Wildlife Conservation in Africa

A Scientific Approach

S.S. Ajayi

• Publisher: Academic Press
• Year: 2019
• Print ISBN: 9780128169629
• eBook ISBN: 9780128173305
• Topic: Biological Sciences
• Subtopic: Ecology
• Index: Biological Sciences

Wildlife Conservation in Africa: A Scientific Approach presents comprehensive management strategies for the consumptive and non-consumptive utilization of wildlife across Sub-Saharan Africa. It describes African economies that are currently dependent on wildlife resources and prescribes strategies for conserving biodiversity in both forests and animals in ecosystems across the continent. The book covers the history and current status of how Africa's culture, traditions, healthcare and food sources are woven intricately around the local wildlife and resources. It is a necessary resource for researchers and practitioners in wildlife and ecological conservation, but is also useful for administrators and managers of protected areas.- Written by the world's leading expert on African wildlife conservation- Uses over 45 years of research and knowledge on the topic- Provides a detailed categorization of conservation areas across Sub-Saharan Africa- Covers both in-situ and ex-situ conservation methods for wildlife

Part 1

Introduction

Chapter 1

Introduction

Abstract

In search for the true meaning of “conservation” as a prelude to the contents of this book, there are three meanings of the word as follows:

Macmillan Encyclopedia defined conservation as “the rational use of the earth’s resources so that life can be sustained indefinitely.”

The Tropical Forest Ecosystems by UNESCO (1978) defined “conservation” as “the utilization of resources, that is, a sustainable utilization of resources, resting on ecological principles and therefore including agricultural, forestry, and pastoral development.”

The definition of “conservation” by Gabrielson (1970) is as follows: “In the broadest social aspects, conservation of organic resources, means restoring to the highest possible level and maintaining at a state of high productivity, those resources, including wildlife that can be used on a crop basis to sustain human society.”

The three definitions of “conservation” above recognize the fact that man disrupts the balance and harmony of nature by his activities and that “conservation” is a security activity that minimizes uncertainties, disruptions, and extraction of life-forms. These definitions are the basic philosophies of ecological principles of the management of wildlife for posterity.

Keywords

Conservation; Wildlife; Definition

What is conservation?

The science of wildlife conservation is of a relatively recent origin. As a pioneer, the objective of this book is to unfold the potential and significance of wildlife in the economies of African countries. It also presents the problems of wildlife conservation, principles, and scientific approach to wildlife conservation in sub-Saharan Africa. Since this book dwells on “conservation” as a scientific tool for maintenance and utilization of wildlife in perspective, it may be instructive to familiarize readers with this key word for two main reasons. First, there has been some confusion over the use of the word, and secondly, there is the lack of realization that in fact all forms of national development itself are based on conservation.

In the search for the true meaning of “conservation,” there are three definitions that I find acceptable in terms of theory and application to renewable natural resources and that foster the purpose of integrated multiple land use. The first definition is culled from Macmillan Encyclopedia Dictionary as follows:

The rational use of the earth’s resources so that life can be sustained indefinitely.

The second definition is from Tropical Forest Ecosystems by UNESCO (1978), and it states as follows:

The utilization of resources, that is, a sustainable utilization, resting on ecological principles, and therefore including agricultural, forestry or pastoral development.

The last definition is that of Gabrielson (1970):

In its broadest social aspects, conservation of organic resources means restoring to the highest possible level and maintaining at a state of high productivity, those resources, including wildlife, that can be used on a crop basis to sustain human society.

In the above definitions, there is an explicit recognition that man disturbs the fundamental harmony and balance of nature by his activities. Throughout the history of land development all over the world, man at some critical moments resulting from disruption evolves an effort to ensure his security. “Conservation” would therefore appear to be a security-ensuring activity that often minimizes uncertainties in the provision of our basic necessities of life resulting from man’s destructive activities. These definitions are, therefore, based on the ecological philosophy of conservation.

One of the basic concepts of ecological principles of conservation, whether we are fishermen or wildlifers or miners, is the fact that no natural resource is inexhaustible. The wildlife of the forests, the fish of our rivers, and the minerals in the ground if exploited indiscriminately would be exhausted. There would be a time when they will be no more! The recognition of this basic fact leads to the concept of “preservation” as the first step in “conservation.” If the resource base is not preserved, there would be nothing to utilize or manage.

Conservation movements in America started as a result of the land use mismanagement that characterized the early settlement of the continent. This phenomenon naturally led to a threat of scarcity of available natural resources, the existence of the United States as a nation, as well as the destruction of various facets of nature’s beauty. Furthermore, it led to the emergence of two basic conservation philosophies early in the 20th century. One group of conservationists promoted “preservation” or “nonuse,” while the other promoted natural resource development or “rational use” (Gabrielson, 1970).

In the history of the United States, the first conscious effort to effect a change in the area of natural resource management was by a German-trained forester named Gifford Pinchot, the man generally recognized as the father of conservation movement in America. Pinchot’s principle of conservation connoted “use through systematic management.” He was opposed to established forest reserves that were “preserved” and not “used.” He believed that it is only when a forest is preserved and used under a systematic form of management based on sound ecological principles that the forest is conserved. Indeed, the term “conservancies,” as it applied to government forests in India in those days, appealed to Pinchot so much that he used “conservation” to describe his public campaigns for forestry and other natural resource sector in 1907. Thus, the evolution of conservation that started basically as mere preservation of the environment crept gradually to include “rational use” by man.

