|
|
|
|
| |
| Location: |
Africa - Southern Africa - Zambia |
| Subject: |
Conservation |
| Species: |
Black Rhino |
 |
|
After depletion of rhinos in Zambia despite large WWF grant. One apparent anomaly remains to be explained, that of the apparently large grant awarded to Zambia by WWF in the expectation that SRT would be effective at curtailing illegal exploitation of rhinos and elephants over the large area of the Luangwa valley. Zambia is amongst that group of countries which spends relatively little (in Zambia's case US$ 11 per sq km per year in 1980) on their conservation areas. However it appeared that no one set the size of the WWF grant against another rule of thumb current in the early 1980s, namely that around US$ 200 per sq km needed to be spent annually to maintain the integrity of conservation areas (Cumming, Martin and Taylor 1984; Bell and Clarke 1986). This was later confirmed by the direct relationship which resulted from comparing the spending on their conservation areas by different countries and their success at protecting rhinos and elephants (Leader-Williams and Albon 1988). Thus the supposedly large WWF grant to Zambia was really only sufficient to protect around 700 sq km over three years, a conclusion not too different from that reached by considering the distribution of patrol effort within Luangwa. The grant was large in only one context, comparison with other grants made, or perhaps affordable, by conservation organisations. In the more pertinent context, that of what it realistically could have been expected to achieve, the grant was in fact small.
What is a Realistic Value
The annual sum of US$ 200 per sq km that it was necessary to spend in 1980 to maintain the integrity of conservation areas and talk of grants of US$ 0.5 million being small may make subscribers to conservation despair at its apparent high costs. However, it is important to be aware that in situ conservation is much more economical than ex situ conservation. At the normal density of 0.4 rhinos per sq km, effective protection of each animal would have cost US$ 500 per year in 1980 if all conservation costs were charged to rhinos as the main indicator species. Moreover, 1 sq km of Africa normally contains a lot more than 0.4 rhinos, in the case of Luangwa around 2.2 elephants, a few hundred impala, many thousands of trees and much else besides. Even if the sum for effective protection of African conservation areas has risen to US$ 400 per sq km today, it is still safe to say that in situ conservation represents excellent value for money. This can be amply demonstrated by comparing in situ costs with London Zoo's animal adoption scheme which is based on what it costs to look after and feed one animal for a year (Anon. 1988). Adoption of a rhino costs ?2,000 and of an elephant ? 6,000. Thus the pachyderm equivalent of 1 sq km of Africa kept in a zoo can he estimated conservatively to cost ? 14,000 (0.4 x 2,000 + 2.2 x 6,000) or US$ 22,000.
A Little can do a Lot
The lessons here for those who fund conservation are fairly obvious. Adequate resources must be invested to achieve given objectives in conservation. Funds invested or utilized at 'dilute' levels merely delay the inevitable and are ultimately wasted. Hence, the relatively small sums that international conservation agencies and NGO's have available to spend on valuable species in developing countries are most likely to achieve results in one of two contrasting situations. First, in low-spending countries only if they are concentrated at appropriate levels over small areas, in the case of rhinos within formal fenced sanctuaries or high-priority core areas. Second, over large areas only if funds are allocated to a relatively high-spending country like Zimbabwe which now needs extra resources to prevent Zambians killing rhinos in the Zambezi valley.
Can the concept ?big is best and feasible' ever become a reality for large conservation areas in low-spending countries? Clearly not without more funds than can be invested by conservation organisations or, more importantly, without rectification of the socioeconomic problems attendant upon people living within or around conservation areas (e.g. Marks 1984; Dalal-Clayton and Lewis 1984; Bell 1987). Sorting out the latter, and maintaining and/or rebuilding large populations of valuable species, most probably requires the funding of conservation and rural development projects by international aid organisations. The Luangwa Integrated Resources Development Project, funded by NORAD, is now under way and it can only be hoped that appropriately directed schemes which allow local residents to participate in plans for their conservation areas, coupled with enhanced investment in infrastructure and policing, will permit the recovery of elephants and rhinos to the point where they can contribute more directly to the rural economy of the Luangwa valley. After witnessing this particular Humpty Dumpty falling off the wall, I do hope that he can be put back together again.
|
|
|
Luangwa rhinos: 'Big is best, small is feasible'
File available
details
Original text on this topic: