Technology has made a tremendous difference in the world, in areas as diverse as health and education, and pretty much everything in between.



But is technology the weapon that will ultimately eradicate animal poaching and save various species from eradication? It’s not a silver bullet, but it certainly has potential. 



That’s why Vulcan – a company started by the late Paul Allen, who co-founded Microsoft – has produced a tech platform called EarthRanger to monitor protected wildlife areas by drawing in big data from cameras, animal collars and vehicle sensors. Other platforms such as SMART – a spatial monitoring and reporting tool – have also started to gain traction and operate in similar ways to EarthRanger.



Vulcan is known in the conservation world for sponsoring the Great Elephant Census. The census revealed that there are probably fewer than 400 000 savannah elephants left in the wild across Africa. It also revealed a decline of 8% a year between 2007 and 2014, largely due to poaching, either to supply the illegal ivory trade or the bushmeat trade.



A census is useful because it provides a snapshot in time and highlights the urgency of the problem. Elephants are a keystone species, environmental engineers who play irreplaceable roles in maintaining ecological integrity. They’re also incredibly intelligent. Losing them is not an option. But we need more than occasional snapshots to aid conservation efforts.



New technologies, however &#8211; as a step beyond census counting &#8211; are merely a tool. Their efficacy ultimately depends on the value to the end user. A sound overarching vision and buy-in from users on the ground is also critical. At present, data collection and analysis practices vary from site to site. Without best-practice standards in this respect, all the cleverly collected data in the world may make little difference.



<h4 class="wp-block-heading">Drones: a silver bullet? </h4>



Drones can provide real-time information on animal movements and numbers in ways that traditional surveys cannot. This enhances platforms like SMART and EarthRanger. Drones are not delayed by heavy forest cover. They also don’t need human comforts: they don’t have to be fed, as field technicians do during aerial surveys, and don’t get tired like pilots do.



Moreover, they can detect snares and, in combination with remote sensors and camera traps, identify potential poaching behaviour. Because they can fly often, they put usable information into the hands of rangers, who can plan patrols more preemptively and effectively. This means that anti-poaching resources can be allocated more efficiently. It also means that experts far removed from day-to-day operations can analyse the data for interesting patterns.



This all sounds good. But, in a 2015 paper, I applied a basic game theory model – a “river-crossing” game – to the problem of elephant conservation. It showed that ivory demand reduction requires more capital allocation if anti-poaching initiatives are to be successful. A World Bank analysis later showed that only a small portion of global funding goes towards this goal. More research is also required to make demand reduction campaigns more effective.



The research is a reminder that demand for illicit wildlife products ultimately drives poaching, and even the best technologies can only go so far in complementing anti-poaching efforts.



<h4 class="wp-block-heading">A multi-pronged approach </h4>



One serious spanner in the faith conservationists place in technology is that it can be equally effectively employed by poaching syndicates. As I pointed out in my paper, if an MI-17 helicopter arrives with poachers firing into a herd with extreme precision (as reportedly happened in the Democratic Republic of Congo in 2012) no amount of drone-driven anti-poaching efforts can stop the slaughter.



On a field research trip to the Selous Game Reserve in Tanzania in 2017, I interviewed the head of the World Wide Fund for Nature’s programme there, who happened to be running a training programme for park rangers to use new drones. Wisely, the organisation’s roadmap to zero poaching in the Selous recognises that technology is just one among several pillars necessary to achieving significant poaching reduction.



Without the others – including community buy-in, cooperation between various players at different levels, and improved prosecution and conviction outcomes – technology is just a buzzword.



Concerted global efforts to overcome the current challenges associated with anti-poaching technology are crucial for ensuring better results. At the same time, we have to recognise that poaching syndicates also have access to the best technology. If both sides simply become more efficient, we’re still going to lose our wildlife heritage.



For this reason, one cannot overemphasise the importance of effective demand reduction, a more unified approach among range states (countries that have elephant populations), and conservation-driven development from local communities.