This brief historical perspective has been cited to show two things: first is that the two principles of preservation and conservation were born to protect the American nation’s declining resources. Secondly, the concept and principles that led to the philosophy of conservation were agrarian and purely ecological.

From this point, the metamorphosis of conservation principles took a new turn. It accepted development as part of man’s culture and made it to represent the second environment or “frontier” in conservation. For the purpose of this book, it is assumed that the agrarian ecological factors such as land, forest, wildlife, and fish belong to the horizontal plane of “frontier” of conservation. On the vertical plane, we have the new environment of developmental factors such as economic development, science, technology, and research as they affect the land and the welfare of man. The problems that are associated with the feedback of various forms of cultural development, be it economic, research, or technology, are so real that these later planes affect the welfare of man, thus become an integral part of the principles of conservation.

One fact that is partly responsible for America’s success in various forms of development was that they recognized the principles of “what goes up must come down,” that is, for all forms of development, land and its resources are the ultimate recipients and therefore must be tuned to “carry the load” eventually. They have endeavored to ensure that land resources would carry development without disharmony among these resources themselves or between the resources and man.

Take industrial development as an example. Most industries are associated with industrial wastes. It is not enough to campaign for industrial development and create a favorable economic atmosphere for investors, without thinking about the wastes associated with such developments. How are these wastes associated with such developments? How are these wastes tolerated by man, animals, and plants? What damages do they cause, and how can these be minimized or eliminated? The need for a reconciliation of the concepts of development was tightly noted by Fisher (1968):

We shall have to explain the natural environment and its several parts more comprehensively and systematically, looking further ahead, and paying more attention to the interrelations between that environment on one hand and the cultural environment of research, technology, economic development and human welfare on the other hand. The problems call for solutions now.

This concept is in consonance with the fact that development carries with it two environments of conservation—the natural and the cultural—and the problems associated with them must be reconciled. In the developing countries of Africa, we cannot afford to ignore these two frontiers of conservation.

It must be stated that any developing country has more to learn about conservation principles and practice, specific details of legislations, campaigns, government, and private involvement in conservation from the United States more than any other country worldwide.

Furthermore, it must be stressed that one of the basic principles of conservation is preservation and that preservation is not synonymous with conservation, but the first step toward conservation. It is also assumed that the concept of two frontiers of conservation is clear, that is, the natural (ecological) and the cultural environment (science, technology, and economic development).

It is perhaps pertinent to point out that there are numerous references in the Bible such that make conservation an integral phenomenon to our physical and spiritual lives. The most striking reference to conservation of renewable natural resources is found in Genesis 7:2–3. Here, the very principle of conservation was laid down by God Himself, and Noah was the first to practice it. It reads thus:

Of every clean beast, thou shall take to thee by sevens, the male and his female; and of the beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female, to keep seed alive upon all the face of the earth.

And Noah did according unto all that the Lord commanded him (Genesis 7:5).

In Genesis 7:13, Noah and his children did not leave their wives behind—because to make themselves renewable, they needed females.

This was the very conservation principle and practice that preceded the great flood. The Almighty God even in anger was cautious enough to preserve Noah and his family first because they were upright before Him and second because He wanted them to perpetuate their kinds. If God had preserved human beings alone through Noah’s family, with disregard to beasts and fowls, the world after the flood would have been without lower animals! We would have had today no wildlife and no domestic animals, and therefore, there would have been no hunters, no zoologists, and no animal breeders or veterinarians. It also follows that there would be no meat or fish for us to eat or milk to drink.

Why is this book about conservation of African wildlife?

The African continent is endowed with the highest diversity of wildlife in the world. However, it is because of the alarming rate at which African wildlife is being lost daily to unregulated exploitation, and illegal trade in endangered species is a threat to the future of wildlife in Africa. For example, the declining trend in wildlife in West Africa, which was about 214 kg/km² for herbivores in several national parks in 1978, is now less than 5% of the potential carrying capacity of their habitats.

The highly priced species such as gorilla, chimpanzee, hippopotamus, leopard, lion, and giraffe face the threat of extinction in West and Central Africa. Indeed, the last rhinoceros was reportedly killed in Nigeria in what is now known as Bauchi State in 1936. The total number of rhinoceros in Africa is now estimated at less than 3000 and lions at 20,000. Furthermore, in the vast unprotected savanna regions of Africa, wildlife density is estimated at less than 1% of their carrying capacity.

The negative trend of wildlife population all over sub-Saharan Africa is a wake-up call for African governments to make wildlife conservation a priority in governance in order to rescue this vital economic, cultural, and medicinal asset from extinct...

Table of contents

• Cover image
• Title page
• Table of Contents
• Copyright
• About the Author
• Part 1: Introduction
• Part 2: The importance of wildlife in the economies of African states
• Part 3: Problems and strategies of conservation of wildlife in Africa
• Part 4: Curriculum development and evolution capacity building for protected area management in Africa
• References
• Index