How Improving Local Economy Could Solve Africa’s Wildlife Poaching Problem
Entering Kenya’s Maasai Mara Reserve, as I did last March, is like driving up the loading ramp of Noah’s Ark. Within minutes, you’ll see zebra, giraffe, wildebeest and herds of antelope. There will be a pride of lions lounging yards away from your safari vehicle. Conga lines of elephants will file past you, looking as if they just trundled out of the first day of creation.
But this Eden of animals only appears untouched. Just beyond the sanctuary gate lies a patchwork of shantytowns and farmland that you rarely see on National Geographic specials. And although it may not look like a war zone, this place is a frontline in Africa’s escalating war against the animals that it peacefully coexisted with for centuries.
A new report suggests that peace can be restored—but only if two things happen. First, African governments must get serious about tackling their poaching problem. Second, the ecotourism industry, which has historically benefited only a few, must be transformed so that its profits reach a larger segment of the population, winning allies for wildlife from among Africa’s villagers, who often clash with the animals. Those clashes have been increasing, and unless we can find a way to for humans and animals to live in peace, the prospects for Africa’s wildlife won’t be bright.
Rural Africans are not to blame. There are a lot more of them around than ever before, so conflict is inevitable. As human population soars, the animals, which once roamed unfettered across Africa’s vast savannas and trackless rainforests, are being squeezed into a handful of game reserves. When the creatures stray out of their protected islands into newly settled areas—which still contain the water holes and migration routes that their ancestors used—trouble ensues.
Elephants trample crops, lions kill sheep and cattle, wildebeest and zebra compete with domesticated herds for precious grass and water. Rural Africans retaliate by poisoning the big cats, shooting the elephants and plundering antelope and other ungulates for bushmeat. That is the part of the war where a truce is still possible. If the animals can be induced to stay where they belong, and the people can be convinced that they are no longer a threat, then peace can break out. I saw this happen in Tanzania, where the Living Wall project builds un-breachable fences that keep lions away from livestock. It has cut losses dramatically for the Maasai, who no longer stage retribution attacks against lions—a win-win for both animals and humans.
But there is another war that won’t be so easy to win. It is being conducted by organized commercial poachers who are targeting rhinos and elephants. A recent study shows how incestuously intertwined this criminal war on wildlife is with Africa’s other wars.
The report, Ivory’s Curse, was issued jointly earlier last month by the conservation group Born Free USA and C4ADS, a nonprofit that specializes in defense issues. It documents how terrorist groups like al-Shabaab and Boko Haram are bankrolling their mayhem in part from the spoils of wildlife poaching. It details how rebel militias, organized crime groups and, sometimes, national armies are participating in a slaughter that has driven rhinos to the edge of extinction and already eliminated elephants from many areas where they used to thrive.
Poaching is a uniquely tough nut to crack. There are desperately poor Africans, on the one hand, and, on the other, Asia’s nouveau riche, who are willing to pay a king’s ransom for rhino horns and elephant tusks—items there for the taking to anyone with a gun. There are also vast wilderness areas—virtually impossible to fully patrol—and governments that can scarcely afford to pay their wildlife guards a living wage. The situation is made even more dire by Africa’s ethnic conflicts, civil wars and rampant political instability.
Worse still is when governments collude with the bandits who are despoiling the wildlife they are sworn to protect. Consider Tanzania, a country with more than one-third of its sovereign territory set aside for wildlife. Hosting more than 1 million visitors a year, Tanzania earns a almost 20 percent of its GDP from tourism, according to the U.S. Library of Congress. Yet its leaders appear torn between the desire to protect this precious asset and the impulse to plunder it.
Ten years ago the Selous Game Preserve in southern Tanzania boasted more elephants that any other park in Africa. Two-thirds of those elephants have been killed since 2009 in a poaching frenzy aided—and perhaps even orchestrated—by officials in Tanzania’s Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism, according to Ivory’s Curse. Varun Vira, one of the report’s co-authors, said in an interview with YES! Magazine that the agency’s previous minister, Ezekiel Maige, somehow managed to build a posh oceanside mansion worth several times his government salary before he was sacked for corruption.
