Trophy Hunting, Trophy Import Bans, African Communities and Wildlife Conservation: An Explainer

• Hunting requires relatively intact natural habitat, on either communal or private land. In 2007, an estimated 1,394,000 km² of land was managed for the purposes of hunting wildlife – 22% more land than is covered by National Parks. Intact habitat is key for biodiversity conservation and climate change mitigation.
• Countries and remote areas within countries that are not attractive for photographic tourism can still generate income from wildlife-based land uses through hunting, thus maintaining intact habitat for this purpose. This is particularly the case in Mozambique (post-war recovery) and Zimbabwe, although it applies across southern Africa.
• The hunting industry is more resilient to external shocks than tourism – due to political instability in Zimbabwe, tourism occupancy declined by 75% while hunting revenues dropped by only 12.2%. Today, over 90% of the income to communities in the Zimbabwe CAMPFIRE programme comes from hunting.
• Income from hunting has played a key role in the recovery of white rhino, bontebok, black wildebeest and Cape Mountain zebra in South Africa. Private land in South Africa supports >1.7 million wild animals on game ranches or mixed livestock and wildlife farms where hunting is allowed (estimated in 2007).
• Legislation allowing game ownership and hunting on private land in Namibia in the 1960s led to an 80% increase in wildlife numbers outside National Parks in that country over a 20 year period (1972-92). Later changes on communal land (see section below) led to increasing elephant, black rhino and other wildlife populations. Namibian black rhino conservation, in particular, is reliant on private and communal lands where hunting (mainly of other species) occurs.
• Income from hunting across southern Africa is used to employ game guards (or scouts, or rangers) who play a key role in anti-poaching. Namibian communal conservancies employ 763 game guards and community resource monitors (monitoring plants and fish). While rhino poaching continues to be a major threat, Namibian communal conservancies recently recorded over two years of zero rhino poaching on their lands. Similarly, over 1,000 community scouts are employed in Zambian Game Management Areas. Across southern Africa, hunting concessionaires and private game ranch owners employ anti-poaching teams to protect wildlife on these lands.
• The southern African countries mentioned here are recognised as leaders in the conservation of charismatic “mega-fauna” – i.e. large mammals that are generally under threat in other parts of the world. Botswana, Namibia, Tanzania and Zimbabwe are ranked among the top five countries using this rating method, while Zambia and Mozambique are in the top 20. 

The basic premise of community-based natural resource management (CBNRM) is to actively involve rural communities in wildlife conservation, and to allow them to access benefits accruing from wildlife-based industries. The advent of CBNRM in southern Africa came at a time (1980s and 1990s) when newly independent African nations were looking for different ways to conserve the environment from those imposed by colonial governments. The colonial approach is also known as “fortress” conservation, whereby National Parks were set up, people were displaced, and those living in rural areas were prevented from using their resources in traditional ways. This means that traditional hunters were labelled as “poachers” and all of the wildlife, whether it occurred in the Parks or beyond, was considered government property.

During the mid-1900s, some of the rules against using wildlife were relaxed, but only on white-owned properties (in South Africa, Namibia and Zimbabwe). This was mainly because the governments of the day realised that wildlife outside National Parks was being eradicated, despite being nominally protected as state property. The changes to legislation marked the rise of game farming on private land, which led to increasing wildlife populations in these countries. Due to colonial and apartheid laws of the time, black people living in communal lands were not granted the same rights to use wildlife and were regularly punished as “poachers”.

CBNRM was therefore seen as a means to grant similar rights to wildlife (and other resources eg. plants and fish) on communal land as already existed on private land. CBNRM has become a major part of conservation in Namibia, Botswana, Zambia and Zimbabwe (see stats above). Tanzania initiated a CBNRM programme in the 2000s using lessons learned in these four countries, and Mozambique is in the process of establishing a CBNRM programme. Taking a similar approach, South Africa, Malawi and Mozambique have granted communities living alongside state protected areas the right to benefit financially from wildlife-based industries within those areas.

In seven of these countries (all except Malawi), hunting is a means of generating income from wildlife. Depending on national laws and quotas, many communities may hunt wildlife for their own use – i.e. for community meetings or household distribution. To remain sustainable, however, only small numbers of animals are permitted for use in a given year (this number is called a “quota”). Since there are many people living in these areas alongside relatively low densities of wildlife, hunting for meat alone does not provide employment or other community benefits. Communities therefore need to establish wildlife-based industries that generate higher financial returns from their wildlife.

Photographic tourism can generate high financial returns and create substantial employment opportunities. Many community-based organisations (CBOs) have engaged with private sector companies to run tourism operations on their lands, and this is the leading source of income in places that are suited to tourism. However, not all communities live on lands that are suitable for tourism – areas that do not have reliable transport infrastructure (e.g. roads or regular flights), are not scenically attractive, have low wildlife densities, or are still unknown to the main tourist markets, are unlikely to attract a tourism operator.

Hunting tourism (also called conservation hunting) is the other high value option available to communities. Similar to photographic tourism, the CBOs can engage hunting outfitters to attract international hunting clients to hunt a small number of animals per year. The fees paid by international hunters per animal are many times greater than the value of the meat, although the meat is also distributed to the community after a successful hunt. A hunting operation can make a financial success in areas where a photographic operator may not, particularly because each hunting client pays much more for their experience than an average tourist. The overall carbon and environmental footprint of the average hunting camp is lower than the average photographic lodge, due to the low number of hunting guests arriving per year.

The income from wildlife-based industries is used for a variety of purposes. The CBOs employ community guards/scouts/rangers to conduct anti-poaching patrols, assist with reducing human-wildlife conflict, and educate members of the community on the importance of conservation. CBOs usually have one or more office staff and other operating costs. In some countries, the revenue generated from wildlife is shared with the government (the percentage taken by government varies from country to country).

The profits made by CBOs are then distributed to the broader community. The community and their leaders decide on the kinds of benefits and how they will be shared, and the CBO staff implements the distribution process. Benefits can take the form of cash and/or meat distributed to households, or they can be for larger community projects (e.g. building/repairing kindergartens and clinics, providing electricity to villages, maintaining water infrastructure). In some cases, vulnerable members of society are given cash (e.g. pensioners), or promising scholars are assisted with costs to attend university. Money may also be earmarked for reducing human-wildlife conflict or covering some of the costs of damages caused by animals.

Besides direct benefits, the CBO opens employment opportunities when it enters into agreements with the private sector. These agreements usually include a clause regarding local employment and training. The presence of a lodge or hunting camp may further provide opportunities for craft makers or other small local businesses to supply local products to the lodges or camps.

Photographic tourism and conservation hunting can occur on the same community conservation area, provided that area is large enough and clearly zoned. Namibian conservancies frequently have contracts with operators in both sectors, although the majority of CBOs in southern Africa only have hunting operators. Some of these may have future photographic tourism potential, but this could not be realised in the absence of a CBO. Without income from hunting, most CBOs would not be able to cover their operating costs and thus become insolvent. The only value for wildlife would be as meat, and there would be no money available for wildlife monitoring and anti-poaching patrols, or community benefits.

The trade in animal parts is already governed through international agreements (particularly CITES), which limits the numbers of endangered species that can be traded between countries. Quotas for more common species (e.g. kudu, impala) are decided within specific areas. These systems are designed to maintain sustainability in the hunting industry – it is not in the hunting industry’s interest, or in the interests of communities and their governments to drive any animal species to extinction.

Hunting clients come from all over the world to hunt in Africa, although the main markets are in the West – particularly the USA, the EU and the UK. Legislation passed in one or more of these jurisdictions that negatively affect the international hunting market would therefore have a negative impact on CBNRM in southern Africa. By suggesting domestic legislation (e.g. laws within the UK, EU or US) to control the importation of animal parts produced through hunting, lobby groups are attempting to bypass international treaties and African laws. Further, passing anti-hunting legislation in one of these jurisdictions (e.g. the UK or one US state) sets a precedent that encourages the others to pass similar legislation.

Given the history of CBNRM, outlined briefly above, the idea of a non-African government imposing restrictions on Africans being allowed to use wildlife is a return to colonialism. Although both photographic and hunting tourism started in colonial times, these industries have been adopted and modified by current African governments to suit the development needs of modern Africa.

In countries where CBNRM (or similar ideas) has been implemented, hunting plays a critical role in financing wildlife conservation on communal lands and generating tangible benefits for rural communities. This role cannot easily be replaced with photographic tourism. Consequently, if international hunting visitor numbers decline sharply in response to legislation passed in the US, EU or UK, African wildlife and rural communities will be negatively affected.