Technology can be a valuable arrow in conservation quivers – but alone, it cannot halt the loss of the continent’s elephants. -The Conversation



-Ross Harvey Senior Researcher in Natural Resource Governance (Africa), South African Institute of International Affairs



<img loading="lazy" decoding="async" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/111643/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-advanced" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important; text-shadow: none !important" />

gettyimages-904642168-170667a

OPINION | Technology Is Useful, But Drones Alone Won’t Save Africa’s Elephants

Africa is the last true wild frontier in the world; its wildlife racks up more than $30 billion annually.
But, in countries such as Zimbabwe, less money is reaching the government and animal extinction is becoming a reality.
The ruthless killing of Cecil the Lion in Zimbabwe sent shockwaves around the world. It raises the question of whether Africa is getting a raw deal for its wildlife.
In 2012, the tourism sector contributed 10% to Zimbabwe’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and the projection was that by this year it should have reached 15%. Statistics for this year are only available in 2016 but there has been a surge in tourists, particularly from the United States.
<img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="alignleft size-medium wp-image-4085" src="/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/20120704_0082-300x200.jpg" alt="" width="300" height="200" />
Some American tourists, though, have been caught on the wrong side of the law by participating in unsanctioned lion hunts.
Johnny Rodrigues, a wildlife conservationist, believes the biggest problem standing in the way of animal conservation in Zimbabwe is corruption.
“In the case of Cecil, an American tourist bribed guides for $55,000 to kill a lion that was at the center of major international research. There are many such cases that go unreported,” he says.
In the past 20 years, the lion population in Africa has been depleted by 30%. As of 2014, it is estimated that there are only 30,000 left on the continent.
Zimbabwe has a population of around 1,600 lions, most of which are kept in protected areas away from hunters. Between 1999 and 2009, it was recorded that 800 lions were killed in legal hunts but it is understood that many more were killed in illegal hunts.
Lions, rhino, elephant, giraffe and buffalo are the most popular targets for hunters, but some lesser known animals are also caught up in the illicit trade.
Langton Masunda, a tour operator in Zimbabwe, says poachers and illegal hunters are more equipped and better funded than government rangers. This gives them an obvious advantage over those trying to save the country’s wild animals.
“They have more sophisticated weaponry, are usually better trained and they have communication equipment that the government does not have,” says Masunda.
Not so long ago, more effort was put into protecting the rhinoceros, but poachers shifted their focus to elephants. Zimbabwe has an elephant population of 85,000, with around 30,000 of those being calves. Because of the demand in the Asian market, poachers targeted the elephant at an industrial scale.
“Water sources were contaminated with cyanide. Hundreds would drop dead and in the process other animals, which the poachers had no use for, died too. Even people in rural communities surviving on the same water sources were affected. What makes it bad is that in many cases locals in poverty stricken communities would assist poachers,” says Masunda.
Although they have a harsh penal system for poaching, countries such as South Africa are havens for illegal hunts.
“Each year, more than 20,000 elephants – possibly up to 35,000 – are killed by poachers for their tusks, which are shipped to ivory markets, predominantly in countries such as China and Thailand. In 2014, 1,215 rhinos were killed in South Africa alone, which, when compared with the 13 killed by poachers in 2007, represents a more than 9,000 percent increase in rhino poaching,” says a World Economic Forum report.
<img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="alignleft size-medium wp-image-4086" src="/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/20120704_0131-300x200.jpg" alt="" width="300" height="200" />
The spiraling poaching figures are driven by the Asian market. In countries such as China and Vietnam, it is believed the rhino horn has medicinal properties that can cure everything from headaches to cancer. Elephant tusks are crushed into a powder and used to make aphrodisiacs, among other things.
The development of rural communities is also a factor that opens trade links with the rest of the world. It makes smuggling easier.
But, in Southern Africa, there is hope that some of the targeted animals can be saved, especially at the Kavango Zambezi Transfrontier Conservation Area (KAZA) that brings together Zambia, Namibia, Zimbabwe, Angola and Botswana.
KAZA is the world’s largest wildlife park, slightly bigger than Italy.
In 2014, on the Botswana side of the park, President Ian Khama banned hunting to preserve the animals. As an alternative, the country is investing in luxurious camps. Last year alone, it was estimated that tourism brought in $337.5 million. A few greedy tourists with rifles should not be allowed to decimate this important source of income.

