There are two seemingly incompatible ways in which conservation can justify itself economically — ecotourism or hunting.
Revenue earned in either way may be ploughed back not only into sustaining individual operations but also to further conservation objectives.
Leaving aside emotionally charged ethical debates about hunting, this article seeks to compare the key issues involved in photographic safaris and hunting safaris.
Photographic safaris have very different environmental and socio-economic impacts to those of hunting operations. What are these differences and can these these two practices ever be compatible?
Starting up
A comparison may be useful not only to understand the impact of each operation but also for those wishing to establish ventures.
Aspects to consider should include the following:
- How accessible is the destination to airports and existing tourism routes?
- What is the size of the area and is there potential for access to adjacent areas?
- What are the initial capital costs and after how long would one expect to break even?
- Is the game-viewing good and how skittish is the game?
- What species of game occur and are there any trophy specimens?
- How prevalent is poaching in the area?
- Is there potential for informative game drives and night drives?
- Does the area allow for off-road driving?
- What is the public’s perception of the area as a game experience?
- What is the malaria risk and are there any reports of crime?
- Are already established competitors enjoying a high market share?
- Would it be possible to outsource to an established operating company in exchange for a management fee?
- Is the site suitable for guide training, conservation education and applied research?
An examination of the market
In Southern Africa, income from hunting alone is substantial. Hunting generates more than R660 million a year for the South African economy through both private sector and government hunting activities. This is split into trophy hunting (mainly by overseas hunters), which generates between R153 and R175-million, biltong hunting (mainly by local hunters), which can bring in up to R450-million, and venison sales to the value of R20-million.
Live capture can raise up to R90-million a year, with around 18 000 head of game being sold at some 40 auctions around the country. The most commonly traded species sold are impala, blue wildebeest, common blesbok, springbuck, nyala, kudu and common eland. The most valuable species traded are black rhino (between R130 000 and R520 000) and white rhino (up to R190 000). Roan antelope, buffalo and sable can be valued at over R100 000 per head.
In a 2003 World Bank report, Lisa Scriven and Theuns Eloff examined the markets for nature tourism and live game sales, and estimated that investments in privately owned game ranches in South Africa are in excess of R15,5-billion. These areas cover over 11-million hectares of land and include both tourism and hunting operations, but exclude conservation areas under state management.
Revenue earned from ecotourism and photographic safaris is also high. The tourism industry in South Africa is well-established and one of the biggest sectors after gold. The country has an extensive protected-area system including national parks, private nature reserves and wetlands of significant conservation value. Ecotourism destinations capture a large part of the tourism market.
Among the countless types of destinations in Southern Africa is a well-developed market that caters for the luxury ‘high value/low density” bracket, which demands a high chance of seeing the ‘Big Five”. These areas are often the most sought after for both ecotourism and hunting and the Big Five attracts much greater interest and value than other species.
The high value of ecotourism can be demonstrated by analysing private game lodges on the western border of the Kruger National Park. By calculating the total number of beds, based on 60% occupancy at an average of R2 000 per bednight, the total turnover of one association is about R300-million per year. A similar formula could be used to work out the annual turnover of all national parks. This would give an indication of the value of conservation on state land in South Africa.
It is clear that the value of the Big Five, directly through hunting and indirectly through photographic safaris, is substantial. It may seem callous to ask whether an animal is worth more dead or alive, but on purely economic and not ethical grounds, do these animals generate more revenue by being hunted as trophies than by being benignly ‘shot” by camera-toting tourists?
In addition, is the income derived from either activity used to protect and manage wildlife reserves? Such information is necessary to assess the turnover needed by potential operators to sustain the areas in which they operate and thereby finance conservation.
It has already been noted that photographic tourism attracts higher numbers of clients. Ecotourism destinations often offer a wider range of services than the more basic hunting lodges and therefore, potentially at least, a larger source of income. But ecotourism lodges often have much higher fixed and variable operating costs than hunting outfits, making them a more risky option due to high overheads.
By contrast, because of the higher rates charged by hunting operations, the economic impact per person at hunting lodges is far higher than that of ecotourism lodges. A reason for this is that most hunters are prepared to spend vast amounts of money to secure their trophies. Another is that, because hunting operations tend to charge for a total package rather than per bed per night, the cost of a hunting safari is often double or triple that of an ecosafari. Lucrative hunting operations can therefore be started with limited capital investment and are generally a lower risk option. In addition, because revenue is generated by a once-off transaction and not as a daily tariff, more effective management and control is possible as it is easier to plan ahead.
Many believe that the ecotourism market in South Africa is over-subscribed and saturated. Also, a general error in the development of new tourist lodges is the over-estimation of the value of the tourism product and an under-estimation of the time needed to gain a tangible return on the investment as well as sustain ongoing operations and development. This may raise unrealistic expectations, which may lead to frustration if such expectations are not met.
This is aggravated by the competitive nature of the industry, so ecotourism ventures are the higher financial risk option. Nevertheless, there is no doubt that further opportunities for growth in certain sectors are still possible.
Socio-economic benefits
Employment is a major factor to consider when evaluating ecotourism against hunting. An ecotourism lodge will invariably employ far more people than a hunting operation. The Kruger National Park employs over 3 000 people, while some of the exclusive lodges are known to employ two or more staff to every guest. For example, a lodge catering for 100 guests may employ well over 200 staff in all aspects of its operations.
The creation of more jobs is therefore a strong argument for converting from hunting to photographic safaris, accruing far more benefits for the general economy. Ecotourism destinations usually operate throughout the year, attracting a far higher number of guests, and hence more long-term employment opportunities. Most photographic safari lodges support local industries such as the manufacture of curios, production of food, etc, and often outsource services such as laundry, gardening, road maintenance, security, etc.
Lodge staff are frequently drawn from communities adjacent to protected areas. These communities are often impoverished, with few other employment opportunities – another strong argument for developing ecotourism operations. Lodge employees may support as many as eight dependants each. This ‘dependency ratio” further highlights the value of ecotourism. Besides directly or indirectly supporting local small enterprises, other benefits for local communities may include the sustainable harvesting of wood, thatching grass and medicinal plants from protected areas.
By contrast, hunting does not employ as many people and work tends to be seasonal. Hunting may support some ‘downstream” enterprises (provision of transport, taxidermy, etc), but this is limited compared to photographic tourism.
A compromise — accommodating both
Although each scenario has its pros and cons, it should be clear that there is no clear either/or answer to this issue. Each option has its merits and, even though many believe that the photographic tourism experience is not compatible with hunting, in some circumstances they could be. Most conservationists would agree there is room for both as long as the situation is managed responsibly and professionally.
A set of guidelines for accommodating both options could include:
- Low volume of hunting to limit the impact on affected populations of animals
- Appropriate hunting protocols and strict rules to minimise disturbance, including adherence to the principles of responsible hunting such ‘fair chase”
- Discreet slaughtering facilities away from ecotourists
- Temporal and spatial zoning to allow animals to recover after any hunts and targetting of different populations of animals to minimise potential negative impacts. Hunting should only be allowed on days when ecotourists are not in the area
- Separate accommodation for hunters and tourists within an area to avoid conflicts of interest arising.
South Africa’s rich biodiversity provides a wealth of assets, with many potential opportunities for financing the costs of meeting conservation objectives. South Africa’s hunting and ecotourism industries demonstrate two ways in which the country can gain substantial returns from wildlife. The value of both industries is immense and both will continue to grow.
As has been demonstrated, in certain situations, hunting may be preferable to ecotourism, and visa versa. But neither option is exclusive of the other; in some areas, both practices could be compatible, if carefully planned for and managed.
Conservation factors alone suggest that hunting tends to have less of an environmental impact, while ecotourism usually has a greater negative environmental impact. But market factors show that ecotourism has the potential to generate more revenue and creates more jobs and therefore has a higher positive economic impact, especially for local communities.
In this context, the adage ‘take nothing but photos, leave nothing but footprints” does not necessarily apply across the board. At times, taking the trophy may, ironically, leave fewer footprints. But it may also leave fewer benefits for local communities.
Arguments for hunting over tourism
Proponents of hunting and sustainable consumptive use – hunting controlled by strict quotas – argue that hunters are generally not as ecologically destructive as tourists. Ecotourism can result in degradation of the environment and consequently harms wildlife. A badly managed ecotourism project may allow too many vehicles and harassment of animals, in pursuit of the perfect photograph.
Hunters tend to demand fewer services, less fancy accommodation and less infrastructure than photo-tourists, thus keeping wildlife habitats more pristine and less developed. Guest numbers are lower, mitigating the negative impacts of larger accommodation sites, and hunting usually takes place for only six months of the year, allowing affected animal populations to recover.
From a conservation perspective alone, it may be wiser to promote hunting over tourism, simply because the environmental impact is often lower.
From a socio-economic perspective, areas with the most wildlife are often inaccessible to regular tourists and at least some revenue can be generated for local populations from hunting.
Raising revenues from hunting also makes sense where culling is necessary when an overpopulation of certain species is having a serious impact on the vegetation.
Arguments for tourism over hunting
It has been argued that hunting diminishes the genetic strength of wildlife populations, that hunters often manipulate the set quota system and bag more animals than allowed, and that the numbers of many natural populations are decreasing and hunting exacerbates this decline. Animal populations that are hunted are often skittish, detracting from the game-viewing experience, so many potential tourists will simply not visit an area in which hunting is allowed, thus decreasing its potential value.
One should ask: who benefits from income derived from hunting versus ecotourism and what is the nature of any particular operation’s contribution, if any, to the wellbeing of surrounding communities? In general, tourism lodges provide greater benefits to adjacent communities, a strong argument for developing an area for tourism rather than hunting.
But the perception that existing hunting concessions could be developed into luxury lodges and earn more revenue than by hunting alone is often unrealistic. Luxury lodges are often not economically viable propositions.