The philosophy of sustainable wildlife use

Abstract

Throughout history, humans have used wildlife species to supply their needs, be it for clothing, meat, power or prestige (Roth and Merz, 1997). With the global growth of human populations increasing pressure has been placed upon species, either directly through exploitation or indirectly through habitat loss (Owen- Smith, 1988; Wroe et al., 2004; Burney and Flannery, 2005). In the early twentieth century this led to the establishment of reserve areas or national parks in which wildlife and their habitats were protected (McNeely and Miller, 1984). While this protectionist approach has conserved many species from extinction, it has also led to severe conflict between people and wildlife, particularly where they interact, for example on the borders of the protected areas (Woodroffe et al., 2005). However, many species of wildlife still exist outside the protected areas and a number of these species will remain viable only if these populations continue to survive in harmony with the people with whom they coexist (e.g. Gratwicke, 2007). This has led to the development of a philosophy for sustainable use of wildlife outside the protected areas (the community-based conservation approach) (Hulme and Murphree, 2001). One of the tenets of the community-based conservation approach is that, because people reap an economic return for the use of wildlife species, their attitude to wildlife will improve and will lead to communities conserving those valued wildlife species (Hulme and Murphree, 2001). Clearly, for this to be the case, the community has to have rights over the use and management of that wildlife resource and individuals have to benefit, either directly or though community-based initiatives that improve quality of life (Martin, 1986). However, while the opening up of trade for a wildlife product (trophy, meat, skin or fibre) can benefit individuals, communities and wildlife, it may also mean that individuals or groups that are denied legal benefits may opt to participate in the market through supply of poached products. This may, in the end, cause over-harvesting of the wildlife resource, resulting either in extinction or a ban on trade through local, regional or international treaties. Sustainable use of any wild species often provokes controversy and opposition (Prins et al., 2000); in a global situation of rapid loss of biodiversity, cases where wildlife species are abundant enough to be able to cope with commercial use are rare. In many cases, hunting or harvesting wild animals in the past has been one of the main factors in their numerical decline and potential extinction, which leads to conflicting philosophies between proponents of sustainable use and conservationists. Elephants and whales are iconic examples of the permanent battle waged between conservationists and promoters of wildlife use. Periodically, this issue is discussed in the CITES (Convention on Trade in Endangered Species), a global body responsible for regulating trade in wild species and their products commercialisation. It is against this backdrop that the consideration of the sustainable use of the vicuña takes place. The vicuña (Vicugna vicugna) (Fig. 1.1) provides an extremely interesting and enlightening case study of the political economy of wildlife management, as policy shifts from total conservation to a more complex, and contested, sustainable use approach. The first stage of total protection was extremely successful (McNeill and Lichtenstein, 2003); this policy received widespread support both nationally and internationally and the vicuña has become one of the few success stories of wildlife conservation. The next stage, that of sustainable use, has now been entered and the political consensus begins to break down; ongoing developments in international conservation policy within CITES, have established a legal basis for exploitation of both wild populations of vicuña and herds in captivity. This recent shift in emphasis from conservation to sustainable use requires that systems be developed that are economically viable, while maintaining adequate monitoring of the impact of management in individual animal welfare and population ecology. As many of the indigenous communities involved give religious importance to the vicuña, there is an extra socio-cultural dimension to this work. Increasing populations of vicuña are, however, raising new challenges for effective management. Internationally, policy development has followed the community-based conservation paradigm, which holds that economic benefits from wildlife management practices bring greater commitment on the part of local communities to protect both the species and its habitat. However, sustainability of the species or the environment in which it lives is not guaranteed by sustainable use, and both education and regulation are required to prevent the proliferation of unsustainable practices. The debate has now shifted to a series of unresolved questions about the sustainability of different approaches to harvesting and marketing fibre should wild or captive management be adopted; how should benefits be distributed between individuals and communities; how humane is the capture, of wild animals for fibre harvesting and what policy instruments need to be put in place to prevent poaching and the development of an illegal fibre trade? The current argument for the consumptive use of vicuña is that it is based on fibre harvest from live animals and no individuals are lost as a result. Ancient traditions are invoked as one of the reasons for live animal shearing and the herding systems being adopted in several countries are an attempt to emulate those old methods. The objective is to deliver a financial return to local communities that have protected the species on their land for decades and have potentially foregone other income because of the presence of the vicuña. Community wildlife management does not replace conservation, but it does fundamentally alter the nature of the task that conservation agencies face by requiring much stronger engagement with local communities. The vicuña roams the high-altitude steppes of the Andes. It is a highly social species with males defending small family groups of females and their young (cria) all year round. The vicuñas highly-prized fleece has been both its greatest asset and its biggest downfall. Four centuries of over-exploitation since the arrival of the Spanish led to the species near extinction in the 1960s. As a consequence of effective conservation measures by both international and national legislation over the past 40 years, the vicuña has recovered to population levels that have allowed some regional populations to be moved from CITES Appendix I to Appendix II, allowing local communities to exploit the fibre from live-shorn animals. The different countries in the main range of the vicuña (Argentina, Bolivia, Chile, and Peru) have adopted different approaches to the exploitation of the species, ranging from captive management under farm conditions in Argentina, ranching systems in fenced areas in Peru and Chile and the capture and release of wild populations in Bolivia, Peru and Chile. These different management systems reflect local limitations and aspirations, but each has a different outcome both in the degree to which local communities benefit from the exploitation of the fibre, and in the contribution that such management makes to conservation of the vicuña and its habitat. The recovery of vicuña populations in the wild provides the European and USA quality textile industry with a unique opportunity to develop new top-of-the-range products based on environmentally sound wildlife management and fair trade with developing countries. This opportunity presents many challenges for the development of appropriate management systems, animal welfare and distribution of benefits among producers.