When conservation science puts a price on an elephant’s death

In South Africa, the conservation management of elephants in Madikwe and Pilanesberg has become a contentious issue, pushing debates beyond the realm of ecology. During a recent parliamentary session, Sam Ferreira, the SANParks large-mammal specialist, unveiled the scientific modelling that underpins their proposed elephant population management strategies. These strategies encompass a range of interventions, including contraception, translocation, and lethal removal, with thirty-four different scenarios evaluated.

Although Ferreira emphasized that trophy hunting was not the initial focus, he did acknowledge that "some of those elephants that you need to remove may also provide opportunities to have other additional secondary economic outcomes." This remark, though carefully phrased, raises essential questions about the role of economics in conservation efforts.

The distinction made by Ferreira between scientific determinations of removal and the subsequent consideration of economic benefits is critical to examine. Once the death of an elephant is assigned economic value, the question no longer solely revolves around whether a population can withstand the loss of a single animal. Instead, it becomes a matter of the prevailing philosophy that guides South Africa's wildlife management, wherein animals are perceived as biological populations to be managed, yet simultaneously as economic assets whose survival—or sometimes demise—may lead to financial returns.

The context of Ferreira's statement is not devoid of intellectual substance. He is a respected conservation scientist with substantial contributions to South African large-mammal ecology and is known for cautioning against simplistic ecological arguments supporting culls. In the aftermath of the Madikwe controversy last year, Ferreira cautioned against over-simplifications, arguing that factors like rainfall, vegetation, ecological processes, and management objectives should also be considered.

However, Ferreira's work and public stances have revealed another layer of his perspectives on conservation. He has publicly defended South Africa's regulated hunting system for elephants, leopards, and black rhinos, portraying the activities as capable of generating conservation benefits when wildlife populations remain viable and landscapes are functional. This argument, based on consequentialism, has gained traction in South African conservation circles.

The sustainability of these practices, however, remains a contentious point. Ferreira has explored the feasibility of legalizing international trade in rhino horn, emphasizing the need for governments to discern which interventions deliver the greatest conservation returns. This economic approach to wildlife management has been evident in various policy frameworks, where considerations such as protection, trade, hunting, and economic incentives are weighed alongside biological sustainability.