Namibia rhino hunt controversy

Article is courtesy of Tourbrief.com 

June 2008. A controversy is boiling in Namibia's conservation circles. According to CITES, the black rhino is a critically endangered species. However CITES has also relaxed its ban on hunting of the black rhino. The Namibian Ministry of Environment and Tourism, the owner of all black rhinos in Namibia, intends to use the opportunity to shoot five post-reproductive bulls and any 'problem males'.

According to sources, the Government sees it as a matter of straight-forward economics as the licences will generate a profit. This profit far exceeds the cost of relocating the rhinos. However, unsurprisingly, conservationists disagree with the logic.

The flipside of the coin is the investment that has been made in conservation of the species. Rhinos have been protected, rural communities have been co-opted into the scheme, conservancies that benefit these communities have been established, and the black rhinos have become a feature on the Namibian landscape.

Income generation from live rhinos
The first argument is that communities have learned to value rhinos for their income generating potential alive. Not so long ago, rhinos were regarded as valuable for their horns, and were killed. Shooting the rhinos for profit can be seen as a return to those values. This is born out by the South African experience: following hunting of rhinos in that country, poaching increased. "If a rich hunter can shoot them for money, why can't I shoot them myself and have the money for myself," the reasoning may well go.

Hunting big game for pleasure has always been a complete anathema to me. I despise those who gain pleasure from killing magnificent wildlife specimens to show how tough they are. But....

Hunting as the saviour of wildlife
In some places hunting has been the saviour of wildlife. England's forests (The original meaning of forest was actually an area reserved for hunting, often for the king) such as The New Forest, The Ashdown Forest and The Forest of Dean all exist today as they were protected as hunting reserves. Much of Scotland's wild areas are still preserved today as shooting estates.

The same holds true in parts of Africa where hunting game has provided an income for some local communities, and by giving a value to wildlife, has given the communities an economic reason to preserve the wildlife. If a struggling community in Tanzania can get some deranged American or machismo driven Italian to part with $50,000 to shoot an old rhino that is on it's last legs, who can blame them.

However there is also a vast income to be earned from wildlife tourism, and anyone on a wildlife holiday gets so much as a sniff of hunting going on nearby, their holiday, and the whole area, while be tarnished.

To allow hunting in a conservation area would be madness, especially if that area relies heavily on tourism income and charitable donations from overseas. If hunting is to continue, and I don't mind if it does, as long as it is properly controlled and the benefits go to the right places, then it must be kept away from tourist zones, it must be kept in it's own reserves, tucked away out of public view, tucked away in it's own dirty backstreet.

And I don't want to meet hunters either.

Conservation funds from international organisations may be lost
The second argument is that the conservancies of the Kunene Region have been positioned as areas of sanctuary for some of the world's highly endangered creatures. The investment is hard to quantify but it entails years of work to conserve the rhinos and develop communities in Kunene to the point where they can benefit from the rhinos. In addition to the investment in time and energy, there are the substantial sums that were donated by local and international organisations and individuals.

The return on these investments has been in the form of regard for Namibia, and a source of income for the communities. If the shooting goes ahead, the profit may well be offset by the loss of donor funding as individuals and organisations realise that their efforts, to support the environments and animals which they hold dear, are futile.

Image tarnished
The third argument lies in the nature of travel itself and the roll that Namibian tourism is expected to play in poverty reduction. Eco-conscious travellers and hunting don't mix well. This can be confirmed by the 'pure tourism' and hunting segments of Namibia's tourism industry. Shooting endangered rhinos in a conservation area will tarnish the image of the area and reduce travel to that area.

Short term gain
Incomes to the communities may increase in the short term if a part of the licence fees are ploughed back into the communities. But tourism to the conservancies will decline in the long term. And, overall, the value of Namibia as a 'conservation destination' will be reduced, and other communities will be affected to a greater or lesser degree.

The arguments are emotional, and the measurements are difficult, but beyond that there is a valid business case and economic reasons for not shooting five black rhino.

Article is courtesy of Tourbrief.com, the magazine for Namibia's tourism professionals.