Trophy Hunting, Conservation and Rural Livelihoods

249ISSN 0041-6436

An international journal of forestry and forest industries Vol. 68 2017/1

SUSTAINABLE WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT 3 © JOACHIM HUBER 2.0 (HTTP://CREATIVECOMMONS.ORG/LICENSES/BY-SA/2.0)], BY-SA [CC VIA WIKIMEDIA COMMONS The baby and the bathwater: trophy hunting, conservation and rural livelihoods

R. Cooney, C. Freese, H. Dublin, D. Roe, D. Mallon, M. Knight, R. Emslie, M. Pani, V. Booth, S. Mahoney and C. Buyanaa

There is substantial evidence that the controversial practice of trophy rophy hunting is the subject of hunting can produce positive outcomes for wildlife conservation and intense debate and polarized posi- local people. tions, with controversy and deep Tconcern over some hunting practices and their ethical basis and impacts. The Rosie Cooney is Chair of the International Union Institute for Environment and Development and for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Commission a member of the IUCN CEESP/SSC Sustainable controversy has sparked moves at various on Environmental, Economic and Social Policy Use and Livelihoods Specialist Group. levels to end or restrict trophy hunting, (CEESP)/Species Survival Commission (SSC) David Mallon is Co-chair of the IUCN SSC including through bans on the carriage Sustainable Use and Livelihoods Specialist Antelope Specialist Group and a member of Group and Visiting Fellow at the University of the IUCN CEESP/SSC Sustainable Use and or import of hunting trophies. In March New South Wales, Australia. Livelihoods Specialist Group. 2016, for example, a group of members Curtis Freese, Marco Pani and Vernon Booth Michael Knight is Co-chair of the IUCN SSC of the European Parliament called (unsuc- are independent consultants and members of African Rhino Specialist Group and a member the IUCN CEESP/SSC Sustainable Use and of the IUCN CEESP/SSC Sustainable Use and cessfully) for the signing of a Written Livelihoods Specialist Group. Livelihoods Specialist Group. Declaration calling for examination of Holly Dublin is Chair of the IUCN SSC African Richard Emslie is Scientific Officer with the the possibility of restricting all imports of Elephant Specialist Group, Senior Advisor at IUCN SSC African Rhino Specialist Group. the IUCN East and Southern Africa Regional Shane Mahoney is Chief Executive Officer at hunting trophies into the European Union. Office, and a member of the IUCN CEESP/SSC Conservation Visions and Deputy Chair for North Sustainable Use and Livelihoods Specialist America of the IUCN CEESP/SSC Sustainable Group. Use and Livelihoods Specialist Group. Dilys Roe is Principal Researcher and Team Chimeddorj Buyanaa is Conservation Director Above: Elephants bathe in the Leader (Biodiversity) at the International at the W W F Mongolia P rogram me Office. Chobe River, Botswana

Unasylva 249, Vol. 68, 2017/1 4

Although there is a pressing need for the or to enable forest regeneration; being in trade is generally far more damaging in reform of hunting governance and practice nature; continuing a culturally important both scale and demographic impact, with in many countries, calls for blanket restric- or traditional set of practices; and inter- breeding females and calves often killed. tions on trophy hunting assume that it is acting with family and friends. In many In Africa, for example, 1 342 African rhi- uniformly detrimental to conservation; contexts, trophy hunting overlaps substan- nos (including both species) were reported such calls are frequently made based on tially with hunting for food. Many deer poached in 2015 – almost 20 times more poor information and inaccurate assump- hunters, for example, may hunt animals than the 69 that were hunted legally that tions. Here we explain how trophy hunting, with larger antlers if encountered, but will year (Emslie et al., 2016). All revenue from if well managed, can play a positive role hunt others (for meat) should the desired poaching for the illegal wildlife trade flows in supporting conservation as well as local animal not be found. to criminals; on the other hand, revenues community rights and livelihoods, and we A wide variety of species is subject to from legal hunting are used in a number of provide examples from various parts of the trophy hunting, from common to threat- cases to fund law enforcement or provide world. We highlight the likely impact of ened. Most are native, but some (e.g. deer community benefits that counter the incen- blanket bans on trophy hunting and argue in Australia and New Zealand) are intro- tives to engage in illegal wildlife trade (see, for a more nuanced approach to much- duced. The hunting of introduced species for example, case studies 1, 2 and 4 later needed reform. constitutes a small proportion of hunting in this article). and raises different conservation issues In some contexts, all decisions on hunt- WHAT IS TROPHY HUNTING? to those associated with the hunting of ing quotas, species and areas are made by Here we define trophy hunting as hunting native species; it is not discussed further government wildlife agencies (for example carried out on a recreational basis (i.e. not in this article. in the United States of America – case “subsistence” hunting carried out as part Although there is a tendency for the study 3). In many trophy-hunting gover- of basic livelihood strategies) targeting media and decision-makers to conflate nance systems, however, local landowners animals with specific desired characteris- “canned” hunting (hunting of usually and community organizations participate tics (such as large size or antlers). Trophy captive-bred animals in enclosures from alongside governments in deciding these hunting generally involves the payment which they are unable to escape, or of questions and sometimes are the key of a fee by a foreign or local hunter for recently released animals unfamiliar with decision-makers, at least for some species an (often guided) experience for one or the area) with legitimate trophy hunting, (e.g. in Namibian communal conservan- more individuals in hunting a particular canned hunting is a limited practice (pri- cies – see case study 5). species with desired characteristics. The marily involving lions in South Africa) This is not to say that no illegal practices hunter generally retains the antlers, horn, and is condemned by major professional take place – as, to a certain extent, they tusks, head, teeth or other body parts of hunting organizations. It raises different do in most sectors. Widespread anecdotal the animal as a memento or “trophy”, issues to those associated with the hunt- reports indicate that regulatory weak- and the local community or the hunter ing of free-ranging animals and is not nesses and illegal activities exist in the usually uses the meat for food. Trophy discussed further in this article. trophy-hunting sector in some countries, hunting takes place in most countries of Trophy hunting is also frequently (and sometimes at a very serious scale and Europe, the United States of America, incorrectly) conflated with poaching sometimes involving official corruption. Canada, Mexico, several countries in for the organized international illegal Such activities include hunting in excess East, Central and South Asia, around wildlife trade that is devastating many of quotas or in the wrong areas, the tak- half the 54 countries in Africa (Booth and species, including the African elephant ing of non-permitted species, and “pseudo Chardonnet, 2015), several countries in (Loxodonta africana) and African rhinos hunting” (case study 1). Central and South America, and Australia (black – Diceros bicornis – and white – The prices paid for trophy hunts vary and New Zealand. Ceratotherium simum). Trophy hunting enormously, from the equivalent of hun- We note, however, that the term “trophy typically takes place as a legal, regulated dreds to hundreds of thousands of United hunting” can be misleading. Hunting takes activity under programmes implemented by States dollars; at a global scale, such hunts many forms, and hunters have diverse government wildlife agencies, protected- involve a substantial revenue flow from motivations. Gaining trophies may be a area managers, indigenous or local developed to developing countries (e.g. minor or incidental motivation for some community bodies, private landowners or Booth, 2009; Saayman, van der Merwe hunters, who may also be motivated by, conservation or development organizations, and Rossouw, 2011). In developing coun- for example, the prospect of obtaining whereas poaching for the illegal wildlife tries, landowners and land managers often food; managing a population in order to trade is – by definition – illegal and un- negotiate with hunting operators (or “con- conserve other species of plants or animals managed. Poaching for the illegal wildlife cessionaires”) to decide who will get the

