The advent of trophy hunting in wildlife community has been a subject of immense environmental scholarly debate. It is a wildlife sporting game whereby hunters showcase their hunting prowess, shooting selected wildlife animals in return for a fortune to the responsible wildlife authority. In this tourist practice, big game such as rhinos, elephants, lions, pumas and bears are frequently shot under official government licence, for pleasure.
The trophy is the animal (or its head, skin or any other body part) that the hunter keeps as a souvenir. Trophy hunters pay huge sums of money to kill wild animals for in-home display. In the last 50 years, there has been a 60% decline in wildlife globally owing in part, to trophy hunting.
The proposed U.K import ban will be among the toughest in the world and will protect a range of species, including nearly 6 000 animals that are currently threatened by international trade. Many of these animals are endangered species and this brings forth an ethical case against this longstanding Western practice. Let us look into how far the ban will impact on African tourism economically.
Trophy hunting has been practiced in Africa for a long time and is still practiced in many African countries. The industry generates many millions of revenue for Africa a year. The practice of trophy hunting supersedes that of ranch or farm hunting, but game ranches helped to legitimize trophy hunting as a facet of the tourism industry in Africa. The first game ranches in Africa were established in the 1960s, and the concept quickly grew in proliferation. Statistics from 2000 illustrate that there were approximately 7000 game farms and reservations operating within South Africa, established on about 16 million hectares of land in the country. Game ranches attract wealthy tourists interested in hunting, as well as foreign investors on a large scale. Countries in Southern Africa such as Botswana, South Africa, Tanzania and Zimbabwe benefit more from trophy hunting. The proceeds from this tourist practice are often used to promote anti-poaching activities in wildlife communities and to enhance human-animal conflict resolution.
Just half a decade after the painful slaughter of Cecil an infamous collared African lion by an American trophy hunter, the United Kingdom seeks to revive its plan to ban the importation of endangered animals’ trophies. This follows the initial plan by the House of Lords which was stalled in 2020. The decision was put forward in response to the gruesome ‘illegal killing’ of Cecil at Zimbabwe’s Hwange National Park. This is not the first time that a European country has banned such importation since France did so in 2016.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service also imposed a ban on imports, limited to elephant trophies from Zimbabwe and Tanzania and the ban has been effective for six years now. Botswana once banned trophy hunting activities in its wildlife parks, but, Safari Club International, including prominent member former President George H. W. Bush, successfully lobbied the Botswanan government to reverse the ban. In the wake of the killing of Cecil the lion, Emirate Airlines, American Airlines, Delta Airlines and United Airlines banned the transportation of hunting trophies on flights as part of collaborative efforts to conserve endangered wildlife.
Competing views on trophy hunting in Africa
An academic research published in 2018 in a paper titled The economic impact of trophy hunting in the South African wildlife industry, trophy hunters splashed US$250 million (R4 billion) per annum in South Africa alone. In Zimbabwe, a sustained trophy hunting mission costs approximately, US$12,000 per day being accommodation and camping fees alone exclusive of the actual hunting fee and license. Besides the financial return, the practice also provides solution to the incessant cases of human and wildlife conflict in wildlife zones in Southern Africa. An attempt at banning trophy hunting in 2014, left villagers in Botswana claiming they no longer get income from trophy hunters, suffer from damaged crop fields caused by elephants and buffaloes, and African lions killing their livestock. It has also been put forward that, overpopulation of animals results in them destroying their habitats and it is scientifically motivated to cull them through the practice of trophy hunting.
Hence, the sport cuts across economic sustainability and ecological balance. Some conservationists claim trophy hunting is more effective for wildlife management than a complete hunting ban. Other pro-trophy hunting wildlife experts argue that, restrictions on lion hunting may reduce tolerance for the species among communities where local people benefit from trophy hunting, and may reduce funds available for anti-poaching. According to a study sponsored by International Council for Game and Wildlife Conservation in partnership with the Food and Agriculture Organization, the revenue generated by hunting tourism in seven Southern African Development Community members in 2008 was approximately US$190 million.
However, Economists at Large, a not for profit making organisation promoting social justice, animal rights and sustainability, claims that little of this 190 million reached communities. Jeff Flocken of the International Fund for Animal Welfare(IFAW), claims that “despite the wild claims that trophy hunting brings millions of dollars in revenue to local people in otherwise poor communities, there is no proof of this. The money that does come into Africa from hunting pales in comparison to the billions generated from tourists who come just to watch wildlife”. Trophy hunting proceeds are prone to abuse by top political bureaucrats and their management are not properly accounted for to ensure that they meet their purpose. Further, a continued practice of this sport may signal adverse narratives to donor communities that fund the conversation of endangered animals in wildlife parks. If endangered species can be trophy hunted, the case for their conversation would lack merit.
Following the proposed law to ban trophy hunting imports by the U.K, Zimbabwe Parks and Wildlife Management Authority spokesperson Tinashe Farawo queried that the move by the UK was not science-based, and there was no consultation with affected communities in Africa. The country’s biggest wildlife managing body argued that the U.K didn’t consider that revenue from hunting is used for looking after animals and their habitats. This is through financing anti-poaching initiatives and law enforcement.
Hunting creates employment for locals, and some of the money realised from trophy sales is used in road construction, building schools and clinics in areas where there are wildlife resources. Thus, the level of beneficiation that local communities enjoy directly from the trophy hunting discourse is immense. Given the reality that, in Zimbabwe and Botswana, there is an overpopulation of elephants, hunts can go a long way in ensuring that sustainable numbers are kept without compromising the welfare of the animals.
While it is settled that, trophy hunting contributes a significant amount of income to SADC economies, it is imperative to channel the returns towards the intended. This will help sustain the case in support of this practice. Trophy hunters do fork out large sums of money – but where it ends up is another matter. Critics argue that the hunting elite and corrupt government officials siphon off as much as 97 per cent.
Besides, these are one-off payments – you can’t kill the same animal twice – whereas a lion or rhino can earn money from traditional ecotourism for many years. Hence, its either ecotourism or proper management of game hunting practice in a way that promotes conversation of endangered species and in line with the ethical and moral considerations underpinning animal rights.