Elephant Poaching, Census and Management in Botswana

[Lisbeth]

Killing elephants is not a wise way to win votes

BY DR LOUISE DE WAAL - 15 MARCH 2019 - PRETORIA NEWS

President Mokgweetsi Masisi of Botswana said last week that “elephants bleed [the]government coffers”, as “Botswana is indirectly subsidising and financing Botswana’s elephant population”.

This statement comes only days after the government released their Hunting Ban Social Dialogue Report on elephant management, proposing lifting of the trophy hunting ban, regular elephant culling, elephant meat canning for pet food, and the closure of some wildlife migratory routes.

The heated media debate that followed has turned into a political feud over the sovereignty to practice wildlife management without meddling from the West and is being used by the government as an election campaign.

A hugely inflated estimate of a supposedly growing elephant population, with figures as high as 237,000 elephants, was used by the Botswana Government last year during the community stakeholders’ consultation process. Since the handing over of the Social Dialogue Report, a more accurate number of 130,000 elephants is suddenly being used by the government and associated media.

This begs the question why the change of heart in terms of which elephant population number to use. For this, we need to understand the importance of rural votes for the ruling Botswana Democratic Party in the upcoming national elections later this year.

In order to win those vital rural votes, the implementation of culling and hunting has been proposed as a solution to Human Elephant Conflict (HEC). Konstantinos Markus (Maun East MP) claims that “communities have become very hostile and negative towards wildlife”. Thus, a higher and ever-increasing elephant number supports the HEC argument.

“Reintroducing trophy hunting and elephant culling will not stop HEC or poaching”, says Mary Rice (Executive Director – Environmental Investigation Agency). “Nor will introducing a legal trade of ivory and other elephant products, which flies in the face of Botswana’s commitments as a founding member of the Elephant Protection Initiative.”

A carrying capacity of 54,000 elephants is widely quoted to justify the government’s argument, along with wild and unsupported claims from the hunting fraternity that Botswana’s elephant population is 10-20 times larger than the country’s actual carrying capacity, creating major threats to its wildlife conservation.

The origin of the carrying capacity quoted by the Botswana government and the pro-hunting lobby is unclear. However, “the whole concept of a carrying capacity for elephants is a relic from commercial livestock farming, which has no real meaning in the management of Africa’s highly variable savanna ecosystems”, says Keith Lindsay (conservation biologist working with the Amboseli Trust for Elephants).

Neither culling, hunting, nor forceful blocking of migration routes is a permanent solution to HEC, as they are only reactive measures that do not promote the peaceful coexistence between people and elephants. Restricting the movement of wildlife along migration corridors can only push elephants further towards villages, increasing HEC, and the fences themselves will kill many other wild animals in the process.

“A more effective and humane solution would be a well-resourced programme of public education and crop protection in agricultural areas, along with the long-awaited opening up of safe corridors through the Caprivi into Zambia, and removal of artificial waterpoints”, Lindsay continues.

It is an indictment of the whole KAZA TFCA process that this has still not been implemented despite the tens of millions of Euros poured into the project by the German Development Bank.

Reputational damage to Botswana’s tourism industry

Botswana’s international reputation as a prime photographic tourism destination will come under threat, if the Social Dialogue Report is accepted by the Masisi government. Turning one of Africa’s iconic species into canned pet food has created international condemnation and the proposals have already been renamed as “Botswana’s Blood Law” by conservation spokesperson and lodge owner Dereck Joubert.

Tourism is a thriving industry in Botswana, which contributed in 2017 USD 687.5 million directly to its economy, a total of 11.5% to its GDP and 76,000 jobs (7.6%) to the total employment, with an enormous potential for further growth, according to the World Travel and Tourism Council.

Trophy hunting in comparison only generated USD 20 million and 1,000 jobs in 2014 and is considered a declining sector across Africa.

Botswana’s controversial elephant management proposals are not going unnoticed amongst potential international visitors and calls for boycotting Botswana as a tourism destination have already been voiced.

Personally, I don’t agree with a blanket boycott, as it will quickly undo the good tourism has done for both people and conservation in Botswana. However, there is a worldwide trend among travellers to make more considered and ethical choices when booking holidays, especially in terms of their impact on people, animals and the environment.

Clare Doolan (Sales & Product Manager – Safari Destinations) says, “many international tour operators expressed concern at ITB Berlin that they expect visitor numbers to Botswana to decline, if the recently proposed elephant management techniques are introduced”.

“We believe more creative solutions need to be found for communities impacted by HEC, by giving these communities access to tourism revenue through diversification of the tourism product and increasing community participation”, Doolan continues. “We would love the opportunity to work with government towards this goal, while strengthening Botswana’s standing as a leader in conservation.”

There are unconfirmed reports that President Masisi is planning to expand his consultation process to involve the tourism industry and communities benefitting from this sector in the debate.

The Hospitality and Tourism Association of Botswana (HATAB) released a statement to their members last week indicating that Minister Mokaila (Environment, Natural Resources and Tourism) reiterated that “the findings and recommendations suggested [in the report]will be discussed further with relevant stakeholders, including HATAB”.

However, it reeks of political chicanery when the second largest foreign exchange earner after diamond mining is not consulted prior to the submission of the Hunting Ban Social Dialogue Report.

Read original article: https://www.pressreader.com/search?quer ... =1&state=1

[Klipspringer]

Here is a very good article about the elephant problem:

https://africageographic.com/?author

Wildlife vet: the Botswana elephant debate is actually about a bigger conservation issue
Posted on 22 March, 2019 by Guest Blogger.


OPINION FROM ERIK VERREYNNE – LIVESTOCK AND WILDLIFE VETERINARY SURGEON IN BOTSWANA

The debate about the proposed lifting of the hunting ban in Botswana continues. It’s not surprising that elephants dominate the debate and that the arguments are based on various perspectives and perceptions. Various solutions are offered and are driven by arguments on lethal versus non-lethal approaches and hunting versus photographic tourism industry sustainability.

What is not acknowledged by many participants, is that this very complex situation is highlighting a very important conundrum facing conservation. The issue is not simply about elephants. The issue is about elephants and people, more precisely wildlife and people.

Human presence close to conservation areas, and the interfaces it creates, is the most important conservation challenge faced in Africa. The best way to illustrate this conundrum, is to analyse the situation from a holistic perspective.



Botswana, with some of its neighbours, is facing unique challenges concerning its wildlife. Nearly 17% of Botswana is under Protected Areas, otherwise known as National Parks and Game Reserves. That is more than the 10% stipulated internationally. Very few of these protected areas have any fences and none are fully fenced, allowing wildlife to come and go. An additional 32% of Botswana is designated as Wildlife Management Areas where people and wildlife co-exist in some form or another.

More than 65% of Botswana’s wildlife occurs outside the Protected Areas, in the Wildlife Management Areas(WMAs). Surrounding these WMAs lies the unprotected pastoral and farming areas. Communities reside along the boundaries of Protected Areas or inside and along many WMA boundaries, where they and their livestock must share the resources with wildlife. Subsistence livestock and crop production are the main sources of livelihoods. The land division in Botswana creates a huge spatial overlap between people and wildlife.

The scale of the demographic human-wildlife interface in Botswana is well illustrated by the elephant issue. The elephant range includes most of the Ngamiland District in the west, all of the Chobe District in the north, and parts of the Central District in the east and south. The elephant range in northern Botswana varies from 85,000 km² during the dry season to more than 116,000 km² during the wet season.



Botswana’s elephant population

According to Dr. Mike Chase (Elephants without Borders), the elephant population in Botswana was estimated at between 116,191 and 136,036 during the dry season of 2018. (In the absence of other published population data, I will refer to those survey results). Only about 23,000 km² (about 20%) of the elephant range falls within the Protected Areas, about 70,000 km² (or 65% of the range) in WMAs and forest reserves, and the rest of the range covers ranches and pastoral areas.

During the aerial survey in 2018, only 20% of the elephants (about 25,222) were counted in the Protected Areas, 57% of the elephants (nearly 72,000 at an estimated density of 1.4 elephant/km²) were counted in WMAs and forest reserves, and 22% (about 27,750 at an estimated density of 1.2-1.3 elephant/km²) were counted in pastoral areas and on ranches.

The elephants have taken semi-permanent residency in these areas and may only move during the rainy season. In theory this means that, if elephants and people were evenly spread, there would be a high probability of an elephant within 600m from a person at any given time in the pastoral and farming areas. In reality, both settlements and human activities overlap with elephant concentrations where common resources like water are shared.

Significantly, nearly half of Southern Africa’s elephants were counted during the survey in an area as big as South Carolina or Portugal. From another perspective, more than 5% of the total estimated population of elephants in Africa was counted only in the small section of pastoral areas in Botswana demarcated solely for agricultural use.

Ngamiland District has a population of about 165,000 people (at a density of 1.5 persons/km²) while Chobe district has a population of about 26,000 people at a density of 1.25 person/km². The 2016 Botswana agricultural report indicated a total of 238,132 cattle and 6,876 ha of subsistence crops on 9,072 holdings in Ngamiland. The dry period aerial count report indicates nearly half the cattle population in Ngamiland shares the landscape with elephants at a cattle density of 1.4/km². Almost all subsistence crops farming in Ngamiland falls within the elephant range.

In 1992, the elephant population was estimated at 55,000 – so the current elephant population is more double what it was about twenty seven years ago. At the same time, the human population has increased, and activities expanded. Botswana is now looking after nearly half the Southern African elephant population in an area of less than 100,000 km², and nearly 80% of these elephants share the land with people.



Elephant impact on environment and communities

The drivers for human-wildlife conflict are obvious and the price to pay is hefty. The international perception that Botswana is one big wilderness is skewed and as such creates a skewed expectation about wildlife and people. With a total human population of less than 2,5 million people, the argument that there are too many people is invalid. The situation clearly illustrates how expectations based on wrong perceptions can drive arguments and solutions. Many do not want to accept there is a crisis in Botswana because they downplay the human component and expect one big game reserve.

The current debate focuses much on numbers and asks whether Botswana has too many elephants. That inevitably leads to the question on limits of Botswana’s international responsibility towards elephant conservation. There is no doubt that elephant numbers internationally are under pressure. There is also no doubt that elephants play an important role in modifying landscapes, and should be conserved.

Acceptable densities of elephants in different landscapes and thresholds for management vary and the impact on vegetation is more important than the numbers. Even though the vegetation impact in certain areas looks severe, the population density in Botswana is within the acceptable limits of 2-3 elephant/km² – the elephant density according to the 2018 survey averages about 1.22 elephant/km² across the range in Botswana.

But again, range and impact can be misleading:

Firstly, the range is artificial, as 22% of the elephant range in Botswana is not intended for wildlife.

Secondly and more importantly, is the issue of the impact of elephants on the ecology, and ecosystem resilience to recover or change – where the land is subject to differing uses. These issues (elephant impact and ecosystem resilience) differ when people, livestock and elephants share the same landscape. Impacts where there are spatial overlaps between people, livestock and elephants are likely to be more severe and the ecosystem will recover more slowly. Acceptable density thresholds of elephants in those areas should therefore be less than they are in ecosystems with little or now overlap between people, livestock and elephants.

Furthermore, when acceptable elephant densities are determined, the impacts on people and livelihoods are of paramount importance – yet are being ignored. Management objectives of areas shared by people and livestock also consider human needs and are likely to be less considerate of the long-term ecological benefits that might be brought about by elephant landscape changes. In other words, in these areas there is of necessity a bias towards human needs, and tolerance of elephants is reduced.



Elephant conservation

In a country that has already set aside nearly half of its surface area for some form of wildlife conservation, the levels of crop damage, livestock losses and damage to infrastructure in areas that have been zoned mainly for human use, clearly indicates that the threshold of acceptable damage by wildlife has been exceeded in those areas.

From a pristine ecological perspective, the answer about elephant numbers in Botswana may be that the status quo is acceptable. From a human-wildlife conflict perspective, however, it is safe to conclude that Botswana has too many elephants in some land use areas. Management interventions that aim to decrease the elephant densities in the specific areas and preventing influx into more densely populated areas are therefore justified.

That raises another challenge facing Botswana.

The international conservation status of a very charismatic and iconic species dictates the limits of accepted wildlife management practices available to resolve the problem.

Elephant conservation has increased in profile due to rampant poaching, and management options tend to focus on increasing elephant numbers by increasing safety from poaching and avoiding losses. Methods to control populations are accordingly not considered anymore.