The Bullets Killing More Than Animals

When an elephant charges, all you can do is pray and try and get out of its way; especially when you are stuck in a two-man canoe riding the powerful current on the Zambezi River.
It is a far cry from sipping a pina colada on a deckchair under a tree. It’s the last thing you would expect, but staring into the eyes of a two-ton beast that is only 10 meters away from you, will change the way you look at the world. This is the Lower Zambezi National Park, in Zambia, where the idea of a good time is getting as close as you can to nature without being trampled.
Most tourists would find Zambia difficult to point out on the map. It’s quite easy to overlook. It is hemmed in by Africa’s best known wildlife tourist destinations: Botswana; Mozambique; the Democratic Republic of Congo; Malawi; Tanzania and Zimbabwe. Up until 1991, the country was a socialist state, which prized copper over tourism. Now, the country has flung open its doors and is hoping to double tourism from 300,000 to 600,000 visits by 2015 and increase GDP from 2% to 7%, in line with Zimbabwe. It is arguably the freest economy in sub-Saharan Africa.
<img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="alignleft size-medium wp-image-2391" src="/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/IMG_6197-300x200.jpg" alt="" width="300" height="200" />
What it means is more people are likely to be drawn to the thundering Victoria Falls, millions of fruit bats migrating, tiger fish jumping out of the water, and running away from elephants on the banks of the Zambezi River; or in some cases rowing furiously.
My introduction to Zambia came from game ranger, Wallace Kabompa, who works in the national park where he grew up, for Chiawa Camp; the only bush camp in the big five reserve, which lies on the Zimbabwe border.
For Kabompa, hippos and elephants walking in your backyard is just another day. He grew up fishing along the Zambezi, he has chased leopards from his patio and he has run from so many elephants in the bush he could do it professionally.
“The dangers are very real. I have seen it first-hand. When I was very young, I went swimming in a pool close to the river with my friend. My friend went down, underwater, and then he went for good. I never saw him again. His parents came to me and said ‘where is your friend?’. I said I didn’t know. He had been eaten by a crocodile. I tell you, I have been beaten by my parents not to swim in the Zambezi. My parents would say don’t you know there are crocodiles, it’s dangerous,&#8221; he says.
Standing by the river he warns tourists of the dangers of canoes.
“I just need to point out that the Zambezi River is dangerous. When you are in the canoe please do not dip your hands into the river. Crocodiles are advantageous predators, and we don’t want them to take advantage of your hands. Elephants will give you a toot when they think you are getting too close. But it’s nothing to be scared of, they are just saying hi. If we encounter a mother with her baby they are more aggressive. All you can do is try not to get in their way. So… who wants to go in front?” he says.
A Dutch family, red of nose and sweating profusely in the 40 degree heat, watch skeptically as he speaks. Their sunburned faces turn white at the mention of being in front. With Kabompa’s cautious speech over, we board our canoes and enter the Zambezi. Kabompa boards the two-man canoe with me, the eager photographer, in front.
As the sun sets, the water glistens in golden light. In the still of the evening, Kabompa’s warning came to life like a snake in a bed. It started so sedately. In the distance, a herd of elephants crossed the river. The only problem was at the end of the line were two females with a baby.
“Let’s get close, I really need a good photo,” I say.
Kabompa obliges and we drift closer, hugging the shoreline. It was as quiet as the grave. The elephants begin to cross the river, but as they reach our side of the shore there is a problem. They get stuck. In their panic, their bodies crash against one another. Their ears flap madly. They then turn and come straight for us.
You may think an elephant charging in water is slow. Think again. An elephant slices through water like it is going through a field of grass. White water churns at their feet. Their trumpeting gets louder with every step. Their trunks smash the water. It is terrifying.
When it is 50 meters away you think it can never reach you. When it is 35 meters away you worry that it will. When it is just 15 meters you realize one stamp of the foot could turn your body to dog meat.
It is at this time that Kabompa saves us from the butcher shop. He slams his paddle in the water violently, sending us in reverse. Ten meters from us, where our canoe was a few moments before, the beasts take a sharp right turn and scramble up the bank. I thank the heavens.
Our canoe rocks in the elephants’ wash. I turn to Kabompa, too stunned to speak. He looks back with a smile as wide as the Zambezi.
“Was that close enough?” he asks.
All I could do is nod in agreement as the canoe drifts away to live another day.
“Do you need to change your pants?” Michelle, one of the Dutch tourists, asks.
No change needed after a moment deep in the Zambian bush that will live with me for the rest of my life.
&nbsp;
With gratitude to the Zambian Tourism Board and Proflight Zambia for accommodation and flights.

Tag: Elephant

FORBES AFRICA SOCIAL MEDIA

OPINION | Technology Is Useful, But Drones Alone Won’t Save Africa’s Elephants

The Bullets Killing More Than Animals

When The Elephant Says Hi… Run!