management solutions are community outreach and raising awareness. Larger ..... Using social media makes it easier to spread a message more directly into ...
Conservation management of wildlife parks: Measurements to counter the effect of poaching and bushmeat hunting on wildlife populations on the African continent
Applied and Conservation Behaviour Mark Heus MA1 Biologie: Gedrag en Evolutie Year: 2014-2015
Abstract Poaching and bushmeat hunting and trade are very serious, maybe even the greatest, threat to the persistence of wildlife populations on the African continent. Multiple reasons for this can be identified, of which all are related more or less to human presence. Human encroachment, the demand for animal products, poverty, food insecurity and the lack of enforcement all contribute to an increase of poaching and bushmeat hunting. Here I present what measurements should be implemented in conservation managements, as they have been tested and found to be effective. Fencing should only be applied when there are currently very serious threat to wildlife populations, as these are only beneficial as short term solution, but can be detrimental on the long term, which should be taken account when focussing on long term management. Enforcement should be more strict, with an increased chance to capture violators and more severe punishments. Other long-term management solutions are community outreach and raising awareness. Larger long-term campaigns can have a positive effect leading to less consumers of animal products as has been seen before. With regard to this I also believe that the omni-present media of today can or should play a larger role in conservation of wildlife populations in Africa.
Introduction Poaching, along with bushmeat trade, the illegal acquisition and exchange of wild meat, have been recognized as a severe problem in forest biomes and savannas in Central and West-Africa (Lindsey et al., 2013) as well as in South-East Asia (Algemeen Nederlands Persbureau, 2014b; "Bodyguards voor laatste neushoorn," 2015; Kenney, Smith, Starfield, & McDougal, 1995; Thapa, Nepal, Thapa, Bhatta, & Wikramanayake, 2013). For example, the illegal killing of wildlife for their bushmeat for the local or regional markets is taking place in 96% of the protected areas in Kenya (Okello & Kiringe, 2004). Together with prevalence of human–wildlife conflicts, human population density and encroachment, these have even been identified as the greatest threats to biodiversity and all are completely or largely due to human presences (Okello & Kiringe, 2004). This is why these persistent problems are of great importance to the field of conservation biology. The best known examples of poaching and bush-meat trade usually include larger mammals such as tigers (Kenney et al., 1995; Tian et al., 2011; Yumnam et al., 2014), rhinos (Ferreira, Pfab, & Knight, 2014; Thapa et al., 2013), antelopes (Bouché et al., 2012) and elephants (Archie & Chiyo, 2012; Barnes, 1999; Bouché et al., 2012), but are certainly not limited to these and include tropical vertebrates in general and fish species as well (Brashares et al., 2004). Reported numbers and data are staggering: “Hunting in Bioko, Equatorial Guinea, has reduced primate populations by 90% in some areas and to local extinction in others. In Kilum Ijim, Cameroon, most large mammal species, including elephants, buffalo, bushbuck, chimpanzees, leopards, and lions, have become locally extinct within the past 50 years through hunting. Of 57 mammal, bird, and reptile species hunted throughout the Congo Basin, 60% are harvested unsustainably. Half of the major protected areas in Southeast Asia have lost at least one large mammal species due to hunting; most have lost many more (Wildlife Conservation Society information). Hunting is depleting pangolin populations throughout their natural range across Asia; both Asian mainland species are now listed as Endangered (http://www.iucnredlist.org/). More than 50% of Asia’s freshwater turtle species are now endangered due to overharvesting for trade. In Vietnam, 12 large animal species have become extinct, or virtually extinct, in the past 50 years mainly due to hunting. Across 101 Amazonian forest sites, hunting drastically reduced the mean aggregate population density (and biomass) of the 12 most important game vertebrates from 115 individuals/km2 (980 kg/km2) in nonhunted sites to only 19 individuals/km2 (89 kg/km2) in heavily hunted sites.” (Wilkie, Bennett, Peres, & Cunningham, 2011) “the numbers of large mammals fell by 94% in 30 years, probably due to poaching, loss of habitat and diseases brought by illegal movements of cattle. Elephant (Loxodonta africana), Reduncinae and
topi (Damaliscus lunatus) populations showed the greatest decline (each over 90%).Other species declined by 70–80% during the same period.” (Bouché et al., 2012). This review will investigate what conservations measures are available to reduce or avoid poaching and the bush-meat trade and the effect of these on African wildlife population and what conservation parks/areas can do to reduce this.
