Kruger National Park is a flagship South African conservation area home to lions, elephants, rhinos, and leopards. Tourists from all over the world flock to the park to see wildlife. But people living nearby deal with the daily realities of living close to dangerous animals that might eat their livestock or damage their crops.
For these communities near the park, economic opportunities are limited. The area has high unemployment and poverty levels which fuel illegal hunting.
Trophy hunting, where relatively wealthy hunters pay to legally kill wild animals and keep parts of them as “trophies”, is not allowed inside the Kruger National Park. But the park has about 20 private nature reserves bordering it where trophy hunting is permitted.
This can generate significant revenue for tourism operators and landowners. But it has been widely criticised for delivering only a small fraction of the profits to communities living next to the park. They mostly benefit only from a few seasonal jobs in hunting operations and related services.
Trophy hunting is also deeply divisive because of the ethical concerns it raises around animal welfare. Hunted animals may endure stress or injury over long periods. The targeted killing of certain individual animals, such as dominant males, can also disrupt social groups and destabilise population dynamics.
International pressure to end trophy hunting is increasing. This means that South Africa faces a critical question: how can that income be replaced without harming conservation or the people who live alongside wildlife?
We are wildlife researchers who have been studying the wildlife economy and local livelihoods in South Africa. We wanted to understand what people living next to protected areas thought about wildlife trophy hunting. We also set out to discover whether it benefited them financially, and how they could earn an income if trophy hunting were to be ended.
We conducted face-to-face surveys with more than 1,550 households in 12 communities bordering Kruger National Park. Our findings were striking. The vast majority of people supported income alternatives that didn’t involve killing animals. They were also interested in safeguarding the animals’ welfare.
How communities near nature reserves can earn a living
A large majority of the people we interviewed opposed killing animals for trophies and strongly supported wildlife-friendly alternatives.
More than 80% of respondents backed 10 ways other than trophy hunting for them to earn an income. These were:
A “lion protection fee” that international tourists would pay. Our previous research showed that tourists would be willing to pay this on visas or departures. These fees could raise over US$175 million annually in South Africa.
Community craft tourism.
Communal vegetable gardens.
Community based natural resource management, which gives local communities rights over generating revenue from wildlife and tourism.
Wildlife credits, or payments to communities for supporting conservation.
Online sales of goods such as handicrafts.
Online tourism – digital platforms where users can watch wildlife remotely or follow local wildlife guides online.
Land leasing, where the community leases their agricultural or grazing land to individuals or organisations for wildlife conservation.
Non-ecotourism income streams, such as sewing.
Biodiversity stewardship, such as establishing agreements with private and communal landholders to conserve biodiversity priority areas.
Read more: Lion protection fee paid by tourists could help stop trophy hunting – South African study
The people we interviewed who had been involved in four such projects rated them highly. Between 78% and 82% described their experiences as “good” or “very good”. This supports the assumption that, for unemployed community members, stable and fairly paid jobs offer a meaningful livelihood that can reduce incentives for illegal hunting.
Our research found that people who reported being happier, and those from smaller households, were more likely to support conservation. These factors may reflect lower levels of economic stress. This suggests that improving well-being could foster more positive attitudes toward wildlife.
What needs to happen next
Our research suggests there is a powerful opportunity to align conservation and community development, without relying on trophy hunting. Where wildlife populations need to be managed, certain animals could be relocated. They do not need to be commercially hunted as this can skew decisions about how to manage wildlife numbers towards profit rather than ecological or ethical considerations.
The approaches outlined by our research have yet to be fully explored by governments and protected area managers. Further research is also needed in regions where trophy hunting is more heavily practised.
Read more: Recreational hunting, conservation and livelihoods: no clear evidence trail
Supporting and resourcing the 10 options is key. For example, funds from a “lion levy” should be transparently channelled to local communities and landowners to support wildlife protection and create jobs.
Other conservation levies and subsidies would also need to be managed transparently, with clear benefit-sharing mechanisms. Local communities must be involved in decision-making and trust that the system is fair.
Tourism-based solutions must also be resilient to seasonal fluctuations and external shocks like pandemics or political unrest. This builds resilience into the plan. Involving local communities, investing in digital tools, and promoting plans that are adaptable and sustainable is vital.
South Africa is currently revisiting its national policies on wildlife use. This offers a window to rethink how conservation is funded and to put ethical, community-based alternatives at the heart of that vision.
The authors thank the communities who participated in this study and the field teams who made the research possible. The authors also extend thanks to Dr Tom Moorhouse and Dr Prince Nketiah for their collaboration on this research and informative insights on this article.
Neil D’Cruze works for an international NGO, Canopy, as the Research Strategic Lead.
Angie Elwin works for an international NGO, World Animal Protection, as Head of Research.
Herbert consults with WAP, SANParks, DFFE. Herbert Ntuli receives funding from WAP. Herbert is affiliated with the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR), Environmental Policy Research Unit (EPRU), Center for Environmental Economics and Policy Analysis (CEEPA) and Environment for Development (EfD) Initiative
This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.
