Cape Town - A joint statement by the World Animal Protection (WAP) organisation highlighting the position of several global tourist companies, including Booking.com and TripAdvisor, in joining their call to end trophy hunting in South Africa, has sparked controversy among researchers and experts in the field of wildlife conservation.
The statement called on the South African government to publicly commit to ending trophy hunting in favour of exploring non-lethal, non-consumptive alternatives like wildlife-friendly tourism and other economic measures that incentivise conservation, avoid the killing of wild animals for sport and ensure a more equitable distribution of profits to local communities.
This statement from WAP came as South Africa opened up consultation on its draft Conservation and Sustainable Use of South Africa’s Biodiversity white paper.
WAP global head of campaigns for wildlife, Nick Stewart said: “The white paper seeks to create a prosperous nation, living in harmony with nature where biodiversity is conserved for present and future generations, this is a great start.
“But it falls short on clarity or tangible commitments to end global commercial wildlife trade.”
“Those signing the joint statement agreed that trophy hunting is cruel and unacceptable and believe responsible wildlife-friendly tourism, an under-utilised humane and sustainable alternative, can provide income and incentives to communities to protect animals without resorting to killing them for so called sport and entertainment,” WAP said.
However, Michael ’t Sas-Rolfes, an environmental resource economist at Oxford University, said there was strong evidence to suggest that the reason why South Africa was one of the world’s most successful countries in large mammal conservation was largely because it used managed and regulated hunting as a conservation tool.
Hayley Clements, a senior researcher at Stellenbosch University’s Centre for Sustainability Transitions, said the international tourism companies behind the statement seemed well placed to lead by example in “fully exploring non-lethal, non-consumptive alternatives by investing in such enterprises themselves and demonstrating that they do indeed give rise to the desired outcomes.”
Nikolaj Bichel, a doctor in environmental philosophy whose thesis focused on the consequences of trophy hunting, said the statement by WAP severely underestimated the consequences banning trophy hunting would have, particularly as a management tool and as a stream of revenue .
“Banning trophy hunting without very careful consideration of how and of what is ready to realistically replace it as a source of revenue and way to protect habitat could be disastrous for both wildlife and rural communities, and I don't think that everyone who's against it would still want it blanket banned if they were aware of this,”
“It's misleading when this joint statement just vaguely assumes that income from trophy hunting can be replaced with income from "wildlife friendly tourism",” Bichel said.
Bichel highlighted how overburdened some places in Africa were by "wildlife friendly tourism”.
He said eco-tourism required much more infrastructure, hotels, and roads than hunting tourism and all of this removes habitat and causes disturbances of wildlife that may cause greater damage than hunters killing some animals.
WAP wildlife campaign manager Edith Kabesiime said: “The life of a wild animal is worth so much more than the trophy it is too often reduced to. This is the shared view of tourists, who want to visit the country to see wildlife alive and thriving, and of South Africans who want to see the incredible wildlife on their doorstep, protected properly, in a humane and ethical manner.”