Halting elephant poaching is a global demand

The current elephant poaching surge has attracted the attention of numerous prominent individuals and institutions at local and global levels, expressing concern over the crisis and calling for immediate measures to halt it. For example, in July 2013 the US President, Barack Obama, issued an Executive Order on Combating Wildlife Trafficking, stressing the urgency of treating wildlife crime as a serious crime on par with narcotics and arms trafficking [24]. In the same vein, the Prince of Wales, Charles, and the Duke of Cambridge, William, launched an Anti-poaching Campaign with a video plea calling for prompt action among the world leaders to end the illegal wildlife trade. In this video, which was released ahead of the London Conference on the Illegal Wildlife Trade held in February 2014, William warned of the ecological, economic and political consequences of wildlife crime, referring particularly to the current wave of elephant poaching [25]. The urgency of stemming illegal elephant poaching has also been demonstrated in the deliberations of world leaders in the following conferences and summits:

Elephant is a keystone and umbrella species

Along with other browsing mammals and fire, the African elephant plays a crucial role in shaping the structure and functioning of savannah ecosystems [313233–34]. Because of this role the elephant has been classified as a keystone species and an ecosystem engineer [32]. In the course of feeding, elephants break, fell and uproot trees and thus reduce the tree density and bush cover of the grasslands, open up space for other plants that cannot survive in the shade of forests. In so doing, they maintain suitable habitats for many other species in savannah and forest ecosystems including browsing and grazing animals [31]. Furthermore, about a third of tree species in central African forests rely on elephants for seed dispersal [35]. Poaching, and its impact on this keystone species, therefore has a huge knock on effect throughout the ecosystem [36].

Besides its role as a keystone species and an ecosystem engineer, the elephant is also an umbrella species. Umbrella species are those with large area requirements. When their habitats or home ranges are sufficiently protected, many other species hosted in these home ranges are also protected [373839–40]. Essentially, umbrella species are species that are of high priority in conservation. Elephant poaching, therefore, has undesirable effects not only on elephants but also on a large number of co-occurring species.

Elephant poaching can erode a government's credibility

The mass killing of elephants has brought Tanzania under criticism from the local and international community. Criticisms have been linked to poor governance, lack of accountability and corruption. Local and international media, conservation groups and politicians have implicated some senior government officials in this crime. For instance, a British journalist, Martin Fletcher, queried the country's top authorities for turning a blind eye to the rampant poaching of elephants [41]. The Environmental Investigation Agency [19], on the other hand, linked the current poaching crisis with increased criminality, corruption, the proliferation of firearms, the failure of the judicial system and a perception that Tanzania is a sanctuary for criminals. During the 2013 CITES Conference of the Parties (COP 17) held in Bangkok, Tanzania and seven other countries – Kenya, Uganda, Malaysia, Vietnam, the Philippines, Thailand and China - were labeled “the gang of eight” for being instrumental in fuelling the illegal ivory trade either as suppliers, transporters or consumers [12].

Criticisms for poor performance in combating elephant poaching directed to Tanzania and other countries prompted pressure from conservation activists, urging severe measures against these countries. One of the measures that have been implemented is banning the import of elephant trophies by United States of America [42] and members of the European Union [43] (also see Table 2). These countries are the main markets for wildlife trophies sustaining hunting industry in Tanzania.

Finger pointing at government officials has implications socially and politically, regardless of whether the allegations are genuine or false. It lowers citizens' trust in their government and may encourage criminality, corruption and even rebellion. The following words of an elder in Olasiti village, adjacent to Tarangire National Park, illustrate this fact:

It is awfully unfair to arrest a poor woman collecting dead branches of trees from the park for cooking or gaol a man who kills a rabbit to feed his kids while nothing happens to 'Wakubwa' [well-off people and top government officials] who are mercilessly killing thousands of elephants, not for survival but for greed (pers. comm., 5 August, 2015).

Elephant is one of the principal resources in the tourism industry

Tourism is an important vehicle for economic development as demonstrated by its contribution to the Gross Domestic Product (GDP), employment, visitor exports [i.e., spending within the country by international tourists for both business and leisure trips, including transportation spending], domestic spending, business spending, and capital investment (Appendix 1). Over 80% of Tanzania's tourism is wildlife-based and is mainly stimulated by charismatic species, particularly the Big Five - elephants, rhinos, lions, buffaloes (Syncerus caffer) and leopards (Panthera pardus). Because these species are threatened, their contribution to the tourism sector is lessened. The black rhino is critically endangered with only few individuals remaining in the country [44] while the population of lions is dwindling due to loss of habitat and because of retaliatory killings by local communities [454647–48]. The increase in elephant poaching has further depleted the country's “Big Five” populations, and threatens other species whose survival depends on the role of these animals as keystone and umbrella species. This has negative implications for both the local and national economy due to loss of revenue from the tourism sector and the impact on associated businesses and interests (Appendix 1).