Unasylva 249, Vol. 68, 2017/1 5

hunting right or concession on their land, (such as reduced horn size); the intro- sub-Saharan Africa, lands set aside and on what terms. Terms may include duction of species or subspecies beyond for wildlife in hunting concessions (and, in some countries, must include, if their natural ranges (including into other cover as much land (or more) as on state land) obligations to carry out anti- countries); and predator removal. national parks (Lindsey, Roulet and poaching and community development It is clear, however, that, given effective Romañach, 2007) and are often part activities. The operator, in turn, secures governance and management, trophy hunt- of national protected-area systems contracts with foreign clients and runs the ing can and does have positive impacts (usually in IUCN categories IV and hunting trips. The fees paid by hunters (as shown in the six case studies in this VI).1 Given the intense and escalat- generally include three things: article). Habitat loss, fragmentation and ing pressures on land in developing 1. the operator’s costs (where applicable); degradation, driven primarily by the countries, particularly to produce 2. payments to the local entity (e.g. com- expansion of human economic activities, food, the future of these lands and the munity, private or state landowner or is the most important threat to terrestrial wildlife that inhabit them would be land manager) with which the opera- wildlife populations (Mace et al., 2005), highly uncertain without the benefits tor has the contract; and along with other threats such as poaching flowing from wildlife management. 3. official government payments of for bushmeat and illegal wildlife trade and • Generate revenue for wildlife man- various types (e.g. permits and fees), competition with livestock. Demands for agement and conservation, including which typically help finance wild- food, income and land for development anti-poaching activities, for gov- life management and conservation are rising in many biodiversity-rich parts ernmental, private and communal activities. of the world, exacerbating threats to wild- landholders (see case studies 1–6). In developing countries, generally 50–90 life and increasing the urgency of finding In most regions, government agencies percent of the net revenues (excluding viable conservation incentives. depend at least in part on revenues operator costs) are allocated to local Well-managed trophy hunting can be a from hunting to manage wildlife and entities, with the remainder going to gov- positive driver of conservation because protected areas. State wildlife agen- ernment authorities. The local community it increases the value of wildlife and the cies in the United States of America, benefit can be as high as 100 percent and habitats it depends on, providing crucial for example, are funded primarily by as low as nearly zero. Meat from hunts is benefits that can motivate and enable hunters (both trophy and broader recre- often donated or sold to local community sustainable management approaches. ational hunting) through various direct members and can be highly valued locally Trophy-hunting programmes can have and indirect mechanisms, including (Naidoo et al., 2016). In most countries the following positive impacts: the sale of trophy-hunting permits in Europe and North America, a share of • Generate incentives for landowners (Heffelfinger, Geist and Wishart, hunters’ fees usually goes to governmental (e.g. government, private individu- 2013; Mahoney, 2013). The extent of wildlife authorities to help finance wildlife als and communities) to conserve the world’s gazetted protected areas, management and conservation activities. or restore wildlife on their land. many of which are in IUCN catego- Benefits to landowners from hunting ries IV and VI and include hunting WHAT IMPACTS DOES can make wildlife an attractive land- areas, could decline significantly if TROPHY HUNTING HAVE ON use option, encouraging landowners hunting areas were to become inop- CONSERVATION? to maintain or restore wildlife habitat erable. Private landowners in South Trophy hunting takes place in a wide and populations, remove livestock, Africa and Zimbabwe and com- range of governance, management and invest in monitoring and management, munal landowners in Namibia also ecological contexts and, accordingly, its and carry out anti-poaching activi- use trophy-hunting revenues to pay impacts on conservation vary enormously, ties. Policies enabling landowners guards and rangers, buy equipment, from negative through neutral to positive. to benefit from sustainable wildlife and otherwise manage and protect Good evidence on the impacts is lacking or use have led to the total or partial scarce in many contexts, making it impos- conversion of large areas of land 1 The aim of IUCN Protected Area Category IV sible to fully evaluate the overall effect of from livestock and cropping back areas (“habitat/species management areas”) is trophy hunting. to wildlife in, for example, Mexico, to protect particular species or habitats, and management reflects this priority. The aim Negative conservation impacts of poorly Namibia, Pakistan, South Africa, of IUCN Protected Area Category VI areas managed trophy hunting may include over- the United States of America and (“protected areas with sustainable use of natu- harvesting; artificial selection for rare or Zimbabwe (case studies 1 and 3–6). ral resources”) is to conserve ecosystems and habitats together with associated cultural values exaggerated features (e.g. abnormal colour This benefit applies to state protected and traditional natural resource management morphs); genetic or phenotypic impacts areas as well as to private lands. In systems (IUCN, 2017).

Unasylva 249, Vol. 68, 2017/1 6

Hunting for food and trophies overlaps for species such as red deer (Cervus elaphus)

The incentives and revenues from trophy- hunting programmes are not just important for the conservation of hunted species: site protection exercises a “biodiversity umbrella” effect and may help conserve non-hunted species, too. Populations of African rhinos and the African wild dog (Lycaon pictus) in the Savé and Bubye conservancies in Zimbabwe are not hunted, but proceeds from trophy hunting support their conservation (case study 4). In the Pamirs in Tajikistan, trophy-hunting concessions for argali (Ovis ammon) and ibex (Capra ibex) (wild sheep and goats) are showing higher densities of the threatened snow leopard (Panthera uncia) than nearby areas without trophy hunting, likely due to higher prey densities and reduced poaching (Kachel, 2014). High densities of snow leopard have also been recorded in a markhor (Capra falconeri) conservancy (Rosen, 2014). In the United States of America, the threatened grizzly bear (Ursus arctos) population in the Yellow- stone National Park region has benefited from the retirement of areas of land from livestock grazing and thus reduced bear–livestock conflicts, paid for partly by revenues from trophy hunting for bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis) (K. Hurley, personal communication, 25 February 2016).

