A new study on trophy hunting in sub-Saharan Africa has found that “trophy” hunting has overall positive outcomes for both people and wildlife habitat. The study was published in the wake of France banning the importation of hunting trophies and amid wider calls for similar bans in places like the UK.
In the most comprehensive meta-analysis of its kind, researchers analyzed 89 scientific articles in 13 African countries to evaluate how so-called trophy hunting affects wildlife, native habitat, and people. The study, which was published on Sept. 9 in Conservation Letters, was announced Monday.
Researchers found that 65 percent of documented outcomes were positive for conservation and locals. That number increased to more than 80 percent of the time when local communities or private landowners held rights to the land and received the revenues. This was particularly true in Namibia and South Africa, where residents have direct incentives to conserve and maintain both wildlife and habitat.
In countries like Tanzania and Zambia, where local communities and landowners received only a partial share of hunting revenues — and the state had more control over hunting and wildlife — outcomes were mixed.
The clearest benefits from trophy hunting were for habitat. Trophy hunting was associated with an increase in the amount of land under conservation in 92 percent of cases, according to the study.
“Hunting revenues can give landholders — including private landowners and communities — an incentive to conserve wildlife and its habitat rather than converting the land to agriculture or livestock farming,” according to the Stellenbosch University in South Africa, which participated in the study. “Trophy hunting similarly had positive outcomes for these landholders’ income, employment and food security in at least 85 percent of cases.”
In fact, researchers found that blanket import bans could be “a blunt instrument” that hinders livelihoods and harms wildlife and habitat back in the African countries that are managing hunting properly. Instead of trophy import bans, researchers suggest setting standards for imports. For example, importing countries could “require evidence that hunting contributes to conservation, that local people receive an equitable share of revenue, and that quotas are science-based and adaptively managed.”
This would support the hunting practices that are working and encourage those countries that have less-than-ideal policies in place to improve their regulations.
“Trophy hunting is one of Africa’s most contested conservation strategies,” lead author Dr. Hayley Clements said in a statement. “Twenty-three sub-Saharan African countries permit it, and there is mounting pressure in Europe and elsewhere … to ban imports of hunting trophies altogether. Yet public debates about trophy hunting are often driven by ethics and assumptions rather than evidence.”
Summary of findings from the study:
- The majority, or 65 percent of documented outcomes were positive for conservation and for local people’s well-being.
- Compare that with 26 percent negative and 9 percent ambiguous outcomes in other scenarios, which researchers say could be corrected with policy adjustments.
- Outcomes are more variable where the state retained control over wildlife on communal land.
- The effects on hunted species themselves were more mixed. Populations of hunted species were, more often, stable or growing than declining. However, age and sex ratios were more negatively affected.
“While populations of hunted species were more often stable or growing than declining, other measures – such as age and sex ratios – were more often negatively affected, and impacts on animal movement were mixed.”
“Trophy hunting tends to be talked about as either an unqualified good or an unqualified evil,” said Clements. “What our review shows is that the reality is far more context-specific – and that context is something policymakers can act on.”
Researchers from four countries — South Africa, the U.S., Canada, and Finland — participated in the study. Specifically they evaluated wildlife populations, natural habitats, and the well-being of locals, as measured by income, employment, and food security.
Read the full article here
