Conservation conundrum – animal rights, single species/attributes of interest and how to fix it

Conservation, as a sector, is in trouble.  Not from lack of funding or interested personnel to do the work or information (in general).  It’s not because of the most commonly cited problems – it’s because of the philosophy either ingrained in, or accepted by, the people working in the sector and the people injecting much needed resources into conservation.  If the philosophy of something is not sound, it will not work.  That’s our problem and we need to start accepting that, discussing it, thinking about how to change it and start applying those changes.  We need to be as adaptive as the organisms we are trying to protect.

Theory of knowledge: to understand where our knowledge comes from, why we accept some views and not others, why we should question everything and, above all, why we should be able to change our opinions when presented with evidence that conflicts with our existing opinions.

That last point is what we need more of in conservation – starting with an opinion, being shown evidence to the contrary, analysing both sides of the argument and being able to change the opinion based on the new evidence.  By evidence, of course, I mean that which has been accumulated using the scientific method, i.e. is replicable and does not prove anything but provides evidence to support one theory more than others.

Conservation started out with hunting – protect the wildlife from commoners so that it may be hunted for sport by the wealthy (origins aside) – which is not something the animal rights movement likes to admit.  That is how and why many wildlife reserves, conservation areas, etc. were set up, and remain that way today in some cases; there is nothing wrong with acknowledging that.  This approach was, for all its faults, quite effective at keeping human influence out of these areas, except that associated with hunting, and allowing the animals safe habitats in which to thrive.  This could be called a landscape-scale conservation model as it provided for conservation of habitat and all the organisms that habitat could house, regardless of their trophy value.

There was a shift from this landscape-scale conservation thinking in the mid- to late-1900’s towards a conservation philosophy that centred on a specific attribute or species.  Elephant, rhino, lions, trees and anti-poaching even.  I say aggressive because this philosophy tends to be rather extremist and conservative in that those who agree with this philosophy won’t be convinced to change their opinions even when presented with a mountain of empirical evidence supporting a different philosophy compiled by the most respected and experienced personnel on the subject matter.  We shall call this the foci conservation model.

Many blame the emergence of the foci model on George and Joy Adamson who hand-reared Elsa the lion in Kenya, released her and wrote a book about it.  Not well known about the Adamson’s is why George was removed from the Kenya wildlife service – allegedly due to him shooting wild lions because they were a threat to his hand-reared lions to whom he was very attached.  Call this iconoclastic but that’s absolutely not acceptable behaviour for a conservation hero and therefore all philosophy based on their emotional attachment to wild animals should be thrown as far out the window as possible.

The foci conservation model

Choose a focus that appeals to the general public or that they can relate to.  Cute lion cubs, elephants, gnarled old trees.  The cuter, fluffier, prettier, rarer, more endangered or more eccentric the species/attribute the better.  This is the focus of the campaign – it pulls at heart strings, brings in money and makes projects possible if they include one or more of the foci in their work.  It is argued that, in using one sexy species to raise money, it provides funding for the less attractive species; like using elephant conservation money to protect an entire area which is host to, say, 15 antelope species.  I suppose this would be called effective marketing and fund raising.  This is great for projects that incorporate those foci in their work.

Some problems with this approach

  1. This limits to funding to projects that include these foci in their work. Contrary to popular opinion, conservation and the protection of natural resources is about managing the people who exploit those resources.  Funding anti-poaching is all good and well but it only addresses a symptom (poaching) and not the root cause (poverty, demand and greed).  If you want to have an impact on conservation support rural development projects not anti-poaching projects.  Conservation donors are only now waking up to this and even still prefer to support animal-related projects because, well, they’re sexier and they don’t understand/acknowledge the real dynamics that lead to resource exploitation.
  2. It provides for projects that waste money on things that will have little conservation impact in the bigger picture. Wildlife orphanages are classic examples of this, particularly those focused on a specific species (note: this does not include rehabilitation centres that focus on healing adult wildlife).  It would be better if the funding went directly into securing the population’s habitat so no orphans would be created in the future.  This would have an actual conservation impact as opposed to rearing individual animals that may become problematic because they’ve lost their fear of humans and don’t know what their species’ behavioural norms are, and who will actually have little effect on the success or sustained presence of that species in terms of genetics and reproductive capacity anyway.
  3. It detracts from the importance of species and attributes that the general public does not deem to be special or endearing. A good example of this is the world’s obsession with trees and the “devastating effect” of late fires on trees in Africa leading to the ingrained belief that fire must either be completely excluded from a system or the system must be religiously burnt annually just after the rains to prevent late fires (something we can thank the colonial powers for).  No one thinks about the open grassy plains and how a lot of Africa’s vegetation is adapted for, and depends on, fire albeit at lower frequencies than have been experienced in the past 50 or so years.  Now we are faced with changes in soil chemistry and receptibility to seedlings, woody encroachment of once-open grassy areas which will change wildlife species composition in the area and shift grass communities towards fire-hardy but less-nutritious species all the while giving off a carbon emission footprint so large it’s difficult to comprehend.
  4. Once you are emotionally invested in an individual it’s hard to see the bigger picture and how your opinion could actually be doing more harm than good. Removing trophy hunting from Africa because people are interested in the right of an individual animal not to be shot is directly ignoring the right of all non-trophy animals in that area to live.  In addition to this, it ignores the rural communities’ right to benefit from the wildlife they live with in the way that community sees fit.  In Zambia it is a legal requirement of hunting concession holders to distribute venison from trophy animals to adjacent communities (the meat, legally, belongs to the hunting client who bought the license for the animal); safari lodges have no similar legal obligation required of on them to participate in community-related projects.  In Zambia, again, 2/3 of the government wildlife estate are hunting concessions; in a country where National Parks (1/3 government wildlife estate) are underfunded and struggling, it would make little sense to remove the only management strategy that provides a) funding the area and b) keeps the habitat intact for the day when wildlife numbers increase.
  5. People who subscribe to this philosophy generally will not change their views or management strategies when provided with evidence suggesting their model is ineffective and/or damaging. Kenya has reportedly lost up to 70% of its wildlife since the ban on hunting was imposed in the 1970s and human-wildlife conflict has apparently also increased exponentially in the same time period.  Yet IFAW and other such organisations hail it as a conservation success – even though they pretty much signed the death warrants for those 70% and local opinion of wildlife has regressed into “we [rural communities] live with it [the wildlife] but they [wealthy land owners] benefit from it at our [rural communities] cost and they [NGOs and government] think it’s a success.”  In light of such evidence, the government and NGO’s should realise that they need to rethink their wildlife management strategy to, for example, allowing venison hunting as a protein source at the very least.

 

The way forward

A more holistic, adaptive management approach needs to be adapted if conservation sustainability is to be achieved in Africa.  This includes incorporating the following things into conservation strategy and philosophy:

  1. Decentralized ownership of wildlife. The community who lives with the wildlife should own it, not a government who has proved time and again not to have the villagers’ best interests at heart and who take the majority of the money generated by the wildlife.  Private wildlife ownership may be another model worth incorporating, but that is essentially removing the natural heritage of the local communities who are the ones that should benefit from their
  2. Utilisation of wildlife and other natural resources, provided monitoring is place. Honey, fish, timber, forest foods, venison, all of this needs to be harvested by the local communities in order for them to place an economic value on the natural resources the West places emotional value on.  If you cannot afford to feed, house or educate your family adequately then you will not be able to afford an appreciation of nature without being able to utilise it to increase your standard of living.
  3. Demilitarization of conservation. Law enforcement and resource protection is necessary, I’m not arguing against it, but the arms race needs to stop.  Conservation is not about keeping poachers out, it’s about making sure the people don’t become poachers.  The exception of course is in conflict-torn areas such as Virunga in DRC, Chad, Sudan, etc., places like Zambia do not need a shoot-on-site policy when government-induced poverty is the rationale for sanctioning murder.
  4. Addressing the root causes of natural resource exploitation and degradation, not the symptoms. Propensity to illegally harvest timber, bush meat, honey, fish, skins, etc is a symptom of poverty.  Poaching will not stop until the people doing the poaching have no reason to poach or are not in a circumstance that would tempt them to poach.  Hiring more scouts will only increase the number of poachers apprehended which will only increase the number of households who have no bread-winner which will only increase the number of people (children) pushed into illegal activities such as poaching, theft and prostitution.
  5. Adaptive management based on scientific and social science evidence. We live in a dynamic world and nature itself is dynamic, so why would we then impose static management strategies and philosophies on conservation?  (Answer: ego).  We need to start being as adaptive and changing as the environments and animals we are working to conserve.  Annual rainfall varies so fire fuel load varies so fire management should also vary.  What works in Tanzania may not work in Zambia because we have different cultures, different governing systems, different environments, different infrastructure, different religions, etc.  One size does not fit all, one model can be adapted to fit another area but it should never be homogeneous. It’s really quite simple.
  6. Landscapes need to be the focus of attention, not individual species or areas or attributes. If you protect a landscape properly, including all of its ecosystem services and functions, you will successfully conserve every natural process and organism occurring in that landscape.  If you conserve a species, you only conserve that one species and things directly associated with it.
  7. Conservation strategy needs to be dictated by the people living next to the conservation project/area. Not by the donors on another continent who think they know best because they have a fancy degree, did some field work back in the 80s, were part of the peace corps, or any other such bollocks.  They have no idea what’s going on en situ, they don’t know the people, the pressures, the problems, the solutions; they generally only know what we tell them or what they see on tv or read in books.  So why are we letting them still dictate who, what, where, why, when and how we do conservation in Africa?
  8. Emotions need to be removed from conservation. You see lion kills on a safari and no one stops to think twice about the brutality of nature.  Death is part of what we’re conserving – the natural cycle of things – this means accepting that wildlife is a source of protein for humans, wildlife body parts (trophies, skins) are a source of income for humans, wildlife alive is a source of income for humans, trees dead and alive are a source of income for humans.  We need to stop ourselves from being pulled into the Disney scenario where a lion [Simba/rural communities adjacent to wildlife] befriends a warthog [Pumba/wildlife the community doesn’t benefit from] instead of eating it.
  9. We need to stop importing expertise from abroad to do jobs that locals can do. Why employ a foreign employee do to a job there are plenty of locals qualified to do?  Instead of giving jobs to foreigners because they’ll work for little financial compensation, we should be investing in the locals who are far better equipped to be the job in the first place and who aren’t planning on leaving anytime soon.   The reason our conservation strategies are so messed up is because of the foreign influence over conservation in Africa – so maybe we should consider reducing said influence in the work force.  This will also add to the sustainability of nature conservation in Africa when people start seeing it as a local job market and not one only open to foreign personnel. [I see how some might take this as xenophobic, it’s not.  I’m trying to address a problem I noticed with a certain NGO with high staff turnover due to their foreign employees/volunteers and how certain projects failed because they kept bringing in foreign qualified persons who couldn’t get government approval for the job instead of employing a local who’s already set up to go.  Their local image was also not healthy because of their employment strategy.]
  10. We need to stop corruption and misinformation in the government, NGO and donor sectors. Corruption is one of the biggest battles we all fight, it determines who gets a certain job, how easy it will be to make legislative changes, it even dictates whether a certain group of people will make your life hell or will work with you.  Corruption is also a major source of funding leakage, as are donor overheads and salaries.  Misinformation in the NGO-donor sector is another huge problem, NGOs will tell their donors that they’re successful when actually they’re not and donors will tell the general public that their money is going to a good cause – like their child’s private schooling costs or the fancy car they just bought.  Lying and stealing are as ingrained in the conservation NGO, government and donor sectors as breathing is in every mammal.  It needs to stop.

 

For such intelligent beings, us humans are allowing ourselves to be conned into an age of rights, emotions and nonsensical ideals that are not as kind and gentle as they first appear to be.  And we’re sure as hell ignoring Darwin’s theories of adaptation by continuing to implement conservation programmes with static, non-changing philosophies at their core.

