Previous Page Table of Contents Next Page


4.1 Wildlife administration


4.1.1 Policy and legislation
4.1.2 Organization of the wildlife administration services
4.1.3 Administrative performance
4.1.4 Wildlife protection services


Species biology and wildlife utilization patterns are essential elements in wildlife management. There is also a further set of factors that affect the current status and projected future of wildlife resources. Here it is worth listening to the experts who gave their views in the survey of the major problems of wildlife in the Latin American context (Table 29). Fully one third indicated habitat destruction as the most worrying aspect. This was followed by indifference and lack of government support for wildlife. Next in importance was illegal hunting. Grouping the problems by sectors, the various types of administrative problems (42 percent of the responses) overlap with problems concerning the habitat (34 percent). Wildlife utilization was the most pressing concern of a bare 12 percent of those interviewed, and only 6 percent indicated gaps in the research sector as a major problem.

4.1.1 Policy and legislation

National wildlife policy charts the Government's general strategy, principles and objectives for the wildlife sector as part of overall environmental policy. This includes legislation, administrative organization and policy programmes.

The picture of wildlife policy and legislation as it developed in Latin America is quite heterogeneous. In some countries wildlife has only attracted the government's attention quite recently and there is still no legislation on wildlife and wildlife utilization (e.g. El Salvador, Honduras). In other countries the wildlife rules and regulations are obsolete and incomplete. Some countries have adopted protectionist-minded policies, prohibiting almost all wildlife utilization, e.g. Brazil, Colombia, Panama and Paraguay. Others such as Argentina, Costa Rica, Mexico, Nicaragua, Peru, Suriname and Venezuela are trying to combine the protection of endangered species with the controlled utilization of numerically sufficient species. Wildlife policies often veer suddenly from one course to the other, having been introduced as transitory measures under political and economic pressure.

The existing legislation was updated after 1970 in several countries in the region. This was probably partially stimulated by the controversy that arose over the massive exportation of wildlife and wildlife products during the 1960s. This new generation of laws, particularly in Argentina (25, 26), Bolivia (62), Brazil (76), Colombia (127, 128), Costa Rica (146), Ecuador (171), Peru (467), Suriname (566) and Venezuela (601), recognizes wildlife as a public resource and there is a legislative focus on protection, promotion and programmed management that goes far beyond mere game laws designed simply and solely to regulate wildlife utilization. This recent legislation embraces the creation of wildlife protection and production areas; habitat protection and enhancement; the promotion of biological research; incentives for wildlife production in captivity; environmental education; cooperation between rural landowners, hunting clubs and the wildlife services; national technical advisory commissions; the generation of special funds for wildlife management and research, and a host of other measures.

Table 29. Summary of answers to question 43 of the survey: What do you consider the most pressing wildlife problem in your country?

Answers

No.

%

Sector

1) Deforestation and habitat destruction

16

32

habitat

2) Indifference and lack of support on the part of the Government

10

20

administration

3) Poaching

5

10

utilization

4) Bureaucracy, lack of coordination of official action

3

6

administration

5) Lack of compliance with laws

3

6

administration

6) Lack of biological data

3

6

research

7) Shortage of funds and technical personnel

2

4

administration

8) Subordinate position and powerlessness of wildlife services

2

4

administration

9) Gap between legislation and the real situation in the country

1

2

administration

10) Commercial hunting

1

2

utilization

11) Population explosion

1

2

-

12) Lack of wildlife refuges and reserves

1

2

habitat

13) Gradual decline of wildlife resources

1

2

-

14) Extinctions

1

2

-


50

100


Administrative sector

21

42


Habitat sector

17

34


Utilization sector

6

12


Research sector

3

6


Other

3

6



50

100


Wildlife legislation usually covers terrestrial wildlife, excluding marine species. In some countries there is a special legal focus on subsistence hunting whereas others do not recognize this category (Table 2), lumping the rural user together with sport hunters. Commercial hunting is expressly prohibited in a number of countries. Wildlife legislation is national in scope throughout Latin America except for Argentina which has general federal guidelines, each province drawing up its own specific laws.

In countries with fairly up-to-date legislation, hunting, where permitted, follows a regionalized timetable of open and closed seasons, bag limits, areas where hunting is permitted, and other regulations covering each specific game species. In countries lying in the northern hemisphere, the hunting season runs from August or September to March or May (e.g. Mexico, Costa Rica, Trinidad and Tobago) or from January to July (Venezuela). South of the equator, the seasons run mid-year from April to October or November in Peru and Bolivia, from April to July in Chile, and from May to August or September in Argentina and Uruguay. The total length of the hunting season can be 6 months or more. The season for individual species and specific geographical areas is shorter, however, usually no more than 2 or 4 months. The open season in Suriname lasts almost all year, and is 9 months for ducks, and 7 months for cracids. Caiman, Dasyprocta and Hydrochaeris can be hunted all year long. In line with the hunting timetables, some countries have enacted similar regulations for catching, keeping and selling ornamental and songbirds (135, 136, 388, 457, 566, 584). All Latin American countries except El Salvador, Honduras and Mexico have ratified the CITES Convention and restricted exports of native wildlife and their products, except for the products of captive breeding.

The survey showed that nearly half (48 percent) of the experts consulted believed the legislation in force in their respective countries to be obsolete or unrealistic, 26 percent found it adequate, 22 percent satisfactory and 4 percent virtually non-existent - an indication of the sizeable differences between countries. The Brazilian experts, for example, were in agreement with the legislation in force, whereas most of the Mexicans felt that their hunting laws, which date from 1951, are now obsolete.

4.1.2 Organization of the wildlife administration services

In most Latin American countries the wildlife administration services operate under the Ministry of Agriculture or a related ministry. The exceptions are Belize, Costa Rica, Mexico, Nicaragua and Venezuela, where an autonomous institute or ministry for environmental affairs is also responsible for wildlife. The office responsible for wildlife administration, at directorate, department or division level, is subordinate to or part of the forest and/or national park services. This type of organization should facilitate the integrated management of renewable natural resources within the land-use sector. The connection between the management of national parks, refuges and reserves and wildlife conservation, a key element in the wildlife policy of Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, Chile, Peru and Costa Rica, deserves special attention. A full 81 percent of those polled in the survey considered this fundamental.

Subordinating wildlife administrations to higher-ranking bodies in which timber or forest industry interests may easily prevail can foster great dependency. High-level decisions may well choose to ignore the technical arguments in favour of wildlife. In practice, the autonomy of wildlife policy-makers depends very much on the personal and political influence of the head of the wildlife service. Interviews and surveys do show, however, that many wildlife administrators see themselves as islands in a sea of public and official indifference, trammeled by inappropriate policies and sterile bureaucracies (Table 29). This subordination, combined with the fact that staff, funds and equipment for the wildlife services have low priority, seriously hinders development efforts.

The wildlife service is usually headquartered in the ministry and in the nation's capital. Argentina, with its highly autonomous provinces, is an exception. The regional services vary from one country to the next in terms of their importance, but most just carry out instructions handed down from the head office (269, 480, 525).

The professional staff of the wildlife administration mainly consist of biologists, foresters, agronomists, veterinarians, lawyers, etc. While the wildlife services generally do not have enough staff, the main operating constraint may be qualitative rather than quantitative. The motivation and experience of some officials may partly offset gaps in specialized formal academic training, but there is absolutely no question that properly trained staff are in very short supply in many Latin American countries. Additionally, having the right politics or the right friends may be more important than one's professional curriculum. Job stability for wildlife officers is usually satisfactory, but government salaries are so low that many people with a good academic background in the sector prefer to seek employment elsewhere. The technical capacity of the wildlife services is often limited by the topheavy concentration of staff at headquarters, much of whose time is spent on secondary activities because the finances and logistics do not permit field work.

Some countries have made legal provisions for external advisory commissions to speak for wildlife users, scientists, conservationist groups and other sectors concerned with wildlife (76, 135, 457, 584, 587, 601). Mostly, however, government agencies seem to dictate and implement wildlife policies without public participation. Laws in force are also often not sufficiently well-disseminated. Rural users, in particular, are not well-informed about closed seasons, bag limits, protected areas and other wildlife protection measures. Legal provisions and procedures too complicated for the average (fairly unschooled) rural user are a further barrier to understanding between wildlife users and administrators.

4.1.3 Administrative performance

The work of the wildlife administrations runs the gamut from planning action and strategy to such mundane duties as issuing licences, keeping statistical records, processing infractions, managing protected areas, and so forth.

The usual requirements for a sport hunting licence in Latin America include: 1) a minimum age of 18; 2) a request with personal history and photograph; 3) a valid licence to carry a gun; 4) payment of the fees entailed. In Brazil and Mexico the applicant must also belong to a hunting club, and Venezuela extends preferential treatment to organized hunters. Colombian legislation (128) also requires familiarity with the use of firearms and a knowledge of the regulations in force.

The surveys show that nearly half (48 percent) of those consulted considered their country's wildlife administration to be purely bureaucratic and divorced from everyday reality, 36 percent thought it was relatively functional with respect to legal hunting and sport hunting, 12 percent deemed it non-existent and only 5 percent found it functional and efficient.