The current situation on the African continent In an attempt to make a good assessment of the situation today, it is important to first describe the context in which bushmeat trade and poaching occurs and associated themes. Law: Is hunting legal? In most African countries, hunting is regulated by legal instruments, with harvest being controlled through systems of licensing and quotas (Lindsey et al., 2013). However, in terms of ownership and so called user-rights there are large differences between countries. Wild-life is usually considered either as ‘res nullius’ (without ownership) or belonging to the state or president. In sounthern Africa however ownerships or user-rights are allocated to private landholders under conditions varying between countries, but usually involve the application of permits, sometimes along with additional conditions such as the erection of fencing, which can actually be beneficial for wildlife (Lindsey et al., 2013). Unfortunately, private land owners usually use the user-rights to either hunt wildlife for their own use or sell hunting rights to hunting operators or tourists. Furthermore in some countries hunting licenses are allocated to citizens to hunt for meat, while in some scenarios on certain categories of land, subsistence hunting is allowed even without a permit (Lindsey et al., 2013). Hunting laws typically stipulate restrictions on the times of year that hunting is permitted, prohibitions on hunting in certain protected areas, certain species, young or pregnant animals, on the use of certain hunting methods and without permits. As such, bushmeat hunting is illegal in most contexts within which it occurs, due to contravention of one or more of these restrictions. The meat obtained from illegal hunting is referred to as “bushmeat” (Lindsey et al., 2013). Methods: How is wildlife captured? Increasing international awareness, to reduce the demand for rhino horn for example, in consumer countries, can help against poaching and the bush-meat trade (Ferreira et al., 2014). Unfortunately, the omnipresent media in those same countries helps to sketch the wrong image of how wildlife is captured for example. Most wildlife is captured using snares. This is because the material for snares is readily available (wire form telephone and electricity lines from example) thus they are cheap, they are difficult to discover, and they can catch everything ranging from rodents to elephants (depending on snare size and material)(Lindsey et al., 2013). They cause rapid declines of wildlife populations and have a host of other detrimental effects. For example, the low value of snares leads to the infrequent checking of these by hunters and caused 1410 animals to rot within them between 2001-2009 in the Zimbabwe’s Savé Valley Conservancy alone. Also with regard to fire-arms, there is a suit of animal welfare issues associated with snares as they cause slow deaths and high rates of non-fatal wounding (Lindsey et al., 2013). Other methods used do of course included fire-arms, but also for instance dogs to bay wildlife and spring loaded traps, referred to as “gin traps”, to kill animals as large as buffalo, or again, elephants. Obviously these spring loaded traps are not very animal friendly as well, although some people are not so easily convinced and apparently feel like trying it for themselves (k-doe, 2013).
Results of poaching - Scale and impact of bushmeat-trade and poaching Bush-meat trade is described as a “severe problem” (Lindsey et al., 2013) and “immediate threat” (Brashares et al., 2004) for a reason. In Tanzania 2048 tonnes of bushmeat are confiscated annually with an estimated value of >50 million US dollars, in Mozambique 182,000-365,000 tonnes are consumed annually with an estimated value >365-730 million US dollars. Though these “sporadic insigths” are dipped “largely meaningless” (Lindsey et al., 2013), these number do give us some insight in the sheer size of these practises. Of course, because of the illicit nature of these activities and lack of research, it is hard to know the exact size, explaining the meaninglessness to some extent. - Effects on ecology Based on research from Lidsey et al. (2013) on 25 case-studies, they categorize the threats to ecology in three clusters: 1). Edge-effects, including reduced effective park sizes and depressed wildlife densities close to human settlements. Impacts of bushmeat hunting are enhanced by the use of fire by hunters, which reduce dry-season grazing, and force wildlife from protected areas in search of grazing. This also leads to a reduction in migration corridors and dispersal areas, one of the large threats to biodiversity (Okello & Kiringe, 2004), which therefore might be more related to human activities than might be assumed at first hand. 2). Disproportionate impacts on particular species, which can have severe consequences for ecosystem services (e.g. seed dispersal and predation). Large species are generally targeted by bushmeat hunters, which include tigers (Kenney et al., 1995; Tian et al., 2011; Yumnam et al., 2014), rhinos (Ferreira et al., 2014; Thapa et al., 2013) and elephants (Archie & Chiyo, 2012; Barnes, 1999), but also pangolins are hunted for various preparations to treat as much as 42 medical conditions (Soewu & Ayodele, 2009). Media again play a role (also see further), as this to the public unknown species is more heavily poached than tigers (82 times) and elephants (1000 times), leading to all eight species of this order being (critically) endangered according to the IUCN (Kehoe, 2015). Declining populations are reflected in their decreasing presences in bushmeat markets (Lindsey et al., 2013) and when asked to locals (Soewu & Ayodele, 2009). Wide-ranging predators are particularly affected by snaring, because they are attracted to carcasses of trapped animals and are also impacted by declining prey populations. 3) Dramatic, generalized wildlife population declines have occurred at a number of sites where largescale bushmeat hunting has been allowed to proceed in the absence of effective law enforcement. For example, wildlife populations in Central and West African savannas are collapsing due to excessive bushmeat hunting (Bouché et al., 2012). In some countries, vast wildernesses exist where wildlife has been depleted, and empty savannas are as real as ‘empty forests’ (Bouché et al., 2012). In Zambia, for example, wildlife populations have been severely depleted in 70% of game management areas (comprising 170,000 km2), largely through excessive bushmeat hunting. In some areas bushmeat hunting represents a more severe threat than habitat loss, and the two issues often act synergistically, with severe ecological consequences (Wilkie et al., 2011). - Role of economy and social aspects The role of economy and the social aspects is very large at the African continent. Trophy hunting is a financially unviable strategy, due to bushmeat hunting (Lindsey et al., 2013), in part because this lowers the densities of wildlife. Consequently it also affects ecotourism, which requires even higher densities of wildlife (Lindsey et al., 2013). The bushmeat hunters are usually quite poor, unemployed, have little education and few livestock. Bushmeat hunting is a lucrative business for them since successful expedition can earn them around 100 US dollars in countries where the mean per capita annual income is 120 US dollars. In these countries, in fact, hunters belong to the wealthiest community members.