Besides the loss of species valuable to tourism, the sector is also threatened if revenue from elephant poaching is used to fund civil wars and terrorist activities (Fig. 2), as happened just over a decade ago, when the number of international tourists to Tanzania and Kenya dropped dramatically in response to political instability and terrorist activities [49,50]. The gravity of elephant poaching in Tanzania affected the country economically because of international trade embargoes imposed on the sale and export of trophies - even those obtained legally through the consumptive utilisation of wildlife (Appendix 2). This has deprived the country of much needed revenues that could have been used to support conservation efforts and channeled into poverty relief programs.

Elephant poaching impacts conservation budgets

Historically, the budget allocated for wildlife conservation in Tanzania has been too low to fund effective law enforcement. For instance, the government allocated the wildlife sector US$6.5 million for three years (2010-2012), only 10% of the budget requirement [52]. This suggests that wildlife is receiving minimal priority among the government sectors, despite its immense contribution to the national coffers. If this is the case at a time when elephants and other wildlife species are being decimated, it is unlikely that commitment will increase if their numbers become so low with insignificant contribution to the economy. Previous experience has shown that there is a strong link between inadequate conservation budgets and an increase in wildlife crimes in Tanzania [13, 16, 53].

Furthermore, given the meagre financial resources allocated to the wildlife sector, it is apparent that compliance with and enforcement of international commitments and obligations to combating wildlife crime cannot be effective. For example, the Worldwide Fund for Nature (WWF) report on the compliance with and enforcement of CITES commitments for tigers, rhinos and elephants grouped 22 countries involved in illegal trade in these species into three groups [54]. The first group received a green score, indicating adequate performance, the second a yellow score indicating a need for improvement, and the third a red score, implying very poor performance (Appendix 3). Tanzania was one of seven countries that received a yellow score for both elephants and rhinos which, although not as bad as a red score, implies inadequate performance.

Poaching weakens local and global support for conservation

Tanzania, like other developing countries, has subscribed to conservation policies that seek to strike a balance between conservation and development goals. These policies have arisen in response to local resistance to previous conservation policies which were exclusive, prohibitive and punitive. The new policies seek to provide local communities with tangible benefits from wildlife resources as a way of motivating them to align their behaviours with the conservation goal through refraining from activities which are ecologically destructive, such as poaching and habitat destruction. The Tanzania Wildlife Policy stresses the need to ensure that wildlife conservation competes effectively with other land uses, and in so doing transforming wildlife from a liability to an asset [55].

Realizing this ambition requires that healthy populations of wildlife species are maintained. If poaching continues unabated, it is impossible for local communities to access adequate benefits that will inspire them to support conservation efforts. Numerous studies have shown that if conservation activities do not make a tangible contribution to poverty reduction or if the benefits arising from conservation do not outweigh the costs and exceed returns that may have been realised through alternative, albeit ecologically damaging, land uses, then local support will not be maintained [565758–59]. Local communities sharing land with wildlife are likely to engage in poaching and encroach on habitats as a coping strategy against poverty and as a compensation for the economic losses caused by conservation through opportunity costs, crop damage, livestock depredation, wildlife-related accidents and diseases transmission [60,61](See also Fig. 2).

Essentially, it is only realistic to expect local support for conservation efforts when the returns from legal economic endeavours exceed the returns generated by wildlife crimes, and when it substantially improves the local economy [60, 61]. If poaching has minimal financial risks and greater financial reward, people will engage in it. A study in the Serengeti found that poaching was rife because it paid more than other economic activities. The majority of poachers (96%) earned an average income of US$425 per annum, while revenues from crops were US$79, from livestock, US$61 and from small businesses, US$118 [62]. Holmern et al. estimated that illegal hunting for bush meat was 45 times more profitable than for bush meat obtained legally from wildlife cropping schemes [63].

The effect of poaching on wildlife populations, and hence the reduction in tourism revenues, translate into a situation where benefits from conservation initiatives cannot outweigh the conservation costs incurred by local communities through property damage and opportunity costs (i.e., the alternatives forgone as a result of conservation). Over a decade ago, the estimated costs of living with wildlife in the Serengeti were 250 times greater than the benefits earned from conservation initiatives [64]. Such a scenario means that there is little incentive for local communities to buy into conservation and undermines the government's declaration that conservation is only pursued if development needs are not compromised. It prompts perceptions that there is no genuine commitment to this agenda.

