Lapas attēli
PDF
ePub

mittee had time to spend, there would probably be a line of wellmeaning conservation organizations with similar problems. I would hope that these organizations have the opportunity to present written testimony.

The solution we are proposing is to provide organizations involved in conservation with a blanket permit. Such a conservation permit would allow an organization to carry out all activities permitted under the laws. The organization would be required to submit reports annually to the Service, and if the Secretary thought so, he or she could revoke such a permit for violations of the conditions set forth.

I would like to, again, thank you for the opportunity to present the views of The Peregrine Fund. As you proceed toward reauthorization of the Endangered Species Act, please keep our concerns in mind.

Thank you.

Senator KEMPTHORNE. Jeff, thank you very much.

Before we continue the opening comments from our panelists, because Senator Chafee has to leave, I would like to give him an opportunity to ask a few questions before he departs.

So, Senator Chafee.

Senator CHAFEE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. My questions will be brief. Regrettably, I do have to leave. I think I can stay partially through the next witness.

Mr. Cilek, if DDT is so harmful, why do we export it?

Mr. CILEK. Sir, The Peregrine Fund is not involved with the manufacture or export of DDT. We deal strictly with the conservation of endangered birds.

Senator CHAFEE. Well, I'm familiar with the dangers and the harms it's done oversees. In Bermuda they have what they call the kahowe, which is a sea bird that lives off fish, and the kahowe has had tremendous problems because its eggs have collapsed because of the DDT in the ocean that the fish have ingested and then the kahowe gets it. I find it troubling.

The second point is in listening to your description of the permitting process both under CITES and under our laws, I can see the reason that it's there. There can be a lot of fly by-night organizations that would try to take advantage. It seems to me it has to reflect the integrity of the organization. In other words, yours is an organization that's there and legitimate and with great success and high, fine science. So I can see I would think that you would have some standing in order to get the approval far faster than I think you said, what, 5 months to get approval?

Mr. CILEK. Yes.

Senator CHAFEE. It's worthwhile looking into all of that, and I think it's good you brought up that point.

Mr. Chairman, thank you, and I apologize. I have to leave in a couple of minutes, but I'm going to listen to the start of the next witness. Again, I want to congratulate you on the panels you've put together. They've been excellent, every single one of them.

Senator KEMPTHORNE. Thank you very much, and, too, while you're still here, Senator, I just think it's worth noting that you do have a very successful conservation organization that has really brought about the recovery of the peregrine falcon, and, yet, as Jeff

has pointed out, one of the projects they had to move from Idaho to the United Kingdom because they couldn't get the permits.

Mr. CILEK. That's correct, and it's probably not entirely the fault of the Service. The laws were enacted and there is law on top of law and regulation on top of regulation. We're just kind of backed in a corner, and I think this is an area that the Service really needs some help from Congress to get out. We would be happy to work with the Service.

Senator KEMPTHORNE. Good, all right.

Let me introduce then our next witness who is Gerhardus J. Hanekom, who is the Minister of Environment and Tourism, the Republic of Namibia; accompanied by Dr. Malan Lindeque. Is that pronounced correct?

Mr. LINDEQUE. Lindeque.

Senator KEMPTHORNE. Say that again.

Mr. LINDEQUE. Lindeque.

Senator KEMPTHORNE. Lindeque, deputy director, Specialist Support Services, Ministry of Environment and Tourism, Republic of Namibia.

Mr. Minister? That's easier.

STATEMENT OF GERHARDUS J. HANEKOM, MINISTER OF ENVIRONMENT AND TOURISM, REPUBLIC OF NAMIBIA; ACCOMPANIED BY MALAN LINDEQUE, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, SPECIALIST SUPPORT SERVICES, MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT AND TOURISM, REPUBLIC OF NAMIBIA

Mr. HANEKOM. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to give evidence at this hearing which is of great importance to my country. As you've introduced myself already, I am Gerhardus Jacobus Hanekom, the Minister of Environment and Tourism of Namibia, and I am representing the Namibian Government on this occasion. I've come all the way from Windhoek in Namibia especially for this purpose.

Senator KEMPTHORNE. We're honored to have you here.