Where elephant numbers have dropped significantly in some countries due to the rampant poaching, numbers in Botswana have increased to unacceptable levels in certain land use areas. The human-elephant conflict in Botswana requires a critical evaluation of current elephant conservation measures. The success rate of many of the options are hailed as high, but when measured considering people as part of the landscape the success rate becomes questionable and threatens sustainability of the management activity.

Corridors inside countries and across international borders are a much-promoted solution for natural dispersal of elephants from high density to low density populations. The corridors are established to allow dispersal while avoiding human conflict, and as a result human development has to be reduced in these corridors.

The establishment of the KAZA TFCA to accommodate the redistribution of the estimated 230,000 elephants in five Southern African range states is considered a milestone in elephant conservation. Despite media reports of a big influx of elephants into Botswana as a safe haven and movement between Botswana and its northern neighbours, the most recent aerial surveys do not support the expected movement north into the KAZA TFCA.

According to EWB reports, the elephant population has been stable since 2010 and instead of moving north to area of lower densities, elephants in Botswana are moving south and deeper into human populated areas, despite the presence of fences. Does this imply the various range states have reached their saturated densities or does that mean the corridors have been selected incorrectly and are failing?

Whatever the reason, the conundrum faced is that the current solution to Botswana’s elephant problem is currently not working, and an unsustainable number of elephants are sharing the land with people, and Botswana is running out of time.



Reducing elephant numbers

Translocation of elephants is under consideration, but enormous costs involved in relocating large numbers of elephant is likely the reason, despite invitations and donations, that no elephants have been relocated out of Botswana. The number of elephants that would have to be relocated from Botswana to make a difference in areas of conflict with people amounts to many thousands, which would be impractical. As such the potential benefit of relocation is limited for Botswana, and more beneficial in establishing new populations in previous range states stable enough to control poaching.

The potential use of contraception in elephants in Botswana is also considered, but contraception is a long-term management tool to be used to reduce population growth in smaller populations in selected areas. It will not provide immediate solutions to the current challenges.

That leaves coexistence of humans and wildlife, and the concept of sustainable utilisation. Coexistence remains the most important strategy when the major conservation challenge of lack of new conservation land and increased pressure on existing Protected Areas. Many NGOs in Botswana are doing sterling work in finding ways to promote peaceful coexistence. Coexistence, however, has some limitations because it requires the cooperation of both people and elephants, and the former is value based. Coexistence is determined by “how” and “how much” people can benefit from the coexistence. The elephant crisis in Botswana illustrates the limitation very effectively.

Coexistence in wildlife management areas where most of Botswana’s elephants occur has actually been in place for many years. Although education has resolved some human resistance, the increased number of elephants in recent years has diluted the perceived limited benefits, and reduced community cooperation. The communities now demand and support the lifting of the hunting ban. For coexistence to be restored in these areas, human resistance has to be reduced, by reducing elephant densities or increasing tangible benefits for the local people.

Tangible benefits through tourism income can provide the lion’s share of benefits, but protein provision and trophy hunting income must be considered to restore lost cooperation. Tourism-based incentives on their own have proved to be insufficient – partially because thresholds of impact were based on elephant needs and partially because the benefits to communities did not increase as elephant numbers and impacts increased.

Coexistence in pastoral areas and livestock ranches presents the biggest conservation dilemma for Botswana and illustrates the limits of coexistence.



Tourism, hunting and coexisting with elephants

By marketing “wilderness”, we have created an expectation with eco-tourists who do not want to see rural people and livestock while on safari. That excludes a major source of benefit that would promote coexistence in pastoral areas. As result, the priority of coexistence in the pastoral and ranching areas is strongly bias towards protecting people and their livelihoods against elephant damage. In short, local people view their own existence and livelihoods as priority and consider coexistence as unnecessary because localised tangible benefits from elephants are perceived as non-existent. Rather, they demand total protection from elephants, or removal of elephants.

The sheer number of elephants “coexisting” in the affected pastoral areas renders total protection a very difficult and expensive process that becomes difficult to justify from a taxpayer’s perspective. The use of bees, flashing lights and chili pepper in various forms have been trialled with various degrees of success and while it may work in some areas, it did not work in others. Unless we can educate the international tourist that an Africa with people, livestock, crops and wildlife is worth a paying visit, consumptive-based benefits to promote co-existence in pastoral areas will remain the reality.

Where do you draw the line? Elephants will expand their range if allowed to. As witnessed in Botswana, they inevitably reach more developed areas with higher income generating activities. Tourism and hunting do not provide sufficient benefits to promote coexistence, and so a problem-animal control culling program needs to be instigated – to protect people and property. The only way to prevent large scale bloodshed is to prevent elephants from entering these areas. That introduces the option of fences.

Botswana is very aware of the intrinsic value and the international conservation responsibility towards elephant conservation. The growth of the elephant population testifies to that. But the elephant problem faced needs to be acknowledged. While Botswana is accommodating a significant population of elephants in large Protected Areas, most Botswana elephants are outside these protected areas, sharing the land with people at densities that put enormous strain on resources.



Finding solutions

People are part of the equation and should be part of the solution. That includes adapting our management objectives and impact assessment to accommodate the needs and impacts of local communities, which will naturally require limits on densities and dispersal. A common tendency as part of opposing arguments, is to attribute community concerns to manipulation by stakeholder groups, mostly because the opposing stakeholders fear the community concerns may contradict more idealistic solutions. Another strategy is to blame it on political manipulation. Unfortunately, these tactics do not provide solutions but remove the focus from the real community concerns and limit the painful dissection needed to prevent crisis management from overriding much needed lasting practical solutions.

Resolving the challenges will require a combination of solutions and critical assessment of current approaches. It will require accepting that where people and wildlife are sharing the landscape, the needs of communities are important in wildlife management objectives.

A solution will require an acceptance of the concept of limits and barriers, and that coexistence is value-based and depends on tangible human benefits correlated to sacrifices. It will require acceptance that benefits in some areas cannot be provided by photographic tourism only.

It is therefore justified to consider consumptive-based benefits. It will have to address the contradiction and challenges the unequal distribution of an internationally desired species can cause.

After all, Botswana is much more than simply elephants.

Photographs © ERIK VERREYNNE

[Lisbeth]

Opinion: Put down the petitions – help create alternatives for Botswana beyond elephant hunting

Posted on 18 March, 2019 by Guest Blogger in Botswana, Conservation, Destinations, Hunting, Opinion Editorial, Wildlife and the Opinion Editorial post series.