© JÖRG HEMPEL [CC BY-SA 3.0 DE (HTTP://CREATIVECOMMONS.ORG/LICENSES/BY-SA/3.0/DE/DEED.EN)], DE 3.0 HEMPEL JÖRG © BY-SA [CC VIA WIKIMEDIA COMMONS Concern is frequently expressed that trophy hunting is driving declines of wildlife (case studies 1 and 5). Reve- wildlife killings and human–wildlife iconic African large mammals such as nues from trophy-hunting operations in conflicts. Retaliatory killings and the elephant, rhino and lion (Panthera Mongolia, Pakistan and Tajikistan are local poaching are common when leo). Although there is evidence in a small used to pay local guards to stop poach- wildlife imposes serious costs on local number of cases – particularly concerning ing and to improve habitat for game people – such as the loss of crops and the lion – that unsustainable trophy hunting animals (case studies 2 and 6). Trophy- livestock and human injury or death has contributed to declines (e.g. Loveridge hunting operators and the patrols they – and there are no legal means for et al., 2007; Packer et al., 2011), it is not directly organize, finance and deploy people to benefit from it. This is a par- considered a primary threat to any of can reduce poaching (Lindsey, Roulet ticularly important factor in Africa, these species and is typically a negligible and Romañach, 2007). where elephants and other species or minor threat to African wildlife popula- • Increase tolerance of wild- destroy crops and where large cats tions (Lindsey, 2015). The primary causes life and thereby reduce illegal kill humans and livestock. of current and past population declines

Unasylva 249, Vol. 68, 2017/1 7

of the large mammals subject to trophy and region. In many cases, trophy hunting TROPHY HUNTING IN ACTION: hunting – such as the African elephant, takes place without meaningful community CASE STUDIES OF POSITIVE IMPACTS African buffalo, white rhino, black rhino, participation in decision-making around In the intense ongoing debate over trophy zebra (Equus zebra and E. quagga), argali, wildlife management, without adequate hunting, broad statements are often made ibex, bighorn sheep and various deer and respect for community rights and consent, suggesting that all trophy hunting threatens bear species – are habitat loss and degrada- and with insufficient or poorly functioning conservation or is driving declines in spe- tion, competition with livestock, illegal or benefit-sharing mechanisms, with most cies. For this reason, and because many uncontrolled poaching for meat and trade value captured by hunting operators or of these examples are not widely known, in animal products (e.g. ivory and horn), government agencies. In a significant we set out here a number of case studies and retribution killings in human–wildlife number of trophy-hunting programmes, where trophy hunting is generating positive conflicts (Schipper et al., 2008; Ripple however, it is clear that indigenous peoples benefits for conservation and community et al., 2015). For lions, the most important and local communities have freely chosen rights and livelihoods. Although examples causes of population declines are indis- to use trophy hunting as a way of generat- of poor approaches to trophy hunting also criminate killing in defence of human life ing incentives and revenues for conserving exist and deserve similar scrutiny, these and livestock, habitat loss, and prey-base and managing their wildlife and improving typically involve illegal or non-transparent depletion (usually from poaching) (Bauer their livelihoods (case studies 2, 3, 5 and behaviour, making verifiable information et al., 2015). For many of these species, as 6). In many other cases, communities have difficult to obtain. noted in the case studies, well-managed less decision-making power over trophy trophy hunting can promote population hunting but nevertheless gain a share of Case study 1. Rhinos in Namibia and recovery and protection and help in main- hunting revenues (see Lindsey et al., 2013). South Africa taining habitats. Communities can benefit from trophy The history of rhino hunting in Namibia hunting through hunting-concession pay- and South Africa demonstrates clearly its TROPHY HUNTING AND INDIGENOUS ments or other hunter investments, which sustainability in terms of population num- AND LOCAL COMMUNITY RIGHTS typically provide improved community bers. Since trophy-hunting programmes AND LIVELIHOODS services such as water infrastructure; were introduced for white rhino in South The contributions of trophy hunting to the schools and health clinics; jobs as guides, Africa, numbers have increased from livelihoods of indigenous peoples and local game guards, wildlife managers and other around 1 800 individuals in 1968 to just communities vary enormously by context hunting-related employment; and greater over 18 400 today (Emslie et al., 2016; access to game meat. Typically, indigenous Figure 1), with many more individuals also and local communities in and around hunt- reintroduced to other countries in the spe-

Lions: trophy hunting is not ing areas are very poor, with few sources cies’ natural range. Since the Convention considered a primary threat of income and sometimes no other legal on International Trade in Endangered to their conservation and can source of meat. Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) generate benefits

Unasylva 249, Vol. 68, 2017/1 8

1 20 000 3 900 Estimated number 18 000 of white rhinos in South Africa 3 400 16 000 (left) and black rhinos in South 14 000 Africa and Namibia 2 900 (right) before 12 000 and after trophy hunting started () 10 000 2 400 in 1968 and 2005, respectively 8 000 1 900 6 000

4 000 1 400 2 000

0 900 1948 1963 1978 1993 2008 1989 1994 1999 2004 2009 2014 Year Year Source: Redrawn from Emslie et al. (2016).

approved limited hunting quotas for black (to other reserves) to cover operating restrictions that threaten the viability of rhino in late 2004, the number of indi- costs. For example, one self-funded South hunting would likely further reduce incen- viduals in Namibia and South Africa has African reserve manages an increasing tives and exacerbate the trend. increased by 67 percent, from about 2 300 population of 195 white rhinos and many Hunting may also directly contribute to in 2004 to about 3 900 today (Figure 1). other species.2 An analysis of eight years population growth by removing males that As of the end of 2015, Namibia and South of data showed that only about 18 percent might (for example) kill or compete with Africa hosted 90 percent of Africa’s total of that reserve’s total operating costs was calves and females. The hunting of small black and white rhino population. generated from tourism, with trophy hunt- numbers of specific individual “surplus” Hunting has played an integral role in ing generating the bulk (63 percent) of male black rhinos is approved in South the recovery of the white rhino by provid- income needed to fund operations. The Africa only if criteria set out in the coun- ing incentives for private and communal reserve allocates all the proceeds from try’s black rhino biodiversity management landowners to maintain the species on their rhino hunting to rhino protection and plan are met to ensure that hunting furthers lands; generating income for conservation conservation management. The reserve demographic and genetic conservation. and protection; and helping manage and manager has noted that a recent ban on Generating revenue for conservation is promote the recovery of populations. lion-trophy imports by the United States of a bonus rather than the main driver of In South Africa, the limited trophy hunt- America has already caused the cancella- this hunting. ing of rhinos, combined with live sales and tion of some hunts, with a negative impact In recent years, “pseudo hunters” have tourism, has provided an economic incen- on income for conservation (M. Knight, used legal trophy hunting to access rhino tive to encourage more than 300 private R. Emslie and K. Adcock, personal com- horn for illegal sale in Southeast Asia, landowners to build their collective herd munication, 18 March 2016). driving a spike in the number of individu- to about 6 140 white rhinos and 630 black Increasing security costs and risks due als hunted to a high of 173 in 2011. The rhinos on 49 private or communal land- to escalating poaching and declining introduction of control measures in South holdings, representing around 1.7 million economic incentives have resulted in a Africa in 2012, however, has brought the hectares of conservation land – equiva- worrying trend, in which some private number of white rhinos hunted back down lent to almost another Kruger National landowners and managers are no longer to previous levels (Emslie et al., 2016). Park (Balfour, Knight and Jones, 2016; keeping rhinos; if this trend continues, Emslie et al., 2016). The contribution of it could threaten the expansion of the Case study 2. Argali in Mongolia trophy hunting to increasing the range and species’ ranges and numbers. Import Trophy hunting became legal in Mongolia numbers of these iconic species, therefore, in 1967, with argali, particularly the Altai 2 is significant (and increasing). The identity of this reserve is known to the IUCN argali (Ovis ammon ammon), the coun- SSC African Rhino Specialist Group (a highly Many private reserves rely heavily on credible and trusted authority), but we do not try’s most highly valued trophy animal. trophy hunting and the sale of white rhinos reveal it here for rhino security reasons. An inadequate management framework,

Unasylva 249, Vol. 68, 2017/1 9

however, led to largely unmanaged, Hunting is managed by the Gulzat tripled from its historic low to roughly open-access hunting. Argali populations Initiative, a non-governmental organization 80 000 today (Hurley, Brewer and declined significantly, possibly with addi- formed entirely of local community mem- Thornton, 2015). tional pressure arising from competition bers, with guidance from experts in wildlife Restoration of the bighorn sheep popu- with a rapidly growing domestic goat management, including certain hunting lation in Canada and the United States population (Page, 2015; Wingard and companies. Trilateral contracts between of America was brought about largely Zahler, 2006). hunting companies, the Gulzat Initiative by hunters working with provincial and WWF Mongolia initiated a community- and the district governor enhance trans- state wildlife agencies to support research, based wildlife management project in the parency and accountability (C. Buyanaa, habitat acquisition and management. In the Uvs administrative region in northwest personal communication, 28 January 2016). American state of Wyoming, for example, Mongolia in 2007. The objective was to Recent legal developments in Mon- auctions of bighorn sheep hunting tags replace uncontrolled open-access use with golia have established a sound basis for yield approximately US$350 000 annually, community wildlife management by seven community-based wildlife management, of which 70 percent goes to conserving local groups, with revenues to be gener- informed by experiences from communal bighorn sheep and 10 percent goes to the ated by trophy hunting, mainly of the Altai conservancies in Namibia (see case study 5). conservation of other wildlife. These funds argali. The 12.7 million-hectare Gulzat were used to cover approximately one- Local Protected Area was established Case study 3. Bighorn sheep in third of the more than US$2 million paid to and an initial ban on hunting was put in North America producers of domestic sheep to voluntarily place to enable population restoration. Euro-American settlement and the cor- remove sheep from 187 590 hectares of With protection from local herders, the responding surge in livestock numbers and public grazing lands (with the other two- population grew from about 200 in the uncontrolled hunting led to a rapid decline thirds of the cost met from fees paid by years immediately preceding the ban to in bighorn sheep in North America, from other hunting, fishing and wildlife groups; more than 1 500 in 2014 (Figure 2). This roughly 1 million individuals in 1800 to K. Hurley, personal communication, growth continued as managed hunting fewer than 25 000 in 1950. Since then, 23 February 2016). was initiated. Twelve Altai argali were based primarily on more than US$100 mil- Indigenous-managed trophy hunting has harvested in the four years following lion contributed by trophy-hunting groups also driven recoveries of bighorn sheep the lifting of the ban, generating around through fees and donations, hundreds of in Mexico. In 1975, 20 individuals were US$123 400 in income at the local level thousands of hectares have been set aside reintroduced to Tiburon Island in the Sea (C. Buyanaa, personal communication, for bighorn sheep and other wildlife, and of Cortez, an island owned and managed 2 March 2016). the bighorn population has more than by Seri Indians. The original cause of the extinction of the species on the island is

1 800 unknown, but the population grew quickly after reintroduction to around 500, prob- 1 600 ably the island’s carrying capacity. In 1995, 1 400 a coalition of institutions initiated a programme to fund bighorn sheep research 1 200 and conservation while providing needed 1 000 income for the Seri through the international auctioning of exclusive hunting 800 permits on the island. 600 Initially, permits often garnered 6-figure No. of individuals of No. 400 bids (in US dollars). From 1998 to 2007, the Seri Indians earned US$3.2 million 200 from bighorn sheep hunting permits and 0 the sale of young animals for transloca- 2003 2004 2005 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2014 tion – funds that were reinvested in Seri Year

Note: Population figures are the numbers of animals observed in annual transect and point surveys, with a low likelihood of animals being counted more than once; figures therefore represent minimum estimates. 2 Source: Chimeddorj Buyanaa, WWF Mongolia, unpublished data. Population counts for Altai argali in the Gulzat Local Protected Area, Mongolia

