Richard Leakey

You may have heard about the raging controversy regarding a massive dam that is under construction on the Omo River in Ethiopia. It is called the Gilgel Gibe III dam and it has a wall that will soar 240 metres high – this is the tallest of its type anywhere in the world. It will hold back a reservoir 150 kilometres long.

The Ethiopians say that they need this dam as it will provide 1800 megawatts of electricity. That will more than double the country’s current generating capacity in one hit, and according to their Prime Minister, Meles Zenawi, it will solve a national energy crisis.He says they can’t afford not to have Gilgel Gibe III. He also claims that it will enable the country to store water and regulate the flooding downstream in the Omo River.

This new dam will produce far more electricity than the country is capable of consuming, most will be exported to neighbours like Sudan and Kenya.

I think that this project is fatally flawed in terms of its logic, in terms of its thoroughness, in terms of its conclusions.

It looks to me like the Environmental Impact Assessment was an inside job that has come up with the results that they were looking for to get the initial funding for this dam.

I and the Environmental Resources Group believe that rather than being beneficial to the river valley as the Ethiopian government say, the dam will produce a broad range of negative effects, some of which would be catastrophic to both the environment and the indigenous communities living downstream.

Even if the science is in dispute – this is reason enough to invoke the precautionary principle and stop the project before it is too late because if the Ethiopian government is wrong, those communities living along the lower Omo River Valley all the way down into neighbouring Kenya will pay a heavy price. I believe that one immediate consequence will be the aggravation  of armed conflict in a war over the shrinking natural resources.

What do you think, should Ethiopia be allowed to go ahead despite the concerns of down stream environmental and social impacts affecting over 500,000 people and Lake Turkana in Kenya?

The recent report on elephant management in South Africa has sent alarm bells ringing throughout the conservation and animal welfare circles and headlines are screaming that culling is about to be re-introduced (you can read about it here and here). This is a highly emotive issue and I studied the norms and standards report for elephant management before making any judgment. Indeed, the report goes far beyond culling and the headlines I have seen have been rather misleading.

Let me explain my position. By 1990, long-term research in Kenya and elsewhere had revealed that elephants have highly organized societies and have a surprisingly well developed ability to communicate. We consider them sentient creatures like whales and apes that deserve special consideration when it comes to their management. I was part of the community of concerned professionals who objected to the culling of elephants in southern Africa in and before the 1990’s because at that time, the body of knowledge about elephants was ignored and culling appeared to be largely commercially motivated (for ivory and trade in baby elephants), was not managed in a scientific manner and was unacceptably inhumane. Unable to ignore the global concerns for the ethical and inhumane treatment of elephants, the South African government then banned the culling of elephants in the 1994.

Elephants live in close knit families and maintain close ties with others in their bond groups

Matriarchs are the leader and reservoirs of elephant community knowledge and are key to keeping the herd safe

The statement made by Marthinus van Schalkwyk, South African minister of Environmental Affairs & Tourism, on the publication of the final norms & standards for elephant management on 25^th February 2008, reveals that South Africa has come a long way since their positions in the 1980’s. The country has clearly looked seriously at the issues raised by experts from around the world by consulting widely within and beyond South Africa, and has prepared a carefully considered position on the management of elephants that aims to serve the interests of elephants as a species, their welfare, their impacts on biodiversity and ecosystem integrity, and their effects on the people both locally and nationally.

I was pleasantly surprised to find that the guiding principles behind this piece of legislation begins with acknowledgement that “elephants are intelligent, have strong family bonds and operate within highly socialised groups and unnecessary disruption of these groups by human intervention should be minimized”.

The welfare of elephants is further emphasized in the statement that “management interventions must, wherever practicable, be based on scientific knowledge or management experience regarding elephant populations and must take into account the social structure of elephants; be based on measures to avoid stress and disturbance to elephants, and; where lethal measures are necessary to manage an elephant or group of elephants or to manage the size of elephant populations, these should be undertaken with caution and after all other alternatives have been considered”

While I will never ‘like’ the idea of elephant culling, I do accept that given the impacts of human induced climate change, and habitat destruction, elephants in and outside of protected areas will become an increasingly serious problem unless some key populations are reduced and maintained at appropriate levels. A part of the problem is caused by increasing demand for resources by humans and I believe that we have are responsibility to check our own impacts in order to reduce conflicts between elephants and humans by controlling human activities as well.

Reducing elephant populations may therefore, be a necessary part of population management, and this will be done in a humane and considered manner. South Africa intends to reserve culling as a last resort after all other options such as translocations, fertility control have been exhausted. Though I find elephant culling repugnant, I can see the sense in it in some scenarios, as I imagine many others do also.

If culling is deemed necessary, then I would personally like to see the management authority ensure that entire families or bond groups are removed intact to eliminate or minimize the emotional trauma to remaining individuals, and secondly, to maintain smaller populations using the tested and approved fertility control. It means that the authorities have much work to do in terms of studying the family and bond groups and maintaining good records. If done well, removing or culling entire bond groups would reduce cases of rogue elephants and could eliminate or reduce the frequency of further culling in the future.