Elephant poaching is also threatening the global status of key protected areas, which results in less support for conservation from the international community. For instance, on 18^th June 2014, the World Heritage Committee in its 38^th Session held in Doha, Qatar, added the Selous Game Reserve to the List of World Heritage in Danger because of rampant poaching and, consequently, the dramatic decline in wildlife populations, especially elephants and rhinos [65]. The population of the two species has dropped by almost 90% since 1982, when Selous was added to the World Heritage List. The reserve, covering 50,000 km², is one of the largest protected areas in Africa and is renowned for its populations of elephant, black rhinoceros, cheetah, giraffe, hippopotamus and crocodile, amongst many other species. It also has an exceptionally high diversity of habitats making it a valuable laboratory for on-going ecological and biological processes.

Elephant poaching is a security and humanitarian issue

Elephant poaching, along with other wildlife crimes, is increasingly being perceived as a security and a humanitarian issue, linked to civil wars and terrorism in Africa [666768697071727374757677–78]. The role of wildlife crime in fuelling insecurity has been acknowledged globally by prominent figures, as is evident from the following quotations:

The environmental, economic and social consequences of wildlife crime are profound. Of particular concern are the implications of illicit trafficking for peace and security in a number of countries where organized crime, insurgency and terrorism are often closely linked. [The UN Secretary-General, Ban Ki-Moon on World Wildlife Day, March 2014].

Today wildlife crime has become a serious threat to the sovereignty and stability of some of our countries. More and more of the profits are used to finance civil conflicts and terrorist-related activities. Furthermore, illicit wildlife trafficking is often linked to other forms of illegal trafficking and to money laundering. Over and over again, all across Africa, we have seen poachers move into peaceful regions blessed with rich natural assets, initiating a spiral of criminality and suffering that ends in civil war. [Gabon President, Ali Bongo, at the African Development Bank 2013 Annual Meeting].

Illegal wildlife trade is more than simply a danger to the natural world - it's a threat to global stability and security. It's time for wildlife crime to be made a priority by world leaders and law enforcers. [The Prince of Wales and Duke of Cambridge, at a high-profile international conference at St James' Palace, London, on 21 May 2015, focusing on the urgent battle to end illegal trade in wildlife].

The rebel and terrorist groups believed to have benefited financially from elephant poaching include Somalia's al-Shabaab, which is thought to earn some 40% of its revenues through illegal trade on ivory obtained from northern Kenya [70]; Uganda's Lord Resistance Army (LRA), rebels in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) [72]; Darfur's Janjaweed, which has targeted elephants in Chad, Cameroon, the Central Africa Republic and northern DRC [71, 73]; and Nigeria's Boko Haram through killing elephants in Cameroon [74, 75].

Civil wars and insurgency have had a notable impact on elephant populations in Africa. For instance, following the operations of Sudan People's Liberation Army – SPLA, Southern Sudan recorded a loss of over 95% of its elephant population from over 130,000 in 1986 to 5000 in 2012 [76,77]. In February 2012, Cameroon's Bouba N'Djida National Park suffered a loss of about 80% (over 300) of its elephant population, killed by Sudanese rebels [78]. This mass killing prompted intervention by Central African countries which deployed about 1,000 soldiers and law-enforcement officials in a special operation to safeguard the region's last elephant populations [78].

Elephant poaching contributes to refugee problems and environmental destruction

Through funding civil wars and terrorist activities, elephant poaching indirectly forces people to flee their home countries and seek refuge elsewhere. The influx of refugees to many countries has proved to be a social, economic, political and ecological burden. Socio-economic problems to host communities include diseases, competition for water and firewood, destruction of infrastructure such as school buildings and desks [79], banditry, and other property crimes such as robbery and theft [79, 80].

Refugees have contributed immensely to deforestation and wildlife poaching in host countries. The 1990s influx of refugees who fled from the civil wars in Rwanda, Burundi and DRC to western Tanzania is a good example. Illegal bush meat hunting became a coping strategy for refugees. This resulted in the loss of over 90% of the population of ungulates in Burigi-Biharamulo Game Reserves [81, 82]. Refugees also harvested the forests and woodlands for fuel wood and construction poles, leading to serious land degradation [8384–85]. Following four years of deforestation in forest reserves, forest regeneration declined by 35% [83]. The consumption of 1,200 tons of fuel wood per day was recorded at the peak of the Rwanda refugee crisis in the Kagera Region alone [84]. The average daily consumption of fuel wood in 1997 was 300 metric tons [85].