The survey graded the performance of selected functions as good, average, poor and zero. These were weighted on a numerical scale of 3, 2, 1 and 0 points, respectively, to allow comparisons of countries and duties (Table 30).

A two-way variance analysis indicated statistically significant differences among countries (F = 3.51; 9 and 348 degrees of freedom) and highly significant differences between functions (F = 6.26; 11 and 348 degrees of freedom), whereas there was no significant interaction between countries and functions. This analysis considered countries represented by three or more surveys and two groups: "other countries of tropical South America" (Bolivia, Ecuador and Paraguay) and "other Central American countries" (El Salvador, Nicaragua and Panama).

The best grade for performance was in issuing licences (2.18 points, between average and good). This was also statistically different from the rest (t = 2.82**). It was followed from top to bottom by the planning of hunting seasons, the management of parks, refuges, reserves and other protected areas, wildlife research, and public relations with users and with the education and extension services, with no statistically significant differences between the relative rankings which ran from average to poor. The performance of tasks of vital importance to wildlife management such as preventing poaching and the application of sanctions was very poor: there was a statistical difference between the ranking of the first three duties in Table 30. The poorest performance appraisals were given to population monitoring and estimates and to long-term management and planning.

Wildlife administration performances from one country to the next ranked from average to poor, with numerous statistically significant differences between the top- and bottom-ranking countries. There were no statistically significant differences between countries represented by three or more surveys (from Peru to Brazil in Table 30), which might indicate a bias introduced by the fact that so few people were consulted in the others.

4.1.4 Wildlife protection services

Wildlife protection services are necessary to ensure effective compliance with the regulations governing wildlife utilization. This is vitally important in tropical America where most hunters disregard or do not know the existing laws. Many authors found wildlife protection to be the weak point of wildlife management in these countries (123, 226, 269, 334, 336, 404, 444, 452, 573).

In most countries in the area, these services come under the same office that is responsible for resource administration (Appendix 3), and enjoy the cooperation of military or police organizations. In the rest (Peru and Venezuela are examples), the main responsibility lies with a military body or police force, with the administrative agency playing a backup role.

A military-style body, armed, uniformed and with strict vertical hierarchy under, perhaps, the Ministry of Defence, may perform wildlife protection duties more efficiently than civilians. Military staff are generally equipped and trained for field work, they are more strictly disciplined, and their uniform, weapons and reputation inspire respect for authority and perhaps even fear. However, a dual chain of command, with authority shared between the legal administrative body and the military organization, can lead to irregularities and deviations from the original instructions. When ranger services are performed by military and police agents, the educational side is usually wholly subordinate to the repressive function (282, 525).

Wildlife protection includes control over hunting weapons. The sale, ownership and bearing of firearms will be under the control of either the military, the police or the municipal authorities, depending on the type of firearm and the country. Some countries in the area monitor firearms very closely because of internal tensions, and this may alleviate hunting pressure. Bullets and other munitions for hunting rifles are sold unsupervised in most countries of the area most of the year (Source: surveys).

Wildlife protection services may be: 1) permanent, e.g. based in national parks or other protected areas and in roadside checkpoints or booths, or 2) intermittent e.g. field patrols, mobile checkpoints and the inspection of livestock breeding, tanning or commercial ventures, etc.

Very few countries in the area have specialized game wardens. Wildlife protection and supervisory duties usually cover all natural renewable resources and often many other functions, cutting heavily into the time and effort dedicated to wildlife protection activities, and severely limiting special training in the performance of these activities. A better-trained wildlife protection staff is a top wildlife management priority in Latin America (269, 282, 404, 405, 525).

The low score under the heading "preventing poaching" in Table 30 is just one indication of the poor performance of the wildlife protection services. The survey findings show that protection is more effective in national parks and other protected areas (Table 31), followed in decreasing order of importance by customs stations, commerce and highways. Only 11 percent believed that wildlife protection and supervision were effective in the field and one third of those interviewed felt that these services were ineffective at all levels. The scores were similar for Mexico and Central America, tropical South America and the southern part of South America (coefficient of agreement W = 0.874***), but wildlife protection and supervision does apparently tend to be somewhat better in the southern part of South America, particularly in the national parks.

Table 30. Performance of various wildlife administration activities: good = 3, average = 2, poor =1,0= zero. Source: Surveys, No. 44. The figures in the main table are averages for countries and functions. The averages of each function in the last column are calculated from the original data of each survey


Previous Page Top of Page Next Page