There has been an interesting exchange between Ann in Sweden, David in Tokyo, and others following my blog post of 23rd April titled ‘Norway to Kill More Whales’.
The discussion has now moved from whales to elephants.
I lived in Kenya from 1989 through to late 1992 and visited Zimbabwe and South Africa. It was evident back then that there were too many elephants in southern Zimbabwe, while they were being shot out of Kenya.
I have previously mentioned the book by Raymond Bonner, ‘At the Hand of Man: Peril and hope for Africa’s Wildlife’ (Alfred Knopf, New York 1993, pp 322) which is about the early history of conservation groups in Africa and how their staff in Africa supported trade in ivory. But the fundraisers and executives at their headquarters in Europe and the USA wanted bans … lobbying for a ban on ivory generated membership and donations.
I’ve copied the following comment from David, because it does raise the very real issue of how ‘Africa’ can and should manage its elephants. Elephants can be so destructive and require so much space, and ‘Africa’ is being denied the opportunity to make money from ivory – which could give elephants a local value and in this way aid conservation of the species?
David wrote:
Ann,
Sorry, but your statements do confuse me. 🙂
Countries like Kenya are more than welcome to manage their elephants how they see fit.
However, they campaigned to have a ban on the ivory trade put in place because they had failed to manage their elephant populations, consequently suffering from poaching etc. The problem was, when the ban was imposed in 1989, it led to other nations being forced to abide by the ban even though their circumstances were different.
While Kenya had failed miserably to look after her elephants, nations in Southern Africa had been doing a fine job, and their elephants were in good shape. Here’s the thing – there is a demand for elephant products. Rather than ban this trade, why not permit it, make money from it, and with those funds manage and regulate the industry for the good of conservation?
Read about Zimbabwe’s CAMPFIRE approach to conservation here:
“While economic incentives are indispensable, the programme preaches and practises sustainable consumption as a vehicle for development. This is the language the Zimbabwean people and their ancestors have been practising since time immemorial.”
Unfortunately, NGO groups from the Western world seem to care more about African elephants than they do about African people.
Remembering that all parties agree that conserving elephants is a priority, which do you give more importance Ann? African elephants or African people?
As for relocation, nations in Southern Africa should be under no obligation to relocate their (valuable) elephants to Kenya, a nation which has failed abismally to look after theirs (unless Kenya wishes to pay?).
Even in Kenya, the elephant levels are growing these days – but for how long will the ecosystem be able to sustain continued growth?
Then what? Ship elephants to Sweden perhaps? 🙂
Westerners seem to love them so much, let’s see how they enjoy having them overrunning the local neighbourhood.
David
Thousands of elephants were culled in South Africa last year.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
David,
I have never heard that the Kenyan’s have failed to look after her elephants- can you please provide me a link?
On the other hand there have been numerous reports in media that the Zimbabwe national parks used to be a good revenue for Zimbabwe but now were looted by former rebels.
For Johnny Rodriguez, chairman of the Zimbabwe Conservation Taskforce (ZCTF), the best method of dealing with high elephant populations lies in the creation of better-managed habitats such as trans-frontier parks, and migration corridors to allow greater movement of animals between countries.
The ZCTF was formed by a group of Zimbabwean nationals in 2001 in response to concerns about poaching.
“The country cannot afford more losses because it has already lost too much valuable wildlife to commercial and subsistence poachers since farm invasions began in February 2000 as part of the controversial fast-track land reform programme,” says Rodriguez
Regarding ivory trade , in my opinion that would only lead to increased poaching, not only of elephants , but also encourage trade of other endangered animals especially in Asia, where trade in animal parts is huge. I think trafficking in endangered animal parts is third(?)
in numbers of dollars after trade in weapons and drugs, and I don’t think ivory trade would benefit poor people at all, who are victims as well .
Hi Ann
You can buy a copy of Bonner’s book through Amazon.com for about US$9. It gives a real insight into the politics of wildlife protection in Kenya, Zimbabwe and other African countries from the 1950s through to the 1990s. It is well researched, by an American law graduate turned journalist who lived in Africa for a few years.
And it supports David’s view.
I can’t image things are going well in Zimbabwe now though.
Ann,
In saying that Kenya mismanaged her elephants, what I mean is that overseeing a massive decrease in elephant numbers in that country, which subsequently lead to the ban in ivory trade, was mismanagement.
My ideal of “good management” of wildlife basically means “conserving” wildlife, and in “conserving” wildlife, I mean “sustainable utilization”. If you can’t use a resource, there is no incentive to conserve it. Kenya failed in this regard, resulting in an ivory trade ban, to the detriment of other nations.
There is a interesting comparison of the management approaches taken by Kenya and Zimbabwe in the article here:
http://www.coloradocollege.edu/Dept/EC/Faculty/Hecox/erichecox/kenzim.html
The key to success in Zimbabwe appears to have stemmed from a government Act in 1975:
“Designed to maintain the country’s biodiversity through a unique policy stressing local participation and utilization, this policy changed the idea of ownership of natural resources. Under this act, wildlife was recognized as the property of those who lived with it. Still the basis of Zimbabwe’s wildlife management strategy, this act put forth the belief that wildlife must be useful to the local people in order to ensure its preservation.”
The notion of empowering the people who are closest to the wildlife by entrusting them with management seems to me to be the best way to ensure conservation of wildlife. Not just in poor African communities, but all over the globe. Humans have literally been to the moon and back. There is absolutely no reason why we can’t conserve biodiversity if we put our minds to it, but there needs to be an incentive to do so.
In the interests of full-disclosure, though, I should note that the IWMC / Eugene Lapointe supports this conservation technique, so that may make it unacceptable to you 🙂
It also doesn’t seem compatible with the idea of relocating excess (valuable) elephants to other nations that have, through mismanagement, run short of them. If those nations were prepared to pay for the elephants and transportation fees, it could be a practical solution, but otherwise I see that as removing the incentives from the locals to manage their wildlife wisely.
Hi Jennifer,
I’ll buy the book and get some information on what different or opposing parties say on this issue.
To David,
As you told me , I ‘m a bit confused as well. Are your main interest the ecosystem or the African people(how they can benefit from ivory trade)?
Can we use the same parameters as in whaling?
Whaling nations are the richest in the world( not thanks to whaling) while Zimbabwe is among the poorest nations in the world and South Africa is the richest country in Africa.
In Tanzania there are big game and elephant hunting safaris.
In Zimbawbe conservation of wildlife is considered as something colonial , according to a website .
Many questions but indeed a very interesting issue that I will explore more .
I would like to make a correction.
Should we use the criteria that David mentioned.
Why not treat each population on a case by case basis, as would be the case with catch limits for whales. Davids input.
Ann,
> Are your main interest the ecosystem or the African people(how they can benefit from ivory trade)?
Both!
Firstly – I believe that African people are a part of their ecosystem!! Humans are a part of nature – this did not stop just because the western colonials arrived in Africa. I believe that people will conserve their ecosystem if their ecosystem is what provides them with their way of life. And by escaping from poverty through use of their resources, people are better equipped to conserve their resources. Poor people have no money to spend on conservation, but rich people who got rich because of their resources have a clear incentive to continue to conserve their resources, so that they can grow even more wealthy from their use.
Zimbabwe is indeed poor, but were they permitted to make full use of their resources (by selling elephant products, which they are simply stockpiling instead), they could be richer. This situation has been brought about by an ivory trade ban supported by western nations because Kenyan conservation policy was a failure.
Whaling nations are indeed wealthy, and for that reason we see particularly the Japanese government spending heaps of cash on research programmes in the Antarctic – not only their lethal research programmes, but non-lethal programmes as well. I wrote about that here:
http://david-in-tokyo.blogspot.com/2006/02/iwc-2006-more-good-news-for-blue.html
Again, this is a similar situation – western NGOs and governments are complaining to Japan about it’s use of the by-products of their whale research programmes, and trying to stop it, whereas without these funds non-lethal research wouldn’t be funded either.
Self-funding conservation is, in my opinion, the way to go.
Ann and David,
I lived in Africa, in the bush, for over a decade. I agree with David that humans are part of the ecosystem, which includes both Nature and Human Society. Ignore either, and you are in trouble.
I remember elephants being a big nuisance, and indeed danger, to African villagers. They had to drive them off their crops by shouting and banging saucepans – not a safe procedure.
I don’t know how the Campfire Scheme is fairing under the present crackpot Zimbabwean regime, but to anyone who has spent significant time in the African bush, I would say it is the only viable option.
I once met an Indian conservationist who described how misguided attempts to conserve the Indian lion, which ignored the needs of villagers, led to mass evictions, loss of valuable cattle, and even child snatching by the increasing lion population.
There is a big difference between the dream world of some theoretical conservationists, and the reality of an ecosystem which includes both Nature and Society.
In Australia, some theoretical conservationists deny, or choose to ignore, the effect of past Aboriginal management of the land by judicious, deliberate burning. The result of this whitefella stupidity is vast, ferocious, and unstoppable bushfires. The news media love it, but the kangaroos and possums don’t.
David and Davey,
I do know the ongoing conflict between humans vs. wildlife, which is mainly caused by habitat loss, and I can sure undestand how dangerous it is to meet a raged elephant bull eye to eye.
But even in a country like Sweden with vast forests and a small population, there’s a conflict or I should rather say a hatred between especially wolves and humans( in the Northern parts of our country).
The Northernes claim the wolves that are only about 100 are a threat to their cattle , but the truth is that the hunting dogs and stray dogs kill more sheep yearly than the wolves.
On the other hand in Estonia, Sweden’s neighbour country, one of the smallest nations in the world, there’s no conflict at all between wildlife and humans, despite the population of predators are big. The wolves, lynx and bears live peacefully among farmers( or in the forests near farms, and of course there are lots of prey in the forest).
David mentioned correctly that poor people don’t care about conservation and that Western NGOs or commercial interest shall not dictate African interest. But many times independent nations have asked for advice from NGO’ such as Greenpeace and IFAW.
Regarding Zimbabwe David, no I really don’t believe ivory trade could help them out of poverty. The issue in Zimbabwe is much more complex, weren’t they once one of the richest countries in Africa?
An interesting article from the IUCN:
” A combination of hunting and protected areas- a way forward to conserve large natural ecosystems in Africa?
Large mammal conservation in west and central Africa is often described as problematic. However, the complemetary association of National Parks (public management with most human activities excluded) and Hunting Areas (private managment with human activity controlled) shows encouraging results for the conservation of very large natural ecosystems in the region. In Benin, Burkino Faso and Niger, the transfrontier WAP ecosystem is made up of three national Parks (W, Arly and Pendjari) surrounded by Hunting Areas which act as buffer zones. This has produced a positive conservation dynamic. Hunting Areas provide satisfaction for hunters who generate revenue through controlled hunting and act as a first line of exposure to agricultural encroachment. Conservation benefits have already been observed, with a substantial increase in large antelopes, elephants and buffalo in the first National Park (W) to be censused. SSC Antelope Specialist
Trying to put a commercial value on wildlife to assist in conservation was tried by the founder of Australia’s Earth Santuaries. Dr John Wamsley tried to include the value of endangered wildlife that he was raising in his sanctuaries as part of the companies bottom line. He also tried to get approval to sell animals bred in the Sanctuary to help fund his conservation work, this approval never came.
Dr John Wamsley story can be found at http://www.burkesbackyard.com.au/1997/archives/27/conservation_and_the_environment/warrawong_sanctuary
and http://www.deh.gov.au/minister/env/2003/mr31may303.html
Yep, sounds good Ann. Keep us posted here down here in Australia. I think innovative thinking is the way forward, as in almost any problem. I’m afraid some Australian conservationists are living in the past, with a dogmatic, quasi-religious attitude. Not conducive to innovation. We have all seen, recently, how destructive religious dogma can be, and dogmatic conservationists are not much better. My god lives in the streams and forests, but actually likes humans – well, likes me, anyway… also likes Swedes, from what I have seen on a few visits to your beautiful country. I came once to a meeting about Human Ecology (Nature & Society) at the University of Goteborg. I remember the Volvos stopping for the hares to finish scratching themselves and get off the road. Now that’s the way humans should be.
I would have thought the hares would have been faster than a Volvo….its an odd world when a countries wealth can be determined by the number of elephants
Hi Cinders,
Thanks for your links.
I must say that I share Dr.Wamsley’s opinion on cats. Yes , they are wonderful pets, but they cause big harm to wildlife, I can see that every day as a wildlife rehabilitator. Personally , I have fenced in my garden, so no cats can enter into the garden, because my garden is a “little bird heaven”.
In Sweden about 20 million birds are killed annually by cats.
Gosh those Volvos are intelligent. Do they stop for humans too?
Davey, thanks for your kind words, btw I’m completely new to this blog, I like it , it’s a good mix of opinions here, it is never boring in that way!
Ann, I would gladly PAY someone to run over the hares around my place, as soon as I plant some trees they come along and nibble them back to a stick then cut them off and larger ones they strip the bark off. If my wealth was judged by the number of hares I am supporting I am a billionaire.
Hahaa Rog,
Interesting to hear what happens down under. Well, we don’t have problems with hares,there could be too many roe deers roaming around in people’s gardens and eating tulips and apple trees. Some years there are really lot of roe deers here, probably beacause there are TOO FEW FOXES HERE! Yes, it’s true .Well, there is a disease among foxes here, they are affected by mange.
I wonder what brings in more revenue to poor African nations, David’s proposal ” sustainable utilization”( whick I assume means elephant killing etc) or non-lethal eco-tourism? In Kenya, South Africa, Namibia I believe eco-tourism is big business but there could be other options as well as pointed out in the IUCN article I posted.
Recent reports show that eco-tourism seems to be very beneficial, for example whale watching in Iceland is really a great industry that brings in lot of revenue for whale watching companies, the whale watching industry makes much more profit than the whaling industry.
Ann,
If there is demand for eco-tourism, and the local people agree that it is a better way to utilize their wild resources, surely they would have realized this themselves by now.
So, they obviously haven’t realized this.
Maybe this is because it’s not true.
Maybe it is true, but the demand is not apparent.
What I suggest is that, instead of western sofa-environmentalists sitting infront of their computers and tv screens handwringing about the silly natives on the other side of the world, they get out of their chairs, organize their friends to spend thousands of dollars transporting themselves to these regions, and start waving local currency at these people, and hire a translator to tell them “we want to see your wildlife – show us!”
Even then, this doesn’t necessarily solve the problems of wildlife outgrowing their ecosystem through unnatural protections.
People in these regions used to kill their wildlife for food before the white man came to settle in their lands and impose their (I would argue misguided) values.
Consequently there is no reason why whale-watching and whale consumption cultures can not co-exist in the same regions.
The stopping block is not with those local peoples, but instead with the potential eco-tourist westerners who make threats of boycotts against nations on the other side of the world who have different ideas about resource management. If western people were less domineering and culturally insensitive, this problem would not exist.
I would have thought that these ventures such as whale watching have limited revenue due to their very passive nature – lookers not participators.
Campers bring little or no revenue yet consume resources (sewage etc) whilst resort occupiers are cash flow positive.
Rog,
Whale watching is a booming industry, a multi-billion dollar industry, I think about 80 countries worldwide are involved in this business, from Far East Russia to Australia.
Whale watching is of particular importance to developing countries as coastal communities start to profit directly from the whale’s presence.
Ironically, whale watching is popular and growing rapidly even in countries that still hunt whales such as Japan, Norway and Iceland.
The size and rapid growth of the whale watching industry has led to complex and unconcluded debates with the whaling industry about the best use of whales as a natural resource.
I would also like to mention that in Husavik, , major whale watching community in Iceland, nobody supports Iceland’s resumption of scientific whaling. Actually the flags were on half masts when Iceland resumed scientific whaling in 2003.
But , whale watching as everything else in Iceland is very expensive.
Ann, I am surprised that whale watching is a multi-billion $ industry, the guys I know who are in it dont seem to have much spare cash.
There was a report, the Hoyt report, that assessed the industry globally at $1B.
NZ have also analysed the industry, this is their summary;
Whale watching has matured further as an industry in the period between 1998 and 2004. The structure of the New Zealand whale watching industry has now become apparent. A majority of whale watch activities are nature-based marine tourism including occasional whale and/or dolphin watching. This compares with other locations where there is a more singular emphasis on cetaceans.
In order to reflect the multiple focus of New Zealand tourism, a low proportion of indirect expenditures related to the whale and dolphin watching have been counted – so that the estimate of both whale watchers and expenditures accurately reflects only those participants actually viewing cetaceans.
http://www.ifaw.org/ifaw/dimages/custom/2_Publications/Whales/NZ_Whale_Watching_2005.pdf
Further analysis in Australia show that it is difficult to maintain sales, Hervey Bay has reached saturation and is in decline possibly as other markets open up.
http://www.ifaw.org/ifaw/dimages/custom/whale_watching_au/pdf/Final%20report.pdf
Ann,
I see no irony that peoples that hunt whales also have the opportunity to exploit them through whale watching activities.
There is no irony, because providing the whaling and whale watching industries are conducted in a sustainable fashion, the whale stocks will illustrate positive growth rates, and while there is growth in whale numbers, whaling is certainly possible, as is whale watching. Both industries need sturdy supplies of whales, and neither industry seeks to deplete or drive stocks to extinction.
There does not need to be a choice about which exploitation is the “best”.
Why choose only one form of revenue, when you could take both?
Additionally, whaling is the only approach that can ensure consistency with modern ecosystem based fisheries approaches which we can expect to develop further in coming years.
Rog,
A WWF report from 2001 assesed the industry globally at $1,23B. And the number of whale watchers is increasing at 12% per year.
However , what I have heard, initial costs could be high for whale watching operators since they have to reconstruct boats and make other new investments as well
Sorry rog, right now I have computer problems, I have not been able to check your links
Ann, it was IFAW that did the study;
“In 2001, IFAW released a special report authored by Erich Hoyt titled Whale Watching 2001: Worldwide Tourism Numbers, Expenditures and Expanding Socioeconomic Benefits (the ‘Hoyt Report’). This report estimated the global whale watching industry in 1998 to be generating over $US1 billion annually in tourism expenditures. At that time, this represented a surging annual growth rate of around 12.1% per annum for the industry.”
In subsequent studies the scope was redefined;
“Estimation methodology for direct expenditure used in the Hoyt report is the same as that used in this report. The Hoyt Report, however, uses a different definition of indirect expenditure. That report, relying on conventions from previous assessments, defines indirect expenditure as expenditure that supports the whale watch trip such as accommodation, transport and food. Direct expenditure is expenditure on tickets and items directly related to the trip itself. We have adopted the same approach to allow direct comparison with that report and other analyses of the economic benefits of whale and dolphin tourism.”
For NZ it appears that it is a growing industry.
Rog,
“I am surprised that whale watching is a multi-billion $ industry, the guys I know who are in it dont seem to have much spare cash.” This is likely true, but the reports are based also on the money that is generated via accomodation, transport, food and so on brought about by whale watching in an area, which the whale watch operators would see little if nothing of. IFAW Australia put out a revised report in 2005 on whale watching in Australia. It should be available at their website.
Libby, I linked the IFAW Australian report above, the analysts do segregate direct sources (those who pay money to watch whales) from indirect (those that provide accomodation to those who watch whales etc).
They also take the view that for the most part whale watch tour operations are seasonal and opportunistic ie they are marine recreation services that also, at times, watch whales (and/or dolphins).
Whilst there appears to be no dispute that these tours are of economic gain to often isolated coastal communities there could be a problem for those engaging specifically in providing whale watching tours in maintaining a profit.
Thanks Rog. I can’t read PDFs on this dinosaur computer so couldn’t check your link properly.
Given I co-authored a report on the IFAW (and similar) whale watching studies for the IWC, some comments may be appropriate.
First, IFAW-type studies typically generate estimates of value of whale watching that are about an *order of magnitude* greater than published, peer-reviewed economic papers on whale-watching. The reason is simple. IFAW-style studies simply add up all expenditures to estimate benefits. Thus, a range of industry ‘costs’ end up being classed as a ‘benefit’.
According to IFAW, spending money on fuel for boats is a ‘good thing’. One can only imagine the delight of the Japanese if they also classed the expenditures on their whaling fleet in the Antarctic as a benefit and not a cost.
This is conflated by a general claim that whale watching is increasing. It is, but not in developing countries that are considering it as a development option (e.g. Tonga). Eco-tourism largely bypasses countries on the periphery of this industry.
If someone in NZ or Australia want to watch whales, they go the Kaikoura or S Australia. They don’t get on a plane to fly to Tonga to watch whales.
Whale watching is slowly increasing in Tonga, due to the fact they offer swim-withs. The development of Neiafu, in Vava’u, has been quite marked, due to the increase in tourists coming to swim with the whales.
There have been no studies on the impact of swim-withs on this low population of whales, and the long-term effects on mothers and calves (which are havily targeted)and breeding animals is unknown. It is a double-edged sword, as there are some in the Tongan parliament who support the resumption of whaling in their waters. No one would go to Tonga purely for vessel-based whale watching, but the lure of swimming with whales is becoming quite popular now. Each year more and more licences are issued for these activities, and operators only have guidelines to follow regarding how they should behave around the whales(which many don’t).
Not all whale watching is done from advertised whale watching vessels, as some deep sea fishing and dive operators also will take people out, as will other individuals who can see a quick way to make a buck during the whale season.
Could you cite the source for this increase in the number of whale watchers in Tonga?
I ask, because the last time I was assured there was an increase, it was based more on wishful thinking than evidence. The link below should take you to a graph on visitor numbers at Vava’u, matched with an econometric model.
http://my.opera.com/chthoniid/homes/files/vavau.gif
It is clear than visitation rates experience a strong seasonal effect, and there was no time trend upward.
This however, still overlooks the main problems with the IFAW compilations. The first is they report much higher estimates of benefit than ‘economic studies’, because they count industry ‘costs’ as benefits.
Second, it has not been established that whaling and whale-watching are incompatible.
Third, isolating the attraction of whale watching from other activities in Tonga is problematic. Tourists frequently do other activities while in Tonga, and if the whale-watching opportunity did not exist, they’d probably just do something else.
This is the problem of being on the periphery of the global ‘whale watching’ industry. Tourists from Australia or NZ, might go whale watching if they take a holiday in Tonga. Someone wanting to just watch whales in Australia or NZ, go to domestic sites (e.g. Kaikoura in NZ). They don’t go to Tonga.
Brendan,
My comments regarding an apparent increase in whale watching in Tonga is based on conversations I have had with business owners there, and my own personal observations over the past three years when I have been doing my research. I also assisted a tour company and found that although clients came from all over the world, the majority were made up of Australians and New Zealanders. So I have no ‘official’ source for my comment, which is rather unprofessional of me. I have contacted a tour operator who does whale watching in Tonga to see if she has any stats on recent visitation to Tonga for whale watching activities.
I fail to see how whale watching and whaling with this population of animals can be compatible. The Tongan population is at about 700-1000 individuals. The JARPA Programme plans on taking 50 animals from an as yet unidentified feeding location. In Antarctic waters it is basically impossible to assign an individual to its winter feeding population, and so it is quite conceivable that the Tongan animals will be included in these takes.
One has to ask why these animals are currently at such a low population level. It could be argued that as a species, human beings are opportunistic and have little consideration for the future. The low numbers of Tongan and Fijian whales is due to a failure to recover from legal and illegal whaling. Will we make the same mistake? I guess we will know after St Kitts next month.
A travel show here last night told Australians we should be visiting Tonga. All well and good, but the infrastructure leaves a lot to be desired, although it is improving. Some people don’t even know where Tonga is, but given adequate information and guidance are willing to try whale watching there, which of course offers something quite different with the swim-withs. A lot of it comes down to advertising and informing people.
hello
i send my resume
i love sweden
i know swedishi people help to another
i love help to another people
i will makeing christian
please give me any jobs
i will do this
please give me one chance
please
RESUME
RITESH B. MODI MOBILE NO : +91 99257 75014
“RITURAJ”, EMAIL: nil2051@yahoo.co.in
4-AKSHARNAGAR,
GANDHIGRAM
RAJKOT-360007
GUJARAT, INDIA
Ø OBJECTIVE:
“To Excel in life with full dedication to the organization goal as an individual in a team where I can be a key member.”
Ø PERSONAL INFORMATION:
· Date of Birth : 6th MARCH 1980
· Gender : Male
· Marital Status : Married
· Nationality : Indian
· Language Know : Gujarati, Hindi & English,.
Ø HOBBIES :
· Traveling, Computer Surfing, music, interacting with new persons.
Ø PRESENT ASSIGNMENT :
· Presently I am working with “ADANI RETAIL LTD” as (P-Card Officer) Since feb.-2005, “ADANI RETAIL LTD” is having 51 outlets in Gujarat region. And First Indian Retail Chain Certified ISO 9001-2000. Adani is only having biggest hyper market (Shopping Center) in the heart of Rajkot Which is having over 20,000 Sqft Shopping Area and four floor and Three Super Markets.
Ø Major Responsibilities Include:
· Entries of the entire party product at our branch.
· Stock transfer all Branch, Inward, Outward
· Knowing the procedure of inward and outward as well as peace-to- peace Replacement to minimize loss.
· Versify the Party wise statement with out records, solve the queries with regards the party wise application.
· Generating product wise company barcode and looking for item wise stickering
· Filling all the documents and party wise bill for p-card.
· To solve the client quarries like founding purchase entries, billing, and item code, also solve the problems of customers etc.
· P-card for Entries of the entire party product at our branch & Further Follow ups for Margins up.
· Slicing for grocery bulk product.
· Business Partner’s Entry & Business Partner short out their Problems.
· Daily Stock Reconsilation
· Help in HR
Ø SUMMARY OF QUALIFICATION:
· B.A. with psychology in Saurashtra University RAJKOT
Ø COMPUTER LITERACY:
· Window, MS-OFFICE & also well versed with INTERNET.
I here by declare that all above furnished Information is authentic to the best of my Knowledge.
Ø REFERENCE:
Will be furnished upon request.
RITESH B. MODI
i love that or god has blessed our eternity with so many wonderful type snd breeds of people and animals. i hope that one day very soon that i will be able to contribute to you in a working capacacity. right now i am not working and besides certain very special things are in my life i would love to be able to cast my ballot on the election sheet for our wonderful animals . who although they were put here first thier accounts and well beings have never have been in any ones hearts except a few fine people like yourself and a very few others. may god bless your march love and care for his children that he put here before us