OPINION POST FROM CLARE DOOLAN – TOURISM INDUSTRY PRODUCT AND SALES MANAGER

So you’ve been reading the press. Looks bad, doesn’t it? Botswana wants to shoot elephants for money they say. Not just that, but ideas for managing Botswana’s elephant population include packaging them up for pet food.

The easy reaction is a horror-filled “how COULD you?!” Petitions do the rounds, while people ‘act now’ by stating their sadness on social media. But IS this action? Can signing a petition improve the livelihoods of communities living with wildlife, while gaining none of its benefits?

If it pays, it stays

Read any argument about why hunting isn’t ‘necessary’ and people will point to photographic safaris. “Look,” they’ll say, “this is a great alternative which doesn’t put a bullet between an animal’s eyes.”

But, is it?

While I can’t claim to be a scientist with easy solutions to Botswana’s human-wildlife conflict problems, what I do know a bit about, is tourism.

As the Marketing Manager for one of Botswana’s larger tourism operators, I spend most of my days either promoting travel to Botswana, or travelling in Botswana. I love Botswana so much that I made it my home. Put me in front of a breeding herd of elephants and I’ll stay all day. Elephants are ALWAYS doing something interesting, and I’m guilty of adding running commentary to their antics, at the risk of being considered insane.

Now, over to my day job, when I’m standing in the office of a tour operator on another continent, who’s selling travel to Africa. When I make these visits, my intentions are twofold. Firstly, help people understand what Botswana has to offer as a destination. Then, recommend safari camps, areas and experiences which make the best Tinder match with their client book.

“And the game viewing. Is it good there?” they’ll ask.

And here we have our first roadblock.


Elephants at Seloko Plains near Chobe © Clare Doolan

Hunting vs photographic tourism

Yes, photographic tourism is a great income earner. It puts value on the land wildlife inhabits, just by letting the animals stay there. No need to plough a field and grow a crop, or bring in a gun and a taxidermist. We just need to build a safari camp, and the money will pour in. Or will it?

People often blame hunters for being ‘consumptive’ when they visit wilderness areas. In order for them to be happy, an animal needs to be shot, stuffed and hung on the nearest wall – or so the feeling goes. But photographic clients also come with their own demands. Before they’ll get on the plane, they want the Africa they visit to match the Africa of their dreams. Unspoilt. Filled with wildlife and worthy of dinner table brags, like “that time a lion stared us down, not five feet away” and then, “pass the potatoes please. We can recommend a great safari outfitter after dessert”.

But, in order for the story to be told, the lion needs to be seen.

And so, those of us selling travel to Africa focus on offering the most remote, unspoilt safari possible, with the best-bet of seeing the most of whatever is out there. These travellers may not want a buffalo head to take home, but they sure as hell need a stack of ‘insta-worthy’ photos as their bounty. Lots and lots of photos.



Where the wild things are, but the tourists aren’t

Elephants Without Borders’ recent aerial survey reports that only 20% of our elephants are in Botswana’s national parks (including Moremi Game Reserve). Another 57% are in Wildlife Management Areas and Forest Reserves, including not just the private concessions of the Okavango Delta and Linyanti, but also ex-hunting concessions which aren’t currently earning a tourism revenue.

By contrast, 22% of our elephants (more than what’s in our national parks) are in pastoral or other unprotected areas (Chase et al, 2018), where communities are in conflict with wildlife, and tourism doesn’t improve their livelihoods.

So why don’t we build safari camps in all these other areas, and spread the love a little further?

Sadly, the photographic traveller is often just too fickle.

The camps which make the most income from photographic safaris, are those which maintain the dream of unspoilt Africa: scenically pretty, full of wildlife, and far from villages and people living with human-wildlife conflict. An Africa which, for the most part, doesn’t actually exist: so, can only be found in very few places.

Send a traveller with a $3,000 a night budget to Ngwasha & Sepako, which have a combined count of 12,728 elephants (Mike et al, 2018) and they’ll demand a refund.

I mean, who’s ever heard of those places, right?! Certainly not the friends who’ll be at your next dinner party. So, we’ll stick with Mombo thanks. (Moremi Game Reserve, where you’ll find Mombo, has 8,402 elephants by comparison.)


An elephant chases a cow near the Boteti River – an area with high human-wildlife conflict – though in this case the cow wandered inside the national park, rather than the elephants having entered a farm © Clare Doolan

All those elephants, why not visit?

An area may host 12,000 elephants, but if its densely vegetated, you won’t easily see them. Further, if water is only seasonally-available for wildlife, animals will often just be ‘passing through’, rather than hanging around for months on end. This is why so many of Botswana’s safari camps are based near permanent water instead.

So, back to that question:

“And the game viewing? Is it good there?”

The answer is often no.

So, forget bragging at the next dinner party. But will a hunter go there? The answer is yes.

Our tourism model is broken, how can we fix it?

Forget relying on the two percenters who grace Botswana’s high-end safari camps to form the sum total of our tourism income. Most travellers can’t afford a USD$3,500 a night holiday anyway. If we want to increase tourism’s earning potential, get more people experiencing Botswana, and have more Batswana earning from tourism, we need to get more creative.

Those of us selling travel to Africa need to reframe the way we present it. We need to stop teaching travellers that Botswana is pristine wilderness and wildlife, or nothing at all. We need to encourage people to learn about human-wildlife conflict, and donate to organisations trialling mitigation techniques with communities (try Elephants Without Borders, Ecoexist or Elephants for Africa).


Conflict mitigation techniques being trialled in Chobe where strobe lights are used a deterrent to crop raiding by elephants © Elephants Without Borders

After all, people have co-existed with wildlife longer in Africa than anywhere else on Earth.

For those of you travelling to Botswana: seek out experiences beyond the straight-up safari. Support Batswana who offer unique ways of introducing you to Botswana, regardless of whether it includes wildlife or not.

Those of us operating tourism businesses need to do better than just peddling animal spotting from the back of a vehicle. We need to create tourism experiences around villages and towns, and take the pressure off our wilderness areas. They’ll be cheaper to run, easier to access, and more affordable for the ‘average’ traveller. Smaller overheads mean greater opportunity for a more diverse ownership – including Botswana’s own citizens.

