Eugene Lapointe, former head of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES), now president of the International Wildlife Management Consortium (IWMC), attacks the CITES approach in an article on BBC on the case for hunting in conservation,
Are bans on hunting and trade the best way to conserve species?
It is natural for people to jump to the conclusion that they are. After all, if no one is allowed to kill an animal, the thinking goes, surely its population will grow…
To understand why hunting and trade bans are not as effective as they are supposed to be, it is worth considering elephant conservation programmes in Africa, where countries have adopted two diverse strategies.
Elephant tusks (ivory) are used in artefacts around the world and, whether we like it or not, they command a market value similar to many precious metals. As a result, there is a constant international demand for ivory.
Unfortunately, most African economies are poor and wildlife conservation has to compete with many pressing demands for public money, such as the provision of public housing, sanitation projects, health care (particularly related to Aids) and education.
So conservation projects are going to be most successful if they can be self-supporting; in other words, if they can generate income and provide local jobs.
In southern Africa, countries have followed the philosophy of sustainable use. They have issued permits to sport hunters to kill a limited number of elephants that are pre-selected according to factors like age and sex. They cannot shoot breeding animals, for example.
Sport hunting produces significant income through hunting fees, safari costs (guides, accommodation, trophy fees, etc.) and this is reinvested into conservation programmes. Local people support it because it provides secure employment.
The result is that in Namibia, South Africa and Botswana, elephant populations are well-stocked and healthy, while incidences of poaching have been kept to low levels.
By contrast, Kenya takes a protectionist approach. Killing elephants is prohibited and the country steadfastly argues against international trade in ivory.
An unintended consequence is that poaching is encouraged because local people receive little added value from the elephants and, instead, see a local resource going to waste.
In some areas people suffer when elephants destroy crops and homes. Habitat damage from dense populations also negatively impacts many other species.
Conservation in Kenya has become largely a law enforcement operation and, inevitably, this is a drain on limited local resources.
While elephant populations have recovered, poaching remains a problem and, in stark contrast to southern Africa, people have to be paid to shoot problem animals.
Unfortunately, there is a tendency for nations to practice sustainable use at home while prescribing protectionism abroad.
This is true for African elephants, seals, sturgeon, whales, tigers, rhinos and many of the so-called “charismatic” species.
In the future, the fate of many animals may well depend on the extent to which the public around the world starts to accept the idea of utilising wildlife in a sustainable way.