If It Pays, It Stays: The Troubles for Ecotourism & Conservation
Clive Coles makes no claims to being an “expert” on conservation ( or anything else for that matter) - his only accreditation is that he is a product of the University of Life. He was lucky enough to escape from the world of business in the UK Financial Services sector on a retirement income that still allowed him some flexibility to indulge in low budget travel. He found his niche as a torchbearer for voluntourism - a form of tourist experience where you can get close to the problems and be active (hopefully to the betterment of both the target of your attentions, and yourself). He openly admits "voluntourism" has changed his perceptions of problems, not just in regard to wildlife but also of Governments and institutions. Now, in his 72nd year, he probably has more doubts than ever before. So in that context, he now writes.
Photo Courtesy of Unsplash
I believe there is no simple solution to resolve the complex problems for wildlife in Africa. Much as wildlife advocates may claim they have a solution to protect wildlife by banning hunting or prohibiting trade in animal parts, these measures on their own fail to address the underlying causes that are driving species towards extinction. Like it or not it is finance, or lack of it, that turns minds and determines policy. As is often said “Money is the root of all evils." But African poverty is probably as acute as ever. It is not just Trophy Hunting - poaching species for bush meat is also on the increase. So what chance does wildlife have in this lottery whilst striving for existence?
Wildlife is the casualty of circumstances. It has to compete for space with human needs. From the moment that foreign explorers first landed on African shores and started to venture into the interior, the natural resources of Africa became a commodity. The Colonial powers fought wars to protect their lands, they divided up the Continent, established land ownership and mining rights and established their form of law and order. Mining, and the protection of other investments, has had a huge effect on the displacement of indigenous peoples.
Photo Courtesy of Unsplash
African communities, that understood how to live in balance with nature, have largely been “re-aligned." Tribes such as the Maasai in Tanzania and Kalahari (San) Bushmen have been evicted from their traditional lands where they hunted and managed livestock, to make way for other business developments. Governments which are now praised for their conservation efforts and promotion of eco-tourism have paid little attention to these displaced communities. Many now live in poverty in resettlement camps, and derive some income by selling trinkets, of performing cultural shows for tourists. Families are disbursed. The wives and children stay behind in their humble dwellings and the men go off to work in the mines and factories, often for months at a time. The position of the San community is particularly poignant as their displacement has been caused by both Eco-tourism and Mining priorities (read here).
"There is a darker side to the expansion of eco-tourism."
And even after the African fights for independence, the institutions that were established over the previous 200 years still exist and form the administrative basis for the newer black African led Governments. The new Government elite have moved in to replace the previous incumbents and have accumulated wealth and influence for themselves. Some leaders have sought to bolster their support by redistributing land and settling old tribal scores. The countries and black African communities that suffered long periods of conflict have become increasingly impoverished. But a new elite now run Africa.
Africa is considered by many to be in an economic mess - to recover the situation however the leaders are looking for partners who can bolster their finances. The influence of China and other South East Asian business interests is growing. We need to recognize and accept that even black African Governments, businessmen and entrepreneurs operate to the mantra “If it pays it stays," or “If it gets in the way it goes." So where does wildlife conservation fit into this modern complex world?
Photo Courtesy of Unsplash
I think it is important to recognize that captive bred populations and free-roaming wild animal numbers present different challenges. And different countries face different challenges. This is especially the case in South Africa where Lion breeding solely to supply the hunting market is both highly lucrative and legal. I found the pre-release publicity for the Blood Lions documentary to be particularly interesting as it contained the observation “Estimates are that between 800 and 1 000 lions are shot in South Africa every year. Last year only five of these were hunted in the wild by hunters tracking the animals in the traditional “fair chase” method. The rest were shot behind fences where they had little or no chance of escape."
I have no idea if these claims can be substantiated by actual statistical evidence ~ my guess is that the true “fair chase” hunting statistic for South Africa is understated. But, even if this is not the case, one has to question what impact legal “fair chase“ hunting is having on wild lion populations in South Africa.
This is not the case in East African countries such as Tanzania and Kenya. Here endangered species, particularly Elephant and Lion, have been decimated by hunting and poaching the wild animal populations. Kenya, unlike Tanzania has banned hunting - poaching however has continued to drive these species towards extinction across both countries.
Calls to ban all trophy hunting in the media following the killing of Cecil the lion in Zimbabwe, is perfectly understandable. It reflects the conscience of all who value wild life. But what effect would making trophy hunting illegal have on the plight of the wild lion populations? Would it have saved Cecil? Sadly I believe the answer is no to both questions.
Photo Courtesy of Unsplash
The Cecil killing was not a legal hunt. Granted it was conducted under the guidance of a Professional Hunter by an American Trophy tourist who we have subsequently learned was a committed and regular hunter. This killing however was made possible by luring the animal by bait to lands outside a protected zone. It was pre-planned - they didn’t just happen to have a dead carcass in the back of their Bakkie for use as bait. It is evident, where there is demand, and money is involved, there are operators within land management/hunting circles who are prepared to circumvent the law where the risks of apprehension are low and there is money to be made. The fact that the hunters were white does no disguise the fact…Cecil was poached. Neither colour of skin, nationality nor relative wealth are relevant - this was an illegal killing. It remains to be seen if the Zimbabwean authorities bring a successful criminal prosecution. Sadly, as poaching is still regarded as a minor offence, the perpetrators, if found guilty, will receive a low tariff sentence.
I believe however the main threat to Africa’s free-roaming endangered species comes not from permitted Trophy Hunting but from illegal hunting/ poaching and loss of habitat. Trophy hunting that circumvents the law certainly contributes to the poaching threat but is not the main cause. International syndicates capitalize on the lack of law enforcement and corruption at all levels. They draw support and recruit from impoverished communities. And in a post-colonial Africa the divide between “haves” and “have nots” is as wide as ever.
Inward investment and the expansion of business interests is the main driver behind the loss of habitat. Mining licences are being bought up by International conglomerates, many now controlled from the Far East. Whoever pays the piper calls the tune. And African Governments, such as Zimbabwe, are dancing to that tune to meet the demands of their new trading partners.
And pressure for real estate developments are increasing. There is one development that advertises consistently on Africa Geographic, which looks to be a very attractive proposition for the affluent. There is still wealth in some parts of Africa with money to invest. So more wilderness areas are becoming split off as the new generation of successful entrepreneurs seek to create their own private little piece of Eden. The affluent bring their own demands for services and privacy. They will want to see and experience wildlife on their terms. Wildlife is once again becoming displaced and squeezed into a smaller areas or corridors between developments.
Photo Courtesy of Unsplash
Farming animals such as Lion, just to be shot for sport, is a cynical exploitation of an iconic species - by all means let’s continue to campaign hard for this unethical industry to be closed down. Let’s however try not forget that the captive breeding/canned hunting business is self-contained. The number of lions legally killed in South Africa outside these canned hunting areas following the issue of a permit is relatively low. I am sure that some permits are being obtained too easily - there are corrupt influences conveniently bending under pressure. But some permits will be issued in legitimate circumstances.
Any change to the National laws to ban all hunting will be bound to cause a ripple effect across national borders - it will result in an increase in illegal hunting/poaching. A ban in hunting therefore needs to be co-ordinated between nations and implemented in conjunction with increased surveillance and protection of the species that you are trying to save. Such security measures need funding - where is such funding coming from? And as we have seen with the introduction of trade or hunting bans in some African countries, where such complementary support was not provided, this has had a catastrophic effect on wild Lion, Elephant and Rhino populations. There was to my mind some encouraging news coming from Kenya this week with the announcement of the set-up of a new cross border initiative, ARREST. The program is aimed at increasing traffickers’ risk of detection, arrest and conviction by identifying and disrupting well-established wildlife trafficking networks on the continent. What is now needed is for Governments to galvanize and support such efforts to cooperate, share intelligence and synchronize enforcement efforts to combat the threats which are operating across the African continent.
Campaigning wildlife activists often fail to recognize that “sustainable” hunting operates across many species - we should consider how this effects other species as well as Lion. Activists argue “how can you protect a species by allowing it to be hunted?" If only it was as simple as that. Most legal (non-canned) trophy hunting in South Africa at least is directed against species which are not endangered. Indeed, many such species are farmed for the joint purpose of providing both a trophy animal and food. In countries where game/wildlife reserves are enclosed, herbivores such as Buffalo and Antelope are culled by quota in order to prevent overgrazing and balance the species within an enclosed ecosystem. If hunting for these species is banned such culling operations will need to be replaced by other measures.
This hunting activity raises money, the hunting revenues contribute to the reserve finances. The hunters acquire a trophy. The carcass is butchered and is either put directly into someone’s freezer or sold on through the meat supply trade; this too raises revenue for the reserve. The unquestioning tourist who travels to Africa to photograph wild life then enjoys a succulent Kudu steak grilled on the Braai. Too few folk seem to want to make the connection between meat, animals and the way food is brought to table. They assume it all comes from a supermarket shrink wrapped just like at home. It is however common practice in Africa where free ranging animals are held, to cull in situ on the reserve where they roam rather than contain animals in smaller enclosures, then round up, transport and slaughter in an abattoir. That culling is carried out under licence by hunters.
Photo Courtesy of Unsplash
I am not of course suggesting that all meat consumed in countries like South Africa is hunted meat. Nor am I suggesting that endangered species are being or should be culled for food. The main stream livestock farmer who ranges large herds will of course send round up and transport animals to the abattoirs for slaughter. Many livestock farmers will however apply for permits to hunt predators on their estates as these species predate on their livestock. They are seeking to protect their investment in Livestock farming.
The converse of this is true for wildlife reserves and conservancies, most of which support eco-tourism. They will protect their predators, manage numbers by utilizing contraception techniques, but may well employ hunters to cull excess herbivores which overgraze their enclosed ecosystem. There are many contradictions in the management of animals in Africa.
The balance between hunting income and eco-tourist income is changing. In the early days the newly created wildlife reserves and conservancies relied on hunting revenues to fund eco-tourist development. As eco-tourism has become more established the revenues (and profits) have enabled these protected areas to become more sustainable without hunting income. But -and it is a big but - the costs of reserve management have escalated over the last 5 years as they also contain the very endangered animals that eco-tourists come to Africa to view. These species now need protection. These costs have risen followed the very significant rise of Rhino poaching since 2007. Prior to 2007, the graph had flat lined at less than 10 animals poached per year.
Which brings my thoughts full circle to consider the devastating effect illegal hunting/poaching is having on Africa’s endangered species. The costs of providing protection are going through the roof and there are no signs that this expenditure is declining. These costs are having to be met from budgets that were previously being utilized for managing bio-diversity, habitat and conservation of species. That presents a huge dilemma. Can revenues derived from managing one species be ethically utilized to prevent another species from becoming extinct? If not, where else is the money coming from? We all instinctively want this expenditure to be provided from an ethical source.
Much of eco-tourism in countries such as South Africa is in private hands - it is not state funded. Each business needs to remain sustainable if it is to survive. An abundance and diversity of wildlife conservation is part of a package that will enable that market to grow. Much as I dislike the concept of hunting for sport I do not believe making all hunting illegal in each African country solves the problem if all that a ban achieves is the further escalation of illegal hunting and poaching throughout the continent. And that I fear would be the inevitable consequence of such a ban.
"The solution to the crisis facing endangered wildlife rests with the provision of sustainable targeted funding. And we need to tackle the problems differently in different countries."
Photo Courtesy of Unsplash
The solution to the crisis facing endangered wildlife rests with the provision of sustainable targeted funding. And we need to tackle the problems differently in different countries. The desk bound advocates promote their solution but probably have little chance in changing hearts and minds of those who have a stake in running any business. The conservation strategists recognize that a complex situation can only be improved by working within a setup and influencing decisions. They have to navigate through troubled times where funding is a scarce commodity. They recognize that conservation involves some difficult choices, particularly in a managed environment. Some choices have unpalatable consequences on, communities, wildlife and sustainability of a conservation programme. They have to live with the consequences of their decisions.
These however are the guys I prefer to listen to and who I prefer to support. It is they who are running with the problems and challenges. Each generation of conservationist produces people who have left their legacy for the future generations that follow. One such conservationist is the late Dr Ian Player. Just before he died he recorded this interview. Some of his views remain controversial to this day. But he, and his supporters, thought the unthinkable. They farmed and managed wild rhino, translocated animals and by so doing saved the rhino from what looked like inevitable extinction 50 years ago. A man of action and commitment.
We need to support and promote more such active measures. Campaigners who set out to occupy the ethical high ground, without offering real support, are sadly part of the problem. Whilst we talk and argue about the relative merits of de-horning or horn infusions/poisons, and what may or may not happen at CITES next year, the Rhino in southern Africa are being poached to extinction. Opinions are divided even amongst conservationists. But even if a limited lifting of the horn trade ban is sanctioned at CITES16 it will take a year or more before the effect can be measured. This is time the Rhino do not have. I am reminded of the story that Nero fiddled whilst Rome burned down.
"Social media is very good at creating noise without necessarily taking heed of, or responsibility for, the consequences. But it is a medium that is becoming more influential in shaping world-wide public opinion. Therein lies both a strength and a weakness."
Photo Courtesy of Unsplash
Social media is very good at creating noise without necessarily taking heed of, or responsibility for, the consequences. But it is a medium that is becoming more influential in shaping world-wide public opinion. Therein lies both a strength and a weakness. It is great that the public are becoming aware of the plight of endangered species. But very often media opinion makers clutch on one event and use it to further their own narrow agenda. As has happened following the killing of Cecil they promote their own views and seek to rubbish other less ethical sources of revenue. Anyone reading some posts would be forgiven for believing that eco-tourism alone can ensure that wildlife is protected and saved. Tourism also has some darker facets that also bring in tourist dollars. Some tourist attractions also set out to exploit wildlife and raise profits for their businesses. The excesses of such tourism also need to be exposed and controlled.
Sadly, social media followers are generally very reluctant to put their hands in their pockets and produce ready cash. They are content to “Like” a page or comment to record agreement and show their own friends and followers what nice ethical people they really are. They may even go out and buy a T-shirt, But they rarely follow it up with real positive tangible support for the folk in the frontline of conserving and protecting wildlife.
Photo Courtesy of Unsplash
I would encourage all social media “likers” to travel to Africa as a volunteer on a reserve if, like myself, your disposable income does not stretch to significantly replacing revenue from less ethical sources. It’s a fantastic experience being out in the wilderness observing wildlife and helping to protect species which are increasingly under threat. I personally find it much more stimulating that just going on safari as an eco-tourist. At least you are doing something to further conservation and protection of endangered species. The talkers will continue talking - be more positive and get involved.
"Profit margins do not necessarily get directed to further conservation or local community development."
I have been fortunate to have experienced both types of wildlife/safari trip - volunteering gets you closer to the real problems and makes you question and develop understanding. But if sundowns with a G&T, a comfortable bed and a dip in the pool is what you crave, your patronage and tourist money will also be welcomed on these reserves. Every little helps to provide finance for the protection of Africa’s wildlife! With luck, some money may even trickle down to help the poorer African communities. You do however need to research carefully where you go before committing as some tourist or volunteering placements are less ethical than you may imagine. Profit margins do not necessarily get directed to further conservation or local community development.
All photos used throughout this piece are courtesy of Unsplash, and are royalty-free stock photos available for commercial, personal and/or editorial use.