In the meanwhile, I’ll be promoting what I love about Botswana more than ever. This is not the end of a conversation, but the start of an opportunity to diversify how people experience Botswana, and to create more opportunities for Botswana to show off her heritage to the world.



Photographs © Clare Doolan

[Lisbeth]

US poll says NO to Botswana plans to hunt and cull elephants

2019-03-29 07:39
Don Pinnock

Conservation Action

As the Botswana government rumbles towards the lifting of the ban on hunting its famous wildlife, an authoritative poll in the United States, from which the second greatest number of foreign tourists come, has found overwhelming public disapproval of the plan.

As tourism is a mainstay of Botswana's economy, lifting the hunting ban could, the poll suggests, have severe economic consequences and damage Botswana's international reputation.

The US poll was conducted by the Remington Research Group for Humane Society International. Three in four respondents considered it important to protect elephants from trophy hunting, 78% did not support the proposed culling and 73% believed that if trophy hunting and elephants culls were started, Botswana's image as a leader in wildlife conservation would be harmed.

Zimbabweans transporting goods from South Africa, commonly referred to as "Malayitsha", are seeing their businesses boom as a result of the price hikes on food and fuel in Zimbabwe. Malayitshas reside in South Africa and take orders from families ...

The poll follows a Botswana cabinet committee recommendation in February to lift the hunting ban and start culling "surplus" elephants, despite the country's known transboundary elephant population.

The tourism industry and communities benefitting from photographic tourism have yet to be consulted despite claims of extensive consultation. Tourism operators are expecting to be consulted. However it seems that the decision has already been made as at a meeting in Gabarone, Botswana's Minister of Environment and Natural Resources, Conservation and Tourism, Kitso Mokaila, insisted that his country would go ahead with its decision on hunting. "We will not back off and change our minds in terms of what we are going to do. As HATAB (Hospitality and Tourism Association of Botswana) you must remember where your bread is buttered and support us."

Banned trophy hunting

Botswana banned trophy hunting in 2014. After the ban went into effect, the country became an increasingly popular tourist destination for travellers who want to support ecotourism and the country's iconic wildlife.

In 2018, travel and tourism in Botswana experienced 3.4% growth, contributing $2.52bn or 13.4% to the country's economy and supporting 84 000 jobs or 8.9% of the country's total employment. Three quarters of tourist spend came from international travel'ers.

According to HSI, "with tourism now the second largest contributor to the country's GDP and a significant employer, reinstating trophy hunting and starting elephant culls could hurt the country's economy".

In conjunction with the release of the poll results, more than 87 000 people worldwide signed HSI's petition to Masisi asking him to keep the trophy hunting ban in place and to reject plans to cull the country's elephants. HSI also led a sign-on letter from 33 animal welfare and wildlife conservation organisations from around the world with similar appeals, acknowledging human-wildlife conflict but citing non-lethal mitigation strategies as being far more effective in the long-term.

"Millions of foreign tourists travel to Botswana to shoot majestic wild animals, not with guns, but with their cameras," said Iris Ho, HSI's specialist for wildlife programmes and policy. "Wildlife watching and photographic tourism is on the rise around the world, outstripping the revenue from trophy hunting and the number of trophy hunters by a wide margin.

"The current ban on trophy hunting is a win-win policy for Botswana's economy, for the local community and for the animals. There cannot be a more drastic shift for a country known as a safe haven for elephants to become an elephant canning factory for pet food.

"With poaching of elephants across Africa on the rise, legalised hunting and culling would be a severe blow to Africa's rapidly declining elephant population."

A local community NGO, the Ngamiland Council of Non-Governmental Organisations (NCONGO), countered this view. It sent a letter to Masisi in support of hunting, saying it would boost tourism.


Mashatsu Elephant

"The re-introduction of hunting," it said, "will go a long way in alleviating rural poverty by re-introducing tourism benefits lost in 2014 when the hunting moratorium was initiated".

It added that "as communities, we do not take kindly to those who are attacking our Government and initiatives meant to re-introduce hunting and uplift our livelihoods and reduce human-wildlife conflicts in our local areas". It did not provide data to support its claims.

Surveys show that many visitors choose Botswana as their safari destination specifically because of its firm anti-hunting stance.

Leading tour operators have stated that the proposal goes against everything the country stands for and its implementation would be regressive and could harm ecotourism.


Mashatu elephants

Photos: Supplied by Conservation Action

[stefan9]

Hopefully Botswana stands. No to Hunting. Hopefully more will follow suit.

[Lisbeth]

I am not sure if a US poll is relevant and at the end, it is none of their business, even if I agree with them.

This is blackmail, though: " As HATAB (Hospitality and Tourism Association of Botswana) you must remember where your bread is buttered and support us."

[harrys]

Botswana president considers culling as villagers battle wildlife to survive on their land

Poloko Tau
2019-04-03 23:00

Villagers live ‘in hell’ with elephants, lions and hippos causing havoc on their land, writes Poloko Tau

Mabuta Jwanga may not remember the colour of the shirt he was wearing when an elephant attacked him, but if he could find and talk to it, he would thank it profusely for saving his life.

Faced with the world’s largest land mammal, his instinct, pumped by his experience as a wildlife guide, quickly kicked in.

Jwanga took off his shirt and threw it in the eyes of a charging elephant as he took a dive to the side.

Sitting on the veranda of his house in Satau village in northern Botswana, close to the Chobe River which marks the border with Namibia, the 59-year-old remembers lying on the ground engulfed in dust.

He was sweating in panic as the elephant stood a few metres away. Jwanga felt the vibrations as its feet hit him, convinced he would be trampled to death.

With one eye barely open, he managed to glimpse the elephant’s stomach as it walked over him.

And, once it had passed, he thought he had come out unscathed.

Jwanga was wrong.


Elephant attack survivor Mabuta Jwanga shows his scars. Picture: Masule Kachana

Once the adrenalin rush faded, he began to feel something cold flowing from his hand and leg.

He was bleeding and flesh was peeled off his hand, probably caught by the elephant’s nails. His shin bone was broken.

Still, he felt lucky.

Jwanga took a deep breath as he recounted his near-death experience last week.

“Everything happened so fast. We were cutting the grass when suddenly an elephant came at us and I was the only one left in front of it. But being a former wildlife guard, a quick thought and my shirt saved my life,” he said.

“Many people in our villages have died tragically – trampled to death by elephants, mauled by lions or hit by buffaloes. I am lucky to be here and sharing my story with you.”