The effects on social aspects are paradoxical as well. Bushmeat hunting and the illegal bushmeat trade has a negative impact on food security in the long term through the loss of a potentially sustainable and greatly elevated supply of meat protein through legal wildlife-based land uses. At the same time though, in some cases the hunters, responsible for this, enjoy and elevated social status within their community (Lindsey et al., 2013). Social aspects run even deeper, when the effects of human populations in more general ways are considered. The increase of commercial logging and other extractive industries, seemingly an economic factor at first, is associated with this, as this has led to an increase of roads and infrastructure into tropical forests. The increased access to the world's tropical forests has generated a very significant harvest of another resource: wildlife (Robinson et al., 1999). “Commercial logging hugely increases the harvest of wildlife from tropical forests by opening up remote forest areas, bringing in people from other regions, and changing local economies and patterns of resource consumption. Every year, logging opens up an additional 50,000 to 59,000 km2. Logging operations create an extensive network of roads, which link to the national road system. These roads and the trucks that travel them become conduits for a vast commercial trade in wild meat. Meat is transported from remote, previously inaccessible forests for Figure 1. Truck carrying logging workers sale in towns. In the tropical forests of Africa, the annual and freshly killed duikers to local markets harvest of bushmeat might exceed 1 million metric tons per in Northern Congo. From Robinson et al. (Algemeen Nederlands Persbureau, 2014a; year, much of it coming through such increased access to 1999) forests that are being logged. In kilograms per square kilometer, this harvest is 20 to 50 times greater than the largely subsistence harvest of the Brazilian Amazon. In the Malaysian state of Sarawak in 1996, the wild meat trade was conservatively estimated to be more than 1000 tons per year, with almost all of the meat coming out over logging roads.” (From Robinson et al. (1999)) Logging is a major cause of habitat loss, one if not the largest, cause for decrease in wildlife populations. This loss of habitat goes hand in hand with an increase in hunting rate, as said before (Wilkie et al., 2011), which puts even greater pressure on wildlife populations. Furthermore the loss of wildlife threatens the sustainability of tropical forestry itself, because many of the species most affected by hunting are those that play keystone roles in maintaining tropical forests. Tropical forests depend on wildlife for tree pollination and seed dispersal. In this ways logging has put a cascade in motion which is not even self-sustaining, but even self-reinforcing in the threatening of almost all wildlife (Robinson et al., 1999). Hunting rates are directly correlated with human populations size in and around the site (Wilkie et al., 2011). In general, areas with a high density of humans and cattle, are those with the lowest density of wildlife. This was in particularly the case for Derby eland (Taurotragus derbianus), buffalo (Syncerus caffer) and hartebeest (Alcelaphus buselaphus) populations. Also the number of recent elephant carcasses was higher in the high-density stratum (Bouché et al., 2012). Cattle is an important aspect here, as people depend to a large extent to the owing of cattle. This might also explain why bushmeat hunters are those that have very few cattle and therefore need other ways to provide an income and food (Robinson et al., 1999). Cattle impacts wildlife populations, because they compete for food and consequently also cause a loss of habitat. The
herders of the cattle searched for better pastures especially during the dry season and to avoid conflict with cultivators moved in protected areas. Here they find better pastures and clean water for their cattle. At the same time cattle numbers increased with the increased demand for meat (Bouché et al., 2012). The only positive effects of cattle that can be noted is that bushmeat demand is also dependent on the availability of alternatives, meaning that the presence of large quantities of “nonbush” meat can decreases the demand for bush-meat (Lindsey et al., 2013). Discussion: What drives bushmeat trade and poaching Perhaps one of the most important drivers for bush-meat trade and poaching is simply the (increasing) demand for animal products (i.e. meat, ivory et cetera; Lindsey et al., 2013). Africa is one of the continents with the fastest growth of human populations and high-density populations are occurring close to wildlife populations in some areas. While the effects of human presence on wildlife have already been underpinned other effects are seen as well. The price of bush-meat is related to the distance to harvestable populations (Lindsey et al., 2013; Stiles, 2011), but is usually higher in urban areas compared to rural areas. Hunters near urban areas usually also sell more of their catch, and although bushmeat only comprises a small percentage of the protein intake of urban communities (2% in Gabon), the large human populations involved create a large demand still (Lindsey et al., 2013). A very alarming situation is that there is also a significant inflow of bushmeat in the US and Europe meaning that Western countries contribute to creating an even greater demand, leading to an entire cascade of negative effects. Examples are increased commercialization of trade, greater numbers of hunters, erosion of traditional hunting seasons and taboos (which meant that certain species were spared in some areas and that some cultures eschewed hunting), and the adoption of more effective hunting techniques, placing unprecedented pressure on wildlife populations (Lindsey et al., 2013). The other substantial demand that is created is that with regard to ivory. East-Asia (Stiles, 2011) and China create an enormous demand for products made out of ivory (Ferreira et al., 2014; Martin & Vigne, 2014). Chinese workers present in Angola for example take part in smuggling ivory out of Angola and bringing it back home, since it is easy and the rewards are high, as retail prices of ivory object in China are ten times higher than they are in Angola (Martin & Vigne, 2014). Ivory is also believed to have medicinal properties and is used in traditional medicine, along with compounds of many other endangered species (Coghlan et al., 2012). The increased popularity of traditional Chinese medicine has made it into a business in which hundreds of millions of dollars go round each year. Though smaller in absolute size, the use of a variety of parts of endangered animal, either in traditional medicine or rites in African countries might constitute and even greater threat, especially as this is creating an even bigger demand close to the habitat of the wildlife (Adeola, 1992; Soewu & Ayodele, 2009).
