Black rhino trophy hunting: Sustainable utilisation or slaughter?

 

The Horn, Spring 2005

 

The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora’s (CITES) decision in October 2004 to permit the trophy hunting of five black rhinos in Namibia caused shock waves through the conservation community, both in the UK and abroad. Major schisms were immediately apparent, for example, animal welfare campaigners versus pro-hunting lobbyists. However, there were also divisions and deep soul-searching amongst more moderate organisations straddling both sides of the debate, not least at Save the Rhino. What a dilemma: how do you justify shooting rhinos in order to save them?

The CITIES decision stems primarily from two recent trends. First and foremost, the 1,000+% increase in Namibian black rhino numbers over the past 25 years due to the excellent work of the Ministry of Environment and Tourism (MET), aided by NGOs such as Save the Rhino International. The increase has strained the carrying capacity of protected areas and led to multiple small breeding groups being ‘loaned’ to private game ranchers under the Rhino Custodianship Programme. MET’s argument in favour of hunting is that old male rhinos disrupt the reproductive growth rate amongst small populations, hindering the capacity for overall population recovery. Moving them is very expensive and few want them; there's not a great deal of demand for grumpy old male rhinos!

Hard-nosed conservation pragmatism favours cashing them in. Five black rhino trophies are worth at least US $250,000, far more than the combined UK rhino conservation NGOs provide for Namibia in one year. In statistical terms the loss of five animals could be considered insignificant, given that population is expanding by around 100+ animals per year.

Financial expediency is also at the centre of the second trend: that towards greater community involvement in conservation under the Community-based Natural Resource Management Programme (CBNRM). Since 1995, rural communities have been able to organise themselves into Conservancies and gain rights over key resources, most notably tourism and the sustainable utilisation of wildlife: game cropping, for meat and skins, and trophy hunting. Whilst CBNRM has its faults, and many conservationists find the sustainable utilisation of wildlife unpalatable, there’s no denying the fact that, for the first time since before colonial times, many rural Namibians now have a degree of political and economic autonomy. Until the CITES decision, hunting has been restricted to ubiquitous game species such as springbok and impala, plus a small, but controversial, quota of charismatic mega-fauna such as elephant. Now rhinos are on the slate too.

However, trophy hunting offers the prospect of raising relatively large sums of money for communities who’ve foregone livelihood options such as farming in favour of ecotourism and wildlife management. Such developments represent a progressive form of conservation and offer a possible solution to the increasing problem of human-wildlife conflict, which threatens conservation efforts outside of protected areas. In this light, CITES’ decision could be viewed as reflecting faith in Namibia's ability sustainably to manage its natural resources in a manner that enables the rhinos to recover whilst aiding the social and economic development of the nation: the elusive win-win situation.

Despite these social and economic arguments in favour of trophy hunting of rhinos, serious doubts remain. Whilst Namibia has safeguarded its rhinos in exemplary fashion, other rhino states have been less successful and poaching remains a real threat. What message does this send to potential rhino poachers in those countries? There’s also the very distasteful implication that it’s OK for rich hunters to shoot rhinos, whilst poor local people remain poachers. More practically, how will MET ensure that only old males are shot? Namibia’s rhinos are amongst the most heavily monitored wildlife populations in the world, but in field conditions, mistakes can happen. What chance a young male in its prime will be caught in the sights of a high-velocity rifle? Finally, there are financial justifications for preserving rhinos rather than shooting them, with some tourism commentators suggesting that there are greater returns from wildlife safaris than hunting ones.

What does this leave us? A hugely complex and polarised debate. Many in the field are in favour, whereas most donors are horrified.

What can we do to try and bridge this fundamental chasm in the conservation community? Most importantly, black rhino trophy hunting must be strictly monitored. If problems occur, CITES must review its decision. However, the conservation donor community needs to look objectively at the realities of 21st-century wildlife conservation. The majority of wildlife exists outside of protected areas. Expecting people to preserve such animals for aesthetic reasons, when they cannot rely on basic human rights, is unrealistic. Unless wildlife contributes to economic welfare and pays its way, it will inevitably disappear as people use the land for other purposes. Wildlife pays in two ways: tourism and hunting. Tourism, whilst currently strong, is notoriously fickle: read what happened to Kenya in 2002-3 after the terrorism threats. Namibia has chosen to diversify the income streams it gets from wildlife. If we are to remain fundamentally opposed to hunting, then we must come up with new ways of funding wildlife preservation in a sustainable manner.

Neil Bridgland
Former member of SRI staff