From the Editor
N
oted southern African conservationist Ron Thomson
recently underscored the deleterious affects of
the efforts of animal rights activists on the bigger
picture, largely brought about by the disinterest and lassitude
of the sport hunting community :
“The animal rightists have got their ducks all in a row
- and they are making huge political progress - whilst the
hunters and game ranchers in southern Africa don't even have
the balls to create and to fund the anti-animal rights NGO, the
True Green Alliance that I have proposed to help them with
their fight against the anti-hunters. My True Green Alliance
proposal would create an anti-animal-rights business entity
that would be entirely controlled by the hunters and the
game ranchers themselves. I am not asking them to fund
a 'separate' NGO - but an organ of their own industry. And
they can't - or won't - see it!”
Understandably, Ron is becoming frustrated. And,
around about this time who should enter the fray to solve
all the world’s conservation problems - yes, the Clintons.
And these folks are scary because they have international
credibility and the resources to screw everything up well
and truly. And, of course, this begs the question of whether
this is merely misguided policy or might there be a more
sinister motive involved?
Chelsea Clinton has written a treatise entitled How We
Can End the Elephant Poaching Crisis, published, oddly
enough, by the Clinton Foundation, and - who would have
guessed? - proposing a Clinton Global Initiative to deal with
the problem. Now, I believe that the gist of what Chelsea
Clinton had to say was heartfelt and that she is genuinely
concerned with protecting wild elephant populations.
Trouble is, much of it seems to have been based on a
whirlwind tour of Zambia and Tanzania (the definition of
‘whirlwind’ is probably open to debate, but I gauge these
things by the thirty five years I have spent in Africa and all
of the complexities I am still trying to understand) and I
believe she was shown an extremely biased view of what
the animal rightists wanted her to see. There was no mention
whatsoever of sustainable use.
Now enter Hillary Clinton, lending her support, and at
the same time a rubber stamp of legitimacy, to a meeting
of the International Fund for Animal Welfare back in July.
Again the Clinton Global Initiative was touted, and again
not even close to all the stakeholders were represented - only
the ones whose vested interests paid for the proceedings and
the accompanying voluble publicity.
The Clintons, among other things want to build schools
and clinics for the rural African populations. Of course, if
the Africans were instead encouraged to generate their own
wealth from their natural resources - by sustainable use - they
could build their own schools and clinics and much more
besides. Africa is an extremely wealthy continent. For how
long will it fall to the outside world to pay for everything it
needs and at the same time prevent it from swimming rather
than sinking?
I think we’re pretty much on the same page when we
point to the burgeoning Chinese footprint in Africa as the
main cause of rhino and elephant poaching, but at the same
time, China is encouraging direct foreign investment in Africa
- and because the West is still focused on building schools
and clinics it is unable to compete with the strengthening
Chinese influence. See ‘wealthy’ above. This is the way the
scenario is seen by governments and multinationals, but how
is it seen by rural African villagers?
They live a hand-to-mouth existence on the knife’s edge
of abject poverty. They are in direct conflict with wildlife
for habitat and natural resources - and survival itself. If they
receive a direct benefit that they can see and understand
from their wildlife, they will take steps to protect it. That
can only come from a sustainable use model. But then again,
if someone else is going to come in and build their schools
and clinics for them, why should they bother? They can pick
up a little (or a lot of) cash on the side from poaching and
illicit trafficking in wildlife.
Ron Thomson and others in the know have been
saying it for years. Until the lion’s share of the wealth from
wildlife goes back to the rural villagers - and not into the
coffers of corrupt governments so the head honchos of their
conservation infrastructures can drive around in the latest
designer 4x4s - there will be no grass roots incentive to
conserve anything.
Africa does not need handouts, it needs to develop
its own resources and create its own m ????????????????)?????????????????????????????????????????????)???????????????????????????]??????????????????????)?????????????()
???????????????????????????i????????????????????)?????????????????????????????????????????A????i
Q()Q?????????!???5???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????Q?????????)???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????]?)????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????)?????????????????????????)??????!???Y???????9????$()????????????(($()??????????????()A?????((0