-
Logi
-
- Beiträge: 13206
- Dank erhalten: 9730
-
-
-
Logi am
01 Feb 2018 12:56
-
|
Es gibt heute noch einen 2. Artikel dazu in der AZ, da wird interessanterweise auch nach "Leichen im Keller" gefragt:
www.az.com.na/nachri...o-fiasco-2018-02-01/
Like many things in life ultimately the outcome reflects the level and quality of planning and foresight and also subsequently the success or failure and the scale of either.
ANC Flyer AZ
The recent translocation of five desert-adapted lions from the Kunene region to Erongo area is a shining example of this. Often, through proper information sharing and participation by inclusion, those affected, because they now have the luxury of anticipation and preparation, react differently than they do if kept unenlightened.
This is a story portraying polarization through exclusion of some affected parties and stakeholders it would appear. Another influence seems to be the lack of trust that exists between the parties.
There are clearly conflicting agendas involved. On the one hand there is a group, which includes professional hunters, who have invested a lot of money and time in establishing a sanctuary on about 180 000 hectares with a mission and vision that includes high value trophy hunting and on the other there are stakeholders with vested and well established interests in non-consumptive tourism, i.e. eco-tourism. Agriculturally there are commercial farmers and also communal farmers in a conservancy bordering the area. Clearly, those mentioned above will have varying perspectives and expectations and the proposed re-establishment of the apex predator will have different potential impacts on each group of interested parties.
It will come as no surprise then if the parties mentioned are divided in their views of the proposed re-settlement of Lions in the area.
The professional hunter’s argument, “if it pays it stays” is self-explanatory. Surplus and older animals will be sold as trophies which in turn will sustain the operations financially. Lions remain very attractive to high end trophy hunters, especially desert-adapted ones. It will be a mixture of business, pleasure and as an added bonus it will avail habitat to a species, threatened by human encroachment as their available ranges have reached 8% of its original size! It will add value to the region and therefor a win-win situation. Numbers will be managed to an ideal equilibrium and the area could thrive ecologically.
The lodge-owner, eco-tourism operator and non-consumptive tourism operator clearly will have a different view. A new inherent threat to their clients on hiking trails, horse riding excursions, rock climbing/abseiling, etc. will now surface which could influence their business negatively. Mostly they do not deem their ecotourism compatible with hunting activities and will not consider the arrival of the lions as a value addition to their businesses. Even in the conservancies hunting, farming and tourism areas are zoned separately as such for this reason.
The commercial farmer, who has his/her life invested in his livestock, like all other commercial farmers in Namibia, can simply not fathom proposed co-existence between predator and livestock without proper fencing and boundaries and workable plans in place safeguarding and securing his or her life investments. This is not negotiable and must be guaranteed. The lowest level of tolerance towards any predator everywhere probably is experienced amongst commercial farmers. They also have the means to control it, be it through shooting, poisoning or gin trapping. The triple-S solution comes to mind: Shoot, shovel and shut-up. It is after all, their livelihood.
The communal farmer, mostly blamed for deaths of lions through conflict, deservedly or undeservedly, is also the most exposed to potential damages and the least equipped to face the onslaught and also the most vulnerable. The loss of one goat can represent 20% of your total worth/wealth if you only own five goats to begin with! These farmers are mostly left to their own devices, threatened with the law and punishment should they kill Lions without justification and often vilified even if they do so with full justification. They also rarely benefit directly, although sometimes indirectly, through tourism in some areas either because the benefits evaporate higher up through mal-administration or plain corruption or theft. The scale therefor tips in the favour of protecting their livelihood and their tolerance level for loss-causing predators diminish with each lamb taken by a predator, be it lion, jackal or hyena. They also willingly committed themselves to living in harmony with wild animals in conservancies and are thus under obligation to do so.
A further interested party would be the Animal Rights-Activist adding to this scrambled can of worms. No lions should be killed because of conflict or as a trophy to some fat, rich bored hunter with a Stetson hat! They should be left to pro-create and live, be listed as endangered and humans should leave them in peace.
A final party we have not mentioned yet is the mandated authority and its network, in this instance the Ministry of Environment and Tourism of Namibia. They have a duty to the public as civil servants to responsibly manage and administrate the natural resources, which belong to the people of Namibia. The legislator has mapped their structures and tools enabling them to fulfil their mandate. Strict and well thought out laws, regulations and policies is their compass aiding them to function effectively. Protocols and Standard Operation Procedures were devised to keep them on track and within the legal framework and in compliance with the constitution of the country as well as the international agreements as a participant and member of international conventions and associations.
Considering all this, you can imagine the complexity of re-introducing lions in such an area.
The Ministry as regulator rules supreme and should, by following protocols including an accurate assessment of the suitability of the biome for such re-introduction in terms of suitable prey, the density and perceived impact of predators, Human-Wildlife-Conflict potential and management/mitigation plans, monitoring and early warning system as well as perpetual research and data collection, prior consultation with all affected parties, stakeholders etc., thus providing ample opportunity for input, suggestions, grievances, objections which should ultimately culminate in a plan of action and decision. This should be accepted by all interested parties and serve to comfort them and preserve their interests and livelihoods and safety PRIOR TO RELEASE. Contingency plans, projections, goalposts, reviewing along with other perpetual actions to keep things on track, etc. also comes into play. A “soft release”, collaring, tracking and “geo-fencing” as per normal procedures goes without saying.
So what went wrong here guys? Could it be that the cart was put in front of the horse here? Would this stand a chance if done correctly and sequentially with the buy-in of all AFTER addressing their concerns and reservations satisfactorily? Or was this handled ham-fistedly, clumsily and in steam-roller fashion? Has a potentially good concept been ruined in the process? Should we bury the blame game, start over and investigate the potential with all interested parties on board and with open minds? If so what about trust issues? What are the true agendas of all those involved? Are there skeletons in the cupboards?
LG
Logi
|