Figure 2. Various work of art sold into the China town district of San Fransisco. Though the origin and used material is not known, the Chinese preference and sales site make it very likely to be ivory.
While we have already discussed the economy and social role of human presences affecting wildlife population, a slightly other driver of poaching is human encroachment or in other words human presences and consequently involvement into wildlife areas. Examples are infrastructure, such as roads already discussed above, but also school, clinics and boreholes in, or close to, wildlife areas. Though well-intentioned, such developments tend to result in influxes of people into areas poorly suited for human settlement, creating dependency on exploitation of natural resources such as wildlife. The complexity of this driver of poaching is highlighted by the example in which human encroachment was the result of an effort to reduce tsetse flies (Glossina spp.) (Lindsey et al., 2013). In general this can be considered a good development, since tsetse flies carry various diseases, among which sleeping sickness or African trypanosomiasis, a deadly disease for humans as well as cattle. The removal of these flies, however, led to an influx of human and cattle to previously inhabitable areas with the already discussed negative impact on wildlife populations (Lindsey et al., 2013). Two other drivers for poaching related to human presences are poverty and food insecurity. It must not be forgotten that quite some people rely on bushmeat as a food source and in some scenarios on certain categories of land, subsistence hunting is allowed, even without permits of any sort. We have already discussed above the huge demand as a driver for poaching, but as a result of that, good prices can be fetched for all sort of animal products. The regional selling of meat is a quick and easy source of income (Lindsey et al., 2013) and although illegal, authorities rarely seize the meat as transporters of meat being caught, simply pay a small bribe to carry on (Stiles, 2011). Associated with permits and the illegality are the fact that there is a lack of clear right over wildlife or land. As being said wild-life is usually considered either as ‘res nullius’ (without ownership) or belonging to the state or president, which in both cases means that the community does not have any right over the wildlife they live with. As a result communities turn to bushmeat hunting to obtain at least some benefits from wild-life. In some places, so called communities and development of community-based natural resource management (CBNRM) programmes were initiated to give the user-rights to the community and stimulate income generation through ecotourism for example . However, in many cases governments withhold a large proportions of the income generated from wildlife and incentives for conservation are weak (Suich, Child, and Spenceley (2009) as in Lindsey et al. (2013)). Marginalizing local people from benefits of wildlife creates strained relations with the wildlife sector, which are often worsened by human-wildlife conflict, heavy-handed anti-poaching and historical grievances over land. Bushmeat hunting may be a form of protest, for instance because wildlife is seen as government property and also because it is rearing income from which the local community does not benefit (Holmes, 2007).
