Å®ÉúСÊÓƵ

Cattle rearing in the southern African state of Botswana is decimating
the country’s wildlife, according to a stinging rebuke published last week
by a team of scientists who visited Botswana at the government’s invitation.

‘Vast areas of natural habitats have been degraded in many parts of
the country,’ says the scientists’ report. ‘The main cause is the expansion
of the cattle industry.’

In recent years Botswana’s cattle industry has been given large loans
by the World Bank and privileged access to the European Community’s beef
market. Most of the country’s beef is destined for Europe.

More than a third of Botswana is set aside for wildlife. Buffalo, zebra
and wildebeest migrate between the Kalahari desert, the Okavango swamps
and the northern grasslands. But some 3000 kilometres of fencing around
cattle pastures blocks these migration routes. During droughts, thousands
of animals die at these fences trying to reach water. European Community
regulations require the fences to be built to stop cattle contracting foot
and mouth disease from wild buffalo.

The scientists, headed by John Cooke, until recently professor of environmental
sciences at the University of Botswana, visited the country earlier this
year. Their report says that the government’s National Conservation Strategy
‘is too vague and watered down in regard to the cattle industry’. It also
criticises the government for claiming that wildlife does not migrate.

One team member, Per Wramner, a former consultant on Botswana at the
UN Environment Programme, says that the government ‘has strongly promoted
expansion of the cattle industry . . . even in ranges which are not suitable
and soon become degraded and unproductive’.

Wramner and his colleagues say the government must reduce cattle numbers
and switch towards ‘harvesting’ wild animals and promoting wildlife tourism.
This, says Wramner, ‘is more profitable than cattle grazing, especially
in the long run’.

But there are doubts about whether sufficient wildlife remains. ‘We
spent many, many hours low-flying over the country and saw very little wildlife,’
says Andrea Pfister of the Conservation Foundation in London. ‘Long-term
data of the population dynamics of wildlife are lacking, but are indispensable
for estimating the feasibility of wildlife utilisation.’

The team says it can see no environmental reason against reducing the
country’s ‘excessive’ population of elephants by culling, including safari
hunting. But it points out that some Europeans and North Americans find
the idea of killing elephants repugnant. ‘Many of these people are opinion
formers, and the government of Botswana should be aware of the massive drop
in popularity which the country would suffer were it to adopt the culling
±è´Ç±ô¾±³¦²â.’

Reaction to the team’s report among Botswananas, was mixed. Seiso Liphuko,
secretary of the Botswana Natural Resources Board, said: ‘We invited this
mission because we are a democracy committed to sound environmental policies.
We value their suggestions and criticisms.’ He added that many criticisms
were based on policies that had been superseded. But Nigel Hunter, the country’s
director of wildlife, defended the fences, as ‘crucial to keeping cattle
out of wildlife areas’.