Like human babies, elephant calves are protected fiercely and influence social behavior

Finally, it is with great relief that I note that the Minister has prohibited any further capture of wild elephants for captivity. He acknowledges the unacceptably cruel practices that are common in captive elephant care and training in South Africa where baby elephants are beaten and tortured to ‘break their will’ in order to train them for tourism, circuses and even zoos. I look forward to seeing new legislation that completely eliminates cruelty in the captive care and training of these highly intelligent and feeling animals.

Read more about this read elephantvoices

One of the most famous wildlife spectacles, the flamingoes of Lake Nakuru National Park are at risk of pandemics like bird flu

When we started WildlifeDirect, the idea was to address the chronic shortfall of funds for sustaining Africa’s protected areas, we believe that these parks and protected areas are key to the conservation and protection of the continents biological diversity. Recent trends have seen a significant shift in funding for these protected areas, from government funds to a dependency on tourism incomes. This tourism revenue is both a short term boon and a long term risk. Tourism is notoriously fickle and prone to external threats. For example, terrorism or disease pandemics.

Lions and other big cats are amongst the most vulnerable species

I believe that we have become complacent during these times of booming tourism, revenues appear safe, and are a growing means of financing essential conservation work in our protected areas. The sustainability of this income however, is a matter that has not been addressed. It could be interrupted at any moment, for example due to natural disasters, conflict, or acts of terrorism.

Imagine if you had planned a safari to Rwanda to see the rare mountain gorillas. After planning your holiday, a terrorist strike at the countries capital Kigali would result in an international travel warning that would discourage if not prevent you from traveling. Tourism revenues to the Rwandan authorities (ORTPN) would crash and they would have to cut back on protection of the area to avoid going broke. By the time the travel warning is lifted, the gorillas could all be gone, …dead – due to failure of enforcement to prevent illegal hunting, habitat destruction or the progress of the disease. They will never be back, lost forever.

It could happen to any country at any time.

With tourism revenues, we could afford to ensure that our Park Wardens were disciplined and competent.

In 1998 Kenya was attacked by Al Qaeda. We knew that the attack was not targeting our parks, however it affected us drastically. The result of travel restrictions and bad publicity led to a near collapse in our tourism industry due to negative travel advisories and even flight cancellations. Park revenues declined significantly, it was a disaster since protected area management costs were financed almost entirely from gate collections.

I remember that difficult time well because I was the Director of the Kenya Wildlife Service at that time. We were eventually able to convince the Kenya Government to come our rescue with a financial package that allowed us to limp along until the tourism industry recovered. Were it not for this support, we could have been overrun by armed poachers, and we would have lost our rhinos, our elephants and other species, because we couldn’t sustain basic operations and enforcement.

We were lucky that the Kenya government rescued us – the truth is it was for purely economic reasons, tourism contributes 12% of the country’s GDP. Most African governments however, will not have a rescue package for biodiversity disasters as there are so many other priorities like poverty, health and education. I am therefore convinced that we need to find another way to buy time for these countries, parks and protected areas during these critical times of need.

I can’t emphasize enough how precarious the funding situation can be for conservation. This is why WildlifeDirect really must establish a strong potential to raise significant funds for times of crises to enable countries to buy time for Conservation. We need to buy time for species and ecosystems for times when tourism or other incomes are not able to support the costs of management. If this can be achieved, one could visit a park at any time online, take a virtual tour even if a real visit was prevented due to disease or acts of terrorism. At least the wild animals and places would still be there for a real visit at a later date. All it would take is a few dollars from any many people to make it possible for us to buy time during these crises.

Conservation in the Aberdares National Park would not be possible without the support of local communities – this fence barrier keeps the peace. If tourism revenues declined this fence would not be maintained and the buffaloes and other large mammals would be at risk and a cause for conflict with the people.

White Rhinos went extinct in Kenya due to poaching – today you can see the southern race close up in Kenya following their reintroduction. Their calmness of these animlas reflects their sense of security.

I believe that there are tens of millions of people out there who care about wildlife and would be willing to make a 2 dollar donation to secure the future of wildlife. We are not asking for the crisis money now, we are proposing a ‘virtual endowment’, a promise if you like, that we can reach out to you at a later date when there is a critical need.

For this ‘virtual endowment’ to be effective in raising the hundreds of thousands if not millions of dollars for rescuing biodiversity, then we need to grow WildlifeDirect’s ability to reach out to these millions, to keep them in touch with what is happening on the ground, and to respond with a small donation at a time of need. This network of people will be our virtual human endowment.

I would be very interested in hearing ideas on how we can develop this concept and to improve WildlifeDirect’s potential to provide biodiversity disaster relief. Do not hesitate to contact us with your thoughts and ideas on how we can tap into this massive global caring community that can help.

Technorati : Richard Leakey