Mr. HANEKOM. Namibia is one of the four countries which launched a formal diplomatic protest about the current structure and administration of the Endangered Species Act. I am submitting to you a formal written statement with an annexure containing detailed recommendations for revising the Endangered Species Act. Actually, Mr. Chairman, my formal written statement has already been lodged. I pray indulgence to lodge a further batch of statements received from 11 organizations which support the case of Namibia and I pray your indulgence also to accept this as evidence before the committee.

International concerns about the destruction of African wildlife and reasons for having complex domestic laws such as the Endangered Species Act and international convention such as CITES stem from the ongoing destruction of wildlife habitat. It is not hunting, or poaching or trade in wildlife that is to blame for the decline of the vast majority of species in the developing world. People and governments have no option but to use available natural resources to best effect in a region beset with enormous developmental problems. Deciding how to use the land in the best interest of people is ultimately based on simple economics.

N

Our region has pursued policies which retain the highest possible values on wild species and natural landscapes. Without these values and a competitive contribution from these revenues to the development and well-being of the Nation, we will not be able to stop the progressive loss of wildlife habitat to other forms of land use. It is of great importance to us that the Endangered Species Act does not have a counter-productive effect on our domestic conservation programs. We cannot afford to subject long-term conservation programs to the threat of unilateral action by a foreign agency ostensibly in the interest of protecting our species.

We know that we can count on the support of the United States when we have serious conservation problems requiring legislative action, but we want to be frank and prefer to request such support only when required to ensure that the remedy fits the ailment.

Concerning the proposed changes to the Endangered Species Act, our response, as indicated in our written statement, seeks recognition for our own policies and programs. Inappropriate forms of protection bestowed by the Endangered Species Act dictate harmful policy to Africans about some of our species. It is imperative in our view that international conservation measures should be harmonized with conservation programs in each Nation. It is equally important that the Endangered Species Act be harmonized with CITES and the mechanism for international participation in decisionmaking that are part of this convention.

Mr. Chairman, the Constitution of the Republic of Namibia provides that-and I wish to quote

The State shall actively promote and maintain the welfare of the people for adopting inter alia a policy aimed at the maintenance of the biological diversity of Namibia and utilization of living, natural resources on a sustainable basis for the benefit of all Namibians.

Mr. Chairman, we are committed to this idea. We are pursuing all options to maintain the coexistence between people and wildlife in a harsh and unforgiving environment.

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I wish to thank you for having listened to me, and I wish to invite you to visit my country to see what we are really doing there.

I thank you.

Senator KEMPTHORNE. Mr. Minister, thank you very much, and I would look forward to the future when I can visit your country. I know it would be a very wonderful experience.

Let me also acknowledge Rams Rammutla-you can call me Dirk.

[Laughter.]

Senator KEMPTHORNE. Deputy Director, South Africa National Parks Board, Republic of South Africa. Our next speaker will be Stephen Kasere who is the deputy director, CAMPFIRE Association, Zimbabwe.

Mr. KASERE.

STATEMENT OF STEPHEN KASERE, DEPUTY DIRECTOR,
CAMPFIRE ASSOCIATION, ZIMBABWE

Mr. KASERE. Mr. Chairman, members of the Senate, thank you very much for this opportunity which you have accorded me. My name is Stephen Kasere, deputy director of a community-based in

tegrated conservation and rural development program in Zimbabwe called CAMPFIRE.

Please understand why we oppose the Endangered Species Act. Although it is an endeavor to protect our species, but it really controls the safety of our economy and our people. Let me start by giving you a background of the political economy of my country, Zimbabwe.

The crisis faced by Zimbabwe today is an acute shortage of land for both human and wildlife habitation. During the colonial era, European settlers claimed the best land and forced the majority population of black people into arid and semi-arid areas which are called "communal areas." It is in these areas today where 55 percent of our people live in abject poverty. Lack of serious development commitments by the colonial governments in the past were worsened by the fact that many of these communal settlements were located near or around national parks, which take up 18 percent of our total land. The parks protect overpopulations of government-owned elephants and other species, and they destroy our crops and kill our children.

