PROTECTED AREAs NETWORK

Relative to its size, the network of protected areas in southern Africa is quite extensive, perhaps unequalled in the world. Of the region's seven million square kilometres of land, over one million are designated protected areas.

Some of the world's largest protected areas found in this region include the Central Kgalagadi Game Reserve (52,800 sq km) in Botswana, Selous Game Reserve (51,200 sq km) in Tanzania, Namib-Naukluft National Park (49,768 sq km) in Namibia and Kafue National Park (22,400 sq km) in Zambia.

Protected areas

The first protected areas of the colonial era were set aside from the late 19th century to preserve game. Therefore, they were called game reserves.

A few large game reserves were established initially in areas which still had high concentrations of large mammals - Gorongosa, Etosha, Serengeti, Hwange, for example. Later, reserves were set up in sparsely populated, marginal areas, many of which were tsetse infested.

By the middle of this century, protected areas were established where possible to cover representative samples of ecosystems and habitats, as well as the vast range of species of plants, mammals, reptiles, birds, amphibians and invertebrates (such as locusts and butterflies).

Species diversity

Protected areas harbour a large variety of species, and safeguard rare and endangered species.

These areas also serve as laboratories for scientists studying natural sciences. Over 90 percent of mammal, amphibian and reptile species are represented in protected areas, making southern Africa a popular tourist destination.

People and protected areas

While protected areas helped to conserve wildlife, they failed to benefit local people who incurred losses of property from raids by wild animals. This created hostility toward such areas. Consequently, game was killed in communal lands and on private farms.

To address the weaknesses of the protected-areas management approach and enhance wildlife conservation, innovative programmes are being introduced in different countries in the region. The new approaches involve people and encourage the sustainable utilisation of wildlife. While in the past people were forced to poach game, they are now the guardians and beneficiaries of the wildlife in their areas.

GAME-RANCHING

Until about three decades ago, utilisation of game on privately owned farms or ranches was prohibited. Wild animals were killed as pests. Farmers later obtained special permits to keep wildlife, and then legislation to support game ranching was enacted. Interest in game ranching provided new opportunities for economic development for both farmers and governments.

Farmers started game ranches because wildlife has good resistance to diseases, adapts to arid conditions, utilises vegetation efficiently, has high reproductive rates, and is cheap to breed.

Landowners control game

In Namibia, South Africa and Zimbabwe, legislation giving landowners control over game on their land was passed in the 1970s.

In South Africa, game ranching enjoys the same incentives and subsidies from government as livestock ranching.

Game ranching has made the conservation of the region's biodiversity a little more popular as commercial farmers can now benefit from it. Game ranching has halted, and even reversed, the decline in wildlife populations and distribution, notably in South Africa. Game-ranches in that country cover 16 million hectares. In Namibia, about 80 percent of the wildlife is on privately owned farms and ranches.

In Zimbabwe, 10 percent of commercial farmers keep wildlife. Much of Botswana's eight percent of privately owned land is used for hunting and tourism. Swaziland is setting up game-ranches. The remaining countries of the region are just about to establish game-ranches too.

Effects of game-ranching

Wild animals and livestock tend to put equal pressure on all plants in an area such that some species do not multiply at the expense of others.

While game-ranching is an important aspect of biological conservation, it has weaknesses. Game-ranching tends to confine game in specific, usually small, areas where movement and mixing with other animals are restricted. This may affect animals adversely, especially through in-breeding. The removal of natural predators also interferes with the natural selection process.

Of late, game fences have been pulled down to create nature conservancies covering several ranches where game movement is freer, reducing the problem of in-breeding as well.

COMMUNITY-BASED WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT

As colonial governments established game reserves and parks, people lost both the land and the right to hunt wild animals. The same wild animals which people were prohibitedfrom killing ate their livestock, destroyed crops, and injured or killed people.

The community wildlife management programme enables people living near game areas to manage wildlife and share in the benefits.

Community wildlife programmes are helping to correct earlier injustices. These programmes include Zimbabwe's Communal Areas Management Programme for Indigenous Resources (CAMPFIRE), Zambia's Administrative Management Design for Game Management Areas (ADMADE), Tanzania's Selous Conservation Programme, and South Africa's Lebatlane Community Game Management Programme in Pilanesburg.

Safari-hunting

Hunting not only creates jobs in rural areas but also generates income for the communities. The cash is distributed to people or used to finance community projects. Since the 1980s, Botswana, Tanzania and Zambia have set aside game-management, game-controlled and wildlife conservation areas respectively. Here local people can also hunt and pay a small percentage of the market value of the wild animal.

Reaping from protected areas

In Malawi, people living near national parks can collect caterpillars, honey and grass for thatching their homes, under the supervision of national parks staff. In South Africa and Tanzania, some communities living near national parks get a certain percentage of the revenue from tourism.

More needs to be done

Community wildlife management can be improved by increasing people's control of wildlife. Rural communities do not have appropriate authority status enjoyed by farm and ranch-owners.

This limits their powers to control wildlife.

In addition, capacity to manage wildlife needs to be improved.

MANAGEMENT OF ENDANGERED SPECIES

The question of wildlife conservation in the region goes beyond ownership and money. Conservation is sometimes done just to benefit wildlife, as was the case in the 1920s when the white rhino almost became extinct. Only 20-30 white rhinos remained in the region then but they number about 4,000 today. The careful protection of the white rhino saw their numbers rising and they are now an asset to tourism in many areas. The World Conservation Union (IUCN) has since removed the white rhino from the list of endangered animals.

Building up depleted stocks

At one time, the Nile crocodile was severely over- exploited for its skin, prompting the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) to ban trade in crocodile products. But crocodile-farming has since rebuilt its numbers, leading CITES to lift the ban. Most countries in the region, including Botswana, Malawi and Tanzania, now export crocodile products.

Ostrich has gone through a similar population "bust and boom" in the region. Ostrich-farming has rebuilt depleted stocks. Today, the region is an exporter of ostriches and ostrich products.

Outstanding assignment

Presently, southern Africa is trying to rebuild depleted black rhino populations through intensive breeding in captivity, and translocation of the animals from heavily poached areas (mainly in the Zambezi Valley) to relatively safer inland areas.

Zimbabwe has translocated some rhinos overseas for intensive breeding. In addition, Namibia and Zimbabwe have dehorned rhinos to discourage commercial poachers from killing them. Black rhino numbers are increasing in South Africa.