Some argue trophy hunting helps conservation and communities, others believe it’s a ‘hobby for the rich that benefits the rich’ and harms both. (Photo by Martin Schutt/image alliance via Getty Images)
“At best, trophy hunting supports approximately 15 000 jobs in South Africa, while non-consumptive tourism supports at least 90 000 jobs.”
Dr. Ross Harvey
LLast week, the UK saw the ban on illegal imports when the Bill was passed in the House of Commons. Essentially, it was designed to prevent the country’s trophy hunters from bringing body parts of some species into the UK.
In last week’s column, I grappled with the obsession of hunting humans. This week I want to bring balance and multiple perspectives to the economic debate. Does trophy hunting really make economic sense or not?
I asked people who work in the industry who have extensive experience in trophy hunting, and wildlife conservation, as well as reading on the topic, to help me understand how money works.
A Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (Cites) report described the process as landowners and hunting operators negotiate with hunters for who can hunt on the land. They agree on a fee that both parties are happy with. These fees are for operators, helpers (people who work with operators) and for licenses or permits from the government.
Let’s start with Dr Nkabeng Maruping-Mzileni, an ecologist with a PhD in nature conservation. Write for Conversationhe explains the economics of hunting as follows: “The relevant government body issues hunting licenses and permits. These costs are included in the cost of the trophy / hunting. This fee is determined according to the wages of the staff – professional hunters, trackers, camp set-up, accommodation, field staff – and government levies. Government levies vary from country to country.”
But does this work well for the community and animal conservation? Let’s find out.
Vibrant business
Maruping-Mzileni believes that hunting has been a viable business for many years, with an evolving business model and a ripple effect.
“It’s not just about paying money to take an animal, there are many entities involved directly or indirectly. There are hunting lodges (cooks, cleaners, people who take care of fields and wildlife, professional hunters and other jobs); taxidermists (business owners and field employment); local tourism (business owners and employment); butchery (business owners and employment).
But Maruping-Mzileni urges caution when discussing the benefits of hunting and points to direct profit. He explained by saying that when a mall opens in a city, the obvious benefit is employment. The public does not benefit from the developer’s profits directly.
Likewise for hunting, when hunting companies have clients, society benefits from employment and meat, depending on the animal. An example is lion hunting. When there is no meat, businesses benefit the most.
Maruping-Mzileni explained how the money will be generally used.
“The money generated goes back into the business, such as property maintenance, fences, water points, introducing new game for genetic viability, using field guards to maintain the area, etc.
“In some cases, profits go back to species conservation, such as introducing new game for genetic survival; veterinary services; expanding the footprint of protected areas; research and monitoring the best way to manage species in fenced areas or in changing climate conditions or population dynamics ,” he said.
Some are not sure
Aside from the noisy celebrities who believe trophy hunting is a problem, there are others.
Dr Ross Harvey is a natural resource economist and policy analyst at Good Governance Africa. He has strong views on the topic and has played a role in getting the UK bill to where it is, having contributed to the UK Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.
In a paper submitted to the department, he noted that trophy hunting cannot support conservation in South Africa. They believe the evidence they do is limited.
“At best, trophy hunting supports approximately 15 000 jobs in South Africa, while non-consumptive tourism supports at least 90 000 jobs.”
Harvey believes research shows that a small volume of overall trophy hunting revenue goes to local low-income households. He found the practice an “economically extractive and dangerous hobby for the rich that benefits the rich”.
Harvey also believes that financial benefits rarely trickle down to society and that the jobs they get from trophy hunting further entrench inequality. In the paper, he wrote: “The quality of hunting jobs is highly questionable, and the evidence suggests that the conversion of South African farmland to game farms increases job security and widens inequality.”
Melanie Flynn, a senior lecturer in criminology at the University of Huddersfield in the UK, wrote that trophy hunting shows financial benefits “but it remains unclear under what conditions trophy hunting produces valuable conservation benefits. We cannot assume a scheme that works in one country, targeting one species, under certain conditions, can be applied to all other species and locations.
Flynn notes how these benefits depend on sustainable management, profitable investment and community involvement. He also pointed to the issue of corruption.
“But given the perceived level of corruption and the lack of effective governance in some of the countries where trophy hunting takes place, one wonders how such a situation could be possible. And if trophy hunting is really profitable, there is a chance that the profits will be used to line the pockets of operators and officials the rich (maybe foreigners).
Let’s look elsewhere
Another Cites study in 2022 examines the issue of trophy hunting in Zimbabwe.
It was found that it has increased “food security and the livelihood of rural people, it also plays a role in reducing human-wild animal conflict”.
The data show that:
⋅ Between 2010 and 2018 hunting sector in Community Area Management
The program for Indigenous Resource districts received approximately $17 million;
⋅ Of this amount, trophy costs account for approximately $12 million, and elephant trophy costs account for approximately $7.6 million (63%) and
⋅ According to benefit sharing guidelines, Rural District Councils receive approximately 56% (range 23% to 66%) or $1.05 million / year and Wards receive 46% (range 26% to 77%) or $830 000 / year.
The study also says that the income does not go to individual households. Instead, it goes to community infrastructure projects such as schools, clinics, water pipes and storage. Direct cash to people only happens in special circumstances.
Journalist Emmanuel Koro investigates the issue in Botswana.
“International hunting supports various socio-economic needs of hunting communities. Therefore, if international hunting is banned, communities will lose income streams, employment, and wildlife hunting and revenge against wildlife will increase, while the poverty gap will also increase,” he said.
Rebecca Banika, head of the Pandamatenga hunting community, said international hunting promotes socio-economic development and conservation in the region.
“We are also given game meat from the animals we hunt,” he said. “The fund is used to sponsor school children who did not pass their high school exams so that they can graduate and become employed and take care of themselves and their families.
“We are also using the proceeds of the hunt to support local farmers by buying farming equipment such as the community tractors we recently bought. For the 2023 hunting season which starts next month, we have been paid 6.5 million pula [about R9 million] in advance. British MPs should not ban the import of trophy hunting into the UK, but be our supporters.
Britain’s decision will facilitate a wider conversation. How that affects communities and wildlife in the long term remains to be seen. The trophy hunting debate is incredibly interesting and it’s easy to see both sides of the argument.