The destruction of our crops by animals that we were not allowed to control or utilize for our economic or spiritual well-being in the past has engendered strong resistance from our people. They even saw international poachers as heros for eliminating an unnecessary danger.

To end this apartheid and to bring to halt serious poaching, the government introduced the program, CAMPFIRE, which gives communities ownership and the right to utilize wildlife in a sustainable way by allowing controlled sports hunting, on a strict quota basis set up by the Department of National Parks. The quotas don't exceed 0.75 percent of the total of the species. CAMPFIRE has managed to generate income for peasants, which cushions the cost of crops which are destroyed by elephants and species. That's persuading them to tolerate species as assets and not liabilities.

Much of the income generated through CAMPFIRE has been invested into crucial development projects such as schools, clinics, game fences, which people themselves decide. About 20 percent of the income has been applied back into anti-poaching and other programs which are meant to protect our species.

Such programs include the hiring of game guards who protect the wildlife species because the people now realize that these resources are an asset. They are now a resource, and no longer a pest that we should destroy. Crops are a form of compensation too.

In Southern Africa we are involved in a lot of networking and research programs, so it is therefore not a surprise that we, in Zimbabwe, through SACIM and our Ambassadors, oppose the proposed Endangered Species Act's endeavor. It waters down our conservation strategies, which we think are the only way for the region, by emphasizing on strictness and prohibition. The Endangered Species Act has only limited benefits which compensate our people against the cost.

Sport hunting, when done in a very limited manner in a very controlled way, is the best way of controlling species population, particularly elephants. Crop destruction is costly to human beings. Adult species of wildlife also need our protection outside the Na

tional Parks. I will emphasize, ladies and gentlemen, that we are talking of consumptive use of our resources outside the National Parks. Otherwise, no consumptive use is allowed in protected areas, but these are animals which are living with people outside the protected areas. We need to find out an economic way of protecting our people from suffering the cost imposed by this wildlife. We think that the Endangered Species Act when it addresses the use of foreign animal species, and then paints Africans as coldblooded exterminators of wildlife, such that we must be controlled from the outside, fails to realize that African people have a great passion and sympathy for wildlife.

As a matter of fact, there is one thing that has always been overlooked by northerners-as Zimbabweans, we have a strong cultural attachment to our wildlife. This attachment makes it imperative to utilize our game sustainably, as almost every animal has a spiritual significance. Almost every indigenous black Zimbabwean has a totem of an animal which means that he associates his survival with the survival of that particular animal, and this is a serious lesson, gentlemen. We strongly believe that if the elephant is no longer there in Zimbabwe, all the people who believe in the elephant, who enjoys the totem of the elephant, will no longer feel that spiritual protection. Therefore, it is an obligation on our part to look after the elephant and all the other species.

But all this said, we feel that we should have a stronger arena for international arrangements and control, and we strongly lobbied in support of CITES as the best instrument to articulate our sentiments and point to our development in the future.

Let me emphasize that our concern is neither to interfere with the Endangered Species Act insofar as it deals with your species in America nor to plead here to be allowed to ruthlessly massacre our wildlife for profit. We are not callous wildlife killers as the latest spate of propaganda would have you believe. We are a rational group of people whose own development is at its lowest ebb, and, therefore, trying to find out how best we can utilize our limited land for both conservation and development.

So to wrap it up, Mr. Chairman, as much as we would expect that the Endangered Species Act is your internal business and that we do not vote in American politics, it is our most profound opinion that this Act should be changed as it takes away the only benefits for poor countries of conserving wildlife without taking the heavy costs. I am sure it is not beyond your ability to accommodate a few changes, which would suit all rational individuals who wish to see Africa's spectacular wildlife survive and our people together.

I could go further, Mr. Chairman, to explain the relationship of our wildlife and the dangers, the loss of species, which is the result of political instability, political instability which has been instigated by profit. We feel that if we accommodate some economic benefit, we would reduce the chances of political instability, which alone claim a lot of wild species which go unrecorded.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator KEMPTHORNE. Mr. Kasere, thank you very much.

Our next witness will be Dr. John Grandy, who is the vice president of Wildlife and Habitat Protection, the Humane Society of the United States here in Washington.

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »