Why Botswana threatened to send 20000 elephants to Germany
- April 10, 2024
- Posted by: OptimizeIAS Team
- Category: DPN Topics
No Comments
Why Botswana threatened to send 20000 elephants to Germany
Subject: Environment
Section: Species in news
Context:
- Botswana, which harbors the world’s largest elephant population of approximately 130,000, faces a significant challenge due to its overabundant elephant numbers. President Mokgweetsi Masisi has proposed relocating 20,000 elephants to Germany amidst discussions in the country to tighten regulations on importing trophies from hunted animals.
Details:
- Historically, hunting has served as a means to manage the elephant population in Botswana, also generating income through the sale of trophy-hunting licenses, predominantly to affluent Western individuals.
- Notably, Germany is recognized as the leading European importer of African elephant trophies.
Why are there so many elephants in Botswana?
- Botswana has become a sanctuary for elephants, distinguishing itself from neighbouring countries through its stable government and sparse human population.
- This safe environment, coupled with the elephants’ avoidance of crossing the Chobe River (a tributary of Zambezi River) into areas like Namibia and Angola due to conflict and mass poaching, has contributed to their large numbers within Botswana’s borders.
- Additionally, Botswana’s stringent conservation measures, including a shoot-to-kill policy against suspected poachers initiated in 2013, and a temporary ban on licensed trophy hunting between 2014 and 2019, have played significant roles in protecting its elephant population.
And why was hunting allowed again?
- The reintroduction of hunting in Botswana was a response to the significant growth of the elephant population, which has become a source of human-animal conflict. From a population of fewer than 10,000 elephants in the early 1960s, numbers had surged to 80,000 by the mid-1990s, and elephants now occupy about 40% of Botswana’s territory.
- This expansion has led to elephants damaging homes, consuming and destroying crops, drinking from community water supplies, and causing deaths among people and cattle. Residents in affected areas, such as Gobojango town, express fear and inconvenience due to the elephants’ presence, adjusting their daily routines for safety.
- Additionally, the large elephant population poses a threat to other species by leading to biodiversity loss and habitat degradation.
- Elephants’ feeding habits, which include tearing down trees and consuming significant amounts of water, negatively impact the habitat and survival of other wildlife.
- This combination of factors prompted Botswana to lift its ban on licensed trophy hunting in 2019, aiming to manage the elephant population more effectively and reduce the negative impacts on human communities and other wildlife species.
How does elephant hunting help?
- Botswana’s efforts to control its elephant population through donations to other countries proved insufficient, prompting the lifting of a trophy hunting ban. This approach serves a dual purpose: reducing elephant numbers and boosting the economy through substantial hunting fees, with hunters paying up to $50,000 per elephant.
- In 2021, trophy hunting reportedly contributed $5 million to Botswana’s local communities, and in South Africa, it’s estimated to inject $250 million into the economy annually, supporting 17,000 jobs.
- Pros:
- Proponents argue that regulated trophy hunting benefits elephant conservation by reinvesting in conservation efforts and sharing profits with local communities, potentially preventing habitat loss.
- Cons:
- This practice faces criticism from Western nations and animal rights advocates, who argue it’s unethical and harms population numbers of endangered species by targeting the strongest animals.
- Moreover, there are concerns about the economic benefits being overstated and corruption hindering the distribution of profits to local communities.
- Despite the controversies, some experts believe that banning trophy hunting without viable economic alternatives could exacerbate conservation issues.
Source: IE