Satau, a beautiful village with scattered palms trees, is on the outskirts of Chobe National Park.

Chobe is not fenced and animals roam freely in and out of its borders.

On a drive on the A33 through Chobe towards the Ngoma border gate into Namibia, and a left turn into Transit road to Muchenje, other villages, including Mabele and Kavimba, are no different.

Wild animals cross the road: At sunset herds of elephant and buffalo lumber towards the Chobe River for a drink through the wildlife corridor between Kavimba and Mabele villages.

The elephant attacked Jwanga while he was cutting thatching grass to sell to feed his family, after crop farming was no longer an option.

“I left crop farming after elephants, buffaloes and other animals like hippos had harassed us for years, feasting on our crops and flushing all our efforts down the drain,” he said.

“And now here I am weakened by the elephant leaving me unable to cut that grass or tend to mealie fields and we’re still expected to cohabit with these animals when they are hurting us this much.”

The remaining farmers battle daily with the elephants and other animals. Some have given up and sold their land, but others refuse.

One of those is Matthews Samuel who sits under a tree in the middle of his mealie field.

There are empty patches through the bush showing the trail of elephants, warthogs, hippos and other animals that visit him to feast on his crops.

An electric fence borders his piece of land.

“They are my new neighbours who bought land from relatives. They are rich and can afford the fence to keep animals away but I can’t. But even so I am not prepared to sell my land to the rich because I want to do exactly what they want the very same land for,” he said.


Matthews Samuel stands on a patch cleared by elephants on his farm outside Mabele village.

LIFE IN A MEALIE FIELD

“God gave us land to use and make a life out of and I am not going to sell the land that God never sold me. I am going nowhere.”

Abandoned houses on smallholdings nearby bear witness to how many have given up. The land of some of those who sold up has been turned into game lodges.

Samuel said his biggest wish was for the government to help them with electric fencing so they could keep the animals away from their crops and livelihoods.

“But now the only available option is to take a bank loan and even when you are fenced, the risk may be lack of rain which might result in a poor harvest and if you can’t repay the loan they take your land. It is for this reason that I am prepared to spend every day on the farm guarding against animals, but one cannot live without a nap,” he said.

“After I sleep I walk to the field in the morning with a hat over my eyes not knowing what to expect and I would then take it off slowly. It is always a great relief seeing that no animals visited us the previous night.”

Samuel said wild animals used to know their place.

“We used to walk on foot between villages and animals would not dare attack anyone. Things changed because the animal population, especially the elephants, grew after hunting was banned,” he said.

“It was also better when people would not be arrested for killing a wild animal but these days it’s like the animals were told that they are better protected than human beings. They do as they please, harass communities and eat our crops and we’re expected to starve because of them and make peace with it. Never.”

Samuel said, if the law allowed, he would get a “real gun to shoot and kill them”. He has a gun, but only one that scares elephants off.

“They want us to beat drums to keep elephants away – not me. I use a hunting rifle and I so wish I had a real gun, I’d raze a whole herd of them if they came into my fields again.

Large elephant bones that have seen many seasons are a feature of Mabele which the villagers wish could serve as a deterrent to other elephants.

“This elephant was shot dead by a farmer after he found them eating his mealie fields. Wildlife people were called and they cut the tusks and left,” said Mompati Ntwumba, a young villager from Kavimba.

“Here, you’re unlikely to find a family that has not had a loved one killed by an elephant, lion or other wild animal. Life in our villages is hell; children are forced to be indoors early and walking around in the dark is the riskiest thing,” he said.

“Things were not like this when we grew up but today it is not unusual to see an elephant walking through the village. People are not surprised by the loud trumpeting of elephants any more … they just get worried when it gets too close to them, when they are not indoors, or it sounds close to their crops.”

Madikoko Mwezi’s eyes are red with exhaustion.

With her husband and two grandchildren, they live on a farm outside Kavimba village where they abandoned their proper house so they could guard their fields around the clock.

She points at footprints of hippos that visited the previous night.

“For the whole night, every day, I sit by the fire on the one side of the field and my husband sits with a hunting rifle on the other side with the hope that the flames will keep animals away. I scream if I see or hear elephants trumpeting nearby and he shoots in the air to scare them away,” says the 65-year-old.


Madikoko Mwezi makes fires to keep animals away at Kavimba village.

“There are small ones like hippos that softly find their way to the crops and by the time you realise they are there, the damage is already done – just like last night.”

Mwezi is tired of this life “but we have no other choice”.

Samuel said the government paid him 4.80 pula (R6.49) after kudus ate six lines of his maize.

For a good harvest, he sells one head of corn for 5 pula “and now I was given 4.80 pula which is less than the price of corn and I can’t even buy anything to fill my stomach with that.

But those six lines of corn could have fed my family for at least a day.

“Once elephants come and eat your crop, pray that they eat as much as they can because you get 900 pula per hectare if you’re cleaned out,” he says.

“Surprisingly, and what is most unfair, is that if it is a hippo you get 300 pula per hectare and the explanation is that the damage is not the same. But for us, the point is we have had our food and livelihood taken away by animals.”

Jwanga said families of those killed by elephants receive 70 000 pula in compensation while survivors like him get nothing.


Bones of an elephant shot dead by a farmer after it feasted on his crops outside Mabele village on the outskirts of Chobe National Park. Picture: Masule Kachana

ROAM FREE

“I have driven in South Africa and have never seen an elephant cross the road anywhere. I believe there, people have to go to game reserves to see the wild animals unlike here in Botswana where they are allowed to roam and turn life into hell for many of us,” said Samuel.

“Even if we had money to erect electric fences, would it be a normal life for people to live behind electrified barriers while animals roam freely? Animals should be fenced in.”

All the villagers agreed that the hunting ban, introduced by former president Ian Khama, should be lifted.

“People used to get hunting permits allowing them to shoot only a specified number of certain animals per season and that was taken away,” Samuel said.

“We are now expected to buy wild meat from butcheries and supermarkets and still cohabit with the same animals. Who are those who are allowed to kill and sell to us?”

Meanwhile, a war of words is simmering after Khama’s successor, President Mokgweetsi Masisi, said he intended culling elephants and lifting the hunting ban.

Masisi said recently that Botswana was home to 130 000 elephants which was more than the country could handle. Of these, about 50 000 stray outside their designated areas.