Such graft, however, is the symptom of a larger problem: Africans at all levels of society are not yet convinced that their wildlife is worth preserving. And even when they are convinced, they, understandably, have other priorities—like jump-starting their flagging economies and growing enough food to feed their growing population.
These goals, however, are not incompatible with conservation and the lucrative tourism it can bring. The problem is that the rising tide of tourism in places like Tanzania is not yet lifting everyone’s boats. Luxury safari lodges that charge well-heeled guests more than $400 a day are a stone’s throw away from the thatched huts of dirt farmers who can’t afford to keep food on their table during years when the seasonal rains don’t arrive on time.
So the bottom line is that Africa’s wild areas will never be safe for the animals until the people who live next door are feeling secure and have got a tangible economic stake in their preservation. For starters, there need to be a lot more locally owned and managed tourist ventures that are committed to plowing back a portion of their profits into community development projects. Granted, community-based conservation enterprises are hard to get right. Rural Africans don’t always have the skills to run successful businesses; the benefits of ecotourism are rarely equitably distributed; tribal conflicts, corruption, poor local infrastructure—in short, any of Africa’s familiar laundry list of ills can sink idealistic projects in a heartbeat.
But there are notable successes too—like the lion-proof fence project mentioned earlier. There are private game preserves like the Mara North Conservancy I visited in Kenya, which hires locals and operates schools and health clinics in town. Such community-run projects are common in the southern African countries of Botswana and Namibia, which may be one reason that both countries have, according to Vira, so far largely succeeded in keeping the elephant poachers at bay. People who are enjoying the benefits of wildlife tourism don’t harbor poachers.
Most hopeful of all is the growing awareness among the growing civil society and educated middle class that something priceless and uniquely African is being squandered. If this unease translates into political will to get serious about protecting wildlife, and a more equitable way to share the benefits of wildlife tourism with rural Africans, then all may not yet be lost.
Richard Schiffman worte this article for YES! Magazine, a national, nonprofit media organization that fuses powerful ideas with practical actions. Richard's work has appeared in the New York Times, Salon.com, The Christian Science Monitor and leading literary journals. His “Spiritual Poetry Portal” can be found here.
By Simon Montlake
For more than a decade, Susan Jane Brown has been battling to stop a natural gas pipeline and export terminal from being built in the backcountry of Oregon. As an attorney at the nonprofit Western Environmental Law Center, she has repeatedly argued that the project's environmental, social, and health costs are too high.
All that was before this month's deadly wildfires in Oregon shrouded the skies above her home office in Portland. "It puts a fine point on it. These fossil fuel projects are contributing to global climate change," she says.
Moderates Feeling the Heat<p>If elected, Mr. Biden has vowed to stop new drilling for oil and gas on federal land and in federal waters and to rejoin the 2015 Paris climate accord that President Donald Trump gave notice of quitting. He would reinstate Obama-era regulations of greenhouse gas emissions, including methane, the largest component of natural gas.</p><p>The Biden climate platform also states that all federal infrastructure investments and federal permits would need to be assessed for their climate impacts. Analysts say such a test could impede future LNG plants and pipelines, though not those that already have federal approval. </p><p>Climate change activists who pushed for that language say much depends on who would have oversight of federal agencies that regulate the industry. Some are wary of Biden's reliance on advice from Obama-era officials, including former Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz, who is now on the board of Southern Company, a utility, and a former Obama environmental aide, Heather Zichal, who has served on the board of Cheniere Energy, an LNG exporter. </p>
