The Wildlife Trade: Poacher Or Gamekeeper?

UNESCO Courier, July, 2000 by Rolf Hogan

Rolf Hogan [*]

The decision to strictly limit or outrightly ban trading in endangered species regularly puts governments and conservationists before a critical dilemma

South Africa recently announced that it is ready to part with 1,500 elephants which, it says, are destroying trees that other species depend on for their survival in the country's famous Kruger National Park. If there are no takers the animals will be culled and their tusks added to South Africa's bulging ivory stockpile.

The South African offer highlights a critical dilemma facing all those concerned with wildlife conservation: is it possible to protect endangered species like elephants and rhinoceros effectively if trade in wildlife products, even on a one-off basis, is allowed? South Africa is one of many African countries which argue that a limited trade in wildlife product stockpiles should be allowed so that the proceeds can be used to pay for conservation. Governments and conservation groups that are hostile to this approach claim that any kind of sale will stimulate the illegal market, encourage more poaching and ultimately push species such as elephants and rhino closer to extinction.

The debate on this controversial issue reaches a crescendo every two or three years at the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES). The convention has 151 member states which vote at the conference on proposals to limit or place an outright ban on international trade in species considered to be at risk (see box, p. 14). At the CITES conference held in Nairobi, Kenya, in April this year, calls to lift the ban on trade in products such as ivory, turtle shells and whales provoked fierce debate.

While countries like Kenya and India opposed lifting the ban on the ivory trade, Japan and Norway wanted the ban on whaling lifted because, they said, the stocks of some whales on the endangered list are healthy enough to withstand commercial harvesting. After long deliberations, the CITES parties agreed to maintain the existing trade ban on ivory products, turtle shells and whale meat for the next three years.

Conservationists no longer oppose the idea of wildlife being exploited per se. If properly managed, they say, wildlife can provide food for impoverished rural populations and wildlife-based tourism can be an important source of income.

However, the sustainable use of wildlife means striking a delicate balance. "We only support using wildlife where it is beneficial to both the local community and to the ecosystem," says Gordon Sheppard of the World Wildlife Fund (WWF).

"It is oversimplistic to ban trade," says Jon Hutton, director of Africa Resources Trust (ART), an NGO involved in community conservation schemes in southern Africa. "We need to assess the trade-offs and come to a rational decision. We have to weigh up the profits from trade that can be reinvested in wildlife conservation, through funding government law enforcement or indirectly through providing an income for local communities, against the possible costs, such as an increased risk of poaching.

"In much of Africa, wildlife represents a net cost. It can kill people and damage crops and is therefore eradicated, either deliberately or gradually by exclusion. More and more land is being converted to agriculture, even if it is marginal for livestock, because rural people often have no alternative. ART is involved in schemes which return wildlife ownership to farmers. They then have a choice between cattle and crops or wildlife, and in many cases, they choose the second. Wildlife can be sold three times: to tourists, to sport hunters, and finally as ivory and hides. The sale of wildlife products often brings in the most revenue. The sale of ivory and hides for example represents 80 per cent of the value of an elephant. Tourism can bring in revenue, but most of the profits are made by international tour operators and not by local communities. Sport hunting on the other hand can bring in enormous revenue for the local community and it can be carried out in areas that may not be suited to tourism."

While the "non-consumptive use" of species for tourism is accepted by most wildlife organizations, some are against "consumptive use"--the killing of animals for food or profit. Animal welfare organizations believe that it is almost impossible to exploit animals without severely affecting their populations. "In principle, it is a nice idea," says Sarah Tyack of the International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW), "but there are too many examples of where it has failed."

Rhino revenue

In practice, experts say managing sustainable use of a species can be very difficult because wildlife needs and animal behaviour patterns have to be carefully balanced with human needs. Some species such as the hawksbill turtle (see page 16), can easily be overexploited, and uncontrolled tourism can severely affect some species. In Kenya's famed Masai Mara reserve, for example, scientists found that the hunting success of lions was reduced by a heavy inflow of tourists. Large groups of tourist vans tend to gather around the cats and frighten off their prey. "The key to using wildlife sustainably is good management but in many countries the resources or expertise are simply not available," says Sheppard.