Derek Hanekom, South Africa’s minister of land affairs, says the government
is looking for ways of managing parks in conjunction with local people while
maintaining their conservation status. Some reserves will become “contractual
national parks”, where the core wilderness areas will be held by the
government’s National Parks Board, while the owners of surrounding areas will be
contracted to manage their land in a way which complements the board’s
conservation work.

Hanekom believes that tourism could play a crucial role in encouraging rural
communities to conserve the wildlife on their land, but only if some of the
revenue goes to the communities themselves rather than straight to the
government or private safari operators or hotels.

“It is crucial that tourist facilities do not become islands of affluence in
a sea of poverty,” he says. “The essential philosophy of these programmes is
that communities will conserve their wildlife resources if it is in their
interests to do so.”

Among the 8000 claims for land that have already been lodged with the
government is one from the Makuleke community, which is demanding property in
the heart of the Kruger National Park, South Africa’s flagship wildlife
reserve.

If the community’s claim is successful, it plans to form a joint ecotourism
venture with an entrepreneur who has agreed to provide financial backing and
commercial know-how for the project. The Makuleke would supply the land and
receive a half share of the profits. But the National Parks Board would still
manage the wildlife.

Several pilot schemes like this are already under way. One, in the
Richtersveld, involves a land claim in the West Coast National Park, which was
granted ahead of the law as a test case. The local community now owns the land,
but the National Parks Board is the conservation authority. Management decisions
are made jointly. Local people have restricted grazing in the park and receive
compensation for limiting livestock numbers.

Britain’s Overseas Development Administration is providing £5 million
for South Africa’s land reform programme. At an ODA seminar last month the
overseas development minister Lynda Chalker said: “It is clear we must meet the
needs of poor people today in the rural areas if the wider and longer
conservation issues are to be successfully achieved.”

Hanekom says the participation of local people in managing wildlife
represents a “fundamental shift away from the old approach to conservation”. He
adds that “until people have really experienced the benefit of moving towards
active participation in wildlife management their inclination will be to stick
to what they know”.

One of the difficulties of counting elephants is that some herds roam across borders and are counted in more than one country. The largest single population of elephants – up to 120 000 animals – roams over an area of 100 000 square kilometres that takes in parts of Botswana, Namibia and Zimbabwe.

The Southern African Elephant Monitoring Project (ELESMAP) will provide accurate, up-to-date information on the distribution and numbers of elephants in the region. “The estimates will provide a baseline for long-term monitoring of the conservation status of southern African elephant populations,” says Colin Craig, who is coordinating the project from his base in Botswana. “We wanted to rule out the possibility of animals moving between surveys and being counted twice or not at all.”

The European Union has stumped up 665 000 Ecus (ÂŁ545 000) for equipment and other running costs for the surveys in Namibia, Zimbabwe and Botswana. The three governments provided a further 390 000 Ecus. In Mozambique, the World Wide Fund for Nature funded and carried out the survey, and Zambia joined the project by surveying its herds at the same time.

In the past, conservation groups have accused countries such as Zimbabwe of exaggerating numbers to justify culling. Some southern African countries also say that the growing herds mean there is no longer any reason to ban trade in ivory. “Particularly in Zimbabwe, the authorities have claimed very substantive increases in elephant numbers,” says Alan Thornton, chairman of the Environmental Investigation Agency, based in London.

But early results from the ELESMAP survey suggest that Zimbabwe’s past counts have been accurate. Iain Douglas Hamilton, a Kenya-based elephant expert who carried out the count, estimates that there are 4600 elephants in Gonarezhou National Park in the southeast of the country. In July, Zimbabwe’s wildlife department put the number at 4100. Counts in Hwange National Park have confirmed that there are 22 000 elephants in an area that experts believe cannot support more than 17 000. (see Map)

The computer system, called the Inner Tuner Professional, was launched this month at the European Conference on the Promotion of Mental Health in London. Forty scientists from Israel and Britain were involved in developing the system for Ultramind, a British company specialising in biofeedback equipment.

The system includes a library of programs designed for different disorders, including irritable bowel syndrome and sleeping problems. The programs can be adapted for individual patients by adding suitable background music, text and photographs, animation or video.

The patient’s responses to the program are picked up by tiny ring-pad electrodes attached to two fingers. The electrodes detect slight changes in the skin’s electrical conductivity that occur when sweat glands alter their secretion rates in response to changes in relaxation levels. This information is sent via an infrared link to the computer, which uses it to control the image and sound output.

In the system designed for irritable bowel syndrome, an animation sequence tells the patient about the problem. The screen then shows an intestine, and the patient indicates which area is painful.

The program then takes the patient down an animated gut as if travelling through a pink tunnel. However, the patient can only progress by relaxing. The painful area shows up red, but turns white as the patient relaxes. With deeper relaxation, the white area turns into a sunny meadow scene. The patient’s progress can be saved as a graph.

Owen Epstein, a consultant gastroenterologist at the Royal Free Hospital in London, began a two-year study using the system six months ago. He is carrying out trials with 50 patients who have not responded to conventional treatment. “In a pilot trial six out of nine patients responded very well,” he says. “It provided them with a tool to deal with the problem.”

About 20 million seahorses are taken a year. Some 16 million are consumed in traditional medicines by China, Taiwan, Hong Kong and Singapore. They are also sold as curios and health foods. Sales in China have increased tenfold in 10 years, says the report

Countries that fish seahorses stretch from the Middle East to India, the Far East, Australia and South America. It is a lucrative trade: in Hong Kong large bleached seahorses sell for $1200 per kilogram, seven times more than silver.

According to the report’s author, Amanda Vincent, a senior research fellow at Oxford University, the life cycle of the creatures makes them vulnerable to fishing pressure. It is the males that get pregnant, nurturing small broods for up to six weeks. Their big pouches make them more visible and vulnerable to collectors. Strict monogamy means that social structure is easily disrupted, and their sparse distribution makes replacing a mate difficult. In addition, says Vincent, their small home ranges in coral, sea grass and mangrove restricts recolonisation fished out areas.

Despite the rising demand, Vincent believes that banning the trade in seahorses could be counterproductive. “It would move it underground, and then it would be impossible to monitor,” she says. Vincent advocates setting up reserves and captive breeding programmes. She is pioneering schemes in the Philippines and Vietnam to teach fishing communities how to conserve local stocks.

Since 1990, budgets for protecting elephants in Tanzania, Zambia and Zimbabwe have fallen by almost 90 per cent. Even Kenya’s budget, which is boosted by more foreign funding for elephant protection than other African countries, has fallen by 13.5 per cent.

The Elephant Specialist Group claims that the shrinking budgets for protecting wildlife have been a direct response to the ban on the ivory trade. Foreign donors have reduced the amount they give because they mistakenly thought the ban would stop poaching. And, paradoxically, some countries used to earn considerable amounts from the legal sale of ivory – which was spent on protecting wildlife. Now that source of income has dried up.

“A lot of donors believed the ban itself would solve the problem. Some have stopped donating funds to conservation, but others have refocused on the rhino, thinking that elephants are now safe,” says Bobbie Jo Kelso of TRAFFIC.

In some African countries, such as Cameroon and Zimbabwe, government spending cuts or diversion of funds to more pressing development projects have meant less money for wildlife protection. In Kenya and Malawi the budgets for managing wildlife have increased in local currency terms, but inflation and devaluation mean the money does not go so far.

“African wildlife departments are at the mercy of economic factors well beyond their control and the donor community has failed, and probably never will be able to meet the shortfall,” says Tom Milliken of TRAFFIC’s South and East Africa branch.

The Environmental Investigation Agency (EIA) does not agree that budget cuts have caused the increase in poaching. It points out that in some places, such as Malawi and Gabon, both budgets and poaching have decreased. “There are examples all over Africa where funds are minimal and poaching has gone down,” says Susie Watts, of the EIA.

Most countries want the ban to stay. “Why do 74 per cent of African conservationists interviewed for this research support a continuation of the ban?” asks Watts. “Why do most African governments staunchly support it? Because the ban has worked superbly, even where there’s almost no anti-poaching budget.”

Milliken remains adamant that more money must be spent on protecting elephants. “As long as elephants are under pressure there is a need to protect them, and protection costs money. A lot of it.”

Some 30 000 elephants live in the park, and wildlife experts say that hundreds will die from thirst or starvation unless the population is reduced. With so many elephants consuming what food and water is available, thousands of other animals, including antelope and rhino, are likely to die.

There has been no culling at Hwange since 1990, and the elephant population has increased by 5 per cent a year. In a run of dry years the park can sustain only 20 000 elephants, according to Peter Mundy, chief ecologist at the National Parks Department. The region has suffered three major droughts in the past 12 years.

Now the parks department says 5000 of the elephants must be removed, either by culling them or moving them. Wildlife organisations want the animals sent to neighbouring countries that have fewer elephants. They propose moving 2000 elephants by rail to Zambia’s Kafue National Park, and 1000 to Mozambique’s Gorongoza National Park. Others could be sent to reserves elsewhere in Zimbabwe.

But last month, the parks department put the elephants up for sale, inviting offers for 5000 animals from Hwange and a further 3600 from five other wildlife areas. Groups that want the animals moved away from the drought, will have to buy them and pay for them to be transported. “The reduction is for ecological reasons, and any we do not sell we will have to cull,” says Mundy.

There is no fixed price for the elephants. Mundy says interested parties must tender their bids by 28 April. “We will look at tenders and see what we think.” Money from the sale will help the parks department to pay staff and buy vehicles and antipoaching equipment.

Western agencies which oppose culling can put their money where their mouth is and move them”, says Jon Hutton, director of the African Resources Trust, a conservation group in Zimbabwe. “But if they are not prepared to pay, I do not think we have the option of watching them starve. This is Africa, people are hungry during the drought too. Better they get to eat the elephants.” However, according to Chris Jordan, director of Care for the Wild, a British wildlife group, the cost of culling the animals and salting or drying the meat “far exceeds any budget National Parks has”.

“Thousands of elephants are at risk unless someone acts fast,” says Carl Bruessow, director of the Wildlife Society of Malawi. “It is really a financial decision on the part of Western agencies as to whether the animals starve, are culled or get moved.”