The Push for U.S. Fuel Exports<p>As vice president, Biden was part of an administration that pushed hard for global climate action while also promoting U.S. oil and gas exports to its allies and trading partners. As fracking boomed, Obama ended a 40-year ban on crude oil exports. In Europe, LNG was touted both as an alternative to coal and as strategic competition with Russian pipelines.</p><p>That much, at least, continued with President Trump. Under Energy Secretary Rick Perry, the agency referred to liquified U.S. hydrocarbons as "<a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/29/us/freedom-gas-energy-department.html" target="_blank">freedom gas</a>."</p><p>Mr. Trump has also championed the interests of coal, oil, and gas while denigrating the findings of government climate scientists. He rejected the Paris accord as unfair to the U.S. and detrimental to its economy, but has offered no alternative path to emissions cuts. </p><p>Still, Trump's foreign policy has not always served the LNG industry: Tariffs on foreign steel drove up pipeline costs, and a trade war with China stayed the hand of Chinese LNG importers wary of reliance on U.S. suppliers. </p><p>Even his regulatory rollbacks could be a double-edged sword. By relaxing curbs last month on methane leaks, the U.S. has ceded ground to European regulators who are drafting emissions standards that LNG producers are watching closely. "That's a precursor of fights that will be fought in all the rest of the developed world," says Mr. Hutchison. </p><p>Indeed, some oil-and-gas exporters had urged the Trump administration not to abandon the tougher rules, since they undercut their claim to offer a cleaner-burning way of producing heat and electricity. "U.S. LNG is not going to be able to compete in a world that's focused on methane emissions and intensity," says Erin Blanton, a senior research scholar at the Center on Global Energy Policy at Columbia University. </p>
Stepping on the Gas<p>In July, the Department of Energy issued an export license to Jordan Cove's developer, Canada's Pembina Pipeline Corp. In a statement, Energy Secretary Dan Brouillette said the project would provide "reliable, affordable, and cleaner-burning natural gas to our allies around the world."</p><p>As a West Coast terminal, Jordan Cove offers a faster route to Asia where its capacity of 7.8 million tons of LNG a year could serve to heat more than 15 million homes. At its peak, its construction would also create 6,000 jobs, the company says, in a stagnant corner of Oregon.</p><p>But the project still lacks multiple local and state permits, and its biggest asset – a Pacific port – has become its biggest handicap, says Ms. Blanton. "They are putting infrastructure in a state where there's no political support for the pipeline or the terminal, unlike in Louisiana or Texas," she says. </p><p>Ms. Brown, the environmental lawyer, says she wants to see Jordan Cove buried, not just mothballed until natural gas prices recover. But she knows that it's only one among many LNG projects and that others will likely get built, even if Biden is elected in November, despite growing evidence of the harm caused by methane emissions. </p>
- Biden Commits to Banning Fossil Fuel Subsidies After DNC Dropped It ›
- As Biden Embraces More Ambitious Climate Plan, Fossil Fuel Execs ... ›
- Biden Announces $2 Trillion Climate and Green Recovery Plan ... ›
EcoWatch Daily Newsletter
By Grayson Jaggers
The connection between the pandemic and our dietary habits is undeniable. The stress of isolation coupled with a struggling economy has caused many of us to seek comfort with our old friends: Big Mac, Tom Collins, Ben and Jerry. But overindulging in this kind of food and drink might not just be affecting your waistline, but could potentially put you at greater risk of illness by hindering your immune system.
- 15 Indigenous Crops to Boost Your Immune System and Celebrate ... ›
- 15 Supplements to Boost Your Immune System Right Now - EcoWatch ›
- Should I Exercise During the Coronavirus Pandemic? Experts ... ›
- The Immune System's Fight Against the Coronavirus - EcoWatch ›
As the world continues to navigate the line between reopening and maintaining safety protocols to slow the spread of the coronavirus, rapid and accurate diagnostic screening remains critical to control the outbreak. New mobile-phone-based, self-administered COVID-19 tests being developed independently around the world could be a key breakthrough in making testing more widely available, especially in developing nations.
- FDA Approves First In-Home Test for Coronavirus - EcoWatch ›
- When Should You Get a COVID-19 or Antibody Test? - EcoWatch ›
- Trump Plans to End Federal Funding for COVID-19 Testing Sites ... ›
- Trump Insider Embeds Climate Denial Into Agency Reports ... ›
- Climate Denier Is Named to Leadership Role at NOAA - EcoWatch ›
New Jersey is one step closer to passing what environmental advocates say is the strongest anti-plastic legislation in the nation.