Solutions: what could or should be done to reduce poaching and bush-meat trade. As shown above, there are many factors and causes for poaching and bushmeat trade to occur. Not only are poaching and bushmeat trade strongly connected with social and economic aspect, there are also other many other contributing factors of which some are interconnected with themselves as well. This is also why many different solutions are suggested over the years to tackle the conservation problem existing in Africa, ranging from fencing (Hayward & Kerley, 2009), community outreach/support and education (Steinmetz, Srirattanaporn, Mor-Tip, & Seuaturien, 2014) and, stated most, better enforcement (Ferreira et al., 2014; Keane, Jones, Edwards-Jones, & MilnerGulland, 2008) to more ‘exotic’ solutions like landscape genetics (Yumnam et al., 2014) and remotely piloted aircrafts (Mulero-Pazmany, Stolper, van Essen, Negro, & Sassen, 2014). Below we will go through these solutions to assess their usefulness. Fencing Minimizing the interface between people and wildlife is a key means of reducing bushmeat hunting (Lindsey et al., 2013). Developing and maintaining large protected areas is important, because of the positive relations between the retentions of wildlife diversity and reserve size. Effective reserve size can be increased in some cases by creating transfrontier protected areas (Lindsey et al., 2013 using; Newmark, 2008). However fencing should not lead to isolation, as this is a serious threat to the longterm viability of many wildlife populations and migrations in Africa. Despite this problem, fencing for conservation is likely to become increasingly utilized as biodiversity becomes increasingly threatened and methods of ameliorating threats lag behind (Hayward & Kerley, 2009). On the other hand isolation is also promoted by overhunting and roads and the interactions and feedbacks between reserve isolation, human-related activities and natural processes within and outside reserves, are poorly understood (Hayward & Kerley, 2009; Newmark, 2008). Where human settlement in reserves is prohibited, enforcing such prohibitions is crucial. Furthermore, human movement through and within parks should be controlled, as livestock grazing and resource collection are used as covers for bushmeat hunting (Lindsey et al., 2013). Fencing is an effective measure to reduce this by means of avoiding human-animal conflict (Hayward & Kerley, 2009). The IUCN identifies ten major threatening processes and the impacts of eight of these can be mitigated via the use of fencing, with avoiding human–animal conflict and reducing the impact of introduced predators being the two most common uses (Hayward & Kerley, 2009). It is good to note that fencing are not necessarily physical barriers, but also include ‘metaphorical’ fences, such as sound, smoke or smell (Hayward & Kerley, 2009). Though these seem to be not very fitting in most circumstances, the creating of actual island as an ‘metaphorical’ fence (Hayward & Kerley, 2009) can be effective and might fit better in the landscape as a whole. This might also reduce one of the downsides of fencing, namely the fact that fences are not only costly to build, but also maintain (Hayward & Kerley, 2009). In the case of creating island using waterbodies, maintenance cost might be lower compared to physical barriers. In conclusion the following can be said: fencing is an effective measure to reduce poaching and bushmeat hunting, especially by reducing human-animal interactions, one of the key factors driving poaching and bushmeat hunting and trade. However fences are costly to build and maintain, a major downside to their use in African countries plagued by poverty. In the long term fencing can even be detrimental to their initial goal, because of many negative effects intertwined with the isolation of wildlife by fencing. It is therefore recommended to only apply fencing when the current situation poses (very) serious threats to wildlife, which cannot be mitigated by other means of conservation and/or management strategies in the short-term. The utilization of fencing, which is expected to increase (Hayward & Kerley, 2009), require a new research and conservation agenda to ensure that conservation fences do not remain a permanent part of the landscape (Hayward & Kerley, 2009).
Community outreach Although to our knowledge there has not been many research or attempts to conservation of wildlife through community outreach, it does seem to be an effective way of managing (Steinmetz et al., 2014). It turns out that community outreach can be an effective measure against poaching. In a period of four years, 116 outreaches was performed by 10-14 park members/researchers, aiming mainly at local leaders, farmers and school children by Steinmetz et al. (2014). Outreach aimed to build trust, raise awareness, motivate, offer opportunities for action, increase perceived behavioural control of villagers and generate social pressure against poaching. Poaching pressure dropped by a factor of four across the park, with multiple short-term declines (usually to zero) immediately following outreach in seven of nine patrol zones and these declines were uncorrelated with park patrol effort. In a questionnaire, 88% stated that poaching had declined, with the top reason given park outreach. In response to safer conditions, occupancy and abundance of five of the six focal species increased significantly or was stable in all three monitoring sites (Steinmetz et al., 2014). For more detail, please consult the paper by Steinmetz et al. (2014). Although this study was carried out in Thailand, South-East Asia, we believe this could also be an effective management strategy in African countries as well. The use of animal parts in medicine for instance is common in both Asia and Africa and there is no reason to suspect that the view of locals to poaching is different at the start; locals in Thailand are indifferent to poaching (Steinmetz et al., 2014), while in Africa also a part of the population participates in poaching or bushmeat hunting. Hunters enjoy and elevated social status within their community in some cases (Steinmetz et al., 2014), but community outreach aims at a new level of trust and understanding, making poachers/hunters reluctant to act as new social norms now motivate him to comply to others’ expectations (Steinmetz et al., 2014). The social sciences supports this view in general and even expect it to be more effective compared to enforcement (Steinmetz et al., 2014). In conclusion we believe that community outreach can be a very effective measure to prevent poaching and (bushmeat) hunting on the long-term. Park members and rangers, preferably locals which already have a certain bond of trust with other locals, should make just as large an effort at reaching out to locals, building trust and educate them, as they do to for instance park patrol. For (relatively) short term effects it is best to educate local leaders and farmers (including herders with cattle), as they are a major part of the community with influences as well as responsibility. For a longterm effect it is good to include school children in such education programs as well. For more detail as to what such a program should look like and how to organize this, we would like to point to the paper of Steinmetz et al. (2014). Enforcement The most popular responses to the question what should be done to reduce poaching and bushmeat hunting, are related to enforcement of rules and laws installed to protect wildlife (Challender & MacMillan, 2014; Ferreira et al., 2014; Keane et al., 2008; Lindsey et al., 2013). Although opinions differ, there is general agreement that enforcement is important and needs to be more strict, but at the same time is a short-term solution and certainly not an effective strategy on its own (Challender & MacMillan, 2014). Besides the rules being more strict (severe), there is also a need to increase the chance of violators of these rules to get caught. After all, an individual’s supply of offences may be modelled as a decreasing function of two factors of enforcement: the probability of an act of noncompliance being detected and punished and the severity of punishment that results (Becker et al. 1968 as in Keane et al., 2008). Remotely piloted aircrafts fitted with different cameras can be a relatively low cost method to increase detection of violators as well as fence surveillance (MuleroPazmany et al., 2014). However, these measure also have implications not only on the violators, but as well as the enforcers, especially when there is corruption present (Becker & Stigler 1974 as in Keane et al.,
2008). A disheartening case that effectively shows how violators, enforcers and the laws they enforce interact, is that of 42 pangolins, the most heavily poached mammals on the planet, being rescued from poachers in Vietnam. After their rescue they were handed over to rangers, but instead of returning them to their natural habitat, they were sold to restaurants for over $11.000. While the money was confiscated the rangers got never convicted for their crimes (Kehoe, 2015). Raising awareness Figure 3. Pangolin fetus soup (Kehoe, 2015) While raising awareness about the importance of wildlife protection at the local community is crucial, more can be done at this point. Not in the last place, because the hunters are not always locals. These hunters might come from further away, but also with a very different mindset, related to the importance of raising awareness. The hunters I refer to are designated as so called “commercial hunters” in literature, those that hunt for profit, as opposed to “subsistence hunters” (Stiles, 2011). These “commercial hunters” focus on ivory, not meat, of, in this case, elephants and are in well over half of the cases paid by others to kill elephants. This third party, commanditaires, ranging from influential government or military officers to businessmen or even clerics, order the hunt and provide money, food and other goods to the lead hunter, who organizes the hunting party. They also often supply weapons and ammunition in return for the tusks. Though the meat can yield a significant amount of money as well, ivory usually yield a higher return (Stiles, 2011). Commanditaires, play an important role in making elephant hunt possible in return for ivory. This is because they know they can make a lot of profit out of this initial investment (sources state prices up to 250 US dollars/kg for raw ivory (Martin & Vigne, 2014; Stiles, 2011)) as is also noted by Stiles (2011). Profit from the (illegal) trade in ivory are so high, that there are even signs of large organized criminal network being involved. Raising awareness in the areas that create a demand for the ivory and drive up the prices, might help driving down the prices and into making the elephant hunt not profitable anymore (Stiles, 2011). This means that awareness should have a strong focus on South-East Asia and China, with regard to the demand for ivory, as pointed out above, but also the significant inflow of bushmeat in Europe and the US. Also at the source of the ivory, where many Chinese (tourists) create a demand, awareness should be practiced. For instance, at ivory markets, all ivory items sold (mainly to Chinese) without proper documentation are illegal, which was the cases for all ivory items on display at one of the largest ivory markets (Martin & Vigne, 2014). Informing the public about the acquisition of illegal a and committing a crime in doing so, is likely to reduce the demand for ivory locally as well. Of course law enforcement is needed here as well, as the largest ivory markets, full of illegal ivory, are already known to the public, and even tourists. In raising awareness I believe that the media of today can also play a large role. Currently the omnipresent media has a significant impact on how we perceive the world beyond our immediate reach. At the same time, the media that is creating this image is ever increasing and has become more
readily accessible with the passing of time. Educating and informing people, especially those that create a demand from the more ‘civilized’ and ‘developed’ countries, can be done by making more efficient use of this media. For example, the internet is an easy and relatively cheap way compared to the amount of people that can be reached. Using social media makes it easier to spread a message more directly into the everyday lives of people from western civilization and most likely also a significant amount of people living in Asian countries. Television and papers are other ways, but are expected to be of a more supportive role, as more and more people receive their news from electronic sources, even electronic papers for example, which I would rather denote as media related to internet. Furthermore I believe it would be beneficial if the subject were to be more often treated in the media, as is often the case for other natural catastrophes, as noting a serious threat once is unlikely to lead to long-term memory and full-scale appreciation of the size of the problem. History teaches us that raising awareness at the public through campaigns can indeed reduce the demand for certain goods; the demand for shark fin soup, for example, was reduced by as much as 70% in China due to large-scale awareness campaign on the impact of the shark fin trade (Kehoe, 2015). There are, however, many more aspect connected to awareness for which there is no space to cover these in detail. For instance, how many of us, conservationist, biologist and other specialist in our field, have ever heard before of the pangolin noted above? How aware our we of the problem faced by different species, as well as how valuable they are to their (our) ecosystems? Another untreated part related to awareness, especially when it comes to raising awareness with the underlying goal of raising funding for a specific goal, is the aspect of “cuteness”. In a nice short video on the internet, it is explained how the panda for example, has cost billions of dollars to be saved from extinction, while it isn’t of great importance to its ecosystems or wasn’t even about to go extinct at all as it wasn’t even close to as rare as rhino where, all because of “cuteness” (Reich et al., 2015). Furthermore Reich et al. (2015) show this, and other issues related to conservation as well in their video. In conclusion, poaching and bush-meat hunting are detrimental to wildlife and lead to a loss of biodiversity on such a scale that increasing awareness as described above can be considered necessary. As we now know that biodiversity is of value, even in the economic sense of the word through ecological services, there is no reason anymore to deny this problem further attention. Raising awareness can have a positive effect, especially when they right audience, those creating a demand, are targeted. Furthermore, today, more than ever, there are low cost and effective ways to reach a large audience.
Conclusions and recommendations: what to do next? Above I’ve stated measurements and management strategies that have been shown to be effective in practice and having their effect on a short, or longer term. It is impossible to show all possible measurement that can be taken to reduce poaching and bush-meat hunting, but the most important measurement that can be taken, those stated multiple times, that have been tested and criticize or celebrated for their downside as well as their upsides, are covered here. Fencing, can have a positive effect on a short term, but should not be a measurement on the long term as it has detrimental effect on wildlife as well. Especially, it can lead to isolation of populations or block migratory routes. The expected increase in fencing (Hayward & Kerley, 2009) should therefore be carefully considered when long term management strategies are being thought of. Community outreach and raising awareness are measurement that will show their effect primarily on a longer term, and also take longer to be effectively implemented. Here community outreach is mainly seen as educating locals and teaching them the values of wildlife and thus creating a social barrier for poaching and/or bush-meat hunting. Raising awareness should happen on a much larger scale, almost worldwide, were it is important to target the right audience. Larger, long-term campaigns can have a positive effect leading to less consumers of animal products as has been seen before.
Figure 4. An overview of media messages involving poaching. Most of them focus on the sensation behind it, without addressing the real problem, or what should be done about it (Algemeen Nederlands Persbureau, 2014a, 2014b; "Bodyguards voor laatste neushoorn," 2015; Miltimore, 2015). Translated titles read, top picture: Bodyguard for last rhino; title middle left: Number of African elephants drops rapidly; Title middle right: Dutch House of Representatives want more money to counter poaching.
("Bodyguards voor laatste neushoorn," 2015; Miltimore, 2015)
Though enforcement is certainly not a management strategy that, in itself, can solve the problem of poaching and bush-meat hunting it has important implications. Performing illegal activities such as poaching are more likely to occur as the chances of being caught and/or being punished are low (Becker et al. 1968 as in Keane et al., 2008). Corruption is of concern in this context. The next step should be to implement these measurements in a multi-pronged management plan. It is important to note that none of the above strategies is effective enough in itself, especially when facing the full scope of the problem, not only in Africa, but on a global scale. Lastly, though not mentioned explicitly above, we must be wary of cultural differences between various parts of the world. Not only because what we think of being an effective measurement, might not be in a different context on another continent. Also, because the central parts of Africa are known to be very unstable regions on political, as well as cultural grounds, leading to (tribal) conflicts on various scales before. Wars, cultural differences and political problems along with poverty and poor management of (some) countries as a whole, lead to a whole range of problems, unrelated to, but affecting conservation biology and management strategies. These problems are of course detrimental to wildlife in most, if not all cases, and must be considered when effective conservation management is to be performed in African countries.
References Adeola, M. O. (1992). Importance of Wild Animals and Their Parts in the Culture, Religious Festivals, and Traditional Medicine, of Nigeria. Environmental Conservation, 19(02), 125-134. doi: doi:10.1017/S0376892900030605 Algemeen Nederlands Persbureau. (2014a). Aantal Afrikaanse olifanten neemt razendsnel af. Wetenschap. from http://www.nu.nl/wetenschap/3856323/aantal-afrikaanse-olifantenneemt-razendsnel-af-.html Algemeen Nederlands Persbureau. (2014b). Kamer wil meer geld tegen stroperij. Politiek. from http://www.nu.nl/politiek/3939791/kamer-wil-meer-geld-stroperij.html Archie, E. A., & Chiyo, P. I. (2012). Elephant behaviour and conservation: social relationships, the effects of poaching, and genetic tools for management. Molecular Ecology, 21(3), 765-778. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-294X.2011.05237.x Barnes, R. F. W. (1999). Is there a future for elephants in West Africa? Mammal Review, 29(3), 175199. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2907.1999.00044.x Bodyguards voor laatste neushoorn. (2015, 17-04-2015). De Gelderlander, pp. 12-13. Bouché, P., Nzapa Mbeti Mange, R., Tankalet, F., Zowoya, F., Lejeune, P., & Vermeulen, C. (2012). Game over! Wildlife collapse in northern Central African Republic. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 184(11), 7001-7011. doi: 10.1007/s10661-011-2475-y Brashares, J. S., Arcese, P., Sam, M. K., Coppolillo, P. B., Sinclair, A. R. E., & Balmford, A. (2004). Bushmeat Hunting, Wildlife Declines, and Fish Supply in West Africa. Science, 306(5699), 1180-1183. doi: 10.1126/science.1102425 Challender, D. W. S., & MacMillan, D. C. (2014). Poaching is more than an Enforcement Problem. Conservation Letters, 7(5), 484-494. doi: 10.1111/conl.12082 Coghlan, M. L., Haile, J., Houston, J., Murray, D. C., White, N. E., Moolhuijzen, P., . . . Bunce, M. (2012). Deep Sequencing of Plant and Animal DNA Contained within Traditional Chinese Medicines Reveals Legality Issues and Health Safety Concerns. PLoS Genet, 8(4), e1002657. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgen.1002657 Ferreira, S. M., Pfab, M., & Knight, M. (2014). Management strategies to curb rhino poaching: Alternative options using a cost-benefit approach. South African Journal of Science, 110(5-6), 8. doi: 10.1590/sajs.2014/20120055 Hayward, M. W., & Kerley, G. I. H. (2009). Fencing for conservation: Restriction of evolutionary potential or a riposte to threatening processes? Biological Conservation, 142(1), 1-13. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2008.09.022
Holmes, G. (2007). Protection, politics and protest: understanding resistance to conservation. Conservation and Society, 5(2), 184. k-doe (Producer). (2013, 15-4-2015). Man Punches Bear Trap! [Short Movie] Retrieved from http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=ec4_1383619833 Keane, A., Jones, J. P. G., Edwards-Jones, G., & Milner-Gulland, E. J. (2008). The sleeping policeman: understanding issues of enforcement and compliance in conservation. Animal Conservation, 11(2), 75-82. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-1795.2008.00170.x Kehoe, L. (2015, 01-04-2015). Meet The World’s Most-Traded, Least-Known Mammal. IFLScience. 2015, from http://www.iflscience.com/plants-and-animals/meet-world-s-most-traded-leastknown-mammal Kenney, J. S., Smith, J. L. D., Starfield, A. M., & McDougal, C. W. (1995). The Long-Term Effechts of Tiger Poaching on Population Viability. Conservation Biology, 9(5), 1127-1133. doi: 10.1046/j.1523-1739.1995.9051127.x Lindsey, P. A., Balme, G., Becker, M., Begg, C., Bento, C., Bocchino, C., . . . Zisadza-Gandiwa, P. (2013). The bushmeat trade in African savannas: Impacts, drivers, and possible solutions. Biological Conservation, 160, 80-96. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2012.12.020 Martin, E., & Vigne, L. (2014). Luanda-the largest illegal ivory market in southern Africa. Pachyderm(55), 30-37. Miltimore, J. (2015). Former SEAL blast ´poacher hunter´. from http://warrior.scout.com/story/1535978-former-seal-blasts-poacher-hunter Mulero-Pazmany, M., Stolper, R., van Essen, L. D., Negro, J. J., & Sassen, T. (2014). Remotely Piloted Aircraft Systems as a Rhinoceros Anti-Poaching Tool in Africa. Plos One, 9(1), 10. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0083873 Newmark, W. D. (2008). Isolation of African protected areas. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 6(6), 321-328. doi: 10.1890/070003 Okello, M. M., & Kiringe, J. W. (2004). Threats to Biodiversity and their Implications in Protected and Adjacent Dispersal Areas of Kenya. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 12(1), 55-69. Reich, H., Reich, A., Reich, P., Elert, E., Salazar, E., & Yoshida, K. (2015). Should we let go pandas go extinct? MinuteEarth. Robinson, J. G., Redford, K. H., & Bennett, E. L. (1999). Conservation - Wildlife harvest in logged tropical forests. Science, 284(5414), 595-596. doi: 10.1126/science.284.5414.595 Soewu, D. A., & Ayodele, I. A. (2009). Utilisation of Pangolin (Manis sps) in traditional Yorubic medicine in Ijebu province, Ogun State, Nigeria. Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine, 5, 11. doi: 10.1186/1746-4269-5-39 Steinmetz, R., Srirattanaporn, S., Mor-Tip, J., & Seuaturien, N. (2014). Can community outreach alleviate poaching pressure and recover wildlife in South-East Asian protected areas? Journal of Applied Ecology, 51(6), 1469-1478. doi: 10.1111/1365-2664.12239 Stiles, D. (2011). Elephant meat and ivory trade in Central Africa. Pachyderm(50), 26-36. Suich, H., Child, B., & Spenceley, A. (2009). Evolution and innovation in wildlife conservation : parks and game ranches to transfrontier conservation areas. London ; Sterling, VA: Earthscan. Thapa, K., Nepal, S., Thapa, G., Bhatta, S. R., & Wikramanayake, E. (2013). Past, present and future conservation of the greater one-horned rhinoceros Rhinoceros unicornis in Nepal. Oryx, 47(3), 345-351. doi: 10.1017/s0030605311001670 Tian, Y., Wu, J. G., Smith, A. T., Wang, T. M., Kou, X. J., & Ge, J. P. (2011). Population viability of the Siberian Tiger in a changing landscape: Going, going and gone? Ecological Modelling, 222(17), 3166-3180. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2011.06.003 Wilkie, D. S., Bennett, E. L., Peres, C. A., & Cunningham, A. A. (2011). The empty forest revisited. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1223(1), 120-128. doi: 10.1111/j.17496632.2010.05908.x Yumnam, B., Jhala, Y. V., Qureshi, Q., Maldonado, J. E., Gopal, R., Saini, S., . . . Fleischer, R. C. (2014). Prioritizing Tiger Conservation through Landscape Genetics and Habitat Linkages. Plos One, 9(11). doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0111207