Masisi has received widespread criticism from animal rights activists, but his intentions have been widely welcomed at home by affected communities and their sympathisers.

Although her husband uses a hunting rifle to scare elephants away, Mwezi believes the best option would be to fence the wild animals in.

“If I could, I’d order for all these animals to live inside a fenced park. Why is it happening almost everywhere and not here where we stay? It has been proved that they cannot live side by side with human beings. It is sad that animals appear to have more rights than us.”

President considers culling option

People living on the outskirts of Botswana’s game parks are anxiously waiting to see if the government is going to do anything to stop roaming wildlife from killing villagers and eating and destroying their crops.

The government is in the process of debating whether to cull elephants, revoke the 2014 ban on hunting or try to keep the wildlife off villagers’ land.

Communities living on the outskirts of fence-less, state-owned parks and forest reserves say their lives are proof that wild animals cannot coexist harmoniously with human beings.

Botswana President Mokgweetsi Masisi appears to be sympathetic to the plight of these communities who are attacked and killed by wild animals and whose crops are eaten and destroyed.

He is now considering recommendations by a special cabinet subcommittee on the issue.

Culling and hunting options have sparked widespread opposition and criticism from animal rights groups and conservationists.

Masisi was adamant, however, that his government was not going to be dictated to.

“It bamboozles me when people sit in the comfort of where they come from and lecture us about the management of species they don’t have.

“They want to admire from a distance and in their admiration of those species, they forget that we too, the people of Botswana, are a species. They talk as if we are trees and the grass that elephants eat,” he said.

Masisi recently tweeted: “We have a problem with human-wildlife conflict. I never said we will go all out and kill all elephants in Botswana. We are under attack and these people are acting in concert with some Batswana … I am not going to be intimidated while wildlife kills our people.”

A political twist has found its way into the big elephant debate with suggestions that Masisi is trying to undo what his predecessor Ian Khama left in place.

The two have been at loggerheads over governance with Masisi doing away with most of Khama’s policies.

Khama introduced a moratorium on hunting when Masisi was still his vice-president in 2014.

The former president is not happy that his successor is now pushing to revoke the moratorium.

Masisi recently suggested that elephant’s meat from culling should be canned as pet food.

A Botswana veterinary surgeon, Erik Verreynne, said the lack of fencing around national parksand game reserves in Botswana was the main problem.

The “only way to prevent large-scale bloodshed is to prevent elephants from entering” areas where people live and that “introduces the option of fences”.

In what appears to be a crusade to justify culling and hunting as options, the Botswana government has said:

- 25 people have been killed by elephants between 2009 and this year so far;
- Botswana has an elephant population of 130 000 against its carrying capacity of 54 000;
- More than 70% of the elephant population lived outside their designated areas. – Poloko Tau

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Lisbeth]

Elephant-Rich Nations to Send Leaders to Botswana Summit

By Bloomberg• 26 April 2019

Botswana’s president invited heads of state from nations with the greatest reservoir of elephants on the planet to discuss a common policy toward the management of the pachyderms, which are becoming a campaign issue before elections later this year.

Leaders will discuss the impact of the animals on humans and the legal and illegal trade in elephant products with the aim of agreeing on “concrete interventions to address the challenges posed,” the government said in an invitation to the May 3-7 meeting seen by Bloomberg. The summit was confirmed by Environment Minister Kitso Mokaila.

With the Botswana Democratic Party facing its tightest election since winning power more than half a century ago, President Mokgweetsi Masisi has sought to appeal to rural voters by holding public hearings on the impact of elephants, of which Botswana has the most in the world, and pledging to lift a ban on hunting. If he follows through, he’ll undo one of the signature policies of his predecessor, Ian Khama.

Read more about Khama’s thoughts on the change in policy

“Levels of human-elephant conflict continue to escalate, especially where human and agricultural expansion moves into new areas already occupied by African elephants,” the government said in the invitation. “Livestock and crop farmers and residents in wildlife areas constantly have to contend with elephants that destroy crops and threaten livelihoods and food security.”

Masisi’s comments have drawn a backlash from conservationists as Botswana has long been praised for its wildlife-management policies, which have spawned a tourism industry that ranks as the economy’s second-biggest sector after diamonds.

The summit, which will culminate with a heads-of-state meeting on May 7, is focused on countries in the Kavango Zambezi Transfrontier Conservation Area. The 520,000 square-kilometre (200,773 square-mile) expanse includes swamp, savannah and riverine habitat in Botswana, Zambia, Namibia and Zimbabwe and is twice the size of the U.K. An estimated 220,000 elephants live in the area, according to the government.

In the invitation, Botswana also argues against the moratorium on the international trade in ivory and said attempts to manage elephant populations in southern Africa are “subjected to constant media glare, with much of this coverage ignoring the plight of rural communities who bear the brunt of living with elephants.”

Zambia and Zimbabwe will send their presidents and Namibia will send representatives.

“Other countries do not seem to understand the plight the region is facing from elephants, we have huge numbers,” said Tinashe Farawo, a spokesman for the Zimbabwe Parks and Wildlife Authority. “We must be allowed to sell and benefit from these animals.”

[Lisbeth]

There must be a way to resolve the problem without extreme measures nor for the elephants nor for the poorest of the population

Elections coming up Wanting the votes of the farmers I am afraid that it will turn out badly for the elephants who do not have a right to vote.

[Lisbeth]

More confusion over the fate of Botswana’s elephants

BY DR LOUISE DE WAAL - 20 MAY 2019 - THE SOUTH AFRICAN

President Mokgweetsi Masisi of Botswana categorically denies that his government would ever cull elephants, contradicting the Parliamentary Report proposing culling.

However, Minister of Environment and Natural Resources, Conservation and Tourism, Kitso Mokaila now proposes elephant “cropping”.

To cull or not to cull

Masisi stated to Bloomberg that “in the debate around elephants and our environmental stewardship, we have been misconstrued and misunderstood. To suggest that the irresponsible and reckless words like culling were ever used. We are never for culling. We will not cull.”

This statement flies in the face of the report produced by his Cabinet Sub Committee on Hunting Ban Social Dialogue that recommended among others lifting the hunting ban, culling of elephants, and the canning of elephant meat as pet food.

