, new approaches are being attempted. It is important to
incorporate the people living near the animals in conservation plans because they must
receive some benefits if they must bear the cost of sharing the land. 
Zimbabwe has implemented CAMPFIRE (Communal Areas Management Program for Indigenous
Resources), a program focusing on wildlife conservation by involving people living on
communal land (Lee, 2001). With CAMPFIRE the government has transferred the ownership of
wildlife on communal lands to the communities, which sell hunting or photographic
concessions to safari companies. The money earned goes directly to the community who
decides how it should be spent. Hunting quotas are set by the government and local
authorities are responsible for wildlife protection and management (Butler, March 1995;
39).
Since implementation in 1989, communities have stopped poaching and now monitor the
animals to make sure that no one else from outside the area is poaching them. Half of
Zimbabwe's 55 local districts have joined. In 1993, 12 districts nationwide with a
combined population of 400,000, earned $1,516,693 in trophy fees and $97,732 from
tourism, culling, and from shooting problem animals (Butler, March95; 39). 
Safari hunting, which is extremely controversial among conservation groups, can generate
impressive sums of money. Hunting quotas are set based on annual wildlife surveys and all
foreign sport hunters must be accompanied by a professional hunter, licensed by the
government. A single hunter can spend up to $40,000, half of which goes to local
communities (Butler, march95; 41). Many (foreign) conservation agencies argue that safari
hunting should not be allowed. To argue this, the Zambezi valley in Zimbabwe can
sustainably support 22,000 elephants that have a growth rate of 4 to 5 percent. The
valley is also home to eight communal districts that have a combined hunting quota of 58
elephants, five percent of the annual growth rate (Dunn, 2000). It is common practice to
cull animal populations when they exceed a sustainable number. Therefore, allowing trophy
hunting is in a sense culling, but at the same time allowing local communities to benefit
from the revenue generated by the presence of safari hunters. Hunters not only must pay
for any animal they may shoot, but for food, lodging, and any additional souvenirs they
may buy.
Another interesting approach to wildlife management in Africa are animal relocation
programs. Such programs move animals from overpopulated areas to under-populated regions
or areas where certain animals have gone extinct. In September 2000, seven elephants
where relocated from elephant-abundant South Africa to Angola. Operation Noah's Ark is a
program whose goal is to repopulate the once abundant animal population of Angola, which
were desecrated during the 25 year long civil war. Animals are relocated in family groups
to reduce the shock and stress of the long journey and the re-adjustment period
(Swindels, 2000). 
New education programs have also been implemented to teach people of the benefits of
animal conservation. One such program was implemented at the South African Wildlife
College with funding from the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) in order to train wildlife
managers how to better manage wildlife, resources, and people. During the two year
program, students learn how to track animals and poachers, as well as oversee irrigation
systems, identify plants, and handle community relations. They also learn about legal
issues in conservation and tourism infrastructure. Tanzania also has a similar program
that hires professionals to teach each subject instead of full-time professors (Mooney,
1998). 
Conclusion
With all that confronts the attempts to properly managing African wildlife, there does
appear to be some avenue to pursue that could bring about an improved setting for the
co-existence of human and animals. First, there needs to be better education on the
plight of the animals particularly in those Western countries where foreign aid must
compete with corruption. Secondly, there needs to be a way of channeling the revenue,
derived from the consumption of animal related goods, to the people whose production
possibilities are damaged by the destruction brought about by the animals (i.e. Elephants
trampling crops or loss of farm land due to protected wildlife lands). Third, there needs
to be a change of the property right structure in many of the South Africa countries.
Such programs as CAMPFIRE can facilitate this change. It should be made explicitly clear
that any change that will occur will do so in a political arena and careful consideration
of the local political and cultural systems will be necessary to design optimal wildlife
management programs. 
Bibliography
Bibliography
Butler, Victoria. "Elephants By the Truckload." International Wildlife. Vienna, VA.
July/Aug 1995. v25 no4 p30-35
Butler, Victoria. "Is This the Way to Save Africa's Wildlife?" International Wildlife.
Vienna, VA March/ April 1995 v.25 no.2 p38-43
Child, Brian. "On economic Development of Africa's resources" House Committee in
International Relations. March 19, 1997.
www.house.gov/international_relations/105th/af/wsaf3177.htm
Drogin, Bob. "Zimbabwe is losing the Rhino War." Los Angeles Times. Sept 22, 1994 pA-1
Dunn, Kate. "Animals Caught in Middle of Zimbabwe's Land Reform. Poaching by Squatters in
White-Owned Nature reserves Worries Conservationists." Christian Science Monitor. Boston.
Nov 28, 2000.
Hogan, Rolf. "The Wildlife trade: Poacher or Gamekeeper?" The Unesco Courier. Paris.
July/Aug 2000. v53. Issue 7/8. p12-14
Lee, Kyu Young. "Groups Clash Over Wildlife Habitat Expansion Program" Environmental News
Network. Internet 2/6/01 www.enn.com/enn-news-archive/1997/05/050597/feature.asp
Messer, Kent. "The Poacher's Dilemma: The Economics of Poaching and Enforcement."
Endangered Species Update. Ann Arbor. May/June 2000 p.50-56
Mooney, Carolyn. "A South African College Trains A New Generation to manage wildlife,
Land and People." The Chronicle of Higher Education; Washington, July 31, 1998
Murphy, Dean. "New Housing Ousts Hippos in South Africa." The Los Angeles Times. LA,CA.
October 5, 1998. Proquest. http://proquest.umi.com
Peck, John. "Asian Meltdown Hits Zimbabwe." Zmagazine. Internet 2/6/01.
www.zmag.org/zmag/articles/pecksept98.htm
Rembert, Tracy. "Opening the Ivory Door." Environmental News Network. October 5, 1998.
www.enn.com/enn-features-archives/1998/10/100598/ivory_23818.asp
Salopek, Paul. "Poaching for Elephant Tusks Alarms Africa Anew." Chicago Tribune.
http://chicagotibune.com/news/nationworld/article/0,2669,SAV-0004100104,FF.html
Swindells, Steven. "Elephant Airlift to Angola Brings New hope." Environmental News
Network. September 11, 2000. www.enn.com/extras/printer-friendly.asp?storyid=31322