杏吧原创

THE white man in shorts, enduring symbol of conservation in Africa, is making
his final retreat. The largest environmental group working in the continent, the
World Wide Fund for Nature, is pulling out of the region鈥檚 game reserves and
national parks.

Senior WWF officials have admitted to New 杏吧原创 that the
organisation鈥檚 traditional role in wildlife preservation is no longer tenable.
They say that in order to achieve sustainable conservation, more responsibility
will have to be placed with local populations, even though this will mean
鈥渢aking risks鈥�.

Without such changes the WWF fears it will antagonise locals, undermine
national governments and threaten the long-term survival of the continent鈥檚
rhino, elephant, lion and buffalo.

When WWF International holds its annual meeting in Switzerland next week, its
officers will report that the withdrawal is gathering pace. But the new strategy
is leaving some of the WWF鈥檚 most respected scientists and conservationists out
in the cold, and opening the organisation to the charge of abandoning endangered
species to likely extinction.

The latest human victims are Kes and Fraser Smith, who this summer were
forced out from their 14-year tenure in charge of the Garamba National Park. The
remote and lawless rainforest park, covering 500 000 hectares of northeast
Congo, is the last wild refuge of the northern white rhino. Until recently, the
WWF portrayed Kes Smith, an English zoologist, and her Zimbabwean game-warden
husband as conservation heroes: a doughty defence against armed gangs of
poachers.

But the wind of change in African conservation has swept them from their
posts. WWF International鈥檚 director-general Claude Martin told New
杏吧原创: 鈥淭he survival of a species cannot simply hinge on the presence
of two individuals.鈥� He admitted that in the past the WWF and others have
鈥渃reated the unfortunate impression that an organisation or, worse even, an
individual, could be a sole guarantor鈥�of a species鈥�.

The WWF鈥檚 idea, shared by many other conservation groups, is to integrate
wildlife management back into the community and stop it being seen as the sole
preserve of white men. The New York-based Wildlife Conservation Society now
lists its prime activity as supporting Africa-based field scientists and works
to tear down the fences between people and animals. In Zambia, for instance, it
aims to 鈥渉elp communities make informed decisions about the sustainable use of
wildlife鈥�. In Kenya, it is switching its attention to easing conflicts between
farmers and animals outside its parks, where the country鈥檚 herds of elephants,
zebras, giraffes and the rest spend most of their time.

Adopting a pragmatic approach that involves the local population in wildlife
conservation won鈥檛 necessarily deter poachers鈥攑articularly those from
outside the area鈥攆rom seeking lucrative skins or rhino horns. But the WWF
hopes it will encourage locals to take advantage of government initiatives such
as free fencing to protect their crops from marauding animals. In this way the
animals are less likely to be shot. A good relationship with conservationists
may also encourage locals to report poachers.

However, John Watkin of the Africa Conservation Centre in Nairobi says that
throwing out the Smiths in the name of people-centred conservation may spell the
end for the northern white rhino.

He says: 鈥淭he achievements of the [Garamba] project are enormous and due
solely to these two individuals.鈥� The surviving wild population of the
subspecies has risen from 13 to 30 during their tenure. Watkin puts this down to
the Smiths鈥� skilled management and uncompromising policing of the park.

He is well aware of the trend towards involving local communities in
preserving wildlife. But in some areas he thinks this 鈥減olitically correct鈥�
approach is simply not appropriate. 鈥淕aramba sticks out as a situation where an
iron-fist protectionist approach is still required,鈥� he says. He would like to
see a 鈥渕ilitary-style force鈥� impose order and eliminate poaching in this lawless
region.

But earlier this year WWF conservation director Chris Hails ruled that for
ethical reasons its funds could no longer buy arms or recruit security
firms.

The new approach to conservation in Congo was agreed between Martin and the
new Congolese President Laurent Kabila in Kinshasa last February. 鈥淭he idea is
now that the Congolese run things in Garamba and elsewhere,鈥� says Sheila
O鈥機onnor, the head of WWF鈥檚 Africa programme. 鈥淲e provide them with policy and
technical expertise鈥攆or instance on how to draw up biodiversity action
plans. We are spending more on policy as opposed to isolated field
补肠迟颈惫颈迟测.鈥�

The bottom line is that WWF leaders think that more diplomacy and less direct
intervention is the conservationists鈥� only hope of keeping the countries they
work with on board in the long term. In effect, the WWF is moving out of the
jungle and into offices in the capital. Not just in Congo, but across the
continent. Newer projects in Rwanda, the Central African Republic and southern
Africa also reflect the change.

It is a strategy that Martin has pursued since taking over in 1994 as
director-general from the more traditionally minded South African Charles de
Haes. The reasons are partly financial: 鈥淚t is incredibly costly to take the
place of government authority, paying for salaries, equipment and so on,鈥� says
O鈥機onnor, who has recently completed a major reorganisation of WWF鈥檚 work in
Madagascar. But there are also political and philosophical reasons.

Taking risks

Madagascar, says O鈥機onnor, illustrates what went wrong. The country has a
huge amount of unique wildlife. But massive destruction of its forests by
farmers and loggers brought pressure to intervene and save what was left. 鈥淲e
went from two experts there in 1986 to 600 local employees a decade later. We
became a replacement for government authority. It wasn鈥檛 deliberate鈥攊t
only happened because of the urgency of the conservation issues. But it wasn鈥檛
good. We should not take over from governments. Now we are handing over.鈥�

The policy is so new that the WWF鈥檚 website currently boasts of the big
growth in 鈥渇ield projects and personnel鈥� in Madagascar, and adds that: 鈥淭o
maintain the momentum which has made WWF the driving force for conservation in
Madagascar, support for the programme must continue.鈥� Inadvertently, this
oversight hints at the strong differences in opinion within the WWF itself,
which dissenting insiders are not keen to voice.

But some outsiders are more openly sceptical. The rich and influential
Washington DC-based Conservation International, which specialises in buying up
and preserving rainforest, notes that traditional approaches to conservation are
the only ones so far that have been shown to work.

In an exchange of letters in a September issue of Science (vol 281,
p 1455), Ian Bowles, its vice-president for conservation policy, called for
鈥渙utright protection鈥� of rainforests. He accused conservationists who backed a
more pragmatic approach of being 鈥渃oopted鈥� by people opposed to conservation. He
notes that there is little or no evidence that a form of 鈥渟ustainable鈥�
rainforest logging exists that truly preserves either biodiversity or tree
numbers. Conservation International recently spent $9 million on buying
1.6 million hectares of undisturbed and unpopulated rainforest in central
Surinam, an area the size of New Jersey, as a 鈥渟torehouse of biodiversity鈥� in
perpetuity.

That forest, it claims, has no inhabitants. But this is very rare among
protected areas in Africa. Hence WWF鈥檚 view that the fences have to come down
and the poachers have to be befriended rather than shot at. 鈥淚t is an
experimental policy,鈥� O鈥機onnor admits. 鈥淪ometimes it may go wrong. But you have
to take risks for sustainable conservation.鈥