Control demand for ivory in consumer countries

Elephant poaching in supply states is a response to the high demand for ivory in consumer countries which elevates prices and generates high returns to those participating in this illegal trade. Controlling demand would lessen this problem significantly. Possible strategies to achieve this, which should be rolled out in destination countries, include conducting public interest campaigns to raise awareness about the risk posed to elephants through buying ivory; setting up effective domestic market enforcement mechanisms for controlling the ivory market; changing social norms supporting the consumption of ivory; or banning the trade completely [86]. CITES should contribute to controlling the market in destination countries.

Increase benefits to local communities

Elephant poaching often escalates because of the support local communities give to wealthy commercial poachers. This is because returns from poaching greatly exceed legal economic activities, making it an important livelihood and coping strategy among the poor communities [56, 60, 61]. In order to win local support in fighting elephant poaching and other wildlife crimes, it is imperative that conservation authorities revise their benefit-sharing schemes to ensure that returns from conservation schemes are sufficient enough to deter local people from participating in poaching activities. While benefits to communities from conservation activities can hardly exceed returns generated through elephant poaching for ivory, they can nevertheless strengthen the local economy and this, along with awareness campaigns and improved law enforcement, could reduce the problem significantly.

Address the problem of household poverty and unemployment

Impoverished people are more likely to commit crimes to meet their daily needs as they cannot always obtain them through legitimate means. Poaching is one of the property crimes occurring in Tanzania, which is perceived as a way of combating food and income poverty among the majority of the poor and unemployed youth living in wildlife rich areas [606162–63, 878889–90]. Strategies aimed at addressing household poverty and unemployment, therefore, have the potential to minimize the problem of poaching and other wildlife crimes. Possible strategies to this end include the improvement of existing economic sectors which are environmentally friendly; increasing job creation through industrialization; and policies aimed at making technology, training, credit, marketing and distribution channels more easily accessible to small business.

Ensure adequate budget and other support for conservation

The minimal budget allocation to the wildlife sector undermines law enforcement activities including patrols, prosecution, investigations and intelligence gathering. The government and its partners in development should allocate adequate funds for conservation activities. More importantly, the government should support conservation efforts and avoid the scenario of “milking a cow without feeding it”. For example, it is paradoxical for government departments such as Treasury and Tanzania Revenue Authority to turn down requests for tax exemptions on vehicles and firearms imported by or donated to wildlife authorities for the purpose of reinforcing anti-poaching operations and yet look at these authorities as a strategic source of revenues to feed the government coffers.

Address the challenge of political interests overriding professionalism

Political interference on conservation work leaves wildlife officers unable to exercise their professionalism and enforce law effectively as many are demoralised and fear retaliation from politicians. Some politicians have assumed such power that their actions cannot be challenged, even when they are wrong. It is imperative that professionalism is respected and the behavior of politicians which is destructive to conservation regulated. Commitment from the top government officials is required to ensure observance of the principles of good governance and ethical leadership among the politicians. Education and raising awareness along with taking disciplinary action against those failing to comply with ethical leadership may help to pre-empt unacceptable behaviour that frustrates conservation efforts. The approach of the fifth phase government under the leadership of Dr John P. Magufuli, fostering accountability and good governance, is the right direction to changing the current scenario.

Intensify the war against corruption

It is indisputable that corruption contributes to elephant poaching and the ivory trade. The vice is a function of weak institutional, legal and regulatory systems along with an increasing lack of any moral sense of right and wrong among the government officials. The problem can be addressed by strengthening institutional, legal and regulatory systems for combating corruption, adopting a policy of zero tolerance for corruption, imposing heavy penalties on corrupt officials, and by improving living standards for civil servants.

Promote political stability within and outside the country

The impacts of political unrest and of refugees on wildlife species in Tanzania are well documented [7, 8081828384–85]. The fact that the effects of political unrest can spill over into neighbouring countries and affect the wildlife in these countries shows that it is imperative that all possible strategies are employed to maintain peace in the entire region. In order to meet this ambition, Tanzania should take a lead in advocating and ensuring that the principles of good governance, democracy and accountability are observed within and beyond its boundaries. Social problems such as inequality, injustice, corruption and nepotism should be fought at all costs as a way of maintaining peace.

Capitalize on existing opportunities

The war against elephant poaching is faced with numerous challenges. However, there are opportunities which can be used to win this war. These include increasing public awareness about the negative impacts of poaching and growing public pressure to combat poaching; the presence of relevant policies, plans and strategies (at local and global levels) aiming at addressing the problem of poaching and/or the factors which drive it; growing international concern over elephant poaching and the illicit ivory trade; and the willingness and commitment of support from the international community as is demonstrated by the declarations made in various international fora and by prominent world personalities [2425262728–29].