Unasylva 249, Vol. 68, 2017/1 10

A bighorn sheep, New Mexico, United States of America PHOTO CREDIT: JWANAMAKER 3.0 (HTTP://CREATIVECOMMONS.ORG/LICENSES/BY-SA/3.0)], WORK) (OWN BY-SA [CC VIA WIKIMEDIA COMMONS

community projects, the management of Case study 4. Private wildlife lands in game ranching as the hobby of a few dozen the bighorn sheep population, and the Zimbabwe ranchers to, by 2000, some 1 000 land- maintenance of the island in an undis- In Zimbabwe, the devolution of wildlife owners conserving 2.7 million hectares turbed state. The funding of the island’s use rights to landholders in 1975 resulted of wildlife land, with trophy hunting a conservation through trophy hunting in a transition in the wildlife sector from primary driver of this change (Child, 2009; continues, with the Seri recently selling

permits for US$80 000–90 000 each. The 550 island has also been an important source 500 History population for the re-establishment of 450 1999 13 lions introduced into Samanyanga bighorn sheep populations in the Sonoran (+ 4 young males break in) Desert and elsewhere on the mainland. 400 2001 Lion monitoring ceases 350 2009 Conservation research initiated: Many ranchers in the Sonoran Desert have WildCRU team from Oxford greatly reduced or eliminated livestock to 300 focus on wildlife because of the substantial 250 Original lion monitoring data revenues that can be generated from trophy 200 Oxford WildCRU Predator Survey data hunting for bighorn sheep and mule deer No. of individuals of No. 150 (Odocoileus hemionus) (Valdez et al., 100 2006; Wilder et al., 2014; Hurley, Brewer and Thornton, 2015). 50 0 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Year 3 Note: The privately owned Bubye Valley Conservancy is on land previously used for farming and depends The lion population in the privately on trophy hunting to fund wildlife conservation. Samanyanga is an area in the east of the conservancy on owned Bubye Valley Conservancy, the banks of the Bubye River. Zimbabwe, 1999–2012

Unasylva 249, Vol. 68, 2017/1 11

Lindsey, Romañach and Davies-Mostert, SVC has around 1 500 African elephants, Case study 5. Communal 2009). The number of landholders involved 121 black and 42 white rhinos, 280 lions conservancies in Namibia and the area of wildlife land conserved and several packs of African wild dog. In the early 1990s, many residents of have since declined significantly under Hunting on the Sango Ranch, SVC’s largest Namibian communal lands viewed wildlife the land reform programme; neverthe- property, yields around US$600 000 annu- species as detrimental to their livelihoods less, despite the challenging economic ally and employs 120 permanent workers, because they destroyed crops and water conditions in the country today, private who represent more than 1 000 family installations and killed or injured livestock conservancies continue to play a crucial members (Lindsey et al., 2008; W. Pabst and people. In 2015, 82 communal conser- role in conservation. The two conservan- and D. Goosen, personal communication, vancies managed 1.6 million hectares for cies described below both rely on trophy 9 February 2016; Sango Wildlife, undated). conservation, lands that are also home to hunting as the primary source of revenue The 323 000-hectare Bubye Valley around 190 000 people, including indig- and would be unviable without it. Both Conservancy (BVC), also a converted enous and tribal communities (NACSO, have made efforts to attract nature-based cattle ranch, now has roughly 500 lions 2015). tourism that does not include hunting (Figure 3), 700 African elephants, Trophy hunting has underpinned (often referred to as photographic tourism), 5 000 African buffaloes, 82 white rhinos Namibia’s success in community-based but this does not contribute significant and, at 211, the third-largest black rhino natural resource management. Recent revenue (Zimbabwe’s political instability population in Africa. Trophy fees in 2015 analysis indicates that if revenues from tro- has had far more impact on photographic generated US$1.38 million. BVC employs phy hunting were lost, most conservancies tourism than on hunting tourism). about 400 people and invests US$200 000 would be unable to cover their operating The Savé Valley Conservancy (SVC), annually in community development proj- costs; they would become unviable, and covering 344 000 hectares, was created ects (BVC, undated; B. Leathem, personal wildlife populations and local benefits in the 1990s by livestock ranchers who communication, 17 January 2016). would both decline dramatically (Naidoo agreed that wildlife management could Note that the revenues generated by et al., 2016; Figure 4). be a better use of the land than livestock. trophy hunting protect and benefit many Overall, conservancies generate around Cattle-ranching operations had eliminated non-hunted species in these ranches, such half their benefits (e.g. cash income for all elephants, rhinos, buffaloes and lions as the black rhino, white rhino and African individuals or communities; meat; and (among other species) in the area. Today, wild dog. social benefits like schools and health clinics) from photographic tourism and half from hunting. Much of the revenue is reinvested into the management and protection of wildlife. Around half the conservancies gain their benefits solely from hunting, with most of the rest deriv- ing parts of their incomes from hunting alongside tourism. Only 12 percent of conservancies specialize in tourism (Naidoo et al., 2016). Revenues from trophy hunting for 29 wildlife species in conservancies totalled NAD36.4 million (about US$2.7 million) in 2015 (NACSO, 2015). Communities directly receive payments of about US$20 000 for each elephant hunted, plus about 3 000 kg of meat (Chris Weaver, personal communication, 18 January 2016).

White rhino: under threat from poaching, but trophy hunting can be beneficial for conservation. This rhino is in the Thanda Private

Unasylva 249, Vol. 68, 2017/1 12

Unprofitable Unprofitable Break-even Break-even Profitable Profitable

Source: Reproduced from Naidoo et al. (2016).

4 Wildlife populations have shown dra- that uncontrolled illegal hunting for Revenue generated by trophy hunting matic increases in Namibia since the food had greatly reduced populations underpins the success of the Namibian beginning of the communal conservancy of both the Suleiman (straight-horned) communal conservancy programme. The maps illustrate the economic viability of programme. On communal lands in the markhor (Capra falconeri megaceros) community conservancies in Namibia northeast, the population of the sable (<100 individuals) and the Afghan urial under (a) the status quo; and (b) a antelope (Hippotragus niger) increased (Ovis orientalis) (around 200 individu- simulated trophy-hunting ban from 724 in 1994 to 1 474 in 2011, and als). After unsuccessfully petitioning the the impala (Aepyceros melampus) popula- government to protect these two species, tion grew from 439 to 9 374 over the same the Pathan leaders developed the Torghar period. In the conservancy region in the Conservation Project based on a simple Similar examples exist elsewhere in northwest, the population of the threatened concept: that community members would Pakistan and in Tajikistan (and see also Hartmann’s mountain zebra (Equus zebra give up hunting in exchange for being the article on page 17 of this edition). Such hartmannae) increased from fewer than 1 hired as game guards to prevent poaching, developments have contributed to a recent 000 individuals in the early 1980s to an and the project would be financed by rev- improvement in the conservation status of estimated 27 000 in 2011, and the number enues derived from a limited trophy hunt markhor in the IUCN Red List, where it of black rhinos more than tripled, mak- of markhor and urial by foreign hunters. is no longer listed as Threatened. Outside ing it the largest free-roaming population The project covers about 100 000 hect- protected areas, stable and increasing in Africa (conservancies are unfenced). ares inhabited by 4 000 people. Between populations are found only in areas where The growth of communal conservancies 1986 and 2012, hunting of the two species there is sustainable hunting (Michel and and protection offered by national parks generated US$486 400 for the provincial Rosen Michel, 2015). has led to an increase in the population government and US$2.71 million for the of elephants from around 7 500 in 1995 local community, the latter covering the HOW WOULD TROPHY HUNTING to more than 20 000 today. The Kunene salaries of more than 80 game guards, BANS AFFECT CONSERVATION Conservancy’s lion population grew from funding various community projects, AND INDIGENOUS AND LOCAL roughly 25 in 1995 to 150 today, and including schools and healthcare facilities, COMMUNITIES? Namibia now has a large free-roaming and supporting actions to reduce graz- Outright bans on trophy hunting, as lion population outside national parks ing competition with livestock. Illegal well as import or transport restrictions (NACSO, 2015; C. Weaver, personal com- hunting declined dramatically: by 2012, on high-value species, especially in the munication, 18 January 2016). the markhor population had grown to an European Union and the United States estimated 3 500 individuals, while a 2005 of America, could end trophy hunting Case study 6. Markhor and urial in survey of urial estimated the population by making programmes economically Pakistan at 2 541 (Woodford, Frisina and Awun, unviable (see Figure 4). The case stud- In Pakistan in the mid-1980s, local 2004; Frisina and Tareen, 2009; Mallon, ies presented here make it clear that, in Pathan tribal leaders were concerned 2013). the absence of effective and sustainable

Unasylva 249, Vol. 68, 2017/1 13

Photo tourism: rarely a full substitute for trophy hunting in Africa

© JORGE LÁSCAR FROM AUSTRALIA (ELEPHANT SWIMMING. UPLOADED BY PDTILLMAN) [CC BY 2.0 (HTTP://CREATIVECOMMONS.ORG/LICENSES/BY/2.0)], VIA WIKIMEDIA COMMONS alternatives, removing the incentives and land, less access to meat, and lost employ- year (already reduced from US$2.2 million revenue provided by trophy hunting would ment options. The indigenous Khwe San by import bans on elephant trophies in likely cause serious population declines and Mbukushu (around 5 000 people) in the United States of America) (C. Jonga, for a number of threatened or iconic Bwatwata National Park, who are among personal communication, 27 August 2015). species, potentially stopping and revers- Namibia’s poorest people, have earned These are substantial amounts of money ing the recovery of (for example) some around NAD2.4 million (US$155 000) in countries where the average income of populations of African elephant, black and per year from trophy hunting in recent rural residents is a few dollars or less per white rhino, Hartmann’s mountain zebra years (R. Diggle, personal communica- day. Even more fundamentally, perhaps, and lion in Africa, markhor, argali and tion, 18 March 2016); stopping trophy unilateral trophy restrictions by import- urial in Asia, and bighorn sheep in North hunting would be an enormous setback ing countries would reduce the power of America. Populations of threatened species for them because of both a loss of income already-marginalized rural communities not subject to trophy hunting – such as the and reduced access to meat (and living in to make decisions on the management of snow leopard and African wild dog – could a national park means they cannot graze also be negatively affected. livestock or grow commercial crops). If 3 The CAMPFIRE [Communal Areas Manage- For some indigenous and local com- trophy hunting became unviable, thou- ment Programme For Indigenous Resources] is munities, making trophy hunting illegal sands of rural Zimbabwean households that Zimbabwe’s community-based natural resource 3 management programme, one of the first such or unviable would mean the loss of cash directly benefit from CAMPFIRE would programmes globally (Mutandwa and Gadzirayi, income from hunting concessions on their collectively lose about US$1.7 million per 2007).

Unasylva 249, Vol. 68, 2017/1 14

their lands and wildlife in ways that respect habitats. An example – albeit limited by countries in addressing, for example, their right to self-determination and that the difficulty of obtaining stable funding transparency in funding flows, commu- best meet their livelihood aspirations. – is the land-leasing scheme carried out nity benefits, the allocation of concessions by Cottar’s Safari Service with Maasai and quota setting; the rights and respon- CAN ALTERNATIVE LAND USES communities in Olderkesi, Kenya (IUCN sibilities of indigenous peoples and local REPLACE TROPHY HUNTING? SULi et al., 2015). REDD+4 can provide communities; and the monitoring of popu- Trophy hunting is not the only means of incentives and revenue flows to local com- lations and hunts. Hunting stakeholders increasing the economic value of wild- munities in some areas, although with – importing countries, donors, national life and generating local benefits. It is many caveats. PES schemes are difficult regulators and managers, community often assumed that photographic tourism options and risk donor dependency. A organizations, researchers, conservation could replace trophy hunting: this is cer- crucial challenge is ensuring that revenue organizations, and the hunting industry tainly a valuable option in many places flows are sustainable over the long term and hunter associations – have important and has generated enormous benefits for and not contingent on highly changeable roles to play in improving standards. conservation and local people, but it is donor priorities. In certain cases, conditional, time- viable in only a small proportion of the limited and targeted moratoria aimed wildlife areas now managed for trophy REFORMING TROPHY-HUNTING at addressing identified problems could hunting. In contrast to trophy hunting, PRACTICES help improve trophy-hunting practices. photographic tourism requires political Despite the positive examples outlined Bans, however, are unlikely to improve stability, proximity to good transport here, we are fully aware that, in many conservation outcomes unless there is a links, minimal disease risks, high-density countries, trophy-hunting governance and clear expectation that improved standards wildlife populations to guarantee viewing, management have many (typically undocu- will lead to the lifting of such bans and scenic landscapes, high capital investment, mented) weaknesses and failures, and the country has the capacity and political infrastructure (hotels, food and water sup- action by decision-makers to support effec- will to address the problem. It is crucial, plies, and waste management), and local tive reform should be strongly supported. at least in developing countries, therefore, skills and capacity. Photographic tourism Import restrictions are often attractive that moratoria are accompanied by funding and trophy hunting are frequently highly interventions for remote decision-makers and technical support for on-the-ground complementary land uses when separated because they are easy to implement and management improvements and by a plan by time or space. Where photographic can be carried out at low cost to decision- to review the status of the initial problem tourism is feasible in areas also used for making bodies, which do not bear formal after a specified period. trophy hunting, it is typically already being accountability for the impacts of their deci- pursued (e.g. case studies 4 and 5). Like sions in affected countries. Conservation CONCLUSION trophy hunting, photographic tourism – if success, however, is rarely achieved by Trophy hunting is increasingly under not carefully implemented – can have seri- single decisions in distant capitals; rather, intense scrutiny and facing high-profile ous environmental impacts and return few it typically requires long-term, sustained and often-effective campaigns calling for benefits to local communities, with most multistakeholder engagement – in-country broad-scale bans. There are valid concerns value captured offshore or by in-country and on the ground. about the legality, sustainability and ethics elites (Sandbrook and Adams, 2012). As an alternative to unilateral, blanket of some hunting practices, but calls for To be effective, alternatives to trophy restrictions or bans that would curtail bans or import restrictions risk “throw- hunting need to provide tangible and effec- trophy-hunting programmes, decision- ing the baby out with the bathwater”, tive conservation incentives. They need makers could consider whether specific undermining programmes that are having to make wildlife valuable to people over trophy-hunting programmes meet require- substantive and important positive effects the long term, and they should empower ments for best practice (IUCN SSC, 2012; on species recovery and protection, habitat local communities to exercise rights and Brainerd, 2007). Where there are gover- retention and management, and commu- responsibilities over wildlife conserva- nance and management problems, it would nity rights and livelihoods. tion and management. Various forms of be most effective to engage with relevant In some contexts, there may be valid and payment schemes for ecosystem services feasible alternatives to trophy hunting that (PES schemes) have considerable potential 4 REDD+ is the term given to the efforts of coun- can deliver the above-mentioned benefits, for mobilizing investments or voluntary tries to reduce emissions from deforestation but identifying, funding and implementing contributions from governments, philan- and forest degradation and foster conserva- these requires genuine consultation and tion, sustainable management of forests, and thropic sources and the private sector and enhancement of forest carbon stocks (www. engagement with affected governments, motivating the conservation of species and forestcarbonpartnership.org/what-redd). the private sector and communities. Such

Unasylva 249, Vol. 68, 2017/1 15

alternatives should not be subject to the Child, B. 2009. Game ranching in Zimbabwe. Combating Wildlife Crime”, 26–28 February vagaries of donor funding and, crucially, In H. Suich, B. Child & A. Spenceley, eds. 2015, Glenburn Lodge, Muldersdrift, South they must deliver equal or greater incen- Evolution and innovation in wildlife con- Africa. International Union for Conservation tives for conservation over the long term. servation, pp. 127–145. London, Earthscan. of Nature (IUCN) Sustainable Use and Liveli- If they do not, they could hasten rather Emslie, R.E., Milliken, T., Talukdar, B., hoods Specialist Group (SULi) (available at than reverse the decline of iconic wildlife, Ellis, S., Adcock, K. & Knight, M.H., http://pubs.iied.org/G03903.html). remove the economic incentives for the compilers. 2016. African and Asian Kachel, S.M. 2014. Evaluating the efficacy of retention of vast areas of wildlife habitat, rhinoceroses: status, conservation and wild ungulate trophy hunting as a tool for and alienate and undermine already- trade. A report from the IUCN Species snow leopard conservation in the Pamir marginalized communities who live with Survival Commission (IUCN SSC) African Mountains of Tajikistan. Thesis submitted wildlife and who will largely determine and Asian Rhino specialist groups and to the Faculty of the University of Delaware its future. u TRAFFIC to the CITES Secretariat pursu- in partial fulfilment of the requirements for ant to Resolution Conf. 9.14 (Rev. CoP15). the degree of Master of Science in Wildlife CITES CoP Doc. 68 Annex 5. Ecology. Frisina, M.R. & Tareen, N. 2009. Exploitation Lindsey, P.A. 2015. Bushmeat, wildlife-based prevents extinction: case study of endangered economies, food security and conserva- Himalayan sheep and goats. In B. Dickson, tion: insights into the ecological and J. Hutton & W.M. Adams, eds. Recreational social impacts of the bushmeat trade in hunting, conservation, and rural livelihoods: African savannahs. Harare, FAO, Panthera, science and practice, pp. 141–154. UK, Zoological Society of London & IUCN References Blackwell Publishing. SULi. Heffelfinger, J.R., Geist, V. & Wishart, W. Lindsey, P.A., Balme, G.A., Funston, P., Balfour, D., Knight, M. & Jones, P. 2016. 2013. The role of hunting in North American Henschel, P., Hunter, L., Madzikanda, H., Status of white rhino on private and com- wildlife conservation. International Journal Midlane, N. & Nyirenda, V. 2013. The tro- munal land in South Africa 2012–2014. of Environmental Studies, 70: 399–413. phy hunting of African lions: scale, current Pretoria, Department of Environmental Hurley, K., Brewer, C. & Thornton, G.N. management practices and factors undermin- Affairs. 2015. The role of hunters in conservation, ing sustainability. PLoS ONE, 8(9): e73808 Bauer, H., Packer, C., Funston, P.F., restoration, and management of North (DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0073808). Henschel, P. & Nowell, K. 2015. Panthera American wild sheep. International Journal Lindsey, P.A., du Toit, R., Pole, A. & leo. The IUCN Red List of Threatened of Environmental Studies, 72: 784–796. Romañach, S. 2008. Savé Valley Conserv- Species 2015: e.T15951A79929984 (DOI IUCN. 2017. Protected areas categories. ancy: a large scale African experiment http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2015-4. Website (available at www.iucn.org/theme/ in cooperative wildlife management. In RLTS.T15951A79929984.en). protected-areas/about/protected-areas- H. Suich, B. Child & A. Spencely, eds. Evolu- Booth, V.R. 2009. A comparison of the prices categories). Accessed 13 January 2017. tion and innovation in wildlife conservation of hunting tourism in southern and eastern International Union for Conservation of in southern Africa, pp. 163–184. London, Africa. Budapest, International Council for Nature (IUCN). Earthscan. Game and Wildlife Conservation. IUCN SSC. 2012. Guiding principles on trophy Lindsey, P.A., Romañach, S. & Davies- Booth, V.R. & Chardonnet, P., eds. 2015. hunting as a tool for creating conserva- Mostert, H. 2009. The importance of Guidelines for improving the administra- tion incentives. V1.0. Gland, Switzerland, conservancies for enhancing the value of tion of sustainable hunting in sub-Saharan International Union for Conservation of game ranch land for large mammal conserva- Africa. Harare, FAO Subregional Office for Nature (IUCN) Species Survival Commission tion in southern Africa. Journal of Zoology, Southern Africa. (SSC) (available at https://cmsdata.iucn.org/ 277(2): 99–105. Brainerd, S. 2007. European charter on hunting downloads/iucn_ssc_guiding_principles_ Lindsey, P.A., Roulet, P.A. & Romañach, S.S. and biodiversity. Adopted by the Standing on_trophy_hunting_ver1_09aug2012.pdf). 2007. Economic and conservation signifi- Committee of the Bern Convention at its 27th IUCN SULi, International Institute for cance of the trophy hunting industry in meeting in Strasbourg, 26–29 November Environment and Development, Center sub-Saharan Africa. Biological Conserva- 2007 (available at http://fp7hunt.net/Portals/ for Environment and Energy Develop- tion, 134: 455–469. HUNT/Hunting_Charter.pdf). ment, Austrian Ministry of Environment Loveridge, A.J., Searle, A.W., BVC. Undated. Bubye Valley Conservancy & TRAFFIC. 2015. Symposium report: Murindagomo, F. & Macdonald, D.W. (BVC). Website (available at http://bubyeval- “Beyond Enforcement: Communities, Gov- 2007. The impact of sport-hunting on the leyconservancy.com). ernance, Incentives and Sustainable Use in population dynamics of an African lion

Unasylva 249, Vol. 68, 2017/1 16

population in a protected area. Biological Packer, C., Brink, C., Kissui, B.M., Status of the world’s land and marine Conservation, 134: 548–558. Maliti, H., Kushnir, H. & Caro, T. mammals: diversity, threat, and knowl- Mace, G., Masundire, H., Baillie, J., 2011. Effects of trophy hunting on lion edge. Science, 322: 225–230 (DOI 10.1126/ Ricketts, T., Brooks, T., et al. 2005. and leopard populations in Tanzania. science.1165115). Biodiversity. In R. Hassan, R. Scholes & Conservation Biology, 25: 142–153 (DOI Valdez, R., Guzmán-Aranda, J.C., N. Ash, eds. Ecosystems and human well- 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2010.01576.x). Abarca, F.J., Tarango-Arámbula, L.A. being: current state and trends: findings of Page, L. 2015. Killing to save: trophy hunting & Clemente Sánchez, F. 2006. Wildlife the condition and trends working group, and conservation in Mongolia. Independent conservation and management in Mexico. pp. 77–122. Washington, DC, Island Press. Study Project (ISP) Collection. Paper 2086 Wildlife Society Bulletin, 34(2): 270–282. Mahoney, S.P. 2013. Monograph: conservation (available at http://digitalcollections.sit.edu/ Wilder, B.T., Betancourt, J.L., Epps, C.W., and hunting in North America. International isp_collection/2086). Crowhurst, R.S., Mead, J.I. & Ezcurra, E. Journal of Environmental Studies, 70(3): Ripple, W.J., Newsome, T.M., Wolf, C., 2014. Local extinction and unintentional 347–460. Dirzo, R. & Everatt, K.T., et al. 2015. rewilding of bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis) Mallon, D. 2013. Trophy hunting of CITES- Collapse of the world’s largest herbivores. on a desert island. PLoS ONE, 9(3): e91358 listed species in Central Asia. TRAFFIC Science Advances, 1(4): e1400103 (DOI (DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0091358). report to the CITES Secretariat. 10.1126/sciadv.1400103). Wingard, J.R. & Zahler, P. 2006. Silent Michel, S. & Rosen Michel, T. 2015. Capra Rosen, T. 2014. Tajikistan brings endangered steppe: the illegal wildlife trade crisis in falconeri. IUCN Red List of Threatened wild goat from the edge of extinction to the Mongolia. Mongolia Discussion Papers. East Species 2015: e.T3787A82028427 (DOI peak of hope. Cat Watch, June 11 (avail- Asia and Pacific Environment and Social http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2015-4. able at http://voices.nationalgeographic. Development Department. Washington, DC, RLTS.T3787A82028427.en). com/2014/06/11/tajikistan-brings- The World Bank. Mutandwa, E. & Gadzirayi, C.T. 2007. Impact endangered-wild-goat-from-the-edge-of- Woodford, M.H., Frisina, M.R. & Awun, G.A. of community-based approaches to wildlife extinction-to-the-peak-of-hope). 2004. The Torghar conservation project: management: case study of the CAMPFIRE Saayman, M.P., van der Merwe, P. & management of the livestock, Suleiman programme in Zimbabwe. International Rossouw, R. 2011. The economic impact markhor (Capra falconeri) and Afghan Journal of Sustainable Development & of hunting in the Northern Cape Province. urial (Ovis orientalis) in the Torghar Hills, World Ecology, 14: 336–334. South African Journal of Wildlife Research, Pakistan. Game and Wildlife Science, 21: NACSO. 2015. The state of community conser- 41(1): 120–133. 177–187. u vation in Namibia: a review of communal Sandbrook, C. & Adams, W.M. 2012. conservancies, community forests and other Accessing the impenetrable: the nature CBNRM initiatives (2014/15 annual report). and distribution of tourism benefits at Windhoek, National Association of CBNRM a Ugandan national park. Society and Support Organisations (NACSO). Natural Resources, 25: 915–932 (DOI Naidoo, R., Weaver, L.C., Diggle, R.W., 10.1080/08941920.2011.644394). Matongo, G., Stuart-Hill, G. & Thouless, C. Sango Wildlife. Undated. Research. Website 2016. Complementary benefits of tourism (available at www.sango-wildlife.com). and hunting to communal conservancies Accessed 17 January 2017. in Namibia. Conservation Biology, 30(3): Schipper, J., Chanson J.S., Chiozza, F., 628–638 (DOI 10.1111/cobi.12643). Cox, N.A. & Hoffmann, M., et al. 2008.

Unasylva 249, Vol. 68, 2017/1