The Hunting Ban Social Dialogue report is based on consultation meetings with only some rural communities affected by the 2014 hunting ban, but strangely excludes the tourism industry and its beneficiary communities. Tourism is the second largest GDP earner in Botswana after diamonds, however the industry appears to have been cowed by threats, such as “you must remember where your bread is buttered and support us” made by Mokaila.

It also seems odd that President Masisi takes advice from the controversial hunter Ron Thomson, who applauded Masisi’s highly criticised elephant management proposals. Thomson claims to have personally slaughtered 5,000 elephants (and supervised the killing of many 1,000s more), 800 buffalo, 600 lions, and 50 hippos, but refuses to be part of a televised debate that includes an opposing voice.

In a UK interview with Piers Morgan, he admitted, shouting in a more and more enraged manner, that he “felt nothing” killing the animals, he was “highly efficient at it”, and his lack of emotion helped him “get the job done”.

A supposedly ethical hunter, who has previously boasted of killing 32 elephants in one go and stating that killing animals gave him a “thrill”, Thomson made unsubstantiated claims in another interview that Botswana’s elephants “now number between 10 and 20 times the sustainable carrying capacity of their habitats”.

According to the African Elephant Status Report 2016, Botswana’s population has shown a 14% decline since 2006 and the latest Botswana elephant census estimates the country’s current population to be around 126,000 elephants, which is well within accepted norms.

Despite popular opinions, the Chobe elephant population is showing a long-term downward trend since 2010 and Botswana’s bull elephant population is also decreasing, especially in the four poaching hotspots. The latter trend will be exacerbated by trophy hunting, as the more mature bulls are the main target for trophy hunters.

“Bulls only reach their prime between 40-50 years of age and these musth bulls siring about 90% of all offspring”, says Audrey Delsink (Wildlife Director – HSI Africa).

“Elephant societies are also dependent on these older members for social and ecological knowledge. The removal of just a few of these key individuals will have long-lasting negative consequences for future elephant generations.”

“Ethical” trophy hunting

Proposals for lifting the trophy hunting ban are still on the table. Mokaila recently stated, when addressing Ngamiland community trusts in Maun, that should the government reinstate trophy hunting this will be conducted “ethically”.

We have however witnessed too many examples of unethical and often illegal trophy hunts in Southern Africa, all clouded in a lack of accountability and transparency.

Excessive hunting quotas, overhunting, and unethical trophy hunting practices in the 1980-90s in Botswana, led to a rapid decline in wildlife populations in many parts of the country, some of which have never fully recovered. The lion population was particularly badly affected with some areas reduced to a ratio of nearly six mature females for every mature male, leading to serious conservation threats such as inbreeding and kleptoparasitism (when lionesses and subadults are unable to defend and therefore regularly lose their kill to hyenas).

This situation led to the Botswana government putting a moratorium on lion hunting in 2001, which was reversed in 2004 under pressure from the US Government. The former President George Bush Snr, a prominent member of the Safari Club International, wrote to the Botswana authorities pleading to lift the ban, who eventually capitulated. The moratorium was reinstated in 2008 and remains in place to date.

More recently, Cecil the lion was illegally hunted in Zimbabwe. This 13-year old lion wearing a GPS research collar was lured with bait out of Hwange National Park, so that hunter Walter Palmer, who had previously been convicted of illegal hunting in the States, could kill this protected lion without consequences for either him or the professional hunter, Theo Badenhorst, who was subsequently arrested for attempting to illegally export sable from Zimbabwe.

These are just a few from the many examples available in the public domain, clearly illustrating the hunting industry’s inability to maintain ethical standards.

Furthermore, Botswana is considering reintroducing trophy hunting at a time when “facts and indicators reveal a very rapid decline in big game hunting in Africa”, according to Dr Bertrand Charadonnet (Protected Areas and Wildlife Consultant) in his report Reconfiguring the Protected Areas in Africa.

In Africa, the Economists at Large calculated that trophy hunting spending only makes up on average 1.9% of the overall tourism spending and a recent report from Namibia shows the limitations of the economic benefits of trophy hunting.

The long-term sustainability of trophy hunting is highly debatable from an ethical, ecological and financial point of view.

Human-elephant conflict

“Harbouring the largest elephant population in Southern African has led to escalating Human-Elephant Conflict (HEC)”, the government claims.

There is no doubt that HEC is a real problem in Botswana that needs addressing. A report on Problem Animal Control data in the Chobe District recorded about 1,300 HEC incidences between 2006-17, i.e. about 100 per year, including crop and garden raiding, property damage, and personal threats to human lives. The report states that HEC is not increasing however 2016 shows an anomaly with 300 reports, dropping back to previous levels in 2017.



Sensationalist reports are serving to inflame an already tragic situation and seek to show trophy hunting as the solution for elephant population control and the key to solve HEC.

However, “trophy hunting, cannot, or rather should not have much effect on local elephant densities”, says Dr Keith Lindsay (Conservation Biologist – Amboseli Trust for Elephants). “Otherwise, the trophy-sized animals will not be there for the hunters to shoot. So, trophy hunting does not have any direct effect on reducing HEC”.

With HEC at the forefront of the elephant debate, surprisingly Mokaila announced recently that his Ministry plans to stop HEC compensation, as “communities are capable of coming up with solutions for addressing HEC themselves”. Is this possibly a cynical ploy to force communities to support trophy hunting?

Elephant commoditisation

Botswana, Namibia and Zimbabwe submitted a joint proposal to CITES to amend the listing of the African elephant to allow for trade in live animals, registered raw ivory, hunting trophies for non-commercial purposes and elephant products.

This blatant commodification of elephants is what the Kavango-Zambezi Trans-Frontier Conservation Area bloc so elegantly call a “scientific wildlife management system”.

Amidst the many contradictions around the fate of Botswana’s elephants, its government hosted an Elephant Summit earlier this month and from Masisi’s opening address it is quite clear that the commoditisation of wildlife and elephants in particular are his main concern. This is “sold” to the people of Botswana as the solution to HEC and a sustainable way to secure the livelihoods of local people.

All the shenanigans of the past few months that should be leading to a future elephant management plan that is good for Botswana’s people and its wildlife, seems to be nothing more than an election campaign for Masisi to appeal to rural voters, as well as preparation for the forthcoming CITES CoP18 meeting.

Meanwhile, the verdict on lifting the trophy hunting ban is still pending with no indication when a decision will be made.

Read original article:
https://www.thesouthafrican.com/opinion ... elephants/