In the last post we touched on the massive declines in populations of lions across the African continent; the deterioration is ongoing and happening in many locations, more rapidly than in the past.
The mantra that is commonly asserted as to how to combat this problem that afflicts not just lions, but all of Africa’s wildlife, is that if we protected the habitat in which the remaining wildlife populations exist then they could regenerate, and everything will be fine. Its an idea that, despite billions of dollars in investment, has not worked so far. Although this idea may be partially true in a few areas (and not at all in most), the question remains as to how to achieve this before the lion and other species are wiped out.
Again, you will often hear that if the African people are made the custodians and benefactors of wildlife then they will protect it. The end of that sentence of course should be ‘… we hope; because nothing else has worked!’ But readers should also understand the premise behind the idea that Africa’s impoverished rural communities will be prepared to live alongside predators that kill their cattle, livelihood and sometimes even family, in exchange for the economic benefits realised from wildlife utilization, whether that be photographic tourism or trophy hunting. This may also be true, but again, how do you achieve that, given the current reality?
The truth is that the African people do not want to live alongside lions, regardless of the existence of international conventions on biodiversity, or Western desires to retain wilderness across the world, nor how much charities give them from donor funding. Also there is little political will in Africa to assign the rights of wildlife from government to communities. Yes there are a number of organizations that will tell you that building lion-proof bomas or offering conservation schemes for lost cattle is working; but the truth is that these schemes have failed so far. At best, some have managed to slow the decline, but they have not changed the attitudes of the African people or its governments towards living with lions; they are a band-aid, which in the current situation is better than nothing.
Lion populations continue to fall
And don’t think this is just lions. The same applies to leopards, hyena, elephants and many other species. And it’s not just Africa!
So what is the solution? Is there one? At ALERT we believe so, but its going to take generations to achieve. In the meantime we must face the likelihood that the lion will be gone, so one of our programs (the one people are most familiar with) is to find a way to reintroduce lions where needed. At the moment this is small scale, but once we have proved the program works it can be stepped up to make a real difference. We have never claimed this program to be THE answer, but it is a necessary one, in conjunction with our ideas on how to ensure the viability of the remaining wild lions and those that would be reintroduced. At full scale we believe we could provide enough lions for reintroduction that can make a real difference.
So, what do we believe needs to be done to protect the habitat for lions? Let’s start with being clear about the causes of declines in lion populations, and what can realistically be done about them.
Conflict with humans and livestock
It is a fact that Africa’s growing human population and associated livestock populations have caused great problems for the survival of dangerous predators like lions. For the same reasons bears, wolves, lynxes and pumas were destroyed in North America and Europe. Lions are destroyed intentionally by either direct methods (shooting them) or indirect methods (poisoning of carcasses on which lions feed). Recent data from Kenya estimates that over 100 lions are destroyed per year; data from Botswana indicate that 68 lions were destroyed in a relatively small area bordering the Moremi Game reserve over a period of four years. Such destruction is ongoing and persistent despite some legislation prohibiting this killing. Prosecution of individuals involved is practically non-existent.
Loss of habitat and natural prey
Expanding human populations have appropriated land that used to be available to wildlife. Such land was either not protected for wildlife in any way, minimally protected, lost effective protection status by lack of enforcement, or was abandoned by wildlife authorities unable to operate during times of civil strife. Lion prey species are also attractive for human consumption, and utilization of game is rife throughout Africa. Such utilization is largely illegal, but has assumed commercial proportions in the past and present, and prosecution is practically non-existent.
Trophy hunting
Recent studies have shown that in areas in which trophy hunting has been permitted by government authorities, lion populations have severely declined even in the absence of factors mentioned above. Commercial utilization of wild lion populations is a highly political issue with many proponents and dissenters, but is largely allowed by governments as a venture to deliver capital. Despite some scientific efforts to ameliorate rates of off-take and (doubtful) guidelines for hunters to identify “post reproductive” males, trophy hunting has never been proven to be a sustainable venture, and is known to have many abuses. These include luring lions out of protected areas, exceeding and influencing quota systems, ignoring consequences on reproduction of lion populations by destroying pride males, and taking young males out of the future reproductive pool. In addition, hunting organizations have themselves employed scientists to inflate lion numbers in countries that permit hunting to continue to allow quotas year after year. Range states continue to ignore such excesses.
Lions outside protected areas
Kenya, Tanzania, Botswana, Mozambique and possibly other lion range states still maintain many lion populations living outside strictly protected areas. There have been proponents who claim that trophy hunting in such areas could provide local communities with income to prevent their destruction by poisoning and other means. In reality, local communities are against the maintenance of any predator that threatens human lives and livestock, and they are against any maintenance of wildlife that threatens crops and agriculture. Despite claims by conservation organizations to the contrary, this is the truth on the ground according to our interviews.
Western vs African views of lions
Western countries would like to maintain the biodiversity of African wildlife. African countries are not so sure, and would like to see direct commercial benefit to such maintenance, as wildlife populations often enter into direct and significant conflict with human populations, their livestock, and agricultural crops. Tourism and hunting are presently the only income generators for countries that maintain wildlife, but such income is currently distributed in ways largely beneficial to the tourism and hunting companies. In other words, the companies reap large benefits and the range countries get peanuts. Communities living alongside dangerous animals such as lions usually receive no or negative benefits from their presence.
Media attention to lions
The foreign media, and to some extent the local African media, often report on the seemingly inexorable decline in lion numbers. While this generates attention, the international and especially the African public await local action and locally relevant solutions.
ALERT proposes the following:
African range states must decide where to conserve lion populations. If this is to be restricted to protected areas, such populations must be protected by enforcement of available wildlife laws.
African range states must provide buffer areas around protected areas to ensure secondary levels of protection according to available wildlife laws.
African range states need to be seriously committed to independent and locally relevant lion conservation programs. If such programs are to be restricted to designated conservation areas, the range states need to announce such goals in a transparent fashion and provide clear programs by which lion protected populations will be maintained.
African range states must assume independent responsibility for documentation of lion numbers within their borders. This implies careful and sovereign consideration of population assessments delivered by parties currently involved in estimation of lion numbers that might have possible vested interests.
African range states should vigorously prosecute any transgression against wildlife laws without prejudice or influence. Delinquency in enforcement is the means by which a current scofflaw contingent continues to reap considerable financial benefits. This includes a growing trade in wildlife products for Chinese traditional medicinal purposes.
African range states should carefully evaluate issued quotas for lion trophy hunting based on a need for long-term conservation of the species rather than short-term financial gain for hunting companies and, minimally, national coffers.
African range states should optimally devise relevant conservation plans for lions in anticipation of, and with better local relevance to, those imposed by international agencies. This will entail effort and commitment, but will result in national plans with a better chance of enforcement.
Most importantly, African range states need to carefully and independently assess their commitment to the survival of the African lion. This will entail a difficult program to balance human population demands against wildlife conservation needs. This decision should not only rest on economic concerns, but should also include heritage, biodiversity, culture, and quality of life for citizens.
ALERT, while supporting international recommendations, will therefore also be a demanding proponent for relevant African solutions. After all, it is our wildlife heritage, our need to protect and conserve, and our solutions that will be relevant to how wildlife populations are responsibly managed in the future. We are convinced this is the only positive way forward.