It’s time to adapt.  There’s no weakness in admitting something didn’t work, unless you’re not prepared to make the necessary changes to ensure it does work in the future.

Advertisements

The picture of maturity

Despite the public image(s) that conservation NGO’s like to perpetuate and develop, inter-organisational cooperation between such NGO’s is rather strained.  More often there will be cooperation, not because the NGO’s agree with, or have professional respect for, one another but because one needs something from the other.  It is imperative that readers note that conservation is a team effort and without such cooperation, however strained or difficult, it would be impossible to conserve and research wild places and animals.

I recently heard a rather disturbing story that spotlights the strain and competition between conservation NGO’s and how one person’s actions can have an impact on conservation in a whole COUNTRY – Zambia.

Some of you may know the people involved and the whole story, I ask that you do not mention any names in the comments and in posts if you share this on social media, as that would not help the current situation.  Let’s keep it civil and keep it as a lesson we can all learn from.  In addition, if the details are incorrect or something has been left out that is important to the story, please comment with the suggested amendment(s); remember not to use real names of people, places or organisations.

The story is as follows:

A conservation NGO in Zambia had a project managed by a very well respected person in the conservation sector, nationally, regionally and internationally, and has good donor backing.  In this narrative, this person will be referred to as “Santa”.  Santa decided, for whatever reason(s), to separate from the overarching NGO and take their project “private”.  This did not sit well with the boss of the NGO, naturally.  The CEO will be referred to as “Tinky winky” in this narrative.  Tinky winky then proceeded to fire not only Santa but a large component of Santa’s staff from the parent NGO.  In and of itself this was big news in the country and many people were shocked and appalled by Tinky winky’s behaviour.  Grumpy then decided to write emails to a large number of international donors in the UK and USA, many of which support more than one project in Zambia; I do not know what these emails said but essentially it was to “burn” Santa and remove any future support for them.  This email reached quite a lot of people in other conservation NGO’s in the county as well, many of whom know and respect Santa and knew their side of the story.  To add insult to injury, employees within the NGO told several outsiders (myself included) that Tinky winky took Santa to court over equipment, vehicles, etc. that had been purchased with funding granted to the project while under the parent organisation.

I was then put straight by Santa who said no such court case happened – merely a legal settlement was put forward and agreed upon by both parties.  Or, at least, agreed by one party and accepted by the other because no other choice existed.

So, what can we learn from this?  One person – one very egotistical, manipulative person – damaged the reputation of ALL conservation NGO’s in Zambia, potentially reducing the likelihood of repeat funding.  Why?  Because rejection was too much to handle for them; or failure.   What form of reprimand/discipline/backlash did that egotistical, manipulative person get?  Fuck all.  Why did they get fuck all?  Because “it’s good to be the boss”, and perhaps baby animals and the ridiculously high rates of internal conflict of interest at the NGO.

When working in remote areas with limited funding and expertise it is always wise to keep any potential help as close as possible, and making sure you maintain decorum in all situations.  I would not be surprised if, in this particular case, revenge was served cold and frostbite was suffered by more than just one man.

Sexy conservation

Some conservation initiatives focus on one species – southern white rhino, snow leopard, platapus, Iberian lynx, polar bear, condors, gorilla – or specific areas – Great Barrier Reef, fynbos region, the Mara.  This is usually justified as, when referring to a specific area, marketing conservation of a “special” area encompasses every living thing and natural process inside that area.  When referring to a specific species, they are used as ‘poster’ animals to bring in funding and resources to further conservation of that species, which sometimes helps to conserve other living things that share their habitat.

The problem with this prejudice in conservation is that it a) drags down areas or species that don’t exhibit charismatic traits or have beautiful scenery, and b) makes it incredibly difficult if you’re trying to conserve a place that excludes ‘special’ habitat or a species that is less charismatic than most (e.g. rodents, insects, fish, grass).

Let’s digress a wee bit and talk about tsetse flies.  Did you know a ridiculous amount of land in Africa has been set aside for wildlife because of the presence of tsetse flies and the livestock diseases they carry?  The second largest national park in Africa – Kafue National Park in Zambia – is one such example.  Many commercial hunting areas provide vital habitat for scores of wildlife species because of tsetse files as well.  So really, they deserve a big fat gold medal for “most insignificant thing to get Africa to conserve stuff” but they don’t, because they’re not sexy.  In fact, photographic tour operators prefer to kill them because a) some are under the impression that any tsetse flies reduce wildlife productivity and b) “the guests hate them, it’s not good for business”.

Back to “Big 5” donors – in order to eek a bit of funding for an “insignificant” species or threat, conservationists end up having a bunch of, or designing, “high profile” projects in the hope that some of the funding could maybe be used for something more important than what some person in a 22nd-floor office in New York thinks justifies a donation of $5 a year.

Which would you be more likely to fund?:

  • elephant population research in Kruger
  • fire management in the DRC
  • collaring carnivores in Tsavo
  • frog distribution expedition in Mozambique
  • an elephant orphanage
  • fish surveys of the Zambezi watershed rivers

Be aware that the first, third and fifth are those that will open you up to critique considering Kruger and Tsavo are well researched and baby animals never run out of money, whereas Mozambique, the Zambezi watershed and DRC are relatively less well documented.

Another digression – PLANTS!  No one ever thinks the grass needs love or the orchids need protecting from chikanda harvesting (usually Disa genus geophytes).  People seem to think plants will always take care of themselves regardless of what they’re subjected to (which is correct to a certain extent) and that animals need to be the centre of attention right now.  My only response to the matter is: “yes, let’s do that, let’s focus solely on the animals and, if and when there isn’t any food left I guess human babies will just have to do.”

Elephant trunks have millions of muscles…NOT!

In this day and age, with knowledge literally at our fingertips, ignorance is unacceptable. Even more unacceptable is ignorance of specialist organisations that seem to not know much about what they’re working to protect.  There are HUNDREDS, if not thousands, of resources you can use to educate yourself on African conservation and wildlife.

To clarify – this is about those who have access to information, those that received above average education (by African standards), those who currently run the conservation game in Africa.  I am not talking about the bog-standard Banda, Takudzwa, Ethel or Celtel.

Sure, you may not know what the Latin name for the Scottish rattle tree (Amblygonocarpus andongensis fyi), but please don’t run around saying, publicising, endorsing or worse, BELIEVING, utter bollocks like “elephant trunks have over 100,000 muscles“.  I received a good education in this sort of stuff so I’m fortunate enough to know the correct answer to the question “How many muscles are there in the trunk of an elephant?”:

NINE.  

Not 1, not 2, not 3, BUT NINE MUSCLES!!

 

Here are my reasons for being ticked off:

  1. Save the Elephants – an international elephant conservation organisation – believes, and even posts on social media, that there are over 100,000 muscles in the elephant trunk.  I don’t know about you but if I had an organisation focused on a couple of species, I’d make damn sure I had ALL THE FACTS and if I didn’t have ALL THE FACTS, I’d keep my mouth shut and social media quiet about those things.  But that’s just me.
  2. 17 individual conservation and elephant conservation organisations in/working in Africa endorsed a wee children’s packet (join the dots, word search, fun facts, etc.) on elephants that included this (which is cropped to preserve the identity of the packet because it’s receiving a lot of publicity and I’d hate to paint an unjust picture of them)
  3. Does make me a little sceptical about what these organisations/people do actually know…

 

Some of those 17 organisations are:

    • Game Rangers International (Zambia)
    • Lilongwe Wildlife Trust (Malawi)
    • African Parks (all over)
    • Endangered Wildlife Trust (all over)
    • Elephants alive! (S.A., Botswana, Zimbabwe, Mozambique)
    • PAMS Foundation (Tanzania)
    • Big Life Foundation (all over)
    • Conservation South Luangwa (Zambia)
    • Save the Elephants (all over)
    • Wildlife Direct (Kenya)
    • Kasungu Elephants.org (Malawi)
    • SATIB Conservation Trust (all over)

post 1.1

post 1